By Susan Harkins

You worked hard turning some of your property into wildlife habitat. You planted nectar and host plants for butterflies and pollinators. Trees and bushes offer shelter and habitat for birds, squirrels, and other small creatures. Perhaps this summer, a box turtle took up residence in your back yard or you heard tree frogs singing in your own trees! Now, after all your hard work, why would you destroy that wonderful ecosystem by cleaning it up for winter?

This time of year, experts encourage us to clean up and cut down. That is the right way to manage a manicured golf-course landscape; but it’s the wrong way to treat the property you’ve cultivated as wildlife habitat. Think about it; does Mother Nature rake leaves and cut down dried seed heads? No. Dying plant matter provides food and shelter for insects and animals throughout the winter, and to complete the lifecycle, decaying matter amends the soil—free fertilizer!

First, let’s talk about not raking leaves. Leaf litter is a microecosystem all its own. It’s full of eggs, larvae, pupae, and thriving insects. Bag up the leaves and they’re gone—an entire little ecosystem is gone. You invited all those beneficial insects into your yard. If you want to keep them there, don’t destroy their home and kill their offspring! Instead, allow leaves to lay where they fall. Only remove leaves from areas you must. A foot of leaves can be  as detrimental to that thriving community as no leaves at all. In addition, wet slippery leaves are hazardous. Find balance between being a responsible homeowner and supporting the living community underneath those leaves.

Next up is your wildflowers. They’re looking shabby this time of year, but fight the urge to cut them back. Birds and other creatures depend on seeds and dried leaves for food. Many insects overwinter in dried stems. And honestly, what looks a tad shabby right now will look spectacular surrounded by a blanket of snow. I plant river oats because those glistening seeds bowing over a blanket of bright snow are beautiful. If you want to clean up your front yard a bit, that’s understandable, but don’t throw out the debris. Pile it up in an out-of-the way corner and let nature take care of it while it provides shelter throughout the winter.

Experts tell us that a messy winter garden encourages disease, and they’re right. Please don’t apply this messy strategy to your vegetable garden plots or your precious cultivars, such as roses. Some of your landscape will always require special care. However, in those areas that you purposely turned over to nature, continue to let nature take the lead.

Butterflies, native bees and pollinators, and other beneficial insects need a safe place to hibernate over winter. Birds and other small creatures need shelter and food. Truly wild places are in decline, so your yard matters. Every yard matters. Leave your wildlife habitat messy, and let nature do what it does best in a healthy balanced system.

This article was originally published in the Franklin County Horticulture newsletter.

Last month, The Lady Slipper introduced a new column, Kentucky Yard Restoration. In that premiere article, Karen Cairns describes her restoration project as a labor of love. I think most of us can identify with that statement.

Years ago, I planted natives for the birds and butterflies, without realizing that I was providing habitat for many other Kentucky creatures. I lived in an ordinary neighborhood with a few old trees, a small back yard, and houses in every direction but up. The birds came. The butterflies came. But so did the frogs, box turtles, rabbits, raccoons, and bees. I still get goosebumps when I remember finding that first bullfrog.

One morning, I found a neighbor in my backyard wandering around looking at it all. He asked how we installed the small pond–and when I say small, I mean it. But it was cozy enough for the green frog who took up residence there.

Each August, the hummingbirds were so numerous and bold, they would fly between our heads while sitting in our bench swing. I once had one check me out by hovering about a foot from my face and squeaking at me for a bit. What she was telling me, I don’t know, but I cried. I just stood there and cried because the interaction was so amazing.

Over the years, I noticed that some species were more abundant than others, and we began referring to things that happened during “titmouse summer,” “red-winged blackbird summer,” and so on. We had a pair of rose-breasted grosbeaks that stopped by Mother’s Day weekend without fail for many years. A red-winged blackbird flew in at the same time every day to chat with our dog. After a hard storm, a pair of bluebirds took refuge until they were strong enough to rebuild. They returned often to feed their offspring.

When we moved, I started over. Our new home had a Bradford pear tree and some holly bushes. If you think I despaired, you are wrong. I was excited, and I started all over again. After ten years, my home is surrounded by trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses–almost all native. The backyard bumps up to a field that connects with a wild and protected area. My backyard blends right into that field. Some might call it ugly; I think it’s beautiful. It is habitat, and now I take stewardship seriously–so seriously, that my mantra has become “Every yard matters.”

If we can convince a few of our neighbors to return just a small section of their yards to the wild, we can reconnect to the wild in a way most of us think impossible. Imagine the corridors of habitat we could create. Many will be slow to adopt to this idea, but we must try. We have no choice if we are to become the stewards we are meant to be. I want my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren to know the joy of discovering a frog in their small pond. We don’t all start out with stewardship as our end goal, but that’s where a restoration project takes us.

We want to share your yard reclamation stories. You don’t have to be a great writer–we only need your passion and your story. Please consider sharing your Kentucky Yard Restoration story. You can contact us at LadySlipper@knps.org.

By Susan Harkins and Jonathan O.C. Kubesch 

A recommendation to not use landscaping cloth in flower beds, is usually met with a lot of resistance. Laying cloth is standard practice among professional landscapers and home gardeners. However, as we become more aware of the importance of natives in our landscaping, it’s also time to give up the cloth. There’s nothing natural about it, and it works against you in native plantings. Initially, landscaping cloth sounds like a great idea, but in the end, it is usually more trouble than it’s worth and there are a number of reasons why.  

Cloth compacts the soil 

Compacted soil is not a natural growing medium regardless of what you’re planting. You want loose crumbling soil that drains well and has plenty of nutrients. Plants grow better when their roots are allowed to grow easily, and water and nutrient intake is easy. Under landscape cloth, you will find compacted soil—it’s hard to dig and plants are seldom as healthy as they should be.  

After installing landscape fabric, soil quickly begins to lose its crumbly, granular structure. In nature, many natives require that spongy surface in order to grow and establish. A side effect of sealing the soil surface is that it hinders recruitment of many delicate natives from existing plants.  

Now consider that cloth seldom stays where you put it. Usually, it’ll work its way to the surface, where it’s ugly. Sometimes cloth goes deeper into the soil. Eventually, you could plant right over it, never knowing it’s just an inch or so below your new planting and that will definitely affect that plant’s health.  

Weeding is more difficult 

Initially, cloth will deter weeds, but nature is tougher than the cloth. Eventually, the weeds will return and guess what? Pulling those weeds will be a nightmare because that layer of cloth is under the surface acting as an anchor! You’ll have to dig it out most likely and doing so will leave a hole in the fabric, which means more weeds. While you might have fewer weeds, those weeds will be more difficult to remove. Wild violets (Viola spp) are notorious for rooting into imperfections in landscape fabrics.  

If that weren’t enough, consider what these cloths are made of: petroleum and other chemicals, which leach into your soil. As we become more environmentally aware, landscaping cloth is no longer a reasonable choice.  

Long term, landscape fabric doesn’t allow the gardener to shift landscapes in tune with horticultural and environmental trends. It arrests the landscape because it takes a fair deal of work to remove and can be a pain to remove around existing plants.  

Cost 

Landscaping cloth isn’t expensive until you consider how much of it you need to cover all your landscaping and native beds. You’ll also need pins to hold it down. To hide it, you’ll cover it with mulch. It adds up, and it’s totally unnecessary. A more natural alternative is old newspapers covered in wood or straw mulch. While these barriers will eventually break down, they are easier to work with over the years and provide better water flow into the soil.

Reseeding 

Many natives propagate by self-seeding. Landscaping cloth makes that close to impossible because the seeds never make contact with the soil underneath the cloth. What happens when you want to add new plants? You must cut the cloth to add plants, bulbs, and so on. Every hole in the fabric is an opportunity for weed seeds in the underlying soil to germinate and break through.  

While your natives may fail to reseed because of the cloth, weeds are different. Seeds traveling by air or deposited by birds and other small mammals won’t mind the lack of soil a bit. They’ll sprout in the mulch and send their strong roots through the cloth.  

It isn’t natural 

There’s nothing natural—or native—about landscaping fabric. If your motivation is stewardship, I probably don’t need to say anything else. Regardless of whether it’s under mulch, rock, or even soil, a cloth barrier traps creatures below ground. You’re killing creatures that live in the soil and keep it healthy!

When you hike in the woods, you don’t see landscaping cloth. Remember, you’re trying to create, or mimic, a natural environment. In looking to mimic native systems, consider materials that you see in the woods or meadows. Leaves and duff, as well as thatch or straw, are the natural mulches in ecosystems. They provide a level of control on the weedier species, but they also break down over time to support new plants. While we may not mimic that same level of space and time variability in our yards, using natural materials is important! 

What to use instead 

Establishing a new bed takes work with or without putting down landscaping cloth but eliminating that cloth will save you some labor and money. What you use to reduce weeds is up to you and the soil’s health should be a factor. If it’s compacted, amend with organic matter before you do anything else. Rototilling the area isn’t necessary and actually destroys soil composition, so avoid rototilling unless the soil is severely compacted.  

Remove turf or cover it with layers of cardboard or newspaper to smoother it. Both will quickly degrade and help amend the soil. Wet the cardboard or paper to keep it in place. The next step is a few inches of good arborist chips. You can buy mulch, but most tree servicing companies will gladly dump a nice mound of chips for free. Chips aren’t consistent in size and color, so they look more natural—more like a forest floor. They degrade quickly though and will need supplementing often if you continue to use chips.  

If you plant immediately, cut through the cardboard and plant in the ground and keep the area well watered until the plants are well established.

You can avoid remulching eventually, by using native groundcovers as green or living mulch. It takes a few seasons, but eventually your plantings will be so full that few weeds can’t set up home. You will still have to weed occasionally but maintaining this spot will be much easier than if you laid cloth underneath.  

Meadowscapes and other areas where a mix of native species provide aesthetic vistas at lower maintenance requirements than traditionally manicured beds. Using grassland species will require occassional mowing or spin-trimming, but these areas are great for self-mulching and weed control. 

We add natives to our yards for several reasons. Mine started with a love of birds, butterflies, frogs, bugs, and so on. At the time I wasn’t thinking about being a good steward of the land, but that is what happened. Regardless of why you plant natives, you will approach the addition as you would any other flower bed by preparing the area, and if that includes landscaping cloth, please stop and reassess your decision. 

By Katrina Kelly, owner of EARTHeim

I’ve never met a gardener who doesn’t want to reduce maintenance in their garden. While it can be fruitful to care for a garden, sometimes we just want to sit back and relax while enjoying it! Groundcovers are one solution to reduce garden maintenance. The fewer blank spaces there are, the fewer chances for weeds and the less need for mulch. There are many native groundcover plants that are great choices in garden settings.

Groundcover usually refers to plants that are low-growing and have a spreading or creeping habit. Some perennials that grow taller can be used like a groundcover. There are many groundcover species commonly seen in the landscape, mostly non-native ones like Vinca major, Pachysandra terminalis, or Liriope. Unfortunately, many non-native groundcovers are also considered invasive like wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), and English ivy (Hedera helix).

There are many reasons why a groundcover may make a great choice. Groundcovers can help fill large spaces, especially if you’re on a budget. The groundcover will spread over time, so you can buy fewer plants to get started. Many native groundcovers are manageable in the landscape even when left to naturalize.

In a design sense, using large swaths of groundcovers can create a simple, refined garden space. Use them to create a monochromatic palette or greenery for foliage interest. For groundcovers that bloom, large blocks of color create nice views along a roadway or as a backdrop to a garden.

One of my favorite ways to use a groundcover is underneath trees and shrubs. Because it can be difficult to reach underneath a shrub to pull weeds, planting a groundcover helps with this dilemma. I often show up to client’s homes, where I find invasive honeysuckle growing inside another shrub. This situation is often overlooked, so when you plant a shrub, consider planting a companion groundcover underneath.

In an ecological sense, native groundcovers can be used to suppress invasive species in an area. For example, wild ginger has a dense root structure, which prevents anything else from growing in it. Groundcovers will compete with other plants through its root structure, shading the ground, and absorbing moisture from the soil. Use this behavior to prevent weeds.

Some plants can be considered groundcovers even though they are not low growing. Ferns, like ostrich (Matteuccia struthiopteris) and interrupted (Osmunda claytoniana), will spread by underground rhizomes or stolons to form small colonies that are great for filling in sections of a shade garden. River oats is a nice ornamental plant that looks like a grass. It readily seeds, but it is great in areas where you need to keep out invasive plants and to prevent soil erosion.

Like river oats, grasses, and sedges (Carex species) make great groundcovers on sloped areas that are prone to erosion. These plants in a residential setting work well because they mimic a lawn but eliminate mowing along steep slopes which can be dangerous.

Sedges are another low maintenance alternative. They are the only plant I consider no maintenance because many species don’t need cutting down in spring. They are safe choices in an easement garden between the sidewalk and street since they don’t block views. A few can tolerate being stepped on occasionally in these high traffic areas.

A few part shade to shade groundcovers to consider are wild ginger (Asarum canadense), Allegheny spurge (Pachysandra procumbens), stonecrop (Sedum ternatum), woodland phlox (Phlox divaricata), creeping phlox (Phlox stolonifera), golden groundsel (Packera aurea), green and gold (Chrysogonum virginianum), and dwarf crested iris (Iris cristata). Some of these can tolerate nearly full sun conditions. For full sun conditions try moss phlox (Phlox subulata), pussytoes (Antennaria virginica), and prairie smoke (Geum triflorum).

Success with groundcovers starts with the right plant for the right place. Always check the plant’s growing conditions before purchasing. A groundcover may thrive in its ideal condition, but struggle in others. Always check botanical names before purchasing since common names can be misleading. It’s easy to confused them with similar non-native species, or a cousin who likes a different microclimate.

Working in the landscape industry, I’ve seen groundcovers planted haphazardly in landscapes with little thought. Use groundcovers to show intentionally, which achieves a certain affect whether it’s for aesthetic or ecological reasons. If you have areas in your landscape that could use some groundcover, consider some of these native choices.

Katrina Kelly is a native to Lexington, Kentucky. She is a graduate of the University of Kentucky and has a degree in Landscape Architecture and Music. She is the owner and solopreneur of EARTHeim Landscape Design in Lexington, which focuses on creating unique garden designs with native plants and backyard homesteads. Her interest in native plants began when she volunteered at Salato with Mary Carol Cooper in 2005. She is a board member of the Wild Ones organization in Lexington. In the small amount of time she is not thinking about gardens or gardening, she enjoys photography, writing, science, fitness and nutrition, and building or crafting things around the home.

Jonathan O.C. Kubesch*, Lindsey Barbini, Connor Doyle, John Fike, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)

A technical publication for dual submission to the Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves and the Kentucky Native Plant Society with the permission of Tara R. Littlefield.

Introduction

Kentucky clover (Trifolium kentuckiense) is a recently identified addition to Kentucky’s flora (Chapel and Vincent, 2013). The plant is known to two sites in the Bluegrass region, and the small population sizes put the species at risk for extinction in the wild. The species initially had been considered buffalo clover (T. reflexum), but the species complex was revised after considering ecological and morphological discrepancies (Chapel and Vincent, 2013).

The Woodford County site suffers from poor grazing management (Kubesch, 2020). Cattle move from the adjacent pasture into the shaded habitat. In part, this semi-natural state supports the encroachment of red clover (T. pratense) into the habitat. Minimizing grazing at the seedling stage will be crucial for protecting this species, which looks very similar to T. pretense during early stages of development. Thus, discerning between the critically endangered Kentucky and common red clover at the earliest stage is critical.

The Franklin County site does not appear to have any nonnative clover species, though a nearby powerline right-of-way or adjacent farmland might facilitate encroachment over time, which further justifies early comparisons of these similar species. Red clover is a biennial to short-lived, crown-forming perennial forage species that is the agricultural analogue to buffalo and Kentucky clovers in the same way that previous work has compared white clover to running buffalo clover (Vincent, 2001; Ball et al., 2015; Kubesch, 2018).

As part of ongoing propagation efforts, seedlings of red, buffalo, and Kentucky clovers were compared in a common garden greenhouse experiment in order to ascertain potential distinguishing characteristics for the native clover seedlings. The chronological and developmental period at which plants could be identified was sought on the basis of visual keys and some growth measurements.

Materials and methods

All three species were started on germination paper in plastic germination boxes on a lab bench in Smyth Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Multiple sources of germplasm were available for the red and buffalo clover, though the Kentucky clover seed had a sole origin (Table 1).

Table 1. Clover accessions used for the common garden greenhouse experiment.

An additional accession of buffalo clover from Clarks River, KY, was started but did not germinate until after the study period began and was thus excluded from the analysis. After the germination period, seedlings were moved to the greenhouse and potted up into 6-cell packs in trays. The growing medium was a 2:1 mixture of calcined clay and commercial potting mix (Miracle Gro). Plants were watered regularly using catch trays and liquid fertilizer (0.5-2-1; Buddha Bloom root organic, aurora innovations, Eugene, OR) was used to supply macro and micro nutrients. Plants were maintained between 21-27 ℃ under supplemented natural light.

Plants were inspected at approximately 2-d intervals to identify the emergence of distinct morphological characteristics. Observations occurred once plants developed the first trifoliate leaves. Based on a priori information, plants were specifically examined for differences in pubescence, growth in terms of leaf size and number, and crown of reproductive stems. Visual assessments of morphological differences among and within accessions were augmented with the use of a 14 X hand lens.

Pubescence, or hairiness, was assessed both in relative amount and position on the plant (stems, leaves, midveins). Leaf morphology was assessed in the appearance on venation on leaflets as well as subtle differences in leaflet shape. In addition to measuring the days required for each species to reach specific growth stages, comparisons were made between developmental stages (first true leaf, second true leaf, etc.).

Results and discussion

Table 2. Potential key characters and their utility at varying developmental stages in red, buffalo, and Kentucky clovers.

Potential key characters

During the extension of the first trifoliate leaf, some potential differences were seen in terms of vigor in a common garden between red and Kentucky clovers. Red clover had larger leaves on longer petioles than the native species. However, in the field these differences in growth might be confounded by factors such as soil fertility, available rhizobacteria, and seedling density.

Of the morphological traits considered, leaf pubescence was particularly distinct between species. Unlike red clover, Kentucky clover lacked pubescence on the top of the leaves. Red clover was much more pubescent than Kentucky clover both in terms of hair density and length. Breeding efforts for the removal of pubescence led to the creation of ‘Freedom!’ red clover. This low-hair variety was developed before the discovery of Kentucky clover, but its introduction to the Woodford County site is unlikely. Buffalo clover accessions were not consistent in terms of pubescence. Plants from the Cincinnati population were noticeably less pubescent than plants from the Georgia accession. The Georgia accession also expressed noticeable venation not present in the other accessions.

Stem pubescence was relatively unreliable as a distinguishing trait for the 3 species investigated. The northern accessions of buffalo clover gradually developed pubescence to levels expressed in southern accessions from early in development (V5-9). Individuals had similar levels of pubescence along petioles as plants grew. Similarly, crown development was quite similar for all species, with the first trifoliate leaf emerging from the same position near the cotyledons on all plants.

Buffalo clover pubescence has been suggested to change over the lifecycle, though to what degree it remains uncertain (Vincent, 2001). In a life history assessment of Texan plant material, the pubescence was relatively consistent over the lifespan, though further comparative studies are needed (J. Kubesch, unpublished data).

Petiole length differed noticeably between red and Kentucky clovers by about 60 days after planting. Petioles were ≤5 cm for Kentucky clover but well in excess of 5 cm for most of the red clover. Kentucky clover had fishbone venation in comparison to the Cincinnati buffalo clover accession, which had less notable venation.

Developmental timing

Until trifoliate leaves start developing, the genus Trifolium is extremely difficult to identify. Even in agricultural experiments the results can be challenging (Tracy et al., 2014). Grown under common environmental conditions, the native clovers reached developmental stages at a pace similar to red clover varieties.

Growth rates diverged over the period of March 10-23, 2021. At around 57 days after planting, red and Kentucky clover could be discerned by morphology. Red clover was visibly bigger and much more pubescent than Kentucky clover. A Texas accession in the comparison was producing a reproductive stem at 57 days after planting, highlighting the morphological and developmental variability within buffalo clover.

Seedling keys will only be useful within a certain period of development. Given that clover seedlings are susceptible to hoof traffic damage during establishment, preventing cattle access around high densities of clover seedlings and then screening these clusters for Kentucky clover might be more effective than waiting to exclude cattle until clusters are screened.

Conclusions

1. A seedling key for red and Kentucky clovers is presented for field usage. The key complements ongoing recovery efforts to support recruitment from the seed bank at natural sites as well as planting the species where herbivory can be managed.
2. Red clover and Kentucky clover are difficult to discern on the basis of morphology until approximately 60 days after planting.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to fiancé, Sarah Grace Holland for her encouragement in Kubesch’s clover research. Thanks to Joe Lacefield for discovering this species. Appreciation to Dr. Julian Campbell for contributing the Woodford County seed of Kentucky clover. Appreciation to Dan Boone for contributing the Cincinnati seed of buffalo clover. Posthumous appreciation to Norm Taylor for preserving the Georgia and Texas seed of buffalo clover. The present work was supported in part by the Bee-Friendly Beef team: Raven Larcom, Parry Kietzman, Velva Groover, and Dr. Ben Tracy (Virginia Tech).

References

Ball, D. M., Hoveland, C. S., & Lacefield, G. D. (2015). Southern Forages. Peachtree Corners, GA: International Plant Nutrition Institute.

Chapel, K. J., & Vincent, M. A. (2013). Trifolium kentuckiense (Fabaceae, Papilionoideae), a new species       from Franklin and Woodford counties, Kentucky. Phytoneuron 2013-63: 1–6.

Kubesch, J.O.C. (2018). Edaphic and morphological factors affecting running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) ecology. Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.

Kubesch, J.O.C. (2020). Native Clover Conservation in the Bluegrass: An Agronomic Perspective.                   https://www.knps.org/2020/03/24/native-clover-conservation-in-the-bluegrass-an-agronomic-                perspective/.

Vincent, M.A. (2001). The genus Trifolium (Fabaceae) in Kentucky. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 62(1):1-17.

Sustar, E. 2017. The effects of scarification on germination rates of running buffalo clover. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Unpublished Research Report.

Tracy, B. F., Schlueter, D. H., & Flores, J. P. (2014). Conditions that favor clover establishment in permanent grass swards. Grassland Science, 61, 34-40. doi:10.1111/grs.12075.

Updated contact information and affiliations

jonathankubesch@vt.edu

School of Plant and Environmental Sciences; Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Clover Seedbank and Propagation Coordinator for the Kentucky Commonwealth.