Did you remove all the weeds yet? That's the first step before you do anything else. You have a legion of high schoolers at your disposal: let them learn something about which ones are weeds. The answer is all of them, undoubtedly.

Who is behind the requirement for the project to be completely organic? As +om says, without the use of chemicals to completely clear the space of invasive weeds, the project is almost guaranteed to be a failure. Every time a project like this fails, it makes all native landscaping look bad. Even the experts who spend their lives trying to restore wildlife habitat understand that chemicals have their place. I would see if you can get that restriction bent or lifted. It will get things going more quickly, also. Good luck, it looks like a fantastic site. Given the slope, I would recommend shrubs, which it sounds like you are already working on.

Martha

I think it's sad how the first "solution" people think of is to kill everything.

Im seeing tons of flowers in that pic...

If you kill everything, you loose the naturals that are already on site.

If you have help... There's nothing wrong with teaching them a few weeds, and have everyone focus on those specific weeds.. Leaving all the rest of the vegetation.

Once you've explored the entire bank, you can start flagging off existing stands of desirable natives.

Weedy isn't necessarily undesirable. Before doing anything... A caterpillar hunt might be in order.... Very important to keep butterfly host plants!

thanks for the tip to Mr. Oudolf's designs -- beautiful!

Invasive weed removal, as Tom says, is no slam dunk. It takes years of diligence and patience and often multiple control methods, including chemical.

Some people don't like to hear it, but, herbicides are absolutely a must when trying to get rid of invasives, simple hand pulling pulling is not going to do it and biological controls are either not effective or non existent for many of these plants.

I get the ideology behind not wanting to use chemical controls, but in my opinion, that's all it is, ideology. In the short term, yes, you will kill any desirable plants that currently exist, but in the the long term, proper site management will see the area rejuvenate.

Otherwise, you end up with something that looks like this:

Cutting down and painting the cut ends with stump killer or Round-up is one responsible way of using chemicals effectively on some woody plants, I have to do that along my property line.

If you don't first clear the site of invasive thugs, weeds and grasses by whatever means is necessary, why even bother to plant? Try ridding a large area of just bermuda for example. About the only non chemical way would be to remove all the existing dirt and put in new soil.

I get weary with some of the purist comments that seem not only impractical but also closed minded. In its own way its as ridiculous as the knee jerking idea of spraying all problems away. Each case is different, several methods are usually involved in the process and there are responsible ways to use chemicals.

Sometimes I wonder if people are trying to sound like environmentalists for appearance sake. I can't help but wonder if they actually have ever dealt with doing any serious clearing of tough species in real life. I always doubt it, maybe I'm just jaded but I don't like when I'm being painted as some kind of environmental enemy by suggesting a chemical solution for certain situations.

Zach, those undesirables look a bit prettier than this ugly grass, Sorghum halepense you see all along the sides of the roads growing as monocultures. It has displaced the natives and its really ugly, monotonous and coarse. To think it used to be Bluestem, Indian Grass and prairie wildflowers.

"I don't like when I'm being painted as some kind of environmental enemy by suggesting a chemical solution for certain situations."

Anyone who has ever been involved in serious invasive species control would NOT paint you in such a way. Every single land management agency in the U.S. understands the value of chemical controls, and recommends their use when necessary.

"Environmentalist" has taken on an extremist connotation, and those that tend to label themselves as such are generally as far removed from the realities of conservation and preservation as one can get.

Pretty? You know, I think once you know what something is, any redeeming qualities of it tend to fade away. We have vast forests of mullein at work (a standing testament as to why chemical controls should not be so easily dismissed). Visitors marvel in the natural beauty of the landscape whereas all I see is a sea of hideous, nasty spires of ugly yellow flowers. In the same way, thistles are a blight to what the area could, and should, look like, but at least we hire the "weed warriors" to spray those.

I agree, invader = ugly and its very personal when its in your own backyard. Visually speaking, I think the monotonous acres of tall, coarse leafed, monoculture of weedy yellow green grass is extremely ugly.

We have the same thing, though, instead of Johnson grass, we have smoothe brome. But, I think you've heard my laments about that particular invader before....

Back on topic...

Cottage Garden,

You say the site would allow you to show off the beauty of New England's native plant communities, but you list plants, such as Agastache and Russian sage which are more suited to the arid South Western region of the country. Plants like those preform best with minimal water, poor soil, and intense, dry, heat. Forgive my assumptions, I have never visited New England, but those are NOT things I associate with the area. I am curious as to your choice of plants and why you would choose a xeric landscape in your location. NOT that there is something inherently wrong with your choices, and by no means do I intend this as an attack, but I think there are plants that would have a better chance of success.

I'm gonna stay with the suggestion that killing everything on that slope is not the best solution.

Interesting how defensive everybody got over my suggesting that alternatives were possible...

Defensiveness is usually indicative of something.

When we kill everything as a first step to planting natives... There's a good possibility that we're losing a ton of difficult to replace naturals.

Those natives that are already in place... Whether growing or part of the seedbank will likely be superior to anything we replace them with... Both as relates to attractiveness to the local insect population, and ability to thrive without constant babying in that location.

With an entire school of willing helpers... How much better to identify the thugs and attempt mechanical extraction before exposing everyone to potentially hazardous chems?

Incidentally, zach5, good point about the xeric scape...

Far better to use locally native plants...

The problem with your line of thought, Stone,is that you seem to assume that the practitioner who would reach for a chemical control where warranted is somehow simultaneously ignorant about the identity of the plants in the site he or she intends to treat. Is it somehow just you who knows and understands that within a bed of primarily non-native, invasive species, there could be some desirable and/or native plants growing? Of could it be that there are many of us, working as we do within this field, that take such matters in stride? If you're the only smart person here, I guess the rest of us can let you handle the advice-dispensing aspects of this forum. Only you know what you're talking about, after all.

+oM

Ok +oM...

Somehow... You've got the idea that the OP's original conditions aren't possible to follow through on.

When I post that it is possible to have nice plants... Following those conditions... You insist that poison must be used... Y is that?

Sadly.... Whenever I see poison used... It's always to the detriment of the wild natives.

The people who sell "weed" poison have sold us a bill of goods.

In spite of their claims that it's safe enough to add to your lunch... My observation is that it lingers, and causes damage to plants that are dormant at the time of application, and when it's used on annuals... The annuals are helped more than they're hindered... The annual weeds and everything else turns brown, (yuck) and the seeds come up through the dead weeds.... While the desirables don't..

There's no reason for insisting that OP use poison when the post read that they were absolutely NOT permitted!

I would guess that your experience is not at all extensive. Your words belie that thought. Go to any.........and I do mean any native restoration landscape company. There's lots of them out there. Now, ask if they use herbicides (your "poison) to do their work. If you can find one that uses no herbicides ever, I'll send you my next paycheck.

As to what the OP did or did not write, I only seek to clear up misconceptions, the misconception in this case is that there is a reasonable way to get where they wish to go without using herbicides. There is not. But what do I know? Only been involved in this stuff since around 1975. Were you born yet?

+oM

As far as I can see the only person talking about getting ruthless and killing everything on the slope with herbicide is stonethegardener. +oM never said such a thing and neither did anyone else. I agree with +oM that certain undesirable aliens can only be eliminated by the responsible use of herbicide. Otherwise these are plants these people with the inflexible rules will just have to to live with. I suppose a backhoe would also do the job on some plants but that doesn't sound like a student operation.

The remark that herbicide is always to the detriment of wild natives is simply absurd. Sometimes there is an aggressive plant needing to be gotten rid of that is the detriment to the others and sometimes there is no other practical way. There are safe responsible ways of using chemical solutions.

Its not unlike seasonal burning. You need to have someone who knows what they are doing and take extreme precautions which is what a person in the profession does. If you'd read through other topics on this forum you would know that +oM is someone who has years of professional experience with native restoration projects and who is environmentally responsible.

Since some people seem to be going starry eyed over Piet Oudolf's dreamy landscapes, it would be interesting to find out what he does (or more likely what he has done by someone else in advance) on a site as preparation. I can tell you this. He doesn't leave difficult to eradicate plants like poison ivy, briars and thorny smilax due to some impractical, utopian notion of environmental friendliness.

The OP is not permitted to use chemicals, that is true, However, much like Tom and TR, the goal was only to clear up the misguided animosity towards them when trying to reclaim and restore a site.

The rules set down by whomever is in charge of the project need to be revisited. I think that the OP ought to work on building a case FOR the use of herbicides and bring that to the table before further wasting time and effort trying to establish plants in a mess of noxious and invasive weeds.

Purely using the what they call an organic approach is so incredibly limiting and demonstrates a deep lack of understanding for the work at hand. The area may look alright for a season, but, the futility of the whole thing will exhaust human enthusiasm and attention spans much sooner than it will exhaust the weeds.

Even WITH the use of herbicides, invasive weed control is not a "one and done" prospect. But, the more tools you have in the tool box, the more effective you can be.

"Whenever I see poison used... It's always to the detriment of the wild natives."

Whenever I see exotic species handily out competing and destroying native plant communities without being held in check, it is always to the detriment of entire ecosystems.

Ima stick with my statement that chem gardening is a bad idea.

When trees on my side of the fence die, that's blow-over. Probably the least offensive problem I've had.

When delicate natives die in one of my gardens in town, and the applicator denies even spraying there.... That's frustrating, because there's no way to ensure any kind of awareness next time...

When rare natives are sprayed, and the applicator says those plants were providing a nursery for invasives... That's just wrong.

When the applicator convinces the client to allow them to spray a patch of invasives that I'd been working on... And was coming back to finish.... And... Then the client wants me to handle that mess... Yuck!

Seems like using chems is a shortcut.... Employed by people who prefer something easy... Already there's a problem... They're less likely to take all the pains necessary to protect the desirables... And sadly, I haven't seen the painstaking approach being touted in this thread.

So easy to lay claims to caution, and so difficult to hold the applicator to account for the dead plants.

Stone, in one sentence, you've indicated more problems with careless pesticide application than I've witnessed in my entire life. What's going on there? Of course, any material can be abused. Any product can be misused. I could ruin your yard with nothing more than water if I wanted to. How you get from that to your sweeping condemnation is beyond me.

Just for fun, why don't you read up on one technique, used every day in the native restoration business: I call it cut/treat but it's at least as likely to be termed cut-stump application in the literature. Then, tell us how else large areas infested with things like non-native honeysuckles and buckthorn could be handled. Maybe you and you alone know better than everyone else how to handle these slow-motion disasters happening on our landscape. But don't be greedy! Share your expertise.

+oM

I wish a bit of blow-over would kill the very tall, ugly, volunteered, neglected native hackberry trees, tangled vines, native Trumpet Vine that wants world domination, Tree of Heaven & privet shrubs all along the border (and elsewhere) in the neighbors 'yard' on my west side. Does that really work? An easy shortcut sounds very tempting and I wish there was something that easy.

As it is, we have $cheduled our annual thinning and trimming with a profe$$ional tree trimmer to climb ever higher to minimize the horrible canopy. The third guy came in with the cheapest bid but it's not cheap but then it never is and its never permanent either. So year after year we deal with it and pay out of pocket for it.

By the way, spraying any of this crap is not effective unless you cut and paint like Tom described. I know, I've tried. The roots survive otherwise.

Some aggressive plants with tubers or bulblike roots must be dug out no matter what, chemical is of no use. I welcome someone to prove this wrong, I will try what they say.

I'd spray the whole batch of aggressive crap if this easy fix were true. Over-spray killing trees? Get real. If any desirable natives get affected in the process, I will gladly sacrifice them, I can always replant. Its the invasive stuff thats the biggest problem and it would be nice (like a miracle) to get rid of them to replant with something less aggressive and more attractive . The aggressive mess makes it impossible to plant anything, they rob the soil even if they didn't rob the sun. Anyway, I covertly try to improve it as much as I can by keeping the underbrush minimal using spray, shovel, nips and chem-painting cut tips while the slumlord is not at home.

Close-mindedness is never a good stand to take. Thats just my opinion but I am happy when someone points out what I'm doing wrong or suggests a workable method when dealing with stuff like aggressive invaders because my goal is to solve the problem. My pride can take it. I want options not emotional feedback.

Hackberry is one ugly tree... But is host to a number of butterfly species, and feeds the birds. So... I encourage mine.

We should all get back to the original point of the original poster.

Very simple point that everyone is missing.

Property owner doesn't want a buncha school kids exposed to hazardous chems.

Perfectly acceptable for the property owner to set some limits.

Rash for all the posts insisting that it can't be done without chems.

They had beautiful gardens back before everybody started drenching everything in chems.

If y'all can't garden without chemicals, probably should admit that, and allow people to answer the question who practice organic techniques.

It appears the original poster posed a question and then abandoned us. I'm not into having a discussion with a ghost myself but an interesting discussion has resulted -- Can a slope over run and infested with aggressive thugs be transformed into a slope resembling a Piet Oudolf work of art without some use of chemicals to eradicate the more difficult roots of certain notoriously difficult plants?

The OP was wanting ideas, not preaching & drum beating.

Tell us all how you would go about removing the aggressive plants instead of using this as a forum to keep repeating your mantra of strictly organic.

We haven't heard a single practical or usable idea coming from you. Tell us how you'd do it.

In other words, answer the question.

I don't suppose that last question was specifically addressed to me, but I'll take a stab at it.

First, have a look at what plants are there; if you aren't great at plant ID's, rope in someone who is. Determine which plants are desirable, and which ones are the worst offenders.

If feasible, relocate any worthwhile plants (anything that might be unusual/costly to replace, etc.). If nothing is worth digging up and transplanting, that's one problem "solved". Next consider if there are plants worth saving seeds from. That should be attempted- duh!- whenever the plants go to seed... probably in the next few months.

Annuals should get priority for weeding out- best to get 'em before they go to seed. If it's possible to mow the undesirables, that should be done- again- before they have a chance to reseed. I am not a landscaper myself, but I do think mechanical means (not forbidden, right?) can be used to remove much of the vegetation in question. What's left will be the tough stuff, though if the soil is loose, that should make things slightly easier. I can't tell from the photo how large that piece of land is, but if it's very large, you'll need a lot of volunteers working in sections, pulling/digging up by the roots whatever can be pulled/dug up by the roots.

What will be left? I have no way of knowing what particular nasties you have there that will withstand an onslaught of volunteer weeders, but there are plants that will regrow from just a tiny bit of plant material left behind, and of course, there are many, many seeds that will germinate once there's some room and light for them. If you can get a few gardening die-hards to help with the inevitable reoccurence of plants you don't want, and to help with planting the plants you decide to introduce/reintroduce, so much the better. Gradually, the balance will tip in favor of the plants you actually want there.

I agree that it will take many years to achieve your vision, and, yes, of course, you can get a Piet Oudolf look. Have a look at what plants he has used in his European gardens... many U.S. natives that are not appreciated here, as you know. Also, if you can, a trip to Toronto might be possible? P.O. designed parts of the botanical garden there. http://torontobotanicalgarden.ca/explore/themed-gardens/entry-garden-walk/

Echinacea and Rudbeckia are NE natives that Oudolf uses a lot; so are Joe-Pye Weed and Liatris spicata and Sanguisorba canadensis. Maybe also New York Ironweed, Gaura biennis, Culver's Root and New England Asters? I'm listing plants that I think I can remember seeing used in his gardens, but Google is a great way to find out more about which plants he uses and how and why he uses them. To get you started, here's his web site: http://oudolf.com

Here's another link that may be useful: http://www.newfs.org/grow

Good luck,

Virginia

Tx Rngr

Seems like you are in such a hurry to debate me that you aren't reading my posts.

I mentioned plenty of steps to take in creating a bed.

Things like flagging existing stands of desirable naturals, and checking for butterfly host plants with caterpillars, and teaching volunteers specific plants to remove.

A native garden is different from a vegetable garden, there are plant communities that should be observed, and not just eradicate anything on location.

When you mention that you would just purchase more plants after poisoning the existing naturals, you make my case for me.

Any garden that I've built from scratch has had rare and unusual plants, that I couldn't have purchased and brought in.... And they wouldn't have lived if I could have replaced them.

There are a lot of plants that don't transplant, and growing them from seed requires an expert...

Far easier to preserve the meadow than to try to rebuild it one plant at a time.... Let us know when you plant Texas paintbrush...

In my area, Agalinis purpurea is common, and still.... It's no picnic to reintroduce it to a garden after its been eradicated...

The question was how you would go about eliminating the roots of the more aggressive non natives without methods such as such as cutting the plant down and painting the tops of the cut portions with herbicide (no drift) or drilling holes (no drift) into woody plants to inject herbicide. I can't see anything but failure if the hill is infested with certain types of invasive aliens well known to be nearly impossible to eradicate even with all methods available and often it takes more than one application to finally rid an area. I predict the hill will simply become overrun with the same weedy plants if they do not effectively eradicate them first--that is-------IF that is the case.

Yes. save the desirables. No one said otherwise.

Again, you are the only person who said anything about idiotically spraying everything as an easy fix and it is insulting that you insinuate that we sanction that due to laziness or ignorance.

No one mentioned 'nuking' the whole area and starting over from scratch. Except you.

The other stuff you are saying is old hat and supported by all who post here regularly, you are not saying anything new or original. We are all on the same page.

Preserving rare plants is an entirely different subject not within the scope of this particular thread and there is nothing new or original in that comment either. Again, we are all on the same page. If you wish to talk about rare plants or share your personal experiences or ideas along those lines, start a new thread.

This has turned into a very tiresome, unproductive argument that is going in circles.

I will add, the frequent use of the word "poison" in stone's narrative suggests a less than complete understanding of what the various materials actually are, and what they do. If a specific herbicide has been compounded in such a way as to interfere with one or more enzyme pathways within green, vascular plants, is that a poison? The word poison has an actual and specific meaning. In human terms, a poison is a material which, upon being consumed, causes immediate life-threatening reactions. So, are herbicides which are designed to interfere with one or more essential enzymatic pathways within green, vascular plants poisons? Not to you and me, and not to moss (non-vascular) and not to a mature tree trunk which the material has drifted onto (No green tissue exposure). It is indeed tiring to see the same simple-minded "chemicals are bad" kind of thinking here. So, what about plants which exude allelopathic materials from their root tips? Must they be banished so as not to be poisoning the environment? This is just way too beginner for me. And in support of TR's comments above, you, stone, are putting lots of words in our mouths here. No, you're not the only person on this forum-if you can believe it-that would first seek out the desirable plants in a scenario such as above, for saving before proceeding to do any other work. It must be hard to live your life, knowing as you do that everyone else is an idiot who doesn't know what they're doing.

+oM

My next door neighbors 'bird and butterfly' habitat. It would be a shame if overspray killed or harmed these trees. Never mind that this was once prairie and nothing much grows over there except Ivy, Honeysuckle Vines, Privet, Tree of Heaven and too many to count volunteer Hackberry Trees. I never seen butterflies in there. They seem to all be over here on my cleared out side where the native pollinators grow in abundance.

Each case must be assessed and approached individually. There is no such thing as a universal approach to every situation.

If it was doable, I'd be open to all kinds of suggestions of fixing this mess including every arsenal available. As it is, its a case of neglect by a neighbor and there's nothing I can do except look at it daily. Tall weeds & grass growing a city yard are illegal, a fine will be promptly issued, but this is OK. His 'fence' is OK too. Personally I consider trees left to volunteer at will like this to be weeds but thats just me. Call me a habitat hater.

BTW, Indian Paintbrush grows wild along roadsides around here, you see miles & miles of red in many areas, but I seriously doubt any would grow under that mess of invasive trees nor would a lot of other Oklahoma prairie natives I could name.

Wide shot with the mess in background. Doesn't look as bad that way because the camera picks it up dark like a jungle, too bad its not like that in real life.

You could try cutting the weeds to the root and than mulching the area or sterilizing as someone suggested by covering the area with tarps. It is important to keep at the weeds though, most can be stopped simply by cutting them down to nothing. I would also suggest to do tight plantings in the area of native perennials, the tighter the plant groupings the least likely of having weeds come back.

My experience, with the evil Buckthorn, is that the natives are literally dying to get out of the ground. The amazing revelation to me was in the 2nd, and subsequent years when suddenly there were natives that weren't there before. So the idea that chemicals will kill the natives isn't necessarily true, at least in my small experience.

I'm taking the position that the real danger is in not killing off all of the vegetation, lest the underlying seed bank simply disappear over time. Kill it and they will come back is now my motto.

Things sure do get twisted in knots. Using the cut-stump method of herbicide application-this to kill unwanted woody species-is as fool-proof and effective a technique as there is, and uses a tiny amount of chemical active ingredient. I don't understand why folks that obviously don't know much about these things always think they are the originators of all knowledge. Like the folks who devised these methods were morons who didn't have the mental capacity to wonder about off-target effects. Amazing, how do some of us trust anyone/anything? Like, how does such a person trust that when they flick a light switch in their house, the whole works doesn't explode? After all, who were these supposed experts who invented alternating current?

Dandy, we're seeing much the same in my son's low, floodplain woods. We already knew his land was rich in natives, but even after the first year of buckthorn and exotic honeysuckle removal, the change is already notable.

+oM

I'd imagine anyone who has roto-tilled a new planting area after killing off the grass (or whatever) will realize that if you want to see a whole lot of 'where'd it come from' stuff sprout, both good and bad, this is a good way to accomplish it. Any farmer will tell you the same. Lots of those native seed places tell you not to do this if you want a clean slate to plant in, just rake the seed in instead. As it is, you will still have stuff popping up or dropping down from wind or birds. It takes several seasons of tilling and killing to get rid of most seeds in the ground.

The people who get me are the ones wanting a way to keep 'weeds' from ever growing or invading their desired choice of plants. They actually believe that there's a method to actually achieve that. They write in on GW all the time with this serious question as if this is possible.

In fact, for prairie establishment, the overwhelming consensus is to do two or even three rounds of non-selective herbicide over the entire site in the summer leading up to a fall dormant seeding. So, one would do the initial grading, then wait a month or so for the weed seeds to germinate, come in with a boom sprayer and glyphosate, and kill off everything that's there. Then wait a month or so, rinse and repeat. Still another round of same if budget and time frame allow for it. Then, and only then, would we consider a site ready for a dormant seeding, meaning one in which the seed is put down sufficiently late in the growing season-actually, out of the growing season-that no germination will take place until the following spring. what you don't want is a lot of little stuff sprouting, then getting blasted by hard freezes while still young and tender. Plus, the freeze/thaw cycles tend to put the seed right where it needs to be, in terms of seed to soil contact.

+oM

In case it was not clear TR, I am in agreement with your statements. Just taking it a bit further. I remember reading once of an experiment conducted in British agriculture, whereby farmers did their tillage at night, so as to not initiate weed seed germination! Not sure how that all panned out, but it serves to demonstrate that the experts were onto this problem for some time now, that of soil disturbance, combined with ambient sunlight, creating more, not less, weed issues.

+om

You're clear and I completely agree. Taking it even further, we once had a trench dug by the city at my old house all down the block and beyond. They filled it up with dirt hauled in (obviously) from the countryside. Let me tell you, there are more seeds in just one shovel full of dirt than you would ever imagine possible. We had new stuff coming up in amazing variety, some that got quite big and most of it went unidentified. It was a mess and a long battle for everyone to get it tamed down. We thought we'd been done wrong but it was also very interesting. This was before I was even remotely interested in native plants back when I was in my 20's. Today I'd be out there trying to ID plants but back then we all called them country weeds because it wasn't anything like the 'normal' nuisance annual grasses, henbit & dandelions we'd fanatically dig from our bermuda lawns to make sure they were 100% weed free like we'd all been taught to do or else suffer disgrace.

Hah! You (and I) have learned to live with the shame!

+oM