Appendix 4: Summary of Community Feedback
The ELS sought feedback from the University community on the above proposal and has made a number of
revisions to the proposal according to the comments received. Below is a summary of feedback received:
Response
I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Other
No. of responses
5
11
0
0
Supporters of revitalization and ELS proposal include: York University student body, members of Faculty of
Environmental Studies (FES), students of FES, Regenesis Canada, Osgoode Hall Law School student body,
including LLM and PhD candidates, and Osgoode Business Law Society.
Supporters of a general revitalization include: members of FES, including Coordinator, Urban Ecologies certificate /
Chair, President’s Sustainability Council, and Osgoode student body.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Patricia Hania
Organization: osgoode PhD candidate
Date: Feb 5th 2010
E-mail: PatriciaHania@Osgoode.Yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ X ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions: Having agreed with that the space should be “greened” I am would request
an accessibility audit to be completed to ensure that the safe allows easy access for all students, from
all parking lots and during all seasons.
I ask:
1) Can all students access the space easily?
2) What will the space look like during the different seasons and what barriers are created as
result of the changing seasons (snow banks/ice)?
3) Is personal safety guaranteed?
4) What are the typical pedestrian routes – lets not design pathways that do not support the
natural flow of traffic
5) Has the Faculty of Environmental Studies been consulted on the site plan? This faculty has
experts and students that can provide input on the intersection of the built and natural
environment. This project should be designed in a spirit of co-operation with other
members of the university community.
6) Are there cultural and or religious considerations that should be taken into account?
7) Change the project name to be inclusive: “Re-Green the Osgoode Atkinson FES/Health
Sciences Green”
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name:Dana Rotenberg
Organization: student at Osgoode Hall
Date: February 7, 2010
E-mail: dana.rotenberg@gmail.com
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ X ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
I think this is a fabulous idea that will make a big difference to student life
at Osgoode. Osgoode is definitely lacking green space and although the
new building will feature indoor student gathering spaces, nothing replaces
outdoor space like what has been proposed. Also, this project will create a
much nicer and more welcoming entrance to guests and prospective
students/faculty/staff. I am very enthusiastic regarding everything in the
proposal aside from the historical markers which I think may be expensive
and not of much interest (this could be just me though). Maybe instead,
firms and other organizations could sponsor the gardens, benches and trees
and there could be markers indicating this.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Michael John Long, LLM Candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School
Organization: Environmental Law Society
Date: February 06 2010
E-mail: michaellong@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ x ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
The initiative of the Environmental Law Society to revitalize and regreen the common ground
between Osgoode Hall and Atkinson pleases me immensely. I support the ELS project first as a
proud Masters student of both Osgoode Hall and Environmental Studies, and I support second,
as a member of the ELS. As a student who both enjoys, and is required by the very rigors of a
graduate program, to be on the York campus frequently, I cannot impress in enough words the
vast importance of space on campus that is aesthetically pleasing, that is calming, that is both
conducive to studying and socializing, and lastly, that is an attempt to rebuild the natural world.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name:
Chanakya Sethi, JD 2012
Organization:
N/A
Date:
2010-02-08
E-mail:
chanakyasethi@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ X ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
It’s so heartening to see you guys working to rid us of the gravel and
revitalize the space. Your plan seems well-thought-out and looks great! If it
were brought to fruition, it would no doubt have a transformative impact
on community life.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Sylvia Schumacher
Organization: 3L student at Osgoode
Date: Feb 8 2010
E-mail: sylviaschumacher@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ x ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
This is a wonderful idea, and long overdue! (I thought the Convocation
tent was a ridiculous waste of money.) I would, however, suggest you
rethink the pond. As the former owner of a property with a small fish pond
on it, I can assure you that a pond is a lot of work and additional expense,
if you don’t want it to quickly become overrun with algae. If you want to
add a water feature (eg fountain), that is additional maintenance, and could
be environmentally suspect, if you want to heat the water to ensure the
fountain does not freeze in winter.
My recommendation would be lots of trees (the current ‘gravel pit’ is very
windy especially in winter), and I would plant the entire space with species
native to this area. It would be environmentally more sound, easier to take
care of, and cheaper.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Adam Keeping
Organization: Student (2L, 209543356), Osgoode Hall Law School; VP,
Osgoode Business Law Society
Date: Feb 8, 2010
E-mail: adamkeeping@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[Yes] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
The current state of the space is dismal. It is an embarrassing eyesore in the
middle of an otherwise beautiful campus.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Jennifer Foster
Organization: FES (Coordinator, Urban Ecologies certificate / Chair,
President’s Sustainability Council)
Date: 1 March 2010
E-mail: jfoster@yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ✔ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
I think this is a wonderful initiative, and fully support the proposal in
principle. I would like to see a few additions and clarifications to the
proposal, outlined as follows:
• Clarify the context for the proposal. Was it prepared upon
invitation? Is it part of the Osgoode rebuilding process? What
inspires the initiative?
• It appears that some mature tress are proposed for removal, which I
do not support as a design element. For example, trees along the
Niagara Blvd parking median and in front of HNES are either erased
or replaced in the proposal. If these are suggested for removal then
the rationale needs to be very clear and supported by other
studies/recommendations.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Greg Joffe
Organization: Osgoode Building User Committee
Date: February 10, 2010
E-mail:Gregory.joffe@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ X ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
- Looks great, please inform me if you are looking for student
involvement.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Leanne Anderson
Organization: Osgoode Student
Date: February 10, 2010
E-mail: LeanneAnderson@osgoode.yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ X ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
I am a first year student and during my first visit to Osgoode last May, I
was surprised to see the desolate field leading up to Osgoode and
wondered if it had something to do with the construction. Now, after
seeing the ELS’s proposal and learning why the field is so stark (not
pending construction), I am relieved that something can be done to
improve it. I walk through that field daily to attend Osgoode and would
LOVE to see it become the beautiful park proposed by ELS!!!
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Regenesis Canada <regen@yorku.ca>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 06:06PM
Subject: Re: Re-Greening the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
We support the idea of creating a Philosophers Walk at York University.
Please be in touch with any initiatives you have so that we can collaborate
in the future.
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Gerda Wekerle
Organization: FES
Date: Feb 11 2010
E-mail: gwekerle@yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ x ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
Sounds like an exciting proposal. I note that you want to put in grasses, shrubs and
“field flowers” . Don’t know what you mean by the latter. You need to lock in place a
management plan from Grounds and some way to deal with this if it's not implemented.
Our experience with the HNES planter in front of our building which has the same mix
as the one that you propose ( with plants provided through a grant) is that the
university’s staff say they do not have the expertise to maintain this and they haven’t
done so. Nor did they water in the first growing season, so lots of plants/shrubs died.
This has been an ongoing struggle, with FES trying to get student and other volunteers
to take care of the garden. Grounds allowed it to be over-run with weeds and now it is a
major problem.
Also, it looks like you are planning to change or move the small trees/shrubs already on
the site. I think you need to do an inventory. Some of these are quite lovely and historic
and cutting them down and replanting might not be the best.
It also looks like the test plots for native plants on the hillside will be eliminated by your
plan. If so, we would appreciate replanting them in our garden in HNES. They have
quite deep and extensive roots. Also, you can utilize these full grown and in some cases
rare prairie plants in your garden scheme. There are thousands of dollars of viable plants
that grow well in that environment in those test plots. However, the useable plants do
need to be separated from what some would consider weeds. Jennie Foster in FES can
let you know what is there as she planted them.
Gerda Wekerle
Professor and Coordinator, Planning Program
Gerda R. Wekerle,PhD, MCIP RPP
Professor
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Sharrieffa Sattaur
Organization: Full Time Staff -FES
Date: Feb 10, 2010
E-mail: ssattaur@yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ x ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name:
Joanne Guidi
Organization:
FES Staff
Date:
2010-02-11
E-mail:
guidij@yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ x ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
I have read the proposal and I think it is a
superb plan and a lot of thought has gone into
it. I support this proposal 110%. I have felt the
same for years. I’m glad this intiative has been
taken. Well done!
Re-Green the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
Feedback Form
Name: Jeniffer Hosein
Organization: York University
Date: February 11, 2010
E-mail: jhosein@yorku.ca
Please check ONE of the following which most describes your position:
[ x ] I support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green to green space
[ x ] I support revitalization AND the Environmental Law Society’s proposal
[ ] I do not support revitalization of the Osgoode-Atkinson Green
[ ] Other (please specify):
Comments/Suggestions:
Appendix 5: Report on the Osgoode Meadow trial plots, spring/summer 2004
Jennifer Foster, Course Director ENVS 3230
Pursuant to discussions during the month of April 2004 amongst members of the Faculty of Environmental Studies, IBI and
the York University Master Planner, a system of trial plots were established close to the northern entrance of the Atkinson
building. The long-term vision for the Osgoode Meadow is to transform the turf-dominated space into a native wildflower
meadow that requires only minimal maintenance. The trial plots were designed to test and compare different planting
approaches, with an eye to determining the most ecologically and aesthetically vibrant combination of planting materials and
techniques.
Trial plot planting techniques
The edges of the five trial plots were delineate in late May according to a schematic prepared by IBI representing five petals on
a flower. Each plot measures 10 square meters in area, oriented in an elliptical form. The plots were numbered and prepared
accordingly:
Plot 1: Nucleation
The plot was prepared by shaving all of the existing turf to between 0-0.5 centimeters in height using a weed-whacker. Small
but dense groupings of wildflowers and grasses were planted across the site (see appendix A). Each grouping consisted of
three plants of the same species, and groupings were located approximately 40 centimeters apart. Groupings of the same
species were clustered together, such that each species appeared in a small ‘colony’ across the trial plot. Flakes of straw were
cut to approximately 10 centimeters in length (to minimize the potential for wind displacement) and spread across the plot
between the groupings of plants. The location of different species was recorded. No further treatment was enacted
throughout the spring/summer (i.e. no watering or weeding).
Plot 2: direct seeding
The plot was prepared by shaving all of the existing turf to between 0-0.5 centimeters in height using a weed-whacker. A
mixture of native wildflower and grass seed was combined at a ratio of 1:4 with triple mix medium of manure, peat and topsoil
(see appendix B). The seed mixture was broadcast across the plot and worked into the surface with a rake to ensure maximum
seed-soil contact. No further treatment was enacted throughout the spring/summer (i.e. no watering or weeding).
Plot 3: Zero tillage
The plot was prepared by shaving all of the existing turf to between 0-0.5 centimeters in height using a weed-whacker. The
plot was covered with a 3.3-millimeter thick sheet of PVC (commercial pond liner). Bricks were placed around the edges of
the plots to seal the black PVC sheet, with the intent of killing all of the turf and biomass in the plot by creating a barrier to
photosynthesis, restricting hydration and trapping heat underneath the tarp. The sheet was removed four weeks later. After
scraping most of the dead vegetative material off of the plot an identical quantity and combination of seed and medium as plot
2 was broadcast across the plot 3. The mixture was worked into the surface with a rake to ensure maximum seed-soil contact.
No further treatment was enacted throughout the spring/summer (i.e. no watering or weeding).
Plot 4: interplanting
The plot was prepared by shaving all of the existing turf to between 0-0.5 centimeters in height using a weed-whacker.
Individual live plants were planted across the plot in a random pattern. The plants were spaced at intervals of approximately
20 centimeters. Flakes of straw were cut to approximately 10 centimeters in length (to minimize the potential for wind
displacement) and spread across the plot between the groupings of plants. No further treatment was enacted throughout the
spring/summer (i.e. no watering or weeding).
Plot 5: Control plot
This plot was not treated in any special manner. It was left unmanaged in order to determine the effect of a simple ‘let it be’
approach and to compare the emergence of plants captured in the site’s seedbed.
Challenges/complications
Soil extremely tough
The soil present at the site is more compacted than had been expected, to the extent that York grounds maintenance staff
were unable to operate a roto-tiller. Once the turf was shorn from plots 1-4, it was very difficult to dig into the soil to
transplant the live plants. This is also partly due to the thick thatch of turf roots that tightly bind the topsoil. Spades and hand
shovels were useless for this task. The only tool that was able to break through the top layer of soil was a professional tree
planting spade fitted with a blade-like flat edge. Although the tough condition of the soil probably limited the ability of the
plants to spread a root network and for seeds to establish, it also possibly restricted the amount of erosion experienced on site.
The tough composition of the soil is certainly a factor limiting the success of different planting techniques.
Clean straw
Because the project was planned and implemented during the month of May, availability of some planting materials was
scarce. This was the case with the straw mulch spread across plots 1 and 4 (nucleation and interplanting) and around the edges
of the plots. The mulch was introduced as a means of retaining soil moisture, suppressing weeds and gradually introducing a
more bacterial soil profile that is consistent with meadow habitats. Under ideal circumstances, a material commonly known as
“clean straw” would be used in such instances, straw that does not contain any seeds. However, given the late starting date of
the project, no clean straw was available in the entire GTA. Thus, bales of straw containing annual grass seed were used as an
alternative. The dominant grass seed harbored in these bales is oats, and they will not self-seed prolifically or reproduce
aggressively the following year. They do, meanwhile, grow to considerable size during the single planting season in which they
are introduced, possibly competing with the planted native species for nutrients, hydration and sunlight. While some people
find the appearance of these annual grasses pleasant, others consider them messy and inhibit their ability to distinguish native
flowers and grasses. They may also present vegetative competition to the native wildflowers and grasses planted as part of the
meadow conversion.
Zero tillage technique implemented too late in the growing season
Under ideal conditions the PVC tarp would have covered plot 3 (zero tillage) for at least 8 weeks to ensure maximum turf and
weed suppression. Because the project was only approved in early May and budgeting was organized in late May the coverage
period was reduced to only four weeks. Despite the late start and abbreviated weed-killing period, many seeds did sprout in
and the plot demonstrated a far greater degree of success than the direct seeded plot. Thus, this technique could produce
desirable results if implemented earlier in the season (such that the PVC was set in place for a longer period of time and seeds
were broadcast earlier), and might prove more economical over the long term than direct planting. However, the results will
not be as immediately appreciable as planting techniques and there may be a period of aesthetic displeasure.
Findings
The following is a summary of findings derived from ten datasets gathered over the months of June, July and August 2004
concerning the five trial plots.
The two sites where live plants were introduced experienced no mortality. All plants established and grew, although perhaps
not to the expected height range for each species. In particular, species such as Black eye susan, Sweet ox eye, Blue vervain,
Big blue stem, Spotted Joe-pye weed, and Indian Grass thrived in these plots.
The two plots that were seeded displayed disappointing results. Although some Back eye susan plants are evident in plot 3
(zero tillage), these are stunted and may not flower this season. No native species from the seed mixture were detected in plot
2 (direct seeding).
Competition from weeds was evident in all plots. Weeds were most dominant in plots 2 (direct seeding) and 3 (zero tillage).
Plot 4 (interplanting) experienced the least percentage of weed coverage, perhaps because the spaces between native plants
were minimized to the greatest degree. This was also the plot that hosted the apparently hardiest plants, measured according
to plant height and stem resilience (we are as yet unable to measure the frost resilience or over-wintering survival rate of the
different species).
In terms of visual appeal, casual observers queried regularly in the vicinity consistently reported a preference for plot 4
(interplanting), based primarily on this site’s “natural appearance”. Observers commented that the random order of the plants
in this plot is most visually pleasing. All respondents also enjoyed the appearance of plot 1 (nucleation). However, many
commented that the clustered planting pattern presented too much structural order (one described this effect as walls of
different species). Some passers-by did not mind the seeded and control plots once the invasive exotic species Queen Anne’s
lace appeared, but up to that point none enjoyed these plots.
The relative cost of each plot (excluding straw) is as follows:
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
86 4” pots @ $2.96
167 plugs @ $1.31
4 jumbo pots @ $3.69
tax
total
seeds
tax
Total
seeds
PVC
Tax
Total
60 4” pots @ $2.96
125 plugs @ $1.31
3 jumbo pots @ $3.69
tax
total
no cost
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
254.56
218.77
14.76
73.21
$561.30
42.29
6.34
$48.63
42.29
90.04
19.84
$152.17
177.60
163.75
11.07
52.86
$405.28
Recommendations
The following are recommendations for the Osgoode Meadow conversion, based on findings from the five trail plots.
1.
Emphasize interplanting as the principal technique, combined with patches employing other techniques.
Given the survival rate, hardiness and visual appeal of plot 4 (interplanting), future planting activity should employ
interplanting as the major approach to the turf-meadow conversion. This was not the most expensive technique, costing
considerably less than the only other technique that produced acceptable results. Other techniques could also be integrated on
a more limited basis, for example by introducing patches of species that thrived in plot 1 (nucleation) like Canada anemone,
and Blue vervain. Meanwhile, other small patches of no more than 5 square meters could be treated with the zero tillage
technique with approximately 8 weeks of PVC coverage beginning in mid-March (in order to minimize the spread of invasive
species, these areas should be kept small), Previously planted portions of the meadow could also be over-seeded with a mix of
native wildflower and grass seeds.
It may be possible to prepare portions of the meadow site with the assistance of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority,
located adjacent to the York Campus. In recent years the TRCA has provided site preparation help using its subsoil plow to
cut deep below turf and turn the soil. This technique could be followed by treatment with a roto-tiller in restricted flat
portions of the meadow area (areas less susceptible to erosion), then planted with wildflowers and grasses. Doing so may
reduce both soil compaction and turf competition.
2.
Begin the preparation process in early spring
Due to tight scheduling and a late start on the planting season, optimum planting conditions were not experienced. Rather
than begin the next episode of planting once more in May, it would be advantageous to begin the process in mid-March or
early April. This would also ensure a the best selection of planting materials, perhaps even a special order from a nursery that
is willing to grow plugs specifically for this project. Placing an early order might also ensure adequate supplies of clean
(seedless) straw.
3
Manage invasive exotic species
In order to minimize the spread and possible dominance of some of the invasive exotic species that appeared in all of the trial
plots during this first growing season, it is recommended that an invasive species management plan be adopted. Some of the
species of concern are clover, Queen Anne’s lace, dandelion and Canada thistle. Of primary concern is Canada thistle, which
is considered to be an aggressive invasive exotic that can dominate a site to exclude all other species and remain dominant on
the site indefinitely. The sunny, disturbed, open clay soils are ideal habitat for this species. This is a species that is difficult to
eradicate.
Recommended techniques for controlling Canada thistle that will not necessarily damage other species of interest include,
listed from most to least effective: 1) yearly spring control burn; 2) repeat cutting and pulling (three times during the growing
season, in June, August and September to inhibit photosynthesis); 3) wick application of the herbicide 2-4-D on individual
plants; and 3) wick application of the herbicide glyphosate. Repeat mowing can be effective. It is thus recommended that
Canada thistle be treated in a systematic fashion on a regular basis. Other species pose far less threat to the meadow
ecosystem as it establishes, and may be tolerated by the York community.
4.
Develop a three-year planting and monitoring strategy
In order to proceed in a manner that enables a successful meadow community that is valued by members of the York
community, it is recommended that planting proceed in three yearly phases and that the site be carefully monitored
throughout the entire meadow conversion process. Phasing the meadow conversion over three years not only permits greater
understanding of the best approaches and evolving effect of previous work, but also presents a seasonal scope of work that is
manageable for a committed team of volunteers, for example the students from York’s spring/summer Landscape Ecological
Restoration course. The following is a rough suggestion of a work timetable for phasing the meadow conversion:
Spring/summer 2005:
Spring/summer 2006:
Spring/summer 2007:
Fill in eastern lobe of meadow area, immediately adjacent to the southern Atkinson entrance to
approximately 4 meters west of the edge of the loading bay
Plant a 2-meter band along the northern perimeter of the meadow site, south of the upper sidewalk
Fill in the half of the remaining turf space
Fill in the remaining turf space and over-seed previously planted portions of the site.
Appendix A: Plant materials for plot 1
Species list and distribution:
Canada Anemone (Anemone Canadensis)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastate)
Black-eye Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Green-headed Coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata)
Spotted Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatorium maclatum)
Sweet Ox-eye (Heliopsis helianthoides)
Lance-leaved Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
New England Aster (Aster novae-angliae)
Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
Canada Wild Rye (Elymus Canadensis)
4”pots, 7 bunches of 3
4”pots, 7 bunches of 3
plugs, 11 bunches of 3
plugs, 7 bunches of 3
plugs, 10 bunches of 3
4”pots, 11 bunches of 3
plugs, 1 bunch of 4
4”pots, 3 bunches of 3
Plugs, 7 bunches of 3
plugs, 11 bunches of 2
plugs, 10 bunches of 3
plugs, 2 bunches of 3
4”pots, 1 bunch of 2
jumbo pots, 2 bunches of 2
Plot 1: nucleation (29 May 2004)
Plot prepared by shaving turf to approx. .5 cm with weed whacker
Clusters of 3 plants per 40 cm.
Straw mulch spread across site
No watering
Appendix B: seed materials for plot 2 and 3.
Species list:
Black-eye Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
Spotted Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatorium maclatum)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastate)
Lance-leaved Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
New England Aster (Aster novae-angliae)
Canada Wild Rye (Elymus Canadensis)
Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
7.5 grams
2.5 grams
5 grams
5 grams
5 grams
3 grams
100 grams
25 grams
25 grams
Plot 2: direct seeding (29 and 31 May 2004)
Plot prepared by shaving turf to approx. .5 cm with weed whacker
Seed combined with triple mix (manure, compost and topsoil) at approx. ratio 1:3
Seed spread with medium across site and raked
No watering
Plot 3: Zero tillage (29 May and 28 June 2004)
Plot covered with 3.3 mm black p.v.c. sheet (pond liner), sealed with interlock bricks.
Sown with seed mix identical to plot 2 after four weeks of undisturbed coverage.
Appendix C: plant materials for plot 4
Species list and distribution:
Canada Anemone (Anemone Canadensis)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastate)
Black-eye Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Green-headed Coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata)
Spotted Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatorium maclatum)
Sweet Ox-eye (Heliopsis helianthoides)
Lance-leaved Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
New England Aster (Aster novae-angliae)
Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
Canada Wild Rye (Elymus Canadensis)
4”pots, 15
4”pots, 15
plugs, 23
plugs, 15
plugs, 20
4”pots, 21
plugs, 4
4”pots, 6
plugs, 18
plugs, 26
plugs, 13
plugs, 6
4”pots, 3
jumbo pots, 1
Plot 4: Interplanting (29 and 31 May 2004)
Plot prepared by shaving turf to approx. .5 cm with weed whacker
Individual plants sown in random pattern approx. 20 cm apart
Straw mulch spread across site
No watering