The "Parking Lot Project": Our Weedy Research Featured in the University Newsroom, 8/20/2014

Our weedy work has MADE it, big time! (Well, sort of...)


As you may or may not know, the creators of this blog form the Struwe research lab (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~struwe/) at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ, USA. This summer, the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (SEBS) Office of Communication wrote an online news article about one of our campus-based, wild urban plant (aka "weeds"!) biodiversity projects.

Dr. Struwe began this particular project in 2011 after noticing that weedy plant species were abundant right outside of our offices and labs here on Rutgers campus, and especially in the parking lot cracks and curb edges. For the past 3 years, plant surveys of campus parking lots have taken place on a yearly basis. I took the project under my wing this summer by expanding the sampling protocol from previous years and, most importantly, by giving this graduate research endeavor a nickname: the "Parking Lot Project", or "PLP", for short.

This summer was an interesting and exciting time for us in the lab because we had an undergraduate researcher (funded by Rutgers' Aresty Program) to help us with the field work and to develop a sub-project related to urban weeds of her own. Read the article, featuring Dr. Struwe, my undergraduate researcher assistant Alisha, and myself, here.

To all our of amazement, PLP 2014 will have identified over 100 plant species that grow and thrive in the extremely harsh conditions of Rutgers University-New Brunswick campus parking lots once the surveys are completed (and all samples identified!) this fall. Now I call that success!

Who stole my weeds?

A hilarious news story has been making the rounds recently, about a property owner in Portland, Oregon, who is upset that someone is trespassing and picking the weeds on this property. The story broke on  KATU, a local news station and there are some hilarious comments below it, and then was picked up by Fox News).  The owner is blaming the chefs of neighboring restaurants, and say that not only do they pick the weeds, they leave recipes after them.

To me, this sounds like a April 1 joke (except it wasn't published on the first of April).  First, if you have weeds, wouldn't you be happy to get rid of them?  Second, I doubt chefs would pick weeds in urban lawns that most likely have been sprinkled with pesticides, cat urine, and exhaust fumes plus other unmentionable things.  Third, chefs leaving recipes? This story smells funny all the way from Oregon.  It is possible it is true of course, but that remains to be seen.

Urban foraging for edible plants in Belgium. Would you eat the plants from this spot?
Creative Commons photo by foam on Flickr.

However, the idea that chefs would harvest weeds for serving at upscale restaurants are likely and part of a new trend of eating a larger variety of greens, being 'on the edge' of novelty, and of course, being extremely locavorish.  This was already described in the great book Foraged Flavor by Wong and Leroux, and has its roots not only in traditional Italian cuisine with its wild spring greens but also in many other ethnic cuisines.

I grew up picking wild stinging nettles in early spring, when the shoots were small (but still stung).  You had to were gloves, and our patch was so small that only only got enough for one meal per year (or rather, I think we gave up after that).  You cooked the soup down like spinach soup and all the stinginess was gone after boiling, add some cream or milk, and then served with a hard-boiled egg cut in half that floats like two boats in the green sea.  Yummy, and here is a recipe.  The stinging nettles are certainly weeds. 

In the news: Survival of agricultural weeds

A press release on ScienceDaily summarizes a new study comparing how long seeds from two species of weeds (Chenopodium and Amaranthus, Amaranthaceae) survive under conventional vs. organic farming:

Organic and conventional farming methods compete to eliminate weed seeds in soil

The answer: no strong conclusion either way, the result is mixed. Here is the original article: LINK (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10-00142.1)

Goats love weeds...

They love them so much they eat them to death, and this is being used in Los Angeles (California, USA) by Environmental Land Management who rent out weed-cleaning goats.  You can read the story here in New York Times.

Iowa's old cocklebur farms

From an article in New York Times, about how the high crop prices are making farmers plow and put golfcourses and old, unused farmland into agriculture again:

In Iowa, the nation’s biggest producer of corn and soybeans, farmers insist that they are simply getting more value from their land. Darrell Coddington, a farmer who runs an excavation business, has spent much of the past year clearing additional land in the hilly and wooded southern part of the state, including places that used to be left alone and derided as a “cocklebur farm,” referring to the thorny weed.

Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) is a very interesting-looking plant. It is in the Asteraceae, the sunflower family, but the fruits are covered with horrid, sharp spines (easy to get around if you are stuck to an animal!). It used to be the perfect food for the now extinct parrots of the South; now however, it is an invasive weed that loves rich and often sandy soil.  It is a nasty thing to step on and is also toxic.  Any good features? Sure, it makes a yellow dye and it repels pests from crop plants close to it.

Richard Mabey's book reviewed in NY Times

The book WEEDS: in Defense of Nature’s Most Unloved Plants by Richard Mabey is reviewed in New York Times today.  It is great review, but once again there is a common mistake in how evolution works by the writer of the review (and maybe also by Mabey, I am not sure since I haven't read the book yet):

"One can’t help being impressed by weeds’ ingenuity. They’ve grown hooks, burrs, spines, rib hairs and a sort of glue to move their seeds around."

Weeds haven't grown these things.  Plants that had these characters, evolved from genetic variation and mutations over a long time, became weeds because of them.  To become a weed is a secondary thing, not something that forces a plant in a certain evolutionary direction.  

It is interesting though how our weed project hits exactly the same notes as Mabey's book.  History, culture, biology, medicine, and the misunderstood weeds connecting it all.

No more foraging in NYC parks

An article in today's New York Times describes how the park department is planning to crack down on foraging for edible plants (and animals) in the city's parks.

"....New Yorkers are increasingly fanning out across the city’s parks to hunt and gather edible wild plants, like mushrooms, American ginger and elderberries. Now parks officials want them to stop. New York’s public lands are not a communal pantry, they say." (source)

Not all are weeds of course, but many are, and some are also invasive. Personally I think a total ban is wrong, because I want kids to pick a raspberry, and if the Chinese want to gather the smelly ginkgo fruits, let them!  And if the "edible weeds crowd" want to reduce the invasive Japanese knotweed by cutting the young edible spring shoots, that is certainly better than spraying with pesticides later. But hauling turtles out of the park is a different thing.  So as usual, the issue is not as straightforward or black and white as we would like it to be.  It always amazes me that it is illegal to pick mushrooms in America's National Parks for example. Is it better that the mushrooms rot away?  I think it is better that people get closer to nature understand its value, limitations and dangers than that we coop up nature behind laws and bars and signs that tells us to stay away from all green things.

Why We Must Learn to Love Weeds

On June 4, Wall Street Journal published an interesting, great and refreshing article on weeds by Richard Mabey, titled "Why We Must Learn to Love Weeds".  It highlights that what is a weed in one place can be a beloved plant in another, so the tag 'weed' depends on circumstances and not a specific species.  Houston in Texas, USA, has even tried to outlaw weeds, by making weeds illegal, in their law saying:

"the existence of weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and unsanitary matter of whatever nature covering or partly covering the surface of any lots or parcels of real estate."

Think about that for a while.  You are outlawing plants that try to grow in or cover anything that humans have made.  That really sets up the fight, man vs. weed.  Since the only plants that can grow in many human-made environments are by definition weeds, this law declares war on a large branch on the Tree of Life. Is that what we want? Is that necessary?  And don't we have more important things to do than spraying pesticides in artificial environments were we live?

Richard Mabey continues:  

"All of these definitions view weeds entirely from a human perspective. They are plants that sabotage human plans. [...] But is it conceivable that they might also have a botanical, or at least an ecological, definition?"  

Maybe weeds follow us humans because we make places where these plants thrive?  Maybe we 'make' the weeds? I don't think there is a botanical definition that fits all weeds, but plants that lived in disturbed ecological habitats are certainly often weeds.  But even a definition as 'disturbed habitat' requires a human input, since soil disturbance due to a landslide, for example, would lead to a new succession in habitats with new pioneer plants, and not suddenly be seen as a weedy area.  I think the 'weed' definition is in the eye of the beholder, in us humans.

The article addresses further our view of weeds in our cultures, how they are symbolic of evil even in childrens' books like Harry Potter and science fiction.  How many of them have been or become useful plants for things like crops, medicine, or soil improvement. Weeds move around, and homogenizes an Earth we humans have changed and made less natural over the last centuries.

Richard Mabey really puts the weeds into a wider perspective in this article which is an excerpt from his new book (which I will have to get).  He ends his article:

"Weeds are, in this sense, paradoxical. Although they follow and are dependent on human activities, their cussedness and refusal to play by our rules makes them subversive—and the very essence of wildness."

So true! Every aspect of natural and human life you can find examples of in weeds, even politics. Read the article, it is excellent.