Friday, 25 June 2021

What’s it all about?

 ‘Wildlife gardening’ (or ‘gardening for wildlife’) isn’t really all that different from any other type of gardening. In its broadest sense, gardening is about growing the plants you want, in the places you want them. 

The biggest difference, therefore, is in the choice of plants and how they are distributed. For some people, looking ‘pretty’ is the primary purpose, whereas for the wildlife gardener is the first question is ‘does this plant support wildlife’. Fortunately, there are a lot of native, wildlife-supporting, plants that also look great. The display of yellow loosestrife on the right is a good example of this. 


Spot the mouse

Recently there’s been a campaign in the UK to encourage people to leave some or all of their lawns to its own devices, allowing grasses and other plants to grow. This is something I’ve done for several years and always get an attractive display of grass heads, daisies, clover and buttercups. 

Plus, the dog likes rolling in long grass. 

Why bother? 

Despite what many people believe, wildlife gardening isn’t an easy option that allows you to sit back and put your feet up while nature does the work. The native plants favoured by wildlife gardeners tend to be well-adapted to the UK climate and soil and will grow vigorously, so they need to be managed. 

Given that there’s a bit of work involved, is it worth the effort. For me,  it certainly is because of the benefits it brings – like a wider variety of birds, butterflies, small mammals and many other beasties.

When I walk around the garden and see a frog or field mouse darting for cover, or hear hedgehogs rustling in the bushes at night, I know they’re thriving because of the environment I’ve made for them.

Friday, 11 July 2014

Grasping the nettle

Stinging nettles are often unwelcome in gardens but I always make sure to reserve an area for them, because of the many species of wildlife they support. They can also be quite attractive – see the picture below (and note the ‘cuckoo spit’ produced by froghopper beetle nymphs).

Saturday, 5 July 2014

A weed by any other name


The word ‘weed’ is one that I try to avoid using generally, though in the case of this post it would be tricky to discuss the word without mentioning it.

There are two main reasons I try to avoid it when talking about plants generally.

Friday, 4 July 2014

Vindication

When you do something that flies in the face of received wisdom, or perceived ‘normality’, it’s really good to get some vindication that what you’re doing makes sense. One of the great things about gardening for wildlife is that there is plenty of vindication.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Here be dragons

Seeing the first dragonfly of the summer – as happened this morning - is a bit like hearing the first cuckoo of spring – or, at least, it is for me. Somehow it marks the beginning of something, or confirms that we are definitely in summer. This year there could have been no doubt of that but in some of the more miserable years a dragonfly whizzing past has been welcome confirmation.

Saturday, 28 June 2014

Hybrids and aliens

In a previous blog I talked about native plants, as opposed to ‘hybrids and aliens’. I want to use this post to elaborate a bit further on that.

Many of the ‘garden plants’ that have become popular in recent years have been specially bred to produce particular characteristics, such as bigger flowers or different coloured leaves. This is designed to make them more attractive to gardeners, who then spend a fortune on them in garden centres and nurseries.

Thursday, 26 June 2014

Why native plants?

At the heart of my approach to wildlife gardening is encouraging native plants, as opposed to the hybrids and imported (alien) species that are so often found in garden centres. Many of the plants that I actively encourage would be classified as weeds by some other gardeners, yet given the opportunity to flourish, native plants can be just as attractive as over-priced commercially produced hybrids. I think the sea of pink flowers produced by Herb Robert, as shown below, proves my point.