Update, Spring 2011 All is well in the pieris patch this year! Last year I deadheaded leftover blooms from 2009 and I gave all the pierises plentiful compost. I may also have added some Plantone, I'm not sure. I got a little giddy with Plantone. I moved a few of the dwarf pierises to give them some more room and I pruned reverting branches from two of the three Little Heaths. P. Mountain Fire on April 9, 2011 The Cavatine and maybe a Prelude also bloomed but I don't have a good photo. Little Heath is becoming a real joy. Of the three, I left one alone, moved a second one with light pruning of reversions, and heavily pruned a third. The one I left alone bloomed heavily. The second one that was moved also bloomed heavily, just later, and the one I heavily pruned didn't bloom at all. This is the Little Heath I left alone, on May 4, 2011 with new red foliage appearing with blossoms remaining. There's a piece of Cavatine (I think) showing on the left. The red or pink foliage was like a second bloom this spring. This is some of the pierises on May 18, 2011 with a Euonymus Silver King and a big old Ilex verticillata as backdrop. I think that's Cavatine and maybe a Prelude on the lower right still blooming. The overall bloom time was really extended well over a month. There was much more snow cover than usual last winter (usually we get minimal cover) so that may have helped. In any case, the problem seems to have been transient, or maybe I now know a better way of maintaining the plants Claire.

it all depends on the vagaries of mother nature.. and how cruel she was to a given plant ... drought or problems in late summer/early fall of the year prior .. impact the development of the buds in fall and then they have to live through winter... which can be extreme in some years ... ALL long lived plants.. have to deal with the normal cycles of nature .... have you ever seen a large cross cut of a log?? .. some growth rings are wide.. showing a great growing season.. and others are small.. indicating bad growth years ... in bad years.. one would expect reduction of flowering the following year ... ken

As per A2zmom, I was never a daylily lover. Perhaps ditch lilies, with their invasiveness, was part of the problem and I agree that 'Stella d'Or' can get more than a bit much. Daylilies also seemed a bit easy! Some fancy double-flowered daylily cultivars, however, broke the ice for me. I also like the lengthy bloom time of my 'Mint Condition' (below - to me a very nice yellow). Daylilies are generally far longer lived in our mixed perennial beds than medium and tall irises; hence, in our growing conditions, I'd say they're a far more intelligent buy for us). Below (yesterday) we do water both the grass and the perennials (as required), but the latter are far more inclined to uphold their side of the bargain.

So you dismissed all core aeration studies that are for crop fields as irrelevant, then came along with your own crop field study that's relevant , because you say so. Show me a study on core aeration for crop fields. Tilling is not core aerating. I didn't present that OSU article for a discussion about aeration. In fact the one weakness is that it isn't specifically geared toward home lawns, so we have to make some assumptions. I'm the one saying it is hard to find any real scientific studies for a "home lawn." My interest in this article is more in the soil biology that explains why a biologically healthy soil probably doesn't require aeration. I guess this seems hypocritical to some people. Not sure why. As to your next point, yes, I say the soil biology presented in this article is completely applicable to a home lawn. Explain why it isn't. 1. In an average well maintained organic lawn, with no deficiencies, what is the average percentage of organic matter? When you say "organic" lawn I assume you mean any lawn, even yours, that has enough organic matter mulched in each year to maintain a healthy level of organics. I'm not an expert on what the exact organic level should be, but the number depends on the type of soil. Sandy soils will be hard pressed to get very high levels, while heavier soils can exhibit much higher numbers. I think morpheus' lawn is around 15%. Morpheus says 3 or 4% is borderline low, 5 or 6% is good and anything near 8% is excellent. 2. Is this level of organic matter sufficient to get in between all soil particles and prevent all soil particles from compacting and if so, what do you base that assertion on? I understand what you are getting at with these two questions, but again, you'vegotten something into your head that has no basis. You seem to think 100% of the particles must be linked to an organic particle in order for the soil not to need aeration. Nobody but you is asserting that. The article clearly shows the relationship between roots, bacteria, fungi, bugs and worms and all the other things that form macroaggregates. If you have lots of these macroaggregates around the root level, which is what naturally regulates oxygen, then you probably don't need mechanical aeration. Listen, the way science works is that you have to go on a hypothesis that may or may not be proven out over time. Eventually it becomes an accepted "law" or fact if it holds up. I've come to believe that this and other online forums are like laboratories where everybody contributes their experiences with their own lawn. Lawn companies and even universities have biases. Ask dchall about all this. He has been here the whole time and has seen a lot of what works and what doesn't. My position is that I am not going to do something to my lawn unless I have evidence that it does good. Otherwise you can do more harm than good. From the evidence I've seen in this forum, from doing other online research, and just observing problems different people come into this forum with, my conclusion is that there is no need to aerate if you are doing everything else properly. The nice lady, Lisa, started this discussion by saying she had summer fungus caused by over fertilizing ("live and learn"). She cut back on the fertilizer and started aerating. I think she is attributing the lack of fungus to the reduced fertilizer and the aerating. My reaction would be to get a Logan labs test and see if there are any soil problems, and then decide whether aerating is really doing anything. Again, if she has good soil biology and plenty of us never aerate, then why should she have to? I think too many people see lawn companies aerating and just assume it is a good thing to do. The article I presented from OSU suggests the increased oxygen can actually do harm. Scott's recommends you weed and feed in April. Do you think that is a good idea, too?