Keep or Remove Leaves

[Big Lou]

Before my latest illness downturn I was able to keep up with the leaves from two cypress and one red bud trees falling into our pond got out about 55%). Now I have to decide to whether to remove them from the bottom or let them stay. Remember ours is a nature pond with zero fish.

Thanks for your help.

 

[callingcolleen1]

If you can remove some with a net then do so. Not sure what impact those tree droppings will have on your pond. I have very large trees that drop leaves and such from cottonwood, elder and berch trees. I don't obsess with removing all the leaf litter, but I do try to prevent them from all falling in and I do net out the excess, but I still have some leaves in the pond and it runs just fine, with the fish.

 

[j.w]

I'm just guessing but if no fish then I don't see why you can't leave them. If you have too many tho it could just get really stinky and be polluted and maybe nothing will want to visit it.

 

[adavisus]

A few leaves make good cover to shelter hibernating critters, too many would smother and in the long term pollute a pond. Picking an excess bucket of litter out is a pleasant chore on a mild day

 

[Waterbug]

In a wildlife pond or a nature pond the idea is to let nature do its thing. So the leaves would be left. Whether that ends up creating a pond you like or want is totally subjective to your tastes and desires. And also completely unpredictable what nature will provide. In my experience you get something that is always changing.

One person could consider it a sewer pit and another consider the same pond beautiful and full of life. The only opinion that should matter is yours.

 

[adavisus]

Something that does not change, is a predictable hazard that can spoil a pond.

Leaves can form a blanket across submerged foliage and blot out light to aquatic plants causing them to die from lack of photosynthesis and pollute a pond in winter.

A prolonged blanket of snow over ice can do the same thing. Both are scenarios to be avoided

 

[Waterbug]

And that happens in "natural" ponds all the time. But the concept that this is a "hazard" or that the pond becomes "polluted" is a completely subjective opinion. There is a whole network of life that would live on the dead plants and leaves. In the spring and summer plants sprout back up thru the muck and new plants can become established in the new layer of muck which allows for lush green growth.

Leaves in a pond compost just as they would in a compost pile. I've met lots of people who know nothing about gardening that look at a compost pile and call it a polluted pile of crap, a hazard. That's their opinion and they're welcome to it. However that opinion doesn't actually make it true. It's just an opinion.

Go to any mountain beaver pond or most lakes or any farm pond and walk in. You will sink almost to your knees in muck...decomposing plant matter. And many city folks would certainly consider those bodies of water polluted hazards that should be avoided at all costs. What they consider to be a healthy pond is a chlorinated concrete lined body of water with the bottom painted blue because as everyone knows clean water looks blue. Some people don't even think swimming pools aren't clean enough and would call them polluted.

7+ billion people, 7+ billion opinions, all who think their opinion is some how fact or should be the standard by which all things are judged. While it might be fun to survey the entire planet for everyone's opinion who has the time? And what would be the point. If 7 billion people think the earth is flat it doesn't actually change the shape of the earth.

 

[Big Lou]

Ran out of "Likes" Waterbug. Thanks for your post.

 

[callingcolleen1]

Very well done Water Bug!

 

[j.w]

Guess it's just up to Big Lou whether he wants his pond full up w/ leaves. I don't know how deep your pond is Lou but if it's fairly shallow seems like at some point it would become just muck and full of leaves and not much water. It actually could be just a big hole full of compost couldn't it? If it's deep enough then the leaves would have time to dissolve and particles would float out over the edge from rainwater. I'm just working all this out in my head right now and not saying this is fact. But isn't it true that a small puddle in the woods when fills up w/ leaves etc. will just eventually be a pile of muck? How deep does a wildlife pond have to be so that one could still enjoy seeing some water and not just muck? I think Lou still wants it to look nice too and not just see composting leaves.

 

[Philphine]

i try to get as much out as i can, but there's always a bit. i don't cover the pond with a net so i pretty much have to. seemed like with the net too much got through anyway, and the net just made it harder to get to them. so the morning (and sometimes afternoon in the fall and spring and/or after storms) routine, is 5-15 minutes netting out leaves.

i just have comets, but they seem ok, so i guess i'm getting enough out.

 

[adavisus]

In a pond overloaded, choked by organic debris, aneirobic reactions are going to cause a culture of some of the nastiest bacteria on the planet to build up.

A 'nature' pond will become a public health hazard.

Don't be too surprised if critters visiting for a drink sicken.

Little in the way of aquatic diversity other than rat tailed maggots evolved to survive in such polluted, oxygen poor conditions

 

[Waterbug]

It is certainly true that wetlands, swamps, etc., do contain life that is hazardous to humans. That's kind of the definition of life, most life feeds on other life. If that's the definition of a public health hazard then all backyard ponds would certainly fall into that category.

And it's been a very popular opinion in the past that all wetlands were hazards and should be drained and paved over with Starbucks.Humans have always tried to reduce biodiversity. But in recent history there has been a growing number of people who see some value in wetlands and all the life they support, and not just the pretty birds.

Wetlands, swamps, ponds, etc., are ecosystems with high levels of biodiversity. Yes, to many people most of those lifeforms are just "rat tail maggots", but other people see their value.

 

[j.w]

I believe they do have their value and don't think any natural wetlands should be paved over to put up a parking lot. But I don't think most people want to build a swamp in their back yard to enjoy and see it being filled w/ compost and mosquito's. There is a happy medium for us to enjoy our own personal ponds whether for wildlife or pet fish. We want something nice to look at not a hole full of sludge. Who want's to sit out by a pond that stinks? I don't anyways and to those who do...............to each's own!

 

[adavisus]

Natural wetlands are not ornamental ponds. There's typically some current, seepage, a flush of rain, wells, springs keeping some oxygenation going and bio diversity is able to find some permanent roost, enough if it has to hop, skip or fly from one freshwater roost to another

Many a natural wetland is considered a wonder because over time it is a reliable habitat which has evolved or acquired a bio diversity rich in goodies unspoiled by pollution

An ornamental pond, a single, still pond is different, it is vulnerable to pollution, its ability to be a diverse habitat easily gone

Keeping an ornamental or 'natural' pond is about intervening, to make sure it stays in viable condition