In a recent conversation on a serious plantnerd listserv, a question was asked re hügelkultur – ”
“I …have just run into this term lately. Has anyone undertaken this approach? We have clay soil, standing wet and plenty of downed branches and rotting logs.” “Is it worth a try?” asked this highly experienced gardener.
There were various ‘give it a try, why not’ answers, but one of the replies caught my attention, as the writer dismissed the method as temporary, weedy, and non-scientific, and then linked to a 2022 article by Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott of The Garden Professors fame for the Washington State University (WSU) Extension.
Dr. Chalker-Scott obviously did not approve due to the lack of peer-reviewed, scientific studies supporting it.
Perhaps the initial dismissal by my listserv colleague and the article caught my attention as both are in direct contrast to my own experience.
I have successfully cultivated a 100′ x 15′ hügelkultur for over seven years now. It acts as the backbone of my lower garden and its water retaining abilities saved my skin (and my tropicals) during the last few periods of drought. I do not have pumped water to these gardens and rely on water barrels and the sponge-effect of this structure.
Part of my hügelkultur bed on the right in March 2024
It has lost stature (perhaps 12-15″) off its original height of four feet in some places. But to be fair, so have I. It is only peer-reviewed when I have plant friends over, and then, only with a drink in their hands.
I’m all for scientific studies and peer-reviewed research — but what I’m not for is the dismissal of ideas based on the lack of science or peer-reviewed research. It takes funding, interested parties and/or departments, and sometimes political will, to get worthy hypotheses tested. A few research minions help too. Not all studies get peer-reviewed, and the peer-review process is not without serious drawbacks.
Can we go back to the question? What’s Hügelkultur?
No, it’s not a Millennial-rebrand — even if it’s got some traction on social media.
Dr. Chalker-Scott attributes the first use of the term to a German paper by gardeners Herrman Andrä and Hans Beba in 1962 (Hügelkultur—die Gartenbaumethode der Zukunft), and lays out the method.
From the publication [translated]:
Hügelkultur is a German term meaning hillock or mound cultivation. It is a method of building garden and landscape beds using woody material, garden debris, and soil arranged in long, tunnel-shaped mounds. Since these beds are three-dimensional, they create additional space for growing plants.
You can find drawings from the original text illustrating the ‘classic’ concept in the WSU Extension Publication.
Here’s a photo of a newly, partially-planted classic hügelkultur bed in the garden of Permaculture author, Michael Judd in 2018.
When you’ve got more detritus than dirt
In creating my hügelkultur, I did not carefully follow the rules espoused by Beba and Andrä and examined by Dr. Chalker-Scott. I simply used the abundance of organic material I had — layers of rotting logs, branches, twigs, weeds, leaves, soil, wood ash, poultry coop bedding (situating logs near the bottom), and topped them with approximately 6 inches of composted chips to keep down weeds while plants established.
Here’s an aerial view of the lower garden in June 2018. We moved to Oldmeadow in 2013 and began planting on this field in 2015. On the left is the winding serpentine hügelkultur bed which I started two years later, most of which is still under construction in this photo. The first part is planted and I am slowly finishing and claiming sections each season for planting (very roughly estimated below).
The other beds outlined on the right are (top) a mounded earth bed, and (bottom) a bed amended with some organic material and dressed with composted chips. As I grow water-hungry tropicals in all three places, it provides me with an excellent comparison for plants in the same general microclimate.
Hügelkultur in progress here. The mound is not the same height all the way along the 100 feet. I chose to start at ground level, progress to four feet, then slowly bring the height down to one foot, which was mostly soil at that point. The pre-fab pond was a mistake. The hügelkultur was not.
I ‘claimed’ 10 feet of the bed at a time each season, sometimes less, as it was all I could keep on top of without help. I outlined the rest of the bed, built layers and allowed scrambling squash vines to keep down weeds and provide free pumpkins in the autumn.
Bonus!!
Hügelkultur saved my kitchen garden from flooding during our great flood in 2021, as the serpentine bed acted as a barrier and channeled water away. Where the bed sits perpendicular to ground water flow in times of a higher water table, it seems to slow down the flow of that water by absorption – to the benefit of moisture-loving plants.
This hügelkultur will not last forever, but it has unarguably improved the odds of survival for the types of plants I grow in it. Andrä asserts that they should be rebuilt from scratch when they finally break down, but I don’t know that this is necessary and/or practical.
By the time they have decayed, they have done the job for which they were intended (recycling of bio-waste, creating viable beds, establishing root systems, retaining moisture, providing nutrients) with great benefit to plants — their partial loss is more an aesthetic one than anything else.
This temperate/tropical fusion mix benefits greatly from the sponge effect of hügelkultur during dry periods.
Though I don’t use them for vegetables (the pumpkins are long gone), I agree with Beba and Andrä that more square footage is created for growing; and I also agree with their assertion that “mound culture” provides more of a pleasing visual effect in a large garden than “flatland culture” — particularly for gardeners who never thought of their earth canvas as more than two dimensional.
Keith Wiley’s garden Wildside is a great example of this, though he physically moves earth rather than creating organic-based mounds. (I’m taking a group there in September – join me and you can see for yourself!)
Dips, curves and hills where once there was a flat, four-acre orchard at Wildside.
Sorry. Science says ‘NO.’
Like many growing methods, hügelkultur has up sides and down sides. For me, the former outweighs the latter. But the cold lens of ‘Science’ doesn’t always see nuance, and often we go with our instincts.
It is time-worn experience that matters for most gardeners, and if something seems to work well across cultures for many people and their plants beyond the mindlessness of “we’ve always done it that way,” scientists would be better employed figuring out why that might be, rather than seeking to tear it down and tell gardeners there’s no point in doing it.
I doubt there’s an actual scientific study that shows that pebble trays keep humidity levels higher for houseplants, but my bromeliads tell me it’s a good idea.
Lack of evidence isn’t evidence.
In the WSU Extension publication produced to slap the listserv questioner with an immediate cease-and-desist, it was not replicable peer-reviewed scientific studies that have negated the perceived benefits of hügelkultur .
In the absence of such data Dr. Chalker-Scott uses circumstantial (inferential) evidence. It feels as if the intention of this publication is not to look at this method through an unbiased lens, but with Dr. Chalker-Scott’s signature ‘myth busting’ lens very much in place.
Weeds & Sinkholes
For instance, Dr. Chalker-Scott states that they can be weedy, but didn’t counterpoint with the fact that most patches of temperate land (save desert ecosystems & poisoned soil) are quickly colonized by opportunistic flora – particularly disturbed soils. The perception of ‘weediness’ may be as a result of hügelkultur’s frequent association with permaculture enthusiasts, who in my experience, embrace the wild and wooly look. I don’t.
Let’s face it. Hugelkultur has no corner on the weedy market. This is a naturally banked bed in my garden once under control with mulch. Stiltgrass had other ideas.
She points out that they will sink with time and therefore aren’t advisable for small trees (just as the original authors wrote), but does not mention that soil can be added, and that allowing a hügelkultur to settle for a period of time — perhaps seasons or years with cover crops — can help with structural inconsistencies whilst building soils. A wider width (mine is up to 20 feet in places) also mitigates the justified concern a gardener might feel over planting a tree on a short and skinny mound. These are adaptations that bear mentioning.
I have several small trees (Hammelis spp., Prunus mume, Salix spp.) that went into my hügelkultur as tiny whips and have built a strong root system over time with very few additions of compost or mulch on my part. I have no doubt that air pockets are formed as larger material finally breaks down, but I also have moles, voles and now, apparently, rabbits – I am no stranger to air pockets.
Uhh…we’re not managing commercial cow manure
Later Dr. Chalker-Scott implies that residential hügelkultur nutrient run off might be a problem – as it is with commercial compost runoff, then cites a Cornell paper on managing industrial feedstock farm compost piles to add weight to her words. That’s more than a little naughty. Most people don’t read works cited, but are easily impressed by the presence of the citations themselves (Willburn et al. 2025).
Also naughty – the act of using a citation Laffoon (2016) to define the word hügelkultur as it pertains to permaculture, instead of mentioning that the actual point of this undergraduate thesis project (granted honors college graduate distinction from University of Western Kentucky) was not to define a term, but to test the hypothesis that hügelkultur might improve moisture-holding capacity of soils by conducting preliminary and formal studies.
Those statistically significant [positive] results also bear mentioning I would think. It may not be a peer-reviewed study, but it was advisor-reviewed, and it’s an interesting result. And it certainly supports my anecdotal experience – and that of others.
Mound away! Just do it the peer-reviewed way.
Dr. Chalker-Scott ends her analysis by suggesting that building soil mounds is a more sustainable, preferable, peer-reviewed, substitute. I do not understand how moving huge amounts of soil from one area to another, destroying soil structure, and requiring heavy machinery (not to mention riling up a dormant seed bank), is more sustainable than using the organic waste you already have to carefully create new structure, but answers in the comments below please.
I can’t wait to let this adjacent mounded bed know that it’s peer-reviewed and sanctioned.
I enjoy Dr. Chalker-Scott’s work and have two of her books, but I must question the need for this publication, which admits that there is no evidence hügelkultur is good or bad…but it’s probably bad soooo how ’bout we just don’t?
And watching it subsequently used to end a discussion, because — ‘Science!’, made me particularly salty. Intelligent people do not wish to be considered by their peers to be anti-science. It has become commonplace to use that term as a trump card; and faced with a reputation-altering binary choice in matters more nuanced, smart people stay silent or simply stop questioning.
Which is — profoundly and ironically — anti-science.
For me, the proof is in the pudding, and my personal hügelkultur pudding is moist, rich and highly calorific. I’d build another one tomorrow if I had more help around here to plant it, peer-reviewed or not. – MW
Go Marianne!! I react the same way to her work.
Very informative and enjoyable, I love your engaging saltiness! My eyes are open to the potential benefit of this sort of planting and you have made a great argument for it!
Marianne, you remind me of my all-time favorite professor, Dr Elsie Quarterman, the Queen of old field succession. She was a plant ecologist long before ecology was a household word. She taught and lectured at Vanderbilt into her 100’s. I was privileged to travel with her and Dr Katherine Kiever on a NSF grant for two summers. She wrote no books, but books should be written about her.
Thank you Fletcher – though I’m sure you are being overly generous. – MW
Wow, you convinced me! Thanks for pointing out the impediments to peer-reviewed research, which are especially prominent in nutrition, where it takes far too long and maybe locking the subjects away from food to get results about the effects of various foods on actual humans. It may seem like nutritionists are always changing their minds but the difficulties in getting research done are a big part of the problem.
And research monies for horticulture may be even harder to come by.
Thanks Susan – I cannot recommend the article discussing peer-review enough for those not in academia or scientific disciplines. I am not in either, but I have had to do look at enough studies and search in vain for others I though MUST be extant (and weren’t) to know that not everyone gets a fair shot at the PR process. – MW
Marianne, it never takes much to bring out your “saltiness” but in this case I am with you all the way. Linda and I go way back and for the most part her advice is spot on, but she has some very “impractical” ideas on how to properly do some horticultural tasks, particularly when it comes to planting trees and shrubs. In her mind every single shrub or tree should be bare rooted to encourage a successful root system, and I can assure you that that practice by home gardeners (and probably most professionals as well) will lead to failure 90% of the time. As a past president of the Washington State Nursery and Landscape Association we have butted heads with her over the years. Don’t get me wrong, she is a smart lady and has good intentions, but some of her advice is best ignored.
Steve, since you’re both in Washington, why don’t you both agree to meet in a local or big box garden center and select a few random trees and shrubs for purchase just as your consumers do and then inspect and root prune-root wash to see what kind of shape roots are in? Could it be that these “impractical” recommended transplant methods are the result of production nursery handling and practices.
You may be right Doug. Poor quality of stock is a thing at the big boxes, but unfortunately a majority of home gardeners get their shrubs and trees that way. Some of them are hopelessly girdled or bound and stunted. Does it make sense to give average consumers the bare rooting and pruning advice when they are going to boil that down to its simplest take (wash the roots off, no matter what they look like, put shrub in the ground) and then proceed with consumer benign neglect — stressing out an already stressed specimen? – MW
Marianne, it never takes much to bring out your “saltiness” but in this case I am with you all the way. Linda and I go way back and for the most part her advice is spot on, but she has some very “impractical” ideas on how to properly do some horticultural tasks, particularly when it comes to planting trees and shrubs. In her mind every single shrub or tree should be bare rooted to encourage a successful root system, and I can assure you that that practice by home gardeners (and probably most professionals as well) will lead to failure 90% of the time. As a past president of the Washington State Nursery and Landscape Association we have butted heads with her over the years. Don’t get me wrong, she is a smart lady and has good intentions, but some of her advice is best ignored.
“root bound” plants are an unfortunate side effect to container growing. Even the best growers and retailers find themselves with the reality of dealing with plants that should have been sold and planted or “shifted” to larger containers or simply disposed of. Many perennials (like ornamental grasses) will fill (or should I say overfill) their container by the time they are ready to be sold. Pampas grass is a classic example. Most root systems of container grown plants should be inspected at the time of planting and at the minimum “roughed up” to encourage new roots. Responsible retailers (independent garden centers, not box stores) often try to take the time to explain the planting process to their customers, whether they are planting a bareroot, field grown (balled and butlapped) or container grown plant. It’s not a perfect solution as it is difficult to catch every customer before they leave the store. Pair that challenge with the odd aversion that home owners have with “touching or pruning roots” and unfortunately the large majority of plants get plunged into the ground (often into not properly prepared soil but that is a subject for another rant) and somehow manage to survive, sometimes even thrive.
The industry over the years has wrestled with dealing with root boundness by exploring different container shapes, spraying certain chemicals on the insides of the pots to encourage branching of roots, and using air to force branching (think of fabric containers). All of these techniques work to some degree but ultimately it is the homeowner or professional that needs to take responsibility for inspecting the root system and correcting any problems. I wish it was as simple as just washing all the soil off the roots but that practice if employed on a hot August day for example would probably not end well. To be continued!
Sadly not just in big boxes these days Marianne. I recommend picking the lowest cost discounted small tree or shrub to root wash and prune to fully examine root structure inside and out in order to get a glimpse of future longterm issues. It’s no accident when we head to a nursery because we revere ancient oaks we’ve seem, which BTW were all bare rooted, only to be dismayed when looking under the hood of many modern nursery practices. Even modern bare rooted shrubs are often a tangled mess. The advent of current practices, transport and handling ushered in a new world in nursery production. Those compromised corrected roots are best managed, transplanted, and carefully cared for during a dormant season if you have one.
Steve, I’m so glad you mentioned your dim view of root washing. I’ve tried it a few times, with mixed results that weren’t obviously due to the washing or not.
I’m currently planning on taking the risk of planting a maple in Armillaria-infested soil. I’ve been concerned that root washing/pruning might introduce wounds that would make the new tree more susceptible to Armillaria infection. Now I feel better about not bothering to do that!
I do not read the Garden Professors anymore
They are smug, overbearing and impatient. They completely take away the fun and joy of Gardening
So what if someone likes to put epson salt on their tomatoes They treat it as heresy
Gardening is not a Science hobby it is a way to be creative and enjoy the outdoors
That was a real rant!
It is a shame that they come across this way, because the motivation behind the exercise is worthy. -MW
Although I admire Chalker-Scott’s meta-analysis, “Nonnative, Noninvasive Woody Species Can Enhance Urban Landscape Biodiversity,” I have observed that she does not use the word, “science” in an even-handed way.
She banned me from her Facebook page when I tried to respond to the enthusiastic promoters of glyphosate, dismissing scientific evidence of its toxicity as “unscientific.”
She made a presentation at a conference of International Society of Arboriculture, trashing biochar. There may be evidence that biochar is ineffective, but her tone was scolding and condescending, which undermined her message.
I also saw a video in which she trashed eucalyptus trees, without providing any evidence in support of the many myths about its invasiveness. I sent her evidence refuting these myths. She did not reply.
I am reminded of a recent question I asked of Claude.ai. I sent Claude a draft of an article for Conservation Sense and Nonsense and asked for three reviews of the article: one from the standpoint of the general public, one from an academic ecologist, and one from a native plant advocate. The review by an academic ecologist was a parody of the straight-jacket that limits the usefulness of academic science: e.g., “more evidence is needed, more money for research is needed,” etc.
Ecology–and by extension gardening–does not lend itself to the constraints of academic science, particularly in a rapidly changing environment. Every empirical study of ecological issues is specific to a particular place at a particular point in time. Therefore, every ecological study is of limited usefulness.
The idea that you would be banned (as long as you weren’t using profanity or ad hominem) for opening up the discussion to another point of view is a terrible thing and promotes echo chambers. While I understand that not every email can be answered in kind in a busy life, banning is a different thing entirely.
“Every empirical study of ecological issues is specific to a particular place at a particular point in time. Therefore, every ecological study is of limited usefulness.” That is a very interesting point – I’ll need to think about that. You’re not saying “of no usefulness” but of “limited” usefulness. Very different. Thanks for the thoughts Mary. -MW
Busting the myth-buster! Love it. So much in academia is smoke and mirrors. You should be able to ask questions without fear of being tagged an anti-science neanderthal.
Yes! We should ALWAYS be able to ask questions — that’s the point. The aim of scientific studies is to formulate those questions into testable hypotheses that can be disproved and can be replicated. There was no study done here, merely inferences. Dr. Chalker-Scott has the right to question, certainly, but perhaps those questions shouldn’t be put in a publication which gives it instant credibility, and which may dissuade people from trying out the method themselves. Or in this case, stopping others from doing so. – MW
Wow! You said it and said it very well. Gardening advice is much more valuable from actual gardeners with actual real life hand on experience.
Big ego scientific experts bore me.
I so agree with you! Simply said it all!
I enjoyed your article, witty as ever, and I appreciated the link to the iconoclastic Richard Smith’s disturbing assessment of the value (or lack of) of peer review in medical and scientific journals. One of the most famous and influential scientific articles was an April 1953 letter to the prestigious journal Nature – the description of DNA’s double helix by Watson and Crick. The editors of Nature knew senior colleagues of W and C and decided to publish within a few weeks. Amazing alacrity and of course outstanding judgment on their part. The debate about Rosalind Franklin – another matter.
Thank you Frances. Even if your idea/study could change the world as we know it, it may come down to who you know — which is so dependent on social skills, ladder climbing, game playing, and/or how others regard you or if they have biases against you. Or sometimes luck of the draw. Yes, poor Rosalind Franklin. – MW
Marianne – love this post! Shawn Maestretti of LA-based Studio Petrichor agrees with you. He also wrote a post and mentions Dr LC-S:
https://studio-petrichor.com/searching-for-failure/
His studio uses Hugelkultur berms in many of their designs: they were recently awarded a Design Futurist Award by Pacific Horticulture. I’ve been following and admiring their work for a while.
Hi Jude! Thank you for linking to that article. I share his sentiment, put so well: “We are continuously refining and adapting our hugel-building process in our own backyard. Every site is unique and so is every hugel, which means there are endless opportunities for learning.” Adaptation is important with this method – and my 20 foot wide in one spot hugel doesn’t fit the classic model. But it fits my garden. Great to hear from you. – MW
What did people do with garden waste before we had yard waste disposal service? They made compost and mounds topped with soil. It’s simple and natural, and it works. I’m convinced that it is an ancient practice.
It very likely is. Thank you Evelyn, and for your email relating your own experience. Please feel free to share that here in the comments too – very valuable. – MW
“I do not understand how moving huge amounts of soil from one area to another, destroying soil structure, and requiring heavy machinery (not to mention riling up a dormant seed bank), is more sustainable than using the organic waste”
I do agree with this and would add my own preoccupation: heaving soil around with heavy machinery can also destroy precious history. I will post my thoughts about this sometime. (Maybe I have and have forgotten)
Mostly though I am astonished that I have not heard about your brilliant cultivation method before! How come?? Pity about what prompted this description. We do need people like Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott and I have admired and used her work.
Agree with all you say Anne.
I admire the work of earthscapers like Keith Wiley — who create extraordinary microenvironments and sometimes microclimates for new palettes of plants, but you are also correct – going back to my archaeologist training in the UK, I wince to think of the artifacts possibly lost. Doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t be done though? I will wait to discuss this further on your upcoming post perhaps 😉 – MW
Trying to understand if this is a celebration or another repudiation of sciences and research. Home gardens and urban horticulture in particular needs more research and solid science based principles rather than less.
If you understand my words to be either celebratory in making their case, or condemnatory of scientific principles, I’m afraid you have missed my point Doug. I am not offering a repudiation of research. Instead — a repudiation of repudiation that is entirely supported by circumstantial evidence, not actual studies.
It may be the congratulatory tone of subsequent comments (of readers tired of being bullied by similar publications or entities blithely wielding the Science Card) that made you feel that I was happily and randomly picking on Dr. Chalker-Scott. I am not. As I said, I enjoy her writing and her push to educate gardeners in the scientific principles of what they are doing outside. I simply have specific concerns regarding this publication.
If there is not scientific research to support a growing method — particularly one that has strong cross-cultural support over time and conceivably makes sense on multiple levels (will “straw bale gardening” be around in 60 years?), I feel that the act of condemning it has to be well rooted in well-conducted, replicable studies; or at the very least, long-term personal experience offered anecdotally and acknowledged as such.
This publication unnecessarily flexes muscles it does not have to come up with a ‘better way’ it should not offer. In doing so, it dissuades people from trying something that might work for them. Thank you for the comment and I hope I’ve made my position clearer. – MW
Excellent Rant. I generally approve of Dr. Scott, but it boggles the mind that a person who advocates for the heavy-handed use of wood mulch would dismiss Hugelkultur, a practice that mimics natural processes and sequesters carbon.
Agreed. – MW
Oh, good connection.
Thanks for your detailed example! I’ve never tried hugelkultur before. I now understand its pros and cons and mechanisms so much more clearly after reading your post.
I agree with your thoughts about discussing what’s evidence-based and/or peer-reviewed. Here are more thoughts along those lines:
“If the story is that nobody has ever investigated snake oil, and you have no strong opinion on it, and for some reason that’s newsworthy, use the words “either way”: “No Evidence Either Way About Whether Snake Oil Works”.”
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag
Revisiting this post as I have now convinced my husband we should try this for our next garden project. Our existing soil has been tainted with juglone from the proximity of black walnut trees so we will not dig in as one site suggested but rather pile on from the ground up and likely import soil as necessary. I hope you will write about your visit to the soil mounds in September!
Best regards,
Tove