RE: What is "low maintenance?"

Paul,
You have a very good point. I installed a "low water"
garden for some clients, the obvious objective was to
have a lot of blooming plants comingling with natives
that would eventually require no water. What I should 
have stated along with the low water goal was that
the garden should require a minimum amount of upkeep as
well, but the owners are very fastidious and spend an
inordinant amount of time (I think) cleaning it up each year.
Also, in the Pacific Northwest our summers are very dry,
no rain (of any consequence) from Mid-june to sometimes
Halloween.  For instance last year we went 60 days without
precipitation (in a row).  The sad thing is that gardeners
here have been brainwashed into thinking that they
should plant water-loving plants, because it
rains here often, during the winter, but, of our 38" of
rain a year only 10" falls between April and October, our
growing season. The result is many drought stressed gardens,
sunburned rhododendrons, pitiful viburnum davidii and such.
Meanwhile, Cistus, Ceanothus,Lavender, and Rosmary look great.
Paul
Portland
zn8b 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
[o*@ucdavis.edu]On Behalf Of paul@nevco.k12.ca.us
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 10:52 AM
To: medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
Subject: What is "low maintenance?"


The fall edition of "Pacific Horticulture" contains an intriguing
article by a licensed landscape architect titled "The Low Maintenance
Garden: Fact or Fiction?" He and his client individually and mutually
thought they had come to an understanding about the maintenance needs
the 1-acre garden the author installed in Saratoga, California. This
garden was designed to be "low maintenance," with a lot of ornamental
grasses and dry "creekbed" areas, plus some perennial plant areas.
Unfortunately, after a few years, it was evident that the garden needed
more maintenance than expected, which caused the author/landscaper to
question and re-examine the meaning of "low maintenance."

I had to laugh when the article mentioned that the client from the start
hired outside labor to maintain his garden. This averaged 20-25 person
hours of labor per month, plus an extra 50 hours in the spring and fall.
Hiring out the maintenance work caused a lot of problems because the
laborers couldn't identify garden plants from weeds and didn't
understand the maintenance program. What was the owner thinking? Isn't
maintenance one of the joys of gardening?

I think this is an intriguing topic for the group to discuss. [Medit
gardeners typically have lower irrigation goals; this is one of the
author's 7 principles/guidelines that define "low maintenance."] Is
there such thing as a "low maintenance" garden? Is it "low maintenance"
achieved when only weeding, light annual pruning and minimal
supplemental irrigation are needed to keep the plant community going?
Does the size of the garden factor in? How much space can one gardener
"minimally" maintain? If you have to use herbicides, fungicides or a lot
of fertilizer, is it high maintenance?

Given the scarcity of water and rapid destruction of native vegetation
and soil in many parts of the world, I think there are some ethical
issues involved here. As gardeners, we take on certain responsibilities
to care for the land and its ecology. I supposed you could argue that,
prior to their conquest by outsiders, various indiginous people have
achieved master gardener status for their ability to live in harmony
(and maintain) a plant community for the benefit of both the plants and
humans.

I curious what others think.

Paul Harrar
Nevada City, Ca., USA
Sunset Zone 7
2,700 ft.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index