Low Mainitenance

Diane makes an interesting statement, part of which I've never
understood; she says...

"Low maintenance is a principal that can be taken into consideration for
every location and type of garden, including moist areas, where you
would provide drainage.

To me, low maintenance is planting properly in the first place:

1) The right plant in the right place
2) A $5 plant in a $10 hole

Diane Pertson"


	I firmly believe in the first part.  In fact, it's one of my gardening
soap boxes, my creeds, my horticultural philosophies.  If, indeed, the
"right" plant has been chosen in the first place, maintenance should be
zero.  Of course "right" is relative.  Yes?

	The second part makes it all kind of an oxymorn.  Maybe?  If a gardener
has chosen the "right" plant, it should be tolerant of the soil
conditions, the pH, the drainage, the class, the moisture retention, et
al.  If it is not so adaptable -- if it needs a "$10 hole" -- is it the
"wrong" plant?

	I'm sure few of us are blessed with an absolutely perfect combination
of soil, climate, and other environmental conditions that allows us to
grow the long list of plants we would truly like to.  But that low (or
even zero) maintenance level is achieved by sticking to what are truly
the "right" plants.  If one thinks that a $10 hole is the answer, one
takes another step up the scale from "low maintenance".

	I have some real "crappy" (a technical term) soil in my yard.  Yet I've
put together a collection of Med plants that I'm quite proud of.  No $10
holes.  Not one.

	Semantics?  I don't know.  Simply my opinion; don't beat me up.

Joe Seals
On river sand that once was under a construction zone in Santa Maria, CA
garden@utech.net
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index