This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: [SHADEGARDENS] Nurseries

Ransom Lydell <ranbl@NETSYNC.NET> wrote:
> Alex was right
> There are no "shade lovers"  I beg those of you who are tempted to apply
> terms such as "need", "want", "love" and "happy" to plants, to remember that
> plants CAN NOT have any of these "needs or feelings"! The temptation to
> apply human feelings to plants, sends the wrong message.  In thinking about
> shade condtions that produce the "best results" in certain plants, I think
> we should  remember ---plants do not respond  (for growth)to verious amounts
> of "lack of light" but rather to the optimum the amount of light required
> for the best growth and flower and seed production.  So a given plant should
> never be categorized by shade requirements, but rather by light requiremants!

All right.  Since you think describing optimal plant growing
environments the way most of us do casually is anthropomorphic
and you further insist we should not categorize plants by
the amount of shade that will provide optimal growth, this is
clearly more than a semantic issue to you.  Fine.  Would you be
kind enough to describe for us the categories or *useful*
categories of light requirements, please?

For the sake of argument, let's not use hostas.  Let's talk
about native wildflower species.  Arisaemas are a nice example.
How would you describe for those of us who foolishly think we
understand what part-shade woodland conditions are, what the
proper category of light requirements would be?

To make it even clearer, let's please do the same for a native
Gentian.  To me, they need some shade but far less than full
shade or even woodland shade.  What would be the light category
for them?

Catalogs and books that describe plants as "wanting" part-shade
or full shade are speaking to us; we the people that purchase
and grow the plants.  As the guideline of zones is just that, a
guideline, so have I always considered the light requirements.
If we understand what is meant by these terms, what is the point
of the distinction?

Please note, I don't think of these as shade requirements, but
it is far more common parlance to use the description of "full
shade" rather than "very little light".  It is incumbent upon us
to know our own micro climates in order to have plants that
thrive. That means understanding *light requirements*, wind,
cold, heat, humidity, drainage, water and all the rest of the
environmental elements that determine the health and survival of
our plants.

It also means that those of us who are experienced can use these
optimal growing conditions to our advantage.  I do it
frequently.  I am fond of many of the more "aggressive" plants
around, particularly those who do best in shade (or less than
full sunlight, if you will).  I will provide less than optimal
conditions (more sun & often less moisture) to contain their
rampant growth.  It works.  Sometimes.

Good descriptions will state "part shade" but may also stress
"no late day sun".  Fine.  Whether these are light requirements
or shade requirements, I understand what that means to me and
tells me where on my property and I will have more success and
where I will likely kill it.

Given all of this, I'm simply uncertain as to the point of
stressing this as a critical distinction.  Otherwise, why would
we call them shade gardens?  Why wouldn't we call them Some
Light gardens or something equally silly?

Jaime
NW NJ, zone 6/5
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index