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

Re: [SHADEGARDENS] Nurseries

At 07:25 PM 1/24/98 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>*******************
Jaime
I will try to deal with some of your questions.  First the term "low light"
plants springs to mind as an alternative to "shade loving".  I was thinking
of a whole range of plants that tolerate shade in varying degrees. I usually
look at shade toleramt plants , in relation to ferns.  As I walk through a
wooded area and progress into deeper forest, I usually notice that the ferns
are the last species (of any size) to still maintain colonies on the forest
floor.  Now as we move into denser areas, the ferns start ot thin  and the
number of varieties is conciderably reduced.  We will at some point find
just a few mosses, and true low light plants like Tee Berry and then ---The
floor of the forest is mostly bare.  No native species are surviving long
enough to establish colonies.  You bring up a good question .  How do we
categorize these zones of light and the requirements of the plants that grow
in them.  One of the problems with trying to do this is the lack of an
adiquate scale.  If one exists , I am unaware of it. You mention woodland
flowers.  Most of these produce foliage and flowers before the trees are in
leaf (or full leaf) and complete the yearly cycle in that short time span.
Others like the Gentions, Colombine (Many Hostas fall into this category)
seldom grow under trees , but are found primarily in tall grasses.  Yes they
grow in a little less light and it is constantly filtered.  The thrust of my
earlier posting was simply that, if we express gardening and plant
situations accuratly, we are more apt to be able to make adjustments in the
garden for optimum plant growth. Now I think I just used up (or exceded) my
message allowance for today.
My Best
Ran Lydell
Eagle Bay Hosta Gardens
10749  Bennett Rd.
Dunkirk,  NY  14048
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index