Nineteen of the 24 gardens identified as native gardens were either from the wet
sclerophyll forest suburbs of Fern Tree and South Hobart or the dry sclerophyll
woodland/forest suburbs of Mount Nelson, Montrose and Lenah Valley. Three were
from heathy woodland suburbs, one from grassy woodland/forest, and one from the
coastal suburb of Cremorne. A range of reasons were provided by gardeners for
having native gardens. These reasons ranged from a romantic and parochial (as stated
by two gardeners) predilection for native species, to regarding native species as best
suited to the environmental conditions, and practising ecological responsibility.
Rainfall varied from 530 mm in Montrose to 1178 mm in Fern Tree.
Species richness was moderate. The highest number of species was 172 in the garden
of a committed ‘nativist’25 from Mount Nelson and the lowest 40 from a garden in
the suburb of Montrose. There was an equal split of gardens between those with 100
species and those below 100 species. The average number of species in this garden
type was 98 (Table 3.4). Six gardeners had native gardens by default rather than by
purpose. These gardeners purchased their homes with an already established native
garden. They decided to retain this style of garden for ease of maintenance. Five
gardeners found natives less expensive to buy and more hardy in the garden than
exotics. For another five, their gardens blended in with the bushland areas adjacent to
their homes and these they retained as maintaining the natural setting. Some
25
For debates on nativeness, ‘native purists’ and native species, see inter alia Head and Muir, 2004; Low, 2002; Morton & Smith, 1999; Peretti, 1998 and Plumwood, 2005.
embellished their gardens with ornamental exotics, in an effort to provide more colour to the garden.
A significant feature of this garden type was that the percentage frequencies of
individual species were smaller than in the other garden types. Whereas in the other
garden types the highest frequencies were between 85 and 95 percent, the highest
frequency of any species in this garden was only 71 percent. However the principal
feature of this type of garden was that a large proportion (about 40%) of the species
found in these gardens were Australian natives (Table 3.6).
Pultenaea juniperina was the only species totally faithful to this garden type (Table 3.3, Appendix 2), but was not very constant (21%). Three species were both
moderately faithful and constant to this type: Eucalyptus ovata (46%), Melaleuca armillaris (38%) and Eucalyptus tenuiramis (33%). A number of other species were moderately faithful, but again they were not constantly present in gardens. Some of
the more constant species included Acacia melonoxylon (71%), Callistemon pallidus
(67%), Dicksonia antarctica (63%), Leptospermum scoparium (63%) and the exotic and ubiquitous Rosa sp. (63%).
As most Australian natives tend to be evergreen it was not surprising that the most
common life forms in this garden type were evergreen. Evergreen shrubs (38%) and
evergreen trees (17%) were the two predominant life forms, showing a disparity with
the other six garden types where evergreen shrubs and herbaceous perennials were
the two dominant life forms. Herbaceous perennials also featured prominently
(14%). Seven species of eucalypt trees appeared in over 20 percent of these gardens:
Eucalyptus ovata, E, pulchella, E, tenuiramis, E. amygdalina, E. ficifolia, E. risdonii,
An average of 38 percent of species in these gardens was of Australian origin, and a
further 3.5 percent were of Tasmanian origin. Species from Asia constituted 13
percent. Exotics from other continents had less than 10 percent of their representative
species present in these gardens. Exotics with high frequency included Agapanthus praecox (58%), Cotoneaster spp. (58%), Fucshia spp. (50%), and Rhododendon spp. (50%).This garden type had 2.4 percent ‘rare and threatened’ Tasmanian species.
Nineteen of these 24 gardens had between one and eight such species. In total there
were 62 ‘rare and threatened’ species present in these 19 gardens. Two of the
gardeners had 16 between them.
Structurally most of these gardens were informal, rambling and bushy with dense
plantings of natives. Some were poorly maintained, particularly those in the suburb
of Montrose. Twelve gardeners in this type specifically identified themselves as
native lovers, and were intent on having gardens that reflected bushland settings.
Rather than having a demarcation zone between gardens proper and the bush (most
of these 12 gardens backed onto native bushland), their gardens were incorporated
into bushland. Peter typified this attitude: I do not wish to have a garden separate from the bush; but one that flows into and is part of the bush. I love the Australian bush, so why should my garden not be the Australian bush? Sometimes there was difficulty trying to distinguish between the garden and the bush. Fences made it easy
to identify species within the garden proper; if there was no fence, for the purposes
of the audit I requested the gardener to describe where boundary or edge of the
garden occurred (cf. Head and Muir, 2006). These 12 gardens did not have lawns;
they had either local leaf litter or mulch covering the soil, or the area was planted out
in local grasses (Austrodanthonia spp., Austrostipa spp., Themedatriandra, and
Garden layers ranged from low ground covers, procumbent grasses, medium shrubs,
small trees through to tall forest trees that in some of the gardens formed a dark
upper canopy. Often the sense of smell was dominated by the pungency of eucalypts.
Many of these gardens that were situated upon steep slopes had timber landscaping
features, in particular terraces. Some had retaining walls and paths and steps made
out of timber, or locally acquired dolerite rock. In larger blocks pathways meandered
in and around the assortment of shrubs and trees. Nine of these 24 gardens retained
their lawns, mainly as an area in which children could play. However, from
observation and discussion with gardeners little emphasis was placed on their
upkeep. Four of these gardens also incorporated vegetable patches and had the
occasional fruit tree in the backyard.