There were 39 production flower complex gardens scattered throughout Hobart,
except in the coastal suburb of Cremorne. These gardens occurred in areas that were
originally heathy woodland/forest, grassy woodland/forest, dry sclerophyll
woodland/forest and wet sclerophyll forest. Rainfall ranged between 530 mm in
Montrose (dry sclerophyll woodland/forest) to 1178 mm in Fern Tree (wet
sclerophyll forest). Most gardens tended to be in the drier zones with only five of
these gardens in wet sclerophyll suburbs.
This garden type presents a rich heterogeneous mixture of ornamental flowering
plants and production plants such as vegetables, fruit trees and herbs. Species
richness was not as high as in the complex flower gardens, but was the third highest
among the seven garden types. The number of species per garden ranged from 73 to
252. Three gardens had below 100 species. Six gardens had over 200 species. The
average number of species in these gardens was 159 (Table 3.4).
No species was totally faithful to this garden type (Table 3.3, Appendix 2). Four
edible species were marginally faithful to it although they were not very constant:
Ribes nigrum (41%), Brassica oleracea capitata (38%), Ocimum basilicum (36%), and Capsicum anuum ‘Grossum’ (33%). Thirteen species in this garden type were highly constant (>70%) to the group, but promiscuous (constant in other garden
types as well). The ubiquitous Rosa spp. (95%) was the most frequent taxon in this garden type, in which it had its highest percentage frequency out of all the garden
types. Other constant species included Rosmarinus officinalis (87%), Camellia japonica (85%), Lycopersicum esculentum, (79%), Narcissus cvs (79%), Aquilegia vulgaris (79%), Mentha piperata (77%), Erigeron karvinskianus (75%), Fuchsia
hybrida (75%), Petroselinum crispum (75%), Tropaeolum sp., (74%), Dicksonia antarctica (72%), and Agapanthus praecox (72%). These species best characterise this garden type: a mix of flowering ornamentals, vegetables and culinary herbs.
Evergreen shrubs (28%) and herbaceous perennials (22%) were the two main life
forms in this type (Table 3.5). Evergreen trees (9%), and deciduous shrubs (6%),
were also a common life form of this garden type. Apart from the vegetable garden it
had the highest percentage of vegetables (2% of species). The presence of herb
species (2%) in this garden type was higher than in all the other garden types (Table
3.5). Unfortunately fruit trees were not considered as a separate entity, but were
included as deciduous trees (5%). One of the reasons for the inclusion of fruit trees
into the class of deciduous trees was that over the period of the most of the audits
(autumn and winter) it was sometimes difficult to identify the species of fruit tree
merely by observing the bark. Not all gardeners were present during the audits to
enable me to rely upon them for identification.
As with the complex flower garden type, 80 percent of the taxa were exotics (Table
3.6). The two main continents of origin were Australia (19%), and Asia (18%). This
garden type again highlights a consistent feature of all the garden types: the relatively
high percentage of Australian natives compared to exotic species. Other species
originated from Eurasia (11%), South Africa (8%); the Mediterranean (8%), and
South America (8%). Three percent of species were of Tasmanian origin. However
‘rare’ Tasmanian species did not feature in this garden type.
The structure of the gardens in this type varied considerably. Some had that same
structural formality – the gardenesque – as previously described. Broad border
the garden were a prevalent feature. Other gardens resembled a huge mass planting
where whole sites either front or back24 were devoted to singular garden beds
consisting of ornamental flowering plants, herbs, vegetables, fruit trees and even
Australian natives – all growing indiscriminately amongst each other. These gardens
often resembled the typical ‘cottage garden’ although there appeared to be greater
complexity to their structure, due to the range of life forms. Some gardens lacked any
formal structuring of space, apart from perhaps the specific placement of some
vegetable patches or, in a few instances, Australian natives being planted around the
fences of backyards. Although placement of the fruit trees was random, four of the
gardeners had designated ‘orchard areas’. These gardeners had large blocks of land
and were able to afford a separate area specifically for growing fruit trees. In many
gardens berries were grown over wire trellises, up against fences or sometimes used
as boundaries between various areas of the garden. Garden layers ranged from
grasses to prostrates (ground hugging plants) and procumbents (plants to about knee
height), small and tall shrubs, and small trees. In the suburbs of Ferntree and
Montrose, there were canopies of tall trees. Mulch was used for weed suppression
and water retention, and to balance soil temperature; its decomposition enriching soil
fertility and maintaining soil structure. Terracing on steep sloped gardens held back
the soil of built-up garden beds and prevented the overflow of mulch. Many of these
gardens also had little nooks and crannies with small water features, ponds and
garden benches.
24
I did not segregate between the ‘front’ and ‘back’ garden spaces, as has been the habit of other ‘garden’ scholars (Head et al, 2004; Seddon, 1997; Timms, 2006). My approach in this study was to view the ‘front’ and ‘back’ gardens as constituting a whole – a whole that expressed gardeners’ engagement in the totality of their gardens.
Some of the gardens had large lawned areas, but only a few of the gardeners seemed
to maintain them in a deliberate way. Three gardeners said that they liked their lawns
green and well-presented. Generally there was an air of carelessness about the
upkeep of the lawns, with gardeners more inclined towards having a floral display
and producing food in the garden. Some of the gardens in Lenah Valley and
Montrose, where backyards stretched out into bushland, had ‘marsupial lawns’:
lawns that were maintained by browsing fauna which had been given free access to
gardens. These marsupial lawns were normally situated in the back part of the
garden. Gardeners in these areas felt it was important to welcome and allow native
fauna to come into the garden and browse. One of the reasons for this welcoming,
expressed by gardeners living in these areas, was that too often suburbia becomes an
exclusion zone for native animals. These gardeners believed particular efforts should
be made in peri-urban areas to let fauna into gardens. To offset the possibility of
damage to vegetables by fauna, and particularly by possums, some gardeners
surrounded vegetable patches with either floppy fences or cyclone wire fences for