Participants that designed for personal use on a single site said they narrowed in their interested in plants that could grow in their specific micro-climate, which may have slightly different ranges of conditions than the regionally specified hardiness or heat zones. Take for example the Santa Ana Winds – warm, dry inland desert winds that travel to the Southern California coast. A Southern California resident that lives in a place that is protected from the Santa Ana Winds will have lower temperatures during the wind events than most of the rest of the region. The unusual microclimate of this protected place will accommodate plants that have a lower heat tolerance and higher humidity needs than a location several miles away and exposed to the warm, dry desert winds. As an example of the importance of climate information, fourteen of the community-authored plant lists and information sheets emphasized climate-appropriate plants. They used terms such as “for Live Oak” to indicate a regional climate appropriateness and terms like “temperate regions” to indicate a broader climate appropriateness.
Four of the plant lists specified an environmental niche in addition to the climate, such as “Aquaphilic plant list specifically for Live Oak.” Two of the plant lists contained plants grown at specific demonstration sites to indicate which plants were appropriate in the microclimates of those particular properties. The community-referenced texts likewise emphasized climate-appropriate plants. Many of the community-referenced texts focused on large regions such as such as the North American temperate climate zones , global climate regions , growing bags or dryland areas . However, within the books, the authors specify that the information they provide is more useful to some climate regions than others. For example, Lancaster provides plant lists for the Tucson area, and Jacke and Toensmeier specify that their information is most useful for deciduous forests between USDA plant hardiness zones 4 though 7 with some overlap into zones 3 and 8. Bornstein, Fross, and O’Brien narrowed their focus to a smaller climate region .Participants also wanted the database to include plants that provide ecosystem services that appeal directly to humans. Typically, the “key species,” or focal point, of sustainable polycultures are useful to humans. Participants designate a primary goal for the agroecosystem and choose key species that achieve the goal. For example, if the primary goal of the agroecosystem is to produce half of the family’s produce, then the key species need to be high-yielding and food-producing.
Participants explicitly valued edible,medicinal, sensually pleasing, and dye-producing key species. Several participants emphasized high-yielding key species for the calories and nutrients they provide. As an example, the exemplar agroecosystems in section 1.1.1 provided a number of products and services. For example, the key species in the Suburban Central Florida exemplar, including persimmons and avocados, provided food products. The bamboo and sugar cane supporting species provided natural fencing that served as privacy barriers. The bamboo also provided materials for a bench. The passion flowers were aesthetically pleasing in addition to medicinal. The gopher apple attracted interesting wildlife. Demonstrating the importance of this criteria, seventeen plant lists contained plants that provided products or services to humans. Ten community-authored plant lists focused entirely on edible plants, and six additional lists featured edible plants in addition to non-edible plants. One plant list exclusively featured plants that had medicinal properties, and four others provided information about medicinal plants in addition to other information. Two plant lists provided information about plants that could be used as dyes or fragrances.
All of the community-referenced texts specified the plants’ or agroecosystems’ products and services to humans. Perennial Vegetables included edible plants only. The Edible Forest Gardens series series included edible plants and featured non-edibles primarily for their ability to support edibles either directly or indirectly. This series provided a wide range of information on the products and service to human if plants, including which plants were edible and brief descriptions about how they are processed to become edible, the taste of the edible components of the plants, the historic and modern cultural importance of the plants, and their ability to provide shade, privacy, and protection from wind. Other texts also included information about these products but subordinated them to other considerations. For example, Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Create an Oasis with Greywater specifications of plant’s products and services to humans were secondary to the ecosystem services it provided, specifically in terms of capturing and filtering water. California Native Plants for the Garden specify provisions for native human populations and modern cultural services, such as privacy barriers and aesthetic appeal.Participants wanted to include plants that provide ecosystem services that support the local ecology. In addition to services for humans, participants also design agroecosystems to provide ecosystem services that support the local ecology such as stabilizing the soil, bio-remediation, and regulating the air quality. For example, the exemplar agroecosystems in section 1.1.1 provided a number of local ecosystem services. In the Suburban Central Florida exemplar, the fruiting trees provided both habitat and food for birds. The goldenrod, gaillardia, coreopsis, milkweed, and sunflower attracted pollinators like bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds by providing food and habitat. Trees and large grasses have intricate root structures that support soil stabilization and oxygen flow. In the Sonoran Desertexemplar, pollinators helped the mesquite tree produce seed pods that wildlife consumed, then left manure behind to fertilize the sustainable polyculture. The desert hackberry, greythorn, and wolfberry provided habitat and food for birds. The mesquite provides shelter to a young saguaro cactus from excessive sun and cold. Participants call plants that provide regulating and supporting ecosystem services “support species” because, in addition to offering general ecosystem support, they directly and indirectly help the key species thrive . Support species are typically native and non-native perennial plants that produce the behaviors that an agroecosystem aims to mimic from the ecosystem. Support species attract pollinating and predatory animals and insects, accumulate nutrients, regulates the climate, and produces top-soil. Without support species’ ecosystem services, key species would need external input such as fertilization, pollination support, and pest management. For example, without nitrogen-fixing plants in the sustainable polyculture, a human would need to amend the soil with nitrogen. Seven plant lists contained plants that provided ecosystem services that support the local ecology. Specifically, five lists specified plants that aided in nutrient cycling and soil formation. Four plant lists specified biological control and pollination support by way of providing habitat and provisions for animals and insects that provide those services. Most of the community-referenced texts feature some plants that provide regulating and supporting ecosystem services. Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Create an Oasis with Greywater emphasized plants that contributed to water regulation such as flood regulation and water purification. California Native Plants for the Garden emphasized provisions and habitat for animal and insect species, nursery grow bag including species that provide pollination support and biological control, as well as plants that provide disturbance regulation, such as hillside erosion control. The Edible Forest Garden series specified a wide range of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, including the production of an allelopathic chemical that keeps some species from growing around it, the “dynamic accumulation” of micro and macro nutrients such as calcium, phosphorous, nitrogen, and potassium, the production of feed for livestock, and formation of habitat for wildlife.
Participants wanted to include low-maintenance plants. Low-maintenance perennials become established in their environment and need only basic care while continuing to offer a yield or ecosystem service. There are some general principles of what kinds of plants are low- or high-maintenance, though there are exceptions. Although some perennials, like strawberries, require frequent care, perennials are generally lower maintenance than annuals because annuals often require seasonal soil preparation and planting, as well as more intensive and frequent fertilization, irrigation, and pest management. However, some annuals , such as self-seeding annual wildflowers, require less maintenance than other annuals. Self-seeding annuals grow from seeds left behind from the previous year’s crop,and are thus already in environments that are well suited for them. Invasive species are also sometimes considered low maintenance because they easily grow without human support. However, they can grow so well that they out-compete desired species and become high maintenance as one now has to remove them. Finally, native plants are generally considered low-maintenance because they are well-suited to grow in the local climate. The exemplar agroecosystems feature plants that can thrive with no additional water or fertilizer inputs from outside what is naturally occurring . For example, the Sonoran annual flowers sprout each spring after the winter rains and do not require supplemental watering. The non-native fruit trees in the Suburban Central Florida exemplar, however, produce better fruit with pruning, extra water during dry seasons, and supplemental seasonal fertilization, though they will likely survive and produce some fruit at a lower level of maintenance. Seven lists had exclusively perennial plants, most of which were fruiting or had medicinal value. Six plant lists had annuals , biennials , and perennials , but most of the annuals and biennials included on these lists easily self-seed and were herbs or flowering plants that were native or attracted pollinators. Three plant lists had exclusively annual and biennial plants – mostly plants you find in a vegetable garden – because community members maintained annual gardens in parallel to their sustainable polycultures so that they had a rapid production of food while their sustainable polyculture matures. Perennial plants may not produce enough food or any food at all while they are maturing, which can take many years depending on the species. Four lists emphasized which plants were native. The community-referenced texts also demonstrate how a plant can require different levels of maintenance depending on context. For example, a banana tree in the region Manzanita is located would typically be high-maintenance because it requires significantly more water than the local climate could provide. However, if a house has greywater output on the south side of the building, bananas could be the ideal species to use up the excess water that doesn’t naturally occur there . California Native Plants for the Garden demonstrate the low-maintenance characteristic of native plants in their region of origin, for example, specifying that a plant only needs additional water during its first two summers and during long-sustained droughts. These categories of inclusion properties dictate which plants are featured in the SAGE Plant Database for sustainable polyculture design for each community or climate region. Each of these inclusion properties were represented in both the community authored and community-referenced artifacts, demonstrating their relevance in both theory and practice. The next section details which plant attributes are used in sustainable polyculture design and therefore need to be defined in the plant database.Mollison and other permaculture leaders and authors define these categories of attributes, or ones similar to them, during the functional analysis stage of sustainable polyculture design . As Weiseman, Halsey, and Ruddock describes, “plant form is diverse to the point of infinity” and “these forms are based upon the species’ adaptation to its surroundings.” However, it is impossible and unnecessary to capture the entirety of these expansive attributes – participants and permaculture leaders instead consider a finite subset of properties and values that are relevant to their specific design context. This section introduces the range of intrinsic characteristics, growing conditions, and products and services considered during sustainable polyculture design by participants and the resources they consulted.Participants prioritized selection and arrangement of plants in sustainable polycultures based on their ecosystem service, which participants referred to as products and services. In the previous section, I demonstrated why participants chose plants to be included in the database based on their ability to provide products and services to human and other ecosystem constituents . In the context of this section, products and services are data points that need to be defined per plant in the SAGE Plant Database so that the user can make decisions on which plants to include in their sustainable polyculture. Weiseman, Halsey, and Ruddock argue that ecosystem services are the plant traits that “maintain ecosystem resiliency” and “[if] ecological functions are not in balance, then the overall survival of the guild may be in jeopardy” . Participants typically chose key species for their products, including high-yield and high-calorie foods, medicine, timber, and dye.