Talk:Xeriscaping

message: Hi everyone I've been looking into expanding this article and revising some of the Denver Water principles. I wanted to add a new section turf grass areas because from what I've been reading it seems to be one of the more controversial aspects of xeriscaping. I also wanted to include more images to illustrate the Denver Water principles as well as find better sources for the advantages and disadvantages section. If you want to look at what I'm working on please visit my sandbox and let me know what you think. It is still a work in progress but I would like to finish it in the next couple of weeks. User.plantaetitanum  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantaetitanum (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: NPOV? seems to be advertising the idea, rather than just describing it Vroman 05:19 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I agree with you. The initial author also admitted it. Could you add another view point perhaps ? User:anthere
::Pleased to see Disadvantages section, but looks lawn-biased - as if lawns are the only alternative. The Advantages section doesn't point out that xeriscaped yards aren't so green (which would be true, but arbitrarily biased in favor of non-green yards). Yes, cactus bites back, but so do rosebushes or raspberry patches. And if a xeriscaped yard is less useful for sports, less useful than what, vacant lots or streets? It's not all cactus patch. alynnwells   — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: (Comment)

message: I'm removing the following:
:Xeriscaping is not the same as natural landscaping or "zero-scaping" (in which the landscape consists mostly of concrete, stones or gravel, with perhaps a cactus or two thrown in), and can look quite lush and colorful.
since it is not true what says about natural landscaping (please read the article in wikipedia), and i couldn't find much information about what zero-scaping is, but what it is not (and it is not xeriscaping). also the quality of the writting is not proper for an enciclopedia. --Cacuija (my talk) 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xeriscaping is not Zero-scaping 

message: The main perceived disadvantage of xeriscaping is the paradigm shift required to accept anti-landscaping as landscaping.  Simply put, it's ugly to most people.  Ignoring that in an article is like writing an article on tofu's perceived disadvantages and refusing to admit it's not really just as tasty as beef.  My wife is from Phoenix, and is more or less positive about having an xeriscape yard.  I'm from San Francisco, and still would rather waste water than have my kids playing ball in a rock garden...  Another important "disadvantage" is that local plants attract local wild animals.  --69.254.185.26 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wild animals? That's terrible! No way should Man have to deal with nature, when they move into an area that used to be completely natural. Man should be allowed to waste as much water as he wants (even if it hurts everybody else) Peoplesunionpro (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having an "Advantages" section but no "Disadvantages" section undermines this article's credibility.  Another disadvantage is the heating effect of huge areas of rocks. 209.217.155.166 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huge areas of rocks aren't an aspect of xeriscape.  Someone had mixed "zeroscaping" in here, which basically is (for example) using a lot of rock and no plants (hence the "zero" part -- zero to work with, it's just a way to cover the ground).  There CAN be rocks in xeriscaping, eg rock gardens, but they have plants growing in them.  Much xeriscaping doesn't use rocks at all.  Don't use them if you don't want them.  Wild animals also aren't a clear disadvantage, because many people want to attract them -- and xeriscape doesn't imply using native plants (though, as with rock gardens, they CAN be and are often used by choice in xeriscape). Plenty of non-native and animal resistant strains of plants work well in xeriscape gardens. Madamecp (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradigm shift 

message: Although there are multiple on-line references to "xeriscape" being a registered trademark of the Denver Water Board, it does not come up as a result in a search of registered trademarks (http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm). This article says that it is NOT a registered trademark but the USAToday article it cites (Elizabeth Caldwell (2007-07-15). "With xeriscaping, grass needn't always be greener". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-07-15-xeriscaping_N.htm.) says that it IS a registered trademark. The Denver Water Board website (http://www.denverwater.org/) says this: "The word "Xeriscape," was coined by the Denver Water Department in 1981 to help make water conserving landscaping an easily recognized concept." --Tajour (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xeriscape Trademark? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xeriscaping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.mesaaz.gov/conservation/convert.az
*Added  tag to http://www.mastergardenersmecklenburg.org/xeriscape-an-introduction.
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080724182223/http://www.backtonatives.org/NativeLandscapes.htm to http://www.backtonatives.org/NativeLandscapes.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107202335/http://csbe.org/water_conserving_landscapes/index.html to http://www.csbe.org/water_conserving_landscapes/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20020414093103/http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu:80/extension/xeriscape/xeriscape.html to http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/xeriscape/xeriscape.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: recent edits claim Latin origin for both xero- and -scape; the citation for this has been an article at topsimplegarden.com, a site with many sensical and grammatical errors suggestive of machine translation
based on cited, more-authoritative sources, the entity that coined the term specifically references the Greek origin of xero-, though Latin did borrow the term; because it is spelled "xeri-", i suspect the coiners had in mind the term xeric, which is derived from Greek but has been in use in English since the early 20th century; see also Wordwizard discusion, Xero- or Xeri-?
further, -scape in xeriscape is not Latin, it is derived from landscape; the term scape, from Latin scapus, is a different, unrelated word 
--Garbanzito (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: although the specific purpose of this method compared to others, might deserve only a page in differentiation , when someone IS, differentiating, between it and another method,..
SOMEtimes, ppl will simply be looking it up, and not comparing multiple methods, or studying it upon direction/reference from someone else, and not even aware TO, compare it with other methods, etc...
and perhaps MISS, things like biohazard and risks of introduced species, or risks of otherwise isolated/contained plantations, spreading in the general surrounding environment / island,.. or worse.
im not anti- , xeriscaping, but it would not be able to be when BADLY managed, when BADLY set up, really all that safe, especially if someone were so neglectful that they chose an air-borne reproductive method species, etc.
Although that might seem so ludicrous to someone used to risks in terms of introduced species, ppl familiar with the subject matter, etc...
it might not, to schoolchildren, 1st time garden makers, ppl who've never even done volunteering in any field of plant encouragement/planting, etc.
so GENERAL information, about it would be appropriate.
no doubt it falls under existing law in terms of, bio- risks ...
... so where is the detail on precautions / steps in selection of species that will not... species that do not.... etc ?!!
it would have to be a part of process for setting up a xeriscaped garden, or they would not be legal.
REW
Vurrath (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to have a section on biohazards / biorisk. 

message: The lead emphasises that Xeriscaping is about conserving water and is completely unrelated to using native plants (even though these may accidentaly coincide):
"Xeriscaping is different from natural landscaping, because the emphasis in xeriscaping is on selection of plants for water conservation, not necessarily selecting native plants".
The rest of the article seems to dismiss this however and mixes the two freely. In the "Biodiversity" section for example, we read this:
"Often times when areas develop there is a loss of forestation, and animal populations dwindle as they are forced to relocate. Implementing native vegetation in green spaces helps improve the insect and wildlife found in the environment as the habitat is reestablished to a degree, offering food and shelter to the wildlife. One application of xeriscaping that drastically improves biodiversity is the implementation of pocket forests."
Nothing in this parapgraph is about saving water, only about using native plants. Perhaps these "pocket forests" save water, but seeing as though the section does not bother with explaining what a "pocket forest" is, it just seems off. A lot further down in the "Lawns and applications section", we finally find out what a pocket forest is:
"Akira Miyawaki is a Japanese botanist that developed the idea of pocket forests which reintroduces indigenous trees and vegetation to developed environments in order to promote strong biodiversity. The method calls for the planting naturally occurring trees and shrubbery densely into small compact areas, that can range from a size of a tennis court to a parking space. These pocket forests increase biodiversity, reduce noise (if placed near streets or noise polluters), improve air quality and soil retention, help with reforestation, and efficiently capture carbon dioxide.[18] In order to promote fast growth and biodiversity the engineered ecosystem requires a layering of vegetation: the ground layer, a shrub layer, and a canopy layer. Due to this compact layering these forests usually are well established within two decades rather than the 70-plus years it takes for naturally occurring forests."
And yeah.. it has nothing to do with saving water and are just used to promote biodiversity. So for starters, I propose to just remove these off-topic bits (perhaps move them to the natural landscaping article). There are also a few small references such as in the lead:
"Xeriscaping produces greenspaces that require low amounts of maintenance and irrigation, and promote biodiversity; however, due to so.."
All in all, untangling these two topics would greatly increase the consistency of the article.--Ribidag (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and update if you have reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between xeriscaping and natural landscaping