Quote:
|
This aquascape is a case where I think the planting can be simplified a lot without losing the effect. Personally I don't see the nuances that Carlos describes in the choice and gradation of stem plants. I see rather uniform round mounds of green.
|
If they seem like uniform mounds of green, then the gradient effect is working well. Aquascapers in the U.S. often believe that it is best to use plants with maximum contrast in leaf texture and color in the same aquascape.I believe there is something to be said about using plants with minimal differences in gradients --creating much smoother, flowing aquascapes in the process.
Quote:
|
The aquascape uses 12 different plants, but I see roles for only 3 (or maybe 4) plants in this aquascape; one to form the mounds, one to form the rust-colored eruptions and one for the foreground. The role of the mid-ground plants here is optional, but I would not use more than one. As it is the mid-ground plants help obscure the low stone work but are otherwise not very prominent.
|
My opinion differs here. I don't think minimizing an aquascape's plant species as much as possible improves it. Pretty much personal taste. However, as you decrease the number of plant species in a layout, you will have to bring out the hardscaping to greater and greater prominence. You could potentially minimize an aquascape with one foreground, one midground, and two background plants (say: Glossostigma, dwarf lobelia, Ludwigia arcuata, and Rotala sp Green), but your hardscape should be very bold to hold interest. Otherwise, the aquascape will became bland.
An interesting analogy would be in writing. You don't need qualitative words to have functional sentences such as "very" and "more" and "greatly," but they sure are important to add emphasis and detail.
Carlos