With morning only sun, you have a great opportunity for a butterfly garden. It doesn't have to be much more effort than maintaining rock and croton. I would save the desert look for a west-facing wall. Where I live, just having the three bush types of blue porterweed, jatropha, and fire bush will bring in the butterflies and sometimes a humming bird. These 3 do not usually drop leaves nor require any more than the usual bush-trimming practices with a scissors or lightweight clipper. Your suggested selection of plants includes those requiring water, so I guess you are ok with that. (It looks like the rain on your roof rolls off onto the sidewalk and then to the planted area?) I would have places to insert small seasonal plants, playing with different color combinations, trying out native plants and maybe herbs. But then, I've never gardened in S. Florida! http://www.south-florida-plant-guide.com/butterfly-gardening.html

Thanks for the link. In this case the test shows a K deficit of 255 lb/acre. 255/43.56 ksf/acre equals 5.85, call it 6.0 lb K/ksf. morpheus recommends two apps at 3 lb each. You couldn't find an example that wasn't a complete disaster? It's hard to determine why he made the K recs in that case. It's not aggressive but it's certainly not terribly conservative. See if you can find one where K is the only or nearly only deficiency. That will give you better insight into his analysis and recommendations. I can assure you that he doesn't determine recommendations simply based on dividing a deficiency by 43.5. There are many examples of this, including a Mg deficiency of 93 lb/acre. His recommendation is for 2.0 lb/ksf split across 4 applications. I understand that you may have found a pattern, but, once again, I assure you that he doesn't determine recommendations simply based on dividing a deficiency by 43.5. Soil test analysis is not that simple. Give him some credit. Using the same formula for this thread, Mg is short 209/43.56 which equals about 5 lb/ksf. I know this is low assuming Logan is reporting Mg as elemental. This is where your theory fails. Above you found that 93 divided by 43.5 is approximately 2, so the application rate is 2lbs/ per thousand. How did he come up with the 4 apps? why not 2 or 3? Here, by employing your theory, you come up with 5lbs. spread over 4 applications? or is it 4 apps of 5 lbs each? You may want to consider that this is surface application on an established lawn and 2lb applications, although a bit conservative, is the max rate recommended. so no matter what the deficiency, as long as it is greater than 43.5 lbs per acre, the recommendation is going to be 2lbs per thousand 4 times a year. As a side note, potassium is often reported as K2O, but I'm assuming from your analysis that Logan reports deficiencies in elemental K. Yes. If the label states potassium or K, I assume it is the elemental form. Where have you seen a soil test that reports K2O? Edit: However, if you are referring to the use of K2O when stating K content % of the various types of potash, I don't know why it is used as the standard or why it is used interchangeably with K, the elemental form. For instance: As I'm sure you are able to calculate, elemental K is 52% of the (molecular) weight of KCL (potassium chloride). So a 100lb bag of potassium chloride would contain 52lbs of elemental K. However, the bag of KCL lists the contents as 60-62% K2O or K (and we treat it as 60% elemental K in soil amending). How is that? 52% of 100lbs is 52lbs of K not 62% !!!!. 83% (the amount -molecular weight- of K in K2O) of 100 lbs of K2O is 83lbs of elemental K. 52lbsof elemental K ( the amount in KCL) divided by 83lbs of elemental K (the amount of elemental K in K2O, the standard for some reason) is 0.62. So any given weight of KCL is the equivalent of 62% of K2O and it is accepted that that is the elemental K content of KCL. Why this conversion is used, I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea why we accept this conversion to represent the elemental K content of a bag of KCL (or any other potash source) for soil amendment adjustment. I know I fudge it to avoid having to have this conversation each time a K rec is made. I really am not qualified to do a full test as I do not consider the interactions of different applications, but adding K seems pretty simple and harmless. That's vaguely accurate to a point, I guess. True if you're comparing it to lbs of Boron, not so true if you compare it to lbs of alfalfa or maybe gypsum. daniel, Ok. You're a clever guy. Eventually, you are going to back me into a corner and expose my areas of ignorance. Cut me some slack. You're more of an investigator- interrogator than engineer. Why are you wasting your time here? You really should join this site: Those folks are more your peers than I and much more likely to be able to answer your questions. Besides you might be able to help them challenge some of the "know it alls" that give morpheouspa and andy10917 a hard time. Registration for membership is at the top left on the linked page.

Here is a picture of our house

Something tall and skinny for passing boats or passing gators? How about the common house plant False Aralia, Plerandra elegantissima. The other aralias that are not the genus aralia either that are worth looking into are Polyscias fruticosa cultivars. I would not plant them as a hedge, only as vertical accent in the bromeliads. This may be more a tropical look than modern. Tropical Mawdernn