If coreopsis is blooming under the tree, it isn't completely shaded. You might try a low growing evergreen shrub, such as one of the hollies, or even ornamental grasses such as Penesetum alopecurides "Hameln" or "Little Bunny." The grasses will die on top, but the dried tops look lovely all winter with their fuzzy flowerheads and tan foliage. They reshoot in the spring.

This is already posted in the woodlands forum as well as the native forum. I don't think you need to post it here as well (this is not a very active forum anyway). Good shelter plants include evergreens like eastern red cedar (which can take some shade). Another solution is a brush pile - a loose collection of large and small branches and leaves. I have several of these in my garden - a great way to recycle and help wildlife. The link posted on the native forum was very helpful and those are some great links on the referenced site. I wouldn't begin to single out any plants when you can go through those lists.

Hi Andrew. Well, thatÂs an interesting question - and a pretty broad one. A small amount of lateral thinking along the lines of "what are the shady natural environments in which plants grow" does lead us firmly towards rainforests, doesnÂt it? And the darkest places tend to be where the streams flow, so theyÂre also the wettest. The obvious ones are the ferns, and leafy understory plants such as gingers, Cordylines, cunjevoi, Hydrocotyles, Peperomias, and so on. Many climbers like deep shade when young, which makes them good indoor plants. Plants that flower in the shade are another matter. Sambucus australis (yellow elderberry) is said to produce fruits in the shade, so presumably it flowers there also. ItÂs not a plant IÂm familiar with, but I think it would, like all the above, like a lot of water. I mentioned Hypoestes floribunda, I think, on your other thread. ItÂs a drought hardy one. Understorey plants from dry rainforests are another area to explore if youÂre after shrubs and small trees, as they are happy in the shade but have the advantage of not being water-hungry. There are hundreds of these. Plants from caves, and south-facing cliffs would also have to be shade lovers, wouldnÂt they? I seem to remember, when I was visiting the Capricorn Caves at Rockhampton, seeing a fern that liked to grow well inside the cave, and I think it would have had to make do with very little water, too. Native plant books which have sections on indoor plants must have some useful suggestions. I am interested in your project. What sort of situation are planning to put these shade loving plants in to? Pots? What sort of soil? What sort of size? Trish

I don't get bent out of shape concerning what people plant in residential gardens & I don't crusade the idea of going native to anyone who will listen. I figure if I make my own yard look good with natives, thats the best way to sell the idea but I'm not out to change the world. If someone asks, I'll answer. I'm not an average homeowner. I like the prairie and we removed the lawn and went that direction but then I keep in mind the perspective that I like gardening more than most who live around here. I'm not a sports fan which also places me in another minority, I'd rather be outside gardening during the game or when the Thunder plays. The toothpaste is out of the tube concerning our problem invasive species such as honeysuckle, Bradford Pear & privet. The popularity of the non-invasive plants you mentioned such as day lily, roses and hosta and several other popular landscape plants we could list is not the problem when you consider the amount of land covered in concrete and high maintenance lawns. I consider lawns to be a much more serious concern than whether people prefer native as opposed to conventional garden plants. Water waste is one of my biggest bug-a-boo's with sprinkler systems becoming very common, widespread chemical use on lawns that runs down the street into streams and air pollution. I find myself doing the math of what I see going on here and know is going on elsewhere. There are strict restrictions on ranchers and farmers, officials regularly check to see if they are in compliance while homeowners are free to spray their lawns with abandon. This makes no sense. I don't like seeing the city expand and watching builders scrape off the native prairie and then replace it with bermuda lawn grass and formal landscaping along with regular mowing, spraying and sprinkler systems. Fire suppression is a bigger cause of problems than introduced plants where I live. Eastern Red Cedar is out of control and is taking over thousands of acres of prairie at alarming rates inevitably creating deciduous forests of both native and non-native woody plants. In my opinion, it makes no difference whether they are native trees & underbrush or not at this point. Why should it? That land cannot be restored back to prairie, habitat is lost forever and it seems there is no stopping this aggressive transformation, no end in sight. When its dry, these infested places turn into infernos that explode. After the fire is finally out, the trees are what come back, not the grasses. Its a problem of balance and funds. Fracking is a major concern. We have earthquakes here all the time now, I heard we have more than California or anywhere else in the world right now. I also worry about the fact that we are depleting the aquifer faster than it can replenish itself with large scale farm irrigation. We have a vote coming up concerning something called 'Right to Farm'. Its about halting regulations on farming practices. I'm not sure what its all about since I haven't had time to look into it but it sounds ominous. Has anyone heard of this?