From your other posts your perennials seem to be widely spaced with a lot of empty space between them. If your perennials were closer, so that they touched when in full growth, you would need far less mulch. Those ground covers probably would inhibit some of the shorter perennials like the coral bells. They are also both happier in some shade, unlike Irises, sedum and lilies. Personally I would plant more densely and avoid the need for frequent remulching or for ground covers.

If a ground cover doesn't grow together thickly, random tree seedlings and briers will pop up through it and the gardener will be on their hands and knees pulling up the interlopers. Nobody wants a sparse ground cover.

@floral_uk z.8/9 SW UK, my gardens are all kind of varied, really. In the more mature gardens things are kind of close, but I leave enough room for growth and my feet. Like so:

That pic was taken a few weeks ago, after the irises were done but before anything else had bloomed. The Autumn Joy sedum and Purple Heart setcreasea will grow and fill in a lot within the month, but otherwise there's really just enough room for me to squeeze in between things.

Then there's this garden, which is really too full for me to walk between plants:

It's still kind of bare in the back, near the fence, though.

But then you have this newer garden that is large, shady, and VERY sparse, and I honestly don't have any great ideas for how to fill it in:

The rhodo on the left (you can barely see) and azaleas will eventually fill it in, and then I just have hostas, astilbe, and coral bells in the front. But until those bushes grow up, it's gonna look sparse.

And then, of course, is the newest garden that we've talked about in other threads:

It has the same issue; a baby camellia and rhododendron that should fill in about 1/3 of the garden in the next 4 or 5 years. But until then, it's gonna look sparse.

(Remember that I plant to remove the mondo grass in that last pic, it just rained me out and I couldn't do it)

That's why I was thinking of a ground cover; something to fill in, but isn't going to hurt my feelings when the shrubs grow in. But those shrubs are surrounded by perennials, too, and it sounds like any ground cover I choose could end up choking them out!

So I guess that I'm just gonna have to rely on mulch and annuals for the next several years, at least until the shrubs grow up :-/ Unless you all have another suggestion?

All of my gardens ARE more or less in rows! I mentioned in the other thread that, when I was younger, I liked a more urban, planned layout, so I generally have a row of short, followed by a row of slightly taller, followed by a row of slightly taller, and so on. For the most part, the gardens follow walkways so that's always been the natural layout... follow the walkway with the short plants, then fill in behind them.

It's only recently that I've decided that I've gotten tired of that type of layout, and am leaning more towards a natural, but still organized look. I'm not exactly good at it, though, so for the most part I'm borrowing inspiration from others :-)

To my eye even your mature garden looks sparse with a lot of empty space.

My rule of thumb in planting has pretty much always been to put my foot down, and leave a shoe's length between plants. That way, I have the ability to walk in between for watering, digging, etc. The picture might not be doing it justice, because you're really seeing less than 10" of space between each plant. Less than 10", really, because they've all grown since I planted them.

I also stagger them so that, when looking from the front, you just see a wave of color. Sorta like an elementary school photo, with short kids in the front, tall kids in the back, and everyone's face showing up between the kids in front of them's shoulders.

If you have all of your plants touching, how do you get in there for general maintenance?

The thicker the planting, the less maintenance is needed. There’s very little weeding for example. Pruning, mulching, dividing etc takes place when the plants are not in full growth and there’s plenty of room to step between them.

The short at the front, tall at the back principle is a good one but that doesn’t mean they should be in ranks. And occasionally it’s a good idea to bring some taller stuff to the fore so you don’t end up with botanical bleachers. Repeating plants in groups also aids cohesion. In the 4th photo above, for example, I see a single lily. I would have at least three groups of lilies in that bed. Either threes or fives.

In the 4th photo above, for example, I see a single lily. I would have at least three groups of lilies in that bed. Either threes or fives.

Technically there are 2 :--) I bought 3 pots late last year for something like $1 /each, but never planted them anywhere. When they came up this year, each pot had 2-3 plants coming up!

I'm following your lead, though, and planted all 3 pots today: