Evaluating Ornamental and Coverage Quality of Traditional and Underutilized Groundcover Species Under Optimal and Suboptimal Planting Densities

Groundcover plants are underutilized landscape features that often require less maintenance than traditional lawns. While the popularity of groundcovers has increased, the upfront installation costs and limited documentation of consumer preferences to groundcover species serve as barriers towards the incorporation of these turfgrass alternatives in the landscape. This study investigated whether groundcover species could achieve similar coverage and aesthetic appeal when planted at lower-than-usual densities. Twelve common and underutilized groundcover species were evaluated for coverage by assessing color saturation in aerial photographs taken over time in a full-sun environment and classified as annuals, tender perennials, or hardy perennials. The investigated annual and tender perennial groundcovers generally achieved similar foliar coverage when planted at the reduced density with the exception of Ficus pumila; however, hardy perennials were 53% lower on average. Growth, coverage rate, and flowering did not significantly differ for most species investigated, indicating that planting density does not unilaterally affect subsequent growth and development. Consumer insights from a consumer survey tool (n = 89) indicated an appreciation for non-traditional groundcover species, which were often preferred over industry standards when assessing aesthetic and coverage quality, regardless of planting density. Groundcovers represent a sustainable turfgrass alternative for providing vast vegetative coverage in the landscape; however, the initial investment often required with these systems serves as a barrier to adoption. However, this research demonstrates that through conscious selection of groundcover species, plant material and installation costs can be reduced without sacrificing canopy coverage or consumer satisfaction.