Pollinator garden in a park near me. If this is “matrix” design, count me out!
What’s matrix planting?
I’ve been reading and hearing mentions of “matrix” planting design and I have to admit I’m so confused! Here’s how Horticulture Magazine explains matrix design:
In a matrix, plants with similar cultural needs are grouped so that they will knit together above and below ground, forming a cooperative ecosystem that conserves water and discourages weeds. ..It takes a lot of thought to look this natural. While matrix gardens appear wild, they are meticulously planned, with cultural needs the first consideration…The benefits are substantial for both gardener and planet. With human inputs drastically reduced, the garden’s ecology can flourish. Established matrix plantings should not need the life support we give most gardens: fertilizer, dividing, supplemental watering.
Benefits of planting in masses
Sure, if you put plants in the right places of course that’ll reduces inputs. But it’s the “knitting together” part that confuses me – is it the same as “interplanting”? I’ve long been taught to plant IN MASSES, for many reasons. And here are some experts who agree:
Designer Thomas Rainer writes: “Massing plants of the same species together reduces competition between perennials. Any time you mix species, the plants compete for light, water, and nutrients. All of my early experiments with interplanting perennials went poorly as one plant often ‘ate’ another. The composition grew together, the more aggressive plants eliminated their more demure counterparts, and the end result was a total mess.”
My experience exactly!
The High Line’s blocks/masses of perennials in late summer.
And Richard Hayden, Director of Horticulture at NYC’s High Line, on Margaret Roach’s podcast described the High Line’s design by Piet Oudolf as “keeping it simple.” Masses or large drifts keeps the plants legible. And many newer plants have been installed in “blocks, a series of blocks, and tear shapes.” Why? Because that way they’re easier to take care of. “You know what’s supposed to be where. You know what’s gotten out of balance.”
(Learn more about High Line maintenance.)
John Magee (of the Native Plant Podcast) said on Jared Barnes’s podcast that “People fault us for massing” but that it “makes maintenance easier.” So I wrote to ask WHY people were faulting them for massing and the response was that “Massing is frowned upon at the moment in light of ‘matrix planting’, which seems to be more diverse, making it (to us) more complicated. Probably fine for someone with enough ability to maintain it, but it would take a very trained eye to do so.”
Scott Beuerlein wrote in “Getting it Done in November:”
“I’m becoming jaded about small perennial beds. Sometimes it feels like a mile of perennials by themselves makes more sense than a 10’ x 15’ garden bed of them. In such spaces, more and more, I’m thinking a single mass of one selection is the way. Maybe, three different groupings. But dabbling with individual perennials smattered around is just a mess. Maybe a small shrub or two can give them some underwire support, but I don’t know.”
Designer and native-plant advocate Benjamin Vogt weighs in on this in the Hort Mag article I mentioned, recommending groundcovers instead of mulch:
“I think a lot of the matrix planting is about shifting gardeners’ attitudes to planting much tighter together and stopping with the wood mulch,” Vogt said. “Mulch keeps (gardens) in a permanent establishment phase—not letting the plant set seed and make a matrix of roots that will be resilient to climate and weed pressure.”
Wildlife agree!
Masses and drifts aren’t JUST easier to care for and better-looking to humans; massing helps wildlife find the plants. As Penn State advises: “Pollinators are more likely to find plants in gardens that provide larger drifts of color. When you purchase plants, get at least three or more of one kind—more if you have the room—and plant them near one another.”
Hayden mentioned this, too, in his chat with Roach: “In nature the animals wouldn’t be able to find single plants, so drifts serve a purpose for wildlife,” suggesting it’s better to grow a few key plants in larger numbers.
Now what’s “layering?
Another type of naturalistic garden design I’m seeing mentioned is layering, which I THINK refers to planting for different heights.
In “Layer by Layer” Dr. Jared Barnes summarizes several books that touch on the topic of designing in layers (Planting: A New Perspective by Piet Oudolf and Noel Kingsbury; Planting in a Post-Wild World by Thomas Rainer and Claudia West; and Naturalistic Planting Design by Nigel Dunnett) and concludes that “We can see a model for four distinct layers in naturalistic planting design,” with all the authors calling the lowest layer the groundcover or “matrix” layer, which is tasked with preventing the growth and emergence of weeds.
So now “matrix” means groundcover? Adding to my confusion.
But guess what – the layers aren’t intermingled; they’re massed. He summarizes:
Start simple. For small areas, limiting species diversity is important for greater impact. Too many species in one area will look like a mess. Assuming you have 3 structural plants, 5 waves of 3 seasonal plants (3 × 5 =15), and 2 matrix options, that’s 20 (3 + 15 +2) different plants. Choose your anchor plants first.
And in “Simplifying Naturalistic Planting Design” Barnes acknowledges that putting layers into practice is complicated. Oh good; I’m not the only one struggling with all this.
Rainer agrees: “One could glaze over with the complexity” of choosing compatible plants. But, happily, there are simple ways to enjoy the benefits of matrix planting in your home garden.”
Maybe simple for YOU, Thomas!
My conclusion? Regular DIY gardeners should take those warnings seriously and then ignore all the minor disagreements among top naturalistic designers and theorists.
Design for front yards that neighbors won’t hate
From the Facebook account of Janet and Jeff Crouch.
Whatever matrix design is, Horticulture Magazine offers suggestions for matrix planting that fits amid traditional landscape design for front yards, with advice from both Vogt and Rainer: have tidy edges, use repetition, and (Vogt’s suggestion) post signs describing your goals.
I would add paths to that list, as are seen here in the front garden of Janet and Jeff Crouch in Columbia, Maryland. I reported on the Crouches’ successful fight to preserve their garden as it is, with the passage of a state law preventing HOAs from requiring all-lawn front yards.
I’ve never heard of Matrix gardening until reading this but from your photo it looks like my garden when I’ve neglected it and requires urgent attention, if not total renovation. I aspire to massing. Thank you for the education!
I love what I call island beds.. ; so much more interesting than just grass. However,this photo seems to have overdone the islands a bit. Usually when I see the island beds, they are too skimpy.. There seems be a formula to make them generous but not overwhelming.. But what is it?
Thank you Susan. I agree with you and have never fully understood the benefits of matrix planting and it was not successful when I have tried it. To me it is a case of an ideal but not one that is practical. I have always loved layers in a garden and it can be done without matrix planting.
Great article! I’ve never heard of matrix gardening but you gave me a way to think about how to sort out the mess in my yard which is coming from a clumsy embrace of the current trend for native and pollinator plants: trying out this and that,here and there, all over the place.
You helped me refocus on the success of my dearest big old masses such as the lovely phlox bed (native)flourishing with minimal clean up, no mulch, and best of all shutting out most invasives. New rules: be guided by clumps and their many advantages for joy over drudgery. Experiment only if willing to buy two or three plants for well considered placement In a garden governed by planning and zoning (nature’s, not the HOA kind!)
HOAs that mandate all grass front yards? nasty business.
One problem is that people, esp. specialists, love to introduce or popularize terms to make themselves sound unique or highly studied. Listening to designers talk often makes me cringe.
There is a good discussion on the wild way about matching plant vigor so that you don’t get the one plant swallowing another. Some of it makes sense, and allows various plants to dominate an area at different point in the year within the same planting footprint. Jolly complicated though and requires knowledge of the plants that is currently only available through experience, as plants behave differently in different circumstances! My problem with the masses approach is that when a plant has a problem (and they always do) it leaves a big gap. I think of the plants as a tapestry, using lots of the same things repeatedly, and in combinations that we have worked out.
Great topic once again, and thanks for collecting all these interesting voices.
I love the idea of natural planting in (moderate) masses, but don’t forget how long plants live! Height, color, and nutritional requirements are one thing, but when you have to divide or replace one matrix member much earlier than all the other ones, the whole arrangement tilts.
In my garden it took many years to sit and watch which plants are happy where, and whom they would like to mingle with. Had to try a lot of plants in a lot of different areas to see what would really work. Planting a giant area of lobelias only to see them not grow well is not worth it. Good gardens (layered, matrixed, or otherwise) take a lot of time and observation to establish – and both are rare commodities with designers and academics who always have to push on to the next client, and/or the next fashionable trend to create or follow.
Let me see if I can simplify further. First, it is NOT the junky planting in your first image, lol.
Some words are used to describe the function (matrix, ground cover), and other words are used to describe the arrangement of plants (interplanting, mass, block). It is further confusing to talk about naturalistic planting, intermingling, designed plant communities, etc., but let’s just focus on words in the prior sentence for now. 🙂
I think with authors and speakers to avoid being repetitive sometimes these words cross over with each other.
Matrix planting is a style of planting named for having a ground cover species (grass, carex, basal foliage) that covers the ground and from which other plants emerge. Think Sporobolus heterolepis, Carex texensis, Packera aurea, etc. The goal is to mimic what we might see in a grassland where wildflowers, shrubs, trees, etc. emerge out of a grassy mix of green. The matrix acts as a foil for other things to appear against. Noel Kingsbury describes the matrix as thinking about the dough in a fruitcake that holds the other stuff there.
The matrix helps to replace or reduce mulch because with a dense ground cover of green, you suppress weeds. And, for some species it may live year round.
Often the matrix is planted in blocks or drifts or mass of plants, and then other plants are inserted into it. This describes the arrangement.
Blocking, drifts, and massing are planting arrangements that have been typically done over the years to purposefully to accentuate a plant. For some species it is natural, but for many we wouldn’t likely ever see 10,000 Rudbeckia planted together. Other things would be in the mix.
It may be helpful to think about an ephemeral like Narcissus for a moment. I can block Narcissus (generally think of blocks as 25-50). I can mass Narcissus (I think of masses as 100’s). But, they are not going to cover the ground the entire year. The matrix will.
It may help for people to visit this blog post I wrote about Oudolf Field where Piet employed both strategies. https://meristemhorticulture.com/planted/a-morning-at-oudolf-field-part-1. About 8 photos down, you can see the design where blocking is done on the left and right beds, but in the middle is this orange area where the matrix of Sporobolus is. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55cff403e4b0e9aecb86be5b/6953716c-2e06-4ff6-9b48-da1c731cfe06/2022-0717-0257+Oudolf+Field+drawing-save4web.jpg?format=2500w
This image shows blocks: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55cff403e4b0e9aecb86be5b/127e0ed8-355d-47aa-ab76-5375b6d8fc41/2022-0717-0024+Oudolf+Field+looking+north-save4web.jpg?format=2500w
This image shows the matrix of Sporobolus where Echinacea and Dianthus are emerging. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55cff403e4b0e9aecb86be5b/760a0f3b-1ef0-4803-9e5d-62f5465f6ccd/2022-0717-0230+Oudolf+Field+long+view-save4web.jpg?format=2500w
Hope that helps. I’ll see if I can write a post in the next few weeks to help sort this out further.
THAT was clear and so interesting! thanks so much!
Well explained, thanks!
The other factor not mentioned here is the impact of non-native invasive species in your landscape. If you’re dealing with invasives (and guess what- you are) they can sneak in and take over a bed. If you have massed layers, it’s easier to see them and go after them in order to keep them out.
So true! In my garden the most aggressive plants in my borders are nonnative groundcover comfrey and native black-eyed susans. They’ll take over if I can’t see where they’re going. The other groundcovers I use – packera aurea, sedum, and mondo grass – aren’t thuggish in the same way.
The periwinkle that I inherited here was sneaky, seemingly well behaved until I suddenly realized it had taken over. I’ll be pulling that damn thing out for years.
Here’s another go: https://www.countryliving.com/gardening/garden-ideas/a64432015/70-30-rule-for-gardens/
But who, ever, starts with an empty space to plant? (A professional designer, maybe)
I was waiting to find out whether Matrix Planting required choosing between the red pill and the blue pill…
(I think I’m philosophically a Matrix landscaper, although in practice I’m more of a Darwinian landscaper.)
Naturalistic planting can be confusing. Do read Nigel Dunnett’s Naturalistc Planting Design: The Essential Guide, as it delivers exactly what it promises. Another one is Wild: The Naturalistic Garden by Noel Kingsbury and Claire Takacs. Matrix designs done well should not look like the dog’s breakfast and shouldn’t have to be very complicated. If you’ve ever planted bulbs under groundcover, you have used a simple matrix. New research tells us that both massing and intermingling can benefit pollinators and other beneficial insects. Massing and intermingling are not mutually exclusive. Within a matrix, there can be masses and drifts, just as you’ll find in a prairie. The bottom line is increasing the diversity of plants, both native and adapted, to support the needs of local wildlife. A garden that grows a wide variety of blooming plants, particularly those chosen to provide nectar sources for as much of the year as possible, would be every pollinator’s dream. If you are ever in London, visit The Barbican, a Dunnett designed naturalistic planting that combines the best of all. Sublime.
I noticed I was quoted here as being anti-mingling (that post was 14 years ago)—but let’s clear that up. I’m not. I use both mingling and block massing all the time. Both can be effective, depending on the site, the design intent, and the planting palette. We often work with matrix planting. In fact, I just posted photos on our Instagram @phytostudio of a simple grassy matrix dotted with forbs—clean, legible, and surprisingly low-maintenance: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJb2lpkN69s/?img_index=1
The challenge with block massing is that one plant rarely covers the ground year-round and looks good doing it. Plus, it can look fussy if plants of different heights, competitive tendencies, and habitats are placed together poorly. But massing, when done well, can be stunning.
The point about pollinators is incorrectly framed: pollinators do not need plants of the same species touching to find them. That study by Penn State was more about having enough repetition of same species to feed pollinators—not about the compositional strategy. Both massing OR mingling can support pollinators as long as there’s enough of the right species.
I wrote about mingling vs. massing years ago, and here’s the thing: it’s not a binary. These debates are often framed like you have to pick a side—Team Mingling or Team Massing. But there is no need to turn gardening into cable news! Both are tools, not ideologies. Both can be practical. Both can be beautiful. It’s the quality of the design and the plant choices that matter.
Let’s stop limiting our palettes to soundbites. We’ve already got enough of that in the rest of our culture. Great planting design is complicated, period. If we really want to move beyond the bland, ecologically empty, artistically bankrupt American suburban landscape, we need all the tools we can get.