Laura Pottorff of the Colorado State University's extension office is apparently convinced that "companion planting" is a load of crock. Perhaps she is really just trying to discourage people from fretting and worrying over-much about the negative effects of one plant on another.
Companion Planting does have a good history around it. And good logic. Some attributes of one plant can really help out another.
Tall plants can act as shade for smaller plants
Deep roots don't compete with shallow roots so much
Vines that crawl across the ground might could be planted under tall stalky plants.
Keep our neighbors healthy:
Onions and Marigolds can repel some pests. They are not the only living repellants
Some plants can be sacrificial and lure garden pests away
Other plants can attract good insects like spiders and ladybugs
This just makes a certain amount of sense.
I am beginning experiments on Edible Forests. I will be creating some circle gardens at a farm I volunteer with to see how well they do. Currently, we are over-run with weeds. They are choking out the plants we want to grow. Doing basically what weeds do.
My hypothesis is that with good companion planting, I can create some "edible forests" in which the weeds have a hard time competing with what we want.
I need deep-rooting plants
Perhaps some ground-cover like plants
And all of them can be started in late July... In a high desert.... a Dry Denver hill.
Plants that like each other fairly well.
Second tier problem is to worry about pests. But there are quite a few lady bugs out on the land already. Bugs do not seem to be too much of a problem. It is the Buffalo Burr and the bloody Bindweed which are our chief problems.
