This last one has some good colors - don't know if 'landscape' would be technically correct since printers would call that 'portrait' perspective. Still a decent pic you could frame. The modern digital cameras have enough pixels and image modes like 16x9 or at least 3x2, that you can try slight rotations and different crops without losing too much detail in the process. If I have good lighting and enough detail, I can more often than not take a so-so landscape image and with some slight rotation and selective croppings produce a keeper. Use your imagination with the raw material and see what you can do.
But you think landscapes must be horizontal frames? Hmmm
Ok cactus portraits...err grass portraits!
Seriuosly I think what I'm learning is if I can't tell my local story what's the point of making the 10,000,000 Grand Canyon stormy sunset image? And I saying this because I'm more drawn to the spectacular and have found myself not taking an exposure if the sunset isn't epic.
That grass image..I was attracted by a different scene and scurried down the hill and at the last second that appeared at my feet..the image I sought was uninspiring.
When I took a class in landscape photography they were always running off to Death Valley or Yosemite or Grand Canyon and I was perhaps left with the impression ; home is boring....