And common sense would seem, to me, to dictate not to add on to ecological collapse, but rather, to support it the best we can, by planting natives as much as possible. Food is one thing, decoration/aesthetic pleasure is another.

I think ecological collapses are caused by over-use of resources, living and/or mineral, rather than the aesthetic use of non-native plants. Clear-cutting native growth and harvesting successive plantings of food crops with no attention to preventing erosion - as happened all over new england - is an ecological disaster. Clear-cutting second, third, fourth growth (native or otherwise) to build a strip mall, as is happening all over the country now, is an ecological disaster. But are the ornamental plantings at the strip mall an ecological disaster? Better than nothing, arguably. Is a sustainably-operated long-time new england farm an ecological disaster? Better than a factory farm in Kansas or California. Is a grove of non-native citrus in florida an example of ecological collapse? Perhaps, but not as severely as a new mall.

Non-participation in the typical economy might have more desired impact than avoiding non-native plants. Though I'm all in favor of native plants for ornaments, I don't think planting non-natives is irresponsible.

Sure you can dwarf the issue by other things, but does that make it ok? That's what I'm saying.

No, you need a bit of perspective. It is irresponsible to not set aside larger areas onto which regenerative landscaping with flora local to the site or as close to the site as possible. Importing "natives" from 100's of miles away for home planting is not the way to go.

Much of the natural lands of the US have been altered beyond "dwarfing". New England has been through 2 deforestations since colonial times. Early colonialists wrote of a landscape of mixed ages due to the slash and burn ag practiced by First Americans. After New England was cleared the second time, deforestation and devastating wild fires cleared forests of the Old North West (lands around the Great Lakes and Ohio and Mississippi valleys. Remnants of those forest, at least in Wisconsin, had an overstory of 150-200 foot white pines and an understory of mature maple, beech, hickory and other hardwoods.

The kinds of natives you have to choose from are remnants of those kinds of habitats or of niche habitats where forest and prairie and savanna coverage allowed for more diversity. Often special clones with nice ornamental advantages are selected for sale to the public. Intraspecific diversity is often lost.

Better to set aside thousands of continuous acres of diverse soil and water conditions where regenerative activities can favor a return of somewhat typical coverage of earlier eras. Planting a few natives in ones backyard is more feel-goodism. I know, I have them on my property and landscape with them for other people. I sell the idea because these kinds of plant assemblages attract native wildlife if water (around here) is made available.

I recommend people join local native plant groups and volunteer at botanical gardens and for regenerative restorations. The Audubon Society often adopts specific projects. I've volunteered at the Rio Hondo Preserve, many hundreds of acres of public and participating private lands being restored to coastal savanna, various chaparrals and rich riparian zone extending from the Pacific up canyon to perennial springs.

Why does that make it ok to plant anything besides natives?

There can be an argument on what is actually a 'native' and what isn't for a given spot, but why does what you say make it ok to plant non-native species?

Change is an intrinsic part of nature, Hooray. Seeds travel naturally via wind, animals and birds. You change your environment everytime you water. Your presence in your environment has cause and effect. You need to temper your idealism with prudence.

Sparrows were introduced to the North American Continent by the Pilgrims. The sparrows have been here for centuries, and are well established. Can you imagine life without sparrows flitting about?!

What is native? Are you going to plant plants which were present in Massachusetts five hundred years ago, or two hundred years ago? How long does it take for something to be considered native? Have you checked out Heritage Seeds? Are you aware that the produce we eat today is hugely different from the produce the Pilgrims grew and ate? It might be fun for you to grow some heritage produce.

A few years ago five non-native iguanas were discovered in Mexico. A storm in the Caribbean had torn up a lot of trees, several trees jumbled together and held fast, creating a natural raft. The raft arrived in Mexico, via ocean currents, containing the five iguanas. Biologists were delighted to document this natural occurrence in nature, and will follow the evolution of the iguanas in their new habitat. Other types of iguanas do exist in that area, but not of the type which arrived via the raft. Therefore, there is little concern that the new iguanas will wreak havoc upon the ecosystem. (Biologists implant radio transmitters in wild animals to be able to track them.)

History claims horses are not native to the North American Continent, that the Spanish Conquistadores brought them. That is not actually true. There were prehistoric long-haired horses in North America, but they became extinct a long time ago. Probably whatever killed the dinosaurs also killed the prehistoric horses. However, some horses obviously did survive somewhere on Earth, and they evolved into our modern day horses.

Consider the fact that there are weather cycles. The weather today is not the same as it was five hundred years ago. It isn't even the same as it was fifty years ago.

I live on a mesa in central New Mexico. At some point in time, there was a sea here. The valley which is overlooked by the mesa, the Lower Rio Grande River Valley, called Rio Abajo, is ringed by extinct volcanoes. (Of course, the term extinct volcano is a misnomer. However, it is commonly accepted.) By the way, Salem is my hometown.

Lorna

I think if you believe that it's wrong to plant non-native plants in a forest, you should think real hard about what you are doing living there. The biggest negative influence on that forest is you and your house and your car and everything that makes that possible. It is foolish to focus on some "illegal immigrant" plants as the source of the evil in the picture. YOU are the source. So are we all. And we can no longer go back to Europe or wherever it was we came from. It's too late. Try instead to build as much diversity as possible.

Sure, it's a small difference, but lets face it, you're planting things that nobody in the area evolved to live with...so it's bound to change the evolutionary path.

I wonder if that's such a bad thing?

Life has been evolving for as long as life has been on earth. There's really no such thing as a "good" evolutionary path or a "bad" evolutionary path. Life just changes to adjust to it's circumstances.

So do you really think that non-invasive, non-natives stress the environment? If so what facts or personal observations are you basing it on? This planet and all it's life has evolved over the eons due to non-native life moving in. I think you've brought up an interesting topic but since you brought it up it would also be interesting to know your rationale. Tom

The idea is this: Humans are adding to a disturbance in the world's ecosystem by their existence, so why not work to support the natural path of evolution as much as possible.

So, support everything that was not a direct result of human intervention. Surely the shrubs etc and ground cover existed despite massive deforestation hundreds of years ago.

No matter how you look at it, it's better, it seems, to support the natural course of evolution as much as possible, as humans, so it preserves the natural course of things. When the environment turns against us it's another issue, but for now, why not work with earth's evolution, that has been going along for billions of years, rather than have us the humans come along and relocate allll these plants from far away places.....and completely disturb the flow of evolution..We humans came on the scene only recently, and already, we're relocating all of these random plants - why is that justified, even if evolution is an ever changing process? The idea is that we shouldn't be putting all of these random plants here and there because we don't know how they'll affect the ecosystem in the long term. To put it bluntly we're tampering with evolution, and when it comes to aesthetic gardening, it seems like we're tampering with it on an unnecessary scale. Everything we do sends ripple effects across the global ecosystem..

That's what's on my mind..Sure, we can all debate over what is native and what is not, but the general idea of supporting your local ecosystem the way that it came to be after billions of years of evolution.......that is what is golden here, I think..

Just to reiterate -

When I say 'natural' I mean evolution MINUS humans. Yes, I understands humans are a part of evolution. Despite that, we popped up in a world that was a product of a specific evolutionary path, and we adapted to the results of that path, so changing that path by ourselves is not something that's necessarily in our interest, and in the context of this, supporting natural flora/fauna is something that is conducive to the surround ecosystem and therefore our longterm survival.

Many seem perfectly harmless, but many are not. Some are outright invasive (e.g., Russian olive), some harbor diseases that harm native plants (e.g., some currents with white pines), and some invade with their pollen (e.g., white mulberry into red). It take a little knowing to know which is which.

When I say 'natural' I mean evolution MINUS humans. Yes, I understands humans are a part of evolution. Despite that, we popped up in a world that was a product of a specific evolutionary path, and we adapted to the results of that path, so changing that path by ourselves is not something that's necessarily in our interest, and in the context of this, supporting natural flora/fauna is something that is conducive to the surround ecosystem and therefore our longterm survival.

This exact same thing could be said about birds. "Natural" evolution is evolution MINUS birds, since birds carry seed far from their "natural" habitat thus changing the "natural" course of their evolution.

Humans are just another carrier of the seeds, like birds, or any other migrating animal.

I think many people assume that anything humans do or affect is automatically "unnatural" while if an animal does the same thing, it's "natural".

Hooray, there is no such thing as a set path or a "natural" path for evolution. Evolution is not a predetermined path and neither is there an ultimate destination of evolution. Change. Just. Happens.

**Disclaimer**
If you are religious and happen to believe that God does have a pre-determined path for evolution, I apologise.

hamilton -

Humans have the ability right now to do two things - work with the environment they evolved to & adapted to - or they can disrupt it, not knowing the consequences. That's what I'm saying. We have literally taken control, knowingly, of our own evolution - something that hasn't been done before on this planet as far as we know. So no, it isn't the same as a bird. The bird is still locked to deeper evolutionary forces than we are - they have not risen about the laws of evolution with their brains - and are not capable of making decisions, knowingly, with regard to preserving their population, like we can.

We can't prevent all human impact, but we can lessen it, that's how I'm seeing it. We evolved to adapt to our status quo, why speed up the change faster than evolution on its own carry out the process?

That's true, HG, change just happens, by any agent, and humans are simply agents. What Hray is alluding to, I suppose, is that humans are the only agents who are capable of being aware of the change their actions can make. That's about as far as it goes, though, we can be aware of it but can't really control it. It's like being under the knife medicated enough to not be able to move but not enough to be unaware.

We can make our little choices, to plant or not to plant, buy green or buy gucci, conserve or don't conserve, but humanity as a whole is going to make a walloping impact on the environment and evolution, as it has been but increasing geometrically of late. After we are extinct, or reduced to the impactive importance of any other animal species (beavers? dinos?), the course of evolution will feel our effect for millions of years. Probably mostly in the way we have jumbled up flora and fauna and caused extinctions. Can't be helped, I'm afraid. Stiff upper lip........

Humans have the ability right now to do two things - work with the environment they evolved to & adapted to - or they can disrupt it, not knowing the consequences. That's what I'm saying.

If I take your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion then I have to conclude that you should not be a gardener at all. This isn't an insult, I am quite serious.

If you think that you should only grow 'native species' you are missing a critical point. You own a tiny piece of the globe and what is native to your state is not native to your tiny piece of the globe (your yard). If you go take a walk through nature you will notice that one area has a lot of certain plants and another area just a mile or two away has none. This is because within any area, there are sub areas and within any sub area there are still more sub areas. The only way to know what native plant is best suited for an area is this:

Plant nothing, water nothing, prune nothing, fertilize nothing, do not do anything to the soil to make it more suited for anything. Just let everything go wild. Don't mow anything either.

Only then can you say your property is host to only native species and you aren't doing anything (in terms of what you are growing) to screw with nature.

How about a comprise? Get rid of what is probably the most prevalent non native plant on your property. Your lawn.

"Get rid of what is probably the most prevalent non native plant on your property. Your lawn."

Yes! I'm working on mine. This year I hope to overtake 80% of the front lawn with garden. The back yard is much larger, but I hope to do as much as 25% of that in garden this year. Some of those are plants that are native to this region but which I only ever see as cultivated these days. The rest are vegetables.

justaguy, while your plan to allow natives to volunteer into your patch is possible, two problems will soon appear. First, ubiquitous weeds of alien origins will come to early dominance and persist for some time. Second, seed and other propagules of natives formerly residents of the spot have long disappeared as native cover was removed and intentional and unintentional alien plants came to dominant.

In many neighborhoods municipal codes limit what can be planted, or at least the look of the plantings are controlled. A front yard of weeds will often bring down the wrath of neighbors or municipal authorities.

The March 6 issue of the New York Times had an interesting article concerning the use of native plants and their benefit to the native birds and insects.

Here is a link that might be useful: NYT article

If you think that you should only grow 'native species' you are missing a critical point. You own a tiny piece of the globe and what is native to your state is not native to your tiny piece of the globe (your yard). If you go take a walk through nature you will notice that one area has a lot of certain plants and another area just a mile or two away has none. This is because within any area, there are sub areas and within any sub area there are still more sub areas. The only way to know what native plant is best suited for an area is this:

Plant nothing, water nothing, prune nothing, fertilize nothing, do not do anything to the soil to make it more suited for anything. Just let everything go wild. Don't mow anything either.

Only then can you say your property is host to only native species and you aren't doing anything (in terms of what you are growing) to screw with nature.

How about a comprise? Get rid of what is probably the most prevalent non native plant on your property. Your lawn. "

No - the compromise is this - enjoy gardening but only plant native species, and make sure they are as nearly native to your location as possible. Problem solved.

hry,
What problem solved? This only seems to be an issue in your mind. Sorry, Tom

Ditto.

Uh, we aren't so convinced. I feel a bit of fanaticism and unrealistic ideals, hooray.

"Only native species" and then "as nearly native as possible".

The first is impossible to define let alone enact; the second is a good description of a well-adapted plant. For example, where I am, the brassica most nearly native to my climate is red russian kale. So that's what I grow, mostly. You know, just after the glaciers melted off, there were no "native" plants at all. What to do? Is the best course of action, knowing that, to eliminate plants from Mass?

It is not impossible, you go to your latest scientific info and do the best you can.

Anything less = attack on the ecosystem (moreso than just planting natives)

Hooray, that's all that's being asked of you- since you brought up the topic. Where is there good science showing that it is environmentally irresponsible to plant non-native plants? And as others have asked how is a true native defined? My island was covered by 1000's of feet of ice not all that long ago. Should mother nature have kept applying round up so no non natives would take hold? And as we have all learned in life doing the best you can has no relationship to going a good job. Tom

Anything less = attack on the ecosystem (moreso than just planting natives)

Hooray, you continue to make statements like this that you offer nothing, other than your opinion, in support of. Is there a scientific basis for the narrowness of your theory? If so, it is not one that I have ever encountered in a lifetime of gardening and many years of research and study of the ecology, sustainabilty and organic gardening. Despite all the logic and sound reasoning of the responses of many, you remain adamant in your contention, yet offer no evidence to document it. Gardening in any form - even planting only "native" species (whatever they may be) - is altering the ecosystem, which is impossible by man to duplicate in its original state. The degree to which it is altered is dependent on many things, only one of which is plant selection. Being "environmentally irresponsible" has far less to do with gardening and our ultimate choices in plants than it has to do with our culture and how we live our lives.

If this is a major motivator for you, you really need to examine the bigger picture. Choosing native plants over non-natives is not the issue, nor will it ever be.

Well said, gardengal.

"Anything less = attack on the ecosystem (moreso than just planting natives)"

Much ado about nothing. Gardeners are attacking the ecosystem. PLEASE....... There are better things to worry about.
Just curious, but how old are you?

JMO,
Tom

Interesting discussion! I am intrigued with the notion of using native (and naturalized) plants in my yard because I know they will grow easily in my climate and have a natural resistance to pests and diseases. I'm thinking that is a good way to avoid the use of chemicals. There are several fruits native to Michigan, such as Persimmon, Paw Paw and Quince, that I would like to try. On the downside, I will have to share them with the local wildlife, since they are a natural food for them. As far as the veggie garden goes- most of that stuff is grown as annuals here, so it can't become invasive. Hooray- count yourself as Lucky to have a little slice of this complicated world that you can plant (or not) as you see fit. Kathy

One way that growing natives conceivable can do some real good is growing ones that are rare or extinct in the wild. Helping test native chestnuts for resistance if you have some spare space, or growing a Franklinia, for two instances, and there are probably lots of herbaceous plants in some risk (Okeechobee gourd and Seminole pumpkins are ones I'd like to try, the latter possibly domesticated rather than wild). The more places the nearly-extinct ones are grown the safer the species is. Don't further endanger them by providing a lucrative market though. Buy from a reputable "no collection from the wild" dealer.

Quince is native to Michigan? I thought that eating quince (Cydonia oblonga) is from southwest Asia and that flowering quinces are from east Asia.

Quince may be naturalized here in Michigan. I know it grows wild and the deer love it. There may be a native species though. I know there is of persimmon. I'm still in the research stage...

According to Slow Food USA- "In North America, the quince was among the first fruits to have been introduced to the new colonies by English settlers."
So no, it is not native to Michigan, but naturalized. I still want to try it! Kathy

If anyone has any good resources on native planting, feel free to post them, by the way.

Have you read Noah's Garden, by Sara Stein? Its a good book for inspiration.

I also recommend "Natural Landscaping, Designing with Native Plant Communities" by Diekelmann & Schuster.

And of course the Wild Ones handbook is available on line.

Here is a link that might be useful: Wild Ones Handbook

It also depends on where you live. I live in a canyon (high fire area) in CA.

We have 1/2 acre. All native brush must be clearcut to a minumum of 100' from the house. All trees must be pruned so that nothing but the trucks are within 4'of the ground.

Non-natives are fine as they are considered "landscaping".

Alot of the native vegetation in our area have oils in the sap that really fuels a fire.

I agree that invasive non natives like Kudzu and bamboo can be bad in the garden, but well behaved non natives like certain cold hardy palms and perrienial bananas create homes for native birds and tree frogs reducing the need for pesticides.

How is that different from humans?

One of the things I am doing in my garden and the surrounding woods is re-introducing native plants that went extinct in my area during the last ice age, but can survive in my area with no problems or impact on the current ecosystem. The Dwarf Palmetto (Sabal Minor) and the Needle Palm (Rhapidophylum hystrix) were both native to most of Virginia a few thousand years ago and were in the southern part of the commonwealth in colonial times. They are well established in my garden and yard with birds spreading the Sabal Minor seeds. Sadly, the vector for the Needle Palm is extinct, the Giant Sloth, however bears and raccons have been known to ingest the smelly fruit when really hungry, so there is hope. I plant the seeds in the woods and the seedlings spring out of the ground after the winter and seem to be growing well through several winters with some actually starting to look like small palms. It will be neat to see a more "deep southern" looking landscape in the years to come.

How is that different from humans?

One benefit of planting is natives is that we can recreate some of the habitat in our lawns that humans have destroyed. And if everyone turned one quarter of their lawn into a native habitat - acres and acres of habitat would be available for birds, bugs and amphibians.

I say make a GOOD effort to go native. I replaced numerous plants when I bought my house in S. FL. for a number of reasons. Drought Tolerance which leads to reduced water needs which is a HAPPY thing these days and means less work for me! Going native is beneficial to the local critters in your area and you do not have to worry if you are killing or sickening your local wildlife.

Get rid of invasives, they are good for knowone. If you enjoy your local wildlife, no native.

I think with a clean conscience you can go non-native, just watch for those invasives.

I knew you were going to open yourself up to some of this when I read your post. Your points are thoughtful and not, to me, fanatical, as in baseless.

But, I do agree with gardengal and lorna-organic. Ever since people have been moving around we've taken seeds and animals with us (and diseases....) Admittedly we're certainly doing it faster now than before. Lorna makes a good point: I don't know which reference point you could establish as being the natural one for a given area. So even if you wanted to, you wouldn't be able to figure out what the native plants are.

pnbrown said this, and I think this is the big picture:

"We can make our little choices, to plant or not to plant, buy green or buy gucci, conserve or don't conserve, but humanity as a whole is going to make a walloping impact on the environment and evolution, as it has been but increasing geometrically of late. After we are extinct, or reduced to the impactive importance of any other animal species (beavers? dinos?), the course of evolution will feel our effect for millions of years. Probably mostly in the way we have jumbled up flora and fauna and caused extinctions. Can't be helped, I'm afraid. Stiff upper lip........"

I've spent my life trying to do the "right" thing when I could, and I feel my contribution has been a mere drop in the bucket as long as everyone else is doing what they are. (A small example: turning off the lights when you're not in the room. Ever look at the city buildings at night? What a waste!. So I saved 60 watts --- it hardly seems to matter!) And I don't believe we're able to convince many people to change their minds about much!

Not to go off subject here, but just wanted to reply to EGGANDDART49. Lights in the buildings???? Ever looked at the highways at night? How much electricity, copper and so forth are we waisting lighting up the roadways. That is a MASSIVE waste. I never hear anyone mention that ridiculous waste of resources, not just in energy but OUR TAX DOLLARS. I would like to know what we spend there, lord knows. I thought we had headlights for a reason. lol

And being conservative is good for you and you know you are doing the right thing about being wasteful! But the effect is when people see others doing it, maybe they will imitate. Lead by example.

I wander how many people in a credit crunch are not just wasteful in spending but wasteful in these ways. It is just a pattern of waste.

I am not one who buys into global warming, but I believe we should keep it clean and stop with the waste. Do we want to live in a dirty house, then why would we want a dirty planet (waste & pollution). Dirt is good in the garden! :)

Cheers, that is my two cents.

Lastly, try to go native the best you can, you will surely benefit by conserving water, your personal energy in maintaining non-natives, and helping the local critters. My home in S.FL is probably 80-85% native, probably get to 90-90% soon enough. Have some queens near the house I want to remove because they fall in hurricanes & will replace with native palms which are truly hurricane resistant.

Thank you hooray for starting this interesting thread. And thank you everyone for your thoughtful posts.
I feel the most important native thing I've done on my 1/4 acre in NH not far from downtown in a small city neighborhood is to resist getting a tarred driveway (Its dirt). I'm afraid my dh will sneak it on me one of these days. I will continue to grow what ever strikes my fancy (as long as its not invasive) in my flower and vegetable beds, but being open to natives. I let milk weed grow in my sunny bed, for example, and I also leave goldenrod and asters in some places. I have more solomons seal, bloodroot, hepatica trillium and other wild flowers than you can shake a stick at. I would say solomons seal and ferns qualify as invasive on my property and have to dig some out regularly. We have left a part at the back and one side of our property mostly "undisturbed". and it has unfortunately non native invasives like honeysuckle that it is my mission to get out of there this summer. I will replace with native shrubs in that area which also has a brush pile, but leave the vinca vine patch which has been there for decades and the forsythia that we got as a wedding gift 19 years ago. I also plan to get rid of many of the native maple saplings which are sucking the life out of that part of the property. With such a small lot, I don't really want a maple forest. I want to warn you all that a somewhat natural, not lawn area means unkempt to some. At least twice over the years the neighbor on that side, and in one case the realtor between owners there have thrown garbage, like a rotted dog house and rusty tools, from their back yard onto our property, apparently assuming that we never went up there since its not lawn.
I am suggesting a thoughtful approach and being open to natives where one is comfortable having them or where they are most useful. In my case the back is adjacent to the stone wall and field and more connected to the wild than streetside. I don't think my Primula denticulatas from the Himalayas that give me so much pleasure are environmentally irresponsible. Nor the gourgeous 15 ft star magnolia in the side yard whose fruit the birds adore. In fact they are some of the things that make me want to garden and care for my property. I also know that many drops fill the bucket and will continue to turn lights out and conserve where I can within the sphere of my influence.

Highway Lighting is usually for safety purposes in urban areas or high traffic areas... most rural highways are unlighted.

And though I think we should be conscious about lighting buildings and highways only when necessary. And we shoudl ensure that our highways and buildings are lighted as efficiently and as economically as possible, (minimize light pollution with cut off fixtures,etc.), it is there for a reason (safety) and is not necessarily a total waste. Moderation in all things, eh.

Anyone think that humans are a natural species? I'm scared because it seems like so many these days think that we're either non-natural or irrelevant. I try to be responsible by not planting anything invasive, for my benefit, but other than that, I do what is best for me on my property. I grow lots of non-native species; tomatoes, peppers, corn, some beans, cucumbers, lots of herbs, pac choi, etc.

Lacebark, Inc., P.O. Box 2383. Stillwater, OK 74076
Much has been written in recent years about the need to plant only "native" species. But the key questions are often
overlooked. Is a plant best adapted to where it is "native"? Once urban soils have become homogenized and modified
with all sorts of construction debris, is any plant "native" to that site? Are all introduced species "bad"? Shouldnt
adaptation of a plant to a site or region be considered instead of just "native" vs. exotic? Just because a plant is "native"
to an area, does that mean that the location/conditions are where is grows best? All these are questions that need to be
considered.
Our focus should be on plants adapted to a site and with acceptable "manners" relative to the desired purpose.
The plant that grows best on a site may or may not be the most desirable and it may be a native or it may be an
exotic.
In many instances I feel requirement is often confused with tolerance. For example, my research that created the
micronutrient fertilizer, Micromax, was done with tomato and pyracantha only. That was in 1978. Micromax has been
the number 1 selling micronutrient fertilizer in the world for years. How can it be that research data from one vegetable
and one woody shrub relates to thousands of species worldwide? I believe it is because all or nearly all plants have the
same requirement for optimum micronutrient nutrition. To study this question I have grown an array of species of
plants with a wide array of micronutrient levels. Azaleas were dark green and thrived in a narrow band of micronutrient
levels. The same was true for African violet and blueberry. On the other hand, juniper, arborvitae, marigold, and
crabgrass were green and attractive over a huge range of micronutrient levels, hundreds of times wider than for the
azalea. BUT all of the test species grew best with the same level and combination. These data support the view
that plants have vastly different degrees of tolerance, yet for optimum growth, about the same requirement.
Now consider the initial questions raised:
Is a plant best adapted to where it is native? If a plant grows faster, produces more flowers and seeds which germinate
readily and establish new plants more rapidly in a new location vs. where it is native to which site is it best adapted? The
new location of course! This is exactly the situation with the Melaluca leucadendron or punk tree in south Florida vs. its
native habitat of Australia. In its native range in Australia, it is not an aggressive, invasive tree. A striking reverse
situation exists with Pinus radiata, Monterey pine, native to the California coast where it grows at a moderate pace and is
not especially vigorous. Yet in New Zealand and South Australia, Monterey pine grows vigorously and creates
magnificent timber.
A study of fossils reveals that many plants were "native" to locations far removed from were they are currently "native".
Conditions change and with the change plant species shift or adapt.
Just because a plant is "native" to a site does not necessarily mean that site and conditions are optimum for its growth.
Once urban soils have become homogenized and modified with construction debris is any plant "native" to that site? No,
other than crabgrass and then only because it has, perhaps, the widest tolerance of all species. On the other hand,
many species have such a wide tolerance that they can grow reasonably well under such adversity.
For example, southern wax myrtle, Myrica cerifera, is native over a wide range of conditions throughout the southeast
USA. It is native to the almost pure sand soils of the Ocala National Forest in north central Florida, to stream banks
where flooding frequently occurs, to alkaline soils along limestone outcroppings and acid soils along the swamps of
southern Georgia. This is a species with a huge tolerance for growing conditions, and it does well in nearly all urban
conditions.
In order to have successful plantings on highly disturbed urban sites, we must look to plants with a wide range of
tolerance. Along with wax myrtle, one of the most tolerant and adaptable shrub species that works well is Nandina
domestica, native to China. Nandina would be at the very top of my list of broadleaf evergreen shrubs with many
attractive qualities and good mannersÂnative or non-native. Nandina has attractive foliage, flowers, and fruits, is nearly
disease- and insect-free, produces few invasive seedlings or rhizomes, is easy to maintain, and grows well in a huge
range of conditions.
Are all introduced species "bad"? Absolutely not. Nandina, lacebark elm, Chinese pistache, Pittosporum tobira, and on
and on are introduced species that are well adapted to much of North America that have good manners and make good
"citizens".
On the other hand, melaluca, tree of heaven, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu vine, and many other species are too well
adapted: grow too vigorously and reproduce too freely so as to be undesirable in the view of current day society.
The bottom line is that just because a plant is growing "native" under certain conditions, does not mean that it is at its
peak or optimum. It simply means that it is able to tolerate the current conditions and survive. Further, relative to the
evolution of the species and the changing local site conditions or site conditions of a much larger region, the species may
be relatively "new" and will become more vigorous and aggressive in the future as conditions become more favorable or it
may be on its way out because it has reached its limits of tolerance and will eventually become extinct. At this point in
time no one knows. However, we get a "feel" for the answer from various experiences. Because of the positive plant
response and adaptation to such an array of conditions, southern wax myrtle appears to be still expanding its "native"
environment. On the other hand, black cherry, Prunus serrotina, appears to be less and less tolerant to environmental
conditions and may become extinct in another century or two.
In my view, it would be simplistic and foolish to plant only natives. Likewise, it would be foolish to plant only introduced
species. Our focus should be on species adapted to the site and with acceptable manners regardless of where they
happen to be "native at a particular time in the glob al picture.
------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Whitcomb is author of ÂKnow It and Grow It: a guide to the identification and use of landscape plantsÂ, 820 pages, 8.5
by 11 format, hard cover, over 2000 black and white photos of most of the woody plants, native and exotic, that can be
grown east of the Rocky Mtns. $60.00 + shipping.
Also, ÂEstablishment and Maintenance of Landscape PlantsÂ, 630 pages, 6 by 9 format, hard cover and many photos.
$35.00 + shipping. Phone 405-377-3539 or Fax 405-377-0131.

Nice post and I agree 100%.

What an interesting post. I think the big appeal of "natives" and how they affect the ecosystem is that they will survive with little or no watering. Eliminating dependence on municipal water, which is especially important if you're in a drought state.

Otherwise, birds and bees and butterflies and beneficials are still going to come around regardless of whether the plant is on a "native" list. And as many people pointed out, most food crops wouldn't be on the native list.

To say that you could ONLY plant a native, and nothing else... that's pretty extreme. Even for a total crunchy earth hugging organic foodie hippy mom like me. I understand where the original poster is coming from, but there are FAR more pressing issues and far more ways that we can choose to impact our local ecosystem that don't involve tearing out established and beautiful landscaping areas just for the sake of adding in natives. But that's my 2 cents.

(pnbrown) "Non-participation in the typical economy might have more desired impact than avoiding non-native plants." Of course I like that statement because I don't participate in the typical economy, i.e. hubby and I both retired around age 40, we hardly buy anything, we grow and preserve a lot of food, we get things secondhand and free (freecycle and scrounging and taking our friends' discards, etc.), we heat our house with 'free' wood, no A/C, our car gets 50 mpg, etc. etc. So we are using way less energy and resources than typical U.S. residents. I think that has a much bigger impact on the planet than what kind of flowers I grow.

I also want to say that I bought my childhood home from my mom 5 years ago. She is quite elderly and did mostly the don't plant, don't prune, don't weed, don't fertilize, don't mow thing on her 5 acres for many years. If you let nature take its course long enough, you have such tall shrubs and trees near the road that no one can tell if you are mowing or not! (She always had a son come around to mow a bit of lawn around the house.)

I am pleased to report that we keep finding native species popping up all over the place. And as we attack the grey dogwood and other invasive plants that have tried to take over the yard, we are getting more and more native plants. We have had a few red trilliums, finding a couple more every year, this spring we found about 7 more, plus one enormous white trillium. We've has a little Mayapple for years, now there is a lot of it in many places, also lots of false Solomon's seal. My brother reported that we have some type of viburnum which is native to WI but only find in 2 counties now.

These all just grew themselves. So don't underestimate the powers of birds and mammals and wind and the seed bank. But you have to know which things to hack down and which things to leave alone. So trying to support native and endangered plants is great, but growing a lot of stuff and providing wildlife habitat vs. having a huge lawn or paving much of your yard is more critical still.

Marcia

"...And as we attack the grey dogwood and other invasive plants that have tried to take over the yard, we are getting more and more native plants..."

Marcia,
Gray dogwood, Cornus racemosa, is native to Wisconsin, is it not?

tj