And yet those natives just keep getting better and better. Sorry if it sounds like climate bragging, but winter is our season of rebirth here in coastal northern California, and things are just jumping. I've already seen the first Califoria poppies blooming, (along with seeding a whole hillside of them on this latest spec home landscape), and shrubs like the Silk Tassle, Garrya elliptica are looking fantastic right now with their long dangling earrings of white tassles against verdant green foliage. The first of the Ceanothus/California lilacs are also popping, and I have been munching on the Miner's Lettuce, a local native that can actually be kind of weedy in a garden setting, for weeks now. The flowering season will just continue to get more and more colorful through about the end of April, and the Baby Blue Eyes and several species of Clarkia I planted out from 4 inch pots from Annie's Annuals here in Richmond back in December are already bursting into bloom as well. The real possibility of severe water rationing starting later this spring is still threatening us locally, but we even have some 2 days of rains forecast to hit tomorrow, ending this unseasonably warm spell with low 70'sF here in Berkeley. I spent the day up in Sonoma County yesterday wholesale nursery shopping, and enjoyed the scenery immensely, especially the green hillsides with the massive Valley Oaks dotted here and there. I must say, a lot of the Coast Redwoods planted along the Hwy 101 freeway medians did look rather stressed out from several subpar rainfall years, but those redwoods that had planted themselves did not appear to be suffering. The first of the flowering plums are also bursting out in bloom here, as well as all the non-native Acacia dealbata and many varieties of Magnolia soulangeana, M. denudata, M. stellata, etc. The first of the South African Leucadendrons are also getting ready to pump up the volume as well. It sure would be tough to be looking out at gray skies and dirty snow and below freezing temps in comparison to our local conditions, but then again, it isn't exactly tropical swimming in the ocean weather here either, but all in all, a gorgeous California winter's day, and the promise of some much needed rains. And I can't get too worked up about nurseries pigging back on this thread to self-promote, even if it is prohibited. I understand the underlying sense of feeling a bit desperate, what with the slow down in spending, but come on! Be a little more subtle about how you do it, and I bet it would be more successful! It does seem to show that there is no one doing what Spike used to do with yanking threads into the ether...

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.

I used to run a landscaping business in NorCal and I planted a lot of CA native gardens. In general you wouldn't amend the soil for native plants, but that's assuming you're planting locally native plants in the same kind of soil and habitat they would normally be growing in. And that your soil is relatively healthy. Stripped, graded, compacted soil from recent construction will need some kind of work before you could plant anything except stuff that likes those conditions. California is a political designation, plants don't care. There are multiple ecoregions within that political boundary. Plants native to one, won't necessarily grow that well in others. I had a real issue with that in my landscaping. Most of the 'CA Native' plants available from nurseries were from particular ecoregions, like the Channel Islands. They did ok most of the time but they weren't frost tolerant at all. Bush monkey flowers (Diplacus) were a popular native plant when I was working there, but they barely made it through most SF Bay Area winters and were all wiped out in one bad winter. Native to CA, but not locally native to the SF area. Then even within a particular ecoregion you have different habitats. Big-leaf maple is a CA native but it's a riparian tree, needs water and drainage. Plant it in the central valley or the desert and it's not gonna make it on its own. Up here in Washington it's a weed, grows anywhere and everywhere. Even the driest soils are wet enough for it. Down in CA you need a wetter soil for it to thrive. But not a wetland soil. I would plant stuff in unamended soil usually, with drip irrigation for the first couple years or so, to get them established. Then depending on the species and the weather they ideally wouldn't need irrigation after that. Or fertilizer. But that's assuming you're choosing locally adapted native plants. Woodland plants would like mulching, but desert or alpine plants probably not. I don't believe I mulched chaparral plants, like the manzanitas and ceanothus. Chaparral soils tend to be dry and lean and that's what the plants native there need. Rott: pepper trees are not native to CA. They're from South America, even though they're called CA Pepper Tree. And I'd be careful with Matillija poppy. they're a garden thug. Unbelievably aggressive rhizomes. I wouldn't give them any compost or fertilizer or water, that's for sure!

Thanks everyone for your comments. I am adding a few more pictures here to show the rest of the property from different angles. The picture with the large palm tree shows the edge of my lawn, my driveway and what the rest of the block looks like - here in Fair Oaks we don't have sidewalks, and many of the properties have lawns going straight down to the street. Also, there is no place to park on the street, so, as much as I would like a path leading to the house from the street as enmarene suggested, it would never be used. The second picture shows the edge of the lawn that I'm replacing on the and the big swath of concrete driveway adjacent to the lawn. If anything, I'd like to de-emphasize the driveway by planting a lovely garden. I'm not sure what the semi-circle Yardvaark suggested, was it a driveway? I do like the idea, but I have too much driveway. I do like Yardvaark's drawing, however and would like to incorporate some of the ideas indicated. The trees look great. right The third picture (above) shows the meager pathway from the driveway to the front porch/front door. I would like to enhance that path in some way, as well as make the front door pop more, but that might just be a matter that will be taken care of next spring when we paint the exterior. Thanks again everyone.