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.

The problem is you didn't show the leaves. You should be able to find out what it is from the Garden anyway, botanical gardens are supposed to be telling people what they are displaying. They might have a place on their web site where you can make queries about the collections, or a phone number you can call for information about specific accessions. Looks like this one is prominently situated. What I have seen here with a more or less similar trunk is Cydonia oblonga.

For my part, I'm just happy to see a rather nuanced discussion unfolding here. I see I'm not alone in being frustrated with some of the unintended consequences of the "natives only" movement, even though to a large extent, I'm a part of that movement, or at least a supporter of its main tenets. I think it really comes down to the fact that there are a few really bad actors, and then a whole bunch of stuff somewhere in the middle. I'm a big fan of Norway spruce-obviously not a native tree-and I know of some woods which are mostly native, but have a few big , old monsters of this species mixed in. In my view, absolutely not a problem, in any way. But those same woods are truly being "choked" by common buckthorn. That will be their demise, as that plant really does have the ability to crowd everything else out. It just depends on the situation, but to not realize there is a problem with non-native, invasive plant species proliferating in the environment indicates that you, OP, just haven't yet seen the light. Since you're interested enough in the topic to bring it up, I suspect you will in time come to see the havoc. A part of it really depends on your managing to fall in love with the native plant communities which have not yet been destroyed. Then once you cross that threshold, I think it will become clear what something like Callery pear, garlic mustard, or common buckthorn is doing to the landscape. +oM

One has to distinguish between plants that are invasive in natural settings and plants that are invasive in gardens. Lots of natives are invasive in the garden sense of the word. They spread in the garden and may require that the gardener control them. On the other hand, I don't know of any situations where a native plant has been invasive in a natural ecosystem, with the exception of Common Reed Phragmites australis (and it may be that a non-native variety of Phragmites is responsible for the invasion of east coast marshes). On the other hand, some species that are invasive in natural settings don't create much problem in the garden. For example, if you plant one of the shrub honeysuckles (e.g. Lonicera mackii) in your garden you'll probably have few problems with it - it won't spread about the garden very much, At the same time, however, it may be spreading seedlings throughout the local woods, displacing native plants and eventually taking over the understory of the woods. So think twice what is meant when someone says a plant is invasive. But your question is whether invasive and non-native mean the same thing, and whether it is OK to grow nonnative plants in your garden. Not all non-native plants are invasive, and almost everyone has at least a few non-natives in their garden. Almost all vegetables are non-native, as are most lawn grasses. I think it is fine to grow non-natives, but I try to avoid them as much as possible. If there is a native alternative then I select the native plant, and I try to avoid any non-native plant that shows a tendency to spread, especially if it spread to any wild areas. Lots of plants commonly recognized as invasive were at one time grown as garden plants, and I bet that there are garden plants we use now that will in the future turn out to be troublesome invasives. For example, butterfly bush (buddleia davidii) is invasive in some parts of PA, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it listed as an invasive plant in future years. In the mean time, however, lots of people, even people who are concerned about things like invasive plants, are growing butterfly bushes not realizing they may be a problem. I won't even point out that Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, Common Privet, Water Hyacinth, and even Purple Loosestrife are commonly sold in nurseries - all are extremely invasive over a wide geographical range. I think that plants that have been in cultivation in the US for a long time are probably less likely to be a problem than pants that are newly intruduced, but you can never be sure. So, I think that non-native daffodils are fine, but I'd get rid of that Russian Sage...