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 don't know much about any of this, but IMHO, there's non-native and invasive, and it may be a bit of overkill (literally) to rip out the former when the concern is more with the latter--assuming, of course, the former is not a problem in its own right (in terms of needing a lot of water or pesticides). As humans, we are forever bending nature to shape our will. There is a greater interest in and desire for native plants, and I gather the native plant store here is doing just fine. But most suburbs are loaded up with plants that are at least not native to this area, if not even the US, because that's just what the standard has been (and in some cases, what the HOAs demand). I'd be more interested in seeing people get rid of their lawns than their non-native flowerbed plants, personally. But as someone without a lawn, it's very easy for me to get on a soapbox about it. My balcony has a number of non-native plants--on a microcosm level, nothing is actually native to my balcony, LOL, except concrete. Many are not local, like the plumerias. Others are from other countries, like the mandevilla and perhaps a succulent or three. But then I read that mandevillas aren't even found in their original habitat now. Still, as some note, things move around whether you like it or not. The gecko is now found everywhere in the world, traveling about on ships, and largely fits in nicely wherever it goes. Of course, the Chinese rat flea did the same thing hundreds of years ago and was nowhere near as welcome. :-) Meanwhile, the invasives in Hawaii and Australia destroy ecosystems in a heartbeat. I guess my two cents about the OP's situation is this: If they were ripping out non-natives that weren't causing any issues on the basis of some philosophy that non-natives are inherently evil and must be destroyed, I think that's a bit messed up. On the other hand, if their goal was to create a native garden (and more or less bill it as such), it's fine. In other words, I'm looking at motive--is it to *destroy* the non-natives or is to *create* natives? For some reason, that matters to me.

Just saw your post here. There are a number of ways you can get the look of a Japanese Garden in central Texas. One big plus is that gravel for pathways and rocks are plentiful. Live Oaks provide character. If you don't mind a few non-natives, bamboo-like Nandina thrives in my yard. Japanese Maples do well here in morning light and afternoon shade. Mine are in containers by the front door. Metro Maples is a great place to start. They have all the scoop on growing Japanese Maples in Texas. Here is a link that might be useful: Metro Maples

Rhus aromatica does not sucker as aggressively as some of the other sumacs. So, not a bad problem where they can grow into their ultimate 8ft width.... which agree is a tough fit on just about any sub/urban lot. We're using the 'gro-low' cultivar on a slightly sloped half-circle drive where they have space to get as wide as they want. We went with them because needed something xeric that could do well in both full sun and heavy shade. The ones in sun grow faster and show more fall color, but all appear healthy. In fact, am amazed at how much shade they can take. They are replacing a 6ft boxwood hedge that the PO planted too close to the drive. We planted four of the liners in coves trimmed into the east side of the boxwoods.... and the boxwoods are in the full canopy shade of a 30ft Chinese pistache. That was over three years ago; we'll finally be cutting the boxwoods down while the sumacs are dormant this winter. They are still little, but are fruiting and seem to have hit their stride from their tiny starts. Nice video, wish we had spots for several of the others. Here is a link that might be useful: Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'