I have to agree with most of what you say Robert but am interested to know what your definition of a formal garden would be. I would think it would be different things to different people. Just curious!
Cheers,
Dee.

OK, Robert and Dee, here we go again :)

I agree that the totally formal approach for the home garden is ridiculous, but there is a degree to which the shape of many of our blocks have enforced a sort of semi-formal garden at the front of a large number of home owners. Predominately straight lines, neatly clipped hedges and acres of manicured lawn seem to be the norm for much of Oz, and the unspoken pressure to conform is very evident, at least in our front gardens. My beds may have more curves than those around me, but its only recently that I plucked up the courage to start hacking into the lawn and create new beds in previously 'uncharted' territory. Its a wonderfully liberating feeliing :)

For all my trailblazing (!) ways, I'm still trying to avoid too great a clash of cultures in the front garden - no Gymea Lilies or towering gums. As for the plants, they seem happy together, despite their only connection being a great track record ar this latiitude. Locals often dismiss plants such as Plumeria and Murraya as far too 'common' , but they seem to coexist happily with native rainforest species, so who am I to break with tradition ?

Cheers,

Artie

I spend a lot of time removing weeds, poisoning weeds, mowing weeds, and I am beginning to wonder whether I should just learn to live with them. A lot of them are here to stay, I think. The battle to eradicate them will take more than just little old me chipping away at them.

Large stands of camphor laurel are all over the place, (not on my land ) huge hedges of privet along the roadside (council land). The birds eat the seeds from both these weeds and deposit them all over the place, where new plants will emmerge.

I have observed new "weeds" growing in my bush, such as Liquid ambers, Jackarandas, passionfruit vines, thats to go with the already exploding Japanese honeysuckle.

All these plants are garden escapes, exotics, but they are displacing native plants in my 6 acres.

Murraya is another potential threat, with its berries that the birds like to eat.

Yes, I think diversity is here to stay, but we all need to think very carefully about what we plant in our gardens.

Good topic Robert.

Why do we care about weeds? Why do we care about looking after the last 3 specimins of some rare orchid?

We have some terrestrial orchids growing in our backyard. We're probably the only place in the suburb with them. But they use up valuable garden real-estate that we'd rather use to grow veggies. Should we keep them?

I am not really sure that diversity is here to stay. When all the exotics that have weed potential take over the environment, only the really vigorous natives will survive. There goes our diversity. There is a privet forest in Council-owned park on the slopes of the escarpment at Toowoomba. Very little grows under privet there. I can't see diversity surviving there.

We have very few members on this forum and if we won't be the "champions" for native plants, who will? We need to be pursuading the great unwashed about their desirability, so that some of their "diversity" can survive the onslaught of the exotics.

Cheers,
Frank.

There is no arguement when it comes to growing potential weed species. Being vigilant in not growing them is I am sure, observed by most gardeners these days. Okay there are exceptions where stubborn nursery owners as well as ignorant or irresponsible gardeners are environmentally irresponsible.

But the idea that every exotic plant is a weed will never catch on as it is just not true. If we make statements like that we are just not going to seem credible when making a case against the real escapees that are now causing serious damage. We also lose credibility if we use that arguement to push only natives.

As I said in my original post many native plants are becoming damaging weeds. Most of us here already know there are hundreds of exotic weed species as well as those old favourites such as Privet and Camphor Laurel. Just look at the declared weed species in any shire/council area in Australia. But there are equally lots of exotics that do not indicate weed potential. Realistically no authority/government is going to ban all exotic plants.

Some of the exotics I am growing are sterile forms of Euphorbia, Miscanthus, as well as plants like Red Hot pokers for the Honey-eaters, Salvias, and Megaskapasma that seem to be handling the dry quite well.

An interesting native plant that I am having trouble with right now is Cyathea. It is now coming up everywhere!

Frank I reckon there are thousands of "quiet gardeners" out there that do not frequent web pages like this, happily growing native plants. We may not like their plant selection but they do like to get their hands in the dirt and they do like to plant the odd native.

On this forum we are winning extremely few converts as we tend to preach to the converted. Some insist on keeping stictly to the "correct path" while others like myself tend to stray a bit. I wish there was a way of generating enthusiastic discussion about native plants that encouraged more contributors and was not so self-righteous.

As I said in my first post on this subject: "Out of millions of gardeners in Australia the amount of contributors this forum on native plants is sadly very small." I wish it was not so.

Again, I have to agree with Robert, but I believe that we are having the wrong debate. The issue isnt natives vs exotics - its ignorance vs education. We should all be working to spread the message that some plants simply dont belong in some parts of Oz, regardless of their origin. Those who want to attack my Murraya are welcome to do so, provided they dont have any skeletons in their own closet. I get a host of looks, ranging from bewilderment to disbelief, when I tell locals that the following just arent a good idea in the Fitzroy basin:

Cadagi (Eucalyptus Torelliana)
several species of Acacia
Box Honeysuckle
Passionfruit vine

These are all sold at various nurseries throughout Rocky, but nursery owners claim that they have sterile stock which wont cause any problems. I'll hand that one over to the forum for further dicsussion.

Cheers,

Artie

If exotic plant lovers stuck to sterile varieties of their chosen exotic plants then I would be more than happy for them to enjoy these in their gardens or sell them in their nurseries.

That way their right to grow and sell their favourite exotic plants would not impinge on my right, and that of future generations, to enjoy our diverse range of indigenous plants (and animals that rely on them) in the wild.

What particularly enrages me is those people who simply don't care about my right or simply bury their head in the sand after the environmental effects of their chosen non-sterile exotic plants are explained to them. As long as they can grow or sell what ever they damn well please then to hell with every one else.

I think it is high time that ecology, with a environmental weed component, was a compulsory subject in secondary school as with English.

Ecology should also be a compulsory component in the training of landscapers, landscape architects and horticulturalists. Perhaps if some of these people did some work experience in a bush crew for several months, as part of their training, they would be some what more understanding of people like myself.

Greg,
Regarding your remark:
"Ecology should also be a compulsory component in the training of landscapers, landscape architects and horticulturalists." It has been for a while.

Ecology has been taught in landscape courses for years. I myself remember ecology, conservation and rehabilitation as major subjects over twelve years ago at Ryde TAFE in the four year Diploma in Landscape Design course. These subjects now form major areas of study in most of the university landscape degree courses that I am aware of.

There has been an increasing interest in environmental horticulture for a long while. So much so, that for quite a few years there have been all sorts of environmental horticultural/conservation degree courses available.

Nobody has addressed my question as to why diversity matters? Perhaps weeds are more efficient at using resources, shouldn't we let them grow instead?

Willows are apparently much better at filtering creek water than any australian species.

I want a 30 second sound bite that explains why we should protect diversity and attempt to control weeds.

Nathan,
I get the impression your questions are begging the obvious. Willows and weeds are crowding out endangered species and so are patently not adding to diversity. While vegetables are needed for us to eat. What is your point?

My point is that a tacit assumption is that we need to preserve endangered species. Why? What's the point?

Willows make dirty water clean again, unlike native species. So why do we want to get rid of them?

There's copious amounts information on the net about Willows as weeds in rivers.

This page will answer all your questions:
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/salix.html

You haven't answered my question. Why is it important to protect species? So willows out compete native species. So what? Willows grow fast, are much more efficient at removing pollutants from rivers and make nice cricket bats. If willows arrived here a thousand years ago this forum would be bemoaning the fact that people don't plant more willows :)

(c.v. dingos, boabs, pittosporum undulatum etc)

My point is that until we can give a good reason for why we believe what we do, we are as bad as the people we are criticising.

Hi Nathan,

Ok, my take on it is this : biodiversity is about maintaining a balance between different plants (and animals, insects etc). Remove one species from an ecosystem and you remove the food source/habitat of another : this has a domino effect and the net result is a lifeless desert where even the weeds cant survive (or a choked river system, or ...). If you listen to David Attenborough tell it, all life on earth depends on the dung beetle - a humbling thought indeed.

OK, many of our species are more adapatable than we give them credit for, and weeds arent the only environmental issue facing the bush (surely salinity is a bigger problem ?), but its not a rosy picture. Yes, I should be donating some of my free time to LandCare, but how about getting some of our welfare recipients out in the bush ?

Sincerely,

Alan Jones
C/O 2UE

Sheesh
And I got the impression some of you figured Waz and myself were sending people around in circles on a previous thread.
Where's this going?

Nathan,
It seems to me that you are presenting the old strawman arguement here which I do not see as being constuctive. After a glance at Your Web page I would guess that you are already have answers to your questions that you insist on posing above. If only I knew where they are leading.

Robert,
I don't have answers. It has bothered me for a long time. I've asked it of biologists and enviromentalists, and none of the answers have been 'rational', only aesthetic or appeals to authority (divine, public or otherwise). There are specific examples that people give: dung beetles, cures for cancer etc, but I want to know if there is a general princple. Otherwise everytime we discover something about to go extinct we might have to spend 10 years proving it is worth keeping.

Arty has at least tried to answer it, the other posts are all just stepping around the question.

Take my example. We have orchids growing in the lawn at our house. They are taking up valuable veggie space, which we might use to grow our own veggies; offseting vast amounts of CO2 emissions, truck driver deaths, land clearing, loss of veggie diversity etc. Or I could leave them be, in the knowledge that I personally wasn't responsible for the death of the last indigenous P pedunculata in the surrounding 5 km. They might die in 5 years anyway in a drought or something.

Does life on Earth depend on the humble maroonhood?

" Does life on Earth depend on the humble maroonhood?"
This is really a different subject for discussion, perhaps you might find an answer if you posted the question separately.

Nathan.

Willows may effectively filter water and improve the water quality in the short term. However if uncontrolled then in the long term they will eventually stop water flow leading to reduction in water quality through stagnation. Like many weedy species they do not form an acceptable equilibrium with the ecosystem.

And the issue of willows as to be viewed in the context of the myriad of other ways that humans are interefering with a destroying local ecosystems.

No doubt environmental weeds have arrived and continue to arrive in Australia without intervention by humans. However that may amount to one outbreak every thousand years or so. At this rate the effected ecosystems have ample time to assimilate the changes brought about by the new arrival before the next outbreak.

With human intervention new environmental weeds are ariving at a rate of many hundreds per century. Local ecosystems are simply unable to assimilate the resulting changes and reduction in biodiversity is the result.

If willows were the only environmental weed we had to deal with then perhaps we could afford to learn to live with them. However they are the tip if the ice berg.

Robert,

Maybe I was not clear enough, but your interpretation of what I said is not what I meant. I said:

"When all the exotics that have weed potential take over the environment..."

That does not mean that I believe all exotics have weed potential. It means that those particular exotics which do have weed potential are the problem.

I don't believe "...the idea that every exotic plant is a weed".

However, as others have said, it appears that not enough (if any) care is taken by those who stand to gain from importing exotics in checking weed potential (and I'm not confident AQIS has the resources to do this properly either), and in the final analysis, while we might make a reasonable judgement about it, I don't believe that we can be sure anyway whether a new exotic will or won't become a terrible weed.

As others have also said, some Australian natives also have weed potential when planted outside their natural range, and I am certainly not denying that. But my guess is that Australian natives that have become weeds in Australia outside their natural range are probably fewer in number and less likely to be a significant problem than exotic weeds, because it is more likely that there are related plant species in other Australian environments that already have their own pests and diseases to control them. Maybe someone with more knowledge can confirm or deny that?

Maybe landscapers and nursery people in their courses learn more about ecology and the environment these days, but that does not seem to translate to what they actually sell. And the buyers generally are often ignorant of their poor choices. And they don't even have to buy the weed species. In this district there are any number of camphor laurels, Chinese elm, Jacaranda, and privet volunteering, and because many people see them growing in their back yards and think they might be pretty plants, not knowing their weed potential (or if they know, not caring), then the cycle is just self-perpetuating. It is just depressing if you think about it too much.

Frank

Interesting philosophical point, Robert.
Do "diversity" and "here to stay" belong in the same sentence, when diversity seems, to you, to mean "introduced plants"? The question is whether introducing plants (and animals like cats, dogs, foxes, etc) contributes in the long run to increased diversity. Perhaps they do. On the other hand perhaps the super-weeds (willows, cats, camphor laurels, dingoes, Eucalyptus torreliana, kookaburras etc) have a long-term effect of reducing diversity, because of their ability to out-compete large numbers of local native species. The all-natives vs no-natives debate doesn't scratch the surface of this one, really.
We get down to the ethical question that I remember first comtemplating as a child, when Donald Duck's nephews first made it to Mars and were portrayed as having made a great contribution to .... well, something .... by introducing trees to that poor deprived planet. The trees were an excruciating-looking plantation of what appeared to be single species of conifer. Even at that age, I hated it. Now I wonder what innocent bystanding Martian bacterium they eliminated in the process.
Willows might indeed give us clean water. Is that all they can do?
The first ethical question is whether we have the moral right to decide that the species of our personal choice is so good for the world that it's OK for it to eliminate other species.
The second is whether what seems a safe decision now might turn out otherwise in the future. Singapore daisies were imported quite legally, I understand. So were prickly pear, lantana, sparrows, privet, Indian mynahs, gorse.........
One quarter of the plant species now growing wild on the Darling Downs are not native. Can we ever know whether diversity has gone up, or down as a result?
A third is, do we have to justify saving other species on the basis that they are of some use to our own (the future cure for the yet un-dreamed of pandemic), or do they all have an intrinsic value by virtue of their own uniqueness?

I believe they do. (Forget the whales. Let's hear it for the nematodes!) You'll have to make your own ethical decisions here.
A fourth question is whether some of us should accept responsibility for respecting the values of others, in cases where our decisions could have results that others find painful. Yes, there could well be species which you regard as relatively worthless, but if other people value them, do you have the right to make a decision which could eventually eliminate them? Could this be a reason not to plant willows? Do we need them(or our pet cats, or our other pet introduced plants) so badly that we are prepared to impose them despite the cherished values of others?
I wish you some happy hours meditating the finer points of ethics. Thanks for the stimulus!
Trish

Come on Trish, don't let us get started on cats.
We're having enough trouble dealing with native plant issues.

Firstly in my first post I said:
"It is also frustrating to see plants in an inappropriate situation. Potential weed species (including native plants) bother meÂÂÂ There is no argument when it comes to growing potential weed speciesÂÂÂ Okay there are exceptions where stubborn nursery owners as well as ignorant or irresponsible gardeners are environmentally irresponsible."
I do not see how this is an argument for irresponsibility. I myself am part of a local bush regeneration group and I am well and truly familiar with the effect of exotic weed species on the diversity of native plants in their NATURAL HABITAT.

Realistically I cannot see government legislation being introduced that is going to ban every introduced plant species in Australia. It is just not going to happen. As I also said; "the idea that every exotic plant is a weed will never catch on as it is just not true. If we make statements like that we are just not going to seem credible when making a case against the real escapees that are now causing serious damage."

There are hundreds of exotic weeds species that are causing damage to our bushland all over Australia. We all know this for goodness sake!!! Whenever the argument against exotics comes up on this forum you can bet more than one contributor to the discussion is going to use as examples, the old favourites. I said in my second post "Most of us here already know there are hundreds of exotic weed species as well as those old favourites such as Privet and Camphor Laurel. Just look at the declared weed species in any shire/council area in Australia. But there are equally lots of exotics that do not indicate weed potential. Realistically no authority/government is going to ban all exotic plants." My goodness, I am surprised no one mentioned Lantana!!

I was hoping the "old crusty" native enthusiasts would move on so the discussion could be advanced to a more pragmatic and realistic level; i.e. how can we as native plant enthusiasts be more accepting of natives with selected exotics in our domestic GARDENS (not bushland!!!)? It appears most cannot.

While there are many hardliners on this forum who want 100% native plants in every garden it is just not going to happen. (I've said that before too) It is acknowledged that increasing numbers of gardeners, government bodies and landscapers are becoming more and more aware of the danger of exotic weeds in our natural bushland. Also just look at the substantial growth of bush regeneration groups all over the country. I am not aware of any contributor here being in favour of planting potential weed species. So can we move on please?

The most popular forums on GardenWeb appear to be Roses in OZ and Cornucopia. Both are exotic plant growers but we cannot hope to be as popular as them unless we are less pig headed and intolerant. Declaring every exotic as endangering the purity of our environment will continue to be regarded with ridicule. I do not grow roses...

I was hoping the "old crusty" native enthusiasts would move on so the discussion could be advanced to a more pragmatic and realistic level; i.e. how can we as native plant enthusiasts be more accepting of natives with selected exotics in our domestic GARDENS (not bushland!!!)? It appears most cannot.

Well I've moved completely in the other direction (that we should accept what we have unconditionally and make no specific effort to 'solve' the weed problem), and you can't accept that, so we're even ;)

Nathan, I am sorry but I do not understand your last note. Perhaps you are being disingenuous, I am not sure. If you're happy to see a garden given over to weeds that's fine for you. If this is the case then that is a subject for a different debate.

I certainly do not understand the stuff about being even. Surely it is possible to have a discussion without having to get even?

The quote of mine you have selected was written without bitterness or any intention of point scoring. I was trying to articulate the line that I had started this post. This "old crusty" native enthusiast is now quite confused.

OK lets get back to the begining to aim was to say how someone enjoys seeing diversty in gardens with exotics working with natives
(blasphemy it seems for many)I think diversity is the wrong word maybe a better word is harmony but the it throws up a whole new debate (I dont want to go there)
later on a good point was thrown up which no one really took notice of the ignorance factor
truly most of the gardeners in this country are ignorant to the natural beauty of growing natives and how rewarding they really can be as everyone here on this forum can attest to.
I went to tasmania (eden if you ask me)and found only one truly native garden there the clincher was this NATIVE garden was being run by to ex-pat scots yet throughout the rest of my travels in eden plenty of rhodendron or camillea or rose gardens!!!
I think this shows us that aussies dont apprieciate what we really do have

Im preaching to the converted but thats my $1.10 worth (GST INC)
wazcrazy

Robert I think you're making an issue out of something that perhaps not many of the forum members think is an issue. There have been plenty of correspondants whose writings show that (like me) they enjoy growing exotics as well as natives.
It's the "diversity = growing exotics" thing that is the sticking point.
Growing exotics so often means just more of the world-wide sameyness of gardens.
Like you, I see many interesting and beautiful gardens full of exotics, but I don't think they represent diversity. They look like so many pictures in so many books from so many parts of the world.
Wouldn't it be fun to drive into an Australian town, look at the gardens, and say - well, here's a place where the gardens have CHARACTER! And it happens sometimes. For the most part, though, suburban gardens from one end of Australia to the other look much the same. And gardens in most parts of the western world are clearly planted by people who read the same books as we do. How disappointing I found it to walk down a suburban street in Germany and find that exept for their size, any of those gardens could have been in my home town. I saw a new daisy in the markets there, and wondered how long it would be before I began seeing it in Australian Gardens. (It was two months.)
At least by growing natives (whether exclusively, or just by growing a few)- we are refusing to take part in the wholesale conversion of our landscape to something that could be anywhere in the world.
Australian plants are so hugely diverse (especially if you move beyond the myrtaceae, proteaceae, and mimosaceae family members which are still the overwhelming majority of speces planted)that there is something for every style of gardening.
Yes, there is a place for exotics. Surely that goes without saying. But this is a native plants forum, after all.
And the introduded weeds issue is not just something for the old crusties. Here in SE Qld, an average of nine plants jump the garden fence and become naturalised every year.
It's not just a matter of "what's here now is probably here to stay". It's that as a nation we are still refusing to take responsibility for a galloping environmental problem caused by an industry which refuses to take responsibility for it. And the industry is supported by many, many gardeners who think that "but I like it" is a good enough reason for putting in any plant they happen to take a fancy to.
The assumption that anyone who sits up and takes notice of the disappearance of native species is some sort of bigoted "old crusty" who will "put people off" native plants is no help. Yes, there are old crusties in all walks of life, including gardeing, but the idea that the pro-native extremists are the only kind doesn't fit. Why should we be bending over backwards to protect the sensibilities of all those other "old crusties" - the ones who think that if a plant can't be found in a gardening magazine, and bought at a garden centre it must automatically be...

Hear, hear Trish! Especially:

"At least by growing natives (whether exclusively, or just by growing a few)- we are refusing to take part in the wholesale conversion of our landscape to something that could be anywhere in the world."

While they can be nice plants, camellias and azaleas seem to be yawningly common around Toowoomba. We inherited some of both when we moved to our current property. The camellias are still there as backdrops; screens; because they flower in winter; don't need watering; require no care; are not weed trees (no seed); and because they can fit in well with native rainforest plants. The only reason the azaleas are still there is that my wife wants to keep them, but they need too much looking after to keep in good condition and are not suited to our alkaline soil and drying climate. They also look awful when not in flower unless you are prepared to use poison on them to kill the pests. Their flowering has been very poor for a couple of years because of the drought and so they have had absolutely nothing to recommend them to me.

Cheers,
Frank

"totally formal approach for the home garden is ridiculous..."
"... clipped... manicured... "

yes. usually unoriginal, therefore a waste of resources including human work/manhours. imo :-)

it amazes me that ppl who've been gardening for a decade or more continue maintaining their self-enforced drudgery.

Trish,
I do not think you and I all that far apart. I agree pretty well with all of what you are saying.

One can certainly have a monotony in exotic gardens.

Frank,
I reckon that the drought and the restrictive use of water still affecting so many gardens, are going to see plants like azaleas being just difficult to grow. Lots of them karked it last over summer.

I notice that the perennial Salvias (not the common bedding Salvias) are becoming popular as they are more drought hardy. I must admit that even though I grow quite a few exotics with my natives, I gave up on Camelias and Azaleas long long ago.

Er, some formal gardens look *fantastic*, and they suit some houses, esp. older ones, really well. I'd never have one myself, even without the drought: don't have the patience, time, effort or self-restraint needed to maintain one. (Plus I'm too busy trying to kill the grass--no way would I be watering, fertilising, and weeding the wretched thing.) Not all formal gardens need lawn, though, and a careful selection of plants that grow well in local conditions could probably be found for pretty much any area. It doesn't all have to be English box hedges and roses! But the formal layout itself can be an artform--when, like everything else, it is done well.

Yes, Robert - There really does seem to be more agreement than disagreement going on - but it's fun to have had the discussion. Among other things, a challenge like yours does make us think about what we're doing and why.
And yes, Cestrum, I agree with you about formal gardening. I'm no good at doing it, but I love to look at a really creative formal garden. The people who do it well clearly don't find the work "drudgery" - and good luck to them! I don't think Australians have gone nearly as far as we could in investigating species suitable for formal gardens. The dry sclerophyll plants don't lend themselves to it, but there are lots of other kinds of natives, after all.
Cheers, Trish

I have enjoyed reading the posts on this topic. One thought though, I desperately wish I could believe that weeds overtaking the native bushland was the major issue facing the survival of our world. Compared to the pollution, deforestation, chemical contamination, religious squabbling, climate change, over-population, starvation etc issues facing the world, if we were able to fix this problem, I doubt the effect would be noticed in the big picture!