Do native plants, and the wildlife that depend on them, have a place in our landscapes? More and more, professional designers are answering with a resounding “yes!” Setting aside the question of aesthetics for a moment, there’s a clear need for people to replace their resource-hogging lawns and may-as-well-be-plastic exotics with something that their local birds, butterflies and bees can use as food and habitat.
According to the US government, 41% of our land is being used for production agriculture (which is not beneficial to wildlife), and all but 5% of the remaining area of land is now a mix of urban, suburban, and industrial landscapes. We think of “nature” as existing somewhere out there, but the amount of area we leave for nature is shrinking rapidly due to our need for food and housing. If we care at all about preserving the species that share our world, we need to step up and help. Planting wildlife-supporting native plants is one of the simplest ways of doing that.
Of course, landscaping is something we do to express ourselves artistically and create a place where we enjoy spending time. Few designers like the idea of limiting their palette to only natives, and rightly so. An artist’s palette benefits from the addition of differing colors, textures, and styles of plant.
However, landscaping with natives brings a variety of benefits. Not only does it attract wildlife, which brings us a sense of awe and connection to our gardens, but planting our region’s natives is a way of celebrating the unique character of the places we each live. Have you ever visited a new location, and realized there was nothing at all to distinguish it from home? The same strip malls, chain stores, and Berberis-and-daylily planting schemes that bore us at home, followed us to our new location.
Planting natives is a way of creating a regionally-distinct identity, reminding yourself why you live where you do, and remembering what’s special about your exact place in the world. While nobody’s telling you to back away from the bulb catalogs, why not challenge yourself to learn more about your region’s plants, and start adding them to your palette as well? Let’s flip the lawn-dominated, no-character landscape paradigm on its head and begin planting landscapes with a little more meaning.
How are professional designers working with natives? Read this month’s Garden Designers Roundtable posts to get ideas and inspiration for your own landscape.
Thomas Rainer : Grounded Design : Washington, D.C.
David Cristiani : The Desert Edge : Albuquerque, NM
Susan Morrison : Blue Planet Garden Blog : East Bay, CA
Rebecca Sweet : Gossip In The Garden : Los Altos, CA
Pam Penick : Digging : Austin, TX
Mary Gallagher Gray : Black Walnut Dispatch : Washington, D.C.
Lesley Hegarty & Robert Webber : Hegarty Webber Partnership : Bristol, UK
Genevieve Schmidt : North Coast Gardening : Arcata, CA
Douglas Owens-Pike : Energyscapes : Minneapolis, MN
I like native plants and would be happy to have more of them, but some of the arguments that are used to advocate for replacing non-native plants with native plants are merely assumptions that are not supported by scientific studies.
One of the most dangerous assumptions is that wildlife depends upon native plants. The fact is that in most landscapes non-native plants and trees have been in the environment long enough that wildlife has adapted to them. The destruction of non-native plants and trees sometimes has devastating impacts on wildlife. Here is an article that critiques the mistaken assumptions of Doug Tallamy about the relationship between native plants and animals: http://milliontrees.me/2012/08/14/doug-tallamy-refutes-his-own-theory-without-changing-his-ideology/.
Another assumption that is not always true is that native plants require fewer resources to maintain. That may be true in some landscapes. Here in California, it is only true if you are willing to quit irrigating your garden during the dry summer. In that case, most of the native plants in your garden will be dormant (brown, dead-looking) during the summer. There are many non-natives that look good year around with less irrigation during the summer.
The native plant movement is based on many assumptions that are now being revised by scientific studies. Empirical evidence does not support many of these assumptions.
Skeptic, I don’t normally respond to anonymous comments that are negative. I have put my thoughts out there publicly. Can you not do the same?
I think there are a lot of scientists arguing to and fro about this, and I think we can all agree it would be nice to have more thorough scientific data on the benefits of natives. Unfortunately, research usually follows the money, and there is little money in this area of research, so it gets short shrift.
Since this is primarily a design blog, can we agree on the design benefits of using our region’s natives? Promoting unique regional character is something many people can stand behind.
You used scientific arguments to justify your preference for native plants and so you should expect that a response to it would be within that context. If you had used a design argument, you would have had no quibbles from me, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I do not begrudge anyone their horticultural preferences.
Hi skeptic,
We appreciate your comments very much, and are glad you chose to voice your opinion on native plants. It sounds as though you have well thought out ideas on the subject, but we would prefer to know with whom we are discussing this subject. So if you are so inclined, and feel confident enough in your opinions, please make any further comments under your true identity. We welcome you to continue the discussion over on our Facebook page, you can find the link over in the right-hand column.
All the best,
Scott
Skeptic, a full half of my argument for natives was from a design standpoint, as you will see if you re-read the post.
I appreciate that you took the time to post a thoughtful comment, but I just don’t have time to be drawn into a long debate with someone who lacks the courage to show their true identity. I also don’t think I would change your mind, even if I spent hours crafting a logical and scientific refutation of every point brought up in the link you posted.
I think it best to say that whereas many small mammals and some common birds that are generalists any way, can subsist on non-native species in habitat conditions, more specific species require locally native species of plants to thrive. To use a nonprofit website that does not disclose specific aspects of a scientific study to refute another scientific assumption is not conducive to good science or relative comparison. Misinformation does not provide correct information, and comparison of hearsay to accepted scientific basis of ecological systems study is highly erroneous. Case in point, California Gnat Catchers require Artemisia californica to make their nests in, they will not make nests elsewhere except under extreme conditions; Least Bell’s Vireo and Southern Pacific Flycatcher require Willow scrub (Salix laseolepis and Baccharis salicifolia specifically with supporting species from that plant community) for both nesting areas and foraging areas; California Light-footed Clapper Rail require either: Spartina foliosa(Cord Grass) in tidal flux(and no they do not use non-native cord grass to make their nests in) or Salicornia (pickleweed) Above tidal flux or when tidal flux is too high. These are just a few very specific birds, and California has a plethora of very specific animals. California is a bio-diversity hotspot (as defined by Conservation International, and accepted universally) one of only 34 in the world. These 34 hotspots make up less than 3% of the earth surface, but play home to more than 70% of the earth’s species of plants and animals. The number one rule in order to be considered a hotspot is to have more than 1500 species of vascular plants endemic to that floristic province: California has more than 2120! The second rule is not so cool: to have had at least 70% of the original habitat area to have already been destroyed! We should be proud of the ecological heritage of California and glorifying in it rather than wasting energy trying to prove that what is wasteful is just as good ecologically speaking. It is not. It is unfair to attack landscape designers on scientific basis for habitat quality when the principals used were that it is morally right to use natives, natives are just as beautiful if not more so than non-natives without the cost of invasion control, and the potentiality for invasion of local habitat areas and thereby degrading it that non-natives pose, and at the same time are a benefit for local animals that have adapted to locally native plants over millennia. These n0n-natives have only recently been introduced to California, and yet many if not most have proven to be wasteful water-wise, chemical wise, maintenance wise, and devastating to local ecological systems when they escape and invade local habitat areas. To argue in favor of something to be contrary, or because that is ‘what we/you/they have always done’ is ludicrous, self-serving, and ignoring the damage non-natives do to habitat areas in the state and the world and the cost to society trying to control these non-natives in rangelands and habitat areas. These leads Into the billions nationwide and the hundreds of millions just in California. Many, Many studies have shown that the population of native animals, specifically endemic species, is directly connected to the ratio of native vs. non-native plants found in their range. The simple facts are 1. The number one source of energy on the Earth is actually the Sun 2. The number two source of energy on the Earth is plant material 3.the number three source of energy in the world (and arguably the number two source of energy based on biomass) would be arthropods! Arthropods are especially sensitive to native vs. non-natives, with many in California very locally specific and dependent on locally native species of plants. Many arthropods are dependent on a specific family of plants. Of those many are dependent on a specific genus found in that family. And in California there are quite a few, namely butterflies such as the Palos Verde Blue, the El Segundo Blue, etc that are dependent on a specific species or subspecies of plant in order to lay their eggs! The numbers of larger species, namely birds and reptiles and bats are directly correlated to the population levels and diversity of arthropods in a given region or area. Yes many insects and arthropods will eat non-native plants, per your nonprofit website of MillionsTrees however many research papers which can be found on http://www.jstor.org and Blackwell Scientific Journal will show you that these species are generalists anyway and found in a much wider spread area. But what we must be much more concerned about is the locally specific species in danger of going extinct from the invasion of non-natives or the hybridization with closely related non-natives. The number one reason for species loss is hybridization (not the good hybridization that occurs naturally with native overlapping species) the second is habitat destruction the third is exotic species! Use science to rebut science and do not attack designers with science that are only using that for one more good reason to use natives besides the aesthetic appeal, low water requirements, low maintenance requirements and removal of chemical pesticides and herbicides from the garden. And it is just rude to conceal your identity when all of the designers and others that you have attacked used their real identity.
“Designing with Native Plants! | Garden Designers Roundtable” ended up being a wonderful article, cannot
wait to read much more of ur blog posts. Time to waste a
bit of time on the net hehe. Thanks for your
time ,Ken