The ABCs of Native Plants

6 Comments

1. 1 Issis 13 Mar
   As an avid gardener, "environmentalist", and  former regional planner, I have watched, often with dismay, the draconian methods of some "native plant" advocates and their governmental funders (using taxpayer money). In FL, especially, many of the "native" species are, frankly, ugly and lend little to the visual landscape (unless scruffy appeals to you). The slash & burn tactics used to rid "native" areas of invasives are expensive and, worse, ineffectual. What is needed is research to apply the same modifications commercial growers use to render seeds and plants sterile. Then too, the invasives (i.e. pepper trees) might be ideal for use as biofuels, mulch, etc. if managed properly. While native species need to be protected, to forbid the introduction of other species because they thrive in our environment (aka "invasive") seems perverse. Better to learn to manage and make use of them.
2. 2 Chad Hughson 12 Mar
   Tony,
   
   I could spend hours harpooning holes through all of your rhetoric and misinformation, but I'll just target a couple of your absurd statements for now:
   
   "the idea that native animals and insects require/prefer natives doesn't pass the logic test.   Using that logic, with all of the thousands of extinct native plants, we should have also lost all of our insect and animals further up the food chain."
   
   Let's use something more concrete than your "logic test", it's called science.  You should perhaps try reading some.  Plants and insects have been having an arms race for eons; this started way before the distant relatives of humans even existed.  As plants evolved certain chemical defenses (phytochemicals), certain insects co-evolved to overcome these chemicals.  Typically, this is accomplished via enzymes.  This resulted in a great many of the herbivorous insect species on the planet specializing in a family, genus, or even one species of plant.  This is scientific fact.  A widely known example is the Monarch and Milkweeds, but there are other insects that also specialize on Milkweeds.  Another example of an insect that is more specialized is the Karner Blue Butterfly which requires a single species, Lupinus perennis (Wild Lupine).  Another common example is the Spicebush Swallotail, it's caterpillars will only feed on Spicebush or Sassafrass.  The list goes on and on and on.  So, contrary to your statement, the truth is that many insects do actually require a certain family, genus, or species of plant to survive.  Also, research is now proving that sites landscaped with more natives versus those that are not, support more native fauna.  Again, not logic, but fact.
   
   Now could you please use your "logic" to explain how losing thousands of plant species should lead to the total extinction of all animals and insects(which are also animals by the way) up the food chain.  To begin with, are you referencing that we have lost thousands of native plant species in a single state, the USA, the continent, or what?  Regardless, do you have the slightest comprehension of the number of plant and insects species that exist just within our country?  Yes, losing plant species does indeed impact animal species, it lowers biodiversity, and makes our ecosystems less stable, but to suggest that if we lose a small percentage of plant species we should lose every animal species is simply ridiculous.    
   
   Now onto another statement:
   
   "Secondly, if native plants are so much better adapted, we wouldn't have had so many go extinct (there should be no such thing as threatened or endangered natives), nor would we have to worry about invasive exotics, as they would be out-competed by better adapted natives"
   
   Hmmm, last I checked, plant extinction is nearly always directly associated with human impacts; typically development and hydrological changes.  The prairie species have a tough time persisting when 99.99% of the prairie has been converted to agriculture or developed.  It's difficult for a fire-dependent plant species to persist when fire has been eliminated, especially if its seed requires fire to germinate.  You know, when the landscape it has occupied for ten or twenty thousand plus years suddenly has fire completely eliminated.  And what about all of those poorly adapted native wetland species.   Oh yeah, if my memory serves me, we have drained, filled, and tiled a huge percentage of their former habitat.  Oh, and many of the remaining wetlands are turning into monocultures of Phragmites or hybrid Typha (Cat tails).  You see, it's not that the plants aren't adaptable, it's just that we have altered the landscape on such a massive scale, and with amazing quickness, that many no longer have suitable habitat or have not been given the necessary time to migrate to suitable habitat.    
   
   Also, do you even have a clue regarding our recent rates of extinction compared to those in the geological record?  It's quite alarming and we have no idea on the potential consequences.  I would strongly suggest you read up on the subject.
   
   It is a fact that many exotics can outcompete natives, but this is not surprising.  The animals and diseases that controlled them are still in Europe and Asia.  They are often superior at colonizing disturbed habitats.  The natives have never had to compete with these non-natives and they are typically having to do so under distressed conditions.  The real question is, why would you want to support this?  These invasives lower biodiversity and the resiliency of our ecosystems.  I suppose if you wanted less wildlife, this is the way to go.  Personally, I enjoy birds, butterflies, and herptiles.  And who is going to pay for the ecosystem benefits we lose as a result of these introduced plants?  How do you justify the additional extinctions that will occur?  And what rights do I have when a neighbor plants an invasive that spreads to my property?     
   
   You know, it appears your comments are "Hitler-esque"; propaganda, faulty logic, and apparent lack of science to support your arguments.  You're just a salesmen pushing your product.  Why do you only sell "named" cultivars of natives at your nursery?  These wouldn't happen to be propagated entirely by cloning would they?  Any idea on how flooding the landscape with a single genetic clone might impact our wild populations?  Oh, yeah, you probably don't care.  And does someone own the rights to these?  Geez, that doesn't seem very democratic, especially considering these are natives and a part of our natural heritage.  Have any studies been done to determine how our fauna interact with these clones?  Do they produce the same amount of nectar and pollen?  Oh, that's right, unlike most native plant nurseries, you have no interest in ecology or the impact to these cultivars may have.
3. 3 Mike Vanderhorst 11 Mar
   Its  hard isolate native areas when there full of invasise species from the seeds blowing in from all the non native plants.
4. 4 Teresa Watkins 11 Mar
   Here! Here! Tony... my feelings exactly.  Whether it's native or non-native, plants should be used that will thrive in the current moisture, soil, and sunlight conditions.  Today, with commercial and residential development  we are losing native soils at a rapid rate, which in turn means that it is no longer viable for the specific native plant palette that was there originally.  Unless it's a complete habitat reconstruction  with the same soil and moisture conditions that local flora and fauna need, plant restablishment should fit the needs of the community so that extreme maintenance and instant landscapes are not encouraged.  Natives are not better than non-natives for water conservation, pollination or animal habitat.   If there is concern for losing habitat and native plants, the focus should be on preventing mitigation areas, walled communities, instant landscapes, and preserving existing wetlands, prairies, open meadows of grasses, and wildlife corridors.
5. 5 Mike Vanderhorst 11 Mar
   This about preserving the plants and animals that were here before europeans came and destroyed everthing and replaced it with things from around the world. There doesn.t have to be any other reason then that. 
6. 6 Tony Avent 11 Mar
   Why do these native plant myths like these continue to be perpetuated?  First, most native plants speciated hundreds of thousands  to tens of thousands of years ago.  Does anyone believe the climate is the same today as when these plants evolved?  So, exactly how is it that these are better adapted?  Perhaps, like the famed Franklinia, they are trying to die out because the climate has changed.  Of all the native plant seedlings that germinate in a natural area, only a tiny fraction of 1% ever survive to maturity.  Is that great adaptability?  Secondly, if native plants are so much better adapted, we wouldn't have had so many go extinct (there should be no such thing as threatened or endangered natives), nor would we have to worry about invasive exotics, as they would be out-competed by better adapted natives.   Thirdly, the idea that native animals and insects require/prefer natives doesn't pass the logic test.   Using that logic, with all of the thousands of extinct native plants, we should have also lost all of our insect and animals further up the food chain.  How about Homo sapiens which originated in North Africa.  What North African food sources are required for our species to survive?   Surely, we can get people excited about native plants because they are great plants without having to fabricate these Hitler-esque myths of native superiority.