Thanks for introducing me to Jerry! Your title drew my eye since I am just learning the importance of supporting biodiversity of my land. Really enjoyed his expansive knowledge & your thoughtful discussion🌻
I’ve read the other comments. Clearly I’m an outlier. I love you, Roy, but this video set my teeth on edge. My takeaway is that because I don’t live near a remnant and my soil is not the quality of an unadulterated prairie, I might as well throw my hands up and forget about planting natives. Please invite Dr. Doug Tallamy on to your show to talk about the value of growing natives (especially keystone natives), and the incredibly fast way in which doing so increases the number and diversity of insects and other invertebrates in your own garden. Do we need to grow all natives and only natives? No. A ratio of 70% natives to 30% cultivars will greatly benefit the local food web. Are all cultivars bad? No. Mt. Cuba Center’s extensive echinacea trials revealed that Fragrant Angel attracted more pollinators than . However, the flower color and shape as well as leaf size and color of most cultivars differ significantly from the natives they are derived from. As such, the larvae of butterflies and moths find them completely unappealing. (‘Pest free” is a favorite selling point of cultivars.) Why larvae host plants matter? No caterpillars, no baby birds. No birds, no seed dispersal. No birds, a guaranteed increase in insect pests. The food web erodes and breaks down. Again . . . Please invite Dr. Doug Tallamy to your show. You can see by Dr. Tallamy’s presentation below that he isn’t a native plant purist or snob. He’s encouraging and optimistic. Hopeful that a shift in our collective mindset will help save what E.O. Wilson called “the little things that run the world” and ultimately us. ruclips.net/video/O5cXccWx030/видео.html
Another video with Dr. Tallamy. “Are cultivars of native plants ecologically as effective as straight species they are derived from?” ruclips.net/video/xu79If8iaVE/видео.html
We've heard an awful lot from Doug Tallamy over the past decade. He gets massive exposure across North America, I've seen him speak at least four times live and he's a great communicator. Maybe it's time to also broaden our scope to hear from other ecologists with different areas of expertise? And if there are conflicts with what we already know, maybe it's time to question our assumptions. Tallamy has simplified the science to capture a mainstream audience and he's successful in this regard. But sorry to say, his ideas do not have universal acceptance amongst other scientists and ecologists. In this talk with Roy and Wilhelm, we have the rare opportunity to get the benefit of a half century of scientific observation of prairie remnants directly from the tap. I suggest that rather than reject it out of hand, we give it a listen and learn.
Thanks for sharing! I encourage everyone to pursue their passions and to seek out knowledge beyond what they believe they know. With Jerry’s guidance I’m coming to know and use native and durable perennials to specifically help repair and sustain the soil, provide the necessary soil/water interface, the nutrient substrate and many other infrastructural systems, both biotic and abiotic. And in time build healthy soils that can support specific places to live for conservative insects. Doug Tallamay has opened a wonderful awareness of plant and insect relationships. Your planting of natives is a good practice! Thank you for contributing your thoughts. Watch for updates about the process in future shows. Thanks!!
I like Mr. Diblik. He’s obviously a good guy and he cares about nature. Moreover, I’m confident his career has been a net positive for the natural world and the “unnatural world” and I don’t think he should feel bad about his practices; with the exception of this video. This one is irresponsible, in my view. We know we cannot continue our past practices and native plant landscaping is going to be a big part of the evolution we need. Like so many other gardeners, I think Mr. Diblik may feel a bit guilty about his use of non-natives throughout his career and may be looking for ways to justify these practices to himself and others. Well, he doesn’t need to justify anything. We know more now than we did then; and I’m sure he hasn’t been regularly planting aggressively adventitious species that invade and degrade habitat. Using some non-natives is ok if you are EXTRA CAREFUL AND EXTRA SURE that these are not secret spreaders (we never see the bird poop out the seed into the tiny remnant 20 miles away; a bee might stay in a one square meter area, but birds don’t). Firstly, the title of the video is problematic. I don’t know if it’s tongue in cheek or self-referential to some of the discussion about language in the video. But it’s not true and it’s misleading. “Native” is certainly not just a word. Ecologists know this. So should Mr. Diblik. Second, I find myself confused by the entire argument being made here. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but the idea seems to be that because our soils are so depleted and our habitats are so degraded and fragmented, it doesn’t matter whether we use native plants or not because…? Because…why? It’s not clear to me. Because it’s already too late? Because putting the plants back into our yards won’t help most of our native bees? Because restoring our soils takes a long time? Because restoring our soils can only be done with non-native plants? Because native remnants are better? Let’s take these one at a time. I’ll assume what’s being argued isn’t simply a deep defeatism, so I’ll dismiss the first theory. As to the second, the fact that we can’t recreate all the thriving diversity we once had with native yards obviously doesn’t mean putting the plants back doesn’t still benefit scores of native species. Sure, they’ll largely be the ones that are already a little more resilient or adapted to human development, but there will be that occasional rare species that shows up. The studies are very clear on this. Insect diversity goes way up, even in urban and suburban yards with native plants. The fact that we can’t host all our native species is irrelevant. Restoring soil takes a long time: Yes, it does. So what? We have to start somewhere. It does require massive societal overhaul, changing the paradigm, changing our industrial agricultural systems, changing our relentless appetite for development. But still, putting our flora back is a good start. It’s not perfect and it won’t solve our problems, but deep rooted native plants that host and feed more life than their inedible non-native analogs IS a good start. Plus it goes a long way towards developing what Aldo Leopold called a “land ethic.” Restoring our soils can only be done with non-native plants? There were some suggestions throughout the video that non-natives often just do the job better than natives. There were some chuckles about the absurdity of thinking a particular native plant would just magically thrive under any site conditions. Ok, but nobody is arguing we should haphazardly place native plants, waive a wand, and we’ll restore habitat. Just like with non-natives, good gardening means understanding your species and understanding your site conditions and selecting the right plant for the right place. There may not be an exact aesthetic native analog for every non-native ornamental, but I can promise you there is something close and there certainly is a functional analogue with roots that go just as deep or deeper and with matching or superior robustness. Finally, what about this idea that native remnants will always be better at supporting wildlife and providing functional ecosystem services than our yards? Yeah. Of course. So what? Our native remnants are just that, tiny fragmented remnants. It’s simply not enough land. We’ve developed and spoiled too much. Should we protect what few unaltered or minimally altered places we have left? Of course we should…with our lives. But does this mean we should continue cultivating our yards like they are for us alone…to tickle our artistic impulse, and for no other creatures? Of course it doesn’t. By and large, it’s simply not responsible to promulgate the idea that non-native gardening is more or less equal to native plant gardening in its wildlife benefit and that the problem is simply too massive to be addressed in our gardens. This kind of talk sows confusion, it doesn’t provide clarity. All that said, I still think Mr. Diblik is a good guy who has done a lot of good things and I’ll continue watching his videos. But he should issue a retraction or at the very least provide some clarification here.
I agree with all your points. I use 100% native plants in my gardens and am converting more lawn to prairie. I think Roy is kind of just justifying his use of non-native plants in his gardens. Although I LOVE native plants, I can understand why someone woth decades of pro gardening experience planting horticultural cultivars may feel differently and want to continue some of his traditional anesthetics and favorite plants. Just my personal take even if I disagree with Roy on this point. Also the challenge of planting 100% natives while getting a good looking garden is half the fun
I've got a real problem with non-natives being used. People forget that they won't live forever, but the non-natives they choose to stick in the ground certainly can live forever. Down here in South Carolina, like in the rest of the South, we get to deal with Kudzu killing millions of acres of habitat because generations ago someone thought that "native" wasn't always the answer. All along the Eastern Seaboad, we get to wonder what life would be like if only we still had the American Chestnut. Why? Because someone thought non-native was a better solution. Millions of trees dead and an entire ecosystem destroyed. No more roasting chestnuts over an open fire as you listen to Bing Crosby work his magic. Congratulations. All throughout the US, we hear people in the industry talking about how some ornamental plants are now considered "invasive" because they are crowding out the native species in various habitats yet don't provide the same food quality for the animals that relied on the native species. Those plants were brought in by horticulturalists, gardeners, farmers, whoever. And I'm sure they all thought it was just a few plants, for their own use, and not a threat to anyone. Native isn't always the answer? Maybe, just maybe, we need to rethink the question.
One of the points being made is that native plants do not naturally exist in a vacuum. They are all part of a vastly complex system reaching right down into the microbiome of the soil. Once that is disturbed, so are all the complex relationships and there is no easy way back. Our cities, towns, suburb and agricultural land are all disturbed beyond the point of return. The question is what do now: Adapt to the new reality or attempt to revive what is lost? There is no right answer - only different ways to go forward. This video is a reality check on just how impossible it is to put the lost pieces back together again. And how a word like "native" is ambiguous at best. BTW: To put things into perspective, horticultural introductions account for 0.1% of all invasive plant species. Introduced plants can provide many ecological benefits in the context of a well-designed naturalistic garden landscape. That's according to the science, not my own set of beliefs.
@@mongoose000 That's kind of the point I was making - it's a very complex ecosystem that we don't understand, so it's extremely arrogant of us to presume that we can introduce a non-native species and understand or control for all the 2nd Order Effects that might come from it. You are not adapting "to a new reality" because you do not understand anything about the situation since the situation is, as you note, extremely complex. You might not even see half the damage caused by your actions. As such, nobody can "adapt" to the new situation because it's a cascading series of problems and as soon as you have one small thing "fixed", another crops up.... and that's if you can fix it at all. From a scientific standpoint, no experiment can be considered valid if there are so many moving parts, and so many unknowns. All that we can say for sure is that the "native" system that was developed over millions of years is the best solution for a given area and should not be tampered with since you cannot predict the damage done by that tampering. More so, do you have the right to tamper when the repercussions are going to be dealt with by future generations? I'd say that 90% of the problems we face today are the direct result of people presuming they were both correct, and had the right to do whatever they felt like. The fact that you said it's "impossible to put the lost pieces back together again" is the proof that one should think long and hard about introducing non-native species. If you can't fix the damage, why be so cavalier about causing the damage in the first place? Again, I'll point to Kudzu as the perfect example. It sounded like a good idea at the time. The "science" said it would work out well. Now, not only are the people who caused the damage long dead and buried, but generations have passed without any solution to the huge problem they caused. Millions of acres of diverse biosphere destroyed. Millions in property damage. And for what? The American Chestnut tree is another one of those great illustrations of just how bad things can get, and it literally changed the entire lifestyle of Americans. That's according to science, not my own set of beliefs. 😁
@@threeriversforge1997 Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I am talking in terms of designing garden landscapes in urban environments where the landscapes provide benefits for both wildlife and people in an urban context. There are many way to create a vibrant sustainable landscape but the reality is that any garden, regardless of the provenance of the plants, is artificial. It is NOT the complex ecosystem of a prairie remnant discussed in the video. "Nature" is not static. It is dynamic and only moves in a forward direction and is constantly adapting to the new reality. Maybe that should give you a hint. If you think Roy is "arrogant", please give your head a shake.
@@mongoose000 I hate to say it, but just about everything you wrote there is incorrect. You're acting like you live in a vacuum and what you do is entirely okay because it's what you want. That's why you're conveniently ignoring the very real examples I gave earlier, namely kudzu and the chestnut. The "urban environment" you are planning for is nothing more than a broken up wildland. While we might have some control over what goes where, we also have to acknowledge our responsibility as stewards looking after the place for future generations. As the doctors say, "First, do no harm." And, no, nature is not "constantly adapting to the new reality". Or, better to say that it's "adapting" in ways you don't know about, want, or even understand. Nobody could have imagined the Chestnut Blight or what it would mean for the entire nation. Right? And, if the legend is true, it was the result of one guy thinking just like you are - nature will just adjust to the new reality, so it's all cool and you can do what you like. Just to show that it's not me blowing smoke, lets consider Doug Tallamy's very insightful work on the importance of native species, and the damage that invasive species are causing right now. ruclips.net/video/Kxs1365pq4Y/видео.html Is he wrong? Can we risk it? Should we at least keep his work in mind? I was particularly intrigued by the first 10 minutes, but it's easy enough to fast-forward through the thing and get a general sense of what he's seeing in his research. Insects don't simply adapt and move on, like you seem to believe. Or, maybe you're suggesting that it's okay that they simply die out because that's part of the natural selection process and nature will adapt over time. The problem here is that the timeline we're dealing with is eons. Yeah, nature will adapt, but that means countless species going extinct because of our actions. And for what? Pretty Bradford Pear trees in the front lawn of every house on the cul-de-sac? More and more acreage of fescue or bermuda? You're 100% correct that there are many ways to create "vibrant sustainable landscape". Nature has already worked that out over the last million or so years. In your Ecoregion, there are hundreds of species to choose from, so I wonder why you'd feel the need to import a foreign species. You certainly wouldn't be the first, but like so many before you, are you really considering the longterm consequences, or are you just opting for what's easiest? It's very easy to run down to Lowe's or Home Depot and buy whatever they have in pots. It's pretty economical, too. And I know a lot of folks who will use both those criteria to justify their decisions. But let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of native species which do the exact same thing, are often in the same Family, and have evolved with the local wildlife over eons to create the "vibrant sustainable landscape" you're talking about.
@@threeriversforge1997 I've made a sincere effort to be civil. I am very familiar with Doug Tallamy's work and have heard him speak a number of times. Thanks. I've also read things you apparently have yet to discover. It's not my role to educate you, nor do we need a didactic tutorial from you.
It’s an interesting conversation to see where native insects exist. There is evidence that longstanding gardens can actually out support native habitats. I would point to Great Dixter as one of the only examples of accomplishing that goal that we’ve even been able to study.
Yes. And important to note that Great Dixter's borders freely combine native and non-native plants in great profusion. I somehow doubt their soils would pass the prairie test though.
Great discussion! We forget that what is 'fashionable' ie natives only, is not always correct! Thank you for putting this trend into its correct context. The historic context is so very interesting as we all suffer from a misunderstanding of what our lands were and now are.
I found myself imagining the rain showers that would move over the Illinois prairies every afternoon as the moisture rose up from the grasses and cooled. That must have been incredibly awesome, and yet something no one living today is even aware of in our prairie history. The fact that native grasses and sedges regulate the temperature gradient of the soil and air is yet another reason to include them in our planting designs.
So much interesting stuff in this video i'm going to need to watch it through a few times. Very glad you expanded on things you discussed previously with Gerould.
I haven't finished listening yet. One thing that fascinated me so far was Jerry's description of the soil temperature differences in the root zones of bluestems in remnant prairies compared to soil temp in disturb areas. I also like how he likened the root systems of grasses and sedges to our capillaries. Both serving similar functions in their own right. I've already queued up previous conversations with Jerry hoping to be awed again!
It's a revelation to be able to listen to such a towering intellect in matters of ecology. Jerry's level of understanding goes so much deeper than the discourse we get in social media. My takeaway is that a garden is nothing like a wild remnant and the innumerable ecological relationships that co-evolved over millennia are unlikely to transpire in a garden. That said, we can still do what we can but draw from a wider palette to be successful in planting and maintaining a landscape over time. I imagine that most any native plant advocate who watches this, will find the ecological reality a bitter pill to swallow.I doubt they would accept it. Good on you for presenting the hard truths, Roy.
I thought the information in this video was so important to the ecological landscaping "movement". Your guest had such a clear way of explaining it. Because, let's face it, if a hands-on expert like he is reminds us that native is just a word, we ought to pay attention. One thing I've wondered is what the equivalent of "remnants" is in the suburban areas surrounding major cities in the east. Is there anything left that has native bees living it? Or only weed bees? who are the weed bees and aren't they also providing eco benefits?
I urge you to watch any of the many RUclips presentations given by entomologist Doug Tallamy. I’m certain you’ll find Dr. Tallamy’s presentations more comprehensive, more useful, less focused on the past, and more focused on the here and now and the future. Also far more optimistic and encouraging of home gardeners who want to use natives. No clue what Roy’s guest means by weed bees but it seems in line with his overall disparaging view of the growing native plant movement.
@@jsg1925 Science is based on accumulating years of data in order to gather the evidence to be able to form observations and theories. I don't think you caught the depth of what was presented here but there's no need to project that upon others. There was nothing disparaging about the native plant movement - there was a reality check in recognizing the difference between actual prairie habitat and the artificiality of a garden - regardless of what is planted in it. More than that, it was about how organisms exist in one interconnected web in nature and how long those complex conditions take to evolve. You can't snap your fingers and just wish it into existence...
I love the reference to taking language and putting edges on it. So much misinterpretation when we're not ready for what's being said. I really loved this video and am intrigued about soil temperature. Growing in the city is challenging, and I am always amazed at what there is to learn - endless. Thank you both for sharing your knowledge.
Very interesting! I want to incorporate more natives into my garden and the discussion of soil issues is helpful. I'm aiming for at least 50/50 natives to non-natives and it sounds like I need to add more sedges and grasses. I have a very small property and have added several small native trees and shrubs to start.
Great sharing about soul health. In the meantime our county magistrates are allowing developers to wipe out native acres. The insects 🐜 are our neighbors and our local governments and schools are not teaching this. Thanks so much🐾🐾👍🙏
Hello! Where can I read Amos Sawyer’s essay on Climactic Change In Illinois, that Jerry mentions? I’ve looked online but I can’t seem to find a single source other than the references Jerry makes in his own writings. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you so much for this conversation, Roy. Fascinating. I want to learn more about this deep stuff - the ecology, the soil, the water. Particularly, how can we do our bit to rebuild the world, even if it seems futile? I guess the more we learn and the more we put those learnings into practice, the better.
@@RoyDiblik flipping goldmine. Been away from this stuff for far too long. Going to do a deep dive on you and go back and watch all your vids! Very important stuff.
With tongue in cheek, this book should have been included with ChatGPT for the ability to do fast research. At the current state ChatGPT hasn't provided any new information about plants, lichens or insects that I didn't already know or it provides varying information each time the same question is asked. To be honest my jaw dropped when I saw this book for the first time. That there is more than a paper weight. ;)
Roy can you please elaborate more on how planting aggressive keystone natives like goldenrod, aster and big bluestem do not restore insect populations or soil biology the same as an in tact prairie remnant? Douglas Talamy always says to plant keystone natives like them because they support the most insect species, and I have established most of those plants in my property hoping to restore insect populations.
Everyone can gardwn differently. Personally for me I'm 100% native becuase i love the challenge of making something thag looks good in suburbia, but with exclusovely local natives. Its challenging for sure, but so rewarding (and cheaper). Just my personal preference.
Habitat and wildlife were so much healthier when everything was native. I have talked with others about only native and some only look at what’s pretty. The truth is native plants are much prettier than non native/invasive and wildlife and pollinators increase the health of your property when everything is native. People don’t understand this until they watch it in action.
Thanks for introducing me to Jerry! Your title drew my eye since I am just learning the importance of supporting biodiversity of my land. Really enjoyed his expansive knowledge & your thoughtful discussion🌻
This was the most interesting video I have watched in a long time, especially since I live in Illinois. Thanks!
So interesting! Keep the conversation going! Thanks Jerry!
Bees don’t have cars?! Mind blown 🤯
Absolutely fascinating! I appreciate you sharing!
I’ve read the other comments. Clearly I’m an outlier.
I love you, Roy, but this video set my teeth on edge.
My takeaway is that because I don’t live near a remnant and my soil is not the quality of an unadulterated prairie, I might as well throw my hands up and forget about planting natives.
Please invite Dr. Doug Tallamy on to your show to talk about the value of growing natives (especially keystone natives), and the incredibly fast way in which doing so increases the number and diversity of insects and other invertebrates in your own garden.
Do we need to grow all natives and only natives? No. A ratio of 70% natives to 30% cultivars will greatly benefit the local food web.
Are all cultivars bad? No. Mt. Cuba Center’s extensive echinacea trials revealed that Fragrant Angel attracted more pollinators than .
However, the flower color and shape as well as leaf size and color of most cultivars differ significantly from the natives they are derived from. As such, the larvae of butterflies and moths find them completely unappealing. (‘Pest free” is a favorite selling point of cultivars.) Why larvae host plants matter? No caterpillars, no baby birds. No birds, no seed dispersal. No birds, a guaranteed increase in insect pests. The food web erodes and breaks down.
Again . . . Please invite Dr. Doug Tallamy to your show.
You can see by Dr. Tallamy’s presentation below that he isn’t a native plant purist or snob. He’s encouraging and optimistic. Hopeful that a shift in our collective mindset will help save what E.O. Wilson called “the little things that run the world” and ultimately us.
ruclips.net/video/O5cXccWx030/видео.html
Another video with Dr. Tallamy. “Are cultivars of native plants ecologically as effective as straight species they are derived from?”
ruclips.net/video/xu79If8iaVE/видео.html
I'm with you on this, and Doug Tallamy and Mt. Cuba have the research to back it!
We've heard an awful lot from Doug Tallamy over the past decade. He gets massive exposure across North America, I've seen him speak at least four times live and he's a great communicator. Maybe it's time to also broaden our scope to hear from other ecologists with different areas of expertise? And if there are conflicts with what we already know, maybe it's time to question our assumptions. Tallamy has simplified the science to capture a mainstream audience and he's successful in this regard. But sorry to say, his ideas do not have universal acceptance amongst other scientists and ecologists.
In this talk with Roy and Wilhelm, we have the rare opportunity to get the benefit of a half century of scientific observation of prairie remnants directly from the tap. I suggest that rather than reject it out of hand, we give it a listen and learn.
Thanks for sharing! I encourage everyone to pursue their passions and to seek out knowledge beyond what they believe they know.
With Jerry’s guidance I’m coming to know and use native and durable perennials to specifically help repair and sustain the soil, provide the necessary soil/water interface, the nutrient substrate and many other infrastructural systems, both biotic and abiotic. And in time build healthy soils that can support specific places to live for conservative insects.
Doug Tallamay has opened a wonderful awareness of plant and insect relationships. Your planting of natives is a good practice!
Thank you for contributing your thoughts.
Watch for updates about the process in future shows.
Thanks!!
Very important concepts! Great lessons here and motivation to not get caught up in stiff ideologies
What a wonderful discussion! A strong reminder that we need to take better care of and begin restoring out remnant natural areas!
I like Mr. Diblik. He’s obviously a good guy and he cares about nature. Moreover, I’m confident his career has been a net positive for the natural world and the “unnatural world” and I don’t think he should feel bad about his practices; with the exception of this video. This one is irresponsible, in my view.
We know we cannot continue our past practices and native plant landscaping is going to be a big part of the evolution we need. Like so many other gardeners, I think Mr. Diblik may feel a bit guilty about his use of non-natives throughout his career and may be looking for ways to justify these practices to himself and others. Well, he doesn’t need to justify anything. We know more now than we did then; and I’m sure he hasn’t been regularly planting aggressively adventitious species that invade and degrade habitat. Using some non-natives is ok if you are EXTRA CAREFUL AND EXTRA SURE that these are not secret spreaders (we never see the bird poop out the seed into the tiny remnant 20 miles away; a bee might stay in a one square meter area, but birds don’t).
Firstly, the title of the video is problematic. I don’t know if it’s tongue in cheek or self-referential to some of the discussion about language in the video. But it’s not true and it’s misleading. “Native” is certainly not just a word. Ecologists know this. So should Mr. Diblik.
Second, I find myself confused by the entire argument being made here. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but the idea seems to be that because our soils are so depleted and our habitats are so degraded and fragmented, it doesn’t matter whether we use native plants or not because…? Because…why? It’s not clear to me. Because it’s already too late? Because putting the plants back into our yards won’t help most of our native bees? Because restoring our soils takes a long time? Because restoring our soils can only be done with non-native plants? Because native remnants are better? Let’s take these one at a time. I’ll assume what’s being argued isn’t simply a deep defeatism, so I’ll dismiss the first theory.
As to the second, the fact that we can’t recreate all the thriving diversity we once had with native yards obviously doesn’t mean putting the plants back doesn’t still benefit scores of native species. Sure, they’ll largely be the ones that are already a little more resilient or adapted to human development, but there will be that occasional rare species that shows up. The studies are very clear on this. Insect diversity goes way up, even in urban and suburban yards with native plants. The fact that we can’t host all our native species is irrelevant.
Restoring soil takes a long time: Yes, it does. So what? We have to start somewhere. It does require massive societal overhaul, changing the paradigm, changing our industrial agricultural systems, changing our relentless appetite for development. But still, putting our flora back is a good start. It’s not perfect and it won’t solve our problems, but deep rooted native plants that host and feed more life than their inedible non-native analogs IS a good start. Plus it goes a long way towards developing what Aldo Leopold called a “land ethic.”
Restoring our soils can only be done with non-native plants? There were some suggestions throughout the video that non-natives often just do the job better than natives. There were some chuckles about the absurdity of thinking a particular native plant would just magically thrive under any site conditions. Ok, but nobody is arguing we should haphazardly place native plants, waive a wand, and we’ll restore habitat. Just like with non-natives, good gardening means understanding your species and understanding your site conditions and selecting the right plant for the right place. There may not be an exact aesthetic native analog for every non-native ornamental, but I can promise you there is something close and there certainly is a functional analogue with roots that go just as deep or deeper and with matching or superior robustness.
Finally, what about this idea that native remnants will always be better at supporting wildlife and providing functional ecosystem services than our yards? Yeah. Of course. So what? Our native remnants are just that, tiny fragmented remnants. It’s simply not enough land. We’ve developed and spoiled too much. Should we protect what few unaltered or minimally altered places we have left? Of course we should…with our lives. But does this mean we should continue cultivating our yards like they are for us alone…to tickle our artistic impulse, and for no other creatures? Of course it doesn’t.
By and large, it’s simply not responsible to promulgate the idea that non-native gardening is more or less equal to native plant gardening in its wildlife benefit and that the problem is simply too massive to be addressed in our gardens. This kind of talk sows confusion, it doesn’t provide clarity.
All that said, I still think Mr. Diblik is a good guy who has done a lot of good things and I’ll continue watching his videos. But he should issue a retraction or at the very least provide some clarification here.
I agree with all your points. I use 100% native plants in my gardens and am converting more lawn to prairie. I think Roy is kind of just justifying his use of non-native plants in his gardens. Although I LOVE native plants, I can understand why someone woth decades of pro gardening experience planting horticultural cultivars may feel differently and want to continue some of his traditional anesthetics and favorite plants. Just my personal take even if I disagree with Roy on this point. Also the challenge of planting 100% natives while getting a good looking garden is half the fun
I've got a real problem with non-natives being used. People forget that they won't live forever, but the non-natives they choose to stick in the ground certainly can live forever. Down here in South Carolina, like in the rest of the South, we get to deal with Kudzu killing millions of acres of habitat because generations ago someone thought that "native" wasn't always the answer. All along the Eastern Seaboad, we get to wonder what life would be like if only we still had the American Chestnut. Why? Because someone thought non-native was a better solution. Millions of trees dead and an entire ecosystem destroyed. No more roasting chestnuts over an open fire as you listen to Bing Crosby work his magic. Congratulations.
All throughout the US, we hear people in the industry talking about how some ornamental plants are now considered "invasive" because they are crowding out the native species in various habitats yet don't provide the same food quality for the animals that relied on the native species. Those plants were brought in by horticulturalists, gardeners, farmers, whoever. And I'm sure they all thought it was just a few plants, for their own use, and not a threat to anyone.
Native isn't always the answer? Maybe, just maybe, we need to rethink the question.
One of the points being made is that native plants do not naturally exist in a vacuum. They are all part of a vastly complex system reaching right down into the microbiome of the soil. Once that is disturbed, so are all the complex relationships and there is no easy way back. Our cities, towns, suburb and agricultural land are all disturbed beyond the point of return.
The question is what do now: Adapt to the new reality or attempt to revive what is lost? There is no right answer - only different ways to go forward. This video is a reality check on just how impossible it is to put the lost pieces back together again. And how a word like "native" is ambiguous at best.
BTW: To put things into perspective, horticultural introductions account for 0.1% of all invasive plant species. Introduced plants can provide many ecological benefits in the context of a well-designed naturalistic garden landscape. That's according to the science, not my own set of beliefs.
@@mongoose000 That's kind of the point I was making - it's a very complex ecosystem that we don't understand, so it's extremely arrogant of us to presume that we can introduce a non-native species and understand or control for all the 2nd Order Effects that might come from it.
You are not adapting "to a new reality" because you do not understand anything about the situation since the situation is, as you note, extremely complex. You might not even see half the damage caused by your actions. As such, nobody can "adapt" to the new situation because it's a cascading series of problems and as soon as you have one small thing "fixed", another crops up.... and that's if you can fix it at all.
From a scientific standpoint, no experiment can be considered valid if there are so many moving parts, and so many unknowns. All that we can say for sure is that the "native" system that was developed over millions of years is the best solution for a given area and should not be tampered with since you cannot predict the damage done by that tampering. More so, do you have the right to tamper when the repercussions are going to be dealt with by future generations? I'd say that 90% of the problems we face today are the direct result of people presuming they were both correct, and had the right to do whatever they felt like.
The fact that you said it's "impossible to put the lost pieces back together again" is the proof that one should think long and hard about introducing non-native species. If you can't fix the damage, why be so cavalier about causing the damage in the first place?
Again, I'll point to Kudzu as the perfect example. It sounded like a good idea at the time. The "science" said it would work out well. Now, not only are the people who caused the damage long dead and buried, but generations have passed without any solution to the huge problem they caused. Millions of acres of diverse biosphere destroyed. Millions in property damage. And for what?
The American Chestnut tree is another one of those great illustrations of just how bad things can get, and it literally changed the entire lifestyle of Americans. That's according to science, not my own set of beliefs. 😁
@@threeriversforge1997 Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I am talking in terms of designing garden landscapes in urban environments where the landscapes provide benefits for both wildlife and people in an urban context. There are many way to create a vibrant sustainable landscape but the reality is that any garden, regardless of the provenance of the plants, is artificial. It is NOT the complex ecosystem of a prairie remnant discussed in the video.
"Nature" is not static. It is dynamic and only moves in a forward direction and is constantly adapting to the new reality. Maybe that should give you a hint.
If you think Roy is "arrogant", please give your head a shake.
@@mongoose000 I hate to say it, but just about everything you wrote there is incorrect. You're acting like you live in a vacuum and what you do is entirely okay because it's what you want. That's why you're conveniently ignoring the very real examples I gave earlier, namely kudzu and the chestnut.
The "urban environment" you are planning for is nothing more than a broken up wildland. While we might have some control over what goes where, we also have to acknowledge our responsibility as stewards looking after the place for future generations. As the doctors say, "First, do no harm."
And, no, nature is not "constantly adapting to the new reality". Or, better to say that it's "adapting" in ways you don't know about, want, or even understand. Nobody could have imagined the Chestnut Blight or what it would mean for the entire nation. Right? And, if the legend is true, it was the result of one guy thinking just like you are - nature will just adjust to the new reality, so it's all cool and you can do what you like.
Just to show that it's not me blowing smoke, lets consider Doug Tallamy's very insightful work on the importance of native species, and the damage that invasive species are causing right now. ruclips.net/video/Kxs1365pq4Y/видео.html Is he wrong? Can we risk it? Should we at least keep his work in mind?
I was particularly intrigued by the first 10 minutes, but it's easy enough to fast-forward through the thing and get a general sense of what he's seeing in his research. Insects don't simply adapt and move on, like you seem to believe. Or, maybe you're suggesting that it's okay that they simply die out because that's part of the natural selection process and nature will adapt over time.
The problem here is that the timeline we're dealing with is eons. Yeah, nature will adapt, but that means countless species going extinct because of our actions. And for what? Pretty Bradford Pear trees in the front lawn of every house on the cul-de-sac? More and more acreage of fescue or bermuda?
You're 100% correct that there are many ways to create "vibrant sustainable landscape". Nature has already worked that out over the last million or so years. In your Ecoregion, there are hundreds of species to choose from, so I wonder why you'd feel the need to import a foreign species. You certainly wouldn't be the first, but like so many before you, are you really considering the longterm consequences, or are you just opting for what's easiest?
It's very easy to run down to Lowe's or Home Depot and buy whatever they have in pots. It's pretty economical, too. And I know a lot of folks who will use both those criteria to justify their decisions. But let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of native species which do the exact same thing, are often in the same Family, and have evolved with the local wildlife over eons to create the "vibrant sustainable landscape" you're talking about.
@@threeriversforge1997 I've made a sincere effort to be civil. I am very familiar with Doug Tallamy's work and have heard him speak a number of times. Thanks. I've also read things you apparently have yet to discover. It's not my role to educate you, nor do we need a didactic tutorial from you.
It’s an interesting conversation to see where native insects exist. There is evidence that longstanding gardens can actually out support native habitats. I would point to Great Dixter as one of the only examples of accomplishing that goal that we’ve even been able to study.
Yes. And important to note that Great Dixter's borders freely combine native and non-native plants in great profusion. I somehow doubt their soils would pass the prairie test though.
Great discussion! We forget that what is 'fashionable' ie natives only, is not always correct! Thank you for putting this trend into its correct context. The historic context is so very interesting as we all suffer from a misunderstanding of what our lands were and now are.
I found myself imagining the rain showers that would move over the Illinois prairies every afternoon as the moisture rose up from the grasses and cooled. That must have been incredibly awesome, and yet something no one living today is even aware of in our prairie history. The fact that native grasses and sedges regulate the temperature gradient of the soil and air is yet another reason to include them in our planting designs.
So much interesting stuff in this video i'm going to need to watch it through a few times. Very glad you expanded on things you discussed previously with Gerould.
What an amazing discussion! Watched the whole thing. Thank you so much for sharing this.
I hope to see the day Jerry mentioned. A time where there’s enough gardening being done that is thoughtful and encourages a healthy ecology.
I haven't finished listening yet. One thing that fascinated me so far was Jerry's description of the soil temperature differences in the root zones of bluestems in remnant prairies compared to soil temp in disturb areas. I also like how he likened the root systems of grasses and sedges to our capillaries. Both serving similar functions in their own right.
I've already queued up previous conversations with Jerry hoping to be awed again!
It's a revelation to be able to listen to such a towering intellect in matters of ecology. Jerry's level of understanding goes so much deeper than the discourse we get in social media. My takeaway is that a garden is nothing like a wild remnant and the innumerable ecological relationships that co-evolved over millennia are unlikely to transpire in a garden. That said, we can still do what we can but draw from a wider palette to be successful in planting and maintaining a landscape over time.
I imagine that most any native plant advocate who watches this, will find the ecological reality a bitter pill to swallow.I doubt they would accept it. Good on you for presenting the hard truths, Roy.
I never thought I would make it through an hour lol but wow, this is informative and enlightening! What a great amount knowledge he has. Thanks Roy!
Thank you for watching!
So interesting and informative! Thank you.🥀🌻❤
Glad you enjoyed it!
I thought the information in this video was so important to the ecological landscaping "movement". Your guest had such a clear way of explaining it. Because, let's face it, if a hands-on expert like he is reminds us that native is just a word, we ought to pay attention. One thing I've wondered is what the equivalent of "remnants" is in the suburban areas surrounding major cities in the east. Is there anything left that has native bees living it? Or only weed bees? who are the weed bees and aren't they also providing eco benefits?
I urge you to watch any of the many RUclips presentations given by entomologist Doug Tallamy. I’m certain you’ll find Dr. Tallamy’s presentations more comprehensive, more useful, less focused on the past, and more focused on the here and now and the future. Also far more optimistic and encouraging of home gardeners who want to use natives.
No clue what Roy’s guest means by weed bees but it seems in line with his overall disparaging view of the growing native plant movement.
@@jsg1925 Science is based on accumulating years of data in order to gather the evidence to be able to form observations and theories. I don't think you caught the depth of what was presented here but there's no need to project that upon others. There was nothing disparaging about the native plant movement - there was a reality check in recognizing the difference between actual prairie habitat and the artificiality of a garden - regardless of what is planted in it. More than that, it was about how organisms exist in one interconnected web in nature and how long those complex conditions take to evolve. You can't snap your fingers and just wish it into existence...
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It just too good !
I love the reference to taking language and putting edges on it. So much misinterpretation when we're not ready for what's being said. I really loved this video and am intrigued about soil temperature. Growing in the city is challenging, and I am always amazed at what there is to learn - endless. Thank you both for sharing your knowledge.
Very interesting! I want to incorporate more natives into my garden and the discussion of soil issues is helpful. I'm aiming for at least 50/50 natives to non-natives and it sounds like I need to add more sedges and grasses.
I have a very small property and have added several small native trees and shrubs to start.
Great sharing about soul health. In the meantime our county magistrates are allowing developers to wipe out native acres. The insects 🐜 are our neighbors and our local governments and schools are not teaching this.
Thanks so much🐾🐾👍🙏
Hello! Where can I read Amos Sawyer’s essay on Climactic Change In Illinois, that Jerry mentions? I’ve looked online but I can’t seem to find a single source other than the references Jerry makes in his own writings. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you so much for this conversation, Roy. Fascinating. I want to learn more about this deep stuff - the ecology, the soil, the water. Particularly, how can we do our bit to rebuild the world, even if it seems futile? I guess the more we learn and the more we put those learnings into practice, the better.
wow - I stumbled upon this and was like. "I know that guy!" Thanks for this. Interesting.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@RoyDiblik flipping goldmine. Been away from this stuff for far too long. Going to do a deep dive on you and go back and watch all your vids! Very important stuff.
Soil health experts are increasing. Dr.Elaine Ingram is a great messenger. Check her out:) ❤
With tongue in cheek, this book should have been included with ChatGPT for the ability to do fast research. At the current state ChatGPT hasn't provided any new information about plants, lichens or insects that I didn't already know or it provides varying information each time the same question is asked. To be honest my jaw dropped when I saw this book for the first time. That there is more than a paper weight. ;)
Roy can you please elaborate more on how planting aggressive keystone natives like goldenrod, aster and big bluestem do not restore insect populations or soil biology the same as an in tact prairie remnant? Douglas Talamy always says to plant keystone natives like them because they support the most insect species, and I have established most of those plants in my property hoping to restore insect populations.
Everyone can gardwn differently. Personally for me I'm 100% native becuase i love the challenge of making something thag looks good in suburbia, but with exclusovely local natives. Its challenging for sure, but so rewarding (and cheaper). Just my personal preference.
Habitat and wildlife were so much healthier when everything was native. I have talked with others about only native and some only look at what’s pretty. The truth is native plants are much prettier than non native/invasive and wildlife and pollinators increase the health of your property when everything is native. People don’t understand this until they watch it in action.