I think some of the impetus comes from the work of Dr Tallamy, showing that native plants support more species diversity than introduced species and many introduced species have inadvertently become invasive and have choked out native species and habitats. He has written interesting books about the role of individuals/households in being the solution. For instance, by minimizing lawns. I don’t think he is speaking about food crops. It is actually an empowering message, not about blame.
Yes to this. And Tallamy's work has shown, at least in his region of the US, that having 70% native plants supports biodiversity, but even Tallamy doesn't suggest we should only grow native plants.
Agreed. I feel she’s up playing her “victim” status. No where have I ever read or seen to only grow natives. It’s a suggestion to be more conscious and educated about our choices and to know that if you’re going to plant trees, shrubs, flowers,to consider a native for both its beauty and benefit. Also consider replacing part of a monoculture lawn with some natives. It’s really important to understand the food web and the balance that nature already has. This video was very dramatic about 1 meme.
@@Cby5il yeah, 99% of landowners probably have little to no ecologically beneficial plants on their property. Some native plant fanatics can be annoying but there is still not even enough of them to put a dent in our food for insect wildlife problem.
Doug Tallamy has done research on pollinators and how they benefit from native plants over exotics. I went nearly straight native plants for a couple of years but relaxed a bit and now I wound guess I have 90% native and 10% non invasive, non native just because some of those are pretty too. I spend so much time pulling wintercreeper, garlic mustard, oriental bittersweet, lily of the valley, Asian honeysuckle, privet, etc. only to find garden stores still selling them. Native pollinators, plants, and animals have begun reclaiming the spaces I’ve rid of invasive plants. It’s beautiful and humbling that I can make a difference.
That’s awesome that 90% native was doable for you. I think that’s a laudable goal. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect everyone to do it. Encouraging folks to begin to access native plantings at whatever they feel they can handle is a more effective message than “make huge sweeping changes to the way you use your yard”
@@ParkrosePermaculture I understand your point about messaging, but 90% plus should be the goal. The messaging should be designed with the end in mind. Given the massive insect population collapse in process right now, we need to transform (read: sweeping change) landscapes to primarily natives as much as possible.
@@ParkrosePermaculturein permaculture culture it's also recommended to make huge sweeping changes to your yard too, sooooooo .... Why not recommend something if it's beneficial to our air, land, and water??
Whycan’t we both acknowledge (and try to change) the impact that corporations and big Ag have on the environment and also do our part to plant native species that support the food web? A lot of invasive species are/were introduced as ornamentals for home gardens and public spaces. The safest bet (as far as ornamentals) is to plant mostly native species with some introduced species that we can be fairly sure are not going to become invasive. We can acknowledge that other parties are devastating the environment and simultaneously avoid contributing to the problem ourselves. Focus on changing what is within your reach.
100%, it’s unfortunate but we really need to self-educate since the industry isn’t well regulated - but I’ve been excited at how many people are starting to get excited about natives and the bugs they support! ❤
I don't really think it misses the mark. A lot of invasive species started bc someone thought it was pretty. I'd rather support my local ecosystem then plant something invasive.
The inconvenient truth is that non-native species most definitely contribute to our local ecosystems and it's misleading to imply that anything non-native is invasive. Also, if your local ecosystem is an urban environment, it bears little resemblance to the original native ecosystem that was there before the city took over.
@@mongoose000they do not contribute in a net positive way. I can hardly find native flowers out in the parks anymore. It's all non native plants that the deer won't even touch. This is starving the birds since they need caterpillars (that only eat native plants 98% of the time) to raise their young.
@@mongoose000 It's also misleading to bring up how non natives contribute to local ecosystems, when we're not talking about non natives, but rather invasive, which are "non native" obviously, but the word invasive means it's a problem for the local ecosystem as opposed to just a non native.
I tend to be a centrist on this topic, too, as long as the introduced species don't crowd out and take over and become invasive. Just lately, I've been reading Doug Tallamy's book, Nature's Best Hope. There, for the first time, did I encounter WHY it's important to plant natives. It turns out that unless plants and animals have evolved together, they can't take advantage of what each other has to offer, ie: moths and butterflies can't access the pollen or nectar, if there even is any and the plant hasn't been bred to be sterile. If they can, it won't provide the fat and nutriment that they require. Without the food source, caterpillars won't exist there, and being the main food source of birds, the birds will need to go elsewhere, and so on, down the line. He explains it much, much better than I, and includes a boatload of science to back up his points. We've all heard about Monarch butterflies and milkweed. Because people are removing milkweed, the population of Monarchs has dropped by 96% in ten short years. Where there were 100, there are now four. Multiply this by all of the insect species and we are facing trophic collapse. Tallamy also talks about a concept he refers to as "Homegrown National Park" where if people would plant more natives in their yards, rather than the monoculture of lawn, and if these could be more or less contiguous, animals that can't travel far would be able to still exist and branch out, filling back in the ecosystem that should be native to any region. More than 83% of the US is privately owned land, so if conservation stands a chance, individuals DO need to act. More than 40 million acres, or the size of New England, is planted with a monoculture of turfgrass, and that number is growing by 500 square miles a year. Although he hopes that more and more people on their individual plots will do some naturalizing of the land, it is not at all preachy. He does give some startling statistics throughout: Oak trees support 934 species of caterpillar nationwide; caterpillars contain more than 2x as many carotenoids as other insects--a necessary nutrient for birds and their young; In one study, it was found that a Warbler pair brought 4,060 caterpillars to their young in a five day period. Birds only have a feeding range of about an acre when raising young. While you may see insects on introduced species, he compares it to humans who eat sugary empty calories because it might taste good, but really, we need to eat nutritious food to stay healthy. Apparently birds and other creatures also eat junk food, too! Kudzu has overtaken more than 7 million acres in the southeast. While it does support the sliver-spotted skipper--one species, it has mowed down native plants and trees such as oak, black cherry, willow, hickory and maple each which support hundreds upon hundreds of species, removing the food source so that the food web cannot thrive; instead it withers or collapses. As I read this book, I'm realizing that this issue is even more urgent than our use of oil and gas. I never saw that coming, and I am a huge environmentalist. If I was unaware of this information, I wonder how to get the word out to those who don't read or watch information about gardening or environmental issues.... If anyone has read to this point, I would encourage you to look up and watch some of Doug Tallamy's videos on line if you don't have the time or inclination to read his books.
Just wanted to say that because of your comment i picked up a copy of Natures Best Hope, and it was life changing! I learned sooo much and am even more inspired to continue on my journey of native plant gardening and supporting our local foodwebs that are so so important. I also got copies for my mother in law, sister, mom, etc and have been spreading the word about the book to lots of people lol! Thanks for the rec :)
@@rosee1776 yassss! 💕His books have had the same affect on me - And after having kids it feels so much more important to me to change our gardening culture so we can try to get this train back on the tracks for them!
Interesting you say this because almost every single person I've heard that says plant native and stands by it isn't talking about food gardens. We are talking about monoculture lawns and invasive ornamentals that use way more water than necessary.
That's exactly right. A lot of the reason why I don't like bradford pears is that the only animal that can benefit from a bradford pear is a eurasian honey bee. Humans can eat the fruit nor can wildlife eat it. Take apple trees, while there are cultivars that developed in certain regions, and non native. They don't really spread, they benefit local fauna, and it produces human food. The difference is one is grown because It's pretty, (it looks like plastic) and the other is grown for food.
I haven't really seen anyone saying to strictly plant *only* natives, Im sure those people are out there but it seems they must be few and far between.I think most people are just trying to educate others on the importance of adding native plants to our landscapes in order to maintain and support biodiversity which is absolutely backed by science. We can all enjoy the best of both worlds!
Two kinds of people say to plant only natives: zealous, inspired people with zero gardening/landscaping experience and people who are referring to wildlife gardening in particular. The latter stance makes sense to me-using exotic plants to help wildlife is as sensible as releasing pets from petsmart to help wildlife. I’m sure local hawks will happily utilize the hamsters, but I still don’t think that’s evidence that hamsters are a beneficial part of local food webs. Sadly, there are more people in the former group than in the later group, especially on social media.
I'm pretty sure that Doug Tallamy is trying to encourage gardeners to try to plant some native grasses and flowering species for pollinators and some native tree species like oaks and willows that are known to be fed upon by lepidoperan larvae which are necessary food for many birds to feed to their nestlings. He does not ask any homeowner to replace all of their perennial plants with native species, nor is he asking anyone to give up growing our own fruits and vegetables. I believe it is true that we can make a difference for pollinators by planting species native to the area we live in and I began growing some natives last summer.
I didn’t say Tallamy was making that demand. But people who have become very excited over his research are doing just that and my point here is that it is antithetical to the overall goal. Militancy generally is.
Cultivated plants change the shape of the flowers (usually) and don't function the same way as the native. Thus when we say "plant native "euphorbias" to attract beneficial/parasitic wasps", and then we plant a cultivar of a euphorbia instead of the species, then YES IT MATTERS. The cultivars don't benefit the ecosystem in the same way that the native species does.
Yes, there are differences between cultivars and straight species, but it’s highly dramatized for the benefit of Fb pages who promote this stuff. If my cultivars are echinacea are covered in all kinds of native bees (which they are), that is far preferable to giving up on planting any echinacea bc I can’t find a straight species plant or seed locally. Being pedantic helps no one. It’s far better that I plant My Cecile Brunner rose which I adore and will care for and gets me out in the garden - and bees also love - than native Nootka rose which will produce a thicket and be a disaster in the same space. Absolutely plant natives! But saying “native and straight species or else” isn’t helpful and it’s also not realistic.
@@shredmetalshred7395 Really we as a society need to stop putting our heads in the sand when it comes to some of the radical misinformation being spread on social media. What seems like online propaganda is creating unprecedented division and doing real harm in real life. Unsure where this will all end.
I agree it matters. cultivars could be crossed with native species and those traits could potentially spread through a whole population. some cultivars are "double flowered" which give no benefit to pollinators. just in my opinion, I wouldn't spend time gardening anything that isn't native or provides food :)
I should note that I work for a native plant nursery and have access to wild seed. for those that don't have local access, I understand everyone just does their best!
I’m a newborn baby to all of this, but I would think it’s more important to choose plants that work with the environment, without changing or taxing the available water. So if you’re in a dry area, choose plants that thrive in dry areas, rather than plants that you’ll have to use extra water to keep alive. And.. I don’t know, I’m super wet areas, choose plants that soak up water to prevent floods?
I decided to plant my southern California front yard with all native plants - mainly because there are basically no native plants in any yards anywhere in my city of 215,000 people. The focus of my business is creating gardens and landscapes mainly with native drought tolerant plants. For many reasons but one of the big ones is that native plants are almost never used in gardens anywhere in my area. And they’re super tough, beautiful, and provide food and habitat for lots of native insects and birds. I have a bunch of fruit trees and perennial vegetables in my back yard as well as a few non-native plants. That need more regular watering. I find that nothing except for some types of cactus and a few invasive tree species like pepper and eucalyptus uses less water in this part of the world than native plants. They do great with watering only once a month in a region that has no rain from at least May through October. And provide tons of ecological benefits.
She had some good points, but she lost me at “it’s their fault not ours.” It IS our responsibility, because if we don’t plant native plants, and teach others the right thing to do, no one else will. And that’s quite obvious.
And the big corporations don’t have big corporations doing anything if we the little people aren’t purchasing all their crap, and letting them get away with it.
My personal opinion is that everyone should be growing some native plants in their yard but it seems absurd to grow only native plants especially if your goal is food production. Growing only natives may be more realistic if you are not growing food but still people spend more time gardening in a yard that brings them joy. SO I say whatever brings you joy should be what you plant. ( maybe with the exception of harmful invasive species)
Cultivars of native plants that make the plants unrecognizable or unable to be utilized by native insects *are* a problem. Especially when unwittingly planted to be of use to insects. If a cultivar changes the color or flower shape native insects either don’t recognize them or can’t get to the pollen/nectar.
Yes. I spoke about this. Roses in particular that are heavily ruffled and prevent access to the nectar and pollen are totally unhelpful. But if growing a ruffly rose keeps you engaged with your garden and more likely to plant some natives amongst the roses, then go for it.
I agree very much with the points you bring up- however, as someone who experienced this herself- I’d just like to point out some good points about the memes. They go viral. Which heightens awareness of a need. A year ago- I never even gave any thought to natives. I was in love with English cottage gardens & wanted to fill my yard with all those flowers- pretty much exclusively. And then I ran across these memes. Not something I had considered too much. I started researching & learning & my eyes were opened. Now I am planting those plants I always wanted (trying to steer clear of invasives) mixed in with lots of natives. I joined those native FB groups to learn more- and they are teaching me a lot. I can see the extremist thinking on display there- but I ignore it, because I agree with you on the points you make in this video. But would I even yet have discovered the need for natives without the memes? Not sure. Perhaps, because now I am seeing news articles about it- but I think they are now talking about it because of the public and the public is talking about it- because of the memes. I drive around and nearly every yard is the same mixture of the same 7-10 plants. If our societal awareness shifts & native species explode in popularity? Personally I think it will be in part because of the memes. And perhaps that will lead to more people becoming passionate about the larger issues. One can always hope.
I agree with you! The vast majority of people dont even think about natives or realize that they may be planting invasive species. So i feel like this video felt very aggressive/defensive towards something that isnt reallt harmful in the end and may make people open their eyes to their native ecology/become more interested in learning about plants! Like yeah people that act like planting anything other than natives is a moral failing are pretty annoying and its not that black and white, but are they so harmless to devote a whole video to? idk! I would rather there be people on the internet making a riot about invasive plants than there being no discussion at all.
Okay… you lost me at “it’s the corporations’ fault.” Lawns = zero biodiversity. A huge part of the lack of biodiversity is due to how homes are kept. I agree that these ideas people are pushing are extreme BUT any little bit that homeowners can do in aggregate is a lot. To say that corporations need to solve it instead is shifting the responsibility and thus I totally disagree with this argument. For ex, a lot of native lands were cut down for farming. I’d rather feed people if I can so I’m not going to blame farming for this issue. But homeowners chipping in to help with native fauna since it helps with native wildlife is a good. Also, Ppl should be shamed for planting invasives like English Ivy. F that plant. I’d rather lawn than English Ivy. At least a lawn is easier to remove than an invasive.
A lawn won't thrive on its own... but then again, how would giant corporations thrive if we're not convinced that we need to "help" our lawns thrive by buying their products? Give me dandelions, clover, daisies, moss, itty bitty strawberries, whatever will grow... as long as it's not prickly, and I'll gladly be the pariah whose lawn is full of weeds.
Shaming...really? You attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar! A pleasant conversation will make more of a positive impact than shaming which will just make you an enemy.
Our dollar is our vote to what we want to see here. Corperations are made of individuals. Corporations sell what people buy. It starts with individuals.
I am a native plant warrior and nobody says grow all natives or you're bad, lol. And nobody thinks non natives are destroying the earth. 'Native' is relative. Talk about drama! Non native plants are fine except when they are invasive and destroy native habitats. People just need to plant more native shrubs and trees that are the host plants to native species to support insects, bird migrations, and the food chain. There are many scientific studies on native cultivars as to if they are equal or poor source for pollinators. Use common sense. If there are a gazillion petals then the pollinators cannot get to the pollen. It is actually all common sense.
Do you have any thoughts on how individuals can make changes to the larger, real problems such as thoughtless destruction of native land for the sake of building strip malls or the unintentional attack by large corporations on native species and land?
I find this video to be dangerous. She has some lukewarm points but, it's best to landscape with native plants. Even the noninvasive exotics used in landscapes can later through small mutations start favoring propagation and become invasive. Relying on native plants is intended to heal habitat fragmentation and help develop wildlife corridors in our living spaces. Plus, bringing in NEW exotics risks bringing in pests associated with that plant and its soil. No one is aggressively attacking non-native gardeners, so it's so strange to attack the native plant movement.
You start your comment with an attack that this video is "dangerous". And then you make points to argue that "no one is aggressively attacking non-native gardeners". Perhaps some self-awareness is in order because that's exactly what you're doing while claiming the opposite.
I would say the native movement is urging use of strictly natives due to the overwhelmingly more positive impact, but not vilifying those who use non-native, non-invasive plants. A few facebook groups and memes do not define the movement on a whole. Trolls exist in every conversation on the internet. The larger issues exist obviously, the native plant community is addressing personal responsibility and the joy of connecting with nature. It is not paramount for every blog, post, video, or meme to address every situation.
I think it’s worth focusing on who actually benefits from consumers buying cultivars of native plants, aka nativars: breeders and large corporations. They trademark these plants to make extra profit, and then lie when they call them “improved” varieties or just as good as natives for the ecosystem. As many people here have pointed out, that has been proven to be completely false by Dr. Tallamy and others It is of course not up to any single gardener to save the environment. However, to your point about recognizing systemic problems and the damage large corporations inflict on the world, these companies should not be allowed to trick the public into thinking nativars are just as good or better for the environment than straight natives, AND charge a premium for these cultivars that just benefits the corporations. And it’s not to say, “no one should ever buy a cultivar of a native plant.” If it really brings you so much joy and you somehow can’t find the straight native species, fine. But if people are buying cultivars just because they only shop at big box stores and those stores rarely sell straight natives and lie about how great these cultivars are for the environment, then that is just not right. Shop somewhere else. Buy online. Natives plants and seeds are becoming much more widely available. Don’t support the stores that don’t care about the environment and are only trying to sell you extra expensive cultivars because they make more profit off those. Also, this is a completely different story for cultivated fruits and vegetables. No one should be growing those for wildlife because those are meant for human consumption, which is obviously also important. People should plant both natives and edible plants (some of which are native and some are cultivated).
So you're right that telling people to ONLY grow natives is ridiculous. But it is a meme and all memes lack nuance. And habitat is one area where individuals CAN make a difference. Each tiny patch of habitat is valuable. But growing food is a valuable use of land, it's even better if you can grow native food crops and do both at the same time. And some introduced plants support food webs better than others (apple trees vs. Pear trees), assuming you don't use pesticides. However the research on honeybees shows a fairly strong negative impact on native bees. They compete for food and spread disease to wild bees. You should not fool yourself into thinking you're helping the environment by keeping them. Now if you simply want a source of honey and wax then you're just keeping a livestock animal which is fine but remember that honeybees are basically livestock. I didn't add a flock of chickens to my property thinking it would help wild birds. One thing I tell my students as far as having introduced plants (assuming they are not invasive) is trying to choose varieties that have functional flowers, actually having stamens and not having tons of extra petals. Single roses and impatients for example. The plants that are especially bad are those that don't interact with the environment at all, no pollen or nectar, no fruit and no leaves that can be eaten by herbivores. A double flowered oleander would be an example of that. You're basically putting in a plastic plant in that case. Now is it terrible to plant those at all? Not necessarily but you would not want to fill your landscape with plants like that if you have any interest in promoting the health of the environment. Lastly while big corporations do bear some responsibility for our climate and habitat crises, they do produce what consumers demand. But individual gardeners have a real chance to make a difference and we should do whatever we can. See Doug Tallamys Bringing Nature Home for the biggest impacts you can make. And he has never been a "grow only natives" person.
Yeah, i don't know why the meme is taken this seriously? I liked it on reddit but I also garden veggies. I feel like it's intended meaning is pointed more at landscape gardening, where aesthetics is the only function and a lot of native plants can fill those same niches while providing more wildlife value.
Most land is privately owned. Plant native keystone species to account for a decline in habitats/resources for a large number of species. We shouldn't be usinh non natives for decorative, landscaping purposes. The grow native movement was never about food production or reversing climate change. The human impact on ecosystems is large.
My problem is A lot of modern gardeners are too lazy to research if a introduced species is laser or not so I would rather just encourage them to plant more native species because it's easier than expecting them too I actually put the work in and research if they introduced species is good or not. Especially when a lot of the people just see a pretty plant and wanted in their yard
My question would be, how far back are you going to go to determine what is now native and what is not? 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 5000 years - that's even a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the age of our earth or any local area. Plants spread - whether it's birds, animals, water, wind - this is how nature works. Climate changes and species change, move or become extinct. Putting some kind of arbitrary label on things is kind of crazy. I love growing plants that grow well in my climate - it's easier on them and me. But it's not the end all and be all of everything. Nourishing my soil and building insect/animal populations is something I can do and see the results of in my little corner of the world and diversity is my mantra and it works.
Thousands of years. Insects evolved with their host plants over thousands of years. Sometimes millions. The mimosa tree is a good example of an invasive plant with documented, well researched evidence of damage, despite having been here in North America for 300 years. That's 300 years of a plant with negative ecological benefit reseeding and spreading without any "natural predators", so to speak, taking over areas where plants had previously thrived for thousands (sometimes millions) of years. This is how forest understories become ecological deserts. No wildlife can use the plants that exist there any longer. And people still vehemently defend planting these for ornamental reasons because they are pretty and "are here to stay"
Have you read Doug Tallamy's book, or watched his lecture, 'Nature's Best Hope'? I have seen a lot more different bird species and pollinators in my yard since I have been planting natives and getting rid of lawn! I feel like nature needs all the help she can get, and I personally feel like I am doing a lot of good planting native species in my yard. I still sign environmental petitions, protest big ag's toxic soup of chemicals, buy organic, have my own vegetable garden, etc. Yet, I think planting native plants is something we can all do help nature as much as possible. It is so sad to walk in the woods and see how all the invasives from other countries have taken over, and also how many of these imported plants have brought pests and diseases that have harmed our native species. I think my gardens are far more beautiful with mostly native plants than they ever were before and they are buzzing with life, more now than ever and it is a joy to see the transformation!
I’ve read quite a bit of Tallamy’s research, especially on caterpillar species on native v introduced landscape trees. I’m not trying to discourage people from planting natives. I’m trying to discourage people from being militant about it to the point where it turns everybody off from accessing native landscaping in a way that feels doable for them :)
@@ParkrosePermacultureI think you should have just said that. About the militant part. Like a lot of plants are just already here. Like you aren’t a monster. A lot of people brought plants here to bring a piece of home because some immigrants didn’t come here by choice but because of survival and needed the foods that they knew to survive. Native plants are food as well and put less pressure on the water supply. You’re right it’s not going to fix the problem right away but denying people trying to spread the word isn’t going to do much. It’s just going to let people be convinced to just keep doing what they were doing before. We obviously aren’t going to beat the system in a day.
As a native person, I feel there’s nothing “silly” or “ridiculous” about wanting to plant all native plants in ones own property. Why the need to bash people who believe it’s important? I usually enjoy your videos, but this appears to be a rant video where it is unclear who your targeting as the bad guys?
I think you really misunderstood the sort of person this video was about. It wasn’t about people that want to plant all native plants on their land, it’s about people that shame other people for also including non-native plants. The idea of “purity” is a made-up human idea that isn’t actually real in nature. She also clarified that introduced species are not the same as invasive species.
@@CampingforCool41 her chosen captions and front picture tells a different story. I’m sure many of her RUclips viewers are not on these forums she is speaking of. This video is not giving off a clear message she is hoping and I think, putting her in a bad light. Which is too bad.
@@flowerpixel I’m saying it rude and full of mudslinging. Why must one method be “argued” as superior than the other. They both have pros and cons. People who plant all native plants would have either the knowledge or researched on how the people used the plants not just for food but medicinally and spiritually. All plants had a use and sourcing these plants ethically could be difficult since most are not sold in nurseries. Permaculture is easily available to all with a yard and gives somewhat predictable yields. Discouraging people to use all native plants in their garden because permaculture is superior is how this video came off. Even if that wasn’t her intention or was it? The video is put on RUclips and can be interpreted in many ways.
@@1is7ener65 I hear your point and agree. I also note there is a tone of rudeness, or judgementalism on both parts. Mine too. As I understand- plants, life, history can be interpreted with a purely physical eye, or interpreted through a deeper lens. A deeper lens sees the expanded spectrum from physical to spiritual, a shorter view can only perceive physical phenomenon. It is limited, as you probably know, but it can be frustrating to have to constantly squeeze into a purely physical reality. I also think the word "native" is off-putting and triggering. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent
Where permaculture misses the mark is when it is planting whatever for the benefit of only one's self without thinking about its future to be invasive and disregarding the neighbors (both human and animal). The above is the kind of sweeping generalization that you are making about native plant enthusiasts. I have promoted native plants for more than thirty years and have yet to meet anyone with a 100% native plant garden. We are zealous because we have found a way to fight back against big scary things like Anthropocene extinction, and are interested in serving more than ourselves. Because a garden is not a self-indulgent pretty collection of plants...but a place full of life, that functions well in supporting the things we love like birds, butterflies, frogs, etc. You are zealous for your own reasons, such as feeding yourself. What is wrong is choosing to make it a battle...we have much to learn from each other.
Anyone who truly understands permaculture and follows the 3 Ethics of Earth Cars, People Care, and Fair Share should never advocate planting whatever they want and damn the consequences for the planet and other people. I don’t think all native plant enthusiasts are militant. I’m a huge native plant enthusiast, and the first thing I did when planting my garden was to become a certified backyard wildlife habitat at the silver level with at least 10% native plantings. But I find the trends toward an “all or nothing” approach and vilifying cultivars and non-native plants to be generally unhelpful.
Yikes. Who's making sweeping generalizations? The idea that if it's not all native, then your garden must be a "self-indulgent pretty collection of plants" is the kind of over-the-top generalization this video rightfully calls out. You also imply, that only your kind of garden supports biodiversity "a place full of life" etc. Double yikes. False on its face . The lack of self-awareness in your own polarized response is meme-worthy.
@@mongoose000 A single meme, apparently. I've never once met any native plant enthusiast who advocates for 100% native or nothing, but she insists that the view is widespread enough that it's a problem (despite these comments being full of people in a relatively small, arguably niche community who all seem to report not having this experience whatsoever).
@@mongoose000 By the way, it seemed pretty clear to me that the comment you're referring to was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying not to generalize. I don't think they actually believe that about less-than-100% native gardening. It's more of a way to hold up a mirror to the creator of the video.
The "not my mess, not my responsibility" attitude lacks nuance every bit as much as the "Plant only natives" narrative. Nothing would ever get done in this world if everyone thought like this.
I never said, “not my mess, not my responsibility”. That’s the antithesis of what I talk about on this channel and totally agree with you that won’t solve anything.
YES! the 'not my mess' attitude' message is harmful. Even if it's not what she meant, it will be used and interpreted that way. I literally searched "native plant species" and this was the first video that came up. Imagine someone with a yard full of English Ivy and privet (big problems in my area) was told about the benefits of planting native, looked it up, watched this video, and decided, "well, until we fix Big Agriculture....." It's the very argument lazy/uninformed people use NOT to act when they know they should... for any cause.
Native plants support the native animals, and are part of a healthy ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem means better more drinkable water. A healthy ecosystem means less flooded roads. A healthy ecosystem means lower heating and cooling bills. A healthy ecosystem means that you can see more birds in your yard.
Another reason to plant natives is to help replenish the depleted seed banks of your local area. Invasives have been in the area for so long, that there are no longer viable native plant seeds in the soil.
Angela have you read the book Beyond the war on invasive species: a permaculture approach to ecosystem restoration by Tao Orion? It’s an interesting take and speaks to your point that humans have changed/destroyed multiple ecosystems. They go on to note that we have thus set the conditions for invasive species to be invasive and that instead of vilifying/killing “invasive” species, we should be looking at restoring the actual ecosystem conditions that favor the “natives”. Also, just as a point- let’s note that “native” is really hard to define!
Some non natives are highly beneficial as a nectar source. Non natives should not be planted if they are invasive and will find themselves outside of planted area readily. That being said at this point with loss of habitat natives should be planted whenever they can and if the plant has no value to invertebrates should not be given priority. Ideologues are the same regardless of the religion and taking this personally is counterproductive. Loss of habitat is more pressing than climate change so planting natives is pretty important but does not need to be the sole purpose of an ornamental garden
What i think is important is to make information on local invasive species easily available, aspeshaly to gardners so we know what plants to avoid. I found my way here because I want to start planting some native plants. I live in Alberta canada and so far i haven't gotten far. Im totally alright with growing interduced species. But i really want to know what to avoid, because i would hate to plant something that actively harmed my ecosystem.
Down in the south, we can look up this information- what to avoid, etc. the nurseries comply by not growing the invasives. The information is often in the county agricultural information.
You can plant foreign plants but only in controlled environments like in pots or beds but natives in general do so much for the environment and wildlife. Lawn grass specifically is so annoying and do nothing good for anything but hoa
A major issues is marketing. There should be a label that marks native plants as native. It's hard to find native plants because companies can't patent it. I think a lot of the problem is companies selling plants and chemicals that are ecologically harmful.
Marketing is very specialized with plants. Proven Winners is an example of very successful marketing aimed at retail nurseries and garden shops. All under patent and with a name like that, you think you’re getting a very sturdy growing plant! It’s just marketing.
You bring up so many good points I had not considered, but totally agree with. I just had looked at it as I need to grow a diverse garden so that as much wildlife (and myself) can benefit from my landscape. As my yard deals with climate change, I need it to be as welcoming and supportive as possible to mitigate (in the smallest of ways) the stressors on the wildlife above and below the soil. Permaculture requests that we diversify and not rely only on 1 crop or plant. I get the connection of native plants and pollinators/birds that evolved together. Our world is changing too quickly to allow the animals and plants to adapt. My efforts in my garden are to offer the widest buffet I can to help whatever is moving thru the landscape at that time. I can't save the world, but I may help that one butterfly survive to procreate, that one bumblebee to make it thru the late spring so she can help with pollinating the tomatoes later on, that one migratory bird who arrived on time, but has missed the normal insects it relies on to find alternatives in my garden. if I can do that in an attractive way to folks passing by, they may stop and ask questions, they may notice the crazy amount of life in my garden and copy some ideas. I learn much from you and thank you for your efforts.
We plant only natives in the ground. Huge influx of birds, butterflies, and pollinators (of all types). It's been great. We do have some potted non- native, non-invasive annuals for showy spots. (We don't grow food. If we did, we would almost certainly plant non-natives.
So people who plant only natives are pedantic? These are some of the few people in the world who are actually not poisoning it and trying to restore destroyed habitats. That you would find a problem with them - of all people - leaves me speechless. There's no law mandating NATIVES ONLY. If people do so by choice, there's no problem other than people like you who aren't doing so making others feel guilty for choices they are not legally imposing or forcing on others.
Lack of nuanced thinking is a hallmark of our current era. Real solutions are so complex that our culture just cannot process them on the level needed to make sustainable change.
It is the word, "nuance". It exists on a level of day to day conversations but falls on deaf ears when it comes to mass media or an agenda of commerce. The other hallmark is "the hidden agenda". Invasion Biology is mired by an odd combo of Monsanto backing and grant money seeking. A whole industry has risen out of a desire to "manage and restore" areas of habitat. History has shown that this movements track record for success in the long run is suspect. Yet it continues, because it provides employment and profit.
Totally Agree! I value and search for "Native" here in Boise ID (can only address my area, Northern Idaho very different). If you only grow Native then you will have to continue to buy tuns of food that has been trucked in from all over the nation/globe. OK now that doesn't sound so good for our environment. Additionally, in a rapidly changing climate we are forced to adapt for ourselves AND our wildlife. Planting only native here would make for a very sad, sparce region/community indeed.
This video misses the mark. As other comments have suggested, your vegetable garden is going to be mostly non-natives (although it’s very cool to grow native options). No forests or prairies are being overrun by escaped tomatoes or bell peppers. That said, things like hardy kiwi are definitely showing signs of invasiveness, so growers definitely should be careful. It’s your ornamentals, your foundation beds, your lawns that should be native. People like Doug Tallamy, people who go out and count the bugs, have shown conclusively that non-natives (invasive or not) do not support the kind of insect diversity that native plants do. They may, at best, provide some floral resources (i.e. pollen and nectar), but they don’t host native insects because our insects can’t digest the defensive chemical compounds in their tissues. So while it’s ok to have a few non-invasive introduced “statues” in your garden that make you feel good or have sentimental value, our habitats are too few, too degraded and too fragmented for us to devote any substantial space to non-natives. Plus there’s always the risk that plants that have been vetted as safe and non-adventitious will actually turn out to be invasive. This has happened time and time again. It often takes more than a decade for a supposedly safe species to escape and establish in sufficient numbers to be noticed as an invasive. The bottom line is, use almost exclusively natives for ornamental landscaping purposes and make sure you’re not growing any potentially invasive plants for food. But go ahead and keep growing your tomatoes.
Hardy kiwis have not been shown to have any invasive potential in my area. I enjoy Doug Tallamy’s work. I think his research is a valuable contribution and his work to normalize planting natives is laudable and much-needed. But I don’t agree with the “only natives” crowd and I don’t think slamming people for growing plants they love which have no invasive potential is helpful. At the same time folks are freaking out over some gardener posting on social media about how he’s growing pink dandelions, the real damage is being done by intense habitat destruction at the city planning level. By big corporations building giant warehouses in my local Columbia Slough Watershed, which is critical habitat. Scolding gardeners for growing their David Austin roses or cultivars of echinacea is what misses the mark. It’s like telling individuals they are responsible for climate change while ignoring the real problem: corporations. Yes, natives are great. I grow tons of them. No, expecting everyone to be militantly “natives only” and coming for folks on the internet because they grow and introduced garden plant is not an effective strategy.
Being militantly “natives only” is not a good idea. I agree. There are plenty of harmless non-natives. I also agree that the largest problem we face is habitat destruction from development. As with carbon dioxide and plastic pollution, the onus can’t be placed on individual consumers. It’s the unsustainable systems that have to change. That said, invasive species present a huge threat to the dwindling fragments of habitat that are left behind after the developers have paved everything else. Take a “nature walk” anywhere in Southeast Michigan and you’re likely to see an understory that is dominated by buckthorn and oriental bittersweet. Those were both introduced through the horticulture trade. And those are two examples out of hundreds. Gardeners have a responsibility to plant native outside of their vegetable gardens. We have to perform restoration everywhere we can. Again, I agree that shaming some gardener for their hostas or roses is ridiculous and counterproductive. But until we have real, meaningful regulation preventing the import and sale of aggressive non-natives, we should favor natives in our ornamental plantings, almost exclusively…in my view. History has shown that that plant that’s marketed as safe and non-invasive doesn’t always remain so.
Sorry I have to disagree with you concerning invasive plants. I have been trying to eliminate Virginia Creeper ( not the native ones ) and Vinca which were planted before we bought our house and 25 years later they have gone off into the woods and up trees. They are killing off the native plants and are extremely difficult to remove. I wish that I could bring back the people that planted these plants so that could see what has happened.
Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) is most definitely a native plant that in disturbed conditions like gardens can be extremely aggressive. Vinca is definitely invasive but can be dug out and removed over time.
Natives to horticultural varieties, 70/30 per Doug Talamy Host plants and Habitat are what's important Desiree Narango, with the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, together with Doug Tallamy and Peter Marra, conducted some fascinating (and heartbreaking), research. She determined, that at least as far as Carolina chickadees are concerned, the cut-off point between a habitat that sustains, and a habitat sink, can be quantified. A sustainable habitat is composed of at least 70% native plants. More is better; 90 to 100% is best, but 70% is the cutoff point. According to her research, if less than 70% of the plants in your yard are native, your chickadees will not be successful at raising young, and they will not be able to maintain a sustainable population over time.
Yes, I know Tallamy is very popular right now. What he says are optimal based on his studies v what people feel is accessible and doable for them are two different things. That’s my whole point. If someone says you have to have at least 70% natives, most people are not going to do that to their yard. If you encourage them to swap out a few plants and do what feels affordable and realistic, you start to open up the possibilities. In Permaculture we say “slow small solutions”. My whole point is that when you are militant and tell people, they have to make radical changes, they won’t do it at all. When people feel attacked for growing the only variety of echinacea available to them locally instead of the straight species, it helps nothing.
Thanks for sharing your insightful thoughts on this. I agree that systemic change from levels far beyond the average gardener is what will have the far-reaching impacts you're talking about. With that said, when one explores greens spaces around urban areas, such as here in Vancouver, BC, and sees the incursion of non-native species (English ivy, yellow archangel, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, etc, etc) choking out native plants and altering the ecological balance of these areas, it's hard to deny the impacts. This is not the result of greedy corporations, or some abstract cause that isn't addressable by just one person; in many cases, it's as simple as... at one point in time, somebody thought a non-native plant looked pretty and introduced it to their yard. Next thing you know, trimmings are discarded at the edge of a forest, or fruit-eating birds propagate the plant deeper into natural spaces, and X number of years down the road, large swaths of productive habitat have been significantly impacted, sometimes irreversibly so. I understand one can only address so much of what is a complicated issue in a single video, but not touching on this seems like a big oversight that serves to perpetuate the ignorance surrounding this topic. Yes, thinking bigger picture is what will ultimately make the difference in terms of setting aside large tracts of wilderness, curbing things like plastic pollution, etc. However, the reality is, the vast majority of people don't interact with nature way off the beaten path, they do so within a short drive or even walk of home, and if the ecological integrity of those accessible areas is important to us - as I strongly feel it should be - disregarding the personal responsibility that falls on the shoulders of anyone propagating or improperly disposing of non-native plants would be a big mistake.
Ignore the meme, plant natives. Read Natures Best Hope so that the issue is fully understood before it's argued as a trend, because it's actually science.
Yes, plant natives where you can, but do what feels approachable and reasonable - in permaculture we say "slow, small solutions"...take on what works in your garden and your life and grow from there. "All natives or you'll get dogpiled on by strangers on the internet" just freaks people out and isn't helpful in getting folks to do more. :)
The problem is that non native species were brought over from other countries and the landscapers decided to only use them instead of creating a diverse habitat. And in some cases they didn’t do their homework to see how a plant integrates into the environment.. case in point buckthorn. I agree that cultivars have a place but in some cases may not perform as well and I have examples. While I agree non natives have a place I want more research like what is being done by Doug Tallamy to see how pollinators and others adapt to non natives. In my view some of the most popular plants such as day lily, hosta and hydrangeas provide poor resources for pollinators .
This! Thank you! My daughter and I are currently nurturing a 4 year old young Food Forest and were wildlife certified a couple months ago,, while my Aspie daughter advocates for every native species, and so we welcome them, the truth is that we do have non natives as well. Several months ago we were in a permaculture group that was challenging for us. At that time my daughter said, “ I don’t think they should be so exclusive about how much land is needed to practice this( we’re on 1/7 acre) it discourages people. “ I mention this because as I was nodding my head as I listened, I really liked your emphasis on just doing what you can… just really agree.
When I moved into my own home I was only going to have natives or edibles.... I was adamant.... that did not last long thank goodness. Majority of my trees are native and I have many native flowers and shrubs ....my common sense took over and now it is what is best for my garden and my lifestyle .....
As someone who plants non native species, wants honeybees, and also volunteers with cat shelters, thank you for this. The reality is that these species are here, and the best we can do as stewards of nature is try to keep them in balance with the native species. I agree with the comment stating that it's difficult to draw the line between introduced and native and gets into eco fascist territory really fast. I keep my pet cats indoors but also support several fixed community cat colonies who have a role to play outdoors in preventing further breeding. I see introduced species as neighbors and resources to steward responsibly,not scourges to be wiped out. Much of permaculture is undertaken by humans non-native to their local environment, and we don't seem to have a problem with that.
I’m so excited about my fire bush! (Hamelia patens) The list is long of species that drink the nectar, eat the berries, nest in their branches. A 3g bush can quickly be trained into a beautiful 15-20 ft tall tree. The dwarf variety, I grow the same but closer to the house and in smaller areas. The flowers are shaped a little differently on the dwarf, but still attracts many butterflies and birds. The dwarf I can keep at 8-10’ tall to cast a little shade around it. What a plant! They should triple their size by winter in FL!
The gaslighting of individuals and single households to personally solve the climate crisis is exhausting. Saying we’re “addicted to plastic” and attacking our veggie patch as problematic while letting corporations run rampant is such a ridiculous scenario and I’m not here for it anymore. We’re not profiting from climate and we’re not creating the problems. I 100% agree that it is well past time we put the blame firmly at the feet of those who actually made (and have the power to fix) this awful situation.
Who holds the corporations responsible? People have been saying “The corporations should…..” for literal decades. Video evidence. So again the power and responsibility lies within and with us. 🤷🏻♀️
@@Stratiisyeah I’ve never seen people say food crops should only be natives. Just ornamental gardens. And I’ve also never seen somebody say *only* natives actually, the native only trope seems to just be an exaggeration of people who stress the importance of adding more natives.
Island ecosystems are more susceptible to introduced species becoming invasive and a huge problem. Not so much on the mainland because of the area effect. We have an old saying in ecology, "diversity equals stability". It applies well to a managed garden or permaculture space. A Yaqui teacher friend of mine once said, "take all things as a gift, if it's abundant, learn to use it".
It seems hard for people on the internet to get excited about anything -- including native plant conservation -- without being jerks about it. What does bother me though is some people on the opposite end of the spectrum who are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not plants are native. It matters a lot! I personally try to work towards less non-natives in my non-food plants, and I don't see it as fascism if those non-natives don't need my help and I'm making space for species that do need my help. I believe that there is urgency to plant natives and I evangelize them basically, but I couldn't subsist on them alone with the small amount of land that I have. And I agree 💯 it is not our sole responsibility to fix the environment.
Thank you! I'm in New Zealand which has only had human inhabitants for around 800 years. As a consequence there are very few natives that can be grown as edible crops. I've only recently started looking into this, but the best I can find is there are around 100-200 native plants that are edible - to varying degrees. So while I'm of course going to grow veggies such as carrots, potatoes, peas, tomatoes in my garden (apart from enjoying gardening I'm trying to reduce how much frozen food in plastic I buy), and I'm not going to rip out the huge cherry plum tree that our place came with, I am going to nurture the huge kōwhai tree we are lucky to have, I'll let the little tī kōuka (cabbage tree) get big and lush, and I'll slowly introduce (as budget allows) native grasses, flax, ferns, shrubs, flowers etc to support our native wildlife. We have pīwakawaka (fantail) that visit our garden and I'd love to see more.
Before watching, I will comment again, I prefer to plant natives as often as possible. They do better in our very very weird climate, and take less maintenance once established. But now to watch your video and have more opinions! 😂😂😂
@@ParkrosePermaculture very fair. That’s an extreme and usually those aren’t healthy. I’ve got plenty of plants that aren’t only natives right now. I’m definitely wanting to add more of them. I want salal and kinckinick. And all the native irises and violets. And so many more. 😍
❤️❤️❤️ thank you very much from Europe, Angela. Moving species along centuries, importing tomatos, peppers, and other Solanaceae plants, and much more genres from there. And exporting… I don’t know… european bees? horses? Trifolium, Artemisa, Achilea, most of Vines, the wheel etc? This tendency of growing only natives seems me a little ridiculous.
If I could only plant natives, I probably wouldn't even bother with gardening. Yes, I love natives and have lots in my garden. There are more I want to add in the future. But I also love all my non-native veggies and flowers. My garden is a pollinator magnet pretty much year round and I now see butterflies and insects I never saw before adding these non-natives. And don't get me started about my neighbor's cats lol. I love cats though but I always kept mine inside.
I get pretty frustrated with this "plant natives only" thinking too. If the alternative in a specific situation is lawn vs. natives, then yes, but if you are actually gardening, it makes no sense.
Yes! What a great breakdown. Native plants = good. But nuance is also good. Not to mention that when you're first getting into these concepts of gardening for wildlife, the "if you plant/have non-natives in your yard, you're doing everything wrong" message can really take the wind out of your sails and make you feel like it's too difficult to even start. Social media, and especially very short -form media like memes and TikTok videos don't often allow for the depth of discussion or nuance that is really needed. So... Thanks for this. :)
I live in a large co-op and we are trying to write a tree replacement policy. Some spots would do better with a non native tree, but some people flip out when that’s suggested. It’s making it difficult to plant trees.
When growing non natives it’s a game of mitigation. Can you maintain the ecosystem services your land provided as a native ecosystem and can you maintain it’s biodiverse carrying capacity? Introduicing speceis can enrich or reduce biodiversity and ecosystem services, it comes down to how in-tune you are with your landscape and how you manage it over time
planting only native plants is about taking interest in your LOCAL ECOLOGY not about having pretty plants or growing food. The push to plant native is for more people to provide habitat for wildlife, but more importantly to take an active role in their local ecosystem. "Being into plants" is not the same thing as being a "naturalist" or promoting native biodiversity. People who want to learn about how nature actually works, are the ones who plant native. I get that most food crops aren't native, but not everyone requires rent from their plants, some people do it for the nature homies
“Only plant natives, it’s the least you can do” is a militant viewpoint that doesn’t actually help anyone, nor is it realistic. And I’ll quote Will, the admin for Phytomemetics here: “Telling gardeners to only plant natives is toxic individualism - blaming homeowners for the ecological disaster unfolding around us for planting a few noninvasive species whilst most of the land is turned over to intensive agriculture that provides few ecological niches and uses nasty agrichemicals that damage insect populations and in turn all species reliant on insects. A non-invasive non-native growing in someone's garden is not the problem, the problem is how we manage the land and most of that land isn't private gardens.”
@@ParkrosePermaculture planting native plants is not a trendy new idea. It’s been a choice recommended for decades. Nor is it militant. It’s a preferable choice for a wide variety of reasons. Your article’s title belittles those who advocate for choosing native plants given the choice.
I absolutely agree that introduced species can be great for a number of reasons- ESPECIALLY if you are doing permaculture gardening. However, I take issue with the argument that corporations are at fault in this scenario (for the most part) and I’m going to bring in a slightly tangential but still very related topic. Lawn size and turf grass. Lawn is a huge problem in the US as it takes up a whole 2% of the land- which is more space than all the corn that’s grown here! 40 million acres! Lawns are essentially ecological dead zones as they support almost no wildlife, plus they pose risks to our watersheds and wildlife considering a majority of Americans still fertilize and spray pesticides for their lawns. But why do homeowners in the US have such large lawns? Horrible town/city design and horrible infrastructure prompted by quick expansion, unlivable apartment costs, etc. so yes there are absolutely systemic roots to that question- but the fact is that none of those things are changing in the foreseeable future. Changing the status quo and getting rid of unnecessary lawn would do wonders for the environment- especially if you’re planting natives (but introduced is ok too as long as it isn’t invasive or lawn lmao.) One of the points brought up was that if every gardener planted native plants it would do nothing to solve habitat destruction- that’s simply untrue. There are 40 million acres of lawn in the US- that is enough land to fit 10 Yellowstone National Parks (2 mil acres)! Here in the mid-Atlantic oaks support around 550 Lepidoptera species and goldenrods support 50-60 species of native bees. To say that planting highly productive plants on such a broad scale would do nothing is a bold assumption.
Coming from veganism, this movement is extremely lax. Some people are intense and purist in their approach but that is pretty rare. This is not "silly," this is not a trend for so many of us. It is our live's purpose. Despite that, the large majority of us are extremely compassionate towards people that are not on the same page. We don't want to scare people away. We want people to accept a few natives into their gardens. I have been a part of the community for a few years, and I do not support people that are brutish about it, or anything for that matter. I do not like purism, I do not like what encourages purism, I think it's dangerous. I know you are well intentioned here, but I think you are misunderstanding the reality of this movement and the people that make it up. We aren't trying to save the planet, we are trying to stabilize wildlife populations to prevent total ecological collapse in our areas. The people I come across in this community are wildly intelligent and well educated on the matter, the systemic issues, and who is really to blame.
I will add I do not hang out in the corners of the internet where people post a lot of meme's, I choose my communities wisely. I think THIS is a really good message. You may be hanging out in the wrong spaces that are really just mentally taxing and absolutely are a waste of energy. I used to get caught up in that stuff and try to teach people, and it always falls on deaf ears.
Rather than plant only natives throughout, there are two main things that people should do. The first one is to rip most of their lawn and plant borders and trees instead. In parts of the US with extreme weather, cold or hot, it's easier with natives coz you consume less water or they can handle having their feet wet (like swamp natives in Louisiana). Second, the plants that shelter the most biodiversity are trees. So while it is not paramount to plant only native flowers, I'd say it is extremely important for trees and shrubs. Regarding perennials, check with your local council or any local nature lover what species are key, for example if some endangered insects need THOSE plants in particular. But yeah other than that you can have your roses and stuff. They'll look rather odd amongst natives, but it's your garden and you should be able to do whatever you want. Another important thing is to take care of the soil. That goes with the lawn thing, but you shouldn't need to put a ton of wood chips and fertilizers to take care of your plants. Even worse is to leave the soil bare and water it too much. Plants or mulch should fill the space, and there is 0 need for fertilizers with perennials. That's one of the issues with non native species : if you don't carefully select them, they won't be happy. Roses on a dry sand will just suffer, and some folks will bring in manure, fertilizers, and a ton of irrigation to take care of them. This is when it becomes a problem. But if you bring in some Australian plants like callistemons, banksias, grevilleas, or leptospermum, they'll just do fine in their own in your dry sandy soil and won't hurt a soul.
It's not that you're a bad person if you grow introduced species -- you're just a person, living in and embodying a society which has a lot of bad elements we're working on improving. You don't need to feel guilty for growing non-native, non-invasive introduced species, but, in many cases, where people are growing introduced species, there's a native which could fill the same niche while providing more benefits for the ecosystem. Some introduced plants aren't actively destructive, but provide less for the environment, so it's just an opportunity cost thing, that even if a given introduced species is okay, a native would still be better. Therefore the point is to grow as many natives as we can, and at least consider native options before defaulting to introduced species we're used to. It doesn't need to be about blame and judgement, just something we're all working on learning and getting better at. You might as well judge people for having burned fossil fuels in their car -- like, yeah, that is bad, actually. Driving a car is bad. Planting Eurasian plants is bad. Drinking alcohol is bad. Eating sugar is bad. Lots of things are bad. We're still going to do them, though, you know? And we're not obligated to hate ourselves over any of it. If you drink a soda once in a while you're not going to drop dead, and if you plant lilacs and introduced roses the ecosystem isn't going to instantly explode or something either. Neither makes you a monster either. But most of us could stand to both drink a lot less sugary soda, and plant a lot fewer plants that don't give suitable nutrition to the native insects. Transitioning our food systems so there's better nutrition both for humans and insects is going to take time, and nobody should be expected to be 100% perfect all the time.
I agree and disagree, yes there are many factors affecting native pollinators like insecticides habitat loss soil degradation and etc. I do believe it’s okay to plant non natives as long as they are not invasive but please include a good chunk of natives in your beds. Planting natives definitely helps even if it doesn’t fix all the problems. If everyone did that it would seriously help with habitat loss especially for native pollinators and learning how to help your soil biodiversity and health and not using chemicals in your landscapes and changing how we do things like not bagging your grass after cutting it helps return nutrients into the ground. Planting natives can really give the crutch the native pollinators and insects need especially like host plants for butterflies and moths and natives for food for birds in the winter or hummingbirds coming back North on such a long journey or helping with your soil health which has a bigger impact then you think.
People interested in this channel are likely committed to making choices as responsibly as possible. What of people like my parents who just want the small, low maintenance retirement garden? Hard lines like that won't encourage them. My mom recently brought home a Jacob's ladder she accepted from a friend from a flower arrangement club. I was impressed that she wanted to introduce another plant into the yard. My dad was raised thinking pests were to be disposed of by chemicals. I got him to switch to natural predators. That's unusual given that he doesn't like listening to my female opinions. He probably heard something similar from men at work, which helped. Sometimes you've got to take what you can get.
Thank you for this video! I believe there is room for both native plants and introduced ones, too! I have been dealing with some invasive plants I bought at a big box store! It's important to know what you are buying! Anyway, I am so happy I watched this video! I have peace now about all the non-native plants I have growing in my yard!
Growing things that aren't native doesn’t automatically equal bad. Environments change all the time. I'm just interested in learning about native landscaping because I'm sick of the maintenance and water bills on a 1/3 acre lot. Lol
TY for spreading sense. A lot of todays activism and other pursuits to better the world are way too all or nothing. And thus we miss on people why might for example be willing to eat less meat but won’t consider becoming vegan and so on. A wild garden with 50% natives is astronomically better than no garden at all or the normal kind that isn’t much of an ecosystem.
Cats also live SIGNIFICANTLY longer if kept indoors. I'm talking indoor kitties living 12-16+ years (and I've heard of a cat reaching 25, and my own cat Smoky reached 18,) versus an absolutely dismal 2-5 year average lifespan for outdoor kitties. If you love your cat, keep them inside, it's just that simple!!!
Also thank you for this! The dude at the nursery made me feel bad for wanting to grow a pretty dogwood tree with big showy flowers instead of a native one which just aren't as appealing to me. I don't see a problem in my growing a beautiful non-native dogwood which hardly anyone around here grows because the species I want CAN'T hybridize with the native dogwoods growing in my area. It'll just look pretty and make ME happy, help local pollinators, help my food crops by drawing in those pollinators, and to me, THAT is what should matter.
Thank you so much, i want a balcony garden soo bad, but i got into this thought that it HAS to be natives, but the native plants in my area don't do very well in pots. So this really helps with that guilt
Good job Angela. I grow wide a variety of plants that are beneficial and grow well in my area, both native and introduced. Most of what I grow are edible, nitrogen fixers, and additionally support pollinators.
I feel like any kind of gardening versus letting a landscape just be turf grass is already doing worlds for the ecosystem. People focus on thinking they can single-handedly save the planet when all we as gardeners really have control over as individuals is our local ecosystem. There is scientific evidence, though, that natives are more beneficial than introduced species especially when it comes to erosion/stormwater control and in the carbon that gets stored in their root systems. It shouldn't mean this whole attitude of if you don't plant only natives you shouldn't be gardening. We gotta eat too!
I have been very active in the native plants community for several years. I love native plants. I try to educate my friends and community members about it and I save seeds... Blah blah blah. But I have never heard anyone say.. plant natives only. It is more like.. if you can even add one native to your garden.. it's better than none. This meme is stupid like all memes. But I think this video is making an issue out of a non issue
There's a whole huge Facebook page with multiple spin off pages dedicated to this premise : plant only natives. They have a fb group with over 100k followers who shame people for planting cultivars of native species. It's also a sentiment repeatedly posted in several gardening groups I'm in.
I mean, that's great that you haven't experienced this issue but I wouldn't talk about it if weren't something I hadn't been encountering repeatedly and with vehemence in online spaces.
@@ParkrosePermaculture well.. that is just sad. Gardening is such a joyful activity. Too bad if there is so much negativity out there. I guess I must be lucky that I have never encountered it
I used to be more one sided but I think some non native plants are ok is carefully manage and depending on the species, their growing characteristics and potential effects on habitat . It is arguably best practice to avoid plants that could potentially cause long term issues , like crossed varieties of native plants that no longer support wildlife in the ways it evolved to. Many of those plants can and do cross with native straight species . Many insects are specialist and with climate change some non native plants could become invasive . I’m afraid you are missing some major aspects here . A good example is lupines , Sundial Lupine (L. perennis) is the host plant for the Blue Karner Butterfly, an endangered species in the us . But Western Lupine (L. polyphullus) is poisonous to the Butterflies larvae, this plant can cross with the L perennis with the resulting plants also being poisonous.
I'm new to learning more about natives. I have a very large area that is a mess right now, and I'd like to bring in more natives along with other perennials and turn it into a wildlife paradise. But I'm not going to give any attention to the militants. But, that being said...honey bees aren't native?
Dr. Tallamy also notes that gardens only need to be 60-70% native and he is very much the champion of this cause. He did the research showing that there wasn’t an enormous increase in wildlife carrying capacity after that point. No need to make your yard a preservation. Your point about « most gardeners have a mix of native and introduced species. » If only. Take a walk around the block and most gardens are 95% invasives. People that try a little are mostly using a combo of invasives and exotics. Only hippie liberals with time and cash have overhauled their lot to mostly native. In my area, only a few nurseries in the whole city sell natives. Lowe’s and Home Depot, where most ordinary gardeners shop, sell effectively nothing native…thus all of ordinary suburbia is carpeted in invasives and exotics. Edit to add: Purity spiral vibes suck but individuals can do a lot. I didn’t know anything about native plants until this spring and I am so upset that I didn’t know about it sooner. Why was the only ecological thing I could do, according to media, is forgo single use straws??!! I could have been planting in my garden!! Since I have been doing this with my kids we have seen so many new creatures and learned SO much. I have owned my home and sizable lot for 5 years! 5 years of honeysuckle and English ivy could have been 5 years of elderberry, goats beard, and trilliums. It was hard but we did it.
Most gardens are not 95% invasives. Yes, we should encourage natives in our gardens. But screaming at strangers on the Internet, because they bought a cultivar of echinacea instead of a straight species is not helpful. I totally agree with you that big box stores are a problem and I would not buy plants there. We can encourage parks and urban foresters to utilize more natives. Using natives for city owned property has long been something I’ve championed because there is a ton of public land with introduced species.
I so agree with you! I live in Sweden and experience the same. I am building a foodforest. Ever since I started, the wildlife grows more and more everyday! By planting blooming flowers, trees, buches etc all the insects have food. With the insects follow those who eat insects. Etc. I build food, homes and a sustqinable living for many in my garden. Plants and wildlife alike. You do a great job. Did share this video. Love to see you soon again! Lot's of love from Sweden!
@@ParkrosePermaculture You are deterring others from planting natives at a time when we are infested with invasive species and rapidly losing biodiversity. Why?
So I'm turning what was once a grass lawn into a meadow. I recently saw someone ask about Queen Anne's Lace in her garden, because she loves the flowers. As you said, she was crucified by "the natives". Apparently, those of us who are turning cultivated grass lawns into wild flower meadows are supposed to irradicate Queen Anne's Lace before adding other plants! This cracks me up, because it grows literally everywhere! I love seeing young people gardening, but they really need to respect the folks who have actually had our hands in the dirt for five decades!
I think some of the impetus comes from the work of Dr Tallamy, showing that native plants support more species diversity than introduced species and many introduced species have inadvertently become invasive and have choked out native species and habitats. He has written interesting books about the role of individuals/households in being the solution. For instance, by minimizing lawns. I don’t think he is speaking about food crops. It is actually an empowering message, not about blame.
Yes to this. And Tallamy's work has shown, at least in his region of the US, that having 70% native plants supports biodiversity, but even Tallamy doesn't suggest we should only grow native plants.
Agreed. I feel she’s up playing her “victim” status. No where have I ever read or seen to only grow natives. It’s a suggestion to be more conscious and educated about our choices and to know that if you’re going to plant trees, shrubs, flowers,to consider a native for both its beauty and benefit. Also consider replacing part of a monoculture lawn with some natives. It’s really important to understand the food web and the balance that nature already has. This video was very dramatic about 1 meme.
@@KMouseff And since almost none of my neighbors are planting any natives, that statistic is why I decided to go 100% native in our gardens!
@@Cby5il yeah, 99% of landowners probably have little to no ecologically beneficial plants on their property. Some native plant fanatics can be annoying but there is still not even enough of them to put a dent in our food for insect wildlife problem.
@@Cby5il agreed, she enjoys playing an emotional victim. 😄
Doug Tallamy has done research on pollinators and how they benefit from native plants over exotics. I went nearly straight native plants for a couple of years but relaxed a bit and now I wound guess I have 90% native and 10% non invasive, non native just because some of those are pretty too. I spend so much time pulling wintercreeper, garlic mustard, oriental bittersweet, lily of the valley, Asian honeysuckle, privet, etc. only to find garden stores still selling them. Native pollinators, plants, and animals have begun reclaiming the spaces I’ve rid of invasive plants. It’s beautiful and humbling that I can make a difference.
Haha, I’ve been eyeing a neighbors kudzu myself… 👀
@@gardenforbirds yikes, kudzu! 😥
That’s awesome that 90% native was doable for you. I think that’s a laudable goal. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect everyone to do it. Encouraging folks to begin to access native plantings at whatever they feel they can handle is a more effective message than “make huge sweeping changes to the way you use your yard”
@@ParkrosePermaculture I understand your point about messaging, but 90% plus should be the goal. The messaging should be designed with the end in mind. Given the massive insect population collapse in process right now, we need to transform (read: sweeping change) landscapes to primarily natives as much as possible.
@@ParkrosePermaculturein permaculture culture it's also recommended to make huge sweeping changes to your yard too, sooooooo .... Why not recommend something if it's beneficial to our air, land, and water??
Whycan’t we both acknowledge (and try to change) the impact that corporations and big Ag have on the environment and also do our part to plant native species that support the food web? A lot of invasive species are/were introduced as ornamentals for home gardens and public spaces. The safest bet (as far as ornamentals) is to plant mostly native species with some introduced species that we can be fairly sure are not going to become invasive. We can acknowledge that other parties are devastating the environment and simultaneously avoid contributing to the problem ourselves. Focus on changing what is within your reach.
100%, it’s unfortunate but we really need to self-educate since the industry isn’t well regulated - but I’ve been excited at how many people are starting to get excited about natives and the bugs they support! ❤
Yes, this is why I ordered two goumi and not Autumn Olive! They are in the same family, but one is considered invasive and the other is not!
I don't really think it misses the mark. A lot of invasive species started bc someone thought it was pretty. I'd rather support my local ecosystem then plant something invasive.
Well said
Amen.
The inconvenient truth is that non-native species most definitely contribute to our local ecosystems and it's misleading to imply that anything non-native is invasive. Also, if your local ecosystem is an urban environment, it bears little resemblance to the original native ecosystem that was there before the city took over.
@@mongoose000they do not contribute in a net positive way. I can hardly find native flowers out in the parks anymore. It's all non native plants that the deer won't even touch. This is starving the birds since they need caterpillars (that only eat native plants 98% of the time) to raise their young.
@@mongoose000 It's also misleading to bring up how non natives contribute to local ecosystems, when we're not talking about non natives, but rather invasive, which are "non native" obviously, but the word invasive means it's a problem for the local ecosystem as opposed to just a non native.
I tend to be a centrist on this topic, too, as long as the introduced species don't crowd out and take over and become invasive. Just lately, I've been reading Doug Tallamy's book, Nature's Best Hope. There, for the first time, did I encounter WHY it's important to plant natives. It turns out that unless plants and animals have evolved together, they can't take advantage of what each other has to offer, ie: moths and butterflies can't access the pollen or nectar, if there even is any and the plant hasn't been bred to be sterile. If they can, it won't provide the fat and nutriment that they require. Without the food source, caterpillars won't exist there, and being the main food source of birds, the birds will need to go elsewhere, and so on, down the line. He explains it much, much better than I, and includes a boatload of science to back up his points. We've all heard about Monarch butterflies and milkweed. Because people are removing milkweed, the population of Monarchs has dropped by 96% in ten short years. Where there were 100, there are now four. Multiply this by all of the insect species and we are facing trophic collapse.
Tallamy also talks about a concept he refers to as "Homegrown National Park" where if people would plant more natives in their yards, rather than the monoculture of lawn, and if these could be more or less contiguous, animals that can't travel far would be able to still exist and branch out, filling back in the ecosystem that should be native to any region. More than 83% of the US is privately owned land, so if conservation stands a chance, individuals DO need to act. More than 40 million acres, or the size of New England, is planted with a monoculture of turfgrass, and that number is growing by 500 square miles a year. Although he hopes that more and more people on their individual plots will do some naturalizing of the land, it is not at all preachy. He does give some startling statistics throughout: Oak trees support 934 species of caterpillar nationwide; caterpillars contain more than 2x as many carotenoids as other insects--a necessary nutrient for birds and their young; In one study, it was found that a Warbler pair brought 4,060 caterpillars to their young in a five day period. Birds only have a feeding range of about an acre when raising young.
While you may see insects on introduced species, he compares it to humans who eat sugary empty calories because it might taste good, but really, we need to eat nutritious food to stay healthy. Apparently birds and other creatures also eat junk food, too!
Kudzu has overtaken more than 7 million acres in the southeast. While it does support the sliver-spotted skipper--one species, it has mowed down native plants and trees such as oak, black cherry, willow, hickory and maple each which support hundreds upon hundreds of species, removing the food source so that the food web cannot thrive; instead it withers or collapses.
As I read this book, I'm realizing that this issue is even more urgent than our use of oil and gas. I never saw that coming, and I am a huge environmentalist. If I was unaware of this information, I wonder how to get the word out to those who don't read or watch information about gardening or environmental issues....
If anyone has read to this point, I would encourage you to look up and watch some of Doug Tallamy's videos on line if you don't have the time or inclination to read his books.
oo im definitely adding this book to my reading list, thanks for the rec!
Love him - he explains things so well and has such a hopeful message!
Just wanted to say that because of your comment i picked up a copy of Natures Best Hope, and it was life changing! I learned sooo much and am even more inspired to continue on my journey of native plant gardening and supporting our local foodwebs that are so so important. I also got copies for my mother in law, sister, mom, etc and have been spreading the word about the book to lots of people lol! Thanks for the rec :)
@@rosee1776 yassss! 💕His books have had the same affect on me - And after having kids it feels so much more important to me to change our gardening culture so we can try to get this train back on the tracks for them!
Thank you for spending the time to write this comment. I appreciate it and I hope others do as well. ❤🦋
Yea idk about this. I’m pretty sure the insects and birds love my native plants that I have planted.
Interesting you say this because almost every single person I've heard that says plant native and stands by it isn't talking about food gardens. We are talking about monoculture lawns and invasive ornamentals that use way more water than necessary.
That's exactly right. A lot of the reason why I don't like bradford pears is that the only animal that can benefit from a bradford pear is a eurasian honey bee. Humans can eat the fruit nor can wildlife eat it. Take apple trees, while there are cultivars that developed in certain regions, and non native. They don't really spread, they benefit local fauna, and it produces human food. The difference is one is grown because It's pretty, (it looks like plastic) and the other is grown for food.
This whole rant just confirms the meme.
I haven't really seen anyone saying to strictly plant *only* natives, Im sure those people are out there but it seems they must be few and far between.I think most people are just trying to educate others on the importance of adding native plants to our landscapes in order to maintain and support biodiversity which is absolutely backed by science. We can all enjoy the best of both worlds!
They are out there enough that this meme was made, widely liked, and widely shared in the plant groups I’m in. 🤷♀️
I also have not heard even one person say this, but it is a headline that gets a lot of attention. Kinda like a strawman.
Two kinds of people say to plant only natives: zealous, inspired people with zero gardening/landscaping experience and people who are referring to wildlife gardening in particular. The latter stance makes sense to me-using exotic plants to help wildlife is as sensible as releasing pets from petsmart to help wildlife. I’m sure local hawks will happily utilize the hamsters, but I still don’t think that’s evidence that hamsters are a beneficial part of local food webs. Sadly, there are more people in the former group than in the later group, especially on social media.
I'm pretty sure that Doug Tallamy is trying to encourage gardeners to try to plant some native grasses and flowering species for pollinators and some native tree species like oaks and willows that are known to be fed upon by lepidoperan larvae which are necessary food for many birds to feed to their nestlings. He does not ask any homeowner to replace all of their perennial plants with native species, nor is he asking anyone to give up growing our own fruits and vegetables. I believe it is true that we can make a difference for pollinators by planting species native to the area we live in and I began growing some natives last summer.
I didn’t say Tallamy was making that demand. But people who have become very excited over his research are doing just that and my point here is that it is antithetical to the overall goal. Militancy generally is.
Cultivated plants change the shape of the flowers (usually) and don't function the same way as the native. Thus when we say "plant native "euphorbias" to attract beneficial/parasitic wasps", and then we plant a cultivar of a euphorbia instead of the species, then YES IT MATTERS. The cultivars don't benefit the ecosystem in the same way that the native species does.
Yes, there are differences between cultivars and straight species, but it’s highly dramatized for the benefit of Fb pages who promote this stuff. If my cultivars are echinacea are covered in all kinds of native bees (which they are), that is far preferable to giving up on planting any echinacea bc I can’t find a straight species plant or seed locally. Being pedantic helps no one. It’s far better that I plant My Cecile Brunner rose which I adore and will care for and gets me out in the garden - and bees also love - than native Nootka rose which will produce a thicket and be a disaster in the same space. Absolutely plant natives! But saying “native and straight species or else” isn’t helpful and it’s also not realistic.
@@ParkrosePermaculture Easy fix: stop pretending facebook is a real place
@@shredmetalshred7395 Really we as a society need to stop putting our heads in the sand when it comes to some of the radical misinformation being spread on social media. What seems like online propaganda is creating unprecedented division and doing real harm in real life. Unsure where this will all end.
I agree it matters. cultivars could be crossed with native species and those traits could potentially spread through a whole population. some cultivars are "double flowered" which give no benefit to pollinators. just in my opinion, I wouldn't spend time gardening anything that isn't native or provides food :)
I should note that I work for a native plant nursery and have access to wild seed. for those that don't have local access, I understand everyone just does their best!
I’m a newborn baby to all of this, but I would think it’s more important to choose plants that work with the environment, without changing or taxing the available water. So if you’re in a dry area, choose plants that thrive in dry areas, rather than plants that you’ll have to use extra water to keep alive. And.. I don’t know, I’m super wet areas, choose plants that soak up water to prevent floods?
I decided to plant my southern California front yard with all native plants - mainly because there are basically no native plants in any yards anywhere in my city of 215,000 people. The focus of my business is creating gardens and landscapes mainly with native drought tolerant plants. For many reasons but one of the big ones is that native plants are almost never used in gardens anywhere in my area. And they’re super tough, beautiful, and provide food and habitat for lots of native insects and birds. I have a bunch of fruit trees and perennial vegetables in my back yard as well as a few non-native plants. That need more regular watering. I find that nothing except for some types of cactus and a few invasive tree species like pepper and eucalyptus uses less water in this part of the world than native plants. They do great with watering only once a month in a region that has no rain from at least May through October. And provide tons of ecological benefits.
She had some good points, but she lost me at “it’s their fault not ours.” It IS our responsibility, because if we don’t plant native plants, and teach others the right thing to do, no one else will. And that’s quite obvious.
And the big corporations don’t have big corporations doing anything if we the little people aren’t purchasing all their crap, and letting them get away with it.
@@Wonderwoman101868 Right!!
My personal opinion is that everyone should be growing some native plants in their yard but it seems absurd to grow only native plants especially if your goal is food production.
Growing only natives may be more realistic if you are not growing food but still people spend more time gardening in a yard that brings them joy. SO I say whatever brings you joy should be what you plant. ( maybe with the exception of harmful invasive species)
obviously, if your goal is food production, then you'll have some non natives.
@@n0sr3t3pa lot of food are native foods…. We just chose what is “appropriate food”
Cultivars of native plants that make the plants unrecognizable or unable to be utilized by native insects *are* a problem. Especially when unwittingly planted to be of use to insects. If a cultivar changes the color or flower shape native insects either don’t recognize them or can’t get to the pollen/nectar.
Yes. I spoke about this. Roses in particular that are heavily ruffled and prevent access to the nectar and pollen are totally unhelpful. But if growing a ruffly rose keeps you engaged with your garden and more likely to plant some natives amongst the roses, then go for it.
I agree very much with the points you bring up- however, as someone who experienced this herself- I’d just like to point out some good points about the memes. They go viral. Which heightens awareness of a need. A year ago- I never even gave any thought to natives. I was in love with English cottage gardens & wanted to fill my yard with all those flowers- pretty much exclusively. And then I ran across these memes. Not something I had considered too much. I started researching & learning & my eyes were opened. Now I am planting those plants I always wanted (trying to steer clear of invasives) mixed in with lots of natives. I joined those native FB groups to learn more- and they are teaching me a lot. I can see the extremist thinking on display there- but I ignore it, because I agree with you on the points you make in this video. But would I even yet have discovered the need for natives without the memes? Not sure. Perhaps, because now I am seeing news articles about it- but I think they are now talking about it because of the public and the public is talking about it- because of the memes. I drive around and nearly every yard is the same mixture of the same 7-10 plants. If our societal awareness shifts & native species explode in popularity? Personally I think it will be in part because of the memes. And perhaps that will lead to more people becoming passionate about the larger issues. One can always hope.
I agree with you! The vast majority of people dont even think about natives or realize that they may be planting invasive species. So i feel like this video felt very aggressive/defensive towards something that isnt reallt harmful in the end and may make people open their eyes to their native ecology/become more interested in learning about plants! Like yeah people that act like planting anything other than natives is a moral failing are pretty annoying and its not that black and white, but are they so harmless to devote a whole video to? idk! I would rather there be people on the internet making a riot about invasive plants than there being no discussion at all.
Okay… you lost me at “it’s the corporations’ fault.” Lawns = zero biodiversity. A huge part of the lack of biodiversity is due to how homes are kept. I agree that these ideas people are pushing are extreme BUT any little bit that homeowners can do in aggregate is a lot. To say that corporations need to solve it instead is shifting the responsibility and thus I totally disagree with this argument.
For ex, a lot of native lands were cut down for farming. I’d rather feed people if I can so I’m not going to blame farming for this issue. But homeowners chipping in to help with native fauna since it helps with native wildlife is a good.
Also, Ppl should be shamed for planting invasives like English Ivy. F that plant. I’d rather lawn than English Ivy. At least a lawn is easier to remove than an invasive.
A lawn won't thrive on its own... but then again, how would giant corporations thrive if we're not convinced that we need to "help" our lawns thrive by buying their products? Give me dandelions, clover, daisies, moss, itty bitty strawberries, whatever will grow... as long as it's not prickly, and I'll gladly be the pariah whose lawn is full of weeds.
English ivy--do not get me started!
Shaming...really? You attract more bees with honey rather than vinegar! A pleasant conversation will make more of a positive impact than shaming which will just make you an enemy.
Our dollar is our vote to what we want to see here. Corperations are made of individuals. Corporations sell what people buy. It starts with individuals.
I am a native plant warrior and nobody says grow all natives or you're bad, lol. And nobody thinks non natives are destroying the earth. 'Native' is relative. Talk about drama!
Non native plants are fine except when they are invasive and destroy native habitats. People just need to plant more native shrubs and trees that are the host plants to native species to support insects, bird migrations, and the food chain.
There are many scientific studies on native cultivars as to if they are equal or poor source for pollinators. Use common sense. If there are a gazillion petals then the pollinators cannot get to the pollen.
It is actually all common sense.
Do you have any thoughts on how individuals can make changes to the larger, real problems such as thoughtless destruction of native land for the sake of building strip malls or the unintentional attack by large corporations on native species and land?
I find this video to be dangerous. She has some lukewarm points but, it's best to landscape with native plants. Even the noninvasive exotics used in landscapes can later through small mutations start favoring propagation and become invasive. Relying on native plants is intended to heal habitat fragmentation and help develop wildlife corridors in our living spaces. Plus, bringing in NEW exotics risks bringing in pests associated with that plant and its soil. No one is aggressively attacking non-native gardeners, so it's so strange to attack the native plant movement.
You start your comment with an attack that this video is "dangerous". And then you make points to argue that "no one is aggressively attacking non-native gardeners". Perhaps some self-awareness is in order because that's exactly what you're doing while claiming the opposite.
I would say the native movement is urging use of strictly natives due to the overwhelmingly more positive impact, but not vilifying those who use non-native, non-invasive plants. A few facebook groups and memes do not define the movement on a whole. Trolls exist in every conversation on the internet. The larger issues exist obviously, the native plant community is addressing personal responsibility and the joy of connecting with nature. It is not paramount for every blog, post, video, or meme to address every situation.
I think it’s worth focusing on who actually benefits from consumers buying cultivars of native plants, aka nativars: breeders and large corporations. They trademark these plants to make extra profit, and then lie when they call them “improved” varieties or just as good as natives for the ecosystem. As many people here have pointed out, that has been proven to be completely false by Dr. Tallamy and others
It is of course not up to any single gardener to save the environment. However, to your point about recognizing systemic problems and the damage large corporations inflict on the world, these companies should not be allowed to trick the public into thinking nativars are just as good or better for the environment than straight natives, AND charge a premium for these cultivars that just benefits the corporations.
And it’s not to say, “no one should ever buy a cultivar of a native plant.” If it really brings you so much joy and you somehow can’t find the straight native species, fine. But if people are buying cultivars just because they only shop at big box stores and those stores rarely sell straight natives and lie about how great these cultivars are for the environment, then that is just not right. Shop somewhere else. Buy online. Natives plants and seeds are becoming much more widely available. Don’t support the stores that don’t care about the environment and are only trying to sell you extra expensive cultivars because they make more profit off those.
Also, this is a completely different story for cultivated fruits and vegetables. No one should be growing those for wildlife because those are meant for human consumption, which is obviously also important. People should plant both natives and edible plants (some of which are native and some are cultivated).
So you're right that telling people to ONLY grow natives is ridiculous. But it is a meme and all memes lack nuance. And habitat is one area where individuals CAN make a difference. Each tiny patch of habitat is valuable. But growing food is a valuable use of land, it's even better if you can grow native food crops and do both at the same time. And some introduced plants support food webs better than others (apple trees vs. Pear trees), assuming you don't use pesticides.
However the research on honeybees shows a fairly strong negative impact on native bees. They compete for food and spread disease to wild bees. You should not fool yourself into thinking you're helping the environment by keeping them. Now if you simply want a source of honey and wax then you're just keeping a livestock animal which is fine but remember that honeybees are basically livestock. I didn't add a flock of chickens to my property thinking it would help wild birds.
One thing I tell my students as far as having introduced plants (assuming they are not invasive) is trying to choose varieties that have functional flowers, actually having stamens and not having tons of extra petals. Single roses and impatients for example.
The plants that are especially bad are those that don't interact with the environment at all, no pollen or nectar, no fruit and no leaves that can be eaten by herbivores. A double flowered oleander would be an example of that. You're basically putting in a plastic plant in that case. Now is it terrible to plant those at all? Not necessarily but you would not want to fill your landscape with plants like that if you have any interest in promoting the health of the environment.
Lastly while big corporations do bear some responsibility for our climate and habitat crises, they do produce what consumers demand. But individual gardeners have a real chance to make a difference and we should do whatever we can. See Doug Tallamys Bringing Nature Home for the biggest impacts you can make. And he has never been a "grow only natives" person.
Yeah, i don't know why the meme is taken this seriously? I liked it on reddit but I also garden veggies. I feel like it's intended meaning is pointed more at landscape gardening, where aesthetics is the only function and a lot of native plants can fill those same niches while providing more wildlife value.
Most land is privately owned. Plant native keystone species to account for a decline in habitats/resources for a large number of species.
We shouldn't be usinh non natives for decorative, landscaping purposes.
The grow native movement was never about food production or reversing climate change. The human impact on ecosystems is large.
My problem is A lot of modern gardeners are too lazy to research if a introduced species is laser or not so I would rather just encourage them to plant more native species because it's easier than expecting them too I actually put the work in and research if they introduced species is good or not. Especially when a lot of the people just see a pretty plant and wanted in their yard
My question would be, how far back are you going to go to determine what is now native and what is not? 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 5000 years - that's even a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the age of our earth or any local area. Plants spread - whether it's birds, animals, water, wind - this is how nature works. Climate changes and species change, move or become extinct. Putting some kind of arbitrary label on things is kind of crazy. I love growing plants that grow well in my climate - it's easier on them and me. But it's not the end all and be all of everything. Nourishing my soil and building insect/animal populations is something I can do and see the results of in my little corner of the world and diversity is my mantra and it works.
A good book that talks about this is “Where do camels belong.”
That was my exact sentiment, until I read this book. Apparently, native species of North America means before Europeans arrived.
Thousands of years. Insects evolved with their host plants over thousands of years. Sometimes millions. The mimosa tree is a good example of an invasive plant with documented, well researched evidence of damage, despite having been here in North America for 300 years. That's 300 years of a plant with negative ecological benefit reseeding and spreading without any "natural predators", so to speak, taking over areas where plants had previously thrived for thousands (sometimes millions) of years. This is how forest understories become ecological deserts. No wildlife can use the plants that exist there any longer. And people still vehemently defend planting these for ornamental reasons because they are pretty and "are here to stay"
Have you read Doug Tallamy's book, or watched his lecture, 'Nature's Best Hope'? I have seen a lot more different bird species and pollinators in my yard since I have been planting natives and getting rid of lawn! I feel like nature needs all the help she can get, and I personally feel like I am doing a lot of good planting native species in my yard. I still sign environmental petitions, protest big ag's toxic soup of chemicals, buy organic, have my own vegetable garden, etc. Yet, I think planting native plants is something we can all do help nature as much as possible. It is so sad to walk in the woods and see how all the invasives from other countries have taken over, and also how many of these imported plants have brought pests and diseases that have harmed our native species. I think my gardens are far more beautiful with mostly native plants than they ever were before and they are buzzing with life, more now than ever and it is a joy to see the transformation!
I’ve read quite a bit of Tallamy’s research, especially on caterpillar species on native v introduced landscape trees.
I’m not trying to discourage people from planting natives. I’m trying to discourage people from being militant about it to the point where it turns everybody off from accessing native landscaping in a way that feels doable for them :)
@@ParkrosePermacultureI think you should have just said that. About the militant part. Like a lot of plants are just already here. Like you aren’t a monster. A lot of people brought plants here to bring a piece of home because some immigrants didn’t come here by choice but because of survival and needed the foods that they knew to survive. Native plants are food as well and put less pressure on the water supply. You’re right it’s not going to fix the problem right away but denying people trying to spread the word isn’t going to do much. It’s just going to let people be convinced to just keep doing what they were doing before. We obviously aren’t going to beat the system in a day.
As a native person, I feel there’s nothing “silly” or “ridiculous” about wanting to plant all native plants in ones own property. Why the need to bash people who believe it’s important? I usually enjoy your videos, but this appears to be a rant video where it is unclear who your targeting as the bad guys?
I think you really misunderstood the sort of person this video was about. It wasn’t about people that want to plant all native plants on their land, it’s about people that shame other people for also including non-native plants. The idea of “purity” is a made-up human idea that isn’t actually real in nature. She also clarified that introduced species are not the same as invasive species.
@@CampingforCool41 her chosen captions and front picture tells a different story. I’m sure many of her RUclips viewers are not on these forums she is speaking of. This video is not giving off a clear message she is hoping and I think, putting her in a bad light. Which is too bad.
I think you're saying the thumbnail is a bit clickbait overgeneralization but her explanation definitely is not
@@flowerpixel I’m saying it rude and full of mudslinging. Why must one method be “argued” as superior than the other. They both have pros and cons. People who plant all native plants would have either the knowledge or researched on how the people used the plants not just for food but medicinally and spiritually. All plants had a use and sourcing these plants ethically could be difficult since most are not sold in nurseries. Permaculture is easily available to all with a yard and gives somewhat predictable yields. Discouraging people to use all native plants in their garden because permaculture is superior is how this video came off. Even if that wasn’t her intention or was it? The video is put on RUclips and can be interpreted in many ways.
@@1is7ener65 I hear your point and agree. I also note there is a tone of rudeness, or judgementalism on both parts. Mine too.
As I understand- plants, life, history can be interpreted with a purely physical eye, or interpreted through a deeper lens. A deeper lens sees the expanded spectrum from physical to spiritual, a shorter view can only perceive physical phenomenon. It is limited, as you probably know, but it can be frustrating to have to constantly squeeze into a purely physical reality.
I also think the word "native" is off-putting and triggering.
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent
What about non natives that are scientifically proven to
mess up migration routes?
Where permaculture misses the mark is when it is planting whatever for the benefit of only one's self without thinking about its future to be invasive and disregarding the neighbors (both human and animal).
The above is the kind of sweeping generalization that you are making about native plant enthusiasts. I have promoted native plants for more than thirty years and have yet to meet anyone with a 100% native plant garden. We are zealous because we have found a way to fight back against big scary things like Anthropocene extinction, and are interested in serving more than ourselves. Because a garden is not a self-indulgent pretty collection of plants...but a place full of life, that functions well in supporting the things we love like birds, butterflies, frogs, etc. You are zealous for your own reasons, such as feeding yourself.
What is wrong is choosing to make it a battle...we have much to learn from each other.
Anyone who truly understands permaculture and follows the 3 Ethics of Earth Cars, People Care, and Fair Share should never advocate planting whatever they want and damn the consequences for the planet and other people.
I don’t think all native plant enthusiasts are militant. I’m a huge native plant enthusiast, and the first thing I did when planting my garden was to become a certified backyard wildlife habitat at the silver level with at least 10% native plantings. But I find the trends toward an “all or nothing” approach and vilifying cultivars and non-native plants to be generally unhelpful.
Yikes. Who's making sweeping generalizations? The idea that if it's not all native, then your garden must be a "self-indulgent pretty collection of plants" is the kind of over-the-top generalization this video rightfully calls out. You also imply, that only your kind of garden supports biodiversity "a place full of life" etc. Double yikes. False on its face .
The lack of self-awareness in your own polarized response is meme-worthy.
@@mongoose000 A single meme, apparently. I've never once met any native plant enthusiast who advocates for 100% native or nothing, but she insists that the view is widespread enough that it's a problem (despite these comments being full of people in a relatively small, arguably niche community who all seem to report not having this experience whatsoever).
@@mongoose000 By the way, it seemed pretty clear to me that the comment you're referring to was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying not to generalize. I don't think they actually believe that about less-than-100% native gardening. It's more of a way to hold up a mirror to the creator of the video.
The "not my mess, not my responsibility" attitude lacks nuance every bit as much as the "Plant only natives" narrative. Nothing would ever get done in this world if everyone thought like this.
Plus once you see the little universe that spins up around a native garden, it feels so much more like a privilege than a responsibility! ❤
I never said, “not my mess, not my responsibility”. That’s the antithesis of what I talk about on this channel and totally agree with you that won’t solve anything.
YES! the 'not my mess' attitude' message is harmful. Even if it's not what she meant, it will be used and interpreted that way. I literally searched "native plant species" and this was the first video that came up. Imagine someone with a yard full of English Ivy and privet (big problems in my area) was told about the benefits of planting native, looked it up, watched this video, and decided, "well, until we fix Big Agriculture....." It's the very argument lazy/uninformed people use NOT to act when they know they should... for any cause.
@@ParkrosePermaculture But that is, unfortunately, the vibe you've achieved in this video, intentional or not. I'm afraid you've missed the mark here.
Native plants support the native animals, and are part of a healthy ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem means better more drinkable water. A healthy ecosystem means less flooded roads. A healthy ecosystem means lower heating and cooling bills. A healthy ecosystem means that you can see more birds in your yard.
Another reason to plant natives is to help replenish the depleted seed banks of your local area. Invasives have been in the area for so long, that there are no longer viable native plant seeds in the soil.
Totally agree with you on that.
Plant Natives 😁
So few people are growing, i encourage anyone to grow anything they will or can.
Angela have you read the book Beyond the war on invasive species: a permaculture approach to ecosystem restoration by Tao Orion? It’s an interesting take and speaks to your point that humans have changed/destroyed multiple ecosystems. They go on to note that we have thus set the conditions for invasive species to be invasive and that instead of vilifying/killing “invasive” species, we should be looking at restoring the actual ecosystem conditions that favor the “natives”. Also, just as a point- let’s note that “native” is really hard to define!
Some non natives are highly beneficial as a nectar source. Non natives should not be planted if they are invasive and will find themselves outside of planted area readily. That being said at this point with loss of habitat natives should be planted whenever they can and if the plant has no value to invertebrates should not be given priority. Ideologues are the same regardless of the religion and taking this personally is counterproductive. Loss of habitat is more pressing than climate change so planting natives is pretty important but does not need to be the sole purpose of an ornamental garden
What i think is important is to make information on local invasive species easily available, aspeshaly to gardners so we know what plants to avoid. I found my way here because I want to start planting some native plants. I live in Alberta canada and so far i haven't gotten far. Im totally alright with growing interduced species. But i really want to know what to avoid, because i would hate to plant something that actively harmed my ecosystem.
Down in the south, we can look up this information- what to avoid, etc. the nurseries comply by not growing the invasives. The information is often in the county agricultural information.
You can plant foreign plants but only in controlled environments like in pots or beds but natives in general do so much for the environment and wildlife. Lawn grass specifically is so annoying and do nothing good for anything but hoa
A major issues is marketing. There should be a label that marks native plants as native. It's hard to find native plants because companies can't patent it. I think a lot of the problem is companies selling plants and chemicals that are ecologically harmful.
Marketing is very specialized with plants. Proven Winners is an example of very successful marketing aimed at retail nurseries and garden shops. All under patent and with a name like that, you think you’re getting a very sturdy growing plant! It’s just marketing.
You bring up so many good points I had not considered, but totally agree with. I just had looked at it as I need to grow a diverse garden so that as much wildlife (and myself) can benefit from my landscape. As my yard deals with climate change, I need it to be as welcoming and supportive as possible to mitigate (in the smallest of ways) the stressors on the wildlife above and below the soil. Permaculture requests that we diversify and not rely only on 1 crop or plant. I get the connection of native plants and pollinators/birds that evolved together. Our world is changing too quickly to allow the animals and plants to adapt. My efforts in my garden are to offer the widest buffet I can to help whatever is moving thru the landscape at that time. I can't save the world, but I may help that one butterfly survive to procreate, that one bumblebee to make it thru the late spring so she can help with pollinating the tomatoes later on, that one migratory bird who arrived on time, but has missed the normal insects it relies on to find alternatives in my garden. if I can do that in an attractive way to folks passing by, they may stop and ask questions, they may notice the crazy amount of life in my garden and copy some ideas. I learn much from you and thank you for your efforts.
We plant only natives in the ground. Huge influx of birds, butterflies, and pollinators (of all types). It's been great. We do have some potted non- native, non-invasive annuals for showy spots. (We don't grow food. If we did, we would almost certainly plant non-natives.
So people who plant only natives are pedantic? These are some of the few people in the world who are actually not poisoning it and trying to restore destroyed habitats. That you would find a problem with them - of all people - leaves me speechless. There's no law mandating NATIVES ONLY. If people do so by choice, there's no problem other than people like you who aren't doing so making others feel guilty for choices they are not legally imposing or forcing on others.
Lack of nuanced thinking is a hallmark of our current era. Real solutions are so complex that our culture just cannot process them on the level needed to make sustainable change.
Agree, good luck fitting nuances into a meme 😅
It is the word, "nuance". It exists on a level of day to day conversations but falls on deaf ears when it comes to mass media or an agenda of commerce. The other hallmark is "the hidden agenda". Invasion Biology is mired by an odd combo of Monsanto backing and grant money seeking. A whole industry has risen out of a desire to "manage and restore" areas of habitat. History has shown that this movements track record for success in the long run is suspect. Yet it continues, because it provides employment and profit.
All I'm saying is there's a special place in hell for people planting bradford pears in north America.
They smell sooooooo bad.
Totally Agree! I value and search for "Native" here in Boise ID (can only address my area, Northern Idaho very different). If you only grow Native then you will have to continue to buy tuns of food that has been trucked in from all over the nation/globe. OK now that doesn't sound so good for our environment. Additionally, in a rapidly changing climate we are forced to adapt for ourselves AND our wildlife. Planting only native here would make for a very sad, sparce region/community indeed.
This video misses the mark. As other comments have suggested, your vegetable garden is going to be mostly non-natives (although it’s very cool to grow native options). No forests or prairies are being overrun by escaped tomatoes or bell peppers. That said, things like hardy kiwi are definitely showing signs of invasiveness, so growers definitely should be careful.
It’s your ornamentals, your foundation beds, your lawns that should be native. People like Doug Tallamy, people who go out and count the bugs, have shown conclusively that non-natives (invasive or not) do not support the kind of insect diversity that native plants do. They may, at best, provide some floral resources (i.e. pollen and nectar), but they don’t host native insects because our insects can’t digest the defensive chemical compounds in their tissues. So while it’s ok to have a few non-invasive introduced “statues” in your garden that make you feel good or have sentimental value, our habitats are too few, too degraded and too fragmented for us to devote any substantial space to non-natives.
Plus there’s always the risk that plants that have been vetted as safe and non-adventitious will actually turn out to be invasive. This has happened time and time again. It often takes more than a decade for a supposedly safe species to escape and establish in sufficient numbers to be noticed as an invasive.
The bottom line is, use almost exclusively natives for ornamental landscaping purposes and make sure you’re not growing any potentially invasive plants for food. But go ahead and keep growing your tomatoes.
Hardy kiwis have not been shown to have any invasive potential in my area.
I enjoy Doug Tallamy’s work. I think his research is a valuable contribution and his work to normalize planting natives is laudable and much-needed.
But I don’t agree with the “only natives” crowd and I don’t think slamming people for growing plants they love which have no invasive potential is helpful.
At the same time folks are freaking out over some gardener posting on social media about how he’s growing pink dandelions, the real damage is being done by intense habitat destruction at the city planning level. By big corporations building giant warehouses in my local Columbia Slough Watershed, which is critical habitat.
Scolding gardeners for growing their David Austin roses or cultivars of echinacea is what misses the mark. It’s like telling individuals they are responsible for climate change while ignoring the real problem: corporations.
Yes, natives are great. I grow tons of them. No, expecting everyone to be militantly “natives only” and coming for folks on the internet because they grow and introduced garden plant is not an effective strategy.
Being militantly “natives only” is not a good idea. I agree. There are plenty of harmless non-natives. I also agree that the largest problem we face is habitat destruction from development. As with carbon dioxide and plastic pollution, the onus can’t be placed on individual consumers. It’s the unsustainable systems that have to change.
That said, invasive species present a huge threat to the dwindling fragments of habitat that are left behind after the developers have paved everything else. Take a “nature walk” anywhere in Southeast Michigan and you’re likely to see an understory that is dominated by buckthorn and oriental bittersweet. Those were both introduced through the horticulture trade. And those are two examples out of hundreds.
Gardeners have a responsibility to plant native outside of their vegetable gardens. We have to perform restoration everywhere we can.
Again, I agree that shaming some gardener for their hostas or roses is ridiculous and counterproductive. But until we have real, meaningful regulation preventing the import and sale of aggressive non-natives, we should favor natives in our ornamental plantings, almost exclusively…in my view. History has shown that that plant that’s marketed as safe and non-invasive doesn’t always remain so.
Sorry I have to disagree with you concerning invasive plants. I have been trying to eliminate Virginia Creeper ( not the native ones ) and Vinca which were planted before we bought our house and 25 years later they have gone off into the woods and up trees. They are killing off the native plants and are extremely difficult to remove. I wish that I could bring back the people that planted these plants so that could see what has happened.
Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) is most definitely a native plant that in disturbed conditions like gardens can be extremely aggressive. Vinca is definitely invasive but can be dug out and removed over time.
Natives to horticultural varieties, 70/30 per Doug Talamy
Host plants and Habitat are what's important
Desiree Narango, with the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, together with Doug Tallamy and Peter Marra, conducted some fascinating (and heartbreaking), research. She determined, that at least as far as Carolina chickadees are concerned, the cut-off point between a habitat that sustains, and a habitat sink, can be quantified.
A sustainable habitat is composed of at least 70% native plants. More is better; 90 to 100% is best, but 70% is the cutoff point. According to her research, if less than 70% of the plants in your yard are native, your chickadees will not be successful at raising young, and they will not be able to maintain a sustainable population over time.
Yes, I know Tallamy is very popular right now. What he says are optimal based on his studies v what people feel is accessible and doable for them are two different things. That’s my whole point.
If someone says you have to have at least 70% natives, most people are not going to do that to their yard. If you encourage them to swap out a few plants and do what feels affordable and realistic, you start to open up the possibilities. In Permaculture we say “slow small solutions”. My whole point is that when you are militant and tell people, they have to make radical changes, they won’t do it at all. When people feel attacked for growing the only variety of echinacea available to them locally instead of the straight species, it helps nothing.
Thanks for sharing your insightful thoughts on this. I agree that systemic change from levels far beyond the average gardener is what will have the far-reaching impacts you're talking about.
With that said, when one explores greens spaces around urban areas, such as here in Vancouver, BC, and sees the incursion of non-native species (English ivy, yellow archangel, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, etc, etc) choking out native plants and altering the ecological balance of these areas, it's hard to deny the impacts. This is not the result of greedy corporations, or some abstract cause that isn't addressable by just one person; in many cases, it's as simple as... at one point in time, somebody thought a non-native plant looked pretty and introduced it to their yard. Next thing you know, trimmings are discarded at the edge of a forest, or fruit-eating birds propagate the plant deeper into natural spaces, and X number of years down the road, large swaths of productive habitat have been significantly impacted, sometimes irreversibly so. I understand one can only address so much of what is a complicated issue in a single video, but not touching on this seems like a big oversight that serves to perpetuate the ignorance surrounding this topic. Yes, thinking bigger picture is what will ultimately make the difference in terms of setting aside large tracts of wilderness, curbing things like plastic pollution, etc. However, the reality is, the vast majority of people don't interact with nature way off the beaten path, they do so within a short drive or even walk of home, and if the ecological integrity of those accessible areas is important to us - as I strongly feel it should be - disregarding the personal responsibility that falls on the shoulders of anyone propagating or improperly disposing of non-native plants would be a big mistake.
Ignore the meme, plant natives. Read Natures Best Hope so that the issue is fully understood before it's argued as a trend, because it's actually science.
Yes, plant natives where you can, but do what feels approachable and reasonable - in permaculture we say "slow, small solutions"...take on what works in your garden and your life and grow from there. "All natives or you'll get dogpiled on by strangers on the internet" just freaks people out and isn't helpful in getting folks to do more. :)
The problem is that non native species were brought over from other countries and the landscapers decided to only use them instead of creating a diverse habitat. And in some cases they didn’t do their homework to see how a plant integrates into the environment.. case in point buckthorn.
I agree that cultivars have a place but in some cases may not perform as well and I have examples.
While I agree non natives have a place I want more research like what is being done by Doug Tallamy to see how pollinators and others adapt to non natives. In my view some of the most popular plants such as day lily, hosta and hydrangeas provide poor resources for pollinators .
This! Thank you! My daughter and I are currently nurturing a 4 year old young Food Forest and were wildlife certified a couple months ago,, while my Aspie daughter advocates for every native species, and so we welcome them, the truth is that we do have non natives as well. Several months ago we were in a permaculture group that was challenging for us. At that time my daughter said, “ I don’t think they should be so exclusive about how much land is needed to practice this( we’re on 1/7 acre) it discourages people. “ I mention this because as I was nodding my head as I listened, I really liked your emphasis on just doing what you can… just really agree.
When I moved into my own home I was only going to have natives or edibles.... I was adamant.... that did not last long thank goodness.
Majority of my trees are native and I have many native flowers and shrubs ....my common sense took over and now it is what is best for my garden and my lifestyle .....
As someone who plants non native species, wants honeybees, and also volunteers with cat shelters, thank you for this. The reality is that these species are here, and the best we can do as stewards of nature is try to keep them in balance with the native species. I agree with the comment stating that it's difficult to draw the line between introduced and native and gets into eco fascist territory really fast. I keep my pet cats indoors but also support several fixed community cat colonies who have a role to play outdoors in preventing further breeding. I see introduced species as neighbors and resources to steward responsibly,not scourges to be wiped out. Much of permaculture is undertaken by humans non-native to their local environment, and we don't seem to have a problem with that.
humans non-native to their environment.... this is the most golden of statements. Love it.
Thank you thank you thank you for this video! I have been trying to put this into words for months. I appreciate you sharing your opinions
I’m so excited about my fire bush! (Hamelia patens) The list is long of species that drink the nectar, eat the berries, nest in their branches. A 3g bush can quickly be trained into a beautiful 15-20 ft tall tree. The dwarf variety, I grow the same but closer to the house and in smaller areas. The flowers are shaped a little differently on the dwarf, but still attracts many butterflies and birds. The dwarf I can keep at 8-10’ tall to cast a little shade around it. What a plant! They should triple their size by winter in FL!
The gaslighting of individuals and single households to personally solve the climate crisis is exhausting. Saying we’re “addicted to plastic” and attacking our veggie patch as problematic while letting corporations run rampant is such a ridiculous scenario and I’m not here for it anymore. We’re not profiting from climate and we’re not creating the problems. I 100% agree that it is well past time we put the blame firmly at the feet of those who actually made (and have the power to fix) this awful situation.
Who holds the corporations responsible? People have been saying “The corporations should…..” for literal decades. Video evidence.
So again the power and responsibility lies within and with us. 🤷🏻♀️
If much of what you use for your veggie patch is coming from a hardware store, than...yeah, you are part of the problem.
People would get awfully tired of eating Oregon grape and salal around here if they could only eat native food plants.
Right?!
No one says to only grow native food crops
@@Stratiisyeah I’ve never seen people say food crops should only be natives. Just ornamental gardens. And I’ve also never seen somebody say *only* natives actually, the native only trope seems to just be an exaggeration of people who stress the importance of adding more natives.
Island ecosystems are more susceptible to introduced species becoming invasive and a huge problem. Not so much on the mainland because of the area effect. We have an old saying in ecology, "diversity equals stability". It applies well to a managed garden or permaculture space. A Yaqui teacher friend of mine once said, "take all things as a gift, if it's abundant, learn to use it".
It seems hard for people on the internet to get excited about anything -- including native plant conservation -- without being jerks about it. What does bother me though is some people on the opposite end of the spectrum who are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not plants are native. It matters a lot! I personally try to work towards less non-natives in my non-food plants, and I don't see it as fascism if those non-natives don't need my help and I'm making space for species that do need my help. I believe that there is urgency to plant natives and I evangelize them basically, but I couldn't subsist on them alone with the small amount of land that I have. And I agree 💯 it is not our sole responsibility to fix the environment.
Thank you! I'm in New Zealand which has only had human inhabitants for around 800 years. As a consequence there are very few natives that can be grown as edible crops. I've only recently started looking into this, but the best I can find is there are around 100-200 native plants that are edible - to varying degrees. So while I'm of course going to grow veggies such as carrots, potatoes, peas, tomatoes in my garden (apart from enjoying gardening I'm trying to reduce how much frozen food in plastic I buy), and I'm not going to rip out the huge cherry plum tree that our place came with, I am going to nurture the huge kōwhai tree we are lucky to have, I'll let the little tī kōuka (cabbage tree) get big and lush, and I'll slowly introduce (as budget allows) native grasses, flax, ferns, shrubs, flowers etc to support our native wildlife. We have pīwakawaka (fantail) that visit our garden and I'd love to see more.
Hmm. Then how did the aboriginal population support itself for so long? Hmmm?
Before watching, I will comment again, I prefer to plant natives as often as possible. They do better in our very very weird climate, and take less maintenance once established.
But now to watch your video and have more opinions! 😂😂😂
I grow lots of natives, and think they’re beautiful and benefit my garden and wildlife. I just can’t hop on the “only plant natives” train.
@@ParkrosePermaculture very fair. That’s an extreme and usually those aren’t healthy. I’ve got plenty of plants that aren’t only natives right now.
I’m definitely wanting to add more of them. I want salal and kinckinick. And all the native irises and violets. And so many more. 😍
❤️❤️❤️ thank you very much from Europe, Angela. Moving species along centuries, importing tomatos, peppers, and other Solanaceae plants, and much more genres from there. And exporting… I don’t know… european bees? horses? Trifolium, Artemisa, Achilea, most of Vines, the wheel etc? This tendency of growing only natives seems me a little ridiculous.
If I could only plant natives, I probably wouldn't even bother with gardening. Yes, I love natives and have lots in my garden. There are more I want to add in the future. But I also love all my non-native veggies and flowers. My garden is a pollinator magnet pretty much year round and I now see butterflies and insects I never saw before adding these non-natives. And don't get me started about my neighbor's cats lol. I love cats though but I always kept mine inside.
So fun gardening with the buggos swirling around as you work! ❤ My neighbors cat…pretty sure it killed our baby bluebirds this spring 😢
I get pretty frustrated with this "plant natives only" thinking too.
If the alternative in a specific situation is lawn vs. natives, then yes, but if you are actually gardening, it makes no sense.
It’s like closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Yes! What a great breakdown. Native plants = good. But nuance is also good. Not to mention that when you're first getting into these concepts of gardening for wildlife, the "if you plant/have non-natives in your yard, you're doing everything wrong" message can really take the wind out of your sails and make you feel like it's too difficult to even start. Social media, and especially very short -form media like memes and TikTok videos don't often allow for the depth of discussion or nuance that is really needed. So... Thanks for this. :)
I live in a large co-op and we are trying to write a tree replacement policy. Some spots would do better with a non native tree, but some people flip out when that’s suggested. It’s making it difficult to plant trees.
Just find a suitable native tree that has adapted to that habitat for millennia. Would probably be happier too.
When growing non natives it’s a game of mitigation. Can you maintain the ecosystem services your land provided as a native ecosystem and can you maintain it’s biodiverse carrying capacity? Introduicing speceis can enrich or reduce biodiversity and ecosystem services, it comes down to how in-tune you are with your landscape and how you manage it over time
I’ve been told a 70% natives 30% others is ideal. It makes a lot of sense to me. A nice balance. I work in a plant nursery.
planting only native plants is about taking interest in your LOCAL ECOLOGY not about having pretty plants or growing food. The push to plant native is for more people to provide habitat for wildlife, but more importantly to take an active role in their local ecosystem. "Being into plants" is not the same thing as being a "naturalist" or promoting native biodiversity. People who want to learn about how nature actually works, are the ones who plant native. I get that most food crops aren't native, but not everyone requires rent from their plants, some people do it for the nature homies
You can promote native biodiversity and be interested in your local ecology without having to plant all natives.
@@ParkrosePermaculture be a lot cooler if ya did
Keep your cats inside and only plant natives. It’s the least you can do for the pollinators. It’s more than a cottage core idea.
“Only plant natives, it’s the least you can do” is a militant viewpoint that doesn’t actually help anyone, nor is it realistic.
And I’ll quote Will, the admin for Phytomemetics here: “Telling gardeners to only plant natives is toxic individualism - blaming homeowners for the ecological disaster unfolding around us for planting a few noninvasive species whilst most of the land is turned over to intensive agriculture that provides few ecological niches and uses nasty agrichemicals that damage insect populations and in turn all species reliant on insects. A non-invasive non-native growing in someone's garden is not the problem, the problem is how we manage the land and most of that land isn't private gardens.”
@@ParkrosePermaculture planting native plants is not a trendy new idea. It’s been a choice recommended for decades. Nor is it militant. It’s a preferable choice for a wide variety of reasons. Your article’s title belittles those who advocate for choosing native plants given the choice.
I absolutely agree that introduced species can be great for a number of reasons- ESPECIALLY if you are doing permaculture gardening. However, I take issue with the argument that corporations are at fault in this scenario (for the most part) and I’m going to bring in a slightly tangential but still very related topic.
Lawn size and turf grass. Lawn is a huge problem in the US as it takes up a whole 2% of the land- which is more space than all the corn that’s grown here! 40 million acres! Lawns are essentially ecological dead zones as they support almost no wildlife, plus they pose risks to our watersheds and wildlife considering a majority of Americans still fertilize and spray pesticides for their lawns.
But why do homeowners in the US have such large lawns? Horrible town/city design and horrible infrastructure prompted by quick expansion, unlivable apartment costs, etc. so yes there are absolutely systemic roots to that question- but the fact is that none of those things are changing in the foreseeable future. Changing the status quo and getting rid of unnecessary lawn would do wonders for the environment- especially if you’re planting natives (but introduced is ok too as long as it isn’t invasive or lawn lmao.)
One of the points brought up was that if every gardener planted native plants it would do nothing to solve habitat destruction- that’s simply untrue. There are 40 million acres of lawn in the US- that is enough land to fit 10 Yellowstone National Parks (2 mil acres)! Here in the mid-Atlantic oaks support around 550 Lepidoptera species and goldenrods support 50-60 species of native bees. To say that planting highly productive plants on such a broad scale would do nothing is a bold assumption.
Coming from veganism, this movement is extremely lax. Some people are intense and purist in their approach but that is pretty rare. This is not "silly," this is not a trend for so many of us. It is our live's purpose. Despite that, the large majority of us are extremely compassionate towards people that are not on the same page. We don't want to scare people away. We want people to accept a few natives into their gardens. I have been a part of the community for a few years, and I do not support people that are brutish about it, or anything for that matter. I do not like purism, I do not like what encourages purism, I think it's dangerous.
I know you are well intentioned here, but I think you are misunderstanding the reality of this movement and the people that make it up. We aren't trying to save the planet, we are trying to stabilize wildlife populations to prevent total ecological collapse in our areas. The people I come across in this community are wildly intelligent and well educated on the matter, the systemic issues, and who is really to blame.
I will add I do not hang out in the corners of the internet where people post a lot of meme's, I choose my communities wisely. I think THIS is a really good message. You may be hanging out in the wrong spaces that are really just mentally taxing and absolutely are a waste of energy. I used to get caught up in that stuff and try to teach people, and it always falls on deaf ears.
Rather than plant only natives throughout, there are two main things that people should do. The first one is to rip most of their lawn and plant borders and trees instead. In parts of the US with extreme weather, cold or hot, it's easier with natives coz you consume less water or they can handle having their feet wet (like swamp natives in Louisiana). Second, the plants that shelter the most biodiversity are trees. So while it is not paramount to plant only native flowers, I'd say it is extremely important for trees and shrubs. Regarding perennials, check with your local council or any local nature lover what species are key, for example if some endangered insects need THOSE plants in particular. But yeah other than that you can have your roses and stuff. They'll look rather odd amongst natives, but it's your garden and you should be able to do whatever you want.
Another important thing is to take care of the soil. That goes with the lawn thing, but you shouldn't need to put a ton of wood chips and fertilizers to take care of your plants. Even worse is to leave the soil bare and water it too much. Plants or mulch should fill the space, and there is 0 need for fertilizers with perennials. That's one of the issues with non native species : if you don't carefully select them, they won't be happy. Roses on a dry sand will just suffer, and some folks will bring in manure, fertilizers, and a ton of irrigation to take care of them. This is when it becomes a problem. But if you bring in some Australian plants like callistemons, banksias, grevilleas, or leptospermum, they'll just do fine in their own in your dry sandy soil and won't hurt a soul.
I respectfully disagree with you. Non natives wreck havoc on native ecosystems
Non native does not equal invasive.
That’s literally what it means. Non-natives are invasive. Either they are native or they are not.
@@ParkrosePermaculture Until they do! There are countless examples of this!
It's not that you're a bad person if you grow introduced species -- you're just a person, living in and embodying a society which has a lot of bad elements we're working on improving. You don't need to feel guilty for growing non-native, non-invasive introduced species, but, in many cases, where people are growing introduced species, there's a native which could fill the same niche while providing more benefits for the ecosystem. Some introduced plants aren't actively destructive, but provide less for the environment, so it's just an opportunity cost thing, that even if a given introduced species is okay, a native would still be better. Therefore the point is to grow as many natives as we can, and at least consider native options before defaulting to introduced species we're used to. It doesn't need to be about blame and judgement, just something we're all working on learning and getting better at. You might as well judge people for having burned fossil fuels in their car -- like, yeah, that is bad, actually. Driving a car is bad. Planting Eurasian plants is bad. Drinking alcohol is bad. Eating sugar is bad. Lots of things are bad. We're still going to do them, though, you know? And we're not obligated to hate ourselves over any of it. If you drink a soda once in a while you're not going to drop dead, and if you plant lilacs and introduced roses the ecosystem isn't going to instantly explode or something either. Neither makes you a monster either. But most of us could stand to both drink a lot less sugary soda, and plant a lot fewer plants that don't give suitable nutrition to the native insects. Transitioning our food systems so there's better nutrition both for humans and insects is going to take time, and nobody should be expected to be 100% perfect all the time.
Thank you! Exactly my point. Slow, small solutions. Encourage folks to do what they can afford and handle, and don’t shame.
I agree and disagree, yes there are many factors affecting native pollinators like insecticides habitat loss soil degradation and etc. I do believe it’s okay to plant non natives as long as they are not invasive but please include a good chunk of natives in your beds. Planting natives definitely helps even if it doesn’t fix all the problems. If everyone did that it would seriously help with habitat loss especially for native pollinators and learning how to help your soil biodiversity and health and not using chemicals in your landscapes and changing how we do things like not bagging your grass after cutting it helps return nutrients into the ground. Planting natives can really give the crutch the native pollinators and insects need especially like host plants for butterflies and moths and natives for food for birds in the winter or hummingbirds coming back North on such a long journey or helping with your soil health which has a bigger impact then you think.
It is not a meme.
I’d like to see the diets of people supporting “natives only” to see if they’re putting their ideals where their mouths are!
plant native foliage and flora and a non-native food garden lol.
People interested in this channel are likely committed to making choices as responsibly as possible. What of people like my parents who just want the small, low maintenance retirement garden? Hard lines like that won't encourage them. My mom recently brought home a Jacob's ladder she accepted from a friend from a flower arrangement club. I was impressed that she wanted to introduce another plant into the yard. My dad was raised thinking pests were to be disposed of by chemicals. I got him to switch to natural predators. That's unusual given that he doesn't like listening to my female opinions. He probably heard something similar from men at work, which helped. Sometimes you've got to take what you can get.
Totally agree - shaming usually has the opposite affect! Awesome you were able to help shift your dads perspective away from outdated ideas a bit!
@@gardenforbirds Thank you.
🤗👍🏼
Thank you for this video! I believe there is room for both native plants and introduced ones, too! I have been dealing with some invasive plants I bought at a big box store! It's important to know what you are buying! Anyway, I am so happy I watched this video! I have peace now about all the non-native plants I have growing in my yard!
Growing things that aren't native doesn’t automatically equal bad. Environments change all the time. I'm just interested in learning about native landscaping because I'm sick of the maintenance and water bills on a 1/3 acre lot. Lol
Thank you so much for saying all of this. It almost seems like we are being urged to look away from systemic issues and get lost in the weeds.
get educated. This women doesn't have all the solutions. She's getting paid to complain about her life not helping All life.
TY for spreading sense. A lot of todays activism and other pursuits to better the world are way too all or nothing.
And thus we miss on people why might for example be willing to eat less meat but won’t consider becoming vegan and so on.
A wild garden with 50% natives is astronomically better than no garden at all or the normal kind that isn’t much of an ecosystem.
Cats also live SIGNIFICANTLY longer if kept indoors. I'm talking indoor kitties living 12-16+ years (and I've heard of a cat reaching 25, and my own cat Smoky reached 18,) versus an absolutely dismal 2-5 year average lifespan for outdoor kitties. If you love your cat, keep them inside, it's just that simple!!!
Also thank you for this! The dude at the nursery made me feel bad for wanting to grow a pretty dogwood tree with big showy flowers instead of a native one which just aren't as appealing to me. I don't see a problem in my growing a beautiful non-native dogwood which hardly anyone around here grows because the species I want CAN'T hybridize with the native dogwoods growing in my area. It'll just look pretty and make ME happy, help local pollinators, help my food crops by drawing in those pollinators, and to me, THAT is what should matter.
Thank you so much, i want a balcony garden soo bad, but i got into this thought that it HAS to be natives, but the native plants in my area don't do very well in pots. So this really helps with that guilt
Grow your garden. It is so good for your soul!😊
Good job Angela. I grow wide a variety of plants that are beneficial and grow well in my area, both native and introduced. Most of what I grow are edible, nitrogen fixers, and additionally support pollinators.
I feel like any kind of gardening versus letting a landscape just be turf grass is already doing worlds for the ecosystem. People focus on thinking they can single-handedly save the planet when all we as gardeners really have control over as individuals is our local ecosystem. There is scientific evidence, though, that natives are more beneficial than introduced species especially when it comes to erosion/stormwater control and in the carbon that gets stored in their root systems. It shouldn't mean this whole attitude of if you don't plant only natives you shouldn't be gardening. We gotta eat too!
I have been very active in the native plants community for several years. I love native plants. I try to educate my friends and community members about it and I save seeds... Blah blah blah. But I have never heard anyone say.. plant natives only. It is more like.. if you can even add one native to your garden.. it's better than none. This meme is stupid like all memes. But I think this video is making an issue out of a non issue
There's a whole huge Facebook page with multiple spin off pages dedicated to this premise : plant only natives. They have a fb group with over 100k followers who shame people for planting cultivars of native species. It's also a sentiment repeatedly posted in several gardening groups I'm in.
I mean, that's great that you haven't experienced this issue but I wouldn't talk about it if weren't something I hadn't been encountering repeatedly and with vehemence in online spaces.
@@ParkrosePermaculture well.. that is just sad. Gardening is such a joyful activity. Too bad if there is so much negativity out there. I guess I must be lucky that I have never encountered it
Hear hear!! thank you for addressing this.
I used to be more one sided but I think some non native plants are ok is carefully manage and depending on the species, their growing characteristics and potential effects on habitat . It is arguably best practice to avoid plants that could potentially cause long term issues , like crossed varieties of native plants that no longer support wildlife in the ways it evolved to. Many of those plants can and do cross with native straight species . Many insects are specialist and with climate change some non native plants could become invasive . I’m afraid you are missing some major aspects here . A good example is lupines , Sundial Lupine (L. perennis) is the host plant for the Blue Karner Butterfly, an endangered species in the us . But Western Lupine (L. polyphullus) is poisonous to the Butterflies larvae, this plant can cross with the L perennis with the resulting plants also being poisonous.
I'm new to learning more about natives. I have a very large area that is a mess right now, and I'd like to bring in more natives along with other perennials and turn it into a wildlife paradise. But I'm not going to give any attention to the militants. But, that being said...honey bees aren't native?
Dr. Tallamy also notes that gardens only need to be 60-70% native and he is very much the champion of this cause. He did the research showing that there wasn’t an enormous increase in wildlife carrying capacity after that point. No need to make your yard a preservation.
Your point about « most gardeners have a mix of native and introduced species. »
If only. Take a walk around the block and most gardens are 95% invasives. People that try a little are mostly using a combo of invasives and exotics. Only hippie liberals with time and cash have overhauled their lot to mostly native. In my area, only a few nurseries in the whole city sell natives. Lowe’s and Home Depot, where most ordinary gardeners shop, sell effectively nothing native…thus all of ordinary suburbia is carpeted in invasives and exotics.
Edit to add:
Purity spiral vibes suck but individuals can do a lot. I didn’t know anything about native plants until this spring and I am so upset that I didn’t know about it sooner. Why was the only ecological thing I could do, according to media, is forgo single use straws??!! I could have been planting in my garden!! Since I have been doing this with my kids we have seen so many new creatures and learned SO much. I have owned my home and sizable lot for 5 years! 5 years of honeysuckle and English ivy could have been 5 years of elderberry, goats beard, and trilliums. It was hard but we did it.
Most gardens are not 95% invasives. Yes, we should encourage natives in our gardens. But screaming at strangers on the Internet, because they bought a cultivar of echinacea instead of a straight species is not helpful.
I totally agree with you that big box stores are a problem and I would not buy plants there.
We can encourage parks and urban foresters to utilize more natives. Using natives for city owned property has long been something I’ve championed because there is a ton of public land with introduced species.
I so agree with you! I live in Sweden and experience the same.
I am building a foodforest. Ever since I started, the wildlife grows more and more everyday! By planting blooming flowers, trees, buches etc all the insects have food. With the insects follow those who eat insects. Etc. I build food, homes and a sustqinable living for many in my garden. Plants and wildlife alike. You do a great job. Did share this video. Love to see you soon again! Lot's of love from Sweden!
Very good points, I totally agree. They are trying to do this in Australia also.
Flat? We are invaded with invasive plants where I live. Most of them Asians. So yes, I am planting ONLY natives.
No one is stopping you from planting only natives.
@@ParkrosePermaculture You are deterring others from planting natives at a time when we are infested with invasive species and rapidly losing biodiversity. Why?
Are you also going out to dig up the invasives?
So I'm turning what was once a grass lawn into a meadow. I recently saw someone ask about Queen Anne's Lace in her garden, because she loves the flowers. As you said, she was crucified by "the natives". Apparently, those of us who are turning cultivated grass lawns into wild flower meadows are supposed to irradicate Queen Anne's Lace before adding other plants! This cracks me up, because it grows literally everywhere! I love seeing young people gardening, but they really need to respect the folks who have actually had our hands in the dirt for five decades!
Probably because Queen Anne's Lace is not only an INVASIVE species, but an AGGRESSIVE one.
www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/queenannslace.html
The incompetence in tour video is unreal...