3 ms·

I don’t really understand the logic behind native only, beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment.

by onos 4y ago

Loughla 4y ago
In my experience, it's multi-faceted. First, is the ease of integration. Native plants are, well, naturally better suited for your area. If you select a flower that grows natively in your area, it will be okay as long as you match the sun requirements. Second, they take less maintenance. Less water and little- to no-fertilizing, because they're already well suited to the climate and soil. Third, is that they are almost guaranteed not to be invasive. And finally, you don't have to worry about introducing anything toxic to the native fauna inadvertently. If it's toxic, they already do not eat it. For me, it was that they are super easy to take care of, and thrive under conditions that would murder "standard" sorts of landscaping plants. I'm forgetful, and a watering schedule is just not an option for my poor, poor brain.
bmitc 4y ago
What do you not understand about it? Just trying to address any specific questions you might have. Here's some bullet points I've collected in my head. I'm not an expert and am still learning. See the links below. Planting native plants: - reduces watering and fertilization needs, if not removing them, because native plants are built for the area they're planted in - attracts native insects, which further attracts native predators like birds, mammals, and other insects. Non-native plants can attract a lot of activity, but it can be harmful to the overall ecosystem, as non-native pollinators are not evolved to interact with the regional ecosystems and are thus far less effective - Non-native plants can not only monopolize the environment, but they can be highly detrimental to the soil, stripping it of nutrients - Native plants are developed primarily locally and thus reduce emissions compared to having to ship around non-native plants everywhere to all the big box stores and nurseries - Ecosystems contain individual species that evolved together. By replacing entire plant systems with non-native plants, you interrupt the system. This is not good because things get of whack. Things evolve but not in healthy ways, such as often encouraging non-native wildlife. - Pollinators are extremely endangered but extremely important, not to just their local ecosystems but to humans as well. They are what allows our agriculture to be successful. It doesn't make any sense to smoke them out. - Native plants are more efficient at carbon capture. https://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter https://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter https://www.monarchgard.com/what-we-believe.html https://www.monarchgard.com/what-we-believe.html https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ Honestly, the only reason to plant non-native plants is vanity.
- onos 4y ago
  Thanks for your response. I’ll think on your points. FWIW, In my area of the world I hear about non natives being bad but they often seem to grow very well, eg in the wild. So it seems to me that they are often well suited to the local environment. The concern then seems to me to be an implicit preference for what was already here over new comers. To me, seems a bit “anti immigrant” and I just can’t relate. I definitely appreciate the point that we should avoid catastrophic decrease in diversity, and bringing in foreign plants could raise risk of that.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    See my comment above, but one reason they thrive is lack of predation. And yes, the rhetoric can be feel very anti-immigrant (something my immigrant spouse picked up on very quickly)
  - HEmanZ 4y ago
    One point on top of the poster that I think also matters, especially if you want more people to get involved: aesthetics. Any regions of the world people actually live have really beautiful natural plants that are often excluded from peoples yards just because it’s not what the builder has massive stockpile of. You can use local plants to make your property look distinctly and beautifully “of a place” and not some e.g generic American burb or “trying to imitate” some other place (palm trees in Seattle, im looking at you)
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    > FWIW, In my area of the world I hear about non natives being bad but they often seem to grow very well, eg in the wild. So it seems to me that they are often well suited to the local environment. The concern then seems to me to be an implicit preference for what was already here over new comers. To me, seems a bit “anti immigrant” and I just can’t relate. This seems like a plot of some South Park episode or Onion news article TBH.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  All of these things are partially true, but not fully. Your yard is only rarely representative of the "natural" ecosystem that would otherwise exist. Generalist species may find your yard similar enough to thrive, but specialists (carnivorous plants are a popular example) likely will not even if they're native to the immediate area. Non-natives can actually be even more efficient than natives at many things, including carbon capture. Prickly pear is a highly invasive example that outcompetes native crops with higher efficiency photosynthesis, huge adaptability to arid environments, and massive carbon capture potential due to its rapid growth rate. Speaking of prickly pear, it's a native family in much of the western US, but it remains invasive in yards throughout that range because the ecological succession that would naturally control its reproduction takes decades and isn't allowed to occur. Don't plant it. Your yard is a cultivated environment. Be cognizant of what you're planting and how it interacts. Natives are often a good choice, but there are perfectly valid reasons to plant non-natives or avoid certain natives.
Flozzin 4y ago
Many insects that are native to the area have co-evolved with the native plants. Which means that, non-native plants are not always the best fit for those insects. So planting native plants, usually means a plant better suited to live in that environment, but also, a plant that better benefits the native animal/insect life.
MR_Bulldops 4y ago
"beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment" That is reason enough to avoid non-natives and invasive species. They reduce biodiversity making a habitat more brittle and boring. And they may spread beyond the bounds of your property, negatively affecting others.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Not every single non-native species is invasive and would take over your whole property.
quercusa 4y ago
As others have recommended, check out Douglas Tallamy's Bringing Nature Home. He's an entomologist and sets out a very clear connection between native plants, native insects, and the larger ecosystem.
jonnycomputer 4y ago
The rhetoric and tone around natives and non-natives can be problematic. However, the ability for a specific species to thrive isn't a really good index into the health and resilience of whole ecosystems. One of the reasons that non-native plants often thrive, sometimes at the expense of other native plants, is the relative lack of predation. I think it was only a week or so ago that there was a post on HN about how white-tailed deer are becoming a threat to native plants and a boon to non-native plants because (a) no natural predators to keep deer populations down and (b) deer generally prefer eating native plants. Anecdotally, looking at the invasive Amur Honeysuckle on my property, its leaves remain pristinely green well into Fall, but by comparison, other comparable native plants have leaves eaten by insects, covered in molds, etc. There can be a competitive advantage to being the new plant on the block; but that competitive advantage is clearly at the expense of anything that relies on those native plants to live. Generally however, invasive plants tend to be those that like to colonize disturbed areas, and they tend to be plants that are easy to grow (and so people like them). The greatest threat, imo, is the continued and ongoing disturbance of the land, and, the continued introduction of new non-native plants (primarily via the large commercial nurseries).
Scarblac 4y ago
I want to make the local ecosystems stronger. Native plants should grow well, but there are also many organisms around to fertilize them, prey on them, symbiose with them, eat their fallen leaves, and so on. Everything else in the ecosystem from the microbes, fungi and insects up is native, so it seems obvious to me that the plants should be as well.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Modern vegetables are essentially "non-native". Is it discouraged to have a vegetable garden these days? Are we still allowed to grow carrots outside of Iran and Afghanistan without being frowned on?

I don’t really understand the logic behind native only, beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment.

by onos 4y ago

I don’t really understand the logic behind native only, beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment.

Loughla 4y ago

In my experience, it's multi-faceted. First, is the ease of integration. Native plants are, well, naturally better suited for your area. If you select a flower that grows natively in your area, it will be okay as long as you match the sun requirements. Second, they take less maintenance. Less water and little- to no-fertilizing, because they're already well suited to the climate and soil. Third, is that they are almost guaranteed not to be invasive. And finally, you don't have to worry about introducing anything toxic to the native fauna inadvertently. If it's toxic, they already do not eat it. For me, it was that they are super easy to take care of, and thrive under conditions that would murder "standard" sorts of landscaping plants. I'm forgetful, and a watering schedule is just not an option for my poor, poor brain.

bmitc 4y ago

What do you not understand about it? Just trying to address any specific questions you might have. Here's some bullet points I've collected in my head. I'm not an expert and am still learning. See the links below. Planting native plants: - reduces watering and fertilization needs, if not removing them, because native plants are built for the area they're planted in - attracts native insects, which further attracts native predators like birds, mammals, and other insects. Non-native plants can attract a lot of activity, but it can be harmful to the overall ecosystem, as non-native pollinators are not evolved to interact with the regional ecosystems and are thus far less effective - Non-native plants can not only monopolize the environment, but they can be highly detrimental to the soil, stripping it of nutrients - Native plants are developed primarily locally and thus reduce emissions compared to having to ship around non-native plants everywhere to all the big box stores and nurseries - Ecosystems contain individual species that evolved together. By replacing entire plant systems with non-native plants, you interrupt the system. This is not good because things get of whack. Things evolve but not in healthy ways, such as often encouraging non-native wildlife. - Pollinators are extremely endangered but extremely important, not to just their local ecosystems but to humans as well. They are what allows our agriculture to be successful. It doesn't make any sense to smoke them out. - Native plants are more efficient at carbon capture. https://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter https://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter https://www.monarchgard.com/what-we-believe.html https://www.monarchgard.com/what-we-believe.html https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ Honestly, the only reason to plant non-native plants is vanity.

onos 4y ago
Thanks for your response. I’ll think on your points. FWIW, In my area of the world I hear about non natives being bad but they often seem to grow very well, eg in the wild. So it seems to me that they are often well suited to the local environment. The concern then seems to me to be an implicit preference for what was already here over new comers. To me, seems a bit “anti immigrant” and I just can’t relate. I definitely appreciate the point that we should avoid catastrophic decrease in diversity, and bringing in foreign plants could raise risk of that.
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  See my comment above, but one reason they thrive is lack of predation. And yes, the rhetoric can be feel very anti-immigrant (something my immigrant spouse picked up on very quickly)
- HEmanZ 4y ago
  One point on top of the poster that I think also matters, especially if you want more people to get involved: aesthetics. Any regions of the world people actually live have really beautiful natural plants that are often excluded from peoples yards just because it’s not what the builder has massive stockpile of. You can use local plants to make your property look distinctly and beautifully “of a place” and not some e.g generic American burb or “trying to imitate” some other place (palm trees in Seattle, im looking at you)
- caskstrength 4y ago
  > FWIW, In my area of the world I hear about non natives being bad but they often seem to grow very well, eg in the wild. So it seems to me that they are often well suited to the local environment. The concern then seems to me to be an implicit preference for what was already here over new comers. To me, seems a bit “anti immigrant” and I just can’t relate. This seems like a plot of some South Park episode or Onion news article TBH.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
All of these things are partially true, but not fully. Your yard is only rarely representative of the "natural" ecosystem that would otherwise exist. Generalist species may find your yard similar enough to thrive, but specialists (carnivorous plants are a popular example) likely will not even if they're native to the immediate area. Non-natives can actually be even more efficient than natives at many things, including carbon capture. Prickly pear is a highly invasive example that outcompetes native crops with higher efficiency photosynthesis, huge adaptability to arid environments, and massive carbon capture potential due to its rapid growth rate. Speaking of prickly pear, it's a native family in much of the western US, but it remains invasive in yards throughout that range because the ecological succession that would naturally control its reproduction takes decades and isn't allowed to occur. Don't plant it. Your yard is a cultivated environment. Be cognizant of what you're planting and how it interacts. Natives are often a good choice, but there are perfectly valid reasons to plant non-natives or avoid certain natives.

Flozzin 4y ago

Many insects that are native to the area have co-evolved with the native plants. Which means that, non-native plants are not always the best fit for those insects. So planting native plants, usually means a plant better suited to live in that environment, but also, a plant that better benefits the native animal/insect life.

MR_Bulldops 4y ago

"beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment" That is reason enough to avoid non-natives and invasive species. They reduce biodiversity making a habitat more brittle and boring. And they may spread beyond the bounds of your property, negatively affecting others.

dahfizz 4y ago
Not every single non-native species is invasive and would take over your whole property.

quercusa 4y ago

As others have recommended, check out Douglas Tallamy's Bringing Nature Home. He's an entomologist and sets out a very clear connection between native plants, native insects, and the larger ecosystem.

jonnycomputer 4y ago

The rhetoric and tone around natives and non-natives can be problematic. However, the ability for a specific species to thrive isn't a really good index into the health and resilience of whole ecosystems. One of the reasons that non-native plants often thrive, sometimes at the expense of other native plants, is the relative lack of predation. I think it was only a week or so ago that there was a post on HN about how white-tailed deer are becoming a threat to native plants and a boon to non-native plants because (a) no natural predators to keep deer populations down and (b) deer generally prefer eating native plants. Anecdotally, looking at the invasive Amur Honeysuckle on my property, its leaves remain pristinely green well into Fall, but by comparison, other comparable native plants have leaves eaten by insects, covered in molds, etc. There can be a competitive advantage to being the new plant on the block; but that competitive advantage is clearly at the expense of anything that relies on those native plants to live. Generally however, invasive plants tend to be those that like to colonize disturbed areas, and they tend to be plants that are easy to grow (and so people like them). The greatest threat, imo, is the continued and ongoing disturbance of the land, and, the continued introduction of new non-native plants (primarily via the large commercial nurseries).

Scarblac 4y ago

I want to make the local ecosystems stronger. Native plants should grow well, but there are also many organisms around to fertilize them, prey on them, symbiose with them, eat their fallen leaves, and so on. Everything else in the ecosystem from the microbes, fungi and insects up is native, so it seems obvious to me that the plants should be as well.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Modern vegetables are essentially "non-native". Is it discouraged to have a vegetable garden these days? Are we still allowed to grow carrots outside of Iran and Afghanistan without being frowned on?