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 th

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).