I haven’t written for this site for quite a while, but today, nothing but a rant will do.
In recent years I’ve become an enthusiastic advocate of incorporating ecology into our gardening. That was not always the case. My training as a horticulturist came during the era of “better living through chemistry,” and it was only a decade or so ago that, under the influence of ecologists such as Douglas Tallamy, I came to understand that insects were not the enemy but rather an essential element of garden wildlife and the natural food chain. With the encouragement of ecological landscape design pioneer Larry Weaner, I’ve explored how a better understanding of ecology can help me create more sustainable, less resource intensive landscapes that are an asset to the local environment.
It was in this spirit that I joined an online symposium a couple of weeks ago that was focused on creating supply chains for seeds of locally-adapted, species-type native plants (or local “ecotypes” as the ecologists call them). Increasing the availability of locally adapted, seed grown native plants is a cause I support strongly, as such plants commonly offer greater benefits for pollinators and other wildlife and typically flourish with fewer inputs from gardeners.
The other attendees of the symposium seemed to be entirely restoration ecologists and ecological activists. In light of that, I thought it worthwhile to mention in the “chat” how deeply disappointed I had been by the seed-grown, local ecotype plants I had purchased this past summer from two ecologically based organizations. The plants I received in return for my money were spindly, weak, and sometimes worse – there had been plastic cells that contained nothing but growing medium as the plants in them had apparently died. I suggested in the symposium chat that this ecologically focused movement would benefit from the input of horticulturists who understand nursery production and how to grow robust plants from seed.
Most of the other participants in the symposium ignored my suggestion, even when I repeated it. One invited panelist did subsequently confront the issue head on, expressing his belief that the people involved in growing plants from such seeds had to decide whether they were going to just practice a “sophisticated form of horticulture” or whether they were committed to genuine restoration ecology.
I found this comment curious, as I had in the past interviewed this same person for my Growing Greener radio show and podcast. This man told me then he had made a career of managing a nursery for the city of New York that grew native plants from locally collected seeds for use in the city’s landscaping projects. He described to me in the interview how his artificially propagated plants were inserted in large numbers into New York parklands and remnant wild areas. In sum, he had been a very active promoter of sophisticated horticulture, as well as a practitioner of restoration ecology.
I mention this story because I think it highlights a real problem with the ecological restoration movement. As ecologist Douglas Tallamy has pointed out, we need to get private gardeners on board. There simply isn’t enough habitat to support a healthy ecosystem nation-wide unless we move beyond parks and sanctuaries to include private lands as well. And the advocates of locally sourced, seed-grown native plants aren’t going to impress private gardeners if all they offer is the sort of garbage plants delivered to me last summer.
My observation over a long career of working with plants is that there is a tendency among theorists to disdain those who have focused on practical skills. This is certainly true in the field of ecological restoration. I remember 30 years ago being attacked by a young ecologist from the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center who charged that gardeners such as me were the greatest threat to native plants. Why? Because we were moving ecotypes around, and polluting local gene pools.
There was some truth to what she said in that gardeners, especially back then, were not focused enough on the provenance of the plants they were purchasing and were not doing enough to maintain genetic diversity in native plant populations. To insist that this was the greatest threat to native plants, though, in an era of climate change, introduced pests, competition from invasive plants, and outright habitat destruction, was absurd. I suspect that young ecologist was feeling defensive because so much of her employer’s mission – to restore populations of wildflowers nationwide – lay in the practice of horticultural skills she did not possess.
If we want to make this ecological revolution among gardeners and land managers work, we need not only theories – although scientific insights are fundamental – but also expertise in translating theories into reality. As a horticulturist, I understand how essential it is for me and my colleagues to learn from ecologists. Do the ecologists and activists understand that they also need our help? Too often, in my experience, they do not.
Thanks for rejoining us for a well-deserved Rant. I am annoyed for you! Zerosum is a language too many comfortably claim as their mother tongue. Very easy to learn, but tedious to listen to — and eventually people stop listening. Give me less certainty, and more curiosity, and I will give the speaker, the writer, the activist, or simply the person across my dining room table, my full attention. – MW
Love this rant! As a city transplant, I took up gardening late. After decades of making videos for the Museum of Natural History, I knew I would plant a native garden. Ten years on I’m still learning….and still discovering new-to-me “conventional” practices that work towards supporting ecology.
— Sarah (“WILD in the Garden State”)
Hear! Hear! I get so tired of everyone taking a combative stance. There is something beneficial to be learned from both fields that would enhance the skills of the other. More listening and cooperating and less diatribe is the right prescription. Good to hear from you again Christopher.
Given no choice, I think it’s better to plant a native species regardless of eco type. Or even an improved selection of a native. I know about and have read research papers about the differences in pollination effectiveness of wild types vs selections vs hybrids. But availability and traits make a difference to horticulturists. I also wish the many collectors and distributors of seed would make themselves aware of the laws governing seed and plant distribution across state lines. Especially the small scale collectors.
I agree that the lack of horticultural knowledge among “restoration” practitioners is a serious problem. In the many years I have observed their futile attempts to turn public parks into native plant museums in California, I have witnessed their planting of sun-loving plants in deep shade and redwood trees on coastal bluffs where the trees are exposed to salty winds and lack sufficient water. The failure of their projects make them unpopular with the public, who usually prefer a functional and attractive landscape.
However, most home gardeners don’t need the help of “restorationists” because their objectives are different. Most restoration projects begin by destroying everything non-native, usually with herbicides. Home gardeners are often reluctant to use herbicides. They know the importance of healthy soil to the success of their gardens, which is damaged by pesticides. They want a beautiful garden, which is best achieved with diverse plantings that prolong the blooming season. That strategy also serves pollinators best, contrary of the beliefs of nativists.
In California, where nativism is influential, some home gardeners are wedded to an exclusively native garden. Because of our Mediterranean climate their gardens are lifeless through most of the dry season that lasts half the year. In California, an exclusively native garden is not a beautiful garden except briefly in the spring. The gardens of my neighbors who are committed to the nativist ideology are an eyesore now and they will be for another 6 months.
Milliontrees: I respectfully disagree with your assertion that home gardeners don’t need the input of “restorationists,” by which I’m assuming you mean restoration ecologists. We badly need to change our understanding of what is beautiful, and that is where I think ecologists play a crucial role. That landscape of native California plants is not lifeless during its dormant season, any more than the landscapes here in New England are lifeless during our winters. As the ecologists can help us understand, the dormant ecosystem continues to fulfill its functions, and there are subtler pleasures to find in it then, even if it may temporarily lack the obvious attraction of flowers. In California, of course, you can maintain bloom artificially through the dormant season by importing exotic plants and irrigating, but the result is not only environmentally unsustainable, it’s a sort of implausible botanical mishmash that looks very dated to me. If we are to move forward into a healthier relationship with nature – the great challenge of our era – we need to understand and appreciate more fully the landscapes in which we have settled. That’s where I think the insights of ecologists, and in particular restoration ecologists, are essential. As I said in my rant, I believe we need to work together.
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. it is a matter of opinion. Our tastes can be gradually altered by what is fashionable, but are rarely influenced by dictates such as those of the native plant movement. For example, California nativists were successful in getting tropical milkweed declared a “noxious weed” and 4 counties followed suit by banning its sale.
In several empirical tests, monarchs have shown their preference for tropical milkweed. Unlike deciduous native milkweed, tropical milkweed blooms throughout the winter. Monarchs have started to breed during winter months in response to the warming climate, making the availability of milkweed essential to survival of the species in California. Academic entomologists were outraged by the bans because they know the bans will harm monarchs.
I deliberately said “restorationists” to describe those who engage in restoration projects, rather than restoration ecologists. I reserve the term “restoration ecologists” for academic scientists who engage in rigorous field and lab studies, as opposed to those who are employed by the restoration industry. There is often a big—and growing—gap between those two camps.
“Lifeless” was a poor word choice on my part. Dormant is a better description of the brown, dead-looking native plants in California during most of the dry season and in many cases throughout winter months. I remember attending a lecture by local nativists many years ago, in which the speaker showed a slide she had colored green with a marking pen, then a slide she has colored brown. Her message was that brown is more beautiful than green. It was a tough sell, but it was a lesson in the lengths to which the native plant movement will go to sell their agenda.
Have you ever thought that the availability of year-round milkweed is what triggers them to want to continue to breed? Tropical milkweed is super noxious in CA.
There are echos here in the scramble for certified organic veggie growers to source certified organic seed. Lots of well meaning folks thought, “I can save seed and sell it at a premium”, not knowing the first thing about how to isolate and rogue the crop to maintain superior varietal characteristics. While somewhat improved in recent years, it’s still a total crapshoot buying seeds from unproven sources.
To be honest, it’s horticulture that needs the ecologists at the moment. Horticulture is so anti-native plant that they continue breeding new nandina cultivars instead of figuring out ways to provide beneficial native plants to consumers. Why do you think ecologists are striking out on their own? Horticulture isn’t keeping up.
I should have included this link in my post but I recently wrote/podcasted about this very issue. http://www.thegardenpathpodcast.com/2022/11/28/just-give-us-some-native-milkweed-native-plants-vs-the-horticulture-industry/
That’s a case of confusing cause and effect. Monarch breeding is triggered by longer days and warmer temperatures. Because of global warming, monarchs have begun to breed during the winter months in California and the existence of tropical milkweed in gardens in coastal California has made that possible: “the [monarch] population boom in the Bay Area had not been seen before. It was unusually warm that fall, which may have accounted for the numbers. And tropical milkweed, which unlike native milkweed flowers through the winter and creates a suitable habitat for breeding, was abundant in gardens.” (“The Story of the Butterflies,” Endria Richardson, Bay Nature, Summer 2022)
Scientists with a commitment to the survival of monarchs have welcomed this development: “But the growth of local, breeding monarchs is seen, at least by some, as a sign of the resilience of the monarchs, their ability to find new ways to persist in the face of an increasingly threatened migration.”
What’s the problem with nandina? Years ago, the California Invasive Plant Council designated nandina an invasive plant because it produces berries. Cal-IPC just assumed that birds eat the berries and spread the seeds, as they do many berry-producing plants (including natives, such as native toyon). They were wrong. Nandina berries are poisonous to wildlife and birds do not eat them. Knowledgeable people pointed that out to Cal-IPC and nandina was removed from the invasive plant list in California.
I had nandina in my garden in San Francisco for nearly 30 years. It never “went” anywhere. In fact, it didn’t do very well at all. I never removed it because In San Francisco I felt lucky to have any plant survive in my garden.