“Science, including the study of ecology is based not only on individual research…Informed debate and even controversy are fundamental to the advancement of scientific thinking.” –Thomas Christopher, Growing Greener Podcast
A huge hooray from me to Ranter Emeritus and Growing Greener podcast host Thomas Christopher, who recently interviewed garden designer and Professor Emeritus of Horticultural Ecology at Sheffield University, James Hitchmough, after finding himself personally challenged by the native/non-native ideas Hitchmough discussed in a recent lecture Christopher attended.
I not only wanted to direct GardenRant readers to this podcast episode, but highlight the greater example that both Christopher and Hitchmough set – that of civil and enjoyable debate.
There’s Nothing Like Informed Debate
I make no bones about the fact that I am weary of the absolutism displayed over the last 10 years in many native plant circles in the United States (particularly on social media), and its effect on inexperienced gardeners.
I am also irritated by [clever but incorrect] reframing that terms any pushback on rigid orthodoxy as hostile and confrontational, and does not recognize the rampant hostility directed at everyday gardeners that don’t subscribe to that orthodoxy.
But well beyond my frustration with data interpretation, directed research, and lack of an openminded, nuanced, and scientific approach to the study of BOTH non-native and native flora in this country, is my sadness that we are losing the ability to discuss important topics and disagree with one another without contemptuously characterizing our opponents as anti-science, morally wrong, elitists or attacking them ad hominem. Robust and fruitful discussion cannot exist within that environment.
Debate clubs in schools used to teach us to argue logically and cleverly, and there is great value in this; but a truly informed debate seeks more than winning for winning’s sake. It seeks a greater understanding of the opposing position (and ultimately greater truth) through directed questions and careful listening. And it requires a much deeper understanding of your own position that goes beyond shouting parroted words and research paper abstracts at one’s opponent.
Let’s Have More of This, Not Less
That is why I wanted to take a few words to say thank you to Thomas Christopher. Not only for taking the time to interview Hitchmough on Growing Greener, but for illustrating what we all should be doing in every aspect of our lives – engaging with different opinions in the pursuit of greater understanding.
Hitchmough’s observations and cited research were equally impressive, as was his good-natured approach that puts everyone at ease. There were too many topics to do justice to here with any brevity; but I can’t help but point out one: Hitchmough calls modern intensive agricultural practices and their effect on biodiversity and species decline as the elephant in the room. In effect he feels we are “polishing the silver as the Titanic sinks.” I couldn’t agree more. Brilliant.
So, huge kudos all round and let’s have more of this – a return to RESPECTFUL open discussion. I urge Rant readers to take 30 minutes and listen to this excellent episode. -MW
Thank you for sharing this engaging Podcast . The only comment Dr. Hitchmough made that I would like clarity on was “intense agricultural practices and their effect on biodiversity and species decline.” I don’t know how this fits as I saw they were discussing horticultural practices. As far as agriculture, I live in a rural area where agriculture is the topic. The most controversial one being “no till farming.” This means using multiple ground covers, reducing disturbances, feeding roots, and using diversity when planting. Agroforestry, as an old practice, is gaining hold. This is the use of trees, shrubs, hedgerows along with crop and or animals. This in turn supports a sustainable land use, improves biodiversity and benefits the ecology. Hedgerows attract all manner of insects and wildlife. If I had to choose between the practice of gardeners growing native and worrying about alien plants, to the farmers trying to keep and maintain healthy soil, humane animal husbandry, and feed a healthier world, I’d choose the later. If this is out of sync with the article, they brought up agriculture in the first place. I feel in the long run everyone is just vying to put the breaks on extinction.
The conversation leans towards ecological practices in horticulture (native and non-native plant selection) and the resulting impact on biodiversity.
Hitchmough is referencing BigAg’s impact on a global level, which is undeniable. Here from a paper on Nature.com (2024): “Overall, more than 90% of global biodiversity impacts of land-use change are due to agriculture, with crops cultivation (72%) and pastures (21%) being the main contributors, while mining, other industries and urban infrastructure have minor impacts. Forestry products are not considered here, as agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation, while timber is typically a by-product.”
That’s not to take away from sustainable efforts on the local level to reverse the trend.
Thanks Tony for clarifying. Kathleen, I think we’re on the same page. I’ll just add that Hitchmough was not demonizing farmers per se — he was simply calling attention to the large scale devastation of ecosystems with (fairly new) conventional farming methods. Often, people confuse land regenerative methods of no till farming with conventional no till – which relies entirely on the use of massive amounts of herbicide and intensive chemical fertilization. There are a lot of people to feed on this planet, so the solutions are not necessarily straight forward or black and white, but I refuse to ignore the ecologically devastating ‘elephant’ while we make gardeners feel guilty for planting a non-native plant so they can ‘save the planet’. It’s ludicrous. -MW
I also tracked this conversation with great interest as a long-time fan of Prof. James Hitchmough. While relaxed in conversation, he is also one of the leading figures in horticultural ecology of our time. He is informed at a level few ecologists (or podcast hosts) can match, with not only a detailed working knowledge of plant communities in various biogeographical systems but the ability to recreate their dynamics to spectacular effect in his planting designs for public space. At Sheffield, the ecologists, entomologists, designers and LAs all work together, an inspiring model for the rest of us.
I also applaud Thomas Christopher for engaging, even though the conversation opened up something of a Pandora’s Box for him. As a Canadian, I observe there is also a cultural aspect to this as well, where polarized tribalism is now a way of life in both our countries, but especially, in the hyper-political US.
All Hitchmough suggested was that there is more nuance to the issue of using native and non-natives than might first appear. But as I’ve already seen in the social backlash to the podcast, the purists find this a bridge too far. What a shame when there’s so much to learn from each other and yes, here’s to respectful discussion.
I hadn’t tracked the backlash on the podcast, as I’m bone weary of social media trolls (and once-normal people behaving like social media trolls). It is difficult to navigate, as many of our friends in garden media will attest. But when it happens to you it fully opens your eyes to how contentious and ‘religious’ this debate has become. I know he felt I was making a mountain out of a molehill when I wrote the Chief Heretic piece on GardenRant, despite the fact that we had non-solicited comments from all over the United States relating their own disturbing encounters with the new plant police. -MW
I can empathize with your weariness. I step into the fray now and then, but with low expectations on de-conditioning folks who are in deep. The plant shaming ethos has run rampant, there’s not a garden group on social that isn’t in some way affected.
Thank you for bringing Tom Christopher’s interview of James Hitchmough to my attention. The title of the podcast suggests that Mr. Hitchmough’s viewpoint “challenges the US Consensus” regarding the relative value to insects of natives compared to non-natives.
Mr. Hitchmough’s response was that the claimed preference for native plants was conventional wisdom among ecologists in the past, but that “when they did the [field] work, they changed their view.”
That change in viewpoint has occurred among academic ecologists in the US, but continues to be resisted by gardeners, such as Tom Christopher. Professor Emeritus Juliet Stromberg recently published a book about her journey from her graduate education, which was deeply steeped in invasion biology, to her present viewpoint, based on decades of fieldwork and as expressed in the title of her book: The Unruly Wild: Embracing Ecological Change in the Southwest. I recommend Professor Stromberg’s book to anyone interested in this debate. Her book is representative of the opinions of academic ecologists today.
I agree with Marianne, that discussion is always welcome and often informative, especially when accusatory lecturing is put aside, as it is in this podcast. For example, Mr. Hitchmough explained that the debate can’t be confined to lepidopteran because they are more closely associated with specific plant families than other insect taxa. Thank you, Mr. Hitchmough. I must read his book now.
Hitchmough’s every word is backed up by solid science. He and the other profs of the “Sheffield School” have been bringing impactful research into practice for many years. Everyone who picks up a trowel would benefit from reading the newly revised “Dynamic Landscape: Ecology and Management in Urban Planting Design”. Contributed to and edited by Hitchmough and Dunnett, it is a comprehensive course in ecological planting that meets both human aesthetic and stewardship goals. Having seen a small slice of their design work in person, the pair are among the top-tier landscape architects and artistic plant designers in the world today. Together and individually, their public lectures and books have made a tremendous impact on the way that I look at and make gardens. I’d probably give my eye teeth to follow Hitchmough around both natural and designed landscapes-hint hint, Marianne.
What a terrific idea Jenny! Great shout out to that book, which I haven’t read yet but recently bought. –MW
Regenerative farming is beginning to take hold here in Central Va. In large part because of the success of some in my area. Joel Salatin is perhaps the best known. His farm, Polyface, came down to him from his family who practiced a good bit of it years back. Nothing leaves his farm but edible products. No chemicals are used. The farm supplies much product to about 600 people in the area.
He has written some wonderful articles in The Epoch Times about regenerative practices and how the whole food chain needs to be rethought at the local level.
I look forward to hearing/reading Mr. Hitchmough on the podcast. Thanks for writing about it Marianne.
Thanks Leticia — Recently tried to get a ticket to an open day event at Polyface Farm to see it for myself – nearly 7 months ahead and all 400 tickets sold out. Salatin’s message reverberates — he lives what he believes and he believes in working with the land, not against it. Next time I’ll be quicker to the mark! -MW
Thanks for the referral to this webcast. It was a reminder that “it all depends” is frequently true. Although schooled in traditional garden design, I’m looking for ways to increase the biodiversity in my garden with natives and nativars.
Your rants are always informative, inspirational and/or enjoyable. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with all of us.
Thank you Catherine – and thank you also for taking the time to share yours! – MW