here’s my controversial plant opinions of the day:
your garden can be both native and non-native plants. Its fine. It is not evil to plant non-native plants. Avoid invasives and noxious weeds but many non-native plants are good and fun
not all nativars are the Worst Ever or completely useless for pollinators the way many people claim BUT they do lower genetic diversity if cloned and not seed bred. This is more an issue if you are trying to reestablish a wild area or preserve a species, less so if you are landscaping your suburban house
Not all non native plants growing wild need to be eradicated or are horribly invasive, especially if they are growing in disturbed areas that we created. Hesperis matronalis for example grows places like roadsides, train tracks, and areas where invasives have already choked out natives.
Invasive plants are a symptom of a problem, not a problem themselves. They are not evil. It does not do any good to assign moral worth to plants. Native plants are not “good”. Invasive plants are not “the enemy” They just are. They are filling a niche that our society left open for them.
If you are going to remove invasive plants en masse, you have to have a plan for whats going in its place. Garlic mustard, for example, tends to build up in population and then decline in number… unless the population is disturbed in which case it starts back up again.
Given that climate change is a thing and the fact that we have changed the environment on a micro level by putting in dams and streets and neighborhoods with lawns and shopping centers…. most definitions of native plants are bogus. The idea that traditonal native plants are better adapted to our local environment is no longer true. The winters are getting colder, watersheds are changing all the time, and your new development with all the topsoil shaved off in the baking sun with so much deer pressure even deer resistant plants don’t stand a chance… the native plants are not native to that environment.
Oh, the problem is capitalism btw. Our infrastructure and livelihoods depend on creating environments where invasives thrive and natives cannot.
Individuals can help on a very small scale by planting their yards in an environmentally friendly way but if a highway project and new industrial center is going in down the street… nothing is going to help the local environment except lobbying and supporting conservation organizations
because this is 100% what I think about all the time in regard to militarized language around invasive plants and purity language around native ones and generally moralizing ecology into attitudes that idealize nature’s purity and inform other kinds of xenophobia and black and white thinking … all while largely ignoring indigenous issues, land back efforts, environmental racism, etc.
I’m regards to restoration efforts within North America, the “target” output is often restoring disturbed land back to “pre-European settlement.” And why is it such a big deal that invasives are removed? To answer this question we need to know what it means to be invasive. There’s going to be a few different answers but simply an invasive plant is something that can quickly take over an area and crowd out other species (whether it’s native or not). I’m not sure where this notion of “purity” is coming from, I haven’t seen that, but if that’s true that’s just wrong. There are some natives which are invasive themselves and need managing. Big bluestem grass and sumac are two examples of plants which are native to regions of N. America and can be invasive.
The common idea among those who are interested in restoration and reclamation (and who truly know how things work at an ecological standpoint), is that us humans need to be “stewards of the land,” and by managing systems like prairies, forests, marshes, etc. we can ameliorate the environment that we’ve so disturbed and destroyed. To do this, invasive species management is probably near the top of the list. The reason why is because most non-natives don’t support the animals and insects which live in whatever region they’re introduced, like honeysuckle for example. I’ve heard that birds can eat their fruits but I’m not sure if that’s true exactly because for most other animals (including us), their berries are poisonous. Plants like milkweed or even oaks cannot compete against the agressive nature of plants like honeysuckle.
I also will say I’ve seen a few times now where people who don’t really know anything about ecology or succession are making the calls on how to handle sites and it’s just causing so many issues. As noted above, if you’re planning on removing invasives that are pretty widespread through an area, you will need to have a plan for what’s to come next. Either seed in good supporting plants (clover for example), or beneficial natives or SOMETHING please because all that work that was done to remove those invasives will be for nothing. They’ll just come right back the next year and you’ll have to do it all over again. Not to mention, a major rain event will create such bad erosion that you’ll be paying for heavy damages and it’ll make it harder for other species to establish.
TL;DR when removing invasives have a plan for after and understand how the site will change! You’re creating disturbance and need to understand how that will change the system you are working in. You also need to understand this system for establishing plants or managing the site. There’s a lot more going on in this work besides “removing invasive plants.” Use seeds, plugs, etc to establish vegetation to keep invasives out. Also try and learn how these plant species interact with the environment around them.
This is good info and insight for folks into invasive species/native plant restoration work!
I want to clarify that my original post was in response to home gardening plant groups (like facebook groups) and attitudes among individual amateur native plant activists, not ecology professionals.
The “purity” aspect i see usually comes from misunderstanding what an invasive plant is and how restoration and conservation works.
