A Journal Entry I’ve had trouble with

At the Great Lakes Great Plants Symposium this early autumn one of the speakers mentioned two books for recommended reading. I did read them. Both authors have traveled around the world to document ecological changes brought on by non-native species, both plant and animal. Their returning theme was how humans have changed environments wherever we inhabit and has biodiversity suffered for the change.

To understand the impact of plants or animals in their new environments takes many decades until a new equilibrium is established. We are still wrestling with how to treat these new denizens. Are they invaders, invasive, aliens or do they just like their new home? Are they harmful to the ecosystems? Do they change ecosystems in a negative way? Are non-native plants able to feed native wildlife, give protection and nesting sites?

 Both books explore these points more than any I’ve read. They strive to see the broader picture. Yes, there are some introductions that prove to be a problem. I could fill a page with aggressive introductions and another with ones that play well in the garden.

Has biodiversity diminished because of the new introductions? Most native plant enthusiast in Northern Michigan think native means prior too European settlers. If that’s the case we better start planting trees because we were a forest of magnificent trees from shore to shore and very few prairies. Our ancestors, including mine, destroyed the forest ecosystem so they could harvest the timber, raise non-native crops to feed non-native livestock. We gutted the existing ecosystem and need to take responsibility for the change.

Be careful what we call native, especially the prairie plants. That would work for Southern Michigan where shortgrass prairies and savannas existed early on.  Let’s stop calling non-native plants and animals names like invasive, alien, exotic. Who is the invasive species? Who introduced the non-native plants and animals?

If our gauge of invasive plants is how aggressive they are should we also include some very aggressive natives; redbud, vervain, hyssop, Indian Grass and Big Bluestem…I could go on. They have adapted to our new, more open environment and are coming up everywhere in my yard and in the nursery. Can we include them as ‘invasive’? I just read an article listing more plants targeted for the invasive species list. None were native. What about the non-natives that play very well in the garden; Forsythia, Fothergilla, Hydrangea, Itea, Lilac, Weigela, Spirea, just to name a few. They aren’t native but we love them in our gardens. Or, are they aliens, exotics, invasive?

The last 20 years I have been studying native plants while keeping an open mind on what is popular with gardeners. I’ll never stop selling natives or stop stressing the importance of separating straight species (natives) with their cultivar cousins. I sell both but put them in different parts of the nursery. With few exceptions I don’t sell plants on the invasive species list, not because I was told not to sell but because I didn’t like them and their habits. Each nursery will pick what they want to sell and how they want to sell. Most nurseries will call a native cultivar a native plant. I have picked my battle and they pick their own direction. There is room for both.

Thank you, Ed Lyon for guiding me to these two books. They were not easy reads but I loved the new perspective. I’ll continue my love of plants, finding their beauty, benefits and will use caution in planting some aggressive non-natives and natives.

The two books I mentioned: Where Do Camels Belong, Ken Thompson; The New Wild, Fred Pearce.