No way, pardon the grammar, is this note a scientific paper about native and non-native plants. In fact the post here shows my confusion and ignorance on the topic. I have many questions and few, if any, answers.
There are many schools of thought and argument concerning the definition of what is a native plant and the use of non-natives in landscapes today.
First there are those like myself who believe landscapes should only contain native plants. Within the ‘native’ only group there is a broad range of views, from fundamentalists who critique any use of non-natives as ‘bad’ to those who give lip service to native plant specifications yet don’t worry too much when a non-native (unless the non-native is an invasive) is called for or installed.
Second are those who group native plants with foreign but well-behaved landscape plants. Those who promote ‘Florida Friendly Landscaping’ here in the Sunshine State fall into this group.
Finally there are those who may consider invasive plants as ‘pioneer’ species. Many commercial landscape companies and nurseries as well as farmers and the permaculture movement sometimes make up the majority of what we can call the ‘pioneer’ category.
Really though there are many shades of and combinations to the above plant belief systems.
Not surprisingly, during my life I’ve been a strident follower of each of the above groups at various times.
I’m not sure what I think about the topic today. Except that I love native plants with a passion. Fortunately I have an excuse for not knowing. The older I get the more I believe it is OK not to really know. The older I get the more I believe also that our western logic (thanks to Aristotle, Plato and the other Greek thinkers) may be the root of our confusion about native plants and non-native plants.
In searching for an answer I used to think there had to be an answer.
Now I know there is no answer, only questions. And since I was weary of thinking about all the questions with no answers, I thought I’d share some of those here.
First of all I’ve never been able to be satisfied with a definition of what a native plant actually is. Should the definition be based on science or on a definition based upon popular vote? I can hear the snickering already.
But when I was asked to develop a list of native plants for a Bermuda Green Roof last year, I was awed by the differences in opinions between the ‘native’ islanders and the ‘foreign’ scientists. What many Bermudians called natives were considered ‘adapted’ by foreigners. Who was really right, the natives or the foreigners?
Who decides what definition is correct?
Bermuda originally had zero plants. The island was born of a volcano. Hurricanes, storms, birds, ocean currents and ships have all brought plants to the islands. Where in western logic does one find justification in separating man’s influence as an invalid vector for native consideration?
To many Bermudians, Aloe vera is a native species because as far back as recorded island history reads, the plant has lived across the land. And the plant arrived on the island by boat.
A recent social media post defined native plants as those existing here in Florida before Europeans set foot on the continent. What about other peoples, such as the Kon-Tiki wayfarers or those crossing between Siberia and Alaska carrying seeds of ethnobotanically important species. What is the difference in native status in a plant brought across the Bering Straits or okra seeds smuggled in from Africa during the fifteenth century?
The StAugustine.com note goes on to label non-natives and exotics as those species “introduced deliberately or accidentally from other parts of the world”.
On Bermuda, all plants were introduced accidentally from other parts of the world. I don’t understand where the difference lies in being introduced by the wind, the waves or by humans.
I know corn existed in Florida before the Europeans arrived. Corn and other Poaceae were farmed by the Apalachee, Creek and other tribes. Glad to know corn is a native plant here in Florida.
Since corn is a native then Seminole Pumpkin should also be native. Panfilo de Narvaez, the Spanish explorer wrote about extensive cultivation of Cucurbita moschata in 1528 across Florida.
But some say Seminole Pumpkin is not a native plant. Some say we must go back to before any people inhabited the land to define those plants as genuinely considered to be native to a region. In other words, before the ‘native’ americans existed.
However I can attest that regardless of how native plants are defined, native plants are critically important for many reasons.
First of all native pollinators are attracted to native plants much more so than they are attracted to exotic and foreign plants. This is important because many native pollinators are more efficient at pollination, seemingly because they are hairy and can carry much more pollen around than smooth skinned pollinators such as the paper wasp.
I’ve been meaning to try and figure out how the native pollinators know what is and what isn’t a native plant.
Seriously though, I can drive by a stretch of native Black-eyed Susans or Thistle alongside the road and the butterflies and bees are foraging en masse. Not so on many exotic landscape flowers.
Native wildflowers are critical to another important consideration. Native wildflowers and plants attract and support populations of pollinators. Pollinators are necessary for food production.
Without pollinators food gardens do not produce.
Many times permaculture and food gardeners wonder why their food plants do not produce. Sometimes it is because there is nothing in the garden to attract necessary pollinators.
Native plants and wildflowers in a garden practically ensure a more than adequate number of pollinator visits. The more wildflowers the more food. I’m pretty sure the ‘native’ Americans had this figured out too and that is why they carried seeds of plants from afar wherever they sojourned.
Who is to say what species really existed before the ‘native’ Americans – who themselves were really just visitors from afar who decided to take up residence at some point in time in Florida.
I couldn’t bring myself to tell those Bermudians I was working with that there really were no native plants on the island because they (the island plants) all arrived there intentionally or accidentally.
Unfortunately though our misguided efforts to improve food production, control erosion, create habitat and install landscape beauty has had devastating effects here in Florida.
Brazilian Pepper, Chinese Tallow, Wisteria, Kudzu, Melaleuca, Australian Pine, Air Potato, Elodea and other agriculturally and culturally important plants have turned out to possess Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde type characteristics, some destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of native habitat.
Out of control plant populations create monocultures, choking out communities of native plants and wildflowers. Sadly many of these monster plants do not attract or feed pollinators. Some in fact encourage larger, aggressive insects who are predatory of native pollinators.
Direct links of reduced food production and native pollinator populations can be attributed to monocultures of exotic plants.
Permaculture and agriculture interests sometimes like to refer to those plant species I’d refer to as either invasive or noxious as ‘pioneer’.
Now there are many permaculture and food farmers who appreciate the value of native plants, especially from the pollinator perspective. Abundant plantings of natives and wildflowers can improve farming’s bottom line with a more robust food quantity and quality result.
Yet as in religion and politics it is the extreme fundamentalists one way or the other who are the most hypocritical.
I am worn with the two-facedness of those who would decry all planting anything but an ill-defined native plant. For it is many of them who are the biggest fast food junkies or those supporting industrialized agriculture with their upscale grocery store buying sprees.
From what I’ve seen, it is the privileged few who promote strict native plant use in landscapes. Those hungry will plant any plant so long as it feeds their family.
On the other hand, there are the dedicated foodies who will plant kudzu or Moringa oleifera for nutritional value while ignoring the detrimental monoculture impacts.
Yet as food crises reach critical proportions society may have to turn to potentially invasive plants for nutrition.
And though we’ve only raised a handful of questions about the ‘native plant dilemma’ there are many more waiting to be answered. Add those to the still unanswered questions from above.
Sure there will be those who shake their heads and say ‘science knows best’. I say their western logic is only but one way of viewing the issue.
One of my favorite ethnobotanists is Lydia Cabrera. Her work, El Monte, is a must read for anyone interested in plant diaspora. I love her suggestion of there being more spirits in the plants than in the heavens.
If we take off our western logical reasoning habits engrained into our thoughts from birth and think of plants as inextricably interwoven into the human existence then we can forget about the timelines of when Europeans arrived.
When we look at our relationships with plants as an eternal dance, one based on two sets of codependent complicated organisms then maybe aloes are truly native to Bermudians and corn to Floridians.
In the end, those who argue over semantics will be forgotten.
Those who embrace all plants in a manner of practical stewardship will ultimately be evolutionary survivors.
And when someone really figures out what a native plant is, please let me know – as long as the definition is not consistent with Avicennism logic, for that is Greek to me.
© 2012, Kevin Songer. All rights reserved. This article is the property of Native Plants and Wildlife Gardens. If you are reading this at another site, please report that to us
About Kevin Songer
Kevin, Thanks for posting such a thought-provoking read. Like you, I struggle with the definition of native and feel we’ll never really have a true definition, in part because there probably isn’t one that will satisfy everyone. But I’m OK with that. Your use of the Bermuda native plant listissue really helps to illustrate the inherent probem with defining what’s native to where.
Debbie recently posted..Garden Designers Roundtable ~ Designing with Native Plants
Hi Debbie: Thank you for your reply. We may never have a consistently accurate definition of a native plant – but that is OK I think. Change is the only certainty I know.
Great post. I, too, am a huge fan of native plants. Here in Michigan, we define native as those plants that were here before European settlement. I hope native plant discussions can move along the same lines as a ‘society’ like the Rose Society and the Hosta Society where people with like passions can meet and talk and learn. I hope the native and non-native camps don’t turn into political entities. For me, I’m just happy to walk through my garden of native and nonnative plants and enjoy the wildlife.
Mary Pellerito recently posted..In Praise Of Goldenrod
Thank you, Mary. I love the society comment and yes, this is the way natives should be treated. Beauty rather than belligerence.
Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate the article and believe your questions are fair and necessary. When I think of my own definition of native plants, I think about those that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years in a particular area… that are well suited to survive here… Of course, as you point out – evolution doesn’t stop; it continues on. The newer plants may seem to be late to the party, but perhaps they are just in a different part of the process? At this point in my own personal evolution, I find myself a fan of natives because they are most likely to survive Central Texas’ wildly fluctuating climate and ecosystem, because they support the animals, birds, and insects of the region, and because they provide for a habitat that I am born of and that I love. This ecosystem is “home” to me. My main concern regarding non-natives are those that are invasive and create monocultures as you describe. I’m a believer in the benefits, safety, and beauty of diversity, and seek balance in my surroundings. Can’t say that I’m right, can’t say that I’m wrong. But I do wish to remain inquisitive on the matter and believe that being open to questions such as yours is the state of mind I like to cultivate.
Teresa: Inquisitiveness helps keep our minds strong and leads humanity into the future. A good balance as you state is the safest approach in my opinion. And yes, natives are so very important!
Kevin/Judy
Thank you for all you do. I love your daily tweets and your posts. Please come by the studio and visit. I enjoyed this article. Don’t you think it all boils down to attitude?
jim
Jim – I share your idea about all that matters is attitude and spirit! I can’t wait for your exhibit in Cummer Museum & especially am grateful for your work on Florida native ecosystems in paint
There are so many exciting ideas floating around about our need to arrive at sustainable systems.
I think that the world is ready for new ways of thinking. Thank you for leading the charge and inspiring a host of converts.
JIm
Great post! I personally think that the main concerns shared by all these folks are (1) avoiding invasive plants (native or non-native) and (2) determining what plants the wildlife needs. After all, the real idea behind planting natives is to have plants that (1) thrive in a specific physical environment (certain amounts of water, wind, sun, length of growing season, and such) and (2) will be used as food or shelter by wildlife.
It doesn’t take long for animals to find good nesting sites…those are usually transient and they’re looking for certain physical traits (e.g., birds nesting under multiflora roses). Berry- or nut-eaters, however, would be more closely tied to specific plants because they have certain nutritional requirements. Pollinators are also closely tied to specific plant species (e.g., the Monarch butterfly’s caterpillars must have milkweed). So the real question is how long does it take for these animals to adapt to a new plant species? 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? That would seem to me a better definition for what is or is not native than an arbitrary (and stationary) point in time like “when English settlers arrived”.
I really like your very practical take on the subject! Truthfully, it’s only we humans, with our need to neatly categorize everything, that worry about a distinction like native or non-native. However, I do think it’s well worth worrying about how much life a plant species supports or doesn’t support, since plants are the basis of the food chain.
Gaia gardener recently posted..The Dread Beetle Japanese
Kevin – In CT we’ve had 10,000 to 13,000 years since the last Ice Age for our returning flora and fauna to form a co-dependent, co-evolved community. We don’t have the diversity of the tropics but we do have some wonderful specialized plants and animals.
Thinking about Bermuda, how long has it been since the volcano cooled off and life began arriving by water, bird, wind, etc.?
That is a long time, Sue. I can’t even begin to fathom 10,000 years, But in the eye of history, 10,000 years may be just a blink.
Good post, Kevin. I love native plants because “they belong.” They are the plants that are the natural part of the ecosystem I happen to be in & the wildlife & pollinators seem to agree with that.
There are many plants, though as you say, that have just simply been around for your whole life & you may feel they belong.. For those, can’t we just say “naturalized”? And let them be, as long as they are not causing problems?
One of my favorite “naturalized” plants is the Aloe. The hummingbirds love them too.
Kathy @nativegardener recently posted..Where To Go To See Native Plants in California?
I can ‘dig’ this definition, Kathy! I love it. My new definition of a native plant is “they belong” . “They belong” satisfies my need to break away from western straight line thought. Thank you for the thought!
Interesting post as I struggle with the definition…I find I can tell you what is invasive though…I worry about them more as they choke out the natives that the wildlife needs…I have come to love natives and so do the critters in the garden and surrounding habitat…they seem to be able to survive this crazy weather we are having and yes I believe my plants and garden have a soul..it is where I rediscovered mine! Oh the lessons they teach us.
Donna@Gardens Eye View recently posted..Simply The Best-August
Hi Kevin,
As you know, I am all Florida native plants moving forward but I’m not pulling out my established landscaped offerings just yet.
Something I have pondered for a while. If native is defined as what was here before the old world people showed up, was it that the first arrival went around and immediately documented what (s)he found and wrote it down for posterity? and then sat at the docks waiting to see what was brought in?
I’m kidding of course, but does make you wonder, doesn’t it?
Loret recently posted..Wainin’ Wabbits?
To me, the point is to work toward the re-knitting of nature’s dense weaves (ecosystems) disrupted through human actions. Clearly, we all have our own ways of comprehending what is important here. Adhering strictly to policy definitions instead of keeping to the heart of the matter is bound to not work in some situations. We should continue to seek policy language resilience. That way we retain useful results and foster ever-deepening understanding. Is it time to find a better term than native?
A thought-provoking article, full of good points, from which we can draw the following inferences:
(1) What is considered native or non-native depends upon the timeline of reference. Pre-Columbian? Before the human invasion of the Americas? Pre human evolution? Another example that illusstrates this point, in addition to Bermuda, is the coconut palm, today present on virtually all tropical shores. Although the fruit can float for long periods and wash up on a foreign shore with a still-viable seed, it is quite probable that humans carried it to new places as they migrated around. How can we know which populations of coconut are “native” and which are “exotic?” If we go back far enough, virtually every species everywhere is “exotic,” since it proibably evolved in a relatively restricted, ixsolated area and then spread outward and was “introduced” elsewhere. What is important is not our definition of “native,” but what we do to control and prevent the introduction and proiliferation of those “thug” species that tend to cause massive harm to managed ecosystems, or wipe out natural ones.
(2) Only an idiot or a flat-earth advocate would deny that there is an invasive species problem, and that we should deal with it as best we can. Most modern invasive species were transported to their new homes, where they became invasive, by humans, but during the geological past invasions probably occurred many times, without human assistance, but with similar results. When North and South America were joined, for example, the energetically more efficient placental mammals from North America invaded South America and replaced its marsupial fauna. Now, placental mammals are considered native in SA, and not invasive.
(3) When I was a schoolboy, the term “balance of nature” was discussed and touted as a “good” thing. I accepted the “good” label but, at the time, had no clear idea of what it really meant, and my teachers simply became impatient or scolded me for being stupid when I asked questions about it. The recent furor about invasive species has made me think about the concept once more. Something is clearly out of balance in acres of ground drowning in a sea of kudzu, yet … is it really? By natural selection, native species will, given enough time (i.e. millions of years), co-evolve with kudzu so that in time they will “learn” to eat it, and pathogens will co-evolve that are able to attack it. Then kudzu will become a well-behaved species which knows its place in the ecosystem, ands the “balance” will be restored.
(4) The invasive species “community” used to consider all “exotics” to be “invasive,” including that blue spiruce that I would like to plant in front of the dream house that I will never have. I am glad that we are now getting away from that concept. Our policy should be to acvoid the introduction of any new exotics on the chance that they might become invasive, but not worry about those that are already here and have proven themselves to be well-behaved citizens of the ecosystem.
(5) It may be that in some not-too-distant but inevitable future, biological communites throughout simiilar climatic zoness worldwide will be much more homogeneous than today, with greatly reduced sets of species. Let’s try to preserve maximum biodiversity as long as possible, but it may be a losing battle in the long run.
More on this subject here: http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/what-is-native-what-is-not-when-does-it-matter/
Beatriz Moisset recently posted..Moths as Pollinators