Gosh, the weather has been dreary, cold, uninviting. If you've read any of my other wintertime blogs, you already know that I do not enjoy staying inside. In fact, it makes me downright crabby. I have decided to put this contrary behavior to use in the coming weeks, and thereby wade through the bad weather while doing something constructive.
Here's the deal. I've been reading and hearing about all the "green" initiatives in the marketplace, and I am becoming skeptical. Don't get me wrong.....I am all for clean water, clean air, or the efficient use of energy and food. But maybe you'll agree with me. The marketing for "green" has gotten a bit out of hand. In the coming weeks, I plan to educate myself on some of the terminology and concepts in the current wave of green, and I invite you to follow along, and maybe add your own commentary to the educational process. I would like to sweep away (to use an agricultural analogy) the wheat from the chaff in order to identify what is useful and practical in the green movement, and what is the branding equivalent of "low fat" or "low in sugar". (You know.....the boxes that are all colored green.)
The first term I want to tackle is "NATIVE PLANT". I am confused by the enthusiasm of gardeners who want to use only "native plants" in their landscapes, but are simultaneously unable to define the term. I am annoyed by the proliferation of classes and books from experts on on"native plants" without a hint of their underlying theories, bias, or assumptions . As I continue to research this, I find I am not the only one! The fact of the matter is that this subject- even its definition- is a complicated one that deserves more thought and effort than one might get in a simple sound bite.
Let me show you what I mean.
From The Garden Helper
Any plant that occurs and grows naturally in a specific region or locality
Sorry- too vague. One is left trying to define practically each word in that sentence.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Native plant is a term to describe plants endemic (indigenous) or naturalized to a given area in geologic time. or......
US Fish and Wildlife Service:
With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred, or currently occurs in that ecosystem .
Those seems like a reasonable definitions. Oh, wait......except for that "naturalized" or "introduced"part. To be true, this definition includes plants that have evolved and remained in one place, or have come from or been purposefully put other places over time and have become naturalized. Hmmmmm.
Here's a new twist......A plant that lives or grows naturally in a particular region without direct or indirect human intervention (USDA and (US National Arboretum)
or this from Andrea De-Long Amaya at the Lady Bird Wildflower Center : One that exists in a given region through non-human introduction, directly or indirectly.
Apparently some believe that it is humans that contaminate "nativity". Does that mean that those who rule out human intervention or introduction consider humans outside the realm of nature? Other variations on that same theme come from a wide range of places:
A native plant species is one "that occurs naturally in a particular region, state, ecosystem, and habitat without direct or indirect human actions" (Federal Native Plant Conservation Committee, 1994) A native plant, within a specified geographical region of interest, is a plant species (or other plant taxon) currently or historically present there without direct or indirect human intervention. (Larry Morse, L.E.M. Natural Diversity) Any plant which is a member of a species which was present at a given site prior to European contact (California Native Plant Society)
So, to recap, we have plants that may or may not be from one location, may or may not have had human intervention, may or may not be a member of a region, state, habitat or ecosystem, and may have time constraints ranging from geologic time to the European exploration of the 16th century. Now do you see why I am confused?? Each of these definitions carries both implications and possible points of action. It is not enough to use the words without knowing what you mean by them. I am also working on digesting Bringing Nature Home, the very popular book by Douglas Tallamy that advocates planting native plants (his definition is even more complicated than those seen above). We'll need to talk about insects, birds, disease, competition for resources and other variables before it is all over.
To be perfectly honest, I grow good ornamental plants, both native and non-native. Some of my very favorite plants- ones that I have raved about on these very pages- are "aliens". This is my bias. Some part of me resents feeling pressured to choose against plants I think are well adapted to southeastern conditions. But this much is clear to me right now. I might have a bias, but others do as well. The culture of green has encouraged a marketing scheme about how to sell certain plants. Those customers who buy into this strategy seem to purchase both actual plants and a sense of "ethical consumption". This may be a very complicated "chicken or egg" problem. I am just trying to figure out what comes first.....an understanding of eco-system implications..... or a politically correct pat on the back.
Michael Pollan has done an excellent job of tackling some of these bigger issues, especially when it comes to horticulture and gardening. I like his point of view right now, and would like to hold on to it as I continue to explore the topic:
Native plant is a term to describe plants endemic (indigenous) or naturalized to a given area in geologic time. or......
US Fish and Wildlife Service:
With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred, or currently occurs in that ecosystem .
Those seems like a reasonable definitions. Oh, wait......except for that "naturalized" or "introduced"part. To be true, this definition includes plants that have evolved and remained in one place, or have come from or been purposefully put other places over time and have become naturalized. Hmmmmm.
Here's a new twist......A plant that lives or grows naturally in a particular region without direct or indirect human intervention (USDA and (US National Arboretum)
or this from Andrea De-Long Amaya at the Lady Bird Wildflower Center : One that exists in a given region through non-human introduction, directly or indirectly.
Apparently some believe that it is humans that contaminate "nativity". Does that mean that those who rule out human intervention or introduction consider humans outside the realm of nature? Other variations on that same theme come from a wide range of places:
A native plant species is one "that occurs naturally in a particular region, state, ecosystem, and habitat without direct or indirect human actions" (Federal Native Plant Conservation Committee, 1994) A native plant, within a specified geographical region of interest, is a plant species (or other plant taxon) currently or historically present there without direct or indirect human intervention. (Larry Morse, L.E.M. Natural Diversity) Any plant which is a member of a species which was present at a given site prior to European contact (California Native Plant Society)
So, to recap, we have plants that may or may not be from one location, may or may not have had human intervention, may or may not be a member of a region, state, habitat or ecosystem, and may have time constraints ranging from geologic time to the European exploration of the 16th century. Now do you see why I am confused?? Each of these definitions carries both implications and possible points of action. It is not enough to use the words without knowing what you mean by them. I am also working on digesting Bringing Nature Home, the very popular book by Douglas Tallamy that advocates planting native plants (his definition is even more complicated than those seen above). We'll need to talk about insects, birds, disease, competition for resources and other variables before it is all over.
To be perfectly honest, I grow good ornamental plants, both native and non-native. Some of my very favorite plants- ones that I have raved about on these very pages- are "aliens". This is my bias. Some part of me resents feeling pressured to choose against plants I think are well adapted to southeastern conditions. But this much is clear to me right now. I might have a bias, but others do as well. The culture of green has encouraged a marketing scheme about how to sell certain plants. Those customers who buy into this strategy seem to purchase both actual plants and a sense of "ethical consumption". This may be a very complicated "chicken or egg" problem. I am just trying to figure out what comes first.....an understanding of eco-system implications..... or a politically correct pat on the back.
Michael Pollan has done an excellent job of tackling some of these bigger issues, especially when it comes to horticulture and gardening. I like his point of view right now, and would like to hold on to it as I continue to explore the topic:
"We are at once the problem and the only possible solution to the problem" *Second Nature: A Gardener's Education
I wonder what you think?
Posts
+viburnums+084.jpg)