Border War Over Natives Vs. Exotics

THE HORTICULTURAL world is having its own debate over immigration, with some environmentalists warning about the dangers of so-called exotic plants from other countries and continents "invading" American gardens.

These botanical xenophobes say that a pristine natural state exists in our yards and that to disturb it is both sinful and calamitous. In their view, exotic plants will swallow your garden, your neighbors' gardens and your neighbors' neighbors' gardens until the ecosystem collapses under their rampant suffocating growth.

If anything suffocates us, though, it will be the environmentalists' narrowmindedness. Like all utopian visions, their dream beckons us into a perfect and rational natural world where nothing ever changes — a world that never existed and never will.

Native plants are the survivalists of the botanical world, and in the appropriate settings — wilderness areas, home and botanical gardens, public parks and sidewalks — they bless us with their beauty and awe us with their tenacity. Our lives would be poor and grim without the strawberry, cranberry, columbine and trillium. They've always been here, in the same way that Native Americans have been; only their arrival and settlement are more ancient.

Their presence illustrates a geologic time, about 8,000 years ago, when the glaciers receded and unimaginably vast deluges swallowed the surface of the future United States — an airplane ride over the Midwest reveals enormous lakes formed by even larger melted ice masses. As the landscape changed, the botanical world sorted itself out, leaving us with the hardy "natives." (It should be noted, though, that many plants now considered natives — like sycamores, magnolias and cinnamon — arrived from other continents, just as we did. They are products of adaptation.)

Like human survivalists, natives are also subject to exploitation by the horticultural equivalent of radical fundamentalists. The anti-exotics argue that gardens should be populated exclusively by native plants, as if the exotics were trying to enter the flower bed illegally. The consequences of such a stand could be dire. Should we eat no onions or garlic, apples or lemons; feast our eyes on no magnificent tulips or roses — all exotics of Eurasian origin? Should Asians not enjoy their distinctive peppers, tomatoes, beans, squash, sunflowers and corn — all from the Americas?

Indeed, the world's most popular root crop, potatoes, started life as a staple of the Andean people and achieved its first international fame as a slave food. By the time it reached France, the "earth apple" was a delicacy likened to truffles; their flowers were featured in tiaras of court ladies. Exotic indeed.

Should we deprive ourselves of petunias, begonias, impatiens and hollyhocks — not a one of them "native"? Must we, on pain of being cast out of the garden as horticultural pariahs, deny the elephant his peanuts? This wouldn't be merely ridiculous. It would compare with the denial of human immigration on grounds that certain ethnic groups breed in numbers "too prolific" for the existing elite to tolerate. Imagine, then, a horticultural ruling class. No "invasives" need apply: let the lily find another valley. Such prohibitions of exotic plant species demonstrate only an elitist snobbery that is as dangerous to a free society as it is to a free botany.

No one, and certainly no gardener, grows truly destructive invasive plants in his garden. The devastating kudzu in the South, star thistle in the West and purple loosestrife in the East were accidental introductions from Asia, most often mixed with the feed and bedding of livestock. Yet the pro-native, anti-exotic partisans also wish us to stop enjoying the charms of harmless and beautiful plants like Queen Anne's lace, yarrow and chicory. Aside from requiring a bit of weeding, exotics are safe as milk, unless one considers gardening a chore rather than a passionate hobby. If so, forget the forget-me-nots.

Let's welcome, as spring arrives tomorrow, as many huddled masses of flowers, herbs and vegetables as can fit in our unique melting pot of a nation, unrivaled in its tradition of lush diversity and freedom to grow rampantly.

George Ball
Former President, American Horticultural Society
President, W.Atlee Burpee & Co.
Warminster, PA

EDITOR’S NOTE:  I sure don't agree with Ball.  What do you think about this controversial subject?  Let’s hear from you. Click on "Comments" and add your voice to the discussion.

Comments

[Marina Tidwell]

Hi George,
I take umbrage with your characterization of native-plant advocates as "botanical xenophobes"! You claim to be for plant diversity, but since so many folks, in every part of the nation, plant whatever-the-nationwide-big-box-has-to-offer, diversity is just what we DON'T have!

Currently I'm working with a Los Angeles neighborhood beautification project to reintroduce native plants along La Ballona Creek. Many people on the project were against this because they had very little contact with native plants -- except weeds and cacti, perhaps -- and did not know how beautiful many are.

Our group doesn't have a lot of experts in native plants (and I'm no expert either!) but I volunteered to research coastal sage scrub, Los Angeles Basin native flowers, trees and shrubs. I'm very proud to say what a wonderful, eye-opening experience this has been. Even in the harsh and urbanized habitat in which we Angelenos live, there are many spectacular plants -- hardy ceanothus, western red bud, buckwheats, penstemons, native fuchsia and California rose, to name a few – that are specifically adapted to our dry, hot weather and lack of seasons. They need less water and less soil amending in order to thrive, than do non-native plants – AND they offer native wildlife such as small mammals, reptiles, insects, birds the kind of shelter and food that non-natives cannot. What’s not to love about that?

Over the course of this nation's history we have systematically paved over huge tracts of land, plopped down hundreds of millions of houses, and then planted . . .lawn. Now don't get me wrong, I love grass, tulips, forget-me-nots, and a whole lot of other non-natives, too, and I don't advocate ridding our nation of them. That's not realistic or even feasible. But I decry the homogenization of the American landscape! I prefer to celebrate the unique native plants of each area, and to encourage their re-spread through education and community projects.

Big-box stores, local nurseries, and seed companies can help by offering more native plants and seedlings. Support from respected individuals such as yourself would be great, too!

Sincerely,
Marina Tidwell

[Marlene A. Condon]

I agree to a certain extent with George Ball. Many naturalized plants are able to grow in poor soil conditions and, indeed, that is why they seem to be "invasive". Without them, our roadsides and "reclaimed" lands would be rather barren as many native plants thrive only in more-fertile topsoils, not the subsoils exposed by roadcutting, etc.
Additionally, most (if not all) of these nonnative plants are extremely useful to wildlife, despite urban myth to the contrary. Thus we should allow Chicory, etc. to grow (unless they are threatening rare species in a special area) for the benefit of our wildlife that is losing ground every day.
Around the numerous new homes being built, the soil is poor. I would prefer to see nonnative but useful-to-wildlife plants growing than people wasting time and money attempting to grow native plants that will only do poorly and probably die. Sickly plants are of limited value to wildlife; only scavengers (such as snails and slugs) whose function is to recycle such plants will come to them. Sadly, they will then be killed by gardeners thinking they need to protect their plants.
There is no valid reason to try to eliminate all nonnative plants from our immediate environment. Native plants will move in or can be brought in after several years when the soil has improved enough to support them well. Until then, we and our wildlife should enjoy the naturalized plants that are here while avoiding bringing in yet more such species (such as Butterfly Bush).

[Jack Lewnes]

Mr.Ball,
In response to your extraordinarily well-written piece I'd like to offer a few comments from a guy that is on your mailing list.

I've never planted a petunia or a pansy. I have, however planted 2,600 Loblolly Pines...one by one.They are now over seventy feet tall.

I have never planted a tulip or a marigold. Last year I planted sixty Persimmon trees...one foot, bare rooted.

On the advice of the local forestry service, I planted seventy Autumn Olive in 1979. This is the plague of which we speak!

The key word, Mr. Ball, is, of course, invasive.

From your point of view, as a plant and seed merchant, I understand your antagonism towards those that would seek to limit your market. From the point of view of the folks, like me, that are trying to maintain their small and personally precious pieces of what is left of undeveloped land, I would ask your respect and understanding.

We are the lovers of green things. We are not fanatics. We have simply learned that we have to wage war on invasives. We plant. We nurture. We wallow in the beauty and fruitfulness.

[Tim Flanigan]

Mr. Ball is RIGHT ON!!! As a wildlife professional (retired), a hunter, photographer and naturalists, I’ve observed the natural world from an up close and personal perspective for many years. Believe me; wildlife does not exhibit the elitism and snobbery toward the dreaded “Invasives” as do a growing number of humans who seem to need something to discriminate against. Such environmental snobbery is currently in vogue, but it is in reality a form of willful, ignorance that seems to provide a source of elevation to environmental elitist who can’t see the forest for their prejudicial trees. Ask the wild turkeys, grouse and songbirds if they’d like to be without the tasty seeds of the Garlic Mustard that they relish. Pardon the pun.

[Jack Lewnes]

My dear Mr. Flanagan,

Your comments continually interest me. You seem to be constantly on the attack. I am curious to know if you have sought any professional help for these hallucinations of your being the re-incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt, John Wayne, Chesty Puller, John James Audubon, Lewis and Clark, Daniel Boone, Johnny Appleseed...all wrapped up in an Archie Bunker?

[JanetT]

Please pay attention to the tone of the original post and all replies. Mr. Ball and Mr. Flanigan chose to attack and call people names. The others chose to be kind and respectful. I can somewhat understand Mr. Ball, as he is a seed seller. Mr. Flanigan, however...
Mr. Ball claimed that no one knowingly grows truly invasive plants in his garden. So not true! Out here in California, invasives such as Pampas Grass and Scotch Broom are still being sold and planted. The pampas can take over wetlands and be a bear to remove. Yet people like its pretty plumes. I did too, until I learned. No, I don't want to get rid of all non-natives. Many are great as habitat and make peaceful neighbors. How about being more peaceful with your fellow wildlife lovers, guys?

[David Bruce Leonard]

Mr. Ball's article is ludicrous. Obviously his need to line his pockets from the potential destruction of ecosystems has driven him to call us "xenophobes". It's kind of like tobacco companies claiming that the anti-smoking movement is a bunch of utopian dreamers, while they fill their coffers from the death and illness that they help to create.

Cute little plants are not the issue, the issue is the integrity of ecosystems. It's not about good and bad plants, it's about a plant that is out of place. Some plants can be very destructive to an ecosystem and destroy it as quickly as a three pack a day habit can destroy a good set of lungs.

At issue is the speed at which an ecosystem can handle the onslaught of invasive species. No one is against agriculture, nor is anyone against non-invasive agricultural or ornamental plants. What we are trying to do is preserve what little is left of intact native ecosystems.

This is so obvious that I have to wonder about those who seem blind or callous to environmental destruction. Do they not understand the interconnectedness of things, or are they just too busy making money to care?

[Weed Warrior NE]

Balls article was poor and un-researched. The use of words like invasive was poor. What will our future look like if we let invasives go like thistles?...I can tell you. We will end up have fields of purple flowers around lakes with on ability to fish, hunt, or put a boat in. No wildlife will enjoy the lake since they cannot nest around the monoculture vegetation.

Some of the comments astonished me. Let us plant some of these invasive weeds such as phragmites and even better yet, let him grow dandelions in his yard and water and nurse them. The whole article written by Ball was out of context on meanings. He used words like invasive to mean all non native. Not all non native plants are invasive! I for one love to hunt and fish and take pictures of wildlife/flowers. Those others are people who love their gardens and do not understand what Invasives truly are. As for the comments on wildlife, nay invasives have seeds that wildlife likes. However what if that is all there is, what if they move out of the area due to poor nesting, what if garlic mustard destroyed their nesting...my response is why find out, we know garlic mustard is highly invasive in tree understories and no part of a healthy ecosystem and biodiversity which in all cases wildlife thrives best in.

Just my 2cents from someone who fights invasives each year and sees the real impact.

[Jack Lewnes]

Thanks, Janet and Dave for the well-written and knowledgeable comments. I hope you will continue to contribute.

I feel a bit of remorse for my reply to Mr. Anderson.
I apologize to Mr. Anderson and to all and I'll try to refrain from similar expressions in the future.

[Larry O'Donnell]

Mr. Ball is being deliberately obtuse. The problem is with "Invasive Plants". Not all non-natives are invasive. More than a few are. English Ivy, Kudzu, purple loostrife, japenese honeysuckle and asian bush honeysuckle, russian olive, canadian thistle are some of these. As a rule any non native plant that produces berries and is listed as hardy and easy to grow should be avoided. Wildlife will and do eat these berries and deposit the seed throught the landscape. The problem with non native invasive plants is their ability to "crowd out" the natives and decrease biodiversity throught the landscape. It is iresponsible to promote montary gain over the preservation of our Natural Heritage. There are many non native species that work well in our gardens and do not adversley affect areas outside of where they were planted. When purchasing plants, their potential effect on the ecosystem should always be considered.

[hoaklycroro]

Hello I am a soviet that I called on this site I very like here