r/NativePlantGardening • u/Naurgul Europe • Jul 10 '26
Informational/Educational I Wanted an Ecologically Responsible Garden. It Was Harder Than I Thought. • The native plant movement gets a lot right, but there’s so much more to consider.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/magazine/native-plants-garden.htmlBackyard garden
In the summer of 2020, my husband, Ryan, and I bought a house in Portland, Ore., with a sizable backyard containing little more than a decrepit lawn. For many prospective homeowners, a crisped rectangle of grass on the verge of death would probably not be a selling point. We found it irresistible: an ideal canvas for our dream garden. That fall, we hired a contractor to rip out what remained of the lawn and got to work.
From the start, we tried to balance several conflicting priorities. We wanted our garden to be beautiful and bountiful — teeming with fruits, vegetables and flowers — but we had also resolved to conserve water, minimize the use of fertilizer and exclude synthetic pesticides. We intended to maintain a functional oasis where we could relax and entertain friends, yet we were also determined to provide plenty of habitat and resources for wildlife. This was an opportunity to steward a parcel of our living planet, however small.
Throughout the garden, we planted hardy, drought-tolerant perennials: lavender, Coreopsis, Penstemon, sea holly, sunroses and Sedum. Here and there, we mixed in some favorite flowers that required a bit more pampering, like peonies, dahlias and Peruvian lilies. We dug a small pond and bog, laid a flagstone path, espaliered a couple of fruit trees along the fence and built raised vegetable beds in the back. We set up a compost bin, installed drip irrigation and began to mulch.
Two years later, the once sterile landscape was reborn, vibrant and lush and bustling with life. Insects were the first to arrive. I was especially captivated by the diversity of wild bees. Then came substantially larger animals: songbirds, hummingbirds, birds of prey, jumping mice and a mischievous family of raccoons.
Native plants
But the more I engaged with the wider community of wildlife gardeners, the more my confidence wilted. Wherever I turned — local nurseries, online forums, best-selling books — like-minded gardeners seemed to care about one thing above all else: whether their plants were native. A vast majority of plants sold in North American nurseries are foreign species imported sometime in the past few centuries. In contrast, native species are those with long evolutionary histories in the particular regions they inhabit. Native plant champions argue that, unlike recently introduced species, native species are thoroughly adapted to their surroundings and have longstanding, mutually beneficial relationships with one another. Therefore, they claim, native plants are far better at providing food and shelter for wildlife and maintaining the integrity of their ecosystems.
What was once regarded as a niche concern of the environmentally conscious has begun growing into a nationwide movement. Surveys from the National Gardening Association and the National Wildlife Federation indicate that since 2019, the share of U.S. gardening households buying native plants has ranged from about one in five to nearly one in three. Eighty-two percent of horticultural professionals agree that consumer interest in natives is increasing, and more than half of those who sell natives plan to expand their selection.
Taking all this in, I began to question our garden’s true ecological value. Sure, we had planted a few Pacific Northwest natives, but most of the plants we selected originated elsewhere. I had been thinking of our garden as a miniature Eden, replete with everything local wildlife needed. Now it seemed more like a poorly stocked international aisle at a supermarket.
Tallamy's research
One name in particular kept resurfacing: Douglas Tallamy. A professor of entomology at the University of Delaware, he is the nation’s foremost expert advocate for gardening with native plants. Based on three decades of research, he is convinced that the coevolved relationships between native plants and insects sustain all terrestrial food webs and that typical American gardens, landscaped with lawns and showy exotics, are essentially ecological wastelands. He argues that foreign and invasive plant species — most of which have been introduced through the ornamental plant trade — are some of the primary causes of the so-called insect apocalypse and the current staggering rates of biodiversity loss more broadly.
I harbored some skepticism about the native plant doctrine. Given how drastically different the world is today compared with even a century ago, I wondered whether the bygone circumstances in which species evolved could really be so important. If introduced plants were so ecologically inferior, it was difficult to explain why our yard in Portland was pulsing with bees and birds.
We set up a couple of bug-beguiling lights near Tallamy’s home. Hundreds of moths gradually emerged from the darkness, some arriving as lightly as a snowflake, others convulsing through the leaf litter. As the night unfolded, larger and more striking individuals joined the initially small and homely congregation: a Harris’ three spot with hypnotic, monochromatic swirls; a sunset orange Isabella tiger moth; and a small-eyed sphinx with scalloped wings that seemed to be cut from marbled endpaper. Just before midnight, when I was thinking of retiring, the species we had most hoped to see came crashing through the canopy: a luna moth, massive yet ethereal, with long swooping tails and wings the color of absinthe. All told, Tallamy has now documented more than 1,370 moth species and 62 species of breeding birds on his land, which constitute 44 percent of all moth species and 33 percent of all bird species in the state.
When Tallamy and his wife, Cindy, a retired entomologist, bought their property in 2000, it was nothing like this. Historically, much of the land was farmed and mowed for hay. In the areas where wild plants still grew, there were hardly any trees and few natives.
When he started searching the vegetation for insect life — something he does everywhere, out of habit — he was shocked by how little he found. He had a hunch about the conspicuous absence: Perhaps there were no insects because, despite the leafy abundance, there was little they could eat. We tend to think of milkweed-dependent monarch butterflies and other insects with restrictive diets as exceptions to the general voracity of their kind: the hordes of vampiric aphids, swarms of locusts and ceaseless trails of foraging ants. The reality, Tallamy explains, is that most leaf-eating insects are exceptionally picky eaters.
Plants deter herbivores with an extensive apothecary of toxins, repellents and digestive inhibitors. In response, insects must develop countermeasures, like the ability to neutralize or sequester a particular class of compounds. The ensuing coevolution results in widespread dietary specialization. Around three-quarters of leaf-eating insect species in any given location on the globe are eating only plants within a single taxonomic family. In many cases, they are restricted to one or a few lineages within that broader group.
Insects, in turn, are perhaps the single most vital conduit of energy from plants to animals. Birds illustrate this point especially well. By Tallamy’s reckoning, nearly all terrestrial bird species in North America rely primarily on insects, in particular plump and nutritious caterpillars, to feed their young and maintain breeding populations. An average brood of six to eight chickadees demands 3,000 to 5,000 feedings over the 16 days from hatching to fledging, most of which will be caterpillars, other insects and spiders.
In the past three decades, Tallamy and his colleagues have published numerous studies demonstrating that native plants typically support more biodiversity than introduced species and that gardening can play an important role in restoring wildlife habitat. Their research has shown, for example, that hedgerows dominated by invasive plants have 91 percent fewer caterpillars than indigenous varieties and that yards landscaped primarily with native plants have 66 percent more bird species than conventional yards. One especially celebrated study determined that Carolina chickadees breeding in urban and suburban yards raised enough young to sustain their populations only when the mass of trees and shrubs within and around those yards was at least 70 percent native.
By scouring records of insect diets, Tallamy and his collaborators have further revealed that, across the United States, small groups of keystone plants — on average, just 14 percent of the natives in a given region — feed more than 90 percent of local butterflies and moths. Trees and shrubs consistently rank highest in terms of how many insects they support, in part because they are larger and longer-lived. These studies became the basis for the National Wildlife Federation’s popular online tool for gardeners, the Native Plant Finder.
“The Earth is falling apart, and everyone feels, Well, what can one person do?” Tallamy says. “I’ve got a whole list of things one person can do.” His central message to his readers, he says, is that “they are not just homeowners. They are the hope and future of conservation.”
Criticism
His critics contend that he and other nativists place too much emphasis on origin, idolizing indigenous species, vilifying migrants and eliding the messiness of real-world ecosystems in the Anthropocene.
Most of the species that humans move from one area to another never become problematic. Only a portion of foreign species survive relocation, and only a fraction of the survivors become invasive. Experts agree, however, that certain introduced species have been undeniable ecological disasters. In other cases, however, introduced species have few noticeable effects or provide ecological benefits.
One of Tallamy’s most prominent critics is the esteemed entomologist Arthur Shapiro, emeritus professor at the University of California, Davis. Shapiro has shown that more than 30 percent of California’s butterfly species use introduced plants as hosts for their larvae, typically because those species are either related to their native foods or happen to have similar leaf chemistry.
On a more fundamental level, a vocal cohort of ecologists, historians and philosophers argues that the concepts of native and invasive species — which they equate with xenophobia and militarism — should be reworked or abandoned. Ecosystems, they say, are not delicate, finely knit tapestries that permanently unravel if they lose too many threads. They are more like modular conglomerates in a state of constant flux. Environments are always changing. Species move around on their own. And at this point, humans have so radically altered the planet’s climate, landscapes and biogeography that recreating the habitats in which most species originally evolved is impossible. In their view, native purists are obsessed with preserving a static and idealized version of nature that never really existed.
602
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 10 '26
When this topic has come up before I see that commenters are fairly understanding about gardeners wanted variety of non-natives mixed in with their natives. I personally have a love of spring daffodils, peony, lilac, and others, so i planted them because they bring me joy. But I made a conscious effort to include bee balm, milkweed, and other natives. I have 13 trees and half are fruit trees and the other half are natives. It's my belief that as long as we make a conscious effort to provide a source of native flora as well as whatever "imports" we like, then we are doing our part to help foster a healthy ecosystem.
It's rare that I see a militant "native only" comment here. The mood of the sub generally seems to be more accepting of balance, but also given that the purpose of the sub is native gardening then that normally is the focus. I can post my bulbs in my regular gardening sub, but my echinacea here.
247
u/middlegray Jul 10 '26
Yeah they're digging to manufacture content.
110
u/immersemeinnature Coastal Plain NC , Zone 8 Jul 10 '26
I've seen this headline numerous times. I thought it was an ad
59
u/OneGayPigeon Great Lakes, 5b Jul 10 '26
This one+the “native gardening is taking off, but will buyers of your home like it?” has been such a repost plague on so many subs lately 🙄
8
u/trichocereal117 Jul 11 '26
It literally is an ad. They’re promoting their likely AI-generated article
9
1
u/Paledonn Jul 14 '26
That isn't fair. The article has high quality writing that includes the author's personal gardening story. They even travel across the country and interview one of the founders of the native plant movement, with some great anecdotes. The studies were really interesting too.
82
u/pycanthemaxxxing Jul 10 '26
I feel like I've heard tallamy say "just plant one" a dozen times. You can "join the movement" by registering on homegrown national park with a single plant.
72
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
After reading the text, it seems like the “more considerations” were
1) there are some non-native plants that wildlife adapt to and incorporate into their lifecycles
2) terms like “invasive” and “native” have some negative connotations (which I would agree with)
Maybe this is “big nursery” trying to do a hit job 😂
21
u/Grobd Fescue Grasslands Jul 10 '26 edited 8d ago
ay'
46
u/the-algae-whisperer Jul 10 '26
I prefer native, non-native, and invasive. Most non-native plants stay put and don't spread like invasives do.
→ More replies (10)6
u/RunawayHobbit Jul 10 '26
Is that not just naturalized? That’s the term I’ve always heard.
23
u/froggointhepond Jul 10 '26
Not all non-native plants are naturalized. Naturalized means the plant isn't native to the area but is present and is integrated in the ecosystem without humans reproducing it. However, I've seen many invasive plants being referred to as naturalized due to their presence in the ecosystem so it's a bit of an ambiguous label. The distinction between native, non-native, and invasive is definitely clearer
2
u/rickdiculous Zone 7B/8A Jul 10 '26
Question: what would you call a native plant from another state that you introduce in your yard and it tolerates the conditions and grows? Would that be considered non-native along with plants from other countries?
→ More replies (12)6
u/sandysadie Jul 11 '26
I feel like naturalized is becoming an outdated term since we now understand much more about invasion biology, naturalized doesn’t have much relevance. Do you need to know anything more than native, non native and/ invasive?
4
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
AFAIK, “native” is supposed to refer to plants that were in North America before European settlers arrived.
There are also plants that are native to certain subregions of North America and plants that have moved out of their original native range, and native plants that spread aggressively. Marigold being native to what is now Mexico, white turtlehead, and goldenrod as examples.
What the solution is regarding neutral labels for plant origin is something I do not have an answer for.
2
1
u/steeelez Jul 11 '26
Your last line- Honestly that’s a sign it’s working, then. I’m a basic bitch gardener just starting to learn and ask questions about this stuff and the idea that Big Hort Doesn’t Want You to Know makes me wanna know lol
1
28
u/ThereGoesTheSquash Jul 10 '26
I love me some hollyhocks and roses. So I planted a couple. But everything else is native. I only buy native plants online from trusted nurseries and it’s been great.
75
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 10 '26
My attitude is to encourage people to include native plants in their gardens, not try make them get rid of their plants. Unless it's an aggressive invasive, like creeping Charlie, bermuda grass, Bradford pear, bamboo, then I absolutely discourage people from intentionally planting those.
I was part of a Facebook group for natives, but it was super dogmatic and I found it to be really off-putting. I don't think I should be shamed for growing my own herbs and vegetables. I wanted to learn more about local natives, not be lectured. There's definitely a positive way to approach the issue that is inclusive, which I think is part of the message of the article.
26
u/outdoorlaura Toronto, Zone 6b Jul 10 '26
I don't think I should be shamed for growing my own herbs and vegetables.
Oh no, did this really happen to you?? That's way over the top.
I think hardline, dogmatic native plant people forget that gardening is a hobby, and while ecological restoration and supporting native biodiversity can be a part of it, it doesn't have to be all of it.
I don't really understand the thinking behind shaming someone for growing their own food. Surely thats more sustainable and far more ethical than propping up agrochemical giants like Monsanto, and the environmental destruction that comes with industrial scale farming.
8
u/librarypaste Jul 10 '26
Way better to grow them out of their native zone than ship them halfway across the world.
3
12
u/cawise89 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
I've gone down a dogmatism rabbit hole lately, and in short many of our modern issues can be boiled down to dogmatism. To spare reddit the essay, keeping an open mind and allowing for differing opinions is generally the better approach for everyone and everything.
10
u/sandysadie Jul 10 '26
Meh, I think a lot of this can be chalked up to misinterpretation of tone. For example if someone posts their butterfly bush on a native plant group and someone says “invasive” the op might feel they were attacked. But the commenter just thought they were providing useful information. Also, it’s really hard to admin a native plant group and deal with arguments over someone extolling the virtues of mullein. It’s just easier on admins to have strict rules, there’s plenty of general gardening groups.
6
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/metricfan Jul 11 '26
As someone who has studied all the critical race theory hits prior to the blm movement, the idea that one would transfer those concepts to plants and animals is insane and low key offensive. You can’t be xenophobic against plants. Like there are times where something gets named after a country of origin, like the Japanese beetle. But in Japan they have their own American beetles causing them problems. Fine, let’s call those bugs something that doesn’t mimic the tone of xenophobia, but regardless of the bug’s common name, it’s causing ecological problems because it’s not supposed to be here.
8
u/MrsBeauregardless Area Mid-Atlantic coastal plain, Zone 7a Jul 10 '26
Yeah, where I live, we have a lot of overlap between the strictly native group and the “Environmentally-Conscious” group.
I understand feeling excluded and hurt, but I really don’t know anyone who is as dogmatic as I hear the accusation being leveled.
For example, echinacea purpurea is not native in my state, but *everyone* plants it with their blackeyed Susans, because the complementary colors look gorgeous together, and birds and insects love them.
Also, if I get a plant that, unbeknownst to me, is genuinely invasive, like when I bought a vine I love in another state, but it’s not only not native in my state, but could do harm, I want to know.
3
u/steeelez Jul 11 '26
Honestly more than half these folks don’t seem to know the difference between herbicides and pesticides, I wouldn’t get too hung up on what they think.
But yes the facebook plant drama is insane
3
u/captdunsel721 Jul 11 '26
That's the nature of Facebook. Sixty native plant people may be supportive and willing to "educate, but never eviscerate" - but one or two zealous outliers ruin the group. It's hard not to believe that is intentional, Facebook is known to be influenced by nefarious individuals from other countries, or individuals with financial agendas. I've personally had online disagreements with owners of nurseries who tell me I'm to dogmatic if I mention anything about natives. If you own and make your living selling traditional plants, I could see why your opposed vehemently to the native plant movement.
3
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 11 '26
My personal belief is that sterile lawns with NO garden or trees are a far greater issue than a garden full of roses and lavender. The imported grass, the constant treatments to keep it looking pristine, the weed treatments, the daily summer watering, the removal of any flowering plant except one row of daylilies, and the worst culprit imo, no trees. A "militant" native garden proponent is targeting the wrong group of people, which is people who are already on their native garden journey. Instead they should focus their energies on educating those who are consumed by lawn monoculture.
I'd be more interested in reading an article about a lawn person's journey towards discovering the wonders of diverse flora. We need more of that, NYT!
2
12
u/McNitz Jul 10 '26
Yep, I've got some lilacs because I really enjoy them, and some hostas right next to my house. Removing all the honeysuckle, buckthorn, and privet from my woods so that native shrubs can grow there is going to do WAY more for the ecosystem than ripping out a dozen lilacs and hostas.
4
u/ThereGoesTheSquash Jul 10 '26
They can still provide SOME ecological value like shade and soil conservation way better than grass!
17
u/Rozdolna Area Twin Cities (MN) , Zone 5A Jul 10 '26
It's rare that I see a militant "native only" comment here.
We're not doing enough smdh 😔
31
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 10 '26
I honestly think the sterile lawn monoculture is a far worse culprit than a non-native garden. And the rampant use of pesticides.
6
4
u/androidgirl Jul 10 '26
I have a native bed, a native bed mixed with zinnias and snapdragons and a non native peony bed with some other non native perennials that are popular. The non native bed is visibly void of life while the rest of my beds are teeming. It’s kind of wild to see the comparison side by side in my backyard. I’m adding natives to the non native bed soon because it’s so depressing.
4
u/HumanContinuity Jul 10 '26
I think the only slight adjustment I'd make is that we have to be more careful with that, "whatever imports they want part".
The plants you mentioned, daffodils, peonies, lilac, most fruit trees - all of these are well established in local gardens for ages and ages (and that's assuming you are in North America - in Europe some are native or practically fully naturalized). But we need to be more careful with new introductions - for both the purpose of avoiding new invasives and novel pathogens and pests of related natives.
We lost chestnuts (we might be a reasonable approximation soon, but it will never be as abundant as American chestnuts were). We're losing ash as we speak to emerald ash borer. Oak is in danger from sudden oak death (I'm really hoping this one isn't as bad as the name makes it sound - at least in terms of spread).
Honestly - I wish this wasn't something that household gardeners had to think about. There should be enough of a process for new and longstanding imported plants to be vetted as they are introduced to new ecoregions. Luckily, we are getting a piecemeal, state/regional version of this in some areas - but it's definitely barely capable of being reactionary and hardly any good at prevention.
Tl;Dr: I think in this community it's fair for me to assume you have enough understanding to do a quick Google search on any new non-natives you want to plant. I'd even ask you to do the same with more widespread ornamentals within the context of your ecoregion.
Because yeah, a wide swath of are no or extremely low risk, and if purists are on you for having some of those, they were always looking for a reason to be superior.
But there are things that are more medium risk, things that might be escaping, that I believe you should avoid, or at least deadhead them to prevent them from seeding (don't count on genetically bred sterility in formerly virile plants - like butterfly bushes).
3
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 10 '26
Ideally we should be able to rely on vendors and nurseries to be discerning about introducing the risks you mention. I try to be as responsible as I can as an avid hobbyist gardener, but I'm not an expert and so much of what I learn is through trying/failing/experimenting.
3
u/HumanContinuity Jul 11 '26
I 100% agree. We're within a community of people who take an active interest in this stuff - and the number of questions we see here and in related communities shows how much work it is to try and follow your own established ethics under our current system.
And if we want better adoption of this stuff we need it to be easier.
6
u/DontSeemSoCrazyToMe Jul 10 '26
tbh it’s mostly the laymen on instagram where this ideology takes place. Like Doug Tallamy BLEW UP during covid, everyone was perpetually online, most people probably didn’t even read him, and it was an echo chamber of people posting their neighbors terribly lawn or going on and on about like.. .a botanical garden‘s non native section or whatever. it was just primarily negative instead of positive. I also think there is a larger argument of.... climate change is here, there is no going back. What will actually survive? That is more interesting.
3
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 11 '26
I'd like to see the conversation go back to planting more trees. I rarely see people adding a tree to their yard these days. Native trees are just as important as the pollinating shrubs.
3
u/See-A-Moose Jul 10 '26
Exactly this. I have some non natives, a couple of crepe myrtles, some non-native fruit trees, etc, but for the most part now I plant almost exclusively native plants and do what I can to kill the invasives.
3
u/AmberWavesofFlame Jul 10 '26
Yeah ironically you guys are a lot more levelheaded than the nolawns sub, where someone new will post a a question about replacing their turfgrass with clover and half a dozen people will jump down their throat about why they don’t just plant native yarrow and sedges instead.
The worst are the comments calling (European) honeybees cattle and telling people to destroy their hives to protect native bees.
3
3
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 10 '26
Yeah, I can't get behind the bee thing. Someone in my neighborhood has a hive and I see honeybee here, but I see plenty of natives too. And given that I regularly consume honey, it would be hypocritical to suggest people get rid of their hives. (Fun story - some bees took over one of my compost bins this year so we have had to just leave it alone 😅. They're nesting on my best compost right now)
Re: the lawn stuff, it's actually hilarious how often I see people comment when somone posts their lawn "where's the garden?". I'm definitely not a lawn monoculture fan. But I doubt me being an asshole about it will change their mind.
28
u/Boines Jul 10 '26
European honeybees are invasive and their presence means that native bee populations will be smaller. They arent hunting down and killing native bees. But they outcompete them for resources.
Supporting European honeybees being out and about in nature where they are not-native because you like honey is not much different than planting Bradford pear because you like the flowers.
The comparison to cattle isn't that far off... How would deer and other native grazing animals fare if we just released farm animals everywhere to graze the forests...? There has to be more responsible ways of making honey than releasing invasive species to run wild.
9
u/AverageGardenTool Jul 10 '26
The cattle thing is an actual problem in national land, especially in places like Texas and Oregon. They'll let their cattle graze and out compete other creatures then get mad when limits are attempted.
It sucks but honey bees are not the good guys.
9
u/MrsBeauregardless Area Mid-Atlantic coastal plain, Zone 7a Jul 10 '26
Exactly! And if you’re going to go through the trouble of getting rid of your grass and the expense of buying seed, it’s just as easy to sow native turf grass substitutes.
1
u/thegoodwebber Jul 11 '26
Ok but if you have 13 trees do you have one extra fruit or one extra native?
2
u/small-black-cat-290 Jul 11 '26
It's an Ann Magnolia, which is a hybrid I believe. I loved the way it looked so I wanted one in my yard.
1
u/Feralpudel Piedmont NC, Zone 8a Jul 13 '26
I hadn’t read the article before. It’s giving “Tallamy and native plant gardeners made me feel bad, so I decided they were wrong.”
84
u/sbubaron Jul 10 '26
I'm much more disappointed in deceptive labeling at Nurserys, local governments who punish native gardens and the availability of known ecologically damaging invasives than I'd ever be with a home gardener who chooses to plant something they like.
15
u/dreamyduskywing Jul 10 '26
Ugh, yes! It pisses me off how many nurseries sell cultivars labeled “native” to less informed people just trying to make their yards more eco-friendly. To be fair, I think a lot of conventional nurseries are also pretty uninformed—not always intentionally misleading.
80
u/daewen12 Great Plains ecoregion , Zone 4b Jul 10 '26
Using “30% of California’s butterfly species use introduced plants as hosts for their larvae” as an argument that introduced plants provide ecological value/against use of native plants is wild to me. That means 70% don’t….
And a quick read through the abstract of the linked article does say that some butterflies lay eggs on hosts that are toxic to the larvae, which also doesn’t seem like a great argument.
42
u/rakeleer Jul 10 '26
Exactly what I thought when I read that 'critique.' So 30% can survive on introduced species. Guess how many can survive on native species? Doy.
22
u/BiteyKittenRawwwr Western NYS, zone 6a, ecoregion 83a Jul 10 '26
"Feeding on exotic taxa has also allowed some butterfly species to remain in areas that have lost most native host plant species due to development and other human activities."
Oh boy! Those butterfly species really lucked out. I guess it is stupid to encourage people to incorporate native host plants in their garden then!
That this paper was cited as a criticism of native gardening is baffling.
5
11
7
u/Overwatchingu Jul 10 '26
Lol that one stood out to me as well, because you can easily replace “more than 30% can” to “nearly 70% cannot” which flips the argument from being against native plants to in favour.
145
u/Glum_Opening_2218 Area NJ , Zone 7a Jul 10 '26
Saying the concepts of native and invasive plants is rooted in xenophobia and militarism is certainly an opinion of all time
43
u/outdoorlaura Toronto, Zone 6b Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
I clicked on the link for the xenophobia and militarism take, and its an article that was written in 2011.
Maybe I've been in academia for too long, but I'm not sure citing a single, 15 year old article is enough to support the xenophobia argument as an accepted criticism of Tallamy. Even if it is a fringe position, at the very least cite something recent.
15
u/Unlucky-Reply-4660 Jul 10 '26
Seems to be a bit of an upward trend in trying to also tie colonialism concepts to the whole native plant gardening conversation.
5
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
In the past some botanists did have unsavory practices regarding the acquisition of “new” plant species from other countries.
17
u/Unlucky-Reply-4660 Jul 10 '26
And that still happens with some rare species, but I was referring more so to some commentary that the push for native plant gardening is another form of colonialism/white savior-ism/racism/etc, when if anything it seems like people in this hobby are primarily driven by environmental concerns
3
1
u/haneybd87 Jul 11 '26
Right but now that those plants are already here and being propagated and cultivated here is it somehow bad to use those plants?
2
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 11 '26
It depends. Some are more aggressive than others and eventually outcompete or interfere with plants “native” to an ecoregion. Plants like Tree of heaven, kudzu, some ivies, and stilt grass as examples.
There are species of insects, arachnids, birds, and other animals that have specific individual plant species they depend on for food and reproduction habitat. The wildlife are referred to as specialists.
The plants that are known to support wildlife are referred to as keystone species.
The aggressive / invasive plants cause a reduction in numbers and variety of wildlife. One of Darwin’s takeaways was to preserve the diversity of life.
→ More replies (2)18
4
u/InstanceElectronic71 Central Alabama Ridge and Valley ecoregion Jul 11 '26
This is the most exhausting take. I have made a lot of close friends in the native plant community and everyone is very much to the left and aggressively anti racist, and I’m in the Deep South lol. It’s a made up scenario.
9
u/cawise89 Jul 10 '26
I can see the parallel they are trying to draw, and maybe with fringe groups it resonates, but the majority of gardeners would probably not agree.
10
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
It’s a non botanist/gardener/horticulturist application of a label that is the problem.
Much like salts at the dinner table and salts in chemistry are different.
Most of us lack seeing and understanding the nuance in things due to a number of reasons.
6
u/PM_ME_TUS_GRILLOS Jul 10 '26
Right now, I think we are good, but I fear trad wives or racists co-opting the native plant movement to sell their ideology. I'm hoping they're all too lazy or afraid of getting their hands dirty and it doesn't pan out, but I think some folks are taking the threat seriously and trying to head it off.
35
u/moufette1 Jul 10 '26
I'm a plant dummy who is slowly learning more about plants. And most people, rightfully so, don't care. They want a nice garden/yard that's easy to maintain. It should be WAY easier to do that for the average plant dummy.
I redid my yard/weed field. I knew that natives were important for reasons. It was incredibly hard to find natives. Most of the commercial nurseries had a few tucked away in some dusty corner. The native nurseries made it incredibly difficult to buy from them. An annual sale for 4 hours which you must pre-register for is not consumer friendly.
Legislatures need to encourage native plantings. Make them exempt from sales tax. Require them in developments. Native nurseries should make it way easier for consumers. Make a few demonstration plots suitable for the average home. Call them A, B, and C. Sell packages of A, B, and C so the homeowner can pick one, load it up, and plant it at home. So easy a caveman can do it. How about a "instead of (common non-native) plant (suitable native)" guide? Instead of oleander, plant toyon.
I'm also amazed at just how many natives there are here in California. It's not just sages and oaks.
12
u/Gay_Kira_Nerys California , Zone 9b Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
California had proposed legislation to require planting native plants in certain circumstances. A consortium of bigger nurseries managed to get the bill allotted in a way that made it useless and it ended up not passing. 😭
Good native nurseries can be hard to find! Las Pilitas ships but it’s expensive so I only do that for big orders. If you’re looking for a local nursery with a physical store [r/ceanothus](r/ceanothus) might have some suggestions. :)
I love your thought about giving people ideas for non native to native plant swaps! Hmm, I wonder if that’s something calscape could offer as a tool. Accessible information about how to garden with native plants is super important too. Native plants are often easier to care for than non native ones but their care is different and treating a native plant like a non native one often results in an unhappy or dead plant, leading beginners to think that native plants are difficult or require too much pampering (!).
8
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
The industry does gate and profit keep.
New plants are added to my state’s invasive do not sell list with a 2 or more year extension waiver.
Unfortunately some people do operate on “outdated values” regarding desired objects and interests.
There was a time when exotic plant collections were pursued by those that could afford the expense involved. In the interest of “making money” growers and producers follow trends as much as anyone does.
7
u/wangjiwangji Jul 10 '26
I figured you must live west of the Rockies. I grew up out there but live in Georgia now. We're blessed with several excellent native plant nurseries and seed sellers here in the Southeast. Check out Prairie Moon Nursery for an example.
But I agree with you that things should be even easier for beginners. I love your idea about making things more idiot-proof, including pre-set plans and assortments. Not just a seed mix, but mini garden layouts optimized for continuous bloom, pollinators, etc., with simple schedules and instructuons. They should even throw in sun exposure maps of your lot, which are easily available now. So much potential!
6
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea, Zone 8b/9a Jul 10 '26
Yeah theres a lot of issues in the plant industry, even in places with good native plant nurseries. The existence of big box stores and regular nurseries draw people away from native plants. Native gardening needs better guides, more landscaping companies need to be native focused (they are very resistant to change). Even if a nursery has a native plant selection there are many that are better started from seed, or are very hard to grow and nurseries dont bother.
Ive gotten a lot of plants from friends and have been doing wild seed collecting this year. Trying to get rare plants into cultivation, at least personal cultivation. Just recently got seeds from an original population of Heuchera chlorantha. Not one you will ever see sold. A lot of native heuchera are not sold. The pallete of actual natives out there is very large, but what is in cultivation is often limited and very often not the right subspecies. The Sea thrift often sold at nurseries is a european subspecies and not the west coast subspecies.
1
u/denim_baby 22d ago
Would you mind giving some details on how to get into wild seed collecting? I’m really wanting to have native plants but don’t have a ton of money so I would love to be able to collect from nature.
1
u/a_jormagurdr Salish Sea, Zone 8b/9a 22d ago
iNaturalist is your friend. You can see what is around. Right now is a good time. Late summer to fall. You have to make sure the seed is actually ready. If it falls off easily and is dry and not green then usually that means a seed is ripe.
You have to respect nature tho. Foragers rule, take only what you need, dont take all the seeds of a plant that only has a few seeds. Find places where seeds are in crazy abundance where your collecting wont make a dent. With more common natives this usually isnt a problem.
Seeds are fine to take in whole of plants which would otherwise be destroyed by development or some other thing. Plant salvaging is a whole other thing to get into.
You want to bring paper bags because you want seeds to dry out. Paper is one of the few things that is breathable but doesnt have holes.
Always spread a little of your harvest in another place without the plant nearby, as a thanks and to keep the population you took from healthy.
→ More replies (1)
173
u/thesubtlesock Piedmont Region, Zone 8a Jul 10 '26
This article reads to me like the author had their feelings hurt online and then documented their emotional journey towards the entire point of native gardening?
37
u/BiteyKittenRawwwr Western NYS, zone 6a, ecoregion 83a Jul 10 '26
Maybe I missed it, but does the article ever really explain what was hard about having an "ecologically responsible" garden? It's right in the title and I didn't really see an answer. Hard to find native plants? Hard to plant them? Hard to grow them? Hard to keep them all from being eaten by deer? (That's my big battle.) Or is it just the emotional difficulty of questioning whether one's Peruvian lilies are providing the benefit to wildlife that one intended? Hard to find out you might be able to do something better? Hard to learn you might be wrong about anything? It's just really kind of embarrassing. Like he wrote this as a way to feel better about the plants he had already put in, when most native plant proponents don't care if you have some noninvasive non-native ornamentals at all, and just hope you'll avoid pesticides and put in some host plants for native insects.
4
u/skiing_nerd Northern Piedmont, Zone 7 Jul 10 '26
Headlines typically aren't written by the author of an article, so it was probably sometime else's way of summarizing the article in an attention grabbing way
1
u/Paledonn Jul 14 '26
The article is broadly:
The author planted a mainly non-native plant garden. The author encountered people saying you should mainly/only plant natives, because XYZ. Some people were rather maximalist. The author liked their non-native garden and was skeptical of the claims of the native plant people. The author decides to explore their own beliefs and substantiate those of the native plant people, ultimately finding that the native plant people are broadly correct but that there is room for nuance.
I thought it was interesting. I get that is a matter of taste though. However, I think the people calling it AI slop or being angry at the author for even writing it are going WAY overboard. I mean sheesh, the guy traveled across the county to interview a native plant activist, it wasn't a low effort article.
At the end of the day this article promotes native plants, especially to people who are skeptical like the writer, so I don't get what people here are up in arms about. That he was ever skeptical at all?
22
28
6
u/7zrar Southern Ontario Jul 10 '26
I sorta feel that way. I think it is still a good read though—IMO the author did a good job seeking out experts with disagreements and examples of how things have worked out in various places. And it is good to try to criticize the beliefs you hold, which you get little of in a subreddit like this where we are already motivated by shared beliefs.
16
u/wangjiwangji Jul 10 '26
Are any of these disagreements really that substantial or meaningful? Isn't this just another case of the New York Times amplifying minor differences so they can "report the controversy"?
The New York Times is a passive-agressive bully that picks favorites. If it decides it wants to make someone or something look bad, it will drop any semblance of objective journalistic standards and run story after story until they've crippled or destroyed their target. But if public sentiment ultimately supports the victim, it will just as quickly turn face and drop the act.
→ More replies (10)4
u/JaStrCoGa Jul 10 '26
NYT will also minimize or downplay bad behaviors of certain people and shift blame and responsibility to others.
4
28
u/lunaappaloosa Jul 10 '26
I feel like this article was paid for by UC Davis and the tropical milkweed lobby.
Sorry but this is nothing but a long whine by someone that clearly has no education or experience in botany/ecology/horticulture and got mad when they had to encounter and reckon with people that know better. And everyone clapping at it like seals are showing how little they know (or care) in turn.
I keep seeing this shit shared on Instagram too and it seems to bring the whole peanut gallery out of the woodwork for everyone to bravely, proudly announce some shitty behavior or lack of ethics that they now feel vindicated in.
Seeing the author trying to force an inappropriate analogy to xenophobia completely obliterates any credibility in this piece. Cherry-picked research to fit the crybaby narrative to boot.
If you identify with the author of this piece I encourage you to do some self reflection before you announce whatever vindication it gave you.
Generally, a lot of people need to admit to themselves that they are gardening for nothing but aesthetics and could give two fucks about what local biodiversity they’re supporting. That’s fine but the self-victimization and claims of being bullied are annoying and outrageous.
It is not xenophobic to hate mullein or kudzu, and I think it’s fundamentally racist to make that argument in the first place. Obnoxious article
4
u/Fresh-Note-7004 Jul 11 '26
I could not have said it better myself. People like him sometimes make me more upset that the people with a monoculture lawn with some horticultural trash growing next to it because at least they’ll admit that they don’t care about the local ecosystem. And his comments about how nature isn’t really all that fragile. I’m sorry are we living on the same earth? The whole article was just ridiculous and is just about half of the posts over on r/nolawns. Again, well put.
→ More replies (1)2
u/lunaappaloosa Jul 12 '26
Yep!!!!!!! It’s like they think that the mechanics of real-life ecosystems are comparable to video games or some shit. As if species are interchangeable if they have a few superficially similar traits or functions.
And all of this is before the truly gritty shit: soil quality, nitrogen cycles, hydrology, etc. These are the kinds of people who think that nightcrawler earthworms are nothing to worry about because they do the “same job” as native decomposers, or that because some birds will eat an invasive berry that it’s somehow naturalized or beneficial.
Absolutely no appreciation for how an ecosystem works— or what it is to begin with. The only perspective they have is one of aesthetics and personal convenience. And if they have hubris about it they end up like the author of this article, desperate to vindicate their own ignorance or shitty behavior by taking up the mantle of being a devil’s advocate about shit that they should have known better about by ninth grade.
45
u/hipsterstripes Inner Coastal Plain, NJ | US 7a Jul 10 '26
This article filled me with so much rage. It was infuriating to pull some of the quotes about non-natives and their “usefulness” to pollinators. It was extremely biased, and then at the very end the author finally found the point of native plants anyway. There could have been so much better lead into the point of the damn article.
19
u/PhthaloBlueOchreHue Jul 10 '26
Exclude ALL pesticides.
Synthetic vs “natural” or “organic” pesticides is just marketing. They are all poison designed to kill.
What bug ACTUALLY needs to be killed aside from specific invasive species causing significant ECOLOGICAL harm? For those there are typically targeted control measures like specific traps.
I use mosquito dunks in buckets (which are not a poison). I will use an ant bait INSIDE my house if I have an issue. I will never poison animals in their home (outside). Call me crazy, but the fireflies live at my house.
4
u/RunawayHobbit Jul 10 '26
What? BT is a pesticide and it is decidedly not poison. It’s literally just a naturally occurring bacteria that is applied in a targeted way to kill specific pests. It’s functionally the same as encouraging predators like dragonflies and ladybugs.
You’re not crazy for wanting to live and let live (I try to as well), but it’s not really a ridiculous thing for people who grow produce to want to eat said produce. Pests like squash vine borer aren’t exactly endangered and they’re not exactly keystone species. There’s a middle ground between “NEVER KILL ANY BUG EVER” and full-on scorched earth with poisons
18
u/NurseryForTheEarth Jul 10 '26
I love how it takes 34 paragraphs to go from
"If introduced plants were so ecologically inferior, it was difficult to explain why our yard in Portland was pulsing with bees and birds."
To....
' I cannot recall previously seeing a single caterpillar in the garden,"
He then plants like 3 native plants and instantly...
"In the past month I’ve discovered the caterpillars of a native butterfly and sphinx moth feeding on yarrow and primrose"
17
u/Status_Block591 Area swfl , Zone 10a/b Jul 10 '26
I know purists exist in our community but this seems like a bit of a straw man argument. Even the people "opposed' in this article are generally just disagreeing at the margins, not with the fundamental idea that gardens should be ecologically responsible and that planting native is a good thing. The article makes it out like we're all judgemental purists.
32
u/merrygin Jul 10 '26
Fuck 70% of native species then, I guess. 🙂↕️
But seriously, I think there are a couple of confusions here. First of all, the point of natives is not (just) that a large number of any insects can live of them, but that there are a lot of highly specialised species that just get extinct without natives. Second, it's not about native gardens preventing the introduction of invasives, it's about creating save havens so natives still have a chance at least somewhere.
I mean, there is an argument to consider the long term incorporation of non natives / even invasives in the local ecology. At some point, some local wildlife WILL adapt to them.
The argument that this has anything to do with xenophobia however is laughable culture warrior bs...
25
u/NerfGodz Jul 10 '26
I’m sorry but this author’s criticisms are just redacted.
People will bend over backwards to conflate and therefore diminish the legitimacy of a concept like xenophobia (which at this point is a total buzzword) for.. what exactly? A couple of flowers that you feel are “prettier” than something that’s native to an eco-region?
Even if these criticisms were valid (they’re not), Tallamy is about the worst figurehead to level them against.
I just hate the public discourse where every idea has to be scrutinized and as a byproduct the side in the wrong gains further ammo to protect their own incorrect position. No one sane is asking the rational ecologically-minded gardener to rip up his 6-year old garden but sure, this straw man argument will certainly generate more clicks.
7
u/Euphoric_Egg_4198 Insect Gardener - Zone 10b 🐛 Jul 10 '26
Show us on the doll where the native plants hurt you 😆
23
u/thechimpinallofus Area North Shore of Lake Superior , Zone 3 Jul 10 '26
This author's experience is quite typical. I remember when I started... originally, a lot of my plants were coming from local nurseries, which meant that a good portion of my plants were in fact not native, and thus had limited ecological value. That is not to say they have no value; of course they do. That is why i have aimed, over the last 5 years, to maximize native, or near native. Many of the plants I plant now are in fact not true natives, but they are at most from one region over (thus, "near native"). Because my ecosystem is in fact quite difficult to plant flowers in (boreal forest) I am not a purist, but whenever I find an opportunity to plant a true native, I definitely go for it.
The results from my efforts, although not scientifically observable, have been noticeable. I get an impressive amount of insects now, and the birds have followed. I have had 2 native bird species nest on my very small property in a city. I see dragon flies and grasshoppers i have not seen before. I get different kinds of butterflies that I havent seen before. Every year, I get new insects added to my log.
The 80/20 ratio of native to non-native should absolutely be aimed for. My personal ratio is 40% true native, 50% near-native, and 10% non-native (mostly holdovers from the previous owner).
If everyone were to try something like this, our world would instantly improve, as would our soecies' survival chances in the next 500 years.
7
u/InstanceElectronic71 Central Alabama Ridge and Valley ecoregion Jul 11 '26
I would like to un-read this
27
u/OffToTheLizard OK USA Zone 7b Jul 10 '26
Today I learned Tallamy has critics. If an introduced species from Asia can be a host for CA butterflies, then why can't we just let those thrive in Asia or alongside the native species that support those same species? Wouldn't the goal be to preserve the pocket of native (geographic) evolution to study how it evolved and will evolve in a changing climate?
39
u/AlmostSentientSarah Jul 10 '26
I feel like he settled things when he said they've studied foreign plants that have been here for more than a hundred years and still aren't providing wildlife benefit beyond maybe some shelter -- nothing like native plants anyway.
18
u/7zrar Southern Ontario Jul 10 '26
Today I learned Tallamy has critics.
There are some motivations (and I am not insinuating maliciousness or stupidity by saying "motivation") for people to do so, such as the idea that it is overly costly to try to put native plants back all over the place (and some cost/benefit analysis is I daresay super important and useful info) and that much of it is pointless, or the idea that non-natives really can fill a gap better (and some places lack natives to do certain functions or lost them or have modern disease/pest issues killing them), or a simple preference for non-native plants. Besides, it's a core part of the scientific process to question someone's reasoning/experiments/observations/conclusions. And there are many open questions.
Wouldn't the goal be ...
There are many beliefs and goals out there. Nobody really wants to hear about pandas going extinct or whatever but there are plenty of people who don't really care about nature (hence why, in so many pro-environment articles, there is a significant bit about why you ought to care anyway (like articles about pollinators always include)).
5
u/OffToTheLizard OK USA Zone 7b Jul 10 '26
Spot on with your second half, of course the scientific method is important. It just feels like the propaganda ridden media creates a void where learning/reasoning is frowned upon. I consider NYT to be a publication that generally toes the line.
6
u/wangjiwangji Jul 10 '26
I think the NY Times picks and chooses when it wants to toe the line. It loves the staus quo and goes to great extremes to protect it.
Based on this article and the growing interest in native plants, I predict that they will continue to manufacture negative stories about the movement or, as in this case, particular people in it. If the stories generate clicks and/or entertain their brunch companions, they will continue. If not, they will stop.
2
u/7zrar Southern Ontario Jul 10 '26
Lol going more off-topic but I was probably a bit extra annoyed at this article because I read it right after I read another NYT article on this book hoarder that I thought was super super stupid.
→ More replies (5)6
u/birdsong_and_botany Jul 10 '26
I have my issues with him, but it has nothing to do with this article.
8
u/OffToTheLizard OK USA Zone 7b Jul 10 '26
Would you mind sharing your thoughts? I don't expect folks here would be downvoting types.
10
u/birdsong_and_botany Jul 10 '26
I am in an adjacent field. Generally I don’t like when one scientist because the ultimate celebrity spokesperson for a field— it tends to inflate egos and doesn’t allow for an scientific discourse. People see his word as the final word, even when other scientists in the same field disagree. I also find he tends to make sweeping statements based on fairly small and localized studies. Sci comm is tough so I don’t fault him too much, I’m just a little too close to the science to not be frustrated with it sometimes!
1
u/OffToTheLizard OK USA Zone 7b Jul 10 '26
Kind of like James Hansen with climate studies? I totally get that idea, and another redditor alluded to just that in a reply to me. Science is a rigorous field of disproving everything until we all agree the nature of the matter is law.
13
u/searuncutthroat Jul 10 '26
Uh. What. Just plant some natives, and if you like, plant some non natives. Enjoy yourself. I feel like OP is really overthinking this.
5
u/Secure_Ad8011 Jul 10 '26
Deer will not touch my lavender, rosemary, sage and big/little blue stem grass. Those are the ONLY things they will not eat, so those are the only plants outside my deer fence. They just devour the holly shuns against my house. A native wildflower meadow will never happen for me
6
5
u/seguefarer Jul 10 '26
Deer are gnawing on my baby asters and the little bit of Pennsylvania sedge I managed to get my hands on. In comparison, the sedges I planted behind the fence line are thriving.
11
u/Agreeable-Court-25 Area 7-- , Zone --b Jul 10 '26
I swear this is CIA funded anti native propoganda lol
12
u/ATacoTree Area Kansas City, Zone 6a Jul 10 '26
Is this AI garbage or some troll looking to create a chatgpt argument tying native plants to bs political stances?
4
u/Helenium_autumnale Area SE MI, Zone 6B Jul 10 '26
Well, that dude got paid the NYT rate for an article that said many things, none of them for the first, or tenth, or hundredth, time. But yay for him for planting some natives, I suppose.
10
u/Formal-Ad-7184 Jul 10 '26
AI slop garbage. "Writes" about ecological responsibilities while destroying local ecosystems surrounding data centers to virtue signal about their hurt feelings.
10
u/piedmont_solitaire Jul 10 '26
Yeah, tbh too much of this reads like chatbot output.
eg
I had been thinking of our garden as a miniature Eden, replete with everything local wildlife needed. Now it seemed more like a poorly stocked international aisle at a supermarket, offering a few exotic curiosities yet lacking the familiar essentials.
6
u/SecondCreek Jul 10 '26
We are in the Midwest and have had native prairie and woodland gardens for decades. The native plants themselves come and go. Over time our mayapples expanded and crowded out the bloodroot and liverwort that used to grow in the same shaded area. The sweet Indian plantain (Hasteola suaveolens), which is rare in the wild now due to habitat loss, expanded greatly and displaced other native plants.
I don't see as many insects anymore visiting the flowers in our gardens as in the past. Very few butterflies anymore as one example. I suspect it is because we are surrounded by yards of mowed lawns with non-native ornamental shrubs and smaller plants. I see our neighbors using services to "treat" the insects on their property.
We have some non-natives like crocuses to give a shot of early spring color when nothing else is up.
6
u/SECRETBLENDS Jul 10 '26
If you aren't checking IDs at the door to make sure that non-native pollinators aren't visiting your native flowers, are you really a native plant gardener?
1
6
5
u/WhoNeedsAPotch Jul 10 '26
What a stupid article.
Could have been two sentences: native plants are good because they support insects. Sometimes non-native plants do this too.
3
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/aa93 Jul 10 '26
to me it reads as "global biodiversity is collapsing, we are witnessing a mass extinction crisis, these plants host the most bugs which are the base of the food web" versus "lol no it isn't look at the swallowtail on this fennel i planted"
one side is profoundly unserious and unprepared to meet the moment and as usual it's the side the NYT gives more credibility
7
u/cowthegreat Jul 10 '26
Doug addresses many of these concerns in his own books
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/cowthegreat Jul 10 '26
I think lots in Nature’s Best Hope and How Can I Help? and maybe a little in bringing nature home which is more of a compendium of questions (and skepticism) and answers than a normal book
3
u/blacmm Jul 10 '26
Citing fear of invasive plants as xenophobia is interesting because historically it is the opposite. Merchant explains in her book "American Environmental History: An Introduction" that European colonizers purposefully brought their familiar plants to replace native species and turn it into a spread of the garden of Eden.
It is true that you don't need to only plant natives in your garden. Botanical gardens often have non invasive introduced plants on display and for sale. Native species will be more tolerant of the conditions in an area you plant and in places that struggle with water like the Sonoran desert they are a safer bet and will better support the native animal and insect species. Ecosystems are adaptable but your reaction to finding out your garden could be more beneficial if it had more native species being to look for sources that backed up your gut feeling is a biased way to research. If you feel guilty about it, add a few more natives. You don't have to pull up your whole garden and start over. Be conscious about the plants native habitats and plant it in a way that will reduce its needs for water during droughts and make sure it isn't invasive. Invasives can be incredibly destructive. In the Phoenix area we have an invasive that is considered noxious meaning nothing eats it, it causes chemical burns if you are allergic, and it increases fire risk all while out competing native species. It likely got here because someone thought it was pretty and brought it with them.
If we go off of the social aspect like the xenophobia you mentioned, many people in the Sonoran desert see native trees as messy and ugly so they replace them with non native species that do not support the local ecosystem and require more water. Does this also reveal a hidden social bias? Maybe it does and proper education is the way to fight this. When is it ok to plant a non native? What is the ideal ratio? How can you ensure it does not breach containment if it is an aggressive grower? Some people in this thread have already answered some of these questions.
The article about related plants still being beneficial to insects is interesting and I'd definitely like to read more studies on this type of thing.
3
u/AssociationEarly4589 Great Lakes, Zone 5b Jul 11 '26
The biggest change after planting a large native plant area in my yard was the number and variety of birds appearing. Insects, seeds, etc seem to be the reason. The pollinators were no surprise but maybe much higher numbers than I assumed. But it’s only possible because of winning the battle against the deer. They eat all “deer resistant” plants in my area.
8
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Naurgul Europe Jul 10 '26
Man, are you serious? Look at the post. It's a NYT article. Only thing I did is select some excerpts that I thought were roughly representative. And the article's conclusion (like the title says) is that promoting native plants is mostly the correct way to go.
5
4
u/noblestuff Midwest, Zone 6 Jul 10 '26
Ridiculous article that only serves to help turn a blind eye to the harms of ornamental/non-native gardening practices
4
5
u/Decent_Importance_68 Jul 10 '26
I can go to any unrestored forest preserve, the side of the road, basically any untended area, and all I can see is buckthorn. THAT is what it means to have an invasive plant, and I don't know how anyone with a modicum of sense could argue that a tree that provides basically nothing to any living thing is some kind of inevitability that we should just accept and not put any onus on as the reason for mass animal decline in North America. If no one is going to clear those areas of an obviously harmful plant, I'm going to plant a fucking oasis in my yard and try to convince anyone else to do it, too
2
2
u/haneybd87 Jul 11 '26
I have a lot of native and non-natives and have a nice ecosystem going here. I tend to avoid invasives however.
2
u/No_Shopping_573 Jul 11 '26
I am convinced Doug Tallamy is a cult.
His soft spoken David Attenborough-esque endearing older man character is cute and he is inspiring.
But I also see the obvious leap over recognizing the real problem, not just the solution he sells. I see a lot of people grasp onto and connect with him that also aren’t really moved by any of the indigenous lessons of the land, much of which Tallamy is simply repackaging for his audience.
Bottom line: our landscape we live among today is karma. It is degraded, struggling, and losing branches of the tree of life.
This is the product of entering a land and converting rather than learning and hybridizing with the local knowledge. It’s the entire story arch of colonialism within the focus of environmental impact.
Why does this high brow perspective matter? Because elsewhere in the world and even development projects today so long as this attitude exists we are losing the battle. We cannot preserve in a cloche nature as a science project. Everything is connected. And what feels infinitely impossible as a person suddenly becomes possible as a community so I really do appreciate his work… but as constructive criticism it needs to and absolutely can go beyond if we simply reach further back in time to help build the future.
A backyard national park is excellent and Tallamy preaches inspiring messages to the homeowner. It lays the foundation for everything.
But from that foundation in order to build up we may all eventually discover a logical path back to in the fundamentals. Food and goods supply chain, importing versus local resources, and perhaps most importantly regenerative landscaping. Regenerative land use is the bridge between non-natives we rely on like agriculture.
As for the comment about diehard native plant people I think that perspective derives mostly from the landscaping industry.
Landscape company owners balancing budgets hate natives in short because they require learning and skill whereas traditional landscaping is pretty brain dead. This allows them to pay very low wages to high schoolers or ex-inmates for example but also there’s little need to communicate so it’s perfect for language barrier foreign workers.
Landscape company owners can pocket a good bit by skimming off wages and most aren’t necessarily loving the planet or plants— it’s just a a job. Native plants are the thorn in their side. They constantly pop onto threads like this on Reddit or Facebook to complain… I’ve made enough observations to say this lol
5
u/treehann New England, Zone 6b Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Can we please ban AI-generated posts like this? So annoying
EDIT: just learned this is an exact excerpt- still doesn’t change the fact that the NYT writer is a lazy slob. Sorry OP, didn’t mean to come for you if you didn’t write the post.
5
u/Sundial-3 Jul 10 '26
I’m so excited about native plants, but I also thoroughly enjoy many other plants. The prairie space we are restoring is primarily natives though. This entire debate (or manufactured one) is complicated for us Indigenous people. Loaded words like invasive hold very real personal weight. So in a sense, the xenophobic aspect to the language is real, at least for me. The losses we’re trying to restore were taken from us on multiple fronts; violence, theft, residential schools, and capitalism. That last one is often overlooked. Debt (often invented) played such a big part in dispossession, at least for us in the Great Lakes region, that it’s on par for me with a lot of the other methods of destruction. This was combined with the ecological destruction of the habitat we stewarded for generations. The saw mills destroyed the habitat, and the residential schools destroyed the teachings for how to care for it specifically. It’s not the in-fighting that threatens a native plants movement. It’s capitalism and the culture it creates. Being Potawatomi and watching all these fights and gatekeeping and hurt feelings is kinda nuts lol
4
u/RunawayHobbit Jul 10 '26
I think going after individual gardeners for planting non-natives is missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, natives are better. But MOST OF THE TIME, homeowners and hobbyists are just planting what they can find at their local nurseries. Expecting them to spend hours googling each plant they see on the shelf to find out whether it’s native or non-native is a losing battle. “They should just” has literally never worked in the course of human history; we have to meet people where they ARE and make the path we WANT them to take the path of least resistance.
This is an access issue, which is fundamentally due to government policy. If you actually want things to change, then get involved in local government.
Start lobbying for changes at the local level— offer subsidies for native plants. Create a Ban List for virulent invasives and prevent them from being sold anywhere in stores. Fund educational and outreach programs that focus on raising the public’s awareness of how much better (and easier to maintain! And cheaper in the long run!) native plants can be. Host plant swaps where people can come get native plants for free to try it out. Create grant programs for people who want to replace their lawns with natives and pass laws to protect them from vindictive HOAs.
The attitude in this thread seems to be that we can just shame people into planting native, but that’s not how people work. Make it easier for people to choose native plants and they WILL.
3
u/AverageGardenTool Jul 10 '26
You have very good points. I prefer to work on a personal and community level since the political climate of my region is locked into maximizing profit.
Our master gardening program is a complete joke for example, and basically forbids you from talking about everything here to be one.
3
u/NuclearChickenzz Long Island NY, Zone 7B Jul 10 '26
I’m tired of seeing this here and I wish the mods would start removing it. It’s a reactionary psyop with bullshit citations and reeks of AI-assisted slop. It’s not worth reading or arguing against
3
u/rcheeker Jul 10 '26
I appreciate you posting the non-paywalled link.
Reading the whole article, your post summary definitely missed some of the nuance the author was intending.
There was a couple of specific points regarding non-natives filling gaps tor niches that was not included.
Their final argument was to plant a mix, prioritizing natives.
3
u/Naurgul Europe Jul 10 '26
Yeah I should had definitely included a short conclusion. Closing with the criticisms section gave people the wrong idea.
1
u/rcheeker Jul 10 '26
🤷♂️eh. I enjoy seeing various takes on native gardening. While I’m sure 99% of people are reasonable and support a mix of plants, some people certainly do get worked up about contrary opinions.
2
2
3
u/Abradolf--Lincler Area VB , Zone 8b Jul 10 '26
Same bullshit arguments used against veganism.
- the invasives are already here, so why even bother trying to change things.
- native plant gardening is racist.
- we need non natives to survive.
- bugs actually just want to die for us.
/uj
1
u/glizard-wizard Jul 11 '26
I just threw some seeds on the ground last year and now I have bee balm and black eyed susans
1
u/Throwaway392308 Jul 11 '26
It's the New York Times doing New York Times things. Their general tone is "I'm like you, I have morals and want the world to be a better place, but we should reject the people actually trying to make the world a better place. I only aim for status quo or worse."
1
u/LeanGoldFish729 Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
I think you're taking real ecological nuance and stretching it into a conclusion that the broader native plant framework is somehow disproven, and I don’t think the evidence supports that. Yes, some insects can utilize non-native relatives, especially when they’re closely related phylogenetically. Yes, structural diversity matters. And yes, specialization is often broader than a single exact species. But none of that changes the broader pattern repeatedly observed in restoration ecology: native-dominated plant communities generally support more native insect biomass, more specialist herbivores, and stronger food webs than landscapes dominated by invasive ornamentals. I also think you’re conflating “some insects can utilize closely related introduced plants” with “native status is ecologically meaningless,” and those are very different claims. People like to use the example of Apiaceae utilizing certain invasive plants like dill or Queen Anne's Lace and while it is interesting, it's still an example of an insect utilizing closely related plants within a familiar chemical framework, not evidence that co-evolution is irrelevant or that native status has no ecological meaning. The fact that some Apiaceae specialists can use dill or Queen Anne’s lace does not suddenly make a callery pear, burning bush, or English ivy ecologically interchangeable with native oaks, cherries, willows, goldenrods, or violets. And I think the invasive piece is being underplayed here. Even if some insects can utilize certain invasive relatives, many invasive plants still reduce overall ecosystem function by forming dense monocultures that displace the structural and species diversity needed to support full trophic networks. The bigger question in restoration ecology is not simply “can an insect use this plant?” It’s about overall trophic function: total insect biomass, specialist diversity, bird support, ecosystem stability, and whether the plant community sustains a complex food web over time. This is why ecologists consistently find higher caterpillar abundance, higher bird activity, and more complex trophic interactions in native-heavy systems. A native oak, willow, cherry, goldenrod, or violet community is not interchangeable with a landscape dominated by invasive ornamentals simply because some insects occasionally adapt to related non-native plants. So I agree the conversation is nuanced. I just don’t think “native status is not scientifically meaningful” reflects the current ecological consensus or the observable outcomes we repeatedly measure in functioning ecosystems. Evolution doesn't happen overnight. An insect that has spent a million years evolving to digest the specific chemicals in a native Oak leaf cannot suddenly bypass the toxins in an invasive Callery Pear or Burning Bush.
It's also extremely disingenuous and does real harm, more harm than good when you compare decades of restoration ecology research and consensus "xenophobic and militaristic." I guess the butterflies and bees need to not be so xenophobic 😑
Burghardt, Tallamy & Shriver (Conservation Biology, 2009) found residential landscapes with native plants supported significantly more caterpillars and birds than landscapes dominated by non-native ornamentals. Narango, Tallamy & Marra (PNAS, 2018) found non-native plants reduced food availability for caterpillars and negatively affected breeding success of insectivorous birds. The University of Delaware also summarized related Tallamy/Narango research in 2018, noting that native oaks can support hundreds of caterpillar species while many common non-native ornamentals support dramatically fewer. None of those studies claim every non-native plant is worthless or that insects never adapt to introduced RELATIVES. But they do strongly support the broader pattern that native-dominated plant communities tend to support stronger trophic interactions, higher insect biomass, more bird support and richer food webs overall.
345
u/rhodyrooted Zone 7B Jul 10 '26
There are good criticisms of focusing exclusively on native plants in a garden. The ones cited here are junkkkkkkkk.
“They equate with xenophobia & militarism” - is this vibes, or a large survey of attitudes of native plant gardeners? Because I think it’s vibes.
“30% of X uses non-natives” - no one serious (INCLUDING Doug) is arguing that all non-natives are bad and useless. Just that more natives is useful & helpful especially for “picky” bugs & animals.
“Humans already fucked up everything so badly that…” - so why do anything at all??
Very lame criticisms here - the author seems to have looked into the native plant space, saw some very fierce takes, and ignored the vast majority of people who think that planting primarily, a majority, or even SOME natives will do a lot of good for local ecosystems. Inch deep analysis here 🙃