This may be a little off from where this thread has lead, but it relates to native vs. non-native plants for landscaping:
*1.* Just because a plant evolved in a certain place or habitat, and is presumably adapted to that place, does not mean that it won't do BETTER somewhere else. And I'm not talking just about invasive species who have evaded their predators, parasites, and diseases; consider the common potato. It evolved in the Andes, but I've been given to believe that it produces much higher yields in Idaho or Maine, and this is because longer days and short, cool nights favor photosynthesis over respiration. Of course, much of its biological needs are being tended to by farmers, and were measuring success in terms of yield. Potatoes might not survive in the north in the wild, but we are talking about landscaping. *2.* The argument that native species are "safer" because they come with their co-evolved pests, predators, and diseases is just another way of saying they are vulnerable and disease-prone, and thus is also an argument AGAINST planting them. Martin M. Meiss 2013/4/25 Aleta <[email protected]> > Ted, > I'd like to add two points to the many appropriate reasons provided-- > Native plants also maintain appropriate structure in native communities, > which have typical vegetation layers, structural complexity, cover and > density appropriate to native wildlife species. Physical structure can be > vital to wildlife species' abilities to find cover, create shelter and > nesting, evade predators, etc. As an example, picture the dense stands of > invasive purple loosestrife, multiflora rose, Japanese knotweed (and many > others) and think of the complex herbaceous, shrub, tree and aquatic plant > communities they replace. > > I would also like to add nuance to the basic issue you mentioned of native > plants providing food for wildlife....native plants can provide more > nutritional or nutritionally specific foods to wildlife, which can be > critical when their intake is providing energy for winter survival, > migration, etc. Non-native plants may provide distraction from native > foods...junk food if you will. > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Ted Turluck <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello List Members, > > > > I am working with native plants and would like to make sure I have all > the > > arguments for native plants correct. If I am missing some, please let me > > know. My goal is to promote native plants for use in landscaping and > > grazing. > > > > Native plants provide habitat and food for native wildlife. This is > > particularly important with increasing urban development and the habitat > > loss that goes along with development. > > > > Native plants make up a large part of the ecological heritage of an area. > > They made up the environment in which the first settlers lived and the > > resources they used. > > > > Native plants are less likely to become invasive because the herbivores, > > parasites, and pathogens they evolved with are still present. > > > > That is all I have at the moment. Please let me know what other > arguments I > > need to add or how I can strengthen the ones I already have. > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Ted Turluck > > >
