Are Natives The Answer_dmott9

Are Natives the Answer?

My blog, The Garden Professors, has an ongoing and lively discussion about invasive plants.  Let me state up front that none of the Garden Professors is promoting invasive plants.  But the issues surrounding invasive plants are extremely complex and have profound implications for many groups with whom we work in landscape horticulture and urban and community forestry.  It is essential in these discussions that we separate fact from hyperbole.  In some quarters, lines have been blurred and people fail to make key distinctions and lump exotic, alien, or non-native species together with invasives.  According to the Federal Executive Order on Invasive species “Invasive species” means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.  All invasives are alien but only a small fraction of alien species are invasive (all humans are mammals but not all mammals are humans).  Nevertheless, there is a temptation to ‘hedge all bets’ and promote only native species for horticultural planting since native plants, by definition, cannot be invasive.  In addition, there is a ‘feel good’ aura that surrounds native plants – if they’re native they must be good – that clouds some of the logic in the argument.

Some examples:

“Natives are more stress tolerant and better adapted than exotics”

Really.  If native plants are always better adapted, why do we have invasives?  Shouldn’t the “better adapted” natives out-compete them? Stress tolerance and adaption are a function of natural selection pressures of the environment in which a species or population evolves.  The world is full of stressful environments and, therefore, lots of stress tolerant species.  There is no a priori reason, for example, to believe that a native species needs less water than an exotic.  The ability to withstand drought depends on the particular species in question.  I’ve done a lot of research on stress physiology of Scots pine – few, if any, native species here in Michigan can match it for drought and cold hardiness.  Moreover, as Jeff pointed out, most of our urban and suburban environments no longer reflect native conditions.  Urban heat islands can result in temperatures 10-20 deg. F warmer than the native countryside.  In our research on heat island effects in downtown Lincoln, NE we logged temperatures in tree canopies in excess of 125 deg. F.  These temperatures were coupled that with the usual urban conditions of impervious surfaces and compacted soils – what tree species is native to that ecosystem?

Native restoration? This nurse-log ecosystem is typical of forests in western Oregon & Washington. Trying to keep it alive in downtown Portland requires constant mist irrigation.

“Native plants are more pest resistant than exotics”

This would be true if native pests were all we had to contend with.  But the exotic pest train has already left the station.  Emerald ash borer, Dutch elm disease, white pine blister rust, chestnut blight, Asian long horned beetle, and sirex wood wasp are here and here to stay.  And their friends are coming.  The continued expansion of global trade will almost undoubtedly mean that exotic pests, for which native trees have not evolved resistance, will become more, not less, of a problem in the future.   Relying exclusively on native trees means more, not fewer, catastrophic tree failures.  Heavy planting of green and white ash, which are both native in Michigan, has resulted in the loss of 30% or more of the urban tree canopy to EAB in some Michigan communities.

“Natives increase diversity”

This presupposes that exotic species do not or cannot fill niches occupied by natives.  Exotics can certainly add structural diversity and age class diversity to an urban and community forest.  I would also argue that they add to species biodiversity as well.  If we consider an urban community such as Lansing or Detroit, there are maybe six or seven native tree species that we could expect to have reasonable longevity as street trees.  If we expand our choices to include non-natives we can expand the list to twenty or so.  Not a huge number to be sure, but still a better hedge against catastrophic urban tree loss that the ‘native only’ policy.

Where to go from here?

We cannot ignore that fact the invasive plants are a huge economic and environmental issue.  Presently we do not have models that will accurately predict which exotics will become invasive and which ones won’t.  Trees that are demonstrated to be invasive in a given environment need to be dropped from planting programs.  Except for the desert Southwest and parts of the Plains, every region of the country has great native trees that can. and should, be an integral part of their urban and community forests.  While it’s tempting to play it safe and promote natives only, this policy has significant shortcomings.  Urban and community forests provide enormous economic, environmental, and societal benefits.  In order for our urban forests to provide these functions over the long term we need as broad an array of trees species as possible, including appropriate exotics.

This post was originally published by Bert Cregg on The Garden Professors. It is reprinted with his permission.

Flickr image credit: dmott9

2 comments

  1. I’m the county forester for Arlington County, and I recently reworked our tree lists. You can see it here, if you’d like:

    http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2014/01/Master-List.pdf

    I’m glad people are having this discussion, because there is definitely more nuance to research. That being said, I think you’re addressing this issue somewhat cynically, and I’d like to talk about some of the points you made.

    I don’t think people believe that native plants are universally more stress resistant than non-native plants, bred for toughness. This is one good reason we need to work with nurseries to see if we can breed tougher natives. On the other hand, there definitely are native trees that match up with the non-native plants in toughness. I see just as many willow oaks thriving as I do Chinese elms and bradford pears, and I’ve selected my street tree list based on research in my community on survivability, and many of the native trees do just as well.

    I have a hard time believing someone thinks native plants are more pest-resistant, but preventing the importation of non-native plants certainly will reduce pest introduction of future insect infestations. Except for the Mountain Pine beetle, most of the insects we’re dealing with were brought in, so maybe we need to be a little more careful with that. On the flipside, non-native trees are not meant to resist our pests, and that’s shown with historic introductions. We’ve found many trees that work in our environment, and don’t seem to have many pests, but that also means they probably have near to no wildlife value.

    That brings me to the third issue, of wildlife value. While I don’t disagree that some non-native trees have some wildlife value, and trees like lindens and willows can be indistinguishable for our wildlife, it’s a falsehood to assume they can provide the same benefit. Doug Tallamy’s research shows clearly the great divide in insects and other wildlife grazing on non-native plants.

    What we need to look at is the following:

    - Provide the right space for native trees in our urban environment. All this work on soil volume and proper care is perfect for expanding our native planting pallette. It’s definitely beneficial for us to be picking native plants.
    - Look to warmer regions of our country for more climate-change resistant trees, but don’t try to assume you have to go outside of the continent to find something suitable.
    - Work with nurseries to breed more resistant plants. We’ve already done this with the river birch, for example, with its ‘Dura heat’ cultivar.
    - Listen to our naturalists. We had a discussion on removing Chinese Elm from our lists, because it started having major invasive properties. Our naturalists provided evidence, and we removed it. As you can see from my list, I still have non-native plants on there, for aesthetic and toughness purposes, but none of them are on our invasive plant list. Just because you like a tree doesn’t mean you should be making the gamble to hurt our ecosystem.

    Thanks,

    Vincent Verweij
    Arlington County Forester
    703-228-1863

  2. I’m the county forester for Arlington County, and I recently reworked our tree lists. You can see it here, if you’d like:

    http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2014/01/Master-List.pdf

    I’m glad people are having this discussion, because there is definitely more nuance to research. That being said, I think you’re addressing this issue somewhat cynically, and I’d like to talk about some of the points you made.

    I don’t think people believe that native plants are universally more stress resistant than non-native plants, bred for toughness. This is one good reason we need to work with nurseries to see if we can breed tougher natives. On the other hand, there definitely are native trees that match up with the non-native plants in toughness. I see just as many willow oaks thriving as I do Chinese elms and bradford pears, and I’ve selected my street tree list based on research in my community on survivability, and many of the native trees do just as well.

    I have a hard time believing someone thinks native plants are more pest-resistant, but preventing the importation of non-native plants certainly will reduce pest introduction of future insect infestations. Except for the Mountain Pine beetle, most of the insects we’re dealing with were brought in, so maybe we need to be a little more careful with that. On the flipside, non-native trees are not meant to resist our pests, and that’s shown with historic introductions. We’ve found many trees that work in our environment, and don’t seem to have many pests, but that also means they probably have near to no wildlife value.

    That brings me to the third issue, of wildlife value. While I don’t disagree that some non-native trees have some wildlife value, and trees like lindens and willows can be indistinguishable for our wildlife, it’s a falsehood to assume they can provide the same benefit. Doug Tallamy’s research shows clearly the great divide in insects and other wildlife grazing on non-native plants.

    What we need to look at is the following:

    - Provide the right space for native trees in our urban environment. All this work on soil volume and proper care is perfect for expanding our native planting pallette. It’s definitely beneficial for us to be picking native plants.
    - Look to warmer regions of our country for more climate-change resistant trees, but don’t try to assume you have to go outside of the continent to find something suitable.
    - Work with nurseries to breed more resistant plants. We’ve already done this with the river birch, for example, with its ‘Dura heat’ cultivar.
    - Listen to our naturalists. We had a discussion on removing Chinese Elm from our lists, because it started having major invasive properties. Our naturalists provided evidence, and we removed it. As you can see from my list, I still have non-native plants on there, for aesthetic and toughness purposes, but none of them are on our invasive plant list. Just because you like a tree doesn’t mean you should be making the gamble to hurt our ecosystem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Current day month ye@r *