The part of your comment which prompted the comparison was "... native plant species are easy. If you plant them in the right place, they will grow very easily and strongly with minimal care." This is one of the principles of permaculture - based on the land you have available (and it can be as small as a balcony off a flat) spend some time working our what works where based on your plot and plant that, rather than struggling to get something working where it doesn't belong.
Sometimes there are good reasons why a regular grass yard might be ok.
I wonder why more suburbs don't do that.
Nothing a .22 can't fix, surely?
Only people who do a poor job of looking after their pets and livestock fear natural predators the way you do.
The coyotes are pairing up for mating season, so they start to do crazy things like chase deer through my yard. During the rest of the year, when they tend to be solitary, they stay far far away from people and even mid-size dogs.
Get a fire pit and use it occasionally, and they’ll generally be pretty shy near your yard; its a smell nature has taught them to keep away from.
Everyone who hears or sees coyotes multiple times a week is careful about things, but also aware that they are a risk to small animals.
You can also use some kind of structure, of course. Sometimes that will involve more rules, and some people just prefer using plants.
Ideally this should be part of a complete sector analysis, which also considers things like sun and wind direction.
https://www.greenpathherbschool.com/greenpathblog/permacultu... (scroll down to "Sector Analysis")
https://smalldesignstudio.wordpress.com/a-permaculture-proje... (scroll down to "sector map")
That said, bringing down trees is always odd to me. Definitely bring down any that pose a risk to your house. But otherwise, seems more effort than it is worth. I should probably be a lot better at pruning, as that is a ton of work. And, while intellectually I know the answer is that you are unlikely to kill the tree, I am always worried about that to the point that I don't prune enough.
So, posing a risk is more on trees that are likely to fall over and do major damage. Or those that have root systems that are too close to your foundation and going to cause issue in that way.
All of this is said as someone that loves giant trees nearby. Seeing eagles and such nest at the top of trees that are hundreds of feet tall is very cool.
Edit: Also consider fire hazard to the house, depending on where you live.
Another house that has sit empty for a year and a half recently cutdown all its trees. Literally all the trees. All that's left is a graveyard of stumps, which makes it look like a warzone from WWI or something. There was probably 50 trees cutdown.
There's no way I'm cutting down the oaks, and I'm unlikely to cutdown any tree, even if it's dead since even those support insects, owls, woodpeckers, and other birds.
It's possible I overestimated, but it has to be at least over two dozen trees. And these are not small trees. There's of course smaller ones but others are easily over 40-50 feet.
If someone planted 50+ trees that are a terrible fit for the lot, well that's a good reason to take them out too, hopefully with replacements.
Personally, I live on a large lot with hundreds of trees, and it would be easy to select 50 trees that would be reasonable to cut down, and you'd hardly notice. But the only large tree we cut down was a (non native) cottonwood planted near the house that had bifurcated and was likely to fall on the house in the foreseable future. When we thin the forest, it's mostly younger trees in thick growth that don't have room to grow well.
Also wanted to mention the importance of diversity. Everybody thinks trees trees trees but, at least where I live, native prairie plants are just as, if not more important, and are unfortunately largely ignored.
The plants are really fun because you can just basically plant them anywhere and see how they do. They take quickly and don't pose any harm to infrastructure.
We're in a cold climate, so one of our goals is to have more deciduous (leafy) trees on the southern side. This provides shade in summer but solar heat in winter.
Right now in that location is an overgrown ~60 year pine replant. Bad for sun, bad for fire. After taking down a total of 50 (!) dead spindly pines, the building now gets noticeably more sun, but you can hardly notice a difference in forest density. But it gave a lot more room (and sun) for the maples and oaks already coming up.
To choose trees, I took a sun path app and walked back and forth along the south wall. This let me choose only dead pines that were shading the building in winter.
I avoid burning. The pine logs now rot peacefully (waterlogged) on the forest floor, feeding fungus while they buffer rainfall and cover chipmunk holes. Don't worry, there's still abundant dead stand habitat as well.
For ticks, you might consider chickens and/or ducks. Note that they will eat and scratch everything, so you might get one of those cheap solar electric fence enclosures. You can enclose a large area for little cost, leaving some habitat areas where toads and salamanders won't get gobbled up!
So sad to hear about thoughtless clearcutting. I cringe every time.
Cheers and good luck
Be careful doing this with any tree that can potentially fall on your home or one of your neighbors'. You will have a lot more trouble getting insurance to pay out if they find out you knew the tree was dead.
https://treeandneighborlawblog.com/ Has interesting stories tangentially related to tree duties.
I can only agree. I ate a ton of dandelion last summer and can't wait to do it again this year.
We pick the leaves early in the season (March/April in Colorado) and they're not too bitter and work great sauteed, or raw in a wrap. We also put extra in freezer bags, freeze them, then blend them up in a shake and that's pretty good. Because of the shape of the plant I found that it collects dirt really easily, so picking a more mature plant is not only more bitter but also tougher to get all the gunk off the leaves.
The heads are good too. Let the dandelion bloom, then as soon as the blooms close again we go out and pick them. I tend to just eat them as I'm doing other things in the yard but they keep for a little while in the fridge too. I threw some in a stir-fry once and it was pretty good. They're juicy, slightly sweet, and maybe a little nutty. Wait too long though and it's just fluff on the inside which doesn't taste that great.
One year we picked the flowers while they were still yellow and dried them, then we baked them into cookies. It was a lot of picking but it tasted pretty good.
Of course you do still need to be safe in your hunting, and that can be tricky.
You can see this in wild areas with lots of deer - there's almost nothing growing less than about 7 feet off the ground.
[0] https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/06/05/bone-sauce-a-too...
If you're in the bay area, https://www.bringingbackthenatives.net/ is a great resource - you can tour gardens and find garden designers. Calscape.net also a great resource, plus the native nurseries like Oaktown and Watershed.
Native species, especially the ones at risk, are more likely to be specialists. And of course, they specialize in the native plants.
Invasive species, on the other hand, are more likely to be generalists. That's why they become invasive in the first place. And they'll be happy to visit those non-native plants.
I still have a lawn in the front and back covering parts of the property. I did plant non-native grass last fall. I'm not sure I'm happy about that from an ideal standpoint, but I chose grass that is very drought resistant and needs basically no maintenance and looks fine when allowed to grow taller. I mixed in some mini-clover, which is also non-native, but it's a new species that is supposed to make the grass even more drought tolerant, provides natural fertilization, and supports pollinators. We'll see how it goes. I also plan to not mow as much, although last year with the drought, I barely mowed at all. I don't use chemical fertilizers and used only natural fertilizers. I have heard this approach described as feeding the soil and not feeding the grass. One of the fertilizers I used showed some fungus growing on the grass, which I was happy about.
I hope to keep evolving things and reclaiming parts of the lawn that we never use or want. It's nice as you reclaim it with plants and trees, because it's decreasing maintenance burden.
I assume this must happen in other parts of the country/world, or it's a meme.
If you want to go completely wild with your own back yard, I understand, but I don't see the appeal of that either.
The American custom of manicured lawns has always been quite incomprehensible to me. A lot of people in eastern Europe have dachas or live in SFH in suburbs but they tend to have some trees around the house for both comfort (provides shade in summer) and aesthetic reasons.
For me, it was that they are super easy to take care of, and thrive under conditions that would murder "standard" sorts of landscaping plants. I'm forgetful, and a watering schedule is just not an option for my poor, poor brain.
Here's some bullet points I've collected in my head. I'm not an expert and am still learning. See the links below. Planting native plants:
- reduces watering and fertilization needs, if not removing them, because native plants are built for the area they're planted in
- attracts native insects, which further attracts native predators like birds, mammals, and other insects. Non-native plants can attract a lot of activity, but it can be harmful to the overall ecosystem, as non-native pollinators are not evolved to interact with the regional ecosystems and are thus far less effective
- Non-native plants can not only monopolize the environment, but they can be highly detrimental to the soil, stripping it of nutrients
- Native plants are developed primarily locally and thus reduce emissions compared to having to ship around non-native plants everywhere to all the big box stores and nurseries
- Ecosystems contain individual species that evolved together. By replacing entire plant systems with non-native plants, you interrupt the system. This is not good because things get of whack. Things evolve but not in healthy ways, such as often encouraging non-native wildlife.
- Pollinators are extremely endangered but extremely important, not to just their local ecosystems but to humans as well. They are what allows our agriculture to be successful. It doesn't make any sense to smoke them out.
- Native plants are more efficient at carbon capture.
https://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter
https://www.monarchgard.com/what-we-believe.html
https://homegrownnationalpark.org/
Honestly, the only reason to plant non-native plants is vanity.
Your yard is only rarely representative of the "natural" ecosystem that would otherwise exist. Generalist species may find your yard similar enough to thrive, but specialists (carnivorous plants are a popular example) likely will not even if they're native to the immediate area.
Non-natives can actually be even more efficient than natives at many things, including carbon capture. Prickly pear is a highly invasive example that outcompetes native crops with higher efficiency photosynthesis, huge adaptability to arid environments, and massive carbon capture potential due to its rapid growth rate.
Speaking of prickly pear, it's a native family in much of the western US, but it remains invasive in yards throughout that range because the ecological succession that would naturally control its reproduction takes decades and isn't allowed to occur. Don't plant it.
Your yard is a cultivated environment. Be cognizant of what you're planting and how it interacts. Natives are often a good choice, but there are perfectly valid reasons to plant non-natives or avoid certain natives.
FWIW, In my area of the world I hear about non natives being bad but they often seem to grow very well, eg in the wild. So it seems to me that they are often well suited to the local environment. The concern then seems to me to be an implicit preference for what was already here over new comers. To me, seems a bit “anti immigrant” and I just can’t relate.
I definitely appreciate the point that we should avoid catastrophic decrease in diversity, and bringing in foreign plants could raise risk of that.
And yes, the rhetoric can be feel very anti-immigrant (something my immigrant spouse picked up on very quickly)
Any regions of the world people actually live have really beautiful natural plants that are often excluded from peoples yards just because it’s not what the builder has massive stockpile of. You can use local plants to make your property look distinctly and beautifully “of a place” and not some e.g generic American burb or “trying to imitate” some other place (palm trees in Seattle, im looking at you)
This seems like a plot of some South Park episode or Onion news article TBH.
That's a bit extreme. Planting a bit of herbs and veggies in my garden alongside the native forest on my land will neither destroy the local ecosystem nor is it for vanity (nobody can even see the plants but me and my family).
If you live on a small plot of land and you only have room for a few plants, then native is a good choice. I have acres and acres of untouched woodland on my property. A few bell pepper plants in my garden does no harm.
That is reason enough to avoid non-natives and invasive species.
They reduce biodiversity making a habitat more brittle and boring. And they may spread beyond the bounds of your property, negatively affecting others.
Anecdotally, looking at the invasive Amur Honeysuckle on my property, its leaves remain pristinely green well into Fall, but by comparison, other comparable native plants have leaves eaten by insects, covered in molds, etc. There can be a competitive advantage to being the new plant on the block; but that competitive advantage is clearly at the expense of anything that relies on those native plants to live.
Generally however, invasive plants tend to be those that like to colonize disturbed areas, and they tend to be plants that are easy to grow (and so people like them). The greatest threat, imo, is the continued and ongoing disturbance of the land, and, the continued introduction of new non-native plants (primarily via the large commercial nurseries).
Native plants should grow well, but there are also many organisms around to fertilize them, prey on them, symbiose with them, eat their fallen leaves, and so on.
Everything else in the ecosystem from the microbes, fungi and insects up is native, so it seems obvious to me that the plants should be as well.
Is it discouraged to have a vegetable garden these days?
Are we still allowed to grow carrots outside of Iran and Afghanistan without being frowned on?
Funny thing, monarch butterflies (and the caterpillars) seem to prefer the non-native Milkweed to the native variety.
In general, I have tried taking an additive approach. I have only removed plants that I knew for a fact, through the app and subsequent research, were non-native and particularly damaging.
In particular, his house is on a small lot typical of suburban sprawl neighborhoods.
https://www.monarchgard.com/uploads/6/7/1/6/67169427/pxl-202...
Native plants do that, too. Invasive species thrive on that, in fact. Horticulture is more complicated than just "eating local." Ok, so a good diet is also more complicated than eating local.
> native plant species are easy
Absolutely! And if you're in a place that can flood or has droughts or sometimes has wild temperature spikes, those are plants that have adapted to the environment. They live through tough times that kill the plants that haven't adapted.
I disagree. Native plants are great, but so are tomatoes or some bell and habanero peppers. You're projecting your personal opinions on what makes a garden good. To some, a good garden is defined by its native-plant biodiversity. To others, it's getting fresh herbs for salads at dinner. To others it is something else. It's not an either-or thing. You can plant many things and reap varying benefits.
I think a fairer term here is 'argument'.
Where they can be useful is that they often bloom at different times, or provide food at the start or end of the season, not furnished by native plants.
This can be really useful for supporting a wider range of species, especially with the seasons expanding/compressing.
What I am finding though, is that the main difference between an invasive species, and a native species that is vigorous, is that the native species has a lot of interactions with other species within the local biome. And invasive species does not, so runs unchecked without a predator, or does not provide any benefits for other species. If they did, they would be “native”. Over time, the biome will adapt, and interactions will start arising.
There very much are circumstances in which an invasive, resilient species is the right thing. For example, Jerome, Arizona, is an old copper mining town with a devastated ecosystem. Tailings from the copper mine poisoned the land. It’s at a steep incline, with severe erosion. Houses had been sliding off the slope.
When the mine shut down, and the population dropped to about 100 residents, fhe mayor at the time brought in an invasive tree called the Tree of Heaven to save the town. That mayor hired an aircraft to seed it all around Jerome. This tree is invasive, difficult to kill once established, drives out other species, and produces copious amount of seeds. Crucially, it can survive soil that has been poisoned by the mining tailing. It grows everywhere in Jerome — and holds what soil is there. This terrible, aggressive plant is helping to remediate a land trashed by human activity.
I'm in the Midwest and I'll also note the adage that many of our natives follow "sleep, creep, leap". Year 1, you'll be like "damn is this stuff even growing, this sucks" and year 2 you'll say "well I guess it came back? maybe?" and year 3 you'll say "it's starting to look nice here!"
I'm also taking a slightly heterodox approach in that I am mixing in non-native edibles with glee (I've got at least 6 kinds of berry bush for instance, some native some not). The weight is still on natives, but I've been influenced by, who, Todd Hemenway?? who pointed out that the ecological impact of shipping berries from far-away lands is much worse than the ecological impact of having berry bush that's well-behaved and not native. Similarly, there are very few non-native plants I try to abolish anymore. Instead to the best of my ability I eat them. It is extraordinary how many plants can be eaten. From Japanese knotweed (cook it like rhubarb in sweets, or stir-fry) to hops to daisies (eat young like arugula) to garlic mustard (great pesto) to hostas (nice asparagus-like flavor when roasted or sautéed young). I'm not introducing these, not at all, but when they appear I don't get xenophobic, I get dinner. Which also sounds kind of creepy. But what I mean is that I'm not digging up my echinacea to use the roots medicinally; I don't have enough plants to do so sustainably yet -- but I sure am serving 6 linear feet worth of hostas at a dinner party.
Our role as humans is not some ideal, “untouched”, “pristine” Nature, as if human activity and design necessarily spoils Nature. I think a more sensible perspective is that humans are stewards of the land, and there are yields for humans and the non-human inhabitants. It’s that our civilization has been terrible stewards, not that we are incapable of being good stewards. We can care for the land and people, and still get our fair share.
Why?
I disagree.
Billions of birds fly around the world every year with seeds in their gut. Plants are constantly, naturally, migrating in territory.
"Native" plants are plants which were in a given place (in this example the US) before an arbitrary date (for the US, very roughly 1500), when we started keeping track of local flora.
The climate is observably changing, and what was "native" in 1500 may not be applicable to a local ecosystem anymore. Trees are already suffering in some ranges, and ranges are moving north.
Note that there is a difference between "non-native" (arbitrary) and "invasive" (measurable). Planting invasives (whether native or non-native) should be discouraged because they have the potential to disrupt ecosystems by completely filling niches. Planting non-invasive non-natives is harmless, and if well considered can be beneficial to your local ecosystem.
I sort of disagree with the article though. I think one should actually take a relatively hardline approach to planting only native plants. Just because you have a lot of activity around a plant doesn't mean it's the right activity. You could be attracting non-regional and non-native species which is generating the activity.
And honestly, native plant species are easy. If you plant them in the right place, they will grow very easily and strongly with minimal care. Then you can collect their seeds. I am really hoping that all the milkweed we're planting brings more monarchs. Last year, we saw a couple.
I like Douglas Tallamy's books Bringing Nature Home and Nature's Best Hope.