Salal (Gaulthera shallon) is an often scruffy Northwest native.
A few years ago, I didn’t care at all for native plants.
I thought they were ugly and boring, and I didn’t understand why any gardener would want to plant them, when there are so many other, prettier plants we can grow from all over the world.
I live in Portland, Oregon—Zone 9a. Our winters are as mild as Pensacola, Florida’s, on average, but we have none of the humidity in summer. We can grow anything! Why would I possibly want to grow our scruffy Northwest natives?
I didn’t think native plants were important for wildlife.
I saw bees and birds in my garden. I figured my exotic plants were giving them everything they needed. Besides, if some wildlife did rely on native plants, well, that’s what nature’s for, right? My garden was for me, for my own pleasure. I didn’t appreciate native plant evangelists telling me what I should and shouldn’t plant. My garden was my sanctuary.
And then, in December of 2020, I read Doug Tallamy’s book, Nature’s Best Hope.
I didn’t want to read it. I’d read Tallamy’s previous books on gardening for wildlife, and they didn’t move me. But, I was on a book award committee, and Nature’s Best Hope was a candidate on the list. I had to give it a fair shake.
It completely changed my worldview.
There were four statistics in the book that were key to changing my mind, and they had to do with caterpillars.
Statistic #1: Ninety-six percent of terrestrial birds in North America feed their chicks insects—rather than seeds or berries—and the insects they choose are primarily caterpillars. In our backyards, doves and finches can get by on seeds, but pretty much all other birds need caterpillars. They’re essential for baby birds.
These baby finches can eat seeds, but most chicks need caterpillars.
Statistic #2: Well, how many caterpillars do birds need? The answer: thousands. For example, in one study, over a span of 16 days, one pair of Carolina chickadee parents, on average, brought their offspring 6,000 to 9,000 caterpillars.
I couldn’t get my head around those numbers, so I did the math. On average, each parent brought 3,750 caterpillars to the nest over that 16-day period. That’s 234 caterpillars per day and 16.7 caterpillars per hour if they worked from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. That means each bird brought one caterpillar every 3.6 minutes. Since birds often bring more than one caterpillar per trip, each bird made about one trip to the nest every five minutes for 14 hours a day.
Gives new meaning to the phrase, “eat like a bird.”
Statistic #3: Eighty-six percent of caterpillars are specialists, which means they can only eat plants belonging to three or fewer families. Two-thirds of caterpillars can only eat plants from one family. Nearly half can only eat plants from one genus. We all know monarchs can only eat milkweed, but that kind of relationship is not unique. Most caterpillars are on a highly restricted diet.
Yes, but do they have to eat native plants in those families/genera?
Not always, but most of the time, yes, they do. Caterpillars have to eat the plants they’ve evolved with. They’ve developed ways to deal with the toxins produced by certain plants, and most of them have come to rely on those plants exclusively.
Exotic plants may feed a few caterpillar species, but they don’t make any meaningful contribution to food webs. Heck, even most native plants don’t make a huge contribution to food webs. Only about five percent of native genera feed 70 to 75 percent of our caterpillars.
Tallamy calls these heavy lifters “keystone plants.” Keystones vary by region, but in most of the country, plants like native oaks, willows, cherries, maples, and poplars top the list.
Statistic #4: Well, can’t insects just live in nature and leave our gardens alone?
Not really, because as Tallamy points out, “Ninety-five percent of the country has been logged, tilled, drained, grazed, paved, or otherwise developed.” There isn’t enough pristine “nature” left out there for wildlife.
We’re in the midst of our sixth mass extinction, and there’s nowhere for wildlife to go. We have to make our developed areas more amenable to wildlife—in particular, to insects—if we want to support the food webs that sustain life on our planet. The whole world is a garden now, and we must replace the keystone plants we’ve lost.
The whole world is a garden, and this is what much of it looks like.
The news shook me.
Have you ever had a big change of heart about something that was important to you? It rarely happens—even among people who consider themselves open-minded—because it’s painful. When we learn something that contradicts a belief we hold dear, we experience cognitive dissonance, and it’s uncomfortable. Our brain immediately looks for reasons to discredit the contradictory information, because that’s way easier than changing the belief. Humans are hardwired to stay the course.
I started out in horticulture in the ’90s. I learned early on that native plants can be nice, but exotic plants cherry-picked from around the globe make for a much more exciting garden. I wanted to grow ALL THE PLANTS. And I did!
I was always able to dismiss the idea that natives should get higher billing in my garden, and the idea that natives should make up the majority of my garden was laughable.
Until I read Nature’s Best Hope. The evidence was irrefutable. Leaf-eating insects need native plants to survive, and those insects, in turn, form the basis of food webs around the world. Natives are necessary.
No longer able to easily dismiss the evidence conflicting with my belief, I accepted the discomfort. I sat with it. Change didn’t happen overnight. It took me a couple of months to process the information.
When I got to the other side, I looked at my garden differently. I looked at my neighborhood differently, and the world in general. I saw plants everywhere that were essentially worthless to wildlife, and it broke my heart.
I went to work on my garden.
I tore out plants that didn’t feed anybody, and I replaced them with plants that did. I planted northwestern keystones like Scouler willow, Garry oak, chokecherry, white alder, and vine maple. I researched Northwest native pollinator plants and planted goldenrod, pearly everlasting, gumweed, checkermallow, camas, snowberry, waterleaf, Oregon grape, and lupines.
I added habitat. I put in a pocket prairie and a tiny pond. I brought in some old logs for the beetles. I left the leaves where I could. I left bare ground for ground-nesting bees, and I cut my perennial stems long for stem-nesting bees. I let the grass grow long along the fringes.
My garden welcomes wildlife.
Over the past few years, I’ve watched. I’ve walked the garden. I’ve taken thousands of photos. And I’ve been blown away. I’ve been blown away by the diversity of insects I’ve found in my garden.
In just the past three years, I’ve observed about 300 species of insects. I’ve posted over 800 observations to iNaturalist, a citizen science website. Every day brings new discoveries. Every day brings drama and surprise. I’m filled with a sense of wonder every single time I step foot in the garden.
A western tiger swallowtail butterfly, from an egg laid on my Scouler willow.
Now, I can’t imagine gardening any other way.
I love that phrase, “The whole world is a garden.” I wish that more people understood this simple truth. Thank you for sharing your experience. Both native and appropriate adapted plants have a place in my garden. When I see caterpillar holes in my Canna leaves, I remind myself that a garden is also a nursery.
It’s a different mindset to look at caterpillar damage in the garden and be happy about it, but it feels good to know you’re providing for other creatures.
Bless you for this! I am a native plant nerd, but I also have a perennial bed that is somewhat traditional. However all the beds around my house are native plants only and they are lovely. I live in the country so I also have 6 rain gardens, all native, to manage water flow on our hilly property.
Thank you! Rain gardens can be a great way to incorporate native plants.
Great piece, Amy! I especially liked the way you described your transition from one belief to the other. Would that we could all make these transitions when necessary!
I also appreciated the info about the caterpillars; the discussion about natives rarely moves past pollinators and other critters that feed on the plants, to those who feed on them.
Thanks! I think even a little of native plant advocates don’t understand the importance of keystone plants and the caterpillars they support. I had no idea a few years ago.
*a lot of
I’m sorry you had to deal with that. It’s very hard for some people to get their head around these ideas. I felt the same way a few years ago, so I totally understand. I try to focus on the positive of what you can enjoy if you garden for wildlife, and hopefully that will inspire a few more to give it a try.
Congratulations! I love the way you describe your transition from exotic to native plants. I am trying to do the same here in the Bay Area. I’ve met numerous people who had a change of heart after reading Doug Tallamy’s book. My husband heard me talking about this for years but it was only when he heard Doug Tallamy’s talk on the Bringing Back The Natives Tour webinar in 2020 (an excellent well-known native plant tour that had to go to webinar only due to Covid) he was finally blown away by Doug’s presentation and his compelling statistics and examples! You can watch the presentation on the Bringing Back the Natives Tour website. I’m going to bookmark this post and send to people who are open to making changes.
Thank you so much! Please share this article wherever you’d like.
It’s great when your soil, light,water meet the needs of natives..not great when you spend a lot to find they aren’t suited to your yard
It can be difficult to find the right plant for the right place sometimes. Do you have heavy clay? Where do you garden?
I guess you didn’t notice this statistic in Doug Tallamy’s Nature’s Best Hope: Many native plants don’t support insects because plants are well-defended against them. Keystone species are making most of the food for the food web. Just 14% of native plants across the country are making 90% of food that drive the food web. 86% of the native plants are not driving the food web. Insect food comes from the big producers, like oaks, black cherries, hickories, and birches.
You close with a photo of a Western Tiger Swallowtail. The closely related Anise Swallowtail in the same genus uses non-native fennel as its host in California. Its native host dies back in winter, but non-native fennel is available throughout the year. As a result, Anise Swallowtail breeds throughout the year, thanks to non-native fennel. Just one of many examples of native insects that benefit from the availability of introduced plants that are chemically similar to their native hosts.
I guess you didn’t notice where I wrote that only 5% of native plants feed 70 to 75% of our caterpillars. That keystones like oaks, willows, cherries, maples, and poplars do the heavy lifting. And that exotics do feed a few caterpillars but don’t contribute much to food webs.
As a botanist, I find this focus on the food web for birds rather myopic. Certainly, birds are important, as are the caterpillars they feed on. They may depend on a relatively small percentage of plants, but thousands of native plants depend on insects for pollination and the insects get nutritional benefits in return. (Ironically, the oaks, willows, and poplars are wind-pollinated.) Whether they are significant contributors to that that narrow portion of the food web that birds depend on is relatively insignificant to the larger native plant, insect, and animal world. In short, native plants of all kinds have value, not just the few that benefit birds. I realize this isn’t intended, but I feel it gets lost in these discussions.
You’re not the only one.
It is myopic. Not mentioned either is how relatively few bird species can thrive or nest in the stress of urban environments. Also not mentioned is how keystone species (another myopic concept) only exist successfully within a greater context, as there is NO species hierarchy in the natural world. The food web is crucial, it’s important we think about it critically (no diss to the writer intended because I respect their journey.)
One more thing. Almost never mentioned again is the critical role of design in determining how ecological landscapes can function. That continues to surprise, as it’s just as important, if not more so, than simply the provenance of your plants. Horticultural ecology should be all our new BFF.
And you would find many people who suggest having a year-round non-native plant available would drastically alter the life cycle of our native insects. It’s a cycle for a reason. A little self serving to want anise swallowtails to breed year-round for your own benefits.
And I’ll echo Steve’s reply, too, it isn’t just about birds, it’s about the broader ecosystem functioning, not some one specific thing people can easily tie it back to—but humans love a reward system for their efforts so I get why they want to just tie it to something they can visibly see.
Thank you so much for this! I’m so tired of alien plant apologists, especially those who disparage native plant advocates–including some/most of the folks on this platform! The garden manager at a local botanical garden referred to Tallamy as a “native plant Nazi” and I was shocked! He’s such a nice guy, and he graciously advocates for people to keep their beloved crape myrtle or peonies or whatever, and even keep a front lawn to placate the grassaholic neighbors., while adding natives to their gardens to achieve the 70% native plant goal. Hardly a Nazi! I stopped volunteering in the gardens there because I was so disappointed in their lack of enthusiasm for native plants. I now volunteer at a nature preserve instead. I have been converting my plant palette to natives (as in ‘prune at ground level with a chain saw). And I have to stress that native plants are every bit as beautiful as Asian plants!
I’m sorry you had to deal with that. It’s very hard for some people to get their head around these ideas. I felt the same way a few years ago, so I totally understand. I try to focus on the positive of what you can enjoy if you garden for wildlife, and hopefully that will inspire a few more to give it a try.
Excellent piece. Thanks for writing it. Doug Tallamy doesn’t say to dig up all our favorite ornamentals, just the invasive ones. He says to ADD Natives. My percentage of Natives to Ornamentals keeps going up! 🙂 Here’s a quote from one of Doug Tallamy’s writings:
https://homegrownnationalpark.org/not-in-our-yard-doug-tallamy/
Excerpt:
The ecological approach to landscaping that I have described here is nothing more than basic earth stewardship, but it is stewardship that empowers us all to become forces in conservation. Today’s environmental challenges are so enormous that it is easy to feel helpless, as if one person can’t make a difference – despite the cliché that suggests you can. In this case, however, the cliché is right on: by choosing ecologically-effective plants for your landscape, by shrinking your lawn, and by removing your invasive ornamentals – all actions a single person can take – you will be able to make a difference that you can see, and enjoy, almost immediately. Life will return to your property!
Even if you don’t own land, you can make a difference by volunteering to help your local land conservancy manage its properties, or simply by helping someone who does own property. Either as property owners or volunteers, each of us has the power – and we clearly have the responsibility – to enhance the ecological value of local landscapes. Whether we decide to do so will determine nature’s fate and, ultimately, our own. In that sense, we all are nature’s best hope!
Yes! You don’t have to be as obsessive as I am. I realize a lot of people have mature gardens and it’s really hard to make big changes. My garden was still pretty new and open when I got started with natives. Thanks for the quote!
I Appreciate the openess you showed to the native plant movement. So many ridicule it as a fad, bur you made sure to recognize the importance of the life cycle of plants and the little things.
I was not open to it for many, many years. I only paid it lip service. I just wasn’t aware of how all the little things relied on natives.
Well done, Amy! I used to think the same way as you did before I saw Doug Tallamy’s presentation on oaks. It’s been life altering.
I think his book on oaks is even better than Nature’s Best Hope.
To say that some people have a hard time “wrapping their heads around” the concept of native-only planting is insulting to those of us that have no problem at all grasping the idea but reject its premise, it’s findings, or it’s dogma. I don’t believe the current research supports the movement and, in a long life spent outdoors and in gardens as a professional horticulturist, I don’t observe these claims to be accurate.
I am also not convinced that home gardeners are under any obligation to consider their habitats “nature” and therefore are morally obligated to toss out centuries of garden tradition and human creativity and to discontinue a profound art form in the name of “conservation”.
I get it – I simply don’t agree.
So you don’t believe the evidence is there. Fair enough. Honestly, we do need a lot more research in this area. But I’m curious, what if there was enough evidence to convince you? What if there was a mountain of evidence showing that insects are essential to the survival of the planet, that insect populations are declining worldwide, that insects are dependent on certain native plants for survival, that natural areas are so degraded that we have to welcome insects into our developed areas and that gardeners can lead the way? What if you really studied the insects in your garden and the gardens you design for other people, and you actually saw with your own eyes greater diversity of life in spaces with more keystone plants? What if you were convinced by whatever metric you require?
Would you change the way you garden and design gardens?
There you go again making assumptions about people who don’t agree with you. Of course we know that insect populations are in decline. It’s a world crisis.
But what you don’t know is that I’ve also spent my lifetime in the woods and fields of Tennessee, where I was raised, and in the urban gardens I create in Atlanta and the acre I’ve lived in for 30 years in Atlanta and 20 years on the 10 acre historic farm where I garden, run my design business and nursery.
So I’ve “seen with my own eyes” that the nativists are pushing a fallacy.
Our garden spaces are teeming with wildlife – even more so when we include plants that insects love, like abelia chinensis and buddleia. I have a non-native Salvia in flower right now that the native bumbles are crazy about. Tell me why I should remove these beneficial plants from my garden?
The natives-only crowd tell me I should remove these garden plants from my garden because they’re not rhe “right kind” of food source – as though they know more about what a swallow tale eats than a swallow tale. There’s a reason these insects swarm these plants. They’re not idiots.
I also have acres of meadows and woods with mostly native plants and they don’t have nearly the abundance of insect life right now that the garden plants are hosting. They will have their moment in the fall when the asters bloom but the beekeepers locally know that the wild world doesn’t provide much sustenance in the summer here. They call it the “dearth”.
Oh and if you’ve ever been to Atlanta you’ll see those keystone species you ever to shading every street. We are known for our trees here.
But the galling part of your argument from which I take the most offense is the notion that *gardeners* are somehow partly responsible for the current extinction crisis and they are the only hope of reversing it. That’s just plain silliness.
Insects are disappearing because of habitat loss, soil destruction and irresponsible use of pesticides in corporate agriculture. All of these issues are traceable back to the big companies and the governments that support them. Climate change, also.
My aunt Flo’s hydrangeas aren’t killing the planet.
I, like most of us, garden in an urban area where the original habitat was permanently altered centuries ago. “Native” is a concept that simply doesn’t fit to the reality of human habitats. As a matter of fact the nativists can’t even agree on the definition of the word.
Gardening is a human activity in a human habitat for the pleasure of humans. We are not obligated in any way to turn our gardens into little nature preserves. Hedges and parterres and fountains and perennial borders, trellises and arbors and pergolas and rockeries… are all components of a centuries-old and living art form that has its own cultural significance and, to me, is a profound creative expression and should be respected as such.
But the nativists are trying to legislate what people can plant across the country! They’re convincing universities to teach landscape architects a native-only plant palette. Cities are being pressured to fell beautiful healthy trees in urban parks because those trees didn’t live there before white people.
Pretty much you all went on a diet then tried to burn down all the bakeries.
I’m encouraged by the new research that’s showing us that most insects are getting what they need from a few abundant plant species and that diversity in a garden space – regardless of plant origins – is the key to diverse wild species.
As you can see, I can “wrap my mind” around this issue.
Amy your question reminds me of what I hear from the more ardent and outspoken vegans among my friends. Their attitude is that SURELY once people find out about the animal cruelty and harm to the environment tied to the eating of meat, they’ll stop eating it and go vegan. And those issues are quite motivating to ME (currently a pescatarian), but we don’t all respond the same way to even these undisputed facts about meat production. Same for any issue – we don’t all find them equally motivating, even when we agree with the assertions of fact. This is what I remind myself when I see people who I know to be compassionate and concerned about the environment eating meat (veal especially).
I agree with you.
I’m glad you did your research. Many gardener’s just groan when they even think of native plants. Just as you stated. But they’re called “native” for good reasons. Thanks for the post!
I still think a lot of native plants (especially in the PNW) are boring and ugly! But the life they bring into the garden is fascinating.
Another article in a similar vein, with quotes by Doug Tallamy. 🙂
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/06/biodiversity-backyard-native-plants/
I accept that there are keystone species for birds to find sufficient food. I accept that oaks, cherries, willows maple and the dreadfully messy tulip poplar are keystone species. What I have yet to see demonstrated as a matter of science instead of assumptions is that only native versions of those trees will host those caterpillars and that similar species from around the world won’t do the same. Please point me to research that supports the assertion that caterpillars “have to eat native plants in those families/genera”? Has anyone actually studied this before making such broad assertions? I don’t recall that being a part of Dr. Tallamy’s studies when I read the book and looked at the actual research behind it. Did I miss something?
These assertions that critters “have to eat native” immediately lead to the claims that non-natives are worthless. Those claims are absurd to anyone who has and observes a diverse garden. Swallowtail caterpillars consume parsley and fennel in my garden with relish and their mamas seem to favor it over native host plant Zizia aurea for laying eggs. These plants are in the same family; yet the native wildlife seems to prefer the non-natives. Gulf Fritillaries never stop to ask where the passionflower they devour came from, but they definitely don’t seem to prefer the native yellow form (Passiflora lutea) all over my property which remains mostly untouched to the non-native one (Flowers? I’m lucky to see a few whole leaves on the non-native ones as opposed to P. lutea). The native bees that swarm my Japansese asters in late fall are a sight to behold. By then there is little else for them to eat through frost. So tell me they are worthless! By what measure?
The problem with the native plant movement is the lack of actual supporting facts for so many of the claims and a blind adherence by many advocates to asserting statistics pulled out of the air, some of which you are repeating. And does this movement to plant pre-colonial history gardens (pretty much re-wilding since that’s all there was then?) actually consider the impact of climate change? I understand the convenience of picking “pre-colonial” as a time to tag “native: to, because the records are easier to find thanks to explorers. But we know the Native Americans moved plants around the country plenty. We also know that we can find fossils that show some plants were local before the colonials came that aren’t there now, but are elsewhere in the world. Are those native or not? Oh yeah, we were once a single continent, which more or less explains how similar species evolved in similar regions across the world. We may well need to depend upon such species as our own suffer from climate change and pests from around the world threaten native plants (there is no putting that genie back in the bottle now).
I’d also like to see the studies that back up your claim above about caterpillars needing natives “most of the time” saying “[T]hey’ve developed ways to deal with the toxins produced by certain plants, and most of them have come to rely on those plants exclusively.” Botanically speaking, I have a lot of questions about the accuracy of this being tied to natives versus chemically analogous non-natives in the same family or subgroups. I may end up being wrong, but I believe in evidence based conclusions.
None of this is said without concern for the intolerable use of chemicals to grow and feed massive lawns or alternatively the use of chemicals to eradicate non-natives to “re-wild” plant communities that keeps failing over and over. None of these are good for the birds and the bees. I’d personally like to re-forest the suburbs, tear down every vacant or mostly vacant shopping center and plant trees — lots and lots of trees. But that isn’t how the United States and private property works sadly.
Please go ahead and plant only natives or 70% natives or some other number pulled out of a hat for all the science behind that number, but recognize that as a movement, many nativists are bullying and shaming everyone else to do so through use of unsupported claims and statistics. In such circumstances, pushback and critical examination is warranted. The movement also needs to be clear in informing what “native” actually means. If I hear one more person assert something is native to the “US,” “the East Coast,” “the Southeast” or even the state of “Georgia” which has multiple ecosystems and great diversity within them, I may pull out my hair. But these are convenient acts of omission to push an agenda. I begin to wonder — jokingly — if there is a hedge fund out there for native plant production and sales and I ought to invest in it.
golly
This has very much been my journey, except I was a vegetable (read: practical/human use) gardener. It’s been nothing short of transformative to learn about native plants and just how critical they are for not just species survival, but that of entire ecosystems. This was a great read and I appreciate you sharing your journey!
Another statistic that I think is essential is the one about “soft landings.”