I love the nuance you bring to this issue, one I've thought a lot about. I still hold on to the idea that there might be room for "invasive species" removal in remnant intact ecosystems, just to give rare species the opportunity to persist. And I know many of what we call invasive species are most active in disturbed areas, where they may often be serving regenerative roles. But I wonder where we draw the line at managing them a bit to keep them from sprawling into areas of rare botanical significance. It's a tricky one.
On a different angle, I've noticed that as I add more and more Oregon "native" plants to my yard, the number and diversity of insect species that visit has expanded at an amazing rate. But I have seen native bees (bumblebees and carpenter bees particularly) and many butterflies still seeming quite happy to visit my remaining non-native plants, such as various mint species and daisies. Of course the "non-native" honeybees will visit most any flower, at least in my yard. I think there is something to the idea of making sure there are plenty of prolific nectar plants for the honeybees, so maybe there will still be some nectar in the more rare native plants for those wild bees or butterflies that are limited to using those. Otherwise, the honeybees may compete with the wild bees on the only food sources available to them. Plus, some of the native species are tricky and slow to establish, so it's certainly nice to get some good nectar plants established early to sort of get the local fauna used to visiting your yard. Anyway, just a little observation about how I've seen native and non-native plants (and insects) working together well in my own little home ecosystem.
Thanks for the comment! I'm glad you found this piece -- you can see why I was so drawn to your "War on Wildlife" piece given the feelings we share for the beauty of Redwoods and the tragedy of their destruction.
In terms of how we interact with native and introduced plants, I think it's all about what my friend Nikki Hill calls, "living in relation." So, getting to know a place, observing what's going on there, and making choices based on the particulars we see, in terms of how they relate to the goal we have. That's going to be a journey not a destination, especially given our disconnection and alienation from land and life in this culture. Just figuring out *how* to observe can be a challenge all by itself!
The choices we make in a particular place may be the removal of introduced plants. Or as with indigenous land-tending practices, the excising one set of native plants to encourage another (fires to prevent Firs from establishing in Oak savannah). In our food gardens, we may weed out native plants in favor of our introduced plants. In any case, our goals will be guiding those choices, whether that goal is protecting a particular habitat "as is" or shaping another one to increase food production (for humans or other-than-humans). This "living in relation" is, I would say, our true human nature. And I think that seeking it is how to answer the question you posed in the last line of your "War on Wildlife" piece: "I wonder whether there’s a place for me in that tapestry."
"Living in relation" is what you're doing when you add species to your yard and then observe what's happening, and then let your choices be guided by what you see. It sounds like species richness of plants is leading to species richness of pollinators, which is in line with observations other people have made, and which I personally find lovely. ("Species richness" is a raw count of species in an area regardless of the place of origin of the species. "Biodiversity" counts only native species.)
Here on Substack, the Poor Prole's Almananc recently published a piece called, "Native Pollinators versus Honeybees" in which he cites and summarizes a bunch of studies on the subject. It's fascinating stuff, with lots of nuance. He doesn't specifically mention "living in relation" but the concept is implied.
Thanks again for the comment! I'm glad to hear you're paying attention to pollinators! Oregon is my favorite state (I lived there full time from 2001-2013, and visit seasonally now) and it's a great place to interact with plants and other wildlife. I look forward to following your work here on Substack.
I think I'll do some journaling on the concept of "living in relation." I've heard that phrase before, but never really stopped to dig into what it means in my own life as opposed to some broader concept regarding human cultures. Thank you for that. Lots to think about here...
Also, just skimmed the piece you linked above, I can already see I will need to set aside a bit of time and uninterrupted concentration for that one - I think it's a gold mine. Cheers!
I live in Southwest, care a lot about native plants, and am never a purist. I really appreciated your explanation about Tamarisk and Russian Olive--both very frowned upon up here in northern New Mexico.
Great article! I have often wondered the same.
I love the nuance you bring to this issue, one I've thought a lot about. I still hold on to the idea that there might be room for "invasive species" removal in remnant intact ecosystems, just to give rare species the opportunity to persist. And I know many of what we call invasive species are most active in disturbed areas, where they may often be serving regenerative roles. But I wonder where we draw the line at managing them a bit to keep them from sprawling into areas of rare botanical significance. It's a tricky one.
On a different angle, I've noticed that as I add more and more Oregon "native" plants to my yard, the number and diversity of insect species that visit has expanded at an amazing rate. But I have seen native bees (bumblebees and carpenter bees particularly) and many butterflies still seeming quite happy to visit my remaining non-native plants, such as various mint species and daisies. Of course the "non-native" honeybees will visit most any flower, at least in my yard. I think there is something to the idea of making sure there are plenty of prolific nectar plants for the honeybees, so maybe there will still be some nectar in the more rare native plants for those wild bees or butterflies that are limited to using those. Otherwise, the honeybees may compete with the wild bees on the only food sources available to them. Plus, some of the native species are tricky and slow to establish, so it's certainly nice to get some good nectar plants established early to sort of get the local fauna used to visiting your yard. Anyway, just a little observation about how I've seen native and non-native plants (and insects) working together well in my own little home ecosystem.
Thanks for the comment! I'm glad you found this piece -- you can see why I was so drawn to your "War on Wildlife" piece given the feelings we share for the beauty of Redwoods and the tragedy of their destruction.
In terms of how we interact with native and introduced plants, I think it's all about what my friend Nikki Hill calls, "living in relation." So, getting to know a place, observing what's going on there, and making choices based on the particulars we see, in terms of how they relate to the goal we have. That's going to be a journey not a destination, especially given our disconnection and alienation from land and life in this culture. Just figuring out *how* to observe can be a challenge all by itself!
The choices we make in a particular place may be the removal of introduced plants. Or as with indigenous land-tending practices, the excising one set of native plants to encourage another (fires to prevent Firs from establishing in Oak savannah). In our food gardens, we may weed out native plants in favor of our introduced plants. In any case, our goals will be guiding those choices, whether that goal is protecting a particular habitat "as is" or shaping another one to increase food production (for humans or other-than-humans). This "living in relation" is, I would say, our true human nature. And I think that seeking it is how to answer the question you posed in the last line of your "War on Wildlife" piece: "I wonder whether there’s a place for me in that tapestry."
"Living in relation" is what you're doing when you add species to your yard and then observe what's happening, and then let your choices be guided by what you see. It sounds like species richness of plants is leading to species richness of pollinators, which is in line with observations other people have made, and which I personally find lovely. ("Species richness" is a raw count of species in an area regardless of the place of origin of the species. "Biodiversity" counts only native species.)
Here on Substack, the Poor Prole's Almananc recently published a piece called, "Native Pollinators versus Honeybees" in which he cites and summarizes a bunch of studies on the subject. It's fascinating stuff, with lots of nuance. He doesn't specifically mention "living in relation" but the concept is implied.
https://poorprolesalmanac.substack.com/p/native-pollinators-versus-honeybees
Thanks again for the comment! I'm glad to hear you're paying attention to pollinators! Oregon is my favorite state (I lived there full time from 2001-2013, and visit seasonally now) and it's a great place to interact with plants and other wildlife. I look forward to following your work here on Substack.
I think I'll do some journaling on the concept of "living in relation." I've heard that phrase before, but never really stopped to dig into what it means in my own life as opposed to some broader concept regarding human cultures. Thank you for that. Lots to think about here...
Also, just skimmed the piece you linked above, I can already see I will need to set aside a bit of time and uninterrupted concentration for that one - I think it's a gold mine. Cheers!
I live in Southwest, care a lot about native plants, and am never a purist. I really appreciated your explanation about Tamarisk and Russian Olive--both very frowned upon up here in northern New Mexico.