It’s kind of funny how a seemingly innocuous topic can sometimes spur heated debates among us gardeners. Yes, we can be very opinionated.
If you’re a regular visitor here, you’ve probably noticed my “Most Hated Plants” series, and if you’ve actually read those articles you know that my greatest desire is that we could just agree to stop planting these species that are the cause of such environmental harm and great expense.
I dream of the day when each of us will become responsible stewards of our portion of the planet.
In other words, I don’t really hate the plants. I do wish people would become more responsible and informed about the consequences of their actions.
You all know this. Because you’re here. You’re actually reading this stuff. And I am thrilled and honored that you choose to do this. I think you’re very smart 
But for the second time now, I’ve caused a bit of a stir.
None of us are native, why do the plants have to be?
I was writing about the invasive qualities and habitat destruction caused by bamboo and somehow this sparked a debate at the Facebook page, albeit from some folks who obviously hadn’t read the article, just reacted to the title.
It seems a rather backward argument to say that since the people are mostly not native to this country that habitat destruction caused by invasive plants should not matter.
I do agree that we need to do our homework before we purchase any plant so that we will put the plants in the right place, but I am simply not buying the “we aren’t native” so the plants don’t have to be either argument at all.
Is a “sustainable” crop that destroys wildlife habitat really sustainable?
Another argument that was presented is that we shouldn’t hate the plants. It’s not their fault that they are outcompeting native habitats and leaving nothing for our wildlife to eat.
As I said, I don’t hate the plants.
I do take issue with the landscape and horticultural industry that continues to sell these plants to people who may not know just how destructive these invasive plants can be.
I’ve been working very hard to teach people to do their homework before purchasing any plant. But the landscape industry needs to step up and take some responsibility, too.
But how many gardeners actually do their homework prior to purchasing plants? How many nurseries are actually educated about the dangers of the invasive plants that they stubbornly continue to sell?
Not many. That’s the very sad fact.
The argument goes that Bamboo is a “sustainable” wood. We use it for flooring, furniture, and other practical items, so nursery crops of this plant have to be ok, no matter if it destroys wildlife habitat or not.
Bamboo has a vital place in the ecosystem in China where the Panda is endangered because that habitat has been destroyed.
This is a similar argument that was expressed when I wrote about Paulownia crops, where a professional grower told me that he didn’t see any problem on his plantation.
My question is since this plant produces a prodigious amount of seed, how is he ensuring that his “crop” is not spreading into native habitats around his farm.
I don’t think he can.
And another Paulownia grower thinks his crop is the fuel of the future. But at what cost?
So this argument seems to be that if humans derive some financial or consumptive benefit, habitat destruction doesn’t matter. We’ll satisfy our human needs with no thought to the wildlife habitat that we’ve destroyed in the process.
Does human need/greed always have to come at the expense of wildlife and destruction of their habitat?
I am not naive. I am fully aware that this is a very complex issue.
I mean, we’re human. We have an insatiable desire for fuel, and hardwood floors, and bamboo cutting boards.
We have the ability to meet these needs without a thought for the consequences of our actions to the environment. We can just take whatever we need.
But does it really have to be this way?
Personally, I love to see us all address our need and consumption. I’d love to see habitat protection be included in our top priorities.
Our actions and lifestyles are not at all sustainable, for us, for the environment, or for the wildlife that depends on healthy ecosystems.
But more importantly, I’d love to know what you think about sustainability.
What do you think about “crops” of invasive plants?
How are you trying to create a more sustainable lifestyle?
© 2010, Carole Sevilla Brown. All rights reserved. This article is the property of EcosystemGardening.com If you are reading this at another site, please report that to us
About Carole Sevilla Brown
Wow that did spark a debate and a half! ;o) I think you are right on the title being provocative – perhaps ‘World’s Most Invasive Plants’ would be a title that creates interest but not quite such strong reactions. Might make more people think rather than react!
.-= Rachel Mathews´s last blog ..How To Choose The Right Plants For Your Garden =-.
Think before reacting? What a novel concept that is!
LOL
I don’t understand why there are not more restrictions on which plants can be sold. There are plenty of restrictions for homeowners on things like fencing, weeds, having chickens in your garden, and even whether or not you can grow vegetables.
There are restrictions on having exotic pets, why not plants? Though I think it should be the selling of the plants that is restricted, rather than putting the onus on the homeowner. Why should garden centers make money while causing a known problem? If they, the plant experts, don’t know the problems, how are non-professional homeowners supposed to know?
Why are garden centers and nurseries allowed to go on selling plants which are known to be invasive when the government (we) and conservation organizations are footing the bill to then remove them?
As a non-native myself it’s quite hard for me to know which plants are actually native when I go to buy something for my garden. I used to assume that plants on sale were ones which would work for my area. I’m a bit wiser now!
Even the non-native plants on sale which are not invasive often require unreasonable care to thrive – frequent watering and fertilizer, fungicides, etc. Personally I’m not interested in babysitting plants – I might make exceptions if they are feeding me though. Then again there aren’t take-over problems from tomatoes.
And I’m not suggesting that we be restricted on all non-native plants – as far as I’m aware tulips and daffodils aren’t likely to take over. Unless of course you know different…
Bamboo is a great plant with many uses, but why not just import it from it’s country of origin? Realistically, how many people who plant bamboo in the USA are doing so to make a living from bamboo products?
.-= Alison Kerr´s last blog ..Rabbit, Hummingbird, and Squirrel =-.
I firmly believe that the sale of known invasives should be prohibited. Many states have started making some of these regulations, but you can still drive to the next state over and bring home whatever you want. We need to do much better than we have been.
I think the biggest step our household has taken around sustainable living is to buy almost all our meat products from local farms who use sustainable and organic practices. And May through October our vegetables come from a local CSA we belong to (same one we can order the chicken, pork and beef from their co-op of local farmers). Once we tracked it, we found it didn’t cost us any more, in fact the CSA saves us on our produce bill. So even if we can’t ‘grown our own’ we are buying from local folks whose practices support a healthier planet.
I know this isn’t about invasive plants, but you asked about sustainable living practices..
Yes sustainable practice is a much broader issue than that of invasive plants. Kudos to you for your locavore efforts. Every time we choose to make healthier choices for us and the environment, we are making a difference.
I know it really isn’t funny, but it did make me laugh anyhow. Since it’s the twisting of your words and content, it hurts and is upsetting; but this always happens no matter the subject. People read one tiny little thing without bothering to check the meaning, and run with it screaming against something with which they’d probably fully agree and even promote IF they took the time to read more than a headline or single sentence.
The real hurtful part about it is that others listen to THEM rather than to the original source. I’ve had this debate with friends over countless subjects (politics, for instance, leaps to mind!!) and I’m constantly amazed that intelligent people are willing to believe whisper-down-the-lane or a questionably-sourced comment rather than checking to see what the original statement and conversation was.
I assume this “running and screaming” Diane Eve describes is attributed to my comments on your post. I did read your entire article and do not appreciate the assumptions being made about me. That is the “hurtful part”. I don’t consider myself a greedy human being when speaking on the benefits of bamboo. And as an animal lover and advocate, I despise wildlife habitat destruction. But are there not places, ways, and appropriate contexts in which to grow something that has practical uses? What about non-threatening, controlled settings, far away from probable or even remotely possible harm to flora and fauna? How do you feel about the use of wood from old growth forests of oaks, maples and other trees instead? I truly want to know the answers to these questions, even if the answer is in opposition to what I have learned in the past about bamboo.
I wanted to learn from your site, Carole, and that is why I became a fan. But I feel a sense of alienation on here, and am not comfortable participating any longer. And to Diane, I never thought of myself as “THEM”, but always as “US” and how “WE” can do better for the environment as a whole. People, plants, and animals. Sorry and sad I’ll have to take my inquiries elsewhere.
As I’ve said, this is a very complicated issue. And that’s exactly why I’ve brought it here so that hopefully we can have an adult conversation. How do we balance human need for fuel and product consumption against habitat destruction, which is the leading cause of the endangered status of so many species of wildlife? Unfortunately it seems that human desires win out every time.
Only 5% of available land is protected in this country, which means that we’ve allowed space for only 5% of species to survive. The way we’re going all we’ll be left with are those species that have been able to adapt to human development. That means House Sparrows and Starlings (both not native) gulls, raccoons, and cockroaches, etc. Is that really what we want? It’s where we’re headed if we continue to follow our current path.
That “protected” land is becoming more and more consumed by invasive species which leaves significantly less quality habitat for wildlife.
I’m very curious where and under what conditions you are proposing in “non-threatening” to the little remaining habitat we have left.
I agree that invasives should be banned from nurseries, and I think some of them are in Mass. but I also think there is not much in the way of enforcement. Education – through blogs and gardening magazines and columns – is important. It would be nice if nurseries did take some responsibility.
.-= commonweeder´s last blog ..Indomitable Siberian Iris =-.
When I see the ocean of bishops weed in my gardens and now trying to move into the forest, I shudder. Humans must learn about the destruction our manipulation can do. By moving plants from their native environments … known “invasive or highly competitive plants” I am speaking of… we can create an imbalance that kills native wildflowers. Sadly we too have overpopulated the world but that is another topic and if we could only become thoughtful in our daily ways … our planet would be grateful… our very lives depend on it. Another great post Carole!
.-= Carolflowerhill´s last blog ..Earth Dance Courtship =-.