I don’t really understand the logic behind native only, beyond the desire not to introduce a plant or creature that would monopolize their environment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?