-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
Non Natives in Your Landscaping
- Thread starter Chet
- Start date
donk
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,961
- Points
- 31
I would be more concerned over zone hardiness, snow cover requirements and soil hardiness then if the plant is a native species. Only exception is Purple Loostrife(Lythrum salicaria) don't let it anywhere near your jurisdiction if you can avoid it.(Highly invasive weed that chokes out wetlands) Goosenecked Loostrife (Lysimachia clethroidess) is OK as it is a completely different species
I had an argument with a Landscape Architect from another warmer province who did some planting plans up for a big box retailer. I told her that the plant she wanted to plant would not grow here, she insisted it would. I was forced to back down. The shrub has since been replaced with something that will grow here.
I had an argument with a Landscape Architect from another warmer province who did some planting plans up for a big box retailer. I told her that the plant she wanted to plant would not grow here, she insisted it would. I was forced to back down. The shrub has since been replaced with something that will grow here.
Cardinal
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 10,069
- Points
- 34
Generally, no. We state a preference for native plants and may even offer some suggestions. A few non-natives may not be much of an issue, but not an entire landscaping plan. If we see something listed on the planting plan that we do not like, we will tell them to replace it. For instance, I made a comment about buckthorn yesterday. We also look for some diversity in the plantings. I always encourage people to use one of the native seed mixes for detention basins (grasses, sedges and forbs), which are also designed not to be mowed. So far nobody has taken me up on this, and I can't get the public works people to realize that it is much less maintenance if they end up taking it over.
What are these landscaping plans you speak of? B-)
Only about 50% of our municipalities even have local site plan review authority, and most of those codes will basically accept any landscaping that is proposed.
Our communities are centuries away from requiring native species! :-\
Only about 50% of our municipalities even have local site plan review authority, and most of those codes will basically accept any landscaping that is proposed.
Our communities are centuries away from requiring native species! :-\
- Messages
- 10,163
- Points
- 46
As usual, Chet poses a question, and my regs have an example. 
For the Appendices, go to http://www.londonderry.org/images/siteregs2002b.pdf and see pages 69-71.
For the Appendices, go to http://www.londonderry.org/images/siteregs2002b.pdf and see pages 69-71.
- Messages
- 7,628
- Points
- 29
SGB said:
Well, clearly, whatever is being planted now will BE the "native species" of the area by the time they start regulating such things! :-0
Cardinal
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 10,069
- Points
- 34
boiker said:
The shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)'s territory goes north to the southern part of Illnoise but probably stops well before you. White pine (Pinus strobus) comes in from the north and there are outlying stands into northern Illnoise. Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) is more likely to be found in the central part of the state, as is the ubiquitous arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis). I am not a purist, though, and have no qualms about using a tree native to the U.S. beyond its native range. I have planted yellowwood, tulip poplar, sycamore, and other trees more likely to be found 100-200 miles south of here. This is still preferable to Asian or European species. Unless you are doing a restoration project there is no need to stick to those plants only found in the immediate area.
Lee Nellis
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,369
- Points
- 29
It depends on the landscape you're working in, but as others have suggested there may be applications, particularly in formal or semi-formal spaces where there will be a lot of traffic, where use of a non-native is reasonable.
The Irish One
Member
- Messages
- 2,266
- Points
- 25
A nonprofessional opinion/ observation
Generally speaking in San Diego all native vegetation is replaced with subtropicals from all over the world, not to mention Scotland's finest sod. A developer might actually get busted for planting natives for reasons of fire and aesthetic value. I can't really back the aesthetic claim but the current state of landscaping would leave no doubt that a certain subtropical look is the acceptable norm. I'd be shocked if it wasn't the code enforced preference (I really don't know). I frequently look for native landscapes and find very few. I've worked for a nursery that is exclusive to California native's and business isn't booming. Go to the local subtropical variety nursurey and things are fine. I'm shocked and pleased to hear any responses that enforce native vegetation.
Rant
Enforcing any laws requiring native vegetation for business or, god forbid, housing, would be way to communist for this county. People here want to use as much water as possible. In the winter one can see the frost burnt leaves of all the palm trees and in the summer it's the green lush grass that dies off despite constant watering. It's funny (sort of) that the silent minority of people who want a more responsible landscape are taxed by the vast majority who unknowingly assume we have the water supply of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . Don't get me wrong I want kids to have grass to play on etc.. and I'm grateful and awe struck by the incredible infrastructure that makes this possible. Our resevoirs are at all time lows.There is a responsible limit to nonnative species.
Generally speaking in San Diego all native vegetation is replaced with subtropicals from all over the world, not to mention Scotland's finest sod. A developer might actually get busted for planting natives for reasons of fire and aesthetic value. I can't really back the aesthetic claim but the current state of landscaping would leave no doubt that a certain subtropical look is the acceptable norm. I'd be shocked if it wasn't the code enforced preference (I really don't know). I frequently look for native landscapes and find very few. I've worked for a nursery that is exclusive to California native's and business isn't booming. Go to the local subtropical variety nursurey and things are fine. I'm shocked and pleased to hear any responses that enforce native vegetation.
Rant
Enforcing any laws requiring native vegetation for business or, god forbid, housing, would be way to communist for this county. People here want to use as much water as possible. In the winter one can see the frost burnt leaves of all the palm trees and in the summer it's the green lush grass that dies off despite constant watering. It's funny (sort of) that the silent minority of people who want a more responsible landscape are taxed by the vast majority who unknowingly assume we have the water supply of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . Don't get me wrong I want kids to have grass to play on etc.. and I'm grateful and awe struck by the incredible infrastructure that makes this possible. Our resevoirs are at all time lows.There is a responsible limit to nonnative species.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,628
- Points
- 29
The Irish One said:
When I lived on Ft. Irwin, in the bleeping Mojave Desert, just South of Death Valley, we were REQUIRED to have grass in the backyard. The grass regularly died. I can't remember the name of it, but there was an agency on base where you could do things like check out a lawnmower for 3 days and they also provided grass seed (I think). It didn't really "cost" us anything but time and effort, since you also do not pay utilities (like water) when you live on base. But it so galled me. The kicker: we had to remove the cacti I had planted in the flower beds when we were leaving so no child could get hurt when new people moved in.
While growing up in ATL I had many ‘non-natives’ in my landscaping and it really detracted from the aesthetics. Nothing was done about the problem and now the environment has completely changed and is overgrown with the evasive take over and the native species have been driven out. Through a complicated scientific experiment, I am now able to see through the eyes of a non-native living in the state of Florida.
Here most environmentalist and landscape architects are h#ll bent on removing non-native plant species, which brings us to my new proposed slogan for the state:
“FLORIDA: where the plants are native, but the people aren’t!” :-D
(Except of course for the beloved ZG)
Here most environmentalist and landscape architects are h#ll bent on removing non-native plant species, which brings us to my new proposed slogan for the state:
“FLORIDA: where the plants are native, but the people aren’t!” :-D
(Except of course for the beloved ZG)
Non-planner/budding biology teacher's perspective:
The main problem with (some) non-native species is that they can be invasive, readily spreading to the wild and, unchecked by predators or other natural controls, crowding out native species. Some even become agricultural pests. I would come up with a list of invasive species that either are known to grow in the area or are commonly planted in or native to a similar climate/soils and have proven elsewhere to be invasive. Those are the ones that should be restricted or banned. That makes more sense to me than a blanket restriction or ban, and would probably stand up better to any public complaint or legal challenge.
A good place to start researching such a list would be InvasiveSpecies.gov, which profiles some of the most common problem weeds and critters, and has links to related resources.
The main problem with (some) non-native species is that they can be invasive, readily spreading to the wild and, unchecked by predators or other natural controls, crowding out native species. Some even become agricultural pests. I would come up with a list of invasive species that either are known to grow in the area or are commonly planted in or native to a similar climate/soils and have proven elsewhere to be invasive. Those are the ones that should be restricted or banned. That makes more sense to me than a blanket restriction or ban, and would probably stand up better to any public complaint or legal challenge.
A good place to start researching such a list would be InvasiveSpecies.gov, which profiles some of the most common problem weeds and critters, and has links to related resources.
boilerplater
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 914
- Points
- 21
Hear, hear
I'd like to second B'lieve's point about restricting the invasive species, the ones that do real harm to ecosystems. That problem needs more resources devoted to it, more public awareness, etc. The biological diversity of so many ecosystems is being reduced due to invasive plants. Making a blanket regulation of no non-natives would prohibit a lot of useful plants that actually do better than natives in a lot of the man-made situations in urban environments. For example, many of the sedums that are typically used in extensive green roofs are not native. You don't want to prohibit green roofs, do you? Also, there is considerable debate in the horticultural community about when a plant can truly be considered "native" Many of our ornamental species in the northeast are exotic and have been in cultivation since the 17th century with no ill effects. And what about plants that once grew in a region but have become extinct? Where do you draw the line?
By the way, that Londonderry, NH reg is one of the best I've seen for having qualitative descriptions that actually may enhance local character rather than trying to be like some other town.
I'd like to second B'lieve's point about restricting the invasive species, the ones that do real harm to ecosystems. That problem needs more resources devoted to it, more public awareness, etc. The biological diversity of so many ecosystems is being reduced due to invasive plants. Making a blanket regulation of no non-natives would prohibit a lot of useful plants that actually do better than natives in a lot of the man-made situations in urban environments. For example, many of the sedums that are typically used in extensive green roofs are not native. You don't want to prohibit green roofs, do you? Also, there is considerable debate in the horticultural community about when a plant can truly be considered "native" Many of our ornamental species in the northeast are exotic and have been in cultivation since the 17th century with no ill effects. And what about plants that once grew in a region but have become extinct? Where do you draw the line?
By the way, that Londonderry, NH reg is one of the best I've seen for having qualitative descriptions that actually may enhance local character rather than trying to be like some other town.
The Irish One
Member
- Messages
- 2,266
- Points
- 25
I think the term used in these parts is naturalized for invasive species that have a new permanent home. California has a lot of native mustards, but the one mustard that you'll encounter most often is the invader from Europe or Asia Minor ??(not sure of its origin).