GARDENING MISINFORMATION

A popular garden website that I follow recently posted an article from one of its team of writers where she “confessed” she was a heretic.  She was sick of pretending that native plant gardens are beautiful. The unkempt, “no-mow” yards she comes across don’t deserve to be called gardens. By denouncing introduced plants as universally BAD and native plants as universally GOOD, the native plant movement is verging on a new religion.

MY COMMENT

I usually go to this blog to learn about age-old gardening techniques, tips and tools without commenting. But this time, I had to call out the errors in the blogger’s post. To soften my reply, I began with a joke:

You’re onto us! The cult is rapidly gaining converts because we don’t have to welcome any pesky “foreigners.” Plus, we get to sit back in our repurposed car seats with a cold brew of Sambuca Kombucha and let our no-mow lawns do ALL the work. Gee, I wish it was that easy.

I went on, sharing areas of agreement: home gardens should be intentionally designed spaces for wildlife and people.

I also had to comment on where her post was just wrong. There’s vast evidence that native plants are essential for the health of native insects, birds and other wildlife. I included a quick explanation of co-evolution:

“Where I live in New Jersey the mix of native plants and the species that depend on them co-evolved since the last ice age about 10-thousand years ago.”

I dropped hints that I know it’s all complicated:

“Some exotic plants can be beneficial — hello agriculture!”  

As I hit “send” I mused that my well-crafted reply might get me a guest-blogger invite!

TROUNCED

Then I got trounced. The replies from the Original Poster (OP) and her allies were full of scorn. Below are a few examples of their alarming replies. [Followed by my internal reactions in parens.]

“Are you able to say that NOW is the only correct relationship of co-evolving species, or is it always and always will be a moving target as it has been for aeons?”

• [Of course, evolution doesn’t stop! That’s my point. Invasives outcompeting natives IS evolution in action as is biodiversity loss.]

“Evolution does NOT move at glacier speed. Evolution moves quickly, especially at the insect level. I will attach links at your request and hope you will doubt me and pursue the researchers that study this fascinating and fastmoving issue.”

• [My favorite example of fast adaptation is the sudden flourishing of sooty-colored Peppered moths after the smoke-filled Industrial Revolution. [ https://ncse.ngo/whats-problem-peppered-moths ] Note: this is an adaptation in camouflage; a trait. Not the evolution of a new species. There are plenty of generalist insects that can find nectar and pollen on exotic plants. They will have an easier time adapting and surviving in the face biodiversity loss. The actual problem for the web of life is that many insects are specialists: special tongues to reach nectar on specific flowers, vision adapted to certain colors, defenses against known predators, etc. etc. As an example, monarchs didn’t suddenly discover they could eat Milkweed. Milkweed evolved higher and higher levels of toxins in an arms race with insects, and some butterflies hung on and adapted with an ever- increasing resistance to milkweed toxin in a tug of war that’s taken tens of thousands of years (and of course continues). By riding out this tug of war and adapting to each incremental increase in toxicity over millions of years, monarch’s beat out the competition from most other insects to eat this common plant. [Source: https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10944.pdf ] For specialist insects such as Monarchs, their dependency on their particular host plant is irreplaceable. Once milkweed is gone, monarchs will become extinct. Once a species is extinct it’s gone forever. Other species may (in time) fill that niche, but the web of life is less complex. Biodiversity suffers.  Life is less resilient in the face of changing conditions such as climate change. 

“America is supposed to be about judging individuals on their merits, not on their origins. Lump statements are prejudiced statements whether about plants or people.”

• [The claim that native plant supporters are anti-immigrant seems silly at first. The topic is biodiversity, not sociology! But I’ve learned that this particular personal attack is used often by invasive deniers. In actuality, plants sometimes do travel far (seeds travel far in a hurricane). But the large-scale plant trade is not natural distribution.]

“How exquisitely condescending.”

• [I guess we don’t have the same sense of humor. (All my “replies” shared here were never sent to the garden blog site.)]

TRAPPED

I had checked the option to be alerted to any responses to my reply. I intentionally addressed the OP by name, mimicking the friendly “letters” between the OP and another writer on the site. Big mistake. The OP replied and shamed me by name:

“Native plant gardeners … want diversity on their own terms, using lines they have laid, with species they recognize to be good and just, and by taking human beings completely out of the planetary equation. How far back shall we go Sarah? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1 million years? More Sarah? I trust you don’t mind me using your first name, you seem to use mine a fair bit. I think you have completely missed the point of my entire post, and indeed of the numerous commenters from all over the country (who I did not cajole, or solicit) who feel shamed and judged in their gardening by people‚ well, by people like you Sarah, as you have so aptly demonstrated.”

For days I could not stop thinking about how to reply again and defend myself. During morning jogs, in the shower, fixing lunch, I’d obsess over the exact phrase, or perfectly cited article that would reveal to the OP and her allies how they are denying the overwhelming evidence that invasive plants, in the long-term actually lower biodiversity.

WAS I MORALIZING?

I said I’d save the areas where I disagree with the OP for later in my reply as “it requires a bit of science.” Yes, I can see how that reads as condescending. Should I reply again to defend myself? I honestly wanted to articulate: first here are points where we agree, then I’ll go over the boring bits that require long-winded reasoning. At AMNH, I was trained not to go into too many details and so lose an audience. I was not out to shame anyone especially the OP who is a terrific, intelligent (but mis-guided) writer.

While I tried to figure exactly how to describe the complexity of biodiversity in a way that would be welcomed, I got more comments directed at me:

“Sarah, While well-intentioned and including humor, your thoughts feel like a lecture. Irritation with being lectured seemed to me to be a thread among responses to [the] article.”

My heart pounded each time I got a notice of another reply to my comment. How could I not defend myself and let them take the last word? After all, it was my name that was repeated in their snarky replies:

“Sarah, You wrote a thoughtful reply. Thank you. Neither [OP] nor [the Garden Blog] is “against” natives or Doug Tallamy. The irritation appears to be, instead, about being lectured with moral overtones. Your reply wanders into that neighborhood.

Explaining the singular relationships behind plants and wildlife clearly is not going to work. Sharing complex information is demeaning to these folks who want to believe what they want to believe. This time I actually did send a very short reply. I’m glad I did:

[Name], I know that [Garden Blog] is not against natives. My comment was to point out two things: 1) not all native gardens are ugly, 2) scientific evidence (and the decline of wildlife) show that native plants better support our ecosystems. No moralizing. I Even tried a bit of humor. —Sarah

No one ever thought I was mimicking the OP’s own style of correspondence with another blogger. I thought my humor, style and science information would be appreciated. I am naïve.

My husband and BFF slapped me back to reality. The OP and her defenders didn’t want an honest discussion. Besides me, they slammed anyone stupid enough to respond with all the good reasons to garden with natives.

As messaging expert Anat Shenker-Osorio explains: “What you fight you feed.” It’s a trap to thoughtfully reply to dis-information. You end up engaging and amplifying the nonsense. As my best friend advised: don’t feed the trolls!

INVASIVE SPECIES DENIERS

This was my first experience with invasive species deniers. I was genuinely shocked that this was even a thing. I had followed this blog for years, it’s full of practical information. I had thought that the conventional gardening world was benign. More interested in beauty than supporting wildlife.

Turns out these garden bloggers are masters of misinformation.  

Here’s a quick summary of how invasive species deniers spread their misinformation from Anthony Ricciardi and Rachel Ryan of the Redpath Museum and Bieler School of Environment at McGill University:

“Unlike normal scientific debates, which are evidence based, this discourse typically uses rhetorical arguments to disregard, misrepresent or reject evidence in attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that species introductions pose significant risks to biodiversity and ecosystems; thus, it is similar to the denialism that has affected climate science and medical science. Invasive species denialism, like science denialism in general, is typically expressed in forums where it avoids expert peer review.”

I spent many hours over many weeks and, now, months writing another reply. I wanted to sort out my own understanding of this bizarre denial of the threat from invasive plants and be prepared if I ever encountered an invasive plant denier first hand.

In following Anat Shenker-Osorio’s motto: “what you fight you feed,” I turned my seething thoughts into what you’re reading now to sort them out. Maybe what follows will be helpful for others who support gardening for wildlife.

WHAT’S IN A SCIENCE-Y NAME?

Looking again at the OP’s blog post. There was one “science-y” term that bugged me more than any other. The OP wrote that an ideal garden would use “human vision, knowledge, skill, artistry, and stewardship” to “create something worth preaching about: an inclusive biodiversity that doesn’t place origin over merit.” 

In my original reply I hadn’t responded to this new-to-me term, Inclusive biodiversity. The term IS after all, insidious. The OP snuck Inclusive in there right next to Biodiversity as if it’s a long-accepted scientific term vs. a made-up term.

Is “Inclusive Biodiversity” used by scientists? I looked it up. It is.

The Center for Biodiversity & Conservation at AMNH —the Museum where I used to work — uses it to describe including people in any ecological efforts. Humans are,  after all part of the natural world. As used by the Center, “Inclusive Biodiversity” describes efforts to steer away from a patronizing, colonial mindset in ecological practices. People who live on land to be ecologically restored must be a part and parcel of ecological restoration work. Makes sense, local people will have far more practical, hands-in-the-dirt knowledge of local plants and how to get systematic support for them.

But what the original poster means by it was NOT that type of Inclusive Biodiversity (the sly use of an accepted term in ecological restoration work in a different, misguiding way). More than anything I wanted readers of this popular, international blog to not be led astray by this misuse of science terminology. 

The only other place where I could see the term “Inclusive Biodiversity” used was in an opinion piece written for a horticultural magazine back in 2021. Turns out that that opinion author is the same author of the garden blog I responded to. She had linked to her own opinion piece written 3 years earlier as “evidence” that “Inclusive Biodiversity” is real.

In both her article and blog post she linked to an article using it as evidence that native insects are adapting to exotics. I read the link; it’s legitimate science. The article is about leafcutter bees (solitary generalists) using exotic leaves with antimicrobial benefits in lining larval nests. In other words, leafcutter queens found nesting material. Not food for her young. Nesting material. In any case, leafcutters are part of a wide genus, found all over the world and are generalists. This is not an example of a native bee suddenly discovering that an exotic plant can feed her larvae.

Yet the linked article on leafcutters is what the OP cites as an example of “nature finding a way.” How many of her readers actually clicked on the link, read the article as I did and realized that the article is about a generalist bee finding nesting material; not food. Most readers will take this well-known blogger at her word when she describes the scientific finding as an example of “nature finds a way.”

That’s blatant dis-information in a blog post that attracted about four times as many comments as usual. One supporter wrote to the OP:

“Bravo to the author for your courage in calling out the plant-fascists.”

Inclusive biodiversity is masked as “survival of the fittest.” My answer: If you add an invasive to an ecosystem, then yes, you have added one more species into a local ecology. That’s called “diversity.” Adding an exotic into an ecosystem does not make it part of a biome; does not add to biodiversity. An exotic plant does not instantly (in 150 years or even 500 years) become a co-partner in the web of life. Some exotics find life is easier (nothing is eating them or holding them back) and so become invasive. The majority are just there, like living statues as Doug Tallamy calls them, not supporting the local ecology.  

What is nature actually finding? Death. Just to use butterflies as one example, 19% are at risk of extinction in North America (source: NatureServe, 2019).  “There is no doubt that a great many insect populations and species are suffering and are in some form of decline,” said Matt Forister, McMinn Professor of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno. “Although there is a need for greater investment in basic science and further analyses of existing data, our belief is that the severity of reported insect declines is sufficient to warrant immediate action.” (source: https://www.xerces.org/press/insect-declines-act-now )

THE FALSE NATIVE-WHEN ARGUMENT

Another missive directed at me:

“Are you able to say that NOW is the only correct relationship of co-evolving species, or is it always and always will be a moving target as it has been for aeons?”

The suggestion that native plant gardeners are “plant-fascists” who “want to go back to Eden” is ridiculous. Conservationists never say that evolution stops! The Native-When Argument decries native plant advocates as believers in a “pure” past. This is a false argument invented by invasive deniers. No ecologists would ever say there is a fixed point in time they want to bring back-to-life.

Plants do migrate without any human intervention. Sometimes very long distances when carried in a hurricane. Ecosystems interlap and interact. They are as small as the shady side of a coastal dune, to the entire NJ coast, the Eastern Seaboard, the North East, America…. From the perspective of alien invaders (Mars Attack!), all of Earth is an ecosystem.

Plus, people have always been part of ecosystems. After all, we are animals. When Native Americans controlled the landscape, some sent some plants beyond their “natural range” through trade, but never on the massive scale of the plant trade in the past 150 years or so.

It’s the massive onslaught of invasives brought on by the plant trade that ecologists want to fix. Not a point back in time.

MORE MISLEADING INSULTS

To claim that all who garden for wildlife consider exotics BAD is another insult. Ecologists routinely use exotic clovers as a cover crop to restore nitrogen. In the New Jersey meadowlands, Common Reed (Phragmites), runs rampant, lowering the biodiversity of wetland plants. It’s been here for 500+ years, yet only a few generalist insects eat it. It’s nearly impossible to eradicate this invasive wetland reed. Yet, ecologists know it’s a toss-up between trying to replace it with native wetland grasses or just letting the Phragmites continue to soak up toxic sludge on the edge of several superfund sites. Ecologists know: it’s complicated. To claim that native plant supporters see plants as either GOOD or BAD is deliberate mis-characterization.  

SUPPOSED ERROR OF OMMISSION

The OP or one of her cohorts told me that:

“claiming that invasives are bad ignores the environmental degradation caused by development.”

Hmmm…this is a home-gardening blog I’m replying to, not a blog about development. Of course, there are many sources of environmental degradation! I’m sure if my reply was 100% comprehensive I’d be accused of lecturing. Wait, I was accused of lecturing.  

Ecology is complex. Invasive deniers dumb it down to suit their agenda (what IS their agenda?). Anyone daring to correct them is mocked as a moralizing schoolmarm. My inner schoolmarm proudly yells back: Fuck that bullshit!

WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?

So why all the hate? What is their agenda? Why mock attempts to share the actual science? Why is the OP so upset that there is an awakening group that does want to steward the land and garden for wildlife? Could that touch some of her reputation, profits, or the backers of this popular blog that is covered in garden-related advertising?

The OP claims that there’s big money to be made in native plants! All the independent garden centers that I know are financially struggling.

Is it hidden guilt at not doing all we can to support wildlife? Is it businesses to protect? Book deals to make?

It’s pseudoscience. It’s an excuse to do nothing disguised as science. Misleading articles like the blog I replied to spread mis-information, confuse readers and become self-serving rationales for doing nothing.

WHY NOT DO SOMETHING POSITIVE?

Facing climate change, the insect apocalypse, declining wildlife numbers,…. Why not let what we can control — our own gardens — be a part of a solution?

While still sorting out my thoughts, a Blogger-in-Emeritus with the gardening site responded to the OP’s post with his own, stand-alone post. As “A Native Plant Enthusiast” he respectfully corrected the OP’s post: “If [she] had consulted an ecologist, however, she would have learned some pertinent facts.” Then he took on her claim that native plant gardeners are fanatics:  “Is “religiosity” and a desire to sell ourselves really at the heart of the current enthusiasm for native plants as [she] asserts?  It seems to me to be based rather on a desire to interact in a more positive and sophisticated way with our environment.” 

He got trounced too.

I unsubscribed from the blog.I