GARDENING MISINFORMATION

A popular garden website that I follow recently posted a blog from a writer who “confessed” she was a heretic.  She was sick of pretending that native plant gardens are beautiful. Ugly, unkempt, “no-mow” native gardens don’t deserve to be called gardens. Furthermore, the writer claimed, native plant gardeners denounce introduced plants as universally bad and native plants as universally good. The blogger claims that the native plant movement — that is, those that advocate for gardening with plants that are adapted to the local soil, sunlight, water and wildlife — is verging on religiosity.

The post was filled with misleading questions:

“Why do we grant one plant moral superiority?”

Umn…no one’s granting plants moral anything. Native plant gardeners use the plants that birds, bees… wildlife select. No morals required.

“Are we conflating our justified horror of industrial development and the loss of wild spaces, with the loss of native species outcompeted in altered environments?”

Somehow, by pointing out other reasons for biodiversity loss (there are so many), the author justifies not making “gardening for wildlife” a priority. Why not plant native plants and support habitat? Yes, its impact may be small, but why not try to make a positive difference in our own gardens?

And some blatant disinformation:

“Our fauna are beginning to adapt – even if we refuse to watch those baby steps.  Are we prioritizing our instinctive need for control with theirs to evolve?”

The author links to an article about a generalist insect that uses an exotic (non-native) plant for nesting material. More on that later. What the author doesn’t mention is that the vast majority of insects are specialists. As the Xerces society explains: “Roughly 90 percent of plant-feeding insects are specialists, adapted to digest only a limited suite of plant chemistries, often corresponding to a particular plant family or genus.”

A classic example of specialization is the monarch butterfly. Monarchs didn’t suddenly discover that they could eat milkweed, a plant that tastes nasty because it’s toxic. Milkweed evolved higher and higher levels of toxins in an arms race with insects. Some hung on by adapting an ever- increasing resistance to milkweed toxin. This incremental tug of war between increasing toxicity and resistance happened over millions of years. Monarchs beat out much of the competition, and so can eat this common plant that kills most other insects. [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. Other species may (in time) fill that niche, but the web of life is less complex. Biodiversity suffers and so life is less resilient in the face of changing conditions such as climate change.

I REPLIED TO THE BLOG POST

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 about the native plant movement:

“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 … 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.]

“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.)]

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.”

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 lowers 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!

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.

INCLUSIVE BIODIVERSITY? 

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. 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.”

INCLUSIVE MATH OMITS TIME

If you add an invasive plant to an ecosystem, then yes, for now, the list of local plant species has grown… by one. That momentarily increases “diversity.” However, since the large-scale plant trade began about 200 years ago, ecologists have found that — over time — adding invasive plants into an ecosystem lowers biodiversity. That’s because some exotics find life is easier (nothing is eating them or holding them back) and so are invasive.

In the New Jersey meadowlands, Common Reed (Phragmites), runs rampant. There are many shorelines along the East coast choked with Phragmites. It’s been here for 500+ years, yet only a few generalist insects eat it. Instead of a diverse mix of native plants that support shoreline wildlife, Common Reed forms vast monocultures. A landscape filled with one species. In the long run, invasive plants outcompete native plants and lower biodiversity.  

Inclusive biodiversity is a made-up term masked as legitimate science terminology. To use it as a cover for suggesting that “nature is finding a way” is blatant dis-information in a blog post that attracted about four times as many comments as usual.

IS NATURE FINDING A WAY?

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.

BLOGGER DECIDES HOW EVOLUTION WORKS

Evolutionary Biologists almost come to fisticuffs when arguing about the detailed mechanics of evolution. Several times at the American Museum of Natural History I had to manage the tempers of curators who didn’t agree with each other on exactly how language, flight or the K-T extinction event developed.  But in the blog world, you get to decide exactly how evolution works:

“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.

Then there’s the horseshoe crab, a species that’s older than the dinosaurs and has outlived the dinosaurs. Sometimes evolution is slow as fuck.

In response the comment that evolution is quick on the insect level. It’s easy to cherry pick examples. 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, ability to consume toxins (as monarchs do), etc. etc.

SUPPOSED ERROR OF OMISSION:

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

To claim that all who garden for wildlife consider exotics bad is another insult. Ecologists routinely use exotic clover as a cover crop to restore nitrogen. To go back to Common Reed (Phragmites): 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.

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

WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?

Why all this confusing misinformation? What is their agenda? Why mock attempts to share the actual science? Why is the OP so upset that there are more and more people who 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? Is it businesses to protect? Book deals to make? Perhaps the author has a deep need to absolve herself of any responsibility.

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

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.

[Many thanks to Laura Morris and Steve Hiltner for their advice while writing this article.]