Re: Planting something more appropriate



>        What is particularly interesting about this subject to me is 
that
>the very impetus to use 'climate appropriate' landscapes might be
>eviscerating the native species of the area.  Could it be that the 
clueless
>homeowner planting rhoddies in a dry Mediterranean Steppe climate in 
Walnut
>Creek, California is protecting the environment more than the more
>knowledgeable gardener?  Rhoddies hold no risk of escaping into the 
hills
>to smother out oaks, elderberry, manzanita's as Acacia melanoxylon 
does.
>        And, as to the issue of human dispersal of otherwise distant
>genetic material:  the issue is biological diversity.  The other fauna 
and
>flora that have evolved with the native species depend on those species 
for
>survival.  A relatively rapid alteration of the wild landscape means 
the
>disappearance of thousands of other species, thus, probably, 
jeopardizing
>the survival of this Homo sapien species.
>Jerry Heverly, Oakland, CA
>
>

Could not agree more - the issue is at the core of one of my ongoing 
dilemmas as a gardener - do I plant things that do well (sometimes too 
well - and which I am likely to find in the bushland next door) or do I 
plant things that will require additional resources (water, food etc) to 
survive and are therefore unlikely to escape? I try to tread a middle 
path compromising on both extreme positions - but it is not always 
possible. 

As to why we should try to preserve 'indigenous' plants (and what are 
they anyway)? Well I think about indigenous plants as those that were in 
particular localised geographic areas prior to humans intervening in the 
ecology of an area (this is a stricter definition than 'native'). But, 
depending on how long ago and how much intervention there has been there 
are ever increasing 'grey' areas. 

In Australia identifying indigenous plants is relatively straight 
forward, because although Aboriginals altered the vegetation though the 
use of fire, they didn't generally move plants around (or import 
material) - certainly not to the extent that has occurred since 1788 and 
the arrival of the First Fleet. 

There are still debates - for instance according to a book that I am 
reading at the moment ("The Flower Chain - the early discovery of 
Australian Plants" by Jill, Duchess of Hamilton and Julia Bruce) there 
is considerable debate about whether coconuts are indigenous to 
Queensland or whether they were introduced???  Who knows - but it is an 
interesting point.

As to why indigenous plants are important - well as Jerry says 
'biodiversity' and its potential consequential impacts on us is a good 
reason - but the fact that many of these things are just so wonderful in 
their own right makes me want them to continue even if there was no 
practical reason. For instance after the bush fires on Arthurs Seat 
during the summer of 1996/97 which cleared away many of the exotic 
weeds, numerous species of ground orchids and other smaller perennials 
were seen for the first time in years - many were thought locally 
extinct because of competition. Many of these plants were so beautiful - 
the thought of them being pushed out by garden escapees is  horrible - 
what a loss. 

Well that is my soapbox effort for today!

PS - the other thing that I find particularly ironic about this whole 
subject is the 'one persons trash is another's treasure' - so while I 
find agapanthus a monstor (beautiful but aggressive) gardeners in cooler 
climates go to extraodinary lengths to grow it - and while those in 
California find Acacia melanoxylon a pest I actively encourage it as a 
bird attracting indigenous tree!!! 

Susan George
McCrae, Victoria, Australia

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index