The most perverted word in the English language is “native”. I know that sounds like heresy to some of you but I assure you I am from a long and dedicated conservation background. One must speak up when we are off track, so for the sake of what we hold dear, let me try to put this oft abused word back in its proper context.
Conservation simply cannot move forward logically unless we understand that a plant or animal is only native in its particular habitat and no individual species or individual plant is a native of anything. Why should we get bent out of shape about semantics? Because if we continue to use a seemingly simple word incorrectly without understanding all its implications, we are destined to fail in our efforts to preserve wild habitat and fritter away taxpayers dollars in the name of diversity.
By definition, a native species is part of a specific habitat, sometimes very local and sometimes widely distributed. Each species in a habitat exists in balance and is supported by all the other species and conditions in its particular niche. The word is mistakenly used to mean plants of a general area. Here’s an example taken to the extreme just to illustrate how absurd that is: By this logic you could say a polar bear is native to the northern hemisphere. Or you could say it is native to the United States. Obviously you know polar bears are not native to Florida or even the southern states but both are within North America and the United States. Polar bears are actually native to areas of the sub-arctic region in a habitat that includes specific climactic and ocean conditions, temperature, tundra plants and the seals and other animals it preys upon.
In South Florida many people are given to equally absurd geographical slight of hand when they refer to species from specific regions within Florida as “Florida natives”. This suggests that a ghost orchid, for instance is native to all of Florida when it grows exclusively in remote areas of the Great Cypress Swamp SW Florida. It is very difficult to grow outside that habitat. That is important because it is almost impossible to grow it successfully elsewhere and removing it only leads to extinction. Obviously the ghost orchid is not a “Florida native”—a state that covers temperate to subtropical zones, swamps, hardwood forests, grasslands and several types of coastal forest and dunes, each with its own flora and fauna.
The point is that even so-called “native” species may or may not be appropriate for a particular garden depending on suitable conditions that resemble a species’ true habitat. Indeed most of the attributes of so-called “native” plants, such as water conservation, food and wildlife habitat can be found among a wide range of suitable non-native species from other parts of the world with similar climate. And some foreign species may even have advantages over local species such as being more drought tolerant or less weedy because they are sterile in cultivation or because they lack pollinators. Certain non-local species may be resistant to local diseases and insect pests than true natives.
But politics, governmental and environmental, has largely drained any meaning from the definition of the word. And at the same time people who lack a reasoned understanding of the word often treat cultivated species of plants as second class citizens no matter how benign.
An example: by misrepresentation of the term “native”, Miami-Dade County requires the planting of 60% “native species” in all new development. Believe it or not, some of the plants on the so-called “native” list for Miami-Dade County are native only to parts of different counties such as the Keys or extreme southern coast of the mainland (mahogany trees, lysilomas). It certainly is not important to the powers-that-be which species are actually native to the particular habitats where our homes now stand, former seasonal wetlands, rock pinelands, hammocks or coastal mangrove, woodlands or grasslands, as long as what we plant has been growing in South Florida for a long time. In addition, some actual natives of local habitat may be totally inappropriate for suburban life such as the scrub pines that used to cover Pinecrest. They are intolerant of lawn irrigation, construction and septic systems and may topple in hurricanes or act as lightening rods.
Consider the idea of reintroducing plants that were former natives into an area where the native oolite lime stone is now crushed and covered by truckloads of non-native fill from who knows where. Consider that the live oak (Quercus virginiana) is on the list of native plants that are allowed in Pinecrest. This oak was never native to rock pinelands. Fires used to scour the pinelands of hardwood trees. Fire no longer is welcome in former pineland regions. Oaks now are self seeding pests in our area and crowd out many true natives that formerly grew here given their rampant suckering habit when the crown is damaged or pruned. So what that it is native to coastal hammocks and northern Florida.
In stark contrast to proprietary laws governing the use of “natives” in new landscaping there is mediocre enforcement to control invasive species sold by nurseries and a failure to ensure invasives are removed from new building sites. These species can destroy what little native habitat we have left and cost taxpayers millions to keep them in check. These species will inevitably alter the Florida landscape. Any self-propagating species outside its habitat has the potential for becoming invasive and that includes some so-called “Florida natives”.
Because of political pressure and government failure to act quickly they have been totally ineffective in removing seriously destructive pest animal species as well. Introduced animals also lead to the destruction of natural habitat and native species of birds and other animals. While we have laws restricting our use of harmless introduced plants, feral cats are allowed to wander freely and decimate the songbird population. Some areas of Florida are overrun with iguanas, monitor lizards and pythons. In effect “native police” are often agressively barking up the wrong trees while serious conservationists have their hands tied.
Wouldn’t it be more effective and economical to concentrate our efforts on preserving wild areas that have not already been decimated by habitation? Of course but who expects reason from county government.
And what about the signs that many species adapt? Are our pols aware that bird species like the swallow-tailed kite prefer Australian pines over our native pines for nesting places? Several dozen of these magnificent black and white aerialists are no longer nesting in Pinecrest since many of the pines trees were removed because they are invasive in beach areas such as Crandon Park. Australian pines may break in storms but they regrow quickly restoring habitat while native pines are destroyed by storms when topped and are very slow and resistant to reintroduction. A few isolated trees do not propagate themselves readily when restricted to private property inland.
Officials must love an excuse to levy fines or they have been misled to think that there is some magic in a plant because it is described as “native”. Our landscaping codes are a farce because they are based on inaccurate assumptions and definitions. We have misplaced our priorities and continue to divert our attention to relatively minor issues instead of tackling the tough issues of urban sprawl, efficient mass transportation and preserving still wild habitat before it is too late.
Home owners should have free choice of non-invasive species. Many introduced species will provide habitat, nectar and food for wildlife. At the same time they should know that many so-called natives can and often do become as seriously invasive as any “exotic” plant. Laws requiring the planting of so-called “native species” in suburbia at the exclusion of well adapted introduced species does not prevent the extinction of a single endangered species.
It’s high time to get some perspective. It’s a fact that some introduced species can be extremely invasive and usurp native habitats. Humans are the ultimate exotic species. We depend on agricultural and animal species from around the globe for our survival.
© Kirsten Llamas
Recent Comments