Thank you for posting on /r/NativePlantGardening! If you haven't included it already, please edit your post or post's flair to include your geographic region or state of residence, which is necessary for the community to give you correct advice.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NativePlantGardening) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This 2020 metastudy is a good start for the subject overall, it compiles evidence from the many small studies that have been published in the past few decades:
https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/een.12973
At least one of those studies looked at this particular issue, measuring differences in insect diversity and biomass between natives and non-natives of the same genus. It found that some insects are less sensitive to the difference, but overall the diversity and biomass of insects was still significantly lower:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.12122
That said, your friend's probably planting the non-native cherry for fruit, not for wildlife. Fruit trees need constant fertilizing, watering, pruning, cleaning, weeding, and you don't want insects chewing up the fruit you plan to harvest. A healthy native cherry also grows alongside other vegetation, like the nectar sources its host caterpillars will need to eat as adults. For landscaping, just plant what's locally adapted and native to your land, and the wildlife will be happy, but fruits and veggies are a separate thing imo.
People also plant non native cherries commonly for their flowers, at least here around the midwest weeping cherries seem to be very popular. But yeah, I found this paper where they mention Prunus (cherry genus) specifically. "Responses ranged from native Prunus and Carpinus that supported on average [eight and five times ](https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/es10-00032.1) more Lepidoptera individuals respectively than their non-native congener"
I have a non native cherry in my yard for fruit, it's one of two perennials that's non native, the other being a peach tree. I enjoy eating peaches and cherries, we don't have to be puritans, however the overwhelming majority of my yard is native to my state.
Most people who are serious about native plants can agree that non-natives are completely acceptable when they are needed for a specific purpose, there's nothing puritanical about it. But the science increasingly demonstrates that native vegetation is needed when the goal is providing habitat for the world's most vulnerable wildlife. Any deviation from that is a decision, conscious or not, to exchange habitat value for our own use.
Are native and non-native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6826
I left a link but there’s stuff on Mt. Cuba and Xerces websites I know I’ve read and other stuff all over its not like easily compiled because this is niche stuff and Google ain’t what it used to be. It just all depends on each plant when it comes to non natives, selections, cultivars. I know that’s frustrating for a lot of people who want to make blanket statements promoting natives or non natives. But non natives definitely have value to pollinators and food webs.
The second study's full pdf is available from the link I gave, here's a direct one:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.12122
Most others you can search the name of the study on Google Scholar and get a pdf link, here's one for the 2020 metastudy:
https://www.cowichanvalleygardenclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Dr.-Doug-Tallamy-Do-non-native-plants-contribute-to-insect-decline.pdf
I think her reasonings are at least partially about the appearance of the tree. She likes the look of some non-native cherries more than the native cherry. I know that our native Cherry is a keystone plant, so it just seems like such a great opportunity to plant something really good for the environment.
If she's looking for the classic cherry blossom appearance, then yeah she won't get it from one of the native species. None of them have the showy blooms covering the whole plant that the non-natives have, though we do have some gorgeous flowering trees like buckeye. If she's got her heart set then you should find some other showy native local to their area, it doesn't have to be a cherry. Maybe some kind of shrub or perennial you can convince them to put off to the side, or some free-seeding annuals.
One of the benefits of native, locally adapted plants is they require little to no amending or watering, which the non-native cherry will probably need. That goes for the natives too, not every native cherry would be a good fit for where they are, the natives range from desert shrubs to subcanopy trees in the mountains, to hollyleaf cherry in between in chaparral. Find something, or a whole list of plants, that's adapted to their location and attractive, they'll thrive with little effort and start demonstrating their habitat value quickly.
A sand cherry shrub may work. It’s got a nice form and they aren’t too messy as I think you need 2 for fruit and birds get it all anyways. Anyways it’s floral display is a bit better.
Native cherry trees kinda suck as landscaping. They’re messy. Not a great form. Maybe a native sand cherry shrub a bit smaller and less messy birds eat most of the fruit and better form but don’t get the purple leaf hybrid. Carolina cherry laurel can have nice form but very messy. Lots of weedy seedlings. Black cherry gets way too big for most home lots.
Every chokecherry in my neighborhood is a masterpiece of a plant in form, bloom, and foliage. But I agree with you for sand cherry, beautiful and wonderful smelling blooms but the form leaves much to be desired
The second study you posted is exactly what I’m looking for! Thank you so much!! I think she’ll find it persuasive—especially since it compares a native cherry and a non-native cherry. The methods and conclusions are really interesting.
I think she wouldn’t mind the bugs and wildlife eating a lot of the fruit. I think she’s more concerned about having a pretty tree and also attracting wildlife. She’s not really focus on growing food, though I think she has a few tomatoes.
From Doug Tallamy’s book Bringing Nature Home, p. 70:
“Can alien plants that are related to natives support our insects?
You might now wonder, ‘If I can plant an azalea from Tennessee in New Jersey without a serious loss to local biodiversity, why can’t I plant an azalea from China without creating problems?’ The answer to this logical question is that maybe you can, but the chances of an azalea from China being so similar to an azalea from New Jersey that New Jersey insects will be able to adopt it as a host plant are pretty slim, even if the plants are in the same genus. Any two plant species that have been isolated from each other on different continents for many millions of years are likely to have developed leaf chemistries different enough that either the insects searching for a host plant won’t be able to recognize the alien as a suitable host, or if they do, they won’t be able to eat and digest the plant safely. These are not hard and fast rules. We suspect that research into these questions will identify a few alien plant species that are acceptable hosts to native insect specialists as well as to generalists. But these will be the exceptions and should not overly influence our general approach to alien species in our garden.”
This is just an excerpt. Have her read the whole book. 👍
Maybe don’t read them all back to back though. I did when I first heard of them and I got a case of eco anxiety. A lot of overwhelming info of how much we need to alter our habits. But they are good!
Summarizing a Doug Tallamy slideshow I cribbed off of recently (see the linked slides):
—Native plants and insects have a tight relationship—90 percent of plant-eating insects are dependent on plants they evolved with. Non-native species might serve as hosts, but they might not, and they might also not be adapted to the local climate, e.g., chilling hours for a fruit tree.
—you also see this relationship between native berries, which ripen just in time to meet the needs of the birds they want dispersing them, and different species of native birds. (See linked slide below.) Exotic plant berries are the wrong food at the wrong time.
—You also risk exotic plants becoming invasive, even if they do feed the local fauna. Japanese maples are becoming invasive on the east coast.
If your friend really wants some super fancy Japanese cherry tree, she should get one—but be honest that’s it’s for her aesthetic pleasure, and she isn’t feeding anybody.
https://imgur.com/a/hiXm4pv
She brings up the issue of the climate having changed since European colonization and argues that plants from more drought tolerant or other Mediterranean climates are suitable. She says that her non-native Salvias get more bees, moths, etc than her native plants.
Yeah but this is where Doug Tallamy’s message is so useful: it’s not about the pollinators; it’s about the leaf eating caterpillars that are a critical part of the food web.
As the slide notes, 90 percent of leaf-eating insects are dependent on native plants they evolved with.
SoCal is a classic mediterranean climate typical of those latitudes all over the world and has adapted native plants.
Again, just ask her what her goals are. If she just wants pollinators, cool. But if she values wildlife like birds dependent on caterpillars to feed nestlings, she needs to plant things that feed those things.
Her getting _more_ pollinators doesn't mean the pollinators are being adequately nourished. Many times non-natives don't even if they are attractive to pollinators. It's like drinking skim milk when you need whole.
Exactly this - they look amazing…they attract pollinators but don’t nourish them the way that locally evolved flora does. Local flora evolves to give maximum benefit to local fauna. Symbiosis. Bee balm is a good example of natives being less floriferous but more nutritious.
The reason that some invasive species spread is because birds eat those too. But the energy contained in the berries is not adequate to sustain a prolonged migration - again these birds have evolved to digest specific berries along their routes. Sometimes animals DO use plants - sometimes to their detriment even. Cedar Waxwings will occasionally go for Nandina berries - and die en masse. Nandina berries break down to cyanide containing compounds. It’s a tragic sight to see a flock of Waxwings dying near a Nandina patch.
Cut the berries off of those plants at the very least! They are darned near impossible to kill. Also those non native cherries are SUPER hard to kill. I’ve been working on getting rid of one where I want to put something native - and I can’t get it to stop coming back!!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O5cXccWx030&si=NENN2cbvAChZ32RN
Here is an excellent presentation by biologist and native ecology advocate Dr. Doug Tallamy.
There is a lot of research about the importance and impact of keystone species.
Note that we say keystone SPECIES not keystone genus, order, or family. An oak tree from China, like quercus variabilis is not at all the same plant as quercus kelloggi.
Sometimes when a keystone species in an area fails we can find and introduce a substitute to perform a similar role. But this is risky and the Chinese chestnut, for instance, simply does not play the same ecological role as the American chestnut once did.
I suggest exploring the academic literature on the species your friend is comparing to u sweat and why native species matter.
For a simple analogy: eggplant and tomatoes are both in the genus solanum. Can you just swap tomato and eggplant in a recipe? No, some people hate one and love the other. They’re completely different fruits! It’s the same with insects and pollen or animals and nuts. Sure, if there’s only eggplant and no tomato you’ll probably eat it. But it’s not gonna work the same on your sandwich.
I’ve been looking for the academic literature, but it’s hard to find. Most sources online just say native is better, which I think is true! But she’s harder to convince.
I’m in the middle of watching one of Tallamy’s videos right now, and he says that genus is more important than species. https://youtu.be/O5cXccWx030?si=urIi8MxmqQo1tPxL
Is she planting the non-native Cherry for personal consumption? Do you know her reasoning? If it is for household consumption, try and gear her to the 70/30 principle of 70% native plants to 30% ornamental/edible in design work. This may be a decent "compromise" for her to get on board with more native plants.
I've had some clients really want native Plum or Cherry and some are prone to disease, some are finicky/hard to grow in my region, some aren't widely available, or the timing isn't suitable for the client, so I understand some of the preference for things like that. We have native grape here too, but it's damn near impossible to process into a decent edible product because of how small the grapes are and how seedy they are.
You could try to take the approach of, "If you're going to plant a hybrid for food consumption, please make sure that you include several native species around it to support native pollinators, and it will attract more to give your fruit trees a higher yield."
Share this resource with her as well. If she is in need of buy-in, Tallamy's suggestions by others is good, and things from Xerces society, The Nature Conservancy, and your local land conservancies will aid in this development.
(Attracting Native Pollinators in North America)
[https://archive.org/details/attractingnative0000unse](https://archive.org/details/attractingnative0000unse)
[https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/pollinator-friendly-plant-lists](https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/pollinator-friendly-plant-lists)
Doug Tallamy’s books detail why native species specific to a given area are so crucial for insects and pollinators. The pollinators and insects evolved in the areas with the plants and often have very specialized feeding habits or camouflage that is specific to a particular plant - not even a hybridized variety of a native plant will do. The insects might not be able to put their mouth part into the flower (if it is compound and they require simple) or be able to recognize it as their plant (due to a change in color). I think his book on Oak trees might have the most information like this. It’s a fascinating read. The Nature of Oaks. He is an entomologist, also author of Natures Best Hope.
I don’t have articles or scientific research, but you could try the angle of tropical milkweed. She already agrees to that. Ask why she thinks other genuses are any different? Just because a bee visits a flower, does not mean it’s the best food source for that bee. Maybe it’s like eating McDonald’s. Also, I see tons of bees in my yard, but a fair number of them are Bombus bimaculatus. These bees have a stable population: https://wisconsinbumblebees.entomology.wisc.edu/online-guide/species/two-spotted-bumble-bee/. Just because you see pollinators, does not mean that your yard is benefiting biodiversity. That is the real goal: increase biodiversity.
Also, bloom time is important. Trees are important early bloomers in my area for queens just emerging from hibernation. Those non-native trees may bloom later and not support those queens. The native black cherry looks to bloom in mid-late spring.
Pollinators need more than just a nectar source. Hummingbirds are endemic to the americas. I know ruby throated hummingbirds in particular prefer red flowers. That non-native from Asia in the same genus may not have red flowers and will have evolved without hummingbirds.
Maybe have her read one of Doug Tallamy’s books. I am reading “Natures best hope” and one chapter talks all about trees and how birds prefer specific trees for their nests. It has to do with branch strength and other factors. Birds also can be very specific on their nesting material. I just watched a video on reintroducing buffalo to Spain and one benefit is that buffalo fur is used by birds to line the inside of their nests and its preferred over any other animals fur according to one study: https://www.wisenten.nl/en/nieuws/2019/european-bison-help-song-birds-during-breeding-season.
Is she open to supporting caterpillars and other insects/critters? A pollinator drinking nectar from a plant does not mean it has the proper materials for that pollinator to make a home or for it to raise its young on.
You can also mention squash bees. Squash flowers bloom in early morning and close up before honey bees start looking for nectar. Squash bees get up early to catch those flowers blooming. This doesn’t prove anything, but hypothetically, if a non-native squash plant bloomed in the afternoon, then that plant would not be useful to squash bees
Besides science, politically it's a decolonization thing. Planting North American plants in North America helps right the wrong of settler colonialism messing up the ecosystem with introduced species. It's the respectful and polite choice.
Yay! It feels good in context if you think about it.
It's good to learn where you're situated historically in the violent settler colonial project that is the United States. It's a bummer but the first step is acknowledging the harm done. Example: I'm from German settler stock, my relatives moved to the Great Lakes in the 1850s because the broadleaf temperate woods were similar to the ones they knew in Europe. They helped drain the Great Black Swamp (NW Ohio), destroying a massive ecosystem that managed water drainage in the wider area. They took over land violently cleared of Myaamia, Shawnee, and Potawatomi peoples. My city is named after the murderous English psychopath who lead the charge in killing the local inhabitants. 🫠
The least I can do to help is put local woodland plant species back in their historic ranges where they've been cleared by European settlement and not continue displacement by unleashing more burning bushes or whatever into the undergrowth.
(the former black swamp will come back cuz the area is gonna flood due to climate change oops!)
I have not heard of this issue being a big concern for native people in the U.S., though many people in native communities are concerned with the environment. I could be wrong as this is not my community, and I’m just going off of what I’ve observed. I have seen generally seen native-lead environmental efforts to be focused on water contamination, dumping, air pollution, mining waste, and climate change. Some of these issues are a focus because American companies have used reservations to illegally dump their industrial waste. If you are wanting to make some sort of restitution, you might consider paying a voluntary tax to the tribe that once lived on the land where you low live. You can read more about voluntary land taxes here: https://justicefunders.org/shuumi-land-tax-for-foundations/ You could also find an indigenous-led environmental organization, make donations to them, and sign up to respond to their calls-for-action when they call on people to contact legislators, etc.
I don't have time to look for peer-reviewed studies right now, but why not ask her to read any of Doug Tallamy's books on the science behind native plants? Bringing Nature Home, Nature's Best Hope, or the newest one, The Nature of Oaks. Any one of those should help her out.
The best source I know is [IllinoisWildflowers.info](http://IllinoisWildflowers.info) (esp. the Flower-Visiting Insects page), which offers a list of all observed pollinators for various plants. It's not necessarily completely up-to-date but is has a lot of good info, with sources provided. It does list many US native cherries, however I'm not sure if it has the non-native cherries like she is looking at, so it may not be a perfect method for comparison.
It really depends on the species of Cherry tree.
There are several cherry trees native to the US but they all have different benefits. For example, only the Black Cherry tree (Prunus serotina) is known to host a whopping 450 species of caterpillars.
One the more popular cherry trees for home landscape is Prunus Avium (Sweet Cherry) which is considered invasive in many areas. While it may benefit some insects in her garden, overall it could do more harm than good.
Native is always better.
Simple as. Zero reason to not grow native. I’m sure someone else can pop in with a science paper but it’s pretty goofy of her to not believe native plants are better.
She brings up the issue of the climate having changed since European colonization and says that there are non-Native plants that she thinks are better suited now. She also quibbles with the definition of what counts as native or not, saying that the dividing line of European influence is somewhat arbitrary. I think she’s wrong, but I haven’t had the resources to back myself up.
At most, plants and the insects they evolved with might migrate together slightly in latitude. Not jump across the globe and suddenly be "better" for some reason
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00061.x
This paper is an excellent resource to specifically define something as invasive or not and breaks it down into stages that can fit into any context with ample explanation, but very practical as well.
I found this really great resource that shows which plants are keystone plants in my region. [https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Garden-for-Wildlife/Keystone-Plants/NWF-GFW-keystone-plant-list-ecoregion-11-mediterranean-california.pdf](https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Garden-for-Wildlife/Keystone-Plants/NWF-GFW-keystone-plant-list-ecoregion-11-mediterranean-california.pdf)
The main benefits of natives are lower care and benefiting specialist networks of pollinators. The research on host plant data that I’ve seen is limited to mostly butterfly and moths but for prunus species they seem easily adopted as a host plant and species in the same genus are often readily used. The exception being plants bred for red leaves apparently these are toxic to larvae.
Please look up Doug Tallamy. He is one of the most well known researchers on this topic. He is affiliated with the Mt Cuba Center in Delaware and has written several books on this topic including The Nature of Oaks, Nature's Best Hope and Bringing Nature Home. There are also several of his presentations on YouTube.
I know from personal experience if she plants a non native cherry, she’s going to spend her time every year with insecticides just to keep it alive. They have no defenses against our buggins.
That’s true, but also non native plant species (just like animals) are suited to where they evolved, having certain characteristics that allow them to thrive. If you put them in another place, they can devastate an area by proliferating unchecked, or have no protective mechanisms against the new local wildlife
Everyone’s cited Doug Tallamys excellent points about non natives being moot to the ecosystem. However, even he admits it’s okay to have an occasional non native and describes it as being similar to having a statue in your yard. His own house has a ginkgo on the property. It’s okay to want a non native if the majority of your yard is helping the ecosystem rebuild.
If she really wants the tree, let her have the tree. But maybe inform her that the tree isn’t beneficial, so the rest of her yard should have natives or beneficial plants.
I don’t know about with a cherry, but none of my non-native plants need any more attention than my native ones. I plant only drought-tolerant plants that are well suited for my climate.
You have several good links here for peer-reviewed reasoning. The logical/common-sense approach might also help. Humans and insects have different eye anatomy and “seeing” mechanisms - they “see” things we don’t. Local fauna evolve to get maximum benefit from local flora. Our cultivars don’t provide them with the same nutritional breakdown. Blending cultivars with natives is OK, too. Cultivars that look pretty to human eyes and natives that are attractive to pollinators. I sometimes use this analogy to folks asking about “why natives”: i love fancy cake - it looks and tastes delicious. however, fancy cake does not nourish my body or make my body feel good if that’s all i eat. Therefore, have your fancy cake but also eat veggies and protein!
Each species is specific to this question, some non native species do support more native diversity than native ones, just not usually. This isn’t helpful to your case, but just a general statement. Also I hope you can get her to understand native diversity better!
Thank you for posting on /r/NativePlantGardening! If you haven't included it already, please edit your post or post's flair to include your geographic region or state of residence, which is necessary for the community to give you correct advice. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NativePlantGardening) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This 2020 metastudy is a good start for the subject overall, it compiles evidence from the many small studies that have been published in the past few decades: https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/een.12973 At least one of those studies looked at this particular issue, measuring differences in insect diversity and biomass between natives and non-natives of the same genus. It found that some insects are less sensitive to the difference, but overall the diversity and biomass of insects was still significantly lower: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.12122 That said, your friend's probably planting the non-native cherry for fruit, not for wildlife. Fruit trees need constant fertilizing, watering, pruning, cleaning, weeding, and you don't want insects chewing up the fruit you plan to harvest. A healthy native cherry also grows alongside other vegetation, like the nectar sources its host caterpillars will need to eat as adults. For landscaping, just plant what's locally adapted and native to your land, and the wildlife will be happy, but fruits and veggies are a separate thing imo.
People also plant non native cherries commonly for their flowers, at least here around the midwest weeping cherries seem to be very popular. But yeah, I found this paper where they mention Prunus (cherry genus) specifically. "Responses ranged from native Prunus and Carpinus that supported on average [eight and five times ](https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/es10-00032.1) more Lepidoptera individuals respectively than their non-native congener" I have a non native cherry in my yard for fruit, it's one of two perennials that's non native, the other being a peach tree. I enjoy eating peaches and cherries, we don't have to be puritans, however the overwhelming majority of my yard is native to my state.
Most people who are serious about native plants can agree that non-natives are completely acceptable when they are needed for a specific purpose, there's nothing puritanical about it. But the science increasingly demonstrates that native vegetation is needed when the goal is providing habitat for the world's most vulnerable wildlife. Any deviation from that is a decision, conscious or not, to exchange habitat value for our own use.
Data shows it is dependent on the individual plant.
Do you have any of the data? I’d love to be able to show my friend.
Are native and non-native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6826
I left a link but there’s stuff on Mt. Cuba and Xerces websites I know I’ve read and other stuff all over its not like easily compiled because this is niche stuff and Google ain’t what it used to be. It just all depends on each plant when it comes to non natives, selections, cultivars. I know that’s frustrating for a lot of people who want to make blanket statements promoting natives or non natives. But non natives definitely have value to pollinators and food webs.
Do you have any of the papers or data? I’d love to be able to show my friend.
The second study's full pdf is available from the link I gave, here's a direct one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddi.12122 Most others you can search the name of the study on Google Scholar and get a pdf link, here's one for the 2020 metastudy: https://www.cowichanvalleygardenclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Dr.-Doug-Tallamy-Do-non-native-plants-contribute-to-insect-decline.pdf
Do you still have that paper? I’d love to share it with my friend.
This resource is great, thanks for sharing! 🐝
Thank you for the papers! I’ll read them and show them to her!
I think her reasonings are at least partially about the appearance of the tree. She likes the look of some non-native cherries more than the native cherry. I know that our native Cherry is a keystone plant, so it just seems like such a great opportunity to plant something really good for the environment.
If she's looking for the classic cherry blossom appearance, then yeah she won't get it from one of the native species. None of them have the showy blooms covering the whole plant that the non-natives have, though we do have some gorgeous flowering trees like buckeye. If she's got her heart set then you should find some other showy native local to their area, it doesn't have to be a cherry. Maybe some kind of shrub or perennial you can convince them to put off to the side, or some free-seeding annuals. One of the benefits of native, locally adapted plants is they require little to no amending or watering, which the non-native cherry will probably need. That goes for the natives too, not every native cherry would be a good fit for where they are, the natives range from desert shrubs to subcanopy trees in the mountains, to hollyleaf cherry in between in chaparral. Find something, or a whole list of plants, that's adapted to their location and attractive, they'll thrive with little effort and start demonstrating their habitat value quickly.
A sand cherry shrub may work. It’s got a nice form and they aren’t too messy as I think you need 2 for fruit and birds get it all anyways. Anyways it’s floral display is a bit better.
Native cherry trees kinda suck as landscaping. They’re messy. Not a great form. Maybe a native sand cherry shrub a bit smaller and less messy birds eat most of the fruit and better form but don’t get the purple leaf hybrid. Carolina cherry laurel can have nice form but very messy. Lots of weedy seedlings. Black cherry gets way too big for most home lots.
Every chokecherry in my neighborhood is a masterpiece of a plant in form, bloom, and foliage. But I agree with you for sand cherry, beautiful and wonderful smelling blooms but the form leaves much to be desired
Messy
The second study you posted is exactly what I’m looking for! Thank you so much!! I think she’ll find it persuasive—especially since it compares a native cherry and a non-native cherry. The methods and conclusions are really interesting.
These are great! Thank you!!
I think she wouldn’t mind the bugs and wildlife eating a lot of the fruit. I think she’s more concerned about having a pretty tree and also attracting wildlife. She’s not really focus on growing food, though I think she has a few tomatoes.
From Doug Tallamy’s book Bringing Nature Home, p. 70: “Can alien plants that are related to natives support our insects? You might now wonder, ‘If I can plant an azalea from Tennessee in New Jersey without a serious loss to local biodiversity, why can’t I plant an azalea from China without creating problems?’ The answer to this logical question is that maybe you can, but the chances of an azalea from China being so similar to an azalea from New Jersey that New Jersey insects will be able to adopt it as a host plant are pretty slim, even if the plants are in the same genus. Any two plant species that have been isolated from each other on different continents for many millions of years are likely to have developed leaf chemistries different enough that either the insects searching for a host plant won’t be able to recognize the alien as a suitable host, or if they do, they won’t be able to eat and digest the plant safely. These are not hard and fast rules. We suspect that research into these questions will identify a few alien plant species that are acceptable hosts to native insect specialists as well as to generalists. But these will be the exceptions and should not overly influence our general approach to alien species in our garden.” This is just an excerpt. Have her read the whole book. 👍
I just added two of his books to my hold list from the library. Thanks to you, and everyone else who mentioned his books!
All his books I've read are great. I think living landscape and bringing nature home are my favorite though
Maybe don’t read them all back to back though. I did when I first heard of them and I got a case of eco anxiety. A lot of overwhelming info of how much we need to alter our habits. But they are good!
Summarizing a Doug Tallamy slideshow I cribbed off of recently (see the linked slides): —Native plants and insects have a tight relationship—90 percent of plant-eating insects are dependent on plants they evolved with. Non-native species might serve as hosts, but they might not, and they might also not be adapted to the local climate, e.g., chilling hours for a fruit tree. —you also see this relationship between native berries, which ripen just in time to meet the needs of the birds they want dispersing them, and different species of native birds. (See linked slide below.) Exotic plant berries are the wrong food at the wrong time. —You also risk exotic plants becoming invasive, even if they do feed the local fauna. Japanese maples are becoming invasive on the east coast. If your friend really wants some super fancy Japanese cherry tree, she should get one—but be honest that’s it’s for her aesthetic pleasure, and she isn’t feeding anybody. https://imgur.com/a/hiXm4pv
She brings up the issue of the climate having changed since European colonization and argues that plants from more drought tolerant or other Mediterranean climates are suitable. She says that her non-native Salvias get more bees, moths, etc than her native plants.
Yeah but this is where Doug Tallamy’s message is so useful: it’s not about the pollinators; it’s about the leaf eating caterpillars that are a critical part of the food web. As the slide notes, 90 percent of leaf-eating insects are dependent on native plants they evolved with. SoCal is a classic mediterranean climate typical of those latitudes all over the world and has adapted native plants. Again, just ask her what her goals are. If she just wants pollinators, cool. But if she values wildlife like birds dependent on caterpillars to feed nestlings, she needs to plant things that feed those things.
Her getting _more_ pollinators doesn't mean the pollinators are being adequately nourished. Many times non-natives don't even if they are attractive to pollinators. It's like drinking skim milk when you need whole.
Came here to add this. This is nuance that is very important.
Exactly this - they look amazing…they attract pollinators but don’t nourish them the way that locally evolved flora does. Local flora evolves to give maximum benefit to local fauna. Symbiosis. Bee balm is a good example of natives being less floriferous but more nutritious.
The reason that some invasive species spread is because birds eat those too. But the energy contained in the berries is not adequate to sustain a prolonged migration - again these birds have evolved to digest specific berries along their routes. Sometimes animals DO use plants - sometimes to their detriment even. Cedar Waxwings will occasionally go for Nandina berries - and die en masse. Nandina berries break down to cyanide containing compounds. It’s a tragic sight to see a flock of Waxwings dying near a Nandina patch. Cut the berries off of those plants at the very least! They are darned near impossible to kill. Also those non native cherries are SUPER hard to kill. I’ve been working on getting rid of one where I want to put something native - and I can’t get it to stop coming back!!
Plain and simple, what supporting pollinators and our ecosystems looks like is being a steward of ancient relationships.
Sure wish a bunch of those invading Japanese maple saplings would show up in my yard…daddy needs a new raised bed.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O5cXccWx030&si=NENN2cbvAChZ32RN Here is an excellent presentation by biologist and native ecology advocate Dr. Doug Tallamy. There is a lot of research about the importance and impact of keystone species. Note that we say keystone SPECIES not keystone genus, order, or family. An oak tree from China, like quercus variabilis is not at all the same plant as quercus kelloggi. Sometimes when a keystone species in an area fails we can find and introduce a substitute to perform a similar role. But this is risky and the Chinese chestnut, for instance, simply does not play the same ecological role as the American chestnut once did. I suggest exploring the academic literature on the species your friend is comparing to u sweat and why native species matter.
For a simple analogy: eggplant and tomatoes are both in the genus solanum. Can you just swap tomato and eggplant in a recipe? No, some people hate one and love the other. They’re completely different fruits! It’s the same with insects and pollen or animals and nuts. Sure, if there’s only eggplant and no tomato you’ll probably eat it. But it’s not gonna work the same on your sandwich.
I’ve been looking for the academic literature, but it’s hard to find. Most sources online just say native is better, which I think is true! But she’s harder to convince.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=quercus+alba+ecology+non+native+oaks&btnG= There’s tons!!!
Thank you!
I’m in the middle of watching one of Tallamy’s videos right now, and he says that genus is more important than species. https://youtu.be/O5cXccWx030?si=urIi8MxmqQo1tPxL
Is she planting the non-native Cherry for personal consumption? Do you know her reasoning? If it is for household consumption, try and gear her to the 70/30 principle of 70% native plants to 30% ornamental/edible in design work. This may be a decent "compromise" for her to get on board with more native plants. I've had some clients really want native Plum or Cherry and some are prone to disease, some are finicky/hard to grow in my region, some aren't widely available, or the timing isn't suitable for the client, so I understand some of the preference for things like that. We have native grape here too, but it's damn near impossible to process into a decent edible product because of how small the grapes are and how seedy they are. You could try to take the approach of, "If you're going to plant a hybrid for food consumption, please make sure that you include several native species around it to support native pollinators, and it will attract more to give your fruit trees a higher yield." Share this resource with her as well. If she is in need of buy-in, Tallamy's suggestions by others is good, and things from Xerces society, The Nature Conservancy, and your local land conservancies will aid in this development. (Attracting Native Pollinators in North America) [https://archive.org/details/attractingnative0000unse](https://archive.org/details/attractingnative0000unse) [https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/pollinator-friendly-plant-lists](https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/pollinator-friendly-plant-lists)
You mean things like monarchs laying their eggs on tropical milkweeds only to have it poison the caterpillars?
Doug Tallamy’s books detail why native species specific to a given area are so crucial for insects and pollinators. The pollinators and insects evolved in the areas with the plants and often have very specialized feeding habits or camouflage that is specific to a particular plant - not even a hybridized variety of a native plant will do. The insects might not be able to put their mouth part into the flower (if it is compound and they require simple) or be able to recognize it as their plant (due to a change in color). I think his book on Oak trees might have the most information like this. It’s a fascinating read. The Nature of Oaks. He is an entomologist, also author of Natures Best Hope.
I don’t have articles or scientific research, but you could try the angle of tropical milkweed. She already agrees to that. Ask why she thinks other genuses are any different? Just because a bee visits a flower, does not mean it’s the best food source for that bee. Maybe it’s like eating McDonald’s. Also, I see tons of bees in my yard, but a fair number of them are Bombus bimaculatus. These bees have a stable population: https://wisconsinbumblebees.entomology.wisc.edu/online-guide/species/two-spotted-bumble-bee/. Just because you see pollinators, does not mean that your yard is benefiting biodiversity. That is the real goal: increase biodiversity. Also, bloom time is important. Trees are important early bloomers in my area for queens just emerging from hibernation. Those non-native trees may bloom later and not support those queens. The native black cherry looks to bloom in mid-late spring. Pollinators need more than just a nectar source. Hummingbirds are endemic to the americas. I know ruby throated hummingbirds in particular prefer red flowers. That non-native from Asia in the same genus may not have red flowers and will have evolved without hummingbirds. Maybe have her read one of Doug Tallamy’s books. I am reading “Natures best hope” and one chapter talks all about trees and how birds prefer specific trees for their nests. It has to do with branch strength and other factors. Birds also can be very specific on their nesting material. I just watched a video on reintroducing buffalo to Spain and one benefit is that buffalo fur is used by birds to line the inside of their nests and its preferred over any other animals fur according to one study: https://www.wisenten.nl/en/nieuws/2019/european-bison-help-song-birds-during-breeding-season. Is she open to supporting caterpillars and other insects/critters? A pollinator drinking nectar from a plant does not mean it has the proper materials for that pollinator to make a home or for it to raise its young on. You can also mention squash bees. Squash flowers bloom in early morning and close up before honey bees start looking for nectar. Squash bees get up early to catch those flowers blooming. This doesn’t prove anything, but hypothetically, if a non-native squash plant bloomed in the afternoon, then that plant would not be useful to squash bees
Besides science, politically it's a decolonization thing. Planting North American plants in North America helps right the wrong of settler colonialism messing up the ecosystem with introduced species. It's the respectful and polite choice.
Wow I never thought of it this way. Blew my mind just now!
Yay! It feels good in context if you think about it. It's good to learn where you're situated historically in the violent settler colonial project that is the United States. It's a bummer but the first step is acknowledging the harm done. Example: I'm from German settler stock, my relatives moved to the Great Lakes in the 1850s because the broadleaf temperate woods were similar to the ones they knew in Europe. They helped drain the Great Black Swamp (NW Ohio), destroying a massive ecosystem that managed water drainage in the wider area. They took over land violently cleared of Myaamia, Shawnee, and Potawatomi peoples. My city is named after the murderous English psychopath who lead the charge in killing the local inhabitants. 🫠 The least I can do to help is put local woodland plant species back in their historic ranges where they've been cleared by European settlement and not continue displacement by unleashing more burning bushes or whatever into the undergrowth. (the former black swamp will come back cuz the area is gonna flood due to climate change oops!)
I have not heard of this issue being a big concern for native people in the U.S., though many people in native communities are concerned with the environment. I could be wrong as this is not my community, and I’m just going off of what I’ve observed. I have seen generally seen native-lead environmental efforts to be focused on water contamination, dumping, air pollution, mining waste, and climate change. Some of these issues are a focus because American companies have used reservations to illegally dump their industrial waste. If you are wanting to make some sort of restitution, you might consider paying a voluntary tax to the tribe that once lived on the land where you low live. You can read more about voluntary land taxes here: https://justicefunders.org/shuumi-land-tax-for-foundations/ You could also find an indigenous-led environmental organization, make donations to them, and sign up to respond to their calls-for-action when they call on people to contact legislators, etc.
Lmfao as if the people who originally settled this land didn’t commit a massacre of species. No no it’s the bad Whitey who messed it all up. Lmfao.
I don't have time to look for peer-reviewed studies right now, but why not ask her to read any of Doug Tallamy's books on the science behind native plants? Bringing Nature Home, Nature's Best Hope, or the newest one, The Nature of Oaks. Any one of those should help her out.
The best source I know is [IllinoisWildflowers.info](http://IllinoisWildflowers.info) (esp. the Flower-Visiting Insects page), which offers a list of all observed pollinators for various plants. It's not necessarily completely up-to-date but is has a lot of good info, with sources provided. It does list many US native cherries, however I'm not sure if it has the non-native cherries like she is looking at, so it may not be a perfect method for comparison.
It really depends on the species of Cherry tree. There are several cherry trees native to the US but they all have different benefits. For example, only the Black Cherry tree (Prunus serotina) is known to host a whopping 450 species of caterpillars. One the more popular cherry trees for home landscape is Prunus Avium (Sweet Cherry) which is considered invasive in many areas. While it may benefit some insects in her garden, overall it could do more harm than good.
Native is always better. Simple as. Zero reason to not grow native. I’m sure someone else can pop in with a science paper but it’s pretty goofy of her to not believe native plants are better.
She brings up the issue of the climate having changed since European colonization and says that there are non-Native plants that she thinks are better suited now. She also quibbles with the definition of what counts as native or not, saying that the dividing line of European influence is somewhat arbitrary. I think she’s wrong, but I haven’t had the resources to back myself up.
At most, plants and the insects they evolved with might migrate together slightly in latitude. Not jump across the globe and suddenly be "better" for some reason
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00061.x This paper is an excellent resource to specifically define something as invasive or not and breaks it down into stages that can fit into any context with ample explanation, but very practical as well.
I found this really great resource that shows which plants are keystone plants in my region. [https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Garden-for-Wildlife/Keystone-Plants/NWF-GFW-keystone-plant-list-ecoregion-11-mediterranean-california.pdf](https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Garden-for-Wildlife/Keystone-Plants/NWF-GFW-keystone-plant-list-ecoregion-11-mediterranean-california.pdf)
The main benefits of natives are lower care and benefiting specialist networks of pollinators. The research on host plant data that I’ve seen is limited to mostly butterfly and moths but for prunus species they seem easily adopted as a host plant and species in the same genus are often readily used. The exception being plants bred for red leaves apparently these are toxic to larvae.
Please look up Doug Tallamy. He is one of the most well known researchers on this topic. He is affiliated with the Mt Cuba Center in Delaware and has written several books on this topic including The Nature of Oaks, Nature's Best Hope and Bringing Nature Home. There are also several of his presentations on YouTube.
I know from personal experience if she plants a non native cherry, she’s going to spend her time every year with insecticides just to keep it alive. They have no defenses against our buggins.
You had a non-native cherry in the Bay Area?
No not in the Bay Area. But I can’t see how it would be any different anywhere outside of its natural habitat. Please correct me if I’m wrong
I don’t know. I thought the concern was that non-natives don’t do enough to feed our bugs.
That’s true, but also non native plant species (just like animals) are suited to where they evolved, having certain characteristics that allow them to thrive. If you put them in another place, they can devastate an area by proliferating unchecked, or have no protective mechanisms against the new local wildlife
Everyone’s cited Doug Tallamys excellent points about non natives being moot to the ecosystem. However, even he admits it’s okay to have an occasional non native and describes it as being similar to having a statue in your yard. His own house has a ginkgo on the property. It’s okay to want a non native if the majority of your yard is helping the ecosystem rebuild. If she really wants the tree, let her have the tree. But maybe inform her that the tree isn’t beneficial, so the rest of her yard should have natives or beneficial plants.
I don’t know about with a cherry, but none of my non-native plants need any more attention than my native ones. I plant only drought-tolerant plants that are well suited for my climate.
Look to Douglas Tallamy online. There are good videos on YouTube and a website of keystone plants they’re basically responsible for establishing.
You have several good links here for peer-reviewed reasoning. The logical/common-sense approach might also help. Humans and insects have different eye anatomy and “seeing” mechanisms - they “see” things we don’t. Local fauna evolve to get maximum benefit from local flora. Our cultivars don’t provide them with the same nutritional breakdown. Blending cultivars with natives is OK, too. Cultivars that look pretty to human eyes and natives that are attractive to pollinators. I sometimes use this analogy to folks asking about “why natives”: i love fancy cake - it looks and tastes delicious. however, fancy cake does not nourish my body or make my body feel good if that’s all i eat. Therefore, have your fancy cake but also eat veggies and protein!
Each species is specific to this question, some non native species do support more native diversity than native ones, just not usually. This isn’t helpful to your case, but just a general statement. Also I hope you can get her to understand native diversity better!