Lacebark, Inc., P.O. Box 2383. Stillwater, OK 74076 Much has been written in recent years about the need to plant only "native" species. But the key questions are often overlooked. Is a plant best adapted to where it is "native"? Once urban soils have become homogenized and modified with all sorts of construction debris, is any plant "native" to that site? Are all introduced species "bad"? Shouldnt adaptation of a plant to a site or region be considered instead of just "native" vs. exotic? Just because a plant is "native" to an area, does that mean that the location/conditions are where is grows best? All these are questions that need to be considered. Our focus should be on plants adapted to a site and with acceptable "manners" relative to the desired purpose. The plant that grows best on a site may or may not be the most desirable and it may be a native or it may be an exotic. In many instances I feel requirement is often confused with tolerance. For example, my research that created the micronutrient fertilizer, Micromax, was done with tomato and pyracantha only. That was in 1978. Micromax has been the number 1 selling micronutrient fertilizer in the world for years. How can it be that research data from one vegetable and one woody shrub relates to thousands of species worldwide? I believe it is because all or nearly all plants have the same requirement for optimum micronutrient nutrition. To study this question I have grown an array of species of plants with a wide array of micronutrient levels. Azaleas were dark green and thrived in a narrow band of micronutrient levels. The same was true for African violet and blueberry. On the other hand, juniper, arborvitae, marigold, and crabgrass were green and attractive over a huge range of micronutrient levels, hundreds of times wider than for the azalea. BUT all of the test species grew best with the same level and combination. These data support the view that plants have vastly different degrees of tolerance, yet for optimum growth, about the same requirement. Now consider the initial questions raised: Is a plant best adapted to where it is native? If a plant grows faster, produces more flowers and seeds which germinate readily and establish new plants more rapidly in a new location vs. where it is native to which site is it best adapted? The new location of course! This is exactly the situation with the Melaluca leucadendron or punk tree in south Florida vs. its native habitat of Australia. In its native range in Australia, it is not an aggressive, invasive tree. A striking reverse situation exists with Pinus radiata, Monterey pine, native to the California coast where it grows at a moderate pace and is not especially vigorous. Yet in New Zealand and South Australia, Monterey pine grows vigorously and creates magnificent timber. A study of fossils reveals that many plants were "native" to locations far removed from were they are currently "native". Conditions change and with the change plant species shift or adapt. Just because a plant is "native" to a site does not necessarily mean that site and conditions are optimum for its growth. Once urban soils have become homogenized and modified with construction debris is any plant "native" to that site? No, other than crabgrass and then only because it has, perhaps, the widest tolerance of all species. On the other hand, many species have such a wide tolerance that they can grow reasonably well under such adversity. For example, southern wax myrtle, Myrica cerifera, is native over a wide range of conditions throughout the southeast USA. It is native to the almost pure sand soils of the Ocala National Forest in north central Florida, to stream banks where flooding frequently occurs, to alkaline soils along limestone outcroppings and acid soils along the swamps of southern Georgia. This is a species with a huge tolerance for growing conditions, and it does well in nearly all urban conditions. In order to have successful plantings on highly disturbed urban sites, we must look to plants with a wide range of tolerance. Along with wax myrtle, one of the most tolerant and adaptable shrub species that works well is Nandina domestica, native to China. Nandina would be at the very top of my list of broadleaf evergreen shrubs with many attractive qualities and good mannersÂnative or non-native. Nandina has attractive foliage, flowers, and fruits, is nearly disease- and insect-free, produces few invasive seedlings or rhizomes, is easy to maintain, and grows well in a huge range of conditions. Are all introduced species "bad"? Absolutely not. Nandina, lacebark elm, Chinese pistache, Pittosporum tobira, and on and on are introduced species that are well adapted to much of North America that have good manners and make good "citizens". On the other hand, melaluca, tree of heaven, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu vine, and many other species are too well adapted: grow too vigorously and reproduce too freely so as to be undesirable in the view of current day society. The bottom line is that just because a plant is growing "native" under certain conditions, does not mean that it is at its peak or optimum. It simply means that it is able to tolerate the current conditions and survive. Further, relative to the evolution of the species and the changing local site conditions or site conditions of a much larger region, the species may be relatively "new" and will become more vigorous and aggressive in the future as conditions become more favorable or it may be on its way out because it has reached its limits of tolerance and will eventually become extinct. At this point in time no one knows. However, we get a "feel" for the answer from various experiences. Because of the positive plant response and adaptation to such an array of conditions, southern wax myrtle appears to be still expanding its "native" environment. On the other hand, black cherry, Prunus serrotina, appears to be less and less tolerant to environmental conditions and may become extinct in another century or two. In my view, it would be simplistic and foolish to plant only natives. Likewise, it would be foolish to plant only introduced species. Our focus should be on species adapted to the site and with acceptable manners regardless of where they happen to be "native at a particular time in the glob al picture. ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Whitcomb is author of ÂKnow It and Grow It: a guide to the identification and use of landscape plantsÂ, 820 pages, 8.5 by 11 format, hard cover, over 2000 black and white photos of most of the woody plants, native and exotic, that can be grown east of the Rocky Mtns. $60.00 + shipping. Also, ÂEstablishment and Maintenance of Landscape PlantsÂ, 630 pages, 6 by 9 format, hard cover and many photos. $35.00 + shipping. Phone 405-377-3539 or Fax 405-377-0131.

Here I is. I'm a serious butterfly/hummingbird gardener. There are others in the area. I have both native and non-native plants. We are planting a native butterfly area in Lake Louisa State Park (just south of Clermont on hwy 27.) Wanna help? I plan to visit a native plants nursery called Environmental Equities next week to buy some Paw Paws and other plants. Let me know if I can pick up something for you.

Terrestrial, You are correct re the INTENT of the law, but the unintended consequences are what I have already described, i.e., I cannot gift plants without a permit. Beginning in October, 2012, nurseries will not be able to sell anything from the wild, even if the site was to be destroyed. In the past, rescued plants, with appropriate permits, could be sold. I have already spent hours in conversation with the staff that controls these regulations, and I have attended a formal presentation, so I do know what the law is. I am not so much interested in the nursery situation as I am in the private gardener one. I hate to feel like a criminal when I share plants, and getting a permit for each species each year will place a burden on the agency that is supposed to be protecting the preserves that it manages...as well as creating much busywork for gardeners, if they want to be lawful. Each state is different, and that is why I am asking GW members to let me know if there are legal impediments to sharing for private gardeners. Some states have laws under their Natural Heritage program, but in NC we have a separate agency. Researching each state by computer has proved difficult as I don't know what agency controls this part of their agriculture program. I am really frustrated.

I remember that post/thread on Facebook ... didn't an Ag Inspector jump in (or someone quoted one)? I remember them saying that if you're selling locally, and only occasionally, they don't really crack down on you, but if you're selling regularly (they keep tabs on who sells on Craigslist and Ebay, apparently, and how much you sell) and don't have the proper permits/nursery license, then you get busted. That person also said that shipping across state lines was a big no-no, unless you are a registered nursery with all the proper phyto certificates and what-not. You can look up your state's regulations on your state's Dept of Ag website. The FB group where that was posted seemed unfazed at the time, but I wondered if that was part of the reason why it disappeared (or was made secret, or whatever). I was reading through some of CA's information - apparently if you're moving to CA, you're not supposed to bring any plants with you that were grown outside at any point - you can only bring indoor-grown plants (with no bugs or disease) in commercial, sterile potting soil. When I moved to CA (drove in from Boston), I didn't see any border inspectors, but I'm told that they do exist. Now that I think about it, didn't someone try and report the Morgans when they had that last big clear-out sale? (They had the proper license for selling, so it wasn't an issue.) I think that was part of whatever that discussion was.