SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
gardeningmusician

Irony of Wildlife Gardening

gardeningmusician
12 years ago

We have an area on our suburban property which has never been "developed"--it's very overgrown with non-native shrubs, thistles, and other plants. Our intention is to gradually remove the non-natives and replace them with native plants.

However, I can't help but notice, almost every time I'm working in that area, how much habitat it actually provides right now, with all the "junk" plants. The thickets are usually full of birds; chipmunks run around under the cover of the vines which are growing all over the ground; at this time of year finches perch on the thistles eating the seeds. Invariably, when dandelions or clover bloom, bees and wasps will be enjoying their nectar.

I have to really question why I'm removing these sorts of plants to "create habitat for pollinators and birds." I kind of hate to pull thistles, for example, when i see the goldfinches enjoying them so much. I want to replace the junk plants with natives but am not certain that I'm truly improving things for the wildlife which is obviously already receiving considerable benefit from the current overgrown, neglected plants in place.

I've read Sarah Stein and Doug Tollamy and understand the relation between bloom and seed cycles of native plants and native pollinators, etc. But I also watch what's acutally happening on the undeveloped part of our lot on a daily basis and am conflicted about removing what's obviously working for our birds, butterflies, and bees.

To provide perspective, I must add that we have already planted many natives, such as Joe-Pye weed; coneflowers; viburnum, etc. and I also notice the birds, butterflies, and bees flocking to these native plants.

In any case, we intend to proceed slowly with replacing the non-natives (with the exception of buckthorn) because we don't want to remove too much habitat all at once.

Anyone care to discuss?

Comments (16)

Sponsored