Beware the Brits
The English are world-class gardeners. Indeed, visits to Sissinghurst, Great Dixter, Bressingham and Hidcote, not to mention the Royal Horticultural Society’s Chelsea Flower Show, are high on my to-do list. Gardening is such a cherished and central pillar of British culture.
But because we so admire English gardens (and their stewards’ plummy accents), we North Americans can sometimes be indiscriminate in our embrace of their practices, not all of which are appropriate to our own continent. Herewith, a few examples.
No Mow May
No Mow May is a UK-based movement that encourages free-range grass-growing during the spring. The compelling-sounding rationale is that this allows wild plants to flower, which in turn benefits pollinators and other wildlife.
The problem is that here in the US, the majority of species growing in our lawns are non-native. This includes turfgrass itself, as well as dandelions and white clover, which all hail from Europe. Letting these grow offers marginal, if any, benefit to our local wildlife. Our native insects depend for food and habitat on native plants. A few may be willing to use nectar and pollen from non-native plants as a last resort, but typically at a nutritional cost. Others simply can’t access food from non-natives at all. The biggest beneficiaries of No Mow May might be honeybees, which are another European import and a threat to our native bee populations. Around these parts, No Mow May is also an invitation to unwelcome and/or invasive species such as crabgrass, stiltgrass, lesser celandine and garlic mustard.
If we’re concerned about supporting wildlife and promoting biodiversity, a far better approach is replacing some or all of our turfgrass lawns with native plants. Doing so provides wildlife with year-round food and habitat, rather than a one-month bait-and-switch.
Plant Hunting
England is home to 1400 native plant species. That sounds impressive until you learn the equivalent number for North America is 17,000. This relative scarcity may have been the engine behind the Victorian-era practice of plant-hunting: equal parts elitist sport, imperial conquest and cutthroat business. Allegedly swashbuckling daredevils would brave “avalanches, raging storms, earthquakes, tropical diseases and irate locals” to acquire botanical artifacts from abroad, sometimes (often?) through outright theft. These specimens were then proudly displayed in botanical gardens and private estates. It was a way of signaling status and one-upping the neighbors. The Brits were not the only plant hunters in the world, but they were certainly industry leaders.
I’d like to think plant-hunting practices are more ethical today. And in some cases, to be fair, the motivation is legit scientific inquiry. But the impulse to acquire and propagate ever-more exotic species is alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic, and it’s mostly just about decorating our gardens, for our own human pleasure, in the latest exotic trends. On a recent tour of about 25 (admittedly gorgeous) private and public gardens in the Pacific Northwest, native plants were downright scarce.
With 17,000 native species at our disposal, you’d think we could see our way to creating beautiful gardens without relying so heavily on imported plants that are useless or harmful to our indigenous wildlife.
Rewilding
This one’s more nuanced. I support the basic concept of rewilding but caution against its over-interpretation. I believe the term was coined here in the US in the 1990s. It was popularized, though, in part by a 2018 book called Wilding, the story of an English couple who restored 3500 acres of farmland to wilderness. And I have the impression that the terms “wilding” and “rewilding” are more prevalent in the British than the US environmental discourse.
Rewilding is a form of ecological restoration. It differs from other restoration approaches in its emphasis on removing human interventions from natural processes. As implemented by serious practitioners, including the authors of Wilding, it’s a complex undertaking that involves, among other steps, re-introducing apex predators and other keystone species that define ecosystems.
Rewilding is often described, though, as “just letting nature take over.” I’ve heard rewilding advocates suggest we should stop “picking winners” by planting natives and removing invasives, on the grounds that the natives will win out in the end. And if they don’t…well, that’s Darwinism at work.
This passive interpretation of rewilding is what concerns me. In North America, at least, we’ve passed the point where native plants can fend for themselves. Agriculture and rampant development have destroyed most of our native seed banks, making it hard for indigenous plants to get established without humans giving them a head start. Further, we’re overrun with invasive plants that outcompete our natives at every opportunity. Yes, there are some instances where a very aggressive native species, such as Packera aurea, will outcompete an invasive. The reverse is far more often true, though. Without constant human management, invasive species will overtake fragile native ecosystems and create biologically depleted monocultures.
As lovely and intuitive as it sounds to “let nature rewild,” a hands-off approach – on this side of the pond, at least – is a recipe for disappointment. Far better for us to be intentional about reintroducing native plants and protecting them from their herbaceous predators, at least until they can fend for themselves.
I’m not suggesting the Brits have it wrong – we still have volumes to learn and enjoy from their gardening prowess. Just saying we should think twice before adopting wholesale what may be context-specific practices.
If you live in the DC vicinity and could use assistance with sustainable landscaping, visit Bees’ Knees Design. I’d be happy to help you.
great newsletter as always!
Excellent post…and you will LOVE the Chelsea Flower Show!