Native Landscaping vs. Exotic Landscaping: What
Should We Recommend?
Mark E.
Hostetler
Wildlife
Specialist and Associate Professor
Department
of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Gainesville
FL 32611-0430, hostetm@ufl.edu
Martin
B. Main
Wildlife
Specialist and Professor
Department
of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Immokalee,
FL 34142, mmain@ufl.edu
Adapted
from Journal of Extension article – www.joe.org
U.S.
urban populations have increased from 39% in 1900 to 75% in 1990 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 1995). The threats to biodiversity are many, but habitat loss is widely
recognized as the most important threat and the spread of non-native species is
considered the second (Wilcove, Rothstein, Dubow, Phillips, 1998). In urban
areas, this situation is particularly acute because built areas tend to be
dominated by exotic turfgrass and ornamentals.
Below, we discuss 1) how turfgrass lawns and non-native plants impact
urban biodiversity, and 2) how using such exotic plants can affect biodiversity
in surrounding natural landscapes.
Simply
explained, biological diversity or “biodiversity” refers to the variety of life
and its processes. Biodiversity includes
species diversity, habitat diversity, and genetic diversity. For the purposes of this article, we will
focus on native species biodiversity. Native species are plants and animals present
within a given area prior to European contact (e.g., Florida Native Plant
Society, 2003). Non-native (or exotic)
plants or animals are defined as those species that were not present before
European contact. Endemic species are native organisms only found in a region and do
not occur elsewhere in the world. As
explained below, the impacts of exotics on biodiversity may warrant altering
conventional urban landscapes to emphasize native plants.
The
conventional approach of landscaping with turf and ornamentals impacts
biodiversity in two ways: 1) it limits the diversity of native species in areas
dominated by turf and ornamentals, and 2) it can impact surrounding natural
environments, altering habitats in ways that exclude native plants and
animals. Let’s first look within the
city limits. How do turfgrass lawns and
non-native ornamental plants impact urban
biodiversity? Simply put, landscapes
dominated by turfgrass and non-native ornamental plants create an artificial
environment that offers very little opportunity for most native species to
thrive. A monoculture of turfgrass infused with non-native ornamentals excludes
native plants and provides little to no habitat for most wildlife. Think about the vast amount of land devoted
to turf, both for growing the sod and the amount of sod that occurs on the
landscape as urban lawns. One estimate indicates that four million acres of
managed turfgrass occurs in Florida, with 75 percent of these as residential
lawns (Nagata, 2003). Such acreage limits the amount of natural habitat, thus
decreasing urban habitat diversity and ultimately native species diversity.
With
animals, studies show that many wildlife species are not found or are in low
abundance in turfgrass/non-native, dominated habitats, particularly our most
sensitive and endemic species. Bird species
that were normally found in more natural areas gradually drop out along a
gradient of urbanization (Blair, 2008).
Native insect and spider diversity declines in urban areas dominated by
turf (Shochat et al., 2008; McIntyre and Hostetler, 2001). As areas become more urban, native plant
species disappear and non-natives increase in number (Kowarik, 2008). In general, biodiversity indices decrease as
one goes towards urban centers (Faggi, Krellenberg, Castro, Arriaga, & Endlicher, 2008).
However,
biodiversity measures improve with the use of native plants. For example,
native urban bird diversity increases with native vegetation (Mills, Dunning,
& Bates, 1989; MacGregor-Fors, 2008),
more native plants serve as host plants for butterfly larvae (Daniels,
Schaefer, Huegel, & Mazzotti, 2008; Collinge, Prudic, Oliver, 2003); and
native bee diversity increases with the occurrence of native plants (McIntyre
and Hostetler, 2001). Although some
exotic plants, particularly trees and shrubs, can provide food and shelter for
some animals (e.g., butterfly bush, Cassia
bicapsularis), it is fair to say that the negatives of a landscape
dominated by non-native plants far outweigh the positives for wildlife. First, the exclusive use of non-native plants
would ultimately decrease native plant diversity because of the simple fact
that native plants are absent from the area.
Second, native animal diversity, in general, is correlated to native
vegetation diversity (e.g., Burghardt, Tallamy, & Shriver, 2009). Overall, the diversity of native plants
improves urban biodiversity by simultaneously creating wildlife habitat and
increasing the presence of native plants.
Looking beyond the boundaries of cities,
the use of turf and some ornamental plants can impact biodiversity of
surrounding habitat. Non-native species
that invade and impact natural areas are called invasive exotics. An
invasive exotic plant often “alters native plant communities by displacing
native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or
hybridizing with natives.” (Florida Exotic
Pest Plant Council, 2007) Areas
dominated by invasive exotic plants can limit native animal populations; for
example, fewer small mammals were found in forests dominated by Melaleuca, Melaleuca quinquenervia, when compared
to native hammock forests and pine flatwoods in Florida (Mazzotti, Ostrenko,
& Smith, 1981; Sowder and Woodall, 1985).
Most invasive, non-native plants in the United States were originally
introduced as ornamentals in urban areas and then escaped and became
established in surrounding natural areas (Reichard and White, 2001). We are not saying that all non-native plants
are necessarily bad, but today’s non-listed exotic could become tomorrow’s
invasive species.
Both
within and beyond city boundaries, the maintenance of lawns and exotic plants
with an array of insecticides, fertilizers, and herbicides can also impact
biodiversity. With insecticides and herbicides, most people use these chemicals
to keep other plants out and to keep turf and ornamentals healthy and
alive. The end result is usually the
eradication of native plants and insects.
For example, many insecticides are not specific to the pest insect and
kill many of our native pollinators such as bees, beetles, wasps, and
butterflies (Kunkel, Held, & Potter, 2001; Gels, Held, & Potter, 2002). Applying herbicides to get rid of “weeds”
reduces biodiversity simply because the weeds can be native plants embedded
within landscaped and turf areas. For
example, many herbicide applications are used for the removal of Florida
Betony, Stachys floridana, which is a
native plant (Unruh, Partridge-Telenko, & and Brecke, 2009). Roundup, and its active ingredient isopropylamine,
was found to be toxic to native freshwater mussels (Bringolf, Cope, Mosher,
Barnhart, & Shea, 2007) and lethal to both aquatic and terrestrial
amphibians (Relyea, 2005a). The end result is a net native biodiversity loss as
local native plants and animals can be eradicated from a yard or neighborhood,
a nearby waterbody (Relyea, 2005b), and even surrounding natural habitat.
How
do fertilizers impact biodiversity?
Excess fertilizers (e.g., phosphate and nitrate that is not taken up by yard
plants) end up in local wetlands and waterbodies when nutrients run off the landscape
after a storm event. In one study on the
Florida Wekiva River Basin, it was estimated that 20% of the nitrate load was
from residential properties (See report at - http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wekiva/). Rivers, streams, and lakes that have high
levels of nitrates and phosphates cause algal blooms (Lin, He, Yang, Stoffella,
Phlips, & Powell, 2008), fish kills (Gannon et al., 2009), and the growth
of invasive exotic plants (e.g., Sutton, Van, & Portier, 1992). Near major population centers, even the
disturbing appearances of “dead zones” in our coastal waters have been linked
to nutrient runoff from the land (Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008).
Biodiversity
loss can even affect important ecosystem services, such as removal of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and pollination services. More biodiverse ecosystems can uptake more CO2,
a greenhouse gas, than ecosystems with less species diversity (Reich et al.,
2001). Furthermore,
the maintenance of turf and ornamentals can actually cause a net increase in CO2 and other
greenhouse gases (Townsend-Small and Czimczik, 2010). This is due to the use of fertilizers and
mowing of a manicured landscape, which takes fossil fuels, thus releasing CO2 into the
atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizers, mowing, leaf blowing and
other lawn management practices are four times greater than the amount of
carbon stored by lawns (Townsend-Small and Czimczik, 2010).
Some
will argue that evidence of impacts by exotics is not conclusive and exceptions
occur. Further, if homeowners and the
landscaping industry managed lawns and ornamentals appropriately, we could
minimize our impact on natural environments.
However, the risk is great and thus the precautionary principle may be most appropriate here. Essentially the precautionary principle
states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, the
absence of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (Untaru, Gu,
Ramanitrarivo, 2008) Certainly, non-natives
do have their place (e.g., vegetable gardens, turfgrass for recreation, and
exotic flowers for show) but the dominance of exotic vegetation is at the
expense of our natural heritage. Alternatives do exist (Hostetler and Main,
2010), and people are increasingly interested in sustainable options (Moravec,
2006). The challenge is to increase the amount of native plants in urban yards,
and each person that uses native plants will help to further connections to our
natural heritage.
References
Blair, R. B. (2008). Creating a Homogenous Avifauna. In Urban Ecology: An International
Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. (editors: Mazluff, J.
M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Simon,
U., & C. ZumBrunnen). pp. 405 – 424. Springer, New York.
Burghardt, K. T., Tallamy, D. W.,
& Shriver, W. G. (2009). Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly
biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation
Biology. 23 (1): 219-224.
Bringolf, R. B., Cope, W. G., Mosher, S.,
Barnhart, M. C., &Shea, D. (2007). Acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate
compounds to glochidia and juveniles of Lampsilis
Siliquoidea (Unionidae). Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 26 (10): 2094-2100.
Buchmann, S. L., &Nabhan, G.
P. (1996). The Forgotten Pollinators.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Collinge, S. K.,
Prudic, K. L., Oliver, J. C. (2003).
Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on
grassland butterfly diversity. Conservation
Biology. 17(1): 178-187.
Diaz, R. J. &Rosenberg,
R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321 (5891): 926 – 929.
Daniels,
J. C., Schaefer, J., Huegel, C. N., &Mazzotti, F. J. (2008). Butterfly gardening
in Florida. Retrieved January 27, 2010 from
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_uw057
Faggi, A. M., Krellenberg, K.,
Castro, R., Arriaga, M., &Endlicher, W. (2008). Biodiversity in the Argentinean Rolling Pampa Ecoregion: Changes Caused
by Agriculture and Urbanisation. In
Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans
and Nature. (editors: Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W.,
Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Simon, U., & C. ZumBrunnen). pp. 377 –
389. Springer, New York.
Norcini, J.G. (2008). Native Plants: An Overview. [On-line],
Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep297
Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council, (2007). Invasive species list. Retrieved January 20,
2010 from http://www.fleppc.org/index.cfm
Gannon, D. P., McCabe, E .J. B.,
Camilleri, S. A., Gannon, J. G., Brueggen, M. K., Barleycorn, A. A., Palubok,
V. I., Kirkpatrick, G. J., & Wells, R. S. (2009). Effects of Karenia brevis harmful algal blooms on
nearshore fish communities in southwest Florida. Marine Ecology, Progress Series 378: 171-186.
Gels,
J. A., Held, D.W., &Potter, D. A. (2002). Hazards of insecticides to the
bumble bees Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera : Apidae) foraging on flowering white
clover in turf. Journal of Economic
Entomology 95(4): 722-728.
Hostetler,
M. E., &Main, M. B. (2010). Tips to create
biodiverse, urban communities. Journal of Extension [On-line], XX Article XX.
Available at:
Kowarik, I. (2008). On the Role of Alien Species in Urban Flora
and Vegetation. In Urban Ecology:
An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature.
(editors: Mazluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M.,
Bradley, G., Ryan, C., Simon, U., &C. ZumBrunnen). pp. 321 – 338. Springer,
New York.
Kunkel, B. A., Held, D. W., &
Potter, D. A. (2001). Lethal and sublethal effects of bendiocarb, halofenozide,
and imidacloprid on Harpalus
pennsylvanicus (Coleoptera : carabidae) following different modes of
exposure in turfgrass. Journal of
Economic Entomology 94(1): 60-67.
Lin,
Y. J., He, Z .L., Yang, Y. G., Stoffella,
P. J., Phlips, E. J., & Powell, C. A. (2008). For example, see Nitrogen versus
phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton growth in Ten Mile Creek, Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 605: 247-258
Mazzotti, F. J., Ostrenko, W. &Smith, A.T. (1981).
Effects of the exotic plants Melaleuca
quinquenervia and Casuarina
equisetifolia on small mammal populations in the Eastern Florida Everglades. Florida
Scientist. 44(2):65-71.
McIntyre, N. &Hostetler,
M. E. (2001). Effects of urban land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera: Apodidea)
communities in a desert metropolis. Journal of Applied and Theoretical
Biology 2: 209-218
Mills,
G. S., Dunning, J. B. J. , &Bates,
J. M. (1989). Effects of urbanization on breeding bird community structure in
southwestern desert habitats. The Condor
91:416-428.
MacGregor-Fors, I. (2008).
Relation between habitat attributes and bird richness in a western Mexico
suburb. Landscape and Urban Planning.
84(1): 92-98
Moravac, C. (2006). Continuing
education interests of master gardener volunteers: beyond basic training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(6)
Article RIB5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006december/rb5.php
Nagata,
R. (2003). New plants for Florida: Turfgrass. Retrieved January 27, 2010 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AG220
Reich, P. B., Knops, J., Tilman,
D., Craine, J., Ellsworth, D., Tjoelker, M., Lee, T., Wedin, D., Naeem, S.,
Bahauddin, D., Hendrey, G., Jose, S,, Wrage, K., Goth, J., &Bengston, W. (2001).
Plant diversity enhances ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 and nitrogen
deposition. Nature 410 (6830):
809-812.
Reichard,
S. H &White, P.. (2001). Horticulture as a
pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience
51:103–113.
Relyea, R. A. (2005a). The lethal
impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications 15(4): 1118-1124.
Relyea, R.A. (2005b). The impact
of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic
communities. Ecological Applications
15(2): 618-627.
Sowder,
A., &Woodall, S. (1985). Small mammals of melaleuca stands and adjacent
environments in southwestern Florida. Florida Scientist 48(1):41-44.
Stedman,
R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the
physical environment to sense of place. Society
& Natural Resources 16: 671-685.
Sutton, D. L., Van, T. K., & Portier,
K. M. (1992). Growth of dioecious and monoecious hydrilla from single tubers. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 30:
15-20.
Townsend-Small, A. and Czimczik, C., I. (2010). Carbon sequestration
and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf. Geophysical Research Letters.
37, L02707, doi:10.1029/2009GL041675.
Unruh, J. B., Partridge-Telenko,
D. E., & Brecke, B. J. (2009). Florida betony biology and management in
turf. Retrieved January 27, 2010 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep388
Untaru, S., Gue, L.,
Ramanitrarivo. (2008). An analysis of
U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Urban
and Rural Population: 1900 to 1990. Retrieved
January 27, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D.,
Dubow, J., Phillips, A., &Losos, E. (1998).
Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience,
48: 607-615.