The more our landscapes look alike, the more vitality we seem to lose as a nation of gardeners. In many neighborhoods, it's as if a strict design code applies, one that dictates how a property owner must decorate to "fit in":

Shade trees at the corners of every house, shrubs encircling all foundations, and lawn . . . lawn . . . lawn. Those with utility boxes can plant evergreens around them.Tidiness is paramount, for neatly trimmed bushes and closely mown grass testify that the owners are good stewards of their land. The pressure to conform is enormous.

In pursuit of the ideal landscape, fewer and fewer varieties of trees and shrubs and flowers make up our plant palette. I'm afraid that soon the essential landscape may be reduced to dwarf burning bushes, Crimson King maples and turf. Sadly, none of them are native species.

What have we gained?

All of the perils inherent in monoculture, and there are many. Exorbitant maintenance costs (turf requires higher energy inputs than almost any other groundcover). And landscapes that dull the senses with their sameness.

Losses, on the other hand, are incalculable: Gone are the complexity and mystery that entice us to become mentally engaged in our surroundings. Gone is the diversity that supports abundant wildlife. Gone are some of our best and most useful landscape plants, whose only infraction was being "native."

Why do we so often consider plants with exotic origins superior to those that were growing in our backyards? Can we not appreciate that North America was blessed with some of the most beautiful and fascinating flora in the world?

Perhaps it's time to dispel some myths about natural landscaping and native plants:

- Myth: Exotic plants are more ornamental than native species.

- Fact: No one who recognizes winterberry or bayberry, silverbell, oakleaf hydrangea, or Franklinia in full bloom would agree.

- Myth: It's more expensive to plant natives.

- Fact: Not so. Surveys show that installation costs for primarily native landscapes are about the same as for tra-ditional plantings. Maintenance costs are usually lower - sometimes a lot lower - because natives are more adaptable and require less care.

- Myth: Native plants just don't fit into traditional landscapes.

- Fact: Native plants can be directly substituted for many of the exotic species now commonly included in traditional landscapes - and perform beautifully.

- Myth: Natural landscapes are messy.

- Fact: Because we've become numbed by straight rows and clipped shrubbery, landscapes with less structure seem chaotic. Far from it. Natural landscapes reveal dramatic patterns and subtle rhythms, if only we would learn to read them.

Why bother?

Because through the adoption of native plants and natural gardens we save money and conserve valuable resources. Sustainable landscapes require fewer pesticides, less fertilizer, water and fossil fuels to run machines.

A gardener with a patch of natural "lawn" could actually find himself mowing less and enjoying his garden more!

View Comments

Because natural landscapes create a playground for many species of birds and butterflies. Drifts of burning bushes provide nothing they need, so they stay away.

Because by putting back some of the diversity traditional landscapes deplete, we recapture part of our natural heritage. Observing nature (with a little "n") up close every day prepares us to address larger environmental issues.

Unfortunately, availability of native plants is often discouraging, the supply of nursery-grown stock meager. (During a recent search for eastern red cedar, it was suggested I go dig them from the roadside.) But collecting is not the answer.

Finally, this plea: We're a nation of immigrant gardeners in search of our own gardening style. Let's explore the vast palette of plants at our doorstep.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.