Bravo. You're absolutely right about this, Sharon. California has a wonderfully varied flora for every conceivable biotic zone (ok, not much for tropical rain forest, but you get the point). The joy is in discovering these plants—and how to use them in the garden. If you want something rich and very different from what almost everybody else is growing, start with natives. You'll never exhaust the possibilities here.
--Jim

Sharon, thank you for your wonderful defense of native gardens. You beautifully debunk some of the specific complaints that we hear over and over. Most problems result from lack of knowledge about the plants, and no wonder, because there is a lot to learn, but that is true of any plant group.
Laura, Tree of Life Nursery

Sharon, thank you for the article. Gardening with natives is not so different from gardening with "regular" garden plants. You find what you love and what adapts well to your garden conditions, prune as necessary, water as necessary, replace and rethink as necessary. I personally love to work with the natives, for their own sake.

Sharon-thanks for backing up natives. I love the fact that i need not water as much, use much fertilizer or pesticide, and that i have more pollinators in my landscape that any conventional landscape. I also love the herbal aromas, and unusual flower forms.
Of course, by choosing wisely i have some color all year long. Perhaps my favorite thing about using natives in my landscape is that there is a rest period for the garden in late summer and fall. Who says we don't have seasons? The big difference between when our plants are dormant (late summmer/fall) and back east's winter is that my car will start and i am not under three feet of snow! And even during that slow summer period i still have the brilliant reds of California Fuchsias, cheerful yellows of Coast Goldenbush, and the orchild like blooms of Desert Willow, among other native blossoms.

Natives reinforce a sense of place that then leads us into other expressions. Once I started to learn about natives, I found myself learning more about birds, canyons and ecology. It can also be a natural springboard to developing a deeper interest in our own communities and history.

From there, it leads to a respect for other places that radiate a similar sense of specificity. This is in contrast to the bland. I like that feeling of connection.

Bravo, Sharon! I can't tell you how many times I have heard (and continue to hear) the same, worn out critisisms of natives. I guess Lowe would include Yosemite, Idyllwild, and Julian as equally dull. After all, aren't they just big, ugly native landscapes?

Unfortunately, what her comments really show is an ignorance of available materials and how to design native landscapes that hold up throughout the year. And it is obvious she does not like gray plants, which is a shame as they are so useful for foliar contrast.

The size problem is a myth, as there are numerous materials that are well under 3 feet. Many of the 500 or so landscapes we have installed in San Diego county are in postage stamp yards.

This is not to say that drought tolerant exotics are bad. We work with quite a few, but I usually put them together as a "theme" garden. And boy, you wouldn't believe how those same plants melted down in the severe frosts we had last year. We didn't lose a single native.

So, thanks again for your great, constructive comments in defense of our native heritage.

The problem people have with native plants is that they do not necessarily fit their preconceived notions of what a plant should look like and how it should perform. Just like with people, our preconceived notions can hurt us.

There are many, many drought tolerant plants. As far as showy goes, some of them do have big or showy flowers (Romneya coulteri, Ceanothus) others have an elegant year-round beauty that is even more valuable (Manzanitas). Saying that native plants are not as showy is like when we were first gardening and planting just flowers and ignoring foliage. We soon learning the importance (at least I hope so) of foliage.

I would say that live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is more bullet proof than flax.

Not green? What about California Bay tree? Also, California's summer brown hills were green when they were NATIVE grasses, but now are brown since the European grasses have taken over. As far as grey-green, isn't that what we love about gardens in Italy? Isabelle Greene's silver garden in Longwood garden shows that in other climates, silver and grey are coveted and cosseted. And there's nothing wrong with brown, just like in people, there are many shades, and are all beautiful.

Too big? Not only is that incorrect, but isn't that the beauty of plants such as the valley oak? I would suggest learning to use plants appropriately, and designing with native plants rather than designing for other climates and then complaining that the native plants don't work.

15 minutes of beauty? Then stop planting daffodils, tulips and burning bush (euonymous). Ceanothus blooms longer and looks better year round.

They don't mix well with water hungry plants? Well my cactus don't look good with my lotus either. I thought the whole point of the conversation was drought tolerant plants. You could just as easily complain that the water hungry plants look bad (and die) when water stressed as complain that native plants don't do well when overwatered.

Considering these points, Lowe's arguments...well let's just say they don't hold water.

Welcome back, Forest.

Thanks, Sharon for the Native plant rebuttals, and thanks to all the previous posters.

I've been filling my small city lot with self-propagated native plants here in Minneapolis, MN for about 7 years and love the connection to the land and natural history that these plants offer me.

I just wanted to mention a great book I've recently found. It's called "Bringing Nature Home", by Douglas W. Tallamy, Timber Press, 2007, Portland, OR. He explains how plants that have co-evolved with other creatures in a geographical area offer far more to those critters in the way of food resources than any non-natives that we bring in from the nursery trade. More native plants equals more local insect variety which then equals a greater diversity of bird types and other critters as well. It's a great read with lots of data to back up the thesis. Though it's based on Eastern N. American ecology, the concepts can easily be transferred to any ecosystem in the world and will inspire much more study of the native plant and animal connections.

Thanks again !

Thanks for the book recommendation. I didn't know about it and it sounds good.

My own garden bears out what Tallamy says. I do get more bugs--and more bug damage--than I was used to in my all native garden. But I get more of everything else, too -- birds, butterflies, bees. Seems like a fair trade-off.

I've planted my yard with California natives, drought tolerant plants, used a mix of drought tolerant grass seed with creeping red fescue and it looks great and attracts many birds and butterflies. I don't understand people's perception of native gardens, they are beautiful. I made a webpage about mine to hopefully show others how nice natives are and how to do this (www.caopenspace.org/myofg.html)

I've been a long-time gardener, but I wouldn't call myself a know-it-all in the technical aspects of gardening. I have an area at the front of house by the public sidewalk where nothing grew well, not roses, not lavendar, the rosemary did well but how about variety? So I planted some natives, sage mostly, and it is the most gorgeous thing. And it's thriving and I don't even have to do anything to it except prune it. I should have thought of this earlier and saved myself money and angst.