> However here's the thing. Among native plant advocates there's this kind of schizo thing. On one hand we're supposed to plant natives because they're better adapted for our environment. On the other hand we're supposed to root out the invasives because they're out-competing the natives and pushing them out. Huh? Which is it? Adapted for this place, or too weak to thrive in this place?
Have you actually ever heard someone make the first argument? I haven't, because it would indeed be a very stupid argument. Natives are preferred because other species are adapted to having them around. Lose a particular tree, and you might lose habitat for many others - birds, insects, fungi... this can be a cascading effect and contribute to ecosystem collapse.
Yeah. It's a strawman argument (especially equating non-native with invasive). I'd much rather have "schizos" dogmatically enforcing the native flora/fauna rule than someone creating an ecological dead zone by planting invasive bamboo in their backyard.
If we can recognize monoculture is bad, we can also recognize why invasive species are bad. To your point about cascading effects and to be topical - this is the exact problem with honeybees: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266651582...
It's all fun and games until the honeybees get sick, the native bee population is catastrophically depleted (due in part to the honeybees), and there is no one left to pollinate.
Have you actually ever heard someone make the first argument? I haven't, because it would indeed be a very stupid argument. Natives are preferred because other species are adapted to having them around. Lose a particular tree, and you might lose habitat for many others - birds, insects, fungi... this can be a cascading effect and contribute to ecosystem collapse.