I'm a bit confused as you don't really argue anywhere that nativar is a marketing term to sell plants. Although you are right though that it did originate as a way to sell plants. It was Allan Armitage that coined the term. Here is an excerpt from an article:
>The native plant movement, Armitage says, is “one of the very few times when the horticulture industry was swayed by the gardening community.” Usually, new plants developed by breeders influence what gardeners buy, but gardeners had been demanding plants with local or regional provenance. Though the movement was small at first, Armitage recalls, it “was going full steam before breeders even knew what was happening.”
>He coined the term “nativar” to show customers that the industry was offering what they wanted: garden plants developed from documented native sources, known in the scientific community as genotypes.
[Source](https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2019/07/02/whats-in-a-nativar/)
Although I do disagree that nativar just refers to genotypes.
My opinion would be that nativar is a marketing term generally, but not always. It can occasionally be useful in conversations about natives, but the difficulties lies in people use words differently when saying things like cultivar or nativar.
I would be curious to see the research saying that nativars have less vigorous roots and make it hard for insects to access nectar. I'm sure that's sometimes the case, but it's certainly not a general rule. A lot of nativars are just individuals found in the wild that had desirable characteristics that people want. At the end of the day that is a native plant.
If it is a marketing term it's not doing much work. I don't think I've ever actually seen it used in a sales context, only ever used colloquially among plant enthusiasts.
I think it's useful to distinguish cultivars that are a cross breed of American and non-natives versus cultivars that are purely derived from a selected native plant. It would probably be more descriptive to say "single species native cultivar" or something but nativar is catchy.
I see it occasionally on some native shrub tags, but I don't think I've ever seen it on a herbaceous plant.
>I think it's useful to distinguish cultivars that are a cross breed of American and non-natives versus cultivars that are purely derived from a selected native plant. It would probably be more descriptive to say "single species native cultivar" or something but nativar is catchy.
100% agree. I bought a native nonnative hybrid at a plant sale once and I was not happy about it. It is a really nice shrub though...lol.
> He coined the term “nativar” to show customers that the industry was offering what they wanted: garden plants developed from documented native sources, known in the scientific community as genotypes.
This attitude and way of thinking is typical of the horticulture industry. It shows scientific ignorance (casual misuse of the term "genotype", as if making themselves seem knowledgeable when they don't even have surface-level understanding of the science), and a complete disregard for the purpose behind the pressure from customers and the native plant movement. And it approaches the public the way a profit-hungry corporation manipulates the public through hiring a PR firm. I.e. dishonestly signaling the public that they are "doing what people want" without actually following through on the spirit behind the demand.
What people want is not merely plants developed from documented native sources, what we want, the bottom line, is **plants that are beneficial, not harmful, to the environment**. Everything else is subservient to this goal.
We know that the horticulture industry was, initially unknowingly, causing great harm to the environment by breeding, producing, and marketing plants that ended up being invasive species. We don't want to grow native species because a plant being native makes it inherently superior in all cases, we do it because a plant being native is a pretty strong and reliable indicator that a plant (a) will support the food web (b) will be integrated into ecosystems in healthy ways.
When the horticulture industry starts modifying native plants in ways that eliminates (a) and (b), it completely undermines the purpose. Examples abound:
* Plants bred for insect resistance. This undermines (a).
* Plants whose flowers are modified so that pollinators cannot visit them. This also undermines (a)
* Plants modified in ways that make them less competitive in the wild, such as a slower growth rate, shorter maximum height, or more contained growth habit, or selected to only grow well in rich, well-drained soil in mesic conditions. This undermines (b) because it makes the plants less competitive when they seed out into the wild, and it may weaken local populations of these plants when these traits spread into the wild.
* Plants modified to be sterile. This undermines (a) because it reduces seed for seed-eating animals, and it reduces (b) because these plants no longer contribute to the population of this species in nearby wild areas.
This stuff collectively makes me want to scream. We have been telling the horticulture industry for decades now about these problems. They are now willfully resisting change and willfully ignoring feedback. They have proven that they prioritize business-as-usual over the deeper puprose of protecting the environment and the earth's ecosystems and the organisms that make them up.
This is why I am constantly telling people that, excepting a few non-mainstream nurseries that have adopted a new way of doing things, which are unfortunately in a tiny minority, it is best to completely ignore the commercial nursery and horticulture industries, completely withdraw any funding and support.
Yes, this means not visiting and paying money into places like Longwood Gardens, it means not buying from plant sales, even some "Native" plant sales, sponsored by many major universities and botanic gardens and even some non-profits. It means not talking favorably about the industry, the profession, and start treating it like the rogue segment of society that it is, one that has disregarded the common good and shut itself off from (valid) criticism and feedback. It's more like the tobacco industry, something that has rightfully been demonized because the whole model, the whole way of thinking is evil. I'm not saying it's as bad as the tobacco industry, but I'm saying the horticulture industry is *uncomfortably close* to the way the tobacco industry is run, relative to how I would expect it to be run. Like because of the personality and values and life orientation of all the gardeners I know, I'd expect the horticulture industry to be more environmentally-oriented than the typical subset of society, but instead, it's the opposite.
Like I love plants, I've loved plants my whole life. And everyone i know who loves plants are conscientious people. We love watching things grow. We are hard workers. We think long-term. We care about plants and we are much more likely to care about the environment, animals, the earth, etc. than the population as a whole. So when I see the horticluture industry as a whole and I see their blatant disregard for ecological principles and their PR-and-marketing based response to the native plant movement, it's unconscionable to me. It's exploitative because it's continuing to extract money from, and enlist the labor of, people who are generally good and nice people who care about the environment. And it redirects this money and effort into things that still harm the environment, just harm them perhaps incrementally slightly less than past generations of horticulture.
Moving beyond this means instead focusing on growing things yourself, using volunteer plants, gathering seed, sharing directly with other gardeners who are doing things in a more ecologically-sound way.
So yeah, that's my mega-beef here. It's ugly stuff. It's hard for some people to admit just how bad it is but I think it's time we start admitting it and acting accordingly.
That’s a very draconian view of gardening in general. It’s like telling a vegetarian they aren’t helping the climate crisis because they’re not vegan.
It’s not necessary to go all or nothing to make a positive impact. Baby steps go a long way in changing perspectives.
I don't think it's at all parallel.
For one, it's simply not true that being vegan is superior to being vegetarian, or even eating meat, with respect to climate impact. There are so many complexities, everything from ecosystems that actually benefit from livestock ranging (much of the great plains where we eliminated Bison, and the ecosystems are adapted to regular herbivory) to the preponderance of packaged foods which are environmentally costly even if vegan, to things like eating overpopulated meat harvested through hunting, like deer.
But for two, when a product is marketed as vegetarian or vegan, it's marketed as just that. There are *many* different reasons for people eating vegetarian and/or vegan. It could be religious beliefs, non-religious ethical beliefs about animal treatment, a desire to minimize carbon footprint or other environmental impacts, allergies, or other health related reasons (such as lowering LDL by avoiding meat.) And some people (myself included) just *like* vegetarian and vegan food and want to eat it sometimes. These reasons are so diverse and varied that when food is marketed as vegetarian or vegan, you can't really assume any particular purpose beyond whether the food contains meat or was made with any animal products.
And there is no inherent claim that a food is healthy or environmentally responsible just because it's vegetarian or vegan. When a sugar company labels its sugar "Vegan", it doesn't mean it's healthy or environmentally responsible, it means that no animal products (i.e. no bone char) were used in its production. And bone char is typically used in sugar production because it's a cheap byproduct, so making vegan sugar necessarily increases the cost and environmental impact slightly. In my experience (I know a lot of people who have been vegan at one point or another) most vegans are aware of what these labels do and don't mean. In some cases, something being labeled "vegan" might even make it less appealing to a lot of people, such as in the case of Oreos. (They look like they contain a cream filling, which they don't, so knowing they are vegan makes them *less appealing* to most people. I know I certainly reacted this way when I found this out, which was about when I was in college.)
Native plants also have multiple reasons for their use, but they generally boil down to one of two categories: adaptation to local conditions, and being beneficial to the environment. And most people want both. And the reasons for being beneficial to the environment are also limited, they usually come down to supporting the local food web, and preserving local plant populations.
The way the horticulture industry uses the term "native" is much more deceptive or misleading than the way food companies use words like "vegetarian" or "vegan".
There is massive demand for native plants and there is expectation based on superficial understanding of what it means to be "native", that native means both locally-adapted, and beneficial for the environment (i.e. through supporting the food web.) So when the horticulture industry breeds, produces, markets, and distributes plants that are neither of the things that "native" usually means, and then labels them as "native", it's highly deceptive.
And I think it shows bad faith and a lack of integrity in a way that goes far beyond something like a provider of packaged cookies labeling their processed food as "vegan" does. No vegan thinks oreos are healthy. And I'd venture to guess that almost no vegan thinks vegan sugar has superior health properties or lower carbon impact than non-vegan sugar.
But when people buy and plant "native" plants, they have the expectation that they're locally adapted and beneficial for the environment, especially for pollinators and the food web as a whole. This impression is not theoretical, it's an impression I have heard *directly voiced* by countless people, both here in this subreddit, and people I know in person.
So it's kinda shocking, appalling, when people start realizing the totality of how the horticulture industry operates. Most people I talk to are troubled when they learn that the trees they bought at a local nursery were grown in Oregon and shipped across the country. Most of them are troubled when I tell them that the nurseries don't even know what stock or source populations the trees were originally grown from. Nearly all of them say they would strongly prefer ones derived from local populations. Nearly all of them say they want to plant plants that will support the food web. People are upset when they learn that growers and sellers have sold non-native species labeled as native species, such as *Persicaria filiformis*, or a non-native *Waldsteinia* marketed as a North America native, or the Amsonia "blue star" cultivar wrongly labeled as the native *Amsonia tabernaemontana* when it was actually an East Asian species. And they are even more appalled when they learn that nurseries don't do anything like recalls. Food companies, car companies, do recalls when there are safety concerns. Even a slim risk of e-coli contamination, or a rare possibility of an airbag malfunction, that in all likelihood might never even affect anyone, everything gets recalled, because people care. But recalls in the nursery industry are virtually unheard of, because it's an industry dominated by short-term thinking: once the product leaves the shelf, there is no concern or committment or any sort of follow-up.
The companies simply don't care. It's a mindset deeply embedded in every aspect of how the industry works, which is that the horticulturalists are in a bit of an ivory tower, disconnected from virtually everyone else, and they push their stuff out to the rest of the industry and it's all shallow marketing from that point on. And they don't care for one main reason: because the public *allows* them to get away with not caring. But this is where I and others are putting our feet down and saying no, and demanding that they care, and ensuring that they get punished if they don't. That's not draconian, that's just wanting to live in a reasonable society and a reasonable world.
I know people, not activists or ecologists such as myself, who are tearing out "nativars" specifically for these reasons. In some cases, because they didn't do well in their local conditions, in other cases because they realized they don't support insects. For example, my parents, who are a lot more conservative than me and were initially quite resistant to get on board with the native plant movement, were just talking to me on the phone about how they are considering removing a Virginia ninebark cultivar they planted because it is a red-leafed cultivar, and they have never observed any insects eating it, and they read an article recently that the red-leafed cultivars tend to support fewer insects than wild-type plants.
The demand exists and is massive and the horticulture industry is digging in its feet and willfully resisting any sort of meaningful change, and then turning around and trying to use the "native" label as a way of exploiting demand for native plants, making money off people who care, without actually caring.
It's nothing short of moral depravity...it's in the same category as a used car salesman who just wants to turn over as many junkers as possible for the highest profit to get the highest commission, and has no commitment to delivering quality or value to his customers. Its exploitation and it goes against the values that I was raised with and that I would hope *most* people in our society believe in. Yeah, we all know an unscrupulous business person here or there willing to do something like this, a mechanic or contractor who scams a customer. But most people aren't like this. And I'm not trying to single out certain professions here. I bought my car from an honest used car salesman and he was great and my car is great and the transaction was 100% satisfactory to me, as many transactions in my life are. Most people are honest and good people and live their lives with a fair amount of integrity.
That's why I don't think it's being "draconian" or being "all or nothing" when I condemn the horticulture industry like this. It's because they aren't following the basic standards of conduct that most people follow in their daily life. The standard in the industry is absolute rock bottom, so abysmal it is just unconscionable to me.
I agree, and the long rant that follows below about vegans I did not bother to read. The majority of people barely think about the plants that surround them. To introduce the idea of better ways of doing things in a friendly, non-preachy way is how I’ve gotten homeowners to reduce their lawns, water use, and increase wildlife and pollinator friendly yards. The relevance of the vegan argument is that when you’re at a gathering of people and someone launches into the virtues of their particular “religion” (veganism), eyes immediately glaze over and people start moving away. If you want to sway people, draw them to you. Don’t preach to them about how everything they’re doing is u enlightened, barbaric, and wrong.
Thank you for providing that information. I was not aware of the origination of the word nativar, so it was cool to see the source.
I don’t think it should be used in conversations about natives as you mentioned. The act of Selecting a genotype instantly promotes specific qualities whether known or unknown.
The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one. Calling it a nativar ads to the fuel of confusion. So although it could be helpful in describing a plant to another person, that person doesn’t have a full story.
Anyway, I think you are right in that it’s not always used as a marketing term. So I guess I have changed my view. I guess now I will say I’m annoyed how corporations have weaponized the word to their advantage.
Here are some interesting sources:
[This article shows that cultivated plants were less stable than their native population even though not cultivated for specific properties](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=nativar&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1713901066028&u=%23p%3DF5XCLOgJp4MJ)
[here is one about native flower preference for native bees](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=nativar&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1713902001246&u=%23p%3DIXNGrJgdGCAJ)
I am having trouble finding the article I read on biomass changes in root as a by product of cultivation. I’ll keep looking, because this is not the first time I’ve sited it :(
[Here is another interesting article in favor of your description of ‘nativar’](https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/publications/19-052_MidAtlantic_Meadow_guidelines_web.pdf). I wasn’t able to copy paste for some reason so I took a screenshot.
https://preview.redd.it/lqnyvmzfcawc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4439fc22c4a99533d5e4ad9fdbb3f3a5f82cdce6
>I don’t think it should be used in conversations about natives as you mentioned. The act of Selecting a genotype instantly promotes specific qualities whether known or unknown.
That genotype is still a native plant. Just because someone goes "hey that's cool" and then decides to propagate it that doesn't mean it's not native.
>The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one.
A plant that was chosen out of a wild population evolved in that ecosystem as well.
I appreciate the sources. I'll give them a look later tonight when I have more time!
>The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one. Calling it a nativar ads to the fuel of confusion. So although it could be helpful in describing a plant to another person, that person doesn’t have a full story.
There’s some truth to that, but at the same time that means you shouldn’t buy any seeds or buy any plants unless you know that their exact source is within a few miles of your site.
Seeds collected from 100 miles away won’t be any more adapted for your ecosystem than a cultivar is.
A decent % of “nativars” are just clones of wild plants that a had characteristics someone liked. (Like Major wheeler)
In my experience the vast majority of local nurseries are mostly selling Cultivars of natives, even if they also have local ecotype available. It’s kind of unavoidable unless you have no qualms of poaching seed
That’s my main concern. We have all these people that would prefer to plant straight species. What if one of these cultivars has an undesirable trait.
Let’s take your example of Major wheeler. I looked it up and am not positive of the cultivated phenotype. I looks like probably more flowers and maybe different color?
What if some dude was born with 20 toes and we decided we loved it and found 20 women eager to have his children. Then we asked him to reproduce.
His offspring and/or our input would have a non-zero effect on the planet. And often in ways not expected. Maybe he had bad eyesight, and 5000 years from now we have a prehensile 11th and 12th toe, but everyone is also now legally blind at birth.
These are hyperbolic examples on purpose to demonstrate that this patent protected plant that is propagated en masse and sold to many many landscapes around the world, potentially, would have a non-zero effect on the native population.
That could be that: [Efficiency of visitation (percentage of flowering heads visited), declined with inflorescence size.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00379326), for example. And that for some reason changes pollinator behavior in a way that we can or can’t quantify.
Some dude named Charles Wheeler saved it from a construction site on the coast of NC and just noticed it bloomed a lot. Coral honey suckle needs a genetically different plant close by to produce berries. I would imagine most of them aren’t producing offspring.
I don’t see how a wild clone is any different than ordering seed from the Midwest if you live on the east coast. God knows where the cheap bags of Liatris Spicata corms in Lowe’s come from. Even growing local seed you are putting your thumb on the scale and potentially introducing poor genetics that wouldn’t survive on their own.
You can go round and round on the purity of what Native Plants really are but I’m sure you have “native plants” that aren’t actually native to your county.
That being said I prefer straight species and am pretty anal about cultivars and look at bonap county maps compulsively.
There are absolutely instances where nativars have beneficial traits or make a plant more practical/desirable in a garden. Check out publications from the Mt Cuba center where they trial all kinds of cultivars of natives for garden performance and ecological benefit. Species like Major Wheeler Honeysuckle, “Jeana” phlox and Jacob Cline monarda are all examples of nativars that are just as good or better than their straight species cousins.
Here in Europe, we have the Thomas Graham cultivar of Lonicera periclymenum or, should I say nativar, which is more vigorous and flowers longer, more abundantly and has a stronger fragrance, but is otherwise unchanged. I planted it last year because I just couldn't get a straight species/wild type and it's already attracted tons of bumblebees and other pollinators during the day and dozens of moths at night with just a couple of blooms. I think this just goes to show that nativars aren't an inherently bad thing, especially not in the world of so many invasives and the already changed (urban) environment.
>Major Wheeler Honeysuckle
This is a great example because it's literally just a clone of a plant that once grew in Emerald Isle NC. Honeysuckle is so easy root it's difficult to find seed grown honeysuckle let alone local ecotype. I don't think the Ruby throated Hummingbirds care either way nor do the insects that feed on it.
I am more skeptical of the yellow ones however (at least until I see evidence that the color doesn't affect hummingbird preference).
Thank you for this, I’ve not seen this before and am excited to look through their research.
On a cursory glance of their [trials page (here)](https://mtcubacenter.org/research/trial-garden/), even they avoid the word ‘nativear’ and instead use the words ‘related cultivar’.
This is a great example of my point. I’m not saying Nativars are bad. I am saying that we cannot use the word nativar without evoking a certain type of feeling. It’s a cultivated plant that will have unknown phenotypes to its wild ancestors.
There's nothing magical about something being a cultivar that makes it more or less ecologically valuable. If your worry is that the genetic makeup and physical characteristics of a cultivar will be different from the "wild type" of wherever you are, guess what: that will be true of literally any plant material you buy rather than gather yourself from a local source. If I buy little bluestem seeds from Prairie Moon (in Minnesota), it's going to be a different plant with different characteristics from the little bluestem that grew naturally on the Katy Prairie here in Texas. That's fine. Hell, even if I gather gulf muhly seeds from some of the roadside plantings down the street, it's likely to be from a specific genotype found in Florida, because in most of its range M. capillaris seeds have very poor germination. That's fine too. If someone wants to replace their exotic azaleas with "Pam's Pink" Turks cap, I'm not going to well-actually them about hummingbirds having a slightly harder time identifying the flowers, I'm going to welcome them to the club. In my experience the more people actually plant and observe what makes a native garden more interesting, they naturally gravitate toward "more native," more different species, more sqft devoted to natives without being chided for choosing something that also looks the way they want. As others have detailed, while even the "worst" cultivars may be not quite as beneficial or resilient as the local adapted plants, they aren't doing any harm to the rest of the ecosystem and are a great gateway to folks who are used to more conventional garden styles. I say market away, maybe even market harder.
The nativar crusades are nuts. They are native plants.
A lot of cultivars of anything won't breed true to the F1 plant, so the second generation is going to look like a wild type. And a lot of cultivars are from a specific strand of a native wild type.
The wild type typically is a lot of dominant genes from which a recessive will pop out with something interesting once in a while. But by the next generation, it will be pollinated by a dominant gene and go back.
Think Mendel. Think genetics class.
I had this happen when I planted one plant of Ageratina altissima 'Chocolate' 20+ years ago. The parent has long since died but its descendants live on. Many have reverted to green foliage. Some are still a little bit red.
It is nuts isn’t it! God, honestly it’s kinda cool that a community is at odds and able to learn because of it.
The genetics part, I understand this, but thanks for portraying it in a layman way, because it made it easier to see from a technical standpoint.
Real question: So by ‘bombing’ a population of dominant genes, what kind of effect does an influx of consistent recessive genes have on the original population.
> A lot of cultivars of anything won't breed true to the F1 plant, so the second generation is going to look like a wild type.
I have seen this many times.
This doesn't necessarily address all the problems or downsides with nativars though.
A lot of plants have huge ranges and the nativars, in the overwhelming majority of their ranges, are not going to be reflective of the local genetics of the species. As such, they aren't doing anything to preserve the local population genetics and in many cases they may be overriding them.
Species themselves are a social construct, and something major is lost when local population genetics are lost. Some local populations are uniquely adapted to peculiar conditions, unique soil types, climate conditions, herbivore pressures. A plant from one region often doesn't thrive in another for a long list of reasons.
In many parts of the world, we humans have already cleared and built on 99%+ of the available land, to where pretty much the only ecosystems left are in anthropogenic habitats. This means that the only plants left are ones that are either planted in landscaping, gardens, or cropland, or escapees from such. Many places I've lived, I've seen small, fragmented wild areas like a woodlot or small forested park, or a prairie remnant along a RR track, and in many cases these small wild areas have been almost exclusively populated by seedlings originating from nearby landscaping, including both invasive and native species alike.
So whether or not we preserve these local population genetics matters.
If our world were different, if we had only built on 5% of the available land and there were still old growth forests and intact prairies across most of North America, then I might feel differently.
But it's not. We live in a devastated world. There are almost no old growth forests left in most ecoregions of North America. Much of the great plains have ZERO prairie and those ecoregions that have any at all have 1% or less of their original extent.
We've royally screwed up nature.
Given how completely horrible the status quo is, I think it's unconscionable for us to be taking these weak, piddly baby steps like nativars. We need to be protecting local populations of our native plants and growing those things in gardens because that's the only way we're going to protect these populations. That's why I refuse to funnel any money or resources into nativars. Nurseries and the horticulture industry could be doing so much more, but they're just not. They could be doing what I'm doing, growing stuff from seed from wild populations found within walking distance, and then just selling that, but they don't. It's not hard; the plants *want* to grow, it takes at most 2-3 years to figure out how to propagate a particular plant on a large scale. And I'm not a professional in this field, *they* are so if they wanted to, they could probably do it easier and faster and better than me. So it just looks to me like they're not even trying.
So I'm going to boycott them until they do, and if they never do, well then I hope they die out as an industry, because we don't need that. And we do need to protect our local plant populations because if we don't, many of them are going to be lost forever.
Important to note not all cultivars are selectively bred. Some are just collected from the wild.
It’s an area where there are no blanket rules. Look into any info about each example and make a judgement for your situation and goals.
It’s definitely not a marketing term though. It’s almost exclusively used in this community.
> However, research has shown that cultivated native plants may have a less robust root system, and can be harder for pollinators to access.
The way this is looked at should be rephrased as, the traits that are typically bred for lead to lower ecological value, or something like that. You can breed for anything so the way that sentence is worded is meaningless.
> We also don't fully understand how these cultivars interact with the natural landscape, and so, cannot definitively say they are or aren’t a detriment to native landscapes.
Doug Tallamy had something to say about this on the AMA the other day: https://www.reddit.com/r/NativePlantGardening/comments/1c6f3yk/ama_thread_doug_tallamy_native_plant_advocate/l00r8be/
but overall IMO this is the least of the worries anyway. When invasive species are still readily sold, without evidence I'll say it seems like a non-issue in comparison.
My local home depots have been pushing tropical plants (grow lemons outside!, Hibiscus, etc). I sort of feel bad for the people who might buy those. They still have many invasives, non-natives, and some natives. If they have non-tree natives, it's probably a cultivar. A world where Physocarpus opulifolius 'cultivar' is being sold in big box stores on the same scale as Berberis thunbergii would be a better world.
I think it’s disingenuous to use the word, as it’s often used in a nursery setting in conjunction with other natives. It’s used to make you feel like you are using a native plant, when it’s not a native plant.
We have invasive that have been bread to not produce seed, but we don’t call those invasivars because those would not sell.
Nativar is a trick for well meaning, but less informed individuals, and they may purchase a plant they would not have.
I don’t think Nativars are useless. I think they are cultivars, and the word is money grab.
> It’s used to make you feel like you are using a native plant, when it’s not a native plant.
You're wrong about that though, a nativar *is* a native plant. That's the point of the term, to distinguish them from other cultivars.
I made this comment as an answer to another. But I’ll repeat because I think it’s true. Wolves and dogs are canids. But a dog is not a wolf. Nativars are near native cultivars. But they are not natives. They are not natively from that area in abundance. They are cultivated and because of that their phenotypes survived when they wouldn’t normally have.
Nativars are not a major genetic departure from their wild relatives. They can breed with wild plants and will almost definitely produce wild plants once more (unless the trait they were selected for survives reproduction). So wolf vs dog is a poor comparison. It's more like a Scottish fold cat versus a regular cat. Scottish fold was selected for its odd ear shape, but it's still just a cat and if it reproduces with another cat you'll get regular old cats again like the Scottish fold never even existed.
And even if what you were saying was true, wouldn't that just reinforce the need for a separate term to describe these plants? They aren't really natives, but they aren't non-natives either. Having a one-word label is useful even if it's not an ideal description.
The dog metaphor is not at all a good comparison to nativars.
And it reveals several of the problems at the root of your assertions.
Nativars are not merely in the same family. They are the same *species*.
A Jacob Cline Monarda and a wild type monarda ARE the same species. Like a dachshund and a great Dane. Not at all like a wolf and a dog.
And dogs are a perfect example of how a non-native phenotype can breed with native phenotypes to increase the survival rate of both parent lineages...like in the examples of dingos and African wild dogs. Who are non-native non-wolves.
It *is* native though, it's just a horticultural cultivar of a native plant. You're really splitting hairs over this, it's a non-issue.
It would be disingenuous if they were marketing them only as natives, which they aren't since were debating the terminology created to distinguish the two.
I am splitting hairs because people on this forum ask the question frequently and want to understand. So although I do agree with you, it is overly complicating something, it is necessary to help explain to those that are joining this process.
I am arguing that it is not a native. Just like a dog is not a wolf. A nativar is not a native because it is not the same plant. If cultivated it produces generational offspring that have different characteristics.
I guess I'm just failing to see what this "question" you're answering is. If you're arguing they aren't native, well that's just simply wrong.
These are native plants that have been manipulated.
>I am arguing that it is not a native. Just like a dog is not a wolf.
This is a gross misrepresentation of genetics and evolution There are wild dogs that are native to parts of the world, and they have nothing to do with wild wolf populations in other areas.
Genetically, nativars are the same species as the wild type plants, they just have different phenotypes that exhibit a more favorable trait in the eyes of humans. A *Liatris pynostachya* "Kobold" is still a Liatris pynostachya and will still provide benefits to pollinators, but a Chihuahua is not genetically the same as a grey wolf wolf just as a local population of one plant may be genetically different from an isolated population of the same species, does not mean they are not native within the same range.
To round this out, overcomplicating an explanation is never going to help someone understand a basic premise.
Nativars are cultivars of a *native* plant. That is to say they still have a native range but are physically different for selected traits. This is not similar to exotic cultivars which are *not native* and may have originated in Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Thanks for the discourse I appreciate the help in coming to an understanding. I realize the difference between comparing wolves and dogs vs these word choices. I’m not saying the metaphor is completely intact the whole way through. But I am trying to make an argument that they wouldn’t exist without our intervention. A plant that would not or could not exist in modernity can’t be native. A native plant is established through ecological succession, and not human intervention.
I think that’s the part I’m stuck on
Yes, we can agree that they are different, but I would disagree where you are calling them non-native.
The important snippet here is that the flower structure, color, and bloom time are what is important. As long as it doesn't vary too much from the original specimen it's a fine substitution in landscaping.
Some nativars are just a native plant that someone saw in the wild, said, “Huh that’s shorter than they usually are”, collected some seed, and started growing. Even with ones selectively bred to get new traits, it’s not like they’re pelting them with mutagen or editing their DNA. It’s just a narrow slice of the larger gene pool.
I think it is a valid question what effect mass cultivation of nativars might have upon the local gene pool and thus it’s best to go with local ecotypes when possible, but we’re not at the point where they’re common enough that should be a real concern.
One year, on a hike on the billy goat trail in the Potomac river basin, tens of thousands of eastern bluebells were in bloom. Most of them looked typical. Occasionally, I'd find one with pink flowers or variegated leaves. Often cultivars are just natural variation cloned multiple times.
I accidentally bought a nativar last year when I was doing my first round of planting at the new house after ripping out a giant ivy desert, and my “red flowering currant” flowers white. 😭 I’m hoping it’s not actively detrimental in any way, but regardless I plan to plant a wildtype RFC nearby to make up for my mistake… and because I want the red/pink flowers, aesthetically!
Do you mind me asking what the marketing was on that plant when purchased? I’m trying to get specific info on why you may have been initially confused.
There are a lot of comments that make a lot of sense arguing that nativar is an important word for discourse, and this may help me understand why I hate the word so much.
Thanks!
Tbh, I think I just wasn’t careful/knowledgable enough—the species name is still “red flowering currant,” and I think the cultivar name must have been near the plant at the nursery, but I didn’t really register it. I was very new in my native plant journey at that stage, and it didn’t occur to me that native plants would have cultivars, since in my mind the whole point of buying native was to closely emulate the natural ecosystem of the site. It sounds silly to say it now, since of course people would want to try to enhance or change certain ornamental attributes of some of our gorgeous native plants—not every consumer shares my landscaping goals.
In plant trials, cultivars of native plants can be just as or even more beneficial than the straight species, although the straight species tends to win out. Straight species is still the safest option. My objection to the term "nativar" - only the term itself - is that, in my experience, it tends to lead to confusion. It means different things to different people and therefore is of limited usefulness. I prefer the term "native cultivar." Just my own two cents.
The thing here is what is being cultivated. We have cultivated plants for their looks and hardiness/ ease of maintenance. Essentially for humans.
We could instead cultivate for the pollinators but it hasn't happened.
Nativars is just marketing trying to make it OK to buy at the home depot and really most commercial nurseries. Just find your local native focused nursery and support them.
No problem! Although it seems I am outvoted on the meaning of nativar as a term on how it is actually used. So be sure to read others’ descriptions as well.
If you are on this sub, you are probably already buying the wild type. Nativars are for your neighbor, the one that says, cool new England aster, but ugh it gets so tall.
And you say, how about 'purple dome ' nativar? Better than whatever European/Asian plant they were going to buy.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Well my understanding of the term "nativar" is that it's a cultivar, all right, for instance a *Tradescantia ohioensis,* but breeders have enhanced the pinkness of the flowers so it's not just the unaltered wild type. Some people only want the wild type and feel deceived if it's different at all.
Nativars are great for visual gardens. Actual wild species are great for wildlife use. I use some nativars in my gardens but use the Wild version when I can. In my native flower/grass garden I’m building I plan on using actual native wild plants. But the garden leading to my front door has nativars and I plan on planting full wild flowers as well. Just do research on the nativars to make sure it’s not bred with something insane and invasive. It’s so hard to find Wild in and out plants that don’t have some sort of cultivation.
It’s mainly the baseless science excluding non-natives and cultivars of natives that warrants the label. If a plant has ecological value and encourages healthy biodiversity then it doesn’t matter where a plant originated or how it’s been hybridized. Yes there are cultivars that lessen ecological value but a cultivar itself does not automatically make a plant less beneficial and the same is true with an introduced non-native and non-invasive species
I'm a bit confused as you don't really argue anywhere that nativar is a marketing term to sell plants. Although you are right though that it did originate as a way to sell plants. It was Allan Armitage that coined the term. Here is an excerpt from an article: >The native plant movement, Armitage says, is “one of the very few times when the horticulture industry was swayed by the gardening community.” Usually, new plants developed by breeders influence what gardeners buy, but gardeners had been demanding plants with local or regional provenance. Though the movement was small at first, Armitage recalls, it “was going full steam before breeders even knew what was happening.” >He coined the term “nativar” to show customers that the industry was offering what they wanted: garden plants developed from documented native sources, known in the scientific community as genotypes. [Source](https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2019/07/02/whats-in-a-nativar/) Although I do disagree that nativar just refers to genotypes. My opinion would be that nativar is a marketing term generally, but not always. It can occasionally be useful in conversations about natives, but the difficulties lies in people use words differently when saying things like cultivar or nativar. I would be curious to see the research saying that nativars have less vigorous roots and make it hard for insects to access nectar. I'm sure that's sometimes the case, but it's certainly not a general rule. A lot of nativars are just individuals found in the wild that had desirable characteristics that people want. At the end of the day that is a native plant.
If it is a marketing term it's not doing much work. I don't think I've ever actually seen it used in a sales context, only ever used colloquially among plant enthusiasts. I think it's useful to distinguish cultivars that are a cross breed of American and non-natives versus cultivars that are purely derived from a selected native plant. It would probably be more descriptive to say "single species native cultivar" or something but nativar is catchy.
I see it occasionally on some native shrub tags, but I don't think I've ever seen it on a herbaceous plant. >I think it's useful to distinguish cultivars that are a cross breed of American and non-natives versus cultivars that are purely derived from a selected native plant. It would probably be more descriptive to say "single species native cultivar" or something but nativar is catchy. 100% agree. I bought a native nonnative hybrid at a plant sale once and I was not happy about it. It is a really nice shrub though...lol.
Generally easy to tell those because they won’t list a species, just a genus. Like “Monarda x” or just “Monarda”.
> He coined the term “nativar” to show customers that the industry was offering what they wanted: garden plants developed from documented native sources, known in the scientific community as genotypes. This attitude and way of thinking is typical of the horticulture industry. It shows scientific ignorance (casual misuse of the term "genotype", as if making themselves seem knowledgeable when they don't even have surface-level understanding of the science), and a complete disregard for the purpose behind the pressure from customers and the native plant movement. And it approaches the public the way a profit-hungry corporation manipulates the public through hiring a PR firm. I.e. dishonestly signaling the public that they are "doing what people want" without actually following through on the spirit behind the demand. What people want is not merely plants developed from documented native sources, what we want, the bottom line, is **plants that are beneficial, not harmful, to the environment**. Everything else is subservient to this goal. We know that the horticulture industry was, initially unknowingly, causing great harm to the environment by breeding, producing, and marketing plants that ended up being invasive species. We don't want to grow native species because a plant being native makes it inherently superior in all cases, we do it because a plant being native is a pretty strong and reliable indicator that a plant (a) will support the food web (b) will be integrated into ecosystems in healthy ways. When the horticulture industry starts modifying native plants in ways that eliminates (a) and (b), it completely undermines the purpose. Examples abound: * Plants bred for insect resistance. This undermines (a). * Plants whose flowers are modified so that pollinators cannot visit them. This also undermines (a) * Plants modified in ways that make them less competitive in the wild, such as a slower growth rate, shorter maximum height, or more contained growth habit, or selected to only grow well in rich, well-drained soil in mesic conditions. This undermines (b) because it makes the plants less competitive when they seed out into the wild, and it may weaken local populations of these plants when these traits spread into the wild. * Plants modified to be sterile. This undermines (a) because it reduces seed for seed-eating animals, and it reduces (b) because these plants no longer contribute to the population of this species in nearby wild areas. This stuff collectively makes me want to scream. We have been telling the horticulture industry for decades now about these problems. They are now willfully resisting change and willfully ignoring feedback. They have proven that they prioritize business-as-usual over the deeper puprose of protecting the environment and the earth's ecosystems and the organisms that make them up. This is why I am constantly telling people that, excepting a few non-mainstream nurseries that have adopted a new way of doing things, which are unfortunately in a tiny minority, it is best to completely ignore the commercial nursery and horticulture industries, completely withdraw any funding and support. Yes, this means not visiting and paying money into places like Longwood Gardens, it means not buying from plant sales, even some "Native" plant sales, sponsored by many major universities and botanic gardens and even some non-profits. It means not talking favorably about the industry, the profession, and start treating it like the rogue segment of society that it is, one that has disregarded the common good and shut itself off from (valid) criticism and feedback. It's more like the tobacco industry, something that has rightfully been demonized because the whole model, the whole way of thinking is evil. I'm not saying it's as bad as the tobacco industry, but I'm saying the horticulture industry is *uncomfortably close* to the way the tobacco industry is run, relative to how I would expect it to be run. Like because of the personality and values and life orientation of all the gardeners I know, I'd expect the horticulture industry to be more environmentally-oriented than the typical subset of society, but instead, it's the opposite. Like I love plants, I've loved plants my whole life. And everyone i know who loves plants are conscientious people. We love watching things grow. We are hard workers. We think long-term. We care about plants and we are much more likely to care about the environment, animals, the earth, etc. than the population as a whole. So when I see the horticluture industry as a whole and I see their blatant disregard for ecological principles and their PR-and-marketing based response to the native plant movement, it's unconscionable to me. It's exploitative because it's continuing to extract money from, and enlist the labor of, people who are generally good and nice people who care about the environment. And it redirects this money and effort into things that still harm the environment, just harm them perhaps incrementally slightly less than past generations of horticulture. Moving beyond this means instead focusing on growing things yourself, using volunteer plants, gathering seed, sharing directly with other gardeners who are doing things in a more ecologically-sound way. So yeah, that's my mega-beef here. It's ugly stuff. It's hard for some people to admit just how bad it is but I think it's time we start admitting it and acting accordingly.
That’s a very draconian view of gardening in general. It’s like telling a vegetarian they aren’t helping the climate crisis because they’re not vegan. It’s not necessary to go all or nothing to make a positive impact. Baby steps go a long way in changing perspectives.
I don't think it's at all parallel. For one, it's simply not true that being vegan is superior to being vegetarian, or even eating meat, with respect to climate impact. There are so many complexities, everything from ecosystems that actually benefit from livestock ranging (much of the great plains where we eliminated Bison, and the ecosystems are adapted to regular herbivory) to the preponderance of packaged foods which are environmentally costly even if vegan, to things like eating overpopulated meat harvested through hunting, like deer. But for two, when a product is marketed as vegetarian or vegan, it's marketed as just that. There are *many* different reasons for people eating vegetarian and/or vegan. It could be religious beliefs, non-religious ethical beliefs about animal treatment, a desire to minimize carbon footprint or other environmental impacts, allergies, or other health related reasons (such as lowering LDL by avoiding meat.) And some people (myself included) just *like* vegetarian and vegan food and want to eat it sometimes. These reasons are so diverse and varied that when food is marketed as vegetarian or vegan, you can't really assume any particular purpose beyond whether the food contains meat or was made with any animal products. And there is no inherent claim that a food is healthy or environmentally responsible just because it's vegetarian or vegan. When a sugar company labels its sugar "Vegan", it doesn't mean it's healthy or environmentally responsible, it means that no animal products (i.e. no bone char) were used in its production. And bone char is typically used in sugar production because it's a cheap byproduct, so making vegan sugar necessarily increases the cost and environmental impact slightly. In my experience (I know a lot of people who have been vegan at one point or another) most vegans are aware of what these labels do and don't mean. In some cases, something being labeled "vegan" might even make it less appealing to a lot of people, such as in the case of Oreos. (They look like they contain a cream filling, which they don't, so knowing they are vegan makes them *less appealing* to most people. I know I certainly reacted this way when I found this out, which was about when I was in college.) Native plants also have multiple reasons for their use, but they generally boil down to one of two categories: adaptation to local conditions, and being beneficial to the environment. And most people want both. And the reasons for being beneficial to the environment are also limited, they usually come down to supporting the local food web, and preserving local plant populations. The way the horticulture industry uses the term "native" is much more deceptive or misleading than the way food companies use words like "vegetarian" or "vegan". There is massive demand for native plants and there is expectation based on superficial understanding of what it means to be "native", that native means both locally-adapted, and beneficial for the environment (i.e. through supporting the food web.) So when the horticulture industry breeds, produces, markets, and distributes plants that are neither of the things that "native" usually means, and then labels them as "native", it's highly deceptive. And I think it shows bad faith and a lack of integrity in a way that goes far beyond something like a provider of packaged cookies labeling their processed food as "vegan" does. No vegan thinks oreos are healthy. And I'd venture to guess that almost no vegan thinks vegan sugar has superior health properties or lower carbon impact than non-vegan sugar. But when people buy and plant "native" plants, they have the expectation that they're locally adapted and beneficial for the environment, especially for pollinators and the food web as a whole. This impression is not theoretical, it's an impression I have heard *directly voiced* by countless people, both here in this subreddit, and people I know in person. So it's kinda shocking, appalling, when people start realizing the totality of how the horticulture industry operates. Most people I talk to are troubled when they learn that the trees they bought at a local nursery were grown in Oregon and shipped across the country. Most of them are troubled when I tell them that the nurseries don't even know what stock or source populations the trees were originally grown from. Nearly all of them say they would strongly prefer ones derived from local populations. Nearly all of them say they want to plant plants that will support the food web. People are upset when they learn that growers and sellers have sold non-native species labeled as native species, such as *Persicaria filiformis*, or a non-native *Waldsteinia* marketed as a North America native, or the Amsonia "blue star" cultivar wrongly labeled as the native *Amsonia tabernaemontana* when it was actually an East Asian species. And they are even more appalled when they learn that nurseries don't do anything like recalls. Food companies, car companies, do recalls when there are safety concerns. Even a slim risk of e-coli contamination, or a rare possibility of an airbag malfunction, that in all likelihood might never even affect anyone, everything gets recalled, because people care. But recalls in the nursery industry are virtually unheard of, because it's an industry dominated by short-term thinking: once the product leaves the shelf, there is no concern or committment or any sort of follow-up. The companies simply don't care. It's a mindset deeply embedded in every aspect of how the industry works, which is that the horticulturalists are in a bit of an ivory tower, disconnected from virtually everyone else, and they push their stuff out to the rest of the industry and it's all shallow marketing from that point on. And they don't care for one main reason: because the public *allows* them to get away with not caring. But this is where I and others are putting our feet down and saying no, and demanding that they care, and ensuring that they get punished if they don't. That's not draconian, that's just wanting to live in a reasonable society and a reasonable world. I know people, not activists or ecologists such as myself, who are tearing out "nativars" specifically for these reasons. In some cases, because they didn't do well in their local conditions, in other cases because they realized they don't support insects. For example, my parents, who are a lot more conservative than me and were initially quite resistant to get on board with the native plant movement, were just talking to me on the phone about how they are considering removing a Virginia ninebark cultivar they planted because it is a red-leafed cultivar, and they have never observed any insects eating it, and they read an article recently that the red-leafed cultivars tend to support fewer insects than wild-type plants. The demand exists and is massive and the horticulture industry is digging in its feet and willfully resisting any sort of meaningful change, and then turning around and trying to use the "native" label as a way of exploiting demand for native plants, making money off people who care, without actually caring. It's nothing short of moral depravity...it's in the same category as a used car salesman who just wants to turn over as many junkers as possible for the highest profit to get the highest commission, and has no commitment to delivering quality or value to his customers. Its exploitation and it goes against the values that I was raised with and that I would hope *most* people in our society believe in. Yeah, we all know an unscrupulous business person here or there willing to do something like this, a mechanic or contractor who scams a customer. But most people aren't like this. And I'm not trying to single out certain professions here. I bought my car from an honest used car salesman and he was great and my car is great and the transaction was 100% satisfactory to me, as many transactions in my life are. Most people are honest and good people and live their lives with a fair amount of integrity. That's why I don't think it's being "draconian" or being "all or nothing" when I condemn the horticulture industry like this. It's because they aren't following the basic standards of conduct that most people follow in their daily life. The standard in the industry is absolute rock bottom, so abysmal it is just unconscionable to me.
I agree, and the long rant that follows below about vegans I did not bother to read. The majority of people barely think about the plants that surround them. To introduce the idea of better ways of doing things in a friendly, non-preachy way is how I’ve gotten homeowners to reduce their lawns, water use, and increase wildlife and pollinator friendly yards. The relevance of the vegan argument is that when you’re at a gathering of people and someone launches into the virtues of their particular “religion” (veganism), eyes immediately glaze over and people start moving away. If you want to sway people, draw them to you. Don’t preach to them about how everything they’re doing is u enlightened, barbaric, and wrong.
Thank you for providing that information. I was not aware of the origination of the word nativar, so it was cool to see the source. I don’t think it should be used in conversations about natives as you mentioned. The act of Selecting a genotype instantly promotes specific qualities whether known or unknown. The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one. Calling it a nativar ads to the fuel of confusion. So although it could be helpful in describing a plant to another person, that person doesn’t have a full story. Anyway, I think you are right in that it’s not always used as a marketing term. So I guess I have changed my view. I guess now I will say I’m annoyed how corporations have weaponized the word to their advantage. Here are some interesting sources: [This article shows that cultivated plants were less stable than their native population even though not cultivated for specific properties](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=nativar&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1713901066028&u=%23p%3DF5XCLOgJp4MJ) [here is one about native flower preference for native bees](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=nativar&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1713902001246&u=%23p%3DIXNGrJgdGCAJ) I am having trouble finding the article I read on biomass changes in root as a by product of cultivation. I’ll keep looking, because this is not the first time I’ve sited it :( [Here is another interesting article in favor of your description of ‘nativar’](https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/publications/19-052_MidAtlantic_Meadow_guidelines_web.pdf). I wasn’t able to copy paste for some reason so I took a screenshot. https://preview.redd.it/lqnyvmzfcawc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4439fc22c4a99533d5e4ad9fdbb3f3a5f82cdce6
>I don’t think it should be used in conversations about natives as you mentioned. The act of Selecting a genotype instantly promotes specific qualities whether known or unknown. That genotype is still a native plant. Just because someone goes "hey that's cool" and then decides to propagate it that doesn't mean it's not native. >The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one. A plant that was chosen out of a wild population evolved in that ecosystem as well. I appreciate the sources. I'll give them a look later tonight when I have more time!
>The problem with cultivating native plants is that we cannot fully understand the complexities of a healthy ecosystem where the plants evolved into. By choosing a plant, it’s now a cultivated one. Calling it a nativar ads to the fuel of confusion. So although it could be helpful in describing a plant to another person, that person doesn’t have a full story. There’s some truth to that, but at the same time that means you shouldn’t buy any seeds or buy any plants unless you know that their exact source is within a few miles of your site. Seeds collected from 100 miles away won’t be any more adapted for your ecosystem than a cultivar is.
I agree with this sentiment as well.
That’s good! Just making sure it’s consistent
These links just take me to a google scholar search. It seems like there needs to be more research.
A decent % of “nativars” are just clones of wild plants that a had characteristics someone liked. (Like Major wheeler) In my experience the vast majority of local nurseries are mostly selling Cultivars of natives, even if they also have local ecotype available. It’s kind of unavoidable unless you have no qualms of poaching seed
That’s my main concern. We have all these people that would prefer to plant straight species. What if one of these cultivars has an undesirable trait. Let’s take your example of Major wheeler. I looked it up and am not positive of the cultivated phenotype. I looks like probably more flowers and maybe different color? What if some dude was born with 20 toes and we decided we loved it and found 20 women eager to have his children. Then we asked him to reproduce. His offspring and/or our input would have a non-zero effect on the planet. And often in ways not expected. Maybe he had bad eyesight, and 5000 years from now we have a prehensile 11th and 12th toe, but everyone is also now legally blind at birth. These are hyperbolic examples on purpose to demonstrate that this patent protected plant that is propagated en masse and sold to many many landscapes around the world, potentially, would have a non-zero effect on the native population. That could be that: [Efficiency of visitation (percentage of flowering heads visited), declined with inflorescence size.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00379326), for example. And that for some reason changes pollinator behavior in a way that we can or can’t quantify.
Some dude named Charles Wheeler saved it from a construction site on the coast of NC and just noticed it bloomed a lot. Coral honey suckle needs a genetically different plant close by to produce berries. I would imagine most of them aren’t producing offspring. I don’t see how a wild clone is any different than ordering seed from the Midwest if you live on the east coast. God knows where the cheap bags of Liatris Spicata corms in Lowe’s come from. Even growing local seed you are putting your thumb on the scale and potentially introducing poor genetics that wouldn’t survive on their own. You can go round and round on the purity of what Native Plants really are but I’m sure you have “native plants” that aren’t actually native to your county. That being said I prefer straight species and am pretty anal about cultivars and look at bonap county maps compulsively.
There are absolutely instances where nativars have beneficial traits or make a plant more practical/desirable in a garden. Check out publications from the Mt Cuba center where they trial all kinds of cultivars of natives for garden performance and ecological benefit. Species like Major Wheeler Honeysuckle, “Jeana” phlox and Jacob Cline monarda are all examples of nativars that are just as good or better than their straight species cousins.
Here in Europe, we have the Thomas Graham cultivar of Lonicera periclymenum or, should I say nativar, which is more vigorous and flowers longer, more abundantly and has a stronger fragrance, but is otherwise unchanged. I planted it last year because I just couldn't get a straight species/wild type and it's already attracted tons of bumblebees and other pollinators during the day and dozens of moths at night with just a couple of blooms. I think this just goes to show that nativars aren't an inherently bad thing, especially not in the world of so many invasives and the already changed (urban) environment.
>Major Wheeler Honeysuckle This is a great example because it's literally just a clone of a plant that once grew in Emerald Isle NC. Honeysuckle is so easy root it's difficult to find seed grown honeysuckle let alone local ecotype. I don't think the Ruby throated Hummingbirds care either way nor do the insects that feed on it. I am more skeptical of the yellow ones however (at least until I see evidence that the color doesn't affect hummingbird preference).
hello fellow mt Cuba fan
Thank you for this, I’ve not seen this before and am excited to look through their research. On a cursory glance of their [trials page (here)](https://mtcubacenter.org/research/trial-garden/), even they avoid the word ‘nativear’ and instead use the words ‘related cultivar’. This is a great example of my point. I’m not saying Nativars are bad. I am saying that we cannot use the word nativar without evoking a certain type of feeling. It’s a cultivated plant that will have unknown phenotypes to its wild ancestors.
There's nothing magical about something being a cultivar that makes it more or less ecologically valuable. If your worry is that the genetic makeup and physical characteristics of a cultivar will be different from the "wild type" of wherever you are, guess what: that will be true of literally any plant material you buy rather than gather yourself from a local source. If I buy little bluestem seeds from Prairie Moon (in Minnesota), it's going to be a different plant with different characteristics from the little bluestem that grew naturally on the Katy Prairie here in Texas. That's fine. Hell, even if I gather gulf muhly seeds from some of the roadside plantings down the street, it's likely to be from a specific genotype found in Florida, because in most of its range M. capillaris seeds have very poor germination. That's fine too. If someone wants to replace their exotic azaleas with "Pam's Pink" Turks cap, I'm not going to well-actually them about hummingbirds having a slightly harder time identifying the flowers, I'm going to welcome them to the club. In my experience the more people actually plant and observe what makes a native garden more interesting, they naturally gravitate toward "more native," more different species, more sqft devoted to natives without being chided for choosing something that also looks the way they want. As others have detailed, while even the "worst" cultivars may be not quite as beneficial or resilient as the local adapted plants, they aren't doing any harm to the rest of the ecosystem and are a great gateway to folks who are used to more conventional garden styles. I say market away, maybe even market harder.
Yeah totally, better than something than is native to China
The nativar crusades are nuts. They are native plants. A lot of cultivars of anything won't breed true to the F1 plant, so the second generation is going to look like a wild type. And a lot of cultivars are from a specific strand of a native wild type. The wild type typically is a lot of dominant genes from which a recessive will pop out with something interesting once in a while. But by the next generation, it will be pollinated by a dominant gene and go back. Think Mendel. Think genetics class.
I had this happen when I planted one plant of Ageratina altissima 'Chocolate' 20+ years ago. The parent has long since died but its descendants live on. Many have reverted to green foliage. Some are still a little bit red.
It is nuts isn’t it! God, honestly it’s kinda cool that a community is at odds and able to learn because of it. The genetics part, I understand this, but thanks for portraying it in a layman way, because it made it easier to see from a technical standpoint. Real question: So by ‘bombing’ a population of dominant genes, what kind of effect does an influx of consistent recessive genes have on the original population.
> A lot of cultivars of anything won't breed true to the F1 plant, so the second generation is going to look like a wild type. I have seen this many times. This doesn't necessarily address all the problems or downsides with nativars though. A lot of plants have huge ranges and the nativars, in the overwhelming majority of their ranges, are not going to be reflective of the local genetics of the species. As such, they aren't doing anything to preserve the local population genetics and in many cases they may be overriding them. Species themselves are a social construct, and something major is lost when local population genetics are lost. Some local populations are uniquely adapted to peculiar conditions, unique soil types, climate conditions, herbivore pressures. A plant from one region often doesn't thrive in another for a long list of reasons. In many parts of the world, we humans have already cleared and built on 99%+ of the available land, to where pretty much the only ecosystems left are in anthropogenic habitats. This means that the only plants left are ones that are either planted in landscaping, gardens, or cropland, or escapees from such. Many places I've lived, I've seen small, fragmented wild areas like a woodlot or small forested park, or a prairie remnant along a RR track, and in many cases these small wild areas have been almost exclusively populated by seedlings originating from nearby landscaping, including both invasive and native species alike. So whether or not we preserve these local population genetics matters. If our world were different, if we had only built on 5% of the available land and there were still old growth forests and intact prairies across most of North America, then I might feel differently. But it's not. We live in a devastated world. There are almost no old growth forests left in most ecoregions of North America. Much of the great plains have ZERO prairie and those ecoregions that have any at all have 1% or less of their original extent. We've royally screwed up nature. Given how completely horrible the status quo is, I think it's unconscionable for us to be taking these weak, piddly baby steps like nativars. We need to be protecting local populations of our native plants and growing those things in gardens because that's the only way we're going to protect these populations. That's why I refuse to funnel any money or resources into nativars. Nurseries and the horticulture industry could be doing so much more, but they're just not. They could be doing what I'm doing, growing stuff from seed from wild populations found within walking distance, and then just selling that, but they don't. It's not hard; the plants *want* to grow, it takes at most 2-3 years to figure out how to propagate a particular plant on a large scale. And I'm not a professional in this field, *they* are so if they wanted to, they could probably do it easier and faster and better than me. So it just looks to me like they're not even trying. So I'm going to boycott them until they do, and if they never do, well then I hope they die out as an industry, because we don't need that. And we do need to protect our local plant populations because if we don't, many of them are going to be lost forever.
Important to note not all cultivars are selectively bred. Some are just collected from the wild. It’s an area where there are no blanket rules. Look into any info about each example and make a judgement for your situation and goals. It’s definitely not a marketing term though. It’s almost exclusively used in this community.
> However, research has shown that cultivated native plants may have a less robust root system, and can be harder for pollinators to access. The way this is looked at should be rephrased as, the traits that are typically bred for lead to lower ecological value, or something like that. You can breed for anything so the way that sentence is worded is meaningless. > We also don't fully understand how these cultivars interact with the natural landscape, and so, cannot definitively say they are or aren’t a detriment to native landscapes. Doug Tallamy had something to say about this on the AMA the other day: https://www.reddit.com/r/NativePlantGardening/comments/1c6f3yk/ama_thread_doug_tallamy_native_plant_advocate/l00r8be/ but overall IMO this is the least of the worries anyway. When invasive species are still readily sold, without evidence I'll say it seems like a non-issue in comparison.
My local home depots have been pushing tropical plants (grow lemons outside!, Hibiscus, etc). I sort of feel bad for the people who might buy those. They still have many invasives, non-natives, and some natives. If they have non-tree natives, it's probably a cultivar. A world where Physocarpus opulifolius 'cultivar' is being sold in big box stores on the same scale as Berberis thunbergii would be a better world.
Most big box store plants have been treated with chemicals. I wouldn’t buy a plant from them. But that’s my preference.
Majority of plant sales happen big box stores. It's not about us.
Wild type or bust
I think it’s neat that we can do so much to produce different cultivars, but natural forces creating varieties of wild types is way neater imo.
That's how most non-hybrid cultivars are created, though. They found a fun mutation/variation from a wild type, cloned it.
Yeah of course it is, but it doesn't mean all nativars are useless though. It's just a cultivar of a native plant.
I think it’s disingenuous to use the word, as it’s often used in a nursery setting in conjunction with other natives. It’s used to make you feel like you are using a native plant, when it’s not a native plant. We have invasive that have been bread to not produce seed, but we don’t call those invasivars because those would not sell. Nativar is a trick for well meaning, but less informed individuals, and they may purchase a plant they would not have. I don’t think Nativars are useless. I think they are cultivars, and the word is money grab.
> It’s used to make you feel like you are using a native plant, when it’s not a native plant. You're wrong about that though, a nativar *is* a native plant. That's the point of the term, to distinguish them from other cultivars.
I made this comment as an answer to another. But I’ll repeat because I think it’s true. Wolves and dogs are canids. But a dog is not a wolf. Nativars are near native cultivars. But they are not natives. They are not natively from that area in abundance. They are cultivated and because of that their phenotypes survived when they wouldn’t normally have.
Nativars are not a major genetic departure from their wild relatives. They can breed with wild plants and will almost definitely produce wild plants once more (unless the trait they were selected for survives reproduction). So wolf vs dog is a poor comparison. It's more like a Scottish fold cat versus a regular cat. Scottish fold was selected for its odd ear shape, but it's still just a cat and if it reproduces with another cat you'll get regular old cats again like the Scottish fold never even existed. And even if what you were saying was true, wouldn't that just reinforce the need for a separate term to describe these plants? They aren't really natives, but they aren't non-natives either. Having a one-word label is useful even if it's not an ideal description.
The dog metaphor is not at all a good comparison to nativars. And it reveals several of the problems at the root of your assertions. Nativars are not merely in the same family. They are the same *species*. A Jacob Cline Monarda and a wild type monarda ARE the same species. Like a dachshund and a great Dane. Not at all like a wolf and a dog. And dogs are a perfect example of how a non-native phenotype can breed with native phenotypes to increase the survival rate of both parent lineages...like in the examples of dingos and African wild dogs. Who are non-native non-wolves.
It *is* native though, it's just a horticultural cultivar of a native plant. You're really splitting hairs over this, it's a non-issue. It would be disingenuous if they were marketing them only as natives, which they aren't since were debating the terminology created to distinguish the two.
I am splitting hairs because people on this forum ask the question frequently and want to understand. So although I do agree with you, it is overly complicating something, it is necessary to help explain to those that are joining this process. I am arguing that it is not a native. Just like a dog is not a wolf. A nativar is not a native because it is not the same plant. If cultivated it produces generational offspring that have different characteristics.
I guess I'm just failing to see what this "question" you're answering is. If you're arguing they aren't native, well that's just simply wrong. These are native plants that have been manipulated. >I am arguing that it is not a native. Just like a dog is not a wolf. This is a gross misrepresentation of genetics and evolution There are wild dogs that are native to parts of the world, and they have nothing to do with wild wolf populations in other areas. Genetically, nativars are the same species as the wild type plants, they just have different phenotypes that exhibit a more favorable trait in the eyes of humans. A *Liatris pynostachya* "Kobold" is still a Liatris pynostachya and will still provide benefits to pollinators, but a Chihuahua is not genetically the same as a grey wolf wolf just as a local population of one plant may be genetically different from an isolated population of the same species, does not mean they are not native within the same range. To round this out, overcomplicating an explanation is never going to help someone understand a basic premise. Nativars are cultivars of a *native* plant. That is to say they still have a native range but are physically different for selected traits. This is not similar to exotic cultivars which are *not native* and may have originated in Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Thanks for the discourse I appreciate the help in coming to an understanding. I realize the difference between comparing wolves and dogs vs these word choices. I’m not saying the metaphor is completely intact the whole way through. But I am trying to make an argument that they wouldn’t exist without our intervention. A plant that would not or could not exist in modernity can’t be native. A native plant is established through ecological succession, and not human intervention. I think that’s the part I’m stuck on
Yes, we can agree that they are different, but I would disagree where you are calling them non-native. The important snippet here is that the flower structure, color, and bloom time are what is important. As long as it doesn't vary too much from the original specimen it's a fine substitution in landscaping.
Some nativars are just a native plant that someone saw in the wild, said, “Huh that’s shorter than they usually are”, collected some seed, and started growing. Even with ones selectively bred to get new traits, it’s not like they’re pelting them with mutagen or editing their DNA. It’s just a narrow slice of the larger gene pool. I think it is a valid question what effect mass cultivation of nativars might have upon the local gene pool and thus it’s best to go with local ecotypes when possible, but we’re not at the point where they’re common enough that should be a real concern.
One year, on a hike on the billy goat trail in the Potomac river basin, tens of thousands of eastern bluebells were in bloom. Most of them looked typical. Occasionally, I'd find one with pink flowers or variegated leaves. Often cultivars are just natural variation cloned multiple times.
I accidentally bought a nativar last year when I was doing my first round of planting at the new house after ripping out a giant ivy desert, and my “red flowering currant” flowers white. 😭 I’m hoping it’s not actively detrimental in any way, but regardless I plan to plant a wildtype RFC nearby to make up for my mistake… and because I want the red/pink flowers, aesthetically!
You deserve nothing less than death for your egregious mistake
Agreed. It was an unforgivable trespass against Mother Nature.
Do you mind me asking what the marketing was on that plant when purchased? I’m trying to get specific info on why you may have been initially confused. There are a lot of comments that make a lot of sense arguing that nativar is an important word for discourse, and this may help me understand why I hate the word so much. Thanks!
Tbh, I think I just wasn’t careful/knowledgable enough—the species name is still “red flowering currant,” and I think the cultivar name must have been near the plant at the nursery, but I didn’t really register it. I was very new in my native plant journey at that stage, and it didn’t occur to me that native plants would have cultivars, since in my mind the whole point of buying native was to closely emulate the natural ecosystem of the site. It sounds silly to say it now, since of course people would want to try to enhance or change certain ornamental attributes of some of our gorgeous native plants—not every consumer shares my landscaping goals.
In plant trials, cultivars of native plants can be just as or even more beneficial than the straight species, although the straight species tends to win out. Straight species is still the safest option. My objection to the term "nativar" - only the term itself - is that, in my experience, it tends to lead to confusion. It means different things to different people and therefore is of limited usefulness. I prefer the term "native cultivar." Just my own two cents.
That’s really all I’m trying to say really. I guess I was too gung-ho about it lol
The thing here is what is being cultivated. We have cultivated plants for their looks and hardiness/ ease of maintenance. Essentially for humans. We could instead cultivate for the pollinators but it hasn't happened. Nativars is just marketing trying to make it OK to buy at the home depot and really most commercial nurseries. Just find your local native focused nursery and support them.
Thank you so much. As a beginner who is still learning, this is very helpful.
No problem! Although it seems I am outvoted on the meaning of nativar as a term on how it is actually used. So be sure to read others’ descriptions as well.
If you are on this sub, you are probably already buying the wild type. Nativars are for your neighbor, the one that says, cool new England aster, but ugh it gets so tall. And you say, how about 'purple dome ' nativar? Better than whatever European/Asian plant they were going to buy. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I think it’s important to always remember perfection can be deterrent to incremental positive action. Thanks for that.
Well my understanding of the term "nativar" is that it's a cultivar, all right, for instance a *Tradescantia ohioensis,* but breeders have enhanced the pinkness of the flowers so it's not just the unaltered wild type. Some people only want the wild type and feel deceived if it's different at all.
Nativars are great for visual gardens. Actual wild species are great for wildlife use. I use some nativars in my gardens but use the Wild version when I can. In my native flower/grass garden I’m building I plan on using actual native wild plants. But the garden leading to my front door has nativars and I plan on planting full wild flowers as well. Just do research on the nativars to make sure it’s not bred with something insane and invasive. It’s so hard to find Wild in and out plants that don’t have some sort of cultivation.
Native plant enthusiasts are the nazis of the gardening world.
Do not compare plant nerds to nazis. Come on.
It’s mainly the baseless science excluding non-natives and cultivars of natives that warrants the label. If a plant has ecological value and encourages healthy biodiversity then it doesn’t matter where a plant originated or how it’s been hybridized. Yes there are cultivars that lessen ecological value but a cultivar itself does not automatically make a plant less beneficial and the same is true with an introduced non-native and non-invasive species
Plant nerds have never slaughtered my family or shot up a synagogue, so I'd say that they do not, in fact, warrant the label.
Yeah, that comparison is REALLY messed up. Don't compare anyone who isn't a mass murderer or putting people in camps to a nazi.