Jenks, I agree that it important to punch holes in not-entirely-accurate rhetoric, of which I am typically critical, as well. I also saw that the points you were making (re your observations of native/non-native interactions) were salient. I believe like you that being cognizant of our own current ignorance is probably the best bridge between people wishing to communicate about these complex subjects. I am grateful to find others in communities such as this who are tuned in to nature. 🌱
Well said, I feel like there are too many generalizations in regards to what’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for pollinators. There are so many different species that act as pollinators, each with unique habitat and food needs. And studies show that many are more adaptable than we give them credit for. The best thing that we can do is provide year-round diversity and practice thoughtful maintenance. As I recently read somewhere, ‘rewilding is a spectrum’.
I really enjoyed the BBC article, taking away for thought everything that was said in context. I understood the article’s broad introduction of the subject to consumers which suggested they not be assumers that the pretty plant they purchase is as pleasing to pollinators. I understood the points made, one of which is important (in discussing all topics re ecological interrelationships) - that all lifeforms take a certain period of time to adapt to one another (and the environment). I support the concept of sustaining the continued presence of plants which purportedly are native to a particular area; however, I also recognize that I want to appreciate plants which appeal to my human senses as well. Think it is important to be mindful (as much as we can) of all of our coexisting companions on this planet. Most (all of…actually) of us are incredibly ignorant of the natural world in which we live - on the timelines of their lifetimes, even the experts will always be students. [Also - Thank You for creating this place for people to share their passion for plants!]
Jenks, I agree that it important to punch holes in not-entirely-accurate rhetoric, of which I am typically critical, as well. I also saw that the points you were making (re your observations of native/non-native interactions) were salient. I believe like you that being cognizant of our own current ignorance is probably the best bridge between people wishing to communicate about these complex subjects. I am grateful to find others in communities such as this who are tuned in to nature. 🌱
Well said, I feel like there are too many generalizations in regards to what’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for pollinators. There are so many different species that act as pollinators, each with unique habitat and food needs. And studies show that many are more adaptable than we give them credit for. The best thing that we can do is provide year-round diversity and practice thoughtful maintenance. As I recently read somewhere, ‘rewilding is a spectrum’.
I really enjoyed the BBC article, taking away for thought everything that was said in context. I understood the article’s broad introduction of the subject to consumers which suggested they not be assumers that the pretty plant they purchase is as pleasing to pollinators. I understood the points made, one of which is important (in discussing all topics re ecological interrelationships) - that all lifeforms take a certain period of time to adapt to one another (and the environment). I support the concept of sustaining the continued presence of plants which purportedly are native to a particular area; however, I also recognize that I want to appreciate plants which appeal to my human senses as well. Think it is important to be mindful (as much as we can) of all of our coexisting companions on this planet. Most (all of…actually) of us are incredibly ignorant of the natural world in which we live - on the timelines of their lifetimes, even the experts will always be students. [Also - Thank You for creating this place for people to share their passion for plants!]