|
|
|
|
|
by cmrdporcupine
655 days ago
|
|
I mean, see my point above about rate of change following the end of the ice ages. The part of North America I'm in, it's actually really young in evolutionary terms. And was really in constant intense flux even prior to European settlement. And the locals here (Anishinaabe and Iriquois) also intervened heavily with fire and planting for thousands of years, too. More broadly we're committing ecocide in much more terrible ways. All that said, I tend to plant natives because they're usually (but not always) better adapted. Apples, I had to spray the crap out of and cut all of mine down. Pawpaws? Took care of themselves. Inter-specific "hybrid" grapes (with North American vitis ancestry) require almost no spraying, while v. vinifera is weak and requires constant intervention (I also do my own grape breeding). I had dwarf sour cherries bred in western Canada, and they can't handle the heat and humidity here. Native black cherry grows fantastic (I've thought about trying to breed with it). 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? I'm not the first to point this out. |
|
Based on your comment, I think you're in my region (Ozarks). Hi!
My best choice was some fig trees. No pressure except from raccoons. No tending, watering, etc required.