Beyond the Mantra: Why Urban Gardeners Need Nuance, Not Dogma, in the Native Plant Conversation.
Over the past decade, Doug Tallamy’s work has held enormous influence over the home-gardening world. His books and outreach helped many people appreciate the ecological connections between native plants, insects, and birds. For that contribution, he deserves acknowledgement. But as with many popular ideas translated into social-media slogans, Tallamy’s message—originally grounded in a single regional study—has been distilled into a kind of moral imperative: “Plant natives to avoid food-web collapse,” or more bluntly, “Use native plants or you are harming wildlife.”
For those of us working as Master Gardeners, especially in a large, highly urbanized region like Toronto, this narrative has become both limiting and discouraging. A growing number of online voices—what I aptly call “Tallamistas”—have taken the science far beyond what the evidence supports. The result is a rigid, sometimes judgmental native-only ideology that risks alienating the very people we most want to encourage: new and emerging gardeners, many of whom began gardening in all sorts of spaces during the pandemic and are still developing skills, confidence, and ecological literacy.
The core problem is not with native plants—many of us grow them, and I advocate for their inclusion. The problem is with absolutism. City gardening is complex. Inner-city soils are compacted, disturbed, contaminated, or heavily modified. Sun exposure is unpredictable. Root competition is intense. Microclimates vary block to block. Under these conditions, many native species simply struggle. Experienced gardeners may accept this and persist; beginners often interpret failure as proof that gardening is “too hard” for them. A native-only philosophy, when applied without context, can discourage exactly the people we want to empower.
And importantly, the scientific evidence does not support the strongest claims made in Tallamy-inspired social media circles. The famous “70/30” guideline emerged from a single chickadee study in suburban Washington, D.C.—not from long-term regional population data, not from replicated studies across cities, and not from surveys showing declines caused by urban landscaping. The study itself never documented population collapse; it identified relative differences in reproductive success in yards containing varying proportions of native woody biomass. Valuable? Yes. A universal ecological threshold? Certainly not.
Moreover, other peer-reviewed studies complicate the story. Research in the UK shows that many non-native garden plants provide excellent nectar and pollen resources. Studies of urban bees and wasps show that habitat structure and nesting opportunities often matter more than strict nativeness. Global urban-ecology reviews emphasize that plant performance—cooling, drought tolerance, soil improvement, stormwater control—is not reliably predicted by nativeness alone. And critically, there is no evidence that chickadee populations have declined because homeowners planted the “wrong” shrubs.
Despite this nuanced reality, social-media algorithms reward certainty and moral framing. New gardeners, already anxious about doing something “wrong,” are now told that failure to plant exclusively natives is an ethical lapse. That is not education; it is gatekeeping. For urban Master Gardeners, our mission is not to police people’s plant choices but to help them succeed, learn, and grow into confident, lifelong gardeners.
A healthier, more inclusive message would keep the ecological benefits of native plants while removing the rigid ideology. Shrink the lawn? Absolutely—Toronto does not need more turfgrass. Increase plant diversity? Essential. Promote native woody plants that support caterpillars and birds? Yes, especially oaks, willows, cherries, birches, serviceberries, and dogwoods—plants with proven ecological function. But this does not require excluding non-native, non-invasive ornamentals that thrive in difficult urban conditions, offer extended bloom seasons, create beauty, and help keep new gardeners engaged.
After all, engagement is the gateway to ecological improvement. People who fall in love with gardening—because their gardens succeed—become more open to learning about soil, mulch, urban biodiversity, decomposers, canopy structure, and pollinator support. A gardener discouraged by rigid rules will simply do less with their outdoor space, which serves no ecological purpose at all.
As Master Gardeners, our responsibility is to teach, not preach. We can honour the value of native plants without overstating scientific claims. We can welcome novice gardeners while gently guiding them toward more ecologically supportive practices. And most importantly, we can maintain a broader vision: thriving gardens, more gardeners, more beauty, more habitat diversity, and a greener, more resilient city.
A rigid native-only doctrine doesn’t build this future. A nuanced, evidence-based, gardener-friendly approach does.
Recent Comments