SHIFTING THE LOCAL LANDSCAPE

SHIFTING THE LOCAL LANDSCAPE:
A GUIDE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RHODY NATIVE PLANT
PROMOTION PROGRAM
By
VANESSA VENTURINI
A MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND
MANAGEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
APRIL 29, 2O11
MAJOR PAPER ADVISOR: Dr. Art Gold
MESM TRACK: Wetland, Watershed and Ecosystem Science
Introduction
Interest in locally-sourced native plant material is growing as part of a paradigm shift
towards low-maintenance, ecologically sound landscape management and habitat restoration. Native
plants are adapted to the local climate and soils, reducing the need for inputs that might threaten
water resources. They inherently increase the biodiversity of a parcel of land and can restore
ecological function when established as part of a plant community. Natives also represent an
alternative to those exotic horticultural species that are invasive or potentially invasive. While native
plants represent an opportunity to lessen the impacts of ecological degradation, they also pose a
formidable challenge to the landscape industry, developers, consumers and educators to change the
status quo of land stewardship. As consumers become more ecologically minded, the New England
landscape architect must forgo the alluring crimson hues of Burning bush (Euonymus alatus) -an
invasive species- and consider alternatives such as Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), a
native that provides nourishment for wildlife and people, and also turns a fiery red in autumn.
But what is the most effective strategy for shifting both consumer perspective and industry
practices in an economically viable manner? Are there any case studies of successful programs
geared toward increasing the supply and demand of native plants? How far away should native
plants be sourced from their intended location?
Shifting the ornamental horticulture industry from traditional practices to native plant
landscaping is a lofty undertaking fraught with complexity. Like any attempt to alter perceptions
and industry practices, the road is paved with differing opinions and gaps in the scientific literature.
The Rhode Island Natural History Survey (RINHS) and the University of Rhode Island Cooperative
Extension are assuming this challenge through the Rhody Native program, an initiative with the
twofold goal of increasing the supply of locally-adapted native plants and developing the demand for
them from habitat restoration practitioners, homeowners, developers and the horticulture
community in Rhode Island. Through contracts with local nurseries, program coordinators are
creating an ecologically marketed line of Rhody Native branded plants, effectively diversifying local
businesses in the process.
In this major paper I report on a suite of activities directed towards informing and advancing
the Rhody Native program. I developed background materials to support the Rhody Native
program to promote the acceptance and use of native species as landscape plantings for residential
and commercial applications. I conducted a review of the scientific literature to provide justification
for the use of native plants in habitat restoration projects and residential landscapes. I interviewed
program coordinators nationwide and profiled model native plant programs from both the public
and private sectors. The programs range from native plant branding campaigns run by state
government, to large-scale federal reforestation programs, to landscape designers that incorporate
natives, to native plant nurseries. I attempted to gauge industry opinion regarding specific
challenges that have arisen in the development of the Rhody Native program, from questions of
genetics to source location. Finally, I also designed a training program, in cooperation with the
RINHS Rhody Native program coordinator, to equip Rhode Island nursery professionals with the
knowledge and methods to produce locally-sourced native plants appropriate for ecological
restoration and landscape plantings.
The outputs from this document will help shape future training courses for the horticulture
industry and their consumers. While the immediate audience of this paper includes the Rhode
Island Natural History Survey, URI Cooperative Extension and their partners involved with the
Rhody Native program, it is intended to provide a resource for all professionals in the native plant
horticulture and restoration fields. Ultimately, this paper is intended to encourage the widespread
use of genetically appropriate native species as landscape and restoration plantings across Rhode
Island and the United States.
Table of Contents
I.
The Value of Native Plants in the Landscape
II.
Improving Biodiversity………………………………………………………..……….7
Water Quality and Climate Change…………………………………….………………9
Natives as Alternatives to Invasive Species……………………………....………………11
Social Factors……………………………………………………….………………13
III.
Native Plant Consumer Trends………………………………….……………….13
Residential Landscapes……………………………….………………………………13
Ecological Restoration………………………………………………………………..16
IV.
Model Programs Nationwide
Public Sector Programs……………………………………………………………….17
Private Sector Programs………………………………………………………………25
Lessons from Other Programs focused on Rhode Island Agricultural Products………………30
V.
Identifying Specific Challenges
Plant Selection………………………………………………………...…….……… 33
How important are local genetics?………………………………………..…..…………34
VI.
The Rhody Native Training Program
Implementing the Rhody Native Training Program ……………………...……………….39
Program Elements………………………………………………………………...…43
The Future of Rhody Native…………………………………………….…………….50
VI.
Appendices………………………………………………………………………..52
Rhody Native: Wild Plant Propagation for Sustainable Conservation
The Rhody Native initiative was born out of a larger project focused on forest health through invasive
species management known as the Forest Health Works Project (FHWP). The FHWP is a partnership
between the Rhode Island Natural History Survey and the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. FHWP funding is administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, and funded through the American Recovery and Re-investment Act.
The focus of Rhody Native is to provide organizations involved in habitat restoration with a
genetically diverse source of native plant material that is indigenous to Rhode Island, and to encourage
retail consumers to create sustainable landscapes that reflect local floristic groupings. The outcome of
the program will provide land managers and landscapers with a diverse array of native plant species
whose phenology matches those of the surrounding natural community. Rhody Native will increase
the number of native species available for habitat restoration and landscaping applications. Species will
be selected based on overlapping conservation and aesthetic values. Rare species will not be collected.
The focus of Rhody Native is to provide species that are often overlooked in Rhode Island’s varied
natural communities, but which exist throughout the state.
Volunteers, trained through the collaborative effort of the New England Wildflower Society and the
Rhode Island Wild Plant Society, will be collecting and processing seed and cut stem material. Plants
will not be dug from the wild. Nurseries will be contracted to propagate plant material for use in
habitat restoration in 2011 and 2012. Habitat restoration projects have been identified on a
combination of state and private lands. Selected forest habitat that is currently being managed for
invasive species under the Forest Health Works Project will be re-vegetated with Rhody Native plant
material. Habitat was selected on the basis of the need to protect a native plant resource or restore
wildlife habitat lost as a result of invasive species. Seed material will be sourced either at the
restoration site or from within the same eco-region (Level III and IV Ecoregions of New England
2009) to ensure that genotypes reflect local phenology. By providing land managers with locally
sourced native plant material for habitat restoration, Rhody Native will also reduce the potential for
introduction of invasive species and pathogens from other parts of the country.
Source: Hope Leeson, Rhody Native Program Coordinator, RI Natural History Survey 2010
I. The Value of Native Plants in the Landscape
There are a number of factors that make a convincing argument for integrating native plants
into the landscape. Native plantings are incorporated into ecological restoration projects as a
means of speeding the process of recreating lost ecological structure and function. They can also
provide ecological, historical and cultural value when incorporated into residential landscapes, a fact
that has led to the emerging field of ecological landscaping. While it is important to increase
awareness of the benefits of native plants among members of the horticulture industry, home
gardeners, garden writers, lawmakers and developers; the educational efforts should extend to all
members of the general public to create a favorable public perception and thus increase the overall
demand for native plants.
Improving Biodiversity
Native plants are the foundation for the local ecosystem, providing habitat and food for
wildlife in a fragmented landscape (Tallamy 2007). Most remaining native plant communities in
suburban and rural areas are highly fragmented, causing a loss of ecological function (Pickett et al
2008). In general, as one travels from rural to urban areas, there is a decrease in diversity and
abundance of native species and an increase in the abundance of invasive species (Tallamy 2007,
Pickett et al 2008). Most developed landscapes consist of a highly simplified community of a few
species of exotic ornamental plants that provide little to no benefit for animals (Tallamy 2007).
Habitat fragmentation is a significant problem in Rhode Island, which is the second most developed
state in the United States. Overall, 30% of the land in RI has been developed and 20% of
developed land is residential (RI Dept. of Administration 2006).
Native plantings in suburban and rural areas can serve as habitat corridors or habitat islands,
increasing the structural and species diversity of human-dominated landscapes. When planted in the
context of a natural plant community, native plants can mimic the structure and function of the local
ecosystem, accomplishing both large scale restoration and the creation of backyard habitat pockets.
They provide cover from predators and inclement weather, nesting sites and places for organisms to
raise their young. Insects often overwinter in the leaf litter left behind by deciduous shrubs and
trees (Tallamy 2007).
Native plants supply the food, habitat and
reproductive sites necessary for the invertebrates that
provide the basis of the food web. A balanced ecosystem
will provide the plant species required for the survival of
Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), bees and other
pollinators. Native butterflies rely on native plants as host
plants (Daniels et al 2008; Collinge et al 2003). Many of
these essential arthropods have co-evolved with native
Figure 1. A Monarch Butterfly (Danaus
plexippus) drinking Nectar from a native
goldenrod (Solidago spp.) to fuel its fall
migration through Trustom Pond National
Wildlife Refuge, RI. Many butterfly larvae,
such as the monarch, are host specific.
Photo: Vanessa Venturini.
plants and are host specific at certain stages of their life cycles, relying on specific plant species as
their sole source of palatable food. In turn, birds and other organisms provide caterpillars as the
major source of food for their young, a function that is lost when exotic species dominate the
landscape. More than 96% of baby birds require insect larvae as food, while 90% of those insects
require indigenous plants as food (Tallamy 2007). Native vegetation increases urban bird diversity
(Mills et al. 1989; MacGregor-Fors 2008) and bee diversity (McIntyre & Hostetler 2001), thus,
birdwatchers and gardeners who plant natives in their yards are helping to perpetuate the next
generation of birds and pollinators.
Plants such as Arrowood vibrunum (Viburnum dentatum) and Pokeweed (Phytolacca Americana)
serve as critical sources of energy for migratory songbirds, particularly along the east coast of the
United States, a major migratory corridor. Many bird species will supplement their insectivorous
diet with fruit during the autumn migration. As the fruits of different species provide different
nutrients, Neotropical migrants benefit from a diverse array of fruiting species to satisfy all of their
energy and dietary protein needs. Furthermore, the fruit that persists on native plants past the
growing season is an important source of food for overwintering birds (Smith et al. 2007).
In addition to insects and birds, native plants have co-evolved with other indigenous life
forms including mammals, soil microorganisms, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and fungi as the
first trophic level of the food web. They provide nectar, pollen, foliage, seeds, fruits, nuts and
berries, capturing the sun’s energy and converting it to a source of food that is inherent to the
survival of these various species. One specific example can be found in the symbiotic relationship
between native plants and the microbes, or mycorrhizal fungi, found in their roots. Evolving with
the plants, these microbes can increase many plant species’ ability to uptake nutrients, can influence
plant community establishment and can protect against plant pathogens and toxic stresses (Jeffries et
al. 2003). Native plants provide specific ecological functions and are kept in check by the
herbivores, diseases and pests that rely on them for their own survival. In another example of
interdependency, trout in the Appalachian feed solely on the terrestrial insects that are dependent on
native riparian vegetation throughout the spring, summer and fall, a fact important to aquatic food
webs and fisherman alike (Utz 2005).
Water Quality and Climate Change
Native plants represent a control to the degradation of water and soil resources resulting
from contemporary landscaping practices. In the United States, over 25 million acres, the size of the
state of Pennsylvania, are devoted to turf grass or lawn. On average, homeowners apply ten times
more chemical pesticides to their lawns per acre than farmers. There are actually more synthetic
fertilizers applied to American lawns than all of the pesticides sprayed in crop production in India
(Uhl 2008). These pesticides have deleterious effects on human health and the health of organisms
in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, reducing biodiversity and harming beneficial insects like
pollinators in particular. Alternatively, native plants are adapted to the local soils, soil
microorganisms and climate of an area, and thus require less resource inputs once they are
established. This conserves water resources and results in fewer fertilizers and pesticides added to
the local watershed.
Figure 2. The root structures of native prairie plants compared to Kentucky Blue Grass, a common turf grass
species (far left). Extensive root systems reduce erosion and improve the soil’s ability to withstand wet and
erosive conditions. Source: Illinois Native Plant Guide, NRCS (2008).
http://www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/plants/npg/NPG-rootsystems.html
Stormwater runoff is a major source of water quality degradation across the country, and is a
leading cause of impairment of Rhode Island’s water bodies (DEM 2005). When planted in coastal
or riparian buffers, native plants can absorb nutrients and slow stormwater runoff before it reaches
the water’s edge. Other forms of low impact development such as rain gardens and constructed
wetlands encourage stormwater infiltration and replenish groundwater resources, effectively
restoring natural hydrologic function to developed ecosystems. The extensive root systems of native
plants (see figure 2) also provide erosion control, stabilize shorelines, and improve the soil’s ability
to withstand wet conditions (NRCS 2008).
In comparison to lawns, native plant landscapes reduce the air pollution and fossil fuel
consumption associated with lawn equipment and fertilizer use. Americans use 800 million gallons
of gasoline annually in their lawn mowers. The use of outdoor power equipment contributes to
global climate change by emitting greenhouse gases including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and
carbon dioxide. Each year, 17 million gallons of fuel is spilled when refueling lawn equipment, more
than the Exxon Valdeez oil spill. Before 1997 lawn and garden equipment accounted for up to 5%
of the man-made hydrocarbons emitted that contribute to the formation of ozone. Ozone at
ground level is harmful to people, impairing lung function and inhibiting plant growth. If just 1,000
gasoline-powered lawn mowers were traded in for electric mowers, volatile organic compound
emissions would be reduced by 9.8 tons per year, the equivalent of removing 230 cars from the road
(EPA 2009). By eliminating lawn acreage in favor of gardens planted with native species, the
contribution of yard maintenance to global climate change would be greatly reduced.
Natives as Alternatives to Invasive Species
Native plants provide an alternative to the exotic species commonly found in the ornamental
horticulture trade. These exotic plants provide few benefits to wildlife and pose the risk of
introducing invasive plant and pest species into the ecosystem. Most species of native insects (the
foundation of the local food web) are unable to use exotic species for growth and reproduction, as
they did not evolve in concert with these species and have typically not adapted to ingest their
specific chemical makeup (Tallamy 2007).
The legal definition of an invasive species in the U.S. is an “alien (non-native) species whose
introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm.” (Executive Order 13112).
To date, over 5000 species of non-native plants have become invasive. One study found that 82%
of 235 woody plant species now found colonizing natural areas outside of cultivation had
intentionally been introduced as landscape plantings (Reichard 1997). These species typically have
escaped the pest and pathogen species that keep them in check in their home ecosystem, they do not
become functioning members of the ecosystem they are introduced, and may have a number of
other deleterious effects on an ecosystem. As Rhode Island remains one of only four states in the
United States lacking invasive species regulation, it is critical to provide non-invasive alternatives to
prevent introductions and reintroductions of invasive plants through the ornamental horticulture
vector.
Exotic species used in ornamental horticulture may also transport harmful insect or disease
species. One stark example of an unintentional introduction is chestnut blight (Cryphonectria
parasitica). Chestnut blight is a fungus that was introduced to the U.S. in 1876 on an Asian species of
Chestnut tree imported in the ornamental trade. Within forty years of the introduction of the blight,
the American chestnut (Castanea dentata), was virtually removed from its role as a dominant tree in
forested ecosystems. The tree had long served as the primary nut producer in eastern forests,
providing forage for bird and mammals and supporting hundreds of species of caterpillars and other
insects that are eaten by birds. Today, American chestnuts exists only as small shoots before they
are killed by the blight, potentially preserving the genetic material necessary for efforts to breed
blight-resistant trees. By incorporating natives, and locally sourced natives in particular, into the
landscape the odds that a new invasive species, pest or pathogen will be introduced are vastly
reduced (Tallamy 2007). See Appendix III for the findings from a conference held to reduce the
spread of invasives through the horticulture industry, including a voluntary code of conduct for
nursery professionals.
Social Factors
In addition to the environmental benefits of native plants, a host of societal benefits can be
described. Native plants contribute to an area’s sense of place. When indigenous flora is used in
residential landscaping (as opposed to the same few exotic species repeated in traditional landscapes
across the United States) one can distinguish the geographic and historical context of their location.
Native plants allow a region to retain its historic floristic groupings and associated culture.
Many indigenous cultures incorporate native plants into their daily lives. The Raramuri, an
indigenous culture from the biologically diverse region of the eastern Sierra Madres in Chihuahua
Mexico, utilize over 350 native plant species for the food, medicine, basket weaving and ceremonies
essential to their cultural identity (Salmon 2000). Native plants are an important component of
medicinal and herbal remedies. There are over 119 plant-derived substances used globally as drugs,
with over 25% of the drugs issued in Canada and the United States derived from naturally occurring
molecules in plants (Farnsworth 1994). In addition, they alleviate health concerns for people and
pets using the backyard that may otherwise be exposed to the pesticides and herbicides associated
with lawn care.
II. Native Plant Consumer Trends
Residential Landscapes
Consumer demand for native plants is increasing. Native plant gardening has become
increasingly popular as more land is converted to managed landscapes throughout the United States,
Canada, Europe and Australia. It is perceived as a growing market for the horticulture industry in
the United States (Hamill 2005). This is evidenced in the proliferation of native plant websites,
nurseries, societies, publications and demonstration gardens (McMahan 2006). This trend can partly
be attributed to the growing number of government regulations encouraging the use of native
plants, including state and community native plant ordinances and municipalities with water
restrictions for landscape use.
Other sources of demand are generated by native plant marketing efforts, greater public
awareness and the expanded use of native species by landscape architects and contractors (Brzuszek
et al. 2007). A recent report indicates that native plants rank second in interest in a list of topics to
home gardeners (Garden Writers Association 2009). In 2009, 61% of Master Gardener training
programs included a native plant component in their curriculum (Extension 2009), while Colorado
State University Extension has established the “Native Plant Master” course modeled after the
Master Gardener program to establish a cadre of volunteers trained in native plant identification and
landscaping (Colorado State Cooperative Extension 2010).
Evidence suggests that once consumers are informed of the benefits of native plants, they
would consider the nativity of a species in their plant selection. A recent informal survey of the
2010 URI Master Gardener class demonstrated a 15% increase in the number of respondents who
would consider the native vs. introduced status of a plant after attending a class on the subject. The
URI Outreach Center has provided outreach and education to a wide range of horticultural interests
in Rhode Island since 2009, including URI Master Gardeners, RI green industry professionals and
the general public. High attendance at ecological landscaping workshops and subsequent evaluative
feedback has demonstrated a demand for native plant resources that are currently in short supply
(Venturini 2010).
While the demand for native
plants is increasing, they remain relatively
difficult to obtain in the nursery trade in
Rhode Island and many other parts of the
country. Many ecologically important and
aesthetically pleasing species indigenous
to the United States are underrepresented
in garden centers and wholesale nurseries,
making it problematic for landscape
architects to specify them in their designs.
A survey of Landscape Architects in the
Southeast U.S. (see figure ***) found that
the top two reasons why they do not use
Figure 3. Results from 2007 survey of landscape
architects regarding native plants. (Source: Brzuszek et al.
2007).
more native plants is because there are
too few sources and there are insufficient
quantities available (Brzuszek et al. 2007).
The natives that are available for purchase represent a few common species that are typically
sourced from ecoregions vastly different from the ecoregions of their destination. In Rhode Island,
it is typical for a nursery to purchase “plugs” or “liner stock” from a nursery in the Southeast or
Western United States and then grow them out for wholesale or container plants to be sold in
garden centers (Personal Communication with Various Growers 2011). This same survey (Figure 3)
revealed that landscape architects obtain their native plant information most frequently from plant
catalogues, then websites, magazines, other landscape architects, and finally from conferences and
seminars (Brzuszek et al. 2007). Rhody Native program coordinators should thus invest a significant
amount of time in developing and promoting the print and online catalogues for the Rhody Native
plant line in an effort to capture the landscape designer demographic.
Buying locally produced products, such as native plants from local growers, has gained
popularity in Rhode Island and across the United States. Since 2005, the number of farmers markets
in Rhode Island has doubled, indicating a rising consumer trend toward local products (Farm Fresh
RI 2010). The Rhody Native program will draw upon the success of “Rhody Fresh” milk brand, a
product produced and marketed by the RI Dairy Farms Cooperative, which met its three-year goal
within the first six months of production (Hines 2010). The “Rhody Warm” program from the RI
Sheep Collaborative has also found a willing consumer base in Rhode Island for local agricultural
products. The demand for native plants will be further stimulated in the future as programs such as
the Sustainable Sites Initiative are adopted. This program from the American Society of Landscape
Architects and other groups is similar to LEED certification in that it involves voluntary national
guidelines for sustainable land design and maintenance (sustainablesites.org 2010).
Ecological Restoration
As a result of combined efforts to improve water quality and manage invasive species, there
are significant habitat restoration programs in Rhode Island with a sizable group of practitioners
who seek native plant material adapted to the local climate. Habitat restoration projects represent a
substantial portion of the demand for ecologically adapted plants. A survey of the Colorado
horticulture industry showed that landscape restoration made up the largest market for native plants,
with wholesale ornamental plant outlets ranking second (Potts et al. 2002). Restoration projects
requiring native plants range from wetland and upland restoration projects, bioswales, stormwater
management, bioinfiltration and alternative treatments for sewage treatment (McMahan 2006).
Since 2007, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) has
contributed to the increasing demand for natives, locally, through their coastal buffer zone
replanting guidelines and permits to restore native vegetation to coastal buffer habitat. CRMC plans
to include Rhody Native plants in their future regulations. For example, they may ask applicants to
the Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration Trust Fund to include locally-sourced plants in their
project designs (Chaffee 2010). Through 2009, 48 projects associated with this trust fund received
over $13 million in funding for habitat restoration, with most project managers obtaining plants
from large out-of-state nurseries (CRMC statististics 2009). Many of these projects required native
plants for wetlands, coastal buffers and revegetation of riparian areas -- representing business that
was mainly funneled out of Rhode Island.
Model Programs Nationwide
Public Sector Programs
Public sector native plant programs typically fall into one of two categories: those with the
goal of providing genetically-appropriate plant material for restoration projects, and those programs
designed to market native plants to the general public. The Rhody Native program seeks to produce
a line of plants that will be both genetically similar to the ecotypes found in Rhode Island for use in
restoration projects, and aesthetically pleasing enough to appeal to the home gardener and landscape
designer. This will be attempted through grower training and careful selection of plant species. The
following programs provide valuable guidance for the development of a native plant production and
promotion initiative.
Grow Native!, Missouri
The “Grow Native!” program from the Missouri Departments of Conservation and
Agriculture provides a connection between native plant nurseries, garden centers, landscape
designers and consumers through a consumer marketing program. The Missouri Department of
Conservation funds Grow Native marketing and advertising as well as two program staff salaries.
Tasks are divided between the coordinator from the Department of Conservation who focuses on
outreach and education and the coordinator from the Department of Agriculture who takes a
business development approach. The program relies on a member organization, the Missouri
Wildflower Nursery, for information on seed collection techniques and to maintain a seed bank of
Missouri-originated propagules. In an effort to ensure local plant/pollinator relationships are
preserved and to maintain a locally produced product, only plants grown in Missouri can displayed
the Grow Native logo plant tag, although it has been difficult to monitor this particular aspect.
Barbara Fairchild, the Dept. of Conservation-based Coordinator emphasized the importance
of building the supply of Grow Native plants before the campaign was launched. Grow Native
partnered with local nonprofits such as the Saint Louis Wild Ones Chapter and the Missouri
Botanical Garden who assist with installing demonstration gardens along with other outreach and
education to the general public as a means of increasing demand. Grow Native brochures are
distributed at garden centers as well as nature centers and other public locations across the state.
Other sources of demand have arisen as local communities and sewer departments have mandated
the use of native plants in bioretention practices such as bioswales, and developers strive to achieve
platinum LEED status for the use of water efficient landscaping (Fairchild 2011).
Grow Native member professionals are given access to the Grow Native logo, plant tags,
promotional displays, powerpoint presentations, membership signs, publications and other
marketing tools. Educational programs focused on landscape design with native plants are held
around the state, with one program geared toward landscapers and parks and recreation employees
and the other with a homeowner focus. Growers have the opportunity to network with industry
professionals and attend educational seminars taught by biologists, landscape designers, fellow
growers and professors at annual membership meetings (Fairchild 2011).
Figure 4. (Clockwise from top) Grow Native plant tags, logo, consumer education brochure &
garden center display. Source: www.grownative.org.
An industry survey performed by the Grow Native program coordinators demonstrates the
power of educational and marketing campaigns to increase farm income. The survey indicates that
combination wholesale and retail growers of native plants experienced a gross increase in sales of
$69,000,000 from 2003 to 2008. Growers who were wholesale only saw a gross increase of about
$700,000 over the same time period. Collaboration between nursery industry professionals within
Missouri was strengthened by the program, with gross receipts from plant material purchase
unfinished from another Missouri producer increasing by almost $1,000,000 while income from
plants purchased finished from other states decreasing by about $200,000. Gross part-time
employee wages at wholesale/retail growers increased by $850,000 with retail centers experiencing
an increase of over $1,500,000 gross (Missouri Depts. of Conservation and Agriculture 2008).
Lessons for Rhody Native: The Rhody Native program will replicate Grow Native’s
combination of industry education, consumer outreach and marketing. Through in-store consumer
education and branding techniques, nursery professionals are able to market their product directly to
the consumer. Rhody Native coordinators may use the Grow Native model in developing
marketing techniques such as a website, brochures and plant tags. Grow Native also models a
number of areas for continued growth with the program in subsequent years including the use of
educational workshops that target all aspects of the horticulture industry as well as separate
programs for the general public. See Appendix VI for an example of a Grow Native educational
program for consumers. While Rhody Native currently resembles Grow Native’s top down
approach with one agency leading the effort in collaboration with growers, the program coordinator
plans to incorporate a grower-owned collective approach in partnership with the Rhode Island
Nursery and Landscape Association in the future.
Region 6 US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
The Rhody Native training program will draw
upon many of the approaches of Region 6 USDA Forest
Service (USFS) program in the Pacific Northwest which
began a large scale program to produce ecologically
adapted native plants for the restoration of national forest
lands. The program is in its early stages of developing
infrastructure, plant material programs and research. This
program is based on a national USFS policy from 2008
that states that all national forests should be reforested
with genetically appropriate, native plant material when
possible
(http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/nativeplantmaterials/
policy.shtml). The policy also states that a reliable source
of seed and vegetative propagules is necessary for
revegetation projects (Erickson 2008). Native plants are
used in revegetation after natural disasters such as
wildfires, habitat restoration projects, to restore sites post
invasive species removal and for roadside revegetation
(Erickson 2011).
Figure 5. Various stages of plant production
associated with USFS Region 6 program. (From
top) Seed increase plot of Corvallis NRCS
Native Plant Materials Program. Seed
production field established by private grower
(center). Common garden study of Elymus
glaucus populations from northeastern
Oregon and Washington (Source: Erickson
2008).
One of the first steps of the program was to determine the target species and the types and
amounts of plant material that will be necessary for revegetation projects during a 5-10 year period.
This is similar to projections performed by the RI Natural History Survey in determining habitat
restoration needs in the near future as a guide for local nurseries. Some factors that influence the
selection of target species are the ease and cost of propagule collection and the performance of the
plant in terms of seed production capabilities in nursery environments (Erickson 2008).
The USFS grows its own stock in federal nurseries and also provides locally collected seed to
nurseries as a measure of quality control, in order for the nurseries to produce plants on a contract
basis. Contracts are sent out on a 5 year basis to prequalified growers. This is similar to the
procedures used by the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Washington as well as the
California Forest Service (Erickson 2011). The USFS nurseries are able to develop propagation
techniques for species whose propagation methodologies are complex or unknown. The USFS
maintains a supply of seeds to grow at a later date by establishing seed increasing fields (or fields
where plants are established to generate a larger volume of seed for production), cutting orchards
and cloning banks in nurseries or agronomic environments. They use bareroot and container
seedlings as well as container transplants to revegetate harsh or disturbed sites, or sites with heavy
browse pressure (also a concern for Rhode Island gardeners with local deer populations). The Forest
Service is also involved in research and development to determine seed transfer zones for particular
species (Erickson 2008).
Lessons for Rhody Native: Rhody Native project coordinators will utilize the same
method of providing nurseries with seeds and liner stock grown at East Farm as a means of ensuring
that the Rhody Native product is sourced from genetically diverse plant material and to assist in
providing nurseries with plant material that may be difficult to propagate. The East Farm native
seed beds are also intended as research plots for future projects involving URI faculty and students
at East Farm, contributing to the development of propagation protocols for Rhode Island natives.
The Rhody Native coordinators will employ many of the scientific protocols, methods and
educational materials developed by USFS when compiling training materials for the program.
Long Island Native Grass Initiative, New York
The Long Island Native Grass Initiative (LINGI) represents an example of a genotypeconscious native plant production program in the Northeast. The initiative focuses on the Long
Island ecoregion, with goals to ensure commercial availability of source-identified seed for
herbaceous plant material and starter plants for woody species. Also, they have established a seed
bank to store propagules on an annual base to protect genetic resources against such threats as
climate change, invasive species, development and other threats to biodiversity. In addition, they
work to foster public demand for native plants through educational events, symposia, a website and
interaction with the nursery industry.
The program is completely volunteer-led, with the program coordinator funded 30% percent
of the time by Suffolk County Soil and Water District and a long list of governmental and nonprofit
partner organizations that donate staff time. A small initial grant enabled them to purchase
equipment and materials. The LINGI follows the production of plant material from the collection
phase, to seed processing, to propagation in a greenhouse, to planting in founder plots and then off
to Ernst Seeds where they are added to commercial seed increase to produce hundreds of pounds of
seed for commercial sale. In total, the process takes about 6 years. Volunteers follow careful
guidelines in the collection and processing of seeds, which will be described in the “How do you
build the initial supply” section of this paper. The program coordinator cited the USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service’s Plant Materials Centers as sources of species-specific propagation
and cultivation information and pointed to the Iowa Ecotype Project as its program model
(Weigand 2011).
Lessons for Rhode Native: While many growers are interested in contract growing Rhody
Native plants, the program has been limited by its supply of locally-collected seed. To solve this, a
number of URI Master Gardeners, RI Wild Plant Society members and URI students will be trained
to assist in seed collection, processing and collection. Horticulturalists may employ a number of
methods such as founder plots, seed increase plots and seed beds to establish a source population
from wild collected propagules for propagation in subsequent years. The Rhody Native program is
establishing volunteer-run seed beds at URI’s East Farm and is pursuing the idea of developing
larger founder plots in partnership with the URI Plant Sciences Department.
The Long Island Native Grass Initiative provides an example of a successful collection
process and founder plot operation that incorporates genetic considerations and the specific
growing conditions of native plants. They have taken care to get their seed certified as sourceidentified seed through an official seed certifying agency, a process that improves the value of the
seed and ensures that it is true to species, true to source location and not contaminated by weeds.
The LINGI coordinator scouts for wild populations that are ready to be collected, and
works with trained volunteers to gather seed in late summer and fall. Volunteers utilize protocol
developed by experts from the Greenbelt Native Plant Center
(http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_divisions/gnpc/index.html) and the Eastern
Native Grass Symposium (Center for Native Grassland Management), which allowed them to gain
permission to collect on public and private land. The coordinator created a resource inventory map,
ensuring that collection areas had not been planted with cultivars and the community is truly
genetically native. Volunteers begin sampling after 9 a.m. to ensure seeds are dry, sample from a
maximum of 20-30% of seed in the population, and take care to avoid selecting for certain traits by
attempting to collect seed from all phenotypes present. They take an herbarium sample from each
collection and a take photos of the seed, plants and the landscape. Once collection is completed, the
seeds are dried in paper bags in the greenhouse and stored for planting the next year.
The LINGI established seed increase plots on agricultural land ½ mile from any
populations of the same species to isolate them from potential hybridization. To process the seed,
they scarify some species and place other species in moist sterile potting soil in the refrigerator to
stratify them starting in January. They then propagate species over the course of about two weeks in
a propagation house with heated benches and mist irrigation, taking care not to leave the plants so
long that they dampen off, or rot at the base. Once plants have their first true leaves they are
transplanted into 36 cell trays and grown out in the greenhouse. Once they are well rooted the
plants are moved to 1000 square foot founder plots, with 500 plants per species found in each plot.
Founder plots will be reestablished every 8 years, per the suggestion of NRCS Plant Materials
Centers(http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/) to avoid having individual plants become adapted to
the conditions in the founder plot. Finally, seeds from the founder plot are sent to Ernst
Conservation Seeds(Meadville, PA) to be amplified for commercial sale in increase plots.
Additionally, the Long Island Native Grass Initiative coordinator mentioned the importance
of formulating a business plan and establishing a steering committee, and mentioned that she often
incorporates her most engaged volunteers onto this committee. Other coordinators cited the
importance of partner organizations and the invaluable resource to be found in volunteers. As with
any undertaking, the success of an initiative depends on the energy of staff members and volunteers
and the ability to sustain funding in the current economic climate.
Private Sector Programs
Native plant nurseries and design firms can provide business models and lessons learned for
Rhode Island businesses seeking to expand their offerings to include native plants.
Project Native, Massachusetts
Project Native is a flourishing native plant nursery in Housatonic Massachusetts with a
mission to inspire the stewardship of natural resources by cultivating native plants and restoring the
local landscape. They function as a 501 c3 nonprofit with a board of directors, a core staff of six
including the executive director, operations director, greenhouse manager, outreach and marketing
coordinator and landscaping and restoration coordinator. There are 6 other seasonal staff and a crew
of interns and volunteers. Funding is obtained through plant sales, contributions from the board and
community members and grant funding for specific projects.
For Project Native, the definition of native is based on Pamela Wetherbee’s Flora of
Berkshire County which provides information on the origin of different species and compiles
research on the use of native plants by Native Americans prior to European settlement (Weber
2011). The core component of Project Native is the 54-acre farm/botanical garden which functions
as a living native seed bank for the associated container nursery. Other features include a sales shop
featuring 180 native species, two unheated hoop houses for production, and a farm of container
plants grown organically with the seasons in order to prepare them to adapt to their climate when
transplanted. They focus mostly on herbaceous species which are collected in the fall, stratified over
winter and grown out in the spring. They partner with Gill Nursery in Sudbury Massachusetts to
purchase the native shrubs and trees that Gill has collected and propagated. Many propagation
techniques are determined through trial and error and with the help of references such as William
Cullina’s Native Trees, Shrubs and Vines: A guide to using, growing and propagating North American woody
plants (Weber 2011).
As natives are not bred for human aesthetics, Project Native employees and volunteers make
a great effort educate consumers of their myriad benefits to the environment. Through in-store
education and lectures around the community, they focus on why we should be using natives, the
negative impacts of invasive species, human degradation in terms of development and habitat
destruction, a stewardship link to community gardens and the importance of native plants to attract
pollinators. The majority of their clientele are home gardeners, and they have expanded their
services to consultation, design, permitting needs, installation and maintenance. They found that it
was easier to educate the homeowners visiting their store who had the time to work one on one with
a staff member, than to market to landscape professionals who tend to use the same palette of
plants that they are already familiar with. Early on in the process, Project Native installed displays in
garden centers as a marketing technique and have since received customers through word of mouth,
demonstration gardens, public presentations and on-site tours (Weber 2011).
Lessons for Rhody Native: Project Native’s use of founder plots, demonstration gardens
public presentations and other methods of consumer education will likely be replicated by Rhody
Native and its partners. Project Native provides a good business model for local growers.
Larry Weaner Landscape Associates, Pennsylvania
Larry Weaner, Founder of Larry Weaner Landscape Associates and President of the nonprofit, New Directions in the American Landscape, is a pioneer in native plant design and
installation. Through his nonprofit, he educates audiences about the proper techniques for
designing and installing environmentally beneficial landscapes, advancing horticultural techniques
and combating the spread of invasive species and the overuse of lawns. In his design business, he
focuses on land use history, aesthetic considerations from the client, latitudinal considerations, and
the size of the lot when making his plant selection and designing a landscape (Weaner 2011).
Larry Weaner has developed a number of
novel techniques for maintaining a lowmaintenance native plant landscape that stray
from the norm by incorporating ecological
considerations. For instance, he plants in dense
communities to mimic natural conditions and
interactions among species. He integrates the
process of natural succession into his wildflower
meadows by planting both short-lived pioneer
species that will act as early colonizers and
outcompete weeds, in addition to seeding in
longer-lived species which are members of later
\Figure
successional communities and can grow once the
pioneer species have expired. Instead of
amending the soil in a native landscape, a
common practice in traditional landscaping,
Larry considers the existing site conditions and
species requirements. (Weaner 2010).
Figure 6. Native plant landscapes designed by
Larry Weaner Landscape Associates. Note the
tight spacing of plants and the ability to create an
intended appearance with pathways. Photos used
with permission of Larry Weaner.
Lessons for Rhody Native: Larry is a
strong candidate to instruct future training
programs for landscape architects, designers and
landscape professionals. In his opinion, a common misconception among the nursery industry is
that the native plant industry will have a negative impact on profitability. Instead, he suggests that
the natural landscape movement will result in a faster crop turnover because i) smaller plant sizes
that are required for the native plant market take less time to mature, ii) less lawn translates to a
higher volume of plants sold, and iii) some of the unpredictability of the market will decrease as the
list of plants native to the region narrows the focus. He also suggested that the Rhody Native plant
catalogue have an appendix listing plants by their natural communities, as well as listing their level of
competitiveness and whether they are pioneer or later successional species.
New England Wild Flower Society, Massachusetts
The New England Wild Flower Society (NEWFS) is a leader in New England in the fields of
native plant conservation, education and nusery production. They are under contract to grow a
number of species for the Rhody Native program at Nasami Farm, the largest native plant nursery in
New England, where they have access to the proper seed cleaning machinery, seed storage facilities
and knowledge of native plant propagation techniques. They have also trained RI Wild Plant Society
volunteers in proper seed collection and storage techniques. The Rhody Native coordinator has also
toured Garden in the Woods, a botanic garden and living museum featuring the largest collection of
native plant species in New England.
Lessons for Rhody Native: A conversation with Bonnie Drexler, the Education Director
at the NEWFS, revealed the struggles of providing programming in a difficult economy. Through
recent strategic planning efforts, NEWFS has narrowed their focus to promoting native plants, and
specifically locally-sourced natives, and currently offer a Certificate in Native Plant Studies for
homeowners as their core educational programming. She mentioned that she is currently the only
full-time educational staff person, with many trainings utilizing faculty on a contract basis and paying
them a modest honorarium. Success is measured by course evaluations and class attendance.
Recently attendance at large symposia has decreased, making them a less viable option for spreading
the word about natives. NEWFS plans to expand its educational offerings to members of the
landscape industry and is currently planning a certificate program for professionals in partnership
with the Ecological Landscaping Association. One area that Bonnie sees as promising for increasing
the demand for native plants would be for more local town regulations to be put into place requiring
the use of natives (Drexler 2011). One example of a model native plant ordinance can be found on
the Florida Wildflower Foundation’s website at: http://flawildflowers.org/resolution.php.
Lessons from Other Programs focused on Rhode Island Agricultural Products
Rhody Fresh Milk, RI Dairy Farmer Cooperative
Rhode Island has a number of other agricultural products that connect consumers with their
local farmers including Rhody Fresh Milk, Rhody Warm and RI Royal Potatoes. The Rhody Fresh
Milk brand was formed along
with the RI Dairy Farmer
Cooperative to help Rhode
Island farmers increase their
profits. They began with a
marketing campaign, working
with local marketing groups to
develop the Rhody Fresh brand
and milk carton. Each milk
carton describes a different
Figure7. Rhody Native will draw upon the success of the Rhody
Fresh Branding campaign that includes an attractive logo and
website (Source: www.RhodyFresh.org).
farm that produces the milk,
which helps to “bring the farmer to the breakfast table.” They used the resources available to them
from within their own group in determining industry trends such as price points and where the
supply for Rhode Island’s milk currently came from (Hines 2011). The Rhody Native program
seeks to capitalize on this same sentiment that draws the consumer to support their local farmers.
One way of replicating this would be to feature a profile of each nursery on the plant tags. The
Rhody Native program will draw upon the lessons learned in product development and marketing.
The farmers’ collaborative has been an asset for the Rhody Fresh brand to maintain its
sustainability and growth. A dividend of the proceeds is paid out to each farmer in the cooperative
with a portion going to maintain marketing efforts. By forming a cooperative, the dairy farmers
reduced internal competition and were able to produce a reliable supply of the product, an
important factor in helping them to reach the larger markets like Stop and Shop which encompass
the majority of sales in the state. An important issue in establishing a new product is to make sure
the supply matches the demand for the product (Hines 2011).
The Rhody Island Dairy Farmers were able to successfully create demand for a new product
in Rhode Island. The collaborative has tripled its sales in the six years it has been in operation, with a
measurable increase in sales from month to month. This demonstrates the power of the local
product movement in Rhode Island and is the type of success that will be pursued by the Rhody
Native project. The Rhody Native coordinator is collaborating with the Executive Director of the
RI Nursery and Landscape Association to pursue the option of forming a Rhody Native nursery
growers’ collaborative.
Sustainable Landscapes Program
The Rhody Native Project will draw upon the lessons learned from the Sustainable
Landscapes program, a project funded by SARE from 1995. This program was a collaboration
between faculty from the University of Rhode Island and the University of Massachusetts to create a
list of low input, pest resistant trees and shrubs and practices to be disseminated among the
horticulture industry in southern New England. A sustainable landscape design manual entitled
“Sustainable Trees and Shrubs for Southern New England” was also designed for use by green
industry professionals and homeowners. It was disseminated in hard copy through cooperative
extension channels. The plants were displayed in the URI Learning Landscape demonstration
garden, the site of many homeowner and industry educational programs (Casagrande 1995).
Due to decreased funding, the project coordinators failed to develop a logo, plant tag or
poster for their sustainable plants. This was a contributing factor to its lack of popularity among the
horticulture community. Without the marketing effort to increase consumer demand for the
sustainable plants, the list was reduced to a set of mandates for the horticulture industry with little
economic incentive to implement them (Personal Interviews Various Growers). Program
coordinators count the outreach efforts among the program’s successes. Outreach for this project
included mailings of the document to landscapers, town planners and state government agencies,
articles in the Providence Journal on specific species as well as a number of lectures to landscape
professionals, URI students and faculty, Master Gardeners and the general public (Casagrande 1995).
The Rhody Native Project will utilize these outreach outlets along with additional mechanisms such
as social networking, websites, online teaching portals and demonstration gardens around the state.
Another important component to this program was the relationship that was built among
the horticulture industry, including the RINLA (formerly the RI Nurserymen’s Association), and
URI faculty. The Rhody Native program builds upon this relationship by employing Dr. Brian
Maynard, a plant sciences faculty member to teach portions of the training program. RINLA is
involved as a conduit to industry professionals through all stages of the program including
development, recruitment, education and reporting.
IV. Identifying Specific Challenges
Plant Selection
One important aspect in developing a plant line is selecting the optimal species for
marketing to your intended audience. The Grow Native program in Missouri encourages growers to
choose ten popular plants that are easy to grow and showy as a means of appealing to the average
gardener visiting the garden center. On the other hand, the Forest Service, with a goal of habitat
restoration in national forests, focuses their efforts on “workhorse species” or those species that are
abundant across a range of habitats, establish quickly and are able to produce high ground cover on
disturbed sites. In order to fill certain ecological functions or management objectives, a mixture of
workhorse species commonly found together in native plant communities are often selected for
propagation (Erickson 2008).
The Executive Director from Project Native discouraged the notion of marketing native
plants in plant system packages, as she observed that many of the homeowners visiting their nursery
are more interested in individual plants, and often must be educated by the landscaper or designer
before they opt to install as an entire package. The figure below may aid in plant selection by taking
the dietary needs of migratory songbirds into account when designing a backyard habitat.
Figure 8. Recommended Plantings for Migratory Songbird Habitat Management
By Susan Smith & Scott McWilliams, Dept Natural Resources Science, URI
How important are local genetics?
One question that has repeatedly come up in planning for the Rhody Native project is the
importance of local genetics in developing the line of Rhody Native plants. Some industry-minded
professionals on the planning committee would prefer that any native species, regardless of source
location, be considered “Rhody Native” as a means of building supply over a shorter time frame.
With the goal of providing plant material appropriate for ecological restoration in mind, the project
coordinator has chosen a stricter definition that considers genetics. All “Rhody Native” plants must
be sourced from the Omernick level III and IV ecoregions (Omernick 1995) found in Rhode Island.
Restoration ecologists recognize the importance of selecting plant materials with the appropriate
genetic source for the success of the restoration project. Studies have demonstrated that plants
form local ecotypes that are closely adapted to their site conditions, including resistance to pests or
cold hardiness. Although it can be more costly to produce locally-sourced plant material, logic
follows that the more closely adapted the plant material is to the target site, the greater the chance
for restoration success. Lesica and Allendorf recommend considering the size and degree of
disturbance of the restoration site in determining the appropriate source. As soils of highly
disturbed sites differ greatly from those that local genotypes are adapted to, they recommend a
higher level of genetic diversity in these cases. In the case of large disturbances, local genotypes are
encouraged to avoid adverse effects on local gene pools of wild populations. They recommend
these general guidelines:

Collect seed from many habitats to include as many genotypes and as much genetic
variation as possible, especially when disturbances have been severe;

Avoid strongly selected cultivars;

Use local genotypes when possible, particularly on large sites (Lesica & Allendorf 1999).
Federal agencies, including the US Forest Service are also mindful of genetic diversity in their
replanting guidelines for Federal Lands. See figure **** for a list of reasons. The USFS have
developed a number of protocols for collecting plant material while preserving genetic diversity to
ensure sustainable populations in the wild. The use of genetically native plant material is important
when attempting to avoid genetic outbreeding of plants, which is experienced when plants of
foreign genotypes are introduced to an area and hybridize with neighboring wild populations, risking
the decline of the wild population (Erickson 2008).
Figure 9. Genetically Appropriate Choices for Plant Materials to Maintain Biological
Diversity
The reasons (and hence, need) for carefully selecting appropriate genetic source for planting projects involving
native species are numerous. The following reasons can be identified, which can be broadly classified as
concerns related to the species’ variability, the broad ecological community and management interests.
1.
Provides potential for future survival of the species.
2.
Affects future opportunities for the species to evolve.
3.
Provides appropriate genetic linkages among fragmented populations.
4.
Preserves historic interactions.
5.
Preserves biological diversity.
6.
Minimizes the risk of inadvertently introducing new species into the area.
7.
Minimizes cascading effects throughout the ecological community
8.
Avoids potentially ill-fated hybridizations.
9.
Protects project investments and minimizes
10. Avoids the waste of valuable genetic resources.
11. Protects federal in situ genetic reserves.
12. Demonstrates consideration of neighboring land.
13. Protects research opportunities on natural systems and species.
Source: (Rogers & Montalvo 2004). Genetically Appropriate Choices for Plant Materials to Maintain Biological
Diversity. USDA Forest Service.
On the other side of the coin, Raina Weber, the Executive Director of the native plant
nursery and nonprofit, Project Native, advised against making the definition so specific that the
product offerings suffered. She emphasized the importance of diversity and choice in plant
selection when marketing to homeowners and landscapers. She also explained that while source is
important, the method of propagation and cultivar issue are also important genetic considerations.
Genetic diversity is preserved when propagating from seed, as opposed to cloning a plant with
vegetative propagation methods, an important concern when designing for self-sustaining plant
communities that can adapt to climate change and future pests and diseases. Finally, cultivars are
also less genetically diverse than the straight species, as they have been artificially selected for a
particular trait, usually an aesthetic characteristic (Weber 2011). Larry Weaner reflected this opinion
when he argued that plants sourced from similar latitudes are optimal (rather than being as specific
as ecoregion) in that the photoperiod would be more compatible than if transferring plant material
from southern to northern locations (Weaner 2011).
A seed zone is a helpful unit for determining the propagule collection range for a native
plant project. A seed zone is the area within which plant materials can be transferred with little risk
of being poorly adapted to their new location. Habitat restoration project managers that wish to
install native plants into a project, or practitioners may use tools such as the seed zone mapper
developed by the US Forest Service (Figure 10) to determine the geographic extent to which they
should source their material. These mappers combine climate information with ecoregions to
determine the proper seed zone for different plant forms (i.e. grass and forb versus conifer and
shrub species).
Figure 10. Seed Zone Mapper: “A mapping and planning tool for plant materials development,
gene conservation and native plant restoration” from the US Forest Service’s Western Wildland
Environmental Threat Assessment Center (Source:
www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/threat_map/SeedZones_Intro.html).
V. The Rhody Native Nursery Training Program
Despite evidence of increasing consumer demand, Rhode Island’s plant production and sales
industry, a $290 million annual enterprise (University of Vermont Extension 2009), supplies few
native species cultivated from locally-sourced plant material. A recent phone survey (Rhode Island
Natural History Survey 2009) reveals that there are only about 8 native species available for purchase
in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts that have been grown from regionally collected
stem cuttings. However, a recent survey conducted by the URI Outreach Center (Personal
Interviews Various Growers) indicates that local nurseries are interested in pursuing niche markets,
such as native plants, as a way of increasing sales in the difficult economic climate. Furthermore,
growing native plants using open-air seed beds and unheated greenhouses as farming strategies will
allow growers to reduce capital investment by utilizing land already in production and saving money
on energy bills, thereby freeing up heated greenhouse space for the production of greenhousedependent stock. The production of native plants thusly addresses the issue of energy costs, one of
the top three concerns expressed by the industry in Rhode Island (UVM Extension 2009).
An informal survey conducted by the URI Outreach Center indicates knowledge gaps on the part of
many local growers:
1) They lack an understanding of native plant cultivation techniques;
2) They lack species-specific growing information;
3) They seek marketing assistance;
4) They lack knowledge of which plants are considered native to Rhode Island.
Implementing the Rhody Native Training Program
In 2011, I was involved in the development of a successful grant proposal, entitled “Rhody
Native: Propagation for Sustainable Landscapes” to the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education (SARE) Program through USDA that secured three years of funding to initiate the
Rhody Native nursery training program. The training program will equip nursery professionals with
the skills to build the supply of locally sourced native plants for the Rhody Native plant line. The
grant will begin in the summer of 2011 and is a joint project between the URI Outreach Center
(College of Environment and Life Science) and Rhode Island Natural History Survey. The project
received approximately $122,000 of federal funds and relies on considerable cooperation from the
University, volunteers and NGOs. Here I review the core elements of the project that include
structure, function and evaluation. I then provide some options for sustaining Rhody Native as a
viable component within the businesses, organizations and customers who compose Rhode Island’s
horticulture community.
SARE Grant Proposal Title: Rhody Native: Propagation for Sustainable Landscapes
Purpose: The Rhody Native nursery training program will instruct nursery professionals on
methods for the propagation and cultivation of locally-adapted native plants, while launching a
collaborative effort to further increase consumer demand for natives. The program will act as a
professional development and marketing tool for nursery managers interested in expanding their
portfolio by diversify plant stock and introducing sustainable seed collection and processing, native
plant propagation and cultivation.
Key Individuals: Vanessa Venturini is a URI extension educator with project management,
outreach and education experience will serve as one of the two program coordinators. She currently
completing a Master of Environmental Science and Management. She gained experience
collaborating with the local nursery industry and researching model programs nationwide while
researching and writing a major paper on the Rhody Native Project. She will lead coordination of
the training program, recruit participants, give follow-up consultations, develop training materials
and online portal and manage project logistics. She will manage the East Farm native seed beds by
coordinating URI Master Gardener, RI Wild Plant Society, RINHS and URI student volunteers to
collect and process seeds and cultivate native plants.
Hope Leeson is the Rhode Island Natural History Survey botanist, and will serve as the
other coordinator of the Rhody Native project. She will contribute her knowledge of native plant
communities to selecting and locating native seed sources for propagation by Rhode Island nurseries
and for the East Farm seed beds, and teach plant identification. Hope’s work experience includes
teaching Field Botany at the University of Rhode Island, as well as plant ecology for local
environmental organizations. In addition, Hope will give follow-up consultations on plant
identification to growers, assist in developing course materials, and manage project logistics.
Dr. Brian Maynard is a Professor of Horticulture and Chair of the Department Plant
Sciences and Entomology at the University of Rhode Island with 25 years of experience in native
plant propagation and cultivation. He will serve as the faculty mentor and core faculty educator on
the program. He teaches a number of undergraduate courses on propagation, nursery production
and management and has worked extensively with the Rhode Island nursery industry. Dr. Maynard
will teach the propagation and cultivation workshops in the core training and direct native plant
propagation at URI’s East Farm.
Structure: A core group of organizers including a URI extension educator (50% of time year
one) a RINHS botanist (546 hours in year one) and a URI horticulture professor (5% of time in year
one) will develop and teach the program based on the needs of the local nursery industry. The core
organizers have skills in native plant collection, processing, propagation and cultivation, and nursery
management, along with ecological knowledge of local plant communities and genetic
considerations. URI Master Gardener volunteers and URI students will be recruited to help
establish and maintain a native seed bed operation at URI’s East Farm Agricultural Experiment
Station. This seed bed operation will serve as a training and demonstration tool for growers,
furthering the knowledge of species-specific propagation techniques and developing a supply of
locally-sourced, pre-finished plants to be grown in Rhode Island nurseries.
Beneficiaries: While many groups will benefit from the Rhody Native program as a whole,
a key audience for the Rhody Native nursery training program will be thirty-five nursery industry
professionals with an expressed interest in native plant propagation and/or cultivation as a means of
expanding their current skill set and diversifying their nursery stock. The training will fill an
important research-based information gap associated with implementing a new growing practice and
will cater to all nursery types including bare root and container nurseries and those that propagate
their own stock vs. those that purchase pre-finished stock. Additionally, the program will act as a
revenue generator for nurseries through marketing assistance to increase the demand for locallyproduced plants. The following are profiles of specific Rhode Island-based growers to illustrate the
typical beneficiary (pseudonyms are used).
Tom and Jane are wholesale, bare root nursery owners on a 50-acre shrub and tree farm with
greenhouses, propagation houses and fields located on a mix of wetland and upland conditions.
They currently grow ornamentals predominantly sold out of state and are looking to diversify their
nursery stock and build connections with local garden centers. They have long been interested in
growing natives but were not sure that local demand would support the effort. They have
experience propagating and developing cultivars and would be interested in learning about growing
and propagation requirements for specific native plants. Tom and Jane are also interested in
learning to identify native plants to propagate from locally collected seed and stem cuttings.
Sarah is the owner of a 3.1-acre container farm specializing in perennials and grasses. She
currently sells plants advertised as sustainable and native to the Northeast. She has contacted The
Rhode Island Natural History Survey to determine which plants are native to Rhode Island and tries
to focus her sales on these plants. While she has done some propagation, most of her sales are
through stock she purchases from outside of the state and even outside of New England. She
would like to learn to collect and propagate native plants from seed in order to provide her
customers with local, native plant material.
Peter is the co-owner of a 40-acre wholesale container farm which finishes a variety of plants
from herbaceous perennials to trees and shrubs. While he sells over 10 native species, the majority
are finished from transplants purchased from outside of New England. His primary customers are
out-of state landscapers and home gardeners, but he has noticed an increase in demand from Rhode
Island customers in the past few years for native plant material. Much of this demand, Peter says,
stems from coastal habitat restoration promoted by the local environmental organization, Save the
Bay, and the state Coastal Resources Management Council coastal buffer restoration program. He
would be willing to propagate and grow locally-sourced native plants if a marketing effort would
demonstrate further increases in demand for native plant material.
Performance Target: Over the course of three years, 20 nurseries will diversify their products
available to consumers by growing 2,500 plants, native to Rhode Island. All plants will have been
collected from Rhode Island seed or stem cuttings and propagated locally. A total of 50 native plant
species will be available to the consumer, including trees, shrubs, grasses and perennials.
Program Elements
Training for Professionals: The URI extension educator, will develop a training manual
and online portal with training materials describing native plant collection, processing and
cultivation techniques. Training materials will be populated from scientific journals, university
extension programs, government publications and past SARE projects involving native plant
education. Nursery professionals will be recruited through listings in the Rhode Island Nursery and
Landscape Association (RINLA) newsletter and targeted networking and mailings. The extension
educator and botanist will attend the RINLA Winter Educational Seminar and Summer Annual
Meetings to recruit growers. The training program will consist of two, day-long sessions
incorporating a mix of in-class learning and hands-on field sessions. Trainees will first learn about
native plant communities, the ecological significance of locally-adapted plant material, the economic
benefits of growing native plants and present market demands for native plants. They will then
attend a native plant identification field session where they will create personal reference binders
containing specimens of different species. The second day, Hope Leeson and Dr. Maynard will
teach plant collection, processing, and propagation and cultivation techniques in hands-on
workshops at the East Farm seed beds. Trainees will receive a training manual, access to an online
portal to facilitate continued learning and communication amongst growers, as well as permission to
use the Rhody Native trademarked plant tags and promotional materials.
The program coordinators will offer continued support to farmers after the training session
by conducting site visits to address each farm’s individual needs. The RINHS field botanist, will
provide further assistance in plant identification to help farmers choose plant material for
propagation. Farmers will be taught to collect and process their own plant material from local
sources and will also be provided with supplementary liner stock from the East Farm seed beds.
Follow-up assistance will provide a degree of quality control for the Rhody Native product. The
coordinators will assist farmers in conducting site assessments to decide which cultivation
techniques and site locations are appropriate for native plant production. By providing continued
support, the program coordinators will have an opportunity to conduct surveys of changes in
nursery production and practices, and verify the successes and failures of the program with nursery
owners on a personal basis.
Interactive Database: As a final piece of this project the URI Outreach Center will develop
an online, interactive database of plants native to Rhode Island modeled after the existing RI Coastal
Plant Guide. This searchable tool will connect consumers to producers and fill an important
knowledge gap as to which plants are native to Rhode Island. The list will include: photos, species
requirements and characteristics along with a listing of nurseries and garden centers where the plants
are available for purchase. Native plants grown during the first three years of the Rhody Native
project will include a combination of 20 grass and perennial species, and 30 tree and shrub species,
resulting in a total of 50 native plants, all grown from locally collected seed and stem cuttings. The
long term outcome of the project is expected to be reached by the year 2025, with an estimated 300
plants available out of the possible 1,300 native plants present in Rhode Island.
Figure11. An online, interactive native plant guide modeled after the RI Coastal Plant Guide will connect consumers to
nurseries that carry “Rhody Native” plants and correctly identify gaps in the supply of RI natives. Source:
http://www.uri.edu/cels/ceoc/coastalPlants/CoastalPlantGuide.htm
Project Timeline: Year 1. In advance of the training, Vanessa Venturini will use learnercentered teaching techniques by consulting with local growers to develop the training materials
based on perceived knowledge gaps. Hope Leeson and Dr. Maynard will develop the course
curriculum and presentations at this time as well. Vanessa and Hope will recruit professionals for the
course, coordinate volunteers for the East Farm seed bed operation and supervise an undergraduate
student and computer programmer in developing an online Rhode Island native plant guide
throughout the first year of SARE funding. The East Farm seed bed volunteers, under the direction
of Hope and Vanessa, will collect and process native plant seeds and cuttings to grow in the East
Farm seed beds and as supplemental material for growers. The first training program will be held
the first summer/early fall for 20 growers, ideally coinciding with the established growing season as
well as the start of the seed collection season. By scheduling the training at this time, the program
will accommodate the field components of the workshops.
Year 2: Following the first training, coordinators will conduct verification and site visits to
individual farms to continue adapting the training program to grower’s needs. A written survey will
be sent out one year after the training to verify longer-term outcomes to net farm income. The
second iteration of the training will target 15 more growers from Rhode Island and the surrounding
communities in August of 2012. This will include another round of site visits to assist growers in
implementing new growing strategies. One grower from the first training will be recruited to share
their experience in native plant cultivation with the second group of growers.
Year 3: The final year of the budget includes final verification with growers on changes to
net farm income based on native plant sales. Consumer education efforts, Rhody Native brand
marketing, and outreach to the restoration community will remain ongoing throughout the three
years of the project to increase demand for the product.
The Rhody Native training program will address the challenges associated with developing a
new product by including growers and trade organizations such as RINLA in the planning process.
It also will provide a mechanism for project sustainability through the use of the East Farm seed bed
operation. For example, plants propagated from seed preserve the greatest amount of genetic
diversity, an important consideration for habitat restoration efforts. However, many nurseries in
Rhode Island prefer to propagate from cuttings or to purchase liner stock from other nurseries
(Personal Interviews Various Growers). While the training program will equip nurseries with the
knowledge to collect and propagate
native plants from seeds and cuttings, the
East Farm seed bed operation will
provide pre-finished plants as liner stock
to nurseries whose practices do not
currently include propagation. It will also
effectively reduce farm expenditures
associated with purchasing transplants
from out of state nurseries. All proceeds
from East Farm native plant sales will
enter a general Rhody Native project
fund to be used to print Rhody Native
labels and promotional materials to
extend the accessibility of the program
Figure 12. Native Plant Materials Development Process. The Bureau
of Land Management’s national Native Plant Materials
Development Program uses this six step model to produce wild
collected plants. The Rhody Native program will roughly follow this
sequence (See Appendix ## for more details).
outputs beyond the grant funding period.
Evaluation: Early on in the Rhody Native planning stages, the RINHS partnered with RINLA to
develop relationships with growers and collect industry data to gauge the potential success of the
program. RINLA continues to be involved, and plans to conduct a survey of growers that will
include questions on the percentage of native plant sales and native material grown, that make up
grower business expense and profit between 2010 and 2014. These figures will be used as a metric
of the Rhody Native program success over the next four years. Program success will also be
measured on a learner-centered basis through personal interviews with the nursery professionals and
industry surveys conducted during the follow-up visits with growers. The results of these surveys
will be used to evaluate the training program, and to adapt the pilot program for the second iteration
of the training.
Developing Market Demand: Demand for native plants is expected to grow as new
restoration projects are funded and locally-sourced plants are incorporated into design requirements.
Based upon estimates from the following organizations, the combined habitat restoration projects in
Rhode Island of the Forest Health Works Project (funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act) and the National Resource and Conservation Service, about 70,000 plants
(including trees, shrubs and forbs) will be needed for 2011. Other agencies such as Save the Bay, the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Restoration Center, and the RI Department of
Environmental Management Division of Freshwater Wetlands have been made aware of the Rhody
Native project, and look forward to including Rhode Island nurseries as sources for locally grown
native plant material as a part of their revegetation specifications.
Developing a Marketing Campaign: Hope Leeson, the coordinator of the overall Rhody
Native program is pursuing funding to launch a branding/marketing effort to be launched when the
initial supply of Rhody Native plants have been grown to a marketable size. All plants grown for
2011 and future years will be sold with the Rhody Native logo and plant tag, as the initial
component of the branding campaign. Hope anticipates that some herbaceous Rhody Native plants
contract grown in 2010 through NEWFS and private nurseries will be available for sale in the Fall of
2011, while others will be grown to maturity in the East Farm seed beds for sale in future years.
Consumer Education Effort (not funded by SARE grant): An as yet unfunded
companion effort by the URI Outreach Center, the URI Master Gardeners and their partners will
integrate marketing support for growers. We expect the demand for native plants as landscape
material to increase in response to the Rhody Native consumer education and branding campaign.
The Outreach Center and RINHS will utilize social marketing tools and educational techniques in a
separate program aimed at creating a shift in consumer perception toward a desire to reflect a local
aesthetic, and landscape with low-input, locally-produced plants. New avenues for nursery income
will be created by connecting nursery stock producers with consumers through in-store labeling and
display, and by providing a list of Rhody Native certified growers to consumers. Rhody Native
plants will be available for purchase, displayed along with factsheets and posters in garden centers.
The Rhody Native plant production effort is anticipated to be perpetuated through a grower
collaborative, developed in partnership with RINLA.
The URI Outreach Center in partnership with URI Master Gardeners will continue to
promote the use of native plants to key targeted audiences involved in residential landscape
management including research scientists, educators, landscapers, landscape architects, garden
centers, growers, Master Gardeners, community decision-makers, and the general public. Many of
these efforts have already begun and will remain ongoing throughout the duration of the SARE
grant and as future funding sources are pursued for a coordinated marketing effort. In addition, the
staff is well positioned to leverage state wide media outlets including television (NBC Television,
Channel 10’s Plant Pro), newspapers and monthly magazines. Educational events such as
Greenshare Garden School Day, Spring and Fall Gardening School and East Farm Spring Festival,
attended annually by over 4,000 people, can feature native plant courses for the general public.
These courses can be held at the established native plant demonstration gardens at Roger Williams
Park Botanical Center Demonstration Garden in Providence and URI’s East Farm in South
Kingstown for interactive learning. These courses can draw upon the success of the well-attended
2011 Rhode Island Wild Plant Society Native Plant Conference.
The native plant class featured in both the Master Gardener core and advanced trainings
will address the importance of locally-sourced plant material. The East Farm seed bed operation
could help to populate demonstration gardens maintained by Master Gardeners across the state. A
group of Master Gardener speakers can give educational presentations on native plant design to
community organizations and at local events. Master Gardener volunteers will be trained to address
native plant landscaping questions through the Master Gardener Hotline and the “Ask a Master
Gardener” kiosk. Beyond the scope of this project, future efforts are planned to train landscape
designers, landscape contractors and garden center employees in native plant design and care.
The Future of Rhody Native
The future scope of the Rhody Native initiative, as with any program, depends on the
stability of funding sources. While revenues from plant sales may be able to sustain the materials
costs associated with a branding campaign, sustaining other elements of the program will likely rely
on grant funding for staff salaries. The RINHS and the URI Outreach Center plan to pursue
funding from the RI Department of Environmental Management, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the Rhode Island Foundation and other sources. Funding priorities are likely
to become more clear based on lessons learned during the first three years of the project. Current
thoughts regarding long-term activities to help change perceptions and horticulture industry
practices include:

Strategic planning for the Rhody Native initiative as a whole and the seed collection process
in particular;

Funding to sustain program coordinators and student workers;

Coordinated consumer marketing and educational campaign;

Training programs for landscape professionals on native plant landscape and design;

Training programs for garden center employees on native plant design and care;

Additional funding for research and maintenance of online native plant database.
In Rhode Island, the local nursery industry has been largely receptive of the Rhody Native
initiative, as nursery managers wish to anticipate consumer trends and diversify their offerings in a
difficult economy. Major concerns among industry professionals include the ability to compete with
larger operations across the U.S. in terms of product price as well as competition amongst Rhode
Island growers once the brand is established (Interviews Various Growers). The formation of a
Rhody Native Growers’ collaborative under the leadership of the RI Nursery and Landscape
Association will hopefully address these issues.
The ability of the Rhody Native program to gain a positive reception from stakeholders in
both the horticulture and restoration communities and its ability to gain the support of volunteers,
partners groups and funding agencies paints an optimistic picture for the future. Over the next few
years, the Rhody Native private-public partnership between the RI Natural History Survey, the
University of Rhode Island, RI Nursery and Landscape Association, the URI Master Gardener
Association, Rhode Island Wild Plant Society and private nursery growers may become a model
success story for other states interested in establishing a source and encouraging the use of native
plants locally adapted to their region.
VI. Appendices
Appendix I. A Selection of Native Plant Programs Nationwide
Boston Natural Areas Network, City
Natives Nursery
http://www.bostonnatural.org/citynativesnursery.h
tm
Bringing Nature Home, Doug Tallamy’s
website
http://bringingnaturehome.net
Colorado Native Plant Initiative
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/more/Colorado_
Plateau/Colorado_Plateau_Native_Plant_Initiative.html
Connecticut College Smaller American
Lawns Today (SALT)
www.conncoll.edu/green/arbo/8597.htm
Ecosystem Gardening, Carol Brown’s
website
Ernst Conservation Seeds
www.ecosystemgardening.com
Florida Wildflower Foundation
http://flawildflowers.org
www.ernstseed.com
Go Native U – Native plant certification http://www.wildflower.org/gonativeu
at the University of Texas at Austin Lady
Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Grow Native, Massachusetts
www.grownativemass.org
National Native Seed Conference
Iowa Ecotype Project
National Wildlife Federation Certified
Wildlife Habitat Program
Native Plant Materials Development
Program, Bureau of Land Management
Native Plant Network, for Native Plants
Journal
Native Seed Network
New England Wild Flower Society
www.nativeseed.info
www.uni.edu/ecotype
www.nwf.org/Get-Outside/OutdoorActivities/Garden-for-Wildlife/Create-a-Habitat.aspx
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/fish__wildlife_an
d/plants/1.html
http://nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu
NRCS Plant Materials Program
http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov
Potomac Conservancy’s Growing Native
http://www.potomac.org
www.nativeseednetwork.org
www.newfs.org
Pride’s Corner Farm’s American Beauties www.abnativeplants.com
Native Plants
Project Native
www.projectnative.org
Seeds of Success Program
http://www.nps.gov/plants/sos/
South Texas Natives
http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/research-programs/southtexas-natives
Wild Ones
www.for-wild.org
Appendix II. Sample questions used in interviews with native plant program
coordinators in other states
What is your mission?
What are your goals?
What is the structure of your organization?
What are your funding sources?
What are your staffing requirements?
How would you describe your relationship with the horticulture industry?
How do you measure your program’s success and performance?
What is your definition of native?
Do you source your plants locally?
Appendix III. The St. Louis Declaration on Invasive Plant Species: Findings and Voluntary
Code of Conduct for Nursery Professionals
Findings
People are major dispersers of plants. The magnitude of this dispersal is unprecedented and has allowed
dispersal of species that manifest aggressive traits in new areas.
Plant introduction and improvement are the foundation of modern agriculture and horticulture, yielding
diversity to our supply of plants used for food, forestry, landscapes and gardens, medicinal and other
purposes.
A small proportion of introduced plant species become invasive and cause unwanted impacts to natural
systems and biological diversity as well as economies, recreation, and health.
Plant species can be invasive in some regions, but not in others. The impacts of invasive plant species can
occur at times and places far removed from the site of introduction.
Draft Voluntary Code of Conduct for Nursery Professionals (Draft February 2002)
1. Ensure that invasive potential is assessed prior to introducing and marketing plant species new to North
America. Invasive potential should be assessed by the introducer or qualified experts using emerging risk
assessment methods that consider plant characteristics and prior observations or experience with the plant
elsewhere in the world. Additional insights may be gained through extensive monitoring on the nursery site
prior to further distribution.
2. Work with regional experts and stakeholders to determine which species in your region are either currently
invasive or will become invasive. Identify plants that could be suitable alternatives in your region.
3. Develop and promote alternative plant material through plant selection and breeding.
4. Phase out existing stocks of invasive species in your region.
5. Follow all laws on importation and quarantine of plant materials across political boundaries.
6. Encourage customers to use, and garden writers to promote, non-invasive plants.
Source: Proceedings from the “Workshop Linking Ecology and Horticulture to Prevent Plant Invasions” (2001)
Appendix IV. Native Plant Materials Development Process, Bureau of Land Management
(Source:http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/
fish__wildlife_and/fwp2.Par.10670.File.dat/NPMD%20Process%201%20Pager.pdf)
There are many steps involved in the process of developing a reliable, stable crop from wild
collected species. Native plant materials, like agronomic crops, take an average of 10-20 years to
develop as consistent, reliable commercially available species. Starting with native seed
collection, the time and length of each step in the development process varies for each grass, forb
and shrub. Adequate and consistent funding is critical to the success of this long-term endeavor.
The goal of the Native Plant Materials Development Program is to facilitate this process and to
increase capacity within the Federal agencies and the private sector for ecologically appropriate
native seed.
Contacts: Peggy Olwell, Plant Conservation Program Lead, Bureau of Land Management,
peggy_olwell@blm.gov, (202) 912-7273
Mary Byrne, National Collection Curator, Seeds of Success, mary_byrne@blm.gov,
(202) 912-7233 Olivia Kwong, Information Manager, Plant Conservation Alliance,
olivia_kwong@blm.gov, (202) 912-7232
Appendix IV (cont.)
Step 1: Native Seed Collection
Wildland native seed collections are the foundation of native plant materials development.
Seeds of Success, the national native seed collection program for the United States, is
collecting seed from native wildland populations across the entire geographic range of the
species to capture maximum genetic variation within each species for native plant materials
development. Seeds of Success has made over 9,000 collections of native plants from across
the United States.
Step 2: Evaluation and Development
Before native plant materials can be produced on a large scale, basic agronomic and life history
issues must be addressed, such as mechanical seed cleaning techniques, germination
methodologies, storage protocols, identification of pollinators, determination of seed transfer
zones and agricultural techniques for seeding, fertilizing, irrigating, weed control, and harvesting
as well as evaluating special equipment needs. The Program is developing ecotypes which are
populations or strains within a given species that are adapted to a particular environment.
The Program has conducted over 525 demonstration seedings to display the use of plants for
specific areas. We have studied agricultural techniques for over 735 ecotypes, and performed
harvesting, cleaning and seed storage studies for over 570 ecotypes.
Step 3: Field Establishment
Once the requirements for production of a native plant species are established, an operational
field is planted with the newly developed native plant materials. The seed harvested from the
operational field is then transferred to private growers for large scale production.
The Program has developed initial increase of foundation crop to give to private industry
growers for over 400 ecotypes and conducted over 470 operational seedings for production of
seed for use in small restoration projects.
Step 4: Seed Production by Private Growers
To increase the production of quality native plant materials, private growers are given initial
seed stock that has proven reliable from the research and development in the previous steps of
the process. The seed produced by private growers is then available for purchase by private
and public sectors, including the major federal land managing agencies in the United States for
restoration of public lands.
The Program has transferred more than 200 ecotypes to private growers across the U.S.
Step 5: Seed Storage
Federal land managing agencies in the U.S., such as the Bureau of Land Management,
purchase millions of pounds of commercially produced seed from private growers for restoration
of disturbed and degraded lands annually. Seed purchased from private growers is stored in
large climate controlled warehouse facilities for short-term holding before it is distributed to local
restoration projects on federal lands.
The Bureau of Land Management has increased its short term seed storage facilities to a
capacityof 2.5 million pounds of seed.
Step 6: Restore Native Plant Communities
The United States federal government manages over 600 million acres of land, which
constitutes about 29 percent of the U.S. land mass. These lands belong to the American people
and it is the responsibility of Federal Government Agencies to manage them sustainably.
Therefore, the ultimate goal of the Native Plant Materials Development Program is to ensure
that high quality native plant materials are available commercially for land managers to use in
restoring native plant communities that provide the vital ecological services upon which life
depends. The Program has facilitated the commercial availability of over 120 U.S. ecotypes for
restoration projects.
Appendix V. Long Island Native Grass Initiative Seed Collection Form
Collectors Name:
Date:
Address:
Scientific Name:
Common Name:
Location (be specific: directions, roads, and /or landmarks):
County:
State:
Permit required Y / N
GPS latitude:
GPS Longitude:
Plant History: __ Native Genotype __ Cultivar
__Unknown
Documentation of Plant History:
Species frequency/distribution: ___Common ___ Scattered ___ Rare
Population estimate (numbers of individuals):
Sample size:
Community type: __Forest __Woodland __Swamp Forest __ Shrubland ___Meadow/grassland
__ Aquatic/lacustrine ___Marsh/pond shore ___Crust ___Coastal
Habitat Type:
(Use species sheet on back)
Land use:
Soil texture: ___Clay ___Clay loam ___Loam ____Loamy sand ___Sand Clay ___ Sand loam
___Silt loam ___Silt clay ___ Silt clay loam ____ Rock outcropping
___ Urban rubble ___NA
___Soil Survey #
Slope: ___Flat ___Undulating ___ Moderately inclined __ Steep ___ Very steep __ Cliffs
Aspect: __N __NW __NE __S __SW __SE __E __W
Exposure: __ Full sun __Partial Shade __ Full Shade
Moisture: __Seasonally wet/moist ___Wet ___Moist ___Dry
__ Poorly drained ___Well drained
Seed quality: ___Good ___Average ___Poor
Estimate percentages or give the most frequently occurring:
Healthy
____%
Empty
____%
Malformed
Insect damaged
Moldy
____%
____%
____%
Seed maturation: ___Early ___Middle ___Late ___Indeterminate
Seeds collected from: ___Ground ___Plant ___Both
Associated Species:
HABITAT GROUP
Mixed mesophytic & red
oak-tuliptree forests
Sand & coastal herbaceous
communities
Mixed oaks/flowering
dogwood forests
Mines
Mixed oak/heath forest
Maritime forests w/oak &
holly
Beaches
Mixed hardwood swamps
Red maple swamps
Northern hardwood
forests & transitions
White ash swamperies
Interior woodlands on
bedrock & talus
Beech swamps
Maritime & Interior
woodlands on sand
Hickory swamps
Sourgum swamps
Pin oak swamps
Coastal shrublands
Black walnut swamps
Rocky shrublands
American elm swamps
Anthropogenic landfills
Swamp cottonwood series
Interior herbaceous
communities
Bog (conifer swamp)
Pitch pine lowland forest
Freshwater marshes
Brackish marshes
Salt marshes
Freshwater ponds/lakes
Brackish submerged
vegetation
Saltwater submerged
communities
Rocky shore
Sandy Shore
Freshwater mudflats
Brackish mudflats
Saline mudflats
Riverine
Appendix VI. Grow Native Consumer Education Program
Landscape Design with Missouri in Mind
A Practical Application Workshop
Friday, February 20, 2009, and Saturday, February 21, 2009
Missouri Department of Conservation Northeast Regional Office
Session descriptions
Native Landscaping—A Natural Way to Spice Up Life
A daily dose of birds and butterflies is one way to spice up life. This session explains how to
attract them to your yard by using native plants to provide food and shelter for them. The
session is based on the practical experience of an avid gardener who enjoys backyard wildlife.
Know the Lay of the Land
This session describes the development of the Missouri Ecological Classification System and
how it can be used to help guide an understanding of your property and the native ecosystems
it supports. Prairies, woodlands, glades, wetlands and savannas are among the native
ecosystems that may form the basis of your landscape.
Put Plants in the Right Place
Whether your landscape is sunny or shady, wet or dry, there is a Missouri native wildflower
that will thrive in it. This session provides an overview of Missouri native plants and includes
their light, moisture and soil needs. By the end of the session, you should have a list of plants
that fit conditions found in your landscape.
Reconstructing Prairie
In pre-settlement days, much of Missouri was covered with tallgrass prairie. Today less than
one-half of one percent of Missouri’s original prairie remains. Property owners, however, can
reconstruct prairies—even on small plots. This session provides tips for site and soil
preparation, explains how to control difficult-to-kill weeds,describes how to match seed mix to
the site and how to sow seed. There also are tips for maintenance in years one and two, as well
as long-term maintenance.
Native Trees for Landscapes Large and Small
Missouri native trees include bottomland species such as sycamore and box elder, dry-site
species such as chinquapin oak and trees such as basswood and Kentucky coffeetree that thrive
in rich, moist soils. Of course, there are a host of oaks and hickories. This session focuses on
trees that work in small yards, along streets, in parks and on campuses. There are tips for
selecting the best ones for a landscape, along with maintenance and pruning tips.
Put it All Together
This session wraps all the previous sessions into a neat package that explains how to use what
you’ve learned to create a satisfying and beautiful landscape.
Works Cited
Brzuszek, R.F., R.L. Harkess & S.J. Mulley. Landscape Architects’ Use of Native Plants in the
Southeastern United States. 2007. HortTechnology. 17:
Burghardt, Karin T., D. W. Tallamy, C. Philips and K. J. Shropshire. 2010. Non-native plants
reduce abundance, richness, and host specialization in lepidopteran communities. Ecosphere
2010 1:5.
Casagrande, Richard. Sustainable Landscapes. 1995. SARE Dynamic Content System.
Case, Jane. Blue Moon Farm Perennials. Personal Interview. 15 April 2011.; Cotta, Steve and Jean.
Portsmouth Nursery. Personal Interview. 28 April 2011.; Aube, Bob. Morningstar Nursery.
Personal Interview 7 April 2011.
Chaffee, Caitlin. Coastal Policy Analyst, RI Coastal Resources Management Council. Personal
Interview. 16 April 2011.
Collinge, S. K., Prudic, K. L., & Oliver, J. C. 2003. Effects of local habitat characteristics and
landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conservation Biology. 17: 178-187.
Colorado State Cooperative Extension. Native Plant Master Program. 27 February, 2011.
http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/jefferson/natural/native.htm
Cooperative Extension System. 2009 Extension Master Gardener Survey. 25 January, 2011.
http://www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/f/f5/Extension_MG_Survey_4-9.pdf
Daniels, J. C., Schaefer, J., Huegel, C. N., & Mazzotti, F. J. 2008. Butterfly gardening in Florida.
Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_uw057
Department of Environmental Management. 2005. Nonpoint Source Pollution Management
Program. 21 February, 2011.:
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/quality/nonpoint/pdfs/acts0005.pdf
Drexler, Bonnie. Education Coordinator, New England Wild Flower Society. Personal Interview 11
April 2011.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Outdoor Air: Transportation: Lawn Equipment. 21
February 2011: http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html
Erickson, Vicky. 2008. Developing Native Plant Germplasm for National Forests and Grasslands in
the Pacific Northwest. Native Plants.
Erickson, Vicky. USDA US Forest Service, Forester. Personal Interview. 17 April 2011.
Fairchild, Barbara. Grow Native, Communications Specialist. Personal Inverview. 12 April 2011.
Farnsworth, N.R. 1994. Ethnopharmacology and drug development. In G. T. Prance, D. Chadwick,
and J. Marsh (eds) Ethnobotany and the Search for New Drugs. Ciba Foundation
Symposium 185. London: John Wiley and Sons: 42-51.
Ferguson, Wenley. Habitat Restoration Coordinator. Save The Bay. Personal Interview. 12
April 2011.
Garden Writers Association. 2009. Garden Trend Research Report.
Hamill, .2005. Natives near and far. Ornamental Outlook. 14:31-32.
Hellyer, Greg. Characterizing, Mapping and Applying Level III and IV Ecoregions in New England
for Integrated Ecosystem Assessment and Management Assessment Management. EPA
New England Regional Laboratory Mapping Session 1A March 17, 2010.
Hines, Jim. Director, RI Dairy Farm Collective. Personal Interview. 19 April 2011.
Jeffries, P., Gianinazzi, S., Perotto, S., Turnau, K. and Barea, J. 2003. The contribution of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi in sustainable maintenance of plant health and soil fertility. Biology and
Fertility of Soils. 37(1): 1-16.
Lesica, Peter & F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities:
mix or match? Restoration Ecology. 7:42-50.
MacGregor-Fors, I. 2008. Relation between habitat attributes and bird richness in a western Mexico
suburb. Landscape and Urban Planning. 84(1): 92-98.
McIntyre, N. & Hostetler, M. E. 2001. Effects of urban land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera:
Apodidea) communities in a desert metropolis. Journal of Applied and Theoretical
Biology. 2: 209-218
McMahon, Linda. 2006. Understanding cultural reasons for the increase in both restoration and
gardening with native plants. Native Plants Journal. 7:31-34.
Mills, G. S., Dunning, J. B. J., & Bates, J. M. (1989). Effects of urbanization on breeding bird
community structure in southwestern desert habitats. The Condor. 91:416-428.
Missouri Department of Conservation and Missouri Department of Agriculture. 2008 Missouri
Native Plant Industry Survey. 2008.
Omernik, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management. In: Biological
Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Davis,
W.S. and T.P. Simon (eds.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 49-62.
Pickett, S.T.A., M.L.Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, C.G. Boone, W.R. Burch
Jr, C.S.B. Grimmond, J. Hom, J.C. Jenkins, K.L. Law, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, K. Szlavecs,
P.S. Warren, and M.A. Wilson. 2008 Beyond urban legends: an emerging framework of
urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. Bioscience 58: 139-150.
Potts, L.E., M. Roll, S.J. Wallner. 2002. Colorado native plant survey – Voices of the green industry.
Native Plants Journal. 3:121-125.
Reichard SH. 1997. Prevention of invasive plant introductions on national and local levels. Pages
215–227 in Luken JA, Thieret JA, eds.Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New
York: Springer.
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program, revised 2008 (CRMC Redbook)
§ 145(C)(3).
Rhode Island Department of Administration Division of Planning. 2006. Land Use 2025: Rhode
Island State Land Use Policies and Plan.
Rhode Island Natural History Survey. Phone Interviews. September 2009.
Rogers, D.L. and Montalvo, A.M. 2004. Genetically Appropriate Choices for Plant Materials to
Maintain Biological Diversity. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.
Salmón, Enrique. 2000. Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature
relationship. Ecological Applications 10:1327–1332.
Scherer, Eric. State Resource Conservationist. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Personal
Interview. 20 April 2011.
Smith, Susan B., K. H. McPherson., J. M. Backer, B. J. Pierce., D. W. Polesack, and Scott R.
McWilliams. 2007. Fruit quality and consumption by songbirds during autumn migration.
The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 119: 419-428.
Sustainable Sites Initiative. www.sustainablesites.org. 2010.
Tallamy, Doug. Bringing Nature Home. 2007. Timber Press Inc.
Uhl, Christopher. 2008. Conservation Biology in Your Own Front Lawn. Conservation Biology. 12:
1175-1177.
University of Vermont Extension, University of Maine Cooperative Extension. A summary of the
impact of the Environmental Horticulture Industry on the New England economy. 2009.
Utz, Ryan M. 2005. Temporal trends in the consumption, growth and successful feeding traits of a
Central Appalacian brook trout population at the watershed scale. Master’s thesis, Davis
College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences, West Virgina University.
Venturini, Kate. Ecological Landscape Program Coordinator, URI Outreach Center. Personal
Interview. 21 April 2011.
Weaner, Larry. “Sustainable Residential Landscapes: Design, Planting, and Maintenance
Techniques.” Lecture. Smaller American Lawns Today Seminar for Homeowners.
Connecticut College Arboretum, New Haven, Connecticut. 6 November 2010.
Weaner, Larry. Founder, Larry Weaner Design Associates. Personal Inverview. 19 April 2011.
Weber, Raina. Executive Director, Project Native. Personal Interview. 20 April 2011.
Weigand, Polly. Coordinator, Long Island Native Grass Initiative. Personal Interview 21 April
2011.