Wildflower Planting

Wildflowers are becoming more and more popular as a way to brighten up urban areas and support their wildlife, and planting them is something which we at FoMBL have embarked on recently. They're beautiful, more interesting than traditional flowerbeds, and can be low-maintenance. By planting a wide variety of native species, rather than blocks of single ornamental species, they can also provide food and habitat for a broad range of native species, particularly invertebrates. However, they're often portrayed as an ideal end-point for urban biodiversity, which is a pretty one-dimensional view to take, and ultimately doesn't quite cut it.

Aesthetically, I think that the value of wildflowers is huge, and much greater than cultivated varieties. This is clearly not the kind of point on which everyone can agree, but here's why I think it's the case, I'd love to hear your arguments for either side. Compared to another stretch of grass, I'd always rather look at a wildflower patch or flowerbed, even out of bloom. Breaking up the monotony of many urban green spaces is something I think most of us can get behind. The real debate comes when we look at wildflowers in opposition to domesticated varieties. Comparing, for example, an established meadow to a rose garden, there are a whole host of differences between the two. The key one for me is the variety in species of plants and insects, as well as smells and colours, seen in the meadow. Side-by-side, the cultivated gardens seem boring and full of identical, bloated caricatures. There's simply less to look at, and while one is a feat of engineering, the other represents what I really want to see in a park: something which gives me the impression of not being in the city.

Of course, wildflowers require some kind of management (typically annual mowing) but this is less intensive than the pruning and treatment needed to maintain traditional gardens. There's also a perspective, which I share, from which the management of domesticated flowers can be impressive, as anyone who's been to a well-run tulip garden in full bloom would surely agree. But, the comparison which this brings to my mind is between a dog show and wildlife-watching: the fruits of human intervention can be interesting, but they lack the context of place and the sense of humility that comes from interactions with anything wild.

This variety and sense of wilderness has more than aesthetic benefit: they support greater numbers of a wider range of wildlife. This is particularly true if the plants are native to the region, and other organisms have co-evolved alongside them. This enriched biodiversity in urban areas supports wilder spaces, as well as enhancing productivity of our green spaces by helping pollinators and decomposers.

However, wildflowers alone are not a complete solution. In our efforts to restore habitats we need to acknowledge more than just meadows and live trees. There are wetland areas, dead wood, and shrubby habitats, among others, which are often forgotten or seen as inconvenient in human-dominated spaces. If we're to take our cities' biodiversity seriously, we need a more complete idea of which habitats are needed, and what's missing from our parks and gardens.
 
Wildflowers are gorgeous, varied, and ultimately necessary for many other species. Planting them in urban areas can solve some of the problems that human encroachment poses for wildlife. But, while they enrich our lives, and the lives of the organisms in our cities, it's vital that we remember the other habitats which are part of the ecosystem. Ponds, mini-marshes, and bug hotels are among the ways we can supplement the sexier habitats, such as wildflower meadows, to create a working imitation of a wild system. If we're to mitigate the issues that urbanisation creates for wildlife, we have to be creative, dedicated, and all-encompassing in our approach.