Q20 presented nine possible activities that nursery industry members could take part in that could help prevent invasive species from spreading in the United States. Some of these options were gleaned from the Australian Nursery industry’s program to control invasive plants Garden plants under the spotlight: An Australian strategy for invasive garden plants).

76 participants responded to this question. Members of the industry were most willing to suggest alternatives for invasive plants to their customers (63/76, 83%) as well as include botanical names on their plant labels (62/76, 82%), which most (45/76, 59%) already do.

The chart below, “Q20: Number of applicable respondents” shows the distribution (scaled to show percentage) of responses to each option, excluding “not applicable”, so that the proportion of responses becomes apparent. The numbers in the bars indicate the number of respondents who chose that option.

The activities that earned the most negative responses (shown in light blue) were  donating profits to researching invasive plants (Q20e), which 29/72 (40%) disliked, and  conducting workshops for the public (Q20h), which 21/76 (28%) disliked.

For all but those two activities the options presented in Q20 were received by the respondents with at least some willingness to participate. None of the respondents said that they would not suggest alternative plants to their customers (Q20d), and very few said that they would not distribute educational pamphlets (4/69, 6%, Q20b), remove plants from their stock (5/72, 7%, Q20a), include botanical names on their plants (4/72, 6%, Q20k), participate in workshops to educate themselves (6/66, 9%, Q20g), or put signs suggesting alternatives to invasive plants (7/54, 13%, Q20c). In general, nurseries seem very willing to educate their customers and provide them with alternative options to using invasive plants.

This question did not address the costs of implementing any of these programs, so it is hard to say whether more members of the nursery industry may be interested in these activities if they were funded by government or industry organizations. It may be assumed that anything which costs businesses more money (such as Q20e, donating profits) would be unpopular and difficult to implement. Labels (Q20i and Q20j) may have been only mildly popular because of the potential cost involved in having them.

Of the 72 respondents who felt that 20a, “remove a small, select group of plants considered invasive from your nursery stock (or discontinue planting them)” was applicable to them, 46 (64%) admitted that they would be willing to do that or already have done it, while only 5/72 (7%) said that they would not do this. This leaves many (21/72, 29%) undecided. A few respondents commented on this question, saying that removal would “depend on several factors” and that they would not be willing to remove all exotic plants, just invasives.

Of the 69 respondents who felt that distributing educational pamphlets was applicable to them, 56 (81%) said they would or already do distribute pamphlets. Only 4/69 (6%) said that they would not do this.

Putting up signs in a display area was not applicable to 22/76 (29%) respondents to Q20, 19 of which were growers – not retailers. 31/54 (57%) of those who could put up signs said that they would; 7/54 (13%) said that they would not.

One respondent said that they would be willing to put up signs “provided the information is true for the sites in question.” Another said that they would be willing to have display gardens.

Of the 71 who felt that they could suggest alternatives to invasive plants to their customers (Q20d), 63 (89%) said that they would, 8 (11%) more said that they might, and none said that they would not.

Q20e “Donate a small percentage of your profits to research on invasive plants  and their alternatives” was the least popular option by far. 3 respondents felt the option was not applicable to them and of the remaining 72, 29 (40%) were not willing to make donations and 8 (11%) were willing or already do.

Some comments on this option illustrated the respondents’ reluctance to spend money on this issue. One said, “[I] pay enough taxes as it is. It would become just another tax. Let the Department of Agriculture finance it.” Another respondent would like to see the research costs in order to donate money. Yet another felt that “existing funding mechanisms” could be redirected to create more funding for research.

One finding from the result of this question is that while respondents may feel that research is important and should be funded, they are reluctant to donate their money to the issue. 3 respondents said that more funding needs to be allocated to this issue when asked what they felt the problems were with current government regulation of invasive plants (Q19). But of those 3, 2 said they would “maybe” donate money (1 was the respondent who felt that funds could be redirected) and 1 said that they would not donate money to research.

One theme that has come up throughout the survey has been that nurseries feel that there is a market and a need for alternatives to invasive plants (see Alternatives to invasive plants in Results).

Q20f asks how many respondents are interested in developing new cultivars that could be alternatives to invasives. Of the 65 who felt that this option was applicable to them, 38 (58%) said that they were willing to do this, or already do. 11/65 (17%) said that they were not willing to do this. Unlike some of the other (removing plants from stock, educating customers) options in this question, consensus within the industry is not crucial for the success of this activity. If a few nurseries develop cultivars, many nurseries can benefit by selling them.

Of the 66 respondents who felt that participating in educational workshops is applicable to them, 39 (59%) said that they would be willing to do this, and 6 (9%) said that they would not be willing to. Again, cost may be an issue with some of the respondents in this case. If workshops are convenient and free or inexpensive, members of the industry may be interested in them.

A similar number of respondents said that they were willing to conduct workshops (25/62, 40%) as those who said that they were not (21/62, 34%). One respondent starred this option to indicate that they are very willing to conduct workshops for the public.

All of the 25 respondents who are willing to conduct workshops already suggest alternative plants to their customers (Q20d) and all but one (who chose “maybe”) are willing to hand out educational pamphlets (Q20b). 23/25 said that they would participate in workshops (Q20g) – one did not answer the Q20g and one said Q20g was not applicable. These 25 nurseries are very willing to educate their customers.

 30/67 (45%) of the respondents who felt using warning labels was applicable to them, said that they were willing to use them. 15/67 (22%) said that they were not. 2 respondents said that they already use warning labels for invasive plants meaning that there is already some experience in the industry with this method that could be consulted in deciding policies.

One respondent expressed their distaste with this option by saying, “warning doesn’t work, not selling is best.” Another said that they would only be willing to label some plants.

Again, this option did not take cost into consideration. Some respondents may have been turned off by warning labels because of their potential expense.

There was slightly more interest in using positive labeling (Q20j) than in using warning labeling (Q20i). Of the 66 respondents who felt using an “ecosystem-friendly” type label was applicable to them, 33/66 (50%) said that they would be willing to use them, and 10/66 (15%) said that they would not. One respondent wrote in that they would be willing to use display gardens for these plants, and one repeated the same sentiment from the warning label option – not selling plants is better than warning people about it.

Using botanical names on plant labels ensures that informed customers will be able to positively identify invasive plants. Most (45/72, 62%) of the respondents who felt that this was applicable already do this and 17/72 (24%) are willing to; only 4/72 (6%) are not willing to include botanical names on their plant labels. Only 1 of the 4 who are not willing to use botanical names is a retail operation.