Cultivation of Native Productive Plants in Urban Agroforestry Systems in the U.S. Northeast: Perceptions and Barriers

Survey Results 

Participants in the online survey (n=372) included gardeners (n=319), farmers (n=8), nursery professionals (n=5), landscape professionals (n=19), community gardeners (n=17), and food foresters (n=3). Among gardeners who provided the primary purpose of their garden (n=311) the most common answers were annual vegetable garden (30%) and habitat garden (30%), followed by ornamental garden (18%), agroforest/food forest made up only 3% of responses.  Gardeners reported obtaining plants from local nurseries, nonprofit organizations, online nurseries, and big box stores at relatively equal rates. Gardeners and farmers were asked to categorize plant types included on their gardens and/or farms as native or non-native (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1.  Survey results for gardeners asked “For each plant type included in your garden, indicate, to the best of your knowledge, whether the plants in your farm include plants that are natives and/or non-native to your area.”

Figure 2.  Survey results for farmers asked “For each plant type included in your farm, indicate, to the best of your knowledge, whether the plants in your farm include plants that are natives and/or non-native to your area.”  

When asked how important including native plants in landscape designs for clients most responded that it was extremely (55%) or very (33%) important with clients specifically requesting native plants always (18%), often (41%), sometimes (29%), or rarely (12%). Overall landscapers felt extremely (41%,44%), very (47%,39%), or moderately (12%,17%) informed about the benefits of native plants and the risks of non-native plants within the landscape. Respondents felt extremely (20%), very (40%), or moderately (40%) confident in relaying information on the benefits of native pants to customers. Over 70% felt extremely or very confident in relaying information about the risks of non-native plants to clients, with 22% feeling moderately confident and 6% feeling only slightly confident. 

Nursery professionals reported vastly different percentages of sales made up by native plants, including 1%, 5-10%, 75%, and 98% with native plants being requested by customers always (25%), often (25%), or sometimes (50%). Nursery professionals reported being extremely (40%), or very (60%) informed about the benefits of native plants, and extremely (20%), very (60%), or moderately (20%) informed about the risks of non-native and invasive plants. Respondents felt extremely (20%), very (40%), or moderately (40%) confident in relaying this information to customers.

Table 1. Survey Demographics

Interview Results 

As of October 2025 8 qualitative interviews were conducted with food foresters throughout the northeastern United States, including practitioners in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. Of the practitioners interviewed 3 tended to their own private residential food forests, and 5 were stewards of local community food forests. Motivations for the private sites were mostly access to fresh food and medicine for immediate family, though at least one private practitioner also mentioned providing food and resources for community members. Compared to the residential food forests, community food forests were usually in much more urban settings and thus associated more highly with challenges of these locations such as pressure from invasive species and space constraints. 

Key themes identified from the interview transcripts include the following:

1. Community Engagement and Education:
   • Many interview participants emphasized the importance of community involvement in gardening and food forest projects. They discussed how these spaces serve as educational resources for local residents, including children and families, fostering a sense of community and shared responsibility.
2. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health:
   • There was a strong focus on increasing biodiversity within the gardens and food forests. Interview participants mentioned the introduction of native plants, the importance of pollinators, and the role of various species in supporting local wildlife. The discussions highlight efforts to create habitats that benefit both plants and animals, reflecting a holistic approach to gardening.
3. Sustainability and Resilience:
   • The theme of sustainability was prevalent, with many participants discussing practices that minimize environmental impact, such as using native plants, organic gardening methods, and permaculture principles. There was also a focus on resilience, particularly in the context of extreme weather events and adapting gardening practices to changing environmental conditions.
4. Food Security and Self-Sufficiency:
   • Participants expressed a desire to grow food for personal consumption and community distribution, emphasizing the importance of food security. They discuss the benefits of growing their own food as a way to reduce reliance on commercial food systems and enhance local food sovereignty.
5. Cultural and Historical Context:
   • Some discussions with participants touched on the cultural significance of certain plants and gardening practices, including the incorporation of traditional knowledge and the importance of preserving local heritage through gardening.
6. Adaptation and Change:
   • The interviews reflect a theme of adaptation, with participants discussing how their gardening practices and goals evolve over time in response to challenges such as environmental variability, soil health, and community needs.

Figure 3. A word cloud generated using keywords detected  in each interview transcript. Larger words were found in a greater number of interviews.

Plant Inventory Results

Across the 17 food forest sites, we recorded 996 plant records representing an average of 59 unique plant taxa per site, with a range of 12 to 87 taxa per site. The three most common species were all native; the fruiting tree pawpaw (Amsonia triloba) was recorded on 13 of the sites while common milkweed (Asclepias syriacus) and fox grape (Vitis labrusca) and its cultivars were each found on 12 sites. Elderberry was also recorded on 12 sites and was considered to be native in all its occurrences, though no attempt was made to distinguish between the morphologically—and possibly ecologically—very similar indigenous American (Sambucus canadensis) and European (S. nigra) species.

The number of non-native taxa maintained by food foresters, 240, was 41 percent greater than the number of native taxa, 170. Apple (Malus domestica) was the most common non-native species, found at 11 of the 17 sites. Two additional fruit tree species, peach (Prunus persica) and plum (Prunus domestica) were identified in 10 food forests. Comfrey (Symphytum sp.), a plant frequently promoted by permaculturists as a ”dynamic accumulator of soil nutrients, was also found at 10 of the 17 sites.

Regardless of nativity, non-productive plants make up the majority of recorded plant taxa (57.8 percent), and native productive plants a small minority.(12.4 percent). Though these plants may not produce food or have a medicinal purpose, they may still function as resource plants for the productive plants, providing, for example, habitat for pollinators or insect predators.

Fruiting shrubs such as highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) represented almost half of the native productive taxa, though plants of hybrid parentage or uncertain provenance such as elderberry, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and raspberry (Rubus sp.) were categorized as native, potentially inflating the total number of native productive taxa.

Table 2. Distribution of unique plant taxa recorded from food forest sites (n=17) in the Northeast U.S., by plant type (native vs. non-native) and use.

Soil Analysis Results

The average percent soil organic matter (SOM) for the 17 sites, 7.58 percent, was considerably higher than the 2 to 3 percent SOM typically found in in loam soils in the Northeast U.S. (Magdoff & Van Es, 2021), indicating that the soils had been enriched with organic matter, most likely in the form of compost, applied either at the time of establishment or as a top dressing after planting, or mulches such as woodchips. At 154 mg kg-1, the average phosphorus level for food forest soils was considerably higher than that required for optimal crop growth (30-50 mg kg-1). Phosphorus and SOM levels, however, were considerably lower than those for adjacent annual agroecosystems (7.58 vs. 15.75 percent for SOM and 154 mg kg-1 vs 257 mg kg-1 for phosphorus). Annual vegetables in urban areas are frequently grown in technosols (media constructed from compost, soil, and other materials) with high levels of organic matter and phosphorus in cap-and-fill systems to obviate the problem of soil contamination (Ugarte & Taylor, 2020). The deeper rooting depth of woody perennial plants precludes the use of these systems in food forestry, hence the lower levels of SOM and phosphorus observed for food forest soils in this study. These lower soil phosphorus levels may reduce the potential negative impact of food forests on stormwater quality compared to annual production, in which excessive use of compost may contribute to nutrient loading of stormwater and groundwater (Small et al., 2019).

Table 3. Soil analysis results for food forest sites (n=17) in the Northeast U.S. and adjacent annual production sites and lawn areas 

+/- one standard deviation

References 

Magdoff, F., & Van Es, H. (2021). Building soils for better crops: Ecological management for healthy soils. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.

Small, G., Shrestha, P., Metson, G. S., Polsky, K., Jimenez, I., & Kay, A. (2019). Excess phosphorus from compost applications in urban gardens creates potential pollution hotspots. Environmental Research Communications, 1(9), 091007.

Ugarte, C. M., & Taylor, J. R. (2020). Chemical and biological indicators of soil health in Chicago urban gardens and farms. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 5(1), e20004.