Missing the Forest for the Trees

A male Eastern Towhee perches on a radio tower enveloped by an Autumn Olive shrub—perhaps the best wildlife plant there is as it feeds numerous species of pollinators, birds, and mammals.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

There’s much publicity nowadays that misinforms people about the need to create a wildlife habitat in which 70% of the plants are native. A major focus is often on getting folks to grow trees—in particular, oak trees. Why? According to Nancy Hazard, a member of a group called “Greening Greenfield [Massachusetts]”, “Oak is king. Oaks host over 400 different species of moths and butterflies.”

 

https://www.recorder.com/Ecological-difference-39423618

 

This deceptive “fact” (which comes from entomologist Doug Tallamy, whose tally for caterpillar species that feed on oaks was 557 in 2017, according to the National Audubon Society) is repeated often in gardening columns, making people think that any oak they grow in their yards is going to feed hundreds of species of moth and butterfly caterpillars.

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

The reality, however, is that this number represents the sum of Lepidopteran species that feed upon the entire genus of oaks across the country, of which there are at least 90 species. In other words, if you plant a White Oak (Quercus alba) in your yard, it’s not going to feed nearly as many caterpillar species as you might think.

 

Why the focus on tree-caterpillar species anyway? The study that supposedly proved that at least 70% of the plants in a yard should be native for the benefit of songbirds was based upon the foraging habit of Carolina Chickadee parents getting food for their chicks. These small birds mainly feed their young tiny caterpillars that they find on forest trees (their ecological niche) which, by definition, consists of native species.

 

Although Doug Tallamy and his coauthors, student Desiree Narango and ornithologist Peter Marra, concluded in their original paper that the Carolina Chickadee requires native trees (which should have been obvious even without a study) to reproduce successfully, their observations are now employed by virtually every garden columnist and TV gardening personality to mean all bird species require 70% of the plants in people’s yards to be native. But this contention was not proven by the study everyone references, and therefore Narango, Tallamy, and Marra should have set the record straight by now.

 

https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-carolina-chickadeegrasps-tulip-poplar.html

 

However, these scientists do not seem to comprehend or value the larger picture because they are so focused on only a fraction of it. They’ve been missing the forest (the rest of the environment) for the trees (especially those oaks).

 

Dr. Narango “believes that her results provide convincing evidence that planting native is in a bird lover’s best interests. ‘The trees [our color-banded chickadees] were going to were covered in warblers, tanagers, and orioles,’ she says. ‘They’re basically telling us what these other birds want.’”

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

Yes, the chickadees were telling her what warblers, tanagers, and orioles want because these species are birds of the forest, as is the chickadee. To assist such birds requires that your yard and every yard around you must become forest, something highly unlikely to occur in urban/suburban areas.

 

Additionally, this newly minted scientist fails to recognize that the forest habitat of these species is not what all other birds want. If everyone made their yards forestland, we’d lose our common backyard species—Eastern Towhee, Northern Cardinal, Brown Thrasher, and Song Sparrow, to name a few—that require shrubby habitat, not forest. Sunny shrubland with herbaceous plants and woody shrubs supports far more diversity of insect life than forest, including an abundance of mammal, reptile, salamander, and bird species. And truth be told, numerous nonnative shrubs and herbaceous plants support these organisms very well.

 

https://www.marlenecondon.com/

 

For the greatest diversity of life forms, our landscape cannot consist solely of forestland, which is what Tallamy, Narango, Marra and their followers are pushing for, even though they don’t seem to know it.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

If most of your plantings are already native species, that’s great—if they provide the proper structure necessary to create good wildlife habitat. Problems arise when people feel they are obliged to get rid of fully mature nonnative plants, especially by way of pesticides, even though the resulting bare ground or young (immature) newly planted native plants will not be useful for a long time to come.

Alien plants can provide habitat for shrubland bird species, whether it be by providing nesting sites, food (fruits/seeds), or cover. It’s a huge mistake to destroy habitat that functions perfectly for shrubland birds. Please don’t be swayed by the harmful information perpetuated not only by the media, but also scientists who dare not speak against a popular thought, even though it is wrong.

 

 

Making Scents of Nature

Plant fragrances came into being for the utilitarian purpose of attracting insects (such as this Hummingbird Moth) to pollinate flowers (such as the Mimosa [Albizia julibrissin] seen here). Their function has nothing to do with making people smell “nice”.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

For thousands of years, at least, humans have applied substances to their bodies to smell better. Of course, for most of those years, people did not have easy access to bathing facilities as we do now. As a result, when hard-working men and women sweated, they were not always able to effectively wash off the bacteria that fed on their sweat (a mix of water and a tiny amount of salt and waste products). People therefore tried to mask the resulting body odor with fragrances.

 

Sweat itself does not smell bad. The body odor we find so offensive is the result of droppings that bacteria feeding on the waste products of our sweat create. All living things leave behind droppings, substances that an organism is unable to break down and make use of to keep itself alive.

 

This odor is not instantaneously noticeable. It only becomes apparent over time, with the build-up of bacteria and thus the build-up of droppings. These microorganisms are constantly multiplying, so if a person delays washing himself for too long, more and more bacteria are producing waste and the odor assaults our senses. Workout clothes left sitting around for many days, especially if they are not hung to dry, will become smelly for the same reason.

 

Over the past several years, my husband and I have found it ever more difficult to enjoy a good meal at a restaurant, but not because of people’s body odor. Rather, the problem is instead that so many people nowadays wear perfume (if a woman) or cologne (if a man).

 

It is extremely unappetizing to try to eat when various non-food scents, pleasant as they might possibly be in a different setting, are filling the air around you. If I were writing a book of etiquette, the first rule would be to never wear perfume/cologne to a restaurant or anywhere food is going to be served (parties, office meetings, etc.).

 

I would also suggest that restaurants should never be using anything but fragrance-free hand soaps. Have you ever washed your hands at a restaurant and then tried to eat a sandwich with hands reeking of fragrance that masked the appetizing aromas of the food?

 

Lamentably, restaurants are not the only venue where the odors of fragrances abound. Hotel rooms and lobbies, and even some doctors’ offices, can be strong-smelling, thanks to devices that shoot aerosols into the air “to make it smell nice”. There should be absolutely no need of these products in such places because they are supposed to be clean.

 

Even many retail establishments make a point to fill the air with strong fragrances, undoubtedly because they know many people have been deluded into thinking that perfumed air equates to “fresh” air. But it isn’t.

 

Surprisingly, when my husband and I are trying to enjoy the actual fresh air of the outdoors, we are often subjected to the perfume/cologne of joggers passing by. As someone who jogged for more than 35 years, I can state with confidence that the wearing of fragrances to exercise was not something I ever encountered on the road or at the track.

 

There are good reasons not to wear these substances. Fragrances attract insects that feed at flowers and fruits, and you probably would prefer not to have insects hanging around you. I once wore a dress to a picnic and a yellow jacket persistently followed me around. I couldn’t understand it, and I was concerned about it going up my dress. (Yikes!!!) It finally dawned on me that I had made the mistake of putting on a mildly rose-scented body cream (I love the smell of roses).

 

Another reason not to wear scented cosmetics is that cheaper perfumes and colognes can contain toxic ingredients. Think petrochemicals. Petrochemicals are chemicals derived from petroleum or other fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas. The huge multitude of products made with these chemicals is astounding. Paints, electronics, tires, bedding, housewares, clothing, and toys are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

While these products can entail problems for the Earth because they are difficult to dispose of, perfumes pose a different dilemma for people. These substances can be carcinogenic. Substances applied to your skin or inhaled through your nose can be absorbed into your body, entering your blood stream and getting carried to your organs.

 

In antiquity, perfume makers used plant-based oils as the “carrier” for natural fragrances. For example, olive oil and almond oil were readily available in ancient Greece and Rome and thus were employed as the method of delivery for the delightful scents of flowers and other plant-derived products.

However, the use of natural substances in perfume does not always guarantee a product is safe for humans, and only the most expensive perfumes nowadays are made using natural fragrances. Less expensive ones use mostly synthetic fragrances, some of which are derived from petroleum, and others of which have such hazardous properties as the ability to accumulate in human tissues.

 

Although research is ongoing about the effects of both natural and synthetic fragrances upon human health, my thought is that you can never go wrong following Mother Nature’s lead. “She” doesn’t bombard us with fragrances. Fresh air (when unpolluted) is enjoyable of its own accord. Of course, we love the scents of many kinds of flowers, and thus stop to enjoy a quick whiff as we move on by. But that’s it—a short inhalation of fragrance that is unlikely to be problematic for our bodies.

 

The wearing of manmade perfumes and colognes, on the other hand, means breathing in these volatile substances for quite some time. And for bystanders, it can be just as unpleasant and unappreciated to be exposed to someone’s perfume/cologne for a long time as it is to be exposed to the smoke of a smoker. It could possibly be just as dangerous for them as well.

 

In days of yore, it made sense for people to take the scents of nature to make perfumes in which to envelop themselves. Today, it’s not necessary, and we know it could pose a risk to our health. One thing I know for sure: Perfumes and colognes can certainly ruin date night!

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

People think of yellow jackets as “pests” when these insects show up to share food, such as fruits, that folks are eating outside. Therefore, if you don’t want these insects flying around you even when you aren’t eating, avoid wearing fragrances that mimic the sweet scents of flowers and fruits.

 

Helping Nature Shouldn’t Be Against the Law

The south side of the author’s nature-friendly yard is filled with plants, providing habitat for a huge variety of wildlife that includes mice and the native Eastern Woodrat. Does a yard like this threaten anyone’s health, safety, or general welfare? Absolutely not.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Over the years, many folks have asked for my assistance when they’ve tried to do what’s right for the natural world and run head-on into government regulations. Unfortunately, it’s hard to fight City Hall if you don’t have a large group of citizens willing to speak out for the cause of “nature justice”.

 

I’m hoping that at some point, environmentalists will stop waging useless wars (on so-called invasive plants, for example) and start fighting for realistic changes that can truly make a difference for our natural world. In cities and towns, and in many rural subdivisions, regulations are put into place to control the appearance of the developed area and they are highly detrimental to wildlife. Yet very few people fight against this government overreach that is based upon a lack of knowledge.

 

Under the heading, “Tall Grass and Weeds” at the website for Harrisonburg, Virginia, you will read that “Whenever grass, weeds, brush or other foreign growth attains a height of twelve (12) inches or more, it shall be presumed to threaten the health, safety and general welfare of residents of the City.”

 

https://www.harrisonburgva.gov/tall-grass-weeds

 

Under the heading “Unlawful growth of weeds and other vegetation” at the Charlottesville, Virginia, website, you’ll find that “All weeds existing in violation of this section are hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance.”

 

http://vtod.frec.vt.edu/Documents/Charlottesville.pdf

 

Citizens of these two cities can be fined for disobeying these ordinances. But nature has gotten a bad rap. When left to its own devices in developed areas, wildlife habitat is viewed as overgrown, messy, and a place that will assuredly attract undesirable critters that carry disease (i.e., rats and mice), referred to as “vermin”. But does this picture accurately depict natural areas?

 

The answer is a resounding, “NO”. Mice and rats exist because they fulfill crucial roles in the functioning of the environment. Mice are Mother Nature’s gardeners that also practice natural plant control, and rats are part of her cleanup crew.

 

When mice carry seeds back to their nests and drop some along the way, they help plants to spread, which is vital for the perpetuation of wildlife habitat. When they feed upon the seeds they collect, mice limit the numbers of plants in an area, thereby preventing overcrowding of the plants, which ensures their good health.

 

Rats can be called opportunists that will feed upon just about anything edible they can find, such as dead animals, fresh and rotting fruits and vegetables, and seeds. Without them, the environment would not be cleared as quickly of decaying organic matter.

 

Are humans likely to catch diseases from mice and rats in a natural area located near people? It’s highly unlikely unless you handle one of these critters, which everyone should know better than to do. It’s your responsibility to teach your children not to touch dead animals, just as you must teach them not to cross the street without looking both ways first and not to stick their fingers into an electrical outlet.

 

So why is there so much fear about this issue? It’s because people don’t employ rational thought when considering their relationship to the natural world. Instead of behaving responsibly, they instead want to kill wildlife doing its job.

 

If you don’t seal your house to keep wildlife outside, and if your house is dirty with food crumbs on floors and furniture, you are going to attract animals to clean up after you. If you come into contact with saliva, urine, and/or droppings from disease-infected rats and mice, you may well become infected. You also need to avoid getting bitten.

 

The smartest strategy for preventing exposure to rodent diseases is to seal all entries to your home to the best of your ability and to minimize food sources that attract these animals in the first place. If you feed birds, only put out as much seed as will get taken each day (mice and rats are active mainly at night).

 

Nature-friendly landscaping around your house will invite the variety of creatures that keep your environment working properly. Owls, hawks, and foxes—all of which are well habituated to urban/suburban areas—can help to limit rodents, but they require habitat.  Whatever you do, don’t employ poisons of any sort. They are inhumane, causing intense suffering, and they kill any critter that feeds upon a dying poisoned animal.

 

It’s the height of silliness for local ordinances to limit the height of plants in a yard, and to speak of tall plants as threatening to the health and safety of citizens. If you reside in an area governed by outmoded thinking about our wild plants and animals, please speak against it.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

It’s important for people who care about the environment to try to join with others of like mind to change laws that negatively affect it. One way to accomplish this goal would be to send a press release to the local newspaper to let folks know of your plans. Libraries and other public spaces often allow use of their meeting rooms at no cost for noncommercial purposes. Weed ordinances perpetuate prejudiced ideas that are invalid. Let’s get some justice for nature!