The Plant Police
Are Coming for You
ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon
In 2010, overpopulated deer herds denuded virtually every native plant in my yard. Consequently, the plants were unable to flower and produce fruits. If I hadn’t grown nonnative plants unpalatable to deer, such as Japanese Barberry shrubs (Berberis thunbergii) that did make fruits, a flock of bluebirds that visited the following extremely cold and snowy winter would not have found nourishment.
When I excitedly reported to the state
Internet bird-reporting site my discovery that bluebirds ate Japanese Barberry
fruits, I was taken to task for growing “such an invasive alien plant in [my]
yard!” Although my comment went out to serious birders who presumably care
about these avian creatures, no-one expressed happiness that the bluebirds at
least found something to eat.
In the ensuing eleven years,
a huge invasive-plant mythology has been written to support waging an
unjustified war against specific alien plants, and government at all levels has
been brought on board to deny you the right to grow plants that can survive
deer overpopulations, climate change, and vast alteration of our physical
environment.
The City of Cape May, New
Jersey, almost passed Ordinance 404-2020 in December of 2020 “relating to the
control and elimination of invasive plants”. It was much supported by the Cape
May Environmental Commission, a member of which wrote a letter to the editor
which contained the usual misinformation that, nevertheless, often convinces unknowledgeable
government officials to act in a manner that harms, instead of helps,
nature.
The letter writer spoke of kudzu to say that “It outcompetes all native vegetation and creates a monoculture made up of itself. This is true of all invasive plants [emphasis mine].” This last pronouncement is simply not true.
So-called invasive plants
grow where conditions are especially suitable for them, but not for native
plants, which means aliens aren’t “outcompeting” natives. Rather, native plants
are not growing there in the first place. Additionally, “all invasive plants”
do not necessarily create a monoculture. Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellatus)
shrubs often share fields with Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and
other species.
The next sentence of the
letter reads that “You may control an invasive on your property, but if it has
seeds, both the birds and the wind spread the tree, bush, or plant.” What does
this statement tell you? It declares that the so-called invasive plant provides
food for birds, and if it’s a tree or a bush, it goes without saying that it also
supplies cover and perhaps a nesting site for them.
Yet the sentence following the
declaration above tells us that “Monocultures do not feed our bees,
butterflies, or birds.” This kind of conflicting information is extremely
common in letters to the editor and in articles in which the author wants to
convince us of the evils of supposedly invasive plants.
Continuing, the writer says
that, “Planting native trees attracts insects that are needed to feed the birds
[but] [a]lien tree species do not attract these specific insects, so they may
be pretty, but as far as the environment is concerned, they might as well be
stone statues.” Wrong.
Native trees may support more
caterpillars and sawfly larvae (an animal commonly considered a “pest” when
feeding in people’s yards) than alien plants, but that doesn’t mean the pretty
nonnative plants “might as well be stone statues”. Flowers are typically what
make a plant pretty, and many so-called invasive plants make flowers that
attract a huge number of pollinator species. These insects are
dwindling in number, undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the vast amount of lawn area in this country that is devoid of "weeds" (interpretation: flowering herbaceous plants) that could feed them.
The conclusion of the letter
writer is that, “We need this ordinance as a way of supporting the need to
educate and control invasive species.” Amazingly, the local government tabled
the ordinance, but you can bet the Cape May Environmental Commission will be
back pushing for some version of it yet again, even though the “facts” provided
by this member of the commission are inaccurate.
Unfortunately, some states
have fallen under the spell of the mythological “invasive-plant” narrative. In
the state of Washington, “plant police” are authorized to charge you with a
crime (harboring an illegal alien!!!) and assess fines should your yard contain a
plant on the “Noxious Weed List”.
https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/washingtons-noxious-weed-laws
The Environmental Protection
Agency is working to bring this reality to backyards everywhere across the land
of the free. Susan Gitlin, Office of Sustainable Communities at the EPA, writes
of “refining lists of plants that are regulated at the state and federal
level”, positing that such plants “have moved from their native regions into
new areas where they crowd out native vegetation.”
https://www.astm.org/standardization-news/?q=update/invasive-plant-listing-ja13.html
This now entrenched, but false, belief of nonnative plants crowding out native plants has been made “factual”
only by perpetual repetition by native-plant societies and other
special-interest groups, including invasion-biology scientists, but it contains
serious errors of omission. For example, people ignore the factuality that
growing conditions in many locations are no longer hospitable to most native
plants.
Alien plants, such as Autumn
Olive that these folks are determined to eradicate, are especially noticeable
along highway edges created by construction of roadways or in fields abandoned
by farmers. Like native colonizers, such as Virginia Redcedar, they can grow
just fine in soil compacted for centuries by cows weighing a half-ton
each or road-building crews that bulldozed the land, removing topsoil.
If you weren’t paying attention for the past forty-five years and now notice the abundance
of nonnative plants in such areas, you could easily believe that nonnative
plants pushed out native plants. This misperception
forms the basis for the entire field of invasion biology.
But the actuality is that
abandoned fields, roadsides, hiking trails, and clearcut forest not
replanted filled eventually—I’m talking many
years—with colonizers,
whether native, nonnative, or a mix of both. I’ve been watching it happen since
I was a
college student in the 1970s, and you
don’t even need a scientist to explain why this scenario makes sense.
Any avid gardener knows the saying, “right plant, right place”, meaning that every plant has specific growing requirements that must be met for it to thrive. Most native plants cannot grow in the corrupted soil profile of disturbed areas, which includes homeowner yards that have been cleared and graded. When I moved into my house 35 years ago, the gray-clay subsoil had been exposed and the yard looked like the surface of the Moon.
Alien plants quickly provided
wildlife habitat, and my moonscape became a nature-friendly garden supporting a larger diversity and
abundance of wildlife than had existed when the land was deeply shaded by
forest. Over the decades, these plants
rehabilitated the soil and numerous species of native plants have moved naturally into my yard, but I refuse to remove the alien plants that have been—and remain—so helpful.
I’ve seen far more wildlife—in species and numbers—in my yard over the
past 35 years than most folks will ever
see in a lifetime of visiting wildlife refuges and national parks. I know for a fact that nonnative plants are beneficial to
wildlife by providing them with food and
shelter and to native plants by
rehabbing the soil for them to return.
If you want to truly aid our
wildlife and the environment in its entirety, you must ignore the mythmakers of
plant-invasion biology. But don’t ignore your lawmakers! Please let your
congressional representatives know you don’t want laws restricting alien plants
on your property—and tell them the excellent reasons why not.
NATURE ADVICE:
Before taking advice from those folks who may have their own agendas for pushing you to remove alien plants, make notes on which animals are making use of them, as I have done for many years. It may well change your mind as to what’s in the best interest of our wildlife.
No comments:
Post a Comment