When Ideas Remain Unexamined and Unchallenged, They Intimidate

A birds-eye view of the University of Virginia (UHall seen here) in Charlottesville, Virginia, makes clear that there are plenty of native trees to be found in developed areas. 

A Charlottesville, Virginia, residential area (seen from a hot-air balloon) has so many trees that you can’t see the roadways interspersed among them. In other words, insects and birds aren’t disappearing because alien plants have replaced native trees.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

Originally published at Conservation Sense and Nonsense on December 22, 2021

 

https://milliontrees.me/2021/12/22/when-ideas-remain-unexamined-and-unchallenged-they-intimidate/

The novelist E. L. Doctorow, in a 1989 conversation with PBS journalist Bill Moyers, said, “When ideas go unexamined and unchallenged for a long enough time, they become mythological and very, very powerful. They create conformity. They intimidate.”

 

He could have been speaking about the current environmental narrative regarding so-called invasive plants. Anyone who speaks out feels the wrath of the folks pushing their fictional environmental manifesto; I’ve lost jobs because of these people.

 

Most neo-scientists and -environmentalists, having arrived late to the party, have no clue as to why some alien plants exist in profusion along roadways, in former farm fields, and along trails in forests. The popular notion that native plants would otherwise be filling those areas is easily accepted by people who don’t possess knowledge of soil science, or who lack experience with gardening and/or closely observing the natural progression of plants in unmanaged, disturbed areas.

 

Knowing the prior history of the land is essential to understanding why particular nonnative plants fill some areas. Road building discomposes soil. Trail development/use and cows/farming-equipment moving over the land compact soil. Only “colonizer plants”—those capable of thriving under the altered and nutrient-poor conditions of these sites—can grow there.

 

Usually such areas, after many years, support a mix of native and nonnative pioneers, but sometimes alien plants outnumber the natives because they are best suited to the constraints imposed by the physical attributes of the site. Anyone (no Ph.D. required) can verify this statement by taking the time to observe the progression of plants in an area not revegetated by people. Doing so would make clear that alien plants do not “push out” native plants by “invading” and “taking over”, but rather, they fill disrupted areas where few native plants can successfully grow.

 

Yet, the desire by scientists and environmentalists is so great to get folks to remove supposedly invasive plants from the environment that we now have tall tales being spread. Herewith a sampling of some of the most egregiously untrue declarations regarding alien plants.

 

Johnny Randall, Director of Conservation Programs at the North Carolina Botanical Garden (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) wrote a New Hope [North Carolina] Audubon blog post called “Invasive Plants Are NOT for the Birds”.

https://www.newhopeaudubon.org/blog/invasive-plants-are-not-for-the-birds/

 

·    He writes that, “The scientific literature on invasive plants and bird-dispersal is moderate but growing, and almost all of the research warns that this is a serious and multi-layered phenomenon. First off – birds either do not discriminate between native and invasive plants or often prefer invasives over natives. One reason for this is that a large proportion of invasives are high in carbohydrates, whereas the natives are often higher in protein and lipids/fats. Birds are consequently (pardon the analogy) choosing candy bars over cheeseburgers, which could affect bird nutrition, particularly during fall migration”.

 

The suggestion that birds are choosing “autumn olive berries [that] are sugary sweet treats, the junk food of the bird diet” is echoed by many people. This quote, from a letter to the editor of The Crozet Gazette by Susan A. Roth, William Hamersky, and Manuel T. Lerdau, Ph.D., (https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/03/12/to-the-editor-the-blue-ridge-naturalist-not/) is supposedly based upon a study published by the Wilson Journal of Ornithology in March, 2007, entitled “Fruit Quality and Consumption by Songbirds during Autumn Migration”.

 

Yet this study states that “Most common fruits on Block Island [where the study took place in Rhode Island] contained primarily carbohydrates...and little protein...and fat.” As the research paper’s authors were mainly speaking of native plants, this statement directly contradicts that of Mr. Randall that natives are often higher in proteins and fats than so-called invasives.

 

Additionally, the research paper’s authors state that “fruit selection by birds on Block Island was not simply related to differences in macronutrient composition between fruits...studies of wild and captive songbirds have shown that some species preferentially select high-fat fruits...or high-sugar fruits...”, which hardly implies that Autumn Olive fruits are a necessarily inferior food choice, as declared by Roth, et al.

 

A variety of foods exists to serve a variety of purposes. Turning sugar into something “bad” for birds comes as a result, perhaps, of this same application to human nutrition. But sugar is not in and of itself, “bad”. A runner in need of glucose who eats some jelly beans gets a quick burst of energy to continue exercising. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

Sugar is only a problem if it’s eaten in excess, as might be done by children. But birds are not children; if they feel the need for protein and fat, they will search for insects and fruits that offer what they need.

 

·    Furthermore, Director Randall wrote that “Researchers have also shown that many invasive plants have fruits that persist longer than do native plant fruits into the fall and winter. The invasives are therefore available when our natives are not.”

 

In a world of disappearing habitat for wildlife because of human development, the fact that fruits on invasive plants are available when native-plant fruits are depleted should be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

 

·    “Recent research published by Narango et al., in the October 22, 2018, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science demonstrates that native plants are best for birds. The research showed that yards landscaped with the usual garden center plants, which are mostly nonnative ornamentals, could not support a stable population of chickadees. Yards where native plants composed at least 70 percent of the plantings were able to do so. This is because native plants host more insects than non-natives and therefore provide the necessary high-protein food that birds need to feed their chicks.” [from a letter to the editor of The Crozet Gazette by Susan A. Roth, William Hamersky, and Manuel T. Lerdau, Ph.D., https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/03/12/to-the-editor-the-blue-ridge-naturalist-not/]

 

Narango’s study cannot be generalized to all birds, although many people have made the mistake of claiming it can. This study applies only to chickadees and certain other birds that inhabit forest because such species are dependent upon the native plants (trees) that comprise our forestland. In other words, if you want forest birds to reproduce in your yard, your yard must be forest. For a fuller explanation, please read “Chickadee Chicanery” at https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-carolina-chickadeegrasps-tulip-poplar.html

 

·    These invasive species not only impact our forests, wetlands and streams, but also our economy, health and safety. They kill the trees that shade our homes and that our kids play hide-and-seek around. They increase the presence of other disease-spreading species like ticks. They diminish visibility along trails where safety is important. [quote from an article from the Central Ohio Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management at a Nature Conservancy-sponsored website https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/ohio/stories-in-ohio/ohio-invasive-species/]

 

The only “forests” where you will see alien-plant species are those that are either managed improperly (overly thinned and thus allowing too much sunlight to reach the ground under the trees) or those that are actually “woods” in the process of succession (transforming from a field to a forest that has not yet reached maturity). “Invasive” plant species are sun-loving and therefore do not inhabit shady mature forests.

 

As for killing trees, if “they” refers to vines (a common complaint in the eastern U.S.) one must ask, why was the homeowner unable (or unwilling) to keep a vine from killing a tree in his yard that his “kids play hide-and-seek around”? However, if “they” refers to nonnative animals and/or diseases killing trees, that is a different situation altogether, which is not the point of this article. It’s unfortunate the writer did not make clear what “they” referred to.

 

As far as I can tell, there’s no proof that “invasive” plants, in general—as stated above—increase the presence of organisms such as ticks. A study published in Environmental Entomology [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26750666_Managing_Japanese_Barberry_Ranunculales_Berberidaceae_Infestations_Reduces_Blacklegged_Tick_Acari_Ixodidae_Abundance_and_Infection_Prevalence_With_Borrelia_burgdorferi_Spirochaetales_Spirochaetaceae] purportedly shows that barberry-infested plots support more mice and thus ticks than plots in wooded areas with no barberry.

 

However, the “no barberry” plots were severely browsed by deer and thus “little understory vegetation was present”. In other words, these scientists compared two completely different habitats, which explains the greater number of ticks in the shrubby (Japanese Barberry) area that provided “questing habitat [for] blacklegged ticks [whereas] little other suitable vegetation exist[ed] in [the] severely browsed forests.”

 

“Questing habitat” refers to plants upon which ticks can wait at the appropriate height to grab onto an animal that comes by. Obviously, ticks are not going to be found in an area with little understory vegetation as they have nowhere to sit and wait for their quarry.

 

And we’re to believe “invasive” plants diminish visibility along trails, and native plants don’t? It sounds more like the folks who are supposed to be maintaining the trails have been derelict in their duties!

 

It’s clear that scientists and journalists are doing everything they can to assure that government and the general public view so-called invasive plants in a negative light. Yet, to my knowledge, no study condemning “invasive plants” exists that has the least bit of merit.

 

 NATURE ADVICE:

  

It’s important to realize that most, if not all, of the articles written against so-called invasive plants are slanted in their presentation of so-called facts. Try to think critically about what you read.

 

For example, “invasive” plants are often demonized by giving them attributes that apply equally well to native plants. As soon as you see someone disregarding reality, you can rest assured that their article is untrustworthy.

 

 

Knowledge of Nature Would Have Better Informed COVID-19 Pandemic Response

A White Hall, Virginia, Ruritan sign informs folks that the wearing of a mask saves lives. Unfortunately, people resist taking this common-sense advice. If they had a better comprehension of nature, this stubbornness would not occur.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

“Today, fear has found its way to the front of the queue as a driver of mental distress and trauma”, Dr Claire Weekes, Australian physician (1903-1990).

 

The scientific and political reactions to the discovery of a novel virus—COVID-19—among us confirmed a deeply disturbing reality: Many scientists in the biological sciences nowadays seem rather unfamiliar with the workings of the natural world, which leads to illogical reasoning and bad advice that politicians blindly follow instead of first critically assessing.

 

Our government officials initially shut down our country—an action taken out of fear—that caused much distress and trauma to its citizenry. They closed “nonessential” businesses and demanded that those staying open sanitize all surfaces before allowing customers inside.

 

Neither health scientists nor the government officials who listened to them (two public-sector groups who enjoy job security) took into account that no business is “nonessential” to those making a living from it, nor that sanitation of surfaces to prevent illness is a complete waste of time and effort other than in limited and confined areas, such as inside hospitals and nursing homes.

 

It's irrational to think you can disinfect the world; we’re surrounded by uncountable numbers of microorganisms 24/7 and billions of people capable of redistributing them. Nevertheless, out of an “abundance of caution” (the fear of a highly unlikely catastrophic outcome that those in the medical profession didn’t want to risk getting blamed for), the practice of wiping down store shelves and the goods on them after the pandemic began was demanded despite the impossibility of achieving long-term disinfection. Employee time and effort were squandered on a senseless mandate.

 

Virologists (those who study viruses) should have known that a virus, though genetically simple, is comparable to living organisms. (After all, viruses have been seriously studied for over a century.) And, similarly to all lifeforms, a virus requires an environment that meets its specific needs in order to thrive.  Outside of that setting, its existence is necessarily limited, a fact that comprises a basic biological concept.

 

For COVID, its indispensable environment is the human body, and the only rational approach to maintaining public health would have been for government to inform folks that each independently functioning individual (i.e., not dependent upon caregivers) would need to take responsibility for his own wellbeing. To effect change in human behavior, especially in unfamiliar circumstances, such as this pandemic, knowledge and understanding are imperative.

 

Therefore, public-service announcements (PSAs) could have explained that handwashing removes germs and thus is an important step to take before touching your eyes, nose, or mouth after being in a public space where the COVID virus could be circulating. PSAs could have spelled out that the wearing of a mask serves as a physical barrier to these viruses within the air, and social distancing helps to prevent these airborne germs from reaching you from an infected person.

 

But, because analytical thought didn’t prevail among those in charge, many businesses ended up closing permanently as a result of foolish mandates and many people lost their jobs as a result. To assist citizens harmed by its poor advice, government ended up printing money to send to them. When ill-conceived actions are taken without first skillfully evaluating them, astronomical costs can be incurred.

 

The only thing the government got right was to get vaccines out to the public as safely and quickly as possible because getting vaccinated is the ultimate defense against becoming severely ill. Yet, large numbers of people are refusing to participate in these measures that, in addition to protecting their own health, have a high probability of successfully bringing the pandemic to a halt—which points up another sober shortcoming in society today.

 

Folks have become so out of touch with nature that they no longer grasp straightforward biological realities. If they did, they would comprehend that if everyone were vaccinated, the COVID virus would have difficulty finding an hospitable environment (a human body) in which to replicate itself, and without reproduction, this threat cannot be perpetuated.

 

I’ve spent my life immersed in the natural world. Understanding how it works guides me well in my everyday life and informs me of nonsensical news stories and misguided decisions made by government. If everyone possessed a wide-ranging comprehension of nature—which they absolutely should because our lives unfold within its realm—we would suffer from far fewer clueless decisions.

 

To deal with any natural phenomenon (such as viruses), it’s crucial to understand nature and how it works. Unfortunately, nowadays, too few people do.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Show me a person who fears the natural world and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t know much about it. The antidote to fear is knowledge, so if you’re afraid of any aspect of nature, do your best to learn as much as you can about what frightens you. You’ll be amazed by the effectiveness of this strategy.