In Defense of Nature

 

CONDON’S CORNER

“Invasives” Reality Check: Negative Impacts on Biodiversity Negligible

[Published March 1, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia, and The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia. ] 

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © 2025 Marlene A. Condon All Rights Reserved 

What appears to the inexpert eye to be “plant invasiveness” is actually plant succession, whereby alien pioneer plants better suited to growing well in the disrupted soil conditions created by man—as seen taking place here—have moved in to refurbish a razed natural area.   

A native Northern Cardinal finds sustenance by consuming the seeds from an Asian Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) tree in the author’s yard on a fall day.

Before writing this article, I saw yet another discussion on social media about woods being cleared for more development. In Charlottesville and Waynesboro over the past few months, I’ve been stunned by the absolutely enormous areas of red clay made visible by bulldozers pushing down trees and other kinds of plants. And I’ve wondered how, in the face of all this destruction of natural areas, does anyone believe the most pressing problem for our wildlife can possibly be “invasive” plants?

 

This abundance of development makes completely clear what the biggest problem is for the environment: too many people on the planet—8.2 billion and increasing every moment. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

Although discussing our booming numbers is considered impolite, if not taboo, it's vital for folks to be made aware of the ensuing consequences of human overpopulation.

 

According to WorldAtlas.com (a site that provides content about the environment and other subject matter), human exploitation of resources —e.g., overhunting, overfishing, and poaching endangered species—is responsible for a 37% loss in wildlife biodiversity. Habitat degradation and alteration accounts for a further 31.4% loss, with complete habitat loss being responsible for another 13.4%. These three causes comprise the major reasons for wildlife depletion at almost 82%.

 

But what is the most publicized explanation for wildlife losses? So-called “invasives”. Yet “invasive” species rank fifth out of the seven major causes of decline in wildlife populations worldwide, accounting for only 5.1% of the loss in biodiversity. As this category includes nonnative animals, I suspect that nonnative animals are the real problem rather than nonnative plants. Non-native animals compete for space (habitat), whereas all plants provide environmental services that assist wildlife. Only in rare instances might alien plants be problematic, such as in wetlands.

 

Isn’t it time to focus on problems that are far more impactful and solvable than removing “invasive” plants that do assist wildlife to survive in degraded areas? Cats, for example, are estimated to kill 1.3-4.0 billion birds and 6.3 -22.3 billion mammals annually in the United States.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380

 

If people truly care about our wildlife, why has it been impossible to eliminate this longtime threat to our critters? The answer: Thanks to vocal proponents of letting both pet and feral cats roam freely, people are reluctant to take on this battle.

 

Whether it’s a private individual who doesn’t want to make his neighbor angry, or politicians who worry more about votes than doing what’s right for the greater good (wildlife keeps the environment running properly), people find it easier to kill plants. And, of course, they themselves may even agree with allowing cats outside.

 

Then there are the many other aspects of human lives that people simply don’t want to change. Blaming plants you don’t care about might be preferable to shutting off your outdoor lights that, during warm weather, attract insects that should be mating, such as moths that have declined precipitously,

 

Some folks give little thought to all the animals they kill while driving and thus don’t limit their trips out and about even though they could with better planning. They should also consider the pollution of the soil and water caused by runoff of the gas and oil that collects on roadways and parking lots.

 

And you might think people would care about the pollution caused by vehicle exhaust, a leading cause of climate change that affects both wildlife and people. You can drive by any public school in your area before classes begin or end and see a long line of cars waiting to get into or out of the school grounds, even though buses drive by or close to these people’s homes twice a day.

 

Another serious threat to wildlife is the use of pesticides around homes and businesses, not to mention the pesticides employed in the war on so-called invasive plants.

 

You can, as an individual, help stem the loss of wildlife by giving serious consideration to the actions listed above and limiting how much you participate in them. If you truly care about the future of the Earth and our lives upon this planet, you should step up to the plate.

 

Contact local politicians and make them understand the need to pass a law that demands that cats be kept indoors. It should go without saying that anyone who truly cares about these animals wouldn’t want them to be outside in cold weather (they originated in warm-climate areas) and to be exposed to the dangers outside, such as being run over by a vehicle or sickened by disease.

 

The problems are many, but obvious and fixable. We just need folks to stop focusing on the 5% (alien plants and animals they see as “weeds” and “vermin”, respectively) and start focusing on the 95% (everything else) that truly damages the environment, leading to a great loss of biodiversity.