CONDON’S CORNER

 The Value of “Invasive” Plants

[Published February 26, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia and The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia]

https://dailyprogress.com/opinion/column/article_bd5a59a4-f3d7-11ef-9d44-dbecc45fb578.html

[Also published on March 17, 2025 by The Daily News-Record, the daily newspaper of Harrisonburg, Virginia]

© 2025 Marlene A. Condon All Rights Reserved 

French philosopher Henri Bergson is quoted as saying, “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” In the case of “invasive” plants, most people’s minds are prepared only to see useless alien plants pushing out native plants and posing a threat to us and our native wildlife.

 

In other words, having been repeatedly exposed to the misleading invasive-plant narrative recounted day after day on television news and public television programs, as well as in newspaper and magazine articles, people see what they’ve been told to see. But what they think they see is not reality. It’s the mis- and even dis-information with which their minds have been filled.

 

Herewith, truisms regarding the wildlife value of so-called invasive plants that only the unbiased eye can see.

 

Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) This Asian shrub is the most valuable plant for wildlife usage I’ve ever documented, yet it is, perhaps, the most hated of “invasive” plants. Because it’s easily seen filling in old farm fields and highway medians, usually alongside the native Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana)—once also despised by farmers—it appears to be overly numerous.

 

Yet we should be thankful for this plant. Like the redcedar, it’s a colonizer working to refurbish degraded soil that has been compacted by cows or bulldozers and is nutrient-poor due to loss of topsoil—conditions most native plants find difficult or impossible to grow in. But unlike the native juniper, Autumn Olive feeds a huge variety of wildlife with its buds, blooms, fruits, and even its leaves, thus dispensing vital nutrition throughout the year. By increasing the diversity of plant life in degraded areas, Autumn Olive increases the diversity of wildlife as well. 

 

Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus). Almost equal in value to the Autumn Olive, this Asian shrub also provides a cornucopia of food in the form of buds, blooms, fruits, and stems for an array of wildlife, in addition to nesting sites for birds.

 

English Ivy(Hedera helix L.) Brought here by early European colonists, English Ivy is a superb vine for assisting pollinators and birds in disrupted soils (old homesteads and more-recent development). It makes flowers in fall when many blooming plants are petering out, and the resulting blue fruits persist into winter.  A plant that spreads mainly by vegetative growth, it’s typically found only where people dwelled long ago or more currently, having been deliberately planted by them.

The interestingly shaped fruits of English Ivy (Hedera helix L.) near the end of December help to feed local and migratory birds at the edge of a restaurant’s parking lot in Charlottesville.

 

Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) Once disparaged as much as Autumn Olive is now, this vine is a wonderful wildlife plant. In this time of climate change, especially, nonnative plants are much more reliable in their habits and can be counted on to assist animals that come out of hibernation or migrate back too early to receive sustenance from still-dormant native plants. Ruby-throated Hummingbirds, in particular, benefit from its early blooms loaded with nectar upon its return to our area in April.  

 

Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana) Native to East Asia and spreading for the same reasons other “invasive” plants move away from their original locations, this  species grows profusely in the disrupted soils of retired farmland and disturbed areas of old and new developments. The multitude of trees in limited areas— eye-catching in spring due to the white flowers conspicuously covering every bough— draws attention to their presence. Only because these wildlife-friendly trees are nonnative do folks complain about them, but they shouldn’t. In this time of pollinators struggling to survive, Bradford Pears are a lifeline, supplying a large supply of nectar for bees and numerous other kinds of insects. The fruits are especially important to wintering birds.  

A blooming Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana) stands alone in a sea of native trees, the only woody plant able to feed native pollinators flying on a March day. 

 

Royal Paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) Originating in Eastern Asia, this large tree was admired just a few decades ago for its unusually large purple flowers that opened in spring. But with the big push for only native plants to occupy the landscape, people have been cutting down these unique trees. What’s left are empty spaces unable to provide the wealth of food the Paulownias once did. The huge foxglove-shaped blooms hold an abundance of nectar for pollinators and transform into pods of tiny seeds beloved by finches, especially the American Goldfinch and the Purple Finch from farther north.

 

Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) A lovely herbaceous plant that blooms well into fall, even during severe droughts, this invaluable plant is targeted for removal by folks who are against nonnative plants and ignorant of their great worth to wildlife. Black Knapweed is one of the few plants our overabundance of deer refrain from eating, even when food is scarce. Without this species of knapweed growing in my yard in 2024, bees, beetles, and butterflies would have died, especially those still active in late fall as the heat of summer endured into fall.

A Pennsylvania Leatherwing beetle (Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus) finds nourishment on a Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) bloom in September in the author’s yard.

Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Once considered the scourge of lawns, this small, yellow-blooming herbaceous plant has practically disappeared from towns and subdivisions, thanks to pesticides. They might be lost in rural areas, too, as people have become obsessed with manicuring (sanitizing) the environment. But it should be noted that they feed pollinators, sometimes even on warm winter days when nothing else is blooming and insects are active.  

 

People need to recognize the significant roles “invasive” plants play in our environment.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

All “invasive” plants provide one or more of the following environmental services:

·    Holding soil along degraded waterways (think Japanese Knotweed) and on steep, barren slopes in yards (e.g., English Ivy)

·    Enriching nutrient-poor soil with nitrogen by way of nitrogen-fixing roots (e.g., Autumn Olive) and/or decomposition of the plant after it, or sections of it, dies

·    If evergreen, furnishing shelter in winter where wildlife can sleep and/or roost (e.g., Japanese Honeysuckle)

·    In summer, supplying nesting sites (e.g., Japanese Barberry) for some kinds of birds and a place for some kinds of insects to lay eggs (e.g., Royal Paulownia)

·    Feeding pollinators with nectar-filled blooms (e.g., Burning Bush)

·    Feeding birds and/or mammals with fruits, buds, seeds, and/or leaves (e.g., Ailanthus)

·    During drought, making drinking water and/or sap available to birds and insects by guttation (e.g., bamboo).    

A pair of goldfinches visit a small bamboo (subfamily Bambusoideae) stem in the author’s yard to obtain water and/or sap.

DISCLAIMER:

Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software. 

 Virginia Department of Forestry Has Made a Huge Mistake Removing Bradford Pear Trees

You need to place your nose right up to a Bradford Pear flower to smell it. It doesn’t perfume the air; if it did, no one would keep it long enough to grow large.

ALL TEXT © Marlene A. Condon

The Virginia Department of Forestry has committed a grievous error by encouraging folks to get rid of their Bradford Pear trees. The blooms of this cultivar feed uncountable numbers of pollinators in early spring when few other plants are blooming. Its fruits feed birds, such as waxwings and robins, in winter—the toughest time of year for them.

 

When Bradford Pears come up in degraded areas, such as roadsides, where the soil has been compacted and is nutrient-poor, they add value to the landscape by increasing the diversity of plant life and thus animal life. This tree is not “detrimental to the state’s environment” because it might not feed as many caterpillar species as a native tree. All plants cannot be all things to all animals. What matters is that they do support wildlife, be it by providing food, shelter, and/or nesting sites.

 

Environmentalists and government agencies have embraced the false narrative of “invasive” plants being to blame for our disappearing insects and birds because these plants don’t have a constituency that will fight tooth and nail against them. It’s easier to get folks to pull plants than to, say, get many cat lovers to keep their pets inside.

 

The American Bird Conservancy has been talking for decades about the 2.4 billion birds killed every year by cats. Can anyone really believe that alien plants pose more of a threat to birds than cats do? Yet government doesn’t regulate these felines as it should. https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

 

The dearth of caterpillars is not due to an abundance of alien trees, but rather an abundance of far too many lights at night. Moths are attracted to lights where they are more easily predated by night-flying predators, such as bats and owls, which I watched happen every summer for years in Shenandoah National Park. And moths aren’t procreating if they’re spending the night at light fixtures that are left burning all night at people’s homes and businesses. 

 

You know an environmental narrative doesn’t carry much weight when the people pushing it need to resort to such silliness as how bad the blooms smell or how easily the plant breaks. This big stink about Bradford Pear trees is a solution in search of a problem.

 NATURE ADVICE:

If you like your Bradford Pear trees, keep them. Despite what government agencies, such as the Virginia Department of Forestry, may tell you, these trees DO feed and shelter wildlife. And that truth is what counts.

 

DISCLAIMER:

 

Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software. 

 

 Nativist Methodology Reveals Dearth of Supporting Evidence for “Invasive”-plant Ideology

The alien “invasive” Bradford Pear tree (Pyrus calleryana) often grows alongside native Eastern Redcedar trees (Juniperus virginiana) in disturbed-soil sites, adding diversity to the landscape that better provides for wildlife. While the redcedar and the pear both make fall fruits that provide food for birds in winter, the redcedar doesn’t provide flowers for pollinators in spring as the pear does. Nativists need to look at the big picture so they can grasp the value that so-called invasive plants add to our developed (aka “disturbed”) landscapes. 

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Four years ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Ecologists Recognizing Value of Alien Plants”. It referenced an opinion piece signed by 19 ecologists (every one of whom possesses a Ph.D.) who disagreed with the nativist take (the policy of favoring native plants) on so-called invasive plants.

 . 

https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/02/11/blue-ridge-naturalist-ecologists-recognizing-value-of-alien-plants/

 

The next month, three people signed their names to a letter blasting me for my article.

 

https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/03/12/to-the-editor-the-blue-ridge-naturalist-not/#comments

 

Their letter perfectly illustrates the methodology employed by any group that supports a weak cause. To help you recognize the tactics employed by people to convince you to join a fight not well supported by facts, I will provide examples from the above-referenced letter to the editor. For efficiency, I will refer to the three letter writers as The Triad.

 

The first clue that people don’t have much to say in defense of their beliefs is evident when they immediately attack someone’s personal integrity and knowledge instead of simply supplying support for their side of the story. The Triad started off their letter by writing that “[my] bias and manipulative language displays itself in every paragraph as [I portray] ‘plant nativists’ and invasion biologists as extremists with an evil agenda that will cost you, the taxpayer, millions of dollars in unnecessary and wasted spending.”

 

In reality, I had written about a current and ongoing activity to support my contention that “Critical thinking is a must for deciding invasive-plant policy to avoid harming wildlife and wasting millions in tax dollars.” I wrote that, “In the name of ‘saving’ the environment from so-called invasive plants, a movement has sprung up to remove Eucalypt (Eucalyptus globulus) trees from California [even though these Australian trees] now serve as the most frequented overwintering sites for the western Monarch butterfly population.”

 

https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-california-need-eucalyptus-trees-for-their-winter-roost/

 

Another clue that people are pushing a weak agenda is when they lie about their adversary. Thus, The Triad went on to write that I cited “as a scientific reference an eight-year-old Comment [sic] in the journal Nature by Mark A. Davis and others.”

 

No, I had made quite clear that the article was “an opinion piece [emphasis mine] signed by 19 ecologists in the journal Nature” in which they argue that “policy and management decisions must take into account the positive effects of many invaders.”

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/474153a

 

Often, people arguing a rather invalid point of view employ flimflam. They cite scientific sources that are fallacious, wrong, and/or misleading because those papers support their viewpoint.

 

“Condon appears to ignore and does not cite the vast amount of peer-reviewed literature on the damaging effects of nonnative plants. For example, 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.”

 

Even if I were in agreement with The Triad, I would never cite this deceptive research that chose a forest-dwelling bird as representative of a species that can live in suburbia without human assistance, which it can’t. The scientists should have chosen a more-appropriate species, such as Northern Cardinal, American Robin, Gray Catbird, Northern Mockingbird, etc. Please see “Chickadee Chicanery” at this web site for a full exposé of this study.

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

An American Robin, unlike the Carolina Chickadee, can find food in un-pesticided lawn grass, making it a suitable subject for study in suburbia to determine how well some bird species can survive among alien plants.

 

A ploy people often use when pushing a shaky narrative is overemphasizing the value of supposed facts that support their opinion. The Triad wrote that “Scientists have determined that our migrating birds require high-fat foods to fuel their southward flights in autumn. However, autumn olive berries are sugary sweet treats, the junk food of the bird diet. Smith et al. demonstrated that autumn olive fruits provide about half the nutrition of several types of native fruits, such as dogwood, at the time of year when North American migrating songbirds need fat, not carbohydrates, to fuel their long flights. (“Fruit Quality and Consumption by Songbirds during Autumn Migration,” Wilson Journal of Ornithology, March, 2007).”  

When I looked up this study, I found that it states that “Most common fruits [emphasis mine] on Block Island [where the study took place in Rhode Island during bird migration] contained primarily carbohydrates...and little protein...and fat. [emphasis mine]”

 

As the research paper’s authors were mainly speaking of native plants, this statement in no way supports the letter writers’ contention that the researchers demonstrated that Autumn Olive fruits were inferior nutritionally to native fruits—because most of the native fruits were primarily sugar (carbohydrates), too!

 

The Triad doesn’t understand the science of nutrition, which is “the assimilation by living organisms of food materials that enable them to grow, maintain themselves [emphasis mine] and reproduce.” (www.britannica.com/science/nutrition)

 

Sugar is a natural source of energy that’s useful for everyday activities. When migrating songbirds need to stop to rest and “refuel”, they need energy to hop around to find food, and Autumn Olive fruits fill the bill. These sugary fruits serve birds in the same manner as jelly beans (that are mostly sugar) serve a runner in need of glucose to continue exercising.

 

The research paper’s authors also 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 [emphasis mine]...”, which hardly implies that Autumn Olive fruits are “junk food”.

 

High-sugar fruits, such as Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata, seen here), provide energy needed to keep animals going about their day-to-day activities.

 

People will often accuse someone of wrongdoing as they themselves supply their own prevarication: “Condon mistakenly asserts that “nativists” (a derogatory term she uses for people who encourage planting only native plants in their gardens and in our natural areas) insist that all alien plants are problems and must go. [emphasis mine]”

 

That was not true. I wrote that, “Rather than critically analyzing each situation and dealing with it in the most appropriate manner, plant nativists (people who practice a policy of favoring native plants over nonnative) take the approach that demands removal of every plant designated as ‘invasive’ [all emphasis mine], no matter what function it is fulfilling in the local environment or how well it fills what would be an otherwise empty ecological niche.”

 

Also, I defined “nativist” in a way that literally describes the basic belief of nativism, which is hardly “derogatory”.

 

Nativists abhor Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica syn.Polygonum cuspidatum) despite the value of its blooms to pollinators, such as this Four-toothed Mason Wasp (Monobia quadridens) and numerous tiny bees. A so-called invasive plant, it has “stayed put” where I planted it decades ago. 

A sure-fire proof that someone doesn’t have a case is when they go off on a tangent that’s nonsensical: “While it appears that many nonnatives, such as Japanese knotweed, which Condon mentions in her recent article, provide shelter for animals, that shelter is not always useful and appropriate for many species. Take the bobwhite quail, for instance…that need shelter that allows them to move about quickly… [such as] clump-forming grasses whose structure offers ground-level spaces beneath dense, overhead cover.”

 

The Triad went off on a strange tangent here, since the point they make with bobwhite quail is nonsensical in the extreme. They are suggesting that somehow nonnative plants are supposed to fulfill shelter requirements for ALL animals, which, of course, is utter nonsense. Even those native clumps of grass they talk about are not going to shelter ALL animals.

 

When an argument is seriously lacking substance, people fall back on their credentials in the hopes that it will fool people into thinking they are experts: “Susan A. Roth holds a BS and an MS in Ornamental Horticulture from Cornell University and is the author of 10 gardening books.  William Hamersky holds a BS in Wildlife Biology from SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and a MS in Biology from California State University, Hayward. Manuel T. Lerdau is a Professor of Environmental Science and of Biology at the University of Virginia and has a PhD in Biology from Stanford.”

 

Ms. Roth’s advanced degrees in Ornamental Horticulture in no way prepared her for dealing with the natural world because, until very recently, horticulturists mainly saw most wild critters as “pests” and native plants as “weeds”—all of which were to be killed if they found their way into one’s garden.

 

Mr. Hamersky’s degrees should have prepared him with a better understanding of how the natural world works, yet—based upon his signing on to this letter—he’s apparently unaware of the fact that environmental conditions determine where plants are found. Someone with real knowledge of the real world should be able to see there’s no such things as “invasive” plants, but rather environmental conditions that encourage these plants to do well in particular areas.

 

Professor Lerdau’s qualifications outrank those of Roth and Hamersky, which might fool people into thinking that certainly he must be someone you could trust. Yet, he signed on to a letter rife with unfounded accusations, insults, lies, and misleading arguments.  

 

Unlike the three letter writers who should be embarrassed by, and ashamed of, their letter to the editor of The Crozet Gazette, I can truthfully say that I can back up everything I’ve ever written.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Use common sense to determine whom you can believe when people disagree about an environmental narrative. Who makes sense and who doesn’t? Who employs facts instead of insults? Who’s calm instead of angrily supplying emotional responses? If someone needs to tout a degree, is it a sign he doesn’t know as much as he’d like you to believe he does? And, most importantly, don’t buy into a false narrative just because a majority of people have done so. That’s how slavery and other evils have been able to persist in the world—people are afraid to swim against the tide lest they be severely criticized and perhaps embarrassed or even punished (as I have been by losing jobs). But sometimes, you must be brave and stand up against what you know is not right.   

 

DISCLAIMER:

 

Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software.