Showing posts with label Native Trees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Native Trees. Show all posts

Friday, May 15, 2026

 Condon’s Corner


With native trees dying, it’s time to embrace “invasive” plants


© Marlene A. Condon 2026 All Rights Reserved

[Published May 14, 2026, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia and published May 16, 2026, by The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia.] 

 

Oaks have been dying for many years now, and more species are following suit, such as White Pine (Pinus strobus) and Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). If you expect to feed and care for our wildlife, grow plants erroneously called “invasive” and fight new restrictions placed upon doing so.

The Daily Progress newspaper of April 16, 2026 included this article headline: “Outpacing evolution: Scientists using DNA to battle climate change”. Apparently, scientists have given up on getting people to change their ways to avoid climate problems brought about by our extensive employment of fossil fuels.

Instead, they’ve decided it would be “easier” (don’t believe it) to completely alter the genetic blueprint for the estimated one million species facing extinction so these creatures can tolerate climate extremes, disease, and drought. In other words, man has finally begun to think of himself as God, the Almighty. (The hubris!)

You can see the acceptance of our situation by other news stories, too, such as an AOL story that told us, “As the planet warms, scientists burn homes to figure out how to best protect them in wildfires.” Even more concernedly, some scientists are putting a positive spin on what’s happening: “Five ecosystems transformed by climate change give birth to new, sometimes even richer worlds.” [From an ad for a PBS program]

And then, AOL recently published, “Climate doom and gloom? Try laughing instead. Activists embrace joy in the fight to save Earth”. If only it were a laughing matter, but here in Virginia, it isn’t.

On April 9 of this year, abc7News printed an article about Virginia’s recently elected governor, Abigail Spanberger, signing bills to create “4 laws to combat invasive plant species in Virginia”.

Gov. Spanberger signs 4 laws to combat invasive plant species in Virginia

The article states that the bills will “protect the state's land, water, and wildlife.” It quotes executive director, Laurn Yatkor, of Blue Ridge PRISM, an environmental group “that helped draft three of the four new laws.”

She’s quoted as saying that “Invasive plants are one of the most urgent and under-recognized threats to Virginia’s pollinators, songbirds, livestock, waterways, tree canopy, and recreational parks,” She goes on to say, “The scope and the scale of the problem are vast, and it will take a village to repair the damage done and ensure a healthy environment for future generations.”

But where’s the factual information to support these statements? None exists because nothing could be further from the truth. Removing so-called invasive plants will only deplete desperately needed food and habitat for our critters and doom them to the extinction people supposedly are trying to avoid.

When you truly want to do what’s best, you take the time to make sure you understand the problems, rather than simply repeating dogma put forth by numerous groups who don’t actually know how the environment works.

We are told that these “new laws aim to support long-term solutions that are more effective at prevention and species management. Specifically, it illegalizes the planting of invasive species along state highways, expands the Noxious Weeds List, incentivizes local jurisdictions to raise funds to control invasive species, and gives state agencies the ability to use volunteers to control invasive species on state lands.” Yikes.

What are the alternatives to planting “invasive” species along our highways? For numerous decades, Virginia insisted upon nonnative lawn grass as the only plant to be used there, despite the huge cost—monetarily and environmentally—to keep it mowed regularly throughout the growing season. Yes, grass had to be kept cut due to societal expectations for this type of plant, which you can see all around you locally as you drive by the vast majority of yards.

Even now, with the number of mowings reduced to twice a year, we still spend an enormous amount of money on Virginia’s almost 60,000 miles of interstate, primary, secondary, and frontage roads.

But the beauty of leaving these strips to do their own thing throughout much of the growing season is that a huge number of nonnative wildflowers have moved in, creating beauty and interest for the traveler. Now this scenery will be replaced by native plants that are not going to thrive along interstates. After numerous decades of constant mowing, the soil has been compacted, which is not conducive to native plants that have mostly evolved within forests of loose, rich soil.

Common sense should tell you that the best plants for degraded habitats are, therefore, plants known as “invasive” because they do so well in areas where the land would otherwise be quite barren because native plants would struggle. In point of fact, the term “invasive” is a prejudicial word meant to fool people into believing these alien plants are somehow “bad” and thus should be hated and removed.

And, adding insult to injury, nonnative plants are usually removed with pesticides that poison the ground, the plants they’re used on, and any organisms that happen to be upon the plants when the pesticide is applied.

Yet, in truth, so-called invasive plants are actually critically vital saviors, not only for our wildlife but for our native plants! Over the course of time, nonnative plants rebuild the soil so that native plants can one day return. And, in the meantime, they feed and/or provide nesting sites for our wildlife so they can survive.

Indeed, we should be grateful for alien plants that can grow in degraded areas instead of denigrating them out of prejudice based upon ignorance that’s been taught from elementary school on up for some decades now. And to think such useful plants are now going to be added to an official “noxious weeds” list, a name that is exceedingly pejorative and is probably employed to slyly implant the idea in people’s minds that they should feel contempt for alien plants.

But should they? Absolutely not. So-called invasive plants feed Virginia’s insects and hummingbirds with nectar or pollen and songbirds with fruits or seeds—a truth native-plant folks are loathe to accept.

These new laws meant to “help” wildlife will instead shepherd its demise. If you own property and truly care about our critters, my advice is do not follow the recommendations of government agencies and groups like PRISM who influence them. Stand up for what is truly best for our environment.  


Wednesday, September 25, 2024


The following commentary was published by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia, on September 24, 2024. You can read it at the newspaper’s web site (by clicking on the web address below), or you can read the unedited (original) version posted here below the link.

https://dailyprogress.com/opinion/column/marlene-a-condon-bad-science-results-in-bad-environmental-outcomes/article_3d570250-791d-11ef-8952-afc030209d81.html


Bad Science Results in Bad Environmental Outcomes


You can take a Carolina Chickadee out of the forest, but you can’t take the forest out of this bird. A flawed study unintentionally verified just that. 

 

 ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon


A serious problem for the environment nowadays is the scholar- and media-driven promotion of peer-reviewed scientific studies that do not actually prove what they purport to establish.

 

The result is an unknowing public being led to follow the erroneous dictates of careless scientists, creating, in the end, more difficulties for our ailing natural world.

 

A prime example is the current widespread narrative that “nonnative plants reduce habitat quality for insectivorous birds”. This quote from a now-famous chickadee study by Drs. Desirée L. Narango, Douglas W. Tallamy, and Peter P. Marra overgeneralizes their results that, in fact, only apply to the Carolina Chickadees they observed and other similarly forest-dependent bird species. In other words, the scientists have made a statement that is more universal in nature than is justified by their available evidence.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/45/11549

 

This indiscriminate declaration has served as the keystone argument to encourage land managers to prioritize growing native-plant species on properties by first removing so-called invasive, non-native species. Additionally, it has convinced other scientists, the media, government officials, environmentalists, and even individuals to disseminate these ideas far and wide.

 

However, this entire study is based upon a flawed premise; its results are therefore not valid; and no action should be taken based upon the scientists’ recommendations.

 

For scientific findings to be considered sound, researchers must follow protocols (an official system of rules) known as the Scientific Method.

 

First, they make an observation: In this case, that some insectivorous-bird populations are decreasing.

 

Next, they ask a question: Could human-dominated landscapes containing an abundance of alien plants that don’t support many leaf-feeding insects that birds eat be the cause of this situation?

 

And third, the scientists design a study that will enable them to collect data that they can then examine to determine the answer to their question.

 

The flaw in the chickadee study occurred before researchers left the building and got out into the field. The senior scientists—one of whom was Smithsonian ornithologist (bird authority) Peter Marra —inexplicably chose the Carolina Chickadee, a forest bird, as the avian species they would study in suburbia, which is typically more akin to field habitat.  

 

If people (and their associated developed areas) did not exist, a chickadee would be found only in forest because it nests in natural tree cavities. And because it occupies that kind of niche (the physical space that makes possible survival and reproduction of a species), it has evolved to feed upon the insects closely associated with the large native trees that comprise forest.

 

In other words, the life of a chickadee is tied forever to large native trees, so any area without an abundance of these specific plants—as is the case in much of suburbia—would be regarded as inferior habitat.


By performing their study in sub-optimal habitat, the three scientists reached a foregone conclusion: A chickadee’s reproductive efforts will be sub-optimal (fewer healthy chicks) in yards devoid of numerous large native trees.

 

A legitimately done study would have looked at avian species living in suburbia without human-supplied assistance, such as the feeders and nest boxes that encourage chickadees to try to reproduce under less-than-desirable conditions. Native birds of field and edge (where field meets forest) habitats, such as the cardinal, wren, catbird, dove, jay, mockingbird, and many others, are common and could have been studied quite easily.

 

The researchers could have compared how well these species were able to reproduce in yards with a higher percentage of nonnative plants versus yards with a lower percentage to see if it truly made a difference. Of course, as any birdwatching person living in an urban/suburban area realizes, the birds living and reproducing there do quite well among the mix of native and nonnative plants.

 

Urban-/suburban-adapted birds feed upon a host of insect species, unlike forest-dwelling birds, such as the chickadee, many kinds of warblers, and other species that are more tied to leaf-feeding caterpillars and sawfly larvae found in large trees.

 

It's unfortunate that so many people have been so fooled by this study. Thanks to Drs. Narango, Tallamy, and Marra, a great deal of perfectly functioning habitat has been, and will continue to be, destroyed—often with the application of herbicides that not only harm wildlife in the area, but can poison the ground and water.

 

It will take years for viable habitat to replace it—precious time our wildlife can’t afford—and there’s absolutely no guarantee, either, that it will consist of native plants.


NATURE ADVICE:

Just because a scientific study by people with “Ph.D.” after their names is peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it cuts the mustard. Always scrutinize what scientists say to be sure their arguments are logically sound.


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. 


  CONDON’S CORNER— Out of Touch with Reality © 2026 Marlene A. Condon All Rights Reserved     [Published October 8, 2026, by The Daily Progr...