PART SEVEN

[Published January 9, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia]

Conclusion—Nature, Man, and God: The Trinity for Life

 ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © 2024 Marlene A. Condon

A fallow field full of wildflowers supports a huge variety of critters essential to our own lives but is viewed by most folks as a wasteland of “weeds” (unwanted plants).

The natural world is currently viewed by most people as if it is expendable. This happens, unfortunately, when people become more “civilized” and thus no longer directly interact so much with nature. Over time then, they lose touch with how essential it is to their lives.

 

Indeed, a goodly fraction of people feel that if land is not developed or somehow utilized by humans, then that land is wasted. They see no value whatsoever in land conserved mainly for the benefit of wildlife.

 

But, if you don’t landscape in a manner that mirrors the natural world and supports an abundance of wildlife, you are turning a blind eye towards the appropriate relationship of man to nature. God gave the planet Earth to man, and in its God-given (i.e., natural) state, it served as a pristine haven that provided a source of nourishment for the body and soul.

 

Man was not required to change, modify, or “correct” in any way this holy gift. All he had to do was to take care of this wondrous benefaction by living by the rules that governed it. In other words, he had only to obey the laws of nature.

 

Is all of this to say that we should not use our ingenuity to live with less hardship? No, it is not. However, we do need to transform our lives to live more simply. To accomplish this change, we must first humble ourselves so that we may determine what is truly meaningful and necessary for our existence upon the Earth. Then we can more easily implement how best to both fit in with, and impact less, the natural world.

 

For example, by keeping our immediate environment in a more natural state, as we should, we would cause less air, water, and soil pollution because there would be less mowing, weed-whacking, and leaf blowing. By limiting our use of energy to that which is truly vital to our wellbeing, such as heating homes in the dead of winter or cooling them during summer heat waves, we would conserve natural resources and curb harm to the environment.

 

Yes, this is a call to live less extravagantly, but not less comfortably. Sensible limitations are neither too burdensome nor too restrictive, especially when you consider how much they lessen your impact upon the planet. If everyone took better care of the Earth, scientists wouldn’t need to figure out how to get people to Mars and then somehow create a habitable environment on a celestial body not at all conducive to human existence.

 

Today, too many folks think wrongly about the natural world and about how to live their lives in relation to it. This attitude must change, even if you do not believe that God exists. It is simply common sense to conserve resources, and to follow the dictates of Mother Nature, if you will.

 

Be inspired by nature to live in harmony with it and you will find peace of mind. The nature revelation of God’s existence is hard to dispute: Nature, man, and God are inextricably entwined, making up the trinity for life not only to exist, but to persist.

Man’s development of the environment should always take the needs of wildlife into account by leaving natural areas nearby.

TOMORROW, PART EIGHT:

 Epilogue: Why You Should Believe the Thesis of This Treatise

 

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. 

 The Trouble with Horticulture

Slugs and snails are viewed in the gardening world as “pests”, when the reality is that they exist to help recycle rotting, organic debris, such as pollen that has collected on the author’s carport. In other words, they return nutrients to the soil to fertilize your plants so you don’t need to do it. Don’t kill these helpful animals as extension web sites tell you to do; instead, feed them by keeping decomposing organic matter in your yard and garden.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

NOTE: “The Trouble with Horticulture” was published by The Daily Progress (the Charlottesville, Virginia, daily newspaper) on August 15, 2024. To read it at the site, click on the link below. I’ve also posted it here for your convenience.

 

https://dailyprogress.com/opinion/column/marlene-condon-the-trouble-with-horticulture/article_cc6704f2-5430-11ef-abf8-eb36c45559e1.html

People rant about various kinds of wildlife that are problematic for them, when they themselves are responsible for the difficulties they encounter. Expecting to garden without a knowledge of nature is akin to expecting to bake bread without any knowledge of kneading and proofing (the process of activating yeast).

 

Despite the admonition much given these days to not grow alien plants, many nonnative species (such as this Red Clover—Trifolium pratense) can furnish wildlife (such as these Great Spangled Fritillary butterflies) with nourishment throughout the growing season.

Still, generation after generation of horticulturists get degrees that are not based upon an understanding of how the natural world works, even though that is where gardeners and farmers grow their plants. Consequently, they provide gardeners with a lot of misinformation that has become “factual” by way of constant repetition by those who’ve obtained doctorates in this field. As a result, gardeners encounter wildlife problems and end up believing that many critters are “pests” when, in fact, they are nothing more than innocent animals trying to survive.

 

Your gardening doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Thus, you have no choice but to follow natural laws. So, let’s look at just a few of the “truisms” in gardening lore that are, in fact, myths. When followed, they make unnecessary work for the gardener, and are also detrimental to wildlife and the environment.

Putting up bird boxes is not enough to entice birds to nest in your yard. You must provide them with food. For this Eastern Screech Owl in the author's yard, mice and insects that people often think shouldn’t be around their house are required.

As summer draws to a close and fall arrives, gardening experts issue the same axiom year after year: Clean up your garden to keep pest problems at a minimum. However, if you have a yard that is wildlife friendly, this task is totally unnecessary. It deprives many animals of needed winter food and cover, and over time, bankrupts the soil nutrition available for growing plants.

 

While it’s true that some insects overwinter in plant stalks, either as adults or eggs, it’s also true that many animals will find these insects and eat them. Wrens and woodpeckers will come to feeders to get sunflower seeds, but they mainly subsist upon insects all the year around. As a result, they can be in big trouble if we have a harsh winter with lots of snow. If you leave plants standing, especially tall ones, these birds have a better chance of surviving because they may find insects or their eggs on the stems above the snow.

 

Deer Mice also eat insects. While you probably care more about birds than these mammals—thinking that all rodents are “pests”—consider that mice help to replant our forests and grasslands. They are Mother Nature’s gardeners, carrying seeds back to their nests and dropping some along the way that may then grow where they fell.

 

It’s easy to overlook the fact that every creature does its part to keep the other components of the ecosystem functioning properly, but humans need to recognize this actuality. Even though you don’t want mice in your house, you should welcome them outdoors, and not only because they are inadvertent gardeners. Mice are a prime food source for owls, and thus are a real attractant if you would like to see these birds of prey around your home.

 

Another gardening myth is that you must keep your plants totally “bug-free” to keep them healthy. Healthy plants can withstand a few insects chewing or sucking on them. Remember, plants exist to feed animals (“Marlene’s Axiom for Life on Earth to Persist”). There’s no need to run for the insecticide spray at the first sign of a few six-legged critters, especially as many of these insects will be eaten if you’ve created a yard that welcomes predators.

 

For example, many folks worry about aphids, yet they rarely cause significant damage in a yard full of birds. Hummingbirds, especially, require such tiny insects to obtain protein and fat for good health. Remove aphids and you remove a significant food source for these sprightly creatures.

Putting in even a small artificial pond provides habitat for aquatic wildlife, such as this male Green Frog resting on a waterlily pad in the author’s three- by four-foot front-yard pond. Ponds containing wildlife are not a significant source of mosquitoes because most of the aquatic larvae get eaten. However, beware the water garden that only holds plants! With no animals to limit mosquito production, you’ll get mosquitoes galore.

You’ve probably also heard that you shouldn’t allow your perennials to go to seed as it drains the energy they could put into growing. A plant’s ultimate “goal” is to reproduce so it’s well adapted to making seeds and still accomplishing the growth that it should do each year. If you spend time deadheading (removing all “spent” blooms—those that are going to seed), you are performing busywork and, again, depriving your local wildlife of food. In my yard, House Finches flock to the seeds of my Red Hot Poker (Kniphofia spp.), and it still has grown larger and larger every year.

 

Lastly, anywhere you plan to cover bare ground with mulch, you should instead let some “weeds” grow. They serve as your natural mulch. Rather than stealing water, they keep the ground shaded to prevent moisture loss, and many turn into lovely flowers that provide beauty for the gardener, nectar for hummingbirds, butterflies and/or numerous other insects, and possibly seeds for birds and small mammals if you leave them standing.

 

Pillbugs (also known as Roly-poly Bugs or Woodlice), are often found underneath flower pots. They are not insects, but rather, land crustaceans related to marine arthropods, such as lobsters, shrimp, and crayfish. Their function in the environment is to help recycle dead plant and animal matter, which is why you see them in association with planter pots. Yet, extension offices often refer to them as “pests” and tell gardeners to get rid of them! Ignorance of the true roles of our fellow life forms endangers the proper functioning of the environment that supports all of us.

Save time and energy by gardening in a more relaxed manner, and you’ll help our wildlife while you’re at it. Your reward will be the opportunity to watch nature at work instead of you! 😊

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Here’s my definition of gardening: The perpetual expenditure of human energy to defy Mother Nature™. From this follows my Golden Rule of Gardening: Always follow Mother Nature’s examples™. Obey my Golden Rule (as I have always done) and you won’t suffer the difficulties farmers and gardeners typically encounter—because they are doing things incorrectly. And then you won’t need to waste energy trying to make amends for disregarding the natural laws you have no choice but to obey (the whole point of my book, The Nature-friendly Garden).  

 

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. 

Oriental Bittersweet—A Murderer Who Kills by Strangling or Smothering His Victims?!

A Northern Mockingbird defends its larder of Oriental Bittersweet fruits that would help it to survive the winter of 2019-2020.

Thanks to misguided human intervention, the vine was cut on this tree that had stood alongside a dirt road for decades, which resulted in the mockingbird losing its dependable food source for the following winter. The Oriental Bittersweet started to regrow in the spring of 2020 (seen here at bottom up to middle of photo), but wasn’t ready to make fruits by the winter of 2020-2021. How was depriving this bird (and possibly other animals) of food throughout the harshest time of the year helpful to our natural world?

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

A “fact” sheet from the Blue Ridge PRISM (https://blueridgeprism.org/factsheets/), a group whose “mission is to lessen the negative impact of invasive species on both private and public land within 10 counties located in Virginia’s northern Blue Ridge region” (https://blueridgeprism.org/) declares that Oriental Bittersweet “murders forests, strangles trees, [and] smothers [the] understory.”

 

Wow. This statement exemplifies perfectly how people concerned about “invasive” plants tend to employ derogatory accusations to prejudice the reader’s opinion right from the get-go. And that’s not all.

 

Continue reading and you find an emotional essay that, rather than straightforwardly supplying facts, instead infuses this vine with uniquely human behavior: “[T]his attractive vine has an aggressive agenda.” Honestly? For bittersweet to have an “aggressive agenda”, it would have to have brains to carry out a conscious and deliberate plan of assault upon the trees of the forest.

 

This type of barrage—one that accuses so-called invasive plants of behaving in the manner of disreputable human beings—is typical of much nativist rhetoric. It has always struck me as odd because we’re talking about plants.

 

So! Let’s move from the fantasy of plants behaving as if they are bad people to the reality of plants behaving quite naturally as plants.

 

What do plants need to do to perpetuate their species?

 

·    They need to grow to reach maturity; in the case of vines, that growth is usually upwards. Many vining plants cannot flower—which they need to do if they are to reproduce—if forced to grow horizontally.

·    Plants need to get their offspring into the wider world in case catastrophe strikes their original position. This feat is often accomplished with the help of animals that enjoy eating fruits produced by the plant. Whether the animal eats the fruits on the spot or carries them away, the seeds within the fruits may successfully get through the animal’s intestinal tract to land far away from the parent plant, allowing the species to spread for the continuation of its kind.

 

In other words, what people see as an “infestation” is simply a species doing what it must to keep from going extinct. It doesn’t know some people have a problem with that.

 

The aforementioned “fact” sheet notes that Oriental Bittersweet “thrives in disturbed soil and tolerates full sun and dappled shade. It may occur abundantly around old home sites, in fields and fencerows, along road edges, and in forests throughout the Blue Ridge.” The sheet goes on to mention that, “This invasive vine now infests the eastern U.S.” and “has been a serious pest in New England since the 1970’s [sic].”

 

What does this paragraph tell us? It says that rather than being “a real beast” as the fact sheet opines, Oriental Bittersweet is doing what comes naturally: It’s responding to what people do to their environment, a fact pretty-much always overlooked by nativists in their diatribes.

 

Disturbed soil is part and parcel of home sites, fields and fencerows created by people to grow crops, roadways because you can’t make a road without disturbing the land, and forests throughout the Blue Ridge because these mountains were denuded by logging—more than once in the history of the country.

 

And let’s not overlook another fact: People intentionally brought bittersweet here to grow in their gardens. This species is not the “invader” suggested by use of the term “invasive”. It should more accurately be described as an escapee.

 

Is bittersweet problematic? This question can’t be answered by a simple “yes” or “no” because the answer depends completely upon a person’s point of view, which is dependent upon what is most important to him.

 

For the person (such as I) who truly cares about wildlife and disappearing habitat in developed areas, the answer is no. Because most folks maintain very few plants around their homes (and even farms nowadays), there’s not much available for animals (especially birds) in need of food, shelter and nesting sites. Bittersweet that has climbed high into a tree on the edge of someone’s property or along roadways provides these necessities that are absent from most yards (and farms).

 

Does it matter if the vine’s presence kills the tree? In the natural world, there is nothing sacrosanct about a tree, and from the human perspective of someone who wants to help our feathered creatures, it shouldn’t be a problem either if the vine is providing more for wildlife than the tree does.

 

Now, if you’re managing a forest for lumber, your perspective is totally different. Since you look at every tree as a source of income, you want what’s best for your purposes rather than what’s best for wildlife.

 

And what if you’re an environmentalist who wants the natural world to more closely resemble its former self before Europeans arrived? Well, that’s a fantasy that can never become reality. Yes, you can work endlessly on your (and perhaps others’) property to get rid of the many plants people brought here some time ago, but the cat’s out of the bag. It’s a waste of your life, especially if your efforts don’t improve living conditions for wildlife, the main reason often given for “invasive-plant” removal. And if you’re employing pesticides that poison the Earth to accomplish this goal, you’re just adding insult to injury.

Lastly, I’ve been asked if I would be unhappy if a neighbor planted Oriental Bittersweet along my property line where it could spread onto my land. Mother Nature—who’s certainly a neighbor—has done just that, as I find this vine growing here and there around my yard. As it has yet to show up where I could let it grow without it being a problem for my preferred plants, I pull it out if it’s small enough and persistently cut it if it isn’t (so it can’t flower).

 

Gardening is the perpetual process of making decisions about which plants you want to encourage and which you don’t. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

If you believe poisoning (pesticiding) our environment is better than allowing so-called invasive plants to grow, you really ought to rethink your perspective. Instead of buying into denunciations of these plants, get out into the world and observe it carefully with an open mind that will allow you to recognize the truth: The presence of nonnative plants that assist wildlife to survive is far better than the barren area that’s typically left when people remove “invasives”.

 

Few people make an effort to replace the plants removed because they mistakenly believe native plants will (magically) show up. It's possible they might, but the usual reason “invasive” plants grow where they do is because they are more suited than native plants to the environmental conditions in these locations.

 

The Plant Police Are Coming for You

These two male Rose-breasted Grosbeaks are feeding on sunflower seeds that originated in North America, but we often feed wild birds seeds from other lands, such as niger (also spelled nyger) that is grown in Africa, India, and other places in Southeast Asia. Why is it okay to provide foreign foods in a feeder to native animals, but frowned upon to feed them by way of nonnative plants that have the additional benefit of also providing shelter and nesting sites?

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.

 

 

Helping Nature Shouldn’t Be Against the Law

The south side of the author’s nature-friendly yard is filled with plants, providing habitat for a huge variety of wildlife that includes mice and the native Eastern Woodrat. Does a yard like this threaten anyone’s health, safety, or general welfare? Absolutely not.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Over the years, many folks have asked for my assistance when they’ve tried to do what’s right for the natural world and run head-on into government regulations. Unfortunately, it’s hard to fight City Hall if you don’t have a large group of citizens willing to speak out for the cause of “nature justice”.

 

I’m hoping that at some point, environmentalists will stop waging useless wars (on so-called invasive plants, for example) and start fighting for realistic changes that can truly make a difference for our natural world. In cities and towns, and in many rural subdivisions, regulations are put into place to control the appearance of the developed area and they are highly detrimental to wildlife. Yet very few people fight against this government overreach that is based upon a lack of knowledge.

 

Under the heading, “Tall Grass and Weeds” at the website for Harrisonburg, Virginia, you will read that “Whenever grass, weeds, brush or other foreign growth attains a height of twelve (12) inches or more, it shall be presumed to threaten the health, safety and general welfare of residents of the City.”

 

https://www.harrisonburgva.gov/tall-grass-weeds

 

Under the heading “Unlawful growth of weeds and other vegetation” at the Charlottesville, Virginia, website, you’ll find that “All weeds existing in violation of this section are hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance.”

 

http://vtod.frec.vt.edu/Documents/Charlottesville.pdf

 

Citizens of these two cities can be fined for disobeying these ordinances. But nature has gotten a bad rap. When left to its own devices in developed areas, wildlife habitat is viewed as overgrown, messy, and a place that will assuredly attract undesirable critters that carry disease (i.e., rats and mice), referred to as “vermin”. But does this picture accurately depict natural areas?

 

The answer is a resounding, “NO”. Mice and rats exist because they fulfill crucial roles in the functioning of the environment. Mice are Mother Nature’s gardeners that also practice natural plant control, and rats are part of her cleanup crew.

 

When mice carry seeds back to their nests and drop some along the way, they help plants to spread, which is vital for the perpetuation of wildlife habitat. When they feed upon the seeds they collect, mice limit the numbers of plants in an area, thereby preventing overcrowding of the plants, which ensures their good health.

 

Rats can be called opportunists that will feed upon just about anything edible they can find, such as dead animals, fresh and rotting fruits and vegetables, and seeds. Without them, the environment would not be cleared as quickly of decaying organic matter.

 

Are humans likely to catch diseases from mice and rats in a natural area located near people? It’s highly unlikely unless you handle one of these critters, which everyone should know better than to do. It’s your responsibility to teach your children not to touch dead animals, just as you must teach them not to cross the street without looking both ways first and not to stick their fingers into an electrical outlet.

 

So why is there so much fear about this issue? It’s because people don’t employ rational thought when considering their relationship to the natural world. Instead of behaving responsibly, they instead want to kill wildlife doing its job.

 

If you don’t seal your house to keep wildlife outside, and if your house is dirty with food crumbs on floors and furniture, you are going to attract animals to clean up after you. If you come into contact with saliva, urine, and/or droppings from disease-infected rats and mice, you may well become infected. You also need to avoid getting bitten.

 

The smartest strategy for preventing exposure to rodent diseases is to seal all entries to your home to the best of your ability and to minimize food sources that attract these animals in the first place. If you feed birds, only put out as much seed as will get taken each day (mice and rats are active mainly at night).

 

Nature-friendly landscaping around your house will invite the variety of creatures that keep your environment working properly. Owls, hawks, and foxes—all of which are well habituated to urban/suburban areas—can help to limit rodents, but they require habitat.  Whatever you do, don’t employ poisons of any sort. They are inhumane, causing intense suffering, and they kill any critter that feeds upon a dying poisoned animal.

 

It’s the height of silliness for local ordinances to limit the height of plants in a yard, and to speak of tall plants as threatening to the health and safety of citizens. If you reside in an area governed by outmoded thinking about our wild plants and animals, please speak against it.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

It’s important for people who care about the environment to try to join with others of like mind to change laws that negatively affect it. One way to accomplish this goal would be to send a press release to the local newspaper to let folks know of your plans. Libraries and other public spaces often allow use of their meeting rooms at no cost for noncommercial purposes. Weed ordinances perpetuate prejudiced ideas that are invalid. Let’s get some justice for nature!

 The Myth of Allelopathy

It’s not hard to find a Black Walnut tree surrounded by a great variety of native and nonnative plants, which should give an observant person reason to doubt the excessive talk about the negative effects of allelopathy.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Allelopathy—the biological phenomenon by which a species of plant supposedly inhibits, via biochemicals, the germination, growth, survival, and/or reproduction of a different species of plant—is much touted in invasive-plant circles. The original scientific interest in this subdiscipline of chemical ecology arose from the idea of making use of allelopathy in agriculture. However, the very vocal support of plant nativists (folks who prefer that alien plant species be replaced by native ones) has undoubtedly assisted this field of study to flourish. But is allelopathy just myth?

 

The beauty of the natural world is that it is open to anyone with eyes to see. You can prove for yourself that many of the “facts” repeated ad infinitum about nature don’t bear out in the real world.

 

For example, I live in a forested area where many Black Walnut trees (Juglans nigra) grow. This tree is the most well known example of allelopathy among gardeners because of its reputed toxicity to many species of garden plants.

 

It’s a given that you’ll be exposed to this information if you plan to grow such plants as tomatoes or green peppers. You’ll certainly be told to keep your garden as far away as possible from a Black Walnut because a plant sensitive to the effects of juglone (the chemical contained within the tree) can be poisoned by contact with any part of the tree (including roots, leaves, nuts, and even branches that have fallen to the ground).

 

It may indeed be true that solanaceous (nightshade family) plants are susceptible to the effects of juglone, but why would anyone plant a vegetable requiring full sun under a shade tree? Thus, to me, all the talk about the Black Walnut tree in regards to growing such plants is pointless.

 

Nevertheless, it’s reasonable to ask if the science is right about juglone causing problems for many other kinds of plants. To judge whether conclusions from a scientific paper in the biological sciences is accurate, you really need to read the details of how the study was done. Unfortunately, many scientific papers are most easily available only to other scientists, and the public is essentially locked out from access.

 

Luckily, I did locate some original research online regarding this situation, and found that the effects of Black Walnut on other plants have been contradictory from one study to the next. I also came across a January 2000 paper that listed plants affected and plants not affected by growing near Juglans nigra trees, and the number of plants not affected by walnuts is far longer than the list of plants affected—which didn’t surprise me. I’ve found quite a variety of plants growing under Black Walnut trees in Virginia.

 

http://www.allelopathyjournal.org/Journal_Articles/AJ%207%20(1)%20January,%202000%20(1-55).pdf

 

I’ve documented many native and nonnative herbaceous plants, and woody vines, shrubs, and trees surrounding this tree species. I’ve seen the same for supposedly allelopathic alien herbaceous plants. To me, the more plausible explanation for why some plants perform poorly near “allelopathic” plants are environmental conditions (e.g., soil fertility, soil compactness, etc.).

 

NATURE NOTE:

Garlic Mustard, Ailanthus, Canada Thistle, and Foxtail are nonnative plants deemed—without question—to be allelopathic. I can tell you for a fact it isn’t true. I’ve grown every one of these plants in my yard, and not a one inhibited the growth of other plants around it. If you want to know the truth about alien plants, grow them to learn for yourself if alien-plant lore is true or mythical.

Correcting the Narrative

Correcting the Narrative

Fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) decorates a Washington (Olympic Peninsula) clearcut in this slide taken in the 1980s. A clearcut is hardly recognizable as such when it regrows, and it provides for a variety of wildlife dependent upon successional sites.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 If you care about the natural world, you’ve probably depended upon conservation organizations for information because you believe them to be knowledgeable and trustworthy. But can you take what they tell you as gospel? Not necessarily.

 

In the 1980s-90s, the Sierra Club provided the narrative regarding clearcuts (areas of forest cut down for timber), telling us how bad they were for the environment. Few people, if any, would have doubted this perspective because, to human eyes, a clearcut appears as a site of total devastation.

 

However, forest regeneration provides habitat for wildlife, too—although not for all the original inhabitants. A variety of other kinds of critters depend upon such “disasters” to create open habitat they need for the perpetuation of their kind, as I discovered while birding clearcuts. I found many species of avian creatures, along with butterflies, rabbits, lizards, etc. My experience belied the Sierra Club stance.

 

A close birding friend of mine had also realized clearcuts provided for warblers and other species when the land next door to his house was completely logged. But while he didn’t hesitate to admit that fact to me, he would never have dared to breathe a word of it to anyone else. People tend to be terrified to go against the prevailing narrative, lest they be ostracized. No one wants to be banished from his social circles.

 

But signing on to a false narrative is not at all helpful to Mother Nature. You can’t possibly make the proper choices about how to take care of the natural world if you base your decisions upon falsehoods or misleading information. So, I wrote an article about the true value of clearcuts.

 

I originally sent it to major conservation organizations, thinking they would surely want people to know the truth. Not a one would publish it. Tellingly, the editor of  a national birding organization's magazine phoned to admit I was right, but this group believed it would lose members if my article appeared in their publication. The realization that environmental organizations were required by their members’ beliefs (wrong as they might be) to kowtow to an erroneous narrative was revelatory and very disturbing to me.

 

Does any birder really want Ruffed Grouse to disappear? As of 2015, 15 states listed the Ruffed Grouse as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need, mainly because of loss of habitat. This species requires the young forest that clearcutting helps to provide, yet birders apparently would have opposed receiving this information. Why? Psychologists explain this as "herd mentality", which minimizes social harm to individuals, but poses significant risks for our environment.

 

My article got published—first, by RGS, the magazine for the Ruffed Grouse Society (hunters), followed by Michigan Forests, the magazine of the Michigan Forest Association (foresters).

 

If you love our natural world as I do, I hope you will subscribe to this blog so you can be privy to real-world truths. Mother Nature desperately needs folks willing to fight inaccurate narratives that perpetuate faulty and ruinous information.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

Despite people’s aversion to clearcuts, they essentially replicate them when they clean their gardens in fall (known horticulturally as “putting the garden to bed”). Instead, you should leave the dried plant stalks, leaves, etc., until spring because this material is used by wildlife to protect eggs, larvae, and adult organisms from harsh winter weather.