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!

 Why Look for Trouble?

A spider on the wall may frighten most people, but it’s not looking for trouble. Just catch it in a plastic bug box and place it outside, as the author always does.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

My mother used to refuse to go to the doctor’s office for check-ups. If you asked her why she did not want to go, she would answer, “Why look for trouble?”

 

Her attitude (which I do not recommend that you adopt) perfectly explains the behavior of many kinds of wildlife that people fear intensely. Folks tend to believe that snakes, wasps, spiders, coyotes, cougars, and wolves, for example, would just love to attack them, but nothing could be further from the truth. As far as these animals are concerned, it’s truly a matter of “Why look for trouble?”

 

It’s essential to understand that the wildlife that finds its way into your home via unsealed openings is not looking to harm you. Critters wander around to search for food and/or nesting sites, and will enter gaps in manmade, as well as natural, structures.

 

Seeing one or even a few spiders or insects inside does not automatically denote an “infestation”. You should just catch them and put them outside. Our wildlife is disappearing, so none of it should be killed unnecessarily. Being nature-friendly also means you can avoid exposure to pesticides on your premises.

 

Some insects you might see in large numbers, such as nonnative roaches, alert you to the presence of food where it ought not to be. Eating snacks anywhere except the kitchen can result in crumbs throughout the premises. A line of ants to a spot on the floor or inside a cabinet is a sure sign that you have either spilled food (liquid or solid) or have not secured it well inside a container.

 

It is your responsibility to clean up spills and to use containers that keep food fresh and unavailable to insects. You should not kill the messengers that keep you on your toes. After all, if they don’t alert you to the food that is exposed to the air, molds will let you know instead.

 

Spiders wandering around inside are looking for insects to eat. They are not looking to bite you. Occasionally, however, a wayward spider may find its way into your bed and underneath your covers. If you roll over onto it or in some other way threaten its life, you can get bitten as it tries to protect itself. To minimize that possibility, it would help if you made your bed each morning! An arachnid would then be less likely to end up on the surface of the mattress.

 

Perhaps folks have a huge fear of spiders because of the notoriety of the black widow spider (there is more than one species) that typically resides in very dark locations. Nowadays you rarely get to see a black widow, but in years past, an unlit outhouse provided the perfect place for these shy and reclusive spiders to make a web to catch insects. Unwary people sitting down on the toilet seat—and the spider—would get bitten, an outcome that shouldn’t be surprising when you consider the situation of the spider!

 

(Despite the urban myth that we have Brown Recluse spiders in the north-eastern and mid-Atlantic United States, this species is not native to this area. You might come across one only inside a home where household goods were recently transported here from out west. Sadly, many spiders are misidentified as this species, which makes the killing of them all-the-more unjustified.) 

 

Paper wasps are especially fearsome to most folks. However, these insects usually only interact when they feel that they must, and that is when they need to defend themselves or their young (presumably, you would protect your offspring, too). By being alert when you are outside, you can spot nests by noting where wasps are hanging around but not eating, or continuously coming and going as if following a route.

 

Wasps visiting flowers to feed should not be a threat. Remember, they do not want to look for trouble! I’ve taken many a close-up photo of many kinds of wasps when they are at plants and I have never been stung.

 

Wasp nests far away from areas of human activity should be left alone. These insects are “employed” to help keep in check spiders and various insect species by providing those animals as food for their young (how this is done depends upon the species).

 

Yellow jackets (there is more than one species) tend to make underground nests where there is a lot of aboveground plant cover. By preventing lush growth near walkways, you might keep them from nesting where they could frighten you.

 

However, yellow jackets are highly unlikely to sting anyone just walking by. You need to be threatening them by stepping into or otherwise bothering their nest. If you fuss with plants in the area, which is how I often discover them, they will, of course, buzz around you to try to scare you off. Immediately do as they wish!

 

Snakes and coyotes catch and feed upon rodents or other small animals. Coyotes (and human predators) could possibly go after unattended small pets and children, so you should never leave them alone outside. As for snakes, parents should teach their children (along with never sticking fingers into sockets) to never place hands and feet where they cannot see what might be out of sight.

 

Although mistakenly thought of as predators of mankind, cougars and wolves are inclined to run away from people. Wolves and cougars were killed off by the white man because they went after his livestock, which he should have watched over to protect them from predators, just as American Indians stayed up all night to protect their crops from plant-eating animals.

 

Wild animals routinely flee from unnecessary confrontations with other organisms. Otherwise, they risk injury or death, which is exactly why they practice my mother’s philosophy of, “Why look for trouble?”

 

NATURE ADVICE:

You can prevent paper wasps from nesting around your home by looking for recently started nests in the spring. When early-morning temperatures are 50℉ or below, wasps are sluggish and unable to fly well. You can then knock down with a stick any small paper nests upon your house or other structures. Please note that if the nest is high up underneath an eave where the insects will not be coming and going close to people, you should leave it.

 

Tallamy’s Talking Points Miss the Point

Tiny Hover Flies in the author’s yard in Virginia flock to Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) for food in November. This “invasive” flowering plant is one of the last to hold blooms that serve as a lifeline for insects out and about on warm, late-fall days.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

A friend sent me a link to a YouTube video of a presentation for the Santa Clara (California) Native Plant Society by Doug Tallamy.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esNIhiWWr84

His basic message continues to be that the best way to save birds is via caterpillars, which he expects you to accomplish by landscaping your property with native woody plants.

 

The problem with Professor Tallamy’s directive is that it’s simplistic at best and destructive at worst. He ignores a whole host of injurious human activities to focus on the one (gardening) that may be the most palatable to people to act upon (because they enjoy this hobby), but it's actually the least helpful for the perpetuation of wildlife. 

 

And although Dr. Tallamy avoided mentioning pesticides in his talk to Californians who are presumably more sensitive (and thus more enlightened) to the pernicious effects of putting these chemicals into the environment, he has previously made clear his support for employing them to get rid of so-called invasive plants that he mistakenly believes have “pushed out” native plants. [Please see “Invasion Biology: Perception Trumps Reality”, posted here on October 6, 2020.]

 

In other words, Doug Tallamy’s talking points miss the point; he’s not going after the real obstacles to maintaining insect and bird numbers, but rather is trying to get folks to apply a band-aid that will not make much difference. Even if everyone on the planet landscaped only with native plants, it still wouldn’t increase the populations of caterpillars and birds because a dearth of native plants is not the main reason for the dearth of caterpillars. The main reason there are so few caterpillars (the larvae of moths and butterflies) is due to the ubiquitous lights found in human environments.

 

Most of the caterpillars you’re likely to spot are immature moths, and what do many of them do nowadays as adults? Instead of mating to perpetuate the species, many spend the night flying around outdoor lighting along streets, in parking lots, and around homes and businesses where they are more easily caught and consumed by owls and bats. They also will remain on the outside surfaces of windows in which nothing blocks indoor lighting from escaping. When moths don’t get a chance to mate, caterpillars are not created.

 

When Dr. Tallamy penned his first book, he showed a nighttime composite photo of the United States that he employed to point out “the extent to which we have converted natural areas to developed landscapes”, rather than discuss the real danger illustrated in that picture: lights! Thirteen years later, he’s finally come to recognize the danger posed by lighting, but does he suggest that the Californians listening to his program shut off unnecessary lights and employ curtains or blinds to shield their glow from insects outside? Nope. His answer is to keep the lights burning! Just use yellow lights that are less attractive to insects.

 

Of course, keep unnecessary lights on and you are especially guilty of contributing to the warming of our climate. However, global climate change is somehow not high on Doug Tallamy’s list of environmental concerns, even though a real problem for many insects nowadays is that—thanks to warmer winter temperatures—they are active in months when they should be hibernating. With nary a bloom in sight, they can’t feed to replace the energy they are using. Run out of energy reserves and you die.

 

Then there’s the lawn. While showing a photo of a house with a humongous lawn, he blithely tells folks to just get rid of half of their lawn, as if wasting the remaining 50% of the sizable amount of land in the photo would be acceptable. Why doesn’t he tell folks that a manicured lawn—dosed at regular intervals with deadly chemicals and kept “weed-free” (i.e., no flowers, such as dandelions, for butterflies, bees, etc.) doesn’t help our wildlife? After all, aren’t the people listening to him supposed to be ones who care about doing what’s right by the environment? Or are native-plant folks flocking to his lectures only because he’s the spokesman for their raison d’être?

 

At the end of his presentation, the Santa Clarans were able to ask questions. One person wondered if it was okay to grow a close relative of a native plant instead of the actual plant native to California. Professor Tallamy’s answer? You should be more concerned with the function of a plant in the landscape rather than its origins—even though neither he nor nativists (people who prefer to see native plants being grown by gardeners) will ever make this statement when discussing purportedly invasive plants.

 

Doug Tallamy’s overall message perfectly meshes with the current push by native-plant societies to get rid of many alien-plant species. But, as exemplified above, this effort is contradictory. Everyone knows that when calling a plant “native”, it’s not supposed to have been imported from somewhere else. Yet plenty of nativists want to have it both ways, and Doug Tallamy isn’t going to incur their wrath by disagreeing with them.

 

Lastly, Tallamy has a bad habit of making comparative evaluations of both plants and animals. He has no problem denigrating the animal species he doesn’t believe are as “valuable” as caterpillars, and he implied that 85% of native plants are essentially useless because they “aren’t supporting that much in terms of food webs”. Of course, this suggestion is ludicrous.

 

First, as every creature exists for a reason (otherwise, evolutionarily speaking, it wouldn’t be here), it’s an improper concept to posit that some kinds are more valuable or important than others. Second, and perhaps more critically, people are already overly prejudiced against many lifeforms, which is hugely detrimental to the environment. It’s hard enough to get people to accept nature in its entirety without having an authority figure convincing them to favor some kinds of animals/plants over others.

 

If you listen to Doug Tallamy or read his books, I highly recommend you employ serious critical thinking. This scientist’s training is in entomology and it shows. He espouses a worldview that is far too narrowly focused, disqualifying him as a spokesman for the environment in its entirety.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

With global climate change already occurring, consider growing nonnative plants that bloom as early as March and are still blooming in November (the Common Dandelion is a cheery flower that will bloom even in winter sometimes if it’s in a sunny spot and the temperature is warm enough). Many of these plants may be classified as “invasive weeds”, but they are crucial for assisting a variety of insects to survive the current conditions on Planet Earth. 

 

Invasion Biology: Perception Trumps Reality

Numerous pollinators, such as this Tiger Swallowtail, obtain nourishment from the blooms of Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellata). Their feeding fertilizes the flowers, which then provide fruits by late summer for birds and mammals.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

 

One definition of perception is “a thought, belief, or opinion, often held by many people and based on appearances”.

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/perception

 

It’s the perfect description for the field of invasion biology that deals with plants. When particular nonnative plants became noticeable in number alongside roadways, trails, and in fields, folks suddenly became aware of them and concluded these species had “pushed out” the native plants they felt should be in these locations. But their assumption was based only upon what they were seeing. While seeing can sometimes equate to believing, seeing can be quite deceiving, especially in regards to this issue. I can make clear this point by sharing a true story from my life.

 

I made the decision to work for a year before going to college. My parents did not have money to pay my way, and I didn’t want to end up thousands of dollars in debt by leaving for college when I was 18.

 

My one-year delay turned into five long years. Although I worked sixty-plus-hour weeks, I realized hostessing/waitressing in a restaurant and cashiering in a department store were not going to get me the money needed for college. Therefore, when a managerial position became available at a store 45 minutes away in another town, I jumped at the chance to get it, which I did.

 

Within my first few weeks there, my sister asked me to pick up diapers for her recently born baby. As I was only about 21 and this was the very early seventies before the term “Ms.” had taken hold, I was addressed as “Miss” because I wasn’t married. Immediately word got around that I was a single mother with a baby!

 

Obviously, appearances can be deceiving, and people should refrain from reading too much into them without further investigation. Although it may be difficult for older and younger people alike to grasp how our natural world became so full of plants they mistakenly believe to have “invaded”, that’s no excuse for jumping to conclusions that are, indeed, erroneous.

 

How can I know (and I do know) that the field of invasion biology is way off track? I know because I’ve paid very close attention to the environment throughout my life, which now adds up to many decades of observations.

 

The reason many of the so-called invasive plants exist in the United States is because they were deliberately brought here from other countries. They were known to be effective for preventing erosion by covering disturbed areas (such as that caused by road construction) where most native plants couldn’t possibly return because the soil conditions weren’t right for them. Plants (e.g., Kudzu) continue to grow in such sites, and in developed areas cleared for new construction that has been long delayed or never happened. Invasion biologists overlook the fact that all plants have soil requirements that must be met for them to grow; to home gardeners, it’s known as “right plant, right place”.

 

It’s said again and again that alien plants crowd out native species, but the reality is that they first come up where no, or very few, native plants are already growing. Ground that is compacted and nutrient-poor (either due to construction, trail use, or hundreds of years of cows treading over the landscape) is where nonnative plants fulfill the important role of colonizers that rehabilitate the soil. Over time, native plants can come in, and they do.

 

Invasion biologists must not be gardeners. Otherwise, they couldn’t possibly ignore—as the entire field has done—the truism that environmental conditions dictate which plants can grow in disturbed soils.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

When I first moved into my newly built house 30 years ago, the topsoil had been graded away and the landscape was as gray, and every bit as devoid of life, as the Moon.

 

By working some of the yard while allowing nature to take its course in other areas of it, I soon had a nature-friendly garden that consisted mostly of non-native plants, some of which are known as “invasive.”  But every one of these plants contributed to a wildlife habitat that has become a haven for a huge diversity of organisms.

 

People are being made to feel guilty for allowing plants to grow that are well established in this country and are providing the structure necessary for superb wildlife habitat. Don’t allow yourself to be dictated to by friends and neighbors misguided by the invasive-plant movement that is, itself, misguided by scientists.