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. 

 

Lawn Mowing: An Injustice to Nature

If people would leave grass on slopes instead of cutting it (and any wildflowers growing there), they would allow the vegetation to prevent erosion and preserve water within the soil.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Spring has sprung

The mowing’s begun.

 

Swards of green

No blooms to be seen.

 

No food to find

By bees and their kind

 

Because humans are blind.

 

I’ve always loved springtime with its obvious awakening of so many life forms. But over the past few years, I’ve come to dread it.

 

Whereas I used to mostly hear the songs of birds and, in season, insects and frogs, I now hear the incessant sound of lawn mowers from 8 AM to almost 8 PM from Monday to Friday, and sometimes even on the weekend. People seem to be obsessed with short grass that is cut close to soil level, which isn’t good for its own health nor the health of our pollinators.

 

When grass is cut, all the blooming wildflowers growing with it are also cut, leaving our bees, butterflies, flies, and other pollinators with no nourishment to sustain them. Is it any wonder, then, that these insects are in trouble and disappearing? Sadly, humans tend to live in their own bubble and are blind to the numerous life forms around them that require these flowering plants in order to survive. And it’s vital for humans that they do survive.

 

If you grow your own fruits and veggies, you’re indebted to pollinators for helping your plants to be productive. If you purchase this kind of food from farm vendors and/or grocery stores, or if you eat a meal at a restaurant, you can be grateful to pollinators for providing the produce you bring home or eat on the spot.

 

Most folks have lawns, but they don’t understand the connection between the wildflowers that show up there and how helpful they are to wildlife. Many people might even get rid of these plants altogether by way of pesticides, another action highly detrimental to our insects and other kind of critters.

 

These situations are commonplace in suburbia, where everyone follows the lead of others, as in the expression: Monkey see, monkey do. It would be nice if someone within the community could explain to others the importance of keeping wildflowers instead of viewing them as “weeds” (I very much dislike this word) to be gotten rid of. It just takes one person to open the eyes of at least some of the neighbors.

 

Strangely, mowing is commonplace in the rural area where I live, and there’s not even much lawn to be seen on many properties! What can be seen not far from my property, however, is a huge vineyard and several horse farms, places where I wouldn’t expect people to need to mow grass or pesticide it much. Horse farms have pastures to feed horses, and vineyards maintain row upon row of grape vines. But they are totally in sync with suburbia! Nowadays farms are every bit as manicured as any yard in developed areas.

 

Years ago, however, farms were wonderful places to find wildlife. As a young girl and even as a teenager, I spent many a day at local farms located within the small town where I grew up. I did the same in college, having attended a university also located within a small town in a rural area. Farms back then had places that were not maintained, creating habitat for all kinds of animals.

 

With a booming human population, I’m not sure where people expect wildlife to live and thrive. But in the case of pollinators, we can certainly make room for them on our properties. We just need to stop mowing so darned often (taller grass results in healthier grass anyway) so wildflowers can survive long enough to feed insects. Better yet would be to get rid of most of the lawn to grow only flowers, or to allow a section of the yard to “grow wild”. If people recognized the value of wildflowers and wildlife, I feel certain most of them would do things differently.

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

You can help to change people’s attitudes regarding lawn care by writing letters to the editor in newspapers and other publications, and by writing to government officials at every level. Explain the value of “weeds” and request that these plants not be pesticided in lawns (private or public) and that mowing occur less often (preferably no more than once every two weeks). Folks need a leader to remind them that we share the Earth with other creatures and to inform them how to support those other life forms. You can be that leader.