Dana Milbank (Washington Post Columnist) Should Perhaps Change His Name to Dana MilliVanillibank

For almost 40 years, my yard has hosted a mix of nonnative—some deemed “invasive”—and native plants. The abundance of wildlife it has attracted was such that I was able to write a book—The Nature-friendly Garden—based upon it.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

You may remember the 1990 scandal involving Milli Vanilli, the German pop-music band fronted by two “singers” who had never sung one note of their songs. When performing publicly, they had simply lip-synced the songs that had been sung and recorded secretly by another person.

 

Likewise, Washington Post commentary writer, Dana Milbank, hasn’t truly written his own thoughts regarding so-called invasive plants in his column of April 7, 2023. You could say he simply lip-synced concepts publicized by Doug Tallamy, entomologist-turned-activist.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/07/suburban-lawn-climate-change-biodiversity/ 

 

When Mr. Milbank posits that he’s “been filling [his] yard with a mix of ecological junk food and horticultural terrorists”, he’s channeling the kind of words Bringing Nature Home author Doug Tallamy loves to employ: Biased expressions that implant negative images in the reader’s mind so he will become yet another minion of this scientist. Nowadays you can’t read a garden or environmental column without being accosted with the same words or variations thereof, as if everyone has become a mouthpiece for Doug Tallamy, which I’ve never seen done more obviously than in this column by Dana Milbank.

 

The problem with all this parroting is that the basic message isn’t based on legitimate science or knowledge of the natural world (for a detailed exposé, please see “Chickadee Chicanery” at https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-carolina-chickadeegrasps-tulip-poplar.html). There is also much repetition of mythical “facts” that are completely wrong (for a detailed explanation, please visit https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2023/01/invasive-plants-friends-or-foes-marlene.html), placing their value on a par with gossip.

 

Still, following in the footsteps of numerous columnists before him, Mr. Milbank starts off denigrating “invasive” plants with false suppositions (that are highly likely to have come from Dr. Tallamy’s first book, a repository of misinformation from beginning to end):

 

“A few of the shrubs I planted were invasive and known to escape into the wild. They crowd out native plants and threaten the entire ecosystem. Our local insects, which evolved to eat native plants, starve because they can’t eat the invasive plants or don’t recognize the invaders as food. This in turn threatens our birds, amphibians, reptiles, rodents and others all the way up the food chain. [Emphasis mine because these statements are all untrue.] Incredibly, nurseries still sell these nasties — without so much as a warning label.”

 

Let’s dissect the Milbank statements above that I’ve written in italics:

 

·    “They crowd out native plants and threaten the entire ecosystem.” Read virtually any description of where you find so-called invasive plant species and you will find the word “disturbed”. This tells you the soil profile has been negatively impacted by people, animals, or weather, and usually means the topsoil is gone. Only very tough plants—known as colonizers—can grow in disturbed areas because the soil is nutrient-poor and is typically compacted. Consequently, these areas may fill with a mix of native and nonnative plants, or mainly one or the other—but every single plant is a colonizer that is working to rehabilitate the land for the benefit of the native plants that require topsoil in which to grow. “Invasiveness” is nothing more than a derogatory word used by people with contempt for alien-plant colonization. Conclusions: Alien plants can’t “crowd out” native plants because once the soil is disturbed and thus degraded, most of our native plants can’t grow there and thus are not there to be crowded out. As for “threaten[ing] the entire ecosystem”, to the contrary—alien colonizers are helping to restore it. 

·    “Our local insects, which evolved to eat native plants, starve because they can’t eat the invasive plants or don’t recognize the invaders as food.” This oft-repeated distorted premise comes straight out of Bringing Nature Home, in which Doug Tallamy deceptively writes about an “excellent demonstration of how restricted a specialist’s [an insect with particular food preferences] diet is.” Dr. Tallamy tells the story of Eastern Tent caterpillars on a cherry tree denuded of its own leaves but hosting a Japanese Honeysuckle vine. He writes that the caterpillars didn’t recognize the honeysuckle as food (sound familiar?). But, of course, they didn’t because this species of insect can only eat plants in the Rose Family, which does not include honeysuckle. The story is told in a perfidious manner, apparently to fool the uninitiated—the MilliVanillibanks of the world who fall for it, hook, line, and sinker, and then lip-sync it. What Doug Tallamy doesn’t tell the reader is that the tent caterpillars could certainly have eaten the so-called invasive Multiflora Rose, which I’ve documented in the photo below. Conclusion: Native insects did not evolve to eat only local (native) plants, but rather can typically feed upon dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of plants related to each other by family classification, even though they grow in other countries.

Because the Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) is in the same family as the Black Cherry tree (Prunus serotina), it can feed our native Eastern Tent caterpillars.

Now let’s look at other italicized (by me) Milbank quotes from the same Washington Post column.

 

·    “If you want to save the planet, all you really need to do is plant a single oak tree.” The columnist then quotes researcher and author Doug Tallamy, referring to him as the “godfather of the native-plant movement”, who says, “You can plant one tree. You don’t have to get rid of anything else.” Mr. Milbank then tells us to “leave the rest of your plants alone, for now. Tallamy ultimately wants to cut lawn acreage in half, but allows that ‘there is room for compromise,’ and ‘Think of your noninvasive plants and cultivars as ‘decorations.’” So, cultivars are now seen by Dr. Tallamy as eye candy and useless to wildlife, but it’s okay for you to keep them in your yard. Yet in his first book he had a different view, writing with nary a bit of humility: “I predict that in most cases, cultivars of native plants should be fine” in answer to a supposed reader question of “Is it all right to use [showy cultivars] or will insects treat them like aliens?” This question, of course, is asking whether leaf-eating insects will be able to feed on cultivars. Apparently, this academician has changed his mind about his confident “prediction”. The truth is that Doug Tallamy’s entire line of thought represents the epitome of hypocrisy and the dearth of logical thinking that lies at the heart of the entire “invasive-plant” movement. On the one hand, Dr. Tallamy and his followers proclaim that so-called invasive alien plants are a problem because native insects cannot eat them, then they say without any sense whatsoever of self-awareness that it’s acceptable to keep the alien plants they and you like, even though insects supposedly can’t eat those non-invasive alien plants either! This insincerity represents an astounding demonstration of either immorality or stupidity (“showing a lack of good sense or judgment”).

·    And Mr. Milbank provides an example of just what I mean here: “Janet Davis, who runs Hill House Farm & Nursery in Castleton, Va., has a similar [to Doug Tallamy] message for the purists who make you feel bad about your blue hydrangea. ‘Don’t give me crap about something that’s not native but not invasive,’ she said. ‘I’m never going to tell you you can’t have your grandmother’s peony.’ Yet, consider this truism: “Invasive” plants are often spread far and wide by critters that take the fruits and either drop some or pass the seeds through their intestinal tract after eating and digesting the fruit.  Question: What is the difference between a plant being spread by an animal that has made valuable use of it and a plant spread by people as they plant yard after yard with “hydrangeas, azaleas and roses”—which Mr. Milbank decided to keep, despite saying they represented “ecological empty calories”? In other words, it’s not allowable for wildlife to “grow” plants with food value that has helped them to survive, but it's perfectly acceptable for people to grow plants solely to provide aesthetically pleasing “decorations” (the word employed by Professor Tallamy when permitting this contradictory situation).

·    Therefore, if you like your so-called invasive plants (as I do), why should you listen to Mr. Milbank’s advice: “If possible, you should remove the nastiest of the invasive plants if you have them: burning bush, Japanese barberry, Asian bush honeysuckle, English ivy, callery (Bradford) pear and a few others.” Do you think it’s fair for him to keep what he likes, but we can’t keep what we—and, more importantly, our native wildlife—like? 

My yard disproves Doug Tallamy’s thesis that properties with alien plants can’t support the caterpillars that birds (and other wildlife, such as the Four-toothed Mason wasp [Monobia quadridens] seen here) need to raise their young.

 

·    “Worst was my row of nandinas — ‘heavenly bamboo’ — along the foundation.” “You definitely want to remove it,” advised Matt Bright, who runs the nonprofit Earth Sangha, a native-plant nursery in Fairfax County. “Its cyanide-laced berries poison birds.” Please note Mr. Bright’s choice of words to describe Nandina fruits: “cyanide-laced [emphasis mine]”, as if the plant has evil intentions, deliberately adulterating its fruits to kill North American birds. This tactic is typical of the MilliVanilliBanks in the U.S. who want folks to perceive supposedly invasive plants as “bad” even though no evidence exists to support their accusations, especially in this instance. Mr. Milbank and Mr. Bright, who obviously supplied this information, have misspoken here. A study out of the University of North Carolina out of Chapel Hill, published in 2022, explains that Cedar Waxwings are the only birds that might be poisoned, and that’s only going to happen if someone grows so many nandinas that these birds can consume large numbers of fruits in a single feeding bout. If you grow just one or even a few plants, you are not going to poison waxwings. On the other hand, the author of the study points out that, “as distressing and regrettable as these cedar waxwing deaths are, they pale in comparison to the harm visited upon songbirds in the United States from other anthropogenic causes. Free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds annually (Loss et al. 2013), collisions with windows in homes account for another 159.1–378.1 million deaths (Loss et al. 2014a), and a further 89–340 million birds are lost every year to vehicle collisions (Loss et al. 2014b). Against this appalling carnage, deaths of cedar waxwings from N. domestica [Nandina] toxicity are a mere footnote [emphasis—everything in bold—is mine].”     (https://ncbg.unc.edu/2022/05/04/nandina-toxic-to-birds/) The above quote thus affirms my take on so-called invasive plants, which is that this entire issue plays no real part in the decline of insect and bird numbers. (https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2023/01/invasive-plants-friends-or-foes-marlene.html) 

  

Lastly, I want to point out that the reason Dana Milbank is so gullible, believing everything without question that he’s told by “experts”, is because he obviously possesses very little gardening knowledge himself, as exposed not only by his plural of “genus” as “genuses” (the correct form of which is “genera”), but also by the “advice” he offers others. Obviously, Mr. Milbank is ill-qualified to even be discussing this issue in a national newspaper, but he continues:

 

“Don’t have a yard? You can plant a native viburnum, goldenrods, asters, sunflowers and pussy willows in containers on a balcony or patio.” None of these species, except the asters, is particularly suitable for container gardening.

 

“Most people buy their lawn plants from Home Depot, Lowe’s, Walmart, Costco and the like, which either don’t offer native plants or offer those useless, engineered cultivars masquerading as natives. I had thought the magnolias, azaleas, hydrangeas and viburnums I bought were natives (there are native varieties of all these) but they turned out to be either the engineered types or even Asian varieties.” What a surprising admission from a man whose vocation requires research! Nothing precluded this Yale graduate from simply looking up the scientific names of native plants that could be used in his yard.

 

The Azalea caterpillar (Datana major), the larva of a native moth, is a known (in horticultural circles) “pest” of nonnative cultivated azaleas, as seen here in my yard. In other words, the Asian plants Dana Milbank disses as “useless, Asian varieties” can and DO support some of our native caterpillars, making his (and Doug Tallamy’s) overstatement untrue.

Additionally, he “took a small step in the painful task of killing [his] beloved lawn. [He] used landscape fabric to smother about 400 square feet of turf. In its place, [he] planted a smattering of canopy trees (two white and two northern red oaks), understory trees (ironwood, eastern redbud), shrubs (wild hydrangea, black haw viburnum) and various perennials and grasses (Virginia wild rye, blue-stemmed goldenrod, American alumroot, woodrush, spreading sedge).” No seasoned gardener would plant this many large woody plants—especially four oaks that will ultimately become huge and shade out everything else—in such a small area! Dana Milbank is a plant salesman’s dream come true: a person trying to crowd in as many plants as possible without proper thought to the future needs of all these plants—space to spread out and grow into their natural form without being crowded and thus made susceptible to disease; enough room around them to obtain all the nutrients and water they need; and the ability to still get enough sunshine throughout their lifetimes.

 

“Right now, my seedlings look pretty sad. Where once there were healthy lawn and vibrant shrubs, there is now mud and scrawny sprigs poking from the ground every few feet. I put up chicken wire to keep the kids (and me) from trampling them. The carcasses of my invasive plants lie in a heap on the gravel.” This statement supports my contention that ridding your yard (and, in the case of government, natural areas and parks) of “invasive” plants destroys habitat, leaving our wildlife high and dry. Follow the advice of Doug Tallamy via Dana Milbank (and many others) and you make the environment far less hospitable to our wildlife by removing plants that supplied habitat NOW when our critters need it to survive.

 

Removing plants for development permanently takes away habitat and thus is far more of a problem for wildlife than so-called invasive plants, such as the Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) seen here, that DO support wildlife.

Wildlife can’t wait for the future growth of new plants, as these people think: “But in a couple of seasons, if all goes well, [Milbank’s] yard will be full of pollinators, birds and other visitors in need of an urban oasis. Years from now, those tender oak seedlings, now 6-inch twigs, will stretch as high as 100 feet, feeding and sheltering generations of wild animals struggling to survive climate change and habitat loss. I won’t be alive to see it. Yet even now, my infant oaks give me something the most stunning cherry blossom never could: a sense of hope.”  Mr. Milbank, obviously having bought into Doug Tallamy’s more-recent book, Nature’s Best Hope, should have welcomed “pollinators, birds and other visitors” with the full-grown specimen plants he already had, but he must never have looked for these organisms. My property is a mix of alien (including quite a few deemed “invasive”) and native plants, and my yard has always teemed with wildlife of every sort. (www.marlenecondon.com)

 

Although it may sound logical that native insects can only obtain nourishment from native plants they co-evolved with, the reality is that they can—and do—feed upon nonnative plants. Here, a Tiger Swallowtail butterfly is getting the nutrients it requires from a nonnative Glossy Abelia (A.grandiflora) in my yard.

 

“When it comes to the world’s biodiversity crisis — as many as 1 million plant and animal species face near-term extinction because of habitat loss ― I am part of the problem. I’m sorry to say that if you have a typical urban or suburban landscape, your lawn and garden are also dooming the Earth.” No, the Earth’s doom is approaching much more rapidly thanks to people like the ones mentioned in Dana Milbank’s column who believe erroneously that alien plants serve no function in our landscape, and so they destroy functioning habitat, often by adding pesticides (poisons) to the environment.

 

Media promulgation of the mythological idea of “invasive” plants is hastening the arrival of a world in which humans will not be able to live.

NATURE ADVICE:

Dana Milbank’s column makes clear he’s not someone who should be writing about the subject of nature-friendly gardening, and he’s certainly not the person you should trust for advice on this subject. He may work for a national newspaper, but he’s a cheerleader, rather than an informed, objective writer and gardener.

 

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. 

 

 

Holed up in the Ivory Tower Too Long (A Discussion of a Recent Article by Researchers)

Light fixtures function as attractive nuisances to night-flying insects. Therefore, no more light fixtures than necessary should ever be employed to illuminate parking areas. In the parking lot shown above, light fixtures were placed closer together than needed for folks to safely navigate the area. 

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

On March 8, 2023, the Independent Media Institute published a paper, “5 Surprising Things That Could Be Preventing Your Yard from Serving as a Wildlife Sanctuary”. It’s credited to scientists Doug Tallamy of the University of Delaware and Daniel Klem of Muhlenberg College, and Jim Cubie, a consultant to the Muhlenberg College Center for Ornithology.

https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/

 

While these researchers seem to think they are informing folks of things they probably haven’t thought about, the reality is that not one of the five “things” listed should come as a surprise to anyone because they’ve been talked about in the media for many years. This article proves that scientists in ivory towers are often completely out of touch with the realities of the everyday world. 

 

For example, the first action the authors suggest people take is to ban cats from the area. I myself mentioned predation by cats in my Daily Progress column as long ago as September 2000. More recently, in my blog post of January 26, 2022, I wrote that “The more people there are, the more cats there are. Cats take a tremendous toll on birds, as well as other critters.” I cited the American Bird Conservancy that has been ringing this bell for decades.

 

https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

 

But the fact of the matter is that no matter how often it’s suggested to people, far too many cat owners will never make the effort involved to keep cats indoors, and they certainly aren’t going to do it for the benefit of wildlife.

 

Then there are the folks who maintain feral cat colonies and have convinced government to allow this disservice to wildlife. In law, cats (and dogs) are now viewed as if they are human, often with more rights than people! So, if Drs. Tallamy and Klem, and Jim Cubie think their list is going to suddenly bring about a change in human behavior, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

Second, these writers (while providing a shout-out to Dr. Klem’s new book, Solid Air/Invisible Killer: Saving Billions of Birds from Windows) discuss bird/window collisions. Almost two decades ago, in 2004, I wrote that birds would pay the price for the glass towers architects envisioned for the new World Trade Center to replace those that came down in the terrorist attacks of September 2001. I’ve written about numerous buildings that would kill birds—all to no avail because no one else clamors for consideration of our wildlife. So, the buildings go up anyway because, truth be told, most people just don’t care much at all about wildlife if it means they need to change what they desire.

 

Third, you are told “to manage pests without pesticides”. Wow, this statement from Doug Tallamy, who shares with readers of his first book, Bringing Nature Home, that he sprayed the “invasive” plants on his new property and has never truly discouraged people since from using these poisons. In fact, I feel he’s to blame for the tremendous increase in herbicide usage in this country—Rachel Carson’s warnings from her 1962 book, Silent Spring, be damned. By applying the phrase “biological pollution” to so-called invasive plants, he stigmatized these alien plants to encourage the uninitiated to take action. Yet these plants are quite useful in our environment (please see, “Invasive Plants: Friends or Foes?”—https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2023/01/), and certainly better for our environment than the poisons people use to get rid of them.

 

Strangely, these authors then go on to suggest that people employ “safe and effective products with the active ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, or BTI for short. It’s deadly to mosquito larvae but harmless to all other living things [emphasis mine], including bees, butterflies, caterpillars, fireflies, dragonflies, and humans.”  Dr. Tallamy, an entomologist, surely knows that this statement is patently false.

 

BTI will kill insects that are closely related to mosquitoes. Since when is it okay to kill nontarget species? And anyway, the link these authors provided (above) takes the reader to a site selling mosquito dunks that are recommended for “rain barrels, bird baths, tree holes, elevator shafts, planter reservoirs, rain gutters, etc.”  Honestly? People should concern themselves with tree holes?! Isn’t Doug Tallamy the man who’s supposedly concerned about bird numbers dropping precipitously because of a lack of insect food?

 

But he’s okay with killing immature mosquitoes in the natural world where birds, salamanders, and reptiles could get sustenance from this food source. No one should encourage folks to try to kill off every mosquito out there by concerning themselves with tree holes and other such natural features that feed wildlife with mosquito larvae. Is it any wonder people don’t want ephemeral wetlands around, and poison or drain those that are nearby?    

 

Not to mention that people could be minimizing mosquito numbers without even using BTI dunks. Mosquitoes lay their eggs in still water where eggs remain moist and larvae that hatch out can feed on organic matter. Therefore, if a bird bath is dumped and refilled daily, or at least every other day, neither eggs nor larvae could survive.

 

Even minus mosquitoes, you should be practicing this hygienic maintenance of your bird bath so that you provide only fresh water for the health of any animals that drink from it. And roof gutters should be kept free of debris so that all water can drain away rather than pooling there.

 

Fourth, the researchers want you to turn off your outdoor lights because they “are a major cause of insect declines, particularly the moths that create the caterpillars that feed the birds.” If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably know I’ve been writing about this problem at this site, as well as for years in newspapers and my book, The Nature-friendly Garden, that was published in 2006. In the section, “Tips to Help Garden Wildlife”, I mentioned that “Many kinds of insects are disappearing [more than a decade before researchers started talking about an ‘insect apocalypse’], in part due to the prevalence of manmade lighting.”

 

Did Doug Tallamy mention this problem in his book, Bringing Nature Home, that was published a year later? No. He used a nighttime map of the United States (page 28, Advance Reading Copy) to make his point that a lack of native trees due to conversion of “natural areas to developed landscapes” was the explanation for ever-decreasing bird numbers.

 

He wrote that moths need native trees to produce caterpillars, rather than recognizing that we were losing the moths themselves due to the abundance of lights shining in that photo. Moths hanging around lights don’t survive to lay eggs; hence, no caterpillars for birds. This entomologist completely missed the more impactful significance of that nighttime photo.

 

The last two points made by these three writers—not mowing in the evening so as not to kill toads and raising the mower blade to mow over a Box Turtle—are rather nonsensical in today’s world and thus puzzling as to why they were included.

 

First, most people employ lawn care services that don’t send employees to cut grass in the evening anyway. Second, lawns these days—whether cut by homeowners or lawn care services—are cropped so short that toads and Box Turtles are highly unlikely to reside in such a barren environment. Even if a turtle showed up, the person mowing should be able to see it in such short grass. However, the probability of even seeing one of these reptiles that are native only to the eastern part of the United States is low because this species is much in decline.

 

Considering that the authors are decades late to the party themselves, it’s rather amusing that they would take aim at a “major wildlife organization [that] recently published a long article about the benefits of native plants, including detailed descriptions of how to select, buy and plant them...[yet] only the final closing paragraph mentioned protecting birds from window strikes—and this article was an exception.” 

 

They go on to say that, “Most articles promoting native plants say nothing about protecting the wildlife those plants will attract to your yard.” Considering that Professor Tallamy—who’s been preaching to the choir about growing native plants and eliminating alien ones (especially those deemed “invasive”) for virtually the entirety of his more-than-a-decade of activism—has only recently begun to bring up this subject himself, it’s rather ludicrous that he chooses to deride others.

 

Tallamy, Klem, and Cubie finish their article with, “We need to change the narrative so we aren’t leading our wildlife to death traps. If we don't plant and protect simultaneously, we have actually conserved little.” 

 

In other words, these scientists really believe they are the very first to recognize the “ecological traps” they’ve listed. Are they just egotistical, or didn’t they bother to search public media? Either way, this paper—in its condescending tone and presumptuousness—paints scientists in a very unflattering light. 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Personally, I would take anything written by Doug Tallamy with a grain of salt. Though many people gush with adulation for this scientist, I’ve found his knowledge of the natural world (including his specialty, entomology) to be lacking. Consider that this article claims mosquito dunks are harmless to all other living things—when they most definitely are not—and that he’s an entomologist (someone whose career is studying insects) who did not recognize the extreme harm being done to insects by the excessive lighting shown in the nighttime photo he chose to use in his book. It’s a truism that when someone doesn’t possess comprehensive knowledge of the subject he’s discussing (in this case, nature-friendly gardening), he can’t possibly provide sound advice. In my opinion, Doug Tallamy’s woeful ignorance of the natural world in its entirety is why he’s been leading people down the wrong garden path, and he obviously is still doing so as he attempts to make amends for previous oversights.

 

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. 

 

 

 

Garlic Mustard—Exposing a Trail of Lies, Hearsay, and Ignorance

Garlic Mustard is claimed to be allelopathic, meaning that it makes the soil inhospitable for native plants to grow nearby. This claim is undoubtedly based upon the fact that this species is often the only plant found growing in some otherwise-barren areas. But a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to disproving mis- and dis-information. As clearly seen here and in many other photos I’ve taken, even the most-adored plants (in this case, Dutchman’s Breeches, Dicentra cucullaria) can grow and bloom(!) in the vicinity of Garlic Mustard.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

NOTE: The term “nativist” employed in this article refers to an advocate for policies that support the protection of native plants by removal of “invasive” alien plants.

 

“Blue Ridge PRISM [Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management] Inc began as a volunteer-driven organization dedicated to reducing the negative impact of invasive plants in the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. Effective invasive plant control is a community and neighborhood issue because these aggressive plants know no boundaries – flowing water, birds, hikers, vehicles, and animals [sic] scat all help to spread their seeds.”

 

https://blueridgeprism.org/about/

 

I don’t see how anyone could write that supposedly invasive plants are “aggressive” when it’s immediately stated that they are being spread by other entities. The statement is nonsensical and perfectly epitomizes the entire “invasive-plant” narrative: Blame plants for simply responding to environmental conditions. Nativists don’t recognize that by their own articulation of the “problem”, they expose the fatal flaws in their thought processes: a lack of perception and reasoning ability.    

 

Consequently, this organization commonly promotes misinformation that often employs an unhealthy dose of anthropomorphism. For example, the subtitle of a Blue Ridge PRISM "fact" sheet on Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) by Susan A Roth declares that Garlic Mustard is a “beastly invasive” that “[m]urders crops, [w]ildflowers, and [f]orests, [p]oisons the land” and “[k]ills butterflies”. 

 

https://blueridgeprism.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Garlic-Mustard-Factsheet-2021-9-9-v1-FINAL.pdf)

 

The clear intention of Ms. Roth’s hyperbole is to make you believe you must rid your yard and neighborhood roadsides of this medicinal and culinary herb. But let’s look at the facts instead of PRISM factoids. 

 

The fourth sentence of this PRISM “fact” sheet states that, “By now, garlic mustard is destroying forests and killing butterflies in 34 states, ranging from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic to the Midwest into the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.” This kind of overstatement is common in nativist attacks on so-called invasive plants, as is the fact that appropriate references are rarely provided to presumably support such exaggeration—as is the case with this web document. A lack of references should make the reader suspicious of the validity of such rhetoric, and with good reason, because it’s usually scaremongering based upon hearsay.

 

For example, the second paragraph tells us, “Within ten years of its arrival in an area, garlic mustard can take over the forest floor.” Really? I have just celebrated living in the same house for the past 37 years. My yard, in the shadow of the Blue Ridge Mountains, is surrounded by forest. Garlic Mustard grows in this area, but I can truthfully declare that it has made no attempt to “take over” the forest floor that surrounds me, and has only appeared in my yard twice—both times disappearing after setting seed.

 

Instead, Garlic Mustard has stuck to roadsides where the highway department distributes its seeds by sending out mowers in the fall (after the plants have gone to seed). Thus, Garlic Mustard’s spread can be directly attributed to people, as is typically the case with so-called invasive plants. And, if you don’t understand the true source of a problem, you are never going to be able to fix it (in this case, by mowing before Garlic Mustard has set seed).

 

In horticulture, the saying, “Right plant, right place” should tell everyone that plants grow only where environmental conditions are right for them. In other words, if conditions (amount of light, soil tilth, moisture) were conducive to native-plant growth in a particular area, those plants—rather than alien plants—would have come up and filled the area instead. Of course, it’s difficult for that to happen when the highway department keeps roadsides cut and the soil compacted, as well as polluting the soil with a salt slurry in winter. Let’s face reality here:  Human-maintained roadsides invite the toughest of nonnative plants to move in while discouraging less resilient native plants that can’t withstand such harsh growing conditions.

 

Yet, according to nativist postulation, garlic mustard should have “invaded” the forest floor and taken it over long ago in my area, which simply has not happened. Why? Because this plant needs a measure of sunlight and soil disturbance that you will not find in undisturbed forests.

 

So how did this myth of taking over forest floors get started? I suspect it’s because people don’t scrutinize what they’re looking at. Garlic Mustard growing along trails into the forest is simply following a cleared pathway of exposed soil. The extent of their spread away from the path depends upon how much the surrounding forest has been thinned (thus allowing sunlight to reach the ground) and whether the soil is covered with enough leaf litter (so soil is not exposed).

 

In other instances, Garlic Mustard spreads where trees exist but aren’t mature enough to create a forest canopy that adequately shades the soil and covers the ground with spent leaves. Many people incorrectly describe such areas as “forest” when they are more properly called “woods”. Terminology matters. If a writer uses misleading words, he misleads his reader—which is archetypal for papers about “invasive” plants.     

 

Now, how about those butterflies being killed in 34 states? Naturally, no reference was supplied by Ms. Roth, the author of the Blue Ridge PRISM “fact” sheet. So, I tried to find this information online.

 

The first paper I looked at was from the Urban Forest Alliance in McLean, Virginia, where the text was identical to that of the PRISM paper. Worse yet, the first suggestion supplied at the end of the paper for “more information” was the PRISM “fact” sheet! As is common with so-called invasive-plant articles by nativist advocates, one paper references another that either replicates exactly the text (as in this case) or repeats the message, albeit in different words. When trying to verify information, you go around in circles because valid information does not exist in articles written by nativist environmentalists.

 

Even when looking at more-recent scientific papers in which references are cited, you often find that the researchers don’t seem to have read them because the papers referenced don’t concur with what the scientists are putting forth. For example, many scientists proclaim that Garlic Mustard is the cause of the decline of the West Virginia White (a butterfly), and virtually all these folks reference a 1971 paper by S.R. Bowden, an English lepidopterist (one who studies butterflies and moths).

 

It took over a year to track down this paper that people greatly reference as providing proof of the toxicity of Garlic Mustard to the West Virginia White’s caterpillar, as well as the supposed ineptitude of the female butterfly by claiming the ovipositing (egg-laying) female often makes the “mistake” of laying eggs on nonnative Garlic Mustard.

 

First, the Bowden paper that gets referenced so often did not prove the female West Virginia White makes the “mistake” in the natural world of laying eggs on Garlic Mustard, a plant that’s not palatable to her larvae. Bowden performed what I’d call, “terrarium science”, in which the female had no choice but to lay her eggs on the plants this man made available to her in an enclosed environment. When you have eggs to lay and your choice is a glass surface or an inappropriate plant, you’re going to hope for the best and go with the plant (your young need to eat, after all).

 

Second, while most people referencing this paper claim the caterpillars were “poisoned” by Garlic Mustard, that is not at all what happened in Bowden’s lab. The caterpillars refused to eat this plant, not unlike a hungry child refusing to eat broccoli! As a result, the caterpillars died from starvation, but the word “poison” connotes evil and is undoubtedly the reason so many native-plant advocates use it when discussing Garlic Mustard and its effect upon the West Virginia White. Always keep in mind: Words matter.

 

References matter, too. I could not find one reference about butterflies being killed by Garlic Mustard in 34 states, nor could I find a reference to particular butterflies other than the West Virginia White (Pieris virginiensis) being threatened by this plant species. Still, a USDA Forest Service document states that Garlic Mustard posed “a severe threat to the long-term survival of the West Virginia White in many areas [throughout much of its historic range]”, yet also clearly declares that “Forest clearing and fragmentation appear to be the greatest threats [emphasis mine] facing this species.”

 https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_054237.pdf

 

These folks condemn Garlic Mustard, as if it’s obligatory, despite admitting that other threats to this insect’s existence are far greater. In addition to the loss of habitat due to logging or clearing for agriculture and development, additional menaces include insecticides and herbicides employed in nearby agricultural fields and control efforts for Gypsy Moth outbreaks; deer browsing of native plants; and the effects of climate change (local weather).

 

And another paper, “How Environmental Conditions and Changing Landscapes Influence the Survival and Reproduction of a Rare Butterfly”, points out that even though this butterfly is considered rare, “P. virginiensis is frequently overlooked as it flies early in the spring in forested areas, which are not major sources of butterfly diversity and thus are not often regularly monitored” by butterfly monitoring organizations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271765723_How_Environmental_Conditions_and_Changing_Landscapes_Influence_the_Survival_and_Reproduction_of_a_Rare_Butterfly_Pieris_virginiensis_Pieridae

 

Obviously, employment of the West Virginia White to disparage Garlic Mustard exemplifies what goes on in “invasive-plant” bashing. First, a likeable “victim” (that may not actually be a victim) is found that will (presumably) make people care enough to take the desired action (getting rid of an “invasive” plant) to “save” it. Second, accusatory overstatements—employed to implant images in people’s minds that aren’t valid—are boldly put forth with very little evidence provided to back them up. Dishonesty is the hallmark for how nativists manipulate people to do their bidding.

 

In summary, lies (about alien plant species), hearsay (from other nativists), and ignorance (a lack of true botanical knowledge) form the basis of the “invasive-plant” movement.

NATURE ADVICE:

When people have an agenda, you need to be wary of their words. Don’t just buy into what you read or hear. Make your own observations of so-called invasive plants to find out if our wildlife makes use of them and how so, and if research papers are referenced by native-plant advocates, be sure to look them up. These papers often do not corroborate the claims nativists make.

 

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. 

 

 

Groundhog Day No Fun for the Groundhog

A young groundhog looking for a new home checks out the author’s porch, eventually deciding to reside underneath it in a burrow.

 

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

Published February 2, 2025 by The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, VA daily newspaper) and The News Virginian (Waynesboro, VA daily newspaper) with the following photo and caption.  Also published by The Daily News-Record (Harrisonburg, VA daily newspaper) on February 9, 2025. 

A groundhog, its mouth stuffed with dried leaves, will bring them to its burrow beneath the author’s porch in preparation for hibernation. 

 

Pennsylvania’s Punxsutawney Phil may be the most famous weather-forecasting groundhog, thanks to additional publicity from the 1993 movie, Groundhog Day. But should mishaps befall Phil, publicity would be virtually nonexistent because his handlers cloak his life in secrecy and tall tales.

 

For example, he’s supposedly the same critter that’s been making predictions since 1886, even though groundhogs live only about ten years in captivity (two to three, on average, in the wild). According to The Punxsutawney Groundhog Club (https://www.groundhog.org/phil-faq), Phil manages this feat by drinking a secret recipe—the “elixir of life”: One sip every summer at the Groundhog Picnic “magically gives him seven more years of life.”

 

Yes, spinning myths and pretending a zoo animal can tell us whether spring will arrive early seems harmless. But is it really?

 

Other prognosticating groundhogs exist that provide insight to the risks of being in this famous “job”. In 2014, New York mayor Bill de Blasio attended the Staten Island Zoo Groundhog Day ceremony. When handed the groundhog by a zookeeper, he dropped it. A week later the ten-month-old rodent was dead from internal injuries suffered in the fall.

 

This kind of accident may be rare, but does anyone believe these undomesticated animals want to be handled at all, never mind that they’re brought out into the cold and held high above throngs of people, a frightening situation to an animal that has no comprehension of what’s happening? In Pennsylvania, Phil’s obliged to participate in selfies with many of the ten to twenty thousand people attending this event, keeping him in disquieting circumstances much longer.

 

We’ve come a long way regarding animal welfare, but we still have quite a way yet to go. While dogs and cats have become virtual human beings in the eyes of the law and afforded many protections, many kinds of wild animals continue to be seen as playthings for humans instead of recognized as the sentient life forms they are.

 

Like humans, wild animals have an innate need to live freely, roaming and exploring their world as they search for food and mates and living the life they were meant to live. Groundhogs live in dark burrows, but Phil lives in “a warm terrarium built into the Punxsutawney library. The wall that faces the outside is made of glass, so visitors can pay their respects at any time.” (www.roadsideamerica.com/story/17331)

 

Does Phil hibernate as he’s biologically “programmed” to do from October to April in Pennsylvania? No, that’s not allowed: His “manufactured burrow” is kept at a constant temperature, and artificial lighting prevents the shorter days of autumn sunlight from triggering his urge to put on fat and settle in for a long winter nap.

 

Like Canada Geese living in Virginia year-around now, Phil must become every bit as unsettled as they do during fall. Local Canada Geese move around constantly because they undoubtedly still have the biological urge to leave the area, being descended from geese that reproduced in Canada during summer and had no choice but to migrate south in fall if they were to survive the winter. The urge to move southwards or to hibernate is “built-in”.

 

Some people think Phil has a wonderful life because he doesn’t need to find his own food and he’s protected from predators, which may well grant him a longer existence. But would you choose life in prison just because three meals are served every day and health care is provided so you might live longer? Of course not; no one wants to be caged as Phil (and every other zoo animal) is.  

 

In fact, according to the Live Science website (https://www.livescience.com/8076-punxsutawney-phil-groundhog-myth.html), this mammal hasn't lost his wild instincts. One year, the groundhog tried to escape. “They caught him right before he tried to run for the hills,” wrote the editor of Punxsutawney Spirit, a daily newspaper that covers local news, adding, “If Groundhog Day comes around and the main man doesn't show up you have problems.”

 

Animals try to flee for the same reason people do: They want to live the lives they’re destined to live. I’ve seen a Box Turtle in an aquatic-nature center terrarium desperately and continuously trying to climb the glass walls of its prison to escape the boredom of its existence in that cramped space. I’ve watched wolves running back and forth in a crazed manner along a fence enclosing them at a nature park in the Northwest. As a child, I broken-heartedly observed a very large white Polar Bear pacing endlessly back and forth in its tiny cage that was barely larger than it was.

 

Wild animals don’t exist to entertain us. Each one belongs in the wild where it plays important roles to help keep the environment functioning properly.

 

Groundhog Day may be fun for us, but it’s no fun for the groundhog.    

NATURE ADVICE:

Many folks consider groundhogs to be “pests” and perhaps may not care what happens to these animals. However, anyone harboring that opinion needs to remember that all critters are sentient beings that shouldn’t be frightened or otherwise made to suffer, and they have “jobs” to do to keep the environment running properly. People have the intelligence to find solutions for coexisting with our wildlife and they should make every effort to do so.

 

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. 

 

“Invasive” Plants: Friends or Foes? © Marlene A. Condon

M'm! M'm! Good! [Courtesy of the Campbell's Soup Company] Although the ancestors of the horse evolved in North America, today's domesticated animals enjoy eating the leaves and twigs of the alien Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus) from Asia.  

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

The popular environmental narrative blaming so-called invasive plants for the decline in insects and birds has brought about the destruction of much viable habitat in the name of “saving” our wildlife. But a failure of effectiveness has occurred: Removing “invasive” plants has not resulted in bringing an end to, or even a reduction of, the decline in insect and bird populations.

 Why the “Invasive-plant” Narrative Sky-rocketed So Quickly in Popularity 

In 2007, the book, Bringing Nature Home, was published by Timber Press. Written by entomologist Doug Tallamy, it quickly caught the attention of two large groups of people: native-plant societies with an avid interest in promoting the growing of native plants (especially “ephemerals”—those species that appear briefly in early spring), and birding organizations whose members enjoy seeking out numerous bird species.

When Dr. Tallamy posited that “[m]ost of our native plant-eaters are not able to eat alien plants” [page 7, Advanced Reading Copy, Bringing Nature Home] and that “aggressive plant species from other continents…were rapidly replacing what native plants [he had on his own property]” [page 11, Advanced Reading Copy, Bringing Nature Home], he spoke words native plant-loving people could rally around—and rally they did.

Native-plant societies exist across the land, and their members were ready and willing to talk to government officials, plant nurseries, and anyone who would listen to them about the necessity of ridding the environment of “invasive” plants and growing native species instead of alien ones. 

When Professor Tallamy pointed out that “Nearly all terrestrial birds rear their young on insects” [page 19, Advanced Reading Copy, Bringing Nature Home], he reeled in birders of every stripe—folks ready to flock to the aid of their beloved avian species by spreading the word that home landscapes should be filled with native plants to feed insects, that, in turn, would feed birds. 

Subliminal Inculcation 

Bringing Nature Home is written in such a way as to subliminally implant erroneous ideas into the reader’s head. For example, Chapter 5 is entitled, “Why Can’t Insects Eat Alien Plants?” [page 42, Advanced Reading Copy, Bringing Nature Home], the suggestion given that no insect can eat an alien plant, which isn’t true. Any butterfly enthusiast can tell you that Monarch Caterpillars are able to feed successfully upon many alien-milkweed species. 

Although this University of Delaware professor does insert the word “most” ahead of “native insects” by the second paragraph of the chapter, he goes on to list almost two dozen of “the worst offenders” (i.e., invasive plants that don’t feed herbivorous insects), many of which are, however, superb food sources for a large variety of wildlife, especially birds. 

This sapsucker returned repeatedly to the author’s Photinia shrubs to obtain sap that, in turn fed Gray Squirrels and a variety of songbird species.

Yet, birders and birding organizations, and land management agencies (local, state, and national parks, conservation and wildlife agencies, etc.) are working hard to rid the United States of these plants, all because an entomologist—who sees the natural world only through the lens of herbivorous insects and what they need—suggests “invasive” plants are useless to leaf-feeding insects that he sees as being of paramount importance. 

But the reality is that just because you get rid of plants seen as invasive, it doesn’t mean the area is automatically going to fill with native plants more palatable to phytophagous (plant-eating) insects. The unspoken premise is always that native plants will succeed in that location, but whether that happens depends upon the presence of native plants in the area as well as their ability to reproduce and survive in what may still be a degraded situation. It’s well known that areas filled with so-called invasive species typically contain nutrient-poor and compacted/rocky soils, conditions not conducive to the growth of most native plants. Additionally, in areas of deer overpopulations, you can rest assured that native plants will struggle to survive unless fenced off or caged. 

The Falsity of Invasive Plant “Facts”

Due to the falsity of the ideas constantly put forth about so-called invasive plants, folks have bought into the belief that these plants harm the environment. When erroneous ideas are repeated endlessly, they eventually are believed to be “true” by virtue of the repetition itself.

One such pervasive idea is that these alien plants push out native plants, but nothing could be further from the truth. When you clear an area of its topsoil and leave rock-hard subsoil exposed (conditions not suitable for most native plants), as is the case alongside roads when they are built and in areas where mining took place, you find that alien plants come into such areas and may well—over time—fill them. Years later, these locations may look to folks as if “invasive” plants displaced native ones, but that’s a misperception borne of ignorance and/or disregard of the site’s history. Even scientists fall prey to this misconstruction.

Professor Tallamy tells us in his book [page 11, Bringing Nature Home, Advanced Reading Copy] that when he and his wife bought 10 rural acres in an area “that had been farmed for centuries”, they got “anything but the slice of nature [they] were seeking”. He complains that at least 35 per cent of the vegetation on their property “consisted of aggressive plant species from other continents that were rapidly replacing what native plants [they] did have.” This quoted statement simply isn’t accurate. 

Farming degrades the land every bit as much as bulldozers and mining equipment. If cows/cattle roam the landscape, these beasts weighing a half-ton or more compact the soil. If the land is hayed, heavy machinery compresses the dirt and removal of the hay robs the soil of the organic matter required to rebuild soil tilth and regenerate nutrients. 

Anyone familiar with farms in the East knows that most of them today consist of terribly damaged soils as a result of centuries of farming. Thus Dr. Tallamy’s purchase in southeastern Pennsylvania displayed just what should be expected—nonnative plants filling in corrupted-soil areas where native plants simply had not been able to return once the land was left untended. Those alien plants were no more “aggressive” than colonizer native plants because they are, in fact, colonizers themselves, filling in what would otherwise be barren landscapes that wouldn’t support much wildlife. 

And the alien plants were most definitely not replacing native plants as this scientist stated. Physics tells us that no two physical objects can occupy the same space. That’s one reason you should believe the alien plants came into what had been an area mostly devoid of native plants. 

Indeed, I’ve witnessed this scenario repeatedly over the decades since I started paying attention to so-called invasive plants when I was a college student in the 1970s. In Virginia, I’ve documented Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) alongside Virginia Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) beginning to grow in deserted farm fields, with both (and sometimes, one or the other) finally filling the areas. Ironically, the species typically replaced over time were nonnative plants: Tall Fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) from Europe or Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) from Eurasia and North Africa. 

Virginia Redcedar trees and Autumn Olive shrubs filling in a field that, decades prior, had fed cows in Albemarle County, Virginia.

The Problematic Anecdotes  

Bringing Nature Home is populated with anecdotes relaying the personal experiences of Doug Tallamy. His stories are often written so they plant false ideas into his readers’ minds, thus controlling them without their ever noticing. 

He tells us of encountering in his own yard “an excellent demonstration of just how restricted a specialist’s diet is”, where a specialist insect is defined as having “evolved in concert with no more than a few plant lineages.” [page 45, Bringing Nature Home, Advanced Reading Copy] He goes on to talk about a group of tent caterpillars that had stripped a small Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) of all its leaves. 

Dr. Tallamy writes, “What is interesting in this case is that there were still leaves available on the cherry” in the form of a Japanese Honeysuckle vine. “The caterpillars must have walked over the honeysuckle leaves repeatedly to find every last cherry leaf, and yet they had not taken a bite of the alien plant. Even as they ran out of food, the caterpillars simply did not recognize honeysuckle as a potential food source.” The subtle inference is that the caterpillars couldn’t eat the honeysuckle only because it was foreign, as if they would have recognized a native vine’s leaves as food. But those Eastern Tent Caterpillars couldn’t feed upon our native vines either. 

This tale serves to convince the uninitiated that alien plants are useless and shouldn’t be allowed to be here. But, while the caterpillars couldn’t eat the Japanese Honeysuckle, they could certainly have eaten Multiflora Rose leaves if Professor Tallamy had left these alien shrubs on his property (mentioned earlier in the book). As Dr. Tallamy points out, Eastern Tent Caterpillars (Malacosoma americanum) “are specialists on a single lineage of plants” in the Order Rosales; Multiflora Rose is in this very same Order. 

Omitted throughout his discussion is what the word “lineage”—a single line of genetic descent through time—represents: hundreds, if not thousands, of species. In other words, an insect is likely to be able to feed upon at least some of the plants that are related genetically, regardless of the country (geopolitical boundary) in which they originated, as you can see in the accompanying photos. A factuality is that you can find native insects feeding upon nonnative plants, but folks who choose to wear blinders can’t see what they refuse to look for. 

Native Eastern Tent Caterpillars feeding upon an alien Multiflora Rose shrub in Albemarle County, Virginia.

Close-up of a native Eastern Tent Caterpillar feeding upon an alien Multiflora Rose shrub in Albemarle County, Virginia. 

Value of “Invasive” Plants to the Environment

On list-serves, birders often lament the disappearance of birds from areas after mowing by highway departments or clearing by national or state park employees. These situations highlight a vital value of so-called invasive plants—that of providing habitat where there is likely to be none without them, often due to misguided beliefs about “neatness”. The reality is that removing alien plants removes habitat that is precious in a world with less and less of it. And it is not going to be replaced overnight. It takes time for plants to grow large enough to attract insects and to provide shelter for nests and/or from predators. In a world of disappearing organisms, removal of viable alien-plant habitat in the belief that “ideal” native-plant habitat would somehow be better simply adds to the difficulty these critters face for surviving another day. 

Dark-eyed Juncos (Junco hyemalis) and White-throated Sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) find winter sustenance along Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)-lined roads, such as this one in Albemarle County, VA.

Another serious detriment for wildlife is the usage of herbicides to rid areas of “invasive” plants. These poisons, applied directly to animals, kill. They are not innocuous, though people treat them as if they are. Who examines plants carefully before covering them with herbicide? I can guarantee no one does. Yet if you look closely at plants of any sort, you will find organisms on them. 

The reason “Mother Nature” constantly works to fill areas with plants is so they can support wildlife; barren areas do not. Yet people often view areas of abundant plant growth as “weedy” if the plants are not the particular species they desire. They describe such plants as "aggressive”, “invaders”, “bullies”, or “weeds”, only because they want something different in their place. However, if you are trying to assist wildlife, you can’t garden or manage land as if it’s solely for your own appreciation. You need to evaluate it from the perspective of wildlife.

 A Variety of Factors Are More Relevant to the Disappearance of Insects and Birds than the Presence of Alien Plants in the Environment

Doug Tallamy insists a lack of native plants—or more accurately, trees—is the prime reason for the loss of insects and birds, but that’s nonsense. In the eastern half of the United States, plenty of native trees exist to feed the caterpillars that are really the sole focus of this lepidopterist’s concern.

Plenty of native trees exist in the eastern United States to support moth caterpillars, as can be seen here from a balloon over Charlottesville, Virginia.

More-significant causes of this dire situation are the abundance of lights burning (sometimes day and night) in developed and even rural areas.

This elementary school in Crozet, Virginia, could be planted with native trees and still not support caterpillars, thanks to the excessive night lighting that is a prime attractant to, and thus killer of, moths.

Lights attract moths, which then don’t reproduce, making for fewer and fewer caterpillars over time and therefore a lack of food for birds.

Moths, large and small, remain “glued” to a light in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, at 7:30 AM DST.

And gardeners who worry more about their plants than wildlife spray or kill many insects, arachnids, and other kinds of organisms (such as slugs and snails) because they believe just about any critter on their plants poses a danger to their garden. Worse yet, extension agents across the U.S. reinforce public angst by providing much misinformation about so-called pests (e.g., sowbugs) that shouldn’t be seen in that light at all. Folks must learn to garden in a nature-friendly manner so gardening “pest problems” can be eliminated, thanks to maintaining the balance between plant-eaters and predators. [The Nature-friendly Garden, website: www.marlenecondon.com]

The “Invasive Plant” Narrative is Just Plain Wrong

Truth be told, an “invasive plant” can be defined as a plant that deer don’t eat, and/or a plant growing where someone prefers to see a different plant.

Deer overpopulations suppress many native plants, clearing the way for certain alien plants—or even certain other native species—to fill an area because they are left alone to reproduce. That’s natural succession; it’s not “invasion”. And the idea that plants must be native rather than alien, especially when alien plants can survive better than native plants in a particular area or due to climate change, is an arbitrary and capricious demand. If our wildlife doesn’t object to alien plants, then no reasonable grounds exist to insist upon supposed “habitat restoration”, especially where suitable habitat does not otherwise exist. A rare example of using common sense is the decision to leave alone nonnative Tamarisk shrubs for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/working-lands-for-wildlife/southwestern-willow-flycatcher

In a 1989 conversation with PBS journalist Bill Moyers, the novelist E. L. Doctorow said, “When ideas go unexamined and unchallenged for a long enough time, they become mythological and very, very powerful. They create conformity. They intimidate.” His words describe to a tee the current environmental narrative regarding so-called invasive plants.  Speak out and you feel the wrath of folks pushing their fictional environmental manifesto; indeed, I’ve lost jobs, thanks to such people.

The wholesale destruction of habitat currently taking place across this land adds insult to injury and must be stopped. If you truly care about saving our wildlife, don’t be intimidated by purveyors of “invasive”-plant mythology. Instead learn the facts and spread the truth. 

Autumn Olive shrubs—one of the most valuable wildlife plants one could hope for in areas with visibly degraded soil—were pesticided along a trail in Natural Bridge State Park, Virginia. State personnel were trying to follow the dictates of an erroneous and highly detrimental narrative: Rather than allowing the Autumn Olive shrubs to increase the diversity of plant life in an area hosting mainly Virginia Redcedar, which would increase the diversity of animal life, state personnel instead greatly limited how much wildlife the area could support.

NATURE ADVICE:

If people don’t begin to speak out against the “invasive-plant” narrative, wildlife will continue to lose habitat, leaving it with nowhere to go. Please, if you truly want to assist wildlife to survive, help stop this madness by taking time to observe alien plants and making note of the variety of wildlife you see making use of them. Then, spread the word!    

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.