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. 

 

Let “Invasive” Plants Do Their Job

A Common Buckeye is one of many late-summer species of butterflies that finds nourishment at Black Knapweed in the author’s garden. One of the last plants to cease blooming in fall, it feeds tiny bees and hover flies active late in the season due to climate-change-induced warmth. And American Goldfinches benefit by feeding on its seeds.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

An edited version of this article was published April 9, 2021 in the Bay Journal.

 

https://www.bayjournal.com/opinion/forum/let-invasive-plants-do-their-job-so-the-natives-can-take-over/article_7387fc70-93c6-11eb-a929-03fb0e9b107b.html

“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend”—French philosopher Henri Bergson

 

The January-February issue of the Bay Journal reports that nonnative Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) “has become important in the Bay as a ‘pioneer’ species, colonizing unvegetated areas and making them suitable for native grasses.” People working for the federal government long ago realized that alien plants performed better than native plant species to repair degraded environments, which is why many plants now referred to as “invasive”—such as Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellata)—were brought here. This species helped with mine reclamation in the 1830s.

 

Was it a mistake to bring such plants to this country to help fix man’s destructive impact upon the environment? No. With an increasing human population accompanied by development of the land, and increasingly warmer and droughty conditions in places like Virginia due to manmade global climate change, so-called invasive species would be the unintended savior for our wildlife—if only folks would take the time to educate themselves about soil science and how the natural world works.

 

For example, it's common to see abandoned fields and roadsides in Virginia filled with Autumn Olive as you drive throughout the Commonwealth. You could easily believe the dogmatic precepts that these Asian plants “pushed out” native plants and took their place, but such erroneous information combined with your deceptive perception would fool you. Without an assessment of prior use of the land and knowledge of soils, you can’t possibly come to a reality-based conclusion about why certain plant species grow in these areas.

 

Unused fields formerly accommodated either half-ton cows that trod over them day after day, or crops that required heavy machinery to prepare the soil, to sow seeds, and to care for and harvest the plants every year. Roadsides are leftover disturbed areas following road construction. Both fields and roadsides typically contain nutrient-poor, compacted soil. Little organic matter was returned to the soil to enrich cow or crop fields, and topsoil removal by roadway construction uncovered dense subsoil containing few organisms or nutrients.

 

Therefore, the plants you view as you drive along highways bordered by neglected farm fields are the plants capable of growing well in almost inhospitable conditions resulting from human activity. They rehabilitate the soil for the benefit of native plants that require good (i.e., crumbly, nutritive) soil in which to grow well. Only after the “pioneers” (as with Hydrilla) have done their work can such plants move into these impaired locations.

 

Native-pioneer plant species are few in Piedmont Virginia (where I live), consisting mainly of Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana), Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus, in mountainous and foothill areas), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and, though not actually native to this part of the state, Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacicia). You will often see these plants joined by Autumn Olive, a hint that supposedly invasive plants are simply nonnative-pioneer plants, increasing the diversity of plant life and thus animal life in these areas.

 

Autumn Olive shrubs and Black Locust trees in fields and roadsides share an extremely useful attribute: the ability to fix nitrogen and thus enrich poor soil (a desirable trait often employed by gardeners growing peas and beans). Such plants serve as Mother Nature’s nitrogen cooperative, working with soil bacteria that enrich the soil by adding this vital nutrient to it so people don’t need to squander oil reserves manufacturing synthetic fertilizer.

 

Unfortunately, the predominant narrative nowadays is that everyone must remove supposedly invasive plants that are mistakenly believed to have displaced native plants while not offering their ecological benefits to the environment. It’s a false narrative, but not surprising, given that people are prepared to understand only what their own biases and limited experiences allow. Yet, anyone can find out for himself the truth about these plants. It’s not rocket science; you simply need to observe the natural world without preconceived notions and grow these plants on your property.

 

I’ve observed in my own yard how Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Autumn Olive, and Paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) feed our pollinators with blooms, birds and mammals with fruits/seeds/or buds, and even furnish nesting material and/or sites. In years when deer overpopulated the area, they denuded my yard of most native plants, which would have destroyed all habitat if I hadn’t included commonly disparaged invasives in my yard that deer didn’t eat. These ungulates are often unrecognized for their role in making many alien plants appear invasive.

 

In the severe drought years of 2002 and 2003, I witnessed how native species withered alongside the roads as I drove to Shenandoah National Park to give monthly slide presentations. Meanwhile, alien species continued to flourish despite drought and drying winds.

 

If you care about wildlife, ignore the siren call of voices who frame the invasive-plant movement in terms of morality (i.e., your “duty” to destroy these plants). They couldn’t be more wrong.

NATURE ADVICE: 

It may not be long before localities begin to ban the growing of so-called invasive plants on your private property. People must speak out against such laws that will only bring harm to our wildlife. Government officials are not experts on this issue; they respond to the people who make a ruckus. Enlighted citizens must raise their voices so the truth can be heard and given due consideration.

 

Missing the Forest for the Trees

A male Eastern Towhee perches on a radio tower enveloped by an Autumn Olive shrub—perhaps the best wildlife plant there is as it feeds numerous species of pollinators, birds, and mammals.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

There’s much publicity nowadays that misinforms people about the need to create a wildlife habitat in which 70% of the plants are native. A major focus is often on getting folks to grow trees—in particular, oak trees. Why? According to Nancy Hazard, a member of a group called “Greening Greenfield [Massachusetts]”, “Oak is king. Oaks host over 400 different species of moths and butterflies.”

 

https://www.recorder.com/Ecological-difference-39423618

 

This deceptive “fact” (which comes from entomologist Doug Tallamy, whose tally for caterpillar species that feed on oaks was 557 in 2017, according to the National Audubon Society) is repeated often in gardening columns, making people think that any oak they grow in their yards is going to feed hundreds of species of moth and butterfly caterpillars.

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

The reality, however, is that this number represents the sum of Lepidopteran species that feed upon the entire genus of oaks across the country, of which there are at least 90 species. In other words, if you plant a White Oak (Quercus alba) in your yard, it’s not going to feed nearly as many caterpillar species as you might think.

 

Why the focus on tree-caterpillar species anyway? The study that supposedly proved that at least 70% of the plants in a yard should be native for the benefit of songbirds was based upon the foraging habit of Carolina Chickadee parents getting food for their chicks. These small birds mainly feed their young tiny caterpillars that they find on forest trees (their ecological niche) which, by definition, consists of native species.

 

Although Doug Tallamy and his coauthors, student Desiree Narango and ornithologist Peter Marra, concluded in their original paper that the Carolina Chickadee requires native trees (which should have been obvious even without a study) to reproduce successfully, their observations are now employed by virtually every garden columnist and TV gardening personality to mean all bird species require 70% of the plants in people’s yards to be native. But this contention was not proven by the study everyone references, and therefore Narango, Tallamy, and Marra should have set the record straight by now.

 

https://indefenseofnature.blogspot.com/2020/10/a-carolina-chickadeegrasps-tulip-poplar.html

 

However, these scientists do not seem to comprehend or value the larger picture because they are so focused on only a fraction of it. They’ve been missing the forest (the rest of the environment) for the trees (especially those oaks).

 

Dr. Narango “believes that her results provide convincing evidence that planting native is in a bird lover’s best interests. ‘The trees [our color-banded chickadees] were going to were covered in warblers, tanagers, and orioles,’ she says. ‘They’re basically telling us what these other birds want.’”

 

https://www.audubon.org/news/new-research-further-proves-native-plants-offer-more-bugs-birds

 

Yes, the chickadees were telling her what warblers, tanagers, and orioles want because these species are birds of the forest, as is the chickadee. To assist such birds requires that your yard and every yard around you must become forest, something highly unlikely to occur in urban/suburban areas.

 

Additionally, this newly minted scientist fails to recognize that the forest habitat of these species is not what all other birds want. If everyone made their yards forestland, we’d lose our common backyard species—Eastern Towhee, Northern Cardinal, Brown Thrasher, and Song Sparrow, to name a few—that require shrubby habitat, not forest. Sunny shrubland with herbaceous plants and woody shrubs supports far more diversity of insect life than forest, including an abundance of mammal, reptile, salamander, and bird species. And truth be told, numerous nonnative shrubs and herbaceous plants support these organisms very well.

 

https://www.marlenecondon.com/

 

For the greatest diversity of life forms, our landscape cannot consist solely of forestland, which is what Tallamy, Narango, Marra and their followers are pushing for, even though they don’t seem to know it.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

If most of your plantings are already native species, that’s great—if they provide the proper structure necessary to create good wildlife habitat. Problems arise when people feel they are obliged to get rid of fully mature nonnative plants, especially by way of pesticides, even though the resulting bare ground or young (immature) newly planted native plants will not be useful for a long time to come.

Alien plants can provide habitat for shrubland bird species, whether it be by providing nesting sites, food (fruits/seeds), or cover. It’s a huge mistake to destroy habitat that functions perfectly for shrubland birds. Please don’t be swayed by the harmful information perpetuated not only by the media, but also scientists who dare not speak against a popular thought, even though it is wrong.

 

 

Making Scents of Nature

Plant fragrances came into being for the utilitarian purpose of attracting insects (such as this Hummingbird Moth) to pollinate flowers (such as the Mimosa [Albizia julibrissin] seen here). Their function has nothing to do with making people smell “nice”.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

For thousands of years, at least, humans have applied substances to their bodies to smell better. Of course, for most of those years, people did not have easy access to bathing facilities as we do now. As a result, when hard-working men and women sweated, they were not always able to effectively wash off the bacteria that fed on their sweat (a mix of water and a tiny amount of salt and waste products). People therefore tried to mask the resulting body odor with fragrances.

 

Sweat itself does not smell bad. The body odor we find so offensive is the result of droppings that bacteria feeding on the waste products of our sweat create. All living things leave behind droppings, substances that an organism is unable to break down and make use of to keep itself alive.

 

This odor is not instantaneously noticeable. It only becomes apparent over time, with the build-up of bacteria and thus the build-up of droppings. These microorganisms are constantly multiplying, so if a person delays washing himself for too long, more and more bacteria are producing waste and the odor assaults our senses. Workout clothes left sitting around for many days, especially if they are not hung to dry, will become smelly for the same reason.

 

Over the past several years, my husband and I have found it ever more difficult to enjoy a good meal at a restaurant, but not because of people’s body odor. Rather, the problem is instead that so many people nowadays wear perfume (if a woman) or cologne (if a man).

 

It is extremely unappetizing to try to eat when various non-food scents, pleasant as they might possibly be in a different setting, are filling the air around you. If I were writing a book of etiquette, the first rule would be to never wear perfume/cologne to a restaurant or anywhere food is going to be served (parties, office meetings, etc.).

 

I would also suggest that restaurants should never be using anything but fragrance-free hand soaps. Have you ever washed your hands at a restaurant and then tried to eat a sandwich with hands reeking of fragrance that masked the appetizing aromas of the food?

 

Lamentably, restaurants are not the only venue where the odors of fragrances abound. Hotel rooms and lobbies, and even some doctors’ offices, can be strong-smelling, thanks to devices that shoot aerosols into the air “to make it smell nice”. There should be absolutely no need of these products in such places because they are supposed to be clean.

 

Even many retail establishments make a point to fill the air with strong fragrances, undoubtedly because they know many people have been deluded into thinking that perfumed air equates to “fresh” air. But it isn’t.

 

Surprisingly, when my husband and I are trying to enjoy the actual fresh air of the outdoors, we are often subjected to the perfume/cologne of joggers passing by. As someone who jogged for more than 35 years, I can state with confidence that the wearing of fragrances to exercise was not something I ever encountered on the road or at the track.

 

There are good reasons not to wear these substances. Fragrances attract insects that feed at flowers and fruits, and you probably would prefer not to have insects hanging around you. I once wore a dress to a picnic and a yellow jacket persistently followed me around. I couldn’t understand it, and I was concerned about it going up my dress. (Yikes!!!) It finally dawned on me that I had made the mistake of putting on a mildly rose-scented body cream (I love the smell of roses).

 

Another reason not to wear scented cosmetics is that cheaper perfumes and colognes can contain toxic ingredients. Think petrochemicals. Petrochemicals are chemicals derived from petroleum or other fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas. The huge multitude of products made with these chemicals is astounding. Paints, electronics, tires, bedding, housewares, clothing, and toys are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

While these products can entail problems for the Earth because they are difficult to dispose of, perfumes pose a different dilemma for people. These substances can be carcinogenic. Substances applied to your skin or inhaled through your nose can be absorbed into your body, entering your blood stream and getting carried to your organs.

 

In antiquity, perfume makers used plant-based oils as the “carrier” for natural fragrances. For example, olive oil and almond oil were readily available in ancient Greece and Rome and thus were employed as the method of delivery for the delightful scents of flowers and other plant-derived products.

However, the use of natural substances in perfume does not always guarantee a product is safe for humans, and only the most expensive perfumes nowadays are made using natural fragrances. Less expensive ones use mostly synthetic fragrances, some of which are derived from petroleum, and others of which have such hazardous properties as the ability to accumulate in human tissues.

 

Although research is ongoing about the effects of both natural and synthetic fragrances upon human health, my thought is that you can never go wrong following Mother Nature’s lead. “She” doesn’t bombard us with fragrances. Fresh air (when unpolluted) is enjoyable of its own accord. Of course, we love the scents of many kinds of flowers, and thus stop to enjoy a quick whiff as we move on by. But that’s it—a short inhalation of fragrance that is unlikely to be problematic for our bodies.

 

The wearing of manmade perfumes and colognes, on the other hand, means breathing in these volatile substances for quite some time. And for bystanders, it can be just as unpleasant and unappreciated to be exposed to someone’s perfume/cologne for a long time as it is to be exposed to the smoke of a smoker. It could possibly be just as dangerous for them as well.

 

In days of yore, it made sense for people to take the scents of nature to make perfumes in which to envelop themselves. Today, it’s not necessary, and we know it could pose a risk to our health. One thing I know for sure: Perfumes and colognes can certainly ruin date night!

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

People think of yellow jackets as “pests” when these insects show up to share food, such as fruits, that folks are eating outside. Therefore, if you don’t want these insects flying around you even when you aren’t eating, avoid wearing fragrances that mimic the sweet scents of flowers and fruits.

 

Helping Nature Shouldn’t Be Against the Law

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

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NATURE ADVICE: 

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

 The Myth of Allelopathy

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

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NATURE NOTE:

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