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. 

 

Alien Plants Benefit the Environment

A native Eastern Tent Caterpillar feeding upon an alien Multiflora Rose shrub in Albemarle County, Virginia.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 Originally published in The News-Virginian (Waynesboro, Virginia daily newspaper) on October 27, 2022

 

https://newsvirginian.com/opinion/columnists/condon-many-alien-plants-benefit-the-environment/article_5d18e73c-557c-11ed-8f02-8375034e2011.html

 

On June 8, 2011, the journal Nature published a commentary by 19 ecologists who urged conservationists to “assess organisms on environmental impact rather than on whether they are natives”.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/474153a

 

“Classifying biota [the plants and animals of a region] according to their adherence to cultural standards of belonging, citizenship, fair play and morality does not advance our understanding of ecology [the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings]. Over the past few decades, this perspective has led many conservation and restoration efforts down paths that make little ecological or economic sense”.

 

This other side to the story regarding alien species—in particular, nonnative “invasive” plants—is rarely publicized, yet it needs to be. It’s been eleven years since this essay appeared and was ignored by virtually everyone. As a result, the general public, government at every level, scientists, the media, and especially environmental groups and the people that support them have now instituted a scorched-earth policy that’s bringing about much destruction of viable habitat and the poisoning of our environment via herbicides.

 

Many people fervently believe that so-called invasive alien plants pose a dire threat to native insects, undoubtedly due to the 2007 book, Bringing Nature Home, by entomologist Doug Tallamy. In it, he wrote that “scientists who know what they are talking about” developed “an extensive body of theory” that predicts that native plant-eating insects “should be able to eat only vegetation from plants with which they share an evolutionary history”.

 

This assertion, which holds that herbivorous insects eat only those plants they have co-evolved with under the same environmental circumstances, sounds logical to the uninitiated. However, it disintegrates under scrutiny.

 

Dr. Tallamy tells us that these 6-legged critters that feed upon plant tissues are limited to feeding upon “no more than a few plant lineages [a single line of genetic descent through time]”, thus making them “specialists”. However, each plant lineage can include hundreds, if not thousands, of species around the world—which means an insect is likely to be able to feed upon at least some of the plants that are related genetically, regardless of their country (geopolitical boundary) of origin.

 

In other words, specialist insects aren’t usually limited to just one plant species, contrary to what this University of Delaware professor would have his readers believe. Because we know that countries share plant lineages (and even some species), phytophagous (herbivorous) insects should be able to eat vegetation from other areas on the Earth even though they evolved in concert with only some of the plant species in a lineage—and, indeed, they do.

 

In Bringing Nature Home, Doug Tallamy recounts the plight of native Eastern Tent caterpillars (Malacosoma americanum) that ran out of cherry leaves on a tree too small to feed them adequately. He mentions that leaves were still available to the caterpillars in the form of a Japanese Honeysuckle vine (Lonicera japonica) that had climbed the little tree, but he points out that the caterpillars “had not taken a single bite out of the alien plant…even in the face of starvation”.

 

This tale gives the reader the impression that the caterpillars could have eaten the honeysuckle if only it had been native, thereby having evolved with the insect. He does not point out that the caterpillars would have faced starvation even in the presence of a native vine, tree, or shrub if—like the alien honeysuckle—it wasn’t a member of the Rose Family, as is this caterpillar’s preferred native host plant, the cherry.

 

Several native Eastern Tent caterpillars feeding upon an alien Multiflora Rose shrub in Albemarle County, Virginia.

I have documented myself tent caterpillars feeding on a relative of the cherry—a nonnative, unevolved with, and much despised Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) growing at the base of a leaf-stripped Black Cherry tree (Prunus serotina).  A factuality is that you can find native insects feeding upon nonnative plants, but, of course, you need to look!

 

People have been manipulated into believing alien plants serve no ecological purposes in the environment, when, in fact, they very much do, in very many ways, for innumerable insect (and other) species. As the 19 ecologists wrote in their paper, “[A] valuable step would be for scientists and professionals in conservation to convey to the public that many alien species are useful”, and that “Natural resource agencies and organizations should base their management plans on sound empirical evidence and not on unfounded claims of harm caused by nonnatives.”

 

Amen.

 

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Don’t remove alien plants just because they are alien plants. If you see critters using them, ask yourself if putting in new plants will immediately provide as much food and shelter/nesting sites as the nonnative plants presently there, or will it take many years for the new plants to provide habitat. Plant natives where you are increasing the amount of habitat on your property, rather than where you are destroying it.

Non-native Trees May Help the Environment

Enlargement of photo below of leaf-footed bug 

 Native leaf-footed bugs, closely tied to ash trees that are being pesticided against Emerald Ash Borer, will be killed along with the alien borers. We should be keeping nonnative Princess Trees to help our leaf-footed bugs to survive.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 Originally published in The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, Virginia) on August 24, 2022

 

One day I observed fresh stumps of Paulownia tomentosa (commonly known as Princess Tree) along a roadway. I knew why the trees had been cut down: they’re from Asia. Current dogma (a set of beliefs people are expected to accept without any doubts, and which they normally do accept without question because of peer pressure) insists these trees be gotten rid of because they’re not native to the United States.

 

I had observed these specific trees for many years. In spring, the lovely large bell-shaped lilac flowers had fed numerous pollinators, the first group of insects to be recognized as disappearing from our world—due largely to habitat loss.

 

The alien Princess Trees had allowed pollinators to find food where none would otherwise be forthcoming because lawn comprised the landscape to one side of the trees and a river flowed past them on their other side.

 

Additionally, American Goldfinches and other seed-eating birds were aided by the fertilization of the Paulownia flowers that then produced pods of tiny seeds that fed them during the harsh cold days of winter. And native sap-sucking leaf-footed bugs (taxonomically classified as Family Coreidae) are found regularly (singly and in mating pairs) on Paulownia.

 

Now, however, the impacted area won’t provide food for any of these animals. In a world of dwindling insect and bird populations due to habitat replacement by development, it’s not helpful to further reduce habitat by removing wildlife-friendly plants along a somewhat wild waterway.

 

Habitat basically refers to the array of physical and biological resources in an area that allows the survival and reproduction of a variety of species. If numerous kinds of critters are surviving and reproducing well somewhere, then the area meets the definition of habitat.

 

Only a confused environmentalist could insist upon getting rid of certain plants simply because they are non-native and don’t always feed native leaf-eating insects (such as caterpillars)—the main reason for the push these days to rid the environment of alien plants.

 

People don’t realize that the natural world must meet the needs of all kinds of critters, not just this subset of arthropods. When government officials and environmentalists are swayed by such limited and unsound thinking, much harm befalls numerous species of wildlife.

 

For example, as I walk along roadways in winter lined with Japanese Stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), I invariably see dozens of migratory Dark-eyed Juncos and White-throated Sparrows feeding upon the seeds of this foreign species that readily grows where the soil has been compacted by years of highway-department mowing.

 

Knowing these birds would be affected, I was saddened one late-summer day to see an area of stiltgrass pesticided along someone’s property. The landowner’s concern about this much-despised alien species resulted in needlessly adding poison to the environment: Stiltgrass can be controlled, if desired, by mowing it in late summer before the flowers go to seed.

 

Sixty years ago, employing pesticides was anathema to environmentalists after author Rachel Carson pleaded for folks to prevent a silent spring, devoid of birdsong. Nowadays, however, much government money is being spent to rid the natural world of plants quite helpful to wildlife because of the erroneous environmental narrative that pesticides and bare ground are less harmful than alien plants.

 

However, our wildlife needs food and shelter now, not tomorrow. Native plants put into the ground today will take years to develop into a functioning ecosystem.

 

Without critical reasoning, better judgement, and making the effort to study the merits of alien plants, we will continue our scorched-earth policy and all manner of wildlife will simply continue to disappear—something we simply can no longer afford.

 

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Before buying into the pervasive myth that alien plants are useless to wildlife, take time to observe them. You will probably be surprised by what you discover.

 

Time to See the Light Regarding Loss of Insects and Birds

This Christiansburg, Virginia, plaza could be planted with native trees and still not support caterpillars, thanks to the excessive lighting that is a prime killer of moths.

Plenty of native trees exist in the eastern United States to support moth caterpillars, but when moths spend the night circling artificial lights—such as the street lamps seen here among an abundance of large native trees—they die without reproducing.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

Originally published in The News-Virginian (Waynesboro, Virginia) on July 16, 2022

https://newsvirginian.com/opinion/columnists/condon-time-to-see-the-light-regarding-loss-of-insects-and-birds/article_6d0f3322-03eb-11ed-8317-53ceb5edb5ab.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

On summer nights, when I was a child, my mother would scream at us kids to quickly get into the house before all the insects (mainly moths) circling our carport light had a chance to come inside with us. Nowadays, I can put on my own carport light with hardly any insects—certainly not moths—coming to it.

The reigning assumption regarding the loss of insects and birds (derived from research published in 2017, “Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird”,

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320717305153)

 

is that the most crucial step people can take to save the environment is to grow native plants. But is this theory truly the environmental panacea for our time?

 

Bringing Nature Home by Doug Tallamy also stressed the importance of growing native, rather than nonnative, plants. In this book, the author showed a nighttime image of the United States aglow with lights [page 28, 2007 advance reading copy]. He captioned it, “A composite image from space of the United States at night shows the extent to which we have converted natural areas [i.e., native plants] to developed landscapes [i.e., alien plants]”.

 

True enough. However, the more ominous takeaway is the dire effect of all those lights upon insects, especially the moths whose caterpillars have always been essential to birds raising their young. These larvae are now largely gone because adults are largely gone. Moths that circle lights all night until they are exhausted, or where they are easily caught by predators (such as bats and owls), are moths that don’t reproduce.

 

Why am I so sure that lights are the problem rather than a decrease in the number of native plants? I’ve lived in my home for more than 36 years. My yard has always been surrounded by mature oak forest, and I’ve watched through the decades the trees growing so tall that I can no longer view the Blue Ridge Mountains only a few miles to the west.

 

Nevertheless, despite the ever-increasing woody mass of native trees and shrubs around me, the numbers and kinds of insects and birds have decreased in my yard, just as they have elsewhere. I’ve never employed pesticides on my property, and I have gardened in full agreement with Mother Nature (hence my 2006 book on this subject).

 

The argument that there’s not enough native woody plants doesn’t work here because mature forests have comprised a substantial percentage of my property as well as the surrounding area. In fact, this idea doesn’t apply to much of the eastern United States.

 

Travel in a plane between New England and the South or fly in a hot-air balloon over your local area, and—unless you live in the concrete jungle of a city—you are going to observe plenty of large native trees in yards, parks, and “natural” (i.e., managed) areas.

 

In 2017, German researchers made world-wide headlines with their paper published in the journal, Nature, in which they detailed their own discovery of insects disappearing. Many suggestions have been put forth for the loss, including such things as pesticides (over 1 billion pounds a year are deployed in the United States, https://www.brownfieldsummit.com/how-many-pesticides-are-used-in-the-us) and loss of natural habitat due to development.

 

None of these considerations explains the loss of insects on my property over the course of almost four decades. A more plausible explanation is the ever-increasing number of lights needlessly burning all night around homes, churches, schools, libraries, businesses, barns, vineyards, American flags, and in parking lots and even national parks. Indeed, despite living in a rural area, it’s now difficult for me to view the Milky Way, thanks to light pollution.

 

Light constitutes an insidious menace because its allure to insects is so strong and its effect upon them so deadly, while people are oblivious to its ramifications. There’s no harm in growing more native plants, but this action is not going to prevent the loss of more insects.

 

If you truly want to help our insects and birds, you need to shut off lights burning all night, every night, for no good reason. Then we might see a light at the end of the tunnel for saving what’s left of our insects and the birds dependent upon them.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

In addition to limiting the amount of time you leave exterior lights burning after dark, you should take into account the amount of light exiting your windows. This light also attracts insects and keeps them “glued” to windowpanes instead of reproducing. To prevent light from escaping your windows, please use curtains or blinds.

 

And please keep in mind that lighted yard decorations also contribute to the loss of insects.

 

 

Bradford Pear—Nativists Making A Big Stink about Nothing

This huge Bradford Pear has obviously grown for decades in this Albemarle County, Virginia, yard. If its spring blossoms were truly as “bad-smelling” as virtually every nativist-written article declares, you can bet it would have been long since removed.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

According to the “fact” sheet (much of the information is inaccurate or misleading) of the Blue Ridge Prism (“a volunteer-driven organization dedicated to reducing the negative impact of invasive plants in the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia”), the Bradford Pear (Pyrus calleryana) is “a scourge upon the agricultural and natural world.”

 

https://blueridgeprism.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Bradford-Pear-Factsheet-2021-9-9-v1-FINAL.pdf

 

The reason given in support of this statement is that it “quickly spread[s] and replace[s] desirable plants in invaded areas.” However, the proclamation that alien plants “replace” or “push out” native plants is misleading.

 

For example, I regularly walk along a section of nearby road where I’ve been watching the spread of Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus) for the past 36 years.

 

 

What I’ve observed with these plants (and all the alien plants I’ve taken photos of over the course of decades) is that they germinate in spots where there is nothing else occupying that site. Indeed, physics tells us this must be the case as no two physical objects can occupy the same space simultaneously.

 

Thus, so-called invasive plants usually start life where there is an empty site for them to grow. The only way they can spread is if there’s plenty of barren land for them to fill, as often happens with Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) growing in worn-out (devoid of nitrogen from years of use) farm fields.

 

The only way any plant can “replace” another plant is if its growth habit over the course of years provides it with some advantage that other plants vying for the space don’t possess. But! The erroneous assumption always made by nativists is that native-plant species were growing in that field prior to the arrival of the Autumn Olive and they were outcompeted, which simply isn’t true. Very few native plants can survive in poor soil, and the ones that do—mainly Virginia Red-cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana) where I live—often join Autumn Olive in such areas.

 

It’s a truism that anywhere you see lots of nonnative plants growing, you can bet the soil has been disturbed and is not conducive to the growth of native plants. If it were, indeed, capable of supporting such “desirable” plants (a prejudiced judgement on the part of the PRISM writer), you can trust there would be native plants growing there.

 

So why are some people making such a big stink about Bradford Pear trees? Well, according to nativists, these tree blossoms do literally stink, and you shouldn’t plant them.

 

The PRISM “fact” sheet calls them “malodorous” and “bad-smelling”, and suggests “the flowers give off a stink reminiscent of unwashed gym socks.” Other writers suggest a much worse odor. A Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer newspaper writer wrote, “Their stench has been compared to rotting fish, urine and other pungent bodily fluids.”

 

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article259195743.html#storylink=cpythem

 

Yet the dishonesty of all these descriptions is easy to discern. Do you really think anyone would leave these trees standing in their yards if they smelled as bad as suggested above? Of course not. These trees can be viewed in an abundance of yards, and their size tells you they’ve been growing there for numerous years. One can only conclude the owners don’t have a problem with these early spring-blooming floriferous trees.

 

I can provide an especially telling example to illustrate that people who suggest Bradford Pears stink are either not familiar with them, or they are deliberately spreading disinformation to try to keep people from buying/planting them.

 

I have taken the same road to Charlottesville, Virginia, for the past 36 years. In 1994, a humongous house was constructed on this road (5500 finished square feet comprises the house, and 1600 of 3400 square feet are finished in the basement). The owners had dozens of Bradford Pears planted; many went in along both sides of their long driveway right to the house, and quite a few were planted along the road to either side of their driveway.

 

These folks lived in their house until 2013, and they never removed the Bradford Pear trees, which they could have well afforded to do if they had to endure a stench every spring. Even the people who moved in when the house was almost twenty years old have kept the trees along both sides of the driveway for the past nine years. (They did eventually replace the ones along the road that were broken when severe winds [a possible tornado] went through the area.)

 

I can assure you that if these trees provided a foul stench every spring, either of the two different owners could have afforded to get all of them removed—after all, we are talking about people who can afford to live in a house valued at three million dollars.

 

So, if you have Bradford Pear trees on your property, should you get rid of them based upon the information provided by the PRISM writer or the newspaper writer? Absolutely not.

 

Either out of dishonesty or ignorance, the PRISM writer basically blames “starlings, an introduced species” for spreading these “weed trees across the built and natural landscape”. But several native species find survival assistance from the fruits of Bradford Pears. Flocks of American Robins and Cedar Waxwings, both of which depend upon fruits in winter, relish these fruits. Which is a better choice for the environment—keeping trees that provide for wildlife or pesticiding these trees and adding poison to our landscape?

 

Pay no heed to these folks who’ll say anything to manipulate you.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

The push for folks to remove so-called invasive plants is misguided because it’s extremely destructive of functioning habitat. It also makes much use of pesticides, which can kill animals as well as plants, including microorganisms within the soil. Lastly, the folks pushing this agenda do not really know why they are against these alien plants, other than that they believe we need more native plants. But their arguments do not pass muster.

 

It’s much better for our world to allow wildlife to call the shots. If nativists observed these alien plants with open minds, they would clearly see that our wildlife makes abundant use of “invasive” species. Mature plants—even if alien—provide habitat while bare ground does not. Even if young native species are planted where “invasives” are removed, it will be years before the area yields habitat.

 

It's bad enough our wildlife is losing ground to buildings and pavement covering the ground, as well as people’s ideas of what a created landscape should look like (mainly lawn). We don’t need people crazily demanding the removal of alien plants when they don’t have valid reasons for doing so.