Conservation Sense and Nonsense

Implications of climate change for ecological restorations

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a committee of hundreds of scientists from all over the world that has been reporting since 1990 to the United Nations its consensus predictions of the future of climate change. They made their latest report recently and these are their primary findings:

They report with 95% certainty that current climate change is being caused by the activities of humans, particularly burning fossil fuels.
They predict that sea level could rise as much as 3 feet by the end of this century if current levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue.
During the same timeframe and in the same conditions, the temperature is expected to rise between 2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
If carbon dioxide emissions double by the end of the century, as the current trajectory predicts, the IPCC says current climate trends will be irreversible.

The Earth’s constantly changing climate

The public is preoccupied with the current round of climate change as well as predictions of its trajectory and consequences partly because it may be within our power to stop the trend by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth is a history of a constantly changing climate which humans did not influence. Conventional wisdom is that current climate change is unique in that it is a more rapid change than past changes, making adjustment to the change more difficult for the Earth’s inhabitants. In fact, many historical changes in the climate occurred even more rapidly when they were precipitated by cataclysmic events such as the impact of huge asteroids or volcanic eruptions.

Our readers may wonder where we are headed with this train of thought. We hasten to preview our point lest our readers think our goal is to dismiss the seriousness of the current round of climate change. Our intention in this article is to invite our readers to consider the absurdity of the concept of “native plant and animal species” in the context of the dynamism of nature, climate changes being one of the many factors in producing that dynamism. We will use the last ice age as an example to illustrate this point, drawing from an excellent book on that subject: After the Ice Age. (1)

Glaciers in the US in past 100,000 years.

The Last Glacial Age

In the past billion years, there have been many glacial periods, popularly called ice ages. It’s worthwhile to consider their cause to understand that they are as likely to occur in the future as they did in the past. They are thought to be a consequence of the constantly shifting tectonic plates that change ocean currents as well as cycles in the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the sun. The former pattern is unpredictable, even random, and the latter is a more predictable sequence. There are intervening variables that make this an oversimplification of the causes, but this is a sufficient explanation to make the main point:

“At no time has there been a return to ‘things as they were.’ It is true that there must have been times when average temperatures were similar to those of the present. Thus, before the beginning and after the end of the warmer-than-now hypsithermal interval [the warmest time interval between glacial periods], the average annual temperature must, for a while, have been much the same as now. But in other respects, conditions would have been radically different, as there were still extensive ice sheets that would have cooled their immediate neighborhoods, and sea level was still about twenty-to twenty-five meters lower than at present” (1)

In other words, the changes in the Earth are always moving forward. To suggest that a past period represents some ideal to be reified, is to treat nature as a still life painting rather than the motion picture it is. Particularly at a time of rapidly changing climate, attempting to replicate a landscape that existed 250 years ago on the West Coast and 500 years ago on the East Coast is a fool’s errand (the pre-European landscape is selected by native plant advocates to define “native”). The naturalized landscape that exists presently is surely better adapted to current conditions than whatever landscape existed hundreds of years ago. As Matt Chew (Arizona State University) says, “belonging” is when the organism is capable of persisting. (2) The Natural Areas Program in San Francisco has demonstrated in the past 15 years that the plants that existed here 250 years ago are not capable of persisting here without intensive gardening. Therefore, using Matt Chew’s definition, we might say they no longer “belong.”

The last ice age on the North American continent

Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska. Creative Commons

The most recent ice age in North America was at its height 20,000 years ago and a tiny fraction of those glaciers persist in the Arctic today. The climate oscillated many times in the past 20,000 years, but the over-all pattern was a gradual melting. As the glaciers receded, they left a barren landscape, scraped of all vegetation and sculpted by the enormous weight of the ice and the eroding action of the rocks carried within the ice. The ice was so heavy that it actually weighed down the land, lowering its elevation relative to the ocean. As the ice melted, the land returned to its previous elevations when relieved of the weight of the ice.

As the ice melted, the land was slowly vegetated by seeds blowing onto the bare land, germinating, and growing. The strength and direction of the wind was therefore an important factor in the process. Which seeds blow in depends upon what plants are close by and the mobility of the seeds which varies by species. Which seeds germinate depends upon the soil conditions where they land as well as the resource requirements of the seed species. Local climate conditions will also determine which seeds survive: the temperature, the hours of light, the amount of moisture and precipitation, etc.

Add to this complexity of variables, the interaction of the plants as they grow, some hindering the growth of their neighbors by shading them, for example. In other words, there are many different factors at play as the bare land is vegetated and those factors vary enormously from one place to another. The outcome is random, largely unpredictable, and outside the control of human witnesses to the process.

The initial vegetation of the bare ground as the ice melts is only the beginning of the story. The rocky surface lacks nutrients initially. Nitrogen-fixing plants are needed to begin the process of building soil from which subsequent species of plants will benefit. Bacteria and fungi slowly populate the soil, contributing to its fertility for later plant arrivals. Animals participate in the process by distributing seeds as well as selectively eating vegetation.

This is a severely truncated version of a far more complex story none of which humans could control. We hope we have not exhausted your patience, but have given sufficient background to help you understand the most important point as explained by After the Ice Age:

“There is a wealth of evidence, however, showing that climatic change is never ending. Even if major climatic ‘steps’ are comparatively quick, it is almost certain that the climate in the intervals between steps undergoes continual lesser changes. In the light of present knowledge, therefore, [Margaret] Davis’s view, that disequilibrium in ecological communities is much commoner than equilibrium, is the more acceptable. It should lead, in time, to a much needed change in popular thought. The notion espoused by so many nonprofessional ecologists—that the living world is ‘marvelously’ and ‘delicately’ attuned to its environment—is not so much a scientifically reasonable theory as a mystically satisfying dogma. Its abandonment might lead to a useful fresh start in environmental politics.” (3)

We conclude with a nota bene: this remarkable book was published in 1991!!! Isn’t it long past time for the public to be aware of scientific information that has been available for over 20 years? When will we abandon the mystical fiction that there is some ideal landscape that may or may not have existed hundreds of years ago that we must attempt to re-create? Even if we thought such an effort would be of some benefit, what makes us think that it is physically possible, given the changes that have occurred in our environment?

*****************************************

(1) E.C. Pielou, After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America, University of Chicago Press, 1991

(2) Matthew Chew, “Anekeitaxonomy: Botany, Place and Belonging,” chapter in Invasive & Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perspectives, Attitudes, and Approaches to Management, editors Ian D. Rotherham and Robert A Lambert, Earthscan, 2011

(3) Margaret Davis is “one of North America’s leading palynologists,” who studied the development of eastern forests after glaciers melted.

Shelterbelt: Protector or Destroyer of Nature?

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the entire country experienced extreme poverty. In the Midwest, the drought and the dust storms it caused contributed to the suffering. The Dust Bowl was a result of decades of intensive farming on marginal land that was made possible by atypical years of heavy rain and high commodity prices. When the drought hit that is more typical of the climate in that region, the crops died and the depleted, sandy soil was free to blow in the wind in what were called “black blizzards.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt had a lifelong interest in and fondness for trees. Prior to entering politics, he had forested his property at Hyde Park in New York. So, when confronted with the Dust Bowl, a tree-based solution came naturally to him while on the campaign trail for the presidency. He was visiting a desolate town in Montana that had been deforested by mining operations when the idea of a massive windbreak to protect agricultural land from the wind and stabilize the soil came to him.

This windbreak came to be known as the Shelterbelt. The story of the planting of the Shelterbelt is one of many interesting stories about American forests told in American Canopy: Trees, Forests, and the Making of a Nation. (1)

The idea of windbreaks to protect agricultural lands was not new at the time:

“For instance, California citrus growers routinely planted stands of fast-growing, imported eucalyptus trees to shield their precious orange trees from gusts coming off the Pacific Ocean. As a 1908 pamphlet on eucalyptus explained, ‘In unprotected orchards, nearly the entire crop is frequently blown from the trees, or so scarred and bruised that the grade and market value are much reduced.’” (1)

Despite this track record of the value of trees to protect agricultural crops, President Roosevelt met with fierce political resistance to his proposal to create the Shelterbelt. At every turn, the project was repeatedly starved of the funding needed to complete the project. The detailed story of that resistance is reminiscent of the political theater we are now witnessing that is attempting to prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Although the Shelterbelt never reached the scale that President Roosevelt had envisioned, much of it was eventually planted in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas:

“A 1954 evaluation of the Shelterbelt determined that over 220 million trees had been planted on thirty thousand farms. The Forest Service had laid down in total more than 18,600 linear miles of tree strips—and a majority of these, more than 70 percent, survived for decades. During the 1950s and 1960s many of the original Shelterbelt plantings were reinforced or expanded through the private actions of farmers who had come to appreciate the value of tree windbreaks.” (1)

Despite the huge scale of that project, only $14 million was spent in the eight years that the project existed. “An article in American Forests estimated, somewhat optimistically, ‘On a fifty-year basis, the cost to the government of an acre [of agricultural land] protected a year is estimated at four cents.’” That’s a bargain at ten times that estimated price.

The description of the trees and how they were planted helps us to appreciate that a windbreak is more than a single row of trees on the perimeter of a field:

“Tree strips in the Shelterbelt typically included ten rows of vegetation. The outer row contained small trees or shrubs, most commonly chokeberry, lilac, mulberry, Russian olive, and wild plum. The inner rows featured quick-growing, long-lived, taller trees that had been selected for their tolerance of the unwelcoming climate. Some tree varieties were native, while others had been discovered abroad, often the result of research first conducted by plant explorers…The most widely planted species were cottonwood, green ash, and Chinese elm, which each appeared in all six participating states.” (1)

After planting, the trees and shrubs had to be protected from grazing animals with fences.

Drought strikes again

National Public Radio (NPR) recently broadcast an update about the Shelterbelt. It’s not good news. The drought in the Midwest that is considered a consequence of climate change is killing the Shelterbelt:

“Now [the] trees [in the Shelterbelt] are dying from drought, leaving some to worry whether another Dust Bowl might swirl up again.”

A farmer in Oklahoma describes the dying Shelterbelt:

“He pointed to a line of trees as he drove along the shelterbelt trees that flank his farmhouse. ‘You can see the tops of those trees?’ he asked. ‘You see how they’re dying? You can see how it’s almost deteriorated to nothing.’”

Oklahoma State Forester, Tom Murray, told NPR what the Shelterbelt accomplished there:

“’This used to be cotton field, if I remember right, looking back at the history,’ he says. ‘And it just blew—it’s sand and it blew. By putting this [windbreak] here, it stopped that south wind from blowing across the field.’”

We wonder if the native plant advocates who are determined to destroy tens of thousands of our non-native trees in the Bay Area understand that those trees are protecting us from the harsh winds that blow in from the ocean.

Shelterbelt the Destroyer

When we read the story of the creation of the Shelterbelt, we were immediately struck by the irony of its name. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the most widely used sub-contractor for the destruction of non-native plants and trees is named Shelterbelt. They are responsible for many of the herbicide applications in the so-called “natural areas” in San Francisco. Here is a description of their organization from their website:

“Shelterbelt Builders was founded in 1978 in Berkeley, CA as a general building and landscaping company completing over 600 commercial and residential projects during the subsequent 15 years…After an exhaustive effort rebuilding residential homes following the 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm, management realized there was no locally available organization specializing in the management, stewardship and restoration of native landscapes in the San Francisco Bay Area. At that time, Shelterbelt abandoned traditional construction and restructured itself into a specialty contracting company dedicated exclusively to restoration of native landscapes and open land management. We are now one of the leading companies in California devoted to this task.”

Shelterbelt began the eradication of non-natve vegetation in Glen Canyon in November 2011

The Shelterbelt company began as a builder. Now they are a destroyer of non-native trees and plants. Their name is now a misnomer in our opinion. The name, Shelterbelt, was coined in 1935 to describe a massive windbreak composed of non-native and native trees that was responsible for helping to stabilize the agricultural land in the American Midwest and end the era of the Dust Bowl. To see that name appropriated by a company that actively engages in the destruction and poisoning of non-native vegetation is very sad indeed. It is also a reminder that ecological “restorations” have become an industry, with vested economic interest in the continuation of the destructive crusade against non-native plants and trees.

Shelterbelt's tools: chainsaws and equipment to spray herbicides — Shelterbelt’s tools: chainsaws and equipment to spray herbicides

***************************************

(1) Eric Rutkow, American Canopy: Trees, Forests, and the Making of a Nation, Scribner, 2012

Glyphosate (AKA Roundup) is damaging the soil

Glyphosate application, Glen Park, San Francisco.

The use of the herbicide, glyphosate (AKA Roundup) has skyrocketed since genetically modified seeds were introduced which enable farmers to spray their crops with unlimited amounts of glyphosate without damaging their crops. We have been reading with increasing alarm the mounting evidence of the damage that is being done to the environment by this indiscriminate use of glyphosate as well as evidence of the impact on human health. We’ve been holding out for an unimpeachable source to inform our readers of this evidence because our critics often accuse us of being alarmist.

On Friday, September 20, 2013, the New York Times published an article about the damage that is being done to agricultural soil by glyphosate use. When the Times reports on an issue, that information has entered the media mainstream. Here are the issues reported by the Times regarding glyphosate use:

Farmers who do not use herbicides report that their crop is often damaged by aerial drift and water runoff from their neighbors who use herbicides.
“Superweeds” that are resistant to any herbicide are becoming more numerous. Million Trees reported on this issue recently. The reaction of the Environmental Protection Agency to these superweeds was to increase the amount of glyphosate that can be legally used on agricultural crops. This is a very unfortunate response to the problem in our opinion and will surely prove to be self-defeating in the end.
The herbicide binds with minerals in the soil—manganese, calcium, boron, etc.—to reduce run off. The herbicide is competing with the plant for these minerals which the plant needs for its growth. These minerals are also important to human nutrition. If the plant contains fewer minerals, its nutritional value is reduced.
This binding of the minerals in the soil is changing the physical quality of the soil, making it very hard and difficult to cultivate. Farmers report that plowing their fields sprayed with glyphosate has become increasingly difficult. If the roots of the plant can’t penetrate the soil, the growth of the plant is retarded.
The herbicide is killing fungi and microbes in the soil. These plants and creatures also benefit crop plant growth by facilitating the transfer of nutrients from the soil to the crop plant.
Another study reports that glyphosate residues in the food we eat are also interfering with the operation of the microbes in our bodies. Many of these microbes are beneficial to us, especially essential to our digestion. If you have had a course of antibiotics, you may have had the opportunity to experience the discomfort of losing beneficial microbes in your gut. Antibiotics often kill both the bacteria that make us sick and the microbes that are essential to your digestive health.
Most of the genetically modified crops are corn and soy. These crops are widely used as animal feed. We speculate that if these crops are harmful to humans, they are probably also harmful to animals.

The manufacturer of glyphosate, Monsanto, has refuted these observations. You can read the New York Times article if you are interested in their version of the story. We close with the words of a farmer who tried Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds. After several years of spraying his crop with glyphosate he has returned to conventional seeds and he is no longer spraying glyphosate: “Although a neighbor told him that he would go broke growing conventional crops, Mr. Verhoef has no plans to go back to genetically engineered varieties. ‘So far so good,’ Mr. Verhoef said, ‘I’m not turning back, because I haven’t seen anything that is going to change my mind about glyphosate.’” We consider this farmer a more credible source of information than Monsanto.

Scientists critique UCSF’s plans for Mount Sutro and native plant advocates react

Nature is considered one of the top journals in science globally. So, we were very excited about the article they published in their September 2013 edition about Mount Sutro. (1) The article starts with every bogus claim UCSF makes to justify the destruction of the forest, i.e., that it is flammable, that it is diseased, that it will store more carbon when most of it is destroyed. We have responded to those claims many times on Million Trees, so we won’t repeat those arguments here. (We have provided links to our articles about each of these issues, so you can read them if you wish by clicking on each issue.)

Sutro forest before recent tree removals. Courtesy Save Sutro

After faithfully repeating UCSF’s storyline, Nature turns to the opposite side of this debate, starting with the welcome introduction of critics of the Sutro project as “environmentalists and ecologists” for whom “a hardline devotion to preserving native ecosystems is giving way to a more post-modern idea of what constitutes a natural landscape.” The author of the Nature article interviewed scientists who agree with this new perspective:

“’Mount Sutro is part of a larger story,’ says Richard Hobbs, an ecologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley. ‘What some people see as a weed-filled blot on the landscape, others see as something extremely valuable, worthy of managing in its own right. People are increasingly moving away from the belief that a native ecosystem is always best….There is a lot of tension about how to deal with situations like these right now,’ he says. ‘With so much non-native habitat, the old views — that everything must be natural — no longer apply.’”
“In the early 1990s, Patricia Kennedy of Oregon State University in Corvallis helped to develop management guidelines for northern goshawks. She found that the raptors do not strictly need old-growth forests; land used for timber harvesting can work, too. She says that, at the time, accepting the idea felt like a move to the ‘dark side’. ‘The whole culture in wildlife biology and conservation circles has been that you can’t approximate Mother Nature,’ she says. But those ideas are changing today, with altered ecosystems such as Mount Sutro’s providing a case in point.”
“Joe Mascaro, an ecologist at Stanford University in California [2] who has been publicly critical of UCSF’s management plans, says that Mount Sutro has long since given way to a completely new ecosystem. ‘Restoring it to an original state would be borderline impossible, so why stop the succession that is already in place?’”
“Resistance to such a heretical idea runs deep among ecologists, but growing numbers are embracing altered ecosystems in the name of pragmatism. ‘You can reach more win–win situations if you don’t insist on purity,’ says Katharine Suding, an ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in restoring human-affected areas. ‘It doesn’t have to be a natural versus non-natural dichotomy.’”

Same section of Sutro forest after tree and understory removal at the end of August 2013. Courtesy Save Sutro

The reaction of native plant advocates

As pleased as we were to hear from the international scientific community, we didn’t fully appreciate the significance of the article until we read the reaction of native plant advocates in Jake Sigg’s Nature News:

“On Sep 15, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Peter Brastow wrote (re NYT editorial on Mt Sutro):
‘Yes, and recall that the NYT article linked to an awful piece in Nature. I see this as PhD Academicians liking the sound of their own voice, and certain members of the media who, likewise, don’t actually know anything about on-the-ground land management. To boot, their arguments support continued environmental destruction around the world, whether for palm plantations, bio-fuel production, cattle grazing, suburban development, you name it. Do you think these same people advocate letting the Amazon rainforest be clearcut from end to end?’” (Jake Sigg’s Nature News, September 21, 2013)

It seems that native plant advocates disliked the Nature article as much as we liked it. This comment from a prominent native plant advocate in San Francisco is more evidence of the growing gap between restorationists and the scientists of invasion biology who spawned the native plant movement. We have noted before the inevitable tension between theoretical science and its practical application and in the case of ecological restoration in the Bay Area, it is becoming more and more distant from its scientific underpinnings.

What is San Francisco’s Biodiversity Program?

You might think that the loss of scientific support for the projects in the Bay Area which are attempting to convert non-native to native landscapes would weaken the local native plant movement. You would be mistaken. Peter Brastow, the author of this comment, is employed by the City of San Francisco as the Director of Biodiversity in the Department of the Environment. The creation of this program and the selection of Mr. Brastow as its first director suggest official endorsement of these projects and imply their expansion beyond their present footprint. This is the mission of San Francisco’s Biodiversity Program according to the Department of Environment’s website:

“The mission of the Biodiversity Program is to conserve the biodiversity, habitats and ecological integrity of San Francisco’s natural environment, toward a comprehensive watershed- and ecosystem-based natural resources management, stewardship and education program.

Our approach is to advance collaboration and coordination for biodiversity policy development and interagency conservation planning and management.

San Francisco’s indigenous biodiversity exists among diverse open lands and habitats in a complex urban geography of parklands, natural areas, urban forests, community gardens and backyards. The scope of the program includes protection of all of the City’s biological diversity and natural lands, and for strategic integration of nature conservation best practices into planning, implementation and education for the built environment.

We hope to raise the bar on integrating considerations for nature and biodiversity into the operations of every City Department as well as into every aspect of city life, including making significant increases in public and City employee awareness.”

Our interpretation of this vague, abstract description is that the goal of San Francisco’s Biodiversity Program is to extend the native plant restorations of the Recreation and Park Department’s Natural Areas Program to all city departments and all city-owned open space, perhaps even to your backyard.

Since we think the Natural Areas Program has been a miserable failure, with respect to successfully converting naturalized non-native landscapes to native plant gardens, we have serious doubts about expanding the program to the entire city. And since the Natural Areas Program is using a great deal of pesticide, destroying many healthy trees, and plans to destroy thousands more, we are not enthusiastic about subjecting more public land to such damage.

We are equally alarmed by the dismissal of scientists by the Director of Biodiversity, Peter Brastow, as people who like to hear themselves talk. This suggests that the Director of Biodiversity isn’t listening to the rapidly changing science of invasion biology. You might wonder what Peter Brastow’s qualifications are to enable him to dismiss academic scientists as a resource for the application of invasion biology to native plant restorations. You can visit his resume on the internet to satisfy that curiosity.

Pot-calls-kettle-black

For the record, we are not supporters of the “environmental destruction” of which Mr. Brastow accuses the scientists who are quoted in the Nature article. We do not “advocate letting the Amazon rainforest be clearcut from end to end,” as Mr. Brastow claims. We are confident that no one else with whom we collaborate does so either. The only clearcutting we have witnessed first-hand was done in response to the demands of native plant advocates; these projects have already destroyed 18,000 non-native trees in the East Bay hills and are determined to clearcut about 80,000 more. This looks like a classic case of “pot-calls-kettle-black.”

**************************************

(1) Danielle Venton, “Forest management plans in a tangle,” Nature, September 2013, Vol. 501

(2) When Mr. Mascaro was interviewed, he was at the Carnegie Institute of Research in Stanford, California.

Voters in the Oakland hills must make an important decision

Wildfire in California, 2008. BLM photo.

Residents in the Oakland hills will soon have an opportunity to vote for (or against) a renewal of funding for the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District (WPAD). A map of the Wildfire Prevention District (WPD) is available here. The Hills Conservation Network has described the WPAD in its latest newsletter and is asking some excellent questions about how the revenue has been spent over the past 10 years and why the special tax on parcels within the WPD is necessary.

The Hills Conservation Network is a non-profit organization of residents in the East Bay Hills, many of whom are survivors of the wildfire of 1991. They are deeply concerned about fire safety, but they are opposed to vegetation management that does not reduce fire hazards. They produce a very informative newsletter which is available on their website (here). We are reprinting their article about the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District with their permission.

*********************************************

Will You Vote “NO” or “Yes” for a Special Tax to Fund WPD?

That is the question Oakland residents registered to vote within the boundaries of the Wildfire Prevention District (aka Community Facilities District No. 2013-1-CFD-Wildfire District) must answer. The ballot measure will be mailed at the beginning of November. Voter information and sample ballots will be mailed in October. If the ballot measure gets a “yes” vote from 2/3 of all registered voters (renters and property owners) within the WPD-CFD, a Special Tax will be levied for 10 years (until 2023-2024) on each taxable parcel of private property. Parcel owners will pay the $78 annual tax. Condo parcels, multi-family parcels and undeveloped parcels will be taxed at lower rates.

Public and non-profit properties (such as those owned by EBRPD, UC, and Oakland), currently included in the WPAD, will be exempt from the Special Tax. The $78 Special Tax is an increase of $13.00 (20%) over the $65.00 per parcel that has been the WPAD annual assessment over the past 10 years.

That $65 per parcel doesn’t sound like much money, but it added up to approximately $1,700,000 each year, $17 million over the past 10 years. With the increase to $78.00 annually for each parcel in the WPD-CFD, if the Special Tax passes, the WPD will take in about $20 million over the next 10 years.

What will taxpayers get for that money? This is from info promoting the Special Tax: “Since the establishment of the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District, Oakland has not had a significant devastating fire in the hills, while other communities that do not have a dedicated service district have experienced large fires.”

Everyone who lives in the hills worries about fire. Although some properties are obviously not in compliance with Oakland’s Fire code, most property owners do their best to maintain defensible space. But it does no one any good to stoke fear of fire in an effort to renew a tax.

In fact, none of the communities surrounding Oakland (Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, San Leandro) have had a major fire since the tragic 1991 fire. Most of these communities are similar to Oakland in having wildland/urban hillsides. None has a WPAD that takes credit for preventing a major fire during the past 22 years. One might even consider the WPAD’s boast an insult to Oakland’s Fire Department [OFD], which is made up of skilled, professional firefighters.

Certainly the lack of a WPAD had little to do with whether there was a major hills fire before 2003. It’s more certain that narrow roads choked with parked cars, lack of water supply, extreme drought conditions, dry brush, and Diablo wind gusts exceeding 65 mph caused the 1991 fire to spread out of control.

Over the past 22 years, OFD’s performance has improved. Some examples: increased wildland training, mutual response area agreements, better communication with other fire agencies in the region, and annual response drills. We have new fire stations in the hills and annual inspections of residences and landscaping to make sure they comply with fire codes. OFD has a new fire chief from whom we can expect more improvements in fire fighting and prevention.

If the ballot measure to fund WPD passes, WPD services would be similar to WPAD services, including, but not limited to the following:

Goat grazing program on city property to clear weeds within district boundaries
Property owner incentives such as providing chipping and disposal of yard waste
Vegetation management to control weeds on city property; roadside mowing along major public roads; maintaining fire breaks
Roving fire patrols on red flag days
Public outreach; creating and distributing information and tips on fire prevention

In the year ending June 30, 2013, the WPAD spent $1,600,855. It’s difficult to find out from nontransparent WPAD records where the money went, that is, what your parcel tax pays for. Out of the $1.6 million+ , we know that about $357,600 paid for the goat grazing, and about $213,500 went to other activities. The lion’s share of the money (∼$1.1 million) went to “vegetation management.” We have asked for details of this $1.1 million expense, but at this point we have not received the information.

We believe that the OFD does the roving patrols and the housing inspections. We don’t know who does the roadside mowing; we assume it is done by Public Works.

Before you vote on the Special Tax, you might want to seek answers to these questions:

If the inspections, roving patrols and roadside mowing are done by OFD and PW personnel already on the clock, why are we being asked to pay again for these services?
Why are heavily wooded, brush laden nonprofit properties exempt from the Special Tax?
Why should parcel owners pay the Special Tax when it will be used almost exclusively to clear City of Oakland land? We already pay taxes to maintain city property such as parks. Why should we be taxed again?
Why should a Citizens Advisory Committee [CAC] have the power to direct OFD professional firefighters in programs (such as protecting native plants, even flammable ones) that the CAC (and its supporters) consider important, even if they do nothing to reduce fire risk? Did you know that the WPAD/WPD wants to hire someone just to identify native plants?
Why can’t the Special Tax funds be used to supplement OFD services in ways that might really prevent fires? Wouldn’t the money be better spent to hire more firefighters so there will be no need to have three “brownout” days each month when fire houses throughout Oakland—even in the WPD—are left empty and neighborhoods are unprotected? Wouldn’t the money be better spent to upgrade emergency communications, or buy emergency vehicles, or find a way to get more water for hills fires, help neighborhoods underground utility wires, or create a viable emergency plan for Oakland?
The OFD has the experience, training and responsibility to prevent and fight fires. They stand ready to risk their lives for us. Why do we need another tax for services, such as residence inspections, roadside mowing, roving fire patrols, even the goat grazing program, that the OFD, PW or contractors could do without a WPD? Why should WPD money be spent on programs that have nothing to do with preventing fire, but instead promote agendas such as the dogma that native plants and trees resist fire? What will we really be getting for that $20 million?

Update: Voters in the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District narrowly defeated the ballot measure to renew the tax that funds WPAD. Thanks to those who participated in the effort to defeat this measure and especially to CFROG for organizing that effort. Here is the article in the Oakland Tribune announcing the outcome: http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_24533813/oakland-hills-voters-reject-wildfire-prevention-tax

“How economic growth will help prevent extinction”

The latest issue of The Economist magazine contains a special report about biodiversity which is previewed on its cover as “How economic growth will help prevent extinctions.” (1) That’s a counterintuitive statement, but one we might expect from The Economist because it is an unashamed promoter of capitalism. Although it has a viewpoint, its readers also rely on it for accurate reporting about international issues and events. So, we read the special report about biodiversity with great interest.

How does economic development support biodiversity?

At the early stages of development, biodiversity suffers from the inevitable pollution associated with industrialization. As development progresses and a society becomes more affluent, biodiversity benefits from the regulation that people begin to demand from their governments.

In the United States, for example, tremendous progress has been made in cleaning up our water and air since the 1970s, an era of environmental regulation. Two-thirds of our rivers were considered unsafe for swimming or fishing 40 years ago. Only one-third are still considered unsafe. (That still seems like a lot.) Likewise, the development of the Chinese economy has produced horrendous levels of pollution and their prosperity is just recently creating the demand to address the problem. When we clean up our air and water, the animals with which we share the planet benefit as much as we do.

In the initial stages of development, population often increases as death rates from treatable diseases decline, which is Africa’s current stage of development. However, education becomes more widely available as a society becomes more affluent and birth rates decline when more women are educated.

Agricultural methods are improved by greater economic resources and education. Improved agricultural techniques make land more productive so that less land is used for agricultural purposes. More land becomes available for preservation and recreation. Less labor required by agriculture increases urbanization which also uses less land. In 1985, a study reported that “protected areas” were only 3.5% of the planet’s land area. By 2009, another study reported that “protected areas” had increased to 13% of total land area. In the Northeast of the US, forest is expanding on abandoned agricultural land.

Although modern agricultural methods use pesticides and fertilizer, The Economist cites two studies that report net benefit of these techniques to the environment compared to traditional methods. That claim probably deserves more scrutiny. We wonder, for example, to what extent our ignorance of the long-term effects of the use of synthetic chemicals made it possible to reach that conclusion.

Greater prosperity also creates leisure time and with it a demand for recreation in nature, resulting in an appreciation of nature. This respect for nature has also promoted a less utilitarian attitude toward animals. Animals are no longer viewed as the servants of humans. Rather they are widely considered our neighbors in the environment in prosperous countries. This changing attitude toward nature has produced many Non-Governmental Organizations that advocate for the preservation of land and the welfare of the plants and animals that live there.

Brazil is a case in point because its prosperity is more recent than our own. Its appreciation of its rainforests is quite new. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined from 28,000 sq kilometers in 2004 to less than 5,000 sq kilometers last year. The attitude toward the value of the tropical forest has changed and the government’s new regulatory tools reflect that change.

More prosperous countries are also usually more peaceful. Wars and conflict often harm the environment, as well as its occupants. For similar reasons, governments are usually more effective in prosperous countries. Without competent government, environmental regulations are useless.

Do the facts fit the theory?

Extinction is considered the final test of the preservation of biodiversity. So, have the rates of extinction decreased as many countries have become more prosperous? The Economist tells us they have.

First we must acknowledge our imperfect knowledge of extinction rates because we have identified a small fraction of the total number of species on our planet. We have identified more of the large species of animals than we have of smaller species such as bacteria and microbes. So trends in extinctions rates are easier to identify amongst vertebrates, especially birds for which detailed records are more available.

The moa was a huge flightless bird that was hunted to extinction by Polynesians when they occupied New Zealand.

Around 10,000 bird species have been identified. Some extinctions are an inevitable result of natural selection, considered the “background” rate of extinction, which is estimated for birds to be about one extinction per century. Bird extinctions attributed to man are exemplified by the disappearance of approximately 1,000 bird species on islands after they were occupied by Polynesians, which is at least 100 times above the background rate of extinction.

The extinction rate for birds has decreased considerably in recent times. Nine species of birds are known to have become extinct during the period 1980 to 2000. Given our imperfect knowledge of all species, there may be extinctions that have not been noticed and recorded.

The Economist article mentions the potential for climate change to accelerate rates of extinction. In our opinion, its optimistic view of the future of biodiversity does not adequately account for that threat. We attribute that to the viewpoint of the publication, which tends to support economic development by emphasizing its benefits more than its costs.

The lesson for us in The Economist article is that climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity. As long as we continue to turn a blind eye to its causes, we should expect an acceleration of extinction rates in the future. Eradicating non-native plant species is a diversion from this task. If non-native plant species are better adapted to a changing climate, they are more likely to support the long-term survival of wildlife.

*********************

(1) “Special Report: Biodiversity,” The Economist, September 14-20, 2013.

The Anthropocene vs. The Doomed Earth

On Saturday, September 14, 2013, The New York Times published an op-ed by Erle C. Ellis entitled, “Overpopulation Is Not the Problem.” Professor Ellis challenges the conventional wisdom that the future of the Earth is threatened by an inexorably increasing human population. He tells us that emerging knowledge of the history of human civilizations should reassure us that humans have altered ecosystems for 200,000 years to meet their needs and there is no reason to believe there is a limit to the ability of humans to continue to manipulate our environment as needed to support a growing population.

Little of human history is recorded. Therefore, only recent discoveries of archaeologists have informed us of the many technological advances of human civilization that increased food production. Irrigation and agriculture, for example, is a relatively recent human accomplishment. In the Old World, humans have supplemented their diets by raising domestic animals in the past 6,000 years. This knowledge only reached the New World with Europeans in the 16^th century.

Professor Ellis suggests that our appreciation of human adaptability is based on our knowledge of the history of human accomplishment. That knowledge is not only relatively new, but is not yet widely known by the public. He admits that he, himself, did not comprehend human adaptability until studying agriculture in China, where human ingenuity has managed to keep pace with the growth of the most populous country on Earth. His work is now as informed by archaeology, geography, and economics as it is by his original discipline, biology.

We introduced Professor Ellis (University of Maryland, Baltimore) to our readers in an article about the globalization of ecology by humans. He is one of the proponents of naming a new geologic era, the Anthropocene, to acknowledge the fact that the activities of humans have altered the Earth in significant and profoundly important ways. He does not find reason to despair about our impact on the Earth:

“The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make of it.” (1)

At the opposite extreme: The viewpoint of Jake Sigg

At the opposite extreme of Ellis’ rosy view of the future of the Earth and its human occupants, we turn to Jake Sigg’s “Nature News.” Regular readers of “Nature News” will find the following example of Sigg’s pessimistic view of the future of the Earth typical of his viewpoint:

“My vision for the world is increasingly apocalyptic. Lest you think I’m being overly dramatic, with the type of economic/political system we have, things can only get worse, not better, and the horror and chaos of Syria, Egypt, et al could be easily foreseen–not in detail, but in general, as the result of too many competing for space and resources. I expect lots of horror stories in the future, and I hope I’m dead by the time it hits me directly. At the pace things are moving, I may not be that lucky.” “Nature News,” September 7, 2013.

Jake Sigg’s concern about over-population also motivates his extreme opposition to immigration, including legal immigration.

Finding Common Ground

As diametrically opposite as these viewpoints seem on the surface, they actually share common ground. As Professor Ellis says, “The science of human sustenance is inherently a social science.” In other words, the famines that humans have experienced were as much a failure of the social system as they were of the physical limitations of the planet to provide adequate food. Jake Sigg agrees that “our economic/political system” is at least partially to blame for the failure to compensate for inadequate resources.

For example, the current round of climate change has been caused by the activities of humans, but our social, political, and economic systems are preventing us from responding to it effectively. Hunger in America will be exacerbated if conservative politicians are successful in their effort to drastically reduce the availability of food stamps to the poor.

Professor Ellis is confident that human social systems will accommodate population increases. Mr. Sigg predicts the opposite outcome. The more likely outcome is probably somewhere in between. We will probably muddle through with occasional catastrophic famines where physical shortages cannot be mitigated by competent social/political structures.

Admittedly, this topic is a digression for Million Trees. It is intended as a reminder that the ecological “restorations” being demanded by native plant advocates should be a public policy decision and the failure to treat it as such has resulted in irreparable harm to our environment. It is therefore an example of how environmental problems and their resolution are ultimately failures of human social systems.

Update: Our readers might be interested in Jake Sigg’s very different reaction to Erle Ellis’ op-ed in his latest newsletter (September 17, 2013), available here. Here is an excerpt from it:

“One of the most discouraging developments of our time is the elevation of opinion to equal status with knowledge in the minds of large numbers. People who have spent their lives studying and working in a field are on equal footing with someone who hadn’t thought about the matter five minutes ago, and their vote counts just as much. Not exactly a way to build a lasting, self-perpetuating society.”

In other words, problems are caused by too much democracy, in Sigg’s opinion. He believes that “experts” should be in charge, of which he—a retired gardener in the Recreation and Park Department– is apparently one and Erle Ellis—Associate Professor of geography and environmental systems at University of Maryland, Baltimore—is not. In contrast, Million Trees values expertise, but considers the alteration of our public parks a political decision which must be made democratically. More democracy is needed to resolve these conflicts, not less.

****************************

Erle C. Ellis, “Overpopulation Is Not the Problem,” New York Times, September 14, 2013.

“Ecological Restoration and Environmental Change”

Restoration and Environmental Change: Renewing Damaged Ecosystems was written by Stuart Allison. He is Professor of Biology and Director of Green Oaks Field Study Center at Knox College in Illinois. His perspective on ecological restorations is unique because he is both a scientist and actively engaged in ecological restoration.

There is a predictable tension between applied and theoretical science. Ecology is particularly susceptible to this tension because its application is usually considered the immediate goal of the theoretical science that is intended to inform and guide it. Therefore, we were very interested in Professor Allison’s viewpoint and we were intrigued by the suggestion of his title that his book would take into consideration the rapidly changing environment.

Although the restoration goal at Green Oaks is the re-creation of the tall grass prairie that is the historical landscape, Allison’s Ph.D. degree from UC Berkeley in Integrative Biology suggested that he is also familiar with our local ecology in the San Francisco Bay Area. In fact, he mentions our controversy regarding the desire of native plant advocates to eradicate eucalyptus in California and he uses it to illustrate his opinion of novel ecosystems.

“When I was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley there was (and still is) a magnificent grove of blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) outside of the Life Sciences Building. It was rumored that they were some of the tallest blue gums in the world, growing so tall because they lacked any herbivores and diseases. Eucalyptus trees grow beside roads all along California’s coastal highways and in the inland valleys of the coast ranges. In fact, I cannot imagine California without eucalyptus trees. But, of course, eucalyptus are not native to California–the first eucalyptus was introduced to California by Australian miners coming to the Gold Rush in the 1850s. Today eucalyptus are so well established that many people think they are native to California, and even if they know they are not native, they don’t want to see them removed because to them, like me, eucalyptus are a central part of their experience of California. Some people also fear that removal of eucalyptus will lead to erosion on steep hillsides and a decline in biodiversity. In contrast, native plant enthusiasts in California would love to see eucalyptus permanently removed. The dominance of eucalyptus in California is hardly unusual for a novel ecosystem, but it stands out because the trees came from Australia and because they are so striking in appearance and aroma that they can’t be missed.” (1)

Professor Allison then acknowledges that some scientists are now interested in and respectful of novel ecosystems such as the eucalyptus forest. However, he is worried “that novel ecosystems will lead to a homogenized world in which the same species…are found everywhere.” That debate is not the central theme in his book. His primary objective is to take the pulse of his colleagues in ecological restoration and report the changes in their objectives in the past 20 years, given the rapid changes that have occurred in the environment.

What is the goal of ecological restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is the professional organization recognized by most restorationists. Its Policy Working Group claims that “an ecosystem is fully restored and the project has been completed when the restoration ‘contains sufficient biotic and abiotic resources to continue its development without further assistance or subsidy.’”

Annual Prairie Burn, Green Oaks, Knox College

Professor Allison tells us that the restoration in which he has been engaged for over 20 years will never achieve that standard: “The tall grass prairie and savanna restorations I work with are all based on a return to historical pre-Euro-American disturbance, but all require perpetual management and human intervention to maintain them on the desired ecological trajectory. Without regularly applied fire, those ecosystems would soon become dominated by many woody species and grow into a woodland lacking prairie or savannah characteristics.” Professor Allison describes the annual “Prairie Burn” at Green Oaks which is considered an important social event by students at Knox College.

This is one of many ironies about ecological restorations. Many projects are attempting to re-create an historical landscape at a specific period of time, which was not the result of natural succession. In the case of grassland prairie, it was largely the result of periodic fires set by Native Americans. Left to its natural devices, grassland would soon be “invaded” by shrubs and over time it would become a forest if soil and climate conditions were suitable. In that sense, it is an artificial landscape, as unnatural as any manmade garden. That the humans who created that historical landscape were indigenous, as opposed to European settlers, seems to us a meaningless, legalistic quibble.

The “field of dreams” theory

Most restoration projects focus almost entirely on plants. Little explicit attention is paid to the animals that are the desirable inhabitants of the restoration. Restorationists believe that if the habitat is made available, the animals will quickly follow. This is the “field of dreams” theory, i.e., if we build it, the animals will come. This is magical thinking.

Restoration projects rarely monitor the results of their projects sufficiently to test this theory. In the San Francisco Bay Area, native plant advocates claim there are more birds and animals occupying restoration sites, but these are anecdotal observations that cannot be verified. Nor do they seem credible to skeptics of the projects, who often think the habitat that has been eradicated actually supported more wildlife.

Evolving goals of restoration projects

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have observed the changing objectives of ecological restorations. Over fifteen years ago, local projects were touted as “sustainable.” The public was told that once restored to historical equilibrium conditions, the projects would be capable of sustaining themselves without further resources.

Comparson of pesticides used by San Francisco's "Natural Areas Program" compared to landscaped areas of San Francisco's parks — Comparson of pesticides used by San Francisco’s “Natural Areas Program” compared to landscaped areas of San Francisco’s parks. Photo courtesy of SF Forest Alliance.

We no longer hear that claim. Now we are told that our “natural areas” must be managed in perpetuity. More herbicides are used in San Francisco’s “natural areas” than landscaped portions of the parks, with the exception of a professional tournament golf course. And if we want the animals that historically occupied those areas, they must be reintroduced, using labor-intensive methods.

Professor Allison observes the same “mission creep” amongst his colleagues. The goal of replicating an historical landscape is no longer the dominant theme of ecological restorations. Now the goal is more commonly defined in terms of increasing “biodiversity” and improving “ecological functions.”

New buzz words

If the new goal of ecological restorations is greater biodiversity and improved ecological functions, it seems reasonable to ask what these terms mean. Unfortunately, we were unable to find the answer to that question in Professor Allison’s book. Those terms are used as though their meanings are intuitively obvious. They are not. These terms are jargon that has little intrinsic meaning and they probably mean different things to different people.

When scientific studies quantify biodiversity, they count species of both native and non-native plants and animals. Since there are now far more species of non-native plants and animals and far fewer extinctions of native plants and animals, biodiversity has increased virtually everywhere in the world. So, as far as science is concerned, how could a restoration project that eradicates all non-native species result in greater biodiversity?

Obviously native plant advocates are defining the word “biodiversity” differently than traditional science. Native plant advocates seem to define biodiversity as exclusively native. Furthermore, the nativist ideology believes that the mere existence of non-native plants and animals will inevitably result in the extinction of native plants and animals. There is little scientific evidence to support this assumption. Few extinctions have been attributed to the existence of non-native plants and no extinctions blamed on non-native plants have occurred in the continental United States.

The term “ecological functions” is even more mysterious as it relates to ecological restorations. It could mean almost anything: production of biomass, soil composition, photosynthesis, carbon sequestration and storage, nutrient cycling, fire regime, hydrologic cycle, etc.

Professor Allison does not provide us with his definition of this term, so we will make an assumption based on our knowledge of ecological scientific literature. We told our readers about a study in Hawaii which compared native and non-native forests with respect to the ecological functions they are performing. In that study, three such functions were measured and reported: carbon sequestration, production of biomass, and nutrient cycling. The study concluded that non-native forests were performing these ecological functions as well as native forests.

We can also compare treeless grassland prairie with a native or non-native forest with respect to those ecological functions. Forests—whether native or non-native– will fulfill these and other functions at least as well as the grassland prairie. If we add the factor that the grassland prairie must be burned annually to maintain it, clearly the grassland prairie is an ecological deficit because it releases pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when it is burned.

The moving target

The goals of ecological restoration are a moving target. The original goals of re-creating an historical landscape that would be sustainable without continual maintenance are now widely acknowledged to be unrealistic.

The new goals are equally elusive. The new goals are described in obscure ways that will be impossible to measure or evaluate. That suits the purposes of native plant advocates perfectly. They can continue to do whatever they want and the public can’t hold them accountable because the public is not provided with a practical method of measuring success or failure.

***********************************

(1) Stuart K. Allison, Ecological Restoration and Environmental Change: Renewing Damaged Ecosystems, Routledge, UK, USA, Canada, 2012

“Hey, You Calling Me an Invasive Species?”

The New York Times published an op-ed by a member of their Editorial Board on Sunday, September 8, 2013, entitled, “Hey, You Calling Me an Invasive Species?” It is a spirited defense of non-native plants. Surely this is an indication that our challenge of the native plant movement is now mainstream. We will touch on a few of the op-ed’s main themes, but we urge you to read the op-ed here.

Mount Sutro Forest is threatened with destruction because it is not native. Courtesy Save Sutro Forest.

Using the eucalyptus forest on Mount Sutro as an example. the Editorial Board member, Verlyn Klinkenborg, makes the point that many of our non-native plants have been here for hundreds of years. Since they have been here for several generations of humans, most of us no longer consider them foreigners:

“But the trees on Mount Sutro have been there within the memory of every living San Franciscan, and to the generations who have grown up within view of them, it seems almost perverse to insist that they are alien.”

The distinction between native and non-native depends upon an arbitrarily selected “snapshot” of our landscape taken just prior to the arrival of Europeans. On the East Coast, that’s the early 16^th Century. In the San Francisco Bay Area, that’s 1769, when Portola’s men saw the San Francisco Bay. The Times op-ed reminds us that this particular snapshot is becoming more and more irrelevant because of climate change. If plants and animals don’t move in response to that change they will not survive:

“As plants and their pests adjust their range under the influence of global warming, what becomes of the distinction between native and nonnative? To any individual species, it doesn’t matter whether it’s native or not. The only thing that matters is whether its habitat is suitable.”

Finally, Mr. Klinkenborg takes us on a verbal tour of Central Park to make the point that our open spaces are a mélange of native and non-native plants and animals. We can see with our eyes that they are living in harmony and to pluck only those considered non-native from their midst would be needlessly destructive and disruptive of the peace that reigns there:

“Nature in Central Park can’t be divided into native or nonnative species, and neither can it be on Mount Sutro. The eucalyptus trees that grow there may be naturalized rather than native, but try telling that to all the other creatures that live in those woods or the people who hike there.”

Mr. Klinkenborg’s final sentence reminds us that we are the original “invaders:”

“And when it comes to the distinction between native and nonnative, we always leave one species out: call us what you will—native, naturalized, alien or invasive.”

The absurdity of nativism is becoming more and more evident. Our objections to its destructive consequences will eventually be heard. It’s just a matter of time.

No evidence that birds are harmed by non-native plants

The garden columnist of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article about the harmful effects of non-native plants on birds in 2012. She quoted an ornithologist as making these gloomy predictions about the harm that non-native plants may be doing to birds:

“Nonnative berries may not provide the nutrition that particular native birds require.”
“Nonnative fruiting plants could bring birds into a wildland habitat new to them, not necessarily with a good outcome. Birds might flock to a new area, feast on the new food source till it’s gone, but then not find enough food for so many birds in the rest of the habitat.”
“Nonnative plants alter wildland communities ‘in more complex ways than simply providing food for birds.’ A bird-dispersed nonnative fruiting shrub, for example, ‘can form underbrush or thickets in areas that previously lacked an understory…Birds may find their nesting sites disrupted, more cover for predators, etc.’”

Our initial reaction to these dire predictions was that they were entirely speculative. The consistent use of the word “may” to describe the consequences of non-native plants suggested that supporting evidence was absent. It seemed that, as usual, the nativist ideology was casting a dark pall on nature.

We were reminded of one of our first encounters with a nativist over 10 years ago. On a tour of a park in San Francisco, he claimed that non-native plants in San Francisco were creating a “sink” which he defined as attracting migratory birds into a climate to which they were not adapted, where they would eventually freeze to death. I pointed out to him that it does not freeze in San Francisco. He was unaware of this fact.

Secondly, we reacted to the implication of the Chronicle article that birds are passive in nature and incapable of making good choices for themselves. The suggestion is that birds are unable to discern nutritious food from “junk” food and incapable of choosing a safe nesting site to raise their young.

Thirdly, since every plant is native somewhere, we found the suggestion that non-native plants are nutritionally inferior to native plants illogical. Are we to believe that where these plants are native, birds are malnourished?

Where is the evidence?

And so, we decided to see if we could find any actual evidence that supports these statements. We started by looking at the research work of the ornithologist quoted by the Chronicle gardening columnist, Clare Aslan. She earned her Ph.D. in Ecology at UC Davis in 2010. Her Ph.D. project is described in a publication the year her degree was awarded: “Avian use of introduced plants: Ornithologist records illuminate interspecific associations and research needs.” (1)

In this publication, Ms. Aslan tells us that her project was essentially a questionnaire that was sent to over 1,000 non-professional bird watchers in four American states (California, Florida, New York, and Washington). These bird watchers were presumed to be skilled because they were members of Ornithological Societies of North America. Responses were received from 173 of these bird watchers, of which 51% were from California. Respondents reported 1,143 interactions between birds and plants. “Interact” is defined as the full range of bird behavior: eat, nest, perch, glean, etc.

The objectives of the questionnaire were: (1) to evaluate patterns of bird use of non-native plants to determine the role the birds play in dispersal of “invasive” plants; (2) to examine the food web and guilds formed by bird interactions; and (3) to determine gaps in empirical research to inform future research efforts.

Robin and chicks. Courtesy SF Forest Alliance

Respondents to the survey reported that 47% of observations of feeding by 139 bird species were of seeds or fruits of non-native plants. Thirty-five percent of all “habitat interactions” were with non-native plants and 26% of all nesting activity was in non-native plants. If non-native plants are harming the birds, nearly half of them must be in danger of starving to death!

Ms. Aslan tells us nothing about the relative nutritional value of non-native plants compared to native plants in this publication. In her concluding paragraph, she suggests that her primary finding is that more research is needed to understand the role that birds play in the dispersal of “invasive” plants which has “direct application for invasion prevention.”

Perhaps Ms. Aslan was misquoted by the Chronicle garden columnist. If not, Ms. Aslan does not seem to have any empirical evidence to support her statements about the negative impact of non-native plants on birds.

Research about birds’ food preferences

Million Trees is always looking for the happy ending. Consequently, our next step was to search the scientific literature for evidence that birds are being harmed by non-native plants. It was not difficult to find several reassuring articles about the food preferences of birds:

One study found that birds do, indeed, have food preferences and their preferences are based on many factors, including color, size, and availability. However, “In addition to these factors the nutritional composition of fruit pulp also influences selection of fruits by birds.” (2)
Another study found that what birds choose to eat depends somewhat on their migratory patterns. They choose foods with more fat content immediately prior to a long migratory journey over “major ecological barriers” such as seas and deserts. (3)
In a native eastern forest in the United States, most of the nutritionally best fruit was eaten early in the season, prior to the beginning of the migration. Over-wintering birds were then left to eat the fruit that remained. (4)
Finally, a study of fruit in the tropics showed that fruit that is more conspicuously colored and/or displayed seemed to be compensating for lower nutritional value than less conspicuous fruit. The authors speculate that these are the evolutionary trade-offs that enable plant species to survive. (5)

All of these studies suggest that the birds know what they are eating and why. We find no reason to fret on behalf of the birds that are eating non-native seeds and berries. In fact, the eradication of some of the best food sources—such as Himalayan blackberries—may be a greater cause for concern. And, once again, we find the extreme negativity of nativism to be a bigger problem, with respect to the damage being done to the environment in the guise of saving the planet from the harm they have imagined.

*********************************

(1) Clare Aslan and Marcel Rejmanek, “Avian use of introduced plants: Ornithologist records illuminate interspecific associations and research needs,” Ecological Applications, 20(4), 2010.

(2) E.W. Stiles, “The influence of pulp-lipids on fruit preference for birds,” Vegetatio, Volume 107-108, Issue 1, 1993

(3) F. Bairlein, “Nutrition and Fruit Selection in Migratory Birds,” Bird Migration, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1990

(4) John W. Baird, “The Selection and Use of Fruit by Birds in an Eastern Forest,” The Wilson Bulletin, Vol 92, No 1, March 1980

(5) Nataniel Wheelwright and Charles Janson, “Colors of Fruit Displays of Bird-Dispersed Plants in Two Tropical Forests,” The American Naturalist, Vol. 126, No 6, December 1985