Ecology – Page 22 – Conservation Sense and Nonsense

“Tending the Wild:” Our changing relationship with nature

We recently introduced our readers to a book about the land management practices of Native Americans in California, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. (1) Drawing from this valuable resource, we will describe how the relationship of humans with nature has changed several times since the arrival of humans in California approximately 12,000 years ago. We will conclude by raising questions about our current relationship with nature, as reflected in our land management practices.

The relationship of Native Americans with nature

We will let the author of Tending the Wild speak for Native Americans, based on her extensive research of their culture and land-management practices:

“Although native ways of using and tending the earth were diverse, the people were nonetheless unified by a fundamental land use ethic: one must interact respectfully with nature and coexist with all life-forms. This ethic transcended cultural and political boundaries and enabled sustained relationships between human societies and California’s environments over millennia. The spiritual dimension of this ethic is a cosmology that casts humans as part of the natural system, closely related to all life-forms. In this view, all non-human creatures are ‘kin’ or ‘relatives,’ nature is the embodiment of the human community, and all of nature’s denizens and elements—the plants, the animals, the rocks, and the water—are people. As ‘people,’ plants and animals possessed intelligence, which meant that they could serve in the role of teachers and help humans in countless ways—relaying messages, forecasting the weather, teaching what is good to eat and what will cure an ailment.” (1)

We emphasize that Native American culture considered humans a part of nature because this viewpoint provides contrast to modern interpretations of the relationship between humans and nature.

Exploitation of nature by early settlers

When Europeans began to establish settlements in California in the late 18^th century, they brought with them an entirely different viewpoint about their relationship with nature. Natural resources were to be exploited and humans were the master of the natural world which was in their service.

Western pioneer ranch. Painting by John Olson Hammerstad, 1842-1925.

The first phase of European settlement was the importation of huge herds of livestock by the Spanish coming from Mexico:

“During the Mission era…grazing was among the activities that caused the greatest damage. Coastal prairies, oak savannas, prairie patches in coastal redwood forests, and riparian habitats, all rich in plant species diversity and kept open and fertile through centuries of Indian burning, became grazing land for vast herds of cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, and horses owned by Spanish missions and rancheros. By 1832 the California missions had more than 420,000 head of cattle, 320,000 sheep, goats, and hogs, and 60,000 horses and mules…overgrazing eliminated native plant populations, favored alien annuals, and caused erosion…A great variety of alien [plant] species were introduced inadvertently during the Mission Period. Research has shown that European forbs and grasses…were brought into California at this time, contained in adobe bricks, livestock feed, livestock bedding, and other materials. Soon these alien [plants] overwhelmed the native species, markedly changing the character and diversity of grasslands and other habitats west of the inner Coast Ranges.” (1)

Tending the Wild reports that during this early phase of European settlement, Native Americans were quick to adapt to the changing landscape. They incorporated useful new plants into their diets. Likewise, we see today new plants and animals quickly enter the food web.

These changes in the landscape paled in comparison to the exploitation of the land that began in 1849 when gold was discovered in California and the huge influx of Americans of diverse European descent arrived. Here are a few examples:

“…by the 1870s ‘more men made their living in the broader geography and economy of farming—48,000—than in all the mines of the Sierra footholls—36,000.’ To accommodate the acreage devoted to growing crops, marshes were drained, underground water was tapped by artesian wells, streams and rivers were dammed and diverted for irrigation, and lands were fenced. In the process huge tracts of former native grasslands, riparian corridors, and vernal pools were converted to artificial, human-managed agricultural systems.” (1)
“Five million acres of wetland in California have been reduced by 91% through diking, draining, and filling for agriculture, housing, or other purposes.” (1)
By 1900, 40% of California’s 31 million acres of forest were logged.
“By the early 1900s, the numbers of marine mammals, wildfowl, elk, deer, bear, and other birds and mammals had been so drastically reduced that Joseph Grinnell would write, ‘Throughout California we had been forcibly impressed with the rapid depletion everywhere evident among the game birds and mammals.’” (1)
Between 1769 and 1845, the population of Native Americans in California dropped from an estimated 310,000 to 150,000. Between 1845 and 1855, the population of Native Americans dropped from 150,000 to 50,000.

Romanticizing Nature

Meanwhile, in Europe and the East Coast of the US, a new view of nature was being articulated. The Romantic movement viewed nature as an escape from the stress of urban life, a tranquil retreat from civilization. In California, John Muir was strongly influenced by Romanticism:

“Muir and those with similar views responded to the destruction and exploitation of California’s natural resources with a preservationist ethic that valued nature above all else but which defined nature as that which was free of human influence. Thus while he championed the setting aside of parks as public land, Muir also contributed to the modern notion that the indigenous inhabitants of the state had no role in shaping its natural attributes.” (1)

Muir was unable to fit Native Americans into his idealized view of nature. He wrote this account of Miwok Indians in the Sierra Nevada in 1869:

“’We had another visitor from Browns’ Flat to-day, an old Indian woman with a basket on her back. Her dress was calico rags, far from clean. In every way she seemed sadly unlike Nature’s neat well-dressed animals, though living like them on the bounty of wilderness. Strange that mankind alone is dirty. Had she been clad in fur, or cloth woven of grass or shreddy bark, like the juniper or libocedrus mats, she might have seemed a rightful part of wilderness; like a good wolf at least, or bear. But no point of view that I have found are such debased fellow beings a whit more natural than the glaring tailored tourists we saw that frightened the birds and the squirrels.’” (1)

Sharp Park, Pacifica, CA. Photo by Erica Reder, SF Public Press

In this romanticized view of nature, humans are not welcome. Humans defile the purity of nature. This is the prevailing viewpoint today among those who consider themselves environmentalists, park advocates, and conservationists. They advocate for “wilderness” where “humans may visit, but not remain.” They post signs, advising visitors to look but not touch. Their “restoration” projects put nature behind a fence. They complain about immigration.

The condescending attitude articulated by John Muir toward Native Americans was instrumental in our ignorance of their land management practices. Europeans considered Native Americans primitive and therefore did not expect to learn anything useful from them. Europeans imported and grew their own food from their original homes because they were unaware of how local food sources could be grown and used. Our knowledge of Native American culture is recent and it comes too late to ever be fully informed because those who tended the land are long since gone. Furthermore, this new knowledge of land management practices of Native Americans is not well known, certainly not among native plant advocates who are attempting to re-create a landscape which was created by methods they do not understand.

Redefining ecological “restoration”

The author of Tending the Wild admires Native American culture as well as the landscape that was created by their land management practices. Therefore, she concludes her book with a proposal that we adopt their land management methods:

“What then, should be the goal of ecological restoration? Restoring landscapes and ecosystems to a ‘natural’ condition may be impossible if that natural condition never existed…Restorationists must at the very least acknowledge the indigenous influence in shaping the California landscape. This chapter advocates an additional step—using indigenous people’s knowledge and methods to carry out the restoration process, to return landscapes to historical conditions and restore the place of humans in this continuing management.” (1)

In our previous post, we described some of the land management practices of Native Americans, particularly the importance of setting fires. Adopting these management practices for ecological restorations would require us to make a permanent commitment to setting fires. Fires pollute the air, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and endanger lives and property. Therefore, this is surely not a proposition that can be reasonably applied to our densely populated urban parks. The maximum population of Native Americans prior to the arrival of Europeans is estimated to have been 310,000. The population of California was estimated to be over 38 million in 2013. Land management practices that were appropriate for a human population of only 310,000 are not appropriate for a population of over 38 million.

Furthermore, the land management practices of Native Americans were useful for their culture. They tended the landscape in order to feed, clothe, heal, and house themselves. If that specific landscape is no longer useful for those purposes, why would we consider it an ideal landscape? In what sense would it be superior to the landscape that occurs naturally without setting fires or intensively gardening our open spaces?

A more realistic paradigm is needed

We believe a more sustainable paradigm for managing nature is needed. Although we won’t presume to define this new paradigm, we will suggest some parameters:

Humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal. Therefore, conservation goals must accommodate the presence of humans. However, humans must respect plants and animals as equal partners in achieving conservation goals.
Since we live in a free society, we must assume that human populations will grow in proportion to the choices of humans. And since we are a nation of laws, we must assume that immigration will occur as allowed by our laws. Conservation goals must be consistent with the realities of human population density.
Conservation goals should look forward, not back. Goals should reflect the changes in the environment that have already taken place and anticipate the changes that are expected in the future.
The distinction between native and non-native species should be only one of several criteria to determine whether a species “belongs here.” If plants and animals are sustaining themselves without human subsidy, we should acknowledge and appreciate the functions they perform in the ecosystem. This approach will reduce the use of herbicides, now being used to eradicate plants perceived to be “non-native,” in our parks and open spaces.
Conservation goals should be realistic within the confines of available resources and in competition with other priorities.
There are pros and cons to every change we make in the landscape. Whenever we alter the landscape, if our land management methods damage the environment by using pesticides, killing animals or destroying their food resources and homes, contributing to greenhouse gases, restricting recreational access, etc., we must have solid evidence that the benefits to the environment will be greater than the damage we foresee. If there is no net benefit, we should leave it be.

Can you add to or suggest revisions of this list of a new conservation ethic? Surely there are as many opinions as there are readers of Million Trees. We would like to hear your ideas.

M. Kat Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources, University of California Press, 2005 (This is the source of most of the information in this article.)

“Tending the Wild:” Implications of land management by Native Americans in California

In our last post we told our readers about the usefulness of non-native plants which are closely associated with human civilization and are therefore found everywhere, but are considered weeds. We don’t wish to leave our readers with the impression that native plants are not at least equally useful, so we will counter-balance our last post with this report based on a book about California Native Americans: Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. (1) The author, M. Kat Anderson, is the national ethnoecologist of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and an Associate in the Department of Plant Science at UC Davis.

Aboriginal societies have been categorized by anthropologists as either hunter-gatherer or agricultural societies. California Native Americans were considered hunter-gatherer societies because they were not sedentary, tied to a specific site where they tilled the land to grow crops, and they had no domesticated animals. Tending the Wild challenges this categorization based on an exhaustive survey of the land management practices of California Native Americans. The author proposes a middle-ground between the dichotomous categories to reflect the many ways in which Native Americans essentially gardened wild plants to produce their food and other utilitarian objects, while also acknowledging the seasonal mobility of Native American society.

Karok basket maker, 1894. Smithsonian photo archive

Fire was the essential tool

Million Trees has reported many times that California Native Americans intentionally set fires, but until reading Tending the Wild we did not appreciate how essential fires were to their culture, nor did we understand the many purposes for which fires were set. Here is an incomplete list of the many reasons why Native Americans set fires:

Fires maintained grassland by eliminating shrubs that naturally encroach on grassland in the absence of fire.
In the absence of fire, thatch of dried grass accumulates when grasses die back during the dry season. This thatch retards the germination of a new crop of young grass.
Young grass which sprouts after a fire is attractive to grazing animals which were hunted. Young grass was also preferable for basket-making because it is straight and pliable.
Fire reduces shrub vegetation which competes with grasses for light and water. Land cleared by fires was then seeded with the plants most useful to Native Americans.
Fire recycles nutrients in the soil.
Fire was used to smoke small mammals from their burrows.
Fires were used to corral grasshoppers and other insects considered edible for harvesting.
Fire was used to reduce insect populations that feed on the plants eaten by Native Americans. For example, the duff beneath oaks was burned before acorns fell so that acorns were not eaten by insects.
Fire was used to germinate seeds of the many species of native plants that require fire for germination.
Periodic fire was considered a means of preventing wildfires fueled by accumulated dead vegetation.

Other land management methods

Pomo gathering seeds, 1924. Smithsonian photo archive

Fire was one of many management methods used by California Native Americans to foster the plants that were most useful to them. In some cases, these practices maximized their food sources and in others they produced useful materials such as those needed to make baskets or plants thought to have medicinal properties.

Tending the Wild reports that 60-70% of the diet of California Native Americans was from plants. Miwoks report using 48 species of plants for fresh greens compared to just a dozen salad greens typically found in a modern market. California Native Americans ate 15 of 31 native clover species. Clover seed was broadcast-seeded onto burned ground because it improved the fertility of the soil by restoring nitrogen to the burned soil.

Miwok mortars where seeds and nuts were ground. Smithsonian archive

Baskets were equally important to their culture. Every family typically had 22 different types of baskets for a variety of purposes such as storage, food gathering, beating seeds from plants, cooking, water storage and transport, fish traps, small-animal traps, etc. Seventy-eight plant species were used by California Native Americans to make these baskets.

Here is an incomplete list of the methods used to foster the plants most useful to California Native Americans:

The seeds of favorite plants were planted to be available close to living quarters. Native tobacco is an example of a plant found around Native American settlements, presumably planted there.
The seeds, bulbs, corms, rhizomes etc., of favorite plants were collected and transplanted close to settlements.
Bulbs, corms, roots, rhizomes were harvested selectively to preserve the plants which were stimulated by the thinning of the plant.
Fields of useful plants were weeded to create monocultures that made harvesting more efficient.
Plants were pruned and coppiced to maximize fruit production.
Plants were pruned to produce the straight twigs and grasses useful to make baskets and arrow shafts.
Plants were irrigated to promote growth and maximize fruit production.
Plants were treated by cooking, soaking, etc., to remove toxins so they could be safely eaten.

Impact on the landscape

Over the thousands of years that California Native Americans practiced these land management practices, the landscape was altered by them:

Plants that did not tolerate frequent fires died out, creating a landscape that is dominated by plants that are adapted to fire. Jon Keeley (USGS) informs us that over 200 native plant species are “fire endemics,” requiring fire to germinate and dying out within a few years after a fire. (2)
The Europeans arriving at the end of the 18^th Century found a landscape dominated by grassland because repeated fires prevented succession to shrubs and forests. The absence of shade produced a landscape of native plant species that require full sun.
Forests were open and park-like with little understory, which had been repeatedly cleared by frequent fires.
The plants which were most useful to Native Americans were more likely to survive than those that were not useful because they were tended and competing vegetation burned or weeded.
The natural ranges of the plants which were useful were altered by the land management practices of Native Americans. They were transplanted and grown from seed where they were accessible to the community.

What are the implications for ecological “restorations?”

The landscape selected by native plant advocates as the goal of ecological “restorations” is the landscape that existed in 1769 when Europeans first laid eyes on San Francisco Bay. Now we know that it was a landscape that had been altered by thousands of years of occupation and cultivation by California Native Americans. There are at least two major flaws in the selection of this landscape as the goal of “restoration:”

Native ranges reflect the choices made by the Native Americans. They do not necessarily reflect the forces of nature. The modern obsession with “where plants belong” is based on a fantasy of why plants were found where they were when Europeans arrived in California.
The land management practices of Native Americans are no longer being practiced, which means that the plants they preferred are no longer receiving the care that ensured their survival in the past. Humans no longer set fire to the landscape every year. Therefore, the landscape has changed and will continue to change to correspond to changed practices:
- Grassland is succeeding to shrubs.
- Shrubs are succeeding to forest.
- Plant species that require fire to germinate their seeds are dying out. For example, several species of Manzanita are now endangered because they cannot be propagated in the absence of fire.
- Plant species that require full sun for their survival are dying out because they are now shaded by shrubs and trees.

The relationship between humans and nature has changed since California was occupied solely by Native Americans. Consequently, nature has changed in ways that reflect how humans now use the land. The author of Tending the Wild acknowledges that her book conflicts with the goals of ecological “restoration:”

“If restoration is aimed at returning ecosystems to the condition in which they existed before Western settlement degraded them, then that condition is surely not an entirely natural one. As we now know, many of the classic landscapes of California—coastal prairies, majestic valley oak groves, montane meadows, the oak-meadow mosaic of Yosemite Valley—were in fact shaped by the unremitting labor of generations of native people. Moreover, these and other communities were managed intensively and regularly by these people, and that many have disappeared or changed radically in the absence of management shows they were not self-sustaining.” (1)

In our next post, we will think about how our relationship with nature has changed and what that means for the future of the management of our remaining open spaces. Given this revised understanding of the “native” landscape, how must we revise our goals for ecological “restoration?”

M. Kat Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources, University of California Press, 2005 (This is the source of most of the information in this article.)
Jon Keeley, et. al., Fire in Mediterranean Ecosystems, Cambridge University Press, 2012

Another round of tree removals by UC Berkeley

Hikers in the Berkeley Hills have stumbled on another round of tree removals by UC Berkeley. Once again, these tree removals violate theoretical commitments UC Berkeley made in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the FEMA projects in the East Bay Hills. Our readers have alerted FEMA to this new violation of policies UC Berkeley has claimed in the EIS they are following. The EIS is apparently a big pile of paper with no relationship to what is actually happening on the ground.

January 26, 2015

Alessandro Amaglio
Region IX Environmental Officer
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Oakland, CA

RE: East Bay Hills – Environmental Impact Statement – FEMA – RIX

Dear Mr. Amaglio,

Once again we must alert you to a new round of tree removals by UC Berkeley on their property. Within the past two weeks or so, UC Berkeley has removed about 25 trees on their property south of Dwight Way at the intersection of Sports Lane.

Since this property is not in the project area for the proposed FEMA grants, you might wonder how it is relevant to FEMA’s consideration of those grants. There are several reasons why this latest round of tree removals is relevant to FEMA’s impending decision:

• The stumps of the trees that were removed have been dribbled with green dye, indicating they were sprayed with herbicide to prevent them from resprouting. However, no herbicide application notices were posted at the site as required by law and as described in the Final Environment Impact Statement for the FEMA grants: “In addition to the herbicide application measures, the subapplicants would follow procedures for public notification and education, including posting the timing, location, and appropriate amounts and types of pesticides or other chemicals to be applied at least 24 hours in advance.” (EIS, page 5.10-14)

• The Final EIS also states that “in general” most tree removals will be done “from August to November to avoid the wet season and the bird nesting and fledging season.” (EIS page 3-34) This commitment made by UC Berkeley in the EIS has been violated by this round of tree removals in January after heavy rains.

• In addition to the approximately 25 trees that were recently destroyed, we counted over 100 stumps that have been destroyed in this area in the past. This area is not described in the Cumulative Impact Section (EIS 6.0) of the EIS. In other words, cumulative impact of the proposed FEMA projects is underestimated by the EIS.

Once again, UC Berkeley has demonstrated that they are not following the policies and practices that are described by the EIS and the cumulative impact of those projects has not been accurately described by the EIS.

We ask that this information be made available to those who are considering the Decision of Record of the FEMA grants in the East Bay Hills.

Thank you,
[Concerned Citizens]

Cc: Sal Genito, Associate Director, Grounds, Custodial, Environmental Services, UCB
Robert Newell, Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor, Physical Plant, UCB

Weed Worshipers vs. Weed Warriors

Native plant advocates who volunteer to pull weeds often call themselves “Weed Warriors.” Now there is a countervailing movement of weed advocates who find value in the same plants that are detested by the native plant movement. Weed worshippers are found in the permaculture community because they share a desire to avoid the use of herbicides. We also find them amongst foragers who think of weeds as a source of nutritious, free food. These origins of weed worship come together into a coherent botanical philosophy in a recently published book, The Wild Wisdom of Weeds: 13 Essential Plants for Human Survival, by Katrina Blair. (1)

Ms. Blair grew up in Colorado, in a family that lived close to nature. She developed her interest in wild plants early and has spent her life cultivating that interest both with her formal education and her experiences. She is the founder of Turtle Lake Refuge in Durango, Colorado. This is the mission of Turtle Lake Refuge:

“Our mission is to celebrate the connection between personal health and wild lands. We manifest this goal through promoting and practicing sustainable practices. Examples of our work include growing, harvesting and preparing local, wild and living food for the community, educating about the great values of the wild edible abundance available in our area, providing local micro-greens for the public schools, restaurants and stores…and educating about organic land stewardship practices.”

Turtle Lake Refuge serves lunch in their community twice each week. Here is a sample menu from a spring lunch, which reflects their commitment to “wild edible abundance:”

– Comfrey and hollyhock Green Juice:

Comfrey, hollyhock, lemon and honey

– Miso Soup:

Miso, tamari, fresh chives, cabbage and red onion

– Quinoa Beet Salad:

Sprouted Quinoa, beets, tamari, sunflower oil, ginger and garlic

– Sushi Roll:

Seed cheese, beets, buckwheat sprouts, pea sprouts and avocado

– Poppy seed Lemon Bar:

Buckwheat flour, honey, lemons, cashews psyllium and poppy seeds

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

Why weeds?

Ms. Blair explains why she has selected 13 weeds for her book which are found all over the globe, wherever human civilization is found, that is every continent except Antarctica. They are therefore representative of the plants that often arrive with humans and are capable of surviving whatever changes in the environment accompany human civilization. In a sense, they are symbols of resilience and adaptation in a rapidly changing world. She also tells us why weeds are just as important as the native plants that preceded the arrival of humans:

“Humans are creating change on a large scale at an exceedingly rapid rate, and yet if we try to hold back nature by eradicating every new species that appears on a barren land, we block nature’s progression of adaptation. There is an accepted perspective that change is negative and therefore justifies momentous efforts to block diversity from becoming established for fear that it will alter the native habitat. It is important to remember that “native” habitat only represents a moment in time. All habitats evolve and are changing constantly. If the wild weeds are resilient enough to be able to handle the climate and take root, they play an important role in the evolutionary aspect of nature.” (1)

Dandelions

The thirteen weeds that Ms. Blair chooses to tell us about in her book are: amaranth, chickweed, clover, dandelion, dock, grass, knotweed, lambsquarter, mallow, mustard, plantain, purslane, and thistle. We have chosen the dandelion to illustrate the usefulness of weeds because it is plentiful and well known in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Dandelions are found everywhere. The origins of its English name are found in its name in romance languages: diente de leon (Spanish), dent-de-lion (French), diente di leone (Italian). These names all translate to “teeth of the lion” in English, a name that surely derives from the deeply jagged leaf, which apparently suggested the shape of the teeth of the lion. When named by the English, that reference to the shape of the leaf was lost in translation.

Dandelion seeds may have been brought by humans to new homes because they were known to be useful. But dandelions are not dependent upon intentional transport. Their wooly seed heads are dispersed by the wind and readily attach themselves to grazing animals. I remember blowing them into the wind as a child, oblivious to the fact that I was dispersing their seeds in the process.

An early reference to dandelions is found in the writing of the Roman military commander and naturalist, Pliny the Elder in 77 AD. He explained the healing properties of dandelions. Dandelions are used in Chinese herbal medicine—possibly for thousands of years—as well as in Indian traditional medicine, ayurvedic medicine. Ms. Blair uses dandelions to treat a wide variety of medical conditions, from a laxative to an anti-inflammatory which reduces swelling.

Every part of the dandelion, from its roots to its leaves is edible, according to Ms. Blair. The roots are used to make dandelion beer for the annual Dandelion Festival at Turtle Lake Refuge. Dandelion ice cream is also popular at the festival. Ms. Blair provides recipes for Dandelion Pesto, Dandelion Quiche, Dandy Candy, and Dandelion Root Stew. We are most familiar with dandelions as a salad green which adds bite to any salad.

Dandelion is equally useful to bees and butterflies because it is one of the first flowers in the spring.

The Druid’s Garden recently published a post about the usefulness of dandelions, including a description of how they can restore degraded soil.

Ms. Blair makes a similar case for the usefulness of the other 12 members of her weed family.

Opposition to herbicides follows….

As you might expect, if you eat wild plants you are probably opposed to use of herbicides in the places where you forage for your food:

“My deep passion for honoring the wild weeds intensified due to our local city and county’s practices in weed control. Hundreds of gallons of herbicides were being sprayed on the plants in town and on nearby wildlands with the intention of eradicating plant species considered weeds. Since I grew up loving all plants equally, I found it tragic to witness a once healthy plant that was contributing so much richness to our landscape become a twisted and dying being due to poisoning from herbicides. My passion for all plants inspired me to do what I could to change the discriminatory treatment of these noble weeds, who I have come to know as the true heroes of our time.” (1)

Ms. Blair tells the story of how she and her collaborators were successful in convincing the City of Durango to quit using herbicides in public parks. It is both an interesting story and one from which we can learn. They began by showing people how to use the weeds they were killing. The “Dandelion Brigade” harvested dandelions from their neighbors’ lawns and showed them how to make dandelion lemonade and other taste treats. They started an organic lawn service called “Grassroots” which made and distributed organic compost. These efforts convinced the city to create its first chemical-free public park, and eventually a second park. Then their efforts stalled because the city decided these two parks gave the public sufficient chemical-free options.

The second stage of their effort began with a ballot measure that, if passed, would have banned all herbicide use from every public park in Durango, including golf courses. They spent many months lobbying in support of that new ordinance and were confident that it would pass. Apparently the city was afraid it would pass as well and therefore began to negotiate with the supporters of the ordinance. This negotiation resulted in a compromise which accomplished much of what supporters of the ordinance set out to do. Although they still believed in the ordinance as originally written, they decided that a compromise would ultimately result in greater support throughout the community. The first phase of the compromise plan converted over one-third of the parks to organic management. The second phase would slowly transition most parks—except golf courses—to organic management methods.

The process of changing city policies regarding herbicide use was long and difficult. It required both patience and a willingness to meet people halfway by showing them how to substitute for herbicide use and by being willing to compromise.

Local foragers

Ms. Blair is not alone. She is a member of a big and growing movement. The favorable review of Ms. Blair’s book in the New York Times is an indication that foraging and respect for weeds are now in mainstream culture. Closer to home, we have our own contingent of lovers of wild food, which often includes plants commonly considered weeds:

“The Wild Kitchen is a roving underground supper club. From a roof-deck in the Mission one week to a houseboat in Sausalito the next, The Wild Kitchen knows no geographic bounds. One hundred diners sit around the communal table, enjoying eight course meals, each course highlighting a sustainably foraged ingredient from the local landscape. These meals connect the eater with their natural surroundings in a new way. The Wild Kitchen brings eaters together to grow community around the foods nature provides.”
“Reaping without Sowing: Urban Foraging and Berkeley Open Source Food” is a research project at UC Berkeley which is “studying the availability, nutritional value, and possible toxicity of wild edibles that volunteer in urban food deserts. Our research hypothesis is that in many such areas, there is a free, abundant source of nutritious fresh food: edible weeds.” The project identifies both native and non-native edible plants growing wild in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Quinoa plant – photo by Christian Guthier from Flickr

Quinoa is a specialty food item, found in high-end stores such as Whole Foods. It is growing wild along roadsides in Los Angeles because it is a plant that thrives on disturbance. Quinoa is an example of a plant that is adapted to human civilization and is also a source of food.

We hope that the foraging movement will grow and eventually become as strong and influential as the native plant movement has been in the past. And we hope that herbicide use in our public lands will be abandoned in the process of making the transition from venerating native plants to respecting ALL plants.

Katrina Blair, The Wild Wisdom of Weeds: 13 Essential Plants for Human Survival, Chelsea Green, 2014

2014 Wrap-Up and 2015 Preview

Our last post of 2014 will summarize wins and losses in our effort to save our urban forest and preview the local issues that remain unresolved. 2014 has been a year of many accomplishments, but there have been disappointments as well.

2014 Accomplishments

Good news always comes first! We are most grateful for the hard work of the San Francisco team with whom we collaborate. After herculean effort, they completed most of the presentations to the members of the Board of Supervisors about the forthcoming approval process for the Environmental Impact Review of San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program, which has been in the works for eight years…and still counting. We are advocating for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to approve the “environmentally superior” Maintenance Alternative, which would enable the Natural Areas Program to maintain the native gardens they have created in the past 15 years, but would prohibit expansion of those gardens. The Maintenance Alternative could save about 18,500 healthy non-native trees from being needlessly destroyed and significantly decrease herbicide use in our parks.

Because native plant advocates have succeeded in convincing many politicians that their projects are “science-based,” the San Francisco team was particularly glad to have three lectures at the Commonwealth Club by academic scientists, which challenged the unfounded assumptions of the native plant ideology:

Dr. Scott Carroll, “Conciliation Biology: An Approach to Conservation that Reconciles Past, Present and Future Landscapes in Nature”
Professor Arthur M. Shapiro, “Ecological Communities and the March of Time”
Professor Joe R. McBride, “The History, Ecology and Future of Eucalyptus Plantations in the Bay Area”

These presentations were very well attended, including by native plant advocates. They were entirely successful from our standpoint, though they seem to have had little influence on the opinions of native plant advocates, many of whom seemed not to understand the scientific information being presented.

In March 2014, UCSF announced that they have put their plans to destroy most trees on Mount Sutro on indefinite hold. This decision was made in response to the public’s overwhelming opposition to these plans during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report in March 2013. However, UCSF has destroyed about 1,200 trees during the past 18 months which they claimed would mitigate immediate hazards. UCSF has also made a commitment to not using herbicides on Mount Sutro. UCSF has provided no estimated time frame for announcing a new plan. Please visit Save Mount Sutro Forest for a more detailed description of that announcement. We consider this a “holding pattern” because we know that UCSF is under constant pressure from those who want the Sutro Forest to be destroyed.

Invasion biology is being revised by academic scientists who inform us that empirical studies do not support the hypotheses of invasion biology. Here are a few of the highlights from the scientific literature:

Climate change is rendering the concept of “native” irrelevant. The ranges of plants and animals have changed and will continue to change in the future, as they have many times in the past 500 million years.
Plants and animals from places with long, stable evolutionary histories have adaptive advantages over those with a shorter evolutionary history. It may be futile to attempt to eradicate species with such adaptive advantages.
There is no evidence that biodiversity has decreased anywhere in the world as a result of introduced species.

Likewise, mainstream media has become more even-handed in its coverage of invasion biology and native plant “restorations.” Here are a few specific examples:

National Geographic has published a critique of invasion biology by Emma Marris. This represents a change of direction for National Geographic which has been consistently supportive of invasion biology in the past.
The San Francisco Examiner published an op-ed about the Natural Areas Program, which was critical of both the program and its cost.
The Nature Conservancy explicitly stated on its website that it is not necessary to eradicate eucalyptus in California.

2014 Disappointments

The publication of the final Environmental Impact Statement for FEMA projects in the East Bay Hills was the biggest disappointment of 2014. There were over 13,000 public comments on the draft and they were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed projects. Yet, the projects are fundamentally unchanged by the final EIS, which will be officially approved by a “Decision of Record” on January 5, 2015. We are grateful to the Hills Conservation Network for their continuing opposition to these projects and we urge our readers to support their effort.

Some of the hundreds of trees destroyed by UC Berkeley in August 2014

We were outraged by UC Berkeley’s destruction of hundreds of non-native trees on their property in August 2014, prior to the approval of these FEMA grants. And we were also appalled by the letters sent to FEMA by elected officials in the East Bay in July, demanding that funding be immediately released and approved for use to destroy all non-native trees on their properties.

In San Francisco, our biggest disappointment of 2014 was the approval of the revised Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of the city’s General Plan, which has committed the city to managing all open space as “natural areas.” The ROSE defines “natural areas” so broadly that it includes not only areas that currently contain existing remnants of SF’s pre-settlement habitat, but also areas that could support native plants if they were planted there, or, in other words, nearly all open space in SF, including people’s back yards. This policy commits the city to managing nearly ALL open space in San Francisco, including that in private hands, the same way as the Natural Areas Program manages its lands. As disappointing as that decision was, it was also instrumental in producing one of the biggest accomplishments of 2014. We were successful in convincing the State of California to decline to fund a grant application which would have implemented the plans to convert all open space in San Francisco to native plant gardens. That so-called “biodiversity program” continues, but is presumably handicapped by the loss of that fund source.

Looking forward in 2015

In the past six months, the San Francisco team has devoted a great deal of time and effort to influencing the city’s Urban Forestry Council (UFC) to adopt “best management practices” that would discourage the destruction of healthy trees. The UFC has hosted a “listening series” of presentations by those who advocate for the eradication of eucalyptus forests as well as those who are opposed to that destruction. Native plant advocates have introduced new justifications for destroying the eucalyptus forests:

They claim that eucalyptus forests are dying of disease, drought, old-age, etc. We have sought the advice of many professional arborists and academic ecologists who assure us these claims are inaccurate.
They claim that the health of the eucalyptus forests would be improved by radical “thinning.” The scientific literature informs us that mature forests do not benefit from thinning because mature trees are unable to respond positively to increased light and wind. Thinning is only beneficial to young trees and even then, the disturbance can damage the trees that remain. Radical thinning of the mature eucalyptus forest is likely to destroy the few trees that will remain.

The UFC has completed its listening series and will probably reach its conclusions in 2015. Based on the meetings we have attended and the conversations we have had with members of the UFC, we are not hopeful about the outcome. They seem to be sympathetic to the demands of those who want the non-native forests of San Francisco to be destroyed. In that case, their “best management practices” could be specifically supportive of the plans of the Natural Areas Program to destroy 18,500 trees in San Francisco and Pacifica. If you would like to express your opinion to the Urban Forestry Council, you can write to them here: SFUrbanForestCouncil@sfgov.org.

We also expect the final Environmental Impact Report for San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program to be published in 2015. We will make our best effort to convince the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to approve the Maintenance Alternative. However, we should all understand that the lack of an approved EIR does not seem to have prevented the Natural Areas Program from destroying trees whenever and wherever they wish. Many trees (perhaps a few hundred) in Glen Canyon Park, McLaren Park and Pine Lake in Stern Grove have been destroyed without an approved Environmental Impact Report. In other words, the Environmental Impact Report seems increasingly irrelevant to what is actually being done in our parks.

A few of the trees destroyed recently in Pine Lake "natural area" — A few of the trees destroyed recently in Pine Lake “natural area”

The President of the San Francisco Forest Alliance, Carolyn Johnston, ran for a seat on the Executive Committee of the San Francisco Group of the Sierra Club. If you follow the controversy about the Natural Areas Program in San Francisco, you may be aware of the Sierra Club’s role in supporting the nativist agenda (HERE is an example of their role). Carolyn lost by only 6 votes. If everyone in San Francisco who abandoned the Sierra Club because of its support for turning urban parks into native plant gardens, would renew their membership, maybe we could win a seat next year. We are grateful to Carolyn for running.

We also expect a final response from the California Invasive Plant Council to our request that Blue Gum eucalyptus be removed from its list of “invasive” plants.

In summary

Science is rapidly revising the unfounded assumptions of invasion biology and climate change is making the concept of “native” meaningless. But these realities are having no apparent influence on public policy, which seems to be immune to such facts. Popular culture always lags behind science.

Million Trees is changing its emphasis in response to these political realities. In 2015, we will focus on the science that is revising invasion biology because that’s where progress is being made. This type of research is both difficult and time-consuming for us because we do the background reading to understand the scientific literature and produce accurate reports that are accessible to the layperson. We therefore expect to publish new articles only once each month in 2015. As always, we invite guest authors to step forward with news of new developments that we are not covering.

Thank you for your readership in 2014 and for any help you gave us in 2014 on our various initiatives. We wish you all a Happy New Year in 2015.

Taking a mushroom break for the holidays

Let’s take a break for the holidays from the often unpleasant chore of debunking invasion biology and reporting on the destructive projects it spawns. We will share some photos of the mushrooms in our neighborhood. There is a bumper crop this year because of the heavy rains after several years of dry weather. They don’t last long, so let’s enjoy them while they’re here.

We know next to nothing about mushrooms and in the spirit of a holiday break we haven’t done any research in preparation for this post. If there is someone amongst our readers who knows something about mushrooms, we invite you to correct anything we’re saying or add any information that might interest others. And in the interest of public safety, our readers should understand that we assume none of the mushrooms we have photographed are edible.

Mushrooms are the “fruiting bodies” of the fungi that live underground. They emerge briefly to distribute the spores that will disperse fungi farther afield. In other words, mushrooms are sort of analogous to the flowers and fruits of plants, where reproduction occurs.

Here are a few mushrooms now blooming in our neighborhood:

Not the prettiest mushroom, but one of the biggest. This one was over 12 inches wide.

This colony of mushrooms was even bigger!

Hundreds of tiny mushrooms growing out of the trunk of a big magnolia tree.

Here are a few mushrooms taken in San Francisco’s parks in December 2012 by Janet Kessler and published by the San Francisco Forest Alliance. We republish here with permission.

Addendum: One of our readers has sent us pictures of mushrooms taken recently in her neighborhood in San Francisco. She has identified these mushrooms.

Mature Parasols - note hand for size comparison — Mature Parasols – note hand for size comparison

Cage fungus. The odor will attract flies into the cage.

Happy Holidays and thank you for your readership!

Final Environmental Impact Statement for FEMA projects in the East Bay is NOT an improvement!

On December 1, 2014, FEMA published the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the projects in the East Bay Hills which propose to destroy hundreds of thousands of non-native trees. FEMA’s email announcement of the publication of the EIS implied that the projects had been revised. Two of the agencies applying for FEMA grants—UC Berkeley and City of Oakland—had originally proposed to destroy all non-native trees on their properties. The third agency –East Bay Regional Parks District—had proposed to thin non-native trees in most areas and destroy all in a few areas. FEMA’s email announcement of the final EIS implied that both UC Berkeley and City of Oakland would be required to use the same “thinning” strategy as East Bay Regional Parks District.

After reading the final EIS, the Hills Conservation Network (HCN) is reporting that FEMA’s email announcement was rather misleading. In fact, both UC Berkeley and City of Oakland will be allowed to destroy all non-native trees on their properties. In a small sub-section (28.5 acres) of their total project acres (406.2 acres), UC Berkeley and City of Oakland are being asked by FEMA to destroy the trees more slowly than originally planned. However, they will all be destroyed by the end of the 10 year project period.

HCN has analyzed the EIS and consulted legal counsel. The following is HCN’s assessment of the EIS and their plans to respond to FEMA. We publish HCN’s assessment with their permission. Note that HCN is asking the public to send comments to FEMA and they are raising funds to prepare for a potential legal suit.

“After having reviewed the Final EIS in depth and having consulted with various stakeholders, HCN has concluded that the Final EIS, in spite of FEMA’s efforts to improve it from the Draft version, remains unacceptable.

While FEMA has made some modifications to portions of the EIS in response to the enormous number of comments submitted last year [more than 13,000], the fact remains that if implemented in their current form, these projects would remove essentially all of the eucalyptus, pines, and acacias from the subject area. While for portions of the area FEMA is now proposing that there be a phased removal of these species, the fact remains that the objective is ultimately to convert the current moist and verdant ecosystem into one dominated by grasses, shrubs, and some smaller trees. This will forever alter the character of these hills that so many of us have grown up with, know and love.

But worse than that, these projects would actually increase fire risk, destabilize hillsides, cause immense loss of habitat, release significant amounts of sequestered greenhouse gases, and require the use of extraordinary amounts of herbicides over a large area for at least a decade.

Additionally, by preemptively clearcutting 7 acres of Frowning Ridge in August of this year, UC not only made a clear violation of FEMA rules but also essentially negated the accuracy and relevance of the EIS. While FEMA acknowledges this in the EIS, they still want to move forward with a document that may no longer accurately reflect the reality of the current environment, the cumulative impacts of these projects, and any of the other factors that underpin the EIS process.

For these reasons, HCN will be submitting a comment letter to FEMA asking that the EIS be pulled back, reworked, and recirculated….at a minimum. Additionally, we are currently exploring legal options should the EIS be finally released on January 5, 2015 in its current form. One way or another, we are committed to ensuring that the will of a small number of influential people doesn’t result in the loss of a treasured resource to the vast majority of us (both human and other).

We ask your support in sending additional comment letters to FEMA [ebh-eis@fema.dhs.gov] and most importantly that you consider making a tax-deductible contribution to HCN. While we wish we did not have to do this, the fact is that the only way we can have a shot at preventing this irreparable harm from happening is by hiring lawyers, and that is what we will do. This takes money, so please do what you can either by sending a check to HCN at P.O. Box 5426, Berkeley, CA 94705 or by making a donation through our website at http://hillsconservationnetwork.org/HillsConservation3/Support_HCN.html.”

Thanks again for all your support,

Hills Conservation Network

Another lame attempt to defend invasion biology

The Editor of an academic journal, Diversity and Distribution, wrote and published a defense of invasion biology (which he prefers to call “invasion science”) entitled, “Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide.” (1) We recently critiqued a similar defense by other invasion biologists, so we’ll “cherry-pick” a few issues from this publication which weren’t covered in our earlier critique.

“Costs and Benefits?”

The authors begin by describing their academic discipline: “Invasion science is the study of the causes and consequences of the introduction of organisms to the areas outside their native ranges. It concerns all aspects relating to the transport, establishment, and spread of organisms in a new target region…and the costs and benefits of invasion with reference to human value systems.” However, the publication makes no mention of any benefits of non-native species nor does it mention the costs to the environment associated with the attempts to eradicate non-native species, such as herbicide use. Non-native species are said to be “far more likely to cause substantial ecological and socio-ecological damage” than to benefit ecosystems and, in any case, if there are any benefits they are said to be “transient.”

Zebra mussels, open underwater with siphons out. Creative Commons

Actually, there is empirical evidence that the negative impacts of non-native species are transient. For example, the population of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes began to decrease significantly within three years when the population of migrating ducks discovered them and altered their migratory route to take advantage of that new food source. And the negative effects of garlic mustard on forest regeneration were significantly decreased within 50 years of its arrival in North American forests.

Monarch butterflies roosting in eucalyptus tree.

Evidence of the benefits of non-native species is too voluminous to enumerate, so we will just offer our local example of the services to wildlife provided by eucalyptus in California. It is one of the few sources of nectar in the winter and is therefore essential to the survival of honeybees and hummingbirds. Eucalyptus is the over-wintering roost of 75% of monarch butterflies in the California migration. It is the preferred nesting habitat for raptors.

We see no evidence in this publication that “costs and benefits” of non-native species have been considered.

Are most “invasions” benign?

The authors respond to the defenders of non-native species who say that most non-native species are benign:

“The impacts of most invasions have not been studied, and so important effects may remain undetected,
Invaders that are apparently innocuous in one region can be disruptive in other regions,
Subtle impacts that may be unrecognizable without careful technical study can produce enormous ecosystem changes over time, and
Many non-native species that currently appear innocuous may become damaging many years later—when it is no longer feasible to eradicate them.” (1)

Here’s how we paraphrase this defense: “We may not have much evidence that non-native species are doing any harm, but we are sure they are doing harm and even if they aren’t doing any harm, we’re sure they will eventually do a great deal of harm.” Does this seem an adequate defense of projects that are eradicating all non-native plants on thousands of acres of public land, using harmful methods such as herbicides and prescribed burns? We think a higher standard of proof is needed to justify such damage to our public lands.

Invasion biologists chastise critics

Invasion biologists are angry that their academic turf is being challenged by other academic scientists:

“In our view, the escalation of cavalier bashing of the discipline is undermining systematic science-based efforts to improve the efficiency of management of problematic non-native species and invaded ecosystems.” (1)

We have seen no “cavalier bashing” of invasion biology. What we have seen, and provided to readers of Million Trees, are many scientific studies which show that the hypotheses of invasion biology are often not supported by evidence from the field. Most of the papers don’t even mention “invasion biology,” they just present their evidence in scientific journals.

We wish it were true that these studies were “undermining management” of non-native species. Unfortunately, we see no evidence that criticisms of invasion biology by academic scientists have any impact on public policy. Every project in the San Francisco Bay Area which is eradicating or proposing to eradicate all non-native species on our public lands is moving inexorably forward. There is no apparent connection between the revision of the hypotheses of invasion biology by academic scientists and the practical application of those out-dated hypotheses by managers of public lands. If the primary goal of invasion biologists is to eradicate non-native species rather than to defend their academic discipline, they seem to have nothing to fear. They would be wise to shut up and let the destruction continue quietly under the public’s radar.

A new round of criticism of invasion biology

Meanwhile, the angry reaction of invasion biologists to criticism of their discipline has not stopped that criticism. Hardly a day goes by without the publication of new critiques of invasion biology by other scientists. Where do camels belong? by Ken Thompson was published in September 2014. It is a full frontal assault on the unfounded assumptions of invasion biology. It is a hard-hitting, often amusing summary of the flaws in the reasoning on which invasion biology was constructed. Although Mr. Thompson is a British academic scientist, his book is written for the general public, drawing on the scientific studies of his colleagues who share his opinion of the fallacies of invasion biology. The book is also unique in mentioning the damage that is done by the fruitless attempts to eradicate firmly entrenched non-native species.

Mr. Thompson was recently interviewed by Canadian public radio. Here is a choice excerpt from that interview:

“He also cautions that our efforts to control or eliminate invasive species can be tremendously expensive, are rarely successful, and often have damaging unintended consequences. For example, the herbicides used to try to eliminate invasive plants often have devastating impact on vulnerable native species. The cure, in some of these cases, is worse than the disease, he says. Professor Thompson says the invasive species we might worry about most is actually us. Humans have spread to every corner of the globe, and altered a huge amount of the planet. ‘We’ve chopped down forests, built dams and turned the whole world into a giant cattle pasture, and then we’re surprised that some species quite like what we’ve done. We shouldn’t be surprised.’”

The publication of Where do camels belong? is one of the few bright spots in 2014, a year full of disappointments for those who value our urban forest in the San Francisco Bay Area. We recommend it to our readers. It may cheer you up as it did us.

Update: Professor Richardson recently published (February 11, 2015) an article in Ensia, an on-line science blog, which was written in response to an earlier article(January 21, 2015) in Ensia by Daniel Simberloff. Professor Simberloff’s article defended “invasion biology” and criticized any acceptance of “novel ecosystems.” Professor Richardson’s response seems to defend “novel ecosystems.” It seems that Professor Richardson has altered his views regarding novel ecosystems since writing his article two years ago about “Misleading criticism of invasion science.” Welcome to reality, Professor Richardson. Updated 4/8/15

David Richardson and Anthony Ricciardi, “Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide,” Diversity and Distribution, 19: 1461-1467, 2013

What is the goal of ecological “restorations?”

In the not-so-distant past, the goal of ecological “restoration” was usually described as the re-creation of an historical landscape that was believed to have been undamaged by humans, presumed to be “in balance” and therefore sustainable after “restoration” without further human management. In North America, the pre-European landscape is usually selected as the ideal landscape to be replicated, based on the assumption it had not been radically altered by Native Americans. New knowledge has overturned this model:

Native Americans setting grass fire, painting by Frederic Remington, 1908

Archaeologists now inform us that human societies have radically altered the environment for thousands of years. The pre-European landscape of North America can no longer be considered a “pristine” landscape. In fact, nowhere on Earth has escaped anthropogenic change.
Decades of attempted “restorations” inform us that a continuous gardening effort is required to maintain them.
Climate change has altered the native ranges of plants and animals and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Unless drastic measures are taken to alter the course of climate change, the concept of “native” will become progressively more meaningless.
Science has rejected the concept of “balance” in nature. Nature is now considered dynamic, constantly changing, often in random, unpredictable ways in response to major ecological events such as earthquakes, wildfires, tsunamis, floods, etc.

Oddly, many invasion biologists accept these new understandings of ecological science without changing their deep commitment to eradicating all non-native plants and animals. Daniel Simberloff published an article about the current status of the concept of “balance of nature” simultaneously with the publication of his defense of invasion biology. He described the current thinking about this concept: “…a widespread rejection of the idea of balance of nature by academic ecologists, who focus rather on a dynamic, often chaotic nature buffeted by constant disturbances.”

Invasion biologists have therefore revised their goal for ecological “restorations” to accommodate their new understanding of the dynamic nature of ecosystems.

The revised goal of ecological “restorations”

If the return to an equilibrium state is no longer the goal of ecological “restorations,” what is the new goal? This is how invasion biologists writing in defense of their discipline described their goal: “…we should seek to reestablish – or emulate, insofar as possible – the historical trajectory of ecosystems, before they were deflected by human activity, and to allow the restored system to continue responding to various environmental changes…” (1)

In this post we will deconstruct this new definition of the goal of ecological “restorations.” Our first problem with this new definition is that we don’t know the “historical trajectory” of a landscape because it is fundamentally unknowable. We would have to reconstruct all the events and changes in the environment in the Bay Area in the past 250 years in the imagined absence of any Europeans. Even if we knew what would have happened without our presence, we cannot then ensure the continuation of that imagined environment because, the fact is, WE ARE HERE AND WE AREN’T GOING AWAY!

Because we cannot reconstruct an imagined environment that has not been “deflected by human activity,” restorationists—who are the practitioners of invasion biology–focus on the one element in the environment of which there is sufficient historical knowledge, i.e., plants. Most local restoration projects eradicate all non-native plants and trees, usually using herbicides to accomplish that task. They rarely plant anything after this eradication attempt because they don’t have the resources to do so. Those few projects that re-plant after non-natives are eradicated usually irrigate the new landscape for several years. Here is an incomplete list of everything these projects do not do to replicate an historical landscape:

Soils are not restored for many reasons:
- We have no way of knowing the composition of soil 250 years ago.
- Soils have been altered by the plants that have been growing in them and by the herbicides used to kill those plants.
- Urban soils have high nitrogen levels resulting from exposure to fossil fuel exhaust.
The atmosphere is not restored:
- There are much higher levels of ozone and carbon dioxide than there were 250 years ago.
The climate is not restored:
- The temperature is higher than it was 250 years ago.
- The timing of seasons has therefore changed.
- Precipitation and fog have changed in known and unknown ways.
The disturbance events that sustained historical landscapes or set them on another evolutionary course are not restored:
- We cannot set fire to urban landscapes annually without polluting our air and endangering our lives.
- We cannot allow our creeks and rivers to overflow in urban areas without damaging our properties.
Most occupants of the historical landscape are not reintroduced:
- The grazing animals that helped to sustain grassland are gone and cannot be returned to urban landscapes.
- The top predators such as bears and wolves that kept grazing and other animals in balance with available resources cannot be returned without threatening our safety in an urban setting.
- Many insects that lived in these historical landscapes are unknown to us and some are extinct.

Bears roamed the grasslands in the Bay Area, preventing over-population of grazing animals. The El Cerrito Plaza with the Albany Hill in the background, centuries ago. Oil painting by Laura Cunningham, with permission

In other words, destroying plants will not “restore” an historical landscape. Nor will it return that landscape to its “historical trajectory” even if that trajectory were known or knowable. Plants live in complex communities in which they are interacting with everything in the environment. Local “restoration” projects do not “restore” an historical landscape because they do not and cannot change anything other than the plants that occupy the space. Because most environmental variables have not been altered by these projects, the landscape will quickly return to its unrestored state unless it is intensively gardened. In that case, the landscape will be continuously “deflected by human activity,” which violates the original goal of invasion biologists.

Misanthropic premise of invasion biology

The revised goal of invasion biology is unattainable because the absence of humans is a prerequisite for its attainment. We cannot know and we cannot replicate a theoretical historical trajectory for ecosystems in which humans were not present. And when we modify ecosystems in an attempt to do so, human activities will determine their future trajectory. The premise of invasion biology is that success of ecological “restorations” depends upon the absence of humans. Therefore, invasion biology has no practical application in the real world.

Carolina Murcia, James Aronson, Gustavo Kattan, David Moreno-Mateos, Kingsley Dixon, Daniel Simberloff, “A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’ concept,”Trends in Ecology and Evolution, October 2014, Vol. 29, No. 10

Where does it belong?

The advent of molecular genetic analysis about 50 years ago is making it possible to determine the relationships between species of plants and animals. As this analytic method becomes more sophisticated and more accessible, we are slowly learning more about how plants and animals have been dispersed around the earth, often great distances, sometimes crossing oceans. Here is an illustration of some of the long-distance dispersal of species across oceans which have been identified (1):

Look closely at the dispersal labeled “b.” This line describes the travels of a genus of plant (Lepidium) in the mustard family (Brassicaceae) which arrived in Australia from California and Africa in two separate dispersal incidents: “This [molecular] pattern is likely explained by two trans-oceanic dispersals of Lepidium from California and Africa to Australia/New Zealand…” (2)

Lepidium flavum found alongside the road in Tecopa, California. Creative Commons - Stan Shepp — Lepidium flavum found alongside the road in Tecopa, California. Creative Commons – Stan Shepp

Calibration of the molecular trees indicates the arrival of this plant in Australia/New Zealand in the Pleistocene geologic era, between .3 and 1.3 million years ago. The authors of this study speculate that mucilaginous (sticky surface) seeds were carried by birds: “…sea bird migration pathways between coastal California and Australia/New Zealand and South Africa and Australia/New Zealand are fully compatible with the proposed colonization scenario.” (2)

Flowers and seed capsules of Blue Gum eucalyptus

We know that eucalyptus seeds were brought to California in the mid-19^th Century by humans who came by boat. But can we imagine a scenario in which the seeds could have been carried in their protective seed capsules on ocean currents? And is the fact that the seeds were carried in a ship across the ocean really so very different from them being carried on the currents?

Few of these long-distance dispersals have been identified so far, but many more are likely to be identified in the future as this analytic method becomes more widely available.

Next time you hear a nativist say, “It doesn’t belong here” when explaining why a plant or animal must be killed, please think about this example of the natural dispersal of plants and animals across the oceans to new homes. Who is to say that it doesn’t belong here?

Alan de Queiroz, “The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 No. 2, February 2005
Klaus Mummenhoff, et. al., “Molecular evidence for bicontinental hybridogenous genomic constitution in Lepidium sensu strict (Brassicaceae) species from Australia and New Zealand,” American Journal of Botany, February 2004