Category: Ecology

Evolution didn’t stop in 1492

One of the most appealing of the many arguments used by native plant advocates in support of their ideology is the evolutionary concept of “co-evolution.”  Co-evolution is defined by Forgotten Pollinators(1) as “The idea in evolutionary ecology that certain mutualistic organisms have directed or redirected each other’s evolutionary trajectory.”  The implication of this theory is that plants and animals that have evolved together are interdependent and that loss of a particular plant will result in the loss of the animals with which it evolved.  Native plant advocates sometimes describe these relationships as “a lock and key,” implying that native plants and animals fit together in a mutually beneficial relationship which is exclusive. 

Those who believe this theory are obviously deeply committed to saving all native plants because they believe the loss of any single plant would inevitably lead to the loss of the animals that are dependent upon it.  Likewise, non-native animals are often exterminated based on the assumption that they compete with native animals and that loss of native animals will lead to the loss of native plants.

There are three problems with this theory. First, while there are some examples of truly exclusive co-evolved relationships in which both species cannot survive without the presence of the other, the number of such relationships is quite small.  Second, even these relationships are not immutable because evolution has not stopped, and therefore other species may develop mutualistic relationships with the prior exclusively mutualistic species.  And third, organisms are opportunistic and are quick to take advantage of any new opportunities, meaning that many interactions observed between species in the wild are not co-evolved at all.  For example, the honeybee pollinates hundreds of species of North American plants and it didn’t evolve with any of them (since honeybees were introduced into North America from Europe, which had introduced them from Africa).

Why is “co-evolution” rare in nature?

When defining “co-evolution” Forgotten Pollinators adds this caveat, “Good examples of truly reciprocal coevolution are difficult to find.”  Although the concept of “co-evolution” has a certain logical appeal, the explanation for why it is rare in nature is even more logical:  it is a risky survival strategy in a world that is constantly changing.  If, for example, the specific plant upon which a specific animal depends doesn’t bloom or doesn’t return from its dormant phase because of a sudden, even temporary, change in the climate, the animal that is dependent upon that plant is out of luck.  Since such fluctuations of environmental conditions are common, natural selection does not favor the animal that is restricted to a single plant for which there is no substitute.  Such exclusive relationships therefore do not persist in nature.

Nature provides “back-ups” that will enable plants and animals to respond to fluctuating environmental conditions.  For example, few plants have a single pollinator.  Most have several, usually of several different types.  One bee may be a particularly effective pollinator of a particular plant, but that plant is probably also visited by a fly, a butterfly, a bird, a beetle, etc.  As humans do, plants and animals don’t just give up when conditions change.  We all look for and usually find other alternatives. 

Native bumblebee gathering nectar and/or pollen from non-native cotoneaster. Albany Bulb, Albany, California

“Evolution right under our nose”

The Science Section of yesterday’s New York Times features an article about evolution of animals in New York City.   In the most densely populated city in the country, founded nearly 400 years ago, 74% of the native plant species that existed when the city was founded in 1624, still exist there.(2)  San Francisco has an even lower rate of extirpation of its native plants since it was founded in 1850.  Ninety-seven percent of the 714 plant species known to exist in San Francisco in 1850 are still found in San Francisco. 

Midtown Manhattan as seen from the Empire State Building. Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike

The fascinating article in the New York Times reports that the ability of animals to evolve in response to changing environmental conditions has enabled their survival in the urban environment. 

The white-footed mouse is an example of a native animal that is thriving in New York City.  The urban environment creates isolated urban islands, such as parks.  Scientists find that virtually every park in New York City has a population of genetically unique white-footed mice.  In fact, “The amount of [genetic] differences you see among populations of mice in the same borough is similar to what you’d see across the whole southeastern United States,” according to the scientist studying this mouse in New York City.

It’s difficult to imagine a more altered, artificial environment than the road medians on Broadway on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, which are composed of landfill used to cover the subway tunnel.  However, scientists have found 13 species of ants living in some of these medians.  Nine of the thirteen species are native. 

Nature is opportunistic and resilient.  It isn’t necessary to eradicate non-native plants and animals to ensure the survival of native plants and animals.  What greater laboratory to illustrate the resilience of nature than New York City? 

(1) Buchmann and Nabhan, The Forgotten Pollinators, Island Press, 1996

(2) Duncan et al, “Plant traits and extinction in urban areas:  a meta-analysis of 11 cities,” Global Ecology and Biogeography, July 2011

The Sierra Club redefines “recreation”

In the current edition of the newsletter of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, the Club explains why it doesn’t like the revised Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) of San Francisco’s General Plan.  The Club has a long list of complaints about the new ROSE, but the one that caught our eye was this particular criticism:

“The draft ROSE talks about the benefits of open space for physical fitness through exercise and recreation, but these one can do on city streets and in gyms.”

–          The Yodeler, June 29, 2011

In the same article, the Sierra Club redefines “recreation” as follows:

“…the draft [ROSE] neglects the values of respite, quiet contemplation, and undisturbed wildlife viewing… The document does not talk about the one thing that only parks can provide, the experience of nature.”  Ibid.

In other words, in the opinion of the Sierra Club, public parks are for the benefit of plants and animals.  The public is welcome to look at the plants and animals, so long as they do not disturb them in doing so.  However, if the public seeks more active forms of recreation, such as playing ball, hiking, or riding a bike, the Club invites them to take to the streets or join a gym.

Having debated park issues with the leadership of the Sierra Club many times and observing their advocacy closely, we are well aware of their rather narrow view of the purpose of parks.  However, we think it is unlikely that most Sierra Club members realize that their organization is actively trying to prevent all traditional forms of recreation in their parks.  We therefore shine a bright light on the role that the Sierra Club plays in turning urban parks into native plant museums.  In “Fortress Conservation:  The loss of recreational access” we described three specific examples of parks in the San Francisco Bay Area in which recreational access has been restricted as the result of advocacy and lawsuits by the Sierra Club and other organizations which share their view.

“Active” vs “Passive” Recreation

We were originally introduced to the Sierra Club’s objectives for our urban parks in the Bay Area with the terms, “active” and “passive” recreation.  The Sierra Club advocates for “passive” recreation, which it defined in its article about the ROSE as “respite, quiet contemplation, and undisturbed wildlife viewing.”

The Berkeley Meadow

We visited a park today which is an example of what the Sierra Club has in mind.  The 72-acre Berkeley Meadow at the foot of University Ave in Berkeley is one of many parks in the Bay Area that reflects the wishes of the Sierra Club.  The Berkeley Meadow is part of the Eastshore State Park that is owned by the State of California, but operated by East Bay Regional Park District.  The Berkeley Meadow was at one time part of the San Francisco Bay, until it was created with landfill and used as a city dump until the 1960s.  The East Bay Regional Park District “restored” the meadow over a period of 5 years at a cost of $6 million.  It is now a huge fenced pen with a fenced trail running diagonally through it.  Bicycles and dogs on leash are both prohibited from using this fenced path.  One wonders what harm could come to the plants and animals that reside on the other side of the fence.  The meadow is predominantly non-native annual grassland, with willows in wetter portions of the meadow and some coyote bush scrub in the grassland.  (see video cartoon about the Berkeley Meadow:  “Grandpa takes the kids to the plant zoo.”)

The Berkeley Meadow

Cesar Chavez Park due west of the Berkeley Meadow provides a multiuse contrast.  Cesar Chavez Park is a Berkeley city park, NOT a park owned by East Bay Regional Park District.  This 90-acre park provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities, including a popular kite-flying area, an off-leash dog park, a restricted “natural area” (predominantly non-native plants), and a fenced area in which burrowing owls nest half of the year.  The unfenced paths are used by bicycles, joggers, people walking, some with dogs on leash.  Cesar Chavez is a successful park, enjoyed by a wide variety of visitors every day.  The Sierra Club made every effort to prevent this multi-use park from accommodating all forms of “active” recreation.

Multiuse recreation at Cesar Chavez Park: a panda flying a kite

Environmentalism has been hijacked by extremists

Let us be perfectly clear about our opinion of “active” vs “passive” recreation.  We do not object to parks such as the Berkeley Meadow in which human access is severely restricted.  What we object to is that the Sierra Club wishes to turn all parks in the Bay Area into native plant and animal reserves in which humans are not welcome, except as passive observers.  This is an example of the extremism that has earned environmentalists the reputation of being unreasonable.

In 2004, the authors of the controversial paper entitled, “Death of Environmentalism” reported that “The number of Americans who agreed that, ‘Most of the people actively involved in environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people,’ leapt from 32 percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 2000.”  Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist of the Nature Conservancy, in his recent talk in San Francisco sponsored by the Long Now Foundation (a summary of this talk is available on the Save Sutro website), reported that over half of those surveyed in 2011 now agree that “environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people.”  This loss of support for environmentalism is a great tragedy, for there is much legitimate work to be done by environmental organizations which are now distracted by tangential issues such as creating native plant museums in our urban parks.

–

Contradictory Mission of the National Park Service

As we have reported on Million Trees, the National Park Service (NPS) is eradicating most non-native trees on its properties in the Bay Area.  (see “Our Mission”)  We were therefore taken aback when we stumbled on a news report in the Martinez News-Gazette about the NPS destroying 20 redwoods at the John Muir National Historic Site, which is an NPS property.  It seems these redwoods are the victim of the confused, sometimes contradictory mission of the NPS.

Update:  The links in this article are no longer functional.  We therefore provide a new link that corroborates the statements we have made in this article:  “John Muir National Historic Site:  Strentzel-Muir Gravesite Plan”

Redwoods are, of course, one of California’s most revered native trees.   However, in this particular location, the NPS chooses to destroy them because they were not planted by Muir’s family.  Therefore, the NPS does not consider them “historically accurate.”  NPS says their mission requires that they cut them down.

Ironically, it is the NPS that planted those particular redwoods only 20 years ago.  They planted them after destroying the non-native eucalyptus trees that were in fact historically accurate because they were planted during Muir’s lifetime.  The eucalyptus trees were presumably destroyed because they aren’t native to California.  The redwood trees were planted in their place because NPS says their policies require them to replace every tree they destroy.

Are you confused by this story?  So are we.  We think NPS must be confused as well.  They seem to have several contradictory policies.  Their obsession with native vegetation required them to destroy eucalyptus trees 20 years ago.  Their policy requiring them to replace every tree they destroy obligated them to plant native redwoods.  Twenty years later their policy requiring them to adhere to the historical record has obligated them to cut the redwoods down.  Presumably, that same policy will require them to replant eucalyptus trees.  Where will they go from there?  One wonders.

John Muir National Historical Site, NPS photo

A little historical perspective

The NPS website for the John Muir National Historic Site describes John Muir as the “Father of the National Park Service.”  They also credit him with the creation of the Sierra Club and as the person who convinced President Teddy Roosevelt to create many of our most famous national parks:  Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Sequoia, and Mt. Rainier.  Is the destruction of two generations of mature trees any way for the NPS to honor its father?

The John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez is the home that was built by Muir’s wife’s parents in 1882.  Muir and his wife moved into the home in 1890 after his wife’s father died.  Muir lived in the home for the last 24 years of his life.

Muir’s daughter reported that her father bought about a dozen different varieties of eucalyptus from a neighbor and she helped to plant them on the property.  The property was planted with many non-native plants and trees, including palms that now tower over the property.  Clearly, the Muir family didn’t share the NPS obsession with native plants.  Nor did he think too highly of those who destroy trees:

“Any fool can destroy trees.  They cannot run away; and if they could, they would still be destroyed, chased and hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of their bark hides, branching horns, or magnificent bole backbones.”

–John Muir, Our National Parks, pg 364

As public policy and horticultural fads lurch from one extreme to another, the trees are the losers in man’s conceit.   And those who love trees stand helplessly by, watching the destruction, powerless to prevent it, although we pay for it with our taxes.

The aesthetics of native plant restorations in the San Francisco Bay Area

The goal of native plant restorations in the San Francisco Bay Area is to replicate the landscape prior to the arrival of Europeans.  This strategy is based on the assumption that the landscape was not radically altered by  Native Americans that lived in the Bay Area for approximately 13,000 years before Europeans arrived.

Though there were a few early explorers sailing along the coast of California, none were known to have entered the bay or set foot on the San Francisco peninsula until Don Gaspar Portolá in 1769.  Portolá, a captain in the Spanish army, was appointed governor of Alta and Baja California and assigned the task of establishing colonies here.

When Portolá set out on that mission in 1769, his destination was Monterey, which had been described in “glowing terms” by an explorer 167 years earlier.  Only because Portolá lost his way, did his party travel further north to stumble onto San Francisco Bay.  When Portolá realized he had gone too far north, he sent his men ahead.  They walked along Ocean Beach until they reached the Golden Gate, where they could see from the headland cliffs the entire panorama of San Francisco Bay in November 1769. (1)

This was not the destination Portolá was looking for.  They quickly turned around and left.  San Francisco was not occupied by Europeans until 1776 when the presidio (Spanish for “fort”) and mission were established.  Ironically, the same year that America declared its independence from Britain on the East Coast, the West Coast was just being occupied by the Spanish. 

The first European settlement on the East Coast was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, nearly 200 years earlier than the West Coast.  Therefore the target landscape of native plant restorations on the East Coast is nearly 200 years earlier than those on the West Coast.

These pre-settlement dates are selected by native plant advocates as the “ideal landscape” based on their assumption that the population of Native Americans was small and their impact on the landscape minimal.  However, many archaeologists have concluded that by the time of the first European settlement on the East Coast in 1607, the native population had been nearly eradicated by disease brought to them by the earliest European explorers over one hundred years earlier.  This suggests that the landscape found in 1607 was in fact not the pristine landscape it is presumed to have been because the Native American population had been significantly larger than that which early settlers found when they arrived. (2)

Although there is less evidence of such early epidemics on the West Coast, archaeologists speculate that there may have been a similar decimation of the native population by disease introduced by early explorers before European settlement of the Bay Area in 1776.

We have an interest in what Bay Area landscape looked like in 1769/1776 because this is the landscape that native plant restorations are aiming for.  The oldest surviving description of the San Francisco Bay is by a sailor into San Francisco Bay, Don José Canizares in August 1775. He described the East Bay as “broken hill country with very little woodland, bay trees and oaks here and there making up what there is.”   He described San Pablo Bay as “bordered by rough hill country without trees except for woodlands in two coves to the southwest, the rest is barren, irregular, and of melancholy aspect.” (3)

 

“Spanish establishment of San Francisco in New California” artist to von Langsdorff expedition, 1806. Bancroft Library

Other early visitors to San Francisco described the landscape they saw:

“…the sides of the hills, though but moderately elevated, seemed barren, or nearly so; and their summits were composed of naked uneven rocks.”

–          George Vancouver, 1792

“…we rode onward to the Mision [sic].  The road thither is through loose sand, and is not good for either walking or riding.  The surroundings are mostly bare, and the hills covered in places with low shrubs, afford but little of anything interesting.”

–          George Heinrich von Langsdorff, 1806

“The fogs, which the prevailing sea-winds blow over the coast, dissolve in summer over a heated and parched soil, and the country exhibits in autumn only the prospect of bare scorched tracts, alternating with poor stunted bushes, and in places with dazzling wastes of drift sand.”

–          Otto von Kotzebue, 1815

Yerba Buena (now San Francisco) in the Spring of 1837. First known print of San Francisco. Bancroft Library

 “Beyond, to the westward of the landing-place, were dreary sand-hills, with little grass to be seen, and few trees, and beyond them higher hills, steep and barren, their sides gullied by the rains.”

–          Richard Henry Dana, in Two Years Before the Mast, 1835

Bird’s eye view of San Francisco in 1868. US Library of Congress

These historical facts and observations of early visitors to the San Francisco Bay Area raise these questions in our minds:

  • Is there any historical or horticultural logic in selecting the landscape of 1769/1776 as the goal of native plant restorations?
  • Is the landscape of 1776 more aesthetically pleasing than the landscape of today?
  • Does the landscape of 1776 seem to be more “biodiverse” than the landscape of today?
  • How have conditions changed since 1776?  How do air quality, climate, and soil conditions compare to those that existed at that time? 
  • If growing conditions have changed significantly since then, can we expect the same plants to survive?

 

(1) Lewis, Oscar, San Francisco:  Mission to Metropolis Howell-North Books, Berkeley, CA, 1966

(2) Mann, Charles, 1491:  New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Vintage Books, New York, 2005

(3) Cunningham, Laura, A State of Change:  Forgotten Landscapes of California, Heydey Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

California: A State of Change

Laura Cunningham’s book, A State of Change*  is a remarkable achievement, reflecting a lifetime of observing nature, informed by formal training in paleontology and biology and finally depicting that knowledge in oil paintings of the historical ecology of California. 

Ms. Cunningham introduces her theme with the title of her book.  California is the state that changes and is always in a state of change.  She acknowledges the physical forces of geology and climate as well as the biological interactions of plants and animals as she describes the dynamic qualities of nature.  She treats the complexity of these interactions with respect, frequently declining to reach conclusions because of the speculation that would be required to do so. 

Although we will touch on just a few themes of her book which are relevant to the mission of the Million Trees blog, we encourage readers to give this book the complete read it deserves. 

Sustainability of native plant gardens

Site of the El Cerrito Plaza with the Albany Hill in the background, centuries ago. Oil painting by Laura Cunningham, with permission

Ms. Cunningham tells the charming story of her first experience with native plant restorations as a teenager in the hills of Berkeley/Richmond in the mid-1980s.  With her parents’ permission, she dug up the lawn in their backyard so that she could plant native grassland.  She started with the seeds of native grasses that she collected locally and later transplanted native bunch grasses from nearby properties slated for development.  After several years of regular weeding and new planting, her small plot resembled the grassland she had envisioned.

When she finished her education at UC Berkeley and began to work further away, her grassland slowly succeeded to shrubs and non-native plants, a process she describes as follows: 

“Visiting deer brought weed seeds in on their fur, scrub jays planted live oak seeds into the grass, and flying finches dropped the seeds of Himalayan blackberry in the yard.  The latter, a thick, tenacious vine, slowly formed great thickets over the grasses, shading them out in places.  The food web had won, although I had learned a lot in the process.  I dug up the yard again, back to bare dirt, and gave it back to my parents.” 

This personal story is consistent with other local experiences reported on the Million Trees blog:

 Fire Ecology of California

Those who continue to believe that non-native plants are more flammable than native plants should read Ms. Cunningham’s book, which describes at length the important role that fire plays in California’s ecology.  She introduces this topic with the heading, “Chaparral:  Burning Like a Torch of Fat.”  Charcoal deposits in ancient sediments prove that wildfires in California’s brushlands have occurred frequently for hundreds of thousands of years.  Some shrubs, such as chamise, contain resinous leaves that encourage burning.  Others, such as ceanothus and manzanita require the intense heat of a fire to germinate.  Others will germinate only in the ashes of a fire.  As we have said repeatedly on the Million Trees blog, eradicating non-native plants and trees will not eliminate fire from California.

Ms. Cunningham also reports on the modern debate about reducing wildfires in California.  Although we are very familiar with this debate, we have not read so clear a presentation of it as Ms. Cunningham provides. 

One “camp” in this debate believes that the suppression of wildfires in California has resulted in fuel loads that are much greater than in the past and therefore result in bigger, more damaging fires.  This camp believes that fire danger can be reduced by allowing smaller fires to burn and conducting periodic prescribed burns. 

The opposing view is that fire suppression has been largely unsuccessful and therefore fuel loads are not substantially greater than they were historically.  Wildfires are attributed to hot, wind-driven fire in which fuel load is irrelevant; that is, everything will burn in a wind-driven fire.  Although this is the historical fire regime, fires are causing more loss of lives and property in modern times only because of the development of residential communities in the wildland-urban interface.  This camp therefore sees no point in prescribed burns and proposes to reduce risk to lives and property by limiting residential developments in wildlands and creating defensible space around residences by eliminating most vegetation. 

With humility, Ms. Cunningham declines to choose a side in this debate, acknowledging there is much compelling evidence to support both views. 

The Million Trees blog prefers the theory that wildfires are caused by hot winds rather than accumulated fuel loads because our perspective is limited to the San Francisco Bay Area.  We don’t think prescribed burns are appropriate in a densely populated urban setting where both pollution and risk of wildfire are major concerns.  And, based on our local experience, the only fires that have become raging wildfires are those that were wind-driven.   We advocate for reducing fire hazards by creating defensible space and routine maintenance of flammable vegetation litter.   

Historical Ecology

San Francisco 500 years ago, looking eastward from the top of Nob Hill. Oil painting by Laura Cunningham, with permission

We are grateful to Ms. Cunningham for giving us permission to publish two of her historical paintings of California.  These paintings enable us to confirm that trees were not a conspicuous part of the landscape of the Bay Area.  The dominant landscape was grassland and shrubs.  Although there may have been more trees if the landscape had not been frequently burned by Native Americans, based on our knowledge of horticultural requirements of native trees, we believe that even in the absence of fire there would have been few trees.  The native trees will not tolerate the wind on the hills of San Francisco.  Even in places where trees are sheltered from the wind, they must have access to sufficient water to become established. 

When native plant advocates demand that non-native trees be destroyed, they frequently claim that non-native trees will be replaced by native trees (even without being planted in some cases).  We assume their claims are based either on strategy (i.e., promising “replacement” trees in order to diffuse the opposition of those who like trees) or on ignorance of California’s natural history. 

With deep respect, we acknowledge Ms. Cunningham’s impressive knowledge of California’s ecological history and the accomplishment which her book represents.  Our thanks to Ms. Cunningham for sharing her lifetime of study and observation of nature with us and rendering that knowledge so beautifully in her paintings. 

* Cunningham, Laura, A State of Change:  Forgotten Landscapes of California, Heydey Books, Berkeley, California, 2010

Cultural Lag: Public policy lags behind science regarding “invasion biology”

This is a good-news-bad-news story.  The good news is that the most successful environmental organization devoted to the preservation and conservation of wildlands, The Nature Conservancy, has announced its intention to reorder its priorities in what we hope will be a less destructive direction.  The Conservancy is a science-based environmental organization that is unique in that regard.  It employs over 600 scientists to guide and inform its projects, in contrast to many other organizations that employ more lawyers than scientists.  The scientific orientation of the Conservancy undoubtedly puts it in a position to reflect and respond to the increasingly loud voices of other scientists who are expressing concern about the costs and environmental damage that are the unintended consequences of the “restorations” which have evolved out of invasion biology.

The bad news is that public policy regarding native plant “restorations” lags far behind the developing scientific consensus regarding invasion biology, namely that original theories require revision.  This is the consequence of the cultural lag that is inevitable when science moves forward, but communication of its findings to the general public lags behind. 

The Nature Conservancy redefines its goals

In the past few months, the Chief Scientist of the Nature Conservancy, Peter Kareiva, has written several articles in the Conservancy’s publications expressing his views about the future of conservation.  In “Beyond Man vs Nature,”(1) Kareiva is quoted as saying that species preservation should not be the top priority of the Conservancy.  He admits he is “not a biodiversity guy.”  Rather, he says, “The ultimate goal [should] be better management of nature for human beings.”  He does not agree with those who claim that the earth is fragile and man must be excluded from nature in order to protect it.  He considers nature resilient.  He calls the concept of “biodiversity hot spots” sham science and he rejects the notion that conservation and development are mutually exclusive.  We wants conservation efforts to focus on the things that people need from nature such as clean water and clean air.  If and when people experience the benefits of conservation, they will support and participate in those efforts.  The Conservancy can’t save the world alone.  The active participation of the human population is required to achieve the Conservancy’s conservation goals. 

Golden Gate Park San Francisco. Most plants and trees in GG Park are not native. Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike

In “Conservation should be a walk in the park, not just in the woods,”(2) Kareiva says that the Conservancy should participate in more urban conservation projects because that’s where most people live and even more will live in the future.  He wants conservation to be more visible to people and he wants people to benefit directly from the projects.

In his most recent publication, “Invasive Species:  Guilty until proven innocent?” Kareiva acknowledges the debate about invasive species.  On the one hand, a few invasive species have done a great deal of harm, particularly on islands.  On the other hand, many invasive species aren’t doing any harm and some are benefitting native species, even endangered species in some cases (e.g., Southwestern Willow Flycatcher in Tamarisk).  He concludes, “Science-based conservation cannot be about knee-jerk platitudes and simple views of good and evil…the fact is we cannot control all invasive species, and in many cases, yesterday’s invaders have become plants and animals that are beloved by local people.” 

There is nothing scientifically new to us in what Kareiva has said recently.  What’s new is that he speaks as a representative of one of the most important environmental organizations in the world.  Therefore, he makes a connection between scientific theory and action.  That is new….very, very, new and very encouraging.

Public policy always lags behind science

Public policy is inherently conservative.  It usually reflects consensus and consensus occurs late in every scientific debate.  Once that consensus is finally reached, changing it is a slow process.  And so, we are not surprised by the most recent example of a local community continuing the crusade to eradicate non-native trees.  Two ordinances were recently passed in the Los Altos Hills on the San Francisco peninsula, to do just that. 

  • Citizens building or expanding buildings on their properties will be required by ordinance 10-2.802 to cut down all eucalypts within 150 feet of any roadway or structure.
  • “Town guidelines concerning restoration action” (5-8.08) “deems certain trees undesirable,” including Monterey pine and cypress, as well as eucalyptus.

We are heartened by the publication which announces these new policies.  The author objects to being dictated to regarding her tree preferences.   She also responds to the usual myths regarding the negative qualities of eucalyptus.  In response to the usual justification for its eradication, that it is not native, the author says, “Who cares?”  Indeed, who cares?  We certainly don’t care and we speculate that the vast majority of people in Los Altos Hills don’t care either.  When we speak up on behalf of our trees, we speed the process of changing public policy to reflect the considerable scientific evidence that non-native trees are not harming anything or anyone.   Indeed, their eradication is causing far more harm to the environment by releasing tons of sequestered carbon and requiring greater herbicide use.    

(1) Nature Conservancy, Spring 2011

(2) Nature Conservancy, Issue 2, 2011

Fortress Conservation: The loss of recreational access

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

The recent publication of an article about Sharp Park in Pacifica, featuring a photo of this sign has inspired us to consider the recreational access restrictions that often accompany native plant and animal conservation projects.

In this case, an 18-hole golf course in Sharp Park is at stake.  A coalition of environmental organizations (1) recently sued the City of San Francisco to close this golf course, based on their claim that the golf course violates the Endangered Species Act by harming two endangered species (Red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake).  The City of San Francisco claims that the golf course can be reconfigured to accommodate these species.  Meanwhile, conservation efforts requiring closure of recreational areas, according to this sign, are continuing.

The organizations that have sued San Francisco also claim that the closures they demand will actually improve recreational opportunities.  This claim is based on an assumption that the preferred form of “recreation” is standing on a trail or boardwalk behind a fence, looking at wildlife through binoculars.  Naturally, people who play golf see it otherwise.

We don’t claim to know the needs of these particular endangered species.  However, based on similar claims in other parks, we are skeptical.  In our experience, environmentalists—and sometimes park managers—often claim that animals are more fragile than scientific evidence or actual experience suggests.  We therefore suspect that animals are sometimes used by environmentalists and park managers to justify closing recreational areas. 

Loss of recreational access at Fort Funston, San Francisco

In a series of closures from 1997 to 2000, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) fenced visitors out of more than 28 acres of Fort Funston (about 15% of total acreage), claiming the land was “bank swallow habitat” and that the swallows needed the closures for protection of their breeding colony.  In fact, the fenced land is not bank swallow habitat.  The swallows do not nest, breed, feed, roost, or do any of the normal activities a bird does in its habitat, inside the closures.  The swallows fly over it on their way from their nests on the cliff face above the beach to Lake Merced where they feed on insects.  The GGNRA sponsored a study(2) of wildlife in the fenced areas during the breeding season of the swallows, when the swallows were present.  The study included a census of all birds observed inside the enclosure and reported not a single bank swallow.

A swallow expert, William M. Shields, SUNY Professor of Biology, said of the closures, “I do not believe that a closure of the size and type described by the park service is required or even would benefit the Bank Swallow at all.”  He said that the closure was based on “…their [GGNRA’s] misrepresentations about the needs and safety of the Bank Swallows breeding in the cliffs.”  Dr. Shields classified GGNRA’s claims of providing improved feeding habitat as, “…a major stretch and smacks of special pleading to me.”

Bank swallow burrows (circled) in cliff above beach at Fort Funston

The bank swallows nest in burrows in the cliff faces at Fort Funston, where they are out of reach of recreational visitors who seldom even notice the presence of the birds.  Furthermore, as Dr. Shields notes, “The Bank Swallow like other swallows is quite suited to live with humans and their pets.”  Another swallow expert, Barrett Garrison says in his monograph Bank Swallow, “Bank Swallows appear relatively insensitive to moderate levels of human-induced disturbance.”  Garrison lists documented land uses around Bank Swallow colonies:  hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, recreational boating, commercial agriculture, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and livestock grazing.

Bank swallow nests in……
…a sheep pasture

When the public was fenced out of large areas of Fort Funston, the bank swallow was just a phony excuse.  We try to avoid speculating about the motivation of others, but in this case the massive native plant “restoration” that followed the closure seems the likely goal of the closure. 

Loss of recreational access at Albany Bulb in the East Bay

Frenced enclosure at Albany Plateau for theoretical burrowing owls

In 2008, 8 acres of the Albany Plateau (the flat area at the east end of the Albany Bulb) was fenced at a cost of $125,700.  The stated purpose of this fenced enclosure was to create habitat for the burrowing owl, although owls had never been seen nesting there.  Three years later there are still no burrowing owls in this fenced enclosure.  In fact, there is nothing in this fenced area and nothing is happening there.  Update:  Ten years later, no owls have been seen nesting there.  November 2017

How did we lose this recreational resource?  That is a fascinating story:  “During the planning process for the Eastshore State Park…the demonstration of community need for sports fields led to the designation of the eastern side of the Albany Plateau as “active recreation” land use category.  This was problematic because of its proximity to the Albany Mudflats State Sanctuary and because State Parks is not in the practice of operating formal sports fields facilities.”(3)  Consequently, the Tom Bates Regional Sports Complex south of Golden Gate Fields was approved for development as sports fields.  Unfortunately one burrowing owl had been seen (but was not nesting) in that area two years before.  Therefore, environmentalists demanded “mitigation” for the development of a sports field in that area.  The “mitigation” was the creation of the 8-acre fenced enclosure on the Albany Plateau.  So far, burrowing owls have not elected to use the fenced area.

But why would a burrowing owl choose to nest on the Albany Plateau when it has a nesting area just a few miles down the road at the Cesar Chavez Park?  Burrowing owls can be seen nesting at Cesar Chavez Park every year from October to April.  There are post-and-rope fences that designate their nesting area, but those fences are not impenetrable as is the chain link fence on the Albany Plateau.  People (often with their dogs on leash) walk on trails within 20 feet of the owls.  The owls don’t seem disturbed by this activity and apparently prefer the busy Cesar Chavez Park to the fenced Albany Plateau.

Burrowing owl, Cesar Chavez Park, Berkeley

Are animals being used as tools to restrict recreational access?

We wish the animals could speak for themselves.  Do they require the enclosures that environmentalists demand for them?  We think the answer to that question is sometimes “NO!”  And when environmentalists make these claims repeatedly, do they lose their credibility when the evidence indicates that such restrictions are in fact not needed?  In other words, are environmentalists crying wolf?  Or do they accomplish their true goals by successfully fencing people out of our parks?  Is their goal an example of Fortress Conservation or a sincere effort to protect animals from harm?  Do park managers prefer parks without people?

(1) Wild Equity Institute, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Biological Diversity

(2) “Evaluating Wildlife Response to Coastal Dune Habitat Restoration in San Francisco, California” by Will Russell, Jennifer Shulzitski and Asha Setty, Ecological Restoration, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2009

(3) City of Albany City Council Agenda Staff Report

Facts about carbon storage in grasses do not support assumptions of native plant advocates

We have received many comments from native plant advocates regarding carbon storage.  These comments defend projects in the Bay Area to destroy non-native forests and “restore” native plants by claiming that native plants will actually sequester more carbon than the forest that they propose to destroy.  As always, we are grateful for comments that give us the opportunity to research the issues and report what we have learned about this complex and important subject.

Carbon cycling in a terrestrial plant-soil system

The storage of carbon in plants and soil occurs as plants and soil exchange carbon dioxide (CO₂) with the atmosphere as a part of natural processes, as shown in the following diagram (1):

Green Arrow:  CO₂ uptake by plants through photosynthesis

Orange Arrows:  Incorporation of Carbon into biomass and Carbon inputs into soil from death of plant parts

Yellow Arrows:  Carbon returns to the atmosphere through plant respiration and decomposition of litter and soil Carbon.  Carbon in plant tissues ultimately returns to atmosphere during combustion or eventual decomposition.

Rates of carbon uptake and emissions are influenced by many factors, but most factors are related to temperature and precipitation:

  • Higher temperatures are associated with faster plant growth, which accelerates photosynthesis and carbon uptake.
  • Higher temperatures also accelerate decomposition of plant materials, thereby accelerating the return of stored carbon into the atmosphere.
  • The effect of moisture in the soil on decomposition can be graphed as a “hump.”  In extremely dry soils, decomposition is slow because the organisms that decompose vegetation are under desiccation stress.  Conditions for decomposition improve as moisture in the soil increases until the soil is very wet when lack of oxygen in the soil impedes decomposition.

Although temperature and precipitation are important factors in carbon storage, they don’t change appreciably when one type of vegetation is replaced with another.  Therefore, these factors aren’t helpful in addressing the fundamental question we are considering in this post, which is “Does native vegetation store more carbon than the forests that presently occupy the land in question?”

Where is carbon stored?

Source: U.S. EPA, 2018

Much of the carbon stored in the forest is in the soil.  It is therefore important to our analysis to determine if carbon stored in the soil in native vegetation is greater than that stored in non-native forests.  The answer to that question is definitely NO!  The carbon stored in the soil of native vegetation in Oakland, California is a fraction (5.7 kilograms of carbon per square meter of soil) of the carbon stored in residential soil (14.4 kilograms in per square meter of soil). (9)  Residential soil is defined by this study as “residential grass, park use and grass, and clean fill.”  This study (9) reports that the amount of carbon stored in the soil in Oakland is greater after urbanization than prior to urbanization because Oakland’s “wildland cover” is associated with “low SOC [soil organic carbon] densities characteristic of native soils in the region.”

Native plant advocates have also argued that the carbon stored in the soil of perennial native grasslands is greater than non-native trees because their roots are deeper.  In fact, studies consistently inform us that most carbon is found in the top 10 centimeters of soil and almost none is found beyond a meter (100 centimeters) deep. (1, 4) In any case, we do not assume that the roots of perennial grasses are longer than the roots of a large tree.

Another argument that native plant advocates use to support their claim that native perennial grasslands store more carbon in the soil than non-native trees is that native grasses are long-lived and continue to add carbon to the soil throughout their lives.  In fact, carbon stored in the soil reaches a steady state, i.e., it is not capable of storing additional carbon once it has reached its maximum capacity. (1)

It is pointless to theorize about why grassland soils should store more carbon than forest soils.  The fact is they don’t.  In all regions of the United States forest soils store more carbon than either grassland or shrubland soils.  (9, Table 5)

We should also describe Oakland’s native vegetation before moving on:  “Vegetation before urbanization in Oakland was dominated by grass, shrub, and marshlands that occupied approximately 98% of the area.  Trees in riparian woodlands covered approximately 1.1% of Oakland’s preurbanized lands…”  (5)  In other words, native vegetation in Oakland is composed of shrub and grassland.  When non-native forests are destroyed, they will not be replaced by native trees, especially in view of the fact that replanting is not planned for any of the “restoration” projects in the East Bay.

The total amount of carbon stored within the plant or tree is proportional to its biomass, both above ground (trunk, foliage, leaf litter, etc.) and below ground (roots).  Since the grass and shrubs that are native to the Bay Area are a small fraction of the size of any tree, the carbon stored within native plants will not be as great as that stored in the trees that are being destroyed.

Whether we consider the carbon stored in soil or within the plant, the non-native forest contains more carbon than the shrub and grassland that is native to the Bay Area.

Converting forests to grassland

If we were starting with bare ground, it might be relevant to compare carbon sequestration in various types of vegetation, but we’re not.  We’re talking about specific projects which will require the destruction of millions of non-native trees.  Therefore, we must consider the loss of carbon associated with destroying those trees.  It doesn’t matter what is planted after the destruction of those trees, nothing will compensate for that loss because of how the trees will be disposed of.

The fate of the wood in trees that are destroyed determines how much carbon is released into the atmosphere.  For example, if the wood is used to build houses the loss of carbon is less than if the wood is allowed to decompose on the forest floor.  And that is exactly what all the projects we are discussing propose to do:  chip the wood from the trees and distribute it on the forest floor, also known as “mulching.”  As the wood decomposes, the carbon stored in the wood is released into the atmosphere:  “Two common tree disposal/utilization scenarios were modeled:  1) mulching and 2) landfill.  Although no mulch decomposition studies could be found, studies on decomposition of tree roots and twigs reveal that 50% of the carbon is lost within the first 3 years.  The remaining carbon is estimated to be lost within 20 years of mulching.  Belowground biomass was modeled to decompose at the same rate as mulch regardless of how the aboveground biomass was disposed” (8)

Furthermore, the process of removing trees releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, regardless of the fate of the destroyed trees:  “Even in forests harvested for long-term storage wood, more than 50% of the harvested biomass is released to the atmosphere in a short period after harvest.”  (1)

Will thinning trees result in greater carbon storage?

Native plant advocates claim that thinning the non-native forest will result in improved forest health and therefore greater carbon storage.  In fact, the more open canopy of an urban forest with less tree density results in greater growth rates.  (3)  Although more rapid growth is associated with greater rates of carbon sequestration, rates of storage have little effect on the net carbon storage over the life of the tree.  (6)  Net carbon storage over the life of the tree is determined by how long the species lives and how big the tree is at maturity.  These characteristics are inherent in the species of tree and are little influenced by forest management practices such as thinning. (6)

More importantly, even if there were some small increase in carbon storage of individual trees associated with thinning, this increase would be swamped by the fact that over 90% of the urban forest will be destroyed by the proposed projects we are evaluating in the East Bay.  The projects of UC Berkeley and the City of Oakland propose to destroy all non-native trees in the project areas.  The project of the East Bay Regional Park District proposes to destroy all non-native trees in some areas and thin in other areas from 25 to 35 feet between each tree, reducing tree density per acre by at least 90%.  No amount of “forest health” will compensate for the loss of carbon of that magnitude.   

Responding to native plant advocates

  • The vegetation that is native to the Bay Area does not store more carbon above or below the ground than the non-native forest.
  • Chipping the trees that are destroyed and distributing the chips on the ground will not prevent the release of carbon from the trees that are destroyed.
  • Thinning the trees in our public lands will not increase the capacity of the trees that remain to store carbon.

 ————————————————————————————————–

Bibliography

  1.  Anderson, J., et. al., “The Potential for Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in Minnesota, A Report to the Department of Natural Resources from the Minnesota Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Initiative, February 2008.
  2. Birdsey, Richard, “Carbon storage and accumulation in United States Forest Ecosystems,” USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-59, 1992
  3. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008,” April 15, 2010., EPA 430-R-10-006
  4. Fissore, C.,  et.al., “Limited potential for terrestrial carbon sequestration to offset fossil-fuel emissions in the upper Midwestern US,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2009, 10.1890/090059
  5. Nowak, David, “Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implication for urban forest management,” Journal of Arboriculture, 19(5): September 1993
  6. Nowak, David, “Atmospheric Carbon Reduction by Urban Trees,” Journal of Environmental Management, (1993) 37, 207-217
  7. Nowak, David. Crane, Daniel, “Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the U.S.A.,” Environmental Pollution, 116 (2002) 381-389
  8. Nowak, David, et.al., “Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Journal of Arboriculture 28(3) May 2002
  9. Pouyat, R.V. (US Forest Service)., et.al., “Carbon Storage by Urban Soils in the United States,” Journal of Environmental Quality, 35:1566-1575 (2006)

Spartina alterniflora: Treasured on the East Coast, reviled on the West Coast

Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass) is a species of marsh grass native to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, where it is considered a valuable plant making important contributions to the coastal ecology:

  •  Its dense growth provides protection against storm surge and “erosion control along shorelines, canal banks, levees, and other areas of soil-water interface.”(1)
  • It filters nutrients, sediments and toxins from the water that flows off the land before reaching the ocean, acting as a natural water treatment facility.
  • It provides cover and food for birds, mammals and marine animals that live in the coastal marsh.  Many other marsh plants occupy the same marshlands.

    Spartina alterniflora, Smooth Cordgrass. USDA photo

Where Smooth Cordgrass has died back in its native range, the dieback has been considered a serious environmental threat:

  • In 2001 the Governor of Louisiana declared a “state of emergency” when Smooth Cordgrass declined and the state obtained $3 million of federal funding to study and hopefully reverse the decline.  This study resulted in the development of a method of aerial seeding of Smooth Cordgrass to restore declining areas of marshland.(2)
  • A similar, but smaller dieback of Smooth Cordgrass in Georgia led to a collaborative research and on-going monitoring effort by 6 research institutions in Georgia.(3)
  • Similar dieback of Smooth Cordgrass has been reported as far north as the coast of Maine.  A researcher at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station is quoted in that report as saying, “In New Orleans, if their marshes were intact, the storm surge of Katrina would not have reached the levees.”(4)

The war on Smooth Cordgrass in the West Coast 

Smooth Cordgrass is not native on the Pacific Coast of the United States.  Therefore it is treated as an alien invader to be eradicated with herbicides:

  • $24 million was spent to eradicate Smooth Cordgrass in San Francisco and Willapa Bay from 2000 to 2010 (5)
  • $16.3 million is projected to be spent on eradication efforts on the entire West Coast from 2011 to 2020 (6)

In 2006, 2,000 acres were treated with herbicides to eradicate Smooth Cordgrass in the San Francisco Estuary.    Most were retreated 3 to 5 times after initial treatment.  In 2010, twenty five sites were slated for retreatment, usually with herbicides.  The San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) “defines a need for a zero tolerance threshold on invasive Spartina in the San Francisco Bay.”(7)

The ISP reports that imazapyr (Habitat) will be used in most sites, although it will sometimes be mixed with glyphosate (Roundup). (See SaveSutro for more information about imazapyr and its use in San Francisco.)  The ISP acknowledges that:

  •  “little is known about the interactive effects” of combining these herbicides or any of the surfactants used with these herbicides.
  • These herbicides will be applied using a variety of methods, including aerial spraying by helicopter.
  • Although the ISP considers imazapyr a relatively non-toxic herbicide, it also acknowledges that imazapyr has only been used since 2005.  Therefore, “Only few toxicity studies exist for birds…no data exist for the potential toxicity of imazapyr to shorebirds.”(8) Given that one of the stated purposes of eradicating Smooth Cordgrass is to benefit the endangered Clapper Rail, it seems surprising that nothing is known about the effects of imazapyr on any shorebird, including the Clapper Rail.

Why is Smooth Cordgrass treasured on the East Coast and reviled on the West Coast?  That question was asked and answered by Professor James Morris at an Environmental Law Conference in Eugene, Oregon on March 5, 2011.  Professor Morris studies Smooth Cordgrass at the Baruch Institute for Marine & Coastal Sciences at the University of South Carolina.  We urge our readers to watch a video of his presentation to the conference in Oregon.  We will draw upon that video in addressing the claims (9) made by those who are attempting to eradicate Smooth Cordgrass on the West Coast:

Indictment:  Smooth Cordgrass will invade mud flats, eliminating valuable habitat for plants and animals that inhabit that segment of marshland.

Defense:  According to Professor Morris, Smooth Cordgrass was introduced to the West Coast in shipments of Eastern oysters over 100 years ago without eliminating mudflats.  Europe has had similar experience with Smooth Cordgrass which was introduced there to reduce sediment in harbors.  Professor Morris showed pictures of Danish and Dutch estuaries in which Smooth Cordgrass has existed since the 1930s without radically altering the composition of the marshland.

Indictment:  Smooth Cordgrass will invade waterways, making them impassable.

Defense:  Again, since this has not happened in 100 years, there is no reason to assume it will happen in the future.  Furthermore, the USDA describes the narrow range of Smooth Cordgrass:  “the width and thickness of vegetative colonies are controlled by a number of site specific conditions such as elevation, shoreline slope, and frequency, depth and duration of flooding” as well as salinity and acidity.  In other words, the range of Smooth Cordgrass is limited.

Indictment:  Smooth Cordgrass does not provide habitat value equal to the native species of cordgrass with which Smooth Cordgrass competes, particularly for the endangered Clapper Rail.

Defense:  Mike Casazza at the Dixon Field Station of the USGS is presently studying the effect of eradicating Smooth Cordgrass on the reproductive success of the Clapper Rail:  “Removal of invasive Spartina accomplishes the goal of Spartina eradication, but if rails fail to survive and reproduce, then the goal of species protection is unfulfilled…the potential for impact from invasive Spartina removal and the potential for mitigation by rail ecology and behavior remain poorly understood.”(10)  Clapper Rails live in Smooth Cordgrass on the East Coast:  “numerous” Clapper Rail families were observed nesting in Smooth Cordgrass on Dewees Island, South Carolina.(11)

Indictment:  Smooth Cordgrass is outcompeting the native Pacific Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) by displacement and hybridization.

Defense:  This is probably true because of the characteristics of the Pacific Cordgrass:  “S. foliosa occupies a very limited range in the intertidal zone, and the leaves and stems wither in fall and shed in the winter, leaving sparse standing matter that is ineffective at trapping sediment.  Seedlings of S. foliosa are seldom found in established marshes and appear only intermittently in sheltered upper mudflats.”(12)  In other words, the range of the native cordgrass is narrower, it does not grow as densely, and it is not foliated year around, thereby creating opportunities for the non-native cordgrass to occupy bare ground.  Since marsh grasses are beneficial to the environment and its inhabitants, the ability of Smooth Cordgrass to occupy this vacuum seems a benefit, particularly since native cordgrass is less capable of removing sediments from water, reducing its effectiveness as a filter of pollutants from water flowing into the bay.(13)

Smooth Cordgrass is treasured on the East and Gulf Coasts because it performs valuable ecology services.  Although it performs the same ecological functions on the West Coast, it is being eradicated.  The evidence available to us suggests that we are spending a lot of money and effort, as well as using a lot of herbicides, to eradicate Smooth Cordgrass only because it is not native to the West Coast.   

  • Smooth Cordgrass provides superior storm surge protection particularly during winter months when native cordgrass is dormant.
  • Smooth Cordgrass is more capable of filtering pollutants from water flowing into the bay.
  • Smooth Cordgrass provides at least equal habitat quality to the endangered Clapper Rail and probably other marsh plants and animals as well.
  • Smooth Cordgrass has not blocked waterways or eliminated mud flats in comparable situations over long periods of time

We invite our readers to supply us with evidence that there are legitimate reasons for the campaign against Smooth Cordgrass.

(2) Dorset Hurley, “Geogia’s Marsh Die Back and Louisiana’s Marsh Browning,” Altamaha Riverkeeper

(3) Ibid.

(4) “What’s killing off our salt marshes,” Going Coastal Magazine, September 15, 2008

(5) “West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health,” May 2010, page 5

(6) Ibid., page 6

(7) “San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project, 2010 Pesticide Application Plan,” page 15.

(8) Ibid. page 31

(9) “West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health,” May 2010

(10) “Ecology of California Clapper Rail in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Region,” USGS Western Ecological Research Center

(11) Judy Drew Fairchild, “Watch for Clapper Rails and chicks,” Dewees Island, SC

(12)“West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health,” May 2010, page 12

(13) “San Francisco Estuary Invasive  Spartina Project, 2010 Pesticide Application Plan,” page 10

Basing our opinion of eucalypts on experience rather than rumors

We received a comment from a reader in Wales that prompted us to visit her website, Clegyr  Boia.  She tells a story that contains an important lesson for us:   to observe the performance of plants in our gardens and to base our evaluation of them on actual experience rather than preconceived judgments.

Eucalyptus leucoxylon ‘Rosea’ Wikimedia Commons Jean Tosti

In retelling this story, we shall call the owner of Clegyr Boia by the location of her property.  Clegyr Boia’s favorable opinion of eucalyptus trees is based on her visit to Australia in 1980.  As we did, she could see the beauty of the eucalyptus forest in Australia.

When she bought her property in Wales, she viewed it as an opportunity to develop an artistically beautiful landscape that she knew would include eucalyptus trees.  She planted eucalypts around one of her art installations because the blue color and graceful curves of their leaves enhanced her rock sculptures.  She planted other species of eucalypts in areas of the garden to shield them against the wind.

Soon after she began to plant eucalypts on her property, she was visited by friends and neighbors who were concerned about the introduction of eucalypts to their area.  They warned against the invasive properties of eucalyptus.  They claimed that nothing would grow under the eucalypts and that they would not provide food for wildlife.

Clegyr Boia’s initial response was to remove the eucalypts she had planted.  Then she had second thoughts.  She realized that her garden was full of non-native plants that were thriving and were providing valuable food for the denizens of her home, including her.  Since much of the food we eat is non-native, she decided that nativity is not a suitable criterion for banning a plant from her garden.  She decided to observe the eucalypts closely and decide based on their actual performance in her garden if they needed to be removed.

Some years later, she considers the eucalypts in her garden important contributors to its beauty.  They have demonstrated that other plants are welcome in the shelter of their canopy and that insects make good use of them.  They have also been remarkably resilient in salty, windy conditions.  When they have died back after heavy storms, they have soon resprouted.   Everything in her garden must make its own way, including the eucalypts, thereby proving their sustainability in this harsh setting. 

Native blackthorn grows next to eucalyptus. Photo courtesy Clergy Boia

We invite our readers to visit the Clegyr Boia website for the complete story, as well as a historical review of the migration of eucalypts all over the world and speculation about why they have acquired a negative reputation.

We tell this story because we admire Clegyr Boia’s commitment to her trees.  She listened to her neighbors, but she also made the commitment to her trees to watch their behavior in her garden.  She based her ultimate judgment of their suitability on their actual performance in her garden.  They have rewarded her patience with their success.