Why Large-Scale Native Plant “Restoration” Cannot Work

Posted on June 16, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance
This article discusses two approaches to native plant restoration. One creates jobs and provides healthy outdoor opportunities. The other poisons plants with synthetic chemicals. Neither actually works to restore native plants.
Reprinted from Conservation Sense and Nonsense with permission and minor changes.

********

LOOKING FOR GODOT:
FINDING ACHIEVABLE RESTORATION GOALS 

There are chemical and non-chemical approaches to native plant restoration. Neither succeeds.  Non-chemical methods are labor-intensive, which makes them prohibitively expensive.  Chemicals are cheaper and they kill non-native plants, but they don’t restore native plants because they kill them and damage the soil. Either strategy must be repeated continuously to be maintained.

This article is the 25-year story of reaching the conclusion that neither chemical nor non-chemical approaches are capable of restoring native plants on a landscape scale.  Where do we go from here?

In 2014, the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) conducted a survey of land managers to learn what methods they were using to control plants they considered “invasive.”  The Cal-IPC survey reported that herbicides are used by 94% of land managers and 62% use them frequently.  Glyphosate was the most frequently used herbicide by far. In 2014, no other eradication method was used more frequently than herbicides.

Pie chart showing land managers' use of pesticide to kill "invasive" plants. 72% used them Frequently or Always.r

Frequency of herbicide use by land managers in California to kill “invasive” plants. Source California Invasive Plant Council, 2014

 

We have learned a great deal about the dangers of herbicides since 2014. 

  • The World Health Organization has categorized the most frequently used herbicide—glyphosate—as a probable carcinogen.
  • The manufacturer of glyphosate, Monsanto-Bayer, was successfully sued by terminally ill users of glyphosate.  These product liability lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar awards for damages. The awards were reduced on appeal but ultimately upheld.  Monsanto has agreed to pay more than $10 billion to settle close to 100,000 product liability claims.
  • The US Environmental Protection Agency has finally published its Biological Evaluation (BE) of the impact of glyphosate products (all registered formulations of glyphosate products were studied) on endangered animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, invertebrates) and plants. The BE reports that 1,676 endangered species are “likely adversely affected” by glyphosate products. That is93% of the total of 1,795 endangered species evaluated by the study. Both agricultural and non-agricultural uses of glyphosate products were evaluated by the BE. Although only endangered plants and animals were evaluated by the BE, we should assume that all other plants and animals are likewise harmed by glyphosate because the botanical and physiological functions of plants and animals are the same, whether or not they are endangered. 

HOW HAVE LAND MANAGERS RESPONDED TO THE DANGERS OF HERBICIDES?

San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department has increased the use of herbicides in public parks every year since 2016.  In 2020, herbicide use increased significantly from 243 applications in 2019 to 295 applications in 2020.  SF RPD has been spraying herbicides on non-native plants for over 20 years.  They have been using hazardous herbicides on some 50 target plant species year after year. The longer they use them, the more resistance to the herbicides the plant develops.

Bar chart showing pesticide use in San Francisco's "natural areas" increased sharply from year 2016 to 2020.

Herbicides used by Natural Resource Division of San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Source San Francisco Forest Alliance based on public records of pesticide use

Chris Geiger, director of the integrated pest management program at the San Francisco Department of the Environment, told San Francisco Public Press that although the city has reduced its use of glyphosate outside parks, it won’t ban glyphosate because it hasn’t found a more efficient or safer alternative for controlling some weeds. He said, “In habitat management, there are certain plants you cannot remove from a natural area by hand.”

San Francisco’s IPM program recently published  “Pest Prevention by Design Guide” that illustrates the bind they are in with respect to promoting native plants while trying to reduce pesticide use.  On the one hand, the Guide promotes the use of native plants in landscape design plans by making the usual claim that “Native species are generally best suited to supporting local insect populations and ecosystems.”  On the other hand, the Guide recommends the use of “pest resistant” species that are not eaten by insects and grazing animals and are capable of outcompeting weeds.  Can’t have it both ways, folks!!

East Bay Regional Park District has made a commitment to phase out the use of glyphosate in developed areas such as parking lots, playgrounds and picnic areas.  However, EBRPD remains committed to using glyphosate and other herbicides to eradicate non-native plants on undeveloped park land. In 2020, no glyphosate was used in developed areas, but about 23 gallons of glyphosate were used to eradicate non-native plants on undeveloped park land. Twenty-one gallons of triclopyr were also used to eradicate non-native shrubs and to prevent non-native trees from resprouting after they were cut down. They continued the 15-year effort to eradicate spartina marsh grass with imazapyr. A few other selective herbicides were used on other eradication projects. (2)

In the San Francisco Bay Area, most land managers are still committed to using herbicides, particularly in so-called “natural areas,” regardless of the damage herbicides do to human health, wildlife, and native plants.  In fact, the City of Oakland is planning to begin using herbicides on 2,000 acres of public parks and open spaces for the first time to implement its vegetation management plan.  The vegetation management plan is both a fuels reduction program and a “resource protection” program, which is a euphemism for native plant “restoration.”

Given what we now know about the dangers of herbicides, why are public land managers still committed to using herbicides?  The City of Oakland explains in the EIR for its vegetation management plan why it is proposing the use of herbicides where they were prohibited in the past:

“It is estimated that if the City were to rely on hand removal and mechanical treatments in place of herbicide, it would cost the City up to 40 times more to treat these areas than under the VMP. The cost for herbicide treatments, not including any associated physical treatments, is approximately $250-$500 per acre. This reflects a range of potential vegetation conditions, vegetation types, and densities. The cost for hand removal and mechanical treatments is estimated at approximately $1,000-$4,000 per acre, using the same range of site-specific conditions.” (page 5-9)

In other words, herbicides are the preferred method of killing non-native plants because it is the cheapest method.  However, there is another reason why herbicides are preferred to non-chemical methods.  There isn’t a non-chemical method that is more effective than using herbicides.

LOOKING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TO HERBICIDES

As we should expect, new information about glyphosate has increased the public’s awareness of the dangers of pesticides.  California Invasive Plant Council has responded to the public’s growing awareness and concern about the herbicides to which they are exposed in our public parks and open spaces.  They recently published a comprehensive 300-page brochure entitled “Best Management Practices for Non-Chemical Weed Control.”  (1) Many highly qualified land managers participated in the preparation of this credible publication.  The Cal-IPC brochure is credible because it frankly admits that no method of eradication is without problems.  Irrigation and intensive planting are required for good results, but without continuing regular maintenance the results are only temporary.  Few land managers have the resources needed for success.

If you wonder why herbicides are the preferred method of eradicating non-native plants, reading Cal-IPC’s brochure about non-chemical methods will tell you why.  There is no non-chemical method that achieves better results than using herbicide. 

HERBICIDES ARE NOT A MAGIC BULLET

Herbicides are the most frequently used method of killing non-native plants, but using herbicides does NOT result in a native landscape.  “Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments:  a systematic review and meta-analysis,” analyzed 355 studies published from 1960 to 2009 to determine which control efforts were most effective at eradicating the target plants and which method was most successful in restoring native plants. The analysis found that “More than 55% of the studies applied herbicide for invasive plant control.” Herbicides were most effective at reducing invasive plant cover, “but this was not accompanied by a substantial increase in native species,” because, “Impacts to native species can be greatest when programs involve herbicide application.”  It’s not possible to kill non-native plants without simultaneously killing native plants and damaging the soil.

REACHING A DEAD – AND DEADLY – END

Public land managers in the San Francisco Bay Area have been trying to restore native landscapes for over 25 years.  Every project begins by eradicating non-native plants, usually with herbicides.  Our public parks have been poisoned repeatedly, but native landscapes have not replaced the plants that were killed.  Meanwhile, we have learned that herbicides are dangerous to our health and animals who live in our parks.

Oyster Bay is a park in San Leandro that was built on a former garbage dump on landfill in the San Francisco Bay.  The garbage was capped with barren soil and many acres were planted with native bunch grass, as shown in these photos.  This “restoration” method is called competitive planting. The bunch grasses did not survive and the ground was quickly colonized by weeds that were then sprayed with herbicides.

The only viable alternative to using herbicides to “restore” native plants is to change the goals for native plant restorations such that herbicides won’t be required: 

  • An exclusively native landscape cannot be achieved where native plants have never existed, such as the many parks along the bay waterfront that were built on landfill.  It is an unrealistic goal.
  • Given that no effective method of achieving this unrealistic goal has been found after 25 years and the most popular method is poisoning our environment, it is time to stop trying.
  • Smaller, achievable goals must be set.  Landscape scale projects should be abandoned and replaced with small scale projects where native plants already exist.
  • Smaller areas can be managed without using herbicides because they will be affordable to manage with labor-intensive methods that are more expensive.
  • If smaller projects are more successful, they will be less controversial.  The projects are unpopular partly because they aren’t successful.

The native plant movement in the San Francisco Bay Area has bitten off more than it can chew.  Native plant advocates need to back out of their dead end and regroup with plans that are less destructive and more realistic.  As the Economist magazine said in 2015, “you can garden in a garden, but you can’t garden nature.”

(1) California Invasive Plant Council offered free video training for non-chemical methods of killing “invasive” plants on May 4, 2021, 1-5 pm.

(2) 2020 IPM Report, East Bay Regional Park District available HERE.   

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides, Wastes Money | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The National Park Service has an Epiphany

Posted on June 7, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance

 

This article is reprinted with permission and minor edits from Conservation Sense and Nonsense.

“We were probably always wrong to think about protected places as static.” – NPS Scientist

Featured Photo from RAD Natural Resource Report.  Photo caption: “Multiple federal agencies, including the National Park Service (Bandelier National Monument), tribes, and others steward the East Jemez Mountains ecosystem of New Mexico, an ecologically transforming landscape where massive forest die-off is projected to occur more frequently in the future. Piñon pines, normally evergreen, have reddish-brown foliage in October 2002 (left). By May 2004 (right), the dead piñon pines lost all their needles, exposing gray trunks and branches. The photos were taken from the same vantage point near Los Alamos, N.M. Forest drought stress is strongly correlated with tree mortality from poor growth, bark beetle outbreaks, and high-severity fire. Credit: C. Allen, USGS” (1)

During the Trump administration federal agencies were forced to be silent about climate change.  Behind closed doors, many federal agencies were quietly preparing for the day when they would be able to begin the process of adapting to climate change.

Shortly after the 2020 presidential election, the National Park Service published a natural resources report that announced a radical departure from traditional conservation strategy that was based on an assumption that nature is static and evolution a historical event.  “Resist-Accept-Direct—A framework for the 21st century resource manager” acknowledged that the rapidly changing climate requires a new approach based on the knowledge that nature is dynamic and evolution is a current and continuous event.  Many other federal agencies participated in the preparation of the report, which implies that other federal agencies may adopt the new conservation strategy. (1)

In April 2021, the National Park Service published policy guidance for park managers based on the principles of “Resist-Accept-Direct.” The New York Times interviewed the lead author of the policy guidance, who described the new conservation strategy of the National Park Service:   “The concept of things going back to some historical fixed condition is really just no longer tenable.” 

Acadia National Park, Maine

An ecologist and the science coordinator of Acadia National Park in Maine told NY Times what this new strategy meant to him and his colleagues.  He said that as recently as 2007 protected areas like the national parks were still being thought about as static places that could be preserved forever with the right techniques. “We weren’t being trained on how to manage for change,” he said. “We were being trained on how to keep things like they were in the past.”  That means nearly everyone in his line of work was caught unprepared for the current reality. “You have a whole profession of people having to shift how we think.  We were probably always wrong to think about protected places as static.”

EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE POLICY:
FROM PRESERVATION TO RESTORATION

The federal law that established the National Park Service in 1916, defined its mission:

“…which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”   H.R. 15522, An Act to establish a National Park Service, engrossed August 5, 1916 (1)  

Preservation was the original mission of the National Park Service.  In 1963, the mission of the National Park Service was radically changed by the Leopold Report, written by A. Starker Leopold, the son of Aldo Leopold.  The Leopold Report recommended a goal for national parks of maintaining historical conditions as closely as possible to those “of primitive America.”  When the Leopold Report was adopted as official policy by the National Park Service in 1967, it committed NPS to restoring park lands to pre-settlement conditions:

“Passive protection is not enough. Active management of the natural environment, plus a sensitive application of discipline in park planning, use, and development, are requirements for today’ Simultaneously, that edition of NPS policies also described the primary management task as a seemingly simple undertaking: ‘[safeguard] forests, wildlife, and natural features against direct removal, impairment, or destruction,’ and ‘[apply] ecological management techniques to neutralize the unnatural influences of man, thus permitting the natural environment to be maintained essentially by natural agents’” (1)

In 1967, the land management goals of the National Park Service became more ambitious.  The goal of “preservation” was replaced by the goal of “restoring” historic landscapes and ecosystems.  The pre-settlement landscape of 500 years ago on the East Coast and 250 years ago on the West Coast was established as the baseline landscape that NPS was committed to re-creating.  The baseline landscape was presumed to be “pristine” although it had been actively gardened by indigenous people for thousands of years.

THE NEW LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The National Park Service calls its new land management strategy the RAD framework, an acronym that summarizes three alternative strategies:

  1. “Resist the trajectory of change, by working to maintain or restore ecosystem processes, function, structure, or composition based upon historical or acceptable current conditions.
  2. “Accept the trajectory of change, by allowing ecosystem processes, function, structure, or composition to change, without intervening to alter their trajectory.
  3. “Direct the trajectory of change, by actively shaping ecosystem processes, function, structure, or composition towards desired new conditions.” (1)

Every land management decision will choose among these alternatives based on an analysis that will begin with a climate assessment. Instead of looking to the past for guidance, the planning process will assess current conditions and project future climate conditions.  Based on that assessment, the purpose of land management plans will be adaptation to current and anticipated conditions.  Every plan will be designed for a specific place, based on specific current and anticipated conditions.  There is no one-size-fits-all plan, only a framework for devising individual plans tailored for specific parks or ecosystems within parks.

The new strategy also makes a commitment to monitor the project as plans are implemented and modify the strategy as the environment continues to change and the ecosystem responds to land management.  This is called “adaptive management” and it is essential in a rapidly changing environment. The project doesn’t end, because nature never stops changing.  It’s a process for which there is no end-stage.

It’s a challenging strategy, but one that has the potential to be less destructive than the “restoration” paradigm that always began by destroying plants and animals perceived as intruders without historical precedents.  Precisely what it will mean remains to be seen.  There will probably be pockets of resistance from those who remain committed to the “restoration” paradigm and those who are economically dependent on existing projects.  All the more reason to continue to watch what is being done and participate in whatever public process is available

AN EXAMPLE OF AN NPS PROJECT THAT SHOULD BE ABANDONED

There are undoubtedly hundreds, perhaps thousands of NPS projects that are based on the ambitious restoration goals of the 1963 Leopold Report.  Perhaps some were successful.  My personal knowledge of NPS projects is limited to those in the San Francisco Bay Area, my home.

Point Reyes National Seashore

An attempt to eradicate European beach grass in the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) is an example of an NPS “restoration” project that should be abandoned if the new RAD framework is implemented.  The PRNS project was described by NPS staff at the 2018 conference of the California Invasive Plant Council, a source and a setting that should be considered credible by the most ardent supporters of ecological “restorations.”

About 60% of sand dunes in the Point Reyes National Seashore were covered in European beach grass when the eradication effort began in 2000.  The goal of the project was to restore native dune plants and increase the population of endangered snowy plovers that nest on bare sand.  The project began by manually pulling beach grass from 30 acres of dunes at Abbott’s Lagoon.  The grass grew back within one year, presumably because the roots of the beach grass are about 10 feet long.  Manually pulling the grass from the surface does not destroy the roots.

A new method was devised that was more successful with respect to eradicating the beach grass.  The grass and its roots were plowed up by bulldozers and buried deep in the sand.  The cost of that method was prohibitively expensive at $25,000 to $30,000 per acre and the barren sand caused other problems.  The barren dunes were mobile in the wind.  Sand blew into adjacent ranches and residential areas, causing neighbors of the park to object to the project.  The sand also encroached into areas where there were native plants, burying them.  The bare sand was eventually colonized by “secondary invaders.”  Different non-native plants replaced the beach grass because they were more competitive than the desired native plants.

In 2011, the National Park Service adopted a third strategy for converting beach grass to native dune plants.  They sprayed the beach grass with a mixture of glyphosate and imazapyr.  At $2,500 to $3,000 per acre, this eradication method was significantly cheaper than the mechanical method.  However, it resulted in different problems that prevented the establishment of native dune plants.  The poisoned thatch of dead beach grass was a physical barrier to successful seed germination and establishment of a new landscape.  Where secondary invaders were capable of penetrating the dead thatch, the resulting vegetation does not resemble native dunes.

Presentation at California Invasive Plant Council conference regarding attempt to eradicate European beach grass at Point Reyes National Seashore, November 2018

The concluding slides of the presentation of NPS staff about this project were stunning.  The slides said it is a “Restoration fallacy that killing an invader will result in native vegetation.”  My 20-plus years of watching these futile efforts confirm this reality.  However, I never expected to hear that said by someone actually engaged in this effort.  The presenter mused that such projects are like Sisyphus trying to roll a boulder up hill.

Presentation at California Invasive Plant Council conference regarding attempt to eradicate European beach grass at Point Reyes National Seashore. November 2018

 

LOOKING FORWARD, NOT BACK

The realization—or perhaps acknowledgement—that the NPS strategy of re-creating historical landscapes is unrealistic was a long time coming.  Over the 50 years that the “restoration” strategy was attempted much unnecessary damage was done.  Useful, functional landscapes were destroyed.  Healthy trees were destroyed solely because they were planted by Europeans.  Animals were killed because they were perceived to be competitors of “native” animals.  Herbicides poisoned the soil, preventing regeneration or germination of new vegetation.  Established landscapes that had not needed irrigation were replaced with native plants that required irrigation.  Stabilizing vegetation was destroyed, resulting in erosion and drifting sand. 

The National Park Service has awakened to the failure of their “restoration” strategy because of the combination of failed projects that were based on mistaken assumptions and the impacts of climate change. NPS led public land managers into the dead end of attempting to re-create historical landscapes. Now NPS will lead public land managers out of that dead end into the reality of a changed environment with a rapidly changing future. Better late than never.

  1. Schuurman, G. W., C. Hawkins Hoffman, D. N. Cole, D. J. Lawrence, J. M. Morton, D. R. Magness, A. E. Cravens, S. Covington, R. O’Malley, and N. A. Fisichelli. 2020. Resist-accept-direct (RAD)—a framework for the 21st-century natural resource manager. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2020/ 2213. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2283597
  2. Planning for a Changing Climate: Climate-Smart Planning and Management in the National Park Service, NPS, April 2021.  https://toolkit.climate.gov/reports/planning-changing-climate-climate-smart-planning-and-management-national-park-service

 

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, OTHER, Wastes Money | Tagged , | Leave a comment

NRD Herbicide Use Shoots Up in 2020 in San Francisco

Posted on March 24, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance

As we have been doing for many years now, we compiled the pesticide usage data  for San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for 2020.  It’s getting worse year by year. Toxic herbicide use (i.e. herbicides classified as “More Hazardous” or “Most Hazardous”) has risen for the fifth year in a row.

(We exclude Harding Park – but not the other golf courses – from this analysis because it’s externally-managed under a PGA contract to be kept tournament-ready at all times.)

THE RISING TIDE OF PESTICIDE

San Francisco’s parks are increasingly doused in toxic herbicides. In 2020, SFRPD applied herbicides 295 times, up from 243 in 2019. It’s actually the highest number since 2013, when we started compiling these data.

Of these, 201 applications were by the NRD in “Natural Areas” (this includes PUC areas managed in the same way – i.e. use of toxic herbicides against plants they dislike). The Natural Resources Department (NRD, formerly the Natural Areas Program or NAP) is the entity that in trying to bring “native” plants to more than a thousand acres of our parks, cuts down trees and restrict access to people and their pets. This is up from 144 NRD/ PUC applications in 2019. NRD, which accounts for perhaps a fourth of the land area, used nearly one half of the pesticides measured as active ingredients in fluid ounces.

NRD – and PUC lands that they are managing the same way – have sharply increased their use of triclopyr since the new pesticide Vastlan has been designated Tier II (More Hazardous) instead of Garlon, which was Tier I (Most Hazardous). In both herbicides, the active ingredient is triclopyr. They also increased their usage of other herbicides: Glyphosate, imazapyr, Milestone.

A SIGN OF FAILURE

The NRD’s continually growing usage of the herbicides is a sign that this strategy is failing. They have been using hazardous chemicals on some 50 target species year after year. Theoretically, the point of  using toxic herbicides on unwanted species is to allow the desired species to replace them.  Instead, the growing usage of these chemicals shows that if anything, the situation is only made worse.

This stands to reason; “invasive” plants are successful because they are better adapted to current conditions. If they are destroyed with herbicides, the replacement is likely to be the next best adapted (thus, invasive) species. Given 50 target species, the bench is deep. This leads to a vicious cycle of hazardous herbicide use, clearly visible in the graph above.

OTHER SFRPD USAGE

Besides NRD, the rest of San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department also increased their usage of pesticides to the highest level since 2013. In the last couple of years, they have been using a range of herbicides all classified as Tier II. These include Axxe, Suppress, Clearcast, Lifeline and Sapphire.

 

TIER HAZARD RATINGS

San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (SFEnvironment) assigns Tier hazard ratings to the various pesticides it uses. Tier III is Least Hazardous, Tier II is More Hazardous, and Tier I is Most Hazardous.  Over the years we have been following this usage, we have seen various chemicals being moved from one Tier to another. Milestone was moved from Tier I to Tier II; Glyphosate (Roundup, Aquamaster)  from Tier II to Tier I; and triclopyr (Garlon, Garlon 4 Ultra, Turflon, Vastlan) from Tier I to Tier II (for Vastlan and Turflon). Avenger has been moved from Tier II to Tier III, which we think makes sense and makes analysis easier.

We analyze the usage of Tier I and Tier II herbicides.

MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

SF Forest Alliance has been trying to encourage SF Environment to spearhead a reduction in herbicide use. Some years ago, it appeared that pesticide usage was declining, especially after the Roundup revelations. When we wrote our Pesticides report for 2016, the other areas of SFRPD had slashed their herbicide use; the NRD accounted for 74% of pesticide usage. By 2017, hazardous herbicide use was creeping up again.

In August 2019, we attended the annual meeting of the SF Environmental Commission about certifying the so-called Reduced Risk Pesticide List. When we spoke about the risks of pesticide use, we were rebuked by a Commissioner, who said the matter should be left to the experts.

We were dismayed. Aside from questions about why bother with public hearings – or indeed an Environment Commission – if it’s all to be left to “experts”, we were concerned the comment gave permission for much more pesticide use.

It seems the 2020 data have borne out that fear

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Respect the Nest – Wildcare Thinks of Baby Animals and Birds

Posted on March 5, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance

Recently, Wildcare – a wild animal rehab organization – published a warning. It’s nesting season and they ask everyone to RESPECT the NEST. It’s republished here with permission.
Respect the Nest by Michael Schwab

With the help of nationally-acclaimed artist Michael Schwab, WildCare asks you to Respect the Nest this spring and summer! Learn more!

It’s almost springtime in the Bay Area, and even as you read this [post] email, birds, squirrels and other animals are nesting and preparing for their newborn and newly-hatched babies in your trees, shrubs and hedges.

First baby squirrels of 2021 Copyight Wildcare

WildCare has already admitted our first tiny, pink baby squirrels of the year!

Our Wildlife Hospital admits hundreds of injured and orphaned baby animals every spring and summer, many of them victims of tree-trimming and pruning accidents.

Michael Schwab created the Respect the Nest graphic to help us remind everyone to delay non-emergency tree-trimming and pruning until winter to avoid orphaning baby animals!

How can YOU Respect the Nest? Click to learn how to spot nesting activity and protect the wildlife in your yard.

Then join us for a free, informative Respect the Nest webinar presentation on Tuesday, March 9 [2021] at 6pm!

[The webinar is over. View the recording of the seminar on Youtube HERE.]

Attendees will learn:
– What animals may be using your trees and shrubs as a nursery… even as you read this!

– How to tell if there are active nests in your yard.

– What to do if you inadvertently cut down a nest or if you find an
injured animal.

– When it’s safe (and better for your trees) to prune and trim.

– How WildCare cares for baby animals orphaned by tree trimming.

Many people don’t know that timing our tree and shrub pruning is just one simple way we can minimize harm to wildlife.

Please Respect the Nest this spring and summer and help prevent baby animals from becoming orphaned.

Posted in wildlife | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Toxic Herbicide on Mt Davidson – Triclopyr on Oxalis

Posted on February 18, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance

In June 2020, we reported that SFRPD was using a new version of an old toxic pesticide: Vastlan, with the active ingredient Triclopyr. (The same as in Garlon, which was the single most toxic herbicide they used.)

Neighbor and videographer Ron Proctor took this video of a whole team of people applying this pesticide against oxalis, the popular pretty weed that Nativists love to hate. (The video is used here with permission.)

Click on the picture to go to the video

OXALIS, THE SMILING FLOWER OF SPRING

Oxalis is also known as sourgrass. Children like to eat it; it provides copious nectar for bees and butterflies; and wildlife eats the root bulbs, called bulbils. And lots of people like the sheer beauty of this early harbinger of spring.

See this ABC7 News report headlined Large flower bloom wows drivers on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County

Glorious field of yellow oxalis in Santa Cruz CA

(CLICK on the picture above to go to the report.)

Toxic herbicides? Not so popular. Especially on a steep slope like this, in wind and rain conditions, the herbicide is bound to travel downhill. Whether intentionally or not, it’s going to spread through the soil.

We have for many years been asking San Francisco to stop using toxic pesticides. Only a loud public outcry is likely to have any impact.

Honeybee in oxalis flower

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More Destruction of Sutro Forest

Posted on January 30, 2021 by SF Forest Alliance

We regret starting the year with sad news in this post from SutroForest.com. It is reprinted here with permission.

With the new revised plan for UCSF’s Parnassus Campus having been approved by the UCSF Regents – despite San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors asking for a delay so the Plan could be studied further – we expect the destruction of the forest to accelerate.

Sutro Forest Tree Destruction 2 - Medical Center Way Jan 2021 600 px

According to a UCSF report, “On Jan. 21, the Regents certified the Environmental Impact Report for Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan (CPHP), which amends UCSF’s 2014 Long Range Development Plan to adjust the space ceiling limit, projected campus population, and the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve boundary.” (You can find the new Plan here (as a PDF):
UCSF-Comprehensive-Parnassus-Heights-Plan)

Sutro Forest Tree Destruction - Bandit Intimidator Jan 2021 600px

THE SPACE CEILING

The Space Ceiling was established in 1976 in response to neighbors’ anger at the impact of UCSF’s unrestrained growth on surrounding neighborhoods. There is more about that here. It has been expanded from 3.55 million square feet – which had been exceeded several times, with existing square footage in as of 2014 in the range of 3.84 million square feet. This Plan will raise the ceiling to 5.05 million square feet.

An article in SF Weekly in October 2019 discussed this new Plan, noting that neighbors had concerns and those were not really taken into account. Anyway, the Plan is going ahead despite any objections, since UCSF is in practice only answerable to the Regents.

The SaveSutro neighbors’ group battled for over twenty years to save the forest, which UCSF has sought to destroy for an ever-changing list of reasons since around 2001. Eventually, we were outwaited. (The picture below is the forest in 2006.)

Mount Sutro Cloud Forest 2006 copyright Tony Holiday

 

Posted in Fells Trees, OTHER | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Greetings of the Season, Best Wishes for 2021

Posted on December 23, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

It’s been a difficult year in a number of ways. The pandemic still rages, and tree-cutting continues.

Nonetheless, there have been signs of hope for all of us. So here’s a candle in the dark to represent hope. Greetings for the season, everyone,  and best wishes for 2021!

Posted in OTHER | Tagged | Leave a comment

Surprise Tree Removals for McLaren Park Native Plant Garden

Posted on September 12, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department’s Natural Resources Division (NRD), in conjunction with Fran Martin’s Visitacion Valley Greenway group, have been planning to construct a native plant garden just south of the McLaren Park community garden along Visitacion Avenue. This seemed like a good idea until signs appeared on most of the trees in the area in late July 2020 notifying the public they were going to be cut down.

Some 14 trees were posted for cutting sometime after 20 August, 2020. There are two more trees in the middle of the area that are not posted, but are the same species as other trees slated for removal. Those will probably be removed as well. Numerous smaller saplings will also be removed, but not included in the count. Huge trees with trunks up to 4 feet in diameter will be destroyed. See the picture below.

The posting sign claims only 10 trees will be removed, but it looks like it will actually be 16 trees and numerous saplings.

Note the skillfully crafted language about the 20 replacement trees. At first glance you would think those trees would be planted in this same area, but the actual commitment is only that “trees” will be planted in this area. That is a minimum of 2. The other 18 trees could be planted in any other park at some time in the future. Given what they are cutting, they should be planting at least 32 trees.

Only one of the posted trees has an arborist’s tag, probably from the 2014 Visitacion Trail Project. During that project 100 trees were removed and no new trees were planted. It does not appear the posted trees have been surveyed (no tags) and all of the cutting is for “anticipated construction impact” and has nothing to do with “hazard rating” as suggested by the signs.

The posting was first noticed by a volunteer at the adjacent community garden. In response to his initial inquiry, San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) responded:

“Please know that the mature trees in the area of the Visitacion Native Plants Garden project are not being removed without thorough consideration. The project has been included in our McLaren Trail Improvement Priorities project planning since the end of 2019, and there was unanimous community support for native plant garden development at both our Visitacion Avenue trail walk in November 2019 and our virtual community meeting in May 2020.

“Fran and I have walked the area with Rec and Park’s Head Forester, and the trees marked for removal are either hazardous at present or would be so impacted by the project construction that they would become in danger of failure.

“Ending the lives of these trees was not a light decision. It was a decision made with community input and according to Rec and Park best practices.”

Some things to point out here:

  • The claim the tree cutting decision was “made with community input” is a lie. SFRPD never disclosed the tree removals to the general public. The notes for the meetings SFRPD cites show no mention that trees would need to be removed in order to create this native plant garden. There is lots of open space already and more could be created by removing the large number of dead standing trees, fallen trees and doing some limited tree trimming. Who would have thought they needed to remove basically every non-native tree in the area?
  • What sort of “construction” is required to install a garden that would turn healthy trees into dangerous ones?
  • The NRD is claiming that basically all of the non-native trees in the area are hazardous, or would soon become hazardous due to construction impacts. Somehow, the few “native” trees would have no problem surviving the construction.
  • Apparently SFRPD’s decision was indeed “light”. The only tree evaluation was a walk through by an SFRPD capital planner, an outside proponent for the tree removals and SFRPD’s head forester. No formal evaluation of the trees was made and recorded.

The garden volunteer did not give up trying to save the trees and on August 13, 2020 SFRPD announced that it would put the tree removals on hold and that “We plan to host another community meeting where more design details and the results of a 3rd party tree assessment will be shared. We will likely schedule this meeting in the coming weeks, and I’ll let you know as soon as the date is set.”

So far there has been no further news. SFRPD will probably have their go-to arborist HortScience perform the evaluations. HortScience knows “which side their bread is buttered on”, so the evaluation may not be unbiased, but it is better than nothing.

IN RELATED HISTORY – TREES CUT, NOT PLANTED

In related history, SFRPD received an Urban Greening Grant to fund the 2014 Visitacion Trail Project. This produced the sandy trail that runs along Visitacion Avenue through the future native plant garden.

One of the main purposes of this grant program was to increase tree cover in needy locations. In the grant application, RPD promised to plant twenty 15-gallon sized trees within ¼ mile of new multi-use path. (10) Coast Live Oaks, 5 Buckeyes and 5 Garrya elliptica (Coast Silk Tassel). In their grant application, they did not disclose they were going to cut down 99 trees using the grant money. The 20 trees were never planted anywhere nearby.

These impending tree removals and dubious replacement plantings is part of a larger pattern. SFRPD is removing living trees all over the City and promising 2:1 replantings.

It is clear from freedom of information requests to RPD that:

  • Plantings are not keeping pace with removals.
  • Large scale tree removals are concentrated in areas managed by the NRD like Glen Canyon, Lake Merced and McLaren Park.
  • Meanwhile replantings are concentrated in Golden Gate Park. In SFRPD’s 2019 fiscal year, 62% of trees planted went to Golden Gate Park. SFRPD’s Fiscal Year 2019 planting records also reveal that 38% of the planted “trees” are actually shrubs that will only grow to a small fraction of the biomass of the removed trees.
Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

More Damage for Sutro Forest

Posted on September 11, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

San Francisco Forest Alliance recently responded to UCSF’s Draft Environmental Impact Report consequent on changes it plans to the 2014 Long Range Development Plan. We publish that here. We also publish with permission an article from SutroForest.com, the website that has fought to protect the forest since 2009.

First our comments:
——————–

Dear UCSF,

We were dismayed to see the planned effects of the amended LRDP, particularly on Sutro Forest.

1) Hundreds of trees will be removed for this project.

2) With the removal of Aldea Student Housing from the space ceiling, the plan is to build taller buildings – up to 96 feet high – in an area where other buildings are restricted to 40 feet. The construction space that the process of building these structures will require is likely to destroy more trees.

3) Furthermore, an oblique reference to “a completely reconfigured and redesigned site” raises the possibility that this redesigned site may no longer be a forested area at all. It will certainly lose its charming woodsy character of wood-shingled low-rise buildings.

4) The revised plan will remove an area of Sutro Forest (near Parnassus and Edgewood). In “compensation” an area that is already de facto part of the forest would be technically included in the forest.

5) In addition to the impact on Sutro Forest – the entire redwood grove on Parnassus would be felled.

The cumulative effect of all these removals on San Francisco’s shrinking tree cover is dismal. At 13.7%, San Francisco has the smallest tree canopy cover of any major city. (This percentage was calculated in 2013, and is likely even lower now with the continuing destruction of trees in Sutro Forest and elsewhere in San Francisco.)

In these times of climate change, removing trees is an environmental hazard. Furthermore, the cumulative effect on Sutro Forest is to make it drier and less self-sustaining, and thus, riskier – especially as climate change hits California harder each year. It also sacrifices all the ecosystem services provided by the trees.

We ask that these projects be revised to protect the trees.

Sincerely

San Francisco Forest Alliance

——————–
And now the article:

UCSF PLANS MORE DAMAGE TO SUTRO FOREST 

The main destruction of Sutro Forest – from the so-called “Vegetation Management Plan” of 2018 – is already underway. But a recent Draft Environmental Impact Report (Read it here: UCSF-CPHP-Draft-EIR (1) ) developed because UCSF is making significant changes to its 2014 Long Range Development Plan, presages even further damage.

ALDEA  STUDENT HOUSING – MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION

The Aldea Student Housing, which is adjacent to Sutro Forest, was formerly subject to a “space ceiling” that limited construction there. Now it has been removed from the space ceiling, and UCSF plans to build dormitories up to 96 feet high in a 40-foot zone. This will involve demolishing the old buildings and putting the new ones on the same footprint – or possibly changing it all to a “completely reconfigured and redesigned site.” Either way, this is likely to destroy even more trees than the already painful Plan.

The pictures UCSF is using to mock-up the changes are already obsolete.


Almost all the trees along Clarendon Avenue and the corner of Christopher and Clarendon are gone. Trees along Christopher are likely to be felled as well. Essentially, the picture above can be visualized as bare of trees.

TAKING ANOTHER PIECE OF THE FOREST

In addition, UCSF is removing an area at the bottom of Medical Center Way from the forest, and removing the trees from the area. (This is near Edgewood – the purple triangle with the diagonal black bars.) In “compensation” it will add back to the Open Space Reserve an area that is already part of the Reserve. (The green space with the diagonal bars, lying between the Woods parking lot and the Surge parking lot.)

In fact, in UCSF’s prior maps of Mount Sutro Reserve, that area is shown as part of the Reserve. (Something like this has happened before. An acre was taken for the Regenerative Medicine Building – and the offered compensation didn’t happen.)

Here’s a UCSF map from 2013 that shows the area as a green part of the Open Space Reserve.

UCSF will also be felling more trees as it replaces storage tanks within the foot print of the forest.

Finally, as icing on the cake – a grove of redwood trees on Parnassus are to be felled.

UCSF HELPING CLIMATE CHANGE ALONG

As the world – and California – faces climate change, carbon-sequestering trees are one of the few “easy” ways to help fight this. Not cutting down mature trees that store – and sequester – the most carbon is the first step. In addition, the Vegetation Plan for removing thousands of trees has a potential for disaster, as what was one a damp self-sustaining forest for over 130 years dries out and weakens.

San Francisco has a 13.7% tree canopy cover, the lowest of any major city in the US. That number is from 2013, and is probably smaller by now, as a lot of tree-felling is under way.

Posted in Fells Trees | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trees Targeted for Destruction In Golden Gate Park

Posted on September 4, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

One would think that in these times of climate change and San Francisco’s small and shrinking tree canopy, every effort would be made to save the trees we already have. San Francisco  already has only a 13.7% tree canopy cover, less than any other major city.

It’s not happening. San Francisco resident Wendy J Oakes was dismayed to find a number of  beautiful trees marked for destruction.

The reasons? That they might potentially fail – which is true of any tree. And, they’re an “Invasive Species.” Given that they were *planted* there, it’s pretty clear they are not invading anything. San Francisco has no native trees. It was sand dunes and scrub. These “reasons” could be used to cut down any tree at all in our city. (We will try to obtain a clearer picture of this notice.)

Edited to Add: The text of the notice reads:
Posted August 6, 2020
Notice of Tree Removal
Reasonable foreseeability for failure of whole or part tree in high target area and/or Invasive Tree Species.
Trees will not be removed before September 6, 2020 unless risk conditions warrant immediate remedy.
Further Questions can be answered by Cort Eidem Project Manager
Email: cort.eidem@sfgov.org

Wendy notes that the trees are in the area of JFK Drive and Fulton, between 6th and 8th avenue – but the trees are not on JFK, Fulton, or any main walking paths. These are on small side paths that are little-used. That doesn’t sound like a high target area.

SAN FRANCISCO’S SCANTY URBAN TREE CANOPY

It’s not as though San Francisco is so heavily forested that it can afford to wantonly destroy its trees, especially the mature well-established ones. Its tree cover is only 13.7%, less than any major city.

Graph showing urban tree canopy cover in major US cities

San Francisco Has the Least Canopy Cover of any Major US City

In fact, even the city government admits that, in the Planning Department’s Urban Forest Plan.

“Small and Shrinking Tree Canopy
San Francisco has one of the smallest tree canopies of any major U.S. city.
San Francisco was naturally a non-forested environment with fewer trees than east coast or other forested environments. Today, the City’s urban tree canopy (13.7%), measured by the amount of land covered by trees when viewed from above, is one of the smallest of any large U.S. city – less than Los Angeles (21%), Chicago (17%) and New York City (24%) – and unfortunately, it’s on the decline. New plantings are not keeping pace with tree removals and mortality, while tens of thousands of potential street tree planting spaces remain empty.”

Cutting down healthy and mature trees is certainly one of the reasons that this tree canopy is shrinking instead of growing.

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

SF Rec & Parks Using a New (Old) Pesticide

Posted on June 22, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

One of our supporters reports the “Natural Resources Department” (NRD) of  the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) is using a new pesticide on Mt Davidson: Vastlan (from Dow). It’s being applied in a so-called “natural area” now named a “significant natural resource area.”

VASTLAN REPLACES GARLON 4 ULTRA…

Only, the pesticide is not really new: the active ingredient is triclopyr. This is the same as Garlon, the highly toxic pesticide that has been listed as HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND A REPLACEMENT since at least 2009.

SF Department of the Environment – SFEnvironment – groups those pesticides that the city permits to be used on city properties into three Tiers. Tier III is least hazardous; Tier II is More Hazardous; and Tier I is Most Hazardous.

In 2019, SF Environment added Vastlan to the list of pesticides permitted for use on city-owned land, with a Tier II classification  (as compared with Tier I for Garlon 4 Ultra). It’s been listed as a Lower hazard alternative to Garlon 4 Ultra. You can see the 2019 “Reduced Risk Pesticide” list here: SFEnvironment Reduced Risk Pesticide List 092419

Though it’s Tier II, the restrictions on its use are the highest, i.e. “Most limited“  and the note against it says: “Use only for targeted treatments of high profile or highly invasive exotics via dabbing or injection. May use for targeted spraying only when dabbing or injection are not feasible.” This is exactly the same as for Garlon 4 Ultra, which was Tier I (and is being phased out with a “Use up existing stock” note).

… BUT SFRPD IS USING IT MORE BROADLY

But. Based on what we’ve seen with other pesticides, NRD seems to respond to the Tier rating rather than to the Use Restrictions. Already, they’ve used Vastlan on “Poison oak and other encroaching shrubs.” This is a broader use than Garlon 4 Ultra, which they had limited to oxalis.

IS IT REALLY SAFER?

Frankly, we are also dubious about whether Vastlan is actually safer than Garlon 4 Ultra. (The company has reduced its signal word from Danger to Warning.)
Vastlan has not been in use long enough for its risks to become apparent, and it’s always in a company’s interests to understate them if possible. The saga of the FDA and Monsanto’s Roundup suggests that they may also be understating risks.

Dow’s Label for the pesticide can be read at the link:  Vastlan label Dow
It includes the warning:

WARNING
May be fatal if swallowed • Causes substantial but
temporary eye injury • Prolonged or frequently repeated skin
contact may cause allergic reactions in some individuals.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing.

 

Posted in Applies Pesticides | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

We Still Need to Say, After All These Years: Black Lives Matter

Posted on June 8, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

In 2014, we first published our statement of support. It’s with something between sadness and horror that it’s essential we publish it again. In the intervening years, things have not improved for the African-American community. Because of the racism inherent in our society, they are at risk of death while doing nothing more than living normal lives. All black people, but especially black men, face violence from the very entities that should be protecting them. As we said in 2014:

black lives matterThis website normally focuses on issues relating to the environment, and more specifically to the damage being done by “nativist” thinking that destroys trees and habitat to favor “native” plants. But this topic is too important for us to ignore.

With a growing sense of outrage and concern, we’ve watched what has happened to African American adults and children – that they cannot assume they will get the same rights and consideration that others do in this country. We’re dismayed that parents need to talk to their young children, particularly their sons, about the special submissive behaviors they must adopt to avoid getting killed.

The San Francisco Forest Alliance cannot be silent on this. We stand with many other environmental organizations in our support of the movement for change.

We stand against prejudice and embedded bias, and stand with communities of color in their struggle.

Black Lives Matter.

Posted in OTHER | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Pesticide Use Up in San Francisco Parks, Natural Areas – 2019

Posted on May 18, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

In 2019, SFRPD applied herbicides 243 times, the most since 2013. Of these, 144 applications were in “Natural Areas” (this includes PUC areas managed in the same way – i.e. use of toxic herbicides against plants they dislike). Though the Natural Areas comprise perhaps a quarter of the park land in San Francisco (not counting the PUC lands), they used nearly half the herbicides measured by volume of active ingredient.

As we have been doing for some ten years now, we obtained and compiled monthly pesticide use reports from San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD).  Our analysis omits Harding Park golf course, which is under contract to the PGA and must be tournament-ready at all times. We do include other golf courses, including the nearly pesticide-free Sharp Park in Pacifica. Here is our report for 2019.

NRD USES MORE PESTICIDES

The Natural Resources Department (NRD, formerly the Natural Areas Program or NAP) is the entity that in trying to bring “native” plants to more than a thousand acres of our parks, cuts down trees and restrict access to people and their pets. (For details, see this LINK.) We analyze their usage separately; they are the largest user of the most toxic (Tier I) herbicides.

The targets are a growing list of mostly non-native plants, currently more than 50 species. New to the list in 2019 are Ox tongue (Picris echioides), Velvet grass, Queen Anne’s Lace (Daucus carota), and Teasel (Dipsacus). (SF Department of the Environment – SFEnvironment – groups those pesticides that the city permits to be used on city properties into three Tiers. Tier III is least hazardous; Tier II is More Hazardous; and Tier I is Most Hazardous.)

 

 

The Tier I (Most Hazardous) chemicals used in the Natural Areas are the probable carcinogen Roundup Custom (glyphosate) and Garlon 4 Ultra (triclopyr). As indicated in the column-chart NRD Herbicide Use 2014-2019, Tier I pesticide usage fell in 2016, and has been climbing since. In 2019, both Roundup (green column) and Garlon (orange) usage rose.  In 2019, Natural areas/ NRD accounted for 98% of the Tier I herbicides used by SFRPD. Herbicides are applied in these areas both by the NRD itself, and by an outside contractor. (On Point Land Management, associated with former contractor Shelterbelt.) Unless NRD changes its objectives, it will always need herbicides – Roundup, Stalker/ Polaris, Milestone VM, Garlon 4 Ultra. If it reduces one, there’s a temptation to increase another.

Even Sharp Park in Pacifica (also managed by NRD), which had been practically exempt from herbicide use for many years, has seen pesticide use edging upward since 2017.

THE ILL-ADVISED AND TOXIC WAR ON OXALIS

The continued increase in the use of Garlon (triclopyr), the most toxic herbicide that SFEnvironment permits is disturbing. Ever since we started following herbicide use in SFRPD, it’s been declared “HIGHEST PRIORITY TO FIND ALTERNATIVE.  It’s used in their perennial, pointless, and apparently escalating war on oxalis. NRD increased its use of Garlon by about 90% from 2017 to 2018, and now by a further 14% in 2019. If NRD were to call off this futile effort, it could reduce its Garlon usage to zero.

Honeybee in oxalis flower

Oxalis is a beneficial plant: It produces copious amounts of nectar, which is food for bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. Its bulbs provide food for (native!) pocket gophers and some birds. Its brilliant yellow flowers bloom early in spring, before most other flowers. Kids like to chew on its sour stems (it’s also called sourgrass) and even adults have fond memories of this plant. Other than nativist purists, most people love it for its beauty – it’s a sign of spring in San Francisco.

NO GOOD NEWS: NRD HERBICIDE USAGE RISES AGAIN

After reducing its pesticide use in 2016, SFRPD (excluding Harding, and excluding NRD) increased its use of herbicides each year. In 2019, it more than doubled. The main cause was the use of Clearcast herbicide in and around lakes and ponds, as well as Milestone being used in its war on Cape Marigold. The main increase has been in “Other Tier II herbicides” – mainly Clearcast and Lifeline. These are glufosinate ammonium herbicides. They also used Axxe, which may not be as bad as some others; it has an OMRI listing for organic use. The only small positive is that since 2017, SFRPD other than NRD and Harding Park, has used almost no Tier I herbicides.

SFRPD also used 482 fluid ounces of Avenger (by active ingredient), which we have omitted from the chart above.  Avenger is based on lemongrass oil, or what is called a “botanical.” It’s actually considered acceptable for organic gardening. However, it’s classified as Tier II because it can cause allergic reactions in its undiluted form.

The percentage of herbicide use by NRD has fallen (from 70% in 2018 to 46% in 2019) because usage by other SFRPD departments has increased even more rapidly than usage on NRD lands.

One of the main reasons is that they used a lot of Clearcast against water-primrose (ludwigia) and other plants – including calla lilies! – in and around San Francisco’s ponds and lakes.

In 2018, SFRPD declared war on Cape Marigold, arctotheca.  Cape Marigold (also called the Plain Treasure Flower) has bright yellow flowers that look like daisies.  It’s a ground-cover plant in the aster family, has a fairly long flowering period, and is attractive to butterflies, bees, and other pollinators. SFRPD considers it “invasive” – i.e., successful in the urban environment we currently have in San Francisco. This “war” has continued into 2019, resulting in 32 applications of Milestone. This pesticide is applied in small quantities, but is extremely persistent.

What about the other golf courses? Their pesticide use is minimal. They used 18 fluid ounces of Lontrel (clopyralid).

KILLING THE WEEDS THE INSECTS NEED

At a time when environmentalists are concerned about the reduction in insect populations, we should be working to preserve our “weeds.” Unlike many garden plants, which are bred for attractive flowers and often have less value to insects, these weeds flower early and abundantly. They provide food for insects of all kinds, the foundation of the web of life. But many of the target plants are beneficial to insects:  eucalyptus, the world’s largest flowering plant;  oxalis, a foundation species in our urban ecosystem; fennel, the food plant for the anise swallowtail butterfly; wild radish; wild mustard; blackberry, which provides not only food but cover for birds and animals… the list goes on.

Anise Swallowtail butterfly lays eggs on fennel

Anise Swallowtail butterfly lays eggs on fennel (c) Janet Kessler

It’s time for SFRPD and SF Environment to move to a more environment-friendly approach: Preserve the plants that wildlife needs and stop using toxic and persistent pesticides.

We would like to see SF Environment take the leadership in moving San Francisco to a policy of No Pesticides in our Parks and Watersheds.

 

 

 

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Applies Pesticides | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Answering the Smithsonian – The Flawed Logic of Native Plant Activism

Posted on May 9, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

In its April 2020 issue, the Smithsonian Magazine published an interview with Doug Tallamy, considered one of the fathers – or at least popularizers – of nativism. They asked Art Shapiro, who represents a broader view of the ecological role of all species, to respond. Then they gave Tallamy space to rebut his responses, but they did not give Shapiro a further chance to rebut the rebuttal. The MillionTrees blog stepped up to respond. This article is re-published with permission.

 

Doug Tallamy speaks…Art Shapiro responds…Million Trees fills in the gaps

Smithsonian Magazine published an interview with Professor Doug Tallamy, the entomologist who is committed to the eradication of non-native plants and most influential with native plant advocates in the United States. The Smithsonian article gives Professor Art Shapiro an inadequate opportunity to respond to Tallamy’s assertions about the superiority of native plants. Million Trees steps up to fill in the gaps in response to Tallamy.

  • The Smithsonian article says, “As a scientist, Tallamy realized his initial obligation was to prove his insight empirically. He began with the essential first step of any scientific undertaking, by applying for research grants, the first of which took until 2005 to materialize. Then followed five years of work by relays of students.”

The first study that Tallamy conducted is not mentioned in this article because it disproved his hypothesis: “Erin [Reed] compared the amount of damage sucking and chewing insects made on the ornamental plants at six suburban properties landscaped primarily with species native to the area and six properties landscaped traditionally. After two years of measurements Erin found that only a tiny percentage of leaves were damaged on either set of properties at the end of the season….Erin’s most important result, however, was that there was no statistical difference in the amount of damage on either landscape type.” (1)

  • The Smithsonian article says, “… insects tend to be specialists, feeding on and pollinating a narrow spectrum of plant life, sometimes just a single species. ‘Ninety percent of the insects that eat plants can develop and reproduce only on the plants with which they share an evolutionary history’…:”

Anise Swallowtail butterfly in non-native fennel. Courtesy urbanwildness.org

A “specialist” insect is rarely confined to using a single plant species. Mutually exclusive relationships in nature are very rare because they are usually evolutionary dead-ends. The study in which this claim about “specialization” originated, actually concluded: “More than 90 percent of all insects sampled associate with just one or two plant families.”* There are over 600 plant families and thousands of plant species within those families. Most plant families include both native and non-native plant species. An insect that uses one or two plant families, is therefore capable of using both native and non-native plant species. For example, there are 20,000 plant members of the Asteraceae family, including native sagebrush (Artemisia) and non-native African daisy. In other words, the insect that confines its diet to one family of plants is not very specialized.

  • The Smithsonian article says, “But he [Tallamy] thinks this [transition of insects to non-native plants] is likely to take thousands of generations to have an impact on the food web. Shapiro maintains he has seen it occur within his own lifetime.”

There are many empirical studies that document the transition that insects make from native to non-native plants within generations. Professor Tallamy provides a few examples of such rapid transitions in his first book, Bringing Nature Home: wooly adelgids from Asia have had a devastating effect on native hemlock forests in the eastern United States; Japanese beetles introduced to the United States are eating the foliage of over 400 plant species (according to Professor Tallamy), some of which are native (according to the USDA invasive species website).

Soapberry bug on balloon vine. Scott Carroll, UC Davis

The soapberry bug made a transition from a native plant in the soapberry family in less than 100 generations over a period of 20 to 50 years. The soapberry bug-balloon vine story is especially instructive because it entailed very rapid morphological as well as behavioral change; the beak length was quickly (a few years) selected for the dimensions of the fruit of the new host. (2)

  • Doug Tallamy claims that Art Shapiro’s findings are “anecdotal.” They are not. Art Shapiro’s published study is based on nearly 40 years of data. (3)

Monachs in eucalyptus, Pacific Grove Museum

In a recent NY Times article about declining populations of monarch butterflies on the West Coast, an academic scientist explains how he used Professor Shapiro’s data set to study the decline: “The monarch’s decline is part of a larger trend among dozens of butterfly species in the West, including creatures with names like field crescents, large marbles and Nevada skippers, said Matt Forister, an insect ecologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, whose conclusions are based on a nearly 50-year set of data compiled by Art Shapiro, a researcher at the University of California, Davis. “The monarch is very clearly part of a larger decline of butterflies in the West.” Clearly, other academic entomologists do not consider Professor Shapiro’s data “anecdotal.”

The Burghardt/Tallamy study (4) does not contradict the findings of Professor Art Shapiro because Professor Shapiro is studying butterflies (not moths) in “natural areas” that have not been artificially created by choosing a limited number of plant species, as Tallamy’s study did. In other words, the adult and larvae stages of butterflies that Professor Shapiro studies have more options, and when they do they are as likely to choose a non-native plant as a native plant for both host plant and food plant. You might say, Professor Shapiro’s study occurs in the “real world” and the Burghardt/Tallamy study occurs in an artificially created world.

Dismissing observations as anecdotal is a well-worn rhetorical device. Creationists often claim that evolution cannot be proven because the theory is based on millions of observations, rather than empirically tested by experiments. Yet, virtually all scientists are firm believers in the validity of evolutionary principles.

  • Tallamy dismisses climate change as a factor in plant and animal extinctions, preferring to place the blame solely on the mere existence of non-native plants.

This claim is contradicted by a multitude of studies, such as a collection of studies recently reported by Yale E360 that concludes: “A growing number of studies show that warming temperatures are increasing mortality in creatures ranging from birds in the Mojave Desert, to mammals in Australia, to bumblebees in North America. Researchers warn that heat stress could become a major factor in future extinctions.”

Climate change is the environmental issue of our time. When the climate changes, the vegetation changes. When the vegetation changes, wildlife adapts or dies. Non-native plants are one of the consequences, not the cause of climate change or plant and animal extinctions.

________________________________________________________________

*Professor Shapiro has provided a caveat to this definition of specialization of insects in a private communication, published with his permission: “A couple of observations: Hardly any insects feed on entire plant families. Rather, they feed on specific lineages within those families, typically defined by secondary chemistry (which is the necessary releaser for oviposition and/or feeding behavior). The relationship was summed up symbolically by A.J.Thorsteinson half a century ago: feeding=presence of nutrients+presence of required secondary chemicals-deterrents-antifeedants-toxins. Thus the Anise Swallowtail species-group feeds on the carrot family, Apiaceae, but NOT on Apiaceae lacking the proper chemistry.But they DO feed on some Rutaceae (including Citrus) that, though unrelated, are chemically similar. That was worked out by Vincent Dethier in the 1940s and further developed by John Thompson at UC Santa Cruz. A whole slew of things require iridoid glycosides as oviposition and feeding stimulants. Most plants containing these were in the family Scrophulariaceae before DNA systematics led to its dismemberment, but one whole branch of Scrophs is chemically unsuitable. Milkweed bugs eat milkweed, but they also eat the Brassicaceous genera Erysimum and Cheiranthus, which are chemically similar to milkweeds but not to other Brassicaceae…and so on. Native vs. non-native has nothing to do with it.” (emphasis added)

  1. Tallamy, Doug, “Flipping the Paradigm: Landscapes that Welcome Wildlife,” chapter in Christopher, Thomas, The New American Landscape, Timber Press, 2011
  2. Carroll, Scott P., et. al., “Genetic architecture of adaptive differentiation in evolving host races of the soapberry bug, Jadera haematoloma,” Genetica, 112-113: 257-272, 2001
  3. SD Graves and AM Shapiro, “Exotics as host plants of the California butterfly fauna,” Biological Conservation, 110 (2003) 413-433
  4. Karin Burghardt, Doug Tallamy, et. al., “Non-native plants reduce abundance, richness, and host specialization in lepidopteran communities,” Ecosphere,November 2010
Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, OTHER | Tagged , | Leave a comment

San Francisco Cutting Down its Ancient Trees – Sutro Forest/ Clarendon

Posted on May 1, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

This article is republished from SutroForest.com, with permission.

Sutro Forest extended along Christopher to Clarendon Avenue.
The section at Christopher and Clarendon was decimated for the rebuilding of the pump station in 2009, possibly poisoned in 2013… and in 2019, it’s been clear-cut. It’s gone.

THE FOREST BEFORE

In 2009, the forest area on the corner of Christopher and Clarendon was a lush dense grove before the pumphouse was built in 2009 (as shown in the poster visualizing the pump station):

Pump Station on poster

In 2013, here’s what it looked like. At the time, there was concern that someone was poisoning some of these trees. After that, the poisoned trees and a couple of others were removed.

In 2019, the entire grove was clear-cut. There’s no grove between Clarendon and the pumphouse, just a couple of trees left.

All that is left of these beautiful 125-year-old trees are stumps.

Meanwhile, the planned trailhead from Clarendon is being built. It’s going to look *very* different from the charming visualization presented by UCSF.

 

CLARENDON LOSES ITS CENTURY-OLD TREES

Also gone – the tall trees that lined Clarendon Avenue in front of the Aldea San Miguel UCSF student housing.

I remember a time when you couldn’t even see the fence from the street. When UCSF thinned the vegetation there many years ago, they promised plantings that would conceal the chain link fence. Well, they planted some vines, but the concealment didn’t happen.

The chain-link fence is more prominent than ever.

And across the road, a swath of trees adjacent to the homes on Clarendon have been felled too, probably by SF Rec and Parks (or possibly Sutro Tower, not sure).

The destruction of Sutro Forest – and indeed, many of the ancient trees of San Francisco – continues. It’s probably not a coincidence that nearly all the trees felled are eucalyptus.

Note: This article is based (with permission) on a version published on ForestKnolls.info

Posted in "Natural" Areas Program, Fells Trees | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

San Francisco Cutting Down its Ancient Trees – Lake Merced

Posted on April 30, 2020 by SF Forest Alliance

Though San Francisco’s tree cover is inadequate by the standards of any major city, it is fortunate to have a lot of old trees – many of them over 100 years old. Unfortunately, instead of treasuring these trees – it’s cutting them down. 2019 was a bad year for our trees.

THE WONDERFUL TREES OF LAKE MERCED

The tall trees around Lake Merced not only add to its beauty, they provide valuable habitat. Cormorants and herons have been nesting there for years.

 


The trees and bushes lining the road protect the lake from the pollution and noise from the motor traffic on the road – which is likely to increase as an alternate route to bypass the Great Highway.

…ARE NOW STUMPS

But – the city has been felling these trees nevertheless. There’s been clearcutting in areas along the roads surrounding the lake.

When we took these pictures, some cormorants were flying back and forth, carrying twigs, perhaps seeking a nesting site that was no longer there. Are these remaining trees along the road also doomed?



Meanwhile, pesticides are going to be used on the stumps of the trees that have already been destroyed.

Pesticide notice on one of the trees that wasn’t felled

This was a majestic tree before it was felled. Lake Merced, San Francisco CA

The nativist sentiment that drives a lot of the antipathy toward eucalyptus is based on  number of myths. The myths about eucalyptus we’ve been trying to counter for years. See HERE for Eucalyptus Myths.

In fact, Lake Merced’s trees have been under attack for years. As far back as 2012, we took these pictures of trees felled inside the park.

SAN FRANCISCO’S SCANTY URBAN TREE CANOPY

It’s not as though San Francisco is so heavily forested that it can afford to wantonly destroy its trees, especially the mature well-established ones. Its tree cover is only 13.7%, less than any major city.

Graph showing urban tree canopy cover in major US cities

San Francisco Has the Least Canopy Cover of any Major US City

In fact, even the city government admits that, in the Planning Department’s Urban Forest Plan.

“Small and Shrinking Tree Canopy
San Francisco has one of the smallest tree canopies of any major U.S. city.
San Francisco was naturally a non-forested environment with fewer trees than east coast or other forested environments. Today, the City’s urban tree canopy (13.7%), measured by the amount of land covered by trees when viewed from above, is one of the smallest of any large U.S. city – less than Los Angeles (21%), Chicago (17%) and New York City (24%) – and unfortunately, it’s on the decline. New plantings are not keeping pace with tree removals and mortality, while tens of thousands of potential street tree planting spaces remain empty.”

Cutting down healthy and mature trees is certainly one of the reasons that this tree canopy is shrinking instead of growing.

 

Posted in Fells Trees | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

GREETINGS FOR 2020!

Posted on December 27, 2019 by SF Forest Alliance

San Francisco Forest Alliance is a 501(c)4 organization with a message of inclusive environmentalism.

From 2011, we have been fighting to

  • Eliminate toxic herbicides (including Roundup/Glyphosate) in our parks and watersheds,
  • Preserve trees from unnecessary destruction,
  • Preserve public access to parks and open spaces,
  • Insist on transparency in governmental decisions regarding these issues, and to
  • Inform the public.

In 2020, the work continues.

 

To all our supporters, past, present and future, we wish you all the best for the coming year.

 

Posted in OTHER | Leave a comment

Opposing Toxic Herbicide Use

Posted on June 21, 2019 by SF Forest Alliance

San Francisco Forest Alliance is a 501(c)4 not-for-profit organization with a mission of Inclusive Environmentalism. We oppose the use of toxic pesticides in our parks, public lands, and watersheds.

Pesticide Notice on Mt Davidson, San Francisco, CA - 2018

Pesticide Notice on Mt Davidson, San Francisco, CA

Here’s why.

  • Herbicidal chemicals are more toxic, more persistent, more mobile and more dangerous than their manufacturers disclose;
  • The aesthetic or ideological “danger” from “weeds” is not a risk to health and welfare;
  • Scientific studies associate exposure to herbicides with cancer, developmental and learning disabilities, nerve and immune system damage, liver or kidney damage, reproductive impairment, birth defects, and disruption of the endocrine system;
  • There is no safe dose of exposure to those chemicals because they persist in soil, water, and animal tissue, so even low levels of exposure could still accumulate and harm humans, animals, and the environment;
  • Especially vulnerable individuals include infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems and chemical sensitivities;
  • Toxic runoff from herbicides pollute streams and groundwater, and therefore the drinking water sources;
  • Herbicides are harmful to pets and wildlife – including threatened and endangered species, plants, and natural ecosystems;
  • Herbicides are harmful to soil microbiology and contaminate soil into the future, reducing biodiversity in sensitive areas.

People have a right not to be involuntarily exposed to herbicides in the air, water or soil that inevitably result from chemical drift and contaminated runoff.  With the many court cases against Monsanto regarding Roundup, land managers have been considering reducing the use of this herbicide at one time considered safe. This is not enough. In many cases, other herbicides are being used instead – and these may be even more harmful than the ones being replaced, albeit with less research available.

We must do better by limiting synthetic herbicide use only to those classified as “minimum risk” by EPA.

HERBICIDE-FREE PLACES


Pesticide-free park in Seattle

It’s not impossible.
• The Marin Municipal Water District has been herbicide free since 2005.
• In a 2017 pilot project, Marin successfully demonstrated that traffic medians could be maintained without glyphosate (the only synthetic herbicide previously used on medians). Marin County will continue to move forward without herbicides on all medians and roadside landscapes.
• The City of Richmond completely banned use of all herbicides by the city in 2016.
• France banned pesticides from public forests, parks and gardens since the end of 2016, and in 2019 will extend it to private gardens.

We should immediately be moving toward the goal of No Pesticides in our Parks and Watersheds.

 

Posted in Applies Pesticides | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Refuting Jake Sigg: No, 90% of Insects Do Not Eat Only Native Plants

Posted on May 4, 2019 by SF Forest Alliance

Jake Sigg, considered the doyen of San Francisco’s native plant activists, has an influential newsletter. Recently, it said: “Did you know that 90 percent of insects can only eat the native plant species with which they’ve co-evolved?” It included a link to a video from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) … which provided no evidence for the statement at all. Nor was there any data to substantiate the claim – which is false. In fact, as Professor Art Shapiro points out, insects easily adapt to using other plants than the ones  they “co-evolved” with. He notes, “… the urban-suburban California butterfly fauna is now overwhelmingly dependent on non-native plants.“

FIRST, THE NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY VIDEO

Here’s the link to the video:  Plants are the Foundation. https://www.facebook.com/YerbaBuenaCNPS/videos/459268941549309/

Not only did the video from not contain any reference to 90% of insects, it was in itself an interesting piece of sleight-of-hand. It made the fair point that plants were the foundation of the web of life.

Then, I suppose because it was from CNPS, it said: “None of us can live without them, especially native plants” and “Native plants support local wildlife”… the video shows a Western Tiger Swallowtail butterfly fluttering in. They’re native butterflies, but they don’t need native plants. In San Francisco, they breed on (non-native) London Plane Trees that are found on Market Street and other urban streets, which means their caterpillars readily eat those non-native leaves.

The video continues...”and ecosystems. The web of life depends on them For habitat“

And it illustrates this with a photograph of a great horned owl, which nests on large tall trees, usually non-native eucalyptus, as in this photograph below.

Bumblebee on oxalis flower

Bumble bee on wild radish flower

 

“for food”

Then it shows a bumblebee on a Western thistle (native)… except that bumblebees happily nectar on a vast number of non-native plants, including wild radish and the yellow oxalis that Jake Sigg loves to hate.

Then it adds a picture of a Monarch butterfly… which does indeed depend on milkweed as its nursery plant (though it nectars on non-native ivy flowers as well as eucalyptus blossoms). But it readily breeds on non-native milkweed as well as native milkweed (and contrary to some native species activists, non-native milkweed does not spread disease or reduce breeding success). More to the point, the western migration of the Monarch butterfly relies heavily on (non-native) eucalyptus trees to over-winter in. Without the eucalyptus, the western migration will probably die out.

It argues that habitat is shrinking (with a picture of a highway in LA), which is perhaps reasonable (though farming is more likely the culprit than urban sprawl). And goes on to suggest planting native plant gardens. That’s not objectionable in itself, of course, but it’s planting a mix of various kinds of plants that will benefit the most species.

So though the video certainly shows the need for plants as the basis of an ecosystem, it emphatically does not make the case for native plants.

NO, 90% OF INSECTS DO NOT DEPEND ON NATIVE PLANTS

We reprint, with permission and minor changes, a thorough refutation of the statement from Professor Art Shapiro, published on the Million Trees blog. In sum, Professor Shapiro challenges the statement, and points out that “ecological fitting” – which allows species that didn’t “co-evolve” to interact – is very common. He cites examples from all over the world.

ERADICATING NON-NATIVE PLANTS DOES NOT BENEFIT INSECTS

We briefly reactivate the Million Trees blog to publish an interesting and important debate between Jake Sigg and Professor Art Shapiro about the relationship between insects and native plants.  Their debate was initiated by this statement published in Jake Sigg’s Nature News on April 26, 2019:

“Did you know that 90 percent of insects can only eat the native plant species with which they’ve co-evolved?”

Jake Sigg has been the acknowledged leader of the native plant movement in the San Francisco Bay Area for 30 years.  He is a retired gardener for the Recreation and Parks Department in San Francisco. Art Shapiro is Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolution at UC Davis.  He has studied the butterflies of Central California for 50 years.

Jake and Art are both passionately committed to the preservation of nature, but their divergent viewpoints reflect their different experiences.  Jake’s viewpoint is based on his personal interpretation of his observations.  As a gardener, his top priority is the preservation of plants rather than the animals that need plants.  As a scientist, Art’s viewpoint is based on empirical data, in particular, his records of plant and butterfly interactions over a period of 47 years as he walked his research transects about 250 days per year. The survival of butterflies is Art’s top priority.

Although their discussion is informative, it does not resolve the questions it raises because Jake and Art “agree to disagree.”  Therefore, Million Trees will step into the vacuum their discussion creates to state definitively that it is patently false to say that “90% of insects can only eat native plants.” That statement grossly exaggerates the degree of specialization of insects and underestimates the speed of adaptation and evolution.

There are several reasons why insects do not benefit from the eradication of non-native plants:

  • Insects use both native and non-native plants.
  • Pesticides used to eradicate non-native plants are harmful to both plants and insects as well as the entire environment.
  • There is no evidence that insects are being harmed by the existence of non-native plants.

INSECTS USE BOTH NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE PLANTS

This statement was recently made in an article published by Bay Nature magazine about Jake Sigg:  “More than 90 percent of all insects sampled associate with just one or two plant families.”  (7,500 insect species were sampled by the cited study.  There are millions of insect species and their food preferences are largely unknown.)  This exaggerated description of specialization of insects seems the likely origin of the subsequent, inappropriate extrapolation to the statement that specialized insects require native plants.

Anise Swallowtail butterfly in non-native fennel. Courtesy urbanwildness.org

There are over 600 plant families and thousands of plant species within those families.  Most plant families include both native and non-native plant species.  An insect that uses one or two plant families, is therefore capable of using both native and non-native plant species.

We will use the Oxalidaceae plant family to illustrate that insects can and do use both native and non-native plants.  Oxalidaceae is a small family of about 5 genera and 600 plant species.  We choose that family as an example because Jake Sigg’s highest priority for eradication is a member of that plant family, Oxalis pes-caprae (Bermuda buttercup is the usual common name).  In a recent Nature News (April 9, 2019), Jake explained why:  “Oxalis is not just another weed; this bugger has a great impact on the present and it will determine the future of the landscapes it invades.”

Five members of the Oxalis genus in the Oxalidaceae family are California natives. An insect that uses native oxalis can probably also use the hated Bermuda buttercup oxalis because they are chemically similar. 

Honeybee on oxalis flower, another non-native plant being eradicated with herbicide

.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ERADICATING NON-NATIVE PLANTS

Partly because of Jake’s commitment to eradicating non-native oxalis, San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department has been spraying it with herbicide for 20 years.  Garlon (triclopyr) is the herbicide that is used for that purpose because it is a selective herbicide that does not kill grasses in which oxalis usually grows.  Garlon is one of the most toxic herbicides available on the market.  More is known about Round Up (glyphosate) because it is the most widely used of all herbicides.  However, according to a survey of land managers conducted by California Invasive Plant Council in 2014, Garlon is the second-most commonly used herbicide to eradicate non-native plants.

Garlon is toxic to bees, birds, and fish.  It is an endocrine-disrupter that poses reproductive and developmental risks to female applicators.  It damages the soil by killing mycorrhizal fungi that are essential to plant health by facilitating the transfer of nutrients and moisture from the soil to plant roots. 

A recent article in the quarterly newsletter of Beyond Pesticides explains that insecticides are not the only killers of insects: “Insecticides kill insects, often indiscriminately and with devastating consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and critical ecosystem services. Herbicides and chemical fertilizers extinguish invaluable habitat and forage critical to insect survival. Taken together, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers make large and growing swaths of land unlivable for vast numbers of insect species and the plants and animals they sustain.” The loss of insects where herbicides are used to kill non-native plants are undoubtedly contributing to the failure of attempts to “restore” native plants which require pollinators and insect predator control as much as non-native plants.

In other words, eradicating non-native oxalis is damaging the environment and the animals that live in the environment.  Furthermore, after twenty years of trying to eradicate it, Jake Sigg admits that there is more of it now than there was when this crusade began:  “Maybe you’ve noticed that there’s more and more of it every year, and fewer and fewer other plants.  That is unlikely to reverse.”  (Nature News, April 9, 2019).

Coyote in oxalis field. Copyright Janet Kessler

In fact, local failure of eradication efforts mirrors global failures of similar attempts:  “…despite international policies aimed at mitigating biological invasions, the implementation of national- and regional-scale measures to prevent or control alien species has done little to slow the increase in extent of invasions and the magnitude of impacts.” 

[Ref: “A four-component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: implications for management,” G. LATOMBE , S. CANAVAN, H. HIRSCH,1 C. HUI, S. KUMSCHICK,1,3 M. M. NSIKANI, L. J. POTGIETER, T. B. ROBINSON, W.-C. SAUL, S. C. TURNER, J. R. U. WILSON, F. A. YANNELLI, AND D. M. RICHARDSON, Ecosphere, April 2019.]

DO INSECTS BENEFIT FROM ERADICATING NON-NATIVE PLANTS?

There is no question that insects are essential members of every ecosystem.  They are the primary food of birds and other members of wildland communities.  They perform many vital functions in the environment, such as consuming much of our waste that would otherwise accumulate.

The Economist magazine has reported the considerable evidence of declining populations of insects in many places all over the world.  (However, the Economist points out that the evidence does not include large regions where insect populations have not been studied. The Economist is therefore unwilling to conclude that the “insect apocalypse” is a global phenomenon.) The report includes the meta-analysis of 73 individual studies that describe declines of 50% and more over decades. The meta-analysis concluded that there are four primary reasons for those declines, in order of their importance:  habitat loss, intensive farming, pesticide use, and spread of diseases and parasites.  The existence of non-native plants is conspicuously absent from this list of threats to insect populations.

In other words, although the preservation of insects is extremely important, there is no evidence that the eradication of non-native plants would benefit insects.  In fact, eradication efforts are detrimental to insects because of the toxic chemicals that are used and the loss of the food the plants are providing to insects.

JAKE SIGG AND PROFESSOR SHAPIRO DISCUSS INSECTS AND NATIVE PLANTS

The discussion begins on April 26, 2019, with this statement published in Jake’s Nature News:

“Did you know that 90 percent of insects can only eat the native plant species with which they’ve co-evolved?”

On April 26, 2019, Arthur Shapiro wrote:

“No, I didn’t know 90% of insects can only eat the native plants with which they’ve co-evolved. I’ve only been studying insect-plant relationships and teaching about them for 50 years and that’s news to me, especially since on a global basis we don’t know what the vast majority of insects species eat, period! That’s even true for butterflies and moths, which are probably the best-studied group. And it’s even true here in California, one of the best-studied places on the planet (though way behind the U.K. and Japan). Where on earth did that bit of non-information come from?”

Jake Sigg responds:

“Art, I did my best to run down source for that statement.  As I suspected, it may lack academic precision.  That kind of precision is hard come by, and what exists is not entirely relevant.  Most of the information comes from Doug Tallamy.  But the statement is not accurate; it should have read “…90 percent of plant-eating insects eat only the native plants they evolved with”.  Whether that is true or not I don’t know, but it accords with my understanding and I am willing to go along with it, even if proof is lacking.  If you wait for scientific proof on everything you may wait a long time and lose a lot of biodiversity.  I have had too much field experience to think that exotic plants can provide the sustenance that natives do.

I expect you will be unhappy with this response.”

On May 2, 2019, Art Shapiro replies:

“If Tallamy said “90% of the plant-eating insects that I have studied…”  or “90% of the plant-eating insects that have been studied in Delaware…” or some such formulation I might take him more seriously. The phenomenon of “ecological fitting,” as described by Dan Janzen, is widespread if not ubiquitous. “Ecological fitting” occurs when two species with no history of coevolution or even sympatry (co-occurrence) are thrown together and “click.”  A.J.Thorsteinson summed up some 60 years ago what is needed for an insect to switch onto a new host plant: the new plant must be nutritionally adequate, possess the requisite chemical signals to trigger egg-laying and feeding, not possess any repellents or antifeedants and not be toxic.

That set of circumstances is met very frequently. To those of us who study it, it seems to happen every other Tuesday.  As we showed, the urban-suburban California butterfly fauna is now overwhelmingly dependent on non-native plants. The weedy mallows (Malva) and annual vetches (Vicia) are fed upon by multiple native butterfly species and are overall the most important butterfly hosts in urban lowland California. . Within the past decade, our Variable Checkerspot has begun breeding spontaneously and successfully on Butterfly Bush (Buddleia davidii). The chemical bridge allowing this is iridoid glycosides. When I was still back East I published that the Wild Indigo Dusky Wing skipper, Erynnis baptisiae, had switched onto the naturalized European crown vetch (Coronilla varia) which had converted it from a scarce and local pine-barrens endemic to a widespread and common species breeding on freeway embankments. And the hitherto obscure skipper Poanes viator, the Broad-Winged Skipper, went from being a rare and local wetland species best collected from a boat to becoming the most abundant early-summer butterfly in the New York metropolitan area by switching from emergent aquatic grasses and sedges to the naturalized Mesopotamian strain of Common Reed, Phragmites australis. I can go on, and on, and on. If you find a sponsor for me to give a lecture about this in the Bay Area, I’ll gladly do it. If you promise to come!

I won’t snow you under with pdfs. Here’s just one, a serendipitous one that resulted from my walking near Ohlone Park in Berkeley. And one from the high Andes in Argentina. That paper cites one of mine in Spanish demonstrating that the southernmost butterfly fauna in the world, in Tierra del Fuego and on the mainland shore of the Straits of Magellan, is breeding successfully on exotic weeds.-! Copy on request.”

On May 2, 2019, Jake Sigg published his last reply:

“I believe many of your statements, Art, and many of these cases I am familiar with.  A conspicuous local example is the native Anise Swallowtail butterfly that still lays eggs on native members of the Umbelliferae, the parsley family, but which also breeds on the exotic fennel, which is an extremely aggressive weed that in only a few years can transform a healthy and diverse grassland supporting much wildlife into a plant monoculture—that, btw, won’t even support the butterfly, which shuns laying eggs where its larval food plant is too numerous and easy target for a predator, like yellow jackets.

What puzzles me is why you can keep your equanimity at the prospect of losing acres of very diverse habitat to a monoculture of fennel.  You live in the heart of the world’s breadbasket where for hundreds of miles both north and south there are almost no native plants except those planted by humans.  That would tend to distort one’s view.  I don’t mean to be flip, but it is not normal for even an academic to be indifferent about a loss of this magnitude.  I have worked hands-on on the land (I was raised on a ranch) all my life and still work every Wednesday maintaining our natural habitat in San Francisco—a task that hundreds of citizens pitch in on because they value the quality and diversity of the areas.  And why do you remain indifferent, are you just a contrarian?  You cite examples to bolster your view, but the examples are too small a percentage to be meaningful and wouldn’t stand up against a representative presentation.

I got my view from life.  I type this in my second-floor sunroom, which looks into a coast live oak growing from an acorn I planted in the late 1960s, about 50 years ago and which is immediately on the other side of the window.  It is alive with birds of many different species—flocks of bushtits, chickadees, juncos every day (plus individuals of other species), which species-number balloons in the migratory season.  What I can’t figure out is how the tree can be so productive as to stand up to this constant raiding.  I will take instances of this sort as my guide rather than the product of academic lucubrations.  And I will throw in Doug Tallamy; the world he portrays is one I recognize and love.

I think our battle lines are drawn.  This discussion could go on, as we have not even scratched the surface of a deep and complex subject.  But will either of us change our minds?  No.”

“Jake Sigg:  N.B.  Art responded with another long epistle, not for posting.  It clarified some of the points that were contentious and seemed to divide us.  We differ, but not as much as would appear from the above discussion.”

On a personal note, we’d like to point out that one of the writers of this article has a (non-native) red wattle tree outside their window – which also attracts bushtits, juncos, and chickadees, not to mention hummingbirds (both Anna’s and Allens), house finches, white-crowned sparrows, and a bunch of other species. Oak trees are certainly good habitat – but so are a lot of other plant and tree species, where ever they originate.

 

Posted in OTHER | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dead trees: the life of the forest

Posted on February 6, 2019 by SF Forest Alliance

Throughout the city and the whole San Francisco Bay area, urban and suburban forests are being destroyed. The Natural Resource Area Management Plan targets 18,000 trees in San Francisco and Pacifica. In the East Bay, more than 50,000 trees may be felled – some estimates go to half a million.

In many cases, the relevant authority argues they are really removing trees that “dead or dying.” We question whether the so-called “dying” trees are actually dying, or merely in a defensive mode against four dry years, from which they would have recovered after this wet winter had they been given the chance.

And importantly, the dead trees have enormous value in the forest. We republish this article by Jack Gescheidt, first published at Treespirit.com with permission and minor changes. (The article and all the images are copyright to Jack Gescheidt.)

DEAD, DYING AND DECAYING TREES PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN INCREASING FOREST LIFE

Even tree lovers may not know the myriad ways trees some label “dying” or “sick” or “infected” or “infested” (with beetles or other insects) are in fact beneficial to a forest. Perhaps you’ve figured this out already, or know it intuitively, but forests do just fine without us humans interfering. Especially when our “helping” is driven by financial gain.

But fans of forest beware: timber companies hellbent on extracting more wood from U.S. and world forests have concocted yet another way of saying down is up, wrong is right, and denuding forests does a forest good. Their newest sell-off-the-forest pitch is to “remove” only “dead” or “dying” trees, to “clean up” or “manage” forests more “responsibly” implying this does no harm. Don’t believe it. All the quotations are used to indicate these terms are euphemisms which don’t convey the reality of how damage is done in “responsibly” “managing” a forest. This would actually entail leaving it alone, and certainly not bringing in heavy machinery.

Extracting “dead” or “down” or “dying” trees is only the latest insidious way of doing additional harm while ignoring the reality of our current situation: global warming is threatening humanity, which is caused in large part by decades of massive, and ongoing deforestation, nationally and globally. What we humans should instead be doing is leaving existing forests be, especially old-growth forests, not inflicting more damage or extractions of any kind. And planting more trees than we cut down — I mean, “harvest.” Important note: planting a sapling is NOT an equivalent replacement for cutting down a mature tree. Leave mature trees stand AND plant more trees. This would benefit us humans — as well as animals and plants and planet, because we’re actually all in this together. Deforestation for short term profit equals environmental and societal catastrophe in the long term.

The timber industry’s latest assaults begin ideologically. If they win over your mind, and public opinion, they will destroy our forests, and harm all of us in the end. In the public relations assault you’ll hear and read this lie: that forests benefit from industrial removal of “dead” or “dying” trees; that doing so has little or no impact on a forest’s health. Nothing could be further from the truth. Standing dead trees, and trees that have fallen over, and trees in any and every state of decay, are essential to the life cycles of decay and regeneration of a forest. And thus our health depends upon these, since we depend upon forests for carbon sequestration, oxygen production, soil creation, water filtration, wildlife habitat, and so much more.

Chad Hanson, Director of the John Muir Project, UC Davis researcher, and Sierra Club board member, says this about dead trees and forests:

We are trapped by an outdated cultural idea that a healthy forest is one with nothing but green trees. An ecologically healthy forest has dead trees, broken tops, and down logs. Such forests may not look tidy from the perception of a forester, but it (a forest with lots of dead trees) is the most biologically diverse and healthy, from a forest ecosystem perspective….Pound for pound, ton for ton, there is probably no more important habitat element in western conifer forests than large snags and large down logs.

The old practice of killing trees — what modern industry euphemistically calls “harvesting” — to make too many products that are either unnecessary or readily replaced with non-tree sources, has now become a suicidal practice. By killing trees and destroying forests everywhere, we are also killing ourselves, slowly, surely, and increasingly not so slowly.
Beware, too, other misleading, non-scientific labels like “invasive” and “non-native” which are also now commonly used to justify killing trees, plants, and animals, sometimes even by well-intentioned but tragically misled environmentalists. All have drunk the industrial agricultural public relations Kool-Aid. Meaning they kill wild plants and animals, imagining they are doing good, even justifying toxic herbicide use to do so.

READ MORE: http://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/Invasion Biology

Beware, too, other misleading, non-scientific labels like “invasive” and “non-native” which are also now commonly used to justify killing trees, plants, and animals, sometimes even by well-intentioned but tragically misled environmentalists. All have drunk the industrial agricultural public relations Kool-Aid. Meaning they kill wild plants and animals, imagining they are doing good, even justifying toxic herbicide use to do so. READ MORE: http://www.TreeSpiritProject.com/Invasion Biology

Dead and decaying trees are precious to a forest. Here’s a short list of services they perform:

• DEAD TREES are wildlife habitat — homes! — for many species of insects, birds and mammals including beetles, bees, wasps, ants, mice, squirrels, salamanders, shrews, bats, rats, and wildcats (lynx, bobcat), raccoons, martens, and even cover for larger mammals including mountain lions and bears.

Forest cafeteria…

• DEAD TREES feed numerous fungi like mushrooms which in turn feed myriad animals, including rodents like voles.
• DEAD TREES provide crucial habitat (nesting, roosting and food storage) for many species of woodpeckers that rely solely upon them. Woodpeckers require dead wood that’s easier to penetrate than living wood. So woodpecker habitat is destroyed when timber companies extract dead trees, and forest health suffers as woodpecker services are diminished.
• DEAD TREES are food for insects which in turn feed larger animals including birds and mammals, all essential to forest health.
• DEAD TREES create new soil, a critical component from which all life springs
• DEAD TREES retain critical moisture in a forest as decomposing woody material

We must protect all remaining un-logged, or old-growth (over 200 years old) forests and leave intact any and all forests for their critical ecological service in our era of anthropogenic global warming. These include carbon sequestration (CO2 storage) as double duty; keeping the carbon in a living tree in its wood and out of the atmosphere, as well as allowing living trees to continue extracting additional CO2 from the atmosphere every day it is alive.

In addition to these obvious, rational-minded functions, now is also an ideal time for us planetary citizens to become more aware of the equally valuable emotional and spiritual tonic trees provide us. Notice and appreciate each individual tree growing near you, regardless of its species or its country of origin.

There are no “invasive” trees! You may have your favorites kinds of trees, but all provide critical ecological service. Maintain trees, care for them, plant more of them, and feel how they can reconnect us to the natural world we have for too long abandoned. If more of us do this more often, we just might be able to save our own species from dying too.

– Jack Gescheidt

decaying-log-moss-by-Jack-Gescheidt-TreeSpirit-Project-0884-900p-WEB.jpg
*
*
*
*
*
THE END

Posted in OTHER | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment