The popular paradigm in Colorado, especially along the Front Range, regarding Russian-olive for the past few decades, maybe longer, has been that this tree is evil. It is particularly regarded as such by many natural resource agencies and some environmental groups. Anyone who watches birds carefully, however, knows this tree has considerable value to birds. Like everything in life, how we look at this tree and let the resultant judgment inform our actions " depends on the situation".
Another popular paradigm is that native anything is better than exotic/non-native anything. I guess my view is that the train left the station a loooooooooong time ago regarding keeping our landscapes populated with all natives. Our urban plantscapes are probably 95% exotic, most of our so-called "wild" environments over 50% exotic. Yes, we should favor natives, and in general strive to improve the situation when we can, but it usually comes down to practicality and the m-word ($). In almost all instances, there isn't enough labor or financial resources to make a dent in restoring large areas to a mostly native state. My own thinking has evolved to one of "picking battles" and being realistic about how our fauna adjusts to the altered habitats in which it finds itself attempting to survive.
Regarding exotic plants, and the given that our resources are limited, I have been urging garden groups, natural resource groups, birders, etc. to document how birds and other wildlife are using all our plants. Specifically, what is going on? Who, what, where and when? Which battles should we pick? Which exotics have ecological utility? Which plants are truly the worst of the worst. We all have cell phones with nice camera capabilities. Many of us have point and shoots with impressive zoom features. Many of us also have digital bazookas that go up to 300, even 600, mm. Like they say at "Home Depot", we can do this. We can document usage of native and exotic plants by our beloved birds, and in so doing, arm our emotions with facts when we see things like tree cutting that at least at the knee-jerk level, feels "wrong". What if hell froze over and the agencies came to us for advice? Cut, don't cut, plant this, don't plant that, what?
I have been accused of "defending" Russian-olive. I suppose that is understandable. Really, what I think I've been trying to do is point out objectively that, indeed, this tree is utilized in a lot of important ways by a lot of different bird species in all seasons of the year. I DO NOT THINK IT IS THE WORST TREE ON THE PLANET, NOR DO I THINK IT IS THE BEST. I agree with Arvind and others who think there is hard evidence of its utility to breeders, migrants and wintering species. To be fair, in a perfect world if we had the ability to eradicate it from certain situations (stretches of riparian habitat along the Arkansas River come to mind), keep it out long term and replace it with "better" species like willow and cottonwood, the whole of biodiversity would probably be better served. But the reality of what I have seen well-intentioned natural resource agency projects do amounts to "shock and awe". Lots of action, lots of "boys with toys", 20% of the olives missed to repopulate the area right back to what it was within 10 years, little to no replacement plantings with "better" species, certainly no money to establish (i.e., water) the few "better" trees that might have been planted, and in the meantime drastically dumbed down aesthetics and bird usage.
The following would be my personal observations regarding bird use by Russian-olive:
.Heavy consumption of the fruits late summer, autumn, winter and early spring by certain species (flicker, starling, robin, waxwings, bluebirds, wood duck, yellow-rumped warbler).
.Incidental, sometimes significant, use by a large number of other species including a lot of so-called "insectivores" that utilize the sugary pulp of the fruits for quick energy during migration (big flycatchers, mimic thrushes, thrushes, vireos, grouse, grosbeaks, finches, cardinals, corvids, sparrows, doves, woodpeckers including sapsuckers).
.While a lack of insects has been one of the knocks against Russian-olive compared to native trees, it does have an aphid that is highly sought after by migrant songbirds, including stray eastern warblers, particularly in late autumn when other tree crown insects are sparse because the other tree species have mostly already dropped their leaves. The tree also has insect visitors to the flowers and supports a few wood-boring beetles that woodpeckers go after.
.Olive thickets can be feeding/hiding/roosting havens for certain secretive birds like hermit thrush and varied thrush, long-eared owl and even northern pygmy-owl at low elevation.
.Olive thickets can be preferred nesting sites for northern cardinal, yellow-billed cuckoo, mimic thrushes, chat and others.
Yes, I think many (most?) of the recent olive-eradication efforts on public land have been: 1) well-intentioned, 2) based on shaky "science", if any and 3) poorly executed on the basis of both the actions performed (incomplete, dinged up retained vegetation, ruined visitor experience) and not enough money to carry out further actions that would actually enhance chances the limited actions performed could achieve a worthy objective.
Some of the problem stems from a lack of knowledge gleaned from published and personal experience about non-game bird biology in the Interior West. This is especially true within agencies funded solely by hunting and fishing license fees (the real problem being a legislature that forces them to fund themselves). Some of the problem is agencies contracting out work to novice entities (see Duane's description of what happened at Wood Thrush Grove, or what I witness all the time at Grandview Cemetery with the ditch company telling the cemetery to use their citizen work crews with community service debts to "get rid of woody vegetation along the ditch however you can, or else we'll do it with chemicals"). Some of the problem is agencies not knowing user groups like us exist, or that we might know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two, or that we could be something more than an upset constituency they have to maneuver around.
The good news is that these sites will struggle along and recover, olives are probably here to stay, and birds will still use them. The agencies are populated with mostly good people doing mostly the best they can under the particular constraints, bosses and policies that define their jobs. I would urge birders to establish individual relationships with these folks and work away at improving things one person, one project at a time. And like Chuck suggested, we need to be rational, calm, constructive and well-informed, regardless of how much what we see upsets us and our favorite places. I need to read my own advice here over and over, because lately, especially during my last visit to Crow Valley Campground, I haven't done very well with it.
Dave Leatherman
Fort Collins
No comments:
Post a Comment