Garden Space Invaders

By Jill Hahn//Special To The Tab

 

If you're like me, you started thumbing through garden catalogs in the dark days of early February, ogling the lush photographs and dreaming of how all those perfect, blooming plants would look in your own yard. Of course, your yard was covered with 2 1/2 feet of rock-hard snow in early February, and there wasn't enough daylight to grow a mushroom. Sending photos of bright flowers and vivid fruit to New Englanders in February is like sending a frosty six-pack to a recovering alcoholic. Common sense might just go out the window. And the choices you make as you admire those glossy advertisements can have an impact far beyond the corners of your yard.

 

The 10 most unwanted

Here are the top 10 species of plants that are listed as unwanted by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program:

·      Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata

·      Purple loosetrife Lythrum salicaria

·      Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellate

·      Japanese, Morrow's, and Amur honesuckles Lonicera sp.

·      Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

·      Norway maple Acer platanoides

·      Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

·      Shining and common buckthorns Rhamnus fragula, R. cathartica

·      Common reed Phragmites communis

·      Common and Japanese barberries Berberis vulgaris, B. thunbergii

 

Consider:

 

"Lonicera maackii [Amur honeysuckle]... produces masses of white flowers that mature to yellow followed by a profusion of 1/4" bright red fruit persisting into winter... adaptable to poor soils..." (Nature Hills Nursery) "This climbing Bittersweet Vine produces sunny yellow seed pods that give way to bright red, decorative berries... thrives in the poorest of soils. Songbirds love to gather around this attractive plant, and so will you!" (Michigan Bulb Company)

Wow, those plants sound great! But what the catalogs don't tell you is that these two species are on the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program's "Ten most unwanted invasive species" list, villains that threaten the wellbeing of the native plants and animals that have defined our natural landscape for millennia.

An invasive species is one that, once established, manages to spread in numbers and space to the exclusion of other plants. Alien invaders, those imported from other countries, tend to be especially damaging because the predators that might keep in check in their native habitat don't exist here.

If you look around your yard, you will likely find that most of the familiar plants that define your personal landscape are actually alien species. That rhododendron just bursting into bloom is as likely to hail from Japan as from North Carolina. The tulips came from Central Asia, the daffodils from the Mediterranean. Even the grass species growing in your lawn were introduced from Europe. Although they are not native to the U.S., most of these species are well-mannered and don't present a problem to the forests and meadows of New England. What sets such species as the honeysuckle and bittersweet apart is that they are not content to stay where they are put. The very attributes that make you want to buy them (thrive in the poorest of soils, attractive to birds) are what make them a threat.

Five key biologic traits characterize invasive species: 1) they produce large quantities of seeds; 2) they have effective dispersal mechanisms; 3) they are readily established; 4) they grow rapidly; and 5) they are effective competitors. The birds, for example, that flock to your bittersweet vine to eat its berries become dispersal agents that carry its seeds to your neighbor's yard, our woods and roadsides, the local Audubon preserve. Every manager of natural spaces in our state is currently waging war against spreading stands of alien invaders. When the diversity of native plants becomes overwhelmed by stands of a single, introduced species, it can cause the disappearance or extinction not just of those outcompeted plants, but of the animals that depended on them as well.

So what can you, the responsible gardener, do? Before you make an impulse buy from a garden catalog or center, do a little research. There are many sites online that can help you identify, and avoid, alien invaders (The New England Wildflower Society has a well-researched list, as well as a list of native alternatives, http://www.newfs.org/conserve/invasive.htm). To get you started, here are a few plants you should not buy:

Goutweed, or snow-in-winter (Aegopodium podagraria), a variegated, three-leaved groundcover that's almost impossible to pull out because it propagates by easily-fragmented runners; those non-native honeysuckles(Lonicera Morrowii, L. tatarica, L. Maackii, L. x bella & L. japonica);Porcelain Berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata); Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus); Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus), that ever-popular large woody shrub that turns bright scarlet in autumn.

Be especially suspicious of plants touted as able to grow in all conditions, or as good for erosion control. Become familiar with the top 10 unwanted species and eradicate them ruthlessly whenever you see them. Some of them will be obvious weeds, while others hold pride of place in many local gardens. It hurts to look at your beautiful burning bush specimen as an alien enemy, but that shrub doesn't look so beautiful when it's monopolizing the understory of the local forest.

Now excuse me while I go dig up the prickly but lovely Japanese barberry bush that's screening my compost bin, and leap back into my losing battle with the Japanese knotweed that is marching its way up my backyard. Thank goodness I wasn't the one who decided that might be a nice ornamental plant and set it loose on an unsuspecting Newton.

Jill Hahn, a Newton Highlands resident, is a biologist, a writer, and a mom. All three roles contribute to her interest in environmental issues. She can be reached at jkkhahn@comcast.net.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

From Drought to Flood

By Nigel Pickering and Kate Bowditch//Special To The Tab

 

Last month in this column, the emphasis was on the spring drought, the effects of dry weather on the Charles River, and measures that homeowners could be taking to try to keep water on their own property. This month, the story seems to be the opposite, as many in Massachusetts have experienced the worst flooding in many decades. Yet the drought and the flood are really one and the same story: the natural environment and the human environment are bound together, each dependent on the other.

The storm systems that battered New England from May 9-15 dumped more than 15 inches of rain on some Massachusetts communities. In Newton, there was over 5.5 inches of rain in just three days. As of this writing, there has already been over 10 inches of rain in Newton this May. The historical average for the month is 3.3 inches.

The effects of a deluge such as the one in May are dramatic. Rainfall becomes runoff as soils are saturated, rivers swell to overtop their banks, and floodwaters cause millions of dollars in material damage. Fortunately, in this storm and flood, few lives were claimed. The Charles River never actually flooded, though many streets, parks and basements were inundated by runoff and rising groundwater.

Other river systems, and the communities in those watersheds, were hard hit, however, and more than a week after the rains stopped, there are still flooded sections of many towns. So what caused some areas to have more floods than others? Two factors that affect flooding are basin characteristics, and rainfall patterns. Both of these factors came into play in the last storm. Both the rainfall pattern and the local basin characteristics were extremely variable, causing some areas to have the worst flooding on record, while others had only moderate flooding.

The most important basin characteristic that impacts flooding in this area is 'basin storage.' Basin storage consists of rainwater that infiltrates into the soil or groundwater and runoff that fills wetlands, dams, or other man-made stormwater controls. Think of basin storage as holding capacity: it is the amount of water an area can hold before it runs out into the main river channel. An area with a lot of basin storage will not flood as fast as an area with little basin storage.

Rainfall distribution affects the local rainfall amount and intensity. Even in an area with a lot of basin storage, high intensity rainfall can overwhelm the infiltration capacity of the soil, stormwater conveyance structures and river channels, causing high flows and potential flooding.

This particular storm was not evenly distributed, causing large variations in both the rainfall volume and intensity. Radar estimates of the rainfall pattern in Massachusetts and surrounding areas show that northeastern Massachusetts had 8-16 inches of rainfall compared to about 4-8 inches in the Charles River watershed near Boston. Since the rain all fell in a period of about 5 days, not only were the amounts different, the intensities were also highly variable from one area to the other.

The resulting streamflows varied widely and can be measured by the 'return period' of the flow. For example, a 10-year return period is one that will occur, on average once in 10 years. The Charles River came within inches of flood stage but only reached a 2-year return period. In contrast, the return period for the Merrimack at Lowell was 40 years and the whole Ipswich River was over a 100-year return period.

Some of the muted streamflow response in the Charles might be attributed to the extensive area of wetlands in Cutler Park on the Newton/Needham border, and those on the Medfield/Millis border. In the late 1960s, Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) was instrumental in working with the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently protect 8,103 acres of wetlands called the Charles River Natural Valley Storage Area. Riparian wetlands rapidly expand to store floodwaters then slowly release the water back to the river after the storm. This wetland storage project serves as a nationwide model for natural flood protection.

In urbanized areas, basin storage can be severely reduced, increasing flooding problems. Impervious surfaces like rooftops, driveways, parking lots and roads reduce evaporation, soil storage, and travel times. The double-edged effect of impervious surfaces is that is disconnects rainfall from ground water, thus creating more larger peaks and runoff volume (floods) while reducing recharge and base flow. The result is more storm flow with less base flow, that is, more of the wrong kind of water.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the same actions that CRWA encourages communities and homeowners to adopt to cope with drought will help reduce the impacts of flooding: reduce paved surfaces; let rainfall percolate into the ground; direct runoff to vegetated areas; keep water out of pipes; protect wetlands and open space; plant more trees. Global warming will likely cause more droughts, and more floods. We need to design our environment so we can live with both.

Nigel Pickering, PhD, Senior Engineer and Project Manager at CRWA, is a computer modeling and mapping expert. Kate Bowditch, MA, a Senior Environmental Scientist at CRWA, is a hydrologist. 

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The step beyond recycling

By Eleanor Saunders//Special To The Tab

 

Three things are true about garbage today. First, the amount our cities and towns handle has more than tripled over the last fifty years, as product wastes increase dramatically and recycling recaptures only about 30 percent of what we throw away. Second, the manufacturers who feed this waste stream - packaging companies, the electronics and computer industry, textile and carpet producers to name a few - benefit from passing the financial responsibility for their discarded products onto our municipalities. Third, garbage collection and even recycling have become big business, dominated by national and multinational corporations that operate in the global marketplace and thrive on this very waste stream. Thus, rapidly increasing bills for garbage burden taxpayers, while manufacturers and waste management companies profit from the current way of doing business.

In addition, we are running out of sites for landfills. Few communities want to contend with landfill nuisance factors - odor, pests, and commercial traffic from dump trucks. Even fewer want to accept the risks associated with the hazardous leachates created when buried garbage breaks down. Despite new technologies and precautions, landfill leakages frequently occur, and the toxic metals, carcinogens, and endocrine disrupters in decomposing waste escape their safety nets. Incinerating garbage brings with it similar problems - heavy truck traffic to incinerator sites plus toxic residues concentrated in the ashy remains. And both these methods of disposal contribute to climate change by producing significant amounts of greenhouse gas, including one third of our methane emissions, a gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Daunting as all of this sounds, you may be surprised to hear that there already is a tested approach which can significantly reduce these problems. However, it is an approach that requires us, the taxpayers, to exert a substantial amount of political will against the industries that profit from and lobby for the status quo. The approach is called Extended Producer Responsibility. It recognizes that we who are downstream of production cannot do much but try to cope with the amount and types of product waste that come our way. However, upstream, at factories, a great deal can be done through innovations in product design and manufacturing. EPR and its close policy relative Product Stewardship shift at least some responsibility for waste from municipalities to manufacturers and thereby promote a reduction of environmental impacts at all stages of a product's life-cycle.

Producers are free to design their own product take-back schemes and to select whatever means of recycling and reducing hazardous materials make most financial sense to them - so long as they meet agreed upon performance standards and timetables. The experience of European Union countries, Canada, and Australia since the1990s demonstrates how effective attacking waste problems from this end can be. And a whole array of solutions ranging from strict government regulations to voluntary agreements are there to be assessed for effectiveness and implementation in the U.S.

Here is one small example of what could happen if EPR policies were in place. Nationally, about 3 - 4 billion pounds of nylon carpeting are discarded each year, costing around $100 million dollars in hauling and disposal fees. As currently manufactured, much of this carpeting cannot be recycled and also contains hazardous dyes and materials. However, a commercially viable, environmentally sound carpet material already exists. Called nylon 6, it can be manufactured in eco-efficient ways, such that at the end of its useful life, old carpeting can be broken down and re-manufactured into high quality nylon 6 material, over and over again. Waste is effectively eliminated. Today, a few U.S. and Canadian companies produce nylon 6 carpeting made without hazardous chemical dyes and with special backing and adhesives, designed to facilitate the re-manufacturing process. Nylon 6 even has the potential for applications beyond carpeting. Its properties would allow it to be used in the automobile industry and in the manufacturing of plastic housings for electronic equipment, two more product categories which severely burden our municipal waste streams. The nylon 6 story is a perfect illustration of what ecologically sound redesign can produce, if there were enough carrots and sticks to motivate more corporations to invest in it.

When EPR initiatives were initially explored here in the 1990s, industry effectively blocked their passage. Yet, ironically, many of corporations opposing EPR in the U.S. have managed to comply with these regulations in Europe, Australia, and Canada. Even European governments with conservative political agendas have embraced EPR, because it reduces taxes by lowering waste disposal costs, while adhering to the principles of the marketplace as the source of solutions for society's problems. Government may set standards and timetables, but private industry is free to determine the most cost effective ways to meet them. Furthermore, there's no reason that U.S. government couldn't subsidize efforts toward environmentally sound redesign, just as it traditionally has subsidized companies for the environmentally damaging exploitation of virgin resources like oil, gas and timber.

But what about the impact on consumer prices of redesigning and retooling to meet EPR regulations? Won't buyers end up paying? It's true that individual items may cost a little more as a result. But now we all end up paying, whether we buy a product or not, because of the escalating cost of municipal waste disposal. An EPR legislative initiative for electronic waste is currently under development in New York City, and one has been passed in Maine. If EPR makes sense to you, perhaps it's time to let government officials know that you want Massachusetts to be another state in the forefront of EPR legislation.

Eleanor Saunders, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, who practiced in Newton for many years. She now lives in The Berkshires and is a student at the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Inevitable Avian Flu

By Alissa Becker//Special To The Tab

 

When meteorologists broadcast that a noreaster is tearing towards New England, Star Markets become clogged with frenzied shoppers stocking up on peanut butter and Duct Tape. But when scientists warn that the waves of a bird flu epidemic are expected to crash on the shores of California this summer, the forecast is met with disbelief and apathy. This lack of fear is understandable. Often we spend years awaiting catastrophic events that never come to pass; Y2K, for example. However, bird flu is no empty threat.

There are many environmental factors increasing the likelihood that the avian influenza virus will spread to humans. Deforestation shrinks habitat for the animals which are the "reservoirs" for these viruses and increases opportunities for those animals to come into contact with human communities. As the numbers of domestically farmed birds increases, avian viruses that have infected farmed birds have significantly more opportunities to infect humans. The likelihood of a virus crossing over to humans is also increased by the very crowded conditions in which people and domestic fowl are found in developing countries, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and China. Some local customs, such as consuming the blood of domesticated birds, cockfighting, and the widespread sale of pet birds, further increase the potential for the virus to move into the human population. The uncontrollable migration of wild birds from areas affected by the virus provides yet another avenue for the virus to spread around the world. Taken alone, none of these factors are cause for alarm, but together they bring us closer to a pandemic.

When a bird flu pandemic develops, within a year a third of the world's population would contract the virus. Up to 90 million Americans would fall ill, with nine million Americans requiring hospitalization in critical care units for respiratory distress. Between 200,000 and two million Americans would be expected to die. Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations has stated that the only thing that could exact "a larger human death toll would be a thermonuclear war."

In some respects, the avian influenza virus and the HIV virus that causes AIDS are similar; both originated in non-human hosts. HIV began as a virus affecting species of monkeys before it mutated and became capable of infecting humans. Similarly, the avian influenza virus is normally limited to infecting birds, but on rare occasions it changes slightly so that it is able to infect humans. As both these viruses originated in animals, the human immune system lacks any exposure- and thus immunity- to them, so they can lead to human epidemics, with high mortality rates. (Other familiar, deadly diseases that originated in animals include Lyme disease, West Nile, dengue, and ebola.)

The avian influenza virus and the HIV virus are not alike in all respects. The most important distinction is that, while AIDS is an epidemic that will likely continue indefinitely, the avian flu is a pandemic that is expected to last only eighteen months. In this short period of time, however, avian flu will kill more people in its first twenty-five weeks than AIDS has killed in its first 25 years.

Most scientists agree that a pandemic is inevitable. The only thing that has kept the bird flu from spreading human-to-human is a protein on the virus' surface, which acts much like a key to open up cells for invasion. Currently the virus has a "protein key" which only unlocks birds' cells and a handful of unlucky humans' cells. To infect millions of humans and cause an epidemic, the virus needs only to change this one protein so that it fits into the "locks" of human cells. The virus could randomly mutate until it happens upon the right key, or it could acquire a protein key from the influenza virus that is already adapted to humans. With the high frequency of human-domestic fowl contact in Southeast Asia, the avian influenza virus is provided with many gene-altering encounters with the human influenza viruses.

Although the bird flu virus is currently rarely transmissible from birds to humans, once in possession of the proper protein, it will easily spread from human to human. Unlike HIV, which can only be spread through exchange of certain bodily fluids, the bird flu virus can be spread with a mere sneeze, cough, or handshake. Because symptoms take several days to develop, it is impossible for airports to screen for bird flu. People who don't know they are infected could board airplanes and spread the virus around the world in mere hours. When the virus becomes transmissible from human to human, there will be little to impede its spread.

A bird flu pandemic is inevitable, too, because avian influenza pandemics have occurred many times. In the past three hundred years, there have been ten reported avian influenza pandemics, about one every thirty years. The most lethal one occurred less than hundred years ago, in 1918. Although often overshadowed by World War I, this pandemic killed half a million Americans, more than the number of American fatalities in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined. The last bird flu pandemic occurred under 40 years ago in 1968, so the next one is slightly overdue.

The human population will always be plagued by diseases and pandemics will continue to kill millions. The seeds have been sown for another deadly avian influenza pandemic; right now, millions of avian influenza viruses are feverishly mutating and re-sequencing their genes in search of the perfect protein and waiting for this virus are myriads of unchecked entrances into the human population. We do not know exactly when this deadly virus will emerge, but we must prepare for its inevitable arrival.

For more information on avian flu visit www.fluwikie.com or read The Great Influenza by John M. Barry.

Alissa Becker is an AP Biology student in her third year at NNHS.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Read More...

Summary only...