The common reed known as Phragmites is a large grass found in various wetlands throughout the earth. A subspecies of this grass, particularly Phragmites australis, has proved to be very invasive in North American habitats. The proliferation of this species has often been shown to cause changes in the different ecosystems in which the plant thrives. Now, the question at hand is: Should we try to combat the proliferation of certain “invasive” species like Phragmites in our attempt to restore the environment to its natural balance?

In answering this question, we have many things to consider. First of all, and perhaps this is the most important consideration of all, what are the conditions that are allowing for the seemingly disruptive invasion of this plant species? If we view this apparent ecological imbalance as a reflection of the state of the habitat, then we arrive at a broader and more complete picture. As a study published on www.fws.gov stated, “Phragmites is usually an indicator of a wetland ecosystem that is out of balance.” Indeed, it is the imbalance of the ecosystem in the first place that allows for the undesired explosion of this plant species, not the other way around. The article goes on: “When commercial and residential landowners expand paved roadways and parking areas, establish large grass lawns, apply fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, or destroy streamside buffers of native trees and shrubs, negative impacts can also be felt in downstream wetlands… [This] can cumulatively reduce tidal influence, increase runoff, reduce water quality and encourage the establishment and spread of Phragmites.”

Another significant point to consider is the method used to restore these natural habitats. Quite shockingly—especially to an avid reader of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring—some have proposed and carried out the use of herbicides and other chemical (and quite toxic) “solutions” to try and address the problem. These attempts are not only extremely ineffective and destructive but they also betray a profound witlessness and an ignorance of the balancing forces inherent in nature. As anyone who has had the opportunity to come across Carson’s research in her famous book—which, I might add, was published over 50 years ago—knows, using toxic chemical substances on precious habitants is potentially one of the most harmful and destructive practices that anyone can impose on the environment. This is not to mention the plethora of journal articles and scientific papers since then that have denounced this ongoing practice. In fact, we find in one example that although the chemical pesticide DDT—infamous for its link to several types of malignancies, including breast cancer—was banned in the 1970s, a widespread blood test conducted in 2005 by the Centers for Disease Control confirmed the presence of this chemical in virtually every human sample taken. It reveals just how ironically invasive and long-lasting this approach is.

Clearly, the real issue here is very broad and multi-faceted, yet, at the same time, quite simple. The underlying situation is one that reveals the fundamentally destructive relationship that the human race has chosen to have with the natural environment. The continuing harmful practices upon nature and the generally selfish perspective of our world has dug a deep, black figurative hole in our precious earth which only gets deeper and wider as some try desperately to fill it in. The implications are much greater than simply having a few extra Phragmites to deal with in the local salt marsh; we are really dealing with a severe problem of global climate change. I said it in class, but I’ll say it again: without correction for this profound disharmony in our dealings not only with nature but with each other, a confined restoration effort is like trying to build a house of cards on a windy beach.