We have changed the world.  Humans, as a species, have been taking from the earth for centuries, without giving anything back.  As a result, today we face serious issues such as global warming and melting glaciers.  We have started something that may be irreversible and will ultimately hurt us.  Because of Human actions, many native plants in salt marshes have been replaced with new plants.  The question is, now that we, humans, have realized our detrimental effect on the environment, what can we do about it?  Should we attempt to regrow these plants, even though the environment has changed?  Is it even possible to change it back?

Nature has a way of providing checks and balances to everything that lives on this earth.  Whether it is a plant, an animal or insect, nature has a way of making sure that species of any kind do not monopolize the environment.  If we decide to incorporate the original plants to Salt Marshes, nature is not ready for the change.  Even if we experiment in a smaller, controlled environment, we still cannot foresee all the inadvertent changes reintroducing a plant would cause.  Instead of making the situation better, it could potentially disrupt the ecosystems of the marshes even more.  For example, if you introduced a new type of grass, you have to make sure that they do not encroach on another plant’s territory.  There are too many factors that cannot be predicted.

Another problem with restoring new plants into the ecosystems is all the complications that come with it.  When introducing a new plant, there is a process that needs to be followed.  First, if planting new seeds, precautions need to be enforced to prevent plants or insects from uprooting or eating the premature plants.  To disrupt the new ecosystems would not only require an unprecedented amount of foresight, but even with it, there is no way to fully predict the results.  While leaving the new plants might not be the alternative, replanting the old plants requires too many factors to uncertainty.

After reading through this week’s chapter, it seems pretty clear that marsh restoration isn’t all that simple. The solution isn’t obvious at all – attempting to restore the wetlands through human intervention may not necessarily be better than just letting the non-native plants grow freely. Weis and Butler make it very clear, marsh restoration is not always proven to be successful; the “if you build it they will come” philosophy is no guarantee.

When removing unwanted species and changing the elevation and hydrology of the marshes, there is still a chance that the native plants and organisms won’t return. Therefore, I think this idea of “no net loss of wetlands” goal is greatly flawed. I don’t believe that someone who is destroying a salt marsh somewhere should be able to “redeem” themselves, on an ecological level so to speak, just by improving another salt marsh elsewhere. That person has still destroyed a salt marsh existing in “location x” and now that specific area will be depleted of wetlands forever. Furthermore, especially if these marsh restorations aren’t necessarily successful, there is no way to argue that one seemingly positive action (marsh restoration) can negate a definitively negative action (marsh destruction).The National Academy of Science put it simply, “Wetland restoration shouldn’t be used to mitigate avoidable destruction of other wetlands until it can be scientifically demonstrated that the replacement ecosystems are of equal or better functioning.”

In fact, from reading this chapter, it is apparent that the attempts to restore marshes can sometimes hurt the environment even more; in this case, the “solutions” that are being implemented are perpetuating more environmental problems.

Some of the efforts to remove the non-native species in favor of the native Spartina include using herbicides and toxic chemicals which are actually damaging the environment. How can one justify their attempts to restore the marshes when they are still hurting the environment in other ways? This is, in effect, a very hypocritical procedure.

At the same time, removal of Phragmites may not necessarily yield successful results. There are many factors that must be taken into consideration when trying to produce a productive salt marsh through human intervention completely void of Phragmites. Hence, why risk exacerbating the problem if the current situation isn’t all that bad? As the chapter explains, despite the fact that they have been labeled as a weed in the past, Phragmites are not just deadweights taking up space in the salt marsh; moreover, they aren’t “ecologically useless” as they can still serve as proper food for certain organisms and contribute to the creation of a habitat.

Thus, Sheehan’s quote encapsulates the main idea of this chapter impeccably, “Phragmites, it’s green most of the time, and it ain’t condos.” Although the presence of Phragmites may not have been included in environmentalists ideal vision of salt marshes, it is certainly better than the presence of condominiums, buildings and sidewalks – in other words, total marsh destruction.

Over the course of time, we have discovered that many things that we innocently do have detrimental effects. Smoking is bad for one’s health, so we must stop; overhunting is bad since it leads to extinction, so we must stop. However, the case with swamp marshes is not nearly as black and white. While ideally salt marshes should return to their original condition with their native plants, it is also complete wishful thinking. I think that allowing non-native plants to recolonize, while carefully monitoring them, is a much more feasible option, that can better ensure the survival of natural salt marshes.

Restoring a salt marsh to its complete former glory entails a tremendous amount of effort. Salt marshes have experienced changes in their salinity, thereby giving rise to Phragmites, a plant that, by nature, is invasive. No longer are there as many Spartina plants, for the Phragmites are dominating this particular ecosystem. A restoration would require that the Phragmites be completely removed (by bulldozing). Then, Spartina plants could be grown by either planting its seeds or by uprooting and replanting Spartina from other salt marshes. Suddenly, what was innocuously considered a “restoration” might be more appropriately labeled an “upheaval”.

Changing the current status of salt marshes is much easier in theory than it is in its actual implementation. For one, getting people to actually carry through with such painstaking work would be difficult. In fact, Weis and Butler note that the people currently dedicated to such labor are students and volunteers. So few individuals cannot accomplish this sheer volume of work, at least with some noticeable impact. Besides for people, actual legislation is lax when it comes to carrying through with restoration. In 2007, for example, Louisiana did not follow through with a law passed due to rising costs. In short, time and money are key factors in limiting any potential restoration progress.

If nature could provide immediate results to the restoration of salt marshes, people might be more willing to help out. However, restoring salt marsh with Spartina plants does not guarantee successful results. To thrive, Spartina need proper tidal flow and proper salinity; if they are planted in the wrong conditions, they will not grow. While we can attempt to manipulate where plants grow, we are still susceptible to nature’s fickleness in all our efforts.

Humans might have good intentions by restoring, but they must also take the organisms’ well being into account. Indeed, the salt marsh has changed, but organisms, by nature, learn to adapt. Therefore, many have adapted to the presence of the Phragmites, and have learned to use it as shelter. It would be counterintuitive to change the salt marsh environment, to that of which it used to be; organisms would, once again, have to readapt.

Ultimately, Sheehan’s statement of Phragmites, it’s green most of the time, and it ain’t condos” bears much validity. While phragmites are not an ideal part of a salt marsh, they are still an organic element in this ecosystem. It is far better to have a plant than a building in one of the most crucial settings in nature. We deal with many other plants that are a nuisance, such as weeds and vines, but never by completely uprooting and redesigning an area. Humans are fallible and still do not know everything about how nature runs; perhaps restructuring might be detrimental in the long run. Rather, we should monitor the current situation of salt marshes. That way we can still exert human control in a positive way, all while using our resources efficiently.

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.

When addressing the issue of salt marsh restoration versus recolonization of non-native plants, I think that each situation must be looked at individually. As human begins, we so often make broad generalizations about problems in society and tend to forget that every situation is unique, poses its own challenges, and therefore requires individual attention. When making generalizations, we run the risk of leaving out important steps in our attempt to alleviate a problem. While intervention may be appropriate with certain marshes, other marshes are meant to be left alone. Also, in terms of the salt marshes (and environmental issues in general), even when we look individually at situations, we face not only biological complications but also political legislation that threatens to tear down our efforts.

The word “restoration” implies helpful intervention that will aid in getting the salt marshes out of harm’s way. However, in many cases, the situation is so complex that the actions we take to “restore” the marshes actually make things worse. Weis and Butler describe Phragmites-dominated marshes that we try to restore by using herbicides. One herbicide used, glyphosate, is toxic to other plants besides the unwanted ones as well as invertebrates and “cannot be said to be good for the ecosystem” (175). To make the situation worse, repeated applications of glyphosate is necessary to kill the unwanted plants, but these plants often return anyway because underground, they are protected from the herbicides and have not been fully destroyed. This creates an endless cycle where our attempts to better, or restore, the marshes only exacerbate the problem we started with.

Replanting is another common method of restoration that brings with it more complications. For example, when planting with Spartina, the nature of the water has everything to do with the restoration’s success. The salinity of the water can be too high or the soil can have the wrong texture and the attempt will fail. If the water flow is too rapid or experiences too much wave action, young plants that are not yet rooted in place may erode. In addition, something as simple as the elevation of the marsh as well as drainage can affect whether a plant lives or dies. There is also the problem of larger animals such as geese that eat the newly inserted plants and reverse our efforts. The situation with Spartina is just one example of Mother Nature reminding us that she is in charge. When we try to intervene with nature and keep getting pushed back, it may be nature’s way of telling us that it will take care of itself as it did before humans started getting involved.

Lastly, even when our efforts are in good faith and nature is on our side, we face never-ending political legislation that can throw us back to square one. Weis and Butler write about the $8 billion effort to restore the flow of water from Lake Okeechobee in Florida into the Everglades in order to ensure adequate water supply for the area. In 2003, the Florida legislature refused to enforce pollution regulations in the area until 2016. In 2007, the Everglades National park was removed from the list of endangered World Heritage sites, which according to Weis and Butler, sent a confusing message that everything was fine in the area. As hard as we try to protect our environment, we seem to always run into two obstacles: nature and legislation. In the end, we are humans interfering in nature, something that has rarely seen positive effects and to top it all off, political legislation frequently stands in our way. Therefore, each situation of restoration must be approached from a different viewpoint and “restored” (or left alone) in a way that will minimize potential barriers and prevent further destruction.