Question about any ecological or environmental benefits to heirloom plants

We have native plants and invasives. Native plants almost always have a superior beneficial impact on the local environment and ecosystem in terms of food for urban wildlife, diversity of life, reduced water consumption and water runoff, etc. Separate from the native versus invasives distinction, I wonder whether there is any observable urban wildlife benefit between contemporary pants versus heirloom plants. I have heard of heirloom apples, potatoes, tomatoes, and roses and I am sure there are many other forms. In fact, I saw heirloom tomatoes in the local grocery store just the other day. In my brief reading on heirloom plants, while there is acknowledgement of the benefits arising from their fitness for local circumstances based on their evolutionary history, I am not seeing any discussion about whether there is a environmental or ecological benefit. I assume that heirloom plants may put less stress on the environment by being more resilient in the face of weather variation and may require less water but I wonder if that is correct. Anybody know?

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk by Layla Bellows.

Within the 133 square miles that constitute the city proper, this is no trick of the eye. The tree canopy covers almost half of the city—47.9 percent to be precise—according to an assessment released in 2014 by the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission and Georgia Tech. Using satellite imagery to determine coverage down to the neighborhood level, the researchers confirmed that Atlanta has the country’s densest urban tree canopy. Without an oceanfront or mountain chain or broad river flowing through downtown, Atlanta’s most distinctive natural feature is its trees. Despite stringent ordinances aimed at protecting those trees, our canopy faces a paradoxical new threat: renewed interest in urban living. Population growth within the city and a surge in denser development may represent eco-friendly shifts from Atlanta’s car-centric sprawl, but those trends are paired with infill development that puts trees—especially older, taller “overstory” trees that form the canopy—at risk and reduces space to plant replacements. - See more at: http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/it-takes-a-forest-how-intown-development-puts-atlantas-tree-canopy-at-risk/#sthash.4Zmps3dS.PAjaRDGi.dpuf

Read the whole thing.

Morningside trail development funding removed from City budget

A couple of months ago, we became aware that there were two requests for funding included in the City budgeting process, both related to trail development (through public and private properties) in northern Morningside. One request was for a million dollars and the other was an open-ended request. These apparently were long standing requests for funding. Given the overwhelming public opposition in Morningside Lenox Park to these proposed trails, expressed in Park Pride's Visioning process in 2012, we were surprised and alarmed.

We immediately went through the MLPA to get those funding requests removed from the City budgeting process. But having been unaware that those requests had been out there for some years, we were concerned that perhaps other funding requests might be lurking in the darker corners of the budgeting process, and in particular, concerned that requests might have been included in the finalized list of projects to be covered by the recently passed public infrastructure maintenance bond.

We now have confirmation from our City Councilman, Alex Wan, that there are no funds anywhere in the City budget for development of trails in Morningside Lenox Park. He also advised that he is aware of the community opposition and that the issue remains on his radar screen.

Deer in our midst

No this is not from out in the countryside. This is City of Atlanta, Morningside Lenox Park. The primary deer herd in our neighborhood resides in Zonolite but they migrate up and downstream for food and can be seen in backyards along the riparian corridors , in Johnson-Taylor Nature Preserve and in Morningside Nature Preserve. A trail construction group have been active in Zonolite this spring and the disruption appears to have unsettled the herd. Sadly, two stags were struck and killed on our neighborhood roads in the timeframe when path work was being done.

We continue working to contain the public infrastructure development which threatens our remaining greenspaces and urban wildlife and are making some progress. It is hard to estimate the size of the herd but based on various reports from around the neighborhood, I am guessing there are at least a half dozen deer in our midst and possibly more.

This picture was taken by a neighbor from their back porch, Spring 2015.

Click to enlarge

Urban wildlife means . . .

Perhaps we need to update our street signage.

Sally, out for her morning walk with Daisy, approached Johnson Road from Beech Valley. Out of the corner of her eye she saw an animal cavorting in a neighbor's yard. As she turned to observe more closely, it walked out of the yard and casually crossed the street. Not a cat, dog, fox or coyote. She turned to a fellow pedestrian, also watching. "Was that an otter?" A slow nod of the head accompanied by a look of disbelief.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it

From this past February in the New York Times, Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again by Christopher Solomon.

Solomon hits many of the issues that underpins the MLPA Urban Wildlife initiative and its Park Portfolio Approach.

When we think of injuring nature, it is easy to point an accusing finger at mining companies and their strip mines or timber barons and their clear-cuts. But could something as mellow as backcountry skiing or a Thoreauvian walk in the woods cause harm, too?

More and more studies over the last 15 years have found that when we visit the great outdoors, we have much more of an effect than we realize. Even seemingly low-impact activities like hiking, cross-country skiing and bird-watching often affect wildlife, from bighorn sheep to wolves, birds, amphibians and tiny invertebrates, and in subtle ways.

Impacts from outdoor recreation and tourism are the fourth-leading reason that species are listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered, behind threats from nonnative species, urban growth and agriculture.

[snip]

You’d be surprised by the ripples left by a day-hiker’s ramble through the woods. In 2008 Sarah Reed, an associate conservation scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, and her colleagues found fivefold declines in detections of bobcats, coyotes and other midsize carnivores in protected areas in California that allowed quiet recreation activities like hiking, compared with protected areas that prohibited those activities.

“That is the kind of difference that you don’t see often in ecological studies,” Dr. Reed said. Dogs, a frequent villain, weren’t the issue for these carnivores; people were, according to her research.

Birds get ruffled, too. Researchers who studied trails around Boulder, Colo., found that populations of several species of songbirds, including pygmy nuthatches and Western meadowlarks, were lowest near trails. “There’s something about the presence of humans and their pets when they go on hikes that causes a bit of a ‘death zone’ of 100 meters on either side of a trail,” said Prof. Rick Knight of Colorado State University. Running, canoeing, cycling and similar activities negatively affected birds in nearly 90 percent of 69 studies that researchers reviewed in 2011. Reductions were seen in the number of nests built, eggs laid and chicks hatched or fledged.

In Connecticut, wood turtles, labeled a “species of special concern” in the state, vanished from one wildlife preserve over 10 years after the area was opened to activities like hiking, researchers found.

[snip]

The uncomfortable fact is, we’re all complicit. In a not-yet-published review of 218 studies about recreation’s impacts on wildlife, researchers found more evidence of impacts by hikers, backcountry skiers and their like than by the gas-powered contingent.

[snip]

A century ago, nature had elbow room. Now, there’s a lot less of it, while recreational activities and nature tourism are growing in most parks, wilderness areas and other protected areas around the world.

[snip]

Conflicts with nature are a result. Still, scientists insist they don’t want to lock people out of nature. Spending time on a mountainside, or hip-deep in a trout stream, is tonic for brain and body. Research bears this out. And people who recreate outdoors are among nature’s most ardent constituents. Without them, “our landscapes would erode even faster than they are now,” said Dr. Heinemeyer, the wolverine researcher.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it, recognizing that recreation does not necessarily complement conservation or preservation.

[snip]

And in the case of future parks and protected areas, we need to carefully consider the goals for such places and how recreation fits in or doesn’t, because once it is allowed, it is tough to restrict. “Whether or not to allow public access is probably the most important decision that gets made,” Dr. Reed said.

Of course not all wildlife is the same. Some species flee; others habituate. Some populations might be healthy enough to withstand disturbance; others, too fragile. We now know recreation is having impacts in ways that we hadn’t imagined. We must plan accordingly.

National groups focusing on Urban Wildlife

Dr. Marzluff kindly responded to my email with several sources of information. Two are national organizations which might be of assistance. They are:

The Urban Wildlife Working Group

and

Biophilic Cities

I haven't yet looked through them but they appear to have a lot of information likely to be pertinent to our efforts. I highlight items as I come across them. If anybody beats me to it, please make a comment.

Thanks