Dear Jeanne- I just joined GardenWeb because I happened across this posting the other day and I wanted to comment about your birdhouse. I hope there is some sort of notification system that lets you know there was some activity on this old post from last year. Maybe someone can help me learn how this forum works. I know my comments are late coming. I'm curious how the birdhouse worked out this summer. My comment is a combination of congratulations and criticism and I hope you will find it helpful in planning any winter projects for next spring's birds and garden. I am active with The Purple Martin Conservation Association and am signed up as a "mentor" for folks in my area who are interested in learning more about martins and attracting them to their home. In this case- I'm sticking my neck out with some "outreach" that's unsolicited. And I must be clear- I am not a representative of the PMCA- I'm just a lover of native cavity nesting birds. If you are interested, you can find a mentor close to you at the PMCA website. The birdhouse that you and your husband made is a commendable beauty of craftsmanship but sadly it's a disaster for native bird conservation. I will include a link to some information about martin biology and at the PMCA website you can download file explaining ideal housing specs- and even buy plans to build state of the art perfect housing (which is quite an undertaking) There are really only three kind of birds who will nest in close proximity to eachother, English House Sparrows, European Starlings and Purple Martins. The first two are introduced non-native birds who compete aggressively with our native cavity nesting birds for nest sites... including wrens, blue birds and tree swallows as well as most of the woodpeckers. (starlings have been known to kill woodpecker nestlings in order to take over the wild nest site that the woodpecker excavated- so this isn't just about man-made birdhouses) The non-native birds have behaviors that our native birds did not evolve competing with. This is not a matter of "good vs. bad" it's a simple matter of biology and the problems that introducing non-natives can cause for the local ecology. It would be better to provide no nest sites at all- than to provide nest sites which are only hospitable to these invasive non-native birds as you will only be increasing the burden on the local cavity nesting birds. Every breed of bird has specific needs- and it is quite amazing how - if you provide the perfect nest site (the right size hole, the right depth cavity, the right height off the ground, perch or no perch, in the right location in your yard) AND you provide an environment free from aggressive competition with the non-natives... you can cultivate a bird family of a specific variety with almost the same assurance as planting a specific seed in the ground. You should never put up a house with the idea that "some bird" will make a nest there- every bird house you place should be so specific that you know exactly which bird you are targeting- as if you sent them a unmistakable written invitation...and when you see your efforts rewarded- it is oh so satisfying!! Bird houses should never be placed on climbable poles as they just become "egg shops" for snakes, and raccoons. (The auger could not be a more perfectly designed snake ladder.) Also bird houses should not have plantings at the base of the poles as these hide predators from view. I hope this has been helpful- best wishes- Sarah Here is a link that might be useful: About Purple Martins

Unlike other birds, robins are extremely skilled worm hunters. After a robin couple built a nest in my backyard's apple tree this year, I wanted to move the nest to another yard, but I resisted, and so I watched the robins hunt and capture lots and lots of worms from my yard. Worm castings (pooh-pooh) is just about the best fertilizer there is, so I was sorry to see so many worms killed by the robin couple to feed their 2 young babies in the nest. Although I didn't remove the nest, I discouraged the robins from removing worms from my lawn whenever I saw them hunting, which I saw them doing all the time. I actually saved a few worms from the robins' mouths and hid the saved worms under soil in the veggie garden. You gotta hide the worms you save because the robin will return to the spot you stole the worm from him shortly after you leave the spot. I've never seen any other bird species that's as good at worm hunting than robins. I gotta wonder if they're the best? They seem to be the only bird species in my neighborhood to hunt worms. I've never seen any other bird around here capture a worm, which makes me think most of the other bird species don't hunt worms.

Greenthumbz, those are gorgeous pics! I've heard that there are a couple of trees that are not native to North America but are used by significant numbers of native insects. 1) Malus/Crabapples - native, hybrid, or exotic, Douglas Tallamy's book stated that the leaf chemistry is so similar that North american insects will use all species. This certainly bears true in my experience. I've got lots of crabs, a few specimens and a crazy wild thicket full of them in back,and they are bird magnets, not just for the fruits in the fall but for the nectar and insects in spring and summer. 2) Picea abies/Norway spruce - don't have any personal experience, but was told this by an ornithology student at Cornell who was doing a study on the subject

This highly unscientific. It is typical in ecology which many times is more ideology than science. In the first part, we reed this: "Our results show that Eastern redcedar is increasing in density in Kansas prairies from research that we have studied. Invasion of redcedar has been estimated to be 56.9 trees per hectare per year (reference??). When redcedar become more abundant than grass and begin to take over, they decrease the amount of plant species growing under them and lower biodiversity according to our sources and data. There are more plant species found in native prairie than in redcedar forest. In order to control this problem, proper management techniques need to be taken to prevent further invasion. Our literature review shows that with proper control, Eastern redcedar can be kept under control and not pose a problem." What is a problem or not, is a personal point of view. If I like redcedar more than grass, it is not a problem, it is very good. Scientists can never tell us whether something should be perceived as a problem or not. They can only tell us, in an unbiased way, what happens and whether the change is significant or not. It is ideology that tells us what we should think and do about something. Not science. This again is something a society has to decide. For instance: do the people like it or not? Do they want to spend money on it, if they don't like it? Is there money for it? Does eradication help, is it feasable? Is eradication of plants something we think is "good" as a society? Etc? No scientist can tell us that. What are the longterm costs of constant eradication? What if we stop for ten years (because of economy for instance): will all efforts be in vain?? What are the long term effects of this invasion on biodiversity? I can understand some PLANTS of course wil not survive in a forest, but what plants will return and on what time scale? How will the biodiversity look like int 10-50 and 100 years? In virtually all cases I know, forests (native and nonantive) carry much more biodiverisity than any grassland. Is biodiversity a good marker for what is good or bad? For what is desirable and what is not in the landscape? Why? Why is it not esthectics, or why shouldn't we look at funghi tat grow under these trees, or animal life or a combination of those? It is like climatologists writing papers on seaice decline and than telling us what we should do. That we should boycot the US as the highest emitter of CO2 per capita. Or that we should sanction China for it. In their free time on ther personal accoutn, they ar efree to do so. But again: not in scientifici papers. BTW: You'll never read that in climatology, as climatologists can only say what is significant and what is not and that is the only thing they do say. climate change is a science fact: what wil happen to the prairie if temperatures rise in the next 20-70 years? Do we know that? Another point I found is that prairies and especially infertile parts are abandoned. I am not 100% sure, bu that is what I read. If so: you need to manage more and mor ehabitat in order to keep the prairie the way it is. Still, globalwarming could change everything as many species are living within climatological boundaries. But this is a good example of what ecology is: not scientific (read the par that rodents are considered bad, how is that scientific??) but ideological. They don't observe things only and give us therir impartial data, nope, they also tell us what we should think about it or feel that if others thinks likewise (farmers) etc this add to their findings somehow. In short: this is in the line of ecology nowadays. Pick up 5 books on invasion ecology and you'll find little evidence (or even clear evidence to the contrary, like I did) but a whole lot of value laden wording. Now these words together to many people sound plausble, but in my mind they indoctrinate the students who read this on their university. And so they'll continue to do research this way with little evidence, little data on statistical significance but a lot of assumptions.