What is "natural" in nature? I remember a 1990 column entitled "Bug Wars," in which NY Times columnist Anna Quindlin wrote about the gypsy moths that, back then, were defoliating vast areas of eastern forest. She used the destructive moths as fodder for reflections on nature and its ways, not knowing that the moths can hardly be thought of as natural. They were introduced from another continent, then escaped and multiplied, consuming forests that had not evolved any defenses against them. Fortunately, scientists found a very low-toxicity way to limit the gypsy moth's numbers, though sustaining that balance requires ongoing human vigilance and action.
With introduced insects and diseases having decimated first our ashes and now our beech trees, it's worth noting the more sustainable relationships between plants and animals that have co-evolved over millennia on the same continent.
Tent Caterpillars and Black CherryHibiscus Sawfly and Rose Mallow Hibiscus
Though many leaves were partially eaten, the hibiscus grew new ones that remained unaffected. I think of this relationship as akin to someone who donates a percentage of their income to good causes each year.
"On native persimmon, these psyllids can be temporarily abundant; but their populations soon decline naturally, as they are attacked by their natural enemies, including parasitic wasps."
For some, even small blemishes on a plant will be annoying, but in a nature preserve, the long-sustained give and take between the plant and animal worlds is part of a complex food web to be celebrated.
We could wish that the beech and the introduced nematode that threatens it would ultimately come into a balance that allows coexistence, but other native tree species laid low--chestnut, elm, ash--remain marginalized, even, as in the case of the American chestnut, more than a century later.