People shame Lawn grass for being a polluting monoculture when as you point out fields were once filled with flowers. The fault lies with an industry that demand they be employed to look under your turf and prepare it for the growing season like lawns are automobiles in need of an oil change. In Springfield MA 16 established lawns were not fertilized (no nutrient pollution or nitrogen killing beneficial soil microbes) and not watered. This nontreatment encouraged roots to go deep opening up the soil to life. Grass plants push out the highest percentage of photoysnthesized carbohydrates to build soil (50% not 33%). During the summer 36 species of wildflowers blossomed in the lawns. 1/3 of the lawns were mowed weekly, 1/3 every 2 weeks, and 1/3 every 3 weeks. All with blade set 4 inches high. The lawns cut every 3 weeks were found to have 62 species of bees. The lawns cut every 2 weeks had 94 bee species. Apparently bee species diversity was greater in the shorter than 3 week cut grass. Bees hate watering, hit by drops and filling pith nests. When you walk on the grass or cut it, the plant is stimulated to grow drawing down more carbon dioxide and feeding the soil more carbohydrates. In New England a lawn can build an inch of soil in a year. Four inches of soil can hold seven inches of rain thanks to sticky carbohydrates holding mineral grains far apart. For life on Earth any vegetation and soil is better than hardscape and heat islands.
Best green practices. An established non-fertilized lawn, no chemicals, may build an inch of soil in a year. Four inches of soil can hold seven inches of rain because sticky carbohydrates hold mineral grains so far apart. To rehydrate Massachusetts with more soil acting as a big carbon sponge we are calling for a state bill that will grant lawn owners money when the pledge not to spread quick-release fertilizer because it benefits everyone and fights climate change with more moisture and carbon in the ground, not in the atmosphere.
You have a good point. When no chemicals are used and native plants are allowed to grow in with turf grass that’s one thing. But it’s the pesticides and fertilizers that make manicured lawns an environmental desert.
Yes, we must not shame people for having lawns. Instead help them understand how without chemicals, and by ignoring pestering by Lawncare companies, their lawns acting as nature’s sponges can benefit us all. Impervious surfaces are the problem, not plants.
In the UK our history is littered with garden designers trying to "tame" nature and try to get it to conform to our requirements. This was especially the case in the period of the Enlightenment (about 1680 to 1815) when it appeared that we had got all the answers (Isaac Newton is who I blame). But I prefer a more balanced landscape with room for nature to just be with less interventions. Sadly as more house building takes place in traditionally rural areas nature is getting trampled.
People shame Lawn grass for being a polluting monoculture when as you point out fields were once filled with flowers. The fault lies with an industry that demand they be employed to look under your turf and prepare it for the growing season like lawns are automobiles in need of an oil change. In Springfield MA 16 established lawns were not fertilized (no nutrient pollution or nitrogen killing beneficial soil microbes) and not watered. This nontreatment encouraged roots to go deep opening up the soil to life. Grass plants push out the highest percentage of photoysnthesized carbohydrates to build soil (50% not 33%). During the summer 36 species of wildflowers blossomed in the lawns. 1/3 of the lawns were mowed weekly, 1/3 every 2 weeks, and 1/3 every 3 weeks. All with blade set 4 inches high. The lawns cut every 3 weeks were found to have 62 species of bees. The lawns cut every 2 weeks had 94 bee species. Apparently bee species diversity was greater in the shorter than 3 week cut grass. Bees hate watering, hit by drops and filling pith nests. When you walk on the grass or cut it, the plant is stimulated to grow drawing down more carbon dioxide and feeding the soil more carbohydrates. In New England a lawn can build an inch of soil in a year. Four inches of soil can hold seven inches of rain thanks to sticky carbohydrates holding mineral grains far apart. For life on Earth any vegetation and soil is better than hardscape and heat islands.
Best green practices. An established non-fertilized lawn, no chemicals, may build an inch of soil in a year. Four inches of soil can hold seven inches of rain because sticky carbohydrates hold mineral grains so far apart. To rehydrate Massachusetts with more soil acting as a big carbon sponge we are calling for a state bill that will grant lawn owners money when the pledge not to spread quick-release fertilizer because it benefits everyone and fights climate change with more moisture and carbon in the ground, not in the atmosphere.
You have a good point. When no chemicals are used and native plants are allowed to grow in with turf grass that’s one thing. But it’s the pesticides and fertilizers that make manicured lawns an environmental desert.
Yes, we must not shame people for having lawns. Instead help them understand how without chemicals, and by ignoring pestering by Lawncare companies, their lawns acting as nature’s sponges can benefit us all. Impervious surfaces are the problem, not plants.
In the UK our history is littered with garden designers trying to "tame" nature and try to get it to conform to our requirements. This was especially the case in the period of the Enlightenment (about 1680 to 1815) when it appeared that we had got all the answers (Isaac Newton is who I blame). But I prefer a more balanced landscape with room for nature to just be with less interventions. Sadly as more house building takes place in traditionally rural areas nature is getting trampled.
My pet peeve is all the non-native exotics overrunning the place instead of the native plants we need.