If left unattended, our lawns will advance through a succession of plants-- vines, brambles, woody shrubs-- and ultimately become mature forest. Mowing keeps the forest at bay, holding plant succession at a very early stage.
If our yard is large we can elect to mow less, thereby pollute less, save money, and introduce more diversity into our landscape. We can control or speed up this otherwise random succession by choosing to buy and install native shrubs and trees in a design that suits our eye. (There is a great book on this matter: Bringing Nature Home, by Doug Tallamy.)
But let's say we don't do any of this (because collectively, we don't), and instead we routinely mow massive areas (45 million acres), and for some ill born reason, apply chemicals (100 million pounds annually) to kill everything but a particular grass species. Gone are the broadleaves, the nitrogen fixing legumes, the tiny speedwell of spring, the trailing ivy, many of the insects. Gone is the diversity. In comes the synthetic fertilizer, irrigation (nine billion gallons/day), fungicides and insecticides (all of which contribute to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico in no small way). We create a monoculture that nature opposes at every turn. We direct our money and efforts at something that is second only to artificial turf in being natural or supporting a healthy ecosystem. There is nothing more out of place than a manicured stand of pure bluegrass, green and lush, particularly in periods of drought. Grasses have evolved to endure drought, and by design, go dormant to protect themselves.
Are we nuts? Have we really thought this through? Mow less, can the chemicals, conserve the water, curb pollution, keep the money, and appreciate the results!
No comments:
Post a Comment