On 16/07/2013 14:50, Spider wrote:
On 16/07/2013 13:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 16/07/2013 09:13, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Just to note that despite the hot, dry weather and the forecast that this
may go on for a long time people are still cutting lawns to almost bare
earth for some reason.

Probably in the hope that all the grass will be completely removed, thus
ending the need to do any mowing once and for all.

Is there a more environmentally unfriendly garden plant than lawn grass?





I think the lawn is a very environmentally friendly planting. It is good
for wildlife; it is good for soaking up excess rainwater; it is good for
stopping soil erosion, esp on sloping ground; it is good at providing
low-level humidity (even on a summer's day I have to wait for the
morning dew to dry before mowing).

Most lawns are near monocultures (lawn-obsessives have an absolute
monoculture). Any broad-leaved "weeds" are dealt with, usually by
chemical means. Environmentally unfriendly - not just for wildlife.
Think of the energy and waste issues in manufacturing those chemicals.

Then they use fertiliser, which is imported. Environmentally unfriendly
as it uses fossil fuels to get here.

Then they mow it (after encouraging it to grow with fertiliser!).
Environmentally unfriendly (unless they use a push-mower)) as the mower
will use petrol or electricity, again unnecessarily using fossil fuels.
And what about the energy used in manufacturing lawnmowers?

Not to mention the thousands of litres of water used unnecessarily.
Lawns don't need watering. Environmentally unfriendly water waste, and
pollution of waterways with weedkiller and fertiliser run-off.

As for stopping soil erosion, any plant with a decent root system will
do that. Soaking up water? Well, I doubt it, but haven't seen any
figures. I reckon a decent-sized tree, or even large shrub, will take
up a lot more water than grass from the same surface area.

Low level humidity? Well, yes, but you get that on any plant, not just
grass.

--

Jeff