On 17/07/2013 09:28, Jeff Layman wrote:
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.





I dispute the fact that most lawns are monocultures. Bowling greens and
some golf courses may be, but not most lawns. Indeed, most of the lawns
I see - and I include public parks and gardens - are far from being
monocultures. Many contain clover, daisy, speedwell, selfheal, lesser
celandine, dandelions and some form of hawkweed, not to mention more
than one type of grass. Even alongside a groomed lawn, many public
gardens and verges have wild meadow areas. These would not be there if
chemicals were used in the quantities you suggest. I cannot deny that
some chemicals are used.

Mowing is a necessity from time-to-time, but the average gardener
probably only mows about once a fortnight in high summer. Some of my
neighbours leave off mowing for at least a month, and I don't think this
is unusual, judging by some of the rather 'wild' lawns I pass in my
travels. Personally, I mow about once a fortnight with a push mower,
and the cuttings either go on the compost heap or straight back on the
lawn. Either way, they end up feeding the lawn. I also prefer to weed
manually, so no chemicals used there. A very few of my neighbours use a
weed and feed chemical, but then not every year.

Lawns do soak up excess rainwater and, yes, of course gardens do as
well. The usual alternative to a lawn is concrete, paving or gravel,
all of which damage the environment but, unlike the lawn, offer nothing
to wildlife.

I don't water my lawn. I never said I did. As I said in my first post,
lawns are environmentally friendly, *some* gardeners definitely are not.
Lawns are not a problem; they are a choice and generally a good one as
far as the environment is concerned - especially when compared to the
alternatives.

--
Spider
from high ground in SE London
gardening on clay