I wonder what the long-term impacts of so many homeowners applying lawncare chemicals will have. It just seems like a bad idea to spray chemicals all over the lawn, yet so many do it it. I also wonder how many are over-applying, thus making matters worse. Any thoughts on how to change people's mindsets. It seems herd mentality has taken over, even though most likely know this is not healthy or environmentally friendly.
I can attest to lawns being the enemy. For many years I grew a dense native plant yard and literally have tens of thousands of pictures of terrestrial arthropods ok a lot of dupes of individuals but also amazing biodiversity and multispecies and social phenomena like ant symbiosis which I wrote about here: http://www.elegantcoding.com/2016/05/my-ant-symbiosis-storie... and opiliones social behavior. It was amazing. They only problem is that it is illegal and I was forced to destroy all of my native plants by my local municipality. As a result the insects disappeared.
I doubt it has much to do with homeowners and lawn care. If anything, it has to do with the thousands of square miles of cropland that gets sprayed for insects each year.
Then again, you get outside any of the cities and the windshield gets bug splattered as always.
Trillions upon trillions of insects versus humanity? I'd bet on the insects.
This belief that nature has control over the planet is sadly mistaken. If humanity wanted to, it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life. Humanity has invented things far beyond the reach of nature and far beyond what nature can cope with.
"it could nuke the planet eliminating all insect life"
We'd have to spend a while building a supply of big cobalt-salted bombs because the nuclear arsenals we've actually had have come nowhere near to the level required to wipe out all people let alone all insects.
This is just entirely untrue. We have plenty of nuclear warheads, enough to nuke the thousand most populated cities several times over. All humanity would be dead or dying. those not killed immediately have to deal with fallout and new weather patterns caused by huge amounts of dust blocking the sky.
It is conceivable a few might live, but it is also entirely possible the survivors would be too irradiated to sustain a breeding populations. Vast plant populations would die off, only those not directly blasted and able to survive a few years of artificial global winter survive. This presumes the dust is also non-reflective, because if it lowers the Earth's albedo enough it could trigger an ice age. If that happens then pretty much no individuals survive the triple threat of nuclear blasting, perpetual winter and loss of vegetation, unless they have some uncommon radiation resistance and incredibly low nutrition requirements. In this last paragraph was I talking about humans or insects? Doesn't matter; the cost of nuclear war is too high for us to talk about it lightly, because it is an awesome power that can destroy us if used lightly.
I think even with nuclear weapons we'd have a hard time eliminating ALL the microfauna out there. Of course the recovery time would be measured in hundreds of millions of years at that point.
I suggest you take a look on what a big asteroid impact can do. (You can start on the one 65M years ago, it is a good example.)
We are on the path, but we still didn't create something that Nature couldn't outdo. And then there are those interstellar (e.g. supernovas) and pan-galactic (e.g. gamma ray bursts) killers...
> Trillions upon trillions of insects versus humanity? I'd bet on the insects.
Yup, we'll just be left with the insects that can adapt quickly - cockroaches, aphids, ants - and not the insects we need/want - bees, butterflies, etc.
Cockroaches, aphids, ants are still insects we need and want. Having the distinction between good and bad insects is part of the problem. Similar problem with the distinction with good plants (grass) and bad plants (weeds). More diversity is healthier.
And if the bees continue their die-off, they'll take a majority of the mammals and insects with them, because as much as 80% of plants are pollinated by these creatures. Goodbye food chain.
As if that's not enough, imagine global warming if even a 50% decline in CO2 converting plantlife were to happen.
Lawns, in general, are not environment-friendly because of the need to use fuel to cut it and for spraying chemicals to keep the weeds and mosquitoes out. I lost the battle with my HOA to completely take the lawn out and instead just plant some useful trees. People don't realize how much money they spend on a 30 year basis to keep the lawns healthy.
I don't understand why more people don't use push reel lawnmowers. I've used one ever since I stopped living in apartments, and they are not that difficult to use. They are lighter-weight than their gas-powered cousins, and you don't have to fill it up with gas every damn time you mow. Also it doesn't make 9000dB of noise.
Push reel lawnmowers perform poorly unless the grass is completely dry. If the grass is damp, the mower doesn't get enough traction and slides. So, here in the PNW, I switched to a corded electric mower and now I'm not so restricted on when I can mow.
same here. Switched to a modern reel mower* and my poor thin lawn has benefited. it cuts like scissors, not like an axe, and it's both small and nearly silent so mowing the lawn isn't as stressful as before, what with fumes and noise. Not saying I love mowing the lawn (it's still work, after all), but it's a very different more pleasant experience compared to a gas mower, and just as quick.
The cordless mowers appear to be getting better and better. With my new yard full of beds, trees, and other obstacles, half the mowing time is time managing the cord. So, I'm buying a Ryobi battery operated 21" lawnmower.
Depends on the size of your lawn. If you have a little postage-stamp lawn, reel mowers are great. If you have a sizeable lawn (the kind you really need a riding mower for), then you're looking at hours and hours of backbreaking work every week.
The big problem with reel mowers is that they only work well when the grass is already short. If the grass grows too tall (which isn't that much), the mower just pushes the grass over, or gets bogged down in it. So you have to be absolutely religious in cutting the grass on time. I've used reel mowers at a couple of houses I've lived in; they were great when the grass area of the yard was tiny and the grass didn't grow too quickly. But where I am now, there's just no way.
Agreed. Also, apart from mowing, a lawn can really be as easy or hard to maintain as you choose. Mine it kinda bumpy, has several patches of moss and has plenty of dandelions; I don't think "fixing" these problems will ever become enough of a priority to get it done. And of course, I'd never use chemicals of any kind for the lawn.
Got one of this for my lawn about 8 years ago and it was probably the best investment i've made for the lawn. Not only does it remove the maintenance but it also keeps the grass cut to a certain length, drying out the weeds and fertilising the grass with the smaller cut off parts. On top of that it's electric.
I agree, trees would be better but in your situation i can only recommend it.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, mine been running for 8 years with only 1 battery replacement and the occasional razor blade replacement. The climate where i live is really rainy and it has survived so far.
Nowadays they start at around $1300 for 10000 square feet and goes upward in price the larger lawn you have. But with that price you also never have to attend your lawn again.
I get loads of flies, wasps, bees, spiders, butterflies, snails and slugs; in my back 'garden' every year.
The garden is badly maintained; located in a town in highly polluted south east England; it features long grass; random weeds; stinging nettles; and brambles; this green stuff just grows and I occasionally hack it down again.
There is no way a lawn mower would even work; I use a scythe.
