I hate lawns

Poaceae, the grass family is perhaps the most successful family of plants on earth. Under natural processes, grasslands cover 20-40% of the land surface. In addition, they have managed to make themselves indispensable to the continued growth of the most successful primate species, humans. Six of the top 7 agricultural plants are grasses, including corn, wheat, rice, and barley.We harvested 672 million hectares of grass food crops accounting for 5% of the world's landmass. In comparison, we currently use 11% of the world's land for food production. This is perhaps the most extreme and successful example of mutual coevolution. The plant offers nutrition in exchange for protection and spread.

The grass family is diverse, with species being able to survive from the arctic tundra to the steamy tropics. Grasses tolerate burning, repeated trampling, flooding, grazing, you name it. They are troopers. Just ask the crabgrass in the sidewalk cracks, yet without our help, they would be mostly confined to areas not hospitable to other, typically larger and woodier plants like trees. Mind you the Great Plains, the Siberian Steppes, and the Serengeti account for a pretty large area of the world's land surface. However, in areas with more rainfall or less fires, trees can grow and shade out the grasses. One can say our crops are using us to terraform earth for their needs. Our ability to feed the world comes at the expense of millions of acres of trees and other ecosystems. We have even altered the grasslands themselves. There are only fragments of unplowed prairies, threatening many wildflowers and animals such as Leopold's Silphiums.

Then come the urban areas. There's still grass everywhere in the form of lawns. 80% of yards have a lawn. A lush green lawn evokes the affluence of the European manors that first started the practice of a purely ornamental lawn. Previously short cut grass was maintained by livestock grazing. This crop, with a 40 billion dollar industry around it, is purely decorative and a epic waste. We literally pour rivers into keeping grass green in desert regions. We pollute the air with 2 cycle lawnmowers and the water with pesticides. We poison the entire ecosystem by maintaining the monoculture in the name of the American Way. Grass is boring and wasteful. I find a lawn laced with wildflowers even if it was just violets and dandelions to be much more attractive. My yard is never fertilized or sprayed and every year, more grass is converted into garden space. It's lower maintenence and can serve purposes like vegetable production or runoff collection.  It's sort of like how the Creating an Urban Eden class built the bio-swales along Tower Road instead of installing a strip of grass that would have to be replanted yearly.

Maintaining a good-looking monoculture is a never ending drain on resources and time. That's why golf courses are so expensive. It's actually very unhealthy. To keep a lawn green, it has to be in constant growth, which is susceptible to diseases and pests. In addition, the monoculture is like an all you can eat buffet for the pests. The perpetual dead spots near the sidewalk are a combination of trampling and harsh temperature swings. Believe it or not, it's not the winter salt that kills grass but the freeze thaw cycles. On a sunny cold day, the concrete can be 30-40 degrees warmer than the air temperature, melting the soil, but as soon as the sun goes down, the temperature plummets and the grass freezes. Dr. Frank Rossi, who is Cornell's turfgrass specialist conducted research that showed this.

In short, the American Lawn has to die. It's simply not sustainable and there are better things to do with the limited space in urban areas. Even an unmowed wildflower meadow would be able to harbor beneficial insects and wildlife. Or one could make use of the land and grow food. The goal is to improve the urban ecosystem, not continue poisoning the land.

Wildlife

I was so caught up with plants I almost forgot that wildlife exists. I don't know why I prefer plants over animals but I do care about the well-being of both. I think it's nice that we have found a way to live with all the resident wildlife on campus. Then again, the diversity isn't exactly great from what I've seen. I bet the urban life deoesn't suit many species but others, like squirrels, are adaptable and thrive. 

Dickson's resident skunk

Caution! chipmunk

The animals here are so used to people's presence that half the time they act as if you don't exist. The other day I was wandering along the lake when I realized that I had stepped over a goose nest. Completely unguarded, with no goose in sight. It it were DC, I would've gotten pecked to death long ago. The geese here in a way are nice they let you pass instead of the other way around. I wonder how that happened.

Heron and a Canadian Goose

Goose nest

The wildlife is more than just for viewing pleasure. They are a part of the ecosystem. Squirrels and chipmunks hoard away seeds underground, which then sprout regenerating forests. However annoying it is to have hundreds of oak seedling pop up in your flowerbeds, the planting is a valuable ecosystem service to the forests. They also help clean up the ecosystem. Scavengers like vultures clean up carrion, which prevent disease spread. We have a responsibility to allow these cycles to happen to the best of our ability. It's also logical to. Ecosystem services are invaluable to us , yet many times we don't realize it.

Vultures ( I saw them up close but didn't get a photo)

The Norway Maple

The Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) is one of the earliest trees to flower in the NE. It's clusters of chartreuse flowers signals the beginning of spring. Introduced to the US in 1756, it quickly became a popular street tree for its ability to tolerate adverse conditions. On the other hand, the native Sugar Maple is famously (among gardeners) unable to tolerate disturbance to roots, heat, and drought, associated with life in urban areas. Many other native trees like the American Elm, Ash, and American Chestnut were killed by diseases hitchhiking over on plant from Europe. To replace the rapidly dying canopy, trees like the Norway Maple were planted. The Norway Maple made itself at home in the NE and quickly began to spread outside of gardens and cities. However, at the time, much of the land was being farmed so its opportunity to invade forests was lessened because there were no forests to invade.

Norway Maple flowers

 Plains and elsewhere, Farmland was abandoned en masse and allowed to revert back to forest. In the past, Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), and Red Oaks (Quercus rubra) would be the dominant species in a climax forest. However, the Norway Maple had many advantages. For example, its root system is thick and fibrous, allowing it to literally suck the life out of the soil, as anyone who has tried to grow a lawn under one of these trees can attest. In addition, any plants that managed to grab a foothold under the tree would be shaded out by the Norway maple's wide leaves. The fact that it is one of the earliest trees to leaf out also helps. Its ability to out compete many trees also allows it to suppress the understory. There is simply not much that can grow under a Norway maple. Interestingly, to me these characteristics would be a dealbreaker for an ornamental tree not to mention that it often girdles itself in cramped environments, that it, strangle itself to death with its roots, but I guess some people want a carefree tree.
 
Norway maples often establish pure stands, especially near areas disturbed by humans. In the more far flung areas, there are isolated specimens, but something has kept them from establishing themselves. Either they physically did not spread there or they may have already died out since their lifespans generally under 100 years as the secondary growth forest grows. Either way, it is considered an invasive species for its ability to displace native plants in disturbed sites.

I don't have anything against introduced species coexisting with native species but as some of the introduced species, like Norway Maples push other plants out, then they become a problem. Even in their native habitat, they do not form monocultures since there are diseases and other plants that keep them in check, which are not present in the US. These species should be dealt with accordingly, ideally by extirpation. However,  the attitudinal fix of education probably won't work, especially when the tree is mainly planted in urban areas where people can't see its effects. A technical fix would be creating a sterile variety that can;t reproduce. But there are certainly breeding populations out there already and those would need to be eliminated. The structural fix of banning the sale of them, which has been done in some states like Wisconsin and Illinois, where the invasion has been worse, but the sale of the Norway Maple in New York is still legal and only regulated in a way that intentional introduction into the wild is illegal. The Norway Maple is probably one of the oldest invasive species in the US, and like almost all the other ones, was introduced as a ornamental or agricultural plant with an intended use. The list of problems the cause goes on and on. It also goes to show that some actions intended to fix problems can create more problems than they are worth.