When I signed up for the course “Lawns in the Landscape: Environment Hero or Villain?” at the University of Maryland I had suspicions, even after reading this description: “Examination of the lawn as an element in the anthropogenic landscape and its influence on global warming, regional air and water quality, ecological diversity, mammalian pesticide exposure and consumptive water use…Policies that incentivize lawn alternatives or changes in lawn management behavior are discussed.”
My suspicions were twofold – what if the professor is a tool of the turfgrass industry? Or conversely, what if he’s a tool of the anti-lawn movement? I was relieved to learn that Dr. Mark Carroll is neither of those. He’s a turfgrass researcher, and one of the best teachers I’ve ever had.
One more hesitation I had about the course is one I’m embarrassed to admit – that it’s been my most-covered topic for 20 years so I could probably taught the course myself! Hahahahahaha! See, I imagined the content would be similar to information directed to the public, but no, this is science! Here’s what was covered, per the syllabus:
- History of lawns (2 lectures)
- The turf industry
- Cultural norms (a low point that I ranted about here)
- Turfgrass growth and development
- Soils and fertilizers
- Garden equipment
- Best management practices
- Climate change and carbon sequestration
- Water restrictions and landscape use
- Fertilizers (3 lectures)
- Pesticides (3 lectures)
- Lawns and pollinators
- Clover
- Organic lawn care
- Synthetic turf
Whew! And boy was I glad I was auditing because math was involved! Students had to calculate how much carbon the campus lawn sequesters and emissions from gas-powered lawnmowers. But it was a relief to learn about lawn from a scientific perspective, from an objective researcher, one who’s involved in writing state laws protecting the Chesapeake Bay – the most restrictive in the U.S. Dr. Carroll quickly assuaged my fears that he had any sort of agenda.
I hope that prepares you for some news that may shock you:
Lawns Have Benefits!
Since there’s about 50 million acres of turfgrass in the U.S., it’s good to know that it provides some important ecosystem services:
- Filters air pollutants
- Erosion control and dust stabilization “It’s particularly good at stopping initial movement of water down a slope.”
- Cools surface temperature
- Reduces noise pollution
- Reduces pests like snakes, rodents, mosquitos and ticks.
- Captures and stores carbon (Turfgrass roots die off within a year – which increases organic matter in the soil.)
- Catches, filters and conserves surface water to reduces run off of contaminants.
- Cultural and recreational benefits (Yes, benefits to humans are included in definitions of eco-services.)
The National Park Service agrees, adding that “Turfgrass Supports Bioremediation: Pollutants, such hydrocarbons and heavy metals, that are detrimental to the health of people, plants, and animals, often end up in our soil where these substances can be broken down by bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms. A healthy stand of turfgrass possesses an extensively fibrous root system, providing both the habitat and energy source for these microbial populations to be much more productive than other plant systems.”
Cornell adds one more to the list – “Increases home selling price.”
Lawns are sure better than some alternatives – like wood chips or pavers. (AI-generated images.)
Misinformation #1: Lawns Have No Environmental Benefits At All
I’m not the only one noticing the problem in current lawn messaging: “Lawns seem to draw as much irrational hate as they do love these days,” said Paul Robbins, dean of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of “Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are.” He added, “Green lawns, as much as brown ones, are now seen as a moral failing.” Source: New York Times
From Homegrown National Park
Much of the irrational hate is due to claims that lawns have “zero benefit” environmentally, frequently asserted by entomologist and native-plant advocate Dr. Doug Tallamy and many people who quote him. I’ve heard him say in talks or interviews that lawns perform “none” of the services that properties should provide. (One source is Homegrown National Park.)
Why make claims that are demonstrably false?
My old green-enough, stormwater-filtering lawn.
I first became leery of anti-lawn attacks back when I had a lawn on a fairly steep incline and could see that even during a strong rain event, the rain did indeed filter through the grass. So the often-repeated claim that it was no better than asphalt at preventing run-off I recognized are BS. (Just last week a local activist repeated that claim to me and I knew not to waste my breath trying to correct her.)
You know what DOES cause turfgrass (and other plants) to fail to capture stormwater? The compacted soil or construction rubble it’s planted in. That lawn of mine was growing in real topsoil that had never been damaged by heavy equipment.
These slides from class illustrate a missing point in the whole anti-lawn argument – the major role played by the soil or lack thereof. I would never have guessed the lawn on the right was so self-sustaining. (This is from a study by Dr. Carroll.) Soil compaction is often found to be the cause of poor lawn performance leading to over-use of fertilizers and herbicides.
Misinformation #2: Lawn Care HAS to be Harmful, and High-Maintenance
Even more prevalent is the claim is that lawns require vast inputs – pesticides, harmful fertilizers and supplemental water.
From a talk by Mark Richardson, New England Botanic Garden at Tower Hill
Here’s an example, from the Scientific American: “There are a lot of ecosystem services that lawns can offer, unlike a hard surface such as cement or asphalt. Lawns sequester atmospheric carbon, produce oxygen and prevent erosion. But lawn upkeep takes resources: water; fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides that enter groundwater and runoff water; and mowers that burn fossil fuels and emit gases that heat up the atmosphere. ”
Kudos (I guess) to Scientific American for acknowledging lawn’s ecosystem services and that it’s better than cement.
And here’s Margaret Renkl in the New York Times:
Nearly everything about how Americans “care” for their lawns is deadly. Pesticides prevent wildflower seeds from germinating and poison the insects that feed songbirds and other wildlife. Lawn mower blades, set too low, chop into bits the snakes and turtles and baby rabbits that can’t get away in time. Mulch, piled too deep, smothers ground-nesting bees, and often the very plants that mulch is supposed to protect, as well… Turf grass requires immense amounts of water and poison to maintain.
But what I learned in class is that most homeowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed don’t use pesticides on their lawns at all. And in the suburban DC neighborhoods where I’ve lived, you can tell herbicides aren’t used because the lawns have plenty of weeds. They’re “freedom lawns” or “green-enough” lawns, like the one I used to have. And in this region fungicides (the other pesticides they’re referring to) are used on golf courses but rarely on residential lawns.
What homeowners actually DO is mow, and most do apply fertilizer, but rarely more often than once a year. Here and and increasingly elsewhere, there are strict limitations on the types, amounts and timing of fertilizer application. We’re no longer allowed to top-dress lawns with compost due to its high phosphorus content! Dr. Carroll was on the research team recommending Maryland’s restrictions – the strictest in the U.S. (I’ll have more on the surprisingly complicated topic of lawn fertilization in a separate post.)
Finally, about the claim that lawns need “excessive amounts of water.” Well sure, in arid climates lawns require outrageous amounts of that scare resource. But here in Maryland we get roughly the right amount of rain to keep our lawns green (about 1.5″ per week) and when we do have periods of drought, we can just let them go dormant until the rains come again.
And let’s not forget that lawns don’t have to be perfect monocultures like the one shown above. You can easily add some clover and other flowering plants that support pollinators.
A More Impactful, Pro-Environment Message? Reduce Your Lawn AND Get Rest of it Off Drugs!
Anti-lawn messengers could do the most good by meeting people where they are – wanting or needing to keep their lawn, or some of it. So in addition to encouraging people to reduce their lawns (with facts, inspiring images, and no misinformation), an even more impactful message is to stop using pesticides. And why not include: follow fertilizer best practices and let your lawns go dormant during summer.
There’s plenty of good information to help people switch to “eco-friendly” lawn care, like Cornell’s “Just Do Less” message. And there’s Oregon State’s “How to make lawns eco-friendly,” which lists even more benefits of turfgrass and is simply helpful:
Lawns might get a bad rap but provide benefits such as play space for kids and pets, erosion control and allowing line-of-sight at intersections. They are also a low-cost, easy-maintenance ground cover. There are thoughtful ways to keep a lawn as part of your landscape while balancing climate change concerns.
What’s stopping the very vocal anti-lawn messengers from following the science and broadening their appeal to include eco-friendly lawn care? I’m honestly asking, because I don’t get it.
I never bought that “lawns are high maintainence” either—if it’s short & green it’s lawn. All you do is mow. If lawns were higher maintainence than gardens everyone would have a garden. Instead, one sees lots of houses with just a lawn & maybe a shrub or two. Because that’s LESS maintainence.
Excellent point! And real gardeners know that the suggested replacements are more work and that they require more expertise. Any teenager can mow a lawn!
Lawns are lower maintenance. I completely removed 90% of my back lawn in 2011. It’s was harder work and more maintenance especially for the first three years of getting it established and still more than work Centipede lawn grass which thrives in the coastal plains of the south. It only requires 1/2 lb of nitrogen per thousand sq ft. No P or K, or herbicides and thankfully good soil underneath permitting oxygen transfer and water penetration the two critical components of healthy lawns of any type. That and proper mowing height. No irrigation once established. It hot dry conditions it just goes dormant until rain.
Lawns are NOT less maintenance than most any other plants, they are simply BRAIN DEAD MAINTENANCE that requires no special knowledge or skill other than running machinery. My lawn requires near-daily maintenance during its growth period (and I’m not fastidious about hiw my lawn looks, either). In addition to mowing, I need trim the edges where the mower can’t cut and I am constantly trying to ensure that the grass isn’t invading other landscaping. Additionally, were I live, most any lawn will require regular watering – and the resulting monitoring of this irrigation. All landscaping choices have their plusses and minuses, but please don’t try to say that lawns require little maintenance.
But since lawns only require “brain dead” maintenance you can hire someone to mow and edge when you are physically unable to do it anymore. Finding someone who knows a weed from a flower and is affordable? Good luck.
I’d buy, and wear, the “Get your lawn off drugs” t-shirt! Or “Just say NO to drugs (for your lawn).”
I really liked your post. For the first time I now live where I have a grass lawn. Before, living in the center of woods, mostly oaks, beech & maple, I created pocket gardens and I had a moss lawn which I loved. In our new home, no huge trees, I am adding a native garden, but no longer feel guilty that I am not turning my entire place “native”. Am creating space throughout the garden to add natives that will thrive and benefit the pollinators and birds. As always, no pesticides, little or no fertilizer. And I do enjoy walking on the grass barefoot. I believe I would have really enjoyed the course.
Blah, blah, blah…trying to appear “scientific” to prop up the turf-grass-first mindset.
How about this as a key indicator – BIODIVERSITY.
Also, how much insecticide/herbicide/fertilizer loading, turf grass vs natural landscaping?
Please, get into the 21st century.
Did you actually bother to read the entire post, because it sure sounds like you read the title and then jumped to some inflammatory wrong-headed assumptions. Or is reading not modern enough for you?
Rude
The author competently addressed several issues related to turf grass lawns. There is no substance in the response: “Blah, blah, blah”. It reflects only a TikTok level of understanding of the biology or the debate.
Our ecosystems deserve discussion beyond mere sloganeering. “Biodiversity”, is not the end-all or be-all answer. It is a result, not a creator of soil and ecosystem health. It is assigned only minor importance, if mentioned at all, in articles regarding the importance of biomass in soil health. See, for example: “Mass ratio effects underlie ecosystem responses to environmental change” https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13330 or
“Look for These Soil Health Indicators in the Field” https://www.noble.org/regenerative-agriculture/soil/look-for-these-soil-health-indicators-in-the-field/
Your comments, in contrast, do not contribute to the discussion. You do, however, get a participation trophy. Congratulations.
Thanks for the references.
Your tone and word choice is really… just rude.
I’m also very anti-lawn, but attitudes like yours are just going to make turf-lawn people entrench further. If you want to change minds, you need to be less of a jerk.
If it weren’t for the weeds, my lawn wouldn’t look half as green as it does. I’m not anti-lawn … more like “let it fend for itself”.
I enjoy your thoughtful posts, but please proofread before posting.
Thank you for this post — incredibly useful in the fraught world of pro and anti lawn advocates. I have leaned towards anti-lawn over the last several years (don’t have any myself, but I recognize that in some instances the very calm green space can be great in a garden), and I certainly knew some of the things you present (science generally does reflect common sense or thoughtful observation– that’s where hypotheses come from — if you can look at the world around you without too much bias), but it is nice to have a little bit of peer reviewed research to back things up. I also couldn’t agree more with a couple of your questions such as: why make claims that are demonstrably false? And: why not meet people where they are ifyou actually want to effect change?
Great post. Living in the in the foothills of the Cascades we often refer to Oregon State’s website, but had not seen the latest post about lawns. Excellent! Currently we mow high, reseed with clover, use one of the fertilizers they recommend twice a year. We limit our watering I inch every other week. However, they are finding that 1’4 inch at a time more often might be best. We will try that. The summer we let it go dormant resulted in way too much reseeding, digging, ugly work. Soil got way too compacted. Looking forward to your next post. thank you!
Okay, excellent point about the possibility of consequences to letting it go dormant – for too long. I wonder how to determine the tipping point where ya have to water it to avoid damage.
most offensive part of this article was calling snakes “pests” the common garter snake is an important part of gardening, consuming slugs for example. It like wasps, bees, etc etc have an important role in the ecosystem. And might i add ground dwelling bees like the beloved bumble bee require dirt not grass. in some parts of the country (arizona) there are invasive grasses that are a wildfire hazard…let alone water wasters. True the post did emphasize she is in Maryland, where grass probably does fine without human guidance/control/monitoring/status confirming and the rest of the baggage that goes with the Cult of the Lawn.
I will be happy to read your next lawn aticle.
Me too. Always nice to get an objective view.
It sounds like a wonderful class, as research-based offerings usually are. Lawns do have a role to play and they are not evil. They could be better planned and managed. Here in Texas we have native grass seed mixes that include combinations of Buffalograss/Blue Gramma/Curly Mesquite. They do well with low input management, but too few people realize they are available and too few homeowners associations either promote or allow them. Bermuda, St. Augustine and zoysia do require high inputs to look their best here, so we should encourage homeowners to keep only the lawn they really need for pets, kids, and the aesthetics they want to achieve. To preserve resources and protect our watersheds it is a good idea to question maintaining high input lawns and look for alternatives.
How interesting! Looks like a worthy guest post!
Thank you, Susan! I have what I call a ‘free-form’ lawn. It has some weeds and a few bare spots that do not bother me at all. I do not water or pick up grass clippings. My lawn is green and happy the way it is.
As a frequent critic of too-much lawn at the expense of variety in our gardens, Susan Harris demonstrates her open-mind with this article about the benefits of lawns.
The most important lesson in this article is that lawns aren’t trouble-makers as long we don’t poison them unnecessarily to achieve “purity.” A lawn with plenty of clover, English daisies, and dandelions is a safe place for children and dogs to play, for adults to picnic and sandbathe and for insects to dine.
Once again, Garden Rant guides us to the horticultural middle-ground. Horticultural fads can take us to extremes if we let them. There are always pros and cons that need to be taken into consideration, in the garden, as in life.
You bet I think there’s too much lawn but I’ve always been inclusive in my ranting: pairing the “less lawn” message with the eco-friendly lawn care message. That’s coz I’m a realistic, and I think lawns will always be around.
Yes, I love Susan’s articles too. I’m very anti-lawn myself because they’re horrible for my climate (zero rainfall from May-September, minimum), but it’s nice to see a well-reasoned article about WHY lawns can be OK-enough, which does double duty to clarify when they are not.
It’s relative. Where I live, lawns, even ones that are not treated with chemicals and are not watered, are trouble-makers. I live in a 300 sq mile watershed where close to 100% of the residents obtain their water from the watershed’s aquifer. To replenish our water supply we need rain and snow-melt to seep into the ground. Did the course compare the permeability of ground covered in native grasses, shrubs and trees to ground covered with turf grass? In that comparison, turf grass rates very poorly.
We have 7 (small) rivers and countless tributaries within the watershed. Inevitably, homeowners with water frontage cut down all the existing vegetation and plant turf grass for “a better view”. Our Department of Environmental Management recommends leaving a 100’ buffer of native vegetation to any water’s edge to increase the likelihood of water reaching the aquifer rather than the waterbody.
Despite the positives mentioned in this article, I will continue to educate our residents regrading beneficial alternatives to lawns.
Please provide a reference that supports this statement: “Did the course compare the permeability of ground covered in native grasses, shrubs and trees to ground covered with turf grass? In that comparison, turf grass rates very poorly.” Where do you live?
You are asking worthwhile questions. I would add, however, that soil permeability is not necessarily the critical element. Different grass species, even just among turf grasses, have differing root structures, (also with significant differences in bio-mass), making them better, (or less), able to thrive in relatively compacted, or loose sandy soil. Different climates, different soils, and differing grasses also influence whether a turf lawn might be deemed “good” or “bad”. And even those judgments must be made in comparison to a specific alternative, e.g., . . compared to an asphalt parking lot, a gravel patio, a mono-crop of corn, or a plot of posies.
Not fighting here, just sayin’.
Yes, the characteristics of plants vary widely from one species to another and their behavior from one location to another. But the variation has nothing to do with whether or not they are native to a specific location. I asked for a reference because of the suggestion that native plants would provide the greatest permeability. That is a generalization that is unsupported by evidence, as far as I know.
A few years ago, I hired an outfit to treat my lawn. They use organic fertilizers (like biosolids) and only spot treat the weeds. But I miss the patch of wild strawberries and the clover, so now I have taken over the “weed” control part. (When I called the manager and said, “I miss my clover”, he said, “No one has ever said that to me.”) The lawn is the easiest part of my yard to care for, as the rest requires weeding, pruning, protecting (rascally rabbits!), staking, etc. Not everyone is a gardener.
Right. We need more info like this from eco-minded *real gardeners*!
Truth is, if it’s yours and you own it then you get to decide what to do with it. Those of a different opinion can get their own and do with it as they please. Live and let live. I do not need to be you.
The choices we make with our property affects everyone and we all “live downstream” from the pollutants people put on their lawns, as it makes its way into rivers, oceans, and groundwater. Until it is possible for people to keep pesticides and fertilizers 100% on their property, it is important to use the power of free speech to object to the use of substances that we know escape private property and cause harm.
Sarah,
It’s reductionist to conjure a property line boundary to define what is appropriate when considering a lawn. A person’s property line does not encapsulate all the consequences of our choices. The bell tolls for thee. And me, too.
We all make choices every day that, arguably, have deleterious consequences for the rest of mankind. Do you own a car? Drive one? Use plastic straws? Go unvaccinated? Some consider these, and many other choices, to be grievous sins. My suggestion is to include context and degree of harm in applying our calculation of “appropriateness”.
The complexity and interconnectedness of modern life make simple moral cleavers unwieldy. So, it’s difficult to confidently declare what’s OK and what’s not (in our opinion). Thus, we are left with just staying within the bounds of law . . . which gets us suspiciously close to your premise.
Dag! I hate it when I run right into my own arguments! I shoulda’ stayed in lurk mode.
Regards,
John
I think the whole pro/anti lawn thing boils down to people wanting rules as a substitution for thinking. Your article outlines it pretty clearly – when the details are there to support a lawn NOT being a disaster, then sure, have one!
I just hope anyone in the West reading this puts in the effort to actually understand Susan’s points as to why a lawn is OK *in her climate*, and realize that most of these benefits either do not apply to dry climates at all, or do not outweigh the negatives of a traditional turfgrass lawn. In California and Utah at least (the two places I’ve lived) all lawns are on life support through the summer, and homeowners really ought to spend their water more wisely. Utahns and Californians who claim to need a green summer lawn so badly should start looking at real estate in the Mid Atlantic rather than wasting precious desert water in the summer on a purely decorative element.
Excellent points! Like most gardening advice, it depends, and in arid regions lawns are ridiculous. I’m curious, what would make more sense for sports and play areas in the regions you’re familiar with? Artificial turf? Ugh
My apologies for a delayed reply!
For sports, I think we ought to emphasize use of communal spaces. That means fewer lawns overall, and more opportunities to socialize. For kids especially, I think it’s better for them to go practice their soccer kicks at the local school/park lawn than to have a private lawn. My local high school (in an area where many/most people have ditched lawns) has cricket leagues, soccer teams, and lots of impromptu lawn games and it’s a delight to see. So yes, some lawns are needed for recreation – and I think that’s fine!
I also see a lot of parks here and further north that have groves of redwood trees. These shed a LOT of needles, which decompose and break down into a lovely surface perfect for playing on. Very soft/safe for kids, and also providing very nice shade – which is important because the UV index is pretty high here.
For home playgrounds, very fine “mini” pine bark chips are great, as are those recycled rubber nibs, sandboxes, gravel, and many other surfaces. Artificial turf is an environmental nightmare, in addition to getting VERY hot in the sun. I like to play bocce, and am going to add a compacted sand/grit surface for it, and for other similar lawn games, instead of turf. I think a small lawn for a backyard playground while the kids are very young is OK, but front lawns really shouldn’t exist in arid places – they’re never used for play and are entirely ornamental.
Fascinating to this Easterner – thank you!!
Something that continually gets neglected when y’all try to even bring up this topic is cumulative effects. It takes a few minutes to look at Google Earth to see a before and after on most development, unless you live in a major east coast area and that may not be available due to how long the area has been paved over. I was on a field site yesterday to delineate wetlands on an 18 acre property (in greater Houston) that was mostly forested, had quite a bit of wetlands and two naturalized, upland cut ponds (which will be turned into retention ponds with far less diversity). On two sides of the property the neighboring areas were developments that has been there for quite a while, 10-15 years. Easily those wetlands and forested areas (which you can see on aerial imagery) would have been where those homes, and now lawns, currently are. So, yay! A lawn helps with stormwater runoff. Good job! You’ve made up for a tiny smidgen of what was lost when that development was built. Pats on the back for everyone! I guarantee no one is putting in the carex, eleocharis, native grasses, and uncommon wetland species like bladderwort I found on that property. Nor are they going to replant cypress trees or buttonbush–those wetlands are gone! Goodbye dragonfly reproductive habitat. Who is going to replant the Arnoglossum ovatum I found? *laugh sobs*
“Lawns seem to draw as much irrational hate as they do love these days,”….“Green lawns, as much as brown ones, are now seen as a moral failing.” I mean, yeah. Of course. We could do so much better and yet we throw down some Bermuda or St. Augustine and some plantings around the base of the house (nandina for bonus points!) and call it a day. Compared to a remnant wetland habitat that, shocker, actually would be beneficial for Houston’s flood control, putting in homes with crappy lawns is a moral failing.
I agree with all of your statements about not using fertilizers, letting lawns go dormant, watering only when necessary—and yes, I have a lawn and we’re slowly trying to convert it. Unfortunately previous owners were lawn happy and didn’t leave forested yaupon or other native shrubs live as how some of my other neighbors do (I live on a larger lot). But the reality is most people aren’t doing what you/gardeners and other anti-lawn folks are even suggesting because frankly they don’t care and have other priorities in life or they aren’t interested in lawns, plants, or gardening. That’s the reality. So, we (gardeners) can argue with each other or face the real realities on the ground that yeah, lawns are not a real replacement for true biodiversity.