Biodiversity is essential to humans. As has been well-documented, bio-diversity is under incredible assault. Among other things, bird populations are dropping dramatically, an indicator that the entire food web is in trouble.
Suburbia’s contribution to the problem is the introduction and cultivation of non-native species. Your lawn and ornamental plantings may look green, but they aren’t much better than asphalt for supporting the local food web, because they don’t support bird food. I learned this last night at the Newton Conservators annual meeting. (Horn-tooting side note: I was there to receive an award from the Conservators.)
Professor Douglas W. Tallamy, the guest speaker at the confab, gave a fascinating and frankly inspiring presentation explaining that local caterpillars and other Lepidoptera are well adapted to eating local plant species. All plants have evolutionary adaptations that make them generally toxic. Local Lepidoptera have evolutionary adaptions that allow them to eat the local plant species. Without local plant species, no Lepidoptera. Without Lepidoptera, nothing for birds (and other animals) to eat. Without something to eat, no birds. Without birds, …
Professor Tallamy introduced and explained the concept of the carrying capacity of various plant species. Some species, oak is #1, support an order of magnitude more Lepidoptera than others. Non-local species have next to no carrying capacity. Lawns have little more carrying capacity than asphalt. If we increase the carrying capacity of our local vegetation, we increase biodiversity. We need more and better plants.
It’s high time to reduce the amount of ornamental* lawn in Newton and reintroduce native species.
*If you are inclined to comment that I want to get rid of all grass fields or that I’m a child-hater, please note the use of the word “ornamental.” We need grass for playing fields, for walking and playing areas on our properties. But, we don’t need as much. And, we need to use more shared grassy areas to meet the need.
Some of the more striking examples of this subject are in our Mid-Atlantic states, extending out to the Mississippi. While most of our “McMansions” locally are placed by shoe-horns on postage-stamp sized lots, the same gaudy structures in many areas are placed in developments over very large acreage, commonly on former farms such as horsefarms. Whereas once a home in the Mid-Atlantic was built with lots of trees around it — obviously to cool the home during hot summers — these newer developments are void of pre-existing trees and plants. Nearly everything green comes from Home Depot and the full package looks obscene. I don’t even need to think about the specifics of plants > bugs > birds, or even appreciate that, the concept is just wrong.
I encourage anyone with interest in native Massachusetts plantings, to visit “Garden in the Woods”. Bring the kids and pack a lunch — there’s more to do there than look at ferns and such. But if your ultimate interest is purchasing very health native plants — this is the place. Here’s their website: http://www.newfs.org/visit/Garden-in-the-Woods
Hoss,
I’m going to take a video this weekend of a development in central New Jersey, near my mother-in-law’s home. It illustrates to an almost obscene degree, what you are talking about.
Thanks for the Garden in the Woods suggestion and link.
Assuming I want something attractive and low-maintenance for the swath of ground between my house and the street, what are my alternatives? What local ground cover options are there? (The vegetable garden stays in the back, I’m afraid.)
@ Andrew Greene:
Accept and follow the Belief that you may disturb the ground only if it is absolutely necessary. The Nature will do the other part.
There’s a bit of a disconnect here for Sean; more density (Sean’s mantra) hurts biodiversity more than non-native species and sterile lawns.
Terry, I don’t have time this morning to give your comment justice, but I promise I’ll try.
In any case, thanks for raising the issue. I can’t wait to dig into it.
@Sean. I don’t always agree with your comments, but congratulations on a reward that is certainly well deserved.
A problem directly related to development and non-native species is the loss of some of southern New England’s best farming land to poorly planned residential and commercial development. I worked on a four year detail with Rhode Island’s Director of Planning on air pollution and development related issues. His primary obsession was the loss of so much of the best land in the state for ecologically friendly small family farming.
So far, nature (and foot traffic) has turned my front yard into a mudpit. So I think human intervention is called for. :-)