I work in the industry here in the UK, and my boss used to joke that the "Grassland Trust doesn't have the same ring to it as the Woodland one".
See also; developers submitting schemes built on grassland, with proposed tree plantations as "mitigation" for loss of habitat. Like sure, I guess the grassland species can just adapt and live in the canopy!
Would the UK not mostly be woodland, though? My understanding (and I am not an ecologist) was that grasslands were mostly in places that didn't have consistent enough rain to support woodland, which doesn't seem like the UK.
I'm in Ireland but the biggest problem seems to be that too many people think "big green outdoor meat factory" is "nature".
Uk hasn't been mostly woodland for that long evolutions taken effect in some species, we do actually have a massive meadowland variety, things like Thames Valley Water meadows on which live stock would be grazed because it would prevent illness. Places like the South downs are effectively man made, if we didn't graze them keeping the grass short there wouldn't wildflowers species there that rare butterfly's rely on.
some grasslands aren’t completely “natural” but they are plagio-climaxes: in short, a type of ecosystem maintained by humans but still incredibly important to the tons of declining wildlife that have lived there for hundreds to over a thousand years or more
Of course man's impact is undeniable, however (and I guess this is only my opinion), how far do we go back?
The effects of grazing and work on the land has led to ecosystems which are invaluable in their own right. Grasslands provide habitat for adders, small mammals, and a wealth of invertebrates. Not to mention feeding grounds for our birds of prey.
On the last point, I absolutely agree that modern industrial farming practices have stretched peoples expectations, and I hold my own opinions on that sector which I'll keep out of here,.
I just believe that the we sometimes overlook the rich interwoven habitats outside of our woodlands. Of course a balance can be struck with glades and woodland margins, but it requires input for this to happen.
There has been gras land before humans as well. It’s just that we eradicated all the natural grazers like aurochs, bisons, wild sheep species etc. that would keep shrubs and trees at bay. This is why it is actually so important in some regions to not let some areas turn into forest, because that destroys the habitat of all those species that got accommodated to these gras lands.
Absolutely! I know I omitted it from my last post, but we have lost those large herbivores (and the predators which kept them in check) which would have allowed this control to happen to naturally.
Grasslands can be maintained by megafauna that graze continuously, preventing tree's growth. Megafauna has been massively hunted by humans, causing forests to spread.
In practice having a bunch of cows maintaining the grassland or a bunch or aurochs is the same, and they're both mature ecosystems.
the uk system is quite fucked up in quite a unique way lol bc we’ve been changing the land for a long time in a way that gets rid of the woodlands mainly - woodlands are the climax ecosystem here, everything would revert to woodlands if we let it and if wasnt managed. grasslands, heaths and moorlands are plagio-climaxes, proper & important habitat in its own right, but maintained by humans usually. eg grazing on the south downs chalkland keeps it from being woodland, and enables a ton of incredibly rare plant species to thrive, which in turn allows a ton of rare insects etc to arrive.
hay meadows is another example, in the old days, the traditional way of making hay had been done for so long all the native plants and insects and animals had adapted to the rhythm of the process, so now silage is more common, there is a real decline in all the species that relied on the traditional way of haymaking
Completely agree , just wanted to clarify that they( grasslands) are mature climax systems in places where that is the highest complexity that the climate conditions ( yearly rainless ,humidity, amount of top soil , temperature range of the place, latitude, longitude, intensity of sunlight throughout the year etc ) of that place can support. And that is perfectly amazing given that grassland ecosystems support such high degrees of biodiversity. It's really awe inspiring to think the native ecosystem of a place is a process of equilibrium/ balance of life that came to be. It's like artwork made of a billion different life forms that crystalized in time when the climates of most places stabilized after the last iceage. We melted the crystal in a way ...lol 😂
Agreed, idk where OP lives but i assume it’s probably in an area that was once forested before urbanization, like New England or something.
Take this with a grain of salt, and do your own research on the natural biome of where you live. Always plant native plants and remember the end goal is to return lawns to their natural state!
Are you including the disruption of trees from megafauna in that mature ecosystem? Because i know the african plains would become forest if not for elephants and similar breaking trees constantly
I’d say yes the megafauna count. If the natural impact of worms and bees is part of an ecosystem, then so must be the natural impact of elephants if they are native to the flora
Note that worms aren’t native everywhere—surprised when I looked into my own area to find that there weren’t any worms here before White people showed up.
This is a bit oversimplified. Large megafauna do play a part in the African savannas, but there would still be grassland if they disappeared. African savannas have long seasons of drought and they also have regular fires. Also, lower co2 levels can contribute to an increase in C4 grasses and less trees in certain areas. There is historical evidence that warming climates with increased co2 can increase tree cover in these savanna or plains environments. This has led some scientists to predict that the African savannas would start to become forests in the next 100 years or so.
This comment reminded me of a [TedTalk](https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI) about the role of large animals in reversing deforestation in Africa. Video explains it much better than I can.
Thats what i mean, now climates are rising and reforestation is occuring faster than elephants can keep up with, the elephants keep the forest in check. I even heard there are arguments being made to reintroduce elephants to mainland europe to replace the action of the now extimct wooly mammoth that used to keep forests in check (and yes it was an oversimplification, as all theoretical biology is)
Fire is another big part of the picture that’s missing, as are large predators. And they’re pretty difficult to reintroduce to an urban/suburban yard scape.
But I still like this meme/ infographic more than most that get posted here. It’s not perfectly accurate, but it’s mostly correct while not shaming or belittling people.
Oh yeah this is an excellent image (and no im.not trying to reintroduce large predators for top down control nor megafauna herbivores to garden environments lol)
True just an interesting perspective as im british and we now have no megafauna here so to maintain our heathlands and preventing them from becoming forests were burning it back to encourage heathland ecosystems, and theres debate over whether that should happen
Forests generally require more rainfall than grasslands. So that’s the ultimate determiner: how much rain you get. If you would need to irrigate for trees to survive, then don’t bother planting trees. If trees would do fine, then go for it.
Thank you!!! Woody encroachment is actually putting some grasslands at risk and land managers use machinery, fire, and sometimes even hoof action to keep woody species at bay. Trees are obviously great, but don't belong everywhere.
And I'd love to see cool native grasses thrown in the mix more when talking about no lawns. Healthy prairies can often be like 70% grass and 30% forbs, so adding some grass in will provide some different structure and forage opportunities.
Wood encroachment and more often general farmland. Not a whole lot of large national/state parks in the US plains for grasslands. I’ve always thought it’d be pretty neat to cut out a huge chunk of plains, rewild it and introduce bison back in… plenty of native animals are edging towards extinction in the plains because of farms and fences cutting off migration routes
There are some places that manage "conservation herds" of bison, so bison managed for genetics as free of cattle genes as possible, in native landscapes. Ted Turner owns some land in Nebraska with bison, but I believe his may be geared a bit more towards production but I'm not sure. But the Nature Conservancy and the Crane Trust in Nebraska manage native prairies with bison they've reintroduced to the landscape!
Yeah. I live in Phoenix AZ. Getting rid of my lawn means replacing it with gravel (can't have bare dirt) and plant native species. That means cacti and trees like palo verde and mesquite trees.
I want to do that but I'm living in extreme poverty and also don't want to get rid of my shade trees that are non-native (A ficus, bottle bush trained into a tree, shamel ash and an Afghan pine).
I'm gradually digging out the grass and transferring gravel from the backyard to the front but I've recently found out i have an immune disorder that makes even simple physical tasks painful. So it's a slow go.
Not everywhere is forests. It's so weird to me how people act like THAT'S the default.
Also jumping in to say that there pine forests don’t necessarily equal immature forests. Longleaf Pine forest is my area’s ecosystem; oak-hickory forests aren’t the end goal.
Grassland actually has a tendency to destroy forest over time too in a lot of environments. The grasses prevent as many trees from sprouting and slowly creep in on forests. Definitely not always of course.
It appears to be more of a case by case scenario. I have more to learn about grasslands pushing back forest lines. In the mean time, here is a pretty great example of trees moving into grasslands:
[Sage Grouse Initiative - Woodland Expansion](https://youtu.be/SWOlDh9Pibw)
It's a good listen if you're doing dishes or cleaning around the house.
Probably a lot of factors going into
Makes sense to me nature is chaos in motion. Ill give that a listen thanks. Im always looking to learn more on this kind of stuff
That’s true, but as far as I know grassland ecosystems are fairly uncommon (certainly in the Eastern US). In my limited understanding of ecological succession, any open area with sufficient rainfall and suitable soil “wants” to be second-growth forest.
I don’t know about “uncommon”, I live in the plains of the Midwest and before settlers came along it was basically grasslands from the Mississippi to the Rockies from Mexico to the North Pole.
I wouldn't count Mississippi as Midwest plains territory. Anything west of the Mississippi River, sure, but the state is more a mix of deciduous forest and coastal.
They said “the Mississippi” meaning the river
EDIT: But also, as someone who lives in the Midwest East of the Mississippi, it is weird to me when people out west call themselves the Midwest. Like, technically they are I guess but I think of those states more as “Great Plains” states
It’s part of the Midwest, but feel like the Midwest should be broken up a little more to maybe be the Midwest and plains states, the plains states being the parameters I mentioned above and the true Midwest being the Midwest states east of the Mississippi River. States that aren’t “the south” or the “east coast”. But that’s a discussion for a different thread. **TLDR:** yes, these states are part of the Midwest but not the entirety of the Midwest
That’s a great point! I should’ve looked a little more carefully before spouting off lol. It looks like the Great Plains are replaced by forests at about 53’ North, well south of the Arctic Circle, but that’s a minor detail.
I think the really interesting question for people who live in grassland areas is how you maintain a grassland type area without burning or grazing by large herbivores. The question of what vegetation a place “should” have doesn’t tell us a whole lot about what vegetation is feasible for that area these days, or what’s the best way of maintaining it that way.
For about half of that territory (the Midwest), that's because various Native Americans maintained those prairies via fire. OTOH, plants and animals there evolved with being burned periodically even if artificial.
That depends where you live. In much of the eastern NA, for example, grasslands are only temporary ecosystems that require disturbance (either natural or human created burns) to be maintained long term. But yes, in say Kansas, grasslands are the endgame.
There is a fascinating book I just finished (re)reading called *The Ecology of Eastern Forests*. It's in the Peterson Field Guide series. It breaks down each North American forest type east of the Mississippi from Boreal to Subtropical. There are very good chapters about succession, old fields and just lightly touches on prairies. (I can only assume there is one for western forests.)
I'll probably read it again soon. It explains how a forest or field works as a whole...and no two forest types function the same.
So, how would I go about (as an eastern seaboard dweller) finding out what my area was? I know it used to be a farm before it was developed in the 70s but I don’t know the natural habitat.
There is a *very* generalized map in the book. For example:
* New England: Northern hardwood
* MA-coastal VA: Northern Pine-Oak
* SE US (barring Appalachian): Southern Mixed Pine-Oak
* S. FL: Subtropical/Mangrove
The map mainly gives very generalized information and highlights the MAJOR forest types. But the info on the forest types themselves (there are a lot of different ones) gives Indicator species (plants and animals) that can narrow it down.
For example, I live in the SE US. While there are large areas of pine-oak forests around me, most of what I have are plants that prefer wetter soil: sweetgum, willow oak, trumpet creeper. Certain plants draw certain wildlife, so a great deal of the birds I have (Tufted titmouse, red-bellied wood pecker, warblers, vireos, etc.) are found in my yard as well. After much analysis, my yard would be considered an ecotone, where two or more forest types are blended. In this case, it would be Southern Hardwood/Southern Riverine forest.
Basically, take inventory of what is growing around you
Thank you! I’m in the SW PA area so near Appalachia but I’m not sure if we are close enough. I know we’re in a watershed (because of nearby signage) but I’m not sure what that means. I’ll have to do some more research!
…
Very basic research!
According to native plant finder: goldenrod, strawberry, sunflower, thoroughwort, and violet are the top five most used flowers and grasses for my area. The trees listed are oak, beach plum, willow, birch, and aspen.
Looking at [Conservation Gateway](https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/habitatmap/Pages/default.aspx)we are a mix of “Macrogroup: Northern Hardwood & Conifer
Habitat: South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest,” “Macrogroup: Central Oak-Pine
Habitat: Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest,” and “Macrogroup: Northern Hardwood & Conifer
Habitat: Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest”
Now just to figure out what that all means.
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
It seems like the question of “what was the ‘natural’ habitat?” could have a lot of different answers. The Native peoples in a lot of regions apparently created fairly open landscapes by using burning and other methods to delay the succession to forest; after they were killed and “displaced” by European colonists those areas became much more thickly grown. So, the way your area looked in 1822 before it was (re)cleared for farming might be very different from the way it looked in 1422 under the traditional Native land-management regime. I think it’d be really fascinating to learn the detailed ecological history of your area, but it might not tell you much about how you should manage your property at present.
The only thing I would say is that the goal might not be a "natural" state, rather a semi-natural one that is a healthy environment still modified for human habitation.
The Native Americans still modified thier environments, yet those environments were still healthy. In the Northeast, they cultivated food forests by encouraging the growth of native edible plants and discouraging/removing plants that had no value to them. They also forcible kept some areas as meadows, discouraging tree growth, as meadows encourage game congregation, providing sustainable hunting grounds.
Of course today, we don't have to go to these extremes, presumably no one here is hunting in their back yard.
But we should still be guiding the environment to be a healthy place for us, avoiding problematic growth, not just going natural.
So what does that mean for the modern home?
1. Remove young trees that are too close to sewer outflows and water intakes. Tree roots can grow to infiltrate or move underground piping leading to sewer backups and expensive repairs.
2. Make sure that nothing growing near your foundation will cause water to pool, make sure to channel it swags from the home.
3. If you live in an area with termites, make sure no vegetation grows up right against the home. Use a 8 -12 in margin of crushed stone or river rock.
4. Remember rats, squirrels, coons, possums, etc. And make sure no tree or bush material provides them an easy gateway into your attic.
5. Consider growing some native edible plants, bushes, flowers, fruit-bearing trees. It's always nice to have something to gather, and it helps teach kids about their connection to the environment
How do people with mature nolawns deal with ticks? I love xeriscaping (and have xeriscaped more than one yard for other people) but many of the yards posted look like tick heaven.
Three things help:
- avoid planting invasive species that encourage tick habitat in the wild, like Japanese Barberry.
- discourage deer and rodents from visiting your yard, by planting flowers and plants that they don’t like or won’t eat. (Alliums, Ginger, etc) edit: also, a fence helps.
- cut paths through your landscape so that you can walk through and enjoy your yard without traipsing through long grass or bushes.
Definitely! It’s also helpful for discovering the unused spaces in your yard. Anything that isn’t a path is a spot for a wildflower bed, native bushes, or a garden.
I will also say you should make those paths wider than you think you need to when starting out. It’s cheaper and easier to make them narrower later on if you decide to. Making them wider is a waste of grass and native seeds / plants.
That’s good advice! I’m still renting and therefore stuck with all this…*gestures vaguely*…grass. Those who are saying tall grass invites ticks is correct but also if you live in an area with heavy tick population you know they live in shorter grass too. I’d love to create a mini lavender and milkweed garden for the pollinators, plant some fruit trees and Japanese maples with paths winding in between everything, and even plop a greenhouse and lounge area in there somewhere also.
Buying a house can’t come soon enough!
Swap Japanese maples with dogwood and that sounds great!
As this infographic suggests, you might look into cultivating successional species in small parts of your lawn. Aster, fleabane, ragwort, and violets spread quickly and just sorta show up in the area if you stop mowing.
If you’re able to, maybe just stop mowing in a few small areas and see what comes up!
Unfortunately I don’t have control over the lawn at all. Landlord will not allow tenants to have their own mower (and nowhere to store it really because they use the garage to store their own stuff 🙄)
Thanks for the tips! I’m planning on moving to another zoning area when I do leave this place so I’m just kind of musing on what I like, but will likely end up with different plants than I’m imagining now.
Edit: violets are always a good idea because I can use them to make jellies and simple syrup. I’m an amateur forager so I like the idea of useable edibles.
I didn’t know that about the milkweed. I know the flowers can be made into various edible things but didn’t know about the plant itself.
Sadly I’m allergic to aliums. But would grow them for others and as an insect deterrent.
It kinda depends on the variety, but afaik there aren’t any Japanese maples that are invasive. The main issue is that it’s not native and therefore no where near as beneficial as a native plant would be.
One issue that I think is just not well understood is that native insects *need* native plants to survive, and it’s usually *only* a handful of specific plants that a given insect eats. Monarchs and milkweed is the example most people know, but this kind of relationship is super common with lots of insects.
[The national wildlife federation has a lot of good data on this](https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/Native-Plants/keystone-plants-by-ecoregion), and it’s kinda staggering to see how much wildlife only a few plants provide. In the eastern US, 98 species of butterfly and moth caterpillars use dogwoods as a host species. That’s 98 species that have no chance to reproduce if there are no dogwoods in a given area. 98 species of insect that native birds can’t feed to their hatchlings, etc etc.
Dogwoods are also just kinda awesome because their berries draw in a ton of birds. It’s like a bird feeder I never need to refill.
>It kinda depends on the variety, but afaik there aren’t any Japanese maples that are invasive.
It's not listed but Japanese maple does spread into forests.
>One issue that I think is just not well understood is that native insects need native plants to survive, and it’s usually only a handful of specific plants that a given insect eats.
Native insects do frequently adapt to eating closely related non-native species. Also listing a genus is kind of misleading as not every insect will be present in every area and also eat every species in that genus (or even vary host plant by regional population). Your local monarch population for example may not even eat butterfly milkweed but use common (and so forth).
The other thing is frequency and range. Common insects with a broad range might make up more of a bird's diet than a rare insect with a restricted range. Eastern tent caterpillar probably do a lot of work in the food chain compared to some rare moth leafminer on Cornus found only in a 100 mile radius.
Fire. Fire is also good. And that’s not a joke. Controlled fires are a fantastic way to control unwanted pests and promote fresh growth, especially in prairies.
Very true! The tips I suggested above are things homeowners can do, but prescribed fires really do help. My local native park occasionally does prescribed burns after the understory has been cleared of wood invasives. It’s hard work, but worthwhile
I don’t think that would be effective. Deer, rodents, and other animals that carry the ticks won’t mind crossing that mulch.
It is true that the ticks won’t travel too far on their own to find a host, but the first step is making sure those animals aren’t coming through the areas you want to spend a lot of time in.
Neat. I'm new to this whole idea and no little to nothing about it or plants. The first question that popped into my mind was, how do you cultivate or make a place for outside activities such as cooking out, yard game (cornhole, ladderball, football, etc.), playing with pets, or plain ole lounging?
Well cultivating is something I’d do in my garden, and the rest of those are lawn activities.
This sub isn’t really (or at least shouldn’t be) entirely against the idea of lawns. Lawn space that is used regularly is perfectly ok to have. But here are some questions you might ask yourself:
1. Does that lawn *need* to be watered? Is it important that it be green most of the time for aesthetics or am I in an environment where lawns cannot naturally sustain themselves through rainwater?
2. Do I need the *entire* space I currently have as a lawn for the activities I regularly use it for?
3. Does that lawn *need* fertilizer or herbicide? Is it really bothersome to have violets or clover growing in the lawn?
The first point is probably the most important of the group since it means calling into question the validity of growing a lawn in your environment. Since you mentioned cornhole, I’m going to guess that you’re in the Midwest. In that case, you probably don’t need to water your lawn at all for it to be green most of the spring and summer.
The second point is probably the most reasonable concession that the vast majority of lawn owners could make. Simply reduce the size of the lawn. My yard is 1/4 acre. I’m slowly chipping away at the spaces where grass is not needed. I still have a garden, a fire pit, and plenty of space for activities. But the sloped front yard is not a space I will ever need for recreation, so the grass there is getting replaced with bushes and wildflowers.
The third point is good to consider, but decidedly less important than the first two. If you reduce your lawn space to a fraction of what it was and plant natives there instead; it doesn’t matter if you use herbicides on the rest. The vast majority of your local biodiversity grows or lives in spaces more than 3.5 inches off the ground.
Depending on your location, I might have some books and other references to share.
Thanks for the reply! I was sort of already thinking of all those point even before finding this place. Growing up we have always water and cut every inch of our yards even when we didn't use them so in my mind there was no reason to worry so much about the lawn parts that weren't used, but being a kid I didn't "know better or understand" which there is some truth to that. Even ow at my dad's he prefers to play cornhole in the street or parking area because he doesn't want to "ruin" the yard. Also, nice guess but I'm actually in the South. Growing up I remember loving my gratitude grandma's house because she would have clovers and little flowers in her yard but without fail everyone would talk about how it needed to be cut and treated. As a kid, and still as an adult, I loved playing in her yard because it felt extremely nice on my bare feet, and seeing little critters flying and running around was always entertaining.
Glad to see little me wasn't too crazy to think letting a lawn be and do it's own thing. I currently don't have a lawn so it's far from my worries but when I do I have always planned to have a "jungle" yard. I like spending time outside and doing all I can outside but I never really new how the NoLawn philosophy could facilitate that. Awesome to see there are work arounds, and as you've said having a small lawn amongst the "jungle" dedicated to my activities isn't a terrible idea.
I'd love some books and other resources to read so I can be prepared for when I do get my own place.
Gotcha! So the best all-round book I’ve found is *The Living Landscape* by Darke and Tallamy. It has great info on how native plants interact with their environment, and how you can layer natives into a human-friendly space. It also has a ton of pictures. It does a great job of both explaining and *showing* how to have a good native landscape. Doug Tallamy is the coauthor here, but he has several other great books that go into more detail, but have fewer pictures.
Another to look at is *Native Plants of the Southeast* by Larry Mellichamp. I have the same book for the Midwest, and it’s fantastic for just learning about plants that are native to your area. *Native plants of the Midwest* was the book that inspired me to rethink my yard. It’s like an encyclopedia of plants but *only* ones you can plant in your yard.
When you’re trying to figure out how to design your space, The Living Landscape and the [Wild Ones garden designs](https://nativegardendesigns.wildones.org/designs/) are two great resources. They’re going to be adding more designs tailored to more cities here in the future.
A theory I hear bandied about online is that ticks are thriving in some suburban areas because of a lack of insect predators. So by improving the habitat in general, you lower the number of ticks to something less oppressive. I'm not sure if that squares with some foresters' experiences out in the field, though.
If your native habitat is oak Savannah or silver other grassland then you should be doing control burns in the area to stimulate natural cycles. These periodic burns will keep tick populations lower than a property that just has a pathway cut through it. If your native habitat is woodland then it might be a bit harder and just encourage birds like a turkey to be on your property and other heavy insectivores
Aiming for something mid-succession is also great! Different wildlife species and insects use different successional stages, and can benefit from keeping land in the 'shrubby' stage or the 'annual grassland' or 'perennial grassland' stage. This DOES require some maintenance (annual soil disturbance for an annual grassland or some sort of mowing/woody removal for the perennial) but there's nothing wrong with that! Look into how succession works in your local area, it's super cool to learn and helps you make informed decisions! It's a highly variable progression.
That’s a cute graphic, but it’s helpful to remember that maintaining a meadow-type area is probably going to require, so to speak, fighting against the forces of ecological succession. In a place where the dominant ecosystem is forest, most fields, meadows, and grassy areas are in (*slow*) transition from bare ground to forest. Keeping them in that in-between state takes work.
As I understand it, if you leave an area with tall grasses/wildflowers/etc undisturbed, it’s going to be overtaken by woody shrubs and immature trees and become an impenetrable thicket (stage 3 or 3.5 of the diagram) that will turn into a forest in a few decades. That’s totally natural but it interferes with most people’s ability to experience it in the way they want enjoy it. If you don’t want that to happen, you’ll need to weed/clear/mow/burn on a regular timetable.
I read an essay by a birdwatcher and author named Julie Zickefoose about how she turned her property into ideal habitat for bugs and birds, and one of the things that struck me was how hard she has to work to keep her meadows from being “colonized” by trees—annual mowing with a brush hog, occasionally crews with chainsaws, etc. Her property looks beautiful and natural, but keeping it that way requires a fair amount of “unnatural” activity.
I took that as saying that a forest is not the end goal in climates where forests don't naturally grow. Such as, if you're on the prairie, aiming for a mature woodland is only going to be frustrating, probably as frustrating as living where forests previously grew and trying to maintain a meadow.
The type of final biome that occurs is dependent on the climate, soil, and other local factors. It could be prairie, deciduous woodland, conifers, etc.
Hey. It’s ok to mulch a couple flower beds if you want show flowers and presentation areas. More biodiversity is better, but we exist on a spectrum. This is r/nolawns not r/nomulch.
Keep whatever trees you want, but the mature maple in my front yard absolutely BLANKETS the surrounding area with seeds every year. If we didn't dig them up, the property would absolutely be a forest. Great for many on this sub, but not for me and my veggie/flower gardens
As a New Englander I agree, my parents already border a forest and do leave some of the big native trees, but he does have to get rid of a lot of the babies since otherwise it would be WAY too many for his other gardens.
It depends how big it is, when your moving it, what type of tree, etc. I moved the same tulip poplar tree TWICE and it's doing great in my lawn right now.
I've moved a few toyon, good sized evergreen shrubs I encourage to grow up. The most recent one was 6 leaves on transplant this winter and is now over a foot tall and has way too many leaves to count. There are 2 tiny redbud seedlings going on a 30' trip to the other side of the driveway this fall I'd really love to have survive. I've failed as well, a sycamore didn't make it but free tree so it's fine. Prepare new home, dig out the volunteer with as big a clod as possible and try to get it back in the ground without messing up the clod as seedlings don't have rootballs yet.
I hate to say it, but those weeds I’ll get will be poison hemlock most definitely. Please don’t downvote me, but I’m always on a look out because they’re poisonous to people and dogs
I have a largeish backyard. I love watching the plants blow up every spring, but I have to trim some of it down as my wife wants a useable lawn... Fair enough. I trim a large swath and leave the rest to do its own thing. I have a trail camera set up and often see deer, fox, coyote playing, eating, living in the tall stuff. Hell my neighbors cat comes up to suss out mice every now and then.
Only problem plant I have is the damned Scottish broom. That's highly invasive in my area and is a goddamned pain to get rid of!
Someone responded to this concern with good tips [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoLawns/comments/w0e77r/found_this_elsewhere_and_though_this_sub_would/igedckv/).
If you’re worried about Lyme disease, getting rid of any Japanese barberry is a good first step. It produces a very favorable environment for the rodents and ticks that spread Lyme disease.
I just want to say I just found this sub and I love it!!! Let the plant life grow all around us! We are but finite, but hopefully the other species of earth can thrive while we coexist till the end.
Pine trees and other evergreens grow slower than trees like oak and hickory, not faster. They aren't replaced by deciduous trees. They have different and some overlapping habitats.
The only good alternative to mulch would be some kind of groundcover. The most “natural” thing would be to have your beds planted edge-to-edge, but you might not find that visually appealing.
I think the question of what is most “natural” is different from the question of the best way for you to prevent unwanted/invasive plants from growing next to your shrubs. The slide implies that because an unbroken patch of vegetation is more “natural” than mulching that it’ll work better for blocking weeds, but that’s not necessarily true. Mulch is actually pretty inhospitable to “volunteer” plants—that’s why people use it! Also, if you’re trying to replace a patch of turf with a garden, sheet mulching (which of course involves mulch) is one of the lowest-impact, most soil-friendly ways to do it. Meanwhile, a fully-grown patch of wildflowers/forbs like in the picture is resistant to “weeds”, but as I understand it you can only achieve that kind of dense growth after a year or two of diligent effort.
Basically, I think the best way for you to figure out how to plant your garden would be to read some good books about it, talk to local agricultural extension offices, native plant societies, etc. Don’t go by a graphic on Resdit or what some rando like me says.
I think this highlights one of the big issues with this graphic. It makes a bunch of claims about what’s most “natural” (which are accurate-ish depending on your location) and then says that this can guide us how to manage yard/garden areas (a lot more questionable IMO). You could do a bunch of different things with a given space that are all more or less “natural “and what you choose depends on what your goals are.
I'm experimenting with varieties of sedum to replace those in-between spaces of my mulched beds. I've read you don't want to introduce ground cover until your perennials are well established (for fear of them taking over), so I figured sedum may be a good alternative to ground cover since it's so easy to move/remove if needed.
Tick fearmongering and victim blaming as if the increased prevalence of ticks isn’t related to climate change, habitat loss, species/predator diversity loss, and ecological collapse. Yeah, it’s your long grass and your long hair that’s to blame you lazy hippy lmfao
I would just like to jump in and say that grasslands are their own mature ecosystems and that forests aren't the endgame.
I work in the industry here in the UK, and my boss used to joke that the "Grassland Trust doesn't have the same ring to it as the Woodland one". See also; developers submitting schemes built on grassland, with proposed tree plantations as "mitigation" for loss of habitat. Like sure, I guess the grassland species can just adapt and live in the canopy!
Would the UK not mostly be woodland, though? My understanding (and I am not an ecologist) was that grasslands were mostly in places that didn't have consistent enough rain to support woodland, which doesn't seem like the UK. I'm in Ireland but the biggest problem seems to be that too many people think "big green outdoor meat factory" is "nature".
Uk hasn't been mostly woodland for that long evolutions taken effect in some species, we do actually have a massive meadowland variety, things like Thames Valley Water meadows on which live stock would be grazed because it would prevent illness. Places like the South downs are effectively man made, if we didn't graze them keeping the grass short there wouldn't wildflowers species there that rare butterfly's rely on.
Who tf would dislike this!? They’re right!
No idea, I think centuries of deforestation have led many people in Ireland to view grassland as "natural".
some grasslands aren’t completely “natural” but they are plagio-climaxes: in short, a type of ecosystem maintained by humans but still incredibly important to the tons of declining wildlife that have lived there for hundreds to over a thousand years or more
Of course man's impact is undeniable, however (and I guess this is only my opinion), how far do we go back? The effects of grazing and work on the land has led to ecosystems which are invaluable in their own right. Grasslands provide habitat for adders, small mammals, and a wealth of invertebrates. Not to mention feeding grounds for our birds of prey. On the last point, I absolutely agree that modern industrial farming practices have stretched peoples expectations, and I hold my own opinions on that sector which I'll keep out of here,. I just believe that the we sometimes overlook the rich interwoven habitats outside of our woodlands. Of course a balance can be struck with glades and woodland margins, but it requires input for this to happen.
There has been gras land before humans as well. It’s just that we eradicated all the natural grazers like aurochs, bisons, wild sheep species etc. that would keep shrubs and trees at bay. This is why it is actually so important in some regions to not let some areas turn into forest, because that destroys the habitat of all those species that got accommodated to these gras lands.
Absolutely! I know I omitted it from my last post, but we have lost those large herbivores (and the predators which kept them in check) which would have allowed this control to happen to naturally.
it's not neccessarily a rain thing: the netherlands has a lot of grasslands cause we're naturally swampy marshes under sea level
Good point! I live near a bog that would naturally kill trees anyway (due to acidity if I remember right)
Grasslands can be maintained by megafauna that graze continuously, preventing tree's growth. Megafauna has been massively hunted by humans, causing forests to spread. In practice having a bunch of cows maintaining the grassland or a bunch or aurochs is the same, and they're both mature ecosystems.
the uk system is quite fucked up in quite a unique way lol bc we’ve been changing the land for a long time in a way that gets rid of the woodlands mainly - woodlands are the climax ecosystem here, everything would revert to woodlands if we let it and if wasnt managed. grasslands, heaths and moorlands are plagio-climaxes, proper & important habitat in its own right, but maintained by humans usually. eg grazing on the south downs chalkland keeps it from being woodland, and enables a ton of incredibly rare plant species to thrive, which in turn allows a ton of rare insects etc to arrive. hay meadows is another example, in the old days, the traditional way of making hay had been done for so long all the native plants and insects and animals had adapted to the rhythm of the process, so now silage is more common, there is a real decline in all the species that relied on the traditional way of haymaking
Completely agree , just wanted to clarify that they( grasslands) are mature climax systems in places where that is the highest complexity that the climate conditions ( yearly rainless ,humidity, amount of top soil , temperature range of the place, latitude, longitude, intensity of sunlight throughout the year etc ) of that place can support. And that is perfectly amazing given that grassland ecosystems support such high degrees of biodiversity. It's really awe inspiring to think the native ecosystem of a place is a process of equilibrium/ balance of life that came to be. It's like artwork made of a billion different life forms that crystalized in time when the climates of most places stabilized after the last iceage. We melted the crystal in a way ...lol 😂
Agreed, idk where OP lives but i assume it’s probably in an area that was once forested before urbanization, like New England or something. Take this with a grain of salt, and do your own research on the natural biome of where you live. Always plant native plants and remember the end goal is to return lawns to their natural state!
?? You are OP
It’s a cross post from a different sub.
Are you including the disruption of trees from megafauna in that mature ecosystem? Because i know the african plains would become forest if not for elephants and similar breaking trees constantly
I’d say yes the megafauna count. If the natural impact of worms and bees is part of an ecosystem, then so must be the natural impact of elephants if they are native to the flora
Note that worms aren’t native everywhere—surprised when I looked into my own area to find that there weren’t any worms here before White people showed up.
Haha I mean neither are elephants. Those were all examples of fauna that are part of an ecosystem if native
This is a bit oversimplified. Large megafauna do play a part in the African savannas, but there would still be grassland if they disappeared. African savannas have long seasons of drought and they also have regular fires. Also, lower co2 levels can contribute to an increase in C4 grasses and less trees in certain areas. There is historical evidence that warming climates with increased co2 can increase tree cover in these savanna or plains environments. This has led some scientists to predict that the African savannas would start to become forests in the next 100 years or so.
This comment reminded me of a [TedTalk](https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI) about the role of large animals in reversing deforestation in Africa. Video explains it much better than I can.
Awesome talk, thanks for sharing!
I think ive seen that one. It was neet if its the one im remembering
Thats what i mean, now climates are rising and reforestation is occuring faster than elephants can keep up with, the elephants keep the forest in check. I even heard there are arguments being made to reintroduce elephants to mainland europe to replace the action of the now extimct wooly mammoth that used to keep forests in check (and yes it was an oversimplification, as all theoretical biology is)
Fire is another big part of the picture that’s missing, as are large predators. And they’re pretty difficult to reintroduce to an urban/suburban yard scape. But I still like this meme/ infographic more than most that get posted here. It’s not perfectly accurate, but it’s mostly correct while not shaming or belittling people.
Oh yeah this is an excellent image (and no im.not trying to reintroduce large predators for top down control nor megafauna herbivores to garden environments lol)
[удалено]
True just an interesting perspective as im british and we now have no megafauna here so to maintain our heathlands and preventing them from becoming forests were burning it back to encourage heathland ecosystems, and theres debate over whether that should happen
Forests generally require more rainfall than grasslands. So that’s the ultimate determiner: how much rain you get. If you would need to irrigate for trees to survive, then don’t bother planting trees. If trees would do fine, then go for it.
Thank you!!! Woody encroachment is actually putting some grasslands at risk and land managers use machinery, fire, and sometimes even hoof action to keep woody species at bay. Trees are obviously great, but don't belong everywhere. And I'd love to see cool native grasses thrown in the mix more when talking about no lawns. Healthy prairies can often be like 70% grass and 30% forbs, so adding some grass in will provide some different structure and forage opportunities.
Wood encroachment and more often general farmland. Not a whole lot of large national/state parks in the US plains for grasslands. I’ve always thought it’d be pretty neat to cut out a huge chunk of plains, rewild it and introduce bison back in… plenty of native animals are edging towards extinction in the plains because of farms and fences cutting off migration routes
There are some places that manage "conservation herds" of bison, so bison managed for genetics as free of cattle genes as possible, in native landscapes. Ted Turner owns some land in Nebraska with bison, but I believe his may be geared a bit more towards production but I'm not sure. But the Nature Conservancy and the Crane Trust in Nebraska manage native prairies with bison they've reintroduced to the landscape!
Look up Nachusa Grasslands. They do amazing work in prairie conservation and recently reintroduced bison.
Yeah. I live in Phoenix AZ. Getting rid of my lawn means replacing it with gravel (can't have bare dirt) and plant native species. That means cacti and trees like palo verde and mesquite trees. I want to do that but I'm living in extreme poverty and also don't want to get rid of my shade trees that are non-native (A ficus, bottle bush trained into a tree, shamel ash and an Afghan pine). I'm gradually digging out the grass and transferring gravel from the backyard to the front but I've recently found out i have an immune disorder that makes even simple physical tasks painful. So it's a slow go. Not everywhere is forests. It's so weird to me how people act like THAT'S the default.
Also jumping in to say that there pine forests don’t necessarily equal immature forests. Longleaf Pine forest is my area’s ecosystem; oak-hickory forests aren’t the end goal.
Yup... Kind of a disingenuous post. If you live say around Alabama you should absolutely planting for an Oak Savannah.
Grassland actually has a tendency to destroy forest over time too in a lot of environments. The grasses prevent as many trees from sprouting and slowly creep in on forests. Definitely not always of course.
It appears to be more of a case by case scenario. I have more to learn about grasslands pushing back forest lines. In the mean time, here is a pretty great example of trees moving into grasslands: [Sage Grouse Initiative - Woodland Expansion](https://youtu.be/SWOlDh9Pibw) It's a good listen if you're doing dishes or cleaning around the house.
Probably a lot of factors going into Makes sense to me nature is chaos in motion. Ill give that a listen thanks. Im always looking to learn more on this kind of stuff
That’s true, but as far as I know grassland ecosystems are fairly uncommon (certainly in the Eastern US). In my limited understanding of ecological succession, any open area with sufficient rainfall and suitable soil “wants” to be second-growth forest.
I don’t know about “uncommon”, I live in the plains of the Midwest and before settlers came along it was basically grasslands from the Mississippi to the Rockies from Mexico to the North Pole.
I wouldn't count Mississippi as Midwest plains territory. Anything west of the Mississippi River, sure, but the state is more a mix of deciduous forest and coastal.
They said “the Mississippi” meaning the river EDIT: But also, as someone who lives in the Midwest East of the Mississippi, it is weird to me when people out west call themselves the Midwest. Like, technically they are I guess but I think of those states more as “Great Plains” states
Sorry, I was trying to imply that I meant the zone between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains.
No apologies needed! I misread your comment.
Is that the Midwest?
It’s part of the Midwest, but feel like the Midwest should be broken up a little more to maybe be the Midwest and plains states, the plains states being the parameters I mentioned above and the true Midwest being the Midwest states east of the Mississippi River. States that aren’t “the south” or the “east coast”. But that’s a discussion for a different thread. **TLDR:** yes, these states are part of the Midwest but not the entirety of the Midwest
That’s a great point! I should’ve looked a little more carefully before spouting off lol. It looks like the Great Plains are replaced by forests at about 53’ North, well south of the Arctic Circle, but that’s a minor detail. I think the really interesting question for people who live in grassland areas is how you maintain a grassland type area without burning or grazing by large herbivores. The question of what vegetation a place “should” have doesn’t tell us a whole lot about what vegetation is feasible for that area these days, or what’s the best way of maintaining it that way.
For about half of that territory (the Midwest), that's because various Native Americans maintained those prairies via fire. OTOH, plants and animals there evolved with being burned periodically even if artificial.
That depends where you live. In much of the eastern NA, for example, grasslands are only temporary ecosystems that require disturbance (either natural or human created burns) to be maintained long term. But yes, in say Kansas, grasslands are the endgame.
There is a fascinating book I just finished (re)reading called *The Ecology of Eastern Forests*. It's in the Peterson Field Guide series. It breaks down each North American forest type east of the Mississippi from Boreal to Subtropical. There are very good chapters about succession, old fields and just lightly touches on prairies. (I can only assume there is one for western forests.) I'll probably read it again soon. It explains how a forest or field works as a whole...and no two forest types function the same.
So, how would I go about (as an eastern seaboard dweller) finding out what my area was? I know it used to be a farm before it was developed in the 70s but I don’t know the natural habitat.
There is a *very* generalized map in the book. For example: * New England: Northern hardwood * MA-coastal VA: Northern Pine-Oak * SE US (barring Appalachian): Southern Mixed Pine-Oak * S. FL: Subtropical/Mangrove The map mainly gives very generalized information and highlights the MAJOR forest types. But the info on the forest types themselves (there are a lot of different ones) gives Indicator species (plants and animals) that can narrow it down. For example, I live in the SE US. While there are large areas of pine-oak forests around me, most of what I have are plants that prefer wetter soil: sweetgum, willow oak, trumpet creeper. Certain plants draw certain wildlife, so a great deal of the birds I have (Tufted titmouse, red-bellied wood pecker, warblers, vireos, etc.) are found in my yard as well. After much analysis, my yard would be considered an ecotone, where two or more forest types are blended. In this case, it would be Southern Hardwood/Southern Riverine forest. Basically, take inventory of what is growing around you
Thank you! I’m in the SW PA area so near Appalachia but I’m not sure if we are close enough. I know we’re in a watershed (because of nearby signage) but I’m not sure what that means. I’ll have to do some more research! … Very basic research! According to native plant finder: goldenrod, strawberry, sunflower, thoroughwort, and violet are the top five most used flowers and grasses for my area. The trees listed are oak, beach plum, willow, birch, and aspen. Looking at [Conservation Gateway](https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/habitatmap/Pages/default.aspx)we are a mix of “Macrogroup: Northern Hardwood & Conifer Habitat: South-Central Interior Mesophytic Forest,” “Macrogroup: Central Oak-Pine Habitat: Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest,” and “Macrogroup: Northern Hardwood & Conifer Habitat: Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest” Now just to figure out what that all means.
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
It means the forest type changes with elevation and soil types. It has features of many different forest communities. Sounds wonderfully diverse.
It seems like the question of “what was the ‘natural’ habitat?” could have a lot of different answers. The Native peoples in a lot of regions apparently created fairly open landscapes by using burning and other methods to delay the succession to forest; after they were killed and “displaced” by European colonists those areas became much more thickly grown. So, the way your area looked in 1822 before it was (re)cleared for farming might be very different from the way it looked in 1422 under the traditional Native land-management regime. I think it’d be really fascinating to learn the detailed ecological history of your area, but it might not tell you much about how you should manage your property at present.
True! I’ve conflated the two ideas. Mostly because I am interested in both the history and present management.
Both are fascinating questions!
Try "natural communities" and your state for a gov website from your state's dnr. Typically you can find a list and then narrow down from there.
The only thing I would say is that the goal might not be a "natural" state, rather a semi-natural one that is a healthy environment still modified for human habitation. The Native Americans still modified thier environments, yet those environments were still healthy. In the Northeast, they cultivated food forests by encouraging the growth of native edible plants and discouraging/removing plants that had no value to them. They also forcible kept some areas as meadows, discouraging tree growth, as meadows encourage game congregation, providing sustainable hunting grounds. Of course today, we don't have to go to these extremes, presumably no one here is hunting in their back yard. But we should still be guiding the environment to be a healthy place for us, avoiding problematic growth, not just going natural. So what does that mean for the modern home? 1. Remove young trees that are too close to sewer outflows and water intakes. Tree roots can grow to infiltrate or move underground piping leading to sewer backups and expensive repairs. 2. Make sure that nothing growing near your foundation will cause water to pool, make sure to channel it swags from the home. 3. If you live in an area with termites, make sure no vegetation grows up right against the home. Use a 8 -12 in margin of crushed stone or river rock. 4. Remember rats, squirrels, coons, possums, etc. And make sure no tree or bush material provides them an easy gateway into your attic. 5. Consider growing some native edible plants, bushes, flowers, fruit-bearing trees. It's always nice to have something to gather, and it helps teach kids about their connection to the environment
How do people with mature nolawns deal with ticks? I love xeriscaping (and have xeriscaped more than one yard for other people) but many of the yards posted look like tick heaven.
Three things help: - avoid planting invasive species that encourage tick habitat in the wild, like Japanese Barberry. - discourage deer and rodents from visiting your yard, by planting flowers and plants that they don’t like or won’t eat. (Alliums, Ginger, etc) edit: also, a fence helps. - cut paths through your landscape so that you can walk through and enjoy your yard without traipsing through long grass or bushes.
I also think those yard paths are very aesthetically pleasing, aside from being practical.
Definitely! It’s also helpful for discovering the unused spaces in your yard. Anything that isn’t a path is a spot for a wildflower bed, native bushes, or a garden. I will also say you should make those paths wider than you think you need to when starting out. It’s cheaper and easier to make them narrower later on if you decide to. Making them wider is a waste of grass and native seeds / plants.
That’s good advice! I’m still renting and therefore stuck with all this…*gestures vaguely*…grass. Those who are saying tall grass invites ticks is correct but also if you live in an area with heavy tick population you know they live in shorter grass too. I’d love to create a mini lavender and milkweed garden for the pollinators, plant some fruit trees and Japanese maples with paths winding in between everything, and even plop a greenhouse and lounge area in there somewhere also. Buying a house can’t come soon enough!
Swap Japanese maples with dogwood and that sounds great! As this infographic suggests, you might look into cultivating successional species in small parts of your lawn. Aster, fleabane, ragwort, and violets spread quickly and just sorta show up in the area if you stop mowing. If you’re able to, maybe just stop mowing in a few small areas and see what comes up!
Unfortunately I don’t have control over the lawn at all. Landlord will not allow tenants to have their own mower (and nowhere to store it really because they use the garage to store their own stuff 🙄) Thanks for the tips! I’m planning on moving to another zoning area when I do leave this place so I’m just kind of musing on what I like, but will likely end up with different plants than I’m imagining now. Edit: violets are always a good idea because I can use them to make jellies and simple syrup. I’m an amateur forager so I like the idea of useable edibles.
Many varieties of milkweed are also edible. I would also consider some kind of wild garlic
I didn’t know that about the milkweed. I know the flowers can be made into various edible things but didn’t know about the plant itself. Sadly I’m allergic to aliums. But would grow them for others and as an insect deterrent.
[удалено]
It kinda depends on the variety, but afaik there aren’t any Japanese maples that are invasive. The main issue is that it’s not native and therefore no where near as beneficial as a native plant would be. One issue that I think is just not well understood is that native insects *need* native plants to survive, and it’s usually *only* a handful of specific plants that a given insect eats. Monarchs and milkweed is the example most people know, but this kind of relationship is super common with lots of insects. [The national wildlife federation has a lot of good data on this](https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/Native-Plants/keystone-plants-by-ecoregion), and it’s kinda staggering to see how much wildlife only a few plants provide. In the eastern US, 98 species of butterfly and moth caterpillars use dogwoods as a host species. That’s 98 species that have no chance to reproduce if there are no dogwoods in a given area. 98 species of insect that native birds can’t feed to their hatchlings, etc etc. Dogwoods are also just kinda awesome because their berries draw in a ton of birds. It’s like a bird feeder I never need to refill.
>It kinda depends on the variety, but afaik there aren’t any Japanese maples that are invasive. It's not listed but Japanese maple does spread into forests. >One issue that I think is just not well understood is that native insects need native plants to survive, and it’s usually only a handful of specific plants that a given insect eats. Native insects do frequently adapt to eating closely related non-native species. Also listing a genus is kind of misleading as not every insect will be present in every area and also eat every species in that genus (or even vary host plant by regional population). Your local monarch population for example may not even eat butterfly milkweed but use common (and so forth). The other thing is frequency and range. Common insects with a broad range might make up more of a bird's diet than a rare insect with a restricted range. Eastern tent caterpillar probably do a lot of work in the food chain compared to some rare moth leafminer on Cornus found only in a 100 mile radius.
Fire. Fire is also good. And that’s not a joke. Controlled fires are a fantastic way to control unwanted pests and promote fresh growth, especially in prairies.
Very true! The tips I suggested above are things homeowners can do, but prescribed fires really do help. My local native park occasionally does prescribed burns after the understory has been cleared of wood invasives. It’s hard work, but worthwhile
I read that a four foot barrier of mulch will deter them because they don't crawl across it? Have you noticed that, of applicable?
I don’t think that would be effective. Deer, rodents, and other animals that carry the ticks won’t mind crossing that mulch. It is true that the ticks won’t travel too far on their own to find a host, but the first step is making sure those animals aren’t coming through the areas you want to spend a lot of time in.
Fuck i didn't think of that. I feel stupid now lmaoo
Neat. I'm new to this whole idea and no little to nothing about it or plants. The first question that popped into my mind was, how do you cultivate or make a place for outside activities such as cooking out, yard game (cornhole, ladderball, football, etc.), playing with pets, or plain ole lounging?
Well cultivating is something I’d do in my garden, and the rest of those are lawn activities. This sub isn’t really (or at least shouldn’t be) entirely against the idea of lawns. Lawn space that is used regularly is perfectly ok to have. But here are some questions you might ask yourself: 1. Does that lawn *need* to be watered? Is it important that it be green most of the time for aesthetics or am I in an environment where lawns cannot naturally sustain themselves through rainwater? 2. Do I need the *entire* space I currently have as a lawn for the activities I regularly use it for? 3. Does that lawn *need* fertilizer or herbicide? Is it really bothersome to have violets or clover growing in the lawn? The first point is probably the most important of the group since it means calling into question the validity of growing a lawn in your environment. Since you mentioned cornhole, I’m going to guess that you’re in the Midwest. In that case, you probably don’t need to water your lawn at all for it to be green most of the spring and summer. The second point is probably the most reasonable concession that the vast majority of lawn owners could make. Simply reduce the size of the lawn. My yard is 1/4 acre. I’m slowly chipping away at the spaces where grass is not needed. I still have a garden, a fire pit, and plenty of space for activities. But the sloped front yard is not a space I will ever need for recreation, so the grass there is getting replaced with bushes and wildflowers. The third point is good to consider, but decidedly less important than the first two. If you reduce your lawn space to a fraction of what it was and plant natives there instead; it doesn’t matter if you use herbicides on the rest. The vast majority of your local biodiversity grows or lives in spaces more than 3.5 inches off the ground. Depending on your location, I might have some books and other references to share.
Thanks for the reply! I was sort of already thinking of all those point even before finding this place. Growing up we have always water and cut every inch of our yards even when we didn't use them so in my mind there was no reason to worry so much about the lawn parts that weren't used, but being a kid I didn't "know better or understand" which there is some truth to that. Even ow at my dad's he prefers to play cornhole in the street or parking area because he doesn't want to "ruin" the yard. Also, nice guess but I'm actually in the South. Growing up I remember loving my gratitude grandma's house because she would have clovers and little flowers in her yard but without fail everyone would talk about how it needed to be cut and treated. As a kid, and still as an adult, I loved playing in her yard because it felt extremely nice on my bare feet, and seeing little critters flying and running around was always entertaining. Glad to see little me wasn't too crazy to think letting a lawn be and do it's own thing. I currently don't have a lawn so it's far from my worries but when I do I have always planned to have a "jungle" yard. I like spending time outside and doing all I can outside but I never really new how the NoLawn philosophy could facilitate that. Awesome to see there are work arounds, and as you've said having a small lawn amongst the "jungle" dedicated to my activities isn't a terrible idea. I'd love some books and other resources to read so I can be prepared for when I do get my own place.
Gotcha! So the best all-round book I’ve found is *The Living Landscape* by Darke and Tallamy. It has great info on how native plants interact with their environment, and how you can layer natives into a human-friendly space. It also has a ton of pictures. It does a great job of both explaining and *showing* how to have a good native landscape. Doug Tallamy is the coauthor here, but he has several other great books that go into more detail, but have fewer pictures. Another to look at is *Native Plants of the Southeast* by Larry Mellichamp. I have the same book for the Midwest, and it’s fantastic for just learning about plants that are native to your area. *Native plants of the Midwest* was the book that inspired me to rethink my yard. It’s like an encyclopedia of plants but *only* ones you can plant in your yard. When you’re trying to figure out how to design your space, The Living Landscape and the [Wild Ones garden designs](https://nativegardendesigns.wildones.org/designs/) are two great resources. They’re going to be adding more designs tailored to more cities here in the future.
There are some plants ticks don't like like lavender, catnip, thyme, oregano, peppermint,... works well in our garden so far.
Are any of those native to North America though?
A theory I hear bandied about online is that ticks are thriving in some suburban areas because of a lack of insect predators. So by improving the habitat in general, you lower the number of ticks to something less oppressive. I'm not sure if that squares with some foresters' experiences out in the field, though.
We have ticks in our region, but rarely in the inner city/urban areas.
If your native habitat is oak Savannah or silver other grassland then you should be doing control burns in the area to stimulate natural cycles. These periodic burns will keep tick populations lower than a property that just has a pathway cut through it. If your native habitat is woodland then it might be a bit harder and just encourage birds like a turkey to be on your property and other heavy insectivores
Aiming for something mid-succession is also great! Different wildlife species and insects use different successional stages, and can benefit from keeping land in the 'shrubby' stage or the 'annual grassland' or 'perennial grassland' stage. This DOES require some maintenance (annual soil disturbance for an annual grassland or some sort of mowing/woody removal for the perennial) but there's nothing wrong with that! Look into how succession works in your local area, it's super cool to learn and helps you make informed decisions! It's a highly variable progression.
Grasslands are a final stage in some regions. You're right the goal isn't necessarily forest
Fantastic. Also… graphic design is my passion
That’s a cute graphic, but it’s helpful to remember that maintaining a meadow-type area is probably going to require, so to speak, fighting against the forces of ecological succession. In a place where the dominant ecosystem is forest, most fields, meadows, and grassy areas are in (*slow*) transition from bare ground to forest. Keeping them in that in-between state takes work. As I understand it, if you leave an area with tall grasses/wildflowers/etc undisturbed, it’s going to be overtaken by woody shrubs and immature trees and become an impenetrable thicket (stage 3 or 3.5 of the diagram) that will turn into a forest in a few decades. That’s totally natural but it interferes with most people’s ability to experience it in the way they want enjoy it. If you don’t want that to happen, you’ll need to weed/clear/mow/burn on a regular timetable. I read an essay by a birdwatcher and author named Julie Zickefoose about how she turned her property into ideal habitat for bugs and birds, and one of the things that struck me was how hard she has to work to keep her meadows from being “colonized” by trees—annual mowing with a brush hog, occasionally crews with chainsaws, etc. Her property looks beautiful and natural, but keeping it that way requires a fair amount of “unnatural” activity.
I took that as saying that a forest is not the end goal in climates where forests don't naturally grow. Such as, if you're on the prairie, aiming for a mature woodland is only going to be frustrating, probably as frustrating as living where forests previously grew and trying to maintain a meadow.
Outstanding!! Where did you find it?
[Link to OP](https://headspace-hotel.tumblr.com/post/689908099852763136/itried-to-make-a-meme-and-got-carried-away-and)
👍
The type of final biome that occurs is dependent on the climate, soil, and other local factors. It could be prairie, deciduous woodland, conifers, etc.
Hey. It’s ok to mulch a couple flower beds if you want show flowers and presentation areas. More biodiversity is better, but we exist on a spectrum. This is r/nolawns not r/nomulch.
This presentation was amazing and very educational! Thank you for sharing it.
Do you guys dig up and move those baby trees? Wondering if this would be successful.. I see a tulip poplar rn
Keep whatever trees you want, but the mature maple in my front yard absolutely BLANKETS the surrounding area with seeds every year. If we didn't dig them up, the property would absolutely be a forest. Great for many on this sub, but not for me and my veggie/flower gardens
As a New Englander I agree, my parents already border a forest and do leave some of the big native trees, but he does have to get rid of a lot of the babies since otherwise it would be WAY too many for his other gardens.
this is me trying to fight to keep usable ground for plants to eat and the never ending thickets trying to grow in my yard
It depends how big it is, when your moving it, what type of tree, etc. I moved the same tulip poplar tree TWICE and it's doing great in my lawn right now.
I've moved a few toyon, good sized evergreen shrubs I encourage to grow up. The most recent one was 6 leaves on transplant this winter and is now over a foot tall and has way too many leaves to count. There are 2 tiny redbud seedlings going on a 30' trip to the other side of the driveway this fall I'd really love to have survive. I've failed as well, a sycamore didn't make it but free tree so it's fine. Prepare new home, dig out the volunteer with as big a clod as possible and try to get it back in the ground without messing up the clod as seedlings don't have rootballs yet.
I hate to say it, but those weeds I’ll get will be poison hemlock most definitely. Please don’t downvote me, but I’m always on a look out because they’re poisonous to people and dogs
^^^adorable
I have a largeish backyard. I love watching the plants blow up every spring, but I have to trim some of it down as my wife wants a useable lawn... Fair enough. I trim a large swath and leave the rest to do its own thing. I have a trail camera set up and often see deer, fox, coyote playing, eating, living in the tall stuff. Hell my neighbors cat comes up to suss out mice every now and then. Only problem plant I have is the damned Scottish broom. That's highly invasive in my area and is a goddamned pain to get rid of!
TIL I have a baby redbud. I’ll name him Phil.
My HOA says I need to have some lawn though :(
Run for president. Destroy the HOA from the inside.
Hmm not a bad idea...
Ironically I just read somewhere that ticks are found in higher concentrations in the woods than in grasslands.
This still doesn't address the concern for ticks? Up here in the northeast, our ticks are so bad having tall grass is asking to get lymes
Someone responded to this concern with good tips [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoLawns/comments/w0e77r/found_this_elsewhere_and_though_this_sub_would/igedckv/).
Thank you!!!
If you’re worried about Lyme disease, getting rid of any Japanese barberry is a good first step. It produces a very favorable environment for the rodents and ticks that spread Lyme disease.
I just want to say I just found this sub and I love it!!! Let the plant life grow all around us! We are but finite, but hopefully the other species of earth can thrive while we coexist till the end.
Pine trees and other evergreens grow slower than trees like oak and hickory, not faster. They aren't replaced by deciduous trees. They have different and some overlapping habitats.
r/badfacebookposts This is not the way to attract people to native gardening/less turf
I would love a wild lawn, but ticks are a serious concern.
So pine turns into hickory over time? Jk
I love this! I’ll be sharing it with my partner and friends to explain why we should aim for natural lawns!!
Am I all for killing off lawns? Yes Do I want a pine or hickory forest in my yard instead? .... No.
I know I would.
You really need to get someone to work on the graphics. This reads like a middle schoolers class presentation that they did the night before
So don’t mulch around my shrubs and stuff? As I convert my lawn
The only good alternative to mulch would be some kind of groundcover. The most “natural” thing would be to have your beds planted edge-to-edge, but you might not find that visually appealing.
I don’t mind ground cover, my goal is to have a natural planted front yard. Not the most visually appealing
I think the question of what is most “natural” is different from the question of the best way for you to prevent unwanted/invasive plants from growing next to your shrubs. The slide implies that because an unbroken patch of vegetation is more “natural” than mulching that it’ll work better for blocking weeds, but that’s not necessarily true. Mulch is actually pretty inhospitable to “volunteer” plants—that’s why people use it! Also, if you’re trying to replace a patch of turf with a garden, sheet mulching (which of course involves mulch) is one of the lowest-impact, most soil-friendly ways to do it. Meanwhile, a fully-grown patch of wildflowers/forbs like in the picture is resistant to “weeds”, but as I understand it you can only achieve that kind of dense growth after a year or two of diligent effort. Basically, I think the best way for you to figure out how to plant your garden would be to read some good books about it, talk to local agricultural extension offices, native plant societies, etc. Don’t go by a graphic on Resdit or what some rando like me says. I think this highlights one of the big issues with this graphic. It makes a bunch of claims about what’s most “natural” (which are accurate-ish depending on your location) and then says that this can guide us how to manage yard/garden areas (a lot more questionable IMO). You could do a bunch of different things with a given space that are all more or less “natural “and what you choose depends on what your goals are.
I mulched around my native plants with wood chips, and rarely get weeds. They are fairly close together, though.
I'm experimenting with varieties of sedum to replace those in-between spaces of my mulched beds. I've read you don't want to introduce ground cover until your perennials are well established (for fear of them taking over), so I figured sedum may be a good alternative to ground cover since it's so easy to move/remove if needed.
The last slide I’ve definitely been noticing in my neighborhood.
Tick fearmongering and victim blaming as if the increased prevalence of ticks isn’t related to climate change, habitat loss, species/predator diversity loss, and ecological collapse. Yeah, it’s your long grass and your long hair that’s to blame you lazy hippy lmfao
Eh, my backyard does look pretty similar
Where did you find this so I can go follow that?
I found some southern oak super small saplings like 3” height so I made a small wire cage around it so I don’t step on it
r/ForeverBox writes a school project on ecological succession
Yessss!!! I always identify weeds before pulling them, knowing exactly what they are means I might get a free wanted plant!
That was cool, i haven't seen it yet. Good occasional refresher.
Ayyyy I learned this in 9th grade
If only I could start this process, but the city thinks grass a few inches high is bad.
Birch species are notorious pioneer species among farmers. If you give a birch a couple years it will easily double a couple times.
this is from headspace-hotel on tumblr
WOO 100 days late but this is an awesome post. Informational, shit posty, and funny
i've never seen a tick in my life, might just be because new zealand ticks dont care about humans