That’s just simply vastly and easily proved to be untrue.
Insecticide is a lot of it but lack of variety, lack of height, lack of pollinators, lack of pollinating plants and light pollution are all compound factors.
I’ve seen a lot of opinion pieces about the matter, but they never cite any research that definitely pins substantive loss of biodiversity on lawns. It’s an issue globally, but as usual the individual is the scape goat instead of the exponentially greater impact of corporations.
Because there doesn’t need to be a study. We know reduction of habitat has a direct relation to population, it would be exceptionally weird if it weren’t.
We knew dinosaurs were scaly, too. Everything deserves further study, and it’s foolhardy to advise everyone to rip up their lawns and plant…what, exactly? White clover, another invasive species.
Oh, you didn’t need to do that. You won’t find a study supporting your argument, I’ve looked thoroughly before. Case in point, the study you shared. It actually opposes your argument, by finding suburban lawns support a diverse and abundant bee community. Of the three mowing frequencies they studied (one, two, and three week intervals), they actually found every two weeks was optimal for the bees.
Like I said to begin with, I just don’t think what species of green you plant in your lawn matters nearly as much as not using insecticide.
We suggest a ‘lazy lawnmower’ approach as an additional option for
managing yards for wildlife. The recommendation to mow lawns less
frequently to help promote bee conservation might garner broad public
support (potentially compared with lawn reduction or replacement)
because it more closely aligns with current single-family homeowner
motivations for adopting lawn-dominated yardscapes. A New England
study on lawn care attitudes and behaviors found that householders
were concerned about water quality and thus were willing to try al-
ternative lawn care approaches that were more environmentally
friendly (e.g., higher mowing height, reduced fertilizer application).
However, the authors also noted significant barriers to changing be-
haviors including concerns that the alternative lawn care would not be
as aesthetically pleasing, would incur additional financial burdens, and
would require more time for upkeep (Eisenhauer et al., 2016). Likewise,
in a multi-city survey, respondents ranked various landscaping deci-
sions in which aesthetically pleasing, weed-free, and ease of main-
tenance topped the list, while provisioning for wildlife ranked fifth out
of eight choices (Larson et al., 2015). These studies suggest that wild-
life-friendly landscaping has some support, but the acceptance of weeds
and the inclusion of more native plants (which are not as showy as their
non-native congeners; Frankie et al., 2005) might be at odds with more
preferred management goals of aesthetics and ease of maintenance
(Lerman et al., 2012b; van Heezik et al., 2012). Based on our interac-
tions with participating households and their neighbors, our treatment
of a three-week mowing frequency appeared unkempt and exceeded the
tolerance of many homeowners and their neighbors, and thus the two-
week regime might reconcile homeowner ideals with pollinator habitat.
Moving towards a mechanistic approach when studying urban
biodiversity (Shochat et al., 2006) increases our ability to directly link
management with ecological outcomes, and ultimately lead to effective
action. Our experimental approach demonstrated how altering lawn
management decisions influences bee abundance despite the inherent
variability present in suburban yards. Manipulating lawn mowing be-
haviors also demonstrates a new and creative approach for supporting
urban biodiversity by rethinking the role lawns play towards enriching
urban areas. Mowing less frequently is practical, economical, environ-
mental and a timesaving alternative to lawn replacement or even
planting pollinator gardens, that has the potential to be widely adopted
if it can overcome barriers to social acceptance. Most importantly, our
research shows that individual households can contribute to urban
conservation.
It would be easier to just admit you didn’t read the whole thing before you shared it. It’s a shit study, like I said, and you’re wasting your time trying to make it support your opinion.
You can throw more copy pasta at me, if you want, but their results are what they are. I’ll reiterate…
Suburban lawns support a diverse bee population: “4.1. Diverse and abundant suburban bee communities. For this study, we documented 93 species of bees collected from the lawn-dominated yards (Appendix A1). These 93 species represent roughly a quarter of bee species recorded in Massachusetts, include 14 Massachusetts county records, and featured the highly abundant Lasioglossum illinoense, a species not recorded in Massachusetts since 1920 (Lerman and Milam, 2016). Other urban bee studies have also amassed impressive species lists (e.g., Baldock et al., 2015; Fetridge et al., 2008; Matteson et al., 2008; Pardee and Philpott, 2014; Tommasi et al., 2004), dispelling the notion that cities are “biological deserts” and support findings that bees can be abundant and diverse in urban settings (Hall et al., 2017). In addition to being primarily native species and soil-nesters, the majority of the Springfield bees were small-bodied (Appendix A1), suggesting that these short-distance fliers took advantage of the floral resources in the study lawns, especially yards mowed every two weeks.”
Mowing more frequently was better for the bees: “Mowing frequency altered the evenness of bees within suburban yards, though the patterns we observed did not fully support our hypothesis, in that lawns mowed every week and every three-weeks had higher evenness (Fig. 4d) and richness (Rarefaction curves; Fig. 2) when compared with the two-week treatment.”
Mowing more frequently was better for the bees: *"Mowing frequency altered the evenness of bees within suburban yards, though the patterns we observed did not fully support our hypothesis, in that lawns mowed every week and every three-weeks had higher evenness (Fig. 4d) and richness (Rarefaction curves; Fig. 2) when compared with the two-week treatment."
You also ignored the important part where the study pretty explicitly says there are better practices including wilding they just aren’t likely to gain acceptance with tedious home owners.
A New England
study on lawn care attitudes and behaviors found that householders
were concerned about water quality and thus were willing to try al-
ternative lawn care approaches that were more environmentally
friendly (e.g., higher mowing height, reduced fertilizer application).
However, the authors also noted significant barriers to changing be-
haviors including concerns that the alternative lawn care would not be
as aesthetically pleasing, would incur additional financial burdens, and
would require more time for upkeep (Eisenhauer et al., 2016).
That’s just simply vastly and easily proved to be untrue.
Insecticide is a lot of it but lack of variety, lack of height, lack of pollinators, lack of pollinating plants and light pollution are all compound factors.
I’ve seen a lot of opinion pieces about the matter, but they never cite any research that definitely pins substantive loss of biodiversity on lawns. It’s an issue globally, but as usual the individual is the scape goat instead of the exponentially greater impact of corporations.
Because there doesn’t need to be a study. We know reduction of habitat has a direct relation to population, it would be exceptionally weird if it weren’t.
We knew dinosaurs were scaly, too. Everything deserves further study, and it’s foolhardy to advise everyone to rip up their lawns and plant…what, exactly? White clover, another invasive species.
I’m sure I can find a study but do you need a study for common sense?
Ed:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/UVM-Extension-Cultivating-Healthy-Communities/horticulture/pollinators/To_Mow_or_to_Mow_Less.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0s6KL_6SGAxUBlYkEHTYLCgIQFnoECCMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1u_UbkKR7jk1hAwCw0SPED
Oh, you didn’t need to do that. You won’t find a study supporting your argument, I’ve looked thoroughly before. Case in point, the study you shared. It actually opposes your argument, by finding suburban lawns support a diverse and abundant bee community. Of the three mowing frequencies they studied (one, two, and three week intervals), they actually found every two weeks was optimal for the bees.
Like I said to begin with, I just don’t think what species of green you plant in your lawn matters nearly as much as not using insecticide.
It doesn’t but do go on.
It would be easier to just admit you didn’t read the whole thing before you shared it. It’s a shit study, like I said, and you’re wasting your time trying to make it support your opinion.
You can throw more copy pasta at me, if you want, but their results are what they are. I’ll reiterate…
Suburban lawns support a diverse bee population: “4.1. Diverse and abundant suburban bee communities. For this study, we documented 93 species of bees collected from the lawn-dominated yards (Appendix A1). These 93 species represent roughly a quarter of bee species recorded in Massachusetts, include 14 Massachusetts county records, and featured the highly abundant Lasioglossum illinoense, a species not recorded in Massachusetts since 1920 (Lerman and Milam, 2016). Other urban bee studies have also amassed impressive species lists (e.g., Baldock et al., 2015; Fetridge et al., 2008; Matteson et al., 2008; Pardee and Philpott, 2014; Tommasi et al., 2004), dispelling the notion that cities are “biological deserts” and support findings that bees can be abundant and diverse in urban settings (Hall et al., 2017). In addition to being primarily native species and soil-nesters, the majority of the Springfield bees were small-bodied (Appendix A1), suggesting that these short-distance fliers took advantage of the floral resources in the study lawns, especially yards mowed every two weeks.”
Mowing more frequently was better for the bees: “Mowing frequency altered the evenness of bees within suburban yards, though the patterns we observed did not fully support our hypothesis, in that lawns mowed every week and every three-weeks had higher evenness (Fig. 4d) and richness (Rarefaction curves; Fig. 2) when compared with the two-week treatment.”
Mowing more frequently was better for the bees: *"Mowing frequency altered the evenness of bees within suburban yards, though the patterns we observed did not fully support our hypothesis, in that lawns mowed every week and every three-weeks had higher evenness (Fig. 4d) and richness (Rarefaction curves; Fig. 2) when compared with the two-week treatment."
You also ignored the important part where the study pretty explicitly says there are better practices including wilding they just aren’t likely to gain acceptance with tedious home owners.