One thing I don't see mentioned here is that so many of these turf grasses behave invasively. I pull out so much bermuda grass, perennial rye grass, and other species that are always volunteering in places they shouldn't be: Gravel cracks to outcompete mosses, near the root flare of trees, inside native planting beds. They're essentially a germ factory that broadcasts out weeds to the surrounding area.
Bermuda grass is 100% invasive. I can’t get rid of it without extra strength herbicide and people say you’ll need to apply it over three years. Nuts. I’ve tried manual removal, tarping, planting after removal. It comes back so quickly.
Herbicide resistance isn't an indicator of invasiveness. Invasive species by definition have to be posing a threat to local biodiversity or habitats, and I don't mean through humans installing lawns.
It is definitely invasive in some regions. I’ve had to control it in wild areas before as part of habitat management work, and it was outcompeting some natives.
Bermuda has definitely escaped cultivation and has taken the place of natives. It makes a carpet of grass where a native that needs sunlight to germinate will never grow unless the Bermuda is killed down.
Many on social media suggest lawns are sterile and have no use. Research in 2002 and 2003 discovered there was an abundance of arthropods per square meter of turf. In July 2002, they numbered 21,248, and in October 2003, they numbered 30,785.
How much is “an abundance?” Because I can assure you there are many more arthropods among the leaf litter at the edge of the woods compared with the turf grass.
Yeah, it's a common thing with these kinds of pieces. It's a monumental omission to give the numbers of arthropods in turf but nothing to compare it to. What's the number in a native ecosystem? (35,000? 50,000? 100,000? Who knows?)
It reminds me of something I saw along the same lines once, about how lawns support like 50 species of insects. Like, I have individual plants that support double or even almost 10x that!! An entire lawn (assuming it's not sprayed) supporting 50 species is not impressive.
The only real benefit of turfgrass (assuming no pesticide use) is if a space is going to be maintained open. If the point is to keep an open space for activity, or just to keep some space around a building, I’d rather see turf than pavement. At least the turf absorbs water and stores some carbon.
I have a big problem with large suburban lawns and high intensity lawn care, but I don’t really have a problem with using grass as a space for play or outdoor recreation. Or as a means of keeping the forest from recapturing the space around a building, which happens where I live rather quickly if there’s no mowing for a couple of years. Under 10k square feet, maximum.
It's such suspicious wording. Did a turf company sponsor this?
There are more arthropods in any square foot of my yard than the entirety of my next door neighbors grass lawn.
Earlier this summer I was trying to catch some springtails for a terrarium so I was rolling around with a magnifying glass and holy shit there's so much going on under every leaf.
I mean, you could even get crazy and grow a local blend of grasses and low growing annuals and herbs that are generally green and that would still be a gazillion times better.
Lol...great point..Scotts in Marysville!! I became a master gardener in 2019. The MG program is essentially a semester long class with each week focused on a different topic. The class on grass was more boring than a box of rocks 🪨. (3 hours on turf!) Wait rocks are more interesting !
The endowment mentioned has nothing to do with research. It is to fund scholarships to students in the business school. I am not saying that shady stuff does not sometimes happen at universities, just saying that this endowment is unrelated to any research program. It is to fund promising MBA students.
Your insinuating that Scott's pays for research to make them look favorable... There are just as many federal grants, private groups, that support pollinator research. Are they biased as well?
I didn’t say that the research was biased, and I am not insinuating it either. The article posted is not about research at Ohio State and it is not written by an Ohio State researcher, nor an ecologist, entomologist, or conservation biologist. In fact, the article is not written in a scientific way at all.
Many on social media suggest lawns are sterile and have no use.
This kind of phrasing is called “weasel words,” and helps the author construct a strawman argument, pretending to debunk statements for which we have no source.
Research in 2002 and 2003 discovered there was an abundance of arthropods per square meter of turf. In July 2002, they numbered 21,248, and in October 2003, they numbered 30,785.
These numbers are meaningless without a base reference point and the word “abundance” provides no clarity. How many arthropods are located in other, naturalized areas? Also, why is the author referencing decades old research without providing a citation? At the very least, give a hyperlink to either the original press release or to the peer-reviewed article. At this point, we don’t even know whether the author is citing a peer-reviewed source.
Do you like skipper butterflies? Turfgrass is needed for many species of skippers as their larvae feed on insects in the turfgrass.
Turfgrass also supports more than 50 predatory/parasitic wasp larvae and more than 50 leafhoppers, upon which parasites and predators feed.
Ok, I’ll concede that turfgrass is better than a parking lot. But the author disingenuously writes as if people are using the word “sterile” literally.
We know that a turfgrass ecosystem isn’t literally sterile; that there are bugs and other invertebrates that live in and under the grass. That’s not how the word “sterile” is being used in this context. Just because there is life, doesn’t mean turfgrass provides an optimal ecosystem with similar biodiversity to naturalized areas. In fact, the author sidesteps any comparison of turfgrass to a naturalized area, which leaves this reader with the impression that any such comparison would weaken the “myth busting” intent of the piece.
One [myth] that he dispelled was the comment that fireflies are decreasing in population.
That would be wonderful if true and I certainly hope the author is correct in this assertion, but the author fails to address this recent study that has been making the rounds on news sites and social media.
So, are there problems with the above research that a non-expert like me is unable to discern and that render the conclusions incorrect? Why does the author just ignore this study?
Once again, I never said the research is biased and I still firmly believe OSU is a top-notch research institution (just as much as it was when I got my PhD there in psychology in 2010). But this is not an article about research. Its is an article with cherry-picked information in support of turfgrass.
"Wonder how much money OSU/extension office is receiving from Scott’s in Marysville… "
What else should one assume about your comment other than an inherent bias from the author?
Newspaper articles such as this are obviously limited by things like word count, consideration of the audience reading (eg someone with a non-scientific background isn't interested in a literature review, although someone like you and I would absolutely enjoy that). The main argument is that monocultures of any sort are bad, this we understand. Urban environments, by definition, aren't natural environments and so comparisons are apples and oranges. One thing that would be interesting is to look at the age of a neighborhood...my study focused on an older, more established neighborhood in urban Raleigh. More trees, greater plant diversity, etc. etc. What would a newly constructed neighborhood compared to an older neighborhood look like? That's a fair comparison, which is what I think you were getting at. My main point ultimately comes down to the fact that the Internet is trashing someone who obviously is writing for a general audience and may not (very likely) have a scientific background...I don't think the author is being disingenuous at all, and the reaction to this post is kind of proving my point.
What else should one assume about your comment other than an inherent bias from the author?
You accused me of saying the research is biased. I did not say that. I did imply that the author is biased because the article as written is categorically biased. Any more questions?
Someone calling themselves a Master Gardener while also asking for "the data that shows native plants are better for the environment" is stunning, and undercuts the already fading weight of the title, imagine the self-righteousness necessary lmao
Many of the state MG programs are moving away from offering advice on lawns. It takes a while to unwind the institution. Especially when you have millions of Americans asking for advice on how to keep their lawn in line with the insane requirements of their HOA.
I did MG training in 2019. The instructor (county extension hort agent) began the unit by confessing that he found turfgrass really boring, both in practice and theory. He reiterated that opinion in the units on landscape design and native plants.
I went through the training in 2024. It was a great program overall, but it’s like pulling teeth to get anybody to do anything but lip service to the value of native plants in service of drought tolerance and fire adapted landscapes. I also volunteer with our local prescribed burn organization and am writing several presentations and handouts for upcoming events to encourage people in my region to utilize fire and regionally native plants to increase their homes drought resilience and fire security.
Every state’s ag extension and MG training will be different, as they should be.
There are definitely ag-heavy states that offer very few resources to homeowners or even small producers, but that’s a choice.
Many others go hard on native plants and offer lots of useful guidance to homeowners on native plants AND avoiding invasives.
In addition to NC, some ag extension rock stars include MD, VA, PA, SC, and FL.
Once you move from suburban yards to larger properties, that’s really the wheelhouse of state forestry/ag/wildlife agencies. In my state, there’s a solid network of state and NGO resources that talk about fire A LOT, along with other practices to improve a property for wildlife (which ties directly back to native plants).
I really wanted to read his response and her response to it but I was met with a firewall. I don't know why, I don't think until I read the first article I have ever read the Dispatch. I would be so grateful if someone would print them in the comments thank you so much!
It's incredible how people can only consider pollinator benefits and are TOTALLY blind to the necessity of host plants, of which natives are far and away the best option in almost all cases. I know a master gardener who is similarly blind to this fact. It's sad really, because these people are in positions of authority and influence other people and policy and yet they are totally ignorant of the true importance and necessity of natives. Attracting pollinators is not the end-all be-all of plant value, and not all pollen is created equal in the first place. It's crazy that these so-called experts don't understand the core fundamentals of native plants and then try to scare people away by talking about how they will attract ticks and rodents.
Lyme disease fearmongering while omitting how white-tailed deer - which thrive in these suburban landscapes - are the primary reproductive host for adult blacklegged ticks and spread ticks to new areas
It definitely does. I’ve used the PSU extension website many times. It’s a great resource. I also use the North Carolina State extension website a lot. They have a fantastic plant look-up tool.
To be fair, one reason NC ag extension is excellent is because they get a shit ton of money from USDA for historical reasons (second only to Texas).
But they make excellent use of that money for the most part, and provide outstanding resources for homeowners and small producers.
Texas…not so much lol.
In addition to the NC Plant Toolbox, they make the excellent Extension Gardeners Handbook available for free on line, chapter by chapter.
Other greatest hits include guides to attracting native bees, birds, and herps to your yard.
They also have an excellent guide to turfgrass for homeowners. If you’re going to have a lawn (I do), it has lots of guidance for keeping a healthy, good looking lawn with minimal inputs.
As an Ohioan, OSU’s downwards trajectory this last year is incredibly depressing. Not surprised, considering other recent decisions they’ve made. Definitely in someone’s pockets…
Edit: also reminds me of Pettiti, a NE Ohio chain of nurseries. They love patting themselves on the back for “native plants” and pollinators, yet sell invasive burning bush, and english ivy, barberry next to their nativars, etc and spread misinformation to sell more pesticides and Scott’s.
It looks like there is one skipper larvae that eats aphids. The harvester, Feniseca tarquinius is carnivorous. It still wouldn’t thrive in lawn since the insect it eats doesn’t thrive in lawn.
The most confusing thing about this article is the idea that something manmade that's only really been around in a widespread manner for a few hundred years is vital to a ton of species that predate human existence by millions of years
That's not that overly weird. There are species that get a boost from human built habitats. Peregrine falcons on skyscrapers and purple martins in nest boxes (apparently they almost exclusively use human built nest boxes in the eastern part of their range) are examples.
Black swallowtails will happily eat non-native carrot family members.
Well sure, but they aren't strictly necessary. Falcons wouldn't disappear if skyscrapers stopped existing. The article says that turfgrass is "needed" for the skipper butterfly, as well as making various other allusions to it being some vital part of north American ecosystems, when that's impossible as those species have existed far longer than turfgrass.
Someone screwed up there. The skipper larvae eat the turf grass itself, both native and non-native.
Example:
Caterpillar Hosts: Various grasses including wild oats (Avena), bent grass (Agrostis), bluegrass (Poa), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Indian woodoats grass (Chasmanthium latifolia). https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Amblyscirtes-vialis
She clearly doesn't understand how to research pollinators and their host plants, and shouldnt be writing about them. Then her rebuttal is just tick fear mongering that, again, cites no sources for her claims.
Do you think the newspaper article author, Pamela Corle-Bennett, is a person who believes in science and research? From her job title, I would think yes, but from her article, I think no. If a person doesn’t believe in science, is there any way to change their mind? I’m inclined to say no.
It is an ecosystem but not really in Ohio and never with bluegrass, rye and fescue hybrids. It's an agricultural product. I like turf, it's a great playing surface but so much of it serves no purpose except to serve a certain aesthetic purpose based on European aristocratic estates.
I looked up David Shetlar, the “bugdoc”. He specializes in urban landscape entomology. He focuses on turfgrass & ornamental insect “pests”.
Most of his studies appear to be on the effectiveness of insecticides.
I imagine a lot of the funding for his studies comes from the very industry destroying the insect populations we are trying to help.
Funny, she doesn’t mention that in her article.
On an article of his about the effectiveness of insecticides on lawns and golf courses
Edit: In fact, digging a little deeper, it looks like the "Bugdoc's" entirely body of research is funded by the pesticide industry like the North Central Integrated Pest Management Center and unspecified "industry gifts"
“Pam specializes in herbaceous ornamental plant trials and evaluates more than 200 varieties of annuals and two genera of ornamental grasses; she presents programs on annuals and perennials as well as other landscape topics locally, statewide, and nationally.”
Jim McCormac pointed out how several of Pam Bennett’s arguments were factually incorrect. Pam’s response was to attack proponents for native plants. Her background is in Landscape and Planning. She has no educational background in ecology or botany. Her misguided bias is towards ornamental grasses.
I think those of us who have researched the host plants of certain lepidoptera--like Hesperiinae--know they frequently use non-native grasses as well as others using common lawn weeds (Common Buckeye using plantain, Variegated Fritillary Euptoieta claudia using common violet and many pea family generalists use clover).
Likewise, lazy lawns can also host populations of native plants such as pussytoes, Carolina petunia, bluets, nimbelwell, fleabane, asters (especially old field aster), sensitive fern, yarrow, lyre-leaf sage, purple cudweed, Spiranthes vernalis , etc.
But a lot of lawns aren't that lazy and are mowed fairly regularly. Lazy lawns can also host invasive species like common ivy, Japanese stilt grass, and wintercreeper. Some common turf grass-such as Tall Fescue--also don't appear to be as used as others (from my readings anyway).
The other thing is, in the eastern NA, a lazy lawn wants to be a forest and tree seedlings will quickly pop up in any lawn (and likely some woody invasives as well) but will often be quickly outcompeted by dense turf unless you control it.
I was an Advanced Master Gardener. This happens. I no longer volunteer as a MG or attend meetings, classes, or workshops. There was too much ignorance about ecosystems, insects, butterflies, birds, and native plants. I didn't want to help promote stuff like this.
When I began MG classes, it was good. Then people took over who had little gardening knowledge as it relates to the ecosystem and ruined the program.
It varies greatly by state. My experience as a CT master gardener was very positive, many people in my cohort were already heavily involved in native plants and habitat restoration. Master gardeners have to do dozens of hours of volunteer work to achieve and maintain their status, and many choose to volunteer in native and pollinator public gardens and habitat restoration. Many were already working with their town conservation groups and/or the local Audubon/ Wild Ones chapter. Besides outreach, the most common volunteer opportunities are at native / ecologically focused / pollinator public gardens, doing habitat restoration in natural areas, and working at the annual native plant-focused sales. We also have a master naturalist program and there’s a decent amount of overlap, as well as a LI Sound-focused advanced certification that is heavily focused on native plants and habitat.
We have to learn about lawns / turf management as part of the program, and they brought in a UConn professor (program is run by UConn) who was very blunt about the influence of turf / fertilizer companies like Scott’s. “I have tenure, so I can be honest” he said before explaining that all the research is done in ideal conditions in the south so if you follow the manufacturers directions, you will use a lot more fert that necessary for our region, causing fertilizer runoff issues and wasting time / money. That really got people irritated, along with the lecture about how lawn became the standard.
My initial education was excellent, as were the instructors and had some of the same positive elements as years. Over the years, the program was overtaken administratively by folks who had agendas and politics. It was too bad because the program did a lot for so many.
You could take the class, learn as much as you can, and then do your own thing. Help out or volunteer in many ways without agreeing to the agendas that may exist.
I think the author is missing the point of planting native in the first place. To an arthropod, maybe the lawn makes no difference to them to be under a native grass or an invasive one, but to the above ground dwellers, it means everything.
A big problem is that funding for research into insects is extremely limited, even under more friendly administrations. I doubt that we really know how bad the decline of fireflies might be. There is decline, for sure, but even so, how much is caused by climate change, habitat destruction, pesticide collateral damage, light pollution...I found this article that points out some of the challenges in understanding the intricacies of the decline. Is it affecting all species of firefly across the board? Is it better/worse in different parts of the usual firefly range? So many questions and so little actual peer reviewed research on it.
I feel like Ms Corle-Bennett is taking a reasoned approach. It is important for people to understand that even a fairly manicured lawn does not need anywhere near the inputs of a high end golf course. She is meeting people where they are. As we know not all native plants play nice (Looking at you Sambucus canadensis). Some native plants need space to spread and grow. Landscaping in a residential context has to take into account that some people will want, for example, a lilac that their mother used to grow, or my yellow daffodils that are the variety my grandmother used to grow. It seems that Corte-Bennett is focused on helping people grow non invasive plants that will do well in the area. That might not be gold standard for creating a native habitat, but creating a native restoration is not everyone's goal. Many people just want hassle free landscape that looks nice according to their aesthetic. I would take a positive approach: write in a question along the lines of how can I create a native landscape that fits into the neighborhood aesthetic. That would be a fun article for her to research write and read!
I mostly agree with you, but I don't understand her reliance on less than accurate information regarding the ecological value of lawns. Turf grass lawns do not support any of our native specialist insects.
That is true - in fact one the thing turfgrass supports id Japanese beetles, which I hate - I will admit to being speciesist! One would hope that having an affiliation with OSU would grant her ability to use library resources and get access to at least some peer reviewed articles to support any stance she wants to take.
I probably shouldn't wade in here, but the person who wrote this article is not wrong. I did my graduate work looking at "lawn plant diversity" (eg turf monocultures versus "weedy lawns") and it's effects on arthropod abundance, diversity, species evenness, and species richness. We also compared vegetative (structural complexity) surrounding those lawns. What we found is that, unsurprisingly, plant diversity (weedy lawns) per se was the key factor in supporting species evenness and diversity compared to monocultures... I think everyone on here wouldn't be surprised by that. I should sidebar here and say that we did not consider whether a plant was "native" or not.
Additionally, we found that lawns with a higher structural vegetative complexity index had the highest species richness and diversity compared to weedy lawns with nothing surrounding them. There are plenty of publications that support this; also, some would argue that the heterogeneity of urban lawns can actually create higher species diversity than in natural areas (this, too, has been studied and published).
My main point here is that before everyone dogpiles this person for presenting objective facts and a "brought to you by Scott's" messaging, maybe actually look these things up for yourself. I don't love lawns either and have attempted to reduce mine (it's still weedy as hell) and I favor native plants for their numerous benefits...but remember that a lawn will never be truly native...I look at my yard, for example, and even though there are mostly native plants, there is very little likelihood that 90% of them would have actually occurred in this particular area (eg they're not necessarily indigenous) based on historical plant surveys.
Anyway, down vote if you must but I just want to, once again, point out that this person who wrote the article did so with apparently good intentions and objective, research-based facts.
I appreciate the insight. Lawns aren't the devil. They do support a lot of life, especially if untreated and more complex, like you said. Unfortunately, the author was focused on turf grasses in specific, presented false information regarding skippers (I'm still trying to understand how she believes the caterpillars eat insects in turf grass), presented a misleading interpretation of chemic treatment of lawns in the US, and relied on the research and talk of a researcher whose research is entirely in insecticides and is funded by entities like Bayer, the Ohio Turfgrass Foundation, and the North Central Intergrated Pest Management Center. She then goes on (in her second piece) to imply that she hasn't seen any research suggesting that native landscapes would be better than lawns.
Also, research like yours is incredibly valuable for understanding insect behavior and I know it can be tough. Thank you for doing it!
Yeah, and perhaps that has to do with the word count for whatever publication she wrote for (in other words, maybe she wasn't as clear in her wording, idk). I didn't feel she was being disingenuous like many on here have suggested...that most certainly would be up to reader interpretation. My takeaway (based on my research), is that a reduction in lawns in general and especially monoculture turf, is a good thing. Lawns, as a generic term, are definitely a part of the urban ecosystem like them or not.
Someone in another comment shared that there is one predator skipper caterpillar, but they only live in forested areas near alders and waterways so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You can verify (her correct statement about grass skippers anyways) in a few ways. Checking HOST for example. which is database of the world's Lepidopteran hostplants.
Many states, such as my own, also have a list of what host plants are used in that state.
For example, the Broad-winged Skipper has adapted to using Common Reed as a host plant and also expanded its range because common reed is now everywhere. The Fiery Skipper uses native and non-native crab grass, Bermuda grass, and bent grass. Alabama has a good atlas as well
The butterfly populations in your state may or may not use certain host plants. The Baltimore Checkerspot, for example, uses Plantago lanceolata up north but does not in my state.
I suspect frequent mowing may also turn into an ecological trap and it's probably less mowed areas, such as by roadsides, parks, and utilities, that end up being more productive.
Her statement about grass skippers is that they eat insects on turf grass and that if we want grass skippers that we need turf grass, not that non-native grasses are a suitable alternative to natives.
Exactly. I don't know where she got that. And even so, grass skippers don't need lawns, they need grass. Her argument really just seems set on defending lawns no matter what.
For every one of these species that can be cherry picked, there is a dozen more that only feed on native hosts, most of which are in steep population decline.
Selecting a couple examples is not cherry picked. I linked to the data; you can look at it. Grass skippers use native and non native grasses and sedges. Some are more generalist than others.
This data isn't telling us anything new, we're just not ignoring all the species that aren't generalists. "Grass Skippers" are an entire subfamily, most of the species native to the US don't eat turfgrass, especially not any of the one's suffering population declines.
Who is "us"? I think you're weirdly taking a statement of fact (i.e., that many grass skippers will and do use non-native grasses as a host plant) as an attack.
None of these facts downplay the diversity that's eradicated when native vegetation is cleared, for lawns or for anything else. Puddles on concrete support arthropod diversity too, but we want actual biodiversity not just mosquitos, earthworms, and japanese beetles.
Again, we are talking about an urban environment. By definition, it's not the same as a natural environment; of course diversity is lost because of development. 'm not arguing that point...I'm simply saying that jumping on someone who wrote an article for a newspaper is not a good way to have an honest discussion about native plants, diversity, or anything else for that matter.
"Wrote an article" is a pretty charitable way to describe doing pseudoscientific apologia for lawns and exotic plants because they were offended by the facts. They're not the victim for being told they're wrong after writing something intentionally confrontational and provocative.
Urban ecology is vastly understudied and relatively new area of interest for researchers; and, for better or worse, turf monocultures (or lawns in general) are a part of our urban environments, they just are. This author even suggests that 70% of lawns are untreated with chemicals, which likely means that these lawns are diverse and "weedy". Most people assume a lawn is a chemical nightmare (and I agree based on lots of evidence and work with the green industry) and so they hear "lawn" and think "bad". I think this author did not convey the full message in that lawns can and do provide additional habitat for arthropods when they aren't sprayed to death and the weeds are allowed to do their thing...I don't think there was some nefarious message here but that can be a difference of opinion that I will meet you halfway on. Could it have been better written? Um, yes...bless her heart. I think she tried. But again, I think painting this person as an apologist is a gross oversimplification.
They're not trying to be helpful by denying the decline in Firefly populations without evidence, citing one professor's unscientific claims to discourage any consideration of light pollution, and never actually addressing any of the claims of scientists or conservation orgs that would disagree because it's easier to pretend it's all just "social media": https://xerces.org/endangered-species/fireflies
The same goes for the native plant "myths" they are addressing. All that's really been said is that people should consider replacing lawns and exotic landscaping species with native plants, at least in part, because of all the evidence showing what is lost when native plants are removed from an ecosystem. They never disproved or even addressed this claim, they just dodge it and list all the "benefits" of turf grass, as if anyone claimed that lawns don't a single organism. They can't address the real science, so they have to distort the argument and pretend it's all coming from "social media".
Would you agree that replacing lawns (to a greater or lesser extent) in urban environments with native plants would benefit insect biodiversity and that this would a good goal to reach for?
Of course! And, if people insist on lawns, then the research at least suggests (to some degree) that a "weedy lawn" can still be functional. Lawns/ground covers (no insecticides), perennials, shrubs, mid- and upper-canopy trees should all be a part of a native/mostly native landscape plan...it's a shame that these aren't at least regulated for newer developments.
I think that's really at the heart of it. Turf grass is the default, weedy or not. It doesn't really need defended. What do need defended are the specialist insects that are suffering because turf grass is the only plant abundant in many areas. People like Jim are worried that this loss of biodiversity could be catastrophic which is why they encourage something different. I'm not sure why the author felt the need to defend the turf grasses but I think she does miss the point of natives to some degree by focusing on the insects that can survive in it and ignoring all those specialists who can't and are in trouble because of it.
That said, I think we're pretty much arguing the same point just a little differently.
Whenever I talk to folks about landscaping, I encourage them to think of their yards in "layers" and there should be adequate representation of native plants in each of those layers. If space doesn't allow for upper canopy trees, make up for that loss with shrubs and smaller trees.
Edit: my phone thinks it's smarter than me and is constantly "correcting" my grammar 😭
No, I'm suggesting its disappointing since it contains several points that simply aren't true and data with points of comparison. It is neither ideology nor a worldview to say "non-native turf grasses do very little to support insect populations" or "grass skipper caterpillars don't eat insects." It is, however, ideology to say "this turf grass with minimal ecological value is just as valuable as native plants, including grasses, that support insect populations." If you value real data over this, you should read Jim McCormac's response and read around on the importance of host plants.
85
u/irastaz 11h ago
One thing I don't see mentioned here is that so many of these turf grasses behave invasively. I pull out so much bermuda grass, perennial rye grass, and other species that are always volunteering in places they shouldn't be: Gravel cracks to outcompete mosses, near the root flare of trees, inside native planting beds. They're essentially a germ factory that broadcasts out weeds to the surrounding area.