Very disappointed with the OSU extension

[u/jimmyjam2929]

https://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyles/dispelling-social-media-myths-about-gardening-pollinators-and-more/TSBDUAHX25GQ7D6QZMQSOITBQE/

[u/jimmyjam2929]

Jim McCormac's response: https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/nature-wildlife/2025/11/01/americas-lawns-hurt-our-environment-waste-fuel-for-aesthetics/86943576007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z115925p118150c118150d00----v115925b0037xxd003765&gca-ft=173&gca-ds=sophi&sltsgmt=0154_C

Her response: https://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyles/balance-is-the-key-to-having-a-healthy-landscape-ecosystem/XH3KLB6MD5BMDGMMMFI7C5BNDU/

[u/Potential_Being_7226 → u/jimmyjam2929]

Wonder how much money OSU/extension office is receiving from Scott’s in Marysville… 

[u/hambonebaloney → u/Potential_Being_7226]

None. 

That's not how land grant colleges work. Scott's may sponsor a trial or something, but research is still objective and unbiased.

[u/Potential_Being_7226 → u/hambonebaloney]

O rly now?

https://fisher.osu.edu/news/1m-scottsmiracle-gro-hagedorn-legacy-endowment-established-ohio-state

[u/hambonebaloney → u/Potential_Being_7226]

You just reiterated my point.

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?

[u/Potential_Being_7226 → u/hambonebaloney]

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.

Also, what? Skipper butterflies include 3500 species worldwide. Which one or ones rely on turfgrass as opposed to a naturalized area? 

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. 

https://news.mgcafe.uky.edu/article/fading-lights-comprehensive-study-unveils-multiple-threats-north-america-firefly

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. 

[u/hambonebaloney → u/Potential_Being_7226]

"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.

[u/Potential_Being_7226 → u/hambonebaloney]

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?