Suburban Gardens:

“Plants are not optional on this planet” (15).

“Those of our ancestors who were particularly  good at conquering nature were the ones who survived and reproduced, we so all share genes that encourage us to beat back nature at every turn” (23).

“If you turn the clock forward to the point at which this equilibrium has been reached, you will find that the number of species that will survive human habitat destruction is a simple percentage of the amount of habitat we leave undisturbed, a 1:1 correspondence” (26).

This passage is interesting to me as it reminds me of the final research paper I wrote for EVST 330 about The Pollinator Movement. People forget how important insects especially pollinators are to the health of an ecosystem and the overall food loop that encompasses human life.

From my knowledge I do not necessarily think this is entirely true. A lot of plant species strengthen an ecosystem as long as they are native. Sometimes more species mean that more species are susceptible to more invasive species because the niche they occupy is so  tiny, they can easily be overlapped and out-competed. It happened with the American Chestnut. Just some food for thought.

“Unfortunately, because we have been so slow to recognize the unprecedented importance of suburban gardens for the preservation of wildlife, gardners across the nation have been caught off guard. We have proceeeded with garden design as we always have, with no knowledge of the new role our gardens play, and , alas, it shows. All too often the first step in the suburbanization of an area is to bulldoze the plant assemblages native to our neighborhoods and then to replace them with large manicured lawns.”

“It is increasingly clear that much of our wildlife will not be able to survive unless food, shelter, and nest sites can be found in suburban habitats”

“We have become accustomed to meeting our needs without compromise. If we need space to live, we take it – all of it – and if that means filling in a pollywog pond or cutting down a woodlot, then so be it. We feel completely justified in sending those plants and animals that depend on those habitats off to make due someplace else…partly because, until recently, there always has been somewhere else for nature to thrive” (No Place to Hide, 23). 

Our ways of replacing nature or what is natural is clearly problematic due to the issues of biodiversity and ecosystem structure discussed by Tallamy. This passage reminded me of an experience on an ASB trip to Maryville, TN. We spent a day volunteering in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The task at hand was to help push the local beaver population out of the park’s border where a resident owned property. The dams created by the beavers were causing flooding in the resident’s yard and home. The park rangers had been working to destroy the dams and even insert a pipe at the bottom of the dam to allow the water to flow out and prevent flooding for the beaver’s habitat. The beavers where able to quickly rebuild there dam and even clogged the pipes that were draining water. The beaver family remained in the area and refused to leave their den behind. I was amazed by the intelligence of the beavers and naturally I was rooting for the beavers to prevail. Unfortunately, the property owner would not accept any payment from the park to leave his wetland property. The owner wanted the beavers out. No compromise.

I also thought the phrase “accustomed to meeting our needs” was an interesting choice on Tallamy’s part. Our society does not function on the basis of need. We have a culture of manifest destiny and desire. We are not Living Like Weasels, living lives based in necessity. Our relationship with nature is marked my greed and exploitation. This reminds me of a paper my EVST 400 class read – Joshua Yates’ “Abundance on Trial: The Cultural Significance of ‘Sustainability.'” This article outlined the history of the term sustainability and the culture prior to this term that focussed on “thriving” and living out of necessity. an idea of progress that is based on nature’s abundance. The concept of progress developed as a shifting response to the question of “what does it mean and take to thrive?” (2012, p. 16). Yates chronicles the change in response to this question over time – from the Puritanical focus on spiritual and community wealth, to the individualistic Victorian approach, to the emergence of mass production and consumption (p. 16 – 17). With the emergence of large-scale consumption came the Malthusian concept of scarcity and the Keynesian counter-argument of abundance (2012, p. 17). With the environmental movements of the 1970s came the influence of the term “sustainability” to question our methods of pursuing “progress” (2012, p. 19). What is really necessary for humans to thrive?

Yates, J. J. (2012). Abundance on Trial: The Cultural Significance of “Sustainability.” The

Hedgehog Review, Summer 2012.

“All too often the first step of suburbanization of an area is to bulldoze the plant assemblages native to our neighborhoods and then to replace them with large manicured lawns bordered by a relatively few species of popular ornamentals from other continents” (Role of Suburban Garden, 21). 

This quote paired with the strikingly eerie picture of a suburban lawn on pg. 20, made me think of how much environmental history and progress was wiped away with the creation of lawns. Why does such pristinely manicured lawn seem so appealing compared to an environment rich in native biodiversity? Perhaps it is a matter of security and community to control your property and see your neighbors. We wipe out the necessary “food, shelter, and nest sites” for species’ survival (21) to create an environment that has been deemed more appealing for us (but not for the insects, birds, and other fauna, according to Tallamy). I think of my father’s anguish with the trees on our front lawn in the burbs of NJ. He is infuriated by the amount of pollen they drop in the spring, like stringy yellow confetti. My mother and I have had to talk him out of removing the tree several times. My dad is a lover of parks and the outdoors, but he is also very particular about his lawn. Suburbia appears to be no place for nature.

The creation of artificial turf added a whole new element to sports when it was first introduced as teams adapted to this new surface. It made balls roll farther and gave a nasty burn if you slid on it. However, it also was much easier to maintain.

The biggest thing I always noticed when playing on it was the heat difference. It was always ten degrees hotter on the turf field as opposed to a grass field. While it was nice to play on the turf surface, it was not worth the added heat in summer.

The recent readings brought up many more points where turf loses out to regular grass which I did not even consider.

“Once, Manhattan was 27 square miles of porous ground interlaced with living roots that siphoned the 47.2 inches of average annual rainfall up trees and into meadow grasses, which drank their fill and exhaled the rest back into the atmosphere. Whatever the roots didn’t take settled into the island’s water table. In places, it surfaced in lakes and marshes, with the excess draining off to the ocean via those 40
streams which now lie trapped beneath concrete and asphalt.” (City Without Us, 28)

This passage, as well as the “No Place to Hide” chapter illustrate the negative effects human creations have and how they may be more convenient, but not as practical as natural landscape. For instance, a turf field does not redistribute and filter water as well as a grass field would. Despite many chemicals used in manicured fields, there is still life that lives above and below it. Replacing a grass field with a turf field completely removes any life in the whole area of the field. Many lack the ability to step back and consider all the different facets of life that human intervention has.

“We can no longer hope to coexist with other animals if we hope to wage war on their homes and food supplies…. Gardening with natives is no longer just a peripheral option favored by vegetarians and erstwhile hippies. It is an important part of a paradigm shift in our shaky relationship with the planet that sustains us – one that mainstream gardeners can no longer afford to ignore” (14).

“It is increasingly clear, as we shall see, that much of our wildlife will not be able to survive unless food, shelter, and nest sites can be found in suburban habitats…. the degree to which the plants in our gardens succeed in this regard will determine the diversity and numbers of wildlife that can survive in managed landscapes. And because it is we who decide what plants will grow in our gardens, the responsibility for our nation’s biodiversity lies largely with us” (21).

“But now, for the first time in its history, gardening has taken on a role that transcends the needs of the gardener. Like it or not, gardeners have become important players in the management of our nation’s wildlife. It is now within the power of individual gardeners to do something that we all dream of doing: to “make a difference.” In this case, the “difference” will be to the future of biodiversity, to the native plants and animals of North America and the ecosystems that sustain them” (Tallamy, 9).

The phrase “make a difference” made this passage stand out to me during the reading because of the upcoming Make a Difference Day community service event. As part of my MOSAIC Staff position, I also collaborate with a group to lead campus wide events, which includes planning Make a Difference Day. It has been a very exciting experience to see it all come together, as the event is this weekend (unfortunately I cannot actually be there to see all the hard work come to fruition because it conflicts with the hiking trip). This passage acknowledges the power that a few people, such as gardeners, can have to make a difference, which relates to the event where volunteers will work at numerous gardens throughout the area.

“Native plants are well adapted to their particular ecological niche and so are often far less difficult to grow than species from other altitudes, latitudes, and habitats. After all, these plants evolved here and were growing just fine long before we laid our heavy hands on the landscape” (Tallamy, 10).

This passage stood out because its discussion of native plants reminded me of the efforts that went into the pollinator garden to ensure its sustainable nature. Emily (the other garden coordinator) and I researched plants that were both sustainable in terms of supporting pollinators and encouraging native growth. The garden can be used as an example to other schools or groups that it is very much possible to create a sustainable, native garden.

“Eventually, the first minute toads hopped out of the water and into the weeds, tiny replicas of their parents, whose mating song1had learned to imitate the previous spring. As I watched the little toads jump about, a bulldozer crested nearby piles of dirt, and in an act that has been replicated aroundthe nation millions of times since,proceeded to bury the young toads and all of the other living treasures within the pond. I might have been buried too, if I hadn’t given up trying to rescue the toads. I saved about 10 that day, but for nothing: the pond was gone, leaving nowhere for the toads to breed. Within two years, a toad was a rare sight near my house; soon they were completely gone, along with the garter snakes, whose main prey they had been, and other members of the food web supported by the life in that pond.” (22)

This passage made me feel pretty guilty. This past summer, I spent nearly every weekend turning the woods of my family’s lake house into a lawn. Yes, I was turning a native environment into a lawn… the exact topic we have been discussing for about a week. For my entire life, our “backyard” has been a swampy mess of underbrush that blocks our view of the lake. In my admittedly hypocritical opinion, the view of the overgrown woods took away from the “natural” view of the lake. Thus, my father and I went about rebuilding the backyard into a level forest, free of swamp and underbrush.

Ironically, I had the same toad protection process throughout the reconstruction project. While I was the one operating the excavator, I made a point to move as many of the hundreds of frogs that I could before filling in a certain hole. While we were careful to redirect the flow of water in order to maintain a natural habitat, my father and I probably had no idea what we were doing. We succeeded in improving our aesthetic ideals with the space, but it likely came at a cost of the natural plant and animal life. Looking back on it, I feel pretty bad about it. While I still prefer the view as it is now, did I have the right to alter other species’ natural space?

One last point of interest is that we went out of our way to protect a fox den that we know has been occupied for years. I have to question myself as to why we valued the fox over the toads and the plants?