3 ms·

I completely agree with your point - pretty much everyone is now properly aware of the climate crisis but for a bunch of reasons biodiversity crisis doesn't rin

by stinos 4y ago

I completely agree with your point - pretty much everyone is now properly aware of the climate crisis but for a bunch of reasons biodiversity crisis doesn't ring a lot of bells let alone people are willing to do anything about it. However: depending on where you live not mowing at all turns your meadow into a rough wilderness with only a couple of plant species (think nettles+blackberries) in no time, and later on into forest. Main reason being nitrogen deposition leading to those species simply outgrowing the rest, as is the case for e.g. quite a lot of areas in western Europe (visuals in [1] for example). So as far as biodiversity goes: there's enough of the typical 'no mowing' vegetation already whereas ecosystems like flower-rich meadows are in decline. Currently and practically for laymen this can only be countered by mowing and removing cuttings. Depending on soil type and what's in it fertlizer-wise about twice a year. Preferrably, as you mention, still with mowing patches instead of everything at once in order to maintain some habitat for the fauna. Still a lot less time and money consuming than maintaining a lawn. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=nitrogen+deposition+map+europe&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=nitrogen+deposition+map+eur...

z9znz 4y ago
That's the thing about nature. It has immensely complex programming that we don't understand. Often a "plague" of one thing exists to rebalance another thing. If unmanaged nature does run wild with one or a few species, at some point they overstay their welcome and get rebalanced. Of course the final equalizer is fire. And that's something that we as humans really dislike, because it burns our work (and homes and sometimes even us) down. So we prevent it. But completely left to itself, nature does tend to stabilize after some period. As for western Europe, I live in Netherlands. The nitrogen problem is entirely manmade (animal farming waste). Were we to stop ranching at such high densities and producing unnatural levels of animal waste, the nitrogen levels would not be nearly so high. I have also lived in plant farmland areas in the south of Holland, and we have plagues of burning weed that grows. But it turns out, that plant grows in places with excess nitrogen. It feeds on it and eventually draws it out of the soil. After a few years, that "weed" stops growing and the soil nitrogen levels are more normal. At this moment I am in central Portugal trying to grow some trees. The thorny vines (blackberry brambles I believe, but I just don't keep up with the names) are a huge problem. However, they provide benefits in dry soil because they grow very well, provide shade, provide food for foraging animals, and help prevent soil erosion when the rains finally come. Nature doesn't seem to be concerned with human comfort. I f*cking hate the vines, but I do see their purpose. After some years of study of permaculture and actual experiments, plus a decent amount of reading, I think our best hope as humans is to develop high efficiency vertical farms and to keep our actual earth footprint low... and to start devoping subterranian habitation. On the last point, it's really a wonder to have a home which stays around 68F all year. Heat it up just a little and it is cosy. It is fire-proof, ultra efficient, and it can still be light with skylights and a south/west facing opening. Honestly, for a fraction of the mental energy we spend on designing scalable software systems, we could make livable earth-friendly human food ad habitation systems. This is not rocket science; after all, primative civilizations already figured out some of these things.
- stinos 4y ago
  If unmanaged nature does run wild with one or a few species, at some point they overstay their welcome and get rebalanced. The problem being that in the example I made, this balance is still man-made and not really natural. I.e. if you'd done the same 500 years ago, you'd get a balance with more than a few species. If you'd done the same like 5000 years ago (give or take), things would be even more different because there were still large flocks of wild grazers around. After a few years, that "weed" stops growing and the soil nitrogen levels are more normal. Except the deposition keeps on going, so depends on what 'normal' is the reference compared against.
z9znz 4y ago
Sorry to make two posts, but also... In commercial farmlands, even in "progressive" countries like the Netherlands, the insect friendly unmowed zones are present but very minimal compared to the commercial farmlands. By my estimation, the unmowed insect strips are 1/50th or less than the crop areas. It is good to see that roadside zones are being allowed to grow a bit taller. As drivers, it's actually a negative because it makes seeing around curves more difficult, but it absolutely results in more wild flowers and insects. It's quite beautiful too.
- stinos 4y ago
  the insect friendly unmowed zones are present but very minimal compared to the commercial farmlands It's also quite debatable whether they're that friendly. Leaving it grow then mowing everything in one go and leaving all cuttings, as I see often in my neighborhoud, is more like creating a death trap for insects. Also because these zones are almost always subsidized, but not mandatory, so if the farmer feels like it they can just be removed again. One thing these zones are often good for though is catching mud streams from erosion. Ideally there would be no such erosion of course, but at leasts it provides some prevention of soil just washing away. On a brighter side: if I got it correctly Europe is working on legislation which is going to make it mandatory for farmers to dedicate x% of land to nature. Not just zones with grass, also line elements with bushes etc. Essentially restoring what the land looked like here the past centuries before agricultural industrialization kicked in. As drivers, it's actually a negative because it makes seeing around curves more difficult, Pretty sure communities or whoever owns the road are allowed to mow curves and other spots throughout the year to guarantee visibility. But yes, there's quite some potential there (there, and in gardens): the total amount of area makes it well worth it. Still going to take a while before it gets done properly though (again: mowing everything in one go is quite detrimental).
  - z9znz 4y ago
    > legislation which is going to make it mandatory for farmers to dedicate x% of land to nature Considering how badly the Dutch farmers have behaved thus far on any issue which “threatens” their way of life (profit maximization), I can only imagine how they will respond to this. Maybe they will finally cross a line so bold that the Dutch government will stop bending over for them.

by stinos 4y ago

z9znz 4y ago

That's the thing about nature. It has immensely complex programming that we don't understand. Often a "plague" of one thing exists to rebalance another thing. If unmanaged nature does run wild with one or a few species, at some point they overstay their welcome and get rebalanced. Of course the final equalizer is fire. And that's something that we as humans really dislike, because it burns our work (and homes and sometimes even us) down. So we prevent it. But completely left to itself, nature does tend to stabilize after some period. As for western Europe, I live in Netherlands. The nitrogen problem is entirely manmade (animal farming waste). Were we to stop ranching at such high densities and producing unnatural levels of animal waste, the nitrogen levels would not be nearly so high. I have also lived in plant farmland areas in the south of Holland, and we have plagues of burning weed that grows. But it turns out, that plant grows in places with excess nitrogen. It feeds on it and eventually draws it out of the soil. After a few years, that "weed" stops growing and the soil nitrogen levels are more normal. At this moment I am in central Portugal trying to grow some trees. The thorny vines (blackberry brambles I believe, but I just don't keep up with the names) are a huge problem. However, they provide benefits in dry soil because they grow very well, provide shade, provide food for foraging animals, and help prevent soil erosion when the rains finally come. Nature doesn't seem to be concerned with human comfort. I f*cking hate the vines, but I do see their purpose. After some years of study of permaculture and actual experiments, plus a decent amount of reading, I think our best hope as humans is to develop high efficiency vertical farms and to keep our actual earth footprint low... and to start devoping subterranian habitation. On the last point, it's really a wonder to have a home which stays around 68F all year. Heat it up just a little and it is cosy. It is fire-proof, ultra efficient, and it can still be light with skylights and a south/west facing opening. Honestly, for a fraction of the mental energy we spend on designing scalable software systems, we could make livable earth-friendly human food ad habitation systems. This is not rocket science; after all, primative civilizations already figured out some of these things.

stinos 4y ago
If unmanaged nature does run wild with one or a few species, at some point they overstay their welcome and get rebalanced. The problem being that in the example I made, this balance is still man-made and not really natural. I.e. if you'd done the same 500 years ago, you'd get a balance with more than a few species. If you'd done the same like 5000 years ago (give or take), things would be even more different because there were still large flocks of wild grazers around. After a few years, that "weed" stops growing and the soil nitrogen levels are more normal. Except the deposition keeps on going, so depends on what 'normal' is the reference compared against.

z9znz 4y ago

Sorry to make two posts, but also... In commercial farmlands, even in "progressive" countries like the Netherlands, the insect friendly unmowed zones are present but very minimal compared to the commercial farmlands. By my estimation, the unmowed insect strips are 1/50th or less than the crop areas. It is good to see that roadside zones are being allowed to grow a bit taller. As drivers, it's actually a negative because it makes seeing around curves more difficult, but it absolutely results in more wild flowers and insects. It's quite beautiful too.

stinos 4y ago
the insect friendly unmowed zones are present but very minimal compared to the commercial farmlands It's also quite debatable whether they're that friendly. Leaving it grow then mowing everything in one go and leaving all cuttings, as I see often in my neighborhoud, is more like creating a death trap for insects. Also because these zones are almost always subsidized, but not mandatory, so if the farmer feels like it they can just be removed again. One thing these zones are often good for though is catching mud streams from erosion. Ideally there would be no such erosion of course, but at leasts it provides some prevention of soil just washing away. On a brighter side: if I got it correctly Europe is working on legislation which is going to make it mandatory for farmers to dedicate x% of land to nature. Not just zones with grass, also line elements with bushes etc. Essentially restoring what the land looked like here the past centuries before agricultural industrialization kicked in. As drivers, it's actually a negative because it makes seeing around curves more difficult, Pretty sure communities or whoever owns the road are allowed to mow curves and other spots throughout the year to guarantee visibility. But yes, there's quite some potential there (there, and in gardens): the total amount of area makes it well worth it. Still going to take a while before it gets done properly though (again: mowing everything in one go is quite detrimental).
- z9znz 4y ago
  > legislation which is going to make it mandatory for farmers to dedicate x% of land to nature Considering how badly the Dutch farmers have behaved thus far on any issue which “threatens” their way of life (profit maximization), I can only imagine how they will respond to this. Maybe they will finally cross a line so bold that the Dutch government will stop bending over for them.