• Drewmeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Is it worse? It’s lower maintainance and water consumption, no? I’m not defending natural grass, which has zero benefits, but is this worse than that?

    And yes, I’m aware that other landscaping options are better.

    • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s worse, far worse. Many species of Solitary Bees burrow into the ground, an average of 15cm / 6 inches into the ground. Landscape cloth or plastic ‘astroturf’ when installed will block last years bees from emerging, and prevent any bees that survive from depositing their larvae, thus breaking the life cycle of those bees.

    • BillyClark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      If it’s “natural” grass, as in, the grass is native to that area, and it doesn’t have to be watered or manicured, then it won’t have zero benefits. But I imagine you’re talking about lawn grass, which despite being alive isn’t particularly natural.

      I don’t know about artificial turf, but I imagine it’s not great for surface water. Does the water get soaked into the ground properly, or does it generate runoff?

      Soak into the ground means surface water is slowed down. It means surface water can make it down to the water table.

      Not soak into the ground means quick moving runoff that can strip nearby land.

      With house foundations and roads, and even lawns, and so on, we keep reducing the area where water can properly soak into soil. Our soils suffer. Our water tables suffer.