Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 249–257 | Cite as

The influence of plant species number on productivity, ground coverage and floral performance in grass-free lawns

Original Paper

Abstract

The grass-free lawn is a novel development in modern ornamental horticulture where the traditional monoculture of grass is replaced by a variety of mowing-tolerant clonal forbs. It brings floral aesthetics and a diverse species approach to the use of lawn space. How the number of constituent forb species affects the aesthetic and structural performance of grass-free lawns was investigated using grass-free lawns composed of four, six and twelve British native clonal perennial forb species. Lawn productivity was seen to increase with increasing species number, but the relationship was not linear. Plant cover was dynamic in all lawn types, varied between years and was not representative of individual species’ floral performance. The behaviour of component species common to all lawns suggested that lawns with 12 species show greater structural stability than lawns with lower species number. Visual performance in lawns with the greatest species number was lower than in lawns with fewer species, with increasing variety in floral size and individual species floral productivity, leading to a trade-off between diversity and floral performance. Individual species were seen to have different aesthetic functions in grass-free lawns by providing flowers, ground coverage or both.

Keywords

Environmental horticulture Lawn alternative Plant diversity Urban greening 

References

  1. Anon (2011) National Soil Resources Institute. Available: http://www.landis.org.uk/sitereporter/. Accessed 03 Mar 2011
  2. Anon (2012) UK Climate: Summer 2012. Available: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2012/summer.html. Accessed 01 Dec 2012
  3. Barnhart, SK (1998) Estimating available pasture forage. Available: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1758.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2010
  4. Borman FH, Balmori D, Geballe TG (2001) Redesigning the American lawn. A search for environmental harmony. Yale University Press, New Haven & LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Crider, FJ (1955) Root growth stoppage resulting from defoliation of grass. Technical Bulletin 1102. US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels S (1995) The wild lawn handbook: alternatives to the traditional front lawn. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunnet N, Hitchmough J (2004) The dynamic landscape. Design, ecology and management of naturalistic urban planting. Taylor & Francis, London & New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffin JN, O’Gorman EJ, Emmerson MC, Jenkins SR, Klein AM, Loreau M, Symstad A (2009) Biodiversity and the stability of ecosystem functioning. In: Naeem S, Bunker E, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C (eds) Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human wellbeing: an ecological and economic perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Gross K, Cardinale BJ, Fox JW, Gonzalez A, Loreau M, Polley HW, Reich PB, van Ruijven J (2014) Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am Nat 183:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. HAAHR M (2010) True random number service. (Online). Available: http://www.random.org/2010
  11. Hadden EJ (2012) Beautiful No-Mow Yards. 50 amazing lawn alternatives. Timber, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Hector A, Schmid B, Beierkuhnlein C, Caldeira MC, Diemer M, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Finn JA, Freitas H, Giller PS, Good J, Harris R, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K, Joshi J, Jumpponen A, Korner C, Leadley PW, Loreau M, Minns A, Mulder CPH, O’donovan G, Otway SJ, Pereira JS, Prinz A, Read DJ, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schulze ED, Siamantziouras ASD, Spehn EM, Terry AC, Troumbis AY, Woodward FI, Yachi S, Lawton JH (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huston MA, Fridley JD, Garnier E, Grime JP, Hodgeson JG, Lauenroth WK, Thompson K, Vandermeer JH, Wardle DA (2000) No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity. Science 289(5483):1255–1255Google Scholar
  15. Ignatieva ME, Stewart GH (2009) Homogeneity of urban biotopes and similarity of landscape design language in former colonial cities. In: Mcdonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacques WA, Edmond DB (1952) Root development in some common New Zealand pasture plants V. The effect of defoliation and root pruning on cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne). NZ J Sci 34:231–248Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins VS (1994) The lawn: a history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson KL, Cook E, Strawhacker C, Hall SJ (2010) The influence of diverse values, ecological structure, and geographic context on residents’ multifaceted landscaping decisions. Hum Ecol 38:747–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindemann-Matthies P, Bose E (2007) Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 79:298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge X, Matthies D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCann KS (2000) The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405:228–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMahan LR (2006) Understanding cultural reasons for the increase in both restoration efforts and gardening with native plants. Nativ Plants 7:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MINITAB (2012) Minitab 16 Statistical Software. Minitab Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Mulder CPH, Jumpponen A, Högberg P, Huss-Danell K (2002) How plant diversity and legumes affect nitrogen dynamics in experimental grassland communities. Community Ecol 133:312–421Google Scholar
  25. Müller N, Werner P (2010) Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban Biodiversity and Design. Wiley–Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14:161–170Google Scholar
  27. Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbours think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rayburn E, Lozier J (2003) A falling plate meter for estimating pasture forage mass. Available: http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forglvst/fallplate.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2010
  29. Robbins P (2007) Lawn people. How grasses, weeds and chemicals make us who we are. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Robbins P, Sharp J (2003) The lawn-chemical economy and its discontents. Antipode 35:955–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schultz W (1995) A man’s turf: the perfect lawn. Clarkson Potter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharples P, Hayman, Steven (2008) The Lawn Guide. The easy way to a perfect lawn, S&H PublishingGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith LS, Fellowes MDE (2013) Towards a lawn without grass: the journey of the imperfect lawn and its analogues. Stud Hist Gard Des Landsc 33:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith LS, Fellowes E (2014a) The grass-free lawn: floral performance and management implications. (unpublished data, in review)Google Scholar
  35. Smith LS, Fellowes E (2014b) The grass-free lawn: management and species choice for optimum ground cover and plant diversity. Urban For Urban Green, 13 (in press)Google Scholar
  36. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van den Berga AE, Vleka CAJ, Coeterierb JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J Environ Psychol 18:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Reading, School of Biological SciencesReadingUK

Personalised recommendations