Biodiversity Flourishes in Historic Lawn Turned Wildflower Meadow

An experiment at the University of Cambridge highlights the environmental cost of a well-manicured lawn

The King's College wildflower meadow.

The King's College wildflower meadow bolstered biodiversity.

Geoff Moggridge/King's College, Cambridge

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The well-manicured lawn behind King's College Chapel at the University of Cambridge predated the American Revolution. Then, in 2019, an ecologically minded head gardener secured permission to tear up a portion of the grass and plant a meadow in its place. Before long it bloomed with poppies, buttercups and Queen Anne's lace.

Lawns, which became popular in the 1700s as displays of wealth, come at an environmental cost. They require far more water than similar-size meadows, especially in arid regions. Lawn grass is often overloaded with fertilizers and pesticides and is regularly clipped with gas-guzzling mowers. Meadows, in contrast, sequester more carbon than lawns and foster far more biodiversity.

Yet at half the size of a soccer field, how much wildlife would the new Cambridge meadow really support? King's College botanist Cicely A. M. Marshall surveyed the site before and after its makeover. She and her colleagues found that, compared with their numbers in the remaining lawn, plants, bats, spiders, true bugs and other invertebrates had flourished in the meadow. And without the need for much mowing or any fertilizer, the meadow's upkeep led to 99 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per hectare than the lawn.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “Urban Wildflower Meadow Planting for Biodiversity, Climate and Society: An Evaluation at King’s College, Cambridge,” by Cicely A. M. Marshall et al., in Ecological Solutions and Evidence, Vol. 4; May 2023

Perhaps because it's hemmed in by buildings and a river, no mammals but bats were observed at the site, and it is too small for grassland birds.* In addition, roundworms equally inhabited the meadow and the lawn. Even so, Marshall says she was “quite encouraged” by the results, which were recently published in Ecological Solutions and Evidence.

“Lawns represent an incredible loss of habitat,” says Sam Quinn, a conservation biologist at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, who was not involved in the new study but expressed admiration for its experimental setup. Fortunately, “the restoration part is super easy,” he says; once the new plants get established, “beneficial organisms” move right in.

*Editor’s Note (10/17/23): This sentence was edited after posting to correct the description of which mammals were not observed at the study site.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe