New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe