Destruction of biodiversity for the sake of cleanliness

[sicetaitsimple]

Could you elaborate on your opinion about the thistle?

For me, it's a real sore if we let it go to seed, I could personally observe in a corner where a small meadow was no longer maintained, in a few years the fields around were invaded.

As for its domination by other plants by doing nothing, I am very skeptical because it is a plant that starts early in the season and that grows high very quickly, dominate it by what?

[Moindreffor]

I have not read everything and you may have already spoken but a good compromise (which does not degrade the value of the land and allows biodiversity ... hey, people are stupid so must adapt) ... seems to me to be the solution of islands of biodiversity...

In other words: mow while leaving wild places.

I'll do some pictures of mine (must first that I tonde ... pfff)

It would probably be better than nothing.
The question I ask myself is: with whom are we making a compromise? Who exactly wants everything to be crushed? And why is it blocking?

the problem is twofold, the state or the local authority delegates more and more work, for example mowing to private companies that respond to calls for tenders
So after knowing how to count their work for remuneration, is it the mown km, is it in the past, what are the terms of reference
yes we could be satisfied with 1 m, by places it's done like that

but maybe just the mowing width is fixed by the mower, so between a conscious person that nature needs these spaces will mow only 1 m and a obsessed job well done who will be afraid that we say that he has badly worked, will mow everything

who knows?

[VetusLignum]

Could you elaborate on your opinion about the thistle?

For me, it's a real sore if we let it go to seed, I could personally observe in a corner where a small meadow was no longer maintained, in a few years the fields around were invaded.

As for its domination by other plants by doing nothing, I am very skeptical because it is a plant that starts early in the season and that grows high very quickly, dominate it by what?

For the example of the meadow, it is evident that after a number of years the woody vegetation will smother the thistles; but for the example of the roadside (which we want it to remain herbaceous), I would have to look for more.
Still, if there are fields around, we could very well mow the thistles before they make 30 seeds or 40 cm high, so as to limit the impact of mowing. It would be better than crushing indistinctly.

[Christophe]

It would probably be better than nothing.
The question I ask myself is: with whom are we making a compromise? Who exactly wants everything to be crushed? And why is it blocking?

Compromise with wild life, with neighbors and decorum which wants us to have a "clean" garden and also its heritage: a house with a poorly maintained garden clearly loses its value (it is not me who says it, c 'is the "system" ... it's sad for biodiversity but that's how it is ...)

[Christophe]

Another question: what will be the proportion between "islands" and the rest? The concept of reserve is still very problematic ...

In my case I think I'm at a good 20% of surface left wild and I do not melt that all weeks 3 ... the photos in the late afternoon when I shorn (not far from 25-30 cm the...)

[sicetaitsimple]

For the example of the meadow, it is obvious that after a number of years the woody vegetation will smother the thistles

Certainly, but I put myself a priori in a situation, a use, constant. If we let back a fallow forest and a forest on a meadow, actually the vegetation will change.

[to be chafoin]

I observed this year a prairie overgrown with thistles on one side of the plot. And yet it is a temporary meadow.

[Moindreffor]

It would probably be better than nothing.
The question I ask myself is: with whom are we making a compromise? Who exactly wants everything to be crushed? And why is it blocking?

Compromise with wild life, with neighbors and decorum which wants us to have a "clean" garden and also its heritage: a house with a poorly maintained garden clearly loses its value (it is not me who says it, c 'is the "system" ... it's sad for biodiversity but that's how it is ...)

I personally believe that the image sometimes given by permaculture is negative, between what Didier shows a flower meadow and the other corner a meadow that will become bloomed, there is the acceptable difference

so when we see on some videos not a happy mess, but a pseudo wasteland, we are no longer in the acceptable, between maintaining a meadow flower and leave a certain abandonment, it is necessary to keep

often we go from one extreme to another, for lack of reflection, Didier explains to us that we need flowers and that for that we must mow, belatedly but we must mow, so to maintain others saying we must leave to make nature end up with a wasteland where nothing is maintained, and the difference is visible

a garden like that of Didier will be accepted, some kitchen gardens of permaculturists will actually run away

[VetusLignum]

It would probably be better than nothing.
The question I ask myself is: with whom are we making a compromise? Who exactly wants everything to be crushed? And why is it blocking?

Compromise with wild life, with neighbors and decorum which wants us to have a "clean" garden and also its heritage: a house with a poorly maintained garden clearly loses its value (it is not me who says it, c 'is the "system" ... it's sad for biodiversity but that's how it is ...)

Nor am I so extreme as to say that we must let wild grasses grow everywhere, including in our courtyards or walkways.

Regarding letting roadside vegetation grow in agricultural areas, I found a document with many answers to my questions.
https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-01095674/document

In fact, when the equipment lets roadside vegetation grow into biodiversity reserves, it is often the farmers who come to shave it, with a grinder or with herbicides.

Farmers do not like wild grasses for a variety of reasons, the main ones being the fear that this vegetation causes them more weeds in their fields, the perception that it's not clean, or the idea that it increases the risk of accidents on the road. In the study, the only one who really sees biodiversity as an asset is an organic farmer.

In fact, I think that leaving vegetation out of control can create anxiety and insecurity among farmers for whom controlling everything (and in particular controlling weeds and pests) is seen as a vital priority.

Does this factually cause this vegetation to actually cause more weeds?
The weeds feared by farmers are especially thistle, brome, ryegrass, and vulpine (the latter being "grasses which sometimes show resistance to current herbicide treatments and which farmers have trouble getting rid of once. in their plots. ").
So you have to look at it, and if the herbicide that farmers are already applying (sometimes doubling the dose along the grass strips) is not enough to deal with the problem.
Would not this herbicide resistance of certain grasses also be due to the old habit of some farmers to treat grass strips?

Is the fear for road safety justified, or is it just an excuse?
Here too, it is to study, and the answer may be case by case.

There is also the idea that the taller the grass, the more likely motorists are to throw rubbish on the shoulder.

But what interests me most is the idea that it is "disgusting" to let wild vegetation grow.

Farmers associate tall grasses and weeds in curbs with a dirty and neglected appearance, "visually, we see that it is not maintained" (farmer 51). The non-maintenance is lived for them as a poorly done job, they compare it to the non-maintenance of the fallow land which is sanctioned by the conditionality of the PAC aids (decrease of the aids if presence of thistles in seeds on a significant surface of the parcel) . Farmers care about the image of their territory, "it's a shame for the people who live there, I do not feel good when I drive and I see my roadsides as disgusting, I tell myself when even, we live in a poor department! It makes poor department that does not talk "(farmer 53). They also want to work in a clean environment, "if you keep something clean, for me it's a little fun to watch every day" (farmer 66), "a border that is maintained is also access to a landscape, you can look far away "(farmer 16).
We can echo our work in that of Marie-Jo Menozzi [Menozzi 2007] who was interested in the perception of weeds in the city. Expected criteria in urban spaces are order and cleanliness while spontaneous plants refer to disorder and dirt, which are referred to the wild and the countryside, as opposed to the city in the minds of city dwellers. The terms used by city dwellers are the same as those of farmers to talk about weeds: dirty and neglected. It is interesting to note this resemblance, which comes perhaps from the fact that the road is an urban element in the countryside and undergoes the same social norms as the city: it must be clean and in order. Another hypothesis is that farmers do not associate the countryside with the wild.
The campaign is the working support of farmers and at the same time, the landscape results from their action. If they feel the need to show a job well done to the rest of society, road borders (the first element of the landscape seen by road users) is a key area that must be clean and maintained.

For me, this is the point on which it seems to me the most important to work, the one on which there is the most room for maneuver; all the more so as it helps explain why there is so much crushing and "destruction of nature" in urban or peri-urban areas where wild plants do not bother farmers in their work.

Another remark: the author of the study mentions that some farmers interviewed are in TCS (reduction of tillage); but we do not know what they do in terms of winter cutlery. This document is from 2014; and it is possible that today some of these farmers have evolved into conservation agriculture; this may imply a better awareness of the positive role of biodiversity for their activity.
Canopy seeding may be another way to control wild annuals without additional herbicides.

[sicetaitsimple]

Farmers do not like wild grasses for a variety of reasons, the main ones being the fear that this vegetation causes them more weeds in their fields, the perception that it's not clean, or the idea that it increases the risk of accidents on the road. In the study, the only one who really sees biodiversity as an asset is an organic farmer.
In fact, I think that leaving vegetation out of control can create anxiety and insecurity among farmers for whom controlling everything (and in particular controlling weeds and pests) is seen as a vital priority.

It theorizes (or blablate, to choose) a lot here, I find ..... You are a farmer, or gardener of the Sunday?