It's true "weed" is not a technical term, but she is not just naming specific plants she doesn't like, she's naming invasive plants that spread aggressively. It's not as simple as "more roots is better"; invasive weeds DO compete for resources - minerals, water, sun - with native flora and by extension fauna that rely on specific plants for food/reproduction. Even if they don't cause a problem in your yard, by not taking care of your land, you are facilitating their spread to nearby meadows and forests where they'll run rampant, throwing off balance in the local ecosystem. I disagree with her that you should resort to spraying poison near freshwater runoff, but the principle of suppressing invasives to help establish beneficial native plants is certainly a good one.

@kyu_puff invasive plants would count as a plant that is growing where you don't want it. So in that context, they would be weeds. My point was that specific plants are not weeds, it's any plant growing in certain unwanted situations that make them weeds. I live in the midwest, and everyone here thinks that if it isn't grass, flowers, fruits, or vegetables, then it's a weed. That is the wrong way of thinking because diversity of native wild vegetation is far better than manicured lawns or gardens.

@@IowaKeith Sure, but the specific plants she mentioned are invasives, and for someone who cares about native planting, would always be considered a weed.

And edible!

Use swales and catchment to stop water and or divert it from going near your home. As a rule of thumb, you don't want water puddling within 10-20 feet from your foundation. But other than that, any water that is allowed to pool and sink into the ground is helping with the hydrological cycle in your area.

^^ this!. Common gardeners are taught to grow plants using the same method commercial farmers do. The reason farmers have to use all the chemicals is because they grow a monoculture (1 single type of plant) which becomes a breeding ground for pests. When they add the pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, they completely kill the soil biology. After that, the only nutrition available for the crops is what the farmer feeds them via fertilizers. If you don't add any chemicals to your natural gardens they will always have plenty of nutrition and the plants share it rather than compete for it.

Everything is a chemical. Toxic chemicals are what we need to call them, though everything is actually toxic if overdone, including water.

Great question. The focus of this video was contamination. The precursor to it was about groundwater in general (kzbin.info/www/bejne/namof4ehgtKse6c) and we covered water volume and aquifer levels.

@@CL-rm2iu I see not bad. I think we need an updated one and also on places without rain. Are main problem now is california using 10 billion gallons a day 60 to 70% of goes to farms 10% people 12% factorys the last goes to the sea. Sorry I thought it would help to know how much they use. But mybe a video on the effects of overuse or the lack of rain then overuse of the ground water it that cool?

So stay in Australia and shut the fuck up, ass hole.

I agree with you in someways but if you do this it also helps with food gardens I’ve done it my apple, plums and nut trees and they get so much water I never need to water them and the produce tons of food while not letting good soil erode off my land. I plan to do something similar for a flower garden near my vegetable garden so I can pollinate even more.

The depression in a rain garden is a basin, which is necessary in high intensity rain events compared to the absorptive capacity of soil alone. In high intensity events soil acts almost like pavement as water can't infiltrate into the soil fast enough, so you need the depression to provide storage in that case. Same with spring snowmelt when the soil is frozen (not a problem in Australia but certainly in lots of places in the world). You may live in an area where low-intensity storms are the norm and the benefits are less well-defined. Also some jurisdictions use the term rain garden for features in the public realm which are geared for filtration of contaminants in road and parking lot runoff, making food consumption from them a non-starter. However, where I live, in cold semi-arid Canada, food forests and rain gardens taken from roof runoff live together happily for the best of all worlds. Your blanket statement is less than informed.

Rain gardens can be simple and inexpensive. For our property I only made small depressions and planted native plants. Most of those plants were taken from divisions of plants already on our property. Our land perks very well so I never had to add sand or gravel. We love the results and happy to keep all the rainfall on our property as well as receive our neighbor’s runoff and water from the street is diverted into our roadside rain garden created when we removed our sidewalk. I wonder why rain gardens didn’t work for you. The food forest idea is great too and I’ve done that with rain gardens.

i-

You-

@@ajla8343 SHUT UPLMFAOOO

Simple question, complicated answer. Natural compounds that reach high enough concentrations can be harmful like nitrates, bacteria, and chlorides. Other compounds can be harmful even in small amounts such as heavy metals, pesticides, VOCs, and other toxins. We tried to provide general understanding without getting into the 80,000+ listed potential contaminants.

We're glad you found it helpful. We have others in the series that you may find useful as well. We hope you check them out.