| |
| Web URL(s): | https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/its/articles/2005pro36.pdf
Last checked: 08/09/2010
Requires: PDF Reader |
|---|
| Access Restriction: | Certain MSU-hosted archive URLs may be restricted to legacy database members. |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Gunn, Erica;
Cheong, Gema;
Charbonneau, Pam |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Gunn: Guelph Turfgrass Institute and Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph; Cheong: Ontario Pesticide Advisory Committee, Guelph; and Charbonneau: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph, Ontario, Canada |
|---|
| Title: | Municipal integrated pest management lawn demonstration project |
|---|
| Section: | Disease
Other records with the "Disease" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | Llandudno, Wales, UK: July 10-15, 2005 |
|---|
| Source: | International Turfgrass Society Annexe - Technical Papers 2005. Vol. 10, 2005, p. 36-37. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Aberystywth, Ceredigion, UK: International Turfgrass Society |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 2 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Turfgrass quality; Pesticides; Pest control; Integrated Pest Management; Comparisons; Color; Uniformity; Density
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | Discusses a 2003 study "designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of conventional, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), alternatives, and non-pesticide approaches to lawn maintenance" in three municipal areas: Guelph, Brantford, and London, Ontario, Canada. States that the study was conducted in municipal settings "to show the impact of IPM versus no pesticides in comparison with the conventional methods in areas with slightly different microclimates, pest pressure, and soil types." Lists the four management programs: conventional, IPM, alternatives, and no pesticides and states that "in each municipality the demonstration trials were set up on an established, predominately Kentucky bluegrass turf with an existing moderate level of weed infestation." Also states that "at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute the conventional plots received a total of five pesticide treatments whereas the IPM plots only received two, the second application being a spot treatment. In Brantford the conventional plots also receieved five pesticide treatments. The IPM plots received on broadcast treatment and then two spot treatments. the London location with only IPM plots received three treatments, a broadcast and two spot treatments." States that turf quality was rated visually on a weekly basis using color, uniformity, and density. Concludes that "overall turf quality in the conventional and IPM plots at the GTI and Brantford showed no significant difference. The IPM plots in Londong are comparable to the ones in Guelph and Brantford. Also within each management practice there are differences in quality of the plots with respect to the fertility, as fertility affected the turf colour and the higher mowing height affected density." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | Pictures, b/w
Tables |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Gunn, E., G. Cheong, and P. Charbonneau. 2005. Municipal integrated pest management lawn demonstration project. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Annexe - Tech. Pap. 10:p. 36-37. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=105337 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 105337. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/its/articles/2005pro36.pdf
Last checked: 08/09/2010
Requires: PDF Reader |
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 433 .I54 v.10 Annexe 2005 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
