| |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11252-008-0073-8 |
|---|
| Web URL(s): | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11252-008-0073-8
Last checked: 10/04/2017 |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Alumai, Alfred;
Salminen, Seppo O.;
Richmond, Douglas S.;
Cardina, John;
Grewal, Parwinder S. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Alumai, Salminen and Grewal: Department of Entomology, Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH; Richmond: Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Cardina: Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH |
|---|
| Title: | Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs |
|---|
| Source: | Urban Ecosystems. Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2009, p. 127-144. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Andover, Hants U.K.: Chapman and Hall |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 18 |
|---|
| Related Web URL: | http://www.springerlink.com/content/lx53h653v21pmrr8/
Last checked: 09/02/2010
Notes: Abstract only |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Aesthetic values; Comparisons; Integrated pest management; Lawn maintenance; Maintenance costs; Maintenance programs; Organic culture; Quality evaluation; Weed density
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "We evaluated aesthetic (lawn quality), biological (weeds and insect pests), and economic (management costs) effectiveness of a commercial (managed by a professional company), consumer (managed using consumer lawn care products following labeled instructions), integrated pest management (IPM) (pesticide applications based on monitoring and thresholds), organic (monitoring and need-based organic and natural product applications), and an untreated lawn care program. Percent weed cover was the lowest in the commercial followed by IPM, organic, and consumer programs. The commercial program had lower white grub density than all other programs, and the organic program had lower white grub density than the untreated program. The commercial program had the highest lawn quality while the untreated program had the lowest. The IPM and organic programs did not differ significantly in lawn quality, but both rated significantly higher than the consumer program. Annual costs were highest in the commercial ($382/0.05 ha) followed by the organic ($305/0.05 ha), IPM ($252/0.05 ha), and consumer program ($127/0.05 ha), respectively. We conclude that the commercial program produced the highest lawn quality, and weed and insect control, and was the most expensive. The IPM and organic programs were cheaper than the commercial program and produced slightly lower lawn quality. Although the consumer program was the cheapest, it produced the lowest weed control and lawn quality among treated lawns." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 24 |
|---|
| See Also: | Other items relating to: What Good is Turf? |
|---|
| Note: | Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Alumai, A., S. O. Salminen, D. S. Richmond, J. Cardina, and P. S. Grewal. 2009. Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs. Urban Ecosystems. 12(2):p. 127-144. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=168660 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 168660. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| DOI: 10.1007/s11252-008-0073-8 |
| Web URL(s):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11252-008-0073-8
Last checked: 10/04/2017 |
| 
MSU catalog number: b4896713 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
