Full TGIF Record # 225737
Item 1 of 1
Publication Type:
Author(s):Landschoot, Peter J.; Clark, Jonathan M.; Heller, Paul R.
Author Affiliation:Landschoot, Assistant Professor, Turfgrass Science; Clark: Research Technologist, Agronomy; Heller: Professor, Entomology
Title:Golf course IPM survey results
Section:1990 results: IPM survey
Other records with the "1990 results: IPM survey" Section
Source:Turfgrass Research Results 1990/1991 [Penn State]. 1991, p. 2-5.
# of Pages:4
Publishing Information:[University Park, Pennsylvania]: [Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, Agronomy Dept., Entomology Dept., Horticulture Dept., Plant Pathology Dept.]
Abstract/Contents:"A survey of turfgrass pest problems and IPM practices was sent to approximately 600 golf courses in Pennsylvania. The purpose of this survey was to gain information on the incidence and severity of pest problems on golf courses so that IPM research priorities can be established and to determine the extent to which golf course superintendents were practicing IPM in Pennsylvania. Approximately one third (190) of the golf course superintendents responded. The first portion of this survey consisted of questions on the incidence and severity of weeds, insects, and diseases on golf courses as well as questions regarding pesticide treatments for the respective pests. The results are presented in Tables 1-9. The results indicate that broadleaf weeds, crabgrass, and annual bluegrass are the most predominant weeds on Pennsylvania golf courses (Table 1). Annual bluegrass is ranked as the most serious weed problem followed by crabgrass and broadleaf weeds (Table 2). In general, a greater percentage of tees, fairways, and roughs are treated with herbicides than putting greens (Table 5). According to survey results, white grubs are the most prevalent insect pests on Pennsylvania golf courses and also the most severe insect problem (Tables 1 and 3). Cutworms are ranked as the second greatest problem followed by black turfgrass ataenius beetles. Sod webworms are ranked as the third most common pest on Pennsylvania golf courses but are not considered by superintendents as one of the most severe problems. The survey respondents indicated that fairways are most likely to be treated for white grubs (Table 6). A higher percentage of individuals treat for cutworms on greens than on fairways and roughs. Chinch bugs, hyperodes weevils, and billbugs do not appear to be a widespread problem on Pennsylvania golf courses. Dollar spot is considered to be the most prevalent disease and the most severe disease problem on Pennsylvania golf courses (Table 1 and 4). Brown patch is the second most common disease followed by snow mold and leaf spot. Brown patch and the patch diseases (summer patch, take-all patch and necrotic ring spot) received identical rankings as the second most severe disease problems followed by Pythium blight. In most cases, putting greens are treated by a higher percentage of superintendents than tees, fairways, and roughs (Table 7). Dollar spot and brown patch are the diseases treated by the greatest number of individuals. Table 8 lists the number of survey respondents indicating the pest that required the most pesticide use. The majority of superintendents indicated that dollar spot, brown patch, patch diseases, and white grubs are the pests that required the greatest amounts of pesticides. The second portion of this survey was designed to gain information on the percentage of golf course superintendents who are currently using IPM practices at their facility. The results are presented as percentages of respondents indicating a positive response to the question (Table 9). One of the most essential components of a successful IPM program is monitoring for pests. This can be accomplished by visually scouting for the pests or pest damage on the course, the use of computer models based on weather data to predict disease occurrence, use of immunoassay disease detection kits, monitoring insect traps, and the use of microscopes for identifying diseases and some insects. Results indicate that 96% of the respondents scout for pest problems on their course. Fewer superintendents use disease prediction models (4.2%) and immunoassay kits (14.3%). Some superintendents (11.1%) monitor for insects using traps. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they use microscopes to identify diseases. The majority of respondents use cultural practices that aid in reducing pest damage (soil testing for turfgrass nutrient status, aeration, thatch removal, and dew removal). Very few individuals are using biorational methods of pest control with the exception of grass seed containing endophytic fungi. Overall, 95% of the respondents indicated an interest in using IPM practice. Perhaps the most significant finding of this survey is that approximately 50% of the superintendents felt that their club members and greens committees would support an IPM program. Forty three percent were unsure of how receptive their membership and committee would be to IPM, whereas, 2% indicated that their membership and greens committee would not support an IPM program. It should be noted that a certain percentage of error (at least 5%) is inherent in this type of a survey and that any extrapolation to the superintendents who did not respond is not valid."
Note:This item is an abstract and tables only!
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Landschoot, P. J., J. M. Clark, and P. R. Heller. 1991. Golf course IPM survey results. Turfgrass Research Results 1990/1991 [Penn State]. p. 2-5.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=225737
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 225737.
Choices for finding the above item:
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: b4009275
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)