| |
| Web URL(s): | https://www.gcsaa.org/docs/default-source/Environment/phase-2-pest-survey-full-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Last checked: 09/15/2017
Requires: PDF Reader |
|---|
| Material Type: | Book |
|---|
| Monographic Corporate Author(s): | Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Environmental Institute for Golf
United States Golf Association |
|---|
| Monograph Title: | Golf Course Environmental Profile: Phase II, Volume III: Pest Management Practices on U.S. Golf Courses, 2016. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Lawrence, Kansas: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America; Lawrence, Kansas: Environmental Institute of Golf |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 36 |
|---|
| Collation: | 36 pp. |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Data processing; Golf course budgets; Golf course environmental profile; Golf industry trends; Pest control methods; Pesticide storage; Pesticide usage legislation; Questionnaire surveys; Regional variation
|
|---|
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Objectives: Pest management practices on U.S. golf courses were documented for the first time in a 2007 survey conducted by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. The objectives of the second Pest Management Practices Survey were to compare results from 2015 to those from 2007 to document national and regional trends in: Types of pest management practices; Pest management decision-making; Impact of regulations on pest management practices; Use of written pest management plans; Approaches to pesticide handling (storage, mixing and loading). Key results (Pest management practices (Over the past several years, U.S. golf courses have increased their reliance on non-pesticide pest control practices such as cultural control, plant growth regulators and biological control.; In contrast, reliance on conventional chemistries such as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and nematicides has either decreased or showed little change.; The data suggests that turf managers are using non-pesticide control practices in conjunction with conventional chemistries, rather than as substitutes for them.); Pest management decision-making (The most important/influential sources of information on pest management were, in decreasing order: personal interactions, websites and print publications.); Impact of pest management regulations (Since 2007, the degree to which superintendents felt that pesticide restrictions influenced their pest management programs has declined significantly.; Pest management activities that are regulated by local authorities have remained at roughly the same level as in 2007. However, the types of activities that are most heavily regulated have changed.; The number of Certified Pesticide Applicators at each facility has remained relatively unchanged since 2007, with an average of roughly one certified applicator for every nine holes on the golf course.; A new regulatory program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), was modified to cover aquatic pesticide applications to "Waters of the United States" in 2011 (8). In the 2015 survey, 4% of superintendents said that they were required to physically obtain an NPDES permit.); Written pest management plans (Development of written integrated pest management (IPM) plans and pesticide application plans was a voluntary activity for the large majority (85%) of facilities who reported using them.; In 2015, there was a decrease in the number of facilities reporting use of written IPM and pesticide application plans, possibly because of the economic impact of the recession.; In contrast, the use of written pesticide emergency response plans has increased slightly since 2007.); Pesticide handling (Only small changes have occurred in the attributes of mixing and loading areas and pesticide storage areas since 2007.); and Impact of budget and facility size (Facilities with larger budgets and/or more holes are more likely to possess state-of-the-art pesticide storage and mixing/loading stations.; These types of facilities with are also more likely to invest time and labor in the development of written pest management plans.)." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 26 |
|---|
| See Also: | See also related book, Golf Course Environmental Profile: Phase II, Volume I: Water Use and Conservation Practices on U.S. Golf Courses, 2015, R=272860. R=272860
See also related book, Golf Course Environmental Profile: Phase II, Volume II: Nutrient Use and Management Practices on U.S. Golf Courses, 2016, R=272853. R=272853
See also related book, Golf Course Environmental Profile: Phase II, Volume IV: Land Use Characteristics and Environmental Stewardship Programs on U.S. Golf Courses, 2017, R=288964. R=288964 |
|---|
| Note: | "The second phase of the Golf Course Environmental Profile was conducted by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America through the Environmental Institute for Golf and funded by the United States Golf Association"
Includes foreword: "Survey documents change in pest management practices" by Peter J. Grass, CGCS, 2016 GCSAA President; p. 4
Maps
Pictures, color
Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. 2016. Golf Course Environmental Profile: Phase II, Volume III: Pest Management Practices on U.S. Golf Courses. 36 pp. Lawrence, Kansas: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America; Lawrence, Kansas: Environmental Institute of Golf. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=288947 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 288947. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://www.gcsaa.org/docs/default-source/Environment/phase-2-pest-survey-full-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Last checked: 09/15/2017
Requires: PDF Reader |
| 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) |
