No abstract

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.Keywords Lawn quality . Percent weed cover . White grub density . Lawn management cost . IPM lawn management program .

No abstract

No abstract

Human choices regarding land cover management practices may influence ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. We conducted a 2-year study to compare biological (weed, insect, and disease), aesthetic (lawn quality), and economic (lawn care program cost) attributes of an integrated pest management (IPM) program, in which pesticides are applied on the basis of treatment thresholds, with a standard program, in which pesticides are applied on a calendar basis without pest monitoring. Both programs were managed by a professional lawn care operator. Although weed incidence was low, the IPM program had significantly more lawns with weed presence than the standard program during 2005 and 2006. However, only 21% of the IPM lawns required herbicide applications in 2005, and none exceeded the treatment threshold (5% weed cover) in 2006 as compared to 100% of the standard program lawns being treated for weeds in both years. The IPM program also had significantly more lawns with insect damage than the Urban Ecosyst (2010) 13:37-49 . Only 28% of the IPM lawns required insecticide applications in 2005 and none exceeded the threshold (5% insect damage) in 2006 whereas all of the lawns in the standard program received insecticide treatments in both years. Rhizoctonia blight was present on some of the lawns, but was not a common problem. Although lawn quality was high for both programs (>8, on a scale of 1-9), it was significantly higher for standard than for IPM program lawns during 2005, and June 2006 and September 2006, but not August 2006. The annual lawn management costs were lower for the IPM ($281.50) than the standard program ($458.06). Thirty one percent of the IPM program customers who continued with the study in 2006 did so because they were satisfied with the IPM program. Among those who did not continue with the program, 33% cited weed or insect problems, while 33% expected better results. The implications of these findings for implementation of IPM in professional lawn care are further discussed.