Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs

Alumai, Alfred; Salminen, Seppo O.; Richmond, Douglas S.; Cardina, John; Grewal, Parwinder S.

doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0073-8

Cited by 29 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with findings of Alumai et al (2008) who evaluated aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of several lawn management programs in an experimental setup on the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) campus, including an IPM and a commercial program (managed by a different professional lawn care operator). That study found that the commercial lawn management program had higher lawn quality and cost than the IPM program.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…One approach to reducing lawn chemical inputs, while still maintaining good lawn quality, is to implement integrated pest management (IPM) in lawn care (Alumai et al 2008). IPM promotes the use of multiple tactics, such as, cultural practices, biological control agents, and the use of chemical pesticides only when justified through pest monitoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementing integrated pest management in professional lawn care: a case study

Alumai

Grunkemeyer²,

Kovach

et al. 2009

Urban Ecosyst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing integrated pest management in professional lawn care: a case study

Alumai

Grunkemeyer²,

Kovach

et al. 2009

Urban Ecosyst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In surveys from Ohio, North Carolina and Oregon, approximately 16-43% of households use professional landscaping services (Robbins et al 2001;Osmond and Hardy 2004;Nielson and Smith 2005), while 70% of US households cared for at least one aspect of their own yard (NGA 2007). Professionally maintained yards often rank higher in aesthetic lawn quality, as measured through grass color (greenness) and a lack of weeds (monoculture), than do-it-yourself approaches (Cheng et al 2008;Alumai et al 2009). Lush, green monoculture lawns result from frequent irrigation, herbicide application, and the use of time-release fertilizers (Nielson and Smith 2005).…”

Section: Management Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential landscapes are a common setting of human-environment interactions. These ubiquitous ecosystems provide social and ecological services, and yard maintenance leads to intended and unintended ecological outcomes. The ecological characteristics of residential landscapes and the human drivers of landscape management have been the focus of disciplinary studies, often at a single scale of analysis. However, an interdisciplinary examination of residential landscapes is needed to understand the feedbacks and tradeoffs of these complex adaptive social-ecological systems as a whole. Our aim is to synthesize the diversity of perspectives, scales of analysis, and findings from the literature in order to 1) contribute to an interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes and 2) identify research needs while providing a robust conceptual approach for future studies. We synthesize 256 studies from the literature and develop an interdisciplinary, multi-scalar framework on residential landscape dynamics. Complex human drivers (attitudinal, structural, and institutional factors) at multiple scales influence management practices and the feedbacks with biophysical characteristics of residential landscapes. However, gaps exist in our interdisciplinary understanding of residential landscapes within four key but understudied areas: 1) the link between social drivers and ecological outcomes of management decisions, 2) the ecosystem services provided by these landscapes to residents, 3) the interactions of social drivers and ecological characteristics across scales, and 4) generalizations of patterns and processes across cities. Our systems perspective will help to guide future interdisciplinary collaborations to integrate theories and research methods across geographic locations and spatial scales.

show abstract

“…However, mainly for aesthetic reasons, these green spaces are sometimes intensively managed (frequently mowed and highly treated), leading to additional management costs (Caceres, Bigelow, & Richmond, 2010), serious threats to human health (Alumai, Salminen, Richmond, Cardina, & Grewal, 2009;Pimentel, 2005;Steingraber, 2002) and the environment (Byrne, 2005;Byrne & Bruns, 2004;Colborn & Short, 1999). Despite their potentially high ecological, educational and research benefits, urban lawns are still poorly studied ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%