tf cltturfgrass culture - landscape ontario · tf cltturfgrass culture an ecosystem approachan...

T f C ltTurfgrass CultureAn Ecosystem ApproachAn Ecosystem Approach

P i d G l Ph DParwinder Grewal, Ph.D.Distinguished Professor and Director

Center for Urban Environment and Economic DevelopmentEconomic Development

Ohio State UniversityWooster, OhioWooster, Ohio

Contents• Introduction • Urban soils and nutrient management• Turfgrass and weed competition and the

role of mowingo e o ow g• Mowing and grass resistance to insects

Insect and eed interactions• Insect and weed interactions • Biological control of insects• IPM in commercial lawn management

Ecosystem management is a holistic approach that relies

on the manipulation of pecological interactions among

system components to enhancesystem components to enhance services while maintaining

system sustainabilitysystem sustainability

Ecosystems are complex structures represented by abioticstructures represented by abiotic

resources and a diverse assemblage of componentassemblage of component species, their products and

function, represented by fluxes of energy and matter gy

Tracing the evolution of the turfgrass lawn ecosystem

Natural Grasslands

Herbivores Natural enemies

Companion plants

Grass Detritus

plants

OMGrass Detritus OM

DetritivoresPathogens

Antagonists

Lawn Ecosystem Mowing

Herbivores Natural enemies

Companion plants

Grass Detritus

plants

OMGrass Detritus OM


Antagonists

Turfgrass EcosystemMowing

GrassSpecies

HerbivoresNatural enemies

MowingSpecies

Natural enemies

WeedsI i ti

Grass Detritus OM

Irrigation

Grass Detritus OM


Antagonists

Turfgrass EcosystemM i

Grass HerbicidesFertilizers

Herbivores

MowingSpeciesHerbicides


Weeds Irrigation

D t it

Weeds Irrigation

Grass DetritusThatch OM


AntagonistsFungicidesInsecticides

Turfgrass Ecosystem: Going Green

M iGrass Bio

Biofertilizers

Herbivores

MowingSpeciesBio

herbicidesfertilizers


Weeds Irrigation

D t it

Weeds Irrigation

Grass DetritusThatch

OM


Bi Antagonists Bio fungicides

Bio insecticides

Sustainable Turfgrass Ecosystem Mowing

GrassSpecies/Cv


Ecosystem MowingSpecies/Cv

Natural enemies

Weeds

Grass Detritus OM

Irrigation

Grass Detritus OM


Antagonists

Commercial lawnCommercial lawn management system relies

on sludge hammers

Not green enough = apply fertilizerWeeds = apply herbicide

Insects = apply insecticide pp yDisease = apply fungicide

Community

Components of Lawn EcosystemNeighborhood

Lawn Owner IndustryGovernment

GrassPests Pathogens WeedsNatural

enemiesNatural enemiesPathogensenemies enemies

Soil and WaterInvertebratesSmall vertebrates Microorganisms

Five ecological principles of lawn gecosystem management

• Nutrient Cycling• Competition• Competition• Herbivory• Predation and Parasitism• Human Intervention• Human Intervention

Community

Principles of Lawn Ecosystem ManagementNeighborhood

Lawn Owner IndustryGovernment

Human Intervention

GrassPests Pathogens WeedsNatural

enemiesNatural enemies

CHP PPathogensenemies enemies

NN

SoilInvertebratesSmall vertebrates Microorganisms

Urban Soils

• Poor structure• May lack topsoil• May have inefficient nutrient cyclingy y g

• University turfgrass research has mainly• University turfgrass research has mainly been conducted on plots established on well prepared topsoilwell-prepared topsoil

Questions on Urban Soils• Do lawns established on subsoil lack

essential plant nutrients?essential plant nutrients?• Do lawns established on subsoil lack

b fi i l il i ?beneficial soil organisms? • Can compost amendment improve soil

nutrient and biological conditions? • Are lawns established on subsoil more

prone to nutrient run-off?

Experimental design & plot setup:p g p pFour main treatments with 12 replications: 1. Subsoil2. Subsoil + Compost 3. Topsoil 4. Topsoil + Compost4. Topsoil Compost Topsoil (0-6 inch); subsoil (below 12 inch)

Compost: EarthProTM Premium Compost, from KB C S i I Ak OH S il 4 1Compost Services Inc., Akron, OH. Soil:compost = 4:1

Plot Establishment4 degree cross angle slope

Plot Establishment: 7 x 5 ft

Plots seeded with endophytic tall fescue at 7 lb/1 000 ft i M 2006 t d d il7 lb/1,000 sq ft in May 2006; watered daily

Turfgrass establishment (2 weeks)

Subsoil Subsoil + Compost

Topsoil + CompostT il Topsoil + CompostTopsoil

Soil Nutrient Analysis: M j t i tMajor nutrients

Microbial biomass

Organic matter

a (u

g/g)

600800

1000120014001600

(ug/

g)

200

300

400

C

B B A

BBA

Initial

S SC T TC

Ca

0200400600

S SC T TC

P

0

100

400 400

C

B B

Initial nutrient levels:

K (u

g/g)

100

200

300

Mg

(ug/

g)

100

200

300CD

AB B A

DC

levels: May 2006

S SC T TC0

S SC T TC0

on (%

)

4

5

%) 0.3

0.4

BA

B

A

S SC T TC

Tota

l Car

bo

0

1

2

3

S SC T TC

Tota

l N (%

0.0

0.1

0.2

D

C

C

BB

S SC T TC S SC T TC

N (p

pm)

20

25

30

35

ic M

atte

r (%

)

4

6

8

B

A B

C

A

S SC T TC

NO

3-N

0

5

10

15

S SC T TC

Soi

l Org

ani

0

2CC D

ug/g

)

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

g/g) 200

250

300

350

B

A AA

BB

A

S SC T TC

Ca

(u

0

200

400

600

800

S SC T TC

P (u

g

0

50

100

150

300 500

C

Nutrients after one

K (u

g/g)

100

150

200

250

Mg

(ug/

g)

200

300

400

500

BBA

AB

B

A

DC

year

S SC T TC0

50

S SC T TC0

100

%)

2 5

3.0

3.5

0 25

0.30

0.35

B

A A

Tota

l Car

bon

(%

0 0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5To

tal N

(%)

0 00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

D

C

C

BB

S SC T TC0.0

S SC T TC0.00

N (p

pm)

8

10

12

14

nic

Mat

ter (

%)

4

5

6

7

AB

C

A

S SC T TC

NO

3-N

0

2

4

6

S SC T TC

Soil

Org

an

0

1

2

3

CC

B D

Turfgrass quality assessment:

fTurfgrass cover

Weed coverWeed cover

Turfgrass quality (greenness)Turfgrass quality (greenness)

6 Ju

ly 100

7 Ju

ly 100

A A AAA B

2006 2007ss

cov

er (%

) 200

6

40

60

80

ss c

over

(%) 2

007

40

60

80

C

BA

Turf cover

S SC T TC

Turfg

ras

0

20

uly

100

S SC T TC

Turfg

ras

0

20

uly 100

cove

r (%

) 200

7 Ju

40

60

80

cove

r (%

) 200

7 Ju

40

60

80

B

A

Weed cover

S SC T TC

Wee

d

0

20

S SC T TC

Wee

d

0

20

8

CC BBBA

T f

nnes

s (1

-9 s

cale

)

4

6

8

nnes

s (1

-9 s

cale

)

4

6

8

D

CB

A BBA Turf

quality

S SC T TC

Gre

en

0

2

0g N/m2/year 10g N/m2/year 20g N/m2/year

Gre

en

0

2

Functions of the Soil Functions of the Soil Food WebFood Web

D iti f O i M ttD iti f O i M ttDecomposition of Organic MatterDecomposition of Organic Matter

C li f Mi l d N t i tC li f Mi l d N t i tCycling of Minerals and NutrientsCycling of Minerals and Nutrients

Sequestration of CarbonSequestration of CarbonSequestration of CarbonSequestration of Carbon

Detoxification of PollutantsDetoxification of PollutantsDetoxification of PollutantsDetoxification of Pollutants

Biological Regulation of PestsBiological Regulation of PestsBiological Regulation of PestsBiological Regulation of Pests

Nematodes: A t l f it i th ilA tool for monitoring the soil

food web health

Nematodes occur at multiple trophic levels

Nematodes are easy to identifyNematodes are easy to identify and enumerate

WilsonemaWilsonema

Nematode mouth parts depict their feeding habittheir feeding habit

Plant-parasitic Bacterivores FungivoresPlant parasitic Bacterivores Fungivores

Predatory Omnivores

Nematodes are the most abundant animals in the soil

Many nematodes per sampleBacterivores Fungivores Predators Omnivores Plant ParasitesBacterivores Fungivores Predators Omnivores Plant Parasites

Acrobeles (2) Aphelenchoides (2) Mononchus (4) Alaimus (4) Aglenchus (2)Acrobeloides (2) Aphelenchus (2) Mylonchulus (4) Aporcelaimus (4) Criconemoides (3)Bunonema (1) Discolaimus (5) Filenchus (2)Cephalobus (2) Dorylaimus (4) Helicotylenchus (3)Chiloplacus (2) Eudorylaimus (4) Heterodera (3)Cuticularia (1) Pungentus (4) Hoplolaimus (3)Diplogaster (1) Malenchus (2)Eucephalobus (2) Paratylenchus (2)M h t (1) P t l h (3)Monhystera (1) Pratylenchus (3)Panagrolaimus (2) Psilenchus (2)Pelodera (1) Rotylenchus (3)Plectus (2) Telotylenchus (2)Plectus (2) Telotylenchus (2)Rhabditis (1) Tylenchorynchus (3)Turbatrix (1) Tylenchus (2)Wilsonema (2)Wilsonema (2)

Nematodes Regulate Pest PopulationsPopulations

Mole cricket Wax worm

White grub Beet army worm Fungus gnat larva

Role of Nematodes in Nutrient Cycling/Soil Fertility

Detrital N, P

Plant N P

Inorganic N PFungal N P

Bacterial N P

19-27% N

Fungal Feeding Nematodes

Bacterial Feeding Nematodes

Omnivores and Predatory Nematodes

Initial nematode / 10g

soi

l

500

600

A

population and genus numbers of

nem

atod

es /

300

400

g

otal

num

ber o

100

200

C D

B

S SC T TC

To 0

soil

14

16

A

gene

ra /

10g

8

10

12

14

B

A

otal

num

ber o

f

2

4

6B

C

S SC T TC

To

0

f nem

atod

es600

800

1000

of g

ener

a

68

101214

AA

CC

A

B

S SC T TC

Num

ber o

f

0

200

400

S SC T TC

Num

ber

0246

N 1000 N 18

CB

C

Nematodes two months

tal n

umbe

r of F

LN

200

400

600

800

tal n

umbe

r of P

PN

2468

10121416A

A

BC

A

A

A

B

after establishment

S SC T TC

Tot

0S SC T TC

Tot

02

dex 2.0

2.5M

I 2.0

2.5

C B

AA

B B

AA

B B

S SC T TC

Mat

urity

Ind

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

S SC T TC

Com

bine

d

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5B B B B

S SC T TC S SC T TC

men

t Ind

ex

40

60

80

100

ure

Inde

x

30

40

50

60

C

AA B AA

S SC T TC

Enr

ichm

0

20

40

S SC T TC

Stru

ctu

0

10

20BB

mat

ode

/ 10g

soi

l

400

600

800

ener

a / 1

0g s

oil

8

10

12

14

A

AA

aa

C

A

D

B

BB

A A

cd

a

b

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007Num

ber o

f Nem

0

200

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Num

ber o

f ge

0

2

4

6

800 160

C

B

C

BB

c

b

D B

A

Nematodes after one year

mbe

r of F

LN /

10g

soil

200

400

600

800

mbe

r of P

PN /

10g

soil

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

C

AA

A

BB

B

a a

b

A

A Aa

of turf establishment

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Num

0Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Num

0

20

ex

2.0

2.5

y In

dex

2.0

2.5

CC

cB B BB

AAb b

a

BA A A A A

B Ba

b b bAB

C

AB AB

C

ABC

a

cb bc

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Mat

urity

Inde

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Com

bine

d M

atur

ity

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5B Bb C C BCc

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

men

t Ind

ex

60

80

100

ure

Inde

x

30

40

50

60SSCTTC

A

D

BC

C BC

ABA

b

aa

a

a

B

A

A

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Enr

ichm

0

20

40

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007

Stru

ct

0

10

20

C

CB B

ABA

b

c

ab

Conclusions>Subsoil has few nematodes and nematode genera

>Compost amendment increased nematode numbers, but not types of nematodes (diversity)

> Compost increased food web enrichment but not structure index two months after turf establishment

Food web structure index and enrichment index i d l i b il ftremained low in subsoil even after one year

Fertilizer Application

Major nutrients: NPKi i (AA)N – vegetative growth, color, proteins (AA)

P – root growth and other growth processesK – physiological processes, disease p y g p ,resistance and water hardiness

Complete fertilizer: 3:1:2Complete fertilizer: 3:1:2Fall (Sept) and late fall (Nov) is the best time

to applyto apply

Inorganic vs Organic fertilizers

Inorganic fertilizers: synthesizedOrganic fertilizers: animal manures or

previously living plant or animal parts-Animal sources: bone meal, blood meal, cow,

chicken & horse manure -Plant sources: seaweed, alfalfa meal,

cottonseed mealcottonseed meal-Processed or composted sewage sludge: e.g.

Milorganite or ComTilMilorganite or ComTilFast vs slow release

Organic fertilizersProduct (mg/g) N P K Ratio

Nature’s Touch 167 7 31 24:1:4Corn Gluten 106 5 6 21:1:1Ringers Lawn Restore 107 7 62 19:1:9Cockadoodle DOO 44 14 30 3:1:2Vigoro 187 6 15 31:1:2Sweet Peet 20 4 18 5:1:4Scott’s Feather Meal 144 2 2 72:1:1Scott’s Turf Builder 280 11 32 25:1:3Scott s Turf Builder 280 11 32 25:1:3

Effect of mowing on weedEffect of mowing on weed intensity in lawns y

Th C titi P i i lThe Competition Principle

T f l tTurfgrass plots

• Endophytic tall fescue• Endohyte-free tall fescueEndohyte free tall fescue • Endophytic perennial ryegrass• Endophye-free perennial ryegrass

Methods• Established in 1999

• Plot dimensions– 6.1 x 6.1 m (37.2 m2)

• Species/cultivarsp– TF cv. Alamo – PR cv. Palmer III

• No fertilizer or pesticideNo fertilizer or pesticide applications

Methods• March 2003: main plots divided into 4 sub-

plots (4.6 m2)p ( )

• 4 mowing regimes imposed• 4 mowing regimes imposed– 2 inches weekly – 2 inches bi-weekly– 3.5 inches weekly y– 3.5 inches bi-weekly

Methods

• Data collected during July 2003, October 2003,

Methods

Data collected during July 2003, October 2003, April 2004, and August 2004

Total weed cover in tall fescue and iperennial ryegrass lawns

60

70

Tall fescue P i l

ver (

%) 50

Perennial ryegrass

Wee

d co

v

30

40

10

20

Sampling date

10Jul/2003 Oct/2003 Apr/2004 Aug/2004

Weed cover by species in tall fescue and iperennial ryegrass lawns

25

20

25

Tall fescue Perennial ryegrass

b

over

(%)

15

Wee

d co

10b

aa

b

a

0

5a

b a

a a

Weed species

Dandelion Healall Buckhorn Thymeleaf White clover0

Effect of endophyte on weed cover tall f ifescue and perennial ryegrass lawns

50Low Endophyte infection High Endophyte infection

a

over

(%)

30

40b

Wee

d co

20 ab

0

10 a b

a a a a

a a

b

Weed species

Total Dandelion Healall Buckhorn Thymeleaf W-clover0

Effect of mowing regime on total weed i fcover in tall fescue

50

40

50

a a

A (Tall fescue)

cove

r (%

)

30

b

Wee

d c

20

bb

0

10

Mowing regime

5 cm weekly 5 cm bi-weekly 8.9 cm weekly 8.9 cm bi-weekly

Effect of mowing regime on total weed i i

80

cover in perennial ryegrass

60

80

A (Perennial ryegrass)

over

(%)

60 a

Wee

d co 40

b20 b b b

Mowing regime

05 cm weekly 5 cm bi-weekly 8.9cm weekly 8.9 cm bi-weekly

Grewal’s five principles of lawn ecosystem management


Effect of mowing on grassEffect of mowing on grass resistance to insects

Testing the resource allocation hypothesis

E d h t (N t h di ) i f t dEndophyte (Neotyphodium) infected grasses

Provide effective management of billbuggsod webwormchinch bugggreenbug aphid

Alkaloids found in endophytic tallAlkaloids found in endophytic tall fescue and perennial ryegrass

• Indole alkaloids– Lolitrem B

• Pyrrolizidine alkaloids– Lolines

• Pyrrolopyrazine alkaloids• Pyrrolopyrazine alkaloids– Peramine

• Ergot alkaloidsErgot alkaloids– Ergocristine– Ergocryptine– Erogonvine– Ergovaline

Mowing height affects alkaloid levels inalkaloid levels in

tall fescue

A greenhouse studyg y

Tall fescue mowing height: P l li th l thPerloline methylether

Nanograms/g dry wtNanograms/g dry wt

700

800

g g yg g y

aa

ba

400

500

600

2.5 cmb

bc

a

200

300

4005 cm7.5 cm

b

0

100

2 3

Month Month

Tall fescue mowing height: E iErgonovine


3000

3500

g g yg g ya

2000

2500

2.5 cma

b

bb

b

1000

1500 5 cm7.5 cm

b b

0

500

2 3

Month Month

Tall fescue mowing height: E i tiErgocriptine


14

16

g g yg g ya

8

10

12

2.5 cm

b

c

4

6

85 cm7.5 cma

b

c

b

0

2

2 3

b

MonthMonth

Tall fescue mowing height: E i tiErgocristine


5000

6000

g g yg g ya

b

3000

40002.5 cm

ab

c

1000

2000

30005 cm7.5 cmb b

0

1000

2 3

Month Month

Tall fescue mowing height: U k CUnknown C


10000

12000

g g yg g ya

6000

80002.5 cma bc

2000

4000

60005 cm7.5 cm

a

b

bc

b

0

2000

2 3

MonthMonth

Mowing height affects alkaloid levels inalkaloid levels in

perennial ryegrass

A greenhouse studyg y

Perennial ryegrass mowing h i ht P l li th l thheight: Perloline methylether


800900

1000

g g yg g ya

b

a

b

500600700800

2.5 cm

b bc

b

200300400500

5 cm7.5 cm

c

0100200

2 3

MonthMonth

Perennial ryegrass mowing h i ht U k Aheight: Unknown A


120

140

g g yg g ya

80

100

2.5 cmba

40

60 5 cm7.5 cm

b

b

cb

0

20

2 3

MonthMonth

Perennial ryegrass mowing h i ht E liheight: Ergovaline


3000

3500

g g yg g ya

2000

2500

2.5 cma

b

1000

1500 5 cm7.5 cm

aa ca

0

500

2 3

MonthMonth

Effect of mowing treatments onEffect of mowing treatments on fall armyworm performance

• Mowing height treatmentstreatments

• Endophyte free or infected plants p

• 10 neonate larvae/dish• Armyworm biomassArmyworm biomass

(dry wt) assessed 6 days later

• 21°C; 16:8 L:D

G i l tiGrass species selection

• Tall fescue (improved turf-type cultivars, not Kentucky 31) - Best choice!

• Fine fescue• Perennial ryegrassPerennial ryegrass• Kentucky bluegrass

Why Tall fescue?y• Low maintenance

E d h ti b ilt i i t i t• Endophytic – built-in insect resistance • Tolerates low fertility and highly

compacted soils • Tolerates drought and heavy traffic • Both sun and shade tolerant• Stays green in the summer due to deep• Stays green in the summer due to deep

root systemD t f th t h• Does not form thatch

Sustainable Lawn Ecosystem 3 inchEndophytic

cultivar


Ecosystemmowing

cultivar

Natural enemies

Weeds

Grass Detritus OM

Irrigation

Grass Detritus OM


Antagonists

Interaction between grass-weed competitiongrass-weed competition

and herbivory

Interactions between weedsInteractions between weeds and insects

K k bl l lKentucky blue grass lawn plotsFour treatments:• Control (nothing applied)• Herbicide only• Insecticide only• Herbicide plus InsecticideHerbicide plus Insecticide

Effect of herbicides (3-way blend), insecticide (imidacloprid), and a ( p ),

combination treatment on buckhorn plantain in turfgrass# plants/4 sq ft p g

3.5

# plants/4 sq ft

2.5

3

1

1.5

2

0

0.5

1

0Control Herbicide Insecticide Herbi+Insecti

Effect of herbicides, insecticides, and a combination treatment on healallcombination treatment on healall

population in turfgrass# plants/4 sq ft

12

14

# plants/4 sq ft

8

10

12

4

6

8

0

2

4


Effect of herbicides, insecticides, and a combination treatment on Oxalisa combination treatment on Oxalis

population in turfgrass# plants/4 sq ft

3

3.5

# plants/4 sq ft

2

2.5

3

1

1.5

2

0

0.5

1


A weed over-seeding study

Influence of billbug damage on Black medic invasion (3 month after overmedic invasion (3 month after over

seeding) in turfgrass# per ft2

50

60

p

40

50

20

30

0

10

0Damaged Site 1 Damaged Site 2 Undamaged Site

Influence of billbug damage on dandelion invasion (3 month after overdandelion invasion (3 month after over


14

16

# per ft2

10

12

14

6

8

2

4


Influence of billbug damage on crabgrass invasion (3 month after overcrabgrass invasion (3 month after over


25

30

# per ft

20

25

10

15

0

5


Influence of billbug damage on white f ( )clover invasion in turfgrass (one year later)

# per ft2

1618

# per ft

101214

68

10

024


Are weeds just symptoms of insect infestations?

What a waste of herbicides!

Entomopathogenic NematodesNematodes

Mole cricket Wax worm

White grub Beet army worm Fungus gnat larva

Entomopathogenic nematodesEntomopathogenic nematodes

Nematodes used: Steinernema carpocapsae

Control of Japanese beetle grubs with nematodes in a turf lawnwith nematodes in a turf lawn -

Fall 2001% control% control

90100 aa

ababbb bb

% control% control

607080

304050

cc

bcbc

01020

S g MicroB S g NJ H b GPS11 H z Merit Dylox

cc

S.g. MicroB S.g. NJ H.b. GPS11 H.z. Merit Dylox

Control of Japanese beetle grubs with nematodes in a turf lawnwith nematodes in a turf lawn -

Fall 2002% control% control

90100 aa

ababaa aa% control% control

607080

bb

304050

cc

01020

S k B t H b GPS11 H z Merit DyloxS. k. B.t. H.b. GPS11 H.z. Merit Dylox

Consistency of ControlConsistency of Control

T t t T t % t lTreatment Tests % controlHz-X1 8 81 (73-98)%Hb-GPS11 7 66 (34-97)%Trichlorfon 7 59 (29-92)%Trichlorfon 7 59 (29-92)%

More Information?More Information?Read this new book!

Nematodes as Biocontrol Agentsbby

Parwinder S. GrewalRalf Udo Ehlers

David Shapiro-Ilan

CABI Publishing, December 7, 2005

More Information on Entomopathogenic Nematodes?Entomopathogenic Nematodes?

www oardc ohio state edu/nematodeswww.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes

Grewal’s five principles of lawn ecosystem management


A closer look at lawn management gin Wayne County

Effect of management intensity on weed i id i t f A f Wincidence in turfgrass: A survey of Wayne

County home lawns0 3 scale

2.5

30-3 scale

D GI

1.5

2BH

0.5

1

0Commercial

HighHomeowner

HighHomeowner

MediumHomeowner

Low

Lawn management study (2004-2006)

• Established March-April 2004 at • Established March-April 2004 at OARDC

• Compare 5 management programs:– CommercialCommercial– Consumer– Integrated pest management (IPM)g p g ( )– Organic– Untreated control

Specific objectives• Determine influence of management

program on major insect pests and weeds (Biological)

Quantify grass stand quality (color and • Quantify grass stand quality (color and overall appearance) of each program (Aesthetic)

• Quantify and compare basic material costs d ti li it i t d ith h and time limits associated with each

program (Economic)

Field Plot Layout

Commercial lawn care programCommercial lawn care program

Season Lawn products appliedp pp

Early spring NPK (30-3-3); Triplet; Barricade

Late spring Triplet; NPK (30-3-3); Merit

Summer Tri-power; NPK (30-3-3)

Early fall Triplet; NPK (30-3-3)Early fall Triplet; NPK (30 3 3)

Late fall NPK (30-3-3)

Consumer lawn care programConsumer lawn care program

Season Lawn products applied

Early spring TurfBuilder® with Halts® (NPK: 30-0-4)

Late spring TurfBuilder® with Plus 2® (NPK: 28-3-3)

Summer TurfBuilder® with Summerguard® (NPK: 28-3-8)

Early fall TurfBuilder® Lawn Fertilizer (NPK: 29-2-4)Early fall TurfBuilder® Lawn Fertilizer (NPK: 29 2 4)

Late fall TurfBuilder® WinterizerTM (NPK: 22-3-14)

IPM lawn care ProgramIPM lawn care Program


Early spring TurfBuilder® with HaltsTM (NPK: 30-0-4) (2004 only)(2004 only)

Late spring Triplet (2004 only)

f ild f ili ( )Summer TurfBuilder® fertilizer (NPK: 29-2-4) (2005)

Early fall Triplet (2004-2006)y p ( )

Late fall TurfBuilder® WinterizerTM (NPK: 22-3-14)

Organic lawn care programg p g


Early spring Ringer® Lawn Restore® (NPK: 10-2-6); Corn gluten mealCorn gluten meal

Late spring Ringer® Lawn Restore®

Summer

Early fall Ringer® Lawn Restore®; Corn gluten Early fall Ringer® Lawn Restore®; Corn gluten meal; Boron (20 Mule Team® Borax)

Late fall Ringer® Lawn Restore®

• All lawns mowed weekly at 3.5 inches All lawns mowed weekly at 3.5 inches (8.9 cm)

V i bl d d d i l • Variables recorded during lawn management:

– Product application time

– Insect pests and weeds scouting time (IPM)

– Lawn mowing time

Va iables sed in calc lating • Variables used in calculating maintenance costs for comparison

Maintenance cost calculationMaintenance cost calculation

• Maintenance cost = Product cost (actual quantity applied) + Labor cost for product application [+ Labo cost fo application [+ Labor cost for scouting (IPM only)]

– Labor cost estimated at $10.00/hr

– Scouting cost estimated at $30.00/hr

– Product cost includes equipment cost (spreader + Product cost includes equipment cost (spreader + backpack sprayer)

M i t t l l tiMaintenance cost calculation

• Maintenance cost does not include gasoline cost and mowing time

• Adjusted to reflect estimates of i i i f lmaintaining a 5,000 sq. ft. lawn.

Weed samplingp g

1.5 ft x 1.5 ft

White grubs (JB & MC)

• Turf quality (Aesthetic) rating

–Quality (color and overall appearance) assessed on a 1-9 score scale

–1 = very poor; 9 = excellent

–Based on the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) assessment

Total weed cover differs significantly g ywith management program

50

60

ed c

over

b

a

30

40

t tot

al w

ee

10

20

an p

erce

nt

ed

c

0

10

Commercial Consumer IPM Organic Control

Mea

Management program

Dandelion cover differs significantly with management program

8

6

7

8

on c

over a

4

5

t dan

delio

b

2

3

an p

erce

nt

c

b

c

0

1


Mea

Management program

White clover cover differs significantly with management program

10

8

9

10

ver

cove

r a

5

6

7

whi

te c

lov

2

3

4

n pe

rcen

t

b

ccc

0

1


Mea

n

Management program

Ground ivy cover differs significantly with management programwith management program

45

35

40

45

vy c

over a a

20

25

30

t gro

und

iv

10

15

20

an p

erce

nt

dc

b

0

5


Mea

Management program

White grub numbers do not differ ith t with management program

1

0 7

0.8

0.9

1

e gr

ubs

0.5

0.6

0.7

er o

f whi

te

0.2

0.3

0.4

ean

num

be

0

0.1


Me

Management program

Lawn quality ratings by program Quality rated on 9-point scale (1 = poor; 9 = excellent)

Lawn Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3-YrLawnprogram

Year 1 (June 2004)

Year 2 (July 2005)

Year 3 (July2006)

3-Yr mean

) ) )Commercial 5.3 ± 0.28a 8.2 ± 0.17a 7.5 ± 0.18a 7.2 ± 0.15a

Consumer 4.1 ± 0.30b 3.9 ± 0.45c 5.7 ± 0.26cd 4.4 ± 0.19dConsumer 4.1 ± 0.30b 3.9 ± 0.45c 5.7 ± 0.26cd 4.4 ± 0.19d

IPM 5.2 ± 0.23a 6.0 ± 0.56b 6.3 ± 0.23bc 6.1 ± 0.14b

Organic 3.7 ± 0.22b 6.2 ± 0.24b 6.8 ± 0.18b 5.6 ± 0.16c

Untreated 3.4 ± 0.18b 2.9 ± 0.28d 5.5 ± 0.30d 3.8 ± 0.17e

Estimated cost of maintaining a 5,000 sq. ft lawn per yearft. lawn per year

Management Maintenance cost* ($)programCommercial 382.40

Consumer 158.04

IPM 331 13IPM 331.13

Organic 337.33

Untreated control

0co o

* Maintenance cost does not include fuel and mowing time

Lawn management program cost Vs

Untreated60

weed cover

Consumer40

50

)

30

40

d co

ver (

%

Organic20Wee

d

IPMCommercial

0

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4500 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Lawn management cost ($ per 0.05 ha/yr)

Lawn management program cost Vs

9quality

Commercial7

8

ng

C

IPMOrganic

5

6

qual

ity ra

tin

UntreatedConsumer

3

4

Law

n q

1

2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Lawn management cost ($ per 0.05 ha/yr)

IPM in Commercial Lawn CareIPM in Commercial Lawn Care A case study with Buckeye Ecocare, Dayton, Ohio

• Standard lawn care program

– Pesticides applied on calendar basis without treatment thresholdswithout treatment thresholds

IPM l h (2005)• IPM lawn care approach (2005)

– Pesticides applied based on pest monitoring and treatment thresholds (5% weed cover or insect damage)

MethodsMethods

• Study began in 2005 with 40 customersStudy began in 2005 with 40 customers

29 IPM program customers (through a letter)– 29 IPM program customers (through a letter)– 11 Standard program customers

• Continued in 2006 with 12 IPM customers

– Approx. 40% retention rate

Annual product application scheduleTime of year IPM programa Standard programEarly spring NPK fertilizer NPK fertilizer

BarricadeLate spring NPK fertilizer

TrimecNPK fertilizerMeritTrimec

MeritMerit

Late summer NPK fertilizer NPK fertilizer

Early fall Trimec Trimec

Late fall NPK fertilizer NPK fertilizer

a Herbicides applied to 6 of 29 IPM lawns and insecticidesHerbicides applied to 6 of 29 IPM lawns and insecticides applied to 8 of 29 IPM lawns in 2005. No herbicides or insecticides applied to IPM in 2006.

MethodsMethods

• Lawns evaluated in June, August, and September in 2005-2006

– Insect, weeds, and disease assessments

– Lawn quality• 9-point scale (1 = poor; 9 = excellent)• 2 individuals on each evaluation date

MethodsCost comparison

LCPC = ACh + [LCm]

LCPC – total lawn care program costLCPC total lawn care program cost

AC hACh – average cost per home owner

LCm – labor cost for monitoring (IPM only)

MethodsMethods

• Conducted telephone interviews at the• Conducted telephone interviews at the end of the study to assess the perceptions

f th t b t th IPMof the customers about the IPM program

–Buckeye Ecocare staff

Number of lawns with weed infestation in the IPM and standard programin the IPM and standard program

12

stat

ion 10

IPMStandard* *

wns

with

infe

s

6

8

**

umbe

r of l

aw

4 **

Nu

0

2

Time of year (months)

June '05 Aug '05 Sept '05 June '06 Aug '06 Sept '060

Number of lawns requiring herbicide applications in 2005 and 2006applications in 2005 and 2006

16g

treat

men

t

12

14

wns

requ

iring

8

10

er o

f IPM

law

4

6

Num

be

0

2


June'05 Aug'05 Sep'05 June'06 Aug'06 Sep'060

Number of lawns with insect damage in th IPM d t d d lthe IPM and standard lawn care programs

14

dam

age

10

12 IPMStandard

* *

with

inse

ct d

8

10

er o

f law

ns w

4

6

Num

be

2



Number of lawns requiring insecticide applications in the IPM and standardapplications in the IPM and standard

lawn care programsea

tmen

t

12

14

s req

uirin

g tre

8

10

of IP

M la

wns

4

6

8

Num

ber o

2

4


June'05 Aug'05 Sep'05 June'06 Aug'06 Sep'060

Lawn quality in the IPM and t d d lstandard lawn care programs

ng

8

10

ab

ab

ab

ab

aa

a

b

wn

qual

ity ra

tin

6

Law

2

4



y ( )

IPM Standard

Total annual lawn care program cost for the IPM d d dIPM and standard program

Lawn care Rate/0 01 Average cost Cost of TotalLawn care program

Rate/0.01 ha ($)

Average cost per customer (rate x area)a

Cost of monitoring/yearb ($)

Total estimated lawn care

($) cost/yr ($)IPM 3.50 259.00 22.50 281.50St d d 6 19 458 06 0 00 458 06Standard 6.19 458.06 0.00 458.06

a Average home lawn size was 0 35 acrea Average home lawn size was 0.35 acreb Cost of monitoring was estimated at $30.00/h for IPM. gAverage monitoring time per visit was 15 min. Lawns visited 3 times/yr for an average of 45 min per yr per lawn

Perceptions about IPM lawn care program

• Telephone response rate – 44.82% (13 of 29)p p ( )– 7 continued with IPM – 6 did not continue with IPM

• Reasons for continuing with IPM in 2006– Interested in healthy environment– Liked the idea of “IPM”– Was satisfied with the IPM program– Did not cost a thing

Stayed because of service provider– Stayed because of service provider– Would try anything service provider would recommend

Perceptions about IPM lawn care program

• Reasons for not continuing with IPM in 2006– Too many weeds or insect problems (~33%)y p ( %)– Expected better results with IPM (~33%)

IPM impact is minimal; pleased ith la n– IPM impact is minimal; pleased with lawn care service provider

AcknowledgmentsPost-doctoral Associates CollaboratorsDr. Seppo Salminen Dr. John CardinaDr. Doug Richmond Dr. Casey HoyDr. Sukhbir Grewal Dr. Benjamin StinnerDr. Ganpati Jagdale Dr. Michael KleinDr. Elizabeth De Nardo Dr. Tom BlaineGraduate StudentsAlfred Alumai Brian Kunkel Li TanCorrie Yoder Amr Saeb Shabeg BriarMamta Singh M S Nahar P BussamanMamta Singh M. S. Nahar P. BussamanZhiqiang Cheng Ruisheng An S. Sandhu

FundingA Y A t P j tAgency Year Amount ProjectNC-IPM 2004 $96,500 IPMUSDA-NRI 2003 $195,000 White grubsUSDA 2002 $145,000 PPNsUSDA-NRI 2000 $170,000 EndophytesUSDA-NRI 2000 $156,000 EPN LongevityUSDA 2000 $144,000 EPNsUSDA 1998 $310,000 EPNsOARDC 1998 $100,000 EndophytesOTF 1997-04 $95,000 EPNs/Endo,OLCA 2003-04 $13,000 Mowing/IPM

tf cltturfgrass culture - landscape ontario · tf cltturfgrass culture an ecosystem approachan...

Documents