Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beard JB, Green RL (1994) The role of turfgrass in environmental protection and their benefit to humans. J Environ Qual 23:452–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT, Vernegaard L (1993) Redesigning the American lawn. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Busey P (2003) Cultural management of weeds in turfgrass: a review. Crop Sci 43:1899–1911

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng Z, Richmond DS, Salminen SO, Grewal PS (2008) Ecology of urban lawns under three common management programs. Urban Ecosyst 11:177–195 doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0048-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christians NE (1993) The use of corn gluten meal as a natural pre-emergence weed control in turf. Intl Turfgrass Soc Res J 7:284–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Christians N (2004) Fundamentals of turfgrass management. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmons R (2000) Turfgrass science and management, 3rd edn. Delmar, Albany, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner DS, Christians NE, Bingaman BR (1997) Pendimethalin and corn gluten meal combinations to control turf weeds. Crop Sci 37:1875–1877

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal PS (2007) The value of the American lawn. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Special Circular 194

  • Horgan BP, Branham BE, Mulvaney RL (2002) Direct measurement of denitrification using 15N-labeled fertilizer applied to turfgrass. Crop Sci 42:1602–1610

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins VS (1994) The lawn: a history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lush WM, Rogers ME (1992) Cutting height and the biomass and tiller density of Lolium perenne amenity turfs. J Appl Ecol 29:611–618 doi:10.2307/2404469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milesi C, Running SW, Elvidge CD, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT, Nemani RR (2005) Mapping and modeling the biochemical cycling of turfgrass in the United States. Environ Manage 36:426–438 doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0316-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Turfgrass Federation (2003) The turfgrass industry—present and future. The National Turfgrass Research Initiative. National Turfgrass Federation, Beltsville, Maryland, pp 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemczyk HD, Shetlar DJ (2000) Destructive turf insects, 2nd edn. HDN Books, Wooster, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond DS, Cardina J, Grewal PS (2006) Influence of grass species and endophyte infection on weed populations during establishment of low-maintenance lawns. Agric Ecosyst Environ 115:27–33 doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P, Birkenholtz T (2003) Turfgrass revolution: the ecology of urban sprawl. Land Use Policy 20:181–194 doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00006-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salminen SO, Grewal PS (2002) Does decreased mowing height frequency enhance alkaloid production in endophytic tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. J Chem Ecol 28:939–950 doi:10.1023/A:1015201616013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Salminen SO, Grewal PS, Quigley MF (2003) Does mowing height influence alkaloid production in endophytic tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. J Chem Ecol 29:1319–1328 doi:10.1023/A:1024253117649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS (2003) SAS release 9.1 for windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner TR, Waddington DV, Watschke TL (1979) The effect of fertility levels on dandelion and crabgrass encroachment of Merion Kentucky bluegrass. In: Taylorson RB (ed) Proceedings of the Northern Weed Science Society 33. Evans, Salisbury, Maryland, pp 280–286

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Pesticides industry sales and usage 1998 and 1999 market estimates. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/99pestsales/market_estimates1999.pdf. Accessed on February 18, 2008

  • United States Geological Survey (1999) The quality of our nation’s waters—nutrients and pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225, Reston, Virginia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinlove FK, Torla RF (1995) Comparative estimations of U.S. home lawn area. J Turfgrass Manag 1:83–97 doi:10.1300/J099v01n01_07

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture North Central Region Integrated Pest Management (USDA NCR IPM) grant number 07-165-0709. We thank Dr. Thomas Blaine and Mr. Kevin Power for their technical support, and Dr. David Gardner, Dr. David J. Shetlar, and Dr. Joseph Kovach for their invaluable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parwinder S. Grewal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alumai, A., Salminen, S.O., Richmond, D.S. et al. Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs. Urban Ecosyst 12, 127–144 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0073-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0073-8

Keywords

Navigation