Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 standard program during June 2005 and August 2005, but not September 2005 and throughout 2006. 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.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alumai A, Salminen SO, Richmond DS, Cardina J, Grewal PS (2008) Comparative evaluation of aesthetic, biological, and economic effectiveness of different lawn management programs. Urban Ecosyst (in press)

  • Baker L, Brazel A, Bryne L, Felton A, Grove M, Hill H, Nelson KC, Walker J, Shandas V (2007) Effects of human choices on characteristics of urban ecosystems. Bull Ecol Soc Am (October):404–409

  • Ball J (1987) Efficient monitoring for an urban IPM program. J Arboric 13:174–177

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blaine TW, Clayton S, Robbins P, Grewal PS, Power K, Yoder C (2006) Ohio homeowners’ attitudes and practices related to use of lawn chemicals. Urban Landscape Ecology Program Research Update 2006. The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann FH, Balmori D, Geballe GT, Vernegaard L (1993) Redesigning the American lawn. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 256

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne LB, Bruns MA, Kim KC (2008) Ecosystem properties of urban land covers at the abover-ground-belowground interface. Ecosystems (N Y, Print) 11:1065–1077. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9179-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework of classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007) 5[80:SHIUER]2.0.CO;2

    Article  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 

  • Clayton S (2007) Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. J Environ Psychol 27:215–224. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760. doi:10.1126/science.1150195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Grove MJ, Pickett STA, Redman CL (2000) Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50:571–584. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0571:IATLTO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellman JL, Davidson JA, Holmes J (1982) Urban integrated pest management in Maryland. In: Niemczyk HD, Joiner BG (eds) Turfgrass Entomology. Hammer Graphics, Picqua, OH, pp 68–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins VS (1994) The Lawn: a History of an American Obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, p 246

    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 

  • Minitab (2006) Minitab version 15.1 for Windows. Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • National Turfgrass Federation (2003) The turfgrass industry – present and future. In: 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, OH, p 148

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (1995) Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Nature 269:331–334

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Raupp MJ, Davidson JA, Holmes JJ, Hellman JL (1985) The concept of key plants in integrated pest management for landscapes. J Arboric 11:317–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Raupp MJ, Noland RM (1984) Implementing plant management programs in residential and institutional settings. J Arboric 10:161–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravlin FW, Robinson WH (1985) Audience for residential turfgrass pest management programs. Bull Entomol Soc Am 31:45–50

    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 

  • Robbins P, Polderman A-M, Birkenholtz T (2001) Lawns and toxins: An ecology of the city. Cities Intern J Urban Policy Plann 18:369–380

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (2005) SPSS Release 14.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Pesticide industry sales and usage report (http://www.epa.gov/opphead1/pestsales/99pestsales). 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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the North Central Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM) grants program. We thank Dr. Thomas W. Blaine and Mr. Kevin Power for their technical support and 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., Grunkemeyer, M., Kovach, J. et al. Implementing integrated pest management in professional lawn care: a case study. Urban Ecosyst 13, 37–49 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0102-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0102-2

Keywords

Navigation