2011 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project

Transcription

2011 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project was to test alternative methods of
landscape maintenance for turf and rock mulch sites on the Northern Arizona University (NAU)
Flagstaff campus. These sites are under the care of the Grounds Department of Capital Assets and
Services (CAS), which utilizes a variety of techniques to maintain athletic fields, lawns, flower beds,
shrubs, and trees spread across approximately 650 acres. Synthetic herbicides are used on a regular
basis throughout the growing season due to a university requirement to keep grass and rock mulch areas
weed-free. Although CAS uses these herbicides according to manufacturer’s recommendations, there is
concern that these chemicals pose human health risks and can negatively affect local ecosystems,
including damage to soils and water.
The university has established a Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan which includes the goal of
“Stewardship and Sustainability of Place” (see Appendix A: Eliminating Herbicide Use on the NAU
Campus). One strategy within this goal is for NAU “to be a model of environmentally responsible and
sustainable operations and education”. The elimination of potentially toxic herbicides is a critical first
step towards environmental responsibility and sustainability. The landscapes of NAU provide the
perfect setting to showcase alternative methods of lawn and garden maintenance and thus create an
educational opportunity for students, faculty, and the general public. Through this pilot project, we have
begun to test non-toxic turf treatments, including the hand-pulling of weeds, improving soil health
through the application of organically-approved amendments, and introducing native types of turfgrass.
We are also monitoring the use of physical weed barriers on xeriscaped rock mulch areas and comparing
them to areas which are sprayed with synthetic herbicides.
As a pilot project, we encountered a number of unexpected situations which caused our research to adapt
and evolve. A study such as this is further confounded by issues such as the variability of weather from
year to year and the slow process of improving soil health. It is therefore necessary to complete more
seasons of monitoring in order to acquire valid data for broader applications. As the first season of
treatments comes to an end, we are confident that we have collected useful data, refined our research
technique, and have built a strong vision for ongoing research.
For further information on the intentions of this pilot project, see Appendix B: Green Fund Project
Proposal for Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project.
METHODOLOGY
Choosing Sites
Test and control sites were chosen through collaboration with CAS. Visibility to passing students and
visitors was considered the highest priority. Sites were also chosen to represent different areas of the
campus (i.e. South, Central, and/or North Campus), since each area could have variations in soils and
microclimates. Test and control sites were adjacent to each other, usually divided by sidewalks. Rock
mulch sites were chosen to include both single-layer and dual-layer weed barriers. In July 2011, site
RUT-S was found to have no weed barrier in place, but monitoring continued as per usual.
In the early summer of 2011, we were informed that the Ardrey sites (AT-N, AT-S, AC) were slated to
undergo construction in the spring of 2012 and the amount of subsequent damage was unknown. The
Ardrey sites continued to undergo treatment and monitoring for the remainder of 2011, and their
condition will be assessed in 2012 to determine if they can continue to be used. The Knoles sites (KT
and KC) were then chosen as replacements in the event that the Ardrey sites were unsuitable for further
research. Due to the late inclusion of the Knoles sites, they were not soil tested in 2011 but will be
tested in the spring of 2012 along with the other sites. Also due to the late inclusion and to the
somewhat different weeding protocols (see Transecting and Data Collection below), data from KC and
KT are not always included in the results of this document.
Site Measurement
Turf and rock mulch sites (except KC and KT) were measured using a calibrated wheel and sketches,
and the data was put into Devinci:Almode, a real-estate appraisal program (see Appendix C-1: Plot
Measuring). The KC and KT sites were measured using a steel measuring tape and sketches, and the
data was put into AutoCAD, version: D.309.0.0, Auto Computer Aided Design 2010, manufactured by
Autodesk (see Appendix C-2: Plot Measuring-Knoles).
Soil Testing
Prior to beginning treatments, soil samples were collected from all turf test and turf control sites with the
exception of KC and KT. Five to ten samples were randomly collected depending on the size of the site.
To collect the samples, the top turf layer was cut and pulled back, and soil was collected at 3-6 inches
below surface. Samples from each site were mixed in a plastic bucket, and noticeable rocks and plant
fragments were removed. The samples were placed in zip-lock freezer bags and stored in a freezer until
testing.
Soil testing was conducted at the Colorado Plateau Analytical Laboratory at NAU. Samples for pH
were measured in 50 +/-5g amounts and tested using an Orion 701A pH probe. Remaining soil was
hand crushed and put through a 2 mm sieve. Sieved soil was measured into 50 +/-5g samples and dried
for 24 hours in a 70C oven. Dried soil was measured into 10 +/- 1g samples. Each sample was tested
for nitrogen (N as NO3- and NH4+) using a 2M potassium chloride extraction; potassium (K) using the
“Flame Atomic Absorption” technique (EPA method 7610); phosphorus (P as PO4-3) using a sodium
bicarbonate extraction (a.k.a. Olsen Method); iron (Fe), calcium (Ca), and sodium (Na) using a barium
chloride extraction (EPA method 213.1 for Ca and method 273.1 for Na); and sulfur (S) using Ion
Chromatography (EPA 300). Results were calculated by multiplying the final concentration by 50 (the
extraction volume in milliliters) and dividing by the weight of the original sample; results were reported
as micrograms per gram of dry soil.
Transecting and Data Collection
For all test and control sites (except KT and KC: see below), baseline data was collected prior to
treatments regarding weed abundance and species composition by running six-foot wide transects and
counting and identifying all weeds observed from standing height. The primary weed species of
concern, as stated by CAS, were white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officianale),
and cheeseweed/common mallow (Malva neglecta or parvifolia). Beginning with treatments, weed
production was monitored by running six-foot wide transects every 14 - 21 days and counting and
identifying all weeds observed from standing height. On turf test sites, weeds were pulled using Ames®
Dandelion Digger and/or Ames® HoundDog WeedHound Elite and/or Grampa’s Weeder. Clover
patches were counted but not removed. During the monsoon season, plantain (Plantago major) became
difficult to completely remove due to a burst in seedling production; at that point, plantain were both
removed individually and counted as clumps (similar to clover). On rock mulch test sites, weeds were
pulled by hand to avoid damaging fabric and plastic weed barriers. On turf test and control sites, grass
conditions and general observations were recorded, such as overall lawn appearance, prevalence of
exposed soil, and grass health.
Beginning in August 2011, monitoring and hand-weeding began on KT and continued at 14 - 21 day
intervals. In an effort to replicate the actions of a typical grounds employee, weeds were located by
simply walking around the site, then pulled using the WeedHound and put in a bucket. This type of
weeding activity (hereinafter called normal weeding) was timed in order to determine how long it would
take a typical grounds-worker to weed an area this size. After weeding, the weeds in the bucket were
counted and identified. The control site (KC) was transected with the same methods used for the other
control sites.
During the summer and fall of 2011, the Ardrey, Eastburn, and SBS test sites were normally weeded
once in the manner described for KT. After the normal weeding, AT-N, AT-S, and ST were transected
to account for any weeds missed by normal weeding. This step was neglected on ET-E and ET-W. In
2012, all sites will have normal weeding followed by transecting performed on a regular basis.
Beginning in August 2011, a quadrat system was implemented in order to estimate percent cover of (1)
thick grass, (2) thin grass/thatch, (3) weeds, and (4) exposed soil (including holes). The number of
quadrats per site was selected based on square footage, and only test and control sites within one area
were compared (i.e. AT-N and AT-S were compared with AC but not with EC) due to the extreme
differences is site sizes. Data was collected by having two to four people take turns randomly throwing a
25-inch diameter hula hoop and assessing (by consensus) the cover where the hoop landed, with
observations done at standing height. This was not performed on the Knoles sites but will be in 2012.
Other Variables
Irrigation data for turf test sites were provided by CAS and were used to calculate the amount of water
used on each site over the course of the season. Precipitation amounts and temperatures were recorded
weekly from http://classic.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFLG.html , in order to track climate variables
which may influence plant growth and to compare natural precipitation rates with irrigation applications.
2011 SITES and TREATMENTS
TURF SITES
SITE: Ardrey Turf Control Site (AC)
Location: North of Ardrey east entrance, bordered by Knoles Drive and the entrance walkway to the
Clifford White Theatre
Size: ≈ 3,399 ft2
SITE: Ardrey Turf Test Site North (AT-N)
Location: North of Ardrey east entrance, bordered by Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 1,195 ft2
SITE: Ardrey Turf Site South (AT-S)
Location: South of Ardrey east entrance, bordered by Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 2,872 ft2
SITE: Eastburn Turf Control Site (EC)
Location: NE of Eastburn main entrance, bordered by Knoles Drive and Parking lot
Size: ≈ 27,821 ft2
SITE: Eastburn Turf Test Site East (ET-E)
Location: SE of Eastburn main entrance, bordered by Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 15,006 ft2
Treatments:
1. Pelletized corn gluten meal (CG) was applied in on 05/06/11 at a rate of 10 lbs/1,000 ft 2 (total =
150 lbs) and again on 10/08/11 at a rate of 10 lbs/1,000 ft 2 (total = 150 lbs).
2. Pelletized sulfur (90% elemental sulfur, 10% bentonite) was applied on 10/08/11 at a rate of ≈ 10
lbs/1,000 ft2 (total = 150 lbs).
SITE: Eastburn Turf Test Site West (ET-W)
Location: SE of Eastburn main entrance, along side of building
Size: ≈ 3,665 ft2
Treatments:
1. Pelletized CG was applied on 05/06/11 at a rate of 20 lbs/1,000 ft2 (total = 70 lbs) and again on
10/08/11 at a rate of 20 lbs./1,000 ft 2 (total = 70 lbs)
2. Pelletized sulfur (90% elemental sulfur, 10% bentonite) was applied on 10/08/11 at a rate of ≈ 15
lbs./1,000 ft2 (total = 50 lbs)
SITE: Knoles Turf Control Site (KC)
Location: East side of parking garage, north of test site, bordered by Riordan and Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 2,659 ft2
SITE: Knoles Turf Test Site (KT)
Location: East side of parking garage, south of control site, by parking garage entrance
Size: ≈ 1,727 ft2
SITE: SBS Turf Control Site (SC)
Location: North of SBS western entrance, south of test site: triangular corner by sidewalk and parking
lot
Size: ≈ 710 ft2
SITE: SBS Turf Test Site (ST)
Location: North of SBS western entrance, next to parking lot
Size: ≈ 4,362 ft2
Treatments:
On 06/25/11, blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis) seed from High Country Gardens, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, was applied at a rate of ≈ 2 lbs/1,000 ft 2 (total = 7 lbs)
ROCK MULCH SITES
SITE: Clifford White Theatre Rock Mulch Test Site North (RCT-N)
Location: North border of walkway to Clifford White Theatre entrance off of Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 1,657 ft2
Site has a dual-layer weed barrier consisting of a top layer of permeable woven plastic and a bottom
layer of impermeable plastic sheeting.
SITE: Clifford White Theatre Rock Mulch Test Site South (RCT-S)
Location: South border of walkway to Clifford White Theatre entrance off of Knoles Drive
Size: ≈ 487 ft2
SITE: Union Rock Mulch Test Site North (RUT-N)
Location: North of Union building (Knoles Drive side), along wall
Size: 571 ft2
SITE: Union Rock Mulch Test Site South (RUT-S)
Location: South of Union building (Knoles Drive side), along wall
Size: 1,612 ft2
Site has no weed barrier
SITE: SBS Rock Mulch Control Site (RSC)
Location: East of SBS/Castro building, south of walkway to entrance
Size: 2,313 ft2
Site has a single-layer weed barrier (permeable woven plastic).
RESULTS
TURF SITES
Soil Tests
Knoles sites were not tested this season. All sites were alkaline, with pH levels higher than optimal for
turfgrass growth (Table 1). No measurable amounts of sulfur or iron were detected on any sites.
Phosphorus levels were low with the exception of ET-E. Potassium was within the optimal range or
slightly below.
Table 1: Baseline soil test results for 2011 turf sites (nutrient levels in parts per million)
Nitrate
Ammonium
Site
pH
NO3+NO2
NH4
P
K
Ca
Na
Fe
Su
AC
7.80
2.54
9.19
12.83
149.15
2963.11
69.60
<11
<3
AT-N
7.67
2.63
15.34
14.36
143.99
3351.54
158.89
<11
<3
AT-S
7.64
1.61
9.77
15.88
114.39
2725.55
129.31
<11
<3
EC
7.67
4.02
13.29
11.75
203.68
4295.90
41.66
<11
<3
ET-E
7.88
2.63
12.68
19.23
138.53
3300.02
4.95
<11
<3
ET-W
7.67
4.19
17.21
14.89
219.92
4310.43
9.77
<11
<3
SC
7.81
1.29
12.89
13.53
170.45
2649.26
24.35
<11
<3
ST
7.58
4.80
20.64
15.06
175.63
4097.96
19.51
<11
<3
Optimal
5.0range
6.0-7.0
N/A
N/A
16-24
150-240
2400-4799
30.0
Other
ranges
high = high =
found*
8-18
101-150
* Levels were rated as low-medium-high-very high. Levels above “high” required no additional inputs of the nutrient..
Weed Abundance and Diversity
Clover and dandelion were the most abundant weeds across all sites (Table 2). Plantain was abundant
on most sites, with the largest populations on ET-E, ET-W, and AT-N. Cheeseweed, although named by
CAS as a problem weed, was limited and found primarily along edges with bare soil, as was spurge and
most prickly lettuce. Bindweed was noted but found in limited areas where it blended well with the turf
grass. Other weeds were classified together and were not numerous enough to be considered important.
Table 2: Total weed abundance and diversity on 2011 turf sites (per 100 ft 2 of lawn area)
SITE
AC
AT-N
AT-S
EC
ET-E
ET-W
SC
ST
TOTAL/
100 ft2
Dandelion
Clover
Prickly
Lettuce
1.29
4.18
0.97
0.27
0.21
0.35
3.94
4.47
Plantain
1.62
2.68
2.96
18.50
9.78
16.59
14.23
65.84
Cheeseweed
0.06
0.92
0.07
1.14
0.43
5.27
0.28
0.76
15.62
13.81
18.14
21.63
9.17
19.21
14.65
18.94
131.17
Bindweed
Spurge
Other
TOTAL/
100 ft2
18.51
41.42
20.37
4.31
38.91
40.16
14.51
5.02
Black
Medic
1.32
1.51
0.63
4.22
3.05
5.05
15.49
3.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.51
0.00
0.00
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.00
0.09
1.47
2.76
1.57
1.61
3.79
5.89
4.23
2.50
39.89
87.36
44.46
52.68
66.12
92.80
67.32
102.61
132.20
8.93
15.68
182.85
35.14
2.38
0.89 23.82
553.24
Weeding Times
Weeding times fluctuated but stayed within close ranges during the first half of the season and
diminished on some sites until the monsoons began (Figure 1). During the monsoon season, times
increased dramatically due to a surge in plantain and dandelion seedling production and changes in
weeding techniques with the arrival of new interns.
AT-N
AT-S
ET-E
ET-W
ST
14.00
Number of person-hours
12.00
10.00
8.00
Normal
weeding
with no
transect
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Weeding Session
8
9
10
11
Figure 1: Weeding times for turf test sites during 2011 monitoring season
Normal
weeding
with
transect
Knoles Sites
Times for normal weeding (without transecting) on KT diminished over the course of the monitoring
Time (minutes)
season (Figure 2). Weed abundance on KT was significantly lower than on KC (Figure 3).
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y = -2.8571x + 38.333
08/10/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11
KT Weeding Sessions
Total Weeds per 100 ft.2
Figure 2: “Normal” weeding times for Knoles turf test site during 2011 monitoring season
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
KC
KT
08/12/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11
Weeding Sessions
Figure 3: Weed abundance for Knoles turf test and control sites during 2011 monitoring season
Percent Cover
All sites were dominated by thin/thatchy cover (Figure 4).
AC Percent Cover 2011
Soil/holes
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
9%
EC Percent Cover 2011
Thick
Soil/holes
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
11%
9%
3%
26%
41%
47%
54%
AT-S Percent Cover 2011
Soil/holes
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
12% 9%
ET-E Percent Cover 2011
Thick
Soil/holes
4%
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
6%
22%
75%
Weeds
15%
Thick
15%
57%
ET-W Percent Cover 2011
AT-N Percent Cover 2011
Soil/holes
Thick
Thin/thatchy
Thick
Soil/holes
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
Thick
2% 6%
16%
2%
37%
55%
67%
SC Percent Cover 2011
Soil/holes
Weeds
14%
Thin/thatchy
ST Percent Cover 2011
Thick
Soil/holes
Weeds
Thin/thatchy
6%
15%
0%
30%
71%
Figure 4: Variations in ground cover on turf test sites from 2011 monitoring season
37%
27%
Thick
Rock Mulch Sites
All rock mulch sites had minimal weed abundance relative to the size of the plot (Figure 5). Weeding
times stayed between 1 and 10 minutes.
7.00
Number of weeds per 100 ft.2
6.00
RCT-N
RCT-S
5.00
RUT-N
4.00
RUT-S
RSC
3.00
2.00
Herbicide
spray
1.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Weed Monitoring Session
Figure 5: Weed abundance on rock mulch sites for 2011 monitoring season
IRRIGATION ON TURF TEST SITES
Irrigation on test sites was calculated for the season based on head numbers and spray volume (see
Appendix D). Precipitation amounts were recorded in order to compare the amount of water which
naturally occurred to the amount of water applied by irrigation (Table 3).
Table 3: Flagstaff precipitation and irrigation amounts for turf test sites during 2011 monitoring season
Date
Total
Precipitation
(in)
AT-N
Irrigation (gal)
AT-S
Irrigation (gal)
ET-E
Irrigation (gal)
ET-W
Irrigation (gal)
ST
Irrigation (gal)
Mar. 27-April 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
April 3-9
April 10-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,378.50
1,248.30
0.00
April 17-23
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,757.00
2,496.60
0.00
April 24-30
0.00
7,453.00
2,496.60
2,241.00
May 1-7
0.00
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
May 8-14
0.11
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
May 15-21
0.76
1,663.20
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
May 22-28
0.00
2,494.80
2,246.40
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
May 29-June 4
0.00
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
June 5-11
0.00
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
June 12-18
0.00
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
4,482.00
1,108.80
1,108.80
1,663.20
998.40
998.40
1,497.60
0.00
June 19-25
0.00
June 26-July 2
0.00
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
July 3-9
0.57
2,217.60
1,796.00
18,632.50
6,241.50
3,735.00
July 10-16
0.07
1,108.80
998.40
7,453.00
2,496.60
2,241.00
July 17-23
0.38
1,108.80
998.40
7,453.00
2,496.60
2,241.00
July 24-30
1.27
1,108.80
998.40
7,453.00
2,496.60
2,241.00
July 31-Aug. 6
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Aug. 7-13
0.01
1,386.00
1,248.00
9,316.25
1.71
1,663.20
1,497.60
11,179.50
4,369.05
3,744.90
1,467.50
Aug. 14-20
Aug. 21-27
0.10
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
Aug. 28-Sept. 3
0.00
3,326.40
2,995.20
22,359.00
7,489.80
4,482.00
2.22
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
1.11
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
0.01
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
0.11
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
1.57
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
0.00
1,663.23
1,497.60
11,179.50
3,744.90
2,241.00
0.00
1,663.23
1,497.60
0.00
0.00
2,241.00
0.37
831.60
748.80
0.00
0.00
2,241.00
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,120.50
46,973.60 gal.
352,563.25 gal.
121,709.25 gal.
78,035.00 gal.
Sept. 4-10
Sept. 11-17
Sept. 18-24
Sept. 25-Oct. 1
Oct. 2-8
Oct. 9-15
Oct. 16-22
Oct. 23-29
Oct. 30-Nov. 5
TOTALS
Total Irrigation
3,326.40
13.62 in.
52,391.01 gal.
651,672.11 gal.
2,995.20
2,241.00
DISCUSSION
Issues with plant identification
During baseline and first round of data collection, all plants resembling clover were counted as clover.
During subsequent collections, plants such as black medic (Medicago lupulina) and oxalis (Oxalis
corniculata) were able to be separately identified due to flowering. Other plants, such as plantain,
became more apparent and easily identified as well. Prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) was often
counted as dandelion during initial counts and, like medic and oxalis, may still be problematic when in
the seedling stage and for those collectors less experienced with botanical identification. It therefore
must be assumed that some plants were misidentified in early counts and also during new seedling
stages, such as during the monsoons. It is further assumed, however, that most grounds-workers would
group these “look-alike” plants together for the purpose of elimination; therefore these discrepancies
may not impact the validity of our results.
Turf Sites
Soil Test Interpretations
Using the Internet as a resource, it was found that the recommended soil nutrient levels for turfgrass
varied depending on the source. The site used as the reference for optimal levels was chosen because
the levels were similar to a number of other sites:
http://documents.crinet.com/AgSource-Cooperative-Services/Locations/UnderSoilAnaly.pdf
Internet research continuously reiterated the belief that there is no reliable way to test for plant available
nitrogen in soil due to seasonal variability and the overall transient nature of the nutrient. One source
indicated that total nitrogen levels should be <20, but it also stated that the ratio of nitrate to ammonium
was more critical than the actual levels themselves: nitrate levels should be three or more times greater
than ammonium levels, i.e. 9 ppm nitrate to 3 ppm ammonium (http://groundsmag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_keeping_eye_nitrogen/). In some cases, ammonium may not
break down sufficiently due to lack of oxygen or compaction and thus the nitrogen cannot be taken up
by the plants. Our results indicated that nitrogen levels varied greatly between sites, and all sites showed
a ratio of ammonium and nitrate which was the inverse of the ratio recommended in the above article
(Figure 5). The high levels of ammonium may indicate issues with compaction as well as a lack of
active soil microorganisms which would normally transform the ammonium into nitrate and make it
available to be taken up by the plants.
Micrograms per gram dry soil
25.00
20.00
15.00
Nitrate NO3+NO2
10.00
Ammonium NH4
5.00
0.00
AC
AT-N
AT-S
EC
ET-E
ET-W
SC
ST
Figure 5: Nitrogen ratios on turf sites
According to our references, potassium and phosphorus levels were optimal to low. It must be noted,
however, that the recommended levels of potassium and phosphorus showed the greatest variance when
researching optimal levels. If other references than the ones stated above were used, phosphorus levels
on most sites would be considered high, and potassium levels on all sites would be considered high to
very high (see: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/components/1731-complete.pdf
for other levels). According to Woods and Rossi (USGA 2011), high potassium can increase dandelion
production. Any recommendations regarding the input of phosphorus and potassium should keep these
discrepancies in mind.
Soil Test Recommendations
Given the variability of the nitrogen levels and the wide range in which phosphorus and potassium could
be interpreted, we do not recommend applying any traditional N-P-K fertilizer until further soil tests are
performed over time. Nitrogen may be added via corn gluten meal (CGM) treatments for weed control,
since CGM contains approximately 10% nitrogen by weight. This application would serve a dual
purpose of providing nitrogen to the grass while inhibiting weed seed germination. Properly composted
animal manure and/or other organic material are non-toxic, low-level nitrogen applications which could
be used as a top-dressing on turf sites. Top-dressing with any good quality compost would add nitrogen
as well as improve soil structure and introduce microbes for better nitrification. Any applications
involving phosphorus or potassium should be determined when soil test results indicate a definite
deficiency. Plant tissue tests are also an option to determine nutrient levels.
To add sulfur and acidify soil, elemental sulfur can be applied at approximately 7-10 lbs./1,000 ft2 for
clay soils with established turf (http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/hort2/mf2311.pdf). Ideally, sulfur
should be applied when the turf is first established (i.e. tilled into the soil). On established turf, it should
be applied when coring/aeration takes place in the spring or fall. Sulfur should be applied in frequent,
smaller amounts to avoid burning. It should be applied when temperatures are cooler (<80F) and be
watered in. Hard water, which is common in Flagstaff and in reclaimed water used for irrigation, can
make it more difficult to achieve acidification with elemental sulfur. Treatments with ammonium sulfate
may ameliorate that effect (http://www.turf.uiuc.edu/extension/ext-fert.html). According to Tilman, et
al (Ecological Applications 1999): “… fertilization of lawns with NH4SO4 [ammonium sulfate] favored
lawn grasses and caused marked reduction in Taraxacum… Soil acidification caused by ammonium
sulfate fertilization may also have played a role in this dominance by grasses.” Ammonium sulfate,
however, is not considered an “organic” product and is prohibited according to the Organic Materials
Review Institute (OMRI) requirements. In accordance with the intentions of this study, it would
therefore not be a suitable material. Ferrous and ferric sulfates are organically acceptable amendments
that can also have an acidifying effect. Since the sites are deficient in iron, an iron sulfate is one suitable
option. Foliar applications of ferrous sulfate are more readily available to plants than soil applications,
particularly in alkaline soils, but results are short-lived. Chelated iron, as Fe-EDDHA and Fe-DTPA,
will be more readily available in soil applications than unchelated forms and should be applied at a rate
of 2-3 pounds per 1000 ft 2. Monthly applications are recommended during the growing season. The best
solution for low iron is to improve the overall soil health and increase organic matter and microbial
activity; natural chelates will then be formed.
(See: http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/az1415.pdf for the above-referenced information regarding
Arizona soil pH and iron).
Initial Application of Sulfur on Select Turf Test Sites
Due to a miscommunication, pelletized sulfur was applied to ET-E and ET-W at much higher rates than
recommended (see Methodology: 2011 Test Sites and Treatments). The excessive application rate did
not appear to burn the grass; this may have been due to cool temperatures and the ensuing dormancy of
the plants. To properly incorporate the sulfur into the established turf, aeration should have preceded
application or been done immediately after application and before watering-in. Watering-in occurred
immediately after application, and aeration was performed 10 days later. Soil tests conducted in the
spring of 2012 will help determine whether or not the sulfur was retained within the soil by the late
aeration. The high application rate may have a greater effect on soil pH than the recommended rates
would have shown. If this is indicated by the next round of soil tests, we may consider using higher
rates on other sites, provided the application is done late in the season to avoid turf damage.
Weeding Tools
Three weeding tools were used during the monitoring season: Ames® Dandelion Digger, Ames®
HoundDog WeedHound Elite, and Grampa’s Weeder®. The Dandelion Digger was very successful in
pulling plantain due to the plant’s shallow root system and compact form. Small plants in particular
could be rapidly removed using a scooping motion. This tool required bending from the waist or
squatting/kneeling, making it difficult to use for long periods of time.
Grampa’s Weeder® worked with some success provided it was centered correctly over the plant. The
clamping mechanism caused the surrounding turf to tear in clumps, leading to a larger amount of soil
and grass being removed than with the other tools. The pulled weeds had to be pulled off of the tool by
hand; they would not fall off into the bucket nor could they be scraped off on the edge of the bucket.
This was particularly problematic in wet soil.
The WeedHound was determined to be the most successful tool overall. It pulled all types of weeds
easily, leaving a hole similar in size to the aeration holes. The sliding mechanism discharged the weeds
into the bucket with one or two strokes. The spiked end could be driven into the soil with moderate
pressure, although very dry, compacted soil could take more effort. With all tools, some weeds were not
completely removed, as evidenced by the discovery of large, healthy weeds (primarily dandelion)
growing out of the removal holes on the subsequent monitoring session. This may be due to incorrect
centering over the weed before removal or the incomplete removal of the entire root system.
Weeding Times
Weeding times varied but stayed within close ranges prior to the monsoon season (Figure 1). Increases
in precipitation were correlated with a sharp increase in seedling production, particularly plantain and
dandelion on ET-E and ET-W, which subsequently led to longer weeding times. The training of new
interns also increased weeding times: the techniques were not consistent with those of the previous
interns, and thus more weeds were being pulled/counted than during the preceding sessions (see Figure
1, Sessions 8, 9, and 10).
Weed Diversity and Abundance
Dandelion was the most common weed found throughout the season, with an increase in seedling
growth during the onset of the monsoons. White clover and black medic were found throughout the
season, although medic was not identified as separate from clover until it began to flower in the
beginning of June. Both clover and medic formed patches which were counted as “individuals”.
Patches of clover varied in size from a few inches to 6 feet or more in diameter. Due to the size
variations and subjectivity of the person counting (i.e. deciding what constitutes a single patch), a better
system of measuring clover would be percent cover: rather than counting plants as individuals,
measurement is based on the amount of surface area covered by clover within a given space. We will
explore alternative methods of measurement for future research seasons, and implement what seems to
be the most valid and efficient.
Medic was usually removed, since the patches form from a central stem; there were occasions, however,
when many individual plants were found close together and removing all of them would create too large
a hole in the turf. Clover forms colonies via surface-covering stems (stolons) which root and could not
be removed without digging. We intend to test removal methods in 2012, including the use of non-toxic
sprays such as vinegar and hand-digging the patches; the bare areas would then be reseeded with turf
grass.
We are also studying the visual effects of having clover mixed in a grass lawn. Although current NAU
landscape practices are designed to remove clover (such as the use of broadleaf herbicidal sprays), the
plants are common in many lawns around the world, where they make nitrogen available to the turf
grass and keep a thick, green cover when many grasses are brown and dormant (such as early spring and
late fall). If the inclusion of clover does not reduce the aesthetic appeal of turf areas, it may be a more
sustainable choice to encourage it rather than remove it.
Cheeseweed was identified by CAS as a problem weed, but it was relatively uncommon in turf areas.
Cheeseweed was primarily found along the edges of paved areas or around shrubs where it grew in
exposed soil. The best strategy for removal would be reseeding exposed soil with the appropriate
turfgrass in order to prevent cheeseweed from establishing.
Other plants (excluding plantain: see below) were found in limited numbers and were therefore not seen
as having a negative impact on the lawns. Most plants occurred in disturbed areas, such as pavement
edges and bare soil, where over-seeding with turfgrass would greatly reduce the weed’s ability to
establish.
Plantain Abundance and Problems with Counts: Plantain was an unexpectedly abundant weed. Plantain
was sparse during the beginning of the season but became extremely prolific once the monsoons began.
Seedlings were the most problematic, forming large clumps of dozens of individuals which were
difficult to completely remove without causing excessive damage to the turf (i.e. creating large holes).
This was particularly an issue on the Eastburn sites, ET-E and ET-W, where the researchers were unable
to count and pull all individuals and resorted to counting patches in a manner similar to that used to
count clover. In the future, it would be best to remove patches of plantain by digging or with the
application of a non-toxic herbicidal spray, and follow with grass seeding.
At the end of the 2011 summer research session, plantain individuals were numbering in the thousands
but were being counted in clumps or only as larger individuals by the summer interns. New interns
began training in the fall but were not informed of the summer interns’ techniques. Due to the focus of
training, a greater-than-usual number of plantains were counted on ET-E and ET-W which skewed the
numbers when compared to previous counts. This is notable in the graphs which contain total weed
numbers (Figures 6). If plantain counts are removed from the graph, the data is more consistent with
the overall condition of the lawns relative to general weed abundance (Figure 7).
18
EC
Total Weeds per 100 ft2
16
ET-E
14
ET-W
12
Normal
weeding
with no
transect
(both test
sites)
10
8
6
4
Herbicide
application
2
0
Corn gluten
meal
application
Date of Weeding
Figure 6: Total weed abundance for Eastburn turf sites
Total weeds per 100 ft2 (excluding plantain)
18
EC
16
ET-E
14
ET-W
12
Normal
weeding
with no
transect
(both test
sites)
10
8
6
4
Herbicide
application
2
0
Corn gluten
meal
application
Date of weeding
Figure 7: Total weed abundance without plantain counts for Eastburn turf sites
“Normal” Weeding
Normal weeding was performed once on all turf test sites during the 2011 season in order to imitate the
work of a typical grounds keeper. Standard transecting, with all found weeds counted and identified,
followed the normal weeding in order to count any weeds missed during normal weeding; this produced
the correct total number of weeds for that data collection session.
Transecting was not performed on ET-E and ET-W following normal weeding. This produced an
anomaly in the data, showing a dramatic dip in weed numbers when graphed (Figures 1, 6, and 7).
Hand-weeding can be considered a labor and time intensive process. In order to accurately predict what
CAS would need to allocate for hand-weeding, we will increase the frequency of normal weeding in
2012.
Knoles and “Normal” Weeding
The turf sites, KT and KC, were incorporated late in the monitoring season and therefore had fewer
monitoring sessions than other sites. The test site, KT, was normally weeded without transecting; the
control site, KC, was transected, and weeds were counted and identified. While KT had fewer weeds to
begin with, hand-weeding treatments showed a significant reduction in weed abundance when compared
to KC, and weeding times diminished over the course of the season (Figures 2 and 3).
Percent Cover
Percent cover was used to determine the quality of the turf areas in terms of the visual health of the grass
and overall aesthetic appeal as a lawn. Four categories were used: (1) thick grass: an “ideal” lawn look
and density; (2) thin/thatchy: sparse and/or unhealthy looking grass (thin, pale blades) with large
amounts of dead grass present; (3) weeds; and (4) bare soil (including aeration and weeding holes which
were not filling in). All sites showed a predominance of thin and thatchy cover (Figure 4), where 6 out
of the 8 sites had a greater than 50% thin/thatchy appearance. Grass health and density can have a direct
impact on reducing weed species simply by outcompeting the weeds for resources (water, space). By
increasing the density of the grass cover through soil improvements and overseeding with better adapted
grass species, weeds may become less of an issue.
Treatment Responses
Treatments included the application of corn gluten meal, elemental sulfur, and overseeding with the
native grass species, blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis). Corn gluten meal (CGM) is a pre-emergent
herbicide which prevents seeds from forming viable root systems. It is also a nitrogen source. The
spring application of CGM on ET-E and ET-W may have influenced lower weed production when
compared to EC (Figure 6). The fall application was meant to serve more as a fertilizer rather than as a
pre-emergent, as plant growth had already diminished due to falling temperatures. An application of
CGM at the onset of the monsoon season may negatively affect seedling production which is normally
increased by the precipitation. This could be particularly noticeable with dandelions and plantain. A
mid-season application will be tried in 2012. Other research has shown that it takes repeated
applications over several seasons before the effects of CGM can be clearly noted.
Elemental sulfur was applied on ET-E and ET-W in late fall. Soil tests conducted in spring 2012 will
determine whether or not the sulfur was incorporated into the soil and if pH was noticeably affected.
Reducing the pH and increasing sulfur content (which was undetectable in soil tests) can encourage
grass growth and limit weeds.
Blue grama grass seed was applied to ST in late June. A few weeks later, some seedling production was
detected along the eastern part of the lawn where exposed soil lay next to the shrub beds. Overall,
however, it was difficult to differentiate between new blue grama growth and existing grass.
Rock Mulch Sites
There may have been confusion between the two Union rock mulch sites, when they were designated as
RUT1 and RUT2 rather than having the current north and south designations. General observations by
team members noted more weeds being present on the south site, where early season warming, abundant
light, and a lack of a weed barrier could increase weed production. The data collection record, however,
shows higher weed numbers on the north site. By the time the questionable data was noted, it was too
late to question the team members who did the data recording, as they would not have been able to recall
those particular sessions due to the passage of time.
Overall, weeds were minimal on all test sites (Figure 5) and were most commonly found along edges,
around plantings (shrubs and trees), or in built-up soil on top of the weed barriers. Both grasses and
herbaceous plants were observed. The control site, RSC, had the greatest number of noticeable weeds
(easily seen when walking by) due to the dead/dried remains of the plants following herbicidal spray
application (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Dead grass and mallow on RSC following herbicidal spraying
Weeds were pulled by hand rather than with the WeedHound in order to protect the weed barriers.
Large areas could take more time and require more physical effort if a tool which can be used while
standing, such as the WeedHound, cannot be used. If weed barriers are intact, however, and edges and
plantings are properly protected, weed numbers should be minimal, and hand-pulling may not be a
problem. Rock mulch areas are also suitable for non-selective alternative herbicides, such as vinegar,
where overspray is not a concern.
Irrigation
One of the keys to more sustainable landscaping is reducing water inputs. Although the Sustainable
Landscape Maintenance Project did not manipulate irrigation during the 2011 monitoring season, we
recorded precipitation amounts and calculated irrigation applications on turf test sites in order to better
understand the amounts of water going into the plots (see Appendix D and Table 3).
Precipitation totals for Flagstaff in 2011 were 20.77 inches, with SLM monitoring season totals of 13.62
in. (http://classic.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFLG/2011/12/1/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar).
Inches of precipitation were converted to gallons per 100 ft 2 of soil using the calculator found at:
http://www.virtualsecrets.com/annual-rainfall-water-calculator.html. Each square foot of soil in
Flagstaff received approximately 12.88 gallons of precipitation per year. For our research, this
translates to 349,048 gallons per year for our total turf test plot size of 27,100 ft 2. An additional
651,672.11 gallons of irrigation water was applied during the 32-week monitoring season (Table 3), for
a total of 1,000,720 gallons of water going into the turf test plots. When examining these numbers, it is
important to remember that Flagstaff has many microclimates. The generic precipitation totals for
Flagstaff as a whole are not necessarily accurate for NAU’s landscape. The numbers are still useful,
however, and are sufficient for the purpose of this research.
Despite the large amount of water the sites received, the overall grass quality and density was marginal,
as the percent cover observations found most turf to be thin and thatchy (Figure 4). Less-than-ideal soil
quality plays a large role in the health of the grass as well. If the Southwest continues to become drier,
as it has been for some years now, water inputs such as these will be impossible to rationalize. While
irrigation water is often reclaimed water, it still raises the question of just how much water should be put
into lawn care. There may also be broader issues associated with the use of reclaimed water, as it has
been shown to increase salts and other deposits in the soil and possibly have an adverse effect on soil
microbes and plant growth (http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/42002678.pdf).
Appendix A:
Eliminating Herbicide Use on the NAU Campus
An opportunity to advance the Strategic Plan
Prepared by Paul Gazda, 28 February 2007
Updated 13 April 2007
For the latest version of this document, see: www2.nau.edu/~pag/HerbicideElimination.pdf
Executive Summary
Goal 3 of NAU’s new Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan, Stewardship and Sustainability of Place,
calls on the NAU community to “elevate the environmental…vitality of our communities through
collaborative stewardship of place.” Eliminating herbicide use on the Mountain Campus offers an
opportunity to answer this call in an important way.
There is increasing evidence of the toxicity of herbicides and pesticides to humans and animals. A 2004
literature review by the Ontario [Canada] College of Family Physicians concluded that exposure to all
the commonly used pesticides has shown positive associations with adverse health effects. A recent
study reported in Scientific American showed that individually “safe” levels of these chemicals can
inflict serious harm on the ecosystem when combined. With growing evidence of the negative human
and environmental impact of herbicides, how can their continued use be in keeping with NAU’s goal of
providing leadership in sustainable practices?
The Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan provides a framework within which we can provide
leadership in the global efforts to eliminate toxic herbicide use by learning from those who have
already begun to address this problem and then contributing back to this knowledge base our own
locally developed practices. By using the practical problem of finding an effective alternative to
herbicides as a springboard for research and focused education, NAU can have a broad positive impact.
Local communities that are struggling with the issue of herbicide use can look to NAU for help in
finding viable non-toxic alternatives. Not only will such leadership provide a great service to
surrounding communities, but it will garner goodwill in the process. Students, parents, faculty and
staff would enthusiastically support NAU’s elimination of herbicides. It is a sign of a university that truly
cares about its community. Eliminating herbicide use on the NAU campus provides an excellent fit with
Goal 3 of our Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan. It addresses both Strategies and eight of the
twelve Initiatives under Goal 3, and should therefore be given a high priority for implementation.
Recommendations
1. That NAU set a goal of eliminating herbicide use on its Mountain Campus.
2. That a project be undertaken to find viable alternatives to herbicides such that the appearance
and health of campus grounds can be maintained in a non-toxic manner.
3. That a steering committee consisting of staff, faculty and students be established to guide this
project, set a timeline for complete herbicide elimination, and facilitate project collaboration
amongst interested campus groups.
4. That NAU’s successes in this effort be shared with the broader community to help eliminate
herbicides on a regional scale.
Appendix B:
Green Fund Project Proposal for
Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project
Overview
The NAU Grounds Department is required to keep the campus grounds free of weeds while working with limited
human and material resources. The only way they have found to accomplish this is through the use of toxic
herbicides, which have been linked to cancer and other diseases as well as ecosystem disruption. Although
Grounds uses the minimum amount necessary, which is often less than the manufacturer’s suggested
concentration, it is not in keeping with NAU’s sustainability goals to continue to use toxic chemicals indefinitely. In
the Climate Action Plan, the Grounds Department has set a goal of testing non-toxic grounds maintenance
methods until a successful method is discovered and herbicide use on campus can be reduced.
Although Grounds is willing to put forth the effort to test new methods, their resources are severely limited and
they have not been able to fund the people and materials necessary for a pilot project to test new methods. We
are asking the Green Fund to make it possible to conduct a pilot project to study alternative non-toxic landscape
maintenance methods. A pilot project is an extremely important first step, without which NAU will not be able to
move toward its goal of reducing herbicide use on campus.
In the proposed pilot project, several campus lawn and rock mulch areas will be designated as sustainable
landscape maintenance areas. These will be maintained using the best organic, non-toxic practices available, and
compared with control areas maintained with the Grounds Department’s standard procedures using toxic weed
control chemicals. Collaboration with SSLUG to provide organic nutrients will be pursued. Signage will educate
the public on the nature of the project and refer to a web site with more information on the process and benefits of
non-toxic landscape maintenance. The project will run from spring through fall of 2011 and include a project report
with background, procedure, findings and recommendations. The cost of the project will include a paid student
intern each semester to plan, coordinate and evaluate the project in cooperation with the Grounds Department,
additional hours for student workers to assist with landscape maintenance activities, and the cost of seeds, soil
amendments, etc.
1. Visibility
Our project proposes several test sites and will be visible throughout campus. We have chosen sites that are well
seen. The North side of the SBS West building on campus, which is right next to the busiest bus stop on South
Campus, beside Ardrey Auditorium, which is also beside a busy bus stop as well as across from the Union, and in
front of the Eastburn Education Center which is easily seen from the road and a busy sidewalk. These test plots
will have signage on them, which will allow students to understand and read about what we are doing and why.
They will be able to visibly see and support what their tuition money is going towards; which as a student myself,
is very important. The project will also include an educational component via a related web site which will
encourage students to do research and learn about what we are trying to accomplish, become more aware of the
project and hopefully become involved as well. The test plots will increase student awareness that there are toxic
herbicides and pesticides on campus and that there are other, non-toxic and environmentally friendly ways to go
about treating the grounds at NAU. Information about the pilot could also be featured on Earth Day and possibly
tied into a campus cleanup event that includes weeding of the test plots.
2. Meets Student Priorities
This project meets following priorities based on the survey results.
Survey: How strongly do you agree/disagree?
Integrating sustainable practices (such as use of renewable energy and energy efficiency) into university
life is worthwhile. 74% strongly agree. 22.6% somewhat agree.
Sustainable practices on campus are a low priority for students.
53.5% somewhat or strongly disagree.
This project deals with the campus landscape which student see and use every day. They sit on grass to eat,
read and socialize, play recreational games, stage events, etc. Students will benefit from knowing the importance
of clean and sustainable landscape maintenance practices to their daily life.
Twenty-first century jobs increasingly rely on professionals who are aware of sustainable practices.
37.7% strongly agree. 47.9% somewhat agree.
Learning about sustainable practices is irrelevant to my college experience.
31.3% somewhat disagreed. 45.4% strongly disagreed.
The educational component of this project will make students in all disciplines more aware of sustainability issues.
Survey: What should Green Fund support?
Grants for student research and sustainability projects applicable to all areas of study
41.3% very important. 35.8% somewhat important.
A variety of majors and disciplines can take part- from the sciences such as biology, chemistry or environmental
sciences, in which students can help monitor and use the plots for research and observation on how chemicals
may or may not effect the grass test plots, to communication majors who will be able to report, photograph, write
about, and help promote our cause to eliminate the toxic chemicals used on campus.
Other sustainability initiatives (such as recycle bin purchase, Yellow Bike Program expansion)
55.2% very important. 29.3 somewhat important.
This project can tie in with other sustainability initiatives on campus such as composting and SSLUG organic
gardening.
3. Economically Feasible/Sustainable
Purpose of this project is to develop, examine and evaluate alternatives. Will end with a report including
recommendations on further action. If viable alternatives are found, it is hoped that funding could be taken over by
the ongoing Operations budget or some other central fund of NAU rather than the Green Fund. At this point, NAU
Operations will be providing staff for routine maintenance such as grass mowing, litter pick up, etc. The Green
Fund is being asked to provide funds for organic materials, non-toxic pre-emergent treatment, extra grass seed,
the student intern responsible for the research aspect of the project, and additional student worker hours for
manual weed removal.
4. Program Longevity
If viable sustainable methods are proven in this project, it is hoped that NAU Operations would take over the
project and merge with their ongoing grounds maintenance program.
5. Reasonable Timeline
The project is specifically planned for one full landscape maintenance cycle from spring through fall of 2011. It
should be possible to see results and trends by then, but due to the desired outcome of building sustainable soil
and plant health, it may take longer for the pilot plots to become self-sustaining. It may be desirable to extend the
project for additional semesters if additional time is needed to draw conclusions regarding the long term
characteristics of the methods being studied. Whether it would be desirable to extend the study will not be known
until the fall semester 2011.
6. Campus Community Involvement
Our project involves students in several ways and different aspects to include a wide variety of people at NAU.
With the proposed test plots, there will be attention from the student population and interest in what we are trying
to accomplish. These plots also need maintenance and monitoring. We hope to bring other students, student run
organizations and disciplines such as SSLUG and the ART groups of the Master’s in Sustainability Communities,
internships and capstone projects into the process to help us achieve our final goal, which is to eliminate toxic
herbicides and pesticides on campus. There are an endless number of students that can choose to participate
with this project and the more the better!
7. Impact
The costs are for labor, seed, organic fertilizers, etc. to build a healthy soil in which plants and microorganism can
establish themselves and become self-sustaining. The benefits are achieving a clean, sustainable landscape that
does not require endless application of toxic chemicals which accumulate in the environment. This project could
be integrated as field study with classes related to the sciences (biology, botany, environmental science, etc.).
The signage and educational website will provide information to student of all disciplines on sustainability as it
relates to their daily lives.
8. Meets Campus Sustainability Goals
Climate Action Section 3 - Operations
Goal 2
Reduce the impact of chemicals used on campus.
Action
Continue to use Green Seal Certified cleaning products. Continue test-plot research on non-toxic grounds
maintenance methods until a successful method is discovered and herbicide use on campus can be reduced.
Responsible Party
The Director of Operations will oversee these efforts.
Measure of Success
The reduction of chemicals used on campus.
Green Fund Project Budget for
Notes: In consultation with the Grounds Department, we have addressed your concerns about the budget of our
proposal, and have been able to reduce the budget from $34,627 to $26,952. The following are the steps we
took.
First, we considered partnering with SEED, SSLUG, Eco House, or Botany for student volunteer workers, or
perhaps for academic credit/internships, for manual weed removal on the test plots. The Grounds department has
concerns about the reliability of volunteers for a project of this duration, and the additional supervision and
coordination it would require from their staff. With their mandate to keep these highly visible areas free of weeds
for a full year, they felt that volunteers would not be a reliable option. However, as an alternative, we agreed that
an academic credit internship could be posted each semester for manual weed removal along with data collection
and other duties related to the research aspect of the project. The budget does not assume that the internship
would be filled each semester, since it may be difficult to find students to fill the internship for all three semesters;
but for each semester that an intern is found, the student worker budget would be reduced accordingly.
After discussions with Jacqueline Vaughn, who coordinates internships for Environmental Studies, we feel that
the originally proposed paid internship for a student to lead the research aspect of the project must remain a paid
internship due to the time commitment and level of responsibility of the position. The paid internship is of highest
importance for the success of the project, and it is felt that offering payment plus the possibility of academic credit
is necessary to attract a student each semester to that position. Although it is possible that the same student
could continue for more than one semester, we are assuming that different students would fill the paid and
academic credit internships each semester due to limits on internship credits, and to make the opportunity
available to more students. Draft descriptions of the internships are included with this application.
Second, we looked at the total area test of 53,000 square feet. We realized that by switching the test area at the
largest site (Eastburn Education building) from larger north segment to the smaller south segment (a sidewalk
provides a natural divider), a major reduction to 24,000 square feet could be achieved. This significantly reduces
the labor and material costs, while maintaining a large enough test area to retain the visibility and effectiveness of
the research aspect of the project.
Third, we have discussed partnering with Gardens for Humanity, a registered non-profit, to obtain donations of
corn gluten, organic fertilizer, sulfur etc, for the project. The President of Gardens for Humanity has expressed
support for the idea, but formal approval would be required by their board once a specific donation proposal is
received. We have thus far approached five different companies regarding donating some of the materials
required by the project, and have thus far received a reply from one company indicating they are not willing to
donate. We will continue to pursue this option, and any donations will reduce the budget request accordingly.
Fourth, we will look into grants to help fund this project. There is not time to locate and apply for grants before the
start of spring semester, but we will look for grants throughout the duration of the project. Any grants received will
reduce the amount needed from the Green Fund. If we miss the spring semester window, the project will probably
have to be delayed a full year until spring 2012 since it depends on the growing season and herbicide application
cycle. So we would like to proceed on the basis that we will look for grants to replace Green Fund money
throughout the life of the project. The grant search and application process will be part of the student interns’
work.
In summary, this revised budget request represents a reduction of $7,675 from the originally proposed budget. It
should be considered a “worst case” budget. We will look for ways to reduce the Green Fund budget through
student interns, material donations and grant funding throughout the life of the project. Costs will be tracked
throughout the project. Any budgeted funds that are not used, or are replaced by the options mentioned above,
will be returned to the Green Fund.
Materials:
Corn Gluten, Organic Fertilizer, Sulfur, Perennial Rye Seed - $3,860
Soil Testing: $750.00
Signage: $250
Labor:
Chemical Applicators, Staff for Corn Gluten, Seed, Sulfur and Fertilizer Application, Airification, etc - $6,076
Student Worker Costs:
Student Workers for Manual Weed Pulling, monitoring, etc. - $8,416
Miscellaneous Tools and use of State Vehicles for Students: $2,200
Student Intern to plan and conduct research component of project:
150 hrs @ $12/hour = $1,800/semester for fall, summer, spring 2011 semesters.
Total student intern cost: $1,800 x 3 semesters = $5,400
Total cost (spring, summer, fall 2011): $26,952
Total Costs per Semester: $8,984
Green Fund Project Timeline for
Spring semester 2011 – Research existing documents and new sources to confirm best methods for sustainable
landscape maintenance; develop detailed maintenance plan; develop methods to document processes and
measure results; begin application of methods to pilot plots; document processes and measure results; maintain
complete and accurate project documentation.
Summer semester 2011 – Continue application of methods to pilot plots; document processes and measure
results; maintain complete and accurate documentation; begin drafting project report.
Summer semester 2011 – Finish application of methods to pilot plots; document processes and measure results;
maintain complete and accurate project documentation; produce final project report.
Green Fund Project Maintenance and Operations Plan for
A) What maintenance will be needed (how often and for how long)?
This project is a variation on ongoing landscape maintenance operations that occur every year. Only the details of
the methods used will be different for purposes of this project.
B) Who is responsible for the maintenance?
NAU Grounds department.
C) What costs are associated with the maintenance and where will funding come
from?
All additional costs for special procedures of this project are accounted for in the project budget. Depending on
the results of the pilot project, NAU Grounds may continue with the modified methodology or revert to standard
methods.
Appendix C: 1
Plot Measuring
Each plot was measured using a measuring wheel calibrated in feet. The plots were walked on the inside
of the cement surrounding it. Each side was measured and drawn on paper. To get the angles of each
area within a plot, the corners were measured on each side (a and b) and then the distance between the
endpoints on each side was measured (c). These measurements for the sides and width were placed into
Equation 1 to calculate the angle:
Equation 1
Equation 1 is made true by the Law of Cosines, which is an extension of the Pythagorean Theorem. This
equation was chosen because it has been proven to be correct since the 19 th century, which means that
the equation does work and by rearranging the law of cosines you can solve for any side or angle
needed. This equation is based off of Figure 1: in this picture, the angle γ (gamma) is shown along with
the measured sides and width.
Outer side of
the corner
Outer side of
the corner
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a triangle with sides of length a, b, and c and, angles of α, β, and γ respectively, where a
and b are the outside lengths of the corner and c is the width and γ is the angle we solved for. There was
slight error within the measuring of the sides and width of each corner. For one inch there was a 6%
range of error present.
To find the area of each plot, the lengths of all sides and angles were drawn into Devinci: Almode, an
appraisal program which automatically calculates the area when the drawing is finished. Each of the
plots were very different sizes and shapes which meant that some semi-circular corners needed to be
changed to 90 degree corners to aid in the drawing of the plots. This had to be done because there is no
formula to calculate the radius of the semi-circular corners, and they could not be accurately measured.
The program need to have each line and angle added separately; thus, by making the angles 90 degrees
instead of semi-circles, it made the measurements more accurate. However, making the side lengths
more accurate made the areas slightly inaccurate. Each area has an approximate 3% error per changed
corner.
C-2
Plot Measuring- Knoles
In order to measure the plots Knoles Turf Test Site (KT) and Knoles Turf Control Site (KC), the plots
were walked on the inside of the cement surrounding them. Both plots were measured and then drawn
by Auto Cad (version: D.309.0.0, Auto Computer Aided Design 2010. Manufacturer: Autodesk).
To make the measurements, a 100 foot tape was used to measure the side near the sidewalk, and a 20
foot tape was used to measure the other sides. Side A was measured and marked at 1 foot. Then side B
was measured and marked at 1 foot. Then the distance between the two marked points was measured
and noted as side C (Figure 1).
When each measurement was finished, the data was noted on a sketch in a notebook and labeled with a
number for use with Auto Cad. To calculate the angle, the Law of Cosines was used (Equation 1 and
Figure 2):
Equation 1
Some parts of the plots were curved. For those segments, a method that measures distance at a sample of
points on the curve was used to determine the shape of the curve. Points were chosen at 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 inches, and then the distance to the curve was recorded. (Figure 3).
After
finishing the measurement of the plot Knoles Parking Garage, the sketch was drawn in the Auto Cad.
Changes were made to Auto Cad Default setting to meet the requirements for the drawing. For example,
in the computer, the default setting of length was meter. It was changed to inch. The dimension was also
changed from meter to inch.
In order to draw the shape of the curved area, first of all, a straight line was drawn in the Auto Cad.
Then concentric which had radius of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 inches were drawn. After that,
lines were drawn which were perpendicular to the straight line drawn at the beginning. The lengths of
the lines were made the same as the lengths in the notebook. In the end, the extremities of all the lines
were connected. The resulting figure was similar to the shape of the curve in the upper left of (Figure 4).
For the calculation of the area, one order in Auto Cad called ‘Area’ was used. In order to calculate the
value of the area, the order “Area” was typed into the command bar. Then all the points were chosen one
by one. After all the points were chosen, “Enter” was clicked and the value of the area was shown in the
command bar. See Figures 5 and 6 for completed drawings.
Appendix D:
IRRIGATION INFORMATION FOR 2011 TURF TEST PLOTS
IRRIGATION HEADS
Rainbird 1800 (and/or brass) popups: all styles 1.58 precipitation inches/hour
Nozzle: 15 series
Pressure: 30 psi
¼ Flow: gpm 0.92
½ Flow: gpm 1.85
¾ Flow: gpm 2.78
Full Flow: gpm 3.70
Rainbird 15103 Impact head
Pressure: 50 psi
Single head: gpm 2.90
Hunter I-20 rotary heads: 0.57 precipitation inches/hour
Nozzle: 6.0
Pressure: 50 psi
All heads: gpm 5.5
EASTBURN: Turned on approximately April 12 - Turned off approximately Oct. 17
Station
1 (ET-W)
Popups Rainbird 1800 or brass
9 = ½ heads = 16.65 gpm
TOTAL: 18 heads = 41.61 gpm
6 = full heads = 22.2 gpm
1 start @ 15 min. = 624.15 gallons/ day
3 = ¼ heads = 2.76 gpm
2 start @ 15 min. = 1,248.30 gallons/ day
April 12 - May 1:
May 1 - May 22:
May 23 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:
1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2,496.60 gallons/wk
3,744.90 gallons/wk
7,489.80 gallons/wk
2,496.60 gallons/ 2 days
2,496.60 gallons/2 days
3,744.90 gallons/wk
7,489.80 gallons/wk
3,744.90 gallons/wk
Station 2 (ET-E)
Popups Rainbird 1800
1= ½ head = 1.85 gpm
Hunter I-20 rotary heads
1= ¼ head
3 = ½ heads
1 = ¾ head
1 = full head
10 TOTAL HEADS on site = 45.95 gpm
April 12 - May 1:
May 1 - May 22:
May 23 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2,757.00 gallons/wk
4,135.50 gallons/wk
8,271.00 gallons/wk
4,135.50 gallons/wk
8,271.00 gallons/wk
4,135.50 gallons/wk
Station 3 (ET-E)
Eastern-most station (Library clock) also contains large leak on rotary head middle lawn
Dry spot near old gym is caused by irrigation head hitting pine tree - dry spot does not receive water
from southeast corner by pine - it is hit from Station 2
1 = full
= 3.70 gpm
TOTAL: 1 head = 3.70 gpm
3 = ¼ heads
4 = ½ heads
1 = ¾ heads
2 = full heads
April 12 - May 1:
1 start time/ 20 min/4 times/ week =
4,696.00 gallons/wk
May 2 - May 23:
1 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,044.00 gallons/wk
May 24 – July 7:
2 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week =
14,088.00 gallons/wk
July 15-17:
2 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,696.00 gallons/ 2 days
July 22 - 25:
2 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week =
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:
=
=
=
=
TOTALS for ET-E (stations 2 and 3)
1 start time @ both 15 and 20 min. = 1,863.25 gallons/day
2 start time @ both 15 and 20 min. = 3,726.50 gallons/day
Turned on approximately April 12
April 12 - May 1:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 4 days/ week
May 1 - May 22:
May 23 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:
Turned off approximately October 17
7,044.00 gallons/wk
7,044.00 gallons/wk
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
7,453.00 gallons/wk
8,422.50gallons/ 2 days
4,135.50 gallons/wk
ARDREY: Turned on approximately April 26 - Turned of approximately October 26
Station 1 (southern lawn)
2 = ¼ heads = 1.84 gpm
4 = ½ heads = 7.40 gpm
April 26 - May 9:
May 10 - May 25:
May 26 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 25:
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
998.40 gallons/wk
1,497.60 gallons/wk
2,995.20 gallons/wk
998.40 gallons/ 2 days
1,497.60 gallons/wk
2,995.20 gallons/wk
1,497.60 gallons/wk
Station 2 (northern lawn)
4 = ¼ heads = 3.68 gpm
4 = ½ heads = 7.40 gpm
April 26 - May 9:
May 10 - May 25:
May 26 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 25:
1 start time/15 min/ 4 days/ week
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1,108.80 gallons/wk
1,663.20 gallons/wk
3,326.40 gallons/wk
1,663.20 gallons/wk
3,326.40 gallons/wk
1,663.20 gallons/wk
SBS: Turned on approximately April 26 - Turned off approximately Nov. 3
** Station also includes popups for Control Plot **
Rainbird 15103 Impact head
1 = full head
TOTAL: 1 head = 2.90 gpm
1 = ¼ head
1 = ½ head
2 = ¾ head
April 26 - May 13:
May 14 – July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 – Nov. 2:
1 start @ 15 min. = 373.50 gallons/day
2 start @ 15 min. = 747.00 gallons/day
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2,241.00 gallons/wk
4,482.00 gallons/wk
2,241.00 gallons/wk
4,482.00 gallons/wk
2,241.00 gallons/wk

2011 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project

Transcription

Similar documents

VorTech - EcoTech Marine

50 Ways to Save Water - Virginia Sole

NEW SOLUTION

Aera-vator

Biological Control of Weeds Using Insects and Fishes

Purple Diamond® Semi

StayN turf flier

March

EROSION CONTROL is for planting