1

2012 SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PROJECT Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona USA

A Green Fund project in cooperation with Facility Services

Mission Statement

The purpose of the Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Project is to identify environmentally-friendly

landscaping practices which will reduce or eliminate the need for chemical inputs on the NAU campus.

It seeks methods which are non-polluting, cost-effective, and result in an aesthetically pleasing

landscape that does not pose a health risk to students, faculty, staff, and visitors.

INTRODUCTION

The 2012 research season of the Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Project continued 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 Facility Services which utilizes a variety of

techniques to maintain athletic fields, lawns, flower beds, shrubs, and trees spread across approximately 650

acres. Five synthetic herbicides -- Gallery 75 Dry Flowable, Pendulum AquaCap, Roundup/Razor Pro, Lontrel

Turf and Ornamental, and Speedzone Southern Broadleaf -- 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 Grounds uses

these herbicides according to manufacturer’s recommendations, there is increasing evidence that these chemicals

pose human health risks and can negatively affect local ecosystems, including damage to soils and water (for

further information on the potential hazards of these products, see Appendix A: A Literature Review of Herbicide

Toxicity to Humans).

In 2007, the university established a Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan which included the goal of

“Stewardship and Sustainability of Place” (see Appendix B: Eliminating Herbicide Use on the NAU Campus -

Proposal). 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, staff, and the general public. Since 2011, the Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Project

(SLM) has been testing non-toxic landscape maintenance treatments, including the hand-pulling of weeds in turf

and rock mulch areas, improving soil health through the application of organically-approved amendments, and

introducing native types of turfgrass.

2

During the 2012 research season, SLM focused on improving soil health and the overall aesthetic appeal of the

sites. Literature review indicates that healthy soil is the prime factor in creating healthy turf and reducing weeds.

Soil test results from 2011 indicated issues with high pH and low nitrogen cycling (among others), potentially

leading to unhealthy turf and an increase in weed invasion and reproduction (for more information on the results

of the 2011 research season, see Appendix C: 2011 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project).

Addressing these soil conditions may improve turf health, allowing the grass to outcompete weed species and

reduce the currently perceived need for chemical treatments.

Feedback from faculty, students, and others indicated that the visual impact of the sites was of primary

importance: if the grass did not look beautiful, there would be problems with continuing alternative practices. It

was therefore important to find ways to keep our sites looking good throughout the season.

Other research and activities were conducted during this season, including greenhouse experiments, soil fungal

analysis, a survey of university landscaping practices across the country, the implementation of Adopt-a-Plot, and

the showing of the landscape herbicide film, “A Chemical Reaction”.

For the purpose of this research, words such as “chemical” and “traditional” may be used to designate products

which are not approved for organic application and may pose a risk to human and/or environmental health.

Words such as “non-chemical”, “alternative”, and “organic” may be used to designate products which are

approved for organic application and can be considered to have minimal or no risk to human and/or

environmental health. Organic approval is based on listings produced by the Organic Materials Review Institute

(OMRI) found at www.omri.org.

2012 SITES

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

SITE: Eastburn Turf Test Site West (ET-W)

Location: SE of Eastburn main entrance, along side of building

Size: ≈ 3,665 ft2

SITE: Knoles Turf Control Site (KC)

Location: East side of parking garage, north of test site, bordered by Riordan and Knoles Drive

3

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

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.

NOTE: The south site (RCT-S) was lost to construction in early May

SITE: Union Rock Mulch Test Site North (RUT-N)

Location: North of Union building (Knoles Drive side), along wall

Size: 571 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: 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

4

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SOIL TESTING

Soil samples were collected from all turf test and control sites in April 2012. Samples were collected by

cutting and lifting the sod layer and collecting soil from a depth of approximately 3 – 6 inches below the

sod layer. Samples were taken from 5 – 10 different areas on each site, depending on the size of the site.

Each site’s samples were mixed in a plastic bucket and then approximately one cup of soil was placed in

a plastic zipper bag and labeled. After collection, the bagged samples were immediately shipped to IAS

Laboratories in Phoenix, AZ, for analysis. Each site sample received a “Complete Soil Test”, which

included available calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, nitrate, phosphate, salinity, pH, free lime,

zinc, iron, manganese, copper, boron, and sulfur

TEST SITE TREATMENTS

Corn gluten meal (CGM) was applied to all turf test sites at a rate of 15 pounds per 1,000 square feet of

turf per application. Three applications were made over the course of the season, in April, August, and

October. The product was purchased from Wilbur-Ellis Agribusiness.

Pelletized sulfur was applied to KT and ST in October at a rate of 10 pounds per 1,000 square feet. The

Eastburn sites (ET-E and ET-W) were not treated, since sulfur was applied to them in fall 2012. The

product was purchased from Planet Natural (www.planetnatural.com).

KT was completely overseeded and topdressed with compost in late July (for seed and compost

information, see below: Weed Interventions).

All turf test and control sites were aerated in early October.

DATA COLLECTION

Weed abundance and diversity and turf quality data were collected approximately every 14 days on all

sites. Methods were specific to the type of site.

Rock Mulch Sites: Rock mulch sites were hand-weeded without the use of tools in order to protect the

weed barriers. All weeds were pulled and put in a bucket. Weeding activity was timed. After timing

5

ended, the collected weeds were counted and identified. Notes were made regarding weed locations and

any damage to weed barriers.

Turf Control Sites: Turf control sites were transected using string-lines spaced approximately 6 feet

apart. Transecting was timed. For weed abundance and diversity, individual plants were counted and

identified from standing height. White clover was measured as square feet of cover using a 12-inch

square quadrat divided into 100 squares. Turf quality was assessed using the quadrat. Two assessments

were made per transect, whereby the researcher walked a random number of paces along the transect,

dropped the quadrat, recorded quality ratings, and then walked another random number of paces and

repeated the quadrat assessment. Quality was assessed according to percent cover of (1) weeds, (2)

exposed soil/holes, (3) thin/thatchy grass, and (4) thick (“ideal) grass. An overall rating was also given

following a scale of 1 through 10, whereby 1 is the worst lawn condition and 10 is the ideal lawn

condition.

Turf Test Sites: Turf test sites were assessed in two stages: normal weeding and transecting. Normal

weeding was designed to replicate the actions of a typical paid grounds-worker. The start time was

recorded and then researchers walked the site with buckets and Ames® HoundDog WeedHound Elite

weeding tools, pulling obvious weeds and placing them in the buckets. When the site appeared

sufficiently weeded, the end time was recorded. Weeds collected were counted and identified. During

normal weeding, white clover and other patch-forming plants (such as spurge and black medic) and

dense, broad areas of dandelion and plantain seedlings were not removed.

After normal weeding and data recording was completed, the site was transected by the same methods

used for the control sites, including measuring clover by square feet, counting and identifying other

patch-forming plants, and making turf quality assessments.

WEED INTERVENTIONS

Patch-forming plants, including white clover and plantain seedlings, cannot be adequately removed

using the WeedHound tool due to excessive turf damage. In order to assess other removal techniques,

single session weeding events were performed during June, July, August, and November. The sessions

were timed, but plant numbers were not recorded.

6

Where reseeding/overseeding occurred, the seed was purchased from Warner’s Nursery and

Landscaping (Flagstaff, AZ) and was produced by Granite Seed (Lehi, UT). Labeled Warner’s Native

AZ Turf Mix, it contains “Sodar” Streambank wheatgrass, “Fairway” Crested wheatgrass, “VNS” Sheep

fescue, “Canbar” Canary bluegrass, and “Hachita” Blue grama. Where compost was applied, we used

Kellogg N’Rich Soil Enriching Compost for Planting and Mulching which was purchased from Home

Depot (Flagstaff, AZ). This compost is certified by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI).

ET-E: In late June and early July, three sessions of plantain removal were conducted using small hand

tools. In late July, other plantain patches were removed using small hand tools, and the area reseeded

and mulched with compost. In early August, mixed clover/plantain patches were trimmed to ground

level with a string trimmer, and the area reseeded and mulched with compost. A final plantain removal

with small hand tools was done in November.

KT: In late May and mid-June, black medic patches were removed using WeedHounds and small hand

tools. In July, the three existing clover patches were dug out with a shovel, and the areas reseeded and

mulched with compost.

ST: In mid-July, the organic herbicidal spray, BurnOut 2, was applied to three areas of clover. In late

July, black medic was removed using WeedHounds and small hand tools, and clover patches were either

dug out with a shovel or trimmed to ground level with a string trimmer. Clover removal areas were

reseeded and mulched with compost.

SINGLE SESSION WEED COUNTS

In addition to these sessions, one special weed count was performed on ET-E, ET-W, and ST in an

attempt to estimate the number of individual weeds (excluding clover) not counted/pulled during regular

data collection. With the onset of the monsoons, plantain and dandelion seedlings in particular became

too numerous to pull without causing excessive turf damage. On ET-E and ET-W, plantains were

estimated using an average number per quadrat: 25 for ET-E and 15 – 23 (average = 19) for ET-W;

while dandelion, black medic, and other species were counted individually. On ST, the remaining

weeds were counted individually.

Note: For the purpose of data analysis, the size of each plot was rounded to the nearest 100 square feet

for abundance and diversity: EC = 27,800; ET-E = 15,000; ET-W = 3,700; KC = 2,400; KT = 1,700; SC

7

= 700; and ST = 4,400. For weeding times, sizes were rounded to the nearest 1,000 square feet: EC =

28,000; ET-E = 15,000; ET-W = 3,700; KC = 2,400; KT = 1,700; SC = 700; and ST = 4,400.

MOWING

All turf test sites were mown from June to October using a walk-behind mower to assess the effects of

taller grass on turf health and aesthetic quality. Height of cut varied from 3 to 4 inches. Research

questions regarding height of cut were: (1) how will the lawn look with taller grass, (2) how frequently

do we need to mow, (3) does the grass appear to be healthier when longer, and (4) are weeds more or

less obvious? The final cut in October was lowered to 2.5 inches to allow sulfur and CGM applications

to have better soil contact.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Greenhouse experiments were conducted during the 2012 spring, summer, and fall semesters, in order

to examine the role of soil nutrients and weed production. The initial spring study utilized grass seed

from the Grounds Department; soil was the standard soil used in the campus greenhouse. Samples were

four by four by two inches with two samples per variable. Two control samples were used: one was

watered with tap water and one with reclaimed water (both of which are used on campus for irrigation).

Grass seed was introduced to all samples and watered daily. At the fourth week, plantain and dandelion

seeds were added to all test samples. Grass and weed seeds were applied in comparable amounts but not

specifically measured. At the fifth week, nutrients were added: nitrogen (as ammonium nitrate) or

phosphorus (as triple phosphate) or potassium (as potassium sulfate) or a combination of all three (see

Appendix D: 2012 Greenhouse Fertilizer Calculations). Nutrient levels were determined by

referencing the Tilman study (1). At the seventh week, data was collected weekly for four weeks: the

total number of individuals of each weed species, the overall visual aesthetic of the sample (relative to

lawns), and percent cover of plants versus soil. At the end of the data collection, all plants were

uniformly clipped at soil level. Soil Plant Analysis Development unit readings (SPAD) were taken on

the average of three different blades of grass and the three leaves on plantain in order to measure

chlorophyll content (dandelion was not measured for SPAD). The total weight of the grass and of the

weeds was also recorded.

8

The second study, conducted in the summer and fall semesters, modified the first study’s protocols. At

time of writing, the results of the second study are in the process of being analyzed and should be

available at the beginning of 2014.

Fungal colonization was examined on turf root samples from the Eastburn test and control sites. Ten

turf samples that included the root system were collected from EC, ET-E, and ET-W and sent to the

Gehring Lab of Mycorrhizal Ecology on campus for analysis. Samples were tested for root colonization

by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and dark septate endophytes. These organisms colonize plant

roots and increase the plant’s absorption of soil nutrients in exchange for sugars produced by the plants

during photosynthesis.

RESULTS

SOIL TESTING

Critical nutrients such as nitrate (nitrogen) and boron were low to very low on all sites. Sulfur was

medium to low on sites not treated with sulfur in 2011. Other nutrients rated high to very high. Except

for ET-W, all sites are alkaline with a pH above 7.0 (Table 1).

Table 1: 2012 spring soil test results for turf sites. All elements in parts per million (ppm).

Levels: VL = very low, L = low, M = medium, VH = high, H = high

SITE pH

Nit

rate

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Po

tass

ium

Cal

ciu

m

Iro

n

Sulf

ur

Sod

ium

Mag

ne

siu

m

Man

gan

ese

Co

pp

er

Bo

ron

Salin

ity

% S

od

ium

(ES

P)

Fre

e Li

me

Leve

l EC 7.4 5.8 VL

39.0 H

310 VH

3800 VH

110.0 VH 12 M 57 L

920 VH

30.0 VH

22.7 VH

0.13 VL 0.8 L 0.9 L

ET-E 7.4 6.4 L

48.0 VH

260 VH

3500 VH

170.0 VH 25 VH 73 L

850 VH

30.0 VH 3.3 VH

0.12 VL 1.2 L 1.2 L

ET-W 7.0 7.2 L

36.0 H

310 VH

4400 VH

160.0 VH 21 VH 46 L

1200 VH

45.0 VH 3.5 VH

0.18 VL 0.8 L 0.6 L

KC 8.3 3.9 VL

27.0 H 180 H

4900 VH

48.0 VH 10 L 71 L

470 VH

10.0 VH 1.9 VH

0.06 VL 0.8 L 1.1 M

KT 8.2 4.0 VL

26.0 H 160 M

4200 VH

49.0 VH 10 L 140 M

420 VH

12.0 VH 1.9 VH

0.06 VL 1.0 L 2.4 M

SC 7.5 4.7 VL

23.0 H 210 H

2500 VH

62.0 VH 7.7 L 51 L

740 VH

21.0 VH 1.9 VH

0.09 VL 0.6 L 1.1 L

ST 7.4 7.2 L

30.0 H 220 H

2900 VH

120.0 VH 8.5 L 54 L

870 VH

29.0 VH 2.4 VH

0.11 VL 0.6 L 1 L

9

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

EC2011

EC2012

ET-E2011

ET-E2012

ET-W2011

ET-W2012

SC2011

SC2012

ST2011

ST2012

<---

pH

: Aci

dic

--

Alk

alin

e --

>

Soil pH was high (alkaline) on all sites except ET-W which received the largest amount of elemental

sulfur in the fall of 2011 (Figures 1 and 2). Ideal soil pH for turfgrasses is 5.0 – 7.0.

Figure 1: Comparing soil acidity/alkalinity (based on pH) on sites tested in spring 2011 and 2012.

Figure 2: Changes in pH (decrease) on sites tested in spring 2011 and 2012. Sulfur was applied in fall 2011.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

EC ET-E ET-W SC ST

Perc

ent

of

dec

reas

e

Sulfur

Sulfur

10

ROCK MULCH SITES

Rock mulch sites averaged 3 minutes per 1,000 square feet for hand-weeding (Figure 3). Dominant

weed species were grasses, dandelion, and cheeseweed (Figure 4).

Figure 3: 2012 weeding times for rock mulch sites (in person-minutes).

Figure 4: Weed abundance and diversity on 2012 rock mulch sites. Other includes clover, plantain, prickly lettuce, and

unknowns. Site size was rounded to nearest 100 square feet.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Min

ute

s p

er 1

,000

sq

uar

e fe

et

RCT-N

RUT-N

RUT-S

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Grass Dandelion Cheeseweed Pigweed Other

Ave

rage

pla

nts

per

100

sq

uar

e fe

et

RCT-N

RUT-N

RUT-S

11

TURF SITES

Hand-weeding Times

Average time for hand-weeding (i.e. normal weeding), for all turf test sites and over the entire season,

was 6 minutes per 1,000 square feet (Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8).

Figure 5: ET-E normal weeding average time for one person: 1 hour 9 minutes.

Figure 6: ET-W normal weeding average time for one person: 40 minutes.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Pers

on

-ho

urs

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Pers

on

-ho

urs

12

Figure 7: KT normal weeding average time for one person: 22 minutes.

Figure 8: ST normal weeding average time for one person: 23 minutes.

Weed Abundance and Diversity

Dandelion, broad-leaf plantain, and white clover were the most abundant weeds species on all turf sites

(Figures 9 and 10). Square footage of each site was rounded to the nearest 100 square feet. For Figure

9, the total number of plants counted for the season was divided by the hundred square footage of the

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1P

ers

on

-ho

urs

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Pers

on

-ho

urs

13

site (example: EC is 27,821 total square feet and had a total 2012 dandelion count of 4,000; therefore

4,000 / 278 = 14.4 dandelion per 100 square feet).

Figure 9: Dominant weed species on turf sites (excluding clover) showing total number of plants

counted during 2012 season. Does not include numbers from single session weed counts.

For Figure 10, the total square feet of clover for the 2012 season was averaged and divided by the

hundred square footage of the site (example: EC total average clover was 700.7 square feet divided by

278 = 2.5 square feet).

Figure 10: Average clover cover on turf sites (per 100 square feet of turf).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

EC ET-E ET-W KC KT SC ST

Pla

nts

per

10

0 s

qu

are

feet

Dandelion

Medic

Plantain

Other

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EC ET-E ET-W KC KT SC ST

Clo

ver

(sq

uaa

re f

eet)

14

Turf Quality

Turf quality was rated on a scale of 1 – 10 for overall aesthetic appeal (Figure 11). Higher turf quality

may be correlated with lower weed abundance, although it is not absolute (Figure 12).

Figure 11: Turf quality rating according to aesthetic appeal.

For Figure 12, the Average Weeds were calculated by averaging each weed species (excluding clover),

adding the averages together to get a total weed average, and then dividing the total average by the

hundred square footage of the site (example: EC had a 2012 season average of 333.3 dandelion, 103.5

medic, 156.0 plantain, and 13.8 other for a total average weed count of 606.6, which is then divided by

the hundred square footage = 606.6 / 278 = 2.2 weeds per 100 square feet).

Figure 12: Comparing total average turf quality rating with total average weed abundance

(excluding clover). Quality ratings on a 1 – 10 scale, with 1 being the worst lawn and 10 being ideal.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

EC ET-E ET-W KC KT SC ST

Qu

alit

y sc

ale

(1 =

wo

rst

- 10

=

bes

t)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

EC ET-E ET-W KC KT SC ST

QualityRating(ColoredBars)

AverageWeeds per100 ft2

15

Turf quality was also assessed by percent cover of thick (ideal) grass versus thin/thatchy grass, weeds, or

exposed soil (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Average percent cover measurements on turf sites.

5% 7%

41%

47%

EC

SoilWeedsThin/ThatchyThick

1%

12%

12%

75%

ET-E

SoilWeedsThin/ThatchyThick

10% 9%

60%

21% KC

Soil

Weeds

Thin/Thatchy

Thick

9%

9%

54%

28%

KT

SoilWeedsThin/ThatchyThick

8%

12%

46%

34%

ST

Soil

Weeds

Thin/Thatchy

Thick

10% 8%

56%

26%

SC

Soil

Weeds

Thin/Thatchy

Thick

1% 3%

22%

74%

ET-W

SoilWeedsThin/ThatchyThick

16

Weed Interventions

Digging: In July, three white clover patches on KT were dug out with a shovel, reseeded with turf mix,

and mulched with compost. In August, only one patch showed clover returning (Figure 14). The other

two patches had only grass.

Figure 14: Grass establishing in clover removal area on KT (left), while a small amount of clover returns (right).

Two clover patches dug out on ST in July showed no clover return in August (Figure 15). These were

also reseeded with turf mix and topdressed with compost.

Mowing Times

Figure 15: Clover removed in July on ST did not return by August. Grass completely filled in both areas.

17

Line-trimming: A string trimmer was used to cut weeds to soil level, and the areas were reseeded with

turf mix and topdressed with compost. Grass density increased, but some plantain seedlings and clover

reestablished (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Grass filled in trimmed weed patch on ET-E, while some plantain seedlings and clover returned.

Organic spray: Clover and plantain sprayed with BurnOut 2 showed some browning of the leaves but

were not otherwise affected.

Single Session Weed Counts

One special weed count was performed on ET-E, ET-W, and ST in order to estimate the number of

individual weeds not pulled or counted (Table 2).

Site Date Plantain

(average)

Dandelion Medic Other or

Not

Named

Total

ET-E 10/04/12 4625 145 26 4796

ET-W 10/05/12 665 56 721

ST 09/25/12 67 67

Table 2: Individual weeds left after normal and transect weeding (excluding clover).

18

Mowing

Mowing heights were raised to 3 – 4 inches on turf test sites. Mowing times were recorded, and

decreased over the course of the season (Figures 17 - 19). KT was mown 4 times and was not graphed.

Figure 17: Mowing times for ET-E.

Figure 18: Mowing times for ET-W.

020406080

100120140160180200

Tim

e (m

inu

tes)

Bagged

Bagged

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tim

e (m

inu

tes)

Mown twice and bagged

19

Figure 19: Mowing times for ST.

Mowing frequency varied with each site due to grass density. The Eastburn sites (ET-E, ET-W) were

mown at 5 – 7 day intervals during monsoon season in order to keep the mower from clogging. ST was

mown at 10 – 14 day intervals as grass density was lower due to irrigation issues. KT also had irrigation

issues.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Greenhouse Experiments

Total average weight of the grass greatly exceeded the total average weight of the weeds (Figures 20

and 21). The mass was greatest for grass treated with the combination of nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium. The mass was greatest for weeds treated with only nitrogen.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10-Jun 21-Jun 2-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug 6-Sep 12-Sep 20-Sep

Tim

e (m

inu

tes)

20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

P K N CTR CT NPK

We

igh

t (g

)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

P K N CTR CT NPK

We

igh

t (g

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Nu

mb

er

of

ind

ivid

ual

pla

nts

N

P

K

NPK

CT

CTR

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Nu

mb

er

of

ind

ivid

ual

pla

nts

N

P

K

NPK

CT

CTR

Figure 20: Total average grass weight for all samples. Figure 21: Total average weed weight for all samples.

Plantain abundance greatly exceeded dandelion abundance in all samples (Figures 22 and 23).

Dandelion abundance leveled off or decreased over time, while plantain abundance increased. The

potassium-only treatment showed the lowest number of individuals in dandelion and had the lowest

numbers for a nutrient treatment in plantain (it was comparable to the controls).

Figure 22: Average dandelion abundance over time. Figure 23: Average plantain abundance over time.

Chlorophyll measurements using a SPAD meter showed higher levels in grass than in plantain, with the

NPK treatment highest for both (Figure 24). Measurements were not obtained for dandelion.

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

N P K NPK CT CTR

Ch

loro

ph

yll

leve

ls (

SPA

D)

Plantain

Grass

Figure 24: Average SPAD measurements for all samples of grass and plantain.

Fungal Colonization

The Eastburn sites, EC, ET-E, and ET-W, were tested for fungal colonization of turf root systems. For

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), ET-E and ET-W showed 25.9% root colonization, whereas EC had

only 20.8%, and the one-tail analysis showed statistical significance (Table 3) For dark septate

endophytes, the percentages were almost exactly equal.

Control Test

Mean 20.8% 25.9%

Variance 37.511111 51.14736842

Observations 10 20

Hypothesized Mean

Difference

0

df 21

t Stat -2.0305226

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.027579

t Critical one-tail 1.7207429

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.055158

t Critical two-tail 2.0796138

Table 3: Statistical results of fungal colonization assessment for Eastburn sites (AMF only)

22

DISCUSSION

SOIL TESTING

Soil tests were completed in the spring of 2011 and of 2012 on all turf test and control sites. In 2011,

the Ardrey sites – AC, AT-N, and AT-S – were tested, but they were removed from research in 2012 due

to construction damage. The Knoles sites, KC and KT, were only tested in 2012. They will be retested

in the spring of 2013, and comparisons can be made at that time.

Test result changes from 2011 to 2012 may not be completely accurate due to differences in testing

methods between the Colorado Plateau research lab used in 2011 and IAS Laboratories used in 2012.

The numbers for nitrogen (as NO3-), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), and sodium (Na), for example,

appear to be too uniformly different to be plausible (i.e. 2012 numbers are consistently higher than 2011

on all sites) (Table 4). Iron and sulfur were below detection level in 2011; those results may be due to

different analysis techniques. Comparisons between 2012 and 2013 may be more accurate if IAS

Laboratories is used again in 2013.

Site pH Nitrate (ppm)

Phosphorus (ppm)

Potassium (ppm)

Calcium (ppm)

Iron (ppm)

Sulfur (ppm)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

EC 7.7 7.4 4.0 5.8 12 39 204 310 4296 3800 <11 110 <3 12

ET-E 7.9 7.4 2.6 6.4 19 48 139 260 3300 3500 <11 170 <3 25

ET-W 7.7 7.0 4.2 7.2 15 36 220 310 4310 4400 <11 160 <3 21

SC 7.8 7.5 1.3 4.7 14 23 171 210 2649 2500 <11 62 <3 8

ST 7.6 7.4 4.8 7.2 15 30 176 220 4098 2900 <11 120 <3 9

Table 4: Changes in soil test results from spring 2011 to spring 2012 (excluding Ardrey and Knoles sites).

Soil acidity/alkalinity: As stated above with reference to P, K, and Na, all sites showed a decrease in pH

from 2011 to 2012 (Figure 1), but the numbers for pH may be valid due to similarities in testing

methods and equipment. The two unhealthiest sites (based on visual assessment), KT and KC, had the

highest pH levels. The greatest changes between 2011 and 2012 occurred on ET-E and ET-W (Figure

2). Large amounts of sulfur were applied to those sites in fall 2011, and decreases were approximately

twice as large as what was seen on other sites. Sulfur is known to lower pH and was applied to test that

effect. In fall 2012, KT and ST received sulfur applications. Spring 2013 soil test results may indicate

23

whether or not the sulfur had a direct effect on pH if the levels for KT and ST are lower than the 2012

results.

Nitrogen: Nitrate levels were low to very low, which may indicate a lack of proper nitrogen cycling by

microorganisms in the soil (Table 1). Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for turfgrass species. The sites KC,

KT, and SC had the lowest measurements and had the lowest turf quality (Figure 11). Corn gluten meal

(CGM) is source of nitrogen and may have elevated levels on ET-E and ET-W. All test sites received

CGM in 2013; spring 2013 soil tests may indicate if those applications improved nitrogen cycling.

Potassium: Potassium is another important nutrient for turf, but some research has indicated that it may

be linked to dandelion production (1). Potassium levels were very high on the Eastburn sites where

dandelion is prevalent.

Boron: Boron is a micronutrient which was found to be in very low levels on all sites in spring 2012

(Table1). Boron was not tested for in 2011. Levels were lowest on KT, KC, and SC. For ideal growth,

grass species need 6 – 18 ppm (2), and soils with less than 10 ppm should be supplemented (3). All of our

sites fall below 1 ppm.

Although the details on its actions are still a bit of a mystery (2), boron is considered vital to plant

growth: “[Boron] has been linked to sugar translocation, protein synthesis, cell wall development, plant

reproduction, water balance in plants, and calcium and phosphorus metabolism.”(3) In grassland and

forage research: “Boron is involved in meristem development, pollination, nodule formation in legumes,

and translocation of sugars, starches, N, and P. A boron deficiency will become visibly apparent;

curled, wilted leaves, discoloration, cracking fruits, tubers, or roots.” (2) Deficiency is most often seen in

young, developing plants (3).

The boron-to-calcium ratio can also be considered a good point of reference: “Boron and Calcium are

inextricably linked in the metabolism of both plants and animals, and like so many other minerals,

should be in balance with one another... boron [should] be present in the soil at one part boron to 1,000

parts calcium, up to a total of 4 parts per million of boron.” (4)

All of our sites tested very high for

calcium (2500 - 4900 ppm) with only slight variations from 2011 to 2012 (Tables 1 and 4).

24

ROCK MULCH SITES

Rock mulch sites were easily and quickly hand-weeded, since plants have little time to establish strong

root systems where weed barriers are in place. The most common weeds were bunch grasses,

dandelions, and cheeseweed. Weeds were usually found along sidewalk edges and around plantings

where the weed barrier was not covering the soil.

There is a risk of chemical run-off from herbicidal sprays where impermeable weed barriers are used.

Most herbicides break down in the soil after application. With impermeable barriers, the chemicals are

washed out with rain events and can enter the watershed or flow into non-target vegetation. Hand-

weeding removes this risk.

TURF TEST SITES

Note on corn gluten meal: In 2011, corn gluten meal (CGM) was applied in the spring primarily as a

pre-emergent natural herbicide and in the fall as a source of nitrogen fertilizer. In 2012, an additional

application was done at the onset of monsoons to hopefully act as a pre-emergent for seeds germinating

with the increase in moisture. This mid-season application may not have been particularly effective

since CGM requires a drying period of at least two days in order to be effective. With rain activity and

irrigation, this drying period could not occur. There were also areas where the CGM did not spread

properly, in part due to the high grass, and unsightly piles were left behind on the lawns. A foul odor

was noted on ET-E after application – it is uncertain if the odor was from the excess CGM, but it is

possible since we found evidence of odor problems in conjunction with CGM during our literature

review process.

Based on our results and findings, it is recommended that CGM be applied once in early spring and once

in the late fall. In the spring, it should be applied while the grass is still somewhat dormant and is not

dense. In the fall, it should be applied after the final mowing, which should have a low height of cut so

the CGM can be more easily incorporated into the soil. At both times, the application must be watered

in, and then irrigation should be avoided for two days.

Hand-weeding: Turf was hand-weeded in an average of 6 minutes per 1,000 square feet, and times

declined over the season except on ST (Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8). The first spring weeding sessions took

additional time in order to remove the initial burst of growth. Times were shortest during the remainder

25

of the spring drought, increased with the onset of monsoons, and then declined as fall temperatures

dropped. The largest site (ET-E) took the longest overall: the total size made walking it more time-

consuming, and weed abundance, particularly plantain and dandelion, was high.

The WeedHound tool worked well for most situations, but dense areas of plantain seedlings could not be

removed without causing excessive turf damage due to the size of the hole that the tool leaves in the

ground. In some instances, dandelions were not completely removed and re-sprouted in the hole (seen

during the subsequent weeding session). Overall, however, the WeedHound was easy to use and

removed weeds efficiently.

Weed Abundance and Diversity: Dominant weed species on all sites were dandelion, white clover, and

broad-leaf plantain (Figures 9 and 10). Black medic was also prevalent, with large (over 1 square foot)

patches found on ET-E and KT. Smaller medic plants were pulled with the WeedHound tool, but larger

groupings that formed patches needed to be dug out with other tools to reduce turf damage (done on KT

and ST – see Materials and Methods – Weed Interventions).

Plantain seedlings became difficult to remove with the onset of monsoons, particularly on ET-E where

dense patches occurred (Figure 25).

Figure 25: Plantain seedlings (circled) form dense patches on ET-E (August)

26

While attempts were made to keep an accurate count of the individual plants, the numbers became too

large to count within a reasonable time. The single session weed counts gave some idea of how many

plants were not accounted for during regular data-collection sessions (see Results – Single Session Weed

Counts). The plantain average on ET-E was 4,625 (Table 2). Numbers that high could not possibly be

counted/removed within the scope of this research season.

Clover cover was high on ET-E, ET-W, and ST (Figure 10) and commonly formed large (10+ square

feet) areas. Removing such areas through the use of alternative herbicides or by manual removal

(digging) would greatly reduce the overall aesthetic quality of the lawn until grass reestablished.

Other commonly found weed species were leafy spurge, prickly lettuce, goat’s beard, cheeseweed,

bindweed, and chickweed. Both spurge and chickweed form low-growing patches interspersed with

grass. These patches could only be removed by digging or herbicide. Chickweed blends well with the

turf and is probably not a problem from an aesthetic standpoint. Spurge may be more noticeable,

particularly along edges. Improving soil health and overseeding should reduce spurge populations.

Turf Quality: All turf test sites scored higher turf quality ratings when compared to the control sites

(Figure 11). The Eastburn test sites scored highest and had received treatments for two seasons - hand-

weeding, CGM, and sulfur - with no herbicidal spraying since 2010. Lower weed abundance may be

correlated to higher turf quality (Figure 12) when clover is excluded. Clover abundance was very high

on ET-E, ET-W, and ST, but it also created an evenly green, dense cover which is aesthetically

appealing (Figures 26 and 27).

Figure 26: Clover on ET-E in August Figure 27: Clover on ET-W in August

27

The sites with the lowest quality rating also had the poorest soils for turf health (highest pH, lowest

nitrogen) and the greatest weed abundance: KC, KT, and SC (Table 1 and Figures 11 and 12). By the

end of the season, quality was improving on KT, and it rated slightly higher than KC and SC.

Overseeding created a denser grass cover, and CGM application may have further improved grass health

with the increase in nitrogen. It is anticipated that KT will continue to improve in 2013 with its fall

2012 applications of sulfur and CGM.

Percent cover was measured on all sites (Figure 13) in order to compare amounts of weeds, exposed

soil, thin/thatchy grass, and thick/ideal grass in each lawn. Test sites had the highest amounts of thick

grass and the lowest amounts of soil. Weed amounts varied due to the large presence of clover on most

sites. ET-E and ET-W had the greatest amounts of thick grass overall, which positively correlated with

their high turf quality ratings.

Weed Interventions: Single sessions of weed removal were performed in order to address problem

areas that were not being sufficiently affected by regular weeding sessions. Three clover patches on KT

(the only clover areas on the site) were dug out with a shovel in July. These areas were then overseeded

with a native turf mix and topdressed with compost. In August, only one patch showed some clover

return (Figure 14), while the other two contained only grass. Two clover patches on ST received similar

treatments in July and also showed no clover return in August (Figure 15). While these treatments

appear to be highly effective, digging is very labor intensive and should be reserved for high-priority

areas where other treatments have failed.

A line-trimmer was used to cut weeds down to soil level, then the areas were overseeded and topdressed

with compost (Figure 16). Weed seedlings emerged from the soil seed bank, but grass density also

increased. This treatment may be more successful if the trimming is followed by an organic herbicidal

spray before reseeding. If performed early in the season, it may reduce perennial weeds such as clover.

The organic herbicidal spray, BurnOut 2, was tested on clover and mature plantains in July. Some

leaves turned brown, but the plants were not otherwise affected. Sprays may be more successful on such

perennials if they are used at the beginning of the season when plants are coming out of dormancy:

damage to the new leaves would inhibit photosynthesis and potentially starve the plant. Repeated

applications may be necessary with well-established plants.

28

KT Overseeding and Compost: The entire KT site was overseeded and topdressed with compost in July,

due to the site’s poor soil quality and thin grass cover. By August, it appeared that grass density and

cover had increased, and the overall visual aesthetic quality of the site had improved, particularly when

compared to the control site, KC (see Figures 28 and 29 for a sidewalk view of sites).

Figure 28: KC turf August 2012 Figure 29: KT turf August 2012

Newly-seeded grass looked healthy and formed a dense cover on KT compared to existing grass cover

on KC (Figures 30 and 31). Corn gluten meal and sulfur applications should further improve the soils to

favor turfgrass by increasing nitrogen and lowering pH. Evidence of these predicted results will be seen

through soil testing and visual assessments done in the spring of 2013.

Figure 30: KC turf August 2012 Figure 31: KT turf August 2012

29

Single Session Weed Counts: As the growing season progressed, it became difficult to count and pull

every individual weed. Monsoons triggered a surge in plantain and dandelion seedlings, which could

not be removed without digging out large areas. In order to estimate the total number of weeds on a site,

single session weed counts were performed in September and October on ET-E, ET-W, and ST (Table

2). The count was not performed on KT as it had a low number of plantains (the most problematic

species to count) when compared to other sites, and no dense clusters of seedlings.

On ET-E, all dandelions and medics were counted individually. Plantains were estimated using a

quadrat with an average of 25 plants per square foot. On ET-W, plantains were estimated using 15 – 23

plants per quadrat (approximately 19 plants); other species were counted as individuals but not

identified. On ST, all species were counted as individuals but not identified.

Given the extremely large numbers of plantain (4,625 on ET-E alone), it would be very difficult to

remove all plants during the growing season without severely damaging the turf. The labor necessary

would also be difficult to implement. It is recommended that some percentage of plantain should be

tolerated until other removal methods are found. Fortunately, plantains do not have showy flowers and

blend well with the turf. Larger, more noticeable individuals are easily removed with the WeedHound.

Plantain growth can also be indicative of compacted soil and low fertility (white clover also indicates

low fertility) (5). Continuing to improve soil health and structure through amendments and regular

treatments such as aeration will reduce plantain as turfgrass becomes more vigorous.

Mowing: During the 2012 season, a walk-behind mower was used on turf test sites in order to assess the

effects of taller grass on turf quality. The Grounds Department usually keeps grass heights below 2.5

inches. Research has repeatedly shown that a grass height of 3 - 4 inches improves turf health and

quality: moisture is conserved, soil health improves, and weeds are better suppressed. Mowing times

were recorded, and decreased on all sites over the course of the season (Figures 17 – 19).

Mowing research questions:

(1) How will the lawn look with taller grass? Excellent.

According to turf quality assessments, all test sites had higher quality ratings than the control sites

(Figures 11 and 13). Cover on test sites appeared dense, evenly green, and healthy when compared to

the control sites (Figures 32 and 33).

30

Figure 32: EC with standard height of cut (August) Figure 33: ET-E with taller height of cut (August)

(2) How frequently do we need to mow? Weekly or less, depending on the site.

ET-E and ET-W required mowing every 5 – 7 days (to prevent mower failure) once monsoons began

and increased grass growth. ST and KT had irrigation issues which reduced mowing needs. ST was

mown approximately every 10 – 14 days. KT was mown four times over the entire season: twice in the

spring for initial clean-up and twice after overseeding when grass health improved and density

increased.

The walk-behind mower had issues with grass density and excessive length, and frequently clogged and

stalled (“choked”) if mowing was not frequent enough. This was primarily a problem on the Eastburn

sites, which also required bagging on their initial mowing sessions. Wet grass also caused mower

choke, but it was often difficult to schedule mowing when the grass was dry – mowing was usually done

in the early morning shortly after the irrigation system had be active, and the sun had not yet dried the

grass. Monsoonal activity also added to this challenge. A riding, commercial-grade mower would be

most effective in preventing choke and perhaps reducing frequency.

(3) Does the grass appear to be healthier when longer? Yes.

Grass on turf test sites showed little thatch and appeared dense in overall cover. It had a deeper green

color and a wider blade width than the grass on turf control sites (Figures 34 and 35).

31

Figure 34: Grass on EC (August) Figure 35: Grass on ET-E (August)

(4) Are weeds more or less obvious? They are less obvious.

Weeds such as plantain, which do not have showy flowers and are fairly low-growing, were less obvious

on turf test sites where they blended well with the thicker grass (Figure 36). Plantains on the control

sites appeared brown, dry, and unsightly due to damage from herbicidal spray and were more obvious in

the thinner grass (Figure 37).

Figure 36: Plantain on ET-E (August) Figure 37: Plantain on EC after herbicidal application

(August).

White clover forms dense patches in the turf and often has grasses mixed in. Flowerheads were visible

on both unsprayed test sites and sprayed control sites (Figures 38 and 39), but the patches blended well

with the dense turf on test sites due to the turfs’ even color and consistent cover (Figure 39).

32

Figure 38: Clover on EC after herbicidal application (August) Figure 39: Clover on ET-E (August)

Overall, the test sites responded well to the higher grass. During the dry spring period, the test sites

looked greener and had more consistant cover as the longer grass reduced evaporation and retained soil

moisture which can support grass growth. Weeds such as dandelion and plantain were difficult to see in

the taller grass, and large patches of clover blended well. Flower heads on dandelions and clover were

no more noticeable than those found on the control sites, indicating the herbicidal spraying had little

effect on the visual aesthetic of the sites. People passing by, and others that the researchers came into

contact with, commented on the healthy, lush appearance of the test lawns.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH:

Greenhouse experiments: The grass exceeded both dandelion and plantain in total average mass

(weight) in all samples (Figures 20 and 21). Since grass seed was planted four weeks before weed seeds

were planted, the higher mass may be attributed to the additional growth time rather than the specific

effects of treatments. Grass seed and weed seed were also not carefully measured, and it is therefore

possible that more grass seed was applied then weed seed, leading to greater mass. In replicating this

experiment, all seeds should be precisely measured.

Grass showed the greatest gain in mass in the NPK treatment, followed by nitrogen-only and

phosphorus-only (Figure 20). Weeds showed the greatest gain in mass in the nitrogen-only treatment;

all other treatments were much lower and close in range (Figure 21). In future research, it would be

important to measure plantain and dandelion separately, in order to make better comparisons between

the individual weed species and the grass.

33

Plantain was more abundant than dandelion in all samples and increased over time (Figures 22 and 23).

During Week 1, dandelion had the highest numbers in the nitrogen-only treatment, but its numbers

dropped rapidly by Week 2. All samples either levelled off or decreased over time.

Based on the results of the studies referenced for these experiments, it was anticipated that higher

potassium levels would increase dandelion production (1). Our results showed that the potassium-only

samples had the lowest number of dandelions. For plantain, the potassium-only treatment had results

similar to the controls and lower than all other treatments.

Chlorophyll SPAD readings can be considered a general measurement of plant health as they indicate

how the plant is utilizing nitrogen. The grass had higher readings than plantain in all samples, and the

highest levels were found in the NPK and nitrogen-only treatments (Figure 24). Since SPAD readings

for chlorophyll can relate to plant nitrogen levels, the results may indicate that the grass had better

success in incorporating the available nitrogen.

Fungal colonization: The turf on the Eastburn test and control sites were examined for fungal

colonization, since the presence of beneficial fungal colonies can be an indicator of soil health and

suitability for plant growth. The test sites showed a significantly higher level of colonization by

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), which provide increased nutrient uptake to the plants and can thus

improve plant growth (Table 3). There was an equal abundance of dark septate endophytes on both the

test and control plots. While these fungi have been known to provide similar functions as the AMFs,

little is known about them otherwise. According to Catherine Gehring, director of the research lab, the

turf on the test sites had levels which were 10 – 20% lower than other grasses she has examined. This

may indicate that fungal colonization should be promoted.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A university must maintain attractive landscapes, but the maintenance practices can be safe and

effective as opposed to being potentially hazardous. Current practices at NAU utilize large amounts of

chemical herbicides which show increasing evidence of human health risks and environmental damage.

As a part of NAU’s sustainability goals, landscape maintenance practices need to be altered to reduce

these risks and allow the campus to become a model of sustainability for the greater community.

34

Nowadays, the subject of sustainability is found throughout the academic world in everything from

coursework to facilities management. Most universities have sustainability action plans which are

designed to reduce resource consumption and the production of waste materials. In January 2013, a

brief survey was sent out to 225 schools across the country in order to assess the sustainable landscaping

practices at other facilities. The schools were chosen from the College Sustainability Report Card (6).

The surveys were sent via e-mail to someone in facilities management/grounds if the address could be

located; otherwise, they were sent to the most appropriate address found, and we asked that the

questions be forwarded to a knowledgeable individual.

Questions for schools (for turf areas only – athletic fields excluded):

1. Do you use chemical/synthetic herbicides on turf?

If YES: (A) Do you use spot treatments OR complete coverage (such as pre-emergent) OR both?

(B) How often do you treat?

2. What other weed suppression/removal techniques or products do you use?

3. Are you working to reduce chemical herbicidal use over time?

4. Are you reducing turf areas to introduce lower-maintenance landscapes (such as rock mulch, native

plants, meadows, etc)?

5. What is your average mowing height, and how often is turf mowed?

Thirty-five responses were received (for complete response information, see Appendix E: School Survey

Responses). Five of the schools used no chemical herbicides on turf: University of Texas, University of

Oregon, Willamette University (OR), Florida State University, and Goucher College (MD). The

remaining 30 schools used herbicides in varying combinations and amounts, but most incorporated other

practices for weed reduction and were actively reducing chemical applications as well as removing turf

areas in favor of more sustainable landscape designs (Table 5).

35

Spot

treatment only

(n = 30)

Complete

coverage only

(n = 30)

Both (n = 30)

Frequency

of

application

Reducing

chemical

inputs (n = 30)

Reducing

turf

(n = 35)

Average

mowing

height

Mowing frequency

5 24 21 1-4 times

per year

Yes = 25 Yes = 26 3 inches Weekly or

less

often “as

needed” esp. spot

up to 4

inches at 11 schools

varied

greatly

Table 5: Turf maintenance practices at other universities/colleges in the United States.

Soil and turf health were emphasized at most schools: overseeding, topdressing with compost, applying

compost tea, regular aeration. Common alternative practices for weed control included hand-weeding

and the use of organic products such as corn gluten meal and vinegar-based sprays. In reducing turf

areas, many schools were introducing native plantings (shrubs, meadows, wildflowers), increasing wood

and rock mulch areas, and building rain gardens. Reducing irrigated areas was also common.

Additional research found other schools which have eliminated chemical herbicides on campus turf (or

on all campus landscapes): University of Colorado – Boulder, DePaul (IL), Evergreen State (WA),

Harvard (MA), and Seattle University (WA). The University of Arizona in Tucson has had great

success with organic turf management by improving soil microbial activity and is expanding its organic

areas (see http://www.safelawns.org/blog/2012/08/university-of-arizona-embraces-organic-lawn-care/).

One of the greatest issues regarding herbicide use is the level of knowledge the public has regarding

their safety. Information regarding herbicide hazards is not as prevalent as the marketing which

promotes the products’ supposed importance in beautiful landscaping. The film, “A Chemical Reaction”

addresses this issue and was shown on campus in April 2012 and February 2013. The film tells the story

of one town’s decision to ban chemical herbicides from its landscape (see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTcvO-o8NTA). At each showing, SLM gave out a short survey to

each viewer in order to better assess public opinion of herbicide use on campus. The first side of the

survey page was to be completed prior to viewing the film, allowing us to gauge pre-existing opinions of

herbicides. The second side of the survey page was to be completed after viewing the film to see if

opinions had changed. A section for additional comments was also included on each side. Survey

results indicated that the film had a strong effect on viewers, and the information presented was

compelling enough to change most opinions in favor of reducing or eliminating herbicide use (see

36

Appendices F and G: 2012/2013 Film Survey Results for complete survey results). Increasing public

knowledge may encourage more sustainable practices both on campus and in the community beyond.

Since 2011, the Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Project at NAU has been successful in improving

turf health and the aesthetic appeal of lawns by using alternative, organically-approved methods of

maintenance. While it is hoped that research will continue into 2013 to continue to assess materials and

methods, some of our already tested protocols can be considered implementable across campus.

Our maintenance recommendations:

1. Perform regular soil tests, and amend as needed. Lowering pH is critical to most areas of

campus. Include addressing micronutrients such as boron, not just the “big three” of turf:

nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

2. Develop strategies to improve soil microbial activity (beneficial bacteria and fungi).

3. Raise mowing height to 3 inches, particularly during spring drought. This will conserve soil

moisture and encourage turf growth to outcompete weeds.

4. Apply corn gluten meal in the early spring and late fall. The product reduces weed seed

germination and provides an organic source of nitrogen fertilizer which turf grasses rely on.

5. Tolerate some weed species. Plantain does not have showy flowers, and the smaller plants are

not noticeable in dense turf. White clover blends well with turfgrasses and, as a legume, fixes

nitrogen within the soil, creating natural fertilization. Because of these traits, clover was

originally included in all lawn seed mixtures until the chemical manufacturers developing new

herbicides could not create a product that did not kill clover, too. Through extensive advertising,

these corporations created a market for “grass only” lawns.

6. Hand-weed all rock mulch areas. It is fast and provides a more aesthetically-pleasing result than

leaving dead plants on the rocks after spray has been applied. Impermeable weed barriers are

highly effective, but they can create a run-off hazard with herbicides: the spray cannot soak

down into the underlying soil and may be washed into non-target areas or into the watershed.

Additional research needed: There are still many questions to answer in the quest for sustainable

landscape maintenance. More experimentation needs to be done with alternative weed suppression

treatments. One spot spray, BurnOut 2, was tested in 2013, but other products exist which may prove

37

more effective. The timing of application is also critical: perennial plants need to be sprayed as they

first emerge from dormancy. Annuals should be treated as soon as they germinate. Sprays may be more

effective when used in conjunction with other methods such as digging or line-trimming. Other

products, such as iron chelates, may also be useful.

Biological controls, such as bacteria and fungi, are becoming more available and deserve consideration.

The following were found through literature review and may be appropriate for NAU (see Appendix H:

Alternative Herbicides for Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture):

MBI 005 has pre- and post-emergent effects on broadleaf weeds. It contains the herbicidal secretions of

the bacteria, Streptomyces acidiscabies, but there are no living bacteria in the product, so there is no risk

of spread to unintended areas.

Sclerotinia minor (SarritorTM) affects 37 species of turfgrass weeds, but it is most effective at

controlling dandelion. Overseeding and high mow heights help increase the product’s effectiveness.

Phoma macrostoma is a fungus which kills weeds including dandelion, medic, clover, plantain, and

chickweed. It causes chlorosis (white growth) in the plant, which inhibits photosynthesis. One study

found 92% control of dandelions 84 days after application.

The pending results of the summer and fall 2012 sessions of greenhouse research may provide useable

information regarding soil nutrient levels and their effects on weed production. Additional greenhouse

research may prove useful as quality data becomes available. In literature reviews, it is repeatedly stated

that soil health is the key to healthy grass outcompeting weeds. As we increase our understanding of

the influence of soil composition on grass and weed species, we will be able to adjust our maintenance

practices accordingly.

By reducing or eliminating chemical herbicide use on campus, NAU can create a healthier environment

for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Materials and methods are available which can maintain an

aesthetically-pleasing landscape while being cost-effective and easy to implement. As NAU strengthens

its commitment to sustainable practices through facilities management, the greater Flagstaff community

will be positively impacted by the reduction in resource use and potentially hazardous inputs. Other

38

schools across the country can look to NAU as a model of sustainability and implement the protocols

found to be successful. Northern Arizona University can become a leader in sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Tilman, E.A., Tilman, D., Crawley, M.J., and A.E. Johnston. 1999. Biological Weed Control via Nutrient

Competition: Potassium Limitation of Dandelions. Ecological Applications, 9(1), pp. 103-111.

2. Define and Discuss Micronutrients. National Forage & Grasslands Curriculum:

http://forages.oregonstate.edu/nfgc/eo/onlineforagecurriculum/instructormaterials/availabletopics/fertilization/micronutrients

3. Boron Deficiency in Putting Greens? The Campus Connection: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/groot/article/1994sep9.pdf

4. Boron: 1/1/10. Albrecht’s Animals: http://albrechtsanimals.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/03/boron-

1110.html/

5. Weeds are Indicators of Soil Problems. The Lawn Institute:

http://www.thelawninstitute.org/science/?C=186974

6. The College Sustainability Report Card – Report Card 201: http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-

card-2011

39

2012 APPENDIX A

A Literature Review of Herbicide Toxicity to Humans Focusing on herbicides used on the Flagstaff campus of Northern Arizona University

Erin Miller: Senior pursuing B.S. in Chemistry, Environmental Caucus, Northern Arizona University, Nov. 2012

Abstract With the goal of reaching scientifically supported conclusions about the health effects of the five

herbicides used on Northern Arizona University’s campus, this literature search was carried out over a span of several months. Scientific databases, journals, and websites were searched through for relevant,

published, and peer-reviewed studies. The methodologies and results of these studies were documented. In conjunction with one another, the studies provide strong evidence of an association between exposure

to a majority of these herbicides and serious health problems.

Introduction This literature search was conducted

as a project of the Sustainable Environmental Practices Action Team of the

Environmental Caucus, with the intention of collecting and summarizing scientific data

on the effects on human health of the herbicides used on Northern Arizona

University’s Flagstaff campus: Roundup Pro, Lontrel Turf and Ornamental,

Pendulum Aquacap, Speedzone Southern Broadleaf, and Gallery 75 Dry Flowable. It

does not specifically address the possible environmental hazards of these herbicides.

Although the debate concerning herbicides’ safety related to human health is ongoing,

there is ample evidence of their toxicity. In 2004, the Ontario College of

Family Physicians released a literature review entitled “Pesticides Literature

Review“ which urges “that people reduce

their exposure to pesticides1

wherever possible,” for they found “consistent links to

serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological

diseases, among others” (1). The report’s principle findings include:

1 Herbicides are a sub-category of pesticides.

“Many studies reviewed by the Ontario College show positive

associations between tumours and pesticide exposure […].”

“Previous studies have pointed to certain pesticides, such as [2,4-

dichlorophenoxyacetic acid] and related pesticides, as possible

precipitants of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma […].”

“The review team uncovered a

remarkable consistency of findings of nervous system effects of

pesticide exposures.”

It was also consistently seen that children exposed to pesticides increasingly suffered

from various cancers, including Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Leukemia.

While the Ontario College reviewed studies of numerous pesticides, not just those found

on NAU’s campus, it reported negative health effects across all brands of commonly

used pesticides and herbicides. Each herbicide product is manufactured with

potent ingredients that fulfill a similar task: eradicating unwanted vegetation. A trend is

emerging that correlates the use of these chemicals with human illness, and this

literature review is meant to shed light on

40

the specific herbicides used on the NAU Flagstaff campus.

Methodology

The research resources available through the Northern Arizona University

Cline Library were extensively used, including the following databases: CSA

Illumina, ACS Publications, SciFinder, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library.

Specific chemical names were searched for within these databases and the searches were

refined, if possible, to include results pertaining to toxicology. When utilizing the

SciFinder database, the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry numbers

2 for the

chemicals present in each of the five pesticides were obtained and used for

subsequent research. The list produced for each search was scoured for studies having

titles and summaries focusing primarily on the targeted herbicide; these studies were

then manually filtered through for definitive conclusions concerning the herbicide,

positive or negative. Additionally, the “Find Journals”

link was used from the Cline Library website. This tool offered another route for

the discovery of pertinent studies and information. Journals were sought out by

inserting words into the search bar that were contained within or completed the title of a

scientific journal (i.e. “toxicology”). A journal was selected and its issues were

examined for applicable studies and articles. Google Scholar was also used to find studies

by searching for specific chemicals as well as the marketed herbicides’ names. When

scientific studies simply could not be located for one herbicide, Gallery 75 Dry Flowable,

its Material Safety Data Sheet provided an array of determined facts about the nature of

its chemicals.

2 CAS numbers are assigned to each chemical for ease of research concerning specific substances.

Initially, the “Beyond Pesticides” website was used as a source of accumulated

studies relating to the toxicology of pesticides. A number of these dealt with the

herbicides specific to Northern Arizona University’s campus, and were cited once

confirmed as peer-reviewed sources. Also, a list of scientific terms with unknown

definitions was compiled and Professor Betty Brown of NAU’s Health Sciences

faculty was consulted for their meanings so that each study could be understood more

thoroughly. In order to cite each source used

within the report, the American Chemical Society style of citation was used which

entails the following: Sources are listed numerically according to their order of

appearance in the report under References; in-text, they are labeled with said numbers

in parentheses.

Results

Roundup Pro (Active ingredient: isopropyl

amine salt of glyphosate: 50.2%) – Non-

selective herbicide The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, or OSHA, according to its standard 29 CFR 1910.1200

3, classified

Roundup as “hazardous.” A product of Roundup’s combustion is carbon monoxide,

which is a toxic gas. Two studies (2, 3) connect an increased occurrence of the

cancer Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma with exposure to glyphosate, both of which

conducted case-control studies consisting of cancer registry members and randomly-

selected people from the general populace. Interviews performed by professionals were

held to obtain herbicide use information from each participant. Another study (4)

3 “Ensures that the hazards of all chemicals produced

or imported are evaluated, and that information

concerning their hazards is transmitted to employers and employees,” according to OSHA’s website.

41

found that certain pesticides, including glyphosate, are “significantly positively

associated with current Rhinitis,” or the inflammation of internal areas of the nose

which may hinder sleep and the ability to learn. The subjects of this study were over

2,000 pesticide applicators from the Agricultural Health Study, and it was

concluded that “exposure to pesticides may increase the risk of rhinitis.”

An additional study (5) “evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based

herbicides in Roundup (R) formulations” on human umbilical, embryonic, and placental

cells: “All [Roundup] formulations cause total cell death within 24 hours.” These

scientists concluded that “adjuvants4

in Roundup formulations are not inert,” but are

instead active. Another study investigating the effects of glyphosate on human placental

cells (6) found that it – especially in the Roundup mixture – is toxic to these

placental cells “within 18 hours with concentrations lower than those found with

agricultural use.” They conclude that “toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can

be observed in mammals,” and that “the presence of Roundup adjuvants enhances

glyphosate bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation

5.”

Another study (7), citing that “cutaneous

6 exposure to a glyphosate-

containing herbicide has been postulated as contributing to Parkinsonism,” conducted an

experiment in which rats were orally administered single doses of glyphosate and

then tested through blood samples. It was concluded that “although the bioavailability

was low, glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA

7 were eliminated from plasma

4 Drugs or other substances that enhance the activity

of another. 5 The accumulation within living organisms of toxic

substances occurring in the environment. 6 Relating to or involving the skin. 7 Mimics AMPA receptor, which allows passage of calcium, sodium, and potassium.

slowly and therefore would be diffused to target tissues to exert systemic effects.”

However, the authors also state, “The toxicokinetic

8 characteristics of glyphosate

identified in this study warrant further research on possible mechanisms of toxicity

of this herbicide.” A different experiment (8) “studied the effect on cell cycle

regulation of the widely used glyphosate-containing pesticide Roundup,” using “sea

urchin embryonic first divisions following fertilization, which are appropriate for the

study of universal cell cycle regulation without interference with transcription.” It

was shown that “0.8% Roundup (containing 8 mM glyphosate) induces a delay in the

kinetic of the first cell cleavage9

of sea urchin embryos,” calling into question “the

safety of glyphosate and Roundup on human health.”

The only study (9) found in the literature search that suggested Roundup

presents no human health concern included studies “performed for regulatory purposes

as well as published research reports.” This study was conducted on behalf of Monsanto

– Roundup’s manufacturer – by Robert Kroes, Gary M. Williams and Ian C.

Munroe. According to the Aspartame Toxicity Info Center (10), Robert Kroes and

Gary M. Williams “joined with Ian C. Munoe, the president of the Cantox Health

Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its

herbicide, glyphosate” (10).

Lontrel Turf and Ornamental (Active

ingredients: “Clopyralid MEA Salt”:

40.9%; “isopropanol”: 5.0%; “ethylene

oxide, propylene oxide and di-sec-

butylphenol polymer”: 1.0%) – broad-

spectrum herbicide for thistle control in

vegetable cultivation

8 What rate a chemical will enter the body and what

happens to it once it is in the body. 9 Motion of the first cell separation.

42

As listed in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), OSHA refers to this

herbicide as a “Hazardous Chemical,” and its SARA Hazard Categories

10 are both

“Immediate Health Hazard” and “Delayed Health Hazard”. The standards held by

these organizations are listed in Appendix A. Few peer-reviewed scientific studies

reporting on the safety of Lontrel could be located. The one report (11) found with a

high caliber of credentials and data is titled “Teratologic Evaluation of 3,6-

Dichloropicolinic Acid in Rats and Rabbits,” 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid being known also

as Clopyralid. The report immediately divulges the fact that its authors “performed

these studies in the Toxicology Research Laboratory of The Dow Chemical

Company,” the manufacturer of Lontrel. Negative effects of exposure to Lontrel were

reported. Pregnant rats and rabbits were fed Clopyralid at various doses and the

consequences on their gestation were observed: “Pregnant rats in the 250-

mg/kg/day groups gained significantly less weight than controls on Days 6 through 15

of gestation,” and “the mean fetal body weight was significantly increased at the 75-

mg/kg/day dose level.” Additionally, there were numerous fetal alterations as a result of

exposure to Lontrel’s ingredient Clopyralid: “Examination of the fetuses for skeletal

alterations revealed a significant increase in the incidence of bilobed centra

11 of the

thoracic vertebra in the 15-mg/kg/day group”; “One fetus with a hemivertebra

12

and three fetuses with polydactyly13

were observed in the 250-mg/kg/day dose group.

These alterations were considered to be

10 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Act of 1986 Title III (Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986). 11 The main vertebra dividing into two lobes. 12 Vertebra that is incompletely developed on one

side. 13 the presence of more than five digits on a hand or foot.

major malformations. Lastly, “A significant decrease in the incidence of delayed

ossification14

of centra of the cervical vertebrae,” or an unusual speeding up of

bone formation, “was observed in the 75- and 250-mg/kg/day dose groups,” but is “not

considered to be of toxicological significance.”

Pendulum Aquacap (Active ingredient:

“Pendimethalin”: 38.7%) – pre-emergent

broadleaf

The MSDS for this specific substance presents the following

information: “If product is heated above decomposition temperature, toxic vapours

will be released,” such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides; Pendulum is “not

readily biodegradable”; and OSHA states, “Chronic target organ effects reported.”

One study (12) was performed in hopes of either confirming or refuting other studies’

conclusions about endocrine15

disrupting effects of different pesticides, as well as the

facts that the US Environmental Protection Agency classified pendimethalin as a

possible human carcinogen (group C)16

and as a ‘slightly toxic’ compound (toxicity class

III). These authors found that “the higher two doses of pendimethalin, 300 and

600 mg/kg/day, elicited a small but significant increase in absolute uterine

weight,” which is indicative of Pendulum’s ability to affect and disrupt pregnancy.

Another study (13) examined the damage done by certain pesticides and found that

“pendimethalin induced cytotoxicity17

in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells treated

for 3 hours.” The report is ended with the relation of these findings to other analyses’

14 Bone formation. 15 Glands that secrete hormones directly into the

bloodstream. 16 See Appendix A, under EPA 17 The degree to which something is toxic to living cells.

43

declarations that “incidences of rectum and lung cancers are associated with

pendimethalin, and that DNA damage is one of the factors for carcinogenicity.”

A third study (14) evaluated “environmentally relevant, low-dose

exposures to agrochemicals and lawn-care pesticides for their direct effects on mouse

preimplantation embryo development,” using pendimethalin, but also using

dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and mecoprop, or MCPP – all of

which are ingredients present in other herbicides used on the NAU campus. It was

found that “dicamba alone or combined with pendimethalin or 2,4-D and atrazine induced

significant levels of cell death18

.” Another study (15) focused on “the potential

associations between the use of a number of pesticides and pancreatic cancer” using the

Agricultural Health Study cohort, which consists of “over 89,000 participants

including pesticide applicators and their spouses.” It was discovered that

“applicators in the top half of lifetime pendimethalin use had a 3.0-fold (95% CI

1.3–7.2, p-trend = 0.01)19

risk compared with never users.” The confidence interval

(CI) relates that 95% of the time, a person’s risk of pancreatic cancer was multiplied by a

number in the given range (1.3 to 7.2); the p-trend says that this conclusion would be

disregarded if its probability was any less than .01, or 1%. The authors conclude their

report with the statement, “These findings suggest that herbicides, particularly

pendimethalin and EPTC20

, may be associated with pancreatic cancer.”

18 Technically, “apoptosis” or programmed cell

death; necessary cell death that, for example,

separates toes. 19 A study’s confidence interval (CI) shows the reliability of a study’s estimate; a study’s p-trend

value gives the probability of getting a test statistic

that is at least as extreme as the one observed (often

.01 or .05). 20 A different but unrelated pesticide.

Speedzone Southern Broadleaf (Active

ingredients: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid (2,4-D): 10.49%; dicamba: 0.67%;

carfentrazone-ethyl: 0.54%; propionic acid

(MCPP): 2.66%) – post-emergent

broadleaf A facet of the WHO, called the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has catalogued carcinogenic

substances and compounds. It classifies “chlorophenoxy herbicides” as “Possibly

carcinogenic to humans.” 2,4-D, a main ingredient of Speedzone, is a part of this

group. Additionally, the MSDS for

Speedzone contains the following information: OSHA refers to the substance

as “hazardous”; its SARA Hazard Categories are both “Immediate Health

Hazard” and “Delayed Health Hazard”; and its byproducts from combustion include

carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. One study (16) tested the effects of

phenoxyacetic acids on mice, including a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-

trichlorophenoxyacetic acid. “Subcutaneous injections were given from day 6 through

day 14 of pregnancy,” and various health levels were recorded. Ultimately, “It was

found that both preparations at the high dosage (110 mg/kg/day) were teratogenic

21

and embryotoxic22

.” A similar study (17) tested five herbicidal phenoxycarboxylic

acids, including 2,4-D and MCPP which are both found in Speedzone. These authors

found that “all 5 were embryotoxic and teratogenic.”

The same study (14) that applied to Pendulum’s ingredients also pertains to

Speedzone. Again, its authors evaluated “environmentally relevant, low-dose

21 Able to disturb the growth and development of an

embryo or fetus. 22 Adversely affecting the growth and/or development of an embryo.

44

exposures to agrochemicals and lawn-care pesticides for their direct effects on mouse

preimplantation embryo development,” using pendimethalin, but also using

dicamba, 2,4-D, and (MCPP). The methodology involved incubating groups of

embryos “in vitro with either individual chemicals or mixtures of chemicals

simulating exposures encountered by handling pesticides, inhaling drift, or

ingesting contaminated groundwater.” As stated before, “Dicamba alone or combined

with pendimethalin or 2,4-D and atrazine induced significant levels of cell death

(apoptosis18).” Also, “The highest

percentages of apoptosis were observed for

embryos […] incubated with the individual herbicides dicamba, 2,4-D, and MCPP (all p

≤ 0.05),” all of which are contained within Speedzone. Another analysis (18)

“investigated the developmental toxicity in mice of a common commercial formulation

of herbicide containing a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop [MCPP], dicamba, and inactive

ingredients.” It was observed that “herbicide administration caused a decrease

in the number of live-born pups at all dosage levels.” Moreover, it was cited in this report

that “A higher than normal frequency of human births with central nervous system,

urogenital, circulatory/respiratory, or musculoskeletal anomalies in western

Minnesota has been linked to the use of 2,4-D and other phenoxyacetic acid-derived

herbicides.” As a possible explanation, these authors state that “the interaction

between 2,4-D, mecoprop [MCPP], and dicamba leads to effects different from those

of 2,4-D alone or that the inactive ingredients present in the commercial

formulation have effects of their own that are more important than those of the active

ingredients.”

Gallery 75 Dry Flowable (Active

ingredient: Isoxaben: 75%; other

ingredients (kaolin and crystalline silica):

25%) – Selective pre-emergent broadleaf

Isoxaben is classified by the EPA as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic

potential” (Class C), while the MSDS for Gallery 75 states that it “contains

component(s) which, in animals, have been shown to cause liver and kidney effects.

Repeated excessive exposure to crystalline silica may cause silicosis, a progressive and

disabling disease of the lungs.” Also, under “Cancer Information” on the MSDS,

crystalline silica is said to be listed as a carcinogen under OSHA Standard 29 CFR

1910.1200; also, “an increase in non-malignant liver tumors was observed with

isoxaben in one of two species tested.” Gallery 75 is classified by SARA as “an

immediate health hazard” and “a delayed health effect.”

Very little additional scientific information regarding this herbicide could

be found. The “Beyond Pesticides” website, dedicated to providing Internet links to peer-

reviewed herbicide studies, presents a chart of compiled information which states that

isoxaben may cause the following health effects: cancer “possible,” kidney/liver

damage (19). In addition, an organization titled Pesticide Action Network (PAN) calls

isoxaben “highly hazardous” (20).

45

Discussion

Roundup Pro – Non-selective herbicide

Over the span of three years (2009-2011), an average of 1,601 gallons per year

of Roundup Pro were applied to the Northern Arizona University campus.

Several studies were found to arrive at conclusions generally similar to one

another: Roundup and its individual ingredients – even those labeled as inert –

are correlated with an increased risk of health problems. Rhinitis and Non-

Hodgkin’s Lymphoma are two examples of illnesses that, based on the results of above

studies, are associated with exposure to glyphosate, the main ingredient of Roundup.

Two different studies found that glyphosate kills human cells – placental, umbilical, and

embryonic – and another study’s results reinforce a link between a “glyphosate-

containing herbicide” and Parkinsonism. An extensive literature study titled “Safety

Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active

Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” assembled statements made by several

agencies and institutions saying, “Reviews on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup

herbicide that have been conducted by several regulatory agencies and scientific

institutions worldwide have concluded that there is no indication of any human health

concern.”

Lontrel Turf and Ornamental – broad-

spectrum herbicide for thistle control in

vegetable cultivation Over the span of three years (2009-

2011), an average of 1,762 gallons per year of Lontrel were applied to the Northern

Arizona University campus. Aside from the information obtained

from Lontrel’s MSDS, only one scientific study (11) could be found using the

described methodology of this report. At

one point it states, “No single major malformation occurred at an incidence that

was significantly greater than that of controls,” referring to fetal alterations of the

rats that were experimented on. The wording of this statement seems to imply

that, while no single major malformation occurred, the cumulative malformations

were noteworthy. The authors continue to describe the abnormalities that were

observed in rat litters whose mothers were fed varying Clopyralid doses during

gestation. For example, vertebra formation was altered in rats belonging to the 75- and

250-mg/kg/day dose groups. This observation’s importance is dependent on

the standard which the authors use to define “toxicological significance,” which is not

listed in the report. Nonetheless, there is an indication from this and other observations

documented in the report that exposure to Clopyralid may be associated with fetal

deformities. Moreover, it is declared in this study that the authors performed their work

in the laboratory of The Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturer of Lontrel.

Pendulum Aquacap – pre-emergent

broadleaf Over the span of three years (2009-

2011), an average of 1,651 gallons per year of Pendulum were applied to the Northern

Arizona University campus. In addition to the EPA’s designation

of Pendulum as a possible human carcinogen, studies found a correlation

between pendimethalin exposure and illnesses in the uterus and embryos of test

subjects – most often rats. Pancreatic cancer was also regularly found to be an effect of

exposure to this herbicide. One particular study (14) looked not only at the toxicity of

Pendulum’s pendimethalin, but also of dicamba, 2,4-D, and MPCC (in Speedzone)

on “mouse preimplantation embryo development.” The fact that health

46

problems arose due to exposure to these individual chemicals as well as

combinations of them is extremely relevant to Northern Arizona University’s current

grounds keeping situation, which utilizes herbicides composed of all of these

substances. Also, pre-emergent broadleaf chemicals such as Pendulum are sprayed in

abundance and on vast areas; this and the fact that Pendulum is not readily

biodegradable (but instead remains a long term danger as residue on affected grasses)

heightens the threat of Pendulum and therefore the importance of promptly

curtailing its use.

Speedzone Southern Broadleaf – post-

emergent broadleaf

Over the span of three years (2009-2011), an average of 5,423 gallons per year

of Speedzone were applied to the Northern Arizona University campus; it is also

classified by the IARC of the WHO as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Speedzone is also the other herbicide to which the above-mentioned study (14)

pertains, for it is composed of dicamba, 2,4-D, and MCPP – the other three chemicals

that produced abnormalities in embryo health. In combination with pendimethalin,

Pendulum’s primary ingredient, significant levels of cell death” were noticed. The most

extreme levels were seen in “embryos incubated with the individual herbicides

dicamba, 2,4-D, and MCPP.” Aside from this study, others consistently found

exposure to Speedzone’s chemicals to cause disruption in the development of embryos.

Gallery 75 Dry Flowable – Selective pre-

emergent broadleaf

Over the span of three years (2009-2011), an average of 4,277 gallons per year

of Gallery 75 were applied to the Northern Arizona University campus.

Isoxaben – the main active ingredient of Gallery 75 – is classified by

the EPA, as mentioned before, as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic

potential.” And while no scientific studies relating to the toxicity or lack thereof for

this herbicide could be found, the Material Safety Data Sheet for Gallery 75 provides

some information and analyses of the substance’s effects on mammalian health.

For example, “Repeated excessive exposure to crystalline silica may cause silicosis, a

progressive and disabling disease of the lungs,” and crystalline silica is “listed as a

carcinogen for hazard communication purposes under OSHA Standard 29 CFR

1910.1200.” Also, Gallery 75 “contains components which, in animals, have been

shown to cause liver and kidney effects, including non-malignant tumors.” Without

further confirmation of this herbicide’s toxicity from peer-reviewed research

reports, the information from the MSDS seems sufficient to warrant caution

regarding the overall safety of using Gallery 75 Dry Flowable.

47

Conclusion

Based on the conclusions of each of these published studies, one can justifiably

be wary of using herbicides, especially on NAU’s heavily populated campus. While

differences in methodology will result in conflicting inferences, it is clear that the

procedures employed by these peer-reviewed studies revealed harmful herbicide

behaviors in mammalian and other relevant test subjects. Furthermore, three of the five

herbicides used on campus are classified as possible human carcinogens, while

thousands of gallons are being applied annually.

Analogous is the dilemma of second-hand cigarette smoke. Many endorsers of

cigarettes deny the hazard of second-hand smoke. Despite this, policies are enforced to

protect the public from unintentional inhalation of this smoke: signs are posted

that require cigarettes to be consumed at least a certain distance from buildings, and

one cannot smoke inside most establishments such as bars and restaurants.

This makes quite obvious the concern of policy-makers about the hazards of exposure

to second-hand smoke. Much scientific data was collected and analyzed before effort was

put into the act of reducing the public’s undesired contact with second-hand smoke;

a similar effort could be the outcome of acknowledging the conclusions of studies

like those contained in this literature review of herbicides.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians recommends that the public

“avoid exposure to all pesticides wherever and whenever possible” and emphasizes

“researching and implementing alternative organic methods of lawn and garden care”

(1). Alternatives do exist, and a healthier environment can be created with their use.

More urgently, the eradication of herbicides can save lives and preserve the health of

humans. Effort must be put forth, however, to accomplish this increasing necessity.

Executive Conclusions

Roundup Pro

“Hazardous,” according to

OSHA

Associated with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Toxic to placental and

embryonic cells

Inert ingredients actually

active and harmful

Lontrel Turf and

Ornamental

“Hazardous Chemical,” according to OSHA

Weight abnormalities

during rat gestation with regular dosage

Skeletal problems in

newborn rats whose mother

was exposed

Pendulum

Aquacap

“Possible human carcinogen,” according to

EPA

“Chronic target organ effects,” according to

OSHA

Cytotoxic, or toxic to living cells

Pancreatic cancer associated with extensive

exposure

Speedzone

Southern

Broadleaf

“Possibly carcinogenic to humans,” according to

IARC;

“Hazardous,” according to OSHA

Teratogenic and

embryotoxic in rats (harms

fetuses)

“Caused a decrease in the

number of live-born pups”

Gallery 75 Dry

Flowable

“Carcinogenic potential,” according to EPA

“Carcinogen,” according to

OSHA

“May cause silicosis, a

progressive and disabling

disease of the lungs” with lengthy exposure

48

References

1: Ontario College of Family Physicians. Pesticides Literature Review. Toronto: Ontario College of

Family Physicians, 2004. Print.

2: Hardell, L., M. Eriksson, and M. Nordstrom. "Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's

lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia" Leukemia and Lymphoma 43.5 (2002): 1043-049. Oxford Journals |

Medicine | American Journal of Epidemiology. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.

<http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/849>.

3: De Roos, A. J. "Integrative Assessment of Multiple Pesticides as Risk Factors for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma among Men." Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60.9 (2003): 11e-11. Print.

4: Slager, R. E., J. A. Poole, T. D. LeVan, D. P. Sandler, M C R. Alavanja, and J. A. Hoppin. "Rhinitis

Associated with Pesticide Exposure among Commercial Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study." Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66.11 (2009): 718-24. Print.

5: Benachour, Nora, and Gilles-Eric S ralini. Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis

in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells." Chemical Research in Toxicology 22.1 (2009): 97-105. Print.

6: Richard, Sophie, Safa Moslemi, Herbert Sipahutar, Nora Benachour, and Gilles-Eric Seralini.

"Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase."

Environmental Health Perspectives 113.6 (2005). Print.

7: Anadón, A., M.R. Martínez-Larrañaga, M.A. Martínez, V.J. Castellano, M. Martínez, M.T. Martin,

M.J. Nozal, and J.L. Bernal. "Toxicokinetics of Glyphosate and Its Metabolite Aminomethyl

Phosphonic Acid in Rats." Toxicology Letters 190.1 (2009): 91-95. Print.

8: Marc, J., O. Mulner-Lorillon, S. Boulben, D. Hureau, and R. Bellé. "Pesticide Roundup Provokes

Cell Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/cyclin B Activation." Chemical Research in Toxicology 15.3 (2002): 326-31. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.

9: Williams, Gary M., Robert Kroes, and Ian C. Munro. "Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the

Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31.2 (2000): 117-65. Print.

10: Aspartame and Manufacturer-Funded Scientific Reviews." Holistic Medicine Web Page. Web. 04

Feb. 2011. <http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/>.

11: Hayes, W. C., F. A. Smith, J. A. John, and K. S. Rao. "Teratologic Evaluation of 3,6-Dichloropicolinic Acid in Rats and Rabbits." Toxicological Sciences 4.1 (1984): 91-97. Print.

49

12: Ündeğer, U., M. Schlumpf, and W. Lichtensteiger. Effect of the Herbicide Pendimethalin on Rat Uterine Weight and Gene Expression and in Silico Receptor Binding Analysis." Science Direct. Feb.

2010. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.

13: Patel, Sushila, Mahima Bajpayee, Alok Kumar Pandey, Devendra Parmar, and Alok Dhawan. "In Vitro Induction of Cytotoxicity and DNA Strand Breaks in CHO Cells Exposed to Cypermethrin,

Pendimethalin and Dichlorvos." Toxicology in Vitro 21.8 (2007): 1409-418. Print.

14: Greenlee, Anne R., Tammy M. Ellis, and Richard L. Berg. "Low-Dose Agrochemicals and Lawn Care Pesticides Induce Developmental Toxicity in Murine Preimplantation Embryos." Environmental

Health Perspectives (2004). Print.

15: Andreotti, Gabriella, Laura E. Beane Freeman, Lifang Hou, Joseph Coble, Jennifer Rusiecki, Jane A. Hoppin, Debra T. Silverman, and Michael C.R. Alavanja. "Agricultural Pesticide Use and Pancreatic

Cancer Risk in the Agricultural Health Study Cohort." International Journal of Cancer 124.10 (2009): 2495-500. Print.

16: Båge, Gertrud, Eva Cekanova, and K. S. Larsson. "Teratogenic and Embryotoxic Effects of the

Herbicides Di- and Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acids (2, 4D and 2, 4, 5-T)." Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology 32.6 (1973): 408-16. Print.

17: Roll, R., and G. Matthiaschk. "10. Comparative Studies on the Embryotoxicity of 2-methyl-4-

chlorophenoxyacetic Acid, Mecoprop and Dichlorprop in NMRI Mice." Arzneimittel-Forschung 33.10 (1983): 1479. Print.

18: Cavieres, Maria F., James Jaeger, and Warren Porter. "Developmental Toxicity of a Commercial

Herbicide Mixture in Mice: I. Effects on Embryo Implantation and Litter Size." Environmental Health Perspectives (2002). BNET. Web. 2 Jan. 2011.

19: "Health Effects of 30 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides." Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, Apr. 2005.

Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/30health.pdf>.

20: "PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides." Pesticide Action Network International. PAN Germany for PAN International, Jan. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

50

Appendix A: Organization Backgrounds and Standards (Information obtained from organizations’ respective websites)

Pesticide Action Network (PAN)

1. “Since its founding in 1982, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) has been the civil society organisation (CSO) most steadily and continuously calling for effective international action

towards the elimination of hazardous pesticides.” 2. “For the FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] initiative supported by the FAO Council, the

COAG [Committee on Agriculture], the FAO/WHO Panel of Experts for Pesticide Management and others, there needs to be clarification of when the progressive ban of highly hazardous

pesticides (HHP) should happen, and who should make it happen. These are questions not being dealt with in this publication.”

3. “A pesticide is considered to be highly hazardous by PAN if it has one of the following characteristics,

high acute toxicity (including inhalative toxicity) and/or,

long-term toxic effects at chronic exposure (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity,

endocrine disruption) and/or,

high environmental concern either through ubiquitous exposure, bioaccumulation or toxicity, and/or

known to cause a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment”

World Health Organization (WHO)

1. General Statement: “Pesticides are chemical compounds that are used to kill pests, including insects, rodents, fungi and unwanted plants (weeds). Pesticides are used in public health to kill

vectors of disease, such as mosquitoes, and in agriculture, to kill pests that damage crops. By their nature, pesticides are potentially toxic to other organisms, including humans, and need to be

used safely and disposed of properly.” 2. WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES)

a. “The WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) was set up in 1960. WHOPES promotes and coordinates the testing and evaluation of pesticides for public health. It

functions through the participation of representatives of governments, manufacturers of pesticides and pesticide application equipment, WHO Collaborating Centres and research

institutions, as well as other WHO programmes, notably the International Programme on Chemical Safety.”

b. “In its present form, WHOPES comprises a four-phase evaluation and testing programme, studying the safety, efficacy and operational acceptability of public health

pesticides and developing specifications for quality control and international trade.” 3. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)

a. “The objective of chemicals assessment is to provide a consensus scientific description of the risks of chemical exposures. These descriptions are published in assessment reports

and other related documents so that governments and international and national organizations can use them as the basis for taking preventive actions against adverse

health and environmental impacts.” 4. International Agency for Research on Cancer

a. Website: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

51

b. Page titled “Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans” lists commercial products deemed harmful and cancer-causing

c. Listed according to hazard strength

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1. “Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ensure safe

and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.”

a. Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 (Toxic and Hazardous Substances) i. "Health hazard" means a chemical for which there is statistically significant

evidence based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed

employees. The term "health hazard" includes chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive toxins, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers,

hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins, agents which act on the hematopoietic system, and agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes.”

b. Appendix A (Health Hazard Definitions) i. “The determination of occupational health hazards is complicated by the fact that

many of the effects or signs and symptoms occur commonly in non-occupationally exposed populations, so that effects of exposure are difficult to

separate from normally occurring illnesses. […] The situation is further complicated by the fact that most chemicals have not been adequately tested to

determine their health hazard potential, and data do not exist to substantiate these effects.”

c. Appendix B (Hazard Determination) i. “The hazard determination requirement of this standard is performance-oriented.

Chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers evaluating chemicals are not required to follow any specific methods for determining hazards, but they must be

able to demonstrate that they have adequately ascertained the hazards of the chemicals produced or imported in accordance with the criteria set forth in this

Appendix.”

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1. http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/ncap-publications-and-reports/general-reports-and-

publications/corrected-2010-cancer-report-public.pdf 2. “EPA was established to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring,

standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon

which life depends.” 3. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)

a. “Amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)”

b. “SARA reflected EPA's experience in administering the complex Superfund program during its first six years and made several important changes and additions to the

program.”

52

c. “SARA also required EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to ensure that it accurately assessed the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed

by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).”

4. Group C: “Possible Human Carcinogen”/“Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” a. “There is limited evidence that it can cause cancer in animals in the absence of

b. human data, but at present it is not conclusive.”

53

2012 APPENDIX B

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.

54

4. That NAU’s successes in this effort be shared with the broader community to help eliminate herbicides on a regional scale.

Background

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 recent study

documented in the May 2006 Scientific American showed that individually “safe” levels of these chemicals can

inflict serious harm on the ecosystem when combined. The multiple herbicides that NAU uses combine with

what the rest of Flagstaff uses when they run off and accumulate in streams, rivers and ponds, thus endangering

aquatic life as well as the animals and humans that eventually drink the water.

In 2004, the Ontario [Canada] College of Family Physicians published a comprehensive summary of all peer-

reviewed studies published between 1992 and 2003 that investigated the human health effects of pesticides

[including herbicides]. The report concludes that exposure to all the commonly used pesticides has shown

positive associations with adverse health effects including cancerous tumors, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,

leukemia, and genetic damage.

According to a 1996 report by the Attorney General of New York State, the chemicals used as “inert ingredients”

in herbicides and pesticides “include some of the most dangerous substances known. Some of these chemicals

are suspected carcinogens and have been linked to other long-term health problems like central nervous system

disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects.”

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? Furthermore, how can NAU

be accountable for providing a safe working and learning environment by spraying herbicide on the grass where

students often lie down to study? We are told herbicides are harmless once they dry, but ask yourself if you

would lie down in the grass where herbicide had recently been sprayed and eat your lunch or read a book. I

know of one instance where a small child came into a campus building with her parents, holding a dandelion to

her mouth and licking it, the same day dandelion spraying had been done around that building. Finally, is it fair

to chemically sensitive employees to force them to remain at home and make up lost work time or use vacation

time so they can have a safe working environment when herbicides are sprayed around their buildings?

Opportunities for Leadership

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.

55

Goal 3: Stewardship and Sustainability of Place.

Strategy 2: Be a model of environmentally responsible and sustainable operations and education.

Initiatives:

Partner with individuals, institutions, and communities to advance…sustainable practices.

A growing number of universities and cities are eliminating herbicide use. NAU should learn from those who

have already addressed this problem and then contribute back to this knowledge base our own locally

developed practices. For example, Seattle University, ranked among the top 10 schools in the West by U.S. News

and World Report, has not used herbicides or pesticides on its campus for over 20 years. Tufts University has

undertaken a pilot project to manage a portion of campus grounds organically. A detailed report on this

program is available on their web site.

Enhance sustainable business practices in areas such as…landscaping….

Proactive planning to eliminate weed problems through creative landscaping and the use of geo-textile and

plastic weed barriers would reduce the size of weed-vulnerable areas.

Use the “campus as ecosystem” concept across the curriculum to educate faculty and students about the

scientific…and ethical dimensions of sustainability.

…and…

Implement issue-oriented education focusing on topics such…water issues….

…and…

Improve the collection and analysis of environmentally-related data…and use the data strategically in making

environmental…decisions.

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. Hundreds of millions of pounds of herbicides and

pesticides are applied nationally each year. There is increasing concern by citizens over their use, and increasing

evidence of their toxicity; but lack of practical alternatives is a major stumbling block to their elimination. NAU

can make a major contribution to human and environmental health by using our campus as a testing and

proving ground for non-toxic methods of weed control.

Expand awareness of the university’s sustainability initiatives….

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. This could be used as an effective marketing tool to increase

enrollment.

56

Opportunities for Leadership (cont.)

Strategy 1: Support innovation, stewardship, and engagement in our communities.

Initiatives

Promote scholarship that increases engagement with local communities and addresses key global challenges.

…and…

Engage with partners to address regional…environmental stewardship…priorities.

Local communities are struggling with the issue of herbicide use. Last year, a citizen petition forced the Sedona

City Council to suspend herbicide use for one year. However, having no one with expertise to turn to, the city

failed to implement an alternative program, and the council voted to resume herbicide use, angering and

worrying many residents. The Grounds Department of Seattle University sees its commitment to fostering an

organic and environmentally friendly campus as part of the university’s mission of educating the whole person

and the community. Tufts University states that, “A college campus is an ideal place to pursue environmentally

sound grounds management, offering a model of environmental responsibility for the broader community.” So,

too, can NAU help fulfill its regional and global stewardship goal by providing leadership in finding non-toxic

solutions to the growing problem of herbicide use. Not only will such leadership provide a great service to

surrounding communities, but it will garner enthusiastic regional support in the process.

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.

Contact

Paul Gazda, Paul.Gazda@nau.edu, (928) 523-6844

57

References

1. “Mixing It Up, Harmless levels of chemicals prove toxic together,” Scientific American,

News Scan, May, 2006.

2. Ontario College of Family Physicians, “Pesticides Literature Review”, 2004.

http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1

3. Report on the petition to Sedona City Council to end herbicide spraying, plus information on successful

herbicide elimination programs, 2007.

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/

4. Seattle University Grounds Department home page outlining their commitment to a pesticide-free campus.

http://www.seattleu.edu/facilities/page.aspx?id=17&x=17

5. “The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients,” Attorney General of New York, 1996.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/environment/inerts96_print.html#secret#secret

6. Tufts University Sustainable Landscaping web site.

http://www.tufts.edu/programs/sustainability/landscaping.htm

7. Vaeth, Stacey, “UB Pesticide Report 2000”, University at Buffalo Environmental Task Force, 2000.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/resources/pesticidereport2000.html#sec00

58

2012 APPENDIX C

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.

59

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+)

60

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

61

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 ft2 (total =

150 lbs) and again on 10/08/11 at a rate of 10 lbs/1,000 ft2 (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).

62

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 ft2 (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 ft2 (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 has a dual-layer weed barrier consisting of a top layer of permeable woven plastic and a bottom layer of

impermeable plastic sheeting.

SITE: Union Rock Mulch Test Site North (RUT-N)

Location: North of Union building (Knoles Drive side), along wall

63

Size: 571 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: 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)

Site pH Nitrate

NO3+NO2 Ammonium

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 range 6.0-7.0 N/A N/A 16-24 150-240 2400-4799

5.0-30.0

Other ranges found*

high = 8-18

high = 101-150

* Levels were rated as low-medium-high-very high. Levels above “high” required no additional inputs of the nutrient..

64

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 ft2 of lawn area)

SITE Dandelion Clover Cheese- weed

Prickly Lettuce

Plantain Black Medic

Bindweed Spurge Other TOTAL/ 100 ft

2

AC 15.62 1.62 0.06 1.29 18.51 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.47 39.89 AT-N 13.81 2.68 0.92 4.18 41.42 1.51 0.00 0.00 2.76 87.36 AT-S 18.14 2.96 0.07 0.97 20.37 0.63 0.00 0.00 1.57 44.46 EC 21.63 18.50 1.14 0.27 4.31 4.22 0.75 0.24 1.61 52.68 ET-E 9.17 9.78 0.43 0.21 38.91 3.05 0.51 0.29 3.79 66.12 ET-W 19.21 16.59 5.27 0.35 40.16 5.05 0.00 0.27 5.89 92.80 SC 14.65 14.23 0.28 3.94 14.51 15.49 0.00 0.00 4.23 67.32 ST 18.94 65.84 0.76 4.47 5.02 3.87 1.12 0.09 2.50 102.61 TOTAL/ 100 ft2 131.17 132.20 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.

Figure 1: Weeding times for turf test sites during 2011 monitoring season

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er

of

pe

rso

n-h

ou

rs

Weeding Session

AT-NAT-SET-EET-WST

Normal weeding with no transect

Normal weeding with transect

65

y = -2.8571x + 38.333

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

08/10/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11

Tim

e (

min

ute

s)

KT Weeding Sessions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

08/12/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11

Tota

l W

ee

ds

pe

r 1

00

ft.

2

Weeding Sessions

KC

KT

Knoles Sites

Times for normal weeding (without transecting) on KT diminished over the course of the monitoring season

(Figure 2). Weed abundance on KT was significantly lower than on KC (Figure 3).

Figure 2: “Normal” weeding times for Knoles turf test site during 2011 monitoring season

Figure 3: Weed abundance for Knoles turf test and control sites during 2011 monitoring season

66

9% 3%

47%

41%

AC Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

16% 2%

67%

15%

AT-N Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

9% 4%

75%

12%

AT-S Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

11%

9%

54%

26%

EC Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

6% 15%

57%

22%

ET-E Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

15% 0%

71%

14%

SC Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

6%

27%

37%

30%

ST Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

Percent Cover

All sites were dominated by thin/thatchy cover (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Variations in ground cover on turf test sites from 2011 monitoring season

2% 6%

55%

37%

ET-W Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes Weeds Thin/thatchy Thick

67

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.

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).

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Nu

mb

er

of

we

ed

s p

er

10

0 f

t.2

Weed Monitoring Session

RCT-N

RCT-S

RUT-N

RUT-S

RSC

Herbicide spray

68

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 0.00 0.00

April 3-9 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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 1,108.80 998.40 7,453.00 2,496.60 2,241.00

May 1-7 0.00 1,108.80 998.40 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

May 8-14 0.11 1,663.20 1,497.60 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

June 19-25 0.00 3,326.40 2,995.20 22,359.00 7,489.80 4,482.00

June 26-July 2 0.00 3,326.40 2,995.20 22,359.00 7,489.80 4,482.00

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 4,369.05 1,467.50

Aug. 14-20 1.71 1,663.20 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

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

Sept. 4-10 2.22 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Sept. 11-17 1.11 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Sept. 18-24 0.01 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Sept. 25-Oct. 1 0.11 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Oct. 2-8 1.57 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Oct. 9-15 0.00 1,663.23 1,497.60 11,179.50 3,744.90 2,241.00

Oct. 16-22 0.00 1,663.23 1,497.60 0.00 0.00 2,241.00

Oct. 23-29 0.37 831.60 748.80 0.00 0.00 2,241.00

Oct. 30-Nov. 5 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,120.50

TOTALS 13.62 in. 52,391.01 gal. 46,973.60 gal. 352,563.25 gal. 121,709.25 gal. 78,035.00 gal.

Total Irrigation 651,672.11 gal.

69

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://grounds-mag.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.

70

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

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

AC AT-N AT-S EC ET-E ET-W SC ST

Mic

rogr

ams

per

gra

m d

ry s

oil

Nitrate NO3+NO2

Ammonium NH4

71

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 ft2. 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

72

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.

73

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

74

removed from the graph, the data is more consistent with the overall condition of the lawns relative to general

weed abundance (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Total weed abundance for Eastburn turf sites

Figure 7: Total weed abundance without plantain counts for Eastburn turf sites

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Tota

l W

ee

ds

pe

r 1

00

ft2

Date of Weeding

EC

ET-E

ET-W

Herbicide application

Corn gluten meal application

Normal weeding with no transect (both test sites)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Tota

l w

ee

ds

pe

r 1

00

ft2

(exc

lud

ing

pla

nta

in)

Date of weeding

EC

ET-E

ET-W

Normal weeding with no transect (both test sites)

Herbicide application

Corn gluten meal application

75

“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

76

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).

77

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 ft2 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 ft2. 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.

78

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: see “2012 APPENDIX B” found on pages 53 – 57 of this document

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.

79

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.

80

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 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project 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

81

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

82

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 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project 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 Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Pilot Project

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,

83

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 19th

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.

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.

Outer side of

the corner

Outer side of

the corner

84

Appendix 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

85

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

86

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.

87

88

89

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: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week = 2,496.60 gallons/wk

May 1 - May 22: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 3,744.90 gallons/wk

May 23 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,489.80 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,496.60 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,496.60 gallons/2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 3,744.90 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,489.80 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,248.30 gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 - Oct. 16: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 3,744.90 gallons/wk

Station 2 (ET-E)

Popups Rainbird 1800

1= ½ head = 1.85 gpm

3 = full heads = 11.10 gpm TOTAL: 4 heads = 12.95 gpm

90

Hunter I-20 rotary heads

1= ¼ head TOTAL: 6 heads = 33.00 gpm

3 = ½ heads 10 TOTAL HEADS on site = 45.95 gpm

1 = ¾ head 1 start @ 15 min. = 689.25 gallons/ day

1 = full head 2 start @ 15 min. = 1,378.50 gallons/ day

April 12 - May 1: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week = 2,757.00 gallons/wk

May 1 - May 22: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,135.50 gallons/wk

May 23 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 8,271.00 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,757.00 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,757.00 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,135.50 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 8,271.00 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,378.50 gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 - Oct. 16: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 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

Popups Rainbird 1800

1 = full = 3.70 gpm TOTAL: 1 head = 3.70 gpm

Hunter I-20 rotary heads

3 = ¼ heads TOTAL: 10 heads = 55.00 gpm

4 = ½ heads 11 TOTAL HEADS on site = 58.70 gpm

1 = ¾ heads 1 start @ 20 min. = 1,174.00 gallons/ day

2 = full heads 2 start @ 20 min. = 2,348.00 gallons/ day

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 = 4,696.00 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,044.00 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 14,088.00 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,348.00 gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 - Oct. 16: 1 start time/ 20 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,044.00 gallons/wk

TOTALS for ET-E (stations 2 and 3)

21 TOTAL HEADS on site = 104.65 gpm

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

91

April 12 - May 1: 1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 4 days/ week = 7,453.00 gallons/wk

May 1 - May 22: 1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 11,179.50 gallons/wk

May 23 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 22,359.00 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,453.00 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 7,453.00 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 11,179.50 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 22,359.00 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 8,422.50gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 - Oct. 16: 1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,135.50 gallons/wk

Turned off approximately October 17

ARDREY: Turned on approximately April 26 - Turned of approximately October 26

Station 1 (southern lawn)

Popups Rainbird 1800

2 = ¼ heads = 1.84 gpm TOTAL: 8 heads = 16.64 gpm

4 = ½ heads = 7.40 gpm 1 start @ 15 min. = 249.60 gallons/ day

2 = full heads = 7.40 gpm 2 start @ 15 min. = 499.20 gallons/ day

April 26 - May 9: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week = 998.40 gallons/wk

May 10 - May 25: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,497.60 gallons/wk

May 26 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,995.20 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 998.40 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 998.40 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,497.60 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,995.20 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 499.20 gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 - Oct. 25: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,497.60 gallons/wk

Station 2 (northern lawn)

Popups Rainbird 1800

4 = ¼ heads = 3.68 gpm TOTAL: 10 heads = 18.48 gpm

4 = ½ heads = 7.40 gpm 1 start @ 15 min. = 277.20 gallons/ day

2 = full heads = 7.40 gpm 2 start @ 15 min. = 554.40 gallons/ day

April 26 - May 9: 1 start time/15 min/ 4 days/ week = 1,108.80 gallons/wk

May 10 - May 25: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,663.20 gallons/wk

May 26 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 3,326.40 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,108.80 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,108.80 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,663.20 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 3,326.40 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 554.40 gallons/ 2 days

92

Sept. 9 - Oct. 25: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 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

Hunter I-20 rotary heads

1 = ¼ head TOTAL: 4 heads = 22.00 gpm

1 = ½ head 5 TOTAL HEADS on site = 24.90 gpm

2 = ¾ head 1 start @ 15 min. = 373.50 gallons/day

2 start @ 15 min. = 747.00 gallons/day

April 26 - May 13: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,241.00 gallons/wk

May 14 – July 7: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,482.00 gallons/wk

July 15-17: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,241.00 gallons/ 2 days

July 22 - 25: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,241.00 gallons/ 2 days

Aug. 9 - 19: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,241.00 gallons/wk

Aug. 20 - Sept. 5: 2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 4,482.00 gallons/wk

Sept. 6 - 8: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 1,120.50 gallons/ 2 days

Sept. 9 – Nov. 2: 1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week = 2,241.00 gallons/wk

93

2012 APPENDIX D:

Greenhouse Fertilizer Calculations

Fertilizer calculations for spring 2012 soil experiment - From Valerie Kurth

plot area (cm2)

Plot 103.23

g/mol

Fraction

N/P/K mg N,P,K/cm2 kg N,P,K/ha

Mass of each

fertilizer added to

each pot (g)

Total

needed (g)

Ammonium nitrate 80 0.175 1.453065969 145.3066 0.857142857 27.4285714

Triple phosphate 142 0.43661972 0.358422939 35.842294 0.084741935 2.71174194

Potassium sulfate 135 0.28888889 2.257095805 225.70958 0.806538462 25.8092308

2012 APPENDIX E

The school survey Excel spreadsheet is available by request from Mayleen Farrington at

mjf86@nau.edu . It could not be formatted into this document.

94

2012 APPENDIX F

SURVEY RESULTS from “A CHEMICAL REACTION” FILM VIEWING

Northern Arizona University: Earth Week 2012

TOTAL SURVEYS COMPLETED: 24

QUESTION

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER

AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Chemical herbicides are

necessary to keep a

landscape looking good.

0

2

3

0

2

0

9

4

10

18

I feel comfortable sitting

on campus lawns where chemical herbicides have

been applied.

1

0

2

4

10

0

8

6

3

13

A university campus

should be herbicide-free.

6

14

6

4

10

0

3

2

0

2

Currently marketed

herbicides

are completely safe.

0

1

1

0

7

0

5

3

11

19

Other factors being equal, I

would choose a campus

that did not use herbicides

over one that did.

3

9

5

4

10

8

4

1

2

1

I am comfortable using

chemical herbicides around

my home.

0

1

2

0

8

0

6

5

8

16

After seeing this film, I

feel more cautious about

herbicide use.

N/A

16

N/A

5

N/A

0

N/A

0

N/A

2

95

Additional Comments

(1) Before: “Each locality has specific plants that are considered weeds. Usually weeds take over

because of soil disturbances or disturbance of some balance in the system. The goal is to find chemical

free ways to prevent weed invasions according to the needs and limits of different geographic areas.”

After: “Scary.”

(2) After: “Where is the evidence? I agree w/ the precautionary principle but evidence seems to be

speculative and not conclusive. This film seemed more about winning an argument against the govt. and

big business rather than working for citizens, which is what I think the people of Hudson wanted.”

(3) After: “I had no idea that they were so dangerous and will be much more cautious in the future

when I have my own lawn and family.”

(4) Before: “My friend is strongly against Herbicides and pesticides and I partially agree with him. I

hope that this film will give me more information that he already has.”

(5) Before: “I strongly disagree about using chemicals on food crops. Landscape Herbicides are not

ideal, but not the worst.”

After: “I don’t think I will ever use chemicals on my lawn, but before I had never given it much

thought. “

(6) Before: “I think that there are dangers associated with these products, but that they are over-

exaggerated in the wake of afflictions like obesity. I think it’s a real risk, but other health dangers are

more severe. I also think that cleaning up weeds is largely, if not entirely, aesthetic and so, in my book,

absurd.”

After: “I agree with what I said before, but I think the danger is more serious than I anticipated it

being. I’d like to see more evidence. The precautionary principle is not compelling to me in every case.

It has the potentiality of being too restrictive on any freedom.”

(7) After: “Great movie :) I LOVE Canadians!!!”

(8) After: “I can’t believe public places are allowed to spray POISON! I let my dog eat grass whenever

she wants when on a walk. Now I will be much more cautious!”

96

2012 APPENDIX G

SURVEY RESULTS from “A CHEMICAL REACTION” FILM VIEWING

Northern Arizona University: Earth Week 2013

TOTAL SURVEYS COMPLETED: 27

Additional Comments

(1) Before: “I think choosing a university is something that has give & take factors. I wish NAU were

‘greener,’ e.g. cutting down on watering lawns, chemicals used being decreased, and embracing the

natural landscape of Northern Arizona. However, I understand that change takes time.”

QUESTION

STRONGLY

AGREE

SOMEWHAT

AGREE

NEITHER

AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Chemical herbicides are

necessary to keep a

landscape looking good.

0

0

3

1

4

0

11

1

9

24

A university campus

should be herbicide-free.

9

18

13

5

2

0

2

2

1

1

Currently marketed

herbicides

are completely safe.

0

0

2

0

2

0

10

3

13

23

Other factors being equal, I

would choose a campus

that did not use herbicides

over one that did.

8

12

6

7

11

7

1

0

1

0

I am comfortable using

chemical herbicides around

my home.

0

0

3

0

5

1

10

3

9

22

After seeing this film, I

feel more cautious about

herbicide use.

N/A

23

N/A

2

N/A

1

N/A

0

N/A

0

97

(2) Before: “I don’t think they are that bad, I mean our government would do something if it was that

toxic for human beings. There are laws that regulate the toxics so shouldn’t this be okay using in lawn.”

After: “It is shocking to see how dangerous how toxic these herbicides. I will look at the herbicide

ingredients and tell my parents about it. Hopefully my mother, who is a politician(?) will spread the

word about this. I know that I will encourage my friends and family members about this topic. “

(3) After: “I was completely unaware of this issue until now.”

(4) After: “Chemical herbicides can be made reasonably safe but usually aren’t. “

(5) After: “After seeing this film I am more certain that I find pesticides harmful and do everything in

my power to eliminated pesticide use in my life!”

(6) After: “Never thought such weed killers I grew up seeing in the garage were so harmful.”

(7) After: “1950 conformity. “

98

2012 APPENDIX H: