In 2006, GCSAA's Research Committee approved funding for the development of the IPM template. A team of six scientists, all of whom were engaged in the golf industry, created the template with funding for the project provided by the GCSAA Foundation.
The primary objective of the project was to produce a set of materials (written procedures, pest identification guides, agronomic guidelines and other reference materials, spreadsheets, recordkeeping forms and planning calendars) that would guide superintendents in the development and implementation of IPM plans that meet their facility's environmental, agronomic and budgetary goals.
The guide can help in developing, documenting, implementing, assessing and periodically improving IPM plans. By learning and knowing the identity and lifecycles of weed, disease and insect pests – and by integrating this information with site-specific agronomic (soil, water and weather data) and financial data – superintendents can generate proactive IPM plans that document progress toward goals and aid in communication with co-workers and management. The adoption of IPM-based decision-making will enhance not only turfgrass performance, but also the superintendent's professionalism. In addition, it will reduce the potential risk to wildlife and the environment by optimizing pesticide applications.
Effective IPM plans are comprehensive in scope, integrating agronomic and biological principles, as well as cultural, biological and chemical pest control practices. They provide proven, science-driven and reliable methods for resolving the sometimes conflicting goals that superintendents face – producing consistently high-quality, high-playability turfgrass while reducing environmental impacts and keeping within budget constraints.
Why an IPM Plan Is Important
Proactive approaches
Development and implementation of a comprehensive IPM plan can help decrease the incidence of unanticipated turfgrass quality problems (due to pests, fertility, water management or weather-related problems) and can improve the superintendent's ability to respond to unanticipated problems caused by weather, equipment or product failures. In addition, the successful implementation of an IPM plan is the clearest way to illustrate a proactive philosophy (as well as that of the golf industry) to protect the environment.
More effective decision-making
By providing a synthesized, centralized and accessible source of key turfgrass management information, superintendents will have easier access to the tools they need to promote turfgrass quality and playability, as well as to make science-based decisions that also take budgetary and site-specific issues into account.
Site-specific planning
Each superintendent deals with a unique combination of soil types, water qualities, turfgrass species and cultivars, pest complexes and weather/climate issues – not to mention different budgetary constraints. The procedures and models proposed here will allow the plan to be customized to address the unique nature of each of these factors.
Improved communication
The transparent procedures, recordkeeping forms and planning calendars in this document will facilitate communication with co-workers, managers and golfers regarding the agronomic rationale for turfgrass management strategies, the timing and planning of management practices, and progress toward goals.
Other Objectives
Subsequent objectives for this project include:
- Increased adoption of IPM principles at U.S. golf courses, including documentation, development, implementation and critical evaluation and refinement of IPM plans.
- Enhanced communication with co-workers, golfers and golf course management regarding agronomic and pest management practices.
- Ability to make progress toward facility environmental, economic and turfgrass quality goals.
- Improved ability to select products and practices based on IPM principles.
- Easy access to essential information on pest biology and control, agronomic guidelines, and monitoring tools and references.
Credits
The IPM Planning Guide was created by several of the most well-known researchers in the turf management field. Their work was also assisted by an advisory panel of superintendents and industry agronomists who reviewed the templates and associated content.
Principal Investigators
Rick Brandenburg, Ph.D.
Extension Entomology Specialist
North Carolina State University
Wendy Gelernter, Ph.D.
Principal
PACE Turf Research Institute
Dave Kopec, Ph.D.
Extension Turfgrass Specialist
Plant Sciences Department, University of Arizona
Larry Stowell, Ph.D.
Principal
PACE Turf Research Institute
Kai Umeda, M.S.
Area Extension Agent Turfgrass Science
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Fred Yelverton, Ph.D.
Extension Weed Specialist
North Carolina State University
Get started: Goal Setting