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 manufacturers 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.

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
2

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

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 sites 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

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.

Where reseeding/overseeding occurred, the seed was purchased from Warners Nursery and
Landscaping (Flagstaff, AZ) and was produced by Granite Seed (Lehi, UT). Labeled Warners 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 NRich 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
6

= 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.

The second study, conducted in the summer and fall semesters, modified the first studys 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 plants 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

Manganese

Magnesium

Sodium

Sulfur

22.7
VH

0.13
VL
0.12
VL
0.18
VL
0.06
VL
0.06
VL
0.09
VL
0.11
VL

3.3 VH
3.5 VH
1.9 VH
1.9 VH
1.9 VH
2.4 VH

Free Lime Level

220 H

30.0
VH
30.0
VH
45.0
VH
10.0
VH
12.0
VH
21.0
VH
29.0
VH

% Sodium (ESP)

210 H

920
VH
850
25 VH 73 L VH
1200
21 VH 46 L VH
470
10 L 71 L VH
420
10 L 140 M VH
740
7.7 L 51 L VH
870
8.5 L 54 L VH
12 M 57 L

Salinity

160 M

110.0
VH
170.0
VH
160.0
VH
48.0
VH
49.0
VH
62.0
VH
120.0
VH

Boron

180 H

3800
VH
3500
VH
4400
VH
4900
VH
4200
VH
2500
VH
2900
VH

Copper

310
VH
260
VH
310
VH

Iron

7.4 5.8 VL

Calcium

39.0
H
48.0
ET-E 7.4 6.4 L VH
36.0
ET-W 7.0 7.2 L
H
27.0
KC 8.3 3.9 VL H
26.0
KT 8.2 4.0 VL H
23.0
SC 7.5 4.7 VL H
30.0
ST 7.4 7.2 L
H
EC

Potassium

Phosphorus

SITE pH

Nitrate

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

0.8 L

0.9

1.2 L

1.2

0.8 L

0.6

0.8 L

1.1

1.0 L

2.4

0.6 L

1.1

0.6 L

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

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.

8.0

<--- pH: Acidic -- Alkaline -->

7.8

7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.4
EC
EC ET-E ET-E ET-W ET-W SC
SC
ST
ST
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

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

10

Sulfur

Percent of decrease

8
7

Sulfur

5
4
3
2
1
0
EC

ET-E

ET-W

SC

ST

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

ROCK MULCH SITES

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

Minutes per 1,000 square feet

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

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

RCT-N
RUT-N
RUT-S

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

Average plants per 100 square feet

1
0.9
0.8

RCT-N

0.7
0.6

RUT-N

0.5
0.4

RUT-S

0.3
0.2
0.1

0
Grass

Dandelion

Cheeseweed

Pigweed

Other

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.

10

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).
3

Person-hours

2.5
2
1.5

1
0.5
0

Person-hours

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

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

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

11

Person-hours

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

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

Person-hours

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
0

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

12

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).
90

Plants per 100 square feet

80
70

60

Dandelion

50

Medic

40

Plantain

30

Other

20
10
0
EC

ET-E

ET-W

KC

KT

SC

ST

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).
9

Clover (squaare feet)

8
7
6
5
4
3

2
1
0
EC

ET-E

ET-W

KC

KT

SC

ST

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

13

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

Quality scale (1 = worst - 10 =

best)

may be correlated with lower weed abundance, although it is not absolute (Figure 12).
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
EC

ET-E

ET-W

KC

KT

SC

ST

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).
10
9

Quality
Rating
(Colored
Bars)

8
7
6

Average
Weeds per
100 ft2

5
4
3
2

1
0
EC

ET-E

ET-W

KC

KT

SC

ST

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.

14

Turf quality was also assessed by percent cover of thick (ideal) grass versus thin/thatchy grass, weeds, or
exposed soil (Figure 13).
9%
21%

10%
9%

60%

Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

8%

Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

54%

34%

7%

47%
41%

Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

12%

46%

1%

EC

12%

12%
75%

1%

3%
22%

74%

Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

ST

8%

56%

5%

9%

28%

SC

10%
26%

KT

KC

Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

ET-E
Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

ET-W
Soil
Weeds
Thin/Thatchy
Thick

Figure 13: Average percent cover measurements on turf sites.

15

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.

16

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

ET-E

10/04/12

4625

145

26

ET-W

10/05/12

665

ST

09/25/12

Other or
Not
Named

Total

4796
56

721

67

67

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

17

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

Time (minutes)

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

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Bagged

Bagged

Figure 17: Mowing times for ET-E.

70

Time (minutes)

60
50

Mown twice and bagged

40

30
20
10
0

Figure 18: Mowing times for ET-W.

18

60

Time (minutes)

50
40

30
20
10
0
10-Jun 21-Jun 2-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 23-Aug 30-Aug 6-Sep 12-Sep 20-Sep

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.

19

0.16

0.14

0.12

Weight (g)

Weight (g)

4
3
2

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04

0.02

0
P

CTR

CT

NPK

Figure 20: Total average grass weight for all samples.

CTR

CT

NPK

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).
18

5
N

P
K

NPK

CT

CTR

Number of individual plants

Number of individual plants

16

14

12

10

NPK

CT

CTR

2
0

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Figure 22: Average dandelion abundance over time.

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

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.

20

40
Chlorophyll levels (SPAD)

35
30
Plantain

25
20

Grass

15
10

5
0
N

NPK

CT

CTR

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
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)

21

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

Phosphorus

Potassium

Calcium

Iron

Sulfur

(ppm)
2011 2012

(ppm)
2011
2012

(ppm)
2011
2012

(ppm)
2011
2012

(ppm)
2011 2012

(ppm)
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

ST

7.6

7.4

4.8

7.2

15

30

176

220

4098

2900

<11

120

<3

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
22

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).

23

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. Handweeding 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
24

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 timeconsuming, 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)

25

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, goats 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 - handweeding, 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

26

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.

27

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

28

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).

29

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).

30

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).
31

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.
32

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 NAUs 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.
33

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).

34

Spot
treatment
only
(n = 30)

Complete
coverage
only
(n = 30)

Both
(n = 30)

24

21

Frequency
of
application

Reducing
chemical
inputs
(n = 30)

Reducing
turf
(n = 35)

Average
mowing
height

1-4 times
per year

Yes = 25

Yes = 26

3 inches

often as
needed
esp. spot

Mowing
frequency

Weekly or
less

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 towns 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
35

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
36

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 products 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

37

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/fertiliza
tion/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. Albrechts Animals: http://albrechtsanimals.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/03/boron1110.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

38

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 Universitys 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
Universitys 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 pesticides 1 wherever
possible, for they found consistent links to
serious
illnesses
such
as
cancer,
reproductive problems and neurological
diseases, among others (1). The reports
principle findings include:

Many studies reviewed by the

Ontario College show positive
associations between tumours and
pesticide exposure [].
Previous studies have pointed to
certain pesticides, such as [2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid] and
related pesticides, as possible
precipitants
of
Non-Hodgkins
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 NonHodgkins Lymphoma and Leukemia.
While the Ontario College reviewed studies
of numerous pesticides, not just those found
on NAUs 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

Herbicides are a sub-category of pesticides.

39

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.

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
Universitys 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 NAUs 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%) Nonselective 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
Roundups combustion is carbon monoxide,
which is a toxic gas. Two studies (2, 3)
connect an increased occurrence of the
cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma with
exposure to glyphosate, both of which
conducted case-control studies consisting of
cancer registry members and randomlyselected people from the general populace.
Interviews performed by professionals were
held to obtain herbicide use information
from each participant. Another study (4)
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 OSHAs website.
3

CAS numbers are assigned to each chemical for

ease of research concerning specific substances.

40

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 adjuvants 4 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 glyphosatecontaining 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 glyphosatecontaining 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 cleavage 9 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
Roundups 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-secbutylphenol polymer: 1.0%) broadspectrum 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.

41

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
3,6Dichloropicolinic 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 250mg/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 75mg/kg/day dose level. Additionally, there
were numerous fetal alterations as a result of
exposure to Lontrels 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 polydactyly 13 were
observed in the 250-mg/kg/day dose group.
These alterations were considered to be

major malformations. Lastly, A significant

decrease in the incidence of delayed
ossification 14 of centra of the cervical
vertebrae, or an unusual speeding up of
bone formation, was observed in the 75and 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 endocrine 15 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 Pendulums
ability to affect and disrupt pregnancy.
Another study (13) examined the damage
done by certain pesticides and found that
pendimethalin induced cytotoxicity 17 in
Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells treated
for 3 hours. The report is ended with the
relation of these findings to other analyses

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.

14

Bone formation.
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.
15

42

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 death 18. 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
1.37.2, p-trend = 0.01) 19 risk compared
with never users. The confidence interval
(CI) relates that 95% of the time, a persons
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 EPTC 20 , may be
associated with pancreatic cancer.
Technically, apoptosis or programmed cell
death; necessary cell death that, for example,
separates toes.
19
A studys confidence interval (CI) shows the
reliability of a studys estimate; a studys 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.
18

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
2,4,5trichlorophenoxyacetic 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 embryotoxic 22 . 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
Pendulums 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.

43

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 2,4D 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 nonmalignant 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 peerreviewed 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).

44

Discussion
Roundup Pro Non-selective herbicide
Over the span of three years (20092011), 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 NonHodgkins 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 studys results
reinforce a link between a glyphosatecontaining 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 broadspectrum herbicide for thistle control in
vegetable cultivation
Over the span of three years (20092011), an average of 1,762 gallons per year
of Lontrel were applied to the Northern
Arizona University campus.
Aside from the information obtained
from Lontrels 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
observations 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 (20092011), an average of 1,651 gallons per year
of Pendulum were applied to the Northern
Arizona University campus.
In addition to the EPAs 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
Pendulums pendimethalin, but also of
dicamba, 2,4-D, and MPCC (in Speedzone)
on
mouse
preimplantation
embryo
development.
The fact that health
45

problems arose due to exposure to these

individual
chemicals
as
well
as
combinations of them is extremely relevant
to Northern Arizona Universitys 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 postemergent broadleaf
Over the span of three years (20092011), 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, 2,4D, and MCPP the other three chemicals
that produced abnormalities in embryo
health. In combination with pendimethalin,
Pendulums 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 Speedzones chemicals to cause
disruption in the development of embryos.

Gallery 75 Dry Flowable Selective preemergent broadleaf

Over the span of three years (20092011), 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
substances 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 herbicides
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.

46

Conclusion

Executive Conclusions

Roundup Pro

Lontrel Turf and

Ornamental

Pendulum
Aquacap

Speedzone
Southern
Broadleaf

Gallery 75 Dry
Flowable

Hazardous, according to
OSHA
Associated with NonHodgkins Lymphoma
Toxic to placental and
embryonic cells
Inert ingredients actually
active and harmful
Hazardous Chemical,
according to OSHA
Weight abnormalities
during rat gestation with
regular dosage
Skeletal problems in
newborn rats whose mother
was exposed
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
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
Carcinogenic potential,
according to EPA
Carcinogen, according to
OSHA
May cause silicosis, a
progressive and disabling
disease of the lungs with
lengthy exposure

Based on the conclusions of each of

these published studies, one can justifiably
be wary of using herbicides, especially on
NAUs heavily populated campus. While
differences in methodology will result in
conflicting inferences, it is clear that the
procedures employed by these peerreviewed 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 secondhand 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 publics
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.
47

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: Anadn, A., M.R. Martnez-Larraaga, M.A. Martnez, V.J. Castellano, M. Martnez, 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. Bell. "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 3,6Dichloropicolinic Acid in Rats and Rabbits." Toxicological Sciences 4.1 (1984): 91-97. Print.

48

12: ndeer, 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: Bge, 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-4chlorophenoxyacetic 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.

49

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/
50

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 nonoccupationally 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-andpublications/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 environmentair, water, and landupon
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.

51

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.

52

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 NAUs new Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan, Stewardship and Sustainability of Place, calls on the
NAU community to elevate the environmentalvitality 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 NAUs 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 NAUs 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.
53

4. That NAUs successes in this effort be shared with the broader community to help eliminate herbicides
on a regional scale.

Background
Goal 3 of NAUs new Learning and Enterprise Strategic Plan, Stewardship and Sustainability of Place, calls on the
NAU community to elevate the environmentalvitality 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 peerreviewed 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-Hodgkins 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 NAUs 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.

54

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 advancesustainable 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 aslandscaping.
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
scientificand ethical dimensions of sustainability.
and
Implement issue-oriented education focusing on topics suchwater issues.
and
Improve the collection and analysis of environmentally-related dataand use the data strategically in making
environmentaldecisions.
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 universitys sustainability initiatives.
Students, parents, faculty and staff would enthusiastically support NAUs 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.

55

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 regionalenvironmental stewardshippriorities.
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 universitys 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 NAUs 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

56

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

57

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
manufacturers 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 handpulling 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.
58

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 MeasuringKnoles).
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+)
59

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
Grampas 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
60

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).

61

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
62

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)
Nitrate
Ammonium
Site
pH
NO3+NO2
NH4
P
K
Ca

Na

Fe

Su

AC

7.80

2.54

9.19

12.83

149.15

2963.11

69.60

<11

<3

AT-N

7.67

2.63

15.34

14.36

143.99

3351.54

158.89

<11

<3

AT-S

7.64

1.61

9.77

15.88

114.39

2725.55

129.31

<11

<3

EC

7.67

4.02

13.29

11.75

203.68

4295.90

41.66

<11

<3

ET-E

7.88

2.63

12.68

19.23

138.53

3300.02

4.95

<11

<3

ET-W

7.67

4.19

17.21

14.89

219.92

4310.43

9.77

<11

<3

SC

7.81

1.29

12.89

13.53

170.45

2649.26

24.35

<11

<3

ST
7.58
4.80
20.64
15.06
175.63
4097.96
19.51
<11
<3
Optimal
5.0range
6.0-7.0
N/A
N/A
16-24
150-240
2400-4799
30.0
Other
ranges
high = high =
found*
8-18
101-150
* Levels were rated as low-medium-high-very high. Levels above high required no additional inputs of the nutrient..

63

Weed Abundance and Diversity

Clover and dandelion were the most abundant weeds across all sites (Table 2). Plantain was abundant on most
sites, with the largest populations on ET-E, ET-W, and AT-N. Cheeseweed, although named by CAS as a
problem weed, was limited and found primarily along edges with bare soil, as was spurge and most prickly
lettuce. Bindweed was noted but found in limited areas where it blended well with the turf grass. Other weeds
were classified together and were not numerous enough to be considered important.
Table 2: Total weed abundance and diversity on 2011 turf sites (per 100 ft 2 of lawn area)
SITE
AC
AT-N
AT-S
EC
ET-E
ET-W
SC
ST
TOTAL/
100 ft2

Dandelion

Clover

Prickly
Lettuce
1.29
4.18
0.97
0.27
0.21
0.35
3.94
4.47

Plantain

1.62
2.68
2.96
18.50
9.78
16.59
14.23
65.84

Cheeseweed
0.06
0.92
0.07
1.14
0.43
5.27
0.28
0.76

131.17 132.20

8.93

15.68

15.62
13.81
18.14
21.63
9.17
19.21
14.65
18.94

Bindweed

Spurge

Other

TOTAL/
2
100 ft

18.51
41.42
20.37
4.31
38.91
40.16
14.51
5.02

Black
Medic
1.32
1.51
0.63
4.22
3.05
5.05
15.49
3.87

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.51
0.00
0.00
1.12

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.00
0.09

1.47
2.76
1.57
1.61
3.79
5.89
4.23
2.50

39.89
87.36
44.46
52.68
66.12
92.80
67.32
102.61

182.85

35.14

2.38

0.89 23.82

553.24

Weeding Times
Weeding times fluctuated but stayed within close ranges during the first half of the season and diminished on
some sites until the monsoons began (Figure 1). During the monsoon season, times increased dramatically due to
a surge in plantain and dandelion seedling production and changes in weeding techniques with the arrival of new
interns.
AT-N
AT-S
ET-E
ET-W
ST

14.00

Number of person-hours

12.00
10.00
8.00

Normal
weeding
with no
transect

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1

5
6
7
Weeding Session

10

11

Normal
weeding
with
transect

Figure 1: Weeding times for turf test sites during 2011 monitoring season

64

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).
45
40

y = -2.8571x + 38.333

Time (minutes)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

08/10/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11

KT Weeding Sessions

Total Weeds per 100 ft.2

Figure 2: Normal weeding times for Knoles turf test site during 2011 monitoring season

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

KC
KT

08/12/11 08/24/11 09/07/11 09/21/11 10/13/11 10/27/11

Weeding Sessions

Figure 3: Weed abundance for Knoles turf test and control sites during 2011 monitoring season

65

Percent Cover
All sites were dominated by thin/thatchy cover (Figure 4).
AC Percent Cover 2011
Soil/holes

Weeds

Thin/thatchy
9%

EC Percent Cover 2011

Thick

Soil/holes

Weeds

Thin/thatchy
11%

3%

9%
26%

41%
47%

54%

AT-S Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes

Weeds

Thin/thatchy

12% 9%

ET-E Percent Cover 2011

Thick

Soil/holes

4%

Weeds

Thin/thatchy
6%

22%

75%

Weeds

15%

Thick

15%

57%

AT-N Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes

Thick

Thin/thatchy

ET-W Percent Cover 2011

Thick

Soil/holes

Weeds

Thin/thatchy

Thick

2% 6%

16%
2%

37%
55%

67%

SC Percent Cover 2011

Soil/holes

Weeds
14%

Thin/thatchy

ST Percent Cover 2011

Thick

Soil/holes

Weeds

Thin/thatchy

Thick

6%

15%
0%

30%

71%

27%

37%

Figure 4: Variations in ground cover on turf test sites from 2011 monitoring season

66

Rock Mulch Sites

All rock mulch sites had minimal weed abundance relative to the size of the plot (Figure 5). Weeding times
stayed between 1 and 10 minutes.

7.00

Number of weeds per 100 ft. 2

6.00

RCT-N

RCT-S

5.00

RUT-N
4.00

RUT-S

RSC

3.00
2.00

Herbicide
spray

1.00

0.00
1

10

11

12

Weed Monitoring Session

Figure 5: Weed abundance on rock mulch sites for 2011 monitoring season

IRRIGATION ON TURF TEST SITES

Irrigation on test sites was calculated for the season based on head numbers and spray volume (see Appendix D).
Precipitation amounts were recorded in order to compare the amount of water which naturally occurred to the
amount of water applied by irrigation (Table 3).

67

Table 3: Flagstaff precipitation and irrigation amounts for turf test sites during 2011 monitoring season
Date

Mar. 27-April 2

Total
Precipitation
(in)
0.00

AT-N
Irrigation (gal)

AT-S
Irrigation (gal)

ET-E
Irrigation (gal)

ET-W
Irrigation (gal)

ST
Irrigation (gal)

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

2,757.00

2,496.60

0.00

7,453.00

2,496.60

2,241.00

11,179.50

3,744.90

2,241.00

11,179.50

3,744.90

2,241.00
2,241.00

0.00

April 17-23

0.00

April 24-30

0.00

May 1-7

0.00

May 8-14

0.11

May 15-21

0.76

1,663.20

1,497.60

11,179.50

3,744.90

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

22,359.00

7,489.80

4,482.00

22,359.00

7,489.80

4,482.00
4,482.00

0.00
1,108.80
1,108.80
1,663.20

0.00
998.40
998.40
1,497.60

June 12-18

0.00

June 19-25

0.00

June 26-July 2

0.00

3,326.40

2,995.20

22,359.00

7,489.80

July 3-9

0.57

2,217.60

1,796.00

18,632.50

6,241.50

3,735.00

July 10-16

0.07

1,108.80

998.40

7,453.00

2,496.60

2,241.00

July 17-23

0.38

1,108.80

998.40

7,453.00

2,496.60

2,241.00

July 24-30

1.27

1,108.80

998.40

7,453.00

2,496.60

2,241.00

July 31-Aug. 6

0.96

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Aug. 7-13

0.01

1,386.00

1,248.00

9,316.25

1.71

1,663.20

1,497.60

11,179.50

4,369.05
3,744.90

1,467.50

Aug. 14-20
Aug. 21-27

0.10

3,326.40

2,995.20

22,359.00

7,489.80

4,482.00

Aug. 28-Sept. 3

0.00

3,326.40

2,995.20

22,359.00

7,489.80

4,482.00

2.22

1,663.23

1,497.60

11,179.50

3,744.90

2,241.00

1,497.60

11,179.50

3,744.90

2,241.00

Sept. 4-10
Sept. 11-17

3,326.40
3,326.40

2,995.20
2,995.20

2,241.00

1.11

1,663.23

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

1.57

1,663.23

1,497.60

11,179.50

3,744.90

2,241.00

Oct. 2-8
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

1.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1,120.50

46,973.60 gal.

352,563.25 gal.

121,709.25 gal.

78,035.00 gal.

Oct. 30-Nov. 5
TOTALS
Total Irrigation

13.62 in.
52,391.01 gal.
651,672.11 gal.

68

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.

69

Micrograms per gram dry soil

25.00
20.00
15.00
Nitrate NO3+NO2
10.00

Ammonium NH4

5.00

0.00
AC

AT-N

AT-S

EC

ET-E

ET-W

SC

ST

Figure 5: Nitrogen ratios on turf sites

According to our references, potassium and phosphorus levels were optimal to low. It must be noted, however,
that the recommended levels of potassium and phosphorus showed the greatest variance when researching optimal
levels. If other references than the ones stated above were used, phosphorus levels on most sites would be
considered high, and potassium levels on all sites would be considered high to very high (see:
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/components/1731-complete.pdf for other levels).
According to Woods and Rossi (USGA 2011), high potassium can increase dandelion production. Any
recommendations regarding the input of phosphorus and potassium should keep these discrepancies in mind.
Soil Test Recommendations
Given the variability of the nitrogen levels and the wide range in which phosphorus and potassium could be
interpreted, we do not recommend applying any traditional N-P-K fertilizer until further soil tests are performed
over time. Nitrogen may be added via corn gluten meal (CGM) treatments for weed control, since CGM contains
approximately 10% nitrogen by weight. This application would serve a dual purpose of providing nitrogen to the
grass while inhibiting weed seed germination. Properly composted animal manure and/or other organic material
are non-toxic, low-level nitrogen applications which could be used as a top-dressing on turf sites. Top-dressing
with any good quality compost would add nitrogen as well as improve soil structure and introduce microbes for
better nitrification. Any applications involving phosphorus or potassium should be determined when soil test
results indicate a definite deficiency. Plant tissue tests are also an option to determine nutrient levels.
To add sulfur and acidify soil, elemental sulfur can be applied at approximately 7-10 lbs./1,000 ft2 for clay soils
with established turf (http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/hort2/mf2311.pdf). Ideally, sulfur should be applied when
the turf is first established (i.e. tilled into the soil). On established turf, it should be applied when coring/aeration
takes place in the spring or fall. Sulfur should be applied in frequent, smaller amounts to avoid burning. It should
70

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 Grampas Weeder. The Dandelion Digger was very successful in pulling plantain due to
the plants shallow root system and compact form. Small plants in particular could be rapidly removed using a

71

scooping motion. This tool required bending from the waist or squatting/kneeling, making it difficult to use for
long periods of time.
Grampas 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.

72

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 weeds 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

73

removed from the graph, the data is more consistent with the overall condition of the lawns relative to general
weed abundance (Figure 7).
18

EC

Total Weeds per 100 ft2

16

ET-E

14

ET-W

12

Normal
weeding
with no
transect
(both test
sites)

10
8
6
4

Herbicide
application

Corn gluten
meal
application

Date of Weeding
Figure 6: Total weed abundance for Eastburn turf sites

Total weeds per 100 ft2 (excluding plantain)

18

EC

16

ET-E

14

ET-W

12

Normal
weeding
with no
transect
(both test
sites)

10
8

6
4

Herbicide
application

2
0

Corn gluten
meal
application

Date of weeding
Figure 7: Total weed abundance without plantain counts for Eastburn turf sites

74

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
75

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).

76

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 NAUs landscape. The
numbers are still useful, however, and are sufficient for the purpose of this research.

77

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 manufacturers suggested
concentration, it is not in keeping with NAUs 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 Departments 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.

78

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.

79

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 Masters 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 sustai nability 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

80

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

81

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,
82

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 (gamma) is shown along with the measured sides and width.

Outer side of
the corner

Outer side of
the corner

Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a triangle with sides of length a, b, and c and, angles of , , and respectively, where a and b are
the outside lengths of the corner and c is the width and 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.

83

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

84

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
85

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.

86

87

88

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
Flow: gpm 0.92
Flow: gpm 1.85
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 = 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 = heads = 2.76 gpm
2 start @ 15 min. = 1,248.30 gallons/ day
April 12 - May 1:
May 1 - May 22:
May 23 July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:

1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week

1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

Station 2 (ET-E)
Popups Rainbird 1800
1= head = 1.85 gpm
3 = full heads = 11.10 gpm

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

2,496.60 gallons/wk
3,744.90 gallons/wk
7,489.80 gallons/wk
2,496.60 gallons/ 2 days
2,496.60 gallons/2 days
3,744.90 gallons/wk
7,489.80 gallons/wk
1,248.30 gallons/ 2 days
3,744.90 gallons/wk

TOTAL: 4 heads = 12.95 gpm

89

Hunter I-20 rotary heads

1= head
3 = heads
1 = head
1 = full head
April 12 - May 1:
May 1 - May 22:
May 23 July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:

TOTAL: 6 heads = 33.00 gpm

10 TOTAL HEADS on site = 45.95 gpm
1 start @ 15 min. = 689.25 gallons/ day
2 start @ 15 min. = 1,378.50 gallons/ day

1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week

1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

2,757.00 gallons/wk
4,135.50 gallons/wk
8,271.00 gallons/wk
2,757.00 gallons/ 2 days
2,757.00 gallons/ 2 days
4,135.50 gallons/wk
8,271.00 gallons/wk
1,378.50 gallons/ 2 days
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 = heads
TOTAL: 10 heads = 55.00 gpm
4 = heads
11 TOTAL HEADS on site = 58.70 gpm
1 = 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
90

April 12 - May 1:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 4 days/ week
May 1 - May 22:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
May 23 July 7:
2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
July 15-17:
2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
July 22 - 25:
2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
Aug. 9 - 19:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
2 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
Sept. 6 - 8:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
Sept. 9 - Oct. 16:
1 start time/ 15-20 min/ 6 days/ week
Turned off approximately October 17

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

7,453.00 gallons/wk
11,179.50 gallons/wk
22,359.00 gallons/wk
7,453.00 gallons/ 2 days
7,453.00 gallons/ 2 days
11,179.50 gallons/wk
22,359.00 gallons/wk
8,422.50gallons/ 2 days
4,135.50 gallons/wk

ARDREY: Turned on approximately April 26 - Turned of approximately October 26

Station 1 (southern lawn)
Popups Rainbird 1800
2 = heads = 1.84 gpm
TOTAL: 8 heads = 16.64 gpm
4 = 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:
May 10 - May 25:
May 26 July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 - Oct. 25:

1 start time/ 15 min/ 4 days/ week

1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

Station 2 (northern lawn)

Popups Rainbird 1800
4 = heads = 3.68 gpm
4 = heads = 7.40 gpm
2 = full heads = 7.40 gpm
April 26 - May 9:
May 10 - May 25:
May 26 July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

998.40 gallons/wk
1,497.60 gallons/wk
2,995.20 gallons/wk
998.40 gallons/ 2 days
998.40 gallons/ 2 days
1,497.60 gallons/wk
2,995.20 gallons/wk
499.20 gallons/ 2 days
1,497.60 gallons/wk

TOTAL: 10 heads = 18.48 gpm

1 start @ 15 min. = 277.20 gallons/ day
2 start @ 15 min. = 554.40 gallons/ day

1 start time/15 min/ 4 days/ week

1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

1,108.80 gallons/wk
1,663.20 gallons/wk
3,326.40 gallons/wk
1,108.80 gallons/ 2 days
1,108.80 gallons/ 2 days
1,663.20 gallons/wk
3,326.40 gallons/wk
554.40 gallons/ 2 days
91

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 = head
1 = head
2 = head

April 26 - May 13:

May 14 July 7:
July 15-17:
July 22 - 25:
Aug. 9 - 19:
Aug. 20 - Sept. 5:
Sept. 6 - 8:
Sept. 9 Nov. 2:

TOTAL: 4 heads = 22.00 gpm

5 TOTAL HEADS on site = 24.90 gpm
1 start @ 15 min. = 373.50 gallons/day
2 start @ 15 min. = 747.00 gallons/day

1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
2 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week
1 start time/ 15 min/ 6 days/ week

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

2,241.00 gallons/wk
4,482.00 gallons/wk
2,241.00 gallons/ 2 days
2,241.00 gallons/ 2 days
2,241.00 gallons/wk
4,482.00 gallons/wk
1,120.50 gallons/ 2 days
2,241.00 gallons/wk

92

2012 APPENDIX D:
Greenhouse Fertilizer Calculations
Fertilizer calculations for spring 2012 soil experiment - From Valerie Kurth

Plot

plot area (cm2)

103.23

g/mol
Ammonium nitrate
Triple phosphate
Potassium sulfate

Fraction
N/P/K
80
0.175
142 0.43661972
135 0.28888889

mg N,P,K/cm2 kg N,P,K/ha
1.453065969
145.3066
0.358422939 35.842294
2.257095805 225.70958

Mass of each
fertilizer added to
each pot (g)
0.857142857
0.084741935
0.806538462

Total
needed (g)
27.4285714
2.71174194
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.

93

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.

10

18

I feel comfortable sitting

on campus lawns where
chemical herbicides have
been applied.

10

13

A university campus
should be herbicide-free.

14

10

Currently marketed
herbicides
are completely safe.

11

19

Other factors being equal, I

would choose a campus
that did not use herbicides
over one that did.

10

I am comfortable using
chemical herbicides around
my home.

16

N/A

16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

After seeing this film, I

feel more cautious about
herbicide use.

94

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 dont 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 overexaggerated in the wake of afflictions like obesity. I think its 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. Id 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 cant 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!

95

2012 APPENDIX G
SURVEY RESULTS from A CHEMICAL REACTION FILM VIEWING
Northern Arizona University: Earth Week 2013
TOTAL SURVEYS COMPLETED: 27

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.

11

24

A university campus
should be herbicide-free.

18

13

Currently marketed
herbicides
are completely safe.

10

13

23

Other factors being equal, I

would choose a campus
that did not use herbicides
over one that did.

12

11

I am comfortable using
chemical herbicides around
my home.

10

22

N/A

23

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

After seeing this film, I

feel more cautious about
herbicide use.

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.

96

(2) Before: I dont 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 shouldnt 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 arent.
(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.

97

2012 APPENDIX H:

98