Monthly Archives: May 2015

What now? Using the Sports Field Management website for planning

Leave a reply

“In winter, I plot and plan. In spring, I move.” – Henry Rollins

And for those responsible for maintaining athletic fields, we move a lot! And, of course, we want that movement to be effective, efficient, and within budget. The Sports Field Management website has field management schedules to help determine which turf management practices are most important now.

The first step in using these schedules is to determine what resources are available. This handy chart can help determine whether you have high, medium, or minimal management fields.

Field Management Type ChartOnce you have determined what type of field you are managing, and what seasons sports are being played on it, you can download a Seasonal Field Management  Schedule. For example:Sports Field Management Schedule-Spring Medium

Schedules are available for Spring only, Fall only, Spring and Fall, and Year-Round sports. Use them to help in communicating needs, establishing budgets, and planning activities.

 

Ground Bees Come in Peace

Leave a reply
IMG_2500

A female ground bee in her burrow

One of the first springtime insects that observed in school yards are ground bees. These insects create ant-hill like mounds in areas of bare soil with a ¼” opening in the center (about the thickness of a pencil). On warm, sunny days there may be dozens to hundreds of bees flying low to the ground among the mounds. Despite a general and perhaps debilitating fear of bees – the truth is that this species is relatively harmless and may not require any management. Here’s why:

 

  1. Ephemeral: ground-nesting bees are pollinators of early blooming flowers. Because their lifecycle is tied to the cycle of these plants, ground bees are only active for a short period of time in early spring.
  2. Solitary: fear of bees arises from the idea
    IMG_1784

    Two female ground bees hunker down in their burrows in response to movement.

    that disturbing a nest will provoke an entire colony of stinging insects. However, as it true of carpenter bees, cicada killer wasps, and mud dauber wasps, ground bees are solitary with only a single female bee per mound.

  3. Shy Gals: female bees make nests for the purpose of reproduction. After gathering nectar and pollen as food for their offspring, females will mate and lay eggs in the nest. While in the nest, females appear shy, and will retreat into the burrow if they see an approaching object.
  4. Males Hover, but Can’t Sting: All those bees you see flying low to the ground en masse – are males! And male bees do not possess a stinger. Their low, hovering flight is part of their effort to pair up with a female. Indeed, male ground bees are quite docile. See how one school responds to this insect with curiosity and affection in this video.

    IMG_2508

    Male ground bees cannot sting and are quite docile.

If you wish to discourage ground bees from taking up residence on your school grounds, an effective, safe and long-term solution is over-seeding with grass. By creating a dense lawn, bees will not be able to dig in the soil and will nest elsewhere. For information on creating a healthy lawn, see the Cornell Turfgrass Program.

 

Additional information about ground bees is available from the Cornell Department of Entomology.

Survey Provides Insights into IPM within NYS Schools

Leave a reply

A 2013 survey of the pest management policies and practices of New York State public schools was recently published on-line http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/school_survey/school_survey2013.pdf A partnership of the NYS IPM Program, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Education Department, and the NYS School Facilities Association, the goals of the survey were to evaluate the status of IPM in public elementary and secondary schools, provide guidance on assisting schools in improving pest management, gauge changes since a 2001 survey, and ascertain the impacts of the state’s Neighbor Notification Law and the Child Safe Playing Field Act.

Highlights include a large increase in the number of school districts with written pest management policies, a low rate of issues associated with pesticide applications, and reductions in pesticide use. Prominent needs that exist concerning pest management in schools include the pervasive issue of food in classrooms and other non-cafeteria locations and the challenges associated with maintaining quality athletic fields in light of the Child Safe Playing Fields Act. The implications of the drop in certified pesticide applicators employed by schools needs to be assessed. Also, geese are increasing as a troublesome pest on school grounds

geeseCanada goose
Branta canadensis (Linnaeus, 1758)
Photo by Paul Bolstad, University of Minnesota

Approximately 73% of the districts responding to the 2013 survey indicated that they had a written pest management policy, up from 45% in 2001. Official written policies provide a consistent framework for implementing safe and effective pest management. However, most school districts did not have a policy concerning food outside of cafeterias. This is a frequent attractant for pests as ants and mice.

The percentage of school districts that employed staff certified as pesticide applicators dropped from 50% in 2001 to 34% in 2013. Most districts did not have regularly scheduled pesticide applications. However, the rate of those that did, around 23%, changed little from 2001 to 2013.

The most frequent and troublesome pests in NYS schools in both surveys were ants, stinging insects, mice, and weeds. The only pest situation that significantly increased was geese, from 14% of the districts in 2001 to 25% in 2013.

In 2013, we asked schools about their use of minimum risk pesticides, as products with boric acid or plant essential oils. Fourteen percent of the districts indicated that they used these products routinely, while 62% stated that minimum risk pesticides are used infrequently. Future trends in the use of such products by schools would be informative.

Most NYS school districts received complaints about pests within three years prior to 2013. Not over two per cent had received complaints about pesticide applications during the same period.

10067900006_74026205a5_k Carpenter Ants foraging

Almost 90% of the survey respondents indicated that they had not experienced any problems implementing the Neighbor Notification Law, and almost 50% stated that the law resulted in a significant reduction in pesticide use by their school districts. Almost 60% indicated little impact of the Child Safe Playing Field Act since they had already implemented pesticide alternatives. About 22% stated a major impact and anticipated difficulty in maintaining quality of the grounds. Another 20% indicated moderate changes to their practices and that they were looking into pesticide alternatives. Over 60% of the survey respondents indicated that the Child Safe Playing Field Act had caused a reduction in pesticide use by their school districts.