Both, Arend-Jan (author), Bugbee, Bruce (author), Kubota, Chieri (author), Lopez, Roberto G. (author), Mitchell, Cary (author), Runkle, Erik S. (author), Wallace, Claude (author), and Rutgers University
UT State University
University of Arizona
Michigan State University
Purdue University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017-08
Published:
United States: American Society for Horticultural Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10439
6 pages., Via online journal., Electric lamps are widely used to supplement sunlight (supplemental lighting) and daylength extension (photoperiodic lighting) for the production of horticultural crops in greenhouses and controlled environments. Recent advances in light-emitting diode (LED) technology now provide the horticultural industry with multiple lighting options. However, growers are unable to compare technologies and LED options because of insufficient data on lamp performance metrics. Here, we propose a standardized product label that facilitates the comparison of lamps across manufacturers. This label includes the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) efficacy, PAR conversion efficiency, photon flux density output in key wave bands, as well as the phytochrome photostationary state (PSS), red/far red ratio, and graphs of the normalized photon flux density across the 300–900 nm wave band and a horizontal distribution of the light output.
Burger, D.W. (author), Katcher, J.B. (author), Lange, N.E. (author), Saenz, J.L. (author), Sherman, S.P. (author), Stoutemyer, M.R. (author), and Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of California, Davis, CA, USA; Department of Pomology, University of California, Davis, CA; Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of California, Davis, CA; Department of Pomology, University of California, Davis, CA; Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of California, Davis, CA; Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of California, Davis, CA
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1995
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 101 Document Number: C08628
9 pages., Via online journal., Certain pesticides are coming under scrutiny because of their impact on pollinator insects. Although most consumers express willingness to aid pollinators, the reasons for consumers’ preferences or barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants and the types of pollinators’ that consumers are trying to protect are less understood. Using an online survey of 1200 Connecticut (CT) consumers, of which 841 had home landscapes, we find that 46% of consumers with home landscapes purchased pollinator-friendly plants to attract pollinators to their landscape. Consistent with past research that focused on consumers’ preferences for pollinator-friendly plants, the data also reveal that some consumers are willing to pay premiums for plants that contribute to pollinator’s health. However, only 17% stated that attracting pollinators was their primary motivation; a finding that suggests labeling alone will likely not motivate consumers to purchase plants. The major barriers to purchasing pollinator-friendly plants included lack of labeling (cited by 28%), followed by high price (28%). Consumers purchasing pollinator-friendly plants were trying to attract butterflies (Lepidoptera) (78%), bees (Apidae) (59%), hummingbirds (Trochilidae) (59%), and other birds (41%). We also find that demographics and purchasing behavior affect barriers and types of pollinators desired. Simply labeling plants has the potential to increase purchasing, but increasing price could be detrimental as many consumers feel pollinator-friendly plants are highly priced. Implications for ornamental horticulture stakeholders are discussed.
Campbell, Julie H. (author), Henderson, Jason J. (author), Wallace, Victoria H. (author), and University of Georgia
University of Connecticut
Department of Extension, University of Connecticut
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-08
Published:
United States: American Society for Horticultural Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 11 Document Number: D10327
7 pages., Via online journal., This study examined how different presentation formats affected knowledge gain among school grounds managers. Results indicate large-group participants (presentation to ≈50 participants at a turfgrass field day) had greater knowledge retention than small-group participants (presentation to 6–10 participants at an interactive workshop). Small-group attendees had more flexibility to discuss issues that affected them directly and may have focused on those issues instead of the targeted information. Large-group meetings were more ridged in format and attendees were less able to deviate from the main subject matter being presented. However, the value of the small-group meeting should not be discounted, especially when athletic field grounds managers and staff require information specific to their situation. When disseminating more general information, the large-group meeting format is a better means of delivery.
10 pages., Via online journal., A survey of Connecticut consumers was used to investigate perceptions of various green industry retailers. Consumer perceptions of independent garden centers (IGC), home improvement centers (HIC), and mass merchandisers (MM) business practices and their perceived value were assessed. Analysis of variance and ordinary least squares regression models were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that customer service, knowledgeable staff, and high-quality plants are important factors when consumers are deciding where to shop. IGCs were ranked highest in perceived customer service, knowledgeable staff, and plant quality, followed by HICs. MMs were ranked lowest for the majority of measured business practices, with the most notable exception being price. Additionally, IGCs, HICs, and MMs are perceived differently across age cohorts.
