In the November issue of LC/DBM, proper credit was not given in a number of instances in the article, "For the Love of Lighting." Nearly all the products written about and pictured were from VOLT Lighting. Stephen Parrott, who took the photos, is the communications director at VOLT, which owns the copyright on the photos and granted us permission to use them, including the cover shot. Cover Photo: VOLT Lighting

The article ''Bee-Safe Pesticide: Tests Conducted by Manufacturer to Prove Non-toxicity,'' elicited these reactions:
(https://www.landscapearchitect.com/research/article.php/28055)
This minimal toxicity testing proves nothing definitive about toxicity to bees or other beneficial insects. The neonic manufacturers argued they were safe too...but after hundreds of INDEPENDENT research studies, the effects have been shown to be devastating. The chronic and non-lethal effects can be totally devastating to social insects, making hives dysfunctional even though not lethal in such short time spans as 96 hour LD 50 tests. Even the EPA admits that such tests are invalid for such species. Combinatorial effects with other toxins and effects of the so-called "inerts" applied in actual formulations of pesticides are simply not assessed with standard protocols. The so-called science used to assess whether a pesticide can be registered is not science at all.
- Rich Andrews

The real problem is NOT adult bees. Alter the bacteria in the hive and larva will die en masse. Reduced numbers of replacement bees, and they (hives) will be in trouble. Killing brood is far more damaging to overall hive survivability.
- Jeff Anderson, commercial beekeeper



Of the article ''Disappearing Mulch Bag Earns Innovation Award,'' Lankford Associates wrote:
(https://www.landscapearchitect.com/research/article.php/27468)
This is a great idea that can transform low maintenance gardens. Non-biodegrading weed barriers are a real problem once they begin to deteriorate. Their remnants are an eyesore and hazard.

Lindsay Mugglestone commented on the article ''Why Waste Water on Under Performing Plants?'' which reported on a new initiative to reduce water use by selectively removing thirsty, under-performing plants and replacing them with water-wise overachievers:
(https://www.landscapearchitect.com/research/article.php/27705)
Good suggestions. There are others too, of course. Main thing: make a plan, a design. Don't just stick plants in a polka-dot fashion. Group the plants. Don't be afraid of mulch or DG (decomposed granite) among plants. It doesn't all have to be green.

''Challenging the Myths of Permeable Pavement'' received a number of responses including:
(https://www.landscapearchitect.com/research/article.php/27723)
Readers should know that the 'myths' written about in the article have been clearly addressed in industry literature, university research reports and in design manuals produced by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). This information can be easily accessed through the ICPI website at www.icpi.org. Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are a functional and cost effective way to handle rainwater/stormwater but must be designed, specified and constructed properly just like any other system. Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are not 'mythical' but an engineered system based in data and science.
- David M. Quinn

There is great information from full-scale load testing on permeable pavers completed last year at UC Davis. Hydrological flow studies at the University of Missouri are also providing new insight on paver infiltration. In addition, Florida Gulf Coast University, UNH and several Canadian studies have addressed sedimentation, maintenance and cold weather performance. If anyone would like more information on these studies, feel free to email me at: kevin.earley@oldcastle.com. - Kevin Earley