## 3 Results
### Pesticide Use  
Figure 3 compares the pesticide use (PU) calculated based on the CanESM2 and CanESM5 across three scenarios and three projected periods (i.e., PP1, PP2, and PP3), as well as historical PU as the reference. The comparisons presented in this figure pertain to annual average values. This means that the average pesticide usage in a given year corresponds to the respective time period for all golf courses in the study area. For the RCP2.6 as a scenario of the CanESM2, the projected PU in all projected periods is much higher than those for the historical ones, so the predicted PU is expected to be 2.66, 2.77, 4.10, and 3.17 times higher than those of the historical period for the PP1, PP2, PP3, and total period, respectively. Based on the other two CanESM2 scenarios, the projected PU values also exhibit significant increases. When comparing different projected periods, it is notable that, except for RCP2.6, which shows the maximum relative difference compared to historical values in PP3, the highest relative difference in the other two scenarios is related to PP1. Regarding the projected PU values across different CanESM2 scenarios, no distinct trend emerges regarding increasing or decreasing PU values based on various projected periods. For instance, in RCP2.6, the projected PU is highest for PP3, followed by PP2 and PP1. Conversely, in RCP4.5, the PU values are ranked highest in PP1, followed by PP2 and PP3. Similarly, for RCP8.5, PU values in PP1 are the highest, followed by PP2 and PP3. For PP1, according to the CanESM2 model, in the most optimistic scenario (scenario RCP2.6, PP1 period), the amount of pesticide used on Quebec Province's golf courses is expected to  
Figure 3: Comparison of pesticide use (in kilograms) calculated based on CanESM2 and CanESM5 climate models across three projected periods (PP1, PP2, and PP3, represented by blue bars) and total pesticide use (represented by red bars). The scenarios compared include RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 for CanESM2 and SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP5-8.5 for CanESM5. Historical pesticide use (green bar) is included as a reference. increase by over 166%. The most pessimistic scenario (scenario RCP8.5, PP1 period) could rise to as much as 219%. When comparing the relative differences between PU projections based on CanESM5 and historical PU, it is evident that all projected values significantly exceed historical records, with relative differences ranging from 10% to 251%. The maximum relative difference occurs in SSP5-8.5 for PP1 and SSP1-2.6 for PP2 and PP3. In the SSP1-2.6 scenario of CanESM5, the projected PU values in all projected periods significantly exceed historical records, with relative differences of more than 57.53%, 250%, and 115% for PP1, PP2, and PP3, respectively (Figure 3). In the SSP2-4.5 scenario, the projected PU values are also higher than historical values but notably lower than those in SSP1-2.6. Relative differences between historical PU and projected values for SSP2-4.5 are more than 48%, 22%, and 20% for PP1, PP2, and PP3, respectively. Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, PU projections in all projected periods, except PP3, exceed historical values, with absolute relative differences of more than 125%, 10%, and 26% for PP1, PP2, and PP3, respectively. Comparing CanESM2 with CanESM5, the projected PU values in all scenarios and projected periods, except for the optimistic scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and RCP2.6) in PP2, show higher values for CanESM2. This results in a minimum and maximum relative difference of 0.66% and 53.31%, respectively. Table 3 reveals the results of the ANOVA analysis comparing historical pesticide usage data with climate projections from the CanESM2 and CanESM5 models across various scenarios and projected periods. For the CanESM2 model, the ANOVA results show significant differences between the historical pesticide usage data and the model projections across various periods and scenarios.