Golf Course Management

SEP 2018

Golf Course Management magazine is dedicated to advancing the golf course superintendent profession and helping GCSAA members achieve career success.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 73 of 101

70 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 09.18 RESEARCH SAYS • Renovating aging greens is imperative for golf courses that want to remain competitive. • Older greens are typically a mix of creeping bentgrass and annual bluegrass, and converting greens to an improved creeping bentgrass variety cre- ates a more attractive, better-quality put- ting surface that requires fewer inputs. • Drainage and shade are the primary problems that need to be addressed before the green can be regrassed. • Although sodding can be an option — technology has improved the process — seeding is still a far better choice. • The period during the greens conversion is also an ideal time to convert fairways and tees as well. ity of the first growing season — to modify the mat layer. e key here is to avoid rais - ing member expectations that first year if the green is resodded. Can there be an exception with sod? Sure. If the sod is grown, either on your golf course or on a sod farm, so that the mat layer is con - tinually modified with a sand topdressing and there is soil compatibility, then sodding can decrease the total number of days closed and even shorten the return to good playing con - ditions. However, it is easy to see these caveats require time to prepare and extended periods when resources are dedicated to intensive turf management. While the golf course is closed If the golf course is closed to establish grass on putting greens, that period will be a mini - mum of 75 to 90 days. Assuming approaches and collars are already in the conversion, this is an excellent time to convert tees and fair - ways to creeping bentgrass as well. Neither area takes as long to establish as the putting green, and, although the same drainage and sunlight guidelines apply, these areas are not under the same stress from low mowing heights and can be opened with little trepida - tion. In areas under severe weed contamina- tion, a soil sterilant is an option. Other than the cost of sterilant, the cost of the seed, fertil - izer and herbicides likely will equal the cost of plant protectants applied to unrenovated turf during that time — resulting in a wash in terms of cost, if you will. In summary, I hope this letter begins to answer the questions around renovation. I stand ready to answer any questions from su - perintendents or their committees. Funding Funding was provided by the Michigan Turfgrass Foundation and MSU AgBio Re - search. Acknowledgment I would like to acknowledge graduate as- sistants omas Green, Eric Chestnut, Jacob Bravo and Ryan Bearss for their contributions. Literature cited 1. Bell, G.E., T.K. Danneberger and M.J. McMahon. 2000. Spectral irradiance available for turfgrass growth in sun and shade. Crop Science 40:189-195. 2. Bravo, J.S., T.O. Green, J.R. Crum, J.N. Rogers III, S. Kravchenko and C.A. Silcox. 2018. Evaluating the efficacy of dazomet for the control of annual blue - grass seed germination in renovated turf surfaces. HortTechnology 28(1):44-47. 3. Cattani, D.J. 2001. Effect of turf competition on creeping bentgrass seedling establishment. Interna - tional Turfgrass Society Research Journal 9(2):850- 854. 4. Frank, K.W., B.E. Leach, J.R. Crum, P.E. Rieke, B.R. Leinauer, T.A. Nikolai and R.N. Calhoun. 2005. The effects of a variable depth root zone on soil moisture in a sloped USGA putting green. International Turf - grass Society Research Journal 10(2):1060-1066. 5. Green, T.O., E.C. Chestnut, J.R. Crum and J.N. Rog - ers III. 2018. Effects of creeping bentgrass seeding rates and traffic on putting green establishment. Golf Course Management 86(1):100-104. 6. Kowalewski, A.R., J.N. Rogers III and T.D. VanLoo. 2008. Pre-harvest core cultivation of sod provides alternative cultivation timing. Applied Turfgrass Sci - ence 5(1):1-10. 7. Kowalewski, A.R., J.R. Crum, J.N. Rogers III and J.C. Dunne. 2011. Improving native soil athletic fields with intercept drain tile installation and subsequent sand topdressing applications. Soil Science 176(3):1-7. 8. O'Brien, P., and D.A. Oatis. 2018. Successful putting green construction starts with planning. USGA Green Section Record 56(5):1-6. 9. Prettyman, G.W., and E.L. McCoy. 2003. Profile lay - ering, root zone permeability, and slope affect on soil water content during putting green drainage. Crop Science 43:985-994. 10. Rana, S.S., and S.D. Askew. 2018. Measuring canopy anomaly influence on golf putt kinematics: Does annual bluegrass influence ball roll behavior? Crop Science 58:911-916. 11. Sweeney, P., and K. Danneberger. 1998. Introducing a new creeping bentgrass cultivar through interseed - ing: Does it work? USGA Green Section Record 36(5):19-20. 12. United States Golf Association. 2018. USGA recom - mendations for a method of putting green construc- tion. Far Hills, N.J. John N. Rogers III, Ph.D. (, is a pro - fessor and coordinator of Golf Turf and Sports Turf Man- agement Programs in the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences at Michigan State University in East Lansing. In addition to conducting renovation research, he has assisted on more than 12 renovations in five states in the U.S.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - SEP 2018