Golf Course Management

NOV 2018

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

Issue link: http://gcmdigital.gcsaa.org/i/1042517

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 67 of 99

66 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 11.18 ere were two fertilizer treatments. A urea (46N-0P-0K) solution was sprayed at 0.1 pound nitrogen/1,000 square feet (0.5 gram/ square meter) every seven days, and a granu - lar starter fertilizer (19N-25P-5K) was applied at 0.3 pound nitrogen/1,000 square feet (1.5 grams/square meter) every 21 days. Fertilizer treatments were applied for 11 weeks after emergence in both years. Irrigation was ap - plied three times daily from April 21 to 30 in 2007, and from May 2 to 14 in 2008, and To test the effects of covers on turf recovery, plots remained uncovered or, if forecast temperatures were below 50 F (10 C), plots were covered from late evening until 8 a.m. the following day. Fertilizer treatments were applied to the turf plots for 11 weeks after turf emergence. Beginning at two weeks after emergence, the plots were mowed five days a week. then every other day for the remainder of the research for both years. Irrigation amounts were calculated to return 75% of reference po - tential evapotranspiration (ET p ) estimated by the FAO Penman-Monteith equation from an on-site weather station. Two weeks after emer - gence, plots were mowed five days a week at a height of 0.25 inch (7 mm). Mowing height was lowered by approximately 0.4 inch (10 mm) each subsequent week to reach 0.12 inch (3 mm) at six weeks after emergence. e experimental design was a random - ized complete block with three replications. Data were analyzed as a four-factor experi - ment, with year, turfgrass species and creep- ing bentgrass cultivar, fertilizer program and cover treatment as factors. Statistical analysis indicated the results for each year were signifi - cantly different, so data were separated by year and analyzed as a three-factor experiment. Results and discussion Species and cultivar effects ere were differences in turf cover be - tween turfgrass species and among creeping bentgrass cultivars on all dates in 2007 and 2008 (Table 1). e annual bluegrass treat - ment had the lowest percent turfgrass cover on all dates in both years. e annual bluegrass treatment had 63% cover at 10 weeks after emergence in 2007, and 57% cover in 2008. In 2007, there were significant differences among creeping bentgrass cultivars at two and four weeks after emergence. At two weeks after emergence, Penn A-4 and Providence had the highest percent turfgrass cover. Alpha had lower percent cover than Penn A-4, but did not differ from Providence. All creeping bentgrass cultivars had higher percent cover than the annual bluegrass treatment. At four weeks after emergence, Providence and Penn A-4 had the highest percent turfgrass cover, and there was no difference between Penn A-4 and Alpha. ere were no differences among creeping bentgrass cultivars at six, eight and 10 weeks after emergence in 2007, and there were no differences among creeping bentgrass cultivars on any date in 2008. Establishment of four creeping bentgrass cultivars and an unseeded control was mea - sured on a soil with an established seed bank of annual bluegrass in an earlier research proj - ect at Rutgers University in New Jersey (9). Creeping bentgrass seeded in June established more quickly than the unseeded control. However, there were no differences in estab - lishment rate between seeded creeping bent- grass and the unseeded control in September and October plantings (9). e authors con - cluded this result was due to higher soil tem- peratures in the summer that suppressed an- nual bluegrass germination. Although we did not test the effect of spring or summer seeding versus fall, our results appear to agree with the Rutgers results in that annual bluegrass estab - lishment was relatively poor when compared to establishment of seeded creeping bentgrass.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - NOV 2018