Golf Course Management

JUL 2019

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/1131538

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 78 of 139

07.19 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 77 CUTTING EDGE Teresa Carson This research was funded in part by the United States Golf Association. Enhancing fairway water conservation through UAV imagery Sustainability of the golf industry will re- quire continued resource management. Water conservation is imperative in the semiarid to arid regions of the U.S. Many tools and strat- egies have been successfully implemented throughout the region to reduce water use, but technological advances may continue curb- ing water inputs to a greater extent. •e ob- jectives of this research were to evaluate four narrowband sensors (red-green-blue, 670 nm, 850 nm and 970 nm) obtaining images from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flights and correlate changes in vegetative index calcula- tions to ground-based measurements. Two fairways were selected at Rawls Golf Course in Lubbock, Texas, (TifSport hybrid bermuda- grass) and at Amarillo Country Club in Ama- rillo, Texas, (Kentucky bluegrass and peren- nial ryegrass) for this two-year research trial. •e first year of flights and ground-based mea- surements were concluded last year. Early indi- cations suggest that near-infrared wavelengths commonly associated with drought stress (970 nm) may not distinguish dry areas on short-mowed golf course fairways as effec- tively as they do for an agricultural crop can- opy like cotton. Higher areas of compaction appear to be most closely associated with areas of stress observed from UAV image analysis. We look forward to conducting flights and further data collection and analysis in 2019 to better understand the viability of this new technology for use in golf course fairway man- agement. — Joseph Young, Ph.D. (Joey.Young@ ttu.edu), Eduardo Escamilla and Juan Cantu, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas; and David McCall, Ph.D., Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Va. Fungicide fate following various mowing and irrigation treatments Irrigation is typically applied immedi- ately following fungicide applications when targeting root diseases in putting greens. However, the fate of fungicides following post-application mowing and irrigation is not well-documented. •e objective of this study was to determine the influence of post-appli- cation mowing and irrigation timing on the amounts of fungicide in turfgrass clippings and the soil profile. Single fungicide applica- tions of pyraclostrobin, triadimefon and pen- thiopyrad were applied, and 0.25 inch (0.635 centimeter) of post-application irrigation was applied either immediately or six hours after fungicide application. Turfgrass clippings were collected at 0, 1 or 3 DAT (days after treatment). Soil cores were collected 0, 1, 3, 7 and 14 DAT and dissected into remain- ing aboveground vegetation (verdure/thatch) at depths of 0-1 inch (2.5 centimeters), 1-2 inches (5 centimeters) and 2-3 inches (7.6 centimeters). All samples were homogenized, and fungicide residue was analyzed using liq- uid chromatography mass spectrophotom- etry. Fungicide recovery as percent of fun- gicide applied ranged from 90% to 93% for pyraclostrobin, 92% to 99% for triadimefon, and 92% to 95% for penthiopyrad at 0 DAT. Only a minor amount of fungicide (0.19%- 2.31%) was removed with turfgrass clippings regardless of the mowing and irrigation treat- ment. Fungicide was detected in the 2- to 3-inch depth at 14 DAT only when irriga- tion occurred immediately after fungicide ap- plication. Less penthiopyrad was detected in the remaining aboveground vegetation, and total fungicide recovery was greater through 5 DAT for penthiopyrad than for pyraclos- trobin and triadimefon. More penthiopyrad than pyraclostrobin or triadimefon was de- tected in the 0- to 1-inch depth at 1 DAT. Irrigating immediately and delaying mowing following fungicide application resulted in greater fungicide movement and recovery. — Cameron Stephens (cmsteph2@ncsu.edu), James P. Kerns, Ph.D., and Travis W. Gannon, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Editor's note: A version of this summary was published in the 2018 ASA-CSSA Meeting Ab- stracts, ASA and CSSA, Madison, Wis. Teresa Carson (tcarson@gcsaa.org) is GCM 's science editor. Photo by Joseph Young Photo by Daniel Freund

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - JUL 2019