Golf Course Management

AUG 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/1147798

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 67 of 107

64 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 08.19 • We tested 30 commercial and experimen- tal products for their ability to alleviate salinity stress on bermudagrass. • The only product that had an effect on turfgrass quality and soil chemistry was DeSal + Stress Rx + XP Extra Protection. • More research is needed to determine whether nitrogen applications above the recommended rates can mask salinity stress while sustaining turf health and playability. The RESEARCH SAYS Conclusions In our study, although bermudagrass was not severely stressed and no turf loss was recorded over the two-year pe - riod, only one salinity alleviation program had the ability to maintain turf above an acceptable level of quality. Calcium application has been often proposed as a strategy to allevi - ate sodium permeability hazard; however, in mostly sandy soils like ours, gypsum application may not be deemed neces - sary. Nevertheless, our results indicate that some programs can be successfully used to mitigate symptoms of salinity stress, while also ameliorating soil conditions. More research is needed to determine whether applying nitrogen at higher than recommended rates for fertilization on golf courses and other areas would be able to mask salinity stress, while also sustaining turf health and playability. Funding e authors would like to thank the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, United States Golf Asso - ciation, California Turfgrass & Landscape Foundation, and the companies (Agribiotic Products, Aquatrols, EarthWorks, Gantec Inc., Grigg Brothers, Brandt Consolidated Inc., LH Organics, Mitchell Products, Numerator Technologies Inc., Ocean Organics and Westbridge Agricultural Products) that provided product and financial support for this research. Literature cited 1. Ayers, R.S., and D.W. Westcot. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 (Rev. 1). Food and Agriculture Organiza - tion (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 2. Duncan, R.R., R.N. Carrow and M. Huck. 2000. Understanding water quality and guidelines to management: An overview of challenges for water usage on golf courses for the 21st century. USGA Green Section Record 38(5):14–24. 3. Steinke, K., and E.H. Ervin. 2013. Turfgrass ecology. Pages 347–381. In: B. Horgan, J. Stier, and S. Bonos, editors. Turfgrass: Biology, use, and management. Agronomy Monograph 56. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madi - son, Wis. 4. Throssell, C.S., G.T. Lyman, M.E. Johnson, G.A. Stacey and C.D. Brown. 2009. Golf course environmental profile measures water use, source, cost, quality, and management and conservation strategies. Applied Turf - grass Science doi:10.1094/ATS-2009-0129-01-RS 5. U.S. Salinity Laboratory. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook 60. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash - ington, D.C. Marco Schiavon (marcos@ucr.edu) is an assistant researcher in botany and plant sciences at the University of California, Riverside. This fall he will join the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the Fort Lau - derdale Research and Education Center. James Baird (jbaird@ucr.edu) is an associate specialist in Cooperative Extension and an associate horticulturist in botany and plant sciences at the University of California, Riverside. Treatment EC e (dS/m) SAR pH Na (Meq/liter) Untreated control 11.9 A-F* 13.79 A-F 7.6 71.33 A-E ACA 2994 9.39 D-G 12.26 B-G 7.6 54.4 C-F ACA 2994 7.9 G 10.08 G 7.7 43.97 F ACA 1849 13.89 AB 15.2 AB 7.6 86.02 A ACA 1849 Gypsum 8.27 FG 10.67 G 7.7 42.71 F ACA 2994 11.45 A-G 14.18 A-D 7.6 69.76 A-F Cal-Vantage Kick Proactin TriCure AD 11.7 A-G 13.81 A-F 7.6 68.53 A-F MC TP 8.7 E-G 11.13 E-G 7.9 48.39 C-F MC TP3 12.29 A-E 14.1 A-E 7.6 74.53 A-D Crossover 9.21 D-G 11.71 C-G 7.9 51.69 C-F Revert 10.68 B-G 13.03 A-G 7.6 62.83 A-F SST 8%CA 13.63 A-C 15.17 AB 7.6 82.59 AB pHAcid Sprayable Crossover 13.01 A-D 15.45 A 7.7 82.36 AB Cal Plus 1 8.58 E-G 10.88 FG 7.6 47.46 D-F Cal Plus 2 8.26 FG 11.28 D-G 7.8 45.61 EF DeSal Stress Rx XP Extra Protection 7.79 G 10.66 G 7.6 42.83 F Gypsum 11.43 A-G 12.95 A-G 7.6 67.47 A-F Gypsum 15.03 A 14.46 A-C 7.3 87.49 A ACA 3217 9.45 D-G 12.22 B-G 7.7 53.84 C-F MST-1410 † 12.32 A-E 14.29 A-D 7.7 74.8 A-C MST-1410 † 9.79 C-G 12.88 A-G 7.7 58.58 B-F Turfcare NPN Turfcare NPN Turfcare NPN 10.66 B-G 13.07 A-G 7.7 63.02 A-F *Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different. † Treatments were first applied on June 12, 2014. Table 4. Soil electrical conductivity (EC e , in deciSiemens/ meter), sodium absorption ratio (SAR), acidity (pH), and sodium (Na) content (milliequivalents/ liter) in October 2014 following application of treatments since April 2014 in Riverside, Calif. Effects of treatments as of October 2014

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - AUG 2019