Golf Course Management

JAN 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/918033

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 119 of 219

110 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 01.18 The RESEARCH SAYS • V8 creeping bentgrass seeded at six rates received simulated traffic applied with a reel mower modified with an aluminum cylinder studded with plastic golf cleats. • Shear vane strength was tested by seeding rate and date of traffic initiation. • Results indicate a sustainable putting green surface can be achieved after renovation by seeding at the conservative rate of 12.1 ounces/1,000 square feet and delaying play until late spring or early summer. • The conservative seeding rate will expedite putting green establishment in the first year after renovation; it will also save money if seed prices rise or stockpiles dwindle. • Traffic did not have deleterious effects on the turfgrass. Seeding rates become more important as seed prices or quantities become suboptimal, be - cause lost revenue is not an acceptable option for any golf course operation. Conclusions Careful analysis of the data showed that golf courses that partake in a renovation proj - ect can create a sustainable putting green sur- face by seeding at the conservative rate of 12.1 ounces/1,000 square feet. Although simulated traffic did not adversely affect the turfgrass plants, it is wise to delay play until late spring or early summer for best results. The conser - vative seeding rate will not only expedite put- ting green establishment in the first year after renovation, but it will also save money if seed prices rise or stockpiles dwindle. Planning and timing are essential to the success of renovation projects. This research is meant to serve as a foundation for future research designed to explore turfgrass renova - tion practices related to cost-effective, sustain- able turfgrass establishment. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Michigan Turfgrass Foundation for supporting this research. Literature cited 1. Dodson, K. 2016. Selecting sustainable turfgrass species: choosing a turf species for renovation or inter-seeding projects. Green Master 51(5):31-33. 2. Glasgow, A. 2017. Not renovating; is It a possibility? New Zealand Turf Management Journal 34(2):6-7. 3. Jiggens, M. 2016. Winter kill of greens provides perfect excuse for golf club to regrass via little used method. Turf and Recreation 29(3):6-12. 4. Madison, J.H. 1966. Optimum rates of seeding turf - grasses. Agronomy Journal 58:441-443. 5. Pavalko, R.S. 2016. Ground control: Navigating a renovation. Golf Course Management 84(9):68-76. 6. Rabbit, A.E. 1950. Economics in turf maintenance through seed usage. Pages 45-49. In: Proceedings of National Turf Field Days, Oct. 15-17, 1950. Spon - sored by U.S. Golf Association Green Section; USDA, Bureau of Plant Industry, Division of Forage Crops and Diseases; Mid-Atlantic Association of Green - keepers. West Point Lawn Products, West Point, Pa. 7. Rogers, J.N. III, and D.V. Waddington. 1993. Present status of quantification of sports turf surface char - acteristics in North America. International Turfgrass Research Journal 7:231-237. 8. Torsiello, J. 2017. The way to go: Your greens need work, but does the project call for renovation or reconstruction? Golf Course Industry 29(5):26-34. 9. Trenholm, L.E., R.R. Duncan and R.N. Carrow. 1999. Wear tolerance, shoot performance, and spectral reflectance of seashore paspalum and bermuda- grass. Crop Science 39:1147-1152. Thomas O. Green and Eric C. Chestnut are graduate stu - dents and John N. Rogers III (rogersj@msu.edu) and James R. Crum are professors in the Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - JAN 2018