Golf Course Management

MAR 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/944175

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 72 of 101

03.18 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 69 various phosphite sources in controlling algae throughout the two-year study (Tables 2). Commercial phosphite fungicides and phosphite fertilizers provided algae control equivalent to that provided by conventional algae fungicides throughout the two-year study (Table 2, Figure 2). Study 2: P os onate formulation and rate Algae severity. Commercially available phos - phite fungicide (Alude) and fertilizer (Phos- phite 30) formulations were compared with analytical potassium phosphite and potassium phosphate standards at six equivalent rates of the active ingredients phosphorous acid (phos - phite) or phosphoric acid (phosphate). Similar to results from Study 1, all potassium phos - phite treatments reduced AUADC compared with potassium phosphate (Figure 3). When the amount of active ingredient within Alude, Phosphite 30 and analytical-grade potassium phosphite was applied at the same relative rate, Study 1: Group and individual treatment comparisons of phosphite fungicides and fertilizers and contact fungicides Study 1: Phosphite products on algae Figure 2. Comparisons from Study 1 of the effects of various phosphite products on algae epidemics, expressed as area under the algae development curve (AUADC), during 2010 and 2011 on creeping bentgrass putting green turf in Storrs, Conn. AUADC 2010 2011 Comparison Group 1 Comparison Group 2 Statistically different? Treated † vs. Non-treated yes* yes Potassium phosphite analytical standard vs. Potassium phosphate analytical standard yes yes All commercial phosphites ‡ vs. Conventional fungicides no no Phosphite fungicides § vs. Phosphite fertilizers no yes Phosphite fungicides and phosphite fertilizers vs. Potassium phosphite standard ND // no Within phosphite fungicides: Alude and Vital vs. Magellan no no Alude vs. Vital no no Within phosphite fertilizers: Phosphite 30 vs. Fairphyte no ND Phosphite 30 and Magnum vs. Fairphyte ND no Phosphite 30 vs. Magnum ND no Within conventional fungicides: Daconil Ultrex and Protect DF vs. TerraCyte no no Daconil Ultrex vs. Protect DF no yes † Treatments were applied every 14 days from May 20 to Aug. 26, 2010, and from May 25 to Sept. 30, 2011. ‡ Mean of all phosphites (except the potassium phosphite and phosphate standards) compared with the mean of chlorothalonil, mancozeb, and sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate. § Mean of all phosphite fungicides compared with the mean of all phosphite fertilizers. // ND, not determined. Planned treatment comparison not performed. Table 2. Group and individual treatment comparisons of phosphite fungicides, phosphite fertilizers and contact fungicides in Study 1, to determine effects on area under the algae development curve (AUADC) in creeping bentgrass putting green turf in Storrs, Conn., during 2010 and 2011. 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 Analytical standard Phosphite fungicide Phosphite fertilizer Conventional fungicide Untreated Potassium phosphate Potassium phosphite Alude Vital Magellan Phosphite 30 Magnum Fairphyte Daconil Ultrex Protect DF TerraCyte

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - MAR 2018