Golf Course Management

JUL 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/997040

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 76 of 99

07.18 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT 75 CUTTING EDGE Teresa Carson Fraze mowing vs. SDS on bermudagrass Researchers at the University of Missouri are conducting a three-year field experiment to determine if fraze mowing can be incorpo - rated into a management program that will result in faster curative control and recovery from spring dead spot (SDS) on bermuda- grass. Plots were inoculated with the pathogen (Ophiosphaerella herpotricha) in 2013, and the experiment was initiated after initial symptom development in 2015. e experiment was a split-plot design with fraze mowing as the main plot in combination with subplot treat - ments of nitrogen source, manganese, or the fungicide penthiopyrad. Plots were either not cultivated, or fraze mowed at a depth of 0.16 or 0.31 inch on June 30, 2015. Every week for six weeks after fraze mowing, nitrogen was applied as calcium nitrate or ammonium sulfate at a rate of 0.5 pound nitrogen/1,000 square feet. For the manganese treatment, 2 pounds/1,000 square feet of manganese sul - fate was applied with fertilizer every other week. Plots were treated with the fungicide penthiopyrad on June 30 and Oct. 14, at a rate of 0.7 ounce of Velista (Syngenta)/1,000 square feet or left untreated. In the first year of study, SDS was not significantly affected by the nitrogen source or manganese treatments. Disease severity was lower in plots fraze mowed at 8 mm than in plots that were not fraze mowed, and lower in fungicide-treated plots than in plots without a penthiopyrad treatment. Interestingly, no difference was observed between plots treated with a fungi - cide but not fraze mowed, and non-fungicide treated plots that were fraze mowed aggres - sively at 0.31 inch. is study is ongoing to examine long-term treatment effects. — Ger- ald (Lee) Miller, Ph.D. (turfpath@missouri.edu), Daniel T. Earlywine and Brad S. Fresenburg An article on this research was published in International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 2017 13(1):225-228. doi:10.2134/itsrj2016.10.0839 Does core recycling affect putting green performance? Studies have shown that regular top- dressing and aeration improves both soil and plant health of greens, but limited-budget and rural courses, in particular, often have difficulty finding sand that is consistent with the current root zone and also affordable. Scientists at Iowa State University attempted to determine whether recycling cores with the Weidenmann Core Recycler would re - duce the amount of sand needed for top- dressing. One positive effect of core recycling is that the sand will be similar to that in the existing green, avoiding concerns of layering due to different sand sources. However, little is known about possible negative effects of core recycling on root-zone organic-matter levels, water-infiltration rates, recovery time frame or ball roll. At Iowa State, a trial was conducted comparing traditional core cul - tivation, core collection and topdressing to core cultivation, core recycling and topdress - ing. Sand topdressing was applied before and after cultivation in a strip-plot treatment to test improvements in sand incorporation. We evaluated percentage of organic matter, percentage of cover/recovery, ball roll, soil moisture, sand usage and water-infiltration rates. e trial was conducted on a creeping bentgrass green built to USGA recommen - dations and maintained at 0.128 inch (3.25 mm). Preliminary data show no differences between treatments for water infiltration, re - covery time, ball roll and soil moisture. Core recycling increased the percentage of organic matter (15.9% in the recycled treatments vs. 8.7% in the traditional treatments) a month after treatments took place, and reduced the amount of additional topdressing sand re - quired by 91.8% compared to traditional cul- tivation. ese data suggest cost savings with little impact on putting green performance, but further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of core recycling. — Ben- jamin Pease; Adam Thoms, Ph.D.; Nick E. Chris- tians, Ph.D.; and Isaac Mertz, Iowa State Univer- sity, Ames, Iowa An earlier version of this summary was published in the 2017 ASA-CSSA-SSSA Meeting Abstracts, ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, Wis. Teresa Carson (tcarson@gcsaa.org) is GCM 's science editor. Photos by Adam Thoms Photo by Lee Miller

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - JUL 2018