Green Section November/December 1992 A Publication on Turfgrass Management by the United States Golf Association® USGA Vol. 30, No. 6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 Green Section RECORD EDITOR: James T. Snow Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha ASSISTANT EDITOR: ART EDITOR: Diane Chrenko Becker DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: Mark Carlson USGA PRESIDENT: Stuart F. Bloch GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Raymond B. Anderson 1506 Park Avenue, River Forest, IL 60305 NATIONAL OFFICES: United States Golf Association, Golf House P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908) 234-2300 James T. Snow, National Director Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha, Manager, Technical Communications Nancy P. Sadlon, Environmental Specialist P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900 Dr. Michael P. Kenna, Director, Green Section Research GREEN SECTION AGRONOMISTS AND OFFICES: Northeastern Region: United States Golf Association, Golf House P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908)234-2300 David A. Oatis, Director James E. Skorulski, Agronomist 186 Prospect Street, Willimantic, CT 06226 • (203) 456-4537 James E. Connolly, Agronomist Mid-Atlantic Region: P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380 • (215) 696-4747 Stanley J. Zontek, Director Robert A. Brame, Agronomist Michael T. Saffel, Agronomist Southeastern Region: P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (404) 229-8125 Patrick M. O’Brien, Director Florida Region: P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (407) 546-2620 John H. Foy, Director Chuck Gast, Agronomist Great Lakes Region: 11431 North Port Washington Rd., Suite 203 Mequon, WI 53092 • (414)241-8742 James M. Latham, Director Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist Mid-Continent Region: 300 Sharron Drive, Waco, TX 76712 • (817)776-0765 James F. Moore, Director George B. Manuel, Agronomist Western Region: 22792 Centre Drive, Suite 290 Lake Forest, CA 92630 • (714) 457-9464 Larry W. Gilhuly, Director Paul H. Vermeulen, Agronomist Patrick J. Gross, Agronomist Turfgrass Information File (TGIF) • (517) 353-7209 4 Barn or Turf Care Center: Which Do You Have? by Jim Connolly jr- A USGA-Sponsored Research Project r\ Natural Enemies Reduce Pest Populations in Turf by Daniel A. Potter 11 Applewood Golf Course: Reintroducing the Shortgrass Prairie and Links-Style Golf by Ron Conard by Arthur P Weber 13 Communicate! Communicate! Communicate! 16 Winter Covers: Are They For You? by Jim Skorulski 19 On Course With Nature Concern for Surface Runoff— More on Water Quality! by Nancy P Sadlon 20 News Notes for Fall 21 Back Cover All Things Considered Paint ’em Green! by Patrick M. O’Brien Turf Twisters Cover Photo: A fine old barn serves as a focal point of this turf care center. ©1992 by United States Golf Association®. Permission to reproduce articles or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to pub­ lishers of newspapers and periodicals (unless specifically noted otherwise), provided credit is given the USGA and copyright protection is afforded. To reprint material in other media, written permission must be obtained from the USGA. In any case, neither articles nor other material may be copied or used for any advertising, promotion, or commercial purposes. GREEN SECTION RECORD (ISSN 0041-5502) is published six times a year in January, March, May, July, September, and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION®, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Postmaster: Send address changes to the USGA Green Section Record, P.O. Box 708, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931- 0708. Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and correspondence relevant to published material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Second-class postage paid at Far Hills, NJ, and other locations. Office of Publication, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Subscriptions $12 a year. Foreign subscriptions $15 a year (surface mail) or $24 a year (air mail). There are still many inadequate maintenance facilities, but the rapidly changing golf course industry is making it more difficult to operate from outdated buildings. Bam or Turf Core Center: Which Do You Hove? by JIM CONNOLLY Agronomist, Northeastern Region, USGA Green Section THE FIRST golf courses in America often were constructed on farmland. Most had a farmhouse, outbuildings, or a bam that served to house golf course construction equipment, horses, and a few pieces of mowing equipment. In the early days, only a few pieces of equipment were needed for golf course maintenance, so hand tools and the few mowers were stored in the place affectionately known as “the bam.” Barn is still a term used by many people, as in “Can you give me directions to the bam?” or “He is probably out in the bam!” Some golf courses were not so privileged even to have a bam, and had to make do with any structure that was convenient and somewhat weather resistant. Old sheds, aircraft hangars, military surplus buildings (Quonset huts), or even wooden lean-tos were used to store maintenance equipment. The basement of the clubhouse, farmhouse, or pro shop may also have been used as the operation center. In fact, substandard main­ tenance facilities predominated in golf up through recent years. There are still many inadequate maintenance facilities, but the rapidly changing golf course industry is making it increasingly difficult to operate from outdated, archaic buildings. Even so, in the midst of this change, we frequently find ourselves referring to the “bam” or “shed” as the place where we work! These are terms NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 1 that no longer belong in the golf manage­ ment vernacular. Sherwood Moore, longtime superinten­ dent and recipient of the USGA Green Sec­ tion Award, recalls receiving mail addressed to the “Greenkeeper’s Shack.” Sherwood could live with the term greenkeeper. In fact, it has a romantic ring to it, reminiscent of Old Tom Morris and his distinguished pro­ fession of “keeper of the green.” But the term shack was hardly appropriate. Sherwood promptly disposed of the letter and all simi­ lar correspondence out of respect for his profession. Words are powerful tools! Psychiatrists, motivational experts, preachers, and busi­ ness professionals know the importance of selecting the right word. If the word barn, for example, is used to describe the place where you work, some may refer to Webster’s definition, “a farm building for sheltering harvested crops.” What confusion there must be when you tell them you are a golf course superintendent! The USGA is a real stickler for proper terminology because of its impor­ tance in the interpretation of the Rules of Golf. A trap is a device for catching mice, not errant shots! Sand bunker is the proper term. A cup is for holding your favorite bever­ age! The proper term in golf is hole. Perhaps the following definitions will help clarify the choice of Turf Care Center as the title of this paper. Turf Care — To watch over, protect, and tend to turf. Center — A place at which an activity or complex of activities is carried out. During the 1960s, automatic irrigation brought modernization to golf course main­ tenance and spurred dramatic changes in the game of golf. Golf during the first half of the 20th century was played primarily on non-irrigated ground, with the exception of greens that may have received some irri­ gation. A puff of dust after a fairway mashie shot was a common sight. The installation of fairway irrigation systems drastically changed the way the game was played, turn­ ing hard soil with thin turfgrass to thick, lush green grass and moist soil. Every golfer had to adjust to the new playing conditions. Some enjoyed the longer, green grass, but others (particularly the pro­ fessional and advanced golfers) found it more difficult to impart backspin on a golf ball nestled in deep bluegrass fairway turf. The cry was to lower the cutting heights. Unfortunately, lower cutting heights on bluegrass fairways caused many problems, including Poa annua infestation, scalping, and significant stress and pest injury. Management practices changed in response to the new demands for low-cut green turf. Maintenance bams became jammed with new equipment needed to reduce manual labor and meet the new demands for improved turf conditions. The bam also became the workshop for the repair of increasingly complex equipment, as well as storage of the ever-increasing array of accessories, fertilizers, pesticides, and golf carts. Additional smaller buildings sprang up to accommodate new hardware and supplies. A few golf courses, very few, constructed new maintenance buildings that were spa­ cious and better capable of housing equip­ ment. The majority failed to keep up, slip­ ping further into obsolescence. A number of changes have occurred over the years that have increased the cost of Chemical storage buildings can cost $40,000 alone! Future regulations may increase that cost. 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD maintenance facilities. High-tech equipment has become a big part of every golf course inventory. Millions of research and market­ ing dollars have gone toward developing precise mowing equipment and sprayers than can meter pesticides at fractions of an ounce per acre. Some turfgrass equipment costs as much as a Mercedes sedan! In fact, the aver­ age value for an 18-hole golf course equip­ ment inventory is in excess of $500,000. Also, there may be between $20,000 and $100,000 worth of goods that are stored and used on the golf course each season. Modem irrigation systems require a com­ puter terminal that must be stored in a clean, dust-free environment. Government regula­ tions require that employees have areas to eat, shower, change clothes, and receive peri­ odic training during the season. Mechanics are now required to work on more than 100 pieces of equipment, some weighing as much as 8,000 pounds with 100 feet of hydraulic hose and 40-horsepower diesel engines. Usually, 18-hole golf courses re­ quire 8,000 to 12,000 square feet of area under cover to adequately store equipment and provide the space for proper main­ tenance. The day of reckoning has arrived for a great number of golf courses in America, and it is time to take a serious look at the buildings that function as the backbone of the golf course management department. There are several reasons for the high percentage of poor Turf Care Centers. It is easy to understand how the tremendous growth of golf and the introduction of new maintenance equipment simply over­ whelmed many of the existing facilities. Another reason is that many golf courses choose to spend money on the clubhouse dining room, locker rooms, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other non-golf-related activities. Golfers and other members view these areas as priorities because they spend the majority of their time there and on the golf course. Few golfers bring their guests to the “bam” to show off the new reel grinder or pesticide storage building! It is no wonder the old bam stays “the old bam”! In reality, the reasons for improvement are not always spurred by the desire to have an efficient, modem Turf Care Center. Too often, condemnation is the spark that sets the flame burning. Following are a few more reasons: • A golf hole was redesigned and the old maintenance bam was in the way. As a result, a new Turf Care Center had to be built. • The roof caved in on the adjacent golf cart storage facility, which was the same age as the maintenance bam. That frightened the membership into building a new Turf Care Center. • Natural disasters such as flood, fire, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, etc., often are a precursor to a new Turf Care Center. • The building was reaching such a state of dilapidation that the membership feared lawsuits resulting from injury to the em­ ployees. On rare occasions, a government official may even condemn the maintenance building. If you do not foresee a similar scenario happening at your golf course, then you could begin with a professional evaluation of the entire golf course by a company specializing in golf course building archi­ tecture. A list of these companies is avail­ able through the National Golf Foundation. The evaluation includes a priority listing of Waiting for written legislation before addressing safety needs is foolish and dangerous. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 3 fessional guidance. Your resource list should include: • Ten superintendents who have recently constructed new maintenance facilities. • An efficiency evaluation company or building architect — the National Golf Foundation can supply a list of clubhouse architects and consultants. • Site engineer — The site engineer will handle the permitting necessary to construct the buildings. Some golf courses choose to do their own permitting in hopes of saving money. This is a difficult task for the ama­ teur, and it is recommended that a profes­ sional be paid to file all of the necessary permits. • Government and town officials who will be involved with the project — Meet with them, be polite, and make sure they know you are interested in doing everything properly and making the project run smoothly. Ask what you can do to help them and what information they require. • Professional organizations — National Golf Foundation, Golf Course Superinten­ dents Association of America, USGA Green Section, Club Managers Association, and other organizations that may be able to supply information needed for the project. Step 3: Task Force Key people at the golf course may in­ clude the club manager, building committee, green chairman, president, and other inter­ ested parties with decision-making power. For municipal and public-fee golf courses, the list may include the city manager, select­ men, park board, citizen golf members, and others. Some municipalities have a planning and organization department to evaluate the efficiency of the golf course. The impor­ tant point is to have the different groups of people working together to one end. Step 4: The Presentation Assuming that a professional architect/ consultant already has done an evaluation, a professional presentation using models and visual aids now can be given to the com­ mittee in charge of approving the project. Be prepared to justify the need for each area of the project. Facts and figures on the necessity of a separate grinding room, for example, should be available if needed. Do not become bogged down in details unless questioned. The objective is to gain support and funding through the use of a profes­ sional, convincing presentation. A covered storage area keeps topdressing materials dry and free of debris. the needs of all buildings on the property. Listing the needs of the maintenance facility along with the clubhouse, locker room, swimming pool, and other facilities will better help the membership to visualize the entire project. The membership must view the plan as affecting the entire club, not just the maintenance of the golf course. This concept is very significant; it may be the factor that leads to success. Putting the construction of a Turf Care Center at the top of the priority list can be difficult to justify, even though it may be badly needed. Many projects are killed be­ fore they make it to the drawing board be­ cause of poor planning and preparation on the part of the superintendent. Dreaming, planning, and knowing the need for a new building are not enough. It still must be sold to the golfers! Presenting a project of such magnitude requires tremendous preparation. You simply cannot stroll into a green com­ mittee meeting and proclaim, “I need a new maintenance shop!” First of all, it is not your maintenance shop. Do not use posses­ sive terms such as mine, our, or we. It is better to say, “The golf course needs a new Turf Care Center. I have researched the subject and found that . ...” A well- conceived plan will address the reasons why the golf course needs a new Turf Care Center. Make sure to gain the support of the green committee or appropriate golf course officials, and approach the meeting as a team. The first question you will be asked is, “Why do we need a new Turf Care Cen­ 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD ter?” If you are not prepared, you may lose the first and most important battle. An appropriate response might be, “We need a better Turf Care Center to ensure the safety of our employees, provide the area to fulfill the needs associated with the maintenance of a golf course, and meet, or exceed, future environmental regulations.” Then, begin to describe the changes in the golf course in­ dustry, and present the facts. There are different approaches that lead to the construction of a new Turf Care Center. The approach chosen at your golf club will depend on specific circumstances and objec­ tives. The following is a suggested program that can be used to help develop a strategy at any golf course considering the pursuit of a better Turf Care Center. Step 1: Commitment Commit to the many hours of work associated with this project. It may take several years and an unbelievable amount of time before the first shovel or hammer sees action. Give this project the same attention as you would grooming the golf course for membership play. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy, so do not become discouraged if no one seems interested initially. Keep a committed attitude and continue with your plans and presentations. Step 2: List of Experts Find experienced people whom you will use as an information source and for pro­ Hopefully, after several meetings, a budget figure will be reached and approval to begin (Above) The superintendent’s office should present a professional appearance. Paul Miller, Nashawtuc Country Club, Concord, Massachusetts. (Left) A detailed model helps people visualize the finished product. construction will be granted. The superin­ tendent and architect already will have met many times to discuss the presentation and develop specifications for the Turf Care Center. After approval, meetings will con­ tinue and the drawings and specifications will be further refined. Visiting a mini­ mum of ten new Turf Care Centers and thoroughly researching the subject are very important steps. Most golf course super­ intendents who have built a new facility would do something differently if given another chance. After the plans are developed, a contractor is chosen and the plans are further refined. Some clubs choose to hire a project man­ ager because the construction of a new Turf Care Center can cost $400,000 to $1.5 million. This is a huge responsibility, and the superintendent may not have the time or ability to supervise a project of this mag­ nitude, especially during the golfing season. Many communities are very sensitive to building activity and development within their neighborhoods, and it may be wise to contact local residents to discuss your plans. One golf course project in Wisconsin spent thousands of dollars preparing and plan­ ning, only to have the town residents file a petition which stopped the entire project. Involving the community shows responsi­ bility, good stewardship, and indicates that the golf course is concerned about the local community. Conclusion Golfers and club members often are willing to invest money in the construction of a new Turf Care Center if they are pre­ sented with the facts in a professional man­ ner. It is time that the Turf Care Center at every golf course be viewed as the “nerve center,” as Dr. Beard describes it in his book on turfgrass management. Every day on the golf course begins and ends at the Turf Care Center, and this place will always be the focal point of golf course management. Special thanks to Greg Wojick, superintendent, and Dan Denehy, club manager, of the Greenwich Country Club, Greenwich, Connecticut. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 5 Spiders (above) and tiger beetles (facing page) are among the predators commonly found in turf. A USGA-SPONSORED RESEARCH PROJECT Natural Enemies Reduce Pest Populations in Turf by DANIEL A. POTTER Professor of Entomology, University of Kentucky “Big bugs have smaller bugs upon their backs to bite ’em ... and these, in turn, have smaller still, and so on, ad infinitum.” — Ogden Nash GOLF COURSE superintendents and other turfgrass managers generally are familiar with white grubs, cut­ worms, and other pests, but it is doubtful that they often give much thought to the many other kinds of insects and related 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD small creatures that inhabit their turf. Some, such as springtails and millipedes, are rela­ tively innocuous, feeding on plant debris or fungi. Others, especially earthworms, can be a nuisance when their burrows disrupt smoothness and uniformity, but they none­ theless play an important role in turf by aerifying and enriching the soil, enhancing water infiltration, and breaking down thatch (USGA Green Section Record, September/ October 1991, pp. 6-8). Still others are voracious predators or parasites, roaming through the grass or burrowing in the soil and thatch in search of victims, which often include the eggs or damaging stages of pest insects such as sod webworms, army worms, or white grubs. Recent research at the University of Kentucky has begun to document the impor­ tance of predators and parasites in reducing pest densities in turfgrass, and is providing insight on how these beneficial insects are affected by pesticides. Here, I present evi­ dence in support of the view that predators and parasites are important allies of the turf manager, and that preserving their popula­ tions, where possible, helps to buffer the turf against pest outbreaks. Role of Predators and Parasites in Turf Several surveys have shown that predatory insects are often very diverse and abundant in turf. In some studies the researchers used insect nets or gasoline-powered vacuums to sample the predators. More often they used pitfall traps: plastic cups sunk to the level of the soil surface and filled partly with preser­ vative to capture ground-dwelling insects unfortunate enough to blunder into them. Studies of this type conducted in New Jersey, Florida, and Kentucky revealed dozens of different species of ants, ground beetles, spiders, rove beetles, and other groups, many of which feed mainly on the eggs or larval (immature) stages of plant-eating insects. In my lab, we’ve tested dozens of species of potential predators collected from turf sites and have found that many of them readily consume large numbers of eggs and larval stages of sod webworms, armyworms, and Japanese beetles. Indeed, one common species, aptly called a tiger beetle, was ob­ served to kill as many as 20 fall army worm caterpillars in a single hour! The reproductive powers of insects often are staggering. Greenbug aphids, for example, can produce 60 young per female under favorable conditions, and in the lati­ tude of southern Indiana there may be 15 or more generations per year. Starting with a single female under these conditions, and assuming that all of the offspring survive and reproduce, a turfgrass manager would have to deal with 470,184,980,000,000,000,- 000,000,000 aphids, the equivalent of 77,000,000,000,000,000 (77 quadrillion) tons of aphids by the end of one year! Although most other turf insects don’t develop quite as quickly as greenbugs, female sod webworms and armyworms can produce hundreds of eggs, and adult Japanese beetles, masked chafers, and other white grub species can leave 60 or more offspring in their lifetime. Why, then, are our lawns and golf courses not uniformly and regularly overwhelmed by pest insects? The fact that severe insect outbreaks are relatively uncommon in low-maintenance turf suggests that many pests normally are held in check by natural buffers. Environ­ mental stresses such as drought can take a heavy toll on some pest insects. Eggs of most white grub species, for example, can­ not survive in very dry soil. Naturally occur­ ring microbial pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, parasitic nematodes, and other disease-causing agents also help to reduce pest populations. Predators and parasites also contribute to regulate pest populations. Much of the evidence for this comes from accounts of pest outbreaks at sites where the natural enemies had been inadvertently eliminated by broad-spectrum insecticides. For example, turf entomologists at Rutgers University re­ ported outbreaks of winter grain mite on lawns in New Jersey that had been treated with carbaryl. Evidently, the insecticide killed the predatory mites that normally NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 7 held the pest mites in check. Similar out­ breaks of southern chinch bugs were docu­ mented on heavily treated home lawns in Florida. Such phenomena are called “pest resurgences” if the outbreak pest was the target of the original treatment, or “secondary pest outbreaks” if another pest was the original target. These occurrences are common in orchards, vegetable and cereal crops, and other systems that receive heavy insecticide use. Practically every turf grass pest has one or more predators or parasites associated with it. Some of the parasites are relatively spe­ cific, but most of the predators seem to be general feeders. We know very little about which natural enemies are most important in regulating particular pests, but it may be that their cumulative effects are more im­ portant than those of any one species. While manipulation of specific predators or para­ sites for the purpose of mass rearing and release generally has not proven to be prac­ tical or effective, conservation of beneficial species where possible should be a concern of professional turf managers. Effects of Insecticides on Predators Broad-spectrum insecticides are toxic to beneficial insects as well as pests. In one study in Kentucky, a surface application of chlorpyrifos (Dursban) or isofenphos (Oftanol) in June reduced populations of predators such as spiders and rove beetles by as much as 60%, the effects lasting for at least six weeks. In Ohio, use of isofenphos on home lawns reduced populations of some groups for as long as 43 weeks. Different predator groups are affected to varying degrees by different insecticides, but unfor­ tunately there have been few comparative studies from which to draw generalizations. Most studies suggest that predators will re­ populate relatively small areas within one to three months after treatment. We do not know how long it takes for predators to re­ cover in larger treated areas such as golf courses, but it would probably be much longer. Surveys in Kentucky showed that predator populations generally are less abundant and diverse in high-maintenance lawns than in low-maintenance turf. Evidence for Importance of Predators Only a few studies have attempted to measure the impact of natural enemies on the abundance of pest insects on turf. Several years ago, we compared rates of natural pre­ dation on sod webworm eggs in untreated turf and in turf that was treated once with chlorpyrifos at the labeled rate. Sod web­ worms were a good choice for this test be­ cause the female moths lay hundreds of Decline and recovery of spider populations in Kentucky bluegrass following treatment of small (33 X 33ft.) plots with insecticides. This short-term response seems to be typical for many groups of predators. Weeks After Treatment Reduced predation on sod webworm eggs placed in Kentucky bluegrass at 1 or 3 weeks after the turf was treated with Dursban, and recovery after 5 weeks. Asterisks denote that the difference between treated and untreated plots was statistically significant. 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD tiny eggs as they fly over the turf at night. The eggs fall to the base of the grass plants, where they would seemingly be vulnerable to predators. We hypothesized that insecti­ cides applied during the egg-laying period would kill predators and might allow more egg survival. The turf was treated in mid-June and then groups of several hundred eggs were set out in small dishes level with the soil surface at one, three, and five weeks after treatment. Different sets of eggs were used each time. Pitfall traps were used to assess the impact of the insecticide on predators. We watched the dishes at night and kept a record of the predators that fed upon or carried away the eggs. The number of eggs that were eaten within 48 hours was compared between treated and untreated plots on each date. We were amazed to find that predators, especially ants, consumed or carried off as many as 75% of the eggs in the untreated plots within 48 hours. Numbers of predators were much lower in the treated plots, and consumption of the eggs was significantly reduced for at least three weeks after treat­ ment. Predator populations had begun to re­ cover after five weeks, and predation on the eggs was similar in treated and untreated plots. Predators were live-trapped in the turf and taken to the lab, where 16 of the 21 species we tested were found to readily eat sod webworm eggs. These findings suggest that high rates of natural predation on their eggs may be one reason that outbreaks of sod webworms are uncommon on most golf courses and home lawns. In 1991 we conducted a similar but larger field experiment with three different insecti­ cides — carbaryl (Sevinmol), isazophos (Triumph), and cyfluthrin (Tempo 2) — to study their relative impact on predators and to evaluate their compatibility with preda­ tion on pupae of the fall armyworm and eggs of the Japanese beetle. We also wanted to see if premature grub treatments applied during the Japanese beetle flight period could possibly encourage outbreaks of grubs by interfering with predation on the eggs. Large plots (1,000 square meters) of Kentucky bluegrass were treated in mid­ June at recommended rates, and the impact of the insecticides on predators was assessed with pitfall traps for ten weeks. Eggs of the Japanese beetle and pupae (the non-mobile stage between caterpillar and adult moth) of the fall armyworm were implanted under the turf where they naturally occur. Two sets of eggs and pupae were implanted at one or two weeks after treatment. Each group of eggs or pupae was examined after 48 hours to compare rates of predation between the insecticide-treated and untreated turf. Addi­ tional predators were live-trapped at the study site and tested in the lab to see if they would feed upon the pest insects. Finally, in late summer (September 3) we sampled the naturally occurring grubs in the treated and untreated plots to see if the treatments applied in June had indirectly affected grub populations by reducing predation upon the eggs and very young larvae. Predators killed up to 60% of the im­ planted fall armyworm pupae in just 48 hours. Many of the pupae had been tom to pieces, and some were still being eaten by predatory beetles when we attempted to recover them. Cyfluthrin had relatively little impact on predators in this particular test, but numbers of ants, spiders, rove beetles, and some other predators were significantly reduced by isazophos, and to a lesser extent by carbaryl. Nevertheless, predation on the pupae was not reduced by the insecticides. Perhaps this is because most of the preda­ tion on fall armyworm pupae is by large, relatively mobile ground beetles, which Remains of fall armyworm pupae that were killed and fed upon by predators. Many had been torn to pieces, and some were still being eaten by predatory beetles when sampled. seem to repopulate treated areas more quickly than some of the other predator groups. Rates of natural predation on the im­ planted Japanese beetle eggs ranged from 60% to 74% in the untreated plots. Num­ bers of eggs eaten were much lower in the isazophos- and carbaryl-treated plots, evi­ dently because the insecticides had reduced the number of predators. Most notably, we found that naturally occurring grub popula­ tions in late summer were higher in plots that had been treated with isazophos the pre­ ceding June. This suggests that short-residual grub treatments applied prematurely, before the grubs have hatched, have the potential to induce higher grub populations by interfer­ ing with natural predation on the eggs. Upper graph: Reduced predation on Japanese beetle eggs implanted beneath Kentucky bluegrass turf at 1 or 2 weeks after treatment of the turf with isazophos or carbaryl. Lower graph: Higher grub densities in late summer in plots that had been treated with isazophos in mid-June. Asterisks denote treatments that are statistically different from the untreated check. Note, however, that there was also a trend for grubs to be slightly less abundant in carbaryl-treated plots. The reason for this is not known, but was probably not due to residual toxicity of the insecticide. Perhaps the treatment killed some adult female beetles as they entered the soil to lay eggs. This experiment underscores the com­ plexity of possible interactions in the turf system. Clearly, some predators are affected more than others by particular insecticides, and the outcome with regard to predation and subsequent pest densities also may vary. Conclusion The work described here has only begun to clarify the role of natural enemies in helping to buffer turfgrass against outbreaks of pests. A better understanding of these interactions is needed to identify insecti­ cides that kill the pests while preserving the beneficial insects and earthworms. My in­ tent certainly is not to condemn all use of insecticides on turf. Insecticides and other pesticides are powerful and versatile tools, and at present they are often the only means by which professional turf managers can prevent severe damage from unexpected or heavy pest infestations. However, like human medicines, pesticides can have adverse side effects that should be weighed against the overall benefit that a treatment will provide. Unnecessary or excessive applications can encourage development of pest resistance to insecticides or enhanced microbial degrada­ tion, i.e., the breakdown of pesticide residues by soil microorganisms before the treatment has had time to work. Use of certain com­ pounds can aggravate thatch problems by eliminating earthworms (see USGA Green Section Record, September/October 1991). Broad-spectrum insecticides kill beneficial insects as well as pests, but fortunately, populations of predators and parasites seem to recuperate relatively quickly following individual applications. However, repeated treatment may have cumulative, adverse effects on these natural controls. Awareness of these interactions provides additional justification for professional turf managers to apply pesticides at the proper time and rate, and only as needed to control specific problems. Acknowledgements: This research received fund­ ing from the United States Golf Association, the O. J. Noer Turf grass Research Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I thank the many former students who contributed to this work. Dr. A. J. Powell (Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky) provided valuable ideas and sup­ port. More detailed accounts of this work were published in various scientific journals, and re­ prints of those papers are available from the author. Applewood Golf Course: Reintroducing the Shortgrass Prairie and Links-Style Golf by RON CONARD Superintendent, Applewood Golf Course, Golden, Colorado OUR STORY begins in the fall of 11987, when American Golf Corpo­ ration signed a stringent lease to operate Applewood Golf Course. Our lessor wanted to prevent and minimize the risk of groundwater contamination by greatly re­ ducing irrigation acreage, reducing irrigation rates, and by reducing chemical inputs. The eventual goal was to eliminate pesticides completely. With each passing day available water in the West becomes more precious, and our native prairie grasslands are shrinking in size. It makes sense to adopt a links-style course if only for water savings. The time has come when the plush, wall-to-wall blue­ grass golf course is an environmental alba­ tross. True, the American golfer has come to expect this as the norm, but does anyone believe the British golfer enjoyed the game any less a hundred years ago? We can still provide immaculate conditions; they just need to be in the right places, such as greens, tees, and fairways. To satisfy the needs of our lessor and our customers, we needed a design concept that was both environmentally pure and play­ able. Mike Heacock, vice president of main­ tenance for American Golf, decided to bor­ row a couple of design techniques from other areas around the golfing world. First, to in­ sure that we provided competitive conditions with a minimal amount of fertilizers and pesticides (we have been entirely pesticide free since 1989), we adopted the target­ style golf of the desert Southwest. This has allowed us to more intensively maintain a much smaller portion of the golf course. Greens, tees, landing areas, and approaches, totalling 27 acres, are pampered. Within these areas every facet of cultural pest con­ trol is employed, from computerized irriga­ tion control with a state-of-the-art weather station to frequent aerification, hand-weed­ ing, biological insect control, and cultural control of such diseases as snow mold. By focusing the majority of our efforts on specific areas of the golf course, and due in part to our favorable climate, we have been Ron Conard, superintendent at Applewood Golf Course, checks how well the western wheatgrass is doing in the native roughs. able to eliminate entirely the need for pesti­ cides. The second step to satisfy our lessor was to adapt the remaining 110 acres into drought-tolerant and low-fertilizer-use grasses. In short, we borrowed the links-style concept from the British. The remainder of Applewood is broken down into three separate areas of mainte­ nance. The first area receives single-row irrigation, and we term it the “other fairway area.” Slit seeded predominantly with fine fescues and hard fescues, the other fairway area is located between the landing areas and the approaches. The fescues have performed fairly well with less nitrogen fertilization and less irrigation. In fact, we are irrigating our ryegrass landing areas and aproaches at about 60% evapotranspiration levels (ET) for the season, while the fescues are perform­ ing well at 50% ET. The theory is that when the golf course is hit with inevitable drought restrictions, we will be able to stop irrigation on the 35 acres of other fairway area for a period of time and the fescues will bounce back when favorable conditions return. A second distinct maintenance zone is the primary rough. Maintained at 214" and not irrigated, except for establishment pur­ poses, this area has posed our biggest chal­ lenge at Applewood. The difficulty of estab­ lishment has been addressed in two ways. First, in the fall of 1988 we attempted our first dormant seeding of the primary rough area. The original superintendent, Guy Auxer, without whom many of the innovative techniques applied at Applewood would not have been instituted, decided to experiment with dormant seeding. The theory behind dormant seeding is that by seeding late enough in the late fall (November 15th in our area) the seed will not germinate until the onset of warm, moist conditions in the spring. We slit seeded 35 acres of primary rough with a mixture of tall fescue, hard fescue, and common bluegrasses to encourage drought resistance and recoverability. I remember looking at the rough with Guy in the summer of 1989 and deciding we had failed miserably. However, it turned out later that the hard fescue in the mixture was our saving grace. Dormant seeding did work, but we learned to use the right species. We now have about 40% of primary rough in hard fescue just from that first dormant seeding. Another 40% consists of old bluegrasses which survived from when the course was irrigated wall to wall. They continue to thrive in our heavier soils, and receive just 14 inches of precipitation per NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 11 year. The other 20% of the primary rough is still very thin and in need of further work. The second establishment method in­ volves temporary irrigation during the spring and summer months. Due to weed compe­ tition, we have come up with mixed results. Without herbicides and with supplemental irrigation during the growing season, various weed species get a jump on the turf seed­ lings and severely compete with them for water, nutrients, and sunlight. This fall the remaining 20 acres of rough will be dormant seeded with wheatgrass, blue grama, and buffalograss. During the next few years we should gain some insight as to how these grasses perform under drought conditions and traffic. The third zone of drought-tolerant grasses consists of 40 acres which have been estab­ lished into native shortgrass prairie. Per­ sonally, this project has been the most rewarding because of the excellent wildlife habitat we have developed. It is very re­ warding to see beaver swimming in the ponds, an occasional bald eagle joining in with numerous hawks to hunt in the grasslands, and pairs of coyotes balancing a once-rampant goose population. It also is amazing to see the develop­ ment and maturity of many different native grasses and wildflower species in a semi- arid region. Most of our grasslands were established through dormant seeding, much the same way in which we established our primary rough areas. Originally we were going to plow large areas and irrigate for establishment during the summer months. Again, without the use of herbicides, this would have been a tremendous mistake. By disturbing the soil profile through plowing and irrigating afterwards, we would have had an uncontrollable weedy mess. Instead, we have taken the patient road of imitating Mother Nature in our seeding process. We now seed after November 15 th by running an Aerway slicing aerifier through the grasslands, broadcasting the seed, and then dragging the seed into the holes with a harrow. The Aerway does not disturb enough of the soil profile to germinate a lot of weed seed. For the most part, our grasslands are coming along much faster than anyone anticipated. Over 30 acres are now domi­ nated by species of wheatgrass, blue grama, buffalograss, needle and thread, green needlegrass, creeping foxtail, purple three- awn, and sand dropseed. This is not to say that we don’t have areas of the golf course which now could be con­ sidered weedy. We currently are working with our local fire district to obtain an open burning permit to help control annual weeds and certain shallow-rooted perennials. Fire is an important part of the grassland eco­ system. Soon after a wildfire has done its damage, one will find green, grassy shoots bouncing out of the soil, seemingly stronger than before. Also, annual weeds and shallow- rooted perennials are reduced due to the lack of recuperative mechanisms. No one should get the idea that this con­ cept is not being accepted by the American golfer. Though we received many complaints in the past about the difficulty of hitting out of the grassland areas, and some golfers still feel that traditional parkland golf courses are more appealing, Applewood Golf Course is one of the most heavily played courses in the Denver area. Our green fees are equal to or slightly higher than most of our compe­ tition. Also, we consistently rate as good or better than our competition in terms of con­ ditions and playability. Naturally, we are not the only ones experimenting with this concept. Superin­ tendents and officials at other golf courses who are trying to implement water conser­ vation techniques should be commended. If the American golfer accepts the links style of the courses of the British Isles, and if such a course benefits our earth, then let’s develop more of them. (Above) A close-up of meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis). (Right) The native grasses provide a sharp contrast to the course, but blend in well with the rugged Colorado scenery. The native areas have excelled since stakes and rope were installed as traffic control measures. 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Communicate! Communicate! Communicate! by ARTHUR P. WEBER Old Westbury Golf & Country Club, Old Westbury, New York greens, tees, and fairways to be affected — covering all bases. Then, too, he should educationally discuss the need for aerifica­ tion and coring, the benefits that derive, and what could result if neglected. Such com­ munication will minimize grumbling and reinforce the appreciation of the members for the efforts of the superintendent and the committee. • I suggest that because most members are more than just casually interested in the turf management of their golf course, a sociable dinner meeting on the subject would be well attended, preferably held early in the season. At this meeting, the green chairman can explain how the bud­ get was derived and introduce the superin­ tendent. The superintendent can then detail what has been accomplished on the course, what projects are in progress, and future plans for course improvements. New labor- saving or more efficient course grooming equipment acquisitions can be described. This can be followed by a question-and- answer period. USGA educational films also are available to supplement the program. Subliminally, communication meetings of this kind serve to promote a friendlier and more comprehensive understanding by golfers of the golf course superintendent’s role, their perception of his problems, and their appreciation of his contributions to their enjoyment of the game. Such meetings also provide golf members with a better understanding of the golf course on which they play and will heighten their concern for its tender loving care and feeding, just as they are concerned with their swing mechanics and the clubs and balls they use. • The green chairman must, perforce, maintain a mutually respectful communica­ tion rapport with the superintendent. To nurture this rapport, he should educate himself on the basics of the maintenance cycle. He should make an effort to attend, with the superintendent’s guidance, local, regional, and national turf grass conferences. He should subscribe to the GCSAA’s maga­ zine Golf Course Management and to the USGA Green Section Record. In this way he can remain current and aware of the changes in the industry, e.g., water injection cultivation, subsurface placement of pesti­ cides, growth regulators, triplex mowing, and the like, as such new techniques develop. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 13 A well-rounded green chairman should keep abreast of current research efforts that will affect golf in the years ahead. COMMUNICATE! Communicate! Communicate!” should be the motto, if not the rallying cry, of the successful green committee chairman, just as “Drainage! Drainage! Drainage!” are watchwords for the successful golf course superintendent. The effective green chairman must inter­ actively communicate with the superinten­ dent, the membership, the officers, and the board of governors, as well as the club manager; the golf professional; regulatory and environmental agencies; the USGA and local golf jurisdictions; education, research, and extension services; and the local com­ munity. By networking in this way, the green chairman serves to interface the turf management efforts of these diverse participants. What follows is an overview of how I perceive the green chairman fulfills his role as a communicator within this turf manage­ ment complex. • The chairman should extend an open invitation to all club members, male and female, no matter their handicap, to come forward with their questions or complaints. As a prerequisite, however, he must have an unbiased appreciation of how the golf course plays for all segments of the mem­ bership. He must be available, resilient to criticism, and deferential to praise, and he must patiently respond, especially to the complainers. So many golfers seem to be “bom agronomists,” with no reluctance to let the green chairman and others in on all their knowledge. • The chairman should maintain regular written communication with the member­ ship in the form of newsletters, special bul­ letins, progress reports, and the like. These communications should be educational as well as factual. For example, he should factually notify the members well in ad­ vance of the aerification schedule — be specific in detailing the progression of The informed green chairman can effec­ tively assist the superintendent to help the membership accept and better understand why, for example, the maintenance program may oftentimes have to be directed more toward quality playing conditions than aesthetics. It could also be explained why, for instance, off-color green turf is just as playable, if need be, to cope with water shortages on one hand or with disease and playing problems, on the other hand, that can result from excessive watering in an attempt to sustain a deep green coloration. If only we would accept off-color green turf with-out complaint! As others have said, “Greener is not necessarily better,” and it bears repetition. • The green chairman must maintain close communication with the board. Be­ yond their obvious budgeting responsibility to the board, the green chairman and the golf course superintendent have a moral commitment to the club not only to main­ tain the golf course, but to preserve its architectural integrity, its character, its essence. The chairman’s job does not give him license to rebuild the course as he sees fit or to condone such actions by the super­ intendent. All architectural changes should be approved by the board, such as changing the shape or size of putting greens, tee relo­ cations, the removal or addition of trees, bunker modifications, and the like. It can be good communication policy to have the superintendent periodically appear before the board of governors at their regu­ lar meetings, particularly when attempting to obtain board approval for a renovation project or for major equipment expendi­ tures. In this way, board members can be assured that their questions have been fully, promptly, and satisfactorily addressed, while at the same time giving them the oppor­ tunity to reaffirm the competency of the superintendent, and the superintendent the opportunity to enhance his status. • The lines of communication must be carefully maintained with the golf commit­ tee chairman. Tournament schedules are best planned around turf maintenance schedules and not vice versa, which is usually the case. While the golf course is there to accommodate member tourna­ ments, with good communication the needs between maintenance and play can be com­ promised and, in the process, the course better nurtured to its ultimate potential. From their intimate involvement with how the golf course plays from day to day, the golf chairman and the professional can alert the green chairman and the superinten­ dent to how revisions in course preparation or maintenance could speed up play, elimi­ nate backups, or alleviate a dangerous condition. 14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD The USGA Green Section’s Turf Advisory Service serves as an important communications link between the grounds staff, the green committee, and the membership. • When surveyed, golf course superinten­ dents often include personnel/labor prob­ lems as one of their major maintenance problems. That is, for one reason or another, employees are not doing their job to the superintendent’s satisfaction. They find that the crew has to be kept motivated and job enthusiasm created, particularly toward the end of a long, hot summer when most everyone gets “grassed out.” Here, again, the green chairman can communicate by having the superintendent introduce the en­ tire crew to the green committee, familiar­ izing the committee members with the crew’s names and jobs, and having refresh­ ments available to create a social and friendly mood. Such recognition motivates workers to do a better job. Compliments, when in order, enable them to much more likely tolerate criticism for a subsequent mistake. Because bad communication can kill pro­ ductivity by the golf course maintenance crew, the green chairman can assist the super­ intendent, if need be. Poor management communication, not poor workers, is most often to blame for labor performance. The more immediate and candid the communi­ cation with workers, the stronger and more immediate will be their interest in im­ provement, and the lower the turnover rate. Lackadaisical workmanship and absentee­ ism, particularly, communicate back possible dissatisfaction with the conditions under which the crew must labor. Reliably functioning working equipment and correctly applicable tools communicate the club’s concern for the work force, com­ municate back as job satisfaction by the work force, and ensure that our expensive equipment is in the hands of competent labor. With equipment technology in the turf industry improving daily, our golf courses should be able to do more with fewer people, but it will mean that each workman be motivated by an enthusiasm that is generated at the top by club management and com­ municated down to the ranks with the help of the green chairman. • There continues to be a high turnover rate among senior management at golf courses. Surprisingly, some clubs have lost general managers, superintendents, and golf profes­ sionals in mid-season. This turnover has been discussed at both manager and superinten­ dent conferences, where better communica­ tion among staff, club management, and members has been proposed as the basic remedy. The green chairman is an important cog in any such remedial requirement for improved communication. At my home club, Old Westbury, the superintendent, golf professional, and club manager get together at breakfast once a week for a relaxed discussion of needs, programs, schedules, problems, or other matters of mutual interest. • The club manager is also integral to the green chairman’s communication process. The club manager completes the triad of responsibility, with the superintendent and golf professional, for the club’s operation. It is through the manager that the green com­ mittee’s responsibility for the maintenance of the clubhouse grounds, roadways, parking facilities, tennis courts, and other such peripheral areas can best be coordinated with the superintendent. Where he holds the title of general manager, he also oversees for the green committee regulatory compliance or other statutory requirements, administers payrolls and employee benefits, and assumes responsibility for the consistent execution of club policies. • The communication responsibility of the green chairman can be well implemented by the participation of the USGA Green Section. Since 1920 it has served as an impartial, authoritative, and unmatched turf advisory agency. Its in-depth TAS reports are not only invaluable to the golf course super­ intendent, they also provide the green chairman with a reassuring and convincing public relations tool with members and help to conciliate members who disagree on proper maintenance practices. Taking advantage of the USGA’s Turf Advisory Service also can protect the club from an overzealous green committee or, perhaps, an equally ambitious super­ intendent. • Effective communication includes an awareness of the Turfgrass Information Center — a private foundation initiated by the USGA and Michigan State University at East Lansing, Michigan. Access to the collection is through the Turfgrass Informa­ tion File (TGIF), an on-line computerized bibliographic database. Some 23,000 records are now in the database, each representing a separate publication in turf culture. A turf­ grass Thesaurus is available, identifying more than 13,000 key words to help search the database. You can call the Center or mail in a request for a subject search — or, on your own computer, you can search the database, which is available 18 hours per day, seven days per week at (517) 353-7209. • Communication also means staying abreast of turfgrass and environmental re­ search currently being heavily funded by the USGA with the support of the GCSAA. Many millions of dollars have been com­ mitted, and the spirited communication of the green chairman with the officers and the board of his club helps fuel the funding of these efforts. • I am a consulting chemical engineer. There was a time 15 years or so ago when my chemical manufacturing clients were vowing very publicly to draw a line in the The green chairman should understand the importance of balancing green speed with healthy turf, and he should convey this message to the membership. sand and not back away an inch from it, in their rapidly escalating confrontations with environmentalists and regulators. Dire pre­ dictions were made that the U.S. chemical industry would wither and possibly die if such a stand were not taken. Emotions were running high, but from the bitter experiences of Bhopal, Love Canal, dioxins, PCBs, and the like, chemical makers have learned to respectfully address such issues of substance by their critics. As green chairmen we can leam from the chemical industry’s experience. As the chemical industry was some 15 years ago, golf is now under unaccustomed attack after decades of public acceptance and support. We cannot respond as the chemical makers did then with a poorly conceived combina­ tion of denial, frustration, alarm, and con­ frontation. A far more dispassionate and communicative approach is needed and is being fostered by the leadership of the USGA and the GCSAA. • I am from Long Island, New York, and recently the New York State Attorney General released a report with the doom- and-gloom title “Toxic Fairways: Risking Groundwater Contamination from Pesticides on Long Island Golf Courses.” The report was greeted with concern by the golfing community, but not because it revealed any dangers to Long Island residents, golfers, or anything or anyone else. Rather, the report was inaccurate, unsupported by fact or data, and misleading. Green chairmen can be effective watch­ dogs for the local community, helping to overcome such well-meaning but inaccurate and misleading reports and to emphasize the positive environmental impact golf courses have on our environment: how turf­ grass prevents erosion, filters the air clean of pollutants, collects rainfall and snowmelt to recharge the groundwater, maintains green space in urban settings, and provides a natural habitat for birds and wildlife; how golf courses are quiet neighbors, requiring a minimum of community services such as police, fire, snow plowing, road repair, sewage, etc.; how some 13,000 golf courses in the U.S. provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, spend billions for goods and services, swell the tax rolls, and help raise millions more for local charities. Communicate! Communicate! Communi­ cate, Mr. Green Chairman, and get the job done! Arthur Weber is a member of the USGA Green Section Committee and a former Green Chairman of the Old Westbury Golf and Country Club. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 15 Winter Covers: Are They For You? by JIM SKORULSKI Agronomist, Northeastern Region, USGA Green Section TO COVER OR NOT to cover is a question many superintendents face today. This is especially true in the northern regions of the country, where tem­ peratures and snow cover seem less predict­ able each year. Geotextile covers can protect exposed greens from harsh, drying winds, and soil temperatures under covers can range as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit higher than under uncovered areas. Soil and leaf moisture contents also are higher under the covers. The warmer temperatures and soil moisture stimulate earlier root and shoot growth, which can be beneficial in some instances. The use of winter covers is not without risk, however, as many have found. A closer look at the use and management of winter covers may help you decide whether they are the answer you are looking for. There are many geotextile fabrics and plastic materials available today for use as winter covers. The covers are available in different shades of white, gray, and black, with the lighter, more porous materials being most popular. The covers are constructed from bonded polyester, woven polypropyl­ ene, plastic weaves and film, and other syn­ thetic and natural materials. There are many individual preferences in the field. The lighter fabrics are easiest to manipulate and usually provide the highest light penetra­ tion. The heavier materials are probably more durable for high-wind situations and present more physical protection against winter sporting activities. Take time to re­ search the various materials available and choose one that is best for your specific conditions. The use of geotextile covers has definitely increased in recent years. Originally, the covers were used largely for protection against desiccation injury from the wind. The covers’ insulating benefits then were discovered and the covers were used to stimulate earlier spring growth, especially on weak, shaded greens. This can be an effec­ tive program if the covers are managed properly. In the South, covers are used frequently to protect bermudagrass on greens and tees against cold temperature injury. They also are effective in preventing frost cover that can 16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD delay play during the morning hours. Super­ intendents in high-altitude locations use geotextile covers to extend their short grow­ ing season. Attempts have been made in the North to cover greens for protection against injury from ice cover and crown hydration. The covers also are used to provide a for­ midable barrier against injury from vandal­ ism and winter activities. Covers have been helpful for seed germi­ nation and establishment at any time of the season. Late fall or dormant seedings often are covered to prevent washouts and hasten seed germination and establishment. Super­ intendents have found that dormant seeding bentgrass and applying covers is a good insurance policy for greens that frequently suffer winter injury. The early seed germi­ nation hastens the recovery of damaged areas and can increase bentgrass populations on the greens. Damaged areas in spring can be aerated, overseeded, and covered to hasten the recovery process. Unfortunately, winter covers are not a panacea and will not solve all winter prob­ lems. Covers have been very inconsistent in their effectiveness against ice and crown hydration injury. Their use in bringing the greens into play earlier in the season can backfire, as many superintendents and dis­ appointed green chairmen have discovered. This is especially true if adequate labor is not available to properly manipulate the covers in early spring, when the turf is lush and susceptible to cold temperature injury. In one instance, a geotextile cover was blown free from half a green. The cover was not replaced and the turf wintered naturally. The side which was covered appeared very strong and was actively growing when the cover was finally removed in spring. A frost occurred and damaged the lush turf, but the portion of the green which wintered naturally was not harmed. The surface quality between the covered and uncovered portions of the green remained apparent into late spring. Cool-season diseases such as pink snow mold, Fusarium patch, Typhula blight, root rot Pythium, and cool-weather brown patch also can be more damaging under covers, where temperatures and moisture are ideal for disease activity. The actively growing plants often are succulent and more suscep­ tible to pathogen infection. Fungicide appli­ cations made the previous fall can break down as a result of the accelerated growth and increased disease pressure. An extra fungicide application often is required to extend protection against cool-season diseases once the covers are removed. There are several practices that can be used to help assure successful cover use. The covers normally are installed on greens in late fall or early winter, after turf growth has ceased and preventative fungicide appli­ cations have been completed. The covers are secured to the ground with large staples, or with spikes inserted through lathing strips. Once covered, the greens usually are not touched until late winter or early spring when temperatures warm or snow cover disappears. However, it is important to monitor the covered greens through the winter season, as high winds or vandals can tear the covers. It also is important to monitor for ice accumulations which form through the covers in areas of poor surface drainage. The ice should be softened with a darkening agent and carefully removed from the cover to avoid possible turf injury. The critical management period for the turf occurs immediately after the covers are removed. The majority of failures that occur with covers take place at this time. Initial mowing should be completed as soon as possible, preferably with a walk-behind greens mower set at a height that will not scalp the turf. Remember, growth has been occurring under the covers, so the initial mowing height should be higher than that used during the regular season. The height can be slowly lowered during early spring until the desired height-of-cut is obtained. The turf also should be assessed for disease activity. A granular application of a contact fungicide can be applied to extend control against the cool-season disease pathogens. The early spring fungicide application should reduce disease inci­ dence through the remaining cold weather period. DO NOT PACK AWAY THE COVERS! Instead, keep the covers near the greens (Left) A cover is pulled from a green in early spring, exposing the lush, actively growing turf beneath. (Below) Note the lush condition of the covered turf as compared to the dormant turf that wintered naturally. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION (Act of October 23,1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code.) 1. Title of Publication — USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD. 2. Date of Filing — September 23, 1992. 3. Fre­ quency of issue — Bimonthly: January/February, March/ April, May/June, July/August, September/October, and November/December. 3A. Number of issues published annually — 6. 3B. Annual Subscription Price — $12.00. 4. Complete mailing address of known office of publication — USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. 5. Complete mailing address of the headquarters of general business offices of the publisher — USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. 6. Names and addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher — United States Golf Association, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. Editor — James T. Snow, USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. Man­ aging Editor — James T. Snow, USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stock­ holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of each individual must be given. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, its name and address must be stated.) — United States Golf Association, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931- 0708; President — Stuart F. Bloch, USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708; Vice Presidents — Reg Murphy and M.J. Mastalir, Jr., USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708; Secretary — Judy Bell, USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708; Treasurer —USGA, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931-0708. 8. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities — None. 9. For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at special rates — The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes has not changed during preceding 12 months. 10. Extent and nature of circulation — Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months Actual No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date 16,617 15,700 A. Total No. Copies (Net Press Run) B. Paid and/or Requested Circulation 1. Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counter sales 2. Mail Subscription None None (Paid and/or requested) 15,791 15,111 C. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation (Sum of 10B1 & 10B2) D. Free Distribution by Mail, Carrier, or Other Means; Samples, Complimentary, and Other Free Copies E. Total Distribution (Sum ofC&D) F. Copies Not Distributed 1. Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing 2. Return from News Agents G. Total (Sum of E, Fl and 2 — should equal net press run shown in A) 15,791 15,111 576 500 16,367 15,611 250 None 89 None 16,617 15,700 11.1 certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete — JAMES T. SNOW, Editor. Winter covers can create an ideal environment for disease activity, in this case, pink snow mold. The actively growing turf grass plants often are succulent and susceptible to pathogen infection. where they can be replaced should cold, windy weather return. It is probable that the covers will have to be put back on the greens at least once, and perhaps several times, following the initial removal. This labor-intensive technique protects the turf from the coldest temperatures and desic­ cation while allowing the turf to slowly acclimate to the normal spring temperatures. This technique is similar to manipulating young seedling plants destined for the vegetable garden. The young plants must be hardened off prior to exposing them to the harsh elements. This practice often makes the difference between success and failure with the covers. Where labor is not available, the covers are removed in early spring with the hope that the turf will be able to tolerate cold temperatures should they occur. Often this is not the case, and benefits gained from the earlier growth are lost as the turf is set back by cold weather. So the question remains: To cover or not to cover? Covers are effective against winter desiccation and can provide protection against cold temperature injury and physical damage. When covers are properly manipu­ lated in spring, they can help weak, shaded greens by promoting earlier spring growth 18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD and root development. The use of the covers also provides a good opportunity to slice additional bentgrass into existing greens late in the season. This method of late fall overseeding has proven successful at several golf courses in the Northeast. Covers should be used sparingly, how­ ever, if labor is not adequate to properly manipulate them in spring. The majority of covers provide little, if any, protection against ice and associated crown hydration injury and are not recommended for that purpose. The effects of winter covers on Poa annua populations also bring their use into ques­ tion. The cool, moist environment under the covers is ideal for Pot? annua. However, there is no research work or field data supporting this concern at this time. If you are contemplating the use of covers this season, keep in mind that it is a labor- intensive operation. Limit the use of covers to one or two problem greens if labor is a concern. This will allow you to become familiar with their positive effects and potential problems prior to wide-scale use. Covers can be an effective tool for specific purposes. Learn to choose and use the tool properly, and the benefits will be realized with a healthy, vigorous turf in spring. ON COURSE WITH NATURE Concern for Surface Runoff—More on Water Quality by NANCY P. SADLON Environmental Specialist, USGA Green Section Sediment control fencing helps protect a stream’s water quality by blocking excess sediments from entering the stream. Stream banks should also be stabilized with native vegetation to control soil erosion. IT IS NO SECRET that the public and the golf industry are aware of and con­ cerned about what is contained in the surface water runoff and leachate that leaves golf courses and enters streams, ponds, and lakes. The concerns that have received the most press and indeed the majority of research funding involve pesticide and nutrient contamination. Other concerns about pollution of waterways involve the effects of sediments, pathogens, oxygen depletion, acidity, and physical habitat alteration. This look at water quality focuses on runoff from the golf course and the less talked about pollution potential of sedi­ ments. Included are suggestions on how to begin to reduce or eliminate these problem areas. To begin, take a good look at the golf course property and analyze its surface water drainage characteristics. Winter pre­ sents a perfect time for this analysis. Drainage patterns are more evident in the winter months when vegetation has died back and the topography of wooded areas of the golf course is visible. To help identify areas of potential runoff pollution, answer the following questions. If you answer yes to one or more of these questions, read on and learn about what you can do to protect your water resources. Where Are the Potential Pollution Sources on Your Golf Course? • Are streams or ponds receiving runoff from fairways, greens, tees, and parking lots? • Are stream banks unstable? • Are there septic systems which might be failing and polluting the adjacent water bodies? • Are there fallen trees in the streams? • Does the storm water collection system (catch basins, road gutters, storm drains) discharge directly into streams or ponds? • Are wash basins for equipment, which collect oil, grass clippings, chemical residue, and other debris, allowed to discharge into adjacent streams? • Does a large area of the course property discharge excess runoff from rainwater directly into streams and ponds? • Are there large areas of impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, clubhouse roofs, concrete walks, paved roads, and driveways that drain without filtration to water bodies? • Are there areas of the golf course with­ out established turf, trees, or shrubs where excessive erosion occurs? Pollution Prevention Strategies — What You Can Do Protecting Shorelines • Remove fallen branches and trash from creeks, marshes, or streams. • Keep golfer traffic away from edges of streams. • Avoid placing heavy equipment and stockpiles on top of stream banks or shorelines. • Plant and protect vegetation on slopes of stream banks and on areas adjacent to slopes. • Where necessary, consult a trained professional about structural solutions for severe erosion problem areas and consider bio-engineering solutions which create wild­ life habitat as well. • Is there buildup of silt in streams and Managing Storm Water ponds? • Are the channels of an adjacent stream becoming wider and deeper? • Install gravel trenches along driveways or paths to collect water and allow it to filter into soil. • Use fabric filter fences to protect streams from soil sediment. • Use grass swales (biofilters) to move water from one area to another, or to intercept runoff prior to entering water bodies. • Use gentle grades (1 to 2%) where pos­ sible, allowing for maximum filtration. • Restore exposed soil areas with sod or reseeding to prevent erosion. • Plant shrubs and trees to promote filtration. • Wash off equipment in turf areas where soil and turf can absorb remnant pollutants, or collect runoff from existing wash basin areas in an underground storage tank where pollutants can be contained and then re­ cycled on the rough areas of the course. Reducing Permeable Surfaces • Use wood decking, bricks, or interlock­ ing stones which allow for some filtration on walkways and patios. • Divert rain from paved surfaces onto turf areas to permit gradual absorption. • Eliminate any situations where grass clippings, motor oil, pesticides, or fertilizers drain directly to catch basins or storm drains which release pollutants directly into adja­ cent streams or other water bodies. Landscaping Strategies • Landscape out-of-play areas of the golf course to minimize rainwater runoff. • Choose plants appropriate for local soil conditions. The above suggestions may seem com­ monplace, but there is reason for concern when you add up the total sediments collected in runoff from unstabilized areas. Suspended solids are a real concern for aquatic life and the health of water sources on the golf course, in addition to the prob­ lems created when using such a source in the irrigation system. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 19 NEWS NOTES FOR FALL MICHAEL SAFFEL JOINS GREEN SECTION STAFF The Green Section is pleased to name Michael T Saffel, CGCS, as agronomist in its Mid-Atlantic Region. The appointment comes in response to the increased use of the USGA’s Turf Advisory Service by mem­ ber courses in the region. Mike joins agrono­ mist Bob Brame and director Stanley Zontek in visiting TAS clubs in the Mid-Atlantic states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Mike comes to the staff with a broad background of experience in the turfgrass industry. Most recently he was golf course superintendent at Meadow Lark Country Club, in Great Falls, Montana, where he was also an active member and past president of the Wyoming-Montana Golf Course Super­ intendents Association. He served as team leader for the slope rating project of the Peaks and Prairies GCSA and rated several courses in Wyoming. Mike spent four years as a research and extension specialist at Michigan State University, where he had responsibilities in the turfgrass field-re­ search program, planning the annual turf­ grass conference, and working as co-editor of the Annual Proceedings of the Michigan Turf grass Conference. Mike received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Wyoming, majoring in soil science. He is currently finishing work on his master’s thesis from Michigan State University involving investi­ gations pertaining to turfgrass irrigation scheduling. Mike has relocated to West Chester, Pennsylvania, with his wife, Julia, and son, Will. The Green Section joins in welcoming Mike to the USGA staff. 20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 15 YEARS OF THE GREEN SECTION RECORD The United States Golf Association, in cooperation with Lewis Publishers, is examining the interest in reprinting the past 15 volumes of the USGA Green Section Record (1976-91) in a seven-volume, full­ color, hardcover printing. It will contain all articles exactly as they appeared previously, and it will contain the cumulative index released by the USGA at the end of 1991. The seven-volume set, if there is enough demand, will be available for approximately $350. The set will contain over 2,000 pages. In the future, hardcover copies of issues appearing during the previous two-year period will be made available as part of the series. Please let us know if you think you will be interested in purchasing this seven-volume set. Our decision to proceed with the reprinting, and the price of the series, will depend on the response we receive. Please contact: United States Golf Associ­ ation, Attn: Kathy Paparelli, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931-0708, Tel. (908) 234- 2300, FAX (908) 234-1513. NEW AUDUBON VIDEO AVAILABLE A new video that describes how golf courses can participate in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) is now available. The Audubon Society of New York State, with funding from the USGA, developed the ACSP to assist golf courses in enhancing wildlife habitat on their properties and to recognize the work of golf course super­ intendents and course officials on behalf of the environment. The video, titled Green Sanctuaries, has been produced to show how the program works, highlight some of the projects that golf courses can partici­ pate in, and outline the steps in becoming involved. Green Sanctuaries describes the environ­ mental efforts of David Stone, superinten­ dent at the Honors Course, Ooltewah, Tennessee; Joe Kosoglov, superintendent at Wolf Run Golf Club, Zionsville, Indiana; and Randy Staton, superintendent at the Haw­ thorns Golf and Country Club, which is under construction in Fishers, Indiana. Through ACSP, golf course superinten­ dents, course officials, and golfers them­ selves will learn more about environmental considerations on golf courses. Green Sanc­ tuaries is available from: Audubon Coopera­ tive Sanctuary System, c/o New York Audu­ bon Society, 131 Rarick Road, Selkirk, New York 12158, Tel. (515) 767-9051. WASTEWATER SYMPOSIUM The United States Golf Association, in co­ operation with the American Society of Golf Course Architects, Golf Course Builders Asso­ ciation of America, Golf Course Superinten­ dents Association of America, and National Golf Foundation, announces a Golf Course Wastewater Symposium to be held on March 4 and 5,1993, at the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Beach, California. Effluent water from sewage treatment plants and wastewater from other sources has been playing an increasingly important role in golf course irrigation as the use of potable water for irrigation has come under public scrutiny. The Wastewater Symposium will bring together turfgrass managers, engineers, agronomists, golf course architects, equip­ ment manufacturers, and professionals from other disciplines who have a role in plan­ ning, designing, and operating wastewater irrigation systems. The symposium will provide practical answers to questions concerning the use of effluent water for turfgrass irrigation and will encourage greater acceptance of wastewater irrigation as a significant means of conserv­ ing our most important natural resource. Indexed, peer-reviewed proceedings with valuable summaries, references, and appen­ dices will be published following the symposium. For more information on the event, contact Dr. Michael Kerma at (405) 743-3900 or Dr. Kimberly Erusha at (908) 234-2300 at the USGA. TURF ADVISORY SERVICE FEE CHANGES FOR 1993 To keep up with the increasing costs of providing quality advisory services to its member clubs and to the game of golf, it is necessary for the USGA to increase the fees charged for the Green Section’s advisory visits. Following is the fee schedule for 1993: If paid by After May 15 May 15 $1000 $1500 Half-day visit Full-day visit $800 $1300 Despite the increase, the USGA will be subsidizing the Turf Advisory Service with more than $1 million in 1993, reflecting a commitment to provide golf courses with the best of services from a top-quality staff of 16 full-time agronomists. A Green Section visit is still a bargain for the many benefits that can be realized, perhaps more so now than ever. Please join us for great golfing turf in 1993! ALL THINGS CONSIDERED PAINT ’EM GREEN! by PATRICK M. O’BRIEN Director, Southeastern Region, USGA Green Section Can you tell the difference? Which is the painted putting green? HOW GREEN are your winter greens? Is it worth the price you’re paying? The emerald green color of turfgrass is definitely a sign of prestige. In general, golfers prefer a course with green turfgrass all year long. However, significant chal­ lenges and risks are involved when trying to achieve this color by overseeding a dormant bermudagrass turf for the winter. Trying to grow two aggressive turfgrasses in one loca­ tion is practically impossible. That is why more serious consideration to overseeding alternatives is essential. Fortunately, dormant brown bermudagrass is widely accepted by many golfers as a winter surface for tees, fairways, and roughs. Obviously, something has to be done for putting greens to provide green color. The only two options available at the present time are to overseed or to paint. Unfortu­ nately, most courses are “set in stone” re­ garding the overseeding of putting greens. For the largest number of these courses, however, painting would provide better greens. There are several advantages to painting as opposed to overseeding greens. 1. Inexpensive — It usually takes two paintings per winter to provide the desired dark green color. The cost involved with supplies and labor to apply the paint is approximately equal to the cost of seed. However, if the cost of maintaining an over­ seeded turf during the season is factored into the equation, such as the extra mowing, fertilizer, water, fungicides, etc., it is signifi­ cantly more cost efficient to paint! 2. Attractiveness — In most areas of the Southeast, bermudagrass is dormant for approximately 12 to 14 weeks between mid-December and early March. Successful programs include painting greens in two directions immediately after the bermuda­ grass first enters dormancy. It usually takes one or two days to carefully spray the paint on all of the greens. Contrary to popular belief, painting isn’t messy! It dries quickly and will last about 60 days before another single coat is reapplied. Paint won’t rub off on the golfers’ clothing, either. The paint is such an attractive substitute that most golfers can’t tell the difference, as shown in the left photograph. 3. Healthier Bermudagrass—Overseed­ ing has several serious negative side effects for the permanent bermudagrass. During winter and spring, the overseeded turf will thrive by stealing water, sunlight, and nutri­ ents from bermudagrass. The canopy shade is especially detrimental because of the high light requirement of bermudagrass. Some­ times, with today’s heat-tolerant varieties, the canopy shade of overseeding may persist for 8 to 9 months. An overseeding lasting this long will cause bare areas to appear in the bermudagrass during spring transition. If cold temperatures should occur, this major stress coupled with golfer traffic and the competition from the overseeding could cause major winter bermudagrass damage. Painted greens have taller bermudagrass turf, which is less susceptible to low-tem­ perature injury. Also, on cold nights, most courses cover their painted greens with gray geotextile blankets to protect the dormant bermudagrass from freezing temperatures. Another major advantage is that without overseeding to interfere with his obser­ vations, the superintendent can focus on maintaining the health of the bermudagrass. Thus the superintendent is able to react more quickly to disease or injuries. 4. Better Playability—Painting provides the smoothest fall and winter putting sur­ face possible for the golfers. Most golfers are frustrated each fall with the messy condi­ tions of taller turf and frequent irrigations during the establishment of an overseeding. In the spring, extra aeration, vertical mow­ ing, topdressing, fertilizing, etc., are required during transition to get rid of the overseed­ ing and to encourage new bermudagrass growth. More lost revenue and golfer dis­ satisfaction result at this time. In contrast, the painted surface provides a smooth and enjoyable playing surface for a longer period of time each season. Moving hole locations more frequently to distribute golfer traffic and occasionally rolling to reduce spike marks are extra winter measures to enhance painted greens. It is surprising to me that painting has not been used to a greater extent, since over 100 golf course superintendents across the South have proven that paint is an alternative to live green grass. In our dynamic turfgrass industry, new ideas which can enhance both our golf courses and our environment de­ serve serious consideration today. Painting greens is effective, inexpensive, and attrac­ tive. All it takes is to paint ’em green! NOVEMBER/DECEMBER1992 21 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 TURF TWISTERS IT’S THAT TIME OF YEAR Question: It seems as though the golf industry is being bombarded with new chemicals at an ever-increasing rate. How do we sort out all of the “miracle products” that are flooding the turf industry? (Missouri) Answer: Try not to be swayed too much by testimonials. Look for solid research and field test­ ing to back up any claims being made. If you want to experiment on your golf course, set up an objective comparison and be sure to run a control or untreated plot with the test. When running comparisons, compare like products. Comparing a soil amendment to an unamended soil provides only limited information. A better approach would be to compare different soil amendments side- by-side. As always, be sure to follow the label directions. TO PAINT Question: I just heard about someone “painting” his greens instead of overseeding during the winter. What kind of equipment do you need for this? (Georgia) Answer: As a general rule of thumb, five to ten gallons of latex turf paint is mixed with 100 gallons of water. This will cover approximately 20,000 square feet, in two directions. Depending on the size of the job, a hand mister, a backpack sprayer, or a boom sprayer may be used for applying the paint. Apply the paint mixture in two different directions, just as if you were double cutting a green, including a cleanup round. The paint will last for approximately six weeks, so in most areas two applications per winter will be necessary. No two golf courses are alike. Before you decide to use paint, take into account all the variables. For more information about painting greens, contact your Green Section regional office. OR TO OVERSEED Question: For many years we have successfully overseeded our bermudagrass greens for the winter with a perennial ryegrass blend. Over the past few years, our golfers have played other courses in the area that have changed to a bentgrass overseeding program. A number of requests have been made to make a change at our course. Should we? (Florida) Answer: In South Florida, a number of courses have been overseeding their greens with bentgrass varieties for the past 10 to 15 years. Bent overseedings are slow to establish in the fall and are hard to transition out in late spring. Due to these problems, Poa trivialis, either alone or in combination with bent, has been rapidly gaining popularity for winter overseeding of bermudagrass greens. It provides an excellent putting surface without the establishment and transition problems of the bents; however, wear and heat tolerance can be limiting factors with Poa trivialis. Before changing a successful program, experiment with two or three overseeding combinations. This is the only way to determine what is best for your particular conditions.