JJSGA G rccn Section RECOR November/December 1993 A Publication on Turfgrass Management by the United States Golf Association ’ MJ; •■ *r -a 1'■■■■• -• . , f " 'v f ■ ’’4, 4 « Vol. 31, No. 6 NOVEMBER/ DECEMBER 1993 USGA Green Section RECORD USGA PRESIDENT: Stuart F. Bloch GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Raymond B. Anderson 1506 Park Avenue, River Forest, IL 60305 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR David B. Fay EDITOR: James T Snow Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha Diane Chrenko Becker ASSISTANT EDITOR: ART EDITOR: The Journey Continues — More Maintenance Pitfalls by Robert A. Brame _ Investigating the Options in the New / USGA Green Construction Recommendations by T Powell Gaines DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS: Mark Carlson 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 Keith A. Happ, 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: 720 Wooded Crest, Waco, TX 76712 • (817)776-0765 James F. Moore, Director George B. Manuel, Agronomist Western Region: 3704 125th Street N.W Gig Harbor, WA 98332 • (206) 858-2266 Larry W. Gilhuly, Director 22792 Centre Drive, Suite 290 Lake Forest, CA 92630 • (714) 457-9464 Paul H. Vermeulen, Agronomist Patrick J. Gross, Agronomist Turfgrass Information File (TGIF) • (800) 446-8443 by John H. Foy 11 “Working” Bermudagrass Fairways 14 To Seed or Not to Seed by Dave Blomquist 16 19 21 Back Cover A USGA-Sponsored Research Project Bentgrass Breeding — Texas Style by Dr. Milt Engelke On Course With Nature Maps Can Improve Your Environmental Planning Initiatives by Nancy P. Sadlon All Things Considered How “Green” is Your Course? by James T. Snow Ttirf Twisters Cover Photo: Managing traffic continues as a pitfall in turf maintenance. ® 1993 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). Delegate responsibility to the people hired to assist you. The day-to-day operations of installing the drainage system can be overseen by the assistant superintendent. The Journey Continues — More Maintenance Pitfalls by ROBERT A. BRAME Agronomist, Mid-Atlantic Region, USGA Green Section THE TECHNIQUES and strategies for maintaining golf course turf continue to be better understood and improved as time passes. Some of this learning is the result of formal research done at univer­ sities, yet much of our practical knowledge comes from field experience and observa­ tion. After all, we often learn more from our mistakes than from the activities that turn out well. Let’s face it, an important aspect of improving ourselves is recognizing our mis­ takes and then learning from them. Each facet of a golf course maintenance program overlaps and ties in with all the other components. Nevertheless, each prob­ lem area needs to be identified, evaluated, and considered individually before it can be combined with others and seen as a package. An article in the September/October 1992 issue of the Green Section Record discussed the top 10 maintenance pitfalls of golf course superintendents (see Table 1) as identified by the USGA Green Section in a survey of its staff. The article received lots of response, with the most common question being, “What are the second 10?” The staff was surveyed again, and the results follow: 11. Time on the Golf Course The golf course superintendent is hired to supervise the maintenance of the golf course. Sounds like an obvious statement, doesn’t it? Well, it’s amazing how often the agronomics of golf course maintenance takes a back seat to the many other hats worn by today’s superintendent. That is, of NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 1 course, until problems develop. Then, every­ one wants to know what’s happening to the turf, and the primary focus, once again, is the agronomics. Very few superintendents have the time or take the time to walk their golf courses daily to closely observe turf conditions. It isn’t because they don’t want to; most are simply pulled in too many directions. Many golf course superintendents will acknowl­ edge they are spending more and more time on the job with each passing year, but less and less time is spent actually on the course. “When I got into this business I didn’t have to put in this many hours with non-turfgrass- related activities,” is a common response. Is this a young man’s profession? Or is it time to simplify and get back to the basics, and if so, how can we do that? How about playing the game? How can a superintendent prepare the golf course for play if he or she does not play regularly? How can solid decisions and diagnoses be made without spending some time carefully scouting the course? To accomplish this, it takes more than the superintendent just be­ ing aware of the need. It requires an owner, president, or green committee chairperson becoming involved and encouraging, or even mandating, that the superintendent play weekly or at least walk the course on a regular schedule. The superintendent also needs support to hire specialty staff, like a secretary, a good assistant superintendent, an experienced foreman, irrigation and/or spray technicians, which allows for a more realistic workload so that quality time can be spent out on the course. We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that golf course mainte­ nance still is a “hands-on” profession. 12. Documentation Documentation involves a systematic pro­ gram of recording activities of importance. Record-keeping practices we see range from very good to non-existent in golf course maintenance operations. In a world that is scrutinizing pesticide usage more and more, it is vitally important to record every detail leading to and including the decision to actually apply a chemical. The days of mak­ ing notes on a desk blotter concerning pesti­ cide usage are long gone, or they should be. With the computers available today, pesti­ cide applications, inventory status, and pay­ roll and budget tracking all can be done quickly and professionally. Every operation is different, and the use of a computer can be as simple or complex as a particular operation may need. That’s the beauty of today’s personal computers. Nevertheless, there are relatively few operations that are using computers to full value. Some control their irrigation systems 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Table 1 The 10 Pitfalls of Golf Course Maintenance 1. Communication and Public Relations 2. Overwatering 3. Fast Green Speeds 4. Excessive Use of Pesticides 5. Continuity of Course Officials/Green Chairperson 6. Pesticide Storage and/or Maintenance Buildings 7. Tree Management 8. Amount of Play 9. Labor: Not Enough and/or Under Qualified 10. Equipment: Not Enough and/or Poor Quality Table 2 The Second 10 Pitfalls of Golf Course Maintenance 11. Time on the Golf Course 12. Documentation 13. The Bandwagon Syndrome 14. The Rules of Golf and Marking the Course 15. Lack of Outside Interests 16. Test Plots 17. Staying Current with Technology 18. Long-Range Planning 19. Training and Delegation 20. Managing Carts and Cart Paths with computers, but most golf course main­ tenance operations have not tapped into this valuable resource. Computers are somewhat like golf carts — they are here to stay. If you cannot use a computer to its full potential, either hire someone who can, or take time to learn. It is not uncommon to visit a golf course and see a nice improvement project that has been completed by the superintendent and staff. Projects like bunker renovation, tee additions, and even the construction of a new putting green are clearly over and above routine golf course maintenance. The documentation of improvement projects with pictures or video can be very worthwhile when, a few months later, the golfers forget what it used to look like and who actually made the improvements. A camera can be an excellent tool to help document the work being done on a golf course. It is amazing how valuable pictures can be when budgets are being considered or salaries reviewed. Documentation is a lot like communica­ tion — you are doing it all the time. It is either planned or done by default. It will either work for you or against you. Review what you are doing in this area and take the time to lay a positive foundation for the future. Document what you and your staff actually do! 13. The Bandwagon Syndrome The “Bandwagon Syndrome” refers to those times we do something or try some­ thing just because the golf course down the road is doing it or someone told you he was. Does it really work? Is it agronomically sound for your course? It must be — isn’t the highest budgeted/best golf course in town doing it? It must be the right thing to do! An example of this would be the use of the new “lightweight rollers.” It is amazing how many course officials ask about rollers. In most cases, they have heard the course down the street is using them. “Will they make the putting surfaces faster?” “Absolutely,” is the quick response from the course down the street. “Is there danger of surface compaction?” A frequent answer is, “Possibly, but we haven’t seen any problems yet.” Let’s hope your course won’t be the exception to the rule. As with most every­ thing in our industry, rollers are tools which can be used or abused. What about chemicals, soil amendments, plant growth regulators, or bio-stimulants? Too often, the same reasoning is applied: If the well-known course or superintendent is using it, then it should work for us. However, you should ask yourself if university testing has been done. Also, has the testing been repeated enough in the field to suggest that it will work equally well at most sites? What do the Green Section agronomists think? The “Bandwagon Syndrome” can and has led to wasted time and money. In a few situations, both turf and jobs have been lost. There are no miracle cures in golf course maintenance. Look carefully before you leap, and be very sure of your information source. If you are not sure, be conservative and wait and see. Never hesitate to ask ques­ tions about new products or procedures. Avoid jumping onto bandwagons too quickly! 14. The Rules of Golf and Marking the Course What value would our highways and inter­ states be if drivers did not follow the laws? Can you imagine what would happen if people were allowed to make up their own rules while driving their cars? It is not a pleasant thought. Golf is similar in that golf without rules is something other than the game we all love. If you do not play by the rules, you are not playing golf. It follows, then, that to properly maintain and mark the course on which the game is played, a golf course superintendent must have a working knowledge of the rules. What is the difference between a “hazard” and a “lateral hazard”? What are the options for putting a ball back into play when it has been lost in a “hazard” or “lateral hazard”? What is the procedure when a ball is hit into a pile of grass clippings waiting to be removed? Is it possible to have an illegal hole location? What is the difference be­ tween illegal and unfair? How about the so- called “winter rules”? These are only a few examples of questions every golf course superintendent should be able to answer. This is not an area that should be left just to the golf professional. Knowing the rules and staying current with changes is some­ thing we all need to actively pursue. 15. Lack of Outside Interests There are no perfect golf courses, either in design or maintenance. As such, the job of maintaining and conditioning the golf course is never completely finished. There is always something that needs attention, and this is why the golf course superintendent is such a key component in the game of golf. Yet, no one can work 10-plus hours every day of the week for months on end without Lightweight rollers are a tool in putting green maintenance. As with any tool, they can be an asset or a liability. Make sure they fit in your maintenance operation — don’t jump on the “bandwagon." NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 3 There are a variety of ways to stay current in the turf grass industry. University field days are one of the many possibilities. paying a price. The price may be “burnout,” lack of effectiveness on the job, or eventually the pursuit of a different career. Marriages have failed and families have been shattered by the pursuit of a perfectly conditioned golf course. Every superintendent knows he/she must leave home to go to work, but how about leaving work to go home? Are you living to work or working to live? Take a day off every week. Have and pursue some type of hobby or non-golf-re- lated interest. Spend quality time with your spouse and family. Take time for refreshment and revitalization so you can meet the needs of your family and yourself. To accomplish these things, every golf course superintendent needs the support and encouragement of management. Green chairperson, owner, course official — do not allow your golf course superintendent to bum the candle at both ends. Do not allow the short-term conditioning of your golf course to cloud the long-term picture or the personal life of your superintendent. Con­ 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD tinuity over the long run is more important than course conditioning on any one day. Take or make time to rest, relax, and recharge your batteries and relieve stress. It will make you more effective, and remem­ ber — golf is, after all, a game. 16. Test Plots The value of on-course testing cannot be overemphasized. How can you know that a new product or technique will work in your maintenance program without doing some controlled evaluations? Controlled means working with enough area to obtain a fair evaluation without affecting the budget or the playability of the golf course. A turf nurs­ ery is a very good place to do controlled test­ ing. Every golf course maintenance opera­ tion should have at least one turf nursery. Leaving control (untreated) strips when making applications on the golf course is another good way to determine the effec­ tiveness of the product. This makes it pos­ sible to determine if the pesticide applica­ tion was really needed. Nobody particularly likes leaving control strips, but it is the only way to really know what degree of success you are achieving from a product or procedure. Take the time to do on-course testing. Keep the boss and others who need to know informed of the results. They, too, will be interested in what is happening on their golf course. The information you gather should help save time, money, and aggravation the next time the application or procedure is carried out. 17. Staying Current with Technology Attend local, regional, national, and even international educational conferences, field days, and seminars. Subscribe to industry magazines and read them while they are reasonably current. Take advantage of pub­ lications from the USGA, GCSAA, and others. Give the Green Section Turf Advisory Service a try if you are not already a partici­ pant. The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary The value of testing products on your golf course cannot be overemphasized. Blanket applications can yield more results than you bargained for! Program for Golf Courses can be of tremen­ dous value in balancing the maintenance of a golf course with the surrounding habitat. These are only a few examples of ways a golf course superintendent and course officials can stay current with this fast­ changing industry. A tremendous amount of information is available, but you have to take the initiative to take advantage of it. Too often, the demands faced by today’s golf course superintendent will affect his/her ability to stay involved with the information­ gathering process. Course officials need to make sure that both time and money are available for the superintendent to stay cur­ rent with the fast-changing technology of our industry. Do not allow the hectic pace of day- to-day golf course maintenance to prevent you from staying informed about tomorrow. 18. Long-Range Planning As the old adage says, “When you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” This is true for course improvements as well as for maintenance. Long-range or master plans allow the super­ intendent and course officials to establish obtainable goals and objectives. This makes it possible to establish realistic budgets for both maintenance and course improvements. A well-thought-out master plan that has been approved by those in authority can help bridge the gap in continuity when superintendents or course officials change. As a matter of fact, a good master plan can help increase the longevity of the golf course superintendent simply because he/ she has a much better idea of what is ex­ pected and where the operation is headed. Everyone benefits from this combination. Long-range plans can include time being set aside for the greens to be aerified each year, allowing golf events to be scheduled around maintenance activities without de­ ferring maintenance work or eliminating it altogether. There are no surprises; everyone knows when the work will be done and what to expect. The continuity and direction that are established through long-range planning pay dividends in a better-managed golf course. 19. ITaining and Delegation A good indication that a potential problem exists in this area is the need to have a pager, cellular phone, or two-way radio in constant use. If it is that critical that you are reachable every second of every day, maybe it’s time to spread some responsibility to other key employees. This also ties in with the need to have outside interests and low-stress per­ sonal time. If the superintendent is carrying the entire load alone, sooner or later some­ thing will snap. A good rule-of-thumb to follow in train­ ing key employees is to help that person learn to do all that you do. Don’t be insecure about this. It takes a person with confi­ dence in her/his ability and the capability of seeing the big picture to delegate authority. Investing in people is what life is all about. A supervisor who is good at training and delegating is respected by his/her staff and NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 S usually enjoys life a lot more. Improving the skills of training and delegating is a never-ending task. We all can improve in this area. 20. Managing Carts and Cart Paths This ties in very closely with the eighth pitfall. That is, Amount of Play. More and more maintenance operations are installing tee-to-green golf cart path networks. While no one likes the idea of having paved sur­ faces on a golf course, a well-built golf cart path offers the best wear control and main­ tenance options where heavy cart traffic exists. Ropes, signs, and fencing can be used to help control golf cart traffic and wear, but these usually offer less than ideal results and increased maintenance costs. It is amazing how people ignore signs and ropes! In designing a golf cart path network, begin at the 18th green and work backwards around the course. If there is a problem area where golf cart traffic is hard to manage, begin the network design at this point. It is important to locate the cart path where it will be used. However, try to stay at least 30 feet, or 10 yards, from a green or fairway. Where possible, avoid ball landing areas, though no path location is immune to shots hitting the surface. Under the Rules of Golf, relief is given from an artificially paved surface. On the other hand, no relief is allowed from the bare ground or thinned turf that often results from concentrated golf cart traffic. Be sure to construct a golf cart path with a good base, and preferably it should be eight feet wide. Tins allows maintenance equipment to use the paths and makes it possible for one cart to pass another without leaving the paved surface. Properly built and located cart paths also can be used as channels for surface water runoff when pitched or sloped or with curbing installed. Give serious thought to the current and future usage of golf carts at your course. While cart paths do involve some cost initially, over the long run they can pay for themselves in increased cart usage, especially during inclement weather. When the course is wet but playable, the sign would read, “Golf Carts Restricted to Paths.” Isn’t that better than, “Course Closed to Golf Carts”? Long-range planning allows for better scheduling, realistic budgets, continuity, and establishing obtainable goals and objectives. Conclusion This listing of the second 10 pitfalls (Table 2), follows in the footsteps of the first 10 (Table 1). The intent has been to discuss maintenance pitfalls, as seen by Green Section agronomists. Once identified as a concern on your course, a strategy can be developed to make the necessary changes. It is never too late for change! 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Figure 1. Three models of USGA constructed greens. Cylinder #1 contains 12" root zone mix above a 2" intermediate layer of 1-2mm sand above a 4" layer of3A-A" gravel. Cylinder #2 contains a 12" root zone mix above a 2" intermediate layer of 1-4mm sandlgravel above a 4" layer of3/s-A" gravel. Cylinder #3 contains a 12" root zone mix above a ‘A-1 A" gravel with no intermediate layer. Investigating the Options in the New USGA Green Construction Recommendations by T. POWELL GAINES Tifton Physical Soil Testing Laboratory, Tifton, Georgia WHEN THE USGA introduced the new version of its green construc­ tion recommendations (4) in March 1993, there were several changes made that expanded the types and sizes of materials that can be used in the USGA green profile, including the gravel bed, the inter­ mediate layer, and the root zone mix. The new recommendations also offered an option, based on specific criteria, that allows for a change in the makeup of the profile itself. The nature of these changes is such that many golf courses can use less-costly materials or construction methods compared to the previous USGA recommendations. Since 1960, a feature of the USGA method of golf green construction (3) has been the use of a 2-inch intermediate layer of 1- 2mm sand above a 4-inch layer of 3/s- to %- inch pea gravel. The rationale was that the gravel should be not more than 5 to 7 times larger than the intermediate layer sand to prevent migration of particles from one layer to the next. In the latest version of the USGA recommendations for a method of putting green construction (4), the size range of the intermediate layer has been NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 7 increased to l-4mm (90% minimum), mak­ ing it easier to fmd an appropriate material at a reasonable cost. The gravel is still 3/s to % inch (65% minimum). In addition, the USGA now is offering an alternative to this method by omitting the intermediate layer and using only a 4-inch layer of %- to /s-inch gravel below the 12-inch root zone mix, provided the particle size of the gravel and root zone sand pass three criteria. The USGA method for determining the physical properties of a greensmix does not include putting all three components (greensmix, intermediate layer, and gravel) together in layers when testing, but to test the physical properties of the greensmix in 2" x 3" cylinders separately from the inter­ mediate layer and gravel. We thought it would be interesting to construct three-layered models of the USGA methods of golf green construction (the former l-2mm intermediate layer method and the two new options) and to compare water permeability rates of the three models with those of the greensmix determined separately under USGA protocol. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the water permeability rate of a root zone mix using the USGA method (3) with those of three constructed models to see if the values were comparable, and to determine if the two new changes to the USGA methods of golf green construction work as well as the previous method (1- 2mm intermediate layer sand) with no movement of particles from the root zone mix into the larger l-4mm intermediate layer or into the %- to !4-inch gravel when the intermediate layer is omitted. Table 1 Physical analysis of three greensmixes determined by USGA protocol vs. constructed models and particle size analysis. PHYSICAL ANALYSIS1 Sample Greensmix #1 — Lab Value Greensmix #1 — Cylinder #1 Value Greensmix #2 — Lab Value Greensmix #2 — Cylinder #2 Value Greensmix #3 — Lab Value Greensmix #3 — Cylinder #3 Value Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity2 in/hr 14.5 ± 0.4 14.6 ± 0.6 16.8 ± 0.5 16.0 ± 0.5 16.8 ± 0.5 16.7 ± 0.4 Pore Space (%) Non­ Capillary (large) Capillary (small) 23.4 20.4 Total 43.8 Bulk Density g/cm3 1.46 Water Retention at Field Capacity % 14.0 25.5 17.7 43.2 1.47 12.0 25.5 17.7 43.2 1.47 12.0 USGA Recommendations for Root Zone Mix Normal range: 6-12 Accelerated range: 12-24 15-30 15-25 35-55 'Determinations are based on published USGA Green Section Procedures (USGA Green Section Record, March/April 1993). 2Recommended saturated conductivity rates, Tifton Physical Soil Testing Laboratory (Ref. 1): Initial rates of 10 to 14 in/hr for bermudagrass greens; 14 to 17 in/hr for bentgrass greens; 4 to 8 in/hr for established bermudagrass greens; 8 to 12 in/hr for established bentgrass greens. Samples Greensmix #1 Greensmix #2 Greensmix #3 Gravel 2-3.4mm % < 1 < 1 < 1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Sand Fractions (%) Very Coarse l-2mm Coarse 0.5-lmm Medium 0.25-0.5mm Fine 0.15-0.25mm Very Fine 0.05-0.15mm Sand 0.05-2mm % Silt .002-.05mm % Clay < .002mm % < 1 < 1 < 1 18 30 30 58 53 53 20 14 14 2 1 1 98 98 98 2 2 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 USGA Recommendations < 10% (< 3% gravel) 60% minimum <20% < 5% >92% < 5% < 3% Note: Total “fines” (very fine sand, silt, and clay) in a root zone mix should be less than (<) 10%. 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Materials and Methods Three models of USGA-built greens were constructed in 20" x 4" plexiglass cylinders (Figure 1). The cylinders had a 1-inch (3Zs" i.d.) drain tube !4" from the bottom and a 1-inch (3Zs" i.d.) water inlet tube VA" from the top. Cylinder #1 represented the previous USGA method of golf green construction (3), which contained a 12" root zone mix above the 2" intermediate layer of l-2mm sand, which was above a 4" layer of 3A- to %-inch pea gravel. Cylinder #2 represented the newly recommended USGA method (4) and contained a 12" root zone mix above a 2" intermediate layer of l-4mm sand/gravel, which was above a 4" layer of As- to %-inch pea gravel. Cylinder #3 represented the optional USGA method in which the inter­ mediate layer is not required, with a 12" root zone mix above a 4" layer of gravel that met all criteria. Only the root zone mix in Cylinders #2 and #3 was the same (Table 1), and the two intermediate layers and the two pea gravels in Cylinders #1 and #2 were different (Table 2), as was the %- to Z-inch gravel (Table 3). The physical properties of the root zone mixes (Table 1) were determined by the USGA method (3), and water permeability rates of the three models of USGA profile greens in Cylinders #1, #2, and #3 were determined by Darcy’s Law (2). The root zone mixes in the three cylinders were com­ pacted manually by tamping the damp root zone mix with a round piece of wood that snugly fit the cylinder until the volume ceased to be reduced by compaction. The samples were allowed to remain overnight under a continuous hydraulic head of approximately 1 inch before being timed the next day. The standard deviation (±) of the water permeability rate was determined by the variance in the mean of eight con­ secutive timings. The Darcy Equation allows for the determination of hydraulic con­ ductivity (water permeability rate) regardless of the size of the cylinder, which is how the water permeability rate of the three models in the cylinders can be compared to the water permeability rate of the greensmix in the 2" x 3" cylinders using the USGA method of determining the physical properties of a greensmix (3). Results and Discussion Physical and Particle Size Analysis The physical properties and particle size analysis of the three greensmixes are shown in Table 1. The greensmix in Cylinders #2 and #3 was the same. Both greensmixes meet all USGA physical property parameters and particle size recommendations for a putting green root zone mixture (greensmix). The particle size analysis of the two inter­ mediate layers and the two pea gravels in Cylinders #1 and #2 are shown in Table 2. The intermediate layer in Cylinder #1 had 78% particles within l-2mm and 21% par­ ticles with 2-3mm. This intermediate layer represents the previous USGA recommen­ dations of a l-2mm intermediate layer for golf green construction. The pea gravel in Cylinder #1 had 81.6% particles within the USGA recommended range of %-A" (65% recommended minimum) and 17.5% particles between Z" and The inter­ mediate layer and pea gravel in Cylinder #1 are compatible with each other and meet USGA recommendations for golf green construction. The intermediate layer in Cylinder #2 had 99% particles within the new USGA recommended range of l-4mm with 90% particles between 2mm and 4mm (Table 2). Actually, this intermediate layer material is a grit rather than a very coarse sand and would not have passed the previous USGA recommendation of l-2mm. This intermedi­ ate layer material represents the new USGA recommendation of a l-4mm intermediate layer for golf green construction. The pea gravel in Cylinder #2 had 91.4% particles within the USGA recommended range of %" - %" and 8.4% particles between !4" and !4". The intermediate layer material and pea gravel in Cylinder #2 are compatible with each other and meet USGA recommenda­ tions for golf green construction. The root zone mix and the A-A" gravel in Cylinder #3 meet the three new USGA criteria for when an intermediate layer is not required (Table 3). This sand and gravel passed the bridging, permeability, and gravel uniformity factors as shown in Table 3; therefore, an intermediate layer is not re­ quired with this sand and gravel. Water Permeability Rates For greensmix #1, water permeability rates were 14.5 ± 0.4 in/hr as determined by the USGA procedures to simulate a com­ pacted golf green (3), and 14.6 ± 0.6 in/hr for Cylinder #1 when determined by the Darcy Equation (2) following overnight saturation of an approximate 1-inch hy­ draulic head (Table 1). These values repre­ sent eight consecutive 10-minute timings and are practically the same. The standard deviations of ±0.4 and ±0.6, respectively, show approximately the same precision in these two methods of measuring water permeability rates. For greensmix #2 and #3, water permeability rates were 16.8 ± 0.5 in/hr as determined by the USGA pro­ cedure (3), compared to 16.0 ± 0.5 in/hr for Cylinder #2 and 16.7 ± 0.4 in/hr for Cylinder #3. These values show very close agreement and equal precision between water perme­ ability rates as determined by the USGA procedure (3) and from cylinders using the Darcy Equation (2). Using a l-4mm inter­ mediate layer and 3Z-!4" gravel in Cylinder #2 did not cause a significant difference in water permeability rates compared to omit­ ting the intermediate layer and using the 12" greensmix above a 4" layer of A-A" gravel in Cylinder #3. Root-Zone Particle Migration The picture of the three models shown in Figure 1 was taken after the three cylinders had been treated with an approximate 1" hydraulic head above the greensmix for one week. The results showed no movement of root zone particles into the intermediate layer in either Cylinder #1, which had the smaller l-2mm intermediate layer, Cylinder #2, which had the larger l-4mm intermediate layer, or Cylinder #3, which had the root­ zone mix directly above the A-A" gravel with no intermediate layer. These results showed that the two new methods of USGA golf green construction using a larger l-4mm intermediate layer (Cylinder #2) and a root zone mix above a A-A" gravel with no intermediate layer (Cylinder #3) did not cause any root zone particle migration as was also the case for the previous USGA method of golf green construction using a l-2mm intermediate layer (Cylinder #1). Conclusion This study shows that water permeability rate values obtained from three different models of USGA constructed golf greens were approximately the same as values obtained by the USGA method (3), and that the precision of these values as determined by the standard deviation in the variance of the mean of eight consecutive timings was the same for each method of measurement. These findings show that the USGA method of determining water permeability rates of a greensmix using 2" x 3" cylinders gives values that are not statistically different from values obtained by constructing models of the entire 18" putting green profile. Furthermore, no root zone particle migration NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 9 occurred in any of the three models after maintaining a 1" hydraulic head for one week. These results suggest that the two new USGA methods of golf green construction should work just as well as the previous USGA method of golf green construction, while allowing for potentially less costly materials or construction methods to be used. References 1. Gaines, T. P. 1992. Water Permeability Rates of a Putting Green Root Zone Mixture (greens- mix). Carolinas Newsletter, May/June, 40. 2. Methods of Soil Analysis. 1986. A. Klute (ed.). Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monograph. ASA Madison, WI: 687-886. 3. U.S. Golf Association Green Section staff. 1960. Specifications for a Method of Putting Green Construction. USGA J. Turf Manage­ ment, 13(5):24-28. 4. U.S. Golf Association Green Section staff. 1993. Recommendations for a Method of Putting Green Construction. USGA Green Section Record, 31(2):l-3. Sample Choker Material Cylinder #1 Cylinder #2 Table 2 Gravel recommendation when intermediate layer is required Intermediate Layer (%) > 4mm 2-4mm l-2mm < 1 0 1 21 90 78 9 1 0 Sand 100 100 Silt < 1 < 1 Gravel (%) Sample > % in Vi - % in % - % in % - % in % in - 2mm Pea Gravel (12.7mm) (12.7-9.5mm) (9.5-6.3mm) (6.3-3.2mm) (3.2-2mm) Cylinder #1 Cylinder #2 0 0 0.5 0 81.6 91.4 17.5 8.4 0.1 0.1 Recommendations: The USGA recommends a 2-4 inch intermediate layer of l-4mm (90% minimum) above a washed 4-inch layer of3/- to /-inch gravel (65% minimum, < 10% particles > inch, and < 10% particles < 2mm). Clay < 1 < 1 < 2mm 0.3 0.1 Table 3 Gravel recommendation when intermediate layer is not required Root Zone Sieve Analysis Root Zone Sand #3 2.0mm 1.0mm 0.50mm 0.25mm 0.15mm 0.05mm Particle Diameter (%) % Retained (> D) % Passing (< D) < 1 100 < 1 100 30 70 53 17 14 3 1 2 Gravel Sieve Analysis Gravel — Cylinder #3 % Retained (> D) % Passing (< D) 1. For Bridging to Occur 2. For Adequate Permeability 3. Uniformity Coefficient of Gravel Particle Diameter (%) 6.3mm 4.75mm 3.35mm 2.0mm 1.0mm < 1.0mm 1.5 98.5 32.9 65.6 49.0 16.6 12.5 4.1 3.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 D15 (gravel) < 5 x D85 (root zone) 3.1mm < 3.2mm D15 (gravel) > 5 x D15 (root zone) 3.1mm > 1.2mm Dw (gravel)/D15 (gravel) < 2.5 1.9mm < 2.5 D15 (gravel) = 3.1mm D85 (root zone) = 0.64mm D15 (gravel) = 3.1mm D15 (root zone) = 0.24mm (gravel) = 5.8mm D15 (gravel) = 3.1mm 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD “Working” Bermudagrass Fairways by JOHN H. FOY Director, Florida Region, USGA Green Section FOR MOST COURSES across the country, the 1993 golf season has come to an end. However, for golf courses in Florida and the desert Southwest, the peak winter play season is just begin­ ning to gear up. For these courses, what transpired during the previous summer growing season has a direct impact on the level of fairway quality that can be provided over the next several months. Thus, a dis­ cussion on bermudagrass fairway manage­ ment at this time may be more relevant than you might believe. Also, a review of cultural management practices during the winter can be a useful exercise for facilities located across the Sunbelt region of the U.S. in planning for next year and the future. Though some may disagree, bermuda- grasses (Cynodon dactylori) can provide the best possible fairway turf conditions today. Golfers of all skill levels find the dense, upright shoot growth characteristic of the bermudas to their liking. For the better players, the “tight” lies that can be provided make it possible to pick the ball off the turf surface and spin their shots onto the green. For higher-handicap players, it is also pos­ sible to “sweep” the ball off a dense bermudagrass fairway turf with both woods and irons. To provide the type of top-quality fairway conditioning demanded today, proper maintenance programs must be in place. This is true regardless of the particu­ lar bermudagrass cultivar being managed. Mowing It always is wise to start with the basics, and one of the most basic maintenance practices is routine mowing. During the sum­ mer months, when active growth is occur­ ring, mowing frequency is extremely impor­ tant in providing top-quality turf. The old rule of thumb still applies; take care not to remove more than !4 to % of the total leaf surface area with any single mowing to avoid placing excessive stress on the plant. To stay within this guideline, a minimum mowing frequency of three times per week is required. However, daily mowing is essen­ tial if premium quality is desired. The lateral growth habit of the bermudas can result in a significant amount of grain development. Thus as with putting greens, the mowing pattern of the fairways needs to be varied on a continual basis. In addition to varying the starting point of the lengthwise mowing pattern, a cross-cutting or circle-cutting pat­ tern should be used on a weekly basis. A fast reel clip rate is needed to cleanly shear the rather tough leaf blades of the bermudagrasses. For optimum results, 10- or 11-bladed mowing reels should be used. Also, hydraulically driven mowing units work much better than ground-driven units. This is especially true if the fairways are routinely mowed during the early morning hours when the turf is still wet. With the tremendous success of light­ weight mowing of northern bentgrass fair­ ways, more and more facilities in Florida and the Southeast are implementing similar programs. The use of lightweight mowers on A properly managed hybrid bermudagrass fairway can provide one of the best playing surfaces possible for all levels of golfers. bermudagrass fairways definitely has merit, but it needs to be stressed that a strong commitment to this mowing regime must be made. While a superior quality of cut can be achieved, the use of true lightweight mowers can be a problem from the stand­ point of being able to keep up with a program of frequent mowing and increased equipment wear. Thatch accumulation also occurs at a faster rate because the lighter mowers tend to float over the turf surface. The use of triplex mowers and clipping removal is not a practical strategy with ber­ mudagrass fairways. The use of “medium­ weight” five-gang type mowers on bermuda­ grass fairways has proven to be the best equipment setup. It also needs to be stressed that reproducing striped or cross-hatched mowing patterns, as typically observed on televised golf events, is not really possible on bermudagrass fairways, no matter what type of mowing equipment is used. As far as mowing heights are concerned, during periods of active growth a height of !4 inch is ideal for maintaining a dense turf cover and a smooth surface. If a professional tournament or top amateur event is to be hosted, a mowing height of 7s inch might be practiced for a short period of time. For general play and/or when managing com­ mon bermuda fairways, a slightly higher height of cut may be more appropriate. However, exceeding a mowing height of 7 inch in the summer is not recommended in most cases. The practice of using higher heights actually results in more difficult playing conditions because the golf ball settles deeper into the turf. As the growth rate of the turf slows in the fall, it is a good practice to slightly raise the mowing height of bermudagrass fair­ ways. This allows increased carbohydrate storage to occur, which improves winter hardiness as well as wear tolerance. With Tifway fairways, a fall/winter/spring mow­ ing height of 74 inch is recommended, while slightly higher heights are needed with the common types. As soon as sustained shoot growth begins in the spring, the mowing height should be worked back down gradually. Coring/Slicing/Verticutting With bermudagrass fairways, excessive thatch accumulation can be a problem. This inherent problem often is aggravated by over-fertilization and over-irrigation done to satisfy golfer demands for a lush, dark green turf. The bermudagrasses naturally exhibit a light to medium green color, and the best-conditioned fairways typically have a slight off-color cast. If we could only educate more golfers to the fact that color is not a primary indicator of quality, thatch and a few other management problems 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD very beneficial practice. These units have a fast operating speed and do not cause as much surface disruption. Thus, it is easier to accomplish multiple replications. How­ ever, because slicing/spiking is not as effective for the control of thatch, it is best used as a supplemental practice to a basic coring program. Annual verticutting of bermudagrass fair­ ways should be viewed as a basic manage­ ment practice. While verticutting is a time- consuming and disruptive practice, some type of annual program needs to be conducted to produce and maintain top-quality turf. It needs to be kept in mind that bermudagrass shoot growth occurs from the ends of the stems or stolons. Thus, cutting of the stems is needed to create new growth points and increase shoot density. Verticutting also aids in removing old leaf material and thatch, and acts as a grooming technique to produce a more upright growth habit. If annual verticutting is not feasible, it should be done on at least an every-other-year schedule. The standard approach has been to con­ duct one or two severe verticutting replica­ tions during early to mid-summer. These severe treatments do cause significant sur­ face disruption, golfer inconvenience, and a debris disposal problem. However, within two to three weeks, a full recovery occurs and optimum conditioning can be provided. It also has been found that a series of three to six lighter replications throughout the growing season produces similar results without as much course disruption. The verticutting reel set-ups that are now avail­ able for some of the standard fairway mow­ ing units are ideally suited for this practice. One other equipment option that sometimes is used for verticutting of bermudagrass fairways is a flail mower setup with straight blades or knives. In Florida, there are now several com­ panies that have available contract verti­ cutting services. Typically, these services arrive with two or even three heavy-duty verticutting units and a couple of sweepers. For an 18-hole facility, the fairways can be verticut and all the debris removed in one to two days. When equipment and/or man­ power are limiting at a course, these contract services are a very good option for insuring that an adequate verticutting program is practiced. The bermudagrass fairway management practices mentioned in this article are based on programs in place at a number of courses around the state of Florida. Each of these facilities has established a reputation of providing top-quality fairway turf and over­ all course quality. While slight variations occur from one course to the next, they all have a common denominator . . . they “work.” NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 13 (Opposite page, top) Lightweight mowing ofbermuda fairways continues to grow in popularity because of the superior results produced. On the other hand, an increased rate of thatch accumulation has also been noted. (Opposite page, bottom) Besides aiding in thatch control, annual verticutting of bermudagrass fairways is an extremely important practice for grooming a dense, upright shoot growth character. (Above) Although thatch accumulation is an issue with hybrid bermudagrass fairways, core aerification and verticutting can keep it in check. would not be as pronounced. Nevertheless, cultivation/grooming activities are still needed on bermudagrass-based fairways to produce and maintain healthy growth and top-quality playing conditioning. A review of current research information reveals some debate in regard to the effec­ tiveness of core aerification and verticutting for thatch control. However, based on my experiences over the years with courses throughout Florida and the Southeast, both of these operations are vital to managing thatch and producing a dense, properly conditioned fairway turf cover. At the Bonita Bay Club, on the lower southwest coast of Florida, superior quality fairways have been maintained on their Marsh Course since it was opened for play some nine years ago. One reason an extremely high standard of quality has been provided is the intensive cultural program conducted each summer. The fairways are core aerified at least twice and usually three times annually. Over the years the standard pull-behind aerification equipment with open-spoon or coring tines has done an adequate job. However, the newer punch-type fairway units provide significantly better results. The increased number of holes per unit area and the greater operating depth of these units brings more soil material to the surface and in essence provides a good top­ dressing for the turf. There also are a few courses that have implemented deep-tine aerification programs on their fairways. Unfortunately, the slow operating speed of this type of equipment can be a limiting factor in its use. In locations where concen­ trated traffic occurs, supplemental aerifica­ tion and fertilization are a good practice for maintaining a dense, healthy turf cover. Furthermore, slicing or spiking can be a TO SEED OR NOT TO SEED by DAVE BLOMQUIST Golf Course Superintendent, Naperville Country Club, Naperville, Illinois AT SOME POINT in their careers, most / \ golf course superintendents will face JL X the task of rebuilding a green or tee, but the challenge can be met if the necessary labor and equipment are provided. We en­ vision opening a new green that possesses a firm, smooth surface and a challenging putting speed, conditions consistent with the other greens on the course. Green com­ mittee chairmen or course owners expect the same results, but they seldom understand the process of construction, especially the amount of time it takes to provide high- quality conditions on a new putting green. They invariably will request that the green be sodded so it can be opened for play sooner, “You know, like that course over on the other side of town that held a tourna­ ment two weeks after their new green was sodded.” Herein lies the problem: We know that a sodded green can be opened sooner than a seeded green, but it will require more atten­ tion down the road if a layer of clay, thatch, muck, etc., is introduced with the sod in the upper root zone. Although the advent of washed sod has reduced this problem, frequent cultivation is needed to avoid a decline in turfgrass quality during the mid­ summer heat stress period. We Will Sell No Wine Before Its Time “We will sell no wine before its time,” was a popular advertising phrase a few years back. Unfortunately, grapes are allowed all the time they need to become wine, but when 14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Washed sod eliminates the problems associated with clay or peat layers in the root zone, but keep in mind that a thin layer of washed “thatch” is introduced into the green. The turf will still require aeration, spiking, etc., to minimize the detrimental effects of the layer. it comes to turf, the golfers want immediate results. Why sod a green when we can have a seeded green open after 90 good growing days? Very few of us have the luxury of growing-in a green without pressure from golfers to open it before it is ready. The re­ cent availability of washed sod may provide the opportunity to open a green a bit sooner, but a review of the advantages and dis­ advantages of sodding or seeding greens is needed to make an informed decision. Sodding a Green Advantages 1. Instant Turf— Under ideal growing conditions, a sodded green can be ready for limited play in approximately 30 days. 2. Consistency — The presence of a thin organic matter layer provides the surface resiliency needed to hold a shot with back- spin; the greens play more like a “mature” green. 3. Washouts — Sod, unlike a seeded surface, is less likely to wash out under heavy rainfall. Disadvantages 1. Expense — Seed for a 5,000 sq. ft. green costs about $300, whereas sod costs almost $4,000. 2. Limited Varieties — In general, only Penncross and a very limited amount of Pennlinks sod are available, although other new cultivars are available in some areas. 3. Layers — Unless the sod is grown on the same root zone mix used to build the green, a layer of clay, muck, etc. is intro­ duced into the green with the sod. Layers slow the movement of water through the green, limit root growth, and require a pro­ gram of frequent cultivation. Another consideration is that a properly sodded green appears to be ready for play within several days. This can create a prob­ lem for over-zealous golfers who think it should be opened “before its time.” Com­ munication is important and everyone must understand that although it looks good, it’s not ready for traffic. Seeding a Green Advantages 1. Choice — The superintendent has the choice of any of the newer, improved varieties of creeping bentgrass on the market. 2. Experience — As the green becomes established, the superintendent becomes familiar with the unique fertilizer and irri­ gation requirements needed to provide con­ sistent playing conditions on a high-sand- content root zone mix. 3. Layers — Well-timed applications of topdressing minimize the development of undesirable layers in the upper root zone. Disadvantages 1. Time — In the northern tier of states, a green seeded during August will not be ready for play until the following May or early June, even under ideal conditions. A longer grow-in will be needed if the fall or spring is unusually cool. 2. Washouts — Heavy rain can wash seed from high to low spots, and the result is in­ consistent coverage and the need to reseed localized areas. 3. “Hard Greens” — Until a thin cushion of organic matter develops in the upper root zone, a new green will be less receptive to an approach shot. We have recently rebuilt several greens at Naperville Country Club. One of the greens was sodded and another was seeded, so a comparison of each method can be made. Washed sod was not available, so we used sod grown on a medium similar to the 80:20 mix used to build the green. We laid the sod on November 9, 1989, and opened the green on May 1, 1990. I was prepared for problems with layering, so on April 16 we began our cultivation program. Aerification with 7s-inch tines was done on a three- to five-week schedule, and %-inch-diameter quadratines were used during July and August. The green was aerified six times the first season, six times the second season, and three times the third. The root system on the sodded green deteriorated quickly during July and August of the first few years. After an extreme period of heat stress, most of the roots became confmed to the original sod layer. Now in its fourth year, it is finally beginning to maintain a root system beyond the thatch layer all season long. On August 2, 1991, we seeded our new practice putting green. It was ready for a limited amount of play on October 1, but we decided to keep it closed until the 1992 season. It wasn’t aerified the first season, and it received the usual spring/fall aerifi­ cation this year. There was no significant decline in July and August, and there was strong root growth well beyond the thatch layer, even when soil temperatures were high. Communication is the key to a successful greens renovation project, regardless of which method is used! When we sodded the second green, the members were in­ formed of the aeration schedule for the following season and were prepared well in advance. Provide realistic projections for opening a new green, not what the golfers want to hear. Other tips for success: • If you decide to use sod, check with the supplier about its availability well in advance of the project. • A USGA green is designed to resist compaction, so don’t be afraid to roll and roll the sod. • Even a washed sod introduces a “washed” thatch layer into the green, so aerify as soon, and as often, as possible. If the sod is not pegged down enough to allow standard hollow-tine aeration, try using a Hydroject aerifier. With all the force directed “down,” there is little potential to lift the sod. • If you decide to use seed, plant early in the fall to provide enough time for the seedlings to develop and harden off before winter. • Use tried-and-true seeding rates — two pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. Ultra-high rates may provide quick cover, but crowded seedlings mature at a slower rate than seedlings provided with a bit of growing room. • Roll the seed bed to establish good seed-to-soil contact. Don’t overlook this. We found that the knobby tires on our bunker rake did a great job. • Don’t verticut the first year. Remember, you are trying to obtain dense coverage. You may see more spiking from golf shoes, but the green will develop a cushion of organic matter faster, and the playing surface will not be so “hard” the first season. • Developing the fertilizer program for a new sand green is another article in itself. Sand/peat greens require light, frequent applications of fertilizer, especially during the first year — much more than soil greens. Remember that a sodded green will thin out quickly, as quickly as a seeded green, unless adequate amounts of fertilizer are applied. • Provide a playable temporary green to keep golfers off your back. Choose the site well before construction begins, then aerify and topdress before lowering the height of cut. If you begin this process in the spring, there will be less scalping and a better interim putting surface. This results in less pressure to open the new green before it is ready. Be flexible. If you cannot take the green out of play in August, then construction during September and the use of sod may be the best option. On the other hand, if you want to try a different variety of bent­ grass and have the time for grow-in, then seeding is the best choice. Remember — either way you go, insist on the proper time frame to ensure the best results possible. In other words, “sell no wine before its time,” because “you can’t win when the green is thin.” With careful management, especially adequate inputs of fertilizer, a seeded green can develop rapidly. In contrast, lack of nutrients can leave the turf thin. For example, the green on the left is three weeks old; the green on the right is three months old. A USGA-SPONSORED RESEARCH PROJECT BENTRGRASS BREEDING TEXAS STYLE by DR. MILT ENGELKE Turfgrass Breeder, Texas A&M University THE YEAR WAS 1984, and the decision was made by the United States Golf Association Turfgrass Research Committee to support the develop­ ment of heat-tolerant, pest-resistant bent­ grasses for golf. Texas A&M University submitted a proposal to establish such a program, the primary objective being the development of bentgrasses that are better adapted to extreme environmental condi­ tions, with special emphasis on genetic improvements in tolerance to temperature extremes, reduced moisture needs, traffic tolerance, and insect and disease resistance. Bentgrass Research Inc. (BRI), a non­ profit organization formed in 1982 to sup­ port bentgrass research in Texas, was com­ mitted to the cooperative efforts between Texas A&M and the USGA to develop new turfgrasses for Texas and the arid southwest. Contracts were signed between Texas A&M, BRI, and the USGA in early 1985. The pro­ gram was initiated under the direction of Dr. M. C. Engelke, Turfgrass Breeder, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Dallas. In 1985, Virginia Lehman was assigned to the bentgrass breeding project as research associate and served in this capacity until receiving her Ph.D. in 1990. Developing improved bentgrasses re­ quired an understanding of the problems associated with this species. The biological shortcomings of creeping bentgrass, and especially the predominant cultivar, Penn- cross, included: 1) lack of root persistence, 2) poor heat tolerance, 3) lack of traffic tolerance during high summer temperatures, and 4) susceptibility to various diseases and insects. A closer analysis of the situation revealed a much simpler explanation. Creeping bent­ 16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD grass provides the most desirable putting surface in the United States. A rapid increase in the golfing population has increased the amount of play, placing more pressure (traffic) on the grass plant. The desire to use bentgrass in southern climates also has resulted in placing the grass in a marginal environment for a longer period of time. Rather than experiencing one to two weeks of high temperatures and high humidity typical of the upper Midwest, the grasses are required to survive and perform during three to four months of continuous high temperature stress. Simply speaking, creeping bentgrass lacks heat tolerance. It is a cool-season grass that is marginally adapted to the sub-tropical climates of the southern United States. Creeping bentgrass survival is most often due to cultural practices that modify and reduce the environmental stress that affects plant growth. As an example, Penncross creeping bent­ grass lacks sufficient heat tolerance to maintain an actively growing, functional root system for a prolonged period. New root growth is severely retarded and root longevity is reduced in many creeping bentgrass cultivars when soil temperatures reach 85°F for several days. The result is a reduction in functional roots. When this occurs, the superintendent is forced to provide more frequent irrigation to sustain plant growth, and more frequent syringing to cool the plant, since the plant no longer has the ability to adequately transpire and cool itself. A simple biological deficiency — lack of root heat tolerance — is further compli­ cated by the cultural practices used to moderate the environment to sustain plant growth. The frequent syringing and irriga­ tion, coupled with moderately high nutri­ tion levels and high temperatures, creates ideal conditions for disease development. To abate disease, timely and sophisticated fungicide prevention programs have been developed. The problem is not so much that the plant is susceptible to disease, but the required combination of cultural practices results in a disease-conducive environment. The breeding program established its primary objectives to investigate creeping bentgrasses’ limitations: (1) Root persistence was approached by screening large populations of plants at prolonged high soil temperatures and select­ ing those plants that were able to maintain active growth for the longest period of time. The heat bench, developed in 1982 at Texas A&M Research Center — Dallas (TAMREC), provides the basic tool to identify plants that have good root heat tolerance. (2) Root distribution in the soil profile influences the plant’s ability to access soil moisture reserves. A deeper, more persis­ tent root system reduces irrigation require­ ments and enables the plant to maintain active transpirational cooling, which aids in moderating the plant’s internal tempera­ ture. Plants were identified for rate of root growth and distribution under greenhouse and field conditions. The plants were indi­ vidually grown in a contained root environ­ ment to study relative root distribution and rate of root development. (3) The impact of salinity on creeping bentgrass was evaluated by Dr. Ken Marcum, during his post-doctoral appointment. Several germplasm lines were screened for relative salinity tolerance under greenhouse conditions. (4) Identification of selections with disease resistance was a major concern of the project. In cooperation with Dr. Phil Colbaugh, plant pathologist, TAES-Dallas, thousands of bentgrass plants were screened for response to Pythium and Rhizoctonia blight. During the early years, the advanced germplasm populations were routinely screened for disease, and several resistant genotypes were identified. Many of these plants have since been included as parental lines of bentgrass cultivars currently being tested. Beginning in 1988, turfgrass plots were established at multiple locations throughout the United States, providing considerable information on adaptability and perfor­ mance. Over a period of four years, extensive observations provided a strong data base to support the release of two new creeping bentgrasses in 1993. CATO creeping bentgrass was tested as S YN4-88 and has been licensed to Pickseed West, Tangent, Oregon. CATO was named in honor of the late Paul Cato, the founding father of Bentgrass Research Inc., past chairman of the Colonial National Invita­ tional, and past president of Colonial Country Club, Fort Worth, Texas. Before Paul passed away in 1991, he established and evaluated turf plots with the grass that would eventually be named after him. CATO has been planted on several golf courses throughout the southern United States, including Bentwater Golf Club, Montgomery, Texas (fall 1991); Pecan Orchard Golf Club, Grandbury, Texas (fall 1991); and Sherrill Park Golf Club, Richardson, Texas. CATO was placed in commercial production by Pickseed in the fall of 1993 and will be available in sub­ stantial quantities in the fall of 1994. CRENSHAW creeping bentgrass was tested as SYN3-88 and has been licensed to Loft’s Seed, Inc., Bound Brook, New Jersey. The variety was named after Ben Crenshaw, a Texas native who has a keen interest in the development of improved grasses and who followed the progress of SYN3-88 for several years. CRENSHAW has had substantial success on several golf courses in the southern United States, in­ cluding Lakes Spivey, Jonesboro, Georgia (1991); Chapel Hill Golf Club, Douglasville, Georgia (1992); Bogey Hills Country Club, St. Charles, Missouri (1992); Sherrill Park Golf Club, Richardson, Texas (1992); Kirk­ wood Plantation Golf Club, Holly Springs, Mississippi (1992); and Chickasaw Country Club, Memphis, Tennessee (1992). CREN- Root distribution influences the ability of the turf to access soil moisture reserves. Slanted root tubes aid in studying root distribution and rate of development. A heat bench was developed at the Texas A&M Research Center — Dallas as a screening tool to identify plants with good root heat tolerance. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 17 Bentgrass disease resistance was a major concern in the breeding project. Thousands of plants were screened for resistance to Pythium and Rhizoctonia blight. SHAW creeping bentgrass seed was com­ mercially available in limited quantities in 1993, and substantial quantities should be available in 1994. CATO and CRENSHAW have been blended for use at Preston Trails Country Club and Brookhollow Country Club, Dallas, Texas, and Riviera Country Club in Los Angeles with outstanding success. To date, the success of the bentgrass breeding program is largely due to the close cooperative interaction among scien­ tists, superintendents, extension personnel, and members of the turf industry. Dr. Virginia Lehman, presently a turfgrass breeder at Loft’s Seed, Inc., received her Ph.D. degree working on the bentgrass program; Dr. Phil Colbaugh provided expertise in plant disease screening and testing at Texas A&M — Dallas; Dr. Jim Reinert, entomologist, provided leadership in assessing resistance to insects; and Dr. Bill Knoop was extensively involved in placing grasses at numerous golf courses across the southern United States. The close interaction of the research and extension turf team at Dallas was com­ plemented by the Georgia Agriculture 18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Experiment Station program in Griffin, Georgia. Drs. Bob Carrow, Lee Burpee, and Gil Landry were extensively involved in the advanced testing and assessment of these grasses under high temperatures and humidity. Excellent research plots have been estab­ lished by several golf course superintendents across the United States. In total, 80 differ­ ent courses have been involved in field testing and evaluating advanced selections. Excellent feedback was provided by many superintendents, and this information was used for substantiating the grasses’ strengths and weaknesses. Honorable mention goes to superintendents Tom Diamond, Las Colinas Sports Club, for his continuous support as president of BRI; David Stone, The Honors Course, Ooltewah, Tennessee; and Reed Yenny, Mesa Verde Country Club, Costa Mesa, California. Special thanks also are extended to Dr. Gil Landry, Georgia Turf Extension Specialist, and Paul Vermeulen, USGA Green Section Agronomist, Lake Forest, California, for their considerable time and assistance in providing support and performance assessment of the trials in their areas. There is no question that advances have been made in the development of bentgrass cultivars that are better adapted to marginal environmental conditions. I believe CATO and CRENSHAW, as well as other cultivars such as SR 1020, PROVIDENCE, and PUIT'ER, are being recognized as superior turfgrasses for use in building new golf courses and renovating existing courses. It must be recognized that incremental steps are being taken to identify and assemble genes for disease and insect re­ sistance, heat tolerance, salinity tolerance, and, above all else, consumer acceptance. The steps manifested by the development and release of CATO and CRENSHAW are just the beginning, and are only a part of the scientific effort to bring an environ­ mentally sensitive bentgrass to the golfing public. Small but significant spin-offs will be realized in the general reduction of labor, chemical resources, pesticides, and water use in the urban landscape. These reductions will occur through the incorporation of good science and an understanding of the biological processes involved in turfgrass growth as they relate to environmental adaptation. ON COURSE WITH NATURE MAPS CAN IMPROVE YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INITIATIVES by NANCY P. SADLON Environmental Specialist, USGA Green Section WHEN WAS the last time you saw a golf course property map that provided information about the topography, soils, or surrounding land uses? How about the original golf course develop­ ment plan that provides historical informa­ tion on the site’s original contours, storm­ water drainage system, irrigation layout, native plants, and the list of proposed plantings? Have you looked at the golf course aerial photo that hangs in the club­ house and taken note of how the course fits into the community, the watershed area, and wildlife corridors? Do you know where the nearest aquifer recharge area, public drinking water supply reservoir, or the nearest stream or water body are located? Have upstream land uses contributed to increased flows or Environmental Questions and Possible Sources of Answers Surface Water Quality Management and Protection • Where does water leaving the golf course drain to? Topographic maps, stormwater drainage maps • Are there areas of the course where buffers can be established? Aerial photos, topographic maps • Where does the drainage water from wash-off areas end up? Stormwater drainage plans, aerial photos, wetland maps Do drainage catch basins or surface areas drain to sensitive areas on-site? • Are historical records of stream or water quality available? Citizen monitoring groups, water districts, local fishing groups • What soils exist on the property? Do certain areas have a seasonally Soil maps high water table? Groundwater Contamination • Where is the nearest well or aquifer recharge area used for public Local health department, regional water district maps or private drinking water? • What areas of the golf course have been identified as sensitive, such as Soil maps, wetland maps, surface water classification high water tables, wetlands, streams, and should be managed with special attention to chemical or fertilizer applications, or construction activities? maps Wildlife Habitat • What plant materials are native to the area? What wildlife species Natural resource inventories, U.S. Fish & Wildlife would be expected? Service, native plant societies • Has a site-specific wildlife inventory for the property or nearby areas Local or county planning commission or engineering ever been conducted? department • Are threatened or endangered plant or animal species present in State natural heritage programs, U.S. Fish & Wildlife the area? Service divisions, local wildlife groups • Do the golf course natural areas connect to outside natural areas, Aerial maps, municipal or county planning agencies providing important corridors for wildlife movement? • What migratory species travel through the area, and what needs U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, local birding groups do they have? Water Use • How many acres of the golf course are irrigated, and what considerations Aerial maps, topographic maps, soil maps have been made for reducing the acreage that receives irrigation? • Do any courses in the area use effluent water? Has this option been Local and county water districts, local and county investigated for future incorporation on your course? engineering departments • If your course relies on on-site water supplies, has the impact of Local water districts withdrawal from the stream or well been reviewed recently? NOVEMBER/DECEMBER1993 19 Aerial photographs can be used to identify land uses, water features, wildlife corridors, and other valuable information. degraded water quality in the stream running through the course? In asking yourself these questions, many more come to mind. It is imperative for sound environmental management to have an understanding of how the golf course fits into the surrounding ecosystem. Many sources of maps are available to the public and contain valuable information addressing these issues. Concern about surface water and ground­ water quality, loss of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and use of limited water resources for irrigation are national issues of the ’90s. No two golf courses are alike, and each is affected differently by environmental con­ cerns, based on existing site conditions. It is important to ask yourself a number of questions in the search to increase your knowledge about your area. Using maps and other sources can help answer many of these questions. Maps are important environmental plan­ ning tools and are used by environmental consultants and golf course architects in pre­ paring site inventories. Local and county planning agencies and engineering agencies often have maps available for review. Some maps may be purchased for a reasonable fee. Below is a partial list of map sources and other information resources. Reference Agencies • United States Geologial Survey (USGS). This map sales office, located in Colorado, is known as map central. A good source for USGS topographic maps and more. Call (303) 236-7477. • Natural Heritage Program. Each state has a program to protect threatened and endan­ gered species. These programs are adminis­ tered nationally by the Nature Conservancy. Call (703) 841-5300. • USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soil surveys are available describing physical and chemical characteristics of the soils in a sur­ vey area, usually by county. These detailed maps are used by farmers, ranchers, and county, state, and federal agencies for land management. The maps are available for review at county conservation districts, libraries, and other agencies. 20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS). State wildlife management divisions can provide information about area wildlife and endangered or threatened species. The USF&WS often is affiliated with the state Natural Heritage Program. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The permitting authority for wetland regulations. District offices located nationwide have national wetland inventory (NWI) maps available for review. Help in interpreting maps is available at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offices. • Engineering and Planning Departments (local and county). One of the best places to begin collection of information. In addition to the USGS topographic maps, NWI maps, and soil surveys, these agencies often have aerial photos, stormwater drainage plans, and detailed information about the natural re­ sources of the community. Maps are a valuable tool for knowing your property. For many, the winter season provides the perfect time to put a little time and effort into ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING. Make the effort to identify golf course areas that are environmentally sensitive, and incorporate action plans to protect and preserve designated areas, as well as identify areas that have been dis­ turbed and need reestablishment. Informa­ tion gathering and a thorough understanding are the first steps. Valuable Maps and Reference Sources to Obtain 1. USGS topographic maps 2. National wetlands inventory maps 3. Satellite aerial photographs 4. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plant lists 5. Stormwater drainage maps 6. Soil maps 7. Local and county master plans 8. Local and county resource inventory maps 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 30, 1993. 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, Somerset County, 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, Somerset County, N.J. 07931-0708.6. Names and addresses of Publisher and 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. 7. Owner (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders 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 — F. Morgan Taylor, Jr., 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 organi­ zations 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 15,933 15,900 A. Total No. Copies (Net Press Run) B. Paid and/or Requested Circulation 1. Sales through dealers and None None carriers, street vendors, and counter sales 2. Mail Subscription (Paid and/or requested) 15,239 15,384 C. Total Paid and/or 15,239 15,384 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 of C & D) F. Copies Not Distributed 1. Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing 545 500 15,784 15,884 149 16 2. Return from News Agents None G. Total (Sum of E, Fl and 2 — 15,933 None 15,900 should equal net press run shown in A) 11.1 certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. JAMES T. SNOW, Editor ALL THINGS CONSIDERED HOW “GREEN” IS TOUR COURSE? by JAMES T. SNOW National Director, USGA Green Section THE ANSWER TO THIS question depends on how you define the word green. But first, let me tell you what today’s politically correct answer should be. Today’s courses ought to be very green, yet not so very green, both at the same time! Confused? Let’s look at a couple of definitions of the word green, and perhaps the previous statement will become more clear. First of all, environmentalists use the word green to identify organizations, people, corporations, policies, etc., as being environ­ mentally friendly. Unfortunately, few of these environmental people or groups use the word green when referring to golf courses. On the other hand, golfers and others refer to the color of their golf courses as being green. Sometimes they refer to their courses as being lush green, a comment that sug­ gests turf of a very dark green color and density, and one that receives a high degree of pampering. Actually, the term lush green makes me cringe. It makes me think of turf that receives too much water and fertilizer, pri­ marily for the sake of appearance. It sug­ gests turf that is very pretty to look at but that is weak, poorly rooted, susceptible to diseases and insects, and likely to keel over at the first sign of hot weather. It also sug­ gests turf that is of poor playing quality, characterized by lack of firmness and sus­ ceptibility to plugging and large divots. This type of turf requires frequent watering and regular applications of fertilizer and pesti­ cides to keep it going. It’s bad for the playing of the game of golf, and it’s bad for the environment. Having seen the two perspectives on the word green, can you see how it is advan­ tageous to have a golf course that is both very green (environmentally) and not so very green (lush)? There are very few people who keep track of what’s going on in the world of golf who don’t realize the importance of environmental issues as they relate to the future of the game of golf. Simply put, issues relating to water use, potential pollution from fertilizer and pesticide use, loss of threatened species and natural habitat, and effects of golf courses on wildlife all threaten to stall the development of new golf facilities and severely affect the quality of existing facilities. Many people also realize that the game of golf has responded to these important issues in many different ways. For example, the USGA has spent more than $8 million over the past 10 years on research to develop new grasses for golf that use less water and require less pesticide use, and to investigate the effects of golf course activities on the environment. The Golf Course Superinten­ dents Association of America (GCSAA) has instituted a variety of environmental educa­ tional programs for its members, and other organizations have responded with educa­ tional publications and programs. Not enough people realize, however, that everyone needs to play a part in resolving golf’s environmental issues if the game is to continue to flourish. Golf course super­ intendents are the most important people in the game of golf when it comes to putting the environmental green into the game, and whereas many superintendents have re­ sponded in an admirable fashion, too many others have not. In my opinion, an ideal program has been established to assist every golf course to do good things for the environment and, in the process, to do good things for the game of golf — the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses. Administered by the Audubon Society of New York State and funded by the USGA, the program can help educate superinten­ dents, course officials, and golfers about the issues, and at the same time can make the public more aware of the environmentally responsible activities of golf courses. I’m pleased to say that nearly 900 golf courses have signed up for the program. It’s exciting to see how hundreds of these courses have enthusiastically developed and implemented conservation programs, and that many have become certified in one or more of seven different categories estab­ lished by New York Audubon. Yet I’m con­ cerned about the many courses that are not doing their share for golf and the environ­ ment. Too many courses maintain the lush green look that compromises turf playability and suggests to those outside the game of golf that golf courses are environmentally irresponsible. Superintendents must work to take the lush out of the game, and course officials must lend their support by reject­ ing the heavy-handed use of water, fertilizer, and pesticides required to obtain that extra degree of dark green color. So what can you do? Begin by commit­ ting your golf course to an environmentally green maintenance program. Participate in environmental education programs—begin to think with an environmental mindset. Develop a written set of Best Management Practices, and establish an IPM program for your course. If you have not done so already, join the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses, and follow through with their advice and recom­ mendations. Convince neighboring courses to participate as well. For information about the program, call the Audubon Society of New York State at (518) 767-9051. Do your part. Let’s make sure golf is (environmentally) GREEN. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER1993 21 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 TURF TWISTERS NUTRIENT LEVELS Question: Some fertilizer sales people, using detailed soil tests, have stated that there is a hazard of copper and zinc toxicity in my greens caused by long-term use of sludge-based fertilizers. Is that so? (Utah) Answer: Since the micronutrient cations, such as copper, are most soluble and therefore available under strongly acidic conditions, it should be possible to limit their toxicity by raising the soil pH via liming. Unless noticeable signs of copper or zinc toxicity appear, however, it would be inappropriate to suggest taking action other than maintaining a neutral pH range to avoid future problems. PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE Question: Each winter I have the opportunity to play many courses in the deserts of Arizona and California. During these travels, I cannot help but notice the dramatic differences in fairway quality from one golf course to the next. Is there some reason, other than economics, for these differences? (North Dakota) Answer: Generally speaking, there are five keys to successful fairway overseeding that each golf course should follow. Though it would be nice to report that economics does not play a significant role in these matters, as you can see, all of these points have a financial basis. Successful overseeding includes: (1) selecting the proper seeding date, (2) planting seed at the optimum rate, (3) providing uniform irrigation coverage, (4) using lightweight mowing equip­ ment, and (5) controlling cart traffic. When these points are not adequately considered, poorer fairway quality will occur. IN DENSE TURF GROWTH Question: We have experienced an abnormally heavy amount of rainfall this winter and are now fighting severe algae outbreaks on our greens. HELP! (Florida) Answer: As with any pest problem, maintaining a dense turf cover is the best defense. Once an algal scum has formed, a combination of chemical and cultural control measures can assist in your efforts to bring it under control. At the present time, there are few chemical treatments available for algae control. As far as cultural treatments are concerned, regular slicing, spiking, or solid “quadratine” aerification, along with occasional topdressing, can help control the problem. As a last resort, core aerification may be necessary.