USGA Green Section RECORD July/August 1994 A Publication on Turfgrass Management by the United States Golf Association® Vol. 32, No. 4 JULY/AUGUST 1994 USGA Green Section RECORD USGA PRESIDENT: Reg Murphy GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Chisholm 26101 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI 48076 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR David B. Fay EDITOR: James T. Snow Dr. Kimberly S. Erusha ASSISTANT EDITOR: ART EDITOR: Diane Chrenko Becker 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, Director of Education 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 Robert Y. Senseman, Agronomist 99 Lawrence St., #8, Palmer, MA 01069 • (413) 283-2237 James E. Skorulski, Agronomist Mid-Atlantic Region: P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380 • (610) 696-4747 Stanley J. Zontek, Director Keith A. Happ, Agronomist P.O. Box 15249, Covington, KY 41015-0249 • (606) 356-3272 Robert A. Brame, 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, WI53092 • (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 What Can You Do If Your Golf Course Has Gas? by Patrick J. Gross Wet Greens — “Let’s Try This First” by Les Carpenter and David A. Oatis Tissue Testing: Questions and Answers by Keith Happ Beyond Appearance and Playability: Golf and the Environment by Dr. Michael P. Kenna On Course With Nature I LA Helping the Osprey on the Road to Recovery by Nancy P Sadlon All Things Considered The Religion of Golf by Larry Gilhuly Back Cover Twigteps Cover Photo: Beautiful golf courses, such as Mountaingate Country Club in Los Angeles, have been successfully built on landfill sites. ©1994 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). At the Industry Hills Golf Courses, a chlorinated polyethylene liner was installed beneath a methane-affected green to prevent gas migration into the root zone. What Can You Do If Your Golf Course Has Gas? by PATRICK J. GROSS Agronomist, Western Region, USGA Green Section IT IS NOT UNCOMMON for super­ intendents to get indigestion from the everyday rigors of the job. But for the purpose of this article, we are going to discuss a different type of gas — the gas produced by sanitary landfills. Most turf managers are highly trained to deal with above-ground turf stress caused by weather, pests, and traffic, but a small but growing number of superintendents are having to face new and different challenges: how to main­ tain golf courses built on landfill sites and deal with the effects of landfill gas and other problems. Landfill Sites as Golf Courses As the popularity of golf continues to grow throughout the world, there is an ever- increasing need to build more golf courses, especially public golf courses. As land resources are becoming more scarce, it is difficult to find prime land for course con­ struction. Many cities, counties, and devel­ opers are looking at the feasibility of building golf courses on previous landfill sites. It is estimated that more than 60 golf courses in the United States have been built on landfill sites. Japan has been a leader in this area due to the popularity of golf and the limited availability of land resources in that country. From an environmental and economic standpoint, landfills and golf courses are a good match. Golf courses are one of the few JULY/AUGUST 1994 1 legal land uses for landfill sites. Golf courses can recycle a previously unusable site and provide a greenbelt and recreational oppor­ tunities for the surrounding community. Furthermore, golf courses provide valuable habitat for birds and wild animals in urban settings. A landfill golf course can have a positive economic impact, too, by creating jobs and tax revenue for the community. Landfill sites also produce large quantities of methane gas as a byproduct of solid waste decomposition. Considered a nuisance by­ product in the past, methane gas can be captured and used as a valuable energy source for heating, air conditioning, and other purposes. For example, Mountaingate Country Club in Los Angeles, California, processes 5 million cubic feet of methane gas per day. This gas is transported to nearby UCLA through a 5.5-mile pipeline and is used in the university’s central steam boiler. It is estimated that energy costs at the UCLA campus have been lowered by $250,000 annually through the use of landfill gas. Another example in Southern California is the Industry Hills Conference Center and Sheraton Resort. Although only a portion of the 600-acre site is on a landfill, enough methane gas is produced to supplement the energy needs of the hotel and conference center as well as heat the two olympic-size swimming pools on the premises. One of the benefits of a landfill site to the golf course owner or developer is the lower initial investment to purchase the land, although this saving often is offset by the higher cost of construction and the agro­ nomic challenges associated with long-term maintenance. Developers wishing to pur­ chase landfill sites also should be aware of future liabilities for containment of leachate (liquid waste produced by the landfill) or any remedial work necessary on the site. Agronomic Challenges Building and maintaining a golf course on a landfill site is no easy task. If the golf course is to provide quality playing condi­ tions on a long-term basis, several construc­ tion and maintenance considerations must be addressed. Landfill Gas — Various gases are pro­ duced when solid waste is decomposed by anaerobic bacteria. Landfill gas is comprised of approximately 50% methane (CH4), 50% carbon dioxide (CO2), and trace amounts of hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen (N2). Gas pro­ duction can fluctuate throughout the year depending on the composition of the solid waste and the amount of moisture in the landfill cavity. Soil temperature has little to do with gas production, but soil temperature does affect methane oxidation at the soil surface. These gases must be collected or vented to prevent the buildup of pressure below ground. If the gases are not adequately 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD (Above) Methane, a large component of landfill gas, can be captured and used as a valuable energy source. This processing plant at Mountaingate Country Club in Los Angeles processes methane for use at the nearby UCLA campus. (Right) Soil settling occurs as the solid waste is decomposed within the landfill cavity. This is dis­ ruptive to golfers and causes severe prob­ lems with routine maintenance activities. diverted, problems with plant growth can occur. The methane and carbon dioxide migrate to the surface and displace oxygen in the root zone. This leads to anaerobic soil conditions. Symptoms on turfgrass, trees, and shrubs include slow growth, stunting, limited root development, discoloration, defoliation, and, in severe cases, necrosis. Ground Shifting and Settling — Land­ fills are capped with several feet of soil to cover and encapsulate the solid waste. As the solid waste decomposes, the soil cap tends to settle, causing cracks, shear lines, and contour changes. The uneven surface can damage equipment, disrupt mowing opera­ tions, and detract from the playability of the make sure all areas of the golf course that will be located directly over solid waste will be serviced by the recovery system. Even if methane gas is not actively produced at the time of construction, some courses have in­ stalled vertical recovery wells in the area that can be connected to the system at a later date. The depth of the soil cap covering the solid waste is another factor to consider. Although the architect and superintendent have little to do with recommending the actual landfill method, the depth of the soil cap can play a role in selecting suitable green sites. Personal observations and reports from golf course superintendents indicate that fewer problems are associated with sites that have a shallow, well-compacted layer of solid waste covered by a deep soil cap (approximately 35 to 40 feet). If the soil cap is inadequate in depth, problems can be anticipated when digging trenches for the irrigation system or doing other excavation work on the golf course. To improve the chances for good plant growth, it would be ideal to cover the exist­ ing cap with 8 to 12 inches of good quality fill dirt or topsoil. Unfortunately, the cost is often prohibitive. Architect Robert Muir Graves faced this problem during the design and construction of the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club in Santa Clara, California. Given the different types and depths of soil cover, he believed the only way to avoid future problems was to cover the entire site with 5 to 7 feet of soil. This would add millions of dollars to the construction cost. As an alternative, it was decided to strip and stockpile the existing soil, grade the refuse to the desired contours, and then cap the golf course with the stockpiled soil. Graves was then informed that recycled wastewater would be used to irrigate the golf course. In an effort to improve the internal drainage characteristics of the soil, a good quality sand was located from a nearby dredging operation in San Francisco Bay. Due to the high price of topsoil in the area, it was more economical to plate the entire golf course with a 12-inch layer of sand. Covering the entire course with good quality sand or soil may not always be feasible, but it does improve the quality of the turfgrass and trees. To reduce the frequency of irrigation breaks, some landfill golf courses use high- density polyethylene pipe (HDPE), especially in high-settlement areas. There are several advantages to using this product, including better flexibility, high temperature tolerance, resistance to water hammer, and flow charac­ teristics similar to that of standard PVC pipe. There also are fewer leaks with this type of pipe since all joints are heat fused. David Bermudez, superintendent at Mountaingate Country Club, installed HDPE mainlines on two golf holes and estimated that it has JULY/AUGUST 1994 3 Growing healthy trees and shrubs can be a challenge on a landfill site due to the effects of landfill gas and poor-quality soil often used to cover the waste. golf course. This can be a problem in any area of the golf course, but it is most dis­ ruptive on putting greens. Engineers have developed methods to predict settling based on the composition of the solid waste, air space, and the fill method. Generally, the fill area can be expected to settle approximately 10% over time. Unfortunately, the degree and rate of settling cannot be accurately predicted in a specific area such as a green site. Drainage — As surface contours change, drainage pathways are disrupted. Broken or crushed drain lines restrict the rapid removal of excess water, creating wet conditions or areas of standing water. This is particularly troublesome on putting greens. Due to state and local regulations, many courses are re­ quired to capture all drainage water and reuse it on their site. It is unacceptable to simply dig a dry well to collect drainage water, since this could possibly filter into the solid waste and produce harmful leachate. Irrigation — Frequent breaks in irriga­ tion mainlines, laterals, and wiring are other challenges associated with soil settling. This can have a devastating impact on turf quality, causing drought stress and turf loss in the affected areas. Soil Quality — Unfortunately, the soil used to cap the landfill is not always well suited for plant growth. Generally, soil is re­ moved from nearby areas or hillsides to cover the solid waste. Engineers prefer a heavy clay soil as a cap material. Needless to say, this type of soil poses several agronomic challenges for golf course superintendents due to poor drainage characteristics and potential compaction problems. Fire — Methane gas can be explosive under certain conditions. This presents a potential safety risk for golfers and the golf course maintenance staff. Methane wells and recovery systems, if properly placed and in­ stalled, do a good job of capturing methane before it reaches the soil surface. Fires and explosions have been reported at some golf courses during the early stages of site development and construction. Considerations for Construction and Renovation The best way to minimize future problems is to employ proper construction techniques from the beginning. Sound agronomic deci­ sions and construction methods are not always the most economical in the short term, but they can minimize disruption and costly repairs in the future. The first item to consider is the installa­ tion of a methane recovery system. Such systems often are mandated and usually are in place before golf course construction begins. An important consideration is to reduced repair costs by 80%. Due to the high cost of the pipe, HDPE normally is used only for mainlines. The location and construction of putting greens is a primary concern. If at all pos­ sible, it is desirable to locate greens on solid ground. Since this is not always feasible, other construction techniques can be em­ ployed to prevent gas migration into the putting green soil profile. At the Industry Hills golf courses, one methane-affected green was rebuilt in 1989 using a 30 mil chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) liner placed beneath the green. The liner was protected above and below with geotextile fabric, and then a 6-inch soil cap was placed on top of the liner. The soil cap was shaped to the desired contours, and construction proceeded according to USGA Putting Green Con­ struction Recommendations. An additional methane well also was installed to capture gas in the area. Kent Davidson, CGCS, Director of Golf Course Maintenance at Industry Hills, reports that the project was a complete success and no problems have been experienced since the liner was installed. Growing healthy trees and shrubs can be difficult on a landfill site. Successful tree establishment depends mainly on the depth of the soil cap and proper tree selection. Trees planted in an area with a deep soil cap tend to have a better chance for survival. In areas with a shallow soil cap, tree mounds can be created by adding soil to the intended plant­ ing site to enhance the rooting area. Tree selection should be based on hardiness and tolerance to oxygen-poor conditions. It is reported that pines (Pinus sp.) and alders (Alnus sp.) tolerate such conditions, as do eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), sycamore (Platanus sp.), and pepper trees (Schinus sp.). Most turfgrass species will survive on landfill sites due to the relatively shallow rooting characteristics of turfgrass plants. Currently, no turf species are considered tolerant of landfill gas. A final consideration is compliance with laws and regulations. Legislation concerning the control and disposal of landfill gas al­ ready has been imposed by the federal government and many states. Environmental concerns about landfill gas contributing to the greenhouse effect have prompted much of this legislation. In California, several state and local agencies are involved in monitor­ ing landfill sites, including the Department of Health, local Air Quality Management Districts, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and others. In most states, the Solid Waste Division or state EPA has jurisdiction over landfill sites. Testing and routine monitoring are often required to comply with regulations and should be con­ sidered a regular part of the maintenance budget. 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Maintenance Considerations After a golf course has been built on land­ fill, one might say “the fun is just beginning.” Problems caused by soil shifting and settling will require frequent repairs that must be planned for in the annual maintenance budget. The budget should be expanded to account for added irrigation repairs and maintenance. Installation of HDPE pipe can help to reduce repairs on mainlines; however, lateral line repair and sprinkler head leveling will be necessary on a recurring basis. As an example, David Bermudez at Mountaingate Country Club budgets $3,000 per month for irrigation repairs at the 27-hole facility. Mountaingate also employs three full-time irrigation technicians to handle the work load. Soil settling can be expected for several years. This can severely affect cart paths, bridges, roads, and drainage systems. Some repairs will be minor; however, recurring expenses for renovation of settlement areas and associated golf course features should be forecast in the budget. Putting green management on landfill golf courses can be a challenge. For greens affected by methane gas, there is little that can be done except to rebuild. Mike Huck, former superintendent at Industry Hills, tried several methods to cope with the negative effects of methane gas on the 15th green of the Eisenhower Course. During the mid- 1980s, Mike implemented programs that in­ cluded mole plowing, deep drilling, frequent core aeration, and supplemental fertilizer applications. These programs only provided temporary relief from the anaerobic condi­ tions until the green was rebuilt in 1989. Soil settling and unexpected contour changes also affect greens. Sometimes, the contour changes are hardly noticeable and do not affect daily maintenance operations. Some innovative techniques have been tried to prevent settling of putting greens. For example, one course tried building greens on top of a concrete saucer in the hope that, if settling did occur, the entire green would settle evenly. Unfortunately, many of the concrete saucers broke or the greens tilted in a direction unsuitable to the direction of play. The most practical advice available is to scout nearby areas where minimal settling occurs and try to relocate the green in that area. According to Tom Shuput, Director of Project Development for SCS Field Services, areas with a deep soil cover also would be good locations for putting greens. Due to the poor quality soil often found on the fairways, be prepared to schedule additional slicing or core aeration to relieve compaction and improve air and water pene­ tration. Installation of a continuous cart path system and restricting carts to the paths also helps minimize compaction and maintain quality turf. Fairway topdressing can be an­ other tool to improve conditions on fairways afflicted with impermeable, poor quality soils. Conclusion Many golf courses have been constructed on landfill sites. It is likely this trend will continue as available land for golf course construction diminishes. The key to success is understanding the effects of landfill gas and carefully coordinating the design and construction of the golf course with the in­ stallation and operation of a gas collection system. After a golf course has been con­ structed on a landfill site, there is little that can be done to prevent the damage and dis­ ruption caused by settling. In these situations, extra expenditures for repair and mainte­ nance of the golf course should be antici­ pated for several years. Additional research is necessary to determine the cultural prac­ tices that can minimize the effect of landfill gas on plant materials. Overall, golf courses built on landfill sites make a positive contribution to the environ­ ment, the economy, and the community. Despite the challenges, good quality playing conditions can be achieved — even if your golf course has gas. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the following people fbr their valuable contributions to this article: Kent Davidson, CGCS; Mike Huck, David Bermudez, and Tom Shuput. References Anonymous. 1981. Ugly Dump Site Transformed into Recreation Mega-facility. Civil Engineering. June 1981. pp. 47-49. Gadd, Dale. 1988. On Design, Detail, and Judi­ cious Juggling. Golf Course Management. November 1988. pp. 22-30. GSF Energy Inc. 1992. Protecting the Environ­ ment Through Landfill Gas Recovery. 1992 (brochure). Oostindie, Dirk. 1987. Landfill Areas And Its Vegetation. The Turfline News: Proceedings Vol. 1 of the 24th Annual Conference. April 1987. pp. 27-30. Schmidt, Edward Jr. 1991. Garbage to Golf. Golf Journal. January/February 1991. pp. 35-38. SCS Field Services. 1993. Building a Golf Course on a Landfill. Golf Course Management. February 1993. pp. 90-94. Williams, C. E, R. E. Terry, et al. 1991. Methane emissions and decomposition in golf greens con­ structed over a landfill. Agronomy Abstracts. October 1991. pp. 280. Williams, C. F., R. E. Terry, et al. 1993. Under­ standing Biogas Effects. Golf Course Manage- rfient. February 1993. pp. 96-102. WET GREENS: LET’S TRY THIS FIRST by LES CARPENTER Superintendent, Roxiticus Golf Club, Mendham, N.J., and DAVID A. OATIS Director, Northeastern Region, USGA Green Section IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE that poor internal drainage characteristics in putting green soils can make it difficult or impossible to grow consistently healthy and reliable putting green turf. To combat this problem, many management programs and techniques have been developed over the years. In many cases, soil modification through frequent aerification in combination with topdressing (with straight sand or high- sand mixes) has been successful in convert­ ing difficult or marginal soils into more manageable ones. However, more drastic measures may have to be used with particu­ larly difficult soils. Before drainage was installed, the green remained wet and soft for several days after a rainfall. Plywood sheets were laid down along the trench line to protect the turf and make cleanup easy. In dealing with poorly drained greens, complete reconstruction is one option that must be considered. Due to the disruption and cost involved, however, it sometimes is worthwhile exploring other alternatives. This is especially true if the problems are confined to a few greens on an older course. Consis­ tency among greens is highly desirable, and it is very difficult to achieve consistency where there exist different grasses and radically different construction materials and maintenance practices. New, high-sand greens have completely different manage­ ment requirements, and they exhibit very different playing characteristics from older soil-based greens. Having both types of greens on the same course complicates the maintenance program, and it can make achieving consistency difficult or impos­ sible. This is precisely the dilemma that faced officials at Roxiticus Golf Club in Mendham, New Jersey. All of the original greens at Roxiticus were constructed from heavy clay soils that JULY/AUGUST 1994 5 normal summer in 1992, it was decided that something had to be done, and we began to collect information on the various options available. Eventually it was decided that we should try to install a drainage system in one of the existing greens. We had heard of this type of drainage work being done regularly in New Zealand (Green Section Record, March/April 1992, “Drainage Improvement — Remedy Without Reconstruction”). Upon further investigation, we also learned that Mr. Al Rathjens, golf course superintendent at Raritan Valley Country Club, Somerville, New Jersey, had installed drainage systems in two existing greens with good results. After a lengthy visit to Raritan Valley, where we discussed the program with Mr. Rathjens and viewed the results firsthand, Ron Renee, chairman of the Green Committee at Roxiticus Country Club, and I became con­ vinced that a putting green drainage instal­ lation project was worth a try as an alter­ native to complete reconstruction. In late October of 1992, we cut a temporary green for the third hole and got to work. The first step was to design the layout of the drainage system and identify an existing drain line to serve as an outlet. We decided to space the trenches 4' apart and to extend them all the way through and off the green. The rationale behind this was to provide as much drainage as possible to compensate for the poor internal water movement charac­ teristics of the existing soils, and to avoid having to make drainage connections in the green itself. Thus, the drain lines were extended into the first cut of rough on either side of the green. Turf paint was then used to draw the outline of the system on the green. The next step was to bring in a sod cutter. The sod was cut and moved out of the way by hand. Half-inch plywood was then laid out on each side of the proposed trench. On one side, the 4' x 8' sheets of plywood were laid end to end, but on the side where the trencher would throw the soil, the plywood was laid side by side. This was done to pro­ vide additional area for the soil and to allow a small maintenance vehicle to be driven on the plywood alongside the trench to help with soil removal. Grades were checked frequently, and after the trench was thoroughly cleaned and leveled, a thin layer of %" gravel was spread evenly and tamped to prevent future settling. Three-inch perforated flexible drainpipe was then laid in the trench, and several layers of gravel were added and tamped until the top of the gravel was approximately 12" below the surface of the green. A manifold type of arrangement was used to connect the drain lines from the green to existing drains located nearby. A thin layer of gravel was put in the trench, followed by 3-inch perforated drainage tile and more gravel. Topmix was added and tamped in layers to minimize possible settling problems. Essential tools included a narrow shovel and a tamping device made especially for the project. exhibited extremely poor internal drainage characteristics. No drain lines of any type were installed when the greens were built, and more than a few are located in poor grass-growing environments. Several of the greens were very prone to developing an­ aerobic soil conditions and had to be kept closed after periods of wet weather. General thinning, along with moss, algae, disease, and scalping problems, also was frequently experienced. Soil modification techniques, including conventional aerification and top- dressing programs, did not provide adequate relief. Deep-tine aerification was tried, but this practice actually caused the greens to hold even more water. After a wetter than 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD NOTE: The high ends of the drain lines were extended well out into the first cut of rough and were brought to the surface and enclosed in a valve box. This provides a clean-out mechanism in the event of future problems, and a method to check how well the drain lines are functioning. After some experimentation, we decided to make our own root zone mix with which to backfill the drainage trenches. The mix consisted of an 80% sand and 20% soil com­ bination. We hoped that it would have ade­ quate water- and nutrient-holding capacity so that the turf over the trenches would not require extra moisture or fertilizer. The mix was then added to the trench. Again, we worked in layers, with each 3" increment being gently tamped by hand. We were very concerned about future settling problems and worked diligently to prevent this by tamping carefully and thoroughly, something that Mr. Rathjens had stressed as being a key to the success of his project at Raritan Valley. We followed this advice closely, and we have not seen any significant amount of settling in the 18 months since the system was installed. The final step was to reinstall the sod, taking care to replace it just as it was re­ moved. After a final tamping, the green was covered with a geotextile fabric for the winter. The following spring the cover was re­ moved and the trenches were topdressed as needed. Fortunately, settling was not a big problem, and we attribute that to the amount of tamping performed during the backfilling operation. The summer of 1993 was quite dry, so the system was not thoroughly tested. Nonetheless, the initial results were good enough to convince us to perform the same procedure on another green in the fall of 1993. We are hopeful that this drainage installation project will increase our water management capabilities to such an extent that complete reconstruction will not be necessary on either green. Despite an ex­ tremely wet spring in 1994, both greens have performed well to date. As far as cost was concerned, the greatest expense by far was that for labor. Materials such as sand, gravel, drainage pipe and valve boxes amounted to less than $1,500 per green. However, the project required approxi­ mately 544 man-hours to complete. Even though we did not hire additional labor for the project, its completion resulted in other work being neglected. This type of renovation project is likely to improve conditions in many situations, but there is always a possibility that it will not improve conditions to a sufficient degree. We decided to try this method of drainage improvement knowing full well that we could always employ the more expensive and disruptive option of complete recon- Great care was taken to replace the sod as it had been removed. The high ends of the drain lines were brought to the surface, off the green, and eventually were attached to valve boxes for easy access. struction at a later date if the results were not acceptable. Fortunately for Roxiticus, the results thus far have been very satisfactory. Following is a list of the do’s and don’ts that helped make our project a success: • Communicate the problem as well as the solution to the appropriate committees and enlist their support for undertaking this type of project. Be sure not to sell it as a cure-all. • Take the time to design the system care­ fully and procure all necessary materials be­ fore the project begins. • Cover the putting surface on either side of the trench with plywood so that no JULY/AUGUST 1994 7 (Above left) The following spring, trench lines were topdressed several times to account for some slight settling. (Above right) The sod was cut back and topdressing was added where settling was more severe. (Right) A final tamping helped smooth the sod over the trenches. mechanical injury is inflicted upon the exist­ ing turf. • Check grades often to insure a constant and adequate fall. • Extend the drain lines beyond the edges of the green by several feet in both directions. Extending the high end of the drain outside of the green and enclosing it in a valve box provides a valuable flush point. Extending the low end beyond the edge of the green is important so that connections are not made in the putting green. If additional drain lines are deemed necessary in the future, they can be installed and connected with less putting surface disturbance. • Utilize a qualified soil testing lab to perform physical soil testing work before selecting a material with which to backfill the trenches. The material selected should have adequate drainage properties as well as adequate moisture and nutrient rentention so that the trenches do not require supplemental irrigation or fertilization. • Tamp the gravel and topmix by hand at regular intervals. Settling can cause major problems and for,the most part is avoidable. • Reinstall the sod just as it was removed to minimize visible disturbance. • If the work is done in the fall, be sure to cover the trenches with a geotextile fabric to prevent desiccation of the sod during the winter. 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD TISSUE TESTING: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS by KEITH HAPP Agronomist, Mid-Atlantic Region, USGA Green Section HAVING the opportunity to monitor the cutting edge of technology in the golf course maintenance industry is an exciting part of the work of USGA Answer: No, they are not the same. Basically, there are two approaches that can be used: Wet Chemistry techniques and Near-Infrared Spectral analysis (NIRS). agronomists. We are continually asked ques­ tions about new products and procedures, and we are among the first to see them in action. Unfortunately, not all questions have easy or direct answers. The question about the value and use of tissue testing falls into this category. Tissue testing is being per­ formed more and more, and questions about this practice have grown more numerous and pointed. Following are some of the most often asked questions about tissue testing, along with some answers that provide a per­ spective on the potential value of this tech­ nology in the turfgrass industry. In preparing these questions and responses, references were obtained through the Turf­ grass Information File (TGIF), and univer­ sity researchers throughout the country were interviewed for their views on this timely topic. Question: What is tissue testing? Answer: Tissue testing involves analysis of foliar tissue (grass clippings) for nutrient content, and should not be confused with plant analysis, which determines the ele­ mental content of all the plant tissue (leaves and roots). The goal of tissue testing is to better meet the nutritional needs of golf course turf. In theory, knowing the nutritional content of turfgrass tissue would allow the design of a more efficient fertility program to produce healthier and better quality turf. However, nutrient interactions occurring within the turfgrass plant (combined with varying en­ vironmental conditions) are not completely understood, and modifying a fertility plan based on tissue test results is difficult and is not recommended by most turfgrass scientists at this time. Question: Are all tissue testing tech­ niques the same? Tissue Testing Methods (Jones & Kalra, 1992) Wet Chemistry Atomic Absorption Spectrometer ICP Plasma Spectrometer DC Plasma Spectrometer Other Near-Infrared Spectral Wet chemistry techniques utilize sophisti­ cated laboratory equipment and dilution materials to determine nutrient concentra­ tions. The Atomic Absorption spectrometer (a wet chemistry technique) can provide very accurate data, but the turnaround time for receiving results after submitting a sample may be as long as two weeks. Recently, an effort has been made to adapt NIRS technology for analyzing the nutrient content of turfgrass tissue samples. Near­ infrared spectral analysis can be done much more quickly and cost effectively than wet chemistry, and was first used to analyze forage grasses for protein content (Wilkinson & York, 1986). NIRS utilizes a spectrum of light in the near-infrared region. The instru­ ment measures reflectance at specific bands or wavelengths of this light spectrum. A computer then uses this information to statistically predict the content of specific nutrient elements. Unfortunately, many turf managers con­ fuse the two methods. Wet chemistry analysis is a primary method of determining nutrient concentrations, while NIRS is a secondary method. In other words, a single wet chemistry lab (providing repeatable results) must be used to generate the database which then is used by NIRS technology. These data are stored in the computer and serve as a base from which tissue nutrient concentrations can be estimated. This process is ongoing. The bottom line is that wet chemistry and NIRS techniques are different, and the terms should not be used interchangeably. Question: Which method provides the most accurate results? Answer: Wet chemistry techniques pro­ vide an accurate analysis of the nutrient concentrations within turfgrass leaf tissue (Jones & Kalra, 1992). On the other hand, available information and research literature do not support the accuracy of the newer NIRS procedure at this time. With the exception of nitrogen, correlation studies between NIRS and wet chemistry have produced weak to moderate relationships for many nutrient concentrations. NIRS pro­ vides results very rapidly, but unfortunately, interpreting the data is difficult and the accuracy of this technique currently is questionable. Question: Can tissue analysis provide information about fertilizer needs that can­ not be obtained from soil analysis? Answer: Yes, but the information gained is difficult to interpret. Soil testing is the place to begin when designing a fertility pro­ gram. Many turf managers have the impression that plant uptake of nutrients is directly re­ lated to the amount of nutrients available in the soil. Research has shown that this is not always true. The relationship between nutrient supply in the soil and nutrient con­ centrations in the plant is strongest when nutrient supplies become so low that they limit the growth of the turf. Plants have internal mechanisms that allow them to control nutrient uptake to meet their needs when nutrient concentrations in the root zone are plentiful. Nutrient deficiency develops when demands are in excess of supply (Kussow, 1993). Therefore, adequate nutri­ tion levels may exist in the soil, but plants, for a number of reasons, might not be taking up those nutrients. Tissue tests could be used to indicate nutrient deficiencies in the plant JULY/AUGUST 1994 9 that do not actually exist in the soil. In some cases, adjusting the soil pH may be all that is needed to correct a nutrient availability problem. Question: Do baseline tissue nutrient concentration levels exist for turfgrass? Answer: Unfortunately, no. Baseline nutrient levels for turfgrasses do not exist. Baseline levels refer to nutrient concentra­ tions within turfgrass plants that correspond to optimum development, growth, and ap­ pearance. The nutrient concentration levels established for forage grasses were first used as the standard for turf, but one could question the use of forage standards in mak­ ing decisions about turfgrass fertilization! The fact remains that nutrient levels in turfgrass vary considerably depending on species, cultivar, time of sampling, and man­ agement practices (Overman & Wilkinson, 1993). J. R. Jones (1980) summarized the literature and suggested sufficiency ranges for elemental tissue contents. These ranges, however, are not applicable in all situations (Turner, 1992; Turner & Hummel, 1992). For example, interpreting tissue test results for a polystand of turf (such as Poa annua and bentgrass) is even more difficult. Nutrient concentrations that are acceptable for bent­ grass might not be acceptable for Poa annua or vice versa. Very few golf course putting greens consist of a single turf species. Even mixed stands of perennial-type and annual­ type Poa annua could present a problem, as could blends of bentgrass cultivars. Much more research is needed. Question: If I choose tissue testing as a tool to monitor my fertility plan, how fre­ quently should tissue testing be performed? Answer: Weekly testing would provide data that could be analyzed for possible trends. Maintaining weather records would also help. For instance, nitrogen will accu­ mulate during cooler weather, while nitro­ gen depletion will take place during warmer weather. Nitrogen concentrations are dy­ namic. On one day it may be adequate and two days later it can be deficient. Also, other nutrient concentrations may be affected by nitrogen fluctuations, which may or may not affect turf quality. The more data gener­ ated, however, the greater the chance that strong correlations (with soil tests, time of year, weather, visual quality, playability, etc.) will exist. Two or three years of data collec­ tion may be necessary before this informa­ tion is of value. Question: What are some of the pitfalls commonly associated with tissue testing? Answer: Difficulty in interpreting results is a significant pitfail. Cost is also a con­ sideration. Testing can become expensive if many samples are analyzed. In addition, if test results indicate deficiencies of micro- 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Representative tissue samples can be easily obtained thanks to clipping removal programs. nutrients and corrective treatments are made, these applications can be expensive. Also, micronutrients are required in small amounts and overapplication is a risk. Question: Since micronutrients are re­ quired in very small amounts, how can I tell if the materials being applied are doing any good? Answer: A common pitfall in turfgrass maintenance is the lack of test plots. Test plots not only provide areas to calibrate spray equipment, but also provide an excel­ lent opportunity to visually examine turf quality differences following different treat­ ments. Tissue testing will not accurately determine nutrient concentrations unless all of the material applied has been absorbed. Any residuals that remain on the leaf will cause inaccuracy. In fact, some fungicides can solubilize nutrients and allow for uptake into the plant. The practical approach is to utilize a test area before deciding to make blanket applications of micronutrients. Question: Is there a governing body or an association that monitors the testing pro­ cedures being used by testing laboratories? Answer: Yes, the Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis was formed in 1969 (Jones & Kalra, 1992). Its major objectives are: 1. To promote uniform soil testing and plant analysis methods, use, interpretation, and terminology. 2. To stimulate research on the calibration and use of soil testing and plant analysis. 3. To provide a forum and information clearinghouse for those interested in soil testing and plant analysis. 4. lb bring individuals and groups from industry, public institutions, and independent laboratories together and share information. A survey was sent to testing laboratories in the United States and Canada. The results indicated that a majority of the laboratories responding to the survey provide a wide range of services and utilize the latest avail­ able technology. Interestingly, not one of the nearly 200 laboratories responding to the survey (601 surveys were mailed) were using the NIRS technology to determine tissue nutrient levels. All were using wet chemistry techniques. The accuracy of NIRS has not been substantiated by research and thus is not recognized by the Council as a reliable testing method. However, NIRS is being used by a number of vendors nation­ wide, and this is where many of the concerns and questions from turf managers arise. Question: Of what practical value is “tissue testing” in day-to-day golf course maintenance? Answer: For tissue testing to be helpful in day-to-day turfgrass management, the results from tissue testing must be obtainable in a timely fashion. Regrettably, wet chemistry tissue testing takes time to complete, often days or weeks. Thus, if an immediate prob­ lem needs to be addressed, tissue testing would not be practical. For tissue testing to be helpful as a diag­ nostic tool, it must provide results that are interpretable and also correspond well with soil tests. Much of the research examining soil nutrient levels to determine low, me­ dium, and optimum ranges was performed more than 20 years ago. The fertility trends of that era, particularly for nitrogen, were higher than those rates commonly applied today, so soil test interpretations that are based on 1970s protocols may be erroneous. It is fair to conclude that correlating soil test data with tissue nutrient concentrations is very difficult (Hall, 1974; Goss & Brauen, 1985; Spear & Christians, 1991) and mis­ leading. Question: Is fast and accurate tissue testing unobtainable by the turf manager? Answer: There is new technology avail­ able that can provide rapid, accurate, and inexpensive results. Inductively Coupled Plasma-emission spectrometry (ICAP) is an advanced wet chemistry technique that can analyze a sample for a wide range of elements. An increasing number of testing laboratories are using ICAP, although the atomic absorption wet chemistry method is still the most frequently employed procedure (Jones & Kalra, 1992). Also, NIRS technology is improving. New hardware, software, and a new and expanded data base are being developed. In time, this technology may have greater application in the turfgrass management industry. Summary Tissue testing may prove to be useful for monitoring nutritional fluctuations within turfgass. However, information on which to base a complete fertility program has not been developed (Christians, 1993). The use­ fulness of tissue testing is very site-specific due to variables such as soil pH, CEC, soil type, plant species, soil moisture, height and frequency of mowing, time of sampling, soil temperature, herbicide, fungicide or growth regulator applications, fertility regimes, top­ dressing schedules, and other cultural pro­ grams. Tissue testing may be used to supplement soil test results but should not be considered as a replacement for soil testing. It is the consensus of all the scientists contacted while preparing this article that more re­ search is needed to make tissue testing a standard tool on which to base fertility recommendations. Tissue analysis has long been used in production-based agriculture to help achieve maximum yields (Smith et al., 1985). But Tissue testing results are no better than the sample taken. Samples should be free of weeds and other contaminants such as moss. turf management is not focused on maxi­ mum tissue yields. Quality is more impor­ tant than quantity. As with any new technique or manage­ ment strategy, university research and field testing must be combined to document the usefulness and practical value of tissue testing. Establishing a strong foundation (cultural practices, sound water manage­ ment, balanced fertility) is important before the full benefits of fine-tuning techniques such as tissue testing can be realized. Many turf managers are integrating tissue testing into their management programs. It is one of many new tools being developed, all focused on helping the turf manager be­ come more effective and efficient. New tech­ nology stimulates questions that are investi­ gated, and this leads to better understanding and ultimately better management tech­ niques. References Christians, N. E., 1993. Advances in plant nutrition and soil fertility. International Turfgrass Society Research J. 7:50-57. Goss, R. L., and S. E. Brauen. 1985. Plant nutri­ ents other than N, P, and K. Proceedings of the 39th Northwest Turfgrass Conference. 60-62. Hall, J. R„ and R. W. Miller. 1974. Effect of phosphorus, season, and method of sampling on foliar analysis of Kentucky bluegrass. Proceed­ ings of the International Turfgrass Research Con­ ference. No. 2: 155-171. Jones, J. B., and Y. P. Kalra, 1992. Soil testing and plant analysis activities — the United States and Canada. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23(17-20):2015-2027. Kussow, W. R. 1993. Turfgrass nutrient demand. Grass Roots. 21:15. Overman, A. R., and S. R. Wilkinson. 1993. Modeling tall fescue cultivar response to applied nitrogen. Agron. J. 85:1156-1158. Smith, G. S., I. S. Comforth, and H. V. Henderson. 1985. Critical leaf concentrations for deficiencies of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, sulfur, and magnesium in perennial ryegrass. New Phytol. 101:393-409. Spear, G. T, and N. E. Christians. 1991. Creeping bentgrass response to zinc in modified soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22(19&20):2005- 2016. Turner, T. R., and N. W. Hummel. 1992. Nutri­ tional requirements and fertilization. Turfgrass- Agronomy Monograph No. 32:385-439. Turner, T. R. Nutrient deficiencies and toxicities in crop plants. APS Press, pp. 187-196. Wilkinson, H. T, and D. W. York. 1993. Foliar test for turf nutrients. Grounds Maintenance. 27(7): 24-28, 66. JULY/AUGUST 1994 11 Dr. Al Smith, University of Georgia, is evaluating the fate of pesticides applied to bermudagrass and bentgrass putting greens. The lysimeter facility contains a series of buckets (not shown) buried underneath the surface of the green that collect water moving through the soil. Water samples analyzed in the laboratory indicate that the amount of properly applied pesticides passing through putting greens is negligible. Beyond Appearance and Playability: GOLF AND THE ENVIRONMENT by DR. MICHAEL P. KENNA Director, USGA Green Section Research IT WAS just a short time ago at the 1990 U.S. Open at Medinah Country Club that then USGA President Grant Spaeth announced the funding of a three-year re­ search program that would focus on the impact of golf course activities on the environment. In the spring of 1991,21 research projects were selected to focus on the following objectives: 1) the fate of pesticides and fer­ tilizers applied to golf courses, 2) develop­ 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD ment of alternative methods of pest control, and 3) the benefits of turfgrass and golf courses to humans, wildlife, and the environ­ ment. The research effort has already yielded several important publications. Golf Course Management and Construction: Environ­ mental Issues by Drs. James Balogh and William Walker provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of construction and management of turfgrass systems. The Land­ scape Restoration Handbook by Donald Harker offers information to property owners and managers about naturalizing the man­ aged landscape. Dr. James Beard has pub­ lished a scientific article on turfgrass bene­ fits entitled “The Role of Turfgrasses in Environmental Protection and Their Benefits to Humans” in the May/June 1994 Journal of Environmental Quality. The alternative pest management projects funded as part of the program have made progress sorting out what may or may not work on the golf course for non-pesticide control of turfgrass diseases and insects. At Rutgers University, a new nematode was developed and released, holding promise as a control for white grubs equal to some insecticides. Researchers at the University of Kentucky have documented several bene­ ficial predators of white grubs and cutworms that can help reduce pest egg populations if properly managed. However, it will require more time to evaluate these and some of the other alternative pest management strategies before their ultimate effectiveness in reduc­ ing pesticide use on golf courses can be determined. This past April, the research project leaders involved with pesticide and fertilizer studies discussed their results with the USGA’s Turfgrass Research Committee at Golf House. The November 1994 issue of the Green Section Record will feature summaries of the pesticide and nutrient fate projects prepared by the researchers. Overall, the preliminary reports indicate that there is a lot of good news, but there also are some areas where we can do an even better job protect­ ing the environment. Among the positive results is that when a fertilizer is properly applied, the amount of nitrogen that reaches groundwater is negligible. Researchers at Iowa State Uni­ versity (ISU) and Michigan State University (MSU) reported preliminary results that indicate that less than one percent of the nitrogen applied to a Kentucky bluegrass turf traveled to a depth of two and four feet, respectively. The MSU study also demonstrated that there were no differ­ ences between late fall and early spring nitrogen fertilizer applications (Figure 7). The ISU study indicated that four quarter­ inch water applications were better than a single one-inch irrigation after nitrogen fertilization. Often overlooked by scientists who study the fate of pesticides and fertilizers is the positive effect of thatch in retaining and breaking down organic chemicals. The pre­ liminary results from most all of the projects indicate that pesticides break down faster in the turfgrass environment than what is typical when these materials are applied to agricultural crops. The turfgrass leaves, shoots, and thatch intercept most of the pesticide during appli­ cation (Figure 2). Over time, the amount of pesticide recovered in the leaves decreases due to irrigation, rainfall, and clipping re­ moval. The thatch layer, which retains pesti­ cide residues and is somewhat unique to turfgrass systems, generally contained the greatest amount of pesticide residue. Research projects at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Cali­ fornia at Riverside indicate that pesticides applied to turf volatilize in various amounts. Volatilization is the process by which a solid or liquid changes to a gas. The amount of applied pesticide lost as volatile residues was generally less than 13 percent for the products tested. After two weeks, volatile residues were either non- detectable or less than 0.03 percent of the total applied to turf. The vapor pressure and surface temperature of the turfgrass site were directly related to the volatilization process. Irrigation after pesticide application delayed The two diagrams show the fate of a fall and spring application of fertilizer two full years after the initial treatment. Less than 1 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer reached a depth of four feet during the two-year study. The 18.4 and 35.9 percent of nitrate nitrogen not recovered for the fall and spring applications, respectively, is thought to have volatilized or undergone denitrification. Critics of turf grass fertilization programs have incorrectly assumed that nitrate nitrogen not found in the verdure, thatch, soil, and clippings leaches into groundwater. FIGURE 1 Percent of Total Nitrogen Applied Recovered Two Years After Application FALL SPRING JULY/AUGUST 1994 13 FIGURE 2 Pesticide Residues on Turf/Soil (Triumph applied at 2 lbs. ai per acre) Preliminary results indicate that pesticides break down faster than what is typical when these materials are applied to agricultural crops. The turf grass verdure (leaves, shoots, stolons, etc.) and thatch intercept most of the pesticide after application. DAYS AFTER TREATMENT volatilization, but did not prevent the pro­ duction of volatile residues. Dislodgeable pesticide residues were only significant immediately after a pesticide was applied to turf. Research at the Univer­ sity of Florida and the University of Massa­ chusetts indicated that once the leaf surface dried, dislodgeable residues were greatly re­ duced. Irrigation reduced dislodgeable resi­ dues on the first day after application, but apparently due to an upward wicking type of movement, dislodgeable residues were present two and three days after the pesti­ cide was applied. Preliminary estimates of the health effects for the amount of dislodgeable and volatile residues indicate that the levels found are safe, according to EPA standards. However, caution should be taken immediately after a pesticide has been applied to the golf course. Golfers, owners, and municipalities need to recognize that golfers should not be follow­ ing spray equipment around the golf course. Preliminary results from studies con­ cerned with the loss of pesticides and nutri­ ents in runoff have been variable. Pennsyl­ 14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD vania State University runoff plots irrigated with six inches of water per hour have yielded nitrogen and phosphorus amounts less than or equal to what was found in the irrigation water itself. Pesticide concentra­ tions reported thus far are less than or equal to one part per milion. An interesting find­ ing of this study was that bentgrass fairway plots had significantly lower amounts of water runoff than mature ryegrass plots. Compared to ryegrass, bentgrass has higher shoot density, stoloniferous growth habit, and more thatch, which ultimately reduced the amount of runoff. The first year’s results from runoff plots at the University of Georgia indicate that heavy-textured, kaolinite clay loam soils will not be as forgiving as the sandy loam soil found at the Penn State runoff plots. At least 40 percent of the water from a one-inch rain­ fall simulation moved off the sloped plots. Also, this water contained up to 10 percent of the herbicides that were applied 24 hours before the rain simulation. These data would indicate that precautions should be exercised when applying some pesticides to golf course fairways with heavy-textured soils and slopes greater than 5 percent. The mathematical models used by envi­ ronmental regulators and scientists to pre­ dict the fate of pesticides and fertilizers will need some major overhaul before they accurately represent what happens on golf course turf. The study at the University of Georgia demonstrated that the GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricul­ ture Management Systems) model signifi­ cantly overestimated the amount of 2, 4-D that moved through a putting green root system (Figure 3). The GLEAMS mathematical model is commonly used to help identify chemical and soil properties, as well as plant and meteo­ rological factors, influencing the transport of pesticides through soils in agricultural lands. Only minute quantities of 2,4-D were actually detected in the water that leached from the putting green root system lysimeters. Even though the GLEAMS model greatly overestimated the amount of herbicide mov­ ing through the putting green, the maximum predicted was still below the maximum con­ tamination level established by the U.S. EPA. The difference between the measured and predicted amounts of herbicide found in water moving through the lysimeter may be due to a lack of understanding of the role played by a dense surface of turfgrass leaves and thatch in pesticide fate. Also, surface evapotranspiration (ET) and water move­ ment through the turfgrass/soil system are not adequately accounted for in current pre­ diction models. During the last three years, USGA-spon- sored environmental research has demon­ strated that nitrogen leaching is minimal, that the turf/soil ecosystem enhances pesticide degradation, and that the current agricultural models are inadequate at predicting the fate of pesticides and fertilizers applied to turf­ grass maintained under golf course condi­ tions. There are still some questions with regard to runoff, volatilization, and dislodge­ able residues that need to be addressed. The USGA is committed to continuing environmental research at land grant uni­ versities. The program will expand our focus to investigate best management practices, bioremediation, and human and wildlife ex­ posure issues. Pesticide and nutrient fate projects will continue to evaluate products not examined during the first three years and will start the process of overhauling existing mathematical prediction models. Best management practices projects will apply appropriate agronomic principles to demonstrate that golf course turf can be maintained while protecting the environ­ ment. The emphasis of these projects will be to identify cultural practices that minimize volatilization and surface runoff. Bioremediation studies will demonstrate the potential of turfgrass to serve as a bio­ logical filter. The benefits that plants and microorganisms found on golf courses pro­ vide when dealing with storm water runoff from parking lots and rooftops needs to be addressed. The positive role golf courses can play in further cleansing effluent wastewater also needs to be documented. Pesticide and nutrient fate research will continue because there remains a need to classify the chemical, physical, and micro­ bial characteristics of the turf/soil ecosystem and their effects on nitrogen cycling, uptake and movement of phosphorus, and pesticide degradation and transport. With a better understanding of the positive role turf plays in breaking down, adsorbing, and absorbing pesticides and fertilizers, existing computer models used to predict their fate will be overhauled to accurately estimate the impact golf courses have on the environ­ ment. At the USGA 1994 annual meeting held in Scottsdale, Arizona, outgoing President Stuart Bloch said, “The player, club, and ball have always been essential elements to the integrity of the golf equation. Our challenge today is to tackle the fourth element of that equation: the environment. Properly master­ ing the environmental element may be the USGA’s most important contribution to pre­ serving the future of golf.” The mathematical models used by environmental regulators and scientists to predict the fate of pesticides and fertilizers will need a major overhaul before they accurately represent what happens on golf course turf. Values predicted by the GLEAMS model and measured 2,4-D transport in water percolated from greenhouse lysimeters containing soil mixtures of 85:15 and 80:20 (sand:peat) did not agree. FIGURE 3 Measured and Predicted Levels of Pesticide Transport in Water Percolated from Greenhouse Lysimeters 0.05 MEASURED Time (days) JULY/AUGUST 1994 IS ON COURSE WITH NATURE Helping the Osprey on the Road to Recovery by NANCY P. SADLON IF YOU GOLF ON ONE of the many courses located near large bodies of water, you may have an opportunity to catch a glimpse of a large bird — gleaming white below, dark brown above, and showing a distinct crook in its wings. You may also see the bird’s massive nest — a huge pile of sticks built within the crotch of a tree or on a man-made platform. This majestic bird is the osprey. Osprey populations have declined dras­ tically in the past. Osprey, like the bald eagle and brown pelican, were impacted by the hydrocarbon chemical DDT used widely on agricultural fields. Discovered in the 1960s as a problem causing reproductive difficul­ ties for a number of birds, the compound was banned in 1972 in the United States. How­ ever, the chemical is still widely used world­ wide. This presents a problem for some osprey that migrate out of the country and continue to ingest fish exposed to DDT. The osprey encounters a number of other prob­ lems in its struggle for recovery both in the U.S. and in other countries. These include: • Loss of desirable waterfront nest sites due to development. • Pollution, causing mortality or inability to reproduce. ♦ Reduction of available food supply be­ cause of over-fishing. • Increased competition for limited food supply by other bird species, including the black-backed gulls, herring gulls, and cor­ morants. • Predation by gulls, great homed owls, raccoons, and opossums. When golf courses are located in close proximity to water, they can help by provid­ ing nest platforms for the osprey. Providing suitable nest sites for the osprey has been very successful in some areas. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have witnessed population increases that have justified removal of the osprey from official protection lists. In other states, osprey populations are still low and remain listed as protected species. New Jer­ sey lists the osprey as threatened. Florida and 16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Matt Jankowski holds a young osprey to be tagged by osprey expert Gilbert Fernandez. This osprey has already developed good size and fierce talons necessary for catching fish and survival. Pennsylvania consider the osprey a species of special concern. Experts are encouraged by the ospreys’ population growth, but feel the species is still in need of continued assis­ tance for complete recovery. For superintendent Matt Jankowski of the Acoaxet Country Club, Westport, Massa­ chusetts, this is the time of year for osprey tagging. With the assistance of local osprey expert Gilbert Fernandez of the Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, the Acoaxet Club is doing its part to aid the osprey species by providing a nest platform on the perimeter of the golf course that borders on tidal Cockest Pond. Annual tagging of the young helps monitor the birds’ recovery. One of Mr. Fernandez’s fledged ospreys from Westport was sighted in Iquazu Falls, Paraguay — the world record for migration distance. Two other Massachusetts courses, Hyannisport Country Club and New Seabury Golf Course, also have been successful with osprey nest platforms. Assistance in platform design and location for these two golf courses was provided by Mr. Fernandez and Bill Davis of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. The osprey range is not exclusive to Massachusetts. This species can be found in various areas of the country — along water­ ways and ocean coastlines, wherever tall tree snags or poles can be found for nesting and fish can be found for eating. There are five large regional osprey populations: Atlantic Coast, Florida, Gulf Coast, Pacific North­ west, and Great Lakes region. • Large bodies of water near the course. • Good fishing grounds such as bays, wet­ lands, lakes, ponds, and rivers that provide a good supply of uncontaminated fish. • Open areas for the osprey platform loca­ tion. Platforms located too close to tall trees will not be used due to fear of predation by great homed owls. • Isolated areas for the nest platform or a means of restricting human interaction. Golfers passing by are generally not a con­ cern, especially when the nest is mounted at a 30- to 40-foot height. • Osprey populations need to be existing in the area. Osprey do not readily colonize new areas, and therefore it is not recom­ mended that platforms be put up in hopes of getting one to nest. • Nest platforms with predator guards. Is Your Golf Course Suited for an Osprey Platform? Not all sites are suited for the osprey. Essential elements for a successful osprey program include: Nest Platforms There are numerous osprey programs throughout the nation administered by the state fish and game divisions. These pro­ grams offer information about the bird and provide construction guidelines for osprey platforms. Specific dimensions and mount­ ing height will vary and are not considered critical. For example, a nest platform in an open marsh that is remote from human activities can be mounted at 15-foot height and be successful. The nest platform on a golf course where golfers may pass by regu­ larly needs to be mounted much higher, approximately 30 to 40 feet high to provide privacy. The most important aspect of any osprey program is to meet the bird’s needs by providing a platform in an appropriate location. For help and more information on osprey, contact your state fish and wildlife division. Inquire about the status of the osprey popu­ lations in your area and whether your golf course site is suitable for an osprey nest platform. The Audubon Society of New York State, administrators of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System, also pro­ vides information on the osprey and can help you identify osprey experts in your region. ALL THINGS CONSIDERED The Religion of Golf by LARRY GILHULY Director, Western Region, USGA Green Section IS IT MY IMAGINATION, or is there a movement underway out there among a small but widely distributed and vocal group of golfers who actually believe the GAME of golf is more than just a game? These fanatics insist that under all circum­ stances the putting surfaces should be main­ tained at or above 10 feet on the Stimpmeter; the fairways should be totally green, yet firm and with no wet areas; the bunkers should be in perfect condition with no bad lies; and tees must be perfectly flat and mowed to a height that only a military barber could appreciate! At the same time, they also want roughs at 2 inches or higher, and the course must be set up for championship conditions at all times. They completely forget that most golf courses are played by golfers with handi­ caps of 16 and above. Guess who’s caught in the middle of this? You’ve got it — the golf course super­ intendent. Regardless of the type of irrigation system, drainage, trees, topography, weather patterns, grass species, amount of play, size of greens, soil type, and countless other vari­ ables the superintendent must deal with, they are expected by this vocal minority to perform miracles in growing turf. I would remind this minority of vocal players of one thing: Golf is a game that is supposed to be fun! Sure it can be exasper­ ating and difficult. However, it is not a mat­ ter of life and death. If your ball lands in a wet spot, play it. If it’s buried in a bunker, hit the ball and continue on your way. If the ball comes up a bit short on your first putt, remember to adjust your putting stroke for the rest of the round. For those who are starting to recognize themselves, allow your superintendent to do the following: • Maintain greens at a moderate speed that puts healthy turf first and speed second. Most golfers prefer smoothness over speed, and an 8- to 9-foot Stimpmeter reading is entirely acceptable when the greens are smooth. • Maintain firm conditions, but don’t force the superintendent into losing control of large areas of turf by insisting that irriga­ tion practices be changed to suit your game. Remember, one of the superintendent’s main functions is to keep players from messing up their own golf course! • Realize that the golf course superinten­ dent has a staff and a family that rely on his decision-making skills. It should be a game to you, but it is a livelihood for the super­ intendent. Remember this the next time you explode after missing a 4-footer and immedi­ ately blame everyone but yourself! I hope everyone recalls these thoughts the next time they tee it up. It truly does put the GAME of golf in its proper perspective. Say Hallelujah! JULY/AUGUST 1994 17 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD JULY/AUGUST 1994 TURF TWISTERS THERE’S NO DEBATE Question: We have had a running debate on the placement of tee markers. How far apart and how close to the back of the tee should they be placed? Also, is there such a thing as an “illegal tee marker location”? (New Jersey) Answer: The Rules of golf describe the teeing ground as being “a rectangular area two club-lengths in depth, the front and sides of which are defined by two tee markers.” As detailed in the USGA publication How to Conduct a Championship, it is recommended that tee markers be placed 5 to 6 paces apart. But because tee size and wear problems may make these recommendations impractical or impossible, consider them as guidelines and do your best to adhere to them when­ ever possible. There is no such thing as an illegal tee marker location. USGA publications are available through the USGA Order Department (800-336-4446). TURFGRASS NURSERIES Question: I am planning to construct a putting green nursery later this year. Do you have any guidelines regarding how big it should be and what kind of materials I should use for the construction of the root zone? (Utah) Answer: As a general rule, most putting green nurseries are about the size of the two largest greens on the golf course, or roughly 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. To prevent soil layering, the material you select for the root zone should match as closely as possible the material found on your greens. The sand currently used for topdressing the greens on your course should work well for this purpose. MAKE PERFECT SENSE Question: It is easy to confuse yards and tons when ordering sand for projects. Is there an easy way to keep these straight? (Texas) Answer: It just so happens that a cubic foot of dry sand weighs about 100 pounds. Since there are 27 cubic feet in a cubic yard, one cubic yard of sand weighs about 2700 pounds — well over a ton. If you divide 2700 pounds by 2000 pounds, you get the figure 1.35. Therefore, to convert yards to tons, multiply the number of yards by 1.35.