USGA® GREEN SECTION ’] Record Volume 36, Number 2 March/April 1998 MARCH/APRIL 1998 Volume 36, Number 2 the golf green. Record Cover Photo: Many factors need to be evaluated to determine the overall performance of 1 Helping Your Greens Make The Grade Here’s a guide to help you evaluate the many factors that determine how your greens perform. By James Francis Moore 8 How I Spent My Summer Vacation A few thoughts on what to do when your worst nightmare becomes reality. By Scott Carpenter 10 Bringing In The Hired Guns Contract services can help streamline maintenance operations. By Paul Vermeulen 13 Utilizing Preemergence Herbicides With and Without Fertilizer Carriers. Should you spray or should you use a granular carrier? By Fred Yelverton, Ph.D. 17 Seashore Paspalum Herbicide Management Careful selection strategies are essential. By R. R. Duncan, Ph.D. 20 Going Native on the Course A planning and planting experience. By Luke Celia 22 News Notes 24 Core Cultivation: Too Much of a Good Thing? It’s time to re-think a time-honored cultural practice. By James E. Skorulski 26 Turf Twisters Using a contractor can eliminate the need to purchase expensive, state-of-the- art equipment when products require special application methods. See page 10. MSMA is being used to control paspalum encroachment (dark brown) into Tifgreen bermudagrass. See page 17. Helping Your Greens Make the Grade Here’s a guide to help you evaluate the many factors that determine how your greens perform. by JAMES FRANCIS MOORE GOLFERS and their greens have -had a long and often tumultu­ ous relationship. In fact, no area of the course has a stronger influence on the golfer’s game, since between the approach shot and putting, the greens come into play on approximately 75% of the shots of a typical round of golf. Most golfers realize this and are quick to point their putters in disgust when­ ever the green does not act as they believe it should, and they brag to their neighbor when their club’s greens are in top form. Golf course superintendents and their greens have an even greater love/ hate relationship. There is an old saying in the superintendent’s world — “Your greens are your resume.” True enough, since players overlook a great deal on the course when the greens are in good shape, but will call for the superinten­ dent’s head when the putting surfaces are less than perfect (regardless of how good the remainder of the course is). The golfer’s perception of the role of the superintendent in providing perfect greens is reflected in the tendency of the weekend hacker to refer to the superintendent as the greenkeeper — a term poorly suited to describe the varied and often complex duties of today’s professional golf course super­ intendent. Since golfers and superintendents alike have such close relationships with their greens, it is beneficial for all concerned to have a better understand­ ing of why greens perform the way Reduced sunlight results in decreased photosynthesis and therefore reduced plant vigor. Problems are compounded by low-cut greens that have very small leaf area available to gather light. Moss invasion on a green is an indication that the proper environmental conditions aren’t present to grow good turf. they do. Truth be known, few golfers have any idea of the various factors that determine the overall performance of the green. They hear stories of myste­ rious turf diseases and bugs, and most know they should generally fear terms like Poa annua, goosegrass, and brown patch. But for the average golfer the pest most feared is the aerifier. And while superintendents spend many hours studying the agro­ nomics of maintaining greens, they are occasionally guilty of putting the needs of the turf over those of the golfer. The best superintendents recognize the need to seek a middle ground — to establish a level of maintenance that results in a healthy stand of turf but still provides good putting quality. Obviously, the establishment of this middle ground should be the golfer’s goal as well, since this is their best hope of playing greens that perform well day after day. Finding the middle ground is the purpose of this article. Greens usually do not perform well or poorly because of a single factor. Instead, like most things, overall per­ formance is the result of many influ­ ences. To identify these factors, it is suggested a Report Card be developed for each green. This Report Card will MARCH/APRIL 1998 1 graphically illustrate where improve­ ment is needed. Quite simply, the Report Card is a tool to help golfer and superintendent alike evaluate the many factors that influence the overall performance of each green on their course. After the factors are identified and quantified, steps should be taken to improve each factor as much as possible. It probably will not be possible to bring each factor (or perhaps even any factor) up to a grade of “A.” For example, on old or poorly built greens the factor for in­ ternal drainage may be graded as a “D.” Through an aggressive aerification program the grade may be raised to “C,” but only complete reconstruction would achieve the “A” rating. However, it may be possible to raise the grades for other factors as well. Perhaps entrance and exit points can be improved by rerouting a cart path or making greater use of ropes and signs. Air movement may be improved by removing brush or trees that block the wind. The re­ location of misplaced sprinklers could improve the accuracy of irrigation. The overall impact of raising three or four factors will be a significant reduction in the influence of a factor that can­ not be altered. In other words, the overall performance of the green can be expressed as a simple formula: The Average of Factors A+B + C + D + E... = Overall Green Performance. Think of each green as a decathlon competitor. An athlete whose height may limit his or her ability to high jump will have to make up points on the 200-meter dash to remain competitive. There is another formula you should keep in mind regarding the changes that are made to improve the greens. This is a case where 1 + 1 + 1+1 + 1 can actually add up to 6. In other words, by implementing multiple changes (each reducing the stress on the green), a synergism is likely to occur, reducing overall stress by more than the sum of the individual steps. This is due to the fact that so many of the stress factors are closely related. Improving one fac­ tor frequently results in improvement in one or more of the others. To be the most useful and effective, the Report Card must be developed with the combined input of the golf course superintendent, course profes­ sional, and members of the course leadership (often the Green Commit­ tee). This group is referred to below as the Rating Team. There are three steps to completing this evaluation process. 2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Step 1 Assign an overall performance grade to each green. Before heading out to the course, the Report Card rating team should first gather in a comfortable and private area to discuss what lies ahead. This is also the time to complete the first phase of the Report Card — assigning a letter grade to each green’s overall performance. Just like in school, a grade of “A” re­ flects superior performance, and “F” indicates failure. This overall grade is much like a college student’s final GPA Layers in the green profile severely restrict internal drainage and can even block it altogether. Conventional aerifi­ cation may not be deep enough to fully penetrate a buried layer. Deep-tine aerification is the next step in solving the problem. or grade point average over four years of education. Be sure not to base the overall grade on a single good or bad season. Base the grade on four or five years’ worth of performance. Step 2 Visit each green to complete the Report Card and identify where changes should be made. This is where the evaluation process gets more detailed. Listed on the accompanying rating sheet are many factors, each of which should be assigned a letter grade. Notice that the sheet has room to add additional factors. It also is possible that some of the factors listed are not applicable to your particular course. Since the grades are obviously subjec­ tive, it is important that the entire rating team participate in the evaluation process from start to finish. It is also advisable to complete the process in a single day. Based on personal experi­ ence with this rating concept, 18 greens should take approximately three hours to rate fairly. Step 3 Implement the changes. The Report Card is useless unless changes are made to improve the overall growing conditions on the greens. Implement as many positive changes as possible, keeping in mind that no single change will have the impact of multiple changes. Factors Influencing a Green’s Performance Listed below are the factors that have the greatest impact on the overall per­ formance of a green. (Note that they are not listed in any particular order.) Also included are some criteria for deter­ mining a grade for each factor. It should be viewed as a starting point and not an inflexible guide that must be followed to the letter. Your rating team probably will find it helpful to modify the criteria to better fit your course. Light A basic agronomic fact that is over­ looked far too often is that turfgrass requires light (lots of it) to flourish. As you rate each green for light, keep in mind what you probably learned back in the fourth grade. Light is necessary for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process of turning the energy of light into energy the plant can use for growth. Growth is necessary for a plant to withstand and recover from wear and tear. Therefore, it stands to reason that when less light is available, the turf­ grass is less able to withstand traffic. The steps to improve the grade for light are obvious. Tree pruning, and in some cases complete removal, will be necessary to provide better growing conditions. It is easy to forget that trees grow larger every year and as a result block more light each season. Keep this physiological fact in mind when someone observes, “We never used to have problems with that green.” • “A” — given to greens that receive 8 hours or more of direct sunlight. • “B” — given to greens that receive 6 to 8 hours of direct sunlight. • “C” — given to greens that receive 4 to 6 hours of direct sunlight. • “D” — given to greens that receive 2 to 4 hours of direct sunlight. • “F” — given to greens receiving less than 2 hours of direct sunlight. Air Movement Air movement across the putting surface has a very strong influence on the overall health of the turf — par­ ticularly in terms of disease suscepti­ bility and cooling of the plant. The pathogens responsible for the most devastating turfgrass diseases are far less active (and therefore less destruc­ tive) when air moves immediately over the turf. The air movement helps keep the turf and the surface of the soil dry. Wet, stagnant air provides excellent conditions for pathogens to proliferate. From a cooling standpoint, a good comparison can be made to our built- in air-conditioning system — perspira­ tion. On a hot day, our skin is cooled as we perspire. The plant’s perspiration system is called evapotranspiration (a combination of evaporation and the transpiration of water through the stomata or pores of the leaf). Air move­ ment must be given high priority for all greens — particularly on golf courses located in climates that include high heat and humidity. Steps to improve air movement in­ clude pruning and possibly removing trees and brush on the upwind and downwind sides of the green. When tree removal is considered to be im­ possible because of architectural or sentimental reasons, institute an effec­ tive pruning program. Even high mounding around a green can block air movement, so regrading the mounds can produce a significant improvement. In severe cases, fans are used to provide an artificial source of air movement. • “A” — given to greens that receive unrestricted air movement across the turf surface. • “B” — given to greens that are blocked from the predominant winds but open on other sides. • “C” — given to greens that would receive very limited air movement without the use of fans. • “D” — given to greens “open” on only one side. • “F” — given to greens located in low areas that receive extremely limited air movement from any side. Entrance and Exit Points Codes for buildings call for a specific number of entrances and exits based on the capacity of the building. Perhaps greens should be given the same con­ sideration. When the architecture of a greensite is such that entrance and exit points are severely limited, even a small annual number of rounds can be quite destructive to the turf. Greenside mounding, bunkering, trees, and other features can be as restrictive as cattle chutes. Predictably, such restrictions are far more important on heavily played courses than on the extremely private facility. Steps for improvement include re­ routing cart paths to encourage players to enter and exit from different sides of the green. Ropes and signs often are necessary evils (but be sure to move them frequently and keep them in good condition). In severe cases, bunkers may have to be removed or redesigned to provide greater access to the green. Mounding may have to be softened, since players instinctively avoid walking over hills to get to the green. Inconsiderate players might ignore all these efforts to spread traffic out over a large area. However, the majority of golfers realize they benefit the most from a course in good con­ dition and will cooperate with properly placed and maintained traffic control devices. • “A” — given to a green that has at least four readily usable entrance and exit points. • “B” — given to a green that has three readily usable entrance and exit points. • “C” — given to a green that has only two readily usable entrance and exit points. Other access points exist but will require extensive roping and/or signage to force players to use them. • “D” — given to a green with only one readily usable entrance and exit point. Other access points may exist but require extensive roping and/or signage to force players to use them. • “F” — given to a green with only one readily usable entrance and exit point and no other real options, regard­ less of roping, etc. Size of Green Golf has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past couple of decades. As a result, the greens on many courses must endure countless additional rounds. In many instances, the original architec­ tural design that was appropriate in the early days of the course simply cannot support the twofold or even threefold increase in annual rounds that is not uncommon today. Just as many families start out driving a two-seater, these families often find themselves driving station wagons ten years later. Steps for improvement are limited. Since greens sometimes grow smaller over time (as the workers on the mowers try to avoid scalping the edges), it is possible that the original boundaries of the green can be reestab­ lished, providing additional square footage. A probe should be used to find the original edge of the rootzone Often, something as simple as eliminating triplex mowing in favor of walk-behind can be enough to help a green through the rough times. MARCH/APRIL 1998 3 cavity. It should be noted that even if the green has grown it, enlarging the surface may take a lot of effort. For example, in areas of the country where bermudagrass fairways and banks sur­ round bentgrass greens, simply enlarg­ ing the mowing pattern would likely introduce bermudagrass into the bent­ grass green. In this situation, fumiga­ tion of the bermudagrass in the area to be recovered as green should be accomplished first. • “A” — given to a green in excess of 7,000 square feet. • “B” — given to a green 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in size. greens rated. Using tees, roughly out­ line the portions of the green in which the hole can be reasonably placed. Next, estimate the square footage of each marked area. Add the square footage together and divide the sum by the total square footage of the green. For example, suppose there are three areas of the green that can be used for hole locations. The total square footage of these three areas is approximately 1,500 square feet. The entire green measures 6,000 square feet. 1,500 6,000 = .25 or 25%. Steps to increase cupping area in­ clude the restoring of original green Triplex mowers on sharp turns can result in severely worn turf. Simply changing to walk-behind mowers may be enough to return the turf to good health. • “C” — given to a green 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. • “D” — given to a green 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in size. • “F” — given to a green less than 4,000 square feet in size. Cupping Area Another factor that has been strongly impacted by the increase in the popu­ larity of the game (and therefore in­ creased traffic on the greens) is cupping area, or the number of areas in which the hole can be fairly located. As a general rule, the hole should be located approximately five paces from the edge of the green, and the putting surface within three feet of the hole should be on the same plane. Estimating the percentage of the green that is usable for hole locations takes a little practice. To develop a feel for this estimating process, try the fol­ lowing procedure on the first couple of 4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD boundaries (as discussed above in the “Size of Green” section) and selecting a speed for the greens that is appropri­ ate to their contouring. For example, a green mowed at % of an inch and rolling 9 feet on the Stimpmeter may yield a rating of “D.” Raising the cut to %2 inch might yield a speed of 8 feet and increase the percentage of usable cupping area to a “C” or even “B” rating. Assuming greens are moderately sized to begin with, use the following grades to rate cupping area: • “A” — given to greens with cupping areas in excess of 50%. • “B”—given to greens with cupping areas between 40% and 50%. • “C”—given to greens with cupping areas between 30% and 40%. • “D” — given to greens with cupping areas between 20% and 40%. • “F” — given to greens with less than 20% cupping area. Surface Drainage Surface drainage is extremely impor­ tant to every green, including those with good internal drainage. Even the best-constructed rootzone will gradu­ ally drain more slowly. This is due to the production of organic matter by the plant and the introduction of soil fines (notably clay, silt, and very fine sand) into the rootzone over the years. These fines are introduced through topdress­ ing, wind, and even during irrigation when the water supply contains sus­ pended solids. It is even possible for some types of sand to be chemically weathered, causing a reduction in size. Without good surface drainage, water collects in the low areas of the green, resulting in extremely poor growing conditions for the turf. The rootzone becomes saturated and can remain that way for extended periods of time. This results in anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions, which can lead to the death of the plant. Disease inci­ dence also increases, as does the occur­ rence of algae and soured soil (often referred to as black layer). Surface drainage occasionally can be improved by lifting the sod, adding additional rootzone mix to eliminate the water-collecting hollow, and re­ placing the sod. Obviously, this step is practical only in small areas and near the edges of the green. Sometimes sur­ face drainage is blocked by the devel­ opment of thick thatch in the turf immediately adjacent to the green. Re­ moval of the sod and thatch, followed by replacement with a thatch-free sod, may be all that is necessary to allow water to once again flow off the green. • “A” — given to greens with no water collecting hollows and surface drainage in at least three directions. • “B” — given to greens with no water collecting hollows and surface drainage in two directions. • “C” — given to greens with no water collecting hollows and surface drainage in one direction. • “D” — given to greens with surface drainage to the center of the green and one surface exit point. • “F” — given to greens with water collecting hollows. Internal Drainage and Rootzone Porosity Internal drainage and rootzone porosity are often the only factors considered when determining the need for the complete reconstruction of golf greens. The USGA provides specific guidelines regarding these fac­ tors (see the USGA’s Guidelines for a Method of Green Construction). However, all too often greens will be rebuilt to meet these guidelines without consideration of the many other factors that contributed to the poor perfor­ mance of the original green. Not sur­ prisingly, in many instances the new green does not perform as well as ex­ pected. Internal drainage and porosity are extremely important, but they cannot compensate for the lack of light, poor air movement, poor traffic control, etc. Good internal drainage is without question very influential to the overall performance of the green — particu­ larly in adverse climates and in areas where water quality is less than ideal. The degree of internal drainage is mea­ sured as saturated hydraulic conduc­ tivity. Rootzone porosity represents the sum of two types of porosity — capillary and non-capillary Capillary porosity is a measure of the percentage of pores in a rootzone mixture that are filled with water at field capacity, while non-capillary porosity refers to the percentage of pores filled with air. To determine these factors accurately, samples should be removed from the green and submitted to an accredited physical soil testing laboratory. Short of complete reconstruction, the most effective means of improving internal drainage and porosity is to increase aerification. Often, a combi­ nation of deep-tine and conventional core aerification is necessary. Many courses now include water-ject aerifi­ cation as a supplement to the mechan­ ical aerification practices. • “A” — given to greens built in accordance with USGA guidelines. • “B” — given to non-USGA greens with hydraulic conductivity rates over 3 inches per hour and a functional subsurface drainage system. • “C” — given to greens with hy­ draulic conductivity rates over 3 inches per hour but no subsurface drainage system. • “D” — given to greens with hydrau­ lic conductivity rates of 1 to 3 inches per hour. • “F” — given to greens with hydrau­ lic conductivity rates of less than 1 inch per hour. Irrigation Control and Coverage This is another area that frequently is overlooked when evaluating the over­ all performance of greens. Although proper irrigation has always been im­ portant, the lowering of cutting heights Good air movement across the putting surface is vital for disease suppression and plant cooling. If tree pruning or removal is not possible, fans are the next best option. and the use of different grass species in the vicinity of the greens has en­ hanced the need for as much control and accuracy as possible. Common sense should make us wonder how full-circle, overhead sprinklers that cover the green, surrounds, and fairway approach areas, can possibly meet the specific needs of the turf in each area. For example, a bentgrass or bermuda­ grass green maintained at Vi& inch or less does not conveniently have the same water requirements as the ber­ mudagrass fairway cut at % inch or the bluegrass rough mowed at 2 inches. Different cutting heights and different turfgrasses demand different irrigation frequencies and volumes. As a result, even a well-designed and properly in­ stalled and operated system often must be supplemented with hand watering. And, obviously, a system with poor spacing, improper nozzles, or improper pressure adjustments will cause noth­ ing but problems. Steps for improvement include up­ grading the irrigation system to provide single head control, installing a perim­ eter system to water the surrounding turf separately from the greens, relocat­ ing heads to provide even coverage, and altering nozzle sizes to achieve better coverage and proper pressure regulation. Hand watering can also be increased to help compensate for a substandard irrigation system. • “A” — given to greens irrigated with a combination of full-circle and adjust­ able part-circle heads facing outward. Such a system is often referred to as a perimeter system. Each of the heads should be able to be controlled inde­ pendently through the automatic irri­ gation system. • “B” — given to greens without a perimeter irrigation system but with single head control of sprinklers that are correctly spaced. • “C” — given to greens without a perimeter irrigation system and without single head control. • “D” — given to greens with no perimeter system, no single head con­ trol, and the satellite that controls the greens is located on the same irrigation cycle as other areas of the course. MARCH/APRIL 1998 5 Good employee tenure usually results in a better-trained crew. Knowing the difference between cooling the turf and spot watering, and when each technique is needed, can result in better-managed turf during stress periods. • “p” — given to greens with a • “p” — given to greens with less than manual irrigation system. 50% “off” types. Purity of Turf Stand Amount of Play Older greens are often composed of more than one species of turfgrass and even various biotypes of the same grass. For example, older bentgrass greens often have large percentages of Poa annua intermixed with the bent. Biotypes of both bentgrass and ber­ mudagrass in greens begin to segregate over time, resulting in many patches of distinctly different grasses in the same green. Each of these different grasses and biotypes has a particular set of vul­ nerabilities to insects, disease, climatic stresses, and, particularly, cutting heights. As a result, the more varied the makeup of the putting surface, the more difficult it is to manage. With the exception of very minor outbreaks of Poa annua and/or off- type grasses, there is little that can be done to restore the purity of the stand of grass other than completely replant. Until then, raising cutting heights to suit the type of grass in the green that is least able to tolerate low cutting heights will help provide uniformity in terms of putting quality. • “A” — given to greens composed of a pure stand of turf. • “B” — given to greens with less than 20% “off” types. • “C” — given to greens with less than 30% “off” types. • “D” — given to greens with less than 40% “off” types. 6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD No agronomic mysteries here — the less you use your greens, the healthier the turf will be. When golfers make their inevitable comparisons from one course to the next, the amount of traf­ fic the greens must endure often is the most overlooked factor. To deal effectively with traffic, it is vital the greens be established to the best turf for the climate in which the course is maintained. What is agro- nomically possible does not mean it is agronomically sensible. Bentgrass greens maintained in hot and humid climates cannot tolerate the same amount of play as bermudagrass greens in the same climate. The superinten­ dent also should be sure that ade­ quately high cutting heights are main­ tained to cushion the turf from heavy traffic loads. Topdressing, fertilizing, and grooming practices must be ad­ justed to maintain a pad or thin layer of organic matter between the crown of the plant and the underlying (usually abrasive) rootzone mixture. Potassium levels should be kept at recommended levels to provide a stronger plant that is better able to withstand stress. Spike­ less shoes should be encouraged to reduce injury to the turf. • “A” — given to greens that receive fewer than 20,000 rounds per year. • “B” — given to greens that receive fewer than 30,000 rounds per year. • “C” — given to greens that receive fewer than 40,000 rounds per year. • “D” — given to greens that receive fewer than 50,000 rounds per year. • “p” — given to greens that receive more than 50,000 rounds per year. Water Quality The water used to irrigate the greens can make the difference between suc­ cess and failure of the turf. Greens maintained with water high in salts or bicarbonates are predisposed to a wide variety of problems. Establishing a grade system for water quality is im­ possible, since so many factors inter­ act. If you have questionable water quality, it is best to solicit the input of a qualified agronomist to determine the impact of the water on the turf, as well as steps for improvement. The ratings listed below are therefore highly generalized. • “A” — excellent water quality. • “B” — good water quality. • “C” — marginally acceptable water quality. • “D” — poor water quality. • “p” — very poor water quality. Other Rating Factors There are many other factors that may need to be considered by the rat­ ing team. These could include the following: • Nematode levels. • Experience and skill of mainte­ nance crew. • Availability of proper maintenance equipment. • Tenure and skill of the super­ intendent. • Tree root competition. • Cutting height. Rating the skill of the superintendent is perhaps the most subjective process of all. Without question, a skilled super­ intendent who has been given time to learn the nuances of a particular set of greens can have a very positive impact on the overall performance of those greens. However, no superintendent, regardless of skill, can completely over­ come stresses resulting from the many factors discussed earlier. The superin­ tendent cannot independently provide light, air movement, adequate size, drainage, or good water quality. Assum­ ing your course has a superintendent of at least average ability, the team would be wise first to correct the many other factors that are holding back the greens. It is amazing how often a superinten­ dent considered by the golfers to be without talent suddenly develops a green thumb when given the oppor­ tunity to manage properly constructed greens. By the way, there are steps to take to help the superintendent im­ prove as well. The leadership of the course should support the superinten­ dent’s efforts to learn by providing the opportunity to attend educational ses­ sions on national, state, and local levels. The science and art of greens management changes rapidly with the introduction of new technologies and the ever-increasing stresses today’s greens must endure. Conclusion Developing the Report Card can identify where work is needed to im­ prove the greens. It can also help deter­ mine whether or not reconstruction is necessary. Finally, completing the Re­ port Card before building or rebuilding greens can help ensure that, when the construction is finished, the greens will be both agronomically sound and ca­ pable of providing top-quality putting conditions. JAMES FRANCIS MOORE is Director of the USGA Green Section’s Construction Education Program. Report Card for__________________________ — Date Completed__ — Table 1 FACTOR Light Air movement Entrance and exit points Size of green Cupping area Surface drainage Internal drainage Irrigation control/coverage Purity of turf stand Amount of play Water quality Historical Performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MARCH/APRIL 1998 7 Hozv I Spent My Summer Vacation A few thoughts on what to do when your worst nightmare becomes reality. by SCOTT CARPENTER I WAS JUST BEGINNING to believe everything was in place for a great season, but on the evening of July 17th, someone felt compelled to lash out at Brooklake Country Club and its members. Vandals attacked and tried to destroy several of our greens. Using a form of industrial paint thinner and what we believe was a watering can, the vandals poured the material in wide, sweeping arcs on six different greens. Ultimately, they were successful in destroying the majority of the turf on our 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 12th, and 14th greens. Hopefully, you will never have to deal with this type of a situation, but being prepared for the worst is always a good idea. The purpose of this article is to pass on some of the lessons we learned in dealing with our difficult situation. The damage was discovered early on the morning of July 19th, 1996, and we quickly developed our initial plan of action. The following steps were taken to halt the damage and encourage recovery. • The greens were triple cut with the goal being to remove as much contaminated leaf tissue as possible. • Activated charcoal was applied in the hope it would act as a neutralizer and absorbent. • The club president, board of direc­ tors, and golf professional were notified immediately and kept informed as to the extent of the damage and what we were doing to rectify the problem. • Local law enforcement personnel and our insurance carrier were notified. • Measurements and photographs were taken to document the depth and extent of the chemical damage. The damage initially appeared mini­ mal (slight yellowing in streaks, 1 to 2 inches in width); however, within 24 hours, the real damage became dramatically apparent. It was evident that the chemical applied was ex­ tremely mobile, as the plume of damage expanded in all directions. The initial thin streaks developed into much larger 8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD areas, with the affected turf being totally destroyed. The loss of turf quickly affected playability, and by August 8th, three weeks after the incident, we were forced to close all six greens. Overwhelmed by the nature and extent of the damage, we quickly realized that outside consultants would be necessary to help us with the unique challenge. We began speaking with experienced superintendents, our USGA agronomist, environmental en­ gineers (specializing in soil remedi­ ation), the Rutgers University Plant Diagnostic Laboratory, soil scientists, and even our golf course architect. Since characterizing the compound would greatly aid our efforts to neutralize it, our initial goal was to identify the chemical compounds through field testing with a Photo Ionization Detector (PID). These tests revealed elevated levels of volatile organic vapors and helped set param­ eters for further laboratory testing. Composite soil samples were then taken from all six damaged greens, and laboratory test results revealed the presence of acetone, butyl alcohol, and methyl tert butyl ether compounds. These compounds are commonly asso­ ciated with industrial paint solvents. Although the compounds were found in relatively low concentrations, they proved extremely toxic to the turfgrass. The compounds identified are ex­ tremely volatile. This characteristic was considered beneficial since this would lead to reduced persistence in the soil. We assumed that opening up the soils through aerification would allow more of the chemicals to volatilize, so the affected greens were aerified on July 29th, August 5th, and again on August 26th. The cores were removed in each instance and our traditional 90:10 top­ dressing material was applied in suffi­ cient quantity to thoroughly fill the holes. The greens also were seeded at a rate of 2 Ibs./lOOO sq. ft. following the July 29th and August 26th aerifications. Additional samples were then sent to the Rutgers University Plant Diagnostic Lab and placed in growth chambers for evaluation. Base levels of contamination were established on August 1st. Weekly re­ sults of the PID scanning and com­ posite soil samples analyzed thereafter revealed that contamination levels in the soil were dropping steadily. Some of the compounds were no longer detect­ able. Visible signs that our efforts were producing positive results included ger­ mination of seed and limited recovery of surrounding turf. Unfortunately, recovery was slow and somewhat inconsistent. Membership pressure mounted in late August, and the board of directors became concerned about the prospect of losing outings and their associated revenue. Thus, a decision was made to sod the damaged greens. With sound planning and excellent cooperation between our sod supplier and local installation contractor, the sodding project proceeded smoothly. The existing sod and approximately 2 inches of underlying soil were removed in the process. Additional topdressing was added to bring the surfaces back up to grade. Installation of the creep­ ing bentgrass sod began on the 13th of September and finished on the 16th. The new sod established rapidly with cultural practices that included several rollings and weekly Hydrojecting and regular mowing beginning 27> weeks after installation. Starting on October 7th, the greens were aerified twice on 3-week intervals. Deep vertical mowing also was performed. Following the first frost, geotextile covers were used to extend the growing season. Sod establishment went well, though on several occasions that fall, ghosting appeared in the same patterns as the damage. The appearance of the ghost­ ing seemed to coincide with turfgrass stress. This caused considerable con­ cern, since it showed that some of the chemicals were still present in suf­ ficient quantity to cause turf damage, even though they were not being detected by the sampling methods. One possible explanation posed was that radical change in hydrologic pressure forced contaminants upward in the soil profile. Not wanting to cause unnecessary damage to the healthy turf, we decided to deep-aerify the affected areas only. This was done by hand, using hand drills equipped with VC x 14" ship auger bits and a template we manufactured from plywood with a frustrating for me and the entire main­ tenance staff. Nonetheless, some valu­ able lessons can be learned from it all, and there are a number of things to do in the event a catastrophe occurs at your golf course. The following are a few of the strategies that helped us. • Maintain an accurate written chronology of events and be sure to take plenty of photographs. This method was a very useful tool, which we referred to continually. All perti­ A superintendent’s worst nightmare is to deal with damage caused by the unknown. Vandals poured solvents onto several greens at Brooklake Country Club, causing tremendous damage to the turfgrass and contamination of the soil. The staff spent the following weeks with a combined arsenal of maintenance techniques trying to correct the damage. 2" x 2" hole pattern. The soil brought to the surface was removed and the holes were back-filled with a 6:2:2 topdressing mixture of sand, soil, and compost. The intent was to remove soil with lingering contamination, increase aeration, and provide additional ad­ sorption sites for any remaining chemi­ cals. Essentially, we vertically mulched the areas where the ghosting had ap­ peared. The procedure seemed to be successful, since little ghosting ap­ peared thereafter. The greens were finally reopened on a limited basis on May 1st, 1997. They were returned to normal operation on June 1st. It was not until the catastrophe was behind us that we had an opportunity to stop and reflect on all that had occurred. The vandalism was extremely unfortunate and it caused a tremen­ dous amount of expense, not to men­ tion disruption to the golf schedule. The experience was exhausting and nent events should be recorded, in­ cluding remediation techniques and options, conversations with consul­ tants, weather records, etc. It is essential to keep accurate records for a variety of reasons, and with everything happening so quickly, it is impossible to do so without a journal. Simply listing pros and cons was helpful in gaining perspective. • Use consultants and pool their information. Our situation was not typical and there was no cookie-cutter solution. However, the free flow of information and ideas helped us to fabricate a solution that suited our needs. • Maintain a strong public relations campaign. Within days, numerous members of the community and club members had questions and concerns as to how the disaster occurred and who might be responsible. After a week or so, the dialog shifted to how we could effect a quick recovery. Profes­ sionals from all walks of life offered opinions and solutions. I tried to keep all discussions as polite, cordial, and positive as possible. However, repeated in-depth conversations can be very taxing, especially when combined with the stress and strain of a difficult situation. Detailed discussions are often best reserved for people directly involved in the decision-making process. Brief articles describing the situation and what you are trying to do to resolve it, even in outline form, can help keep the golfers informed. This also is a good means of reducing the wild speculation that frequently accompanies catastrophes. • Do not get tunnel vision. Explore every possible option and scenario, and be sure to keep your contractors in­ formed. Although reestablishment from seed was our first approach, we made tentative arrangements with a sod grower and golf course construc­ tion contractor in the event that our initial efforts proved unsuccessful. They were extremely cooperative, and little time was lost when the decision was finally made to sod the greens. • Communicate openly and hon­ estly with your board of directors, owners, etc. In our situation, there were many unknowns and the best course of action was rarely crystal clear. Hav­ ing to state that “this appears to be our best option” was an unnerving and humbling experience. • Insurance: Real property is a term used by insurance underwriting and it should be clearly defined. Make sure that in your policy greens, tees, and fairways are included as Real Property. Develop and discuss a specific proto­ col for repairing the damage with your insurance carrier up front. Even though we communicated with our carrier, problems still occurred when our claim was ready to be settled. • Finally, remain positive. They say hindsight is 20/20. Our foresight through these trying times was just as good. On a personal note, try to keep everything in proper perspective. Try not to allow an overwhelming prob­ lem consume all your thoughts and cause you sleepless nights. Keep in mind that you, as the superintendent, are part of the equation for the solu­ tion rather than the problem, as some may make you feel. SCOTT CARPENTER is the golf course superintendent at Brooklake Country Club in Florham Park, N.J. MARCH/APRIL 1998 9 More superintendents are relying on contractors to make bulk fertilizer applications. Their equipment is more accurate, the work is done at a minimal cost, and the job is completed ahead of morning golfers. BRINGING IN THE HIRED GUNS Contract services can help streamline maintenance operations. by PAUL VERMEULEN IN OLD WESTERN FILMS where unsavory bandits and cattle rustlers ruled the landscape, worried home­ steaders payrolled hired guns to protect their farms and families. And like the vulnerable settlers of yesteryear, modern-day superintendents can also take advantage of hired help to com­ plete atypical tasks on the course. Where services are available, employ­ ing a contractor may streamline a maintenance operation by reducing labor and equipment costs, providing substitutes for temporary laborers, decreasing the potential for personal injuries, and lessening employee train­ ing time. Superintendents may also become more popular around the ol’ watering hole by hiring a contractor to get a few big jobs done ahead of morning play. Like gunslingers who spent hours practicing their quick draw on desert cacti, contractors who specialize in non-routine tasks become more pro­ ficient, and can finish jobs in less time for a lower cost. A contractor’s pro­ ficiency can be good justification to a superintendent to use their services, 10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD allowing golf course personnel to spend their scheduled working hours accomplishing assigned duties and not be forced to catch up by working over­ time. Some superintendents can also re­ duce capital outlay for equipment by using a contractor to complete non­ routine tasks. For example, superin­ tendents in most areas of the country can hire a contractor to cultivate their greens with a specialized deep-tine or water-injection aerifier, thereby elimi­ nating the need to add this expensive piece of equipment to their own in­ ventory. In addition, courses benefit equipment-wise because contractors usually purchase the best, most efficient models and maintain them in good mechanical condition so that they can continue to earn a living. Saving on capital purchases by hiring a contractor assumes that the specialized equipment would not be useful on other areas of the course or during several different times of the growing season. In northern regions contractors can help cope with temporary labor prob­ lems by completing tasks in the early spring or late fall. This can give super­ intendents the opportunity to forego the hiring of seasonal employees until early summer and/or rely on them less during the fall when they need to return to other activities. A good example would be a superintendent who hires a contractor to make large- scale weed control applications in the spring to free up full-time employees to prepare the course for summer. This would delay the need to hire seasonal employees for several weeks, or until the quality of the labor pool improves. No matter how careful employees try to be, work-related injuries are always a possibility at the golf course. As is often the case for non-routine tasks, employees must operate specialized, unfamiliar equipment and/or handle foreign materials. By using an experi­ enced contractor to complete certain non-routine tasks, the potential for injury can be decreased because their workers are familiar with the machinery and procedures. Along the same line, the number of training hours to acquaint golf course personnel with atypical tasks can be lessened. At times, work completed under a service agreement can be a direct benefit to the golfers if the contractor has the equipment and manpower to get a job done fast. In the Chicagoland area, a growing number of super­ intendents are relying on contractors to make bulk fertilizer applications, as they have large spreaders that can cover an entire course ahead of morning play. Furthermore, because of the advanced technology of bulk application equipment, both the cali­ bration and actual application are more precise. Western settlers rarely made hired guns permanent houseguests because sooner or later they would attract trouble of their own. Similarly, there are several reasons for not becoming overly dependent on contract services. In regions with unpredictable weather conditions, contractors who specialize in a particular maintenance operation can fall behind schedule. This is especially true when they are overbooked. For superintendents who cannot set aside alternate days in the play schedule for a contractor to com­ plete the work before the agronomic window of opportunity closes, this can be a genuine hardship. Using a contractor to make large-scale spray applications can help streamline a maintenance operation by reducing costs associated with special training, and storage and handling of special materials. About a year ago, I visited a course that was closed on a Tuesday. They had flagged all of the irrigation heads to accommodate a contractor who had agreed to aerify and clean up all of the fairways in one working day. When the axle broke on the contractor’s truck several miles out of town, it became clear that he was not going to be able to get the job done on time. It was nothing short of a nightmare for the new superintendent, who could not convince the owner to keep the course closed for another day. Having lost the only opportunity to aerify the fair­ ways had to wait until the next season. Over-reliance on contract services can also make it difficult for assistant superintendents and college interns to acquire skills that will be of value to them later in their careers. By elimi­ nating too many learning opportunities for key personnel, a course’s manage­ ment can find it more difficult to attract highly motivated employees who seek challenging positions. In the long run, this may even affect daily course conditioning. Another point to consider when evaluating the services of a contractor is the quality of their service. In short, there are contractors who are sincerely dedicated to providing the highest possible level of customer service, and there are those who fail to fully appreciate that the superintendent is ultimately responsible for their actions. If the task requires minute attention to detail and the golfers have very high expectations, it may be best for a superintendent to complete the job in-house rather than take the risk of letting an unskilled contractor drop the proverbial bomb in their lap. No matter what the circumstances, the MARCH/APRIL 1998 11 Hiring a contractor can reduce equipment costs when a product application requires specialized machinery. Table 1 A Green Section staff survey of contract services that generally are available in large metropolitan areas. Aquatic management from A to Z. Clubhouse landscape maintenance. Course security. Golf course construction services. Deep-tine aerification of greens. Large-scale fertilizer application. Large-scale pest control application. Large-scale weed control application. Mower reel and bedknife sharpening. Restroom cleaning and maintenance. Specialized tree care. Small animal and rodent control. Traditional core aerification of fairways. Tree pruning and removal. Vertical mowing and core cultivation of fairways and rough. Water injection aerification of greens. superintendent should always main­ tain decision-making powers over con­ tractors and never allow them to work without close supervision. Depending on the size of the metro­ politan area, the range of readily avail­ able contract services can be quite extensive. In Table 1, a list of services compiled through a survey of the Green Section staff might leave one with the impression that all but the daily tasks of mowing and course setup can be hired out. Taken to the extreme, an owner or board of directors might even conclude that employing a well- trained, experienced superintendent would no longer be necessary, as only a skeleton crew would be required to take care of the course. This extreme view is ridiculous. There are immediacy tasks, such as disease control applications, irrigation system repairs, etc., that cannot be hired out, since the time it would take for a contractor to receive a call and travel to the course might make the difference between success and failure. Furthermore, in the absence of an experienced superintendent, a course would become easy prey for unscrupu­ lous contractors. Here I am reminded 12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD In northern regions, using a contractor to complete non-routine tasks in the fall can help superintendents cope with the early departure of seasonal employees. A contractor’s experience and reputation should be taken into consideration when reviewing contract bids. Ultimately, the superintendent shoulders the responsibility for all maintenance activities performed on the golf course. of the old adage “The only thing that happens fast in agriculture is crop failure.” In conclusion, bringing in the hired guns to streamline a maintenance operation has both advantages and disadvantages, depending on the cir­ cumstances at hand. Each course being different, superintendents must evalu­ ate the cost of labor and equipment, the availability of staff, the contractor’s proficiency with a given task, and the price for the service provided. And, since the responsibility for a contrac­ tor’s actions rests heaviest on the shoulders of the superintendent, ex­ perience and reputation should be highly regarded while a watchful eye is always kept on their activities. PAUL VERMEULEN is the Director of the Green Section’s Mid-Continent Region. He is responsible for the administration of Green Section programs in ten states and focuses his Turf Advisory Service visits in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Utilizing Preemergence Herbicides With and Without Fertilizer Carriers Should you spray or should you use a granular carrier? by FRED YELVERTON, Ph.D. THE USE OF preemergence crab- grass/goosegrass herbicides as sprays versus impregnated or coated on a fertilizer carrier continues to be a much-debated topic among turfgrass managers and distributors of the products. Research on herbicide performance and an understanding of the behavior of the various preemer­ gence herbicides in the environment indicate that each method of delivering preemergence herbicides has potential advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of the following discussion is to outline various factors that affect herbicide performance with the two types of application and to point out where one method may be favored over the other method. To cover the pros and cons of using preemergence herbicides with and without fertilizer carriers, it is necessary to discuss this topic in three sections: 1) herbicide performance, 2) timing of application, and 3) environmental im­ plications. The herbicides involved in this discussion are the major products utilized for crabgrass and goosegrass control: dithiopyr (Dimension), pro­ diamine (Barricade), oryzalin (Surflan), pendimethalin (various trade names), benefin + trifluralin (Team), and oxa­ diazon (Ronstar). These herbicides represent three herbicide families: 1) dinitroanilines or DNAs (Barricade, Surflan, Team, and pendimethalin), 2) pyridines (Dimension), and 3) oxadia­ zole (Ronstar). Herbicide Performance To compare and contrast herbicide performance when applying as sprays versus a dry carrier, it is important to have a clear understanding of how preemergence crabgrass/goosegrass herbicides work. The preemergence herbicides in question do not prevent seed germination; they kill the weed as it grows through the herbicide treated zone (1, 2). The DNAs and pyridines are absorbed by roots and shoots of germinating weeds and inhibit cell Drop spreaders and sprayers can be used in banding areas around impermeable surfaces and water resources to help reduce off-target movement of products. division in the growing points, and the weeds fail to emerge. Ronstar is absorbed in emerging shoots (not roots) and affects photosynthesis, and the emerging shoot dies (1). The fact that Ronstar is not absorbed by roots explains why it can be safely used when sprigging many warm-season turf species. Once a product is applied and watered in, a herbicide barrier is estab­ lished in the soil/thatch layer. There­ fore, uniform coverage with a preemer­ gence herbicide, whether applied as a spray or granular, is necessary for optimum control. Large gaps in the herbicide-treated zone can result in weed escapes. Small gaps in this treated zone, such as those caused by aerifica­ tion, generally do not adversely affect herbicide performance (5, 10). When the herbicide application is on a granular carrier, once the treated turfgrass area is watered, the granule dissolves, and the herbicide barrier is established. Because the herbicides in question are readily adsorbed by soil organic matter, they do not move very far from the granule. Therefore, cover­ age with a granular product (whether coated on a fertilizer or on an inert dry carrier) must be uniform and dense enough to prevent large gaps in the herbicide barrier. When comparing coverage with a granular product versus a properly applied spray, cover­ age is usually better with a spray appli­ cation. This does not necessarily mean control will be better with a spray. From a coverage standpoint, a cer­ tain density of granules per unit area is necessary for adequate herbicide per­ formance. On a granular carrier, particle size and uniformity of particle size are very important components of herbicide performance. As particle size decreases, the density of particles per unit area increases. This has been demonstrated by Kelly and Coates (9). In their research, southern crabgrass control increased to a point and then leveled off with decreasing particle size of the granular product. Uniformity of particle size is important because when spreading granular products, small and large particles can travel differ­ ent distances from the application equipment. The effects of coverage with various granular formulations on smooth crab­ grass control is demonstrated in Table 1. In this experiment, Barricade applied as a 0.29G or as a spray provided better smooth crabgrass control than when applied as a 0.5G formulation. The most likely reason for these differences can be attributable to better coverage with the sprayable or 0.29G Barricade. MARCH/APRIL 1998 13 indicator of how easily a chemical (in this case a herbicide) changes from a liquid to a gas. Herbicide loss can occur due to volatility losses. In addition, preemergence crabgrass/goosegrass herbicides vary in their volatility. The relative volatilities of the various pre­ emergence herbicides are listed in Table 2. Volatility losses also increase with increasing temperature. This is why pesticides have a stronger smell when temperatures are warm in the summer than in the winter. Table 2 Vapor Pressure and Relative Volatility Ratings for Preemergence Crabgrass/Goosegrass Herbicides (Measured as mm of HG @ 25° C) Herbicide benefin* trifluralin* Relative Volatility Rating Vapor Pressure 7.8 x 105 Moderate 1.1 x 104 Moderate- High Low 2.5 x IO-8 Very Low Barricade pendimethalin 9.4 x 106 Surflan Dimension Ronstar 2.5 x IO 8 Very Low 4 x 106 7.8 x 107 Very Low *Team is a combination of benefin and trifluralin ^Dimension has low volatility, but one of the carriers in the EC formulation is volatile Low** One way to help control volatility losses is by utilizing a herbicide on a granular carrier. When a spray appli­ cation is made, the foliage intercepts some of the herbicide. The herbicide is subjected to volatilization losses and herbicide performance can sometimes be decreased. One way to help mini­ mize volatility losses from spray appli­ cations is to water the herbicide in immediately after application. This will help remove the herbicide from the foliage and move it down in the canopy where the herbicide barrier is estab­ lished. Higher wind speeds have also been shown to increase volatility losses (7). The effect of post-treatment irriga­ tion was demonstrated by Gasper et al (8). They showed that pendimethalin efficacy on smooth crabgrass was re­ duced when irrigation was delayed later than the day of treatment. Vola­ tility losses of pesticides have also been demonstrated by Cooper et al (7). An example of how volatility may be important is demonstrated in Table 3. Bulk fertilizer and herbicide applications need to be carefully managed, especially on impervious surfaces. Some materials cannot bind to soil particles and are free to move with the water. Remove products from these areas before irrigation or rainfall. It’s also very important to maintain a safe distance from wetland areas. Table 1 Preemergence Smooth Crabgrass Control with Various Barricade Formulations Yelverton and Hinton, 1996 (14) Treatment Barricade 65WG Barricade 0.29G Barricade 0.5G Rate o/ /o (lbs ai/a) Control 0.75 0.75 0.75 98 91 81 9.3 LSD °C 0.05 Hidden Valley Golf Club, Angier, NC. Applications made March 4 and final evaluations made September 26, 1996. 14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD When bulk spreading granular products using large equipment, there are some areas on the golf course that are hard to reach, and coverage can sometimes be difficult. An example is a severe slope on the back of a tee. Control in these areas is sometimes less than in fairways due to difficulty in obtaining good coverage. In these areas, it is a good idea to make appli­ cations with smaller granular appli­ cators, or to utilize sprays. Coverage is only one aspect of obtaining adequate control with pre­ emergence herbicides. Volatilization losses from herbicides also can impact herbicide performance. Herbicide vola­ tility (as measured by vapor pressure) is a measure of the intramolecular bond­ ing forces of a chemical, and it is an While Dimension is not volatile, one of the carriers in the emulsifiable concen­ trate formulation is suspected of being volatile. In this case, the herbicides were not watered immediately after treatment. Rainfall was relied upon for herbicide activation. This delay in activation resulted in the lower rate of Dimension providing as good or better crabgrass control than the sprayable (EC) formulation. Table 3 Preemergence Smooth Crabgrass Control with Dimension Formulations Yelverton, Lewis, and Hinton, 1995 (13) prevent volatility and other losses. By impregnating or coating a herbicide on a granular carrier, volatility losses potentially can be minimized. with perennial ryegrass, the timing may be compatible because the cool­ season turf may be in need of fertili­ zation at this time. Timing of Application of Herbicides Applied on Fertilizer Carriers When applying herbicides on a fer­ tilizer carrier, consideration must be given to the timing of herbicide and fertilizer application. If it is the correct time to apply a preemergence crab- grass/goosegrass herbicide and the turf­ grass needs fertilizing, then obviously Environmental Implications As previously mentioned, if the tim­ ing of a herbicide/fertilizer application occurs when the turf is not actively growing, the possibility exists of nutri­ ent leaching through the soil profile. The extent of nutrient loss depends on soil texture, soil type, type and amount of fertilizer applied, and how well established the turf is. Brown et al (6) Coverage with Granular vs Spray Rate % Treatment (lbs ai/a) Control Dimension 1EC Dimension 0.25G 0.38 0.5 90 98 LSD oe 0.05 NS Thorndale Golf Club, 1995. Herbi­ cides applied March 16 and final evaluations were September 19, 1995. Photodegradation, or degradation by UV light, and dislodgeable foliar residues also may play a role in herbi­ cide performance. When a herbicide application is made, sunlight may start to degrade the herbicide. If a product remains on the folaige for extended periods of time, degradation by sunlight may occur. Again, irrigation soon after a spray application can help minimize any of these potential losses. Follow­ ing pesticide applications, especially when applying liquid materials, there remains some residue of that pesticide on the turfgrass foliage. Research has shown that some pesticides applied without irrigation had foliar residue levels four times higher than for irri­ gated turf (7). These residues of pesti­ cides are known as dislodgeable residues. To summarize herbicide perfor­ mance, maximum control with a granular product is dependent on achieving a minimum density of par­ ticles per unit area. Particle size and uniformity of size are important con­ siderations when considering a gran­ ular product. Coverage is usually better with a properly applied spray applica­ tion. Most spray applications need to be watered in soon after application to When comparing coverage between a granular product versus a properly applied spray, coverage is usually better with a spray application. This does not necessarily mean control will be better with a spray. applying a herbicide on a fertilizer carrier can be advantageous. However, many times the two applications are not compatible. An example is non­ overseeded warm-season grasses in the southern United States. Large and smooth crabgrass can germinate when soil temperatures reach about 55 de­ grees near the soil surface (11). Pre­ emergence crabgrass herbicides need to be applied in many areas of the southern U.S. in late February through March. At this time, warm-season grasses are still dormant and will not be actively growing for another 4 to 8 weeks. Depending on the soil texture, soil type, and type of fertilizer, this can lead to nutrient losses because the turf is not actively growing. However, in the case of warm-season turf overseeded showed various levels of nitrogen leaching losses through a “Tifdwarf” bermudagrass putting green when fertilized with either ammonium nitrate in mid-February or ureaformaldehyde in late January. These researchers con­ cluded that decreasing fertilizer rates during periods of slow growth could re­ duce nitrogen leaching losses. Bowman and Cherney (4) showed that nitrogen leaching losses were greatest on warm­ season turf species soon after sodding, and leaching losses declined to very low levels once the turfgass became established. It is clear from both re­ search projects that nitrogen leaching losses can be minimized by fertilizing warm-season turf species only when they are well-established and actively growing. MARCH/APRIL1998 15 The preemergence herbicides dis­ cussed in this article are strongly adsorbed to soil colloids (primarily organic matter) and also have low water solubilities. As a result, they do not leach through the soil profile and are not subject to runoff unless the soil particle moves (12). However, when these products are inadvertently applied to asphalt, concrete, and other impermeable surfaces that may be found on the golf course, they are free to move with water. While certain nutrients such as nitrogen are more mobile than the herbicides in question, most research indicates little runoff occurs when products are properly applied to well-established turf. But as with herbicides, when they are applied to impermeable surfaces, they are free to move with water, and contamination of water resources may occur. It is important that these materials (all pesticides and fertilizers) be applied only to established turfgrass areas. When applying granular materials, particularly when applied with large equipment, it is difficult to keep off these impermeable surfaces. If they inadvertently land on these surfaces, care should be taken to remove these products before irrigation or rainfall. To prevent placement on these surfaces, banding with drop spreaders or making a pass with a sprayer (10-15 foot band) next to concrete, asphalt, or ponds, lakes, etc., can be helpful. This will allow the larger bulk spreading equip­ ment to stay further away from these areas and lessen the likelihood of off- target movement of pesticides and nutrients. Another helpful tool is to utilize buffer areas around ponds, lakes, and streams. Baird et al (3) demonstrated the buffer areas can re­ duce surface runoff losses of certain pesticides and phosphate-phosphorus from bermudagrass turf. In summary, there are advantages to applying herbicides either as sprays or on granular carriers. Performance of the herbicide is dependent on the quality of the granular carrier and application. While better coverage is usually obtained with sprays, proper spray application is also important for optimum performance. Volatility losses from pesticides can be reduced by utilizing a granular carrier or by irri­ gating very soon after a spray appli­ cation. This is more important for certain herbicides than others. Some herbicides have such low volatility, immediate irrigation is not necessary. Utilizing drop spreaders or spray applications to band around imper­ meable surfaces and water resources can help reduce off-target movement of pesticides and fertilizers on the golf course. There is increasing evidence that buffer areas around water can also help reduce potential soil runoff of pesticides and nutrients. References 1. Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Herbicide Hand­ book. Weed Science Society of America. Seventh Edition. 2. Appleby, A. P., and B. E. Valverde. 1989. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in plants. Weed Technol. 3:198-206. 3. Baird, J. H., N. T. Basta, R. I. Huhnke, M. E. Payton, G. V. Johnson, D. E. Storm, and M. D. Smolen. 1997. Influence of buffer length and mowing height on sur­ face runoff of pesticides and nutrients from bermudagrass turf. 1997 Agronomy Abst. page 130. 4. Bowman, D. C., and C. T. Chemey. 1997. Nitrate leaching from six warm-season turf species. 1997 Agronomy Abst. page 132. 5. Branham, B. E. 1985. 1984 herbicide evaluations, page 49-54. In Proceedings of the Annual Michigan State University Turf­ grass Conference. Vol. 14. 6. Brown, K. W, R. L. Duble, and J. C. Thomas. 1977. Influence of management and season on fate of nitrogen applied to golf greens. Agron. J. 69(4):667-671. 7. Cooper, R. J., J. M. Clark, and K. C. Murphy. 1995. Volatilization and dislodge­ able residues are important avenues of pesticide fate. USGA Green Section Record, page 19-22. 8. Gasper, J. J., J. R. Street, S. K. Harrison, and W E. Pound. 1994. Pendimethalin efficacy and dissipation in turfgrass as in­ fluenced by rainfall incorporation. Weed Sci. 42:586-592. 9. Kelly, S., and Coates, unpublished data. 10. Monroe, J. H., W. M. Lewis, J. M. Dipaola, and A. H. Bruneau. 1989. Preemergence herbicides and aerification. 1989 Agronomy Abst. page 162. 11. Watschke, T. L., P. H. Dernoeden, and D. J. Shetlar. 1995. Turfgrass weeds and their management, page 6. In Managing Turf­ grass Pests. 12. Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitro­ aniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4:394-406. 13. Yelverton, F. H., W. M. Lewis, and J. Hinton. 1995. 1995 Turfgrass Research Report: Weed Control and Plant Growth Regulators. North Carolina State Univer­ sity. 112 pages. 14. Yelverton, F. H., and J. Hinton. 1996. 1996 Turfgrass Research Report: Weed Control and Plant Growth Regulators. North Carolina State University. 314 pages. FRED YELVERTON, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Crop Science at North Carolina State University. He conducts research and extension programs in turf­ grass weed management and plant growth regulators. Weed Control with Preemergence Herbicides Herbicides do not prevent weeds from germinating, they kill weeds as they grow through the herbicide treated zone. Large gaps in herbicide barrier results in weed escapes. Preemergent herbicides create a barrier in the soil to kill weeds as for optimum control. they grow through the barrier zone. Uniform coverage is critical 16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD A USGA-SPONSORED RESEARCH PROJECT Seashore Paspalum Herbicide Management Careful selection strategies are essential. by R. R. DUNCAN, Ph.D. Paspalum vaginatum Swartz (sea­ shore paspalum, saltwater couch) is a warm-season, prostrate-grow­ ing, perennial turfgrass that is normally found between 30° and 35° N-S lati­ tudes near sea level. The grass spreads by stolons and rhizomes and ranges in leaf texture from fine types (similar to Tifdwarf bermuda) for greens to coarse types (similar to St. Augustinegrass) for roughs. The species is adapted to marshy, brackish conditions, salty/ saline soils, and waterlogging-prone areas. Attributes Ecotypes have been identified that tolerate /s-inch (3 mm) mowing height on greens and higher heights on tees and fairways. Coarse types can be maintained at up to 2 inches (50 mm) or 3 inches (75 mm) as a transition into wetlands, water hazards, or other envi­ ronmentally sensitive areas. Paspalum has been used for bioremediation of polluted or contaminated soils and water. Paspalum is one of the most salt- tolerant turfgrasses; ocean water or any type of reclaimed/recycled water can be used for irrigation. This grass tolerates and thrives in waterlogged or boggy low areas; yet some ecotypes have drought tolerance equal to centipede­ grass when properly managed. Paspalum can root equally well into heavy clay soils, sands, mucks, or loams. The grass has a pH adaptability range from 4.0 to 9.8. Nitrogen fertility rates should not exceed 5 lb per 1,000 sq. ft. per year after establishment and grow-in. If ocean water is used for irrigation, rates half that amount are adequate to maintain high turf quality. Weed Control Judicious rates and timely herbicide application strategies are essential for environmentally sound management of paspalum for turf from initial establish- ment/grow-in to long-term mainte- MSMA (foreground) and Asulox (background) are phytotoxic to seashore paspalum. (Studies by Joe DeFrank on Quality Turf site, Waimanalo, Hawaii.) MARCH/APRIL 1998 17 nance. Preemergent and postemergent herbicides that are noninjurious to paspalum turf are shown in Table 1. Several herbicides that are normally used on other warm-season turf grasses (Surflan, Asulox, Aatrex, Sencor, and Princep) are phytotoxic to paspalum (Table 2). Crabgrass, goosegrass, and annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in paspalum can be controlled with preemergence applications of Ronstar, Kerb, Balan, Pre M (many herbicides may have more than one trade name or similar/ slightly different chemical formula­ tions), Barricade, Team, Dimension, or Prograss (Table 3) or postemergent ap­ plications of Drive, Kerb, or Dimen­ sion. Winter broadleaf weeds can be controlled with Ronstar, Balan, and Gallery (preemergence) or Vanquish (postemergence) in paspalum turf. Nutsedge species can be controlled with postemergence applications of Manage or Basagran (Table 3). When bermudagrass encroachment into paspalum turf is a problem, pre­ liminary research results indicate that postemergence applications of Prograss + Cutlass (lx rate = 1.5 + 0.75 lb ai/A) may suppress the bermudagrass. Best preliminary results have occurred with applications during spring green-up when temperatures are conducive to active warm-season grass growth. If temperatures are less favorable (< 70° F) for continued bermudagrass and paspalum growth during the spring, Prograss + Cutlass will injure the paspalum. Rates of this herbicide + growth regulator combination as high as 2x-3x may be needed to control bermudagrass encroachment during the summer months, with 2-4 sequen­ tial applications. When paspalum encroachment into bermuda is a problem, preliminary re­ search has shown that Trimec Plus, Trimec Classic, Daconate 6, and Asulox will suppress paspalum growth (Table 2). Multiple applications will probably be needed and more than one type of herbicide in sequence should be con­ sidered in the paspalum control strategy. Primo and Acclaim could be included with the above four herbicides to provide a growth regulation effect on paspalum and enhance the herbicidal activity and effectiveness. Additional research is ongoing at the University of Georgia at Griffin con­ cerning herbicide efficacy, timing, rates, and environmental interactions on paspalum used for turf on greens, tees, and fairways. Paspalum encroachment (dark green) into bermudagrass can be a potential problem on the golf course. MSMA damage causes paspalum to turn dark brown, while Tifgreen bermudagrass damage is expressed by turning white. 18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD Acknowledgments Funding from the U.S. Golf Associ­ ation, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Georgia Turf Foundation Trust, Georgia Seed Devel­ opment Commission, and International Turf Producers Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. Additional support has been provided by Lesco Inc. and AgrEvo USA Company. Thanks are extended to B. J. Johnson and Tim Murphy for review and counsel con­ cerning paspalum herbicide research and management. References Davis, S. D., R. R. Duncan, and B. J. Johnson. 1997. Suppression of seashore paspalum in bermudagrass with herbicides. J. Environ. Hort. (in press). Duncan, R. R. 1997. Environmental com­ patibility of seashore paspalum (saltwater couch) for golf courses and other recrea­ tional uses. I. Breeding and Genetics. Int’l Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 8:(in press). Duncan, R. R. 1997. Environmental com­ patibility of seashore paspalum (saltwater couch) for golf courses and other recrea­ tional uses. II. Management protocols. Int’l Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 8:(in press). Duncan, R. R. 1994. Seashore paspalum may be grass for the year 2000. Southern Turf Management 5:31-32. Duncan, R. R. 1996. Seashore paspalum: The next generation turf for golf courses. Golf Course Management, April, p. 49-51. Duncan, R. R. 1996. The environmentally sound turfgrass of the future — seashore paspalum can withstand the test. U.S. Golf Assoc. Green Section Record, 34:9-11. Huang, B., R. R. Duncan, and R. N. Carrow. 1997. Drought-resistance mechanisms of seven warm-season grasses under surface soil drying: root aspects. Crop Sci. 37(6): Nov-Dec. Huang, B., R. R. Duncan, and R. N. Carrow. 1997. Drought-resistance mechanisms of seven warm-season grasses under surface soil drying: shoot response. Crop Sci. 37(6): Nov-Dec. Johnson, B. J., and R. R. Duncan. 1997. Tolerance of four seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatuiri) cultivars to POST herbicides. Weed Technology (in press). DR. RONNY DUNCAN is professor of turfgrass science at the University of Georgia in Griffin, Georgia. He’s traveled the world’s seashores looking for seashore paspalum selections. Table 1 Herbicides Non-Injurious to Paspalum Turf Preemergence Applications * Betasan EC Kerb WP Balan G Dacthal WP Ronstar G Pre-M WDG (Marginal: Goal EC and XL 2G) Postemergence Applications Prograss EC Drive DF/WD *Trimec Southern SL Dimension EC * Super Trimec SL *Vanquish SL Manage WG *Mecomec 4SL (Marginal: Amine 4SL) Table 2 Herbicides Phytotoxic to Paspalum Turf Preemergence Applications Ronstar WP Surflan AS Postemergence Applications Asulox SL *Aatrex WP *Sencor DF *Daconate 6 SL Vantage EC *Princep WP Image SL *Bueno 6 SL *Trimec Plus SL *Trimec Classic SL Turfion ester EC Confront SL Acclaim EC *These herbicides have more than one trade name or similar/ slightly different chemical formulations *These herbicides have more than one trade name or similar/ slightly different chemical formulations Table 3 Specific Weed Control Options for Herbicide Use on Paspalum Herbicide Chemical Family Weeds Controlled Preemergence Ronstar G Kerb WP Balan oxadiazol amide dinitroaniline Pre-M WDG* dinitroaniline Barricade WDG dinitroaniline Team G Dimension Prograss EC Gallery WG Postemergence Kerb WP Dimension EC Drive Prograss EC dinitroaniline pyridine benzamide amide pyridine Vanquish SL Manage WG Basagran T/O benzoic acid sulfonylurea benzothiadiazole Crabgrass, goosegrass, annual bluegrass, winter broadleaf weeds Annual bluegrass Annual bluegrass, winter weeds, crabgrass (short season control) Crabgrass, goosegrass, annual bluegrass Crabgrass, goosegrass, annual bluegrass Crabgrass, annual bluegrass Crabgrass, goosegrass, annual bluegrass Annual bluegrass Annual broadleaf weeds Annual bluegrass Crabgrass (early) Crabgrass Bermuda (in combination with Cutlass) Broadleaf weeds Purple/yellow nutsedge Yellow nutsedge "This herbicide has more than one trade name or similar/slightly different chemical formulations MARCH/APRIL 1998 19 ON COURSE WITH NATURE Going Native on the Course A planning and planting experience. by LUKE CELLA NATIVE PLANTS and plantings have a real place in the world of golf. Finding the place, planting and caring for the areas are up to us. One may ask, “Why even try to restore a site to its native vegetation?” The answer is simple: There is an aesthetic appeal that becomes quickly evident, and in the long term we are preserving many rare plants, animals, and natural communities. The key to planting a successful native or natural area is to plan it properly. Look carefully at the area you wish to restore to its native vege­ tation. When I first started working with Audubon International for the certification of the Pottawatomie Golf Course in St. Charles, Illinois, I drew a plan noting all of the available space for native restoration plantings on the golf course property. The next logical step was to choose a site for my first restoration. The questions that needed to be answered were: Is the area out of play but not out of sight? What type of soil does the site possess? How much sun reaches the location? How will the plantings work into the existing land­ scape? What kind of preparation does the site need? I asked the advice of a friend and teacher to help me make the site selection. He told me to keep it small for my first attempt at this type of project. The area I chose to restore measured close to 6,000 square feet along the Fox River. It had its own natural boundaries — the river, a cart path, and the rough from the third hole. The location would serve as a backdrop for an approach shot to our third green and was highly noticeable as golfers made their way to the third green. The next step was to take a close look at the area’s soil and sun conditions. It turned out that part of the area flooded occasionally with the changing seasons. After a heavy rain I marked off the line that water had reached and staked this area off. I could also see 20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD A local boy scout troop was interested in helping with the restoration of the native area. Prior to planting, the area was prepared by killing all the existing vegetation and burning off the excess organic matter. The area to be planted was marked with different paint colors that corresponded to the appropriate plant flats. that other parts of the site would rarely flood and marked these areas. The areas in the middle would serve as a transition between the two. The reason for this delineation becomes important in plant selection. The area also re­ ceived full sun after I removed a small cottonwood tree that had sprouted up and transplanted a willow that had been planted in the area a few years earlier. When planting a prairie or native vegetation, plants are grouped not only by zones but also by the amount of moisture in the soil. • Wet is soggy or marshy most of the year. • Wet-Mesic is excessively wet in winter, spring, and after heavy rains, but dries in summer. • Mesic is of average moistness, water readily soaks in with little runoff, and is considered average garden soil. • Dry-Mesic is well-drained soil, and water is drained from the soil readily, but not rapidly. • Dry is excessively drained. Sun requirements are defined as follows: • Prairie: Plants grow normally in full sun. Should do well with a half day or more of sun. • Savanna: Partially shaded. Sun will reach ground level through the openings between trees. • Woodland: Heavily shaded by a closed canopy of trees. After we defined the soil type and the sunlight the site possessed, we then began to choose plant species. The plan was to use plugs of native plant material on the outside edges of the whole area, about 12 feet deep towards the middle. The middle portion of the selected site would be seeded. I wanted to plug for a couple of reasons. First of all, this area could be irrigated, and I wanted to establish the plants quickly and pro­ vide some diversity right away, not only with color, but texture and height as well. Selecting the plant material was new to me. I started by contacting Audubon International for suppliers of native plant material in my area. They sent me a list of all the available seed and plant producers close to my loca­ tion. Next I contacted these suppliers and requested catalogues. Soon the catalogues showed up in the mail and I looked through them for plant material and seed possibilities. Feeling baffled by the amount and types of material to choose from, I contacted individual suppliers and found that planting day. The plug trays are a little different from most because of the depth of the actual plug. The diameter is close to two inches, but the depth of the plugs is five inches to accommodate some of the plants’ taproots. I carefully laid out all of the areas in the site with string and had a staff member operate a drill with an auger bit attached to make the holes for the scout troop. This method proved least disruptive to the soil around the plugs. I marked the the area was that it had forced some weed seeds to germinate as well. Be­ cause the area was relatively small, I was able to have some of my staff hand weed among the native plants when the course was crowded during league play. Most seeded sites can be mowed a couple of times a year when the plants reach a height of 12 inches. It is recom­ mended to cut the plants to a height of six inches. Mowing is detrimental to the annual weeds and prevents them from (Left) The area was irrigated for about a month to help the plugs take root and to help the seeds germinate. Temporary fencing was used on the outside edge of the area to help train golfers to walk around the area rather than through it. (Right) Now the native plants have taken hold in their new home. The project has been well worth the investment of time and energy. most of them are more than willing to answer questions about planning native areas. The next step was to prepare the site for planting. I used a non-selective herbicide to kill all of the existing vegetation. In this case, the area was primarily annual ryegrass and blue­ grass. I waited to see the effects of the application and then went back and retreated areas that needed it. After all of the existing vegetation was dead, I contacted the fire department and received a land management burn permit. One evening before the dew set in, I burned the decaying vegetation and the weed seeds that had found their way into the site. The site was now ready to plant. All of the existing vegetation was gone and the soil was undisturbed. The less the soil is dis­ turbed, the less likely weed seeds will germinate in the area. Planting time approached, and I asked the local boy scout troop to help out with the planting. I had the plugs delivered the day prior to the scheduled flats with colors that coincided with the areas that went with that type of plant. I let the troop choose where to plant individual plants as long as they were within the right soil type boundary. We did make sure the tall plants were planted close to the middle of the site, with the shorter and more color­ ful plants closer to the edge where traffic passed steadily. When the troop finished, the plugs were thoroughly watered. I then applied a preemergent herbicide between the plugs and watered it into the soil. The middle of the site was seeded by lightly scraping the soil, sowing the seeds, and hand raking. Because the area previously had received foot traffic, I put up a tem­ porary fence to train the golfers to walk around the area instead of through it as they normally had. The plugs were watered by sprinklers for about a month to establish their root systems. The watering also helped the native seed in the middle to germinate a little more quickly than normal. One problem with irrigating producing seed. The native plants are usually too small to be injured by a six- inch mowing during their first year. I plan to bum the area early next spring. All of the plants that established themselves this past season have now stored a large portion of their nutrients in their underground system of roots and will survive their first burn. The burning will help warm the soil by exposing the blackened ground to the spring sun. Over time I would like to find new places on the golf course and repeat the process of restoring sites with native vegetation. Despite the investment of time and materials, we need to remember that these native areas are sustainable. They can survive on their own and maintain the natural diversity found in our environment. LUKE CELLA is the superintendent at the 58-year-old, Robert Trent Jones-designed Pottawatomie Golf Course in St. Charles, Illinois. In October of 1997, Pottawatomie Golf Course became the first fully certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System nine-hole facility in the program. MARCH/APRIL1998 21 NEWS NOTES Research Update Committee Volunteers Tom Burton (left) and Dr. Vic Gibeault. The USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Committee at work at its December 1997 meeting in San Antonio, Texas. THE USGA’s Turfgrass and Environ­ mental Research Committee met during the first week of December 1997 to evaluate more than 70 proposals from university researchers for various turfgrass-related projects for the period 1998-2002. At stake was approximately $1.4 million of the $2 million annual funding approved by the USGA Execu­ tive Committee in August of 1996. After two days of intensive evaluations and discussions, the Committee approved funding for 41 projects at an annual cost of about $950,000. Other projects will be considered at the Committee’s meeting in May 1998. This funding total does not include the $200,000 allo­ cated to fund the Wildlife Links Pro­ gram, which earmarks funds for wild­ life-related research, or the funding of the five-year green construction investi­ gations that began in 1996. The following table indicates the anticipated funding of turfgrass and environmental programs, by category, for 1998. 1998 Grant Estimates Project Area Cooperative Sanctuary Wildlife Links Germplasm Enhancement Integrated Turfgrass Management Risk Assessment Site-Specific Management Sustainable Land Use Pesticide/Nutrient Fate Course Construction Current 120,000 Proposed 48,600 Putting Green Test Subtotal Current 105,000 Data Collection 14,000 1998 Est. $ 100,000 200,000 424,417 292,409 0 0 10,000 181,540 168,600 Subtotal Contingency* 119,000 200,000 Total $1,695,966 ★Includes projects that may be funded at the May 1998 meeting, as well as potential studies concerning soil testing Say ‘So Long’ to the Western Region THE growing num­ ber of clubs par­ ticipating in the Green Section’s Turf Advisory Service in the western United States has precipi­ tated a few changes in the Green Section’s regional structure. Effective immediately, the Western Region exists no more! It has been divided into two regions: the North­ west Region, encompassing the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Hawaii; and the South­ west Region, consisting of California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Pat Gross (pictured above), who has been an agronomist for the Western Region since 1992, has been promoted 22 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD to the position of director of the newly formed Southwest Region. He will over­ see the Green Section’s Turf Advisory Service and other regional activities along with Mike Huck, an agronomist who joined the Western Region staff in 1995. Pat brings outstanding experi­ ence to his new position. He is a California State Polytechnic University graduate who majored in ornamental horticulture with a specialization in turf­ grass science. His hands-on golf experi­ ence includes work at Industry Hills Golf Course, Industry, California; Shandin Hills Golf Course, San Ber­ nardino, California; and Hacienda Golf Club, La Habra Heights, California. Larry Gilhuly, previously director of the Western Region, now serves as director of the newly created North­ west Region. THE MAINSTAY of the USGA is the willingness of people across all walks of the golf industry to volunteer their time and talents to the many USGA Committees. Tom Burton and Dr. Vic Gibeault are two such indi­ viduals who have generously given to the USGA. Tom Burton, Sea Island Golf Club, Sea Island, Georgia, recently stepped down from the USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Committee. From 1988 to 1997, Tom used his talents and experience as a golf course superintendent to help focus research project objectives on the needs of superintendents. Dr. Vic Gibeault, University of California — Riverside, who joined the USGA Research Com­ mittee in 1985, also is retiring from the Committee. He is redirecting his efforts on new turf research projects at Riverside, specifically in the area of turfgrass sustainability. He also is acting as vice chair in the Botany and Plant Science Department, reviewing the role of California extension specialists. Both men have seen the turfgrass research program take great strides in the development of improved turf­ grasses that substantially reduce water use, pesticide use, and maintenance costs. They helped oversee the expan­ sion of the program from an emphasis on turfgrass breeding to include new research to develop management prac­ tices that protect the environment while providing high quality playing surfaces. The Turfgrass and Environ­ mental Research Committee also over­ saw the grants that allowed the devel­ opment of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses and more recently the launching of new research through the Wildlife Links Program, pertaining to wildlife on golf courses. The USGA thanks both Tom and Vic for their dedicated service to the USGA for the betterment of the game of golf. Welcome New Committee Members lend their talents to the USGA Turf­ grass and Environmental Research Committee. Dr. Pepin is the executive vice-president and general manager of Pickseed West, Inc., based in Jefferson, Oregon. Dr. Cobb is a professor in extension entomology at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. As visiting scientists, they will serve a two-year appointment to the com­ mittee, through 1999. Drs. Pepin and Cobb will attend research committee meetings, review research proposals, and participate in monitoring visits to USGA-sponsored research sites throughout the year. THE Green Section is pleased to announce that Dr. Gerald Pepin and Dr. Patricia Cobb have agreed to Attention Effluent/Reclaimed/Recycled Irrigation Water Users: We Need Your Help! putting greens) irrigation with regard to salinity, pH, SAR, bicarbonate content, and toxic ions. THE WateReuse Association, an organization dedicated to increas­ ing water recycling, recently formed a golf course work group. This organi­ zation is comprised of a broad spec­ trum of members from public agencies, consultants, and private industry, along with regulatory agencies working to­ gether to find solutions to recycled water use problems. The association was organized in 1990 to address recycled water use in the state of California. Their scope has now ex­ panded to include national and inter­ national concerns. The golf course work group was formed under the Landscape/Horticul- ture Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee. Mike Huck, agronomist, USGA Green Section Southwestern Region, is heading this group in con­ junction with committee members Pat Gross, Director, USGA Southwestern Region, and Mark Stanek, Technical Advisor / Water Quality, City of Sunnyvale, California, Department of Public Works. The work group intends to address specific problems and con­ cerns that golf courses have with recycled irrigation water, including: • Developing an accurate and up-to- date database of golf courses irrigating with recycled water. • Survey golf courses using recycled water to identify specific problems and gain feedback from users. • Suggest minimum water quality standards for turf (and particularly • Develop design and management guidelines for lakes to reduce the need for algae and water weed control by using the input and experience of water reclamation engineers and treat­ ment plant operators. • Recommend that recycled water suppliers provide golf course users with water analysis reports on a fre­ quent basis that address water quality from both agricultural suitability and human health standpoints. • Establish uniform system retrofit standards with regard to backflow, signage, cross connection, health and safety regulations, etc. • Develop best management practices. If your course currently uses or is scheduled to begin using recycled water in the near future, we need your help to develop a database of users. Please send the name, address, phone, and fax of your golf course, and a contact person Mike Huck USGA Southwest Region 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 121 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Fax (714) 542-5777 e-mail: mhuck@usga.org This will assure that our upcoming user survey reaches you, and your experiences with recycled water are documented. Thank you for your participation. Physical Soil Testing Laboratories* The following laboratories are accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), having demonstrated ongoing competency in testing materials specified in the USGA’s Recommendations for Putting Green Construction. The USGA recommends that only A2LA-accredited laboratories be used for testing and analyzing materials for building greens according to our guidelines. BROOKSIDE LABORATORIES, INC. 308 S. Main Street New Knoxville, OH 45871 Attn: Mark Flock (419) 753-2448 (419) 753-2949 FAX EUROPEAN TURFGRASS LABORATORIES LIMITED 3 Cunningham Road Springkerse Industrial East Stirling FK7 7SL Scotland Attn: John Souter (44) 1786-449195 (44) 1786-449688 FAX N. W. HUMMEL & CO. 35 King Street, P.O. Box 606 Trumansburg, NY 14886 Attn: Norm Hummel (607) 387-5694 (607) 387-9499 FAX THOMAS TURF SERVICES, INC. 1501 FM 2818, Suite 302 College Station, IX 77840-5247 Attn: Bob Yzaguirre I Jim Thomas (409) 764-2050 (409) 764-2152 FAX TIFTON PHYSICAL SOIL TESTING LABORATORY, INC. 1412 Murray Avenue Tifton, GA 31794 Attn: Powell Gaines (912) 382-7292 (912) 382-7992 FAX TURF DIAGNOSTICS AND DESIGN, INC. 310-A North Winchester Street Olathe, KS 66062 Attn: Chuck Dixon (913) 780-6725 (913) 780-6759 FAX * Revised January 1998. Please contact the USGA Green Section (908-234-2300) for an updated list of accredited laboratories. MARCH/APRIL 1998 23 ALL THINGS CONSIDERED CORE CULTIVATION: Too Much of a Good Thing? It’s time to re-think a time-honored cultural practice. by JAMES E. SKORULSKI SOME ISSUES are probably better left for after-hours round-table discussions in places where the music is a little loud and cigar smoke fills the air. The topic of coring greens may be one of those, but I will take a chance in hopes that this opinion will cause a few to reevalute their programs or at least stimulate some healthy debate. I will start by saying that the benefits of conventional core cultivation cannot be denied. Core cultivation is used to alleviate the negative impact of surface compaction, modify poor quality soils, reduce the effects of layering, manage thatch, help overcome the effects of poor quality water, and overseed exist­ ing turf. It will continue to be an integral practice at golf courses around the world for those reasons. There are, however, negative aspects associated with core cultivation, the most obvious being the disruption it causes to the playing surface. How often have you heard, “Just when the greens get good you go tearing them up”? I have little sympathy for the golfer in most in­ stances, knowing the benefits of core aerification. However, life would be a little bit easier if we did not have to do battle over this issue each and every summer. Another question to ask is, Does repeated core cultivation create an opportunity for annual bluegrass to invade? The answer is yes, it probably does, especially if the operation is completed at times when the turf is slow to recover. This may be of little concern if Poa annua is already your predominant grass species, but it is a point worth considering at new golf courses. There are other reasons why traditional core cultivation is not a popular topic in maintenance facilities around the world, but it is generally accepted that the program is a necessity whose benefits far outweigh the draw­ backs. 24 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD This is probably the case at most golf courses. But — and be careful here — what if you could reduce traditional core cultivation without jeopardizing the turf and, more importantly, your job? Would you do it? To answer this question, first review the aerification programs in place to determine their effectiveness, and decide whether they remain consistent with your agronomic objectives. For example, when core cultivation is used to modify native­ soil, push-up style greens, it is the most effective tool for this purpose. How­ ever, what is the role of core aerification after the upper 4 inches of the soil profile has been completely modified with a sandy material? Is surface com­ paction still a major concern even after the soils are modified? Hopefully not, but there are other less disruptive aerification tools available for allevi­ ating surface compaction alone. Does core cultivation then become a thatch management and overseeding tool and, if so, can the operation be completed less frequently, with smaller tines, or replaced or supplemented with deep verticutting or some other type of cultivation? Another consideration involves cor­ ing sand-based bentgrass greens. Assume that the greens are properly built with a sand meeting the guidelines developed by the USGA for putting green construction. The primary reason for core cultivation on such greens should be to manage the organic mat­ ter that accumulates in the upper pro­ file. However, there are other culti­ vation tools that may manage the organic material equally well. Have you investigated or experimented with the use of smaller 0.25-inch hollow quadra­ tines, more aggressive vertical mowing or slicing programs? Do you have the ability to topdress as needed through­ out the season to minimize thatch buildup and prevent layering? Can the fertility programs be modified to meet the growing needs of the turf without stimulating unnecessary growth? Is it practical to manipulate pH to en­ courage the decomposition of organic material that already exists? The answers to these questions can only be determined through extensive field evaluation, laboratory testing, and knowledge of the greens’ performance and the resources that are available. Core cultivation will likely continue to be an important tool for managing the organic matter and layering problems in sand-based systems. But if we begin utilizing other available cultivation tools and fine-tuning our cultural prac­ tices, then perhaps the frequency or aggressiveness of coring can be re­ duced, minimizing Poa annua en­ croachment and the surface disruption so despised by golfers. I am not advocating, nor do I ever anticipate, the complete elimination of core cultivation from golf course opera­ tions. Even reducing the frequency of core cultivation may not be possible at many golf courses where soil quality is marginal, traffic heavy, the greens small, or the water quality poor. As the golf course superintendent, only you should make the ultimate decisions regarding what, when, and how cultivation pro­ grams are carried out. However, re­ evaluate the goals of your current core cultivation programs and the new tools that are available with an open mind, and begin asking yourself, “What if . . . ?” You just might surprise yourself. JAMES E. SKORULSKI is an agronomist in the Green Section’s Northeastern Region. LU ZE USGA PRESIDENT E Morgan Taylor, Jr. GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN C. McD. England III P.O. Box 58 Huntington, WV 25706 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR David B. Fay EDITOR James T. Snow ASSOCIATE EDITOR Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS Marty Parkes ©1998 by United States Golf Association® Subscriptions $15 a year, Canada/Mexico $18 a year, and international $30 a year (air mail). Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and corre­ spondence relevant to published material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green Section, Golf House, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Permission to reproduce articles or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD is granted to newspapers, periodicals, and educa­ tional institutions (unless specifically noted otherwise). Credit must be given to the author, the article’s title, USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD, and the issue’s date. Copyright protection must be 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: Address service requested — USGA Green Section Record, P.O. Box 708, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931-0708. Periodicals postage paid at Far Hills, NJ, and other locations. Office of Publication, Golf House, Far Hills, NJ 07931. Visit the USGA’s Internet site on the World Wide Web. The address is: http://www.usga.org Turfgrass Information File (TGIF): http://www.lib.msu.edu/tgif (517) 353-7209 GREEN SECTION NATIONAL OFFICES: United States Golf Association, Golf House P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ 07931 • (908) 234-2300 • Fax (908) 781-1736 James T. Snow, National Director Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D, Director of Education P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900 • Fax (405) 743-3910 Michael P. Kenna, Ph.D., Director Construction Education Programs: 720 Wooded Crest, Waco, TX 76712 • (254) 776-0765 • Fax (254) 776-0227 James F. Moore, Director REGIONAL OFFICES: Northeast Region: P.O. Box 4717, Easton, PA 18043 • (610) 515-1660 • Fax (610) 515-1663 David A. Oatis, Director • Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist 1500 N. Main Street, Palmer, MA 01069 • (413) 283-2237 • Fax (413) 283-7741 James E. Skorulski, Agronomist Mid-Atlantic Region: P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380-0086 • (610) 696-4747 • Fax (610) 696-4810 Stanley J. Zontek, Director • Keith A. Happ, Agronomist • Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist Southeast Region: P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (770) 229-8125 • Fax (770) 229-5974 Patrick M. O’Brien, Director 4770 Sandpiper Lane, Birmingham, AL 35244 • (205) 444-5079 • Fax (205) 444-9561 Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist Florida Region: P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (561) 546-2620 • Fax (561) 546-4653 John H. Foy, Director Mid-Continent Region: P.O. Box 1130, Mahomet, IL 61853 • (217) 586-2490 • Fax (217) 586-2169 Paul H. Vermeulen, Director 4232 Arbor Lane, Carrollton, TX 75010 • (972) 492-3663 • Fax (972) 492-1350 Brian M. Maloy, Agronomist North-Central Region: P.O. Box 15249, Covington, KY 41015-0249 • (606) 356-3272 • Fax (606) 356-1847 Robert A. Brame, Director P.O. Box 5069, Elm Grove, WI 53122 • (414) 797-8743 • Fax (414) 797-8838 Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist Northwest Region: 5610 Old Stump Drive N.W, Gig Harbor, WA 98332 (253) 858-2266 • Fax (253) 857-6698 Larry W. Gilhuly, Director Southwest Region: 505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 542-5766 • Fax (714) 542-5777 Patrick J. Gross, Director • Michael T. Huck, Agronomist REGULAR CALIBRATION Question: Earlier this winter, during the cool weather and heavy rains, I noticed some pink snow mold active on some of my greens. The greens were too wet to use our spray rig, so I chose to use a backpack sprayer. However, I had difficulty calibrating it for proper delivery. Is there an easy way to calibrate a backpack sprayer accurately? (Maryland) Answer: Calibrating a backpack sprayer is not difficult if these steps are followed. First, determine your spray width and measure a path on a level surface to a set length. Determine the amount of time you need to walk your path. Do this with the sprayer on your back at least half full. Next, using plain water, collect the spray from the nozzle and determine the volume collected over the same time frame. Be sure to maintain your spraying pressure during this step. Once you know the area covered and volume delivered, a volume/unit area can be determined and fungicide added accordingly. SCHEDULES Question: As a recently appointed green committee chairman, I am finding it extremely difficult to integrate our maintenance schedule into our pre-established tournament calendar. Any suggestions? (Arizona) Answer: Poor maintenance planning affects the entire membership and not just tournament participants. Many maintenance practices should be performed when growing conditions are optimal. If not, they can have a negative impact on course conditioning for many seasons to come. So, with this in mind, it is best to develop the maintenance schedule first and then integrate tournaments around these dates. ASSIST MAINTENANCE OBJECTIVES Question: What are the most popular types of TAS visits that are done by your agronomists? (Iowa) Answer: Great question. Here are just a few examples of the types of visits requested by superintendents: • Typical course tour with the superintendent and course officials. • Presentations for special projects such as green reconstruction, fairway grassing, irrigation system upgrading, etc. • One-on-one meetings with superintendents to discuss technical information. • Assist with orientation of new Green Committee members. • Speak at crew meetings to help reinforce maintenance expectations of the course. • Assistance in developing long-range plans and maintenance objectives. PETER COOKINGHAM MSU LIBRARIES EAST LANSING MI 48824