Record

Volume 38, Number 4 

July/August 2000

.'F ■ 
i"

5W

»?

•2* VS 

4-05 

* v--'W-

“I think that I shall never see 
A poem lovely as a tree. ”

-- V^<L- 3* ’ <* * - *«**■ 
!-.■*<> 5 

". ii&'-fSv ■ •■

•£*«? ./

A PUBLICATION ON TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT

BY THE UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION®

,1894.

JULY/AUGUST 2000 
Volume 38, Number 4

Cover Photo: 
Trees have inspired poetry... 
and can cause a considerable 
amount of trouble for golf 
course superintendents.

Record

Sometimes the stump of a tree removed 
for agronomic reasons can be put to 
artistic use on the golf course. For more 
about dealing with trees, see page 1.

1
Man’s Friend or Golf’s Enemy?
Trees have long been known to hinder healthy turfgrass growth, 
but solving tree problems can be a difficult and touchy issue.
By David A. Oatis

7
Sand-Based Rootzone Modification with 
Inorganic Soil Amendments and Sphagnum Peat Moss 
Current player volume and maintenance practices call for research 
into changes in putting green construction materials. 
By Cale A. Bigelow, Dan Bowman, and Keith Cassel

14
How Much is Too Much?
Every course has a level of play that, when passed, results in 
conditioning/maintenance falling off and costs going up.
By Bob Brame

17
The Birdies and The Bees
Native pollinators on your golf course. 
By M. D. Shepherd and V. J. Tepedino

22
Gaining a New Perspective 
Enhancing pond shorelines with native aquatic plants. 
By Steven Visosky

23
News Notes

24
Say No to “Backdrops”
Golfers have come to believe that every golf hole must have a 
backdrop of trees, but many holes would be better off without them! 
By David A. Oatis

A wooden block, drilled with holes %2n 
to %" in diameter, quickly becomes home 
for solitary nesting bees. See page 17.

26
Turf Twisters

Man's Friend or Golfs Enemy?

Trees have long been known to hinder healthy turfgrass growth, 
but solving tree problems can be a difficult and touchy issue.

by DAVID A. OATIS

Trees by Joyce Kilmer
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest 
Against the earth’s sweet flowing 

breast;

A tree that looks at God all day, 
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in Summer wear 
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me, 
But only God can make a tree.

“As beautiful as trees are, and as fond 
as you and I are of them, we still must 
not lose sight of the fact that there is a 
limited place for them in golf. We 
must not allow our sentiments to 
crowd out the real intent of a golf 
course, that of providing fair playing 
conditions. If it in any way interferes 
with a properly played stroke, I think 
the tree is an unfair hazard and 
should not be allowed to stand.”

— Donald Ross, from 

Golf Has Never Failed Me

TTOYCE KILMER had no idea of 
I the damage that trees can inflict 
I upon golf courses when he penned 
J his immortal poem, “Trees.” This is 
a poem that many adults can quote or 
at least recognize immediately, and it is 
the epitome of how many people feel 
about trees.

Fortunately for golfers and golf 
course superintendents, master archi­
tect Donald J. Ross also commented on 
trees. In his book Golf Has Never 
Failed Me, Mr. Ross spoke volumes in 
his simple, straightforward statement. 
Many courses would do well to take his 
message to heart. America has a love 
affair with trees, and there is much to 
love. Trees provide us with many prac­
tical and environmental benefits, and 
they are a phenomenon of nature that 
most find fascinatingly beautiful. Plant­
ing trees is an enjoyable pastime that

Planting trees too close together results in problems in later years. Crowded conditions 
result in neither tree developing its natural shape.

JULY/AUGUST 2000

1

Trees that block advancement from a hazard are sometimes referred to as double hazards. The solution in this situation is 
straightforward — remove or relocate the bunkers or remove the trees.

can leave us feeling that we have made 
a lasting and beneficial mark on the 
earth. Since many of our home lawns 
are small, there often is limited space 
available to plant trees. For golfers, it is 
only natural that their tree planting 
efforts frequently are transferred to the 
biggest landscape they know, the golf 
course.

The Problem

Most golf courses start out or even­
tually become overplanted with trees, 
and they eventually begin to suffer 
through all of the associated problems. 
Overplanting is inevitable for most 
courses. Once it occurs, the turf de­
clines, playability suffers, views are 
lost, and the golf course gradually 
acquires a closed-in, claustrophobic 
feel. A common result of overplanting 
is that good golf holes are made unfair 
or just overly penal, and they become 
less enjoyable to play. Distinguishing 
design features frequently are obscured, 
the original intent of design is lost, and 
the altered holes wind up becoming 
gimmicky. It is at this point — when 
the care of the golf course and the 
turfgrass begins taking a back seat to 
the tree plantings — that the course 

2

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

begins a slow downward agronomic 
spiral.

Sometimes tree planting is taken 
to ridiculous extremes. This often is 
something that happens at courses 
where a “tree committee” or a “course 
beautification committee” has been 
appointed. Such committees can pro­
vide an invaluable service, but they also 
can get carried away. It only makes 
sense. After all, what is the duty of the 
tree committee if not to plant trees? 
Tree removal is often extremely un­
popular, and at some courses, every 
tree becomes sacred, no matter how 
deformed, unhealthy, or unsafe it be­
comes. Trees and tree planting must 
never be allowed to interfere with the 
fundamental objective, which is to 
grow healthy, reasonable-to-maintain 
turfgrass on which to play the game.

Tree problems come in a variety of 
forms, but they basically revolve 
around quantity, quality, and location. 
The wrong (species) tree in the wrong 
location can be disastrous for the turf. 
It also can greatly increase the cost of 
golf course maintenance. By now you 
might be concerned over the trees on 
your course, and you may be wonder­
ing just what you could do to determine 

whether or not your course has tree 
problems and just how severe they are. 
What makes for a good stand of 
trees? How does a course assess its 
tree situation?

Getting Started

For years, Green Section agrono­
mists have helped golf course super­
intendents and committees pull their 
courses out of the tree-induced death 
spiral, but it requires plenty of hard 
work and communication. Golfers and 
board members who are willing to 
listen and be educated are a pre­
requisite. Over the years there have 
been many articles written on the 
subject of trees and their impact on 
playability and turfgrass health. A list of 
some of the better ones is included at 
the end of this article. Reading these 
articles is a great place to start for any 
course that is ready to get serious 
about its trees.

A quick tour of any course by a 
trained professional can quickly reveal 
whether extensive tree work is needed. 
However, considerably more time is 
required to determine the full extent of 
the work required. Although rare indi­
viduals have the knowledge and 

expertise to do an evaluation without 
assistance, the most prudent course of 
action usually is to perform a systematic 
evaluation, utilizing professionals from 
different disciplines. In this manner, 
the different perspectives can be dis­
cussed. The following are some good 
possibilities:

• Golf course superintendent
• Agronomist
• Arborist
• Golf course architect
• Golf professional
• Interested committee members
The goal should be to select a com­
mittee with varied backgrounds so all 
issues are considered. Starting the 
review process with the proper criteria 
on which to base decisions is critically 
important and should influence the 
selection of committee members. De­
pending on the size of the property, the 
number of plantings, and nature of the 
problem, effective and thorough tree 
reviews may take a few days to 
complete. The work identified may be 
so extensive that it could be scheduled 
in phases over a couple of years.

Although it may seem an over­
whelming task, an excellent approach 
often is to evaluate each tree indi­
vidually. Some courses have gone so 
far as to mark each tree in one of four 
ways:

• Prune
• Remove
• Relocate
• Do not touch
This time-consuming approach 
forces conscious decisions to be made 
regarding the fate of each tree and can 
result in better decisions. Just be sure to 
use a non-permanent marking system 
so that changes can be made easily. It 
also helps if the marking system is 
discreet, as this will help avoid calling 
attention to the program and unneces­
sarily alarming golfers. Small pieces of 
color-coded plastic tape, stapled to the 
trees, work well. Marking paint also 
can be used but can be too persistent. 
In the Northeast, mid/late September 
is an ideal time to perform the review, 
with the work being carried out during 
the fall and winter months.

The Criteria

Next come the criteria, and this is 
where many courses get off the track. 
There are many reasons to plant and 
maintain trees, but the reasons should 
be reviewed, especially for trees that 
are having a deleterious impact on the 
course. Perhaps the first question to ask 
regarding such a tree is, “Does the tree 

have a specific purpose?” or “Is this 
tree necessary?” It certainly is not 
essential for every tree to have a specific 
purpose, but this is a good place to 
start for trees that are having an 
undesirable agronomic impact on the 
turfgrass. If the answer is no, the 
solution is straightforward. The follow­
ing are some of the appropriate criteria 
to be used in the decision-making 
process:

• The desirability of the tree based 

on its species

• Golfer safety
• The general health of the tree, in­

cluding its form and structure

• Life expectancy
• The impact on playability
• The impact on the agronomics of 

growing turfgrass

• The impact on traffic flow
• The impact on aesthetics and sur­

rounding trees

A tree simply cannot be valued above a 
human life. Unsafe trees in heavy traffic 
areas need to be addressed quickly and 
should be removed.

The desirability based on species: 
Certain species are inherently more 
valuable than others. In fact, a guide for 
determining tree valuation has been 
developed by insurance companies 
with the help of the National Council 
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 
Because of the requirements of the 
game in general, and the turfgrass in 
particular, many species of trees are 
not well suited to use on golf courses. 
Fast growers, soft-wooded, or species 
with invasive roots are among the first 
to avoid. Dense canopied trees that 
cause excessive shade or create espe­
cially severe penalties to golfers are best 

left unplanted. Species that create litter 
or have severe pest problems also 
should be avoided. It gets even more 
complicated because species that may 
work well in one climate may be totally 
inappropriate in other climates. Re­
grettably, there are no perfect species, 
and selection often involves some 
trade-offs.

Golfer safety: Safety likely is the 
most serious consideration when 
evaluating trees. Tree failure cannot 
always be predicted, but trees with 
obvious structural problems must be 
removed, particularly when they are 
located in high play/traffic areas. Sur­
prisingly often, large, damaged, severely 
declining trees are allowed to remain 
even though they may pose a serious 
injury threat to golfers or maintenance 
staff. This is an example of emotion 
getting the best of intellect. Simply put, 
preserving an old, dying, and obviously 
unsafe tree must not take precedence 
over protecting the health and well­
being of human beings. No tree is 
worth more than a human life, but if 
the value of a human life is not enough 
to convince some, talk to the insurer— 
perhaps the liability issue will!

General tree health including form 
and structure: If the form, structure, or 
species is poor or undesirable, it should 
be considered for removal. Specific 
knowledge of trees and their growth 
habits therefore is essential, which is 
why an arborist should be included in 
the review process. This is not to say 
that all imperfectly formed trees should 
be removed; on the contrary, it is the 
nature of some tree species to have an 
irregular growth habit. The northern 
white pine (Pinus strobus) is just such 
an example. Mature specimens usually 
display an irregular growth habit, often 
as a result of ice damage, which can be 
quite attractive. On the other hand, 
trees with naturally symmetrical growth 
habits that are somehow damaged and 
wind up misshapen, should be con­
sidered for removal. Trees that have to 
be over-pruned for playability reasons 
also fall into this category.

Life expectancy: Most tree species 
have predictable life expectancies that 
are greatly influenced by their care and 
location. A properly trained arborist 
can take the myriad of factors that 
affect individual trees into account 
and provide an estimate of a tree’s life 
expectancy. This is not an exact science, 
but taking a tree’s potential life span 
into consideration is helpful in long­
term planning. It simply does not make 
sense to spend money on corrective 

JULY/AUGUST 2000

3

pruning, pest control, or fertilization for 
trees affected by a serious or incurable 
malady. Removal is usually the most 
fiscally prudent decision.

The impact on playability: Play­
ability can be a gray area because there 
are few hard and fast rules in golf 
course architecture. However, an over­
riding principle to keep in mind is that 
“golf is a game, not a penance,” and as 
such, it should be enjoyable. Trees that 
unfairly penalize one segment or an­
other of the golfing population may not 
be appropriate. Dense canopied trees 
with low branching habits (cedars, 
spruce, etc.) present an extreme 
penalty, and usually are not appropriate 
in high-play areas. The following are 
a few other situations to avoid:

• Double hazards: Trees or brush 
located in or in front of hazards (e.g. 
sand bunkers) that block advancement 
generally should be avoided. The game 
is hard enough without making it 
overly penal!

•Vegetation blocking play from a 
teeing ground: Why build and maintain 
a tee that cannot fairly be used?

•Vegetation blocking play from a 
significant portion of a fairway: A 
player who has hit a ball in the fairway 
deserves a shot at the green.

• Design alteration: Indiscriminate 
tree planting can have an insidious 
impact on a good design. Do some of 
your tees point into the woods? Do 
some of the doglegs seem too severe? 
If so, chances are good that trees have 
altered the original intent of your 
design.

The impact on the agronomics of 
growing turfgrass: It is a well-known 
fact that trees compete effectively with 
turfgrass for moisture, nutrients, and 
sunlight. Some trees are worse offend­
ers that others, and some turfgrasses are 
better adapted than others to handle 
the shade and root competition. How­
ever, in many situations trees and turf­
grass simply are not compatible. If 
healthy, wear-tolerant turfgrass is to be 
maintained, the trees have to go.

Turfgrass grown in a shady, pocketed 
environment is physiologically different 
from turf grown out in the open. Re­
duced sunlight affects the growth habit 
of the turf, causing it to be more open 
and “leggy,” much the same as a house­
plant grown with insufficient sunlight. 
This leaves the turfgrass more succulent 
and susceptible to wear injury. Under 
low light conditions, the turfgrass also 
will suffer from reduced vigor. A good 
rule of thumb is that grass needs at least 

Some trees, due to structural weaknesses, are not good choices. If the trees provide 
strategic value to the golf course, they should be replaced with a better species.

4

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

eight hours of direct sunlight to exhibit 
moderate recuperative power, and turf 
that receives extra stress, wear, and tear 
(i.e. greens and tees) will perform better 
with even more light. Thus, trees that 
block sunlight must be considered for 
removal. All things being equal, morn­
ing sun is more valuable (e.g. for drying 
the turf) than afternoon sun, so con­
centrate efforts there first. Also realize 
that sun angles change dramatically 
throughout the year, and performing 
sunlight assessment without taking 
seasonal changes into consideration is 
a major mistake.

The other major effect trees and 
brush can have is in reducing air circu­
lation. Reduced air circulation trans­
lates to increased temperature and 
relative humidity, and this favors the 
growth and development of many turf­
grass pathogens. In summary, a poor 
grass-growing environment creates less 
vigorous turf that is more susceptible 
to injury and infection. When the turf 
suffers injury, whether it is through 
wear, fungal infection, nematodes, or 
insect infestation, the damage is en­
hanced and the recovery is hampered 
by the lack of adequate sunlight.

In many cases, superintendents are 
successful in overcoming poor grass­
growing environments and are able 
to produce good playing conditions 
despite the handicap of a poor environ­
ment. However, few will dispute the 
added cost and extra effort involved. 
For golfers wishing to minimize the use 
of pesticides, the poor grass-growing 
environment will prove difficult to 
deal with. Failure to provide turf with 
its most basic needs clearly increases 
labor requirements and the use of 
pesticides. It also is the limiting factor 
in achieving the desired level of play­
ability. All of this translates into more 
expensive golf.

The impact on traffic flow: The 
placement of any physical obstruction 
in a high-traffic area results in concen­
trated and impossible-to-manage wear 
problems. When the obstruction is a 
tree, the problems with the turf are 
magnified because of the added stress 
of tree root competition and shade. 
Thus, it is recommended to refrain from 
planting trees or other vegetation in 
high-traffic areas. Keeping these areas 
as open and unobstructed as possible 
will result in healthier and better 
playing turf.

The impact on aesthetics and sur­
rounding trees: Although it is well 
understood that trees compete with 
turf, one must remember that trees also

It takes some imagination to envision that the cute little shrub in a one-gallon container will eventually grow into a golf ball­
swallowing monster!

compete with trees. It is entirely appro­
priate to mass trees in some areas, per­
haps to create definition or separation. 
However, stand-alone specimen trees 
also are desirable and can have 
dramatic visual impact. It is not recom­
mended to make every tree a specimen 
tree, but highlighting and exposing 
some of the better ones is certainly 
worthwhile. Golfers will be allowed 
to appreciate a magnificent tree they 
might otherwise completely overlook.
Many courses have hidden specimen 
trees that are worthy of exposing and 
highlighting. Stop for a moment and try 
to recall your favorite golf course trees. 
More than likely, you are recalling 
trees that are 75 or 100 years old or 
more and are exposed and uncluttered 
with other plant material.

Tree spacing also should be carefully 
checked. Trees planted too closely will 
be sickly, stunted, and deformed, and 
they will never be able to achieve their 
full potential. Even if there are no 
specimen trees involved, culling out the 
less desirable trees may be worthwhile. 
The turf and the remaining trees will 
benefit from the reduction in compe­
tition, which also may extend the life 
span of the trees. This type of tree 
work can enhance the appearance of 
the course since it amounts to “getting 
rid of the clutter.” Reducing competi­
tion among trees and choosing poten­
tial specimen trees for the future is a 
wonderful gift for future generations.

High-Tech Sunlight Assessment

For critical areas where safety and/or 
particularly valuable specimen trees are 

involved, it might be worth utilizing a 
high-tech sunlight assessment tech­
nique. It takes all of the guesswork out 
of tree removal and can predict how 
much light will be gained by doing 
specific tree work before the work is 
actually done.

Concentrate on Quality 
Rather than Quantity

That golfers love to plant trees is a 
simple fact of life. Planting a tree is to 
leave a lasting mark on the landscape 
of our courses. Memorial trees are 
especially popular, particularly because 
of the emotion associated with the 
loss of a loved one. Unfortunately, 
memorial tree programs can result in 
emotional and indiscriminate tree 
planting. When the number of monu­
ments or plaques that often accompany 
memorial plantings accumulates, it can 
create an undesirable cemetery-like 
feel.

It must be noted that a comprehen­
sive tree program must also include 
planting trees, but all potential plant­
ings should be reviewed in the same 
manner as suggested for reviewing 
existing trees. Few programs can ruin 
a golf course more quickly than over- 
zealous tree planting. There clearly are 
many valid reasons for planting trees, 
but a good rule of thumb is to “Never 
plant a tree without a specific purpose 
in mind.” Remember, planting trees can 
be expensive, but the costs for years 
of care, leaf removal, and eventual re­
moval are much higher. Overplanting 
is an expensive mistake that future 
generations have to bear. Most courses 

would do well to concentrate on 
quality rather than quantity when it 
comes to planting trees.

Conclusion

By now, some readers may be 
chomping at the bit to get out their 
chainsaws. So, should you go out 
blindly and begin cutting trees down? 
No, but you should undertake a sys­
tematic and unemotional review of 
your trees. Once the review has been 
completed, develop options for sched­
uling the needed work. Utilizing large- 
scale land clearing equipment, some 
courses have removed several hundred 
trees in just a couple of weeks. Other 
courses take a more conservative ap­
proach and spread the work out over 
several fall and winter seasons. Since 
tree removal work can be upsetting to 
golfers, it usually is best to schedule it 
for the off-season.

In all likelihood, much of the work 
needed will be straightforward. How­
ever, there may also be some very dif­
ficult decisions to make along the way. 
Removal of the “no-brainers” is a good 
place to start. These are the trees that 
have no redeeming features, and getting 
them out of the way first usually makes 
the tough decisions easier. These might 
be trees of the wrong species or ones 
located where they are interfering with 
turfgrass health or playability.

Next, look for any specimen trees 
that might exist on the property. If they 
are in good health, have a reasonable 
life expectancy, and make sense archi­
tecturally, carefully cull out the com­
peting trees to expose the better ones.

JULY/AUGUST 2000

5

in the future. Green Section Record. Vol. 
36, No. 3, May/June 1998, p. 3.

MacCloskey, J. E. What a landscape com­
mittee accomplished. The Bulletin of the 
United States Golf Association Green 
Section. Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1930, p. 133- 

136.

Moore, James Francis. Fire in the hole. 
Green Section Record. Vol. 30, No. 3, 
May/June 1992, p. 25-26.

Oatis, David A. Say no to memorial trees!!! 
Green Section Record. Vol. 35, No. 4, 
July/August 1997, p. 24.

Oatis, David A. Using new technology to 
solve an old problem: Trees. Green Section 
Record. Vol. 35, No. 3, May/June 1997, 

p. 20-21.

O’Brien, Patrick M. Tree lightning protec­
tion and how it should impact play. Green 
Section Record. Vol. 30, No. 3, May/June 
1992, p. 13-14.

Sadlon, Nancy P. Tree snags — a tree even 
an agronomist can love! Green Section 
Record. Vol. 30, No. 3, May/June 1992, 
p. 24-25.

Skorulski, James E. A tall tale from the 
great white north. Green Section Record. 

Vol. 30, No. 3, May/June 1992, p. 11-12.

Skorulski, James E. Developing a tree care 
program. Green Section Record. Vol. 34, 
No. 2, March/April 1996, p. 1-7.

Snow, James T. A guide to using trees on 
the golf course. Green Section Record. Vol. 
18, No. 4, July/August 1980, p. 1-5.

Snow, James T. The fall harvest. Green 
Section Record. Vol. 28, No. 2, March/ 

April 1990, p. 18-19.

Snow, James T. Trees, trees everywhere. 
Green Section Record. Vol. 22, No. 1, 
January/February 1984, p. 1-5.

Snow, James T. Trees — try something 
different. Green Section Record. Vol. 15, 
No. 5, September 1977, p. 1-9.

Vermeulen, Paul. Ten timely tips to avoid 
tree troubles. Green Section Record. Vol. 
28, No. 5, September/October 1990, p. 

15-17.

Watschke, Gary A. The monsters of 
Manchester. Green Section Record. Vol. 
24, No. 5, September/October 1986, p. 1-5. 

White, Charles B. Shady characters. Green 
Section Record. Vol. 23, No. 4, July/August 

1985, p. 1-4.

Zontek, Stanley J. Sometimes mother 
nature needs a little help. Green Section 
Record. Vol. 28, No. 2, March/April 1990, 

p. 5.

DAVID OATIS joined the USGA Green 
Section in 1988 as an agronomist in the 
Mid-Atlantic Region and has been 
Director of the Northeast Region since 
1990.

The products of a poor grass-growing environment include thin, weak turf, moss, 
algae, and increased pesticide usage.

Trees with invasive root systems, both above and below the surface, wreak havoc with 

the turfgrass, golfers, and maintenance equipment.

Trees take a long time to grow, and 
there is nothing wrong with having to 
come back and revisit some of the more 
complicated situations.

Ultimately, the goal of a thorough 
tree review is to promote healthier turf­
grass and better playability. Properly 
carried out, this comprehensive pro­
gram also will create a better stand of 
trees.

Additional Reading

Brame, Robert A. Time-lapse photography 
and sunlight penetration. Green Section 
Record. Vol. 30, No. 3, May/June 1992, 
p. 19.

Brewer, William S., Jr. A thing of beauty is 
a joy forever. Green Section Record. Vol. 
16, No. 3, May/June 1978, p. 11-13.

Dodson, Ron. The living dead. Green 
Section Record. Vol. 35, No. 1, January/ 
February 1997, p. 16.

Gould, David. Against the grain. Golf 
Journal. May 2000, p. 13-17.

Bevard, Darin. Check the view from the 
back. Green Section Record. Vol. 37, No. 
1, January/February 1999, p. 8-10.

Gross, Patrick. Pinus plastica: A simple 
tool for proper tree placement: Use of a 
temporary “tree” can help avoid problems 

6

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Sand-Based Rootzone Modification with Inorganic 
Soil Amendments and Sphagnum Peat Moss
Current player volume and maintenance practices call for 
research into changes in putting green construction materials.

by CALE A. BIGELOW, DAN BOWMAN, and KEITH CASSEL

“The pace of golf activity and traffic 
on golf courses is presently at a peak 
which has never been equaled. Many 
of our construction methods that were 
satisfactory before, will no longer 
produce greens which will withstand 
the wear now imposed upon them.”

These were the words that 

prefaced the 1960 Green Section 
specifications for a method of 
putting green construction. Although 

composes over time. This gradual de­
composition may adversely affect the 
rootzone physical properties and this, 
in turn, may contribute to poor per­
formance of turfgrasses grown on 
these declining rootzones. Turfgrass 
researchers have evaluated many in­
organic soil amendments for sand 
rootzone construction with mixed 
success (Waddington et al., 1974; 
Schmidt, 1980; Ferguson et al., 1986; 
Nus and Brauen, 1991; Kussow, 1996; 
Carlson et al., 1998; McCoy and 
Stehouwer, 1998).

Renewed interest in inorganic soil 
amendments has resulted in many 
products being marketed for turfgrass 

areas. A few of the more commonly 
used inorganic soil amendments are the 
porous ceramics, diatomaceous earth, 
and zeolites. Some of the character­
istics of these products that potentially 
make them desirable for improving the 
properties of sands are a large internal 
porosity that results in water retention, 
a uniform particle size distribution that 
allows them to be easily incorporated, 
and high cation exchange capacity that 
retains nutrients. Therefore, research 
exploring the suitability of newly mar­
keted inorganic soil amendments that 
are not subject to biological degrada­
tion, but still provide water and nutri­
ent retention, would be worthwhile.

we have had a widely accepted system 
for constructing putting greens for 
nearly 40 years, it seems that the same 
words also hold true today.

Four years ago, in an effort to further 
understand and improve putting 
greens, the USGA supported a series of 
scientific research projects at univer­
sities across the United States. One of 
the projects, entitled New Materials 
and Technologies for Putting Green 
Construction, was conducted at North 
Carolina State University. In this study 
we evaluated a variety of materials that 
could be used to amend sands used in 
putting green construction.

Basic Principles of
Sand-Based Rootzones

Since 1960, the most widely accepted 
method of putting green construction 
has specified a high sand content root­
zone. Sand is well suited for high-traffic 
areas like putting greens because it 
resists compaction, drains quickly, and 
maintains good aeration properties. 
Also, it is relatively inexpensive and 
generally is available most anywhere. 
Although sand is a good substrate for 
putting green rootzones, it does have 
limitations, most importantly poor 
water retention and nutrient retention.
To correct these deficiencies, sand 
has most often been amended with peat 
moss (Beard, 1982). Although peat 
moss may be the frequently used soil 
amendment for putting greens, other 
materials may also be suitable. As with 
any organic material, peat moss de­

A wide variety of soil amendments are available for amending putting green sands.

JULY/AUGUST 2000

7

Table 1
Particle size distribution, geometric mean diameter, and particle density of three sand size classes 
and five rootzone amendments used for the simulated putting green rootzone mixtures

Amendment

>2.0

1.0

0.5

Particle Size 

------ mm------  

0.25
----- g kg1 —- 

0.10

0.05

<0.05

Geometric 
Mean 
Diameter
mm

Fine sand
Medium sand

Coarse sand
Ecolite

Greenschoice
Isolite
Profile
Sphagnum peat

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
-

0
0
0

<1

3
5
<1
-

0
0
1000
242

871
446
0
-

0
1000

0

615
108
534
714
-

1000
0
0

139

11
10
272
-

0
0
0

1
7
5
14
-

0
0

0
3
<1
<1
<1
-

0.01
0.25

0.50
0.67

0.84
0.74
0.59
NA

Particle
Density
Mg nr3 
2.62
2.62

2.62

2.32
2.15
2.27
2.50
0.63

Considerations Before 
Selecting an Amendment

Before deciding on which amend­
ment to use for improving the proper­
ties of a particular sand, you should 
consider a few questions. What effect 
will the amendment have on the overall 
particle size distribution of the root­
zone mixture? Too many coarse or fine 
particles is undesirable. What impact 
will the amendment have on the 
chemical properties of the sand? Some 
amendments may dramatically change 
the soil pH or contribute unwanted 
nutrients. How stable is the amend­
ment? Will it physically or biologically 
degrade and potentially clog up the 
drainage pores of the rootzone mix­
ture? Lastly, it is important to consider 
availability and cost. An amendment 
could have the best physical and 
chemical properties in the world, but 
if it needs to be shipped across the 
country the benefits may not warrant 
the cost. Since all amendments do not 
have identical characteristics, an over­
view of some of the major properties of 
the more commonly marketed amend­
ments follows.

Types of Amendments

There are essentially two major 
classes of amendments: 1) organic 
materials, which are derived from de­
composed plant materials, and 2) in­
organic materials, which are mineral 
based.

Organic materials are typically in­
expensive and, depending on the 
origin, maybe somewhat short-lived in 
the rootzone. The benefits of adding 
organic matter to most any soil are 

8

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

numerous. It does an excellent job of 
enhancing soil structure by improving 
aggregation and can be an excellent 
substrate for microbial growth. Increas­
ing aggregation also enhances soil aera­
tion, which may ultimately improve 
turfgrass health.

In addition to the structural benefits, 
most organic matter can hold several 
times its weight in water. When taken 
advantage of in coarse-textured soils, 
this property can greatly improve 
moisture retention. A certain amount 
of organic matter improves the resili­
ency or the ability of soils to withstand 
traffic.

In addition to improving soil physi­
cal properties, organic matter may have 
moderate nutrient-holding capacities, 
depending on soil pH. If an organic 
material is used for soil modification, it 
is important to use well-decomposed 
materials because they are more stable 
and less likely to negatively impact 
the physical properties that you have 
worked so hard to achieve.

Inorganic materials are derived 
from large, naturally occurring mineral 
deposits, and these products are gen­
erally mined from the ground. These 
products range from low to high in cost, 
depending on the particular material 
and its availability. Several inorganic 
materials have been marketed over the 
years for soil modification. Some of 
the more commonly used products in­
clude: calcined clays, porous ceramics, 
expanded shale, diatomacous earth, 
and the zeolites.

Calcined clays, also marketed as 
porous ceramics, are products that 
have been heat treated at a very high 
temperature (1000-1800°F). This heat­

ing increases the structural integrity of 
the particles while retaining their 
chemical properties. Once calcined, 
most products are often screened to a 
uniform particle size that makes them 
well sized for use in putting green 
rootzones. Since these products are 
clays by nature, they also have a very 
high inherent moisture-holding capa­
city. This high moisture retention is the 
result of many small internal pores. 
Earlier research has suggested that 
particles comprised of many small 
pores may hold moisture so tightly that 
it may not be available to plants (Davis 
et al., 1970). Another benefit of these 
clay-based minerals is that, because 
they are clays, they have some nutri­
ent-holding capacity, particularly for 
cations like the ammonium (NH4+) ion.
Diatomaceous earth is a material 
that has been mined from deposits of 
diatom shells. Diatoms are one-celled 
ocean organisms whose cell walls con­
sist of interlocking parts and valves 
containing silica. The skeletons of these 
diatoms have a high degree of internal 
pore structure, and thus, like the clays, 
retain significant quantities of water. 
These products have been marketed 
with and without clay binders. The clay 
addition certainly affects the water­
holding capacity of the product. Like 
the clay-based amendments, the availa­
bility of water to plants and the long­
term stability of these materials is not 
fully understood.

Zeolites are a relatively new class 
of amendments being widely used for 
turfgrass rootzones. The main attrac­
tion of zeolites is that they are tremen­
dous absorbers. They have long been 
used in removing environmental pol­

lutants and in many industrial pro­
cesses. Some zeolites have even been 
fed directly to livestock to improve 
gastrointestinal performance. The use 
of these minerals in turf has become 
popular because they have a strong 
affinity for cations. In fact, the cation 
exchange capacity (CEC) of some 
zeolites has been measured at 200 
cmolc/kg or more (Ming and Mumpton, 
1989). For comparison, the CEC of 
quartz sand is < 1 cmolc/kg. Zeolites do 
have internal porosity and hold signifi­
cant amounts of moisture, but generally 
do not retain as much as the clay-based 
products.

The primary interest in using these 
materials is for improved nutrient re­
tention. Several university studies have 
documented dramatic reductions in 
fertilizer needs in zeolite-amended 
sands (Nus and Brauen, 1991; Huang 
and Petrovic, 1994). Currently, some of 
the zeolite products are being sold “pre­
charged” with fertilizers. Applications 
of these zeolites may be like applying 
fertilizer and improving CEC all at 
once. Theoretically, the plant is able 
to use the fertilizer contained in the 
zeolite, and it can be “re-charged” by 
subsequent fertilizer applications.

One precaution when selecting a 
zeolite is that some of the zeolites may 
have rather high residual sodium con­
tents, which is harmful to turfgrasses in 
large quantities. Therefore, before pur­
chasing a zeolite, it is advisable to 
determine how much, if any, sodium 
may be present. As with the other 
amendments, the long-term particle 
stability under turfgrass cultivation and 
freeze-thaw cycles is still undefined.

Materials and Methods

Experiments were conducted to 
examine the suitability of several com­
mercially available inorganic amend­
ments for use in sand-based rootzones. 
Specifically, amendments were tested 
to determine their effect on the physical 
properties of three contrasting sand 
size classes and their ability to limit 
nitrogen leaching. A locally available 
quartz sand was mechanically screened 
into three uniform size classes (fine: 
0.1-0.25 mm, medium: 0.25-0.50 mm, 
and coarse: 0.5-1.0 mm). Five amend­
ments (two porous ceramics: Profile 
and Greenschoice; a diatomaceous 
earth containing a clay binder: Isolite; 
a clinoptilolite zeolite: Ecolite; and 
sphagnum peat moss) were studied. 
Amendments were tested at two rates 
(10% or 20% by volume).

ments on creeping bentgrass establish­
ment when mixed at 10% by volume 
in a medium-sized sand. The sand/ 
amendment mixtures were installed 
into field plots constructed according 
to USGA guidelines (USGA, 1993). The 
experimental greens were then seeded 
to creeping bentgrass in October of 
1997 at the Turfgrass Field Laboratory 
in Raleigh, N.C. Creeping bentgrass 
establishment was rated visually by 
percentage ground cover until full 
coverage was achieved. Due to space 
limitations, only a portion of the data 
collected in the entire study will be 
presented in this article.

Results and Discussion
Physical Properties

Porosity and Water Retention: Sand 
size significantly affected porosity and 
water retention. Fine sand had the 
greatest total porosity of the three size 
classes but was not significantly differ- 
end from medium sand, which was 
similar to coarse sand. Although fine 
sand was similar to medium sand for 
total porosity, the pore size distribu­
tions and inherent water retention were 
very different. Fine sand contained 
almost 20% less macropores, or air­
filled pores, than either medium or 
coarse sand. Although fine sand had 
less air-filled pores, it had much higher 
> 20% capillary water retention, 
measured at a -40cm tension.

Capillary water retention is a very 
important property of a rootzone mix­
ture because it represents free water 

Diatomaceous earth contains many 
small diatoms that possess a large 
network of internal pores.

The following physical properties 
of the amendments, sands, and the 
respective rootzone mixtures were 
measured: particle size distribution and 
density, water retention, bulk density, 
and saturated hydraulic conductivity 
(percolation rate). Nitrogen leaching 
was determined using amendments 
mixed with a predominately medium­
sized sand. Rootzone mixtures (12" 
deep) were installed in acrylic cylinders 
placed above a 4" layer of gravel, satu­
rated and drained for 24 hours. A liquid 
solution of ammonium nitrate, equiva­
lent to 1 lb. of N per 1,000 sq. ft., was 
applied to the surface of the rootzone 
mixtures and leached with distilled 
deionized water. The effluent was col­
lected and analyzed for the presence 
of ammonium and nitrate.

In addition to the laboratory analysis, 
a field study was conducted to deter­
mine the effect of some of the amend­

Table 2
Porosity and water retention of three sand size 
classes and five rootzone amendments

Rootzone --------------Porosity---------------  

------- Water Retention-------- Bulk

Component

Total Macro Capillary*

-20cm -500cm AWHC**

Density

—----------Percent (%) -----— g cm’3

Fine sand

45.0 c

18.2 b

26.8 be

44.6 b

2.5 c

24.4 a

Medium sand 42.9 c

37.8 a

Coarse sand

38.4 c

34.7 a

5.1 d

3.7 d

14.8 d

2.9 c

4.7 e

0.6 c

Ecolite

60.6 b

37.2 a

23.4 c

24.7 c

20.6 b

Greenschoice 56.7 b 32.1a

24.6 c

25.0 c

20.8 b

Isolite

Profile

72.2 a

36.4 a

35.8 b

36.1b 34.2 a

73.4 a

38.0 a

35.4 b

39.6 b

33.2 a

2.2 c

3.1 c

2.8 c

3.8 c

1.6 c

2.2 c

Peat moss

74.4 a

22.4 b

52.0 a

61.5 a

34.3 a

17.7 b

* Capillary porosity refers to water retained at -40cm

1.42

1.47

1.59

0.87

0.84

0.59

0.64

0.15

** Available water holding capacity (AWHC) equals capillary water retention 

minus -500cm

Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different 

under Fisher’s protected LSD (p = 0.05)

JULY/AUGUST 2000

9

that remains after gravitational drain­
age stops. Thus, most of this water 
functions as water that may be used for 
plant growth. As a benchmark, most 
successful sand-based rootzones con­
tain^ 15% water by volume (Bingaman 
and Kohnke, 1970). In addition to 
capillary water, another important 
property of a rootzone mixture is the 
available water-holding capacity.

For these experimental rootzone 
mixtures, available water was defined 
as the difference between water re­
tained at a -40cm and a -500cm ten­
sion. The -500cm tension was selected 
as the theoretical “permanent wilting 
point’ because under most normal putt­
ing green irrigation cycles a rootzone 
would rarely be allowed to exceed this 
value before resupplying water. For 
comparison, many soil scientists com­
monly calculate available water for 
field crop soils as water retained be­
tween a -333cm and a -15,000cm 
tension. The difference between putting 
green soils and field crop soils is that 
under natural field systems the soils 
often possess more silt and clay, are 
much deeper, and often contain a 
much deeper rooted unmowed crop. 
Thus, the -500cm value seems more 
appropriate for our shallow, coarse-tex- 
tured putting green rootzone system.

With that in mind, fine sand retained 
significantly more water at all soil water 
tensions than any sand, and most 
importantly, had 10 times the available 
water than either medium or coarse 
sand alone. Further, the medium and 
coarse sand had capillary water reten­
tion less than 6% and a correspond­
ingly very low available water status. If 
these sands were to be considered for 
constructing a sand-based putting 

green rootzone, they would certainly 
need to be amended.

Comparing the amendments by 
themselves to the sands showed that 
the amendments had significantly 
greater total porosity than any of the 
sands. Total porosity for each rootzone 
component ranked in the order: peat 
moss = Profile = Isolite > Ecolite = 
Greenschoice > fine = medium = coarse 
sand. Peat moss, Profile, and Isolite had 
greater than 70% total porosity, com­
pared to the sands, which had 40-45%. 
Both peat moss and the inorganic 
amendments had 10% to 28% greater 
total porosity than the most porous 
sand, fine sand.

These data illustrate that in order 
to have such high total porosities, the 
inorganic amendments must possess a 
relatively large internal pore space. 
These internal pores probably account 
for much of their water-holding capa­
city. The percent air-filled pores were 
generally similar, > 30%, for all amend­
ments and the medium and coarse 
sand. The corresponding percent capil­
lary pores were highest for the inor­
ganic amendments Profile and Isolite, 
> 35%, and lowest in Greenschoice 
and Ecolite, with < 25%, but still 
greater than any sand.

Although porosity is an important 
property for relatively shallow root­
zones like putting greens (< 12"), an­
other important property is the amount 
of water released at a relatively low 
tension (-20cm tension) and how much 
water remains at the defined wilting 
point (-500cm tension). These data 
provide information regarding overall 
amendment particle size, pore size 
architecture, and possible field perfor­
mance. For example, if an amendment 

Table 3
Percentage loss of NH4-N and NO3-N in the effluent of sand amended at 20% 
by volume with four inorganic soil amendments and sphagnum peat moss

Soil Amendment

Unamended Sand
Ecolite

Greenschoice
Isolite
Profile
Sphagnum Peat Moss

Form of Nitrogen in the Effluent
NH4-N Loss
NO3-N Loss
--------- percent n Lost (%)--------

96.2 a
7.8 e
69.4 b
63.9 b
21.3 d
37.7 c

98.1a
99.2 a
95.4 b
97.8 ab
96.1 ab
95.1b

Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly 
different under Fisher’s protected LSD (p = 0.05)

10 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

releases most of its water at a relatively 
low tension and retains little at a 
moderate tension, it is probably com­
posed of relatively coarse-textured par­
ticles and may be of little use in an 
already coarse-textured medium like 
sand. Conversely, if an amendment 
releases little water at low tensions and 
retains significant amounts at high 
tensions, this amendment is probably 
composed of many very small pores, a 
situation that also may be undesirable 
because the water might not be avail­
able to the plant during stress periods.
In these experiments, all sands and 
amendments except fine sand released 
28% to 36% of their water between 
saturation and -20cm. Water released 
at this low tension is associated with 
gravitational drainage and generally 
would not be retained in rootzones ex­
ceeding 8" depth. In contrast to these 
rapidly draining sands and amend­
ments, fine sand released only 0.4% of 
its water at this low tension. Thus, the 
fine sand retains a rather substantial 
amount of water, which may be useful 
as rootzone depth increases.

To further characterize the moisture 
release properties of the amendments 
and three sands, water retention data 
were collected for a range of increasing 
soil water tensions. Each rootzone 
component seemed to have a charac­
teristic tension where most of the water 
was released. This critical tension ap­
peared to be directly related to particle 
size, with finer textures requiring higher 
tensions to release water. For example, 
coarse sand abruptly released most of 
its water between -10cm and -20cm, 
medium sand between -10cm and 
-40cm, and fine sand between -20cm 
and -100cm.

Compared to the sands, the inor­
ganic amendments and peat contained 
significantly more water at saturation, 
> 55%, and released their water more 
gradually with increasing tensions up 
to -60cm. Once the bulk of water 
was released, the water content of the 
amendments leveled off and remained 
relatively constant for all four inorganic 
amendments out to the -15,000cm 
tension. Peat moss, on the other hand, 
had the most gradual release of any 
of the rootzone components at all 
tensions. This property was attributed 
to the wide distribution of pore sizes 
created by the fibrous particles of peat 
moss. For the sand/amendment mix­
tures, the water release curves were 
generally similar to the curves for each 
sand. The only difference was that 
amended sands retained slightly more 

water than unamended sands at each 
tension (data not shown).

Water retained at theoretical wilt 
(-500cm) was greatest for the amend­
ments, ranging 20% to 34% by volume, 
and least in unamended sands, 0.6% to 
3%. Of all the rootzone components, 
available water was highest for the fine 
sand, 24%, whereas the other sands 
had less than 3% available water. This 
suggests that particle size and the 
architecture of adjacent particles when 
in contact, not a high degree of internal 
pore space, may be a more important 
determinant for available water.

Substantial data were generated on 
how the amendments responded in 
each different sized sand. However, for 
the sake of brevity, a general summary 
of the sand/amendment responses 
follows. Overall, amendments when 
mixed with the three sands had the 
most predictable response on porosity 
and water retention in the coarse sand 
and the least in fine sand. Fine sand 
and amended fine sand mixtures were 
the only rootzone mixtures that con­
sistently met USGA guidelines for pore 
size distributions, 15% to 30% and 
15% to 25% for air-filled porosity and 
capillary water retention, respectively 
(USGA, 1993).

The medium and coarse sand classes 
failed to meet specifications because 
they contained an excessive volume of 
air-filled pores, which would promote 
droughty conditions. The only excep­
tion was medium sand mixed with 
20% peat, which also met guidelines. 
Although fine sand mixtures generally 
met specifications, not all fine sand 
mixtures met guidelines. Mixtures that 
failed were 10% and 20% peat or 20% 
Isolite and Profile amended sands. 
These mixtures were unsuitable be­
cause they retained too much water. 
Rootzones constructed with these mix­
tures may be undesirable because of 
excess soil wetness. This condition 
would probably contribute to poor 
turfgrass rooting, inadequate soil gas 
exchange, and problems with ball 
marking, footprinting, etc.

Bulk Density: As expected, amend­
ment additions decreased bulk density 
for all three sand sizes, with peat- 
amended sands resulting in the lowest 
bulk density of all amendment mix­
tures. This result was anticipated be­
cause peat has the lowest particle 
density of the rootzone components. It 
is important to remember, though, that 
bulk density values alone generally are 
not an indicator of a successful root­
zone mixture.

Selecting properly sized sand for constructing a putting green rootzone is the first step 
in providing the proper balance between rootzone moisture and aeration. Very fine 
sands are too wet throughout the entire rootzone depth. Very coarse sands are too dry 
and will require significant and potentially costly quantities of soil amendments to 
ensure they meet guidelines for putting green physical properties.

Percolation Rate: Saturated hydrau­
lic conductivity, or percolation rates, 
were very high for all three sand sizes, 
> 35" per hour, and ranked in the 
following order: coarse > medium > 
fine sand. All sand mixtures had per­
colation rates that were much higher 
than the recommended 6" to 12" per 
hour, probably due to the highly uni­
form sands used. This observation 
is not unusual when working with 
very uniform sands (Bingaman and 
Kohnke, 1970).

Amendments generally decreased 
the percolation rate of the sands, but 
considerable variation occurred. The 
average percolation rates for each 
amendment across all three sand 
classes ranked in the following order: 
Greenschoice = Ecolite > unamended 
sand > Isolite > Profile > peat moss. As 
expected, the 20% amendment rate 
significantly decreased percolation 
rates more than the 10% rate. It is 
important to note that no amendment 
or incorporation rate resulted in per­
colation rates falling below USGA 
guidelines.

Nitrogen Leaching

Ammonium: Amendment additions 
significantly affected nitrogen leaching, 
most noticeably due to a wide range in 
ammonium (NH/-N) leaching. Nitro­
gen appeared rapidly in the effluent of 
all rootzone mixtures, with peak con­
centrations around 70 ppm occurring 
near 0.5 pore volumes of leaching 
water. As expected, significantly higher 
peak NH4+-N concentrations and more 

cumulative NH4+-N leached from un­
amended sand than from 20% (v:v) 
amended mixtures. Leaching decreased 
in the order of unamended sand > 
Greenschoice = Isolite > peat > Profile 
> Ecolite. The most effective amend­
ments, Profile and Ecolite, decreased 
NH4+-N leaching by 75% and 88%, 
respectively, compared to unamended 
sand. The effectiveness of these amend­
ments for decreasing NH/-N leaching 
is directly related to their relatively high 
CEC compared to the other products.
A second study evaluating incorpo­
ration rates for Profile and Ecolite 
ranging from 1% to 20% by volume 
demonstrated that the loss of NH4+-N 
and the peak concentrations decreased 
in a stepwise manner, as incorporation 
rate increased. The highest rate, 20% by 
volume, resulted in the least NH4+-N 
lost for each of these amendments. This 
response is consistent with the results 
of MacKown and Tucker (1985), who 
reported decreasing NH4+-N losses with 
increasing zeolite percentage in sand 
mixtures. In the present study, no dif­
ference in leaching between Ecolite 
and Profile were detected except at 
the 20% rate. At this rate, significantly 
less NH4+-N leached for the Ecolite- 
amended sand. Although the 20% 
amendment rate was most effective, 
this quantity of product may not be 
economically practical when blending 
rootzone materials for green con­
struction.

A third study determined the influ­
ence of amendment incorporation 
depth of 10% Ecolite and Profile, and

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

11

siderably more than sphagnum peat 
moss when used at the same incorpo­
rate rate (Moore, 1999). This may 
explain the continued popularity of 
peat moss for amending sand-based 
rootzones.

Conclusion

Amending sand with inorganic 
amendments or peat moss had sig­
nificant beneficial effects on rootzone 
mixture physical properties, nitrogen 
leaching, and creeping bentgrass estab­
lishment. Although many of the inor­
ganic amendments hold considerable 
water, it appears that if water reten­
tion and availability are important 
characteristics for a desirable root­
zone mixture, then the most suitable 
amendment from both a quantitative 
physical analysis and an economic 
standpoint is peat moss. This fact is 
particularly pertinent in coarse-tex- 
tured sands, where a rather substantial 
quantity of the amendment would be 
required to effectively improve the 
water retention of these sands.

Furthermore, inorganic amendments 
vary in their ability to limit nitrogen 
losses. No amendment had a dramatic 
effect on NOy-N leaching. However, 
NH4+-N leaching losses can be sub­
stantially decreased to 8% or less by 
various incorporation rates and depths 
of the clinoptilolite zeolite, Ecolite, and 
the porous ceramic, Profile, and to a 
lesser extent, sphagnum peat moss. 
Again, NOy-N leaching continues to be 
a concern in sand-based putting green 
media, particularly during turfgrass 
establishment when turfgrass root 
systems are small and when soluble 
fertilizers are used. However, it may be 
possible to minimize NOy-N leaching 
by constructing putting greens from 
sands amended with peat moss com­
bined with either a zeolite or porous 
ceramic and using an NH4+-N-based 
fertilizer program. The peat moss 
would be beneficial for the water­
holding properties and the inorganic 
amendment would provide nutrient 
retention. The use of slow-release 
fertilizer products and the practice of 
spoon feeding greens during establish­
ment are other proven methods to 
reduce nutrient leaching.

Lastly, it is important to remember 
that not all amendments are suitable for 
every rootzone amendment situation. 
Each amendment may react differently 
depending on the particle size range of 
the base sand used and the quantity of 
the amendment incorporated. Some 
sands may hold too much water and 

Rootzone components and sand amendment mixtures were analyzed for their ability 
to retain water using a water desorption technique in a constant temperature room.

demonstrated that incorporation depth 
significantly affected leaching. Even 
at a relatively shallow incorporation 
depth of 1", these amendments de­
creased cumulative NH/-N losses by 
almost 25%. Further, like the rate 
study, increasing the depth of the 
amendment resulted in a step-wise 
reduction of NH4+-N leaching: Incor­
poration throughout the entire 12" 
deep rootzone resulted in the least 
NH/-N leaching.

Nitrate: Although Ecolite and Profile 
were effective at decreasing NH4+-N 
leaching, they were without effect on 
nitrate (NO3 -N) leaching. For all root­
zone mixtures, more than 90% of the 
applied nitrate was recovered in the 
leachate. In general, unamended sand 
and amended sand mixtures in all 
experiments were similar regarding 
high NO3 -N leaching losses.

Turfgrass Establishment

Creeping bentgrass establishment on 
these sand rootzone mixtures was rela­
tively slow, requiring > 250 days to 
reach 100% coverage. This response 

12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

may have been due to the somewhat 
droughty nature of this predominately 
medium-sized sand. This sand size was 
selected to best evalute the water-hold­
ing benefits of the amendments tested. 
Although establishment was relatively 
slow, the significant effects and benefits 
of a rootzone amendment in this 
sand were obvious. Compared to un­
amended sand, bentgrass established 
faster on any of the amended sands. 
Rootzone mixtures ranked in order 
of increasing effectiveness were: un­
amended sand = Greenschoice < Pro­
file = Ecolite < peat moss, with Greens­
choice being similar to unamended 
sand on two rating dates.

The faster establishment of the 
amended sands is attributed directly to 
the greater water retention and, to a 
somewhat lesser degree, the increased 
nutrient retention compared to un­
amended sand. Although there was 
little difference in final establishment 
between sphagnum peat moss and the 
inorganic amendments Ecolite and 
Profile, there is a difference in cost 
between these materials. In most 
cases, inorganic amendments cost con­

others not enough. Therefore, it is ex­
tremely important to submit a potential 
sand and sand/amendment rootzone 
mixture to an accredited laboratory for 
physical analysis to determine if it 
meets specifications. Finally, although 
most of the amendments seem physi­
cally stable enough for modern putting 
greens, more research needs to be 
conducted to determine the long-term 
field performance before they can be 
widely prescribed.

References

Beard, J. B. 1982. Turf management for golf 
courses. Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis, 
Minn.

Bingaman, D. E., and H. Kohnke. 1970. 
Evaluating sands for athletic turf. Agron. J. 
62:464-467.

Carlson, M. S., C. L. Kerkman, and W. R. 
Kussow. 1998. Peats and supplements for 
rootzone mixes. Golf Course Management. 
66(9):70-74.

Davis, W. B., J. L. Paul, J. H. Madison, and 
L. Y. George. 1970. A guide to evaluating 
sands and amendments used for high 
trafficked turfgrass. Univ, of California 
Agric. Ext. AXT-n 113.

Ferguson, G. A., I. L. Pepper, and W. R. 
Kneebone. 1986. Growth of creeping bent­
grass on a new medium for turfgrass growth: 
Clinoptilolite zeolite-amended sand. Agron. 
f. 78(6):1095-1098.

Huang, Z. T., and A. M. Petrovic. 1994. 
Clinoptilolite influence on nitrate leaching 
and nitrogen use efficiency in simulated 
sand based golf greens. /. Environ. Qual. 
23:1190-1194.

Kussow, W. R. 1996. Putting green quality as 
affected by rootzone mix composition. In 
Wisconsin Turf Research. 14:41-44.

MacKown, C. T., and T. C. Tucker. 1985. 
Ammonium nitrogen movement in a 
coarse-textured soil amended with zeolite. 
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. /. 49:235-238.

McCoy, E. L., and R. C. Stehouwer. 1998. 
Water and nutrient retention properties of 
internally porous inorganic amendments in 
high sand content rootzones. /. Turfgrass 
Management. 2(4):49-69.

Ming, D. W, and F. A. Mumpton. 1989. 
Zeolites in soils, p. 874-911. In J. B. Dixon 
and S. B. Weed (ed.) Minerals in soil en­
vironments. 2nd ed. SSSA, Madison, Wis.

Moore, James F. 1999. Building and main­
taining the truly affordable golf course. 
Green Section Record. 37(5):10-15.

Nus, J. L., and S. E. Brauen. 1991. Clinop- 
tilolitic zeolite as an amendment for estab­
lishment of creeping bentgrass on sandy 
media. Hort. Science. 26(2): 117-119.

Schmidt, R. E. 1980. Bentgrass growth in 
relation to soil properties of typic Haplu- 
dalfs soil variously modified for a golf 
green, p. 205-214. In J. B. Beard (ed.) Proc. 
3rd Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf., Munich, West 
Germany, 11-13 July 1977. ASA, Madison, 
Wis.

United States Golf Association, Green 
Section Staff. 1993. Specifications for a 
method of putting green construction. 
USGA, Far Hills, N.J. 33 pages.

Waddington, D. V., T. L. Zimmerman, G. J. 
Shoop, L. T. Kardos, and J. M. Duich. 
1974. Soil modification for turfgrass areas. 
I. Physical properties of physically amended 
soils. Prog. Rep. 337. Pennsylvania State 
Univ., College of Agriculture, Agric. Exp. 
Stn., University Park, Pa.

CALE A. BIGELOW is a former Extension 
Associate; DR. DAN BOWMAN is an 
Associate Professor in the Crop Science 
Department; and DR. KEITH CASSEL is 
a Professor of Soil Physics in the Soil 
Science Department at North Carolina 
State University.

Figure 1
Water release of three sand size classes and five amendments

0.8

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

13

Every golf course has a threshold level of play. When this threshold is exceeded, conditioning and maintenance 
fall off and costs go up. Identify the correct level of play volume for your golf course and protect that line.

HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?

Every course has a level of play that, when passed, results in 
conditioning/maintenance falling off and costs going up.

byBOBBRAME

PLAY VOLUME has become a 

major issue at golf courses 
throughout the country. Although 
it is important to receive enough play to 

cover expenses and return a reasonable 
profit, excessive volume will com­
promise playability in the short-term 
and course value over the long haul. 
Balancing agronomic health with 
income can be difficult and subjective. 
Although agronomics, economics, and 
politics are each a part of every main­
tenance decision, it is solid agronomics 
that ultimately guarantees long-term 
conditioning/value. The following dis­
cussion outlines several possible indi­
cators that your course may be getting 
too much play.

Difficult to Apply Pesticides 
When Needed

In an effort to avoid play, it is very 
common for courses to hold/block one 
day (or at least a morning) each week 
for pesticide and/or fertilizer applica­
tions. However, what happens when 
play volume begins crunching in on 
the dedicated window (e.g. allowing 
Monday morning outings, when the 
course is officially closed)? This can 
force very early morning, evening, or 

14 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

nighttime applications, or the conces­
sion that play and pesticide applica­
tions will co-exist. Clearly, efficiency 
and safety are compromised. Further­
more, it could be argued that being 
locked in by play to make pesticide 
applications at a specific time, like 
Monday mornings, forces a preventa­
tive approach to pest management 
when curative might be a better option.
No one likes going to a doctor or 
dentist for needed treatment or medi­
cation. Inevitably such a trip will dis­
rupt the schedule and cause some in­
convenience. Yet, in the final analysis 
you feel better, which makes the days 
to follow more enjoyable and produc­
tive. In a like manner, properly timed 
pesticide applications will cause some 
inconvenience to golfers. In fact, speci­
fic product label requirements may 
force a short closure of the course. Turf 
health, course playability, and long-term 
value will all be elevated with proper 
and accurate pesticide applications.

The Lack of Needed Aerification

This indicator applies to either the 
frequency or timing of needed aerifi­
cation. While an aerification program 
must be custom fitted to a course’s 

needs, and thus may be different from 
that of a neighboring course, it is a vital 
component in quality conditioning. 
There continues to be a perception that 
aerification, especially of greens, means 
poor playing conditions for weeks fol­
lowing the work. This can result in 
aerification work being pushed away 
from what is the best time frame, or else 
completely skipped, to accommodate 
the short-term/immediate whining of 
players.

Schedule aerification when maxi­
mum agronomic value will be achieved. 
Use quality equipment and properly 
process cores and/or fill holes. This 
will minimize play disruption following 
the work and help assure the greatest 
efficiency. With greens, this means 
using a machine that punches straight 
in and produces round holes (not 
oblong), followed by the complete fill­
ing of the channels with topdressing. 
Play disruption will not be completely 
eliminated, but it can be held to a 
minimum.

Lack of Topdressing 
at the Correct Interval

Similar to aerification, topdressing 
offers a number of agronomic and 

playability benefits. They include sur­
face smoothing and firming, along 
with the enhancement of upper-profile 
porosity. The key to achieving these 
benefits is consistency. In fact, incon­
sistent surface topdressing can result in 
upper-profile layering that could com­
promise agronomic health and surface 
firmness/smoothness. In other words, 
it is better never to start a topdress­
ing program than to start and then 
allow play volume to compromise the 
work.

Verify the appropriateness of your 
topdressing sand through the interac­
tion of an accredited physical analysis 
laboratory and your Green Section 
agronomist. A program then can be 
customized to achieve the desired re­
sults. Generally, the target is to integrate 
sand into the surface in sync with 
growth. An appropriate operating 
budget and needed equipment should 
be aligned before starting. Time will 
need to be blocked each week for the 
work to be completed. Rain will occa­
sionally force the work to be done the 
next day. Trying to maintain a consis-
tent topdressing program with heavy 
play on the course is unrealistic and, in 
reality, will eventually fail. The short­
term play disruption, in pursuit of the 
benefits a good topdressing program 
offers, will pay dividends over the long 
haul.

This player continues to enjoy the game even though the tees are being aerified. 
However, allowing play while aerification is in progress makes it more difficult for the 
staff to complete the work safely and efficiently.

Compromised Mowing

Heavy play that starts at or just after 
sunrise makes it difficult (if not im­
possible) to mow tees, greens, and/or 
fairways. Early morning shotgun starts 
further compromise needed mainte­

nance like mowing. Mowing at night or 
just before sunrise, in an effort to avoid 
play, often compromises quality and 
safety.

Although tees and fairways do not 
need daily mowing, greens do. Occa­
sionally, triplex mowers are used on 
greens to help avoid inconveniencing 
the early players, even when the bud­
get has adequate provisions for walk 
mowing. Walk-behind mowers offer a 
higher quality cut, a gentle smoothing/ 
rolling action, and produce less stress 
on the turf. Clearly, this is a better 
option when the budget allows. Triplex 
mowing greens, when walk mowing is 
affordable, may indicate that mainte­
nance is being compromised by play 
volume.

Heavy Divot Damage on Tees or 
Fairway Landing Zones

While usable square footage and 
design will impact divot damage, traffic 
volume must also be considered. Too 
much play on too small an area results 
in poor turf quality. In some cases it 
may be possible to enlarge tees, add 
tiers, or expand landing areas. Yet, 
wear-related traffic ought to bring up 
the question: Should the rounds per 
year be reduced?

There is a handy formula that helps 
correlate the interaction of available 
footage, play volume, and the resulting 

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

15

Although it is important to receive enough play on the golf course to cover expenses, 
excessive play volume will compromise playability in the short term and impact 
course value over the long haul.

turf quality on tees: You need 100 
square feet of usable tee area for every 
1,000 rounds of golf played each year. 
On par threes, the first and tenth 
holes, or any hole where irons are 
normally used, you need 200 square 
feet of usable tee area for every 1,000 
rounds of golf played each year.

The above guide should be applied 
to tee construction, enlargement, and/ 
or the adding of tiers. Furthermore, 
although there is no precise formula for 
other areas, always consider the inter­
action of usable area, traffic, and turf 
quality — on all surfaces.

Wear Around Hole Locations or 
Greens Riddled with Ball Marks

This may suggest the need for more 
frequent hole moving, more consistent 
spoon-feeding, or cracking down on 
players who do not repair ball marks. 
Small greens with a lot of contour 
(thus, limited hole locations) clearly 
point to design limitations. Neverthe­
less, longer intervals between tee times, 
closing one day a week, eliminating 
play during the winter, or similar com­
binations to reduce play, may elevate 
conditioning and justify increasing fees, 
thereby offering similar, if not higher, 
income and better playing conditions.

Ornamental Plantings 
Used to Divert Attention 
from Poor Quality Turf

There is no question that well-placed 
and well-maintained ornamental 
plantings can add a great deal to course 
appearance. Unfortunately, regardless 
of how attractive they may be, orna­
mentals add very little, if anything, to 
playability. Improper aerification or 
inconsistent topdressing cannot be 
countered with ornamental plantings. 
In a like manner, being forced to triplex 
mow greens, as a result of heavy play, 
and then utilizing the staff on remote 
sites (predominately out of play) to 
maintain ornamental plantings is ques­
tionable prioritization and a clear indi­
cator that play volume is compromising 
maintenance.

Weed Populations Are 
Steadily Increasing

The lack of weed control may well 
point to a maintenance program that is 
struggling to keep up with needed 
work. While weed control is a lower 
priority compared to needs like aerify­
ing, topdressing, and/or pest control, 
the underlying message from a steadily 
increasing weed population may be too 

much play for proper course mainte­
nance.

Conclusion

Do not ignore the indicators that 
your course is receiving too much play. 
There may be other indicators specific 
to your course that could be added to 
those discussed. The bottom line is that 
proper agronomic conditioning of a 
golf course will cause occasional short­
term disruption to play. Failing to 
acknowledge this fact and allowing 
play to dictate maintenance will cause 
deterioration in course value. Yet, the 
deterioration may be subtle and 
gradual, making it difficult to detect if 
candid objectivity is not guarded. Care­
fully identify the proper volume of play 
for your course and hold the line. 
Adjust play to needed maintenance 
work, not the other way around.

BOB BRAME is the Director of the North 
Central Region. While overseeing a nine- 
state area, Bob visits courses in Indiana, 
Kentucky, and Ohio. Heavy play and how 
to manage it are common discussion 
topics during on-site visits.

Too much play on too small of an area will result in poor turf quality. There is 
a direct relationship between usable footage, play volume, and turf quality.

16 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

The 
Birdies 
and
The Bees

Native pollinators on 
your golf course.

by M.D. SHEPHERD 
and V. J. TEPEDINO

Sweat bees, like this Augochorella sp. halictid bee, are generalists, able to exploit a 
wide range of flowers and survive in degraded or weedy plant communities.

NOTHING causes more excite­

ment on a golf course than 
accomplishing the golfer’s 
dream, a hole-in-one. But to other 

organisms, small and unobtrusive, 
scoring a hole-in-one is all in a day’s 
work. We refer to bees, those uncom­
monly beneficial insects that collect 
food from flowers and deliver it, un­
erringly, to a hole in the ground or in 
wood, where it succors their offspring. 
We should welcome them to our golf 
courses, but not because we expect 
their hole-finding proficiency to rub off 
on us. No, we should do it to be good 
neighbors.

S
S
O
R

.

S

D
R
A
W
D
E
Y
B

O
T
O
H
P

S
S
O
R

.

S
D
R
A
W
D
E
Y
B

O
T
O
H
P

When you think of bees, chances are 
you think of those that live in hives or 
colonies like honeybees, or bumble­
bees, or of picnics disturbed by yellow 
jackets (which are wasps, not bees). 
Most people are surprised to discover 
that most of the more than four thou­
sand species of native bees in the 
United States don’t fit that description. 
Indeed, most bees are easily over­
looked because they are solitary, not 
social, and most people never come 
into contact with them. Out of sight 
and out of mind, these bees play a vital 
role in renewing our environment by 
pollinating the majority of flowering 
plants; we can be good neighbors 
simply by providing them with habitat.
Pollination is one of the most impor­
tant ecological services that animals 
perform for plants. It is a process that 
holds together the very fabric of our 
environment, those rich and diverse 
plant communities that clothe the soil 
and provide food for us and habitat for 
wildlife. Many different animals help 
with this: hummingbirds, bats, moths,

The load of golden-yellow pollen collected by this leaf cutter bee (Megachile sp.) 
can be clearly seen in its “pollen brush” on the underside of its abdomen.

beetles, flies, wasps, and butterflies, but 
it is bees — especially native bees — 
that play a dominant role in plant 
reproduction.

For a process that is so important to 
us, pollination is sadly ignored, as are 
the creatures that provide this service. 
Research indicates that our native bees 

are in decline, and in places suffering 
local extinction. The primary reason for 
this is the destruction, modification, 
and fragmentation of habitat. Urban 
growth and intensified agriculture and 
forestry have been significant causes of 
this. The habitat areas that remain are 
often isolated patches that have been

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Encouraging pollinators on the golf course does not pose a risk to golfers, so nesting sites and plant materials can be placed close to 
the playing areas. Bee nesting blocks can be mounted on fences, placed in trees, or fixed to stakes in suitable areas (Wildhorse Golf 

Course, Mission, Oregon).

degraded by invasive plant species, 
pesticide use, and changes in land 
management. Fortunately, populations 
of many native bee species are quite 
resilient and even compatible with light 
or moderate human activity if supplied 
with a few necessary resources. We 
hope to illustrate here how some 
simple changes to out-of-play areas will 
benefit pollinators, help to beautify and 
naturalize your golf course, and make 
you a good neighbor to the surrounding 
community.

Life Cycle and Habitat 
of Native Bees

The native bees of North America 
range in length from less than an eighth 
of an inch to more than an inch. Their 
colors vary from nondescript brown or 
black to metallic green or blue, their 
markings from unmarked to bright red, 
white, or yellow stripes, and their hairi­
ness from nearly bald (though most 
are quite hirsute) to profuse “punky” 
orange. Often their names reflect the 
way they build nests: plasterer bees, 

18 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

leafcutter bees, mason bees, carder 
bees, digger bees, and carpenter bees. 
Others are named after particular 
habits, such as cuckoo bees that lay 
eggs in the nests of other bee species, 
or sweat bees that drink sweat from 
mammals.

Despite such diversity, they share 
two important characteristics: all are 
strict vegetarians that draw their sus­
tenance from nectar and pollen, and 
they are quite placid, faster to flee than 
to sting. The solitary life led by most 
means they don’t have a colony to 
defend, and neither solitary nor social 
species are aggressive when visiting 
flowers. No special equipment or pro­
tective clothing is needed when work­
ing with native bees — unlike honey­
bees — and encouraging native bees on 
your course will not create any threat 
to golfers. You’ll have more problems 
from yellow jackets attracted to trash 
cans than you’ll ever have from these 
gentle pollinators.

Solitary bee females perform a multi­
tude of duties and do so unassisted by 

workers or drones. Females mate soon 
after emerging as adults and then spend 
the rest of their brief, three- to four- 
week lives searching for, selecting, and 
sometimes excavating their own bur­
rows, preparing their nesting tunnels 
to receive the pollen and nectar they 
will collect, and laying eggs. A few bee 
species excavate their nests within the 
soft central pith of stems and twigs, 
but many more use abandoned beetle 
burrows in dead snags. Others dig a 
nest in bare or sparsely vegetated soil. 
The nests of some species will have 
only one cell, but most will have many. 
These cells are often in a line filling the 
hole or burrow, but some are in com­
plex, multi-chambered tunnels.

A source of nectar and pollen is 
essential for bees. Adults of both sexes 
feed on nectar and sometimes pollen, 
commonly visiting hundreds of flowers 
on a foraging trip. Females also collect 
both nectar and pollen as food for 
their offspring. This pollen is taken to 
the nest securely carried in either a 
“pollen brush” on the underside of the 

abdomen or in “pollen baskets” on 
the hind legs, depending on species. 
During foraging, other pollen grains get 
caught in the bee’s body hairs and are 
deposited on the stigmas of subse­
quently visited flowers. Thus, almost by 
accident, bees perform one of the 
fundamental relationships that keep 
ecosystems healthy.

During their active life, bees will not 
collect pollen and nectar from all the 
plant species that are in bloom, but 
different bee species will differ greatly 
in the number of plants they are 
attracted to and can exploit. Some bee 
species can be defined as generalists, 
i.e., they are visitors to a large propor­
tion of the flower species available, and 
others as specialists, because they visit 
only a narrow, usually closely related, 
range of plant species.

A Conservation Partnership

In the summer of 1997, the Xerces 
Society (Portland, Oregon), with the 
help of the USDA Bee Biology and 
Systematics Lab (Logan, Utah), initi­
ated a project to explore methods to 
enrich out-of-play areas of golf courses 
with native plants for pollinator insects. 
The project was funded by a grant from 
the Wildlife Links Program of the 
USGA and the National Fish and Wild­
life Foundation. Project staff worked 
with the superintendents at three golf 
courses in the Columbia Basin of east­
ern Oregon and Washington. The three 
courses were Wildhorse in Mission, 
Oregon; Veterans Memorial in Walla 
Walla, Washington; and Hom Rapids 
in Richland, Washington. For each 
golf course, a reference site was also 
established in a nearby area of natural 
vegetation so that pollinator popula­
tions could be compared.

The project had four main compo­

nents. These were to:

1. Survey and compare pollinating 
insects among golf courses, and be­
tween golf courses and their respective 
“natural” areas.

2. Enrich out-of-play and rough areas 
of golf courses with flowering plants 
native to the locality.

3. Create pollinator nesting sites.
4. Educate people about the impor­
tance of pollinators and their manage­
ment.

Surveys trapped over 10,000 indi­
vidual bees and showed that 78 bee 
species, representing 25 genera, used 
the courses, perhaps mostly as flyways. 
This is an important finding because 
it demonstrates that large numbers of 
pollinators are associated with some 

golf courses, and that golf courses can 
serve as refuges if we can supply the 
necessary resources. At the same time, 
it is equally important to recognize 
that, though abundant, the existing golf 
course pollinator fauna is impoverished 
in that it is dominated by only three 
genera of sweat bees (Agapostemon, 
Halictus, and Dialictus). In 1997, these 
three genera accounted for 92 percent 
of specimens captured.

This pattern of species abundance 
causes concern. The three dominant 
genera are generalist sweat bees that are 
frequently associated with disturbed 
and degraded plant communities com­
posed of weedy species. Sweat bees are 

managing habitat areas for vertebrates, 
for some plant communities, and for 
wetlands, including the Landscape 
Restoration Handbook produced by 
the USGA. Recommendations for 
pollinator conservation management, 
however, are not readily available. In 
this section we describe methods for 
attracting a variety of native bees to 
golf courses, and for supplying them 
with the pollen and nectar they need 
to survive and reproduce once they get 
there.

Introducing or restoring local species 
of native flowering plants is the first 
step to converting a portion of your golf 
course to a pollinator refuge. There are 

Matthew Shepherd checks one of the bee nesting boxes at Wildhorse Golf Course 
(Mission, Oregon). The holes with plugs have been filled with egg cells and sealed 
with mud.

able to visit and exploit the flowers of 
a wide variety of plants. However, be­
cause of their very diverse tastes in 
flowers and their habit of moving 
almost randomly among several plant 
species on a single foraging trip, they 
are usually regarded as inferior polli­
nators when compared to other, more 
specialized species. In contrast to these 
generalists, specialist species restricted 
to foraging on a few species of flowers 
are more vulnerable to changes in 
numbers of their preferred species of 
nectar and pollen plants. Unfortu­
nately, specialist pollinator populations 
appear to be quite low or non-existent 
on golf courses in this part of the 
Northwest.

Enhancing Foraging Areas

There are many good sources of 
information on planning, creating, and 

several reasons for this. As already 
noted, native species are adapted to the 
area’s climate, and once established, 
should require minimum attention. In 
contrast, horticultural varieties and 
hybrids of many plants are not neces­
sarily well adapted to local climes. In 
addition, they have been artificially 
bred to produce showy blooms at the 
expense of pollen and nectar produc­
tion. Unlike such ornamentals, native 
plants have supplied native bees with 
pollen and nectar for ages and are well 
adapted to do so.

Plants should be chosen with diver­
sity of both shape and color and of 
blooming periods in mind. Diversity 
is important because, as noted earlier, 
many bee species either prefer, or are 
obligately dependent on, particular 
kinds of flowers for food. In general, 
the more kinds of flowers planted on 

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

19

the course, the more kinds of bees that 
will be supported. Color and scent are 
significant to attract bees; they are 
particularly attracted to blues, violets, 
yellows, and whites. Equally important 
is selecting species in a range of flower 
sizes and shapes, as there is a rough 
association between the depth of the 
flower tube and the length of the 
mouthparts of the bees that use them. 
Thus, the more different depths repre­
sented, the more species of bees 
attracted. Variety of flower shape and 
symmetry (radial vs. bilateral) will also 
help to favor a variety of bees.

Another consideration when choos­
ing plants is the blooming time and 
duration. The flowering time of many 
plants is restricted, sensitive to the 

amount of daylight, and thus predict­
able. It is easy to select a range of 
species that will, together, fill in the 
growing season with a diversity of 
flowers through spring, summer, and 
fall. Such a planting strategy will sup­
port a diversity of bee species, catering 
to species that fly only in spring, sum­
mer, or fall and those that are active for 
longer. A variety of flowers through 
the year will make the habitat more 
attractive to golfers as well.

In an article of this length it is not 
possible to list specific species of plants 
for every region. Table 1 lists plant 
genera that are good nectar or pollen 
sources for the semi-arid Columbia 
Basin. They are listed here only as 
examples because all planting decisions 

Table 1 
Native Plants for Nectar and Pollen
These plants were chosen for the sites in the semi-arid Columbia Basin where 
the Wildlife Links project worked. They are listed as guidance. Talk to native 
plant nurseries in your local area to identify equivalent species for your region.

Family
Salicaceae
Polygonaceae
Berberidaceae
Crassulaceae
Grossulariaceae
Rosaceae

Leguminosae
Geraniaceae
Linaceae
Malvaceae
Cactaceae
Onagraceae

Umbelliferae
Primulaceae
Polemoniaceae
Hydrophyllaceae
Labiatae

Scrophulariaceae

Caprifoliaceae
Compositae

Liliaceae

20 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Genus
Salix
Eriogonum
Berberis
Sedum
Ribes
Geum
Rosa
Lupinus
Geranium
Linum
Sphaeralcea
Opuntia
Clarkia
Oenothera
Lomatium
Dodecathon
Gilia
Phacelia
Agastache
Scutellaria
Penstemon
Verbascum
Symphoricarpos
Achillea
Aster
Chrysothamnus
Gaillardia
Helianthus
Senecio
Solidago
Alium
Brodiaea

English name
willow
buckwheat
Oregon grape
stonecrop
current, gooseberry
avens
wild rose
lupine
geranium
flax
globe-mallow
cholla, prickly pear
clarkia
evening primrose
lomatium
shooting star
gilia
phacelia
giant hyssop
skullcap
penstemon
mullein
snowberry
yarrow
aster
rabbit brush
blanket flower
sunflower
groundsel
goldenrod
wild onion
brodiaea

must be made with the local flora in 
mind. Talk to native plant nurseries, 
your local native plant society chapter, 
other wildlife organizations, or con­
sultants in your local area to refine this 
list with suggestions for equivalent 
local species of these or other plants, 
information on flowering times, and 
advice on what is best adapted to local 
conditions. The Lady Bird Johnson 
Wildflower Center in Austin, Texas, 
offers lists of species suitable for many 
local areas.

For most situations pot-grown trans­
plants are preferable to seed for estab­
lishing the plants. Transplants are more 
likely to survive when introduced to 
existing grassy areas. Ideally, the plants 
you use should be from a local supply 
of seed or cuttings. Local plants are 
likely to be better adapted to growing 
conditions and climate and should be 
easier to establish and grow. They are 
also more likely to be attractive to local 
native bees.

There are several things to consider 
then locating habitat. Bees are unusual 
among insects because of their high 
level of parental behavior. Their need to 
supply food for their offspring makes 
them density-sensitive foragers. Thus, 
while any flowering habitat is good, 
bigger patches can hold more plants 
and will be more attractive to bees. Try 
to avoid long, narrow patches, as the 
centers of these will be disturbed more 
by activity on the edges (like mowing 
or maintenance work) than larger, 
blocky areas. Where possible, link new 
areas or add onto existing habitat as 
this will generate greater benefit for the 
same amount of effort.

Bee Nesting Sites

The second major requirement of 
native bees that pollinator conserva­
tionists must supply is suitable nesting 
habitat. As with flowering plants, the 
more kinds of nesting places that are 
made available, the more types of bees 
one can expect to attract. Many, though 
not all, easily creatable types of nesting 
sites will be suitable for your course. 
For example, unsheltered adobe blocks 
may not last long in a rainy climate, and 
sand pits and piles may be superfluous 
on sandy sites.

Outlined below are eight ways to 
make nesting sites, four each for 
ground-nesting and snag-nesting bees. 
In all cases, location of the nesting sites 
is important. Wet soil is usually bad for 
ground-nesting bees and should be 
avoided. Choose sunny, dry, well- 
drained areas for the bare-ground and

ened holes and may avoid them. 
Ideally, the top of the block should 
slope slightly towards the entrance and 
be capped with a plywood roof (like a 
bird nesting house). The roof should 
extend beyond the front of the block to 
afford the nesting holes some protec­
tion from precipitation. This block can 
be fixed to a stake or tree in a sunny, 
preferably eastward-facing spot.

Helping the Forgotten Pollinators

Golf courses have a huge potential 
to contribute to the well-being and 
education of the public, and to greatly 
benefit local wildlife by providing safe 
refuge as the landscapes around them 
come under increasing pressure. Con­
servation of native bees and plants is a 
valuable way in which golf courses can 
contribute to a healthier environment 
and is a comparatively simple task to 
integrate into the management of a golf 
course. The simple actions that can be 
taken to conserve native bees targets 
two key aspects of their habitat: forag­
ing areas and nesting sites. Habitat 
diversification inevitably benefits other 
wildlife as well — a more diverse envi­
ronment results in a more diverse range 
of inhabitants — and, since the habitat 
will support populations of helpful 
predators, can assist in pest manage­
ment.

Every superintendent who can find 
space on his or her course has the 
potential to improve both the polli­
nator populations in the local area as 
well as the image of the course itself, 
both aesthetically and to the local 
community. Golf courses can be good 
neighbors to the flower and vegetable 
gardeners of their immediate areas, to 
the school systems who will use them 
for education, to the golfers who can 
appreciate the native vegetation, and, 
of course, to the creatures who will find 
a home there. Golf courses can make a 
difference across the nation, forming a 
network of enhanced pollinator habitat 
to support the vital work of native bees 
in the health of both farmland and 
wildlands.

MATTHEW SHEPHERD, M.S., works for 
the Xerces Society in Portland, Oregon, 
where he is responsible for both the 
pollinator conservation programs and the 
society’s publications.

VINCE TEPEDINO, Ph.D., is a research 
entomologist with the USDA-ARS Bee 
Biology and Systematics Laboratory at 
Utah State University in Logan, Utah.

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

21

Bee nesting boxes 
can be made from 
blocks of water- 
resistant lumber, 
drilled with 
various sized 
holes. These 
boxes provide a 
suitable nesting 
habitat for solitary 
nesting bees 
(Veterans 
Memorial 
Golf Course, 
Walla Walla, 
Washington).

sand-pit techniques. The techniques to 
create wood substrate nests can be more 
widely used as they are less affected by 
ground conditions. Try to place these 
nests so that they are sheltered from the 
worst of the weather yet receive direct 
sunshine early in the day. Facing the 
entrance of such nests east or southeast 
is best because bees like warm 
conditions, especially in the morning so 
they can become active earlier.

• Bare ground. Simply clear the 
vegetation from a small level or gently 
sloping area (about 6' by 6') and 
compact the soil. A few rocks placed in 
the cleared area will improve it by 
adding basking places and help to 
warm the soil. Bare areas on precipi­
tous, south-facing slopes or banks will 
draw other species.

• Adobe blocks. Use adobe blocks to 
construct a wall about 4'-5' high and 
5'-6' long. Use wood and/or metal 
backing and supports to prevent top­
pling. Drill holes (732" to Vs" in diameter) 
into the blocks at least 4" deep.

• Sand pits. Dig a pit about 12' 
square and 4' deep, and fill it with fine­
grained, pale-colored sand.

• Sand piles. Create a sand pile of a 
similar size and materials as the sand 
pit.

• Logs and snags. Get some logs or 
old stumps and place them in the 

habitat patches. Plant a few upright like 
dead trees to ensure some deadwood 
habitat stays dry. Drill holes as in the 
adobe blocks.

• Elderberry bundles. Cut elderberry 
stems into lengths of 8" to 12". Drill out 
the central pith to form a hole 732" to Vs" 
in diameter to a depth of 6" (do not drill 
completely through the stem), and then 
tie the stems in bundles of 15 to 20. Fix 
the bundle to a stake or tree with the 
stems horizontal to the ground. (Other 
stems with soft pith can be substituted, 
such as blackberry, raspberry, or 
sumac.)

•Elderberry stakes. Cut stakes from 
elderberry stems about 24" to 30" long. 
Drill out the pith from one end as you 
did the stems for the bundles, and then 
about 12" from the end, drill a “side 
hole” of similar diameter through the 
bark just into the pith. Drive them 
about 6" into the ground.

• Nesting blocks. Bee nesting blocks 
can be made from blocks of water- 
resistant lumber at least 4" by 4" and 
8" long. (Redwood or cedar are good 
choices, but any treated wood, prefer­
ably aged, will do.) In one side of the 
block, drill lots of holes 732" to Vs" in 
diameter and almost all the way 
through the block. When drilling, make 
the interior of the holes as smooth as 
possible. Bees are not partial to rough­

ON COURSE WITH NATURE

GAINING A NEW PERSPECTIVE

Enhancing pond shorelines with native aquatic plants.

by STEVEN VISOSKY

IN THE LAST several years, aquatic 

and shoreline plants have become 
an accepted and even desirable 
alternative to manicured pond edges 

on golf courses. Though new golf 
courses have an opportunity to create 
naturalized water features during con­
struction, existing facilities are faced 
with retrofitting to achieve the benefits 
that aquatic plants bring to the golf set­
ting. At Cordillera Resort’s Mountain 
Course in Edwards, Colorado, that’s 
just what we did — and we’ve been 
very pleased with the results.

The Setting

Hole #16 at Cordillera Mountain 
Course is a beautiful par five with a 
1.5-acre lake near the tee. When the 
course first opened in July 1994, 
bluegrass was sodded to the water’s 
edge. There were three full-circle heads 
that watered this area, but unfortu­
nately, they watered the lake as well. In 
1997, we decided that a more natural 
look would provide an attractive land­
scape feature that would also promote 
habitat for ducks and other wildlife.

One Step at a Time

A project of this magnitude requires 
careful planning and execution. To 
start, we outlined several goals to help 
direct our efforts. First, we wanted to 
increase wetland wildlife habitat while 
enhancing the aesthetics of the lake­
front. Thus we chose a variety of native 
Colorado plants that would add color 
and provide food and cover for wildlife. 
Equally important, we wanted to re­
duce water waste by moving the irri­
gation heads and only throwing water 
towards the beds and turf.

The next step in our project was to 
hire a local environmental consultant, 
Montane Environmental Solutions, 
Ltd., to help with plant selection. They 
provided an extensive list of appro­
priate shrubs, wetland plants, border 
perennials, and wildflowers.

To prepare the site, we removed a 
4-foot strip of bluegrass along the lake 
and moved and adjusted the three 
problem irrigation heads so that they 
would no longer water the lake. The

22 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Natural landscaping along the lake bank 
on hole #16 at the Cordillera Mountain 
Course (Edwards, Colorado) provides an 
attractive water feature that promotes 
habitat for ducks and other wildlife.

area was rototilled and planted with 
many different varieties of plants. Cat­
tails (Typha sp.), three square bulrush 
(Scirpus americanus), hairy sedge 
(Carex lanuginosa), and torrey rush 
(Juncus torreyi) were among the wet­
land plants chosen to provide duck 
habitat. More than 50 native perennials 
and wildflowers, including pink yarrow 
(Achillea millefolium), Rocky Moun­
tain columbine (Aquilegia caerulea), 
asters (Aster spp.), and scarlet gilia 
(Ipomopsis aggregata), create a mosaic 
of color that lasts throughout the grow­
ing season.

Maintaining the new plantings re­
quires hand pulling weeds from the 
beds, mulching when needed, and 
replacing plants that do not make it 
through the winter. Because we are 
especially careful about avoiding 
chemical applications in the buffer 
zone near the lake, our labor needs 
have increased by three or four man­
hours per week in this area.

Results

We have been very pleased with our 
results, and in fact we have met all of 
our goals. We gained a three- to four- 
foot buffer of native Colorado plants 
that provides wildlife habitat, improves 

aesthetics, protects water quality, and 
eliminates water waste.

For the first time, we had two pairs 
of ducks use the lake for nesting in 
1998 and 1999. We also have seen an 
increase in the number of ducks just 
using the lake for everyday feeding and 
resting.

We’ve had a great response from 
golfers and members, too. Our green 
committee has been highly compli­
mentary and is considering aquatic 
landscaping for another lake on the 
property.

We also have reduced the amount of 
water used in this area by 50%. By 
changing just three irrigation heads, we 
save approximately 35,000 gallons of 
water during our growing season from 
May to September.

Perspectives

In retrospect, it would have been a 
lot easier to do this project before they 
laid the sod. If you are involved in new 
golf course construction or pond con­
struction or renovation, I would defi­
nitely recommend landscaping with 
aquatic and shoreline plants, rather 
than turfgrass, from the outset.

If your only choice is to retrofit, it’s 
still worth it. Native aquatic plantings 
can be a wonderful resource if you have 
shoreline at your facility that is not 
directly in play, yet is in a visible area. 
Research is very important in deter­
mining which plants are most suitable 
for your area, and a local consultant 
may prove to be helpful. Discuss with 
your golfers the benefits of enhancing 
wildlife habitat along with improving 
the aesthetics of your shoreline. The 
results can be rewarding for both 
golfers and wildlife.

STEVEN VISOSKY is the golf course 
superintendent at the Cordillera Moun­
tain Course, an 18-hole resort guest and 
semi-private golf course in Edwards, 
Colorado. Cordillera Mountain Course 
achieved designation as a Certified 
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary in 
January 2000. Cordillera Resort’s Short 
Course and Valley Club are also registered 
members of the Audubon Cooperative 
Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses.

NEWS NOTES
New Publications Available

ACROSS THE COUNTRY, com- 
ZAmunity planners and golf course 
jl A developers are making impor­
tant decisions about how to build and 
operate golf courses that can both 
benefit local communities and pro­
tect and enhance the local environ­
ment. As a product of a USGA 
education grant, the Rutgers 
University Center for Environ­
mental Communication has pro­
duced an information packet 
entitled Reviewing Golf Course 
Proposals, which is oriented to 
community land use planners 
to assist communities in the 
crucial planning phase of golf 
course development.

Included in the easy-to- 

। use packet are:

X • Reviewing Golf Course 
Proposals: Ten Environ- 
wsg,,„ — • mental Issues to Consider, a brochure 
outlining the bottom-line environmental questions

communities should ask when reviewing golf course proposals.
• Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, guide­
lines developed by Golf & the Environment, a committee of golf, environmental, 
and government representatives.

• Supplemental materials and case studies providing more in-depth infor­

mation for each of the ten issues.

• Selected golf course planning 

websites and publications.

The packet is available for 
$5.00, plus shipping and handling, j 
through the USGA Order Depart- j 
ment at 1-800-336-4446.

THE GREEN SECTION has 

updated and released the 
popular publication The
Green Committee Guide. This 
publication, available for $2.00 
each through the USGA Order 
Department, is designed to 
help guide Green Committees 
past the common pitfalls, 
show the opportunities of 
participating in the Green 
Committee, and assist in 
making the Committee 
work as an asset to the golf 
course. In addition, the 
book highlights the fea­
tures of the Green Section, 
defines common agro­
nomic terminology, and 
provides a list of refer­
ences and resources for
additional information.

P Guide for

Physical Soil Testing 
Laboratories*

The following laboratories are accredited by 
the American Association for Laboratory Accredi­
tation (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 fortesting 
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
Unit 58, Stirling Enterprise Park 
Stirling FK7 7RP 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

ISTRCNEWMIX LAB, LLC
1530 Kansas City Road, Suite 110 
Olathe, KS 66061 
Attn: Bob Oppold
(800) 362-8873 • (913) 829-8873
(913) 829-4013 FAX
e-mail: istrcNewMixLab@worldnet.att.net

LINKS ANALYTICAL
22170 S. Saling Road, Estacada, OR 97023 
Attn: Michael S. Hindahi, Ph.D.
(503) 630-7769

THOMAS TURF SERVICES, INC.
1501 FM 2818, Suite 302
College Station, TX 77840-5247 
Attn: Bob Yzaguirre / 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 July 2000. Please contact the 

USGA Green Section (908-234-2300) for 
an updated list of accredited laboratories.

JULY/AUGUST 2000 

23

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
SAY NO TO “BACKDROPS”
Golfers have come to believe that every golf hole must have a backdrop 
of trees, but many holes would be better off without them!

From the aesthetic sense, dense 
backdrops greatly alter the look of a 
hole, and this can affect golfer per­
ception. In the case of a green that is 
perched on a hill and surrounded with 
steep slopes, vegetative backdrops only 
serve to hide the defense features, 
which are the steep slopes. This can 
make the hole appear easier and more 
approachable than it actually is. The 
noted architect Allistair Mackenzie 
once said that a hole should look 
tougher than it plays. Backdrops often 
cause the opposite. Many of the older 
courses I have visited over the years 
once had spectacular views from 
various areas of their property. Trees 
and brush grow slowly, and 20 or 30 
years of neglect can gradually obscure 
views that once were an integral and 
much-loved part of a golf hole. This 
happens so slowly that it can go 
virtually unnoticed.

There is much to be said for a green 
that appears perched atop a precipice. 
Hitting a shot to a green that has no 
visible bail-out area and with only 
nothingness behind it causes golfers’ 
thoughts to give way to doubt and 
mistrust. A green that appears unassail­
able just might be! Keeping greens open 
and exposed will allow for improved 
turfgrass health and more interesting 
golf. If you have backdrops behind your 
greens, take a look at the turf and see if 
it is suffering. Take a look behind the 
green and see what the vegetation is 
hiding. You might just be surprised to 
find that you have weak turf and have 
lost a magnificent view. If you are 
fortunate, you may also discover a fine, 
stand-alone specimen tree in hiding.

Undeniably, there are situations 
where dense plantings are desirable 
and perhaps even necessary for safety. 
Blocking out unattractive vistas clearly 
makes good sense, as long as turfgrass 
health is not compromised. However, 
more often than not, your best course - 
of action is to “Say No To Backdrops!”

DAVID OATIS joined the USGA Green 
Section in 1988 as an agronomist in the 
Mid-Atlantic Region and has been 
Director of the Northeast Region since 
March of 1990.

This gallery of shrubs creates an unnecessary backdrop to the green. Dense backdrops 
result in a variety of problems for greens — both agronomically and in playability.

FOR THOSE OF YOU who are 

regular readers of the Green 
Section Record, you may recall 
an opinion article of a similar title that 

appeared in the magazine some three 
years ago. “Say No to Memorial Trees” 
was the title and it generated a wide 
range of responses and discussion. 
Some of the responders applauded the 
message, while others were horrified. 
This is the second in an ongoing series 
and should elicit similar responses.

When polled some ten years ago, the 
Green Section staff overwhelmingly 
elected trees as the single biggest prob­
lem of turfgrass management on golf 
courses. If polled again today, the 
answer would remain unchanged. 
Trees add a great deal to our golf 
courses, but they also can create a host 
of problems, related both to agro­
nomics and playability. Now there are 
many good reasons for planting trees, 
and improving safety may be the single 
best reason. However, there are an even 
greater number of poor reasons for 
planting trees, and the idea of creating 
a backdrop is one of the most common.
For reasons unknown to this author, 
the notion that “every green must have 
a backdrop” has in recent years become 
a pervasive belief. This belief holds that 
behind every green there must exist 
dense plantings of trees, shrubs, or 
other vegetation, and nothing should 
be visible behind the green save this 
“green wall.” As a result of this com­
monly held belief, the areas around 

24 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

many greens have been grossly over­
planted, and this has been to the detri­
ment of the turfgrass, golf course 
maintenance budgets, and even to the 
beauty and architecture of many golf 
holes. An overabundance of trees can 
make it more expensive, and perhaps 
physically impossible, to grow healthy 
turfgrass. The playability problems 
caused by the plantings also can be 
severe, and balls narrowly missing the 
target may wind up lost or unplayable. 
Excessive planting also can be detri­
mental from an aesthetic standpoint, as 
it can obscure lovely views and create 
a more closed-in or even a claustro­
phobic environment. The unnecessary 
vegetation may block a view of the 
golf hole from the teeing ground or 
the landing area of the fairway. The 
original architecture of the hole can 
be lost, and the basic question of 
“why do we need backdrops?” begs 
asking.

Harkening back to the early days of 
golf, keep in mind that judging yard­
age was considered a skill and was an 
integral part of the game. There were no 
yardage aids in those days, and greens 
were purposely built without back- 
drops to provide greater challenge in 
judging distances. With the advent 
(read proliferation) of yardage aids, 
judging distance has virtually become 
unnecessary. It is a forgotten skill. If 
ever there were a need for backdrops, 
it has been eliminated with the advent 
of yardage aids.

USGA PRESIDENT 
Trey Holland

GREEN SECTION 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
John D. O’Neill 
49 Homans Avenue 
Quiogue, NY 11978

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David B. Fay

EDITOR
James T. Snow

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
Marty Parkes

©2000 by United States Golf Association®

Subscriptions $18 a year, Canada/Mexico 
$21 a year, and international $33 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, jsnow@usga.org
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D., Director of Education, kerusha@usga.org

R^spafch1

P.O. Box 2227, Stillwater, OK 74076 • (405) 743-3900 • Fax (405) 743-3910 
Michael P. Kenna, Ph.D., Director, mkenna@usga.org

Construction Education Program:
720 Wooded Crest, Waco, TX 76712 • (254) 776-0765 • Fax (254) 776-0227
James F. Moore, Director, jmoore@usga.org

REGIONAL OFFICES:

Northeast Region:
P.O. Box 4717, Easton, PA 18043 • (610) 515-1660 • Fax (610) 515-1663
David A. Oatis, Director, doatis@usga.org • Jim Baird, Ph.D., Agronomist, jbaird@usga.org
1500 N. Main Street, Palmer, MA 01069 • (413) 283-2237 • Fax (413) 283-7741
James E. Skorulski, Agronomist, iskorulski@usga.org

Mid-Atlantic Region:
P.O. Box 2105, West Chester, PA 19380-0086 • (610) 696-4747 • Fax (610) 696-4810 
Stanley J. Zontek, Director, szontek@usga.org
Keith A. Happ, Agronomist, khapp@usga.org • Darin S. Bevard, Agronomist, dbevard@usga.org

Southeast Region:
P.O. Box 95, Griffin, GA 30224-0095 • (770) 229-8125 • Fax (770) 229-5974
Patrick M. O'Brien, Director, patobrien@usga.org
4770 Sandpiper Lane, Birmingham, AL 35244 • (205) 444-5079 • Fax (205) 444-9561 
Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist, chartwiger@usga.org

Florida Region:
P.O. Box 1087, Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 • (561) 546-2620 • Fax (561) 546-4653
John H. Foy, Director, jfoy@usga.org

Mid-Continent Region:
P.O. Box 1130, Mahomet, IL 61853 • (217) 586-2490 • Fax (217) 586-2169
Paul H. Vermeulen, Director, pvermeulen@usga.org
4232 Arbor Lane, Carrollton, TX 75010 • (972) 492-3663 • Fax (972) 492-1350
Brian M. Maloy, Agronomist, bmaloy@usga.org

North-Central Region:
P.O. Box 15249, Covington, KY 41015-0249 • (606) 356-3272 • Fax (606) 356-1847
Robert A. Brame, Director, bobbrame@usga.org
P.O. Box 5069, Elm Grove, Wl 53122 • (262) 797-8743 • Fax (262) 797-8838 
Robert C. Vavrek, Jr., Agronomist, rvavrek@usga.org

Northwest Region:
5610 Old Stump Drive N.W., Gig Harbor, WA98332 • (253) 858-2266 • Fax (253) 857-6698
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director, lgilhuly@usga.org
P.O. Box 5844, Twin Falls, ID 83303 • (208) 732-0280 • Fax (208) 732-0282
Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist, mnelson@usga.org

Southwest Region:
505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 542-5766 • Fax (714) 542-5777 
Patrick J. Gross, Director, pgross@usga.org • Michael T. Huck, Agronomist, mhuck@usga.org

z-TOWTWWEW

GOOD TECHNIQUES

Question: I have a problem. Each summer the #1 blemish I have on my putting greens is scalped plugs. I have 
tried everything — different hole cutters, different hole changing techniques; nothing seems to solve the problem 
completely. Any thoughts? (Virginia)

Answer: One of the most common problems USGA agronomists see is high and low hole plugs. It is a 
common problem that golf course superintendents seem to solve, to the extent they can, in different ways. 
The most common solution is to develop the expertise of the individual changing the holes. It is an art, 
no matter what hole changing technique is utilized. It takes time to properly change a hole. Delegate the 
job to one of your best employees, preferably one who also plays golf. Do not have different people do 
this important chore just because they are available. Walk your greens, and if you see high or low plugs, 
send that one individual back out to level them up. We will wager that after a few trips around the golf 
course rechanging holes, especially on a hot afternoon, extra care will be exercised to do the job right the 
first time.

SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH

Question: What is the best way to store expensive bentgrass seed? (Georgia)

Answer: The key concept for seed storage is to keep the combination of temperature and humidity, when 
added together, below 100. Obviously, this is not easy to accomplish anywhere. Ideally, store your expensive 
bentgrass seed in a cooler or freezer. This not only keeps the seed viable, but also solves the usual mouse 
problems.

DRAINAGE ISSUES

Question: When is the best time of year to install fairway drainage? (Utah)

Answer: Although the wet areas should be mapped in winter, actual installation should take place in 
summer. Installing drainage during the dry summer months is faster, results in less damage to the golf 
course, and reduces the time it takes for the trenches to heal over.

18248824COKOOOLBR8 SAMPL

PETER COOKINGHAM 

MSU LIBRARIES

EAST LANSING, Ml 48824