■ . - 

■ V

’’

In Search of the 
Perfect Golf Course

Surface Organic Matter in Bentgrass Greens 

From Bunker to Biodiversity 

Prairie Fire!

Contents

January-February 2004 Volume 42, Number 1

S
E
C
R
U
O
S
E
R

T
O
O
R

/

N
N
Y
L
F

I

M
J
©

1 In Search of the

Perfect Golf Course

“Perfection has one grave 

defect; it is apt to be dull.” — 
W Somerset Maugham 

BY JAMES H. BAIRD

6 Conversion of Ryegrass 

Fairways to Bluegrass: 
Impossible Dream?

Colorado State University 
research suggests converting 

perennial ryegrass fairways 

to Kentucky bluegrass is a 

long shot.

BY TONY KOSKI, PH.D., 

AND JAMES NEWBERRY

8 Prairie Fire!

Using fire to improve the health 
and condition of unmown 

rough areas.

BY JONATHAN JENNINGS, CGCS

1 1 Surface Organic Matter 

in Bentgrass Greens

Research reveals the relationship 
between aeration methods and 

surface organic matter on sand­
based greens.

BY ROBERT N. CARROW, PH.D.

19 Golf Courses and

Bird Communities in the 
South Atlantic Coastal Plain

Unnatural Expectations

Recent research provides insight 

Proper establishment and 

to make golf courses better 

maintenance of naturalized 

habitat for birds.

25 From Bunker 

to Biodiversity

The Club at Carlton Woods 

successfully converts a 
problematic bunker into an 

attractive wetland habitat.

areas can increase acceptance 

BY DAVID H. GORDON,

BY PETER BRONSKI

by golfers.

BY DARIN S. BEVARD

STEPHEN G.JONES,

AND GARY M. PHILLIPS

26 2004 USGA Green 

Section Education Program 
and 2004 USGA National 
and Regional Conferences

27 News Notes
28 Have We Gone Too Far?

The grass is talking to you. 

Are you listening?

BY STAN ZONTEK

3 0 Turf Twisters

USGA

USGA President
Reed Mackenzie

Green Section 
Committee Chairman
Bruce C. Richards 
12202 NE 31st Place
Bellevue,WA 98005

Executive Director
David B. Fay

Editor
James T. Snow

Associate Editor
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

Director of Communications
Marty Parkes

Cover Photo
Although perfect golf courses 
are hard to find, good ones are 
created from the ground up.

 
 
IN SEARCH OF THE 
PERFECT GOLF COURSE 

“Perfection has one grave defect; it is apt to be dull.”—W Somerset Maugham 

BY JAMES H. BAIRD

Have golfers gone too 
far in their quest for 
perfect bunkers?

11 has become routine to hear golfers state that 
I “the course down the road does not aerate, 
I always has fast greens, and never loses a blade of 
grass” in spite of the worst weather that Mother 
Nature could dish out. In other words, the course 
is perfect! Considering that the Green Section 
visits roughly ten percent of the more than 17,000 
courses throughout North America, could it be 
possible that we have not seen this utopian golf 
course? After all, is there really any need to ask for 
assistance when you’re perfect?

Well, if you’re into lists of who’s the best, then 
you’ll be interested to know that, at one time or 
another, the Green Section has conducted Turf 
Advisory Service (TAS) visits on 93 out of a 
popular golf publication’s America’s 100 Greatest 
Golf Courses for 2003-2004. Are all of these golf 
courses great? You bet. Are they perfect golf 

courses? Hardly, but first let’s define perfect. 
According to Webster’s Dictionary, perfect is “being 
entirely without fault or defect.” How then, could 
100-200 acres of highly trafficked turf, trees, 
water, and sand ever be considered perfect?
Judging by golfer complaints and demands that 
prompt many TAS visits, it seems no longer 
acceptable to have even the smallest area of 
brown, thin, or bare turf anywhere on the golf 
course, or turf disrupted by cultivation practices 
(i.e., aeration), or imperfect lies in bunkers or 
rough, or earthworm castings, just to name a few.
It is about as unrealistic to expect perfect con­
ditions on the golf course as it is to expect a per­
fect 18-hole score in golf. More importantly, one 
has little to do with the other. Then, why is it that 
some outside agent (possibly poor course condi­
tions) is frequently blamed for a poor round of 

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

I

golf, whereas good conditions rarely get the credit 
for a great round? By definition, there can be no 
such thing as a perfect golf course; however, some 
are less imperfect than others. This article discusses 
the key elements that can help improve your golf 
course as well as those that make perfection a 
very lofty goal.

ARCHITECTURE
Like them or not, various lists or rankings of the 
“best” golf courses tend to recognize one nearly 

Although shale does 
not represent the 
best golfing soil, it is 
indicative of the poor 
soil upon which many 
golf courses are built.

indisputable characteristic — great architecture. 
Classic courses designed by the likes of Banks, 
Emmet, Flynn, Macdonald, Raynor, Ross, and 
Tillinghast are “perfect” because they were meant 
to be imperfect. They were natural before natural 
was in style, shaped largely by the hands of 
Mother Nature. Some golfers now realize the 
beauty in the imperfection and embrace it. 
Features like tall, sparse grass growing in the 
rough and around jagged-edged bunkers, and 
firm, fast, and sometimes brown turf are expected. 
For others, these are the very signs of a golf 
course gone awry or a superintendent not doing 
a good job. Courses like these are the antithesis of 
the manicured, resort-style golf course or many of 
those seen on television. The bottom line is, 
regardless of architectural preference, courses do 
not have to be perfect to be good.

ENVIRONMENT
“I don’t want to hear any excuses about the 
weather,” exclaims the perfectionist golfer. After 
all, bad weather has no effect on a perfect golf 

2

GREEN SECTION RECORD

course. What golfers like this fail to realize is that 
no two golf courses, however close in distance, 
ever have the same weather conditions, topog­
raphy, vegetation, growing environments, and 
soils. Come to think about it, the same holds true 
for different locations on any single golf course.
Most golfers, perhaps because of their nature, 

view the world and their golf course as being 
black or white. If the golf course is green, it’s 
great. If it’s not, there’s a problem. When it comes 
to the weather and managing closely mowed turf, 
golf course superintendents operate in a world of 
gray. Slight but sudden changes in precipitation, 
temperature, humidity, and wind can swiftly turn 
otherwise healthy turf into wilted, diseased, or 
dead turf. Extreme weather such as extended 
periods of drought, rainfall, high or low tempera­
tures, and ice cover almost always produces 
deleterious effects on turfgrass, regardless of the 
species, experience of the superintendent, or 
chemical budget. Like it or not, the quality of 
your golf course is at the mercy of Mother 
Nature. So if you can’t control the weather, what 
can you control?

IMPROVETHE
GROWING ENVIRONMENT
Show me a putting green that receives ample 
sunlight and air movement, well-dispersed traffic, 
and is free from tree root competition, and I’ll 
show you a green that is healthier (i.e., better able 
to tolerate lower heights of cut), more tolerant of 
pests (i.e., requires fewer pesticides), and one that 
has the best chances of ducking Mother Nature’s 
best punches. Sounds too good to be true? On 
many golf courses it is a fact. The presence of 
trees or poorly placed mounding and bunkering 
restrict light and traffic flow, and invite the 
encroachment of weeds like annual bluegrass (Poa 
annua). Although this species is ubiquitous across 
North America and perennial biotypes can pro­
duce an excellent putting surface, in general it is 
more prone to disease and environmental stress 
compared to bentgrass or bermudagrass.

On top of that, golfers want fast greens, not just 

on weekends or for the club championship any­
more, but every day. Annual bluegrass weakens as 
a result of the low height of cut and stressful 
weather. In the summer, it usually dies as a result 
of fungal pathogens such as anthracnose, insects 
such as the annual bluegrass weevil, or simply 
from being too hot, dry, and/or wet. In the 
winter, it is usually first to die from direct low- 

temperature injury or extended periods of ice 
cover. The potential for these problems is 
increased by poor growing environments.

Removing trees that impede sunlight, air move­

ment, and/or uptake of water and nutrients by 
turfgrass roots is imperative for the health of the 
turf and achieving a nearly perfect golf course. 
Trafficked turf requires at least 8 hours of sunlight 
each day for growth and recuperation. Approxi­
mately half of this amount should occur during 
the morning when photosynthesis is optimum 
and to help reduce the potential for disease out­
break by helping to dry out the turf canopy. In 
the northern hemisphere, morning sunlight is 
favored by removing trees in the east and south 
directions from the green, tee, or fairway. Keep in 
mind that the sun rises directly from the east and 
sets directly in the west during the vernal and 
autumnal equinoxes only. During the summer 
solstice, or longest day of the year, the sun rises 
and sets the farthest from south and its position is 
highest in the sky. The opposite is true for the 
winter solstice, or shortest day of the year.

These facts are important to keep in mind 
when addressing sunlight issues during shorter 
days of the year when trees located farther to the 
south of a putting green are likely to block sun­
light. Also, don’t forget about removing trees that 
prevent air movement by blocking the direction 
of the prevailing wind, as well as those trees that 
were planted too close to a green, tee, or fairway 
in regard to root competition.

SOIL
Who better to sum up the importance and diver­
sity of soil on golf courses than the legendary 
architect Donald Ross, author of Golf Has Never 
Failed Me. “A sandy loam is by far the best golfing 
soil. It provides good drainage and ideal condi­
tions for strong, enduring growth of desirable 
grasses. It likewise furnishes the exact conditions 
necessary for the proper playing of golf shots. 
Soils of a clay mixture are to be avoided if pos­
sible. They are difficult to drain and must be given 
much costly attention to produce satisfactory 
turf. During the hot months, they are hard and 
baked. After rains they are apt to be overrun with 
worms. Unfortunately, such soils are found near a 
large portion of our major cities.”

Next time you are about to pass judgment 

about the condition of one course versus another, 
first compare the soils underneath. While the 
better golf course may be blessed with well- 

drained native soil that may even meet the USGA 
recommendations for putting green construction, 
far more golf courses possess something that is 
not even worthy of being called “dirt.”

How can courses improve poor soil? Usually, 

the first step is to develop and adhere to an 
aggressive cultivation program that includes 
aeration, topdressing, and vertical mowing. 
Aerating machines can be equipped with solid or 
hollow tines of various diameters that punch 
holes into the soil at depths ranging from a few 

inches to more than one foot below the turf 
surface. Sand topdressing is recommended to fill 
the holes and the turf surface to help modify the 
existing soil by improving infiltration and perco­
lation of air and water into the rootzone and to 
help reduce compaction. Sand topdressing also 
helps to reduce thatch accumulation by dilution 
and, in time, provides firmer, smoother, and there­
fore faster putting surfaces. Although it is a con­
siderable and long-term investment, many golf 
courses are now topdressing fairways along with 
greens and tees in order to improve drainage and 
playability as well as to discourage earthworm 

What’s wrong with this 
section of the green? 
This is a good example 
of how removing 
trees can improve the 
growing environment 
on this green by 
increasing sunlight 
and removing root 
competition for water 
and nutrients.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

3

activity that results in castings on the turf surface. 
As Donald Ross further commented about poor 
soil, “In such cases you must simply make up your 
mind to accept the limitations of such a course 
and be prepared to cheerfully and continually 
spend money for its upkeep and betterment.”

BUDGET
Money can’t buy love or the perfect golf course, 
but, if spent wisely, it can help produce a better 
golf course. Starting with the infrastructure, 
today’s state-of-the-art pump stations are capable 
of delivering more water in a shorter amount of 
time while using less energy. Ultimately, this 
results in a drier golf course with less potential for 
disease and, of course, greater savings for the golf 
course.

Likewise, new irrigation systems consist of a 
greater number of smaller sprinklers spaced closer 
together with individual control to better account 
for site-specific water requirements based upon 
different growing environments, turfgrass species, 
and mowing heights. In dry climates or during 
extended drought, a good irrigation system is 
critical to keep the golf course green but not wet. 
Otherwise, plan on paying overtime or hiring 
more staff to chase dry spots all over the golf 
course.

Another option is to simply tolerate areas 
of brown turf on the golf course. According to 
Donald Ross, “I realize the difficulty that green­
keepers and chairmen of the green committee 
have in letting up on the watering. Criticism 
comes from members when they see the slightest 

sign of a brown patch. 
Nevertheless, while I do 
not think it is wise to let a 
green go completely out 
of playing condition 
during the summer, it 
would be advisable not to 
overdo the watering of 
greens during those 
months.” On the other 
side of the coin, the 
importance of having 
adequate drainage cannot 
be underestimated, as 
many golf courses in the 
Northeast and elsewhere 
discovered last season 
during one of the wettest 
summers on record.

LABOR
More than half of most golf course maintenance 
operating budgets is comprised of labor (salary 
and benefits).Therefore, the condition of the golf 
course is often a direct reflection of the resources 
that are allocated for personnel. The golf course 
management team should consist of an experi­
enced and well-qualified superintendent, at least 
one but often two or more assistants to handle 
important responsibilities like crew supervision, 
application of chemicals, and maintenance and 
scheduling of the irrigation system, and at least 
one qualified equipment technician to oversee 
the maintenance of a fleet with a value in the 
neighborhood of $1 million. Of course, if you 
want those bunkers raked every day, rough 
mowed twice a week, and someone else to repair 
your ball marks and divots, then make sure that 
there is an ample supporting cast as well. Instead 
of guesstimating whether or not you have the 
right number of employees for your golf course, 
one suggestion is to first convert the line item 
format of your operating budget (i.e., labor, fuel, 
chemicals, etc.) to reflect the cost of maintaining 
each part of the golf course (i.e., greens, tees, fair­
ways, bunkers, etc.).With numbers in hand, next 
work together with your green committee, board 
of directors, or ownership to develop a golf 
course maintenance master plan. In other words, 
determine which areas of the golf course are most 
important and the level of maintenance each 
requires. Is walk mowing the greens (vs. riding) or 
topdressing them more frequently more impor­
tant than hand-raking bunkers (i.e., hazards) every 
day? Although these exercises may indicate the 
need to hire more employees, more than likely 
they will help your golf course get the most out 
of the existing staff, given the current economic 
challenges and budget cutbacks.

EQUIPMENT
It is surprising to find that many golf courses do 
not have a capital budget to be used toward the 
replacement of equipment and general upkeep of 
the turf care facility. Although you will likely pay 
more for a new fairway or rough mower than a 
nice new sport utility vehicle, don’t expect that 
they will last forever, as most heavily used 
machinery (e.g., mowers, utility vehicles, etc.) lasts 
about 5-7 years before the need for parts and 
repairs keeps them in the shop more than out on 
the golf course. As a starting point, at least 10-15% 
of the total replacement cost of your current 

Concentrating traffic 
on the golf course 
using plant or artificial 
materials leads to 
excessive wear and 
little or no turf.

4

GREEN SECTION RECORD

equipment fleet should be appropriated toward 
the purchase of new equipment each season. If 
you cannot or choose not to tie up all that money 
in working capital, then leasing equipment is 
another option for maintaining a newer and 
technologically advanced fleet.

TURF CARE FACILITY
Do not forget about the turf care facility. “What’s 
that?” you say. On far too many golf courses, I’m 
referring to the dilapidated barn that’s too small 
to house all of that expensive equipment, not in 
compliance with government regulations for 
pesticide storage and handling, and a poor reflec­
tion of the quality of your golf course and the 
professionalism of your superintendent. Golfers 
expect nothing less than the best from the club­
house facility. Do the same for the turf care 
facility.

GOLFERS, CARTS, AND TRAFFIC
Is it any wonder that there is no such thing as a 
perfect golf course when golfers fail to repair ball 
marks and divots, rake bunkers, and follow cart 
traffic policies? Increasing use of golf carts, 
especially in conjunction with inclement weather, 
has resulted in greater turf wear and compaction 
which, as described earlier, promotes annual blue­
grass encroachment and all of the challenges that 
go along with it. At most courses, gone are the 
days when the golf course gets a much needed 
rest from golfers each week or even once a 
month. Instead of rejuvenation from aeration or 
other cultivation practices, ball marks and divots 
abound from golfers in double shotgun outings.

When it comes to etiquette, set a good 

example by properly repairing more than one ball 
mark upon reaching the green, picking up your 
feet when walking to avoid scuffing the turf, and 
reaching down to pick the ball out of the cup 
instead of damaging the lip with your putter. In 
regard to divots, follow the instructions provided 
by your superintendent. Thick pieces of turf 
usually will recuperate if properly replaced and 
tamped down into the divot. Otherwise, fill and 
smooth the divot with mix (if available) to the 
level of the turf, avoiding the creation of a mound 
several inches above it. Take the time to rake 
bunkers and then place the rake alongside the 
bunker in a location that is parallel with the line 
of play. In addition, scheduling times when the 
management team is present on the golf course 
to demonstrate proper etiquette to golfers has 

brought about positive results on many golf 
courses.

CONCLUSION
These and many other factors determine just how 
nearly or not so nearly perfect your golf course 
can be. Although you cannot fool with Mother 
Nature, you can help ensure the best possible turf 
and playing conditions day in and day out by 
improving growing environ­
ments, performing essential 
cultivation, and providing the 
resources and infrastructure 
necessary to meet reasonable 
golfer expectations. Save the 
unreasonable expectations for 
that mythical perfect golf course 
that exists somewhere out there. 
Instead of trying to be the best, 
just be your best.

REFERENCES
FoyJ. 2002. Course presentation: 
playability vs. aesthetics. USGA Green 
Section Record. 40(2):23-24.

Happ, K. 2001. Turf care centers: the 
heartbeat of golf turf conditioning!
USGA Green Section Record. 39(4): 1-5.

Happ, K. 2000. Perfection is not attain­
able! Green Section Record. 38(5):28.

Hartwiger, C. 2003. Raising the bar: 
how high can you go? USGA Green 
Section Record. 41 (1):13-16.

Huck, M. 2001. Closing for mainte­
nance. USGA Green Section Record.
39(1):21.

Huck, M. 2000. Does your irrigation 
system make the grade? USGA Green Section Record. 
38(5): 1-5.

Nelson, M. 2001. Checkup for the new millennium: Does
your equipment fleet make the cut? USGA Green Section
Record. 39(6):l-4.

O’Brien, P, and C. Hartwiger. 2003. Aeration and topdressing 
for the 21st century. USGA Green Section Record. 41 (2): 1-7.

Radko,A. M. 1977. Green is not great. USGA Golf Journal. 
30(7):34-37.

Ross, D. J. 1996. Golf has never failed me. Sleeping Bear Press, 
Chelsea, Mich.

Snow,J.T. 1985. Who said, “The grass is always greener ....” 
USGA Green Section Record. 23(1): 1-4.

Vavrek, B. 2002.Traffic ... how much can you bare? USGA 
Green Section Record. 40(4): 1-6.

Vermeulen, P. Proper etiquette. USGA Green Section Record. 
40(4) :24.

Jim Baird, Ph.D, is an agronomist in the Northeast 
Region. While still searching for the perfect golf course, 
he hopes never to find it.

Striving for a perfect 
golf course should begin
with proper etiquette.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

5

Conversion of Ryegrass Fairways 
to Bluegrass: Impossible Dream?
Colorado State University research suggests converting perennial 
ryegrass fairways to Kentucky bluegrass is a long shot.

BY TONY KOSKI, PH D., AND JAMES NEWBERRY

Until recently,Kentucky blue­

grass and creeping bentgrass 
(along with annual bluegrass) 
were the standard grasses for northern, 

cool-season zone golf course fairways. 
The use of perennial ryegrass for new 
fairways has become increasingly com­
mon in the last 10-15 years.3 Further, 
ryegrass had become a favorite over­
seeding species for older bluegrass fair­
ways — resulting in the rapid conver­
sion of those fairways to nearly 100% 
ryegrass.

Perennial ryegrass is easy to establish, 
can be mowed easily at heights less than 
one inch, forms little thatch, and allows 
the safe use of ethofumesate (Prograss) 
for annual bluegrass control. However, 
the problem of gray leaf spot on peren­
nial ryegrass has caused superintendents 
to reexamine its use in some areas of 
the country.The recent development 
of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars tolerant 
of mowing heights in the %-inch to 
%-inch range has created interest in the 
use of bluegrass for high-maintenance 
fairways where ryegrass use has 
encountered problems.1-2

SO WHERE’S THE PROBLEM?
If one could convert fairways to peren­
nial ryegrass so quickly via overseeding, 
it stands to reason that conversion to 
Kentucky bluegrass could be accom­
plished just as easily — especially when 
using the new cultivars that performed 
well under low mowing. However, 
observations of fairways where blue­
grass overseeding had been attempted 
revealed little or no bluegrass — except 
in those areas where the ryegrass had

6

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Within two weeks of seeding, bluegrass seeds were germinating in the seeder slits. Some seedlings, 
although spindly and weak, did emerge from the slits, but the seedlings did not mature into healthy 

adult plants.

been thinned or killed by disease or 
winter injury.

A review of the research literature 
showed that no one had studied over­
seeding into ryegrass to any extent. 
Considerable work had examined con­
version programs for Poa annua fair­
ways, as well as the introduction of new 
bentgrass cultivars into older bentgrass 
greens.15,6 A general conclusion was that 
conversion (in fairways, for example) to 
ryegrass via overseeding was relatively 
easy to accomplish and conversion of 
older greens to newer bentgrass culti­
vars was a difficult process — unless the 
existing bentgrass was intentionally 
thinned by aggressive cultivation prac­
tices prior to seeding. Anecdotal evi­
dence seemed to indicate the same for 
conversion from ryegrass to bluegrass: 

it was usually unsuccessful unless the 
ryegrass had been significantly thinned 
prior to seeding.

In the spring of 2000, a study was 
begun by James Newberry, a graduate 
student at Colorado State University, to 
test the effectiveness of different seeding 
strategies for introducing Kentucky 
bluegrass into perennial ryegrass 
fairways.

THE ON-COURSE

Sponsored by the Golf Course Super­
intendents Association of America and 
the Rocky Mountain Golf Course 
Superintendents Association, a field 
study was begun in June 2000 at two 
Denver-area golf courses: Fox Hollow 
at Lakewood (Bruce Nelson, CGCS, 

and Mark Krick) and Rolling Hills 
Country Club (Bob Kinder, CGCS). 
The intent was to do a replicated 
experiment, but using equipment and 
techniques used by the golf course 
superintendent. Further, the study areas 
were in play and maintained identically 
to the rest of the golf course. Seed 
was supplied by Jacklin Seed, while 
Colorado Golf and Turf furnished the 
Bunton slit-seeder and tractor.

In Year 1, plots were seeded with 

either 3 or 6 pounds of Award 
Kentucky bluegrass seed per 1,000 
square feet in spring and fall (6 and 12 
pounds of seed per 1,000 square feet 
per year), or in spring/summer/fall 
(total of 9 or 18 pounds of seed per 
1,000 square feet per year). In half of 
the plots, the plant growth regulator 
(PGR) Primo (trinexapac ethyl) was 
applied one week prior to seeding at a 
rate of 22 ounces per acre. Data were 
collected every two weeks, including 
plot quality and species composition.
In Year 2, new plots were started 
adjacent to the previous year’s study, 
using the same treatments described 
above. However, the Year 1 plots were 
also overseeded again to evaluate the 
cumulative effect of multiple-year seed­
ing. In Year 3, plots were seeded a final 
time in the spring.

UNIMPRESSIVE RESULTS 
Despite cumulative seeding rates as 
high as 42 pounds of seed per 1,000 
square feet over a 214-year period, no 
Kentucky bluegrass could be found in 
the intact areas of any of the plots. In 
fact, the only bluegrass to be found was 
in divoted areas that had been over­
seeded when the divots were still open. 
It was obvious that slit-seeding Ken­
tucky bluegrass into healthy perennial 
ryegrass fairway turf, even with the use 
of a PGR to suppress ryegrass growth, 
was a totally ineffective method for 
introducing, much less converting, 
bluegrass into these fairways.

It should be noted that we did see 
bluegrass seed germination in the fair­
ways. Within a couple of weeks of seed­

ing, bluegrass seeds were germinating in 
the seeder slits (approximately %-inch 
depth). And some seedlings, although 
spindly and weak, did emerge from the 
slits. But the seedlings did not mature 
into healthy adult plants.

Though discouraging, the results 
were not totally unexpected. Observa­
tions over the years by turf extension 
specialists, USGA agronomists, and 
many golf course superintendents have 
noted the general futility of overseeding 
bluegrass into established ryegrass turf.

The only bluegrass to be found on the research 
plots was in devoted areas that had been over­
seeded when the divots were still open. It was 
obvious that slit-seeding Kentucky bluegrass into 
healthy perennial ryegrass fairway turf, even with 
the use of a PGR. to suppress ryegrass growth, 
was an ineffective method for introducing 
bluegrass into the fairways.

SOWHAT IS THE PROBLEM? 
Although there is little research (at least 
with ryegrass) to provide answers to this 
question, it would appear that the 
poor/non-existent bluegrass establish­
ment results from the fact that either 
perennial ryegrass is an extremely com­
petitive plant that allows little oppor­
tunity for bluegrass (especially a seed­
ling) to become established, or perennial 
ryegrass is allelopathic, producing 
chemicals that suppress and kill blue­
grass seedlings. While there is some 
evidence in the research literature to 
indicate possible allelopathy in ryegrass, 
there is a good amount of disagreement 
among scientists on the subject.

On the other hand, research pub­
lished by Dr. Doug Brede in the early 

1980s supports the theory that perennial 
ryegrass is an extremely competitive 
plant when mixed with a less-competi­
tive one, like bluegrass.1,2 Although his 
work examined ryegrass and bluegrass 
in seedling mixtures, one could logically 
conclude that a mature stand of peren­
nial ryegrass is an even more effective 
competitor against seedling bluegrass 
plants.

The results of this study, along with 
anecdotal field observations by agrono­
mists and superintendents over the 
years, would suggest that the overseed­
ing (via slit-seeding) of perennial rye­
grass fairways with any amount of blue­
grass is a futile practice. The results of 
another C.S.U. study, along with recent 
superintendent trials, would indicate 
that some level of success might be 
attained when overseeding is done in 
conjunction with core cultivation.The 
larger opening may provide some space 
in which the young bluegrass seedlings 
can mature and develop.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Brede, A. D., and J. M. Duich. 1984. Initial 
mowing of Kentucky bluegrass / perennial 
ryegrass seedling turf mixtures. Agron.J. 
76(5):711-714.

2. Brede, A. D., and J. M. Duich. 1984. Establish­
ment characteristics of Kentucky bluegrass / 
perennial ryegrass turf mixtures as affected by 
seeding rate and ratio. Agron.J. 76(6):875-879.

3. Carrow, R. N., and J. Troll. 1977. Cutting 
height and nitrogen effects on improved peren­
nial ryegrass in monostand and polystand com­
munities. Agron.J. 69(l):5-10.

4. Cattani, D. J., and J. N. Nowak. 2001. Inter­
seeding in creeping bentgrass: a viable option or 
wishful thinking? Golf Course Management 
69(8):49-54.

5. Rossi, F. 1999. Interseeding bentgrass into 
established turf. Golf Course Management 
67(8): 53-56.

6. Sweeney, P., and K. Danneberger. 1998. 
Introducing a new creeping bentgrass cultivar 
through interseeding: does it work? USGA 
Green Section Record 36(5): 1-4.

Tony Koski, Ph.D, is professor and 
extension turf specialist at Colorado State 
University.James Newberry is the 
irrigation assistant at Vista Ridge Golf 
Course in Lafayette, Colorado.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

7

PRAIRIE FIRE!

Using fire to improve 
the health and condition 
of unmown rough areas.

t
i
l
l

■

Sending a notification letter to the surrounding property owners is a good way to avoid last-minute phone calls from concerned residents regarding clouds 
of smoke rising up from the course. Such letters should include contact information for the superintendent and possible burn dates.

Regularly included on Classical Top 

100 golf course lists, Chicago Golf 
kClub (Wheaton, Ill.) owes a 
large portion of its special appeal to the 

unmown areas of the rough. Dominated 
by the seedheads of cool-season grasses 
for most of the season, this area outlines 
every hole and serves as a potent re­
minder from architect C. B. Macdonald 
to keep the ball on the fairway. Above 
and beyond the rough s obvious visual 
appeal, it is also a rare haven for 
numerous bird species and small animals 
in the sprawling metropolis of the Mid­
west’s largest city. And, by acting as a 
buffer zone between intensely managed 
turf areas and the irrigation pond on 
the 10th hole, it protects the fish and 
other aquatic inhabitants from possible 
nutrient and pesticide migration.

8

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Given the enormous value of the 
unmown rough, it is surprising that 
golfers often equate its earthy appear­
ance with low-cost or, worse yet, no- 
cost maintenance. In fact, changing the 
designation of a large area of the rough 
to unmown does not necessarily mean 
that a substantial amount of labor and 
materials can be trimmed from the 
budget. To produce the desired look of 
the unmown rough at Chicago Golf 
Club, numerous man-hours are spent 
hand-pulling undesirable plants in 
highly visible areas around the club­
house, greens, and tees; treating broad­
leaf weeds with selective herbicides; and 
burning all 80 acres each spring under 
the direction of a hired professional.
Burning, whether caused by light­
ning or used as a management tool, has 

been an integral part of the prairie life­
cycle since the beginning of time. Its 
benefits include the removal of dead 
vegetation that hinders new growth, the 
release of nutrients that enrich the soil, 
the reduction of noxious weeds, and 
the encouragement of native species 
that are attractive to wildlife.

Chicago Golf Club is fortunate, 
because it is located in unincorporated 
Milton Township, where controlled 
burns are permitted for native grass 
restoration.To evaluate whether or not 
fire might be a management choice in 
your area, you should determine if:

• Federal, state, and local regulations 
permit burning.

• Containment and safety factors are 
within acceptable risk parameters.

• Endangered species/natural com­
munities are not subject to harm.

• Local residences are not in jeopardy.

If fire cannot be used for these or any 

other reasons, then other methods for 
maintaining unmown rough areas must 
be explored.

The initial step in conducting a con­
trolled burn at Chicago Golf Club is to 
obtain a permit from the Environmental 
Protection Agency. This document 
allows the club to burn anytime 
throughout a 12-month period, pro­
vided all appropriate contacts are made 
with local officials. As a side note, we 
also learned during our first year of 
conducting a controlled burn that it is 
best to make all neighbors aware of the 
burn with a notification letter. While 
variable weather conditions in the 
spring make it impossible to include a 
specific date for the burn, our notifica­
tion letter references a two-week time 
frame and provides contact information 
for any questions that may arise.

Once the weather conditions are 
appropriate for burning, the next step is 
to contact all emergency response per­
sonnel, including the fire and police 
departments. In our case, we must also 
keep the DuPage County Sheriff’s 
Department up to date, because the 
course is located in an unincorporated 
area of the township. Speaking from 
personal experience, never assume that 
one entity will contact another or you 
will surely be meeting with them the 
day of your burn.

Before burning commences, each 
section of the unmown rough is evalu­
ated based on its relevant constraints. 
When burning on a golf course, these 
constraints may include uneven terrain, 
public view of the burn area, smoke 
problems in relation to residential areas 
or major roads, the presence of utility 
poles and wires, adjacent crops or live­
stock, presence of endangered species, 
or nesting and fawning areas. It is always 
best to address as many constraints as 
possible well in advance of the actual 
burn date; if not, don’t be surprised at 

the reaction from neighbors during the 
burn.

The most important element of a 
successful controlled burn is weather. 
Weather controls fire behavior, smoke 
behavior, fuel condition, and flamma­
bility, all of which have a relationship 
with the safety of the burn. The weather 
variables most applicable to controlled 
burns are air temperature, relative 
humidity wind speed and direction, 
precipitation, and air mass stability. A 
combination of the first three (air 

smoke if allowed to continue burning 
when the temperature drops and the 
humidity increases in late afternoon.
There are three basic types of con­
trolled fires — backing, head, and flank. 
Backing fires are started along a prepared 
baseline, such as a fairway or mainte­
nance road, and allowed to burn into 
the wind. For the most part, this is the 
easiest way to burn because of the 
shorter flame lengths, a slower rate of 
spread, and a smoke density that is 
generally less than that of a head or 

Fire lines are spread 
along gradual curves 
with drip torches. 
Backing fires, set to 
burn into the wind, 
do a better job of 
total fuel consumption 
due to their hottest 
temperature at 
ground level.

temperature, relative humidity, and 
wind speed) determines fuel condition 
that, in turn, affects a fire’s behavior.

flank fire. Backing fires also burn hotter 
at ground level and do a better job of 
total fuel consumption.

The optimum weather conditions for 

Head fires are the opposite of 

burning the rough at Chicago Golf 
Club are an air temperature between 
55°F and 70°F, a relative humidity 
between 25% and 50%, and a consistent 
wind speed between 8 and 15 m.p.h. 
The time of day when weather condi­
tions are most apt to be in the optimum 
ranges is generally between 11:00 a.m. 
and 4:00 p.m. Burning outside these 
weather parameters could compromise 
the results and make the fire more 
difficult to manage.

Fire behavior and fuel conditions are 
most unpredictable when temperatures 
are rising during the morning hours. As 
the temperature rises and the humidity 
drops, a fire will tend to grow more 
intense. Conversely, a good fire will 
begin to smolder and produce excess 

backing fires in that they burn with the 
wind. These fires have greater flame 
lengths, faster rates of spread, greater 
smoke volumes, and a tendency to burn 
cooler at ground level than backing or 
flank fires. Containment of these fires is 
more critical, however, as wind speed 
and fuel quantity increase. Before start­
ing a head fire, one should be absolutely 
certain that the fire will not escape the 
intended burn area.

Flank fires are a modification of a 
backing fire in that lines of fire are set at 
slanting angles to the wind direction. 
Flank fires are commonly used to 
secure the flanks of a head fire as the 
head fire progresses.

Management of a controlled burn 
is never over until all affected areas are 

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2 0 0 4

9

cold and no longer producing smoke. 
Post-burn activities include monitoring 
the perimeter, completely extinguishing 
all of the smoking and burning patches 
of fuel, and cleaning up the site. Moni­
toring the burn perimeter is actually a 
continuous function from the time the 
fire is set until it has been determined 
that the fire is out and cold.To extin­
guish smoking and/or burning patches, 
the areas are drenched with the irriga­
tion system, if possible, smothered with 
soil, and/or raked. To clean up after a 
burn, the rough is mowed with a 
tractor-mounted Bush Hog. This work 
is necessary to even out the clumps of 
green grass and break up the small piles 
of dead grass that refused to burn.

The highest priority when conduct­
ing a controlled burn of the rough is, of 
course, safety. If the weather conditions 
change to unfavorable at any time, the 
fire is immediately extinguished. Addi­

tionally, safety is promoted with proper 
employee training, hazard removal, and 
the use of personal protective equip­
ment. Suffice it to say, without a strong 
emphasis on safety, it would be impos­
sible to have the continued support of 
golfers and the neighboring 
community.

As a final thought, I offer two very 
good reasons for patience when con­
ducting a controlled burn of the rough. 
First, the results of burning vary from 
year to year due to weather conditions 
and the condition of the area. Second, it 
can take several consecutive years of 
burning and follow-up management 
before an area develops the desired 
appearance.

Historically, the unmown areas of 
the rough at Chicago Golf Club were 
simply cut during the early part of the 
playing season and then allowed to 
grow to full maturity. By adopting an 

annual burn program that is scheduled 
during late March or early April, the 
quality of this area has improved 
noticeably because of a reduction in 
woody plants and a slow but steady 
proliferation of warm-season grasses. 
Two to three weeks after each burn, the 
rough begins to show strong signs of 
recovery, just as the native prairies have 
for thousands of years.

REFERENCE
Kenneth F. Higgins, Arnold D. Kruse, James L. 
Piehl. Prescribed Burning Guidelines in the Northern 
Great Plains (www,npwrc. usgs.gov/resource/tools/- 
burning/burning, htm).

Jonathan Jennings has been the super­
intendent of Chicago Golf Club since 2000 
and is a firm believer in taking a professional 
approach to course management. The club 
will host the 2005 Walker Cup.

One of the many benefits of burning unmown rough areas during successive years is the proliferation of native, warm-season grasses that provide year-round 
interest and valuable habitat.

10

GREEN SECTION RECORD

ponsored

Research lbw Can Use

Surface Organic Matter 
in Bentgrass Greens
Research reveals the relationship between aeration methods 
and surface organic matter on sand-based greens.

BY ROBERT N. CARROW, PH.D.

The USGA golf green recom­

mendations were developed to 
create a rootzone medium that 
would exhibit good physical properties 

under continuous traffic, namely water 
infiltration and percolation, oxygen 
status, and resistance to soil compaction. 
Putting greens, however, are dynamic 
systems where the norm is changing 
over time, especially within the two- 
inch surface zone. The greatest changes 
in total organic matter content, thatch/ 
mat status, turfgrass rooting, and even 
the nature of the organic matter often 
occur during the first two years of 
grow-in, but changes also may continue 
over future years. All of these factors 
may influence water infiltration and 
percolation, as well as soil oxygen status.
Several researchers have documented 

decreases in saturated hydraulic con­
ductivity (SHC, the infiltration rate 
under saturated profile conditions) as 
putting greens mature.710 Concurrent 
with a reduction in SHC has been an 
increase in organic matter content 
within the surface two inches. An upper 
limit of 4.5% (by weight) of organic 
matter in a sand medium was suggested 
by Murphy et al.8 because macropores 
important for rapid SHC are insufficient 
above this level. McCoy6 recommended 
a maximum of 3.5% organic matter (by 
weight) based on his work and a review 
of others, since macroporosity starts to 
decline above this value. The decline in 
root growth often observed within two 
to three years after establishment has

University of Georgia researchers are investi­
gating how various aeration methods can limit 
organic matter buildup in newly constructed
greens.This example shows the organic matter 
buildup found in an ultradwarf bermudagrass 
green after one year if not managed properly.

been attributed to accumulation of 
organic matter in the surface.

SUMMER BENTGRASS 
DECLINE: PATHOLOGICAL 
OR PHYSICAL?
The USGA-sponsored project “Organic 
Matter Dynamics in the Surface Zone 
of a USGA Green: Practices to Alleviate 
Problems” arose from observations in 
the late 1980s of summer bentgrass 
decline (SBD) on creeping bentgrass 
greens in the southern zone of bent­

grass adaptation. From field observations 
and a review of the literature, I came to 
the hypothesis that many of the primary 
problems on high-sand bentgrass/annual 
bluegrass greens, including SBD, were 
due to changes in soil physical condi­
tions in the surface two inches. It 
appeared that either too much organic 
matter accumulation or rapid death of 
surface roots could result in reduced 
water infiltration and higher water­
holding capacity. This resulted in 
decreased oxygen content within the 
zone and O2 diffusion across the zone.
Other secondary problems can arise 

if the primary problem is organic 
matter accumulation and/or change in 
the nature of the surface organic 
matter. These include more disease 
activity, severe physiological O2 stress, 
and further root decline during sum­
mer, as well as softer greens. Achieving a 
reduction in these secondary problems 
requires correction of the physical con­
ditions within this zone.

TWO TYPES OF SURFACE 
ORGANIC MATTER PROBLEMS 
The two common surface organic mat­
ter problems are suggested from field 
observations and the turfgrass science 
literature. The first organic matter 
problem is excessive accumulation of 
organic matter in the surface zone. 
USGA specification greens normally 
contain less than 3% (by weight) organic 
matter throughout the rootzone mix. 
Research has consistently demonstrated

ANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

I I

Table I
Factors favoring rapid organic matter (OM) accumulation.

O.M. accumulation is enhanced by:
• Prolonged cool temperatures on cool-season turfgrasses when temperatures are 

between 32°F and 55°F, where microbial (especially bacteria) activity declines, and, 

thereby, OM decomposition declines. Cool, humid temperate climates may have such 

conditions most of the year, while in the southern regions of bentgrass adaptation 

this climatic condition may be for 5-7 months per year.

• Use of aggressive bentgrass or bermudagrass cultivars that exhibit high rates of OM 

accumulation. Many of the newer greens types exhibit this tendency.

• Poor air drainage that allows the surface to remain excessively moist for long 

periods.This allows for longer periods of anaerobic conditions and stimulates 

production of adventitious surface rooting, contributing to more OM load.These 

are often the secluded greens with many trees in the surrounds, little natural air 

drainage, and shade on the green surface for a period of time.

• Inadequate integration of sand to sustain a medium where sand is the dominant 

matrix rather than OM. Sand must be applied not just by topdressing, but also in 

vertical channels by hollow-tine core aeration that removes plugs of OM and allows 

large quantities of sand to be added.

• Addition of OM to the surface as sod (even washed sod), compost, or OM-contain- 

ing amendments.

Acidic pH at < 5.5, which limits bacteria and actinomycete populations and activity.

• Maintenance toward rapid growth or thatch buildup such as high N use, frequent 

irrigation, high mowing height.

• Low earthworm activity.

that as organic matter content in a sand 
mix increases to above 4% to 5% 
(by weight), the percent of larger soil 
pores (macropores, aeration pores) of 
>0.08mm diameter between sand 
particles decreases due to plugging by 
organic matter.6,8 Even with very good 
turfgrass management, the organic mat­
ter content in the surface two inches is 
often observed to be more than 3.0% 
by weight.2,3

Table 1 summarizes the most com­
mon conditions that cause excessive 
organic matter accumulation, especially 
when several of these conditions occur 
simultaneously. Normally, the extreme 
instances of organic matter accumulation 
occur in the cool, humid, temperate 
climates. However, this is not always the 
case. In fact, in climates that strongly 
favor organic matter accumulation, this 
is likely the most prevalent problem on 
high-sand greens or athletic fields.

A second situation suggested to cause 
problems occurs when the nature of the 
organic matter changes from structured 
organic matter (mainly as live roots) 
into a gel-like consistency as roots die, 
plug macropores, and cause O2 stress. 
This situation is most likely to occur on 

12

GREEN SECTION RECORD

a cool-season grass during hot, humid 
weather that induces rapid root death, 
so this problem would be more com­
mon in the warmer regions of bentgrass 
adaptation.

Root dieback/death occurs every 
summer to some extent, but micro­
organisms can sufficiently break down 
the fresh organic matter to prevent 
excessive macropore sealing. Under 
unusually hot, humid weather for one 
to two weeks or more, root death 
occurs more rapidly and can induce 
low infiltration and low aeration. Fresh 
dead roots hold more water and are 
gel-like, so macropore sealing occurs. 
The remaining live, O2-stressed roots 
cannot obtain enough water uptake for 
transpirational cooling. Low soil O2 in 
the surface layer where the remaining 
live roots are present leads to reduced 
water uptake, stomatai closure, and 
direct high-temperature kill. This is 
usually evident by yellowing of the turf 
and death over one to three days of hot, 
humid weather when plant and 
microbial oxygen demand is very high.
As organic matter content increases 
above 3% by weight, the more likely a 
massive root dieback from hot, humid 

weather would cause a rapid O2 stress 
and plant death. It is not the lack of 
roots from root dieback that is the 
problem, but the creation of an exces­
sively moist layer with very low O2 
during hot weather in response to the 
rapid root dieback, resulting in the 
inability of remaining roots to take up 
sufficient moisture for transpirational 
cooling.

In the late 1990s, Huang et al.4,5 pro­
vided strong evidence of adverse effects 
of the combination of high temperature 
and low O2 on bentgrass root viability. 
Also, the author conducted oxygen 
diffusion rate (ODR) measurements 
within the surface zone in a study from 
1992 to 1995 and found numerous 
periods when ODR was less than 20 to 
40 mg O2 cm-2 min1, which is con­
sidered sufficiently low to limit rooting 
of grasses.

RESEARCH APPROACH 
USED IN THE STUDY 
The focus of the research in this study 
was on management of the second 
problem: change in nature of the sur­
face organic matter during the summer 
months. Research was conducted from 
1996 to 1998 at Griffin, Georgia, on an 
experimental golf green with a rootzone 
mix meeting USGA recommendations. 
Treatments are summarized in Table 2 
and consisted of various non-disruptive 
cultivation techniques, topdressing, wet­
ting agent, sand substitute, and 
cytokinin combinations.

SATURATED HYDRAULIC 
CONDUCTIVITY
One of the most important charac­
teristics for bentgrass golf greens in the 
summertime is the ability for excess 
moisture to infiltrate into the surface 
and percolate through the rootzone. If 
saturated flow (saturated hydraulic con­
ductivity) does not occur in a rapid 
fashion, a saturated surface can occur.

In Table 3, SHC values at 1 to 7 and 
17 to 26 days after cultivation treatment 
are presented as the average SHC values 
of seven summertime measurements

Table 2
Research treatments to investigate the change in nature of surface organic matter during the summer months. Except 

for the core aeration (CA) treatments in March and October, all other cultivation, supplemental topdressing with sand 

or Greenschoice sand substitute, wetting agent (WA),or cytokinin (C) treatments were applied in summer.

Treatment3

Description

Control

No cultivation

Topdressing per 1,000 sq. ft.

Annual6

June-Sept.

______ - cu. ft...................
10.7

2.5

CA

HJL

HJR

Hollow-tine core aeration, %" diameter, March and October

Hydroject Lowered, 3" spacing, %" diameter hole,June 1 and every 3 weeks

Hydroject Raised, 3Z" spacing, /«" diameter hole,June 1 and every 3 weeks

HJR + Sand

See HJR.Additional sand topdressing at 0.75 cu. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. 5 times per summer

HJR + Greenschoice

See HJR. Greenschoice as topdressing at 0.75 cu. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. 5 times per summer

HJR+WA

HJR + C

See HJR.Wetting agent (Naid) at 3 oz. per 1,000 sq.ft. 5 times per summer

See HJR. Cytokinin as CytoGro (0.005% ai) at 1 oz. per 1,000 sq. ft. 4 times per summer

HJR + Sand+WA

See previous treatment descriptions

HJR + Sand +WA + C

See previous treatment descriptions

LP + Greenschoice 1

LandPride dry injection of 0.75 cu.ft.Greenschoice per 1,000 sq.ft. 5 times per summer

19.0

10.7

10.7

14.5

14.5

10.7

10.7

14.5

14.5

14.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

6.3

6.3

2.5

2.5

6.3

6.3

2.3

aCA = core aeration, HJL = Hydroject run in lowered position, HJR. = Hydroject run in raised position, Greenschoice = fired calcined clayWA - wetting agent, 

C = cytokinin

b Al I plots received 10.7 cu. ft sand topdressing per year with 2.5 cu. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. in the summer at 0.5 cu. ft per 1,000 sq. ft. every 3 weeks

during 1996-1998.Within 1 to 7 days 
after cultivation, SHC increased at least 
3.4-fold to more than 20.2 inches per 
hour for all Hydroject (HJR) treat­
ments (HJR = Hydroject operated in 
the up position to provide a hole of 
approximately / inch), compared to 5.9 
inches per hour in the non-cultivated 
control.

The plots that were core-aerated in 
March exhibited no difference in SHC 
compared to the control.This illustrates 
the effectiveness of spring hollow-tine 
cultivation as SHC declines with time 
as holes refill with root mass, and sug­
gests that cultivation methods that are 
normally non-disruptive of the surface 
(i.e., Hydroject or solid quad-tines) may 
be necessary to maintain higher SHC 
during the summer periods.

Comparing HJL (Hydroject operated 

in the lowered position) to HJR treat­
ments at 1-7 days after cultivation 
demonstrated that the larger hole 
formed by the HJR operation was 
more effective in increasing initial 
SHC. The LandPride device did not 
result in any increase in SHC when a 
sand substitute was injected. LandPride 

cultivation alone (without amendment 
injection) was not evaluated in the 
study. The same sand substitute amend­
ment when applied as topdressing after 
HJR cultivation tended to decrease 
SHC, especially at 17-26 days after 
cultivation.

At 17 to 26 days after cultivation, all 
HJR treatments exhibited SHC 2.2 to 
3.6 times greater (10.8-18.0 inches per 
hour) than the control (5.1 inches per 
hour).The lowest summertime SHC 
observed on the non-cultivated control 
was 0.8 inches per hour versus more 
than 3.2 inches per hour for plots that 
received cultivation in the summer. The 
decline in SHC from 1-7 days to 17-27 
days after cultivation is expected as the 
surface starts to reseal from root mass 
growing across the aeration holes or 
collapse of the holes themselves.

OXYGEN DIFFUSION RATE 
Oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) readings 
were taken in the surface 1-inch depth 
during the summer months for selected 
treatments and results varied by year 
(Table 3). In 1996, readings were < 20 
mg O2 cm-2 min 1 most of the time, 

regardless of treatment. There were 
periods of limited O2 within the surface 
zone in other years.These results, plus 
similar ODR findings from a subse­
quent study,1" confirmed that critically 
low O2 levels can occur even under 
non-saturated conditions. Low oxygen 
diffusion rates would be expected more 
frequently when rain is frequent or 
daily irrigation is practiced, keeping the 
surface zone moist.

TURFGRASS QUALITY 
AND SHOOT DENSITY
Improved turfgrass quality and shoot 
density were noted for most of the 
HJR and HJL treatments compared to 
the control (Table 4).The reduction in 
turf quality and shoot density of core­
aerated plots occurred in the early 
summer when some residual effects 
from the spring treatment were still 
evident. Generally, when sand or a sand 
substitute was applied immediately after 
the summer cultivation operation, 
visual quality and shoot density ratings 
were not as high as when the topdress­
ing was omitted.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

13

Table 3
Treatment effect on summer saturated hydraulic conductivity (SHC),c oxygen diffusion at 1.2" depth, 

and organic matter content in the 0" to 1.2" zone at 30 months after treatment initiation.

Average SHC 
(1996-1998)_________

1-7 DAC

17-26 DAC

Lowest 
SHC

Readings > 0.20 
pg 02 cm4 min lb
1996 1997

1998

- inch hr1 -

............... % -

- - - - ■

Treatment 
and 
Contrast

Control vs.

CA

HJL

HJR

HJR + Sand

HJR + Greenschoice

HJR + WA

HJR + C

5.9

9.3

12.9

23.5**

24.0**

20.2**

25.6**

23.0**

HJR + Sand + WA

20.2**

HJR + Sand + WA + C

21.5**

LP + Greenschoice 1

LSD (.05)

F-test

7.9

9.7

**

5.1

5.8

13.2*

16.0**

18.0**
I0.8h
16.2**

15.8*

14.8*

14.4*

5.9

6.9

**

0.8

3.2

3.2

7.6

6.2

6.4

5.8

4.0

4.5

4.3

3.2

—

—

— — —

0 

100

87

— — —

14 

84

75

— — —

— — —

29 

—

100

100

—

— — —

— — —

— — —

Organic Matter 
at 30 months 
(0-3 cm)

% (wt.)

9.8

7.3*

9.9

9.1

9.3

9.3

8.9

10.3

10.0

9.1

9.0

2.2

.38

“Core aeration was in March and October, but SHC readings were in the July-to-September period, so SHC for the CA treatment is not at 1-7 or 7-26 DAC

bAn ODR rate of > 0.20 to 40 pg O2 cm 2 min-1 is considered as non-limiting for root growth, while below this value root growth is less than optimal
'Average of 7 time periods during summers of 1996-1998

Only the hollow-tine core aeration 
treated plots received spring core aera­
tion with sufficient topdressing to fill 
the holes (Table 2).The surface organic 
matter accumulation was the least in 
this treatment, illustrating the impor­
tance of hollow-tine core aeration, 
which allows for more sand to be 
incorporated into the surface organic 
matter zone than by topdressing alone. 
All treatments resulted in organic 
matter levels greater than the <4.5% 
level desired.

IMPLICATIONS 
FROM THIS STUDY 
The immediate increase in SHC fol­
lowing cultivation treatment demon­
strates that the surface conditions do 
control SHC on high-sand greens and 
that creation of temporary macropores 
across this zone results in SHC that are 
substantially higher. One question that 
often arises is whether the field SHC 
will be the same as the laboratory SHC 
for the rootzone mix without a turf sod 
on the surface. The answer to this ques­

14

GREEN SECTION RECORD

tion is yes and no, depending on the 
following circumstances.
• If field SHC is taken at several 
weeks after cultivation and the holes 
have had time to seal, the SHC can be 
appreciably less than lab SHC.
• If field SHC is measured within the 
time period when the cultivation holes 
may still be partially open, the SHC 
rate may be intermediate compared to 
obtaining the SHC rate within a few 
days after cultivation. SHC measured 
within a few days after cultivation often 
is within the same general range as the 
laboratory SHC if the rootzone mix 
below the surface couple of inches has 
not been appreciably altered after 
construction.

Factors often observed to alter the 

SHC below the surface two inches 
include movement of salts that precipi­
tate within this zone, movement of fine 
materials during grow-in into the sub­
surface, and a high organic matter layer 
that becomes buried. This may include 
thatch that develops during grow-in 
that has not had sufficient sand inte­

grated into it and is buried with 
subsequent topdressing.

Some observations from the current 
study and other cultivation studies that 
the author has conducted over many 
years are:
• The holes made by HJR, %-inch solid 
quad tines, and the Aerway Slicer 100 
greens cultivation device all initially en­
hance SHC, but by about three weeks 
their effectiveness starts to decline. The 
HJR is least affected, probably because a 
hole is cut out instead of created by 
pushing materials to the side.
• When hollow-tine core aeration has 
been conducted with holes filled by 
topdressing, the duration of improved 
SHC is usually 5-8 weeks for 14- to %- 
inch diameter holes on high-sand 
greens.

The responses just noted would sug­

gest that non-disruptive cultivation 
should be initiated within five to eight 
weeks after a hollow-tine cultivation 
operation and repeated on a three- 
week schedule to maintain high SHC 
conditions during the summer months.

Table 4
Summary of treatment effects on bentgrass putting green visual quality and shoot density.

Treatment 
and 
Contrast

Control vs.

CA

HJL

HJR

HJR + Sand

HJR + Greenschoice

HJR+WA

HJR + C

HJR + Sand + WA

HJR + Sand + WA + C

LP + Greenschoice 1

Visual 
Quality’

<

>

Shoot 
Density3

<

>

■ - - %............................

— —

— —

29

0

0

0

10

0

0

5

0

48

0

19

14

0

0

14

14

19

0

0

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33

0

38

24

0

10

29

14

24

10

0

’Based on percent of ratings (18) when the treatment was significantly less than (<) or greater 

than (>) the control

An excellent article by O’Brien and 
Hartwiger (USGA Green Section Record, 
2003,41 (2): 1-7) reports options for 
controlling the organic matter zone. 
One question that arises in their article, 
as well as our study, is, “What is an 
acceptable level of organic matter in the 
surface two-inch zone?’’The authors 
views on this question are summarized 

as follows:
• Regardless of climate zone, greater 
than 4% organic matter content in the 
surface two-inch zone becomes a red 
flag value that indicates the probability 
of developing low O2, excessive surface 
water retention, and reduced SHC. As 
organic matter content increases above 
this value, the greater the potential for 
these problems.
• In the USGA green construction 
method, organic matter mixed through­
out the rootzone mix is capped at 
about 3% (by weight) since above this 
level it is difficult to achieve a mix that 
allows sand to be the dominant medium 
and maintain a balance between mois­
ture retention versus aeration porosity. 
If the USGA method requires organic 
matter levels to be less than 3% for the 
sake of avoiding problems, then it 
follows that organic matter should not 
greatly exceed this level after establish­

ment. Who recommends 4-10% by 
weight of organic matter within high- 
sand green mixes?
• Within the southern zone of bent­
grass adaptation, the 4% organic matter 
level is especially critical because the 
opportunities are greater for low soil 
O2 to occur in conjunction with hot, 
humid, wet weather. However, such 
hot, humid, wet periods also can occur 
during certain years in many cooler 
regions.
• Another reason that organic matter 
content somewhat greater than 4% 
seems to occur in some situations (or 
even at times within a year) at a location 
without evident problems may be that 
much of the organic matter is present as 
live roots. Live roots have a structure that 
allows better air exchange and water 
movement compared to when many of 
the roots die and the organic matter 
becomes more of a massive, spongy 
nature with macropores less defined.
• Maintaining sand as the primary sur­
face matrix rather than organic matter 
(remembering that 1% organic matter 
by weight equals about 5% organic 
matter by volume) is also important to 
maintain a firm putting surface as well 
as one that will support greens mowers 
without scalping.

It is informative to remember that 

since the very early days of USGA 
greens and high-sand greens that pre­
ceded the formal USGA recommenda­
tions, early agronomists recommended 
twice annual core aeration plus heavy 
topdressing (15-20 cu. ft. of sand per 
1,000 sq. ft. per coring operation).Why 
would this be the recommended prac­
tice except to dilute the ongoing prob­
lem of organic matter accumulation in 
the surface?

History often has a story to tell us 

today.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Carrow, R. N. 1996. Summer decline of bent­
grass greens. Golf Course Management 64(6):51-56. 
2. Carrow, R. N. 1998. Organic matter dynamics 
in the surface zone of a USGA green: practices 
to alleviate problems. USGA 1998 Turfgrass and 
Environmental Research Summary. USGA, Far 
Hills, N.J.
3. Fermanian,T.W, J. E. Haley, and R. E. Burns, 
1985. The effects of sand topdressing on a heavily 
thatched creeping bentgrass turf. ITSRJ 
5:439-448.
4. Huang, B., X. Liu, and J. D. Fry. 1998. Effects 
of high temperature and poor soil aeration on 
root growth and viability of creeping bentgrass. 
Crop Sci. 38(6):1618-1622.
5. Huang, B., X. Liu, and J. D. Fry. 1998. Shoot 
physiological responses of two bentgrass cultivars 
to high temperature and poor soil aeration. Crop 
Sci. 38(5): 1219-1224.
6. McCoy, E. L. 1992. Quantitative physical 
assessment of organic materials used in sports 
turf rootzone mixes. Agron. J. 84:375-381.
7. Murphy, J.W., and S. H. Nelson. 1979. Effects 
of turf on percolation and water-holding capa­
city of three sand mixtures. New Zealand J. Exper. 
Agric. 7:245-248.
8. Murphy, J.W.,T.R.O. Field, and M. J. Hickey. 
1993. Age development in sand-based turf. 
ITSRJ 7:464-468.
9. O’Brien, P., and C. Hartwiger. 2003. Aeration 
and topdressing for the 21st century. USGA 
Green Section Record 41 (2): 1-7.
10.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. 
Rept. 337. Penn. State Univ., Univ. Park, Pa.

Dr. Robert N. Carrow (turfgrass stress 
physiology and soil physical and chemical 
stresses) is a research scientist in the Crop 
and Soil Science Department, University of 
Georgia, Georgia Experimental Station at 

Griffin.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

15

UNNATURAL 
EXPECTATIONS 

Proper establishment and maintenance of naturalized 
areas can increase acceptance by golfers.

BY DARIN S. BEVARD

Naturalized areas are part of virtually every 

new golf course construction project, and 
older golf courses are naturalizing out-of- 
play areas to eliminate unnecessary maintenance. 

Benefits of these lower-maintenance areas include 
a reduction in regular maintenance that allows 
limited resources to be focused on other areas of 
the golf course. Pesticide inputs can also be 
reduced. Naturalized areas also provide wildlife 
habitat if properly maintained for this purpose. 
Aesthetically, they provide a positive contrast to 
the manicured look of certain properties. How­
ever, these areas are far from no maintenance on 
most golf courses.

In recent years, golfers have developed play­
ability expectations related to every area of the 
golf course. In the past, high-quality tees, fairways, 
and greens would make any golfer happy. In 
recent years, maintenance of bunkers and roughs 
has received more focus as maintenance tech­
nology has improved. Not surprisingly, golfers are 
now voicing expectations for conditioning of 
naturalized areas! Consider some common-sense 
guidelines with regard to establishing and main­
taining low-maintenance, naturalized areas, and 
complaints can be reduced. Those areas that are 
closest to regular play require the most attention.

ESTABLISHING NATURALIZED AREAS 
Different factors impact the concern of golfers 
over low-maintenance and naturalized areas. 
Location, selection of plant material, and estab­
lishment technique all have significant impact on 
the acceptance of naturalized areas. Evaluate these 
factors prior to establishment of low-maintenance 
areas, and reception by golfers may improve.

LOCATION
The old saying in the real estate business applies 
to naturalized areas: it’s all about location, 
location, location. If a naturalized area rarely or 

16

GREEN SECTION RECORD

never impacts play, it can be established to just 
about anything with few complaints. Let one of 
these areas eat golfballs on a regular basis, and it 
may be described as “gunch,”“the weeds,” the 
“tick farm,” or other terms that cannot be printed 
here. Early discontent with naturalized areas can 
doom their future establishment on other areas of 
a golf course. Naturalized areas need to be located 
out of the regular lines of play or established with 
plant material that allows golfers to locate and 
advance their balls fairly easily. Otherwise, discon­
tent will result because of lost balls and slow play.

SELECTING PLANT MATERIAL
For in-play areas, fine and hard fescues provide a 
good base material for naturalized areas.These 
grasses are not perfect, but they do provide many 
options with regard to weed control and mainte­
nance. Fine and hard fescues maintain a relatively 
low growth habit and do not develop the density 
of some other grasses. With less density, they are 
more playable than some other grasses. The fine 
and hard fescues are drought tolerant and need 
little fertilizer once established. In the Mid­
Atlantic Region, fine fescues provide a good base 
plant material for in-play naturalized areas.

In more out-of-play areas, there are many 
different options. Lovegrass, bluestems, broom 
sedge, and wildflowers, to name a few, provide a 
good appearance for the golf course. The concern 
for these types of plants close to play is that they 
can grow very thick and tall over time. This 
greatly reduces playability. Wildflowers also greatly 
limit weed control options and often require 
complete reestablishment every two or three years 
to remain attractive. Nonetheless, they offer a 
wonderful contrast in out-of-play areas.

Plant material selected greatly impacts appear- 
ace and playability of low-maintenance areas. The 
goal should be to select plant material that allows 
reasonable playability in areas that will frequently 

be visited by golfers. In more out-of-the-way 
areas, the options for plant material are limited 
only by the goals for the appearance of the golf 
course.

ESTABLISHMENT METHODS
Numerous techniques have been used to establish 
naturalized areas. This section focuses on thoughts 
for successful establishment of in-play naturalized 
areas. Initial establishment of a pure stand of 
desirable grasses for these areas is critical for good 
playability. On new golf courses, establishing 
naturalized areas is easy. Focus on the sections 
noted above regarding location, plant material 
selection, and playability at initial establishment.

On existing golf courses, establishment can be 
more difficult. In many instances, the decision is 
made to eliminate regular mowing on existing 
primary rough. The locations of these areas are 
determined and the grass is allowed to grow up. 
Good results can be achieved with this method 

when the areas are not regularly in play. However, 
if golfballs will regularly enter the established 
area, golfer discontent will result. Grasses such as 
tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, 
Poa annua, and bermudagrass will provide dense, 
unplayable areas of high grass when allowed to 
grow unchecked. Finding a golfball and playing a 
shot from areas established in this manner are 
nearly impossible.

For in-play areas on existing golf courses, better 

results can be achieved by killing off the existing 
turf first. Usually, a non-selective herbicide is 
sufficient for vegetation removal prior to estab­
lishment of a naturalized area. In recent years, 
some courses have used fumigants prior to estab­
lishment. However, this is usually not necessary 
for establishment of low-maintenance grasses. 
Once the existing grass is eradicated, the desired 
low-maintenance grasses can be established. 
Proper initial establishment is critical for success. 
With good establishment, a uniform stand of

Allowing naturalized 
areas that are definitely 
out of play generally 
will not raise the ire 
of golfers.While many 
reasons are given to 
eliminate naturalized 
areas, it usually boils 
down to playability and 

lost golf balls.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

17

If golfers can easily 
locate an errant golf shot 
in low-maintenance areas, 
their perception of the 
golf course is generally 
positive.

grasses that can be managed for weeds and other 
problems can be obtained.

MANAGING NATURALIZED AREAS 
Naturalized areas are low-maintenance, but not 
“no maintenance.” Complete elimination of 
maintenance and weed control can lead to the 
perception of naturalized areas simply being weed 
patches. Again, the farther away from regular play 
these areas are established, the less maintenance 
will be required. However, mowing, fertilization, 
and weed-control practices should be considered 
in low-maintenance areas.

FERTILITY AND IRRIGATION
After initial establishment of naturalized areas, 
fertilization and irrigation inputs should be kept 
to an absolute minimum. Apply a starter fertilizer 
at the time of seeding to aid in grass estabHsh- 
ment. Irrigation also will help with establishment, 
but this should be the extent of fertilization and 
irrigation in these areas. After all, the goal is to 
provide an area that is aesthetically pleasing, low 
maintenance, and playable. Extra fertilization and 
irrigation will promote a denser grass that may 
contribute to lost balls and slow play.

MOWING
Mowing frequency of naturalized areas varies 
among golf courses. Most superintendents mow 
these areas two times annually, once in the spring 
and again in the fall. In recent years, additional 
spring mowing of these areas has been imple­

18

GREEN SECTION RECORD

mented. A properly timed mowing in the mid- 
spring can reduce density, but still allows for seed 
stalk development. This allows for a good appear­
ance from a distance, but allows golfers a better 
opportunity to locate and advance their balls. 
(From the standpoint of meadow-nesting birds, 
avoid mowing in May, June, and July throughout 
the North.)

WEED CONTROL
Most naturalized areas, especially those composed 
primarily of perennial grasses, receive some weed­
control applications. Long residual preemerge 
herbicides are usually applied in the early spring 
to prevent the development of summer annual 
grasses and other weeds. After spring mowing, a 
broad-spectrum broadleaf herbicide may be 
applied to reduce weed populations in naturalized 
areas. Usually these two herbicide applications 
will control the worst of emerging weeds in 
naturalized areas. Limited herbicide applications 
will still allow a neat appearance to be main­
tained. Some weeds will escape herbicide appli­
cations as the naturalized areas seed out. However, 
as long as there are not too many, they are often 
viewed as providing character.

Naturalized areas were originally developed to 
reduce maintenance inputs on out-of-play areas 
on the golf course. As they have become more 
prevalent through new construction and estab­
lishment on existing golf courses, golfers have 
developed expectations for these areas. Rightly or 
wrongly, as golfers play other courses, they bring 
ideas back to their own course. If they play a 
course with naturalized areas that allow a nice 
appearance and good playability, they will prefer 
them to areas that are thick and unplayable. 
Proper location of naturalized areas can eliminate 
many headaches for the golf course superinten­
dent. Selecting grasses and other vegetation for 
in-play areas that allow golfers to find and 
advance their golfballs without a long search will 
increase acceptance of these areas by golfers. If the 
naturalized areas are in play and extremely penal, 
there may be an outcry for renovation or outright 
removal. Keep playability in mind at the time of 
establishment and during maintenance of these 
areas to keep golfer complaints about naturalized 
areas to a minimum.

Darin Bevard is an agronomist in the Mid-Atlantic 
Region. He conducts Turf Advisory Service visits in 
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

[J^j^’Sponsored

gF Research You Can Use

Golf Courses and
Bird Communities in the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain

Recent research provides insight to make 
golf courses better habitat for birds.

BY DAVID H. GORDON. STEPHEN G. JONES, AND GARY M. PHILLIPS

he new millennium is an 
exciting and challenging time 
for bird conservation efforts 

throughout North America. Bird con­
servation is receiving more attention 
than ever before due to concerns about 
declining bird populations in the face of 
accelerating human alterations to our 
natural world. Of particular concern 
have been the downward trends in 
many neotropical migratory bird popu­
lations, birds that breed in North 
America and winter primarily in 
Central and South America.

Biologists, using advanced scientific 
knowledge gained mostly in the latter 
half of the past century, have looked 
closely at a combination of health indi­
cators of species populations, including 
breeding and wintering distribution, 
abundance, long-term population 
trends, and present and future threats to 
establish conservation priorities for 
species of concern. Coordinated inter­
national, national, regional, state, and 
local initiatives involving a broad array 
of public and private partners have 
developed to establish meaningful bird 
conservation goals and strategies that 
are implemented as local on-the-ground 
habitat conservation projects. Examples 
of these include the North American 
Bird Conservation Initiative,12 North 
American Waterfowl Management

The recommended method for monitoring golf course bird populations is by using a fixed-radius point 
count. A grid was established across the golf course to identify the observation stations where 
observers tallied all of the birds detected visually or by sound during a five-minute time period.

Plan,8 and North American Waterbird 
Management Plan.4

Considering bird conservation 

priorities at larger geographic scales has 
required a different scientific approach 
to understanding what makes a bird­
friendly landscape, and how these land­
scapes can be maintained, enhanced, 
and restored. Fortunately, in the past 

decade, avian ecologists shifted their 
focus from bird-habitat relationships at 
the micro-habitat scale to landscape­
scale studies designed to understnd how 
habitat patches as elements of the larger 
landscape habitat mosaic influence bird 
communities. As a significant landscape 
element in many regions of the country, 
well-designed golf course habitat

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

19

I

N
L
K
E
J
R
O
D
A
S

I

©

Great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus).

patches have a unique role to play in 
bird conservation at the landscape scale.

GOLF COURSES AS

Golf courses are a frequently occurring 
landscape unit within the South Atlantic 
Coastal Plain. As a form of landscape 
alteration, golf course construction5 
produces physical and biological modifi­
cations within a landscape unit resulting 
in altered spatial configurations that in­
fluence avian habitat selection. Though 
limited construction and environmental 
alteration were involved in the establish­
ment of the first courses of the 15th 
century, current popularity of the game 
requires building a greater number of 
courses within areas that involve exten­
sive land disturbance.5

Although golf course construction 
significantly alters natural wildlife habi­
tat, with proper design and manage­
ment, the post-construction complex of 
remnant, disturbed, and introduced 
habitat patches could provide valuable 
habitat for avian species and community 
establishment.5 Developing golf courses 
as an integral part of the natural land­
scape is becoming more popular due to 
concerns about the effects extensive 
landscape disturbance may have on 
ecological functions and values.

20

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Golf courses in the coastal region of 

South Carolina are typically planned 
and constructed either as an integral 
component of private residential devel­
opments or as stand-alone landscape 
units. With hundreds of golf courses 
being built every year in the United 
States, land consumption, habitat altera­
tion, and subsequent effects on breeding 
bird communities are of immediate 
concern. To achieve the goal of provid­
ing an enjoyable recreational facility 
that is environmentally sound and 
operated successfully, courses must be 
carefully designed, properly constructed, 
and responsibly managed.3 Management 
of the landscape unit can be influenced 
by independent and joint actions of 
course operators and property owner 
associations. Both parties have a vested 
interest in maintaining an aesthetically 
pleasing tract of green space, often with 
a coincidental interest in wildlife values.
The purpose of the project was to 
assess the value of golf courses to breed­
ing bird species by evaluating how birds 
occupy golf courses with different 
designs and habitat configurations. An 
understanding of bird-habitat relation­
ships will provide golf course superin­
tendents and developers a means to 
establish design, construction, and man­
agement procedures for maintaining 

golf courses with suitable habitat for 
breeding bird communities.

METHODOLOGY
Site Classification. Twenty-four golf 
course landscape units along the north 
coast of South Carolina representing a 
landscape alteration gradient of sites 
ranging from high to low habitat alter­
ation were selected for study. Highly 
altered sites were golf courses in which 
the majority of native vegetation had 
either been removed or replaced with 
ornamental vegetation or contained a 
high level of human disturbance, includ­
ing residential and non-residential 
structures. Less-altered sites were con­
sidered to be those golf courses in 
which the majority of native vegetation 
was left intact with a substantial amount 
of forested area interspersed throughout 
the landscape and minimal human dis­
turbance. Using color infrared aerial 
photography and ground-truthing visits, 
each golf course was assigned to one of 
three alteration gradient groups: 1) low 
(n = 6), 2) medium (n = 11), or 3) high 
(n = 7).

Bird Counts. Breeding bird species 
composition and species richness (num­
ber of species) were determined using 
fixed-radius (50-meter) point counts 
following recommended methodology 
for monitoring bird populations and 
avian habitat associations in the south­
eastern United States.3 A point count is 
a tally of all birds detected visually or 
by sound by an observer from a fixed 
station during a five-minute time 
period. Point counts were conducted 
during the breeding season (May-June) 
by observers between sunrise and 10:00 
a.m.A grid of possible point locations 
250 meters apart was generated using a 
computer-based geographic information 
system to determine the locations of 
point counts within each golf course. 
These points were then layered over 
1994/1999 color infrared aerial photog­
raphy of each golf course to help 
observers navigate to each point in 
the field.

 
 
Habitat Patch Mapping. Habitat 
patches were determined through a 
combination of on-site visits and aerial 
photography interpretation. Patch 
perimeters were digitized to provide 
measurements of area and perimeter 
length per patch. Habitat patches 
within each golf course were
characterized by shape, 
size, type, number, 
heterogeneity, and 
boundary 
characteristics.6
Parameter 

Estimation.
Species rich­
ness, species 
diversity, total 
relative 
abundances, 
and neotropical 
migratory bird 
(NTMB) species 
richness were 
calculated for each 
golf course and sub­
sequently applied to each 
alteration group.

Breeding Habitat Guilds. To examine 

breeding bird species composition 
across the golf course alteration gradient 
groups, all species recorded within each 
point count were categorized according 
to breeding habitat association (i.e., 
wetland/open water, successional scrub/ 
shrub, woodland, or urban habitat).Total 
relative abundances per breeding habitat 
association were calculated for each 
alteration group and tested to examine 
if there was a relationship between the 
alteration groups and the type of 
species found within each group. A 
community similarity index9 was calcu­
lated to measure the degree of similarity 
in the breeding bird community among 
the three alteration groups.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 
Landscape Alteration. Mathematical 
models were constructed to determine 
if species richness, species diversity, and 
NTMB richness were statistically differ­
ent among groups. Golf courses within 

each respective group served as experi­
mental unit replicates. Comparisons 
were then made to determine which 
group had the highest mean.

Landscape Structure. To determine 

the influence of landscape structure 
(i.e., habitat composition and spatial 
configuration) on bird

parameter estimations 

within golf courses, 

quantifiable

landscape metrics 
generated for

each landscape 
unit per patch 
I type were in­
cluded in a 
regression 
model.
Percentage 
values of area 
were used to 
account for the 
variation in total 
land area between 
golf courses in order to 

conform to species-area

empirical data.

Effects of Forested Area. Because 
vegetation characteristics (e.g.,stem 
density, basal area, foliage height
diversity, etc.) may not be 
as important as simple 
measures of forested 
area in explaining 
variability 
among avian 
community 
parameters,2 
regression 
analyses 
were 
conducted 
to test the 
effects of 
forested area 
percentages on 
species richness, 
species diversity, and 
NTMB richness. Specifically, 
we tested if parameter estimations 
increase as percent forested area 
increases. Positive parameter estimates 

would indicate that bird parameters 
benefit from more highly forested areas.

RESULTS
Bird Counts. Across all 24 golf courses, 
a total of 5,362 birds, 82 species, and 30 
NTMB species were recorded at 599 
point count stations for years 1 (n = 10) 
and 2 (n = 14). Estimates from years 1 
and 2 were pooled for each golf course 
per group.

Breeding Habitat Associations. Bird 
communities of the more altered golf 
courses (medium and high) were most 
similar as indicated by the community 
similarity indices and was consistent 
with the total relative abundance out­
comes of breeding habitat associations. 
Also, the distribution of breeding habi­
tat associations was influenced by the 
level of alteration. The majority of birds 
(46.5%) associated with less-developed 
landscapes (low units) were woodland 
breeding species, while urban breeding 
species were found primarily in more 
altered groups (medium: 32.9% and 
high: 37.3%).

Landscape Alteration. Average species 
richness and NTMB richness decreased 
as landscape alteration increased, but a
significant difference in species

diversity was not detected
among groups.

Landscape 
Structure.

Regression 
models
successfully 
determined
significant

Above left: 
Prothonotary warbler 
(Protonotaria citrea). 

©JOHN HEIDECKER

Above right: 
Painted bunting (Passerine ciris). 

©TOMVESO

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

21

Figure I
Bird species abundance in areas of low, medium, and high human disturbance.

22

GREEN SECTION RECORD

landscape metric variables for explain­
ing the variability within species 
diversity, species richness, and NTMB 
richness. Components of forested area, 
surface water, and disturbed habitat 
patches, and turfgrass were most influ­
ential as significant variables throughout 
the models at both scales with 45% to 
90% of the observed variation explained. 
Regression analyses revealed significant 
positive relationships exist between the 
percentage of forested areas within golf 
courses and species richness and 
NTMB richness.

DISCUSSION
Breeding bird communities were influ­
enced by landscape structure and the 
amount of landscape alteration within 
golf courses. The most influential land­
scape attribute throughout this study 
was the amount of forested area within 
a golf course.

Bird species richness increased as 
forested area increased within golf 
courses. Landscapes with higher per­
centages of forested area provide for a 
more diverse habitat mosaic10 offering 
resources (e.g., nesting sites, food, 
shelter, etc.) to a greater number of 
species. Highly forested golf courses 
were typically connected to low/unde- 
veloped areas, perhaps allowing birds 
unimpeded dispersal throughout the 
landscape13 and providing necessary 
buffering against environmental distur­
bances many species find unsuitable.711

Neotropical migratory bird (NTMB) 

richness was negatively related to land­
scape alteration. Neotropical migrants 
tend to be more abundant in landscapes 
with a high proportion of forested area1 
and may be avoiding more urbanized 
landscapes.2 Fifty-seven percent of the 
species categorized as woodland breed­
ers in our study were also NTMBs, and 
therefore highly altered golf courses 
may not provide the necessary buffering 
and forested habitat1 needed by many 
NTMB and woodland breeding species 
(e.g., prothonotary warbler, summer 
tanager, Swainson’s warbler, yellow- 
throated vireo).

W
O
L
S
U
R
T
K
C
R
E
D
E
R
F

I

©

Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea).

Less-altered golf course landscapes 
(i.e., low units) supported a larger num­
ber of woodland breeders than golf 
courses with a higher degree of altera­
tion. Relative abundance of urban 
breeders (e.g., European starling, house 
finch, northern mockingbird) may have 
been higher in medium-high units 
because of the species’ ability to cope 
better with human influences.2 A higher 
density of avian urban exploiters is 
associated with more urbanized land­
scapes, causing a shift from more native 
species to more invasive/exotic species 
as landscapes become more developed. 
Densities of woodland species (urban 
avoiders) gradually disappear as land­
scapes become more developed.

Our results suggested that less-devel­
oped golf courses (low units) were of 
higher conservation value as indicated 
by a greater density of bird species of 

higher conservation concern as ranked 
by the Partners in Flight approach (e.g., 
hooded warbler, painted bunting, 
Swainson’s warbler, northern parula, 
wood thrush). Efforts to properly man­
age and/or conserve these landscapes 
are warranted and must be considered.
The positive bird response to land­

scapes with a higher percentage of 
forested wetland, pine, and mixed forest 
habitats underscores the importance of 
maintaining patches of native vegeta­
tion. Our results also suggest small dis­
continuous turfgrass patches, fewer 
man-made water areas, and increasing 
the area of disturbance/scrub-shrub 
patches may also improve bird habitat 
on golf courses. Disturbance areas with­
in golf courses created open grassy and 
scrub-shrub areas and added woody 
vegetation that is important to distur­
bance-dependent bird species.

With other intense urbanization 
development (i.e., business parks, shop­
ping malls, non-forested residential 
areas) unsuitable to many species, golf 
course construction and routine main­
tenance procedures may create vital 
disturbance areas providing habitat for 
species in decline (e.g., brown-headed 
nuthatch, yellow-breasted chat, painted 
bunting, indigo bunting, orchard oriole, 
red-headed woodpecker) that require 
disturbed habitats.

Breeding bird species richness and 
NTMB richness were negatively related 
to landscape alteration and were greatly 
influenced by the amount of forested 
area within golf courses. Landscape 
structure modeling demonstrated 
habitat improvements within golf 
courses are possible by increasing the

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

23

 
 
Figure 3

Cooper. 1996. A land manager’s guide to point 
counts of birds in the Southeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. 
SO-120, U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., S. Res. Sta. 
39pp.

4. KushlanJ.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, 
J. Capp, M. A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, 
L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, 
S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, 
R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Syderman, 
J.Trapp, J.Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 
conservation plan for the Americas: The North 
American waterbird conservation plan,Version 1. 
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, 
Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 78pp.

5. Love, B. 1999. An environmental approach to 
golf course development. American Society of 
Golf Course Architects, Chicago, Illinois. 45pp.

6. McGarigal, K., and B.J. Marks. 1994. 
FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program 
for quantifying landscape structure. Reference 
manual. Forest Science Dept., Oregon State 
University. Corvallis, Oregon. 62pp.

7. Mortberg, U. M. 2001. Resident bird species 
in urban forest remnants: landscape and habitat 
perspectives. Landscape Ecology 16:193-203.

8. NAWMP Committee. 1999. North American 
waterfowl management plan, 1998 update;
expanding the vision. North American Water­
fowl and Wetlands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Arlington,Virginia. 32pp.

9. Nur, N., S. L. Jones, and G. R. Geupel. 1999. 
Statistical guide to data analysis of avian moni­
toring programs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
BTP-R6001-1999. Washington, D.C. 45pp.

10. Rafe, R. W, M. B. Usher, and R. G. Jefferson. 
1985. Birds on reserves:The influence of area 
and habitat on species richness. Journal of Applied 
Ecology 22:327-335.

11. Rottenborn, S. C. 1999. Predicting the 
impacts of urbanization on riparian bird com­
munities. Biological Conservation 88:289-299.

12. U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000.The North 
American bird conservation initiative in the 
United States: a vision of American bird conser­
vation. U.S. North American Bird Conservation 
Initiative,Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 20pp.

13.Whited, D., S. Galatowitsch,J. R.Tester, 
K. Schik, R. Lehtinen, and J. Husveth. 2000. The 
importance of local and regional factors in pre­
dicting effective conservation: planning strategies 
for wetland bird communities in agricultural and 
urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 
49:49-65.

to play an important bird conservation 
role at the local and regional level by 
working together with adjacent land­
owners to form on-the-ground partner­
ships to develop and coordinate com­
plementary habitat management 
strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding was provided by the U.S. Golf Associ­
ation through the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation Wildlife Links Program and by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cooperators in 
the project include participating golf courses, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Baruch 
Institute for Coastal Ecology and Forest Science 
of Clemson University, and the South Carolina 
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

amount of forested area within golf 
courses, particularly forested wetland, 
pine forests, and pine-hardwood mixed 
forests. More simply stated, bird com­
munities typical of the forested South 
Atlantic Coastal Plain region benefited 
by maintaining greater amounts of 
native forest vegetation within a golf 
course.

Although we focused on golf courses 

as a separate landscape element, golf 
courses must be considered as an 
integral component of the larger land­
scape. Consequently, the composition of 
bird communities within golf courses is 
also likely a product of the bird com­
munity found in the larger surrounding 
landscape, although this relationship was 
not studied at this time.

Our study demonstrates that golf 
course architects and superintendents in 
conjunction with owners of associated 
residential developments can provide 
significant benefits to breeding bird 
populations by maintaining suitable 
habitat within a golf course. Further­
more, golf courses have great potential 

24

GREEN SECTION RECORD

LITERATURE CITED
1. Flather, C. H., and J. R. Sauer. 1996. Using 
landscape ecology to test hypothesis about large- 
scale abundance patterns in migratory birds.
Ecology 77py.28-35.

2. Friesen, L. E., P.EJ. Eagles, and R. J. Mackay. 
1995. Effects of residential development on 
forest-dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. 
Conservation Biology 9(6):1408-1414.

3. Hamel, P. B.,W P. Smith, D. J.Twedt, J. R. 
Woehr, E. Morris, R. B. Hamilton, and R. J.

David H. Gordon, Ph.D, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, South Carolina 
Coastal Ecosystems Program, Charleston, 
S.C.; Stephen G.Jones, Department of 
Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Wildlife, Clemson 
University, Clemson, S. C.; Gary M. 
Phillips, Baruch Institute for Coastal 
Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson 
University, Georgetown, S. C.

On Course

From Bunker to Biodiversity
The Club at Carlton Woods successfully converts a 
problematic bunker into an attractive wetland habitat.

BY PETER BRONSKI

tThe Club at Carlton Woods (The 
Woodlands,Texas), a five-acre 

waste bunker that paralleled the 

fairway on hole No. 17 was a thorn in 
the side of an otherwise picturesque 
golf course and an eyesore that drained 
club resources. Abutting Bear Branch 
Lake and Reservoir, as well as several 
dense natural areas, the 
bunker was a constant 
maintenance battle 
against erosion and the 
encroachment of vege­
tation — all for what 
Superintendent Eric 
Bauer described as “a 
drab-looking golf hole.”
Rather than pouring 
resources into a never­
ending cycle of needless waste bunker 
maintenance, the club decided instead 
to use the adjoining lake and natural 
areas to its advantage and converted the 
five-acre waste bunker into a waterway 
and wetland habitat that also was a 
visually pleasing addition to the golf 
course.

THE CONVERSION
The reservoir side of the bunker was 
excavated and the clay substrate was 
compacted to create a bank that 
allowed the former bunker to retain 
water in the new wetland area. The 
bank was planted with buffalograss and 
native bluestem to control erosion and 
eliminate the need for irrigation. A 
small island was formed to create a 
visual and habitat enhancement, and an 
overflow drain was installed to ensure 
proper regulation of water levels. 
Finally, native wetland plants such as 

bald cypress, river birch, bull rush, spike 
rush, pickerel weed, and sagitaria were 
planted in partially and fully submerged
areas.

Just two weeks after the project was 

completed, wood ducks and black- 
bellied whistling ducks descended upon 
the new wetland, and during the sum-
mer of 2002, 
a pair of 
black-bellied 
whistling 
ducks raised 12 
ducklings on 
the island.

vide updates on the project status. “We 
have had many positive comments on 
the aesthetics and the wildlife that have 
been seen in the area.”

While The Club at Carlton Woods 
set out with aesthetics and wildlife as 
the motivating factors for the conver­
sion, there’s a certain fiscal sense to the 
project as well.The total project cost 
weighed in at $70,000, but despite the 
relatively high sticker price, the club 
will see a financial return on its invest­
ment in fewer than 15 years.The 
original waste bunker was a sinkhole 
for club resources, swallowing $5,600 

Great blue 
herons, deer, 
muskrat, and 
numerous other 
wildlife species 
have become 
full-time resi­
dents or part-time visitors. From a 
habitat restoration standpoint, the
project was a resounding success. Wood 
duck boxes and other nestboxes will be 
added to the wetland area in the near 
future, adding additional nesting sites 
for the myriad birds that have come to 
inhabit Carlton Woods’ newest 
“renovation.”

GOOD RCR/iT. EE
ENVIRONMENT,

“Golfers absolutely loved the idea,” says 
Bauer, who communicated weekly 
with club members via e-mail to pro­

Looking toward the Number 
17 green, before and after 
pictures show the dramatic 
conversion of a five-acre 
waste bunker to wetlands and 
lake areas planted with a 
variety of native plant species.

per year — $3,800 for 
maintenance and $1,800

for repair — that can be reallocated to 
meet other club needs. Now the club is
saving 20 man-hours of labor per 
month.

Arguably, though, the real benefit 
here is not measured in dollars. For The 
Club at Carlton Woods, staying true to 
its environmental commitment and 
receiving overwhelmingly positive 
praise from its members and golfers is 
priceless.

Peter Bronski (pbronskitffaudubon- 
intl.org) is a freelance writer as well as staff 
ecologist for the Audubon Cooperative 
Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004

25

2004
USGA Green Section
Education Conference

Friday, February 13,2004 
San Diego, Calif.

CONSTRUCTING 
TO THE FUTURE

NEW PATHWAYS

11:05 - 11:15 a.m.
Presentation of the
Green Section Award
Bruce Richards
USGA Executive Committee

11:15 - 11:25 a.m.
Northwest Regional Report
The search for good ideas and new 
ways to do things continues — 
this time in the Northwest Region 
of the USA.

11:25 - 11:45 a.m.
Green Construction 
Recommendations
Jim Moore
Director, Construction Education Program 
The “Specs” have changed. How will 
this affect you and your course when it 
comes time to build or rebuild the 
greens? The hows and whys of the new 
USGA Guidelines for Putting Green 
Construction.

11:45 - 11:55 a.m.
Southwest Regional Report
Catch a glimpse of the unique trends 
and innovative solutions occurring in 
the Southwest Region.

11:55 a.m.
Closing Comments

10:00 - 10:05 a.m.
Welcome
Moderator: Bob Brame
Director, North-Central Region

10:05 - 10:15 a.m.
Southeast Regional Report
Ideas, trends, and solutions from the 
Southeast Region.

10:15 - 10:35 a.m.
Research Results in Use Today
Darin Bevard
Agronomist, Mid-Atlantic Region
Chris Hartwiger
Agronomist, Southeast Region
Dave Oatis
Director, Northeast Region
New research results are announced 
daily, but what does it mean to the golf 
course superintendent who is managing 
the golf course every day?

10:35 - 10:45 a.m.
Northeast Regional Report
Travel to the Northeast Region for 
more good ideas and the inside scoop 
on what superintendents are doing.

10:45 - 11:05 a.m.
Construction or Renovation — 
Which Way Should I Go?
Paul Vermeulen
Director, Mid-Continent Region
Bud White
Agronomist, Mid-Continent Region
Many courses are updating their greens 
to remain competitive. When it is your 
turn, will you choose complete 
reconstruction or partial renovation?

26

GREEN SECTION RECORD

2004 USGA NATIONAL & 
REGIONAL CONFERENCES

National Conference
February 13 San Diego Convention Center 

San Diego, California

Florida Region
November Palm Beach Gardens Marriott 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Mid-Atlantic Region
February 23 

March 16 

Radisson Hotel
Monroeville, Pennsylvania
DuPont Country Club
Wilmington, Delaware

Mid-Continent Region
January 21

KCI Expo Center 
Kansas City, Missouri 
(with Heart of America Golf 
&Turf Conference)

January 26

Polk County

Convention Complex 

Des Moines, Iowa 
(with Iowa Turfgrass Conference 
& Trade Show)
CDGA/USGA Green Seminar 

Chicago, Illinois
Lakeside Country Club 
Houston,Texas

March

March 9

North-Central Region
January 27

Indianapolis

Convention Center

Indianapolis, Indiana

Northeast Region
March 2

New England Turf Conference 

To Be Announced

Southeast Region
March 16

Ballantyne Resort
Charlotte, North Carolina

Northwest Region
March 3

March 22

March 23

March 24

March 15

March 24

Southwest Region
January 12

Whitefish Lake Golf Club 
Whitefish, Montana
Waverley Country Club 
Portland, Oregon
Lakewood Country Club 
Denver, Colorado
The Country Club 
Salt Lake City, Utah

Friendly Hills Country Club 
Whittier, California
Castlewood Country Club 
Pleasanton, California
Phoenix Country Club 
Phoenix, Arizona

News Notes

GREEN SECTION STAFF 
RECOGNITION

Jim Snow, national director of the 

USGA Green Section, has announced 
a new staff title, Senior Agronomist, 
for Green Section regional agrono­
mists who have demonstrated an out­
standing commitment and dedication 
to their work over a minimum period 
of 10 years on staff.

Effective October 1,2003, four 

members of the Green Section staff will 
now use the new designation. Bob 
Vavrek, who visits golf courses in 
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 
the North-Central Region,joined the 
staff in 1990. Keith Happ, now based in 
Pittsburgh, has spent 10 years visiting 
golf courses in the Mid-Atlantic Region. 
Jim Skorulski joined the Northeast 
Region in 1989 and focuses his visits in 
the New England area. Bud White has 
had two stints with the Green Section 
for a total of 12 years. The first covered 
the period 1978 through 1987 in the 
Southeast Region, and the second com­
menced with the 2002 season in the 
Mid-Continent Region, where he con­
centrates on the southern half of the 
region. Congratulations are extended to 
these four deserving individuals.

STANLEY J. ZONTEK 
RECEIVES THE PTC 
2003 DISTINGUISHED 
SERVICE AWARD

The Pennsylvania Turfgrass 

Council (PTC) annually recog­
nizes an individual who has 
exhibited outstanding service to the 

turfgrass industry. A specially appointed 
President’s Committee of PTC 
announced Stanley J. Zontek as the 
recipient of the 2003 Distinguished 
Service Award. Mr. Zontek has been 
director of the Green Section for the 
Mid-Atlantic Region since 1985, 
having first joined the USGA in 1971.

and at Texas A&M University from 
1975 to 1992. After his retirement from 
Texas A&M, he became President and 
Chief Scientist of the International 
Sports Turf Institute. Beard’s 
classic Turfgrass: Science and Culture, 
published in 1973 and still in print, 
continues as the landmark publication 
regarding turfgrass science. His Turf 
Management for Golf Courses, written in 
conjunction with the USGA Green 
Section staff, first released in 1982 and 
revised in 2002, remains the best-selling 
reference work in the field.

Dr. Paul Rieke (right) congratulates Dr. Beard on 
the donation of his turfgrass book collection to 
the Turfgrass Information Center.

Dr. Beard is a world-renowned turf­

grass scientist. He has authored 257 
scientific papers, 382 articles, and five 
books.The Beard Turfgrass Collection 
is acknowledged to be the finest 
personal collection of turf-related 
material in existence. It includes 
international coverage of the turfgrass 
research and management literature 
contained in more than 30,000 books, 
periodicals, and technical reports.The 
Beard Collection serves as a non­
circulating reference collection within 
the Turfgrass Information Center in the 
Main Library. The Turfgrass 
Information File (TGIF) will provide 
article-level access to all items within 
the Collection. TGIF, an online database 
that indexes and abstracts the literature 
of turfgrass, is jointly sponsored by the 
United States Golf Association (USGA) 
and the MSU Libraries.The MSU 
Libraries maintain, produce, and host 
the TGIF. The arrival of the Beard 
Collection makes MSU the strongest 
public repository of turfgrass literature 
in the world.

For additional information on TGIF, 

contact: www.lib.msu.edu/tgif

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2004 

27

PTC President Jerred D. Golden (left) honored 
Stan Zontek with the Distinguished Service 
Award on behalf of the 900 members of the
Council.

The award was presented in front 
of an audience of nearly 600 industry 
leaders and future turfgrass professionals 
during the Penn State Golf Turf Con­
ference on November 12,2003, in State 
College, Pa. Stanley, a long-term 
Council member, was honored for 
championing the Penn State turfgrass 
program over many years and for his 
support of initiatives both within Penn­
sylvania and nationally that have 
improved the status of the industry.

Now operating out of an office in 

West Chester, Pa., Stanley is the 
USGA’s longest-tenured employee. 
Shortly after his graduation from Penn 
State with a degree in Agronomy: Turf­
grass Management, he took a job as 
agronomist in the USGA Green Sec­
tion’s Northeastern Region. Through 
the years he has served as director for 
the Northeast Region and the North- 
Central Region prior to assuming his 
present position as director for the 
Mid-Atlantic Region.

DEDICATION OF 
THE JAMES B. BEARD 
TURFGRASS LIBRARY 
COLLECTION

On July 16,2003, friends, col­

leagues, and family members 
of James B. Beard gathered at 
Michigan State University’s Turfgrass 

Information Center for the dedication 
of the James B. Beard Turfgrass Library 
Collection.

Dr. Beard served at Michigan State 
University (MSU) from 1961 to 1975 

All Things Considered

Have We Gone loo Far?
The grass is talking to you. Are you listening?

BY STAN ZONTEK

Why are so many golf courses 

having problems with 
moss? Why are putting 
greens slow to heal from pitch marks? 

sand-based rootzones. Also, essentially 
every older golf course has modified 
the top few inches of soil, creating a 
layer of dirty sand even though the base 
of the green may be soil with clay.
With todays emphasis on green 
speed, the simplest way to achieve fast 
greens is to reduce the mowing height, 
limit the use of fertilizer, apply growth 
regulators, topdress, and roll. Unfortu­
nately, in gauging how much to fertilize 
greens, superintendents sometimes 
forget the obvious: That is, clipping 
removal removes nutrients that would 
otherwise be recycled. What is the 
bottom line?
• Count the pounds of nitrogen per 
1,000 square feet applied to your 
greens. Subtract 25-60% of that total as 
the amount removed by removing clip­
pings. You could also use the arbitrary 
amount of 2 pounds per year as the 
approximate amount of nitrogen re­
moved by clipping removal. Subtracting 
either of these numbers should provide 
you with an estimate of the effective 
amount of nitrogen applied to your 
greens per 1,000 square feet per year.
• Remember the old textbook ratios 
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 
that suggest 3-1-2 or 4-1-2 or 4-1-4 
ratios? How close are you coming? The 
grass’s basic fertility needs seldom 
change.
• How do your greens look? Do they 
have a moss problem? Close mowing 
and a lack of fertility contribute to 
moss invasion. Higher mowing heights 
and more fertilizer contribute to moss 
reduction.
• Do your greens lack color? Although 
golf is not played on color, a nice green 

color indicates healthy grass versus the 
more yellow-green chlorotic-looking 
grass that needs nitrogen.
• Are your greens slow to recover from 
traffic, pitch marks, or disease blemishes? 
This, too, may be a sign that fertility 
levels are too low, even allowing for the 
fact that many putting greens are 
treated with growth regulators.
• Do you have a problem with algae? 
Maintaining good turf density is an 
important IPM tool to combat algae. 
• Plant health — current research con­
tinues to show a link between plant 
health and less disease.
• Do your greens look hungry? The 
grass is talking to you. Maybe it is time to 
work more fertilizer into your program.
In summary, our industry always 
seems to go in cycles. It was not all that 
many years ago in the middle to north­
ern regions of the country that a basic 
fertility program on old greens was 1 -2 
pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square 
feet per month. We now see golf courses, 
especially in the North, that fertilize 
with not a whole lot more fertilizer for 
an entire season! Obviously, I am not 
suggesting a return to the days when 
greens were cut at % inch and fertilized 
at 12-18 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 
square feet per year (in the North). 
What I am suggesting is that you look 
at your grass. Is it talking to you? It 
probably is. Be a good listener.

Stan Zontek is director o f the Green 
Section’s Mid-Atlantic Region.

Why is the grass on the greens thin and 
shallow rooted? Why does a pitch shot 
to a green gouge out a chunk of grass 
versus leaving more of a bruise or a 
dent? While golf is not played on color, 
why are greens off-color and look, well, 
hungry? Why does Poa annua seem to 
encroach all too fast into new greens? 
While the answers to most of these 
questions are complex, there still may 
be a simple common denominator — 
specifically, a lack of fertilizer.

As someone who is old enough to 

remember the “good old days,” it is 
easier for me to compare how golf 
courses were maintained years ago to 
how they are maintained today. One 
fact is clear. Except for the initial grow- 
in of new greens, golf courses generally 
are using less fertilizer today than in the 
past ... a lot less.

Why do I say this? For a lot of 

reasons. Putting greens today are having 
problems with moss, algae, and pitch 
marks that are slow to heal, etc. It is 
true that there are many factors con­
tributing to all of these problems, but 
most center around close mowing, low 
fertility, and too much water. Some of 
this water you can control; some you 
cannot (as witnessed by all the rainfall 
in the eastern United States this year). 
Todays emphasis on green speeds 
doesn’t allow much wiggle room with 
putting green mowing heights. With 
fertility there is more room for change.
Today, few new golf courses have 
greens built to something other than 

28

GREEN SECTION RECORD

USGA .1894,

GREEN SECTION 
NATIONAL OFFICES

Northwest

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

Green Section Research
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

904 Highland Drive 
Lawrence, KS 66044 
785-832-2300
Jeff Nus, Ph.D.. Manager
jnus@usga.org

•Mid-Continent Region
Paul H. Vermeulen, Director 
pvermeulen@usga. org 
9 River Valley Ranch 
White Heath, IL 61884
(217) 687-4424 Fax (217) 687-4333

Charles “Bud” White, Senior Agronomist 
budwhite@usga.org 
2601 Green Oak Drive 
Carrollton, TX 75010
(972) 662-1138 Fax (972) 662-1168

•North-Central Region
Robert A. Brame, Director 
bobbrame@usga.org
P.O. Box 15249
Covington, KY 41015-0249
(859) 356-3272 Fax (859) 356-1847

Robert C.Vavrek, Jr., Senior Agronomist 
rvavrek@usga. org 
P.O. Box 5069
Elm Grove, WI 53122
(262) 797-8743 Fax (262) 797-8838

•Northwest Region
Larry W. Gilhuly, Director 
lgilhuly@usga .org
5610 Old Stump Drive N.W., 
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
(253) 858-2266 Fax (253) 857-6698

Matthew C. Nelson, Agronomist 
mnelson@usga. org
P.O. Box 5844
Twin Falls, ID 83303
(208) 732-0280 Fax (208) 732-0282

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

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

Keith A. Happ, Senior Agronomist 
khapp@usga.org
Manor Oak One, Suite 410, 
1910 Cochran Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(412) 341-5922 Fax (412) 341-5954

•Southeast Region
Patrick M. O’Brien, Director 
patobrien@usga.org
P.O. Box 95
Griffin, GA 30224-0095
(770) 229-8125 Fax (770) 229-5974

Christopher E. Hartwiger, Agronomist 
chartwiger@usga.org 
1097 Highlands Drive
Birmingham, AL 35244
(205) 444-5079 Fax (205) 444-9561

•Florida Region
John H. Foy, Director 
jfoy@usga.org 
P.O.Box 1087
Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1087 
(772) 546-2620 Fax (772) 546-4653

Todd Lowe, Agronomist 
tlowe@usga.org 
127 Naomi Place
Rotonda West, FL 33947
(941) 828-2625 Fax (941) 828-2629

Mid-Continent

Florida

REGIONAL OFFICES

•Northeast Region
David A. Oatis, Director 
doatis@usga.org
James H. Baird, Ph.D., Agronomist
jbaird@usga.org
P.O. Box 4717
Easton, PA 18043
(610) 515-1660 Fax (610) 515-1663

James E. Skorulski, Senior Agronomist 
jskorulski@usga.org 
1500 North Main Street 
Palmer, MA 01069
(413) 283-2237 Fax (413) 283-7741

©2004 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 
correspondence 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 
educational 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 per­
mission 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.

® Printed on recycled paper

Editor’s note:
The first Turf Twister in the 
November/December 2003 
issue contained some poor word­
ing that was of concern to some 
of our readers. Following is a 
revised version.

since we have no play during 
our cold winter months. Our 
golfers complain about the 
appearance and bumpiness of 
the greens when we use the 
large tines in the spring.
(Eastern Washington)

I am the Green Chair­

man at our course, and I 
have a question about our 
aeration program. Our 
superintendent aerates the 
greens each fall and early 
spring with large tines. I’m 
wondering if the spring 
aeration is really necessary 

Greens aeration is done 
to relieve compaction, pro­
vide channels of sand for 
improved water infiltration, 
and assist in the removal of 
poor soil or excessive organic 
matter. If you have significant 
soil problems or layering 
problems that pose a threat 

to the health of 
the turf and the 
quality of the 
putting surfaces, 
then twice-annual 
aeration with 
large tines could 
certainly be 
justified. If the 
aeration is carried out as a 
routine preventative program 
on greens that are relatively 
free of problems, then per­
haps your superintendent 
would agree to eliminate the 
spring treatment or consider 
a compromise of using small

tines in the spring to aid the 
greens while minimizing 
golfer complaints.The 
superintendent at your 
course will be able to 
provide the background 
information needed to make 
the best decision.

How late into the 

spring should we 
allow our players to 
use winter rules?
(Wyoming)

How low can ultradwarf 

bermudagrass be mowed? 
(Florida)

The best advice is to 
avoid playing winter rules if 
at all possible. Next best is to 
mandate playing the ball 
down when handicap post­
ings are again accepted. 
While consistent playing 

conditions may not be 
achievable each spring, the 
players will benefit most by 
playing golf as it is meant to 
be played — with the ball 
down.

As part of the selection 
process with the ultradwarfs, 
the ability to tolerate a 
height of cut (HOC) of 
0.125 inch was one of the 
criteria. Since their introduc­
tion, heights of cut as low as 
0.085 inch have been main­
tained at a few courses. 
Golfer demands for faster 

putting speeds have forced 
some superintendents to 
push the envelope as far as 
heights of cut. Also, egos can 
get in the way of sound 
agronomy when it comes to 
mowing heights. Discretion 
and good common sense still 
need to be exercised. When 
environmental conditions are 

favorable to sustain active 
growth, the ultradwarfs can 
be successfully maintained at 
a HOC in the range of 0.110 
to 0.125 inch. During 
periods of adverse weather 
and in particular low sun- 
fight intensity, an elevated 
HOC should be practiced.

www.usga.org

USGA