Contents

March-April 2007 Volume 45, Number 2

Golf Course Maintenance 

and the ADA
Maintaining a golf course for 
golfers with disabilities.
BY PATRICK J. GROSS

Shade-Resistant

Bermudagrass
Research has produced an 
improved cultivar.
BY WAYNE HANNA

AND BRYAN MAW

12 “Teaching Moments”

Managing the little things 
can make a difference to the 
golfers and save grass!
BY KEITH HAPP

IO Buffer Strips, 
Runoff, and Leachate
Research compares nutrient 
loading in runoff and leachate 
when buffer strips are used 
alongside golf course fairways. 
BY JOHN C. STIER AND

Nematodes for
White Grub Control
Rutgers University scientists 
investigate soil effects on 
nematode suppression 
of white grubs.
BY ALBRECHT M.

WAYNE R. KUSSOW

KOPPENHOFER AND

22 Don’t Get

Washed Away
New advances in erosion 
control blankets are shifting 
the decision to seeding 
versus sodding.
BY HAL PHILLIPS

EUGENE M. FUZY

32 Seeing is Believing

Certification verification yields 
public relations benefits.
BY JEAN MACKAY

AND JEREMY TAYLOR

3.7) News Notes
36 “Sometimes We

Just Need Handcuffs”
Nothing is sometimes the best 
thing to do.

BY DAVID A. OATIS

38 Turf Twisters

USGA

USGA President
Walter W. Driver, Jr.

Executive Director
David B. Fay

Green Section 
Committee Chair
Patrick W. McKinney 
37 Legare Street 
Charleston, SC 29401

Turfgrass Environmental 
Research Chair
Steve Smyers
2622 W. Memorial Blvd.
Lakeland, FL 33815

Editor
James T. Snow

Associate Editor
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D.

Director of Communications
Marty Parkes

Cover Photo
Addressing a few key areas 
can make the golf course 
more playable and enjoyable 
for all golfers.

Golf Course Maintenance 
and the ADA

Maintaining a golf course for golfers with disabilities.

BY PATRICK j. GROSS

olfers come in all shapes, sizes, and

■■ abilities, or disabilities, as the case may 
be, and they have at least one thing in 
common — they are all golfers. It is estimated 
that 4 to 5 million disabled Americans either 
play golf or are interested in learning the game. 
Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
was signed into law in 1990, many barriers have 
been removed to allow people with disabilities 
to access public buildings, transportation, and 
recreational activities, including golf.

Many of the provisions of the ADA have 
already been adopted and are commonplace in 
the United States. Although the compliance 
requirements for buildings and other public areas 
are straightforward, it has taken several years to 
develop workable standards for various recrea­
tional facilities such as golf courses, and still 
there are issues to be resolved.

Since the law was passed, course owners, 

professional staff, and superintendents have been 
apprehensive about how to implement some of 
the proposed standards. Will they be required to 
remodel the course? How much will it cost to 
make the necessary changes? Will they be forced 
to let wheelchairs and other types of mobility 
devices drive across greens and potentially cause 
damage? Will disabled golfers slow the pace of 
play? The perceived problems and adjustments 
are not as overwhelming as they may seem. 
Addressing a few key areas can make your course 
more playable and enjoyable for all golfers.

ELEMENTS OF THE ADA THAT 
PERTAIN TO GOLF COURSES 
The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 
address buildings, golf courses, and other

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law 

in 1990, some superintendents and course owners have been 

apprehensive about how to implement the proposed standards.

The perceived problems and adjustments are not as over­

whelming as they may seem, and addressing a few key areas can 

make the course more playable and enjoyable for all golfers.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

I

Curbs and other man­

made barriers that 

are often installed along 

paths may need to be 

modified to comply with 

the ADA accessibility 

guidelines. Openings at 

least 60" wide are 

recommended for curbs 

to allow access to the 

driving range, teeing 

grounds, and at 7S-yard 

intervals along fairways.

recreational facilities. These guidelines were 
developed to make the game of golf accessible to 
as many golfers as possible and not detract from 
the fundamental challenge and nature of the 
game. The following is a brief summary of the 
proposed guidelines:

1. Accessible Routes: Continuous, unob­
structed pathways of at least 48" in width must 
be available to connect all areas within the 
boundaries of the entire golf facility, including: 
• Bag drop area.
• Parking lot.
• Clubhouse and pro shop.
• Practice facilities.
• Golf course (tees, fairways, greens, and routes 

between golf holes).
• Course toilet facilities.
• Amenities (snack bar, halfway house).
• Weather shelters.
In most cases, an accessible route will be some 
form of path.

2. Alternative Golf Cart Passage: The 
ADAAG recognizes that it may be impractical 
to provide an accessible route (48" wide path) 
through all areas of the golf course due to the 
unpredictable nature of golfball flight and the 
fact that altering slopes or the architecture of 
the course could diminish the challenge of the 
game. In such instances, an alternative golf cart 
passage can be substituted for an accessible route. 
This is simply an area that can be used by golf 

carts to gain access to certain areas and does not 
need to have a prepared surface. As an example, 
alternative golf cart passages would be a recom­
mended route over a turf area to access greens, 
fairways, and teeing grounds.

3. Practice Facilities: Driving ranges and 
practice facilities must have an accessible route 
or golf cart passage (48" wide) that is connected 
to accessible teeing stations. At least one teeing 
station or a minimum of 5% of the total number 
of stations, whichever is greater, must be 
accessible and provide space for a golf cart to 
enter and exit.

4. Teeing Grounds: Access must be pro­

vided from the path to at least one teeing ground 
on each hole. If one or two teeing grounds are 
provided for a hole, only the forward teeing 
ground must be accessible. For holes with three 
or more teeing grounds, two of the teeing 
grounds must be accesible. The guidelines state 
that existing courses do not have to provide 
access to the forward teeing ground if terrain 
makes compliance infeasible.

5. Course Barriers: Curbs and other man­
made barriers are often installed along paths to 
restrict golf carts from entering at specific points. 
Where such barriers exist, openings at least 60" 
wide must be provided at intervals not to exceed 
75 yards.

6. Greens: Putting surfaces to be built or 
renovated must provide at least one accessible 

2

GREEN SECTION RECORD

route. The guidelines recognize that limiting the 
architecture and slope of the greens to the pro­
posed guideline of 1:20 would be too restrictive 
and unfairly take away from the fundamental 
nature of the game. There is reasonable flexi­
bility in this regard, and the guidelines simply 
state that there must be at least one accessible 
route for golf cart passage.

7. Bunkers: Bunkers have been a particularly 

difficult issue to tackle because modifying the 
hazards to make them ADA accessible would 
change the challenge and character of the golf 
course. For this reason, there have been no pro­
posed guidelines or design requirements applied 
to bunkers. From a playability standpoint, the 
USGA published A Modification of The Rules of 
Golf for Golfers with Disabilities that outlines pro­
cedures for retrieving a ball from a bunker, and 
dropping and playing the next shot from outside 
the bunker (see Rule 28 — Ball Unplayable). 
With good design, it is possible to construct 
bunkers with an accessible route; however, such 
design guidelines are not mandated at this time.

For more detailed information, obtain a 

copy of Accessible Golf Courses — A Summary of 
Accessibility Guidelines for Recreational Facilities, 
available from the United States Access Board 
(www.access-board.gov).

THE IMPACT OF
MOBILITY DEVICES ON TURF 
Once the ADA was enacted, superintendents 
had many concerns about the various assistive 
devices that could be operated on greens and 
other sensitive turf areas without restriction, 
as well as everyday golf cart traffic. Typical 
concerns included:
• Indentations created by crutches, thin-tire 
wheelchairs, and single-rider golf carts that 
could impact playing conditions and ball roll, 
especially on greens.

• Soil compaction.
• Tearing and scuffing of the turf on greens 
from making sharp turns and abrupt stops 
with mobility devices.

• Wear and tear on older greens.
• The potential for significant damage when 
golf carts and other adaptive equipment are 
operated under very wet conditions.
The concerns about traffic and turf damage 

are not unique to mobility devices and can 
occur with any type of traffic that is applied to 
turf. There are several references to turf damage 

caused by traffic in the scientific literature. Beard 
(1973) mentions that vehicular and foot traffic 
can cause damage to turfgrasses and contribute 
to soil compaction. The mechanism of this 
injury is due to a combination of factors, includ­
ing pressure, abrasion, scuffing, and tearing.
Burton and Lance (1966) reported 
that more wear damage occurred 
on turf from vehicles with narrow, 
high-pressure tires, sharp turns, 
and repeated passes over a specific 
area. Carrow and Johnson (1989) 
evaluated two golf cart types and 
various tire designs and the impact 
on the amount of wear damage 
caused to Tifway bermudagrass. 
They concluded that the most 
important factors influencing 
the amount of damage were 
moderately sharp turns and 
the number of repeated passes 
over the turf.

The research that is most perti­
nent to this topic was conducted 
by Murphy and Gentilucci at 
Rutgers University in 1995 and 
1996. Their study focused on 
developing quantitative tests to 
assess the surface characteristics of 
putting greens and quantifying the 
disruption to the playing surfaces when various 
types of assistive devices were used. The study 
was conducted on both sand-based greens and 
amended native soil greens at 11 golf courses in 
New Jersey. These courses represented a range 
of conditions, including soil moisture content, 
soil texture, depth of mat layer, and turfgrass 
species. The forms of traffic evaluated are 
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Traffic Source and Tire Characteristics 
Applied to Putting Greens — 
Murphy and Gentilucci, Rutgers University, 1997.

Traffic Source

Diameter

Width

Tire Type

Heel Sneaker

Heel Golf Shoe

8 cm/3.1"

7.5 cm / 2.9"

Rigid-Tire Wheelchair

61 cm/ 24"

2.5 cm/ 1"

Rigid rubber

Quickie GPS Wheelchair

61 cm/24"

3.5 cm / 1.4"

Golf Express Single Rider

33 cm / 13"

16.5 cm/6.5"

Lone Rider Single Rider

33 cm / 13"

12.7 cm/5"

Pneumatic

Pneumatic

Pneumatic

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

3

Although all forms of traffic caused some 
deflection in ball roll, the results were not as 
dramatic as anticipated. The following is a brief 
summary of some of the findings from the study: 
• As expected, the worst-case scenario of using 
a narrow, rigid-tire wheelchair (what most 
would consider a standard wheelchair) on greens 
with high soil moisture content caused the 
greatest depth of depression; however, the 
average depth of depression was relatively 
shallow at 1.8 mm (0.07 inch). The 3.5 cm wide 
pneumatic tires caused even less of a depression 
at an average of 1.2 mm (0.04 inch).
• The maturity of the mat layer in the top 0-5 
cm (0-2 inches) had an impact on the ability of 
a green to bear traffic and rebound from wheel 
rutting. Interestingly, the study found that new 
sand greens with a relatively immature mat 
layer were more susceptible to rutting when 
compared to older, modified native soil greens 
with a mature mat layer.
• Firmer surfaces resulted in less surface impact, 
especially on sand greens.
• Researchers measured the amount of rebound 
that occurred on the turf 30 minutes after the 
traffic was applied. The rebound effect was 
greater on the older modified native soil greens 
with a higher organic matter content and greater 
soil strength. Based on discussions with the 
researchers, they commented that it was difficult 
to identify the wheel ruts 30 minutes after the 
traffic due to the relatively shallow depressions 
initially made by the wheelchairs and the rapid 
rebound of the turf.
• Unfortunately, the two models of single-rider 
golf carts were not available for the duration of 
the study. Based on the limited amount of data 
collected, the wider tires of the single-rider golf 
carts did not cause significant surface depressions. 
* The various devices were not tested under 
excessively wet conditions. The researchers felt 
that further research should be performed under 
a wider range of conditions.

MAINTENANCE
CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic from Assistive Devices: We know 
from research and practical experience that all 
forms of traffic have the potential to cause dam­
age to turf. The amount and intensity of damage 
is due to a combination of several factors:
• The health of the turf and strength of the 
surface mat layer.

• Moisture content of the soil, especially at the 
surface.
• Intensity of the applied force (psi).
• Shearing and abrasion from sharp turns or the 
rapid starting and stopping of a vehicle.
• Repeated traffic over a confined area. 
Practices for managing wear damage are the 
same, regardless of the source of traffic. These 
practices include: dispersing traffic over a wider 
area; increasing the traffic tolerance of the turf 
with proper mowing, fertility, and irrigation 
practices; and applying corrective maintenance 
procedures such as core aeration, topdressing, 
and drainage improvement. A strong, resilient 
turf will be able to withstand various forms of 
traffic, including maintenance vehicles, regular 
foot traffic, and assistive devices. Based on the 
study by Murphy and Gentilucci, as well as inter­
views with superintendents at courses where 
these assistive devices have been used, the 
potential for damage from assistive devices is 
negligible in most situations. First, the overall 
amount of traffic from such devices is very 
limited since golfers with disabilities covered by 
the ADA are only a small part of the overall 
golfing population. Second, the technology of 
the new assistive devices and single-rider golf 
carts has improved since the Rutgers study in 
1997. The majority of these vehicles have wide 
pneumatic tires that spread the weight over a 
wider surface area, and the controls allow the 
vehicle to start and stop smoothly without 
skidding. Third, the footprint and psi of these 
vehicles is generally less than most turf equip­
ment routinely used on greens and other turf 
areas, including triplex mowers, aerators, and 
topdressers.

Soil Moisture and the Potential for Turf 

Damage: Any traffic over wet, saturated turf 
will cause some form of damage. The superin­
tendents who were interviewed for this article 
universally agreed that keeping the turf on the 
dry side minimized or eliminated any potential 
damage from golf carts and assistive devices in 
addition to improving the overall playing quality 
of the course. Of course, there will be times 
when heavy rainfall will create saturated condi­
tions and the use of any type of vehicle (mainte­
nance equipment, golf carts, and assistive devices) 
should be suspended until the soil is adequately 
dry to support such traffic.

Accessible Routes: Where curbs exist

along paths, it will be necessary to provide a 60"

4

GREEN SECTION RECORD

wide opening at intervals not to exceed 75 feet. 
Wherever possible, it is ideal to place these 
openings where there is full sunlight exposure 
so that the turf will have a good opportunity for 
healthy growth and recovery from wear. Where 
traffic is confined to a limited area, it may be 
necessary to spot treat on a more frequent 
schedule with extra aeration and fertilizer
applications.

Bunkers: Playability and access to bunkers 
is largely a matter of architecture. Providing a 
wide, relatively flat entrance to a bunker will 
make it easier for people using assistive devices 
to enter and exit the hazard. Firmer sand con­
ditions are preferred for traction and to allow 
vehicles to travel over the sand without 
becoming embedded.

Superintendents interviewed for this article 
indicated that they have not made any changes 
to their normal maintenance programs to allow 
the use of mobility devices on their courses. 
In general, any programs that contribute to a 
strong, healthy, resilient turf surface and better 
playing quality will benefit all golfers, including 
those with disabilities.

SUGGESTIONS FOR. DEVELOPING 
YOUR. OWN PROGRAM
Although it is difficult to set a definitive policy 
until the final guidelines are adopted by the 
Department of Justice, it is a good idea to 
address the issue of accessibility proactively. You 
may wish to consider the following suggestions 
as part of your programs to operate and maintain 
a golf course that is accessible to golfers with 
disabilities:
• Analyze your course for accessibility and 
compliance with the proposed guidelines. An 
excellent reference for completing this exercise is 
The National Alliance for Accessible Golf: Toolkit for 
Golf Course Owners and Operators, available at 
www.accessgolf.org and the USGA Resource

Research at Rutgers 

University confirmed 

that the worst-case 

scenario of using a 

narrow, rigid-tire 

wheelchair on greens 

with high soil moisture 

content caused the 

greatest depth of 

depression on the turf;

however, the depth 

of depression was 

relatively shallow at 

1.8 mm (0.7 inch). The 

maturity of the mat 

layer in the top 0-2 

inches had an impact on 

the ability of a green to 

bear traffic and rebound 

from wheel rutting. 

New sand greens with 

an immature mat layer 

were more prone to 

rutting when compared 

to older, modified 

native-soil greens with 

a mature mat layer.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 0 7

5

Center for Individuals with Disabilities at 
http://resourcecenter.usga.org.
• Become educated about the ADA Accessibility 
Guidelines for Golf Courses and learn more 
about how to meet the needs of golfers with 
disabilities. Be open-minded and accommodat­
ing with regard to the use of adaptive devices. 
Research and experience indicate that these 
devices cause little or no damage to turf when 
properly operated.

• Mark areas of the course that are too wet and 
any other areas where mobility devices may have 
problems navigating. Be sure to relay this infor­
mation to the starter and course marshals so they 
can inform golfers of any hazardous conditions.
• Test and evaluate various mobility devices at 
your course to see what impact they have on 
turf conditions. Better yet, test one yourself and 
possibly play a round of golf in a single-rider 
golf cart or other type of mobility device.

The concerns about 

traffic and turf damage 

are not unique to 

mobility devices and can 

occur with any type of 

traffic that is applied to 

turf, including utility 

vehicles and tractors 

typically used for 

maintenance.

• Be prepared to provide information and train­
ing, if necessary, for single-rider carts. Golfers 
who rent a single-rider cart at Haggin Oaks Golf 
Course in Sacramento, California, for the first 
time are given a five-minute training session on 
the three-hole practice area. Having a system or 
a procedure in place makes it easier for the 
customer and the staff.
• Consider making a map of accessible routes 
and alternate cart passageways for your course. 
The map also could provide information about 
accessible tees, bunkers that may be difficult to 
access, and areas of the course to be avoided. 
Golfers with disabilities are not risk takers — 
they want to enjoy their round of golf without 
getting stranded or causing damage to the 
course. A map or information card will help 
them accomplish that goal and enhance their 
golfing experience.

• There will be times when the course is too 
wet for maintenance equipment, golf carts, and 
mobility devices. It is important to be clear and 
reasonable with your explanation as to why golf 
carts or adaptive devices cannot be used on a 
given day. In general, if mowers and turf main­
tenance vehicles can be used on the course, it 
is reasonable to allow mobility devices as an 
accommodation to golfers with disabilities 
covered under the ADA. This can be a contro­
versial topic and there are likely to be protests 
from other golfers who wish to use golf carts. 
While each case will involve a judgment call, it 
is important to remind other golfers that provid­
ing access is a matter of complying with the law. 
• Consider a two-flag system for designating 
golf carts that have unrestricted access and others 
that simply need permission to drive closer to 
greens and tees. For example, a red flag can be

6

GREEN SECTION RECORD

used to designate golfers with disabilities covered 
under the ADA and a blue flag for other golfers 
with mobility impairments that allows them to 
drive closer, but not onto greens and tees.
• Continue to implement sound agronomic 
programs to grow strong, healthy, resilient turf. 
This will provide the best possible playing con­
ditions for all golfers, including those with 
disabilities.

CONCLUSION
Allowing vehicles other than turf maintenance 
equipment on golf greens and any other sensitive 
areas can be nerve-wracking for superintendents. 
There is a fear that all the hard work and effort 
put into producing an ideal surface can be 
destroyed in an instant with various mobility 
devices. Sam Samuelson at Haggin Oaks Golf 
Course is one superintendent whose attitude has 
changed as a result of seeing adaptive golf carts 
in action. “The biggest thing for me was getting 
over the fear. Once I saw one of those carts drive 

across one of my greens, I quickly realized it 
was no more damaging than the triplex putting 
green mower I use every day. Those carts can go 
anywhere they want, as far as I’m concerned.” 
His comments were echoed by other superinten­
dents who have personal experience with the use 
of different mobility devices on their courses.

The Rutgers study was very encouraging for 
turf managers, considering the fact that under 
the worst-case scenario, there were relatively 
minor surface impacts caused by the wheelchairs 
and single-rider golf carts. Hopefully, more 
research in this area can be done to evaluate the 
impact of such devices under a wider range of 
conditions. Concerns about wear injury (scuffing 
and tearing) and damage to putting surfaces 
can be minimized with proper operation of the 
devices and good course etiquette. Since the 
time of the Rutgers study, there have been many 
improvements in design and technology to make 
the various mobility devices even more user- 
friendly and turf-friendly.

Mark areas of the golf 

course that are too wet 

and any other areas 

where mobility devices 

may have problems 

navigating.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

7

The positive news is that the potential turf 
damage caused by various adaptive devices is 
negligible, and there should be very little con­
cern on the part of golf course superintendents 
as long as common sense and good turf manage­
ment programs are applied. While the provisions 
of the ADA were focused on removing barriers 
for people with specific disabilities, all golfers 
will benefit by making courses more accessible, 
playable, and easier to maintain. The USGA, 
through its Grants and Fellowship Program and 
other activities, has been very involved in grow­
ing the game and sharing the many positive

Beard, J. B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and Culture.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Burton, G. W., and C. Lance. 1966. Golf car versus grass. 
Golf Superintendent. 34(1): 66-70.

Carrow, R. N., and B. J. Johnson. 1989. Turfgrass wear 
as affected by golf car tire design and traffic patterns.
J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:240-246.

Gentilucci, G., and J. A. Murphy. 1997. Putting green 
characteristics associated with surface depressions caused 
by selected forms of traffic (master’s thesis).
www.lib.msu.edu/cgi-bin/flink.pl?recno=53392.

Ginkel, D. L. Accessibility Answers. Golf Course Manage­
ment. March 1999.

Slape, C. A for Effort — the golf industry is running ahead 
of the ultimate policy-makers in meeting the needs of the

Single-rider golf 

carts are becoming 

more popular for 

golfers with mobility 

impairments. The 

wide pneumatic 

tires minimize the 

potential for turf 

damage in most 

situations, even on 

sensitive areas such 

as tees and greens.

aspects of golf with all segments of our society, 
including golfers with disabilities. There are 
many resources available through the USGA 
Center for Individuals with Disabilities to help 
golfers, course operators, and superintendents 
learn more about this issue. Turf issues are rela­
tively minor compared to the overwhelming 
positive impact — both physically and psycho­
logically — associated with exposing the game 
of golf to golfers with disabilities and removing 
barriers that prevent access to the course. As 
Sam Samuelson said, “Seeing that smile on the 
golfer’s face made me realize the power of golf. 
To him it was truly more than just a game.”

REFERENCES
Accessible Golf Courses. 2003. United States Access Board. 

Allar, B. Is Your Golf Course Accessible? Golfdom. June 
2003. pp. 38-44.

game’s growing number of disabled players. Golf Course 
Management. October 1995. pp. 45-74.

RESOURCES AND INFORMATION
USGA Resource Center for Individuals with Disabilities: 
http: //resourcecenter.usga.org

National Alliance for Accessible Golf: 
www.accessgolf.org

National Center on Accessibility: 
www.ncaonline.org

The author wishes to thank the following people who 
assisted with this article: Don Bigler, Gary Gentilucci, 
Trey Holland, Bill Jewell, Dennis Lyon, James 
Murphy, Roger Pretikin, Carrie Riordan, Don 
Tolson, Sam Samuelson, and Matt Sawicki.

Pat Gross is director of the Southwest Region of the 
USGA Green Section and visits courses in California, 
Arizona, and Nevada.

8

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Sponsored

ResearchYbw Can Use

Shade-Resistant Bermudagrass
Research has produced an improved cultivar.

BY WAYNE HANNA AND BRYAN MAW

Bermudagrass will grow in many different environments, but one shortcoming is its poor shade tolerance. The impact of shade on this putting green is 

evident, with the resulting poor turf quality.

Bermudagrass (Cynodon sp.) is a 

cosmopolitan grass in that it will 
grow in many different environ­
ments around the world. It has long 

been the dominant warm-season turf­
grass species used on golf courses, 
athletic fields, and ornamental lawns 

across the southern portion of the 
United States. This is because it pro­
duces a very dense, high-quality turf 
cover and is adapted to tolerate a broad 
range of soil fertility, pH, texture, and 
temperatures, along with very good 
wear and drought tolerance. However, 

a major weakness of bermudagrass is 
poor shade tolerance. Bermudagrass 
must have light — at least 8 to 10 
hours of sunlight per day to produce 
healthy turf.

As part of the long-running ber­
mudagrass breeding and improvement

MARCH-APRIL 2007

9

program at the Tifton Experiment 
Station, we have been identifying 
shade-resistant cultivars for a number 
of years. By shade resistant, we mean a 
grass that requires less sunlight to pro­
duce a desirable or acceptable turf than 
the current industry standards such as 
Tifway (419) bermudagrass. The 
grasses we selected performed well 
when they received only 40% of the 
light needed for plant growth (light 
wave length in the 400 to 650 nm 
range), compared with plants 
requiring full sunlight.

We originally planted more than 
27,000 triploid (2n=3x=27) interspecific 
hybrids between Common (Cynodon 
dactyloti) X African (C. transvaalensis) 
bermudagrasses at Tifton, and selected 
448 experimental hybrids from the 
original hybrids for more detailed test­

10

GREEN SECTION RECORD

ing. Fifty-seven of these experimental 
hybrids plus five commercial hybrids 
were planted under the stationary end 
of a rainout shelter (60% continuous 
shade). We now have had three of the 
best of those shade-resistant hybrids 
in replicated advanced tests (Table 1) 
since 2003. One hybrid, Tift No. 4, 
has performed well under shade and 
non-shade conditions in our plots at 
Tifton, Ga., and in the National 
Turfgrass Evaluation Trials (NTEP) 
since 2003 (non-shade). Tift No. 4 is a 
dark-green and dense triploid hybrid 
that was originally selected for its high 
resistance to tawny mole cricket dam­
age. However, we found that Tift No. 
4 also performs well under lower light 
conditions.

Turf quality is generally rated on a 

scale of 1 to 9 (where 9 = the best 

turf). In replicated plots under a shade 
regime, Tift No. 4 continues to per­
form well today. In the 0.5- to 0.65- 
inch mowed height, non-shade tests of 
the NTEP trials (mean of 11 states), 
Tift No. 4 rated 6.8, behind Tifway 
(7.1) and TifSport (7.0), with an 
LSD = 0.2 (needs to be at least this 
much difference between cultivars to 
be significant). In the 0.75- to 1.0-inch 
mowed height, non-shade NTEP trials 
(11 states), Tift No. 4 rated 6.1, just 
behind TifSport (6.4), Tifway (6.3), 
and Patriot (6.2), with an LSD = 0.3. 
Table 2 shows the performance of Tift 
No. 4 by regions. It has performed 
well in all areas of the USA where it 
was tested and was in the top 25% of 
the entries 65% of the time.

Tift No. 4 has performed well in 
shaded lawns in Roswell and Augusta,

Ga., since 2003, where it is mowed at 
1.5 inches height weekly and receives 
3 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. 
yearly. It has not needed dethatching 
and it produces only a few seedheads 

under these shade conditions (as well 
as in our shade tests at Tifton). This 
hybrid tends to produce more than 
desirable seedhead numbers in June 
under non-shade conditions and a 

Table 1
Turf Quality Ratings (9=Best)
On shade-resistant (ST) bermudagrasses after two years 
of 60% continuous shade at Tifton, Ga.

Entry

ST03

ST05 (Tift No. 4)

ST07

Tifway

TifSport

LSD-5%

Turf Quality in Shade

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

7.3

7.8

7.5

5.3

6.0

1.1

7.5

7.3

6.5

4.1

3.6

l.l

8.1

8.6

8.1

4.8

5.0

1.0

Table 2
2005 Turf Quality Ratings in NTEP Trials for Tift No. 4
Compared with commercial cultivars in the transition zone (TZ), southeast (SE), and 
southwest (SW) regions. Number of states is shown in parentheses after each zone.

Rank [Rating (9=Best)] for Turf Quality in NTEP Trials (2005)

TZ (9)

SE (8)

SW (5)

Overall

% Time in Top 25%

Entry

TifSport

Tifway

Patriot

Tift No. 4

2 (6.7)

2 (6.7)

I (6-8)

4 (6.4)

1 (6-9)

I (6-9)

4 (6.2)

2 (6.8)

I (6.4)

2 (6.3)

5 (5.7)

3(6.1)

I (6.7)

2 (6.6)

4(6.3)

3 (6.5)

Lowest Rated

13 (5.0)

13(5.7)

13 (5.6)

13 (5.4)

LSD - 5%

(0-3)

(0-3)

(0-3)

(0.2)

91

78

56

65

13

mowing height of 0.5 inch and/or 
high nitrogen application. Tift No. 4 
has been planted in low-light areas on 
golf courses in Georgia, Alabama, and 
North Carolina. We have received 
positive reports from golf course 
locations where Tift No. 4 has been 
growing for at least two years.

Why is Tift No. 4 shade resistant? It 
appears that its dark-green color and its 
density allow it to produce an accept­
able turf under lower light conditions. 
If low light thins the traditional culti­
vars, Tift No. 4 will produce a desirable 
turf. If low light conditions completely 
kill the traditional cultivars, Tift No. 4 
will probably produce a thinner, yet 
acceptable turf.

In our evaluations, we have been 
measuring the ability of Tift No. 4 to 
produce a desirable turf under lower 
light conditions, but we have not 
evaluated this hybrid for its ability to 
compete with tree roots, etc. Tift No. 
4 has applications where traditional 
bermudagrass cultivars are used, yet 
where light is limiting. We tentatively 
plan a limited release for Tift No. 4 
in 2007.

Wayne Hanna (whanna@uga.edu) 
is a professor of plant breeding and 
Brian Maw is an associate professor at 
the University of Georgia Tifton Campus.

Above left: Although bermudagrass is the dominant species across the southern tier of the United States, its vigor cannot overcome poor light quality. The 

grass requires at least 8 to 10 hours of sunlight per day to produce a healthy turfgrass stand. Above right: Tift No. 4 has successfully grown in a shaded home 

lawn situation in Roswell, Georgia, since 2003.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

II

Superintendents

must take the time 

to instruct and 

then follow up 

with employees 

throughout the year. 

This guidance results 

in an invaluable 

degree of quality

control over all 

parts of the golf

course.

“Teaching Moments”

Managing the little things can make a 
difference to the golfers and save grass!

BY KEITH HAPP

In a perfect world, Green Committee members 

outline conditions for daily play and then 
agronomic programs are put in place to 
achieve the goals set forth. Once the level of 

expected conditioning is established, needed 
resources are provided to implement timely 
proactive maintenance strategies. Proper equip­
ment, labor, and maintenance techniques should 
result in satisfied golfers. If it were only that 
simple!

A trend is developing. Superintendents are 
trying to achieve the same course preparation 
results with fewer people and less time to com­
plete maintenance. Maintenance days are being 
lost due to the need to generate revenue and the 
request from members to start play earlier in the 
morning. It is common to see golfers at the first 
tee just waiting for enough light to hit the first 
shot of the day. The frantic race begins.

Rushing a procedure to “get it out of the way” 
often leads to mistakes or careless damage of the 
turf. This isn’t intentional. Often, an equipment 

operator is just trying to give a little extra or do 
it a little faster to get the job done! One thing 
that successful golf course operations have in 
common is placing importance on managing the 
details of completing a task. Damage, especially 
avoidable (human error) damage, leads to frus­
tration and results in unplanned expenditure 
for turf repair and recovery. When this can 
be eliminated, the operation is more efficient 
and effective at meeting course preparation 
goals.

Recent surveys have found that during periods 

of peak play for private and resort golf facilities, 
average course staffing levels are approximately 
one worker per hole. Investment in labor 
resources consumes about 55% to 60% of the 
total annual golf course maintenance budget. 
Whether it is a crew of five or 50, it is essential 
that operators of equipment are trained in all 
aspects of course care. This includes the details 
of regular tasks such as mowing turf and raking 
bunkers.

12

GREEN SECTION RECORD

The following are some of the common main­
tenance faux pas seen during the visiting season. 
Although these mistakes are, in most instances, 
not committed intentionally, they often result in 
turf damage and can negatively impact 
playability.

GREENS
1. Turning sharply on the green or on the collar. 
While it may not be immediately apparent, 
bruised turf is compromised, and this condition 
can easily result in disease infection, weed 
encroachment, or even turf loss. The time of 
year this occurs makes a difference. Adjusting 
procedures early in the year will minimize 
potential for serious damage in the summer. 
Instruct operators to make wide turns in the 
intermediate or primary rough surrounding the 
green. Focusing on quality rather than expedi­
ency will pay off. Golfers can participate by 
allowing sufficient time to complete essential 
preparation tasks. Nothing is more important 
than having time to prepare putting greens for 
play.

2. Not emptying grass-catching baskets 

frequently enough, especially before the outside 
pass of the green (clean-up pass) is mowed. 
When the greens are mowed before play in the 
morning, often there is dew on the grass. This 
moisture increases the weight of the clippings 
collected in the basket, causing problems when 
the mower is lowered onto the putting surface. 
Abruptly dropping the mower onto the playing 
surface can result in scalping of the turf canopy. 
It takes time to develop a feel for the particular 
mower used to complete mowing tasks. Reduce 
the risk of damage by telling operators to empty 
baskets when they are half full.

It is not uncommon for the outside cleanup 
pass on the green to be skipped once or twice 
per week to provide relief from focused mower 
wear. When this area is mowed, clipping harvest 
will be greater compared to other portions of 
the green. If the grass is wet, there is increased 
potential for mower damage. Suggest that baskets 
be emptied before the outside pass is completed.

Bruising from these faux pas is more frequently 
seen during the summer, especially during envi­
ronmental extremes such as high humidity or 
while the turf is under drought stress. Once 
again, adjusting procedures early in the year will 
make a difference later in the season.

3. Failure to inspect equipment (mower or 
backpack blower) before use. Check to see that 
the gas cap is tight. Check grease fittings on 
the rollers of mowers. The operator may not
see gas splash from the tank or grease fall off the 
machine in the early morning when trying to 
complete mowing before golfers get on the 
course. They will, however, see it later when the 
grass is dead.

4. Inattention to clipping dispersion. Under 
the Rules of Golf, a player can receive relief if 
his or her ball comes to rest in grass clippings 
that are piled for removal. Wet clippings are

Providing incomplete 

instructions can 

produce results that will 

be visible for weeks. 

Pictured are the results 

of an employee who 

was too aggressive in 

spot-treating clover.

Better instruction 

may have avoided 

this problem.

One or more passes through standing water can result in long-lasting turf damage. Establish 

mowing guidelines and reinforce procedures that will help to avoid unnecessary damage.

MARCH-APRIL 2007

13

difficult to spread. While it may take time, 
find out-of-play areas for dispersing clippings. 
Dumping clippings next to the green never 
works well.

5. Repeated abrupt change of direction on 
collars will result in damage. Rolling is a fre­
quently used practice to prepare putting surfaces 
for daily play. The damage from rolling occurs 
most frequently where the unit is turned. The 
turf on the collars and even approaches can 
suffer from concentrated mechanical wear. 
Abrupt turning and rapid change in direction 
result in compromised turf health, and bruising 
becomes apparent in the middle of the summer. 
Suggest that the machine come to a complete 
stop, allowing for gradual acceleration back 
across the green.

BUNKERS
1. Edges become worn and/or damaged from 
focused traffic just outside of the margin of the 
hazard. Rake the edges of a bunker from inside 
rather than walking a path into the grass around 
the outside edge of the sand. Avoid developing a 
cow trail. A playability issue can be eliminated 
and turf damage can be minimized. If it is 

necessary to rake the edges from outside the 
bunker, then it may be prudent to use a special 
rake with an extended handle.

2. Repeatedly entering and exiting a bunker 

at the same spot. If possible, alter the point of 
entry to and exit from a bunker when raking is 
performed. Minimize the potential for dragging 
sand out of a bunker. Sand anywhere other than 
on the putting surface is not a loose impediment. 
Stress the importance of not altering the defined 
margin of a hazard.

3. Tracking sand from a bunker across the 
approach of the green. Avoid traveling across the 
approach to get to the next bunker. Sand will 
stick to tires if it is wet. Sand is often tracked on 
the approach, creating a difficult playing condi­
tion and poor appearance. In this case, the short­
est distance between two points may not be the 
best path. Driving around behind the green to 
the next bunker is a better option.

4. Not using the correct tool to manage 
undulating terrain. Define which tools will be 
used to manage turf around a bunker to mini­
mize scalping damage. The direction in which 
the turf is mowed makes a difference. When 
mowing is performed, make every effort not to 
blow the grass clippings on the green.

Scattering the clippings 
from a mower basket 
sounds simple. It is one 

aspect of mowing that 

has to be taught and 

then reinforced during 

the season. No relief is 

provided to the golfer 

when a ball rests in 

piled grass clippings 

that are not destined

for removal.

14

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Turning the mower

sharply on a green or 

collar can result in turf 

damage that will be 

slow to recover. Take 

advantage of a teaching 

moment to reinforce 

the importance of how 

and where equipment 

should be operated.

It is amazing how many golfers think that 

anyone can be put on a mower or other machine 
and the task will be completed without any com­
plications. Superintendents know from experi­
ence that there is a window of opportunity to 
train a new employee in the spring. The margin 
for error early in the season is greater due to less 
stressful weather conditions. However, later in 
the season, when environmental conditions 
become harsher, the simplest of mistakes can 
result in turf loss and frustrated golfers.

Operating a machine is the first step, but 
instruction in the nuances and explanations of 
consequences of improper operation of that 
machine/tool are significant elements in achiev­
ing the desired outcomes. How tasks are com­
pleted makes a difference. Improper technique 
can lead to problems that often do not express 
themselves until later in the growing season.

When training is conducted, emphasis should 
be placed on controlling as many stress variables 
as possible. It is unrealistic to expect that every­
thing can be covered during an instruction 
session, but if supervision is available, it is realistic 
to take advantage of teaching moments. A teaching 
moment is the opportunity to further instruct an 
equipment operator, and it is usually conducted 

immediately after a problem or damage has 
occurred. Being able to do so depends greatly on 
having good supervisory personnel.

The instructors consist of key personnel who 
are capable of training new employees. They are 
familiar with defined procedures and can com­
municate them to others in an understandable 
manner. They may be familiar with many types 
of problems or common mistakes made by new 
employees because they may have committed a 
maintenance faux pas themselves.

Every effort should be made not to limit 
resources for labor to the point that supervision 
and follow-up with the staff are compromised. 
If key employees such as the superintendent and 
assistant superintendent are completing tasks, 
they may not be able to monitor maintenance 
activity and make the necessary adjustments. It is 
all too common to see the results of correctable 
errors and damage after the fact. All employees 
should be offered some level of feedback regard­
ing the finished product of their work. No 
doubt, there will always be a need to fine-tune 
procedures and techniques.

Keith Happ is Senior Agronomist of the USGA 
Green Section’s Mid-Atlantic Region.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

15

Sponsored

Research Yew Can Use

Buffer Strips, Runoff, and Leachate
Research compares nutrient loading in runoff and leachate 
when buffer strips are used alongside golf course fairways.

BY JOHN C. STIER AND WAYNE R. KUSSOW

Federal mandates to 

decrease nutrient 
pollution of water 
supplies are resulting in 

various local and state 
regulations aimed at 
reducing phosphorus 
(P) movement into 
surface waters and 
nitrogen movement 
into groundwater. 
Some regulations aim 
to reduce nutrient and 
sediment loading into 
surface waters based on 
the idea that “native” 
or prairie vegetation 
should be used as 
buffer strips between 
mowed turf and natural 
areas or surface water.

The slower establishment of prairie vegetation allowed annual weeds and grasses to 

dominate in the research buffer strip plots.

especially noxious 
weeds, must be regularly 
controlled. Lastly, prairie 
plantings are not neces­
sarily suited for many 
habitats, such as wooded 
golf courses. A number 
of golf courses utilize 
fine fescues as low- 
maintenance roughs, 
which receive almost as 
little attention as prairie 
areas, yet establish 
quickly and easily.
Generic regulations that 
require the installation 
of prairie buffer strips 
can be costly, reduce 
valuable golf turf areas, 
and promote the 
assumption that turf 

Some research indicates that dense 

turf vegetation is more effective at 
reducing runoff and nutrient leaching 
than other strategies, including mulched 
landscaped beds. Data are just starting 
to be published that report on the 
effectiveness of prairie buffer strips to 
reduce nutrient loading in water run­
off and leachate relative to turf. Also 
unknown is the size requirement of 
buffer strips relative to the area they 
are to be buffering.

Turf is often used as a ground cover 
throughout inhabited areas, including 
golf course roughs, because it is rela­
tively easy to establish and maintain, 
provides contiguous ground cover 
throughout the year under traffic and 
mowing, and the low mowing height

16

GREEN SECTION RECORD

facilitates human activity while dis­
couraging vermin and insect pests. 
The various turf species allow some 
type of turf to be established across a 
diversity of situations, including moist 
or dry soils, and moderately shaded to 
full-sun conditions.

Prairie plantings are being increas­
ingly promoted as a low-cost alterna­
tive to managed turf. They are also 
seen as “native,” while most cool­
season turf species were introduced 
from Eurasia. Although management 
is usually much less intensive than turf, 
establishment of prairie vegetation is 
not necessarily less expensive than turf, 
as prairie seed may cost considerably 
more. Prairie establishment may take 
years, during which time weeds, 

has inherently negative environmental 
consequences.

Data from various projects suggest 

that annual nutrient loading from 
mowed turf may be similar to that 
from prairies, as most of the nutrient 
loss occurs when nutrients are leached 
from dead foliage. When we began the 
study in 2003, there were no data that 
directly compared the efficiency of 
turf to prairie vegetation for its ability 
to minimize runoff and leachate pollu­
tion, particularly during the establish­
ment phase, which can last for two to 
three years.

The project goal was to compare the 

relative amount of nutrient loading in 
runoff and leachate when prairie and 
fine fescues were used as buffer strips

Table I
Vegetative buffer strip treatments at Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis.

Vegetation Type

Ratio

Mean Area (m2)

No buffer, fairway only (annual bluegrass)
Fairway: prairie (narrow buffer strip)

Not applicable
8:1

Fairway: fine fescue (narrow buffer strip)

Fairway: prairie (medium buffer strip)

Fairway: fine fescue (medium buffer strip)

Fairway: prairie (wide buffer strip)
Fairway: fine fescue (wide buffer strip)

8:1

4:1

4:1
2:1
2:1

12.45
14.01

14.01

15.58

15.58
18.68
18.68

of each buffer strip plot. Each collec­
tion flume had a cover to prevent 
debris from falling into the flume, 
while a screen-covered slit at the soil 
surface allowed runoff water to enter. 
Leachate was collected in each buffer 
strip, using a low-tension lysimeter 

installed just upslope of the runoff­
collection weir.

Plots were dormant-seeded in 

October, as recommended for prairie 
plantings, and they were covered with 
a biodegradable wood fiber erosion 
control blanket. Prairie plots were 
planted to a commercial prairie seed 
mixture that included flowers and 
grasses (Table 2). Fine fescue plots 
were seeded to a commercial seed mix 
containing Chewings, creeping red, 
blue, and hard fescues.

None of the plots were irrigated, 
treated with pesticide, or fertilized 
during the study. Plots were mowed 
(clippings returned) at 30-inch height 
in early spring 2004 and 2005 to 
encourage new growth in accordance

alongside golf course fairways. We also 
wanted to determine the effect of 
three different ratios of buffer strips 
relative to the fairway area draining 
into the buffer strips. The information 
will be useful for predicting effective­
ness of different vegetation types and 
buffer strip sizes on golf courses.

GROWING BUFFER STRIPS 
AND INSTALLING 
WATER SAMPLERS
Research plots were constructed in 
2003 at the Wisconsin River Golf 
Club (WRGC) in Stevens Point, Wis. 
The golf course is adjacent to and 
drains into the Wisconsin River. Two 
large natural areas exist within the 
course and the course is surrounded 
primarily by forest with a small amount 
of agricultural land. The plots were 
developed in the roughs that drain 
fairways 4, 8, and 9. Fairways were 
approximately 85 feet wide and 
crowned in the middle with 1-2% 
slopes. Fairway turf was predominantly 
annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.).

Buffer strip plots were installed at 
the edge of the fairways and had slopes 
ranging from approximately 1 to 4%. 
Plots on fairway 9 were in full sun, 
plots on fairway 8 were in slight shade, 
while plots on fairway 4 were moder­
ately shaded. Treatments included 2:1, 
4:1, and 8:1 fairway-to-buffer-strip 
ratios, with one ratio each of prairie 
or fine fescue mixtures (Table 1). A 
seventh treatment in each replicate 
was a no-buffer-strip plot.

Runoff collection flumes (1-meter 
width) were installed at the lower end

Table 2
Species and cultivars used for vegetative buffer strips 
at Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis.

Perennial Flowers

Species*

Asclepia incarnata (Red Milkweed)
Aster novae-angliae (New England Aster)
Iris shrevei (Wild Iris)
Liatris pycnostachya (Dense Blazingstar)
Lobelia siphilitica (Great Blue Lobelia)
Lobelia cardinalis (Cardinal Flower)
Eupatorium purpureum (Woodland Joe Pye Weed)
Monarda fistulosa (Bergamot)
Rudbeckia subtomentosa (Sweet Black-Eyed Susan)
Verbena hastate (Vervain)
Vernonia fasciculate (Ironweed)
Zizia aurea (Divided Leaf Golden Alexander)

Color

Pink/Red
Purple
Blue
Purple
Blue
Scarlet
Pink
Purple
Yellow
Purple

Yellow

Blooms

Month**

6-7
8-10
5-8
8-9
8-9
7-8
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-10

5-6

Grasses and Sedges

Andropogon gerardi (Big Bluestem) Elymus canadensis (Canada Wild Rye) 

Carex vulpinoidea (Fox Sedge) 

Glyceria striata (Fowl Manna Grass)

Fine Fescue Mixture

Species/Cultivar

Scientific Name

% in Mix

Creeping Red Fescue (SR52I0)
Slender Creeping Red Fescue (Dawson)
Blue Fescue (SR32I0)
Chewings Fescue (SR5I00)
Chewings Fescue (Sandpiper)
Hard Fescue (SR3I5O)
Hard Fescue (Scaldis)

Festuca rubra ssp. rubra
F. rubra ssp. litoralis
F. glauca
F. rubra spp. commutata
F. rubra spp. commutata
F. longifolia
F. longifolia

19.6
19.6
14.7
14.7
9.8
9.8
9.8

*Quantity of species varies depending upon that year’s seed production and harvest; was supposed to 

include at least 12 perennial flower species. Due to the nature of prairie seed production and 
collection, certified seed is unavailable.

**Number corresponds to month of year, e.g., 7 = July, 8 = August, etc.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 0 7

17

Establishing buffer strips around natural water features on a golf course has long been recommended to protect water quality and improve wildlife habitat. 

Research indicates that dense turf vegetation is effective at reducing runoff.

with recommendations for prairie 
establishment. Fairways received 108 
to 216 lb. N acre 1 annually in one or 
two applications (spring and fall), with 
approximately 5.5 to 11 lb. P acre1 
each year. Fairways received little to 
no irrigation, so snow melt and rainfall 
provided the source of runoff water. 
The 9th fairway remained flooded 
from excessive rainfall throughout 

most of 2004 and part of 2005 and was 
dropped from the study.

ANALYZING WATER
QUALITY AND
VEGETATION
The leachate water samples were 
analyzed for nitrate- and ammoniacal- 
N and soluble phosphorus. Runoff 
samples were analyzed for three P types: 

soluble P, biologically active phosphorus 
(BAP), and total phosphorus (TP), 
which were extracted from both sedi­
ment in the water as well as the water 
itself. Sediment in runoff was collected 
and quantified. Turfgrass and prairie 
plant stands were analyzed two to 
three times each year by determining 
the percentage of desirable plants (turf 
or prairie), weeds, and bare soil.

Figure I
Type and amount of vegetative cover in fine fescue and prairie buffer strips following seeding in October 2003, 
Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis. A and D show ground cover in fine fescue and prairie plots, respectively, 
in August 2004. C and D show ground cover in fine fescue and prairie plots, respectively, in June 2005.

■ Fescue (93.5%)

■ Weeds (4%)
■ Soil (2.5%)

■ Weeds (80%)
■ Soil (20%)
■ Prairie (0%)

■ Fescue (88%) 

■ Weeds (8%)

■ Soil (4%)

■ Weeds (76%)

■ Soil (6%)
■ Prairie (18%)

18

GREEN SECTION RECORD

are not favorable are likely to result in 
unwanted vegetation and/or exposed 
soil that will not necessarily decrease 
nutrients in runoff or leachate.

In our study, less than 5% of the 

total rainfall during the sampling 
period in 2004 ran off fairway and 
buffer strip surfaces, while less than 1% 
of rainfall ran off during 2005 (Tables 
3 and 4). The minimal slopes of the 
fairways (1-2%) likely helped infiltra­
tion to occur by reducing speed of 
runoff despite periods of heavy rain.

The nearly complete ground cover was 
likely just as, if not more, important for 
reducing runoff by slowing its rate and 
allowing it to infiltrate into the soil.
None of the buffer strips changed 
runoff or phosphorus loading compared 
to the fairway alone, indicating fertilizer 
was not an important source of phos­
phorus (Table 4). Total phosphorus 
losses on a land area basis were similar, 
or less than, the annual 0.1 kg P ha1 
loss reported for native prairie in 
Minnesota when rainfall-induced

Table 3
Monthly rainfall (mm) during runoff sampling periods 
at Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis.

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Total

2004

32.3

222.0

171.7

148.8

121.7

30.2

132.8

48.3

907.8

2005

92.5

73.9

167.1

33.3

151.9

188.0

32.3

83.1

822.1

Table 4
Total annual runoff volumes and phosphorus (P) losses from Poa annua fairways with 
or without various buffer strips of either prairie or fine fescue, Stevens Point, Wis.

Buffer Treatment1

Water Runoff
(mm)

Total P
(kg ha1)

Bioavailable P
(kg ha1)

No buffer

Short, Prairie
Short, Fescue
Medium, Prairie

Medium, Fescue
Long, Prairie
Long, Fescue
Significance (P<0.05)

No buffer

Short, Prairie
Short, Fescue
Medium, Prairie
Medium, Fescue
Long, Prairie
Long, Fescue
Significance (P<0.05)

20042

20053

36.6
42.9
45.6
50.1

38.1
36.6
50.2
ns

3.5
4.2
4.6

5.5
5.5
3.5
4.1
ns

0.12
0.17

0.19

0.17
0.16
0.12
0.22
ns

0.04

0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
ns

0.04

0.03

0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
ns

0.01
0.02

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
ns

ns = not significant at P<0.05.
’Short buffer = 8:1 fairway:buffer length, medium = 4:1 fairway:buffer, long = 2:1 fairway: buffer.
2May through October. 
’April through November.

MARCH-APRIL 2007

19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
Fine fescues covered nearly 40% of the 
ground by early May 2004, while weed 
seedlings were the only vegetation on 
the prairie plots. Fescue cover was 
excellent by August, while annual 
weeds covered 80% of the ground in 
prairie plantings (Figures 1A, IB). A 
few prairie plants were present, but 
they comprised less than 1% of the 
ground cover. By June 2005, fescue 
cover remained dense and prairie 
vegetation had increased to 18%, 
though weeds still covered more than 
three quarters of the plot area (Figures 
1C, ID). Several of the prairie flower 
species were evident by summer 2005, 
though few bloomed that year. None 
of the prairie grasses were ever observed, 
consistent with several of our other 
establishment projects using similar 
prairie seed mixtures. Prairie plots on 
fairway 4 had more weeds, especially 
Poa annua, than plots on fairway 8 that 
were less shaded. Regulations requiring 
native vegetation for buffer strips in 
situations where climatic conditions

Table 5
Mean monthly soluble phosphorus (P) and total nitrogen (N) in leachate 
under Poa annua fairway and prairie or fine fescue buffer strips, 
Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis.

Buffer Treatment1

Soluble P (mg L ')

Total N (mg L')

No buffer
Short, Prairie
Short, Fescue
Medium, Prairie
Medium, Fescue
Long, Prairie
Long, Fescue
Significance (P<0.05)

No buffer
Short, Prairie
Short, Fescue
Medium, Prairie
Medium, Fescue
Long, Prairie
Long, Fescue
Significance (P<0.05)

20042

0.33
0.32
0.12
0.24
0.05
0.13
0.07
ns

20053

0.58
0.56
0.36
0.20
0.36
0.26
0.49
ns

2.89
7.60
32.08
7.05
30.15
6.28
25.66
ns

3.91
4.15
5.02
2.33
4.00
3.61
3.72
ns

ns = not significant at P<0.05.
'Short buffer = 8:1 fairway:buffer length, medium = 4:1 fairway:buffer, long = 2:1 fairway:buffer.
2May through October.
3April through November.

runoff averaged 6 mm per year, and 
similar, or less, than the 0.18 to 7.04 kg 
P ha1 in surface runoff from a variety 
of grazing lands in Oklahoma.

Phosphorus runoff in our study 
was more than 20 times less than 
that reported for wheat production, 
probably due to greater vegetative 
cover in the golf course system. Phos­
phorus sources in our study likely 
included natural sources such as vege­
tation, soil, and precipitation. We’ve 
found similar results when comparing 
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and 
prairie buffer strips for controlling 
urban runoff.

A growing body of evidence 
indicates that when ground is well 
covered by vegetation (e.g., 70%), total 
P losses may be much reduced com­
pared to predominantly exposed soil. 
In exposed soil situations, sediment­
bound P is often the primary type of 
P. Vegetation greatly reduces total P 
runoff by reducing both runoff volume 

20

GREEN SECTION RECORD

and sediment, though soluble P may 
increase as it leaches from vegetation 
and organic P-containing particles 
move in runoff. Prairie plants may be 
especially prone to P loss from vege­
tation, as they are predominantly C4 
plants with foliage that dies in early 
autumn, while C3 turf foliage may 
survive the winter and has a steady but 
low turnover rate coupled with less 
abundant above-ground biomass than 
prairie vegetation.

In our study, about 25-50% of the 
total P in runoff was bio-available P 
(BAP). This is the type that stimulates 
algae blooms in ponds, lakes, and 
rivers. Values in our study were at least 
20 times less than BAP in wheat field 
runoff and similar to BAP runoff from 
native grassland. Our data are impor­
tant because they represent natural 
background levels of phosphorus. 
Consequently, regulations to limit 
phosphorus fertilization would in this 
case be ineffective at reducing phos­

phorus loading. Ultimately it is impos­
sible to achieve zero P runoff.

Buffer strips did not affect phos­
phorus or nitrogen leaching below the 
soil surface (Table 5). Nitrogen is the 
most important nutrient contaminant 
in leachate water because excessive 
levels in drinking water may have 
adverse human health effects, such as 
blue baby syndrome. The U.S. Envi­
ronmental Protection Agency sets the 
drinking water limit at 10 parts per 
million (ppm) nitrate-nitrogen. In our 
study, this level was exceeded in 2004 
under the fine fescue plots, but the 
results were not statistically different 
from leachate under prairie plots or 
fairway alone. The higher concentra­
tions in 2004 were likely due to soil 
disturbance effects from the establish­
ment process and lack of vegetative 
cover until May 2004. In 2005, all 
nitrogen concentrations were below 10 
ppm and were likely lower than 2004 
because more vegetation existed in the 
second year.

Phosphorus has generally been 

regarded as having little movement in 
soil and so most leaching studies do 
not measure phosphorus. However, 
increasing awareness of ties between 
ground and surface water may soon 
require additional knowledge of phos­
phorus leaching. Easton and Petrovic 
reported more than 50% of P applied 
to turf from swine compost leached 
below the surface, while synthetic fer­
tilizer sources had significantly lower 
leachate losses. Our study indicates 
that an unfertilized prairie stand has 
similar levels of P leachate compared 
to unfertilized fine fescue turf and 
fertilized P. annua fairways. Phosphorus 
and nitrogen contamination of runoff 
and leachate water from golf course 
fairways was similiar to natural back­
ground levels reported for non­
fertilized native prairies and was not 
affected by buffer strip type or size.

Acknowledgements: The authors wish 
to express their appreciation for funding 
provided by the USGA’s Turfgrass and

GGOOGGOOOG OOG G0OG

A Q&.A with Dr. John Stier, University of Wisconsin, 
regarding the use of prairie versus fescue buffer strips to 
minimize nutrient and sediment fairway runoff

Q: Your article points to recent regulations that buffer 
strips, to reduce nutrient and sediment loading into surface 
waters, should use native, or prairie, vegetation. How do 
you think regulators chose to stipulate prairie vegetation for 
this purpose? Is there scientific data to show that a prairie 
strategy is effective for this purpose?

A: Regulators chose prairie vegetation for use as 
native buffer strips because much of the southern part 
of Wisconsin was largely prairie (e.g., oak savannah) 
before the 1800s. The other alternative is trees, which 
because of their height and relatively slow growth are 
illogical to meet immediate needs, even though the 
northern half of the state is naturally forested. We 
decided to investigate the utility of prairie buffer strips 
to control runoff specifically because no previous 
scientific data existed.

Q: Given the differences in speed of establishment of 
fescues (and other turfgrasses) versus prairie ground cover, 
do you think that using prairie vegetation for fairway buffer 
strips is a sound strategy?

A: While prairie ecosystems can take several years to 
become established, we found that the annual weeds 
that developed in the prairie plots functioned as well 
as fescues to mitigate runoff and sediment loss. The 
question is, will people accept weeds as a vegetative 
cover during the years required to establish a prairie 
ecosystem? We also noticed that in one of the sites, 
heavily shaded by trees, the prairie plants did not 
establish as well as the site with more sunshine.

Q: In your study, less than 5% (in 2004) and /% (in 2005) 
of the total rainfall ran off the fairway and buffer strip 
surfaces. Do you think the differences in sediment and 
nutrient losses between prairie and fescue buffers would 
have been greater if the plots had been tested on a golf 
course receiving greater rainfall or having more severe 
slopes?

A: The differences might have been greater if slopes 
were more severe. As for rainfall, factors to consider 
include pre-existing soil moisture at the time of rainfall 

and rate of rainfall compared to infiltration rate. For 
example, if the soil is saturated from previous rainfalls, 
even a minor rainfall might cause runoff, while a more 
severe rainfall may not cause any runoff if the soil is dry 
at the time of rainfall.

Q: It was interesting that your research showed that 
applied fertilizer did not appear to be an important source 
of runoff phosphorus. Do you think the extent that signifi­
cant phosphorus runoff comes from dead or dormant vege­
tation (i.e., C4 prairie plants) is well understood by regulators? 

A: Unfortunately, the idea that vegetation itself can 
serve as a source of nutrients does not appear to be 
well understood by regulators or the general public — 
it would be interesting to survey scientists to deter­
mine their understanding of vegetation as a source of 
nutrients in runoff. The idea is not completely new, as 
several studies have shown that nutrients can be 
leached from tree leaves.

Q: Your study demonstrated that bio-available phosphorus 
runoff from WRGC fairways was 20 times less than that 
reported for wheat production. Do you sometimes get the 
feeling that regulators target golf courses rather than con­
ventional agriculture, where the cumulative runoff from 
row-crop, small grain, forage production, and pasture and 
feed-lot operations seem to be a much greater threat to 
surface water quality?

A: The turf and allied green industries do not seem to 
have the political infrastructure that organized row­
crop agriculture has. Also, most of the public is very 
familiar with urban landscapes because the vast 
majority of U.S. residents live in urban areas: they are 
unfamiliar with row-crop agricultural systems.

Q: What is the the take-home message for golf course 
superintendents from this work?

A: We 11-vegetated areas, regardless of the species, are 
important for minimizing runoff and sediment losses. 
There will always be a background level of nutrients in 
runoff water because the vegetation itself may serve as 
a source of nutrients in addition to atmospheric 
deposition and other sources unrelated to fertilizer.

Jeff Nus, Ph.D., manager, Green Section Research.

Environmental Research Program and 
the Northern Great Lakes Golf Course 
Superintendents Association, and co­
operation from the owners and super­
intendent of Wisconsin River Golf 
Club.

Editor’s Note: A more complete 
version of this report can be found at 
USGA Turfgrass and Environmental 
Research Online:
http://usgatero.msu.edu/v05/n22.pdf.

John C. Stier, Ph.D., is associate 
professor, Environmental Turfgrass Science, 
Horticulture Dept., and Wayne R. 
Kussow, Ph.D., is professor emeritus, 
turfgrass soil scientist, Soil Sciences Dept., 
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

MARCH-APRIL 2007

21

Don’t Get Washed Away
New advances in erosion control blankets are 
shifting the decision to seeding versus sodding.

BY HAL PHILLIPS

Progress — a new way of doing 

something that is an improve­
ment on current operating pro­
cedures. Recent advances in the manu­

facturing of erosion control blankets 
provide a different twist, however, in 
that they allow superintendents, con­
tractors, and architects to move ahead 
by doing something an old-fashioned 
way.

That time-tested method is estab­
lishing new turf areas via seeding, as 
opposed to sodding. Everyone agrees 
that seeding takes a little longer, but 
the turf health benefits, such as stronger 
root development, are usually superior 
to those yielded by sod. Yes, there are 
further downsides to seeding: one can 
only seed in cool-season climates dur­
ing certain windows of time, and on 
steep inclines, like bunker faces, sod 
has traditionally provided a leg up in 
terms of erosion control.

In comparison to sod, seeded areas 

will always take longer to grow in. 
But, according to superintendents and 
architects involved in construction 
projects, the new generation of blankets 
provides comparable erosion control 
and actually lengthens the fall germi­
nation window. What’s more, the 
addition of erosion control blankets to 
the seeding process does not change 
the bottom line: seed and blankets are 
more economical than sod. And that 
saving can continue over time, given 
the man-hours a superintendent must 
spend hand-watering and repairing 
sodded bunker faces whose establish­
ment may never overcome an incom­
patible soil layer issue.

To prevent soil erosion on large areas, such as newly constructed fairways, superintendents in many 

areas of the country are beginning to recognize the value of improved erosion control blankets.

22

GREEN SECTION RECORD

“What we definitely see happening 

across the country is that turf condi­
tions in the rough and, in particular, 
on bunker faces are subject to increas­
ing expectations,” says Paul Vermeulen, 
former USGA Director of the Mid­
Continent Region. “Perfection on the 
putting surface is expected. Fairways, 
too. And we’re quickly getting to the 
point where that sort of standard is 
expected every day on areas like 
bunker faces. It’s achieving that sort of 
perfection with the imperfect legacy of 
sodding that is getting troublesome.
“If our path is to try and produce 
the best stand of turf around bunkers 
and greens, we need to be honest 
about how best to establish that turf. If 
it’s better to seed, let’s seed. And, if the 
only thing keeping us from that is 
erosion and a narrow establishment 
window, then let’s try something new. 
I’m not plugging one erosion control 
product over another, but this is an 
improving technology that, over the 
past several years, has made tremendous 
strides.”

Of course, the main thing that keeps 
superintendents, contractors, and archi­
tects from going with seed is time, not 
erosion. On a new course project, the 
decision to sod or seed is often reached 
before a golf course superintendent is 
even on site. Still, it is the superinten­
dent who is left holding the bag.

“Suppose you have a limited con­
struction window. Put simply, that 
becomes the guiding force in all the 
other decisions that follow,” explains 
Bob Lohmann, whose design firm, 
Lohmann Golf Designs, has been a 
leading proponent of seeding/blanket- 
ing for the last decade. “One of the 
options that contractors tend to latch 
onto very quickly is the idea of estab­
lishing a large part of a property with 
sod, because now you have more time 
to build. But that’s giving in to poor 
planning. We just opened a course 
called Blackstone G.C. [Marengo, 
Illinois], where we had about a seven- 
to eight-month construction window, 
which is fast by any standard, and we

One of the most common methods for controlling soil erosion and establishing a stable worksite for 

equipment operation is to surround newly constructed areas with sod. Given recent improvements in 

erosion control blanket technology, however, superintendents can do equally well with seeding.

Taming soil erosion on new construction sites, superintendents, architects, and golf course builders are 

turning to the use of improved erosion control blankets.

MARCH-APRIL 2007

23

With improvements in erosion control blankets, their use on new construction sites is on the rise. In addition to being less expensive, high-quality blankets 

extend the establishment window of cool-season turf species and provide better-than-expected ground stabilization.

were able to complete the entire 
project with seed and blanket.”

“With a renovation, because you’ve 
closed a portion of the course, everyone 
is even more interested in getting the 
work done as fast as possible. So, the 
pressure to sod is even greater. In cool­
season climates like the Midwest, you 
need to seed renovated holes and 
features by about September 15th. But, 
what if you don’t make that deadline? 
Well, the decision to sod gets easier 
and easier for a project manager, who 
doesn’t necessarily factor in the long­
term downsides: the poor rooting of 
turf for years to come and the need for 
repeated core aeration (on a bunker 
face!) to disturb the layer of soil 
imported with the sod.

“All these downsides are left to the 
superintendent. The project manager 
looks good when he walks off the 
property. He finished ‘on time.’ But 
the superintendent deals with the 
consequences.”

24

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Lohmann admits that, until blanket 
technology improved over the last five 
years, sodding was still the preferred 
method of erosion control. And, be­
cause bunker reconstruction is such a 
routine staple of course renovation, the 
sodding of new bunker faces quickly 
became standard practice.

“Today, however, the more expen­
sive blankets will stabilize the seeded 
area on steep slopes just as well as sod,” 
he says. “They also hold the moisture 
for you, so the seed will germinate 
quicker. A great example of this is 
a driving range project we did for 
Chenequa Country Club [Hartland, 
Wisconsin]. Because of budget limita­
tions, we seeded and blanketed only 
the very steep sloping area immediately 
below the tee. In the range itself, which 
is mildly sloped, we seeded with no 
blankets. Chenequa was hit with some 
pretty major storms right after the 
seeding, and they’re still struggling 
with the low areas where the seed and 

topsoil were washed away. But, the 
slopes around the tee are perfect. In 
the long run, cutting money on erosion 
control early in the budget process 
probably cost the club more money — 
in washout repairs.”

Brad Minnick, CGCS, is the head 
golf course superintendent at Lawrence 
Country Club in Kansas, which closed 
down in July 2005 for a comprehen­
sive, 18-hole renovation. Minnick 
had originally specified sod for his 
new bunker faces (“I had used straw 
blankets in the past and didn’t enjoy 
success.”), but during a Turf Advisory 
Service visit Paul Vermeulen suggested 
he try seeding again — this time with 
the new generation of blankets.

“Paul turned me on to the idea and 

once I tried it on a trial basis, it was 
obviously going to be the better solu­
tion,” says Minnick, whose course re­
opened in September 2006. “I always 
believed that seeding was best, but that 
erosion was the problem that sod

Sodding steep banks around new bunkers has gained wide acceptance because it yields quick results and provides excellent erosion control. Maintaining the 

turf in good condition long-term, however, can necessitate the installation of pop-up sprinklers to compensate for poor root development.

helped cure. I don’t believe that any­
more. It’s a leap of faith, going with 
blankets. It’s not mainstream. But, it 
works.”

The time pressures will never go 
away, but neither will the obvious cost 
savings. When the renovation budget 
was put together in Lawrence, for 
example, there was a line item for one 
acre of sod; the remaining 60 acres 
were to be seeded with no erosion con­
trol. By going with seed and blankets 
on that one acre and eliminating the 
sodding line item, there was money 
available to blanket 40 of the 60 
remaining acres.

Lohmann sees the beginning of a sea 

change in the way the golf industry 
views sodding. He sees the rest of the 
golf industry coming his way.

“The practice of sodding has, over 
time, become more and more popular, 
but I think we’ve reached a point 
where enough courses are having 
long-term problems that we need to 

pull back,” he says. “It’s one thing to 
sod a fairway or two because you’ve 
run out of time, but sodding around 
elaborate bunker contours is just a bad 
idea. Sure it’s difficult to aerate a 10- 
degree slope, but what about the man­
hours you devote to something like 
that? And, what about the man-hours 
you need to hand-water those sodded 
areas during establishment — or the 
supplemental sprinkler heads you need 
to install to care for those sodded 
bunker faces long term?

“Ten years ago, we never saw pop­

up heads around bunker banks, but 
now it’s becoming commonplace. We 
do a lot of classic course renovation, 
and you never see an 80-year-old 
course with pop-up heads around 
bunkers. They don’t need it. But when 
you visit an 80-year-old course that’s 
been renovated with sodded bunker 
faces, you see it all the time because 
the turf isn’t healthy. That should tell 
you something.”

Another sodding misconception is 
that an area around a newly constructed 
green or tee needs to be partially or 
completely sodded in order to access 
that green or tee with equipment, such 
as mowers. “Many think that a bridge 
of sod is the only option,” Vermeulen 
says. “People assume that if you seed 
and follow up with an erosion control 
blanket, the ground won’t be stable 
enough. But it is stable enough. We all 
went to school and learned things one 
way, and then we had that reinforced 
in the field. This sort of change has to 
start with superintendents because they 
understand the long-term as well as 
the short-term. They have to be the 
spokespersons for this improving 
technology.”

Hal Phillips is a former editor of Golf 
Course News and a freelance writer based 
in Maine, where the season is short and 
sweet.

MARCH-APRIL 2007

25

Sponsored

Research Yoh Can Use

Nematodes for
White Grub Control
Rutgers University scientists investigate soil effects 
on nematode suppression of white grubs.

BY ALBRECHT M. KOPPENHOFER AND EUGENE M. FUZY

At present, synthetic insecticides are still the primary means of controlling white grubs. With the

implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, golf turf managers have already lost

many options for curative white grub control.

Species of white grubs are the most 

widespread and destructive turf­
grass insect pests in the United
States. Key species are the Japanese 
beetle (Popillia japonica) throughout 
much of the eastern United States, and 
masked chafers (Cydocephala spp.) in the 
Midwest and western states. However, 
in the Northeast and along the eastern 
seaboard, the oriental beetle (Anomala 
orientalis), European chafer (Rhizotrogus 

majalis), and Asiatic garden beetle 
(Maladera castanea) have become 
similarly important pests. At present, 
synthetic insecticides are still the 
primary means of controlling white 
grubs, but due to the implementation 
of the Food Quality Protection Act of 
1996 (FQPA), golf turf managers have 
already lost many options, and may 
lose more, for curative white grub 
control.

Neonicotinoid insecticides 

(imidacloprid, clothianidin) and insect 
growth regulators (halofenozide) are 
less hazardous than organophosphates 
and carbamates, but they are only 
effective when used preventively, 
resulting in the treatment of large areas 
that otherwise would have needed 
only partial or no treatment. In the 
long term, these insecticides’ high 
efficacy against many turfgrass pests 

26

GREEN SECTION RECORD

well adapted to infecting sedentary 
hosts below the soil surface, but per­
forms poorly against mobile hosts on 
the soil surface.

In laboratory, greenhouse, and field 

studies, S. scarabaei has shown excep­
tional virulence to a wide range of 
white grub species, including the 
Japanese beetle, oriental beetle, Euro­
pean chafer, Asiatic garden beetle, and 
several May/June beetle species. It 
dramatically outperformed any other 
nematode species tested in greenhouse

and field studies, even 
at rates as low as one 
fourth of the other 
species applied. In 
ongoing field studies 
supported by the USGA, 
we have seen significant 
suppression of oriental 
beetle larval populations 
by S. scarabaei at least one 
year, often two years, 
after application. This 
long-term effect is due 
to the high virulence 
of S. scarabaei, the long 
persistence of its infec­
tive juveniles, and its 
effective reproduction 
and recycling in the 
infected white grubs.

FACTORS 
AFFECTING 
NEMATODE 
EFFICACY 
AND 
SURVIVAL 
The performance of 
entomopathogenic 
nematodes can be

combined with their large-area appli­
cations is likely to reduce predators, 
parasitoids, and pathogens of white 
grubs and other insect pests by depriv­
ing them of prey/hosts. Ultimately, 
this approach may increase dependency 
on chemical control.

has shown that the masked chafer, 
oriental beetle, European chafer, Asiatic 
garden beetle, and other white grub 
species are less susceptible than the 
Japanese beetle to the commonly used 
nematode species such as Heterorhabditis 
bacteriophora and Steinemema glaseri.

STEINERNEMA SCARABAEI: 
A NEW HIGHLY VIRULENT 
NEMATODE
We have recently isolated a new nema­
tode species, Steinemema scarabaei, 

ENTOMOPATHOGENIC 
NEMATODES AS AN 
ALTERNATIVE
Entomopathogenic nematodes (Hetero- 
rhabditidae and Steinernematidae) 
offer a non-toxic, 
environmentally safe, 
and IPM-compatible 
alternative to synthetic 
insecticides in turfgrass. 
These nematodes occur 
in natural and agricul­
tural soils around the 
world and are used for 
biological control of 
insects, primarily soil­
dwelling insects.

The only free-living 

stage of entomopatho­
genic nematodes is the 
infective juvenile that 
must persist in the soil 
until it can locate and 
infect a suitable host. 
After penetrating into 
the host’s body cavity, 
the infective juvenile 
regurgitates species­
specific symbiotically 
associated bacteria. The 
nematode and bacteria 
cooperate to kill the host 
within a few days. The 
developing nematodes 
feed on the bacteria and 
host tissues digested by the bacteria 
and develop through up to three gen­
erations, until hundreds to hundreds of 
thousands of new infective juveniles 
emerge from the depleted host cadaver 
to search for new hosts.

Research in the U.S. has shown that 

these nematodes can be as effective as 
synthetic insecticides against Japanese 
beetle larvae. However, recent research 

Rutgers University scientists investigated the effects of soil moisture and 

soil type on the infectivity and persistence of nematodes for short- and 

long-term suppression of white grubs. Shown above is a white grub 
infected with Steinemema scarabaei.

living in Japanese and oriental beetle 
larvae in New Jersey turfgrass areas. 
This nematode was highly virulent to 
and reproduced very well in oriental 
beetle and Japanese beetle larvae, but 
its virulence to and reproduction in 
the larvae or adults of species from 
various other families of Coleoptera, 
Lepidoptera, and other insect orders 
was generally low to non-existent. It is 

affected by many environmental 
factors. Two of the most important 
factors are soil moisture and soil type/ 
texture. In soil, infective juveniles 
move through the water film that coats 
the pore spaces. If this film becomes 
too thin (in dry soil) or the pore spaces 
are completely filled with water (in 
water-saturated soil), nematode 
movement can be restricted. In field 

MARCH-APRIL 2007

27

studies, soil moisture was positively 
related to H. bacteriophora efficacy 
against Japanese beetle larvae. Infective 
juveniles can survive dessiccation to 
relatively low moisture levels if water 
removal is gradual, giving them time 
to adapt to an inactive stage.

Generally, nematode survival and 

dispersal tend to be lower in fme- 
textured soils, but the effect of soil 
moisture and texture on nematode 
infectivity and survival varies with 
nematode species and may depend on 
nematode size, behavior, and physiology. 
In turfgrass trials against Japanese 
beetle larvae, H. bacteriophora was more 
effective in fme-textured soils than 
sandy soil, probably because finer soils 
retain moisture better and restrict 
nematode movement to the upper soil 
layers where most of the white grubs 
are found.

STUDIES ON 
THE EFFECT OF 
SOIL TYPE AND 
SOIL MOISTURE
To improve the predictability of S. 
scarabaei applications in the field, both 
for short-term and long-term white 
grub management, we conducted a 
series of laboratory and greenhouse 
experiments studying the effect of 
different soil types and moisture levels 
on the infectivity and survival of this 
species. For comparison, the well- 
known and widely available species H. 
bacteriophora was included in the study.
Five typical mineral soils were col­
lected from turfgrass areas, acidic sand 
from a blueberry field, and a typical 
potting mix from a nursery. Soil 
characteristics and soil moisture release 
curves were established. Third-instar 
oriental beetles and Japanese beetles 
were collected in turf areas and stored 
individually at 50°F for one to ten 
weeks in a mixture of organic compost 
and loamy sand. The nematodes 
H. bacteriophora (GPS11 strain) and 
S. scarabaei (AMK001 strain) were 
cultured and stored following standard 
procedures.

28

GREEN SECTION RECORD

EFFECT OF SOIL TYPE ON 
NEMATODE INFECTIVITY 
Two laboratory experiments tested the 
effect of six substrates on nematode 
infectivity. Experiment 1 tested the 
infectivity of S. scarabaei (0 or 200 
infective juveniles per vial) against 
oriental beetle larvae. Experiment 2 
tested the infectivity of H. bacteriophora 
(0 or 500 infective juveniles per vial) 
against Japanese beetle larvae. At seven 
days after treatment (DAT), the larvae 
were recovered and infected larvae 
were dissected and digested in a 
pepsin solution, and the number 
of nematodes established in them 
were counted.

The number of S. scarabaei established 
in the larvae was significantly lower in 
acidic sand than in potting mix, and 
significantly lower in potting mix than 

in loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand, 
and significantly lower in silt loam 
than in loamy sand (Figure 1A). Larval 
mortality followed a very similar pat­
tern, with significantly lower mortality 
in acidic sand (50%) and potting mix 
(67%) than in the other soils (90- 
100%). H. bacteriophora establishment 
in larvae (Figure IB) was the highest 
in potting mix and the lowest in acidic 
sand and did not differ significantly 
among loamy sand, sandy loam, silt 
loam, and clay loam. Larval mortality 
also was the highest in potting mix 
(93%) and the lowest in acidic sand 
(13%) and did not differ significantly 
among loamy sand, sandy loam, silt 
loam, and clay loam (57-63%).

Two greenhouse experiments were 

with perennial ryegrass growing on 
the various substrates. Experiment 1

Figure I. Effect of different substrates on infectivity (A-B) and efficacy (C-D) of the entomo- 
pathogenic nematode Steinernema scarabaei against the third-instar oriental beetle (A, C) and 
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora against the third-instar Japanese beetle (B, D). Columns with the same 
letter are not significantly different (P<0.05).

number of nematodes established in 
them.

S. scarabaei showed excellent persist­

ence with no significant decline in 
recovery over time in any of the sub­
strates (Figure 2A). Over the entire 
experiment, recovery was significantly 
higher in loamy sand than in all other 
soils, and significantly higher in sandy 
loam than in potting mix. H. bacterio­
phora persistence was much shorter, 
and recovery significantly declined in 
all substrates (Figure 2B). Overall, 
recovery was significantly higher in 
clay loam than in sandy loam and 
acidic sand, and was lower in potting 
mix than in all other soils.

EFFECT OF SOIL MOISTURE 
ON NEMATODE INFECTIVITY 
Sandy loam was prepared at different 
soil water potentials (from wettest to 
driest: -1, -10, -100, -1000, -3000 
kPa), allowed to equilibrate for four 
days, mixed again, and filled into 
plastic vials. Into each vial, one third- 
instar Japanese beetle was released and, 
one day later, 0 nematodes, 200 S.

Figure 2. Persistence of Steinernema scarabaei (A) and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (B) in different 
substrates. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences in recovery among substrate types per baiting 
date (P<0.05). A significant decline in recovery was found in no substrate for S. scarabaei and in all 
substrates for H. bacteriophora.

tive juveniles per cup treatment (Figure 
2), five cups from each treatment were 
opened and the soil baited with five 
wax moth larvae for four three-day 
baiting rounds. Infected larvae were 
dissected and digested to count the 

tested S. scarabaei (0 or 156 infective 
juveniles per pot) against oriental 
beetles. Experiment 2 tested H. bacterio­
phora (0 or 625 infective juveniles per 
pot) against Japanese beetles. The pots 
were destructively sampled at 14 DAT 
to determine the number of surviving 
larvae.

Mortality in the greenhouse experi­

ment followed a trend similar to the 
mortality in the laboratory experiment, 
except that the negative effect of acidic 
sand was less pronounced, possibly 
modulated by the presence of grass 
roots (Figure 1). S. scarabaei caused 
higher mortality in loamy sand than in 
silt loam and potting mix, with sandy 
loam, loam, and acidic sand not signifi­
cantly different from either group 
(Figure 1C). H. bacteriophora caused 
higher mortality in potting mix than 
in sandy loam, and the remaining soils 
were not significantly different from 
either group (Figure ID).

EFFECT OF SOIL TYPE ON 
NEMATODE PERSISTENCE 
Two laboratory experiments tested the 
effect of six soil types on persistence 
of S. scarabaei and H. bacteriophora. At 
different times after adding 200 infec­

S. scarabaei H. bacteriophora

Water Potential (kPa)

Figure 3. Effect of soil water potential on infectivity of the entomopathogenic nematodes Steinernema 
scarabaei (A) and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (B) in different substrates against the third-instar Popillia 
japonica. Columns with the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05). Asterisk (*) indicates 
that no infection and mortality occurred at these data points.

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 0 7

29

In comparison, H. bacteriophora 
showed similar infectivity from the 
coarser to the finer soils, was also 
negatively affected in acidic sand, but 
was the most infective in the potting 
mix. Both S. scarabaei and H. bacterio­
phora were most infective at moderate 
soil moisture and less in saturated soil 
and drier soil. However, the infectivity 
range of S. scarabaei extended further 
into the dry range, with significant 
mortality even in dry soil (-3000 kPa), 
where H. bacteriophora did not cause 
infections. S. scarabaei also showed 
excellent persistence over all substrate 
types and soil moisture levels, whereas 
H. bacteriophora generally had shorter 
persistence, with more useful persist­
ence levels only in the drier soils, 
where it becomes inactive.

The present study indicates that 
long-term white grub suppression 
should be achievable over a wide range 
of soil conditions. The major problem 
still to overcome in the commerciali­
zation of S. scarabaei is the development 
of effective mass production technology, 
which has proven to be difficult and 
may require more in-depth studies on 
S. scarabaei’s nutritional requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We appreciate the technical assistance 
of Matthew Resnick, Sonya Kasper, 
Zachary Egen, and Jessica Tourangeau. 
This research was supported, in part, 
by grants from the USGA’s Turfgrass 
and Environmental Research Program 
and the Rutgers Center for Turfgrass 
Science.

Editor’s Note: This complete report 
can be found at USGA Turfgrass and 
Environmental Research Online: 
http://usgatero.msu.edu/v05/nl9.pdf.

Albrecht M. Koppenhofer, Ph.D., is 
associate professor and extension specialist 
and Eugene M. Fuzy is senior laboratory 
technician, Turfgrass Entomology, Depart­
ment of Entomology, Rutgers University, 
New Brunswick, NJ.

Figure 4. Persistence of Steinernema scarabaei or Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in sandy loam at four soil 
water potentials. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences in recovery among water potential per 

baiting date (P<0.05). A significant linear decline in recovery was found for -100 kPa and -1000 kPa in S. 
scarabaei and for -10 kPa to -3000 kPa in H. bacteriophora (P<0.05).

scarabaei, or 1,000 H. bacteriophora were 
added to the soil. At seven days after 
treatment (DAT), the larvae were 
recovered and infected larvae were dis­
sected and the nematodes established 
in them counted.

The number of S. scarabaei estab­
lished in larvae was higher at -10 kPa 
and -100 kPa than at -1 kPa and -1000 
kPa, but was the lowest at -3000 kPa 
(Figure 3A). Larval mortality by S. 
scarabaei was significantly higher at 
-100 kPa (100%), -10 kPa (97%), and 
-1000 kPa (87%), than at -3000 kPa 
(50%), with mortality at -1 kPa (77%) 
not significantly different from either 
group. H. bacteriophora establishment 
followed a similar pattern as for S. 
scarabaei at -1 kPa to -100 kPa, but was 
more restricted in drier soil with very 
low establishment at -1000 kPa and no 
establishment at -3000 kPa (Figure 
3B). Similarly, larval mortality by H. 
bacteriophora was significantly higher at 
-1 kPa (57%), -10 kPa (77%), and -100 
kPa (67%) than at -1000 kPa (17%), 
with no mortality at -3000 kPa.

S. scarabaei persistence was also 
excellent and was not affected by soil 
water potential (Figure 4A). Averaged 
across all soil water potentials, S.

30

GREEN SECTION RECORD

scarabaei recovery initially increased but 
declined thereafter and was significantly 
lower on day 140 than all other days. 
H. bacteriophora significantly declined 
much more quickly at all soil water 
potentials (Figure 4B), but declined 
the fastest at -10 kPa, somewhat slower 
at -100 kPa, much slower at -1000 kPa, 
and particularly -3000 kPa.

CONCLUSIONS
Our observations further illuminate 
the excellent potential of S. scarabaei for 
short-term and long-term suppression 
of white grub populations. In addition 
to its high virulence against a wide 
range of white grub species, it also 
showed high virulence across a wide 
range of substrate types. While S. 
scarabaei infectivity tended to decline 
from the coarser sandy soils to the 
finer clay soils, significant mortality 
was observed in greenhouse pot 
experiments even in the finest soils. 
Even in clay loam, S. scarabaei was only 
somewhat less infective in laboratory 
and greenhouse experiments. Only in 
highly acidic sand (pH 3.9) and highly 
organic potting mix did S. scarabaei 
infectivity decline significantly, though 
it still caused significant mortality.

A Q&A with Dr. Albrecht Koppenhofer, Rutgers University, Q: These studies involved laboratory and greenhouse 
regarding the use of nematodes to control white grubs. experiments. How well do these results relate to field tests?

Q: In your opinion, what is the main obstacle that impedes 
the widespread use of entomopathogenic nematodes as a 
biological control of white grubs?

A: For nematodes in general, I would think that absence 
of good formulations is the biggest impediment. For 
Steinernema carpocapsae, a nematode that is highly 
effective for control of black cutworm and other cater­
pillar pests, a formulation exists (wettable dispersible 
granules) with up to five months shelf life at room 
temperature. For other species and formulations, the 
nematodes will not last as long and often have to be 
kept refrigerated. What we need are formulations with 
tolerance to short-term temperature extremes and a 
shelf-life of several months at room temperature, one 
year and more. Nematode products also will have to 
become more competitive with available chemical 
insecticides as far as pricing and/or efficacy is concerned.

Q: What do you believe are the most compelling reasons 
that future golf course superintendents should consider in 
using entomopathogenic nematodes for grub control?

A: Public and legislative pressure to reduce chemical 
pesticide use is likely to increase in the future. In other 
parts of the world (e.g., Europe, Canada) and even in 
some parts of the USA, pesticide use is already more 
restricted. Nematode species that can provide long­
term suppression of white grub populations would be 
another good reason. Steinernema scapterisci has already 
proven to effectively suppress mole cricket populations 
long-term, and its use is slowly gaining momentum. 
Steinernema scarabaei, should it become commercially 
available, could be used in a similar fashion.

Q: Are there data from other studies to suggest the 
geographical range that entomopathogenic nematodes could 
be used to manage white grubs? Is their use restricted to 
less cold climates?

A: It depends on the nematode species. Heterorhabditis 
bacteriophora, the best studied and most widely available 
species for grub control, should be used at soil tem­
peratures above 68°F for maximum efficacy.This 
excludes spring applications and also applications after 
late August or even mid-August in the northern areas 
of the lower 48 states. S. scarabaei, on the other hand, 
has provided excellent control in late spring applications 
and appears to retain high activity to about 62°F. This 
species, however, may not do as well at soil tempera­
tures above 85°F, and may therefore have to be applied 
in spring or fall in the more southern regions of the 
USA.

A: These studies can only give us a general idea. Soils 
occur in an almost unimaginable variety, with texture, 
organic matter, and pH being some of the most impor­
tant factors that may influence nematode performance. 
For example, in our experiments, H. bacteriophora was 
similarly effective across the different soil textures, but 
a summary of numerous field tests against Japanese 
beetle larvae suggested that it was more effective in the 
finer-textured than the coarser soils.The reason may be 
that finer soils retained soil moisture better and also 
confined the nematodes more to the upper soil layers 
where most of the grubs are active. Since S. scarabaei 
effectiveness declined from coarser to finer soils, it may 
be that it would be similarly effective across soil 
textures under field conditions.

Q: The USGA has funded several research projects involving 
biological control of turfgrass pests. Although experiments in 
the lab and greenhouse may look promising oftentimes when 
taken to the field, promising results cannot be repeated. 
What hope is there for the use of entomopathogenic 
nematodes as a biological control strategy?

A: We have conducted numerous field tests in which S. 
scarabaei has provided excellent curative grub control. 
It has persisted in the field plots for up to four years 
and consistently provided significant grub control even 
one year after application, often also two years after 
application. Another very host-specific nematode, S. 
scapterisci, is providing very good long-term suppression 
of mole crickets in the southeastern USA. Species that 
are highly adapted to one of the key insect pests and 
provide long-term suppression may be the key to more 
widespread nematode use in turfgrass.

Q: You mentioned that effective mass production technology 
represents the major problem in commercializing nematodes. 
How likely is it that effective mass production technologies 
will be developed?

A: Effective mass production technologies already exist 
for various nematode species, including H. bacteriophora, 
S. carpocapsae, and S. scapterisci. S. scarabaei is difficult to 
mass produce. One of the companies we have collabo­
rated with has already produced S. scarabaei in vitro (i.e., 
in media without insects), and these nematodes were as 
virulent and viable as the ones produced in grubs. How­
ever, production in larger quantities in liquid media has 
proven to be too variable. Mass production of S. scarabaei 
should be feasible, but it may take some more basic 
research on its nutritional requirements, and with that, 
more time before commercialization will be possible.

Jeff Nus, Ph.D., manager, Green Section Research.

MARCH-APRIL 20 07

31

On Course With Nature

Seeing is Believing
Certification verification yields public relations benefits.

BY JEAN MACKAY AND JEREMY TAYLOR

Active participation in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program helps golf courses highlight their environmental efforts and promote the fact that they 
are doing right by the environment (Beaver Creek Golf Club, Avon, Colo., fully certified in 2003).

32

GREEN SECTION RECORD

Site visits offer a 

great opportunity 

for golf courses to 

showcase their 

environmental 

efforts. Larry and 

Jan Schlippert of 

Commonwealth 

National Golf Club 

in Horsham, Pa., 

show off their 

Audubon display 

during their site 

visit.

photographic documentation, certifi­
cation is strengthened dramatically.
Equally important, the site visit 

provides an opportunity for golf 
course representatives to demonstrate 
some of the voluntary actions they 
have taken to protect the environment. 
In some cases, the reviewer is already 
aware of the ACSP and somewhat 
familiar with the efforts that the golf 
course has taken to protect the envi­
ronment. But for the majority of golf 
courses, the site visit brings new eyes 
and a fresh perspective to the course — 
with much to be gained by both parties.
“ [The reviewer] was impressed with 

the program and said ‘I had no idea’ 
quite a few times,” reported Greg 
Bliek at Tahoe Donner Golf Course in 
Truckee, Calif. “I think it comes as a 
shock to most people that we actually 
care about the environment.”

Bliek’s perception was echoed 

independently by Scott Terrell of the 
Truckee Donner Public Utility District, 
who conducted the site visit. “As an 

MARCH-APRIL 2 0 07

33

Verification. It’s a critical issue 

when it comes to running a 
certification program. How do 
you know that people are doing what 

they claim? Without verification, the 
credibility of the program and the 
integrity of its members are both at 
stake.

We know that only too well at 
Audubon International. Since the 
inception of the Audubon Cooperative 
Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses 
(ACSP) in 1991, we have grappled 
with how to verify the environmental 
best practices of members without 
adding undo costs or burden to partici­
pants. Though written and photo­
graphic documentation have always 
been required, and certified golf 
courses have long been environmental 
leaders in the golf industry, the ques­
tion of on-site verification remained 
crucial for program critics and 
supporters alike.

To address the credibility gap, 
Audubon International changed its 

certification requirements in 2005 to 
include a site visit — and the results 
have exceeded all expectations. To 
date (December 1, 2006), 110 golf 
courses have hosted a site visit. Within 
the next four years, all 595 currently 
certified golf courses will have had a 
third-party site visit.

ABOUT SITE VISITS
Site visits are designed to help 
Audubon International verify some of 
the more visible aspects of golf course 
environmental management activities. 
They are conducted by a third-party 
representative not affiliated with the 
golf course, such as a local conservation 
organization, governmental agency, 
cooperative extension, or Audubon 
International staff or steward. The site 
visit generally takes several hours, with 
course personnel touring the course 
with the third-party verifier, who then 
completes a checklist and returns it to 
Audubon International for review. 
Used in combination with written and 

individual who has been involved in 
green business and personal practices, I 
was very pleasantly surprised to see the 
amount of green practices being con­
ducted at Tahoe Donner Golf Course,” 
Terrell commented in the site visit 
report.

Bliek and Terrell’s experiences are 

not exceptions. Similar comments 
appear again and again on site visit 
reports:

“It was a great opportunity to show 
an independent third party the projects 
we are involved in at our course. It 
allowed us an opportunity to receive 
constructive criticism and new ideas 
for existing and future projects.” — 
Ben Kozlovsky, Assistant Superinten­
dent, Barton Creek Resort, Palmer 
Lakeside Course, Spicewood, Texas.
“Our [third-party verifier] just 

reviewed our golf course and had some 
very insightful and positive things to 
say. He seemed to be quite happy 
about the whole situation. It was 
actually a very good experience.” — 
Chris Hart, Assistant Superintendent, 
Coyote Moon Golf Course, Truckee, 
Calif.

“After visiting Brooks Golf Club for 

the ACSP, I am very impressed with 
all the efforts they are putting forth to 
maintain and improve the environ­
ment and water quality.” — Mark 
Ingwersen, Commissioner, Dickinson

“I have had 

amazing wildlife 

encounters on 

golf courses, and 

I run a nature 

center!” reports 

Dr. Karen Shragg, 

who has conducted 

numerous site 

visits for ACSP 

members. Shragg is 

director of the 

City of Richfield’s 

Woodlake Nature 

Center in Richfield, 

Minn.

34

GREEN SECTION RECORD

A clean, well-organized maintenance facility speaks volumes during a site visit at Commonwealth 

National Golf Club.

County Soil & Water Conservation 
District, Recertification Site Visit for 
Brooks Golf Club, Okoboji, Iowa.

“Forest Hills Country Club exceeds 

the expectations of environmental 
stewardship that an ecologist would 
expect from a golf course.” — Cory 
Ritterbusch, Ecologist, Native Land­
scapes, Recertification Site Visit for 
Forest Hills Country Club, Loves 
Park, Ill.

“Heron Lakes Golf Course staff and 

management practices demonstrate a 
strong commitment to good environ­
mental stewardship in the Columbia 
Slough watershed.” — Charles F. Sams 
III, Executive Director, Columbia 
Slough Watershed Council, Recertifi­

cation Site Visit for Heron Lakes Golf 
Course, Portland, Ore.

“Notre Dame and the managers of 
the Warren Golf Course have done a 
terrific job at preserving this property 
as wildlife habitat while simultaneously 
keeping a lot of golfers happy. Audubon 
International could use Warren Golf 
Course as a model for training other 
golf courses.” — Laura Fuderer, 
Conservation Chair, South Bend- 
Elkhart Audubon Society, Recertifica­
tion Site Visit for Warren Golf Course, 
Notre Dame, Ind.

By participating in the ACSP, golf 
course representatives gain assurance 
that they are doing right by the envi­
ronment and the ability to invite others 
in with confidence. It is clear from the
site visits that have been conducted 
thus far that ACSP golf courses are 
making new allies while maintaining 
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary 
certification. And who would have 
guessed that on-site verification might 
become some of the best public 
relations a golf course could have?

Jean Mackay is the director of 
educational services and Jeremy Taylor 
is staff ecologist for Audubon International. 
For more information, visit: 
tvww. auduboninternational. org 
or contact Jean Mackay at 
imackay@auduboninternational.org.

News Notes
O’BRIEN LAUDED FOR
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE

Patrick O’Brien, director 

of the USGA Green 
Section Southeast 
Region, was honored by 

the Georgia Golf Course 
Superintendents Association 
(GGCSA) with its 2006 
Distinguished Service Award. 
The annual award is presented 
for outstanding service to the 
GGCSA and the advancement 
of the golf course superinten­
dent profession. The plaque 
was presented by GGCSA 
President Richard Staughton, 
CGCS. Patrick joined the 
USGA Green Section staff 
in 1979.

ty McClellan joins
THE GREEN SECTION STAFF
AS MID-CONTINENT AGRONOMIST

The USGA Green Section is proud 

to announce that Ty McClellan 
has joined the Mid-Continent 
Region as an agronomist. He will be 

working with Bud White, who has 
been promoted to director of the Mid­
Continent Region, after the departure 
of Paul Vermeulen, who left the staff 
in November 2006.

Ty holds an M.S. degree in horti­

culture, specializing in turfgrass science, 
from the University of Nebraska- 
Lincoln. Most recently he worked at 
the Golf Course Superintendents
Association of America as a chapter liaison for organizational development in their 
Member Services Department. In 2003, Ty was selected as one of the 15 students 
from across the country to participate in the USGA Green Section Internship 
Program, during which he spent a week making Turf Advisory Service visits 
with Green Section agronomists.

Ty will be making Turf Advisory Service visits in the states of Kansas, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. The USGA Green Section staff welcomes 
him aboard and wishes him much success.

PHYSICAL SOILTESTING 
LABORATORIES
The following laboratories are accredited by the American 
Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), having 
demonstrated ongoing competency in testing materials 
specified in the USGA’s Recommendations for Putting Green 
Construction. The USGA recommends that only A2LA-accredited 
laboratories be used for testing and analyzing materials for 
building greens according to our guidelines.

Brookside Laboratories, Inc.
308 Main Street, New Knoxville, OH 45871
Attn: Mark Flock
Voice phone: (419) 753-2448
FAX: (419) 753-2949
E-Mail: mflock@BLINC.COM

Dakota Analytical, Inc.
1503 11 th Ave. NE, E. Grand Forks, MN 56721 
Attn: Diane Rindt, Laboratory Manager 
Voice phone: (701) 746-4300 or (800) 424-3443 
FAX: (218) 773-3151 
E-Mail: lab@dakotapeat.com

European Turfgrass Laboratories Ltd.
Unit 58, Stirling Enterprise Park 
Stirling FK7 7RP Scotland 
Attn:Ann Murray
Voice phone: (44) 1786-449195
FAX: (44) 1786-449688

Hummel & Co.
35 King Street, RO. Box 606 
Trumansburg, NY 14886 
Attn: Norm Hummel 
Voice phone: (607) 387-5694 
FAX: (607) 387-9499 
E-Mail: soildr I @zoom-dsl.com

ISTRC New Mix Lab LLC
1530 Kansas City Road, Suite I 10
Olathe, KS 66061
Voice phone: (800) 362-8873
FAX: (913) 829-8873
E-Mail: istrcnewmixlab@worldnet.att.net

Sports Turf Research Institute 
hyperlink to www.stri.co.uk 
St. Ives Estate, Bingley
West Yorkshire BDI6 I AU
England
Attn: Michael Baines
Voice phone: +44 (0) 1274-565131
FAX:+44(0) 1274-561891
E-Mail: stephen.baker@stri.org.uk

Thomas Turf Services, Inc.
2151 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, Suite 302 
College Station,TX 77840-5247
Attn: BobYzaguirre, Lab Manager
Voice phone: (979) 764-2050
FAX: (979) 764-2152
E-Mail: soiltest@thomasturf.com

Tifton Physical Soil Testing Laboratory, Inc.
1412 Murray Avenue,Tifton, GA 31794
Attn: Powell Gaines
Voice phone: (229) 382-7292
FAX: (229) 382-7992
E-Mail: pgaines@friendlycity.net

Turf Diagnostics & Design, Inc.
613 E. First Street, Linwood, KS 66052
Attn: Sam Ferro
Voice phone: (913) 723-3700
FAX: (913) 723-3701
E-Mail: sferro@turfdiag.com

MARCH-APRIL 2007

35

All Things Considered

“Sometimes We Just Need Handcuffs”
Nothing is sometimes the best thing to do.

BY DAVID A. OATIS

The title of this article is a favorite 

quote from a wise and very 
experienced superintendent.

When turf is in trouble and the weather 
is extreme, the hardest thing for a golf 
course superintendent to do is nothing. 
Surprisingly, sometimes that may be 
the best thing to do.

The pressures of maintaining good 

turf and good playability sometimes 
push superintendents towards imple­
menting solutions that may be unwise. 
Some solutions may have no basis in 
science and have minimal chances of 
success, some may be a waste of money, 
and others may just be too aggressive. 
The “kitchen sink” syndrome, trying 
everything imaginable to stop the 
decline of turf, is easy to fall into, and 
it is easy to understand why. The 
pressure to maintain good turf and 
good playability, and the desire to 
keep a job, can be excruciating!

There are a few problems with 
the kitchen-sink approach: it can be 
expensive and it can be impossible to 
determine what actually is responsible 
for the turf improvement. Worse yet, 
aggressive treatments can ruin play­
ability and push more turf over the 
edge, causing further turf decline 
and loss.

What is the right approach? In some 

situations, the turf is so weak and the 
weather is so extreme that there is little 
that can be done to avoid turf loss. In 
extreme situations, just about anything 
that is done to the turf adds to the 
stress level. The 2005 and 2006 seasons 
in the Northeast Region were very 
difficult, and stress and physical injury 
(from mowing, rolling, traffic, etc. 
under high temperatures) seemed to 

36

GREEN SECTION RECORD

kill as much turf as diseases did. Cut­
ting too low for too long depletes the 
turf’s energy reserves and weakens it 
to a point where nearly any disease, 
or possibly even traffic alone, can 
kill it. The keys in these situations 
are to minimize losses and avoid 
compounding mistakes.

There are times when it is important 
to show golfers that something is being 
done to protect the turf, and one of 
most common reactions is to get out 
the aerator and “punch some holes in 
the ground.” If soils are anaerobic and 
the timing is right, cultivation can 
breathe new life into tired, declining 
turf. There are times when getting out 
the aerator can make the difference 
between life and death for turf, but 
keep in mind that cultivation causes 
turf injury and can disrupt putting 
surfaces. Aerators can kill turf if they 
are used improperly or at the wrong 
time. So, before you reach for the 
aerator or make the next application of 
fertilizer, pesticide, or growth regu­
lator, evaluate the risk/reward benefit. 
Ask yourself what the outcomes of your 
actions might be. There are innumer­
able scenarios to consider, but here is a 
common one in the Northeast:

It is early to mid July and some putt­

ing green turf has already been lost. 
More turf seems to be fading, and 
there is a strong desire to get seed in 
the ground to promote recovery. 
Depending on where your course is 
geographically and what the problem 
and weather outlook are, punching 
small holes may be a good idea. How­
ever, aggressive cultivation (large 
hollow tines and/or deep verticutting, 
topdressing, dragging, etc.) may cause 

more injury and push borderline turf 
over the edge. Moreover, seed planted 
in early or mid July is not likely to 
have a high survival rate, particularly 
if the green is kept in play, and these 
disruptive processes can destroy putt­
ing quality for the rest of the season. 
Worse yet, the surface and thatch layer 
may be so weakened by these practices 
that it may be impossible to repeat 
them in a few weeks, when the timing 
is optimal for turf recovery, without 
causing extreme surface disruption.

This may be the hardest time of all 
for a golf course superintendent to do 
nothing, but it might just be the best 
time. Waiting a few weeks until early 
or mid August or until temperatures 
moderate and the disruptive procedures 
have a better chance of stimulating 
recovery could be the best move.

Golf course superintendents tend to 
be take-charge, can-do people who are 
accustomed to being faced with prob­
lems that require decisive action. It 
is ingrained in their very nature to 
identify problems and take action to 
solve them. However, patience is a 
virtue and acknowledging that the turf 
“looks bad but plays fine” for a short 
period of time can sometimes be the 
best approach. A wise person once 
said, “When you find yourself in a 
hole, the first thing to do is stop dig­
ging.” Another way of saying this is, 
“Sometimes we just need handcuffs.”

David Oatis joined the USGA Green 
Section in 1988 as an agronomist in the 
Mid-Atlantic Region and has been director 
of the Northeast Region since March 1990.

GREEN SECTION
NATIONAL OFFICES

United States Golf 
Association, Golf House
P.O. Box 708
Far Hills, NJ 07931
(908) 234-2300 Fax (908) 781-1736
James T. Snow, National Director 
jsnow@usga.org
Kimberly S. Erusha, Ph.D., 
Director of Education 
kerusha@usga.org

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
770 Sam Bass Road
McGregor, TX 76657
(254) 848-2202 Fax(254) 848-2606
James F. Moore, Director 
jmoore@usga.org

1032 Rogers Place
Lawrence, KS 66049
785-832-2300
Jeff Nus, Ph.D., Manager 
jnus@usga.org

Northwest

•Mid-Atlantic Region
Stanley J. Zontek, Director 
szontek@usga.org
Darin S. Bevard, Senior Agronomist 
dbevard@usga.org
485 Baltimore Pike, Suite 203 
Glen Mills, PA 19342
(610) 558-9066 Fax (610) 558-1135

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

Ty McClellan, Agronomist 
tmcclellan@usga.org

•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, Senior 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
505 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 121
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 542-5766 Fax (714) 542-5777

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

©2007 by United States Golf Association®

Subscriptions $18 a year, Canada/Mexico 
$21 a year, and international $33 a year 
(airmail).

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

FTI C*T urt

Why does the USGA 
Web site list only a few of 
the physical soil testing 
laboratories in the country? 
Isn’t this biased against the 
labs that are not on the list? 
(Arizona)

The laboratories on 
the USGA Web site have 
achieved full accreditation 
with the American Associa­
tion for Laboratory Accredi-

tation. Accredited labs 
undergo rigorous testing 
and inspections to ensure 
they provide the best infor­
mation possible. They also 
work with the USGA to 
constantly try to improve 
laboratory testing proce­
dures, which in turn bene­
fits the entire industry. For 
these reasons, the USGA 
strongly recommends only 
accredited labs be used.

Some members of my 

Green Committee feel that 
we should change hole 
locations on our greens on 
a daily basis. We have not 
done this in the past because 
we receive a low number of 
golf rounds during the week. 
Should we be changing holes 
every day? Any thoughts 
will be appreciated. (West 
Virginia)

The number of times 
hole locations are changed 
each week on a given golf 
course varies, the principal 
consideration being the level 
of traffic the greens receive. 
For daily play, the main 
purpose for changing the 
hole is to distribute traffic 
over the entire surface of the 
green to prevent wear 

damage. Additionally, holes 
should be changed if they 
are damaged. After heavy 
play days, the holes should 
be changed to prevent wear 
to specific areas on the 
greens. Consider that if you 
change holes every day from 
May 1 to September 30, you 
will have approximately 150 
old holes that will need to 

heal. This can lead to more 
scalped, unsightly plugs and 
possible effects on putting 
quality. Lightly played 
courses generally change 
holes on Tuesday, Thursday, 
Saturday, and Sunday, while 
heavily played courses usually 
change hole locations daily, 
depending on the size of the 
greens and other variables.

I have heard that many 
courses add a layer of new 
bunker sand to their bunkers 
each spring. Is this a good 
way to prepare the bunkers 
for play each season? 
(Delaware)

The answer is, probably 
not! Capping the bunkers 
with new sand is more of a 
Band-Aid strategy than 

correcting a bigger problem. 
However, there may be 
good reasons for adding a 
layer of sand: 1) top off a 
recently completed bunker 
renovation, 2) new drainage 
was installed and the sand 
finally settled, 3) more sand 
may be needed to achieve 
the proper uniform sand 
depth. If the bunkers drain 
poorly, are contaminated

with silt and clay, or contain 
improperly sized sand, then 
they should be renovated 
rather than capped with 
more sand. You are only 
delaying the inevitable by 
adding a light layer of sand. 
The bunker should be re­
built if the internal drainage 
system is compromised or if 
surface drainage channels 
water into the bunker.

www.usga.org