THE BULLETIN of the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION GREEN SECTION Vol. 9 Washington, D. C., April, 1929 No. 4 Con ten ts Page Soils in Relation to Golf Course Turf. J. G. Lipman........................................ 62 Sun Helps Geraniums Poison Japanese Beetles.................................................. 71 Zonate Eye-Spot Disease of Turf Grass. Arnold S. Dahl................................. 71 Brown-Patch Fungicides. John Monteith, Jr...................................................... 76 Questions and Answers............................................................................................ 77 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Wykant D. Vanderpool, Chairman, P. O. Box 77, Newark, N. .1. Russell A. Oakley, Washington, D. C. Harvey L. Westover, Washington, D. C. H. Kendall Read, Philadelphia, Pa. Walter S. Harban, Washington, D. C. H. Y. Barrow, New York, N. Y. John Monteith, Jr., Washington, D. C. Cornelius S. Lee, New York, N. Y. Robert M. Cutting, Chicago, Ill. RESEARCH COMMITTEE United States Department or Agriculture Russell A. Oakley, Chairman. Harvey L. Westover, Acting Chairman. United States Golf Association John Monteith, Jr. Kenneth Welton. Thb Bulletin is published monthly by the United States Golf Association Green Section, Washington, D. C., at Room 7207, Building F, 7th and B Streets, N. W. Address all MAIL to P. O. Box 313, Pennsylvania Avenue Station, Washington, D. C. Send TELEGRAMS to Room 7207, Building F, 7th and B Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C. Subscription Price: In United States of America, Mexico, and West Indies, 34.00 per year; in all other countries, 35.00 per year. Entered as second-class matter, April 21, 1926, at the postoffice at Washington, D. C.. under the Act of March 3. 1879. Copyrighted, 1929, by the United States Golf Association Green Section. 62 Vol. 9, No. 4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE W,. A. Alhxandes, Chicago, Ill. Eberhard Anheuser, St. Louis, Mo. A. C. U. Berry, Portland, Oreg. N. S. Campbell, Providence, R. I. Wm. C. Fownes, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. F. H. Hillman, Washington, D. C. Thos. P. Hinman, Atlanta, Ga. Frederic C. Hood, Watertown, Mass. K. F. Kellerman, Washington, D. C. Norman Macbeth, Los Angeles, Calif. E. J. Marshall, Toledo, Ohio. W. L. Pfeffer, St. Louis, Mo. George V. Rotan, Houston, Tex. Sherrill Sherman, Utica, N. Y. Frederick Snare, Havana, Cuba. James D. Standish, Jr., Detroit, Mich. Charles E. Van Nest, Minneapolis, Minn. W. R. Walton, Washington, D. C. Alan D. Wilson, Philadelphia, Pa. M. H. Wilson, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio. Frank L. Woodward, Denver, Colo. Soils in Relation to Golf Course Turf1 By J. G. Lipman A sample of milk freshly drawn, when examined chemically or bacteriologically is found to possess certain definite characteristics. The number of bacteria in fresh milk is usually small and the species are easy to identify. When the milk is set aside and allowed to stand in a warm place a rapid change takes place not only in the kinds of bacteria that we find and their relative proportions but also in the number of bacteria present, and, under normal conditions, as we know, the milk turns sour. The souring is due largely to bacteria of one type which outgrow’ the other types of organisms that are nor­ mally found in milk; and the bacteriologist usually offers the explana­ tion that milk is peculiarly suitable for the growth or multiplication of lactic acid bacteria. They outgrow any other bacteria under nor­ mal conditions. We may apply this fact toward a better understanding of what happens in the average soil used in the growing of grass and of any other plants. We consider the soil as a culture medium, not only for invisible organisms but primarily for higher plants. We recognize from our experience and observation that certain types of plants occur prominently in one place or another. So we recognize certain forest growth, whether it is soft wood or hard wood, and associations of trees of different types. We recognize similar types and associa­ tions of plants in meadows, prairies, marshes, and other situations. It requires no special study to see that there is something in soil and climatic conditions that may favor one or another type of vegetation. The interest of the greenkeeper and of others concerned with grass culture and the management of grassland lies naturally in the condi­ tions that would be specially favorable for the production of the plant or plants that are his immediate problem. It is therefore my inten­ tion to discuss the subject from that point of view. We know in the first place that soils vary as to texture. Any careful observer knows that there are so-called light soils, so-called heavy soils, and soils that lie between the two. We know, also, that grass culture is difficult on certain types of soil, particularly the sandy loam soils. And we know that where the question of expense is a subordinate one, natural difficulties may be overcome. It is the problem of research to show how these natural difficulties may be overcome lest the average greenkeeper might throw up his hands and admit that the problem is beyond his power to solve. Now and then 1 This article by Dr. J. G. Lipman, director of Brunswick. N. J., contains the material presented in the Green Section in New York City January 5, 1929. the AKricu!‘ural Experiment Station at New his address delivered at the annual meetinR of April, 1929 63 we come across people who are in the frame of mind of the policeman in New York who was taking a promotion examination some years ago. At that time I think there was a mad-dog scare, and the ex­ aminer had this question to put up, which seemed to be timely: “What are rabies, and what can you do about them?” The answer was, .YRabies.are Jewish priests, and you can’t do a damned thing about it.” Such an attitude of mind on the part of the person responsible for the management of grasslands, including turf, is not of course a helpful one. It is the business of those who have been making a study of soils and other problems relating to turf culture to point out where diffi­ culties may be met and how they may be overcome. Let us say a few more words about soil texture. We understand by texture a condition of the soil determined by the size of the par­ ticles and the relative proportion of particles of different sizes, bear­ ing in mind, of course, that no soil has particles of uniform size. In fact, the student of soils makes what he calls a mechanical analysis of the soil. He separates the particles of different sizes into fractions, and he will tell you that there is a measureable percentage of coarse sand, medium sand, fine sand, clay, silt, or other ingredients. This mechanical analysis will enable the soil specialist to interpret the characteristics of the particular soil and its relation to plant pro­ duction. The greenkeeper and others interested in the immediate problems of turf culture know that the texture of a soil will be a deciding factor in the type of growth and the rate of growth that may be expected. The differences in texture are expressed in differences in resulting growth through the factors of water, air, and heat. In other words, the differences in texture will influence conditions as they affect the passing of air in and out of the soil, the movement of moisture in the soil, and, within a certain range, the temperature of the soil. All of these factors in their turn affect the rate of root development and of top growth. They affect the solution and movement of plant food in the soil, and these are expressed again in the growth and various con­ ditions surrounding growth. The problem of soil texture and its relation to the growth of turf has accordingly long been recognized as an important one, and we are beginning to see today how certain experimental work may be done which would be helpful in a practical way. I shall refer to that later. Then, something may be said about what the Germans have called soil climate. When we speak of climate we mean the range of humid­ ity, temperature, sunshine, and similar factors attending any par­ ticular location. When we think of soil climate, a term used in a more restricted sense, we bear in mind the same relations of soil tempera­ ture, the movement of air in and out of the soil, and the movement of moisture in the soil. Soil climate affects the activities of the in­ visible residents in the soil, the protozoa, fungi, bacteria, and other micro-organisms, and these create changes that influence plant growth. So again there is a connection between soil texture and soil climate and the ways and means of controlling or modifying soil climate that is of immediate and practical concern to persons inter­ ested in the production of turf. We come again to the question of the supply of plant food. In turf culture, the demands made on the soil are very much greater than the demands normally made by crops under field conditions. Some 64 Vol. 9, No. 4 recent investigations of soils, if they do not tend to modify some of the older views, at least raise a question. One hundred years ago pro­ gressive farmers believed that plants lived on decayed vegetable mat­ ter. Then the pendulum swung the other way, and the experts thought that the only thing of importance in the feeding of plants was the mineral matter in solution in the soil, the solid particles not being absorbed by the roots. But one or two papers which have appeared in the last two or three months make it appear that certain soil materi­ als need not actually be in solution provided the particles are small enough. It is, however, really a matter of relative size, since solu­ tion is the division of fragments of material into very small pieces so that they are scattered through the liquid, becoming invisible, as in a solution of salt or of sugar. The salt or the sugar is there, but the particles are invisible, being sufficiently small to find their way readily into the roots of the plants. We recognize that the soil moisture is at best a very dilute solu­ tion. If I may use an analogy, a person would have to eat many bowls of soup to get a square meal. Since with plants the food is taken by the roots out of solution, and that solution is at best a weak solu­ tion, then a relatively large amount of it must be absorbed, or the ma­ terial in solution must be taken out rather quickly, if it is to provide for vigorous and uninterrupted growth. We are thus forced to see that the ability of the soil or the material in the soil to pass into solu­ tion (the rate at which material in the soil becomes soluble) deter­ mines the rate of growth of the plant. Therefore texture, so-called soil climate, seasonal conditions, rainfall, temperature, and the like will influence the rate of feeding of crops; and these factors, again, we can modily by artificial treatment, a matter which I shall discuss presently; Of all things, we must remember that turf culture represents cul­ ture under an artificial environment. Conditions are very exacting. The cutting, the trampling, the intensified feeding, and the modify­ ing of the culture medium (the soil) as a result of this treatment, create an artificial condition which, as far as field conditions go, is an abnormal condition. When we cut turf we prune the tops of the grass plants, and, as with the pruning of apple or peach trees, the cutting must temporarily check the gowth of the plant. When the cutting is continued and is severe enough we are apt to discover that certain kinds of plants are unable to stand such treatment and consequently disappear. Very interesting studies are now being made on the sub­ ject—in England, particularly at the University of Cambridge, under the direction of Dr. Wood; in Wales, at the college of agriculture at Aberystwyth, under the direction of Prof. Stapledon; and in Ireland, at Dublin, under the direction of Prof. Drew. The experiments of these men lay considerable emphasis on what the close cutting of turf is doing, in the first place to the reserve of food in the roots and in the second place to the resistance of the plants to disease. These in­ vestigations are placing the whole question of turf culture before us in a new light. Let me go back to some of the earlier exneriments of Prof. Som- merville, of the School of Rural Economy of Oxford University, out of which he developed a process of grassland treatment that he referred to as fertilizing for meat. He began these experiments some twenty­ odd years ago, when he was located in Scotland. He recognized that April, 1929 65 pastures, or grasslands, vary in their ability to support live stock. Some will maintain (or carry, as the term goes) a larger number of animals on a given area than others. Grasslands differ in their carry­ ing capacity. It has been known, of course, that the carrying capac­ ity may be increased by manure. Prof. Sommerville devoted himself to the study of the effect of slag on the growth of grass. This par­ ticular type of slag, basic slag, is a by-product in the manufacture of iron or steel from iron ore that contains a relatively large amount of phosphorus. In this country our iron ores are not sufficiently high in phosphorus to call for the use of the process that is being employed in Europe, where they have high-phosphorus ores. I think the only instance in the United States is the ore used by the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, which produces thousands of tons of basic slag relatively high in phosphorus. These European basis slags are now less highly phosphatic than they were fifteen or twenty years ago. On account of modifications in the manufacturing process, the pres­ ent-day basic slag is not as valuable for fertilizer purposes as it was formerly, but there is still a good deal of it on the market. The slag is ground to a fine powder and scattered on the grassland, furnishing a material containing from 14 to 20 per cent of phosphoric acid and a considerable proportion of lime. Prof. Sommerville found in his work that where he scattered this slag on the grassland white clover became prominent, and because the white clover appeared in greater abundance the soil became richer in nitrogen, gathered from the air by the bacteria in the roots of the clover. By using basic slag he met two problems; he supplied phos­ phorus, which is necessary for the making of bone and meat, and he supplied nitrogen from the air by encouraging the growth of clover. When his experiments were well under way it was recognized how the treatment with basic slag changes the botanical picture of grasslands by modifying the competition. We saw more clearly then, and we see it still more clearly today, how by certain treatment of grasslands, whether they be greens or other areas of turf, we can modify the botanical picture. Experiments now in progress in England to which I refer have approached the subject from a different point of view. Very often the experimenters are interested in the carrying capacity of their grasslands and the composition of the grasses they cut as regards value for the feeding of live stock; but they nevertheless furnish in­ formation which we could very well apply to the immediate problems that the country club or golf association has to consider. These experiments, of immediate interest here, particularly those of Prof. Stapledon at Aberystwyth, in Wales, have to do with the selection and breeding of grasses more resistant to close grazing. He approached the problem from the grazing standpoint. Close grazing is very much like close cutting. Whether the cutting is done by an animal or a tool is immaterial. On cricket fields, lawns, and greens, where there is frequent cutting, the green tissue is not allowed to develop in any great mass, and this must weaken the plant. But there are some types of grasses that will resist this treatment or will stand it much better than others; and one of Prof. Stapledon’s objectives is to develop, by breeding, types of grasses that will stand cutting, or pruning, much better than the grasses commonly available. He is making some very interesting progress; and I think those who care 66 Vol. 9, No. 4 to follow the subject will find much of general as well as immediate interest in looking over some of the bulletins that are now being pub­ lished by the college of agriculture of the University of Wales. He has also developed types of grasses which are more nutritious and more valuable for animal husbandry. But I wish to lay particular emphasis on the point that it is possible to develop (and the develop­ ment is now taking place) grasses that will stand the artificial en­ vironment much better than those we have available at present. Just a word about the treatment to which I have referred and how this treatment affects the problems of your organization. What are these artificial conditions as we see them? We say, in the first place, that we feed heavily. In so doing we create a soil solution which is more concentrated than we normally find in the field or even in the garden. In other words, we have a richer medium, a richer solution, from which the roots draw their nourishment. In the second place, because we are partial to certain types of grasses we try to create an environment which will peculiarly favor these grasses; but in doing so we encounter problems of soil acidity which are very much in the foreground at present. We do not recognize as clearly that this treat­ ment, this intensification of the feeding of plants, also develops com­ petitive factors in the soil which we do not see. We know something about the problem of earthworms; but we do not understand about larvae of soil-infesting insects as they develop under these conditions; nor do we understand about the change in the picture of the organ­ isms in the soil because of this artificial or intensive treatment; neither do we fully understand, even though we are thinking a great deal about it, just what this artificial and intensive feeding is doing to the susceptibility of the plants to disease, or their resistance to dis­ ease. Here again we might have a problem in plant breeding where types of grasses might be developed which are normally more resist­ ant to disease under these artificial conditions. The greenkeeper in the older days (and these are not so far back of us) was inclined to depend on empirical methods for accomplish­ ing results. Just as in the older days farmers often kept live stock in order to have the waste material for maintaining the fertility of the soil, so the greenkeeper, depending on empirical methods which have been tried for a long time and proved to be more or less satis­ factory, has used compost. What is compost? Fifty years ago every­ body knew what compost was, even people living in the cities. It was a common commodity. Many of us would not know what compost is. As the term is generally understood, it refers to a mixture of soil and decaying vegetable or animal matter. Usually it is vegetable matter. We take soil and add to it this refuse material and let the process of decay and fermentation take place in it; that is, the billions of bac­ teria present cause fermentation, which in turn splits up the vege­ table or animal matter and increases the proportion of it that is readily available as plant food. Thus we produce a mixture of ma­ terials that will supply plant food and, at the same time, a large number of bacteria. When we apply bacteria we inoculate the soil, just as in the making of bread we apply yeast to a mixture of flour, water, and sugar in order to inoculate it, or as in the making of acidophilus milk we apply a culture of the acidophilus organism in order to induce a particular type of fermentation. A compost is rich in bacteria and other micro-organisms. When April, 1929 67 we apply composts to soil we supply not only plant food but also millions of invisible organisms which cause fermentation. The in­ soluble material partly passes into solution and favors the intensive feeding of the crop. We provide the material, and also the living machinery, which will change this material and put it into circulation. Beyond that, when we add compost we add a product which will lighten the soil, opening it up and permitting better circulation of air and water and altogether improving the texture and the chemical and biological conditions of the soil. That is why the empirical practice is so satisfactory. But because of our changing economic, labor, raw material, and other conditions we recognize the limitations of com­ post more clearly than we did five or ten years ago. We recognize that when we add compost to the soil we add something that is not always desirable. It may be weed seeds, by which we create competi­ tion between the grass and the types of plants that are not wanted. We may introduce certain fungi which cause disease. And then there is the question of supply and demand. For these reasons we have in recent years turned to other methods of maintaining a relatively high concentration of the soil solution for the intensive feeding of grass plants under the conditions of severe pruning to which they are sub­ jected. We are often very much perplexed when we begin to use these chemicals. They have been the cause of much satisfaction and much sorrow, as many of you no doubt know. The other day I was reading College Humor. That is not always funny, but this particular story, I thought, had some merit. It was about a young father who was expecting an increase in the family. He was pacing up and down the corridor of the hospital in great agi­ tation. The house physician, by way of encouraging him, said, “Cheer up, old man, we have never lost a father.” Just then the nurse poked her head out of the room and announced triplets. And that is the time they lost their first father. Very often the greenkeeper comes near having heart failure because he applies some of these new chem­ ical fertilizers and then finds himself with a serious situation on his hands, either because he was not properly informed as to the method of their use or because the materials were not suited to his particular conditions. One thing which, I notice, is receiving a good deal of discussion at meetings like this, is the question of soil acidity. Fundamentally the problem is very simple. We are maintaining artificial conditions so as to grow a type of grass which is suitable for the cricket field, lawn, or green, and we do not want any more competition for this particular species of grass than we can help having. The soil investi­ gator and the plant physiologist have this to tell us: “If you maintain your soil at a certain pH, then white clover or bluegrass will have to stay out.” In other words, you favor bent grasses in the competition, and they win out, just as in the bottle of milk the milk sugar favors the development of the lactic acid bacteria. When the experimental work was started in Washington some experts claimed that sulphate of ammonia and other ammonium salts would increase the acidity of the soil and give the bent grasses a chance to crowd out everything else. They would win out because they would be favored. I had my misgivings when I heard this, for although I recognized that the prac­ tice was sound at the beginning, there were certain dangers that should have been understood and anticipated. 68 Vol. 9, No. 4 We had a similar situation with our potato growers in New Jer­ sey. As you probably know, potato growers are troubled by various diseases, and among them a fungus which causes scab. The potatoes may be so scabby as to be practically unsalable. This fact has been under investigation for many years, and it was shown that the scab fungus would not thrive in a soil that is acid beyond a certain point. Dr. Wheeler, whom I see in the audience, when he was director of the Rhode Island Experiment Station, was a pioneer in showing the rela­ tion of the acidity of soil to the development of scab on potatoes. On the strength of that many enthusiasts said, “Let us use sulphur, ground brimstone, and apply it to the soil for certain bacteria that eat this brimstone and change it into sulphuric acid. Thus we will stop the potato scab.” This was done accordingly. But the enthusiasts forgot that the conditions in the soil do not remain unchanged. It would be helpful if in the treatment of soil we could create a perma­ nent condition, as when we place a chair in a permanent place. But conditions in the soil change all the time. A good many greenkeepers are in the position of the man in New England who prayed for a barrel of sugar and a barrel of flour and a barrel of oatmeal and a barrel of pepper, and then decided that he was asking for too much pepper. Too much acid! I am told that Dr. Monteith reported yesterday on the use of lime. Two or three years ago, if anyone recommended to a greenkeeper the use of lime he would have been accused of heresy. The common atti­ tude is usually expressed as follows: “We do not want lime. It will bring weeds and crab grass. It would be foolish to use it.” But here we started with a fact and an assumption perfectly sound, that by maintaining the acidity of the soil at a certain point we could create conditions which are peculiarly favorable for the bent grasses and thus enable them to win out in the competition. But we forgot that we could increase the soil acidity to a point where we destroyed even the bent grasses. In some of our experimental work years ago we sterilized the soil by means of sulphur. We used two tons of brim­ stone to the acre; but we made the soil so acid that it became entirely barren. Nothing would grow on it, because it was too sour. We could use sulphate of ammonia or nitrate of ammonia or urea and continue long enough to make the soil sour to the point of being barren. But before we should have reached that point the plant would have become weakened and its ability to resist disease dimin­ ished. And then we would consider a lot of new diseases. The plant pathologist often finds much satisfaction in the discovering of a new disease. I remember overhearing two medical students refer to “a most beautiful case of cancer.” With them it was a professional interest. Similarly the plant pathologist experiences professional pride when he discovers brown-patch or other plant diseases. But at the same time he will tell you, and will be the first to tell you, that certain diseases appear or become troublesome only when the resist­ ance of the plant is weakened. He will tell you that artificial soil con­ ditions often weaken the resistance to disease. There is the severe pruning, the using up of the reserve of the food in the roots, the con­ centrated solution, the over-stimulating of growth; and all these con­ ditions do weaken the resistance of the plant. We are in a fair wav to modify our treatment as regards the use of chemicals. We have recognized that (to use the chemical term) April, 1929 69 we might have a pH that is too low—a soil that is too sour even for bent grass. There is the danger of becoming over-enthusiastic and over-dosing the soil with lime. We are then just as bad off as we were before. The greenkeeper is inclined to become discouraged and say, “What shall I do ? This is a most peculiar situation. I add sul­ phate of ammonia, and then lime, and then a little more sulphate of ammonia. It seems as if I were operating a chemical laboratory; and the operation is too complicated to suit me.” If we are to produce the results that we are expected to produce we might just as well recognize what the fundamental facts and rela­ tions are. For this, technical talent is necessary. It is not very ex­ pensive these days. That is what specialists are for. I wanted to refer to some experimental work that we should be justified in undertaking. But speaking as a specialist I am tempted to tell a story that I have told before. It is a good story and will bear repeating. One of my former students, who is interested in golf courses on Long Island, came in to see me several weeks ago, and, as former students will do, came to give me some information; but out of consideration for my feelings he would not put it as boldly as all that. He said, “Doctor, I came in to ask you a question. What is the difference between a specialist and a philosopher?” Of course I knew that he was there with something on his mind, and I was ready to absorb it. He said, “A specialist has to do with a narrow field of human knowledge, a few things or one thing. A philosopher covers the whole field of human knowledge. The field of human knowledge is increasing all the time. We are finding out facts and establishing new principles, and the body of knowledge is growing very fast. A specialist must confine himself to a smaller and smaller fraction of this great body of knowledge. As time goes on he knows more and more about less and less. That is a specialist. The philosopher, on the other hand, because he must deal with the whole field of human knowledge, knows less and less about more and more.” Then he looked at me in a benign way and continued, “I am coming to the point. To carry this to a logical conclusion it would seem that ulti­ mately the specialist will know everything about nothing and the philosopher will know nothing about everything.” And so, whatever the fate of these specialists and technical men may be, we have to depend on them, and we call them in where their peculiar type of knowledge may help us. We might just as well face it—and your association recognizes it—that because of the peculiar conditions that we are trying to maintain, because of the peculiar technical problems that we are creating, we must furnish expert ad­ vice for the men in charge of the turf maintenance problems on our golf courses, and place these men in a position where they can get in touch with persons who can answer questions which they themselves are not in a position to answer. I have perhaps taken undue advantage of you in discussing the problem at so great a length. But before I close I should like to refer to a few matters which we might profitably bear in mind, and these are matters pertaining to investigations that we might carry on to clear up a lot of questions that we do not now fully understand. In the first place, because there is a wide range in soil texture between a course, let us say, at Atlantic City, and some courses in northern New Jersey where the soil is very heavy, we might think that theo­ 70 Vol. 9, No. 4 retically it would be very convenient if we could standardize the soil texture of greens. The cost might not be prohibitive. For instance, if we could standardize a mixture consisting of definite proportions of medium sand, fine sand, silt, and clay, and then also, under the given climatic conditions, standardize the supply of water and chem­ ical plant food, we should have very simple conditions for the men in charge of the greens to deal with. That is a theoretical conception. There is, however, a practical side to it, in that after we carry on certain preliminary studies we could, within reasonable expense, establish certain important conditions, certain important facts, as to the best texture that would allow us to maintain under our particular conditions the best type of grass or turf. I think that is one phase of study that would be profitable. We could find .a great rdeal of helpful information if we knew what the use of different kinds of chemicals, different amounts of chem­ icals, different; proportions of chemicals, would do to the rate of flow of material into the soil solution, the rate of the spread of the roots, the rate of creating a food reserve in the root system, and the rate of passage of the food into the top of the plant. We should profit greatly if we could look into the soil and see what is happening to the bac­ teria, the fungi, the protozoa, the earthworms, and the soil-infesting insects as we modify these conditions and particularly the nature of the solution in the soil. We know very little about it. We also know very little about the effect that certain fungicides, whether they be compounds of arsenic or compounds of copper, have in modifying the living machinery ;of the soil to which I referred some moments ago— the bacteria, that are responsible for fermentation and stimulation of the flow of soluble food into the soil solution. And along with this we should study the relation of this treatment to disease resistance, hardiness, trampling, and weeds. Our bent grasses are of primary interest here.: How is their existence modified by these treatments, especially the chemical and bacteriological changes in the soil? Perhaps I should stop here. But I am tempted to add that I am very hopeful that the work you have already undertaken in the Mid­ west, Canada,-, and the East, in providing more definite information on the technical phases of your problem, will give you very satisfac­ tory results, and that within a short time, within a year or two, the man at the front, the greenkeeper who has to bear the burden of man­ agement, will find this burden considerably lessened. Roadside trees.—Oak trees, of which there are species native to nearly all parts of the country, are more generally used for roadside planting than any other kind of tree. Maples are next in importance for a large part of the country, but as the most-used species are not well adapted for the purpose, the selection must be carefully made. For the cooler dry regions the most promising trees are the green ash, common:locust, hackberry, thornless honey-locust, and poplars, with boxelderi; .willows, and poplars for the extremes of cold and drought. In warm, dry climates the eucalyptus, or gums, the palms, the Jerusalem thorn, and the mesquite are good. Only thrifty, vigorous trees, with healthy foliage, look well on country roads. To secure this type for any location it is usually best to select native varieties, although trees from localities with similar growing conditions are frequently satisfactory. April, 1929 71 Sun Helps Geraniums Poison Japanese Beetles An insect poison that seems to need the aid of the sun to develop its best effects has been observed in connection with the campaign against the Japanese beetle. It has been known for some time that geraniol, an oil which occurs in geraniums and some other plants, is very effective in attracting the beetles, and this bait or attrahent has been used to concentrate beetles on a single tree where they can be killed by a poison. It has also been known that the beetles feed on geraniums, and that such feeding is often followed by paralysis or death. Articles suggesting that geraniums could be used for controlling beetles have frequently appeared in newspapers in the districts infested by the pest. The effects of geraniums on the Japanese beetle have been studied by Charles H. Ballou, of the Bureau of Entomology. He found that the insects are dra’wn to the plant and eat it, both flowers and foliage. Many of the beetles are paralyzed and fall beneath the geranium plants. In the ordinary course of events some of the beetles recover and others die. But in making observations of the effect of geranium poisoning, Mr. Ballou observed that if beetles fed on geraniums in the sun many more were paralyzed than when they fed on geraniums in the shade. He also found that the flowers of the geranium were somewhat more poisonous than the foliage of the plant, although either would cause the death of a considerable proportion of the beetles feeding. One of the most interesting facts discovered was that 24 hours after death by geranium poisoning the entire digestive system of the beetle was destroyed. Because of the poisonous effect of geraniums on the beetles Mr. Ballou suggests that a thorough study of the chemical nature of the plant might lead to the discovery of a new and better poison than any used for control of the beetles at present. Zonate Eye-Spot Disease of Turf Grass By Arnold S. Dahl In the summer of 1928 a leaf-spot disease was common on certain strains of bent grass. The disease probably occurred in all of the northern states east of the Mississippi River. It was observed at Minneapolis, Kansas City, Chicago, Detroit, De Kalb (Ill.), La Fay­ ette (Ind.), London (Ohio), the Metropolitan district (N. Y.), Phila­ delphia, Cumberland (Md.), Washington, and Richmond, where it caused more or less injury, in some cases severely thinning the grass on the putting greens and reducing the vigor of the plants in nursery rows. At Cumberland it was reported that several putting greens had large areas severely damaged by this disease. At the Country Club of Virginia, Richmond, some of the greens observed were com­ pletely defoliated. This was also the case with some of the plots at the Arlington Turf Garden. The disease is caused by the fungus Hebninthosporhi-m giganteum. This fungus is related to those which cause net-blotch, spot-blotch, and stripe disease of many of the cereal crops. Many other species of Helminthosporium cause diseases of a variety of plants, including 72 Vol. 9, No. 4 all of the common turf grasses. Each species, however, has a more or less restricted range of hosts. As an example, the one causing the stripe disease of cereals is not serious on bents, neither is the one de­ scribed on bluegrass in the September, 1925, issue of the Bulletin a serious pest of the bent grasses. Fig- 1.—Leaves of Virginia creeping hent (about twice natural size), showing early stages of the zonate eye-spot disease. The eye-like spots with bleached centers and distinct dark rings are char­ acteristic of the disease. On some of these spots light-colored zones are also evident just outside the dark rings. The later stages of the disease are shown in Fig. 2. The zonate eye-spot disease appears first as a small, dark, brown speck, which in a short time may spread to a diameter of 1/16 to 1/8 April, 1929 73 inch. The center of the speck then bleaches, leaving a straw-colored spot surrounded by a brown ring (Fig. 1). When a droplet of water occurs on this spot the filaments of the fungus grow out into the water and attack the surrounding healthy areas of the leaf which are covered by water. The spread of the fungus is limited to the portion F:g. 2.—Advanced stages of the zonate eye spot d’sease on leaves of Virginia creeping bent (about twice natural size). It will be seen from the photograph that the disease has spread out in zones around the original eye-spots, leaving large discolored blotches, which in time dry out. Leaves as generally affected as those shown in the photograph usually soon wither and die. resulting in a thin and badly discolored turf, as shown in Fig. 3. of the leaf covered by the droplet. Repeated periodic spreading of the disease into new zones gives rise to the zonate appearance of the older spots (Fig. 2). When conditions are favorable for the disease, the lesions may spread across the leaf, and the entire portion above 74 Vol. 9, No. 4 the spot will be killed. If many of these large spots occur, especially near the base of the leaves, whole patches of turf may be entirely defoliated in a comparatively short time. In such cases symptoms of this disease are frequently confused with those of large brown­ patch. On narrow-leaved grasses, such as velvet bent, even a small spot soon spreads across the blade and the leaf withers and dies. Helminthosporium giganteum was described in 1911 as causing a leaf-spot disease of Bermuda grass in Texas. Since that time it has been observed on a large number of grasses and has been regarded as the limiting factor in growing Bermuda grass in some sections. Dr. Drechsler, of the United States Department of Agriculture, has re­ ported this fungus on 23 different host plants. Many of these were Fig. 3—An illustration of the difference in resistance of two strains of creeping bent to the zonate eye-spot disease. The three plots on the right are of Virginia creeping bent, whereas those on the left are of the Washington strain. The general discoloration of the Virginia bent was due chiefly to a severe attack of the eye-spot disease. Some discoloration is evident on the Washington bent, but th s was due chiefly to brown-patch. The two plots in the background were cut at lawn or fairway length, whereas the four plots in the foreground were cut at putting green length. It will be seen that the Virginia bent was less injured by the disease when the grass was allowed to grow longer. unimportant weeds, but some were widely grown crop plants. Among the susceptible hosts he reported were Bermuda grass, goose grass, wild rye, brome grass, couch grass, and snake grass. Among the more resistant hosts he listed were Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and finger grass. It has been observed that some strains of creeping bent are very susceptible while others are very resistant. The disease spreads by the dissemination of the spores of the fungus, probably through the agency of spattering water, clippings, mowing equipment, and other mechanical means. Since the spores are very large they probably are not carried far by the wind. When a spore falls on a leaf, provided conditions are favorable for its de­ velopment, it germinates and sends out filaments which enter the leaf. These filaments, or mycelium, penetrate the cells of the leaf and live April, 1929 75 upon their contents. These affected cells soon die, the leaf becoming first brown and later bleaching to a straw color. After the cells are dead the fungus sends filaments out from the surface of the leaf, and on these a new crop of spores is borne. The spores are never very numerous, only a few being borne on each spot. They are short-lived and soon die if they do not find a favorable place for germination and growth. Thus the spread of the disease is closely dependent on cli­ matic conditions. Two conditions favorable for germination of the spores and spread of this fungus are high temperature and plenty of moisture; this again often leads to confusion with large brown-patch, since these climatic conditions also favor the brown-patch fungus. The disease is most serious during warm wet seasons, but when once established it may continue to cause much damage even during the cooler periods of late summer or early fall. The daily watering cus­ tomary on most putting greens encourages the fungus and probably accounts for its damage on putting green turf. The disease, unlike brown-patch, is not definitely limited to certain patches on a green, but wherever it occurs as a serious problem it is usually found that nearly every blade of grass on the green has a few spots. Later, as the disease becomes more severe, patches may be seen where no green leaves remain, and on the rest of the green the turf may be very thin. There is a wide difference in the resistance of various strains of bent grass. The Virginia strain of creeping bent is the most sus­ ceptible of any that have come under our observation. This strain is widely grown throughout the territory where the disease was com­ mon in the summer of 1928. At Richmond, Cumberland, Minneapolis, and Arlington it was the Virginia strain that suffered the greatest in­ jury. At Richmond this strain has been reported to die out every summer and it is probable that eye-spot disease has been an impor­ tant contributing factor to this condition. The Washington and Met­ ropolitan strains of creeping bent appear to be very resistant, only a few spots having been observed on the Metropolitan during the season and none on the Washington. The difference in resistance between the Virginia and Washington strains may be seen in figure 3. Among the various strains of velvet bent being tested at the Arlington Turf Garden there were also observed decided differences in resistance to attacks by this fungus. It was also noted that the more closely cut turf was more severely damaged than that where the mower was set higher. It is probable that the best way to control this disease is to plant resistant strains of grass. In regions where the disease appears year after year it would be especially important to grow a resistant strain. In preliminary tests the ordinary treatments with fungicides ap­ peared to be unsuccessful in controlling this disease. Efforts will, however, be continued to find some way in which fungicides may be used with success. Freshly painted flag poles brighten a whole course. A good color combination for a flag pole is alternate strips of black and white. This combination helps much in showing off the flag pole, especially if a black strip is at the bottom of the pole and a white strip at the top. Poles should be repainted at least once a month, and flags re­ newed as often. 76 Vol. 9, No. 4 Brown-Patch Fungicides By John Monteith, Jr. At this season of the year there is always much discussion as to what chemicals are best for controlling brown-patch. Following the great damage to turf during the summer of 1928 there was evidence of much skepticism as to the value of the common brown-patch reme­ dies. The results at the Arlington Turf Garden and the experiences of many golf clubs would indicate that the common mercuric fungicides are still the most effective chemicals to be used against brown-patch. We can not remind our. readers too often that all grass which turns brown is not necessarily suffering from the large or the small brown­ patch. A great deal of the loss of turf last season could not be ascribed to either of these diseases. Many of the attempts to check the spread of the browned areas on greens with these fungicides were futile for the simple reason that other diseases or other unfavorable conditions which were not affected by the fungicides were in reality responsible for the damage. In many cases when one treatment failed to check the browning, repeated applications of fungicides and fertilizers were made in an effort to restore the grass to health. In spite of all the warnings against the use of too much or too many chemicals when grass is weakened, it may be safely asserted that in many cases the damage last year was due to injudicious application of chemicals. It must be remembered that there are several diseases of turf and several soil and climatic conditions that are unfavorable to turf production, none of which will yield to brown-patch fungicides. Experiences last summer showed that when properly used the common mercuric fungicides which we have recommended in recent years are effective in controlling normal attacks of brown-patch. We therefore continue to recommend the use of the familiar remedies now on the market, including bichloride of mercury (corrosive sub­ limate), calomel, and chlorophenol mercury (Semesan). There are also combinations of bichloride and calomel sold under trade names which are equally effective. As we have recommended in the past, we advise the use of fer­ tilizers in addition to fungicides wherever fertilizers are necessary. The fungicide merely checks the disease and the fertilizer then helps to develop a vigorous growth of grass. It must be borne in mind, however, that when greens are abundantly supplied with food they should not be given any further fertilizers when the grass is weak­ ened by brown-patch or any other injury. When grass is not thriv­ ing, the common assumption apparently is that it is starved. Such is not necessarily the case, and attempts to force growth by fertilizers may prove disastrous, as many clubs discovered last summer. It is a common practice to use the mercuric fungicides as a pre­ ventive treatment for brown-patch before the disease appears. Before anv further applications are made outside of the amount which has normally been found to be necessary, it is well to make sure that brown-patch is present. Furthermore we must repeat our warning to applv mercuric compounds in smaller quantities than normally at such seasons of the year when grass is likely to be injured by chemi­ cal burns. A woodland border to a golf club greatly enhances its beauty. April, 1929 77 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS All questions sent to the Green Section will be answered in a letter to the writer as promptly as possible. The more interesting of these questions, with concise answers, will appear in this column. If your ex­ perience leads you to disagree with any answer given in this column, it is your privilege and duty to write to the Green Section. While most of the answers are of general application, please bear in mind that each recommendation is intended specifically for the locality designated at the end of the question. Fertilizers for Kentucky bluegrass and red fescue fairways on heavy clay soil; treatment of alkaline heavy clay soil for bent greens.—Our fairways are composed chiefly of Kentucky bluegrass and red fescue, with some annual bluegrass. The soil is alkaline. I have been informed that Kentucky bluegrass thrives best when a fer­ tilizer high in phosphoric acid is used in addition to lime, the state­ ment being that under such conditions the grass becomes so vigorous that weeds have no chance to invade the turf. On the strength of this statement we are considering the use this spring of a fertilizer high in phosphoric acid, and believe that such a fertilizer can be pre­ pared at a reasonable cost by mixing 450 pounds of sewage sludge, 100 pounds of sulphate of ammonia, and 100 pounds of Ammo-Phos (11-48-0), giving us practically a 9-9-1/3 fertilizer. We would apply this at the rate of 650 pounds to the acre. Would this fertilizer be available for the grass during the hot, dry summer months if applied early in the spring? Is the phosphoric acid necessary, or could it be replaced by an additional 50 pounds of sulphate of ammonia? We used bone meal on our fairways last spring at the rate of 600 pounds to the acre. Will red fescue respond to phosphoric acid as bluegrass does? Will the bluegrass under this treatment crowd out dandelions, plantain, white clover, and chickweed when it is cut to fairway length? When our greens were constructed five years ago quite a little of the subsoil was mixed with the top soil. This soil is a heavy yellow clay, impervious to water, and is covered with a thin layer of top soil. No tile was laid. By top-dressing since the greens were built, a layer of clay has been sandwiched in between two lavers of sand, so that a plug cut from almost any place on the greens falls anart in three lavers. The ton or sod layer is usuallv about */». or % inch thick. The turf consists of redtop, some mixed bent, red fescue, and annual bluegrass. Last season we ton-dressed each green once a month with a mixture of one part each of ton soil, mushroom soil (extra fine quality), and sharp river sand. Sulphate of ammonia was applied once a month also, and cottonseed meal was used twice during the season. The results were good. We plan to top-dress and fertilize on about the same schedule again this year. Should we use more phosphoric acid than we did last season? We started a bent nursery last fall and plan to change all our greens to this grass. But here is something which worries us. A Portland cement plant is located one-half mile southwest of our boundary line, and the course is getting an almost continuous bath of cement dust, very 78 Vol. 9, No. 4 heavy at times. Do you think we shall be able to make our soil acid enough for bent greens? The soil is strongly alkaline now. (Penn­ sylvania.) Answer.—Some general experimental results, and many obser­ vations which have been made, tend to confirm the statement that Kentucky bluegrass thrives best when a fertilizer high in phosphoric acid is used in addition to lime. We have not sufficient definite results on this subject, however, to enable us to make specific recommenda­ tions regarding treatment of Kentucky bluegrass turf on golf courses. We have observed that bone meal (which is high in phosphoric acid and contains considerable lime) when disked into the soil before planting Kentucky bluegrass, has given good results. However, we realize that if Kentucky bluegrass turf is kept cut close it likely will not be able to crowd out various weeds, as it can when allowed to grow long or under its natural conditions. We would advise caution in applying phosphoric acid to established turf, as there is a chance that an excess of this fertilizer may greatly encourage the growth of clover and various weeds. Probably since your soil is quite alkaline now and is receiving lime in the shape of dust from a cement plant, it will not be necessary to add lime to your soil. Although sulphate of ammonia tends to make soil acid, it is an extremely long process even when frequent applications are made to a soil which is naturally neutral or on the alkaline side. Therefore we should not hesitate in your case to use sulphate of ammonia as often as desired. Some soils give exceptionally good results when either phosphoric acid or potash, or both, are used, and it is always safe to apply some of each to fair­ ways until it appears certain that more is not required. The mixture which, as you state, gives a 9-9-1/3 fertilizer, appears to be all right. It might be well to compare it, however, with a mixture of 1,300 pounds of sewage sludge, poultry manure, or cottonseed meal (which­ ever material is the cheapest), 250 pounds of acid phosphate, 125 pounds of muriate of potash, and 325 pounds of sulphate of ammonia. This would give you a fertilizer of approximately 7 to 8 per cent nitrogen, 4 per cent phosphoric acid, and 4 per cent potash; and it might be a better fertilizer for your fairways in view of the fact that it contains almost as much nitrogen and is a little better balanced as far as the potash is concerned. The organic part of either of these mixtures should last for considerable time and serve as a carrier of the fertilizing elements applied as chemicals. The nitrogen from the sulphate would probably be used first, the other elements being re­ leased more slowly. It is necessary for every greenkeeper to become familiar with the requirements of his particular soil; and it is sug­ gested that in making comparisons of fertilizers they be kept first of all on a similar nitrogen basis, since if one plot receives more nitrogen than another the results on the one may be very much better than on the other regardless of phosphorus or potash which may also have been added. Like considerations should of course be given also to the amounts of phosphorus and potash applied to various test plots, no matter in what form they are applied. We are not sure that the requirements of fescue differ from the requirements of Kentucky bluegrass as far as phosphoric acid is con­ cerned. On your putting greens, if you use compost from time to time and occasionally apply a complete organic fertilizer, you should be adding April, 1929 79 sufficient phosphorus and potash for the requirements. Since you obtained good results from top-dressing your greens and making applications of sulphate of ammonia, we see no reason why you should discontinue the practice. We should not advise you to use more phos­ phoric acid on your greens than you did last season. As we have indicated, the compost contains considerable of this fertilizing ele­ ment. We suggest that you try out plots of vegetated bent under putting green conditions on your natural soil so as to satisfy your­ self as to their behavior on soil which is so alkaline. We are inclined to think that unless any of the greens get an overdose of the dust from the cement plant, your continued applications of sulphate of ammonia will give satisfactory turf even though the soil is not made acid. Effect and treatment of ice and snow covering greens.—About 9 of our creeping bent greens are covered all over with from 2 to 3 inches of solid ice with about 7 inches of snow on top of the ice. Will this be injurious to the grass, and if so what treatment would you sug­ gest? (Illinois.) Answer.—The formation of 2 to 3 inches of solid ice on your greens would of course occur only under exceptional conditions unless the ice were the result of slush forming from a covering of snow. If your greens have adequate surface drainage and subdrainage you need have no worry when the spring thaws arrive. Most injury to turf that is blamed on ice is due to alternate freezing and thawing in the spring, especially when the drainage is not perfect and the ground remains saturated. There is nothing much you can do now unless you find it possible to assist in getting the surface water off the greens as quickly as possible after each thaw. Sometimes banks of snow or slush at certain points prevent the escape of water resulting from the melting of the ice. In such cases a little work with a shovel may assist the escape of water from the green. It is also sometimes pos­ sible to deflect water from melting snow or ice from running onto a green. Mulching with paper to control weeds in nursery rows.—Can paper mulch be used economically in the nursery to keep down weeds be­ tween the rows? (Ohio.) Answer.—The paper mulch system is generally effective with seeded crops, but in commercial plantings holding the paper against wind damage is frequently quite a problem. The shifting of the paper away from the extending runners as proposed in your letter departs from any procedure in our experience. We would suggest that you use 36-inch paper in rows about 40 or more inches apart and hold the single sheet with 40-inch laths stapled with single-footed (7) wires, the laths running parallel to the rows. These laths could be moved much more easily than double-footed wires, and the paper could be folded back as desired from either row. It might be sufficient to move alternate strips at one date and the other strips at a later date. We do not know anything about the economical aspects of such a procedure, but feel that small trials with a few rolls of paper might well be worth the effort. During initial trials we would suggest the use of a fairly heavy paper. We shall be pleased to be advised as to the results obtained from any trials you may undertake, with par­ ticular emphasis on the problems which arise. Let me but do my work from day to day, In field or forest, at the desk or loom, In roaring market-place or tranquil room; Let me but find it in my heart to say, When vagrant wishes beckon me astray, “This is my work, my blessing, not my doom; Of all who live I am the one by whom This work can best be done in the right way.” —Henry Van Dyke.