Breeding and Cultivar Evaluation Diseasess3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ fileVolume XVIII-2000 Table of Contents q Introduction q Acknowledgements q Authors and Assistants q Disclaimer

Volume XVIII-2000

Table of Contents

q Introductionq Acknowledgementsq Authors and Assistantsq Disclaimer

Breeding and Cultivar Evaluationq Stability of Genetic Resistance to Snow Mold in Creeping Bentgrassq Selecting Kentucky bluegrass cultivars based on genetic analysisq National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials

Diseasesq 2000 Dollar Spot Control Evaluation (Green)q 2000 Dollar Spot Control Evaluation (Fairway)q Distribution of Typhula species and their sensitivity to fungicides in vitro and under

field conditions in Wisconsinq Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Brown Patchq Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Take-all Patch (Spring and Fall

Applications 1999)q Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Take-all Patch (Spring Applications)q Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Anthracnoseq Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Pythiumq Evaluation of Fungicide Combinations for the Control Poa annua Summer Stressq Dollar Spot Volume Study (Fairway)q 1999-2000 Snow Mold Control Evaluation Gateway Golf Club (Poa annua Fairway)q 1999-2000 Snow Mold Control Evaluation Sentryworld (Penneagle Nursery)q 1999-2000 Snow Mold Sensitivity Study Sentryworld (Penneagle Nursery)q 1999-2000 Snow Mold Control Carrier Volume Evaluation Sentryworld (Pennlinks

Nursery)

Environmentalq Quantification of Pesticide Runoff from Urban Landscapes

Fertilityq Fertilizer Trials

Herbicides and PGRsq Effect of Formulation on Crabgrass Control Using Dimension Herbicideq Drive for Post-emergent Crabgrass Controlq Effects of Primo on Bentgrass and Bluegrass Fairway Establishment

q Tolerance of Supina Bluegrass to Pre- and Post-Emergent Herbicidesq The Use of Prograss for Poa annua Seedhead Suppressionq Broadleaf Weed Control with UAP-302q Team Pro for Crabgrass Controlq Nonselective Vegetation Control with Touchdown Herbicide

Insectsq Are Black Turfgrass Ataenius (Coleoptera) Populations on Golf Courses Determined

by Organic Matter Content in Fertilizers?q Evaluation of Control Products for Black Cutworm in Turfq Evaluation of Products for Control of Japanese Beetle Grubsq Peripheral Insecticide Application as a Mean of Black Cutworm Control on Golf

Course Putting Greens

Management-Athletic Fieldsq Choosing the Right Kentucky Bluegrass and Seed Mixtures for Athletic Fields

Management-Golfq Influence of Nature’s Nutrient on Bentgrass Root Growth in a 70/20/10 Sand/Peat/Soil

Putting Greenq Management of A,G bentgrasses and ‘DW-184’, a perennial Poa annua, for putting

green turfq Microenvironment Effects on Putting Green Qualityq Putting Green Management Systemsq Root Zone Microbial Activity in Relation to Putting Green Qualityq Prospect and SuperBio for Putting Green Performanceq Establishment on USGA Green Using Sybron Chemicalsq Supina Bluegrass for Shaded Tee Boxes

Management-Lawnq Establishment Comparisons Using Encap Seed

Management-Sodq Extension of Sod Shelf Life with LPE (Lysophosphatidylethanolamine)q Effect of Primo on Sod Tensile Strength

Ornamental Grassesq Cold Weather Tolerance of Ornamental Grasses

Physiologyq Growth and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Supina Bluegrass During Cold Hardening

Appendixq Weather Data for 2000

Introduction

This is the 18th annual Wisconsin Turf Research Report. Each year the number ofprojects conducted by the turf group grows and the results are compiled in the report inan effort to get the information to you, the end user. This year the turf group decided todistribute the reports via CD (compact disk) and the internet in lieu of the paper versionof years past. Publishing the increasingly large report was very cost inefficient. Thereare two electronic formats to make the conversion from paper as easy as possible.While some project information is useful immediately, other projects are undertaken withthe understanding their practical utility may be several years away, but the preliminaryresearch is needed before the next step can be taken.

The turf research program has again grown this year. Dr Geunwha Jung completed hisfirst season with the UW turf program in 2000. The total number of graduate students inthe program has now reached eight. Stephen Pearson was hired in April to serve as aresearch specialist for John Stier. The O.J. Noer is still scheduled for a majorexpansion of nine acres in the near future. The land was acquired as a gift from the UWfoundation via the Athletic Department, making the Noer facility one of the largest in thecountry.

Acknowledgements

Many special thanks go out to all of the turf industry people and organizations thatdonated their time, money, and supplies to the turfgrass program. With the expandingprogram has come the need for additional research plot area, equipment, fertilizer,chemicals and other items. The industry has graciously supported the growing programby increasing their donations and assistance. Without the tremendous support theturfgrass program would cease to function as we have become accustomed. Theannual donations of equipment, construction materials, irrigation supplies, fertilizers,pesticides, sod, seed, and other items are all vital to the program. The successfulresearch and extension programs are combined with a solid teaching program whichreturns alumni support back to the industry and university. We are also grateful for theopportunities many of you have provided for us to conduct research on your property.

Authors and Assistants

Mrs. Audra Anderson, secretary of the Wisconsin Turfgrass Association andreceptionist for the Noer facility, is the spark which keeps the station functioningadministratively as well as WTA-related functions, notable field days and the Turf andGrounds Expo. Her energy and good cheer provide a healthy and vigorous atmosphereat the Noer facility which fosters good working relationships and productive work efforts.

Mr. Krome Burke-Scoll joined the turfgrass program this past spring as Dr. Jung’sresearch technician, conducting molecular based research.

Dr. Mike Casler, professor in the Department of Agronomy, has primary responsibilitiesin research and teaching. As with other members of the turf program, he assists withfield days and other educational events. Dr. Casler brings a wealth of grass breedingexperience to the turf program and has several projects designed to develop bettercultivars for golf and athletic turf. Some of the efforts are geared towards thedevelopment of snow mold and Poa annua-resistant bentgrasses. He was assisted in2000 by his technician Andy Beal and a number of student workers.

Ms. Daniele Filiault, graduate research assistant in the Department of Horticulture, isworking towards her Master of Science degree in cold stress physiology of turfgrasses.She presented some of her work at the American Society of Agronomy meeting inMinneapolis this November. She will complete her M.S. program in 2001 and plans topursue a Ph.D. in turf research.

Mr. Gary Gaard, technical assistant in the Department of Plant Pathology, is the turfdiagnostician for homeowner samples for the Turfgrass Diagnostic Lab. Mr. Gaard hasbeen responsible for working with the Ice Age Trail which crosses through the Noerproperty and for enhancing the wildlife habitat in and around the facility.

Mr. Jeff Gregos, outreach specialist in the Department of Plant Pathology, is thecommercial turf diagnostician for the Turfgrass Diagnostic Lab. Mr. Gregos alsoconducts an extensive battery of product tests for control of turf diseases both at theNoer Facility and on golf courses throughout the state. In 1999 Mr. Gregos beganworking toward a Master of Science degree with research emphasis on identifyingsnow-mold resistant turfgrass selections. Mr. Gregos is active in extension programsincluding field days and Expo and provides critical technical assistance at the Noerfacility. Mr. Gregos was assisted in 2000 by Bob Lisi.

Dr. Geunhwa Jung, was hired as a turfgrass pathologist in the Department of PlantPathology in January 2000. Dr Jung’s research is largely directed towards molecularcharacterization of turfgrass germplasm and pathogens. His major emphasis is onresearch but will be participating in extension functions. He was assisted by KromeBurke-Scoll and Elizabeth Scheef.

Dr. Wayne Kussow, Professor in the Department of Soil Science, has primaryresponsibilities in research and teaching yet frequently assists with extension efforts.Dr. Kussow’s work is in soil fertility, soil amendments and related areas for golf andlawn turf. His recent work in nutrient runoff and leaching is having a dramatic effect atthe state level and beyond, while his practical suggestions for soil test reports andhomeowner education will change and improve the public’s ability to properlyunderstand and apply turf fertilizers. Dr. Kussow advises the majority of the turfstudents and teaches a general soils course in addition to a course in turfgrass fertility.Dr. Kussow was assisted this summer by John Baus.

Ms. Sabrina Mueller is a graduate student in the Department of Soil Science. She isconducting research on root zone microbial activity under the direction of Dr. WayneKussow.

Mr. Stephen Pearson was hired by Dr. Stier in April 2000 as a research specialist. Hehas been with the turf program for 3 years working for the Turfgrass Diagnostic Labprior to employment with the Department of Horticulture.

Mr. Tom Schwab is the manager of the O.J. Noer Facility. In addition to managing thegrounds, building, and equipment for the facility he conducts applied research for turfproduct evaluations and is responsible for ornamental grass evaluations. Mr. Schwab isalso the editor of the WTA and WSTMA quarterly new letters. Mr. Schwab was assistedthis year by Kyle Meyer, Shawn McGwire, and Brad Roper.

Mr. Kurt Steinke began his Masters of Science program in the Department ofHorticulture during the autumn of 1999. His thesis work will be on stress tolerance ofsupina bluegrass, particularly assessing its potential for shaded golf tees as it relates tocold temperatures and its tolerance to herbicides. Mr. Steinke completed enough workin the fall to present a poster at the American Society of Agronomy meeting inMinneapolis this November.

Dr. John Stier, assistant professor in the Department of Horticulture, has primaryresponsibilities in extension and teaching. His research areas are environmental stresstolerance, particularly cold tolerance, athletic turf management, and supina bluegrassmanagement for both golf and sports turf. Additional research includes putting greenmanagement, herbicides, growth regulators, and NTEP trials. He teaches introductoryand advanced turf courses. Dr. Stier was assisted in 2000 by Andrew Hollman.

Ms. Allison Walston came to the UW turf program from the University of Kentucky.Allison is working on her Master of Science degree with funding from the WisconsinDepartment of Agriculture, Consumer Protection on a project to quantify pesticide runofffrom urban landscapes, a project jointly overseen by Dr. Chris Williamson and Dr. JohnStier. Allison presented a poster highlighting her work at the American Society ofAgronomy in Minneapolis this November.

Mr. Zichun Wang is continuing work on his Masters of Science working towardsbreeding snow-mold resistance bentgrasses. This interdisciplinary project is fundedthrough CALS. The project involves the Agronomy, Horticulture, and Plant Pathologydepartments.

Dr. Chris Williamson is the turfgrass and ornamental extension entomologist in theDepartment of Entomology. Dr. Williamson’s research is largely directed towardsmanagement of black cutworm and white grub in golf turf. He co-developed the HolisticTurf Pest Management course with Dr. Stier last year in addition to conducting researchtrials throughout the state as well as participating in numerous extension activitiesthroughout the year. Steve Hong who is a first-year graduate student in the turfprogram assisted Dr. Williamson this year.

DISCLAIMER

The results in this report are not necessarily intended as turf managementrecommendations. Products, application procedures and other research approachesmay not be legal or appropriate for some or all areas of turf management in Wisconsin.No endorsement of products or companies is implied or intended. Whenever practical,common names for chemical products have been used.

This publication was paid for and distributed by the Wisconsin Turfgrass Association asa benefit to its membership and the turfgrass industry. Any questions or commentsshould be directed to the authors of the research report. Comments on the electronicformat used should be directed to Jeff Gregos.

Stability of Genetic Resistance to Snow Mold in Creeping Bentgrass

Michael Casler, Zhichun Wang, John Stier, Jeffrey Gregos,and Douglas Maxwell

Departments of Agronomy, Horticulture, and Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

Winter diseases of turfgrass, collectively referred to as snow molds, are a majorproblem on golf courses and other turf areas in Wisconsin and similar regions. Golfcourse greens, fairways, and tees are of primary concern because of their high dollarvalue. Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris) is a highly desirable species for thesetypes of turf, but most cultivars are highly susceptible to various snow mold pathogens.

Speckled snow mold is caused by Typhula ishikariensis, a fungal parasite. It is afacultative parasite, capable of surviving and growing on necrotic tissue, becomingparticularly serious when susceptible hosts are compromised either through injury orstress. The pathogen is most active at temperatures ranging from 32 to 55°F and isfavored by extended snow cover. Disease symptoms begin as small, round patches (2-4”in diameter) with a water-soaked appearance. As the pathogen grows, the turf foliagedies, leaving brown patches that coalesce into extensive areas of severely damaged turf.In Wisconsin, areas of golf courses that routinely receive severe snow mold damage willhave a low population of perennial turf grasses and a high population of annual-type Poathat regenerates each spring from the seed bank in the soil.

Fungicides are traditionally used to inhibit snow mold fungi on golf greens andother high-value turf areas in Wisconsin. However, fungicides are expensive to apply,often have limited terms of efficacy, and may adversely affect the environment. Inaddition, some fungal pathogens have developed resistance to fungicides after years ofrepeated applications.

In 1998, we initiated a breeding program to identify genetic resistance to speckledsnow mold in creeping bentgrass. This paper reports the initial results of our collectionexpeditions and snow mold screening experiments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 1998 and 1999, we collected over 700 clones of creeping bentgrass from older(25+ years) golf courses throughout Wisconsin. Creeping bentgrass varieties containlarge amounts of genetic variability. Therefore, older golf courses have the potential toweed out unadapted and/or unfit plants, simply through natural selection pressure overmany years in the presense of stresses such as snow mold disease. In our search forgenetic resistance to snow mold, we targetted Wisconsin golf courses with three criteria:north of U.S. Hwy 10, fairways are not treated with fungicides to control snow moldfungi, and significant snow mold damage occurs following a typical winter. We sampledplants that had a large diameter, green color, and absense of snow mold patches within 2

weeks of the final snow melt. We also collected plants from golf course greens in bothnorthern and southern Wisconsin, with selection based on large diameter, bright greencolor, fine leaf texture, and absense of Poa within the bentgrass patch.

We screened 326 of these clones for reaction to an isolate of T. ishikariensisduring the summer of 1999. The clones were split into six pieces, grown in 1.25 x 1.25 x2” containers, and managed to simulate a fairway with a 1/2” mowing height. The cloneswere arranged in a randomized complete block design with six replicates. Flats wereplaced in a growth chamber to simulate the fall hardening period, with a gradualtemperature reduction to 41°F and short daylength. Four of the six replicates wereinoculated with T. ishikariensis and all plants were kept in the dark for 8 weeks. Diseasereaction was scored weekly for 6 weeks using a 0-to-10 scale, where 0 = completelygreen plant and 10 = completely dead plant. Plants were then placed in a greenhousewhere they were scored two more times, using the same rating scale. These clones werescreened again during spring and summer 2000, but challenged by two isolates of T.ishikariensis and one isolate of T incarnata.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In general, there was a positive association between reactions to the three isolatesof Typhula. However, some clones that were originally thought to be resistant weresusceptible during the second experiment. Five clones were found to be highly resistantto all three isolates (Table 1). These clones will be intercrossed in summer 2001 toproduce the first generation of a new variety. This variety will be tested on golf coursesto determine its ability to resist snow mold under a wide range of real-world conditions.

Table 1. Reaction of creeping bentgrass clones to three isolates of Typhula.T. incarnataisolate #1.41

T. ishikariensisisolate #3.116

T. ishikariensisisolate #1.83

Bentgrass clonesDiseasereaction

Recoveryreaction

Diseasereaction

Recoveryreaction

Diseasereaction

Recoveryreaction

Best five clones 0.99 0.45 2.65 3.17 1.93 1.31All other clones 2.55 2.65 3.84 5.24 3.06 3.22Disease was measured after 6 weeks in cold, dark conditions.Recovery was measured after 2 weeks in the greenhouse, simulating springconditions.

Selecting Kentucky bluegrass cultivars based on genetic analysis

Geunhwa Jung, Elizabeth Scheef, and Jeff GregosDepartment of Plant Pathology

IntroductionRecent publications on Kentucky bluegrass present classifications based on

morphological characteristics and disease reactions and recommendations for blending optionsfor each category of bluegrass cultivars. The purpose of blends of different types of bluegrasscultivars is to archive optimal performance. In order to meet this requirement, cultivars in theblend must have not only similar quality (appearance, leaf texture, and color), but also maximumgenetic diversity among them in order to prevent from devastation by abiotic and biotic stresses.Maximizing genetic diversity of cultivars in blending is not an easy task with currently availableinformation. Very limited numbers of morphological traits are utilized for the classification ofKentucky bluegrass cultivars. Also, the morphological traits used are very sensitive to theenvironment, meaning that the expression of traits is strongly influenced by the environment.Therefore, morphological traits based on narrow classifications can lead to improper selection ofblends.

We performed a study of the genetic relationships among Kentucky bluegrass cultivarsusing a DNA marker type, RAPD (random amplified polymorphic DNA). The two mainobjectives of this work were to determine how much genetic variability (difference in DNAlevel) exists within Kentucky bluegrass cultivars and to compare the classification based onmorphological traits to one based on genetic analysis.

Materials and MethodsOne hundred and twenty-three Kentucky bluegrass cultivars/PI collection were planted

and grown under greenhouse conditions. For each cultivar, three separate plants were sampledand the DNA extracted. DNA was amplified using RAPD PCR and primers previously chosenfor high numbers of polymorphic bands. Gel electrophoresis was performed using agarose gelsand the resulting banding patterns were scored for polymorphic bands. Eighty-five polymorphicbands were scored across all samples. Computer based statistical analysis was performed andcultivars genetically classified. The genetic classification was compared with Rutgers’smorphological classification of the cultivars.

ResultsVariability within cultivars ranged from below 0.05 to around 0.42 (Figure 1, Table 1).

Preliminary results regarding comparison of morphological classification to genetic classificationshow that three morphological types, Compact-Midnight, Compact-America and BVMG, aregrouped similarly according to genetic analysis.

ConclusionsPreliminary results for comparing morphological and genetic groupings indicate that only

three types are grouped similarly: Compact-Midnight, Compact-America and BVMG. Whenlooking at the ancestry of these three groups we find that the cultivars in each group share acommon parent in the breeding program. By sharing a common parent, they are more likely toinherit the same type of DNA from that parent.

Therefore when the progeny cultivars are genetically analyzed, they are found to begenetically related and therefore grouped the same way as the morphological groupings. Othercultivars in the morphological groupings did not share common parents and therefore whengenetically analyzed, did not fall into similar groupings. This makes the morphologicalgroupings unreliable when trying to choose cultivars to maximize genetic diversity in blends.

When looking at the genetic variability within a cultivar, we found a wide range invariabilities. This information is vital when choosing cultivars for a specific trait. A cultivarwith low variability is more likely to be more homogeneous for a trait (meaning that more seedsare likely to express the wanted trait) than a cultivar with high variability. For example, if thetwo cultivars Arcadia (#4 in figure 1) and Midnight (#14) express a similar wanted trait, it wouldbe better to choose Midnight because it has less variability and is more likely to express thewanted trait in all of its seeds.

In conclusion, our results suggest using morphological groupings that are also based ongenetic groupings is advantageous when choosing cultivars for maximum genetic diversity andchoosing cultivars with low variability is advantageous when trying to maintain a wanted trait.

In summary, our research indicates that selection of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars basedsolely on morphological groups does not guarantee maximum genetic diversity. Themorphological groups must correspond to genetic groups. Success in selecting cultivars for aparticular trait depends on the genetic variability of the cultivar. Therefore, knowledge ofgenetic characteristics is very important when selecting cultivars for Kentucky bluegrass blends.

Table 1: List of Kentucy bluegrass cultivars used in genetic analysis1 Crest 32 Rugby II 63 Blackstone 94 TXHb 3332 Adelphi 33 Alpine 64 Bluestar 95 TXHb 3293 Alene 34 America 65 Voyager 96 TXHb3284 Arcadia 35 Rita 66 Moonlight 97 Classic5 Fairfax 36 Brilliant 67 Viva 98 Langara6 Merit 37 Serene 68 Sodnet 99 Nugget7 Nustar 38 Blacksburg 69 Livingston 100 Parade8 Award 39 Freedom II 70 Kenblue 101 BlueChip9 Quantum Leap 40 Odyssey 71 Cobolt 102 Chicago II

10 Cynthia 41 Washington 72 Chache 103 Famous11 Rugby 42 PI371771 73 Challenger 104 Nublue12 Explorer 43 PI371775 74 Denim 105 Absolute13 SR2100 44 PI372738 75 Optigreen 106 Suffolk14 Midnight 45 PI372742 76 BA72-492 107 Nassau15 Geronimo 46 PI349225 77 BA77-700 108 Chatteau16 Indigo 47 PI368233 78 BA78-258 109 Huntsville17 SR2000 48 PI368241 79 BA74-017 110 Baritone18 Cannon 49 PI371768 80 Bristol 111 Rhonde19 Monopoly 50 Sweden Primo 81 Victa 112 Sebring20 Gnome 51 Kazakhstan 82 BA87-102 113 Baron21 Limousine 52 US60-514 83 Abbey 114 Ascot22 Touchdown 53 US2020 84 BA76-372 115 Coventry23 Park 54 Soviet Union 85 BA77-279 116 Envicta24 Glade 55 Russian Fed 86 BA79-260 117 Buckingham25 Ginger 56 US Belturf 87 BA73-626 118 Goldrush26 Banff 57 PI227381 Iran 88 BA74-114 119 Boutique27 Hungary 58 Turkey 89 BA70-242 120 Bartitia28 Denmark 59 PI380992 Iran132 90 BA72-500 121 Total Eclipse29 Chicago 60 PI229721 Iran 91 BA73-540 122 Bluemoon30 Nuglade 61 Liberator 92 Unique 123 Barcelona31 Award II 62 Northstar 93 TXHb 337

Figure 1: Variability (mean of genetic difference among 3 sampels) within Kentucky bluegrass cultivars.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Cultivar (see Table 1 for names)

National Turfgrass Evaluation Program TrialsStephen H. Pearson and John Stier

Department of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

The University of Wisconsin-Madison participates in the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP)which is designed to evaluate turfgrass varieties and promising selections in the United States and Canada. The testresults may be used by plant breeders and national companies to determine the broad picture of the adaptation of acultivar. The results can also be used to determine if a cultivar is well adapted to a local area or level of turfmaintenance.

The Department of Horticulture is currently participating in the following tests:

1. Kentucky bluegrass--fairway maintenance2. Perennial ryegrass--home lawn maintenance3. Fine Fescue--fairway maintenance (including golf cart traffic simulation)4. Creeping bentgrass--putting green maintenance5. Creeping bentgrass--fairway maintenance

DISCUSSION

The data for these trials is currently being analyzed and compiled. Relevant information regarding each trialwill be added to the web site in the near future.

2000 Dollar Spot Control Evaluation (Green)

Jeffrey S. Gregos, Geunhwa Jung and Bob LisiDepartment of Plant Pathology

PURPOSE

To evaluate chemicals for the control of dollar spot on creeping bentgrass (Agrostispalustris ’Penncross’) caused by the pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

This evaluation was conducted at the O. J. Noer Turfgrass Research and EducationFacility on creeping bentgrass maintained under golf course green management conditions, at0.125-inch cutting height. Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized completeblock design with three replications. The experimental area was inoculated on July 13, 2000.Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8005 VS nozzles,at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. All applications were initiated on June 3,2000 and followed their respective spray schedule listed below. The final application wasapplied on August 6, 2000. The area received 3 pounds of nitrogen from Feed Grade Urea (46-0-0) during the growing season. One pound applications were applied on both April 24 and May25, 2000. Two 1/2# applications were made on July 8 and July 25, 2000. Percent infection wasrated on July 10, 29, August 15, and September 8, 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysisof variance and LSD was used to determine significant differences between treatment means.

RESULTS

A majority of the treatments have provided excellent control of dollar spot on bentgrassmaintained under green conditions. All of the reduced-rate mixtures have provided 100 percentcontrol, except for the last rating date, which was a month after the last application. In evaluationof the data all of the components need their rates adjusted. Each component should be providingaround 33% control at their reduced-rates. At their current rates Daconil Ultrex and Bayletonprovide around 70% control. The rates of Banner Maxx, Chipco Triton, Chipco 26 GT, andCleary’s 3336 are providing near 100% control and would defeat the purpose of reduced ratemixtures. These rates will be adjusted in the future to find a rate that will provide around 1/3control.

Several chlorothalonil-based fungicides were evaluated and no difference was noted. TheDMI chemistries were also evaluated and increased efficacies with repeat applications. It shouldalso be noted on the final rating, which was taken 4-6 weeks after the last application, some ofthe products were still providing near 100% control. Many of these treatments contained DMI’sas the sole or partial component.

Table 1. Percent Dollar Spot Damage# Treatment1 Form Rate Rate Unit Interval % Damage % Damage % Damage % Damage

(Day) 7-10-00 7-29-00 8-15-00 9-8-001 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 8.3 BCD 6.7 B 10.0 BC 18.3 B2 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 3.8 oz/M ft2 21 1.7 FG 1.7 CD 8.3 BCD 15.0 BC3 Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2 21 10.0 BC 6.7 B 11.7 B 13.3 BCD4 Bayleton 50 WDG 1.0 oz/M ft2 21 1.7 FG 1.7 CD 0.0 G 0.0 H5 Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2 21 11.7 B 5.0 BC 5.0 DEF 11.7 CDE6 Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 3.3 EFG 0.0 D 1.7 FG 6.7 EFG7 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2 21 5.0 DEF 0.0 D 0.0 G 5.0 FGH8 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.5 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 H9 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 5.0 DEF 0.0 D 0.0 G 13.3 BCD10 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 3.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 1.7 FG 0.0 D 0.0 G 6.7 EFG11 Cleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 5.0 FGH12 Cleary’s 3336 4 F 1.75 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 1.7 GH13 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 1.7 GH

Cleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2

14 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 3.3 FGHChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

15 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 1.7 GHChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

16 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 HChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

17 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 HCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

18 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 1.7 GHCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

19 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 HCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

20 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 3.3 FGHCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

21 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 3.3 FGHCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

22 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 HCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

23 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 3.2 oz/M ft2 14 0.0 G 1.7 CD 3.3 EFG 16.7 BC24 Daconil WS 6 SC 4.125 fl/M ft2 14 0.0 G 0.0 D 1.7 FG 13.3 BCD25 Echo 720 6 SC 4.125 fl/M ft2 14 1.7 FG 0.0 D 3.3 EFG 13.3 BCD26 GX-611 6 SC 4.125 fl/M ft2 14 3.3 EFG 1.7 CD 3.3 EFG 13.3 BCD27 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl/M ft2 28 3.3 EFG 0.0 D 0.0 G 1.7 GH28 Eagle 40 WP 1.2 oz/M ft2 28 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 H29 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.5 fl/M ft2 28 5.0 DEF 3.3 BCD 0.0 G 8.3 DEF30 Rubigan 1.0 SC 2.0 fl/M ft2 28 3.3 EFG 0.0 D 0.0 G 5.0 FGH31 Bayleton 50 WDG 0.5 oz/M ft2 28 6.7 CDE 0.0 D 0.0 G 3.3 FGH32 Lynx 45 WP 0.55 oz/M ft2 28 0.0 G 1.7 CD 0.0 G 1.7 GH33 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 0.0 G 0.0 D 0.0 G 0.0 H

Bayleton 50 WDG 0.125 oz/M ft234 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 1.7 FG 3.3 BCD 0.0 G 0.0 H

Chipco 26 GT 2.0 SC 0.75 fl/M ft235 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 5.0 DEF 5.0 BC 6.7 CDE 15.0 BC

Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 0.95 oz/M ft236 Check 16.7 A 16.7 A 40.0 A 28.3 ALSD (P = 0.05) 3.71 3.72 4.17 5.811Treatments in Italics are part of the reduced-rate mixture study and are applied at off-label rates.Means followed by the same letter do not statistically differ (P=0.05)

2000 Dollar Spot Control Evaluation (Fairway)


PURPOSE

To evaluate chemicals for the control of dollar spot on creeping bentgrass (Agrostispalustris ’Crenshaw’) caused by the pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa.


This evaluation was conducted at the O. J. Noer Turfgrass Research and EducationFacility on creeping bentgrass maintained under golf course fairway management conditions, at0.5-inch cutting height. Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized completeblock design with three replications. The experimental area was not inoculated and all diseasepressure was natural. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XRTeejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq. ft. All applicationswere initiated on June 3, 2000 and followed their respective spray schedule listed below. Finalapplications were made on August 6. The test area received 1/2# of Nitrogen from Feed GradeUrea (46-0-0) on both May 25 and July 28. Percent infection was rated on July 10, 16, 29 andAugust 14, 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of variance and LSD was used todetermine significant differences between treatment means.

RESULTSA majority of the treatments provided excellent control of dollar spot on bentgrass

maintained under fairway conditions. All of the reduced-rate mixtures have provided near 100percent control, but all of the components need their rates adjusted. Every reduced-ratecomponent can be reduced except Bayleton and Daconil Ultrex, which can be kept at the samerate. In theory, each component should be providing around 33% control at their reduced-rates.At their current rates Daconil Ultrex and Bayleton provide around 50% control. The rates ofBanner Maxx, Chipco Triton, Chipco 26 GT, and Cleary’s 3336 are providing over 70% controland would defeat the purpose of reduced rate mixtures. These rates will be adjusted in the futureto find a rate that will provide around 1/3 control.

Several experimental granular treatments were evaluated and did not seem to provide anycontrol. All of the DMI treatments seem to provide sufficient control for highly acceptablefairway standards.

Table 1. Percent Dollar Spot Damage# Treatment1 Form Rate Rate Unit Interval % Damage % Damage % Damage % Damage

(Days) 7-10-00 7-16-00 7-29-00 8-14-001 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 26.7 C 36.7 CD 0.0 C 33.3 C2 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 3.8 oz/M ft2 21 16.7 C-F 20.0 DE 0.0 C 18.3 D3 Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2 21 50.0 B 48.3 BC 5.0 C 35.0 C4 Bayleton 50 WDG 1.0 oz/M ft2 21 6.7 D-H 1.7 F 0.0 C 3.3 EF5 Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2 21 20.0 CD 16.7 EF 1.7 C 8.3 DEF6 Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 10.0 D-H 8.3 EF 0.0 C 5.0 EF7 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2 21 10.0 D-H 5.0 EF 1.7 C 6.7 DEF8 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.5 fl oz/M ft2 21 1.7 GH 1.7 F 0.0 C 3.3 EF9 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 3.3 FGH 3.3 EF 0.0 C 0.0 F10 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 3.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 8.3 D-H 8.3 EF 1.7 C 1.7 F11 Cleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2 21 8.3 D-H 11.7 EF 10.0 C 18.3 D12 Cleary’s 3336 4 F 1.75 fl oz/M ft2 21 6.7 D-H 3.3 EF 8.3 C 15.0 DE13 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 0.0 C 0.0 F

Cleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2

14 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 0.0 C 1.7 FChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

15 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 0.0 C 1.7 FChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

16 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 1.7 C 0.0 FChipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

17 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 5.0 C 5.0 EFCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

18 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 0.0 H 0.0 F 0.0 C 3.3 EFCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

19 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.5 oz/M ft2 21 3.3 FGH 0.0 F 0.0 C 5.0 EFCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

20 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 1.7 GH 1.7 F 0.0 C 1.7 FCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Bayleton 50 WDG 0.11 oz/M ft2

21 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 1.7 GH 3.3 EF 0.0 C 5.0 EFCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Banner Maxx 1.3 MC 0.22 fl oz/M ft2

22 Chipco 26 GT 2 SC 2.0 fl oz/M ft2 21 1.7 GH 1.7 F 0.0 C 1.7 FCleary’s 3336 4F 0.22 fl oz/M ft2Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.25 fl oz/M ft2

23 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 3.3 FGH 1.7 F 0.0 C 3.3 EFBayleton 50 WDG 0.125 oz/M ft2

24 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 5.0 E-H 3.3 EF 0.0 C 1.7 FChipco 26 GT 2.0 SC 0.75 fl/M ft2

25 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.22 fl/M ft2 21 5.0 E-H 1.7 F 0.0 C 3.3 EFDaconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 0.95 oz/M ft2

26 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 2.0 oz/M ft2 14 8.3 D-H 0.0 F 0.0 C 6.7 DEF27 Experimental 23 0.39 G 4.0 oz/M ft2 14 51.7 B 58.3 AB 48.3 B 60.0 AB28 Experimental 24 0.62 G 2.5 oz/M ft2 14 51.7 B 58.3 AB 51.7 AB 68.3 A29 Experimental 23 0.39 G 8.0 oz/M ft2 28 60.0 AB 58.3 AB 50.0 B 60.0 AB30 Experimental 24 0.62 G 5.0 oz/M ft2 28 61.7 AB 55.0 AB 53.3 AB 51.7 B31 Experimental 23 0.39 G 4.0 oz/M ft2 14 61.7 AB 60.0 AB 58.3 AB 68.3 A32 Experimental 24 0.62 G 2.5 oz/M ft2 14 73.3 A 68.3 A 61.7 A 71.1 A33 Experimental 23 0.39 G 8.0 oz/M ft2 28 71.7 A 68.3 A 61.7 A 61.7 AB34 Experimental 24 0.62 G 5.0 oz/M ft2 28 56.7 B 36.7 CD 50.0 B 60.0 AB35 Experimental 44 87.5 WP 7.0 oz/M ft2 28 1.7 GH 1.7 F 1.7 C 1.7 F36 Eagle 40 WP 0.6 oz/M ft2 14 1.7 GH 0.0 F 0.0 C 3.3 EF37 Eagle 40 WP 1.2 oz/M ft2 28 5.0 E-H 1.7 F 3.3 C 6.7 DEF38 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 3.2 oz/M ft2 14 1.7 GH 0.0 F 0.0 C 0.0 F39 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 0.5 fl/M ft2 28 18.3 CDE 0.0 F 1.7 C 5.0 EF40 Bayleton 50 WG 0.5 oz/M ft2 28 15.0 C-G 1.7 F 5.0 C 5.0 EF41 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl/M ft2 28 5.0 E-H 1.7 F 3.3 C 5.0 EF42 Check 60.0 AB 56.7 AB 50.0 B 65.0 ALSD (P = 0.05) 13.68 16.80 10.43 12.981Treatments in Italics are part of the reduced-rate mixture study and are applied at off-label rates.Means followed by the same letter do not statistically differ (P=0.05)

Distribution of Typhula species and their sensitivity to fungicides in vitro andunder field conditions in Wisconsin

G. Jung, K. Burke-Scoll, and J. GregosDepartment of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

Snow mold is the most devastating winter turfgrass disease on golf courses in northern partsof the USA. Mercury fungicides with a wide spectrum of efficacy on the various snow molds havenot been available since 1994 in the United States. The fungicides currently used for the control ofsnow mold such as PCNB (the most commonly used), chloroneb, triadimefon, do not have widespectrum efficacy. Chemical companies are developing new fungicides every year adding to thecomplexity of adapting a control strategy for this disease.

Several factors limit the control of snow mold: 1) high fungicide costs, 2) limited efficacy,3) variability in sensitivity of the snow mold pathogens, 4) problems of chemical registration, and 5)environmental effects which reduce efficacy of the fungicides. The best strategy when usingfungicides is to reduce the amount of chemicals applied, while still achieving satisfactory control.This is achieved by applying the most effective fungicides on the sensitive snow mold pathogens, asimple idea but problematic because of differential chemical efficacy due to snow mold isolatevariability. Furthermore, a particular fungal isolate may differ in its sensitivity depending on itsgeographical location (Ex: lake effect, duration of snow cover, and elevation) and turfgrass specie.

Recently 3 genetically diverse groups of snow mold pathogens were detected among T.ishikariensis isolates collected throughout Wisconsin (Fig. 2). The group with the most geneticvariability (group 3 in Fig. 2) represents two golf courses 15 miles apart and located innorthernmost Wisconsin. More than 70% of fairways treated with fungicides on these golf coursesbecame infected with snow mold in the two courses. Our preliminary results on in vitro sensitivityof 10 commonly used fungicides with 6 Typhula isolates indicated that there is a significantdifference in fungal growth depending on source of the pathogen and chemical concentration. Theseresults clearly indicated that there are huge morphologic and pathogenic variations and fungicidesensitivities among isolates as well as within species.

OBJECTIVES

1. to determine the geographical distribution and population structure of T. incarnata and the T.ishikariensis complex on golf courses in Wisconsin.

2. to investigate the genetic variation among isolates of the T. incarnata and T. ishikariensiscomplex.

3. to determine the in vitro sensitivity of the T. incarnata and T. ishikariensis complexes tostandard fungicides

4. to determine the effectiveness of several fungicides labeled for snow mold control againstTyphula blight on 3 golf courses in Wisconsin


Objective 1: Determine the geographical distribution and population structure of T. incarnataand the T. ishikariensis complex in Wisconsin golf courses

Millett (1999) showed that T. incarnata isolates are the most frequent fungus in the southernzone, while T. ishikariensis isolates are the most frequent fungus in northern two-third of Wisconsin(Fig. 1). The greater amount of disease in the northern zone compared to the central and southernzones is linked to the above-normal amounts of snow fall in the northern regions. This supports theidea that the duration of snow cover is a key factor in disease incidence in northern turfgrass.However, the virulence of isolates might also play a role in pathogenicity.

The Typhula isolates (representing Wisconsin zone A, Fig 1) collected by Millett (1999)were analyzed for genetic relationships using two DNA techniques (DNA sequences of the ITSregion and RAPD marker based genetic distance). Three genetically distinct groups (Fig. 2) in 88isolates of the T. ishikariensis complex were detected but no distinct group was found in 53 isolatesof T. incarnata (data not presented). Because of these results, the biogeographical distribution ofTyphula species in Wisconsin zone B needs to be compared to Wisconsin zone A. Typhula isolateswill be sampled from three fairways (2 sites per fairway) on each of the five golf courses withineach zone in Wisconsin zone B using the same sampling techniques as Millett (1999). The totalnumber of isolates sampled will be 90.

Figure 2. Multi-dimensional scaling plot of thegenetic distance matrix generated by 102 RAPDdata collected for 88 Typhula ishikariensis isolatesthroughout Wisconsin zone A and other countries(Fig. 1; Jung, 2000). Note the three geneticallydistinct groups (1, 2, and 3) in isolates of the T.ishikariensis complex.

AB

Figure 1. The distribution of locations of Wisconsin golf courseswhere isolates of Typhula species associated with Typhula blightswere and will be collected. Approximate locations of the golfcourses surveyed are indicated as a black dot on Wisconsin zone B(Millett, 1999).

-1.6

-1.1

-0.6

-0.1

0.4

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

3

1

2

Objective 2: Investigate the genetic variation of Typhula isolates based on molecular markersderived genetic distance

Genetic relationship studies (Fig. 2) raise several important questions. One is why are fewerisolates of T. ishikariensis falling into group 3 compared to groups 1 and 2? Furthermore, isolates ingroup 3 were uniquely represented by two golf courses (15 miles apart each other) located in farnorthern Wisconsin. More than 60 percent of the fairways treated with fungicides were infected bysnow mold in the year when the isolates were sampled. Secondly, why does more genetic variabilityexist in the group 3 than groups 1 and 2? In order to answer these questions, more isolates need tobe collected from other locations representing wider ranges in geographic and environmentalfactors.

Objectives 3 and 4: Determine the in vitro sensitivity of T. incarnata and T. ishikariensiscomplex to standard fungicides and determine the effectiveness of several fungicides labeledfor snow mold control against Typhula blight in 3 golf courses in each of Wisconsin

From the previous in vitro sensitivity studies using 6 isolates of Typhula species (Fig. 3) themost effective concentrations of 10 most commonly used fungicides labeled for snow mold controlwere determined. As shown, the optimum concentrations to completely control fungal growthvaried according to the fungicides tested.

Three representative golf courses from Wisconsin which have different ratios of snow moldspecies, different durations of snow cover, and evidence of genetic diversity of Typhula isolates willbe selected for field fungicide efficacy experiments. Roughly 10 standard and experimentalfungicides will be applied on fairways, alone or in combination, at varying rates. Individual plots (3ft x 10 ft) will be arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Thepercent snow mold damage will be evaluated the springs of 2002 and 2003.

Figure 3. In vitro sensitivity of six Typhula species isolates (isolates 3.279 and 1.35 of T. incarnata;3.120A and 1.93 of T. ishikariensis group 2; 2.105BX and 1.31 of T. ishikariensis group 1) topropiconazole and PCNB on a log scale (unpublished).

BANNER

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

LOGT. inc. 3.279 T. inc. 1.35 T. ish. 3.120AT. ish. 1.93 T. ish 2.105BX T. ish. 1.31

Linear (T. inc. 3.279) Linear (T. inc. 1.35) Linear (T. ish. 3.120A)

Linear (T. ish. 1.93) Linear (T. ish 2.105BX) Linear (T. ish. 1.31)

PCNB

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

LOG

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Due to the on-going nature of this research we are hesitant to disseminate any hard and fast resultsas of yet. This winter’s (00-01) field and in vitro studies will be critical for robust results. At the

present we are working with resistant/susceptible clones provided by M.Casler, and running trials invarious conditions around the state, as well as Madison. There are however a couple of points ofinterest that have at this early stage become manifested.

1. There appear to be 3 distinct types of Typhula ishikariensis complex that occur in the state. Themost efficacious fungicide treatment is dependent on what isolate of the fungus a particular locationhas.

2. Isolate distribution is heavily dependent on duration of snow cover. North to south collectionscorroborate this. In 2001 east, west (lake effect) distributions will be sampled, and a map of more

utility will be produced.

3. Isolate virulence appears to rise with snow cover duration.

Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Brown Patch


INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control of Brown Patch caused by Rhizoctonia solani andR. zeae on Colonial Bentgrass maintained under golf course fairway management conditions.


This evaluation was conducted on colonial bentgrass maintained under golf coursefairway management conditions, at 0.50-inch cutting height. Individual plots, 3 ft x 8 ft, werearranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The experimental areawas inoculated on July 11, 2000. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer,using XR Teejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. Allapplications were initiated on June 6, 2000 and reapplied on regular intervals. Percent infectionratings were taken on August 14, 2000. The experimental area received 4.5 lbs. of nitrogenduring the growing season from the following applications: 1/2# N (46-0-0) on April 24 and May25, 1.5# N (Spring Valley 25-3-4) on June 19 and 1# N (46-0-0) on both July 8 and 28. Dataobtained was subjected to analysis of variance and LSD was used to determine significantdifferences between treatment means.

DISCUSSION

The weather this past summer was not ideal for extensive outbreaks of brown patch. As aresult only one rating was obtained and this was achieved by artificially adjusting theenvironment (temperature and leaf wettness). All of the treatments provided significant amountsof control, with the Heritage and Heritage plus Banner Maxx treatments providing 100% control.

Table 1. Percent Brown Patch Infection# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Interval/ % Infection

8-14-00

1 Compass 50WG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day 6.7 B

2 Compass 50WG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day 1.7 BC

3 Heritage 50 WG 0.2 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day 1.7 BC

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day

4 Heritage 50 WG 0.2 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day 0.0 C

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day



7 Daconil Ultrex

Fungo Flo

Chipco 26 GT

82.5 WG

4.5 F

2 SC

2.5

0.25

2.0

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 6.7 B

8 Daconil Ultrex

Chipco 26 GT

Bayleton

82.5 WG

2 SC

25 DF

2.5

2.0

0.11

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 1.7 BC

9 Daconil Ultrex

Chipco 26 GT

Banner Maxx

82.5 WG

2 SC

1.3 MC

2.5

2.0

0.22

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 5.0 BC

10 Daconil Ultrex

Chipco 26 GT

Rubigan

82.5 WG

2 SC

1 SC

2.5

2.0

0.5

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 6.7 B

11 Daconil Ultrex

Fungo Flo

Bayleton

82.5 WG

4.5 F

25 DF

2.5

0.25

0.11

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 3.3 BC

12 Daconil Ultrex

Fungo Flo

Banner Maxx

82.5 WG

4.5 F

1.3 MC

2.5

0.25

0.22

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 3.3 BC

13 Daconil Ultrex

Fungo Flo

Rubigan

82.5 WG

4.5 F

1 SC

2.5

0.25

0.5

oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 6.7 B

14 Chipco 26 GT

Fungo Flo

Bayleton

2 SC

4.5 F

25 DF

2.0

0.25

0.11

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 3.3 BC

15 Chipco 26 GT

Fungo Flo

Banner Maxx

2 SC

4.5 F

1.3 MC

2.0

0.25

0.22

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 6.7 B

16 Chipco 26 GT

Fungo Flo

Rubigan

2 SC

4.5 F

1 SC

2.0

0.25

0.5

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Day 5.0 BC

17 Prostar 70 WP 1.5 oz/1000 ft2 21 day 1.7 BC

18 Prostar 70 WP 2.2 oz/1000 ft2 21 day 5.0 BC

19 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WG 2.0 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day 5.0 BC

20 Check 18.3 A

LSD (P=0.05) 6.17

Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (p=0.05), LSD

Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Take-all Patch(Spring and Fall Applications 1999)

J. Gregos, G. Jung, and B. Lisi Department of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control take-all patch caused by Gaeumannomycesgraminis on colonial bentgrass maintained at fairway conditions.


Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design withfour replications. The experimental area was not inoculated and all disease development was ofnatural occurrence. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XRTeejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft Application wereimmediately irrigated in with a 1/4” of water. Applications were made on May 13, June 7,September 27, and October 25 1999. The experimental area received 3 lbs. of nitrogen during thegrowing season from the following applications: 1/2# N (46-0-0) on May 25, 1.5# N (SpringValley 25-3-4) on June 19 and 1# N (46-0-0) on July 28. Percent damage was evaluated on May25, June 19, July 16 and 29, 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of variance and LSDwas used to determine significant differences between treatment means.

DISCUSSION

Irrigation was kept to a minimum to help encourage symptom development. Based onthe data obtained most treatments provided some control until the droughty part of the summer.The results from last summer displayed that there was no benefit gained from the springapplications. Two chemicals stand out in the early ratings, Heritage and BAS 505. Theseproducts have shown significant amount of control using fall applications or a combination ofboth. Since no applications were made for take-all patch this year it is evident that there is morebenefit gained from fall applications then spring applications. Another important factor is theirrigation. Early in the season there was sufficient amount of natural moisture for the plants.But, as the summer progressed that amount of damage increased in all of the plots. The resultsfrom this study help emphasize the requirement of sufficient irrigation throughout the summer.Observations from golf courses that have take-all patch and irrigate nightly have shown asubstantial reduction in symptom expression.

Table 1. Percent Take-all Patch Damage

# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Interval % Damage 5-25-00

% Damage 6-19-00

% Damage7-16-00

% Damage7-29-00

1 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.5 Fl. Oz./M Ft2 2 Spring, 2 Fall 37.5 A 38.8 BC 27.5 BCD 45.0 BC2 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 Fl. Oz./M Ft2 2 Spring, 2 Fall 38.8 A 26.3 CD 18.8 CDE 40.0 C3 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.15 Oz/M Ft2 2 Spring, 2 Fall 38.8 A 45.0 AB 38.8 AB 52.5 ABC4 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.3 Oz/M Ft2 2 Spring, 2 Fall 26.3 AB 26.3 CD 27.5 BCD 40.0 C5 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M Ft2 2 Spring, 2 Fall 11.3 B 1.3 E 10.0 DE 45.0 BC6 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M Ft2 2 Spring 30.0 AB 8.8 E 11.3 CDE 46.3 BC7 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M Ft2 2 Spring, 1 Fall 22.8 AB 15.0 DE 18.8 CDE 53.8 AB8 BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.29 Lb Ai/Acre 2 Spring, 2 Fall 31.3 AB 23.8 D 28.8 BC 50.0 ABC9 BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.5 Lb Ai/Acre 2 Spring, 2 Fall 43.8 A 27.5 CD 48.8 A 53.8 AB10 BAS 505 50 WDG 0.34 Lb Ai/Acre 2 Spring, 2 Fall 12.5 6.3 E 7.5 E 40.0 C11 Check 46.3 A 53.8 A 48.8 A 61.3 ALSD 24.81 14.99 18.2 12.62Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (LSD, P=0.05)

Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Take-all Patch(Spring Applications)

J. S. Gregos, G. Jung and B. Lisi

Department of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control of take-all patch of colonial bentgrass maintained atfairway height cut caused by Gaeumannomyces graminis

EXPERIMENTAL METHODSIndividual plots, 3 ft x 4 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design with

six replications. The experimental area was not inoculated and all disease is caused by natural

occurrence. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8005

VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. The treatments were then waterin with 1/4” of water. Preventative applications were initiated on April 27. The curative

applications were initiated on May 25 after symptom development was observed. All treatmentswere also applied on October 2 and 30, 2000. The experimental area received 3 lbs. of nitrogenduring the growing season from the following applications: 1/2# N (46-0-0) on May 25, 1.5# N(Spring Valley 25-3-4) on June 19 and 1# N (46-0-0) on July 28. Percent damage was evaluatedon May 25, June 19, July 16, and 29 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of varianceand LSD was used to determine significant differences between treatment means.

DISCUSSIONNo irrigation was applied to the area two weeks following the last treatment (to

encourage symptom development). Generally the spring applications had little affect on thedevelopment of take-all patch symptoms. Some of the treatments that did show some significantsymptom reduction included Heritage, Chipco Triton, Bayleton and the Experimental. The

Experimental treatments also displayed a trend with rate increase, with the curative applicationsproviding similar results to the preventative. The study will be evaluated trough the summer of2001 and data will be reported later. As with fall applications it is believed that any chemical

application must be in combination with routine irrigation to get desirable results.

Table 1. Percent Take-all Patch Damage# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Interval1 % Damage

5-25-00% Damage6-19-00

% Damage 7-16-00

% Damage7-29-00

1 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 18.3 A-E 0.8 E 10.0 DEF 5.0 H2 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 22.5 ABC 17.5 AB 17.5 B-F 10.0 C-H

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 2.0 Fl Oz/M ft2

3 Compass 50 WDG 0.2 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 14.2 A-E 9.2 B-E 21.7 A-D 17.5 A-DBanner Maxx 1.24 MC 2.0 Fl Oz/M ft2

4 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 15.8 A-E 17.5 AB 31.7 AB 20.0 AB5 Compass 50 WDG 0.2 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 12.5 A-E 13.3 A-D 17.5 B-F 15.8 A-E

6 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 2.0 Fl Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 16.7 A-E 16.7 AB 20.0 A-E 12.5 B-H7 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 24.2 AB 17.5 AB 34.2 A 17.5 A-D8 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 20.0 A-D 15.8 ABC 26.7 ABC 21.7 A9 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 18.3 A-E 10.0 B-E 21.7 A-D 13.3 A-H10 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 12.5 A-E 5.0 DE 11.7 DEF 7.5 E-H

11 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 5.0 E 1.7 E 5.8 EF 8.3 E-H12 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 13.3 A-E 10.0 B-E 15.8 C-F 12.5 B-H13 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 25.0 A 16.7 AB 15.8 C-F 6.7 FGH14 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 15.8 A-E 8.3 B-E 20.8 A-D 13.3 A-H15 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 14.2 A-E 8.3 B-E 10.0 DEF 9.2 D-H

16 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 Fl Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 20.0 A-D 8.3 B-E 7.5 DEF 7.5 E-H17 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 21.4 ABC 6.7 CDE 12.5 C-F 11.7 B-H18 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 Oz/M ft2 35 Day Prev 15.8 A-E 15.0 ABC 16.7 C-F 18.3 ABC19 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 10.0 CDE 0.8 E 7.5 DEF 10.0 C-H

20 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 Oz/M ft2 35 Day Cur 17.5 A-E 20.0 E 15.8 C-F 15.0 A-F21 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 Fl Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 11.7 A-E 6.7 A 5.0 F 6.7 FGH22 Bayleton 50 WDG 2.0 Oz/M ft2 28 Day SP/FA 10.8 B-E 6.7 CDE 10.8 DEF 5.8 GH23 Heritage 50 WDG 0.2 Oz/M ft2 14 Day SP/FA 6.7 DE 3.3 E 5.8 EF 5.0 H24 Check 15.8 A-E 2.5 E 15.0 C-F 14.2 A-G

LSD 13.38 9.67 14.70 8.84

Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05)1SP = Spring Applications, FA = Fall Applications

Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Anthracnose

J. S. Gregos, G. Jung, and Bob LisiDepartment of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control of Basal Rot Anthracnose caused byColletotrichum graminicola.


Individual plots, 3 ft x 7 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design

with four replications. The experimental area was not inoculated and all diseasedevelopment was of natural occurrence. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom

sprayer, using XR Teejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq.

ft. Applications were initiated on May 25, 2000 and followed a regular application interval.Curative applications were first applied on July 12. The area received 3 pounds of nitrogenfrom Feed Grade Urea (46-0-0) during the growing season. One pound applications wereapplied on both April 24 and May 25, 2000. Two 1/2# applications were made on July 8 andJuly 25, 2000. Percent damage was evaluated on July 10 and August 14, 2000. Dollar spotwas rated on July 28, August 14 and September 8, 2000. Data obtained was subjected toanalysis of variance and LSD was used to determine significant differences between

treatment means.

DISCUSSION

Disease pressure was not as severe as in years in the past, resulting in limited data oncontrol of anthracnose. However, valuable data was obtained on dollar spot control. As

would be expected with products such as Heritage and Compass, little or no control of dollarspot was obtained. The more commonly used dollar spot treatments (Banner Maxx, DaconilUltrex, Cleary’s 3336) did perform as expected, providing around 100% control. One,

treatment to note is the curative application of Banner Maxx (#43), even though a high ratewas used, cleaning up old dollar spot damage at greens height is very difficult. A preventiveapplication schedule should always be used when dollar spot and anthracnose may be active.

Many of the experimentals in the trial displayed good control of dollar spot. Theseinclude; Experimental A, Experimental B, Lynx, Chipco Triton, and TADS 12529.

Table 1. Percent Anthracnose RatingsTrt.# Treatment Formulation Rate Rate Unit Interval % Damage % Damage

7-10-00 8-14-00

1 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 3.8 B-E 12.5 AB

2 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 3.8 B-E 6.3 A-D3 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 3.8 BCD4 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 3.8 B-E 5.0 A-D5 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 6.3 A-D6 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 7.5 BC 8.8 A-D

7 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 13.8 A 11.3 ABC8 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 7.5 BC 6.3 A-D9 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 3.8 B-E 7.5 A-D10 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 5.0 B-E 10.0 A-D

11 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 1.3 DE 7.5 A-D12 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 7.5 A-D13 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 2.5 CDE 7.5 A-D14 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 5.0 B-E 5.0 A-D15 Heritage 50 WDG 0.2 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 1.3 DE 2.5 CD

16 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 28 Day Pre 1.3 DE 6.3 A-D17 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 3.8 B-E 8.8 CD18 Compass 50 WDG 0.20 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 1.3 DE 6.3 A-D19 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 1.3 DE 2.5 CD

20 Compass 50 WDG 0.1 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 E 5.0 A-DBanner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2

21 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 E 6.3 A-DBanner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2

22 Compass 50 WDG 0.1 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 5.0 B-E 7.5 A-D

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft223 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 1.3 DE 13.8 A

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft224 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 1.3 DE 8.8 A-D

25 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 1.3 DE 11.3 ABC26 Lynx 45 WP 0.55 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 5.0 A-D

Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 1.82 oz/1000 ft227 Lynx 45 WP 0.55 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 1.3 DE 6.3 A-D28 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 1.82 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 8.8 A-D

29 Junction 61.1 DF 2.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 6.3 BCD 10.0 A-D30 Junction 61.1 DF 4.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 6.3 BCD 5.0 A-D31 Pentathlon 75 DF 3.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 5.0 B-E 3.8 BCD32 Pentathlon 75 DF 4.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 2.5 CD33 BAS 500 20 WDG 0.27 LB AI/Acre 14 Day Pre 0.0 E 3.8 BCD

34 BAS 500 20 WDG 0.49 LB AI/Acre 28 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 1.3 D35 BAS 510 70 WDG 0.38 LB AI/Acre 14 Day Pre 6.3 BCD 8.8 A-D36 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.5 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 2.5 CDE 6.3 A-D37 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 5.0 B-E 10.0 A-D

38 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.5 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 5.0 B-E 8.8 A-D39 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 1.3 DE 1.3 D40 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 1.3 DE 6.3 A-D41 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.30 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 5.0 B-E 7.5 A-D42 Heritage 50 WDG 0.3 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.0 E 3.8 BCD

43 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 2.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Cur 8.8 AB 8.8 A-D44 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 28 Day Cur 7.5 BC 12.5 AB45 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Cur 7.5 BC 2.5 CD46 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 5.5 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 E 5.0 A-D

47 Cleary’s 3336 4 F 2.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 3.8 B-E 6.3 A-D48 Untreated Control 7.5 BC 7.5 A-D

LSD (P=0.05) 5.62 9.511 Percent damage means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ, (LSD 0.05)

Table 2. Dollar Spot Ratings# Treatment Formulation Rate Rate Unit Interval # of Infect.

Ctr./Plot% Damage % Damage

7-10-00 8-14-00 9-8-00

1 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 8.0 FGH 6.3 H-K 17.5 J-M2 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 13.5 C-H 11.3 F-J 27.5 H-K3 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 13.0 D-H 7.5 G-K 16.3 K-N4 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 6.0 GH 7.5 G-K 8.8 MN5 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 3.0 GH 5.0 IJK 5.0 MN

6 Experimental A XXXX 0.24 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 35.3 A-E 22.5 A-E 33.8 E-J7 Experimental A XXXX 0.47 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 44.5 A 25.0 A-D 48.8 A-E8 Experimental A XXXX 0.94 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 21.8 A-H 21.3 B-E 42.5 A-H9 Experimental A XXXX 1.88 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 25.0 A-H 15.0 E-H 35.0 D-I

10 Experimental A XXXX 2.83 fl oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 22.5 A-H 11.3 F-J 26.3 H-K11 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 23.8 A-H 20.0 C-F 37.5 C-I12 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Pre 22.5 A-H 16 D-G 36.3 D-I13 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 37.0 A-D 30 AB 42.5 A-H14 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 35 Day Cur 37.5 A-D 25 A-D 50.0 A-E

15 Heritage 50 WDG 0.2 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 41.0 AB 22 A-E 53.8 ABC16 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 28 Day Pre 44.8 A 30 AB 58.8 A17 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 11.8 D-H 11.3 F-J 26.3 H-K18 Compass 50 WDG 0.20 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 10.8 E-H 13.8 E-I 28.8 G-K

19 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 8.3 FGH 15.0 E-H 31.3 F-K20 Compass 50 WDG 0.1 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft221 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2

22 Compass 50 WDG 0.1 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.5 H 0.0 K 3.8 MNBanner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2

23 Compass 50 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.0 H 1.3 K 1.3 MNBanner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2

24 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N25 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.0 H 1.3 K 2.5 MN26 Lynx 45 WP 0.55 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 1.82 oz/1000 ft227 Lynx 45 WP 0.55 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

28 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 1.82 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 4.8 GH 5.0 IJK 17.5 J-M29 Junction 61.1 DF 2.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 40.8 AB 22.5 A-E 42.5 A-H30 Junction 61.1 DF 4.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 37.0 A-D 27.5 ABC 45.0 A-G31 Pentathlon 75 DF 3.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 26.5 A-G 26.3 ABC 40.0 B-H32 Pentathlon 75 DF 4.0 oz/1000 ft2 7 Day Pre 33.8 A-F 25.0 A-D 46.3 A-F

33 BAS 500 20 WDG 0.27 LB AI/Acre 14 Day Pre 2.3 GH 3.8 JK 21.3 I-L34 BAS 500 20 WDG 0.49 LB AI/Acre 28 Day Pre 4.8 GH 6.3 H-K 27.5 H-K35 Experimental B 70 WDG 0.38 LB AI/Acre 14 Day Pre 0.3 H 0.0 K 0.0 N36 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.5 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

37 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N38 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 0.5 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 2.5 MN39 Chipco Triton 1.67 SC 1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 1.3 MN40 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.15 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N41 TADS 12529 70 WDG 0.30 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 0.0 N

42 Heritage 50 WDG 0.3 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Pre 18.5 B-H 21.3 B-E 36.3 D-I43 Banner Maxx 1.24 MC 2.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Cur 19.8 A-H 3.8 JK 5.0 MN44 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 oz/1000 ft2 28 Day Cur 39.0 AB 26.3 ABC 41.3 B-H45 Compass 50 WDG 0.25 oz/1000 ft2 21 Day Cur 22.8 A-H 22.5 A-E 46.3 AB

46 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 5.5 oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 3.8 MN47 Cleary’s 3336 4 F 2.0 fl oz/1000 ft2 14 Day Pre 0.0 H 0.0 K 1.3 MN48 Check 42.3 AB 31.3 A 51.3 A-D

LSD (P=0.05) 25.81 9.98 17.121 Percent damage means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ, (LSD 0.05)

Evaluation of Chemical Methods for Control of Pythium

J. Gregos, G. Jung, and B. LisiDepartment of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control of Pythium Blight caused by Pythium spp. onperennial ryegrass maintained at 1” mowing height.


Individual plots, 3 ft x 7 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design withthree replications. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XRTeejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq. ft. Similarevaluations were conducted in each greenhouse. The environment within the greenhouses wasmaintained at 100% humidity and around 100°F during the day, and above 70°F at night.Humidity was controlled using an overhead mist system.

All Applications were initiated on July 7 due to an early outbreak of Pythium Blight.The seven-day applications were also applied on July 16. All applications were appliedagain on July 25 and the seven day applications again on July 31. The first green houseswere covered on July 25 and inoculated on July 26. The first houses are used to obtain the 7DAT results, at which time the greenhouses are disassembled. The second houses werecovered on July 31 and inoculated on August 1. The pressure was maintained for another 14day before the plastic was removed. Data was obtained at 7, 14, and 21 DAT and subjectedto statistical analysis. Table 1 contains the data from one group of treatments, while table 2contains the data from the other set of treatments.

DISCUSSION

In review of the data there are some slight differences between DAT and trials. Thisis the result of how the study is run. Study A and Study B are run in two different pairs ofgreenhouses and with in each study there are two houses. House #1, in both Study A and B,is run for 7 days after inoculation and the 7 DAT data is obtained from those. House #2 inboth studies is run from 7 DAT to 21 DAT, and that data is obtained. Even though all fourgreenhouses were established at the same time some differences may occur inmicroenvironment or fungal population from Study A to Study B.

From the data in tables 1and 2 the best treatments for 7, 14 and 21 days aftertreatment are presented in table 3. About three chemicals provided significant amount ofcontrol at the 21 DAT rating, but this data must be view cautiously. Most of the systemicchemicals on the market today will provide sufficient control for 10-14 days, but any time

longer than that can result in failure. The 21 DAT data is only provided as a guide and is notencouraged to be used if optimum weather is present for Pythium blight development

Table 1. Results from Study A

# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Timing % Damage % Damage % Damage7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT

1 Junction 61 DF 2.0 oz/M 7 Day 55.0 ABC 15.0 B-F 35.0 CD2 Junction 61 DF 4.0 oz/M 7 Day 43.3 A-D 21.7 ABC 55.0 ABC3 Junction 61 DF 8.0 oz/M 7 Day 35.0 B-E 20.0 A-D 41.7 BCD4 Fore 80 WP 8.0 oz/M 7 Day 33.3 C-F 20.0 A-D 55.0 ABC5 Heritage 50 WG 0.4 oz/M Prev 6.7 GH 1.7 F 20.0 D6 Banol 6 EC 2.0 fl oz/M Prev 3.3 GH 13.3 B-F 36.7 BCD7 Chipco Sig. 80 WG 4.0 oz/M Prev 11.7 FGH 3.3 F 13.3 D8 Subdue Maxx 1 MC 1.0 fl oz/M Prev 0.0 H 6.7 DEF 31.7 CD9 Exp. A XXXX 1.0 fl oz/M Prev 1.7 H 5.0 EF 26.7 CD10 Exp. B XXXX 1.44 oz/M Prev 20.0 E-H 3.3 F 28.3 CD11 Compass 50 WG 0.25 oz/M Prev 61.7 A 30.0 A 78.3 A12 Exp. C XXXX 0.24 fl oz/M Prev 56.7 AB 23.3 AB 65.0 AB13 Exp. C XXXX 0.47 fl oz/M Prev 48.3 ABC 30.0 A 73.3 A14 Exp. C XXXX 0.94 fl oz/M Prev 25.0 D-G 18.3 A-E 51.7 ABC15 Exp. C XXXX 1.88 fl oz/M Prev 35.0 B-E 8.3 C-F 40.0 BCD16 Exp. C XXXX 2.83 fl oz/M Prev 33.3 C-F 1.7 F 35.0 CD17 Exp. D XXXX 0.77 fl oz/M Prev 10.0 GH 3.3 F 30.0 CD18 Check 56.7 AB 26.7 AB 53.3 ABCLSD (P=.05) 22.86 14.76 29.94

Table 2 Results from Study B

# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Timing % Damage % Damage % Damage7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT

1 Exp. A XXXX 0.5 fl oz/M Prev 15.0 DEF 6.7 EF 35.0 CD2 Exp. A XXXX 1.0 fl oz/M Prev 6.7 EF 1.7 EF 21.7 DE3 Exp. A XXXX 2.0 fl oz/M Prev 0.0 F 1.7 EF 16.7 DE4 Subdue Maxx 1 MC 1.0 fl oz/M Prev 0.0 F 1.7 EF 6.7 E5 Junction 61 DF 8.0 oz/M 7 Day 21.7 CDE 26.7 BCD 58.3 AB6 Fore 80 WP 8.0 oz/M 7 Day 20.0 DE 18.3 CDE 36.7 BCD7 Heritage 50 WG 0.4 oz/M Prev 1.7 F 0.0 F 8.3 E8 Banol 6 EC 2.0 fl oz/M Prev 0.0 F 26.7 BCD 58.3 AB9 Chipco Sig. 80 WG 4.0 oz/M Prev 11.7 EF 18.3 CDE 33.3 CDE10 Compass 50 WG 0.25 oz/M Prev 41.7 B 36.7 AB 65.0 A11 Exp. C XXXX 0.94 fl oz/M Prev 41.7 B 31.7 ABC 63.3 A12 Exp. D XXXX 0.77 fl oz/M Prev 6.7 EF 0.0 F 8.3 E13 Exp. B XXXX 0.72 fl oz/M Prev 30.0 BCD 18.3 CDE 26.7 DE14 Exp. B XXXX 0.96 fl oz/M Prev 21.7 CDE 15.0 C-F 25.0 DE15 Exp. B XXXX 1.44 fl oz/M Prev 15.0 DEF 11.7 DEF 26.7 DE16 Exp. B XXXX 1.92 fl oz/M Prev 5.0 EF 5.0 EF 25.0 DE17 Terrazole 35 WG 4.25 oz/M 7 Day 71.7 A 41.7 AB 55.0 ABC18 Check 38.3 BC 48.3 A 65.0 ALSD (P=.05) 17.78 18.23 22.15Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD)

Additionally, it should be noted that Experimental C seems to require sometime tobecome active within the plant, as in both studies it performed better at the 14 DAT ratingsthan the 7 DAT ratings. The results also indicate that some of the lettered experimental areperforming better then currently available chemistries.

Table 3. Products and Expected Length of Efficacy

7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DATBanol Banol Heritage

Chipco Signature Chipco Signature Subdue MaxxHeritage Heritage Experimental D

Subdue Maxx Subdue MaxxExperimental A Experimental AExperimental B Experimental BExperimental D Experimental C

Experimental D

Evaluation of Fungicide Combinations for the Control Poa annua SummerStress


INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemical combinations effects on Poa annua turf quality maintained at 0.125”mowing height.


Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design withfour replications. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq. ft. Applications wereinitiated on June 14, 2000. Follow-up applications were applied based on their applicationsinterval. Turf quality and disease incidence ratings were taken on July 16, and August 15, 2000.The area received 3 pounds of nitrogen from Feed Grade Urea (46-0-0) during the growingseason. One pound applications were applied on both April 24 and May 25, 2000. Two 1/2#applications were made on July 8 and July 25, 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysis ofvariance and LSD was used to determine significant differences between treatment means.

DISCUSSIONWhile all the combinations performed better then their components individually, the

treatments with Chipco Signature on a 14-day schedule performed the best. The additiveproperties of these chemicals significantly reduce the amount of damage caused by dollar spotand anthracnose in comparison to the individual treatments and the check. Turf quality alsobenefited from the combination of the fungicides, with the best combination being Daconil Ultrex+ Chipco Signature.

Quality and Disease Ratings

# Treatment Form. Rate

Rate Unit Interval % Damage 1/2Turf Quality 1/2Turf Quality

7-16-00 7-16-00 8-15-001 Heritage

Daconil UltrexChipco Signature

50 WDG82.5 WDG80 WDG

0.43.24.0

Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2

28 Day14 Day14 Day

7.5 CD 6.75 AB 7.13 AB

2 HeritageDaconil Ultrex

50 WDG82.5 WDG

0.43.2

Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2

28 Day14 Day

16.3 B 5.13 CD 6.25 BC

3 Chipco SignatureDaconil Ultrex

80 WDG82.5 WDG

4.03.8

Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2

14 Day14 Day

5.0 CD 6.88 A 7.75 A

4 Chipco SignatureHeritageDaconil Ultrex

80 WDG50 WDG\82.5 WDG

4.00.43.2

Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2Oz/1000 ft2

28 Day28 Day14 Day

3.8 D 6.63 AB 6.63 BC

5 Heritage 50 WDG 0.4 Oz/1000 ft2 28 Day 16.3 B 5.0 BCD 6.13 BC6 Daconil Ultrex 82.5 WDG 3.2 Oz/1000 ft2 14 Day 16.3 B 4.88 CD 6.25 CD7 Chipco Signature 80 WDG 4.0 Oz/1000 ft2 14 Day 16.3 B 5.63 A-D 5.88 BC8 Chipco Signature 80 WDG 4.0 Oz/1000 ft2 28 Day 10.0 C 6.00 ABC 6.25 CD9 Check 25.0 A 4.50 D 4.88 DLSD (P=0.05) 5.11 1.304 1.221

1 Percent damage means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ, (LSD 0.05)2 Turf quality scale: 0-9, 4.5 acceptable, 9 = Best, 0 = Dead

Dollar Spot Volume Study (Fairway)


INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effects of carrier volume on the length of efficacy of 9 commonlyused dollar spot control products.


Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized split block design withfour replications. The experimental area was inoculated 7 days after treatment. Treatmentswere applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8003 VS, XR Teejet 8005VS, and XR Teejet 8008 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 1 gal, 2 gal, and 4 galper 1000 sq ft respectively. Applications were applied on June 21, 2000. The plot wasinoculated on july 13, 2000. The experimental area receive a total of 1.5 lbs of Nitrogen(Urea 46-0-0) from two applications (1/2 lb on May 25 and 1 lb on July 28). Data wascollected on 19, 25, 38, 55, and 62 DAT. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of varianceand LSD was used to determine significant differences between treatment means.

DISCUSSION Most products performed well until the 55 DAT treatment. The only product thatfailed earlier, and was not expected to last that long, was Daconil Ultrex. Based on theresults from the carrier volume it was determined that there is no statistical difference amongthe spray volumes used in this trial. These findings are similar to the results that wereobtained in a carrier volume study on greens height bentgrass the previous two years. This isonly the first year of the study and it must be repeated to validate the results.

Table 1. Percent Dollar Spot Damage

# Treatment FormAmt

Rate RateUnit

%Damage19 DAT

%Damage25 DAT

%damage38 DAT

%Damage55 DAT

%Damage62 DAT

1 Daconil Ultrex1 Gallon

82.5 WG 3.7 OZ/1000 FT2 2.5 c 0 c 21.3 b 46.3 bc 52.5 ab

2 Daconil Ultrex2 Gallons

82.5 WG 3.7 OZ/1000 FT2 1.3 cd 0 c 27.5 ab 55 ab 60 a

3 Daconil Ultrex4 Gallons

82.5 WG 3.7 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 21.3 b 42.5 cd 51.3 abc

4 Chipco 26 GT1 Gallon

2 SC 4 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 5 cde 23.8 e 31.3 def

5 Chipco 26 GT2 Gallons

2 SC 4 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 2.5 cde 21.3 ef 23.8 f-i

6 Chipco 26 GT4 Gallons

2 SC 4 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 5 cde 22.5 e 27.5 efg

7 Cleary's 33361 Gallon

50 WP 2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 2.5 cde 12.5 f-i 18.8 g-k

8 Cleary's 33362 Gallons

50 WP 2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 3.8 cde 17.5 e-h 22.5 f-j

9 Cleary's 33364 Gallons

50 WP 2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 3.8 cde 21.3 ef 23.8 f-i

10 Eagle1 Gallon

40 WP 1.2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 7.5 i 11.3 jkl

11 Eagle2 Gallons

40 WP 1.2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 5 i 6.3 l

12 Eagle4 Gallons

40 WP 1.2 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 5 i 6.3 l

13 Sentinel1 Gallon

40 WG 0.33 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 5 i 6.3 l

14 Sentinel2 Gallons

40 WG 0.33 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 5 i 6.3 l

15 Sentinel4 Gallons

40 WG 0.33 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 7.5 i 8.8 kl

16 Banner Maxx1 Gallon

1.24 EC 2 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 1.3 de 10 hi 10 kl

17 Banner Maxx2 Gallons

1.24 EC 2 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 2.5 cde 11.3 ghi 16.3 g-l

18 Banner Maxx4 Gallons

1.24 EC 2 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 10 hi 12.5 i-l

19 Rubigan1 Gallon

1 SC 1.5 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 8.8 c 23.8 e 32.5 def

20 Rubigan2 Gallons

1 SC 1.5 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 8.8 c 25 e 31.3 def

21 Rubigan4 Gallons

1 SC 1.5 FL OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 5 cde 20 efg 25 e-h

22 Bayleton1 Gallon

25 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 10 hi 13.8 h-l

23 Bayleton2 Gallons

25 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 11.3 ghi 16.3 g-l

24 Bayleton4 Gallons

25 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 0 e 10 hi 13.8 h-l

25 Vorlan1 Gallon

50 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 7.5 cd 35 d 36.3 de

26 Vorlan2 Gallons

50 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 7.5 cd 37.5 cd 41.3 bcd

27 Vorlan4 Gallons

50 WG 1 OZ/1000 FT2 0 d 0 c 8.8 c 36.3 d 40 cd

28 Check1 Gallon

17.5 b 16.3 b 26.3 ab 53.8 ab 56.3 a

29 Check2 Gallons

17.5 b 18.8 ab 32.5 a 55 ab 58.8 a

30 Check4 Gallons

22.5 a 21.3 a 32.5 a 57.5 a 60 a

LSD (P=.05) 2.45 3.62 6.59 9.91 11.9Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, LSD)

1999-2000 Snow Mold Control EvaluationGateway Golf Club (Poa annua Fairway)

J. S. Gregos and G. JungDepartment of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate chemicals for the control of Typhula blight and pink snow mold.


This evaluation was conducted at Gateway Golf Club, Land O’ Lakes, WI on annualbluegrass maintained under golf course fairway management conditions, at 0.75 inch cuttingheight. Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design withthree replications. The experimental area was not inoculated; all disease development was ofnatural occurrence. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XRTeejet 8005 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. Granularapplications were applied using a shaker jar. Early applications were made on October 9, 1999and late applications on November 1, 1999. Percent snow mold damage was evaluated on March25, and April 19, 2000. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of variance and LSD was usedto determine significant differences between treatment means.

DISCUSSION

This year was unusual in the fact that there was a significant amount of pink snow molddamage. The snow melt period was also shorter then years in the past, and probably did notprovide favorable conditions for some of the snow molds to form extensively. This is mostevident in the Prostar plots where there was a significant amount of damage, when normally ithas very minor damage or none. Several treatments provided 100% control and all results areprovided in table 1. PCNB at 12 ounces applied twice was one such treatment. The standardmix of Chipco 26 GT, Daconil WeatherStik and PCNB also did well. In general it is importantto tank-mix several chemical to achieve desired control in the Northern Region of Wisconsin.

Table 1. Snow Mold Damage Ratings (Gateway)Trt#

Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Apply Timing % Infection3-25-00

% Damage4-19-00

1 Compass 50WG 0.25 Oz/1000ft2 Late 3.3 IJ 1.7 GBanner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

PCNB 75WP 4.0 Oz/1000ft2

2 Medallion 50WG 0.30 Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 G-J 10.0 D-GBanner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2


3 Compass 50WG 0.25 Oz/1000ft2 Late 6.7 HIJ 8.3 D-G4 Banner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 28.3 C-H 25.0 B-E5 Medallion 50WG 0.30 Oz/1000ft2 Late 18.3 E-J 13.3 D-G6 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 3.3 IJ 3.3 FG

Chipco Triton 1.67SC 1.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

7 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 J 0.0 GChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2

Turfcide 400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

8 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 J 1.7 GChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2

Daconil Ultrex 82.5WG 5.0 Oz/1000ft2

9 Chipco Triton 1.67SC 1.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 6.7 HIJ 6.7 EFGChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2


10 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 15.0 E-J 8.3 D-G11 Chipco Triton 1.67SC 1.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 16.7 E-J 16.7 C-G12 Chipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2 Both 46.7 ABC 35.0 ABC13 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 6.7 HIJ 10.0 D-G


14 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 G-J 11.7 D-GChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2

Turfcide400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

15 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 45.0 A-D 28.3 A-D16 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 60.0 A 46.7 A17 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 HIJ 3.3 FG


18 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 6.7 HIJ 3.3 FGTurfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

19 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Both 15.0 E-J 11.7 D-G20 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Both 5.0 HIJ 1.7 G


21 PCNB 75WP 4.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 G-J 13.3 D-G22 Turfcide 400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 3.3 IJ 3.3 FG23 Turfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 J 0.0 G24 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 31.7 B-G 23.3 B-F25 Daconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 21.7 D-J 13.3 D-G26 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 21.7 D-J 11.7 D-G

Daconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2

27 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 G-J 13.3 D-GDaconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2

PCNB 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

28 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 13.3 F-J 11.7 D-GProstar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2

29 Prostar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2 Late 25.0 C-I 18.3 B-G30 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 3.3 IJ 1.7 G



31 Chipco 26GT 2SC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 J 0.0 GDaconil WeatherStik 6F 2.75 Fl Oz/1000ft2


32 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 18.3 E-J 13.3 D-G33 Daconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 36.7 A-F 35.0 ABC34 Turfcide 400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 15.0 E-J 11.7 D-G35 Daconil Ultrex 82.5WG 5.0 Oz/1000ft2 Both 11.7 G-J 13.3 D-G36 Bayleton 50WG 2.0 Oz/1000ft2 Early 13.3 F-J 13.3 D-G37 Prostar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2 Early 38.3 A-E 35 ABC38 Banner Maxx 1.24MC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 G-J 8.3 D-G39 Caloclor 90WP 3.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 G-J 11.7 D-G40 FF II 14-3-3 15.4G 104 Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 HIJ 3.3 FG41 Engage 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 3.3 IJ 3.3 FG42 Turfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 HIJ 3.3 FG43 Teraclor 75WP 8.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 G-J 5.0 EFG44 3336 F 4.5F 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 HIJ 6.7 EFG


45 Untreated Control 55.0 AB 38.3 AB

LSD 23.78 20.25CV 95.9 99.93

Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, LSD)* Quality rating scale: 0-9, 0 = dead, 9 = no damage and dark green, 4-5 acceptable.

1999-2000 Snow Mold Control EvaluationSentryworld (Penneagle Nursery)


INTRODUCTION



This evaluation was conducted at Sentryworld, Stevens Point, WI on creeping bentgrassmaintained under golf course tee management conditions, at 0.375-inch cutting height.Individual plots, 3 ft x 10 ft, were arranged in a randomized complete block design with threereplications. The experimental area was not inoculated; all disease development was of naturaloccurrence. Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8005VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. Granular applications wereapplied using a shaker jar. Early applications were made on October 11, 1999 and lateapplications on November 3, 1999. Percent snow mold damage was evaluated on February 29,and March 24, 2000. Quality ratings were also made on March 24, 2000. Data obtained wassubjected to analysis of variance and LSD was used to determine significant differences betweentreatment means.

DISCUSSION

Ratings were very similar at both rating dates. Several treatments showed excellentcontrol with either 100% or near 100%. One notable results was that the DMI chemistries suchas Bayleton, Chipco Triton, and Banner Maxx performed very well with either little or nodamage. Some of this treatment were only applied once at the early timing and could be a safealternative for fairway applications. As in years in the past, PCNB alone performed less thandesirable and should be tank mixed to improve its efficacy in this region of Wisconsin. TheStandard three way mix of PCN, Chipco 26 GT, and Daconil WeatherStik had less control thatsome other treatments, but did not statistically differ.

Based on the results of this trial and several laboratory experiments, the DMI chemistryhas proven to be an excellent candidate for snow mold control. Several future studies willexplore more closely how they can be used throughout Wisconsin.

Table 1. Snow Mold Damage Ratings (Sentryworld)Trt#

Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Apply Timing % Infection2-29-00

% Damage3-24-00

Quality*3-24-00

1 Compass 50WG 0.25 Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 E-H 11.7 F-K 4.33 G-LBanner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2


2 Medallion 50WG 0.30 Oz/1000ft2 Late 3.3 GH 5.0 H-K 5.67 B-GBanner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2


3 Compass 50WG 0.25 Oz/1000ft2 Late 33.3 BC 45.0 AB 2.67 NO4 Banner Maxx 1.24MC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 E-H 26.7 CDE 3.83 I-N5 Medallion 50WG 0.30 Oz/1000ft2 Late 13.3 D-H 18.3 EFG 3.83 I-N6 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 H 0.0 K 6.0 A-E


7 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 3.3 GH 5.0 H-K 6.67 ABCChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2


8 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 10.0 E-H 10.0 G-K 5.0 D-IChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2


9 Chipco Triton 1.67SC 1.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 H 0.0 K 5.33 C-HChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2


10 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 8.3 FGH 15.0 E-I 4.17 H-M11 Chipco Triton 1.67SC 1.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 H 0.0 K 4.83 D-J12 Chipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2 Both 33.3 BC 31.7 C-D 3.00 L-O13 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 13.3 D-H 1.7 JK 5.00 D-I


14 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 13.3 D-H 13.3 F-J 4.33 G-LChipco Signature 80WG 4.0 Oz/1000ft2

Turfcide400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

15 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 E-H 16.7 E-H 4.17 H-M16 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 35.0 B 36.7 ABC 2.83 MNO17 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 GH 8.3 G-K 4.83 D-J


18 Experimental 250SC 0.77 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 0.0 H 3.3 IJK 5.67 B-GTurfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2

19 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Both 26.7 BCD 33.3 BCD 3.17 K-O20 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Both 3.3 GH 6.7 G-K 5.17 D-I


21 PCNB 75WP 4.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 FGH 13.3 F-J 4.5 F-K22 Turfcide 400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 5.0 GH 11.7 F-K 5.33 C-H23 Turfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 5.0 GH 8.3 G-K 5.67 B-G24 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 23.3 B-E 23.3 DEF 3.5 J-O25 Daconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 4.0 GH 1.7 JK 4.67 E-J26 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 E-H 11.7 F-K 4.5 F-K


27 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 1.7 H 0.0 K 6.00 A-EDaconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2


28 Heritage 50WG 0.4 Oz/1000ft2 Late 0.0 H 0.0 K 6.00 A-EProstar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2

29 Prostar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2 Late 0.0 H 0.0 K 6.17 A-D30 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 0.0 H 3.3 IJK 5.33 C-H



31 Chipco 26GT 2SC 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Both 3.3 GH 5.0 H-K 6.0 A-EDaconil WeatherStik 6F 2.75 Fl Oz/1000ft2


32 Chipco 26GT 2SC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 16.7 D-G 15.0 E-I 4.00 H-N33 Daconil WeatherStik 6F 5.5 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 20.0 C-F 13.3 F-J 4.67 E-J34 Turfcide 400 4SC 8.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 11.7 E-H 13.3 F-J 4.33 G-L35 Daconil Ultrex 82.5WG 5.0 Oz/1000ft2 Both 10.0 E-H 16.7 E-H 4.33 G-L36 Bayleton 50WG 2.0 Oz/1000ft2 Early 3.3 GH 0.0 K 6.17 A-D37 Prostar 70WP 4.5 Oz/1000ft2 Early 0.0 H 0.0 K 6.83 AB38 Banner Maxx 1.24MC 4.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 0.0 H 0.0 K 6.0 A-E39 Caloclor 90WP 3.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 0.0 H 1.7 JK 5.83 B-F40 FF II 14-3-3 15.4G 104 Oz/1000ft2 Late 5.0 GH 8.3 G-K 7.33 A41 Engage 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 8.3 FGH 11.7 F-K 4.67 E-J42 Turfcide 400 4SC 12.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 10.0 E-H 15.0 E-I 4.67 E-J43 Teraclor 75WP 8.0 Oz/1000ft2 Late 3.3 GH 6.7 G-K 4.67 E-J44 3336 F 4.5F 2.0 Fl Oz/1000ft2 Late 20.0 C-F 15.0 E-I 4.67 E-J


45 Untreated Control 56.7 A 48.3 A 2.33 0

LSD 14.9 13.31 1.43CV 88.5 68.99 17.99

Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, LSD)* Quality rating scale: 0-9, 0 = dead, 9 = no damage and dark green, 4-5 acceptable.

1999-2000 Snow Mold Sensitivity StudySentryworld (Penneagle Nursery)


INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the snow mold pathogens sensitivity to different chemistries of fungicideslabeled for their control.


This evaluation was conducted at Sentryworld, Stevens Point, WI on creeping bentgrassmaintained under golf course tee management conditions, at 0.375-inch cutting height.Individual plots, 3 ft x 16 ft, were arranged in a split block design with three replications.Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8005 VS nozzles,at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 2 gal per 1000 sq ft. The 3-ft x 16-ft plots were split into 3 ft x 4-ft sub-plots. These sub plots were inoculated with T incarnata, T. ishikariensis andMicrodochium nivale. Another sub-plot was left uninoculated Applications were made onOctober 19, 1999. Inoculations were made on November 17,1999. Percent snow mold damagewas evaluated on February 29, 2000 and March 24, 2000. Data obtained was subjected toanalysis of variance and LSD was used to determine significant differences between treatmentmeans.

DISCUSSION

From the observations this spring, it was evident that the inoculation of Microdochiumnivale was unsuccessful. Both of the inoculation of T. ishikariensis and T. incarnata did workand significant amounts of damage occurred. However, there was a significant amount ofdamage caused by T. ishikariensis, which was not from the artificial inoculation. The data of thesecond rating date shows that certain chemicals have reduced activity on T. ishikariensis. Belowis a chart grouping the chemical based on their ability to control T. ishikariensis. This data isvital for developing a snow mold program where T. ishikariensis is present. This includesregions of Wisconsin north of the city of Portage

Prostar GOODSentinel GOODBayleton GOOD

Banner Maxx OKRubigan OK

Daconil WeatherStik OKChipco 26 GT OK

Eagle OKTurfcide OK

Heritage POORVorlan POOR

Chloroneb POORFore POOR

Fungo Flo POOR

Table 1. 1999-2000 Snow Mold Sensitivity Trial – Sentryworld

Trt# Treatment Pathogen Form. Rate Rate Unit % Damage 2-29-00 % Damage 3-24-00Avg. Avg.

1 Chipco 26 GT M. nivale 2 F 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 38.3 A-H 26.7 D-L2 Chipco 26 GT T. incarnata 2 F 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 13.3 F-K 10.0 J-P3 Chipco 26 GT T. ishikariensis 2 F 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 16.7 D-K 18.3 G-P4 Chipco 26 GT Uninoculated 2 F 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 30.0 A-J 26.7 D-L5 Banner Maxx M. nivale 1.24 EC 4.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 5.0 JK 6.7 L-P6 Banner Maxx T. incarnata 1.24 EC 4.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JKI 10.0 J-P7 Banner Maxx T. ishikariensis 1.24 EC 4.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 21.7 F-O8 Banner Maxx Uninoculated 1.24 EC 4.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 5.0 M-P9 Bayleton M. nivale 25 WG 4.0 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 1.7 OP10 Bayleton T. incarnata 25 WG 4.0 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 3.3 NOP11 Bayleton T. ishikariensis 25 WG 4.0 OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 3.3 NOP12 Bayleton Uninoculated 25 WG 4.0 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 1.7 OP13 Daconil WS M. nivale 6 F 11.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 41.7 A-F 11.7 I-P14 Daconil WS T. incarnata 6 F 11.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 38.3 A-H 15.0 H-P15 Daconil WS T. ishikariensis 6 F 11.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 51.7 AB 18.3 G-P16 Daconil WS Uninoculated 6 F 11.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 50.0 ABC 20.0 F-P17 Prostar M. nivale 70 WP 4.5 OZ/1000 ft2 0.0 K 3.3 NOP18 Prostar T. incarnata 70 WP 4.5 OZ/1000 ft2 0.0 K 1.7 OP19 Prostar T. ishikariensis 70 WP 4.5 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 0.0 P20 Prostar Uninoculated 70 WP 4.5 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 1.7 OP21 Heritage M. nivale 50 WG 0.4 OZ/1000 ft2 36.7 A-I 30.0 B-J22 Heritage T. incarnata 50 WG 0.4 OZ/1000 ft2 43.3 A-E 43.3 A-E23 Heritage T. ishikariensis 50 WG 0.4 OZ/1000 ft2 23.3 B-K 30.0 B-J24 Heritage Uninoculated 50 WG 0.4 OZ/1000 ft2 25.0 A-K 31.7 A-I25 Rubigan M. nivale 2 SC 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 11.7 G-K 20.0 F-P26 Rubigan T. incarnata 2 SC 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 8.3 IJK 15.0 H-P27 Rubigan T. ishikariensis 2 SC 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 18.3 D-K 23.3 E-N28 Rubigan Uninoculated 2 SC 8.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 11.7 G-K 25.0 E-M29 Sentinel M. nivale 40 WG .33 OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 8.3 K-P30 Sentinel T. incarnata 40 WG .33 OZ/1000 ft2 1.7 JK 5.0 M-P31 Sentinel T. ishikariensis 40 WG .33 OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 6.7 L-P32 Sentinel Uninoculated 40 WG .33 OZ/1000 ft2 3.3 JK 5.0 M-P33 Vorlan M. nivale 50 WG 2.0 OZ/1000 ft2 36.7 A-I 40.0 A-F34 Vorlan T. incarnata 50 WG 2.0 OZ/1000 ft2 18.3 D-K 21.7 F-O35 Vorlan T. ishikariensis 50 WG 2.0 OZ/1000 ft2 43.3 A-E 36.7 A-G36 Vorlan Uninoculated 50 WG 2.0 OZ/1000 ft2 23.3 B-K 25.0 E-M37 Fungo Flo M. nivale 4.5 F 2.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 38.3 A-H 48.3 ABC38 Fungo Flo T. incarnata 4.5 F 2.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 40.0 A-G 51.7 A39 Fungo Flo T. ishikariensis 4.5 F 2.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 40.0 A-G 40.0 A-F40 Fungo Flo Uninoculated 4.5 F 2.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 23.3 B-K 36.7 A-G41 Turfcide 400 M. nivale 4 F 12.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 15.0 E-K 20.0 F-P42 Turfcide 400 T. incarnata 4 F 12.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 13.3 F-K 18.3 G-P43 Turfcide 400 T. ishikariensis 4 F 12.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 25.0 A-K 23.3 E-N44 Turfcide 400 Uninoculated 4 F 12.0 FL OZ/1000 ft2 11.7 G-K 15.0 H-P45 Chloroneb M. nivale 65 WP 7.5 OZ/1000 ft2 35.0 A-I 38.3 A-G46 Chloroneb T. incarnata 65 WP 7.5 OZ/1000 ft2 40.0 A-G 50.0 AB47 Chloroneb T. ishikariensis 65 WP 7.5 OZ/1000 ft2 25.0 A-K 36.7 A-G48 Chloroneb Uninoculated 65 WP 7.5 OZ/1000 ft2 21.7 C-K 33.3 A-H49 Eagle M. nivale 40 WG 1.2 OZ/1000 ft2 10.0 H-K 8.3 K-P50 Eagle T. incarnata 40 WG 1.2 OZ/1000 ft2 21.7 C-K 10.0 J-P51 Eagle T. ishikariensis 40 WG 1.2 OZ/1000 ft2 23.3 B-K 20.0 F-P52 Eagle Uninoculated 40 WG 1.2 OZ/1000 ft2 28.3 A-K 10.0 J-P53 Fore M. nivale 80 WP 8.0 OZ/1000 ft2 53.3 A 40.0 A-F54 Fore T. incarnata 80 WP 8.0 OZ/1000 ft2 45.0 A-D 28.3 C-K55 Fore T. ishikariensis 80 WP 8.0 OZ/1000 ft2 51.7 AB 40.0 A-F56 Fore Uninoculated 80 WP 8.0 OZ/1000 ft2 40.0 A-G 31.7 A-I57 Check M. nivale 41.7 A-F 46.7 A-D58 Check T. incarnata 41.7 A-F 31.7 A-I59 Check T. ishikariensis 43.3 A-E 43.3 A-E60 Check Uninoculated 21.7 C-K 31.7 A-I

LSD (P = 0.05) 29.83 21.08CV 80.92 58.96

Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05)

1999-2000 Snow Mold Control Carrier Volume EvaluationSentryworld (Pennlinks Nursery)


INTRODUCTION



This evaluation was conducted at Sentryworld, Stevens Point, WI on creeping bentgrassmaintained under golf course tee management conditions, at 0.375-inch cutting height.Individual plots, 3 ft x 6 ft, were arranged in a split block design with four replications. Theexperimental area was not inoculated; all disease development was of natural occurrence.Treatments were applied with a CO2-powered boom sprayer, using XR Teejet 8003 VS, XRTeejet 8005 VS, and XR Teejet 8008 VS nozzles, at 30 psi, in water equivalent to 1 gal, 2 gal,and 4 gal per 1000 sq ft respectively. Applications were made on October 19, 1999. Percentsnow mold damage was evaluated on February 29, 2000 and March 24, 2000. Data obtained wassubjected to analysis of variance and LSD was used to determine significant differences betweentreatment means.

DISCUSSION

Based on the results from this study there is no statistical difference between volumes formost treatments. Bayleton, Turfcide and Prostar all showed trends of improved control withhigher volumes. The Chipco 26 GT + Daconil WeatherStik treatment had erratic results with the2-Gallon treatment having more damage then the other two volumes. In comparison to 1999’sresults, these seem to be similar and would emphasize the need for higher volumes with certainproducts to improve efficacy.

Table 1. Snow Mold Carrier Volume Study Damage Ratings

Trt# Treatment Form. Rate Rate Unit Volume % Damage 2/29/00 % Damage 3/24/00Avg. Avg.

1 Bayleton 25 WG 4.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 1 Gal 11.3 G-J 7.5 H-K2 Bayleton 25 WG 4.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 2 Gal 3.8 IJ 3.8 JK3 Bayleton 25 WG 4.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 4 Gal 1.3 J 1.3 K4 Turfcide 400 4 F 12.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 1 Gal 33.8 CDE 22.5 DEF5 Turfcide 400 4 F 12.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 2 Gal 32.5 C-F 13.8 F-J6 Turfcide 400 4 F 12.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 4 Gal 23.8 D-H 16.3 E-H7 Prostar 50 WP 6.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 1 Gal 6.3 HIJ 5.0 IJK8 Prostar 50 WP 6.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 2 Gal 3.8 IJ 3.8 JK9 Prostar 50 WP 6.0 Oz/1000 Ft2 4 Gal 2.5 J 1.3 K10 Daconil WS 6 F 8.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 1 Gal 25.0 D-H 20.0 D-G11 Daconil WS 6 F 8.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 2 Gal 17.5 E-J 13.8 F-J12 Daconil WS 6 F 8.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 4 Gal 23.8 D-H 15.0 E-I13 Chipco 26GT 2 F 6.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 1 Gal 35.0 CDE 27.5 BCD14 Chipco 26GT 2 F 6.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 2 Gal 47.5 BC 35.0 BC15 Chipco 26GT 2 F 6.0 Fl Oz/1000 Ft2 4 Gal 45.0 BC 28.8 BCD16 Chipco 26GT

Daconil WSTurfcide 400

2 F6 F4 F

4.05.54.0

Fl Oz/1000 Ft2Fl Oz/1000 Ft2Fl Oz/1000 Ft2

1 Gal 31.3 C-F 13.8 F-J

17 Chipco 26GTDaconil WSTurfcide 400

2 F6 F4 F

4.05.54.0


2 Gal 28.8 C-G 10.0 G-K

18 Chipco 26GTDaconil WSTurfcide 400

2 F6 F4 F

4.05.54.0


4 Gal 30.0 C-G 10.0 G-K

19 Chipco 26GTDaconil WS

2 F6 F

4.05.5

Fl Oz/1000 Ft2Fl Oz/1000 Ft2

1 Gal 13.8 F-J 7.5 H-K


2 F6 F

4.05.5


2 Gal 41.3 CD 25.0 CDE


2 F6 F

4.05.5


4 Gal 22.5 D-I 16.3 E-H

22 ProstarTurfcide 400

50 WP4 F

4.08.0

Oz/1000 Ft2Fl Oz/1000 Ft2

1 Gal 2.5 J 1.3 K


50 WP4 F

4.08.0


2 Gal 1.3 J 1.3 K


50 WP4 F

4.08.0


4 Gal 2.5 J 1.3 K

25 BayletonTurfcide 400

25 WG4 F

3.08.0


1 Gal 3.8 IJ 3.8 JK


25 WG4 F

3.08.0


2 Gal 1.3 J 1.3 K


25 WG4 F

3.08.0


4 Gal 2.5 J 1.3 K

28 Check 1 Gal 61.3 AB 37.5 B29 Check 2 Gal 72.5 A 50.0 A30 Check 4 Gal 71.3 A 48.8 A

LSD (P =.05) 18.89

10.91

CV 57.33

52.17

Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05, LSD)

Quantification of Pesticide Runoff from Urban Landscapes

Allison T. Walston, R. Chris Williamson, and John C. StierDepartment of Entomology and Department of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

The potential for pesticide runoff from urban landscapes continues to gain increasedpublic attention as well as environmental concern. Turfgrass professionals and homeowners, inurban landscapes, control weed and insect pests using herbicides and insecticides. When suchpesticides are inadvertently applied to impervious surfaces such as driveways and/or sidewalks inurban landscape settings, there may be a greater potential for contaminating bodies of water, bysurface runoff, when compared to a pervious surface such as turf. The objective of this study isto quantify the potential runoff of turfgrass pesticides when applied to pervious (turf) andimpervious (concrete) surfaces.


Site Preparation

Eighteen 8 x 14 foot plots were established; nine were paved with concrete and nine werecomprised of a four-cultivar blend of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.). Each plot wasequipped with flumes, three-way sample splitters, and runoff collection bins. The study site hasan average slope of 5.78%. Each plot was edged with both galvanized steel and plastic-edgingborders to minimize runoff overflow. Plots were mowed at 6.35cm height on 5 to 7-day intervalsusing a rotary- mulching mower and clippings were not collected. The plots received automaticirrigation twice weekly to replace evapotranspiration (ET) losses.

Experimental Design and Treatment Applications

Design: RCB, 3 replications of each treatmentPesticide application dates: Respective plots received either a turfgrass professional or

Homeowner maintenance regime (Table 1).Application method: Turfgrass insecticides and herbicides were applied to both turf and concrete

surfaces. Granular products were applied with a Gandy drop spreader. Liquid productswere applied with a Tee Jet Lawn Spray Gun and CO2 backpack sprayer.

Sampling and Data Analysis

A 50ml sample was collected after each rainfall or irrigation event from respectivecollection bins. The pesticide residue was extracted by passing the 50ml sample through aCarbograph solid phase extraction (SPE) tube. The sample was injected into a high-pressureliquid chromatography (HPLC) machine to determine concentration amounts. Concentrations ofimidacloprid were found in femptamoles (1x10-15) per injection, these units of measure wereadjusted to mg L-1.


Concrete surfaces yielded a considerable amount of water runoff compared to the turfsurfaces. Turf runoff (Figure 1) occurred in substantial amounts during February, yieldingapproximately 73.6 liters of runoff in the turf plots. Another substantial runoff event occurred inJune when 15.13mm of rain fell in less than three days, yielding an average of 8.5 liters of runoffin all turf plots. Turf plots adjacent to concrete plots had occasional runoff, this may be a resultof the concrete plots overflowing. Turf plots adjacent to non-concrete plots only yield runoff forthe two dates listed. Runoff from turf surfaces was negligible to concrete surfaces during theremainder of the year. Concrete runoff (Figure 2) also demonstrates two runoff peaks inFebruary and in June.

Analysis of the runoff for imidacloprid concentrations in turf plots resulted in decreasingamounts. Runoff from concrete plots was also analyzed for imidacloprid concentrations,however amounts of imidacloprid were detected in the controls. This may be explained byseveral factors: either overflow or subsequent cross-contamination from adjacent concrete plotsthat were treated with imidacloprid, or possible sample contamination during the analysis withthe HPLC. As a result, this treatment will be repeated.

CONCLUSIONS

As hypothesized, when comparing the runoff collected from the turf and concrete plots,substantially more runoff occurred in the concrete plots. However, when abundant rainfall (>15mm) or snowmelt occurred, turf plots exhibited ample runoff, but not equivalent to that of theconcrete runoff. The results of the data analysis from the concrete and turf runoff samplesrevealed a decreasing amount of imidacloprid concentration over time (Figure 3). Unexpectedly,imidacloprid was detected on all sample dates regardless of day after treatment application (i.e.,0, 7, 14, and 28) and respective surface. Additionally, less concentration of imidacloprid wasdetected in turf samples compared to concrete samples, 3mg L-1 in turf samples and 16mg L-1 inconcrete samples. These data only include the first year of the imidacloprid data. The herbicides2,4-D, MCPP, MCPA, Dicamba, and Triclopyr are currently be analyzed.

Table 1. Pesticide application dates for runoff study.

Date Pesticide Active IngredientAugust 17, 1999 GrubEX

Merit(Homeowner)(Professional)

ImidaclopridImidacloprid

October 15, 1999 Weed-B-GonHorse Power

(Homeowner)(Professional)

2,4-D, MCPP, DicambaMCPA, Dicamba, Triclopyr

April 5, 2000 Scott’s Turf BuilderBarricade


PendimethalinProdiamine

June 9, 2000 DiazinonDursban


DiazinonChlopyrifos

July 19, 2000 GrubEXMerit


ImidaclopridImidacloprid

October 23, 2000 Weed-B-GonHorse Power


2,4-D, MCPP, DicambaMCPA, Dicamba, Triclopyr

Figure 1. Amount of turf runoff (Liters per plot) for Homeowner, Professional, and Control plotscompared to rainfall (mm).

Figure 2. Amount of concrete runoff (Liters per plot) for Homeowner, Professional, and Controlplots compared to rainfall (mm).

Figure 3. Analysis of imidacloprid concentrations in turf and concrete runoff.

Turf Runoff

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Aug-99

Sep-99

Oct-99

Nov-99

Dec-99

Jan-00

Feb-00

Mar-

00

Apr-00

May

-00

Jun-00

Jul-0

0Aug-00

Sep-00

Runoff Events (Months)

Am

ount

of R

unof

f (L

iters

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall

(mm

)

Homeowner

Professional

Control

Rainfall

Concrete Runoff

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Aug-99

Sep-99

Oct-99

Nov-99

Dec-99

Jan-00

Feb-00

Mar-

00

Apr-00

May

-00

Jun-00

Jul-0

0Aug-00

Sep-00

Runoff Events (Months)

Am

ount

of R

unof

f (Li

ters

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Rainfall

(mm

)

Homeowner

Professional

Control

Rainfall

Turf Runoff

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28

Sample Date

Am

oun

t of

Im

idac

lop

rid

(m

g/L

)

Homeowner

Professional

Control

Concrete Runoff

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28

Sample Dates

Am

oun

t of

Im

idac

lop

rid

(m

g/L

)

Homeowner

Professional

Control

Fertilizer Trials

Wayne R. KussowDepartment of Soil Science

INTRODUCTION

Two fertilizer trials were conducted this year. One addressed questions about the use ofnatural organic fertilizers on sand putting greens. The second trial had the purpose ofevaluating the performance of three relatively new fertilizers.

METHODS

In the first trial, three natural organic fertilizers were applied in 0.25 lb/M increments ofN to ‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass on a sand putting green. Three other fertilizer treatmentswere included for comparison purposes — one with 100% water-soluble N, one with 67%water-soluble N, and a control to which no N was applied. Re-application of the fertilizerswas based on turfgrass color. A total of 1.0 lb N/M was applied between 5 June and 11August. Routine maintenance practices consisted of mowing six times per week at 0.156 inch,daily irrigation at the previous day’s ET rate, and application of fungicides to control dollarspot. The plots were rated for color on a weekly basis using the standard scale of 1 to 9.

Treatments in the second trial consisted of eight fertilizers and an unfertilized control.The fertilizers were applied once on 22 August at the rate of 0.5 lb N/M to a degradedKentucky bluegrass–fine fescue fairway and a creeping bentgrass–Poa annua fairway. Thetwo sites were mowed three times per week, the Kentucky bluegrass–fine fescue at inch andthe bentgrass–Poa at _ inch. Irrigation was three times per week, replenishing the water lostvia ET. The plots were rated for color on a weekly basis using the standard scale of 1 to 9.

OBSERVATIONS

Sand Putting Green

Color responses of the creeping bentgrass on a sand green to the five fertilizers appliedare given in Table 1. Sixteen days after the first 0.25 lb N/M application, Gro-Power 5-3-1with its 100% WSN was the only fertilizer that had induced a significant color response. Bymid-July, treatment differences were much more numerous. Gro-Power continued to providethe most intense color, followed by Creekwood 4-5-4 and then by Isotek 18-3-16, whilebentgrass color in Milorganite and Nature Safe treatments was not significantly greater than inthe unfertilized plots. In mid-August, all fertilizers were providing better color than theunfertilized control and there were no differences among Creekwood 4-5-4, Nature Sate 8-3-5,Gro-Power 5-3-1, and Isotek 18-3-16.

Average color ratings for the duration of the study revealed that all fertilizers hadsignificantly improved bentgrass color as compared to the unfertilized treatment (Table 1).Based on these average color ratings, the fertilizers can be separated into three groups.Darkest color was achieved with application of Gro-Power. In the second group wereCreekwood and Isotek, while Milorganite and Nature Safe provided the least amount of color.

Table 1. Color responses of creeping bentgrass on a sand green to four 0.25 lb N/M applica-tions of fertilizers made between 5 June and 11 August 2000.

___________________________________________________________________________ Bentgrass color rating

Fertilizer applied 21 June 10 July 11 August Average___________________________________________________________________________

Creekwood 4-5-4 6.16 ab† 6.77 b 6.60 a 6.64 bMilorganite 6-2-0 6.27 ab 600 d 6.17 b 6.31 cNature Safe 8-3-5 6.17 ab 5.80 d 6.50 a 6.28 cGro-Power 5-3-1 6.40 a 7.47 a 6.67 a 6.98 aIsotek 18-3-16 6.30 ab 6.37 c 6.47 ab 6.50 bcNone (control) 6.07 b 5.80 d 5.57 c 5.92 d___________________________________________________________________________† Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% probability level.

Fairways:

The three recent entrants into the turf market that were tested are a UHS Signaturefertilizer, Lange’s AgricoTurf II, and Spring Valley’s “Topcutt” 6-1-0 with BioKote. TheUHS Signature fertilizer has Nitroform and Nutralene as its primary N carriers and, of the Npresent, 11.5% is water-soluble and the remainder slow-release N. The AgricoTurf II fertilizerapplied contained urea coated with two chemical compounds — one that slows the conversionof urea-N to ammoniacal N and the second compound that is a nitrification inhibitor. Theanticipated results are less volatilization loss of N and less N loss via leaching and/ordenitrification and an increase in nitrogen use efficiency by turfgrass. The third fertilizer ofrecent introduction is Spring Valley “Topcutt” 6-1-0 with BioKote. This is a biosolids-basedfertilizer and the function of BioKote is to alter microbial release of the organic N. Severalother commercial turf fertilizers and a non-fertilized control were included for comparisonpurposes.

The data in Table 2 show color ratings taken one week after application of the 0.5 lbN/M. These ratings characterize the rate of turfgrass green-up. Isotek 18-3-16, with 67% ofits N being water-soluble, provided the greatest initial increase in turfgrass color at both sites.The least amount of early color enhancement was obtained with UHS Signature 15-0-30 andSpring Valley 6-1-0. Good color change was achieved with Creekwood 4-5-3 and Milorganite,albeit significantly less than with the Isotek fertilizer.

The second set of color ratings presented in Table 2 were taken 6 weeks after fertilizerapplication to characterize the longevity of turfgrass color response. The Isotek 18-3-16 andNature Safe 8-3-5 provided more intense turfgrass color at that time than any of the otherfertilizers. This was true on both sites. The lowest color ratings after 6 weeks were thoseresulting from application of UHS Signature 15-0-30 on the bentgrass–Poa annua fairway andapplication of Creekwood 4-5-3 on the Kentucky bluegrass–fine fescue fairway.

Table 2. Color responses of bentgrass–Poa annua and Kentucky bluegrass–fine fescuefairways to fertilizers applied at the rate of 0.5 lb N/M on 22 August 2000.

___________________________________________________________________________ Color ratingsBentgrass–Poa annua K. bluegrass–fine fescue

Fertilizer applied Wk 1 Wk 6 Average Wk 1 Wk 6 Average___________________________________________________________________________

UHS Signature 15-0-30 6.10de† 5.83cd 6.28d 6.30cd 6.43bc 6.70cLange AgricoTurf II 24-0-24 6.30cd 6.47b 6.86b 6.43c 6.63bc 6.98cCreekwood 4-5-3 6.90b 6.23bc 6.80b 6.13de 6.37c 6.86dMilorganite 6-2-0 6.97b 6.57b 6.89b 6.03e 6.67b 6.70cSpring Valley 6-1-0 5.93ef 6.30b 6.44c 6.00 e 6.43bc 6.37f {with BioKote}Harmony 9-2-0 6.50c 6.47b 6.76b 5.93e 6.43bc 6.71eIsotek 18-3-16 7.50a 7.47a 7.65a 8.00a 7.50a 7.88aNature-Safe 8-3-5 7.53a 7.33a 7.53a 7.23b 7.30a 7.60bNone (control) 5.77f 5.80d 5.98e 5.33f 5.83d 5.82g___________________________________________________________________________

† Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% probability level.

Color ratings averaged over the 6-week duration of the trial showed that Isotek 18-3-16had consistently produced the greatest amount of turfgrass color development (Table 2). Thelowest average color ratings resulted from applications of UHS Signature 15-0-30 to theKentucky bluegrass–fine fescue fairway and application of the UHS product, Milorganite, andHarmony 9-2-0 to the bentgrass–Poa annua fairway.

Because of the time of year that this trial was conducted and its duration of only 6 weeks,conclusions regarding the performance of the three new fertilizers is tentative. The UHSSignature fertilizer was characterized as being a very slow-release N product. The AgricoTurfII fertilizer performed well on both sites, but without inclusion of a pure urea treatment in thetrial, it was impossible to judge whether or not there were significant reductions in volatiliza-tion and denitrification losses of N. Treating the Milorganite-based Spring Valley 6-1-0 withBioKote appeared to have reduced the rate of N mineralization as compared to Milorganitealone.

Effect of Formulation on Crabgrass Control Using Dimension Herbicide

Stephen H Pearson and Dr. John StierUniversity of Wisconsin

Department of HorticultureDecember, 2000

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the pre-emergence activity of differentDimension formulations at different application rates to control crabgrass.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with 4 replications.The turf was Kentucky bluegrass with a history of crabgrass infestation. The soil type of the testarea was Miami silt loam. Each plot was 5 ft X 10 ft. The plot was scalped three times in thespring to simulate a homeowner mowing regime and to stimulate crabgrass emergence. Theregular mowing schedule of the area was 2X weekly at 2.5 inches. Irrigation was set to run 2Xweekly replacing 100% ET. Each test product formulation included Nutralene as a slow-releasenitrogen source.

Treatment Rate (lb ai/A) Timing (lb fert/M)Vigoro Dimension FG

(XF-00034)0.18 pre-emergent 3.75

K-Gro Dimension FG(XF-00028)

0.18 pre-emergent 2.42

Sta-Green Dimension FG(XF-00063)


Lesco FG(XF-00063)


Halts FG(XF-00064)


Untreated Control -- -- 0

The treatments were applied on 4/27/00. Ratings for crabgrass infestation were taken on6/5/00, 7/5/00, and 9/5/00.

RESULTS

Weather conditions during 2000 were extremely favorable for cool-season turfgrassgrowth. Temperatures were relatively mild, and rainfall was usually abundant and frequent (Fig.1 and 2). Crabgrass was not evident in the test area until late August. The favorable climatic

conditions appeared to favor turfgrass growth over crabgrass. Crabgrass pressure was generallymuch lower throughout the research facility in 2000 than in years past. Soil temperatures at a 2inch depth were favorable for crabgrass germination by late April/May (Fig. 3). It is likely somecrabgrass was in the untreated plots prior to September but remained unnoticeable due to thesteady growth of the turf. By late summer/early autumn the crabgrass plants were large enoughto be noticed.

K-Gro Dimension FG, Lesco FG, and Sta-Green Dimension FG all provided good controlof crabgrass (Table 1). Although K-Gro and Lesco appeared to provide the best control, resultswere not statistically different compared to the Sta-Green formulation. Vigoro Dimension FGprovided intermediate control: it was not statistically different than the untreated turf or the K-Gro, Lesco, and Sta-Green formulations. The Halts FG product failed to provide any noticeablecrabgrass control.

Table 1. Mean averages for the number of crabgrass plants on September 5, 2000, Verona, WI.

Treatment# crabgrass plants per plot

9/5/00

Vigoro Dimension FG(XF-00034)

13.5

K-Gro Dimension FG(XF-00028)

1.8

Sta-Green DimensionFG

(XF-00063)6.8

Lesco FG(XF-00063)

2.3

Halts FG(XF-00064)

22.0

Untreated Control 25.8

LSD (0.05) 13.3

Table 1. Raw data for Dimension study, Verona, WI, 2000.

# crabgrass plants per plot

Treatment Rep 6/6/2000 7/5/2000 9/5/20001 1 0 0 321 2 0 0 51 3 0 0 01 4 0 0 172 1 0 0 02 2 0 0 32 3 0 0 02 4 0 0 43 1 0 0 123 2 0 0 03 3 0 0 93 4 0 0 64 1 0 0 44 2 0 0 04 3 0 0 24 4 0 0 35 1 0 0 415 2 0 0 195 3 0 0 175 4 0 0 116 1 0 0 186 2 0 0 336 3 0 0 166 4 0 0 36

Drive for Post-emergent Crabgrass Control

Stephen Pearson and John StierUniversity of Wisconsin

Dept. of HorticultureDecember 2000

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a new compound for pre- andpost-emergent crabgrass control.


The study was designed as a randomized complete block design with 4 replications toevaluate the effect of crabgrass growth stage on the efficacy of Drive (quinclorac). The turf wasKentucky bluegrass with a history of crabgrass infestation. The soil type was a Miami silt loam.Each plot was 5 ft X 10 ft. The plot was scalped three times in the spring to simulate ahomeowner mowing regime. The regular mowing schedule of the area was 2X weekly at 2.5inches. Irrigation was set to run 2X weekly at 100%ET.

The treatments and the dates they were applied are listed below.

Treatment/Timing Rate (oz/M) Application DateUntreated control -- --

Pre-emergent 0.376 April 27th

Post-emergent, pre-tiller 0.376 June 26th

Post-emergent, 2-4 tiller 0.376 July 20th

Post-emergent, mature 0.376 September 12th

The trial was rated on 6/5/00, 7/5/00, 9/5/00, and 9/25/00 by counting the number ofcrabgrass plants in each plot. Data were subjected to analysis of variance using Fisher’sProtected LSD (p=0.05) to determine least significant difference values when appropriate.


Weather conditions during 2000 were extremely favorable for cool-season turfgrassgrowth. Temperatures were relatively mild, and rainfall was usually abundant and frequent (Fig.1 and 2). Crabgrass was not evident in the plots until after the second rating (Table 1). By 20th

July, scattered crabgrass plants were visible exhibiting a range of tillering stages, including 2-4tillers per plant. Both pre- and post-emergent applications of Drive effectively controlledcrabgrass, with few to zero plants in the treated plots. Even the late post-emergent treatment,applied to mature crabgrass in early September, effectively controlled crabgrass. At no time didthe Drive applications cause any phytotoxicity to the turf.

The favorable climatic conditions appeared to favor turfgrass growth over crabgrass.Crabgrass pressure was generally much lower throughout the research facility in 2000 than inyears past. Soil temperatures at a 2 inch depth were favorable for crabgrass germination by lateApril/early May (Fig. 3). It is likely some crabgrass was in the untreated plots prior toSeptember but remained unnoticeable due to the steady growth of the turf. By late summer/earlyautumn the crabgrass plants were large enough to be noticed.

Table 1. Effect of Drive (quinclorac) on pre- and post-emergent control of crabgrass (Digitariaspp.), Verona, WI.

# crabgrass plants per plot

------------------------------Date--------------------------

Treatment/Timing 6/5/00 7/5/00 9/5/00 9/25/00

Untreated control 0 0 14.0 14.5Pre-emergent 0 0 4.2 4.0Post-emergent, pre-tiller 0 0 0.8 1.0Post-emergent, 2-4 tiller 0 0 0.2 0.8Post-emergent, mature 0 0 17.0† 2.0LSD (0.05) ns ns 10.2 7.9ns = not significant.† Treatment was not applied until 12th September, 2000.

RAW DATA# Plants = # of Crabgrass plants emerged

Rep treatment # Plants6/5/00

# Plants7/5/00

# Plants9/5/00

# Plants9/20/00

1 1 0 0 26 271 2 0 0 5 61 3 0 0 0 01 4 0 0 0 11 5 0 0 19 32 1 0 0 20 162 2 0 0 0 02 3 0 0 2 12 4 0 0 0 12 5 0 0 21 13 1 0 0 1 33 2 0 0 12 103 3 0 0 1 33 4 0 0 1 13 5 0 0 23 44 1 0 0 9 124 2 0 0 0 04 3 0 0 0 04 4 0 0 0 04 5 0 0 5 0

Effects of Primo on Bentgrass and Bluegrass Fairway Establishment

John Stier and Stephen Pearson

Department of Horticulture

December 2000

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine if Primo affected the establishment rate

of creeping bentgrass and Kentucky bluegrass fairway turf.


Turf establishment, maintenance and treatments.The study was conducted at the O.J. Noer Turfgrass and Research and Education Facility

in Verona, Wisconsin on a Miami silt loam soil. The study was planted twice during the spring

(May and June) but severe rains washed out the study both times. On August 10, 2000 the

remaining vegetation was sprayed with a 3% solution of Roundup. Very little vegetation was

present at this time. On August 31, 2000 the study was seeded: 1250 ft2 with 1.5 lb/1000 ft2

‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass and 1250 ft2 with 2 lb/1000 ft2 of an elite blend (America, Award,

Arcadia, Alpine, and Midnight) of Kentucky bluegrass (KBG). Seed was applied using a drop

spreader (the KBG was seeded in two directions, the creeping bentgrass was seeded in three

directions). Starter fertilizer was applied with a drop spreader to supply 0.75lbs/P2O5 per 1000

ft2 (15-24-8). The seed and fertilizer was lightly raked into the soil to provide good seed to soil

contact. Straw mulch was lightly applied, approximately 35lbs/1000 ft2, to prevent seed

washout. The irrigation was set to run 4X daily for 3 minutes per time. ‘Penncross’ germination

was visible on September 3, and KBG began to germinate on September 11. On October 11 the

irrigation was changed to a normal fairway schedule, 3X weekly to supply 100% ET. On

September 26 the straw was raked up from the Penncross side of the plot, and 1/2lb/M P2O5

starter fertilizer (15-24-8) was applied to both the ‘Penncross’ and KBG turfs. Plots were mowed

at 0.5 inch height; a walking greensmower was used for the first three mowings, subsequent

mowings were performed using a triplex.

On September 27 the ‘Penncross’ received initial Primo treatments when turf cover was

approximately 50%. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four

replications. Individual plot size was 5’X 8’. Primo was applied in 1 gal water per 1000 ft using

a CO2 powered backpack sprayer equipped with XR 8003 Teejet nozzles. The KBG portion of

the study was treated on 16 Oct. when approximately 50% turf cover had been achieved. The

straw was raked off prior to treatment. A randomized complete block design was used with four

replications; plot size was 5’X 8’.

The plot was sprayed preventatively for snow mold on November 3 with Chipco 26GT

(iprodione) at a rate of 8 oz/1000 ft2, and on November 15 with Heritage (azoxystrobin) at a rate

of 0.4 oz/1000 ft2. Both chemicals were applied in 1.55 gal carrier volume per 1000 ft2. A

dormant fertilization was applied on November 11: we supplied 1 lb. N/1000 ft2 with a complete

fertilizer (21-2-12).

Table 1. Treatment application rates and timing.

Application DatesTreatment Rate Timing

CBG KBG

Control -- -- -- --

Primo 0.25 oz/M (1X) 4 weeks 9/27,10/25 10/16

Primo 0.5 oz/M (2X) 4 weeks 9/27, 10/25 10/16

Primo 0.125 oz/M (1/2X) 2 weeks9,27,10/12,

10/25

10/16,10/31

Figure 1. Plot map for both the CBG and KBG plots. Plot size 5’X 8’, 4 replications.

Primo 2X

(4 weeks)Check

Primo 1/2X

(2 weeks)

Primo 1X

(4 weeks)

Primo 1/2X

(2 weeks)

Primo 1X

(4 weeks)

Primo 2X

(4 weeks)Check

Primo 2X

(4 weeks)Check

Primo 1X

(4 weeks)

Primo 1/2X

(2 weeks)

CheckPrimo 1X

(4 weeks)

Primo 2X

(4 weeks)

Primo 1/2X

(2 weeks)

Data Collection.After the initial treatments were applied, weekly percent cover ratings have been taken to

determine establishment rates. In the spring, ratings will be taken for spring green-up and winter

injury. Percent cover and quality ratings will continue on both plots until they reach maturity.

Data on shoot and stolon number, stolon and internode length will also be collected.

RESULTS

Conditions during the autumn of 2000 were favorable for turfgrass growth and

establishment Fig. 1, 2, 3). Primo applications did not affect establishment rates of either

creeping bentgrass (Table 1) or Kentucky bluegrass (Table 2). There was no phytotoxicity or

other apparent detrimental effects from any of the applications.

Table 2. Percent cover rating mean averages for the creeping bentgrass plot.

Percent Cover Rating Means

Treatment 10/6 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/3

Check 52.5 53.8 60.0 67.5 72.5

Primo

0.25 oz52.5 55.0 60.0 70.0 72.5

Primo

0.5 oz58.8 58.8 63.8 70.0 70.0

Primo

0.125 oz53.8 56.3 63.8 70.0 75.0

LSD 0.05 ns ns ns ns ns

Table 3. Percent cover rating mean averages for the Kentucky bluegrass study.


Treatment 10/16 10/19 10/26 11/3

Check 42.5 46.3 52.5 56.3

Primo

0.25 oz41.3 43.8 47.5 51.3

Primo

0.5 oz41.3 43.8 48.8 55.0

Primo

0.125 oz42.5 45.0 51.3 56.3

LSD 0.5 ns ns ns ns

DISCUSSION

The relative lack of effects was not surprising as the results were similar to those we

obtained during summer 1999 (Stier and Tetrault, 2000a; Stier and Tetrault, 2000b). The

greatest difference was that in 2000 we did not see any reduction in coverage of creeping

bentgrass at the 0.5 oz/1000 ft2 rate of Primo. In 1999 this rate caused some minor, but

statistically significant, decrease in coverage during establishment. The 1999 study was

conducted during the summer when temperatures were occasionally fairly hot, while the 2000

study was conducted during the cooler autumn temperatures of autumn. These results indicate

temperature may affect Primo metabolism. From a commercial standpoint, overseeding can

proceed in autumn if Primo is used to control the growth of the existing turf. During the cooler

temperatures of autumn, an accidental misapplication that results in higher than label rates (0.5

oz/1000 ft2) should not harm the seedlings.

Winter (low temperatures and snow cover) conditions appeared before the grass had fully

established. The creeping bentgrass provided only approximately 70-75% cover before growth

ceased, while Kentucky bluegrass cover was only approximately 50-55%. The plants were too

immature during the fall of 2000 to provide data on development parameters. We will continue

to monitor the turf in the spring for several items: spring greenup, stolon and shoot development

(i.e., shoot and stolon number, stolon and internode lengths), turf quality and weed

encroachment. In a previous research project, an autumn application of Primo to mature

Kentucky and supina bluegrasses delayed greenup following winter dormancy (Stier, 1997).

This could have been due to insufficient time during the autumn for the Primo to be fully

metabolized

LITERATURE CITED

Stier, J.C. 1997.The effects of plant growth regulators on Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.)

and supina bluegrass (P. supina Schrad.) in reduced light conditions. Ph.D. diss.

Michigan State Univ., East Lansing (Diss. Abstr. 97-34193).

Stier, J., and D. Tetrault. 2000. Chipco Proxy effects on Kentucky bluegrass establishment.

Wisc. Turf Res. XVII:97-101.

Stier, J., and D. Tetrault. 2000. Primo use to speed bentgrass establishment. Wisc. Turf Res.

XVII:102-105.

Tolerance of Supina Bluegrass to Pre- and Post-Emergent Herbicides

Kurt Steinke and John C. StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

Found naturally in high traffic areas (human and cattle paths) in the Alps, supinabluegrass (Poa supina Schrad.) has been used extensively in Europe for greater than 20 years.Supina bluegrass is an extremely stoloniferous turfgrass with the ability to form a dense turf atlow mowing heights. In addition to thriving in moist, shaded environments, supina bluegrass isalso a highly adapted cold and traffic tolerant turf species thus making it a prime candidate foruse in northern climates.

With all of the aforementioned adaptations, supina bluegrass may become useful for useon athletic fields, golf courses, and lawns in the U.S. Since the use of herbicides on amenityturfgrasses is prohibited in many areas of Europe where supina bluegrass is used there iscurrently no documented information on herbicide sensitivity. The objective of the study was todetermine the effect of both pre-emergent and post-emergent applied herbicides on anestablished stand of supina bluegrass.


Plots were established from seed in June 1998 at the O.J. Noer Turfgrass ResearchFacility in Verona, WI. Treatments were laid out in a randomized complete block design withfour replications. Fifteen commercially available broadleaf and grass herbicides (Tables 1 and 2)were tested in early fall and or spring on plots measuring 4.5 ft x 6.0 ft. All treatments wereapplied at the median recommended rate with the exception of ethofumesate which was appliedat both high and low label rates.

All plots were mowed three times weekly at 1.5 in. and irrigated three times a week at100% ET. Treatments were applied in 2 gal. water/1000ft2 using a CO2 backpack sprayerequipped with 8004XR flat fan nozzles. All treatments received 0.5 in. water 48 hours afterapplications were made.

Plots were rated at pre-treatment, two days after application, and weekly for a period offour weeks. Ratings taken included turf color (1=yellow/brown; 9=dark green; 6=acceptable),turf quality (1=dead turf/bare soil; 9=dense/uniform turf; 6=acceptable), density, weed control,and phytotoxicity (1=no burn; 5=dead turf). All fall applications also received a winter recoveryrating. Phytotoxicity was rated for the first three weeks following winter snow melt with colorratings collected during weeks four and five.


Table 1. Pre-Emergent herbicides tested.

Herbicide Rate (oz./1000 ft2)Prograss (Ethofumesate) 1.500Prograss (Ethofumesate) 3.000

Siduron (Tupersan) 7.500Dimension (Dithiopyr) 1.500Barricade (Prodiamine) 0.550

Table 2. Post-Emergent herbicides tested.

Herbicide Rate (oz./1000 ft2)MCPP (Mecoprop) 1.500

2-4 D 0.735Clarity (Dicamba) 0.367Turflon (Triclopyr) 0.550Lontrel (Clopyralid) 0.350

Strike 3 (2-4D, MCPP, and Dicamba) 1.300Manage (Halosulfuron) 0.023

Drive (Quinclorac) with Methylated Seed Oil 0.367MSMA 1.000

Acclaim (Fenoxaprop) 0.640Confront (Triclopyr and Clopyralid) 0.550

Analysis of variance indicated significant treatment effects for autumn applicationsevaluated the following spring. There were no effects visible during the autumn or from thespring applications. Fall applications of ethofumesate, at both high and low label rates, resultedin phytotoxicity and significantly delayed spring green-up (Figure 2). MCPP was the onlybroadleaf applied herbicide to cause phytotoxicity, which occurred for a period of two weeks. Inaddition, treatments containing MCPP slightly burned turf tips, an effect that lasted for one totwo weeks. All plots recovered from phytotoxicity without any long-term effects.

CONCLUSIONS

At the present time, there does not seem to be any pre-emergent or post-emergentherbicide with a permanent long-term adverse effect on supina bluegrass. Herbicides containingethofumesate and MCPP do seem to cause a delay in spring green-up due to some phytotoxicity.Due to the aggressive nature of supina bluegrass, further research needs to be conducted todiscover a selective control for this turfgrass species.

Color of Supina Bluegrass Following Winter Dormancy as Affected by Fall

Application of Ethofumesate

1

3

5

7

9

April 13 April 28

Co

lor

(1-9

) Ethofumesate(1.5 oz./M)

Ethofumesate(3.0 oz./M)

Control

The Use of Prograss for Poa annua Seedhead Suppression

John Stier and Stephen H PearsonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of Prograss for use insuppressing Poa annua seedheads on golf course fairway turf.


This study was conducted at Trout Lake GC in Arbor Vitae, WI. This allowed us tospray the treatments at the desired timings in the spring (we would have been past the ideal timein Southern WI). Each plot was 5 ft x 10 ft and the study contained 4 replications. A carriervolume of 44 gal/A was used. Each treatment was sprayed using a CO2 powered backpacksprayer equipped with XR 8003 Tee Jet nozzles. The first (early) applications were sprayed onMay 15, and the second (late) applications were sprayed on June 21.

Treatments Rate (fl oz/M) Timing

Untreated control -- --

Prograss 0.5 early (5/15/00)

Prograss 0.5 late (6/21/00)





Embark 0.2 early (5/15/00)

Embark 0.2 late (6/21/00)

Ratings were taken June 6 and August 8 as well as a background rating on May 5 prior tothe first spray. Percent Poa seedhead cover was visually estimated to determine a given rating.

RESULTS

P. annua infestation was very high (approximately 70% of turf). None of the Prograsstreatments affected P. annua seedhead formation (Table 1). The superintendent did not see anyphytotoxicity on any of the treatments.

Table 1. Poa annua seedhead control using Prograss, Arbor Vitae, WI.

% Poa seedhead cover on turf

Treatment 5/15 6/21 8/29

Untreated 72.5 71.3 67.5

Prograss 0.5oz/Mearly

68.8 62.5 70.0

Prograss 0.5 oz/Mlate

70.0 66.3 67.5

Prograss 0.75 oz/Mearly

65.0 77.5 68.8

Prograss 0.75 oz/Mlate

67.5 70.0 70.0

Prograss 1.5 oz/Mearly

68.8 72.5 66.3

Prograss 1.5oz/Mlate

66.3 65.0 68.8

Embark 0.2 oz/MEarly

71.3 71.3 66.3

Embark 0.2 oz/Mlate

72.5 68.8 71.3

LSD 0.05 ns ns ns

ns = not significant at p≤0.05

Broadleaf Weed Control with UAP-302

Dr. John Stier and Stephen H PearsonUniversity of Wisconsin


OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this trial was to evaluate an experimental herbicide postemergentbroadleaf weed control.


This study was conducted at two locations at the O.J. Noer Facility. The first locationcontained a large uniform population of ground ivy and dandelion. The second location wasselected due to the high percentage of pure white clover present. Soil type at both locations wasa Miami silt loam.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the herbicide we obtained a background level ofthe weeds present prior to treatment. An optical point quadrant was used to determine the percentcover of ground ivy and clover. Because of their lower number, dandelion plants in each plot wascounted directly. The study was set up as a randomized complete block design with 4replications and 4 treatments (including the control). Plot size was 5 ft X 10 ft for thedandelion/ground ivy trial and 5 ft X 5 ft for the clover trial.

Three rates of UAP-302 were sprayed in both areas on 7/11/00 using a CO2 poweredbackpack sprayer equipped with Tee Jet XR 8003 nozzles. A carrier volume of 1 gal/M wasused. The three rates sprayed were: 0.735 oz/M, 1.1 oz/M, and 1.47 oz/M; untreated plots wereleft as controls.

Ratings were collected 7/31/00 (20 days after treatment) to determine the effectiveness ofthe herbicide. Dandelion control was evaluated by counting the living dandelion plants andcomparing that number with the background count. The ground ivy and clover were evaluatedby placing the point quadrant in the exact same place as the background count was made, andagain determining the percent cover of each weed. These values were then compared to thebackground level to determine the efficacy of the chemical against each weed.

RESULTS

UAP-302 provided significant control of all three broadleaf weeds (Table 1). All rateswere equally effective at controlling white clover. On dandelions the low rate did not perform aswell as the high rate. The middle rate did not differ significantly from either the high or low rate.For ground ivy control the middle and high rates were not significantly different, but the middlerate did perform significantly better than the low rate.

Table 1. UAP-302 percent control of dandelion, clover and ground ivy, Verona, WI

Treatment% dandelion control

7/31/00% ground ivy control

7/31/00% clover control

7/31/00

UAP-3020.735 oz/M

85.5 79.0 95.7

UAP-3021.1 oz/M

88.5 94.5 93.6

UAP-3021.47 oz/M

97.3 89.2 95.7

Control 5.6 0 1.2

LSD 0.05 10.5 13.0 6.3

Team Pro for Crabgrass Control

Stephen Pearson and John StierDepartment of Horticulture

University of Wisconsin-Madison31 October 2000

OBJECTIVE

To compare the preemergence activity of different crabgrass control chemicals.


An area of low-maintenance Kentucky bluegrass turf was used for the trial. The area hadbeen a low-maintenance turf since 1992, receiving only 1 lb N/1000 ft2 annually. Crabgrasspressure has traditionally been good. Even so, 1 lb per 1000 ft2 crabgrass seed was slit-seededinto the area during spring of 1999.

In the spring of 2000, a randomized complete block trial with 4 replications was set up.Each plot was 5ft X 10ft. The following treatments were applied on April 27th.

Table 1. Treatment and application timing for TeamPro crabgrass control trial, O.J. NoerTurfgrass Research Facility, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (2000).

Treatment Rate (product/A) Timing1 Team Pro 2.0 lbs a.i./acre 04/27/20002 Team Pro 1.5 lbs a.i./acre 04/27/2000 2nd appl.

7/10/003 Pendimethalin 2.0 lbs a.i./acre 04/27/20004 Pendimethalin 1.5 + 1.5 lbs. a.i./acre 04/27/2000 2nd appl.

7/10/005 Dimension 0.25 lbs a.i./acre 04/27/20006 Barricade 0.5 lbs a.i./acre 0.37% ai 23-3-6 04/27/20007 Nontreated

The plot was scalped (to 1”) twice in the spring to encourage crabgrass pressure.Throughout the summer the plot was mowed at 2.5” 2-3x weekly. The area was irrigated 2x perweek at 100% ET.

Plots were evaluated for crabgrass control on 5 June, 5 July, and 5 September bycounting the number of crabgrass plants in each plot. Data were analyzed using a 1-wayANOVA.

2


Uncharacteristically, no crabgrass was visible until late in the season (early September).The weather in Wisconsin this summer was cool with fairly consistent rainfall which suppliedover 18 inches more precipitation than the average. Turf growth was correspondingly good.

The highest levels of crabgrass occurred in the control (untreated) and split-shotapplication treatment of pendimethalin (Table 2). The two Team Pro and Barricade treatmentsresulted in the lowest levels of crabgrass (less than five plants per 50 ft2). None of the treatmentswere significantly different, probably due to the relatively low level of crabgrass pressure.

Table 2. Treatment effects on crabgrass populations in a low maintenance Kentucky bluegrassturf, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 2000.

Mean number of crabgrass plants plot-1

Treatment Rate(lb a.i. per acre)

5 June 5 July 5September

Team Pro 2.0 0 0 4.0Team Pro 1.5 + 1.5 (7/10/00) 0 0 2.5Pendimethalin 2.0 0 0 8.0Pendimethalin 1.5 + 1.5 (7/10/00) 0 0 10.8Dimension 0.25 0 0 5.2Barricade 0.5 0 0 4.0Untreated 0.0 0 0 11.8

Significance at p=0.05 ns ns ns

Nonselective Vegetation Control with Touchdown Herbicide

Dr. John Stier and Stephen PearsonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two non-selectiveherbicides, Touchdown and Roundup, on turf.


This study was conducted at the O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility in Verona, WI.The plot area used was a mixture of Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue, dandelions, and smallamounts of other weeds (e.g., clover). A randomized complete block design was used tocompare the effectiveness of Roundup and Touchdown at two different rates. Each plot was 5 ftX 8 ft and the study contained 4 replications. There were 5 treatments including the untreatedcontrol. Mowing height was 3 inches. The soil type was a Miami silt loam.

Treatment Active ingredient Rate

Untreated control --- --Touchdown Sulfosate 1% sol’nTouchdown Sulfosate 2% sol’n

Roundup Glyphosate 1% sol’nRoundup Glyphosate 2% sol’n

The treatments were applied on 7/27/00 with a CO2 powered backpack sprayer equippedwith XR 8003 Tee Jet nozzles. The spray volume used was 1 gal/M. A damage rating was takenon 8/17/00 to evaluate the effectiveness of each treatment. The plots were rated from 1-9 with1=no damage and 9=complete death.


Touchdown and Roundup Pro were equally effective at killing vegetation. Bothchemicals at the 2% rate were more effective than at the 1% rate (Table 1). Most dandelionplants and some tall fescue survived the treatments. Kentucky bluegrass and other broadleafweeds were killed completely. Regrowth did not occur in these areas by October 2000.

Table 1. Damage rating mean averages for Touchdown and Roundup treatments 8/17/00.Damage rating was on a scale of 1-9 where 1=no damage and 9=complete death, Verona, WI

Treatment Mean Damage Rating

Untreated control 1.0

Touchdown 1% 6.3

Touchdown 2% 7.8

Roundup 1% 6.0

Roundup 2% 7.5

LSD (0.05) 0.7

Fig 1. Touchdown versus Roundup trial at O.J. Noer Facility, Verona, WI (8/17/00).

Fig 2. Untreated turf (left) and Touchdown (1% solution) at O.J. Noer Facility, 8/17/00,

Fig 3. Efficacy of Touchdown, 2% solution (left) and Roundup Pro, 1% solution (right) at O.J.Noer Facility, Verona, WI, 8/17/00.

Fig 4. Efficacy of Roundup Pro, 2% solution, O.J. Noer Facility, Verona, WI, 8/17/00.

APPENDIX

Raw data

Treatment Rep 8/17/00Damage

1 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 12 1 72 2 62 3 62 4 63 1 83 2 83 3 73 4 84 1 64 2 64 3 54 4 75 1 85 2 75 3 75 4 8

Are Black Turfgrass Ataenius (Coleoptera) Populations on GolfCourses Determined by Organic Matter Content in Fertilizers?

Allison Walston and R. Chris WilliamsonDepartment of Entomology

INTRODUCTION

Black turfgrass ataenius (Ataenius spretulus Haldeman) are small black beetleswhose immature stages known as “white grubs” destroy the root system of many cool-season grasses. The grub stage of this beetle is much smaller in comparison to the otherwhite grub species, and can occur in larger densities. The grubs often occur sporadically,but large numbers can cause extensive damage on golf course putting greens, tees,approaches, and fairways. Damage by these insects typically occurs in the northern halfof the United States.

Black turfgrass ataenius (BTA) adults usually overwinter in woody areas underleaves, piles of grass clippings, or other debris and are usually found in the upper 2 inchesof soil. Adults lay their eggs, and subsequent grub damage is usually evident from lateMay to early July. The objective of this project is to determine if organic matter contentplays a role in black turfgrass ataenius populations.


Design: 3RCB, each with 3 replicationsFertilizers used: Chicken Manure, Milorganite (two rates, X and 2X), Urea, and Pro-groFertilizer application dates: 12 May, 13 May, 15 May and 13 July, 14 July 2000Application method: Gandy drop spreaderData collection method: Applied a soap solution to flush out the adults in a two-foot area.Data collection dates: 12 September, 18 September, and 21 September 2000


Upon sampling all three greens, there was no significant difference between thefertilizers and the control plots. However, there are trends showing an increase of BTAadults in the plots that had fertilizer treatments compared to the untreated control (Figure1). There does not appear to be much of a difference between organic waste componentsand fertilizers without waste materials. There is a trend that Milorganite 1X has greateradult populations than the Milorganite 2X rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This experiment will be repeated again next year and the adults will be sampled inthe spring and in the fall. Core samples will also be taken to examine the white grub

populations in comparison to the adult populations. Fertilizers will be applied in thespring, summer and fall and in accordance to the fertilizer regime of the golf course.

Figure 1. Average number of adults for all three greens compared to the fertilizertreatments.

Fertilizer Treatments and BTA Adult Populations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Chicken manure Pro-gro Milorganite 2X Milorganite 1X Urea Control

Fertilizer Treatments

Evaluation of Control Products for Black Cutworm in Turf

R. Chris Williamson and Steve HongDepartment of Entomology

INTRODUCTIONFeeding by black cutworm larvae can create pockmarks or suppressions on golf

course putting greens that can reduce playability and overall aesthetics. As a result,control products are applied to putting green and tee surfaces to control respective blackcutworm infestations.


Design: RCB, 4 replications of 6 treatmentsPesticide Application Date:Application Method: CO2 Backpack sprayer equipped with TeeJet TJ60-11010VSnozzles.Data Collection: Post-treatment, 1, 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment (DAT), weredetermine by soap-drenching BCW larvae using a soap disclosing solution.


7 Days After TreatmentChemicalName

TradeName

Formulation Rate Mean # ofBCWLarvae

% Control

Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.0 lb ai/A 0.3 87.5Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.5 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.0 lb ai/A 0.3 87.5Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.5 lb ai/A 0.8 75.0Deltamethrin DeltaGard 5 GC 0.10 lb ai/A 0 100


TradeName


% Control

Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.0 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.5 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.0 lb ai/A 1.0 70.0Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.5 lb ai/A 0 100Deltamethrin DeltaGard 5 GC 0.10 lb ai/A 0 100


TradeName


% Control

Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.0 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.5 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.0 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.5 lb ai/A 0.3 87.5Deltamethrin DeltaGard 5 GC 0.10 lb ai/A 0 100


TradeName


% Control

Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.0 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 2 SC 1.5 lb ai/A 0.3 87.5Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.0 lb ai/A 0 100Halofenozide Mach 2 1.5 G 1.5 lb ai/A 0 100Deltamethrin DeltaGard 5 GC 0.10 lb ai/A 0 100

Due to the relatively low black cutworm population, it is difficult to effectivelyinterpret the results of this study. Mach 2 is an insect growth regulator (IGR),subsequently it is expected that DeltaGard’s knockdown ability would be significantlygreater. However, from a residual perspective, it is expected that both DeltaGard andMach 2 should provide meaningful control up to 28 days after treatment.

Evaluation of Products for Control of Japanese Beetle Grubs

Dr. R. Chris WilliamsonDepartment of Entomology

INTRODUCTION

A few insecticides are currently registered and labeled for use in turfgrass tocontrol a number of different white grub (i.e., larvae) species. A new chemistry,thiamethoxam (Meridian) is currently pending EPA registration. Some products arepreventative (i.e., to be applied before pest presence) and others are curative (i.e., appliedafter pest is observed) control products. Variables such as timing, rate of application, andformulation of product can affect performance or efficacy (i.e., control). Consequently,the objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of several white grubcontrol products applied at different timings, rates, and formulations.


Design: RCB, 4 replications of three commercially available control productsPesticide Application Dates: Preventative; May 4 and July 19, 2000, Early Curative;August 11, 2000Application Method: CO2 Backpack sprayer equipped with TeeJet TJ60-11010VSnozzles. ALL treatments were irrigated with _ inch of water immediately followingapplication.Data Collection: October 9, 2000


May 4, 2000 PREVENTATIVE TREATMENTChemical Name Trade Name Formulation Rate Mean # Grubs/ft2 % ControlThiomethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.2 lb ai/A 3.3 83.4Thiomethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.26 lb ai/A 2.5 88.9Imidacloprid Merit 75 WP 0.3 lb ai/A 0.3 98.7

July 19, 2000 CURATIVE TREATMENTChemical Name Trade Name Formulation Rate Mean # Grubs/ft2 % ControlThiamethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.2 lb ai/A 0.0 100

August 11, 2000 CURATIVE TREATMENTChemical Name Trade Name Formulation Rate Mean # Grubs/ft2 % ControlThiamethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.2 lb ai/A 0.0 100Thiamethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.23 lb ai/A 0.0 100Thiamethoxam Meridian 25 WG 0.26 lb ai/A 0.0 100Trichlorfon Dylox 80 WP 8.0 lb ai/A 1.8 89.3

The findings from this study revealed that all control products evaluated providedexcellent control of Japanese beetle grubs when applied as a preventative or earlycurative. However, since a late-season curative application was not tested, these datashould not be interpreted and/or imply that they are effective late-season curative controlproducts.

Peripheral Insecticide Application as a Mean ofBlack Cutworm Control on Golf Course Putting Greens

Seung Cheon Hong and R. Chris WilliamsonDepartment of Entomology

INTRODUCTION

The BCW is also a serious pest of golf course turf, especially putting greens and tees.Feeding by BCW larvae often results in small patches of dead turf and depressions or pockmarksthat can reduce that aesthetic appearance, smoothness, and uniformity of the playing surface.Consequently, the economic or aesthetic injury threshold level is extremely low and makesrepeated insecticide treatments each year for control of this pest.


Six golf course putting greens were randomly selected at the Country Club of Beloit (Beloit,WI). In late April 1999 and 2000, all putting green surfaces were treated with a short-residualinsecticide (trichlorfon) at an application rate of 6 lb ai/A to eliminate existing populations ofBCW larvae. Immediately thereafter, a 30 foot wide band of a long-residual, conventionalinsecticide (deltamethrin) was applied to the peripheral area of three putting greens at a rate of0.10 lb ai/A. All putting greens were sampled weekly following the initial insecticideapplication to determine the BCW population for each green. Three samples (1 meter2 persample) were taken from each putting green using a soap disclosing solution of ≈1fl.oz. UltraJoy dishwashing detergent per 2 gallons of water. The number of BCW larvae on non-treatedand the peripherally treated greens were compared.

RESULTS

In 1999, putting greens that received peripheral insecticide treatments had significantly fewerBCW larvae per m2 than the non-peripherally treated greens (Figure 1 & Table 1). However, in2000, no significant difference between peripheral and non-peripheral treated putting greens wasobserved (Figure 2 & Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Because of the variability between the 1999 and 2000 data, it is difficult to infer theeffectiveness of peripheral insecticide application around putting greens. However, the data dosuggest a trend supporting peripheral insecticide applications as a viable black cutwormmanagement strategy. To better understand the value of this management method, this study willbe repeated in 2001 and 2002.

Figure 1. Effects of peripheral insecticide treatments on black cutworm larvae on golf course putting greens, 1999.

0

40

80

120

1605/

3/99

5/17

/99

5/31

/99

6/14

/99

6/28

/99

7/12

/99

7/26

/99

8/9/

99

8/23

/99

9/6/

99

9/20

/99

10/4

/99

Sample Dates

Mea

n #

of

larv

ae/m

sq

.

Non- Treated

Treated

Figure 2. Effects of peripheral insecticide treatments on black cutworm larvae on golf course putting greens, 2000.

0

2

4

6

6/9/

00

6/15

/00

6/21

/00

7/5/

00

7/11

/00

7/21

/00

7/25

/00

8/2/

00

8/10

/00

8/17

/00

8/24

/00

8/30

/00

9/7/

00

9/22

/00

9/29

/00

10/5

/00

10/1

2/00

Sample Dates

Mea

n #

of

larv

ae/m

sq

.

Non-Treated

Treated

Table 1. Effects of peripheral insecticidetreatments on black cutworm larvae on golfcourse putting greens, 1999. T=Treated;NT=Non-treated.Date Treatment Mean P 5/3/99 T 0 -

NT 05/10/99 T 0 -

NT 05/17/99 T 0 -

NT 05/24/99 T 1.0 0.0263

NT 5.35/31/99 T 0.67 0.0091

NT 6.06/7/99 T 2.0 0.0342

NT 6.36/14/99 T 1.0 0.0198

NT 4.76/21/99 T 0 0.2254

NT 1.06/28/99 T 1.3 0.0039

NT 5.37/5/99 T 2.3 0.0063

NT 8.37/12/99 T 0 0.0390

NT 4.37/19/99 T 0 0.0742

NT 2.07/26/99 T 1.7 0.0572

NT 2.78/2/99 T 1.0 0.0019

NT 7.78/9/99 T 18.3 0.0210

NT 142.38/16/99 T 0 -

NT 08/23/99 T 0 -

NT 08/30/99 T 0 -

NT 09/6/99 T 0 -

NT 09/13/99 T 2.7 0.0021

NT 7.39/20/99 T 1.3 0.0237

NT 7.79/27/99 T 0 0.0377

NT 3.310/4/99 T 0.3 0.0942

NT 2.7

Table 2. Effects of peripheral insecticidetreatments on black cutworm larvae on golfcourse putting greens, 2000. T=Treated;NT=Non-treated

Date Treatment Mean P 6/9/00 T 0 -

NT 06/15/00 T 0 -

NT 06/21/00 T 0 -

NT 07/5/00 T 0 -

NT 07/11/00 T 0 -

NT 07/21/00 T 0 -

NT 07/25/00 T 0.3 0.1835

NT 1.38/2/00 T 0 -

NT 08/10/00 T 0 -

NT 08/17/00 T 3.3 0.1898

NT 5.38/24/00 T 0 -

NT 08/30/00 T 1.0 0.1994

NT 1.79/7/00 T 0 -

NT 1.09/22/00 T 0 -

NT 09/29/00 T 0 0.1835

NT 0.710/5/00 T 0 -

NT 010/12/00 T 0 -

NT 0

Choosing the Right Kentucky Bluegrass and Seed Mixturesfor Athletic Fields

John C. StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

Athletic fields composed of similar proportions of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) are desirable for many reasons. Perennial ryegrass(PRG) adds wear tolerance to the turf and minimizes the impact of necrotic ring spot disease(Leptosphaeria korrae) of Kentucky bluegrass (KBG). The rhizomes of KBG increase stabilityof the turf, improve traction, and allow recovery of bare areas. The presence of a significantamount of KBG can minimize the impact of crown rust disease (Puccinia coronata) of PRG.

A range of recommendations exists concerning the best proportions of KBG and PRG touse in seed mixes for establishing athletic fields. Some of the recommendations are based onresearch data, however, a review of the literature shows conflicting results. The conflictingrecommendations could be due to differences in the cultivars of KBG.

The purpose of the project was to use specific groups of KBG in mixtures with PRG todetermine if the type of KBG chosen affected the species composition of the turf stand. KBGgroups were based on the Rutgers system of classification (Murphy et al., 1997). Theinformation will be useful to specify seed mixtures.


Treatments and plot maintenance.♦ Location: O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility (Verona, WI)♦ Soil type: Miami silt loam, pH 6.6♦ Experimental design: Split-plot, randomized complete block, 3 replications♦ Treatment arrangement: 6 x 4 factorial (Table 1)♦ Plot size: Main plots = 4.9 x 1.8 m, sub-plots = 1.2 x 1.8 m each (2.2 m2)♦ Seeding mixtures were prepared on a w/w basis to be consistent with commercial practices.♦ Two seeding dates: 12 September 1998 and 9 September 1999♦ Seeding rate: 196 kg ha-1

♦ Fertility: 245 kg N ha-1 (Table 2)♦ Mowing: 3.8 cm, 2-3 x weekly, reel mower, clippings returned♦ Irrigation: Twice weekly to replenish 70% ET♦ Traffic: Applied September through November with Brinkman Traffic Simulator;

30 simulated football games

Table 1. Factorial arrangement with grass mixtures as main plots and Kentucky bluegrass (KBG)types as sub-plots.

Mixtures † Seed planted ha-1

95% Kentucky bluegrass, 5% perennial ryegrass 186 kg KBG, 10 kg PRG






KBG types Cultivars (33% each)

Aggressive Limousine, Touchdown, Fairfax

BVMG Cannon, Merit, Viva

Compact Midnight, Indigo, Alpine

Common Alene, Kenblue, Ronde

† The same mixture of perennial ryegrass was used in all mixtures: 1:1:1 of ‘Manhattan 3’,‘Precision’, and ‘SR4200’.

Table 2. Fertilization schedule for seed mixture study.

1998-99

Date 24 Nov 2 May 1 Jun 21 Jun 4 Aug 13 Sept 25 Oct

N (kg ha-1) 37 24 37 49 37 49 49

Formulation 13-25-12 19-25-12 21-3-20 21-3-20 21-3-20 21-3-20 18-3-18

2000

12 May 17 June 17 Aug 20 Sept 7 Oct

N/1000 ft2 24 49 49 49 24

Formulation 18-3-18 18-3-18 18-3-18 18-3-18 21-3-12

Data collection

♦ Turf quality (1 to 9 scale; 9 = ideal, 5 = lowest acceptable): Rated monthly♦ Percent turf cover: Rated monthly♦ Plant counts, optical point quadrat method: Spring, summer, autumn


All seed mixtures initially resulted in a stand composed of more than 50% perennialryegrass. When seeded to 15% or more ryegrass by weight, the stand contained more than 85%perennial ryegrass the following spring. Both mixtures and KBG type had significant effects onthe percentage of KBG present in the turf stand for all dates (Table 3). The aggressive, BVMG,and common types of Kentucky bluegrass resulted in a higher proportion of Kentucky bluegrassthan did the common types. Interactions between mixtures and KBG type developed as standsmatured. The amount of KBG in the stand increased proportionally to KBG seed mixcomposition except with the Common types. Common types produced equivalently lowproportions of KBG in the swards except at the 95% KBG seed mixture, which still produced asignificantly lower proportion of KBG compared to the Aggressive, BVMG or Compact types(Table 4).

Seed mixtures significantly affected turf quality only in May and June of the yearfollowing seeding for both studies (Table 5). Mixes which contained at least 75% Kentuckybluegrass of the aggressive, BVMG, or compact types usually provided the highest quality turfduring summer and autumn, though the differences were no longer present by the end of thetraffic period. The type of Kentucky bluegrass significantly affected turf quality as the turfmatured in the 1998 seeding trial; data for the 1999 trial have not yet been collected. Commontypes usually provided the worst quality turf, while Compact types either provided the best coveror were similar to Aggressive and BVMG types (Fig. A). Interactions occurred sporadically forplots seeded in 1998. No interactions have been observed yet for the 1999 seeding.

As expected the establishment rate was directly proportional to the amount of perennialryegrass in the seed mixtures (Fig. B). By spring of the year following planting all seed mixturesprovided over 90% turf cover except the mixes containing 95% Kentucky bluegrass whichyielded slightly less cover (data not shown). The KBG:PRG seed mixture regularly affected turfcover throughout the study (Table 6). During the first nine months after seeding, plots seeded to50% or more PRG had the best cover, 96-98% (data not shown). Eleven months after seedingplots seeded to 85% or more KBG provided the best cover, 99-100%. By thirteen months afterseeding, plots seeded to 65% or more KBG had the best turf cover.

The type of Kentucky bluegrass significantly affected turf cover as the stand matured,particularly in the second year after establishment. Compact types typically yielded the highestturf cover followed by or equivalent to Aggressive and BVMG types (Fig C). These datacorrelated with the increase in Kentucky bluegrass composition of the turf stand for these typesof KBG. The proportion of Kentucky bluegrass in the sward increased over time for aggressive,compact, and BVMG types but not for common types (Table 4).

Weed infestation depended on the seed mixture planted and age of the stand (Fig. D).Weed infestation was most severe in plots seeded to the 95% KBG mixes in turf less than 12months age; by the second season weed infestation was least in plots seeded to 95% KBG asKentucky bluegrass plants increased in size and number.

CONCLUSIONS

♦ Aggressive, BVMG, and Compact KBG types resulted in similar proportions of Kentuckybluegrass 12 months and later following establishment

♦ Aggressive, BVMG, and Compact types increased as a proportion of the turf stand during thefirst 12 months of establishment, after which a stasis was achieved.

♦ Only the Common types of Kentucky bluegrass failed to compete with perennial ryegrass♦ The effects of KBG type on turf quality and cover became apparent only as the stand aged.

Over time (> 12 months) the best quality was obtained with Compact types, followed byAggressive, followed and often equalled by BVMG.

♦ Worst turf quality and cover was obtained when Common types were in the seed mix.♦ The minor differences among Aggressive, BVMG, and Compact KBG types suggest any

type(s) other than Common can be mixed with perennial ryegrass to produce a turf composedof approximately 50% of either species within two years of establishment given: 1) nooverseeding, and 2) The seed mixture contains at least 65% KBG by weight.

LITERATURE CITED

Murphy, J.A., S. Bonos, P. Perdomo. 1997. Classification of Poa pratensis genotypes. Int.Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 8(2):1176-1183.

Table 4. The effect of Kentucky bluegrass:perennial ryegrass (KBG:PRG) seed mixtures on the amount of KBG ina sward depends on the type of KBG cultivar (Verona, WI).

1998 planting

November 1999

KBG:PRG mixture (w/w) Aggressive BVMG Compact Common

95:5 71.7 67.3 65.0 44.385:15 45.3 43.0 45.3 12.375:25 39.3 28.7 30.3 11.065:35 30.3 35.0 22.7 10.050:50 17.3 20.0 10.3 4.725:75 8.7 10.3 7.3 1.3LSD.05 w/in mixture 9.3LSD.05 between mixes & types 8.5

May 2000



Aug 2000



1999 planting

Aug 2000



Table 3. Analysis of variance for percent Kentucky bluegrass (KBG) in turf stand following establishment.

1998 seeding 1999 seeding

% KBG

Source May 99 Aug 99 Nov 99 May 00 Aug 00 May 00 Aug 00

Replication ns ** ns ns ns ns nsMixture (M) ** ** ** ** ** ** **KBG type ** ** ** ** ** * **M x KBG ns ns ** * * ns **

Table 5. Analysis of variance for quality ratings of seed mixture study.

1998 seedingTreatment 1999 2000

May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov May June July AugReplication ns ns ns --- ns ns ns ns ns ns nsMixture (M) ** ** ns --- ns ns ns ns ns ns nsKBG type * ns ** --- * * ns ** ** ** **M x KBG * ns * --- ns .0535 ns ns ** * ns

1999 seeding2000

May Jun July Aug Sept Oct NovReplication ns ns ns ns NA† NA NAMixture (M) ** ** ns ns NA NA NAKBG type ns ns ns ns NA NA NAM x KBG * ns ns ns NA NA NA

† NA = data not available.

Table 6. Analysis of variance for percent cover of Kentucky bluegrass:perennial ryegrass (KBG:PRG) seedmixtures.

1998 seeding

1998 Year 1 (1999) Year 2 (2000)

Source Oct May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov May June July Aug

Replication ns ns ns ns --- * * ns ns * ns nsMixture ** ** ** * --- * ns * ns ** * nsKBG type ns ns ns ** --- ns * ns ** ** ** **M x KBG ns ns * .0553 --- ns ns ns * ** ns ns

1999 seeding

1999 Year 1 (2000)

Oct May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov

Replication * ns ns ns ns NA† NA NAMixture ** ** ** ns ns NA NA NAKBG type ns ns ns ns ns NA NA NAM x KBG ns ns ns ns ns NA NA NA

† NA = data not available.

Influence of Nature’s Nutrient on Bentgrass Root Growthin a 70/20/10 Sand/Peat/Soil Putting Green

Tom Schwab, Jeff GregosO.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility, Department of Plant Pathology

INTRODUCTION

Nature’s Nutrient is a product that claims to stimulate aggressive root development inmany plants. The product contends to possess over fifty trace minerals in chelated form and aliquid suspension of humic and amino acids that will dramatically increase root maturation andplant development.

This product is not yet marketed. It has been tested for five years on turf at the NoerFacility. In 1995, there appeared to be some increase in root growth when Nature’s Nutrient wascombined with a granular fertilization on established Kentucky bluegrass. However the test in1997, on creeping bentgrass, provided no evidence that Nature’s Nutrient favorably influencedroot growth.

In 1998 the same sand-based putting green as 1997 was utilized for testing but differentrates and application schedules of Nature’s Nutrient were used. A different fertilizer analysiswas used in 1998 and nutritional rates were increased. One of the five different Nature’sNutrient treatments (2 oz Nature’s Nutrient/ M/ applied twice per month) showed significantlygreater root weight on two of the test dates. On one date the treatment was paired with a lowfertility variable and on the other date it was paired with a high fertility variable. None of thetreatments differed on the fall test date.

The product was tested on a different bentgrass putting green in 1999. The originalproduct and a new formulation were both tested. Root weights were taken on only two summerdates without the additional fall sampling taken the previous year. It was theorized that rootswould recover in the fall with better growing conditions regardless of additional inputs. None ofthe treatments showed greater root mass compared to the control on the first sampling date. Onetreatment showed greater root weight but only at the lower fertility rate on the second samplingdate. That treatment was the same one (2 oz Nature’s Nutrient/ M/ applied twice per month) thatshowed some positive results in 1998.

Thus the marketing staff wanted to test the product one more time in 2000 to see if the resultswere indeed repeatable.


In the 2000 study we utilized six Nature’s Nutrient treatments and one control treatment.Three rates of the original formulation and three of the new formulation were used. All Nature’sNutrient treatments were applied twice per month in 2 gallons water/ M from a CO2 backpacksprayer. All treatments in the study were tested at two nitrogen rates. The rates were 0.5 and 1.0

pound nitrogen from Spring Valley 10-1-20 fertilizer. All treatments were started on May 25th

and continued for four months. The six nature’s Nutrient treatments were:

Original FormulationTreatment 1: 2 oz Natures Nutrient/ MTreatment 2: 3 oz Natures Nutrient/ MTreatment 3: 4 oz Natures Nutrient/ MNew FormulationTreatment 4: 0.25 oz Natures Nutrient/ MTreatment 5: 0.33 oz Natures Nutrient/ MTreatment 6: 0.5 oz Natures Nutrient/ M

Nitrogen rates constituted the main plots in the study and the Nature’s Nutrienttreatments were applied to 3 x 3 foot subplots. The main and subplots were randomized withinfour complete blocks. The test area was mowed daily at 0.140 (9/64) inch. It was also irrigated4 times per week at 100% of estimated evapotranspiration except on days with more than 1/4-inch rainfall.

Bentgrass roots were sampled on August 1st, and September 6th. Two 7/8-inch diametercores to pea gravel depth were randomly taken from each subplot. The roots were washed fromthe cores, oven dried at 110 degrees Fahrenheit, weighed, ashed in a muffle furnace at 600Fahrenheit, and then weighed again to record the difference. This difference in weight equaledthe dry root weight from the two plugs in each subplot.

OBSERVATIONS

Table 1 gives the mean dry root weights of the seven different treatments at the low andhigh fertilizer rates. None of the six Nature’s Nutrient treatments provided evidence of increasedroot development when compared to the control treatment in the 2000 test. This proved true onboth test dates. There was also no significant difference in root weight between the high and lowfertility rates on any of the treatments.

Table 1. Root Dry Weight from High and Low Fertility Rates of Seven Nature’s Nutrient Treatments________________________________________________________________________

Mean dry root weight in mgTreatment #N/M/mo July 29 August 27

Treatment 1: Original formulation 2 oz NN 0.5 363.5 268.0Treatment 1: Original formulation 2 oz NN 1.0 293.0 295.3



Treatment 4: New formulation 1 oz NN 0.5 271.0 230.0Treatment 4: New formulation 1 oz NN 1.0 297.5 226.5

Treatment 5: New formulation 2 oz NN 0.5. 268.0 238.3Treatment 5: New formulation 2 oz NN 1.0 282.5 210.0

Treatment 6: New formulation 3 oz NN 0.5 292.5 225.3Treatment 6: New formulation 3 oz NN 1.0 272.5 238.0

Treatment 7: Control/ No formula 0.5 347.8 250.5Treatment 7: Control/ No formula 1.0 282.8 251.3

LSD (0.05) 97.5 70.8______________________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS

The 2000 test, similar to 1997, provided no evidence that Natures Nutrient favorablyinfluenced bentgrass root growth. Some favorable results occurred in 1996, 1998, and 1999 forone of the treatment rates of Nature’s Nutrient, although it wasn’t repeatable when paired withsimilar testing dates and fertilizer regimes.

Management of A,G bentgrasses and ‘DW-184’, a perennial Poa annua, forputting green turf

Andrew Hollman and John StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTIONConcerns over potentially extremely intensive management requirements have potentially

limited the acceptance of the new A and G series bentgrasses by superintendents in Wisconsin.Furthermore, most Wisconsin golf course superintendents struggle to keep Poa annua out oftheir creeping bentgrass greens. A few superintendents have allowed the P. annua to “take over”their greens. For those who accept P. annua, though, they first have to go through a transitionperiod of natural invasion. Two years ago, however, a commercial strain of P. annua var.reptans, a perennial type of P. annua, became available.

The objective of the study was to determine the aeration and topdressing requirements forA-4, G-2, and Penncross creeping bentgrass along with DW-184 (P. annua var. reptans).


Plots of ‘Penncross’, ‘A-4’, ‘G-2’ creeping bentgrasses and ‘DW-184’ P. annua var.reptans were seeded at 1 lb/1000 ft2 on a USGA-specified sand based root zone for puttinggreens (5) in September 1998. A randomized block design with three replications was used, witheach plot measuring 180 ft2. The mowing height was reduced from 9 mm to 3 mm (0.118 inch)over a six-week period in the spring of 1999. Irrigation was supplied 3 times weekly to replace70% evapotranspiration (ET). Plots were fertilized biweekly with 0.5 lb N per 1000 ft2 duringgrow-in in 1999 and four times in 2000 with a total of 3.5 lb N N per 1000 ft2. Nitrogen carrierswere a mixture of fast and slow release sources. Topdressing and aeration treatments wereapplied as strip-plots following establishment (Table 1).

Topdressing and aeration treatmentsTopdressing treatments were started July 1999 using an 80:20 sand:peat mixture that met

USGA specifications. Topdressing was applied using a Gandy drop spreader equipped with adeflection shield. Three programs were evaluated: 1) Topdressing at 14 day intervals, 2)Verticutting followed by topdressing at 14 day intervals, and 3) Topdressing at 28 day intervals.For verticutting we used a Toro Greensmaster 1000 equipped with a 19 inch wide verticutterunit. We applied 56 lb topdressing per 1000 ft2 per application at the two week intervals and 112lb topdressing per 1000 ft2 per application at the four week intervals. The topdressing wasbrushed into the turf after application and the turf was irrigated during the evening.

Aeration treatments were started spring 2000 using a Toro greens aerator. Aeration wasapplied in strips over the three topdressing treatmentS, either annually or monthly. Quadratineswere used for all but one of the monthly treatments; in September the entire area was aeratedusing 0.5 inch tines. Cores were removed from the turf so as to not cross-contaminate plots.Aeration was timed so scheduled topdressings followed each aeration event.

Table 1. Factors and levels used in management study of new bentgrasses and perennial Poaannua.

Main plot: Turfgrass type Sub-plot: Aeration† Sub-plot: Topdressing‘A-4’ creeping bentgrass 1x annually (early Oct.) 14 day interval‘G-2’ creeping bentgrass 4x annually 14 day interval + verticutting‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass 28 day interval‘DW-184’ annual bluegrass† Tines used for September aeration were 0.5 inch diameter (annual and monthly treatments); for all other months0.25 inch diameter tines were used.

Data collectionClippings and topdressing were collected while mowing the day following topdressing.

Topdressing was separated from the clippings by adding water and decanting off the clippings.The samples were oven-dried at 60°C overnight then weighed to determine the amount oftopdressing collected.

Plots were rated on a monthly basis to evaluate color, quality and disease whennecessary. Color and quality were evaluated on a visual scale from one to nine, with one equalto 100% necrotic turf and nine equal to ideal turf. A rating of six was considered acceptable.

Three cores (1” diameter) were collected from each plot in November 1999 and 2000 todetermine organic matter production. The cores were compressed with a 185 gram weight, andthe depth of the organic layer (thatch/mat) was measured at 3 equidistant points of the core.Organic matter content by weight were determined using a loss-on- ignition technique.

RESULTS

Significant differences in the percent of topdressing removed were observed in the maintreatments of grass type, aeration and topdressing method but no significant interactions wereobserved between the treatments.

Turf quality and colorGrass types and topdressing method both had a significant effect on turfgrass quality.

There were no interactions among grass type, aeration, and/or topdressing method. ‘A-4’ and ‘G-2’ creeping bentgrasses consistently provided the best quality turf. The quality of ‘Penncross’creeping bentgrass gradually declined during 2000. The ‘DW-184’ turf was slow to establishand numerous seedheads were apparent throughout 1999. The amount of seedheads declinedsignificantly in 2000, becoming rare by August. As the turf thickened and fewer seedheads werepresent, the quality of the ‘DW-184’ turf gradually increased, surpassing the quality of‘Penncross’ towards the end of the season. Grass type was the only factor in this study thataffected turf color. ‘A-4’ had the darkest green color followed by ‘G-2’, ‘Penncross’ and ‘DW-184’ respectively.

Topdressing removalSignificantly more topdressing was removed by mowing from ‘A-4’ plots than from ‘G-

2’ or ‘Penncross’ plots, with the least amount of topdressing collected from ‘DW-184’ (Table 2).

Grass type did not affect the particle size of topdressing removed by mowing except for a greaterfraction of the fine gravel being removed from the ‘DW-184’ than from the other grasses exceptfor the fine gravel (Table 3). Approximately two-thirds of the topdressing removed by mowingconsisted of the larger sized particles (>0.5 mm; coarse, very coarse, and fine gravel) regardlessof the grass type. Five to 10% of the topdressing removed was fine gravel, 20 to 33 % was verycoarse sand, and 38 to 47% were coarse particles. Approximately 25% consisted of mediumparticles and 2% consisted of fine particles.

Aeration frequency corresponded directly with the amount of topdressing removed bymowing (Table 2). Verticutting before topdressing significantly reduced the amount oftopdressing collected when mowing. Topdressing on a 28-day interval resulted in removal of2.3% of the topdressing while 2% of the topdressing was removed using a 14-day interval.Verticutting reduced topdressing removal to 1.7%.

Thatch productionNo true thatch layer existed even with the 28-day topdressing intervals. We did find a

consistent mat layer (thatch diluted with topdressing). The depth of this layer in 1999 showed‘A-4’ produced significantly more thatch/mat than ‘G-2’ or ‘Penncross’ (Table 4). ‘DW-184’produced the least amount of thatch/mat. Measurements in 2000 showed both ‘A-4’ and ‘G-2’produced equivalent depths of mat which were significantly greater than ‘Penncross’ or‘DW0184’. Neither topdressing method or aeration frequency affected the depth of thethatch/mat layer.

Table 2. Main effects of grass type, aeration frequency and topdressing method on removal oftopdressing by mowers from putting green turf.Treatment % Topdressing removedGrass type‘A-4’ creeping bentgrass 2.8‘G-2’ creeping bentgrass 1.9‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass 1.8‘DW-184’ annual bluegrass 1.4LSD (0.05) 0.3Aeration frequencyAnnual 1.8Four times annually 2.1**Topdressing method14 day interval 2.014 day interval + verticutting 1.728 day interval 2.3LSD (0.05) 0.2** Significant at p = 0.01

Table 3. Size distribution of topdressing removed from grass types.Particle size (mm)

>2 2-1 1-0.5 0.5-25 0.25-.15 <0.15

% Fraction in topdressing1.62 2.95 20.87 61.01 12.74 0.81

Grass type % Fraction removedA-4 4.9 33.3 38.4 21.1 2.1 0.1G-2 7.3 22.1 45.4 22.7 2.3 0.1Penncross 5.9 19.7 46.9 25.0 2.4 0.1DW-184 10.1 20.7 40.6 25.7 2.7 0.1LSD (0.05) 3.2 ns ns ns ns nsns = Not significant at p < 0.05.

Table 4. Grass type affects depth of thatch/mat layer in first two years after seeding.Grass type Thatch/mat layer depth (mm)

1999‘Á-4’ creeping bentgrass 15.7 d †‘G-2’ creeping bentgrass 13.9 c‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass 12.6 b‘DW-184’’ creeping bentgrass 10.0 aLSD (0.05) 0.5

2000‘Á-4’ creeping bentgrass 15.9 b‘G-2’ creeping bentgrass 16.5 b‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass 13.0 a‘DW-184’’ creeping bentgrass 12.2 aLSD (0.05) 2.0† Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

DISCUSSION

The superior quality of the A and G bentgrasses compared to Penncross has been welldocumented and is being verified in this study. The gradual improvement of turf quality in the‘DW-184’plots was attributed to ‘DW-184’ displacing the annual biotype of P. annua, whichapparently had infested the seed lot and initially dominated the ‘DW-184’ plots. If ‘DW-184’can outcompete the annual types of P. annua it should be capable of producing a consistentputting surface.

The effects of topdressing frequency and verticutting before topdressing were expected.By topdressing more frequently with a lighter rate, less material was lost to collection whenmowing. Verticutting before topdressing created a more upright turf after treatment, whichenabled the topdressing to drop down below the verdure surface.

Consistent removal of the larger sized topdressing particles could in time lead to a fine-textured root zone mix which could possibly cause a layering problem. Since the actual amount

of topdressing removed was less than 3%, however, it is unlikely this effect would eversignificantly impact water infiltration.

The greater amount of topdressing removed from the turf with more frequent aerationwas an artifact which appeared to result from the deposition of root zone material following coreaeration and core removal. In other words, root zone material fell off the cores as they wereharvested and some of this material was subsequently picked up with the topdressing. Only oncedid this occur when topdressing was applied without aeration. Thus we cannot conclude thataeration frequency affects topdressing removal. While the depth of the thatch/mat layer so farhas not been affected by aeration, we will continue to monitor this and will determine organicmatter production using loss-upon-ignition.

The thatch/mat measurements only reflect the mat layer. No apparent thatch layer wasevident in core samples taken from the plots. Loss-on-ignition analysis will be performed on thecore samples removed from the plots to determine the organic mater content.

CONCLUSION

The lack of significant interactions among grass type, aeration frequency andtopdressing/verticutting methods did not indicate the new “PennPals™” varieties of creepingbentgrass require more intensive management than conventional grass types (‘Penncross’ andannual bluegrass) during the first two years. ‘A-4’ and ‘G-2’ produced more organic matter butthe potential thatch was readily changed to a mat layer with even the least-intensive topdressingand aeration programs.

This study will be continued into a third year to determine if management requirementschange as the turf matures. We will continue to monitor turf quality, color, disease susceptibilityand topdressing loss. We will also collect information on encroachment of other grasses into theturf stands (e.g., creeping bentgrass into ‘DW-184’ and P. annua into creeping bentgrass).

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Wisconsin Golf Course Superintendents Association and theCollege of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for providingproject funding.

Microenvironment Effects on Putting Green Quality


INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this research are two-fold. First is determination of how differentintensities of shading and reductions in airflow alter putting green quality. The second objectiveis to determine the extent to which putting green root zone mix composition and culturalpractices alter the adverse effects of shade and restricted air flow on putting green quality.

Results obtained in 1999 showed that increasing intensities of shading and decreasing airflow markedly altered disease severity, development of localized dry spot, and putting greentraffic tolerance. The latter was attributed to accentuated bentgrass shoot growth rates andproduc-tion of more succulent tissue. This observation led to introduction of two new culturalprac-tices in 2000. The plots were outfitted with a new irrigation system that allowed irrigationat rats corresponding to 100, 80, 60, and 40% of evapotranspiration. Second, the growthregulator, Primo, was applied in an effort to slow shoot growth and decrease tissue moisturecontent.

METHODS

The experiment site consists of four blocks of ten 8 ft x 8 ft putting greens with differentroot zone mix compositions. Three of the blocks are covered with shade cloths rated to reducesolar radiation by 32, 51, and 70%. Plastic fence is used to block wind from two, three, or foursides of different blocks. Each block is instrumented for measurement of solar radiation, air andsoil temperatures, relative humidity and, for a single root zone mix, soil volumetric moisturecontent at a soil depth of 2 inches.

The creeping bentgrass on the site is an 8-year-old stand of ‘Penncross’. Mowing was 5 to 6days per week at 0.156 inch. Irrigation was daily, except then rainfall before 7:00 am was 0.25inch or more. Fungicides were applied primarily on a curative basis. Primo was applied monthlyat 0.25 oz/M to the shaded plots. Fertilization for the season totaled 2.9 lb N, 0.35 lb P2O5, and2.6 lb K2O.

OBSERVATIONS

The four microenvironments created with shade cloths and wind screens had the character-istics given in Table 1. Figure 1 summarizes for the 1999 and 2000 season the changes inmicroclimate, evapotranspiration, bentgrass shoot and root growth, disease severity and traffictolerance that occurred when going from the most favorable microenvironment “A” to the leastfavorable, microenvironment “D”. Microenvironments “B” and “C” (Table 1) resulted inresponses intermediate to those between the A and D microenvironments.

While the differences in air and soil temperature and relative humidity (Fig. 1) seem small,these area season average values. Their cumulative effects are much greater than suggested bythese averages. For example, over 10 weeks the turf in microenvironment A had 250 more heatunits than in microenvironment D. Also, on a given day and time of day, differences intemperatures approached 10oF or more and relative humidity varied by as much as 12%.

Table 1. Season means for solar radiation, wind speed, temperatures, and relative humidityin the four microenvironments.

_________________________________________________________________________ Solar Wind Temperature Relative

Microenvironments radiation speed Air Soil humidity_________________________________________________________________________

W M-2 mph ------- oF ------- %

A 186 3.8 75.2 72.3 85B 140 2.4 73.2 70.7 84C 78 1.7 71.6 70.5 86D 62 1.6 71.5 59.3 87

__________________________________________________________________________

With the differences in solar radiation, temperatures, relative humidity, and wind speedcreated, the turfgrass evapotranspiration decreased an average of 58% in going frommicroenvironment A to D (Fig. 1). Hence, if turfgrass is irrigated at 100% of plant ET inmicroenvironment A, irrigation needs to be at 58% of ET in microenvironment D to provideequivalent amounts of water and not over-irrigate. We arbitrarily irrigated the greens inmicroenvironment D at 50% of the rate in microenvironment A. Localized dry spot developedon some greens in microenvironment A but not in D.

Shading stimulated bentgrass shoot growth, resulting in a 47% increase in clippingproduction (Fig. 1). This accounts for the 33% reduction in rooting depth and 55% reduction inroot mass that was observed.

Accompanying the stimulation of shoot growth by shade was a 19% increase in shoot watercontent. This production of more succulent shoots is thought to be the major reason whyphysical damage from simulated golf traffic was 70% greater in the most intensely shadedmicroenvironment.

Shading, restricted air flow, and their effects on air and soil temperatures and relativehumidity had dramatic effects on disease severity. In going from microenvironment A to D, theseverity of Microdochium patch increased 408% (Fig. 1). There were effects on dollar spot aswell, but severity of this disease did not increase proportionally to the reductions in shading andair flow. Rather, dollar spot increased 65% in going from microenvironment A to C, but in goingfrom C to D, severity of the disease declined by 98%. This happened in1999 as well as 2000.

The only explanation offered for this is that one or more properties of microenvironment D arenot conducive to growth of the causative pathogen.

Shade Cloth + Wind Screens

67% Less Solar Radiation

58% Less Air Movement

3.7 o Lower Air T

3.0 o Lower Soil T

2.0% Higher RH

58% Reduction in ET

47% More Clippings

19% Increase in Clipping H20

32% Reduction in RootingDepth

58% Reduction in Root Mass

408% Increase inMicrodochium Patch

98% Decrease in DollarSpot

70% Reduction in PuttingGreen Quality

Figure 1: Influences of shading and airflow reduction on puttinggreen quality.

Primo was applied to the shaded plots with the thoughts that bentgrass shoot growth wouldbe reduced and the shoots would be less succulent, the net results being better root growth andless injury due to traffic. Application of the growth regulator reduced shoot growth by amountsthat were proportional to the amount of shade. A 6% reduction occurred under 32% shade. Thisincreased to 23% under 51% shade and 43% under 70% shade. Primo applica-tion did not alterthe moisture content of the shoots. Perhaps this is why shoot damage due to simulated golftraffic was no different than in 1999 when Primo was not applied.

A second cultural practice implemented this year was adjustment of irrigation rates accordingto the degree of shading. The assumption was that this would improve turf quality throughinfluences on shoot growth rates and succulence, disease severity, and traffic damage. The full-sum microenvironment A was irrigated daily at the rate of 0.20 inch. Microenvironments B, C,and D received 80, 60, and 40%, respectively, of this amount. In other words, the daily irrigationrates were 0.20, 0.16, 0.12, and 0.08 inch per day except during times of rainfall. These differentirrigation rates had no perceptible influences on bentgrass shoot growth and moisture content,disease severity, or the extent of damage due to traffic.

A third “cultural practice” built into the study is root zone mix composition. The primarydistinguishing feature of the different mixes is water holding capacity. This ranges from 9.0%water by volume for Greesmix sand blended with fermented rice hulls to 18.7% water retained forLycon sand blended with Canadian sphagnum peat.

To establish the effects of the different root zone mixes on putting green characteristics andquality in the four microenvironments, I examined relationships between the water holdingcapacities of the root zone mixes and measures of bentgrass growth and putting green quality.The most notable relationship was that between root zone mix water holding capacity and theincrease in bentgrass clipping weights that occurred as a result of shading (Fig. 2). As shown,increases in clipping weights were highest for the root zone mixes with the lowest water retentioncapacities. This relationship coincides with the occurrence of localized dry spot. Greensconstructed with root zone mixes that retained 12% or less water suffered from extensivelocalized dry spot under full sun, but the problem gradually disappeared as the ET rate declineddue to increasing amounts of shading. This prevented drying out of the putting green surface,which is the precursor to development of localized dry spot.

Other significant relationships were those between root zone moisture holding capacity andbentgrass rooting depth or putting green quality when no traffic was applied. Increasing moistureretention capacity decreased the reductions in rooting depth that resulted from shading andimproved putting green quality when no traffic was applied. The improvement in putting greenquality came about primarily as a result of the influence of root zone moisture retention on theoccurrence of localized dry spot.

Root zone mix water holding capacity had no apparent influence on reductions in bentgrassroot mass, disease severity nor on the extent of damage from simulated golf traffic as

influenced by degree of shading (Fig. 3). Thus, in the final analysis, varying root zone mixcomposition did not offset the adverse effects of the microenvironments on putting green quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Shading and restrictions in air flow adversely affect putting green quality through stimulationof more succulent shoot growth that reduces traffic tolerance and through greater disease severity.The only positive effect of shading is elimination of localized dry spot in putting greens whoseroot mixes have moisture retention capacities of 12% or less by volume.

Application of Primo to shaded putting greens to reduce bentgrass shoot growth orreductions in irrigation rates that coincide with decreases in ET rates are not effective in offsettingthe adverse effects of microenvironments on putting green quality. The same holds true foremployment of different root zone mixes in putting greens.

Maintaining high-quality putting greens in heavily shaded microenvironments with restrictedair flow may be possible, but not through use of common cultural practices. The only realisticand lasting solution is not to locate putting greens in such microenvironments.

Putting Green Management Systems


INTRODUCTION

The sites for this long-term study are push-up and sand putting greens constructed in1993 and seeded to ‘Penncross’, ‘Providence’, and ‘Crenshaw’ creeping bentgrass in 1994.The primary objective of this project is to determine how putting green type, bentgrasscultivar, and mowing height alter putting green quality. This information is then applied in theselection of appropriate management systems and in assigning dollar costs to managementsystems.

The original intent was to gather information on pure stands of creeping bentgrass andthen transition into mixed stands of Poa annua and bentgrass. Actions taken in 1998 and 1999to bring about this transition were not successful. A new approach taken in 2000 is showingsigns of having succeeded in the introduction of Poa into the greens.

METHODS

The treatments in this study are putting green (push-up vs. sand) and three bentgrasscultivars, each mowed at heights that maintain putting green speeds consistently greater than10 feet, around 9 feet, and around 8 feet. The bentgrass cultivar-mowing height combinationsare replicated three times in randomized complete blocks on each type of putting green.

In 1996, a group of golf course superintendents assisted in selection of the culturalpractices listed below that have been employed at each mowing height.

Management System I — Green speed > 10 feet:

Mowing: 6 to 7 times/week at 0.105 to 0.125 inch.Fertilization: Granular fertilizers spring and fall, light and frequent liquid applications

During the growing season.Disease control: Preventative, in actuality, most disease control was curative in order to

observe treatment effects on disease severity.Grooming: Every 3 weeks.Topdressing: Bi-monthly with 1 ft3 sand/M, one application being made at the time of

grooming.Growth regulator: Primo monthly at 0.24 oz/M, starting in mid-May.Core aeration: Early September, cores removed and holes backfilled with topdressing sand.Traffic: Simulated traffic (rollers with golf shoe spikes at frequencies up to the

equivalent of 35,000 founds of golf per season).

Management System II — Green speed around 9 feet:

Mowing: 6 times/week at 0.156 inch.Fertilization: Combination of granular and liquid.Disease control: Same as Management System I.Grooming: Once per month.Topdressing: 1 qt3/M of topdressing sand at time of grooming.Growth regulator: Same as Management System I.Core aeration: Same as Management System I.Traffic: Same as Management System I.

Management System III — Green speed around 8 feet:

Mowing: 5 times/week at 0.208 to 0.230 inch.Fertilization: All granular.Disease control: Curative only.Grooming: 2 to 3 times per season.Topdressing: Only in conjunction with core aeration.Growth regulator: None in 1986 to 1989; Primo in 2000.Core aeration: Same as Management Systems I and II.Traffic: Same as Management Systems I and II.

The greens were irrigated daily at 100% of estimated plant ET except when rainfall was0.25 inch or more. Fertilization frequency was according to bentgrass color. Rates rangedfrom 0.25 to 1.0 lb N/M, depending on management system and time of year. Phosphate andpotash rates were those required to achieve a season total N:P2O5:K2O ratio of 4:1:3. AnnualN rates were 2.24 lb for Management System I, 2.54 lb for System II, and 2.0 lb for SystemIII.

OBSERVATIONS

The information gathered since 1996 is summarized in Table 1. This informationsupports the discussion that follows.

RESULTS

Sand vs. Push-up Putting Greens:

The push-up green exhibited several advantages over the sand green and a fewdisadvantages. The push-up greens, having better moisture and nutrient retention, maintainedbentgrass stands that were 28% more dense, provided significantly better conditions for rootgrowth, were less prone to invasion by algae and had a 69% reduction in the severity ofinfection by dollar spot. The only disadvantages observed were a 10% increase in clippingproduction and somewhat greater susceptibility to traffic damage.

Table 1. Relative effects of putting green type, bentgrass cultivar, and mowing height onfactors that contribute to putting quality and management.

___________________________________________________________________________ Relative influence Mowing height †

Factor Type of green Bentgrass cultivar 0.156 inch 0.225 inch

Clipping weight Soil + 10% Crenshaw – 4% + 17% + 46%Stand density Soil + 28% Crenshaw + 6% + 11% + 11%Rooting depth Soil + 91% None + 6% + 8%Root mass Soil + 5% None + 25% + 52%Algae invasion Sand + 7% Penncross +143% – 92% – 97%Dollar spot Sand + 69% Crenshaw + 1070% +500% +890%Traffic damage Soil + 9% Crenshaw + 4% – 10% – 4%Speed None Penncross + 3% – 9% – 23%___________________________________________________________________________

† Compared to mowing at 0.125 inch.

Penncross vs. Providence vs. Crenshaw:

Among these three creeping bentgrass cultivars, Crenshaw exhibited slight advantageswith respect to clipping production, stand density, and traffic tolerance. As is well known,Crenshaw’s major disadvantage is its high susceptibility to infection by dollar spot. Severityof dollar spot in the Crenshaw plots exceeded that for Penncross and Providence by 1070%.Penncross provided slightly higher speeds than Providence or Crenshaw, but was much moreprone to algae invasion at low heights of cut. There were no differences among the threecultivars as far as root growth was concerned. In every regard, Providence gave resultsintermediate between Penncross and Crenshaw.

Mowing at 0.125 vs. 0.156 vs. 0.225 Inch:

Mowing height had a much greater impact on the putting greens than did type of green orbentgrass cultivar. In all instances the effects of mowing at 0.156 inch rather than 0.125 inchwere intermediate to what occurred when the height of cut changed from 0.125 to 0.225 inch.Thus, this discussion is being simplified by confining it to the contrasting effects of mowing at0.125 and 0.225 inch. In other words, the contrast is between putting greens maintained atspeeds >10 feet and those maintained at around 8 feet.

Mowing to maintain a putting green speed >10 feet rather than around 8 feet has manynotable consequences, some positive and some negative from a management perspective. Theposi-tive aspects are a 46% reduction in clipping production, an 890% reduction in theincidence and severity of dollar spot, and 4 to 10% less damage from traffic. Offsettingnegative effects include an 11% reduction in bentgrass stand density, an 8% reduction in

rooting depth, a 52% reduction in root mass and a 97% increase in the area of the greensinvaded by algae.

CONCLUSIONS

Data gathered over the 5-year lifetime of this project support the following conclusions:

Push-up greens have several advantages over sand greens. They maintain higher bentgrassstand densities, better root growth, are less prone to invasion by algae, and are less susceptibleto attack by dollar spot. Disadvantages are greater clipping production and lower traffictolerance. All factors considered, push-up greens are easier to manage at lower cost and can bemaintained at the same speeds as sand greens.

The most important consideration in selection of a bentgrass cultivar is disease tolerance/resistance. A second but considerably less important factor is stand density. Cultivars thatmaintain higher stand densities are less likely to be invaded by algae and provide somewhatbetter traffic tolerance.

The effects of mowing height on putting green quality overshadow any positiveinfluences that are associated with type of putting green or the bentgrass cultivar grown.Mowing at 0.125 inch or less to achieve speeds consistently greater than 10 feet is highlydetrimental to the quality of putting greens and creates much greater demands in terms ofcultural practices and elevates management costs. If one were to select out of this study an“ideal” mowing height, it would be something close to 0.156 inch. This height of cutconsistently provides green speeds around 9 feet, maintains stand densities that minimizeinvasion by algae, and sustains better bentgrass root growth. The negatives identified in goingfrom a mowing height of 0.125 to 0.156 inch are greater susceptibility to attack by dollar spotand a slight reduction in traffic tolerance. Increasing the mowing height from 0.156 to 0.225inch slows putting greens down to 8 feet or less, significantly increases clipping production,increases dollar spot severity, and has relatively small effects on turfgrass root growth andstand density.

Root Zone Microbial Activity in Relation to Putting Green Quality

Sabrina R Mueller and Wayne R. KussowDepartment of Soil Science

INTRODUCTION

In natural ecosystems, plant health often reflects the status of the root zonemicrobial community. This community contains bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi, andalgae, and all can be used as biological indicators of soil quality. These microorganismsare highly diverse in numbers, activity levels, and functions and in their populationdynamics. It is through these characteristics that the microbial communities displayresponses to changes in cultural practices and the environment. It is not know howimportant these activities and functions are in a highly managed environment like aputting green.

The microbial community is linked to soil health and subsequently, to plant healththrough nutrient cycling and beneficial plant relationships. The majority of the microbialpopulation degrades organic matter. Though the breakdown of organic matter, themicrobial biomass initiates the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Non-nutritional benefits involve regulation of root pathogen populations and production ofplant growth stimulants.

The over all-purpose of this research is to determine the relationship betweenmicrobial activity and putting green quality. The specific objectives are:

Objective #1: Measure microbial activity level, functional diversity, and communitycomposition.

Objective #2: Compare microbial activity and community composition to turf visualquality ratings and nutrients taken up by the turfgrass.

Objective #3: Determine the influence of commercially available products on soilmicrobial activity and relate this to putting green quality.

METHODS

This experiment made use of five commercially available microbial stimulantcompounds. The six treatments were:

1) Colonizer T&O from Plant Health Care Inc.2) Flexx-Plus from Plant Health Care Inc3) Experimental Product A from Ocean Organics4) Experimental Product B from Ocean Organics5) Raiz-Mor from Jay-Mar Inc.,6) Control (Isotek fertilizer alone)

Their plant nutrient concentrations are given in table 1.

Table 1: Mineral analysis of the commercial products

Products % Nitrogen % Phosphorous % Potassium % IronFlexx-Plus 0.075 0.20 8.84 4.81Colonize T&O 0.067 2.58 9.32 0.0186Experimental A 2.92 0.03 1.08 2.35Experimental B 3.19 0.023 0.935 2.06Raiz-Mor 1.51 0.13 0.021 0.0007

The first application was on 5-22-2000 and subsequently every two week. Thesetreatments are applied at manufactures recommended rates and frequencies. In additioneach plot received 0.25 lbs. of N every two weeks in the form of Isotek 18-3-16. Themanagement practices involved mowing 6 days a week at a height of 0.156 inches anddaily irrigation at 100% of evapotranspiration (ET).

To determine the microbial activity, soil samples were taken every two weeks.Each plot had 12 cores removed to a six-inch depth. The soil samples are being analyzedfor 4 soil enzymes: invertase, xylanase, cellulase (Shinner and Von Mersi, 1991), anddehydrogenase (Cassdia, 1964), the Biolog assay to reveal bacterial function diversity(Balser, 2000), and Phospholipid Fatty Acid Analysis to determine the microbialpopulation composition (Acosta-Martinez et al., 1999).

In order to correlate turf grass quality to microbial activity, visual quality ratingsare recorded weekly. Clippings were collected periodically to characterize shoot growthrates and provide tissue samples for nutrient analysis. Root mass was determined near theend of the summer stress period and again in October. In October, we removed rootsamples to check for the presence of mycorrhizae (VAM) in the root system.

RESULTS

For the 2000 Season, there was a treatment response to the microbial stimulantproducts. Something in the system changed compared to the control causing puttinggreen color and quality to improve (Table 2). The important item to note is that thecontrol (with fertilizer alone) had both the lowest color and quality ratings.

Table 2: Treatment effects on bentgrass color and putting green quality.

Bentgrass Putting Green Treatment RatingTreatment Color Quality Color Quality

Flexx-Plus 6.70a 7.38a 4 3

Colonize T&O 6.55b 7.05a 5 4

Experimental A 6.77a 7.40a 1 2

Experimental B 6.75a 7.40a 3 2

Raiz-Mor 6.76a 7.43a 2 1

Control 6.46b 6.78b 6 5

In 1999, Kussow demonstrated a positive relationship between dehydrogenaseconcentrations and visual quality. The same relationship was expressed in the currentyear’s research (Figure 1 and 2). This relationship suggests that some component themicrobial population favorably alters dehydrogenase levels and this associated withcomparable improvements in turfgrass color and putting green quality. The key questionhere is how this relationship arises.

To determine whether the improvements in turfgrass color and quality werenutritional in origin. Clipping samples were analyzed for macro- and micronutirents.Nitrogen was the only nutrient in the clippings that related to turfgrass color (Figure 3)and putting green quality. This suggests that the primary mode of action of the productsapplied was the alteration of the nitrogen status of the turfgrass. This may have occurredthrough influences on the rate of biocycling of N or through more efficient utilization ofN by the turfgrass. We are now analyzing soil samples for their inorganic Nconcentrations to check on the possibility that more rapid biocycling occurred.

Analysis for the enzymes: invertase, xylanase, and cellulase were recentlycomplete, but we have not had time to statistically analyze and interpret the data. TheBiolog analysis is nearing completion and PFLA analysis will commence in a few weeks.

SUMMARY

While a lot of data are yet to be gathered, analyzed, and interpreted, indicationsare that there is a consistent relationship between soil dehydrogenase activity andturfgrass color and putting green quality. This relationship appears to originate frominfluences the products had on the nitrogen status of the turfgrass.

Figure 1: Dehydrogenase vs. color rating

Figure 2: Dehydrogenase vs. quality ratings

Figure 3: The relationship of bentgrass color and percent nitrogen in the tissue.

References

Acosta-Martinez, V., Z. Reicher, M.Bischoff, and R.F. Turco.1999. The role of tree leafmulch and nitrogen fertilizer on turfgrass soil quality. Biology and Fertility ofSoils. 29:55-61.

Balser, T.C. 2000. Linking microbial communities and ecosystem functioning. DoctoralDissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Casida, L.E., Jr., D.A. Klein, and T.Santoro. 1964. Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci.98:371-276.

Kussow, W.R. 1999. Commercial products effects on microbial activity in a USGAputting green- preliminary study. p.121-129. In Wisconsin Turf Grass Research:Results of 1999: volume XVII.

Schinner, F. and W. von Mersi.1990. Xylanase, CM-cellulase- and invertase activity insoil: an improved method. Soil Biol. Biochem.22 (4): 511-515.

Prospect and SuperBio for Putting Green Performance

Dr. John Stier and Stephen PearsonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison


OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of Prospect and SuperBio on several different putting greencharacteristics.


Soil: Silt loamTurf: Poa annua var. annua and P. annua var. reptans, 5/32-1/8” heightIrrigation: daily to provide 80% ETExperimental design: randomized complete block design, 4 replicationsPlot size: 35 x 49 feet total, 5 x 10 ft individual plots, and 3 ft alleys between reps for yieldcollection purposesTreatments: The entire plot area was compacted using a walk-behind vibrating compactor(Whacker brand) in the early afternoon on August 30. The soil was moist during time ofapplication; two perpindicular passes were applied. Applied August 30, 2000. Additionaltreatments: April 1 and June 1, 2001Data: Soil compaction was determined using a cone penetrometer. Four random readings werecollected from each plot immediately following compaction and prior to treatment. These fourvalues were averaged to determine a single representative value for each plot.

Treatments Rate (qt/A) Rate (oz/M)Prospect 1.6 1.2Prospect 2.0 1.5Prospect + SuperBio 1.6 + 1 gal 1.2 + 2.9SuperBio 1 gal 2.9SuperBio 2 gal 5.8Prospect + SuperBio 2 + 1 gal 1.5 + 2.9Untreated Control -- --

Treatments are applied using 1 gal H20 per 1000 sq. ft. and are lightly irrigated in withapproximately 0.10 inch water after application. Treatments are applied late in the day to avoidUV light degradation.

Fertilizer: 3 lb. N/yr (over entire test area). To date two fertilizer applications have beenperformed—19 October 0.25 lb. N/M and 1 November 0.5 lb. N/M. We used 21-3-12 greensgrade (Spring Valley).

Pest Maintenance: Control diseases, weeds, and insects as needed. Fungicides are not sprayedwithin 2 weeks of treatment applications (SuperBio components may be sensitive). To date nopesticide applications have been performed.

Data collection:

Data collection schedule

Treatmentapplication date

Yield Color Quality Compaction Root mass

August 30, 2000 14 DAT*14 & 28DAT*

14 & 28DAT*

Prior totreatment &28 DAT*

--

April 1, 2001 14 DAT14 & 28

DAT14 & 28

DAT

Prior totreatment &

28 DAT--

June 1, 2001 14 DAT14 & 28

DAT14 & 28

DAT

Prior totreatment &

28 DAT

End of study(if warranted)

DAT= days after treatment application.* indicates data have already been collected.

Both treatment application and data collection will continue in 2001 according to the plannedschedule.


Preliminary results did not indicate any treatment differences occurred during autumn 2000(Table 1). This is only the first part, however, of a longer term study. Growing conditions forturf were ideal during the first part of this study. Often treatments do not have significant impactuntil some stress has occurred. We will continue to treat and monitor the turf during spring andsummer 2001.

Table 1. Quality, color, yield, and penetrometer values of putting green turf treated with Prospect and SuperBio during autumn 2000,Verona, WI.

Quality ColorClipping yield

(g plot-1) Penetrometer values (psi)Treatment 9/12 9/18 9/28 9/18 9/28 9/27 8/30/00 10/3/00 Difference

Prospect, 1.2 oz 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.2 6.9 3.3 109.063 114.688 -5.6Prospect, 1.5 oz 6.8 7.2 7.0 7.4 6.9 3.4 110.938 117.5 -6.6SuperBio, 2.9 oz 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.5 6.9 3.5 105.313 117.188 -11.9SuperBio, 5.8 oz 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.4 7.0 3.5 110.313 117.188 -6.9Prospect + SuperBio,1.2+2.9 oz

7.0 7.2 7.0 7..4 7.0 3.3 111.875 116.875 -5.0

Prospect + SuperBio,1.5+2.9 oz

7.0 7.0 6.9 7.5 7.0 3.7 112.188 118.438 -6.2

Untreated check 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.4 7.0 3.9 106.25 119.688 -13.4LSD (0.05) ns ns ns ns ns ns --- --- ns

ns = Not significant at p≤ 0.05.

Establishment on USGA Green Using Sybron Chemicals

Stephen H. Pearson and Dr. John StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Conventional turf fertilizers are being publicly scrutinized because of their potential toleach in sand based root zones during turfgrass establishment. The purpose of this study was toevaluate the effect of organic sources of nutrients and plant extracts for putting greenestablishment on a USGA green.


The project was conducted on a research putting green constructed to USGAspecifications in spring 1999 (USGA, 1993). The establishment project was conducted underboth summer and autumn conditions.

Summer trialOn June 13, 2000 a 2500 sq. ft. area was prepared for seeding by stripping the top 1” of

sand/silt and backfilling with fresh 80/20 (sand/peat) construction mix. On June 16 the area wasseeded with 1lb Penncross/1000M sq. ft. using a 3-foot Gandy drop spreader in two directions.The entire area was 48’x 48’.

The experimental design was a randomized, split-plot with four replications. Main plotswere 12’ x 12’ and sub-plots were 12’ x 4’ (Fig. 1). Main plots were TS2 at 0, 12 (1X rate), and24 oz/M (2X rate). Sub-plots were 0, 1 (0.5X rate), and 2 lb P2O5/M (1X rate). A tenthtreatment was TurfVigor applied at 24 oz/ which was analyzed with the non-starter fertilizer TStreatments as a 2-way ANOVA. Each sub plot was 12’x 12’ and each sub-sub plot was 12’x 4’.The fertilizer was 15-24-8 (Spring Valley) and was applied only at the beginning of the trial.TS2 and TurfVigor were applied as liquid sprays at 0, 7, 14, and 21 days after seeding. Liquidtreatments were applied with 2 gal/M carrier volume using a CO2-powered backpack sprayerequipped with XR 8005 Tee Jet nozzles. Starter fertilizer treatments were applied once, at timeof seeding. Plots were irrigated four times daily for two minute periods. Plots were mowedtwice with a walking greens mower (Jacobsen) set at .275” on July 7 and 22 before thetermination of the study.

Percent turf cover was evaluated weekly to determine establishment rate. Pythiumdisease was controlled preventatively with 1 oz Subdue/M applied 7 July 2000.

Autumn establishment

A second trial was conducted during late summer/early autumn. The first trial wasterminated on July 24 by spraying a 3% Roundup solution on the existing vegetation. Twenty-one days after spraying the Roundup, the remaining dead turf was removed with a sand pro andlandscape rakes. The area was leveled with the sand pro and then hand raked to a final grade.

On August 21 the area was seeded with 1# Penncross with a 3-foot Gandy drop spreader in twodirections.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications.Treatments were arranged and analyzed as split-plot factorial. Main plot treatments were TS248oz/M (2X), TS2 24oz/M (1X), TurfVigor 48oz/M (2X), TurfVigor 24oz/M (1X), and a controlwith no treatment. Each of these plots was then split to receive each of the following fertilizertreatments; 1lb P2O5 (1X), 0.5lb P2O5 (0.5X), or no fertilizer. Main plots measured 9’x10’ andsub-plots measured 3’ X 10’. The chemical treatments were sprayed every 7 days (for 28 days--atotal of 5 sprays), while the fertilizer applications were on a 10-day schedule until the study wasterminated on 10/7—seven weeks after seeding (see table 1). Treatments were again sprayedusing a CO2 powered backpack sprayer equipped with XR 8005 Tee Jet nozzles. A starterfertilizer, 15-24-8 (Spring Valley), was applied at 7-10 day intervals as is typically performedduring grow-in. The fertilizer was applied using a 3ft Gandy drop spreader. With the spreaderset at 31, we went 1 time over plots receiving 0.5X rate and 2 times over plots receiving 1X rate.The irrigation was again set to run 4 times daily for 2 minutes each time.

On 9/17 the plot area was mowed at _”. Then on 9/21 the trial area was mowed at 0.22”.Finally, on 9/24 the final mowing height of .156” was achieved. Subsequent mowings wereperfomed 2-3 times weekly until the termination of the trial. All mowings were performed witha walking greens mower.

Table 1. Establishment of USGA creeping bentgrass green with Sybron chemicals, Verona, WI.

Chemical Application Dates Fertilizer Application Dates8/21/00 8/21/008/28/00 8/30/009/4/00 9/8/009/12/00 9/18/009/18/00 9/26/00

Weekly ratings were taken for percent cover to determine the rate of establishment.Other ratings included color and quality. A soil test analysis showed high pH (7.7), and lowphosphorus (44 lbs./A) and potassium (30 lbs./A).

Data analysis

Data for comparing the TS2 treatments in the summer trial and all the treatments in theautumn trial were analyzed as a factorial arrangement (MSTAT, 1988). In the original plans, theTurfVigor treatment in the summer trial was not split for starter fertility, i.e., no starter fertilizerwas used, due to spatial and budget constraints. For analysis, this treatment was compared onlyagainst the other treatments (TS2 and untreated control) which received no starter fertilizer andwas analyzed as a 2-way ANOVA (MSTAT, 1988).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSummer trial

Germination began on June 23. There were no significant differences in establishmentrate among the TS2 and control treatments (main plots) (Table 2). In the sub-plots, both the0.5X and 1.0X rates of starter fertilizer resulted in significantly better establishment than plotswhich received no starter fertilizer. There were no TS2 x starter fertilizer interactions.

In the TurfVigor/TS2 comparison, there were no statistically significant differencesbetween any of the treatments and the untreated control (Table 3). There was a notable trend,however, of the TS2 and TurfVigor resulting in better establishment.

Early evaluation of the treatments resulted in the trial being terminated before completecover was established. Due to the slow rate of establishment, it was deemed necessary toconduct another experiment using continual applications of starter fertilizer as treatments similarto conventional grow-in programs. It was also decided to increase the rates of TS2 andTurfVigor because there seemed to be some effect though it was not statistically significant andbecause the original rates were somewhat arbitrary. It was also determined to test both TS2 andTurfVigor at several rates of starter fertility, including a zero fertilizer control.

Autumn establishment

Sufficient germination to justify a rating occurred 11 days after seeding (Sept. 1).Establishment rate was rapid compared to summer, with percent turf cover increasing fromapproximately 10% to 50% in just an 11 day period (1 to 12 Sept.) (Table 4). This was likelydue to the effect of regular fertility in some of the plots and cooler nights which decreasedrespiration, allowing more energy for growth.

Main plot effects were significant during the early part of the trial. TurfVigor at the 48oz/M (2X) rate significantly improved establishment during the first three weeks compared to theuntreated control. TurfVigor at the low rate (24 oz/M) and the TS2 treatments also increasedestablishment rate but results were not statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) compared to theuntreated control. Sub-plot effects (starter fertilizer) were significant throughout the trial, withthe 1X starter fertilizer rate providing significantly better cover than the 0.5X rate, and theuntreated control resulting in significantly less cover than either of the two fertilizer treatments.There were no significant interactions between main and sub-plot treatments.

Turf color and quality were not significantly (p ≤ 0.05) affected by any of the TS2 orTurfVigor treatments, although ratings for these treatments were always greater than theuntreated control. As expected, color and quality were directly related to the amount of starterfertilizer applied. There were no interactions between TS2/TurfVigor and fertilizer treatments.

CONCLUSION

TurfVigor at 48 oz/M increased turf establishment rate by two to three weeks. TS2 hadless of an effect, but this appears to be rate-related: higher rates may have significant effects.Indeed, higher rates of either TurfVigor or TS2 may result in significant interactions with starter

fertilizer treatments. Continued evaluation of TurfVigor and TS2 products at the same or higherrates than were evaluated during the autumn trial are warranted.

Literature Cited

MSTAT-C, Michigan State University. 1988. User’s guide to MSTAT-C.

USGA. 1993. Recommendations for a method of putting green construction. USGA GreenSection Record 31(2):1-3.

Table 2. TS2 effects on establishment of a USGA creeping bentgrass putting green, Verona, WI,2000.

Treatment Percent Cover Rating Means

Main Plots 6/29 7/7 7/14 7/20

TS2 0X 10.4 23.8 27.9 37.5

TS2 0.5X 12.0 24.2 31.7 40.8

TS2 1X 6.8 20.8 29.2 37.1

LSD .05 ns ns ns ns

Sub Plots

No Starter 6.4 18.3 22.5 30.0

Starter 0.5X 11.6 24.6 31.7 40.0

Starter 1X 11.3 25.8 34.6 45.4

LSD .05 ns 6.2 5.0 6.1

ns = not significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Table 3. Comparison of TurfVigor and TS2 for establishment of a USGA creeping bentgrassputting green, Verona, WI, 2000.


Treatment 6/29 7/7 7/14 7/20

Control 3.8 17.5 18.8 27.5

TS2 0.5X 8.0 20.0 23.8 30.0

TS2 1X 7.5 20.0 25.0 32.5

TurfVigor 10.0 20.0 25.0 36.3

LSD .05 ns ns ns ns


Table 4. Establishment of a USGA creeping bentgrass putting green using Sybron Chemicals, Verona, WI.

Treatment % Cover Color Quality

Main Plots 9/1 9/12 9/18 9/26 10/6 9/12 9/18 10/6 10/6

TS2 1X 9.6 47.5 69.6 75.8 86.3 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.5

TS2 2X 9.6 48.3 68.3 76.7 85.4 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.4

Turfvigor1X

10.0 45.4 67.5 75.0 86.3 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.4

Turfvigor2X

10.0 53.8 76.3 79.6 89.2 7.1 7.3 6.6 6.6

Control 8.8 40.4 62.9 71.7 84.6 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.3

LSD 0.05 ns 8.3 8.2 ns ns ns ns ns ns

Subplots

No Starter 8.5 36.0 56.3 65.5 75.3 5.9 5.8 5.6 4.8

0.5XStarter

10.0 48.0 71.0 78.0 88.8 7.0 7.1 6.6 6.7

1X Starter 10.3 57.3 79.5 83.8 95.0 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.8

LSD 0.05 2.0 5.4 5.6 5.6 6.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5

Interaction

M x S ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns


6

Figure 1. Autumn establishment on USGA putting green using Sybron Chemicals, 24 days after seeding, Verona,WI, 2000.

Figure 2. Close-up of Autumn establishment on USGA putting green using Sybron Chemicals, 24 days afterseeding, Verona, WI, 2000.

7

Figure 3. Autumn establishment on USGA putting green using Sybron Chemicals, 24 days after seeding, Verona,WI, 2000.

Supina Bluegrass for Shaded Tee Boxes

Kurt Steinke and John C. StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

Shaded tee boxes require special attention on a golf course due to the result of asignificantly altered microenvironment. Insufficient light energy exists for normalgrowth and thus it is difficult to maintain a quality type turf. Shaded turf ultimately failsdue to disease, competition with tree roots for water and nutrients, or lack of adequatelight for photosynthesis. The objective of this study was to 1) to determine the effects ofspecies x nitrogen source under 80% shade, and 2) to determine the effects of species xgrowth regulator application under 80% shade.


Establishment: Summer 1999Design: Split-plot randomized complete block with four replicationsTreatments: 0.25 lb. N/M applied granularly every 14 days

0.25 lb. N/M applied foliarly every 14 days 0.125 oz./M of Primo applied every 28 days 0.125 oz./M of Primo applied every 56 days No Primo

Main Plots: Grass species: supina bluegrass (Poa supina), creeping bentgrass (Agrostisstolonifera), and Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis)

Subplots: Nitrogen source and Primo (trinexapac-ethyl)Maintenance: Mowed three times weekly at 0.5 inchesIrrigation: One time a week at 50% ET

Visual ratings of color, quality, and density were collected bi-weekly during thegrowing season. A divot tool was used to make divots during each season to evaluatedivot recovery. A chlorophyll fluorometer was used to measure the photosyntheticefficiency of each plot. Root mass and depth were measured at both two and four inchdepths during the fall season to measure Primo efficacy. A datalogger was placed underthe canopy to measure photosynthetically active radiation, temperature, soil temperature,and humidity throughout the growing season. Carbohydrate status and cold tolerancewill be monitored during the winter months.


Statistically analyzed data will not be available to Spring 2001, however visualobservations were noticeable. Kentucky bluegrass turf density decreased as the summerprogressed. Creeping bentgrass did perform quite well but seemed to be more diseaseprone than supina bluegrass. Supina bluegrass did very well and performed the bestunder the shaded environment.

Bi-monthly applications of Primo did not have a steady effect over the 56-dayperiod and may in fact harm the grass more than it helps. Turf treated monthly withPrimo had better quality, color, and density. Nitrogen source does make a difference andseems to be species specific. Creeping bentgrass seems to benefit more so from a foliarnitrogen application while Poa spp. seem to benefit more so from the granular nitrogenapplication. The foliar-applied bentgrass plots also seemed to suffer less dollar spotdamage then the granular-applied bentgrass plots.

Primo appeared to increase root mass of creeping bentgrass more than either Poaspecies. seems to metabolize the Primo better thus giving it a greater root mass. Bi-monthly applications of Primo appeared to decrease root mass. Foliar and granularnitrogen differences are also showing up in root production. Cold tolerance andcarbohydrate status of all species involved is currently in progress. The study will becompleted by spring 2002.

1

Establishment Comparisons Using Encap Seed

Stephen H. Pearson and Dr. John StierDepartment of Horticulture

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of different combinations of Encapseed, mulches, and starter fertilizer on establishment.


A 2500 sq. ft. area was sprayed with Roundup on May 15th. On June 10th the area wastilled and prepared for seeding. On June 22nd the study was initiated by spraying Tupersan(Siduron) in the morning at 2lb/M. Later that afternoon the actual study was put out using arandomized complete block design, with 3 replications. Each individual plot was 5’X8’. Thetreatments included 3 mulches, 2 fertilizers, and 3 seed types.

Treatment Rate

Seed

Encap Seed

Encap Plus Seed

4 #/1000 Sq. ft.

12.5#/1000 Sq ft.

50 #/1000 Sq. ft.

Pennmulch

Straw

60 #/ 1000 Sq. ft.

45-50 #/ 1000 Sq. ft.

Starter Fertilizer(10-22-20)

1# P205/1000 Sq. ft.

Each seed type was used in combination with each of the mulches. Each treatment wasthen split with half receiving starter fertilizer and the other half no starter (see plot map).

Percent cover ratings were taken weekly to evaluate the rate of establishment. Auniformity rating was taken when the turf neared 100% cover in some plots. Throughout thetrial no color or quality differences were seen among the treatments, only percent cover wasvariable. Due to excessive rainfall on 6/26/00, a “washout” rating was taken on 6/27/00.Washout was rated on a 1 to 9 scale; 1=no washout, 9=complete washout. The mulches wererated as a whole, as well as each individual plot. The trial ended on 8/21/00.

A second trial, identical to the first, was initiated on 9/6/00. The second study wasinitiated as a result of the Encap seed being reformulated. Again a washout rating was taken

2

after a storm dropped about 1” of water shortly after seeding. Percent cover ratings werecollected weekly.

Turf quality ratings were collected twice near the end of the trial and a uniformity ratingwas collected at the end of the trial. Quality was rated on a 1 to 9 scale; 1=bare soil/dead turf,9=ideal turf, 5=acceptable for lawn turf. Uniformity was also rated on a 1 to 9 scale; 1=non-uniform and 9=perfectly uniform and 5= acceptable for lawn turf.


Summer establishment trial

The only statistically significant treatment differences in establishment (% cover) were inmain (mulch type) and subplots (fertilizer). Straw mulch provided the best turf cover earlyduring establishment while these results dissipated as the turf stand matured. Starter fertilizerincreased the initial rate of turf establishment. There were no treatment differences between theEncap products and untreated seed.

None of the treatments (mulch type, fertilizer, or seed treatment) affected turf uniformity.Straw mulch prevented washout while both Pennmulch and no mulch plots had statisticallysimilar amounts of washout. Seed treatment (Encap versus untreated seed) did not affectwashout ratings.

There were no interactions among mulch type, fertilizer, or seed treatments.

Autumn establishment trial

Treatments had dramatically more effect on autumn establishment than on summerestablishment. Mulch type, fertilizer, and seed treatments all significantly affected establishmentrate and turf quality (Table 2). Fertilizer and seed treatments influenced turf uniformity.Washout was not affected by any treatment except by mulch type (straw was still best).

Turf establishment was significantly improved by use of Encap or Encap Plus seedcompared to untreated seed. There were no differences between Encap and Encap Plus. Turfquality and uniformity was also significantly improved by use of Encap or Encap Plus-treatedseed.

Rep I Rep II

Mulch 2 (main plot) Mulch 3 Mulch 1 Mulch 3 Mulch 2Mulch 1

S3 S2 S1 S2 S3 S1 S1 S3 S2 S3 S2 S1 S1 S3 S2 S3 S1 S2

S3 S2 S1 S2 S3 S1 S1 S3 S2 S3 S2 S1 S1 S3 S2 S3 S1 S2

Rep III Mulch 3 Mulch 1 Mulch 2

S1 S3 S2 S3 S2 S1 S2 S3 S1

S1 S3 S2 S3 S2 S1 S2 S3 S1

Figure 1. Plot plan for testing EncapSeed products in mulch and starter fertilizer combinations.

+starterfertilizer

- starterfertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

- starterfertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

-starter fertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

- starterfertilizer

- starterfertilizer

- starterfertilizer

+starterfertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

-starterfertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

+ starterfertilizer

+starterfertilizer

-starterfertilizer

-starterfertilizer

S1 = UntreatedseedS2 = EncapSeedS3 = EncapSeedPlus

Table 1. Summer establishment of lawn-type turf using Encap Seed Company's products, Verona, WI.Treatment Washout % Cover Uniformity

Main Plots 6/27 7/6 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/3 8/17 8/21 8/21

no mulch 2.9 6.6 7.4 12.2 24.7 44.2 62.5 68.1 4.7

straw 1.0 16.9 26.7 38.6 54.4 63.9 76.9 78.9 5.6

Pennmulch 2.1 16.0 19.0 25.8 37.6 52.2 70.7 76.3 5.2

LSD 0.05 1.0 ns 9.5 17.1 ns ns ns ns ns

Subplots

starterfertilizer

2.1 14.9 20.1 26.6 41.9 56.3 70.6 74.8 5.3

no starterfert.

1.9 11.5 15.4 24.5 36.0 50.6 69.5 74.0 5.0

LSD 0.05 ns * ** ns ns ns ns ns ns

Sub-subplotsuntreated

seed2.1 12.6 16.9 24.9 37.6 52.8 71.0 74.3 5.1

Encap 2.0 13.0 16.9 25.6 39.4 53.6 69.0 73.8 5.1

Encap Plus 1.9 13.9 19.3 26.1 39.7 53.9 70.1 75.1 5.3

LSD 0.05 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

*(**) indicates significance at p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectivelyns = significant at p≤0.05

Table 1. Autumn establishment of lawn-type turf using Encap Seed Company's products, Verona, WI.

TreatmentWasho

ut% Cover Quality Uniformity

Main Plots 9/18 9/18 9/26 10/8 10/13 10/19 10/26 11/3 10/26 11/3 11/3

no mulch 8.0 3.2 5.4 18.1 23.9 35.0 46.7 49.7 3.4 3.5 3.7

straw 1.1 14.7 30.0 52.5 58.1 67.2 72.8 74.4 4.4 4.6 4.2

Pennmulch 5.2 9.3 11.4 37.8 40.8 54.2 65.3 67.8 4.7 4.8 4.4

LSD 0.05 1.4 ns 14.4 20.0 20.0 16.0 13.2 13.8 0.8 0.7 ns

Subplots

starterfertilizer

4.8 9.6 17.0 38.3 43.9 55.6 64.3 67.4 4.3 4.4 4.3

no starterfert.

4.7 8.5 14.1 33.9 38.0 48.7 58.9 60.6 4.1 4.2 4.0

LSD 0.05 ns ns ns * * * * ** ns ns *

Sub-subplotsuntreated

seed4.8 7.5 12.4 30.8 34.7 45.3 54.2 55.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

Encap 4.7 10.0 17.9 39.2 44.7 55.0 63.6 66.4 4.4 4.5 4.2

Encap Plus 4.8 9.7 16.4 38.3 43.3 56.1 66.9 69.7 4.4 4.5 4.4

LSD 0.05 ns ns 3.8 5.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 0.3 0.4 0.3

*(**) indicates significance at p≤0.05 and p≤0.01, respectivelyns = significant at p≤0.05

Fig. 1. Encap establishment at O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research and Education Facility, Verona, WI, Oct. 16, 2000.

Fig. 2. Example of individual Encap project plot, Oct. 16, 2000, at the O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research and Education Facility, Verona,WI (plot is Pennmulch, with starter fertilizer, and Encap seed).

Extension of Sod Shelf Life with LPE (Lysophosphatidylethanolamine)

Dr. John Stier and Kurt SteinkeDept. of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the project was to evaluate the potential for lysophosatidylethanolamine(LPE), a naturally-occurring lipid, to enhance sod shelf life by stabilizing membranes andreducing respiration rates. The study was funded by TPIF and the Wisconsin Sod ProducersAssociation in 2000. One graduate student (Kurt Steinke) and one technical support staffmember (Bryan Cantlon) were assigned to assist Dr. Stier with the project.

MATERIALS AND METHODSField trials

Plots consisted of 18-month old 100% Kentucky bluegrass located at Long Island SodFarm in Marshall, WI. Treatments were laid out in a split-plot randomized complete blockdesign with five replications. Plots measured 5ft. x 6ft. The soil was a silt loam . Vegetationwas cleared and the ground was tilled prior to sodding.

Two sets of LPE rates were used over the course of five trials between June and October.For trials 1 and 2 a 5000-ppm stock solution was prepared using water and treatments of 100,200, and 400 ppm were applied to the turf. In trials 3 and 4 rates of 60, 120, and 240 ppm weretested. For trial 5, the LPE was dissolved in a small amount of alcohol prior to preparing thestock solution. In trial 5, application rates were 100, 200, and 400 ppm. All treatments wereapplied with a CO2 backpack sprayer equipped with 8010XR flat fan nozzle. Treatments foreach trial were applied at 60 and 14 hours pre-harvest.

Sod was harvested between 10 am and 1 pm and placed onto three pallets. A commercialBrouwer harvester was used. Sufficient untreated sod was harvested in order to obtain a fullpallet with the treated sod remaining on the bottom of the pallets. Two thermistors attached to"Hobo" dataloggers were placed near the center of each pallet and were used to monitor pallettemperatures.

Sodding time following harvest was another variable tested during the experiments.During Trials 1 and 2, sod was laid at 10 am and 3 pm the day following harvest and 10 am onDay 2. During Trial 3, sod was laid at 10 am and 3 pm 2 days after harvest and at 10 am on Day3. During Trial 4, sod was laid at 10 am and 3 pm 3 days after harvest and at 10 am on Day 4.During Trial 5, sod was laid at 2 pm 3 days after harvest and at 8 am and 1:30 pm 4 days afterharvest. One square foot of sod was placed in a rooting frame with the remaining sod being laidaround the frame. Turf was irrigated daily by the farm manager for 1-2 weeks (weatherdependent).

Two days after sodding a chlorophyll fluorometer was used to evaluate photosyntheticefficiency of the turf. Sod that recovers faster or suffers less shock from harvesting and stacking

should begin photosynthesis sooner, providing better color and rooting potential. Ten days aftersodding, the turf in the rooting frames was pulled form the soil with a hydraulic sod-pullingdevice that measured the force (in Newtons) required to lift the sod. Turf strips were then ratedon color (1=yellow/brown; 9=dark green; 6=acceptable) and quality (1=dead turf; 9=denseuniform/turf; 6=acceptable). Root quality was rated after the rooting frames were pulled (1=noroots; 5=highly rooted). Data were analyzed as a split-plot, randomized block with spray-harvestinterval (14 or 60 hour) as mainplots and LPE treatment concentrations as sub-plots.

Laboratory trials

These are planned for the winter of 2000-01. Due to timing of the award in 2000 weproceeded immediately with the field work. We will be evaluating the effects of both foliar androot-applications of LPE on turf resistance to heating. Foliar applications will be sprayed on theturf; root applications will be introduced either through hydroponics or by washing soil from theroots, cutting the roots, then spraying the underside of the turf with LPE. The turf will besubjected to controlled heat loads by placing the turf in a growth chamber at varioustemperatures for several lengths of time. Turf quality, chlorophyll levels, photosyntheticefficiency, elecrolyte leakage, and turf regeneration in a greenhouse will be assessed.


We are still analyzing the data from the summer. Of the data we have analyzed, there hasnot been a consistent response from the LPE. Previous trials with tomatoes, cranberries,strawberries and flowers yielded dramatic effects with LPE significantly reducing respiration andsenescence by depressing the enzymes involved with D1 protein and ethylene production. Thereare several factors that may have reduced potential effects of LPE in the 2000 field trials. 1) Therates necessary for a response in turf could be greater than those required for a response in othercrops. 2) The LPE may not have been absorbed and/or translocated sufficiently to produce theanticipated effect. In about half the trials there was little dew formation the evening ofapplication which would likely have facilitated the uptake if it had been present. As we learnmore about LPE it is becoming apparent that translocation may be limited, particularlydownward movement, in which case the LPE needs to be targeted more towards the crown ratherthan just the foliage. Most of the evenings were very cool which also could have reduced theuptake and translocation. 3) Most importantly, temperatures during the summer wereunseasonably mild. Air temperatures were often no greater than the 70s (Farenheit). Hightemperatures inside the sod stacks on the pallets barely reached the high 80’s/low 90’s. Thisresulted in very little heat stress. As the season progressed, we left the sod on the pallets forincreasingly longer periods of time in an attempt to allow heat buildup. The greatest result wassome yellowing apparently due to lack of light for several days.

FUTURE PLANS

We have submitted a proposal to repeat the field trial in 2001, hoping for more typicalweather patterns. We intend to solubilize the LPE in alcohol prior to applications and to lightlyirrigate the turf following LPE application in order to promote its uptake by the crown. Ourgrowth chamber experiments should also provide some information about foliar versus rootuptake and data from tightly controlled heating experiments.

Effect of Primo on Sod Tensile Strength

Dr. John Stier, Mr. Stephen Pearson and Mr. Roger BlairUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. Horticulture, and Jasperson Sod Farm

December 2000

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the project was to determine if sequential applications of trinexapac-ethyl (Primo) enhanced sod development, thereby decreasing the harvest interval.


The study was conducted at Jasperson’s Sod Farm in Franklin, WI. Primo (trinexapac-ethyl) was applied in a single strip, several hundred feet in length, in each of three fields. Fieldswere seeded to a Kentucky bluegrass blend (NuGlade, Freedom II, NuBlue, Chicago, Award)between August-September of 1999: Field 1 was seeded on August 20th, Field 2 was seeded onSeptember 1st, and Field 3 was seeded on September 15th. Field soils were muck. Primotreatments (0.25 oz/1000 ft2 in 40 gal/A spray volume) were applied by Mr. Blair on May 8th,June 9th, and July 13th. Primo was applied as a single strip, approximately 1000 ft length, in eachof the three fields. Turf was fertilized 5/24, 6/23, and 7/18 using 46-0-0 at 100 lb/A.

Turf color and quality were rated visually by UW personnel on June 8th, July 12th, andAugust 23rd. One set of ratings were collected from each field using a one to nine scale (color:1=brown turf, 9=dark green turf; quality: 1=necrotic turf, 9=dense, ideal turf). Sod tensilestrength measurements were collected on the same dates. A walk-behind Ryan sod cutter wasused to cut nine sod pieces each from treated and untreated areas. Depth settings were keptuniform throughout the trial. Three pieces of sod, approximately 5ft length x 1.5 ft width, werecollected from each of three different areas separated by approximately 150 ft in each field for atotal of nine untreated samples per field (Fig. 1). A second set of nine samples were collectedfrom the Primo-treated strips from sites parallel to the untreated sample sites in each field.Tensile strength of sod pieces was determined with a mechanical sod stretcher device outfittedwith a hydraulic control lever (Fig. 2) (Sorochan et al., 1999). The peak values required to teareach piece in half were determined using a digital force gauge (Chatillon Model DS).

Sod tensile strength data were analyzed as a paired t-test using the nine samples fromeach treatment within a field (MSTAT, 1988). Color and quality data were analyzed as arandomized complete block with three replications with fields as blocks. Weather data wereobtained from General Mitchell Airport (Milwaukee, WI) approximately 15 miles NW ofJasperson sod farms.

Fig. 1. Field map of sod harvesting for tensile strength measurements.


Sod tensile strength was significantly improved by Primo applications in four of ninetests (Table 1 and Fig. 3, 4, 5). Primo did not affect sod strength on the other five test dates/sites.There were tremendous differences in sod strength among the three fields, with strengths rangingfrom 60 lbs in Field 2 to a high of 184 lb in Field 1 on the 23 August. Primo applications did notsignificantly affect turf color of quality (Table 2).

Sod was of harvestable quality in all three fields at all times. Sod that had values of lessthan 60 lbs of tensile strength were noticeably more prone to breakage than sod that had greatertensile strengths. Sod tensile strength in fields 1 and 2 increased over time, particularly betweenJuly and August. Sod tensile strength and establishment in field 2 actually decreased slightlythroughout the growing season. This field appeared to stay wetter than fields one and three. InJune it had significantly more leaf spot than fields 1 and 3. Although soil moisture was notmonitored during the study, if the soil in field 2 was consistently saturated we would expectreduced root and rhizome growth regardless of growth regulator treatment as roots and rhizomesneed oxygen for growth.

Climatic conditions were quite good for sod production from time of planting throughend of the test period. Autumn growing conditions were unseasonably long with visible turfgrowth through mid-December. Winter conditions were fairly mild and spring arrived earlierthan usual. Consistent, ample rainfall and moderate temperatures during the growing seasonproduced little if any stress (Figs. 2 and 3).

The favorable environmental conditions were probably responsible for the apparent lackof Primo effect on sod color or quality. Although the Primo-treated turf often appeared darker incolor than the untreated turf to the UW researchers, the differences were not apparent to Mr.Blair and were not statistically signficant. We have found Primo often has more significantimprovements on turf color and quality when conditions are less favorable for turf growth,particularly in shaded conditions (Stier, 1999).

Primo should be most likely to have an effect on sod production during the spring whencarbohydrate production and leaf sink strength for carbohydrates is high. During the fall, leavesphotosynthesize but do not act as strong carbohydrate sinks, while roots and rhizomes continueto grow until the soil is frozen. Rhizomes are a greater sink for carbohydrates during the fallthan at any other time of the year. Primo appears to alter photosynthate partitioning in the plant,resulting in more tiller, root, and rhizome production rather than leaf expansion (Stier, 1999).This effect would enhance sod formation. If the autumn of 1999 had been shorter, with less time

Primo

Control

Paired sod-strips for strength measurements.

Sod Field

for root and rhizome production, the effects of Primo on sod strength would likely have beeneven more dramatic.

It is questionable whether fall application of Primo would benefit sod production becauserhizomes are already strong carbohydrate sinks and leaf sink strength is minimal. Furthermore,although the sod was already fairly stable by June, sod strength increased dramatically betweenJuly and August in two of the three fields. We have also seen Primo treatments delay springgreenup of Kentucky bluegrass when applied four weeks before snowfall (J. Stier, unpublisheddata).

The significant differences in tensile strength between treated and untreated sod indicatedPrimo could be useful for decreasing the time interval necessary for sod production and forenhancing the strength of sod during handling. If the test is to be repeated in the future, Mr.Blair has agreed to apply the treatments in a randomized block design which would increase thepower to detect treatment differences by accounting for field/site variations. Since we have hada more “typical” autumn, with air temperatures decreasing earlier and earlier snowfall, arepetition of the study in 2001 would likely yield more dramatic results than observed in 2000.

Table 1. Tensile strength of Kentucky bluegrass sod treated with Primo (trinexapac-ethyl , Franklin, WI, 2000.

-------------------------------------------------Force to tear turf (lbs)------------------------------------------

18 June

Field 1 Field 2 Field 3

Control Treated Control Treated Control Treated

75.3 83.4 73.2 72.7 38.4 50.7p-value† 0.29 0.93 0.04

21 July



73.6 91.4 55.9 68.4 91.7 79.1p-value 0.04 0.006 0.125

23 August



132.4 184.0 62.7 60.4 132.8 128.8p-value 0.0001 0.39 0.85

† Bold type indicates results are statistically significant at p<0.05. Treatment means derived from nine samples perfield (n=9) and analyzed as a paired t-test.

Table 2. Trinexapac-ethyl (Primo) effects on sod color and quality prior to harvest, Franklin, WI, 2000.

18 June 21 July 23 AugustTreatment Color Quality Color Quality Color QualityUntreated control 5.7 5.3 5.7 5.8 5.5 5.5Primo-treated 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.7 6.2 6.2Level of signficance ns ns ns ns ns nsns = Not significant at p= 0.05. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block with each of the three fields asa block.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Three sequential applications of Primo during spring and summer significantly increased sodtensile strength on four of nine test dates/sites.

2) Turf color and quality were not significantly affected probably due to excellent growingconditions.

3) Results would likely be more dramatic under less favorable growing conditions, particularlyunder more typical autumn conditions following seeding.

4) The study is worth repeating in 2001.

Literature Cited

Sorochan, J.C., R.N. Calhoun, J.N. Rogers, III. 1999. Apparatus to measure turfgrass sodstrength. Agron. abstracts 91:137.

Stier, J.C. 1999. Growing grass in the shade. UW-Ext. bull. A3700.

Fig. 2. The sod stretch unit used in thestudy was operated with a hydrauliclever powered by an automobilebattery. A force gauge was insertedbetween a pulley on the upright(vertical) unit and the stretching table(horizontal unit). Two clamps on thestretching table were used to hold thesod in place during stretching.

Fig. 3. Primo Effects on Sod Strength, Field 1 Seeded 15 Aug 1999, Franklin, WI (2000).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

18-Jun 21-Jul 23-Aug

So

d t

en

sile s

tren

gth

(lb

s)

Untreated

Treated

Not significant p=0.05 p = 0.04 p = 0.0001

Fig. 4. Primo Effects on Sod Strength, Field 2 Seeded 1 Sept. 1999, Franklin, WI (2000).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


So

d t

en

sile s

tren

gh

t (l

bs)

Untreated

Treated

Not significant p=0.05 p = 0.006 Not significant p=0.05

Fig. 5. Primo Effects on Sod Strength, Field 3 Seeded 15 Sept. 1999, Franklin, WI (2000)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


So

d t

en

sile s

tren

gth

(lb

s)

Untreated

Treated

p = 0.04 Not significant p=0.05 Not significantp=0.05

Fig. 6 Spring and SummerTemperatures for Sod Establishment Study with Primo, WI.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1005/

1/00

5/8/

00

5/15

/00

5/22

/00

5/29

/00

6/5/

00

6/12

/00

6/19

/00

6/26

/00

7/3/

00

7/10

/00

7/17

/00

7/24

/00

7/31

/00

8/7/

00

8/14

/00

8/21

/00

8/28

/00

Tem

pera

ture

(F

)

Maxmin

Average

Fig. 7. Precipitation during 2000 Growing Season, General Mitchell Airport, Milwaukee, WI.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

5/1

5/8

5/15

5/22

5/29 6/5

6/12

6/19

6/26 7/3

7/10

7/17

7/24

7/31 8/

7

8/14

8/21

8/28

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

inc

he

s)

APPENDIX

T-test results of Primo effects on sod tensile strength.

Field 1, 18 June 2000

Untreated TreatedMean: 75.27 Mean: 83.36Variance: 413.54 Variance: 49.07Standard deviation: 20.34 Standard deviation: 7.00

F-test for hypothesis “Mean 1 = Mean 2”

Variance of the difference between means: 51.5401Standard deviation of the difference: 7.1791t’ value: -1.1267Effective degrees of freedom: 8

Probability of t’: 0.2925

Result: Non-significant t; Accept the hypothesis.




Variance of the difference between means: 33.8256Standard deviation of the difference: 5.8160t’ value: 0.0917Effective degrees of freedom: 8








Result: Significant t; Reject the hypothesis.

Field 1, 21 July 2000

















Result: Non-Significant t; Accept the hypothesis.

Field 1, 23 August 2000











Result: Non-Significant t; Accept the hypothesis.







Analysis of variance table for Primo effects on sod quality and color, summer2000, Franklin, WI.

Source Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Probability

Turf quality, 18 June 2000Replication 2 0.542 1.44 0.4091Treatment 1 0.375 1.00 0.4226Error 2 0.375 Non-additive 1 0.058 0.08 Residual 1 0.692Total 5

Turf color, 18 June 2000Replication 2 1.042 2.78 0.2647Treatment 1 0.375 1.00 0.4226Error 2 0.375 Non-additive 1 0.75 -3.9x1013

Residual 1 0Total 5

Turf quality, 21 July 2000Replication 2 0.875 21.00 0.0455

Treatment 1 0.042 1.00 0.4226Error 2 0.042

Non-additive 1 0.036 0.75 Residual 1 0.048Total 5

Turf color, 21 July 2000Replication 2 1.042 25.00 0.0385Treatment 1 0.042 1.00 0.4226Error 2 0.042 Non-additive 1 0.083 -5.8x1012

Residual 1 0.00Total 5

Turf quality, 23 August 2000Replication 2 0.292 0.1250Treatment 1 0.667 0.0572Error 2 0.042 Non-additive 1 0.048 1.33 0.4544 Residual 1 0.036Total 5

Turf color, 23 August 2000Replication 2 0.292 7.00 0.1250Treatment 1 0.667 16.00 0.0572Error 2 0.042 Non-additive 1 0.048 1.33 0.4544 Residual 1 0.036Total 5

RAW DATA

Sod Strength, lbs6/8/00

FIELD 1 FIELD 2 FIELD 3treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated

79.6 64.8 51.4 80 40.2 40.6South 81.2 69.4 South 54.2 66.2 West 44.8 56.2

84 68.4 52 64.8 45.8 38

treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated84.8 86.4 81.2 81.2 56.4 40

Central 81.2 57.4 Central 79.2 46.8 Central 60 28.675 54.2 89 72.8 70.2 32.4

treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated94.6 85.8 81.4 81.4 44.2 34.8

North 75.8 121 North 91.4 91.4 East 51.2 36.494 70 74.6 74.6 43.8 38.4

quality 6.5 5 quality 5 5 quality 6 6

color 6 5 color 6.5 7 color 6 5

7/12/00

FIELD 1 FIELD 2 FIELD 3treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated

99.8 82 64 52.8 92.4 120North 109.4 69.4 West 76 57.6 North 93.2 76.8

75.6 58.8 72.6 47.6 84.2 86.2


Central 72.4 68.8 Central 82.2 67.6 Central 79.6 88.676.4 91.2 66 54.8 88.4 72.4


South 90 81.6 East 53.8 60.8 South 64.2 99.4105.8 53.2 67.8 53 51.2 90.6

quality 6 6.5 quality 6 6 quality 5 5color 6 6 color 6 6 color 4.5 5

8/23/00FIELD 1 FIELD 2 FIELD 3treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated

191.8 144.4 49.6 57.6 118.2 174.8North 181.2 140.4 West 60.6 52.6 North 126.4 149.2

177.8 113 60.2 62 110.8 152.8

treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated202.4 150 72 73.8 95.4 151.6

Central 188.8 117.6 Central 55.4 67.4 Central 67.2 122207.8 174.6 71.8 63.4 100 129.2

treated untreated treated untreated treated untreated211.4 117.6 52.2 55.8 187.4 93

South 139.2 111 East 61.2 58.8 South 159.8 127.4156 123 60.8 73.2 193.8 95.4

quality 6 5.5 quality 6.5 6 quality 6 5color 6 5.5 color 6.5 6 color 6 5

all units are in lbs.peak values were recorded

Cold Weather Tolerance of Ornamental Grasses

Tom SchwabO.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility

INTRODUCTION

Ornamental grasses are a group of plants from the grass (Graminae) family and fromclosely related families including sedges (Cyperaceae), rushes (Juncaceae) and others. Thegeneral nature of the term ‘ornamental grass’ allows some non-grass plants to be included in thegroup because they have grass-like appearance. The term ‘ornamental’ characterizes these plantsas being showy in the landscape. The showiness may feature the plant’s foliage, flowers,texture, shape, growth habit form, or seasonal color. Those decorative features allow them to beused in flowerbeds, mass plantings, and as unique specimen plants by themselves.

An investigation of cold weather hardiness of ornamental grasses was initiated at theNoer Facility in 1995. This study keeps records and reports on how well the ornamental grassesin our study survive our climate. The Noer facility and all but the northern fifth of Wisconsin arein the USDA Hardiness Zone 4, so this information may be applicable to the majority of thestate.

Some ornamental grasses are invasive which may be a good or bad feature. The invasiveones in our study are identified in this report. Invasiveness can be a positive feature when tryingto stabilize a stream bank, fill a large flowerbed, provide a backdrop for a putting green, or softenthe appearance of a large wall. However it can be a detriment if the invasive plant is placed in aflowerbed that is too small, planted too close to a sidewalk, or spreads seed to an unwantedlandscape area.

A recent six-year winter hardiness study of ornamental grasses was completed at theMinnesota Landscape Arboretum. They found 85 out of the 165 ornamental grasses studiedthere could be grown successfully in USDA Zone 4. You may get of copy of their publicationby calling 608-262-3346 and asking for North Central Regional Publication #573, OrnamentalGrasses for Cold Climates. Their publication has many useful pictures and descriptions to helpyou choose ornamental grasses. A visit to the Noer facility can also familiarize you with manydifferent ornamental grasses and their characteristics. In addition, the Noer study can verify thehardiness data from the Minnesota study.


We began planting ornamental grasses at the Noer facility in July 1995. We are adding to thecollection of plants every year as more plants become available. The current status of the studyis described here.

• We added 21 new plants in 2000 that were donated by Kurt Bluemel, Inc.• This brings the total number of different plants that have been included in the study to 85

species from 39 different genera.• Twelve of the 85 species have not survived.

• Two of the twelve species that died were reinstalled this year.• Presently 75 species are in the study for the 2000 season.

The strategy we used in the design of the Noer demonstration was to place the plants in theirnatural settings: Shade loving plants were placed in the shade, moisture-loving plants wereirrigated, etc. The majority of the plants naturally grow in groups so we placed most varieties ingroups of three. All of the plants were mulched with 3” of shredded hardwood bark.

OBSERVATIONS

This study is in its fifth year and will continue indefinitely. We will have more confidence inrecommending different species by continuing the study for many years. The long timeframewill allow us to observe survival under different climatic extremes giving the ratings of wintertemperature tolerance more validity. During the five years of the study, the winters have haddifferent extremes.

• The winter of 95/96 set records for cold and severity.• The winters of 96/97 and 98/99 were more average.• The winters of 97/98 and 99/00 set records for mild temperatures.

The ratings of plant hardiness are done by visually observing plant health and survival rate.Those observations are done in early June at which time all the plants have put on new growth.The rating given to each species is as follows for our climatic region:

• Group 1 (The most winter hardy and recommended as perennials)• Group 2 (Some of the plants die or show extensive winter injury.)• Group 3 (Most or all plants died thus are not recommended as perennials)• Group 4 (These plants are newly planted and have not been observed over-winter in our

study.)

Of the 85 grasses studied these five years, the following results of winter hardiness has beenconcluded:

• Forty-two of the species can be recommended winter hardy for Zone 4.• Ten of the species may survive in mild winters or protected environments.• Twelve species are not recommended as perennials for Zone 4• Twenty-one species are newly planted in 2000 and have not been tested through a winter

yet.

Those plants that are considered invasive have a parenthesis shown after the common name,which gives the means of invasiveness. Invasiveness occurs through seeding, or by the spread ofeither above or belowground stem called stolons or rhizomes respectively.

Botanical Name Group 1 Common Name Invasive(The most winter hardy) Means

Alopecurus pratensis ‘Aureus’ yellow foxtail grassAndropogon gerardii big bluestem, turkey foot (Seed)Arrhenantherum elatius bulbosum ‘Variegatum’ bulbous oat grass

Bouteloua curtipendula side oats gramma (Seed)Calamagrostis acutiflora ‘Stricta’ feather reed grassCalamagrostis arundinacea ‘Karl Foerster’ Foerster’s feather reed grassCalamagrostis arundinacea ‘Overdam’ Feather reed grassCarex ‘The Beatles’ ‘The Beatles’ sedge, mop-headed sedgeCarex muskingumensis palm sedgeChasmanthium latifolium northern sea oats, wild oatsElymus racemosus ‘Glaucus’ volga wild rye, giant dune grass (Rhiz)Erianthus ravennae hardy pampas grass, plume grassGlyceria maxima ‘Variegata’ variegated manna grass (Rhiz)Helictotrichon sempervirens blue oat grassHystrix patula bottlebrush grass (Seed)Juncus effusus soft rushJuncus inflexus (glaucus) rushKoeleria glauca large blue hairgrassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Autumn Light’ ‘Autumn Light’ Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Graziella’ ‘Graziella’ Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Morning Light’ ‘Morning Light’ Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Purpurascen’s’ flame grass, purple silver grassMolinia caerulea ‘Skyracer’ ‘Skyracer’ tall moor grass (Seed)Molinia caerulea ‘Variegata’ variegated moor grassMolinia caerulea arundinacea tall moor grass, tall purple moor grass(Seed)Panicum virgatum ‘Cloud Nine’ ‘Cloud Nine’ switch grass (Seed)Panicum virgatum ‘Haense Herms’ red switch grassPanicum virgatum ‘Heavy Metal’ ‘Heavy Metal’ switch grass (Seed)Panicum virgatum ‘Rehbraun” dear red-brown switch grass (Seed)Panicum virgatum ‘Rotstrahlbusch’ red rays switch grass (Seed)Pennisetum alopecuroides fountain grass (Seed)Phalaris arundinacea ‘Feesey Form’ ‘Feesey’s Form’ ribbon grass (Rhiz)Phalaris arundinacea picta ribbon grass, gardener’s-garters (Rhiz)Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem, prairie beard grass (Seed)Scirpus lacastris ‘Albescens’ ‘Albescens’ bullrush (Rhiz)Sesleria moor grassSorghastrum nutans Indian grass, gold beard grass (Seed)Sorghastrum nutans ‘Sioux Blue’ ‘Sioux Blue’ Indian grass (Seed)Spartina pectinata ‘Aureomarginata’ ‘Golden-edged’ prairie cordgrass (Rhiz)Sporobolus heterolepsis prairie dropseed, northern dropseed (Seed)Stipa viridula green needle grass (Seed)Typha minima dwarf Japanese cattail (Rhiz)

Botanical Name Group 2 Common Name Invasive Doubtful hardiness Means

Eragrostis trichoides sand love grass (Seed)Festuca cinerea ‘Elija blue’ blue fescue, blue sheeps fescue

Festuca cinerea ‘Sea Urchin’ ‘Sea Urchin’ blue fescueHolcus lanatus ‘Albovariegatus’ ‘Albovariegatus’ velvet grassImperata cylindrica rubra Japanese blood grass, cranberry grassJuncus effusus ‘Spiralis’ corkscrew rush, spiral rushMiscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus’ maiden grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Yaku Jima’ ‘Yaku Jima’ Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis var. strictus porcupine grass, banded miscanthusPennisetum alepecuroides ‘Hameln’ ‘Hameln’ fountain grass

Botanical Name Group 3 Common Name Invasive Most plants died Means

Acorus gramineus ‘Variegatus’ white-striped Japanese sweet flagBriza media perennial quacking grass, rattlesnake grassDactylus glomerata ‘Variegata’ variegated orchard grassFestuca amethystina sheeps fescueHakonechloa macra ‘Aureola golden variegated hakone grassLuzula nivea snowy woodrushLuzula sylvatica greater woodrush, sylvan woodrushMiscanthus sinensis ‘Gracillimus Nana’ dwarf Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Variegatus’ variegatus Japanese silver grassMiscanthus sinensis ‘Zebrinus’ zebra grassPennisetum alepecuroides ‘Little Bunny’ ‘Little Bunny’ fountain grassPennisetum alopecuroides ‘Moudry’ black-flowering pennisetum grass

Botanical Name Group 4 Common Name Invasive New to our study & not Meanstested through a winter yet

Arrhenatherum elatius ssp. bulbosum variegatumBouteloua gracilis blue grama, mosquito grassBriza media quaking grassCalamagrostis brachytricha Korean feather reed grassCarex muskingumensis ‘Little Midge’ dwarf palm leaf sedgeCarex muskingumensis ‘Wachtposten’ palm leaf sedgeDactylis glomerata ‘Variegata’ cocks-foot orchard grassDeschampsia caespitosa ‘Fairy’s Joke’ fairy’s joke tufted hairgrassDeschampsia cespitosa ‘Bronzeschleier’ tufted hair grassDeschampsia cespitosa ‘Goldschleier’ tufted hair grassDeschampsia cespitosa ‘Schottland’ tufted hair grassDeschampsia cespitosa ‘Tardiflora’ tufted hair grassDeschampsia cespitosa ‘Tautraeger’ tufted hair grassFargesia nitida ‘Ems River’ fountain bambooFargesia nitida fountain bambooFestuca glauca ‘Blauglut’ blue glow blue fescue

Festuca glauca ‘Seeigel’ sea urchin blue fescueFestuca glauca ‘Silberreiher’ silver egret blue fescueMiscanthus ‘Giganteus’ giant miscanthusMiscanthus sinensis ‘Blondo’ Japanese silver grassPanicum virgatum ‘Prairie Sky’ blue switch grassPhalaris arundinacea ‘Dwarf Garters’ reed canary grassPhragmites Australis ‘Variegatus’ striped common reed

Growth and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Supina Bluegrass During ColdHardening

Daniele Filiault and John StierDepartment of Horticulture

INTRODUCTION

Cold acclimation involves a range of physiological and biochemical changes leading tocold tolerance. These changes are induced by a combination of decreasing temperatures and daylengths (photoperiods). Acclimation processes have been well-studied in some cereal (annual)crops but not in perennial turfgrass species.

The ability to maintain photosynthesis at cold temperatures has been associated with coldhardiness in grain crops. In previous tests, supina bluegrass (Poa supina) has shown the highestaccumulation of fructans yet had the lowest photosynthetic efficiency compared to Kentuckybluegrass (Poa pratensis) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). One possible mechanism ofcold tolerance in some species is the onset of dormancy early in the autumn, characterized partlyby decreased growth and increased soluble carbohydrates (e.g., fructans).

Our hypothesis was that supina copes with cold temperatures by going dormant early inthe autumn. If so, it should 1) slow growth sooner, 2) have a lower photosynthetic efficiencyduring autumn, 3) acclimate better and have a lower LT50 value (lethal temperature at which 50%of the plants are killed) compared to Kentucky bluegrass or perennial ryegrass.


Supina bluegrass ‘Supranova’, Kentucky bluegrass ‘Touchdown’, and perennial ryegrass‘SR4200’ were removed from field plots at the O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research and EducationFacility (Verona, WI) in Sept. 2. Plants were placed in a greenhouse for seven days, thenwashed free of soil and roots and tillers were trimmed. Individual plants were placed in ahydroponic growing system fed with half-strength Hoagland’s solution. Plants were acclimatedunder one of two temperature regimes in growth chambers: Control = 4 weeks at 20 C,Acclimated = 2 weeks at 12/10 C followed by 2 wks at 2/0 C. Photosynthetic flux density was250 µmol m-2 s-1 with a 12 hr photoperiod.

Data collected at two and four week periods included:1) Growth: tiller and leaf number, root mass and length2) Chlorophyll fluorescence kinetic tests (to determine photosynthetic efficiency)3) LT50 values4) Non-structural carbohydrate analysis of crowns


Supina bluegrass developed significantly (p≤0.05) more topgrowth (leaf and tillernumber) compared to Kentucky bluegrass or perennial ryegrass under constant 20 C conditionsand during the first two weeks of cold acclimation. At four weeks after cold acclimation supinabluegrass continued to develop more leaves but no longer had significantly greater tillerdevelopment. Growth of all species slowed dramatically even after two weeks of coldacclimation. Supina bluegrass developed greater root mass during cold acclimation, whileperennial ryegrass developed more root mass when kept at 20 C. Photosynthetic efficiency wasequivalent among all species in all treatments. Photosynthetic efficiency decreased from 0.8Fv:Fm four weeks after acclimation but was similar to plants in the control temperature (20 C)two weeks after cold acclimation. Thus, photosynthetic efficiency was a less sensitive indicatorof cold temperatures than growth.

The cold acclimation process decreased the LT50 values of all species, with greater coldtolerance expressed after four weeks of acclimation compared to two weeks of acclimation.Supina bluegrass had the highest LT50 values indicating the lowest freezing tolerance.Carbohydrate samples are currently being analyzed.

Fig. 1. Daily Precipiation, O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility, Verona, WI, 2000.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4/1 4/16 5/1 5/16 5/31 6/15 6/30 7/15 7/30 8/14 8/29 9/13 9/28 10/13 10/28 11/12 11/27

Date

Prec

ipit

atio

n (i

nche

s)

Fig. 2. Average Daily Temperature, O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility, Verona, WI,2000.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

4/1 4/16 5/1 5/16 5/31 6/15 6/30 7/15 7/30 8/14 8/29 9/13 9/28 10/13 10/28 11/12 11/27

Date

Tem

per

atur

e (º

C)

Fig. 3. Average Daily Soil Temperature, O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Facility, Verona, WI,2000.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

4/1 4/16 5/1 5/16 5/31 6/15 6/30 7/15 7/30 8/14 8/29 9/13 9/28 10/13 10/28 11/12 11/27

Date

Tem

per

atur

e (º

C)

Documents

Breeding and Cultivar Evaluation Diseasess3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ fileVolume XVIII-2000 Table of Contents q Introduction q Acknowledgements q Authors and Assistants q Disclaimer