Crop Science Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 22 January 2007
Published in Crop Sci 47:193-199 (2007)
© 2007 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Turfgrass

TURFGRASS SCIENCE

Nutrient and Chemical Characterization of Aging Golf Course Putting Greens

Establishment and Rootzone Mixture Treatment Effects

Ty A. McClellana, Robert C. Shearmana,*, Roch E. Gaussoina, Martha Mamoa, Charles S. Wortmanna, Garald L. Horsta and David B. Marxb

a Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
b Dep. of Statistics, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

* Corresponding author (rshearman1{at}unl.edu)


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Nutrient retention and dynamics with time in turfgrass sand-based rootzone mixtures (RZMs) are not well documented. This study was conducted to determine chemical properties of putting greens as impacted by (i) RZM, (ii) establishment (EST), and (iii) putting green age. United States Golf Association (USGA) specification greens were constructed and established with creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) sequentially from 1997 to 2000. Treatments included two RZMs [i.e., 80:20 (v–v) sand and sphagnum peat mixture and an 80:15:5 (v–v–v) sand, sphagnum peat, and soil] and two EST procedures (i.e., accelerated vs. controlled). The accelerated treatment received 2.6-, 3.0-, and 2.6-fold N, P, and K, respectively, when compared with the controlled treatment during the EST year. Soil samples were taken and analyzed annually. The RZM generally had no effect on soil chemical properties during the EST year or beyond. All but five of the chemical properties investigated were significantly greater for the accelerated treatment compared with the controlled during the EST year. Soil pH in the accelerated treatment was lower than the controlled treatment, pH 6.7 vs. 7.4. Establishment treatments did not have an effect on chemical properties beyond the EST year, except for Bray1-P. All soil chemical properties investigated, excluding pH and available K, decreased after the EST year, but began to increase several years later.

Abbreviations: CEC, cation exchange capacity • EST, establishment • RZM, rootzone mixture • TSS, total soluble salts • USGA, United States Golf Association


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
TURFGRASS ESTABLISHMENT and sustained turfgrass performance on sand-based putting greens pose significant challenges. One of the most basic agronomic principles for healthy turf is to maintain adequate nutrients in the RZM (Happ, 1995). Soil chemical properties surrounding the root system influence nutrient availability for plant growth and have an effect on turfgrass maintenance, performance, and use. Inadequate or excessive soil nutrient levels can lead to problems related to turfgrass health, vigor, and quality (Beard, 1973; Turner and Hummel, 1992).

Two popular golf course putting green construction techniques are USGA and California style putting greens (Beard, 2002). Both construction techniques contain high-sand rootzones with high macroporosity, which are subject to potential nutrient loss through leaching (Sartain and Brown, 1998; Bigelow et al., 2001; Petri and Petrovic, 2001). While sand meets the required physical properties essential for putting green RZMs such as resistance to soil compaction and adequate infiltration and percolation rates, it is also low in organic matter and clay content, which are important for nutrient retention (Beard, 1973; Alexander, 1977; McCoy and Stehouwer, 1998; Bigelow et al., 2001; Lado et al., 2004). Nutrient leaching is influenced by soil particle size; large, coarse particles exhibit low surface area, high macroporosity, and result in increased leaching potential (Waddington, 1992; Li et al., 2000; Petri and Petrovic, 2001; Shuman, 2006).

High-sand based RZMs pose significant problems for retaining nutrients, particularly during the first year of EST (Carrow et al., 2001). With time, organic matter accumulates and contributes to the loss of macropore space in the RZM (Davis et al., 1990; Carrow, 1996; Duble, 1996; Habeck and Christians, 2000; Curtis and Pulis, 2001). Loss of macropore space results in reduced infiltration and percolation rates, increased water holding capacity, decreased leaching potential, improved cation exchange capacity (CEC), and increased nutrient retention.

Nutrient retention and dynamics in high-macropore space, sand-based rootzones turfgrass systems have not been well documented with time. Understanding nutrient status and dynamics throughout the rootzone is important, since it impacts management practices and turfgrass health. Additional information is needed to define chemical characterization in putting green RZMs with time, particularly as it relates to putting green performance and longevity.

The objective of this study was to characterize soil chemical properties of sand-based putting greens as influenced by (i) RZM, (ii) EST treatment, and (iii) putting green age.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Research was conducted at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass Research Facility located near Mead, NE (41°11' N, 96° 28' W). Four experimental putting greens were constructed following USGA specifications in sequential years from 1997 to 2000 (USGA Green Section Staff, 1993). Treatments included two RZMs—80:20 (v–v) sand (calcareous with pH of 8.0) and sphagnum peat mixture and an 80:15:5 (v–v–v) sand, sphagnum peat, and soil (Tomek silty clay loam, fine smectitic, mesic Pachic Argiudoll) and two EST year nutritional programs (i.e., accelerated and controlled). Establishment treatments were based on recommendations gathered by surveying golf course superintendents and a USGA agronomist with experience in establishing putting greens (Table 1). The accelerated EST treatment included high nutrient inputs and was intended to speed turfgrass cover development. The controlled EST treatment was based on agronomically sound turfgrass nutrition requirements based on turfgrass specialist recommendations (R.E. Gaussoin and R.C. Shearman, 1997, unpublished data).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Establishment year treatments on USGA greens at John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass Research Facility near Mead, NE, from 1997 to 2000.

 
Preplant granular fertilizer was applied with a drop spreader (model 36H12, Gandy Co., Owatonna, MN) and incorporated into the top 8.0 cm of the RZM before seeding. Percentage analyses for preplant fertilizers applied were 16–11–10, 15–0–24, 38–0–0 (N–P–K), and a micronutrient fertilizer package of 12–9–0.5–8–3–1 (Mg–S–Cu–Fe–Mn–Zn) (The Scotts Co., Marysville, OH). All plots were seeded with ‘Providence’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) at 7.5 g m–2. Following germination, the accelerated treatment received fertilizer applications weekly at a full rate while the controlled treatment received applications every 2 wk at a half rate. Postplant granular fertilizers were applied during the growing season and had analyses of 16–11–10 (N–P–K; The Scotts Co., Marysville, OH) and a micronutrient fertilizer of 12–9–0.5–8–3–1 (Mg–S–Cu–Fe–Mn–Zn; The Scotts Co., Marysville, OH). The total amount of N, P, and K applied in the accelerated EST was two times and four times the amount of the controlled EST for preplant and postplant applications, respectively, in the EST year (Table 1).

All construction materials were tested by a USGA accredited soil testing laboratory (Hummel & Co, Inc., Trumansburg, NY) and met USGA specifications for putting green construction (USGA Green Section Staff, 1993). Individual plots within each putting green measured 4.5 by 8.5 m and were separated by treated wood partitions. The experimental design was comprised of four experimental putting greens constructed in four sequential years. Each experimental green had a split-split plot design with main plots being RZMs and EST treatments in a RCB design with three replications. The subplots were putting green age. Treatments were arranged in a 2 RZM x 2 EST factorial. The first putting green was constructed in late summer of 1996. The RZMs were allowed to settle over the winter and seeded 30 May 1997. The same procedures were used for construction and seeding of subsequent greens in 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Following the EST year, management practices did not differ and were maintained according to regional recommendations for golf course putting greens (Gaussoin and Shearman, 1997, unpublished data). Plots were mowed at 0.32 cm with annual liquid fertilizer applications of N, P, and K at 29, 19.5, and 29 g m–2, respectively. Management practices included sand topdressing every 10 to 14 d (based on turfgrass growth rate) at a rate of 4.9 x 10–4 m3 sand m–2, which was combined with vertical mowing, and sand topdressed twice annually (spring and fall) at a 1.96 x 10–3 m3 sand m–2 rate, which was combined with hollow-tine core cultivation. Core cultivation was performed with 1.6-cm outside diam. hollow tines at 5.0-cm spacing to a 7.6-cm depth. Traffic stress was applied three times weekly using modified greens mower rollers with golf shoe spikes attached to the rollers.

Soil samples were obtained annually from 1997 to 2003. Soil samples were collected to a 7.6-cm depth in the fall of each year with a 2.54-cm outside diam. soil probe. Samples of 100-g soil (dry wt.) were obtained from each plot. Thatch was removed from samples before analysis. Soil samples were air-dried before chemical analysis.

Chemical analyses were performed and analyzed for pH on a 1:1 soil to water mix (McLean, 1982), electrical conductivity for total soluble salts (TSS) (Rhoades, 1982), soil organic matter by loss-on-ignition (LOI) (Schnitzer, 1982); 2 M KCL extractable NO3–N by flow injection analysis (Ruzicka and Hansen, 1988; Knepel, 2003); P by Bray1-P (Bray and Kurtz, 1945), ammonium acetate extractable K, Ca, Mg, and Na (Brown and Warncke, 1988), calcium phosphate extractable S (Helrich, 1990, p. 34), DTPA (diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid) extractablezinc Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978), and hot water extractable B (Berger and Truog, 1939). The CEC of each sample was obtained by summing the ammonium acetate extractable cations (Soil Survey Laboratory Staff, 1992).

Data were analyzed through ANOVA with SAS version 8 (Statistical Analysis System, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) using the Mixed Models procedure. Means were separated using Fisher's protected LSD multiple comparisons technique with probability of significance at 0.05 (Dowdy and Wearden, 1991).


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
All chemical properties investigated were observed to be significant in at least one two-way interaction involving putting green (i.e., year constructed), putting green age (i.e., age of putting green at time of sampling), RZM, or EST treatment (Table 2). Four-way and three-way interactions, although rarely significant, were omitted from the discussion since they were not relevant to the objectives of this study (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Analysis of variance for soil chemical properties in USGA specification putting green rootzone mixtures at John Seaton Anderson Research Facility near Mead, NE. Samples were collected to a 7.6-cm depth each fall from 1997 to 2003.{dagger}

 
USGA RZMs comprised of 80:20 (sand:peat) generally were not significantly different from 80:15:5 (sand–peat–soil) during the EST year (Table 3) or beyond (data not shown) for nutrients and chemical properties investigated. For the purpose of clarity, EST year and grow-in year will be used synonymously throughout this discussion.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Grow-in year treatment means for nutrients and chemical properties in USGA specification putting green rootzone mixtures. Samples were collected to a 7.6-cm depth during the fall of the grow-in year for all four putting greens (1997–2000).{dagger}

 
During the grow-in year, all but five of the chemical properties investigated were significantly greater for the accelerated treatment when compared with the controlled treatment (Table 3). Boron, organic matter, sodium, and TSS values were also higher for the accelerated treatment, but these differences were not significant (Table 3). Only pH was lower in the accelerated EST treatment during the grow-in year (Table 3). This response was likely caused by an acidification effect from increased fertilizer inputs containing ammonium and S, both known to lower soil pH (Beard, 1973, 2002; Waddington, 1992; Landschoot, 1998; Turgeon, 1999; Fulton, 2002; Wortmann et al., 2003).

All USGA-specification putting greens receiving the accelerated treatment during the first year of EST retained significantly higher Bray1-P beyond the EST year compared with the control treatment (Fig. 1 , Table 4). This relationship was not evident for any of the other nutrients investigated (Table 4). It was also observed that during the first 2 yr the accelerated EST treatment nearly doubled the Bray1-P compared with that of the controlled treatment (Fig. 1). The decline in Bray1-P was greater from year 2 to year 3 in the accelerated treatment when compared with the controlled (Fig. 1). It is speculated that the sharp drop in Bray1-P following year 2 for greens receiving the accelerated EST treatment may be due to nutrient mass loading, differences in root uptake, clipping removal, leaching, or a combination of these factors.


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Soil phosphorus (Bray1-P) response with time to establishment treatment for USGA specification putting greens constructed in 1997. Similar trends were observed for putting greens constructed in 1998, 1999, and 2000 (data not shown). LSD(0.05) bars are shown.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Establishment treatment x putting green age interaction means{dagger} for NO3–N, P, K, Ca, Zn, Fe, Mn, pH, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) in USGA specification putting greens{ddagger} at John Seaton Anderson Research Facility near Mead, NE. Samples to a 7.6-cm depth were collected annually in the fall from 1997 to 2003.

 
Phosphorus retention likely occurred because it is relatively nonmobile even in high-sand soils, and thus does not readily leach (Turner and Hummel, 1992; Sartain and Brown, 1998; Turgeon, 1999; Lee et al., 2004). Furthermore, sand used in construction of these greens was calcareous and alkaline with enhanced potential for formation of Ca-P complexes, reducing P solubility for plant uptake or leaching (Tisdale and Nelson, 1956; Larsen, 1967; Beard, 1973, Robbins et al., 2000; Sistani et al., 2004; Erickson et al., 2005). In a 2-yr study on a sand-based putting green with a soil pH of 8.0, Branham et al. (2000) reported available P increased rapidly after only 1 to 2 yr of annual fertilizer applications. The alkaline and calcareous sand condition experienced in this study likely contributed to P retention in the putting green RZM across time when compared with other nutrients investigated.

Conversely, several studies have observed P leaching, to varying degrees, from sand-based systems (Bacon and Davey, 1982; Kargbo et al., 1991; Shuman et al., 2000; Shuman, 2002). However, researchers in their respective studies primarily attributed P leaching to the inadequate turfgrass root system development during the EST year which reduced P uptake (Shuman et al., 2000), excessive rates of P fertilization (Shuman, 2002), or leaching during increased irrigation, high rainfall events, or both (Bacon and Davey, 1982; Kargbo et al., 1991; Shuman, 2002).

High soil pH can also limit the solubility of other nutrients such as Fe, Mn, Cu, B, and Zn (Tisdale and Nelson, 1956; Beard, 1973; Carrow et al., 2001). Iron, Cu, and Zn levels were also observed to be higher after the EST year in the accelerated EST, although these differences were not always significant (Table 4).

Nitrate-N is highly soluble and therefore very mobile in soils (Tisdale and Nelson, 1956; Beard, 1973; Snyder and Cisar, 2000). Numerous studies have documented NO3–N detection in leachates from sand-based RZMs of turfgrass stands (Snyder et al., 1981; Brown et al., 1982; Mancino and Troll, 1990; Brauen and Stahnke, 1995; Shuman et al., 2000; Shuman, 2002). As expected, NO3–N in our study was not retained beyond the grow-in year for RZMs receiving the accelerated EST when compared with RZMs receiving the controlled EST. Other relatively mobile nutrients that are readily lost by leaching in sandy soils include K and S, particularly in sulfate form (Beard, 1973). Both nutrients are highly soluble in the soil solution, and K is highly exchangeable on exchange sites, causing less K adsorption by soil particles or uptake by roots (Beard, 1973; Johnson et al., 2002). It is speculated that greens receiving the accelerated treatment in this study may not have retained mobile nutrients such as NO3–N, K, or S due to the potential of nutrient supply exceeding plant demand and the possibility of nutrient loss through leaching.

Putting green EST year comparisons, when compared among the four experimental putting greens (i.e., green constructed in 1997 vs. 1998, etc.), were significant for all but three chemical properties investigated (Tables 2, 5). While all four experimental putting greens were constructed in the same way from 1997 to 2000 and all met USGA RZM specifications, they were not identical in construction because of differences in RZM material used each year (Lewis, 2005).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Putting green x putting green age interaction means in USGA specification putting greens at John Seaton Anderson Research Facility near Mead, NE. Samples to a 7.6-cm depth were collected annually in the fall from 1997 to 2003.{dagger}

 
All soil chemical properties investigated, excluding pH and available K, decreased following the grow-in year, but began to increase several years later (Tables 4, 5; some data excluded). Increased chemical properties and nutrient retention may be explained in part by the development of a mat layer with time. Mat development was observed, although not measured, in the upper region of putting green RZMs, particularly as putting greens increased in age. Beard (1973) and Carrow (2004) define mat as an organic zone, or layer, that is buried below the soil surface and comprised of partially decomposed thatch. Organic matter in the mat is intermixed with soil from sand topdressing, with sand being the dominant component (Beard, 1973; Carrow, 2004). Increased organic matter enhances nutrient retention and CEC in high-sand RZMs (Bigelow et al., 2001; Boniak and Chong, 2005). As such, mat development and organic matter accumulation likely contributed to increased chemical properties, such as CEC and nutrient retention in older putting greens.

On the basis of nutrients and chemical properties analyzed, the 80:20 (sand–peat) RZM was generally not different from the 80:15:5 (sand–peat–soil) during or beyond the EST year. Additionally, Lewis (2005) found that RZM generally had no effect on turfgrass EST or quality ratings for putting greens used in this study. Since RZM had minimal to no effect, including soil in the RZM may be a more economical alternative than peat when used as an amendment in USGA greens, given the soil-amended RZM meets USGA specifications. During the grow-in year, all but five of the chemical properties investigated were significantly higher for the accelerated EST when compared with the controlled EST. Soil pH was lower in the accelerated treatment compared with the controlled treatment. Excluding Bray1-P, EST treatment generally had no effect beyond the grow-in year. Phosphorus remained higher for greens receiving increased inputs via the accelerated fertility program. Furthermore, Lewis (2005) reported that the accelerated treatment did not speed turfgrass EST in this study. In fact, RZMs receiving the accelerated EST treatment resulted in reduced creeping bentgrass quality ratings due to increased incidence of Pythium foliar blight (Pythium spp.) injury (Lewis, 2005). As such, increased fertilizer inputs during the EST year may not be feasible or environmentally responsible, since it had a negative effect on turfgrass EST, and these RZMs did not retain these inputs with time.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the United States Golf Association, the Environmental Institute for Golf, and the Nebraska Turfgrass Association. Special appreciation is also extended to Leonard A. Wit and the entire staff at the UNL John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass Research Facility for construction and maintenance of the field plots.

Received for publication February 27, 2006.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McClellan, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marx, D. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Turfgrass

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome