The Turf Zone Podcast

MTC TURF NEWS: Jay McCurdy Ph.D., Associate Professor, Turfgrass Extension Specialist Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University

This is the first article of a multi-part series detailing the origins and future of turfgrass.

Turf consists of a layer of various plants cultivated to form a uniform ground cover, typically one that can tolerate foot traffic and routine mowing. The first known use of the word turf occurs before the 12th century and refers to the “upper stratum of soil bound by grass” (Merriam-Webster, 2022). Objectively, turf only exists in human-maintained systems; however, the species comprising various turf scenarios long predate human interference.

Those turfgrass species most frequently selected for turf scenarios have been subject to environmental pressures (notably, frequent grazing) that have selected for traits that enhance their value as turfgrasses. Valuable traits include color, texture, uniformity, growth habit, and durability under stress. Plant breeding, the introduction of non-native and exotic species, and recurrent selection for desirable traits have led to modern cultivars and varieties of turfgrass that predominate in maintained turf settings such as lawns, sports fields, golf courses, sod farms, and roadside rights-of-way.

Turfgrasses are typically narrow-leaved species of relatively short stature that are somewhat regularly mown at heights of approximately four inches or less (Thompson and Kao-Kniffin, 2017). By convention, all grasses, including turfgrasses, belong to the Poaceae family of monocotyledonous flowering plants. The monocotyledonous (monocot) clade includes grasses and grass-like flowering plants with seeds that contain only one embryonic leaf (also known as a “cotyledon”). Monocots offer few obvious advantages for turf applications, as other flowering plants in the dicotyledonous clade (having two embryonic leaves) also persist under typical mowing heights as weeds or amenity forbs within various turf scenarios.

Not Just Grass

Turfgrasses are broadly classified as cool- or warm-season plants. Cool-season species are the predominant turfgrass species in climates with cold winters and mild summers, as well as adequate soil moisture. Warm-season species predominate in climates with mild winters and hot summers. The overlapping area between the two is termed the transition zone, where cool- and warm-season species grow equally successfully.

Cool-season species have evolved a C3 photosynthetic pathway for carbon fixation. They use an enzyme (called RuBisCO) to fix CO2. That carbon from CO2 forms a three-carbon sugar and then goes on to fuel plant growth and metabolism. Alternatively, warm-season species have evolved a C4 photosynthetic pathway that produces a four-carbon sugar. Plants with the C4 pathway have improved metabolism and a competitive advantage over C3 plants under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and limited nitrogen or CO2.

Cool- and warm-season species have different optimal temperatures for growth and metabolism. Warm-season species grow best when temperatures are above approximately 80°F and enter dormancy below their “base growth temperature” of around 50°F. Alternatively, cool-season species grow best when temperatures range from 60–75°F. Cool-season species enter a state of winter dormancy at temperatures below freezing and are often considered dormant during summer conditions that exceed their ideal growing temperatures, especially when soil moisture is limited. Growth models to predict the suitability and phenology of these species are largely based upon these parameters and estimates.

There are approximately 40 million acres of turfgrass in the United States (2% of the total U.S. land cover) (Milesi et al. 2005). Several estimates suggest that residential lawns represent roughly 75% of U.S.

NEW ENGLAND BLADE:

NESTMA Awards Meeting and Lunch at the NERTC in Providence was a great success! More than 100 members attended to reconnect with friends, celebrate colleagues, and hear about plans that will continue to move the association and the industry forward.

Executive Director, Virginia Wood, gave a rundown of recent NESTMA activities. The list of accomplishments included online learning, communications and connections, Fall Turf Day, scholarships, research support, and most notably, the release of Best Management Practices for Sports Field Managers in New England. Every member at the meeting received their own copy of this valuable publication. Vickie Wallace and the many members who helped to produce the new BMPs were applauded for this extraordinary effort.

Virginia also called out the hard-working members of the NESTMA board of the directors, who do a great job steering the NESTMA ship, and Commercial Partners were recognized for their steadfast support of the association.

Tom Irwin, Inc. received a special thank you for their exclusive sponsorship of NESTMA’s Awards Meeting and Lunch.

Congratulations to 2023 Sports Turf Manager of the Year, Ed Olsen of the Town of Needham, MA, and Commercial Partner of the Year Ed Downing of Read Custom Soils.

ARKANSAS TURFGRASS:

Wendell Hutchens, assistant professor in U of A’s Department of Horticulture, has been named winner of the 2023 Award of Excellence by the Musser International Turfgrass Foundation.

The award is given to outstanding Ph.D. candidates who, in the final phase of their graduate studies, demonstrated overall excellence throughout their doctoral program in turfgrass research.

“It is an unbelievable honor to receive the Musser Award of Excellence,” Hutchens said. “I could not have accomplished such a feat without my foundational Christian faith; unwavering support from my wife, Anica; my family and friends; and the exceptional leadership of my mentors.”

Hutchens is in his first year as a faculty member in U of A’s Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences, where he primarily focuses on turfgrass pathology. Turfgrass diseases cause massive damage and losses to sod farms, golf courses, athletic fields, parks and home lawns, both in Arkansas and globally. His research centers around how to maintain healthy turfgrass and combat turfgrass diseases with traditional cultural and chemical practices, as well as with cutting-edge new technology such as drones and GPS-guided sprayers.

He received his B.S. degree in turfgrass science from North Carolina State University and went on to complete his M.S. in turfgrass pathology from NCSU. His research there focused on the influence of post-application irrigation and soil surfactant applications on fungicide movement and efficacy against root diseases. He earned his Ph.D. in turfgrass pathology at Virginia Tech where his dissertation focused on biology, epidemiology and management of spring dead spots of bermudagrass.

Hutchens has already published seven research papers for his M.S. and Ph.D. projects and has seven more awaiting publication on topics related to turfgrass pathology, turfgrass physiology and native grass implementation in the transition zone of the United States. He has already given more than 50 presentations on his research nationally and internationally.

“I am beyond grateful for the opportunity to be a faculty member at the University of Arkansas, and I hope to expand the research, extension and teaching programs during my tenure,” he said. “My mentors — including Drs. David McCall, Jim Kerns, Travis Gannon, Mike Goatley, David Shew, Mizuho Nita and Mike Richardson — have been incredible to work with and learn from. Their mentorship has taught me to be a better scientist, professional and, most importantly, person.”

He hopes to focus his career on providing applied, cutting-edge research results in turfgrass pathology, precision turfgrass management and turfgrass agronomy, as well as training the next generation of turfgrass scientists.

“There are many outstanding students in the University of Arkansas turfgrass science program, and I hope to help them reach their greatest potential,” Hutchens said. “Training tomorrow’s generation to be the best they can be is my ultimate career goal.”

The criteria for selecting award recipients include graduate work, academic record, dissertation, publications, leadership and extracurricular activities. The Musser International Turfgrass Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering turfgrass as a learned profession, to enhancing the lives of people all over the world through turfgrass and to supporting education and research in turfgrass development and management.

This article is reprinted from https://news.uark.edu/

ATA TURF TIMES: By Casey O’Neal, Graduate Research Assistant, Auburn University | Julie Wang, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Georgia | Nikolay Minaev, Graduate Research Assistant, Mississippi State University

Movements such as “Save the Bees”, “No Mow May”, and “Let it Bloom June” are recently trending critiques of monoculture lawns. They highlight the lack of plant and insect diversity in single grass species or cultivar lawns. In recent years, programs like Operation Pollinator have moved the golf industries toward stakeholder interests by supporting research and outreach efforts to improve the ecological function of turf on their facilities. Similarly, the turfgrass industry must prepare to do the same for lawns. While replacing grass lawns with flower gardens, white clover fields, or meadows may be beneficial for pollinators and people in some areas, it ignores the documented want and need for lawns in modern society.

Monoculture lawns, typically a green frame around residential and commercial buildings, accumulate pests and consume a significant sum of inputs. Monoculture lawn alternatives, such as diversified, pollinator friendly, or flower lawns have been discussed; however, a warm-season alternative lawn with known beneficial impact and best management practices (BMPs) has not solidified in science or common practice. Understanding BMPs, and the benefits of these lawns, are crucial goals for the future of the turfgrass industry. The United States Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) has funded the Refuge Lawn project to help highlight these goals.

The Refuge Lawn project consists of interdisciplinary researchers from Mississippi State University (MSU), Auburn University (AU), and the University of Georgia (UGA). The team set out to identify low-growing, flowering plants that would be easily established and managed in grass lawns, as well as provide the resources necessary to promote an abundant and diverse pollinator community. As some of the graduate students work on different aspects of the project, we would like to share some of our on-going research.

Picking the right plants

At Mississippi State University, Nikolay Minaev, working with Dr. Jay McCurdy, has been looking for flowering plants that could be easily established and propagated within turfgrasses commonly found in southeastern lawns. After evaluating various species based on their blooming properties and appearances in lawns, it was determined that spring beauty (Claytonia virginica) shows high potential for inclusion in warm-season lawns. Spring beauty is a perennial wildflower that is native to rich forests and low woodlands. It prefers moist, well-drained soil and light shade to part sun. It grows from a small corm or seeds. The growing season lasts from January through April in the temperate climate of the southeast, after which the plant senesces and lies dormant before emerging from corms the next year. The flowers are showy, pinkish white with deep pink veins, and open in clusters at the apex of the plant, adding a burst of color to the lawn during the early spring period. Additionally, it is a resource for pollinators such as the rare spring beauty bee, a small mining bee native to eastern North America.

The current understanding of spring beauty propagation is limited, hence we aim to address this knowledge gap by conducting a comprehensive study. The primary objective is to phenotype different populations of spring beauty and identify those with the most abundant and long-lasting bloom period, accompanied by high seed production and germination rates. This will allow for the selection of the most promising population for inclusion in lawns. In addition to identifying the optimal population, we are also exploring the most convenient method of propagation,

PENNSYLVANIA TURFGRASS: David R. Huff, Ph.D., Professor, Penn State University

Even in the current era of elaborate conspiracy theories and stories of bird-like aliens, and others having secret military bases on the dark side of the moon, it’s hard to imagine anything as contentious as Poa annua in today’s golf industry. For example, contrary to a recent survey that claims Poa annua is the golf industry’s third-most popular (aka abundant) turfgrass species (Golf Course Environmental Profile, 2017), most superintendents are committed to eradicating it. Conversely, despite Poa annua being the only turfgrass species in use that lacks any improved varieties and exists solely as local land races, a majority of the best golf courses strive to propagate it (https://www.top100golfcourses.com). For the past 100 years, the controversial ‘friend vs foe’ status of Poa annua has heavily favored its eradication. However, it is now time to begin exploring the best management practices (BMPs) for its propagation. That’s because soon a commercial seed source of improved varieties that have been specifically bred for use on greens and fairways will become available (see Huff, 2022). In this article, we’ll explore the grow-in of a 2022 golf course evaluation trial of Poa annua on greens and fairways.

Testing Trials

One of the first steps that needs to be undertaken during the release of any new variety of turfgrass is its evaluation at different locations, which I initiated with experimental varieties from my Penn State Poa annua breeding program back in the early 2000’s (see for example, Mitra et al., 2009). I first trialed my experimental Poa annua varieties back in 2002 at Apawamis GC, Rye, NY (Fig. 1). Superintendent Bill Purdy had just harvested sod from three of his Poa greens to enlarge his remaining 15 Poa greens, and then used Penn State Poa seed to reseed his three bare greens. Establishment went well and his members were thrilled with the results. However, about 10 years later, we realized that the problem with Poa annua commercialization was not varietal development but rather varietal instability during seed production, and it took another seven years of research after that to solve the problem. During those intervening years, Superintendent, Michael McCormick (Apawamis superintendent from 2016-2022; currently, superintendent at Oakmont CC, PA) observed that those Penn Poa greens were more tolerant of biotic and abiotic stress and used less water than the other 15 greens of the local Poa. Now that we’ve solved the commercial seed production problem and are able to produce seed of phenotypically stable Poa annua, I’ve organized a new evaluation trial of the final commercial seed product at six trial locations which includes golf courses on the East & West Coasts and from the Northern to Southern Appalachian Mountains (Fig 2.).

This new 2022 Poa annua trial has now been established at five of the six trial locations, with the Cypress Point Club (CA) trial (delayed due to weather and events) to be established in July 2023. The following are some early observations of establishment and grow-in of Poa annua at these sites.

Seeding Rates

Early in the breeding program there was never enough seed to plant the areas we needed to establish, so we had to stretch seedings to their maximum lowest rates in order to plant the largest possible sized areas we could. As such, we’ve planted greens as low as 0.3lb/K, but those areas took an entire growing season to properly fill in. We eventually settled on a 1lb/K seeding rate which is a relatively low seeding rate for Poa, but after a fall planting, it gave us an opportunity to watch the experimental varieties complete their grow-in during the following spring and we had full stands to evaluate over their first summer. Personally, I prefer low seeding rates because it results in strong,

VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL: Margaret J. Couvillon, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Pollinator Biology and Ecology, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech

Ornamental Plant Choice Impacts the Abundance and Diversity of Insect Pollinators in Gardens

This article is based upon the following peer-reviewed study: MC Palmersheim, R Schürch, ME O’Rourke, J Slezak, and MJ Couvillon. “If You Grow It, They Will Come: Ornamental Plants Impact the Abundance and Diversity of Pollinators and Other Flower-Visiting Insects in Gardens.” Horticulturae 8, no. 11 (2022): 1068.

Plants are mostly stationary. Although they can move a little bit, growing upwards and outwards, these movements are small, slow, and generally insufficient for finding a mate, especially if you want to reproduce sexually every year. Sexual reproduction helps maintain genetic diversity in a population and is a winning strategy. Therefore, over millions of years of co-evolution, plants have solved this sessile challenge by developing close relationships with some animals to serve as the vectors to transport pollen, the male sex cells. That close relationship is pollination, and about 88% of all flowering plants need that animal-assist to make the magic happen (Ollerton, Winfree & Tarrant 2011). Of the animals that participate in pollination, insects are by far the most consequential. If we line up the plants, both wild and agricultural, that need pollination services, our heavy lifters are insects, such as bees, butterflies, and flies. Therefore, while birds and bats are also valuable in this process, there is a critical need for the contribution of insect pollinators (Klein et al. 2007; Ollerton 2021).

The large role of insects in plant reproduction makes their recently recorded declines even more alarming: insects in general, and pollinators in particular, are decreasing in numbers (abundance) and species richness (diversity) (Hallmann et al. 2017; Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhuys 2019). These declines have been precipitous, upwards to 75% by some measures, and likely a reflection of the larger threats to wildlife in general that humans have bequeathed to our world. For insect pollinators, of course, their declines have direct consequences on our global food security, as 75% of food crops need insect pollination services (Klein et al. 2007).

Both wild and managed insect pollinators, like honey bees, face challenges from pesticides, pests, pathogens, and poor nutrition, where a lack of abundant, diverse flowers in a landscape can have direct and indirect negative consequences on insects (Goulson et al. 2015). Media and popular press coverage has been wide: everyone wants to feed hungry pollinators. One activity that is immensely popular among concerned citizens is to establish a pollinator garden, where ornamentals are planted with the express purpose of feeding pollinators. Groups ranging from schools to libraries to museums to private individuals are frequently approaching perceived experts (i.e., an Assistant Professor of Pollinator Biology) for advice on what plants to use. When I started receiving such phone calls in 2017, I realized that all I could do was direct people to existing plant recommendation lists. I quickly realized, however, that a non-specialist gardener, such as myself, might experience barriers against making informed choices about plants for pollinators. For example, recommendations from organizations like the Xerces Society publish lists that appear based on expert opinion but lack empirical backing and/or do not cite sources. There are also inconsistencies among plant recommendations, where there is very little overlap, even within regions (Garbuzov & Ratnieks 2014a). Sometimes recommendations are too general, even if we know that different cultivars might vary in as much as tenfold in their attractiveness to insects (Garbuzov & Ratnieks ...

MISSISSIPPI TURFGRASS: Casey O’Neal, Graduate Research Assistant, Auburn University | Julie Wang, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Georgia | Nikolay Minaev, Graduate Research Assistant, Mississippi State University

Movements such as “Save the Bees”, “No Mow May”, and “Let it Bloom June” are recently trending critiques of monoculture lawns. They highlight the lack of plant and insect diversity in single grass species or cultivar lawns. In recent years, programs like Operation Pollinator have moved the golf industries toward stakeholder interests by supporting research and outreach efforts to improve the ecological function of turf on their facilities. Similarly, the turfgrass industry must prepare to do the same for lawns. While replacing grass lawns with flower gardens, white clover fields, or meadows may be beneficial for pollinators and people in some areas, it ignores the documented want and need for lawns in modern society.

Monoculture lawns, typically a green frame around residential and commercial buildings, accumulate pests and consume a significant sum of inputs. Monoculture lawn alternatives, such as diversified, pollinator friendly, or flower lawns have been discussed; however, a warm-season alternative lawn with known beneficial impact and best management practices (BMPs) has not solidified in science or common practice. Understanding BMPs, and the benefits of these lawns, are crucial goals for the future of the turfgrass industry. The United States Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) has funded the Refuge Lawn project to help highlight these goals.

The Refuge Lawn project consists of interdisciplinary researchers from Mississippi State University (MSU), Auburn University (AU), and the University of Georgia (UGA). The team set out to identify low-growing, flowering plants that would be easily established and managed in grass lawns, as well as provide the resources necessary to promote an abundant and diverse pollinator community. As some of the graduate students work on different aspects of the project, we would like to share some of our on-going research.

Picking the right plants

At Mississippi State University, Nikolay Minaev, working with Dr. Jay McCurdy, has been looking for flowering plants that could be easily established and propagated within turfgrasses commonly found in southeastern lawns. After evaluating various species based on their blooming properties and appearances in lawns, it was determined that spring beauty (Claytonia virginica) shows high potential for inclusion in warm-season lawns. Spring beauty is a perennial wildflower that is native to rich forests and low woodlands. It prefers moist, well-drained soil and light shade to part sun. It grows from a small corm or seeds. The growing season lasts from January through April in the temperate climate of the southeast, after which the plant senesces and lies dormant before emerging from corms the next year. The flowers are showy, pinkish white with deep pink veins, and open in clusters at the apex of the plant, adding a burst of color to the lawn during the early spring period. Additionally, it is a resource for pollinators such as the rare spring beauty bee, a small mining bee native to eastern North America.

The current understanding of spring beauty propagation is limited, hence we aim to address this knowledge gap by conducting a comprehensive study. The primary objective is to phenotype different populations of spring beauty and identify those with the most abundant and long-lasting bloom period, accompanied by high seed production and germination rates. This will allow for the selection of the most promising population for inclusion in lawns. In addition to identifying the optimal population, we are also exploring the most convenient method of propagation,

NORTH CAROLINA TURFGRASS: Natalie Peterson

Time management, yes, I know you are probably thinking – How am I going to manage the time that I don’t have?! How could I possibly get even more done than I already am? I know. Demands on your time are all around you. Every time you turn around it seems like you are yet again being asked to do more, with less. It is everywhere. So, if this seems like a losing battle, why try?

Because you and I both know that without time management, without the focus and discipline around how you spend time doing the things you HAVE to do – you are all but guaranteeing that there will be NO time to do the things that excite you, no freedom for the things you WANT to do. And there is a better way.

You’ve felt it, you’ve seen glimpses of when things are working well. When your energy is high, you are engaged at work and at home and when you feel strong momentum carrying you through your days.

When you are effectively managing time, you feel happier right? Your confidence is lifted, you feel more control and joy. When time is working for you instead of against you it allows you to participate in life – doing the things you love to do, making time for the things you value and executing the vision you have for yourself.

There are strategies and processes that can make you more effective day to day and I know you are going to continue searching until you find the formula that works for your lifestyle – and I hope to help you solidify that today with 5 Simple Rules for time Management.

Start big and work backwards.

The most important thing you can do for yourself when it comes to staying disciplined and focused is to have a vision for your life and for the person you want to be. It is also important to set that same vision for your month.

At the beginning of each month, map out everything you need to accomplish: Make a list of goals, no more than three, in the following categories: personal development, career, relationships (including family and friendships), financial, and health and fitness. Once you have those monthly goals mapped out, you can start to break your month down by the week.

Taking an overall view of your month allows you to see where those goals will fit. Usually, the goals we have for our month are achieved by the things we do on a daily and weekly basis.

Decide when you want to take advantage of your freedom windows.

When are you most productive? Most people have the opportunity for more time discipline in the morning and in the evenings. It is good to know this because not all free time is created equal. For me, I do my best work early in the morning rather than late at night. So, I may choose to do the things that require the most willpower in my morning freedom hours: between the hours of 5:30-7:30 a.m. Things like writing, creating and fitness, and I schedule my family or connect time for the evening.

Decide when you personally are most motivated and inspired to commit time for your personal development – for your fitness, learning, creation. Identify those windows of opportunity on your calendar – highlight them in your favorite color to remind yourself that when you stay focused and disciplined during your non-negotiable hours, you can fill that “freedom time” with whatever you want. And speaking of non-negotiable hours and freedom time…

Block your time every day.

You are probably at a point in your life when things don’t change with your schedule all that much. By this I mean each week you have commute time, mealtimes, work time. These things don’t change and usually they are non-negotiable – so put those in your schedule first.

Once those are in, the other blocks that you should have every single week are: fitness (hopefully multiple blocks), scheduled free time, personal development time, family time,

NEW ENGLAND BLADE: 

In March, a Task Group of hardworking sports turf professionals and academics led by Victoria Wallace at UConn, released a valuable new resource for our industry — Best Management Practices for the Sports Field Manager: A Professional Guide for Environmental Sports Field Management in New England.

This essential reference tool positions New England’s sports field managers as highly trained professionals who make decisions based on scientific fact and experience. Each chapter highlights sound agronomics and the steps involved with athletic field maintenance practices. There are also a series of local case studies on topics like water conservation, dealing with synthetic pesticide bans, fraise mowing for weed control, and more.

Additionally, a complementary webinar is offered to members at no cost. In the webinar Victoria Wallace provides an overview of the BMPs, including “Duty of Care in Sport” to underscore the importance of using this new resource. Viewers will learn how to use the tools and techniques found in the BMPs to document solid environmental practices when communicating with state officials, employers, organizations, and communities.

NESTMA’s BMPs for New England and case studies are available to current NESTMA members at no charge. Members are invited to visit NESTMA.org to download a digital copy. There are a limited number of printed copies available for $65 (includes shipping & handling). Please contact NESTMA to place your order.

“I have found that city and town officials, and some decision-makers, are willing to embrace IPM and BMPs. Having a BMP manual that is New England based, developed with solid science, and is peer-reviewed is invaluable.”

Jesse O’Brien, O’Brien Landscape Agronomy, Portland, ME

“I truly feel the BMP guide provides another tool in our toolbox. I recommend that all turf managers take advantage of this great resource.”

Richard Calarco, CSFM, L&C Park Consultants, Town of Hebron, CT (retired)

“The BMPs has been a guide for developing and implementing a cultural program to produce safe and beautiful playing surfaces for our athletes. Additionally, it has been the pillar for creating sustainable initiatives on campus.”

Tom Barry, CFSM, Greens Farms Academy, Westport, CT

In creating these guidelines, many experts contributed their expertise and provided input during the development process. NESTMA is grateful to the following people:

• Victoria Wallace, NESTMA BMP Task Group Chair, University of Connecticut

• Steve Alm, Ph.D., University of Rhode Island

• Ed Ball, Phillips Exeter Academy, New Hampshire

• Tom Barry, CSFM, Greens Farms Academy, Connecticut

• Ryan Bjorn, Gillette Stadium, Massachusetts

• Mike Buras, CSFM, Longwood Cricket Club, Massachusetts

• Brendon Connor, College of the Holy Cross, Massachusetts

• J. Scott Ebdon, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Arthur Goodhind, MCA, Town of Natick, Massachusetts

• Peter Gorman, Atlantic Golf and Turf, Massachusetts

• Jason Henderson, Ph.D., University of Connecticut

• Jason Lanier, University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Patrick Maguire, RLA, LEED AP, Activitas, Inc., Massachusetts

• Jesse O’Brien, O’Brien Landscape and Agronomy, Maine

• Mary Owen, University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Ben Polimer, Town of Weston, Massachusetts

• Alyssa Siegel-Miles, University of Connecticut



ARKANSAS TURFGRASS: Daniel O’Brien, Wendell Hutchens Ph.D., Mike Richardson Ph.D.

At the risk of stating the obvious, water matters. In an increasingly crowded world, with increasingly strained resources, this is true for all walks of life and turfgrass is no exception. Decisions about how we use, and just as importantly, how we conserve water are major issues for turfgrass professionals, which is why such decisions are also at the heart of our Turfgrass Research Program here at the University of Arkansas. Exploring new ways to maximize this most vital resource has been, and continues to be, a top priority in the work we do.

When it comes to managing water, one of the best resources available to turfgrass professionals are wetting agents, also known as soil surfactants. Yet, as powerful and versatile as these products are, the truth is that in many ways, turfgrass research is just scratching the surface in our understanding of them and how they work. While wetting agents are by no means a “silver bullet” for solving all the water issues facing the future of turfgrass, they do hold tremendous potential for a range of moisture related issues, such as: preventing localized dry spot, improving moisture uniformity, increasing water infiltration, prolonging rootzone moisture retention, reducing winter injury, and enhancing the efficacy of fertilizers and pesticides (Abagandura et al., 2021; DeBoer et al., 2020; Hutchens et al., 2020; Jacobs & Barden, 2018).

Building on that existing body of research, we are thrilled that a recent proposal of ours was selected by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA) Foundation as a recipient of the 2023–2024 Dr. Michael Hurdzan Research Grant Endowment. The Hurdzan Endowment is dedicated to, “funding applied environmental research on golf courses, with the specific goal of reducing requirements for water, fertilizer, pesticides, or fossil fuels in golf course maintenance.” Above all, it is important to us that our research is both novel and practical, offering meaningful benefits to turfgrass professionals. In this case, those turfgrass professionals are golf course superintendents, and the potential benefits include savings, both in terms of water and money.

Overall Goals

Essentially, this research boils down to the simple question, How do you get the most out of a wetting agent application? At the University of Arkansas, we have been studying wetting agents for over 20 years, but we will be the first to tell you, there are still a lot of unknowns when it comes to these extremely important products. Because wetting agents are not subject to the same registration process or labeling requirements as pesticides, companies do not have to disclose precise active ingredients or extensive amounts of research data in order to begin selling a product. While all of that is beyond a superintendent’s control, what is very much within their control is: which wetting agent to use, how much product to put in the tank, and how often to apply. The overall goal of this research is to investigate wetting agents at the place where superintendents can exercise the most control over product performance. To do that, our original question can be broken down into comparisons on three distinct levels:

1) comparisons among wetting agents, 2) comparison among application rates/timings, and 3) comparisons among technology for evaluating wetting agent performance and longevity.

Research Design & Treatment Details

Starting with comparisons among wetting agent products, we opted to work with six different wetting agents, each from a different manufacturer (Table 1). Admittedly, there are many options available, but in research you seldom have space/time to test everything at once. Our criteria were based largely on conversations with superintendents about wetting agents they w...