The Turf Zone Podcast

ATA Turf Times – Beth Guertal, Professor, Auburn University and Dave Han, Extension Specialist and Associate Professor, Alabama Extension and Auburn University

New bermudagrasses (both hybrid and improved vegetative selections of common bermudagrass) are being introduced into the turfgrass market, intended for use in athletic fields, home lawns, golf course fairways, and commercial landscaping. The grasses vary in their shade tolerance, resistance to various diseases, color, texture, and ability to tolerate traffic. For bermudgrasses used on athletic fields, traffic tolerance is one of the most important traits. So, in 2017, researchers at Auburn University installed a study to look at long-term traffic tolerance that evaluated six bermudagrass cultivars available commercially at the time under three levels of artificial traffic. This study evaluated the cultivars’ traffic tolerance when used as a typical high school athletic field.

In April of 2017 sod was laid from six different bermudagrass cultivars commonly used for southeastern US athletic fields. Cultivars were: Tifway, TifGrand, TifTuf, Latitude 36, NorthBridge (hybrid) and Celebration (vegetative common). The grasses were all obtained as sod cut from various commercial sod farms, and all sod was laid on the same day. Sod was laid in plots measuring 10 x 20 feet in size, with each main block of ‘cultivar’ replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.

Traffic was applied as strip plots across each cultivar (each traffic strip was 3 feet wide and 10 feet long), imposed using an artificial traffic simulator. Three levels of traffic were applied to the bermudagrasses: none, low (3 American style football games per week) or high (5 American style football games per week) foot traffic. The artificial traffic simulator is an aerification unit with the tines removed and replaced with strips of tire in which bolts are embedded. The traffic simulator is run up and down each plot, with the tires/bolts simulating foot wear and traffic. Traffic was applied during the typical US high school football season, from late August — November of each year (2017, 2018 and 2019). Figure 1 Plots were not overseeded in the winter, and in all other aspects (irrigation, fertilization, pest control) were managed as a higher-quality high school football field. Mowing height was 2 inches, done 3 times a week using a rotary mower, with clippings returned. Plots were not topdressed nor aerified from year to year.

Collected data included monthly color and quality using a relative 1 – 9 scale, with a score of ‘1’ for completely brown or dead turf, and a score of ‘9’ for lush, dark green turf. Additional data included shoot density, dry weight of roots, rhizomes and stolon, clipping yields, and spring density of Poa annua.

The results (to date) have shown that the cultivars do respond differently to different levels of traffic, but this mainly occurred in the fall, when the grasses were being actively trafficked. In the spring, the grasses had no traffic, and all of them tended to recover from the fall traffic, and differences in shoot density were only due to the cultivar itself. Table 1 shows shoot density of the various cultivars in the spring in various years, and only the highest level of traffic ever decreased shoot density. There were differences in cultivar, with TifGrand often having highest shoot density, and Celebration the lowest. In the fall, when traffic was being applied, Tifway and TifGrand were most affected by increasing levels of traffic, with shoot density decreasing from 5.6 to 3.4 shoots per square centimeter as traffic increased. In comparison, trafficked plots of NorthBridge and Celebration tended to not be as affected by traffic. Although their overall shoot density was often less, it did not reduce further when traffic was applied.

Table 1. Shoot density (shoots per square centimeter) of bermudagrass managed as an athle...

Virginia Turfgrass Journal – Julie Holt, Content Director, TheTurfZone.com

Jack Findling has a dynamic, 40+ year history in the industry and currently serves on the development committee at the VTC. We sat down with Jack to get his perspective on everything from labor challenges to consumer education and more. VTC would like to thank Jack for his dedication to our organization and his many years of advocating for well-trained and knowledgeable work force.

What was your career path that brought you to your current position? 

When I was young, I enjoyed outside, I enjoyed the yard work. I got into application support with local companies, and residential companies were just starting up back in the 80s. I went in with ChemLawn when it was family-owned and I worked there for about13 years. Then they were making a business change and it was time to move on. I got into distribution sales in the mid-90s and enjoyed that ever since and felt that was more my calling. I’ve worked for several companies doing that. All in the same mid-Atlantic area. I always just enjoyed that distribution sales line. 

In being in that same segment of the industry for that many years, what are the biggest changes you’ve seen?  

I’ve watched people grow their business, I’ve watched chemistry change over the years. Certainly the EPA has a lot to do with that, either omitting something from the market or enhancing something new in the market that arguably could be a safer application not only to the environment, but for personnel as well. That might be the biggest change is the evolution of the chemistries, how they’re stored, how they’re applied, how you go about the certification knowledge to have a license, to be a company. It’s an evolution going on even now, but I think that the biggest is watching the chemistry change over the years, for the better.

Does that present a challenge for you in educating professionals in the field and companies on how they’re using those products?

I could easily write a yearly program and factor in some products and teach those products and be sure they’re done with proper equipment calibration, the product rates per 1000 square feet per acre are done by label. You teach the EPA label as the word. So most distribution sales are involved with the teaching of new products as they come online. 

From lawn care to golf to sports turf, a lot of turfgrass managers who are public-facing are having to do some education on that end. Is that something you’re able to help prepare your clients for? 

The answer is more full than that, it’s beyond chemistry. It’s seed and fertilizer and soil maintenance. You intertwine all of that over the course of the year. In doing so, you may minimize application products or the components of products, where they’re more safe, and minimized, and you’re doing more seeding or soil maintenance work and you’re keeping the lawn thin in that regard, and it does help you minimize chemical application. I’ve been involved with teaching that, and it is a part of the market now. Certainly there are geographies that don’t allow chemistry in home lawn use, so you’re almost forced to develop a plan of action on behalf of these homeowners. And you have to do that along with the government agencies that restricted you as well as the lawn care business owner that’s doing the home lawn use, so it’s all intertwined together, and everybody works together. It quite amazing how that does evolve. And so far, so good. There’s a challenge, but yet it’s seamless. It’s quite interesting.

I know we hear the word “misinformation” a lot, and that certainly applies in the more technical elements of what you’re doing. Can you get ahead of that or are you constantly correcting? 

Well, you can get ahead of it by building the relationship with the lawn care operator and then you usually don’t go back to that. That’s a process that happens once or twice and you mi...

Tennessee Turfgrass – Devon Carroll, Plant, Soil, and Environmental Science Ph.D. candidate, The University of Tennessee and Dr. Carrie Stephens, Professor of Leadership in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, The University of Tennessee Women’s Work

A look at most grounds crews at athletic facilities, golf courses, or landscape operations rarely reveals a woman working to maintain green spaces. Despite women comprising 51% of the U.S. population and 47% of the labor force, women represent far less than half of the labor force in the turfgrass or landscape industries. Given that turfgrass and landscape industries are estimated to support about 1.4 million jobs nation-wide, this labor group represents novel employment opportunities. Although female groundskeepers and landscape professionals have recently gained attention in media, their numbers are few. National turfgrass associations report only 2 to 4% of members who are female (Figure 1). Similarly, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that as of 2019, women comprised only 6.5% of all landscaping and groundskeeping workers.

The low percentage of women working in the turfgrass or landscaping industry classifies such work as a non-traditional job. Non-traditional jobs are classified by the United States Department of Labor as an occupation that is comprised of 25% or less female employment. Other non-traditional labor sectors with similar percentages of female employment to turfgrass and landscaping include welding, construction, plumbing, and electricians (2.2 to 5.3% women). The low engagement of women in the green industry is a problem as labor is of growing concern. In recent years, a decline in the U.S. unemployment rate and immigrant and blue-collar worker availability has affected hiring across many professions. In the past eighteen months, the labor issue has been exacerbated by the compounding effects of COVID-19. As the industry struggles to fill positions, recognizing the under-utilization of women could be a solution. Can increased recruitment of women to the green industry help close the labor gap?

Imagine if the percentage of women working in landscape related professions rose from 6.5% to 10%. Based on current estimations by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, this relatively small increase would result in an additional 50,000 women seeking employment in the green industry. Now imagine if the percentage changed to 20 or 30% women.

In recent years, the green industry has worked to create space for women by developing programs such as the Women in Landscape Network, Ladies Leading Turf sponsored by Syngenta, Women in Golf sponsored by Bayer Environmental Science, and “Women in Turf” events held at industry association meetings. Continuing these efforts and refining recruitment methods to attract women to the industry could ease labor concerns and result in a more diverse workforce. Barriers faced uniquely by women may be limiting the number of women entering and remaining in the industry. In other agricultural fields, research has identified challenges and opportunities for women as a means of increasing their recruitment. This information is of value to the turfgrass and landscape industries as a resource for improving recruitment and retention strategies for women and to ease labor concerns.

Female Experiences in Turfgrass

Researchers at the University of Tennessee in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications took a scientific approach to determine barriers and opportunities for women in the turfgrass industry by interviewing female leaders to explore their lived experiences. Thirteen female leaders participated in the study and represented diverse backgrounds of 6 to 30+ years of experience working in turfgrass; geographic locations in three countries and comprised of nine U.S. states and three Canadian provinces; and job tit...

North Carolina Turfgrass – Devon Carroll, Plant, Soil, and Environmental Science Ph.D. candidate, The University of Tennessee and Dr. Carrie Stephens, Professor of Leadership in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, The University of Tennessee Women’s Work

A look at most grounds crews at athletic facilities, golf courses, or landscape operations rarely reveals a woman working to maintain green spaces. Despite women comprising 51% of the U.S. population and 47% of the labor force, women represent far less than half of the labor force in the turfgrass or landscape industries. Given that turfgrass and landscape industries are estimated to support about 1.4 million jobs nation-wide, this labor group represents novel employment opportunities. Although female groundskeepers and landscape professionals have recently gained attention in media, their numbers are few. National turfgrass associations report only 2 to 4% of members who are female (Figure 1). Similarly, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that as of 2019, women comprised only 6.5% of all landscaping and groundskeeping workers.

The low percentage of women working in the turfgrass or landscaping industry classifies such work as a non-traditional job. Non-traditional jobs are classified by the United States Department of Labor as an occupation that is comprised of 25% or less female employment. Other non-traditional labor sectors with similar percentages of female employment to turfgrass and landscaping include welding, construction, plumbing, and electricians (2.2 to 5.3% women). The low engagement of women in the green industry is a problem as labor is of growing concern. In recent years, a decline in the U.S. unemployment rate and immigrant and blue-collar worker availability has affected hiring across many professions. In the past eighteen months, the labor issue has been exacerbated by the compounding effects of COVID-19. As the industry struggles to fill positions, recognizing the under-utilization of women could be a solution. Can increased recruitment of women to the green industry help close the labor gap?

Imagine if the percentage of women working in landscape related professions rose from 6.5% to 10%. Based on current estimations by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, this relatively small increase would result in an additional 50,000 women seeking employment in the green industry. Now imagine if the percentage changed to 20 or 30% women.

In recent years, the green industry has worked to create space for women by developing programs such as the Women in Landscape Network, Ladies Leading Turf sponsored by Syngenta, Women in Golf sponsored by Bayer Environmental Science, and “Women in Turf” events held at industry association meetings. Continuing these efforts and refining recruitment methods to attract women to the industry could ease labor concerns and result in a more diverse workforce. Barriers faced uniquely by women may be limiting the number of women entering and remaining in the industry. In other agricultural fields, research has identified challenges and opportunities for women as a means of increasing their recruitment. This information is of value to the turfgrass and landscape industries as a resource for improving recruitment and retention strategies for women and to ease labor concerns.

Female Experiences in Turfgrass

Researchers at the University of Tennessee in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications took a scientific approach to determine barriers and opportunities for women in the turfgrass industry by interviewing female leaders to explore their lived experiences. Thirteen female leaders participated in the study and represented diverse backgrounds of 6 to 30+ years of experience working in turfgrass; geographic locations in three countries and comprised of nine U.S.

Mississippi Turfgrass – Tyler Carr, John Sorochan, and Jim Brosnan, Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee

Zoysiagrass is a warm-season turfgrass used on lawns and golf courses in the transition zone and southern United States. Zoysiagrasses have become popular in part because they require fewer inputs and offer enhanced cold and shade tolerance compared to bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.). On golf course fairways, tees, and roughs, two different species of zoysiagrass are most common: Zoysia japonica (e.g., ‘Meyer’, ‘El Toro’, etc.) and Z. matrella (e.g., ‘Zeon’, Zorro’, etc.) (Patton et al., 2017). Continued turfgrass breeding efforts have sparked an interest in zoysiagrass for use on putting greens.

In 1996, ‘Diamond’ (Z. matrella) was released as a fine-textured zoysiagrass with potential to be used on putting surfaces; however, research from Clemson University determined that ball roll speeds were too slow for tournament purposes (Engelke et al., 2002; Stiglbauer et al., 2009). More recently, three Z. matrella cultivars [‘Prizm’ (M60), ‘Primo’ (M85), and ‘Trinity’ (L1F)] have been released for use on putting greens in addition to ‘Lazer’ (DALZ 1308), a first-generation hybrid of Z. matrella and Z. minima (Doguet and Lehman, 2014; Doguet et al., 2016, 2017; Chandra et al., 2020). These improved zoysiagrasses were planted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN) in 2018 to study their potential for use on putting greens over multiple seasons. This article will provide a brief overview of what has been learned in that research effort.

Nitrogen (N) Fertilizer Requirements and Green Speed

One of the major topics surrounding zoysiagrass management on putting greens is N fertilizer requirements. A 16-week study in 2020 compared the performance and quality of Prizm, Primo, Trinity, and Lazer when receiving annual N rates of 1.5 or 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (0.19 or 0.38 lb N 1000 ft-2 every two weeks during summer) supplied as urea. All plots were mowed at a 0.115” height of cut with a walk-behind reel mower (Greensmaster Flex 2100, The Toro Company, Bloomington, MN).

Most golf course superintendents are very familiar with using a Stimpmeter to provide a measure of green speed (i.e., ball roll distance; Radko, 1980). When mowing and rolling five times weekly, green speeds for all zoysiagrasses tested averaged at least 10.5’ over the 16-week study period, even when receiving 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 1). In general, the 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 rate resulted in superior color compared to 1.5 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 2) while still maintaining green speeds greater than those historically reported for Diamond. Further testing of other annual N rates between 1.5 and 3 lb 1000 ft-2 will be needed to determine the specific amount of N required to maintain acceptable quality and optimal green speed on zoysiagrass putting greens in Tennessee. Nonetheless, the range of N rates tested in this study provides a starting point for golf course superintendents considering renovating to zoysiagrass putting surfaces.

Bermudagrass Encroachment

Aside from managing zoysiagrass for performance, golf course superintendents will likely face encroachment from another warm-season turfgrass, bermudagrass. Controlling bermudagrass in Z. japonica typically involves multiple applications of Fusilade II (fluazifop) + Turflon Ester (triclopyr) (Brosnan et al., 2011); however, the tolerance of greens-type zoysiagrass to this treatment is unknown. A two-year study was initiated in August 2020 at the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas to evaluate the tolerance of Prizm and Lazer zoysiagrass to several postemergence herbicides including Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A), Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A) + Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Revolver (26.2 fl oz/A), and Dismiss NXT (8 fl oz/A).

Unlike Z. japonica, both Fusilade II + Turflon Ester and Turflon Ester alone resulted in unacceptable an...

MTC Turf News – Devon Carroll, Plant, Soil, and Environmental Science Ph.D. candidate, The University of Tennessee and Dr. Carrie Stephens, Professor of Leadership in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, The University of Tennessee  Women’s Work

A look at most grounds crews at athletic facilities, golf courses, or landscape operations rarely reveals a woman working to maintain green spaces. Despite women comprising 51% of the U.S. population and 47% of the labor force, women represent far less than half of the labor force in the turfgrass or landscape industries. Given that turfgrass and landscape industries are estimated to support about 1.4 million jobs nation-wide, this labor group represents novel employment opportunities. Although female groundskeepers and landscape professionals have recently gained attention in media, their numbers are few. National turfgrass associations report only 2 to 4% of members who are female (Figure 1). Similarly, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that as of 2019, women comprised only 6.5% of all landscaping and groundskeeping workers.

The low percentage of women working in the turfgrass or landscaping industry classifies such work as a non-traditional job. Non-traditional jobs are classified by the United States Department of Labor as an occupation that is comprised of 25% or less female employment. Other non-traditional labor sectors with similar percentages of female employment to turfgrass and landscaping include welding, construction, plumbing, and electricians (2.2 to 5.3% women). The low engagement of women in the green industry is a problem as labor is of growing concern. In recent years, a decline in the U.S. unemployment rate and immigrant and blue-collar worker availability has affected hiring across many professions. In the past eighteen months, the labor issue has been exacerbated by the compounding effects of COVID-19. As the industry struggles to fill positions, recognizing the under-utilization of women could be a solution. Can increased recruitment of women to the green industry help close the labor gap?

Imagine if the percentage of women working in landscape related professions rose from 6.5% to 10%. Based on current estimations by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, this relatively small increase would result in an additional 50,000 women seeking employment in the green industry. Now imagine if the percentage changed to 20 or 30% women.

In recent years, the green industry has worked to create space for women by developing programs such as the Women in Landscape Network, Ladies Leading Turf sponsored by Syngenta, Women in Golf sponsored by Bayer Environmental Science, and “Women in Turf” events held at industry association meetings. Continuing these efforts and refining recruitment methods to attract women to the industry could ease labor concerns and result in a more diverse workforce. Barriers faced uniquely by women may be limiting the number of women entering and remaining in the industry. In other agricultural fields, research has identified challenges and opportunities for women as a means of increasing their recruitment. This information is of value to the turfgrass and landscape industries as a resource for improving recruitment and retention strategies for women and to ease labor concerns.

Female Experiences in Turfgrass

Researchers at the University of Tennessee in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications took a scientific approach to determine barriers and opportunities for women in the turfgrass industry by interviewing female leaders to explore their lived experiences. Thirteen female leaders participated in the study and represented diverse backgrounds of 6 to 30+ years of experience working in turfgrass; geographic locations in three countries and comprised of nine U.S. states and three Canadian provinces; and job titles i...

Tennessee Turfgrass – Tyler Carr, John Sorochan, and Jim Brosnan, Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee

Zoysiagrass is a warm-season turfgrass used on lawns and golf courses in the transition zone and southern United States. Zoysiagrasses have become popular in part because they require fewer inputs and offer enhanced cold and shade tolerance compared to bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.). On golf course fairways, tees, and roughs, two different species of zoysiagrass are most common: Zoysia japonica (e.g., ‘Meyer’, ‘El Toro’, etc.) and Z. matrella (e.g., ‘Zeon’, Zorro’, etc.) (Patton et al., 2017). Continued turfgrass breeding efforts have sparked an interest in zoysiagrass for use on putting greens.

In 1996, ‘Diamond’ (Z. matrella) was released as a fine-textured zoysiagrass with potential to be used on putting surfaces; however, research from Clemson University determined that ball roll speeds were too slow for tournament purposes (Engelke et al., 2002; Stiglbauer et al., 2009). More recently, three Z. matrella cultivars [‘Prizm’ (M60), ‘Primo’ (M85), and ‘Trinity’ (L1F)] have been released for use on putting greens in addition to ‘Lazer’ (DALZ 1308), a first-generation hybrid of Z. matrella and Z. minima (Doguet and Lehman, 2014; Doguet et al., 2016, 2017; Chandra et al., 2020). These improved zoysiagrasses were planted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN) in 2018 to study their potential for use on putting greens over multiple seasons. This article will provide a brief overview of what has been learned in that research effort. 

Nitrogen (N) Fertilizer Requirements and Green Speed

One of the major topics surrounding zoysiagrass management on putting greens is N fertilizer requirements. A 16-week study in 2020 compared the performance and quality of Prizm, Primo, Trinity, and Lazer when receiving annual N rates of 1.5 or 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (0.19 or 0.38 lb N 1000 ft-2 every two weeks during summer) supplied as urea. All plots were mowed at a 0.115” height of cut with a walk-behind reel mower (Greensmaster Flex 2100, The Toro Company, Bloomington, MN).

Most golf course superintendents are very familiar with using a Stimpmeter to provide a measure of green speed (i.e., ball roll distance; Radko, 1980). When mowing and rolling five times weekly, green speeds for all zoysiagrasses tested averaged at least 10.5’ over the 16-week study period, even when receiving 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 1). In general, the 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 rate resulted in superior color compared to 1.5 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 2) while still maintaining green speeds greater than those historically reported for Diamond. Further testing of other annual N rates between 1.5 and 3 lb 1000 ft-2 will be needed to determine the specific amount of N required to maintain acceptable quality and optimal green speed on zoysiagrass putting greens in Tennessee. Nonetheless, the range of N rates tested in this study provides a starting point for golf course superintendents considering renovating to zoysiagrass putting surfaces.

Bermudagrass Encroachment

Aside from managing zoysiagrass for performance, golf course superintendents will likely face encroachment from another warm-season turfgrass, bermudagrass. Controlling bermudagrass in Z. japonica typically involves multiple applications of Fusilade II (fluazifop) + Turflon Ester (triclopyr) (Brosnan et al., 2011); however, the tolerance of greens-type zoysiagrass to this treatment is unknown. A two-year study was initiated in August 2020 at the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas to evaluate the tolerance of Prizm and Lazer zoysiagrass to several postemergence herbicides including Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A), Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A) + Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Revolver (26.2 fl oz/A), and Dismiss NXT (8 fl oz/A).

Unlike Z. japonica, both Fusilade II + Turflon Ester and Turflon Ester alone resulted in unacceptable and...

MTC Turf News – Julie Holt, Content Director, TheTurfZone.com

The Turf Zone: Welcome to The Turf Zone. In this episode of Maryland Turfgrass, we’re talking to Shaun Meredith, Park and Safety Division Chief for Calvert County. Shaun, thanks for joining me. So we’re talking today because we’re doing a member spotlight for our magazine. First tell me a little about your current position and what you do for Calvert County.

SM: In the current position I have a really big scope of work. A lot of it has to do with athletic fields. We have over 60 total, some of them are local elementary and middle school fields we help maintain for the school district. We also have stuff ranging from highly maintained turf that has irrigation and bermudagrass or hybrid of bluemuda, as it’s come to be known, which if you don’t know, is a combination of bluegrass and bermudagrass in the same stand of turf, and we also have – the majority is not even irrigated. At that point, it’s keep it as green as you can.  Per my title, for our department, I also see a lot of – any safety issues and things throughout, not just in our parks, and I also manage all of our capital improvement projects for the Park and Recreation Department, which is about $32 million with of projects. So, it definitely keeps me very busy, we have a pretty big staff as well, we have over 600 acres of land that doesn’t just have athletic fields. It’s everything from trails to tennis courts, basketball courts, skate parks, dog parks, you name it, so customer service gets involved in a lot of that too, with being a public facility. 

TTZ: How many people are in your department working on all of that space? 

SM: Well, it really varies. Actual numbers and what we hope to get are always two different things, especially these days when it’s hard to get help. But if we’re full staff, we’re up around 60 people. 

TTZ: That’s a good size crew. How did you get to that position? What was your career path prior to this position? 

SM: I don’t know how far back everybody really wants to hear about me, but I started off, my family had a landscape business, so I grew up in that field of work. When I was a kid, I remember being out there mowing grass with my grandfather and the natural progression of things led me into the turfgrass industry. I went to Penn State and got a turfgrass degree. I went in there with all intentions of working on golf courses. So freshman year of college, I got in a bad four-wheeler accident, broke my neck in four places and paralyzed my right arm. That had me thinking about whether it was the right career path anymore. Obviously it’s not a job where you get to sit behind a desk all the time. But I stuck with it, I had a lot of good support. People encouraged me to stay in this field of work and I’m glad for that. I wouldn’t be where I’m at without it. I started off and actually ended up going into baseball. I worked in minor league baseball for eight years, going from State College, going up to New Hampshire. Minor league baseball, as people probably know is a lifestyle, I like to say, more than it is a job. You’ve gotta really be fully invested and want to spend the majority of your time there during the season, a lot of people do it. But my wife and I thought it was a good idea to try and look at a career change and something that’s a little less hour-dependent, hour demand, which led me into parks and recreation, where I’m at now. I honestly enjoy it a lot and I miss being on the grass all the time, but it keeps it fresh. There’s so many things going on, days go fast and really widen up the umbrella of knowledge, really. 

TTZ: I love the parks and rec element just from the standpoint of, you have a larger group of people that you’re kind of enhancing the experience, where you’ve got the dog parks, the hiking trails, not just the athletes out on the field or their fans and families.

Virginia Turfgrass Journal – Wendell Hutchens and David McCall, Ph.D.

It is the middle of summer, the weather is warm, bermudagrass is thriving, and spring dead spot (SDS) (Ophiosphaerella spp.) is the last thing on any turfgrass manager’s mind. However, in short time thoughts of fungicide applications for the disease will be on the forefront of many turfgrass managers growing warm-season grasses in the transition zone as these applications are typically made in the fall for suppressing SDS. But when exactly in the fall is the optimal time to apply fungicides to suppress SDS and reduce the symptoms that appear the following spring? Moreover, what are some best management practices one can implement to optimize fungicide applications for SDS?

These two questions have intrigued the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Pathology lab over the past couple of years as many turfgrass managers throughout Virginia and the surrounding states have asked us these exact questions about managing SDS with fungicides. “When do I need to apply?” And “how do I get the most out of my fungicide application?” These are excellent questions that have not been fully answered even though years of research between our lab and other labs around the country have been devoted to solving these challenging problems. Fortunately, the past year of research in our lab has given us some insight on how to mitigate these issues in regard to fungicide management of SDS.

  

Fungicide application timing study

A study was conducted at two bermudagrass locations in Virginia to determine the optimal time to apply fungicides for SDS suppression based on soil temperature and time of year. Isofetamid [Kabuto, PBI Gordon] was applied once at the highest labeled rate (3.2 fl.oz./1000ft2) for SDS at specific soil temperatures throughout the year (Table 1).  The bermudagrass at the Chesterfield location was infested with O. korrae and the bermudagrass at the Blacksburg location was infested with O. herpotricha. Plots were assessed for percent SDS and treatments were compared in the spring of 2021 following a full year’s worth of applications (Figs. 1 and 2).

Spring treatments at the Chesterfield location did not suppress SDS, but fall applications made between 66 and 59°F 5-day average soil temperatures provided excellent suppression of the disease. Applications made during the peak of summer (80°F soil temperature) and in early winter (41°F) were also ineffective at the Chesterfield location. However, the results from this study are counter to what we saw under laboratory conditions, which showed maximum fungal growth near 80°F. In contrast, certain spring and summer treatments at the Blacksburg location had moderate efficacy against SDS. Similar to the Chesterfield location, the fall treatments had the greatest efficacy against SDS at the Blacksburg location, which holds true to the long-recommended practices. Spring dead spot was suppressed by nearly all timings throughout the year at the Blacksburg location.

 

Fungicide application methods study

Tebuconazole is notoriously inconsistent in its suppression of SDS, yet it is the most commonly applied fungicide because it is affordable and has some efficacy against the disease. So, our goal was to determine application methods that optimize tebuconazole efficacy against SDS on bermudagrass. The two factors we evaluated were post-application irrigation (PAI) and tank mixture of tebuconazole with a wetting agent. A study was conducted at two sites: Blacksburg, VA and Salisbury, MD. Treatments are listed in Table 2. Ophiosphaerella herpotricha was the causal agent of SDS at both locations. Plots were assessed for percent SDS and converted to area under the progress curve (AUPC) which encompasses the amount of disease over a certain period of time (Figs. 3 and 4).

At the Salisbury, MD location in 2020, the only treatments that did not suppress SDS were the ones that had only...

North Carolina Turfgrass – Tyler Carr, John Sorochan, and Jim Brosnan, Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee

Zoysiagrass is a warm-season turfgrass used on lawns and golf courses in the transition zone and southern United States. Zoysiagrasses have become popular in part because they require fewer inputs and offer enhanced cold and shade tolerance compared to bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.). On golf course fairways, tees, and roughs, two different species of zoysiagrass are most common: Zoysia japonica (e.g., ‘Meyer’, ‘El Toro’, etc.) and Z. matrella (e.g., ‘Zeon’, Zorro’, etc.) (Patton et al., 2017). Continued turfgrass breeding efforts have sparked an interest in zoysiagrass for use on putting greens.

In 1996, ‘Diamond’ (Z. matrella) was released as a fine-textured zoysiagrass with potential to be used on putting surfaces; however, research from Clemson University determined that ball roll speeds were too slow for tournament purposes (Engelke et al., 2002; Stiglbauer et al., 2009). More recently, three Z. matrella cultivars [‘Prizm’ (M60), ‘Primo’ (M85), and ‘Trinity’ (L1F)] have been released for use on putting greens in addition to ‘Lazer’ (DALZ 1308), a first-generation hybrid of Z. matrella and Z. minima (Doguet and Lehman, 2014; Doguet et al., 2016, 2017; Chandra et al., 2020). These improved zoysiagrasses were planted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN) in 2018 to study their potential for use on putting greens over multiple seasons. This article will provide a brief overview of what has been learned in that research effort.

 

Nitrogen (N) Fertilizer Requirements and Green Speed

One of the major topics surrounding zoysiagrass management on putting greens is N fertilizer requirements. A 16-week study in 2020 compared the performance and quality of Prizm, Primo, Trinity, and Lazer when receiving annual N rates of 1.5 or 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (0.19 or 0.38 lb N 1000 ft-2 every two weeks during summer) supplied as urea. All plots were mowed at a 0.115” height of cut with a walk-behind reel mower (Greensmaster Flex 2100, The Toro Company, Bloomington, MN).

Most golf course superintendents are very familiar with using a Stimpmeter to provide a measure of green speed (i.e., ball roll distance; Radko, 1980). When mowing and rolling five times weekly, green speeds for all zoysiagrasses tested averaged at least 10.5’ over the 16-week study period, even when receiving 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 1). In general, the 3 lb N 1000 ft-2 rate resulted in superior color compared to 1.5 lb N 1000 ft-2 (Figure 2) while still maintaining green speeds greater than those historically reported for Diamond. Further testing of other annual N rates between 1.5 and 3 lb 1000 ft-2 will be needed to determine the specific amount of N required to maintain acceptable quality and optimal green speed on zoysiagrass putting greens in Tennessee. Nonetheless, the range of N rates tested in this study provides a starting point for golf course superintendents considering renovating to zoysiagrass putting surfaces.

Bermudagrass Encroachment

Aside from managing zoysiagrass for performance, golf course superintendents will likely face encroachment from another warm-season turfgrass, bermudagrass. Controlling bermudagrass in Z. japonica typically involves multiple applications of Fusilade II (fluazifop) + Turflon Ester (triclopyr) (Brosnan et al., 2011); however, the tolerance of greens-type zoysiagrass to this treatment is unknown. A two-year study was initiated in August 2020 at the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas to evaluate the tolerance of Prizm and Lazer zoysiagrass to several postemergence herbicides including Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A), Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Fusilade II (4 fl oz/A) + Turflon Ester (32 fl oz/A), Revolver (26.2 fl oz/A), and Dismiss NXT (8 fl oz/A).

Unlike Z. japonica, both Fusilade II + Turflon Ester and Turflon Ester alone resulted in...