Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Investigation of Soil Amendments for Use in USGA Putting Greens T.W. Shaddox.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Investigation of Soil Amendments for Use in USGA Putting Greens T.W. Shaddox."— Presentation transcript:

1 Investigation of Soil Amendments for Use in USGA Putting Greens T.W. Shaddox

2 Droughts from 1997 to 2000 have brought about consumptive use permits for many superintendents Droughts from 1997 to 2000 have brought about consumptive use permits for many superintendents Superintendents have less water to maintain the same quality turfgrass Superintendents have less water to maintain the same quality turfgrass Problem Assessment

3 Case Study Colbert Hills GC – Manhattan, KS (Fry, 2002) –120 million gallons year -1 = 374 acre feet –374 / 365 days ≈ 1 acre foot day -1 –1 acre foot / 150 acres = 0.08 inches day -1 !!

4 Greens receive 2-3 X more N than Fairways Greens receive 2-3 X more N than Fairways Greens typically receive daily irrigation Greens typically receive daily irrigation Low nutrient retention in sand-based greens Low nutrient retention in sand-based greens –27% of applied P may leach (Shuman, 2001) –56% of applied N may leach (Snyder, 1984) Problem Assessment

5 Literature Review

6

7 Surfactant HDTMA HDTMA CH 3 (CH 2 ) 15 N(CH 3 ) 3

8 Sorption Process Å

9 Objective: To determine the influence of soil amendments and incorporation method on water use efficiency (WUE) of Tifdwarf bermudagrass H o : Soil amendments and incorporation method do not increase Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peat

10 Objective: Objective: To determine the influence of surfactant- modified amendments (SMSAs) on N and P leaching in a simulated USGA putting green H o : SMSAs do not reduce N and P leaching in USGA putting greens

11 Materials and Methods Water Use

12 Methods All pots in each study were maintained at 90% pot capacity All pots in each study were maintained at 90% pot capacity Sprigged with Tifdwarf Sprigged with Tifdwarf Pots were havested and weighed weekly for 18 weeks Pots were havested and weighed weekly for 18 weeks WUE = dry matter / applied water WUE = dry matter / applied water Turf Quality taken weekly (1 to 9) Turf Quality taken weekly (1 to 9) 10 trts 4 reps RCBD 10 trts 4 reps RCBD Duncans MRT α = 0.05 Duncans MRT α = 0.05

13 Treatments Treatment Rootzone Media (85:15) Control Control Sand Sand Organic Organic Sand:Peat Sand:Peat Organic Organic Sand:Iron Humate Sand:Iron Humate Zeolite Zeolite Sand:Ecosand Sand:Ecosand Zeolite Zeolite Sand:Ecolite Sand:Ecolite Diatomaceous Earth Diatomaceous Earth Sand:Axis Sand:Axis Diatomaceous Earth Diatomaceous Earth Sand:PSA Sand:PSA Calcined Clay Calcined Clay Sand:Profile Sand:Profile Calcined Clay Calcined Clay Sand:Soil Master Plus Sand:Soil Master Plus Smectite Smectite Sand:Smectite Sand:Smectite

14 Incorporation Method Mixed Profile (85:15) Aerification (50:50) 9 Cores 9 Cores 4 Cores 4 Cores Sand + Amendment Sand + Peat

15

16 Materials and Methods N and P leaching

17 PUMP H2OH2O 30 cm 5 cm 2.54 cm Materials and Methods Pump H2OH2O Treatment Layer Sand/Peat 5 cm 30 cm 2.5 cm Columns Columns –P b = 1.5 g cm -3 –pH = 7.1 Injection Solution Injection Solution –pH = 2.5 –NO 3 -N = 2300 ppm –NH 4 -N = 2480 ppm –P = 4400 ppm –10 mL

18 Materials and Methods Treatments: Treatments: –Sand –Sand/Peat –Ecosand –Soil Master –Profile –HDTMA Ecosand –HDTMA Soil Master –HDTMA Profile Treatment = 8 Treatment = 8 Rep = 3 Rep = 3 Duncans MRT Duncans MRT α = 0.05

19 SMSA Characteristics Solid Phase HDTMA Sorbed CECECECEAEC g kg -1 g kg cmol (+) kg cmol (+) kg cmol (-) kg -1 Soil Master Profile Ecosand

20 Results Water Use

21 Rootzone Chemical and Physical Characteristics TreatmentCECTKNPFeFCPAW cmol (+) kg -1 cmol (+) kg -1 % -- mg kg mg kg % % Sand Peat Soil Master Profile Ecosand Ecolite Axis PSA Smectite Iron Humate

22 ANOVA Turf Quality Source of Variation df Mean Squares F Value Block * Amendment (A) *** Method (M) *** A × M *** Error Total109 *, ***, Significant at 0.05, probability levels, respectively

23 Turf Quality Full Incorporation CV = 4.3 a c c cc bb d d e minimum acceptable quality

24 Turf Quality 9 Tine Aerification CV = 1.9 a de bc ef cd bc b de f minimum acceptable quality

25 Turf Quality 4 Tine Aerification CV = 1.8 minimum acceptable quality a d bc d bc d bc b dcd d

26 ANOVA Turf WUE Source of Variation df Mean Squares F Value Block Amendment (A) *** Method (M) *** A × M *** Error Total109 *, ***, Significant at 0.05, probability levels, respectively

27 WUE Full Incorporation CV = 6.8 a ab d c b b d c a

28 WUE 9 Tine Aerification CV = 8.3 a b bc c c

29 WUE 4 Tine Aerification CV = 9.2 a b b bb b bb bb

30 WUE by Incorporation Method CV = 3.5

31 WUE Summary Only CCs and Fe Humate increased turf quality Only CCs and Fe Humate increased turf quality Individually, PAW and CEC are not good indicators of an amendment’s influence on WUE Individually, PAW and CEC are not good indicators of an amendment’s influence on WUE Fe Humate, CCs, and diatomaceous earths increased WUE above peat Fe Humate, CCs, and diatomaceous earths increased WUE above peat Fe Humate produced the greatest increase in WUE Fe Humate produced the greatest increase in WUE Amendment influence was decreased after aerification Amendment influence was decreased after aerification

32 WUE Conclusion WUE WUE –Reject H o and conclude: Calcined clays, Diat. Earths, smectite, and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peat Calcined clays, Diat. Earths, smectite, and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peat Quality Quality –Reject H o and conclude: Calcined clays and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf quality above sand:peat Calcined clays and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf quality above sand:peat

33 Practical Implications When WUE and turf quality are of concern, calcined clays and fe humate are plausible options to peat When WUE and turf quality are of concern, calcined clays and fe humate are plausible options to peat

34 Results N and P Leaching

35 NO 3 - -N Breakthrough Curves Sand Sand/Peat HDTMA-Soil Master AEC = 11.3 HDTMA-Profile AEC = 9.7 HDTMA-Clinoptilolite AEC = 4.1 Soil Master Profile Clinoptilolite

36 Total NO 3 -N Leached Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05 CV = 9.8

37 NH 4 + -N Breakthrough Curves Sand Sand/Peat HDTMA-Soil Master AEC = 11.3 HDTMA-Profile AEC = 9.7 HDTMA-Clinoptilolite AEC = 4.1 Soil Master Profile Clinoptilolite

38 Total NH 4 -N Leached Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05 CV = 12.9

39 P Breakthrough Curves Sand Sand/Peat HDTMA-Soil Master AEC = 11.3 HDTMA-Profile AEC = 9.7 HDTMA-Clinoptilolite AEC = 4.1 Soil Master Profile Clinoptilolite

40 Total Phosphorous Leached Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05 CV = 6.9

41 Leaching Summary Uncoated amendments: Uncoated amendments: –did not retard or decrease NO 3 - leaching –eliminated NH 4 + leaching –retarded but did not decrease P leaching. SMSAs reduced NO 3 -, NH 4 +, and P leaching SMSAs reduced NO 3 -, NH 4 +, and P leaching

42 Leaching Conclusion Reject H o and conclude: Reject H o and conclude: –SMSAs reduce N and P leaching

43 Future Research Long-term influence on leaching and stability Long-term influence on leaching and stability Microbial degradation Microbial degradation Influence on turf growth Influence on turf growth

44 Acknowledgments Committee Committee –Jerry Sartain (Chair) –Donald Graetz –Peter Nkedi-Kizza –James Bonczek –Grady Miller SWSD Grad Students SWSD Grad Students –E. Brown, R. Snyder, K. Makris Lab Personnel Lab Personnel –Ed Hopwood, Nahid Varshovi, Shawron Weingarten, Brian Owens, Martin Sandquist Florida Turfgrass Association Florida Turfgrass Association

45 Questions


Download ppt "Investigation of Soil Amendments for Use in USGA Putting Greens T.W. Shaddox."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google