1. What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertilization of Turfgrass? Dr. Chris Murray, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies

2. Outline What motivated this project? What motivated this project? Runoff and pollution Runoff and pollution Turfgrass as a water quality management tool Turfgrass as a water quality management tool Experiments and studies of the effect of fertilization Experiments and studies of the effect of fertilization Conclusions Conclusions

3. Project motivation A collaboration between Landscape Ontario’s Lawn Care Commodity Group and Lakehead University A collaboration between Landscape Ontario’s Lawn Care Commodity Group and Lakehead University Two factors initiated this project: Two factors initiated this project: 1. Source water protection agencies and similar organizations are considering fertilizer bans as a means of protecting water quality 2. Several studies had reported results contradicting this approach: where fertilizer is stopped, N,P in runoff increases

4. General research questions What is the true state of scientific information regarding this issue? What is the true state of scientific information regarding this issue? Is there consensus within the scientific community? Is there consensus within the scientific community? If so, does it support a ban on fertilization of turfgrass? If so, does it support a ban on fertilization of turfgrass? A primary focus of this study is the effect, both positive and detrimental, fertilization of turfgrass may have on the nutrient pollution through runoff. A primary focus of this study is the effect, both positive and detrimental, fertilization of turfgrass may have on the nutrient pollution through runoff.

5. Stormwater / runoff Most critical to understand: what dominates water pollution Most critical to understand: what dominates water pollution Why is runoff a problem? Why is runoff a problem? Runoff is “natural”, and would exist without human intervention Runoff is “natural”, and would exist without human intervention Human activity dramatically increases runoff and the pollution it carries. Human activity dramatically increases runoff and the pollution it carries. As runoff increases, pollution increases As runoff increases, pollution increases

7. Algal Blooms, Eutrophication

8. Terminology Surface water/stormwater/runoff Surface water/stormwater/runoff Infiltration/leachate Infiltration/leachate In general, we aim to increase infiltration and decrease runoff to decrease pollution In general, we aim to increase infiltration and decrease runoff to decrease pollution Why? Why? Sediment and associated chemical pollutants Sediment and associated chemical pollutants

9. Erosion Wherever development occurs, risk of increased runoff velocity and erosion Wherever development occurs, risk of increased runoff velocity and erosion More sediment is carried into water More sediment is carried into water

10. Dissolved/particulate pollution Nutrients such as phosphorous are soluble in water, but will bind with minerals in sediment Nutrients such as phosphorous are soluble in water, but will bind with minerals in sediment A very small concentration of sediment may be responsible for most of the nutrient loading A very small concentration of sediment may be responsible for most of the nutrient loading For a given mass, fine particles carry more pollution than large particles, and carry it further For a given mass, fine particles carry more pollution than large particles, and carry it further

11. How can adding fertilizer help? Turfgrass is, in general, a non-native groundcover that requires maintenance to thrive Turfgrass is, in general, a non-native groundcover that requires maintenance to thrive Without human intervention, it will not outcompete indigenous plants (weeds) which are better-suited to harsh conditions (especially drought) but not suited to human- scale runoff Without human intervention, it will not outcompete indigenous plants (weeds) which are better-suited to harsh conditions (especially drought) but not suited to human- scale runoff In general, healthier turfgrass increasingly reduces runoff and increases infiltration/evapotranspiration In general, healthier turfgrass increasingly reduces runoff and increases infiltration/evapotranspiration Runoff can be completely eliminated by turfgrass, and a lawn is often the only barrier between impervious surfaces and waterways Runoff can be completely eliminated by turfgrass, and a lawn is often the only barrier between impervious surfaces and waterways

12. Runoff, Infiltration and Erosion Control How might reducing fertilizer increase the concentration of N, P in water? How might reducing fertilizer increase the concentration of N, P in water? Small effect: increased decay of plants Small effect: increased decay of plants Large effect: less healthy turfgrass cannot hold water as effectively, so runoff increases Large effect: less healthy turfgrass cannot hold water as effectively, so runoff increases Filtering is not enough: the amount of water must be reduced Filtering is not enough: the amount of water must be reduced

14. Competing Factors The contamination of runoff by nutrients (both dissolved and particulate) found in fertilizer contributes to eutrophication of lakes causing negative impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna. The contamination of runoff by nutrients (both dissolved and particulate) found in fertilizer contributes to eutrophication of lakes causing negative impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna. Healthier turfgrass systems improve surface water quality through natural filtration and absorption of water, which reduces runoff intensity. Healthier turfgrass systems improve surface water quality through natural filtration and absorption of water, which reduces runoff intensity.

15. Reports worth examining Garn, 2002: Garn, 2002: –No runoff other than that due to rain on lawns –Increase P in runoff for fertilized lawns –The site with the best turf stand had the least runoff, though quantitative measurements not made. –No effect of fertilization on nitrogen in runoff Kussow, 2002, 2004, 2008: Kussow, 2002, 2004, 2008: –Fertilization with P leads to more P in runoff –Accounted for runoff volume –Most (runoff, nutrients) recorded when soil frozen –Without fertilization for two years, runoff, nitrogen and phosphorous increased –Whether soil is frozen is dominating factor

16. Easton and Petrovic, 2004 Easton and Petrovic, 2004 –Examined both synthetic and organic fertilizer –P losses higher from P-containing fertilizer, highest for organic types (P applied very high) –Fertilization increased infiltration, decreased runoff –Frozen soil runoff accounted for majority –Fertilization during establishment created most pollution –In many cases, equal or higher N,P losses from unfertilized control due to overall increased runoff

17. Beirman et al., 2010 Beirman et al., 2010 –Examined no fertilization, P-free, P and triple- P fertilization –Runoff highest for non-fertilized plots –P in runoff from non-fertilized site highest in year 1, the same as from site receiving P in fertilizer in subsequent four years –Frozen soil runoff dominates P loading, and recommended that no P used in Fall where runoff potential is high

18. Overview No studies perfectly controlled, perfectly realistic, but… No studies perfectly controlled, perfectly realistic, but… Usually, nutrient concentrations in runoff higher where fertilization is applied Usually, nutrient concentrations in runoff higher where fertilization is applied Usually, amount of runoff is lower where fertilization is applied Usually, amount of runoff is lower where fertilization is applied Most often, the total nutrient loss in runoff is decreased by fertilizing Most often, the total nutrient loss in runoff is decreased by fertilizing Where applicable, nutrient loss when ground is frozen dominates annual pollution Where applicable, nutrient loss when ground is frozen dominates annual pollution

19. Conclusions The majority of studies examining the effect of fertilization on turfgrass show reduced runoff (and reduced nutrient loading) when lawns are fertilized The majority of studies examining the effect of fertilization on turfgrass show reduced runoff (and reduced nutrient loading) when lawns are fertilized Turfgrass is more effective than most alternative groundcovers Turfgrass is more effective than most alternative groundcovers Frozen soil, like any impervious surface, increases runoff potential and can be responsible for most of the pollution Frozen soil, like any impervious surface, increases runoff potential and can be responsible for most of the pollution

20. For more information contact: Dr. Christopher Murray Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Lakehead University cmurray1@lakeheadu.ca

21. In many of societies, turf (grass) has received an undeserved black eye with respect to H 2 O

22. Finding Balance Lawns and Water Conservation 1 acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people 1 acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 64 people 1 acre of rocks produces enough oxygen for 0 people

23. Benefits of Turfgrass FunctionalRecreationalAesthetic  Soil erosion control  Dust prevention  Rain water entrapment  Heat dissipation  Glare reduction  Pollutant entrapment  Pest reduction  Fire prevention  Security  Environmental protection  Carbon Sequestering  Low cost surfaces  Physical health  Mental health  Safety cushion  Spectator environment  Beauty  Quality of life  Mental health  Social harmony  Community pride  Increased property values  Complements trees and shrubs in landscape Water conservation is a serious issue

24. The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages and water-quality issues are global Water shortages and water-quality issues are global There is a need to both conserve and clean the world’s water supplies There is a need to both conserve and clean the world’s water supplies Solutions need to be based on long-term, site-specific consideration Solutions need to be based on long-term, site-specific consideration

25. The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages don’t only happen in low- rainfall or developing countries Water shortages don’t only happen in low- rainfall or developing countries Weather plays a role Weather plays a role Regulation Plays a role Regulation Plays a role 30% water loss due to aging Mechanical and structural issues 30% water loss due to aging Mechanical and structural issues Environmental allocations Environmental allocations Pollution Pollution

26. The Earth is 71 % Water and 29% Land “Water, water everywhere, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.” --Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

27. The Hydrologic Cycle Amount of water has remained relatively stable for eons Amount of water has remained relatively stable for eons We cannot increase water supply – we can only recycle it We cannot increase water supply – we can only recycle it

28. Who Directly Consumes Highest % of Water? Cooling for thermoelectric generation & production agriculture Cooling for thermoelectric generation & production agriculture Domestic uses target publicly supplied water Domestic uses target publicly supplied water Greatest savings should come from greatest users Greatest savings should come from greatest users

29. Different ideas of landscape and landscape maintenance which uses more water…

30. *after 27 days with no water applied Albany, OR 2008 10,000 GALLON WATER TANK Mallard*Solar Green* How much water does your lawn use? Mallard required 8,800 gallons of water to maintain a 5,000 square foot lawn over the entire summer (90 days). Solar Green required 19,700 gallons of water to maintain the same area; using nearly two of these tanks over the same time period!

31. Mallard – 38% Green Cover Geronimo – 2% Green Cover Kentucky Bluegrass 50 Days With No Water Created by

32. TWCA ® Turfgrass Water Conservation Alliance ® is an avenue to test and qualify turfgrass cultivars for improved drought tolerance.

33.   Non-profit organization   Based on an accepted protocol (PST, NTEP, AR)   Utilized since 2002   Includes four grass seed companies – each participant develops their own brand   Has access to 8 rain out structures (OR (3), AR, VA, IN, NC, & newest addition Univ. of Guelph fall 2013)   Field testing in arid environments possible (OR, UC Riverside, CA, So NJ & possibly Olds College, Alberta, Canada) TWCA

34.   Minimum testing = 2 location/years   Finish in the top statistical group with Digital Imagery Analysis (DIA) data collections   Acceptable measure of turf quality   Comprise a minimum of 60% in blends or mixtures   3 rd party peer review of cultivars   More information available at www.tgwca.orgwww.tgwca.org PROTOCOL

35.   Drought Evaluation   Rain Out Shelters –   Oregon / Arkansas / Virginia / Indiana / North Carolina / Ontario, Canada (fall ‘13)   Field Studies –   Univ CA Riverside   Olds College – in cooperation with Guelph   Utah State – future location   Rain Out Shelter at NexGen   Field vs. Greenhouse Comparison Created by

36. RAIN OUT SHELTER (ROS) Created by

37. A new planting established

38.   Digital Image Analysis (DIA)   Types of Analysis   Color   Cover   Turf Quality   Application   Drought   Disease   Wear   Color

39. 5.0 7.0 Quality Ratings - Subjective   Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers (r < 0.68) (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992) (Horst et al., 1984) 6.0 Created by U of A

40. 5.0 7.0 Quality Ratings - Subjective   Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers (r < 0.68) (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992) (Horst et al., 1984) 6.0 Created by U of A

41. Light box and digital camera ease of use

42. Evaluations Visual quality ratings (bi-weekly) – –(1-9 with 9 = optimal turfgrass quality, 6 = acceptable turf) Cover analysis using digital images (weekly) (Richardson et al. 2001) 99.2% green turf cover 28.6% green turf cover

43. (Karcher et al., unpublished) Density Analysis Shadow count Created by U of A

44. Digital Image Analysis (DIA) 1. 1. Objective vs. Subjective 2. 2. Utilizes 1 to 9 scale 3. 3. 4 Parameters with 1 Evaluation 4. 4. Repeatable 5. 5. Calculate overall turf quality 6. 6. Requires minimal expertise 7. 7. Permanent record on file Created by U of A

45. Kentucky Bluegrass Data

46. Water Usage Comparison by Species Average 08/09

47. Assuming a 5,000 square foot lawn, this chart shows the amount of water required to maintain 40% green cover at 90 days in Albany, Oregon. (08/09)

48.  Statement  Mission Statement   An avenue to research and qualify turfgrasses that exhibit superior drought responses and provide education regarding water conservation. Role of TWCA

49. Complexity of Drought Research   Evaporation -   Water movement from the liquid to the gaseous state. In reference to turf, it normally refers from the soil to the atmosphere.   Transpiration -   Water lost as it moves from the liquid to the gaseous state through the plant into the atmosphere.   Evapotranspiration -   The total movement of water from liquid to the gaseous state, which includes the totality of the plant and the soil.

50.  Earthworms  Nematodes  Mycorrhizae fungi – phosphorous uptake  Azospirillum bacteria – brasilense amplifies effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae  Agrobacterium radiobacter – phosphorus solubilizing bacteria Help from Friends

51. How can you help? Saving up to 50% water to keep the green Possible to use less fertilizer to keep the green Possible to use less chemicals to keep the green

52. Finding Balance Lawns and Water Conservation

53. THE TWCA IS COMMITTED TO WATER CONSERVATION

54. Questions? Russ Nicholson, CPAg, CCA russ@penningtonseed.com russ@tgwca.org www.tgwca.org

55. Natural Knit® Spreading Perennial Ryegrass vs. “Regenerating Perennial Ryegrass” trial data. Planting Date: 9/4/2010. Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft. 2,vs “Regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate). Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm. Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year. On 8/6/2012, three replications of four inch diameter turf samples were removed from each test plot using a golf cup cutter. Live tillers for each sample were then counted, averaged and extrapolated to live tillers per square foot of turf area.

56. ProductReplication 1Replication 2Replication 3Average Natural Knit®9,6319,6999,5279,619 “Regenerating” ryegrass3,1533,1993,2223,191 LIVE TILLERS PER SQ FT OF TURF AREA

57. Planting Date: 9/4/2010. Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft. 2, other “regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate). Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm. Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year. On 3/30/2011, four plugs of turf were removed from one plot each of product tested. Each plug was then planted into the fallow border area next to demonstration plots to allow for standardized mowing and fertilizing throughout the year. On 8/6/2012, the diameter of each plug was measured in two directions after being trimmed around the outside edge to remove any vegetative material that was not rooted. The diameter measurements (widest and narrowest points) from each trimmed plot were averaged and used to calculate total area in cm².

58. Product Rep. # Transfer Date Beginning Diameter Beginni ng Area cm 2 Mowing Height N rate Trial Measure Date 16 – month Average Diameter Area cm² 16-month Percent Increase in Unit Area Natural Knit®13/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201231 cm733 cm²4,610% 23/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201230 cm707 cm²4,450% 33/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201235 cm962 cm²6,050% 43/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201230 cm707 cm²4,450% Avg. 15.9 cm 2 31.5 cm777 cm²4,890% “Regenerating ”13/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201221 cm336 cm²2,110% 23/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201224 cm460 cm²2,890% 33/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201225 cm472 cm²2,970% 43/30/20114.5 cm 15.9 cm 2 2.5 cm4 lb8/06/201225 cm472 cm²2,970% Avg. 15.9 cm 2 23.75 cm435 cm²2,740%

59. RTF SODDED OCT. 2011 U OF TORONTO, SCARBOROUGH CAMPUS SEPT 2012

60. AUGUST 2012

61. HLM Non- irrigated HLM Irrigated Serendipity

62. Cup changer 6 plugs per 2 x 2 m plot Taken in November Visual assessment of digging Visual rating Taken in November Grub assessment

65. All irrigate plots had more grubs Better egg survival Irrigation effect Irrigated home lawn mix plots were preferred by skunks Species composition easier to dig (fine fescue) Skunk digging preference Anecdotal information

66. 36 studies from North America Between 1930 and 2006 Two from Europe Benefits of Fall Fertilization on Turf: Citations Literature review in 2012, Bauer et al.

67. The only benefit in our climate is enhanced fall colour and early spring green-up. Increased root mass or deeper roots has not been substantiated. Research has shown a high potential for N leaching at that time of year Findings

68. My own findings : school trials: My own findings : school trials: –On newer soils, compacted, the newer technology(Poly coated products) outperformed the MU’s, IBDU, and organics Have seen some great results with late fall fertilizer…on struggling turf. Have seen some great results with late fall fertilizer…on struggling turf. LCO’s: seeing more of a shift to: LCO’s: seeing more of a shift to: – higher end products, – cut back on the number of apps –Load up on spring with a 70-90% SRN –Experimenting with reducing N by ½ to ¾ lb/1000 –Improve turf density ahead of weeds

69. Acknowledgements Dr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland Research Station Dr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland Research Station Pam Charbonneau, OMAFRA Pam Charbonneau, OMAFRA Russ Nicholson, TWCA Russ Nicholson, TWCA Dol Turf Restoration Dol Turf Restoration Sports Turf International Sports Turf International Dr. Chris Murray, Lakehead University Dr. Chris Murray, Lakehead University Hagen Ledeboer, Ledeboer Seed Hagen Ledeboer, Ledeboer Seed

70. Ken Pavely kpavely.lawnlife@xplornet.ca kpavely.lawnlife@xplornet.ca kpavely.lawnlife@xplornet.ca www.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com www.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com www.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com 519 939 6063 519 939 6063 THANK YOU!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!