maximizing turf health - sommet du golf · 2015-12-21 · maximizing turf health. bentgrass putting...

Jim Kerns, Ph.D.Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist

NC State UniversityDepartment of Plant Pathology

Maximizing Turf Health

Bentgrass Putting Greens Diagnoses

2015

16%

3%3%

10%

15%

53%

No Disease Root RotSummer Patch Fairy RingChemical Injury Other

2014

14%4%

5%

8%

9%60%

No Disease High SaltsRoot Rot AnthracnoseRoot Dysfunction Other

Bermuda Putting Green Diagnoses

2014

29%

6%8%

12%13%

32%

No DiseasePythium BlightLeaf SpotMini RingCream Leaf BlightOther

2015

25%

6%6%

9% 18%

36%

No DiseasePythium BlightLeaf SpotMini RingNematodesOther

BermudaDiseasesbyMonth

• Bipolaris-JulythruOctober• Pythiumblight-Allyearlong• Microdochium-MarchthruApril• R.zeae-AugustthruSeptember(April/May)

AMOUNT OF DISEASE

HO

ST

ENVI

RON

MEN

T

PATHOGEN

Disease Triangle

What five things do turf plants need to be healthy???

• light

• air

• food

• water

• protection

• Color

• Growth

• Turf Quality

• Root length

• Root Mass

• Ball Speed

Best Measurement of Plant Health????

• Color

• Growth

• Turf Quality

• Root length

• Root Mass

• Ball Speed

Best Measurement of Plant Health????

• Color

• Growth

• Turf Quality

• Root length

• Root Mass

• Ball Speed

Best Measurement of Plant Health????

Solution for Shade

Four factors contribute to summer turf stress/loss

1. Heat - most difficult to control often associated

w/ drought stress (non-irrigated conditions)

2. Wear

3. Desiccation

4. Disease: anthracnose, leaf spots, bacterial

diseases, Pythium, summer patch

Reasons for Root Loss

Above ground

Reasons for Root Loss

Above ground

Reasons for Root Loss

Above ground

§ photosynthesis declines, photorespiration increases

Reasons for Root Loss

Above ground

§ photosynthesis declines, photorespiration increases

§ plant consumes more energy than it produces

Reasons for Root Loss

Above ground

§ photosynthesis declines, photorespiration increases

§ plant consumes more energy than it produces

§ carbohydrate reserves depleted, leading to loss of root mass

Reasons for Root Loss

Reasons for Root Loss

Below ground

Reasons for Root Loss

Below ground§ as soil temperature increases, respiration rate in roots

increases

Reasons for Root Loss

Below ground§ as soil temperature increases, respiration rate in roots

increases§ if oxygen levels in soil are low, roots undergo anaerobic

respiration, which is very inefficient

Reasons for Root Loss

Below ground§ as soil temperature increases, respiration rate in roots

increases§ if oxygen levels in soil are low, roots undergo anaerobic

respiration, which is very inefficient§ Carbohydrate reserves depleted further, leading to

further loss of root mass

Reasons for Root Loss

Below ground§ as soil temperature increases, respiration rate in roots

increases§ if oxygen levels in soil are low, roots undergo anaerobic

respiration, which is very inefficient§ Carbohydrate reserves depleted further, leading to

further loss of root mass

Reasons for Root Loss

Phot

osyn

thes

is o

r R

espi

ratio

n

March June Sept Dec

Photosynthesis

Respiration

Slide Courtesy of Dr. Brian Horgan

Time of Year Effects

Photorespiration

• High Temps (> 75° F)

• CO2 + H2O = Less Sugars (C6H12O6)

• O2 + CO2

• Rubisco enzyme less selective

• Leaf O2 when stomata close

Phot

osyn

thes

is

8 am 12 pm 7 pm

Photorespiration

Slide Courtesy of Dr. Brian Horgan

Photorespiration

Types of Heat Stress§ Indirect

§ Long periods of temps above optimal

§ Not immediately fatal

§ Negative effect on physiological processes

§ Direct

§ Rapid increase in temp, last for a short time

§ Denature proteins

§ Cell membrane rupture

§ More of a problem in roots

§ Rarer than indirect stress

Morphological Effects

§ Chlorosis

§ Reduced shoot growth

§ Reduced root growth (length, viability)

§ Tillering

§ Leaf size

§ Turf density

Free Radicals

§ Superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, singlet oxygen

§ Strong oxidizing agents, very toxic

§ React with fatty acids and proteins and cause damage to cell membranes

§ Antioxidants—destroy free radicals

§ Heat stress leads to a decline in antioxidants

Effects of Heat Stress

1. Increase in rate of root maturation; no new roots

2. Death of root system

3. Decline in shoot growth (reduced leaf width, length,

and rate of appearance)

Tur

f Q

ualit

y

0.0

2.3

4.5

6.8

9.0

Days of Treatment

0 14 28 42 56

68/6895/6868/9595/95

After Xu & Huang, 2000

‘Penncross’ response to Day/Night Temperatures

68/68 68/98 98/68 98/98 68/68 68/98 98/68 98/98

Penncross

45 daysMowing/day Mowing/2 day

Huang, 2001

Creeping bentgrass root influenced by temperature

24.0

26.8

29.5

32.3

35.0

0100

0500

0900

1300

1700

2100

ControlSyringingFansSyr + Fans

Hour of Day

Soil

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

LSD0.05 = 0.718 Aug. 2000

Max air temp. = 39

Guertal et al., Crop Sci. 45:245-250, 2005

93F

90F

86F

82F

79F

Cooling with Fans and Syringing

Source: Beard, 1973

Cooling Effects of Syringing

Syringing

§ In general, in areas where cool season turf is grown

§ Syringing causes a 1 to 4°F decrease in canopy temp. for up to 2 hours

N15 root uptake

§ N uptake indication of amino acid production

§ N15 highest in May, lowest in August

Nitrate Reductase Enzyme

§ NR key enzyme in NO3 assimilation (sensitive to high temps)

§ NR lowest in summer

§ Nutrient uptake inhibited when temps high

IMPACT OF NITRATE CONCENTRATION ON ROOT AND SHOOT GROWTH

0.035 mM 1.0 mMNitrate-N

Elevated nitrate (1.0 mM) dramatically reduced rootgrowth with only modest increase in shoot growth.

Nitrate delivered via the xylem to shoots diverted fixed C from transport to

roots to amino acid synthesis in leaves and greater shoot growth.

NH4+ in solution

Replacing nitrate with ammonium promoted shoot growth without

inhibiting growth of roots.

Here there was no nitrate present to inhibit transport of

sugars from leaves to roots.

grown on sand. Some treatments produced quality levels

inferior to the control. This was especially truefor treatments containing Fe. For example, scalpratings sometimes were significantly higher inplots treated with Ultraplex, IronRoots, Knife(both rates), and Lesco 12-0-0 versus the control(Table 2). The darkening of the canopy by Femade scalping damage more conspicuous.Scalping injury appeared as a reddish discol-oration and thinning in Fe-treated plots. Scalpingwas made less conspicuous by the lighter greencanopy color in the control. During this period,all treatments that did not include urea generallyexhibited extremely poor quality. Except onAugust 5, plots treated with urea alone hadacceptable quality on all dates between July 28and August 26. PanaSea Plus + urea and RootsConcentrate + urea had acceptable quality on fourof six rating dates over the same period.IronRoots + urea produced acceptable quality ononly July 29 and August 19.

NDVI readings have been correlated withvisual color ratings and chlorophyll levels. Onlyplots receiving N from urea had higher NDVI rat-ings versus the control. On only two dates did

NDVI show an increase in color in plots treatedwith Ultraplex (July 14) and Lesco 12-0-0(August 20). Ultraplex, Lesco 12-0-0, and Knifecontain N, but apparently the N delivered to plantsfrom these products had little or no impact onchlorophyll production. Significantly higherNDVI ratings were not consistently detected inurea-treated plots until July 2 (i.e., after two appli-cations). After July 2, NDVI ratings invariablywere higher in plots receiving N from urea versusthe control, but the meter readings were essential-ly the same among all urea treatments.

Discussion

The performance of treatments were simi-lar in both IL and MD. Quality data were aver-aged over the 2008 season and shown in Figure11. Average quality ratings were lower in MD dueto bentgrass scalping which was not a problem inIL. Average quality data show that in both IL andMD urea alone and urea tank-mixed with biostim-ulants provided for best summer quality.Ultraplex and Lesco 12-0-0 improved quality sig-nificantly compared to the control. Plots treated

Figure 11. Visual quality ratings for all treatments when data were averaged over the 2008 season in IL and MD. Minimumacceptable quality was = 7.0. Bars with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD, P <0.05.

13

Light Requirements for Turf

TifEagle

Celebration

Diamond Zoysia

Perennial Ryegrass

mols per day

0 10 20 30 40

Comprehensive Treatment of Ball Roll Distance

http://grounds-mag.com/golf_courses/grounds_maintenance_cultural_environmental_factors/

Effects of Fertility on Ball Speed

Compaction Increases Heat Capacity

Venting and Aerification

Ø Do not neglect annual aerification and/or topdressing

Ø Golf Course Greens: Poke holes every three weeksØ Increase surface gas exchange and drainageØ Temperature moderation

Impact of Summer Topdressing Rate and Frequency on Anthracnose

Interval (days)71428

Rate (ft3 1000-ft-2)No sand

1 (0.3 L m-2)2 (0.6 L m-2)

1 ft3 1000 ft-22 ft3 1000 ft-2

All plots brushed uniformly

% D

isea

se

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

6/18/06 7/8/06 7/28/06 8/17/06 9/6/06

0 12

a

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

C

a

b

c

Effect of Topdressing Rate on Anthracnoseof Annual Bluegrass

sand ft3/1,000ft2

No Sand Sand1 ft3/1000-ft2

2.0 ft3/1000-ft21.0 ft3/1000-ft2No Sand

§ Topdressing improves surface characteristics

2.0 ft3/1000-ft21.0 ft3/1000-ft2No Sand

§ Topdressing improves surface characteristics

§ Firmer surface raises effective height of cut

Increasing Photosynthetic Potential

Mow

ing

Hei

ght

Low Medium High

0.1560.141

0.125

+25%+13%

1/8” 9/64” 5/32”

Courtesy Dr. Greg Bell, Ok State

2004

Treatment June July August

Mowing 8.00AB 7.67AB 7.00CD

Mowing w/ rolling 8.00AB 7.5BC 6.67D

Alternating mowing w/ rolling 8.33A 8.17AB 8.00AB

Interaction means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD(0.05).

Slide Courtesy of Dr. John Sorochan

Turfgrass quality on a creeping bentgrass putting green during summer heat stress, June –

August, 2004.

2005

Treatment June July August

Mowing 7.00A 7.00A 6.00B

Mowing w/ rolling 7.00A 6.23B 5.43C

Alternating mowing w/ rolling 7.00A 7.00A 6.87A

Interaction means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to LSD(0.05).

Slide Courtesy of Dr. John Sorochan

Turfgrass quality on a creeping bentgrass putting green during summer heat stress, June –

August, 2005.

Bal

l Rol

l Dis

tanc

e (f

t)

6.50

7.44

8.39

9.33

10.28

11.22

12.17

13.11

14.06

15.00

Weeks1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Walk-mowWalk-mow and RollingWalk-mow alternating w/ Rolling

+

Note: All other dates are not significant at 0.05 probability level.

* + + ++

Slide Courtesy of Dr. John Sorochan

Treatment Effects for Green Speed: Knoxville, TN (1 June – 1 September 2006)

Techniques for Improving Fungicide Performance

1. Maintain healthy turf

2. Get an accurate diagnosis

3. Select the best fungicide

4. Time applications properly

5. Put the fungicide where the pathogen is

6. Provide uniform coverage of the target site

7. Prevent fungicide resistance

• some diseases can be diagnosed easily in the field

• many cannot and a lab diagnosis is essential

• Many diseases appear similar from a distance.

• Root diseases are difficult to distinguish without the aid of a microscope.

• Many diseases appear similar from a distance.

• Root diseases are difficult to distinguish without the aid of a microscope.

•nutrient analysis - soil and tissue

•monitor soil health

•drainage

•layering

•black layer

No disease? What NOW?!?!?

Many fungicides are available

How do you pick the right one???

Fungicide Selection References

• Plant Disease Management Reports

• http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/trial/pdmr/

• NCSU Disease Management Utility

• http://turfdiseasemanagement.ncsu.edu/nc

• UW Turf Pathology Lab

• http://labs.russell.wisc.edu/tdl/

• “A Practical Guide to Turfgrass Fungicides”

• Product Labels

Curative Dollar spot Control NCSU 2012

Dollar spot Management on Fairways

Bay FLO 1.5 floz

Tartan 2 floz

Mirage 2 floz

Xzemplar 0.262 floz

Banner MAXX 2 floz

Control

Dollar spot severity (% area affected per plot)

0 7.5 15 22.5 30

c

c

c

c

b

a

Applications on April 24 and May 22Rating on June 18

Dollar Spot Management

Non-treated

Emerald (0.13)

Banner MAXX II (2.0)

Velista (0.5)

Encartis (3.0)

Encartis (3.0 21 d)

Enclave (4.0) + Foursome (0.4)

DacAction (3.5) + Briskway (0.5)

DacAction (3.5) + Appear (6.0)

DacAction (3.2) + Sig (4.0)

Secure (0.5)

Secure (0.5) + Appear (6.0)

No. of spots per plot

0 100 200 300 400

Creeping Bentgrass Health Study: Raleigh, NC 2013

Untreated

Briskway 0.3 floz

Honor 0.84 oz

Interface 4 floz

AUDPC values0 1750 3500 5250 7000

May 14, May 29, Jun 12, Jun 25

Preventative dollar spot control fairways: UW-Madison, 2009

Untreated

Trinity 1 floz

Insignia 0.7 oz

Velista 0.5 oz

Emerald 0.18 oz

Concert 4.5 floz

Triton FLO 0.75 floz

Interface 4 floz

Tartan 1.5 floz

Banner MAXX 1 floz

No. of dollar spots per plot

0 45 90 135 180

**

**

*

* 21 day spray interval

• Temperature Dependent

– ↑ Temp ↑ Bio Activity

• Beasley and Branham (2005)

– TE half-life temp. dependent

– 6.4 Days @ 64°F

– 3.1 Days @ 86°F

• Increasing temperature from 64 to 86 cut the half-life by ~50%

LengthofEfficacyGovernedbyPlantMetabolismRates

Madison,WIDailyAverageTemp

Re-application Interval Varies With Time of Year

Growth Phase Modeling

Poaannuaresponse

Growth Phase Modeling

0.25oz/M(11oz/Acre)Rate

Paclobutrazol (Trimmit) GDD Model

ClassA(Primo)workshere

ClassBworkshereCutless,Trimmit

AcJveformofGA

ClassA(Primo)workshere

ClassBworkshereCutless,Trimmit

AcJveformofGA• Class B PGRs have fungicidal properties

• How much?

• How long?

Treatment AcIveIngredient ChemicalClassBannerMAXX1.5floz/1000P2 Propiconazole

DMI

Insignia0.9oz/1000P2 Pyraclostrobin

Strobilurin

Trinity1.2floz/1000P2

TriJconazoleDMI

PrimoMAXX0.125floz/1000P2

Trinexapac-ethylPGR

Banner+PrimoSamerates

Propiconazole/Trinexapac-ethylDMI/PGR

Reserve4oz/1000P2

TriJconazole/Chlorothalonil DMI/Chloronitrile

Interface5oz/1000P2 Iprodione/Trifloxystrobin Dicarboximide/Strobilurin

Control N/A N/A

Study Design

3.00

4.25

5.50

6.75

8.00

6/9/2011

6/16/2011

6/24/2011

6/29/2011

7/8/2011

7/14/2011

7/21/2011

7/28/2011

8/4/2011

8/10/2011

8/18/2011

8/25/2011

BannerMaxx BannerMaxx+Primo Insignia Interface PrimoReserve Trinity Control

Turfg

rassQuality(1-9)

3.00

4.25

5.50

6.75

8.00

6/9/2011

6/16/2011

6/24/2011

6/29/2011

7/8/2011

7/14/2011

7/21/2011

7/28/2011

8/4/2011

8/10/2011

8/18/2011

8/25/2011

BannerMaxx BannerMaxx+Primo Insignia Interface PrimoReserve Trinity Control

Turfg

rassQuality(1-9)

DMI applications for fairy ring prevention are often made around the time of aerification.

Do the DMIs slow the recovery process?

Fungicide Treatments Fertilizer Treatments

Rubigan, 1.2 fl oz none

Tourney, 0.37 oz 0.062 lbs N from 18-3-6

Eagle, 1.2 fl oz 0.125 lbs from 18-3-6

Banner Maxx, 2 fl oz

Torque, 0.6 fl oz

Bayleton FLO, 1 fl oz

Trinity, 2 fl oz

Triton Flo, 1.1 fl oz

All plots received 0.25 lbs N/1000 ft2 prior to trial initiation. Fertilizer treatments applied weekly. Fungicide treatments applied twice on four week interval.

Measuring the rate of recovery from aerification

Fertilization counteracts the inhibitory effect of the DMI fungicides

*

* * *

* *

*

A-1, 2010

Penncross is less sensitive to the DMIs than A-1

Penncross, 2010

A-1, 2011

DMIs actually increased recovery rate of A-1 in 2011

Banner

Bayleton

Torque

Tourney

Trinity

Eagle

Triton

Untreated

Recovery Rate

0 2 3 5 6

None 0.062 lb N 0.125 lb N

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Penncross, 2011

Very few significant differences on Penncross in 2011

Banner

Bayleton

Torque

Tourney

Trinity

Eagle

Triton

Untreated

0 2 3 5 6

None 0.062 lb N 0.125 lb N

Bayleton FLO 2 fl oz

Tartan 2 fl oz

Trinity 2 fl oz

Triton FLO 1.1 fl oz

Reserve 5.4 fl oz

Banner MAXX 4 fl oz

Headway 3 fl oz

Briskway 0.725 fl oz

Torque 1.1 fl oz

Tourney 0.37 oz

Non-treated control

Phytotoxicity (0-5)

0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3

Champion Miniverde

Torque 0.6 oz

Headway 3 fl oz

25

QoI effects on plant growth

Irrigation Regime

Treatment Light and Frequent Deep and Infrequent

----------------------root depth (cm)-------------------

Insignia SC 11.5 a 11.7 a

Honor 11.7 a 11.5 a

Untreated 11.7 a 10.7 b

*42 days after treatmentBrosnan et al., 2010

Rooting depth of ‘Penncross’ CRB treated with pyraclosrobin- University of Tenn.

Irrigation Regime

Treatment Light and Frequent Deep and Infrequent

----------------------root depth (cm)-------------------

Insignia SC 11.5 a 11.7 a

Honor 11.7 a 11.5 a

Untreated 11.7 a 10.7 b

*42 days after treatmentBrosnan et al., 2010

Limited differences in visual turfgrass quality!

Fungicides should be used for disease management only, any additive benefits are merely a bonus!

Rooting depth of ‘Penncross’ CRB treated with pyraclosrobin- University of Tenn.

Chemicaland

BiologicalElicitors

Chemicaland

BiologicalElicitors

CivitaselicitsanISRresponseDacAcIonelicitsanSARresponse

SAR and ISR in Plants

Mechanism of SAR

Seasonal Fungicide Programs UW-Madison 2014

Non-treated

BASF 1

BASF 2

BASF 3

BASF 4

No. of dollar spot per plot

0 125 250 375 500

Non-treated

BASF 1

BASF 2

BASF 3

BASF 4

Turfgrass Quality (1-9)

0 2 4 6 8

Seasonal Fungicide Programs UW-Madison 2014

Soil Microbial Community

Plant Pathogens

Microbial respiration and biomass in turf

Yao et. al., 2011. Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Shi et. al., 2006. Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Management Effects on Soil Microbes

Page 6 of 10

Figure 1. Microbial populations in sports fields at Texas A&M University. Kyle field and the soccer complex are sand-based roots zones whereas the intramural field is a native soil.

Kyle Field

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Bacteria

1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5Fungi

1/1/2003 1/1/2004 3.03.54.04.55.05.56.0

Fungi

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5 Bacteria

TAMU Soccer Field

Intramural field

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

7.0

7.5

8.0

Bacteria

Date1/1/2004 1/1/2005 4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5Fungi

Page 6 of 10

Figure 1. Microbial populations in sports fields at Texas A&M University. Kyle field and the soccer complex are sand-based roots zones whereas the intramural field is a native soil.

Kyle Field

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Bacteria

1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5Fungi

1/1/2003 1/1/2004 3.03.54.04.55.05.56.0

Fungi

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5 Bacteria

TAMU Soccer Field

Intramural field

Lo

g10

Bac

teri

a / F

un

gi p

er g

ram

7.0

7.5

8.0

Bacteria

Date1/1/2004 1/1/2005 4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5Fungi

Page 7 of 10

We have found similar populations in common bermudagrass with and without compost

additions (15 or 90 tons per acre), sand-based putting greens under dwarf bermudagrass

varieties and even under common bermudagrass treated with molasses at 16 times the

suggested rate of the vendor. I hope these data dispel the notion that sports turf is “lacking soil

microbes” and that microbial preparations (microbial inoculants, small amounts of carbon

sources like molasses or sugar, etc.) are needed to restore them.

While the numbers of microbes in soil are no doubt impressive, it is the biomass (weight)

of the microbes that truly indicates their abundance. Though not all soil microbes are actively

growing at any given point in time, a large biomass indicates great potential for the many

biochemical activities of the microbes under appropriate conditions for their growth! A healthy

stand of grass can literally contain tons of soil microbes! Thus, we know that soils with large

active populations do in fact mediate lots of beneficial processes in the soil.

We are only at the beginning of our understanding of the microbial biodiversity in soils

and sand-based systems. Molecular biology research from the past two decades suggests

there may be as many as 4000 – 13,000 species of bacteria in a single gram of soil. Moreover,

we have managed to culture only a very small percentage of these in the lab. The challenges of

understanding and harnessing this diversity are many but they must be understood in order to

Table 3. Conversion of exponential numbers and logs (base 10) to their numerical values.

Exponential Log10 Number

108 8 100,000,000 107 7 10,000,000 106 6 1,000,000 105 5 100,000 104 4 10,000 103 3 1,000 102 2 100 101 1 10

Zuberer. 2005. SportsTurf Magazine

Short Life Syndrome of Peach Trees

Ritchie and Clayton. 1981Plant Disease

Symptoms of Nematode Damage in Turf

Nematode Populations in TurfNCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No. FY15-N000252

Completed: Received:Sampled:

Nematode Report

Client: Advisor:

Farm: Links to Helpful Information

Predictive

Carmel Country Club08/11/201408/07/2014 08/26/2014

Kevin LutzCarmel Country Club4735 Carmel RdCharlotte, NC 28226

Sampled County : Mecklenburg

Jim KernsNCSU Dept. Plant PathologyNCSU Box 7616Raleigh, NC 27695

This golf course has high number of lance, ring and root-knot nematodes at damaging level.Nematologist’s Comments:

Total # Samples on Report:

Sample ID Lab ID Next Crop

Action Code(s)

NemaNotes

Lance Ring RootKnot Spiral StubbyRoot Stunt

S S S S S S S SH H H H H H H H

10

Sample InformationFor each species listed, column S = # nematodes per 500 cc soil and column H = hazard index for crop.Results and Recommendations:

76030402402960690N002131NC1 15-40 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

880308012018002520N002132NC2 15-40 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

40002401005602880N002133NC3 15-40 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

46404056031020401000N002134NC4 15-40 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

600302001201480300N002135NC6 1-20 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

16080401301000540N002136NC10 15-40 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

1602040307401080N002137NC12 15-40 1-20 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

2003080909601160N002138NC14 15-40 1-20 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

1601024025012001480N002139NC18 15-40 15-50 1-20Bturfgrass 7-2

160203607081010N002140SC18 1-20 1-20 1-20Aturfgrass 7-2

Reprogramming of the laboratory-information-management system that makes this report possible is being funded through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.

Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality. - Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture.

Nortica and Banol Effects on Turf Quality of CRB

a

a

b

b

b

a

ab

b

Nortica and Banol Effects on Turf Quality of CRB

Banol 2 fl oz

Banol 2 fl oz + Nortica 12.9 oz

Nortica 12.9 oz

Non-treated Control

TQ (1-9)/Disease Severity (%)

0 4.5 9 13.5 18

TQ 06-18-14Yellow Spot (%)

a

a

b

b

b

a

ab

b

Nortica and Banol Effects on Turf Quality of CRB

Banol 2 fl oz

Banol 2 fl oz + Nortica 12.9 oz

Nortica 12.9 oz

Non-treated Control

TQ (1-9)/Disease Severity (%)

0 4.5 9 13.5 18

TQ 06-18-14Yellow Spot (%)

a

a

b

b

b

a

ab

b

Nortica and Banol Effects on Turf Quality of CRB

Banol 2 fl oz

Banol 2 fl oz + Nortica 12.9 oz

Nortica 12.9 oz

Non-treated Control

TQ (1-9)/Disease Severity (%)

0 4.5 9 13.5 18

TQ 06-18-14Yellow Spot (%)

a

a

b

b

b

a

ab

b

Effects of Signature and Nortica on Aerification RecoveryR

ecov

ery

Rat

ing

(0=

aeri

fied,

5=

heal

ed)

0

1.25

2.5

3.75

5

June 9 June 20 June 23 July 7 July 22

Signature 4 oz + DacUltrex 3.2 ozNortica 12.9 ozSiganture 4 oz + DacUltrex 3.2 oz/NorticaNon-treated Control

bb

aba

Signature and Nortica Effects on Turf Quality

Sig 4 oz + DacUltrex 3.2 oz

Nortica 12.9 oz

Sig 4 oz + DacUltrex 3.2 oz/Nortica

Non-treated control

Turf Quality (1-9)

5.1 5.375 5.65 5.925 6.2

b

b

ab

a

Turf Quality Rated on August 4th, 2014

Bent Programs 2014

Quali-Pro 1

Quali-Pro 2

BASF 1

BASF 2

Non-treated Control

Turf Quality x Time (AUDQC) Values

0 175 350 525 700

a

a

b

b

c

Bayer Program (Sig/DacAction)

Bayer Program 2 (Sig/DacUltrex)

Syngenta Program (App./DacAction)

Syngenta Program 2 (Sig/DacStik)

BASF 1

BASF 2

Nontreated control

Area Under Curve Values for Disease and Turf Quality

0 750 1500 2250 3000

AUDPCAUTQC

Fungicide Programs ‘Penn A-1’ Creeping Bentgrass 2013

c

A

bB

bcA

bB

bcA

A

aC

c