Further Evaluations of High Pressure Water Injection as a Turf Management Tool

Similar documents
Experimental Procedures:

Objective: How it Was Done:

SULFUR AND NITROGEN FOR PROTEIN BUILDING

Field evaluation of wetting agent efficacy against localized dry spot and hydrophobicity in creeping bentgrass putting green turf -AquaAid

Improving Fertilizer Use Efficiency for Horticultural Crops. Tom Obreza and Jerry Sartain Soil and Water Science Dept.

Bentgrass Greens Mix Establishment Trial Casnoff-Austein-Casnoff Associates Davidsonville, Maryland

Unit F: Soil Fertility and Moisture Management. Lesson 3: Applying Fertilizers to Field Crops

Nitrogen Rates and Forms for Maximum Quality and Growth of Penn A-4 Creeping Bentgrass

Surface Organic Matter in Bentgrass Greens

Protecting Your Water and Air Resources

Nitrogen Management in Direct Seeding Operations

Time and Method of Fertilizer Application

Evaluation of Monopotassium Phosphate-Based Starter Fertilizer Solutions for Tomato and Pepper Production in Florida George J.

SUMMER DROUGHT: CAUSE OF DIEBACK IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS SEED FIELDS?

Soil Nutrient Management: Testing, Sources, and Foliar Application Soils Workshops for Hill, Blaine and Phillips Counties Feb.

Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in SOUTHWESTERN AND WEST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA

Watermelon Response to Soluble and Slow Release Nitrogen Fertilizers

Clain Jones

Fertilizer and Nutrient Management of Timothy Hay

Planting Date vs. Rice Water Weevil Beaumont, TX 2006

APPENDIX F. Soil Sampling Programs

LIQUID SWINE MANURE NITROGEN UTILIZATION FOR CROP PRODUCTION 1

Table 1. Leaf Mulch-Nitrogen Study, Initiated 1990 Quality Ratings, 1993

Response of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigated Lisbon lemons to N Rate and Source on a Superstition Sand

Number 209 September 11, 2009

Fertility management in organic strawberries

MARK M. MAHADY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consultant To The Turfgrass Industry

Optimizing Nitrogen and Irrigation Timing for Corn Fertigation Applications Using Remote Sensing

November 2008 Issue # Nutrient Management Considerations in a High-Cost Environment

COMPARISON OF SOIL PENETRANTS

Utilizing farmers changed nitrogen application technologies to demonstrate improved nutrient management practices year 2

project Leader: Dr. R. J. Zasoski (916) or cooperators: R.D. Meyer, H. Schulbach, and J.P. Edstrom.

Objective 1: Manage the demonstration site using common agricultural practices and monitor runoff quantity and quality.

Phosphorus Update. Addy Elliott Colorado State University Department of Soil and Crop Sciences

SUSTAINABLE NITROGEN FERTILIZER REGIMES FOR SNAP BEANS IN VIRGINIA

Optimizing Strip-Till and No-Till Systems for Corn in the Biofuel Era

PEPPERMINT RESPONSE TO NITROGEN FERTILIZER IN CENTRAL OREGON 1. Alan R. Mitchell and Neysa A. Farris. Abstract

NITRATE AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY IN ONION PRODUCTION UNDER DRIP AND FURROW IRRIGATION

Fertigation management for tomato production in saline soils

Nitrogen dynamics of standard and enhanced urea in corn

Do not oven-dry the soil

Nitrogen Fertilizer Movement in Wheat Production, Yuma

Fertilizing Small Grains in Arizona

Recommended Resources: The following resources may be useful in teaching this lesson:

Emerging Bacterial Diseases Associated with the Management of Creeping Bentgrass Putting Greens

Foliar Fungicide Study Block 5S Beaumont, TX 2009

Weed control reality. Landscape weed control James Altland Oregon State University. Redroot pigweed. Weeds. Landscape weed control

Surfactant Effects on Municipal Sports Fields

General Recommendations for Fertilization of Turfgrasses on Florida Soils 1

Annual Report for Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI)/Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and Foundation for Agronomic Research (FAR)

Quantifying Ammonia Volatilization from Surface-Applied Fertilizers in Kentucky Bluegrass Grown for Seed, Marvin Butler and Rhonda Simmons

Nutrient Management (NM)

To order, call your Par West Territory Manager or We re online... parwest.com. H2O Maximizer. Soil Surfactant Polymer Resin Blend

UNDERSTANDING A TURF FERTILIZER LABEL

FERTILIZATION AND COVER CROP INTERACTIONS FOR STRIP-TILL COTTON

LAND APPLICATION OF SWINE MANURE

BAND PLACEMENT FOR POTATOES IN CALCAREOUS SOIL ABSTRACT

Placement and Interpretation of Soil Moisture Sensors for Irrigated Cotton Production in Humid Regions SITE SELECTION IN A FIELD OBJECTIVE

THE BENEFITS OF MANAGING MANURES WITH ALFALFA. Roland D. Meyer

Urea Volatilization and Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers for Small Grains Crop Pest Management School January 6, 2011

Alternative Systems for Cultivating and Side Dressing Specialty Crops for Improved Nitrogen Use Efficiency

G Fertilizing Winter Wheat I: Nitrogen, Potassium, and Micronutrients

Evaluation of ESN Fertilizer in Southcentral Montana

Soil Quality, Nutrient Cycling and Soil Fertility. Ray Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE

RESEARCH REPORT SUWANNEE VALLEY AREC 92-5 August, 1992 COMPARISON OF VARIOUS N SCHEDULING METHODS FOR SNAPBEANS

Evaluating Corn Row Spacing and Plant Population in thetexas Panhandle

Evaluation of Fertilizer Additives for Enhanced Nitrogen Efficiency in Corn. Final Project Report (2013 and 2014)

Fertilizer Management Considerations for Carrie Laboski, Dept. of Soil Science, UW-Madison

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF RYE COVER CROP SYSTEMS

GI BMP Training Program Review Worksheets

History. Grass Seed Production. Uses. Uses. Oregon Grass Seed. Environment Requirements 2/7/2008

Specialists In Soil Fertility, Plant Nutrition and Irrigation Water Quality Management. Larry Zibilske, Ph.D.

EVALUATING WATER REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING WALNUT ORCHARDS IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY

INVESTIGATE SWEET POTATO CULTIVARS AND IRRIGATION CRITERIA FOR THE TREASURE VALLEY

Effects of fluid nitrogen fertigation and rate on microsprinkler irrigated grapefruit

TABLE 1. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPACTION LEVELS FOR THREE SOILS IN THE WETTING AGENT EXPERIMENT

Soybean Irrigation Management

Resources Conservation Practices Tillage, Manure Management and Water Quality

Outline. Students 4/11/2017. Weed Science Program Update. Students Perennial peanut Smutgrass Bermudagrass

STARTER POTASSIUM FOR CORN: WHY AND WHEN? Nicolas Bergmann, Antonio P. Mallarino, and Daniel E. Kaiser * Iowa State University, Ames.

Nitrogen Transformation Inhibitors and Controlled Release Urea

Sugarbeet Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates K.A. Rykbost and R.L. Dovell

QUANTIFYING AMMONIA VOLATILIZATION FROM SURFACE-APPLIED FERTILIZERS IN CENTRAL OREGON KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS SEED PRODUCTION

Row Crop Responses to Nitrogen Rate, Application Timing and Irrigation Schedule

Dark Tobacco Topics Dark variety update Black shank control Angular leaf spot Supplemental products Tobacco fertility Potassium Boron Nutrient prices

Nutrient Management for Hay Production and Quality

Water and Nitrogen BMPs for Tomato and Watermelon: Water Quality and Economics 1

Nutrient Management in. A presentation to the West Metro Water Alliance

Development of Best Management Practices for Fertigation of Young Citrus Tree

SOIL APPLIED AND WATER APPLIED PHOSPHORUS APPLICATION. M. J. Ottman, T. L. Thompson, M. T. Rogers, and S. A. White 1 ABSTRACT

Conducted Under GEP (Y/N): Y Guideline Description: To Protocol

Manure, Crops and Soil Health Jeff Schoenau PAg Department of Soil Science S.S. Malhi AAFC Melfort

Pumpkin Fungicide and Cultivar Evaluation, 2017

Evaluation of Tomato Varieties with TSWV Resistance. Craig H. Canaday and Jim E. Wyatt. Interpretative Summary. Introduction

2014 High Tunnel Tomato Variety Trials

Bourgault Agronomy Trials March 13, 2017 Bourgault Industries Ltd Curtis de Gooijer PAg, CCA

Keeping the Grass Greener on Your Side of the Fence Understanding Pasture Fertility

Phosphorus Dynamics and Mitigation in Soils

2006 R&D SEMINAR SERIES WELCOME TO THE AUGUST EDITION OF THE 2009 M&R SEMINAR SERIES

NITROGEN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING SUGAR BEET ROOT QUALITY

Transcription:

Further Evaluations of High Pressure Water Injection as a Turf Management Tool J.A. Murphy, G.L. Walworth, P. E. Rieke and K. T. Saffel The Toro Company has recently introduced high pressure water injection as a new method to deeply cultivate soil while minimizing surface disruption. Research here at M.S.U. has shown water injection cultivation to have considerable promise as a year-round tool for management of soil compaction. Water injection cultivation (WlC) has similar effects on soil properties as hollow tine cultivation, but imparts less damage to crown and root tissue of the turf. The reduced level of injury should allow; 1) cultivation during and prior to environmental conditions considered to stressful for hollow tine cultivation, and 2) more frequent cultivation on sites subjected to routine compaction stress. continued research at M.S.U. is evaluating the potential of water injection as a management tool with objectives concerning the effectiveness of injecting wetting agents and nutrients as compared to surface (foliar) applications. Wetting Agent Injection Localized dry spot (LDS) is a common problem on turfs growing on soils of a high sand content. Management of LDS generally involves the application of a wetting agent to enhance water infiltration in the afflicted areas. A study was initiated to investigate the effect of wetting agent injection on LDS formation on a creeping bentgrass green. The treatments were 1) no wettin~ agent (check), 2) water injection (no wetting), 3) 2 oz/1 ft wetting agent sprayed, 4) 2 oz/1 ft 2 wetting agent injected, 5) 8 oz/1 ft 2 wetting agent injected, and 6) 32 OZ/1 ft 2 wetting agent injected. Treatments were applied 1 Aug., 199. Two additional applications of treatments 2, 3, and 4 were performed on 27 Aug., and 11 Sept., 199. Soil moisture content and visual quality were monitored through a 41 day period following the initial treatment application. Supplemental irrigation was applied after treatment application and then only minimal irrigation was used to encourage development of LDS. Rainfall of 1.75 inches occurred on 7 Sept., 199. Figure 1 displays soil moisture contents during this study. The check plots consistently maintained the lowest soil moisture levels compared to all treatments. The sprayed plots had significantly lower soil moisture contents compared to water injected plots on two dates, 3 and 27 days after initial treatment (Figure 1). The 2 oz/1 ft 2 injected wetting agent treatment had a significantly higher soil moisture content compared to the sprayed treatment on only one date, 27 days after initial treatment (DAlT). The 8 and 32 OZ/1 ft 2 injected wetting agent treatments had significantly higher soil moisture contents compared to the sprayed treatment on four dates; 3, 1, 17, and 27 DAlT. No 15

17 G--- ) Check Injected 2 oz/m,..--... G---- ] Water Injected v Injected 8 oz/m +..J 15!:r---8 Foliar 2 oz/m * Injected 32 oz/m CJ1.- x Application Dates ~ 13 A.. ~ ""'--/ 1 1 L 9 ::J 4--J (f).- 7 L (f) 5 3 z 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 Days After Initial Treatment Fiqure 1. soil (1 to 3 inch depth) moisture content following wetting agent application in August and September, 199. differences in soil moisture content were observed between the 8 and 32 OZ/1 ft 2 wetting agent injection treatments. Due to the frequent rains during the season of 199, monitoring of long term residual effects of wetting agent application techniques, particularly the 8 and 32 OZ/1 ft 2 injected treatments, was not possible. Figure 2 presents visual quality during this study. Visual quality of the check plots dropped below acceptable levels within 1 days after the initial treatment applications. The water injection and sprayed wetting agent plots dropped below acceptable levels on one date (28 DAIT). Injected wetting agent treatment at all rates maintained acceptable quality levels throughout the study (Figure 2). This preliminary data suggested that water injection alone may be an effective treatment for localized dry spot. Addition of wetting agent to the water injection treatment did increase the control of LDS formation compared to the sprayed wetting agent treatment on a few dates. Further evaluations are needed to completely determine the effectiveness of wetting agent injection. 151

~ 1 -... -+-' 9... 8 u II 7 CD 6 5 ṿīi (j) 4 '----/ >- 3 *-* Injected 32 oz/m -+-' \}---JJ Injected 8 oz/m ::J 2 ~ Injected 2 oz/m a ~ Foliar 2 oz/m G---fJ Water Injected :J G----E) Check x (f) > 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 Days After Initial Treatment Figure 2. Visual quality following wetting agent application in August and September, 199. Phosphorus Injection Phosphorus levels have been shown to decline in the rootzone of turf soils were clippings are removed. This effect is often referred to as a mining of soil phosphorus. Surface fertilization with phosphorus creates a highly concentrated zone of phosphorus within the thatch layer and upper 3 inches of the rootzone. Research with agricultural crops has demonstrated that root systems will proliferate in zones or pockets of soil containing high levels of nutrients. Surface fertilization of turf may be promoting extensive root development in the soil surface at the expense of root development beyond the 2 to 3 inch depth. A study was initiated to evaluate injection of phosphorus with the high pressure water injection technique on a creeping bentgrass green grown on a loamy sand soil. The treatments were 1) no phosphorus fertilization (check), 2) water injection (no phosphorus), 3) 3 lb/1 ft 2 P 2 S sprayed, 4) 3 lb/1 ft 2 P 2 S injected, and 5) 6 Ib/1 ft 2 P 2 S injected. Treatments were 152

applied twice at half rate on 17 August and 1 October, 199. Calcium phosphate dissolved in water served as the phosphorus carrier. Evaluations in this study include soil phosphorus testing, tissue analysis, clipping yield, and rooting. soil testing for phosphorus at four depth zones was performed on 2 Nov., 199. The soil zones examined were the thatch layer, to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 9 inches. Only results for soil phosphorus have been completed and will be reported here. Table 1 presents the soil phosphorus levels measured on 2 Nov., 199. Sprayed application of phosphorus increased phosphorus levels within the thatch dramatically compared to the injected application treatments. Only the 6 lb/1 ft 2 P 2 injection increased P levels in the thatch layer. Phosphorus levels were increased at the to 3 inch depth by the 3 lb/1 ft 2 P 2 S sprayed and 6 lb/1 ft 2 P 2 S injected applications. Only the injected applications of phosphorus increased P levels within in 3 to 6 inch zone. No significant increases in P levels were found in the 6 to 9 inch zone. Water injection channels reached an average depth of 6 inches, thus an increase in P levels below the 6 inch depth would not be expected during the short time of this study. Table 1. Soil phosphorus levels at selected depths following phosphorus fertilization with foliar and injected application techniques, 2 Nov., 199. Thatch Layer o to 3" 3 to 6" Zone Zone 6 to 9" Zone lb / acre Check Water Inject Spray 3 lb/m Inject 3 lb/m Inject 6 lb/m 24 c 23 c 138 a 37 bc 61 b 26 c 4 c 24 c 46 c 4 ab 42 c 34 bc 61 b 44 a 87 a 5 a 52 a 48 a 56 a 62 a Numbers followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the.5 level of probability. Spray application of phosphorus concentrated P at the surface (thatch to 3 inch depth) while injected applications placed phosphorus down to the 6 inch depth. Further evaluations of tissue analysis, clipping yield, and root development will help determine whether subsurface placement of phosphorus has a greater effectiveness than surface application. 153

Nitroqen Injection Nitrogen injection studies have been initiated to determine the response of creeping bentgrass to subsurface application of nitrogen. The first experiment examined the response of creeping bentgrass to urea injection. Injection holes were spaced in either a 3 x 6 or 3 x 3 inch pattern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the uniformity of response to the two different spacings of urea injection. A uniform response to urea injection on 3 x 3 inch spacing was observed. The green-up response of the 3 x 3" pattern remained uniform throughout the duration of the study (3 months). Urea injection on the 3 x 6 inch spacing resulted in a striped response pattern. The striped green-up on the 3 x 6" pattern plots remained non-uniform throughout the study. A second nitrogen study was performed to compare foliar and injection application of urea. A 3 x 3 inch spacing was used for the urea injection treatment. Treatments used urea as a nitrogen carrier and were; 1) sprayed at.5 lb N / 1 ft 2, 2) sprayed at 1. lb N / 1 ft 2, 3) water injected then sprayed at.5 lb N / 1 ft 2, 4) water injected then sprayed at 1. lb N / 1 ft 2, 5) injected at.5 lb N / 1 ft 2, 6) injected at 1. lb N / 1 ft 2, and 7) injected at 2. lb N / 1 ft 2 Treatments 3 and 4 were water injected (no urea) prior to nitrogen application (spray) to distinguish between the cultivation channel influence and the nitrogen injection influence on rooting. Rooting responses to treatments 5, 6, and 7 have a combination of cultivation channel and nitrogen injection factors that may influence rooting responses. Visual quality (Table 2) was monitored to measure the green-up residual characteristics of each application method. At a given rate of nitrogen, no differences in quality were observed between sprayed and injected applications up to 4 days after treatment. The residual response to these treatments will be monitored to determine the longevity of injected nitrogen fertilization. Injection of nitrogen offers the potential for reduced volatilization of nitrogen following fertilization. Reduced nitrogen losses via volatilization may increase the length of response to nitrogen or decrease the total amount of nitrogen needed annually. Conversely, injection of nitrogen increases the chance for leaching of nitrate past the rootzone. Potential nitrogen losses through leaching may be minimized by injecting during periods of low rainfall. Evaluations of clipping yield and rooting need to be made in future studies. 154

Table 2. Long-term visual quality response to sprayed and injected applications of urea on a creeping bentgrass green; treatments applied 2 Sept, 199. 11 October 2 October 3 October 21 DATY 3 DAT 4 DAT Nitrogen Rate Application Method lb/1 ft 2.5 Sprayed 5.7 c 5.7 c 5. c 1. Sprayed 7.7 b 7.7 b 7. b.5 Sprayed Z 5.7 c 6. c 5. c 1. Sprayed Z 8. ab 7.3 b 7. b.5 Injected 5.3 c 6. c 4.7 c 1. Injected 7.3 b 7.3 b 7. b 2. Injected 9. a 9. a 8.3 a y, DAT= Days After Treatment z, Sprayed treatment preceded by Water Injection without urea. Numbers followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the.5 level of probability. Conclusions High pressure water injection of wetting agent, phosphorus, and nitrogen has shown promise as an alternative method to foliar application of these materials. These studies are in the preliminary stages and further evaluations need to be made to fully understand the potential of high pressure water injection technology. Research in this area will be continuing. 155