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