turfgrass & ornamental field day › research › 2016_field_day_booklet.pdf · john koehler,...

Brought to you by:

FacultyDr. Bruce Barrett – EntomologyDr. Brad Fresenburg – Turfgrass Research & ExtensionDr. Lee Miller – Turfgrass PathologyDr. David Trinklein – FloricultureDr. Xi Xiong – Turfgrass Management & PhysiologyTim Moloney - Landscape Design

Research SpecialistsDaniel Earlywine – Turfgrass PathologyPatti Hosack - MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic Director

Graduate Research AssistantsNaba AmgainMatt FleetwoodWaana KaluwashaJohn Koehler Michael Patterson Kyle Robertson Enzhan Song

Find us on the web:turf.missouri.eduturf.missouri.edu/statturfpath.missouri.edumotoc.org

South Farm Research Center

Columbia, MO

TURFGRASS & ORNAMENTAL

FIELD DAYDivision of Plant Science - CAFNR - University of Missouri

July 19, 2016

3

Note: Reference to products in this booklet is intended to convey objective, unbiased information and not an endorsement of the product over other similar products with similar results. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services does not imply endorsement by University of Missouri or discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned. Other brand names may be labeled for use on turfgrasses. Individuals who use pesticides are responsible for ensuring that the intended use complies with current regulations and conforms to the product label. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regula-tions and examine a current product label before applying any chemical. For assistance, contact your county’s Cooperative Extension agent.

We would like to express our gratitude to our industry sponsors for their incredible support of the Mizzou Turfgrass & Ornamental Programs. Without this assistance, we would not be able to build

upon our programs, nor be able to function at the research and extension level that this great state of Missouri needs and deserves. We would also like to thank our wonderful colleagues at the MU Agronomy Research Center at Bradform Farm and those at South Farms for assisting us with the logistics and set up of this event.

We have listed our contributors on the first page of this booklet to signify our appre-ciation of their support. While we strive to make this list as comprehensive as pos-sible, please let me or another faculty member know if your organization should be on this list. If an error has occurred, please accept our sincere apology, and we will correct it in the future.

In addition to our program sponsors, I’d also like to thank our numerous sponsors and vendors at this 2015 field day. These companies are also listed and recognized on these opening pages, because their participation and support has played an inte-gral part in facilitating this event.

Inside this booklet, we hope you will find valuable research and insights that you can bring back to your operation to make it more successful. Whether your operation is a lawn, landscape, golf course, sod farm, nursery, athletic field, (etc.), we would like to assist with your plant health issues. If there is a concern you feel needs to be covered more fully, please don’t hesitate to let us know, or email me at [email protected] or phone at (573) 882-5623. Please enjoy your day of discussion, learn-ing and camaraderie, and we hope you take something back that is useful.

Sincerely,

Dr. Lee MillerExtension Turfgrass PathologistUniversity of MissouriDivision of Plant Sciences

Editor’s Note Table of Contents

Sponsors and Contributors ......................................................................................................................................................................................4Field Day Sponsors ..................................................................................................................................................................................................5Field Day Vendors ....................................................................................................................................................................................................6Schedule of Events Calendar ..................................................................................................................................................................................7

Field Day Presentations

Stops* 1 Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) - Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi Xiong ...........................8 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? - Daniel Earlywine ..................................................................................................10 3 Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool Under Summer Pressure - Dr. David Trinklein .....................................................134 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common Diseases and Things to Watch Out For - Patti Hosack ..........................................................14 5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach - Tim Maloney....................................................................................................... 186 What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Session - Dr. Brad Freesenburg ...................................................................237 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? - Steve Song & Dr. Xi Xiong ......................258 Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? - John Koehler .............................................................................................................35 9 Integrating Management Strategies for Spring Dead Spot and Large Patch Control - Dr. Lee Miller ..........................................................3910 The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support them in the Landscape - Carol Davit ................................43

* STOP Number is referenced on farm map on the back cover of this booklet.

Other Reports

1. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials of Cool Season Turfgrasses .................................................................................................462. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials of Warm Season Turfgrasses...............................................................................................583. Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green ....................................654. EvaluatingFungicideEfficacyforDollarspotandBrownPatchControlonaCreepingBentgrassPuttingGreen ......................................675. Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass ..................736. Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on Sclerotinia homoeocarpa ........................................................................807. Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and Water Status on Tolerance of Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)

to Dollar Spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Bennett) .......................................................................................................................................838. Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) .........................................................................879. Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) ............................................................................................8910. Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet (Viola spp.) ...............................................................................................9111. A Study of Billbug Biology............................................................................................................................................................................9412. Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Billbug on Zoysiagrass Fairway ....................................................................................................9713. Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed ...............................................................................................................................10014. Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide..................................................10315. EfficacyofSpecticleFLOonControlofLespedezaonaBermudagrassLawn .........................................................................................10616. Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth........................108

4 5

Sponsors & Contributors to the 2016 Mizzou Turfgrass & Ornamental Research Program

* Gift-in-kind ** Grant-in-aid *** Turf Building Fund

Agrologics*St. Louis, Missouri

MU Ag Research Center*Columbia, Missouri

Agrotain*St. Louis, Missouri

A.L. Gustin Golf Course*Columbia, Missouri

AMVAC**Newport Beach, CA

Applewood Seed*Arvada, CO

Atkins Turf & Tree*Columbia, Missouri

Dave Baker***Columbia, Missouri

BASF**Waukee, Iowa

Bayer Environmental Science **Kansas City, Missouri

Bellerive Country Club*St. Louis, Missouri

Capital Sand Company*Jefferson City, Missouri

MU CAFNR*Columbia, Missouri

Columbia Country Club*Columbia, Missouri

Commercial Turf & Tractor*Chillicothe, Missouri

Steve Dickinson***Fenton, Missouri

Dow AgroSciences*St. Louis, Missouri

Dow AgroSciences*Indianapolis, IN

FMC Corporation*Philadelphia, PA

Gateway Chapter (STMA) **St. Louis, Missouri

GreensPro, Inc.*Fenton, Missouri

Harrells LLC*Lakeland, FL

Heart of America Golf Course Superintendents Association**Kansas City, Missouri

Hummert InternationalEarth City, MO

Kalo, Inc.**Overland Park, Kansas

Laser Turf Leveling*St. Charles, Missouri

MacroSorb, LLC.**Mount Laurel, New Jersey

Mid America Green Industry Council*Kansas City, Missouri

Mississippi Valley Golf Course Superintendents Association**St. Charles, Missouri

MoTOC *Columbia, Missouri

MO-KAN Chapter (STMA) **Kansas City, Missouri

MU Intercollegiate Athletics*Columbia, Missouri

NTEP**Beltsville, Maryland

NuFarm Turf & Specialty**Alsip, Illinois

Old Warson Country Club*St. Louis, MO

Ozark Turf Association*Branson, Missouri

Ozarks Chapter STMA**Springfield, Missouri

Pennington Seed*Greenfield, Missouri

PBI Gordon**Kansas City, Missouri

Perfect Play Fields & Links*Belleville, Illinois

Professional Turf Products*Lenexa, KS

Redexim-Charterhouse*St. Louis, Missouri

Research Support Services – Bradford Research Center*Columbia, Missouri

Research Support Services – South Farm Research Center*Columbia, Missouri

SelecTurf Farms*Jefferson City, Missouri

Site OneColumbia, MO

St. Andrews Golf Club*Overland Park, KS

St. Louis Country Club*St. Louis, MO

Syngenta **Greensboro, North Carolina

The Lawn Company***Columbia, Missouri

USGA-Green Section Research**Stillwater, Oklahoma

Van Diest Supply Co.*Marshall, MO

Williams Lawn Seed*Maryville, Missouri

Harrell’s, LLC720 Kraft Rd, Lakeland, FL 33815

Contact: Mickey [email protected]

863-687-2774

GR Robinson Seed & Service Co10747 Trenton Ave, St. Louis, MO 63132

Contact: Glenn [email protected]

314-427-0300

Williams Lawn SeedMaryville, MOJosh [email protected]

2016 Field Day Sponsors

NuFarm Americas, Inc.13216 Clayton Road, St Louis MO 63131

Contact: Randy [email protected]

314-275-7730

6 7

July 19, 2016 Field Day Vendors July 19, 2016 Schedule of Events

7:30 – 8:30 a.m. Registration, coffee/donuts and exhibitors

8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Welcome & Introduction: Dr. Lee Miller, Turfgrass PathologyWelcome & Program Update: Dr. Jim English, Director of Division of Plant Sciences,

9:00 – 10:20 a.m. Morning Session I: Visit 4 of 5 topics Presentations last 10 minutes; 10 minute Q&A/Transit time

Stop 1Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on residential lawnsMatt Fleetwood, M.S. student & Dr. Xi Xiong – Associate Professor: Turfgrass Science

Stop 2Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it?Daniel Earlywine, M.S. – Turfgrass Pathology

Stop 3 Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool Under Summer PressureDr. David Trinklein – Associate Professor: Horticulture

Stop 4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and things to watch out forPatricia Hosack, M.S. - MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic Director

Stop 5Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach Tim Moloney – Landscape Design Instructor

10:20 – 11:40 a.m. Morning Session II: Visit 4 of 5 topics Presentations last 10 minutes; 10 minute Q&A/Transit time

Stop 6What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your question sessionDr. Brad Fresenburg, Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Science

Stop 7Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, Where, and Why?John Koehler, M.S. student - Turfgrass Pathology

Stop 8Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and large patch controlDr. Lee Miller – Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Pathology

Stop 9The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support Them in the LandscapeCarol Davit, Executive Director - Missouri Prairie Foundation

Stop 10Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? Steve Song, Ph.D. student & Dr. Xi Xiong – Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Science

11:40 - 12:00 p.m. Exhibitor Demonstrations

12:00 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch, Exhibitors

COMPANY CONTACT DESCRIPTIONAdvanced Turf [email protected]

Matthew BiddleMike SchemelC.J. Coy

Bayer Environmental Science12810 Perry StOverland Park, KS 66213

Wes Kleffner, Zac [email protected]

Commercial Turf and TractorPO Box 724Chillicothe, MO 64601

Bryan [email protected]

Wiedenmann aerifyers,seeders and synthetic turf equipment. Campey Imants Field Top Maker and other products.

D&L Rental Dwight DavisDenny [email protected]

Grass Pad Inc.425 N. RawhideOlathe, Ka 66061

Todd WinkelmanBill TrittRichard [email protected]

GR Robinson Seed & Service Co10747 Trenton AveSt. Louis, MO 63132

Glenn [email protected]

Grass seed, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides & herbicides for turf and landscape.

Harrell’s, LLC720 Kraft Rd.Lakeland, FL 33815

Mickey [email protected] www.harrells.com

NuFarm Randy [email protected]

PBI Gordon Heath SchesserJeff [email protected]

Professional Turf Products10935 Eicher DriveLenexa, KS 66219

Eileen KingBrad DavissonAron [email protected]

Products from the Toro Company as well as many other topflight mfg. to independent dealers, golf courses, schools, municipalities, parks, landscapes and irrigation contractors.

Redexim Turf Products427 West Outer RoadValley Park, MO 63088

Christopher HilmesRyan LockPaul [email protected]

Turf Maintenance Equipment- Trac-tors, Aerators, Seeders, Sweepers, Verti-Cutters, Synthetic Turf Groom-ers

Williams Lawn SeedPO Box 112Maryville MO

Josh [email protected]

8 9

1 1

Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi XiongEvaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea)

Current Findings

At the conclusion of 56 days after the initial treat-ment, it was determined that EH1587 at a higher rate and sequential application (trt 4), and 4-Speed XT (trt 7) were the only two treatments that com-pletely controlled ground ivy in the treated plots. One application of EH1587 at a higher rate (trt 3) showed satisfactory efficacy at 90% control at 7 weeks after the initial treatment (WAIT). In sum-mary, this trial showed that EH1587, as a newer formulation/compound, is very promising to pro-vide satisfactory control of ground ivy even after single application.

Table 1. Description of treatments with application rates

Trt Product Application rate

1 Untreated control ----

2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A

3 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A

4 EH1587 (double app)

0.276 lb ai/A

5 EH1545 1.41 lb ai/A

6 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/A

7 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/A

IntroductionGround ivy, or commonly known as creeping Charlie, originated in Europe and Asia and was brought to the United States by early European settlers. This weed quickly spread due to its well-developed dispersal characteristics, such as its carpet-like growing pattern and long stolon that produces fibrous roots at the nodes. Ground ivy commonly grows in riparian forests and areas, thickets, along disturbed roadside areas and pas-ture edges. When established on turf, ground ivy can be a persistent problem because of its peren-nial nature and capability to spread by stolons. The objective of the study was to evaluate seven different herbicide formulations at varying rates to determine which herbicide demonstrated the greatest control of ground ivy.

Working with the City of Columbia Parks and Rec-reation division, a site was established in Capen Park. Plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were sprayed at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Seven treatments (Table 1) were organized in randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatments occurred on April 19th, 2016 for first application and on May 17th, 2016 for second application when applicable. Evaluations were based on weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 56 days.

Figure 1. Percent injury (%) on Ground Ivy at 3 WAIT and 7 WAIT.

Figure 2. Representative pictures showing efficacy for control of ground ivy at 7 WAIT in plots that are the untreated control (top left), or received EH1587 sequential application (top right) or 4-Speed XT (bottom) treatments.

9

Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on residential lawns

Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on residential lawns

10 11

2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it?2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it?

Daniel Earlywine and Lee Miller

IntroductionDollar spot is caused by the fungal pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa, which affects many warm and cool-season turfgrasses. Visual symptoms of dollar spot on a creeping bentgrass putting green appear as round tan to bleached patches that reach 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Infection periods in Missouri can occur from April to November when daytime temperatures are between 60 and 90 degrees F. Factors such as: heavy morning dews, improper irrigation timing, nitrogen deficiency, and excessive thatch build up can all increase dollar spot symptoms and the infection period. Preventative fungicide applications based on calendar intervals or measured weather variables (i.e. air temperature and relative humidity) are often utilized on golf putting greens. There are instances, however, when fungicide applications are made late after symptoms, and recovery from damage needs to occur quickly.

SummaryThis trial was designed to evaluate multiple fungicides with two nitrogen application strategies for curative dollar spot control on a ‘Penn A-4’ creeping bentgrass putting green. Mowing was performed 5 days a week at a height of 0.130 inches. Overhead irrigation is applied as needed to prevent drought stress and Revolu-tion (6.0 fl oz/1000ft2) was applied every 4 weeks from May to September to control localized dry spot. From May to June 14, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000ft2) was applied every two weeks. Dollar spot symptoms occurred in the trial area in late April before trial initiation. Therefore, two curative applications of Daconil Ultrex at (3.25 oz/1000ft2) were applied to suppress dollar spot symptoms until trial initiation.

Initial treatments were applied on July 5th when dollar spot symptoms (~ 5% of each plot) were present throughout the trial area. Plots were evaluated at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 days after application for dollar spot suppression. Fungicide treatments (listed in the table) were applied at curative labeled rates for dollar spot and applied at 87 gallons per acre (GPA). Fungicide plots were split into two nitrogen regimes. One half of the plot received dissolved urea at 0.1 lb N/1000 ft2 on July 5 and July 12. The other half of each fungicide plot received dissolved urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 + Primo Maxx at 0.125 fl oz/1000 ft2 on July 5. Control plots included a non-fertilized plot, urea at 0.1 lb N/1000 ft2 on July 5 and July 12, urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 on July 5, and urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 + Primo Maxx at 0.125 fl oz/1000 ft2 on July 5. Treatments will continue to be evaluated as we continue into late July.

Table 1. Treatment List and Application Rates

Treatment FRAC Code

Fungicide Group Rate Per 1,000 sq ft

Emerald 7 SDHI 0.18 oz

Daconil Ultrex + Emerald M5 and 7 Chloronitrile + SDHI 5.0 oz + 0.18 oz

Daconil Ultrex M5 Chloronitrile 5.0 oz

Daconil Action M5 and P1 Chloronitrile+ Benzothiadia-zole

5.4 fl oz

Secure 29 Oxidative Phosphorylation uncoupler

0.5 fl oz

Velista 7 SDHI 0.5 oz

Xzemplar 7 SDHI 0.21 fl oz

Lexicon Intrinsic 7 and 11 SDHI + QoI (=strobilurin) 0.47 fl oz

26 GT 2 Dicarboximide 4.0 fl oz

Curalan 2 Dicarboximide 1.0 oz

Torque 3 DMI 1.1 fl oz

Mirage StressGard 3 DMI 2.0 fl oz

Briskway 3 and 11 DMI + QoI (=strobilurin) 0.725 fl oz

Interface StressGard 2 and 11 Dicarboximide + QoI (=strobilurin)

5.0 fl oz

12 13

Plot Map

Urea (0.2 lb N/M) + Primo Maxx (0.125 fl oz/M) (July 5)

Urea (0.1 lb N/M) (July 5 and July 12)

North

2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool Under Summer Pressure3

David Trinklein

Annual flowering plants have become an important component of the created landscape. The season-long color they provide often is thought of as the “finishing touch” to the landscape. This is true for public areas as well as for private businesses and residences. The demand for annual flowering plants has been strong over the years, in spite of the recent sluggish nature of our country’s economy.

Many annual herbaceous plants carry the stigma of exhibiting poor performance, especially under severe heat and water stress conditions typical of a Missouri summer. This fact has, in certain cases, prevented them from being more widely used in large-scale plantings such as those typical of color beds on golf courses, surrounding commercial buildings, etc. Plant improvement via introduction and breeding has pro-duced many new cultivars of herbaceous ornamentals over the past several years. Their ability to tolerate Missouri conditions is, in most part, unknown. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the performance of a number of new herbaceous ornamental cultivars under Missouri conditions.

Forty-nine cultivars representing ten species of annual herbaceous ornamental plants (refer to evaluation handout) were transplanted into demonstration plots located at the University of Missouri Turf Research Center located on the South Farm near Columbia, Mo. Trial plants were started from seed or received as established plants and grown to transplantable size in a campus greenhouse.

On May 23, 2016 the plants were established in outdoor plots. Plants were hand watered until established and then supplied with one and one-half inches of water per week via drip irrigation when rainfall was insufficient. Additional fertilizer was applied on July 1st in the form of calcium nitrate at the rate eight ounces per 100 square feet. Weed control was achieved via hand weeding. Data was/will be collected for early performance, mid-summer performance, and late season performance using a rating scale of 1 - 10.

14 15

4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and things to watch out for

Patti Hosack

IntroductionThe University of Missouri Plant Diagnostic Clinic (PDC) has been serving Missouri since 1965. The PDC was founded by Dr. Einar W. Palm, who was the first state extension plant pathology specialist. The role of the PDC is to assist county Extension Specialists, commercial businesses and private citi-zens with their pest problems. The PDC is capable of plant disease diagnosis, identification of unknown plants and insects (including arachnids). Besides clinic staff, a diverse group of Plant Sciences faculty specializing in agronomy, entomology, horticulture, or plant pathology assist with identification as needed. More information regarding sample submission, including fees, can be found on the PDC website. Samples of all plant types, excluding those that are federally regulated, can be sent in for identifica-tion or disease diagnosis. Insects found on plants or in homes can be sent in for identification. Plants can also be sent in for identification. Management recommendations are provided with all diagnoses. This year, as of June 30th, we have had 210 sub-mitted samples. Most of the submissions have been for disease diagnosis (92%). There is great diversity in the types of plants submitted. Everything from agronomic field crops to woody ornamentals. Of the woody ornamentals, evergreens are the most submitted. With varieties of spruce being most common. Deciduous woody ornamentals are sec-ond, with oaks being the most common.

2016 TopicsSpruce trees are planted in many Missouri land-scapes. Needlecast, a fungal disease, is diagnosed each season. There are two types, Rhizosphaera and Stigmina needlecast. Both have similar symp-toms. Second year, or older needles, appear blighted or have dropped from the tree. Infected needles often look purple before browning then dropping (Image 1). Infections typically begin on lower branches and move upward. Often branches will be entirely defoliated except for at the tips. Reproductive structures can be observed with a handlens emerging from the stomata of blighted

4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and things to watch out for

and/or green, infected, needles (Image 2). The reproductive structures of each pathogen look dif-ferent, however, this is difficult to distinguish with a handlens. Typically, needlecast diseases do not kill trees. However, repeated years of defoliation can lead to decline. Preventative fungicides can be use-ful to help control the disease. One of the most devastating diseases of oak, in Missouri, is Oak Wilt. Oak Wilt, caused by Cerato-cystis fagacearum, is a fungal disease that invades the water-conducting tissues. The black oak group (red, pin, black and scarlet oaks) is more susceptible than the white oak group. This disease has been diagnosed in several Missouri Counties (Image 3). Symptoms are first apparent on flagging branches, leaves will have a dull green appearance and later wilt. Necrosis begins on the leaf margins, often the base of the leaf and main vein will remain green (Image 4). A cut branch may show a brown to black discoloration in the sapwood (Image 5). The disease is spread by bark beetles or through natu-rally occurring root grafts between oaks of the same species. Oak Wilt is a lethal disease, there is not a cure. Diagnosis of this disease requires laboratory testing. To help prevent this disease, avoid prun-ing trees between mid-March and late June. Early pruning can create wounds that are attractive to bark beetles. Management recommendations are to remove infected trees and sever root grafts. Bacterial Leaf Scorch (BLS) is caused by the bac-terium, Xylella fastidiosa. BLS is a vascular disease that has a broad host range, including oaks, maples, sweet gums and several other types of shade trees. This is a chronic and lethal disease that is vectored by leafhoppers and other sap sucking insects. Typi-cally symptoms are first noticeable in mid-summer. Flagging branches have leaves with marginal dis-coloration. The discoloration moves inward and is often proceeded by a halo of yellow or red discol-oration (Image 6). The tree will leaf out normally the following year, however more branches will be affected. It can take several, 3 or more, years before the tree completely dies. This disease can be mistaken for other diseases or drought stress, laboratory testing is required for confirmation. Early detection can allow for treatment. Oxytetracycline injections can lower the bacterial population and delay onset of symptoms. This is not a cure for the disease and treatment needs to be repeated yearly. The possibility for long term effects, caused by

Image 1: Purpling and browning needles of spruce with Rhizosphaera needlecast. Image courtesy of: USDA Forest Service - North Central Research Station , USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

Image 2: Pycnidia emerging from stomata of infected spruce needle. Image courtesy of: Paul Bachi, University of Kentucky Research and Education Center, Bugwood.org

Image 3: Distribution of Oak Wilt in Missouri. Image provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Image 4: Oak leaf showing blight from Oak Wilt. Image courtesy of: Paul A. Mistretta, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

Image 5: Sapwood streaking in oak branch infected with Oak Wilt. Image courtesy of: Fred Baker, Utah State University, Bugwood.org

Image 6: Maple leaves showing symptoms of Bacterial Leaf Scorch. Image courtesy of: Sandra Jensen, Cornell University, Bugwood.org

16 17

4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and things to watch out for 4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and

things to watch out for

Image 7: Characteristics of a Brown Marmorated Stink Bug that differentiates it from other types of stink bugs. Image courtesy of Dr. Jamie Pinero, Lincoln University.

Image 8: United States map showing distribution of black walnut and Thousand Cankers Disease (TCD).

Image 9: Cankers on black walnut caused by Thou-sand Cankers Disease. Image courtesy of: Elizabeth Bush, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Bugwood.org

Image 10: Boxwood Blight Identification Guide courtesy of The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.

repeated treatments, is currently unknown. Dead branches should be removed yearly, sanitizing cut-ting tools after. Severely infected trees should be removed. Missouri is constantly threatened by new pests and diseases. The front line of defense for these are citizens who can monitor, report and/or collect sus-pect specimens. Currently there are several pests and diseases that threaten Missouri flora. Three pressing issues will be addressed here. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) is an invasive pest that originated in parts of Asia. BMSB was first identified in 2001 in Allentown, PA. It has been found in Missouri. There is an established popula-tion in St. Louis. Over the last couple of years, one or two specimens have been found in Springfield and Jefferson City, but the pest has not established in these areas. BMSB has a broad host range and is a significant pest on field crops, garden plants and ornamentals. Also, BMSB can be a nuisance pest in homes where they will overwinter. BMSB can be differentiated from other types of common stink bugs by unique markings (Image 7). If you see a suspect BMSB, not in the St. Louis area, please col-lect and send to the PDC for identification. There will not be a fee associated with this as we would like to know where the insects are occurring for future trapping efforts. Thousand Cankers Disease, is a fungal disease caused by Geosmithia morbida. It is spread by the Walnut Twig Beetle that can attack several species of walnut. This pathogen-pest complex has not been found in Missouri (Image 8). However, it is a major threat to the 40+ million black walnut trees in Missouri. We encourage all tree care special-ists to be on the lookout for this disease, as early detection is key to protecting our walnut trees. Symptoms typically occur mid-summer and include yellow and wilting of leaves high in the crown. Dieback of limbs follows, and dead leaves typically hang on the branches. Sprouting, from roots or trunk, is observed in severely infected trees. Symp-tomatic limbs should be checked for beetle holes, removing bark from these areas would expose dark brown cankers (Image 9). Suspect trees should be reported via an online report: http://extension.missouri.edu/treepests/report-pests.aspx or called into the MDC at 1-866-716-9974. Prior to collect-

ing a sample, digital images can be emailed to [email protected]. Boxwood Blight, a fungal disease caused by Cylindrocladium buxicola, has not been found in the Missouri landscape. In an isolated incident this disease was found at a retail store, plants were destroyed. Boxwood blight affects all species of boxwood, pachys-andra and sarcococca. Several species are tolerant of the fungus and do not show symptoms, thus making the spread of this disease problematic. Symptoms to watch for include dark leaf spots that spread out in

a concentric ring (zonate) pattern, black stem lesions and defoliation (Image 10). Boxwoods are planted throughout Missouri and we encourage you to send in suspect samples for a free +/- identification. Early detection of this pathogen, in the state, can prevent spread and establishment of this disease. Samples are of regulatory concern and must be double bagged and boxed for shipment. Please call the PDC prior to ship-ping as these will need to be handled differently than other samples.

University of Missouri—Plant Diagnostic Clinic 28 Mumford Hall, Columbia, MO 65211

Phone: (573) 882-3019 Email: [email protected]

Web: plantclinic.missouri.edu

18 19

5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach

Tim Moloney – Landscape Design Instructor“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” We’ve all heard these words. Admittedly, I have even said them. Little did I know at some point, I would be living these words. After graduating from MU with a BS in Plant Sciences in 1995, I spent 18 years working and learning through mistakes, as a landscape designer for one of Mid-Missouri’s most successful landscaping firms. In 2008 I was then asked to teach the introduc-tory landscape design course for the University of Missouri, on a “part time” basis. Now, 8 years later, I am working to give CAFNR’s Plant Sciences Design students a practical based education that will ensure they are ready to embark on successful design careers upon graduating from our program. The approach had to be simple, I am a landscaper after all. When trying to develop the method for design education, I first looked at the process in which, as professional designers, we approach every design project. The project is broken down into three main components: Site Analysis; Design; Presentation. Based on that approach, I broke design education into the same components. In addition to the compartmental approach, we find it crucial to develop “real world” design problems whenever possible. Every classroom assignment is developed as if the students are dealing with actual clients, residential and commercial. To bring further practical and professional scenarios to our students, our advanced level students must complete at least one project that is completely real. We have real sites and real clients with very real goals. Our students meet with these clients, analyze their sites, and present their concepts to the clients. In 2013 Tiger Design, a student run entrepreneurial design venture, was initiated under the Tiger Garden umbrella. Through Tiger Design, MU’s best and brightest design students are employed as landscape design-ers for Tiger Garden. Student designers are tasked with meeting clients, developing detailed landscape plans, presenting their concepts to the client, and providing documentation for budgeting and implementa-tion. Tiger Design does charge for these services and the students are compensated for their efforts. To date, Tiger Design students have serviced over 25 design clients. Quite simply, my goal is to make a design student’s educational experience as close to what they may encounter upon entering the industry as possible. Our students should be prepared for anything the indus-try can throw their way, and I want the industry to know what our students can do for them.

PLANT LISTBO

TANICAL NAME

COM

MO

N NAME

QUANTITY

TYPENO

TESADIANTUM

CAPILLUS-VENERUSSO

UTHERN MAIDENHAIR FERN

70Q

UTSHADE PERENNIAL

AESCULUS PAVIARED BUCKEYE

42'-6"

AMELANCHIER ARBO

REASERVICE BERRY

10

'-2"ANDRO

POGO

N GERARDIIBIG BLUESTEM

GRASS37

#3

ASCLEPIAS SYRICEACO

MM

ON M

ILKWEED

20Q

UTBUTTERFLY GARDEN

ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA

BUTTERFLY MILKW

EED20

QUT

BUTTERFLY GARDENCAREX ALBICANS

WHITE TINGED SEDGE

90Q

UTSHADE PERENNIAL

CERCIS CANADENSISREDBUD

30

'-2"CO

RNUS FLORIDA

FLOW

ERING DOGW

OO

D1

0'-2"

DODECATHEO

N MEADIA

SHOO

TING STAR60

QUT

SHADE PERENNIALECHINACEA PURPUREA

PURPLE CONEFLO

WER

20Q

UTBUTTERFLY GARDEN

ITEA VIRGINICA 'HENRY'S GARNET'VIRGINIA SW

EETSPIRE24

#3

JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA 'GREY OW

L'GREY OW

L JUNIPER31

#3

MO

NARDA SP.BEE BALM

20Q

UTBUTTERFLY GARDEN

RUDBECKIA FULGIDABLACK EYED SUSAN

15Q

UTBUTTERFLY GARDEN

SOLIDAGO

DRUMM

ONDII

GOLDEN RO

D20

QUT

BUTTERFLY GARDENQ

UERCUS BICOLO

RSW

AMP W

HITE OAK

20

'-3"Q

UERCUS MUEHLENBERGII

CHINKAPIN OAK

30

'-3"VIBURNUM

DENTATUMARRO

W W

OO

D VIBURNUM9

2'-6"

NOTES:

-3" DYED HARDWO

OD M

ULCH-ADD 3:1 TO

PSOIL:CO

MPO

ST MIX TO

ALL PLANTED AREAS

Josh Ritter

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURISOUTH FARM

1"=15'

2016


20 21

MO

BER

LY, M

O 65270

660-263-7282

WW

W.FO

UR

AC

RES.C

OM

LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT FORSOUTH FARM TURF

DA

TE: 4/11/16D

ESIGN

ER: C

OR

Y B

RIG

GS

5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach 5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional

Approach

2322


What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Session

6

Brad S. FresenburgDon’t let the title of this discussion mislead you. This is not a discussion on insects; although it could be partially if that is what’s bugging you. We wanted to have a session that would allow each of you to present a topic that may have been an issue in the past or is presently troubling you. We would like this to be an open forum for you to ask a question on anything, generate some discussion among your peers. So fire away!

Troubleshooting is something we all have done. A problem occurs and its’ like - what’s going on? Never seen this before. Or you may be think-ing, not again – why? So how do you begin other than calling your local friendly extension specialist. We all have a great network of col-leagues to call upon and that can work if they have or are experiencing the same thing; but it’s not always that easy.

When issues occur, we sometimes over-react and jump-the-gun on the impulse that some-thing needs to be done NOW. We can tell you on the homeowner front – When they see brown spots, they need water, they need fertil-izer. We all know what happens there.

So where do we begin? If a situation arises as in the photo below, here is my approach.

First impression – assessing the areaMy first impression of the site are usually men-tal notes – how does it look? Does something stand out? Here we look at what species of turfgrasses are present (Go to: https://turf.pur-due.edu/tool/ for turfgrass identification). Are there any patterns showing up? This usually indicates operator or manager error of some sort. Are there any patches visible? Lesions on the plant? These may indicate a biotic stress such as a disease.

Once you generally look over the site, it’s time to gather information. Ask all question perti-nent to the site. Take notes and document as much as you can with photographs. Begin by asking about the last soil test. Have any prod-ucts been applied recently – Herbicides, fun-gicides or insecticides? What were the rates? Timing? Have any fertilizers been applied? What was the composition? Rate of nitrogen? Timing? How were all of these products ap-plied? What is the soil like? Soil moisture? What has the weather been like? Mowing height? Does a service provide these tasks? As you can see we begin to build a library of information.

Good troubleshooting/diagnosis requires senses – eyes and nose. However, useful tools of the trade should include a hand lenses, a probing device (long, thin screwdriver), digital camera, a spade, a pocket knife, ID keys, guides, and that i-phone. When using that i-phone, be sure to search for highly reputable sources, such as extension websites at state universities.

Some issues may not require the extensive fact gathering as below. Some issues seem more obvious and can be narrowed down much more quickly. There is definitely a pattern here that appears to be wheel marks. As we think about this, there are three things that come to mind that will do this: 1) Driving on grass that had a hard frost on an early spring morning; 2) Driving on heat stressed grass in the hot, hot summer; or 3) a chemical issue tracked on tires (usually

24 25

What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Session6

not to this extent). Chances are it was either frost or heat stress. So for this one, time of the year and weather may have the answer.

Then there are times when things are not so obvious. No patterns are visible. It’s no hu-man error or some other abiotic stress. In a simpler case we see below, the sod looks like it was freshly churned and dug up. Time of the year would be a factor as to when this damage would occur. This sod can be easily lifted with no roots present. You may also notice a slight pungent odor. You may have guessed it by now, but this would be skunk damage from seeking out white grubs.

Another part of what we do is not always troubleshooting the obvious things we witness in a lawn or turfgrass area. Sometimes we need

to troubleshoot those other things that are bug-ging us and there seems to be no logical expla-nation. Why can’t I get my grass to be a darker green color? Why does my grass field have chlorotic, stunted areas within perfectly green grass? Why does a lawn appear to be mottled when it’s a single species of turfgrass? Why are my bermuda sprigs slow to grow and fill in? These are examples of questions we receive and sometimes there is an unknown that keeps these in the mystery column.

Many times these situations remained un-solved, but on occasion with persistence you do find answers. Sometimes, for whatever reason information is withheld or pertinent informa-tion is unknown by the client. Sometimes the answers are found through continued discus-sions with colleagues and peers by brainstorm-ing as you may want to refer to it. Whatever the situation, there is a network of people, information, diagnostic labs available to find an answer. If you have something that has been bugging you, don’t hesitate to mention it today. One of our goals for this field day is to send everyone home with an answer. Let’s take ad-vantage of all the expertise present here today. Have a great day!

Send inquiries to:Brad S. Fresenburg, Ph.D.State Turfgrass [email protected] for sending questions and photos573 268-2545 for texting photos and conversation

Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY7

Enzhan Song and Dr. Xi Xiong

IntroductionSoil water repellency (SWR) is a common problem for intensively managed turf. Consequently, an unstable wetting front is usually formed which leads to preferential flow. Preferential flow is responsible for localized dry spot (LDS), which is particularly problematic on sand-based putting greens. Development of SWR is often inevitable and common management practices, such as supplemental watering, will not prevent LDS from happening.

Wetting agents have been used as a common tool for managing LDS on putting greens for decades. With the nature of surfactants, wetting agents reduce surface tension at the sand-water interface, and improve water infiltration and retention in SWR areas, thus reduce LDS symptom. However, presence of SWR will not be resolved by using wetting effects, and often repeat application are required. Some wetting agent compounds in the turf market, such as OARS (Organic Acid Removal System) (AQUA-AID, Rocky Mount, NC), claimed that it not only ‘masks’ LSD symptoms, but also solves the problem itself by removing SWR causing materials, i.e. organic coatings, from the sand profile. Thus, the objective of this laboratory study is to investigate the effect of selected wetting agents on removal of hydrophobic organic coatings from/in sand surface/system.

Materials & MethodsNaturally occurred water-repellent sands were collected from the LDS area on a 7-year old United States Golf Association (USGA) standard putting green and air dried under room temperature. In order to ensure the uni-formity of water-repellency, the sands were passed through a series of sieves with opening sizes at 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1 mm to remove plant residues, before mixed them thoroughly. The SWR level was determined by molarity of ethanol droplet test (MED) which resulted in a 2.2 molar, which was equivalent to medium level of hydrophobicity. A sand column infiltration system was developed for this study which was built using PVC tubes (Georg Fischer Harvel LLC, Easton, PA) with 5.08 cm internal diameter and 0.48 cm thickness, where the bottoms were sealed with a layer of fine fabric cheese cloth to hold the sand but permit liquid drainage. A total 254 g of the prepared water-repellent sand was packed uniformly into the PVC soil columns with 7.80 cm depth, which resulted in a bulk density of 1.66 g/cm3. Particle density of the sand was mea-sured as 2.68 g/cm3, thus the porosity was determined to be 37.8 % or a pore volume of 58 ml.

Treatments included Matador (100% alkyl block polymer), OARS (80% polyoxyalklene polymers and 10% Potassium salt of alkyl substituted maleic acid), and pHAcid (combination of a blend of acidifying agents and a high molecular weight surfactant), in addition to a tap water control (Table 1). All wetting agents were mixed with tap water at their highest label suggested rates. In order to saturate the sand profile, 70ml of wetting agent solutions were slowly and evenly applied to the top of the sand column. Under the force of gravity, the leachates from the bottom were collected for volume measurement, before acidified by H2SO4 to pH < 2 and stored in fridge at 4 oC for further analysis. Analysis of aqueous dissolved organic carbon (DOC) content in the leachates was performed by a SHIMADZU TOC-VWP analyzer equipped with an auto sampler ASI-V (Kyoto, Japan). Analysis of solid state particulate organic carbon (POC) content was performed by centrifuging the leachates at 10,000 x g for 15 minutes. The precipitated organic matter was then dried under 105 oC for 12 hours and the mass was measured, before combustion under 550 oC for another 2 hours to determine the POC content.

26 27

Table 2. Leachate volume (ml) of the four treatments collected after treatment, or after first, second, and third washes.

Leachate volume

Treatments After treatment† After first wash‡ After second wash After third wash

--------------------------------- ml ---------------------------------Matador 1.0 c3* 43.8 a2 55.0 a1 54.9 ab1OARS 1.3 c3 15.5 d2 55.0 a1 56.0 a1pHAcid 12.1 b4 41.1 b3 52.2 b2 54.5 b1Water 16.5 a4 38.5 c3 48.5 c2 54.0 ab1

*MeansinthesamecolumnfollowedbythesameletterswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05); means in the same row followedbythesamenumberswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05).

† Treatments were applied at 70 ml.

‡ Treated sand was washed with one pore volume of water (58ml) at 24 hours after treatments.

After the first wash, OARS showed significantly lower leaching activity than all the other treatments with only 15.5 ml of leachate. In comparison, Matador treated sand columns resulted in the highest leaching volume (43.8 ml) after the first wash. Following the second and third washes, the water holding effect follow-ing OARS appeared to decrease (Table 2). Results indicated improved soil water retention by Matador and OARS treatments, with OARS showed longer residual effect following water flushes compared to Matador. Although pHAcid did not enhance the water holding capacity as strong as Matador and OARS, it showed suf-ficient water movement following treatment application (Table 2).

Table 3. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC; mg) in each leachate of the four treatments collected after treatment, or after first, second, and third washes.

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)

TreatmentsLeachate

after treatment

Leachate after

first wash

Leachate after

second wash

Leachate after

third wash--------------------------- mg ---------------------------

Matador 48.0 a3† 1238.1 a1 294.5 a2 34.0 a3OARS 40.2 a3 516.3 b1 153.1 b2 34.4 a3pHAcid 17.9 b2 50.6 c1 25.0 c2 11.2 b2Water 11.0 b2 28.3 d1 17.9 c12 12.8 b12

†MeansinthesamecolumnfollowedbythesameletterswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05);meansinthesamerowfollowedbythesamenumberswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05).

Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY7Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic

Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY7

At 24 hours after treatments, sand columns were washed with a pore volume (58 ml) of tap water three times, with a 30 minutes interval between each wash to allow a complete leaching. Leachate of each wash was collected for volume, DOC, and POC measurements described above. The washed sand columns were then dried under 50 oC till a constant weight, and tested for water-repellency again using MED method described above. In order to compare the overall organic carbon change in the sand profile before and after treatments, the solid phase total organic carbon (TOC) was also measured utilizing LECO TOC analyzer for untreated and treated sand.

The experimental design for this study was a completely randomized design with three replications, and the entire study was repeated once. Analysis of variance was conducted using the Proc Mixed procedure of SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), where significant mean separations were performed based on Fisher’s Protected LSD at P = 0.05.

Table 1. Treatments and concentrations.

Treatment # Products Rates (ml products / L water)1 Untreated --2 Matador 23.53 OARS 27.44 pHAcid 5.9

Current FindingLeachate volume collected from each leaching event showed significant differences following application of various wetting agents (Table 2). Even though all treatments were applied at a volume (70 ml) higher than the actual total pore volume (58 ml), sand columns treated with Matador or OARS were able to hold more water which led to significantly less than leachates compared to pHAcid or tap water treated sand columns (Table 2).

Figure 1. Dissolved organic carbon (OC; mg) of wetting agents included in this project.

a

b

c d0

200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Metador OARS pHAcid Water

DO

C (m

g)

28 29

Figure 2. Cumulative dissolved organic carbon (DOC; mg) in all leachates of each treatment including after treatment, after the first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Figure 3. Cumulative particulate organic carbon (POC; mg) in all leachates of each treatment including after treatment, after the first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Additionally, DOC appeared to be the dominant OC fraction with 6 or 14 folds higher than POC in Matador or OARS leachates, respectively (Figure 2 and 3). The differentiation in DOC and POC leachate pattern are correlated with the OC introduced from wetting agent solutions (Figure 1). All wetting agents included in this experiment are 100% water soluble. It is not clear if or how much of the removed OC from the leach-ates of Matador- or OARS-treated sand columns are from the wetting agent compounds directly. In compari-son, both pHAcid and water control showed minimum (23 and 0.2 mg) DOC treatment input (Figure 1) but resulted in 104.7 and 70.0 mg overall DOC output in the leachates (Figure 2).


Table 4. Particulate organic carbon (POC; mg) in each leachate of the four treatments collected after treatment, after first, second, and third washes.

Particulate organic carbon (POC)

TreatmentsLeachate

after treatment

Leachate after

first wash

Leachate after

second wash

Leachate after

third wash--------------------------- mg ---------------------------

Matador 1.5 a3† 187.4 a1 44.8 a2 1.5a3OARS 2.2 a2 29.6 b1 12.7 b2 10.0 a2pHAcid 0.7 a1 11.7 c1 9.1 b1 6.0 a1Water 0.6 a1 12.0 c1 11.5 b1 11.0 a1

†MeansinthesamecolumnfollowedbythesameletterswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05);meansinthesamerowfollowedbythesamenumberswerenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05).

The amount of DOC and POC of four leachate events including leachates collected after treatment, after the first, second, and third wash showed similar trends (Table 3 and 4). Majority of the DOC and POC were found in the leachates after the first washing event for all treatments. After the first wash, Matador consistently had higher DOC and POC (1238.1 and 187.4 mg) than other treatments (Table 3 and 4).

The DOC and POC in all four leachate events was added together and presented as cumulative DOC (Figure 2) and POC (Figure 3) for each treatment. Similarly, results of cumulative DOC and POC showed the highest organic carbon (OC) output in the leachates from Matador-treated sand columns, followed by leachates from OARS-treated columns. Both cumulative DOC and POC in leachates from pHAcid-treated columns showed no differenced from water-treated columns (Figure 2 and 3).


30 31

Figure 5. Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg) in treated and untreated sand. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

However, OARS had only 775 mg OC output, which is about half of its OC input (1409 mg) (Figure 1 and 4). This result suggests a sorption effect of OARS compounds in the sand system. Total OC output from pHAcid- and water-treated sand columns were statistically same.

After wetting agent treatment and all wash events, solid phase total organic carbon (TOC) content in the remaining sand particles were determined and presented in Figure 5. Matador-treated sand had statistically the same amount of TOC (1796 mg) as in original untreated sand (1737 mg) (Figure 5), while OARS-treated sand accumulated significantly higher amount of TOC (2214 mg) than the untreated control. Similarly, pHAcid and water did not affect the TOC compared to untreated sand (Figure 5). Matador and OARS exhibited dis-tinctive behaviors in this study. Although it not fully understood, we hypothesized that the two compounds have different chemistry, which subsequently affect their sorption and/or electrostatic binding on soil organic matter.


Soil organic matter can be fractionated in to two parts: particulate organic matter (POM) and dissolved organic matter (DOM) which are reflected by POC and DOC from the carbon angle. Particulate organic carbon has a fraction size of 0.45 μm to 2.0 mm, and POC collected in this study had a fraction size of 0.45 μm to 0.05 mm which attribute to fine particulate organic carbon (FPOC) fraction (0.45 μm to 1 mm). It has been reported that FPOC played important role on formation of water-stable aggregates in soil. Also, FPOC has been found to directly contribute to SWR even at low concentrations. Extraction or redistribution of POC often involved intensive laboratory based physical procedures, such as ultrasonic dispersion and high speed centrifugation followed by extensive water flushing. As a result, removal of POC even at relatively low quan-tity by normal management practices such as wetting agent application can be very crucial for mitigating the overall SWR.

Dissolved organic carbon is usually defined as organic materials that can pass a filter with 0.45 µm pore size. The main portion of soil DOC comes from complex and big molecular weight fractions: humic substances. However, when considering the common non-polar (hydrophobic) property of many organic materials, the size-based definition of DOC can lead to confusion as organic molecules with size < 0.45 µm that is hydropho-bic will not completely dissolve in water to form true DOC. Studies had found that DOC can be fractionated into hydrophobic part that contained more aromatic humic and fulvic acids, and hydrophilic part which had more aliphatic chains. The amphiphilic nature of surfactant monomers tends to reduce the liquid system free energy and form micelles structures which consequently, lowers the interfacial tension.

The overall OC output was calculated by adding the cumulative DOC and POC from four leachates of each treatment together (Figure 4). Due to the dominant quantity of DOC output, the overall OC leached out showed a similar trend as cumulative DOC (Figure 2 and 4). When compared with OC input from the treat-ments (Figure 1), the overall OC output from Matador-treated sand columns yielded 1850 mg OC, compa-rable to total OC input of 1765 mg (Figure1 and 4).

Figure 4. Overall organic carbon (mg) in leachate was calculated based on the sum of cumulative dissolved and particulate organic carbon (DOC and POC) in all leachates of each treatment collected from after treatment, after first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).


32 33

Figure 6. Soil water repellency (SWR) after wetting agent treatment and sequential washes, indicated by molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Smaller molar value indicates lower level of hydrophobicity. Untreated sand had a hydrophobicity level of 2.2 molar. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Following wetting agent treatment and three washes, Matador-treated sands showed a complete removal of SWR and return the sand to wettable condition with a MED value of 0 molar (Figure 6). Sand treated with OARS also showed minimum SWR with a 0.2 molar MED value. However, sand treated with pHAcid or water exhibited elevated SWR with MED value to 3.3 (pHAcid) and 3.2 (water) molar, respectively, indicat-ing ultimately failure in removing organic coatings from the hydrophobic sands. It is important to mention that the treated and washed sands were oven-dried at 50°C for 2 weeks in order to achieve constant weight (complete dry), before tested for SWR. It had been reported that oven-drying of moist water repellent soil samples can lead to an increase in SWR.

Conclusion Our laboratory study showed that although not fully understood, certain wetting agents, such as Mata-dor and OARS, can reduce the hydrophobicity, likely due to a combined effect of removing hydrophobic coat-ings as well as functioning as a bridge between the hydrophobic sand surface and the water molecules in the rootzone soil system.

Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic

Coatings From USGA Sand?— FIELD STUDY7


Field Study SummaryFollowing the laboratory study, the objective of this two-year ongoing field study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of potential SWR removal wetting agents for their wetting capability (SWR reducing effect), influ-ence on disease severity, and overall microbial community structure in the soil profile under field conditions.This trial was established on a ‘L93’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) USGA putting green at the Turf Research Center in Columbia, MO. Wetting agents and application rates are presented in table 1. Individual plots were measured at 5’ by 10’, where all treatments had 4 replications and were applied using a CO2 pres-surized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 43 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. Visual assess-ments were recorded weekly, including LDS and disease percentage (%), phytotoxicity (1-9 scale where 1= total turf death, 6=minimally acceptable injury, and 9=non-injury), and normalized difference vegetation index for overall turf quality evaluation (NDVI by GreenSeeker). Soil samples (top 4 inches) were collected monthly before each application for soil hydrophobicity assessment using molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Addi-tional soil samples (top 4 inches) were taken at the beginning and by the end of each year, and analyzed by PLFA (phospholipid fatty acids) technique for evaluation of the treatment influences on microorganism com-munity structure. The study was initiated spring 2015, and data will be collected till fall 2016.

Table 1. Treatments Rates and Schedule

Treatment # Products Rates (fl oz/1000 ft2)

Application Schedule

1 Untreated2 Cascade Plus 8 Monthly3 HydroWet 8 Monthly4 Matador 6 Monthly5 OARS 7 Monthly6 pHAcid 1.5 Monthly7 Tournament-Ready 8 Monthly

Current FindingAs indicated by the MED test (Table 2), monthly application of wetting agents showed a general trend of reducing hydrophobicity through the 5 months’ experiment, except pHAcid which is mainly manufactured to target on inorganic SWR causing materials (e.g. carbonates). It is also interesting to notice that all treat-ments showed a slight increase in hydrophobicity at 5 MAIT, which corresponded to significant drought event occurred in September in 2015. None of the wetting agents included showed any phytotoxicity on creep-ing bentgrass putting greens. However, occurrence of various fungal diseases, mainly dollar spot, in some of the treated plots, including Matador and OARS compared to control (Fig. 1). This trend, however, was not observed in plots received CascadePlus, HydroWet, and Tournament-Ready. Overall turf quality, reflected as NDVI (Fig. 2), showed that all treated plots maintained better turf quality compared to untreated control, especially treatment with Tournament-Ready. PLFA analysis is still under processing and more results will be discussed next year.

34 35

Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why?8

John Koehler and Lee Miller

IntroductionLarge patch is caused by the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP, and is the most limiting disease on zoysiagrass in the transition zone. Large patch occurs in early fall and spring when zoysiagrass is either going into or coming out of cold temperature dormancy. Patch symptoms appear as circular matted areas of brown necrotic turf, with active outbreaks firing a bright orange color along patch margins. Fungicide appli-cations for large patch control are usually applied once or twice in the fall and oftentimes once again in the spring. Nitrogen applications during fall and spring are commonly avoided due to concern of increasing large patch severity. However, no definitive correlation between nitrogen applications and increased large patch severity has been found.

Trial DescriptionThe goal of this project is to determine if applying nitrogen during spring and fall large patch activity will increase large patch severity, or decrease it and promote disease recovery. Along with application timing, we will also investigate the impact of different nitrogen sources and a single spring fungicide application on disease severity. The overall goal of this project is to integrate a nitrogen application strategy into the large patch management scheme. Plots in this field trial are 5 × 10 ft, and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. All plots received 0.75 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. of UMaxxTM in June and July of 2014, and the same rate of urea in August 2014 before the project was initiated in fall 2014. Each plot was inoculated at two evenly-spaced points with 25 cc rye grain infested with R. solani AG 2-2 LP on 9/23/14, and each point was covered with a metal plate until green-up in spring 2015.

Treatments included nitrogen source (CaNO3, (NH4)2SO4, and urea), nitrogen application timing, and fungi-cide (Table 1). Granular nitrogen fertilizers were applied in fall, spring, both fall and spring, or only in sum-mer. Spring and fall fertility treatments were applied at a rate of 0.5 lbs. N/1000 sq ft when five-day average soil temperatures first reached 65°F. Summer-only nitrogen treatments were applied monthly in June, July, and August 2015 and 2016 at 0.67 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. Fall and spring treatments received additional nitro-gen in the summer to total 2.0 lbs. N/1000 sq ft per annum of the same nitrogen source for each plot. A separate spring treatment of controlled release fertilizer (Duration™ 120 d) applied at 3.0 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. was also evaluated. Duplicate plots of each treatment received one application of tebuconazole at 0.6 fl oz product/1000 sq ft in 1.0 gal water carrier at the same time as spring fertility applications. One plot per block was left untreated and unfertilized.

Pictures and ratings were taken every 7-10 days during fall and spring large patch active periods. Pictures were digitally analyzed for disease and percent non-green turf using SigmaScan, and LSMeans were sub-jected to analysis of variance using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS 9.3) and were separated with pairwise comparison using the lsmeans command (α=0.05).

7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? — FIELD STUDY

Table 2. Hydrophobicity of top 4 inch soil measured by molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 months after initial treatment (MAIT). Higher value indicates higher level of hydrophobicity.

Treatments 0 MAIT 1 MAIT 2 MAIT 3 MAIT 4 MAIT 5 MAIT ---------------------------molar ---------------------------Cascade Plus 2.9 a1 2.9 b1 2.9 cd1 2.9 cd1 2.3 d3 2.6 c2HydroWet 3.0 a1 3.1 b1 3.0 bcd1 3.1 bc1 2.6 c2 2.9 b1Matador 3.0 a1 3.1 b1 2.9 cd12 2.7 d23 2.4 d4 2.6 c34OARS 3.0 a12 3.1 b1 2.8 d23 3.0 cd12 2.3 d4 2.7 bc3Tournament-Ready 3.0 a12 3.1 b1 3.1 abc1 3.1 bc1 2.3 d3 2.7 bc2pHAcid 2.9 a3 3.4 a1 3.2 ab2 3.3 ab12 2.9 b3 3.1 ab23Control 3.0 a3 3.1 b23 3.3 a123 3.4 a1 3.1 a123 3.3 a12

Notes: Mean separation is conducted based on Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters within each columns indicate significant dif-ferences among treatments and different numbers within each row indicate significant differences among dates.

Fig. 1. Percent disease (%) in plots as influenced by wetting agents applications. Mean separation is conducted using Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters on top of columns indicate significant differences among treatments.

Fig. 2. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) of plots treated by various wetting agents and untreated control. Mean separation is conducted using Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters on top of columns indicate significant differences among treatments.

36 37

Fertility Treatments (Table 1):Ammonium Sulfate, Calcium Nitrate, and Urea Fertility:

2 lbs. N / 1000 ft2 per annum

Fall1/2 lb N/1000 ft2

(9/16/14, 10/5/15)

Supplemental N

1/2 lb N/1000 ft2

June, July, August 2015+2016

Spring1/2 lb N/1000 ft2

(5/6/15, 5/6/16)

Supplemental N

1/2 lb N/1000 ft2


Fall+Spring

1/2 lb N/1000 ft2

(9/16/14 + 5/6/15, 10/5/15+5/6/16)

Supplemental N

1/3 lb N/1000 ft2


Summer only2/3 lb N/1000 ft2


Duration® 120 day controlled-release3 lbs. N / 1000 ft2

(5/6/15, 5/6/16)

Current FindingsYear 1: Fall 2014 - Spring 2015Fertilizer timing had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on lowering large patch severity. Plots fertilized in the spring and fall+spring had significantly less non-green turf than plots where only UMaxxTM and urea were applied in the summer of 2014 and those fertilized only in fall 2014 (Figure 1). Plots treated with a single spring application of tebuconazole also had significantly more green turfgrass area than non-fungicide treated plots (Figure 2). No statistical differences were observed between nitrogen sources.


SpringFall

+Teb

Fall

+Teb

Sum

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+TebFall

Fa+Sp

+TebSum Fall

Fa+SpSum

+TebUTC Spring Fall

Spring

+Teb

Spring

+TebSum Spring

Fa+Sp SumFall

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Spring

+TebFa+Sp Spring

Sum

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+Teb

Sum UTCFa+Sp

+TebFall

Spring

+Teb

Sum

+TebSpring Sum Fall

Fa+Sp.Fall

+Teb

Fall

+TebFa+Sp

Spring

+TebSum

Fall

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+TebSpring Spring

Sum

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+Teb

Sum

+TebFall Spring Fa+Sp

Sum

+TebSpring Fa+Sp Sum

Fall

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+TebUTC

Sum

+Teb

Fall Sum Spring SpringFa+Sp

+Teb

Spring

+TebSpring

Fall

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Sum

+TebFall Fall Sum

Fall

+TebFa+Sp

Fa+Sp

+Teb

Spring

+TebFa+Sp

Spring

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Spring

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+Teb

Fa+Sp

+TebSpring

Spring

+TebUTC

Fa+Sp Fa+Sp Fa+SpSum

+Teb

Sum

+Teb

Sum

+Teb

Fall

+Teb

Fall

+Teb

Fall

+Teb

Sum Sum Sum Fall Fall Fall Spring Spring Spring

UreaCalcium

Nitrate

Ammonium

Sulfate

DurationTM

120-Day

Plot Map


38 39

Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and large patch control9

Lee Miller and Daniel EarlywineWarm season turfgrasses are utilized on sports fields, home lawns, and golf course fairways in Missouri due to their greater pest, drought, and heat tolerance during the summer stress periods when cool season turfgrasses commonly fail. As with cool season grasses, when the metabolism wanes due to inhospitable en-vironmental conditions, diseases tend to take advantage. For the two most important warm season turfgrass diseases in Missouri, spring dead spot of bermudagrass and large patch on zoysiagrass, the infection period occurs during the spring when the turf is either slowly coming out of dormancy or in the fall when the plant is going into dormancy. Current work by the MU turfgrass pathology program is investigating methods for controlling these two diseases effectively through an integrated management strategy.

Fraze Mowing Effect on Spring Dead Spot of BermudagrassDue to its rapid lateral growth and recov-ery from damage, bermudagrass is used primarily in Missouri as a playing surface for sports fields, and in some cases on golf course fairways. Spring dead spot, a soilborne disease caused by Ophiosphaer-ella spp. (mostly O. herpotricha in MO), is the most problematic pest issue. Several research trials have indicated hollow-tine aerification or other cultivation methods may reduce spring dead spot severity and increase fungicide efficacy. Recently, an intense surface cultivation method termed “fraze mowing” has gained popularity as a method of thatch reduction and playing surface adjustment in sports fields. The objective of this research is to determine the impact of fraze mowing on spring dead spot severity, and determine how this prac-tice can be implemented in an integrated pest management plan for the disease.

The trial was initiated on June 30, 2015 at the MU Turfgrass Research Farm on a ‘Patriot’ bermudagrass plot. The entire 11,000 ft2 block was inoculated with a four isolate mix of Ophios-phaerella herpotricha on September 13, 2013. Initial disease symptoms from inoculation occurred in late May 2015. Plots were 5 ft × 10 ft and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments were arranged in a split plot design with fraze mowing as the main plot and nitrogen source, manganese, and fungicide application as subplots. Fraze mowing was conducted on June 30,2015 at 4 and 8 mm with a Koro Field Topmaker® or not cultivated. Dissolved ammonium sulfate or calcium nitrate was applied weekly at 0.5 lb N/1000 ft2 for six weeks after fraze mowing. Manganese treatments were ap-plied every other fertilizer application (3 times @ 2 week interval) as 2 lb manganese sulfate/A. Nitrogen and manganese treatments continued in summer 2016 with 1 lb N/1000 ft2 and 2 lb manganese sulfate/A applied monthly. Fungicide treated plots were sprayed with Velista (a.i. penthiopyrad) at 0.7 oz/1000 ft2 immediately after fraze mowing and again on 10/14/15. Treatments were immediately watered in with 0.2” of post-application irrigation. Spring dead spot severity and green cover were evaluated every 7 d by visual estimation of percent disease area and digital image analysis in spring 2016. Area under the disease progress

8

Year 2: Summer 2015 - Spring 2016 There was no large patch outbreak in fall 2015, but zoysia was significantly greener throughout the fall and greened up quicker in the spring when fall fertility was applied (P > 0.05). Similar to spring 2015, the single spring tebuconazole application was effective in controlling large patch from spreading in the plots after treatment (P < 0.05). Plots which received nitrogen only in summer had numerically more non-green turf than those that received nitrogen during large patch active periods, though there was no significant differ-ence between nitrogen timing on most dates (P > 0.05) (Figure 3). Ammonium sulfate-treated plots had more non-green turf than calcium nitrate- and urea-treated plots on 6/10/16 and 6/16/16 but not on other rating dates (Figure 4).

Figure4.Differencesinnon-greenturfinfirstyearofdatacol-lection between different nitrogen s

Figure3.Differencesinnon-greenturfinfirstyearofdatacollec-tion between different nitrogen application timings (2016).

SummaryThe single spring application of tebuconazole was effective in controlling large patch from spreading, but not in preventing large patch outbreak. A fungicide application when spring 2”-soil temperatures reach 65°F is likely too late to expect acceptable disease control. More research on fungicide timing is needed to pinpoint an application time to maximize large patch control.

In both trial years, spring nitrogen applications did not increase non-green turf or large patch disease on zoy-siagrass. Summer-only fertility plots had statistically more non-green turf and numerically more spring large patch disease than plots receiving nitrogen in the fall and/or spring. These findings are contrary to current fertility practices, which suggest avoiding nitrogen applications during spring and fall to prevent large patch outbreak on lush turf. Our research suggests that nitrogen applications in the spring and fall potentially give the zoysiagrass host an advantage over the pathogen. Increasing zoysiagrass growth and metabolism early in the spring may actually reduce the potential for large patch infection rather than encourage it.

Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why?

40 41

Large Patch on ZoysiagrassLarge patch is the most important disease limiting zoysiagrass use for lawns and golf course fairways in Missouri. Commonly utilized cultural manage-ment practices (increasing drainage, limiting exces-sive leaf wetness periods) are often not sufficient to limit disease occurrence. Fungicide applications are normally scheduled once or twice during the fall and once again in the spring during high infection periods. The MU turfgrass pathology program is cur-rently focusing on the impact of nitrogen source and application timing on the large patch epidemic (see Koehler report on page , and application strategies to maximize fungicide efficacy and perhaps reduce the overall number of applications necessary per annum.

Fungicide Application StrategyThis USGA sponsored study is designed to investigate the impact of post-application irrigation, spring appli-cation timing, and fungicide selection on the control of a spring outbreak of large patch.

Each plot was inoculated in September 2015 with a three isolate mixture of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP inoculum. Plots were 5 ft × 10 ft and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replica-tions. Treatments are indicated in the figure below.

Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and large patch control9Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and

large patch control9

curve (AUDPC) was calculated with the trapezoidal rule. All data were subjected to analysis of variance, and where applicable means were separated with Fisher’s Protected LSD. Results from visual disease estimation are shown below.

Current FindingsFraze mowing at 8 mm alone and in combination with other treatments decreased spring dead spot severity compared to non-frazed plots. In this trial, sprayable ammonium sulfate reduced spring dead spot sever-ity in the unfrazed plot compared to calcium nitrate, but no significant differences were noted among fraze mowed plots. After a single year of use, manganese did not statistically reduce spring dead spot severity. As expected, Velista fungicide applications consistently reduced spring dead spot severity compared to the untreated control. A numerical increase in fungicide control was observed with with an increase in fraze mowing depth. This effect could be caused by removing the thatch to enable better fungicide penetration or the protection of new, uninfected plant tissues (i.e. rhizomes, stolons), and deserves further investigation.

42 43

The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support Them in the Landscape10

Native bees, honeybees, beetles, wasps, butterflies, moths, and flies are important pollinators of our food crops and to sustaining our natural systems as we know them. Native bees alone contribute $3 bil-lion worth of pollination services to the agriculture economy in the U.S. annually. Land care profession-als can create or enhance habitat, even on a small scale, to benefit these insects that we truly cannot live without. Learn about the different ways that insects pollinate plants, what these insects need to survive, and a short-list of native plants that are especially landscape-worthy and helpful to pol-linators—to incorporate on a college or corporate campus, golf course, the back forty, or the backyard.

Grow Native! ProgramA program of the Missouri Prairie Foundation, Grow Native! shares knowledge to assist protection and restoration of landscape biodiversity by increasing conservation awareness of native plants and their effective use. By building alliances and collabora-tion with private industry, non-profit organizations, government agencies and landowners, Grow Native! aims to significantly increase the demand and use of native plants for application to all landscapes located in the lower Midwest. Portions of the lower Midwest served by Grow Native! include Missouri, Kansas, southern Illinois and northern Arkansas.

MU Peoples Garden

Design, plant selection, and the use of ecologi-cally sound cultural practices are key components to creating a landscape that is both aesthetically pleasing and sustainable. Few, if any, demonstration areas are available for Missouri residents to observe vegetation and land utilization that incorporates each of these sustainable design elements. This “Peoples Garden” will display native and ornamen-

Carol Davit, Executive Director – Missouri Prairie Foundation and Grow Native Program

Photo by: David Cappaert, Bugwood.org Jennifer E. Dacey, University of Rhode Island, Bugwood.org

Current FindingsNo significant difference was observed among fungicide or post application irrigation treatments. The most pronounced difference was observed among spring timings. Significantly more large patch was observed in plots treated at the late spring timing (April 22) than the early spring timing (March 11). These timings were based from 5-day average soil temperature taken at 2”. This result indicates that in the large patch pathogen is probably active earlier than previously thought, and preventive fungicide applications can be made even on dormant zoysiagrass with good results.

Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and large patch control9

44 45

The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support Them in the Landscape10The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, &

How to Support Them in the Landscape10

tal plantings that are ideally suited for Missouri’s climate, and designed for erosion prevention and carbon consumption. The area will also be created with input reduction in mind, by integrating compost mulch use and water conservation practices (i.e. rain collection and drought tolerant species).

Common Name Scientific NameBlack Eyed Susan Rudbeckia missouriensis Obedient Plant Physotegia virginiana Lanceleaf Coreopsis Coreopsis Lanceolata River Oats Chasmanthium latifolium Winterberry Ilex Verticillata ‘Nana Red Sprite’ Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpera ‘Magnus’Verbena Verbena canadensis New Jersey Tea Ceanthos americanus Rose Verbena Verbena canadensis Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Soft Rush Juncus effusus Winterberry Ilex verticillata ‘Southern Gentleman’Hazlenut, Filbert Corylus americana Beardtongue Penstemon digitalis ‘Husker Red’ Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium ‘MiniblueA’ Blue Heaven Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Tickseed) Coreopsis lanceolata Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Beard Tongue Penstemon cobaea Purple Coneflower Echinacea purperea Goldenrod Solidago rigidaYellow Flag Iris pseudacorus Theadleaf Bluestar Amsonia tabernaemontanaGolden Currant Ribes auerum Butterfly Weed Asclepia tuberosa False Indigo Blue Baptisia australis Button Bush Cephalanthus occidentalis Thread Leaf Amsonia Amsonia hubrichtii Missouri Primrose Oemothera macrocarpa Serviceberry Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’Blackgum Nyssa sylvaticaWillow-Leaved Sunflower Helianthus salicifolius Bluestar Amsonia ciliata Palm Sedge Carex muskingumensis

46 47

1 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season Turfgrasses

2014 Creeping Bentgrass Fairway 2014 Creeping Bentgrass Putting Grn

Mowing height: 0.38 to 0.50” – 2-3 times/week 0.110 to 0.125” – 6 times per week

Nitrogen rate: 0.25 to 0.38 lb/1000 sqft*** 0.2 to 0.3 lb/1000 sqft/month

Irrigation: 50 to 65% potential ET Prevent stress to optimal

Herbicides: Pre-emergence/broadleaf as need As needed

Fungicides: Curative only to prevent loss Curative only to prevent loss

Insecticides: Curative only to prevent loss To prevent damage

Core cultivation: Solid or hollow if cores removed Solid or hollow if cores removed

Vertical mowing: To control thatch as needed To control thatch as needed

Topdressing: None To minimize thatch development

Grooming: None Encouraged

Planting Date: September 9, 2014 September 12, 2014***Per growing month, however not monthly applications, 3-6 applications annually.

2015 Low Input Cool-season 2015 Low Input Ancillary

Mowing height: 3 to 3.5” 3 to 3.5”

Nitrogen rate****: 0.5 lb/1000 sqft (spring 2016) 0.5/1000 sqft (spring 2016)

Irrigation: Establishment only Establishment only

Herbicides: None 2016 only (Dimension)

Fungicides: None None

Insecticides: None None

Core cultivation: None None

Clippings: Return Return****Lime and fertilizer per soil test for establishment; applied 0.5 lb/1000 sqft in Spring 2016; P and K can be applied in

Spring 2016 per soil test.

Attached are plot plans of these four trials, and some of the most recent data. Feel free to look through the numerous cultivars on-site and try to pick your favorites.

National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season Turfgrasses1

Brad Fresenburg, Lee Miller and Daniel EarlywineThe National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP)* has been and still is one of the most widely known sources for information on turfgrass species, cultivar selections and evaluations. NTEP is designed to develop and coordinate uniform evaluation trials and now covers 17 species in their program within 40 U.S. states and six provinces of Canada.

Results can be used to determine if a cultivar is well adapted to a local area or level of turf mainte-nance. Each trial is designed to have a specific maintenance program followed during the life of the trial at a particular location. That information can be found on their website.

Information such as turfgrass quality, color, density, resistance to diseases and insects, tolerance to heat, cold, drought and traffic is collected and summarized by NTEP annually. NTEP information is used by individuals and companies in thirty countries. Plant breeders, turfgrass researchers and extension personnel use NTEP data to identify improved environmentally-sound turfgrasses. Lo-cal and state government entities, such as parks and highway departments, use NTEP for locating resource-efficient varieties. Most important, growers and consumers use NTEP extensively to pur-chase drought tolerant, pest resistant, attractive and durable seed or sod. It is the acceptance by the end-user that has made NTEP the standard for turfgrass evaluation in the U.S. and many other countries worldwide.

*Information from NTEP website.

Six cool-season NTEP trials are being conducted at the University of Missouri Turfgrass Research Facility. They are the 2012 Tall Fescue trial, 2014 Creeping Bentgrass – Fairway trial, 2014 Creep-ing Bentgrass Putting Green trial, 2014 Fine Fescue trial, 2015 Low Input Cool-season trial, and the 2015 Low Input Cool-season Ancillary trial. The following is the maintenance guidelines set forth by NTEP for these trials. This is the fourth season for the tall fescue trial, the second season for the fine fescue and bentgrass trials, and the first season for the low input trials.

Maintenance guidelines:

2012 Tall Fescue Trial 2014 Fine Fescue Trial

Mowing height: 2.5 to 3.5” 1.5 to 2.5”

Nitrogen rate: 0 to 0.25 lb/1000 sqft** 0 to 1.0 lb/1000 sqft/year

Irrigation: 50 to 65% potential ET To prevent severe drought stress

Herbicides: Minimal to prevent stand loss Pre-emergence/broadleaf as needed

Fungicides: None None

Insecticides: None None

Planting Date: October 2, 2012 September 9, 2014

**Per growing month, however not monthly applications, 2-4 applications annually.

48 49


2012 NATIONAL TALL FESCUE TEST

Entry Name Sponsor Entry No. Name Sponsor 1 Teranno Samillas Fito S.A. 59 Firebird 2 Burlingham Seeds2 Ky-31 Standard Entry 60 Bullseye Standard Entry3 Regenerate Landmark Turf & Native Seed 61 PST-5EV2 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.4 Fesnova Semillas Fito S.A. 62 PST-5GRB Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.5 ZW 44 Z Seeds 63 PST-5SALT Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.6 W45 Turf Merchants, Inc. 64 PST-5SDT Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.7 U43 Turf Merchants, Inc. 65 PST-5DZP Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.8 LSD Turf Merchants, Inc. 66 PST-5RO5 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.9 Aquaduct Turf Merchants, Inc. 67 PST-5BPO Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.10 Catalyst Standard Entry 68 PST-5BRK Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.11 Marauder Ledeboer Seed LLC 69 DB1 John Deere Landscapes12 Warhawk Ledeboer Seed LLC 70 RZ2 John Deere Landscapes13 Annihilator Ledeboer Seed LLC 71 TD1 Columbia Seeds LLC14 Comp. Res. SST Ledeboer Seed LLC 72 DZ1 Columbia Seeds LLC15 204 Res. Blk4 Ledeboer Seed LLC 73 T31 Landmark Turf & Native Seed16 JS 819 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 74 PSG-GSD Pickseed West, Inc.17 JS 818 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 75 PSG-8BP2 Pickseed West, Inc.18 JS 809 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 76 PSG-TT4 Pickseed West, Inc.19 JS 916 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 77 Faith Standard Entry20 JS 825 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 78 K 12-13 The Scotts Company21 MET 1 The Scotts Company 79 K 12-05 The Scotts Company22 F711 The Scotts Company 80 PPG-TF-156 Peak Plant Genetics23 IS-TF 291 DLF International Seed 81 PPG-TF-157 Columbia Seeds LLC24 IS-TF 276 M2 DLF International Seed 82 PPG-TF-169 Columbia Seeds LLC25 IS-TF 305 SEL DLF International Seed 83 PPG-TF-170 Columbia Seeds LLC26 IS-TF 269 SEL DLF International Seed 84 PPG-TF-137 Lewis Seed Company27 IS-TF 282 M2 DLF International Seed 85 PPG-TF-135 Ampac Seed Company28 IS-TF 284 M2 DLF International Seed 86 PPG-TF-115 Lewis Seed Company29 OR-21 Great Basin Seed 87 PPG-TF-105 Lewis Seed Company30 TY 10 Great Basin Seed 88 PPG-TF-172 Peak Plant Genetics31 Exp TF-09 Great Basin Seed 89 PPG-TF-151 Grassland Oregon32 SRX-TPC Seed Research of Oregon 90 PPG-TF-152 Peak Plant Genetics33 PSG-WE1 Pickseed West, Inc. 91 PPG-TF-148 Peak Plant Genetics34 Pick-W43 Pickseed West, Inc. 92 PPG-TF-150 Columbia Seeds LLC35 Grade 3 Pickseed West, Inc. 93 Bizem Semillas Fito S.A.36 PSG-PO1 Pickseed West, Inc. 94 CCR2 Proseeds Marketing37 U45 Landmark Turf & Native Seed 95 MET-3 Proseeds Marketing38 B23 Pennington Seed 96 W41 The Scotss Company39 ATF 1612 Pennington Seed 97 PPG-TF-145 Peak Plant Genetics40 ATF 1704 Pennington Seed 98 PPG-TF-138 Ampac Seed Company41 Burl TF-2 Burlingham Seed 99 PPG-TF-139 Landmark Turf & Native Seed42 Burl TF-136 Burlingham Seed 100 PPG-TF-142 Landmark Turf & Native Seed43 LTP-FSD Lebanon Turf Products 101 RAD-TF-89 Columbia Seeds LLC44 LTP-TWUU Lebanon Turf Products 102 RAD-TF-92 Radix Research45 LTP-F5DPDR Lebanon Turf Products 103 GO-DFR Grasslands Oregon46 IS-TF 289 DLF International Seed 104 K 12-MCD The Scotts Company47 MET 6 SEL DLF International Seed 105 PST-5EX2 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.48 IS-TF 330 Columbia Seeds LLC 106 PST-5MVD Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.49 TF-287 Columbia Seeds LLC 107 RAD-TF-83 Oak Park Farms50 IS-TF 307 SEL Columbia Seeds LLC 108 RAD-TF-88 Grassland Oregon51 IS-TF 308 SEL Columbia Seeds LLC 109 BAR Fa 120878 Barenbrug USA52 IS-TF 311 Brett-Young Seeds 110 BAR Fa 121089 Barenbrug USA53 IS-TF 285 Brett-Young Seeds 111 BAR Fa 121091 Barenbrug USA54 IS-TF 310 SEL Brett-Young Seeds 112 BAR Fa 121095 Barenbrug USA55 IS-TF 272 DLF International Seed 113 PST-R5NW Pure-Seed Testing, Inc.56 ATF 1736 Pennington Seed 114 Burl TF-69 Burlingham Seeds57 ATF 1754 Brett-Young Seeds 115 Falcon IV Standard Entry58 Hemi Burlingham Seeds 116 Falcon V Standard Entry

UPDATED 8/28/12


2012 Tall Fescue NTEP Trial S

19 109 103 32 15 69 55 Revolution

26 4 104 51 22 114 25 8 102 17 60

47 106 68 39 18 13 12 62 14 21 24

101 99 115 95 87 63 84 9 27 64 2

6 82 77 43 90 40 85 61 29 97 16

67 100 53 38 89 59 76 108 35 112 81

110 42 86 73 31 56 28 80 96 7 105

66 111 20 107 88 116 10 41 75 79 58

78 1 30 44 23 71 3 92 11 5 54

48 72 49 98 46 94 83 93 36 52 91

18 57 65 74 37 34 45 70 33 50 113

106 4 14 24 26 12 109 22 8 114 25

76 28 105 1 31 87 96 17 102 104 13

85 20 30 111 32 21 15 103 97 81 89

19 2 5 115 9 93 11 40 45 10 29

69 6 47 36 46 86 42 59 95 65 35

72 108 98 7 53 27 116 33 56 41 44

3 100 37 23 48 34 51 55 75 90 50

112 113 68 49 91 99 16 88 71 60 74

52 73 84 39 78 38 54 63 61 43 107

66 110 64 57 83 92 101 82 70 94 79

26 24 103 104 114 102 77 80 67 62 58

11 28 76 96 59 106 19 105 97 12 25

15 22 4 32 9 14 111 20 27 13 29

85 116 3 39 10 21 87 95 31 88 6

18 100 5 1 45 23 30 40 2 16 115

112 91 92 72 84 74 68 113 101 7 90

36 98 17 8 109 56 38 43 53 54 48

33 37 86 108 58 44 50 46 65 78 41

94 80 79 110 42 69 89 83 49 34 93

35 81 107 82 60 99 47 70 67 63 77

71 75 57 62 52 51 61 73 66 55 64

5 X 5 plots, RCBD, 3 replications, 116 cultivars (55’ X 160’) Planted: October 2, 2012

50 51

1 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season Turfgrasses1 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season

Turfgrasses

2014 Fine Fescue NTEP Trial

22 33 23 39 15 37

30 28 18 8 25 32 24 29 35 27

4 21 42 26 5 13 16 9 14 6

17 36 7 19 10 3 31 40 12 41

31 17 20 23 34 2 20 1 38 11

14 10 39 13 19 22 32 35 15 36

16 8 24 2 40 28 34 4 3 25

1 37 30 12 6 27 11 38 33 18

6 12 9 7 29 21 41 5 42 26

37 41 40 13 11 5 10 3 8 7

22 25 28 29 1 36 4 2 30 14

24 15 20 33 21 19 17 23 18 31

35 34 9 42 39 26 38 32 16 27

Planted: ___9/9/2014________ S

52 53


National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season Turfgrasses1

2014 Creeping Bentgrass NTEP Putting Green Trial

12 5 1 4 15 9 19 13 8 11

20 14 7 18 3 6 16 10 2 17

12 17 13 4 3 18 2 11 6 16

10 15 20 1 8 14 5 9 7 19

1 5 19 11 7 4 9 12 3 13

16 6 8 15 10 18 2 14 17 20

Planted ___9/12/2014____ N

No. Name Sponsor

1 * Luminary Standard

2 777 (DLFPS-AP/3054) DLF Pickseed USA

3 DLFPS-AP/3018 DLF Pickseed USA




7 * Pure Select Tee-2-Green

8 * Penn A-1 Standard

9 * Penncross Standard

10 * L-93XD Jacklin Seed by Simplot

11 * Armor Jacklin Seed by Simplot

12 * Kingdom Jacklin Seed by Simplot

13 * Nightlife Jacklin Seed by Simplot

14 * V-8 Jacklin Seed by Simplot

15 GDE Semillas Fito

16 Piranha (DC-1) Mountain View Seeds

17 PST-ROPS Mountain View Seeds

18 * Shark Mountain View Seeds

19 * Barracuda Mountain View Seeds

20 * Declaration Standard

* Commercially Available in 2016

54 55



2014 Creeping Bentgrass NTEP Fairway Trial

12 10 13 9 11 6 8 15 X

17 5 1 3 16 2 4 7 14

13 11 4 5 12 16 10 6 X

15 17 9 7 1 3 8 14 2

11 6 14 4 17 1 3 16 X

9 8 12 2 10 13 7 5 15

Planted ___9/9/2014____ S

No. Name Species Sponsor

1 DLFPS-AT/3026 Colonial DLF Pickseed USA

2 * 007 Creeping Standard

3 * Penncross Creeping Standard

4 * Crystal Blue Links Creeping Standard

5 * Greentime Colonial Standard

6 * L-93XD Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot

7 * Armor Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot

8 * Kingdom Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot

9 * Nightlife Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot

10 * V-8 Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot

11 Piranha (DC-1) Creeping Mountain View Seeds

12 Musket (PPG-AT-104) Colonial Mountain View Seeds

13 Chinook (H10G-OP) Creeping Vista Seed Partners LLC

14 * Shark Creeping Mountain View Seeds

15 * Barracuda Creeping Mountain View Seeds

16 PST-0RBS Creeping Pure Seed Testing

17 PST-0CV6 Creeping Pure Seed Testing


56 57

1 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season Turfgrasses1 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season

Turfgrasses

2015 Low Input Cool-season Ancillary Trial

11 12 14 29 25 8 24 1 4 19 13 5 10 23 27 31

16 20 6 18 30 26 3 17 7 9 22 15 28 21 2 32

17 26 22 27 30 31 3 5 24 15 2 32 23 19 14 11

21 7 20 28 18 25 12 29 16 8 10 1 6 13 9 4

2 22 18 13 25 5 14 20 32 1 21 12 16 28 3 27

4 26 24 23 9 10 8 30 29 15 6 17 7 19 31 11

2015 Low Input Cool-season Trial

25 4 6 28 2 27 29 7 5 32 26 16 30 3 13 11

19 14 24 8 1 9 21 18 20 23 12 15 31 22 17 10

22 18 20 23 26 27 8 28 13 32 17 5 11 16 31 1

4 14 30 24 6 25 9 7 15 19 3 12 21 29 2 10

16 26 13 9 15 24 29 11 14 32 25 31 30 2 4 8

21 20 19 22 28 23 17 7 27 3 6 10 1 18 12 5

S

58 59

2013 Bermudagrass NTEP Trial

1-Tifway-V 8-OKS 2009-3-S 15-JSC 2009-2-s 22-11-T-251-V 29-PST-R6T9S-S

2-Latitude 36-V 9-OKS 2011-1-S 16-JSC 2009-6-s 23-11-T-510-V 30-PST-R6CT-S

3-Patriot-V 10-OKS 2011-4-S 17-Riviera-S 24-DT-1-V 31-BAR C291-S

4-Celebration-V 11-JSC 2-21-1-v 18-Yukon-S 25-FAES 1325-V 32-OKC 1131-V

5-NuMex-Sahara-S 12-JSC 2-21-18-v19-North Shore

SLT-S26-FAES 1326-V 33-OKC 1163-V

6-Princess 77-S 13-JSC 2007-8-s 20-12-TSB-1-S 27-FAES 1327-V 34-OKC 1302-V

7-MBG 002-S 14-JSC 2007-13-s 21-MSB 281-V 28-PST-R6P0-S 35-Astro-V

15-JSC 2009-2-s 33-OKC 1163-V 22-11-T-251-V 9-OKS 2011-1-S 35-Astro-V

11-JSC 2-21-1-v 7-MBG 002-S 4-Celebration-V 31-BAR C291-S 14-JSC 2007-13-s19-North Shore

SLT-S25-FAES 1325-V 10-OKS 2011-4-S 27-FAES 1327-V 21-MSB 281-V

1-Tifway-V 29-PST-R6T9S-S 28-PST-R6P0-S 2-Latitude 36-V 8-OKS 2009-3-S

5-NuMex-Sahara-S 23-11-T-510-V 32-OKC 1131-V 20-12-TSB-1-S 12-JSC 2-21-18-v West

17-Riviera-S 18-Yukon-S 34-OKC 1302-V 16-JSC 2009-6-s 3-Patriot-V

6-Princess 77-S 13-JSC 2007-8-s 24-DT-1-V 26-FAES 1326-V 30-PST-R6CT-S

27-FAES 1327-V 28-PST-R6P0-S19-North Shore

SLT-S24-DT-1-V 12-JSC 2-21-18-v

32-OKC 1131-V 22-11-T-251-V 2-Latitude 36-V 30-PST-R6CT-S 10-OKS 2011-4-S

26-FAES 1326-V 7-MBG 002-S 4-Celebration-V 13-JSC 2007-8-s 25-FAES 1325-V

16-JSC 2009-6-s 21-MSB 281-V 15-JSC 2009-2-s 5-NuMex-Sahara-S 8-OKS 2009-3-S

33-OKC 1163-V 17-Riviera-S 9-OKS 2011-1-S 23-11-T-510-V 20-12-TSB-1-S

29-PST-R6T9S-S 3-Patriot-V 31-BAR C291-S 6-Princess 77-S 34-OKC 1302-V

35-Astro-V 11-JSC 2-21-1-v 14-JSC 2007-13-s 18-Yukon-S 1-Tifway-V

North


National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season Turfgrasses2

Lee Miller, Brad Fresenburg, and Daniel Earlywine

Warm season turfgrasses have the distinct advantage of C4 carbon fixation, which avoids carbon crunching photorespiration and affords them greater performance in limiting nitrogen, disease, drought, and heat stress. In 2013, we established two new trials with support from the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP). This program, started by J.J. Murray with a 1980 trial on Kentucky bluegrass, evaluates varieties of 17 different turfgrass species in 40 different states and 6 Canadian provinces.

Information such as turfgrass quality, color, density, resistance to diseases and insects, tolerance to heat, cold, drought and traffic is collected and summarized by NTEP annually. NTEP information is used by individuals and companies in thirty countries. Plant breeders, turfgrass researchers and extension personnel use NTEP data to identify improved environmentally-sound turfgrasses. Lo-cal and state government entities, such as parks and highway departments, use NTEP for locating resource-efficient varieties. Most important, growers and consumers use NTEP extensively to pur-chase drought tolerant, pest resistant, attractive and durable seed or sod. It is the acceptance by the end-user that has made NTEP the standard for turfgrass evaluation in the U.S. and many other countries worldwide.

The two trials at the University of Missouri Turfgrass Research Facility are focused on the utility of new zoysiagrass and bermudagrass cultivars in the northern transition zone. We also will be con-ducting two important ancillary host resistance trials. We will be joining the University of Arkan-sas in evaluating large patch resistance in new zoysiagrass cultivars, and will be the only location evaluating spring dead spot resistance in new bermudagrass cultivars. First, however, the two trials needed to get past their first Missouri winter. The winter of 2013-14 was the coldest in the previous 35 years, and there was considerable attrition and winterkill in the two trials.

Maintenance Guidelines

The following are the maintenance guidelines set forth by NTEP for these trials.

Bermudagrass ZoysiagrassMowing Height 0.75” 0.75”Mowing Frequency 2-4 times/week 2-4 times/weekNitrogen Rate 1 lb N/1000 ft2/growing month 0.3 lb N/1000 ft2/growing monthIrrigation Drought stress prevention Drought stress preventionFungicides & Insecticides None NoneHerbicides Broadleaf and preemergents Broadleaf and preemergentsInitial Planting Date June 14, 2013 June 27, 2013Replant Date June 27, 2014 June 27, 2014


60 61


Recent Results

Seven of the thirty-five bermudagrass varieties survived the polar vortex of 2013-14 and did not require replanting in 2014. After replant, 22 cultivars survived the second winter (quality ~ 2). In general, the highest performing vegetative bermudagrass cultivars have higher turfgrass quality (finer texture, higher density, lack of seedhead production) than the best performing seeded variet-ies. In September 2015, varieties were challenged with inoculum of Ophiosphaerella herpotricha, and will be evaluated for spring dead spot resistance.


62 63

No. Name

2014 Replant

Type Sponsor

1 * Meyer Vegetative Standard Entry

2 * Zeon X Vegetative Standard Entry

3 * Empire X Vegetative Standard Entry

4 10-TZ-35 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission

5 10-TZ-1254 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission

6 09-TZ-53-20 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission

7 09-TZ-54-9 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission

8 GGZ 504 X Vegetative UGA Research Foundation

9 11-TZ-4321 X Vegetative Bladerunner Farms

10 DALZ 1303 X Vegetative Bladerunner Farms

11 CSZ 1105 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife Research

12 CSZ 1109 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife Research

13 FAES 1303 X Vegetative University of Florida






19 FAES 1309 X XVegetative University of Florida













32 DALZ 1301 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife

33 DALZ 1302 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife

34 KSUZ 1201 Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife/Kansas State University

35 * A-1 X Vegetative Gene Pro PTY LTD


National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season Turfgrasses2National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season

Turfgrasses2

2013 Zoysiagrass NTEP Trial

22-FAES 1313 26-FAES 1317 16-FAES 1306 34-KSUZ 1201 6-09-TZ-53-20

4-10-TZ-35 20-FAES 1310 3-Empire 14-FAES 1304 7-09-TZ-54-9

31-FAES 1329 2-Zeon 17-FAES 1307 29-FAES 1322 21-FAES 1312

27-FAES 1318 35-A-1 19-FAES 1309 28-FAES 1319 33-DALZ 1302

32-DALZ 1301 10-DALZ 1303 13-FAES 1303 8-GGZ 504 12-CSZ 1109

25-FAES 1316 18-FAES 1308 24-FAES 1315 23-FAES 1314 1-Meyer

5-10-TZ-1254 30-FAES 1328 9-11-TZ-4321 11-CSZ 1105 15-FAES 1305

1-Meyer 8-GGZ 504 15-FAES 1305 22-FAES 1313 29-FAES 1322

2-Zeon 9-11-TZ-4321 16-FAES 1306 23-FAES 1314 30-FAES 1328

3-Empire 10-DALZ 1303 17-FAES 1307 24-FAES 1315 31-FAES 1329

4-10-TZ-35 11-CSZ 1105 18-FAES 1308 25-FAES 1316 32-DALZ 1301

5-10-TZ-1254 12-CSZ 1109 19-FAES 1309 26-FAES 1317 33-DALZ 1302 West

6-09-TZ-53-20 13-FAES 1303 20-FAES 1310 27-FAES 1318 34-KSUZ 1201

7-09-TZ-54-9 14-FAES 1304 21-FAES 1312 28-FAES 1319 35-A-1

27-FAES 1318 31-FAES 1329 34-KSUZ 1201 16-FAES 1306 17-FAES 1307

2-Zeon 11-CSZ 1105 30-FAES 1328 7-09-TZ-54-9 23-FAES 1314

33-DALZ 1302 8-GGZ 504 3-Empire 12-CSZ 1109 6-09-TZ-53-20

29-FAES 1322 9-11-TZ-4321 21-FAES 1312 18-FAES 1308 5-10-TZ-1254

25-FAES 1316 4-10-TZ-35 35-A-1 24-FAES 1315 1-Meyer

32-DALZ 1301 20-FAES 1310 13-FAES 1303 14-FAES 1304 22-FAES 1313

10-DALZ 1303 28-FAES 1319 26-FAES 1317 15-FAES 1305 19-FAES 1309

North

64 65

3 Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green


SummaryFairy ring is traditionally difficult to control from a curative standpoint during the summer months when symptoms may appear. Two fungicide trials were conducted on a 4-year-old ‘Penn A-1’ creeping bentgrass green. The trial area was mowed five times a week at a height of 0.130 inches. The putting green was watered as needed to prevent drought stress and Revolution (6.0 fl oz/1000ft2) was applied every 4 weeks to control localized dry spot from May to September. During that same time period, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000ft2) are being applied every 2 weeks.

Trial 1 was designed to evaluate two experimental fungicides and ProStar for preventative fairy ring con-trol. Initial applications were made on April 22, when the average 5 day soil temperature at a 2 inch depth was 55°F. All treatments were immediately watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation following each application. Treatments were reapplied every 28 days with a total of 4 applications.

Current FindingsTrial 1. Although this is primarily a fairy ring study, we observed dollar spot with in the trial area on June 3. By June 17, both EXP 1 and 2 had significantly less dollar spot severity than plots treated with ProStar and the untreated control. Type II fairy ring symptoms were first observed within the untreated control plots on June 17. No fairy ring symptoms have been observed in all fungicide treated plots. Similar results in turf quality were also noted among treatments tested. With an increase in dollar spot pressure and fairy ring symptoms in mid June, both EXP 1 and 2 treated plots had significantly higher turf quality on the June 17 rating date than plots treated with ProStar and the untreated control. We will continue evaluated this trial for any addi-tional disease symptoms we continue through the summer.

Trial 1. Dollar spot and fairy ring control.Dollar Spot Severity

(# of infection centers)y

Fairy Ring

Severity (%)z

Treatment Rate/1000 ft2

Application Interval

3 Jun 17 Jun 17 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 5.0 ax 13.8 a 7.5 a

EXP 1 - ABCDw 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a

EXP 2 - ABCD 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.0 a

ProStar 4.5 oz ABCD 7.5 a 18.5 a 0.0 a

zFairy ring severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered).yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot.xMeans(n=4)withincolumnsfollowedbythesamelettersarenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05).wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-22 Apr, B-20 May, C-17 Jun, D-15 Jul.

Recent Results

Only two of the thirty-five varieties (KSUZ 1201 and Meyer) did not require replanting in 2014. After replant, 11 varieties (shown below) survived the second winter and have at least some zoysia present in a plot. Several newer varieties outperform Meyer in turfgrass quality due to a lack of seedhead production, finer texture, and higher density. In September 2015, varieties were chal-lenged with inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP, and will be evaluated for large patch resis-tance.


66 67

4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green


SummaryFour fungicide trials were conducted to evaluate turf quality and summer disease control using multiple la-beled and experimental fungicides. All trials were conducted on a ‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass green that is >20 years old. The green was mowed 5 times a week at a height of 0.130 inches. All trials were watered as needed to prevent drought stress, and Revolution (6.0 fl oz/1000 ft2) is applied on greens every 4 weeks to minimize localized dry spot. From May to September, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000ft2) is being applied every two weeks. Dollar spot symptoms oc-curred in the trial area in early to mid April before initiation. Therefore, two curative applications of Daconil Ultrex at (3.25 oz/1000ft2) were applied to the trial area prior to trial initiation in early May.

Trial 1: was designed to evaluate preventative dollar spot and brown patch control. Treatments consisted of: Lexicon Intrinsic, Lexicon Intrinsic + Signature Xtra StressGard, Appear + Heritage Action + Velista, Tartan, Briskway, and Fame +T. Treatments were initiated on May 6 and reapplied every 14 or 21-days with a total of 6 and 4 applications made by July 19, respectively. Following field day, two additional applications will be made.

Trial 2: was designed to evaluate Emerald alone, Kabuto alone, and Kabuto + experimental treatments for preventative dollar spot control on greens height creeping bentgrass. All treatments were initiated on May 6. Treatments were reapplied on 14, 21, or 28-day interval with a total of 6, 4, and 3 applications made by July 19, respectively. Following field day, three additional applications will be made.

Trial 3 and 4: was designed to evaluate Fame +T and Kabuto in combination with experimental products for preventative dollar spot and brown patch control. Both trial 3 and 4 were initiated on May 6 and May 18, re-spectively. Subsequent applications were made on 14 or 28-day intervals. For Trial 3, treatments applied on 14 or 28-day intervals will have had 6 and 3 applications applied by July 19. For Trial 4, treatments applied on 14 or 28-day intervals will have had 5 and 3 applications applied by July 19, respectively. Following field day one additional application will be made.

Pathogen inoculation was conducted on trial 1 and 4 only. On June 17, both trials were inoculated with rye grain infested with a mixture of four isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 IIIB, the causal pathogen of brown patch. Inoculum was uniformly applied at 25 cc per plot using a small broadcast spreader, and left on the turf surface for 3 days to enable pathogen development.

Current FindingsTrial 1: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 6. From May 26 to June 17, all treated plots had significantly less dollar spot infection centers per plot compared to the untreated control. Brown patch was first noted in the trial area on June 6, however, no statistical differences in brown patch control were noted among treated and untreated plots until June 17. On that date, all treated plots were significantly lower in brown patch severity than the untreated control. No significant differences in brown patch control have been observed among tested treatments. Acceptable turf quality (≥6) was observed in all treated plots and was significantly higher than the untreated control from May 26 to June 17. This trial will continue to be rated for disease control throughout the summer.

3 Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

Trial 1. Turf Quality.Turf Qualityz



3 Jun 17 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 6.7 ay 5.6 b

EXP 1 - ABCDx 7.6 a 7.2 a

EXP 2 - ABCD 7.3 a 6.8 a

ProStar 4.5 oz ABCD 5.1 a 6.0 b

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans(n=4)withincolumnsfollowedbythesamelettersarenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoFisher’sProtectedLSD(P = 0.05).xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-22 Apr, B-20 May, C-17 Jun, D-15 Jul.

Trial 2.Trial 2 was designed to evaluate ProStar, Lexicon Intrinsic, Briskway, and Velista for curative fairy ring control. Plots were sprayed on 5 July and watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation. An additional application will be made again 4 weeks later. Below is a plot map with treatment arrangement and outlining the fairy ring symptoms within the plots. Additional ratings will be taken throughout July and August to evaluated turfgrass recovery from fairy ring symptoms.

68 69

4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch

Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

70 71

Trial 3: Dollar spot (<7 infection centers/plot) was observed across the trial area when the first fungicide application was made (May 6). No statistical difference in dollar spot control was noted until June 3. All treatments of Kabuto + EXP1, 2, 3, and 4, applied on a 14 day interval had significantly less dollar spot than plots treated with Kabuto+ EXP 3 (28 day interval). From June 3 through the 17, all treated plots had less dol-lar spot than the untreated control. Similar results were also noted in turf quality for the month of June. On June 3, plots treated on a 14 day interval tended to have higher turf quality than plots treated every 28 days. Acceptable turf quality (≥6) was noted throughout the month of June for all treated plots. This trial will con-tinue to be rated for disease control throughout the summer.

Trial 3. Dollar spot ControlDollar Spot Severity

(# of infection centers)z

Treatment Rate/1000 ft2Application Interval 20 May 3 Jun 17 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 5.5 ay 36.3 a 40.8 a

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 0.5 a 0.0 c 0.0 b

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 2.0 a 8.0 bc 0.0 b

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 3.8 a 0.3 c 0.0 b



Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 4.5 a 15.0 b 0.0 b



Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 1.3 a 8.8 bc 1.0 b

zDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-3 Jun, D-17 Jun, E- 1 Jul , F- 15 Jul , G- 29 Jul.

Trial 3. Turf QualityTurf Quality z

Treatment Rate/1000 ft2Application Interval 20 May 3 Jun 17 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 6.2 ay 5.5 d 4.8 d

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 6.8 a 7.3 a 7.0 abc

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.7 a 6.5 bc 7.3 a

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 5.3 a 7.1 ab 7.1 abc

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 a 6.2 c 7.0 abc

Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.1 a 7.2 a 7.1 abc

Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.6 a 6.1 cd 7.2 ab

Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.2 a 7.1 ab 6.8 bc

Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 a 6.2 c 7.0 abc

Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 7.1 a 6.3 c 6.7 c

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-3 Jun, D-17 Jun, E- 1 Jul , F- 15 Jul , G- 29 Jul.

Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green44

Trial 2: A minimal amount of dollar spot was observed when the trial was initiated on May 6. On both May 26 and June 17, all treated plots had significantly less dollar spot severity than the untreated control. On both May 26 and 17 Jun, plots treated with EXP1 (21 day interval), had significantly more dollar spot sever-ity than Kabuto (14 day interval). Brown patch was first noted on June 3 within the trial area, however, no differences have been observed between treated and untreated plots. On May 26, turf quality in all treated plots was significantly higher than the untreated control. By June 17, as dollar spot and brown patch sever-ity increased, turf quality was reduced to below acceptable levels (6) in all treated and untreated plots. This trial will continue to be evaluated for disease control as we continue through the summer.

Trial 2. Dollar spot and Brown Patch ControlDollar Spot Severity

(# of infection centers)yBrown PatchSeverity (%)z



26 May 17 Jun 17 Jun


Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ABDEFHIJLw 2.0 c 4.5 cd 16.8 a

EXP1 - ACEGIKM 10.8 b 21.3 b 14.3 a

Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ACEGIKM 4.5 bc 14.3 bc 9.3 a

Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ADFIL 7.0 bc 12.8 bc 12.5 a

EXP1 - ADFIL 4.5 bc 7.0 cd 8.5 a

Emerald 0.13 oz ACEGIKM 4.0 bc 0.0 d 7.0 a

zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered).yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot.xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-27 May, D-3 Jun, E- 17 Jun , F- 1 Jul , G- 8 Jul, H-15 Jul, I-29 Jul, J- 12 Aug, K-19 Aug, L- 26 Aug, M- 9 Sept.

Trial 2. Turf QualityTurf Qualityz



26 May 17 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 5.7 by 4.8 a

Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ABDEFHIJLx 6.8 a 5.5 a

EXP1 - ACEGIKM 6.3 ab 5.0 a

Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ACEGIKM 6.8 a 5.2 a

Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ADFIL 6.5 a 5.2 a

EXP1 - ADFIL 6.6 a 5.6 a

Emerald 0.13 oz ACEGIKM 6.8 a 5.7 a

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-27 May, D-3 Jun, E- 17 Jun , F- 1 Jul , G- 8 Jul, H-15 Jul, I-29 Jul, J- 12 Aug, K-19 Aug, L- 26 Aug, M- 9 Sept.

Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

72 73

Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass5


IntroductionFungicide programs are designed to control a wide array of diseases from early spring to late fall. By rotat-ing fungicides based on their FRAC code and modes of action, golf superintendents reduce the likelihood of fungicide resistance while maintaining high turfgrass quality and disease control.

SummaryThree separate trials were conducted to evaluate turf quality and summer disease control using multiple fun-gicide programs. Trial 1 was conducted on ‘Penneagle II’ creeping bentgrass maintained at a fairway height and trials 2 and 3 were conducted on a “Penncross’ creeping bentgrass putting green. The fairway height trial area was mowed twice a week at a height of 0.5 inches. The greens height trial area was 5 times a week at a height of 0.130 inches. All trials were watered as needed to prevent drought stress. From May to September, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000 ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000 ft2) is applied once a month to fairway height creeping bentgrass and 2 times a month on greens. Revolution (6.0 fl oz/1000 ft2) is also being applied on Trial 2 and 3 every 4 weeks to control localized dry spot. For trial 3, dollar spot symptoms occurred in the trial area in late April before initiation. Therefore, two curative ap-plications of Daconil Ultrex (3.25 oz/1000 ft2) were applied to the trial area prior to trial initiation in mid May.

Trial 1 and 2 (treatments listed in table) was designed to evaluate two fungicide programs initiated when the average 5 day soil temperature at a 2 inch depth was 55°F. The first application was made on April 22

and immediately watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation (targeting fairy ring). The following ap-plication was made 30 days later on May 23, with treatments applied every 7 or 14 days thereafter without post-application irrigation.

Trial 3: (treatments listed in table) was designed to evaluate 3 fungicide programs for early curative, and then sustained, disease control on a creeping bentgrass putting green. Initial applications were made on May 18, when < 5 dollar spot infection centers/ plot were observed in the trial area.

Pathogen inoculation was conducted on trials 1 and 2 only. On June 17, both trials were inoculated with rye grain infested with four isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 IIIB, the causal pathogen of brown patch. In-oculum was uniformly applied at 25 cc per plot using a small broadcast spreader, and left on the turf surface for 3 days to enable pathogen development.

Current FindingsTrial 1: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 23. From June 23 through June 21, both programs had significantly less dollar spot severity than the untreated control. Brown patch was first noted on June 21 only in untreated plots. Similar results were also noted for turfgrass quality. No significant differ-ences have been observed in disease control and turfgrass quality between both program 1 and 2. This trial will continue to be rated throughout the summer to monitor disease pressure and summer stress.

Trial 4: As with trial 3, trial 4 had several dollar spot lesions within the trial area when the trial was initi-ated on May 18. On both June 1 and 15 rating dates, all treated plots had less dollar spot severity than the untreated control. During that same time period, no significant differences in dollar spot control were noted among treatments tested. Brown patch was first noted on June 15, however no statistical difference in brown patch control has been observed among the treatments. Similar to Trial 3, acceptable turf quality (≥6) was noted throughout the month of June for all treated plots and significantly higher than the untreated control. This trial will continue throughout the summer.

Trial 4. Brown Patch Control.Dollar Spot Severity

(# of infection centers)yBrown Patch Severity

(%)z

Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Application Interval

1 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun


Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGw 2.3 b 0.3 b 0.3 a

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 0.5 b 0.0 b 0.0 a

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 1.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a






Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 0.8 b 4.0 b 0.5 a

zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered).yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot.xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-18 May, B-1 Jun, C-15 Jun, D-29 Jun, E- 13 Jul , F- 27 Jul , G- 10 Aug, H-24 Aug.

Trial 4. Turf QualityTurf Quality z

Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Application Interval

1 Jun 15 Jun

Untreated Control -------- 5.7 cy 5.5 c

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 6.8 b 7.3 ab

Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 7.1 ab 6.5 a

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 6.8 b 7.1 ab

Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 b 6.2 b

Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.6 a 7.2 ab

Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 7.2 ab 6.1 ab

Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.0 b 7.1 a

Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 b 6.2 ab

Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 7.1 ab 6.3 ab

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-18 May, B-1 Jun, C-15 Jun, D-29 Jun, E- 13 Jul , F- 27 Jul , G- 10 Aug, H-24 Aug.

4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

74 75

Trial 1 - Programs 1 and 2 Disease Control


Dollar Spot Severity(# of infection centers)y

Brown PatchSeverity (%)z

Treatment 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun 21 Jun

Untreated Control 4.0 ax 11.5 a 20.8 a 1.5 a

Program 1 14 day 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.5 b 0.0 a

Program 2 14 day 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a

zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered).yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot.xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Trial 1 - Programs 1 and 2 Turf Quality


Turf Qualityz

Treatment 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun

Untreated Control 6.5 bx 6.0 b 5.5 b

Program 1 14 day 7.0 a 7.5 a 7.3 a

Program 2 14 day 7.1 a 7.5 a 7.5 a

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Trial 2: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 6. From May 23 through June 21, program-treated plots had significantly less dollar spot severity than untreated control plots. A significant brown patch outbreak was first observed on June 21 in untreated plots, but not in program-treated plots. From May 23 through June 21 both programs had significantly higher turf quality than the untreated control. No dif-ference in disease control or turfgrass quality among the two programs has been observed. This trial will continue throughout the summer.


Trial 1. Treatment list with application dates for Fungicide Programs.

Treatment Rate Per 1,000 sq ft Application date

Program 1

Tartan StressGard 1.5 fl oz April 22

Mirage StressGard 1.5 fl oz May 23

Fiata StressGard + Exteris StressGard

5.0 fl oz +4.0 fl oz

June 6

Mirage StressGard 1.0 fl oz June 21

Fiata StressGard +Daconil Ultrex

5.0 fl oz + 3.2 oz wt

July 5

Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz July 18



August 1

Mirage StressGard +26 GT

1.0 fl oz + 2.0 fl oz

August 15

Interface StressGard 3.0 fl oz August 29

Program 2


Fiata StressGard+Mirage StressGard


May 23



June 6



June 21

Fiata StressGard +26 GT

5.0 fl oz + 2.0 fl oz

July 5



July 18

Tartan StressGard 1.5 fl oz August 1


76 77

Signature Xtra StressGard +Exteris StressGard

2.0 oz wt + 4.0 fl oz

August 15

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt August 22


Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz September 12

Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz September 26

Trial 2 - Programs 1 and 2 Disease Control






Program 1 14 day 0.0 a 1.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b

Program 2 14 day 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 b 0.0 b


Trial 2 - Programs 1 and 2 Turf Quality


Turf Qualityz


Untreated Control 6.0 bx 5.7 b 4.8 b

Program 1 14 day 7.1 a 7.3 a 7.6 a

Program 2 14 day 7.2 a 7.3 a 7.6 a

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05)

Trial 3: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 18 at trial initiation. On both June 1 and 15, all programs had less dollar spot severity than the untreated control plots. Brown patch was first noted on June 15, only occurring in untreated control plots. From June 1 to 15, all programs had significantly higher turf quality than the untreated control. No significant differences have been observed in disease control and turfgrass quality among the three programs. This trial will continue throughout the summer.




Program 1



4.0 oz wt +4.0 fl oz

May 23

Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz June 6



June 21

Signature Xtra StressGard +Daconil Ultrex

4.0 oz wt + 3.2 oz wt

July 5



July 18

Signature Xtra StressGard +26 GT


August 1


4.0 oz wt + 3.2 oz wt

August 15


Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz September 12

Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz September 26

Program 2



2.0 oz wt +3.2 oz wt

May 23

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt May 30

Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz June 6

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt June 13



June 21

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt June 27


2.0 oz wt + 3.2 oz wt

July 5

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt July 11



July 18

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt July 25

Signature Xtra StressGard +26 GT


August 1

Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt August 8


78 79

Daconil Action +Heritage Action

3.5 fl oz +0.2 oz wt

July 13

Secure 0.5 fl oz July 27

Daconil Action +Velista


August 10

Secure 0.5 fl oz August 24

Daconil Action +Banner Maxx


September 7

Trial 3 - Programs 1-3 Disease Control






Program 1 14 day 1.5 a 2.3 b 3.5 b 0.0 b

Program 2 14 day 1.8 a 2.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b

Program 3 14 day 3.0 a 4.5 b 0.5 b 0.0 b


Trial 3 – Programs 1-3 Turf Quality


Turf Qualityz


Untreated Control 6.8 ax 5.8 b 5.0 b

Program 1 14 day 6.8 a 6.8 a 7.0 a

Program 2 14 day 7.1 a 6.8 a 7.5 a

Program 3 14 day 6.8 a 7.1 a 7.2 a

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity.yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).




Program 1

Velista +Heritage Action


May 18

Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz June 1



June 15

Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz June 29



July 13

Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz July 27



August 10

Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz August 24

Program 2

Velista +Appear


May 18

Daconil Action +Appear


June 1

Velista +Appear


June 15



June 29

Velista +Appear


July 13



July 27

Velista +Appear


August 10



August 24

Program 3

Secure 0.5 fl oz May 18

Daconil Action +Banner Maxx


June 1

Daconil Action +Heritage Action


June 15

Daconil Action +Velista


June 29


80 81

(A) S. homoeocarpa isolate 363SHCT18 grown on agar amended with 0, 0.0002, 0.0006, 0.002, 0.006, 0.02, 0.06, 0.2, 0.6, and 2 parts per million (ppm) of the DMI fungicide propiconazole. Note the increase in growth, and potential hormetic response, around 0.002 ppm when compared to the control.

6 Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on Sclerotinia homoeocarpa

Kyle Robertson and Lee Miller

Summary Dollar spot is the most economically important diseases in the turf industry, affecting the aesthetics, play-ability, and uniformity of turfgrass used on golf courses, sports turf, and residential lawns. Dollar spot is caused by the pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa F.T. Bennett and has a wide variety of turfgrass host spe-cies. Fungicide use is the main tool for controlling dollar spot in high amenity turfgrass. Repeated fungicide applications are often necessary due to the low or non-existent threshold for disease tolerance and the wide window of environmental conditions conducive for dollar spot occurrence. Continuous use of fungi-cides could result in the exposure of sub-inhibitory doses of fungicide to strains of the pathogen due to the multiple applications in a season and the ensuing fungicide degradation towards the end of an application interval. A low-dose exposure may actually stimulate the pathogen instead of inhibiting it, leading to a dose response defined as hormesis. Hormesis is defined by inhibition following a high-dose exposure of a stressor and stimulation following a low-dose exposure of the same stressor. This response could result in increased pathogenicity of S. homoeocarpa, increased dollar spot severity, and decreased plant productivity. Evidence for the expression of hormesis in S. homoeocarpa isolates has been observed in previous in vitro fungicide resistance assays but not quantified or reported. Our goal is to define these increases in pathogenicity and disease severity by exposing isolates of the dollar spot pathogen to sub-inhibitory doses of fungicides and provoking a potential hormetic response.

MethodsIn the lab, plates of potato dextrose agar are being amended with multiple concentrations of fungicides ranging from 0.0002 to 20 parts per million (ppm). Radial growth of each plate is measured to compare to the control to find relative growth values (Figures A & B). Our focus lies with demethylation-inhibiting (DMI) fungicides, since decreased efficacy and apparent quantitative resistance to these fungicides have been observed previously in Sclerotinia homoeocarpa (Hsiang et al., 1997, Miller et al., 2002). At the molecu-lar level, oxalic acid, a secondary metabolite of various plant pathogens, is being evaluated because of its potential role in disease development (Cessna, et al., 2000). Oxalic acid production is being detected with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). A defined oxalic acid peak was obtained by running syn-thetic oxalic acid concentrations through HPLC, which allowed for conformation of oxalic acid production in S. homoeocarpa isolates (Figure C). Our focus now lies in determining if there is a correlation between increased pathogenicity due to sub-inhibitory doses of fungicide and the amount of oxalic acid produced by the pathogen.

Literature Cited

1. Cessna, S.G., Sears, V.E., Dickman, M.B., Low, P.S. 2000. Oxalic acid, a pathogenicity factor for Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, suppresses the oxidative burst of the host plant. Plant Cell. 12(11): 2191-2200.

2. Hsiang, T., L. Yang and W. Barton. 1997. Baseline sensitivity and cross-resistance to demethylation-inhibiting fungicides in Ontario isolates of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa. Plant Pathol. 103: 409-416.

3. Miller, G.L., Stevenson, K.L., and Burpee, L.L., 2002. Sensitivity of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa isolates to propiconazole and impact on control of dollar spot. Plant Dis. 86: 1240-1246.


82 83

7

Waana Kaluwasha and Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction

Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) is the dominating turfgrass species used on golf course

putting greens throughout the world. It has desired fine texture, recuperative ability and dense

growth habit. However, many commonly used creeping bentgrass cultivars are susceptible to dollar

spot caused by the fungus Sclerotinia homoeocarpa (Bennett). Dollar spot is one of the most im-

portant diseases of turfgrass in the United States. Characteristic symptoms on creeping bentgrass

include small (up to 1 inch in diameter), round, tan-colored spots (Fig 1). If the disease becomes

severe or is left unmanaged, individual spots may coalesce forming larger, irregular patches and

plants will eventually die (Figure 1). On residential lawns and taller turf grasses, symptoms appear

in irregularly shaped, bleached patches ranging from four to six inches or more in diameter. Tem-

peratures ranging from 59-86°F are most conducive for disease development and infection, and

therefore the disease can occur from April through October in Missouri.

Fig 1: Dollar spot on a creeping bentgrass green

Even though dollar spot symptoms are confined to aerial parts of turf grass plants, S. homoeocar-

pa produces a metabolite that is toxic to bentgrass roots. The toxin causes roots to thicken, cease to

elongate, and become devoid of root hairs. Recent studies have identified several tetranorditerpe-

noid compounds that could be responsible for the root-browning and exhibit extremely phytotoxic

properties.

Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Bennett)

(B) Relative growth values of S. homoeocarpa isolate 363SHCT18 treated with the DMI fungicide propiconazole at rates from 0 – 20 ppm. The box indicates relative growth values above 1, indi-cating a potential hormetic effect between 0.002 ppm and 0.02 ppm.

(C) A chromatogram showing the confirmed oxalic acid peak (highlighted) of S. homoeocarpa isolate S088.


84 85

Findings from previous study

A preliminary field experiment conducted on creeping bentgrass grown on a USGA green with L-93

creeping bentgrass observed better dollar spot tolerance when calcium fertilizer was used. It was

observed that the application of MicroPel monthly at 5 lb/1000 ft2 improved creeping bentgrass

putting green turf color and overall turf quality, regardless of irrigation level, compared to the un-

treated control. Furthermore, the addition of MicroPel to N fertilizer (0.2 lb. N/1000 ft2 biweekly)

appeared to improve turf color and dollar spot incidence, compared to MicroPel treatment alone.

The results demonstrated that MicroPel when applied under reduced irrigation has the potential to

improve the overall performance of creeping bentgrass (Fig 3) and also, that addition of MicroPel

fertilizer could potentially reduce dollar spot severity at reduced irrigation (Fig 4-9).

Fig 3: Turf quality (1-9) influenced by irrigation (100% or 50% of ET replacement), with or without

MicroPel®, and with or without Nitrogen fertilizer.

Fig 4: High irrigation control plot Fig 5: Low irrigation control plot

7Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Bennett)

Objective, Materials & Methods

The objective of this study is to evaluate creeping bentgrass tolerance to dollar spot and to deter-

mine whether the tolerance is influenced by calcium fertilizer and water status. The growth cham-

ber experiment will be a 2 x 2x 2 factorial with five replications. Creeping bentgrass core samples

(3 inch diameter) were harvested from an L-93 USGA green, and transplanted into cone-tainers (3

inch diameter) with USGA-spec sand. The cone-tainers were placed in a greenhouse (Fig 2) and will

be taken to a growth chamber with light intensity at 600 µmole/m2/s, and temperature at 25/20 oC

(day/night). The irrigation treatments will include ET 100% or 50% ET replacement. The ET rates will

be determined gravimetrically by weight changes every 24h over a 21 day period. The other two

treatments include with or without calcium fertilizer (MicroPel®) at 5.0 lb/1000 ft2 and inoculum of

dollar spot pathogen. Management practices will include N fertilization once every week and mow-

ing to a height of 1/2 inch twice every week. Data will be collected on a weekly basis to evaluate

whether there is an interaction between calcium and water status on tolerance of creeping bent-

grass to dollar spot. Evaluations will include turf quality and color based on a 1-9 scale where 9 is

best and 6 acceptable, shoot and root biomass at 3 weeks after initial treatment and the dollar spot

disease incidence and severity.

Fig 2: Creeping bentgrass plugs in cone-tainers


86 87

Matt Fleetwood and Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction Cinquefoil (or Wild Strawberry) is a weed that is often found growing in sandy soils with acidic and nutrient deficient characteristics. It can be a problem throughout much of the United States for many home lawns. The objective of the study was to evaluate multiple herbicide formulations with varying rates to determine the efficacy for control of cinquefoil.

Field plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established at Bradford Farm in Columbia, Missouri. Application method consisted of using a CO2 pressurized sprayer calibrated at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Eight treatments (Table 1) were organized in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatment was conducted on April 8th, 2016. Evaluations included weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 46 days.

Current Findings

All treated plots showed herbicide injury to cinquefoil. Significantly treatment effect, appeared as necrosis, showed as early as one week after the application of the herbicide. The best treatments, highlighted in Fig 1, showed 100% efficacy in suppression cinquefoil. Specifically, EH1601 at all rates, NB39020 and 4-Speed XT all reached complete control of cinquefoil at 4 weeks after treatment ap-plication (Fig 2). Treatment NB39051 and Speedzone®, in comparison, reached 90% control at the end of this trial. In Summary, this trial demonstrated the high efficacy of these newer compounds, NB39020, NB39051, and EH1601, in control of cinquefoil, which are as good as or better than com-mercialized herbicides.


Trt Product Application rate

1 Untreated Control ----

2 NB39020 0.214 lb ai/A

3 NB39051 0.276 lb ai/A

4 EH1601 (low) 0.87 lb ai/A

5 EH1601 (mid) 1.12 lb ai/A

6 EH1601 (high) 1.37 lb ai/A

7 SpeedZone 0.96 lb ai/A


Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) 8

Fig 6: High irrigation and monthly MicroPel® Fig 7: Low irrigation and monthly MicroPel®

Fig 8: High irrigation + monthly MicroPel®+N Fig 9: Low irrigation + monthly MicroPel®+N

Note that less dollar spot symptoms were observed in the plot that received low irrigation (50%

ET)+ MicroPel® and low irrigation (50% ET)+ MicroPel® + N (Fig 9) compared to the untreated con-

trol receiving 50% ET (Fig 5).


88 89

Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) 9

Matt Fleetwood Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction The objective of this study was to evaluate EH1587 and EH1545, two newer compounds/formula-tion, at varying rates to determine their efficacy in control of cinquefoil. Field plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established at Bradford Farm in Columbia, Missouri to test these herbicides. Seven treatments (Table 1) were arraigned in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were applied with a CO2 pressurized sprayer calibrated at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. The treatment was applied on April 8th, 2016. Evalu-ations were based on weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 46 days.

Table 1. Description of treatments with application rates Trt Product Application rate

1 Untreated Control ----

2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A

3 EH1587 (mid) 0.19 lb ai/A

4 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A

5 EH1545

1.41 lb ai/A



Current FindingsAll treated plots showed significant treatment effect at 2 weeks after treatment (WAT), compared to untreated control (Fig 1). At 5 WAT, more than 90% control were found in plots received EH1545, and Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. EH1587 applied at all three rates showed significant control of cinquefoil at 5 WAT, however, the control rates are between 35% and 58%.

In summary, this trial indicates that EH1545 provides effective control for cinquefoil at a comparable level to commercialized compounds such as and Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. In comparison, EH1587 provides partial suppression to cinquefoil but not a complete control.

Figure 1. Cinquefoil in plots that was untreated control (left), compared to plots received EH1601 middle rate (middle) and EH1601 high rate (right). Photo was taken on May 3, 2016.

Figure 2. Percent injury (%) on cinquefoil 2 WAIT (left) and 4 WAIT (right).

Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) 8

90 91

10

Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction

Wild Violet is a perennial weed with heart-shaped waxy leaves and purple/blue flowers that is con-sidered a difficult-to-control weed in the turfgrass and home lawn market. It’s physical characteris-tics, such as its waxy leaf surface and aggressive growth pattern, with its natural genetic resistance to many herbicides causes this weed to be a major pest that is hard to suppress once established. The objective of this experiment was to test efficacy of various post-emergence herbicides at vary-ing rates to determine which formulation resulted in the greatest reduction of wild violet.

This trail was established at the Capen Park, with the permission from the City of Columbia Parks and Recreation division. Plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established next to a trail where consistent and uni-form wild violet presents. Applications were sprayed at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet 8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Twelve treatments, including an untreated control (Table 1), were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatments occurred on April 19th, 2016 (first application) and May 17th, 2016 (second application) for selected treatments. Evaluations were based on weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 56 days.

Current Findings

Due to the difficult-to-control nature of wild violet, many of the treatments, especially commercial controls such as Triplet®, did not result in adequate necrosis at beginning of this trial (Fig 1). The only exception is treatment EH1587, a newer formulation/compound. At a higher rate after sequen-tial application (treatment 5), plots received this treatment showed greater than a 95% injury to the wild violet at 56 days after the initial treatment. This efficacy is significantly higher than control and all other treatments included in this trial, and is commercially acceptable. In summary, this trial demonstrated that as a difficult-to-control weed, wild violet is resistance to many broadleaf herbi-cides currently in the market. EH1587, a newer compound/formulation, will potentially be a power-ful tool once released for the home lawn market.

Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet (Viola spp.)

Figure 1. Cinquefoil percent injury (%) influenced by various herbicide at 2 and 5 weeks after treatment applications (WAT).

Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) 9

92 93

Figure 1. Percent injury (%) on wild violet 3 WAIT (left) and 7 WAIT (right).

10 Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet (Viola spp.)


Trt Product Application Rate

1 Untreated control ----

2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A

3 EH1587 (mid) 0.19 lb ai/A

4 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A

5 EH1587 (double app) 0.276 lb ai/A

6 EH1349 (low) 0.81 lb ai/A

7 EH1349 (mid) 1.13 lb ai/A

8 EH1349 (high) 1.45 lb ai/A

9 EH1349 (double app) 1.45 lb ai/A

10 EH1545 1.41 lb ai/A



10 Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet (Viola spp.)

94 95

11

Fig 2. A: Adult bluegrass billbug and B: Hunting bluegrass billbug. (Images by Dr. R. Sites, MU).

Bluegrass billbug is generally believed to have 1 generation per year. The billbug overwinter as young adults and emerge in the spring. The females can lay eggs over a 2 month period under favorable conditions, some can overwinter as large larvae, which could result in a second generation, but not as likely. It is shown that all developmental stages, including egg, larvae, pupa, and adult, can be found throughout the year. The hunting billbug is believed to have a similar life cycle, but can have multiple generations per year.

At the University of Missouri, we have revealed that there is a mixed population of bluegrass and hunting billbug that infest the zoysiagrass turf. Therefore, the objective of this research was to monitor the phenol-ogy of billbugs on zoysiagrass. Two sites were established on zoysiagrass fairways to monitor the popula-tion and to determine when the adult billbugs are most active. On each fairway, we have placed 40 pitfall traps that are 10 feet apart below the soil surface. Adult billbugs are collected weekly since April 2015, then counts are recorded and identified in the lab.

Current Findings Since the study began, we have discovered a mixed population of hunting and bluegrass billbugs on the zoy-siagrass fairways. We have been able to show that the hunting billbug has 1.5 to 2 generations per year, and that the bluegrass billbug has 1 generation per year in Columbia (Fig 3).

Our results found a distinct difference in the billbug species composition from the two fairways. Samples col-lected from Country Club of Missouri were dominated by hunting billbug (Fig 4), but samples collected from Columbia Country Club indicated a mixed population from 50:50 to 100:0 for hunting and bluegrass billbugs (Fig 3). The trial is still ongoing and a better understanding of billbug biology will be discussed in the follow-ing years.

A Study of Billbug Biology 11 A Study of Billbug Biology

Michael Patterson, Dr. Bruce Barrett, & Dr. Xi Xiong

SummaryIn recent years, billbug (Sphenophorus spp.) damage on zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.) turf have become an emerging problem in the transition zone that, left untreated, can destroy large areas of zoy-siagrass turf. Billbugs are weevils; adults measure 0.3 inches long or less with long snouts, and their larvae are legless (Fig 1). Billbugs have a complete life cycle; both larvae and adults feed on stems, crowns, or roots and stolons of susceptible grass species, depending upon the developmental stages. The adult females lay eggs in the grass stems or on the surface of leaf sheaths. The eggs hatch within 3-10 days after being laid and then begin feeding on the roots and crown of the plants in their vicinity, or feeding as deep as 2 – 3 inches deep in the soil. As the emerged larvae chew into the tillers, it disrupts the plants ability to translocate water and nutrients. Damage symptoms often resemble drought, nutrient deficiency, disease, other insect problems such as white grubs, or sometimes winter injury.

Fig 1. A: Mature larvae; and B: Bluegrass billbug (left) and hunting billbug (right).

There are at least nine species of billbugs that attack turfgrass plants in the United States. Among them, bluegrass billbug (S. parvulus Gyllenhal) is considered the most widely distributed species and has received the most attention from turfgrass researchers. Bluegrass billbug is believed to use Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis I.) as its main target to feed on, although other turfgrass and nonturf species can be attacked as well. Hunting billbug (S. venatus vestitus Chittenden) have spread into northern states and has been recognized as the species to target warm-season grasses, including zoysiagrass. At this time, it is impossible to identify the billbug species at the larvae stage. However, the adult stage can be accurately identified based on the markings on the pronotum (Fig 2).

96 97

Michael Patterson, Dr. Bruce Barrett, and Dr. Xi Xiong

Summary Billbugs are some of the most commonly misdiagnosed insects in residential lawns, sod farmers, and on golf courses. Because majority of their activities are in the thatch or below the soil surfaces, damages caused by billbugs often diagnosed as drought, winter dormancy, or other root-feeding insects such as white grubs. Without proper diagnose of the pest, it is difficult to develop an effective pest control strategy. Some of the commonly used insecticides in the turf market can be a powerful tool to control white grubs, however, their efficacy for control billbugs need to be investigated.

A field-based study was established at a local Golf Course, with the objective to evaluated the efficiency of various insecticides for billbug control. The trial was arranged in a randomized complete block with three replications on ‘Meyer’ zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.) fairway. To monitor the activity and movement of adult billbugs, pitfall traps were built and installed below the ground. Pitfall traps were constructed with a schedule forty, 3 inch PVC slip cap with an inside diameter of 3.5 inches, and an outside diameter of 4 inches. First, a hole is drilled into the bottom of the cap to allow water drainage. A round drain strainer with 3.125 inch diameter and 0.12 inch perforations is placed into the slip cap. A 1 inch, number 10 screw is then inserted into the center of the drain strainer to plug a 0.2 inch hole in the middle. Pitfall traps are then set in place by using a four inch cup cutter to remove a four inch long soil core. Once the core is removed, the pit-fall traps can be placed into the ground just below the soil surface in the center of each 5’ by 10’ plot. As the adult billbugs move through the plots they fall into the traps where they are unable to climb out and can be counted. Treatments described in table 1 were applied using a CO2 pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 44 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips.

Current Findings The Trial was established at a local Golf Course in Columbia, MO with initial applications on May 21, 2015 (Fig 1). A second Application of insecticide was applied June 19, 2015 to half the plots to a split-plot design. The field plots were established adjacent to the area where heavy billbug damage has been previously observed on the course.

The results from the 2015 showed that the turf performance, detected by NDVI in treated plots were main-tained or improved, compared to control (Fig 2). Insecticide Talstar®, alone or in combination with other compounds, resulted in a better turf performance as compared to control. The trial is still ongoing, and a more definite answer will be provided after the completion of this experiment in fall 2016.

12 Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass fairway11 A Study of Billbug Biology

1

Fig. 3 Total number of billbugs collected from Columbia Country Club from April to September 2015.

Fig. 4 Total number of billbugs collected from April to September from Country Club of Missouri in 2015.

0

20

40

60

80

1004/

22

4/29 5/

6

5/13

5/20

5/27 6/

3

6/10

6/17

6/24 7/

1

7/8

7/15

7/22

7/29 8/

5

8/12

8/19

8/26 9/

2

9/9

Bill

bug

coun

ts

Hunting billbug

Bluegrass billbug

Total billbug

0

10

20

30

40

4/22

4/29 5/

6

5/13

5/20

5/27 6/

3

6/10

6/17

6/24 7/

1

7/8

7/15

7/22

7/29 8/

5

8/12

8/19

8/26 9/

2

9/9

Bill

bug

coun

ts

Hunting billbug

Bluegrass billbug

Total billbug

98 99

Table 1. Treatment Rates and Schedule

Treatment # Treatment Rate Application Date (1st)

Application Date (2nd)

1 Untreated (control) - - -

2 Talstar (adult) 0.5 fl oz /1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

3 DeltaGard (adult) 0.9 fl oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

4 Scimitar (adult) 10 fl oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

5 Merit (adult) 0.6 fl oz/1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

6 Arena (larvae) 0.29 oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

7 Meridian (larvae) 17 oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

8 Acelepryn(adult + Larvae)

0.46 fl oz/1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

9 Talstar +Arena

0.5 fl oz /1000ft2

0.29 oz/100ft25/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

10 DeltaGard +Arena

0.9 fl oz/100ft2

0.29 oz/100ft25/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

11 Scimitar +Arena

10 fl oz/a0.29 oz/100ft2

5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

12 Merit +Arena

0.6 fl oz/1000ft2

0.29 oz/100ft25/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

13 Talstar +Meridian

0.5 fl oz /1000ft2

17 oz/a5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

14 DeltaGard + Meridian 0.9 fl oz/100ft2

17 oz/a5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

15 Scimitar + Meridian 10 fl oz/a17 oz/a

5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

16 Merit + Meridian

0.6 fl oz/1000ft2

17 oz/a5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16

12 Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass fairway

Fig 1. Treatment application on a zoysiagrass fairway located in Columbia, Mo.

Fig 2. Insecticide main effect on normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). Data were collected at 4, 9, 13, and 17 weeks after initial treatment application (WAIT; 6/20, 7/29, 8/28, and 9/16, respectively). Data were pooled over application as no significant application effect was found. Bars labeled by the same letters were not significantly different based on Fisher’s Protected LSD (P<0.05).

12 Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass fairway

100 101

Fig 1. Percent cover of common chickweed at 1 week after treatment (WAIT)

Fig 2. Percent cover of common chickweed at 4 weeks after treatment (WAT)

13 Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed

Michael Patterson & Dr. Xi Xiong

Summary Common Chickweed (Stellaria media) is a common broadleaf weed in lawn and other turf areas. As a widely distributed species, common chickweed is a winter annual that germinates in fall/winter and persists into late spring in central Missouri. Common chickweed can be easily identified by long leafy stems that run pros-trate along the ground with small oval leaves.

The objective of the experiment was to test the efficacy of EH1587 at different rates (Table 1) for post-emergent control of common chickweed. Seven treatments, including an untreated control, were arranged in completely randomized block design with 3 replications. Besides control, the products included are EH1587, Triplet®, and 4-Speed XT®. Field plots, with individual plot measuring 5x5 ft2, were established at the Brad-ford Farm. Treatment were sprayed on April 8, 2016 at 25 GPA using Tee Jet 8004 nozzle tips. Measurements included weekly evaluation of percent coverage of common chickweed for 5 weeks after treatment applica-tion (WAT).

Trt# Treatment Rate Application Date

1 Untreated (control) - -

2 EH1587 (L) 0.104 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

3 EH1587 (LM) 0.19 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

4 EH1587 (MH) 0.276 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

5 EH1587 (H) 1.41 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

6 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

7 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

Table 1. Description of products, application rates and application date.

ConclusionAt 1 week after treatment (WAT), treated plots started to show discolorations (Fig 1). By 4 WAT, common chickweed in the control plots showed 25% reduction in coverage compared to 1 WAT, which is due to its annual nature and plants start to die out after flowering. In comparison, common chickweed in all treated plots showed a significant reduction compared to control, and maintained a coverage at 15% or lower (Fig 2). EH1587 at all rates showed statistically same efficacy in control of common chickweed, compared to commercialized compounds Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. At rate of 0.276 lb ai/a or higher, especially, EH1587 resulted in minimal chickweed presence with a clean plot.

In summary, EH1587 is potentially a powerful tool for control of common chickweed for lawn care market.


102 103

Naba Amgain and Dr. Xi Xiong

SummaryFenoxaprop-p-ethyl (Acclaim Extra®) is an aryloxyphenoxy propionic group (AOPP) herbicide, which is used safely on cool season turfgrass and Zoysiagrass. In addition to suppress other grass weeds, fenoxaprop is effective to suppress bermudagrass in cool season turfgrass and zoysiagrass (Zoysia sp.). AOPP herbicide inhibit enzymatic activity of acetyl-coA carboxylase, which causes the death of meristematic tissues by preventing the formation of cellular membrane. For the complete control of bermudagrass, multiple applications are needed. Some of the bermudagrass cultivars has shown some level to tolerance to AOPP herbicides. However, the mechanism of tolerance of bermu-dagrass cultivars to AOPP herbicide is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the toler-ance of bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide Acclaim Extra®.

Research was conducted in greenhouse at the University of Missouri in 2015 and 2016. F1 segregat-ing progeny from A12395 (C. dactylon) x A12396 (C. dactylon) were germinated and tested for her-bicide tolerance trait. Seeds were germinated and grown in greenhouse maintained at 30/25 oC day/night temperature. A total of 116 genotypes from A12395 x A12396 were established in the green-house by plugs in 4 inch diameter pots. Treatments were arranged in a completely random design with 3 replication of each genotypes. Plants were treated with Acclaim Extra after plants reached full coverage. Grasses were sprayed with Acclaim Extra® at 20 fl oz. /A and label suggested adjuvants (0.25% v/v). Herbicide was sprayed using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer using XR8002 TeeJet flat-fan nozzle tips calibrated to deliver 40 gal/A. Acclaim treated plants were monitored and visual assessment and digital image were taken every week for 4 weeks. Bermudagrass injury level was measured using 1-9 scale, where 1 means total death and 9 means no injury.

Current findingsCurrent results showed that different genotypes of bermudagrass had different responses to AOPP herbicide. The level of injury varies from 1 to 9 (Figure 1-4). The injury level of each genotype was rated every week for 4 week period. Based on the injury level genotypes were grouped into 6 groups (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, and 6-9). Genotypes in group 6-9 showed less injury level where as genotypes in group 1-2 showed higher injury level. Maximum injury was observed in 3 weeks after treatment. At first week after treatment, 13 %, 18%, 15%, 33% and 21 % of total genotypes were at 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and 6-9 injury level where as at 3 weeks after treatment 34%. 34%, 20%, 5%, and 7 % of total genotypes were at 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 injury level, respectively. Our results sug-gesting a genetic variation exists that influence the success of controlling bermudagrass using AOPP herbicides.

Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide14

Fig 3. Representative image of field plot received EH1587 at 0.19 lb ai/a (treatment 3) at 1 WAT (left), show-ing discoloration of common chickweed, and 4 WAT (right), showing clean plot with minimal presence of chickweed.


104 105

Figure 3. Representative picture of bermudagrass genotypes which shows less (top) or more (bottom) injury to AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extra®) 3 weeks after treatment.


Figure 1. Response of 116 bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extract) 1 week after treatment

Figure 2. Response of 116 bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extract) 3 weeks after treatment


106 107

Current Finding

No phytotoxicity was observed on the desired turf, indicating the excellent safety of Specticle FLO® on common bermudagrass lawns. Lespedeza germination was not observed until late May. Overall, the control plots contained about 8% of lespedeza coverage (Fig 1). PRE application of Barricade at 1.5 lb/A rate did not reduce lespedeza establishment, compared to control. Similarly, PRE applica-tion of Specticle FLO® at or lower than 6 oz/A did not reduce lespedeza population. However, PRE application of Specticle FLO® at 9 oz/A significantly suppressed lespedeza establishment to 40% reduction, compared to the untreated control. Sequential application of Specticle FLO® at lower rate (4.5 or 3.0 oz/A) as PRE followed by early POST, however, showed a similar control effect as Spec-ticle FLO® applied as PRE at 9 oz/A rate. PRE application timing is based on a typical schedule for control of crabgrass, which germinates about a month earlier than lespedeza. Results from this trial indicates that Specticle FLO® at 9 oz/A rate could be applied as a typical PRE to provide controls over crabgrass and weeds that germinate later such as lespedeza. Alternatively, Specticle FLO® can also be handled in split application as PRE followed by early POST to provide controls specifically to targeted weed species. It is important to note that there were only two evaluations occurred after lespedeza initiated germination. The full impact of herbicide efficacy will be determined after the end of season.

Fig 1. Percent lespedeza coverage (%) in plots treated with different treatments. Data were collected at 0, 5 and 8 weeks after initial treatment application. No interaction between treatment and sampling date were found; hence treatment main effect was presented. Bars labeled by different letters are significantly different based on Fisher’s Protected LSD at 0.05 probability level.

15 Efficacy of Specticle FLO on Control of Lespedeza on a Bermudagrass Lawn15


Summary

Specticle FLO® is a potent preemergence herbicide that is recently released to the turf market for control of annual weeds in warm-season turf. While the effect of Specticle FLO has been assessed under golf course conditions, the objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Specticle FLO for control of lespedeza on bermudagrass turf under residential lawn conditions, in comparison with the industry standard Barricade®.

This trial was established on ‘Riviera’ bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) maintained at 1 inch mowing height at the Turf Research Center in Columbia, MO. Plots, individually measuring 5’ by 10’, were overseeded with Korean lespedeza (Kummerowia stipulacea) seeds on April 28th to en-sure uniform weed pressure. Initial preemergence (PRE) treatments (application A corresponding to Table 1) were made on April 29th. The early-postemergence (POST) application of treatment 6 and 7 (application B) were made on June 2nd. Treatments were applied using a CO2 pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 43 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. Visual measure-ments were recorded monthly and included lespedeza percent cover (%) and phytotoxicity on desired turf on a 1-9 scale, where 1= total turf death, 6=minimally acceptable injury, and 9=non-injury.

Table 1. Treatments Rates and ScheduleTreatment # Products Application Rates Application Schedule1 Untreated2 Specticle FLO 9 OZ/A A: preemergence3 Specticle FLO 6 OZ/A A: preemergence4 Specticle FLO 3 OZ/A A: preemergence5 Specticle FLO 4.5 OZ/A A: preemergence6 Specticle FLO

Specticle FLO

4.5 OZ/A

4.5 OZ/A

A: preemergence

B: early-postemergence7 Specticle FLO

Specticle FLO

3 OZ/A

3 OZ/A

A: preemergence

B: early-postemergence8 Barricade 65WG 1.5 LB/A A: preemergence

Efficacy of Specticle FLO on Control of Lespedeza on a Bermudagrass Lawn

108 109

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MicroPel® on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) putting greens when subjected to reduced daily irrigation and/or reduced nitrogen fertilizer use.

Materials and MethodsTest plot (5 ft. x 5 ft.) were established on an ‘L-93’ creeping bentgrass putting green. Putting greens were constructed in accordance to the USGA specifications. Treatments were arranged in a random-ized complete block design with four replications. The detailed list of treatment can be found in table 2 below. Treatment factors include: MicroPel® (untreated control or monthly application), irriga-tion regimes (50% and 100% ET water replacement), and nitrogen application (untreated control or biweekly application). Treatments were applied using shaker jar to evenly distribute MicroPel® at 5 lbs/1000ft2. Nitrogen in the form of urea was applied at a rate of 0.2 lbs N/1000ft2 using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer. High irrigation treatment plot received daily irrigation of 100-125% evapotranspiration (ET) water replacement, and low irrigation treatment plot received daily irriga-tion of 50-75% ET replacement. Control plots received high and low irrigation with or without ad-ditional nitrogen. The first application was made on May 16th, 2014.

Evaluation included biweekly assessment of turf quality and color, normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI), volumetric water content (VWC), and digital image for analyzing percent green cov-er. Turf quality and color were measured on a scale of 1-9 (1= poor quality, 6=minimally accepted quality, and 9= best turf quality), NDVI readings were taken using a Green Seeker® handled sensor and range from 0.0-1.0, VWC measurement were taken using a soil moisture sensor with 4.0 inches probes. Prior to the application and after the termination of application soil samples were taken for further analysis.

Table 2. Description of the treatments.Treatment Producta Rate (lb/1000 ft2) Irrigationb Nitrogenc (lb/1000 ft2)1 None --- High 0.02 None --- High 0.23 None --- Low 0.04 None --- Low 0.25 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly High 0.06 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly High 0.27 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly Low 0.08 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly Low 0.2

aMicroPel® are applied monthly intervals.bIrrigation are supplied daily, High= 100-125% evapotranspiration (ET) replacement daily, low= 50-75% ET replacement daily.cNitrogen are applied biweekly in the form of Urea.

Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth16

Naba Amgain, Enzhan Song, and Dr. Xi Xiong

IntroductionMacro and micro nutrients are essential for growth and development of shoots and roots of turfgrass. Calcium present in soil may not be available to the plants due to different chemical formulation. MicroPel® is formulated with calcite and sulfated forms of micronutrients which supplies essential micro nutrients to the turfgrass. MicroPel® works effectively in any soil types regardless of pH. The ion present in MicroPel® are taken up by root hairs which enhance the cell growth by activating the enzyme producing system of plants. It is hypothesized that MicroPel® reduces the amount of nitro-gen and phosphorous required for optimum plant health, creates healthier plant root environment, promotes green plant color, and promotes rapid recovery from environment induced stress. The func-tion of the nutrients in MicroPel® are presented in table 1 below.

Table 1. Function of different essential nutrients present in MicroPel®.Nutrients Some important functionsCalcium (Ca) (30%) • Enhance ion uptake

• Increase protein synthesis • Increase nitrogen uptake• Increase plant root growth• Essential part of plant cell wall structure

Magnesium (Mg) (1.3%)0.25% water soluble

• Enhance Phosphorous metabolism• Enhance activation of enzymes• Essential for plant growth

Sulfur (S) (1.7 %) • Amino acid synthesis• Activation of enzymes • Helps in chlorophyll formation• Improves root growth and seed production• Resistance to temperature stress

Iron (Fe) (1.0%)0.74% water soluble

• Promotes formation of chlorophyll• Enzyme synthesis• Balance molybdenum, phosphorous, manganese and copper reactions• Reactions involving cell division and growth

Manganese (Mn) (0.14%)0.10% water soluble

• Predominant in metabolism of organic acids• Important enzymes involved in respiration• Enzyme activator

Zinc (Zn) (0.23%)0.17% water soluble

• Formation of growth hormones (auxin) • Enhance activation of enzymes • Enhance chemical reactions involving phosphorous


110 111


Figure 2. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable and 9= best). Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

Figure 3. Treatment effect on volumetric water content. Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

d

a

e

b ca

d

a

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

High High+ Low Low+ High+ High+ Low+ Low+

control Nitrogen control Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen

Tur

f col

or

Treatments

ab

a

bc

c

aba

c

bc

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18



VW

C %

Treatments

FindingsBy the end of 12 week after the initial treatment, result showed a significant treatment effect in turf quality and color. MicroPel® alone achieved turf quality rating >7 and turf color > 6.5 (Figure 1 and 2) while untreated control resulted in turf quality and color rating 6.5 or less. Treatment combination containing nitrogen and MicroPel® significantly increased the turf color and quality up to 8 (Fig-ure 1 and 2). At 50 % ET replacement, MicroPel® alone maintained the acceptable turf quality and color (Figure 1 and 2), despite that the soil moisture levels were same in all plots received 50% ET replacement (Figure 3). This result indicates the potential of MicroPel® for saving irrigation water consumption without comprise turf performance. Less dollar spot symptoms were observed in the plot that received MicroPel®, nitrogen and 50% irrigation (Figure 4), compared to plot received the same amount of irrigation and nitrogen but without MicroPel®.

ConclusionsMonthly application of MicroPel® at 5 lb/1000ft2 appear to be safe to the creeping bentgrass putting green, which improved creeping bentgrass putting green turf color and overall turf quality, regardless of irrigation level. Addition of nitrogen fertilizer biweekly at 0.2 lb N/1000ft2 improve turf color and quality compared to MicroPel® alone treated plot, regardless of irrigation amount. MicroPel® showed promising in conserving irrigation water without compromising turf performance. This experiment is ongoing and more results will be presented next season.


Figure 1. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable, and 9= best). Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

Figure 2. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable and 9= best). Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

d

a

e

bc cab

d

ab

3

4

5

6

7

8

9



Tur

f qua

lity

Treatments

112


High irrigation + biweekly nitrogen + monthly MicroPel®

Low irrigation + biweekly nitrogen + monthly MicroPel®

N

MU

P

eople’s G

arden

Mizzou T&O

Research Field Day: 2016

Shade G

rove

Shop

Irrigation Lake

FB

F

CB

B

B=B

ermuda

CB

=Creeping B

ent F=Fescue K

B=K

entucky Bluegrass

PR=P

erennial Rye

S=S

ynthetic Z= Zoysia

CB

CB

CB

B

F

PR

zZ

KB

A

nnual Flow

ers

B S

z

KB

B

S

B,B

F,Z B

PR

F F

KB

F

BZ Z

Z

B

KB

CB

Z

F,KB

4

B

CB

KB

TF

CBPR

CB

5

23NTE

P ZoysiaN

TEP B

ermuda

6

1

9

8

7

10

Wildflower Demonstration

KB

Wildflow

erW

ildflower

Booklet sponsored by:

1Strategiestocontroldifficult-to-controlbroadleaf weeds on residential lawns

2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it?

3 Evaluating Herbaceous Ornamentals for Performance in Missouri

4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common

diseases and things to watch out for5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A

Professional Approach 6 W

hat’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Session

7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents

Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand?

8 Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, W

here, and W

hy?9 Integrating management strategies for

spring dead spot and large patch control10 The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human

Health and Wildlife, & How to Support

Them in the Landscape

turfgrass & ornamental field day › research › 2016_field_day_booklet.pdf · john koehler,...

Documents