Ohio Turfgrass

Conference & Show

Special Edition

A special publication serving Ohio’s Turfgrass Industry

The Strength of The Turfgrass Community

Is Based on Its’ Individual Parts
December 9-12, 2002
Columbus, Ohio
Vol. 64 • No. 6 • 2002
November • December 2002
The purpose of the Ohio Turfgrass Foundation is
to promote the turfgrass industry in Ohio, to
encourage the further study and research of
turfgrass science, and to speak on matters of
policy affecting the turfgrass industry—all of which
provide better turf for everyone.
www.OhioTurfgrass.org
888-683-3445
The Ohio Lawn Care Association serves the
lawn care and affiliated industries by providing
essential agronomic, business, education,
and legislative resources.
www.OhioLawnCare.org
800-510-5296
To be a regional resource for Ohio
sports turf professionals to enhance, promote,
and improve the quality of sports turf
facilities through education, training, research,
networking and services.
www.ostma.org
740-452-4541
Page 2 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
Inside:
Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–5
OTF Board of Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
OLCA Board of Directors. . . . . . . . . . 7
OSTMA Board of Directors . . . . . . . . 8
OTF News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10–11
OLCA News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
OSTMA News. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15–16
New Growth and Technology
Winter Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18–19
OTF News and 2002
Conference & Show Program . . . Insert
Fall Strategies For Better
Fields Next Spring . . . . . . . . . . . 20–24
Evaluation of Fungicides. . . . . . . . . . . 25
New Growth and Technology
Change Over Time in
Quality & Cover of Various
Turfgrass Species and Cultivars
Maintained in the Shade . . . . . . 26–31
New Growth and Technology
An Evaluation of Trenchless
2–Tier Green Construction . . . . 32–38
Messages
From The Executive Director
OSU Turfgrass
Science Team
Dr. Michael J. Boehm
The Ohio State University
Dept. Plant Pathology
Dr. Karl Danneberger
The Ohio State University
Dept. Hort. & Crop Science

A s previously reported, a “collaboration” task force was Mr. Michael Fulton

The Ohio State University
formed to explore ways that Ohio’s turf-related industries could
Agricultural Technical Institute
work and communicate more closely with one another. To date,
representatives of OTF, OLCA and OSTMA have participated Dr. David Gardner
in collaborative discussions and planning. The Ohio State University
These three group have discussed various areas for working Dept. Hort. & Crop Science
together, including membership(s), events, publications and Dr. Parwinder Grewal
government affairs. OARDC/OSU
We have many challenges and potential threats to our col- Dept. Entomology
lective industries, and we may have to defend our practices on a Dr. Ed McCoy
collective basis. Together, we can give you better education, OARDC
enhanced communication, bring more people into the indus- School of Natural Resources
try, and expand the needs of the entire industry.
Mr. Joseph W. Rimelspach (Chairman)
OTF has opened the doors to the trade show to everyone at
The Ohio State University
no charge, encouraged exhibitors to display broad product Dept. Plant Pathology
lines geared to all turf managers, and will offer co-sponsored
tracks of education. Additionally, discounted registration fees Ms. Pamela Sherratt
are available to OLCA and OSTMA members. The Ohio State University
Another collaborative effort is this newsletter. By combining Dept. Hort. & Crop Science
the newsletters of OTF, OLCA and OSTMA, this special Ohio Dr. Dave Shetlar
Turfgrass Conference & Show issue will reduce expenses and The Ohio State University
improve efficiency by providing content in a meaningful pack- Dept. Entomology
age to the entire green industry. Dr. John R. Street
We hope you like this special issue. Please take the time to The Ohio State University
thoroughly read it and learn more about the interests and Dept. Hort. & Crop Science
needs of your fellow turfgrass peers. We also hope to see you at
Dr. Daniel Voltz
this year’s Ohio Turfgrass Conference & Show, December 9-12 The Ohio State University
in Columbus. Agricultural Technical Institute
Together, we will continue to serve the entire turfgrass
industry in Ohio! Mr. David A. Willoughby
The Ohio State University
Agricultural Technical Institute
Kevin Thompson
Executive Director, OTF and OLCA

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 3

Messages
From The OTF President

Welcome to the 2002 Ohio Turfgrass

Conference & Show
T he stage is nearly set and the 2002 Ohio Turfgrass Conference and Show
promises to be the best ever. On behalf of the Ohio Turfgrass Foundation’s
board of trustees and the faculty and staff of The Ohio State University, I invite
you to attend America’s premier turfgrass event. With nearly 100 hours of semi-
nars, workshops and special events, and a packed trade show floor that is open
for business for 18 hours over three days, the opportunities for increasing your
knowledge and advancing your personal or business goals are ample.
This year’s conference and show kicks off with a keynote delivery on Tuesday
morning by Ohio State’s own Archie Griffin. As the only two-time Heisman tro-
phy winner in NCAA history, Archie’s football legacy is well founded. But it is his
leadership, insight and charisma as an OSU Associate Director of Athletics that
keeps Archie in the spotlight today. You won’t want to miss his message.
The conference and show is not all work, of course, and many would agree
that the social aspects of our annual Columbus meeting are equally attractive. I
strongly encourage you to attend the awards banquet on Wednesday evening to
honor this year’s student scholars and those colleagues who have made valuable
contributions to the industry. The program is short and sweet and the entertain-
ment lively.
Preceding the banquet outside the trade show floor the Ohio Turfgrass
Research Trust will hold its Second Annual Live Auction. This is the trust’s
largest fundraising effort of the year. Your support is essential to their ongoing
efforts to fund quality turfgrass research and to provide student scholarships.
The OTRT board has worked hard to secure donations of many unique and
desirable items, so please plan to participate—and remember to bid high and
bid often!
If you are a member of one of our affiliated turfgrass organizations—Ohio
Lawn Care Association, Ohio Sod Producers Association, Ohio Sports Turf
Managers Association - you are eligible to register as an OTF member and take
advantage of the reduced rates being offered. The leaders of these organiza-
tions have played key roles on the various OTF planning committees that have
built this year’s program, thereby assuring a broad-based and widely appealing
four-day agenda for everyone in the green industries.
Staying informed and staying “plugged in” are keys to success. There is no
better opportunity to do it all than at the Ohio Turfgrass Conference and Show.
We’ll see you there!

Mark Heinlein
2002 President, OTF

Page 4 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

 From The OSTMA President
T his is it, my final president’s mes-
sage. It is hard to believe that it has
been two years since you chose me to
lead the greatest chapter in the coun-
try. I am honored to have served you
and this organization.
Over the last two years, the
OSTMA has reached many individu-
als in the Sports Turf Industry of
Ohio that in the past didn’t know we
existed. I am proud to say that our
membership over the last two years has grown from 125 to 255
active members as of October 2002. WOW!!! I remember just
three short years ago that the board set a goal of 150 active mem-
bers.
Over the last two years the OSTMA has become more finan-
cially stable through the work of the board and the generosity of
the sports turf vendors. At the beginning of this year, we started a
sponsorship program for our commercial vendors. Our focus
was to give companies a chance to sponsor OSTMA events and
newsletters through out the year and to reach a large number of
potential customers. Several companies stepped up to become
our inaugural partners. I would like to thank our Gold Level
Partners: Xenia Power Equipment, John Deere Landscapes, and
Markers Inc. and our Silver Level Partners: Columbus Turf
Nursery and Covermaster. With the help of these wonderful
sponsors, the OSTMA is financially able to award 3 educational
scholarships and also award a Scholarship to the National STMA
Conference. Also this year, we are able to award a scholarship to
any deserving member that wishes to take the Certified Sports
Field Managers test. So remember to support all of our sponsors
and advertisers as much as you can.
I would like to thank the Board and all the OSTMA members
for making these two years enjoyable and fun. Being a part of
this great organization and meeting some of the hardest working
people not only in the state, but also in the country has made me
realize that we have the greatest job in the world. And finally, I
would like to thank Offinger Management Company for their
help and hope that in the future we can work together again.
I would like to wish your President Elect, Jeff Limburg, great
success over the next two years. Jeff has some great ideas on how
to move the OSTMA forward and I am excited to be a part of it.
For the last time, remember, “You get out of this organiza-
tion what you put into it.” So get involved.
Darian Daily
2002 President, OSTMA
From The OLCA President
A nother year in the lawn
care industry in Ohio is com-
ing to a close. I hope that all
of you had a prosperous year
in 2002. The past year was
one of the most unordinary
years I can remember. It
went from unusually wet this
spring to unusually dry this
summer. In the late summer
I was concerned about the
lack of work scheduled due to the dryness. By
October, we were so busy I was concerned about being
able to complete all of our work. In conclusion, just
another year full of positive and negative variables that
we, as lawn care professionals, hurdle each season.
I am sure that all of you are a little burned out
from the past lawn care season. Now, while still fresh
in your mind, is the time to assess last year’s campaign.
Now is also the time to evaluate your equipment and
personnel needs for the coming season. Preparation
should be made now to ensure that they are adequate
to achieve the goals you are setting for 2003. Don’t
get me wrong, - winter is the best time to recover and
relax. Just make sure that you don’t get left behind by
not preparing yourself for the 2003 season. Winter
preparation can and will reduce potential stress and
make your business run more effectively in the future.
One option I hope you do take during this break is
to attend the OTF Conference and Show. OLCA has
been given a full day of lawn care education. These
seminars will be invaluable to the lawn care profes-
sional hoping to improve their businesses in the
future. By attending OTF and actively contributing to
the resources that are available to us, we will make our
presence more known in the green industry. I look
forward to seeing you all there. Have a happy, restful
and joyous holiday season.
Fred Schillinger
2002 President, OLCA
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 5
 2002 OTF Board of Directors

Mark Heinlein John Mowat George Furrer Len Dunaway

President Vice President Treasurer Past President

Dr. John Street Kevin Thompson Chuck Darrah

Director of Education Executive Director Trustee

Mark Grunkemeyer Mark Jordan Boyd Montgomery Glen Pottenger

Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee

Lin Ropp Todd Voss

Trustee Trustee

Page 6 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

 2002 OLCA Board of Directors

Fred Schillinger Kim Kellogg Jeff Snyder Joe Reynolds

President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President

Kevin Thompson Jeff Bisker Joe Duncan Jamie Heydinger

Executive Director Trustee Trustee Trustee

Bill Hoopes Dennis Imler Paul Jacquemin

Trustee Trustee Trustee

* Not Pictured: Glen Scherzinger—Trustee

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 7

 2002 OSTMA Board of Directors

Darian Daily Jeff Limburg Karen Zelinko Brian Gimbel

President Vice President Vice President Treasurer

Boyd R. Montgomery Dr. David Gardner Bob Nepper

Past President Trustee Trustee

Pamela Sherratt Duane Smith

Trustee Trustee

* Not Pictured: Dave Conover—Secretary and Matt Miller—Trustee

Page 8 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

Turf News
Turf and Ornamental
Specialists Can Receive
Newsletter E-Mails
PEP-Talk for Turf and Ornamental Specialists is a
newsletter developed by the Pesticide Education
Program, Ohio State University Extension. The
newsletter features articles about pesticide news, regu-
lation and safety. Published quarterly, the newsletter
will help specialists stay informed about pesticide
information.
To subscribe to the newsletter, send an e-mail to
pepturforn-on@ag.ohio-state.edu. You do not need
anything in the message or subject of the e-mail. You
will be automatically subscribed to the newsletter
which will be sent over e-mail.
For more information, or if you need help sub-
scribing to the newsletter, please call the Pesticide
Education Program at 614-292-4070.
Volunteer Leaders Needed!
OTF, OLCA and OSTMA are all seeking
volunteers to serve on committees and/or
as future Board representatives. If you are
interested in enjoying the benefits and
satisfaction of serving your industry,
please contact the following:
OTF—Kevin Thompson, 888-683-3445,
ext. 3151 (kthompson@offinger.com)
OLCA—Kevin Thompson, 888-683-3445,
ext. 3151 (kthompson@offinger.com)
OSTMA—Boyd Montgomery, 888-824-9805
(turfman@thewavz.com)
Pesticide Credits
OTF Conference & Show offers ODA
Pesticide Recertification Credits and
Testing (see enclosed program).
Recertification Conferences For Pesticide
Applicators in 2002/2003.
C ommercial pesticide applicators needing credits
for recertification can attend conferences being
offered around the state. The conferences are spon-
sored by Ohio State University Extension and the
Ohio Department of Agriculture. The upcoming con-
ferences for commercial applicators in the turf, orna-
mental, pest control and industrial vegetation cate-
gories will be held on the following dates and loca-
tions:
November 26, 2002
Cleveland Independence Holiday Inn
December 17, 2002
Dayton Convention Center
January 15, 2003
Perrysburg Holiday Inn French Quarters
February 6, 2003
Greater Columbus Convention Center
“These conferences are designed for most com-
mercial applicators to attend one day and receive their
full five hours needed for recertification,” said Joanne
Kick-Raack, state coordinator for the Pesticide
Education Program, Ohio State University Extension.
She said that testing facilities will be available for appli-
cators needing to add categories to their current
license, or for new applicators needing to obtain their
license. There will be no agriculture weed or agro-
nomic pest categories available at the November 26,
December 17, January 15, or February 6 conferences.
Information about registration for the conferences is
available on the Pesticide Education Program website
at http://pested.osu.edu or by calling 614-292-4070.
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 9
 OTF News
D
Live Auction Update
uring the week of October 6 many of you were sent
an e-mail asking for donations for our auctions. The
response was very good—as we expected. Turf people
are always very generous. For those of you that do not
get e-mail, we are asking you for a donation to our auc-
tions. This year we will have a silent auction and a live
auction. Items of least value will be sold at our silent auc-
tion and the higher priced items will be sold at the live
auction.
We will have the same Auctioneer as in the past, Billy
Arehart and crew. Billy is from Wilmington, OH and
donates all of his talents to OTF.
Many different items have been donated, so we will
have a good assortment for the auctions. But, duplicate
items are great. We can always sell another dozen golf
balls. Items with your club or company logo, golf and
fishing outings are always in demand. Nobody has
enough putters, drivers or complete sets of clubs. How
about fishing or hunting gear? Or lawn care services for
a year?
Autographs are one of our popular items. Collectable
and Antique items, old trade publications, pictures and
programs of athletic events, are all easily sold at the auc-
tions.
Books, new and old, are collected by many people.
Tickets to sporting events have brought in big dollars at
past auctions.
OTF Annual Meeting
at Conference & Show
The Ohio Turfgrass Foundation Annual
Meeting will be held Tuesday, December 10,
2002, 8:00 am at the Greater Columbus
Convention Center. Members and guests are
invited to hear the annual report of the
President, Treasurer, Executive Director, and
Committee Chairs. Additionally, the
Nominating Committee will present its slate
of candidates for 2003 Officers and Trustees
of the Board.
There is no fee to attend the annual mem-
bership meeting. For more information, call
the OTF office at 888-683-3445.
Page 10 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
We don’t want to forget our Exhibitors, who have
been very generous in donating their products and servic-
es. If you haven’t donated it’s not too late.
We will also be selling tickets to our reverse raffle on
Tuesday and Wednesday. The grand prize is expected to
be $1,000.00 (subject to the quantity of tickets sold).
Numbered raffle tickets are sold and after the sale is
closed the tickets are drawn. There are several winners as
the tickets are drawn. The big winner of the $1,000.00 is
the “last man standing.” The person who has the last tick-
et to be drawn is the winner.
Wednesday is the big day for everyone. During the day
you can purchase your reverse raffle ticket and make your
bid for the items at the silent auction. The exhibits will
close at 4 PM—then it’s fun time. The bars in the auction
area will open for alcoholic beverages and soft drinks.
This year we will have chairs so you can sit down and
relax while you are bidding for that treasured item. We
will announce the winners of the reverse raffle and the
silent auctions. The Auctioneer will start the live auction
and this will take us up to the time of the Banquet.
It should be a fun event and generate much needed
revenue for OTF. Thank you in advance for your
donations and your participation in this great event.
Call Chris Reinke at OTF if you have items or
need assistance to get them to the auction
888-683-3445 ext. 3126.
OTF Website Gets Facelift
The redesigned OTF website was recently
launched featuring several new sections and
features—including an on-line membership
directory and on-line registration for the OTF
Conference & Show, among others.
“One goal was to totally re-design the site by
the end of the year,” informed Glen Pottenger,
Publicity Committee Chair. “If you were used
to the old look, you’re in for a big surprise
when you visit the new site. Now that we have
the new look, we plan to continue to monitor
user feedback and add new sections and fea-
tures that are important to our members,”
adds Pottenger.
Check out the new site at
www.OhioTurfgrass.org and send any com-
ments to OTF. We welcome your feedback!
The first place team of (left to right): The second place team of (left to The third place team of (left to right):
Jack O’Donnell, Paul Parrish, Matt right): Scott Papania, Bob O’Brien, Jim Bishop, Tim Suter, Jim Benton,
Parrish,and Tim Porter. Jim Dilliard, and John Mowat. and Mike Fast.

OTF Golf Tournament Update

T he October 3 OTF Golf Tournament at The City of Blue “We want to thank all the participants, sponsors,
and The City of Blue Ash and its staff for making this
Ash Golf Course was a great success as players hit the links on
a warm sunny day in Cincinnati. The OTF Annual Golf such an enjoyable fundraising event,” added Jordan.
Tournament raises money in support of OTF’s mission to pro- The OTF golf committee of Glen Pottenger, John
mote the turfgrass industry in Ohio through research and Mowat, Lin Ropp, Todd Dodge, and Mark Novotny
education. are already beginning to plan the 2003 tournament. If
“OTF is very thankful for Blue Ash hosting this year’s tour- you are interested in supporting turfgrass research
nament. This was an excellent opportunity for Ohio’s turf- and scholarships by hosting, please contact the OTF
grass managers to play another fantastic course. office at 888-683-3445.
Superintendent Dan Walter and his staff had the course in The Ohio Turfgrass Foundation would like to
great shape,” informed Mark Jordan, Golf Tournament thank the following hole sponsors for their support of
Committee Chair. the OTF Golf Tournament:
With a score of 57, the Oberfields Team of Jack
• The Andersons
O’Donnell, Paul Parrish, Matt Parrish and Tim Porter
• Central Ohio GCSA
received restaurant gift certificates of $150 each. The second
• Century Equipment
place team, shooting a 59 and receiving $100 gift certificates,
• CLC LABS
was the Century Equipment Team of John Mowat, Jim
• Dakota Peat & Equipment
Dilliard, Scott Papania, and Bob O’Brien. Finishing third and
• Fairmount Minerals
receiving $50 gift certificates was the Northwest Ohio GCSA
• The Geo. E. Fern Co.
Team of Mike Fast, Jim Benton, Jim Bishop and Tim
• Greater Cincinnati GCSA
Suter - with a score of 60.
• Green Velvet Sod Farms
In the skills contests, 6 different players walked • Lesco, Inc.
away with gift certificates: • Northern Ohio GCSA
Longest Drive #8—Randall Fritsche • Oglebay Norton Sports Turf
• Progressive Turf LLC
Straightest Drive #16—Jim Hemrick • Reel Turf Equipment
Closest to the Pin #4—John Fanning • Standard Golf Co.
Closest to the Pin #13—Michael Wellbrook • Syngenta
• Tyler Enterprises
Longest Putt #5—Dave Welchel
• United Horticultural Supply
Longest Putt #18—Todd Dodge • Wolf Creek Co.
• Xenia Power Equipment
By winning the longest putt on #18, Todd Dodge received
a Scotty Cameron Putter donated by Dakota Peat. In a sepa- Special thanks to the Westfield Group for
rate putting contest, Tom Lloyd beat Wayne Oetjen in a tie- sponsoring the beverage carts and to Craig
breaker. The popular “Bet-the-Circle” contest was split Schreiner Golf Course Architects for spon-
between Dean Kearns and John Mowat. While nearly every soring the lunch and dinner!
team participated in the “Skins” game, no skins were won—
thus leaving all skins game donations for scholarships.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 11

Page 12 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
OLCA News
Mark Your Calendar!
Following the OLCA annual meeting on
Wednesday, December 11, there will be 2
separate tracks of educational sessions
geared to lawn care professionals:
1. Professional Lawn & Grounds
2. Lawn Care Business Management
The Professional Lawn & Grounds track
will cover technical information with 4
hours of Category 8 credit for Pesticide
Applicators Licenses. Sessions include:
1. Turf & Grassy Weed ID Workshop and
Contest—this was a very popular workshop
and contest in its debut at the 2001 confer-
ence
2. Preemergence and Postemergence Strategies
for Annual Grassy Weed Control (Dr. Fred
Yelverton, North Carolina State University)
3. Potential Uses of Biostimulants in Agronomic
Programs (Marc Mayer and Dr. Mimi Rose,
TruGreen Chemlawn)
4. Alternatives to OP and Carbamate
Insecticides (Dr. Chris Williamson, Univ. of
Wisconsin)
OLCA Annual Meeting at OTF
Conference & Show
The Ohio Lawn Care Association (OLCA) annu-
al membership meeting and breakfast will be
held Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 7:30—
9:00 am at the Greater Columbus Convention
Center. Members and guests will have the
opportunity to enjoy a complimentary break-
fast, network with lawn care peers, and partic-
ipate in round table discussions.
In other business at the annual meeting, the
Nominating Committee will present its slate of
candidates for the 2003 Board of Directors.
Additionally, scholarships to students interest-
ed in pursuing careers in lawn care/turf man-
agement will be awarded, and grants for turf-
grass research and projects at Ohio colleges
and universities will be presented.
Invitations were mailed in early November to
all OLCA members. For more information,
please call the OLCA office at 800-510-5296.

The Lawn Care Business Track, geared to

owners and managers, includes the fol-
lowing sessions:
1. ODA Legislation (Jim Betts, OPARR)
2. Finding, Training and Keeping Good
Employees (Don Willig, International
Management & Trade Consultants)
3. Software Update (Real Green Systems, SNG
Equipment, Practical Solutions)
4. What Is Your Company Worth? (Ed Wantke,
Wantke & Associates)
5. Selling Techniques (Don Nichols, Yes
Marketing, Inc.)

OLCA members receive the discounted OTF

membership registration rates. For more informa-
tion, and/or to register, please see the insert in
this newsletter, call 800-510-5296, or visit the OTF
website at www.OhioTurfgrass.org.
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 13
Page 14 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
OSTMA News
OSTMA to Hold Board Member Election at OTF
T he Ohio Sports Turf Managers Association
Annual Meeting and Breakfast will take place on
Wednesday, December 11, 2002 from 7:30 a.m. -
8:30 a.m. at the Greater Columbus Convention
Center. Member attendance is encouraged at
this annual event, so watch for your invitation in
the mail. Scholarship recipients will be
announced and various awards will be present-
ed. Also at this meeting, the OSTMA will pres-
ent the slate of officers for 2003. Below is a list
as it will be presented to the membership:
Past President
Darian Daily, Columbus Crew
Term Ending 12/31/04
President
Jeff Limburg, Toledo Mudhens
Term Ending 12/31/04
Vice President
Brian Gimbel, The Ohio State University
Term Ending 12/31/04
Vice President Commercial
Karen Zelinko, AFS
Term Ending 12/31/03
Secretary
Dave Conover, Harmony Products
Term Ending 12/31/04
OSTMA Announces New
Headquarters and Management
On December 31, 2002 the OSTMA will
change management to the new Executive
Secretary - Boyd R. Montgomery, CSFM and Co-
Executive Secretary—Kimberly Montgomery.
The Board made the decision based on what is
best for the financial situation of the association.
The level of service to members will be main-
tained through this transition! Our new head-
quarters will be: OSTMA—P.O. Box 268,
Sylvania, Ohio 43560; Phone: 419-824-9805
or toll-free 1-888-824-9805; Fax: 419-882-2398.
E-mail us at turfman@thewavz.com.
Treasurer
Bob Nepper, City of Fremont
Term Ending 12/31/03
Trustees
James Hlavaty, Cincinnati Bengals
Term Ending 12/31/04
Boyd R. Montgomery, CSFM,
Sylvania Recreation
Term ending 12/31/04
Duane Smith, Baldwin Wallace College
Term Ending 12/31/03
Kevin Vaughn, City of Dublin
Term Ending 12/31/04
Advisory Council
Dr. Dave Gardner, The Ohio State University
Pam Sherratt, The Ohio State University
Executive Secretary
Boyd R. Montgomery, CSFM
Co-Executive Secretary
Kimberly Montgomery
Sun Always
Shines in Texas!
T he STMA National Conference will be held
January 15–19, 2003 in San Antonio, TX. This year
promises to be an exciting conference with many
national speakers on the line up. On January 14th
your OSTMA Board members are invited to partici-
pate in the C.O.T.S. training session which helps
chapters with networking, operations, and guidance!
On January 15th, SAFE will have their annual golf
outing along with two great events—Professional
Sports Turf Manager Field Maintenance Workshop
and a Tour on Wheels. Learn from some of the best
in the industry in a hands-on workshop in ball field
and turfgrass maintenance. The tour will include
Round Rock, University of Texas, Southwest Texas
University, and Texas Lutheran University. Also, NEW
this year, you can register for the conference on the
STMA website.
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 15

OSTMA News
Save the Dates!
T he Ohio Sports Turf Managers will sponsor a track of
education each day of the Ohio Turfgrass Conference &
Show.
On Monday, December 9, 2002, OTF is offering Pre-
Conference Workshops that include these Sports Turf
topics: Baseball Field Maintenance and The Art & Science
of Athletic Field Presentation, by David Mellor of the
Boston Red Sox and Basic Principles of Soil Testing and
Development of Fertility Programs, by Dr. Tony Koski of
Colorado State University.
Plan to join other Sports Turf Managers at the follow-
ing educational sessions geared toward your profession:
Tuesday, December 10
• Installing and Managing a Modular System - What’s
Different & What’s Not? (Eric Adkins, Michigan State
University)
• Crumb Rubber Topdressing Research & Sports Turf
Research Review (Dr. Trey Rogers, Michigan State
University)
• Enhancing the Stability of Sand-Based Rootzones and
Defining Infill Systems (Dr. Andy McNitt, Penn State
University)
• Sports Turf Maintenance—Work Smarter Not Harder
(Dr. Tony Koski, Colorado State University)
• Emergency Repairs Panel (Phil Williams, The College
of Wooster; Eric Adkins, Michigan State University;
Tom Burns, Texas Rangers; Darian Daily, Columbus
Crew Stadium; Dr. Tony Koski, Colorado State
University; Boyd Montgomery, Sylvania Recreation;
John Mott, The Ohio State University; Pamela
Sherratt, The Ohio State University)
Wednesday, December 11
• Morning with the MLS/MLB/NFL (Tom Burns, Texas
Rangers; Darian Daily, Columbus Crew Stadium; Steve
Wightman; QualComm Stadium)
• Athletic Field Drainage—The Underlying Key to
Success (Dr. Andy McNitt, Penn State University)
• Infield Dirt Maintenance (Tom Burns, Texas Rangers)
• Fertilization Strategies for Native Soil Fields (Dr. Tony
Koski, Colorado State University)
• The Art & Science of Athletic Field Renovation (Dr.
Jim McAfee, Texas A & M)
Page 16 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
Update Your Records!
NEW OSTMA Headquarters!
P.O. Box 268
Sylvania, Ohio 43560
419-824-9805
888-824-9805
419-882-2398 fax
www.ostma.org
turfman@thewavz.com
Thursday, December 12
• Improved Soil Mixtures for Athletic Fields (Dr. Chuck
Darrah, CLC Labs)
• Irrigation Performance and Auditing (Dr. Jim McAfee,
Texas A & M)
• Turfgrass Selection for Athletic Fields - Agronomics
Versus Reality (Dr. David Gardner, The Ohio State
University)
OSTMA members receive the discounted OTF
membership registration rates! For more infor-
mation or to register, see the insert in this
newsletter, call 888-683-3445, or visit the OTF
website at www.OhioTurfgrass.org.
OSTMA—Meet your
President-Elect
Jeff Limburg is currently serving on the Board of the
Ohio Sports Turf Managers Association as Vice President.
Jeff studied Business Management at Western
Michigan University and moved on to study Turfgrass
Management, Athletic Fields at Michigan State
University. Over eleven seasons, his experience most
recently includes a one year Assistant
Groundskeeper/Internship with the Charlotte Knights,
AAA Affiliate of the Florida Marlins, three years as Head
Groundskeeper for the Columbus Clippers, AAA Affiliate
of the New York Yankees, and he is currently operating as
Head Groundskeeper at the Toledo Mud Hens, AAA
Affiliate of the Detroit Tigers.
Jeff’s goals for the OSTMA include expanding the
organization to make it extra friendly to members along
with those individuals looking to join. One of his biggest
objectives is to make OSTMA seminars more on the
“how to” origin then the “showcase” format. This will
make the companies, universities, park and recreation,
and turf managers want to send crew members to the
seminars. The crew can learn and apply the information
hands on instead of just learning by listening or observ-
ing. “I look forward to the opportunity to serve as your
President, and I will do the best to make sure we all enjoy
and expand,” stated Limburg. “At this time I wish the
same for OLCA and OTF. Have a great 2003 season.”
Limburg resides in Toledo, Ohio with his girlfriend
April and their black Lab, Duke.
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 17
New Growth and Technology
Winter Injury
Dr. Karl Danneberger
The Ohio State University
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science
Given the hot dry summer and fall we have recent-
ly endured, it doesn’t seem possible that we need to
think about the potential for winter injury. In Ohio
and for most of the northern United States winter
injury is a catch all term for a number of maladies. To
better prepare for potential winter damage knowing
which “winter injury” you are most likely to experi-
ence is critical. Below are the potential components of
winter injury that occur in Ohio.
Freeze Injury
During the dead of winter questions often arise
about the “winter hardiness” or resistance to low tem-
perature injury. Freeze stress (turfgrass injury due to
direct low temperatures) is a concern for some turf-
grasses and not others. In Ohio, freeze injury is not a
problem on creeping bentgrass or Kentucky bluegrass
golf course turfs. However, annual bluegrass and
perennial ryegrass are potentially susceptible in north-
ern Ohio, while bermudagrass is susceptible in south-
ern Ohio. The relative killing temperature of annual
bluegrass, perennial ryegrass and bermudagrass is 5 F,
5 to -3 F, and 19 F, respectively. Although temperatures
in Ohio often drop below these temperatures, there
are additional factors that help turfgrass plants avoid
killing temperatures. First, snow cover will moderate
temperatures around the plant considerably.
Temperatures under the snow cover often remain
around freezing or slightly below. Thus, the critical
temperature is the temperature around the growing
point. Turfgrass growing points including crowns, rhi-
zomes and stolons, are in close contact with the soil or
located in the soil, which makes soil temperatures the
more important “temperature.” For example on
January 3, 2002 in Ashtabula County the maximum air
temperature was 23.9 F with the minimum tempera-
Page 18 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
ture being (6 F daily average = 16.1 F) while the aver-
age soil temperature at the 2-inch depth was 32.2 F.
Freeze injury however becomes a much greater
potential problem (here in Ohio usually around the
middle of February) when temperatures warm (winter
thaw), causing the plants to begin breaking dormancy
(green-up may actually occur), followed by a rapid
drop in temperature. This freezing/thawing cycle is
made worse if water is present around the plants. The
areas that are most susceptible to freeze injury are low
lying or poorly drained areas where water accumu-
lates. Annual bluegrass growing in poorly drained
areas is at the highest risk for freeze injury. If you have
areas that are susceptible to freeze injury this is a good
time to install drainage. Eliminating standing water
and saturated soil conditions will help reduce the
potential for freeze injury on annual bluegrass turfs.
Additional practices include alleviating soil com-
paction, and reducing the amount of thatch.
Ice Cover
Ice cover or freeze smothering is the presence of
ice on the turf for an extended period of time. The
ice cover may result in oxygen deficiency and the
buildup of toxic gases. Most cool season turfgrasses
can tolerate extended periods of ice cover. Kentucky
bluegrass and creeping bentgrass can tolerate in
excess of 75 and 100 days, respectively while annual
bluegrass can tolerate 60 days of continuous ice cover.
In Ohio, extended periods of ice cover beyond 60
days is rare except occasionally in northern Ohio.
However, the presence of ice cover during the
freeze/thaw cycle during late winter-early spring can
enhance the potential for freeze injury.

Winter Desiccation
Winter desiccation is similar to wilt and drought but
occurs in the winter. Generally conditions that favor desic-
cation are dry cold or frozen soils that restrict water uptake
by the plants. The classic desiccation scenario is a mild
breezy winter day or week occurs under sunny skies during
winter. The turf is exposed and the soil is cold or frozen.
Under these conditions, stomates open and transpiration
occurs at a rate greater than the ability to absorb water
(the water in the soil could be frozen, lacking, or the root
system is not extensive enough). The leaves in essence are
removed from the leaf resulting in a whitish brown colored
turf. The severity of desiccation can vary. Wind burn, where
the leaves may initially appear green then turn brown, the
damage is minor and the plants will recover. However, if
damage occurs to the crown, severe injury has occurred.
Annual bluegrass is the most likely to be affected by desic-
cation. Due to its bunch-type growth habit recovery comes
from the crown while creeping bentgrass and Kentucky
bluegrass have stolons and rhizomes, respectively that have
protected growing points. In areas where desiccation is a
potential problem various management practices including
1) constructing windbreaks to protect exposed open sites
can help reduce wind affects, 2) a late autumn topdressing
can provide protection to the crown, 3) under dry soil con-
ditions a late fall irrigation to add moisture to the soil can
help, and 4) the use of covers.
When frost is present do not allow any traffic
(equipment or golfers) on the turf. Traffic will cause
the leaf blades to rupture resulting in their death.
Generally frost damage is superficial unless the crown
is damaged which will result in plant death. Frost
injury however in the fall and winter is especially
severe because turfgrass growth has ceased or slowed,
which minimizes any plant recovery.
Low Temperature Pathogens
Two major cool weather diseases, Typhula blight
and Microdochium patch, can cause winter injury in
Ohio. Typhula blight, commonly caused by the
pathogen Typhula incarnata or Typhula ishikariensis is
most damaging in northern Ohio where snow cover is
present. Microdochium patch (Microdochium nivale),
also known as pink snow mold or fusarium patch can
occur with or without snow cover. This disease occurs
throughout Ohio and will be active as late as the first
of June if weather conditions remain favorable (cool
wet weather).

Frost
Frost can form on clear cold nights when turfgrass
plants reradiate heat. As this heat is lost to the atmosphere
the plant leaf cools, and if the plant temperature is cooler
than the air temperature then moisture from the atmos-
phere will condense on the leaf. If the leaf temperature is
below freezing then the water freezes and frost forms even
if the air temperature is slightly above freezing. Frost does
not form as readily on cloudy nights because the clouds
reflect, or absorb and then reradiate the energy back
towards the turf. Thus, the plants receive heat from this
rerediation. Frost also does not form as readily under con-
ditions where a breeze is present. Through convection the
mixing air closest to the plant and the atmosphere buffers
the leaf temperature drop (also promotes evaporation of
the water droplets from the leaf). Areas with little slope
have a greater potential for frost than sloping areas (air
moves downward resulting in a mixing).
Frost will normally form early in the morning before
sunrise. This makes sense because if the plants have been
reradiating energy throughout the night, the leaf tempera-
ture should be the coolest prior to daybreak. Actually frost
may continue to form briefly even at daybreak due to the
low angles of light coming from the sun may not directly
hit the leaf.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 19

 Sports Turf Tips
Fall Strategies For Better
Fields Next Spring
Dr. John R. Street and Pamela J. Sherratt
The Ohio State University • Department of Horticulture & Crop Science

T he fall season provides optimum conditions for • Better fall and winter color
field renovation practices. The aims are to return the • Earlier spring green-up
field to 100% grass cover of desirable species, to • Increased shoot density
restore soil textural and physical properties through • Improved fall, winter, and spring root growth
soil cultivation practices, and to return the playing sur- • Enhanced storage of energy reserves (carbohy-
face to a stable and wear tolerant state. Carrying out drates) within the turf plant
key maintenance operations in the fall can provide
the field with the best chance of winter survival and
early spring growth. Three of these important opera-
tions are (1) late season fertilization, (2) coring/aerifi-
cation, and (3) weed control.

Late Season Fertilization (LSF)

for Cool Season Grasses
Turf managers have utilized late season nitrogen
fertilization, sometimes referred to as fall fertilization,
for years. This type of fertility program involves the
application of much of the season’s nitrogen during
the late season months of September through
Fig 1: Identical sod showing LSF spring green-up
December. It is important that late season fertilization
effects on Kentucky bluegrass April, 2001. NO LSF
not be confused with dormant and/or winter fertiliza-
tion. The latter method implies that fertilizer applica- Quality applied (left), LSF applied (right).

tions are made after the turf has lost most or all of its
Turf fertilized in September and again during
green color and is not actively growing. This differs
October, November, or December is generally
notably from the late season concept, which requires
shown to possess better fall and winter color than a
that nitrogen be applied before the turf loses its green
turf that was not fertilized at that time. In addition,
color in the late fall.
signs of spring green-up have been shown to occur
Late season fertilization is popular because many
two to six weeks earlier if the turf has been fertilized
of the agronomic and aesthetic advantages attributed
the previous fall. Most importantly, the enhanced
to its use supposedly are not realized when spring
rate of spring greening is realized without stimulat-
and/or summer fertilization are practiced. Purported
ing excessive shoot growth that accompanies the
advantages of the late season concept include:
early spring nitrogen applications called for in most
turf fertility programs.

Page 20 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

 Timing
The late-season nitrogen fertilization concept is
designed to apply nitrogen during that period of the
year (late fall) that will favor root growth over shoot
growth, and favor a positive carbohydrate balance.
Shoot growth of cool season grasses occur most read-
ily in the temperature range of 50-65°F. Root growth
of cool season grasses will continue at soil tempera-
tures close to freezing. When air temperatures in late
fall consistently drop below 50°F shoot growth slows
or ceases but soil temperatures are still in the favor-
able range for significant root, rhizome, and stolon
growth. LSF capitalizes on this differential in opti-
mum temperatures for growth of roots versus shoots.
The timing of LSF should be made when vertical
shoot growth has stopped, but the turf leaves are still
green. Vertical shoot growth of cool season grasses
will generally slow and stop at air temperatures of 45-
50°F. A properly timed LSF will extend the “green-
ing” time of the turf longer into the late fall and
early winter without additional top growth. The
green leaves remain photosynthetically active pro-
ducing carbohydrates. This carbohydrate will be
more efficiently used to support root, rhizome, and
stolon growth during the late fall and winter period.
LSF also assists in building food reserves for the fol-
lowing season. It is critical that the nitrogen be
applied prior to dormancy for maximum efficiency
of applied nitrogen. Poor timing is a common LSF
mistake. Once the leaf tissue has turned brown, pho-
tosynthesis will no longer occur. Remember— “late-
season” fertilization is not dormant fertilization.
It is important to remember that the nitrogen source used
for the late fall applications be of the type that is not
dependent on microbial activity to affect nitrogen release.
Fertilizer Rate & Fertilizer Type
In addition to timing, fertilizer rate and fertilizer
type is critical to successful LSF. The most efficient
nitrogen fertilizers for LSF are those independent of
temperature for nitrogen release. Soil temperatures
and microbial activity are low at this time of year,
resulting in less efficiency from strong WIN methylene
ureas, natural organics, polymer-coated ureas, and
other temperature-dependent fertilizers.
Urea, more water-soluble methylene ureas, IBDU,
and SCU are less dependant on temperature for nitro-
gen release and, therefore, make excellent LSF nitro-
gen sources.
Nitrogen rates should be in the range of 1–11/2
pounds of actual nitrogen per 1,000 square feet.
Higher rates typically provide a better LSF response in
the late fall and a better carryover response into late
winter/early spring. For cool season grasses, nitrogen
is the key nutrient for the LSF response with standard
maintenance fertilizer ratios being acceptable.
Proper rate and nitrogen source will result in sig-
nificant carryover of nitrogen for early spring greenup
the following season. The standard spring fertilization
rate can typically be reduced to one half or less, or
eliminated, thus avoiding a spring fertilization flush.
Don’t couple LSF with traditional spring nitrogen fer-
tilization rates. This defeats the purpose of the LSF
strategy.
In summary, LSF lengthens the fall/winter green
period and enhances the rate of spring green-up with-
out stimulating excessive shoot growth, thus allowing
the turf plant to maintain higher levels of carbohy-
drates than when spring/summer fertilization is used.
Nitrogen applied during early spring increases shoot
growth rates and decreases the levels of available car-
bohydrates in the plant, resulting in depressed root
growth rates. LSF has no similar negative effects on
Fig. 2: A Kentucky bluegrass cultivar
study, initiated summer 2000 by Dr.
John Street and Dr. David Gardner,
will evaluate fertilization practices
necessary for dark green verses
moderate green cultivars.
Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 21
 root growth. No winter damage or snow mold injury
typically occurs as a result of LSF. The turf manager
must maintain a good carbohydrate reserve/balance
and maximum root mass. Proper timing and rate of
application are important in successful long-term pro-
grams. Always remember: greener is not always better.
A happy medium must be reached between agronom-
ics and aesthetics.
Compaction Relief Through
Coring/Aerification
The detrimental effect of soil compaction on a
variety of soil processes results from the collapse of the
large pores in the soil and a loss of soil macroporosity.
A compacted soil will exhibit reduced infiltration
rates, reduced drainage, and poor soil aeration.
Turfgrass plants seek out these macropores in soils as
paths of low resistance for soil exploration, so the loss
of macropores results in increased mechanical imped-
ance to root growth and a shallow root system. Also,
soil compaction results in a less favorable environment
for many beneficial soil microbes, earthworms, and
arthropods. Soil compaction is one of the most com-
mon problems on athletic field soils. It forms due to
the intense activity of players and also because these
soils are infrequently tilled to reduce compaction.
Some degree of soil modification would substan-
tially improve the soil. Historically, the principal goal
in soil modification was to replace the existing native
soil that typically exhibits cohesive (silt/clay) behavior
with a rootzone having properties of a granular (sand)
nature. This goal is achieved by establishing sufficient-
Fig. 3: A verti-drain unit. Practice soccer fields at Bolton
Wanderers FC Training Grounds, UK.
Page 22 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
ly high sand contents in the rootzone. The recom-
mended sand content for high traffic areas generally
exceeds 75% by weight.
In addition to a soil modification program,
mechanical cultivation techniques can be adopted
that are effective at improving the physical condition
of compacted rootzones. Regular core cultivation
done throughout the year will keep the field free
draining and in good shape. Soil cultivation carried
out in the fall is sometimes done many times to get
maximum results.
Which type of machine is best suited to relieve com-
paction? In essence, to relieve compaction the soil
must be physically displaced to create fracturing so
that the same mass of soil occupies a greater volume
(e.g. verti-drain, shatter-tine), or the soil must be
removed so that a smaller mass of soil occupies the
same field volume (e.g. hollow core, deep drill).
Timing—Cultivation is best accomplished when
the soil is moist but not wet. Moist soil facilitates deep-
er penetration of the tines. Cultivators will not effec-
tively penetrate dry, compacted soils. Cultivation will
cause further compaction on wet soils. It is suggested
that several passes (three or four) be made over the
field in varying directions, for best results. Following
soil cultivation, many field managers apply a topdress-
ing of a sand/sand-based material to reestablish sur-
face levels and maintain correct soil physical proper-
ties.
Thus, there are several key advantages to late fall
coring. Late fall coring can be followed by dormant
over-seeding. Second, a more heavy/intensive coring
can be performed with fields not under schedule for
early spring play. Third, more vigorous cultivation like
deep tining can be performed that might otherwise
significantly interfere with play during the active play-
ing season. Fourth, coring at this time of year results
in considerable freezing and thawing of moisture in
the holes, resulting in additional fracturing of the soil.
Fifth, prolific rooting can occur in the coring holes
and adjacent fractured soil. This is more beneficial in
the late fall than any other time since root growth of
cool season grasses is occurring readily with cooler
temperatures.
Late season fertilization (LSF) is a good agronomic
practice to couple with late core cultivation. LSF stim-
ulates root growth during the fall, early winter, and
the spring. The core holes and adjacent fractured soil
provide great open channels for the development of
roots. Corrective applications of fertilizer can also be
applied at this time to facilitate deeper placement.
Turfgrass Weed Control in the Fall
The most effective control against the establish-
ment of weeds in turfgrass is the culture and mainte-
nance of a dense, healthy stand of turfgrass. This pre-
ventative cultural approach is successful only if proper
fertilization, mowing, irrigation, pest control etc. prac-
tices are implemented in the culture of the turfgrass.
Unfortunately, in many turfgrass areas the desirable
turfgrass fails to establish sufficient competition to
prevent all the annual/perennial grassy and broadleaf
weeds from establishing and the need for postemer-
gence chemical control results.
Broadleaf Postemergence Control
A sampling of broadleaf weeds commonly found
on athletic fields in the Midwest include: dandelion,
white clover, buckhorn plantain, common plantain,
common chickweed, yellow wood sorrel, ground ivy,
knotweed, and black medic. Herbicides for control-
ling these latter weeds are postemergent and predomi-
nantly foliar absorbed. Best efficacy from broadleaf
weed herbicides occurs when conditions are optimal
for absorption and translocation of the herbicide
downward in the plant (i.e. usually when the weed is

Table 1: Common Broadleaf Weed Herbicides and Combinations

Trade Name (and ingredients) 2,4-D MCPP Dicamba MCPA 2,4-DP Tricloyr Clopyralid
Formula 40, Weedone LV4,
Weedar 64, Lesco 2-4D X
Riverdale MCPP-4 Amine, Weedstroy X
Riverdale MCPA-6 Amine X
2 Plus 2, 3 Plus 3 X X
Banvel X
Four-power Plus, Super D Weedone X X
Trimec Classic, Trimec Plus,
Threesome, Trimec Turf Amine,
Trimec Turf Ester, Threeway
Selective, Trimec Bent, Triplet X X X
Super Trimec, Brushmaster X X X
Weedone DPC, Riverdale Turf D-DP X X
Tri-Power, Tirmec Encore X X X
Tri-Ester II, Tri-Amine II X X X
Three Way Ester, Tri-Ester,
Tri-Amine, Dissolve X X X
Turflon, Garlon X
Chaser, Turflon II X X
Lontrel X
Confront X X
Momentum X X X
Millenium Ultra X X X
Cool Power, Eliminate, Horsepower X X X

One of the most significant recent advancements in postemergent broadleaf weed control is the combination
formulation of phenoxy (i.e. 2,4-D, MCPA, etc.) and pyridine (i.e. triclorpyr and clopyralid) chemistries.
New products featuring these 2-family formulations include Riverdale Chemical’s COOL POWER
(MCPA + Triclopyr + Dicamba - Ester formulation), HORSEPOWER (MCPA + Triclopyr + Dicamba -
Amine formulation), MILLENIUM ULTRA (2,4-D + Clopyralid + Dicamba) and LESCO’s MOMENTUM
(2,4-D + Triclopyr + Clopyralid).

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 23

 actively growing). In the fall, broadleaf herbicides and
sugar compounds are usually transported downward.
Research has linked basipetal sugar movement in the
plant with corresponding herbicide movement.
Therefore, fall applications of postemegence herbi-
cide normally provide a broader range of broadleaf
weed control than spring applications. Late fall
broadleaf weed applications can be very effective as
long as the weed foliage is in a green, active physiolog-
ical condition to absorb and translocate herbicide.
Broadleaf weed herbicides can be injurious to
seedling turfgrasses. Where seedlings are present from
over-seeding, most broadleaf herbicides cannot be
used until seedlings have matured and been mowed at
least three times. Seedling turfgrass can be treated
safely with bromoxynil (Buctril). Best weed control
with bromoxynil is achieved if the weeds are less than
2" tall when treated. 2,4-D can safely be used on young
turfgrass provided the turfgrass has been mowed at
least three times and the use rate does not exceed
1.0lb ai/acre. Common broadleaf weed herbicides
and combinations available for established turfgrass
are listed in Table 1.
Perennial Grassy Weed Control
Perennial grassy weeds can be a major problem on
athletic fields. A few of these weeds include: tall fes-
cue, bentgrass, rough bluegrass, quackgrass, orchard-
grass, and timothy. There are no selective herbicide
alternatives for removing these undesirable weeds.
The best non-selective herbicide choices are
glyphosate (Roundup Pro) and glufosinate ammoni-
um (Finale) for spot treatment or renovation.
The Lesco product, Corsair (chlorsulfuron) con-
tinues to be available for selective tall fescue control in
established Kentucky bluegrasses. However, this prod-
uct should not be used on athletic fields containing
appreciable perennial ryegrass.
Annual Bluegrass (Pao annua)
Annual bluegrass is a frequent problem on athletic
fields. It is well adapted to higher maintenance
regimes like high fertility, frequent irrigation, and
close mowing heights. It also germinates in the spring
and fall in the cool-season regions.
The plant growth regulators Scott’s TGR, Dow
AgroSciences’ Cutless, and Syngenta’s Primo are capa-
ble of assisting in the suppression of annual bluegrass
and the conversion to more desirable turfgrass. This
approach has been used in the golf course industry
with mixed swards of annual bluegrass and creeping
bentgrass to convert to bentgrass. The PGR approach
has not been used extensively in Kentucky bluegrass
turf on athletic fields for several reasons: (1) Kentucky
Page 24 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
bluegrass is less aggressive than bentgrass, (2) suppres-
sive applications for Poa need to be made in spring
and fall when play is active, and (3) the suppression of
the desirable grass may reduce recuperative potential.
However, several recent research reports refute point
3.
Prograss (ethofumesate) is a postemergence selec-
tive herbicide capable of eliminating annual bluegrass
from Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and oth-
ers. It is most efficacious in the fall and requires 2-3
sequencial applications. Managers that have chosen
this approach are reporting fair to good results. It can
be broadcast or spot treated.
Late fall applications of longer residual preemer-
gence herbicides can be used to reduce annual blue-
grass and other annual grassy weed development in
the spring. This approach is not appropriate where
late-season over-seeding or spring seeding are prac-
ticed.
Other Weeds
Yellow nutsedge is a prevalent perennial weed
found in many athletic fields in the cool-season
region. This weed is neither a grass or broadleaf, but
instead a sedge. Consequently, the annual grass and
broadleaf weed herbicides have limited impact on this
weed. Selective control of yellow nutsedge in turfgrass
areas is limited to the use of either Basagran, MSMA-
containing products, or the Monsanto product mar-
keted as Manage. Manage is applied at very low rates
(1.0 - 2.0 oz. product/acre), is foliar absorbed and has
displayed excellent safety on all cool season turfgrass
species. Yellow nutsedge treatment usually occurs
more as a spring to early summer treatment while
nutsedge is young and limited nutlet formation has
occurred.
Conclusion
Best management practices for cool-season grasses
in the fall and late fall require:
• Proper fall fertilization
• Late season fertilization
• Proper mowing technique
• Fall coring dependant on traffic intensity and field
conditions
• Late season coring
• Weed control where necessary but to avoid
seedling injury
Dr. John R. Street
street.1@osu.edu
Pam J. Sherratt
sherratt.1@osu.edu
 By J.W. Rimelspach, M.J. Boehm, T.E. Hicks, and S.L. Thomas
The Ohio State University • Department of Plant Pathology

2001 Evaluation of Fungicides With and Without Fertilizer

For the Curative Control of Rust in Perennial Ryegrass

T
he test was conducted at The Ohio
State University Turfgrass Research
Center, Columbus, OH on a stand of
perennial ryegrass established fall 2000.
Mowing height was 3.0 in., clippings returned
and the area was irrigated as needed. The con-
dition of the sward was good with fair color, no
thatch and good density. Fertilizer was applied
as 18-4-18 on 05 May (0.5 lb N/1000 sq ft).
The soil was Crosby B silt loam, pH 7.3.
Individual plots measured 3 ft x 10 ft, with 2 ft
between blocks, and were arranged in a ran-
domized complete block design with three
replications. Water soluble treatments were
applied with a hand-held CO2 -powered boom
sprayer, with 6503 T-jet nozzles at 40 psi,
(water equivalent to 2.0 gal water/1000 sq ft).
All fungicide treatments were started on 31
Jun and all fertilizer treatments on 1 Aug. The average
high and low air temperatures (F) and rainfall (in.)
for each month respectively were: Jul 84.7, 63.5, 3.7;
Aug 85.4, 65.5, 1.6; Sep 75.1, 53.5, 1.7.
Favorable environmental conditions for rust
occurred in mid Jul into Aug and through the end of
the study. Relatively uniform disease symptoms were
present over the evaluation area from natural inocu-
lum. The fertility treatments had a significant reduc-
tion of disease in most cases and fertilizer alone
showed significant disease reduction on the first and
last rating dates. BASF 505; BASF 500; and Eagle were
some of the best treatments to rapidly reduce the dis-
ease to acceptable levels. Bayleton and Banner MAXX
showed exceptional results especially over the long
term with outstanding ratings at the 6 Sep rating date
at 35 days after the single treatment.

% plot blighted **
Treatment and rate of product/1000 sq ft 14 Aug 21 Aug 06 Sep
Check 73.33 90.00 45.00
Fertilizer* 30.00 81.67 28.33
BASF 510 70WG 0.18oz + Fertilizer* 20.00 85.00 31.67
BASF 510 70WG 0.18oz 36.67 95.00 40.00
BASF 500 20WG 0.9oz + Fertilizer* 6.00 8.33 46.67
BASF 500 20WG 0.9oz 20.00 16.67 60.00
BASF 505 50WG 0.2oz + Fertilizer* 10.00 10.00 53.33
BASF 505 50WG 0.2oz 23.33 33.33 68.33
Banner MAXX 1.24MC 2.0oz + Fertilizer* 6.67 10.00 8.33
Banner MAX 1.24MC 2.0oz 30.00 15.00 18.33
Compass 50WG 0.25oz + Fertilizer* 11.67 15.00 46.67
Compass 50WG 0.25oz 36.67 30.00 56.67
Bayleton 50DF 1.0oz + Fertilizer* 6.67 6.67 0.00
Bayleton 50DF 1.0oz 23.33 13.33 1.33
Eagle 40WP 0.6oz + Fertilizer* 10.00 8.33 40.00
Eagle 40WP 0.6oz 16.67 13.33 55.00
LSD(P=0.05) 16.84 12.40 15.55

* 1 lb N was applied per 1000 sq ft from 28-3-10 ( 50% N as slow release).

**0-100 visual rating scale, where 1=1% necrotic turf area, and 100=100% necrotic turf area.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 25

New Growth and Technology
Change Over Time in Quality and Cover
of Various Turfgrass Species and
Cultivars Maintained in Shade
Dr. David Gardner and Jill Taylor
The Ohio State University
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science
R
ecommending a single turfgrass species, culti-
var, or blend to thrive in a particular shaded
site is challenging. Shaded areas vary in sun-
light availability, soil type and nutrient status, moisture
holding capacity, drainage, and air circulation. Light
interception usually becomes the most important lim-
iting factor when other factors such as nutrients and
water are optimized for growth.
It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25% of all
turfgrass is maintained under some degree of shading
caused either by buildings and other structures, trees,
and shrubs. Few turfgrass species are adapted for
growth in a shaded environment. The success of a turf-
grass in a shaded area is influenced not only by the
ability to cope with the reduction in available light,
but also tree root competition for water and nutrients
and the plants ability to resist the increase in potential
disease activity. Previous research suggests that red fes-
cue is more tolerant of shade than Kentucky bluegrass
due primarily to structural features that increase resist-
ance to disease infection.
Tall fescue cultivars have acceptable to good per-
formance in 70% tree shade. The general consensus,
however, is that among the cool season grasses, the
fine fescues have superior shade tolerance, while tall
fescue, rough bluegrass, and creeping bentgrass have
good shade tolerance. Perennial ryegrass and
Kentucky bluegrass have fair to poor shade tolerance.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-
term persistence of turfgrass species and cultivars in
shaded conditions. Inputs of fertilizer, supplemental
irrigation, and pesticides were held to a minimum so
that the evaluation could reflect conditions and man-
agement intensity typical of golf course roughs or
Page 26 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
parks and recreational facilities.
The trial was established on 30 Sept. 1992 at the
Ohio State Turfgrass Foundation Research and
Education Center, Columbus, OH. Thirty cultivars
were established on three replicate plots. The plots
were arranged from east to west and placed in the
center of a 30 ft wide strip of turf that lies between,
and under the canopy of, a single row of mature trees
(primarily Acer saccharinum and Platanus occidentalis)
and a grove of mature woods. Cultivars and species
selected for this trial represent a broad cross section of
the grasses available for establishing as turfgrass as well
as then-experimental cultivars of several seed compa-
nies (Table 1).
Results
Percent Cover
In the establishment year (Aug. 1992 to Aug.
1993), best germination and cover were achieved by
the ryegrasses, followed by the fine fescues, tall fes-
cues, and rough bluegrass. Poorest germination and
cover were recorded for the Kentucky bluegrasses. In
the second year (Aug. 1993 to Aug. 1994), the rye-
grasses still had the highest cover, followed by the fine
fescues, tall fescues, and rough bluegrass. Kentucky
bluegrass had some lateral growth, but still rated poor-
ly in cover.
The tall fescue cultivars maintained the highest
cover (Table 2). Most cultivars maintained 63-87%
cover and increased in percentage cover when com-
pared to measurements taken in 1994 (Table 3). The
variability in percentage cover among the tall fescue
cultivars tested was non-significant, with the exception
Table 1. Species and cultivars of turfgrass evaluated for long-
term performance in shaded conditions in Columbus, Ohio.
Common Name Cultivar Seed Company Seeding Rate
(lbs per 1000ft2)
Kentucky Bluegrass 4 Aces Turf Seed Inc. † 1
Kentucky Bluegrass Blacksburg Turf Seed Inc. 1
Kentucky Bluegrass Bristol O.M. Scott 1
Kentucky Bluegrass Coventry O.M. Scott 1
Kentucky Bluegrass SKB-712 Lesco, Inc. 1
Kentucky Bluegrass WWKB-92 Lesco, Inc. 1
Rough Bluegrass Laser Lofts Seed 1
Chewings Fescue Banner O.M. Scott 4
Chewings Fescue Jamestown II Lofts Seed 4
Chewings Fescue Molinda O.M. Scott 4
Chewings Fescue RUCF-92 Lesco, Inc. 4
Chewings Fescue SCF-E Lesco, Inc. 4
Hard Fescue Aurora Turf Seed Inc. 4
Hard Fescue Brigade O.M. Scott 4
Hard Fescue Reliant Lofts Seed 4
Red Fescue SCR-92 Lesco, Inc. 4
Red Fescue Shademaster Turf Seed Inc. 4
Red Fescue SMWE-92 Lesco, Inc. 4
Tall Fescue Aztec O.M. Scott 7
Tall Fescue LDTF II-92 Lesco, Inc. 7
Tall Fescue PSFL-92 Lesco, Inc. 7
Tall Fescue Rebel 3D Lofts Seed 7
Tall Fescue Rebel Jr. Lofts Seed 7
Tall Fescue SFL O.M. Scott 7
Tall Fescue Silverado Turf Seed Inc. 7
Tall Fescue Tomahawk Turf Seed Inc. 7
Tall Fescue Tribute Lofts Seed 7
Perennial Ryegrass Alliance Turf Seed Inc. 7
Perennial Ryegrass Brightstar Turf Seed Inc. 7
Perennial Ryegrass Citation II Turf Seed Inc. 7

† Turf Seed = Turf-Seed Inc., Hubbard, OR; Lofts Seed = Lofts Seed, a division of Budd Seed,
Winston-Salem, NC; LESCO = LESCO, Inc., Rocky River, OH; O.M. Scott = The Scotts Company, Marysville, OH.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 27

 of ‘LDTF II-92’, which had 50% cover in 2000, a loss
of 12% compared to 1994.
The fine (chewings, red, and hard) fescues main-
tained higher cover during 2000 than did Kentucky
bluegrass, rough bluegrass, or perennial ryegrass
(Table 2). The chewing fescues maintained better
cover than the red fescues, and the red fescues main-
tained better coverage than the hard fescues. The
chewings fescue cultivars ‘RUCF-92’ and ‘Jamestown
II’ produced cover that was comparable to the best tall
fescue cultivars (Table 3).
The Kentucky bluegrasses maintained higher cover
during 2000 than did the perennial ryegrasses and
rough bluegrass. ‘Coventry’ produced significantly bet-
ter cover than did ‘4 Aces’ or ‘Blacksburg’, but was sig-
nificantly lower than the top performing tall fescues.
No differences between the ryegrasses and rough
bluegrasses were observed. The perennial ryegrasses
had some of the highest percentage cover estimates
during 1994. However, the percentage cover for the
perennial ryegrasses and rough bluegrass decreased
45-70% during the study period.
Overall Quality
In 1993, most of the grasses had acceptable quality.
The bluegrasses received the lowest ratings due to
poor cover, and the fine fescues had poor color.
Rough bluegrass had high quality in 1993 but
declined in 1994 due to poor color and loss of cover.
The fine fescues scored higher in quality in 1994. The
tall fescues had good color, but scored lower in 1994
due to loss of cover caused by brown patch
(Rhizoctonia solani).
During 2000, the tall fescue entries maintained
higher overall visual quality than the other species in
the trial (Table 4). Tall fescue has a more course leaf
texture, but the density, cover, and color were superior
to the other grasses tested. Few differences among the
cultivars were observed (Table 5). However, ‘Rebel
3D’ and ‘LDTF II-92’ had significantly lower quality
compared to ‘Tribute’ which had the highest overall
quality among the cultivars tested.
The fine fescues outperformed the kentucky blue-
grasses, perennial ryegrasses, and rough bluegrass. No
differences between the chewings, hard, or red fescues
were observed. Several of the fine fescues had lower
overall quality in 2000 compared to 1994. Among the
fine fescues, ‘RUCF-92’, ‘Jamestown II’, ‘Molinda’,
and ‘SCR-92’ had overall quality comparable to some
of the tall fescues. However, only ‘RUCF-92’ was com-
parable to ‘Tribute’ tall fescue.
The Kentucky bluegrasses, perennial ryegrasses,
and rough bluegrass had the lowest overall quality in
2000. The Kentucky bluegrasses evaluated were similar
in quality to the ryegrasses and rough bluegrass.
Several of these cultivars had decreased over time in
quality since 1994.
Long term quality and cover of the tall fescue culti-
vars observed in this study may be due to their greater
adaptability to extreme climatic conditions than the
other species in the study tolerate. Columbus, Ohio is
slightly north of what is traditionally considered the

Table 2. Mean percentage cover estimates during 2000 for

various turfgrass species grown in moderate shade in Columbus, Ohio.
Species Number of Cultivars Tested Mean Percentage Cover

Tall Fescue 9 72.2

Chewings Fescue 5 62.7
Red Fescue 3 50.0
Kentucky Bluegrass 6 32.5
Hard Fescue 3 27.2
Rough Bluegrass 1 10.0
Perennial Ryegrass 3 8.9

Page 28 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

Table 3. Change in percentage cover of turfgrass cultivars maintained
in a shaded location from 1994 to 2000 in Columbus, Ohio.
Mean % Cover
Cultivar Species (2000) (1994) Change
Tribute Tall Fescue 87 73 14
RUCF-92 Chewings Fescue 87 79 8
SFL Tall Fescue 80 38 42
Rebel 3D Tall Fescue 80 48 32
Tomahawk Tall Fescue 80 85 -5
PSFL-92 Tall Fescue 77 77 0
Rebel Jr. Tall Fescue 73 63 10
Jamestown II Chewings Fescue 70 60 10
Silverado Tall Fescue 67 55 12
Aztec Tall Fescue 63 58 5
SCR-92 Red Fescue 57 62 -5
Banner Chewings Fescue 53 57 -4
Molinda Chewings Fescue 53 60 -7
SMWE-92 Red Fescue 50 60 -10
LDTF II-92 Tall Fescue 50 62 -12
Coventry Kentucky Bluegrass 47 32 15
SKB-712 Kentucky Bluegrass 43 20 23
Shademaster Red Fescue 43 68 -25
SCF-E Chewings Fescue 43 73 -30
Brigade Hard Fescue 40 45 -5
WWKB-92 Kentucky Bluegrass 37 10 27
Bristol Kentucky Bluegrass 33 28 5
Aurora Hard Fescue 22 67 -45
Reliant Hard Fescue 20 73 -53
4 Aces Kentucky Bluegrass 18 27 -9
Blacksburg Kentucky Bluegrass 17 17 0
Laser Rough Bluegrass 13 58 -45
Brightstar Perennial Ryegrass 13 75 -62
Alliance Perennial Ryegrass 7 72 -65
Citation II Perennial Ryegrass 7 77 -70
LSD 0.05† 29

According to Fisher’s least significant difference test (n = 3).

†

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 29

 A B C

Figure 1. Appearance of a representative tall fescue (A), fine fescue (B), and Kentucky bluegrass (C) cultivar after establish-
ment and maintenance under moderate shade for the six year period 1994-2000 in Columbus, Ohio.

transition zone (Along and roughly 100 miles either
side of a line from Washington D.C. to St. Louis, MO
to Topeka, KS). However, temperature and moisture
extremes, particularly in the summer, may have
favored the tall fescue in this trial.
During the study period, the tall fescues gained in
overall quality and cover. However, many of the Ken-
tucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and rough blue-
grass cultivars that had established well decreased in
overall cover and quality during the study period.
Since no additional supplemental irrigation and only
minimal fertilizer was applied after the first year, tall
fescue, with its deeper and more extensive root sys-
tem, may have had a competitive advantage over the
other species for nutrient acquisition.
The results of this study were consistent with previ-
ous suggestions that tall fescue has a long-term com-
petitive advantage that offsets the rapid initial estab-
lishment of other species such as perennial ryegrass.
The tall fescues had the highest quality, primarily due
to darker green color, cover, and density (Figure 1A).
The fine fescues maintained acceptable cover, but
were more subject to encroachment by weeds and
other grasses and had a lighter green color (Figure
1B). The other species tested did not maintain accept-
able stand density and were subject to extensive weed
encroachment (Figure 1C).
Specific cultivar recommendations for turfgrass in
shade was not the objective of this study. Some of the
cultivars tested were experimental in 1992 and never
released by the registrant. Also, variability in cultivar
performance would be expected in different levels of
shade or in different soils, locations, etc. However, in
this study, we note that the long-term performance of
the tall fescue cultivars tested was superior to the
other grasses (Figure 1). Also, initial establishment
success does not appear to be a good predictor of
long-term success of a cultivar. Finally, there appears
to be some variability in cultivar performance under
shade within a given turfgrass species.

Table 4. Mean monthly turfgrass visual quality ratings during 2000 for
various turfgrass species grown in moderate shade in Columbus, Ohio.
Species Number of Cultivars Tested Mean Quality Rating
Tall Fescue 9 6.1
Chewings Fescue 5 4.6
Hard Fescue 3 4.2
Red Fescue 3 4.1
Kentucky Bluegrass 6 3.7
Rough Bluegrass 1 3.6
Perennial Ryegrass 3 2.9

Page 30 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

Table 5. Change in overall quality of turfgrass cultivars maintained in
a shaded location from 1994 to 2000 in Columbus, Ohio.
Mean Quality
Cultivar Species (2000) (1994) Change
Tribute Tall Fescue 7.2 5.8 1.4
PSFL-92 Tall Fescue 6.9 6.3 0.6
SFL Tall Fescue 6.3 4.0 2.3
Rebel Jr. Tall Fescue 6.3 6.3 0.0
Tomahawk Tall Fescue 6.2 7.8 -1.6
Aztec Tall Fescue 6.0 5.7 0.3
RUCF-92 Chewings Fescue 5.8 7.4 -1.6
Silverado Tall Fescue 5.6 6.0 -0.4
Rebel 3D Tall Fescue 5.4 4.2 1.2
LDTF II-92 Tall Fescue 5.1 6.3 -1.2
Jamestown II Chewings Fescue 4.9 6.3 -1.4
Molinda Chewings Fescue 4.7 7.5 -2.8
SCR-92 Red Fescue 4.6 6.4 -1.8
Bristol Kentucky Bluegrass 4.4 3.8 0.6
Coventry Kentucky Bluegrass 4.4 5.0 -0.6
Aurora Hard Fescue 4.3 7.2 -2.9
SCF-E Chewings Fescue 4.2 7.7 -3.5
Brigade Hard Fescue 4.1 6.0 -1.9
Reliant Hard Fescue 4.1 6.5 -2.4
Brightstar Perennial Ryegrass 4.1 7.0 -2.9
SMWE-92 Red Fescue 4.1 8.0 -3.9
SKB-712 Kentucky Bluegrass 3.9 2.5 1.4
WWKB-92 Kentucky Bluegrass 3.9 3.0 0.9
Shademaster Red Fescue 3.8 6.3 -2.5
Laser Rough Bluegrass 3.6 5.9 -2.3
Banner Chewings Fescue 3.4 5.7 -2.3
Blacksburg Kentucky Bluegrass 2.9 3.3 -0.4
4 Aces Kentucky Bluegrass 2.8 5.0 -2.2
Citation II Perennial Ryegrass 2.7 7.7 -5.0
Alliance Perennial Ryegrass 1.9 6.2 -4.3
LSD 0.05† 1.6

† According to Fisher’s least significant difference test (n = 3). Turfgrass visual quality was evaluated on a scale of 1-9

where 1 = poorest quality, 6 = acceptable turfgrass, and 9 = best quality based on overall color, cover, and density.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 31

New Growth and Technology
The Ohio State University
An Evaluation of Trenchless,
2-Tier Greens Construction
By Dr. Ed McCoy
The Ohio State University
School of Natural Resources
Introduction
M
any putting greens constructed today use a
high sand content root zone to minimize
the effects of soil compaction. This root
zone is placed within an excavation of the soil native
to the site that commonly has a much smaller
hydraulic conductivity. Consequently, provision must
be made for effective root zone drainage. The current-
ly most popular types of such putting greens are the
U.S. Golf Association (USGA Green Section Staff,
1993) and University of California (Davis et al., 1990,
Harivandi, 1998) designs. The drainage system in both
designs consists of an intense array of perforated pipe,
placed in drainline trenches cut into the native soil
subgrade. Additional drainage provision in a USGA
green is through the use of a 4-inch thick gravel
drainage layer between the root zone and the sub-
grade. This gravel layer is absent in a University of
California (CA) green, yet the root zone is specified as
unamended sand, having a relatively large hydraulic
conductivity, to promote lateral water flow to the
drains.
In an effort to reduce the cost of greens construc-
tion, modifications to both the USGA and CA designs
have been proposed. One key modification is trench-
less drainpipe installation wherein panel pipe is laid
flat on the subgrade prior to placement of the gravel
and/or sand layers. This modification represents a
measurable cost savings over conventional greens
drainage by eliminating the subgrade-trenching step.
As with any untested innovation, however, there are
proponents and detractors of trenchless construction.
One principal concern is the effective interception of
water by panel pipe laid flat, given the range of root
zone sand and gravel media, subgrade slope, and rate
of water delivery to the pipe system.
This report summarizes research to address
whether panel pipe laid flat in a 2-tier putting green is
Page 32 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
equally effective as a conventional trench design in
intercepting flow through the gravel layer. The scope
of this report, therefore, is limited to drainage system
issues related to USGA greens construction. Further
research to address trenchless construction of CA
greens in currently underway.
Research Methodology
To simulate a putting green drainage system, two
wooden boxes (4-ft wide by 30-ft long) were construct-
ed, each within a legged metal framework (Photo 1).
One of these units contained two sheet metal trenches
(6-inch wide by 8-inch deep), opening into and placed
below the bottom of the box. The trenches were sepa-
rated by 15 ft and angled at 20° upslope from perpen-
dicular to the long axis. Each trench contained a 4-
inch round and perforated drainpipe. The other unit
did not contain trenches but at the same locations
within the box contained sections of AdvanEDGE™
pipe laid flat on the bottom surface. The AdvanEDGE
pipe had slotted openings and was installed without a
geotextile fabric wrap. Additionally, a layer of ben-
tonite clay was applied to the lower side of the
AdvanEDGE pipe to block the perforations on the
lower surface and to simulate the expected settling of
this pipe into the subgrade soil. Thus the study
employed a model of a putting green drainage system
built using either trenchless or conventional methods.
The metal frames were adjustable so each unit
could be sloped to 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6%. To represent a 2-
tier, USGA-style construction, the boxes were filled to
a 4-inch depth with appropriately sized coarser or
finer gravel; the same grades used by Prettyman and
McCoy (2002). Water delivery to each unit was
through an overhead sprinkling system adjusted to
rates of 18, 9, or 4.5 inch h-1. Outflow from each
drainage element was directed to a v-notch weir to
 Table 1. Mean discharge (gpm) of individual drainage element as influ-
enced by type of gravel, rain rate and construction style. Means were
calculated for the 4 slopes and 2 pipe locations used in this study.
Gravel Rain Rate Construction Style Discharge
inch h-1 gpm
Fine 4.5 Trenchless 2.1
Conventional 1.5
9 Trenchless 4.1
Conventional 3.4
18 Trenchless 8.3
Conventional 7.9
Coarse 4.5 Trenchless 1.2
Conventional 1.6
9 Trenchless 3.1
Conventional 3.7
18 Trenchless 8.8
Conventional 8.0

record the discharge. Additionally, an array of small
wells was placed at 3-ft intervals upslope from the lower
drain (see photo). These wells were used to record the
depth of ponding during an experimental run.
The overall study was conducted as a series of indi-
vidual measurement cycles wherein the experimental
units, containing the appropriate gravel were oriented
to a specified slope. During a measurement cycle, the
water spray was applied at a specified rate. Upon achiev-
ing steady outflow from the drains, the discharge from
each drain (gpm) and ponding depth of each well
Photo 1. Experimental units to simulate the drainage system
of a putting green.
(inch) was recorded. Data analysis consists of a com-
parison of steady discharge rates between upslope and
downslope drains, and between drains of the trench-
less and conventional models. A similar comparison
was made using the ponding depths from the array of
wells.
Pipe Discharge Results
The mean discharge (gpm) from individual
drainage elements is shown in Table 1. To simplify the
presentation, means were calculated for the 4 slopes
and two pipe locations of the study. The results show
little difference in discharge for the two gravel materi-
als used in the study. Also, as expected, increasing rain
rates resulted in greater discharge. While these rain
rates may be rather high as compared with natural
rainfall and corresponding rates of water delivery to
the gravel, they were selected to challenge and test the
respective systems.
Most pertinent to this evaluation is a comparison
between the trenchless and conventional construction
styles. The results generally show a slightly greater dis-
charge, for both gravels and all rain rates, from the
trenchless than the conventional systems.
A more explicit presentation of the pipe location
and slope effects is shown in Figure 1. In this case,
results are shown for the 18 in h-1 rain rate and the
coarse gravel treatment. Other treatments (not
shown) gave an overall similar response. At 1.5%
slope, a greater discharge was recorded from the ups-

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 33

 Table 2. Mean height of water ponding (inch) in experimental units as
influenced by rain rate, slope and construction style. Means were
calculated for all 21 wells and for the 2 gravels used in the study.
Rain Rate Slope Construction Style Ponding Height
% inch
4.5 1.5 Trenchless 1.6
Conventional 1.3
3 Trenchless 1.1
Conventional 0.9
4.5 Trenchless 0.8
Conventional 0.5
6 Trenchless 0.5
Conventional 0.3
9 1.5 Trenchless 2.3
Conventional 19
3 Trenchless 1.9
Conventional 1.6
4.5 Trenchless 1.6
Conventional 1.3
6 Trenchless 1.2
Conventional 0.9
18 1.5 Trenchless 3.4
Conventional 3.2
3 Trenchless 3.2
Conventional 3.1
4.5 Trenchless 3.1
Conventional 2.9
6 Trenchless 2.7
Conventional 2.5

lope pipe for both construction methods. This
occurred because the upslope pipe was collecting
water from a larger area of the gravel than the downs-
lope pipe. To explain this, one must take into consid-
eration the ponding depth information of the next
section where a greater ponding depth occurs in the
gravel midway between the pipes than adjacent to the
pipes. This hydraulic head difference exceeded the
slope for this case and resulted in water flow from
below, and into the upslope pipe. As slope on the
experimental units increased, discharge from the ups-
lope pipe declined and discharge from the downslope
pipe increased.
Figure 1. Drainage pipe discharge (gpm) for dif-
ferent slopes (%) showing a comparison between con-
ventional and trenchless construction.
The drainage discharge data showed expected
responses for the gravel, rain rate and slope treat-
ments of this study. These responses were essentially
equivalent for the trecnhless and conventional con-
struction approaches.
Ponding Depth Results
The mean depth of water ponding (inch) within
the experimental units is shown in Table 2. Because
there was little difference in ponding height for the 2
gravel materials, means were calculated for both grav-
els and all well locations. The results show an
increased ponding depth for higher rain rates and a
decreased ponding depth for greater slopes. Both of
these outcomes were expected.

Page 34 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 35
 Figure 1:
Drainage pipe discharge (gpm) for different slopes (%) showing a comparison between
conventional and trenchless construction.

Pertinent to the objective of this study, the trench-

less construction style generally showed greater pond-
ing depths than conventional construction. Averaged
over all treatments, the depth increase was 0.24 inch-
es. This slightly greater ponding depth for the trench-
less system is, however, readily explained, since the
level of the open slots in the AdvanEDGE pipe was
about 1.2 inches higher than the upper level of the
trench. Thus, the relative depth of ponding in the
trenchless system was nearly 1 inch less than the con-
ventional system. This relative difference would sug-
gest a more efficient interception of water by the
panel pipe than by the trench, and may be due to
width differences between these systems, where the
AdvanEDGE pipe has a 10-inch distance between the
outer row of slots while the trench was 6-inches wide.
Figure 2 shows ponding depth with location in
each system and for the least and greatest slope. At
1.5% slope, ponding depths show the characteristic
drawdown of the water table in the vicinity of the
drainage elements located at 0 and 15-ft. At 6.0%
slope, the water table reaches it greatest depth ups-
lope and adjacent to a drainage element and declines
with distance from each element. Relative to the
height of the slots in the panel pipe and the upper
surface of the trench, there is essentially no ponding

Page 36 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002

Figure 2:
Ponding depths (in) for the different locations within each system. The upper graph is
for the 1.5% slope and the lower graph is for the 6% slope.

Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002 • Page 37

 just below the drainage element located at 15 feet.
This would indicate nearly complete and equivalent
interception of drainage water for extreme subgrade
slopes in both construction styles.
Figure 2. Ponding depths (in) for the different
locations within each system. The upper graph is for
1.5% slope and the lower graph is for 6% slope.
As with the discharge data, the ponding depth
information indicates that there was essentially equiva-
lent water interception for a 2-tier soil profile when
employing a trenchless or conventional subsurface
drainage system.
Summary
An experiment was conducted to address whether
a trenchless, 2-tier putting green construction
approach was equivalent to a conventional, trench
design in intercepting flow through the gravel layer.
Experimental units were constructed to simulate the
drainage elements for each style of greens construc-
tion; and gravel size, rain rate and slope treatments
were imposed on each system. Measurements were dis-
charge (gpm) from each drainage element and water
ponding depth at 21 different locations. Both the
Page 38 • Special Conference & Show Edition • 2002
drainage discharge and ponding depth data showed
equivalent water interception for a 2-tier soil profile
when employing a trenchless or conventional subsur-
face drainage system. Treatment responses followed
expected behaviors for essentially complete water
interception by both systems.
References
Davis, W.B., J.L. Paul and D. Bowman. 1990. The sand
putting green: construction and management. Publication
no. 21448. University of California Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, CA.
Harivandi, M.A. 1998. Golf green construction: a review of
the University of California method. California Turfgrass
Culture 48(3&4):17-19.
Prettyman, G.W. and E.L. McCoy. 2002. Effect of profile
layering, root zone texture and slope on putting green
drainage rates. Agron. J. 96:358-364.
USGA Green Section Staff. 1993. The 1993 revision,
USGA recommendations for a method of putting
green construction. USGA Green Section Record.
32(2):1-3.
Ohio Turfgrass Foundation
Ohio Lawn Care Association PRESRT STD
Ohio Sports Turf Managers Association U.S.POSTAGE PAID
PO Box 3388 COLUMBUS,OHIO
Zanesville, OH 43702–3388 PERMIT #7780