For the 35th consecutive year, the annual Green Section Education Conference was held in conjunction with the 2012 Golf Industry Show (GIS). This year's program, held on March 2, addressed the theme, "Improving Your Golf Course Management Odds." The Green Section's staff totals 420+ years of experience, and the session highlighted some of the lessons learned and changes witnessed in the turfgrass management field.

We are conscious of the fact that economic challenges have made it more difficult for people to attend the GIS, and, with this in mind, we are sharing the Green Section presentations in this publication. Over the coming weeks you will find written summaries of the presentations and links to the video of the actual conference presentations. This is the third presentation in the series.

In this recorded video, David Oatis, director of the Northeast Region, shares how things would be different if he were the Emperor of Golf for a day.   

Watch the video

Trees and turfgrass are like brothers. Give them ample space to grow and they get along just fine. Put them together in a small bedroom and the bigger one is going to dominate. Just like finding a proper distance between brothers is a key to harmony, trees and turf must have adequate space, too. If they are too close together, the trees will outcompete turfgrass for growth-related resources like sunlight, water, and nutrients. Spaced appropriately, trees and turf will get along just fine, too. Ultimately, finding the proper distance to allow both trees and turf to flourish is an agronomic challenge on many golf courses.

In the Southeast Region, most golf courses have identified and corrected shade problems through trial and error. This could be called "after the fact" or "reactive" shade management. It typically works this way. Certain putting greens on a given course develop poor turf quality over a period of years. Shade is identified as a limiting factor. Protests about protecting the trees ensue. The protesters eventually capitulate under the weight of factual evidence and the desire to have acceptable turf quality on the putting greens. Trees are removed, and turf quality on the putting greens improves. All in all, this model has worked well, and today many golf courses have dealt with their shade issues.

The recent trend in the Southeast to replace creeping bentgrass on putting greens with an ultradwarf bermudagrass does not lend itself to an "after the fact" or "reactive" shade management program because ultradwarfs do not tolerate shade well. A "before the fact" or "proactive" shade management program is desired because officials at courses want to know if their putting greens receive enough sunlight to sustain an ultradwarf bermudagrass. This article will help golf courses assess shade levels on their putting greens prior to a conversion from bentgrass to an ultradwarf. Golf courses with an ultradwarf presently will be able to use this information in case there is a need to address existing shade problems. In this article, some basics of plant physiology are reviewed, and important terms that will be used during site assessment are defined. Practical tips for proactively addressing shade will be presented.

Read the rest of this article 

The completed phosphorus removal structure filled with steel slag, a byproduct of the steel production industry.

The USGA continues to examine and support innovative ways to reduce the environmental impact of golf courses. Previous research indicated that phosphorous can be found in runoff and tile drainage water leaving golf course properties. The transport of phosphorus (P) from soils to surface waters is a major cause of eutrophication (i.e., enriched with dissolved nutrients and lacking oxygen). Eutrophication results in algal blooms, excessive aquatic plant growth, low dissolved oxygen levels, and potential fish kills. Phosphorus is more important than nitrogen in this regard because P is the most limiting nutrient for aquatic life.

There are two main forms of P, particulate P and dissolved P, which are transported to surface waters via surface runoff and subsurface flow. Particulate P is sorbed onto soil particles and it is not 100% available after it reaches a water body. Controlling erosion eliminates particulate P transport. Dissolved P is 100% bio-available upon reaching a water body, and erosion control does little for reducing its movement. Controlling dissolved P losses from suburban and urban landscapes is especially challenging when soil P accumulates due to several years of P fertilization beyond plant needs. Even after cessation of P fertilization and implementation of traditional best management practices, dissolved P will continue to leak out of high-P soils for many years.

Dr. Chad Penn, Associate Professor, Soil and Environmental Chemistry, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University. Dr. Greg Bell, Huffine Endowed Professor of Turfgrass Science, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University. Dr. Jason Warren, Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University. Dr. Josh Mcgrath, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Science & Technology, University of Maryland.