Northeast Region IPM Grants Projects Funded, FY 2005

Long-term Evaluation and Improvement of Golf Turf Management Systems with Reduced Chemical Pesticide Inputs

*Award shown is total amount to be used over the course of the project term.

Project Summary

This project will provide long-term information on the costs and turfgrass quality associated with golf course turf managed with few or no chemical pesticides. Many golf courses in New York State and other areas of the U. S. are being compelled, or are choosing, to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical pesticides. Turfgrass managers need better information on how cultural practices and alternative pest management strategies can be combined to maintain acceptable, playable golf course turf. Furthermore, those advocating pesticide-restrictive policies are often unaware of the costs of implementing the policies and the resulting impacts on turfgrass quality. Our project was established in 2001and was funded through 2004 by the U.S. Golf Association. It explores total management systems, as practiced by turf managers, rather than focusing on individual technologies and isolated practices. We are requesting an additional three years of funding to continue this project and establish a long-term research site. Two cultural and three pest management systems are being compared in a factorial design, utilizing all 18 greens of a high-use public golf course. The site is a living laboratory, research and demonstration site and results have already provided a great deal of information on low- and non-chemical turfgrass management. This project addresses important scientific, environmental and social aspects of golf, and compares them in ways that are useful to golf managers as well as the general public. Our project’s research is long-term and dynamic by nature, and three more years will provide critical and comprehensive additional information.

Back to the top

The goal of this project is to provide long-term information on the costs and turfgrass quality associated with golf course turf managed with few or no chemical pesticides.

Objective 1. Produce aesthetically and functionally acceptable golf turf under six unique management systems. There are 3 pest management strategies (unrestricted current standard, IPM, nonchemical) and 2 sets of cultural management practices (standard and alternative).

Objective 2. Evaluate and compare the aesthetic and functional turfgrass quality, pest occurrence, and pesticide impact in each management system.

Objective 3. Analyze the economics of each system, including golfer satisfaction.

Objective 4. Publicize results to golf course managers, policy makers, golfers, environmental and health advocates and the general public.

Back to the top

Problem, Justification, and Background

Background

Golf courses throughout the United States and Canada are being challenged to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical pesticides. In New York State, many public golf courses have been affected by legislation that phases-out and/or eliminates chemical pesticide use. Such laws have been passed for municipal properties in Suffolk, Westchester and Albany Counties, and the City of Buffalo. In addition, at least 20 laws that would restrict pesticide use on golf courses in other areas of the state are currently under consideration. Those advocating pesticide-restrictive laws and policies are often unaware of the costs of implementing the policies and the resulting impacts on golf turf performance. Furthermore, the knowledge and tools to implement such policies are not currently available to golf turf managers.

Golf courses are important green space in urban and suburban communities. According to the U.S. Golf Foundation <http://www.ngf.org/>, there are 18,643 golf courses in the United States and up to 36 million people play golf annually. Over 3,000 courses are located in the Northeast region, with New York ranking as the fifth highest golf state nationally with 860 courses. Golf courses provide recreational area for golfing, jogging and walking and also serve as wildlife habitat. Courses commonly abut residential property, and are frequently situated near wells, wetlands, streams and other water sources. For these reasons, community residents are often concerned about the pest management practices being used.

The 2004 New York State Turfgrass Survey (Ropel et al., 2004) indicated that golf courses spend more than $23 million dollars annually on pesticides with 74% spent directly on fungicides. When factored together with labor expenditures for pesticide application, pest management costs exceed $40 million annually. When asked about significant problems they are facing today, 65% of golf course managers rated disease management as their highest concern. Furthermore, when asked about significant future problems, government regulations and loss of chemicals were the two most frequent answers.

Golf turf managers who want, or are required, to minimize their reliance on chemical technology need information on how to maintain acceptable, playable golf course turf. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information available on individual practices and technologies to reduce pesticide use, and especially on how these alternative cultural and pest management technologies integrate and work together in a system. For example, Plumley et al. (1992) found that increasing the height of annual bluegrass putting greens from 3.2mm to 4 mm reduced incidence of summer patch (Magnaporthe poae) by 40%, and Huang et al. (2000) showed the favorable influence of increased mowing heights on plant energy dynamics that results in healthier plants. However, very few managers have implemented this practice because of its negative effect on ball roll distance—an important putting green performance indicator. Yet it may be possible to maintain acceptable ball roll distance, if increased mowing height is counteracted by a suite of cultural practices such as increased mowing frequency, aggressive topdressing and rolling.

More recently, new strategies have been discovered for reducing the stress of mowing by allowing the turf to rest. Howieson and Christians (2003) showed how reducing mowing frequency from seven days per week to five days per week improved plant health. In fact, a second study by Howieson and Christians (2004) indicated that mowing once at a low height was less stressful than double-cutting in the same mowing event at a higher height. This type of research will be vital to integrate into the alternative culture treatments of our proposed work and determine real-world efficacy of the research. Additional research by Rossi (2004) has shown that mower type also influences turfgrass stress response. In that study, double-cutting three days per week and single-cutting four days per week with floating head hand mowers reduced basal crown rot anthracnose and improved turfgrass quality while maintaining ball roll distances as compared to single or multiple cuttings with fixed head hand mowers. These types of cultural practices that reduce stress on turfgrass plants are key to reducing disease occurrence and severity in a putting green environment.

In addition to the mowing information, several alternative cultural practices have been developed that will allow for enhanced plant health and reduced disease infestation. For example, Han and Guertal (2001) demonstrated the benefit of using fans to create a surface wind speed of 3 miles per hour to minimize leaf wetness. This research also identified that when allowed to run in the evening, fans reduced soil temperatures by as much as 5°C in the top 2 cm. This approach has not been investigated on an existing golf course with high populations of annual bluegrass. We hypothesize that overall disease occurrence and severity will be reduced, based on Xu et al. (2003) who showed that heat stress tolerance was improved when evening soil temperatures were reduced prior to daytime heat stress. In fact plants were able to tolerate daytime temperatures in excess of 35°C when nighttime soil temperatures were reduced.

These types of cultural innovations while proven under field laboratory conditions or in growth chambers need to be ground-truthed to demonstrate their ability to integrated into modern turfgrass management programs. The proposed project provides that proving-ground. We can ensure successful evaluation, because a unique relationship has been established with the Bethpage State Park—our cooperators are now accustomed to operating the golf course in a research mode. Also, the park contains five contiguous golf courses, which protects them from possible negative financial repercussions of conducting research at a real-world, revenue-generating facility.

Project Foundation and History

In 2001 we initiated a project that implements and tests these types of combinations by exploring total management systems, as practiced by turf managers, rather than focusing on individual technologies and isolated practices. The project, funded for three years by the United States Golf Association (USGA), was conducted on all 18 greens of the Green Course at Bethpage State Park, Long Island, NY. A fourth year (2004) was funded with carryover funds, regional USGA funds, and many in-kind and materials donations that exceeded $125,000 in products and services. For example, the Green Course was given a $50,000 microbial fermentation device, the BioJect. In addition to the unit, more than $20,000 of supplies and technical support was donated to determine performance of the approach in our project. The Green Course accommodates approximately 50,000 rounds of golf annually and is typical of a high-use public golf facility in the northeast. We have managed greens under three distinct pest management strategies (conventional, IPM and non-chemical ).

These regimes are being evaluated for quality, cost, pesticide use and perception by golfers. Because the research is being conducted under real-world conditions at a high-use public course, the results are realistic and easy to demonstrate to the public as well as to golf course superintendents. In fact, our project has already become a focal point for those seeking information on low-chemical golf course management. Results to date have provided a great deal of information on low- and non-chemical turfgrass management—but we are just beginning to reap the benefits of all the time and resources that have been invested thus far. The research should continue on this site in order to evaluate new strategies and long-term impacts. Additionally, the high profile nature of the project to date has attracted other researchers and private companies that are interested in evaluating their technology under high stress conditions. NE IPM is ideally suited to fund the next phase of this project, because we address so many of the program’s priority areas. It would be a shame to forfeit the biological and cooperative history that has been created on this course.

We have chosen to work on putting greens because they are the most difficult and pesticide-intensive areas to manage. Studies (GCSAA, 2003) have shown that while putting greens make up less than 5% of the playable area they receive more than 70% of the pest management treatments. From the perspective of the game of golf, two thirds of all shots played during a round of golf involve the putting green—thereby making greens the most critical areas for the success of a golf course.
`
As discussed above, fungicides account for 74% of pesticide expenditures on golf courses. Major disease problems such as dollar spot, anthracnose and summer patch are currently being evaluated for response to alternative cultural and chemical strategies. Dollar spot is a significant disease of golf course turf throughout the country, and is documented as the primary pest and target of pesticide use at Bethpage State Park (Grant and Rossi, 2004—appendix A). Horvath et al. (2002) have identified several biotypes of dollar spot in Michigan that have become resistant to several classes of chemical fungicides. They have begun exploring the development of biological control of these resistant strains with Pseudomonas spp. Additionally, the Novozymes Co. has developed Bacillus licheniformis for use in golf turf that has not seen widespread implementation but could offer significant benefits for managing resistance.

Summer patch has increased in severity on annual bluegrass areas at Bethpage over the last four years and research from Vincelli (2004) suggests that use of phosphorous acid-based fertilizers increase plant defenses and thereby could reduce incidence of summer patch. In one year of testing this approach at Bethpage, we have seen some positive results of shifting our management focus toward a more nutritionally-based approach. Lastly, basal crown rot anthracnose has emerged as the number one disease on golf course greens in the Northeast U.S. (Inguagiato et al., 2004). There are no effective curative control programs and several studies have identified fungicide-resistant strains (Uddin and Soika, 2003). To date we have seen only minor infestations in our project, but new cultural management strategies developed by our colleagues in adjacent states will be implemented in the coming years to further minimize the potential for this devastating disease.

Diseases are the most common and destructive pests of greens, but all pests are addressed in our project because we are taking a systems approach. Our results will apply directly to golf courses throughout the Northeast region, and the rest of the cool season grass zone in the United States, Canada and Europe. The project’s focus on developing alternative strategies as well as a strong emphasis on reduced-risk approaches to golf turf management opens an important dialogue with the golf course industry. This industry has previously been reluctant to embrace IPM practices because of a perceived significant increase in labor needs and reductions in turf quality. This project will indirectly but explicitly enhance the environmental compatibility of golf turf management programs. We will demonstrate ways for golf course superintendents to be better environmental stewards, and to reduce risks of pesticide exposure to golf course workers, golfers, and community residents. We will also reduce the risk of pest damage by including IPM monitoring and diagnostic techniques.

Our effort is well respected within the research turfgrass community, the industry and by non-scientific policymakers. For example, a Long Island county with a municipal pesticide ban has been monitoring our project’s progress. Through educational sessions, and further discussions with us, the advisory committee has shifted their policy from one that granted arbitrary exemptions for pesticide use on golf courses to one that has a sound, scientific, IPM base, using criteria such as thresholds, history and expected weather. The two original PDs have already been invited to speak about this project to thousands of people in the United States, Canada and Europe. Most recently we have been invited to provide the keynote address at the International Turfgrass Society meeting in July 2005 in Wales. We have a unique opportunity with this project to provide scientifically-based information that will likely have a significant impact on future policy for pesticide use on golf courses in the region, nation and internationally.

We have successfully implemented a large-scale comprehensive research project that addresses agronomic, societal and environmental issues associated with golf in the United States. This type of research has never before been conducted on modern golf course greens. We have been able to conduct this work at Bethpage for a variety of unique and important reasons.

• The Park Director (Dave Catalano), Golf Course Superintendent (Craig Currier), Green Course Supervisor (Andy Wilson) and IPM Specialist (Kathie Wegman) are highly dedicated to making the project succeed.
• Bethpage State Park houses five golf courses. Any golfer who may be dissatisfied with the Green Course, due to conditions resulting from our research project, can select an alternate course--without significant revenue losses to the park.
• The two original PDs for this project have made the substantial commitment to each physically be at Bethpage 1-3 times monthly, and to always be available to Bethpage staff by phone and email. On our proposed work, the addition of four new university collaborators, who are geographically closer to the park, will further strengthen this support.
• In addition to the USGA’s investment for the first four years of this project, we garnered over $400,000 of donations of materials and in-kind labor to actualize its implementation.

As home of the 2002 and 2009 U.S. Open, and the first truly public host facility, Bethpage has a high profile in the public’s eye. The Park is ideally poised to both host and publicize our research, and show the public that their demands for low-impact, high-quality golf are being addressed. Our special situation is highlighted by the fact that our colleagues in Ontario, Canada have attempted to replicate this project, but have been unsuccessful in finding a willing golf course host. Ideally the 18 greens in this project would be designated as a permanent research site. Realistically, the project can only continue as long as there are committed researchers, site cooperators, and funders. The first two parties are on board, and we hope that NE IPM will also see the tremendous value in continuing the project.

Priorities

Our project directly addresses many priorities for both golf course and community IPM. Priorities set by a Northeast stakeholder group for golf in 2001; the Northeast IPM Center Community IPM Work Group in 2003; and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America’s Environmental Institute for Golf 2004 IPM Task Force Priorities are listed below, followed by the way in which our project addresses the priority.

Golf Course
(see http://northeastipm.org/partners/priorities/turf2001.html

Research

Priority: Documentation of IPM impacts (economics, environmental, water quality)
Our project: Documents both economic and environmental impacts

Priority: Alternatives to current pesticides including new (non-pesticide) IPM techniques
Our project: Innovates, tests and demonstrates non-pesticide tactics for management of diseases, insects and weeds on golf course greens

Priority: Documentation of costs incurred (damage and cost of control) for specific pests
Our project: Tracks costs of all cultural and pest management techniques, for all pests. Pest incidence, severity and damage are also quantified.

Priority: Development and demonstrations of systems approaches to IPM
Our project: We develop, demonstrate and compare golf course management systems (nonchemical, IPM and conventional). Our project is a prime example of a systems-based approach, and has never been done before on golf course turf.

Extension

Priority: Educate and communicate with others:
-information about the benefits of golf turf IPM for public policy makers, golfers, course owners / superintendents and employers.
Our project: We are producing information on what can be expected from reduced and non-chemical greens management. We have begun to disseminate the information and will have many more opportunities if we are granted new funds to continue the project. Our golfer surveys will provide information important to golf course superintendents and policy makers regarding quality expectations and thresholds. Presentations about this project will serve to stimulate dialogue among public policy makers, golfers, course owners / superintendents and employers.

Priority: Demonstration of full-scale IPM
Our project: Demonstrates full-scale IPM, as well as full scale non-chemical pest management, and compares these systems with each other and with conventional management.

Community IPM Priorities
(see http://nepmc.org/cwg/community/Priorities_oct03.html)

Priority: Continue to develop and present implementation models, demonstrations, and programs, and communicate their existence and success.
Our project: Serves as both an implementation model and demonstration site. We have and will publicize results through on-site field days, press releases, articles and reports.

Priority: Address priorities identified by the Turf IPM Work Group.
Our project: See above.

Priority: Research to quantify financial costs/benefits of implementing IPM in schools and municipal settings including predicting impact of changing policies (such as notification laws and pesticide phase-out “sunset” ordinances).
Our project: We are quantifying the costs and benefits of pesticide phase-outs and bans on municipal golf courses, and have already begun speaking about the impact around the region.

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America’s Environmental Institute for Golf, IPM Task Force Priorities
(see http://www.eifg.org/focus/ipmtg_outcomes.asp)

Priorities:
• Current lack of understanding of the practical use of IPM or BMPs
• A need for continued development and promotion of IPM
• Access to practical, easy to use information
• A need for continued support for positive environmental changes
• A need for better understanding of biological indicators of a sound environment
• A need to increase biodiversity on golf course properties
• Environmental expectations need to be practical for new and existing golf properties
• A need for a better understanding of the economic implications of sound environmental practices
Our project: Our project addresses all of these priorities.

What have we learned in the first four years?

As shown in our 2004 article, Evaluation of reduced chemical management systems for putting green turf (Grant and Rossi, 2004—see appendix A, pgs. 19-33), a great deal has already been learned from this project, including:
• IPM greens received 27-61% fewer pesticide applications than the unrestricted pest management (current standard) greens.
• Velvet bentgrass greens outperformed poa/creeping bentgrass greens when managed without chemical pesticides.
• Nonchemical poa/creeping bentgrass greens were marginally acceptable or below acceptable quality for at least one month each year.
• Dollar spot has been the predominant pest problem, but incidence and severity were reduced in 2002 as compared to 2001. Its pest status has further declined under our non-chemical and IPM treatment regimes in 2003 and 2004.
• Rhizoctonia incidence was higher in 2002 and 2003 than 2001.
• Cutworms either favor velvet bentgrass, or the damage appears more severe than on poa/creeping bentgrass greens.
• In 2002, the alternative culture greens generally performed better than the standard culture in all pest management treatments. Less pesticide was also required to maintain alternative greens under both the IPM and non-chemical strategies.
• Annual weather variations impact pest occurrence and severity, and the ability to successfully manage greens with few or no pesticides.
• We have not yet been able to maintain poa/creeping bentgrass greens at an acceptable quality level, without chemical pesticides.
• The majority of golfers surveyed indicated they prefer an IPM approach as compared to conventional or nonchemical.
• A reduced-risk insecticide, spinosad, has effectively managed black cutworm infestations.
• New reduced-risk fungicides with active ingredients such as polyoxin-D zinc salts, boscalid, and phosphites, significantly reduced disease occurrence and severity. Some are allowed under the National Organic Standards.
• Several biological controls, including Pseudomonas aureofaciens and Bacillus licheniformis, significantly reduced disease occurrence and severity.

What will we gain with an additional three years?

Future benefits of this project include:
• Seeing long-term changes in turfgrass, soil, microbial and pest communities.
• Managing greens and tracking success under a wide variety of weather conditions, as they vary from year to year.
• Incorporation of new pest management products and practices, and fine-tuning of previously adopted strategies.
• Aggressively shifting management program to encourage the success of velvet bentgrass and minimize annual bluegrass ingress by adopting new research practices being developed by colleagues in adjacent states.
• Golf course superintendents, who chose or are compelled to manage with limited pesticide inputs, will become better informed of their options.
• Golf course superintendents, golfers, policy makers, and environmental and health advocates will greatly increase their comprehension of quality and economic expectations for golf course greens managed with few or no chemical pesticides. They will have tangible, comparative information for decision making.
• The project identifies areas needing further research within the constraints of each management system, and provides researchers a venue for “ground-truthing” of their technologies. For example, after hosting visits with each co-PD, we will devise strategies for integrating the technologies they have shown to be effective under research conditions.
• Results of this systems-based approach will be communicated to the audiences cited via public meetings, extension publications, research presentations and articles in scientific journals and the popular press.
• The proven success of the PDs in communicating the results of this project holds NEIPM in good stead for enhancing the profile of the regional IPM efforts from grass roots environmental advocates through policy-makers as well as golfers who benefit from reduced risk approaches to golf turf management.

Our project’s research is long-term and dynamic by nature, and three more years will provide critical and comprehensive additional information. The soil, grass, pest and microbial ecologies of greens managed under each system are evolving and changing over time. As the greens mature, they better represent the outcome of long-term management strategies. At the same time, we are continually improving the management systems by incorporating appropriate new products and practices as we learn from previous results and newly-researched possibilities come to light. We adjust our turfgrass culture and pest management as we monitor the response of the greens and the pest populations. Continuation of the project will also attract additional interest from industry, which will further spur innovation and develop new products and practices focusing on improving the environmental compatibility of golf turf management systems.

Because of the high-profile nature of the project and the intensive communication strategies of the PDs, many in the industry are able to follow the results and relate our progress to what might be possible in their own situations. For example, our establishment of a new turfgrass species, velvet bentgrass, has attracted significant interest from golf course superintendents. This interest has already increased demand for that grass and caused seed companies and sod growers to expand production. At the same time, new research by Murphy (unpublished) and Boesch and Mitkowski (2003) is being conducted with velvet bentgrass that will be useful for our project and overall chemical pesticide reduction. Two of these authors (Murphy and Mitkowski) have joined our project in this proposal as co-PDs. All of our management strategies build on previous results, so that new knowledge continually enhances our ability to produce quality playing surfaces with few or no chemical pesticides. In addition to building our knowledge base with further research, the next three years become a critical time for sharing information and demonstrating results with golf course managers, environmental and health advocates, policy makers, and the general public.

A field tour, held in August 2003 at Bethpage, was attended by 60 golf course professionals and environmental advocates. Participants were able to see results of this project first-hand, and discuss the challenges and possibilities for managing putting greens under various management systems. Thoughtful discussions ensued about how we could further refine our systems, and how superintendents could incorporate aspects of the work on their own courses. Superintendents and advocates were able to see each other’s interests more clearly, and discuss them. In this way, Bethpage Green has become a living laboratory, research and demonstration site. Continuation of the project will vastly increase our technical knowledge and also provides a scientific basis for these necessary discussions on the environmental, economic and social aspects of golf.

Back to the top

Links

Other fy 2005 Northeast IPM Funded Projects

All Northeast IPM Funded Projects 1996-2005

Northeastern IPM Center home page

Top of this page