Humic Substances Effect on Moisture Retention and Phosphorus Uptake in Intermountain West Putting Greens

Dyke, Adam Van; Johnson, Paul G.; Grossl, Paul R.

doi:10.1094/ats-2008-1006-01-rs

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, 2005). Similar results of decreased water holding capacity were observed on a research putting green, where the application of humic acid significantly decreased the VWC of the sand, even with the use of a wetting agent (Van Dyke et al. , 2008).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Baker Chemical Co., Phillipsburg, NJ, USA) and citric acid, monohydrate (Mallinckrodt Chemicals, Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). Application rate of the treatments was determined in a pilot study (Van Dyke, 2008) and from other greenhouse studies where humic acid was applied to creeping bentgrass (Liu et al. , 1998; Cooper et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 1998) when treated with humic acid. However, responses of greater chlorophyll content have not been observed under field conditions (Van Dyke et al. , 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of humic acid on water retention and nutrient acquisition in simulated golf putting greens

Dyke¹,

Johnson²,

Grossl³

2009

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humic substances are frequently applied to creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) on golf putting greens to improve turf health and are marketed to enhance nutrient acquisition and possibly aid in retaining water in drought prone environments, but information on the role of humic substances in increasing soil water retention is limited. Additionally, it is difficult to separate the beneficial effects of nutrients and other ingredients added to commercial humic formulations from the effects of the pure humic substance. In our study, pure humic acid, tannic and citric acids were added to simulated creeping bentgrass putting greens. The organic acids were applied at normalized carbon rates of 250 mg C per litre by watering solutions through an automated irrigation system. Volumetric water content (VWC) and irrigation frequency, shoot and root growth, and tissue nutrient concentration of the turf were measured. None of the organic acid treatments improved water retention in the simulated greens. The humic acid‐treated greens required more frequent irrigation than the untreated greens indicating that they were drying out more quickly. In addition, the addition of humic acid did not result in an increased tissue concentration of nutrients in the creeping bentgrass, top growth or dry shoot mass compared with the other treatments. However, creeping bentgrass root length was greater in the greens treated with humic acid compared with the untreated control.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of humic acid on water retention and nutrient acquisition in simulated golf putting greens

Dyke¹,

Johnson²,

Grossl³

2009

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Van Dyke et al. (2008, 2009) found that applications of humic acid decreased soil moisture and shortened the time between irrigation. Soil nutrient concentrations ranged from 10.4 to 12.2 mg kg −1 , 45.8 to 56.7 mg kg −1 , 206.3 to 243.8 mg kg −1 , 1,894.5 to 2,205.9 mg kg −1 , and 3.9 to 5.2 mg kg −1 for P, K, Mg, Ca, and Zn, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of humic fertilizers on a sand‐based creeping bentgrass putting green

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turfgrass with sand‐based root zones, such as golf course putting greens, are highly important economically and require intense management. However, problems are often associated with sand‐based root zones, such as low nutrient retention and limited microbial activity. Soil additives may increase soil biological activity, improve nitrogen (N) cycling efficiency, and thus reduce fertilizer N inputs. A 2‐yr experiment was conducted on a sand‐based creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) putting green to investigate whether humic products could increase soil biological activity and improve turfgrass quality. Treatments included humic‐coated urea (HCU; 2/3 rate and full rate), HCU + humic dispersing granules (HDG), HCU + black gypsum (BG), urea, HDG, and a nontreated control. Minimal differences were seen in microbial biomass and activity besides HCU + BG. The HCU + BG had 60% greater potentially net N mineralization relative to the HDG and the nontreated control. Overall, incorporating humic substances with N fertilizer did not increase turfgrass quality, cover, and clipping biomass compared with N fertilizer alone. However, the addition of BG to N fertilizer enhanced microbial activity (i.e., potentially net N mineralization).

show abstract

“…Changes in color have not yet been confirmed by studies on chlorophyll content in plants, as evidenced by the results of other authors (Daneshvar, Maibodi, Kafi, Nikbakht, & Rejali, 2015;Van Dyke, 2009). Different results were presented by Van Dyke, Johnson, and Grossl (2009), with reduced phosphorous content in tissues compared with the control.…”

Section: The Usag E Of Pl Ant B Ios Timul Antsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Biostimulants and possibilities of their usage in grassland

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, in addition to a wide range of lawn fertilizers on the market, there are new biological products available called biostimulants, fostering plant growth and development. They are based on substances of natural origin, containing plant extracts, hormones or humic substances. Biostimulants exert a positive impact on grass metabolism, stimulating life processes and reducing negative effects of pathogen infestation and adverse environmental conditions like drought, salinity or temperature fluctuations. Disparities and the lack of a uniform position to recognize biostimulants as a strictly specified group pose many problems in legislative issues, with erroneous terminology used in relation to different groups of bioactive substances applied to crops. All this creates a situation when products of untested and unstable effects are placed on the market, even if they sometimes do not have any impact on plant growth despite the claims of the producer. Growth‐promoting potential of biostimulants is very significant, and previous research has shown real benefits of their use. Increasing environmental awareness and environmental regulations is an additional factor positively affecting the development of such products. However, there is still a lack of studies that would fully characterize the reaction of plant metabolic processes to biostimulants. The aim of the study was to review current knowledge of plant biostimulant usage in grassland.

show abstract

Humic Substances Effect on Moisture Retention and Phosphorus Uptake in Intermountain West Putting Greens

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Influence of humic acid on water retention and nutrient acquisition in simulated golf putting greens

Influence of humic acid on water retention and nutrient acquisition in simulated golf putting greens

Evaluation of humic fertilizers on a sand‐based creeping bentgrass putting green

Biostimulants and possibilities of their usage in grassland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About