Turfgrass Ecology

Steinke, Kurt; Ervin, Erik H.

doi:10.2134/agronmonogr56.c10

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cover during dormancy (Steinke & Ervin, 2013). Golf course turfgrass is managed to maintain specific function and aesthetics that vary depending on the intensity of use (Throssel et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of precision management for golf course turfgrass

Carlson¹,

Gaussoin

Puntel

2022

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precision turfgrass management (PTM) is a combination of methods and technologies proposed to increase the resiliency of golf courses by improving input efficiency while maintaining the function and aesthetics of the playing surface. However, there is no recent review describing the status of precision management in turfgrass. The objectives of this review were to (a) summarize peer reviewed research on precision technology for turfgrass management, (b) describe adoption of PTM-based tools, and (c) propose an agenda of research priorities to advance and promote PTM adoption. Of the articles reviewed, 94% documented the accuracy of sensors to detect turfgrass performance and stressors before or during visual symptoms. Only 6% of the research reviewed focused on developing models or decision support systems to quantify the relationship among reflectance, nitrogen uptake, visual quality, biomass production, and irrigation which are required for precision management by golf course superintendents. Efficacy or value of using PTM methods and technologies have not been reported. Golf course superintendents lack of knowledge about PTM, and lack of quantification of benefits of PTM pose limitations to promote adoption. Increasing the adoption of PTM will require research to focus additionally on automating sensor data processing; quantifying costs, benefits, and value of adopting PTM; and simplifying input applications in a PTM system. This review described the status of precision management in golf course turfgrass and shed light into the need for research to develop models and decision support tools for precision management of golf course turfgrass.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Turfgrass is defined as a plant system that remains green for 6 or more months while maintaining a dense contiguous ground cover during dormancy (Steinke & Ervin, 2013). Golf course turfgrass is managed to maintain specific function and aesthetics that vary depending on the intensity of use (Throssel et al., 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of precision management for golf course turfgrass

Carlson¹,

Gaussoin

Puntel

2022

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cool‐season lawns are frequently planted as a blend of cultivars of a single species or a mixture of two or more species to increase genetic diversity and adaptation to varying microenvironments (Donald, 1963; Steinke & Ervin, 2013). Both Kentucky Bluegrass ( Poa pratensis L., KBG) and tall fescue [ Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal irrigation requirements of Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue blends in the northern transition zone

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lawns in the cool‐humid region typically consist of mixtures or blends of cool‐season turfgrass species and cultivars. To maintain a desirable aesthetic appearance and maximize seasonal greenness, many lawns receive supplemental irrigation. Turfgrass breeders have developed superior cultivars with reduced water needs, but the exact proportion of these grasses to include in lawn seed blends to reduce irrigation needs has not been well documented. A field study was conducted to determine the irrigation requirements of various blend ratios (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%, w/w) of drought‐tolerant (DT) and drought‐susceptible (DS) Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L., KBG) and turf‐type tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Durmort., syn. Festuca arundinacea Schreb.; TF] cultivars at two mowing heights (5.1 or 8.9 cm). Supplemental irrigation requirements were determined over a 74‐d deficit irrigation period using a 70% green coverage threshold (GCT70) approach, where 12.7 mm of supplemental irrigation was applied if an individual plot fell below GCT70 using digital image analysis. Total irrigation needs ranged from 66.7 to 176.9 mm, and TF generally required the least irrigation. For KBG, a blend containing ≥75% DT cultivar required the longest time to reach GCT70 (25–33 d), the least irrigation (94–110 mm), and provided the highest overall visual quality. The TF responses were more variable, and the magnitude of differences among cultivar blends was less compared with KBG. These results indicate that where blending of cultivars is desired, the inclusion of cultivars with demonstrated drought tolerance in blends is important for reducing lawn irrigation needs.

show abstract