Organic Matter ManagementRoch Gaussoin

University of Nebraska-Lincolnrgaussoin1@unl.edu

Alberta Golf Course Superintendents Association2016 Property Manager's ConferenceCanmore, Alberta

mailto:rgaussoin1@unl.edu

www.turf.unl.edu

ASA Monograph (3RD Edition)

Chapter 12Characterization, Development, and Managementof Organic Matter in Turfgrass Systems

R.E. Gaussoin, Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Univ. of NebraskaW.L. Berndt, Dep. of Resort and Hospitality Management,

Florida Gulf Coast UniversityC.A. Dockrell, Teagasc College of Amenity Horticulture

Dublin, IrelandR.A. Drijber, Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Univ. of Nebraska

Soldat’s Hierarchy of Golf Course Soil Problems

Compaction Excessive organic matter and thatch

accumulation Layering

Because of inherent ambiguity in terminologyand sampling techniques, the term “thatch-mat”has appeared frequently since the late 2000’s (McCarty et al., 2007; Barton et al., 2009;Fu et al., 2009).

. 3 4.

and yet one more definition…………..

SOM- Soil Organic Matter

Physical And Chemical Characteristics Of Aging

Golf Greens Roch Gaussoin, PhDJason LewisTy McClellanChas SchmidBob Shearman, PhD

The picture can't be displayed.

Treatments• rootzone Mix

– 80:20 (sand/peat)– 80:15:5 (sand/peat/soil)

• Grow-In Procedure– Accelerated– Controlled

Project Schedule (Phase I)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Data collection on soil physical, chemical, and microbial characteristics influenced by rootzone materials and grow-in procedures.

Greens construction ( one set per year)

Seeding

Project Schedule (Phase II)

2002 2003 2004 2005

Data collection on soil physical and chemical characteristics as influenced by age, rootzone materials and grow-in procedures.

13 yr oldgreen

9 yr oldgreen

Materials and Methods

10 yr oldgreen

12 yr oldgreen

As of 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-1 1 3 5 7 9 11

Age of Green (Years)

Infi

ltra

tio

n R

ate

(c

m h

r-1 )

80:20

80:15:5

Expon. (80:15:5)

Expon. (80:20)

Data points and exponential regression lines of infiltration rate decline on USGA specification putting green

Summary

Roch here are the data sets and graphs for the changes of soil physical properties on the USGA putting greens. Each sheet contains a different data set or graph so you'll have to scroll over to see them all. I have included a separate and combined graph f

If you have questions on how I tested the fit parameters I have attached the PDF that I followed.

The Clegg data will not cooperate and so I need to work more on this, I included graph of the data here, the problem is in spring year 8, the data spikes, and I do not know why, it is only taken from 1 green, but still. Anyway I don't think that its real

*Critical F-Value = F 1, 200, 0.05 = 3.808

VariableEquationp Value for modelr2Slope Parameter F ValueIntercept Parameter F ValueNote

Bulk Density

Rootzone 80:20y = 96.95 + 0.846(Age)

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age of Green (Years)

Per

cent

of Y

ear

1 To

tal P

oros

ity (%

)

Percent of Year 1 Total Porosity (80:20) = 99.1 - 0.6(Age)r2 = 0.08Percent of Year 1 Total Porosity (80:15:5) = 101.7 - 0.6(Age)

No significant change in total porosity over time

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age of Green (Years)

Per

cent

of Y

ear

1 A

ir-F

illed

Por

osity

(%)

Percent of Year 1 Air-filled Porosity 80:20 = 100.8 - 3.8(Age)r2 = 0.26Percent of Year 1 Air-filled Porosity 80:15:5 = 105.0 - 3.8(Age)r2 = 0.26

Significant decrease in macro-porosity over time

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age of Green (Years)

Perc

en

t o

f Y

ear

1 C

ap

illa

ry P

oro

sit

y (

%)

y = 91.5 + 8.1(Age)r2 = 0.16

Significant increase in micro-porosity over time

Formation of Mat• Formation of mat layer currently increasing

approximately 0.65 cm annually (following establishment year).

• No visible layering, only a transition is evident between mat and original rootzone.

• Topdressing program– Light, Frequent

• every 10-14 days (depending on growth) and combined with verticutting

– Heavy, Infrequent• 2x annually (spring/fall) and combined with aerification

OM accumulates as sand greens age

Source: Gaussoin and Shearman, 2003; Gaussoin et al., 2006

Original Rootzone

Mat• 2004 USGA research

committee site visit

• original rootzone

• mat development

Materials and Methods

• 2004 rootzone samples taken below mat layer from each soil treatment and sent to Hummel labs for Quality Control Test (24 total samples) & tested against original quality control test (z-score).

• Other analysis also completed

0

5

10

15

20

25in hr -1

Comparison of preconstruction Ksat values to Ksat values taken 10/04.

Original

Date is Report DateSand Size Class/Sand Particle Diameter % Retained# Determined by Methos 1 of ASTM F-1647

* determined at 30cm tension

% Soil SeparatePerc Rate (in/hr)GravelV. coarseCoarseMediumFineV. FineParticle Density (g/cc)Bulk Density (g/cc)Ksat Infiltartion Rate (in/hr)Total Porosity %Aeration Porosity %Capillary Porostiy %*OM %#

Green 3 2000SandSilt & Clay%OM2 mm1 mm0.5 mm0.25 mm0.15 mm0.05 mm

8/12/9980-2098.91.11.324.11.28.7274812.31.7

8/12/9980-15-597.72.30.9320.71.47.425.147.712.82.9Green 3 2000

7/22/9980-2099.50.51.1426.51.29.731.446.49.71.111/8/9980-202.631.620.439.218.920.3

7/22/9980-15-597.72.30.9315.51.38.530.144.810.42.611/8/9980-15-52.631.671336.615.820.8

Lyman Richey Test Samples

Green 2 1999

8/1/9880-15-596.83.20.926.90.62.315.452.120.16.3Green 2 1999

7/23/9880-2098.51.51.520.12.316.757.718.53.27/23/9880-202.611.4811.643.420.722.71.5

7/11/9880-15-596.83.21.2112.70.12.214.453.8224.3Green 1 1998

7/11/9880-209911.4411.90.32.815.154.922.23.78/29/9780-202.631.579.140.217.822.41.37

QC samples Mix to determine mill settings8/29/9780-15-52.621.613.238.717.321.40.87

Green 1 1998Green 0 1997

8/22/9780-15-597.62.40.8715.51.46.922.746.416.93.310/31/9680-15-52.621.5412.741.11922.1

10/31/9680-202.611.4816.243.220.422.8

8/4/9780-2098.81.11.3720.20.85.319.848.421.13.5

8/24/9680-15-52.621.678.936.216.319.90.75

7/29/9780-2099.90.91.0620.20.97.123.648.717.32.3

7/29/9780-15-596.93.10.8715.51.36.323.14616.33.98/9/9680-202.621.6313.337.817.620.21.04

QC Test samples

Green 0 1996

10/25/9680-2099.911.210.97.628.547.1131.9

QC sample sent to Physical properties

10/19/9680/2098.91.11.181.37.324.148.115.82.3

QC sample sent for physical properties

10/8/9680-15-597.62.40.811.3725.445.514.93.5

QC sample

9/28/9680-2098.71.30.741.49.326.244.814.32.7

9/28/9680-15-597.12.90.681.57.7254415.33.6

QC sample

9/20/9680-2098.81.20.741.67.923.946.816.62.4

9/20/9680-15-597.62.40.491.67.422.74417.94

QC sample

9/12/9680-2098.71.30.391.38.223.746.916.62

9/12/9680-15-595.24.80.3416.920.341.818.46.8

QC sample

8/24/9680-15-597.42.20.41.57.826.643.9143.6

8/9/9680-2098.90.80.31.3829.144.113.92.5

2004

2004 Hummel DataSand Size Class/Sand Particle Diameter % Retained

% Soil SeparateGravelV. coarseCoarseMediumFineV. FineV. finePerc Rate (in/hr)

plotSandSilt & Clay2 mm1 mm0.5 mm0.25 mm0.15 mm0.10 mm0.05 mm%OM

10198118.428.145.813.91.50.30.7613.5

20498.50.60.97.526.447.115.41.70.40.816.7

30498.410.67.42646.915.81.90.40.815

1997 Yr 8 80:20 Ave98.300.870.837.7726.8346.6015.031.700.370.7915.07

10396.81.91.37.324.246.115.82.50.90.657.7

20196.22.31.56.524.145.915.72.71.30.6710.6

30397.61.60.86.624.546.216.62.61.10.517.9

1997 Yr 8 80:15:5 Ave96.871.931.206.8024.2746.0716.032.601.100.618.73

11198.60.80.65.420.748.320.82.80.60.769.4

21497.81.11.15.420.646.821.330.70.5611.9

31498.90.50.65.520.347.921.52.90.80.7311.8

1998 Yr 7 80:20 Ave98.430.800.775.4320.5347.6721.202.900.700.6811.03

11396.52.60.96.621.646.1182.71.50.515

21196.921.16.221.346.818.72.51.40.645.4

31397.12.20.76.421.147.517.82.81.50.635.2

1998 Yr 7 80:15:5 Ave96.832.270.906.4021.3346.8018.172.671.470.595.20

12199.30.60.12.117.656.519.92.60.60.6711.4

22499.10.90217.855.920.12.70.60.716.8

324990.90.1218.455.320.22.50.60.8614.3

1999 Yr 6 80:20 Ave99.130.800.072.0317.9355.9020.072.600.600.7414.17

12396.63.20.22.417.549.920.63.92.30.635.4

22197.42.602.317.250.621.63.720.75.7

32396.73.10.22.317.149.621.63.92.20.614.9

1999 Yr 6 80:15:5 Ave96.902.970.132.3317.2750.0321.273.832.170.655.33

13198.10.917.726.748.613.51.30.30.7514.2

23498.30.90.87.225.949.5141.40.30.9319.7

33498.40.70.97.82649.413.31.50.40.9620.4

2000 Yr 5 80:20 Ave98.270.830.907.5726.2049.1713.601.400.330.8818.10

23196.92.117.525.246.414.52.11.20.7710.9

13397.11.81.1826.845.913.41.91.10.5413.6

33397.61.31.18.426.64613.521.10.6110

2000 Yr 5 80:15:5 Ave97.201.731.077.9726.2046.1013.802.001.130.6411.50

Z test

*** Very fine sand is defined as

Change in Rootzone Particle Size Distribution

• All rootzones tested in 2004 showed increased proportion of fine sand (0.15 – 0.25 mm) with decreased proportion of gravel (> 2.0 mm) and very coarse sand (2.0 – 1.0 mm).

• 5 of 8 rootzones were significant (z-score) for increased fine sand content.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 mm 1 mm 0.5 mm 0.25 mm 0.15 mm 0.10 mm 0.05 mm

USGA Specification

Topdressing Sand

USGA sand specifications compared to sand used in topdressing program for USGA plots at Mead, NE.

%

Original

Date is Report DateSand Size Class/Sand Particle Diameter % Retained# Determined by Methos 1 of ASTM F-1647

* determined at 30cm tension

% Soil SeparatePerc Rate (in/hr)GravelV. coarseCoarseMediumFineV. FineParticle Density (g/cc)Bulk Density (g/cc)Ksat Infiltartion Rate (in/hr)Total Porosity %Aeration Porosity %Capillary Porostiy %*OM %#

Green 3 2000SandSilt & Clay%OM2 mm1 mm0.5 mm0.25 mm0.15 mm0.05 mm

8/12/9980-2098.91.11.324.11.28.7274812.31.7

8/12/9980-15-597.72.30.9320.71.47.425.147.712.82.9Green 3 2000

7/22/9980-2099.50.51.1426.51.29.731.446.49.71.111/8/9980-202.631.620.439.218.920.3

7/22/9980-15-597.72.30.9315.51.38.530.144.810.42.611/8/9980-15-52.631.671336.615.820.8

Lyman Richey Test Samples

Green 2 1999

8/1/9880-15-596.83.20.926.90.62.315.452.120.16.3Green 2 1999

7/23/9880-2098.51.51.520.12.316.757.718.53.27/23/9880-202.611.4811.643.420.722.71.5

7/11/9880-15-596.83.21.2112.70.12.214.453.8224.3Green 1 1998

7/11/9880-209911.4411.90.32.815.154.922.23.78/29/9780-202.631.579.140.217.822.41.37

QC samples Mix to determine mill settings8/29/9780-15-52.621.613.238.717.321.40.87

Green 1 1998Green 0 1997

8/22/9780-15-597.62.40.8715.51.46.922.746.416.93.310/31/9680-15-52.621.5412.741.11922.1

10/31/9680-202.611.4816.243.220.422.8

8/4/9780-2098.81.11.3720.20.85.319.848.421.13.5

8/24/9680-15-52.621.678.936.216.319.90.75

7/29/9780-2099.90.91.0620.20.97.123.648.717.32.3

7/29/9780-15-596.93.10.8715.51.36.323.14616.33.98/9/9680-202.621.6313.337.817.620.21.04

QC Test samples

Green 0 1996

10/25/9680-2099.911.210.97.628.547.1131.9

QC sample sent to Physical properties

10/19/9680/2098.91.11.181.37.324.148.115.82.3

QC sample sent for physical properties

10/8/9680-15-597.62.40.811.3725.445.514.93.5

QC sample

9/28/9680-2098.71.30.741.49.326.244.814.32.7

9/28/9680-15-597.12.90.681.57.7254415.33.6

QC sample

9/20/9680-2098.81.20.741.67.923.946.816.62.4

9/20/9680-15-597.62.40.491.67.422.74417.94

QC sample

9/12/9680-2098.71.30.391.38.223.746.916.62

9/12/9680-15-595.24.80.3416.920.341.818.46.8

QC sample

8/24/9680-15-597.42.20.41.57.826.643.9143.6

8/9/9680-2098.90.80.31.3829.144.113.92.5

2004

2004 Hummel DataSand Size Class/Sand Particle Diameter % Retained

% Soil SeparateGravelV. coarseCoarseMediumFineV. FineV. finePerc Rate (in/hr)

plotSandSilt & Clay2 mm1 mm0.5 mm0.25 mm0.15 mm0.10 mm0.05 mm%OM

10198118.428.145.813.91.50.30.7613.5

20498.50.60.97.526.447.115.41.70.40.816.7

30498.410.67.42646.915.81.90.40.815

1997 Yr 8 80:20 Ave98.300.870.837.7726.8346.6015.031.700.370.7915.07

10396.81.91.37.324.246.115.82.50.90.657.7

20196.22.31.56.524.145.915.72.71.30.6710.6

30397.61.60.86.624.546.216.62.61.10.517.9

1997 Yr 8 80:15:5 Ave96.871.931.206.8024.2746.0716.032.601.100.618.73

11198.60.80.65.420.748.320.82.80.60.769.4

21497.81.11.15.420.646.821.330.70.5611.9

31498.90.50.65.520.347.921.52.90.80.7311.8

1998 Yr 7 80:20 Ave98.430.800.775.4320.5347.6721.202.900.700.6811.03

11396.52.60.96.621.646.1182.71.50.515

21196.921.16.221.346.818.72.51.40.645.4

31397.12.20.76.421.147.517.82.81.50.635.2

1998 Yr 7 80:15:5 Ave96.832.270.906.4021.3346.8018.172.671.470.595.20

12199.30.60.12.117.656.519.92.60.60.6711.4

22499.10.90217.855.920.12.70.60.716.8

324990.90.1218.455.320.22.50.60.8614.3

1999 Yr 6 80:20 Ave99.130.800.072.0317.9355.9020.072.600.600.7414.17

12396.63.20.22.417.549.920.63.92.30.635.4

22197.42.602.317.250.621.63.720.75.7

32396.73.10.22.317.149.621.63.92.20.614.9

1999 Yr 6 80:15:5 Ave96.902.970.132.3317.2750.0321.273.832.170.655.33

13198.10.917.726.748.613.51.30.30.7514.2

23498.30.90.87.225.949.5141.40.30.9319.7

33498.40.70.97.82649.413.31.50.40.9620.4

2000 Yr 5 80:20 Ave98.270.830.907.5726.2049.1713.601.400.330.8818.10

23196.92.117.525.246.414.52.11.20.7710.9

13397.11.81.1826.845.913.41.91.10.5413.6

33397.61.31.18.426.64613.521.10.6110

2000 Yr 5 80:15:5 Ave97.201.731.077.9726.2046.1013.802.001.130.6411.50

Z test

*** Very fine sand is defined as

Conclusions

• The KSAT decrease over time maybe due to SOM accumulation above and in the original rootzone and/or the increased fine sand content originating from topdressing sand

• Mat accumulation modifies pH positively if sands are calcareous and increases nutrient retention

Want to know more?• Gaussoin, R., R. Shearman, L. Wit, T. McClellan, and J.

Lewis. 2007. Soil physical and chemical characteristics of aging golf greens. Golf Course Manage. 75(1):p. 161-165.

• Gaussoin, R., R. Shearman, L. Wit, T. McClellan, and J. Lewis. 2006. Soil physical and chemical characteristics of aging golf greens. [Online]USGA Turfgrass Environ. Res. Online. 5(14):p. [1-11].

• Gaussoin, R., and R. Shearman. 2003. Soil microbial characteristics of aging golf greens. [Online]USGA Turfgrass Environ. Res. Online. 2(3):p. [1-8].

Why is high SOM considered to be “bad”?

• Loss of infiltration• Decreased aeration• Traps “toxic” gases• Are these concerns real or imagined?• Why the confusion?

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Low High

Adams: < 5%

J. W. Murphy: < 4.5%

McCoy: < 3.5%

Hartwiger & O’Brien: < 3.5 – 4.5%

Carrow: < 3%

Private Lab A: 1.5 – 2.5% at a 0.25 to 1-in depth

Lowe: < 3 - 4%

Private Lab B: < 3% - unrealistic< 4% - difficult< 5% - realistic & achievable

N.Z. Turf In.: < 8%

Organic Matter Sampling depends on…….

1. thatch + mat layer 2. between 0.5” and 4.5” 3. between 0 and 35 cm 4. between 0 and 25 cm

Analysis Methods

• Many exist, but the most relevant is “combustion” or “loss on ignition”

• The sample represents both dead and living organic matter– Food for thought……

Seasonal Root Depth

-180-160-140-120-100-80-60-40-20

0

spring fallrootgrowth

root decline

There is no “magic” number

• Be consistent in sampling– Time of year– Technique– Lab doing analysis

“the squeeze test”(courtesy of Dave Oatis-USGA Director NE-

How do you get rid of OM?

• Decomposition (microbial)– Increase surface area and aeration– Inoculation (???)

• Removal– Power raking, dethatching, core

aerification• Dilution

– Topdressing

Organic Matter Degradation Study

Treatments• Aerator (Granular)• Aerator (Liquid)• EXP072• EXP074• EXP076• Carbo-Plex• Bio-Blend• Carbo-Plex + Bio-Blend• Bio-Groundskeeper (Granular)• Bio-Groundskeeper (Liquid)• Thatch X• EXPO70M• EcoChem Lawn Thatch Reducer• Untreated Control

Locations

• KY Bluegrass Tee Box– Native Soil

• Bentgrass Green– California Green

• KY Bluegrass Sports Turf– Sand based– 2.5” Mowing

Each Plot (including untreated) Core Aerifiedbefore Application of products

Data Collection

• Infiltration• Penotrometer• Thatch • Organic Matter

– Thatch, 0-3”, 3-6”

Analysis SummarySource Thatch

(mm)Clegg

(g)Infiltrat(in/hr)

Thatch(OM %)

0-3”(OM %)

3-6”(OM %)

Site ** * ** ** ** **Trtmnt NS NS NS NS NS NS

0-3” OM %

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sports Turf Green Fairway

Summary

• No product increased degradation of OM

How effective is removal?

• Surface disruptive, short and long term• Core aeration is the most widespread

practice recommended for OM management

Tine Size and Surface Area Chart

Tine Size (in.)

Spacing(in.)

Holes/ft2

Surface Area

of One Tine

Percent Surface

Area Affected

1/4 1.252 100 0.049 3.4%

1/4 2.52 25 0.049 0.9%

1/2 1.252 100 0.196 13.6%

1/2 2.52 25 0.196 3.4%5/8 2.52 25 3.07 5.3%

Regardless of what spacing or tine diameter, coreaerification, as well as manycultivation techniques,promotes root growth andultimately organic matterdeposition.

Influence of Rootzone Organic Matter on Putting Green Quality and Performance

• Two studies– National survey– Field study

• Funded by:– USGA -1 year– Nebraska Golf Course Superintendents

Assoc. – 2 years– Golf Course Superintendents Assoc. of

South Dakota – 2 years– Peaks & Prairies GCSA - 3 years

National Survey

Determine cause and effect relationship among maintenance practices and their interactions relative to surface OM accumulation

Sampling Procedures Years 1, 2, & 3 At least 3 different greens per golf course

sampled Soil samples taken from 3 different area per

green Samples are evaluated for OM levels using LOI Management survey GPS location

Sampling Methods• Samples from at least 3 greens per

course– (1) Problematic, (1) Non-problematic

plus rebuilt or varied age/management

• 3 samples from each green• Samples taken with

¾ inch soil probe

2006/07/08 Samples

• Sixteen states– Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Colorado,

Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Mexico, Montana, Hawaii, California, Connecticut, Arkansas.

• 117 golf courses sampled– More than 1600 samples

WY

CO

SD

NE IL

WI

HI

MT

NM

WA ID

IANJ

MN

AR

CA

NY, CT

Problematic vs Non-problematic

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Good Average Bad

Superintendent predicted vs actual

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Actual Predicted

Range of predicted vs. actual

OM %

Pre

dict

ed O

M %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Green Age

Age

OM

%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Is the age effect misleading?

• Sampling issues:– Mat depth increases as green ages

resulting in more OM in the same volume soil.

– Because deposition is relatively uniform, % per unit depth within the true mat layer is relatively uniform

State Differences(highly correlated with age)

State

OM

%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

NE WA SD WY CO WI IL NJ IA MN MT NM CA CT AR

CultivarO

M %

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Unknown Penncross Providence Dominant Pennlinks L 93 A or G Series

CultivarO

M %

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Unknown Penncross Providence Dominant Pennlinks L 93 A or G Series

Onsite NTEP Cultivar Evaluation

1 L-932 Putter3 Cato4 Crenshaw5 LCB-1036 Penncross7 Backspin8 Trueline9 Providence

10 SR 102011 SR 1119 12 Viper13 Century14 Imperial15 Penn A-116 Penn A-417 Penn G-618 Penn G-1

Onsite NTEP Bentgrass Evaluation

Penncross Penn A-4 Crenshaw

Chart1

6

15

7

13

2

14

11

10

17

16

5

12

9

1

8

18

3

4

Cultivar

OM %

2.191

2.2423333333

2.291

2.3166666667

2.3186666667

2.351

2.4023333333

2.419

2.421

2.4246666667

2.4266666667

2.4313333333

2.451

2.469

2.4813333333

2.49

2.4976666667

2.5513333333

Sheet1

0.301

NS1NS2WANS1NS2WAAverage

12.527A2.343A2.537A12.5272.3432.5372.469

22.333A2.240A2.383A22.3332.2402.3832.319

32.817A2.383A2.293B32.8172.3832.2932.498

42.810A2.307B2.537A42.8102.3072.5372.551

52.600A2.390A2.290A52.6002.3902.2902.427

62.233A2.107A2.233A62.2332.1072.2332.191

0.45972.373A2.187A2.313A72.3732.1872.3132.291

82.397A2.410A2.637A82.3972.4102.6372.481

92.423A2.297A2.633A92.4232.2972.6332.451

102.540A2.230A2.487A102.5402.2302.4872.419

112.473A2.227A2.507A112.4732.2272.5072.402

122.420A2.407A2.467A122.4202.4072.4672.431

132.133A2.290A2.527A132.1332.2902.5272.317

142.337A2.313A2.403A142.3372.3132.4032.351

152.080A2.207A2.440A152.0802.2072.4402.242

162.237A2.560A2.477A162.2372.5602.4772.425

172.473A2.300A2.490A172.4732.3002.4902.421

182.307A2.573A2.590A182.3072.5732.5902.490

62.191

152.242

72.291

132.317

22.319

142.351

112.402

102.419

172.421

162.425

52.427

122.431

92.451

12.469

82.481

182.490

32.498

42.551

Sheet1

Cultivar

OM %

Sheet2

Sheet3

Onsite NTEP Bentgrass Evaluation

Penncross Penn A-4 Crenshaw

No differences in “total” SOM but might be density differences

Chart1

6

15

7

13

2

14

11

10

17

16

5

12

9

1

8

18

3

4

Cultivar

OM %

2.191

2.2423333333

2.291

2.3166666667

2.3186666667

2.351

2.4023333333

2.419

2.421

2.4246666667

2.4266666667

2.4313333333

2.451

2.469

2.4813333333

2.49

2.4976666667

2.5513333333

Sheet1

0.301

NS1NS2WANS1NS2WAAverage

12.527A2.343A2.537A12.5272.3432.5372.469

22.333A2.240A2.383A22.3332.2402.3832.319

32.817A2.383A2.293B32.8172.3832.2932.498

42.810A2.307B2.537A42.8102.3072.5372.551

52.600A2.390A2.290A52.6002.3902.2902.427

62.233A2.107A2.233A62.2332.1072.2332.191

0.45972.373A2.187A2.313A72.3732.1872.3132.291

82.397A2.410A2.637A82.3972.4102.6372.481

92.423A2.297A2.633A92.4232.2972.6332.451

102.540A2.230A2.487A102.5402.2302.4872.419

112.473A2.227A2.507A112.4732.2272.5072.402

122.420A2.407A2.467A122.4202.4072.4672.431

132.133A2.290A2.527A132.1332.2902.5272.317

142.337A2.313A2.403A142.3372.3132.4032.351

152.080A2.207A2.440A152.0802.2072.4402.242

162.237A2.560A2.477A162.2372.5602.4772.425

172.473A2.300A2.490A172.4732.3002.4902.421

182.307A2.573A2.590A182.3072.5732.5902.490

62.191

152.242

72.291

132.317

22.319

142.351

112.402

102.419

172.421

162.425

52.427

122.431

92.451

12.469

82.481

182.490

32.498

42.551

Sheet1

Cultivar

OM %

Sheet2

Sheet3

Cultivation Frequency (& type)O

M %

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Monthly 3-4 per year Spring and fall Spring only Fall only Every other year

Cultivation Frequency (& type)O

M %

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Monthly 3-4 per year Spring and fall Spring only Fall only Every other year

Topdressing Frequency

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1-2 Weeks Monthly Every other month Twice per year

OM

%

Topdressing

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

OM

%

Topdressing rate (tons/1000 ft2)

Survey Summary

• None of the variables collected, by themselves, or in combination with others, predicted OM

• Courses using >20 cubic ft/M*of topdressing with or without “venting” had lower OM

• Of the known cultivars, no differences in OM were evident

*1 ft3 = 100 lbs of dry sand; yd3 = 2700 lbs

TopdressingOld Tom Morris (1821–1908) is

thought to have discovered the benefits of topdressing accidentally when he spilled a wheelbarrow of sand on a putting green and noted how the turf thrived shortly afterward (Hurdzan, 2004).

J.B. Beard in his classic textbook“Turfgrass Science & Culture, 1973writes:“The most important managementpractice for OM managementis topdressing”

“the solution to pollutionis dilution”

How do you get rid of OM?

• Decomposition (microbial)– Increase surface area and aeration– Inoculation (???)

• Removal– Power raking, dethatching, core aerification

• Dilution– Topdressing

Acknowledgements• USGA • Environmental Institute

for Golf

• Nebraska GCSA

• GCSA of South Dakota• Peaks & Prairies GCSA

• Jacobsen, Toro, JRM & PlanetAir

• Nebraska Turfgrass Association

Organic Matter ManagementSlide Number 2ASA Monograph (3RD Edition)Slide Number 4Soldat’s Hierarchy of Golf Course Soil ProblemsSlide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8and yet one more definition…………..Physical And Chemical Characteristics Of Aging Golf Greens TreatmentsProject Schedule (Phase I)Project Schedule (Phase II)Materials and MethodsSlide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Formation of MatOM accumulates as sand greens ageSlide Number 21Materials and MethodsSlide Number 23Change in Rootzone Particle Size DistributionSlide Number 25ConclusionsWant to know more?Why is high SOM considered to be “bad”?Slide Number 29Organic Matter Sampling depends on…….Analysis MethodsSeasonal Root Depth�There is no “magic” numberSlide Number 34Slide Number 35How do you get rid of OM? Organic Matter Degradation StudyTreatmentsLocationsEach Plot (including untreated) Core Aerified before Application of productsData CollectionAnalysis Summary0-3” OM %�SummaryHow effective is removal?Slide Number 46Slide Number 47Slide Number 48Slide Number 49Slide Number 50Influence of Rootzone Organic Matter on Putting Green Quality and PerformanceNational Survey�Sampling Procedures Sampling Methods2006/07/08 SamplesSlide Number 56Problematic vs Non-problematicSuperintendent predicted vs actualRange of predicted vs. actualGreen AgeIs the age effect misleading?State Differences�(highly correlated with age)CultivarCultivarOnsite NTEP Cultivar Evaluation Slide Number 66Onsite NTEP Bentgrass EvaluationOnsite NTEP Bentgrass EvaluationCultivation Frequency (& type)Cultivation Frequency (& type)Topdressing FrequencyTopdressingSurvey SummaryTopdressing“the solution to pollution� is dilution”�How do you get rid of OM?Acknowledgements