Virginia Turfgrass Council / P.O. Box 5989 / Virginia Beach, VA 23471 / ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council | May/June 2010
SIXTH ANNUAL DIGEST OF TURFGRASS RESEARCH IN VIRGINIA RESEARCH ARTICLES 10 Organic Matter Dilution Programs for Sand-Based Putting Greens in Virginia 12 Ultradwarf Bermudagrass Putting Greens in the Transition Zone 16 Annual Bluegrass Control on Putting Greens via Directed Herbicide Application 18 Controlling Bermudagrass and Other Perennial Grasses in Stands of Cool-Season Turf 20 Reducing Pesticide Inputs with Combinations of Tall Fescue and Hybrid Bluegrass 22 Efficacy of Selected Soil Insecticides Against Masked Chafer Grubs in Turf
SUMMARIES OF ADDITIONAL RESEARCH PROJECTS 24 Early Research on Civitas, a New Fungicide 24 Interaction of Mowing Height, Fertilization and Preemergence Herbicide Application on Bermudagrass Encroachment and Brown Patch in Tall Fescue 25 Effects of Tenacity and Drive on the Establishment of Hybrid Bluegrasses, Kentucky Bluegrasses and Tall Fescue 25 Virginia Tech’s Buffalograss Variety Trial
DEPARTMENTS 6 Director’s Corner
26 Contact Information
8 VTF Report
26 Calendar of Events
from Tom Tracy, Ph.D.
from Betty Parker
for VT Researchers
26 Index of Advertisers
4 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Director’s Corner
Working Together for the Common Good Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director
I
am constantly impressed with the willingness of turfgrass industry professionals to put aside personal agendas in order to work together for the good of the entire industry. Although I could fill all the pages of this Journal with examples of VTC members who made sacrifices for the common good, space allows me to touch on only three events. On February 23, the VTC, Herod Seeds, John Deere Landscapes and Turf & Garden worked together with several manufacturers and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to produce a pesticide recertification program. This program, held in Virginia Beach, now has a two-year track record. The first year, 80 persons attended. This year, that number shot up to 110! We expect the program to continue to expand in future years. All facets of the industry are working together to produce the 2010 Research Golf Tournament (newly renamed the Bob Ruff Research Golf Classic), scheduled for Monday, June 7, at Wintergreen. Thanks to a myriad of phone calls and in-person contacts, last year’s event jumped from 18 holes to 27! That growth is phenomenal, especially in a depressed economy. We were able to expand only because industry professionals saw the value of funding turfgrass research (the results of which you will see in these pages) and worked hard behind the scenes to make the event happen. As in previous years, many people are striving to make the 2010 event a great day of golf at a great facility and raise money for much-needed turfgrass research. “That moment changed the direction of our lives for as long as we lived.” This quote from a book I just read applies to the new turfgrass field day to be offered in Virginia Beach on June 22. The “moment” occurred when several of us were standing among the turf plots at the Blacksburg Field Day. Bemoaning the fact that very few people who live east of Williamsburg ever make the trip to Blacksburg, we decided to explore offering an additional event in Virginia Beach. Thanks to the hard work of Dr. Jeff Derr and all the staff at the Hampton Roads AREC, the new event is going to happen! The turfgrass industry is growing (no pun intended) only because many people are willing to put aside differences, roll up their sleeves and get to work for the common good. I am honored to be associated with these selfless professionals.
Virginia Turfgrass Council (VTC) serves its members in the industry through education, promotion and representation. The statements and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the association, its staff, or its board of directors, Virginia Turfgrass Journal, or its editors. Likewise, the appearance of advertisers, or VTC members, does not constitute an endorsement of the products or services featured in this, past or subsequent issues of this bimonthly publication. Copyright ©2010 by the Virginia Turfgrass Council. Virginia Turfgrass Journal is published bimonthly. Subscriptions are complimentary to members of VTC. POSTMASTER: Send change of address notification to VTC, P.O. Box 5989, Virginia Beach, VA 23471. Postage guaranteed. Third-class postage is paid at Nashville, TN. Printed in the U.S.A. Reprints and Submissions: Virginia Turfgrass Journal allows reprinting of material published here. Permission requests should be directed to VTC. We are not responsible for unsolicited freelance manuscripts and photographs. Contact the managing editor for contribution information. Advertising: For display and classified advertising rates and insertions, please contact Leading Edge Communications, LLC, 206 Bridge Street, Franklin, TN 370680142, (615) 790-3718, Fax (615) 794-4524. Deadlines are the first of the month prior to the following month’s publication. (Example: August 1 for the September issue.)
6 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Virginia Turfgrass Journal is the official publication of The Virginia Turfgrass Council P.O. Box 5989 Virginia Beach, VA 23471 Office: (757) 464-1004 Fax: (757) 282-2693 vaturf@verizon.net PUBLISHED BY Leading Edge Communications, LLC 206 Bridge Street Franklin, Tennessee 37064 (615) 790-3718 Fax: (615) 794-4524 Email: info@leadingedgecommunications.com EDITOR Mark Vaughn, CGCS VTC OFFICERS President Melissa Reynolds Dura Turf Service Corp. (804) 233-4972 Vice President Frank Flannagan Belmont Golf Course (804) 501-5993 Treasurer Brian Vincel, CGCS Spring Creek Golf Club (434) 566-2580 Past President Rick Viancour, CGCS Golden Horseshoe Golf Club (757) 220-7489 VTC DIRECTORS Patrick Connelly Gil Grattan Vince Henderson Jeff Holliday, CGCS Rick Owens, CGCS Steve Slominski Steve Smith VTC ADVISORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Mike Goatley, Ph.D. (Chair) Shawn Askew, Ph.D. Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D. Erik Ervin, Ph.D. Rajandra Waghray, Ph.D. Rod Youngman, Ph.D. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/ DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS Tom Tracy, Ph.D. (757) 681-6065 VIRGINIA TURFGRASS FOUNDATION Betty Parker (757) 574-9061
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
|7
VTF Report
Do You Know
Where Your Money Is Going?
Betty Parker VTF Manager
Our
mission statement reads: “The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation was formed to provide a stable source of funds for innovative turfgrass research…” Certainly the research being conducted at Virginia Tech and our Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center defines innovative. This edition of the Journal features the research being done around our state by our team of turfgrass research specialists at Virginia Tech. These reports, for all practical purposes, justify the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. We are proud of the work they do, and we encourage you to read these articles. ASK QUESTIONS. Tech’s researchers want and need your input, not only on their current studies but on the kinds of research you would like to see in the future. Now let us look at the VTF’s entire mission statement: “The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation was formed to provide a stable source of funds for innovative turfgrass research, teaching and Cooperative Extension programs.” As I write this, I am reminded of proposed cuts being made by our state legislators that will impact the programs we support. Yesterday, I received a bulletin from the Virginia Green Industry Council that warned of an “amendment targeting the closure of several VCE offices, consolidating others and eliminating any Extension support of home lawn and garden programs.” By the time you read this, the outcome will be history. These are tough economic times. We have all heard that too often, but the cuts are real and are currently to be made to nearly every service we enjoy as residents of this commonwealth and country. The bottom line is, you can’t rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter is broke, too. More than ever, we need to look long and hard at what is most important to us. We need to evaluate programs that, while lean, are productive and worthwhile. The VTF is proud of the programs it supports at the HRAREC, at Virginia Tech and around the state. We have witnessed a decrease in donations due to economic circumstances. We understand this, but we are committed to these programs and research and will continue to do all we can to support the fine work they do for all of us in the turfgrass industry. Thanks to all of you who continue to speak out for our industry, for those who donate in support of the VTF and recognize that the end product of the funded projects and programs is worth the sacrifice to all of us.
8 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Research Articles
In
ORGANIC MATTER DILUTION PROGRAMS for Sand-Based Putting Greens in Virginia
Virginia Tech Researchers: Erik H. Ervin, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Turfgrass Physiology; Adam Nichols, Research Specialist; Derik Cataldi and Kehua Wang, Graduate Students, Dept. of Crop and Soils Environmental Sciences; with Brandon Horvath, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee Sponsors: Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, Virginia Agricultural Council, United States Golf Association (Green Section) and Smith Turf & Irrigation (Chris Bassett) Table 1. Treatment details & thatch/mat organic matter % at end of year.
#
Treatment Details
Total % removal
Total Disrupted Days, 2009
Nov. 2009
Days to 99% cover
Total
Nov. 2008
Fall % removal Sept. 10
Thatch/Mat (%OM)
Days to 99% cover
Sept. 10
Table 2. Total estimated days of disrupted putting quality in 2009 as affected by percent surface removal by various core cultivation and verticutting treatments. Spring % removal March 31
Surface Area Removed (%)
the 1990s, USGA Green Section-sponsored research provided Georgia-specific data for cultivation and topdressing recommendations — commonly known as “organic matter dilution” programs — for sand-based greens. USGA agronomists summarized the details of this approach, recommending annual cultivation practices that remove 15% to 20% surface area and incorporate 40 ft3 to 50 ft3 sand/M, with the ultimate goal being to maintain surface rootzone organic matter (OM) at 4% or less. Aggressive organic matter dilution programs are intended to slow the loss of aeration porosity (which subsequently reduces infiltration rates), thereby allowing superintendents to more easily manage their putting greens and lessen the effects of summer bentgrass decline. The objective of this trial is to compare various cultivation approaches that remove from 10% to 27% surface area and determine treatment effects
1
Untreated
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
2
0.25” id core, 2 passes, in spring & fall
5%
24
5%
34*
10%
58*
11.8%
24
11.8%
21
23.6%
45
2.5% 31 +11.8%
2.5%
7
16.8%
38
#
Treatment Details
March 31
1
Untreated
0
0
0
5.2 a
4.3 a
2
0.25" id core, 2 passes, in spring & fall
5
5
10
4.9 ab
3.4 c
3
Verticut (3 mm blade), in spring & fall
3
Verticut (3 mm blade), in spring & fall
11.8
11.8
23.6
5.0 ab 3.9 ab
4
0.25” id + verticut (3 mm blade) in spring; 0.25” id core, in fall
4
0.25" id + verticut (3 mm blade), in spring; 0.25" id core, in fall
2.5 +11.8
2.5
16.8
5.2 a
3.7 bc
5
0.5” id core, in spring; 0.25” id core, 2 passes, in fall
9.8%
35
5%
33*
14.8%
88*
6
0.5” id core, in spring & fall
9.8%
36
9.8%
38
19.6%
74
5
0.5" id core, in spring; 0.25" id core, 2 passes, in fall
11.8
5
14.8
4.8 b
3.3 cd
7
0.5" id core, in spring; verticut (3 mm blade) + 0.25” id core, 2 passes, in fall
9.8%
35
6
0.5" id core, in spring & fall
9.8
9.8
19.6
4.8 b
3.0 d
7
0.5" id core, in spring; verticut (3 mm blade) + 0.25" id core, 2 passes, in fall
9.8
5+11.8
26.6
5.1 ab 3.3 cd
LSD 0.05
0.38
0.42
5% 52** 26.6% +11.8%
87**
* Two passes with the 0.25" inside diameter (id) tines on Sept. 10 resulted in undue tearing, hole overlap and furrowing on the putting surface that served to delay recovery in treatments #2 and #5 in September; this type of tearing did not happen with treatment #2 in the spring, so recovery was faster. ** Treatment #7 did not all occur on Sept. 10, as verticutting after 0.25" id doublepass coring caused undue sod lifting/damage. Verticutting was delayed until 26 days after coring, unduly lengthening recovery time to 52 days for this treatment.
10 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Research Articles continued
on a mature putting green in eastcentral Virginia. Our ultimate goal is to determine which program maintains mat layer OM at less than 4%, while providing the fewest days of putting quality disruption each year.
Linear regression was used to predict the number of days required for each treated plot to return to 99% cover or a non-disrupted putting surface (Table 2).
Our research
• The least disruptive treatment in terms of percent removal (trt. #2, 10%) healed quickly (24 to 34 days) and reduced thatch/mat OM to an acceptable level of 3.4% after two years. • Verticutting alone each spring and fall (trt. #3) resulted in the second fastest recovery of any treatment (21 to 24 days), but failed to significantly reduce OM to a level below the untreated. • Trt. #4 resulted in the least amount of days of disruption over the season (38), while also reducing OM to an acceptable 3.7%. The approach for this treatment was to bite the bullet
Research was done on mature Penn A4 practice putting greens (5.8% initial OM) at the Independence Golf Club. Various combinations of small tines (0.25" id), big tines (0.50" id) and verticutting (3 mm blade) were imposed in late March and early September to provide a range of seasonal surface removal from 0% to 26.6% (Table 1). Verticutter blade spacing was 1", while depth was 0.75". Tine spacing was 1.33" X 1.5", with a coring depth of 2.5". Heavy sand topdressing of approximately 12 ft3 (1,200 lbs./M) was applied on both days of cultivation, supplemented by four light topdressings of 0.15 ft3 every 4 to 6 weeks between cultivations, for a seasonal total of 24.6 ft3. Cultural management of these greens was identical to all others on the golf course, with preventive pesticide applications, daily mowing at 0.125" and January through October fertilization of 2.3 lbs. N/M.
Summary
in the spring and complete an aggressive surface removal (small tine coring + verticutting: 14.3%), so as to allow a very minor coring event in September (small tine coring: 2.5%). Total recovery time was 7 days less than verticutting alone, with a slightly faster rate of OM reduction. • Using large tines (0.5" id) at a close spacing both spring and fall each year (19.6% surface removal, trt. #6) worked best in terms of final OM at 3.0%, but required approximately two extra weeks each season for recovery, relative to two passes with small tines or verticutting alone. • Finally, being ultra-aggressive by removing 26.6% surface area (trt. #7) per year did not work in this trial. Recovery time was significantly delayed, without achieving greater OM dilution relative to treatments that removed 10% to 20% surface area.
Research results At the end of 2008, only those coring treatments that removed 14.8% to 19.6% (treatments #5 and #6) significantly reduced %OM relative to the untreated control (Table 1). Use of smaller tines alone (#2), verticutting alone (#3) or combinations of the two (#4) failed to reduce %OM in 2008. At the end of 2009, all treatments, except verticutting alone, significantly decreased %OM in the thatch/mat layer relative to the control (Table 1). Coring spring and fall with 0.5" id tines on a tight spacing to remove a total of 19.6% (#5) resulted in the least OM (3%) over the two years. These data imply that verticutting to a depth of 0.75" does not remove sufficient depth of material for adequate organic matter dilution, even though this procedure removes a large amount of surface area (11.8%) with each pass. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 11
Research Articles continued
ULTRADWARF BERMUDAGRASS PUTTING GREENS in the Transition Zone Virginia Tech Researcher: Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Dept. of Crop and Soil Environmental Science Sponsors: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and The Virginia Agriculture Council
The
Nottoway River Country Club in Blackstone, VA, is a limited-budget, nine-hole facility that repeatedly had issues with its push-up, native-soil creeping bentgrass putting greens during the stress periods of the summer. In fall 2007, the greens committee asked me to attend one of their club meetings regarding the challenges they faced each year with their greens. After I provided my thoughts on the pros and cons of ultradwarf bermudagrass greens for their facility, two of the committee’s most active members, Dan Irby and Ray Smart, set about gathering all the information they could regarding the cultivars and how they might fit their situation. The decision to convert was made in spring 2008, and MiniVerde was rowplanted into glyphosate-treated greens in mid-July of that year. The course reopened after Labor Day in 2008. To date, here are my observations
and some management data provided by Mr. Irby and Mr. Smart through the first full year of use. • Turfgrass covers for the ultradwarf greens are a necessity in this climate, and the NRCC staff purchased turf blankets to protect their investment. The greens were covered a total of eight times from November to April of 2008–2009. They likely should have been covered another 7 to 10 nights, based on temperatures that actually occurred, but no winter kill was observed. Covering events were essentially doubled for the winter of 2009–2010. The practice putting green was not covered at all during the winter of 2008–09, yet it survived, emerging approximately three weeks later from dormancy than the covered greens. • Water use was reduced by approximately 300% in 2009, compared to previous requirements. Hand-watering was almost eliminated, whereas
A MiniVerde bermudagrass green at Nottoway River Country Club, as it fully emerged from winter dormancy on May 11, 2009. 12 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
the bentgrass had required three to four hours of hand-watering per day during the summer. • Chemical expenditures were reduced approximately 60%. • The biggest change in management strategy has been the need to perform more regular, light topdressings. The course superintendent can now manage the entire golf course during the summer, rather than spending almost every hour on the greens. • The club’s membership is very pleased with both the playability of the new greens and the cost savings.
Summary Creeping bentgrass will (and should) remain as the predominant putting green turf for most Virginia golf courses. However, particularly for facilities with native-soil greens and limited resources/manpower, the new generation of ultradwarf bermudagrasses offer an intriguing option. (For those of you who came to this year’s conference and participated in the 50th anniversary celebration, did you catch the part in our review of the 1960s that almost all golf greens in Virginia were common bermudagrass?! Maybe bermudagrass greens aren’t so crazy after all.) One big unknown looms for this spring — what are the effects of the extreme winter of 2009–10? Winterkill has been and always will be “predictably unpredictable,” as its occurrence often has nothing to do with the caliber of the course, its management, etc. This winter will provide some answers to the suitability of ultradwarf bermudagrass in the southern Piedmont of Virginia.
Research Articles continued
ANNUAL BLUEGRASS CONTROL ON PUTTING GREENS via Directed Herbicide Application Virginia Tech Researcher: Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Turfgrass Weed Science, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science Sponsors: Industry cooperators, Virginia Golf Course Superintendents and Virginia Turfgrass Foundation
A
nnual bluegrass (Poa annua) continues to be one of the most troublesome weeds on golf putting greens. In the past 30 years, herbicides have not been registered for postemergence control of annual bluegrass on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera). With no options for poa control, and few options for poa population suppression, superintendents often use directed application (foam-dabbing) with non-selective herbicides such as glyphosate and glufosinate, to kill the bluegrass. Results are seldom acceptable, though, due to creeping bentgrass injury. Numerous research studies have been conducted, however with several herbicides showing promise for use on bentgrass greens. Plausibly, herbicides showing promise for broadcast application would yield better results than directed application of non-selective herbicides. Likewise, using such herbicides would impart less risk to the putting green when applied as a directed application, rather than when broadcast applied.
Chemicals (left to right): glyphosate (Roundup), bispyribac (Velocity), ethofumesate (Prograss), paclobutrazol (Trimmet), flurprimidol (Cutless), metsulfuron (Manor), primisulfuron and amicarbazone. Least significant differences for mean separations are shown in parentheses.
30 Days
50 Days
70 Days
Spot treatments of nonselective herbicides Basamid (top row) and Roundup (center row) are more injurious to surrounding creeping bentgrass and take longer to heal than Velocity (bottom row).
Injury to creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf surrounding treated annual bluegrass at three golf course locations.
16 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Our research We conducted studies to evaluate several herbicides and plant growth regulators for poa control when applied directly to annual bluegrass. Trials were established on a creeping bentgrass putting green at Massanutten Resort Lower Course (MRLC, near Harrisonburg, VA), a perennial ryegrass putting green collar at Massanutten Resort Upper Course (MRUC) and a creeping bentgrass tee at Chevy Chase Club (CCC, in Chevy Chase, MD). Foam dabbers (intended for marking paper score cards in games such as bingo) were purchased commercially. The dabbers were capped with foam and covered a 3.14 cm2 diameter per application. Treatments included glyphosate at 2,200 g. ai/ha, bispyribac sodium at 148 g. ai/ha, ethofumesate at 1,120 g. ai/ha, paclobutrazol at 280 g. ai/ha, flurprimidol at 560 g. ai/ha, metsulfuron at 84 g. ai/ha, primisulfuron at 79 g ai/ha, and amicarbazone at 196 g ai/ha. Non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% v/v was included with metsulfuron and primisulfuron. Treatments were applied on March 16–17, 2009.
Research results Glyphosate completely controlled annual bluegrass but caused unacceptable injury to creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Primisulfuron injured creeping bentgrass 35% to 93%, depending on location and not different than glyphosate. Other treatments caused transient creeping bentgrass injury but were generally acceptable; among these, however, only ethofumesate continued to control annual bluegrass 65 days after treatment (DAT). Amicarbazone controlled annual bluegrass inconsistently between plots and appeared to dispense erratically when using foam dabbers. Among products that controlled annual bluegrass at least 70% at 37 DAT, turf quality seemed best when treated with ethofumesate, bispyribac sodium, paclobutrazol and flurprimidol. Among these four, only ethofumesate continued to control annual bluegrass at 65 DAT. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 17
Research Articles continued
CONTROLLING BERMUDAGRASS and OTHER PERENNIAL GRASSES in Stands of Cool-Season Turf Virginia Tech Researcher: Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Turfgrass Weed Science, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science Sponsor: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation
B Mesotrione alone injures bermudagrass, but it recovers within three to four weeks. Adding fenoxapropo and triclopyr to mesotrione increases control when applied in sequence.
ermudagrass and other perennial grasses are among the most difficult-to-control weeds of turfgrass. Few selective herbicide programs exist to control these weeds in cool-season turfgrass. Among the most common is the “Carolina Program,� so named because the program was largely developed in North and South Carolina. The Carolina Program consists of four monthly applications of fenoxaprop (Acclaim) plus triclopyr (Turflon). At Virginia Tech, previous research funded by USGA developed new programs for bermudagrass control utilizing mesotrione, fenoxaprop and
triclopyr that improved on the Carolina Program. Funding was provided by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation to repeat these studies in 2009.
Our research An area of turfgrass maintained at 2" and comprised of bermudagrass, perennial ryegrass and tall fescue was selected, and a research trial was established to evaluate various programs for bermudagrass control. Treatments were initiated in early June when bermudagrass was greening. Repeat applications were made at three- to fourweek intervals, depending on treat-
Carolina Program Figure 1. Kentucky bluegrass injury over time; study initiated May 2008.
VT Mod #1 Both programs controlled bermudagrass, but the Carolina program is more injurious to Kentucky bluegrass.
Figure 2. Costs of herbicides in each program, based on average quotes from two Virginia suppliers in 2009.
18 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
ment. Herbicides included fenoxaprop (Acclaim) at 28 oz./A, ethofumesate (Prograss) at 128 oz./A, mesotrione (Tenacity) at 4 oz./A, topramezone (experimental) at 1 oz./A and triclopyr (Turflon Ester) at 32 oz./A. Herbicides were applied in various tank mixtures and sequential programs to yield 13 unique treatments. Data collected included turf and bermudagrass cover, bermudagrass control and turf injury.
Research results By August 8, the Carolina program (fenoxaprop + triclopyr applied monthly) controlled bermudagrass 48%. The Virginia Tech three-way (fenoxaprop + triclopyr + mesotrione applied every three weeks), the Virginia Tech Modified #1 (fenoxaprop + triclopyr applied spring and fall, and mesotrione applied summer) and the Virginia Tech Modified #2 (fenoxaprop spring and fall, and mesotrione + triclopyr applied summer) all controlled bermudagrass better than 90% by August 8. When mesotrione in these Virginia Tech programs was replaced with topramezone, bermudagrass control was equal or greater. None of the herbicide programs injured perennial ryegrass or tall fescue turf. Adding ethofumesate did not increase bermudagrass control in these programs. By applying Acclaim and Turflon only in cool periods of early summer and fall, turfgrass injury (especially to Kentucky bluegrass) was reduced. Adding Tenacity treatments during mid-summer increases bermudagrass control. Generally speaking, Acclaim is the most effective herbicide in the program, but it is also the most injurious and expensive. One Acclaim treatment can be replaced by seven treatments of Tenacity at 4 oz./A. The VT Modified #1 program represents an improvement over the Carolina Program because it increased bermudagrass control and decreased Kentucky bluegrass injury by avoiding Turflon treatments in summer. Future research will evaluate the benefits of eliminating one or two Acclaim treatments and replacing them with more affordable options. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 19
Research Articles continued
REDUCING PESTICIDE INPUTS WITH COMBINATIONS of Tall Fescue and Hybrid Bluegrass Virginia Tech Researchers: Matthew Cutulle, Graduate Research Assistant; Jeffrey E. Derr, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science; and Adam E. Nichols, Research Assistant (Virginia Tech’s Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center), with Brandon Horvath, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology (University of Tennessee) Sponsors: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and The Virginia Agriculture Council
In
the transition zone, tall fescue can be used in multiple situations, such as home lawns, athletic fields, golf course roughs and other low-maintenance turfgrass areas. Tall fescue exhibits adequate shade tolerance, is adapted to a wide arrange of soils and can be cut at 3.8 cm or more. Characteristics that favor its use among homeowners include its drought tolerance, insect resistance, high turf density and relatively low fertilizer requirements. Tall fescue, however, is susceptible to brown patch (Rhizoctonia solani), which is aesthetically unpleasing and can thin out the turfgrass stand, leading to the encroachment of undesirable weedy species. Hybrid bluegrass cultivars, from crosses between Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and Texas bluegrass (Poa arachnifera), may be an alternative. Hybrid bluegrass has the desirable qualities of Kentucky bluegrass (i.e., color, brown patch resistance and quality) but was bred to have increased
heat and drought tolerance. However, hybrid bluegrass requires more fertility and may not establish as quickly as tall fescue. We hypothesize that combining hybrid bluegrass (which is resistant to brown patch) with tall fescue (which establishes quickly) will reduce overall disease severity and weed encroachment, thus leading to reduced fungicide and herbicide inputs while maintaining turf quality.
Our research Plots of ‘Greenkeeper’ tall fescue and ‘Thermal Blue Blaze’ hybrid bluegrass were seeded with four treatments: (1) 6 lbs./1,000 ft2 Greenkeeper alone, (2) 2.25 lbs./1,000 ft2 Thermal Blue Blaze alone, (3) 5.4 lbs./1,000 ft2 Greenkeeper with 0.6 lbs./1,000 ft2 Thermal Blue Blaze, and (4) 3 lbs./ 1,000 ft2 Greenkeeper with 1.13 lbs./ 1,000 ft2 Thermal Blue Blaze. These plots were established in fall 2006 and fall 2008 at Virginia Tech’s Hampton Roads AREC in Virginia Beach, Vir-
Treatment
Seeding rate (lbs./1,000 sq. ft.)
Percent turf cover November 2006
Percent brown patch August 2009
Percent Persian speedwell cover November 2009
1) Tall fescue
6
70%
40%
13%
2) Hybrid bluegrass
2.25
40%
3%
13%
3) Tall fescue + hybrid bluegrass
5.4 + 0.6
69%
12%
6%
4) Tall fescue + hybrid bluegrass
3+ 1.13
61%
8%
5%
9
8
4
LSD 0.05
Table 1. Effect of seeding combinations on turf cover, brown patch and Persian speedwell density. 20 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
ginia. All plots were mowed at 4" and received 3 lbs. N/1,000 ft2 per year. Percent turfgrass cover, weed cover, brown patch severity and tiller counts were taken throughout the year. No preemergence herbicides were applied to this trial.
Research results Tall fescue germinated quicker than hybrid bluegrass, achieving 70% cover at one month after seeding, while hybrid bluegrass cover was only 40%. At one month after seeding, percent cover by purple deadnettle, common chickweed and henbit were greater in hybrid bluegrass alone compared to tall fescue alone. Weed cover in the combination seeding #3 was similar to that seen in tall fescue alone. Weed cover in the combination seeding #4 was intermediate between the two monocultures. Monoculture stands of hybrid bluegrass had the highest cover of southern crabgrass in the summers of 2007 and 2008, and the highest cover of white clover in the spring of 2008. Under the fertility level in this program, the monoculture of hybrid bluegrass was never able to recover from slow establishment, resulting in higher weed density. Weed cover in the combination seeding treatments was similar to that seen in monocultures of tall fescue. Brown patch infestations in the summer of 2008 were highest in the monoculture of tall fescue. In August 2009, plots seeded with only tall fescue had significantly more brown patch than the other seeding treatments. The high brown patch severity observed in
Cover Stor y continued
the summer of 2009 thinned out the monoculture of tall fescue and may have led to increased weed encroachment in November 2009. Tiller counts taken in February 2008 indicated an approximate 1:1 ratio of the two turf species with combination seeding #4. With the combination seeding #3, the ratio was approximately 4 tillers of tall fescue to 1 tiller of hybrid bluegrass. Biannual tillers taken in 2009 showed a species shift favoring hybrid bluegrass. Without additional inputs, monocultures of hybrid bluegrass cannot outcompete annual and perennial weeds. Combinations of hybrid bluegrass with tall fescue result in lower weed density compared to monocultures of hybrid bluegrass, and lower brown patch incidence compared to monocultures of tall fescue.
Recommendations We feel that combining tall fescue and hybrid bluegrass results in several benefits and thus should be considered by lawncare individuals who currently maintain monocultures of tall fescue. The seeding rates used for treatment #3 would be a good place to start. In the seeding combinations, tall fescue acted like a nurse crop, protecting the hybrid bluegrass from weed encroachment during the establishment period. Also, mixing hybrid bluegrass with tall fescue has a dilution and barrier effect on the rate of brown patch spread. Less tall fescue in the turfgrass stand, combined with hybrid bluegrass plants in between the tall fescue plants, limits the ability of the fungus to spread from plant to plant. If the tall fescue is infected and thinned out, hybrid bluegrass can fill in by rhizomes, thus limiting weed encroachment. In conclusion, we favor seeding treatment #3 because of the species shift observed over time favoring hybrid bluegrass. Also, the fertility program we used favored tall fescue. Seeding treatment #3 would maximize turfgrass cover during establishment, decrease brown patch severity, limit the need for overseeding of tall fescue and delay the need to switch to a hybrid bluegrass fertility program. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 21
Research Articles continued
EFFICACY OF SELECTED SOIL INSECTICIDES Against Masked Chafer Grubs in Turf Virginia Tech Researchers: Rod Youngman, Ph.D., Professor, Entomology; Curt Laub, Research Associate; S. Wu, W. R. Kuhn, and Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Dept. of Crop and Soil Environmental Science Sponsors: Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, Virginia Agricultural Council and DuPont Professional Products
O
ver the past few years, masked chafer grubs have become a dominant presence in our
white grub trials. Although very similar in appearance to the typical white grub, masked chafer grubs are considered
Table 1. Treatment list for 2009 turfgrass soil insecticide efficacy rating. Trt. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Application Timing Early Early Early Early Early Early Early Early Early Late Late Late Late
Treatment/Formulation Acelepryn 1.67SC Acelepryn 1.67SC DPX-HGW86 20SC Merit 75WP Acelepryn 0.2G Acelepryn 0.2G Acelepryn 0.2G Merit 0.5G Metarhizium (Met-52) Acelepryn 1.67SC Acelepryn 1.67SC DPX-HGW86 20 SC Merit 75WP Untreated Check
Application Rate 8.0 fl. oz./acre 12.0 fl. oz./acre 8.0 fl. oz./acre 6.4 oz./acre 50 lbs./acre 60 lbs./acre 100 lbs./acre 60 lbs./acre 43.6 fl. oz./acre 8.0 fl. oz./acre 12.0 fl. oz./acre 8.0 fl. oz./acre 6.4 oz./acre
Our research
Table 2. White grub counts; 2009 turfgrass soil insecticide efficacy trials. Site Number and Location
Treatment/Formulation/ Timing
1: Tazewell
Metarhizium
Country Club
Acelepryn 1.67SC 8 oz. Early
White grubs per Site Number sq. ft. ( +– SEM ) and Location 3.58 (1.50) a
2: Virginian
1.00 (1.00) ab Country Club
Treatment/Formulation/ Timing
White grubs per sq. ft. ( +– SEM )
Metarhizium
2.25 (1.93)
DPX-HGW86 20SC Early
1.75 (1.18)
Untreated
1.00 (0.36) ab
Merit 75WP Early
1.50 (1.50)
Merit 75WP Early
0.92 (0.37) ab
Merit 0.5G
1.25 (1.25)
Merit 0.5G
0.50 (0.40) b
Untreated
1.13 (1.13)
Acelepryn 0.2G 60 lbs.
0.42 (0.21) b
Acelepryn 1.67SC 8 oz. Early
0.25 (0.25)
Acelepryn 0.2G 100 lbs.
0.33 (0.33) b
Acelepryn 1.67SC 12 oz.
0.00
Acelepryn 0.2G 50 lbs.
0.17 (0.17) b
Acelepryn 0.2G 50 lbs.
0.00
Acelepryn 1.67SC 8 oz. Late
0.00 b
Acelepryn 0.2G 60 lbs.
0.00
Acelepryn 1.67SC 12 oz.
0.00 b
Acelepryn 0.2G 100 lbs.
0.00
DPX-HGW86 20SC Late
0.00 b
Acelepryn 1.67SC 8 oz. Late
0.00
Merit 75WP Late
0.00 b
Acelepryn 1.67SC 12 oz.
0.00
Acelepryn 1.67SC 12 oz.
0.00 b
DPX-HGW86 20SC Late
0.00
DPX-HGW86 20SC Early
0.00 b
Merit 75WP Late
0.00
Means within a column by site followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; LSD). 22 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
more difficult to kill than other white grub species in cool-season turf. Also, the mature, C-shaped grubs make a nice snack for skunks, raccoons and crows, which dig them up from home lawns and golf courses starting around late September. This grubbing damage often results in costly turf replacement.
Last year, we conducted an experiment at two locations in southwestern Virginia — Tazewell Country Club (site 1) and the Virginian Country Club (site 2) — to evaluate the efficacy of various soil insecticides against white grubs. At both locations, the turf stand was 80% fescue/ 20% bluegrass. Early applications of insecticide were applied on April 16 at both sites; late applications were applied July 28 at site 1 and July 23 at site 2. See Table 1 for treatments and application rates. At both sites, approximately 1/2" of irrigation was applied immediately after treatment applications. White grub counts were taken on Sept. 29 (site 1) and Oct. 6 (site 2).
Research results At site 1, of 93 total white grubs collected, 82 (88.2%) were masked chafers (Cyclocephala spp.) and 11 (11.8%) were Japanese beetles (Popillia japonica). At site 2, of 33 total white grubs collected, 31 (93.9%) were masked chafers and 2 (6.1%) were Japanese beetles. At site one, the density of white grubs in the Metarhizium treatment was significantly higher than in all the other treatments except for Acelepryn
Cover Stor y continued
1.67SC 8 oz. early, untreated check and Merit 75WP early (Table 2).
Recommendations for season-long white grub management Positive results were obtained in 2007 and 2008 on the season-long efficacy of E2Y45 1.67SC against white grubs in turf. On April 3, 2007, EPA granted “… reduced risk status to Dupont’s insecticide new active ingredient chloroantraniliprole (E2Y45) for use on… turf.” E2Y45 is being marketed under the trade name Acelepryn.™ In 2009, the suggested 8 oz./acre rate of Acelepryn 1.67SC for April-toAugust control of white grubs fell short in one trial, but we think the low grub numbers influenced the statistical outcome. We will continue to generate data on the performance of promising insecticides for white grubs. This past year has been beneficial for locating a host of willing cooperators who have chronic white grub problems.
Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 23
Additional Research Summaries
EARLY RESEARCH ON CIVITAS,
a New Fungicide
Virginia Tech Researcher: David McCall, Research Associate, Dept. of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, and Adam Nichols, Research Assistant Sponsor: Petro-Canada
A
mong the new fungicides released for use in turfgrass in 2009, one of the products that we have been questioned about the most is Civitas. This product is referred to as a plant defense activator, rather than a true fungicide. As an isoparaffin-based mineral oil, it is reported to trigger Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) within the plant. To date, we have evaluated Civitas on perennial ryegrass and creeping bentgrass, for control of gray leaf spot and dollar spot, respectively. We are consistently seeing a reduction in gray leaf spot compared with
untreated controls, though our data suggest Civitas should not be used as a stand-alone product during peak outbreaks. Instead, we have had very good results when Civitas is tank-mixed with reduced rates of thiophanatemethyl. Control provided by this combination compares favorably with the high rate of thiophanate-methyl alone. Dollar spot was also reduced considerably on creeping bentgrass fairways with applications of Civitas, according to multiple studies in different locations. Results have been inconsistent regarding possible synergism with propiconazole.
Overall, we see this product as having a nice fit into disease-management programs when used correctly. Our research suggests that Civitas does not provide acceptable control alone during peak periods for disease development, but rather used early and late in the season and tank-mixed with low rates of common fungicides. Civitas appears to be safe on both perennial ryegrass and creeping bentgrass when applied during cooler weather, but we caution against making applications in the peak of summer stress. Our research, along with several others’, suggests that tank mixture with chlorothalonil may be antagonistic and cause excessive injury to the turf. On the other hand, it appears to be a nice tank-mix partner with several other fungicides, including propiconazole and thiophanate-methyl. We will continue to update our recommendations on this product as we learn more about its activity against other diseases and safety to various turfgrasses.
INTERACTION OF MOWING HEIGHT, FERTILIZATION AND PREEMERGENCE HERBICIDE APPLICATION on Bermudagrass Encroachment and Brown Patch in Tall Fescue Virginia Tech Researchers: Matthew Cutulle, Graduate Research Assistant; Jeffrey E. Derr, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science; and Adam E. Nichols, Research Assistant (Virginia Tech’s Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center), with Brandon Horvath, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology (University of Tennessee) Sponsors: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and The Virginia Agriculture Council
At
Virginia Tech’s AREC in Virginia Beach, we are conducting research on the impact of mowing height, fertility levels and applications of preemergence herbicide on bermudagrass encroachment and brown patch severity in tall fescue. Ideally, we will be able to determine a fertility/mowing height combination that will reduce bermudagrass encroachment and disease severity while maintaining optimum aesthetics. Research plots containing ‘RTF’ tall fescue were subjected to treatment combinations of two mowing heights (2.5" and 4"), three levels of fertility (1, 3.5 and 4.5 lbs. of nitrogen per 1,000 ft2 annually) and application
(or not) of a preemergence herbicide (oxadiazon). Plugs of common bermudagrass plugs were transplanted to each plot. Plots that received oxadiazon had significantly less crabgrass than the control plots. In the 2008 trial, crabgrass became so severe in the plots mowed at 2.5" with no oxadiazon that we did not get a complete data set for bermudagrass diameter because of crabgrass competition. For the 2009 trial plots that received oxadiazon, mowing at 2.5" resulted in greater bermudagrass diameter (encroachment) compared to plots mowed at 4", when averaged across all levels of fertility. Additionally, we saw an interaction of mowing height and fertility on both
24 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
bermudagrass spread and brown patch severity. Mowing at 2.5" with high fertility resulted in the largest bermudagrass spread. There seemed to be a trend for increased bermudagrass growth as fertility level increased at the 2.5" mowing height. For the 4" mowing height, the reverse was true — increased fertility led to decreased bermudagrass encroachment. Mowing at 2.5" with high fertility resulted in significantly more brown patch than any other treatment combination. Overall mowing at 4" resulted in better visual quality, and we recommend this mowing height with the use of a preemergence herbicide when maintaining tall fescue turf.
Additional Research Summaries continued
EFFECTS OF TENACITY AND DRIVE on the Establishment of Hybrid Bluegrasses, Kentucky Bluegrasses and Tall Fescue Virginia Tech Researchers: Jeffrey E. Derr, Ph.D., Professor of Weed Science; and Adam E. Nichols, Research Assistant (Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center) Sponsors: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and The Virginia Agriculture Council
Our
study examined the effects of Tenacity (mesotrione), Drive (quinclorac) and the combination of the two herbicides on the establishment of four hybrid bluegrasses, tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass. ‘Solar Green’, ‘Dura Blue’, ‘Thermal Blue’ and ‘Thermal Blue Blaze’ hybrid bluegrasses, ‘Greenkeeper’ tall fescue and ‘Midnight’ Kentucky bluegrass were seeded on October 14, 2008. The day after seeding, Tenacity was applied at a rate of 0.25 lb. ai/acre, and Drive was applied at a rate of 0.75 lb. ai/acre. The combination was applied at the
BUFFALOGRASS Variety Trial
No
native turfgrass attracts more attention regarding its potential as a low-input turfgrass than buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides). However, in over 30 years of research at Virginia Tech, buffalograss has generally performed poorly in our low-input trials for either lawn or highway rights-of-way use. However, breeding efforts by Dr. Robert Shearman and colleagues at the University of Nebraska have resulted in a series of new generation buffalograsses that warrant a closer look.
Our research A variety trial was established at the Turfgrass Research Center from plugs or seed (depending on variety) on May 28, 2008. The trial features named industry standards and a host of experimental varieties developed by the Nebraska program.
individual rates. Percent turf cover and weed cover were rated periodically from December through May. Hybrid bluegrass has acceptable tolerance to Tenacity at seeding time, while Drive causes noticeable stunting of growth. The hybrid bluegrasses, when treated with Tenacity, were able to achieve more than 70% turf cover by April, and they remained relatively weed-free until white clover infested the plots. While adding Drive to Tenacity at seeding broadens the weed control spectrum (including control of white clover), this combination also stunted
hybrid bluegrass growth. A better approach would be to apply Tenacity at seeding, followed by an application of a postemergence broadleaf herbicide for clover in the spring. Currently Tenacity is registered for use only in golf and sod production, but it will be a useful tool for weed management at establishment of cool-season home lawns. Editor’s note: A more extensive version of this report will be featured in an upcoming issue of the Journal.
Virginia Tech Researchers: Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D., Extension Turfgrass Specialist; and Whitnee Askew, Research Associate; Dept. of Crop and Soil Environmental Science Sponsors: The Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and The Virginia Agriculture Council
A typical challenge when establishing slow-growing, low-input turfgrasses is competition from annual weeds, and our situation was no different. In particular, stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis) was a major competitor; but thanks to a herbicide program provided to us by Dr. Roch Gaussoin at Nebraska (alternating applications of quinclorac, MSMA and simazine), annual grass pressure was finally reduced enough to complete grow-in by first frost of fall 2008. The turf receives two summer applications of 1 lb. N/1,000 ft2 and is mowed once per week at a 2" cutting height with a rotary mower.
Results to date Seeded buffalograss cultivars ‘Bison’, ‘Bowie’, ‘Cody’ and ‘Texoka’ have typically had reduced turf quality characteristics in previous trials, and that is generally the case to date in this trial.
However, all experimental seeded varieties have displayed better turf quality and density characteristics to date, with NE-BFG07-02 and NE-BFG07-03 in particular having the highest ratings. Similarly, most of the experimental vegetative varieties have provided higher turf quality and density ratings than long-time standard ‘609’, and they have provided ratings that are comparable to the improved vegetative varieties of Legacy and Prestige. Only time will tell (at least five to six years of field-performance data are required) if these new varieties can maintain these levels of performance in our climate so that buffalograss becomes a recommended species for use in Virginia. However, it is quite clear that the breeding efforts of the Nebraska program have resulted in significant improvements in overall buffalograss quality and density. Journal of the Virginia Turfgrass Council
| 25
Index of Advertisers
Calendar of Events
Turf Industry Events
A.R.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 www.armva.com
May 25
June 22
August 3
Pesticide Recertification Staunton, VA
Turfgrass Field Day and Pesticide Recertification Virginia Beach, VA
RPGMS Equipment Demo and Tradeshow University of Richmond Richmond
June 7 Bob Ruff Research Golf Classic Wintergreen, VA
July 20 Pesticide Recertification Fredericksburg, VA
June 15
July 26–30
Pesticide Recertification Williamsburg, VA
PTPI Summer Convention & Field Days (Turfgrass Producers International) Sheraton New York Hotel New York, NY
June 16 VSTMA Field Day Collegiate School Richmond, VA
August 31– September 1 Virginia Tech Turfgrass Field Days Blacksburg
January 17–20, 2011 VTC 51st Annual Turf & Landscape Conference and Trade Show Fredericksburg, VA
Bayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 www.bayerprocentral.com Cape Fear Turf Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 www.capefearturffarm.com Collins Wharf Sod . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 www.cwsod.com Dura Turf Service Corp. . . . . . . . 13 E & S Soil and Peat . . . . . . . . . . . 11 www.eandssoil.com Earthworks & Sprinklers Unlimited . . . . . . . . . . 23 www.earthworkssportsfield construction.com East Coast Sod & Seed . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.eastcoastsod.com Egypt Farms, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 www.egyptfarms.com Gowan Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 www.gowanco.com Graham Lawn Equipment, Inc. . . . . 17 www.grahamlawnequipment.net Growth Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 www.growthproducts.com
Contact Information
JRM, Inc. . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover www.jrmonline.com
Virginia Tech’s Turfgrass Researchers Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D. Virginia Tech Box 0330 Glade Rd. Facility Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-5807 Email: saskew@vt.edu
Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D. Virginia Tech 424 Smyth Hall, CSES Dept. Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-2951 Email: goatley@vt.edu
Jeffrey F. Derr, Ph.D. Virginia Tech Hampton Roads Agricultural Research Station 1444 Diamond Springs Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 (757) 363-3912 Email: jderr@vt.edu
David S. McCall Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Rd. Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-9598 Email: dsmccall@vt.edu
Erik H. Ervin, Ph.D Virginia Tech 335 Smyth Hall, CSES Dept. Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-5208 Email: ervin@vt.edu
Roger R. Youngman, Ph.D. Virginia Tech 216A Price Hall, MC 0319 Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-9118 Email: youngman@vt.edu
26 | VIRGINIA TURFGRASS JOURNAL May/June 2010 www.vaturf.org
Kesmac/Brouwer, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.kesmac.com Luck Stone Specialty Products . . 21 www.luckstone.com Mid-Atlantic Sports Turf . . . . . . . 21 Modern Turf, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 www.modernturf.com Oakland Plantation Turf Farm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 www.ncturfgrass.com Oakwood Sod Farm, Inc. . . . . . . . . 8 www.oakwoodsod.com Quali-Pro . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover www.quali-pro.com Texas Sod Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 www.texassod.com The Turfgrass Group . . .9, Back Cover www.theturfgrassgroup.com