Where Quality Meets Testimonial.
A CHAMPION AMONG TURFGRASSES
CHRISTOPHER NEWPORT UNIVERSITY
Christopher Webb,
Associate Director of Grounds:
“It will grow back and bounce back. It’s in places where we may have to replace our 419 because of traffic but we don’t have to replace our NorthBridge.”
Scan here:
To see more about NorthBridge
Experience Superior Turf with TifTuf ®
In just seven years, TifTuf®’s installation of over 2 billion square feet has saved more than 48 billion gallons of water. It’s the only Bermudagrass to top National Turfgrass Evaluation Program trials 93% of the time, far ahead of Tahoma at 73%. Recognized for its drought tolerance, TifTuf® is the USDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative’s standard for future university testing and has earned the #1 ranking in the USDA/NTEP ET-Based Water Deficit Research Trial.
TifTuf ®’s water efficiency has garnered numerous awards, including the Smart Approved Water Mark from Australia’s Water Services Association, the Georgia House and Senate’s Extraordinary Water Conservation award, and the
Georgia Association of Water Professionals’ Water Wise Award. It’s also named the Turfgrass of Choice by Southern Living Inspired Communities.
TifTuf® is the most produced proprietary Bermudagrass globally, with more produced in the U.S. than all other varieties combined worldwide. It is the preferred choice for new golf courses, sports fields, and residential and commercial landscapes, and it’s the only Bermuda
sold through Home Depot and Lowe’s by Harmony Outdoor Brands.
While others check boxes, TifTuf® redefines them. Experience the exceptional quality and innovation of TifTuf® turfgrass.
As What Direction are you Going?
Bray VTC President
we start a new year, many in the lawn and landscape industry are reviewing the past year and working to identify their strengths and potential areas for improvement. Every successful business must make decisions to focus on actions that ensure profitability and longevity. Just because you’ve been doing things for a long time doesn’t necessarily mean you should keep doing them.
A couple of years ago our company decided to exit the commercial landscape maintenance sector and focus on the high-end residential market in the oceanfront area, an area that we have been very successful in. That decision allowed us to increase our market share and profitability. The decision was not easy as several of our commercial accounts had been good clients for decades. Most were understanding and wished us good luck.
The VTC and VTC-EI must also evaluate their mission and efforts to provide maximum benefits to our members. Certain industry events over the past several years have resulted in drastic changes that many of us did not see coming and forced us to take a critical look at the organization and re-define our goals, a process that continues today.
One goal we attained was forming the Virginia Turfgrass Council Environmental Institute. The goal was to provide a bridge between the green industry and environmental groups that didn’t see the value of the many varied services we provide.
Other goals of the VTC-EI were to work with government officials and regulators to better understand our needs and challenges to comply with laws and regulations.
Working closely with universities and schools to highlight ongoing research and educational opportunities that allow the green industry to continue to improve was another stated goal.
I’m proud to say that we have met those goals, and our success is recognized by many.
Now, what are our goals moving forward? How do we work with other industry groups that share our concerns and benefit from our actions? What is the VTC and VTC-EI good at? What are we doing that other industry groups aren’t doing? Why should other industry groups want to work with us? What can we do to help other industry groups? What direction should we go?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Email me at wemows@aol.com and share your ideas. Together we can continue to improve.
Wes Bray VTC President
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, Suite 200
Franklin, Tennessee 37064 (615) 790-3718 Fax: (615) 794-4524 info@leadingedgecommunications.com
VTC OFFICERS
President
Wes Bray Lawns & Gardens Plus (757) 422-2117
Vice President
Harris Wheeler, CTP
Richmond Public Schools (retired) (804) 475-4561
Secretary / Treasurer
Ray Funkhouser PBI Gordon (retired)
Past President
Phil Bailey, CGCS Isle of Wight County Parks & Recreation (757) 572-1981
VTC DIRECTORS
Sam Burris
Jack Findling
Richard Linsday
Bruce Sheppard
T.J. Skirsky
Craig Zeigler
VTC ADVISORY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Mike Goatley, Ph.D. (Chair)
Shawn Askew, Ph.D.
Alejandro Del Pozo-Valdiva, Ph.D.
Jeffrey Derr, Ph.D.
David McCall Ph.D.
Dan Sandor, Ph.D.
Cynthia Smith, Ph.D.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS
Tom Tracy, Ph.D. (757) 464-1004
VIRGINIA TURFGRASS FOUNDATION
Brandyn Baty (757) 585-3058
Wes
GEESE DON’T PLAY SPORTS
KEEP THEM OFF YOUR TURF WITH A DOG DECOY
“We purchased a three pack of dogs a year ago and are very happy with them. They certainly kept the geese off the field last Spring, Fall and this Spring. We always had lots of goose poop to cleanup every spring.
We had several people who were very skeptical that the dogs really worked. Convincing was easy...just hang around and watch. A group of geese would fly over in low formation, bend their necks down to look at the dogs, perhaps take another pass or two repeating the inspection for danger, and then fly off. Seemed like there was always a group flying over to give a demonstration.
The volunteers who had to rake and shovel goose poop are very happy. We’d easily fill a 32 gallon garbage can or two. Thanks again for a wonderful time saving product!”
- Paul Heit Maintenance/Concessions,
Safe and Legal Pesticide Use
Leaders of lawn/landscape companies and directors of city and county parks departments recently contacted me asking how their employees can legally apply pesticides. I don’t know what is behind the recent quest for knowledge and the desire to obey regulations, but the calls warmed my heart! Responsible persons in our industry constantly seek to not just obey regulations but to exceed them in our quest to protect and enhance the environment while earning a living. What follows is a summary of my answer to each of the calls. Space constraints necessitate my focus on Virginia’s regulations and to devote most of the space to the Registered Technician Certification. I do make one exception: The Federal Government’s application of the Endangered Species Act to pesticide usage. Recently, certain pesticide labels began requiring users to check the Bulletins Live Two website. Search “Bulletins Live Two” and “EPA” to find that site. It is a good idea to check out that site even if the pesticide you are using does not mandate you do so. Bulletins Live Two is extremely specific, detailing each location where pesticide usage is restricted. Ignoring those restrictions puts the user in violation of the Endangered Species Act, with very serious consequences. Now, back to Virginia’s regulations.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) regulates pesticides. It is the agency responsible for implementing federally mandated policies. With very few exceptions, persons who mix or apply pesticides fall into one of two categories: Certified Commercial Applicator (CCA) and Certified Registered Technician (CRT). CCA’s fall into one or more categories: 3A, 3B, 5A, and so forth. Certified Registered Technicians have only one category – Category 60 but must always have a CCA category endorsement.
Becoming a CRT is the first step in becoming legally able to use pesticides and requires taking and passing an examination developed and administered by VDACS. Several testing options are available, including taking the exam at the Division of Motor Vehicles, in person with a written test, or on a personal laptop. Each option requires a permission letter from VDACS. That letter is granted once the applicant completes at least 40 hours of training in the endorsement area (3A, 3B, etc.) he is seeking. That training is on the safe and proper application of pesticides and must be under direct, on-site supervision of a CCA. Depending on the venue, persons who pass the exam will be certified as Registered Technicians either immediately (the DMV option), within days (the laptop option), or else within a few weeks (the paper option).
In addition to always diligently following the pesticide label (remember, the label is the law), an active CRT (1) must have proper insurance; (2) must only use pesticides in accordance within the CCA endorsement - for instance, a CRT only endorsed to treat shrubs is not allowed to spray for mosquitoes; (3) must always be “attached to” a CCA who holds the category of the CRT’s endorsement; and (4) must work for a pesticide business that is registered with VDACS, The latter also applies to cities, counties, and other government entities.
The CRT is not allowed to use Restricted Use Pesticides. Fortunately, very few of those products are used in our industry.
What if a CRT wants to get other endorsements? VDACS allows that to happen by receiving category-specific training and notifying them of the addition.
Here are three final caveats: (1) with the exception of always following the label (again remember, the label is the law) the above information does not apply to persons using pesticides on private property – those applications are also regulated by VDACS but fall under a different category; (2) with the exception of always following the label (Do you sense a pattern here?) non-certified and non-licensed volunteers are not allowed to use pesticides; and (3) the Certified Pesticide Applicator must take an approved recertification class every two years to maintain his certification.
After a person is a Certified Registered Technician for at least one year, he may apply to take an examination to become a Certified Commercial Applicator. I will discuss that process at a later time.
As the state trooper says when you are at the side of the road: Ignorance of the speed limit is no excuse for breaking it. VDACS’ regulations are detailed, clear and readily available. They must be obeyed. I thank all of you for endeavoring to legally and safely use pesticides.
Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director
Tom Tracy, Ph.D. VTC Executive Director
Virginia Tech Turf Team
Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech
435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-5807 askew@vt.edu
Alejandro Del Pozo-Valdiva, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech
Hampton Roads
Agricultural Research Station 1444 Diamond Springs Rd. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-363-3900 adelpozo@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 jderr@vt.edu
Mike Goatley Jr., Ph.D.
Virginia Tech
420 Smyth Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-2951 goatley@vt.edu
David McCall, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech 435 Old Glade Road Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-9598 dsmccall@vt.edu
Dan Sandor, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech
170 Drillfield Dr. 411 Price Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-9775 dsandor@vt.edu
WITH SUPPORT FROM:
Thomas P. Kuhar, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech
Dept. of Entomology 216 Price Hall 170 Drillfield Drive Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-6129 tkuhar@vt.edu
Pesticide Recertification Webinars
Now Produced and Administered by The Virginia Turfgrass Council
Please save the date for March 4th or March 5th. Please join the Virginia Turf Council (VTC)virtually for your pesticide recertification seminars. The event is sponsored by Landscape Supply, however, all questions, inquiries, and certificate awards must go through Virginia Turfgrass Council – virginiaturf@gmail.com
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Attendees who log in more than 15 minutes late will not receive credit for attending. This requirement is mandated by VDACS regulations, so plan accordingly to ensure you get the credit you need!
Don’t wait – secure your spot now and ensure your certification remains valid.
BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND
• 15 minute competitive presentations from Virginia Tech students, as well as other PhD students from universities across the country
• Listen and learn from the latest research from Virginia Tech esteemed professors whose expertise will offer valuable insights
• Students will be competing for a total prize give-away of $2,500.00
VIRTUAL PESTICIDE CLASSES ON MARCH 4TH
AND 5TH, 2025
• Produced and administered by The Virginia Turfgrass Council. This means they have graciously taken over responsibility for this educational webinar. While the education will be the same or better, the VTC will be responsible to assist in all post webinar details.
• Landscape Supply, Inc. is the proud sponsor of the course.
• Landscape Supply, Inc. will remain engaged to assist leading up to the event and throughout the day’s events.
COST
• Classes are 100% Free. (sponsored by Landscape Supply, a W.S.Connelly Company.)
• Due to the virtual platform, you cannot sign up the day of the webinar.
• You must pre-register (State law; not the VTC’s)
STATES WHERE WE HAVE APPLIED FOR RECERTIFICATION
(pending approval)-VA, PA, NJ, NY, DE, MD, NC, SC, GA, AL, IN, OH, WV, KY. Please ensure your state is on list of approved states.
• We regret we will not be offering a fertilizer recertification with this course.
2025 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD SHOW
Fredericksburg Nationals Ballpark (42 Jackie Robinson Way, Fredericksburg, VA 22401) Virginia Tech, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Turfgrass Council
RECERTIFICATIONS OFFERED
Virginia Pesticide Applicator: Pending (3A, 3B, 5A, 6, 8, 10, 60)
Maryland Pesticide Applicator: Pending
Virginia Certified Fertilizer Applicator
DATE
February 26th – Fredericksburg
PRICE
$40.00 for VTC Members
$60.00 for Non-VTC Members
$130 Attend and Join the VTC
$300 Vendor (Includes a table; chairs; and one registration)
Lunch is provided for all attendees by our vendors
DRAFT SCHEDULE
7:00 – 7:30 Registration 10:00 – 10:30 Break and Visit Vendors
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch and Visit Vendors 4:00 – 4:15 Complete Paperwork and Depart
Make checks payable to Virginia Turfgrass Council and mail with this form to: P.O. Box 5989, Virginia Beach, VA 23471
Or Register and Pay On-line at https://vaturf.org/road-shows/
Or charge to credit card (check one): AMEX VISA MasterCard and fax to (757) 282-2693
Card #: Expiration Date:
Signature: Verification Code:
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
Name: Email:
Company: Phone:
Address: Fax:
City: State: Zip Code: VTC P.O. Box 5989
Virginia Beach, VA 23471 (757) 464–1004
http://vaturf.org
Virginia Soil Health Coalition is excited to connect with the Virginia Turfgrass Council to advance our mission to strengthen and support a broad, collaborative network that improves and expands soil health across all of Virginia’s landscapes. We are working collectively to support productive lands, thriving ecosystems, and resilient communities. But what exactly does that mean and how do we work with partners to reach that vision? The Coalition’s current Strategic Plan frames out our values, priorities, and strategies:
The Virginia Soil Health Coalition believes in…
• Leveraging the power of a network that represents all of Virginia’s diverse landscapes and communities
• Pursuing and sharing new and innovative science-based solutions
• Including and engaging all people who care for Virginia’s lands, especially those who have been historically marginalized
• Protecting and nourishing Virginia’s soil to benefit future generations of people, farms, communities, and natural resources.
People engaged in protecting and caring for soil
Build the Coalition’s capacity for leadership and expansion
• Develop relationships to fill capacity gaps, broaden skills, expertise, and our network
• Increase equitable opportunities for partners to participate on Steering Committee and in other capacities
• Recruit partners that represent the diversity of the Coalition’s constituency and reach (ag, rural, urban and suburban)
• Identify sustainable funding sources to expand staff team
Resilient landscapes across all of Virginia
Sustainable food systems to support thriving communities
Enhance partner collaboration to drive innovation, implementation, and impact
• Promote unified messaging through shared information channels
• Provide navigation to inform and connect members and partners to resources
• Communicate current research to support organizations implementing on the ground
• Develop work groups to convene partners and members
• Identify and fund projects that advance implementation of innovative soil health approaches
Cultivate awareness through education, outreach, and advocacy
• Identify current and expanded audiences to deepen connection to soil health
• Build out consistent and cohesive narrative to resonate with broader constituency
• Create and execute communications strategy to reach diverse audiences
• Provide resources and educational materials to partners working on advocacy
Want to know more about the Virginia Soil Health Coalition? Visit https://www.virginiasoilhealth.org and sign up to receive our monthly newsletter.
linkedin.com/company/theturfzone
x.com/theturfzone
RESEARCH UPDATES FROM
In the ever-advancing world of turfgrass science, staying informed of the latest research efforts and findings is a great benefit to turfgrass professionals. The talented team at Virginia Tech continues to lead the field in research. Here we include just a sampling of the great work coming out of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass program!
Utilizing Machine Learning for the Precise Mapping of Turfgrass Pests
By Elisabeth Kitchin Graduate Student, Virginia Tech
Turfgrass pests, including diseases and weeds, are a constant challenge for turfgrass managers, causing aesthetic damage, reduced playability, and economic losses. Targeted
pesticide applications, where treatments are applied only to areas affected by pests, offer a more sustainable alternative to traditional broadcast spraying. These targeted applications decrease environmental inputs and lower costs while maintaining sufficient control of target pests. The effectiveness of this approach, however, hinges on the accuracy and precision of pest maps that guide the targeted applications.
Creating accurate pest maps has long been a labor-intensive and time-consuming task. Turfgrass managers often rely on visual inspections to locate and quantify pest outbreaks, a process that is not only subjective but also inconsistent, as results can vary depending on experience and environmental conditions. The inefficiency of pest mapping presents a barrier to the widespread adoption of targeted pesticide applications despite their potential to significantly reduce inputs and environmental impact. This project addresses pest mapping inefficiencies by developing a machine learning model to automate the detection and mapping of turfgrass pests, providing a more efficient and objective solution for turfgrass managers.
The YOLOv8n-seg machine learning model was selected for the project due to its capabilities in object detection and segmentation. This dual functionality makes it particularly suited for turfgrass pest management, as it can both identify individual pest instances and map their precise spatial boundaries.
An image of turfgrass affected by dollar spot and brown patch is uploaded to the model (before). The model returns the image with all instances of dollar spot and brown patch individually labeled and outlined (after).
A dataset was compiled to train the model, comprised of over 2,500 images of common turfgrass pests from across the country. These pests include various turfgrass diseases, such as dollar spot and brown patch, as well as common turfgrass weeds, such as green kyllinga and white clover. The training set also included images of various turfgrass species, heights of cut, environments, and a range of management practices.
The model was trained on the image dataset and taught how to identify each pest and differentiate it from other pests or abiotic issues, including drought stress, nutrient deficiencies, or ball marks. Given an image, the model can identify and outline the borders of the pest outbreak. In images with multiple pests present, the model can differentiate between them and individually identify and map each pest in the image.
The model’s performance was then evaluated for accuracy, precision, and segmentation capabilities. It achieved 96% accuracy in detecting pests and identifying their locations. The model’s ability to delineate pest boundaries was assessed using a metric known as the mean Intersection over Union (IoU), which measures the overlap between the model’s predictions and ground-truth data. The mean IoU score of 70% indicates that the model provides reliable spatial mapping of pest infestations. Finally, the F1 score, a metric that measures the model’s precision and recall abilities, achieved 72%. This score indicates the model’s competency and reliability in both identifying and mapping pests.
These results showcase the transformative potential of machine learning in precision turfgrass management. This model offers a practical solution to save time, labor, and costs while delivering accurate, efficient pest maps to guide treatment decisions. By automating a traditionally manual and subjective task, the model addresses a barrier that has hindered the widespread adoption of precision techniques, including targeted pesticide applications. For turfgrass practitioners in Virginia and beyond, these advancements present a valuable opportunity to enhance operational efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and support the adoption of sustainable practices in the turfgrass industry.
Revolutionizing Weed Control in Turf: Thermal Energy and Organic Alternatives to Synthetic Herbicides
By: Juan R. Romero, Navdeep Godara, Daewon Koo, John Peppers Graduate Students, Virginia Tech and Shawn D. Askew, Ph.D.
TResearchers, professionals, and homeowners have long struggled with the battle against annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in turfgrass systems. Known for its shallow root system, heat is one of its weaknesses. Annual bluegrass is a resilient weed that also has a tendency to develop resistance to traditional herbicides, making it one of the most troublesome turfgrass weeds in the United States. As herbicide resistance grows and environmental concerns intensify, the search for effective, sustainable, and selective weed control methods becomes a necessity.
Here at Virginia Tech, we have been exploring innovative approaches to this challenge, developing alternatives that range from lasers and cryogenic liquids to thermal energy. During the winters of 2023 and 2024, we conducted field studies in our
research facility located in Blacksburg, Virginia. Our goals were to assess the potential of thermal treatments to control annual bluegrass in dormant warm-season turfgrass systems. We also wanted to compare them against organic and synthetic chemicals.
Why Thermal and Organic Treatments?
Thermal weed control has been around for a while. However, the primary constraint to its widespread implementation has been its lack of selectivity. By targeting annual bluegrass in dormant warm-season turf, we can circumvent this problem, making thermal and organic treatments an option for some practitioners. The principle behind thermal treatments involves transferring heat to the target plant. By transferring heat to plant tissue, thermal methods can damage or kill weeds without relying on chemical compounds. This makes them especially appealing in light of regulatory pressures on synthetic herbicide use.
Acetic acid is the compound found in kitchen vinegar. However, at higher concentrations, 20 to 40%, it becomes a herbicide. Organic chemicals, such as acetic acid, have proven effective at controlling weeds in dormant turf. Our studies have shown that three applications of acetic acid during the winter season can indeed control annual bluegrass similarly to synthetic chemicals.
Innovative Field Studies: Radiant Heat and Hot Water
Our team evaluated several treatments, including radiant heat, hot water, acetic acid, and glyphosate, to determine their effectiveness in reducing annual bluegrass density and cover. Thermal treatments were applied either thrice monthly or six times biweekly, acetic acid was applied thrice monthly, and glyphosate was applied once.
Radiant heat applications involved heating a metal plate to 700°F and placing it 1.5 inch above the turf canopy for 15 to 25 seconds (Figure 1). The study found that biweekly radiant heat treatments reduced annual bluegrass density by up to 87% at 70 days after the initial treatment (DAIT), equivalent to acetic acid and glyphosate and outperforming all other treatments (Figure 2). However, at 117 DAIT or two months after the last treatment, annual bluegrass had recovered from radiant heat treatment, but not from acidic acid or glyphosate (Figure 2). Hot water treatments were less effective, likely due to energy dissipation during application. This finding underscores the importance of heat transfer and suggests that engineering solutions could lead to better heat transfer and associated weed control.
Figure 2. Density reduction in the number of annual bluegrass plants compared to the non-treated plots. Higher numbers indicate better weed control at 70 and 117 days after initial application. Different letters above the bars indicate statistical differences.
Figure 1. Radiant heat treatments were applied with a 1/4-inch metal plate that was heated to 700 °F. The device was placed at 1.5 and 3/4 of an inch above the turf canopy.
Understanding the Dynamics of Heat Application
Since radiant heat biweekly performed at a commercially acceptable level for at least one month after the last treatment, we decided to conduct another study focused only on that alternative. We examined how exposure duration and distance from the heat source influenced surface temperatures and weed control. Results showed that reducing the distance to the heat source from 1.5 inches to ¾ of an inch significantly increased surface temperatures, reaching up to 381°F, and improved weed control.
These findings highlight the potential for refining thermal treatment techniques to enhance efficacy. Adjustments in engineering, such as optimizing the heat source’s distance exposure time and insulation, could pave the way for more effective and economical thermal weed control devices.
Implications and Future Directions
With increasing regulatory pressure on synthetic herbicides and the rise of herbicide-resistant weed populations, the need for alternative solutions is more pressing than ever. Thermal treatments, particularly radiant heat, show promise as a viable option for managing annual bluegrass during the winter dormancy of warmseason turf.
However, challenges persist with organic treatments. While effective, they remain costly for large-scale applications, with acetic acid treatments in the current study costing over $10,000 per acre. In contrast, using a device towed by a turf tractor to deliver radiant heat with propane could reduce costs to below $100 per acre. Advancements in machine vision technology promise to overcome the non-selective nature of many organic weed control methods by allowing precise targeting of weeds alone, potentially lowering costs further. Future research will aim to refine the engineering of radiant heat devices and explore supplementary technologies like cryogenics and lasers. These innovations will harness machine vision to expand the application of organic treatments into previously unfeasible areas.
Back to our roots: Investigating relationships of creeping bentgrass root biomass and Hoplolaimus galeatus populations
By Aaron Tucker Graduate Student, Virginia Tech
Thegoal of this work is to determine if the relationship of creeping bentgrass (CBG) root biomass and lance nematode populations can be used as an indicator of plant health. To understand these effects, a 4x5 factorial design was arranged with 4 levels of urea (46-00) nitrogen (0, 0.25, 0.5, and 1lb per M) and 5 levels of lance nematode populations (0, 100, 500, 1500, and 3000 nematodes) over 16 weeks. Two-inch plugs were removed from an L93 CBG putting green at the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Center (n=80), maintained at a mowing height of 0.125 inches, and levels lance were inoculated with an acclamation period
of 18 weeks. Nitrogen applications and digital image analysis occurred bi-weekly and hyperspectral radiometry was measured daily to evaluate both visible and spectral indices. Destructive sampling occurred every 4 weeks where one representative of each factor combination was removed, nematodes extracted, verdure discarded and subjected to a muffle furnace to collect root biomass. Inoculation levels of 0, 100, and 1500 recovered different counts of lance nematodes, while counts of 500, 1500, and 3000 compared similarly. Data for root biomass and lance counts was not normally distributed and required a square root data transformation. A negative relationship of transformed root biomass by transformed lance counts was observed at 12 weeks while all other samplings showed no relationship. This suggests a moderate relationship showing lance counts can negatively impact root biomass. There were no effects of nitrogen on lance counts or root biomass. Additional work will aim to confirm the effects of nitrogen from urea and point turfgrass managers toward using root biomass along with nematode counts to properly address management of these plant parasitic nematodes.
1. Linear regression of root biomass in grams by lance nematode counts at 12 weeks. Nearly 40% of the change in root biomass can be explained by lance nematode counts. This data is negatively correlated and shows that as lance nematode counts increase, root biomass decreases.
Figure
How Variability Within and Between Natural and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance
By Ava Veith Graduate Student, Virginia Tech
Introduction
This study assesses how variations among natural and synthetic turf surfaces affect athlete safety and performance. Key metrics such as surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth (synthetic fields) influence athlete-surface interactions and were used in this study to further characterize fields. Additionally, ankle inertial measurement units (IMUs) and STATSports GPS units are wearable technological devices that
Figure 1. Surface hardness variability (in Gmax units) was assessed across four athletic fields. Drills were performed in the designated black (harder) and white (softer) rectangles within each field. The values within these rectangles indicate the average hardness for those areas, while the ‘field average’ reflects the overall
were used to quantify how varying surfaces affect athletes during performance of specific drills. Surveys captured athletes’ perceptions of the fields before and after performance to understand how they believe surface quality impacts their performance.
Athletic Fields Tested
In August 2024, a study was conducted on four athletic fields at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. Two fields were natural turfgrass (bermudagrass), categorized as ‘low wear’ or ‘high wear’ based on traffic frequency. The other two were synthetic, with one field installed early 2015 and heavily used (high wear), and the other installed in summer 2023 with minimal traffic (low wear) (Figure 1).
Preliminary Data Collection
Before involving live athletes, surface hardness was measured across all four fields using a Clegg hammer, collecting 100 measurements per field. These data were analyzed with ArcGIS Pro to create surface hardness heatmaps. These heatmaps identified areas within each field with varying hardness levels, aiding in the selection of specific locations for drills with participating athletes. One location was slightly softer when compared to the rest of the field, while the other slightly harder (Figure 1). Additionally, 20 rotational resistance, thatch depth, soil moisture, and infill depth measurements in both softer and harder areas were taken to further understand the relationship between surface conditions and athlete performance.
Athlete Participation
14 female athletes participated in the study, wearing standardized cleats and equipped with ankle IMUs and STATSports GPS devices to quantify their movements during drills (Figure 2). The athletes performed three drills—drop landing, T-drill, and modified acceleration-deceleration—designed to simulate common athletic movements. Each drill was repeated three times in both the harder and softer areas identified within the fields. Pre-performance surveys evaluated athletes’ perceptions of the fields, and post-performance surveys assessed their perceived quality of the surfaces and impact on performance.
Results
As shown in figure 1, both natural turfgrass fields exhibited lower surface hardness compared to the synthetic fields. Additionally, high wear fields were harder than low wear fields for both natural and synthetic fields.
Metrics from the ankle IMU’s include average intensity and bone stimulus. Average intensity is defined as the average impact intensity for each step propagated into the left or right leg, while bone stimulus is an estimate of the mechanical stimulus that would cause the bone to respond and remodel (iMeasureU). Our data suggests that athletes showed significantly higher average intensity and bone stimulus on synthetic fields versus natural fields when performing the T-drill and acceleration-deceleration drill, as well as significantly higher average intensity and bone stimulus on
Low-wear
the high wear fields versus the low wear fields when performing the T-drill. Further, athletes experienced significantly higher average intensity on synthetic fields when performing the drop jump. Additionally, athletes experienced significantly higher average intensity and bone stimulus on the harder areas within each field when performing the acceleration-deceleration drill versus the softer areas within each field, and average intensity on the hard and soft areas within synthetic fields were significantly higher than the hard and soft areas within natural fields during the acceleration-deceleration drill. Specifically, athletes recorded the lowest average intensity on the softer areas within natural fields.
Before performing drills, athletes perceived the quality of the low wear natural field and low wear synthetic field similarly, however both were rated higher than the high wear fields. Post-drill surveys indicated that athletes ranked the low wear natural field significantly higher than all other fields, with the low wear synthetic, high wear synthetic, and high wear natural fields following in quality ranking. Athletes felt that both high wear natural and
synthetic fields negatively impacted their performance compared to the low wear options.
Conclusion
This study utilized advanced technology and methodologies to evaluate how different athletic field surfaces impact the performance of athletes. Our data suggests there is surface hardness variability both within and between natural and synthetic fields, and this variability impacts the athlete’s average intensity and bone stimulus. By analyzing the relationship between field conditions and athlete feedback, the study lays the groundwork for optimizing athletic training environments. Research is ongoing.
Citation
“iMeasureU Support.” iMeasureU, www.support.imeasureu.com. Accessed 31 Oct. 2024.
Figure 2. Athlete performing the ‘T-drill’ with ankle IMUs and a STATSports GPS unit. Photo credit: Virginia Tech Communication and Marketing.
STATSports GPS vest (unit is inside pouch in the back)
Ankle
Evaluating how travel speed
and target size influence the accuracy and precision of GPS-guided sprayers in targeted pesticide applications
By Elisabeth Kitchin Graduate Student, Virginia Tech
Precision turfgrass management offers an exciting opportunity to apply resources such as pesticides, fertilizers, and water exactly where they are needed, reducing waste and optimizing turf health. Many modern sprayers are equipped with advanced features that can adjust spray patterns in real-time based on an uploaded map. These systems can shut off individual nozzles over areas that don’t require treatment, making them ideal for targeted pesticide applications. Previous research by
Jordan Booth, Ph.D., showed that targeted fungicide applications for spring dead spot can maintain the same level of control as blanket fungicide applications while drastically reducing inputs. While the concept of site-specific pesticide application isn’t new, its practical implementation has been limited due to concerns about efficacy and precision. Additionally, there is still limited evidence showing how factors like travel speed and target size impact the precision and efficacy of these applications. This research project focuses on addressing these concerns by assessing how travel speed and target size influence the accuracy and precision of GPS-guided sprayers in targeted pesticide applications.
This study was conducted on a fairway at the Virginia Tech Golf Course in Blacksburg, VA. The trial area was divided into three rows, each sprayed at a different travel speed: 3 mph, 4.5 mph, or 6 mph. Within each row, circular targets of varying diameters (0.5 meters, 1 meter, and 2 meters) simulated turfgrass pest infestations of various sizes. Target locations were mapped, and each target’s
Figure 1: Data collection using UV lights and drone.
center was marked with fluorescent orange paint to aid in post-application analysis. A Toro Multipro 5800G sprayer, equipped with GeoLink Precision Spray technology, was used to apply a UV fluorescent dye as a proxy for pesticides. This biodegradable dye allowed us to observe the exact spray deposition from the sprayer without compromising the health or appearance of the turfgrass. After spraying, UV lights were used to illuminate the trial area, and aerial images of sprayer deposition were captured using a drone. These images were analyzed to assess how much of the target area had been covered by the sprayer (accuracy), the distance between the target and the sprayer deposition, and the consistency of applications across replications (precision).
The results of the study showed great potential for the use of GPS sprayer technology in targeted pesticide applications:
• Accuracy and Precision: The sprayer applications were highly accurate, with nearly every target being hit and 70% of targets achieving 100% overlap accuracy, meaning the spray perfectly matched the intended target. This shows that GPS-guided sprayers can consistently deliver treatments to precise treatment maps.
• Target Size: Target size had no significant impact on the accuracy or precision of the applications. This means that GPSguided sprayers can effectively treat pests of varying sizes, from small spots of disease to larger weed infestations.
• Travel Speed: Speed was a critical factor in application success. Targets sprayed at 3 mph had lower accuracy and were further from the intended targets compared to speeds of 4.5 mph and 6 mph. This indicates that maintaining a travel speed of 4.5-6 mph is essential in order to achieve optimal application precision.
In conclusion, GPS-guided sprayers offer turfgrass managers a precise and sustainable way to manage pests while reducing pesticide use and minimizing environmental impact. As long as treatments are applied at appropriate travel speeds, these systems can treat pests of all sizes with high accuracy, providing effective management for turfgrass pests such as diseases and weed infestations. By addressing industry concerns about the efficacy of targeted applications, we hope to support the broader adoption of precision turfgrass pest management practices.
Figure 2: UV lights illuminating fluorescent dye deposition.
Better Built. Quality Results. Period.
