investigation of soil amendments for use in usga putting greens t.w. shaddox

Investigation of Soil Investigation of Soil Amendments for Use in Amendments for Use in USGA Putting GreensUSGA Putting Greens

T.W. ShaddoxT.W. Shaddox

• Droughts from 1997 to 2000 have Droughts from 1997 to 2000 have brought about consumptive use permits brought about consumptive use permits for many superintendentsfor many superintendents

• Superintendents have less water to Superintendents have less water to maintain the same quality turfgrassmaintain the same quality turfgrass

Problem AssessmentProblem Assessment

Case StudyCase Study

• Colbert Hills GC – Manhattan, KS (Fry, 2002)

– 120 million gallons year-1 = 374 acre feet

– 374 / 365 days ≈ 1 acre foot day-1

– 1 acre foot / 150 acres =

0.08 inches day-

1 !!

• Greens receive 2-3 X more N than FairwaysGreens receive 2-3 X more N than Fairways

• Greens typically receive daily irrigationGreens typically receive daily irrigation

• Low nutrient retention in sand-based greensLow nutrient retention in sand-based greens– 27% of applied P may leach 27% of applied P may leach (Shuman, 2001)(Shuman, 2001)

– 56% of applied N may leach 56% of applied N may leach (Snyder, 1984)(Snyder, 1984)

Problem AssessmentProblem Assessment

Literature ReviewLiterature Review

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ap

pli

ed

N L

ea

ch

ed

(%

)

Mancinoand Troll(1990)

Miltner etal. (1996)

Brown etal. (1982)

Brown etal. (1977)

Petrovic etal. (1986)

Snyder etal. (1984)

Nelson etal. (1980)

SurfactantSurfactant

• HDTMAHDTMA

CHCH33(CH(CH22))1515N(CHN(CH33))33

CH3

CH3

CH3 NCH3

Sorption ProcessSorption Process

26-28 26-28 ÅÅ

Objective:Objective:

To determine the influence of soil To determine the influence of soil amendments and incorporation method on amendments and incorporation method on water use efficiency (WUE) of Tifdwarf water use efficiency (WUE) of Tifdwarf bermudagrassbermudagrass

HHoo::

Soil amendments and incorporation method Soil amendments and incorporation method do not increase Tifdwarf WUE above do not increase Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peatsand:peat

Objective:Objective:

To determine the influence of surfactant-modified amendments (SMSAs) on N and P leaching in a simulated USGA putting green

HHoo::

SMSAs do not reduce N and P leaching in USGA putting greens

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Water UseWater Use

MethodsMethods• All pots in each study were maintained at 90% pot All pots in each study were maintained at 90% pot

capacitycapacity

• Sprigged with TifdwarfSprigged with Tifdwarf• Pots were havested and weighed Pots were havested and weighed

weekly for 18 weeksweekly for 18 weeks•WUE = dry matter / applied WUE = dry matter / applied

water water•Turf Quality taken weekly (1 to 9)Turf Quality taken weekly (1 to 9)

•10 trts 4 reps RCBD10 trts 4 reps RCBD

•Duncans MRT Duncans MRT αα = 0.05 = 0.05

TreatmentsTreatments

TreatmentTreatment Rootzone MediaRootzone Media(85:15)(85:15)

ControlControl SandSand

OrganicOrganic Sand:PeatSand:Peat

OrganicOrganic Sand:Iron HumateSand:Iron Humate

ZeoliteZeolite Sand:EcosandSand:Ecosand

ZeoliteZeolite Sand:EcoliteSand:Ecolite

Diatomaceous EarthDiatomaceous Earth Sand:AxisSand:Axis

Diatomaceous EarthDiatomaceous Earth Sand:PSASand:PSA

Calcined ClayCalcined Clay Sand:ProfileSand:Profile

Calcined ClayCalcined Clay Sand:Soil Master PlusSand:Soil Master Plus

SmectiteSmectite Sand:SmectiteSand:Smectite

Incorporation MethodIncorporation Method

Mixed Profile Mixed Profile (85:15)(85:15)

Aerification Aerification (50:50)(50:50)

• 9 Cores9 Cores

• 4 Cores4 CoresSand + AmendmentSand + Amendment

Sand + PeatSand + Peat

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

N and P leachingN and P leaching

PUMPH2O

30 cm

5 cm

2.54 cm

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

PumpH2O

Treatment Layer

Sand/Peat

5 cm

30 cm

2.5 cm

• Columns Columns – PPbb = 1.5 g cm = 1.5 g cm-3-3

– pH = 7.1pH = 7.1

• Injection SolutionInjection Solution– pH = 2.5pH = 2.5

– NONO33-N = 2300 ppm-N = 2300 ppm

– NHNH44-N = 2480 ppm-N = 2480 ppm

– P = 4400 ppmP = 4400 ppm– 10 mL10 mL

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods• Treatments:Treatments:

– SandSand– Sand/PeatSand/Peat– EcosandEcosand– Soil MasterSoil Master– ProfileProfile– HDTMA EcosandHDTMA Ecosand– HDTMA Soil MasterHDTMA Soil Master– HDTMA ProfileHDTMA Profile

• Treatment = 8Treatment = 8

• Rep = 3Rep = 3

• Duncans MRT Duncans MRT αα = 0.05 = 0.05

SMSA CharacteristicsSMSA Characteristics

Solid Solid PhasePhase

HDTMA HDTMA SorbedSorbed CECCEC ECECECEC EAECEAEC

g kgg kg-1-1 -- cmol (+) kg-- cmol (+) kg-1-1 -- -- cmol (-) kgcmol (-) kg-1-1

Soil MasterSoil Master 73.473.4 12.312.3 0.90.9 11.311.3

ProfileProfile 62.962.9 19.119.1 9.39.3 9.79.7

EcosandEcosand 27.127.1 93.593.5 89.389.3 4.14.1

ResultsResults

Water UseWater Use

Rootzone Chemical and Physical Rootzone Chemical and Physical CharacteristicsCharacteristics

TreatmentTreatment CECCEC TKNTKN PP FeFe FCFC PAWPAW cmol (+) cmol (+)

kgkg-1-1 %% -- mg kg-- mg kg-1-1 -- -- ------- % ------------ % -----

SandSand 0.70.7 0.000.00 3.23.2 3.43.4 7.77.7 7.37.3

PeatPeat 1.81.8 0.030.03 3.53.5 7.47.4 13.513.5 12.312.3

Soil MasterSoil Master 2.72.7 0.000.00 10.110.1 33.933.9 12.512.5 10.010.0

ProfileProfile 2.82.8 0.000.00 6.66.6 30.530.5 11.211.2 7.87.8

EcosandEcosand 25.725.7 0.000.00 5.75.7 6.36.3 15.615.6 12.112.1

EcoliteEcolite 16.016.0 0.000.00 15.715.7 4.54.5 13.713.7 11.611.6

AxisAxis 5.35.3 0.000.00 8.38.3 10.410.4 11.411.4 9.49.4

PSAPSA 1.21.2 0.000.00 3.93.9 22.522.5 10.910.9 9.39.3

SmectiteSmectite 1.31.3 0.000.00 126.8126.8 12.412.4 13.113.1 10.610.6

Iron HumateIron Humate 6.46.4 0.030.03 28.328.3 799.5799.5 15.515.5 14.114.1

ANOVA Turf QualityANOVA Turf Quality

Source of VariationSource of Variation dfdf Mean SquaresMean Squares F ValueF Value

BlockBlock 33 0.100.10 3.30*3.30*

Amendment (A)Amendment (A) 99 2.112.11 65.46***65.46***

Method (M)Method (M) 22 0.540.54 16.90***16.90***

A A × M× M 1818 0.400.40 12.45***12.45***

ErrorError 7777 0.030.03

TotalTotal 109109*, ***, Significant at 0.05, 0.001 probability levels, respectively*, ***, Significant at 0.05, 0.001 probability levels, respectively

Turf Quality Full IncorporationTurf Quality Full Incorporation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8T

urf

Qu

alit

y

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

CV = 4.3CV = 4.3

a

cccc

b b

dd

e

minimum acceptable quality

Turf Quality 9 Tine AerificationTurf Quality 9 Tine Aerification

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8T

urf

Qu

alit

y

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

CV = 1.9CV = 1.9

a

de bcefcd bc b

de def

minimum acceptable quality

Turf Quality 4 Tine AerificationTurf Quality 4 Tine Aerification

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8T

urf

Qu

alit

y

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

CV = 1.8CV = 1.8

minimum acceptable quality a

d bcdbc

d

bc bd cdd

ANOVA Turf WUEANOVA Turf WUE

Source of VariationSource of Variation dfdf Mean SquaresMean Squares F ValueF Value

BlockBlock 33 0.0010.001 0.770.77

Amendment (A)Amendment (A) 99 0.2870.287 138.44***138.44***

Method (M)Method (M) 22 0.8570.857 411.40***411.40***

A A × M× M 1818 0.0840.084 40.80***40.80***

ErrorError 7777 0.0020.002

TotalTotal 109109*, ***, Significant at 0.05, 0.001 probability levels, respectively*, ***, Significant at 0.05, 0.001 probability levels, respectively

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

WU

E (

mg

g-1

)

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

WUE Full IncorporationWUE Full Incorporation

CV = 6.8CV = 6.8

aab

dc

bab

b

dc

a

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

WU

E (

mg

g-1

)

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

WUE 9 Tine AerificationWUE 9 Tine Aerification

CV = 8.3CV = 8.3

a

bbc

c

bcbc

bcbc

cbc

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

WU

E (

mg

g-1

)

Sand

Peat

Soil M

aste

r

Profile Axis PSA

Ecosa

nd

Ecolite

Smec

tite

Fe Hum

ate

WUE 4 Tine AerificationWUE 4 Tine Aerification

CV = 9.2CV = 9.2

ab

bb b

bb b

b b

WUE by Incorporation MethodWUE by Incorporation Method

0

0.5

1

1.5

WU

E (

mg

g-1

)

Full 9 Tine 4 Tine

a

b b

CV = 3.5CV = 3.5

WUE SummaryWUE Summary

• Only CCs and Fe Humate increased turf qualityOnly CCs and Fe Humate increased turf quality

• Individually, PAW and CEC are not good indicators of Individually, PAW and CEC are not good indicators of an amendment’s influence on WUEan amendment’s influence on WUE

• Fe Humate, CCs, and diatomaceous earths Fe Humate, CCs, and diatomaceous earths increased WUE above peatincreased WUE above peat

• Fe Humate produced the greatest increase in WUEFe Humate produced the greatest increase in WUE

• Amendment influence was decreased after Amendment influence was decreased after aerificationaerification

WUE ConclusionWUE Conclusion

• WUEWUE– Reject HReject Hoo and conclude: and conclude:

• Calcined clays, Diat. Earths, smectite, and Fe Humate Calcined clays, Diat. Earths, smectite, and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peatincreased Tifdwarf WUE above sand:peat

• QualityQuality– Reject HReject Hoo and conclude: and conclude:

• Calcined clays and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf quality Calcined clays and Fe Humate increased Tifdwarf quality above sand:peatabove sand:peat

Practical ImplicationsPractical Implications

• When WUE and turf quality are of When WUE and turf quality are of concern, calcined clays and fe humate concern, calcined clays and fe humate are plausible options to peatare plausible options to peat

ResultsResults

N and P LeachingN and P Leaching

Effluent Volume (Pore Volume)

0 1 2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

C/C

o

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0 1 2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

NONO33---N Breakthrough Curves-N Breakthrough Curves

SandSand/Peat

HDTMA-Soil MasterAEC = 11.3

HDTMA-ProfileAEC = 9.7

HDTMA-ClinoptiloliteAEC = 4.1

Soil Master

Profile

Clinoptilolite

Total NOTotal NO33-N Leached-N Leached

Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05

0

5

10

15

20

25

NO

3-N

Lea

ched

(m

g)

Soil Master Profile Ecosand Sand Peat

Uncoated

Coated

aa

a a

b bb

a

CV = 9.8

0 1 2 3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Effluent Volume (Pore Volume)

0 1 2 3

C/C

o

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

NHNH44++-N Breakthrough Curves-N Breakthrough Curves

SandSand/Peat

HDTMA-Soil MasterAEC = 11.3

HDTMA-ProfileAEC = 9.7

HDTMA-ClinoptiloliteAEC = 4.1

Soil Master

Profile

Clinoptilolite

Total NHTotal NH44-N Leached-N Leached

Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05

0

5

10

15

20

25

NH

4-N

Lea

ched

(m

g)

Soil Master Profile Ecosand Sand Peat

Uncoated

Coated

a

b

c

dddd

a

CV = 12.9

Effluent Volume (Pore Volume)

0 1 2 3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

C/C

o

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.150.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0 1 2 3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

P Breakthrough CurvesP Breakthrough CurvesSandSand/Peat

HDTMA-Soil MasterAEC = 11.3

HDTMA-ProfileAEC = 9.7

HDTMA-ClinoptiloliteAEC = 4.1

Soil Master

Profile

Clinoptilolite

Total Phosphorous LeachedTotal Phosphorous Leached

Columns with same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT > 0.05

0

10

20

30

40

50

P L

each

ed (

mg

)

Soil Master Profile Ecosand Sand Peat

Uncoated

Coated

d

c

b

a a a a

e

CV = 6.9

Leaching SummaryLeaching Summary

• Uncoated amendments:Uncoated amendments:– did not retard or decrease NOdid not retard or decrease NO33

-- leaching leaching

– eliminated NHeliminated NH44++ leaching leaching

– retarded but did not decrease P leaching.retarded but did not decrease P leaching.

• SMSAs reduced NOSMSAs reduced NO33--, NH, NH44

++, and P , and P

leachingleaching

Leaching ConclusionLeaching Conclusion

• Reject HReject Hoo and conclude: and conclude:

– SMSAs reduce N and P leachingSMSAs reduce N and P leaching

Future ResearchFuture Research

• Long-term influence on leaching and Long-term influence on leaching and stabilitystability

• Microbial degradationMicrobial degradation

• Influence on turf growthInfluence on turf growth

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments• CommitteeCommittee

– Jerry Sartain (Chair)Jerry Sartain (Chair)– Donald GraetzDonald Graetz– Peter Nkedi-KizzaPeter Nkedi-Kizza– James BonczekJames Bonczek– Grady MillerGrady Miller

• SWSD Grad StudentsSWSD Grad Students– E. Brown, R. Snyder, K. MakrisE. Brown, R. Snyder, K. Makris

• Lab PersonnelLab Personnel– Ed Hopwood, Nahid Varshovi, Shawron Ed Hopwood, Nahid Varshovi, Shawron

Weingarten, Brian Owens, Martin SandquistWeingarten, Brian Owens, Martin Sandquist• Florida Turfgrass AssociationFlorida Turfgrass Association

QuestionsQuestions