sign in sign up
<<
Home , Buffer strip, Surface runoff

Research You Can Use Buffer Strips, Runoff, and Research compares nutrient loading in runoff and leachate when buffer strips are used alongside golf course fairways.

BY JOHN C. STIER AND WAYNE R. KUSSOW

ederal mandates to especially noxious decrease nutrient weeds, must be regularly of controlled. Lastly, prairie supplies are resulting in plantings are not neces- various local and state sarily suited for many regulations aimed at , such as wooded reducing phosphorus golf courses. A number (P) movement into of golf courses utilize surface and fine fescues as low- nitrogen movement maintenance roughs, into . which receive almost as Some regulations aim little attention as prairie to reduce nutrient and areas, yet establish loading into quickly and easily. surface waters based on Generic regulations that the idea that "native" require the installation or prairie of prairie buffer strips should be used as ~-~ -1 ~ can be costly, reduce buffer strips between The slower establishment of prairie vegetation aI/owed annual weeds and grasses to valuable golf turf areas, dominate in the research plots. mowed turf and natural and promote the areas or . assumption that turf Some research indicates that dense facilitates human activity while dis- has inherently negative environmental turf vegetation is more effective at couraging vermin and insect pests. consequences. reducing runoff and nutrient The various turf species allow some Data from various projects suggest than other strategies, including mulched type of turf to be established across a that annual nutrient loading from landscaped beds. Data are just starting diversity of situations, including moist mowed turf may be similar to that to be published that report on the or dry , and moderately shaded to from prairies, as most of the nutrient effectiveness of prairie buffer strips to full-sun conditions. loss occurs when nutrients are leached reduce nutrient loading in water run- Prairie plantings are being increas- from dead foliage. When we began the off and leachate relative to turf Also ingly promoted as a low-cost alterna- study in 2003, there were no data that unknown is the size requirement of tive to managed turf They are also directly compared the efficiency of buffer strips relative to the area they seen as "native," while most cool- turf to prairie vegetation for its ability are to be buffering. season turf species were introduced to minimize runoff and leachate pollu- Turf is often used as a ground cover from Eurasia. Although management tion, particularly during the establish- throughout inhabited areas, including is usually much less intensive than turf, ment phase, which can last for two to golf course roughs, because it is rela- establishment of prairie vegetation is three years. tively easy to establish and maintain, not necessarily less expensive than turf, The project goal was to compare the provides contiguous ground cover as prairie seed may cost considerably relative amount of nutrient loading in throughout the year under traffic and more. Prairie establishment may take runoff and leachate when prairie and mowing, and the low mowing height years, during which time weeds, fine fescues were used as buffer strips

16 GREEN SECTION RECORD installed just upslope of the runofF- Table 1 collection . Vegetative buffer strip treatments at Wisconsin Golf Clijb , Stevens Point, Wis. Plots were dormant-seeded in Vegetation Type Ratio Mean Area (m2) October, as recommended for prairie No buffer, fairway only (annual bluegrass) Not applicable 12.45 plantings, and they were covered with Fairway: prairie (narrow buffer strip) 8:1 14.01 a biodegradable fiber Fairway: fine fescue (narrow buffer strip) 8:1 14.01 control blanket. Prairie plots "were Fairway: prairie (medium buffer strip) 4:1 15.58 planted to a commercial prairie seed Fairway: fine fescue (medium buffer strip) 4:1 15.58 mixture that included flowers and Fairway: prairie (wide buffer strip) 2:1 18.68 grasses (Table 2). Fine fescue plots Fairway: fine fescue (wide buffer strip) 2:1 18.68 were seeded to a commercial seed mix containing Chewings, creeping red, alongside golf course fairways. We also of each buffer strip plot. Each collec­ blue, and hard fescues. wanted to determine the effect of tion had a cover to prevent None of the plots "were irrigated, three different ratios of buffer strips debris from falling into the flume, treated with , or fertilized relative to the fairway area draining while a screen-covered slit at the during the study. Plots "were mowed into the buffer strips. The information surface allowed runoff water to enter. (clippings returned) at 30-inch height will be useful for predicting effective­ Leachate was collected in each buffer in early 2004 and 2005 to ness of different vegetation types and strip, using a low-tension lysimeter encourage new growth in accordance buffer strip sizes on golf courses. Table 2 GROWING BUFFER STRIPS Species and cultivars used for vegetative buffer strips AND INSTALLING at Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis. WATER SAMPLERS Perennial Flowers Research plots were constructed in Blooms 2003 at the Wisconsin River Golf Species* Color Month** Club (WRGC) in Stevens Point, Wis. 6-7 The golf course is adjacent to and Asclepia incamata (Red Milkweed) Pink/ Red Aster novae-angliae (New England Aster) Purple 8-10 drains into the Wisconsin River. Two shrevei (Wild Iris) Blue 5-8 large natural areas exist within the Liatris pycnostachya (Dense Blazingstar) Purple 8-9 course and the course is surrounded Lobelia siphilitica (Great Blue Lobelia) Blue 8-9 primarily by with a small amount Lobelia cardinalis (Cardinal Flower) Scarlet 7-8 of agricultural land. The plots were Eupatorium purpureum (Woodland Joe Pye Weed) Pink 7-8 developed in the roughs that drain Monarda fistulosa (Bergamot) Purple 7-9 fairways 4, 8, and 9. Fairways were Rudbeckia subtomentosa (Sweet Black-Eyed Susan) Yellow 7-10 approximately 85 feet wide and Verbena hastate (Vervain) Purple 7-10 Vernonia fasciculate (Ironweed) crowned in the middle with 1-2% Zizia aurea (Divided Leaf Golden Alexander) Yellow 5-6 slopes. Fairway turf was predominantly annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.). Grasses and Sedges Buffer strip plots were installed at Andropogon gerardi (Big Bluestem) Elymus canadensis (Canada Wild Rye) the edge of the fairways and had slopes Carex vulpinoidea (Fox Sedge) Glyceria striata (Fowl Manna Grass) ranging from approximately 1 to 4%. Fine Fescue Mixture Plots on fairway 9 were in full sun, Species/Cultivar Scientific Name % in Mix plots on fairway 8 were in slight shade, Creeping Red Fescue (SR52I0) Festuca rubra ssp. rubra 19.6 while plots on fairway 4 were moder­ Slender Creeping Red Fescue (Dawson) F. rubra ssp. litoralis 19.6 ately shaded. Treatments included 2:1, Blue Fescue (SR3210) F. glauca 14.7 4:1, and 8:1 fairway-to-buffer-strip Chewings Fescue (SR5I00) F. rubra spp. commutata 14.7 ratios, with one ratio each of prairie Chewings Fescue (Sandpiper) F. rubra spp. commutata 9.8 or fine fescue mixtures (Table 1). A Hard Fescue (SR3150) F. longifolia 9.8 Hard Fescue (Scaldis) F. longifolia 9.8 seventh treatment in each replicate was a no-buffer-strip plot. *Quantity of species varies depending upon that year's seed production and harvest; was supposed to include at least 12 perennial flower species. Due to tl e of prairie seed production and Runoff collection (1-meter collection, certified seed is unavailable. width) were installed at the lower end **Number corresponds to month of year, e.g., 7 = July, 8 = August, etc.

MARCH-APRIL 2007 17 Establishing buffer strips around natural water features on a golf course has long been recommended to protect and improve . Research indicates that dense turf vegetation is effective at reducing runoff. with recommendations for prairie most of 2004 and part of 2005 and was soluble P, biologically active phosphorus establishment. Fairways received 108 dropped from the study. (BAP), and total phosphorus (TP), to 216 lb. N acre-J annually in one or which were extracted from both sedi- two applications (spring and fall), with ANALYZING WATER ment in the water as as the water approximately 5.5 to 11 lb. P acre-1 QUALITY AND itself Sediment in runoff was collected each year. Fairways received little to VEGETATION and quantified. Turfgrass and prairie no , so snow melt and rainfall The leachate water samples were stands were analyzed two to provided the source of runoff water. analyzed for - and ammoniacal- three times each year by determining The 9th fairway remained flooded N and soluble phosphorus. Runoff the percentage of desirable (turf from excessive rainfall throughout samples were analyzed for three P types: or prairie), weeds, and bare soil.

Figure I Type and amount of vegetative cover in fine fescue and prairie buffer strips following seeding in October 2003, Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis. A and 0 show ground cover in fine fescue and prairie plots, respectively, in August 2004. C and 0 show ground cover in fine fescue and prairie plots, respectively, in June 2005.

A B c D

• Fescue (93.5%) • Weeds (80%) • Fescue (88%) • Weeds (76%) • Weeds (4%) • Soil (20%) • Weeds (8%) • Soil (6%) • Soil (2.5%) • Prairie (0%) • Soil (4%) • Prairie (18%)

18 GREEN SECTION RECORD are not favorable are likely to result in The nearly complete ground cover was unwanted vegetation and/or exposed likely just as, if not more, important for soil that will not necessarily decrease reducing runoff by slowing its rate and nutrients in runoff or leachate. allowing it to infiltrate into the soil. In our study, less than 5% of the N one of the buffer strips changed total rainfall during the sampling runoff or phosphorus loading compared period in 2004 ran off fairway and to the fairway alone, indicating buffer strip surfaces, while less than 1% was not an important source of phos- of rainfall ran off during 2005 (Tables phorus (Table 4). Total phosphorus 3 and 4). The minimal slopes of the losses on a land area basis were similar, fairways (1-2%) likely helped infiltra- or less than, the annual 0.1 kg P ha-1 tion to occur by reducing speed of loss reported for native prairie in runoff despite periods of heavy . Minnesota when rainfall-induced

Table 3 Monthly rainfall (mm) during runoff sampling periods at Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total 2004 32.3 222.0 171.7 148.8 121.7 30.2 132.8 48.3 907.8 2005 92.5 73.9 167.1 33.3 151.9 188.0 32.3 83.1 822.1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 4 Fine fescues covered nearly 40% of the Total annual runoff volumes and phosphorus (P) losses from Poa annua fairways with or without various buffer strips of either prairie or fine fescue, Stevens Point, Wis. ground by early May 2004, while weed seedlings were the only vegetation on Water Runoff Total P Bioavailable P _ the prairie plots. Fescue cover was Buffer Treatment' (mm) (kg ha") (kg ha-') excellent by August, while annual 20042 weeds covered 80% of the ground in No buffer 36.6 0.12 0.04 prairie plantings (Figures lA, lB). A Short, Prairie 42.9 0.17 0.03 few prairie plants were present, but Short, Fescue 45.6 0.19 0.04 they comprised less than 1% of the Medium, Prairie 50.1 0.17 0.04 ground cover. By June 2005, fescue Medium, Fescue 38.1 0.16 0.04 cover remained dense and prairie Long, Prairie 36.6 0.12 0.03 vegetation had increased to 18%, Long. Fescue 50.2 0.22 0.02 though weeds still covered more than Significance (P~0.05) ns ns ns

three quarters of the plot area (Figures 20053 1C, lD). Several of the prairie flower species were evident by summer 2005, No buffer 3.5 0.04 0.01 Short, Prairie 4.2 0.03 0.02 though few bloomed that year. None Short, Fescue 4.6 0.04 0.03 of the prairie grasses were ever observed, Medium, Prairie 5.5 0.04 0.02 consistent with several of our other Medium, Fescue 5.5 0.05 0.02 establishment projects using similar Long, Prairie 3.5 0.03 0.02 prairie seed mixtures. Prairie plots on Long, Fescue 4.1 0.02 0.02 fairway 4 had more weeds, especially Significance (P~0.05) ns ns ns Poa annua, than plots on fairway 8 that ns = not significant at P:::;O.05. were less shaded. Regulations requiring 'Short buffer = 8: I fairway:buffer length. medium = 4: I fairway:buffer, long = 2: I fairway:buffer. native vegetation for buffer strips in 2May through October. 3 April through November. situations where climatic conditions

MARCH-APRIL 2007 19 phorus loading. Ultimately it is impos- Table 5 sible to achieve zero P runoff Mean monthly soluble phosphorus (P) and total nitrogen (N) in leachate under POQ QnnUQ fairway and prairie or fine fescue buffer strips, Buffer strips did not affect phos- Wisconsin River Golf Club, Stevens Point, Wis. phorus or nitrogen leaching below the soil surface (Table 5). Nitrogen is the Buffer Treatment' Soluble P (mg L.I) Total N (mg L") most important nutrient contaminant 20042 in leachate water because excessive No buffer 0.33 2.89 levels in may have Short, Prairie 0.32 7.60 adverse human health effects, such as Short, Fescue 0.12 32.08 blue baby syndrome. The U.S. Envi- Medium, Prairie 0.24 7.05 ronmental Protection Agency sets the 0.05 30.15 Medium, Fescue drinking water limit at 10 parts per Long, Prairie 0.13 6.28 million (ppm) nitrate-nitrogen. In our Long, Fescue 0.07 25.66 Significance (P::;0.05) ns ns study, this level was exceeded in 2004 under the fine fescue plots, but the 20053 results were not statistically different No buffer 0.58 3.91 from leachate under prairie plots or Short, Prairie 0.56 4.15 fairway alone. The higher concentra- Short, Fescue 0.36 5.02 tions in 2004 were likely due to soil Medium, Prairie 0.20 2.33 disturbance effects from the establish- Medium, Fescue 0.36 4.00 ment process and lack of vegetative Long, Prairie 0.26 3.61 cover until May 2004. In 2005, all Long, Fescue 0.49 3.72 Significance (P::;0.05) ns ns nitrogen concentrations were below 10 ppm and were likely lower than 2004 ns = not significant at P~0.05. because more vegetation existed in the 'Short buffer = 8: I fairway:buffer length. medium = 4: I fairway:buffer, long = 2: I fairway: buffer. 2May through October. second year. 3April through November. Phosphorus has generally been regarded as having little movement in runoff averaged 6 mm per year, and and sediment, though soluble P may soil and so most leaching studies do similar, or less, than the 0.18 to 7.04 kg increase as it leaches from vegetation not measure phosphorus. However, P ha-1 in from a variety and organic P-containing particles increasing awareness of ties between of grazing lands in Oklahoma. move in runoff Prairie plants may be ground and surface water may soon Phosphorus runoff in our study especially prone to P loss from vege- require additional knowledge of phos- was more than 20 times less than tation, as they are predominantly C4 phorus leaching. Easton and Petrovic that reported for wheat production, plants with foliage that dies in early reported more than 50% ofP applied probably due to greater vegetative autumn, while C3 turf foliage may to turf from swine leached cover in the golf course system. Phos- survive the winter and has a steady but below the surface, while synthetic fer- phorus sources in our study likely low turnover rate coupled with less tilizer sources had significantly lower included natural sources such as vege- abundant above-ground than leachate losses. Our study indicates tation, soil, and precipitation. We've prairie vegetation. that an unfertilized prairie stand has found similar results when comparing In our study, about 25-50% of the similar levels of P leachate compared Kentucky bluegrass (Paa pratensis) and total P in runoff was bio-available P to unfertilized fine fescue turf and prairie buffer strips for controlling (BAP). This is the type that stimulates fertilized P. annua fairways. Phosphorus algae blooms in , , and and nitrogen contamination of runoff A growing body of evidence . Values in our study were at least and leachate water from golf course indicates that when ground is well 20 times less than BAP in wheat field fairways was similiar to natural back- covered by vegetation (e.g., 70%), total runoff and similar to BAP runoff from ground levels reported for non- P losses may be much reduced com- native grassland. Our data are impor- fertilized native prairies and was not pared to predominantly exposed soil. tant because they represent natural affected by buffer strip type or size. In exposed soil situations, sediment- background levels of phosphorus. bound P is often the primary type of Consequently, regulations to limit Acknowledgements: The authors wish P. Vegetation greatly reduces total P phosphorus fertilization would in this to express their appreciation for funding runoff by reducing both runoff volume case be ineffective at reducing phos- provided by the USGA's Turfgrass and

20 G R E ENS E C T ION R E COR D A Q&A with DR. JOHN STIER, University of Wisconsin, and rate of rainfall compared to i~ rate. For regarding the use of prairie versus fescue buffer striPs to example, if the soil is saturated from previous rainfalls, minimize nutrient and sediment fairway runoff. even a minor rainfall might cause runoff, while a more severe rainfall may not cause any runoff if the soil is dry Q: Your article points to recent regulations that buffer at the time of rainfall. strips, to reduce nutrient and sediment loading into surface waters, should use native, or prairie, vegetation. How do Q: It was interesting that your research showed that you think regulators chose to stiPulate prairie vegetation for applied fertilizer did not appear to be an important source this purpose? Is there scientific data to show that a prairie of runoff phosphorus. Do you think the extent that signifi- strategy is effective for this purpose? cant phosphorus runoff comes from dead or dormant vege- A: Regulators chose prairie vegetation for use as tation (i.e.,C4 prairieplants) is well understood by regulators? native buffer strips because much of the southern part A: Unfortunately, the idea that vegetation itself can of Wisconsin was largely prairie (e.g., oak savannah) serve as a source of nutrients does not appear to be before the 1800s. The other alternative is , which well understood by regulators or the general public - because of their height and relatively slow growth are it would be interesting to survey scientists to deter- illogical to meet immediate needs, even though the mine their understanding of vegetation as a source of northern half of the state is naturally forested. We nutrients in runoff. The idea is not completely new, as decided to investigate the utility of prairie buffer strips several studies have shown that nutrients can be to control runoff specifically because no previous leached from leaves. scientific data existed. Q: Yourstudy demonstrated that bio-available phosphorus Q: Given the differences in speed of establishment of runoff from WRGC fairways was 20 times less than that fescues (and other turfgrasses) versus prairie ground cover, reported for wheat production. Do you sometimes get the do you think that using prairie vegetation for fairway buffer feeling that regulators target golf courses rather than con- strips is a sound strategy? ventional , where the cumulative runoff from A: While prairie can take several years to row-, small grain, forage production, and pasture and become established, we found that the annual weeds feed-lot operations seem to be a much greater threat to that developed in the prairie plots functioned as well surface water quality? as fescues to mitigate runoff and sediment loss. The A: The turf and allied green industries do not seem to question is, will people accept weeds as a vegetative have the political infrastructure that organized row- cover during the years required to establish a prairie crop agriculture has. Also, most of the public is very ? We also noticed that in one of the sites, familiar with urban landscapes because the vast heavily shaded by trees, the prairie plants did not majority of U.S. residents live in urban areas: they are establish as well as the site with more sunshine. unfamiliar with row-crop agricultural systems.

Q: In your study, less than 5% (in 2004) and 1% (in 2005) Q: What is the the take-home message for golf course of the total rainfallran off the fairway and buffer strip superintendents from this work? surfaces. Do you think the differences in sediment and A: Well-vegetated areas, regardless of the species, are nutrient losses between prairie and fescue buffers would important for minimizing runoff and sediment losses. have been greater if the plots had been tested on a golf There will always be a background level of nutrients in course receiving greater rainfallor having more severe runoff water because the vegetation itself may serve as slopes? a source of nutrients in addition to atmospheric A: The differences might have been greater if slopes and other sources unrelated to fertilizer. were more severe. As for rainfall, factors to consider include pre-existing at the time of rainfall JEFF Nus, PH.D., manager, Green Section Research.

Environmental Research Program and Editor's Note: A more complete JOHN C. STIER, PH.D., is associate the Northern Great Lakes Golf Course version of this report can be found at professor} Environmental TU1jgrassScience} Superintendents Association, and co- USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Dept.} and WAYNE R. operation from the owners and super- Research Online: Kussow, PH.D., is professor emeritus} intendent of Wisconsin River Golf http://usgatero.msu.edu/v05/n22.pd£ turfgrass soil scientist} Soil Sciences Dept.} Club. University of Wisconsin} Madison} Wis.

MARCH-APRIL 2007 21