Turfgrass & Ornamental Field

TURFGRASS & ORNAMENTAL FIELD DAY Division of Plant Science - CAFNR - University of Missouri

South Farm Research Center Columbia, MO July 19, 2016 Faculty Dr. Bruce Barrett – Entomology Dr. Brad Fresenburg – Turfgrass Research & Extension Dr. Lee Miller – Turfgrass Pathology Dr. David Trinklein – Floriculture Dr. Xi Xiong – Turfgrass Management & Physiology Tim Moloney - Landscape Design

Research Specialists Daniel Earlywine – Turfgrass Pathology Patti Hosack - MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic Director

Graduate Research Assistants Naba Amgain Matt Fleetwood Waana Kaluwasha John Koehler Michael Patterson Kyle Robertson Enzhan Song

Find us on the web: Brought to you by: turf.missouri.edu turf.missouri.edu/stat turfpath.missouri.edu motoc.org Editor’s Note Table of Contents

e would like to express our gratitude to our industry sponsors for Sponsors and Contributors...... 4 their incredible support of the Mizzou Turfgrass & Ornamental Field Day Sponsors...... 5 Field Day Vendors...... 6 Programs. Without this assistance, we would not be able to build Schedule of Events Calendar...... 7 Wupon our programs, nor be able to function at the research and extension level that this great state of Missouri needs and deserves. We would also like to thank our wonderful colleagues at the MU Agronomy Research Center at Field Day Presentations Bradform Farm and those at South Farms for assisting us with the logistics and set up of this event. Stops*

We have listed our contributors on the first page of this booklet to signify our appre- 1 Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) - Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi Xiong...... 8. ciation of their support. While we strive to make this list as comprehensive as pos- 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? - Daniel Earlywine...... 10. sible, please let me or another faculty member know if your organization should be 3 Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool Under Summer Pressure - Dr. David Trinklein...... 13 on this list. If an error has occurred, please accept our sincere apology, and we will 4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common Diseases and Things to Watch Out For - Patti Hosack...... 14. correct it in the future. 5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach - Tim Maloney...... 18 6 What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Session - Dr. Brad Freesenburg...... 23 In addition to our program sponsors, I’d also like to thank our numerous sponsors 7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? - Steve Song & Dr. Xi Xiong...... 25 and vendors at this 2015 field day. These companies are also listed and recognized 8 Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? - John Koehler...... 35. on these opening pages, because their participation and support has played an inte- 9 Integrating Management Strategies for Spring Dead Spot and Large Patch Control - Dr. Lee Miller...... 39 gral part in facilitating this event. 10 The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support them in the Landscape - Carol Davit...... 43

Inside this booklet, we hope you will find valuable research and insights that you can bring back to your operation to make it more successful. Whether your operation * STOP Number is referenced on farm map on the back cover of this booklet. is a lawn, landscape, golf course, sod farm, nursery, athletic field, (etc.), we would like to assist with your plant health issues. If there is a concern you feel needs to be Other Reports covered more fully, please don’t hesitate to let us know, or email me at turfpath@ missouri.edu or phone at (573) 882-5623. Please enjoy your day of discussion, learn- 1. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials of Cool Season Turfgrasses...... 46 ing and camaraderie, and we hope you take something back that is useful. 2. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials of Warm Season Turfgrasses...... 58 3. Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green...... 65 Sincerely, 4. Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green...... 67 5. Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass...... 73 Dr. Lee Miller 6. Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on Sclerotinia homoeocarpa...... 80 Extension Turfgrass Pathologist 7. Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and Water Status on Tolerance of Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) University of Missouri to Dollar Spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Bennett)...... 83 Division of Plant Sciences 8. Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) ...... 87 9. Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) ...... 89 10. Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet (Viola spp.) ...... 91 11. A Study of Billbug Biology...... 94 12. Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Billbug on Zoysiagrass Fairway...... 97 Note: Reference to products in this booklet is intended to convey objective, unbiased information and not an 13. Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed...... 100 endorsement of the product over other similar products with similar results. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services does not imply endorsement by University of Missouri or 14. Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide...... 103 discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned. Other brand names may be labeled for use 15. Efficacy of Specticle FLO on Control of Lespedeza on a Bermudagrass Lawn...... 106 on turfgrasses. Individuals who use pesticides are responsible for ensuring that the intended use complies with 16. Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth...... 108 current regulations and conforms to the product label. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before applying any chemical. For assistance, contact your county’s Cooperative Extension agent.

3 Sponsors & Contributors to the 2016 2016 Field Day Sponsors Mizzou Turfgrass & Ornamental Research Program

Agrologics* FMC Corporation* Ozark Turf Association* St. Louis, Missouri Philadelphia, PA Branson, Missouri

MU Ag Research Center* Gateway Chapter (STMA) ** Ozarks Chapter STMA** Columbia, Missouri St. Louis, Missouri Springfield, Missouri Harrell’s, LLC Agrotain* Pennington Seed* GR Robinson Seed & Service Co GreensPro, Inc.* 720 Kraft Rd, Lakeland, FL 33815 St. Louis, Missouri Greenfield, Missouri 10747 Trenton Ave, St. Louis, MO 63132 Fenton, Missouri Contact: Mickey Lovett Contact: Glenn Kraemer [email protected] A.L. Gustin Golf Course* Harrells LLC* PBI Gordon** [email protected] Columbia, Missouri Kansas City, Missouri 863-687-2774 Lakeland, FL 314-427-0300 AMVAC** Heart of America Golf Course Perfect Play Fields & Links* Newport Beach, CA Superintendents Association** Belleville, Illinois Kansas City, Missouri Applewood Seed* Professional Turf Products* Arvada, CO Hummert International Lenexa, KS Earth City, MO Atkins Turf & Tree* Redexim-Charterhouse* Columbia, Missouri St. Louis, Missouri Kalo, Inc.** Overland Park, Kansas Dave Baker*** Research Support Services – NuFarm Americas, Inc. Williams Lawn Seed Columbia, Missouri Bradford Research Center* Laser Turf Leveling* 13216 Clayton Road, St Louis MO 63131 Maryville, MO St. Charles, Missouri Columbia, Missouri Josh Williams BASF** Contact: Randy Beussink Waukee, Iowa Research Support Services – [email protected] [email protected] MacroSorb, LLC.** 816-682-8794 Mount Laurel, New Jersey South Farm Research Center* 314-275-7730 Bayer Environmental Science ** Columbia, Missouri Kansas City, Missouri Mid America Green Industry Council* SelecTurf Farms* Bellerive Country Club* Kansas City, Missouri Jefferson City, Missouri St. Louis, Missouri Mississippi Valley Golf Course Site One Capital Sand Company* Superintendents Association** Columbia, MO Jefferson City, Missouri St. Charles, Missouri St. Andrews Golf Club* MU CAFNR* MoTOC * Overland Park, KS Columbia, Missouri Columbia, Missouri St. Louis Country Club* Columbia Country Club* MO-KAN Chapter (STMA) ** St. Louis, MO Columbia, Missouri Kansas City, Missouri Syngenta ** Commercial Turf & Tractor* MU Intercollegiate Athletics* Greensboro, North Carolina Chillicothe, Missouri Columbia, Missouri The Lawn Company*** Steve Dickinson*** NTEP** Columbia, Missouri Fenton, Missouri Beltsville, Maryland USGA-Green Section Research** Dow AgroSciences* NuFarm Turf & Specialty** Stillwater, Oklahoma St. Louis, Missouri Alsip, Illinois Van Diest Supply Co.* Dow AgroSciences* Old Warson Country Club* Marshall, MO Indianapolis, IN St. Louis, MO Williams Lawn Seed* Maryville, Missouri

* Gift-in-kind ** Grant-in-aid *** Turf Building Fund

4 5 July 19, 2016 Field Day Vendors July 19, 2016 Schedule of Events

COMPANY CONTACT DESCRIPTION 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. Registration, coffee/donuts and exhibitors Advanced Turf Solutions Matthew Biddle [email protected] Mike Schemel 8:30 – 9:00 a.m. advancedturfmo.com C.J. Coy Welcome & Introduction: Dr. Lee Miller, Turfgrass Pathology

Bayer Environmental Science Wes Kleffner, Zac Reicher Welcome & Program Update: Dr. Jim English, Director of Division of Plant Sciences, 12810 Perry St [email protected] Overland Park, KS 66213 www.bayer.com

Commercial Turf and Tractor Bryan Wood Wiedenmann aerifyers,seeders 9:00 – 10:20 a.m. PO Box 724 [email protected] and synthetic turf equipment. Morning Session I: Visit 4 of 5 topics Chillicothe, MO 64601 660-646-6207 Campey Imants Field Top Maker Presentations last 10 minutes; 10 minute Q&A/Transit time and other products. Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on residential lawns D&L Rental Dwight Davis Stop 1 Matt Fleetwood, M.S. student & Dr. Xi Xiong – Associate Professor: Turfgrass Denny Barron Science [email protected] Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? dandlrentals.com Stop 2 Daniel Earlywine, M.S. – Turfgrass Pathology

Grass Pad Inc. Todd Winkelman Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool Under Summer Pressure 425 N. Rawhide Bill Tritt Stop 3 Dr. David Trinklein – Associate Professor: Horticulture Olathe, Ka 66061 Richard Peeper [email protected] MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and things to watch out for www.grasspad.com Stop 4 Patricia Hosack, M.S. - MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic Director Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach GR Robinson Seed & Service Co Glenn Kraemer Grass seed, fertilizers, insecticides, Stop 5 Tim Moloney – Landscape Design Instructor 10747 Trenton Ave [email protected] fungicides & herbicides for turf and St. Louis, MO 63132 314-427-0300 landscape. 10:20 – 11:40 a.m. Harrell’s, LLC Mickey Lovett Morning Session II: Visit 4 of 5 topics 720 Kraft Rd. [email protected] Presentations last 10 minutes; 10 minute Q&A/Transit time Lakeland, FL 33815 www.harrells.com What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your question session Dr. Brad Fresenburg, Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Science NuFarm Randy Beussink Stop 6 [email protected] Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? www.us.nufarm.com Stop 7 John Koehler, M.S. student - Turfgrass Pathology

PBI Gordon Heath Schesser Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and large patch Jeff Marvin Stop 8 control [email protected] Dr. Lee Miller – Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Pathology GordonsProfessional.com The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, Stop 9 & How to Support Them in the Landscape Professional Turf Products Eileen King Products from the Toro Company Carol Davit, Executive Director - Missouri Prairie Foundation 10935 Eicher Drive Brad Davisson as well as many other topflight Lenexa, KS 66219 Aron Mock mfg. to independent dealers, golf Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings [email protected] courses, schools, municipalities, Stop 10 From USGA Sand? www.proturf.com parks, landscapes and irrigation Steve Song, Ph.D. student & Dr. Xi Xiong – Assistant Professor: Turfgrass Science contractors. 11:40 - 12:00 p.m. Exhibitor Demonstrations Redexim Turf Products Christopher Hilmes Turf Maintenance Equipment- Trac- 427 West Outer Road Ryan Lock tors, Aerators, Seeders, Sweepers, Valley Park, MO 63088 Paul Hollis Verti-Cutters, Synthetic Turf Groom- 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch, Exhibitors [email protected] ers RedeximTurfProducts.com

Williams Lawn Seed Josh Williams PO Box 112 [email protected] Maryville MO 816-682-8794

6 7 1 Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on 1 Strategies to control difficult-to-control broadleaf weeds on residential lawns residential lawns 9 Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi Xiong Figure 1. Percent injury (%) on Ground Ivy at 3 WAIT and 7 WAIT. Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) Introduction Current Findings

Ground ivy, or commonly known as creeping At the conclusion of 56 days after the initial treat- Charlie, originated in Europe and Asia and was ment, it was determined that EH1587 at a higher brought to the United States by early European rate and sequential application (trt 4), and 4-Speed settlers. This weed quickly spread due to its well- XT (trt 7) were the only two treatments that com- developed dispersal characteristics, such as its pletely controlled ground ivy in the treated plots. carpet-like growing pattern and long stolon that One application of EH1587 at a higher rate (trt 3) produces fibrous roots at the nodes. Ground ivy showed satisfactory efficacy at 90% control at 7 commonly grows in riparian forests and areas, weeks after the initial treatment (WAIT). In sum- thickets, along disturbed roadside areas and pas- mary, this trial showed that EH1587, as a newer ture edges. When established on turf, ground ivy formulation/compound, is very promising to pro- can be a persistent problem because of its peren- vide satisfactory control of ground ivy even after nial nature and capability to spread by stolons. single application. The objective of the study was to evaluate seven different herbicide formulations at varying rates Table 1. Description of treatments with to determine which herbicide demonstrated the application rates greatest control of ground ivy. Trt Product Application rate Figure 2. Representative pictures showing efficacy for control of ground ivy at 7 WAIT in plots that are the untreated control (top left), or received EH1587 sequential application (top right) or 4-Speed XT (bottom) Working with the City of Columbia Parks and Rec- treatments. reation division, a site was established in Capen 1 Untreated control ---- Park. Plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were sprayed at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Seven treatments 2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A (Table 1) were organized in randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatments occurred on April 19th, 2016 for 3 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A first application and on May th17 , 2016 for second application when applicable. Evaluations were 4 EH1587 (double 0.276 lb ai/A based on weekly assessments of percent coverage app) of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 56 days. 5 EH1545 1.41 lb ai/A

6 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/A

7 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/A

8 9 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it?

Daniel Earlywine and Lee Miller Table 1. Treatment List and Application Rates Treatment FRAC Fungicide Group Rate Per Introduction Code 1,000 sq ft Emerald 7 SDHI 0.18 oz Dollar spot is caused by the fungal pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa, which affects many warm and cool- season turfgrasses. Visual symptoms of dollar spot on a creeping bentgrass putting green appear as round Daconil Ultrex + Emerald M5 and 7 Chloronitrile + SDHI 5.0 oz + 0.18 oz tan to bleached patches that reach 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Infection periods in Missouri can occur from Daconil Ultrex M5 Chloronitrile 5.0 oz April to November when daytime temperatures are between 60 and 90 degrees F. Factors such as: heavy Daconil Action M5 and P1 Chloronitrile+ Benzothiadia- 5.4 fl oz morning dews, improper irrigation timing, nitrogen deficiency, and excessive thatch build up can all increase zole dollar spot symptoms and the infection period. Preventative fungicide applications based on calendar Secure 29 Oxidative Phosphorylation 0.5 fl oz intervals or measured weather variables (i.e. air temperature and relative humidity) are often utilized on golf uncoupler putting greens. There are instances, however, when fungicide applications are made late after symptoms, and recovery from damage needs to occur quickly. Velista 7 SDHI 0.5 oz Xzemplar 7 SDHI 0.21 fl oz Lexicon Intrinsic 7 and 11 SDHI + Q I (=strobilurin) 0.47 fl oz Summary o 26 GT 2 Dicarboximide 4.0 fl oz This trial was designed to evaluate multiple fungicides with two nitrogen application strategies for curative Curalan 2 Dicarboximide 1.0 oz dollar spot control on a ‘Penn A-4’ creeping bentgrass putting green. Mowing was performed 5 days a week at a height of 0.130 inches. Overhead irrigation is applied as needed to prevent drought stress and Revolu- Torque 3 DMI 1.1 fl oz tion (6.0 fl oz/1000ft2) was applied every 4 weeks from May to September to control localized dry spot. Mirage StressGard 3 DMI 2.0 fl oz From May to June 14, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl Briskway 3 and 11 DMI + QoI (=strobilurin) 0.725 fl oz oz/1000ft2) was applied every two weeks. Dollar spot symptoms occurred in the trial area in late April before 2 Interface StressGard 2 and 11 Dicarboximide + 5.0 fl oz trial initiation. Therefore, two curative applications of Daconil Ultrex at (3.25 oz/1000ft ) were applied to Q I (=strobilurin) suppress dollar spot symptoms until trial initiation. o

Initial treatments were applied on July 5th when dollar spot symptoms (~ 5% of each plot) were present throughout the trial area. Plots were evaluated at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 days after application for dollar spot suppression. Fungicide treatments (listed in the table) were applied at curative labeled rates for dollar spot and applied at 87 gallons per acre (GPA). Fungicide plots were split into two nitrogen regimes. One half of the plot received dissolved urea at 0.1 lb N/1000 ft2 on July 5 and July 12. The other half of each fungicide plot received dissolved urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 + Primo Maxx at 0.125 fl oz/1000 2ft on July 5. Control plots included a non-fertilized plot, urea at 0.1 lb N/1000 2ft on July 5 and July 12, urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 on July 5, and urea at 0.2 lb N/1000 ft2 + Primo Maxx at 0.125 fl oz/1000 2ft on July 5. Treatments will continue to be evaluated as we continue into late July.

10 11 Evaluating Hot Herbaceous Ornamentals that are Cool 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? 3 Under Summer Pressure

Plot Map David Trinklein

Annual flowering plants have become an important component of the created landscape. The season- long color they provide often is thought of as the “finishing touch” to the landscape. This is true for public areas as well as for private businesses and residences. The demand for annual flowering plants has been strong over the years, in spite of the recent sluggish nature of our country’s economy.

Many annual herbaceous plants carry the stigma of exhibiting poor performance, especially under severe North heat and water stress conditions typical of a Missouri summer. This fact has, in certain cases, prevented them from being more widely used in large-scale plantings such as those typical of color beds on golf courses, surrounding commercial buildings, etc. Plant improvement via introduction and breeding has produced many new cultivars of herbaceous ornamentals over the past several years. Their ability to tolerate Urea (0.2 lb N/M) + Primo Maxx (0.125 fl oz/M) (July 5) Missouri conditions is, in most part, unknown. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the performance Urea (0.1 lb N/M) (July 5 and July 12) of a number of new herbaceous ornamental cultivars under Missouri conditions.

Forty-nine cultivars representing ten species of annual herbaceous ornamental plants (refer to evaluation handout) were transplanted into demonstration plots located at the University of Missouri Turf Research Center located on the South Farm near Columbia, Mo. Trial plants were started from seed or received as established plants and grown to transplantable size in a campus greenhouse.

On May 23, 2016 the plants were established in outdoor plots. Plants were hand watered until established and then supplied with one and one-half inches of water per week via drip irrigation when rainfall was insufficient. Additional fertilizer was applied on July 1st in the form of calcium nitrate at the rate eight ounces per 100 square feet. Weed control was achieved via hand weeding. Data was/will be collected for early performance, mid-summer performance, and late season performance using a rating scale of 1 - 10.

12 13 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and 4 things to watch out for 4 things to watch out for

Patti Hosack Image 1: Purpling and browning needles of spruce and/or green, infected, needles (Image 2). The Image 4: Oak leaf showing blight from Oak Wilt. with Rhizosphaera needlecast. Image courtesy of: reproductive structures of each pathogen look dif- Image courtesy of: Paul A. Mistretta, USDA Forest USDA Forest Service - North Central Research Station , ferent, however, this is difficult to distinguish with a Service, Bugwood.org Introduction USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org handlens. Typically, needlecast diseases do not kill The University of Missouri Plant Diagnostic Clinic trees. However, repeated years of defoliation can (PDC) has been serving Missouri since 1965. The lead to decline. Preventative fungicides can be use- PDC was founded by Dr. Einar W. Palm, who was the ful to help control the disease. first state extension plant pathology specialist. One of the most devastating diseases of oak, in The role of the PDC is to assist county Extension Missouri, is Oak Wilt. Oak Wilt, caused by Cerato- Specialists, commercial businesses and private citi- cystis fagacearum, is a fungal disease that invades zens with their pest problems. The PDC is capable of the water-conducting tissues. The black oak group plant disease diagnosis, identification of unknown (red, pin, black and scarlet oaks) is more susceptible plants and insects (including arachnids). Besides than the white oak group. This disease has been clinic staff, a diverse group of Plant Sciences faculty diagnosed in several Missouri Counties (Image 3). specializing in agronomy, entomology, horticulture, Symptoms are first apparent on flagging branches, or plant pathology assist with identification as Image 2: Pycnidia emerging from stomata of infected leaves will have a dull green appearance and later spruce needle. Image courtesy of: Paul Bachi, wilt. Necrosis begins on the leaf margins, often the Image 5: Sapwood streaking in oak branch infected needed. University of Kentucky Research and Education base of the leaf and main vein will remain green with Oak Wilt. Image courtesy of: Fred Baker, Utah More information regarding sample submission, Center, Bugwood.org State University, Bugwood.org including fees, can be found on the PDC website. (Image 4). A cut branch may show a brown to Samples of all plant types, excluding those that are black discoloration in the sapwood (Image 5). The federally regulated, can be sent in for identifica- disease is spread by bark beetles or through natu- tion or disease diagnosis. Insects found on plants rally occurring root grafts between oaks of the same or in homes can be sent in for identification. Plants species. Oak Wilt is a lethal disease, there is not a can also be sent in for identification. Management cure. Diagnosis of this disease requires laboratory recommendations are provided with all diagnoses. testing. To help prevent this disease, avoid prun- This year, as of June 30th, we have had 210 sub- ing trees between mid-March and late June. Early mitted samples. Most of the submissions have been pruning can create wounds that are attractive to for disease diagnosis (92%). There is great diversity bark beetles. Management recommendations are in the types of plants submitted. Everything from to remove infected trees and sever root grafts.

agronomic field crops to woody ornamentals. Of Bacterial Leaf Scorch (BLS) is caused by the bac- the woody ornamentals, evergreens are the most Image 3: Distribution of Oak Wilt in Missouri. Image terium, Xylella fastidiosa. BLS is a vascular disease submitted. With varieties of spruce being most provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation. that has a broad host range, including oaks, maples, sweet gums and several other types of shade trees. common. Deciduous woody ornamentals are sec- Image 6: Maple leaves showing symptoms of ond, with oaks being the most common. This is a chronic and lethal disease that is vectored Bacterial Leaf Scorch. Image courtesy of: Sandra by leafhoppers and other sap sucking insects. Typi- Jensen, Cornell University, Bugwood.org cally symptoms are first noticeable in mid-summer. 2016 Topics Flagging branches have leaves with marginal dis- Spruce trees are planted in many Missouri land- coloration. The discoloration moves inward and is scapes. Needlecast, a fungal disease, is diagnosed often proceeded by a halo of yellow or red discol- each season. There are two types, Rhizosphaera oration (Image 6). The tree will leaf out normally and Stigmina needlecast. Both have similar symp- the following year, however more branches will toms. Second year, or older needles, appear be affected. It can take several, 3 or more, years blighted or have dropped from the tree. Infected before the tree completely dies. This disease can needles often look purple before browning then be mistaken for other diseases or drought stress, dropping (Image 1). Infections typically begin on laboratory testing is required for confirmation. Early lower branches and move upward. Often branches detection can allow for treatment. Oxytetracycline will be entirely defoliated except for at the tips. injections can lower the bacterial population and Reproductive structures can be observed with a delay onset of symptoms. This is not a cure for the handlens emerging from the stomata of blighted disease and treatment needs to be repeated yearly. 14 The possibility for long term effects, caused by 15

MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common diseases and 4 things to watch out for 4 things to watch out for

repeated treatments, is currently unknown. Dead Image 7: Characteristics of a Brown Marmorated Stink ing a sample, digital images can be emailed to forest. a concentric ring (zonate) pattern, black stem lesions branches should be removed yearly, sanitizing cut- Bug that differentiates it from other types of stink bugs. [email protected]. and defoliation (Image 10). Boxwoods are planted ting tools after. Severely infected trees should be Image courtesy of Dr. Jamie Pinero, Lincoln University. Boxwood Blight, a fungal disease caused by throughout Missouri and we encourage you to send removed. Cylindrocladium buxicola, has not been found in the in suspect samples for a free +/- identification. Early Missouri is constantly threatened by new pests Missouri landscape. In an isolated incident this disease detection of this pathogen, in the state, can prevent and diseases. The front line of defense for these are was found at a retail store, plants were destroyed. spread and establishment of this disease. Samples are citizens who can monitor, report and/or collect sus- Boxwood blight affects all species of boxwood, pachys- of regulatory concern and must be double bagged and pect specimens. Currently there are several pests andra and sarcococca. Several species are tolerant of boxed for shipment. Please call the PDC prior to ship- and diseases that threaten Missouri flora. Three the fungus and do not show symptoms, thus making ping as these will need to be handled differently than pressing issues will be addressed here. the spread of this disease problematic. Symptoms to other samples. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) is an invasive watch for include dark leaf spots that spread out in pest that originated in parts of Asia. BMSB was first identified in 2001 in Allentown, PA. It has been found in Missouri. There is an established popula- Image 10: Boxwood Blight Identification Guide courtesy of The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. tion in St. Louis. Over the last couple of years, one or two specimens have been found in Springfield and Jefferson City, but the pest has not established Image 8: United States map showing distribution of in these areas. BMSB has a broad host range and is black walnut and Thousand Cankers Disease (TCD). a significant pest on field crops, garden plants and ornamentals. Also, BMSB can be a nuisance pest in homes where they will overwinter. BMSB can be differentiated from other types of common stink bugs by unique markings (Image 7). If you see a suspect BMSB, not in the St. Louis area, please collect and send to the PDC for identification. There will not be a fee associated with this as we would like to know where the insects are occurring for future trapping efforts. Thousand Cankers Disease, is a fungal disease caused by Geosmithia morbida. It is spread by the Walnut Twig Beetle that can attack several species of walnut. This pathogen-pest complex has not been found in Missouri (Image 8). However, it is a Image 9: Cankers on black walnut caused by Thou- major threat to the 40+ million black walnut trees sand Cankers Disease. Image courtesy of: Elizabeth in Missouri. We encourage all tree care special- Bush, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State ists to be on the lookout for this disease, as early University, Bugwood.org detection is key to protecting our walnut trees. Symptoms typically occur mid-summer and include yellow and wilting of leaves high in the crown. University of Missouri—Plant Diagnostic Clinic Dieback of limbs follows, and dead leaves typically 28 Mumford Hall, Columbia, MO 65211 hang on the branches. Sprouting, from roots or Phone: (573) 882-3019 trunk, is observed in severely infected trees. Symp- Email: [email protected] Web: plantclinic.missouri.edu tomatic limbs should be checked for beetle holes, removing bark from these areas would expose dark brown cankers (Image 9). Suspect trees should be reported via an online report: http://extension. missouri.edu/treepests/report-pests.aspx or called into the MDC at 1-866-716-9974. Prior to collect-

16 17 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional 5 Approach 5 Approach

Tim Moloney – Landscape Design Instructor “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” We’ve all heard these words. Admittedly, I have even said them. Little did I know at some point, I would be living these words. After graduating from MU with a BS in Plant Sciences in 1995, I spent 18 years working and learning through mistakes, as a landscape designer for one of Mid-Missouri’s most successful landscaping firms. In 2008 I was then asked to teach the introduc- tory landscape design course for the University of Missouri, on a “part time” basis. Now, 8 years later, I am working to give CAFNR’s Plant Sciences Design students a practical based education that will ensure they are ready to embark on successful design careers upon graduating from our program.

The approach had to be simple, I am a landscaper after all. When trying to develop the method for design education, I first looked at the process in which, as professional designers, we approach every design project. The project is broken down into three main components: Site Analysis; Design; Presentation. Based on that approach, I broke design education into the same components. In addition to the compartmental approach, we find it crucial to develop “real world” design problems whenever possible. Every classroom assignment is developed as if the students are dealing with actual clients, residential and commercial. To bring further practical and professional scenarios to our students, our advanced level students must complete at least one project that is completely real. We have real sites and real clients with very real goals. Our students meet with these clients, analyze their sites, and present their concepts to the clients.

In 2013 Tiger Design, a student run entrepreneurial design venture, was initiated under the Tiger Garden umbrella. Through Tiger Design, MU’s best and brightest design students are employed as landscape designers for Tiger Garden. Student designers are tasked with meeting clients, developing detailed landscape plans, presenting their concepts to the client, and providing documentation for budgeting and implementa- tion. Tiger Design does charge for these services and the students are compensated for their efforts. To date, Tiger Design students have serviced over 25 design clients.

Quite simply, my goal is to make a design student’s educational experience as close to what they may encounter upon entering the industry as possible. Our students should be prepared for anything the industry can throw their way, and I want the industry to know what our students can do for them. -ADD 3:1 TOPSOIL:COMPOST MIX TO ALL PLANTED AREAS -3" DYED HARDWOOD MULCH ITEA VIRGINICA 'HENRY'S GARNET' MONARDA SP. NOTES: SOLIDAGO DRUMMONDII QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII QUERCUS BICOLOR ECHINACEA PURPUREA VIBURNUM DENTATUM RUDBECKIA FULGIDA JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA 'GREY OWL' DODECATHEON MEADIA CORNUS FLORIDA CERCIS CANADENSIS CAREX ALBICANS ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA AMELANCHIER ARBOREA AESCULUS PAVIA ASCLEPIAS SYRICEA ANDROPOGON GERARDII ADIANTUM CAPILLUS-VENERUS BOTANICAL NAME PLANT LIST SWAMP WHITE OAK SHOOTING STAR FLOWERING DOGWOOD SERVICE BERRY SOUTHERN MAIDENHAIR FERN PURPLE CONEFLOWER REDBUD RED BUCKEYE CHINKAPIN OAK ARROW WOOD VIBURNUM GOLDEN ROD BLACK EYED SUSAN GREY OWL JUNIPER VIRGINIA SWEETSPIRE BEE BALM WHITE TINGED SEDGE BUTTERFLY MILKWEED COMMON MILKWEED BIG BLUESTEM GRASS COMMON NAME QUANTITY 60 20 20 20 20 20 90 70 24 37 15 31 2 3 9 3 4 1 1 0'-2" 0'-2" 0'-2" 0'-3" 0'-3" 2'-6" 2'-6" TYPE QUT QUT QUT QUT QUT QUT QUT QUT QUT #3 #3 #3 BUTTERFLY GARDEN BUTTERFLY GARDEN BUTTERFLY GARDEN BUTTERFLY GARDEN BUTTERFLY GARDEN BUTTERFLY GARDEN SHADE PERENNIAL SHADE PERENNIAL SHADE PERENNIAL NOTES Josh Ritter 1"=15' 2016 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SOUTH FARM

18 19 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional 5 Approach 5 Approach                                                                                          D D WWW.FOURACRES.COM ESIGNER: ATE: 4/11/16 MOBERLY, MO 65270

LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT FOR 660-263-7282 CORY BRIGGS SOUTH FARM TURF

20 21 5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional 6 What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question Approach Session

Brad S. Fresenburg First impression – assessing the area My first impression of the site are usually men- Don’t let the title of this discussion mislead you. tal notes – how does it look? Does something This is not a discussion on insects; although stand out? Here we look at what species of it could be partially if that is what’s bugging turfgrasses are present (Go to: https://turf.pur- you. We wanted to have a session that would due.edu/tool/ for turfgrass identification). Are allow each of you to present a topic that may there any patterns showing up? This usually have been an issue in the past or is presently indicates operator or manager error of some troubling you. We would like this to be an open sort. Are there any patches visible? Lesions on forum for you to ask a question on anything, the plant? These may indicate a biotic stress generate some discussion among your peers. such as a disease. So fire away! Once you generally look over the site, it’s time Troubleshooting is something we all have done. to gather information. Ask all question perti- A problem occurs and its’ like - what’s going on? nent to the site. Take notes and document as Never seen this before. Or you may be think- much as you can with photographs. Begin by ing, not again – why? So how do you begin asking about the last soil test. Have any prod- other than calling your local friendly extension ucts been applied recently – Herbicides, fun- specialist. We all have a great network of col- gicides or insecticides? What were the rates? leagues to call upon and that can work if they Timing? Have any fertilizers been applied? have or are experiencing the same thing; but What was the composition? Rate of nitrogen? it’s not always that easy. Timing? How were all of these products applied? What is the soil like? Soil moisture? When issues occur, we sometimes over-react What has the weather been like? Mowing and jump-the-gun on the impulse that some- height? Does a service provide these tasks? thing needs to be done NOW. We can tell you As you can see we begin to build a library of on the homeowner front – When they see information. brown spots, they need water, they need fertilizer. We all know what happens there. Good troubleshooting/diagnosis requires senses – eyes and nose. However, useful tools So where do we begin? If a situation arises as of the trade should include a hand lenses, a in the photo below, here is my approach. probing device (long, thin screwdriver), digital camera, a spade, a pocket knife, ID keys, guides, and that i-phone. When using that i-phone, be sure to search for highly reputable sources, such as extension websites at state universities. Some issues may not require the extensive fact gathering as below. Some issues seem more obvious and can be narrowed down much more quickly. There is definitely a pattern here that appears to be wheel marks. As we think about this, there are three things that come to mind that will do this: 1) Driving on grass that had a hard frost on an early spring morning; 2) Driving on heat stressed grass in the hot, hot summer; or 3) a chemical issue tracked on tires (usually 22 23 6 What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/Bring your Question 7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Session Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY

not to this extent). Chances are it was either to troubleshoot those other things that are bug- Enzhan Song and Dr. Xi Xiong frost or heat stress. So for this one, time of the ging us and there seems to be no logical expla- year and weather may have the answer. nation. Why can’t I get my grass to be a darker Introduction green color? Why does my grass field have chlorotic, stunted areas within perfectly green Soil water repellency (SWR) is a common problem for intensively managed turf. Consequently, an unstable grass? Why does a lawn appear to be mottled wetting front is usually formed which leads to preferential flow. Preferential flow is responsible for localized when it’s a single species of turfgrass? Why dry spot (LDS), which is particularly problematic on sand-based putting greens. Development of SWR is often are my bermuda sprigs slow to grow and fill in? inevitable and common management practices, such as supplemental watering, will not prevent LDS from These are examples of questions we receive happening. and sometimes there is an unknown that keeps these in the mystery column. Wetting agents have been used as a common tool for managing LDS on putting greens for decades. With the nature of surfactants, wetting agents reduce surface tension at the sand-water interface, and improve water Many times these situations remained un- infiltration and retention in SWR areas, thus reduce LDS symptom. However, presence of SWR will not be solved, but on occasion with persistence you do resolved by using wetting effects, and often repeat application are required. find answers. Sometimes, for whatever reason Some wetting agent compounds in the turf market, such as OARS (Organic Acid Removal System) (AQUA- information is withheld or pertinent informa- AID, Rocky Mount, NC), claimed that it not only ‘masks’ LSD symptoms, but also solves the problem itself tion is unknown by the client. Sometimes the by removing SWR causing materials, i.e. organic coatings, from the sand profile. Thus, the objective of this answers are found through continued discus- laboratory study is to investigate the effect of selected wetting agents on removal of hydrophobic organic Then there are times when things are not so coatings from/in sand surface/system. obvious. No patterns are visible. It’s no hu- sions with colleagues and peers by brainstorm- man error or some other abiotic stress. In a ing as you may want to refer to it. Whatever simpler case we see below, the sod looks like it the situation, there is a network of people, Materials & Methods information, diagnostic labs available to find an was freshly churned and dug up. Time of the Naturally occurred water-repellent sands were collected from the LDS area on a 7-year old United States Golf answer. If you have something that has been year would be a factor as to when this damage Association (USGA) standard putting green and air dried under room temperature. In order to ensure the uni- would occur. This sod can be easily lifted with bugging you, don’t hesitate to mention it today. formity of water-repellency, the sands were passed through a series of sieves with opening sizes at 2, 1, 0.5, no roots present. You may also notice a slight One of our goals for this field day is to send 0.25, and 0.1 mm to remove plant residues, before mixed them thoroughly. The SWR level was determined pungent odor. You may have guessed it by now, everyone home with an answer. Let’s take ad- by molarity of ethanol droplet test (MED) which resulted in a 2.2 molar, which was equivalent to medium but this would be skunk damage from seeking vantage of all the expertise present here today. level of hydrophobicity. A sand column infiltration system was developed for this study which was built using out white grubs. Have a great day! PVC tubes (Georg Fischer Harvel LLC, Easton, PA) with 5.08 cm internal diameter and 0.48 cm thickness, where the bottoms were sealed with a layer of fine fabric cheese cloth to hold the sand but permit liquid drainage. A total 254 g of the prepared water-repellent sand was packed uniformly into the PVC soil columns Send inquiries to: with 7.80 cm depth, which resulted in a bulk density of 1.66 g/cm3. Particle density of the sand was mea- Brad S. Fresenburg, Ph.D. sured as 2.68 g/cm3, thus the porosity was determined to be 37.8 % or a pore volume of 58 ml. State Turfgrass Specialist [email protected] for sending Treatments included Matador (100% alkyl block polymer), OARS (80% polyoxyalklene polymers and 10% questions and photos Potassium salt of alkyl substituted maleic acid), and pHAcid (combination of a blend of acidifying agents 573 268-2545 for texting photos and and a high molecular weight surfactant), in addition to a tap water control (Table 1). All wetting agents were conversation mixed with tap water at their highest label suggested rates. In order to saturate the sand profile, 70ml of wetting agent solutions were slowly and evenly applied to the top of the sand column. Under the force of gravity, the leachates from the bottom were collected for volume measurement, before acidified by H2SO4 to pH < 2 and stored in fridge at 4 oC for further analysis. Analysis of aqueous dissolved organic carbon (DOC) content in the leachates was performed by a SHIMADZU TOC-VWP analyzer equipped with an auto sampler ASI-V (Kyoto, Japan). Analysis of solid state particulate organic carbon (POC) content was performed by centrifuging the leachates at 10,000 x g for 15 minutes. The Another part of what we do is not always precipitated organic matter was then dried under 105 oC for 12 hours and the mass was measured, before troubleshooting the obvious things we witness combustion under 550 oC for another 2 hours to determine the POC content. in a lawn or turfgrass area. Sometimes we need

24 25 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic 7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY

At 24 hours after treatments, sand columns were washed with a pore volume (58 ml) of tap water three Table 2. Leachate volume (ml) of the four treatments collected after treatment, or after first, second, and third times, with a 30 minutes interval between each wash to allow a complete leaching. Leachate of each wash washes. was collected for volume, DOC, and POC measurements described above. The washed sand columns were Leachate volume then dried under 50 oC till a constant weight, and tested for water-repellency again using MED method described above. In order to compare the overall organic carbon change in the sand profile before and after Treatments After treatment† After first wash‡ After second wash After third wash treatments, the solid phase total organic carbon (TOC) was also measured utilizing LECO TOC analyzer for untreated and treated sand. ------ml ------Matador 1.0 c3* 43.8 a2 55.0 a1 54.9 ab1 The experimental design for this study was a completely randomized design with three replications, and the OARS 1.3 c3 15.5 d2 55.0 a1 56.0 a1 entire study was repeated once. Analysis of variance was conducted using the Proc Mixed procedure of SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), where significant mean separations were performed based on Fisher’s Protected pHAcid 12.1 b4 41.1 b3 52.2 b2 54.5 b1 LSD at P = 0.05. Water 16.5 a4 38.5 c3 48.5 c2 54.0 ab1 * Means in the same column followed by the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05); means in the same row followed by the same numbers were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Table 1. Treatments and concentrations. † Treatments were applied at 70 ml. Treatment # Products Rates (ml products / L water) ‡ Treated sand was washed with one pore volume of water (58ml) at 24 hours after treatments. 1 Untreated -- After the first wash, OARS showed significantly lower leaching activity than all the other treatments with 2 Matador 23.5 only 15.5 ml of leachate. In comparison, Matador treated sand columns resulted in the highest leaching 3 OARS 27.4 volume (43.8 ml) after the first wash. Following the second and third washes, the water holding effect following OARS appeared to decrease (Table 2). Results indicated improved soil water retention by Matador and 4 pHAcid 5.9 OARS treatments, with OARS showed longer residual effect following water flushes compared to Matador. Current Finding Although pHAcid did not enhance the water holding capacity as strong as Matador and OARS, it showed sufficient water movement following treatment application (Table 2). Leachate volume collected from each leaching event showed significant differences following application of various wetting agents (Table 2). Even though all treatments were applied at a volume (70 ml) higher than the actual total pore volume (58 ml), sand columns treated with Matador or OARS were able to hold more Table 3. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC; mg) in each leachate of the four treatments collected after treatment, water which led to significantly less than leachates compared to pHAcid or tap water treated sand columns or after first, second, and third washes. (Table 2). Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) Figure 1. Dissolved organic carbon (OC; mg) of wetting agents included in this project. Leachate Leachate after Leachate after Leachate after Treatments after treatment first wash second wash third wash 2000 a ------mg ------1800 Matador 48.0 a3† 1238.1 a1 294.5 a2 34.0 a3 1600 b 1400 OARS 40.2 a3 516.3 b1 153.1 b2 34.4 a3 1200 pHAcid 17.9 b2 50.6 c1 25.0 c2 11.2 b2 1000 Water 11.0 b2 28.3 d1 17.9 c12 12.8 b12 800 †Means in the same column followed by the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P =

DOC (mg) 600 0.05); means in the same row followed by the same numbers were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD 400 (P = 0.05). 200 c d 0 Metador OARS pHAcid Water

26 27 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY

Table 4. Particulate organic carbon (POC; mg) in each leachate of the four treatments collected after Figure 2. Cumulative dissolved organic carbon (DOC; mg) in all leachates of each treatment including after treatment, after first, second, and third washes. treatment, after the first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different Particulate organic carbon (POC) according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Leachate Leachate after Leachate after Leachate after Treatments after treatment first wash second wash third wash ------mg ------Matador 1.5 a3† 187.4 a1 44.8 a2 1.5a3 OARS 2.2 a2 29.6 b1 12.7 b2 10.0 a2 pHAcid 0.7 a1 11.7 c1 9.1 b1 6.0 a1 Water 0.6 a1 12.0 c1 11.5 b1 11.0 a1 †Means in the same column followed by the same letters were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05); means in the same row followed by the same numbers were not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05).

The amount of DOC and POC of four leachate events including leachates collected after treatment, after the first, second, and third wash showed similar trends (Table 3 and 4). Majority of the DOC and POC were found in the leachates after the first washing event for all treatments. After the first wash, Matador consistently had higher DOC and POC (1238.1 and 187.4 mg) than other treatments (Table 3 and 4). Figure 3. Cumulative particulate organic carbon (POC; mg) in all leachates of each treatment including after The DOC and POC in all four leachate events was added together and presented as cumulative DOC (Figure treatment, after the first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different 2) and POC (Figure 3) for each treatment. Similarly, results of cumulative DOC and POC showed the highest according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). organic carbon (OC) output in the leachates from Matador-treated sand columns, followed by leachates from OARS-treated columns. Both cumulative DOC and POC in leachates from pHAcid-treated columns showed no differenced from water-treated columns (Figure 2 and 3).

Additionally, DOC appeared to be the dominant OC fraction with 6 or 14 folds higher than POC in Matador or OARS leachates, respectively (Figure 2 and 3). The differentiation in DOC and POC leachate pattern are correlated with the OC introduced from wetting agent solutions (Figure 1). All wetting agents included in this experiment are 100% water soluble. It is not clear if or how much of the removed OC from the leachates of Matador- or OARS-treated sand columns are from the wetting agent compounds directly. In comparison, both pHAcid and water control showed minimum (23 and 0.2 mg) DOC treatment input (Figure 1) but resulted in 104.7 and 70.0 mg overall DOC output in the leachates (Figure 2).

28 29 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY

Soil organic matter can be fractionated in to two parts: particulate organic matter (POM) and dissolved Figure 5. Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg) in treated and untreated sand. Bars with the same letters were not organic matter (DOM) which are reflected by POC and DOC from the carbon angle. Particulate organic carbon significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD P( = 0.05). has a fraction size of 0.45 μm to 2.0 mm, and POC collected in this study had a fraction size of 0.45 μm to 0.05 mm which attribute to fine particulate organic carbon (FPOC) fraction (0.45 μm to 1 mm). It has been reported that FPOC played important role on formation of water-stable aggregates in soil. Also, FPOC has been found to directly contribute to SWR even at low concentrations. Extraction or redistribution of POC often involved intensive laboratory based physical procedures, such as ultrasonic dispersion and high speed centrifugation followed by extensive water flushing. As a result, removal of POC even at relatively low quantity by normal management practices such as wetting agent application can be very crucial for mitigating the overall SWR.

Dissolved organic carbon is usually defined as organic materials that can pass a filter with 0.45 µm pore size. The main portion of soil DOC comes from complex and big molecular weight fractions: humic substances. However, when considering the common non-polar (hydrophobic) property of many organic materials, the size-based definition of DOC can lead to confusion as organic molecules with size < 0.45 µm that is hydrophobic will not completely dissolve in water to form true DOC. Studies had found that DOC can be fractionated into hydrophobic part that contained more aromatic humic and fulvic acids, and hydrophilic part which had more aliphatic chains. The amphiphilic nature of surfactant monomers tends to reduce the liquid system free energy and form micelles structures which consequently, lowers the interfacial tension.

The overall OC output was calculated by adding the cumulative DOC and POC from four leachates of each However, OARS had only 775 mg OC output, which is about half of its OC input (1409 mg) (Figure 1 and 4). treatment together (Figure 4). Due to the dominant quantity of DOC output, the overall OC leached out This result suggests a sorption effect of OARS compounds in the sand system. Total OC output from pHAcid- showed a similar trend as cumulative DOC (Figure 2 and 4). When compared with OC input from the treat- and water-treated sand columns were statistically same. ments (Figure 1), the overall OC output from Matador-treated sand columns yielded 1850 mg OC, comparable to total OC input of 1765 mg (Figure1 and 4). After wetting agent treatment and all wash events, solid phase total organic carbon (TOC) content in the remaining sand particles were determined and presented in Figure 5. Matador-treated sand had statistically Figure 4. Overall organic carbon (mg) in leachate was calculated based on the sum of cumulative dissolved the same amount of TOC (1796 mg) as in original untreated sand (1737 mg) (Figure 5), while OARS-treated and particulate organic carbon (DOC and POC) in all leachates of each treatment collected from after sand accumulated significantly higher amount of TOC (2214 mg) than the untreated control. Similarly, pHAcid treatment, after first, second, and third washes. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different and water did not affect the TOC compared to untreated sand (Figure 5). Matador and OARS exhibited dis- according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). tinctive behaviors in this study. Although it not fully understood, we hypothesized that the two compounds have different chemistry, which subsequently affect their sorption and/or electrostatic binding on soil organic matter.

30 31 7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? — LAB STUDY 7 Coatings From USGA Sand?— FIELD STUDY

Figure 6. Soil water repellency (SWR) after wetting agent treatment and sequential washes, indicated by Enzhan Song and Dr. Xi Xiong molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Smaller molar value indicates lower level of hydrophobicity. Untreated sand had a hydrophobicity level of 2.2 molar. Bars with the same letters were not significantly different Field Study Summary according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Following the laboratory study, the objective of this two-year ongoing field study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of potential SWR removal wetting agents for their wetting capability (SWR reducing effect), influence on disease severity, and overall microbial community structure in the soil profile under field conditions. This trial was established on a ‘L93’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) USGA putting green at the Turf Research Center in Columbia, MO. Wetting agents and application rates are presented in table 1. Individual

plots were measured at 5’ by 10’, where all treatments had 4 replications and were applied using a CO2 pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 43 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. Visual assessments were recorded weekly, including LDS and disease percentage (%), phytotoxicity (1-9 scale where 1= total turf death, 6=minimally acceptable injury, and 9=non-injury), and normalized difference vegetation index for overall turf quality evaluation (NDVI by GreenSeeker). Soil samples (top 4 inches) were collected monthly before each application for soil hydrophobicity assessment using molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Addi- tional soil samples (top 4 inches) were taken at the beginning and by the end of each year, and analyzed by PLFA (phospholipid fatty acids) technique for evaluation of the treatment influences on microorganism community structure. The study was initiated spring 2015, and data will be collected till fall 2016.

Table 1. Treatments Rates and Schedule Following wetting agent treatment and three washes, Matador-treated sands showed a complete removal Treatment # Products Rates (fl Application Schedule of SWR and return the sand to wettable condition with a MED value of 0 molar (Figure 6). Sand treated oz/1000 ft2) with OARS also showed minimum SWR with a 0.2 molar MED value. However, sand treated with pHAcid or 1 Untreated water exhibited elevated SWR with MED value to 3.3 (pHAcid) and 3.2 (water) molar, respectively, indicating ultimately failure in removing organic coatings from the hydrophobic sands. It is important to mention 2 Cascade Plus 8 Monthly that the treated and washed sands were oven-dried at 50°C for 2 weeks in order to achieve constant weight 3 HydroWet 8 Monthly (complete dry), before tested for SWR. It had been reported that oven-drying of moist water repellent soil 4 Matador 6 Monthly samples can lead to an increase in SWR. 5 OARS 7 Monthly 6 pHAcid 1.5 Monthly Conclusion 7 Tournament-Ready 8 Monthly Our laboratory study showed that although not fully understood, certain wetting agents, such as Mata- dor and OARS, can reduce the hydrophobicity, likely due to a combined effect of removing hydrophobic coat- Current Finding ings as well as functioning as a bridge between the hydrophobic sand surface and the water molecules in the As indicated by the MED test (Table 2), monthly application of wetting agents showed a general trend of rootzone soil system. reducing hydrophobicity through the 5 months’ experiment, except pHAcid which is mainly manufactured to target on inorganic SWR causing materials (e.g. carbonates). It is also interesting to notice that all treatments showed a slight increase in hydrophobicity at 5 MAIT, which corresponded to significant drought event occurred in September in 2015. None of the wetting agents included showed any phytotoxicity on creeping bentgrass putting greens. However, occurrence of various fungal diseases, mainly dollar spot, in some of the treated plots, including Matador and OARS compared to control (Fig. 1). This trend, however, was not observed in plots received CascadePlus, HydroWet, and Tournament-Ready. Overall turf quality, reflected as NDVI (Fig. 2), showed that all treated plots maintained better turf quality compared to untreated control, especially treatment with Tournament-Ready. PLFA analysis is still under processing and more results will be discussed next year.

32 33 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic 8 Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? 7 Coatings From USGA Sand? — FIELD STUDY

Table 2. Hydrophobicity of top 4 inch soil measured by molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 months after initial treatment (MAIT). Higher value indicates higher level of hydrophobicity. John Koehler and Lee Miller

Treatments 0 MAIT 1 MAIT 2 MAIT 3 MAIT 4 MAIT 5 MAIT Introduction ------molar ------Cascade Plus 2.9 a1 2.9 b1 2.9 cd1 2.9 cd1 2.3 d3 2.6 c2 Large patch is caused by the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP, and is the most limiting disease on zoysiagrass in the transition zone. Large patch occurs in early fall and spring when zoysiagrass is either HydroWet 3.0 a1 3.1 b1 3.0 bcd1 3.1 bc1 2.6 c2 2.9 b1 going into or coming out of cold temperature dormancy. Patch symptoms appear as circular matted areas of Matador 3.0 a1 3.1 b1 2.9 cd12 2.7 d23 2.4 d4 2.6 c34 brown necrotic turf, with active outbreaks firing a bright orange color along patch margins. Fungicide appli- OARS 3.0 a12 3.1 b1 2.8 d23 3.0 cd12 2.3 d4 2.7 bc3 cations for large patch control are usually applied once or twice in the fall and oftentimes once again in the Tournament-Ready 3.0 a12 3.1 b1 3.1 abc1 3.1 bc1 2.3 d3 2.7 bc2 spring. Nitrogen applications during fall and spring are commonly avoided due to concern of increasing large patch severity. However, no definitive correlation between nitrogen applications and increased large patch pHAcid 2.9 a3 3.4 a1 3.2 ab2 3.3 ab12 2.9 b3 3.1 ab23 severity has been found. Control 3.0 a3 3.1 b23 3.3 a123 3.4 a1 3.1 a123 3.3 a12 Notes: Mean separation is conducted based on Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters within each columns indicate significant dif- Trial Description ferences among treatments and different numbers within each row indicate significant differences among dates. The goal of this project is to determine if applying nitrogen during spring and fall large patch activity will Fig. 1. Percent disease (%) in plots as influenced by wetting agents applications. Mean separation is conducted increase large patch severity, or decrease it and promote disease recovery. Along with application timing, using Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters on top of columns indicate significant differences among treatments. we will also investigate the impact of different nitrogen sources and a single spring fungicide application on disease severity. The overall goal of this project is to integrate a nitrogen application strategy into the large patch management scheme. Plots in this field trial are 5 × 10 ft, and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. All plots received 0.75 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. of UMaxxTM in June and July of 2014, and the same rate of urea in August 2014 before the project was initiated in fall 2014. Each plot was inoculated at two evenly-spaced points with 25 cc rye grain infested with R. solani AG 2-2 LP on 9/23/14, and each point was covered with a metal plate until green-up in spring 2015.

Treatments included nitrogen source (CaNO3, (NH4)2SO4, and urea), nitrogen application timing, and fungicide (Table 1). Granular nitrogen fertilizers were applied in fall, spring, both fall and spring, or only in summer. Spring and fall fertility treatments were applied at a rate of 0.5 lbs. N/1000 sq ft when five-day average soil temperatures first reached 65°F. Summer-only nitrogen treatments were applied monthly in June, July, and August 2015 and 2016 at 0.67 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. Fall and spring treatments received additional nitrogen in the summer to total 2.0 lbs. N/1000 sq ft per annum of the same nitrogen source for each plot. A separate spring treatment of controlled release fertilizer (Duration™ 120 d) applied at 3.0 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. was also evaluated. Duplicate plots of each treatment received one application of tebuconazole at 0.6 fl oz Fig. 2. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) of plots treated by various wetting agents and untreated control. Mean separation is conducted using Fisher’s protected LSD at P < 0.05, where different letters on top of product/1000 sq ft in 1.0 gal water carrier at the same time as spring fertility applications. One plot per block columns indicate significant differences among treatments. was left untreated and unfertilized.

Pictures and ratings were taken every 7-10 days during fall and spring large patch active periods. Pictures were digitally analyzed for disease and percent non-green turf using SigmaScan, and LSMeans were subjected to analysis of variance using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS 9.3) and were separated with pairwise comparison using the lsmeans command (α=0.05).

34 35 8 Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? 8 Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why?

Plot Map Fertility Treatments (Table 1):

Fall Fall Sum Fa+Sp Fa+Sp Ammonium Sulfate, Calcium Nitrate, and Urea Fertility: Spring Fall Sum Fall 2 +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb 2 lbs. N / 1000 ft per annum Supplemental N Sum Spring Spring 1/2 lb N/1000 ft2 Fa+Sp UTC Spring Fall Sum Spring Fall 1/2 lb N/1000 ft2 +Teb +Teb +Teb (9/16/14, 10/5/15) June, July, August 2015+2016 Fall Spring Spring Sum Fa+Sp Supplemental N Fa+Sp Sum Fa+Sp Spring 1/2 lb N/1000 ft2 +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb Spring 1/2 lb N/1000 ft2 (5/6/15, 5/6/16) Fa+Sp Spring Sum June, July, August 2015+2016 Sum UTC Fall Spring Sum Fall Supplemental N +Teb +Teb +Teb 1/2 lb N/1000 ft2 Fall+Spring 1/3 lb N/1000 ft2 Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring Spring (9/16/14 + 5/6/15, Fa+Sp. Fa+Sp Sum 10/5/15+5/6/16) June, July, August 2015+2016 +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb 2/3 lb N/1000 ft2 Summer only Fa+Sp Sum Fa+Sp Sum June, July, August 2015+2016 Spring Spring Fall Spring Fa+Sp +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb Duration® 120 day controlled-release 3 lbs. N / 1000 ft2 Sum Fall Spring Fa+Sp Sum (5/6/15, 5/6/16) Spring Fa+Sp Sum UTC +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb Current Findings Fa+Sp Spring Fall Spring Fall Sum Spring Spring Spring Year 1: Fall 2014 - Spring 2015 +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb Fertilizer timing had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on lowering large patch severity. Plots fertilized in the spring and fall+spring had significantly less non-green turf than plots where only UMaxxTM and urea Sum Fall Fa+Sp Spring Fall Fall Sum Fa+Sp Fa+Sp were applied in the summer of 2014 and those fertilized only in fall 2014 (Figure 1). Plots treated with +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb a single spring application of tebuconazole also had significantly more green turfgrass area than non- fungicide treated plots (Figure 2). No statistical differences were observed between nitrogen sources. Spring Spring Spring Fa+Sp Fa+Sp Fa+Sp Spring Spring UTC +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb

Sum Sum Sum Fall Fall Fall Fa+Sp Fa+Sp Fa+Sp +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb +Teb

Sum Sum Sum Fall Fall Fall Spring Spring Spring

Calcium Ammonium DurationTM Urea Nitrate Sulfate 120-Day

36 37 Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and 8 Nitrogen and Large Patch: When, Where, and Why? 9 large patch control

Year 2: Summer 2015 - Spring 2016 Lee Miller and Daniel Earlywine There was no large patch outbreak in fall 2015, but zoysia was significantly greener throughout the fall and greened up quicker in the spring when fall fertility was applied (P > 0.05). Similar to spring 2015, the single Warm season turfgrasses are utilized on sports fields, home lawns, and golf course fairways in Missouri spring tebuconazole application was effective in controlling large patch from spreading in the plots after due to their greater pest, drought, and heat tolerance during the summer stress periods when cool season treatment (P < 0.05). Plots which received nitrogen only in summer had numerically more non-green turf turfgrasses commonly fail. As with cool season grasses, when the metabolism wanes due to inhospitable en- than those that received nitrogen during large patch active periods, though there was no significant differ- vironmental conditions, diseases tend to take advantage. For the two most important warm season turfgrass ence between nitrogen timing on most dates (P > 0.05) (Figure 3). Ammonium sulfate-treated plots had diseases in Missouri, spring dead spot of bermudagrass and large patch on zoysiagrass, the infection period more non-green turf than calcium nitrate- and urea-treated plots on 6/10/16 and 6/16/16 but not on other occurs during the spring when the turf is either slowly coming out of dormancy or in the fall when the plant rating dates (Figure 4). is going into dormancy. Current work by the MU turfgrass pathology program is investigating methods for controlling these two diseases effectively through an integrated management strategy.

Fraze Mowing Effect on Spring Dead Spot of Bermudagrass Due to its rapid lateral growth and recovery from damage, bermudagrass is used primarily in Missouri as a playing surface for sports fields, and in some cases on golf course fairways. Spring dead spot, a soilborne disease caused by Ophiosphaer- ella spp. (mostly O. herpotricha in MO), is the most problematic pest issue. Several research trials have indicated hollow-tine aerification or other cultivation methods may reduce spring dead spot severity and increase fungicide efficacy. Recently, an intense surface cultivation method termed “fraze mowing” has gained popularity as Figure 3. Differences in non-green turf in first year of data collec- Figure 4. Differences in non-green turf in first year of data col- a method of thatch reduction and playing tion between different nitrogen application timings (2016). lection between different nitrogen s surface adjustment in sports fields. The objective of this research is to determine the impact of fraze mowing on spring dead spot severity, and determine how this prac- Summary tice can be implemented in an integrated The single spring application of tebuconazole was effective in controlling large patch from spreading, but not pest management plan for the disease. in preventing large patch outbreak. A fungicide application when spring 2”-soil temperatures reach 65°F is The trial was initiated on June 30, 2015 likely too late to expect acceptable disease control. More research on fungicide timing is needed to pinpoint at the MU Turfgrass Research Farm on a an application time to maximize large patch control. ‘Patriot’ bermudagrass plot. The entire 11,000 2ft block was inoculated with a four isolate mix of Ophios- phaerella herpotricha on September 13, 2013. Initial disease symptoms from inoculation occurred in late In both trial years, spring nitrogen applications did not increase non-green turf or large patch disease on zoy- May 2015. Plots were 5 ft× 10 ft and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. siagrass. Summer-only fertility plots had statistically more non-green turf and numerically more spring large Treatments were arranged in a split plot design with fraze mowing as the main plot and nitrogen source, patch disease than plots receiving nitrogen in the fall and/or spring. These findings are contrary to current manganese, and fungicide application as subplots. Fraze mowing was conducted on June 30,2015 at 4 and fertility practices, which suggest avoiding nitrogen applications during spring and fall to prevent large patch 8 mm with a Koro Field Topmaker® or not cultivated. Dissolved ammonium sulfate or calcium nitrate was outbreak on lush turf. Our research suggests that nitrogen applications in the spring and fall potentially give applied weekly at 0.5 lb N/1000 ft2 for six weeks after fraze mowing. Manganese treatments were ap- the zoysiagrass host an advantage over the pathogen. Increasing zoysiagrass growth and metabolism early in plied every other fertilizer application (3 times @ 2 week interval) as 2 lb manganese sulfate/A. Nitrogen the spring may actually reduce the potential for large patch infection rather than encourage it. and manganese treatments continued in summer 2016 with 1 lb N/1000 ft2 and 2 lb manganese sulfate/A applied monthly. Fungicide treated plots were sprayed with Velista (a.i. penthiopyrad) at 0.7 oz/1000 ft2 immediately after fraze mowing and again on 10/14/15. Treatments were immediately watered in with 0.2” of post-application irrigation. Spring dead spot severity and green cover were evaluated every 7 d by visual estimation of percent disease area and digital image analysis in spring 2016. Area under the disease progress 38 39 Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and 9 large patch control 9 large patch control

curve (AUDPC) was calculated with the trapezoidal rule. All data were subjected to analysis of variance, and Large Patch on Zoysiagrass where applicable means were separated with Fisher’s Protected LSD. Results from visual disease estimation are shown below. Large patch is the most important disease limiting zoysiagrass use for lawns and golf course fairways Current Findings in Missouri. Commonly utilized cultural management practices (increasing drainage, limiting exces- Fraze mowing at 8 mm alone and in combination with other treatments decreased spring dead spot severity sive leaf wetness periods) are often not sufficient compared to non-frazed plots. In this trial, sprayable ammonium sulfate reduced spring dead spot sever- to limit disease occurrence. Fungicide applications ity in the unfrazed plot compared to calcium nitrate, but no significant differences were noted among fraze are normally scheduled once or twice during the fall mowed plots. After a single year of use, manganese did not statistically reduce spring dead spot severity. and once again in the spring during high infection As expected, Velista fungicide applications consistently reduced spring dead spot severity compared to the periods. The MU turfgrass pathology program is cur- untreated control. A numerical increase in fungicide control was observed with with an increase in fraze rently focusing on the impact of nitrogen source and mowing depth. This effect could be caused by removing the thatch to enable better fungicide penetration or application timing on the large patch epidemic (see the protection of new, uninfected plant tissues (i.e. rhizomes, stolons), and deserves further investigation. Koehler report on page , and application strategies to maximize fungicide efficacy and perhaps reduce the overall number of applications necessary per annum.

Fungicide Application Strategy This USGA sponsored study is designed to investigate the impact of post-application irrigation, spring application timing, and fungicide selection on the control of a spring outbreak of large patch.

Each plot was inoculated in September 2015 with a three isolate mixture of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP inoculum. Plots were 5 ft× 10 ft and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments are indicated in the figure below.

40 41 Integrating management strategies for spring dead spot and The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & 9 large patch control 10 How to Support Them in the Landscape

Current Findings Carol Davit, Executive Director – Missouri Prairie Foundation No significant difference was observed among fungicide or post application irrigation treatments. The most and Grow Native Program pronounced difference was observed among spring timings. Significantly more large patch was observed in plots treated at the late spring timing (April 22) than the early spring timing (March 11). These timings were based from 5-day average soil temperature taken at 2”. This result indicates that in the large patch pathogen is probably active earlier than previously thought, and preventive fungicide applications can be made even on dormant zoysiagrass with good results.

Photo by: David Cappaert, Bugwood.org Jennifer E. Dacey, University of Rhode Island, Bugwood.org

Native bees, honeybees, beetles, wasps, butterflies, moths, and flies are important pollinators of our food crops and to sustaining our natural systems as MU Peoples Garden we know them. Native bees alone contribute $3 bil- lion worth of pollination services to the agriculture economy in the U.S. annually. Land care profession- als can create or enhance habitat, even on a small scale, to benefit these insects that we truly cannot live without. Learn about the different ways that insects pollinate plants, what these insects need to survive, and a short-list of native plants that are especially landscape-worthy and helpful to pollinators—to incorporate on a college or corporate campus, golf course, the back forty, or the backyard.

Grow Native! Program A program of the Missouri Prairie Foundation, Grow Native! shares knowledge to assist protection and restoration of landscape biodiversity by increasing conservation awareness of native plants and their effective use. By building alliances and collabora- Design, plant selection, and the use of ecologi- tion with private industry, non-profit organizations, cally sound cultural practices are key components government agencies and landowners, Grow Native! to creating a landscape that is both aesthetically aims to significantly increase the demand and use pleasing and sustainable. Few, if any, demonstration of native plants for application to all landscapes areas are available for Missouri residents to observe located in the lower Midwest. Portions of the lower vegetation and land utilization that incorporates Midwest served by Grow Native! include Missouri, each of these sustainable design elements. This 42 Kansas, southern Illinois and northern Arkansas. “Peoples Garden” will display native and ornamen- 43 The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & 10 How to Support Them in the Landscape 10 How to Support Them in the Landscape

tal plantings that are ideally suited for Missouri’s climate, and designed for erosion prevention and carbon consumption. The area will also be created with input reduction in mind, by integrating compost mulch use and water conservation practices (i.e. rain collection and drought tolerant species).

Common Name Scientific Name Black Eyed Susan Rudbeckia missouriensis Obedient Plant Physotegia virginiana Lanceleaf Coreopsis Coreopsis Lanceolata River Oats Chasmanthium latifolium Winterberry Ilex Verticillata ‘Nana Red Sprite’ Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpera ‘Magnus’ Verbena Verbena canadensis New Jersey Tea Ceanthos americanus Rose Verbena Verbena canadensis Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Soft Rush Juncus effusus Winterberry Ilex verticillata ‘Southern Gentleman’ Hazlenut, Filbert Corylus americana Beardtongue Penstemon digitalis ‘Husker Red’ Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium ‘MiniblueA’ Blue Heaven Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Tickseed) Coreopsis lanceolata Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Beard Tongue Penstemon cobaea Purple Coneflower Echinacea purperea Goldenrod Solidago rigida Yellow Flag Iris pseudacorus Theadleaf Bluestar Amsonia tabernaemontana Golden Currant Ribes auerum Butterfly Weed Asclepia tuberosa False Indigo Blue Baptisia australis Button Bush Cephalanthus occidentalis Thread Leaf Amsonia Amsonia hubrichtii Missouri Primrose Oemothera macrocarpa Serviceberry Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’ Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Willow-Leaved Sunflower Helianthus salicifolius Bluestar Amsonia ciliata Palm Sedge Carex muskingumensis

44 45 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

Brad Fresenburg, Lee Miller and Daniel Earlywine 2014 Creeping Bentgrass Fairway 2014 Creeping Bentgrass Putting Grn The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP)* has been and still is one of the most widely Mowing height: 0.38 to 0.50” – 2-3 times/week 0.110 to 0.125” – 6 times per week known sources for information on turfgrass species, cultivar selections and evaluations. NTEP is Nitrogen rate: 0.25 to 0.38 lb/1000 sqft*** 0.2 to 0.3 lb/1000 sqft/month designed to develop and coordinate uniform evaluation trials and now covers 17 species in their program within 40 U.S. states and six provinces of Canada. Irrigation: 50 to 65% potential ET Prevent stress to optimal Herbicides: Pre-emergence/broadleaf as need As needed Results can be used to determine if a cultivar is well adapted to a local area or level of turf maintenance. Each trial is designed to have a specific maintenance program followed during the life of the Fungicides: Curative only to prevent loss Curative only to prevent loss trial at a particular location. That information can be found on their website. Insecticides: Curative only to prevent loss To prevent damage Information such as turfgrass quality, color, density, resistance to diseases and insects, tolerance Core cultivation: Solid or hollow if cores removed Solid or hollow if cores removed to heat, cold, drought and traffic is collected and summarized by NTEP annually. NTEP information Vertical mowing: To control thatch as needed To control thatch as needed is used by individuals and companies in thirty countries. Plant breeders, turfgrass researchers and Topdressing: None To minimize thatch development extension personnel use NTEP data to identify improved environmentally-sound turfgrasses. Lo- cal and state government entities, such as parks and highway departments, use NTEP for locating Grooming: None Encouraged resource-efficient varieties. Most important, growers and consumers use NTEP extensively to pur- Planting Date: September 9, 2014 September 12, 2014 chase drought tolerant, pest resistant, attractive and durable seed or sod. It is the acceptance by ***Per growing month, however not monthly applications, 3-6 applications annually. the end-user that has made NTEP the standard for turfgrass evaluation in the U.S. and many other countries worldwide.

*Information from NTEP website. 2015 Low Input Cool-season 2015 Low Input Ancillary

Six cool-season NTEP trials are being conducted at the University of Missouri Turfgrass Research Mowing height: 3 to 3.5” 3 to 3.5” Facility. They are the 2012 Tall Fescue trial, 2014 Creeping Bentgrass – Fairway trial, 2014 Creep- Nitrogen rate****: 0.5 lb/1000 sqft (spring 2016) 0.5/1000 sqft (spring 2016) ing Bentgrass Putting Green trial, 2014 Fine Fescue trial, 2015 Low Input Cool-season trial, and the 2015 Low Input Cool-season Ancillary trial. The following is the maintenance guidelines set forth Irrigation: Establishment only Establishment only by NTEP for these trials. This is the fourth season for the tall fescue trial, the second season for the Herbicides: None 2016 only (Dimension) fine fescue and bentgrass trials, and the first season for the low input trials. Fungicides: None None Maintenance guidelines: Insecticides: None None 2012 Tall Fescue Trial 2014 Fine Fescue Trial Core cultivation: None None Clippings: Return Return Mowing height: 2.5 to 3.5” 1.5 to 2.5” ****Lime and fertilizer per soil test for establishment; applied 0.5 lb/1000 sqft in Spring 2016; P and K can be applied in ** Nitrogen rate: 0 to 0.25 lb/1000 sqft 0 to 1.0 lb/1000 sqft/year Spring 2016 per soil test. Irrigation: 50 to 65% potential ET To prevent severe drought stress Attached are plot plans of these four trials, and some of the most recent data. Feel free to look Herbicides: Minimal to prevent stand loss Pre-emergence/broadleaf as needed through the numerous cultivars on-site and try to pick your favorites. Fungicides: None None Insecticides: None None Planting Date: October 2, 2012 September 9, 2014 **Per growing month, however not monthly applications, 2-4 applications annually.

46 47 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

2012 Tall Fescue NTEP Trial S 2012 NATIONAL TALL FESCUE TEST

19 109 103 32 15 69 55 Revolution Entry Name Sponsor Entry No. Name Sponsor 1 Teranno Samillas Fito S.A. 59 Firebird 2 Burlingham Seeds 26 4 104 51 22 114 25 8 102 17 60 2 Ky-31 Standard Entry 60 Bullseye Standard Entry 47 106 68 39 18 13 12 62 14 21 24 3 Regenerate Landmark Turf & Native Seed 61 PST-5EV2 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 4 Fesnova Semillas Fito S.A. 62 PST-5GRB Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 101 99 115 95 87 63 84 9 27 64 2 5 ZW 44 Z Seeds 63 PST-5SALT Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 6 W45 Turf Merchants, Inc. 64 PST-5SDT Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 6 82 77 43 90 40 85 61 29 97 16 7 U43 Turf Merchants, Inc. 65 PST-5DZP Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 8 LSD Turf Merchants, Inc. 66 PST-5RO5 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 67 100 53 38 89 59 76 108 35 112 81 9 Aquaduct Turf Merchants, Inc. 67 PST-5BPO Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 10 Catalyst Standard Entry 68 PST-5BRK Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 110 42 86 73 31 56 28 80 96 7 105 11 Marauder Ledeboer Seed LLC 69 DB1 John Deere Landscapes 12 Warhawk Ledeboer Seed LLC 70 RZ2 John Deere Landscapes 66 111 20 107 88 116 10 41 75 79 58 13 Annihilator Ledeboer Seed LLC 71 TD1 Columbia Seeds LLC 14 Comp. Res. SST Ledeboer Seed LLC 72 DZ1 Columbia Seeds LLC 78 1 30 44 23 71 3 92 11 5 54 15 204 Res. Blk4 Ledeboer Seed LLC 73 T31 Landmark Turf & Native Seed 16 JS 819 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 74 PSG-GSD Pickseed West, Inc. 48 72 49 98 46 94 83 93 36 52 91 17 JS 818 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 75 PSG-8BP2 Pickseed West, Inc. 18 57 65 74 37 34 45 70 33 50 113 18 JS 809 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 76 PSG-TT4 Pickseed West, Inc. 19 JS 916 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 77 Faith Standard Entry 106 4 14 24 26 12 109 22 8 114 25 20 JS 825 Jacklin Seed by Simplot® 78 K 12-13 The Scotts Company 21 MET 1 The Scotts Company 79 K 12-05 The Scotts Company 76 28 105 1 31 87 96 17 102 104 13 22 F711 The Scotts Company 80 PPG-TF-156 Peak Plant Genetics 23 IS-TF 291 DLF International Seed 81 PPG-TF-157 Columbia Seeds LLC 85 20 30 111 32 21 15 103 97 81 89 24 IS-TF 276 M2 DLF International Seed 82 PPG-TF-169 Columbia Seeds LLC 25 IS-TF 305 SEL DLF International Seed 83 PPG-TF-170 Columbia Seeds LLC 19 2 5 115 9 93 11 40 45 10 29 26 IS-TF 269 SEL DLF International Seed 84 PPG-TF-137 Lewis Seed Company 27 IS-TF 282 M2 DLF International Seed 85 PPG-TF-135 Ampac Seed Company 69 6 47 36 46 86 42 59 95 65 35 28 IS-TF 284 M2 DLF International Seed 86 PPG-TF-115 Lewis Seed Company 29 OR-21 Great Basin Seed 87 PPG-TF-105 Lewis Seed Company 72 108 98 7 53 27 116 33 56 41 44 30 TY 10 Great Basin Seed 88 PPG-TF-172 Peak Plant Genetics 3 100 37 23 48 34 51 55 75 90 50 31 Exp TF-09 Great Basin Seed 89 PPG-TF-151 Grassland Oregon 32 SRX-TPC Seed Research of Oregon 90 PPG-TF-152 Peak Plant Genetics 112 113 68 49 91 99 16 88 71 60 74 33 PSG-WE1 Pickseed West, Inc. 91 PPG-TF-148 Peak Plant Genetics 34 Pick-W43 Pickseed West, Inc. 92 PPG-TF-150 Columbia Seeds LLC 52 73 84 39 78 38 54 63 61 43 107 35 Grade 3 Pickseed West, Inc. 93 Bizem Semillas Fito S.A. 36 PSG-PO1 Pickseed West, Inc. 94 CCR2 Proseeds Marketing 66 110 64 57 83 92 101 82 70 94 79 37 U45 Landmark Turf & Native Seed 95 MET-3 Proseeds Marketing 38 B23 Pennington Seed 96 W41 The Scotss Company 26 24 103 104 114 102 77 80 67 62 58 39 ATF 1612 Pennington Seed 97 PPG-TF-145 Peak Plant Genetics 40 ATF 1704 Pennington Seed 98 PPG-TF-138 Ampac Seed Company 11 28 76 96 59 106 19 105 97 12 25 41 Burl TF-2 Burlingham Seed 99 PPG-TF-139 Landmark Turf & Native Seed 42 Burl TF-136 Burlingham Seed 100 PPG-TF-142 Landmark Turf & Native Seed 15 22 4 32 9 14 111 20 27 13 29 43 LTP-FSD Lebanon Turf Products 101 RAD-TF-89 Columbia Seeds LLC 85 116 3 39 10 21 87 95 31 88 6 44 LTP-TWUU Lebanon Turf Products 102 RAD-TF-92 Radix Research 45 LTP-F5DPDR Lebanon Turf Products 103 GO-DFR Grasslands Oregon 18 100 5 1 45 23 30 40 2 16 115 46 IS-TF 289 DLF International Seed 104 K 12-MCD The Scotts Company 47 MET 6 SEL DLF International Seed 105 PST-5EX2 Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 112 91 92 72 84 74 68 113 101 7 90 48 IS-TF 330 Columbia Seeds LLC 106 PST-5MVD Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 49 TF-287 Columbia Seeds LLC 107 RAD-TF-83 Oak Park Farms 36 98 17 8 109 56 38 43 53 54 48 50 IS-TF 307 SEL Columbia Seeds LLC 108 RAD-TF-88 Grassland Oregon 51 IS-TF 308 SEL Columbia Seeds LLC 109 BAR Fa 120878 Barenbrug USA 33 37 86 108 58 44 50 46 65 78 41 52 IS-TF 311 Brett-Young Seeds 110 BAR Fa 121089 Barenbrug USA 53 IS-TF 285 Brett-Young Seeds 111 BAR Fa 121091 Barenbrug USA 94 80 79 110 42 69 89 83 49 34 93 54 IS-TF 310 SEL Brett-Young Seeds 112 BAR Fa 121095 Barenbrug USA 55 IS-TF 272 DLF International Seed 113 PST-R5NW Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. 35 81 107 82 60 99 47 70 67 63 77 56 ATF 1736 Pennington Seed 114 Burl TF-69 Burlingham Seeds 57 ATF 1754 Brett-Young Seeds 115 Falcon IV Standard Entry 71 75 57 62 52 51 61 73 66 55 64 48 58 Hemi Burlingham Seeds 116 Falcon V Standard Entry 49 5 X 5 plots, RCBD, 3 replications, 116 cultivars (55’ X 160’) Planted: October 2, 2012 UPDATED 8/28/12 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

2014 Fine Fescue NTEP Trial

22 33 23 39 15 37

30 28 18 8 25 32 24 29 35 27

4 21 42 26 5 13 16 9 14 6

17 36 7 19 10 3 31 40 12 41

31 17 20 23 34 2 20 1 38 11

14 10 39 13 19 22 32 35 15 36

16 8 24 2 40 28 34 4 3 25

1 37 30 12 6 27 11 38 33 18

6 12 9 7 29 21 41 5 42 26

37 41 40 13 11 5 10 3 8 7

22 25 28 29 1 36 4 2 30 14

24 15 20 33 21 19 17 23 18 31

35 34 9 42 39 26 38 32 16 27

Planted: ___9/9/2014______S

50 51 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

2014 Creeping Bentgrass NTEP Putting Green Trial

12 5 1 4 15 9 19 13 8 11

20 14 7 18 3 6 16 10 2 17

12 17 13 4 3 18 2 11 6 16

10 15 20 1 8 14 5 9 7 19

1 5 19 11 7 4 9 12 3 13

16 6 8 15 10 18 2 14 17 20

Planted ___9/12/2014____ N

No. Name Sponsor 1 * Luminary Standard 2 777 (DLFPS-AP/3054) DLF Pickseed USA 3 DLFPS-AP/3018 DLF Pickseed USA 4 DLFPS-AP/3056 DLF Pickseed USA 5 DLFPS-AP/3058 DLF Pickseed USA 6 DLFPS-AP/3059 DLF Pickseed USA 7 * Pure Select Tee-2-Green 8 * Penn A-1 Standard 9 * Penncross Standard 10 * L-93XD Jacklin Seed by Simplot 11 * Armor Jacklin Seed by Simplot 12 * Kingdom Jacklin Seed by Simplot 13 * Nightlife Jacklin Seed by Simplot 14 * V-8 Jacklin Seed by Simplot 15 GDE Semillas Fito 16 Piranha (DC-1) Mountain View Seeds 17 PST-ROPS Mountain View Seeds 18 * Shark Mountain View Seeds 19 * Barracuda Mountain View Seeds 20 * Declaration Standard 52 53 * Commercially Available in 2016 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

2014 Creeping Bentgrass NTEP Fairway Trial

12 10 13 9 11 6 8 15 X

17 5 1 3 16 2 4 7 14

13 11 4 5 12 16 10 6 X

15 17 9 7 1 3 8 14 2

11 6 14 4 17 1 3 16 X

9 8 12 2 10 13 7 5 15

Planted ___9/9/2014____ S

No. Name Species Sponsor 1 DLFPS-AT/3026 Colonial DLF Pickseed USA 2 * 007 Creeping Standard 3 * Penncross Creeping Standard 4 * Crystal Blue Links Creeping Standard 5 * Greentime Colonial Standard 6 * L-93XD Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot 7 * Armor Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot 8 * Kingdom Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot 9 * Nightlife Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot 10 * V-8 Creeping Jacklin Seed by Simplot 11 Piranha (DC-1) Creeping Mountain View Seeds 12 Musket (PPG-AT-104) Colonial Mountain View Seeds 13 Chinook (H10G-OP) Creeping Vista Seed Partners LLC 14 * Shark Creeping Mountain View Seeds 15 * Barracuda Creeping Mountain View Seeds 16 PST-0RBS Creeping Pure Seed Testing 17 PST-0CV6 Creeping Pure Seed Testing 54 55 * Commercially Available in 2016 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Cool Season 1 Turfgrasses 1 Turfgrasses

2015 Low Input Cool-season Ancillary Trial

11 12 14 29 25 8 24 1 4 19 13 5 10 23 27 31

16 20 6 18 30 26 3 17 7 9 22 15 28 21 2 32

17 26 22 27 30 31 3 5 24 15 2 32 23 19 14 11

21 7 20 28 18 25 12 29 16 8 10 1 6 13 9 4

2 22 18 13 25 5 14 20 32 1 21 12 16 28 3 27

4 26 24 23 9 10 8 30 29 15 6 17 7 19 31 11

2015 Low Input Cool-season Trial

25 4 6 28 2 27 29 7 5 32 26 16 30 3 13 11

19 14 24 8 1 9 21 18 20 23 12 15 31 22 17 10

22 18 20 23 26 27 8 28 13 32 17 5 11 16 31 1

4 14 30 24 6 25 9 7 15 19 3 12 21 29 2 10

16 26 13 9 15 24 29 11 14 32 25 31 30 2 4 8

21 20 19 22 28 23 17 7 27 3 6 10 1 18 12 5

56 57 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season 2 Turfgrasses 2 Turfgrasses

Lee Miller, Brad Fresenburg, and Daniel Earlywine 2013 Bermudagrass NTEP Trial

1-Tifway-V 8-OKS 2009-3-S 15-JSC 2009-2-s 22-11-T-251-V 29-PST-R6T9S-S Warm season turfgrasses have the distinct advantage of C4 carbon fixation, which avoids carbon 2-Latitude 36-V 9-OKS 2011-1-S 16-JSC 2009-6-s 23-11-T-510-V 30-PST-R6CT-S crunching photorespiration and affords them greater performance in limiting nitrogen, disease, drought, and heat stress. In 2013, we established two new trials with support from the National 3-Patriot-V 10-OKS 2011-4-S 17-Riviera-S 24-DT-1-V 31-BAR C291-S Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP). This program, started by J.J. Murray with a 1980 trial on 4-Celebration-V 11-JSC 2-21-1-v 18-Yukon-S 25-FAES 1325-V 32-OKC 1131-V Kentucky bluegrass, evaluates varieties of 17 different turfgrass species in 40 different states and 6 19-North Shore 5-NuMex-Sahara-S 12-JSC 2-21-18-v 26-FAES 1326-V 33-OKC 1163-V Canadian provinces. SLT-S Information such as turfgrass quality, color, density, resistance to diseases and insects, tolerance 6-Princess 77-S 13-JSC 2007-8-s 20-12-TSB-1-S 27-FAES 1327-V 34-OKC 1302-V to heat, cold, drought and traffic is collected and summarized by NTEP annually. NTEP information 7-MBG 002-S 14-JSC 2007-13-s 21-MSB 281-V 28-PST-R6P0-S 35-Astro-V is used by individuals and companies in thirty countries. Plant breeders, turfgrass researchers and extension personnel use NTEP data to identify improved environmentally-sound turfgrasses. Lo- 15-JSC 2009-2-s 33-OKC 1163-V 22-11-T-251-V 9-OKS 2011-1-S 35-Astro-V cal and state government entities, such as parks and highway departments, use NTEP for locating 11-JSC 2-21-1-v 7-MBG 002-S 4-Celebration-V 31-BAR C291-S 14-JSC 2007-13-s resource-efficient varieties. Most important, growers and consumers use NTEP extensively to pur- 19-North Shore 25-FAES 1325-V 10-OKS 2011-4-S 27-FAES 1327-V 21-MSB 281-V chase drought tolerant, pest resistant, attractive and durable seed or sod. It is the acceptance by SLT-S the end-user that has made NTEP the standard for turfgrass evaluation in the U.S. and many other 1-Tifway-V 29-PST-R6T9S-S 28-PST-R6P0-S 2-Latitude 36-V 8-OKS 2009-3-S countries worldwide. 5-NuMex-Sahara-S 23-11-T-510-V 32-OKC 1131-V 20-12-TSB-1-S 12-JSC 2-21-18-v West The two trials at the University of Missouri Turfgrass Research Facility are focused on the utility of 17-Riviera-S 18-Yukon-S 34-OKC 1302-V 16-JSC 2009-6-s 3-Patriot-V new zoysiagrass and bermudagrass cultivars in the northern transition zone. We also will be conducting two important ancillary host resistance trials. We will be joining the University of Arkan- 6-Princess 77-S 13-JSC 2007-8-s 24-DT-1-V 26-FAES 1326-V 30-PST-R6CT-S sas in evaluating large patch resistance in new zoysiagrass cultivars, and will be the only location 19-North Shore 27-FAES 1327-V 28-PST-R6P0-S 24-DT-1-V 12-JSC 2-21-18-v evaluating spring dead spot resistance in new bermudagrass cultivars. First, however, the two trials SLT-S needed to get past their first Missouri winter. The winter of 2013-14 was the coldest in the previous 32-OKC 1131-V 22-11-T-251-V 2-Latitude 36-V 30-PST-R6CT-S 10-OKS 2011-4-S 35 years, and there was considerable attrition and winterkill in the two trials. 26-FAES 1326-V 7-MBG 002-S 4-Celebration-V 13-JSC 2007-8-s 25-FAES 1325-V

Maintenance Guidelines 16-JSC 2009-6-s 21-MSB 281-V 15-JSC 2009-2-s 5-NuMex-Sahara-S 8-OKS 2009-3-S The following are the maintenance guidelines set forth by NTEP for these trials. 33-OKC 1163-V 17-Riviera-S 9-OKS 2011-1-S 23-11-T-510-V 20-12-TSB-1-S

Bermudagrass Zoysiagrass 29-PST-R6T9S-S 3-Patriot-V 31-BAR C291-S 6-Princess 77-S 34-OKC 1302-V Mowing Height 0.75” 0.75” 35-Astro-V 11-JSC 2-21-1-v 14-JSC 2007-13-s 18-Yukon-S 1-Tifway-V Mowing Frequency 2-4 times/week 2-4 times/week North Nitrogen Rate 1 lb N/1000 ft2/growing month 0.3 lb N/1000 ft2/growing month Irrigation Drought stress prevention Drought stress prevention * Commercially Available in 2016 Fungicides & Insecticides None None Herbicides Broadleaf and preemergents Broadleaf and preemergents Initial Planting Date June 14, 2013 June 27, 2013 Replant Date June 27, 2014 June 27, 2014

58 59 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season 2 Turfgrasses 2 Turfgrasses

Recent Results

Seven of the thirty-five bermudagrass varieties survived the polar vortex of 2013-14 and did not require replanting in 2014. After replant, 22 cultivars survived the second winter (quality ~ 2). In general, the highest performing vegetative bermudagrass cultivars have higher turfgrass quality (finer texture, higher density, lack of seedhead production) than the best performing seeded varieties. In September 2015, varieties were challenged with inoculum of Ophiosphaerella herpotricha, and will be evaluated for spring dead spot resistance.

60 61 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season 2 Turfgrasses 2 Turfgrasses

2013 Zoysiagrass NTEP Trial 2014 Replant

22-FAES 1313 26-FAES 1317 16-FAES 1306 34-KSUZ 1201 6-09-TZ-53-20 No. Name Type Sponsor 4-10-TZ-35 20-FAES 1310 3-Empire 14-FAES 1304 7-09-TZ-54-9 1 * Meyer Vegetative Standard Entry 31-FAES 1329 2-Zeon 17-FAES 1307 29-FAES 1322 21-FAES 1312 2 * Zeon X Vegetative Standard Entry 27-FAES 1318 35-A-1 19-FAES 1309 28-FAES 1319 33-DALZ 1302 3 * Empire X Vegetative Standard Entry 4 10-TZ-35 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission 32-DALZ 1301 10-DALZ 1303 13-FAES 1303 8-GGZ 504 12-CSZ 1109 5 10-TZ-1254 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission 25-FAES 1316 18-FAES 1308 24-FAES 1315 23-FAES 1314 1-Meyer 6 09-TZ-53-20 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission 5-10-TZ-1254 30-FAES 1328 9-11-TZ-4321 11-CSZ 1105 15-FAES 1305 7 09-TZ-54-9 X Vegetative Georgia Seed Development Commission 1-Meyer 8-GGZ 504 15-FAES 1305 22-FAES 1313 29-FAES 1322 8 GGZ 504 X Vegetative UGA Research Foundation 2-Zeon 9-11-TZ-4321 16-FAES 1306 23-FAES 1314 30-FAES 1328 9 11-TZ-4321 X Vegetative Bladerunner Farms 3-Empire 10-DALZ 1303 17-FAES 1307 24-FAES 1315 31-FAES 1329 10 DALZ 1303 X Vegetative Bladerunner Farms 4-10-TZ-35 11-CSZ 1105 18-FAES 1308 25-FAES 1316 32-DALZ 1301 11 CSZ 1105 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife Research 5-10-TZ-1254 12-CSZ 1109 19-FAES 1309 26-FAES 1317 33-DALZ 1302 West 12 CSZ 1109 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife Research 6-09-TZ-53-20 13-FAES 1303 20-FAES 1310 27-FAES 1318 34-KSUZ 1201 13 FAES 1303 X Vegetative University of Florida 14 FAES 1304 X Vegetative University of Florida 7-09-TZ-54-9 14-FAES 1304 21-FAES 1312 28-FAES 1319 35-A-1 15 FAES 1305 X Vegetative University of Florida 27-FAES 1318 31-FAES 1329 34-KSUZ 1201 16-FAES 1306 17-FAES 1307 16 FAES 1306 X Vegetative University of Florida 2-Zeon 11-CSZ 1105 30-FAES 1328 7-09-TZ-54-9 23-FAES 1314 17 FAES 1307 X Vegetative University of Florida 33-DALZ 1302 8-GGZ 504 3-Empire 12-CSZ 1109 6-09-TZ-53-20 18 FAES 1308 X Vegetative University of Florida 29-FAES 1322 9-11-TZ-4321 21-FAES 1312 18-FAES 1308 5-10-TZ-1254 19 FAES 1309 X XVegetative University of Florida 25-FAES 1316 4-10-TZ-35 35-A-1 24-FAES 1315 1-Meyer 20 FAES 1310 X Vegetative University of Florida 32-DALZ 1301 20-FAES 1310 13-FAES 1303 14-FAES 1304 22-FAES 1313 21 FAES 1312 X Vegetative University of Florida 10-DALZ 1303 28-FAES 1319 26-FAES 1317 15-FAES 1305 19-FAES 1309 22 FAES 1313 X Vegetative University of Florida North 23 FAES 1314 X Vegetative University of Florida 24 FAES 1315 X Vegetative University of Florida 25 FAES 1316 X Vegetative University of Florida 26 FAES 1317 X Vegetative University of Florida 27 FAES 1318 X Vegetative University of Florida 28 FAES 1319 X Vegetative University of Florida 29 FAES 1322 X Vegetative University of Florida 30 FAES 1328 X Vegetative University of Florida 31 FAES 1329 X Vegetative University of Florida 32 DALZ 1301 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife 33 DALZ 1302 X Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife 34 KSUZ 1201 Vegetative Texas A&M Agrilife/Kansas State University 35 * A-1 X Vegetative Gene Pro PTY LTD

62 * Commercially Available in 2016 63 National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Trials – Warm Season Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring 2 Turfgrasses 3 Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

Recent Results Daniel Earlywine and Lee Miller Only two of the thirty-five varieties (KSUZ 1201 and Meyer) did not require replanting in 2014. After replant, 11 varieties (shown below) survived the second winter and have at least some zoysia Summary present in a plot. Several newer varieties outperform Meyer in turfgrass quality due to a lack of Fairy ring is traditionally difficult to control from a curative standpoint during the summer months when seedhead production, finer texture, and higher density. In September 2015, varieties were chal- symptoms may appear. Two fungicide trials were conducted on a 4-year-old ‘Penn A-1’ creeping bentgrass lenged with inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 LP, and will be evaluated for large patch resis- green. The trial area was mowed five times a week at a height of 0.130 inches. The putting green was tance. watered as needed to prevent drought stress and Revolution (6.0 fl oz/1000ft2) was applied every 4 weeks to control localized dry spot from May to September. During that same time period, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000ft2) are being applied every 2 weeks.

Trial 1 was designed to evaluate two experimental fungicides and ProStar for preventative fairy ring control. Initial applications were made on April 22, when the average 5 day soil temperature at a 2 inch depth was 55°F. All treatments were immediately watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation following each application. Treatments were reapplied every 28 days with a total of 4 applications.

Current Findings Trial 1. Although this is primarily a fairy ring study, we observed dollar spot with in the trial area on June 3. By June 17, both EXP 1 and 2 had significantly less dollar spot severity than plots treated with ProStar and the untreated control. Type II fairy ring symptoms were first observed within the untreated control plots on June 17. No fairy ring symptoms have been observed in all fungicide treated plots. Similar results in turf quality were also noted among treatments tested. With an increase in dollar spot pressure and fairy ring symptoms in mid June, both EXP 1 and 2 treated plots had significantly higher turf quality on the June 17 rating date than plots treated with ProStar and the untreated control. We will continue evaluated this trial for any additional disease symptoms we continue through the summer.

Trial 1. Dollar spot and fairy ring control. Dollar Spot Severity Fairy Ring

(# of infection centers)y Severity (%)z Application Interval Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 3 Jun 17 Jun 17 Jun Untreated Control ------5.0 ax 13.8 a 7.5 a EXP 1 - ABCDw 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a EXP 2 - ABCD 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.0 a ProStar 4.5 oz ABCD 7.5 a 18.5 a 0.0 a

zFairy ring severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-22 Apr, B-20 May, C-17 Jun, D-15 Jul.

64 65 3 Evaluation of Preventative Fungicide Applications for Fairy Ring 4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

Trial 1. Turf Quality. Daniel Earlywine and Lee Miller Turf Qualityz Application Interval Summary 2 Treatment Rate/1000 ft 3 Jun 17 Jun Four fungicide trials were conducted to evaluate turf quality and summer disease control using multiple la- Untreated Control ------6.7 ay 5.6 b beled and experimental fungicides. All trials were conducted on a ‘Penncross’ creeping bentgrass green that EXP 1 - ABCDx 7.6 a 7.2 a is >20 years old. The green was mowed 5 times a week at a height of 0.130 inches. All trials were watered 2 EXP 2 - ABCD 7.3 a 6.8 a as needed to prevent drought stress, and Revolution (6.0 fl oz/1000 ft ) is applied on greens every 4 weeks to minimize localized dry spot. From May to September, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000ft2) + Ferromec 5.1 6.0 ProStar 4.5 oz ABCD a b Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000ft2) is being applied every two weeks. Dollar spot symptoms oc- z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. curred in the trial area in early to mid April before initiation. Therefore, two curative applications of Daconil 2 yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Ultrex at (3.25 oz/1000ft ) were applied to the trial area prior to trial initiation in early May. xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-22 Apr, B-20 May, C-17 Jun, D-15 Jul. Trial 1: was designed to evaluate preventative dollar spot and brown patch control. Treatments consisted of: Lexicon Intrinsic, Lexicon Intrinsic + Signature Xtra StressGard, Appear + Heritage Action + Velista, Tartan, Trial 2. Briskway, and Fame +T. Treatments were initiated on May 6 and reapplied every 14 or 21-days with a total of 6 and 4 applications made by July 19, respectively. Following field day, two additional applications will be Trial 2 was designed to evaluate ProStar, Lexicon Intrinsic, Briskway, and Velista for curative fairy ring control. made. Plots were sprayed on 5 July and watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation. An additional application will be made again 4 weeks later. Below is a plot map with treatment arrangement and outlining the fairy Trial 2: was designed to evaluate Emerald alone, Kabuto alone, and Kabuto + experimental treatments for ring symptoms within the plots. Additional ratings will be taken throughout July and August to evaluated preventative dollar spot control on greens height creeping bentgrass. All treatments were initiated on May turfgrass recovery from fairy ring symptoms. 6. Treatments were reapplied on 14, 21, or 28-day interval with a total of 6, 4, and 3 applications made by July 19, respectively. Following field day, three additional applications will be made.

Trial 3 and 4: was designed to evaluate Fame +T and Kabuto in combination with experimental products for preventative dollar spot and brown patch control. Both trial 3 and 4 were initiated on May 6 and May 18, respectively. Subsequent applications were made on 14 or 28-day intervals. For Trial 3, treatments applied on 14 or 28-day intervals will have had 6 and 3 applications applied by July 19. For Trial 4, treatments applied on 14 or 28-day intervals will have had 5 and 3 applications applied by July 19, respectively. Following field day one additional application will be made.

Pathogen inoculation was conducted on trial 1 and 4 only. On June 17, both trials were inoculated with rye grain infested with a mixture of four isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 IIIB, the causal pathogen of brown patch. Inoculum was uniformly applied at 25 cc per plot using a small broadcast spreader, and left on the turf surface for 3 days to enable pathogen development.

Current Findings Trial 1: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 6. From May 26 to June 17, all treated plots had significantly less dollar spot infection centers per plot compared to the untreated control. Brown patch was first noted in the trial area on June 6, however, no statistical differences in brown patch control were noted among treated and untreated plots until June 17. On that date, all treated plots were significantly lower in brown patch severity than the untreated control. No significant differences in brown patch control have been observed among tested treatments. Acceptable turf quality (≥6) was observed in all treated plots and was significantly higher than the untreated control from May 26 to June 17. This trial will continue to be rated for disease control throughout the summer.

66 67 4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch 4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

68 69 4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch 4 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green

Trial 2: A minimal amount of dollar spot was observed when the trial was initiated on May 6. On both May Trial 3: Dollar spot (<7 infection centers/plot) was observed across the trial area when the first fungicide 26 and June 17, all treated plots had significantly less dollar spot severity than the untreated control. On application was made (May 6). No statistical difference in dollar spot control was noted until June 3. All both May 26 and 17 Jun, plots treated with EXP1 (21 day interval), had significantly more dollar spot sever- treatments of Kabuto + EXP1, 2, 3, and 4, applied on a 14 day interval had significantly less dollar spot than ity than Kabuto (14 day interval). Brown patch was first noted on June 3 within the trial area, however, no plots treated with Kabuto+ EXP 3 (28 day interval). From June 3 through the 17, all treated plots had less dol- differences have been observed between treated and untreated plots. On May 26, turf quality in all treated lar spot than the untreated control. Similar results were also noted in turf quality for the month of June. On plots was significantly higher than the untreated control. By June 17, as dollar spot and brown patch sever- June 3, plots treated on a 14 day interval tended to have higher turf quality than plots treated every 28 days. ity increased, turf quality was reduced to below acceptable levels (6) in all treated and untreated plots. This Acceptable turf quality (≥6) was noted throughout the month of June for all treated plots. This trial will con- trial will continue to be evaluated for disease control as we continue through the summer. tinue to be rated for disease control throughout the summer.

Trial 2. Dollar spot and Brown Patch Control Trial 3. Dollar spot Control Dollar Spot Severity Brown Patch Dollar Spot Severity (# of infection centers)y Severity (%)z (# of infection centers)z Application Application Interval Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Interval 20 May 3 Jun 17 Jun 2 Treatment Rate/1000 ft 26 May 17 Jun 17 Jun Untreated Control ------5.5 ay 36.3 a 40.8 a x Untreated Control ------19.0 a 35.5 a 13.3 a Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 0.5 a 0.0 c 0.0 b w Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ABDEFHIJL 2.0 c 4.5 cd 16.8 a Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 2.0 a 8.0 bc 0.0 b EXP1 - ACEGIKM 10.8 b 21.3 b 14.3 a Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 3.8 a 0.3 c 0.0 b Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ACEGIKM 4.5 bc 14.3 bc 9.3 a Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 3.0 a 14.0 bc 0.0 b Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ADFIL 7.0 bc 12.8 bc 12.5 a Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 1.5 a 0.0 c 0.0 b EXP1 - ADFIL 4.5 bc 7.0 cd 8.5 a Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 4.5 a 15.0 b 0.0 b Emerald 0.13 oz ACEGIKM 4.0 bc 0.0 d 7.0 a Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 0.3 a 0.0 c 0.0 b zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 1.5 a 11.0 bc 0.0 b yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 1.3 a 8.8 bc 1.0 b wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-27 May, D-3 Jun, E- 17 Jun , F- 1 Jul , G- 8 Jul, H-15 Jul, I-29 Jul, J- 12 Aug, z K-19 Aug, L- 26 Aug, M- 9 Sept. Dollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-3 Jun, D-17 Jun, E- 1 Jul , F- 15 Jul , G- 29 Jul. Trial 2. Turf Quality Turf Qualityz Trial 3. Turf Quality Application Turf Quality z Interval Application Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 26 May 17 Jun Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Interval 20 May 3 Jun 17 Jun Untreated Control ------5.7 by 4.8 a Untreated Control ------6.2 ay 5.5 d 4.8 d Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ABDEFHIJLx 6.8 a 5.5 a Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 6.8 a 7.3 a 7.0 abc EXP1 - ACEGIKM 6.3 ab 5.0 a Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.7 a 6.5 bc 7.3 a Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ACEGIKM 6.8 a 5.2 a Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 5.3 a 7.1 ab 7.1 abc Kabuto 0.5 fl oz ADFIL 6.5 a 5.2 a Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 a 6.2 c 7.0 abc EXP1 - ADFIL 6.6 a 5.6 a Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.1 a 7.2 a 7.1 abc Emerald 0.13 oz ACEGIKM 6.8 a 5.7 a Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.6 a 6.1 cd 7.2 ab z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.2 a 7.1 ab 6.8 bc yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-27 May, D-3 Jun, E- 17 Jun , F- 1 Jul , G- 8 Jul, H-15 Jul, I-29 Jul, J- 12 Aug, Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 a 6.2 c 7.0 abc K-19 Aug, L- 26 Aug, M- 9 Sept. Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 7.1 a 6.3 c 6.7 c

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-6 May, B-20 May, C-3 Jun, D-17 Jun, E- 1 Jul , F- 15 Jul , G- 29 Jul. 70 71 Evaluating Fungicide Efficacy for Dollar spot and Brown Patch Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease 4 Control on a Creeping Bentgrass Putting Green 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass

Trial 4: As with trial 3, trial 4 had several dollar spot lesions within the trial area when the trial was initiated on May 18. On both June 1 and 15 rating dates, all treated plots had less dollar spot severity than Daniel Earlywine and Lee Miller the untreated control. During that same time period, no significant differences in dollar spot control were noted among treatments tested. Brown patch was first noted on June 15, however no statistical difference Introduction in brown patch control has been observed among the treatments. Similar to Trial 3, acceptable turf quality Fungicide programs are designed to control a wide array of diseases from early spring to late fall. By rotat- (≥6) was noted throughout the month of June for all treated plots and significantly higher than the untreated ing fungicides based on their FRAC code and modes of action, golf superintendents reduce the likelihood of control. This trial will continue throughout the summer. fungicide resistance while maintaining high turfgrass quality and disease control. Trial 4. Brown Patch Control. Dollar Spot Severity Brown Patch Severity Summary y z (# of infection centers) (%) Three separate trials were conducted to evaluate turf quality and summer disease control using multiple fun- Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Application 1 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun gicide programs. Trial 1 was conducted on ‘Penneagle II’ creeping bentgrass maintained at a fairway height Interval and trials 2 and 3 were conducted on a “Penncross’ creeping bentgrass putting green. The fairway height Untreated Control ------19.3 ax 30.8 a 4.3 a trial area was mowed twice a week at a height of 0.5 inches. The greens height trial area was 5 times a Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGw 2.3 b 0.3 b 0.3 a week at a height of 0.130 inches. All trials were watered as needed to prevent drought stress. From May to September, a 30-0-0 liquid fertilizer (0.2 lb N/1000 2ft ) + Ferromec Liquid Iron 10-2-4 + micros (1.0 fl oz/1000 Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 0.5 b 0.0 b 0.0 a ft2) is applied once a month to fairway height creeping bentgrass and 2 times a month on greens. Revolution Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 1.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a (6.0 fl oz/1000 2ft ) is also being applied on Trial 2 and 3 every 4 weeks to control localized dry spot. For trial Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 2.0 b 4.3 b 0.0 a 3, dollar spot symptoms occurred in the trial area in late April before initiation. Therefore, two curative ap- 2 Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 0.0 b 0.0 b 1.3 a plications of Daconil Ultrex (3.25 oz/1000 ft ) were applied to the trial area prior to trial initiation in mid May. Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 0.0 b 1.0 b 0.0 a Trial 1 and 2 (treatments listed in table) was designed to evaluate two fungicide programs initiated when Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 1.3 b 0.0 b 0.0 a the average 5 day soil temperature at a 2 inch depth was 55°F. The first application was made on April 22 Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 2.3 b 1.3 b 0.3 a and immediately watered in with 0.2 inches of overhead irrigation (targeting fairy ring). The following ap- Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 0.8 b 4.0 b 0.5 a plication was made 30 days later on May 23, with treatments applied every 7 or 14 days thereafter without post-application irrigation. zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. Trial 3: (treatments listed in table) was designed to evaluate 3 fungicide programs for early curative, and xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). wApplication code indicates date of each application: A-18 May, B-1 Jun, C-15 Jun, D-29 Jun, E- 13 Jul , F- 27 Jul , G- 10 Aug, H-24 Aug. then sustained, disease control on a creeping bentgrass putting green. Initial applications were made on May 18, when < 5 dollar spot infection centers/ plot were observed in the trial area.

Trial 4. Turf Quality Pathogen inoculation was conducted on trials 1 and 2 only. On June 17, both trials were inoculated with rye Turf Quality z grain infested with four isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2 IIIB, the causal pathogen of brown patch. In- Treatment Rate/1000 ft2 Application 1 Jun 15 Jun oculum was uniformly applied at 25 cc per plot using a small broadcast spreader, and left on the turf surface Interval for 3 days to enable pathogen development. Untreated Control ------5.7 cy 5.5 c Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFGx 6.8 b 7.3 ab Current Findings Kabuto + EXP 1 3.0 fl oz ACEG 7.1 ab 6.5 a Trial 1: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 23. From June 23 through June 21, both Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 6.8 b 7.1 ab programs had significantly less dollar spot severity than the untreated control. Brown patch was first noted on June 21 only in untreated plots. Similar results were also noted for turfgrass quality. No significant differ- Kabuto + EXP 2 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 b 6.2 b ences have been observed in disease control and turfgrass quality between both program 1 and 2. This trial Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.6 a 7.2 ab will continue to be rated throughout the summer to monitor disease pressure and summer stress. Kabuto + EXP 3 3.0 fl oz ACEG 7.2 ab 6.1 ab Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ABCDEFG 7.0 b 7.1 a Kabuto + EXP 4 3.0 fl oz ACEG 6.8 b 6.2 ab Fame +T 0.9 fl oz ACEG 7.1 ab 6.3 ab

z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = 0.05). xApplication code indicates date of each application: A-18 May, B-1 Jun, C-15 Jun, D-29 Jun, E- 13 Jul , F- 27 Jul , G- 10 Aug, H-24 Aug. 72 73 Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass

Trial 1. Treatment list with application dates for Fungicide Programs. Trial 1 - Programs 1 and 2 Disease Control

Treatment Rate Per 1,000 sq ft Application date Dollar Spot Severity Brown Patch (# of infection centers)y Severity (%)z Program 1 Tartan StressGard 1.5 fl oz April 22 Application Mirage StressGard 1.5 fl oz May 23 Treatment Interval 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun 21 Jun x Fiata StressGard + 5.0 fl oz + June 6 Untreated Control 4.0 a 11.5 a 20.8 a 1.5 a Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Program 1 14 day 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.5 b 0.0 a Mirage StressGard 1.0 fl oz June 21 Program 2 14 day 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a Fiata StressGard + 5.0 fl oz + July 5 Daconil Ultrex 3.2 oz wt zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz July 18 xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = Fiata StressGard + 5.0 fl oz + August 1 0.05). Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Mirage StressGard + 1.0 fl oz + August 15 26 GT 2.0 fl oz Trial 1 - Programs 1 and 2 Turf Quality Interface StressGard 3.0 fl oz August 29 Turf Qualityz Program 2 Application Tartan StressGard 1.5 fl oz April 22 Treatment Interval 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun Fiata StressGard+ 5.0 fl oz + May 23 Untreated Control 6.5 bx 6.0 b 5.5 b Mirage StressGard 1.5 fl oz Program 1 14 day 7.0 a 7.5 a 7.3 a Fiata StressGard + 5.0 fl oz + June 6 Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Program 2 14 day 7.1 a 7.5 a 7.5 a Fiata StressGard+ 5.0 fl oz + June 21 z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. Mirage StressGard 1.5 fl oz yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P = Fiata StressGard + 5.0 fl oz + July 5 0.05). 26 GT 2.0 fl oz Fiata StressGard+ 5.0 fl oz + July 18 Mirage StressGard 1.5 fl oz Trial 2: Tartan StressGard 1.5 fl oz August 1 Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 6. From May 23 through June 21, program-treated plots had significantly less dollar spot severity than untreated control plots. A significant brown patch outbreak was first observed on June 21 in untreated plots, but not in program-treated plots. From May 23 through June 21 both programs had significantly higher turf quality than the untreated control. No difference in disease control or turfgrass quality among the two programs has been observed. This trial will continue throughout the summer.

74 75 Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass

Trial 2. Treatment list with application dates for Fungicide Programs. Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + August 15 Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Treatment Rate Per 1,000 sq ft Application date Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt August 22 Program 1 Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz August 29 Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz April 22 Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz September 12 Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + May 23 Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz September 26 Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz June 6 Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + June 21 Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Trial 2 - Programs 1 and 2 Disease Control Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + July 5 Dollar Spot Severity Brown Patch Daconil Ultrex 3.2 oz wt (# of infection centers)y Severity (%)z Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + July 18 Application Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Treatment 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun 21 Jun Interval Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + August 1 Untreated Control 15.5 ax 24.8 a 23.0 a 13.0 a 26 GT 4.0 fl oz Program 1 14 day 0.0 a 1.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b Signature Xtra StressGard + 4.0 oz wt + August 15 Daconil Ultrex 3.2 oz wt Program 2 14 day 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 b 0.0 b Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz August 29 zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz September 12 yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz September 26 (P = 0.05). Program 2 Tartan StressGard 2.0 fl oz April 22 Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + May 23 Trial 2 - Programs 1 and 2 Turf Quality Daconil Ultrex 3.2 oz wt Turf Qualityz Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt May 30 Application Interface StressGard 4.0 fl oz June 6 Treatment Interval 23 May 6 Jun 21 Jun Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt June 13 Untreated Control 6.0 bx 5.7 b 4.8 b Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + June 21 Program 1 14 day 7.1 a 7.3 a 7.6 a Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz Program 2 14 day 7.2 a 7.3 a 7.6 a Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt June 27 z Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + July 5 Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD Daconil Ultrex 3.2 oz wt (P = 0.05) Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt July 11 Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + July 18 Trial 3: Dollar spot was first observed in the trial area on May 18 at trial initiation. On both June 1 and 15, Exteris StressGard 4.0 fl oz all programs had less dollar spot severity than the untreated control plots. Brown patch was first noted on Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt July 25 June 15, only occurring in untreated control plots. From June 1 to 15, all programs had significantly higher Signature Xtra StressGard + 2.0 oz wt + turf quality than the untreated control. No significant differences have been observed in disease control August 1 26 GT 4.0 fl oz and turfgrass quality among the three programs. This trial will continue throughout the summer. Signature Xtra StressGard 2.0 oz wt August 8

76 77 Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease Evaluation of Multiple Fungicide Programs for Summer Disease 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass 5 Control on Fairway and Putting Height Creeping Bentgrass

Trial 3. Treatment list with application dates for Fungicide Programs. Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + July 13 Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt Treatment Rate Per 1,000 sq ft Application date Secure 0.5 fl oz July 27 Program 1 Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + August 10 Velista + 0.5 oz wt + May 18 Velista 0.5 oz wt Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt Secure 0.5 fl oz August 24 Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz June 1 Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + September 7 Velista + 0.5 oz wt + June 15 Banner Maxx 1.0 fl oz Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz June 29 Velista + 0.5 oz wt + July 13 Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt Trial 3 - Programs 1-3 Disease Control Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz July 27 Velista + 0.5 oz wt + August 10 Dollar Spot Severity Brown Patch (# of infection centers)y Severity (%)z Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt Daconil Action 3.5 fl oz August 24 Application Treatment 18 May 1 Jun 15 Jun 15 Jun Program 2 Interval Velista + 0.5 oz wt + May 18 Untreated Control 4.3 ax 38.3 a 46.5 a 9.0 a Appear 6.0 fl oz Program 1 14 day 1.5 a 2.3 b 3.5 b 0.0 b Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + June 1 Program 2 14 day 1.8 a 2.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b Appear 6.0 fl oz Program 3 14 day 3.0 a 4.5 b 0.5 b 0.0 b Velista + 0.5 oz wt + June 15 Appear 6.0 fl oz Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + June 29 zBrown Patch severity based on a scale of 0 to 100% (0= no incidence, 100= entire plot completely covered). Appear 6.0 fl oz yDollar spot infection centers are means of counts per plot. xMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD Velista + 0.5 oz wt + July 13 (P = 0.05). Appear 6.0 fl oz Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + July 27 Appear 6.0 fl oz Trial 3 – Programs 1-3 Turf Quality

Velista + 0.5 oz wt + August 10 Turf Qualityz Appear 6.0 fl oz Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + August 24 Application Appear 6.0 fl oz Treatment Interval 18 May 1 Jun 15 Jun Program 3 Untreated Control 6.8 ax 5.8 b 5.0 b Secure 0.5 fl oz May 18 Program 1 14 day 6.8 a 6.8 a 7.0 a Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + June 1 Program 2 14 day 7.1 a 6.8 a 7.5 a Banner Maxx 1.0 fl oz Program 3 14 day 6.8 a 7.1 a 7.2 a Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + June 15 Heritage Action 0.2 oz wt z Turfgrass quality using a 1 to 9 scale (9=best, 5=acceptable) based on color, density, and uniformity. Daconil Action + 3.5 fl oz + June 29 yMeans (n=4) within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD Velista 0.5 oz wt (P = 0.05).

78 79 Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on 6 Sclerotinia homoeocarpa 6 Sclerotinia homoeocarpa

Kyle Robertson and Lee Miller

Summary Dollar spot is the most economically important diseases in the turf industry, affecting the aesthetics, play- ability, and uniformity of turfgrass used on golf courses, sports turf, and residential lawns. Dollar spot is caused by the pathogen Sclerotinia homoeocarpa F.T. Bennett and has a wide variety of turfgrass host species. Fungicide use is the main tool for controlling dollar spot in high amenity turfgrass. Repeated fungicide applications are often necessary due to the low or non-existent threshold for disease tolerance and the wide window of environmental conditions conducive for dollar spot occurrence. Continuous use of fungicides could result in the exposure of sub-inhibitory doses of fungicide to strains of the pathogen due to the multiple applications in a season and the ensuing fungicide degradation towards the end of an application interval. A low-dose exposure may actually stimulate the pathogen instead of inhibiting it, leading to a dose response defined as hormesis. Hormesis is defined by inhibition following a high-dose exposure of a stressor and stimulation following a low-dose exposure of the same stressor. This response could result in increased pathogenicity of S. homoeocarpa, increased dollar spot severity, and decreased plant productivity. Evidence for the expression of hormesis in S. homoeocarpa isolates has been observed in previous in vitro fungicide resistance assays but not quantified or reported. Our goal is to define these increases in pathogenicity and disease severity by exposing isolates of the dollar spot pathogen to sub-inhibitory doses of fungicides and provoking a potential hormetic response.

Methods In the lab, plates of potato dextrose agar are being amended with multiple concentrations of fungicides ranging from 0.0002 to 20 parts per million (ppm). Radial growth of each plate is measured to compare to (A) S. homoeocarpa isolate 363SHCT18 grown on agar amended with 0, 0.0002, 0.0006, 0.002, 0.006, the control to find relative growth values (Figures A & B). Our focus lies with demethylation-inhibiting (DMI) 0.02, 0.06, 0.2, 0.6, and 2 parts per million (ppm) of the DMI fungicide propiconazole. Note the increase fungicides, since decreased efficacy and apparent quantitative resistance to these fungicides have been in growth, and potential hormetic response, around 0.002 ppm when compared to the control. observed previously in Sclerotinia homoeocarpa (Hsiang et al., 1997, Miller et al., 2002). At the molecular level, oxalic acid, a secondary metabolite of various plant pathogens, is being evaluated because of its potential role in disease development (Cessna, et al., 2000). Oxalic acid production is being detected with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). A defined oxalic acid peak was obtained by running synthetic oxalic acid concentrations through HPLC, which allowed for conformation of oxalic acid production in S. homoeocarpa isolates (Figure C). Our focus now lies in determining if there is a correlation between increased pathogenicity due to sub-inhibitory doses of fungicide and the amount of oxalic acid produced by the pathogen.

Literature Cited

1. Cessna, S.G., Sears, V.E., Dickman, M.B., Low, P.S. 2000. Oxalic acid, a pathogenicity factor for Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, suppresses the oxidative burst of the host plant. Plant Cell. 12(11): 2191-2200. 2. Hsiang, T., L. Yang and W. Barton. 1997. Baseline sensitivity and cross-resistance to demethylation-inhibiting fungicides in Ontario isolates of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa. Plant Pathol. 103: 409-416. 3. Miller, G.L., Stevenson, K.L., and Burpee, L.L., 2002. Sensitivity of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa isolates to propiconazole and impact on control of dollar spot. Plant Dis. 86: 1240-1246.

80 81 Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of Detection of Chemical Hormesis Caused by DMI Fungicides on 6 7 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia Sclerotinia homoeocarpa homoeocarpa Bennett)

Waana Kaluwasha and Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) is the dominating turfgrass species used on golf course putting greens throughout the world. It has desired fine texture, recuperative ability and dense growth habit. However, many commonly used creeping bentgrass cultivars are susceptible to dollar spot caused by the fungus Sclerotinia homoeocarpa (Bennett). Dollar spot is one of the most important diseases of turfgrass in the United States. Characteristic symptoms on creeping bentgrass include small (up to 1 inch in diameter), round, tan-colored spots (Fig 1). If the disease becomes severe or is left unmanaged, individual spots may coalesce forming larger, irregular patches and plants will eventually die (Figure 1). On residential lawns and taller turf grasses, symptoms appear in irregularly shaped, bleached patches ranging from four to six inches or more in diameter. Tem- (B) Relative growth values of S. homoeocarpa isolate 363SHCT18 treated with the DMI fungicide peratures ranging from 59-86°F are most conducive for disease development and infection, and propiconazole at rates from 0 – 20 ppm. The box indicates relative growth values above 1, indi- therefore the disease can occur from April through October in Missouri. cating a potential hormetic effect between 0.002 ppm and 0.02 ppm. Fig 1: Dollar spot on a creeping bentgrass green

Even though dollar spot symptoms are confined to aerial parts of turf grass plants, S. homoeocarpa produces a metabolite that is toxic to bentgrass roots. The toxin causes roots to thicken, cease to elongate, and become devoid of root hairs. Recent studies have identified several tetranorditerpe- noid compounds that could be responsible for the root-browning and exhibit extremely phytotoxic properties.

(C) A chromatogram showing the confirmed oxalic acid peak (highlighted) of S. homoeocarpa isolate S088. 82 83 Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of 7 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia 7 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Bennett) homoeocarpa Bennett)

Objective, Materials & Methods Findings from previous study The objective of this study is to evaluate creeping bentgrass tolerance to dollar spot and to deter- A preliminary field experiment conducted on creeping bentgrass grown on a USGA green with L-93 mine whether the tolerance is influenced by calcium fertilizer and water status. The growth cham- creeping bentgrass observed better dollar spot tolerance when calcium fertilizer was used. It was ber experiment will be a 2 x 2x 2 factorial with five replications. Creeping bentgrass core samples observed that the application of MicroPel monthly at 5 lb/1000 ft2 improved creeping bentgrass (3 inch diameter) were harvested from an L-93 USGA green, and transplanted into cone-tainers (3 putting green turf color and overall turf quality, regardless of irrigation level, compared to the un- inch diameter) with USGA-spec sand. The cone-tainers were placed in a greenhouse (Fig 2) and will treated control. Furthermore, the addition of MicroPel to N fertilizer (0.2 lb. N/1000 ft2 biweekly) be taken to a growth chamber with light intensity at 600 µmole/m2/s, and temperature at 25/20 oC appeared to improve turf color and dollar spot incidence, compared to MicroPel treatment alone. (day/night). The irrigation treatments will include ET 100% or 50% ET replacement. The ET rates will The results demonstrated that MicroPel when applied under reduced irrigation has the potential to be determined gravimetrically by weight changes every 24h over a 21 day period. The other two improve the overall performance of creeping bentgrass (Fig 3) and also, that addition of MicroPel treatments include with or without calcium fertilizer (MicroPel®) at 5.0 lb/1000 ft2 and inoculum of fertilizer could potentially reduce dollar spot severity at reduced irrigation (Fig 4-9). dollar spot pathogen. Management practices will include N fertilization once every week and -mow Fig 3: Turf quality (1-9) influenced by irrigation (100% or 50% of ET replacement), with or without ing to a height of 1/2 inch twice every week. Data will be collected on a weekly basis to evaluate MicroPel®, and with or without Nitrogen fertilizer. whether there is an interaction between calcium and water status on tolerance of creeping bentgrass to dollar spot. Evaluations will include turf quality and color based on a 1-9 scale where 9 is best and 6 acceptable, shoot and root biomass at 3 weeks after initial treatment and the dollar spot disease incidence and severity.

Fig 2: Creeping bentgrass plugs in cone-tainers

Fig 4: High irrigation control plot Fig 5: Low irrigation control plot

84 85 Effect of Calcium Fertilizer and water status on tolerance of Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of 7 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) to dollar spot (Sclerotinia 8 Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) homoeocarpa Bennett)

Fig 6: High irrigation and monthly MicroPel® Fig 7: Low irrigation and monthly MicroPel® Matt Fleetwood and Dr. Xi Xiong

Introduction Cinquefoil (or Wild Strawberry) is a weed that is often found growing in sandy soils with acidic and nutrient deficient characteristics. It can be a problem throughout much of the United States for many home lawns. The objective of the study was to evaluate multiple herbicide formulations with varying rates to determine the efficacy for control of cinquefoil.

Field plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established at Bradford Farm in Columbia, Missouri. Application

method consisted of using a CO2 pressurized sprayer calibrated at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Eight treatments (Table 1) were organized in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatment was conducted on April 8th, 2016. Evaluations included weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 46 days. Fig 8: High irrigation + monthly MicroPel®+N Fig 9: Low irrigation + monthly MicroPel®+N Current Findings

All treated plots showed herbicide injury to cinquefoil. Significantly treatment effect, appeared as necrosis, showed as early as one week after the application of the herbicide. The best treatments, highlighted in Fig 1, showed 100% efficacy in suppression cinquefoil. Specifically, EH1601 at all rates, NB39020 and 4-Speed XT all reached complete control of cinquefoil at 4 weeks after treatment application (Fig 2). Treatment NB39051 and Speedzone®, in comparison, reached 90% control at the end of this trial. In Summary, this trial demonstrated the high efficacy of these newer compounds, NB39020, NB39051, and EH1601, in control of cinquefoil, which are as good as or better than commercialized herbicides.

Table 1. Description of treatments with application rates

Trt Product Application rate Note that less dollar spot symptoms were observed in the plot that received low irrigation (50%

ET)+ MicroPel® and low irrigation (50% ET)+ MicroPel® + N (Fig 9) compared to the untreated con- 1 Untreated Control ---- trol receiving 50% ET (Fig 5). 2 NB39020 0.214 lb ai/A

3 NB39051 0.276 lb ai/A

4 EH1601 (low) 0.87 lb ai/A

5 EH1601 (mid) 1.12 lb ai/A

6 EH1601 (high) 1.37 lb ai/A

7 SpeedZone 0.96 lb ai/A

8 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/A 86 87 Evaluation of EH1601, NB39020 and NB39051 for Control of Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil 8 Cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.) 9 (Potentilla spp.)

Figure 1. Cinquefoil in plots that was untreated control (left), compared to plots received EH1601 Matt Fleetwood Dr. Xi Xiong middle rate (middle) and EH1601 high rate (right). Photo was taken on May 3, 2016. Introduction The objective of this study was to evaluate EH1587 and EH1545, two newer compounds/formulation, at varying rates to determine their efficacy in control of cinquefoil. Field plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established at Bradford Farm in Columbia, Missouri to test these herbicides. Seven treatments (Table 1) were arraigned in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments

were applied with a CO2 pressurized sprayer calibrated at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet XR8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. The treatment was applied on April 8th, 2016. Evalu- ations were based on weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 46 days.

Table 1. Description of treatments with application rates Trt Product Application rate Figure 2. Percent injury (%) on cinquefoil 2 WAIT (left) and 4 WAIT (right).

1 Untreated Control ----

2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A

3 EH1587 (mid) 0.19 lb ai/A

4 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A

1.41 lb ai/A 5 EH1545

6 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/A

7 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/A

Current Findings All treated plots showed significant treatment effect at 2 weeks after treatment (WAT), compared to untreated control (Fig 1). At 5 WAT, more than 90% control were found in plots received EH1545, and Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. EH1587 applied at all three rates showed significant control of cinquefoil at 5 WAT, however, the control rates are between 35% and 58%.

In summary, this trial indicates that EH1545 provides effective control for cinquefoil at a comparable level to commercialized compounds such as and Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. In comparison, EH1587 provides partial suppression to cinquefoil but not a complete control. 88 89 Evaluation of EH1587 and EH1545 for Control of Cinquefoil Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet 9 (Potentilla spp.) 10 (Viola spp.)

Figure 1. Cinquefoil percent injury (%) influenced by various herbicide at 2 and 5 weeks after Matt Fleetwood & Dr. Xi Xiong treatment applications (WAT). Introduction

Wild Violet is a perennial weed with heart-shaped waxy leaves and purple/blue flowers that is considered a difficult-to-control weed in the turfgrass and home lawn market. It’s physical characteristics, such as its waxy leaf surface and aggressive growth pattern, with its natural genetic resistance to many herbicides causes this weed to be a major pest that is hard to suppress once established. The objective of this experiment was to test efficacy of various post-emergence herbicides at varying rates to determine which formulation resulted in the greatest reduction of wild violet.

This trail was established at the Capen Park, with the permission from the City of Columbia Parks and Recreation division. Plots (5 ft x 10 ft) were established next to a trail where consistent and uniform wild violet presents. Applications were sprayed at 25 gallons per acre using Tee Jet 8004 flat fan tips at a speed of three miles per hour. Twelve treatments, including an untreated control (Table 1), were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Application of the treatments occurred on April 19th, 2016 (first application) and May th17 , 2016 (second application) for selected treatments. Evaluations were based on weekly assessments of percent coverage of weed (0-100), percent injury of weed (0-100) and digital picture analysis for 56 days. Current Findings

Due to the difficult-to-control nature of wild violet, many of the treatments, especially commercial controls such as Triplet®, did not result in adequate necrosis at beginning of this trial (Fig 1). The only exception is treatment EH1587, a newer formulation/compound. At a higher rate after sequential application (treatment 5), plots received this treatment showed greater than a 95% injury to the wild violet at 56 days after the initial treatment. This efficacy is significantly higher than control and all other treatments included in this trial, and is commercially acceptable. In summary, this trial demonstrated that as a difficult-to-control weed, wild violet is resistance to many broadleaf herbicides currently in the market. EH1587, a newer compound/formulation, will potentially be a powerful tool once released for the home lawn market.

90 91 Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet Evaluation of Herbicide Formulations for Control of Wild Violet 10 (Viola spp.) 10 (Viola spp.)

Table 1. Description of treatments with application rates Figure 1. Percent injury (%) on wild violet 3 WAIT (left) and 7 WAIT (right).

Trt Product Application Rate

1 Untreated control ----

2 EH1587 (low) 0.104 lb ai/A

3 EH1587 (mid) 0.19 lb ai/A

4 EH1587 (high) 0.276 lb ai/A

5 EH1587 (double app) 0.276 lb ai/A

6 EH1349 (low) 0.81 lb ai/A

7 EH1349 (mid) 1.13 lb ai/A

8 EH1349 (high) 1.45 lb ai/A

9 EH1349 (double app) 1.45 lb ai/A

10 EH1545 1.41 lb ai/A

11 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/A

12 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/A

92 93 11 A Study of Billbug Biology 11 A Study of Billbug Biology

Michael Patterson, Dr. Bruce Barrett, & Dr. Xi Xiong Fig 2. A: Adult bluegrass billbug and B: Hunting bluegrass billbug. (Images by Dr. R. Sites, MU).

Summary In recent years, billbug (Sphenophorus spp.) damage on zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.) turf have become an emerging problem in the transition zone that, left untreated, can destroy large areas of zoysiagrass turf. Billbugs are weevils; adults measure 0.3 inches long or less with long snouts, and their larvae are legless (Fig 1). Billbugs have a complete life cycle; both larvae and adults feed on stems, crowns, or roots and stolons of susceptible grass species, depending upon the developmental stages. The adult females lay eggs in the grass stems or on the surface of leaf sheaths. The eggs hatch within 3-10 days after being laid and then begin feeding on the roots and crown of the plants in their vicinity, or feeding as deep as 2 – 3 inches deep in the soil. As the emerged larvae chew into the tillers, it disrupts the plants ability to translocate water and nutrients. Damage symptoms often resemble drought, nutrient deficiency, disease, other insect problems such as white grubs, or sometimes winter injury. Bluegrass billbug is generally believed to have 1 generation per year. The billbug overwinter as young adults and emerge in the spring. The females can lay eggs over a 2 month period under favorable conditions, some Fig 1. A: Mature larvae; and B: Bluegrass billbug (left) and hunting billbug (right). can overwinter as large larvae, which could result in a second generation, but not as likely. It is shown that all developmental stages, including egg, larvae, pupa, and adult, can be found throughout the year. The hunting billbug is believed to have a similar life cycle, but can have multiple generations per year.

At the University of Missouri, we have revealed that there is a mixed population of bluegrass and hunting billbug that infest the zoysiagrass turf. Therefore, the objective of this research was to monitor the phenol- ogy of billbugs on zoysiagrass. Two sites were established on zoysiagrass fairways to monitor the population and to determine when the adult billbugs are most active. On each fairway, we have placed 40 pitfall traps that are 10 feet apart below the soil surface. Adult billbugs are collected weekly since April 2015, then counts are recorded and identified in the lab.

Current Findings Since the study began, we have discovered a mixed population of hunting and bluegrass billbugs on the zoysiagrass fairways. We have been able to show that the hunting billbug has 1.5 to 2 generations per year, and that the bluegrass billbug has 1 generation per year in Columbia (Fig 3).

Our results found a distinct difference in the billbug species composition from the two fairways. Samples collected from Country Club of Missouri were dominated by hunting billbug (Fig 4), but samples collected from There are at least nine species of billbugs that attack turfgrass plants in the United States. Among them, Columbia Country Club indicated a mixed population from 50:50 to 100:0 for hunting and bluegrass billbugs bluegrass billbug (S. parvulus Gyllenhal) is considered the most widely distributed species and has (Fig 3). The trial is still ongoing and a better understanding of billbug biology will be discussed in the follow- received the most attention from turfgrass researchers. Bluegrass billbug is believed to use Kentucky ing years. bluegrass (Poa pratensis I.) as its main target to feed on, although other turfgrass and nonturf species can be attacked as well. Hunting billbug (S. venatus vestitus Chittenden) have spread into northern states and has been recognized as the species to target warm-season grasses, including zoysiagrass. At this time, it is impossible to identify the billbug species at the larvae stage. However, the adult stage can be accurately identified based on the markings on the pronotum (Fig 2).

94 95 A Study of Billbug Biology Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass 11 12 fairway

Fig. 3 Total number of billbugs collected from Columbia Country Club from April to September 2015. Michael Patterson, Dr. Bruce Barrett, and Dr. Xi Xiong 100 Hunting billbug Summary

80 Bluegrass billbug Billbugs are some of the most commonly misdiagnosed insects in residential lawns, sod farmers, and on golf courses. Because majority of their activities are in the thatch or below the soil surfaces, damages caused by Total billbug billbugs often diagnosed as drought, winter dormancy, or other root-feeding insects such as white grubs. 60 Without proper diagnose of the pest, it is difficult to develop an effective pest control strategy. Some of the commonly used insecticides in the turf market can be a powerful tool to control white grubs, however, their Billbug counts efficacy for control billbugs need to be investigated. 40 A field-based study was established at a local Golf Course, with the objective to evaluated the efficiency of various insecticides for billbug control. The trial was arranged in a randomized complete block with three 20 replications on ‘Meyer’ zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.) fairway. To monitor the activity and movement of adult billbugs, pitfall traps were built and installed below the ground. Pitfall traps were constructed with 0 a schedule forty, 3 inch PVC slip cap with an inside diameter of 3.5 inches, and an outside diameter of 4 inches. First, a hole is drilled into the bottom of the cap to allow water drainage. A round drain strainer with 8/5 9/2 9/9 5/6 6/3 7/1 7/8 8/12 8/19 8/26 4/22 4/29 5/13 5/20 5/27 6/10 6/17 6/24 7/15 7/22 7/29 3.125 inch diameter and 0.12 inch perforations is placed into the slip cap. A 1 inch, number 10 screw is then inserted into the center of the drain strainer to plug a 0.2 inch hole in the middle. Pitfall traps are then set in place by using a four inch cup cutter to remove a four inch long soil core. Once the core is removed, the pitfall traps can be placed into the ground just below the soil surface in the center of each 5’ by 10’ plot. As the Fig. 4 Total number of billbugs collected from April to September from Country Club of Missouri in 2015. adult billbugs move through the plots they fall into the traps where they are unable to climb out and can be counted. Treatments described in table 1 were applied using a CO2 pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 44 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. 40

Hunting billbug Current Findings The Trial was established at a local Golf Course in Columbia, MO with initial applications on May 21, 2015 30 Bluegrass billbug (Fig 1). A second Application of insecticide was applied June 19, 2015 to half the plots to a split-plot design. The field plots were established adjacent to the area where heavy billbug damage has been previously observed on the course. Total billbug

Billbug counts 20 The results from the 2015 showed that the turf performance, detected by NDVI in treated plots were maintained or improved, compared to control (Fig 2). Insecticide Talstar®, alone or in combination with other compounds, resulted in a better turf performance as compared to control. The trial is still ongoing, and a more definite answer will be provided after the completion of this experiment in fall 2016. 10

0 5/6 6/3 7/1 7/8 8/5 9/2 9/9 4/22 4/29 5/13 5/20 5/27 6/10 6/17 6/24 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/12 8/19 8/26

96 97 1

12 Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass Evaluation of insecticides for control of billbug on zoysiagrass fairway 12 fairway

Table 1. Treatment Rates and Schedule

Treatment # Treatment Rate Application Date Application Date (1st) (2nd) 1 Untreated (control) - - - 2 Talstar (adult) 0.5 fl oz /1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 3 DeltaGard (adult) 0.9 fl oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 4 Scimitar (adult) 10 fl oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 5 Merit (adult) 0.6 fl oz/1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 6 Arena (larvae) 0.29 oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 7 Meridian (larvae) 17 oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 8 Acelepryn 0.46 fl oz/1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 (adult + Larvae) 9 Talstar + 0.5 fl oz /1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Arena 0.29 oz/100ft2 10 DeltaGard + 0.9 fl oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Arena 0.29 oz/100ft2 11 Scimitar + 10 fl oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Arena 0.29 oz/100ft2 2 Fig 1. Treatment application on a zoysiagrass fairway located in Columbia, Mo. 12 Merit + 0.6 fl oz/1000ft 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Arena 0.29 oz/100ft2 13 Talstar + 0.5 fl oz /1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Meridian 17 oz/a 14 DeltaGard + Meridian 0.9 fl oz/100ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 17 oz/a 15 Scimitar + Meridian 10 fl oz/a 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 17 oz/a 16 Merit + 0.6 fl oz/1000ft2 5/21/15 – 5/5/16 6/19/15 – 6/2/16 Meridian 17 oz/a

Fig 2. Insecticide main effect on normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). Data were collected at 4, 9, 13, and 17 weeks after initial treatment application (WAIT; 6/20, 7/29, 8/28, and 9/16, respectively). Data were pooled over application as no significant application effect was found. Bars labeled by the same letters were not significantly different based on Fisher’s Protected LSD P( <0.05).

98 99 13 Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed 13 Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed

Michael Patterson & Dr. Xi Xiong Fig 1. Percent cover of common chickweed at 1 week after treatment (WAIT)

Summary Common Chickweed (Stellaria media) is a common broadleaf weed in lawn and other turf areas. As a widely distributed species, common chickweed is a winter annual that germinates in fall/winter and persists into late spring in central Missouri. Common chickweed can be easily identified by long leafy stems that run pros- trate along the ground with small oval leaves.

The objective of the experiment was to test the efficacy of EH1587 at different rates (Table 1) for post- emergent control of common chickweed. Seven treatments, including an untreated control, were arranged in completely randomized block design with 3 replications. Besides control, the products included are EH1587, Triplet®, and 4-Speed XT®. Field plots, with individual plot measuring 5x5 ft2, were established at the Brad- ford Farm. Treatment were sprayed on April 8, 2016 at 25 GPA using Tee Jet 8004 nozzle tips. Measurements included weekly evaluation of percent coverage of common chickweed for 5 weeks after treatment application (WAT).

Trt# Treatment Rate Application Date

1 Untreated (control) - - Fig 2. Percent cover of common chickweed at 4 weeks after treatment (WAT) 2 EH1587 (L) 0.104 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

3 EH1587 (LM) 0.19 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

4 EH1587 (MH) 0.276 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

5 EH1587 (H) 1.41 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

6 Triplet 1.41 lb ai/a 04-April-2016

7 4-Speed XT 1.25 lb ai/a 04-April-2016 Table 1. Description of products, application rates and application date.

Conclusion At 1 week after treatment (WAT), treated plots started to show discolorations (Fig 1). By 4 WAT, common chickweed in the control plots showed 25% reduction in coverage compared to 1 WAT, which is due to its annual nature and plants start to die out after flowering. In comparison, common chickweed in all treated plots showed a significant reduction compared to control, and maintained a coverage at 15% or lower (Fig 2). EH1587 at all rates showed statistically same efficacy in control of common chickweed, compared to commercialized compounds Triplet® and 4-Speed XT®. At rate of 0.276 lb ai/a or higher, especially, EH1587 resulted in minimal chickweed presence with a clean plot.

In summary, EH1587 is potentially a powerful tool for control of common chickweed for lawn care market.

100 101 Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) 13 Evaluate EH1587 for Control of Common Chickweed 14 Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide

Naba Amgain and Dr. Xi Xiong

Summary Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (Acclaim Extra®) is an aryloxyphenoxy propionic group (AOPP) herbicide, which is used safely on cool season turfgrass and Zoysiagrass. In addition to suppress other grass weeds, fenoxaprop is effective to suppress bermudagrass in cool season turfgrass and zoysiagrass (Zoysia sp.). AOPP herbicide inhibit enzymatic activity of acetyl-coA carboxylase, which causes the death of meristematic tissues by preventing the formation of cellular membrane. For the complete control of bermudagrass, multiple applications are needed. Some of the bermudagrass cultivars has shown some level to tolerance to AOPP herbicides. However, the mechanism of tolerance of bermudagrass cultivars to AOPP herbicide is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the tolerance of bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide Acclaim Extra®.

Research was conducted in greenhouse at the University of Missouri in 2015 and 2016. F1 segregat- ing progeny from A12395 (C. dactylon) x A12396 (C. dactylon) were germinated and tested for herbicide tolerance trait. Seeds were germinated and grown in greenhouse maintained at 30/25 oC day/ night temperature. A total of 116 genotypes from A12395 x A12396 were established in the greenhouse by plugs in 4 inch diameter pots. Treatments were arranged in a completely random design with 3 replication of each genotypes. Plants were treated with Acclaim Extra after plants reached full coverage. Grasses were sprayed with Acclaim Extra® at 20 fl oz. /A and label suggested adjuvants

(0.25% v/v). Herbicide was sprayed using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer using XR8002 TeeJet flat-fan nozzle tips calibrated to deliver 40 gal/A. Acclaim treated plants were monitored and visual assessment and digital image were taken every week for 4 weeks. Bermudagrass injury level was measured using 1-9 scale, where 1 means total death and 9 means no injury. Fig 3. Representative image of field plot received EH1587 at 0.19 lb ai/a (treatment 3) at 1 WAT (left), show- Current findings ing discoloration of common chickweed, and 4 WAT (right), showing clean plot with minimal presence of chickweed. Current results showed that different genotypes of bermudagrass had different responses to AOPP herbicide. The level of injury varies from 1 to 9 (Figure 1-4). The injury level of each genotype was rated every week for 4 week period. Based on the injury level genotypes were grouped into 6 groups (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, and 6-9). Genotypes in group 6-9 showed less injury level where as genotypes in group 1-2 showed higher injury level. Maximum injury was observed in 3 weeks after treatment. At first week after treatment, 13 %, 18%, 15%, 33% and 21 % of total genotypes were at 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6 and 6-9 injury level where as at 3 weeks after treatment 34%. 34%, 20%, 5%, and 7 % of total genotypes were at 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 injury level, respectively. Our results sug- gesting a genetic variation exists that influence the success of controlling bermudagrass usingAOPP herbicides.

102 103 Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Differential Responses of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) 14 Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide 14 Pers.) Genotypes to AOPP Herbicide

Figure 1. Response of 116 bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extract) 1 Figure 3. Representative picture of bermudagrass genotypes which shows less (top) or more (bottom) injury to week after treatment AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extra®) 3 weeks after treatment.

Figure 2. Response of 116 bermudagrass genotypes to AOPP herbicide (Acclaim Extract) 3 weeks after treatment

104 105 Efficacy of Specticle FLO on Control of Lespedeza on a Efficacy of Specticle FLO on Control of Lespedeza on a 15 Bermudagrass Lawn 15 Bermudagrass Lawn

Enzhan Song and Dr. Xi Xiong Current Finding

Summary No phytotoxicity was observed on the desired turf, indicating the excellent safety of Specticle FLO® on common bermudagrass lawns. Lespedeza germination was not observed until late May. Overall, ® Specticle FLO is a potent preemergence herbicide that is recently released to the turf market for the control plots contained about 8% of lespedeza coverage (Fig 1). PRE application of Barricade at control of annual weeds in warm-season turf. While the effect of Specticle FLO has been assessed 1.5 lb/A rate did not reduce lespedeza establishment, compared to control. Similarly, PRE applica- under golf course conditions, the objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tion of Specticle FLO® at or lower than 6 oz/A did not reduce lespedeza population. However, PRE Specticle FLO for control of lespedeza on bermudagrass turf under residential lawn conditions, in application of Specticle FLO® at 9 oz/A significantly suppressed lespedeza establishment to 40% ® comparison with the industry standard Barricade . reduction, compared to the untreated control. Sequential application of Specticle FLO® at lower rate This trial was established on ‘Riviera’ bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) maintained at 1 inch (4.5 or 3.0 oz/A) as PRE followed by early POST, however, showed a similar control effect as Spec- ® mowing height at the Turf Research Center in Columbia, MO. Plots, individually measuring 5’ by ticle FLO applied as PRE at 9 oz/A rate. PRE application timing is based on a typical schedule for 10’, were overseeded with Korean lespedeza (Kummerowia stipulacea) seeds on April 28th to en- control of crabgrass, which germinates about a month earlier than lespedeza. Results from this trial ® sure uniform weed pressure. Initial preemergence (PRE) treatments (application A corresponding to indicates that Specticle FLO at 9 oz/A rate could be applied as a typical PRE to provide controls ® Table 1) were made on April 29th. The early-postemergence (POST) application of treatment 6 and 7 over crabgrass and weeds that germinate later such as lespedeza. Alternatively, Specticle FLO can nd also be handled in split application as PRE followed by early POST to provide controls specifically (application B) were made on June 2 . Treatments were applied using a CO2 pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 43 gal/ac using TeeJet XR 8004 flat fan nozzle tips. Visual measure- to targeted weed species. It is important to note that there were only two evaluations occurred after ments were recorded monthly and included lespedeza percent cover (%) and phytotoxicity on desired lespedeza initiated germination. The full impact of herbicide efficacy will be determined after the turf on a 1-9 scale, where 1= total turf death, 6=minimally acceptable injury, and 9=non-injury. end of season.

Table 1. Treatments Rates and Schedule Treatment # Products Application Rates Application Schedule 1 Untreated 2 Specticle FLO 9 OZ/A A: preemergence 3 Specticle FLO 6 OZ/A A: preemergence 4 Specticle FLO 3 OZ/A A: preemergence 5 Specticle FLO 4.5 OZ/A A: preemergence 6 Specticle FLO 4.5 OZ/A A: preemergence

Specticle FLO 4.5 OZ/A B: early-postemergence 7 Specticle FLO 3 OZ/A A: preemergence

Specticle FLO 3 OZ/A B: early-postemergence

8 Barricade 65WG 1.5 LB/A A: preemergence Fig 1. Percent lespedeza coverage (%) in plots treated with different treatments. Data were collected at 0, 5 and 8 weeks after initial treatment application. No interaction between treatment and sampling date were found; hence treatment main effect was presented. Bars labeled by different letters are significantly different based on Fisher’s Protected LSD at 0.05 probability level.

106 107 Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving 16 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth 16 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth

Naba Amgain, Enzhan Song, and Dr. Xi Xiong Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MicroPel® on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis Introduction stolonifera L.) putting greens when subjected to reduced daily irrigation and/or reduced nitrogen fertilizer use. Macro and micro nutrients are essential for growth and development of shoots and roots of turfgrass. Calcium present in soil may not be available to the plants due to different chemical formulation. Materials and Methods MicroPel® is formulated with calcite and sulfated forms of micronutrients which supplies essential Test plot (5 ft. x 5 ft.) were established on an ‘L-93’ creeping bentgrass putting green. Putting greens micro nutrients to the turfgrass. MicroPel® works effectively in any soil types regardless of pH. The were constructed in accordance to the USGA specifications. Treatments were arranged in a random- ion present in MicroPel® are taken up by root hairs which enhance the cell growth by activating the ized complete block design with four replications. The detailed list of treatment can be found in table enzyme producing system of plants. It is hypothesized that MicroPel® reduces the amount of nitro- 2 below. Treatment factors include: MicroPel® (untreated control or monthly application), irriga- gen and phosphorous required for optimum plant health, creates healthier plant root environment, tion regimes (50% and 100% ET water replacement), and nitrogen application (untreated control promotes green plant color, and promotes rapid recovery from environment induced stress. The func- ® ® or biweekly application). Treatments were applied using shaker jar to evenly distribute MicroPel tion of the nutrients in MicroPel are presented in table 1 below. 2 2 at 5 lbs/1000ft . Nitrogen in the form of urea was applied at a rate of 0.2 lbs N/1000ft using a CO2 Table 1. Function of different essential nutrients present in MicroPel®. pressurized backpack sprayer. High irrigation treatment plot received daily irrigation of 100-125% evapotranspiration (ET) water replacement, and low irrigation treatment plot received daily irriga- Nutrients Some important functions tion of 50-75% ET replacement. Control plots received high and low irrigation with or without ad- Calcium (Ca) (30%) • Enhance ion uptake ditional nitrogen. The first application was made on May 16th, 2014. • Increase protein synthesis • Increase nitrogen uptake Evaluation included biweekly assessment of turf quality and color, normalized difference vegetative • Increase plant root growth index (NDVI), volumetric water content (VWC), and digital image for analyzing percent green cov- • Essential part of plant cell wall structure er. Turf quality and color were measured on a scale of 1-9 (1= poor quality, 6=minimally accepted Magnesium (Mg) (1.3%) • Enhance Phosphorous metabolism quality, and 9= best turf quality), NDVI readings were taken using a Green Seeker® handled sensor 0.25% water soluble • Enhance activation of enzymes and range from 0.0-1.0, VWC measurement were taken using a soil moisture sensor with 4.0 inches • Essential for plant growth probes. Prior to the application and after the termination of application soil samples were taken for Sulfur (S) (1.7 %) • Amino acid synthesis further analysis. • Activation of enzymes • Helps in chlorophyll formation Table 2. Description of the treatments. • Improves root growth and seed production Treatment Producta Rate (lb/1000 ft2) Irrigationb Nitrogenc (lb/1000 ft2) • Resistance to temperature stress 1 None --- High 0.0 Iron (Fe) (1.0%) • Promotes formation of chlorophyll 2 None --- High 0.2 0.74% water soluble • Enzyme synthesis 3 None --- Low 0.0 • Balance molybdenum, phosphorous, manganese and copper reactions 4 None --- Low 0.2 • Reactions involving cell division and growth 5 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly High 0.0 Manganese (Mn) (0.14%) • Predominant in metabolism of organic acids 6 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly High 0.2 0.10% water soluble • Important enzymes involved in respiration 7 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly Low 0.0 • Enzyme activator 8 MicroPel® 5.0 monthly Low 0.2 Zinc (Zn) (0.23%) • Formation of growth hormones (auxin) a ® 0.17% water soluble • Enhance activation of enzymes MicroPel are applied monthly intervals. bIrrigation are supplied daily, High= 100-125% evapotranspiration (ET) replacement daily, low= 50-75% ET replacement daily. • Enhance chemical reactions involving phosphorous cNitrogen are applied biweekly in the form of Urea.

108 109 Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving 16 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth 16 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth

Figure 2. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable and 9= best). Findings Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment. By the end of 12 week after the initial treatment, result showed a significant treatment effect in turf ® quality and color. MicroPel alone achieved turf quality rating >7 and turf color > 6.5 (Figure 1 and 9 2) while untreated control resulted in turf quality and color rating 6.5 or less. Treatment combination containing nitrogen and MicroPel® significantly increased the turf color and quality up to 8 (Fig- 8 a a a ure 1 and 2). At 50 % ET replacement, MicroPel® alone maintained the acceptable turf quality and b c color (Figure 1 and 2), despite that the soil moisture levels were same in all plots received 50% ET ® 7 d d replacement (Figure 3). This result indicates the potential of MicroPel for saving irrigation water e consumption without comprise turf performance. Less dollar spot symptoms were observed in the ® plot that received MicroPel , nitrogen and 50% irrigation (Figure 4), compared to plot received the 6 same amount of irrigation and nitrogen but without MicroPel®. Turf color Turf Conclusions 5 Monthly application of MicroPel® at 5 lb/1000ft2 appear to be safe to the creeping bentgrass putting green, which improved creeping bentgrass putting green turf color and overall turf quality, regardless 4 of irrigation level. Addition of nitrogen fertilizer biweekly at 0.2 lb N/1000ft2 improve turf color and quality compared to MicroPel® alone treated plot, regardless of irrigation amount. MicroPel® showed 3 High High+ Low Low+ High+ High+ Low+ Low+ promising in conserving irrigation water without compromising turf performance. This experiment is control Nitrogen control Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen ongoing and more results will be presented next season.

Figure 1. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable, and 9= best). Treatments Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment. Figure 3. Treatment effect on volumetric water content. Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

9 18 a a

17 ab 8 a ab ab ab bc c bc bc 16 d d 7 c c e 15

6 14 VWC % Turf quality

5 13

12 4

3 High High+ Low Low+ High+ High+ Low+ Low+ 10 control Nitrogen control Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen High High+ Low Low+ High+ High+ Low+ Low+ control Nitrogen control Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen MicroPel MicroPel+Nitrogen

Treatments Treatments 110 Figure 2. Treatment effect on turf quality (1-9, where 1= poor, 6= acceptable and 9= best). 111 Data analyzed were from 4, 8, and 12 week after treatment.

Performance of Micronutrient Fertilizer MicroPel® ® for Improving 16 Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Growth

High irrigation + biweekly nitrogen + monthly MicroPel®

Low irrigation + biweekly nitrogen + monthly MicroPel®

112 B=Bermuda CB=Creeping Bent F=Fescue Mizzou T&O Research Field Day: KB=Kentucky Bluegrass Shade PR=Perennial Rye Grove 7 2016 S=Synthetic Z= Zoysia B Z KB CB CB 3 2 Annual CB Z 4 Flowers F 8 Z z CB Z KB Z 5 9 6 S B

PR KB Shop PR F F CB CB

10 B F B MU KB People’s KB B,BF,Z B Garden z TF PR 1

B Wildflower Demonstration 1 Strategies to control difficult-to-control NTEP Zoysia NTEP Bermuda broadleaf weeds on residential lawns

S 2 Dollar Spot: Got it, now how quickly can I get rid of it? KB 3 Evaluating Herbaceous Ornamentals for Performance in Missouri CB 4 MU Plant Diagnostic Clinic—2016 Common Wildflower Wildflower diseases and things to watch out for B F B 5 Mizzou’s Landscape Design Education-A Professional Approach B F,KB F 6 What’s Bugging You? Troubleshooting/ Bring your Question Session 7 Localized Dry Spot: Can Wetting Agents Remove Hydrophobic Coatings From USGA Sand? Irrigation Lake 8 Nitrogen & Large Patch: When, Where, and CB Why? N 9 Integrating management strategies for Booklet sponsored by: spring dead spot and large patch control 10 The Vital Role of Pollinators for Human Health and Wildlife, & How to Support Them in the Landscape