Upload
jabir
View
28
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertilization of Turfgrass?. Dr. Chris Murray, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies. Outline. What motivated this project? Runoff and pollution Turfgrass as a water quality management tool - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertilization of Turfgrass?
Dr. Chris Murray,Department of Interdisciplinary Studies
Outline What motivated this project? Runoff and pollution Turfgrass as a water quality
management tool Experiments and studies of the
effect of fertilization Conclusions
Project motivation A collaboration between Landscape Ontario’s
Lawn Care Commodity Group and Lakehead University
Two factors initiated this project:1. Source water protection agencies and similar
organizations are considering fertilizer bans as a means of protecting water quality
2. Several studies had reported results contradicting this approach: where fertilizer is stopped, N,P in runoff increases
General research questions What is the true state of scientific
information regarding this issue? Is there consensus within the scientific
community? If so, does it support a ban on
fertilization of turfgrass? A primary focus of this study is the
effect, both positive and detrimental, fertilization of turfgrass may have on the nutrient pollution through runoff.
Stormwater / runoff Most critical to understand: what
dominates water pollution Why is runoff a problem? Runoff is “natural”, and would exist
without human intervention Human activity dramatically increases
runoff and the pollution it carries. As runoff increases, pollution increases
Algal Blooms, Eutrophication
Terminology Surface water/stormwater/runoff Infiltration/leachate In general, we aim to increase
infiltration and decrease runoff to decrease pollution
Why? Sediment and associated chemical
pollutants
Erosion Wherever
development occurs, risk of increased runoff velocity and erosion
More sediment is carried into water
Dissolved/particulate pollution
Nutrients such as phosphorous are soluble in water, but will bind with minerals in sediment
A very small concentration of sediment may be responsible for most of the nutrient loading
For a given mass, fine particles carry more pollution than large particles, and carry it further
How can adding fertilizer help? Turfgrass is, in general, a non-native
groundcover that requires maintenance to thrive
Without human intervention, it will not outcompete indigenous plants (weeds) which are better-suited to harsh conditions (especially drought) but not suited to human-scale runoff
In general, healthier turfgrass increasingly reduces runoff and increases infiltration/evapotranspiration
Runoff can be completely eliminated by turfgrass, and a lawn is often the only barrier between impervious surfaces and waterways
Runoff, Infiltration and Erosion Control
• How might reducing fertilizer increase the concentration of N, P in water?
• Small effect: increased decay of plants
• Large effect: less healthy turfgrass cannot hold water as effectively, so runoff increases
• Filtering is not enough: the amount of water must be reduced
Competing Factors
• The contamination of runoff by nutrients (both dissolved and particulate) found in fertilizer contributes to eutrophication of lakes causing negative impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna.
• Healthier turfgrass systems improve surface water quality through natural filtration and absorption of water, which reduces runoff intensity.
Reports worth examining Garn, 2002:
– No runoff other than that due to rain on lawns– Increase P in runoff for fertilized lawns– The site with the best turf stand had the least
runoff, though quantitative measurements not made.
– No effect of fertilization on nitrogen in runoff Kussow, 2002, 2004, 2008:
– Fertilization with P leads to more P in runoff – Accounted for runoff volume– Most (runoff, nutrients) recorded when soil frozen– Without fertilization for two years, runoff, nitrogen and
phosphorous increased – Whether soil is frozen is dominating factor
Easton and Petrovic, 2004– Examined both synthetic and organic
fertilizer– P losses higher from P-containing fertilizer,
highest for organic types (P applied very high)
– Fertilization increased infiltration, decreased runoff
– Frozen soil runoff accounted for majority– Fertilization during establishment created
most pollution– In many cases, equal or higher N,P losses
from unfertilized control due to overall increased runoff
Beirman et al., 2010– Examined no fertilization, P-free, P and
triple-P fertilization– Runoff highest for non-fertilized plots– P in runoff from non-fertilized site
highest in year 1, the same as from site receiving P in fertilizer in subsequent four years
– Frozen soil runoff dominates P loading, and recommended that no P used in Fall where runoff potential is high
Overview No studies perfectly controlled, perfectly
realistic, but… Usually, nutrient concentrations in runoff
higher where fertilization is applied Usually, amount of runoff is lower where
fertilization is applied Most often, the total nutrient loss in runoff
is decreased by fertilizing Where applicable, nutrient loss when
ground is frozen dominates annual pollution
For more information contact:Dr. Christopher Murray
Department of Interdisciplinary StudiesLakehead University
In many of societies, turf (grass) has received an undeserved black eye
with respect to H2O
Finding BalanceLawns and Water Conservation
1 acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people
1 acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 64 people
1 acre of rocks produces enough oxygen for 0 people
Benefits of TurfgrassFunctiona
lRecreation
alAesthetic
Soil erosion control Dust prevention Rain water
entrapment Heat dissipation Glare reduction Pollutant
entrapment Pest reduction Fire prevention Security Environmental
protection Carbon
Sequestering
Low cost surfaces
Physical health Mental health Safety cushion Spectator
environment
Beauty Quality of life Mental health Social harmony Community pride Increased property
values Complements trees
and shrubs in landscape
Water conservation is a serious issue
The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages and water-quality
issues are global There is a need to both conserve and
clean the world’s water supplies Solutions need to be based on long-
term, site-specific consideration
The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages
don’t only happen in low-rainfall or developing countries
Weather plays a role
Regulation Plays a role
30% water loss due to aging Mechanical and structural issues
Environmental allocations
Pollution
The Earth is 71 % Water and 29% Land“Water, water everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;Water, water everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.”--Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834),
“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”
The Hydrologic Cycle Amount of water
has remained relatively stable for eons
We cannot increase water supply – we can only recycle it
Who Directly Consumes Highest % of Water?
Cooling for thermoelectric generation & production agriculture
Domestic uses target publicly supplied water
Greatest savings should come from greatest users
Different ideas of landscape and landscape maintenance which uses more water…
*after 27 days with no water applied Albany, OR 2008
10,000 GALLON WATER TANK
Mallard* Solar Green*
How much water does your lawn use?
Mallard required 8,800 gallons of water to maintain a 5,000 square foot lawn over the entire summer (90 days).
Solar Green required 19,700 gallons of water to maintain the same area; using nearly two of these tanks over the same time period!
Mallard – 38% Green Cover Geronimo – 2% Green Cover
Kentucky Bluegrass50 Days With No Water
Created by
TWCA®
Turfgrass Water Conservation Alliance® is an avenue to test and qualify turfgrass cultivars for improved drought tolerance.
Non-profit organization
Based on an accepted protocol (PST, NTEP, AR)
Utilized since 2002
Includes four grass seed companies – each participant develops their own brand
Has access to 8 rain out structures (OR (3), AR, VA, IN, NC, & newest addition Univ. of Guelph fall 2013)
Field testing in arid environments possible (OR, UC Riverside, CA, So NJ & possibly Olds College, Alberta, Canada)
TWCA
Minimum testing = 2 location/years
Finish in the top statistical group with Digital Imagery Analysis (DIA) data collections
Acceptable measure of turf quality
Comprise a minimum of 60% in blends or mixtures
3rd party peer review of cultivars
More information available at www.tgwca.org
PROTOCOL
Drought EvaluationRain Out Shelters –
Oregon / Arkansas / Virginia / Indiana / North Carolina / Ontario, Canada (fall ‘13)
Field Studies – Univ CA RiversideOlds College – in cooperation with GuelphUtah State – future location
Rain Out Shelter at NexGen
Field vs. Greenhouse ComparisonCreated by
RAIN OUT SHELTER (ROS)
Created by
A new planting established
Digital Image Analysis (DIA)Types of Analysis
Color Cover Turf Quality
Application Drought Disease Wear Color
5.07.0
Quality Ratings - Subjective
Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers(r < 0.68)
(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)(Horst et al., 1984)
6.0
Created byU of A
5.07.0
Quality Ratings - Subjective
Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers(r < 0.68)
(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)(Horst et al., 1984)
6.0
Created byU of A
Light box and digital camera ease of use
Evaluations Visual quality ratings (bi-weekly)
– (1-9 with 9 = optimal turfgrass quality, 6 = acceptable turf) Cover analysis using digital images (weekly)
(Richardson et al. 2001)
99.2% green turf cover 28.6% green turf cover
(Karcher et al., unpublished)
Density Analysis
Shadow count
Shadow count
Created byU of A
Digital Image Analysis(DIA)
1. Objective vs. Subjective2. Utilizes 1 to 9 scale3. 4 Parameters with 1 Evaluation4. Repeatable5. Calculate overall turf quality6. Requires minimal expertise7. Permanent record on file
Created byU of A
Mallard1QG-38
MoonlightY2K-59Diva
Mercury101-376Brilliant
SR 2284RSP
AmericaMonte Carlo
SonicJulia
KingfisherMidnight
Y2K-136Cynthia
Royale'Moonstruck
Princeton P105Blue Angel
BoutiqueArcadia
BedazzledCocktailGinney
Midnight IIUnique
GuinnessPreakness
BrooklawnBlueRidge
TouchdownRampartH94-707
ParadeMidnight Star
LimousinePp H6351Larissa
ChamplainYvette
MoonshinePp H7832FestinaBaron
DragonBlue Star
EagletonPST-99LM-15
Geronimo
Mallard1QG-38
MoonlightDiva
Y2K-59SR 2284Brilliant
Mercury101-376
Monte CarloKingfisherMidnight
AmericaRSP
SonicJulia
Royale'Princeton P105
MoonstruckBlue AngelArcadia
Y2K-136BedazzledMidnight IICynthia
GinneyBlueRidge
UniqueBoutique
BrooklawnParade
H94-707Cocktail
TouchdownMidnight Star
RampartPreakness
LimousineGuinness
Pp H6351Moonshine
YvetteBaron
LarissaChamplain
Blue StarFestina
Pp H7832Dragon
EagletonPST-99LM-15
Geronimo
1QG-38Mallard
DivaMoonlight
Y2K-59SR 2284
Brilliant101-376
MercuryMonte Carlo
KingfisherMidnight
AmericaRSP
SonicArcadia
Royale'Princeton P105
Blue AngelMoonstruck
Midnight IIJulia
BedazzledGinney
Y2K-136Parade
BlueRidgeBrooklawn
CynthiaUnique
H94-707Boutique
TouchdownMidnight StarRampart
CocktailLimousinePreakness
BaronPp H6351
GuinnessMoonshine
YvetteLarissa
ChamplainBlue Star
FestinaPp H7832Dragon
PST-99LM-15Eagleton
Geronimo
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Days after dry-down
75% green cover
50% green cover
25% green cover
Kentucky Bluegrass Data
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Wat
er in
Inch
es
Tall Fescue KentuckyBluegrass
Texas Hybrid PerennialRyegrass
2008 Avg 2009 Avg Total Avg
Water Usage Comparison by Species
Average 08/09
Assuming a 5,000 square foot lawn, this chart shows the amount of water required to maintain 40% green
cover at 90 days in Albany, Oregon. (08/09)
Cultivar2008 Water
(gallons)
2009 Water
(gallons)
08/09 Avg Water
(gallons)
Mallard 8,826 6,749 7,788 Bluestone 11,422 9,864 10,643 Eagleton 12,460 9,864 11,162 Midnight 14,017 13,498 13,758 Reveille 16,094 9,864 12,979 Solar Green 18,690 14,537 16,613 APR2105 10,903 20,248 15,575 Soprano 12,460 16,613 14,537 Protégé GLR 14,017 16,094 15,056 Brightstar 16,613 21,286 18,949 RK4 3,634 10,383 7,009 KY-31 5,711 10,383 8,047 Greystone 5,711 14,018 9,864 Rebel Exeda 7,788 15,627 11,707 ATF1258 7,788 10,903 9,345 Penn 1901 7,788 12,460 10,124
Ken
tuck
y B
lueg
rass
Rye
gras
sTa
ll Fe
scue
Mission Statement
An avenue to research and qualify turfgrasses that exhibit superior drought responses and provide education regarding water conservation.
Role of TWCA
Complexity of Drought Research
Evaporation - Water movement from the liquid to the gaseous state. In reference to turf, it normally refers from the soil to the atmosphere.
Transpiration - Water lost as it moves from the liquid to the gaseous state through the plant into the atmosphere.
Evapotranspiration - The total movement of water from liquid to the gaseous state, which includes the totality of the plant and the soil.
EarthwormsNematodesMycorrhizae fungi – phosphorous uptakeAzospirillum bacteria – brasilense amplifies effect of Arbuscular MycorrhizaeAgrobacterium radiobacter – phosphorus solubilizing bacteria
Help from Friends
How can you help?
Saving up to 50% water to keep the green
Possible to use less fertilizer to keep the green
Possible to use less chemicals to keep the green
Finding BalanceLawns and Water Conservation
THE TWCA IS COMMITTED TO WATER CONSERVATION
Questions?Russ Nicholson, CPAg, CCA
www.tgwca.org
Natural Knit® Spreading Perennial Ryegrass vs. “Regenerating Perennial Ryegrass” trial data.
Planting Date: 9/4/2010. • Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2,vs
“Regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate).
• Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.
• Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year.
• On 8/6/2012, three replications of four inch diameter turf samples were removed from each test plot using
a golf cup cutter.
• Live tillers for each sample were then counted, averaged and extrapolated to live tillers per square
foot of turf area.
Product Replication 1 Replication 2 Replication 3 Average
Natural Knit® 9,631 9,699 9,527 9,619
“Regenerating” ryegrass 3,153 3,199 3,222 3,191
LIVE TILLERS PER SQ FT OF TURF AREA
Planting Date: 9/4/2010. • Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2, other “regenerating”
ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate). • Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.
• Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year. • On 3/30/2011, four plugs of turf were removed from one plot each of
product tested. • Each plug was then planted into the fallow border area next to demonstration plots to allow for standardized mowing and fertilizing
throughout the year.
• On 8/6/2012, the diameter of each plug was measured in two directions after being trimmed around the outside edge to remove any
vegetative material that was not rooted. • The diameter measurements (widest and narrowest points) from each
trimmed plot were averaged and used to calculate total area in cm².
Product
Rep. #
Transfer Date
Beginning
Diameter
Beginn
ing Area cm2 Mowing
HeightN
rate
Trial Measure
Date
16 –month
Average Diameter
Area cm² 16-month Percent
Increase in Unit Area
Natural Knit® 1 3/30/2011 4.5 cm
15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 31 cm 733 cm² 4,610%
2 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 30 cm 707 cm² 4,450%
3 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 35 cm 962 cm² 6,050%
4 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 30 cm 707 cm² 4,450%
Avg.15.9 cm2 31.5 cm 777 cm² 4,890%
“Regenerati
ng” 1 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 21 cm 336 cm² 2,110%
2 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 24 cm 460 cm² 2,890%
3 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 25 cm 472 cm² 2,970%
4 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 25 cm 472 cm² 2,970%
Avg.15.9 cm2 23.75 cm 435 cm² 2,740%
RTF SODDED OCT. 2011
U OF TORONTO, SCARBOROUGH
CAMPUS SEPT 2012
AUGUST 2012
HLM Non-irrigated
HLM Irrigated
Serendipity
Cup changer
• 6 plugs per 2 x 2 m plot• Taken in November
Visual assessment of digging
• Visual rating • Taken in November
Grub assessment
HLM Irrigated RTF Irrigated RPR Irrigated HLM Non-irrigated RTF Non-irrigated RPR Non-rrrigated0
10
20
30
40
50
60Visual Damage
% v
isual
dam
age
VISUAL DAMAGE
HLM Irr
igated
RTF Irr
igated
RPR Irrigated
HLM Non-irr
igated
RTF Non-ir
rigated
RPR Non-rrrig
ated0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
No. of grubs/0.1m2N
umbe
r of g
rubs
• All irrigate plots had more grubs
• Better egg survival
Irrigation effect
• Irrigated home lawn mix plots were preferred by skunks
• Species composition easier to dig (fine fescue)
Skunk digging
preference
Anecdotal information
• 36 studies from North America
• Between 1930 and 2006
• Two from Europe
Benefits of Fall
Fertilization on Turf:
Citations
Literature review in 2012, Bauer et al.
The only benefit in our climate is enhanced fall colour and early spring green-up.
Increased root mass or deeper roots has not been substantiated.
Research has shown a high potential for N leaching at that time of year
Findings
My own findings: school trials:– On newer soils, compacted, the newer technology(Poly
coated products) outperformed the MU’s, IBDU, and organics Have seen some great results with late fall fertilizer…on
struggling turf. LCO’s: seeing more of a shift to:
– higher end products,– cut back on the number of apps– Load up on spring with a 70-90% SRN– Experimenting with reducing N by ½ to ¾ lb/1000– Improve turf density ahead of weeds
Acknowledgements Dr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland
Research Station Pam Charbonneau, OMAFRA Russ Nicholson, TWCA Dol Turf Restoration Sports Turf International Dr. Chris Murray, Lakehead University Hagen Ledeboer, Ledeboer Seed
Ken Pavely [email protected] www.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com 519 939 6063
THANK YOU!!!!!!!