Simulated traffic on turfgrasses during drought stress: I. Performance and recovery of turf canopies

Abstract

During drought, golf course turf continues to receive golf cart traffic, which may compound conditions of drought stress. Our objectives in a 2‐yr field study were to evaluate responses in turf canopy variables of (a) green cover (GC) and (b) turf quality (TQ) from the impact of golf cart traffic during a 41‐d summer drought and subsequent 40‐d recovery without traffic on two cool‐season (C3) [Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)] and two warm‐season (C4) turfgrasses {buffalograss [Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) Engelm: syn. Bouteloua dactyloides (Nutt.) J.T. Columbus} and zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steud.)} maintained at golf course fairway and rough mowing heights. Better drought tolerance of C4 than C3 turfgrasses resulted in higher TQ and GC of C4 turfgrasses during drought and faster recovery regardless of traffic or mowing height. Compared with nontrafficked plots at the end of drought, traffic at rough height reduced GC by 43% in C4 turfgrasses and 33% in perennial ryegrass, while traffic at fairway height reduced GC by 26% in C4 turfgrasses but had negligible effects on GC in C3 turfgrasses. Except for Kentucky bluegrass in year two, all turf species recovered from cart traffic stress during drought and returned to acceptable TQ and high GC upon rewatering in both years. Results indicate cart traffic during drought accelerates declines in TQ and GC, which vary among species and heights, and traffic will impact turf aesthetics more severely at rough than at fairway mowing heights, so golf course superintendents should monitor and manage traffic at rough heights more closely.

Minimum water requirements of cool‐season turfgrasses for survival and recovery after prolonged drought

“…Similarly, in earlier research conducted under the other rainout shelter we used in 2018, KB went dormant during an 82‐d dry down with negligible water inputs but also recovered fully thereafter, although the recovery was slow (58–148 d; Goldsby et al., 2015). One difference between those studies (Braun et al., 2020, Goldsby et al., 2015) and ours is that they were both seeded KB, whereas ours was sodded. After >1 yr since it had been sodded in the previous spring, Brilliant KB irrigated with 20% ET a during the summer gradually recovered after full irrigation was resumed, although it was severely damaged by billbugs and heat in the second year (Fu et al., 2004).…”

“…Although dormancy is considered a drought resistance strategy, KB did not recover from prolonged drought stress in any irrigation treatment in either year of our study. This was surprising because KB typically exhibits good drought tolerance, including in studies conducted at our location (Braun, Bremer, & Hoyle, 2020; Fu et al., 2004; Goldsby et al., 2015; Lewis et al., 2012). For example, in earlier research conducted under the same rainout shelter as our study in 2017, ‘America’ KB (a Compact America type) went dormant during a 41‐d dry down without water inputs during the first summer after fall seeding, but then recovered fully (Braun et al., 2020).…”

“…This was surprising because KB typically exhibits good drought tolerance, including in studies conducted at our location (Braun, Bremer, & Hoyle, 2020; Fu et al., 2004; Goldsby et al., 2015; Lewis et al., 2012). For example, in earlier research conducted under the same rainout shelter as our study in 2017, ‘America’ KB (a Compact America type) went dormant during a 41‐d dry down without water inputs during the first summer after fall seeding, but then recovered fully (Braun et al., 2020). Similarly, in earlier research conducted under the other rainout shelter we used in 2018, KB went dormant during an 82‐d dry down with negligible water inputs but also recovered fully thereafter, although the recovery was slow (58–148 d; Goldsby et al., 2015).…”

“…However, minimally acceptable quality was maintained in TF for only 45 d at 50% ET o in the second year (Table 3); recall that the same TF sod was used in both years. Other researchers have reported that cool‐season turfgrasses, including TF and KB, performed more poorly in the second consecutive year of drought stress than in the first year (Braun et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2004). Fu et al.…”

Winter golf cart traffic, colorants, and overseeding influence winter green cover and spring recovery of buffalograss

“…J.T. Columbus], a warm‐season turfgrass, has the ability to survive during summer months in the transitional climatic zone with reduced inputs (i.e., water, fertilizer, pesticides) without compromising the playability of golf course roughs and fairways (Braun, Bremer, & Hoyle, 2020). However, its brown color during winter dormancy may be undersirable to some, reducing its use as a low‐input turfgrass option for golf courses.…”