|
|
Unity for the Sake of Uniformity
June 1, 2005 By: Douglas Linde TurfGrass TrendsNew database allows superintendents to measure, compare patchiness of turfgrass
When a golfer stands on the tee and looks out over the fairway, what does he or she see? Is it a well-defined, uniform green fairway or is it a patchwork of browns and greens with a barely visible fairway border? Which condition offers better playability? Which condition is more aesthetically pleasing? Which condition is more agronomically sound?
The answer to these questions is "it depends." It depends on the personal opinion of the course designer, golfers, superintendent and the course officials.
Parameters that assess aesthetics can be measured, but the interpretation of those measurements is subjective because "aesthetics (beauty) is in the eye of the beholder."
Turfgrass uniformity is one of these aesthetic parameters. Although it has been included as a parameter in evaluating turf quality for National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) trials (Morris, 2005), turf uniformity alone is not commonly measured by turf managers and scientists.
Measurements of uniformity are most useful when they are compared to someone's or some group's expectation. For example, American golfers often expect a perfectly manicured golf hole, while British golfers are more tolerant of imperfection (Foy, 2002). Golfers who expect perfectly manicured turf likely have high expectations for turf uniformity, thus uniformity measurements become useful. Golfers who don't expect perfect turf likely have lower expectations for uniformity, thus uniformity measurements are not as useful.
Turf managers need to understand their customers' expectations and set turf uniformity standards based upon these expectations. In addition, measurements can be useful in determining if standards are being met and to quantify the effects of a management program change. For example, regular uniformity measurements can be used to monitor the progress of a species conversion program.
 |
From January 2004 to August 2004 a project was conducted by the New Zealand Sports Turf Institute (NZSTI) to benchmark golf course conditions throughout New Zealand (Linde, 2004). The purpose of the project was to develop materials and methods to assess golf course conditioning. Those materials and methods were then used to create a database of course conditioning parameters that the NZSTI could use to advise golf clubs more appropriately.
Turf uniformity was one parameter used to describe conditions of each turf area on a golf course. The method to measure turf uniformity was adapted from a method used in soil science to describe soil mottling (Schoeneberger et al., 1998). Soil mottling is defined as spots or blotches of different color or shades of color interspersed within the dominant matrix color of a soil (Brady and Weil, 2000).
Soil mottles are described by characteristics such as mottle quantity, size and contrast. For this project, a similar term, "patchiness," was used in place of the term "mottling" to describe turf uniformity. A turf area that was uniform had no patches. A turf area that had patches was described by the patch quantity and patch contrast.
Patchiness and uniformity
Patches were defined as visible changes in color and/or texture with the dominant color/texture of the turf area. Patch quantity was the percentage of the area that the patches covered. Values ranged from 0-50 percent. A value of 0 percent patch quantity represented no patches and the turf was uniform. A value of 50 percent patch quantity meant that no one color or texture was dominant.Patch contrast was a measure comparing how much the patch color or texture contrasted with the dominant color or texture. The area assessed was placed into one of three categories of patch contrast — Faint, Distinct or Prominent. The Faint category represented patches that were indistinct and evident only upon close examination (Figure 1). An example would be a patch of light-green Poa annua against a slightly lighter green background — typical of a 100 percent Poa annua putting green.
 Figure 1. 20 percent faint patchiness |
1 2 3 4
 | ©2010 Questex Media Group LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster. |