| |
| Web URL(s): | https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2005aug75.pdf
Last checked: 09/30/2008
Requires: PDF Reader |
|---|
| Access Restriction: | Certain MSU-hosted archive URLs may be restricted to legacy database members. |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Professional |
|---|
| Author(s): | Throssell, Clark |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Director of research, GCSAA |
|---|
| Title: | GCSAA-USGA wetting agent evaluation: California |
|---|
| Section: | Wetting agent study: Update
Other records with the "Wetting agent study: Update" Section
|
|---|
| Source: | Golf Course Management. Vol. 73, No. 8, August 2005, p. 75. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Lawrence, KS: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Wetting agents; Evaluations; Phytotoxicity; Injuries; Hydrophobic soils
|
|---|
| Geographic Terms: | California |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "No phytotoxicity was observed in 2003, but significant injury was observed in 2004. The difference in response could be due to the change in weather conditions between the two years. In 2004, Cascade Plus caused the greatest phytotoxicity at one and three days after treatment. The most hydrophobic regions were at depths of 1.5 and 2.5 centimeters (0.6 abd 1.0 inch) for both years. All the wetting agent treatments reduced dew formation on the turf compared to the control. In both years, Aqueduct, Hydro-Wet, LescoFlo, Primer Select, Surfside 37 and TriCure significantly reduced dew formation seven days after application compared to the other products in the study. Overall, based on the average water-droplet-penetration test in 2003 Aqueduct, Brilliance, Cascade Plus, LescoFlo, Primer Select and TriCure significantly reduced hydrophobicity compared to the control and Respond 2. There was no difference among the Respond 2, Naiad, Hydro-Wet and Surfside 37 treatments. In 2004, according to the overall average water-droplet-penetration test, Aqueduct reduced hydrophobicity significantly compared to the control, Brilliance, Hydro-Wet, LescoFlo, Naiad Primer Select, Respond 2, Surfside 37 and TriCure. The Aqueduct and Cascade Plus treatments were not significantly different. There were no significant difference among the Brilliance, Casacade Plus, Hydro-Wet, LescoFlo, Primer Select and TriCure treatments". |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| See Also: | See also related article, "Wetting agent study V: California", Golf Course Management Vol.73, No.4, April 2005, p.66-68, R=103319 R=103319 |
|---|
| See Also: | Other items relating to: Wetting Agents |
|---|
| Note: | Graphs
Summary as Abstract |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Throssell, C. 2005. GCSAA-USGA wetting agent evaluation: California. Golf Course Manage. 73(8):p. 75. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=106135 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 106135. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2005aug75.pdf
Last checked: 09/30/2008
Requires: PDF Reader |
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 433 .A1 G5 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
