Full TGIF Record # 127710
Item 1 of 1
DOI:10.1094/ATS-2007-0816-01-RS
Web URL(s):https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ats/articles/4/1/2007/0816-10-RS
    Last checked: 11/04/2016
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ats/pdfs/4/1/2007-0816-01-RS
    Last checked: 11/07/2016
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Publication Type:
i
Refereed
Author(s):Munshaw, Gregg C.; Stewart, Barry R.; Philley, H. Wayne; Wells, D. Wayne
Author Affiliation:Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi
Title:Ball mark repair: Is it the tool, or how you use it?
Section:Applied turfgrass research
Other records with the "Applied turfgrass research" Section
Source:Applied Turfgrass Science. Vol. 4, No. 1, December 2007, p. [1-8].
Publishing Information:Plant Management Network
# of Pages:8
Related Web URL:https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ats/abstracts/4/1/2007-0816-01-RS
    Last checked: 11/04/2016
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
    Notes: Abstract only
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Ball marks; Golf greens; Etiquette; Golf course accessories; Rules of golf; Quality; Ball roll distance; Visual evaluation; Aesthetic values; Turf Recovery
Abstract/Contents:"A study was designed to test the efficacy of repair tools and methods. The study was conducted in summer 2005 on two 'MS-Supreme' bermudagrass (Cynodon Πmagenissii Hurc.) greens. A pneumatic ball-firing device provided uniform marks on the turf. Nine commercial ball mark repair tools, each with a specific repair method, a golf tee, and an unrepaired control were tested. Multiple human repairers were used to evaluate tool/method consistency. Significant differences in repairers occurred; however, there was not a significant repairer Πtool interaction for any tested parameter. Visual turfgrass assessment immediately after repair showed that tools requiring that turf be pushed towards the center of the ball mark, or tools with methods that gently twist the surrounding turf into the ball mark, tended to result in the highest quality of repair. Tools with methods that lifted soil from the center of the mark resulted in the lowest quality after repair. This trend continued until recovery, approximately 3 to 4 weeks after initial damage. Ball mark diameter 1 to 3 weeks after repair continued to show that tools designed to push healthy turf forward had a smaller damaged area than tools designed to lift soil."
Language:English
References:10
Note:Includes videos, "Ballmark3", "Ballmark4", "Ballmark5", "Ballmark6", and "Ballmark7"
Pictures, color
Tables
Graphs
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Munshaw, G. C., B. R. Stewart, H. W. Philley, and D. W. Wells. 2007. Ball mark repair: Is it the tool, or how you use it?. Appl. Turfgrass Sci. 4(1):p. [1-8].
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=127710
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 127710.
Choices for finding the above item:
DOI: 10.1094/ATS-2007-0816-01-RS
Web URL(s):
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ats/articles/4/1/2007/0816-10-RS
    Last checked: 11/04/2016
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ats/pdfs/4/1/2007-0816-01-RS
    Last checked: 11/07/2016
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Find from within TIC:
   Digitally in TIC by record number.
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)