| |
| Web URL(s): | https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/its/articles/2009jou489.pdf
Last checked: 10/18/2011
Requires: PDF Reader |
|---|
| Access Restriction: | Certain MSU-hosted archive URLs may be restricted to legacy database members. |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Stewart, Barry R.;
Munshaw, Gregg C.;
Philley, H. Wayne;
Wells, D. Wayne |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi |
|---|
| Title: | Ball marks: Does repair tool influence recovery time? |
|---|
| Section: | Establishment and maintenance
Other records with the "Establishment and maintenance" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | Santiago, Chile: July 26-30 2009 |
|---|
| Source: | International Turfgrass Society Research Journal. Vol. 11, No. Part 1, 2009, p. 489-499. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Madison, WI: International Turfgrass Society |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 11 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Agrostis stolonifera; Ball mark repair tools; Ball marks; Ball roll distance; Golf greens; Heat stress; Quality evaluation; Turf recovery
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Ball marks are a problem on golf greens as they reduce the uniformity of the turf, are aesthetically unpleasing, and can affect the trueness of ball roll. A study consisting of four experiments testing the efficacy of different ball mark repair tools and methods on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera var. palustris Huds. Farw.) putting greens was performed. A pneumatic ball cannon provided uniform marks on a nursery green and practice green at Old Waverly Golf Club near West Point, MS during the late spring/early summer and fall of 2005. Multiple human repairers were used to evaluate tool/method consistency. Significant differences were found among tools and among repairers but a significant repairer x tool interaction was not found. In two studies conducted in the spring/early summer high heat and humidity stopped creeping bentgrass growth and thus healing of the ball marks after about 40 d and very little healing occurred through day 65. Although two tools produced acceptable repairs in these experiments no tool produced a repair that had a turf quality rating higher than 5 (1 = dead turf, 6 = acceptable turf, 9 = excellent turf quality). In two experiments performed under better growing conditions in the fall, ball marks healed in as little as 16 d and turf quality was rated higher than 6 (1 = dead turf, 6 = acceptable turf, 9 = excellent turf quality) six days after repair. Tools that used a push forward method had the highest repair quality and fastest recovery time. Tools using a dig and lift the center of the mark method had recovery times and sizes similar to the unrepaired marks." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 10 |
|---|
| Note: | Partial reprint appears in Carolinas Green, January/February 2010, p. 15
Pictures, b/w
Tables |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Stewart, B. R., G. C. Munshaw, H. W. Philley, and D. W. Wells. 2009. Ball marks: Does repair tool influence recovery time?. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 11(Part 1):p. 489-499. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=151052 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 151052. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/its/articles/2009jou489.pdf
Last checked: 10/18/2011
Requires: PDF Reader |
| 
MSU catalog number: b2548899 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
