Full TGIF Record # 251761
Item 1 of 1
Publication Type:
i
Report
Author(s):Callahan, L. M.; Freeland, R. S.; Von Bernuth, R. D.; Shepard, D. P.; Parham, J. M.; Garrison, J. M.
Author Affiliation:Callahan, Shepard, Parham, and Garrison: Ornamental Horticulture; Freeland and Von Bernuth: Agricultural Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Title:Water infiltration rates and water retention
Article Series:Geotextiles as substitutes for choke layer sand in USGA greens, part 1
Source:1996 Turfgrass Management Annual Research Summary Report [Tennessee]. December 1996, p. 24-34.
# of Pages:11
Publishing Information:Knoxville, Tennessee: Agricultural Experiment Station, The University of Tennessee
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Geotextile fabrics; Golf green construction; Infiltration rate; Intermediate sand layer; Percolation rate; Soil water retention; USGA recommendations
Abstract/Contents:"Considerable research has been conducted over the years in developing technology for constructing better golf greens. Many researchers support the need for an intermediate layer (choke layer) between the rootzone and sub-drain coarse aggregate in USGA specification greens. However, the need and reliability of the coarse sand choke layer presently used has been questioned. Investigations were initiated in 1987 at The University of Tennessee to determine the effectiveness and reliability of ten geotextiles as intermediate choke layer drainage separations between a USGA rootzone and a gravel sub-drain system. Performance and reliability of geotextiles were compared to a USGA rootzone with a coarse sand choke layer and a no choke layer profile. Measurements of water infiltration and percolation rates (WIPRS) were started 23 Nov. 1987 with all treatments (trts) exhibiting high values. The sand choke later (trt 1) and no choke layer (trt 2) WIPRs were much higher than WIPRs for the geotextile choke layers (trts 3-12). By the end of 8 years the USGA rootzones settled only 90%. All of the geotextile trts developed a perched water table. The sand and no choke layers retained much less water than the geotextiles. The water retention (WR) of the no choke layer was higher than the sand choke layer but WR values for both were too low. None of the geotextiles clogged and none resulted in a soggy green."
Language:English
References:13
See Also:See also part 2 "Particle migration and condition of separation layers" 1996 Turfgrass Management Annual Research Summary Report [Tennessee], December 1996, p. 35-46, R=251765. R=251765
Note:Reprint appears in International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 8(Part 1) 1997 p. 65-74: Permission to link to a digitized version within this publication has been denied by R. S. Freeland
"Research Report 96-23"
Tables
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Callahan, L. M., R. S. Freeland, R. D. Von Bernuth, D. P. Shepard, J. M. Parham, and J. M. Garrison. 1996. Water infiltration rates and water retention. Turfgrass Manage. Annu. Res. Summ. Rep. p. 24-34.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=251761
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 251761.
Choices for finding the above item:
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: b4010737
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)