Full TGIF Record # 315081
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2020am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/127974
    Last checked: 03/25/2021
Publication Type:
Content Type:Abstract or Summary Only
Author(s):Karcher, Douglas E.; Richardson, Michael D.; O'brien, Daniel P.
Author Affiliation:Karcher and Richardson: Professor, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; O'Brien: Turfgrass Program Technician, Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Title:How do various wetting agents affect water movement and retention in sand-based putting green profiles?
Section:C05 turfgrass science
Other records with the "C05 turfgrass science" Section

Golf turf management poster (includes student competition)
Other records with the "Golf turf management poster (includes student competition)" Section
Meeting Info.:November 9-13
Source:ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings. Vol. n/a, No. n/a, November 2020, p. 127974.
# of Pages:1
Publishing Information:[Madison, Wisconsin]: [American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America]
Related Web URL:https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2020am/mediafile/Handout/ aper127974/2020%20CSSA%20Poster%20-%20Karcher%20-%20Wetting%20Agents.pdf
    Last checked: 03/25/2021
    Notes: Direct Download
Abstract/Contents:"Many commonly used wetting agents are effective in mitigating localized dry spot symptoms and improving moisture uniformity on sand-based putting greens. In addition, several wetting agent manufacturers market some of their wetting agent products as either a penetrant or retainer, with the idea that a penetrant is best suited to rootzones that are prone to being excessively wet (finer sand, high organic matter content, limited air movement, high rainfall, etc.); while a retainer is best suited to rootzones that are prone to having insufficient moisture (coarse sand, low organic matter, high sun and wind exposure, low rainfall, etc.). Even though there is an industry-wide perception that various wetting agent products move or retain water through sand-based rootzones differently, there is a lack of research data to substantiate such differences. The objective of this research was to determine whether differences exist between wetting agent products commonly marketed as either penetrants or retainers in their effects on water movement through sand-based putting green rootzones. Two separate experimental areas were used, which included mature Tifeagle ultradwarf bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon x C. transvaalensis) and 'L-93' creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) putting greens. Both experimental putting greens were constructed according to USGA recommendations, and had a history of localized dry spot development. Several "penetrant" and "retainer" wetting agent products were applied to each experimental area and evaluated in multiple seasons. Following treatment applications, volumetric moisture content was measured twice weekly throughout each plot and at four depths ranging from 4 to 20 cm. Wetting agent treatments did not differ significantly in average moisture content at any depth, on any date, in any trial. Therefore, we do not yet have field evidence that "retainer" and "penetrant" products affect water movement through a putting green profile differently."
Note:This item is an abstract only!
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
2020. How do various wetting agents affect water movement and retention in sand-based putting green profiles?. Agron. Abr. n/a(n/a):p. 127974.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=315081
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 315081.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
    Last checked: 03/25/2021
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)