What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertilization of Turfgrass?

Dr. Chris Murray,Department of Interdisciplinary Studies

Outline What motivated this project? Runoff and pollution Turfgrass as a water quality

management tool Experiments and studies of the

effect of fertilization Conclusions

Project motivation A collaboration between Landscape Ontario’s

Lawn Care Commodity Group and Lakehead University

Two factors initiated this project:1. Source water protection agencies and similar

organizations are considering fertilizer bans as a means of protecting water quality

2. Several studies had reported results contradicting this approach: where fertilizer is stopped, N,P in runoff increases

General research questions What is the true state of scientific

information regarding this issue? Is there consensus within the scientific

community? If so, does it support a ban on

fertilization of turfgrass? A primary focus of this study is the

effect, both positive and detrimental, fertilization of turfgrass may have on the nutrient pollution through runoff.

Stormwater / runoff Most critical to understand: what

dominates water pollution Why is runoff a problem? Runoff is “natural”, and would exist

without human intervention Human activity dramatically increases

runoff and the pollution it carries. As runoff increases, pollution increases

Algal Blooms, Eutrophication

Terminology Surface water/stormwater/runoff Infiltration/leachate In general, we aim to increase

infiltration and decrease runoff to decrease pollution

Why? Sediment and associated chemical

pollutants

Erosion Wherever

development occurs, risk of increased runoff velocity and erosion

More sediment is carried into water

Dissolved/particulate pollution

Nutrients such as phosphorous are soluble in water, but will bind with minerals in sediment

A very small concentration of sediment may be responsible for most of the nutrient loading

For a given mass, fine particles carry more pollution than large particles, and carry it further

How can adding fertilizer help? Turfgrass is, in general, a non-native

groundcover that requires maintenance to thrive

Without human intervention, it will not outcompete indigenous plants (weeds) which are better-suited to harsh conditions (especially drought) but not suited to human-scale runoff

In general, healthier turfgrass increasingly reduces runoff and increases infiltration/evapotranspiration

Runoff can be completely eliminated by turfgrass, and a lawn is often the only barrier between impervious surfaces and waterways

Runoff, Infiltration and Erosion Control

• How might reducing fertilizer increase the concentration of N, P in water?

• Small effect: increased decay of plants

• Large effect: less healthy turfgrass cannot hold water as effectively, so runoff increases

• Filtering is not enough: the amount of water must be reduced

Competing Factors

• The contamination of runoff by nutrients (both dissolved and particulate) found in fertilizer contributes to eutrophication of lakes causing negative impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna.

• Healthier turfgrass systems improve surface water quality through natural filtration and absorption of water, which reduces runoff intensity.

Reports worth examining Garn, 2002:

– No runoff other than that due to rain on lawns– Increase P in runoff for fertilized lawns– The site with the best turf stand had the least

runoff, though quantitative measurements not made.

– No effect of fertilization on nitrogen in runoff Kussow, 2002, 2004, 2008:

– Fertilization with P leads to more P in runoff – Accounted for runoff volume– Most (runoff, nutrients) recorded when soil frozen– Without fertilization for two years, runoff, nitrogen and

phosphorous increased – Whether soil is frozen is dominating factor

Easton and Petrovic, 2004– Examined both synthetic and organic

fertilizer– P losses higher from P-containing fertilizer,

highest for organic types (P applied very high)

– Fertilization increased infiltration, decreased runoff

– Frozen soil runoff accounted for majority– Fertilization during establishment created

most pollution– In many cases, equal or higher N,P losses

from unfertilized control due to overall increased runoff

Beirman et al., 2010– Examined no fertilization, P-free, P and

triple-P fertilization– Runoff highest for non-fertilized plots– P in runoff from non-fertilized site

highest in year 1, the same as from site receiving P in fertilizer in subsequent four years

– Frozen soil runoff dominates P loading, and recommended that no P used in Fall where runoff potential is high

Overview No studies perfectly controlled, perfectly

realistic, but… Usually, nutrient concentrations in runoff

higher where fertilization is applied Usually, amount of runoff is lower where

fertilization is applied Most often, the total nutrient loss in runoff

is decreased by fertilizing Where applicable, nutrient loss when

ground is frozen dominates annual pollution

For more information contact:Dr. Christopher Murray

Department of Interdisciplinary StudiesLakehead University

cmurray1@lakeheadu.ca

In many of societies, turf (grass) has received an undeserved black eye

with respect to H2O

Finding BalanceLawns and Water Conservation

1 acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people

1 acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 64 people

1 acre of rocks produces enough oxygen for 0 people

Benefits of TurfgrassFunctiona

lRecreation

alAesthetic

Soil erosion control Dust prevention Rain water

entrapment Heat dissipation Glare reduction Pollutant

entrapment Pest reduction Fire prevention Security Environmental

protection Carbon

Sequestering

Low cost surfaces

Physical health Mental health Safety cushion Spectator

environment

Beauty Quality of life Mental health Social harmony Community pride Increased property

values Complements trees

and shrubs in landscape

Water conservation is a serious issue

The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages and water-quality

issues are global There is a need to both conserve and

clean the world’s water supplies Solutions need to be based on long-

term, site-specific consideration

The Scope of Water Problems Water shortages

don’t only happen in low-rainfall or developing countries

Weather plays a role

Regulation Plays a role

30% water loss due to aging Mechanical and structural issues

Environmental allocations

Pollution

The Earth is 71 % Water and 29% Land“Water, water everywhere,

And all the boards did shrink;Water, water everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink.”--Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834),

“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

The Hydrologic Cycle Amount of water

has remained relatively stable for eons

We cannot increase water supply – we can only recycle it

Who Directly Consumes Highest % of Water?

Cooling for thermoelectric generation & production agriculture

Domestic uses target publicly supplied water

Greatest savings should come from greatest users

Different ideas of landscape and landscape maintenance which uses more water…

*after 27 days with no water applied Albany, OR 2008

10,000 GALLON WATER TANK

Mallard* Solar Green*

How much water does your lawn use?

Mallard required 8,800 gallons of water to maintain a 5,000 square foot lawn over the entire summer (90 days).

Solar Green required 19,700 gallons of water to maintain the same area; using nearly two of these tanks over the same time period!

Mallard – 38% Green Cover Geronimo – 2% Green Cover

Kentucky Bluegrass50 Days With No Water

Created by

TWCA®

Turfgrass Water Conservation Alliance® is an avenue to test and qualify turfgrass cultivars for improved drought tolerance.

Non-profit organization

Based on an accepted protocol (PST, NTEP, AR)

Utilized since 2002

Includes four grass seed companies – each participant develops their own brand

Has access to 8 rain out structures (OR (3), AR, VA, IN, NC, & newest addition Univ. of Guelph fall 2013)

Field testing in arid environments possible (OR, UC Riverside, CA, So NJ & possibly Olds College, Alberta, Canada)

TWCA

Minimum testing = 2 location/years

Finish in the top statistical group with Digital Imagery Analysis (DIA) data collections

Acceptable measure of turf quality

Comprise a minimum of 60% in blends or mixtures

3rd party peer review of cultivars

More information available at www.tgwca.org

PROTOCOL

Drought EvaluationRain Out Shelters –

Oregon / Arkansas / Virginia / Indiana / North Carolina / Ontario, Canada (fall ‘13)

Field Studies – Univ CA RiversideOlds College – in cooperation with GuelphUtah State – future location

Rain Out Shelter at NexGen

Field vs. Greenhouse ComparisonCreated by

RAIN OUT SHELTER (ROS)

Created by

A new planting established

Digital Image Analysis (DIA)Types of Analysis

Color Cover Turf Quality

Application Drought Disease Wear Color

5.07.0

Quality Ratings - Subjective

Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers(r < 0.68)

(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)(Horst et al., 1984)

6.0

Created byU of A

5.07.0

Quality Ratings - Subjective

Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers(r < 0.68)

(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)(Horst et al., 1984)

6.0

Created byU of A

Light box and digital camera ease of use

Evaluations Visual quality ratings (bi-weekly)

– (1-9 with 9 = optimal turfgrass quality, 6 = acceptable turf) Cover analysis using digital images (weekly)

(Richardson et al. 2001)

99.2% green turf cover 28.6% green turf cover

(Karcher et al., unpublished)

Density Analysis

Shadow count

Shadow count

Created byU of A

Digital Image Analysis(DIA)

1. Objective vs. Subjective2. Utilizes 1 to 9 scale3. 4 Parameters with 1 Evaluation4. Repeatable5. Calculate overall turf quality6. Requires minimal expertise7. Permanent record on file

Created byU of A

Mallard1QG-38

MoonlightY2K-59Diva

Mercury101-376Brilliant

SR 2284RSP

AmericaMonte Carlo

SonicJulia

KingfisherMidnight

Y2K-136Cynthia

Royale'Moonstruck

Princeton P105Blue Angel

BoutiqueArcadia

BedazzledCocktailGinney

Midnight IIUnique

GuinnessPreakness

BrooklawnBlueRidge

TouchdownRampartH94-707

ParadeMidnight Star

LimousinePp H6351Larissa

ChamplainYvette

MoonshinePp H7832FestinaBaron

DragonBlue Star

EagletonPST-99LM-15

Geronimo

Mallard1QG-38

MoonlightDiva

Y2K-59SR 2284Brilliant

Mercury101-376

Monte CarloKingfisherMidnight

AmericaRSP

SonicJulia

Royale'Princeton P105

MoonstruckBlue AngelArcadia

Y2K-136BedazzledMidnight IICynthia

GinneyBlueRidge

UniqueBoutique

BrooklawnParade

H94-707Cocktail

TouchdownMidnight Star

RampartPreakness

LimousineGuinness

Pp H6351Moonshine

YvetteBaron

LarissaChamplain

Blue StarFestina

Pp H7832Dragon

EagletonPST-99LM-15

Geronimo

1QG-38Mallard

DivaMoonlight

Y2K-59SR 2284

Brilliant101-376

MercuryMonte Carlo

KingfisherMidnight

AmericaRSP

SonicArcadia

Royale'Princeton P105

Blue AngelMoonstruck

Midnight IIJulia

BedazzledGinney

Y2K-136Parade

BlueRidgeBrooklawn

CynthiaUnique

H94-707Boutique

TouchdownMidnight StarRampart

CocktailLimousinePreakness

BaronPp H6351

GuinnessMoonshine

YvetteLarissa

ChamplainBlue Star

FestinaPp H7832Dragon

PST-99LM-15Eagleton

Geronimo

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Days after dry-down

75% green cover

50% green cover

25% green cover

Kentucky Bluegrass Data

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Wat

er in

Inch

es

Tall Fescue KentuckyBluegrass

Texas Hybrid PerennialRyegrass

2008 Avg 2009 Avg Total Avg

Water Usage Comparison by Species

Average 08/09

Assuming a 5,000 square foot lawn, this chart shows the amount of water required to maintain 40% green

cover at 90 days in Albany, Oregon. (08/09)

Cultivar2008 Water

(gallons)

2009 Water

(gallons)

08/09 Avg Water

(gallons)

Mallard 8,826 6,749 7,788 Bluestone 11,422 9,864 10,643 Eagleton 12,460 9,864 11,162 Midnight 14,017 13,498 13,758 Reveille 16,094 9,864 12,979 Solar Green 18,690 14,537 16,613 APR2105 10,903 20,248 15,575 Soprano 12,460 16,613 14,537 Protégé GLR 14,017 16,094 15,056 Brightstar 16,613 21,286 18,949 RK4 3,634 10,383 7,009 KY-31 5,711 10,383 8,047 Greystone 5,711 14,018 9,864 Rebel Exeda 7,788 15,627 11,707 ATF1258 7,788 10,903 9,345 Penn 1901 7,788 12,460 10,124

Ken

tuck

y B

lueg

rass

Rye

gras

sTa

ll Fe

scue

Mission Statement

An avenue to research and qualify turfgrasses that exhibit superior drought responses and provide education regarding water conservation.

Role of TWCA

Complexity of Drought Research

Evaporation - Water movement from the liquid to the gaseous state. In reference to turf, it normally refers from the soil to the atmosphere.

Transpiration - Water lost as it moves from the liquid to the gaseous state through the plant into the atmosphere.

Evapotranspiration - The total movement of water from liquid to the gaseous state, which includes the totality of the plant and the soil.

EarthwormsNematodesMycorrhizae fungi – phosphorous uptakeAzospirillum bacteria – brasilense amplifies effect of Arbuscular MycorrhizaeAgrobacterium radiobacter – phosphorus solubilizing bacteria

Help from Friends

How can you help?

Saving up to 50% water to keep the green

Possible to use less fertilizer to keep the green

Possible to use less chemicals to keep the green

Finding BalanceLawns and Water Conservation

THE TWCA IS COMMITTED TO WATER CONSERVATION

Questions?Russ Nicholson, CPAg, CCA

russ@penningtonseed.com

russ@tgwca.org

www.tgwca.org

Natural Knit® Spreading Perennial Ryegrass vs. “Regenerating Perennial Ryegrass” trial data.

Planting Date: 9/4/2010. • Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2,vs

“Regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate).

• Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.

• Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year.

• On 8/6/2012, three replications of four inch diameter turf samples were removed from each test plot using

a golf cup cutter.

• Live tillers for each sample were then counted, averaged and extrapolated to live tillers per square

foot of turf area.

Product Replication 1 Replication 2 Replication 3 Average

Natural Knit® 9,631 9,699 9,527 9,619

“Regenerating” ryegrass 3,153 3,199 3,222 3,191

LIVE TILLERS PER SQ FT OF TURF AREA

Planting Date: 9/4/2010. • Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2, other “regenerating”

ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate). • Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.

• Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year. • On 3/30/2011, four plugs of turf were removed from one plot each of

product tested. • Each plug was then planted into the fallow border area next to demonstration plots to allow for standardized mowing and fertilizing

throughout the year.

• On 8/6/2012, the diameter of each plug was measured in two directions after being trimmed around the outside edge to remove any

vegetative material that was not rooted. • The diameter measurements (widest and narrowest points) from each

trimmed plot were averaged and used to calculate total area in cm².

Product

Rep. #

Transfer Date

Beginning

Diameter

 Beginn

ing Area cm2 Mowing

HeightN

rate

Trial Measure

Date

16 –month

Average Diameter

  

Area cm² 16-month Percent

Increase in Unit Area

   Natural Knit® 1 3/30/2011 4.5 cm

15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 31 cm 733 cm² 4,610%

2 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 30 cm 707 cm² 4,450%

3 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 35 cm 962 cm² 6,050%

4 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 30 cm 707 cm² 4,450%

   

Avg.15.9 cm2 31.5 cm 777 cm² 4,890%

   “Regenerati

ng” 1 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 21 cm 336 cm² 2,110%

2 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 24 cm 460 cm² 2,890%

3 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 25 cm 472 cm² 2,970%

4 3/30/2011 4.5 cm15.9 cm2 2.5 cm 4 lb 8/06/2012 25 cm 472 cm² 2,970%

   

Avg.15.9 cm2 23.75 cm 435 cm² 2,740%

RTF SODDED OCT. 2011

U OF TORONTO, SCARBOROUGH

CAMPUS SEPT 2012

AUGUST 2012

HLM Non-irrigated

HLM Irrigated

Serendipity

Cup changer

• 6 plugs per 2 x 2 m plot• Taken in November

Visual assessment of digging

• Visual rating • Taken in November

Grub assessment

HLM Irrigated RTF Irrigated RPR Irrigated HLM Non-irrigated RTF Non-irrigated RPR Non-rrrigated0

10

20

30

40

50

60Visual Damage

% v

isual

dam

age

VISUAL DAMAGE

HLM Irr

igated

RTF Irr

igated

RPR Irrigated

HLM Non-irr

igated

RTF Non-ir

rigated

RPR Non-rrrig

ated0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

No. of grubs/0.1m2N

umbe

r of g

rubs

• All irrigate plots had more grubs

• Better egg survival

Irrigation effect

• Irrigated home lawn mix plots were preferred by skunks

• Species composition easier to dig (fine fescue)

Skunk digging

preference

Anecdotal information

• 36 studies from North America

• Between 1930 and 2006

• Two from Europe

Benefits of Fall

Fertilization on Turf:

Citations

Literature review in 2012, Bauer et al.

The only benefit in our climate is enhanced fall colour and early spring green-up.

Increased root mass or deeper roots has not been substantiated.

Research has shown a high potential for N leaching at that time of year

Findings

My own findings: school trials:– On newer soils, compacted, the newer technology(Poly

coated products) outperformed the MU’s, IBDU, and organics Have seen some great results with late fall fertilizer…on

struggling turf. LCO’s: seeing more of a shift to:

– higher end products,– cut back on the number of apps– Load up on spring with a 70-90% SRN– Experimenting with reducing N by ½ to ¾ lb/1000– Improve turf density ahead of weeds

Acknowledgements Dr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland

Research Station Pam Charbonneau, OMAFRA Russ Nicholson, TWCA Dol Turf Restoration Sports Turf International Dr. Chris Murray, Lakehead University Hagen Ledeboer, Ledeboer Seed

Ken Pavely kpavely.lawnlife@xplornet.ca www.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com 519 939 6063

THANK YOU!!!!!!!