zeoponic

RE

SE

AR

CH

Golf Course Management ■ February 1999 1

Zeoponic materials allowrapid greens grow-inA nutrient-loaded amendment feeds roots and builds soil structure.

Richard D. Andrews; Anthony J. Koski, Ph.D.; James A. Murphy, Ph.D.; and A. Martin Petrovic, Ph.D.

The science of zeoponics was devel-oped by NASA (9) to provide a superiorplant growth medium for long-termuses in outer space. Zeoponic technol-ogy relies on zeolite, a naturally occur-ring mineral with microscopic pores.Researchers have reported on the benefitsof simple zeolite amendments in water-use efficiency, environmental leachatereductions and plant fertility (7,8,10,11).

Zeoponic technology boosts the bene-fits of zeolite further by charging theamendments with plant-growth nutrients.

Research reveals the usefulness ofzeoponic material during turf estab-lishment such as new construction andrenovation of greens, tees and otherhigh-traffic areas on the golf course orsports field.

Zeoponic ingredientsZeoponic material has two key

ingredients:• A natural zeolite with high cation

exchange capacity (CEC) of 100 mille-quivalent per 100 grams or morewhich has been “loaded” with ammo-nium nitrogen and potassium

• A specially synthesized calcium hydroxyphosphate (synthetic apatite) that pro-vides other key nutritional needsThe only true zeoponic product

available is ZeoPro, which is producedunder patents and exclusive license fromNASA by ZeoponiX of Louisville, Colo.

CSU researchDuring 1996-97, 48 turf research

plots were constructed at ColoradoState University (CSU) to examine theestablishment and performance of Catocreeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris)sown in a sand-peat medium amendedwith zeoponic materials or an unalterednatural zeolite.

The plots consisted of USGA-type90:10 sand-and-peat root zones withamendments by volume at 5 percent,10 percent and 20 percent of two zeo-ponic formulations and an untreatedzeolite. Varying amounts of supplemen-tal fertilizer were provided: “normal”grow-in fertility, half of normal and 1.5times normal.

The nutrient-loaded zeoponic mate-rial greatly accelerated establishmentcompared with any other treatments.Even with only 50 percent of normalsoluble fertility applications, the zeo-ponic-amended plots became estab-lished about twice as fast as plots withany other treatment. And the more zeo-ponic amendment added, the better, inthe range of 5-20 percent by volume.The untreated zeolite plots exhibited aslight retardation compared with thecontrol, and were significantly slower indevelopment than the nutrient-loadedzeoponic treatments.

Combined with earlier reports (1) onincreased root growth for bentgrass in the

■ Bentgrass and bermudagrassestablish more rapidly on zeo-ponic-treated root zones thanon most other rooting media.

■ High cation exchange capacityseparates zeolite materials fromsome other soil amendments.

■ Zeoponic technology involvesaddition of plant-growth nutri-ents to zeolite mineral materialto produce a high-fertilitysoil amendment.

KEY POINTS

GCM February 1999 - Research - Zeoponic materials allow rapid greens grow-in

RE

SE

AR

CH

2 Golf Course Management ■ February 1999

zeoponic amendment at CSU, this studyclearly demonstrates the benefit of usingzeoponic materials to speed the establish-ment of a sand-based green.

Corporate researchZeoponiX Inc. obtained similar results

in trials of Penncross establishment dur-ing 1996-97 in Illinois (2,3). In one studythe surface was amended to a 3-inchdepth with zeoponic materials; in a sec-ond trial, the surface was amendedthrough the full 12-inch root zone.

The zeoponic treatments significantlyoutperformed both fully fertilized controlplots and the natural zeolite amendmentsin rate of establishment and other mea-sures of turf quality. The control andunaltered zeolite treatments were similarin performance, whereas the zeoponictreatment showed a continuously supe-rior establishment rating of 20-30 percentabove all other treatments.

Cornell researchIn 1998, Cornell University initiated a

replicated study with amendments incor-porated into the full 12 inches of a USGA-type root zone. Treatments included a90:10 sand-peat control, 10 percent by

volume ZeoPro with the same grow-infertility as the control, and 10 percentZeoPro with 50 percent of normal grow-in fertility. The plots were seeded with ablend of Penncross and L-93 creepingbentgrass.

The lead researcher said he had notobserved so rapid an establishment ratein any other experiment (12).

At 29 days after seeding, bothZeoPro-amended treatments hadachieved approximately 80 percent turfdensity compared with approximately 25percent for the control plots. Similarly,visual quality ratings at this stage rated 5on the ZeoPro plots compared with 1.5to 2 for the control (on a scale of zero to9). The ZeoPro plots with 50 percent fer-tilization rates performed as well as thefully fertilized ZeoPro plots, suggesting itshould be possible to cut back fertiliza-tion during grow-in when using a zeo-ponic material.

Rutgers researchIn a trial co-funded by USGA and

GCSAA at Rutgers, five soil amendmentsand six sand grades are being compared

c o n t i n u e d

Zeoponic materials feature two crucial components: microscopically porous zeolite mineraland synthetic apatite.

Zeoponic nutrient system

RE

SE

AR

CH


in a multi-year study. The inorganic soilamendments include ZeoPro and Profile(a calcined clay material), each added at10 percent by volume.

The replicated test plot greens wereconstructed in fall 1997 followingUSGA root-zone recommendations (4)with the various amendments blendedinto the full 12-inch depth. Plots wereseeded with L-93 creeping bentgrass onMay 31, 1998. All plots received stan-dard fertilization.

The fastest establishment was exhib-ited by the ZeoPro-amended plots. Ofthe inorganic amendments, both ZeoProand Profile amendments enhancedestablishment, with ZeoPro achievingand maintaining ratings of approxi-mately 8.5 of 9 points 30 days after seed-ing. For the same period Profile, 10 per-cent and 20 percent sphagnum peat and

unamended sand achieved ratings ofabout 6, 6, 7.5 and 3, respectively (5,6).

Westwood Golf ClubWestwood Golf Club in Arvada,

Colo., added nine holes during 1997,using a typical sand green construction;however, three greens did not survivewell through the first winter. Prior toreseeding in spring 1998, Jim Wilkins,CGCS, decided to use ZeoPro in two ofthese greens. The third green was usedfor a comparison or partial control.

After scarification and removal ofgrass remaining from the fall planting,ZeoPro was incorporated into the top 2-3 inches at 350-500 pounds per 1,000square feet. The comparison green wasmildly scarified because it had overwin-tered better than the other two greens.All three Penncross-seeded greens werefertilized, amended and managed identi-

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p . 6 9

Turf establishment visual quality rating

At Colorado State University in 1996, Cato bentgrass seeded on a root zone amended with 20 percent zeoponic material outper-formed other seedings of the cultivar on other root zones. All the root zones were based on a USGA-type 90:10 sand-and-peat mix.Seeding date is July 22, 1996. All treatments have three replicate plots. Data are simple averages of observations for three replicatesof each treatment for a given date.

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days after seeding

Qua

lity

rati

ng (

scal

e 1-

9)

■ Control full fertility■ 10% zeolite full fertility■ 10% zeoponic half fertility■ 10% zeoponic full fertility■ 20% zeoponic full fertility

RE

SE

AR

CH

4 Golf Course Management ■ February 1999

cally during grow-in, except that thecontrol green was seeded with Penncross12 days earlier than the other two greens.

The ZeoPro-amended greens exhib-ited accelerated establishment and over-took the control after three weeks.

“The control green, even after fourmonths, is still not as well established asthe ZeoPro greens,” Wilkins said later.

Bermudagrass sprigsIn 1997, Texas State Technical

College in Waco, Texas, conducted agrow-in demonstration on a newly con-

structed sand-peat green to determinethe effect of a root-zone amended withZeoPro in the top 4 inches. The greenwas sprigged with FloraDwarfbermudagrass (Cynodon hybrid) on July2 and monitored for 60 days.

“All ZeoPro treatments were farsuperior in establishment compared tothe sand-peat control,” says TinkerClift, chairman of the college’s golfcourse and turf management program.“The ZeoPro 20 percent plot was fully

About two months after planting, bermudagrass sprigs on a 20 percent zeoponic root zone(top) have established a stand of much better quality than sprigs on a root zone with no zeo-ponic treatment (bottom).

c o n t i n u e d

RE

SE

AR

CH


established in 36 days, and in 49 days forboth the 5 percent and 10 percentZeoPro plots, whereas the control plotwas still not established after 60 days.”

Bermudagrass sodAn establishment test was conducted

at Thomas Bros. Grass in Granbury,Texas, with Tifway 419 hybrid bermuda-grass sod to examine the effects of therate of incorporation of zeoponic mate-rials on sod lateral expansion and estab-lishment rate. The test was conducted ina greenhouse with a USGA greens-graderoot-zone sand blended with increasingrates of ZeoPro, (0 percent, 10 percent,15 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, 50percent and 100 percent by volume).

A clean, washed 20-inch strip ofbermuda sod was cut to exactly 4 incheswide and laid in the center of eachgreenhouse tray.

Observations from this test were:• Both the rate and degree of lateral sod

growth increased in direct proportionto the amount of ZeoPro added.

• At 100 percent ZeoPro, the sodexpanded to 9 inches after 43 dayscompared with 7.5 inches for 30 per-cent ZeoPro and only 5.5 inches withthe sand control.

• There was no observed upper thresholdof ZeoPro application rate and corre-sponding increased grass response, andthere were no observed negative effectsof growing in 100 percent ZeoPro.

SummaryZeoponic materials significantly

accelerate grow-in compared with otherinorganic amendments. When the turn-around time of a greens seeding or reno-vation is critical, the use of zeoponicmaterials can make the differencebetween opening on time or early vs. adelay in play and income generation.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank the staffs of Cornell, Rutgers and

Colorado State universities for support, especiallySarah Wilhelm at CSU and Josh Honig at Rutgers.Thanks to Tinker Clift and Texas State TechnicalCollege. Earl Allen, Ph.D., conducted bentgrassresearch at the ZeoponiX research facility in

Illinois. Thanks are also extended to Jim Wilkins,CGCS, at the Arvada, Colo., Golf Division. Thanksalso go to Kevin Kenworthy and Ike Thomas atThomas Bros. Grass in Granbury, Texas.

Literature cited1. Allen, E.R., and R.D. Andrews. 1997. Space

Age soil mix uses centuries-old zeolites. GolfCourse Management 65(5):61-66.

2. Allen, E.R., and R.D. Andrews. 1997. Effects oftopdressing and incorporation of ZeoponiXamendments on turfgrass establishment in asand-based root zone: Turfgrass ExperimentNo. 2.1. ZeoponiX Inc. (internal report).

3. Allen, E.R., and R.D. Andrews. 1997. Effects ofincluding zeoponic amendments as sand-based root zone mix components on turfgrassestablishment: Turfgrass Experiment No. 2.2.ZeoponiX Inc. (internal report).

4. Anonymous. 1993. USGA recommendationsfor a method of putting green construction.USGA Green Section Record 31(2):1-21.

5. Honig, J.A., J.A. Murphy and S.L. Murphy.1998. Establishment of creeping bentgrass asaffected by root zone mixtures and microenvi-ronment. p. 142 In: Agronomy abstracts.American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis.

6. Murphy, J., S. Murphy, J. Honig, H. Motto, B.Clarke, R. Tate and E. Gaulin. 1998. Assessingroot zone mixes for putting greens over timeunder two environmental conditions. ProgressReport to the USGA. Rutgers University, CookCollege, New Brunswick, N.J.

7. Huang, Z.T., and A.M. Petrovic. 1996.Clinoptilolite zeolite effect on evapotranspira-tion rate and shoot growth rate of creepingbentgrass on sand-based greens. Journal ofTurfgrass Management 1(4):1-9.

8. Huang, Z.T., and A.M. Petrovic. 1994.Clinoptilolite zeolite influence on nitrateleaching and nitrogen use efficiency in simu-lated sand-based golf greens. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 23:1190-1194.

9. Ming, D.W., D.C. Golden and C. Galindo. 1992.Fertilization by mineral dissolution and ionexchange: synthetic apatites and naturalzeolites. p. 361. In: Agronomy abstracts. ASA,Madison, Wis.

10. Nus, J.L., and S.E. Brauen. 1991. Clinoptilolitezeolite as an amendment for establishment ofcreeping bentgrass on sandy media. HortScience26:117-119.

11. Petrovic, A.M. 1993. Research update: poten-tial for natural zeolite uses on golf courses.USGA Green Section Record 31(1):11-14.

12. Petrovic, A.M. 1998. Interim report on ZeoProresearch. Department of Floriculture andOrnamental Horticulture, Cornell University,Ithaca, N.Y.

Richard D. Andrews is chief executive officer andfounder of ZeoponiX, Inc., Louisville, Colo. AnthonyJ. Koski, Ph.D., is an associate professor and turfExtension specialist at Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colo. James A. Murphy, Ph.D., is anassociate Extension specialist in turfgrass manage-ment at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. A.Martin Petrovic, Ph.D., is a professor of turfgrassscience at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

c o n t i n u e d f r o m p . 7 1

■

Documents

zeoponic