JOHN NEYLAN JOHN NEYLAN
Tip top
greens
ATM columnist John Neylan gives his top 10 tips for ensuring a successful greens construction or reconstruction project at your course.
Greens construction is a major undertaking for any golf club and it comes with enormous expectation that the new surface will be superior to the green that is being replaced 36
T
he article ‘To rebuild or not rebuild’ in Australian Turfgrass Management Vol 18.2 on whether to rebuild a golf green, raised the ongoing topic of debate as to what is the ideal profile for a golf green. The discussions revolve around the best sand type, sand depth, perched water tables, gravel drainage blankets and does it have to conform to a USGA method of construction. The debate becomes somewhat more confused when examining the greens on the sand belt and coastal golf courses and the original links courses in the UK where the native sands are used. What we do know is that one size does not suit all and that understanding the site conditions, the available soils, climate and grass types and taking a methodical approach to construction are key factors in deciding how the greens will perform. Many of the earliest greens constructed in Australia consisted of a fine loamy sand that naturally occurred on-site and we now refer to them as ‘push-up’ greens. The texture of these natural sandy soils is often modified by the presence of a very fine organic matter or a small proportion of silt and clay in varying amounts and it is these fine particles that give the soil a loamy feel and improves the characteristics of the sand. It increases moisture and nutrient retention, provides a good soil moisture buffering capacity and a firm, resilient surface. It is also these fine soil particles that, in excess, blocks the pore space, reduces drainage and gives a low aeration porosity. It has been because of the failure of these fine loamy sands, particularly when they are out of their natural environment, that turf managers looked for an alternative method of construction.
AUSTRALIAN TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT 18.3
Consequently, we had a move towards medium sands for greens construction as well as the specific USGA Green Section recommendations. There is no doubt that there are many examples of where the different greens construction alternatives can all function extremely well, providing that certain key criteria relating to porosity and drainage are met. It also must be said that for each example of success, an equally disastrous result can also be demonstrated. In my experience of observing golf green construction and the problems that beset greens, the following are my top 10 considerations.
1. POOR SURFACE DESIGN Poor surface contouring will result in agronomic problems. Since the introduction of fast draining sands in USGA style profiles, golf course architects have been more inclined to pay less attention to surface drainage. Closed contours that prevent surface runoff or direct water to a particular location within the green will result in problems. The excess moisture causes black layer, provides a soft surface, encourages Poa annua (in bentgrass greens) and there is more damage from foot traffic. Some of the other design issues that affect the performance of the green include surrounds that slope directly onto the putting surface, unmowable slopes on greens and surrounds and where the front of the green is not elevated above the fairway. Greens that transition straight into the fairway or the surface drainage of the green is towards the front of the green will invariably result in a wet approach and the front portion of the putting surface. Traffic movement on and around the green is a significant issue on high traffic golf courses. Traffic