MTC Turf News - Winter 2021

WINTER 2021

THE 2 0 2 1 IN VA SION OF TH E

FALL A RM Y W O RM IN THE U.S. AND

Highlights from the MTC 2021 ANNUAL TURFGRASS CONFERENCE & TRADE SHOW

MARYLAND TURFGRASS COUNCIL 303 S. Talbot Street #389 St. Michaels, MD 21663 ExecDir@MDTurfCouncil.com www.mdturfcouncil.org MTC Turf News is published quarterly for the MTC by: Leading Edge Communications, LLC 206 Bridge Street, Suite 200 Franklin, TN 37064 Phone: 615-790-3718 Fax: 615-794-4524 info@leadingedge communications.com

2022 MTC OFFICERS & BOARD OF DIRECTORS

10

PRESIDENT

Brandon Sands Park Maintenance Coordinator M-NCPPC, Dpt. of Parks & Rec. Prince Georges County 7401 Bock Road Fort Washington, MD 20744 240-821-7139 (c Brandon.Sands@pgparks.com

VICE PRESIDENT

Patrick Coakley Dura Edge Products 1121 Oakwood Lane Bel Air, MD 21015 410-241-3013 (C pcoakley@duraedge.com

SECRETARY

Cheryl Gaultney 12 Pressie Lane Churchville, MD 21028 410-734-0650 (h 410-322-8275 (c Sandqueen10@aol.com

19 CONTENTS

TREASURER

Katy Cooper 303 S. Talbot St #389 St. Michaels, MD 21663 410-745-9643 (o & h 410-745-8867 (f 443-496-0750 (c treasurer@MDTurfCouncil.com

• WINTER 2021

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

10 RECENT EVENT MTC’s Annual Turfgrass Conference & Trade Show

12 COVER STORY The 2021 Invasion of the Fall Armyworm in the U.S.

FEATURES 18 U sing Results from the National

DEPARTMENTS 6 President’s Message 6 Index of Advertisers 7 News from MTC 8 Executive Director’s Corner

to “Bring Grass to Life”

4

MTC TURF NEWS

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

Ben Ellis – Superintendent Fort Belvoir Golf Course 2806 Brewster Rd. Waldorf, MD 20601 571-340-0122 (c Golfturf54@gmail.com

Three-Year Director Terms

Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP)

22 U.S. Sod Checkoff is Working Hard

Vernon W. Cooper 303 S. Talbot St #389 St. Michaels, MD 21663 410-745-9643 (o & h 410-745-8867 (f 443-742-6618 (c ExecDir@MDTurfCoucil.com

Find this issue, Podcasts, Events and More: THETURFZONE.COM

Fred Johnson MNCPPC- Dept. of Parks & Recreation 301 Watkins Park Drive 240-882-4539 (c 301-218-6833 (o Frederick.Johnson@pgParks.com

Stephen King McHale Landscape Design 6216 Leapley Rd. 240-319-5689 (c stephenk@mchale landscape.com Shaun Meredith Calvert Co. Rec. & Parks 175 Main Street.

Prince Frederick, MD 20678 410-535-1600 (o 410-610-9007 (c Shaun.Meredith@ CalvertCoountyMD.gov

Two-Year Director Terms Amanda Stillwagon Calvert Co. Rec & Parks 175 Main Street Prince Frederick, MD 20678 410-610-3959 (o 704-877-8810 (c Amanda.Stillwagon@ Calvertcountymd.gov Matt Coates MNCPPC-Hyattsville 7721 Polk Street Hyattsville, MD 20785 301-918-4716(o 202-579-6939(c Matthew.Coates@pgparks.com Logan Freeman – Superintendent Mountain Branch Golf Club 1827 Mountain Road Joppa, MD 21085 208-866-6380 (c Lfreeman@mountainbranch.com

One-Year Director Terms Brian Haga Scientific Plant Services P.O. Box 62 Brooklandville, MD 21022 410-321-0970 (o 410-371-2325 (c Brianh@spsonline.com Scott Orndorff Landscape Supply 671 Commerce Dr. Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 301-458-5625 (c scott@landscapesupplyva.com Jamie Roell Anne Arundel Co. Rec. & Parks 1010 Kinder Farm Road Millersville, MD 21108 410-222-6250 (o 410-222-6138 (f 443-370-2582 (wc 410-215-1425 (c Rproel09@aacounty.org Jamieroell57@gmain.com Perry Whaley Newsom Seed P.O. Box 510 1788 Scaggsville Rd. Fulton, MD 20759 240-554-0359 (o 540-671-8226 (c Perry@NewsomSeed.com

MAXIMIZE YOUR FERTILIZER EFFICIENCY “What I value most about the products, especially the N-Ext RGS product, is that they are easy to use and easy to integrate into your current system...and the results are fantastic!”

– Jesse Smith, President, Royal Greens, Frederick, MD

Liquid Humic Acid

Fertility Forward®

BUY DIRECT & SAVE. DIRECT SHIP.

GreeneCountyFert.com

A unique flowable humate product.

Liquid Aeration

Break up soil and oxygenate the root zone.

Our bio-based fertilizers & specialty fertility products are blended to feed plants, improve soil fertility and build topsoil.

Fertilizer MFR • Distributor of L&O pest control products

MFR HQ: Geensboro, GA • Salt Lake City, UT • Orlando, FL

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

I N D E X O F A D VERT I SE RS

Beam Clay.............................................. 21 www.beamclay.com

SHARED SUPPORT MY

passion for the turf industry and my desire to learn, help, and support others in our field, both professionally and personally, brought me to Maryland Turfgrass Council and the experience has been very rewarding.

When I was elected to office and took the reins, I was beginning a new job at a golf course where I grew up and learned that I wanted to be part of the turfgrass industry.

I took that to heart when thirteen years before I resigned my position as a laborer to try my hand in the lawn care industry and I was finally walking into the shop as the Golf Course Superintendent.

My wife and I had just returned from vacationing in Scotland and England where her eyes rolled at me every time I strayed from taking pictures of the attractions we were there for and instead took pictures of turf or looked at different maintenance practices. There may have been text message pictures of turf diseases over in England on a golf course Christmas morning that I sent to other turf professionals. My phone may have pictures of a “Stay Off Turf” sign on the Oxford campus. And I never knew how the turf around Stonehenge stayed decent with the thousands of visitors each day until I saw the moveable turf protection mats surrounding the famous stones. A lot has changed over the past two years but being a “turf nerd” will stay constant.

Being a part of the MTC opened me up to so many different aspects of the turf industry and the shared support that we have with each other. My attempt has been to learn all that I can about turf and the related fields and one way of doing that has been studying the Best Management Practices Manuals. I highly recommend everyone getting copies of the Best Management Practices for Maryland Golf Courses by the Mid-Atlantic Association of Golf Course Superintendents and the Eastern Shore Superintendents Association, and A Professional Guide for Sports Field Management: Best Management Practices for The Sports Field Manager published earlier this year by the Mid-Atlantic Sports Turf Managers Association.

As I end my term, I want to say thank you for everyone who was able to attend and be a part of the 2021 Maryland Turfgrass Conference at Turf Valley Resort. It was great to see some familiar faces, even behind a mask, but also to meet new people who were able to come out and enjoy a fantastic program.

While I look out at a snow-covered golf course and drink my morning coffee, I think back at the past two years of serving as your Maryland Turfgrass Council President (Pandemic President as I have called myself) and can appreciate every moment.

The gavel has been handed over to Brandon Sands and I wish him the best as the next Maryland Turfgrass President.

Ben Ellis

2020 – 2021 MTC President

Buy Sod, Inc........................................... 11 www.buysod.com

Civitas / Holly Frontier..... Inside Front Cover www.civitasturf.com

Collins Wharf Sod Farm.......................... 21 www.collinswharfsod.com

East Coast Sod & Seed........................... 21 www.eastcoastsod.com

Fisher & Son Company, Inc....................... 3 www.fisherandson.com

Greene County Fertilizer Co....................... 5 www.greenecountyfert.com

Luck Ecosystems.................................... 17 www.luckecosystems.com

Mid Atlantic Association.......................... 21 of Turf Equipment Managers Mid-Atlantic STIHL.................................... 9 www.stihldealers.com

Progressive Turf Equipment Inc................. 7 www.progressiveturfequip.com

Summit Hall Turf Farm, Inc........ Back Cover www.summithall.com

The Turf Zone............ 15, Inside Back Cover www.theturfzone.com

TO DISCUSS

ADVERT ISING OPPORTUNITIES CONTACT

Leading Edge Communications

888-707-7141 ( TOLL FREE )

sales@leadingedgecommunications.com www.LeadingEdgeCommunications.com

6

MTC TURF NEWS

2022 MTC OFFICERS & BOARD OF DIRECTORS

NEWS FROM MTC

President

Vice President

Secretary

Treasurer

Immediate Past President

Executive Director

Brandon Sands Brandon.Sands@pgparks.com

Patrick Coakley pcoakley@duraedge.com

Cheryl Gaultney Sandqueen10@aol.com

Katy Cooper treasurer@MDTurfCouncil.com

Ben Ellis – Superintendent Golfturf54@gmail.com

Vernon W. Cooper ExecDir@MDTurfCoucil.com

Three-Year Directors

Two-Year Directors

One-Year Directors

Shaun Meredith Shaun.Meredith@CalvertCoountyMD.gov

Amanda Stillwagon Amanda.Stillwagon@Calvertcountymd.gov

Perry Whaley Perry@NewsomSeed.com

Fred Johnson Frederick.Johnson@pgParks.com

Logan Freeman – Superintendent Lfreeman@mountainbranch.com

Scott Orndorff scott@landscapesupplyva.com

Stephen King stephenk@mchalelandscape.com

Matt Coates Matthew.Coates@pgparks.com

Brian Haga Brianh@spsonline.com Jamie Roell Rproel09@aacounty.org or Jamieroell57@gmain.com

2022 MTC BOARD ADVISORS Maryland Department of Agriculture Turf & Seed Section Rick Boldissar 50 Harry S Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 410-841-5968 (o 443-791-2896 (c Rick.Boldissar@Maryland.gov

Pesticide Regulation Kelly Love 50 Harry S Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 410-841-5710 (o Kelly.Love@Maryland.gov

University of Maryland: Department of Plant Sciences & Landscape Architecture Urban Nutrient Management Judy McGowen 50 Harry S Truman Parkway Annapolis, MD 21401 410-841-5955 (o 410-980-9084 (c Judy.McGowan@Maryland.gov

University of Maryland: Institute of Applied Agriculture Turfgrass Management Geoffrey Rinehart 2113 Jull Hall • 4196 Stadium Dr. College Park, MD 20742 301-405-4692 (campus 253-592-3528 (c rinehart@umd.edu

Environmental & Pesticides Dr. Mark Carroll 2132 Plant Science Bld. College Park, MD 20742 301-405-1339 (campus 301-314-6303 (farm mcarroll@umd.edu

Turf Pathology Dr. Joe Doherty 8230 Harvest Bend Lane, Apt 38 Laurel, MD 20707 910-990-9844 (c jdohert3@umd.edu

Turf Farm Manager David Funk 395 Greenmeade Dr. College Park, MD 20740-3721 301-314-6300 (farm 301-335-4208 (c dfunk@umd.edu

University of Maryland: Professor Emeritus Turfgrass Nutrients / Extension Dr. Tom Turner 624 Woodsman Way Crownsville, MD 21032-2357 301-314-6302 (farm 410-353-8859 (c tturner@umd.edu

Turfgrass Entomology Dr. Kevin Mathias 66 Eddins Lane Ruckersville, VA 22968 301-233-2211 (c jkm@umd.edu

Turfgrass Pathology Dr. Peter Dernoeden 18086 White Oak Dr. Milton, DE 19968 302-329-9281 (h 302-359-9943 pd@umd.edu

Better Built. Quality Results. Period.

Sports field, Park and Estate Mowers

Contour / Rough Finishing Mowers

Turf Grass Production Mowers

Steep Slope Remote Controlled Mower

The Slope-Pro® is a steep slope, rotary mower capable of 50º slopes

Roller Mower cutting widths: 65”, 90”, 12’, 15.5’, 22’*, 29.5’*

Contour/rough finishing mower: Pro-Flex™ 120B 10’ cut TDR-X™ roller mower 10.5’ cut

Tri-Deck cutting widths: 12’, 15.5’, 22’*, 36’*

Steep Slope mower: Slope-Pro® 52” cut

* available with bolt-on galvanized deck shells

Progressive Turf builds the right mowers and rollers for any field.

For over 30 years they have set and re-set the standards in commercial grade mowing equipment.

Contact your Progressive Dealer to find out why Progressive products are outstanding in any field!

WWW.PROGRESSIVETURFEQUIP.COM

800.668.8873

Quality built in North America and supported by a world-wide Dealer network.

WINTER 2021

7

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CORNER

D E D IC A TIO N

MY

first introduction to the MTC was back in 1975.

It was a fairly new organization created by the joining of the MTA (Sod Farmers) and MAGCSA (Golf Course Superintendents), to increase Turfgrass Education and support of Quality Turfgrass plus utilization of MD Certified Turfgrass Sod and Seed Mixtures. I was asked to accompany my boss, Gus Day, to attend the monthly MTC meeting as an advisor from MDA as the MTC was planning their first Annual Winter Turfgrass Conference. In January 1976, we had our first MTC Conference at the Sheraton Hotel in Lanham with the first Trade Show happening in their Parking Garage (IN JANUARY!!)

Thank goodness we have come a long way from those days.

Shortly after that, one of our first Presidents, John Strickland (Egypt Farms) brought a young lady (his stepdaughter) to take minutes at the MTC meetings. On that day, Cheryl Gualtney and I started a commitment to the Council that has lasted over 46 years and continues today.

You may ask why anyone would be part of a volunteer association for so long? Isn’t it boring doing the same thing?

Well first, rest assured it is far from boring serving on the MTC Board. Over the years we have opened membership up to any professional dealing with turfgrass and suppliers in MD and the surrounding areas. We are a significant voice of just over 1200 members which is critical when it comes to supporting one of the finest Turfgrass Research Facilities in the United States; or some may remember when we needed to go to bat for our

members when the Governor restricted water so that any plant material or seed planted was sure to die from lack of watering.

Because of the MTC we were able to work out a reasonable compromise with the Governor; we have been instrumental working with the University in increasing from our original single Turfgrass Specialist to a team of four researchers, a job we are currently doing again. We have met with and had input in regulations and policies with the MDA and the legislature.

With 1200 members we are a significant stakeholder.

So, if you have a desire to serve on the Board, please feel free to contact me or President Brandon Sands and we will ensure your desires get to the Nominating Committee. The time commitment involves monthly meetings, the Annual Conference, 3–4 recertification classes and Field Days when possible.

However, something everyone can do without a time commitment is renew your membership and or join the MTC. You should be receiving a dues renewal or application to join form in the mail very shortly. Take a moment to complete the form and send your dues immediately. In fact, help all of us, including yourself, by making a copy or two of the form and pass it to a friend, client, or even competitor to help us get our membership over 1500.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the MTC Office anytime.

Vernon W. Cooper

Maryland Turfgrass Council, Exec. Dir.

To discuss advertising opportunities CON T ACT LE ADIN G E D G E C OM M U N I C A TI ON S 888-707-7141

sales@leadingedgecommunications.com

www.LeadingEdgeCommunications.com

MTC Turf News is the Maryland Turfgrass Council magazine. Subscriptions are complimentary to MTC members. The statements and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the association, its staff, its board of directors, MTC Turf News, or its editors. Likewise, the appearance of advertisers, or their identification as MTC members, does not constitute an endorsement of the products or services featured in any issue of MTC Turf News. Copyright © 2021 by the Maryland Turfgrass Council. MTC Turf News is published quarterly. Presorted standard postage is paid at Jefferson City, MO. Printed in the U.S.A. Reprints and Submissions: MTC allows reprinting of material published here. Permission requests should be directed to MTC. We are not responsible for unsolicited freelance manuscripts and photographs. Contact the managing editor for contribution information. Advertising: For advertising rates and insertions, please contact Leading Edge Communications, LLC, 206 Bridge Street, Franklin, TN 37064, (615) 790-3718, Fax (615) 794-4524.

8

MTC TURF NEWS

RECENT EVENT

MTC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

WOW!

Anyone who missed the 46 Annual MTC Winter Conference on December 14, 2021, at Turf Valley Resort missed a real opportunity for up-to-date education, fantastic networking, and of course picking up needed Pesticide and Fertilizer Law Applicator recertification from MD and surrounding jurisdictions plus Education Points from the GCSAA. We had nearly 350 attendees at the first “live” conference after being required to go virtual last year. Everyone followed our covid policy including not coming if you woke up the day of the conference and didn’t feel well. Thanks to Sara Ellis, these folks were able to join the few who were still not comfortable

10

MTC TURF NEWS

in a crowd, and 21 gained their credits by watching the Lawn & Landscape Management Session by Zoom.

The speakers were fabulous and included such Turfgrass Specialists like Dr. Doug Linde from Delaware Valley, Brad Jakubowski from Penn State, Brad Parks from Rutgers, Dr. Joe Doherty from Univ. of MD, Steve McDonald from Turfgrass Diseases Solutions, Geoff Rinehart from Univ of MD-IAA, Shavya Peddigari from Univ of MD, David Clement from Univ. of MD H&GC, Dr. Kevin Mathias Univ. of MD Emeritus, as well special presentations from Elliott Downing of USGA, Pete Wendt from Congressional CC and Kyle Steidel from Caves Valley CC, Tom Kirsch from MT Branch GC, Jason Bowers

from MNCPPC-Montgomery Parks, and Gordon Kreitser from Chesapeake Valley Seed. A Special “Thank You” one and all for all the fabulous presentations and particularly Geoff Rhinehart and education committee for putting the program together.

But the conference would not be a conference with out all the fabulous displays featuring products from Hydro-Seeders to seed to chemicals to Tiny Robots. Thanks again to all our great vendors. We had 29 booth displays this year including: BASF, Bayer Environmental Science, Central Sod Farms, Finch Turf Equipment, Fisher & Son, Genesis Green Supply, Univ. of MD Institute of Applied Agriculture, K&C Grounds Maintenance Inc., Landscape Supply Inc., MASTMA, Neudorff USA, Newsom Seed, Nutrien Solutions, Sepro Corporation, Spectrum Analytic Inc. Tiny Mobile Robots, and Turf Equipment & Supply. Visitation with all the vendors took place while eating a delightful buffet during the extended lunch provided by Turf Valley Resorts.

Lastly, we wouldn’t have the conference without the generous support of our Sponsors, who each year donate to help defray the cost of the conference and provide more funds to support our University of MD Turfgrass Programs. A very special thanks to Bayer Environmental Science and Pro-Lawn-Plus for being a Friend of the University; Fisher & Son, Noble Turf, Nutrien Solutions, and Syngenta for sponsoring a BreakOut Room; Coffee & Sweets were provided by Harrell’s LLC; while lunch was provided by Landscape Supply and Newsom Seed; and Turf Center Inc. provided for all the mailings.

But don’t fret if you could not join us for our 46th conference. The 47th annual conference is already scheduled, and planning has already started. Mark your calendar for Tuesday, December 13, 2022, and join us right back at Turf Valley Resort in Ellicott City. Also, none of this would be possible without all the hard work by your MTC Officers and Board of Directors.

Thank them when you see them. •

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO PLAY WITH

Neil Jones, Territory Manager – Virginia & Eastern NC njones@buysod.com • 910-975-0002

WINTER 2021

11

COVER STORY

The 2021 Invasion of the Fall Armyworm in the U.S.

By Dr. J. Kevin Mathias Retired Turfgrass Instructor and Advisor University of Maryland Institute of Applied Agriculture

IN

2021 unprecedented damage from the fall armyworm occurred in numerous areas of the U.S. including locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Many turfgrass managers struggled with the severity and the speed with which the damage occurred to their facilities or their clients’ lawns. The goal of this article is to provide information about the fall armyworm and what we might expect in 2022.

I have been involved in consulting work with a new sod producer in central Virginia over the past two years. I visited his facility on August 17, 2021 to inspect his fields and to discuss weed control options for the coming fall and spring months.

During this visit, the tall fescue-Kentucky bluegrass fields were in good condition and showed no damage from any type of pest.

However, I received a panicked phone call on Sunday, August 22 to ask if I could come by on Monday to take a look at a field that was turning brown.

During my inspection, there were large areas in one of the production fields that had severe brown patch damage. As I was showing the classic brown patch lesion to the owner, we also started to find small (1st to 3rd instar larvae) and very active caterpillars that were present in other areas of the field. I had never seen the fall armyworm caterpillar during my 38 years as an entomologist and instructor at UMD and I was at first taken aback as to what type of caterpillar we were looking at.

I knew it was not a cutworm or sod webworm caterpillar and through a process of elimination came up with an armyworm.

Since the caterpillars were quite small, I was not able to identify it as the fall armyworm until I had an older specimen that had the classic markings of fall armyworms.

PHOTO 1: The photo is of 6th instar fall armyworm caterpillars illustrating the inverted “Y” mark on the head, 4 dots in a rectangular shape on the last abdominal segment, dark bands on both sides of the body, and 4 dots arranged in a trapeze formation on each abdominal segment.

12

MTC TURF NEWS

PHOTO 2: Photo taken on Monday August 30th of a 24-acre sod field severely damaged by fall armyworms.

PHOTO 3: Photo of damage to the 24-acre field and a portion of the field, about 1.5 acres that was not damaged.

One can also see some circular patches caused by brown patch in the resistant turf to fall armyworm.

Because of the number of fall armyworms that we were finding, well over 12 per square foot, and the previous damage from brown patch, I recommended that he treat immediately for the fall armyworm to prevent any future damage from this insect and provide time for the field to recover from brown patch.

The sod grower started to treat his fields on Monday afternoon with bifenthrin and was not able to get all of his fields treated due to equipment limitations on Wednesday, August 25. It was not until Thursday, August 26th that he was able to continue to treat his remaining fields. On Thursday afternoon he started to see damage to the edges of a 24-acre field, and by Friday morning the field was completely defoliated.

Damage was first observed on Friday, August 27th. Complete defoliation of this field occurred in less than a 24-hour time period.

I returned on Monday, August 30th to assess the severity of damage caused by the fall armyworm. I have never seen this level

of insect damage and was stunned to view the carnage. At an estimated value of $10,000 to $12,000 dollars per acre and a 24-acre field, the sod producer was looking at roughly a quarter million-dollar loss.

Close inspection of the field did show new shoot growth emerging, however it was not consistent throughout the field.

My recommendation was to apply a .5 pound of soluble nitrogen per 1,000 ft2 and allow two weeks to see if any reseeding may be required.

During this site visit the owner also showed me a section of this field that was not damaged nor treated and was seeded a year earlier with a different seeding mix of tall fescues and Kentucky bluegrass. The line effect between resistant and susceptible turf to fall armyworm feeding was stunning and begged the question of what was causing the difference. Was it a cultivar difference, age of crop, or an endophyte difference?

WINTER 2021

13

COVER STORY • continued

I returned to the field on September 23rd to see how much recovery occurred over the previous three weeks. There was considerable turfgrass loss in certain areas of the field, +90% loss, while other areas of the field may have had 30-40% loss.

The fields were overseeded on September 17. The amount of loss was surprising for an insect that is a leaf defoliator and I had expected to see a greater survival of the turfgrass stand. It is possible that severe defoliation may have exposed the crown to environmental stress and subsequent severe turfgrass loss. The overseeding operation was critical in restoring the harvestability of the sod crop for the Spring 2022 season.

PHOTO 4: Photo taken September 23rd showing a section of the field where there was 90% or more of turfgrass loss.

PHOTO 5: Photo of sod field taken on November 25th shows the quality of sod crop with overseeding and an area of the field which was missed during the overseeding operation. Without the overseeding the sod crop would not have been a harvestable crop in the Spring of 2022.

Biology of the Fall Armyworm

The fall armyworm is considered a tropical insect unable to survive winter conditions (temperatures that drop below 32 F) in most of the continental U.S. except for areas in southern Texas and in southern Florida. During the spring and summer months the moths begin to fly north into the southern states such as northern Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and northern Texas. In these areas the fall armyworm may undergo 3 to 5 generations and can cause significant damage not only to sod crops but to corn, sorghum, and other field crops. As summer progresses the moths continue to move northwards east of the Rockies and into the mid-West from overwintering sites in south Texas. Fall armyworm moths coming from south Florida travel north and east of the Appalachian Mountains through South and North Carolina and into the Mid-Atlantic area of the country.

There is overlapping of both the Texas and the Florida overwintering sites as they fly north as we move into mid to late August and September time periods. The distance the moths can fly is dependent on tropical storm fronts moving in a south to north direction.

The fall armyworm undergoes complete metamorphosis: as a pupa, its overwintering stage, to the adult stage (sexual dimorphism), then as eggs, and finally the destructive caterpillar stage which consists of six instars. Most of the feeding damage is done by the larger caterpillars (5th and 6th instars). During the summer months the fall armyworm can complete its life cycle in 30 days while in the spring and fall months it may take 60 days.

Researchers have also identified two strains of the fall armyworm which look identical but have slightly different preferred hosts, susceptibility to certain insecticides, and timing of their northward migration. The two strains are known as the “corn strain” and the “rice strain”; the rice strain prefers to feed on rice, pasture grasses, and turfgrasses while the corn strain prefers to feed on larger grasses such as corn and sorghum.

Why did we see so much damage by the fall armyworm in 2021?

A number of entomologists have speculated that a perfect storm existed for the movement of large populations of the fall armyworm from southern states up into areas that normally never see fall armyworm activity or damage. Based on blog and scouting reports by ag specialists and entomologists, large populations and multiple generations of fall armyworms were being reported in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida by late May-June.

14

MTC TURF NEWS

continued • COVER STORY

Environmental conditions during this time period were ideal for this expanding fall armyworm population and severe damage was being seen at this time in southern states. For perspective, the last time this level of armyworm movement and destruction occurred was some 50 years ago in the mid-1970’s. With expanding populations of the fall armyworm developing in the southern states all that was needed was a way to move the migrating moths northward. Several major storm systems coincided at the ideal time to move overwhelming populations further north. On average, moths can fly up to 60 miles within a 24- hour period.

However if they can catch a major storm front they can easily increase their movement into the hundreds of miles.

What can we expect in 2022 with regards to fall armyworms?

Odds are that the level of damage we experienced in 2021 will not occur in 2022. However, there are a few things to consider in planning for the 2022 season. In the southern states there is a network of pheromone trapping data for the fall armyworm that can be found online. This type of data can be used as an early warning system to determine if control actions may be needed.

An example of the type of information one can acquire is shown in the following photo.

Also, the preferred hosts for fall armyworms are bermudagrass, tall fescue without endophyte, and creeping bentgrass. Since bermudagrass has extensive rhizome and stolon growth it can recover from defoliation damage by the fall armyworm. Tall fescue and creeping bentgrass turf will require closer monitoring since they appear to be more susceptible. Zoysiagrass, fine fescues, Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass show more resistance to the fall armyworm.

TheTurfZone.com is the central hub for turfgrass research and information from multiple state turf associations.

555,000+

310 Podcasts

141 ISSUES

115,000+

Annual Digital Page Views

of Turfgrass Magazines

and Many More to Come!

Monthly Social Media Impressions

Contact us today to learn about effective and unique TurfZone marketing strategies that target turf industry professionals.

sales@leadingedgecommunications.com 888–707-7141 facebook.com/theturfzone

twitter.com/theturfzone

WINTER 2021

15

COVER STORY • continued

Crop or Plant Age

There are a number of insecticides that can be applied for control of the fall armyworm. Since the fall armyworm can cause severe damage within a 24- hour time period vigilant monitoring and quick action will be needed to reduce turfgrass damage.

Application of contact-type insecticides will perform best when applied early in the day or later in the afternoon based on fall armyworm feeding activity. The following table lists the products that are labeled for fall armyworm. Be sure to read and review the label of these insecticides before application.

Based on plant age there have been observations that seedling turf is more prone to damage by the fall armyworm. However, a one-year-old crop is not considered a seedling plant.

Cultivar Differences

The tall fescue cultivars of Montana, Tonto, and Toltec which showed minimal turfgrass loss were not in the 2012 NTEP study nor on the current MD-VA Turfgrass Cultivar Recommendation List. Thus, it is difficult to trace any field performance data on these tall fescue cultivars and whether these cultivars have the tall fescue endophyte. The cultivars in the heavily damaged field did have the endophyte present in them based on data from the 2012 NTEP report. The cultivars and the percent endophyte infection are as follows: Titanium (85%), Raptor III (97%), and 4th Millennium (100%). Also, these cultivars are on the MD-VA Turfgrass Cultivar Recommended List. However, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing in 2021 of live field samples showed no or minimal presence of the tall fescue endophyte. The viability of these grass fungal endophytes is dependent on a number of environmental conditions ranging from field conditions during seed production to seed storage conditions. It appears that these tall fescue cultivars lost the viability of the endophyte and ultimately resistance to the fall armyworm.

What explanation is there for the difference observed in the sod field?

TABLE 1. Recommended insecticides for control of fall armyworm.

16

Trade name

Common Name

Family

Remarks and Comments

Dipel, Javelin, others

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)

Biological

Effective on young caterpillars, Insects must ingest it; rain and sunlight will degrade it; conserves beneficials

Conserve, Matchpoint

Spinosad A and D

Biological

Higher rates required for larger larva; conserves beneficials

Talstar, Scimitar, Tempo, Deltagard and Others

bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, b-cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, and others

Pyrethroids

Fast acting, inexpensive, broad- spectrum insecticides.

Will reduce beneficials

Acelepryn, Ferrence and Tetrino

chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole and tetraniliprole

Diamides

This is one of the newest insecticide families and will provide extended control of more than a month.

Acelepryn has shown up to 4 months residual control

Sevin

carbaryl

Carbamate

Broad spectrum and fast acting.

Will also reduce beneficials

Provaunt

indoxacarb

Oxadiazine

Excellent activity on Lepidopteran caterpillars; minimal impact on beneficial insects

Aloft and Others

clothianidin + bifenthrin

Nicotinoid + Pyrethroid

The nicotinoid component of this combination will provide white grub control and the pyrethroid component will give control of surface feeding insects. Will reduce beneficials.

MTC TURF NEWS

Effect of the Tall Fescue Endophyte

The role of fungal endophytes in plant resistance to leaf feeding insects has been reported in the literature. There are several different techniques that can be used to determine the presence of fungal endophytes from staining techniques to PCR testing. Initially a staining technique, rose-bengal stain, did not provide conclusive evidence of endophyte presence.

A total of four samples, two from the damaged field (-1 and -2) and two from the undamaged field (+3 and +5) were submitted in early November, 2021 to Dr. Hannah Rivedal at the USDA Ag Research Service in Corvallis, Oregon for PCR testing. Each of the samples submitted contained multiple shoot systems that were randomly selected within each field area. Dr. Rivedal then collected 5 tiller samples from each of the four samples and performed nucleic extraction on these samples for PCR testing. The PCR test was designed to determine the presence of several mycotoxins related to fungal endophytes and the table below shows Dr. Rivedal results.

The fields that were not damaged, samples (+3 and+ 5) had the endophyte while sample -2 which was the field area heavily damaged had no endophyte.

Sample -1 had only Loline present suggesting a lack of sufficient mycotoxin production to reduce armyworm feeding damage. At the time of this writing, results for the other two mycotoxins, ergot alkaloids and the indole diterpenes has not been reported.

These results strongly implicate the tall fescue endophyte for imparting host plant resistance to the fall armyworm.

This further supports the development of tall fescue cultivars with the fungal endophyte to reduce insecticide applications for not only fall armyworm but other leaf feeding insects. However, there needs to be a recommended methodology to ensure the viability of the endophyte from initial cultivar development to field applications. Endophyteenhanced resistance is a major cornerstone in Turfgrass IPM programs and should play an even larger role in pest management programs when municipalities impose restrictions on traditional based insecticides. •

More than quality products, it’s partnership.

From purchase through performance

Rootzone, Topdressing & Specialty Sand

Ball Field Mix & Warning Track Media

Premium Topsoil & Structural Soil

Whether it’s inventory and logistics or product and application expertise, we are ready to partner with you on your next project. See why our innovative approach to engineered soils, course media, and ball field mix is the preferred choice of superintendents, sports field managers and landscape professionals in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C.

See how we can deliver for you.

(877) 904-5825 www.luckecosystems.com

TABLE 2. The results of the PCR testing are shown below.

Sample

Peramine

Loline

Ergot Alkaloids

Indole diterpenes

-1

Not Present

Present

No Results to Date

No Results to Date

-2

Not Present

Not Present

No Results to Date

No Results to Date

+3

Present

Present

No Results to Date

No Results to Date

+5

Present

Present

No Results to Date

No Results to Date

WINTER 2021

17

FEATURE

USING RESULTS

FROM THE

NATIONAL TURFGRASS EVALUATION PROGRAM ( NTEP )

By Dave Han, Ph.D. Auburn University and Alabama Extension

THE

National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) is a fantastic source for information on newlyreleased and upcoming turfgrass varieties. Since 1983, NTEP has been evaluating turfgrass varieties and making data from those variety trials available for free to the public.

A survey of turfgrass managers published in 2019 determined that 87% of the 306 respondents to the survey had heard of the NTEP program. At the same time, over half of the respondents (52%) said they visited the NTEP (www.ntep.org) website to look at trial results either never or less than once per year (Yue et al., 2019).

Could NTEP be used more? I think so. I personally use their data many times per year, but along the way I have developed some tricks and tools to help me get the most out of what sometimes seems to be an overwhelming mountain of numbers. So let’s take a quick tour of NTEP, what it is and how it works, and how to find what you need from their data reports.

How NTEP works NTEP is a non-profit cooperative effort between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state universities, and turfgrass industry groups. The variety trials that NTEP sponsors, cover the most commonly-used turfgrasses (both cool season and warm season, see Table 1) in the United States. Trials typically run for five years, and are called by the year they were established.

For example, the 2013 National Bermudagrass Test was planted in 2013 and contains data from the 2013–2017 growing seasons.

The currently-running bermudagrass trial is the 2019 National Bermudagrass Test, which was established in 2019.

TABLE 1. NTEP tests data are available for these species COOL SEASON

WARM SEASON

Creeping bentgrass (putting greens)

Bermudagrass

Creeping bentgrass (fairways/tees)

Buffalograss

Fineleaf fescues

Zoysiagrass

Kentucky bluegrass

St. Augustinegrass

Perennial ryegrass

Seashore paspalum

Tall fescue

18

MTC TURF NEWS

Tests are established at many sites throughout the regions where a particular species will grow. Typically, there are around 10 – 15 sites, though this varies with each test. The sites are usually associated with research universities – for example, at our main research facility in Auburn, Auburn University has the current bermudagrass and zoysiagrass NTEP trials. We also had the just-finished 2016 St. Augustinegrass trail and established a bentgrass trial this fall. In the past, we have also run NTEP tests at outlying research units, such as a tall fescue trial at the Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center in northeastern Alabama. Occasionally, NTEP will place tests on-site, especially for tests on putting greens. NTEP also ran a perennial ryegrass overseed trial, with locations on golf course fairways. For on-site tests, the golf course maintains the tests day-to-day, and university researchers typically evaluate the tests the same way they do on-campus ones.

Because NTEP places trials in as many places as it can where a species will grow, they are able to collect data from many different environments. This is good, but it can also trip up an end user. For example, the current bermudagrass NTEP has locations including Riverside, CA, Ft. Lauderdale FL, Wichita, KS, and West Lafayette, IN. While it is very helpful for a plant breeder at a university or a seed company to know how their new bermudagrass performs in environments as different as these, if you are a sod farmer, landscaper, sports field manager, or other end user, you probably are interested only in how the grass performs in your own environment. More on this later.

What are NTEP ratings?

There is a lot of information available from NTEP tests, but the bread and butter is the visual quality rating. There have been attempts over the years to determine whether equipment such as handheld optical sensors can provide more consistent, better, or faster ratings, but a trained observer still functions as well as equipment and has the advantage of being cheaper and more universally available. Still, the fact that different people evaluate ratings at each site is important to remember when looking at the data.

NTEP publishes guidelines on how to rate their tests on the web (https://ntep.org/pdf/ratings.pdf). Quality ratings are taken on a scale of 1 – 9, where 1 is the poorest possible rating (no turf at all) and 9 the best. A rating of 6 or above indicates acceptable turf quality. This means that a rating of “6” has a different meaning when evaluating a bentgrass putting green versus a tall fescue lawn. Quality ratings take into account the density, texture, color, and effects of pests or environmental stress on the turf. Often these individual factors are broken out and rated separately, too.

Sometimes, a location will focus on a specific factor – for example, locations in arid environments often focus on rating drought or salinity tolerance. Sometimes, a particular site will put extra stress on a test – traffic being the main examples. Only some sites in any given test will do this. Finally, some sites may let disease or insect damage go to a certain point in order to see differences in varieties’ susceptibility – but not let plots die completely. Most sites control diseases and insects to ensure that the trial can run for the full five years.

Ryegrass fairway overseed NTEP Test Eufaula CC

Auburn University Turf Unit Zoysia NTEP

WINTER 2021

19

FEATURE • continued

Many of the varieties in the tests have names already and are commercially available, but some are not. Often, companies and/ or universities will place varieties in the NTEP studies under their own internal code numbers, and the ones that do well will get names and be released in the future. NTEP tests also include standard varieties for comparison. These are well-established, popular varieties such as Tifway bermudagrass or Penn A-1 creeping bentgrass.

How do I use NTEP ratings?

In recent years, NTEP has sorted out results by region for some tests, publishing separate data table for sites with similar environments. This is great. I hope that it continues with future tests.

FIGURE 2. The LSD value given in the data table (highlighted in red) is critical for separating cultivar ratings. Any difference between ratings that is less than this value is not statistically significant. In this table, all of the varieties highlighted in yellow cannot be separated because the difference between them is less than the LSD of 0.3.

Figure 1 shows the final NTEP report for the entire five years of the 2013 bermudagrass test. The first thing I always do when looking at NTEP data is to skip the overall rating mean that NTEP provides in the rightmost column (highlighted in red). Why do this? That column is the average of ratings for each variety over the entire test. But, the entire test includes sites with radically different environments. Of course, everyone wants a variety that does well in all environments (that’s what the overall average or mean rating will tell you).

I prefer to look at individual sites first and start with ones in environments similar to where I would grow the grass. For example, many readers of the Alabama Turf Times might be more interested in how a variety performs in Auburn, AL, Griffin, GA and Starkville, MS (highlighted in green) than in Indiana or Missouri. But if I were interested in a grass for the transition zone, then sites like West Lafayette, IN or Columbia, MO would be much more interesting to me.

Sometimes there is a variety that does really well in one part of the country and not another. This may drag down its average rating, but in the environments where it is suited, it could be a real star. You also want to avoid varieties that may do well in most environments (so they have a good overall rating) but might be weak in your particular one.

FIGURE 1. A sample NTEP summary table. Although the varieties are ranked by their mean (average) quality rating over all of the sites in the test (highlighted in red), it is advisable to begin by looking at ratings from individual sites with environments that most closely match the area where an individual will grow the grass. For example, in this bermudagrass test, data from sites with environments similar to that found in Birmingham, Alabama are highlighted in green.

20

MTC TURF NEWS

The other extremely important thing to know about NTEP data is the LSD value. LSD stands for Least Significant Difference, and it’s a measure of how likely results are to be true differences in variety performance, and not just random chance. Figure 2 shows an example of this from a bermudagrass test.

Any difference between two varieties’ ratings that is smaller than the LSD value can’t really be attributed to an actual difference between the varieties.

His means that there is usually a group of varieties at the top of the ratings that statistically all performed the same. It’s almost impossible to use NTEP data to find the “ONE TRUE BEST VARIETY!” But what NTEP does very well is give you a list of top-performing varieties you can choose from. It also tells which varieties did not perform as well as others.

Future plans for NTEP are to provide data in graphical form, which should make it easier to read than tables of numbers. Online tables with ratings sortable by location would be on the top of my personal wishlist for new data presentation formats. But still, I think that the NTEP data are underused and many more people can benefit from all of the work that the researchers put into running the tests. •

COLLINS WHARF SOD 410-334-6676

CWSOD.COM

Tall Fescue, HGT Kentucky Bluegrass, Innovation Zoysia, Iron Cutter Bermuda, Bentgrass, Specialty Grows MAATEM

“ A profession which promotes education

to interchange technical and practical knowledge relating to maintenance, safety and proper operation of turf equipment to be shared with others in the industry.

”

P. Stanley Kapulka / Stankapulka@turf-equipment.com / 973-670-3649 (Cell) V.P. Josh Barnes / 410-795-2822 T. Bill Wirts / dianewmd@comcast.net / 410-365-2088 (Cell) S. Brian Kraft / carloman383@gmail.com / 443-413-9597 (Cell)

Exec Dir. Note: The evaluation of the NTEP is a critical part of the puzzle utilized when the MD & VA Turfgrass Specialists create the MD/ VA Recommended Variety Lists (TT-77) each year utilizing the data from MD & VA sites.

References Bell, G. E., Martin, D. L., Koh, K., & Han, H. R. (2009). Comparison of Turfgrass Visual Quality Ratings with Ratings Determined Using a Handheld Optical Sensor, HortTechnology 19: 309-316.

DI GI T AL M ARKET PL ACE

S C A N T H E S E Q R C O D E S T O LE A R N M O R E A B O U T T H E S E C O M P A N I E S.

Krans, J.V. and Morris, K. (2007), Determining a Profile of Protocols and Standards used in the Visual Field Assessment of Turfgrasses: A Survey of National Turfgrass Evaluation Program-Sponsored University Scientists. Applied Turfgrass Science, 4: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1094/ATS-2007-1130-01-TT Morris, K.N. and Shearman, R.C. NTEP Turfgrass Evaluation Guidelines. (Undated) https://ntep.org/ pdf/ratings.pdf Yue, C., Wang, J., Watkins, E., Xie, Y., Shekhar, S., Bonos, S. A., Patton, A., Morris, K., & Moncada, K. (2019). User Preferences for Accessing Publically Available Turfgrass Cultivar Performance Data, HortTechnology 29:, 599-610.

WINTER 2021

21

FEATURE

How Would a Sod Checkoff Impact You?

Checkoff programs are industry-funded initiatives that help improve the market position of agricultural products. A sod checkoff would help showcase the value of natural grass in several ways, including the following: T he checkoff can help fight against regulations like grass bans, fertilizer bans, invasive species lists, building codes, etc.

Marketing can help combat competitive products in the marketplace. esearch can help gain insights into generational attitudes towards R lawns, which are currently shifting in the wrong direction, and consumer messaging can educate consumers on the benefits of natural grass.

U.S. SOD CHECKOFF

is Working Hard to “Bring Grass to Life”

S cientific research on ecosystem services can change the narrative around lawns and other green spaces and showcase the value that natural grass brings to urban and suburban areas.

A network can be established for monitoring headlines for negative media and responding to them swiftly, effectively, and in unison with one voice. arketing tools can help farms access and promote their products M locally, to achieve a consistent message across the industry.

“I see the sod checkoff advancing the industry, positively impacting my own sod farm and creating a legacy for future generations to love their lawn,” said Diane Mischel with DeBuck’s Sod Farm in Michigan. “As individual farms, our message is just a voice in the crowd, but the sod checkoff will be a megaphone, funneling our message into a clear powerful channel.”

Getting the Process Started

S

od producers in the U.S. have been discussing the benefits of creating a sod checkoff since 1996, but only in recent years has there been more intentional discussion around how the industry can begin that process.

The goal of any checkoff program is to increase product demand and/or expand markets. For the sod industry specifically, the checkoff program will seek to Bring Grass to Life and increase value and profitability per square foot. This can include programs that will increase preference for sod, promote sod to consumers nationally and conduct research to educate and inform industry regulators and politicians.

Dr. Casey Reynolds, TPI Executive Director, has been a powerful voice behind the effort, rallying the industry around the benefits of an industry-wide checkoff.

“The sod checkoff will benefit every producer and farm by increasing visibility and value of sod that includes driving preference for natural grass sod with both consumers and customers, and by uniting the U.S. sod industry to protect and even grow market share in the face of threats from misinformation, building codes that seek to reduce our market, grass bans, and even competitors like artificial turf and others that compete for our space,” said Reynolds.

22

MTC TURF NEWS

As of January 2021, a draft order that outlines the key points needed for an efficient, successful checkoff program has been written and submitted to the USDA for review. Once approved, it will be published in the U.S. Federal Register for public viewing and commentary prior to a vote in spring of 2022.

If passed by a majority vote of U.S. sod producers, the program will be implemented and governed by sod producers who are nominated by fellow producers. This group will invest checkoff dollars in national and consumer marketing collateral, agronomic and consumer research, promotional kits that can be customized by growers and customer and regulator education and outreach, to help increase value and profitability per square foot of sod for the U.S. sod industry. The proposed assessment rate is 1/10 of one penny for every square foot of sod sold.

With a checkoff, the U.S. sod industry can bring producers across the country together to change the narrative around the benefits of natural grass. Please consider voting yes in the upcoming referendum, so we can finally give our industry the unified voice it needs to protect and grow markets for many years to come. •

If you are interested in learning more about the US Sod Checkoff, please visit www.sodcheckoff.org.

TheTurfZone.com is the central hub for turfgrass research and information from multiple state turf associations.

More Than

1 Million Twitter Impressions Per Year.

Contact us today to learn about effective and unique TurfZone marketing strategies that target turf industry professionals.

sales@leadingedgecommunications.com 888–707-7141 facebook.com/theturfzone

twitter.com/theturfzone

B A S E D O N D ATA A S O F N OV E M B E R 2021.