management decisions, might mean outdated data are being used for at least some of these decisions. We know that stand age and turfgrass species affect carbon and nitrogen accumulation over time - resulting in as much as 0.1% organic matter added per year. Outdated data at the golf course level would obviously impact recommendations for that golf course. One obvious solution for this is to recommend more frequent soil testing to have better data input within the models. To muddy the waters even further, there have been historical limitations with the data sets used for understanding nitrogen mineralization in turfgrass soils - most of the studies have been conducted on Southeastern US soils using warm-season turfgrasses. The current trend has been reducing the amount of nitrogen applied from fertilizer across most areas
of the golf course. Presumably, playability and overall turfgrass quality has not suffered in that time. How much more could golf course superintendents rely on mineralized-N from their soils? In other words, how much more could golf course superintendents reduce their nitrogen fertilizer budgets? This reduction could mean reduced mowing, topdressing for thatch management, the cost of the fertilizer itself, the labor to apply it, and overall reduced greenhouse gas emissions. To say the least, it would be ideal to have a better understanding of how soil nitrogen is mineralized within region-specific soils under various turf conditions. This would improve the models and their predictions, ultimately improving fertilizer efficiency on golf courses without sacrificing playability and turfgrass quality, and saving superintendents money in the process.
Follow the UMN Turf Blog for project updates! 54