Podcast Association

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. A $1.1 million endowment established by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation is creating lasting opportunities for graduate students in Virginia Tech's School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, strengthening cutting-edge turfgrass research while advancing sustainable solutions for the turfgrass industry. Decades in the making, the endowment represents a milestone in the longstanding partnership between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. Established in 1988, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation promotes the benefits of natural grass and works exclusively with the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Team in funding research that provides homeowners and industry professionals with strategies and tools to achieve the highest possible quality turfgrass with the fewest required management inputs. While the foundation has supported turfgrass research at the university for nearly 30 years, leaders from both organizations came together in 2017 with a renewed vision: to build a permanent, impactful funding model that could meaningfully support graduate education. “While we always appreciate the support on smaller, short-term projects that meet immediate industry needs, our goal was to move the needle — to truly support graduate students, their research, and the future of the turfgrass industry,” said David McCall, associate professor and Extension turfgrass pathologist. From vision to endowment That vision led the foundation's leaders and Virginia Tech faculty members to explore how to maximize donor dollars for long-term impact. With guidance from alumni and industry partners, the foundation focused on building a true endowment — a permanent fund designed to generate annual support rather than provide short-term funding. A significant portion of this funding came from the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic Golf Tournament, which has raised more than $500,000 for the foundation. Additional contributions from industry partners and supporters also helped grow the fund, which is held in an endowment and brokerage account and drawn from annually. “This wasn't about a one-time gift,” said Brandyn Baty, executive director of the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. “We wanted something sustainable that would support students year after year, long after any one event or campaign.” Key foundation leaders involved in re-envisioning how the endowment supported Virginia Tech research included alumni Eric Frazier ‘00 and Dean Whitehead ‘99, along with Jim Wilson and Jeff Everhart, two honorary Hokies whose longstanding support has helped strengthen the partnership. Full support for graduate students Unlike many funding sources that support a portion of a student's education through sponsoring specific projects, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation endowment is designed to fully fund a graduate research assistantship. The foundation has committed to supporting at least one new graduate student annually, with the potential to support multiple students as the endowment continues to grow. “Giving students the opportunity to pursue graduate education without financial uncertainty changes everything,” McCall said. “It allows them to focus on innovation, discovery, and impact.” The first student supported by the foundation was Elisabeth Kitchin M.S. ‘25, whose master's degree research set the standard for what the endowment could accomplish. Now a doctoral student, Kitchin also manages the university's turfgrass research facility at Independence Golf Club in Midlothian. “Beyond just the financial support, the foundation and the broader Virginia turfgrass industry have provided me with an abundance of mentorship, encouragement, and guidance throughout my time as a graduate student,” Kitchin said. “As a young professional entering the turfgrass industry, I have felt genuinely supported by the researchers, educators, superintendents, and industry professionals around me.” Precision, technology, and sustainability Kitchin's research focuses on precision turfgrass management, including the use of machine learning models to identify turfgrass diseases such as dollar spot, a common fungal disease that plagues the turfgrass industry. By improving the accuracy of disease identification and treatment, her work helps reduce unnecessary pesticide applications, saving costs and minimizing environmental impacts. She and endowment-supported student Sam Kreinberg, the first official graduate research assistant funded under the new long-term endowment structure, both focus on precision irrigation management — studying when, where, and how much water is needed across golf courses, sod farms, and home lawns. Kreinberg joined the turfgrass program in fall 2025 after completing his master's degree at the University of Arkansas. His research integrates advanced technology and data-driven tools to help turfgrass managers make more informed decisions, improving water efficiency while maintaining high-quality playing surfaces. “These students are using technology to solve real-world problems,” said Mike Goatley, professor and Extension turfgrass specialist. “Their work directly benefits the turfgrass industry while supporting sustainability and environmental stewardship.” The endowment also enhances Virginia Tech's close collaboration with the Independence Golf Club, where both Kitchin and Kreinberg conduct extensive research. This on-course research opens the doors for additional collaborations with the United States Golf Association, Syngenta Professional Solutions, and numerous other industry partners. Lasting Impact For the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, the endowment reflects not just financial support, but a long-term commitment to students and the land-grant mission of Virginia Tech. “This is about investing in people,” McCall said. “When you invest in graduate students, you invest in research, sustainability, and the future of an entire industry.” As the endowment continues to grow, foundation leaders hope to expand the number of students supported — ensuring that the partnership between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation continues to thrive for generations of students to come. “The endowment allows us to attract great young women and men equipped with the knowledge, work ethic, and personality to succeed,” Goatley said. “The students serve as our program's bridge to the future of turfgrass science.” This article was written by Tyler Baugrass and was featured in Virginia Turfgrass Journal. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post $1.1 million Virginia Turfgrass Foundation endowment expands graduate education and research appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features an update on research projects funded by the New England Regional Turfgrass Foundation, written by Executive Director Gary Sykes. When the Foundation was created, it was the goal to fund substantial turfgrass research at our local universities. We had expected research proposals from UMass, URI and UNH since they had some ongoing activity already within their programs along with highly skilled personnel. The idea was that local research would be the most valuable to our local industry and that would be our focus. We were unaware that things were changing. In New Hampshire the program diminished due to some retirements, but in Connecticut their administrators were convinced that by dedicating funds and support to their Turfgrass Program would be beneficial to the school and the industry. It was a good hunch! New hires to grow the program immediately made a positive impact including the expansion of the turfgrass research facility. Since 1998, the Foundation has had its hand in distributing $3.4 M in research proposal funding to the universities, mostly UConn, UMass and URI. What is the Foundation up to today? Currently, the foundation has agreed to fund $180,195.77 for 2026 divided between 8 separate research projects. Here are the projects being funded in 2026: A Chemical Scent Lure to Attract Bumble Bee Queens to Nest in Irrigation Valve Boxes (Dr. Steve Alm, URI, 3 Years) Autonomous and Conventional Mowing Strategies Impact on Mowing Quality, Turfgrass Quality and Disease Incidence in Cool-Season Grasses (Dr. Jason Henderson, UConn, 2 Years) Evaluating Factors Impacting the Winter Survival and Spring Recovery in Cool-Season Turfgrasses (Dr. Michelle DaCosta, UMass, 2 Years) Management of Yellow Ring Symptoms Associated with an Emerging Turfgrass Pathogen (Dr. John Inguagiato, UConn, 2 Years) Pre- and Post-Emergence Application Timings for Goosegrass Management in New England. (Dr. Maureen Kahiu, UConn, 2 Years) Autonomous Mowing Impacts on Canada Geese Foraging Behavior and Cool-season Turfgrass Quality During Dormancy and Active Growth, (Dr. Jason Henderson, UConn, 2 Years) Evaluating Autonomous Mowing Schedule for Turf Quality and Dollar Spot Management (Dr. Geunhwa Jung, UMass, 1 Year) Optimizing the Growth Rate of Sports Turf by Integrating Plant Growth Regulators and Cultural Practices (Dr. Evan Mascitti, UMass, 3 Years) Just a word of appreciation to always remember that without the New England Regional Turfgrass Conference and Show (March 2 – 4, 2027), we would not have the funds for this capacity of research, and without the commitment of attendees, exhibitors, sponsors, and speakers, we would not have a show or a pot to you-know-what in! Our united focus has made this all work and continue to perform beyond expectations. What does the future hold? Let's hope for fair seas and following winds, but let's always prepare for future challenges! New England Regional Turfgrass Foundation President Ben Polimer and Director Mike Buras are the New England Sports Field Management Association's representatives on the New England Regional Turfgrass Foundation Board of Directors. For additional details on grant awards, and the March Turfgrass Conference, visit NERTF.org. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Turfgrass Research appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. The Alabama Turfgrass Association is excited to join the Georgia Sports Field Management Association for a special Sports Turf Field Day on Tuesday, October 6, at Birmingham Barons Stadium at Regions Field in Birmingham. This event will serve as ATA's biannual Sports Turf Field Day, bringing sports turf professionals together for a day of education, networking and sharing ideas with fellow field managers. If you manage a sports field—whether at a minor league facility, municipal complex, public or private school, university or other athletic facility—this is an event you won't want to miss. The day will feature breakout sessions, opportunities to visit with industry partners, and a general session addressing a topic that could have a significant impact on turf management this winter: “Preparing for a Super El Niño This Winter,” presented by Dr. Dave Han of Auburn University. This is a great opportunity to get out of the office, connect with your fellow sports turf professionals and gain practical knowledge you can take back to your fields. ATA sports turf managers—make plans to attend and take advantage of this opportunity to learn, network and connect with your peers across Alabama and Georgia. For additional details and registration, visit www.GeorgiaSTMA.org You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Sports Turf Field Day – Join ATA & GSFMA at Regions Field appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Dig into Ground Pearls: Investigating Thresholds and Distributions of a Spreading Pest Complex” written by Lily Deeter, Peter Hertl, and Terri Billeisen. Ground pearls (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) are severe insect pests of warm season turfgrass in North Carolina and much of the southern United States, spanning from Florida to California. These scale insects feed on grass roots fluids, causing distinctive circular dead patches turfgrass and frustration in homeowners, superintendents, and sod producers. No currently registered insecticides have shown consistent control for ground pearls (Chong, 2018; Thomson et al, 2021), likely due to their wax-protected cyst, the immature nymph stage that feeds on plant roots with piercing-sucking mouthparts. In addition, their subterranean habit and ability to remain encysted for years under adverse conditions make management of this insect challenging. As an insect family with over 100 species, ground pearls cause damage beyond managed turfgrass. Additional affected crops include grapevines in South Africa, wheat and barley in the Middle East, and sugarcane in Australia (García Morales et al., 2016). Two distinct ground pearl species infest North Carolina turfgrass: Eumargarodes laingi, known as the “pink ground pearl,” and Dimargarodes meridionalis, which is orange in the adult female life stage. While E. laingi cysts are typically a dull brown, beige, or pink, the cysts of D. meridionalis are shiny yellow, orange, or white. In North Carolina, these two species occur both separately and together in mixed infestations. As part of my dissertation research at NC State, I am investigating the ground pearl species complex and using distribution and life staging specifics to inform management. Understanding species abundance and impact may influence control approaches including product selection or timing. Greenhouse trials are ongoing to investigate and establish damage thresholds in centipedegrass, the most susceptible turfgrass species to ground pearl damage. Adult female ground pearls were introduced to potted grass containers at different densities and species combinations. Time to damage incidence is recorded as females lay eggs and establish a new generation of cysts. Damaged surface area will be estimated by individual container images using ImageJ software that quantifies green pixelation in each image. Containers are photographed every other week in a photo tent to maintain consistent lighting. Results from this study will inform not only damage potential of each ground pearl species, but also the damage and tolerance thresholds when managing infestations. I am also actively collecting distribution data for both species within and beyond the state. Once believed to be a localized issue, ground pearl infestations have now spread across most of the Coastal Plain and well into the Piedmont. Infestations of D. meridionalis are typically found in mixed infestations with E. laingi along the coast, while E. laingi infestations are spreading west as far as Wake County. Distribution data is growing through collaboration with extension agents, homeowners, and the NC State Turfgrass Diagnostics Lab. While I continue to characterize impact in North Carolina, my research on ground pearls will also investigate new pesticide formulations and emergence cycles to improve product application timing. I am also studying the evolution of this pest family using phylogenomics. Results from this research will help refine management procedures for ground pearls in North Carolina turfgrass and beyond. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Dig into Ground Pearls: Investigating Thresholds and Distributions of a Spreading Pest Complex appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Managing Poa annua on Ultradwarf Bermudagrass Greens” written by Chris Neff, Senior Agronomist, East Region and Jim Brosnan, Ph.D., Professor, University of Tennessee. Poa annua is one of the most persistent and disruptive weeds in ultradwarf bermudagrass greens. In this article, we explain why Poa annua thrives, how it impacts putting green playability and performance, and the cultural, chemical and routine maintenance practices that can help keep it under control. Success depends not on a single herbicide, but on an integrated management program that promotes healthy bermudagrass year-round. Key Takeaways: Poa annua is problematic in ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens because the plant characteristics and timing of active growth for the two grasses are so different. Fully eradicating Poa annua from ultradwarf greens is very challenging, so the goal for most courses is to minimize its presence and impact on playability. Pre and postemergence herbicides are part of successful control, but resistance is an issue and herbicides alone cannot solve Poa annua problems. Cultural practices and growing environments that favor dense and healthy ultradwarf greens are a critical part of any Poa annua control strategy. Poa annua remains one of the most persistent and disruptive weeds in ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens, particularly throughout the Southeast. From a consulting perspective, it is less a question of whether Poa annua will be an issue and more a matter of how well it is managed within the system. Its biological advantages, rapid germination, prolific seed production and adaptability to low mowing heights make it uniquely suited to exploit weaknesses in bermudagrass stands, especially during seasonal transitions. The primary issue Poa annua presents is inconsistency. Bermudagrass and Poa annua differ significantly in growth habit, color, leaf texture and seasonal performance. These differences manifest most noticeably on the putting surface, where uniformity is paramount. Poa annua tends to produce a lighter green color and a more upright growth habit, creating a mottled appearance that is often unacceptable to golfers. The differences in growth habit and timing of optimal growth also lead to bumpy surfaces, especially when Poa annua is growing actively in shoulder seasons while bermudagrass is growing slowly or is fully dormant. Early spring can be especially problematic in the Southeast because conditions are ideal for Poa annua while bermudagrass is often worn down by winter play. Aggressive Poa annua seedhead production, particularly in late winter and spring, adds to the variability in ball roll. Even under intensive management, seedheads can disrupt smoothness and trueness, leading to dissatisfaction among golfers. Beyond aesthetics and playability, Poa annua also introduces agronomic challenges. It is inherently less heat and drought tolerant than bermudagrass. As temperatures rise in late spring and early summer, Poa annua often declines rapidly, often leaving voids in the putting surface. This decline is typically accelerated by disease pressure during hot, wet and humid conditions, as stressed Poa annua becomes highly susceptible to pathogens. The resulting voids reduce surface uniformity and create opportunities for further weed encroachment. Another agronomic issue is that when Poa annua is actively growing during cooler weather, ultradwarf bermudagrass greens are growing slowly, if at all. Mowing and/or rolling can help minimize the impact of Poa annua plants on ball roll, but these practices can also increase wear on the desired bermudagrass, which can lead to more opportunities for Poa annua to gain ground. As the population of Poa annua in the putting greens increases, these and other agronomic issues become more challenging to manage, so keeping Poa annua under control as much as possible is the primary goal. Fertility Program Achieving this level of surface dominance begins with a carefully balanced fertility program designed to sustain consistent growth without encouraging excessive thatch accumulation or unwanted vertical elongation. Nitrogen applications should be delivered in light, frequent increments to promote steady lateral spread and recovery, rather than flushes of growth that can lead to scalping or increased disease susceptibility. Equally important, potassium should be maintained at adequate levels to enhance plant resilience, particularly in the face of summer stressors such as heat, traffic, and periodic drought. Elevated soil phosphorus levels have been associated with increased Poa annua populations in closely mown turfgrass environments (Guertal & McElroy, 2018). Excessive phosphorus can provide a competitive advantage to Poa annua, allowing it to establish and persist more readily in putting greens and other intensively managed turf areas. For this reason, phosphorus applications should be guided by soil test results and targeted to maintain levels within agronomically appropriate ranges, thereby promoting the competitiveness of the desired bermudagrass while reducing conditions that may favor Poa annua encroachment. Rutgers University turfgrass research has noted that elevated soil pH can be associated with increased Poa annua pressure in creeping bentgrass, making pH management an important cultural tool in suppression programs (McNally et al., 2024). Maintaining soil pH in a slightly more acidic range can help strengthen bermudagrass competitiveness and reduce Poa annua populations over time. Moisture Management Moisture management is equally critical in tipping the competitive balance toward bermudagrass during the summer months. Excessively wet conditions, whether from overwatering, poor drainage or prolonged rainfall, create an environment highly conducive to Poa annua germination, survival, and eventual reestablishment. In contrast, firm, well-drained surfaces inherently favor bermudagrass by promoting deeper rooting, improved oxygen exchange, and greater heat and traffic stress tolerance. Superintendents should target a consistently moderate soil moisture profile, carefully balancing the need to prevent drought-induced stress with the equally important goal of avoiding prolonged saturation. This requires a disciplined, responsive irrigation approach, in which water is applied based on plant demand and environmental conditions rather than on fixed schedules. Allowing the surface to dry down between irrigation events not only enhances firmness and playability but also puts Poa annua at a competitive disadvantage, encouraging bermudagrass to expand laterally and occupy available space. Using portable moisture meters to guide putting green irrigation can significantly improve the precision and effectiveness of this program. By providing real-time, site-specific data, these tools allow superintendents to make informed irrigation decisions that optimize water-use efficiency and maintain optimal rootzone moisture. Improving surface and subsurface drainage is also an effective part of Poa annua control. Areas of putting greens that tend to gather and hold more water are often where a high amount of Poa annua encroachment is observed during cooler and wetter periods, so any projects that can be done to improve drainage will enhance bermudagrass health and limit the amount of moisture available for Poa annua. Cultural Practices Cultural practices during the summer should be intentionally structured to enhance the density and vigor of bermudagrass and actively disrupt the life cycle of Poa annua. Topdressing and aeration are fundamental practices for maintaining healthy ultradwarf greens, and they place Poa annua at a relative disadvantage by limiting the amount of moisture that is held in the upper portion of the putting green rootzone. Incorporating vertical mowing and grooming into the program refines surface quality and triggers new shoot growth for improved density and increased surface smoothness. The frequency, intensity and timing of all cultural practices should be carefully managed to maintain bermudagrass vigor and allow adequate recovery time. Excessive stress weakens the competitive advantage of bermudagrass, creating favorable conditions for Poa annua germination, establishment and long-term persistence. Slightly raising the mowing height on ultradwarf putting greens heading into fall can help improve Poa annua control by reducing mechanical stress on the turf. Healthier, less-stressed bermudagrass develops greater density and is better able to compete with Poa annua. The additional leaf tissue will also help maintain bermudagrass density and coverage through the winter, when wear can create voids for Poa annua to occupy going into spring. Minimizing shade on ultradwarf putting greens is another important “cultural practice” that will help minimize Poa annua issues. Bermudagrass requires high light levels to maintain density and vigor, whereas Poa annua can persist under lower light conditions. Trees or surrounding vegetation that intercept sunlight will weaken bermudagrass and create favorable conditions for Poa annua establishment. Increasing sunlight through selective tree pruning or removal can strengthen bermudagrass competitiveness and should be considered an important component of any long-term Poa annua management program. Herbicides While routine maintenance practices that support bermudagrass health form the foundation of Poa annua control, a well-structured herbicide program is essential for long-term success. Preemergence herbicides are the cornerstone of this approach. Applications should be timed to coincide with declining soil temperatures in late summer and early fall, typically when temperatures at the 2-inch depth consistently fall below 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Poa annua emergence typically occurs when 24-hour mean soil temperatures are sustained at or below 66 degrees Fahrenheit (Taylor et al., 2021). Application timing is critical: Treatments made too early may break down before peak germination, while those made too late will fail to provide effective control. Sequential applications will be required to sustain an effective chemical barrier throughout the shoulder seasons when Poa annua can most easily invade ultradwarf putting greens. Once soil temperatures are below 66 degrees Fahrenheit, applications should deliver both pre and postemergence control from varying mode-of-action groups. Advanced management programs frequently incorporate tank-mixing and rotational sequencing of multiple herbicide modes of action across the preemergence and postemergence spectrum. For example, the preemergence herbicide methiozolin (PoaCure) can be alternated with pronamide (Kerb) to balance soil residual activity, while herbicides such as amicarbazone (Xonerate) and flazasulfuron (Katana) can offer postemergence activity. Some turfgrass managers have expressed curiosity about herbicides that may be effective for controlling Poa annua but are not labeled for use on putting greens. In fact, some of these products have been studied for Poa annua control on ultradwarf greens in research settings for this reason. It is important to remember that research putting greens are not subjected to many of the stressors commonly found on golf courses, primarily traffic and shade. Additionally, the herbicide label is the law when it comes to any application. Many courses throughout the Southeast are plagued with herbicide-resistant Poa annua on putting greens, particularly populations that are not controlled with Group 2 herbicides such as foramsulfuron (Revolver). From a resistance management standpoint, rotating herbicides across distinct sites of action is not optional, it is essential. Repeated reliance on a single mode of action, particularly within ALS-inhibiting chemistries, has contributed to documented cases of resistance in Poa annua populations. A diversified, programmatic approach that integrates multiple chemistries not only improves short-term control but also preserves long-term herbicide efficacy. To expand the modes of action available for Poa annua control, some superintendents have considered or applied nonselective herbicides to dormant ultradwarf putting greens where this use is not explicitly prohibited by the product label. This type of application carries substantial risk, it is not recommended by the authors of this article, and we do not believe it should be considered a viable management option. Although bermudagrass may appear fully dormant, herbicides can still translocate to the crowns and roots, increasing the risk of turf injury, delayed spring greenup and reduced recovery. Any use of nonselective herbicides should be evaluated carefully based on product label requirements, turfgrass condition, environmental conditions, and the potential impact on spring transition. Successful implementation of an herbicide program to control Poa annua requires precise attention to turfgrass tolerance, environmental conditions and product label guidance and restrictions. Ultradwarf bermudagrass exhibits variable sensitivity to many postemergence chemistries, particularly when it is under stress or during spring transition. Applications made during periods of fluctuating temperatures, low carbohydrate reserves, or reduced growth can result in chlorosis, thinning or delayed recovery from dormancy. As such, rate selection, application interval and environmental timing must be carefully calibrated to balance effective Poa annua suppression with acceptable levels of bermudagrass safety. Managing the Presence of Poa annua Despite best efforts, many facilities will continue to contend with significant Poa annua populations in their ultradwarf greens, particularly during the fall, winter and early spring. In these situations, the focus must shift from eradication to minimizing the impact on playability. This requires a thoughtful, integrated approach that addresses both agronomic considerations and golfer expectations. During the cooler months, Poa annua will become more pronounced on putting surfaces. Mowing and rolling are essential for controlling its vertical growth and maintaining smoothness, but there must be a balance between managing the impact of Poa annua on playability and wearing down the desired bermudagrass that is growing slowly or not at all. Rolling can help mitigate the impact of seedheads and improve ball roll consistency without placing as much additional stress on the bermudagrass as mowing would, but excessive rolling during periods of slow bermudagrass growth can lead to turf thinning, particularly around putting green edges, which can lead to more Poa annua becoming established. When Poa annua populations are still scattered and individual plants are small, hand removal can be one of the most practical and precise tools available. While this process is labor intensive, physically removing isolated plants before they expand or produce seed can help protect surface uniformity without potentially weakening the bermudagrass base with herbicide applications. The key is timing. Plants should be removed by the roots while they are small enough to leave only minimal disruption to the surface, followed by careful repair so the surrounding bermudagrass can quickly knit back into the void. Bermudagrass is uniquely adapted to tolerate and respond favorably to frequent, low mowing during periods of active growth when supported by adequate fertility and moisture. Under these conditions, the turf exhibits improved density, finer texture and greater resiliency to traffic and environmental stress when mowed lower. On the other hand, Poa annua is less tolerant of sustained low mowing heights as temperatures rise and environmental pressures increase. As bermudagrass growing conditions improve, frequent low mowing further weakens Poa annua plants and reduces seedhead production. Superintendents should capitalize on this opportunity in late spring and early summer by implementing mowing practices that promote bermudagrass performance without overextending the plant. This includes maintaining sharp, well-adjusted equipment to ensure clean cuts and avoiding abrupt mowing height changes that could induce stress. Transition Back to Bermudagrass As temperatures begin to rise in spring, the transition back to bermudagrass dominance presents both challenges and opportunities. This is often the most volatile period for putting green performance, as declining Poa annua and emerging bermudagrass compete for space. Patience and restraint are essential during this time. Aggressive practices aimed at removing Poa annua too quickly can lead to unacceptable surface disruption, while insufficient management may delay bermudagrass recovery. Gradual adjustments in cultural practices such as verticutting and topdressing, can facilitate a smoother transition. Increasing nitrogen inputs to favor bermudagrass, combined with strategic aeration and topdressing, can accelerate recovery from winter and encourage the bermudagrass to fill voids left by declining Poa annua. Continued use of PGRs may be warranted to suppress any remaining Poa annua populations and maintain surface consistency. Conclusion Communicating with stakeholders is also a key component of successful Poa annua management. Golfers must understand the challenges of maintaining ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens in regions with high Poa annua pressure. Setting realistic expectations and providing clear explanations of management strategies can go a long way in fostering support and reducing frustration during transitional periods. Ultimately, managing Poa annua in ultradwarf putting greens is a year-round endeavor that requires a proactive, integrated approach. There is no single solution, and success is rarely defined by complete eradication. Instead, the goal is to minimize impact on playability and aesthetics while promoting the long-term health and dominance of bermudagrass. Superintendents who embrace this philosophy by combining sound agronomic practices with strategic chemical inputs and effective communication will be best positioned to navigate the challenges Poa annua presents. While it may never be fully eliminated, the influence of Poa annua can be managed to a level that allows for consistently high-quality putting surfaces, even under the most demanding conditions. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. For a complete list of references as well as supplementary photos, read this article in the August / September 2026 issue of Tennessee Turfgrass magazine on www.TheTurfZone.com The post Managing Poa annua on Ultradwarf Bermudagrass Greens appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode previews the Southeast's Premier Turfgrass Event – the Deep South Turf Expo. Every year, the Deep South Turf Expo brings together the best and brightest in the turfgrass industry for three days of education, networking, and discovering the latest products and technologies shaping our profession. This year’s event promises to be one of the best yet. Mark your calendars for October 27–29, 2026, as the Deep South Turf Expo returns to the beautiful Beau Rivage Resort in Biloxi, Mississippi. This year brings an exciting enhancement—all educational sessions, the tradeshow, networking events, and accommodations will be held under one roof at the Beau Rivage, creating an even more convenient and enjoyable experience for attendees. Hosted by the Alabama Turfgrass Association in partnership with several leading turfgrass organizations across the Southeast, the Deep South Turf Expo has become the region’s premier educational event for golf course superintendents, sports field managers, lawn care professionals, landscapers, sod producers, grounds managers, municipal employees, university personnel, and right-of-way professionals. This year’s educational program is packed with timely topics that address today’s biggest challenges and tomorrow’s emerging opportunities. Industry experts and university researchers from Auburn University, Mississippi State University, Louisiana State University, the University of Florida, Penn State University, and beyond will share the latest research and practical management strategies that attendees can immediately apply in the field. Sessions will explore subjects including robotics and automation, precision pesticide application, soil moisture technologies, herbicide and fungicide programs, sports field management, turfgrass breeding, irrigation management, and preparing athletic fields for world-class sporting events. Whether your operation is large or small, there is educational content designed specifically for your needs. Of course, education is only part of what makes the Deep South Turf Expo such a valuable event. The tradeshow provides attendees with an excellent opportunity to visit face-to-face with industry suppliers, compare the newest equipment and technologies, and learn about products that can improve efficiency and performance. Just as important are the conversations that happen in the exhibit hall, during meals, and throughout the conference. The Deep South Turf Expo has always been about connecting with colleagues, sharing ideas, and strengthening professional relationships across the Southeast. Networking begins even before the conference officially gets underway. On Tuesday afternoon, golfers can participate in the annual Scramble Golf Tournament at The Preserve Golf Club before everyone comes together for the always-popular Tailgate Celebration. It’s the perfect opportunity to reconnect with old friends, welcome new faces, and enjoy an evening of Southern hospitality before the educational sessions begin. Alabama Turfgrass Association Annual Business Meeting All Alabama Turfgrass Association members are strongly encouraged to attend the ATA Annual Business Meeting on Wednesday, October 28, at 1:00 p.m. During the meeting, members will conduct important Association business, vote on the proposed Board of Directors slate, and recognize this year’s recipient of the ATA Lifetime Achievement Award. Your participation helps shape the future of our Association, and we encourage every member attending the Expo to make plans to be there. One Location. Endless Opportunities. One of the biggest advantages of this year’s Expo is the convenience of having everything located at the Beau Rivage Resort. Attendees can stay, learn, network, visit exhibitors, and participate in Association activities without ever leaving the property. That means more time connecting with fellow professionals and less time traveling between venues. Whether you’re looking to earn continuing education credits, discover innovative products, hear the latest university research, or simply reconnect with friends and colleagues from across the region, the 2026 Deep South Turf Expo delivers exceptional value. And as an added bonus, Alabama has approved the DSTE program for 20 Alabama Pesticide Re-Certification Points. If you’ve attended before, you already know why this event has become a must-attend gathering for turfgrass professionals. If you’ve never been, this is the perfect year to experience everything the Expo has to offer. Registration is now open, and discounted rooms at the Beau Rivage are available for a limited time. Make plans today to join your fellow Alabama Turfgrass Association members in Biloxi this October. We look forward to seeing you at the Beau Rivage for another outstanding Deep South Turf Expo—where the Southeast’s turfgrass professionals come together to learn, connect, and grow. For additional information and to register online visit www.DeepSouthTurfExpo.org You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Don't Miss the Southeast's Premier Turfgrass Event—Deep South Turf Expo appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “My FIFA World Cup Experience” written by Dante Filadoro and read from New England Blade magazine. Getting the opportunity to work on the field crew for the World Cup at Boston Stadium was an experience I will never forget. Being part of an event of that size was incredible, but what made it even better was getting to work alongside so many great people from throughout the turf industry. The crew brought together local turf managers from just about every area you could think of, including parks and recreation, colleges, high schools, golf courses, sports turf, consulting, and landscaping. Everyone had different experiences and knowledge to bring to the table, and it was great being able to work side by side, share ideas, and learn from each other. It showed how strong the turf community is and how people from completely different parts of the industry can come together and work toward the same goal. I especially want to thank Ryan Bjorn and the crew he has at Boston Stadium. Everyone on that team was welcoming, helpful, and willing to share their knowledge. They are some incredibly smart turf managers who take a lot of pride in what they do. Even with the long days and pressure that comes with preparing a field for an event like the World Cup, they made it an enjoyable experience and treated everyone like part of the crew. It was also awesome getting to work alongside so many Stockbridge alumni. Seeing people who went through the same program and have gone on to work in different areas of the turf industry was something I really enjoyed. Having everyone come together for an event this big made me even more proud to be part of the Stockbridge community. Most of all, I can't thank Ryan, Drew, Chris, and the rest of the Field Crew team enough for allowing me to be a part of this experience. I learned a lot, met some great people, and made memories that I'll carry with me throughout my career. Being able to help prepare a field for the World Cup is something I'll always be proud of, but the people I got to work alongside are what made the experience truly special. It was an amazing opportunity and one that I will remember forever. • A recent UMass Stockbridge graduate, Dante Filadoro is Operations Manager at New England Sports Turf in Chelmsford, MA. He is a 2025 DeWolf Outdoor Education scholarship recipient. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post My FIFA World Cup Experience appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights the Alabama Turfgrass Association incoming president Lee Fillingim – Golf Course Superintendent at Cherokee Pines Golf Course in Centre, Alabama. With 30 years in the golf course and turfgrass industry and 11 years as a member of the Alabama Turfgrass Association, Lee Fillingim has built a career defined by dedication, leadership, relationships, and a genuine passion for the people who make up the turfgrass industry. Lee earned his B.S. in Operations Management from Auburn University and began his golf course management career at The Fields Golf Course in LaGrange, Georgia. He later returned to Auburn to earn a second degree in Agronomy and Soils before moving to Macon, Georgia, where he began his career as a Golf Course Superintendent. Lee and his wife, Lagina, originally planned to spend only a year and a half in Macon. Instead, the community became home for the next 18 years. From there, the family relocated to Anniston, Alabama, where Lee served as Golf Course Superintendent at Anniston Country Club for 11 years. Today, he leads the turfgrass operation at Cherokee Pines Golf Course in Centre. Throughout his career, Lee has embraced opportunities to serve and give back to the industry. His leadership experience includes serving on the Board of Directors for the Georgia Golf Course Superintendents Association, serving as President of the Alabama Golf Course Superintendents Association, and now preparing to serve as incoming President of the Alabama Turfgrass Association. The Influence of Mentors When Lee reflects on his three decades in the industry, one of the things he values most is the many people who have influenced his career. “Mentors come in many forms,” Lee says. “Whether coworkers, sales representatives, fellow superintendents, sod farm owners, landscapers, or educators, each has played a role in shaping us in the everyday moments of our work.” While he is grateful for the lessons learned from countless people along the way, one mentor has had a particularly lasting influence: Wade Thomas, Superintendent at Idle Hour Country Club in Macon, Georgia. “Wade has been and continues to this day to be my most influential mentor,” Lee says. More Than an Association For Lee, the Alabama Turfgrass Association represents something much bigger than an industry organization. “What stands out most about the ATA—and about this industry as a whole—is that it's never been driven by money,” he says. “Of course, we all work to support our families, but the way we treat one another goes far beyond business. We operate like family.” Lee believes that spirit is what makes the ATA special. Its committees, programs, and initiatives are built around education, guidance, and a genuine commitment to helping others. “Our goal is to help every member succeed, no matter the situation or opportunity,” he says. As he prepares to take on the role of ATA President, that commitment to education, service, and fellowship will be at the heart of his leadership. Looking Toward the Future Like many who have spent decades in the turfgrass industry, Lee has witnessed tremendous changes in technology and equipment. He believes the next major transformation may be the biggest yet. “Autonomous technology and AI will no doubt be the biggest game changer in the industry,” Lee says. “It is amazing to see how, in theory, one can operate an operation from a smartphone and game controller just sitting at a desk. Just drop off a mower and hit start from your iPhone. It reminds me of George Jetson!” While technology will continue to change the way turf is managed, Lee believes the relationships within the industry will remain just as important as ever. Family First Behind Lee’s career and many years of service are his wife, Lagina, their four children, and two grandchildren—all of whom have played an instrumental and supportive role throughout his professional journey. When he's away from work, Lee enjoys spending time with his family and, of course, playing golf. His favorite rounds? The ones where he manages to break 100. With three decades of experience behind him and a new chapter of leadership ahead, Lee Fillingim brings to the Alabama Turfgrass Association not only extensive industry knowledge, but also a deep appreciation for the people, relationships, and shared commitment that make this industry special. As he steps into the role of ATA President, members can look forward to leadership grounded in experience, service, and—most importantly—the belief that we are better when we work together. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Member Spotlight on Lee Fillingim appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Landscape and Groundskeeping Safety – Managing the Industry’s Most Common Hazards” written by Michael E. Clem, Environmental, Health & Safety Consultant. Landscape and groundskeeping professionals face a unique combination of hazards every day. From operating powerful cutting equipment and handling chemicals to working outdoors in extreme temperatures, the job requires a constant focus on safety. While these risks are often viewed as part of the job, injuries and illnesses are not inevitable. Through proper training, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and effective workplace controls, employers and employees can significantly reduce the likelihood of serious incidents. The need for strong safety programs is supported by industry statistics. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), grounds maintenance workers experience approximately 189 injuries per 10,000 full-time employees, which is more than twice the injury rate for all occupations combined. NIOSH also reports that the fatal injury rate for grounds maintenance workers is about five times higher than the average rate across all industries. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Labor documented more than 1,000 work-related fatalities in the landscaping and groundskeeping industry between 2011 and 2021. These numbers reinforce the importance of addressing the hazards that workers encounter most frequently. Chemical Exposure: Knowledge is the First Line of Defense Chemical exposure is an everyday concern in landscape and groundskeeping operations. Employees regularly work with fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuels, cleaners, and other products that can cause health problems if not handled correctly. Exposure can occur through skin contact, inhalation, accidental ingestion, or contact with the eyes. Depending on the chemical involved, workers may experience anything from minor irritation to serious respiratory issues or long-term health effects. Training plays a critical role in preventing chemical-related injuries and illnesses. Employees should receive Hazard Communication training and understand how to access and interpret Safety Data Sheets (SDS). The SDS provides valuable information about a product’s hazards, safe handling procedures, required PPE, storage requirements, and emergency response measures. Workers should never use a chemical product without first understanding the precautions outlined in both the SDS and the manufacturer’s label. Proper PPE is equally important. Chemical-resistant gloves, safety glasses or splash goggles, long sleeves, and protective clothing can significantly reduce exposure risks. When mixing concentrated chemicals or applying products that may generate airborne contaminants, additional protection such as face shields or respirators may be required. By combining training, SDS knowledge, and proper protective equipment, employees can safely perform chemical applications while minimizing health risks. Lacerations and Amputations: Preventing Life-Altering Injuries Many of the tools used in landscape work are designed to cut, trim, chop, or shred vegetation. While highly effective, equipment such as mowers, chainsaws, hedge trimmers, brush cutters, and wood chippers can cause severe lacerations and amputations within seconds. OSHA identifies moving machinery and cutting components as some of the most significant hazards faced by landscaping workers. Most serious injuries occur when workers attempt to clear debris, perform maintenance, or bypass machine guards while equipment is still energized. Preventing these incidents begins with comprehensive equipment training. Employees should be instructed on proper operating procedures, machine guarding requirements, pre-use inspections, and the importance of shutting equipment down before servicing or clearing jams. Supervisors should also ensure that workers understand the hazards associated with rotating blades and moving parts and follow manufacturer recommendations at all times. Appropriate PPE provides an additional layer of protection. Safety glasses, face shields, sturdy work boots, gloves, and long pants help protect workers from both direct contact hazards and flying debris. However, PPE is not a substitute for safe work practices. The most effective prevention strategy is ensuring that machine guards remain in place, equipment is maintained properly, and workers resist the temptation to take shortcuts that could result in permanent injury. Heat-Related Illness: A Growing Seasonal Threat For landscape and groundskeeping workers, summer temperatures can create dangerous conditions. Employees often spend long hours performing physically demanding tasks in direct sunlight, making them particularly vulnerable to heat stress and heat-related illness. NIOSH has identified grounds maintenance workers as a high-risk occupational group due to the combination of heavy physical activity and prolonged exposure to outdoor heat. Heat-related illnesses may begin with muscle cramps, fatigue, or excessive sweating, but can quickly progress to heat exhaustion and, in severe cases, heat stroke. Heat stroke is a medical emergency that can result in permanent injury or death if not treated immediately. Because symptoms may develop rapidly, workers and supervisors must be trained to recognize warning signs and know how to respond. Training should emphasize hydration, acclimatization for new or returning employees, and early symptom recognition. Workers should be encouraged to monitor one another and report signs of heat illness immediately. In addition to administrative controls such as water and rest breaks, employers can implement engineering and mechanical controls that help reduce heat exposure. Portable fans, shaded rest areas, misting stations, cooling trailers, and air-conditioned vehicles can provide valuable relief during hot weather. Cooling towels, cooling neck wraps, and cooling vests are also effective tools for helping workers regulate body temperature and maintain productivity throughout the day. When combined with lightweight, breathable clothing and adequate hydration, these controls create a comprehensive approach to heat-stress prevention and can significantly lower the likelihood of a heat-related emergency. Noise Exposure: Protecting Hearing for the Long Term Unlike many workplace injuries, hearing loss develops gradually and often goes unnoticed until the damage is permanent. Landscape equipment such as leaf blowers, chainsaws, chippers, string trimmers, and riding mowers can generate noise levels capable of damaging hearing after prolonged exposure. According to CDC and NIOSH data, approximately 22 million U.S. workers are exposed to potentially harmful occupational noise each year, and roughly one in five noise-exposed workers experiences material hearing impairment. Protecting workers from excessive noise begins with education. Employees should understand the effects of noise exposure, recognize symptoms such as ringing in the ears or muffled hearing, and know how to properly wear and maintain hearing protection devices. Hearing conservation training should emphasize that hearing loss caused by workplace noise is irreversible but entirely preventable. Employers can further reduce exposure through engineering controls, including purchasing quieter equipment and maintaining engines and mufflers to minimize unnecessary noise. Administrative controls, such as rotating employees between high-noise and lower-noise tasks, can also help limit exposure. When noise cannot be reduced to safe levels, hearing protection such as earplugs, earmuffs, or a combination of both becomes essential. Consistent use of hearing protection allows employees to preserve their hearing throughout their careers and well into retirement. Building a Safer Landscape Workforce Landscape and groundskeeping work will always present challenges, but a proactive approach to safety can dramatically reduce injuries and illnesses. Chemical exposure, lacerations and amputations, heat-related illness, and noise exposure remain among the industry’s most significant hazards, yet each can be effectively controlled through training, hazard awareness, PPE, and engineering solutions. When employees understand the risks, know how to access critical information such as SDSs, wear the proper protective equipment, and utilize workplace controls such as machine guards, cooling devices, and hearing protection, they are better equipped to perform their jobs safely. Safety is not simply a requirement of the job. It is a commitment to ensuring that every employee returns home healthy at the end of each workday. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Landscape and Groundskeeping Safety – Managing the Industry’s Most Common Hazards appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. VTC's 2026 Lawn and Landscape Short Course will be held at Belmont Recreation Center (1600 Hilliard Road, Henrico, Virginia) December 1–3, with space limited this year due to demand. Attendees can expect to gain valuable knowledge from expert instructors and, in the words of Aristotle (probably), “those who attend the Belmont Short Course will make excellence a habit.” He totally, definitely said that. But seriously, members and guest attendees applaud the high quality instruction and credit the course with enhancing their career growth and trajectory. Held on the sacred grounds of Sam Snead's 1949 PGA Championship victory, Belmont Recreation Center (once the home of Hermitage Country Club) provides a fantastic venue for this annual gathering. Don't miss this chance to get an upper hand on your competition and network with industry leaders and select vendors. We value our member and guest attendee feedback on this event. If there is something you or your company would like to see added to this course or one of our many educational offerings, please do let us know. Contact Beck Stanley at 540-871-9001 to provide feedback or join the VTC today. Registration opens soon at https://vaturf.org/short-course/ You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post VTC’s Lawn and Landscape Short Course appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. Please join us in welcoming Christy Rose as the new Membership & Events Coordinator for the Tennessee Golf Course Superintendents Association (TGCSA) and Tennessee Turfgrass Association (TTA). Christy recently relocated to Franklin, Tennessee, from Overland Park, Kansas, where she taught English and History in the Special Education Department. She holds a Master's degree in Education and brings a passion for building relationships, serving others, and creating meaningful experiences. Christy and her husband, Pat, superintendent at Belle Meade Country Club, are excited to be part of the Tennessee golf and turfgrass community once again. In her free time, she enjoys traveling, spending time with family and friends, and cheering on the Crimson Tide. “We are thrilled to welcome Christy to our team,” said Melissa Martin, Executive Director of the TGCSA and TTA. “Her enthusiasm, organizational skills, and passion for serving others make her an excellent fit for our associations. I am excited about the energy and ideas she brings, and I know our members will enjoy getting to know and working with her.” Christy is excited to begin working with both associations and looks forward to meeting and getting to know our members in the months ahead. Be sure to introduce yourself when you see her at an upcoming event! If you would like to connect with Christy, you can do so by emailing christy@ttaonline.org. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post TGCSA and TTA Welcome Christy Rose appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers the Tennessee Turfgrass Association’s Stars of the Industry Awards nominations due on October 1st 2026. The Stars of the Industry Awards recognizes outstanding individuals in the turf industry. Please try to keep in mind any operations or individuals that make a statement to you or the industry and nominate them for a Stars Award. You do not have to be a member to nominate someone for an award. Nomination Categories Tom Samples Professional of the Year Award One of the most prestigious and highest recognitions bestowed on a Tennessee turfgrass professional by the Association is the Tom Samples Professional of the Year Award. TTA members are given the opportunity to nominate those who they feel have made contributions to the turfgrass industry. Environmental Stewardship Award This award recognizes outstanding contributions by individuals, organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and agencies for successful projects or activities designed to improve the environment through wildlife habitat preservation, water and resource conservation and reduction, and educational outreach. Sports Field of the Year Award High School, Municipal, Collegiate & Professional The TTA recognizes that our members make personal and professional contribution to our industry and to the organization you serve. This award is presented to a sports field which has demonstrated those qualities. Golf Course of the Year Award Public and Private The TTA recognizes that our members make personal and professional contribution to our industry and to the organization you serve. This award is presented to a golf course which has demonstrated those qualities. Submit your nominations at ttaonline.org You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Stars of the Industry Awards Nominations appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Plant Growth Regulators and Biostimulants For Fine Turf — What's the Difference?” written by Richard E. Schmidt, Professor Emeritus, Virginia Tech. Read from the July / August 2026 issue of Virginia Turfgrass Journal. Introduction, written by Mike Goatley, Jr., Professor and Extension Turfgrass Specialist, Virginia Tech Virginia Tech Professor Emeritus Richard E. Schmidt passed on December 31, 2025 at the age of 94. Upon the passing of his wife, June, in 2022, Dick's son, Stephen, asked me to please “keep Dad active and engaged by involving him in a project”. Well, the project I asked Dick to work on for me was to summarize what he considered to be some of the most significant findings of his research of biostimulants as compared to more traditional plant growth regulators. Dick literally continued to review articles and write from that point until he was prepared to pass, calling me on December 30 to let me know that he did not have much more time and it was up to me to complete this article. There was little that was needed for me to “complete” this article, but it was my pleasure to provide the final review and edits to Dick's last scientific publication for the turfgrass industry. I decided I can't give you everything Dick was exploring… he went into areas of literature review on gene regulation and expression in plant hormone production, the chemistry and production of phytosiderophores, and a host of other topics that I simply am not qualified to discuss. My effort focused on refining Dick's article in a way that I felt would most benefit you, the turfgrass manager. Dick is referred to by many as “the Godfather of turfgrass biostimulants,” but his recognition for his efforts in better understanding these compounds did not come without professional challenges. He was often confronted by scientific peers that he should not be wasting his time doing “snake oil research”. But Dick remained resolute that these compounds had the potential to play important roles in managed turfgrass, especially turfgrass that was likely to encounter environmental stress. Dick, along with research scientists like VT's Dr. Xunzhong Zhang (and a number of graduate students such as myself studying under him at Tech) slowly but surely progressed in the understanding of why and how these compounds might work (or not) rather than just practicing the approach of “spray and pray”. VT Turfgrass alum and Purdue University Turfgrass Professor Dr. Cale Bigelow made a comment about Dick's legacy that I thought was very astute: “I dare say that almost every high-profile golf course or sports field anywhere in the country likely has some formulation(s) of a biostimulant in their chemical room that the manager is applying as a standard tool in their management program.” I hope you will take a few minutes to read Dick's final article on this subject matter as a way to pay tribute to his lifetime of research efforts, and to learn a little more about how to use these compounds to improve your turfgrass management program. Plant Growth Regulators and Biostimulants For Fine Turf — What's the Difference? Are you confused concerning the use of plant growth regulators (PGR's) or biostimulants? First a couple of basic definitions of these compounds to set the stage for this discussion. For the purpose of this paper, I will define a PGR as any compound that alters plant growth or development and a biostimulant as an organic substance derived from plants and animals that, when applied in small quantities, may enhance plant growth and metabolism to enhance turfgrass tolerance to environmental stress. There is definitely some overlap in these definitions, so it's understandable if you are confused by the distinctions between these two classes of chemistry. Conflicting information concerning the efficacy of newly introduced materials occurs frequently. Dr. Bill Kreuser (2015) points out the advantages of using plant growth regulators for fine turf. Subsequently, VT alum Dr. Jordan Booth (2023) advocates managing bentgrass putting greens in the transition zone without plant growth regulators. Here are two highly regarded scientists with quite variable viewpoints on this subject, and I think both are correct in their findings and recommendations, depending on the situation. To get a perspective on the subject let us briefly review the history of the use of compounds that fall outside the category of fertilizers but are known to affect the growth and development of plants. Prior to World War II, a growth hormone in the form of the herbicide 2,4-D, was introduced to selectively control broadleaf weeds in turfgrass populations. Reports of effectiveness varied. Its application for weed control did not become widespread until sufficient research was conducted to show that applications made during the winter months were not effective until warmer weather in the spring when broadleaf weeds were actively growing. Once it was established that this chemical effectiveness was influenced by the environment, its use became standard. This is a reminder that from the beginning of the use of synthetic chemicals that environmental condition must be considered in obtaining desired results when applying chemicals to turf. 2,4-D and similar compounds later became standard components in tissue culture research in the selection and development of new turfgrass cultivars through callus culture. This ‘positive' growth response of 2,4-D clarifies something that we have long known for pesticides, hormones, fertilizers etc. – concentration is very important. In Search of Compounds for Faster Growth Responses Other factors and compounds must also be considered when discussing the initial research into the possible use of these compounds. During the 1980's the first synthetic gibberellic acid (GA) compounds became available. Research by Dr. Felix Juska (1958) detailed how gibberellic acid stimulates plant growth by elongation of stems between the nodes. This was originally thought to be a miracle compound for turfgrass culture. However, by the late 1980s use of GA as a plant growth accelerator was basically terminated except for specialty uses such as pre-germinating perennial ryegrass seed for sports field surface recovery uses, a standard practice by many sports field managers still today. When delving into the reasons cited by scientists and turfgrass managers alike why GA use essentially ceased outside of seed treatments, it seemed that the general consensus was that once a dense turf was established, most managers desired that the grass grew more slowly to decrease maintenance cost! Perhaps Compounds for Slower Growth? To obtain slower turf growth, there was also a lot of interest in the 1980s in the development and testing of Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) as a component of turfgrass management, with initial compounds mostly being used on unimproved turf for radical reductions in foliar growth or seedhead development. Emphasis for fine turf management was placed on synthetic gibberellic inhibitors, such as compounds still widely used today in paclobutrazol and trinexapac-ethyl, to control foliar growth of turfgrasses and improve turfgrass density and playability. One common theme with their use that was first somewhat surprising to end users was the surge of foliar growth when the regulated turf was removed from the treatment program- a phenomenon often referred to as the “rebound stage” of growth and development. Clipping yields increased drastically during the rebound stage due to a buildup of carbohydrates and stored nitrogen in the plants that accumulated during the suppression phase. This is further evidence of response that is due to concentrations of hormones inside the plants (as well as the interactions with other compounds). I briefly mentioned before how 2,4-D is most commonly thought of as a broadleaf herbicide, but at low concentrations it can trigger very positive auxin hormone-based responses that promote cell elongation. The late biochemical pathway suppression of GA by a Class A PGR like trinexapac-ethyl revolutionized how fine turf is managed with a PGR. The main beneficial claim for using gibberellic inhibitors is the reduction of clipping yield plus the enhancement of color, increased stress tolerance and reduced nutrient requirements. Because of the short growth suppression phase, frequent retreatments are required. It is impractical to visually determine the effectiveness of the gibberellic inhibitor treatment to ascertain when retreatment is necessary. One standard method in golf turf putting green management has been golf ball roll distance; when ball roll is slowed because of faster turfgrass growth rate (as measured by an increase in clipping yield), it is a signal to re-treat. Technology and smart devices have now made it common to have PGR-treatment prediction models that combine data collected over the years with varying rates and sources of PGRs with Growing Degree Day data. This is an example of how technology is helping the turfgrass manager further refine their PGR management programs and maintain consistent ball roll speeds for their golfing public. Growth Inhibitors or Metabolic Stimulators Although classified as a PGR, naturally occurring growth regulators such as seaweed extracts and humic acid are not discussed in the same ways as gibberellic acid inhibitors. This is because the main effect of the natural growth regulators is in metabolic enhancement, and these compounds are commonly referred to as biostimulants. By this definition, some PGR'S also may be classified as biostimulants as they also influence the metabolic activity of plants. Therefore, when a material is used to influence plant growth it often is being used primarily as a PGR. When it is used to affect the metabolism of the plant, it may be referred to as a biostimulant. It has been well documented that turfgrasses under environmental stress have an internal increase at the molecular level in potentially phytotoxic oxygen species (called free radicals) within their cells. Simply put, the plant is incapable of utilizing all of the energy from the sun that it is receiving (something we generally associate with photosynthesis and think of as a “good thing” because it is leading to food production). Under conditions of excessive energy absorption, oxygen molecules accept electrons and become a highly reactive free radical form. These free radicals are capable of damaging cell membranes. Under normal conditions the plant has biochemical pathways in place to neutralize free radical formation, but under stress, the build-up of free radicals exceeds the plant's capability of quenching that excessive energy by the production of compounds called antioxidants. It has been shown that supplemental applications of biostimulants (particularly before the most extreme periods of stress arrive) can enhance the development of the antioxidant compounds that can mitigate the toxic influence of the free radicals. Whether materials are applied for growth control or development of antioxidants, environmental conditions must be considered. For example, research has shown that adequate nitrogen fertilizers in the fall and early winter (when grass foliar growth is reduced by cooling temperatures), carbohydrate reserves increase and this ultimately favors root production. However, heavy spring nitrogen fertilization stimulates foliar growth at the expense of root production and places the plant under stress, particularly if the summer months prove to be hot and dry. In Booth's 2023 article, he makes the case that applying PGR's, such as those that inhibit gibberellin production, can add to the stress associated with the summer weather. Data, however, shows these products do influence the metabolic processes that are reported to negate the effects of environmental stress. Other interacting factors that influence the action of the biostimulant are nutrient balance and/or pest activity that negates the results of the treatment. It is difficult to visually observe changes associated with PGR's and the opportunity to adjust programs is often missed. Again, one of the best (but time consuming strategies to adjust programs) is to take daily stimpmeter readings to assess ball roll and/or clipping yields to determine the level of plant growth effect of the supplemental PGR treatments. Relation Between Metabolism and Plant Growth Responses As a means to hopefully better explain some of my earliest research findings in terms of PGR/biostimulant concentrations and turfgrass response(s) (and what I have found in my literature review beyond my time as an active faculty member at Virginia Tech), I turn to findings from a scientific publication from the work done by my successor in turfgrass physiology research at Virginia Tech, Dr. Erik Ervin. Ervin at al. (2004) published a paper on the seasonal influence of biostimulants on root growth, metabolic activity, and overall shade tolerance of creeping bentgrass, an article that covers both basic and applied research findings in this area. Root development of bentgrass, as measured by physical root pulls of plugs grown under the first shade treatment sequence of 88% shade from June to 30 October 2001 (summer through early fall) was not enhanced by trinexapac ethyl, iron, or seaweed + iron treatments, but had an approximate 44% increase for treatment with a standard fungicide, propiconazole. When returned to light conditions for the next six months (November to April 2002, late fall through winter), all root pull measurements were much greater than before, with increases of 37, 41, 20, and 17%, respectively for trinexapac ethyl, propiconazole, iron, and seaweed + iron treatments compared to the untreated control. When shade was introduced again from April to November 2002 (spring to fall sequence), root strength once again declined due to the shade, but trinexapac ethyl, propiconazole (the active ingredient in a standard fungicide, shown to have hormonal-type activity in previous VT research), iron, and seaweed + iron treatments all provided root strength increases of 92, 33, 24, and 6%, respectively, as compared to the untreated control. Two factors are at play here. Root development is obviously linked to the plants producing energy in the lighted conditions. Secondly, grass roots tend to develop during the late fall/winter months when foliar growth was impeded. The bentgrass receiving the trinexapac ethyl treatments retained the most root development compared to the control when measured in Nov 2002. This indicates that the benefits of treatment that enhanced root development during the winter period when the bentgrass was exposed to light persisted. Although the treatments that had the largest root development (bentgrass treated with trinexapac- ethyl under full light in the winter, October 2001 to April 2002) because of the root growth response, they also had the largest percentage root loss the following spring and summer when grown under shade. However, in terms of absolute root numbers as determined by root strength measurements, the bentgrass receiving these treatments still had significantly better root growth than the untreated control. Metabolic Activity Now, how about metabolic activity? Two metabolic variables measured in this shade trial were photochemical efficiency (PE, a measurement of how efficiently plants are utilizing photosynthetically active radiation) and antioxidant activity (a measurement of how the plants were capable of quenching the potentially membrane-damaging energy of free radicals) by way of an increase in an energy-quenching compound, Superoxide Dismutase. PE levels under shaded conditions increased slightly for all treatments compared to the untreated control, but the values only ranged from a 2% increase for Seaweed Extract + Humic Acid to a 9% increase for trinexapac ethyl. While the dense shade drastically reduced all levels of SOD in shaded plants, the relative increases in SOD in the treated bentgrass compared to the untreated control was 39, 74, 78, and 86% greater for seaweed extract + humic acid, trinexapac ethyl, propiconazole, and FeSO4, respectively. Greater SOD levels in the plant impart improved stress tolerance to the bentgrass as it was moved from the shade to sunny conditions. Now, clearly the treatments were no replacement for growing grass in sufficient sunlight, correct? But under such extreme light deprivation, the treatments did trigger the plant's metabolic responses to improve shade tolerance. What This Might Mean for Future Objective Assessments of Overall Turfgrass Health When combining the metabolic enhancement data from the bentgrass shade investigation trial with that of the root development under altering shade and light conditions, it is evident that in general, there were positive responses to the PGR and biostimulant treatments. Determination of the antioxidant activity to ascertain turf health in “real time” is a wet laboratory process and would be impractical for the average turfgrass manager to use it to measure health of the grass. However, the remote sensing technologies that the research teams of Drs. McCall and Askew at Virginia Tech (and scientists at other universities) are evaluating, coupled with the expanding availability of these types of tools to golf course superintendents and sports field managers, and a summary/evaluation of computations possible through artificial intelligence, I think it is likely that one day soon the turf manager will be determining the PE and SOD levels etc. to assess turfgrass health both rapidly and accurately. While ball roll speed, trueness of roll, and/or clipping yields will always give the turf manager very meaningful data in terms of management decisions that affect health and playability aspects, the use of electronic tools will provide the turfgrass manager real time data to tweak the metabolic activity of the turfgrass by way of a PGR or biostimulant application. Summary Although turfgrass ecology is a science, it also very much remains an art as well. Therefore, we should always respect the observations of dedicated turfgrass professionals that pay such close attention to their grasses on a daily basis. Their judgments and measurements reflect the ideal and the extremes in environmental conditions. And their exploration with the pros and cons of PGRs and biostimulants have demonstrated the possibilities and pratfalls for how these tools can affect metabolic processes within the plant that may (or may not) promote better stress tolerance. For as much progress that has been made in this area from the time I began studying biostimulants in the 1980s, there is no doubt that there is so much more we don't know. There are an infinite number of plant hormone concentration possibilities inside plants that trigger plant responses, and with the application of the biostimulant the turfgrass manager is trying to effectively and safely manipulate that hormonal balance. Add to the equation the diversity of turfgrass species, climate, soils, pests, maintenance protocol, turfgrass use etc. and you can appreciate the challenges involved in gaining the desired plant responses. I have somewhat alluded to it, but I don't think I have completely addressed this point: when Dr. Goatley first spoke with me about developing an article about biostimulants and PGRs he made the statement that “in particular one needs to know exactly what is in their biostimulant package if they are on a PGR program”. I agree and it's a reminder that carefully reading and following the label is no different than for a pesticide. For instance, if a turfgrass manager is on a trinexapac-ethyl regulation program and is simultaneously applying a biostimulant that contains GA, their growth regulation is very likely being affected since they are applying the antidote to the PGR activity. There always will be research that needs to be conducted in this area, and I am pleased that the lab of Dr. Xunzhong Zhang at Virginia Tech continues to expand knowledge in this area. Dr. Zhang has published research showing that turfgrass stresses such as drought, salinity, temperature, exposure to UV light, and shade can be reduced by elevating plant antioxidant levels by way of biostimulant applications. Biostimulants are not and will never be replacements for sound management strategies, but they are tools that when applied at the right time and concentration can enhance stress tolerance and improve the health and performance of your turfgrass system. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Plant Growth Regulators and Biostimulants For Fine Turf — What's the Difference? appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “How a near-death experience led to a career in turfgrass” by Matt Duncan, CSFM. Read from the Summer 2026 issue of Pennsylvania Turfgrass. How can the worst thing that has ever happened to you also be the best thing that has ever happened to you? This is a question I ask myself when reflecting on more than three decades in the turfgrass industry. The year was 1995. I was a sophomore majoring in Sociology and Criminal Justice at Lock Haven University in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Then, in April of that year, my life took a turn I could have never expected. On April 6, 1995, I went to the doctor back home in Williamsport and was told I had bronchitis with an infection in my lungs. He put me on some medicine and told me to go back to school. After the appointment, two of my friends and I went to the Old Lycoming County Jail in downtown Williamsport to see the prison. As we walked around, my friends were a little ahead of me. I looked into one of the cells, and jumped back. There was a priest standing in the cell. He had a black suit with white collar, was carrying a Bible, and wore glasses. Not expecting to see anyone in there, I made a bit of small talk then caught up with my friends. I looked back and the priest was gone. I asked friends where he went, and they said there was no one in the cells — they were empty and locked. I was still not feeling well when I went to bed on April 7, and I didn't wake up for a couple of weeks. I had fallen into a coma, lost the ability to breathe on my own, had a tracheotomy, was placed on a respirator, and lost brain activity. It was during that time that I had an out-of-body, near-death experience. I remember floating above my body and seeing myself lying there. I could hear doctors and nurses talking, and see what they were doing to my body. During this experience, I was able to move around the hospital floor and made my way to the waiting room. I could see and hear my parents, family and friends, but I could not interact with anyone. I then drifted from the hospital to a setting that was white and cloud-like. I was near what looked like a gate, and everyone around me was wearing white religious robes. I was in a wheelchair, which made sense later when I woke up from my coma paralyzed from my neck down. I also could not speak to anyone, which made sense with my trach in my throat. Despite this, I felt comfortable in that surrounding. There were many people there that I didn't recognize, but eventually a familiar face came to me. His name was Walter Tempesco. He was my next door neighbor growing up, and his wife Mary used to babysit my sister and me until my parents got home from work. He was like a grandfather to me, and I was very close to him. When I was nine years old, Walter fell off of a ladder and died. Being young, I didn't know how to react to the news, as he was my first experience with death. Walter asked me, “Matt, what do you want? What do you want to do?” As mentioned, I couldn't speak, but I was very comfortable there and wanted to stay. He kept asking what I wanted. He came back to me later and told me that I could not stay there, and that it was not my time, but I would have a chance again another day. The next thing I remember, I opened my eyes. I'm not sure how much time had passed between that experience and waking up. But it was later suggested to me that I had been pretty far gone. I can't adequately describe the feeling I had when I opened my eyes. I went from a feeling of comfort in the clouds to one of terror and fear. My eyes were the only thing I could move. I had a trach in my throat, a feeding tube in my stomach, a central line in my chest, catheters, IV's — tubes everywhere. To make things worse, I didn't recognize my parents right away, didn't know where I was, didn't know what happened to me, and couldn't understand what the doctors and nurses were telling me. What my doctor missed on April 6 was that I had viral encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain. I was told that the particular strain I had contracted kills more than 80% of the people who contract it. Of those who live, more than half end up with mental disabilities. I could not feel my body from my neck down. Over time, the fog that I was in lifted. I remembered my parents, and could understand things, but I could not yet communicate. Feeling slowly came back to my hands, then arms, then legs, and finally my feet. I eventually needed therapy to learn how to walk, how to talk, and how to eat food again. I continued with speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy after I was released from the hospital. It was a grueling recovery that took time, tears, patience and prayers. My family and friends were warriors helping me get through it, and I cannot imagine what they went through or how they felt. A New Journey Begins By summer I was well enough to walk, and was released from the hospital. But I was bored back at home while I was recovering. So, I decided to visit my fraternity brother, Roy Silvis, who was working as head groundskeeper at Bowman Field, the Minor League Baseball stadium in Williamsport that was home to the Short-Season Class A affiliate of the Chicago Cubs. It was far enough from my house that I normally would not have walked, but since I just re-learned how to use my legs, I wanted to keep them moving. I walked to Bowman Field just to see Roy, but he asked if I wanted to be his assistant. It would mainly involve game day help watering, lining, moving screens, etc. I gladly accepted. I had played baseball during my freshman year of college, and wanted to be around the game. That summer introduced me to a couple of people who would become mentors to me. First was Don Fowler, a Penn State Extension Specialist who also coordinated all of the volunteer efforts for the Little League World Series, which was played across the river. Don showed me how to work the clay on the mounds and plates, and gave me a lot of advice. The other was Lubie Veal, a former MLB head groundskeeper in Cincinnati, Montreal, and in Chicago at Wrigley Field. The Cubs would send Lubie to all of their minor league parks to ensure the fields were up to par. For the next three summers, I got to continue working at Bowman Field as head groundskeeper thanks to General Manager Doug Estes taking a chance on a hometown kid with a strong work ethic and a desire to learn. I got to spend time with Lubie and pick his brain, and I learned a lot of the basics that I would build upon from there and carry with me to my next stops. I then moved to Ohio to be head groundskeeper for the Mahoning Valley Scrapper, Class-A affiliate for the Cleveland Indians. They are now part of the MLB Draft League; and things have come full circle, as my son Connor is now the head groundskeeper at 17 years old. From there, I went to the Akron Aeros, Double-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians, and I also started working for the Cleveland Browns. Prior to my hospitalization, I had no idea the turfgrass industry even existed, let alone that it would provide me with the chance to have a career in professional baseball. Through it all, the people of this industry have been the best part. They have given me so much, and have expected nothing in return. I would not be working in this industry if it weren't for those who have taken chances on me. As a result, I always make it a point to give people a chance and stand up for those who are just looking for experience and a shot. A general manager once asked me to recommend someone for his head groundskeeper position. His response about the person I recommended was, “He doesn't have much experience.” I told him that nobody has experience until given a chance. He hired who I recommended, and that person eventually went on to be a Major League Baseball groundskeeper. Through my experiences, I have learned to be grateful. When everything is taken away from you, you learn to not take life for granted and be appreciative of what you have. I also learned to tell the people around me what they mean to me and that I appreciate them. In addition to Don and Lubie, I am grateful for Darian Daily, Brian Gimbel, Brent Packer, Paul Curtis, Bob Hudzik, Jeff Fowler, R.D. Slingerland, Pam Sherratt, Dr. John Street, Chris Powell and Neal Pate. Some of them are no longer with us, but I hope that they know they were appreciated by me and many others. All of these people taught me not only how to be a better turf manager, but how to pay it forward and help others. I will never fully understand why I was saved and given a new lease on life. What I do know is that I am eternally grateful for my second chance at life and all of the people I have in it. But you don't have to go through a near-death experience to understand the importance of taking time to appreciate the gifts you have been given and the people who impact you every day. For the rest of my career, I will continue to think back to 1995, how my life took a turn, and how the worst thing that has ever happened to me became the best thing that has ever happened to me, because it brought me into the turfgrass industry. Matt Duncan, CSFM, is a professional turf account manager for DLF, and serves as vice president – commercial on the SFMA Board of Directors. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post How a near-death experience led to a career in turfgrass appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features research from North Carolina State University student Brooke Heikkila on machine vision-guided targeted herbicide applications for weed management in turfgrass. In recent years, a variety of new spot spraying technologies have been introduced into agriculture that uses machine vision and artificial intelligence to selectively treat weeds. Targeted spraying opens the door to use nonselective herbicides or novel herbicide admixtures that were previously too expensive or injurious to turfgrass when applied as broadcast treatments. Targeted applications can substantially reduce herbicide use by lowering spray volume and treated acreage, providing both environmental and economic benefits. The first commercial machine vision-guided spot sprayer for turfgrass was recently launched at the 2026 GCSAA Conference and Trade Show; however, limited research has been conducted to quantify its benefits or optimize its use for turfgrass weed management. Brooke Heikkila, an MS student in Godara's Lab at North Carolina State University, is developing practical weed density thresholds and herbicide admixtures to optimize machine vision-guided targeted applications for turfgrass weed management. Brooke received her BS in Environmental Science from the University of Minnesota and recently completed the USGA Greenkeeper Apprenticeship Program. She is passionate about making meaningful contributions to the North Carolina turfgrass industry and is focused on developing innovative, practical solutions for turfgrass managers. Brooke's thesis research project, funded by Turfgrass Council of North Carolina, focuses on investigating different herbicide admixtures to control false-green kyllinga (Kyllinga spp.) in fairways, with the goal of improving weed control efficacy and resistance management strategies through targeted applications. In her recent work, they documented that turfgrass managers can use nonselective herbicides like glyphosate or tank mixtures that involve herbicides from different modes-of-action to control false-green kyllinga with minimal injury risk to desirable turfgrass on fairways. These targeted applications reduced the amount of herbicide volume used and treated area by at least 75% compared to traditional broadcast treatments. Although machine vision-guided sprayers require a substantial upfront investment, the magnitude of herbicide reduction has the potential to generate significant annual cost savings for turfgrass managers just in few years. Future work will focus on understanding how these savings will vary throughout a year-long management plan when combating a diverse spectrum of weed including grasses, sedges, and broadleaf weeds, using targeted applications. While these cost savings are encouraging, differences between targeted and broadcast spraying may diminish at higher weed densities. To address this concern, Brooke is conducting an additional study to evaluate how herbicide usage from targeted applications varies across different infestation levels of annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) in turfgrass. Even at 30% annual bluegrass cover, which is substantially higher than the typical weed cover observed on managed sites, targeted applications resulted in a 35% reduction in spray volume used compared to broadcast applications. Although many of these experiments are ongoing and require validation across multiple site years, it is exciting to answer these important questions to assist practitioners with the adoption of this new tool and develop application thresholds. These early results are positive indicators of machine vision-guided spot sprayers' ability to reduce herbicide usage, lowering turfgrass managers' annual herbicide budget and decreasing environmental pesticide loads. Brooke's goal is to provide turfgrass managers with the practical evidence they need to see how machine vision-guided spot spraying could impact their budget, flexibility, and long-term turfgrass sustainability. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Herbicide Applications for Weed Management in Turfgrass appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Preparing for the Next Poa Control Season” by Scott McElroy, PhD – Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University and and Travis Gannon, PhD – Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, North Carolina State University. Quote – “When did Noah build the Ark? Before the Rain.” – Robert Redford in “Spy Game” It is the end of Poa annua's life span here in the southeast. As this article is being written in late May, Poa is struggling to produce that last bit of seed it can before it dies, perpetuating whatever traits it carries into the future. Likely, if you have been trying to control Poa, you are looking down at a population that has been selected for some form of resistance to the herbicides you have been using. The short-time traveler seeds are going to greet you next November-ish. As warm-season grasses are sliding into dormancy, or at least a state of slowed or diminished growth, those seeds carrying those herbicide-defying traits are going to make their appearance, potentially thwarting whatever attempt you used last year yet again. Before you start making decisions about your management program next year, you need to test your Poa population. Two populations from this year were showing signs of Kerb resistance until we brought them into the lab and realized that it was not resistance, but most likely enhanced degradation due to overuse. Email Dr. McElroy at resistancelab@auburn.edu and get a better picture of what your population is resistant to. For most herbicides, you can get an answer in six weeks. For the southeastern US, there are three distinct application periods for Poa control. This is for bermudagrass and zoysiagrass golf, sports fields, professional lawn care, and general use. Golf and sports fields are the most complicated because they receive the most traffic and use, therefore the greater turfgrass damage, which leads to greater weed invasion. The application scenarios we talk about here are more likely to be used in golf than in other areas, but applicable to all situations except sports, which require special attention to not reduce rooting and traction. The Pre Application- The Basis of Control. In all situations, you want to start off with a general preemergence herbicide. If in golf and non-sports turfgrass areas, this is Specticle (indaziflam) or a standard pre like Barricade (prodiamine), Pendulum (pendimethalin), or Dimension (dithiopyr). In our opinion, this is the optimal application timing for Specticle (indaziflam). Specticle should not be used on sports fields, it is a root inhibitor and can result in poor-performing turfgrass. Regardless of which herbicide, the initial pre application is the basis of all Poa control programs. Skipping the pre puts greater pressure on follow-up postemergent applications. Even if pre-applications only reduce the Poa population by 50%, that is still 50% fewer weeds that follow-up applications have to deal with. Later applications are much more likely to fail if you put all the pressure on follow-up post applications. Adding in a postemergent herbicide at this time is not a bad idea, but it needs to have some residual and some root uptake because your pre needs to be watered in. Monument (trifloxysulfuron) is possible because it can be foliar absorbed, but Revolver (foramsulfuron) has limited root uptake. Others are using Sencor (metribuzin) in this timing. The Winter Transition: Key to Resistance Management. The early winter, or early winter transition application, is the most critical. Skipping this application leads to too much pressure being placed on the initial pre application which can expedite resistance development. This application needs to yield acceptable control in two to three weeks, which eliminates any resistant survivors that may be present and provides further preemergence control. The key to the transition application is choosing multiple herbicides with a minimum of three different modes of action, with at least two having preemergence and postemergence activity. To clarify- Three modes of action with two having both pre and post activity. Triazines – atrazine and simazine – are the starting point for this control. Think of these as your Post/Pre herbicides, they are primarily post but give you some pre activity. Sencor (metribuzin) is also an option, although not as consistently effective as atrazine or simazine. If these herbicides are not available for use or if you have extensive confirmed resistance, ALS inhibitors such as Revolver (foramsulfuron), Monument (trifloxysulfuron), or Katana (flazasulfuron) are useful, as is Scepter (imazaquin). Next, you need a Pre/Post in the mix – a herbicide that gives you primarily pre action but adds in some post control. Kerb (pronamide/propyzamide) and Sureguard (flumioxazin) are good choices at this timing. A second application of Specticle also has potential in this situation, although it has less post activity than the two listed above. Ronstar (oxadiazon) applied as a liquid to provide post activity also has potential in this timing. Last in the mix you need something that can aid control and help prevent resistance. Glyphosate is the obvious choice in this mixture. If you are not completely dormant, a low rate at 5 fl oz/a (of a 4 lb ai gallon) can add some benefit, but if confident in the dormancy, use a full labeled rate on dormant turfgrass. Finale (glufosinate) is a good substitute if glyphosate resistance is present or developing. Neither glyphosate or glufosinate are recommended for zoysiagrass, adding in a Revolver, Katana, or another ALS inhibitor is a better choice due to potential damage from non-selective herbicides. The Spring Transition – Control Any Escapes and Spring Crabgrass Control. Combining any further Poa annua control with spring crabgrass and goosegrass control is an easy way to maximize efficiency. This pushes the herbicide application into late February to early March for the majority of the southeastern United States (time applications to your specific area based on local weather patterns and soil temperatures). Dormancy questions and spring greenup of bermudagrass or zoysiagrass complicate this application timing. Some herbicides are simply too harsh on greenup to be used in this period. First, the standard pre herbicides should be used at this time – Barricade (prodiamine), Pendulum (pendimethalin), Dimension (dithiopyr), or Ronstar (oxadiazon, granular is not dormant, but liquid can be used if still dormant). While Specticle is more effective for Poa annua control and summer annuals such as goosegrass and doveweed, it is equivalent to the standards for crabgrass control. Second, post herbicides that can be used in this transition period are few. ALS-inhibitors mentioned before are definitely safe, but resistance is extensive, thwarting their use. Triazines can delay greenup and cause transition injury. Non-selectives such as glyphosate and glufosinate are out due to spring injury. Final Thought. Herbicides are primary technology we have today to control weeds. We live in a chemical technological age. Unfortunately, weeds, especially Poa annua, have evolved resistance to these herbicides. Our thoughts and ideas we provide herein are meant to reduce the potential for resistance development and all herbicide options are not discussed for brevity. These multi-herbicide strategies now are necessary because herbicide resistance has become so prevalent and it is our goal to strategically use these herbicides to prevent further resistance development and protect herbicide technology for future use. Note: Always read and follow the complete herbicide label before mixing, handling, or applying any product, as the label provides legally required directions for safe, effective use, application rates, precautions, and site-specific restrictions. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Preparing for the Next Poa Control Season appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Mark your calendar for the 2026 Blacksburg Field Day on August 24 – 25, 2026 at Virginia Tech and the Turfgrass Research Center in Blacksburg. This year's event begins with an elevated kickoff at Blacksburg Country Club, where we are partnering to bring together the fun of Goatley Rules mixed with tradition golf fun for 9 holes of pure entertainment and camaraderie. The Monday program features a 3:00 PM shotgun start followed by a welcome happy hour and dinner at 6:00 PM. On Tuesday, attendees will gather at the Turfgrass Research Center for breakfast and registration at 7:30 AM, field day tours at 8:30 AM, and a networking lunch at 12:30 PM. This annual event offers a chance to learn, network, and support turfgrass research, education, and extension in Virginia — while enjoying one of the most memorable traditions in the turfgrass community. Your participation in Field Day helps the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation (VTF) continue supporting the Turfgrass Research Center (TRC) in meaningful ways. In 2025, that support helped fund a part-time TRC staff position, and in recent years VTF has also provided equipment matching funds for multiple pieces of critical equipment. As research needs continue to evolve, attendance at these events helps fuel the funding needed to keep the TRC moving forward and meeting those needs. The Blacksburg Field Day is more than a showcase of research — it is an opportunity to build relationships, strengthen the turfgrass community, and support continued investment in the Turfgrass Research Center. With Goatley Rules returning in a bigger way this year, it's also a chance to enjoy an unforgettable round of golf while celebrating Dr. Mike Goatley's lasting impact on the turfgrass profession. Register now at www.vaturfgrass.org You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post 2026 Blacksburg Field Day appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “George & Giles Leading Major Renovation at Lexington” written by Beck Stanley, Executive Director of the Virginia Turfgrass Council. It’s been more than two decades since Lexington, Virginia woke up to the good fortune of golf holes being crafted into its rolling mountain landscape. That drought is ending with the highly anticipated Lester George/Vinny Giles renovation of Lexington Golf & Country Club, one of Virginia's oldest clubs and certainly among its most beautiful layouts. George is following the iconic Ellis Maples, and the VTC was fortunate enough to visit the site in April to see the progress. George inherits good bones at LGCC, better views than any of his previous Virginia projects, and an intact grounds staff that includes Peter Danaher and Kramer Johnson. The Club will unveil in 2027 a new clubhouse, practice facility, the renovated Maples course, and even a new name – Tribrook Club, an homage to its original farmland roots. Tribrook will land in the realm of George's other notable Virginia projects like Kinloch and Ballyhack, probably right between the two. I italicize these courses because they aren't places. They are works of art, and although the former was better received, there is no question Ballyhack has had a major impact on golf tourism in the Roanoke region at the hands of traveling Dormie Club members hellbent on swiping plastic. This Lexington renovation, on the other hand, is a thoughtful collaboration of resources between the Club and Washington & Lee University, mirroring how this is the first historic George/Giles course renovation collaboration. W & L's men's and women's golf teams succeed in the top tier of Division III. Last year, the men's team had the national player and coach of the year and finished fourth. This year, the men finished sixth, and two players tied for third place. The women finished fourth at the NCAA Division III championship, the best performance in the school's history. I sat down with George, Giles, and Superintendent Peter Danaher to discuss the progress, and how golf in Virginia continues to evolve to meet the needs of a growing, diverse game. At the VTC, we are certainly proud to be a part of that evolution as we continue to represent Virginia golf courses and golf professionals, both public and private, and to fight for the interests of the broader turf industry in the General Assembly. What drew us to Lexington's renovation was its Maples history, George's and Giles' participation, and the chance to witness the shaping and renovation process firsthand in a mountainous terrain. The first thing to notice is the tree removal – more than 2/3rds were removed to make way for higher, longer tee boxes and open up broad mountain vistas, but it also restores the original agricultural look of the property, and as so many legislators and industry outsiders forget, turf is agriculture. Golf courses protect land and natural environments, prevent erosion, and steward water resources in a way no housing or commercial development ever could. George and Giles seem to enjoy the nuts and bolts of renovating golf courses, like a Twain character tricking everyone around into thinking that whitewashing a fence is fun. But in reality and beneath that appearance — and far separated from the benevolent forces making such projects happen — are two committed, serious minds collaborating, yearning for legacy, blending engineering and playability with how young players might see this game fifty, a hundred years from now. Of course, that all comes with making the course fun and playable for all skill levels. The many retiree members of Tribrook will appreciate the attention George and Giles have given to making the course adaptable. “The course will be enjoyable from 7,100 yards all the way down to less than 4,000,” George commented. At almost every turn of our tour, both murmured aloud thoughts on making shots longer, landing areas tighter, pushing both the game and the course to be more. Their shapers and project managers from Aspen Corporation were on hand, furiously cutting bunkers with pickaxes and perfecting mounds and visuals. Their professionalism and obsession with detail did not go unnoticed, down to the inch on distance readings and slopes. Adam Bagwell of Aspen was especially tuned in, completely aware of every little nuance of the project and rapid to answer questions as they arose. Giles, the Lynchburg native who played on four Walker Cup teams, captained a winning squad in 1993, won the U.S. Amateur, British Amateur, U.S. Senior Amateur, and countless other tournaments too many to list, has done as much for the game of golf in Virginia as any one man could in a lifetime. Aside from being the low amateur at the Masters in 1968 and the 1973 U.S. Open, he still had all this time on his hands to accrue a valuable vault of stories, my favorites being those about Alvis Hylton, his instructor and head pro at Boonsboro Country Club who he claims, “could always fix my swing.” Hylton went from a worker on the N&W Railroad to golf professional following an accident that injured permanently his left arm, an unlikely sequence of events that led him to Vinny. Figures like Hylton may now be forgotten to most, but we would all be wise to remember him. As we traveled over the raw earth, George immediately took us to the new 6th green. It's a short par 3 with a 30-yard deep tee box, offering wide latitude for staff to set the hole up for competition. George began instructing his Aspen crew to fix minor details on the visual, the barely visible bunker line to the left of the green reminiscent of Seth Raynor's style. “The new sixth hole was created to make room for the new practice facility. It gave us this great opportunity to build a Raynor/McDonald template hole known as a Biarritz. The par 3 is surrounded on both sides by trench bunkers, with an amazing horizon view and swale in the center. The green is seventy paces deep,” George told us. “We have to serve everyone with this design. That means a new look, a new excitement for past, present, and future members. Our changes have done that.” The sun began to set on our visit, and we wrapped up our tour of the grounds before I took the long walk back to where I had parked, by the old clubhouse at the back of a small neighborhood just outside of town. There was a kid in his front yard chipping balls into a small net, and a few had trickled down the road into the asphalt. I walked them back up the hill and asked him what he loved about golf. “It's the best game there is,” he said. “And when I get older, I'm going to play at Washington and Lee.” More info on the Architect: Lester George incorporates his creativity and passion for the game of golf in every golf course design. The blending of his terrain reading ability and his lively interest in the history of golf enables him to visualize imaginative course designs. With over 35 years' experience in the design, renovation and restoration of numerous golf courses throughout the United States and Japan, Lester has been established as a leading golf course architect. Serving as a design coordinator for Golf Services International, Lester worked with other golf course architects studying the intricacies of course design. During this time, he co-founded Virginia Golf Development. Then, in 1991, Lester opened his own firm, Colonial Golf Design, Inc., which has evolved into George Golf Design, Inc. Stanley serves as Executive Director of the Virginia Turfgrass Council. He can be reached via cell at 540-871-9001. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post George & Giles Leading Major Renovation at Lexington appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers the 7th Annual Virginia Tech School of Turfgrass Ecology and Management (VT-STEM). Are you looking for a refresher course in the principles of turfgrass management? Is there someone on your turf maintenance staff that you would like to provide an opportunity for professional development in turf management? The Virginia Tech Turfgrass Team offers an affordable virtual 13-week training program called VT-STEM that covers all areas of turfgrass management. The School is primarily intended to serve the educational needs of those seeking professional advancement that have (or are interested in) jobs in the turfgrass industry, but don't currently have the time or resources to pursue formal 2 or 4-year turf degrees. For 2026 – 27, School runs from November 7, 2026 through mid-February 2027. New training topics are presented weekly by VT Turf Team faculty, through both synchronous and asynchronous formats. Written chapters and pre-recorded training lectures are provided each week, and the students are charged with taking both pre-training and post-training quizzes to assess their mastery of the subject matter. The VT Turf Team and invited industry guests meet with the students by Zoom every Wednesday night from 7 – 9 p.m. eastern during the school year (all meetings are recorded for later viewing). Students that complete all VT-STEM requirements receive the STEM badge and are eligible to sit for the Virginia Certified Turfgrass Professional exams, a credentialing program that is included as part of this tuition fee and is made available in virtual format from mid-February through March for all those that qualify. The tuition cost for VT-STEM is $600 per student (there are discounts available for first responders and veterans – just let us know). If you have additional questions, please contact either Mike Goatley (goatley@vt.edu) or Dan Sandor (dsandor@vt.edu). Registration opens in July at https://tinyurl.com/VT-Turfgrass-School and School begins on Saturday, November 7 You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post The 7th Annual Virginia Tech School of Turfgrass Ecology and Management (VT-STEM) appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Keeping the Game Green: Fall Overseeding Sports Fields” written by David Lawrence with the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. For many turf managers, fall marks a welcome transition time when cooler temperatures slow turf growth and the frantic pace of summer maintenance finally eases. The start of the fall season often brings a sense of relief and satisfaction as turf maintains its green color without the surge of growth that demands constant mowing and management. For some, it's a rare chance to pause, reflect on the successes and challenges of the summer, and prepare for the months ahead. However, not everyone gets to slow down. For many sports field managers, fall is one of the busiest times of the year. Football season is in full swing, and fields endure relentless stress from practices, games, and unpredictable weather. While most fans focus on the players and the scoreboard, turfgrass professionals can't help but notice the condition and aesthetic appeal of the playing surfaces when attending a game or watching on television. Beyond appearances, turf managers know that the quality of the surface directly affects player safety. Dense, healthy turf cushions impact, reduces divots and holes, and helps minimize the risk of slips and injuries. One of the most effective ways to maintain both aesthetics and playability during this demanding stretch is through overseeding bermudagrass fields with perennial ryegrass. Across the southeastern U.S., bermudagrass growth slows dramatically in the fall as temperatures drop and daylength shortens, limiting the plant's ability to recover from traffic and wear. Even during milder years, reduced sunlight and cooler nights simply don't allow bermudagrass to sustain vigorous growth and recover after the pounding of a typical football season. That's where perennial ryegrass shines. Its deep-green color, fine texture, and excellent striping potential make it the go-to choice for achieving high-quality field appearance. Beyond visual appeal, perennial ryegrass establishes quickly, provides dense coverage, and enhances traction, all key factors in maintaining safe and consistent playing conditions. A well-established ryegrass overseed offers a stable, even surface that keeps athletes confident in their footing throughout the season. Most athletic field managers begin overseeding in mid-September, adjusting timing based on local climate and field schedules. Typical seeding rates range from 8 to 12 pounds per 1,000 square feet, with periodic supplemental applications to fill divots and high-wear zones such as between hash marks and along sidelines. Proper irrigation and fertility management are critical during establishment. It's important to provide consistent moisture to promote uniform germination, while avoiding excessive wetness that could compromise field conditions during play. Managers should also monitor soil temperatures closely, as seeding too early can stress young ryegrass, while seeding too late can delay establishment as cooler weather sets in. Of course, overseeding comes with challenges. Weed management requires careful planning to avoid damaging both ryegrass and the underlying bermudagrass. Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) remains one of the most persistent issues on overseeded fields. Herbicide options are limited, and success depends heavily on timing for both pre-emergent and post-emergent applications. Precision and patience are essential for achieving control while minimizing damage to desirable turf species. The following provides examples of commonly used products, though it does not represent a complete list of all labeled options. Pre-emergent herbicides such as prodiamine or pronamide can be applied prior to overseeding but must be applied several weeks before the expected overseed date to allow time for herbicide degradation before seeding. Some sulfonylurea herbicides such as foramsulfuron or rimsulfuron can be applied one week prior to overseeding. These products that can be used do not have any pre-emergent activity but will control any annual bluegrass that has already germinated. This application can be beneficial especially when the overseeding date is later into the fall after annual bluegrass germination. Post-emergent options for overseeded turf include ethofumesate, amicarbazone, paclobutrazol, and bispyribac. These products can be temperature dependent so careful planning should be considered when making an application. Some PGRs such as ethephon can reduce or prevent seedhead formation on annual bluegrass when applied at the proper time. Applicators should read all herbicide labels to ensure turfgrass safety while providing the best opportunity for annual bluegrass control. Another management hurdle arises during spring transition. If not carefully managed, perennial ryegrass can delay bermudagrass green-up, leading to thin, uneven turf. Many managers opt for chemical removal of ryegrass once bermudagrass begins active growth, though the timing varies depending on field use and athletic schedules. Sulfonylurea herbicides are commonly used for ryegrass transition. However, due to the increased incidence of ALS herbicide resistance, many managers may need to rely on other products such as pronamide for ryegrass transition if annual bluegrass is present. The goal is to remove ryegrass early enough to allow bermudagrass to recover, yet late enough to maintain playability for spring sports. When managed thoughtfully, fall overseeding with perennial ryegrass delivers multiple benefits such as enhanced color, improved traction, extended playability, and safer, more resilient fields. It's not just about keeping the turf green when bermudagrass slows down; it's about protecting players, preserving field quality, and ensuring that every game, practice, and play happens on a quality surface. For many sports field managers, overseeding is not simply a seasonal task but a key component of year-round field performance and visual quality. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Keeping the Game Green: Fall Overseeding Sports Fields appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode bids farewell to Funchess Hall, where Auburn turfgrass grew its roots. For many members of the Alabama Turfgrass Association, just hearing the name Funchess Hall brings back a flood of memories. Maybe it was hustling to class with a cup of coffee in hand, late-night study sessions before a soils exam, or learning turfgrass management from professors whose lessons still shape your career today. Funchess may never have won awards for beauty, but for generations of Auburn turfgrass students, it was something far more important — home. Since 1961, Funchess Hall served as the heart of Auburn University's Turfgrass Science program. Although the turfgrass program was already more than three decades old when the Department of Agronomy and Soils moved into the then-new Funchess Hall, over the next 65 years it grew into one of the South's premier turfgrass education programs. Auburn graduates manage golf courses, athletic fields, sod farms and landscapes across Alabama and beyond. Inside those well-worn classrooms and laboratories, students learned everything from weed science and irrigation design to soil morphology and turfgrass pest control. More importantly, they built friendships, professional connections and memories that lasted long after graduation. Now, the end of an era has arrived. This summer, the Departments of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Horticulture, and Entomology and Plant Pathology are officially moving out of the “infamous” Funchess Hall and into Auburn University's brand-new STEM + Agricultural Sciences Complex. As of late May, faculty and staff are packing decades' worth of research data, teaching materials and Auburn history into boxes, preparing for a full transition by August 1st. Once renovations to Comer Hall are complete in Fall 2026, the demolition of Funchess Hall will be scheduled. Fittingly, the move is happening during the quiet of summer semester — one of the few times campus slows down enough to reflect on the past while preparing for the future. And what a future it is. Auburn's new $224 million STEM + Agricultural Sciences Complex is a stunning 265,000-square-foot facility located at 305 W. Samford Ave (part of the former Hill Residence Hall site). The three interconnected buildings will house departments from both the College of Agriculture and the College of Sciences and Mathematics, creating opportunities for collaboration unlike ever before. The new facility includes state-of-the-art research laboratories, modern teaching laboratories, collaborative student spaces, teaching gardens and even specialized research areas for aquatic animals and insects. For turfgrass students, it represents a major investment in the future of the industry and the continued growth of Auburn's nationally respected program. Of course, while the building may change, the Auburn Turfgrass Management program remains rooted in the same hands-on philosophy that makes it special in the first place. Students pursuing the Turfgrass Management track still earn a B.S. in Crop and Soil Science while gaining practical experience from internships and the Auburn Turfgrass Research Unit just a mile from campus. They'll continue learning the science and management principles needed to become leaders in the turfgrass industry throughout the country. But now students will be based at one of the most advanced agricultural teaching facilities in the Southeast. For alumni, there is a lot of nostalgia in saying goodbye to Funchess Hall. Those green tile walls, aging classrooms and scuffed floors told a story of hard work, tradition and learning. But Auburn has always been about more than bricks and mortar. The spirit of the turfgrass program — the people, the passion and the Auburn Family — is moving right along with it. So while Funchess Hall may be a distant memory soon, its legacy will continue to grow in every superintendent, sports turf manager, researcher and industry professional who once called it home. And somewhere inside that shiny new building, another generation of Auburn turfgrass students is about to start making memories of their own. The departments moving from Funchess Hall to the new buildings are planning a “Farewell to Funchess” celebration on campus during the fall 2026 semester. Watch alumni mailing lists and social media for more information as details are worked out. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Farewell to Funchess Hall, Where Auburn Turfgrass Grew Its Roots appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights Alabama Turfgrass Association member Brian Aaron, CGCS and his lifetime of leadership, service and turfgrass excellence. For more than three decades, Brian Aaron, CGCS, has been a familiar and respected figure in Alabama’s turfgrass industry. After 32 years in the profession and 30 years as a member of the Alabama Turfgrass Association, Brian recently retired from his role as Golf Course Superintendent at Azalea City Golf Course in Mobile. While he may have officially retired, Brian is quick to point out that he is far too young to stop contributing to the industry he loves. Born and raised in Opp, Alabama, Brian’s journey into turfgrass management was anything but conventional. As a high school student, he operated a small lawn and landscape business and initially planned to pursue a career in pharmacy. After transferring to Auburn University and reevaluating his career goals, a conversation with academic advisors led him to the School of Agriculture, where Dr. Joe Hood and Dr. Ray Dickens introduced him to the world of turfgrass management. “Even though I had never played golf or been around a golf course, the idea of managing a large area of land that was meticulously maintained year-round really excited me,” Brian recalls. That decision changed the course of his career. While attending Auburn, Brian gained valuable hands-on experience working at Grand National Golf Club during its early development. The opportunity to witness golf course construction, grow-in, and maintenance firsthand provided a foundation that would serve him throughout his career. Following graduation, with a degree in Agronomy and Soils – Turfgrass Management in 1994, Brian quickly advanced through the ranks. After serving as an assistant superintendent, he accepted his first superintendent position at Andalusia Country Club before helping oversee the construction and opening of Tartan Pines Golf Club in Enterprise. He later joined Azalea City Golf Course, where he spent 25 years serving the City of Mobile and building a legacy of excellence. Throughout his career, Brian found great satisfaction in working outdoors, tackling new challenges, and seeing projects come to life. “There are no two days that are ever the same,” he says. “I enjoy being outside and seeing the results of successfully completed projects.” Among the many accomplishments he achieved, one project stands above the rest. In 2018, Brian identified a problematic area between holes 12 and 14 at Azalea City Golf Course that suffered from drainage and erosion issues. Rather than navigating a lengthy and expensive municipal construction process, he designed and led the project himself after attending a GCSAA drainage seminar. Working alongside his staff while continuing daily course operations, the team completed the project for approximately $11,000—a fraction of the estimated $125,000 cost had it been completed through traditional channels. “It improved playability, prevented future erosion, and saved the city a significant amount of money,” Brian says proudly. Brian’s commitment to professional development has remained strong throughout his career. In addition to earning his Certified Golf Course Superintendent (CGCS) designation, he recently celebrated 25 years as a CGCS through GCSAA. He also completed the Dale Carnegie Skills for Success program in 2023, where he was recognized as the course’s Most Improved Student. When asked about the people who influenced his career, Brian points to a long list of mentors, colleagues, and friends. His parents provided a strong foundation of faith, confidence, and work ethic. Influential educators such as Gary Hall and Dr. Ray Dickens helped shape his leadership and career path, while industry leaders including Scott Hamilton, Jeff Cornelson, Wayne Bassett, Randy Bodine, Lee McCelmore, and Brett Drinkwine offered guidance and friendship throughout the years. Brian has also devoted significant time to serving the Alabama Turfgrass Association. He joined the ATA in the mid-1990s and was asked to serve on the Board of Directors in 1998. Looking back, he credits the association with providing educational opportunities, professional networking, leadership development, and lifelong friendships. “ATA not only offers valuable education, but also camaraderie among turfgrass professionals,” Brian says. “It’s a great place to grow your leadership skills by giving back through service.” His advice to those considering a career in turfgrass management or ATA membership is simple: “Just do it. ATA membership is a valuable resource for anyone involved in the many facets of the turfgrass industry. Being a member has been instrumental in the success of my career.” Looking ahead, Brian believes artificial intelligence will have a transformative impact on turfgrass management, helping professionals become more efficient and successful in countless ways. Away from the golf course, Brian’s greatest joy comes from his family. He and his wife celebrated their 34th wedding anniversary this year. Together, they have two daughters, a son-in-law, and three grandsons who keep life exciting. Brian enjoys traveling with family, serving in his local church and church district, supporting his homeowners association, and spending time on the golf course with friends. His favorite motto when it comes to his grandsons? “The answer is yes. Now what’s the question?” And while Brian proudly earned his degree from Auburn University, there’s one fact that often surprises people. “Most people give me the side eye when I tell them this,” he laughs. “But even though I spent three wonderful years at the Loveliest Village on the Plains, I’ve always been an avid Alabama fan. I was raised an Alabama fan, and I’ve never wavered. Roll Tide!” As Brian begins the next chapter of his career, the Alabama Turfgrass Association celebrates his decades of service, leadership, mentorship, and friendship. His impact on Alabama’s turfgrass industry will continue to be felt for years to come. Thank you, Brian, for your dedication to the profession and to the Alabama Turfgrass Association. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Member Spotlight on Brian Aaron, CGCS appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode previews the University of Connecticut Turfgrass Field Day. On July 22 hundreds of industry professionals will join researchers and Extension educators for UConn's biennial Turfgrass Field Day. At this unique event, faculty from the Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture and UConn Extension share their latest projects with members of the sports field management community who directly benefit from this work. The research conducted by UConn's turfgrass faculty is designed to address real-world problems turfgrass professionals face daily, as well as find solutions to make turfgrass more sustainable by reducing the amount of water, fertilizer, and pesticides sports field managers need to use. “It's an exciting Extension and outreach activity where we get to directly share our research with stakeholders. They leave the day with practical information that helps them in their jobs,” says John Inguagiato, associate professor of turfgrass science. Inguagiato works closely with members of the turfgrass industry throughout the year and helps prepare students for specialized jobs after graduation. In addition to research talks, there are numerous self-guided research stations and many exhibitor booths featuring local vendors at the event. Beyond discussions of the latest innovations, Turfgrass Field Day provides a networking event that supports lasting connections between researchers and those working in all corners of the industry. For additional details contact John Inguagiato at john.inguagiato@UConn.edu You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post UConn Turfgrass Field Day appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features a Q & A spotlighting NE-SFMA Sports Field Manager of the Year Chris McGinty – Superintendent of Parks Maintenance Division for the City of Framingham, Massachusetts. Read from the Summer 2026 issue of New England Blade magazine. Where did your turf management education begin? I received a B.S. in Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Studies at Springfield College, followed by Forestry at University of New Hampshire, and I have a Certificate of Sports Turf Management from the University of Georgia. How did you get your start in sports field management? I began with the Massachusetts State Parks System and then took a position with the Town of Framingham as the Superintendent of Parks and Cemeteries in 1991. During my 35 years in Framingham, my job has evolved from Park Properties to all Sports Facility and Grounds for the city. What do you like best about your current position? The ability to provide the best experiences for the many different users of city-owned recreational facilities in our community. What is the biggest change you've seen in the sports field industry? The use of technology for so many aspects of our jobs including irrigation, lighting, and the introduction of robotics. Who are your mentors in the sports field management profession? Former Groundskeeper Skip Vigarolo in Belmont, MA; Ron Morrel at MDC Golf Courses; Bob Leblanc at Boston College; and Mary Owen of UMass. What is the best business advice you've ever received? Being able to accept that in the municipal arena, others can, and will, take credit for all the hard work you have put into a project or event. What is the next game-changer you see on the horizon for the sports field industry? The expanded use of robotics and improved synthetic turf surfaces. What's your favorite / most useful: Equipment? Chainsaw and Zamboni Product? Toro Machines Technology? Musco Control Lighting What advice would you share with people starting out in sports field management today? Enhance your career path and increase your knowledge with as many licenses and certifications as possible (i.e., CSFM, hoisting, CDL, pesticide applicator). Any industry-related volunteer service? In addition to my tenure on the NE-SFMA board of Directors, I am head of the Landscape Program Advisory Board at Keefe Tech Vocational High School and run an annual Arbor Day of Service event in the City of Framingham. Can you share a bit about your family and what you enjoy doing in your free time? Maryann and I have been married since 1989. We have two children: a son who is a police detective in Framingham, and a daughter who works in Human Resources. In my free time I try to play a lot of golf, travel, read, and work on old vehicles – muscle cars and antiques. What have you found most beneficial about being a NE-SFMA member? When I started, I had very little sports turf knowledge and I went to many seminars, programs, and talks on the subject. When I joined the NE-SFMA, I began to interact with a lot of different people in our industry. This is when I realized that there were so many people in our organization who have diverse talents and are willing to share ideas and advice at any point. I credit my interaction with different board members through the years as helping me make a successful career here in the City of Framingham. The post Member Spotlight on Chris McGinty appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode previews the MSU Turfgrass Research Field Day. The 2026 Mississippi State University Turfgrass Research Field Day and Pesticide Applicator Training will be held on September 17 in Starkville. After lunch, pesticide applicator/CEU training will be held in the newly renovated A.B. McKay building (the old Enology Lab) up the hill from the turf facility. Attendees wishing to complete CEUs for the following states/entities must remain present until adjourned (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, TN, TX, GCSAA). Attendee registration and vendor sponsorship opportunities are available online (link below). Registration is $100 in advance or $120 onsite. To register, visit https://www.mafes.msstate.edu/workshops/turf You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Don't Miss the MSU Turfgrass Research Field Day appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Anyone for Tennis – Research?” written by Dr. Scott Ebdon – Emeritus Professor, University of Massachusetts – Amherst and Mike Buras – former Director of Grounds, Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA For accompanying tables, graphs, photos and references see the Summer 2026 issue of New England Blade magazine available on www.theturfzone.com Tennis on Grass – USA There are 26 million tennis players in the USA, and these numbers have increased by 33% since the COVID years. Less than 1% of tennis courts are grass with most grass courts found in the Northeast region. Sports grass managers may not truly appreciate the intensity of traffic (wear) observed along grass court baselines. Previous research has shown that the intensity of traffic along court baselines is 6 times the intensity of elite soccer (Newell and Wood, 2000). The term “pace”' in tennis is the speed that tennis play (and the ball) moves and is determined largely by the vertical height of the bounce off the court. The higher the vertical bounce, the slower the play. Slower play is preferred by players. Pace on grass is notoriously fast. Grass Tennis Research – UMass Amherst In 2016 several studies were initiated at the Troll Turf Research Center (South Deerfield, MA). The two main objectives were (i) wear tolerance or carrying capacity (hours of play) along court baselines and (ii) the factors affecting tennis pace. Eight turfgrass species were compared within each of three single courts (planted as replicates). The eight species-cultivars were shown to have superior wear tolerance. The grasses were planted as pure stands. The Troll Center was open to the public for daily play from 2017 to 2024. Play averaged 125 hours during the tennis season (June 1 to September 1). Grass Court Maintenance The maintenance of grass courts at the Troll Center used a daily mowing schedule at 5/16 inches (clippings collected), rolling 4 to 6 times per week with a 2,200 lb. roller, sprayable fertilizers (spoon-feeding) on a 2 to 3-week schedule to apply 3.15 lb. N per 1,000 ft² per season, and sprayable (preventative) fungicides. Heavy rolling and daily mowing was especially important to promoting consistent (uniform) tennis ball bounce and play. Weekly measurements were scheduled after significant soil drying – irrigation was used sparingly to prevent any visible turfgrass dehydration. Tennis Ball Bounce The rules for measuring vertical ball bounce were established in 1925 (Miller, 2006) and are outlined in Table 2. Higher ball bounce (slower pace) on a tennis surface is due to greater velocity of the ball in the vertical direction. Soft grass absorbs more energy indicated by greater surface deformation – less energy is available for ball bounce in the vertical direction. Ball bounce must be uniform-consistent and representative of ball bounce across the entire court surface. Measurements of Hardness – 0.5-kg Clegg Hardness is measured with the Clegg impact soil tester and has been used on grass courts since the mid-1980s (Holmes and Bell, 1986) and used currently to predict tennis ball bounce (Ebdon et al., 2025). Surface hardness is measured as gravities (g, also referred to as “Gmax” in the literature). The energy of impact using the 0.5-kg Clegg (30 cm drop height) conforms closest to the tennis ball bounce test. The 0.5-kg Clegg and the tennis ball bounce test are highly correlated compared to heavier Clegg devices used in sport grass (2.25-kg Clegg, 45 cm drop height) or devices used in golf (USGA TruFirm, 1.95-kg, 48 cm drop height). These heavier devices are not as effective for tennis (Ebdon et al., 2025). Tennis Ball Bounce (BB) and Clegg Hardness – Courts Under Play Over the course of this 10-year study some 3,200-ball bounce impacts and hardness measurements were taken on various grass court surfaces. The results presented in Table 3 for the different surfaces are comparable because accepted (standard) methods were used. Wimbledon center court (perennial ryegrass courts) for the 2011 Championship were bouncing at 52 inches or 91% of concrete. All of the perennial ryegrass courts at the Troll Center and the Tennis HOF satisfied the minimum standard of 70% concrete. Kentucky bluegrass courts at the Troll Center were bouncing near 70% (69%) of concrete. The fine leaf fescue mixture was among the highest in BB averaging 76% of concrete. This species, however, is the least tolerant of tennis traffic, discussed below. Traditional golf species such as creeping bentgrass-Poa grass courts were bouncing below the 70 to 80% concrete standard. Tennis Ball Bounce – Uniformity Consistent BB across the tennis surface is important for uniform play. Smooth-hard concrete is the most unform and consistent surface. All other surfaces are compared to the BB consistency of smooth concrete. The concrete surface has an average hardness of 865 g compared to Wimbledon hardness of 260 g. Smooth concrete has a BB uniformity of “1.” Wimbledon BB uniformity for the 2011 Championship was measured at “2.1” – twice the variability of concrete. Player perception of BB uniformity (relative to concrete) is interpretated as “an odd bounce.” One consistent trend observed in Table 3 indicates that increasing surface hardness promotes uniform ball bounce and the chances for odd bounces decrease. Therefore, selecting species such as perennial ryegrass affording harder surfaces and higher BB (slower play) have a tendency for more consistent (uniform) play. Many bentgrass courts (or greens) and Poa annua courts that are prone to thatch are the least consistent surfaces with BB uniformity of “7” and higher relative to concrete. Court Hardness to Satisfy Standards – 70 to 80% Concrete Research at the Troll Center indicated 150 to 170 g of surface hardness is needed for tennis balls to bounce to standards – 70% (40 inches) to 80% of concrete (46 inches) (Ebdon et al., 2025). Tennis BB of 80% concrete is not easy to achieve. To that end, surface soil moisture is extremely important, discussed below. For the 2011 Wimbledon Grass Court Championship, 100% of all BB impacts were at 80% of concrete. At the Troll Center and the Tennis HOF approximately 16 to 18% of all impacts satisfied the 80% concrete standard. Following uniform drying of the Wimbledon soil, 24% of all BB impacts exceeded the minimum standard for concrete. Tennis play at Wimbledon is ideal for the Grass Court Championships because of the slow pace and consistent BB. Tennis Ball Bounce – Surface Soil Moisture Soil moisture using TDR (3-inch probes) was measured weekly during the tennis season concurrently with surface hardness and ball bounce. In tennis, the ball bounce test is a surface phenomenon. This is the main reason why the low energy impact of the light weight (0.5-kg) Clegg is more effective in predicting tennis ball bounce than heavier devices (2.25-kg Clegg or 1.95-kg TruFirm) (Ebdon et al., 2025). Similarly, longer TDR (5-inch) rods are not as effective as 3-inch probes – it is the immediate surface moisture that matters in tennis ball bounce. Soil drying will promote harder surfaces but this depends on the soil texture and the mineralogy (clay content) of the soil. Table 5 compares soil drying and surface hardness between the Troll Center and Wimbledon soils. The gains in surface hardness from 38% soil drying are very different between the Troll Center soil (silt loam, 12% clay) and Wimbledon soil (sandy clay loam, 23% clay). At the same soil moisture deficit (38% soil drying), 60% greater surface hardness is observed on Wimbledon soil (77 g increase – Wimbledon vs. 48 g increase – Troll Center). The Troll silt loam increases in hardness only 3.2 g with 1% soil drying compared to 5.5 g with 1% drying for Wimbledon soil. For most soils it is believed that soil drying is more important in providing a hard tennis surface than soil compaction by rolling. Any natural soil drying will promote higher ball bounce. Recent research indicates that soil drying to 40% soil moisture depletion causes minimal turf dehydration with fine textured soils (Bruan et al., 2022). Figure 2 presents 1122 pairs of vertical ball bounces and soil moisture (3-inch TDR) measured on Troll Center perennial ryegrass courts during a 17-week period. Prior to soil drying (week 1), tennis ball bounce was below standards (66% of concrete) while after progressive soil drying (week 17) ball bounce exceeded standards (83% concrete). Species Wear Tolerance – Carrying Capacity Grass cover after tennis play ended is presented in Table 6 along with the carrying capacity (hours of play) to wear baselines to 70% grass cover. Following 2-years of study perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass exhibited significantly better wear tolerance (≥ 65% grass cover) and greater carrying capacity (≥ 70 hrs. of play to 70% cover) compared to bentgrass and fine fescue species. Traditional golf species (bentgrass) are comparatively less tolerant of tennis traffic compared to improved cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass – providing the cultivars are tolerant of 5/16-inch mowing heights. Of all the species-cultivars tested, the fine fescue mixture was the least tolerant of tennis traffic (24% grass cover) with the lowest carrying capacity (20 hours). Interestingly, the fine fescue mixture used in the tennis study was the same mixture used on the golf greens at the 2015 US Open (Chambers Bay, WA). This is further evidence as to the intensity of the traffic that is often underestimated in tennis. The Court Playability The highest priority should be given to planting wear tolerant grasses adapted to tennis play. Grasses with significantly lower carrying capacity will wear-down faster under the same hours of play. The loss of grass cover during the tennis season has a significant impact on tennis play (pace) and the uniformity (consistency) of ball bounce. Table 7 summarizes approximately 3000 measurements on perennial ryegrass courts at the Troll Center. Perennial ryegrass represents the most wear tolerant species with the highest capacity for surface hardness for satisfying ball bounce standards – ideal for tennis. All areas of the court satisfied ball bounce standards (≥ 70% of concrete). However, the T-area approached 80% concrete with an average surface hardness of 143 g and BB of 45-inch. Surface moisture was 4.4% drier at the T-area (less grass – more exposed soil for surface drying). It is the soil drying at the worn T-area and baselines that promotes an increase in hardness and ball bounce under tennis play – consistent with soil drying presented in Table 5. These worn areas will play different (slower) because of the increase in the vertical height of the bounce compared to the less trafficked service box. The soil-water relations presented in Table 7 are consistent with golf greens and sports grass under heavy play (McClements and Baker, 1994; Straw et al., 2017). What We've Learned Soil drying promotes harder surfaces and the uniformity of ball bounce approaches the uniformity of concrete. At week 1 before soil drying, BB uniformity relative to concrete was “3.7.” At week 17 following soil drying, BB uniformity across all three courts was “2.6” – approaching the BB uniformity of hard courts. The measured results reported here are consistent with player perceptions. As eight-time Wimbledon Grass Court Champion, Roger Federer, lamented: “This new, fresh grass, we're not quite used to it…as you go deeper in the tournament, the grass court becomes more clay-courty, hard-courty with a bit of grass on it…the ball bounces a bit higher” How fast (low bounce) or slow (high bounce) or consistent (uniform) a grass court plays is dependent on the tolerance of the species-cultivar to traffic and to the properties of the underlying soil and its plant-soil-water relationships. References Braun, R. C., Bremer, D. J., Ebdon, J. S., Fry, J. D., & Patton, A. J. (2022). Review of cool-season turfgrass water use and requirements: I. Evapotranspiration and responses to deficit irrigation. Crop Science, 62, 1661–1684. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20791 Ebdon, J. S., Lu, J., and DaCosta, M. (2025). Comparison of Clegg and TruFirm surface hardness for predicting tennis ball bounce standards on grass courts under match play. Crop Science, 65, e70109. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.70109 Ebdon J.S., James I., DaCosta M., and Lu J. (2020). Interspecific comparisons of C3 turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play. CropScience. 2021;61:750–762. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20270 Holmes, G., and Bell, M. J. (1986). Playing surface hardness and tennis ball rebound resilience. Journal of the Sports Turf Research Institute, 62, 207–210. ITF. (2019). Approved tennis balls, classified surfaces, and recognized courts: A guide to products and test methods. International Tennis Federation. https://www.itftennis.com/media/2016/2019-itf-technical-booklet.pdf McClements, I., and S. W. Baker. (1994). The playing quality of natural turf hockey pitches. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 70:p. 13-28. Miller, S. (2006). Modern tennis rackets, balls, and surfaces. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bjsm.2005.023283 Medicine, 40, 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.023283 Newell, A. J., and Wood, A. D. (2000). Selection of grass species, cultivars and mixtures for lawn tennis. Journal of Turfgrass Science, 76,53–65. Straw, C. M., Bowling, W. J., and Henry, G. M. (2017). Rainfall versus irrigation influences penetration resistance and surface hardness on a recreational sports field. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 13: p. 1-5. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Anyone for Tennis – Research? appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Testing Ground” featured in Tennessee Turfgrass magazine. UT turfgrass researchers have invented a device to test the playability of football fields, soccer pitches, and other surfaces—with the goal of keeping athletes safe. In 2018, the NFL scheduled a game for a neutral site in Mexico. Though the field had passed mandatory tests like surface hardness, the league's players association had concerns about the safety of the field. So they turned to Distinguished Professor of Turfgrass Science and Management John Sorochan to represent their interests. Sorochan advised that there were too many inconsistencies in the field and that the lack of rooting was a serious issue. He argued that an inconsistent and unstable surface is an unsafe surface. And his advocacy helped get the game moved to a safer field. For Sorochan, the experience revealed the need across multiple sports for a better way to test the playability and compliance of natural grass surfaces. Together, he and Kyley Dickson (BS '12, MS '14, PhD '17), researcher and co-director of UT's Center for Athletic Field Safety, invented a solution that has surpassed its original goal: the fLEX Device. This portable machine realistically simulates the motion of an athlete's foot striking the ground, using a 3D-printed foot outfitted with a real cleat. “There were machines out there to test artificial turf—years before, Dr. Sorochan helped AstroTurf develop one,” Dickson says. “But nothing was specific to natural grass. “We also wanted to go beyond the static vertical load, rotational, and slide tests that existing tools used,” he continues. “We put sensors around the 3D-printed foot and ankle to measure energy that would be transferred back to the athlete. This makes fLEX unique.” Development of the fLex Device reflects the driving force behind sports turf research at UT: the human impact of athlete–surface interactions. “Our tool to measure what athletes would feel on natural grass has turned out to be equally applicable for synthetic turf, running tracks, even basketball courts—all surfaces but ice for hockey—to understand the effects on athletes,” Sorochan says. A Team Effort Producing the fLEX Device was interdisciplinary from the start. Sorochan and Dickson hired metal workers to build their device, mechanical engineers to run calculations, and a recent UT computer science graduate to develop software to collect and interpret sensor data. UT kinesiology and biomechanics experts scientifically validated the device. “At the biomechanics lab, fLEX struck the force plate like a human athlete would,” Sorochan says. “We learned how to calibrate it to simulate foot strikes for different-sized athletes, from a 350-pound NFL athlete down to a 35-pound kid playing soccer at school.” They partnered with UT Athletics for real-world testing. After football games at Neyland Stadium, researchers would collect data from more than 70 spots across the field to form a comprehensive picture of its condition. “Neyland is probably the most tested stadium anywhere,” Sorochan laughs. And when the Lady Vols soccer team needed to change cleats, the fLEX Device informed that decision by measuring the load different shoes put on players' bodies. “Being a Vol means being part of a team,” Sorochan says. “So many Vols have helped us develop and test fLEX.” From Concept to Commercialization Early prototypes involved manually ratcheting and releasing gears. When Sorochan and Dickson collected feedback from field managers and student researchers who used the device, everyone agreed: there were too many components and too many data points. “To make a real-world impact,” Sorochan says, “it had to be simpler for field managers and other turf professionals to use, understand, and benefit from our device. We also needed to scale up in terms of production and audience. UT and UT Research Foundation played important roles in accomplishing that and commercializing our invention.” In 2024, Sorochan and Dickson received the inaugural Chancellor's Innovation Fund award. They focused those funds on automating the device and streamlining the user experience. UT Research Foundation helped them patent their technology, connect with business advisors, and put their product on the market. Today, users set and release the gears with the touch of a button. The screen displays three key data points: surface traction, surface hardness, and amount of energy returned to the athlete. The software automatically generates a report complete with summary, graphs, and a heat map highlighting inconsistencies across the field. International Impact The fLEX Device's credibility has grown with every sporting venue the team has tested over the last five years—130-plus stadiums connected to the NFL, MLB, and other professional and college leagues in five countries. FIFA, soccer's international governing body, has seen the value of the fLEX Device firsthand during a five-year research collaboration with UT. Billions of FIFA World Cup 26 viewers will soon watch top athletes play on natural grass pitches developed by Sorochan's research team. Several of the host stadiums for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 used a first-of-its-kind “shallow profile” pitch. “It was a ‘wow' moment when fLEX first demonstrated that the shallow construction method we were experimenting with performed the same as a standard pitch, which has 12 inches of sand underneath,” Sorochan says. “This shallow profile could enable host stadiums that typically use synthetic turf to quickly and cost effectively install safe natural grass pitches for the World Cup tournaments.” At FIFA's request, Sorochan's team used the fLEX Device to gather field data before and after each Club World Cup game in summer 2025. They'll likely use fLEX in the same way during FIFA World Cup 26: to inform real-time field management decisions that protect players and ensure uniform conditions across all 16 host stadiums. “FIFA has incredibly high standards for these pitches,” Sorochan says. “fLEX is the right tool to make sure their expectations for consistency, safety, and performance are met.” In May 2025, global pitch management solutions company SGL purchased the fLEX Device product rights. “SGL is an industry leader expanding its portfolio of resources and tools for improving sports fields,” Sorochan says. “They invest in quality and R&D. fLEX was a great fit.” “fLEX represents the very best of UT—ideas that are generated and implemented locally and go on to change the world,” says Deb Crawford, vice chancellor for research, innovation, and economic development. “By leveraging the Chancellor's Innovation Fund and partnering with private industry, Dr. Sorochan and his colleagues have expanded their impact, ensuring that UT innovations continue to have a profound impact worldwide.” Dickson is directing product development for SGL fLEX Systems. “I'll explore questions to make it even more user friendly, like Could it be robotic? Could we put an electric motor drive on it? Are we getting the right data for different sports?” “This device will make all sports surfaces safer for all levels, from young kids to professional players,” Sorochan sums up. “UT's support made this impact possible. Now, SGL is making it global.” Delve into UT's research to create the best and most consistent pitches for FIFA World Cup 26. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Testing Ground appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers how The University of Tennessee’s research as part of the FIFA 2026 World Cup is already scoring benefits on the world stage. When FIFA selected the University of Tennessee to oversee research for building and maintaining the FIFA WORLD CUP 26 pitches, it promised to focus worldwide attention on the university's turfgrass science and management program. With the opening games just weeks away, UT's collaboration with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association has already brought new recognition to the acclaimed turfgrass program. The research—led by John Sorochan, who is the Distinguished Professor of Turfgrass Science and Management in the UT Department of Plant Sciences—is also yielding information that will result in improved parks, recreation fields and sports turfs at schools and universities. “It's been an incredibly important initiative,” says Keith Carver, UT Institute of Agriculture senior vice chancellor and senior vice president. “It takes the work of our faculty and researchers to audiences all over the world. But, in an equally important manner, our work with FIFA has ushered in new advances to turfgrass that have improved golf courses, yards and gardens all over the Volunteer State. The impact of this research reaches far and wide.” In 2021, FIFA initiated a five-year project with UT and Michigan State University for help in producing optimum playing surfaces for the 16 stadiums and nearly 150 practice fields for FIFA WORLD CUP 26. Forty-eight national teams will play at venues in Canada, Mexico and the U.S., spanning four time zones and multiple climatic regions. Since then, UT researchers have been growing test plots of grass, experimenting with ways of installing grass over different surfaces in varying conditions and testing surfaces for the best playing and safety conditions. FIFA funded the construction of climate-controlled test fields at the Plant Sciences Unit of the UT East Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center in Knoxville. Alan Ferguson, FIFA senior pitch management manager, says the university's research was used in the inaugural Club World Cup, an international competition organized by FIFA, held last summer at a dozen stadiums across the U.S. “The UT turf team is well known around the world for high-quality research,” Ferguson says. “With so many key technologies already under research at UT, it made sense for FIFA to partner and extend this research.” The UT turfgrass science and management program is expanding in other ways, as well. UT is establishing certificate programs for pitch managers, golf course superintendents and those who oversee other sports venues. The UT Herbert College of Agriculture is working to launch one or more certificate programs for turfgrass science, including specializations for sports turf. The program is intended to have a state, national and global audience and will be open to current college students. UT Extension currently offers the non-credit, online Certified Lawn Care Professional Program on general turfgrass management. The program is tailored for working professionals who want to deepen their knowledge of regional turfgrass management and who do not need or intend to use the training for a college certificate or degree program. Participants in this program do not have to submit homework or take quizzes and exams, or develop other types of work typically associated with college programs. Participants who finish the program receive a certificate of completion from UT Extension, though no college credit or transcripts are earned. UT also is investing in additional turf research fields, which Sorochan says could be used to test specific technologies like heating systems, vacuum ventilation and subsurface irrigation. Learn more about these efforts, the benefits they are bringing to athletic playing surfaces throughout Tennessee, and the first-class opportunities they are bringing to turfgrass science and management students in an article in UTIA's Land, Life and Science magazine. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post UT and FIFA World Cup 26! appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University” from Mississippi Turfgrass magazine. Mississippi State University is pleased to welcome Dr. Zia Williamson as Assistant Professor of Extension for Turf and Ornamental Entomology in the Department of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Protection. A native of Lincolnton, Georgia, Dr. Williamson grew up surrounded by the green industry through her family's landscaping business near Augusta. That early exposure to plants, insects, and managed landscapes helped shape her academic path. She earned undergraduate degrees in entomology and horticulture from the University of Georgia, where she also gained research experience in plant production, fruit pathology, nematology, museum collections, and applied entomology. She later completed both her master's degree and Ph.D. in entomology at UGA. Dr. Williamson's graduate research has focused on insect ecology and management in specialty crops, turfgrass, ornamentals, and urban landscapes. Her master's work examined trunk-boring beetle pests in Georgia specialty crops and urban landscapes. Her doctoral research explored native bee ecology in turfgrass production farms and ornamental horticulture settings, including how landscape characteristics, floral resources, and management practices influence pollinator presence and activity. At Mississippi State, Dr. Williamson will develop Extension and applied research programs addressing insect and pest management needs in turfgrass, ornamentals, and related landscape systems. Her work will support growers, golf course superintendents, landscape professionals, Extension agents, and other practitioners, as well as homeowners, through insect identification, science-based management recommendations, trainings, and responsive educational resources. As she begins her new role, Dr. Williamson is eager to connect with Mississippi stakeholders and learn more about the turf and ornamental pest challenges they face. Please drop her an email (zvw9@msstate.edu), and come see her speak at this year's September 17 Field Day. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance” written by Ava Veith, Dr. David McCall, Dr. Chase Straw, Dr. Daniel Sandor, Dr. Jay Williams, Elisabeth Kitchen, Kevin Hensler, Aaron Tucker and Dr. Caleb Henderson Authors Note and Context Ava Veith is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Plant Science at Penn State University under the advisement of Dr. Chase Straw, where her research focuses on studying within-field variability and athlete–surface interactions. However, the research presented in this article was conducted during her master's program at Virginia Tech under Dr. David McCall. This study served as a foundational investigation into how variability within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf athletic fields influences athletes. The findings from this work have shaped the direction of subsequent doctoral research. Building on this foundation, the planned Ph.D. project aims to examine athlete lower-limb joint biomechanics across natural turfgrass, synthetic turf, and hybrid (natural turfgrass reinforced with synthetic fibers) surfaces using multi-segment inertial measurement units. At the conclusion of this article, the next phase of research will be briefly outlined to demonstrate how it has grown from the master's study. In this way, the Virginia Tech study presented here represents both a completed project and the starting point for a broader, ongoing effort to better understand how the playing surface can affect athlete movement and injury-relevant mechanics. Introduction A safe playing surface is essential for athletic competition. Natural turfgrass and synthetic turf are common playing surfaces used for field sports, and extensive research has been conducted to compare these two surface types. However, limited attention has been given to within-field variability and its impact on athlete safety and performance. Studies often classify athletic fields broadly as synthetic or natural, overlooking critical surface metrics that fluctuate both within and between fields. Key field characteristics such as surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth (for synthetic fields) play a crucial role in assessing field quality. Variability in these factors can be influenced by environmental conditions, management practices, and field usage patterns. Despite the known importance of these factors, current research often fails to account for field-specific inconsistencies, limiting the effectiveness of broad comparisons between surfaces. To improve field safety and optimize athlete performance, interdisciplinary collaboration among turfgrass scientists, sports scientists, and sports medicine professionals is necessary. Evidence-based field management strategies must be developed to ensure more consistent playing conditions, reducing the risk of injury. Wearable technologies such as STATSports GPS trackers (STATSports, 2025) and ankle inertial measurement units (IMUs) (IMeasureU, 2019) provide critical insights into athlete biomechanics, load monitoring, and more. These technologies allow researchers to quantify how different surface conditions influence athletes during performance, offering valuable data for injury prevention strategies. Beyond data collected by wearable technologies, athlete perceptions of field conditions also play a role in performance and injury risk. Unpredictable surface variability can affect player confidence, movement efficiency, and risk-taking behaviors, making perception-based data collection essential. Understanding how athletes experience and perceive different playing surfaces can inform future improvements in field construction and maintenance. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of surface variability on athlete safety and performance, both within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf surfaces. This research will quantify how variations in key surface metrics, including surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth, affect athletes utilizing data from wearable technologies, such as STATSports GPS trackers and ankle IMUs. Additionally, to further understand the influence of field surfaces, athletes will be surveyed before and after performing drills to gather insights into their perceptions of how surface variability impacts their performance. Methodology Athletic Fields Tested This research was conducted in August of 2024, where four athletic fields on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia were studied. Two of these fields were natural turfgrass (bermudagrass), while the other two fields were synthetic turf. For both field types, one field was classified as ‘low usage', while the other was classified as ‘high usage'. This was determined based on traffic frequency, field age, and management practices. Preliminary Data Collection Before live athletes were introduced, surface hardness was assessed on all four fields using a Clegg hammer, with 100 measurements collected per field. The data were then analyzed using ArcGIS Pro to generate surface hardness heatmaps, highlighting variability between and within each field. These maps allowed us to identify specific locations for the athletes to perform drills, where one selected area within each field was slightly harder than the rest of the field, and the other being slightly softer. Additionally, 20 measurements of rotational resistance (using Deltec's rotational resistance tester), thatch depth (using a soil profile sampler), soil moisture (using a TDR 350 Soil Moisture Meter), and infill depth (using a Turf-Tec Professional Model Infill Depth Gauge) were taken in both the softer and harder areas to further characterize each field and understand the relationship between surface conditions and athlete performance. Data Collection During Athlete Involvement Fourteen female athletes participated in the study, equipped with STATSports GPS devices (to measure running speed) and ankle IMUs (to measure lower limb impact intensity) to quantify their movements during drills. The athletes were each given new Nike cleats prior to participation to eliminate variation based on cleat configuration. They completed three drills, including a drop landing or drop jump drill, a T-drill, and a modified acceleration-deceleration drill, which were designed to replicate common athletic movements. Each drill was performed three times in both the softer and harder areas identified within each field. Additionally, each athlete completed pre- and post-performance surveys designed to capture their perceptions of field quality before and after completing the drills, providing insight into how different surfaces may have influenced their performance. Results and Discussion Surface Hardness Data Heatmaps highlight surface hardness variability within each studied field. Surface hardness data (n = 100 per field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher's protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Both synthetic turf fields had significantly harder surfaces than the natural turfgrass fields (p < 0.0001), and for both surface types, the high-usage field had a significantly harder surface than the low-usage field (p = 0.0029 for the natural turfgrass fields and p < 0.0001 for the synthetic turf fields). Both synthetic fields tested in this study were not constructed with a shock pad, which is typically placed beneath the layer of material that supports the synthetic fibers and utilized to help replicate the cushioning effect of natural turfgrass. The absence of a shock pad, along with the tendency of synthetic turf to harden over time due to infill material compaction from athlete foot traffic, may explain the harder surface values observed on the synthetic fields compared to the natural fields. Further, increased use or foot traffic on both natural turfgrass and synthetic turf leads to compaction, which causes the playing surface to harden over time. Therefore, it is anticipated that the high-usage fields exhibited higher surface hardness compared to the low-usage fields. Data Within Each Hard and Soft Area Resulting rotational resistance, thatch depth, soil moisture, and infill depth (synthetic fields only) measurements taken within each hard and soft area on all four fields are presented in Table 1 (available in the Spring 2026 issue of Pennsylvania Turfgrass magazine). These measurements (n = 20 per both hard and soft areas within each field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher's protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Although the fields tested in this research were not professional-level fields, it is insightful to compare the results with the FIFA natural-pitch rating system (FIFA, 2022). All rotational resistance values fell within FIFA's ‘excellent quality' and ‘satisfactory quality' thresholds, which is important because excessive rotational resistance has been linked to increased lower extremity injuries due to the foot becoming entrapped in the surface during pivoting movements, and too little resistance can increase the risk of slipping. However, soil moisture values exceed 35%, which FIFA classifies as ‘unacceptable quality'. This elevated moisture is likely the primary cause of the low surface hardness values observed on the natural turfgrass fields, which were lower than FIFA's 70-85 Gmax ‘excellent quality' range. Additionally, FIFA considers thatch depths over 25 mm as unacceptable, and 10–15 mm satisfactory. Excessive thatch can cause athlete's cleats to become caught within the surface, increasing knee ligament stress. The low-usage natural turfgrass field had more thatch despite regular maintenance, while the high-usage natural turfgrass field had less, likely due to recent sprigging the summer before. Soft areas in both natural turfgrass fields exhibited higher thatch levels than the hard areas, consistent with previous findings that core cultivation reduces both thatch and surface hardness (McCarty et al., 2007; Atkinson et al., 2012). This supports the understanding that increased thatch can act as a cushioning layer, absorbing impact and thereby reducing surface hardness. The high-usage synthetic turf field exhibited significantly less infill and greater surface hardness compared to the low-usage synthetic turf field, and the soft areas within both synthetic fields had more infill than the hard areas. This aligns with previous research indicating that infill depth decreases with use, which in turn leads to higher surface hardness (Dickson et al., 2022). Additionally, the low-usage synthetic field exhibited greater variability in infill depth between the selected hard and soft areas, likely due to its relatively young age (only one year old at the time of the study). Compared to the older high-usage field, which was approximately ten years old, the infill in the low-usage synthetic field had less time to settle, making it more susceptible to displacement from foot traffic (Fleming et al., 2016). STATSports GPS Unit Data In our study, STATSports GPS units were securely attached to each athlete's upper back. These devices were used to determine if athlete running speed varied based on field type (natural turfgrass or synthetic turf), field usage level (high or low), or hardness (hard or soft areas within each field). However, no statistically significant differences were found. This consistency in speed across conditions is important because running speed can directly affect impact forces and biomechanical measurements. Prior studies have shown that faster running increases the ground reaction force and ultimately lower limb impact load (Leatham, 2004; Jiang et al., 2024). If athletes had run at different speeds on one field type compared to another, it could have affected the reliability of our ankle IMU data. However, since no significant speed differences were found across field types, usage, or hardness, we can confidently attribute the observed differences in the resulting ankle IMU data to the playing surface. Ankle IMU Data Ankle IMUs were utilized to record a metric called average intensity, which is defined as the mean impact intensity derived from every impact propagated into both limbs (IMeasureU, 2022). This metric is recorded in units of gravitational force (g). These devices were securely attached to each athlete's ankle and recorded data as they performed drills on all four fields studied. After running statistical tests that accounted for individual differences between athletes, significant differences were found based on field, field usage, and hardness. Across all three drills, field type had a noticeable impact (p < 0.0001) where athletes showed higher average intensity on synthetic turf fields compared to natural turfgrass. For the drop jump drill, the average intensity was 19.73 g [standard error (SE) ± 1.88] on natural turfgrass and 22.73 g (SE ± 1.82) on synthetic turf, placing the synthetic turf value within the IMU Step ‘high intensity' foot strike range of 21.5–26.7 g (Wong and Finch, 2018). A similar trend was seen in the t-drill, with average intensities of 15.84 g (SE ± 1.20) on natural turfgrass and 18.07 g (SE ± 1.16) on synthetic turf. For the modified acceleration-deceleration drill, average intensity was 17.72 g (SE ± 1.15) on natural turfgrass and 21.35 g (SE ± 1.10) on synthetic turf. Field usage also made a difference in the t-drill (p < 0.0001), where the average intensity on high-usage fields was 18.14 g (SE ± 1.24), compared to 16.49 g (SE ± 1.24) on low-usage fields. Hardness played a role as well, especially in the t-drill (p = 0.0073) and the modified acceleration-deceleration drill (p < 0.0001). In the t-drill, hard areas resulted in an average intensity of 17.43 g (SE ± 1.22), slightly higher than the 17.05 g (SE ± 1.22) on soft areas. For the modified acceleration-deceleration drill, intensity averaged 20.38 g (SE ± 4.28) on hard areas and 18.85 g (SE ± 3.81) on soft areas. Overall, the synthetic turf fields, high-usage fields, and hard areas within fields exhibited higher average intensity values than the natural turfgrass fields, low-usage fields, and softer areas within fields. This aligns with our surface hardness findings, as synthetic turf fields were significantly harder than natural turfgrass fields on average. Additionally, hard areas within synthetic turf were harder than those on natural turf, and high-usage fields were harder than low-usage fields for both surface types. Thus, our data suggest that harder surfaces may explain the higher average intensity values recorded on the athlete's lower limbs compared to softer surfaces. This trend has been heavily supported, as running on harder surfaces increases impact stress, which can ultimately contribute to lower limb injuries. However, all surface hardness values in this study were below 100 Gmax, which is the threshold deemed unsafe by the National Football League (NFL) guidelines (Sports Turf Managers Association, 2019) and unacceptable by FIFA. Yet, a potential positive correlation between surface hardness and impact was observed, as recorded by the ankle IMUs. While further research is needed, it is hypothesized that surface hardness exceeding 100 Gmax could significantly increase injury risk over time due to excessive impact on athletes' lower limbs. Additionally, establishing threshold values for ankle IMU metrics is crucial to determine the point at which these values may lead to injury. Survey / Athlete Perception Data Athletes completed pre- and post-performance surveys to assess field quality and its impact on their performance. Individual responses were recorded and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance to assess statistical differences between fields. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Fisher's protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05. The low-usage natural turfgrass field received the highest quality rating for both pre- and post surveys, while the high-usage natural turfgrass field, hindered by weeds and poor maintenance, scored the lowest. Synthetic turf fields ranked in between the two natural fields (with the high usage synthetic turf field being ranked lower than the low-usage synthetic turf field), indicating a preference for synthetic surfaces over a poorly maintained natural field. Conclusions Considerable variation in surface hardness was observed both within and between fields, with synthetic turf fields generally being harder than natural turfgrass fields. High-usage fields, regardless of type, were significantly harder than low-usage fields. Other metrics, such as rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth, also showed variability. For natural turfgrass fields, higher soil moisture led to lower surface hardness, while synthetic turf fields exhibited a negative relationship between field usage and infill depth, where frequent foot traffic reduced infill and increased surface hardness. Although achieving perfect field uniformity is not possible, these findings emphasize how field usage and maintenance impact surface variability. Additionally, our data suggest a potential link between surface hardness and the mechanical load on athletes' lower limbs. While this trend was observed, further research is needed to investigate its long-term effects on athlete health, particularly on surfaces that exceed acceptable hardness thresholds. Survey data revealed athletes rated the quality of the low-usage natural turfgrass field the highest, likely due to its softer surface and better aesthetics. In contrast, the high-usage natural turfgrass field, which suffered from poor maintenance and weed pressure, received the lowest ratings, underlining the importance of field condition in shaping athlete perceptions. These results highlight the role of field management and athlete feedback in optimizing field quality. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into how different sports surfaces impact athletes. Our findings suggest that harder surfaces, such as synthetic turf or high-traffic areas, can increase impact and loading on the lower limbs. These results highlight the critical importance of effective field management, maintenance, and consideration of field conditions prior to athletic competition. Next Phase of Research: Ph.D. Project Overview Building on the findings of the Virginia Tech study, this doctoral research at Penn State expands the investigation from impact loading to full lower-limb joint biomechanics during sport-specific movements. While the Virginia Tech study demonstrated that harder surfaces were associated with increased lower-limb impact intensity, the next question is whether different playing surfaces subtly alter how athletes move at the joint level during high-risk tasks such as cutting and decelerating. The planned Ph.D. project uses a multi-segment inertial measurement unit (IMU) configuration placed on the athlete's dominant limb, including sensors at the foot, shank, thigh, and pelvis. Positioning sensors closer to the ground improves sensitivity to surface-related differences, allowing evaluation of not only impact but also ankle, knee, and hip joint kinematics derived through inverse kinematics workflows. Female athletes will perform sport-specific movements, including a single-leg drop-landing followed by a 90° cut, as well as an acceleration to deceleration drill, on four playing surface types: natural turfgrass, synthetic turf, carpet-type hybrid reinforced turfgrass, and stitched fiber hybrid reinforced turfgrass. Each athlete will complete multiple trials on each surface in a within-subject, repeated-measures design, allowing direct biomechanical comparisons across surface types. Female athletes are of particular interest given they experience substantially higher rates of non-contact ACL injury compared to their male counterparts, highlighting the importance of understanding how the playing surface may influence movement. Joint angles of interest include knee flexion and frontal-plane knee motion (dynamic valgus), as well as hip and foot orientation variables commonly discussed in the context of non-contact ACL injury mechanisms. Because hybrid systems are increasingly used in elite stadium environments and are required for upcoming international competitions (e.g., the FIFA World Cup), understanding how live athletes respond biomechanically to these surfaces is of particular interest. To date, most hybrid research has relied primarily on mechanical testing devices rather than human movement data. An additional component of the project involves comparing human biomechanical responses to mechanical surface testing metrics, including measurements from the fLEX testing device (Dickson and Sorochan, 2022; SGL System, n.d.). If consistent relationships are identified between device measurements and athlete joint mechanics, field managers may ultimately be able to more confidently use standardized mechanical testing tools as practical indicators of athlete–surface interactions. Collectively, this progression advances a more comprehensive framework that integrates both the playing surface and athlete biomechanics. By focusing on human movement responses within real field environments, this work strengthens interdisciplinary collaboration across field management, kinesiology, and sports medicine. Ultimately, it aims to generate practical knowledge that supports both performance and safety in sport. A full list of references as well as accompanying figures, photos and tables are available with this article in the Spring 2026 issue of Pennsylvania Turfgrass magazine available on www.TheTurfZone.com. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Give Yourself the Edge in Managing Sedges in Lawns and Landscape Beds” written by Jeffrey Derr and Adam Nichols. Sedges are major weed problems in turf and landscape ornamentals, as well as in crop production, including container- and field-grown nursery crops. Although there are annual sedges that occasionally are problems in these areas, the major problems are perennial species. Having an understanding of their taxonomy and life cycle will aid you when developing a control program. Sedges are monocots, which mean they have one seed leaf when they germinate. Grasses are also monocots, but they are in a different plant family, the Poaceae, as opposed to sedges, which are in the Cyperaceae or sedge family. So do not use the term “nutgrass” when referring to yellow nutsedge. Yellow nutsedge is not a grass and it is confusing to use a term that implies that it is a grass. You may ask “But what about broomsedge – isn't that a grass?” Well, yes, but that is a topic for another article! The distinction between grasses and sedges is especially important when discussing chemical control. Most of our sedge herbicides do not affect grasses and most of our grass herbicides do not affect sedges. Here is some help in separating grasses from sedges. Grasses have round or flattened stems, generally have a ligule (either a membrane or fringe of hairs where the leaf blade meets the leaf sheath), and have two-ranked leaves (leaves appear from 2 sides of the stem). Sedges have triangular stems (sedges have edges), lack a ligule, and the leaves are three-ranked (come out from the three sides of the stem. When I taught the weed science class, I would slip in yellow nutsedge when we had the lab on grass identification to see what the students would do with it. They obviously struggled with it when trying to fit yellow nutsedge into a grass key. Major species: The most common sedge infesting turfgrass and ornamental beds is yellow nutsedge, a weed that occurs throughout Virginia. Yellow nutsedge is a perennial that spreads primarily through vegetative means. Rhizomes produce roughly ¼ to ½ inch long, tan to brown tubers in summer and fall. These tubers overwinter and then send up new shoots in the spring. Above-ground parts of the plant die with a killing frost. Although yellow nutsedge will produce seed, it does not appear to be an important factor in the spread of this species. Leaves are shiny and yellowish-green. Purple nutsedge, similar to yellow nutsedge, also is an herbaceous perennial that spreads by tubers and rhizomes. Leaves of purple nutsedge tend to be darker green than yellow nutsedge. The tubers are the same size as those for yellow nutsedge but are dark brown or purplish brown. Tubers of purple nutsedge have a bitter taste while those of yellow nutsedge have a sweet or almond-like flavor. Purple nutsedge has a purplish-brown seedhead, while yellow nutsedge has a, well, yellow seedhead. In a turf situation, however, you probably will not see the seedheads of either species, especially in frequently mowed sites, but seedheads would develop in ornamental beds if uncontrolled. Yellow nutsedge leaf blades have a long, sharp point while purple nutsedge has a blunt tip. However, this also may not be apparent in a mowed situation. Why is it important to tell yellow from purple nutsedge? Certain herbicides, such as bentazon, mesotrione, metolachlor, and sulfentrazone, are more effective on yellow than purple nutsedge, while other products work well on both species, such as halosulfuron. Purple nutsedge is predominantly a problem in southeastern Virginia. Purple nutsedge is found predominantly in the South while yellow nutsedge is found essentially throughout the contiguous 48 states. Another sedge group that has spread rapidly in Virginia is kyllinga. To me, kyllinga in bloom looks like a green ball about the size of a pea sitting on 3 green leaves. There are both annual and perennial kyllinga species but the ones of greatest concern are the perennials green and false green kyllinga. Kyllingas will also have a triangular stem but lack the tubers formed by yellow and purple nutsedge. The perennial kyllingas spread not only by rhizomes, but readily by seed, probably a factor in their spread, as they can flower below mowing height. We grow false green kyllinga by seed for our trials. Chemical control for kyllingas is very similar to that for yellow nutsedge. The primary annual sedge that I have seen in turf areas is compressed sedge. Rice flatsedge is an occasional annual weed in container production. We had fragrant flatsedge come in as a contaminant in plants I purchased from down south and it has been the most aggressive grower of the sedge species we have evaluated. These three sedge species spread strictly by seed and thus are easier to control than perennial sedges. Factors favoring growth of sedges Sedges grow best in warm temperatures, moist soil, and high sunlight. I usually do not see yellow nutsedge emergence until early April or later, depending on how quickly it warms up in the spring. Yellow nutsedge grows best in May through August, similar to that for bermudagrass. The sedges are not necessarily that much more competitive than turf species, but they can rapidly take advantage of any openings in the canopy. I always remember one of our former students who was working on halosulfuron when it was being developed. He had trouble getting yellow nutsedge to establish in his Kentucky bluegrass plots but where he killed out the bluegrass for his plot borders, he saw a nice straight line of yellow nutsedge in the killed strips! One problem with managing yellow and purple nutsedge is tuber dormancy. Not all tubers send up shoots at the same time. Some shoots will emerge in May, some in June, and some in July. Also, some tubers may not send up shoots until the following year or two. Most tubers are viable for only 2 to 3 years, but some can remain viable for 10 years or longer. So if one has an established stand of yellow or purple nutsedge they wish to eradicate, it will be a multi-year project. Even if you achieve 100% control in a season, you probably will see nutsedge emergence the following year. Cultural Control of sedges Maintaining a thick stand of turf will help restrict the development of sedges, especially in the spring when nutsedge shoots emerge from the underground tubers. Overseed and fertilize cool season grasses in the fall to have a thick, competitive stand when sedges resume growth in late spring. Avoid scalping turf as this opens up the canopy for invasion by sedges, crabgrass, and other weed species. Control insect and disease pests to prevent thinning of the turf. Avoid overwatering turf and ensure proper soil drainage to prevent excessively wet soil. Monitor new sod or ornamental plant installations to insure that nutsedge or kyllinga has not hitchhiked along with the sod or nursery plants. Avoid any stress that adversely affects turf growth. I always think of a turf situation I was asked to investigate. They had applied fluazifop in a backpack sprayer for bermudagrass control in tall fescue. Not only was the bermudagrass controlled, so was the tall fescue. It is hard to determine a spot-treatment rate of fluazifop that will be safe in tall fescue. They reseeded and ran the irrigation frequently in summer, which led to an excellent stand of compressed sedge. The cause of the sedge infestation was the initial turf damage caused by improper herbicide application. Yellow nutsedge is hard to control using hand weeding as plants can break at the soil line, leaving the underground tubers and rhizomes. Tilling can spread the tubers, increasing the area of infestation. Chemical control of yellow nutsedge Learn the active ingredients listed in Tables 1 and 2 (available in the May/June 2026 issue of Virginia Turfgrass Journal on www.theturfzone.com). Some of these herbicides are sold in combination with other herbicides but I have only listed single active ingredient products that we have tested. There are a number of combination products that contain a sedge herbicide but also other herbicides for either broadleaf or grass control. For example, Sublime contains mesotrione, triclopyr, and dicamba. If you know the active ingredients, you will have a good idea as to how that combination product will perform. 1). Preemergence control in turf I frequently am asked about the availability of preemergence herbicides for nutsedge control. Actually, I prefer postemergence applications for yellow nutsedge control since this weed usually occurs in patches and thus fits well into spot-treatment programs. The problem with a preemergence application is that one would have to treat the entire lawn since the chemical must be applied prior to sedge emergence, unless one mapped out the previous year exactly where nutsedge was growing in a turf stand. The other reason favoring postemergence control of nutsedge is that few preemergence chemicals are available for turf use. Some postemergence herbicides, such as halosulfuron (SedgeHammer, Prosedge), mesotrione (Tenacity), and sulfentrazone (Dismiss) do have a degree of preemergence control, but I consider that a bonus following postemergence application. In bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, and certain other warm-season grasses, there are registrations for Pennant Magnum, Tower, and FreeHand for residual control of yellow nutsedge. These herbicides are much more effective on yellow compared to purple nutsedge and have generally short residual control. Also, we have seen delayed greenup with this group. However, we do use these products in ornamental beds. 2). Preemergence control in ornamental beds We do focus on preemergence herbicides in ornamental beds due to general lack of selective postemergence herbicides for overtop use. Products to consider include metolachlor (Pennant Magnum) and dimethenamid (Tower), both of which are oil-based formulations and thus should be applied as a directed spray, as well as the granular herbicide FreeHand, which contains dimethenamid plus pendimethalin. FreeHand is probably a good choice for most landscape bed situations. It can be applied to certain annual flowers (but not begonia) and a wide range of perennials and woody ornamentals. Apply in March or in early April in eastern Virginia and a little later in western parts of the state. Reapply about 6 or 8 weeks later to extend the length of yellow nutsedge control. 3). Postemergence control in cool-season turf I have divided up the herbicides to ones registered for use in tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, and perennial ryegrass and those registered for use in bermudagrass and zoysiagrass. I have listed the trade names we have tested. You may find other trade names for these active ingredients. The two tables cover the primary treatments available for sedge control in turfgrass. The same herbicides that are used for yellow nutsedge control in turf are utilized for kyllinga control. MSMA is not included as it is only registered for use in golf, sod production, and highway rights-of-way. Bentazon and sulfentrazone are the fastest-acting chemicals in this group, probably because they predominantly have a contact action. Injury symptoms in yellow and purple nutsedge can be seen within a few days of application, especially when applied under warm conditions. Repeat applications will generally be needed sooner for bentazon than the other products. For example, a second application of bentazon is generally made one to two weeks after the first one. We have found pyrimisulfan to be the slowest acting herbicide in this group of chemicals, with halosulfuron and imazosulfuron intermediate in speed of action. Of the pyrimisulfan products, we have seen better yellow nutsedge control with Arkon compared to Vexis. One benefit of mesotrione is that it can be used at seeding time or on young stands of cool-season turf. The other products generally can only be used on established turf. We did a trial last year looking at the impact of simulated rainfall on yellow nutsedge control in our rain-out shelter. When we irrigated one hour or one day after a sulfentrazone application, we saw effective yellow nutsedge control, but control decreased when irrigation was withheld until one or two weeks after application. It appears root uptake is an important component of sulfentrazone's activity against yellow nutsedge and thus rain or irrigation is needed within a week after application. Halosulfuron gave excellent yellow nutsedge control, even when irrigation was withheld until one or two weeks after application. We often grow yellow nutsedge in containers for control trials to supplement what we do in the field. In one container trial, we collected yellow nutsedge tubers that formed after herbicide application. Tubers were much smaller when plants were treated with halosulfuron or pyrimisulfan compared to sulfentrazone. This should result in less competitive yellow nutsedge in subsequent growing seasons. Bentazon and sulfentrazone are much more effective on yellow compared to purple nutsedge. This shows why we need to identify these two species. One needs to address purple nutsedge differently than yellow nutsedge. Halosulfuron and imazosulfuron are equally effective on yellow and purple nutsedge. Work by other researchers suggests imazosulfuron is the most effective treatment for false green kyllinga (Dr. Matthew Elmore, Rutgers University). We also have seen good control of false green kyllinga with imazosulfuron. Sulfentrazone is sold in combination with other herbicides, such as with prodiamine under the trade name Echelon. Sulfentrazone is a component of combination herbicides Surge, Q4Plus, and Avenue South but the concentration of sulfentrazone is lower than in Dismiss, resulting in more suppression than control of yellow nutsedge. One will generally add some type of adjuvant to these postemergence herbicides. Nonionic surfactants are generally recommended for most of these chemicals but check the label for instructions on adjuvant addition. Addition of a methylated seed soil or crop oil concentrate may increase toxicity of certain chemicals to nutsedge, but also may increase the potential for crop injury especially under hot, humid conditions. Read the product label for specific directions on adjuvant use. Postemergence control in bermudagrass and zoysia A number of the products are the same for warm-season grasses as for cool-season grasses, but mesotrione is not listed as it injures bermudagrass. Certain products used for removing cool-season grasses from warm-season turf are effective for controlling sedges are added, including flazasulfuron, sulfosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron. Aethon was added to the warm-season list but not cool-season turf as it also contains penoxsulam, which can injure tall fescue. Along with pyrimisulfuron, imazaquin, flazasulfuron, sulfosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron are slower-acting herbicides since they are systemic in plants and travel to the growing points. Imazaquin has been less effective in our trials for yellow nutsedge control than the other herbicides listed. Flazasulfuron, halosulfuron, sulfosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron will control both yellow and purple nutsedge. Postemergence nutsedge control in ornamentals Around trees and shrubs, directed sprays of bentazon, halosulfuron, or sulfentrazone can be applied for yellow nutsedge control. Minimize contact with the leaves of the ornamentals. We do not have selective herbicides that can be sprayed overtop of ornamentals plants for sedge control. Nonselective herbicides, such as diquat, glufosinate, or glyphosate can be applied for sedge control if kept totally off ornamental plant leaves. A common question I receive is how to control emerged yellow nutsedge in liriope beds. We have seen injury from bentazon and halosulfuron, especially in variegated types, although plants outgrew the damage, and we observed reduced flowering from halosulfuron. Best to utilize preemergence applications of FreeHand to minimize the need for hand weeding or postemergence applications. Jeffrey Derr and Adam Nichols are based at Virginia Tech's Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Virginia Beach. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Give Yourself the Edge in Managing Sedges in Lawns and Landscape Beds appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights Turfgrass Council of North Carolina member Devin McCaffrey. Devin McCaffrey brings a straightforward philosophy to his work as Southeast Territory Manager for Performance Nutrition: help the land perform better while leaving it better than you found it. He works to deliver liquid and dry fertilizers, biostimulants, and a portfolio of plant health solutions spanning agriculture, turf, and ornamental markets. One of the biggest challenges in his work is differentiation. “Showing people what sets us apart from other fertility companies” is something Devin thinks about daily. His answer to that challenge is relationship-driven and focuses on getting in the room with the right people. “Being part of TCNC, and like organizations, aids in meeting like-minded professionals and navigating the industry,” he says. Devin also wants the public to understand something about the people who work in turfgrass. “We do our best to not be careless with what we put into the environment. Most people in the industry are avid hunters, fishers, golfers, nature people, and we want what we enjoy to be loved by generations to come.” That ethos aligns with one of the most encouraging shifts he’s seen in the industry over his career, “Less inputs to grass and a welcome response to natural and organic products, now that people understand them and see them work.” His reason for joining TCNC reflects the same values — being part of an organization that works to teach turf professionals and the community about sustainable turfgrass management. Away from work, Devin carries the discipline of a lifelong competitive swimmer. He swam at LSU. He also loves spending time with his beautiful family. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Member Spotlight on Devin McCaffrey appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features a message for VTC members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Written by Kati McCall, Water Supply Planner, Office of Water Supply, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality We are reaching out on behalf of DEQ's Water Supply Planning and Analysis team regarding the Virginia Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulation (9VAC25-200).1 This regulation requires users withdrawing groundwater or surface water in Virginia to report annual water withdrawals if withdrawals exceed 1 million gallons per month for crop irrigation purposes or 10,000 gallons per day for all other purposes (300,000 gallons per month). Users that fall below these thresholds or are otherwise exempted from the regulation are encouraged to report voluntarily. Water reporting data provided through the annual reporting process allows DEQ to better understand how water use throughout the Commonwealth impacts surface water and groundwater resources, evaluate whether current water sources can meet future needs, and protect beneficial uses. Water reporting data for 2026 is due to DEQ no later than January 31, 2027. In preparation for the 2026 reporting cycle, our team is conducting an initiative to increase registration of agricultural facilities across the Commonwealth through the distribution of targeted outreach materials. Water reporting data is considered in the development of regional water supply plans2 (required by 9VAC25-7803) and in the water withdrawal permitting process, which includes a simulation of total reported water use within the watershed. Increased availability of water reporting data from agricultural facilities may facilitate more accurate long-term planning of water resources by informing regional water demand projections for agriculture. Additionally, agricultural producers may benefit from reporting annual water withdrawals; a few potential benefits are: Increasing efficiency: comparing current withdrawals to reported withdrawals can provide insight into potential issues at the facility by identifying periods of unusual use (e.g., line breaks, leaks, and other water loss) Drought awareness: users who report withdrawals are notified when the Virginia Drought Monitoring Task Force4 establishes or expands drought advisories affecting their region, and as new drought-related tools developed by DEQ become available Documenting use: reporting annual water withdrawals is the best way to document use for the facility (e.g., when applying for a permit) Planning for the future: calculating and reporting annual water withdrawals may help users to predict and plan for future water needs (e.g., when expanding operations) We are hoping to partner with the Virginia Turfgrass Council, given your extensive network of agricultural producers, to increase awareness of the annual reporting process and potential benefits. Would you be willing to assist us with this initiative by sharing these targeted outreach materials with your network (e.g., through inclusion in an upcoming newsletter)? Outreach materials are available on DEQ's Agricultural Water Use Resource Center webpage5, including the Annual Water Withdrawal Reporting Agricultural Brochure6, the Water Estimation Tool for Agricultural Withdrawals7, and the Water Withdrawal Dashboard8. Folks may contact the water supply planner serving their region9 with any questions regarding the annual reporting process or associated outreach materials. Please let us know if you have any questions by calling (804) 350-4079. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post A Message for VTC Members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying” Written by Brooke Heikkila – Graduate Research Assistant Navdeep Godara – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass & Forage Weed Science, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University and Pawel Petelewicz – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass Weed Science, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agronomy Department Turfgrass managers are facing increasing weed challenges due to evolving regulatory framework and growing incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds. The release of the first turfgrass-specific commercial machine vision-guided sprayer (ALBA, Ecorobotix Inc.) enables automated and localized herbicide applications in turf. Although often referred to as “spot spraying” in marketing materials, “targeted spraying” is a more accurate description as it distinguishes this system from manual spot treatments and other existing precision weed management approaches. Such targeted application systems have already been successfully deployed in other crops using platforms such as the John Deere See and Spray, Agritech America WEED-IT, Verdant Robotics Sharp Shooter, Ecorobotix ARA. Using See and Spray technology, comparable weed control was observed between the broadcast and targeted spraying methods, but the targeted spraying reduced the treated acreage by up to two-thirds. In turfgrass, this technology not only offers significant herbicide savings but also opens the door for practitioners to combat herbicide-resistant weeds by incorporating alternative chemistries, including nonselective herbicides or herbicide tank mixtures combining multiple modes-of-action which are not typically feasible in broadcast applications. Overall, spot spraying is not a new concept, as many turfgrass managers already employ it to control weed escapes following broadcast herbicide applications or where selective chemistries are not an option. Manual spot spraying involves individuals walking the golf course or other turfgrass areas with a sprayer loaded with herbicide to make localized applications directly to weeds. Traditional spot spraying is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and requires applicators to accurately identify weeds, necessitating additional training and expertise. It ultimately increases application costs and is also prone to human error, often resulting in overapplication and missed weeds. However, targeted spraying systems such as ALBA, utilize artificial intelligence combined with machine vision to detect problematic weeds within turfgrass canopy in real-time to apply herbicides only to those small areas where individual weeds are present. ALBA is a tractor pull-behind unit that can operate at speeds up to 4.5 miles per hour and uses an enclosure to block ambient light and to create consistent lighting conditions to continuously scan the turfgrass canopy with its cameras to detect weeds. When a weed is spotted, an individual nozzle – one out of 108 – activates to directly target the weed with a 1.2 × 1.2-inch spray resolution per nozzle. As targeted application systems continue to advance and competing platforms emerge, it is critical to understand how to effectively integrate and leverage these sprayers within turfgrass weed management programs. Several preliminary field experiments using ALBA and its ARA-based predecessor research platform were conducted by the NC State Turfgrass Weed Science Program and the UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program to understand the applications of this technology. Preliminary studies showed that machine-vision guided targeted spraying substantially reduces herbicide usage and treated acreage while maintaining weed control efficacy, offering both economic and environmental benefits while targeting wide variety of problematic weeds with high accuracy. Reduction in Herbicide Volume Used – In a study focused on controlling false-green kyllinga in bermudagrass fairways, machine vision-guided targeted spraying with ALBA reduced herbicide spray volume by 77% compared to broadcast treatments. False green kyllinga cover was 17% at the experimental sites during study initiation, triggering significant savings due to the weed-specific, localized targeted treatments compared to broadcast herbicide applications. Broadcast applications of standard kyllinga control products typically cost around $190 to $240 per acre, but targeted treatment can lower the cost by more than $145 per acre even when dealing with moderate level of weed infestation (~15% weed cover). Similarly, in another ongoing study, when annual bluegrass weed cover was 10% in bermudagrass fairways, targeted applications achieved a 66% reduction in herbicide spray volume compared to conventional broadcast treatments. Sulfonylurea herbicides for postemergence control of annual bluegrass cost around $140 to $185 per acre and targeted spraying can reduce the cost by at least $92 per acre when weed cover is 10% or less. Practitioners can expect greater savings at turfgrass sites with lower weed infestations, which are typical of intensively managed surfaces and when applying expensive herbicides such as PoaCure or organic herbicides during winter dormancy of warm-season turfgrasses. Targeted application system was also evaluated for control of broadleaf weeds, dallisgrass, smooth crabgrass, and tropical signalgrass in studies conducted independently or in collaboration between Mississippi State University, NCSU, Virginia Tech and UF IFAS, and observed a 53% to 95% reduction in spray volume. In all the aforementioned cases, weed control levels achieved with targeted spraying were no different from broadcast applications. Thus, these studies demonstrate that, across various problematic weed species, this novel application system can substantially reduce the herbicide volume required, lowering costs without compromising weed control efficacy. Lower Treated Acreage – During broadcast herbicide applications, substantial areas without weeds are often treated unnecessarily. Targeted applications can reduce the treated acreage, enabling practitioners to use herbicides such as MSMA, which are currently restricted to spot treatments on less than 25% of the total golf course acreage per year. Targeted spraying systems are particularly useful for herbicides with limited or no residual activity, as it allows localized treatments to weed instead of broadcast applications to turfgrass. Targeted spraying for false-green kyllinga control (17% weed cover) in bermudagrass fairways resulted in 85% reduction in treated acreage compared to broadcast spraying. In a similar study, an 80% reduction in treated acreage was found when only treating annual bluegrass in dormant bermudagrass at 10% weed cover. A study conducted by UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program using circular, non-overlapping targets of varying patch sizes (4-10 cm diameter) to simulate random different weed densities and dispersions within the 1-20%, 21-40%, and 41-60% coverage, indicated total spray deposition of approximately 40%, 64%, and 74%, respectively. This corresponded to estimated herbicide savings of 60%, 36%, and 26%. Spray deposition increased with rising weed pressure, while the non-sprayed area, directly reflecting herbicide savings declined accordingly. These results confirm that variation in herbicide savings with targeted applications is driven primarily by weed density, with dispersion playing a secondary role, exerting stronger effects at low weed densities but negligible influence at higher densities. The reduction in treated acreage can potentially diminish the environmental impact of herbicides by minimizing overall pesticide load released into the environment, limiting off-target movement, reducing the risk of groundwater contamination, and lowering the risk of human exposure associated with pesticide applications. Targeted approaches permit treatment to a limited portion of turf, enabling the effective use of chemistries with area-use limitations. Effective reduction in area treated with targeted spraying will become increasingly important as new regulations come into effect, particularly in the context of upcoming Endangered Species Act-imposed changes. Therefore, research projects funded by the Turfgrass Council of North Carolina will focus on investigating the agronomic and environmental benefits of targeted application systems for managing problematic weed species. Alternative Herbicide Options for Resistance Management – Targeted spraying also enables selectivity at the sprayer level rather than relying only on selectivity of the herbicide used. This potentially allows turf managers to use nonselective herbicides that were previously not an option for broadcast treatment due to severe injury to actively growing turfgrasses. Broad spectrum herbicides like glyphosate, glufosinate, or flumioxazin are highly effective against a wide variety of weeds, but practitioners often wait for turfgrass to go dormant before spraying nonselective herbicides, while in some geographies, such as Florida, achieving full dormancy is not even possible. However, with this new technology, practitioners will have the option to incorporate nonselective herbicides year-round with minimal collateral damage to turfgrass. Glyphosate (Roundup Pro Concentrate) applied via broadcast application at 12 fluid ounces per acre rate reduced bermudagrass green cover significantly, but targeted spraying had similar level of green cover as nontreated plots as documented in our recent study. Likewise, glufosinate applied at 41 fluid ounces per acre (as Finale XL T&O) reduced bermudagrass cover drastically after broadcast application but had minimal effect on turfgrass after targeted spraying. Targeted spraying technology also allows use of novel admixtures that are not currently being used during regular turfgrass maintenance. Rotating or tank mixing herbicide from different modes of action are crucial for sustainable turfgrass management, as selection pressure for herbicide resistance continues to increase. For instance, practitioners can use tank mixtures of herbicides like pyridate + sulfentrazone or bentazon + halosulfuron + sulfentrazone for targeted spraying without compromising efficacy on false-green kyllinga. These novel admixtures contain multiple modes of action in a single application that could reduce selection pressure and combat herbicide-resistant kyllinga. Similar admixtures should be explored for the management of other herbicide-resistant or difficult-to-control weeds. Limitations – Like with any new technologies, there are limitations to consider when adopting a machine vision-guided sprayer. Currently, only one commercial unit (ALBA by Ecorobotix Inc.) is available, providing managers with a single option for this turfgrass-specific targeted spraying technology. Additional machine vision-guided sprayers need to be developed specifically for turfgrass systems, as interest in these technologies among turfgrass managers continues to grow and the needs across different turfgrass industry segments will vary. The cost of the equipment and the annual model subscription will be a major barrier for many turfgrass managers. Offering incentives, such as reduced subscription fees for the first few years, could help increase adoption of this technology. Alternatively, with ALBA being an example of a high-end solution maximizing performance and system sophistication, other developers may consider trade-offs to reduce equipment production and maintenance costs to improve accessibility. Although ALBA seems to demonstrate high detection accuracy on key problematic weeds, further research is needed to understand its year-round performance, considering changes in visual characteristics of weeds and turfgrass across growth stages and under varying environmental contexts. In our preliminary work, a few false positives occasionally led to herbicide applications to weed-free turfgrass. Also, we observed that in situations where weed presence (particularly grassy weeds) in the camera's path exceeded that of turfgrass, the detection system became confused, effectively reversing target and background and treating turfgrass instead of the weed. However, developers are actively addressing these shortcomings and performance of targeted applications systems by continuing to improve imagery databases, training and validation across diverse geographical regions and management contexts. There is no doubt that machine vision-guided sprayers will have a transformative impact on the turfgrass industry, however, extension efforts will be critical for adoption. Also, as this technology is still novel for turfgrass systems, ongoing research and development is critical to improve performance, reliability, and to meet industry needs. Among others, further research is needed to evaluate performance under varying travel speeds, expand applications to targeted residual treatments, and refine application thresholds to maximize herbicide savings. Authors acknowledge the Turfgrass Council of North Carolina for sponsoring ongoing research projects focused on leveraging targeted application devices for weed management in NC turfgrass systems. The authors also thank Ecorobotix Inc. for providing a commercial unit for evaluation. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort” After five decades of advancing the turfgrass profession in Maryland, the 50th Annual Maryland Turfgrass Council (MTC) Conference convened on December 16, 2025, at the scenic Turf Valley Resort. The event marked a major milestone for our Council in celebrating half a century of education, innovation, and collaboration across all sectors of the turf industry. A Full Day of Learning and Networking Attendees were welcomed with a breakfast beside the Trade Show, where sponsors showcased the latest tools, products, and services serving the turfgrass community. After a warm welcome and the annual meeting, the program shifted into a series of breakout education sessions tailored to lawn and landscape, sports turf, and golf course professionals. Members, industry professionals, sponsors, and exhibitors gathered to share insights, tackle challenges, and explore emerging technologies shaping turf management today. A special thanks to the conference sponsors; Harrells, Corteva, Landscape Supply, Nutrien Ag Solutions, Quantico Creek Sod Farms, Pocono Turf, SiteOne, and Green Industries. Education Opportunities The 2025 conference featured a dynamic lineup of speakers and panel discussions addressing cutting-edge topics: A technology panel sparking conversation on how robotics and AI are impacting turfgrass operations, reflecting innovations rapidly entering the industry. Sessions exploring new and persistent turf diseases, advancements in application technologies, and precision turfgrass management. Expert insights on managing pest pressures, optimizing root zone environments, and improving efficiency in integrated pest management approaches. Each session delivered practical takeaways and research-based strategies that turf managers can apply through the coming season. The Turfgrass Community Central to the MTC mission is strengthening connections across our profession, and this year was no exception. Whether catching up with colleagues between sessions, discussing solutions with exhibitors on the Trade Show floor, or sharing a meal during a lively lunch break, the conference fostered engagement at every turn. Looking Ahead This 50th Conference celebration was a testament to the enduring spirit of Maryland's turfgrass professionals whose work shapes landscapes, recreational spaces, and playing fields across the state. As we reflect on this milestone year, we also look forward to building on this legacy at future gatherings and continuing to raise the standard of excellence in our industry. Please mark your calendars for the 2026 Maryland Turfgrass Conference on December 15th, 2026. We look forward to seeing everyone there for the 51st year. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Creative Membership Models for Private Clubs” written by Larry Hirsh for golfprop.com and read from Virginia Turfgrass Journal. Among the intriguing elements of the private club world are the various membership models that exist. Of course, there are equity, where the members own the club and non-equity, where an investor owns the club; but within each category there are numerous variations. Clubs exhibit a wide variety of operating models, typically designed to suit their market, economics and their club culture. Of late, a lot of the “news” in the private club world has come from the newly developed, uber upscale clubs often with entrance fees well into six figures, or even seven. Some have a partial refundability element, and as one might expect are very exclusive. However, of those I've encountered of late, I'd like to focus on a few I find intriguing as ways to help grow the game, encourage club membership and broaden golf's appeal. Most contradict the concept of exclusivity that many clubs seek, but such exclusivity isn't always for the best, either economically or socially. Of interest in resort and vacation areas is the model I've encountered whereby placing your vacation home in the rental pool entitles the owner to a substantial discount on dues and guests and extended family members discounts on golf and other fees. Obviously, this creates financial incentive for property owners to participate by reducing club dues but of course exposes the property owner to (usually short term) tenants and the risks inherent in same. With resort guests/renters also having access to club facilities, exclusivity is limited, however clubs with a variant of this model typically establish privileges, preferences, access or activities exclusive to members to establish and cultivate a culture of membership. Among the more unique membership models I've (recently) heard about is one residential golf community club where resident members join the club but pay their initiation fee upon the sale of their home. Another model which I've always found of interest is that often found in Scotland and other areas of the United Kingdom and Europe where even top clubs are much more inclusive than many in the US and rely on visitor fees for much of their revenue. The benefits of this model are that membership dues are maintained at more nominal levels, and the culture of the club is quite different than many elite clubs in the US. As Royal Dornoch General Manager Neil Hampton wrote in the club's recent newsletter, “What I have always enjoyed about Royal Dornoch is that it is an inclusive club. There are so many different facets to the club, yet everyone comes together as one and has fun with each other. We have visitors playing seven days a week and invite them to share our courses and clubhouse just as we do. I think it is wonderful and epitomizes the Highland way, that we do not have separate areas for members or visitors and everyone mixes together, sharing their experiences.” Privileged to be a member at Royal Dornoch, I agree with his comments. I'm sure there are many more I'm not yet familiar with. One thing I've always maintained is that every club needs to know what it wants to be. To some, golf (especially club membership) is a status symbol, to others it's an “everyman's” game. At some clubs, one's net worth is estimated halfway down the first fairway. Each club establishes, develops and maintains its own culture and that is often dictated by the extent of the club rule book which in turn can often determine the membership models for the club. At some clubs the financial commitment alone excludes many. At others it's social status or heritage. At more inclusive clubs the membership is typically much more diverse. One of the most creative membership models more prominent in past years was the refundable deposit where the member was entitled to the return of his entrance fee after a specified period of time or upon resignation based on certain conditions. While still available at some clubs, this option is quite sensitive (for the club) to economic fluctuations and fell out of favor in the pre-COVID period from 2000–2020 when the golf/club industry was experiencing challenging times. Whether this experiences a resurgence will be interesting to see. I've always fallen back on the definition of “club”. Webster's dictionary most relevant and simple definition of a club is: to unite or combine for a common cause. At the clubs we're talking about, that basically means social and athletic activities. Sometimes it's much more complex than that. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Creative Membership Models for Private Clubs appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Students Shine at National Turf Bowl Competition” College Park, Md. — Students from the University of Maryland (UMD) placed fourth out of 79 teams at this year's Turf Bowl, an intercollegiate academic competition that tests students' technical and professional knowledge of the turfgrass industry. The Turf Bowl challenges students in a wide range of subject areas, including turfgrass management, pest management, and soil science. To prepare for this highly competitive contest, Geoff Rinehart, lecturer in turfgrass management at the Institute of Applied Agriculture (IAA), and his team of students met weekly during the fall semester, reviewing material the students learned in classes and doing practice quizzes. “This is extra learning and extra preparation that's going to help them professionally,” said Rinehart. “They are getting deeper exposure to the material and learning how to work as a team under pressure.” The strong performance earned the team $8,000 in prize money, which will be reinvested into student professional development, including travel to future conferences and competitions. “It feels great to know that our team played a role in the future education of turfgrass students,” said Owen Scott. Several team members mentioned how proud they felt knowing their hard work paid off. “The most rewarding part of competing was being able to work as a team and working through problems with contrasting viewpoints and coming to a consensus that we all agree on,” said Carson Thomas. “I felt like I learned new things within the turf industry from my teammates as well as new perspectives from different golf courses and sports facilities.” The team lauded the support that they received from the faculty and administrators at the IAA. “None of this would have been possible without the help of Geoffrey Rinehart, Joe Poulas, and Carole Dingess who all contributed to the organization and studying that led up to the Turf Bowl competition,” said Owen Scott. The recognition is particularly meaningful for a smaller program competing against nationally prominent universities. “It puts Maryland on the national map,” said Rinehart. “That kind of recognition is good for our students, our college, and the program as a whole.” You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Students Shine at National Turf Bowl Competition appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “How Should Fertility be Used to Manage Brown Patch Disease in Tall Fescue Lawns?” written by Dr. Brandon Horvath, Professor and Turfgrass Pathologist, University of Tennessee Plant Sciences. Tall fescue is a prominent lawn grass choice especially in the Middle and Eastern Tennessee regions where cool-season turfgrasses are more prevalently used. Brown patch, caused by Rhizoctonia solani, is the most damaging pathogen affecting tall fescue lawns throughout Tennessee. This fungal disease can transform a lush, vibrant lawn into a patchy, unsightly expanse when conditions favor disease development. While fungicide applications are often necessary for severe outbreaks, proper fertility management serves as the foundation of an effective preventative strategy. Fertility practices directly influence plant health, disease susceptibility, and recovery potential. Unfortunately, many common fertilization practices can actually make the problem worse. Supported by several years of research findings, we have recently employed a different approach that maintains some growth turfgrass potential via fertility that enables infected plants to recover following disease pressure. Understanding the relationship between fertility inputs and disease development will allow lawn care professionals to implement proactive management programs that reduce disease severity while maintaining a quality turfgrass stand. This article explains how different fertility approaches affect brown patch in tall fescue lawns and provides practical ideas for turfgrass managers to implement these approaches in a lawn care setting. Understanding Brown Patch Disease Pathogen Biology and Life Cycle Rhizoctonia solani is a soilborne fungal pathogen that is present in most turfgrass environments. The fungus survives unfavorable periods as mycelia in thatch and soil. Under specific environmental conditions, primarily with high temperature and humidity, the fungus becomes active and begins to attack the plant. In tall fescue, R. solani primarily infects the leaf blades and sheaths, creating lesions that eventually result in a circular “patch” appearance. The fungus spreads via mycelial growth, moving from plant to plant through direct contact. Unlike other turfgrass diseases, brown patch does not spread via spores. Environmental Triggers in Tennessee Tennessee's climate creates ideal conditions for brown patch development during much of the main growing season. The Brown Patch pathogen becomes active in response to: Temperature thresholds: Nighttime temperatures that consistently remain above 65 degrees Fahrenheit with daytime temperatures between 80 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit. These conditions typically develop in TN from mid-May through September, sometimes persisting into October. Humidity factors: Relative humidity that exceeds 80 percent greatly increases infection rates. Our humid summer climate, especially during nighttime, will frequently exceed this threshold. Leaf wetness: Extended leaf wetness periods of 10 plus hours dramatically increases infection rates. Evening irrigation practices, frequent summer thunderstorms, and morning dew are common in Tennessee and contribute to this risk factor. So, it is under these conditions that the plant becomes most susceptible to fungal attack and infection. Historically, conditions coincide with timing of when recommendations suggest backing off on fertility applications to allow the plant to “harden off”. However, our work has shown that a plant that is not able to actively recover will be in a worse position as multiple rounds of disease take place and decimate the stand. Nitrogen Management and Brown Patch Susceptibility Nitrogen is the most important nutrient for proper turfgrass growth, and there is a direct and significant impact on nitrogen management with brown patch susceptibility in tall fescue. Traditionally, research has shown that water-soluble, quick-release nitrogen sources (such as urea, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium nitrate) significantly increase brown patch severity compared to slow-release formulations. The main reason for this effect has been that at higher doses, the plant grows more rapidly, resulting in a thinner cuticle and lush, succulent growth. Modern practices, however, allow for much lower application rates of N fertility, and a spoon-feeding approach can often improve turfgrass performance. Using controlled-release nitrogen sources like polymer-coated urea will deliver nitrogen more gradually, which in turn will reduce disease-prone succulent growth while maintaining adequate plant growth for recovery. This relationship is really the key to using fertility to help manage the damage caused by brown patch. Ideally, the turfgrass manager wants the plant to grow just enough that when conditions aren't conducive for disease, the plant will grow out of the symptoms and recovery will take place. When that condition exists, the turfgrass plants will be capable that when exposed to another disease cycle, some damage will occur, yet recovery will again take place. Application Rate and Timing Under-fertilizing a turfgrass stand or lawn is much more common today than over-fertilizing. As long as the applicator avoids excessive nitrogen application during high-risk periods, one of the most common fertility mistakes that often leads to more severe brown patch outbreaks can be avoided. By providing the plant with “just enough” fertility, the need for plant growth can be balanced with not overstimulating the pathogen's ability to attack. I began to change my own perspectives on these recommendations about a decade ago, when some of our research clearly demonstrated that having moderate fertility applied during the growing season led to lower brown patch severity and also a decrease in undesirable competition from bermudagrass encroachment. As a result, I began making some adjustments in my recommendations on fertility: Late Spring (April to May): Limit applications to 0 point 5 to 0 point seven five pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet using primarily slow-release sources as temperatures begin to approach the brown patch threshold. Alternatively, one could use a very slow-release poly coat urea, that would provide approximately 3 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet for the April to August Period (approximately 20 weeks) Summer (June to August): Make low rate applications (0 point 1 to 0 point 2 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet; approximately point 6 to 1 point 2 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet total for 3 months) during the highest risk brown patch season. These applications are made to just maintain some turfgrass growth and recovery potential without sparking lush succulent growth. Slow-release sources can also be used. Early Fall (September): Use fertilization at 0 point seven five to 1 point oh pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet as temperatures moderate to focus on turfgrass recovery from summer stress and disease pressure. Late Fall (October to November): Apply 1 point oh to 1 point 5 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet, emphasizing root development and carbohydrate storage. In total, here in Tennessee, managers should target about 4 to 5 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet per year for a quality Tall Fescue lawn. Making these slight adjustments in how we fertilize will help reduce the damage caused by disease while allowing for turfgrass recovery throughout the season, maintaining turf quality. Conclusion Effective brown patch management in tall fescue lawns requires an “all-hands” approach centered around proper fertility practices. By understanding the relationship between nutrition and disease development, lawn care professionals can significantly reduce brown patch severity while maintaining acceptable turf quality. Key takeaways include: Timing is critical: Avoid quick release, high rate, nitrogen applications during high-risk periods (June to August in Tennessee) Source matters: Use slow-release sources to smooth out nitrogen release over time mimicking a low rate “spoon feeding” approach Integrate approaches: Coordinate fertility with appropriate cultural practices and if needed, fungicide interventions Prevention focus: Implement proactive programs rather than reactive treatments Using these research-based fertility practices, I'm confident that turfgrass and grounds managers can significantly reduce the impact of brown patch in client and home landscapes while promoting healthier, more resilient tall fescue lawns. The post How Should Fertility be Used to Manage Brown Patch Disease in Tall Fescue Lawns? appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. On this episode we preview presentations and activities for the procrastinators recertification seminar on June 11, 2026 in Maryland. Introductory comments are from 8:00 AM to 8:10 AM with moderator Dr. Carroll. From 8:10 AM to 9:00 AM will be a presentation titled “Thinking Outside the Chemical Box: Prospects for Alternative Approaches to Weed Management in Turf” by Dr. Daniel Buonaiuto, Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland. For the past half century, the field of weed science has been focused on chemically managing noxious weeds and invasive plants. While this focus has led to useful advances in weed control, it has also given rise to herbicide resistant weed genotypes and increased incidences of negative environmental and health impacts. Scientists are calling for a new weed science research agenda focused on integrating chemical control with mechanical, cultural and biological management approaches, but new research agendas take time, and the weeds are growing right now. In this session we'll survey the tools and techniques that are available right now that can aid turf professionals in managing problematic weeds with fewer chemicals. We'll also discuss the potential for practitioner-research partnerships to rapidly advance our collective expertise in integrated weed management in turfgrass systems. From 9:00 AM to 9:50 AM will be a presentation titled “Improving Dollar Spot Control While Reducing Fungicide Inputs” by Mr. Uday Kumar, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture. Dollar spot is the most common and costly disease on golf course fairways in the Mid-Atlantic region, and most courses rely heavily on calendar-based fungicide programs to keep it in check. This presentation covers two practical, research-backed approaches that can help superintendents get better control while reducing the number of sprays applied each season. Three years of field trials at the University of Maryland showed that timing fungicide applications using the Smith–Kerns dollar spot prediction model at the 20% threshold provided the same level of control as a standard 14-day calendar program while reducing applications by two to four sprays per season. In addition, nightly UVC irradiation delivered by an autonomous mower consistently suppressed dollar spot in lab, greenhouse, and field conditions. When UVC was combined with fungicides at 28-day intervals, turf quality remained acceptable while significantly reducing chemical inputs. Together, these tools offer a more precise and sustainable approach to dollar spot management on golf course fairways. Presentations will break from 9:50 AM to 10:00 AM then resume with a presentation titled “IPM Strategies for Ornamental Landscape Diseases” from 10:00 AM to 10:50 AM presented by Dr. David Clement, Plant Pathologist, University of Maryland Extension. Many landscape ornamental diseases require early diagnosis for effective management. Scouting is critical to finding symptoms early. This presentation will cover the common diseases in Maryland landscapes along with key diagnostic symptoms coupled with Integrated Pest Management strategies. From 10:50 AM to 11:40 AM Mr. Geoffrey Rinehart, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Applied Agriculture, University of Maryland will present “Fertilizer Product Selection and Nanotechnology Use in Fertilizer Programs” This presentation will provide information about what nanotechnology is and how it is being researched to improve the efficiency and efficacy of turf fertilizers and plant protectant products. In addition, this talk will encompass an overview of the major nitrogen fertilizer sources and their respective release characteristics. Timings for utilizing various major fertilizer sources for improved turfgrass health and effective nitrogen utilization will be discussed. From 11:40 AM to 12:30 PM Dr. Mark Carroll. Associate Professor, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland will present “Organic Lawn Care: Principles, Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland” Synthetic fertilizers and pesticide treatments are often the primary chemical inputs in conventional lawn care; however, growing human health and environmental concerns have many homeowners seeking lawn care programs that are marketed as Natural or Organic. Natural and Organic programs emphasize the use of materials and practices that enrich soil organic matter and promote presence of organisms perceived to be beneficial to promoting plant health. This presentation will review the principles underlying an organic approach to turfgrass management and will provide an overview of the materials being used by lawn care operators in Maryland that offer organic or natural lawn care services. Difficulties in adhering to organic precepts when offering an organic or natural lawn care program will also be discussed. From 12:30 PM to 1:15 PM the presentations will break for lunch and resume with a presentation titled “Pesticide and Fertilizer Spray Calibration Field Demonstration” from 1:15 PM to 2:00 PM by Steve Holman, Paint Branch Turfgrass Facility Research Technician. For additional information about the event visit the Maryland Turfgrass Council website at www.mdturfcouncil.org You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Presentations and Activities for Procrastinators Recertification Seminar appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers the business behind the green with the article “How to Price Your Services for Profit” written by Kristina Kelly. When it comes to running a turfgrass business, your work is rooted in results. Healthy lawns, properly installed sod, and satisfied customers are the visible signs of success. And behind every vibrant blade of grass is a business owner making daily decisions that impact their bottom line. One of the most important? Pricing. Setting the right price for your services can feel like trying to hit a moving target. Charge too little, and you're leaving money on the table or risking your ability to sustain operations. Charge too much, and you might struggle to stay competitive in your market. Whether you're a seasoned professional or new to the industry, understanding how to price your services for profit is key to long-term stability and growth. Know Your True Costs Before setting any price, you need to understand what it actually costs to deliver your services. That means looking beyond just materials and labor. Your total cost should include direct and indirect expenses, such as: Labor wages, including payroll taxes and workers' compensation Equipment maintenance, fuel, and depreciation Material costs, like sod, seed, fertilizer, and irrigation supplies Insurance, licenses, and permits Office overhead, marketing, and administrative costs If you're only calculating based on materials and hourly labor, you may be unintentionally operating at a loss. Developing a simple spreadsheet or using job-costing software can help you track these figures and understand your cost per service. This step lays the foundation for profitable pricing. Factor in Your Desired Profit Margin Once you know your costs, it's time to add your profit margin. This isn't greedy. It's necessary. Profit allows you to reinvest in your business, build a financial cushion, and pay yourself a fair wage as the owner. A healthy net profit margin in service industries typically ranges from 10 to 20 percent, though it may vary based on your service mix and market. For example, if it costs you $2,000 to complete a sod installation job, and you want a 20 percent profit margin, your price should be at least $2,500. Many business owners make the mistake of only charging enough to cover costs, which can lead to financial stress or burnout down the road. Understand the Market (But Don't Let It Dictate Your Value) Knowing what competitors charge is important, but it shouldn't be your only reference point. Pricing strictly to match or undercut the competition can turn into a race to the bottom. Instead, use market research to understand the range of prices in your area, and then position yourself based on the value you provide. If your work is high quality, your team is reliable, and you offer responsive customer service, you don't need to be the cheapest option. Instead, you can charge what you're worth and attract customers who recognize and value professionalism. That might mean saying no to some price-sensitive clients, but it will help you build a stronger, more sustainable client base in the long run. Avoid the Temptation of Flat-Rate Guesswork It can be tempting to offer flat-rate pricing to simplify your quotes, but this approach can backfire if it's not backed by data. Every job is different, and variables like square footage, site conditions, soil prep, and access points can dramatically affect your costs. If you rely on gut instinct or round numbers to quote jobs, you may end up underbidding without realizing it. Instead, develop a pricing model based on per-square-foot or per-hour rates that can be customized to each job. This approach also helps you educate your clients and show transparency in your pricing. Build in a Buffer for Risk and Rework Not every job goes according to plan. Weather delays, equipment breakdowns, and last-minute client changes can eat into your profitability. When calculating your price, include a small buffer to account for the unexpected. This might be an extra percentage added to your labor costs or a built-in contingency fee. Additionally, consider how you'll handle rework or warranty issues. If you offer a guarantee on sod establishment or turf health, make sure that's reflected in your pricing structure. It's better to plan for these scenarios than to absorb the cost later. Your pricing shouldn't be static. Costs increase over time, and so should your rates. Review your pricing annually (or more frequently if you experience major changes in labor or material costs). Communicate price increases clearly and professionally with clients and reinforce the value they receive. Most customers understand that inflation and industry dynamics affect pricing, especially if they trust the quality of your work. Regular reviews can also help you identify services that may no longer be profitable, or spot opportunities to package offerings in a way that increases revenue. Package and Upsell Strategically One way to boost profitability is by offering bundled services or strategic upsells. For example, if you're installing sod, you could offer irrigation system checks, soil testing, or seasonal fertilization packages. These added services not only increase the overall value of a job, but they also help position your business as a comprehensive turf solution provider. Clients often appreciate a “one-stop shop” approach, especially when it simplifies their to-do list and increases the success of their lawn or landscape investment. Know When to Walk Away Finally, remember that not every job is the right fit. If a prospective client pressures you to lower your price or match a competitor's rate without understanding the difference in service quality, it may be best to politely walk away. Saying no to low-margin work frees up your time and resources for jobs that are actually profitable. It takes confidence and discipline, but walking away from the wrong clients is just as important to your bottom line as securing the right ones. Pricing Done Right Pricing is one of the most important decisions you make as a turfgrass professional and business owner. It requires a clear understanding of your costs, an honest evaluation of your value, and the willingness to protect your profit margins. When done right, pricing becomes more than a number on a quote—it becomes a reflection of your professionalism and the foundation of a thriving business. By taking a thoughtful, data-driven approach to pricing, you'll not only ensure the health of your business but also earn the trust and loyalty of clients who see the value in what you do. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post How to Price Your Services for Profit appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Minimizing Spring Dead Spot” written by M. Aaron Tucker, Assistant Professor, Auburn University and Wendell J. Hutchens, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas. Introduction Spring Dead Spot (SDS) is one of the most persistent and damaging diseases affecting warm-season turfgrasses that undergo winter dormancy. First documented in 1954 on a bermudagrass lawn in Stillwater, Oklahoma, SDS continues to challenge turf managers across the southern and transition zone of the United States (Wadsworth & Young, 1960; Tredway, 2009). This article outlines the biology of the disease, key infection periods, and the latest cultural and chemical strategies for effective management. Pathogen Biology SDS is caused by soil-borne fungi in the genus Ophiosphaerella, specifically O. herpotricha, O. korrae, and O. narmari. These pathogens differ in geographic distribution and turfgrass host preference. In Alabama, O. korrae is likely the most prevalent species (Hutchens et al., 2025). Disease Cycle and Symptoms The fungi that cause Spring Dead Spot are ectotrophic root-infecting pathogens, colonizing the outer surfaces of roots, rhizomes, and stolons, leading to necrosis. This damage predisposes turfgrass to winter injury, with symptoms emerging in spring due to the combined effects of fall infection and harsh winter conditions. SDS is a monocyclic disease, with a single infection cycle per year. Infection occurs in late summer to early fall, when evening temperatures cool and soil temperatures drop consistently below 70°F. Symptoms appear in spring as circular or semi-circular patches of dead turf, ranging from six inches to several feet in diameter. Severe outbreaks can result in large, coalesced areas of turf loss, with recovery taking two to three months after green-up—making proactive management essential. Cultural Management Strategies Effective cultural management hinges on understanding the disease's biology. Thatch and organic matter serve as reservoirs for pathogen survival. Practices such as core aerification, verticutting, and fraze mowing during the summer remove thatch and dilute organic matter, thereby reducing inoculum and mitigating spring symptoms (Hutchens et al., 2025). Conversely, cultural practices such as verticutting and aerification on symptomatic turf in spring can actually hinder recovery. Mechanical stress on already damaged turf slows regrowth, so spring cultivation should be avoided. Proper fertilization, particularly nitrogen applications in late summer/fall and spring, supports plant health and recovery (Tredway, 2021; Hutchens et al., 2022). Ammonium sulfate has shown efficacy against O. herpotricha, while calcium nitrate is more effective against O. korrae—highlighting the importance of pathogen identification (Tredway, 2021). Chemical Management Strategies Chemical control with fungicides is most effective when timed correctly. Applications should occur during fall as soil temperatures drop consistently between 65-55°F. Current research is refining this window using the Battaglia-Hutchens cooling degree-day model to optimize timing (Battaglia et al., 2024). The modern demethylation-inhibiting (DMI) fungicide mefentrifluconazole offers strong SDS suppression, while older DMIs like propiconazole and tebuconazole provide moderate efficacy (Clarke et al., 2020). Select succinate dehydrogenase-inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides—like isofetamid, penthiopyrad, and pydiflumetofen—also provide excellent control but carry a higher risk of resistance. Rotating SDHIs with DMIs is recommended to preserve efficacy. Precision Application Technologies Advancements in GPS-guided sprayers allow for targeted fungicide applications. Mapping disease areas in spring and early summer enables precise fall fungicide treatments, reducing both cost and environmental impact (Booth et al., 2021; Henderson et al., 2025). Conclusion Understanding pathogen biology, the disease cycle, and optimal application timing is essential for managing SDS. Continued research is uncovering pathogen-specific responses to cultural and chemical strategies, offering promising avenues for more refined and effective control. Literature Cited Battaglia, M., Hutchens, W. J., & Roberson, T. (2024, November). Development of a Fungicide Application Timing Model for Spring Dead Spot Using Cooling Degree-Days. In ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting. ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Booth, J. C., Sullivan, D., Askew, S. A., Kochersberger, K., & McCall, D. S. (2021). Investigating targeted spring dead spot management via aerial mapping and precision-guided fungicide applications. Crop Science, 61(5), 3134-3144. Clarke, B. B., Vincelli, P., Koch, P., & Chou, M. Y. (2020). Chemical control of turfgrass diseases 2024. Henderson, C., Haak, D., Mehl, H., Shafian, S., & McCall, D. (2025). Precision mapping and treatment of spring dead spot in bermudagrass using unmanned aerial vehicles and global navigation satellite systems sprayer technology. Precision Agriculture, 26(2), 38. Hutchens, W. J., Booth, J. C., Goatley, J. M., & McCall, D. S. (2022). Cultivation and Fertility Practices Influence Hybrid Bermudagrass Recovery from Spring Dead Spot Damage. HortScience, 57(2), 332-336. Hutchens, W. J., Anders, J. K., Butler, E. L., Kerns, J. P., McCall, D. S., Miller, G. L., & Walker, N. R. (2025). Fifteen years of findings: Advancements in spring dead spot research from 2009 to 2024. Crop Science, 65(1), e21367. Tredway, L. P., Tomaso-Peterson, M., Perry, H., & Walker, N. R. (2009). Spring dead spot of bermudagrass: A challenge for researchers and turfgrass managers. Plant Health Progress, 10(1), 32. Tredway, L. P., Soika, M. D., Butler, E. L., & Kerns, J. P. (2021). Impact of nitrogen source, fall fertilizers, and preventive fungicides on spring dead spot caused by Ophiosphaerella korrae and O. herpotricha. Crop Science, 61(5), 3187-3196. Wadsworth, D. F., & Young, H. C. (1960). Spring dead spot of bermudagrass. Plant Dis. Rep, 44, 516-518. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Minimizing Spring Dead Spot appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights New England Sports Field Management Association member Ryan Restivo – Parks Superintendent for the Town of New Canaan Parks Department in New Canaan, Connecticut. Read from New England Blade magazine. How did you get your start in the sports field industry? I've always had a passion for sports, the outdoors, and hard work. During high school and the early part of my collegiate career, I worked at a renowned golf course in Darien, Connecticut—Weeburn Country Club. I later joined Superintendent Doug Drugo and his grounds crew, where I gained hands-on experience maintaining high-level playing surfaces. That opportunity, combined with my love for sports, ultimately kickstarted my path into the turfgrass and sports field industry. Where did you go from there? That passion led me to earn a degree in Plant Sciences with a concentration in Turfgrass Management, along with a minor in General Business, from the University of Rhode Island. Along the way, I had the opportunity to work with outstanding teams, including the Weeburn Country Club grounds crew, the Gillette Stadium field crew, and the USGA at both the 2019 U.S. Junior Amateur and the 2024 U.S. Senior Open Championships. Those experiences helped shape my approach to turf management and Parks and Recreation operations. Today, I serve as the Superintendent for the Town of New Canaan Parks Department. Who was your mentor when you were first starting out in the industry, and why? Other than my family and the work ethic they instilled in me, one of my most influential mentors was—and still is—Joshua Bergeron. Josh, who is three years older than me, was a fellow URI Turfgrass Management student and followed a very similar career path in both golf course and sports field management. After graduating, Josh found success on the Gillette Stadium Field Crew before moving on to a different career path. Along with Field Crew Superintendent Jon Bengtson, Josh gave me the opportunity to intern with the Gillette Stadium Field Crew. To my younger self, that opportunity felt like a dream come true; to my adult self, it reinforced the belief that with hard work and the right opportunities, anything is possible. In addition to Josh, I've been fortunate to learn from all of my professors at URI, as well as the many golf course and sports field professionals who have guided me throughout my career. What's the best business advice you've ever received? While it's not strictly business advice, the best guidance I've ever received is a saying I try to live by: “Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” — Mark Twain What is the next “game-changer” you see on the horizon for the sports turf industry? The next major game-changer in the sports turf industry is the continued advancement of automated and GPS-based technology. Innovations such as automated paint machines and GPS-guided sprayers promote greater precision, reduce misapplications, and allow operators to focus more on detail and quality in their day-to-day work. While skilled labor remains essential and in high demand, advanced technology enables sports turf managers to be more accurate and consistent with field layouts and applications. I've had first-hand experience using automated paint machines, and I've seen how they improve efficiency and consistency. What's your favorite / most useful: Equipment? Ventrac 4520 & various attachments Product? Seed Technology? Tiny Mobile Robot Paint Machine What advice would you share with people starting out in sports field management today? My advice is to always ask questions and say yes to opportunities—as long as they're safe. Don't be afraid to ask supervisors and peers for clarification and make it a priority to understand the why behind everything you do. Ask yourself questions like, “Why am I applying this product?” “What is its mode of action?” or “Why am I doing it this way—and is there a more efficient approach?” Opportunities often come when you least expect them, and growth happens when you step outside your comfort zone. If you're hesitant but know the opportunity is safe, go for it. I can promise you that you'll gain something valuable from the experience. Can you share a bit about your family life and / or what you enjoy doing in your free time? Family is everything to me. I come from a big family and am the youngest of three, and growing up, our lives revolved around sports and work. Those experiences helped shape who I am today. I consider myself a pretty simple guy—I enjoy spending time with my fiancée, Elizabeth, and with our families and friends. I like staying active and competitive, even if it's through what I jokingly call “old man sports” like golf, cornhole, and pickleball. I also enjoy work-related and at-home projects. I see them as challenges that keep me engaged, help me continue learning, and contribute to improvements I can apply both professionally and in my day-to-day life. What have you enjoyed most / find most beneficial about being a New England Sports Field Management Association member? The most beneficial aspect of being a New England Sports Field Management Association member is the networking opportunities it provides. For newer members—those with five years of experience or less—it opens the door to the knowledge and insight of seasoned industry veterans. We can all admit that we've made mistakes and learned through trial and error, and having access to experienced professionals allows us to ask questions, learn more efficient ways to perform tasks and make better-informed decisions. That networking also encourages the exchange of ideas, exposure to new technologies, and honest discussions about what works—and what doesn't. It's an invaluable resource that helps professionals at every stage of their career continue to grow and adapt. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post NE-SFMA Member Spotlight on Ryan Restivo appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Influence of Management on the Microbiome of Turfgrass Systems” By Benjamin Snell, Graduate Student at North Carolina State University. Home lawns, golf courses, and athletic fields account for the majority of the turf industry. A considerable amount of research has been conducted within these areas of the industry, with a primary focus on management strategies. Improving management strategies is crucial for turf managers to produce high-quality turf that is economically and environmentally sustainable. One area within the turfgrass industry where knowledge is limited is the impact of these management strategies on the soil microbiome. Previous research has demonstrated the benefits and importance of these microorganisms for plant health. Multiple claims have been made that organic products promote microbial growth, whereas traditional products, such as pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, can negatively affect these microorganisms. With the development and release of new molecular tools, more scientific conclusions can be drawn. Understanding whether and how turf management affects the soil microbiome is crucial for turf managers to sustain high-quality turf and maintain a beneficial soil microbiome. To understand the influence of different management practices on soil microbiomes, a trial was designed to simulate a typical home lawn management plan, with treatments using traditional synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and others using OMRI-approved organic products. This trial was conducted at Lake Wheeler Turfgrass Research and Education Center in two popular homeowner grasses, zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp. Willd.) and tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.)). Turfgrass quality, soil physical and chemical properties, and the soil microbiome have been measured for each treatment over the last year and will be measured for the final time two years after the initial sampling. The soil microbiome was characterized by extracting DNA from soil samples and submitting it for 16S/ITS sequencing. Using the raw sequencing reads, Qiime2 was used to identify the fungi and bacteria present in the trial. Soil samples were also collected from golf courses and athletic fields to determine how these management styles affect microbial communities. These samples include looking at creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) putting greens and athletic fields in North Carolina. The samples from these have been collected once and will be collected again one year after the initial sampling for comparison. Visual data from the trials, focusing on the differences between organic and conventional management strategies, have been analyzed. After one year of treatments, a significant difference in turfgrass quality was observed among treatments in the tall fescue trial under disease pressure. Turfgrass quality is rated on a scale of 1-9, with one being the lowest and nine the highest. The highest turf quality was observed in the treatment that received both synthetic fertilizer and pesticides, which was significantly higher than the organic treatments, the synthetic fertilizer-only treatment (no fungicide applied), and the non-treated control. In the presence of disease, organic treatments, synthetic fertilizer-only treatments, and the non-treated control all resulted in decreased turf quality. Based on this preliminary data, organic treatments will begin to fail or have little effect on disease presence. In addition to turf quality, initial sequencing data from the tall fescue and zoysiagrass trial have been analyzed. This data was collected before any treatments were applied. These preliminary results indicate that microbiome communities differ significantly between tall fescue and zoysiagrass. These findings are expected, given how different environmental factors can impact these communities. More sampling, analysis, and evaluation will help determine whether and how these management practices affect these communities. Golf course and athletic field samples are currently being analyzed to identify further how various cultural practices influence these microbial communities. Understanding how management practices influence soil microbiomes will encourage managers to promote a more diverse microbial community while maintaining a highly acceptable turf stand. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Influence of Management on the Microbiome of Turfgrass Systems appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Turfgrass Research, Partnership, and Progress: 10 Years of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day” Many of Virginia's turfgrass industry professionals will gather at Independence Golf Club on Monday, May 18, 2026, to celebrate a major milestone: the 10th anniversary of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day. The inaugural event was held on May 15, 2017 across the James at the Country Club of Virginia's Tuckahoe Creek and James River courses, during establishment of the VT Turf Team's partnership with leadership at Independence Golf Club. In fact, sprigs were spread on Independence Golf Club's Bear Short Course that evening in what has turned into a decade-long partnership that has reshaped on-site research in Virginia. Hosted in Midlothian, VA, this year's event is designed to bring together golf course superintendents, sports turf managers, lawn care specialists, sod producers, landscapers, vendors, and other green-industry professionals for a full day of learning, networking, and support for turfgrass research. At its heart, the event showcases the strong partnership that has powered a decade of progress. For the past ten years, the Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association (VGCSA) has been the driving force behind the Turfgrass Research Classic, providing leadership and support that have helped raise more than $500,000 for Virginia Tech turfgrass research through the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation (VTF). Beginning in 2026, VGCSA will continue this role as the Title Partner of the Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day, working in partnership with the VTF, Virginia Tech, and our allied associations to expand the event's reach and impact across the broader turfgrass industry. This anniversary year also marks an important evolution in how the event is organized. Beginning in 2026, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation is taking the lead in coordinating both the Field Day and the Research Golf Tournament, in close collaboration with VGCSA, the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Team, and industry partners. Centralizing sponsorships through the Foundation streamlines the process for supporters, maximizes nonprofit benefits, and ensures that contributions are tax-deductible and directed to Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research. The result is a more efficient, aligned effort that benefits the entire turfgrass community and strengthens the future of research and education in Virginia. The day will begin with the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Field Day from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m., featuring a dynamic walking tour around the Independence Golf Club's Bear Short Course. Multiple research stations will be set up across the property, where attendees can hear directly from leading researchers and industry experts. While this event is held on a golf course, most of the topics covered apply across a variety of turfgrass uses. These topics include updates on winterkill and spring recovery strategies, water-use efficiency, sensing tools and technology, targeted application strategies, turfgrass pathology and disease prevention, turfgrass weed management, and turfgrass entomology and pollinator protection. Breakfast and lunch, hosted by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, will give participants time to connect with colleagues and continue discussions beyond each station. The afternoon will shift to the Turfgrass Research Classic golf tournament, with a shotgun start at 12:00 p.m. Participants will tee off alongside fellow professionals, sponsors, and researchers in a fun, friendly competition that directly supports turfgrass research and education. All proceeds benefit the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation and the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Program, meaning every round played helps fuel the science that drives the profession forward. Whether attendees are competitive golfers or simply enjoy a day on the course, the tournament offers camaraderie, networking, and the satisfaction of investing in the industry's future. Vendors and sponsors will also play a central role in this year's celebration. The 10th anniversary format offers expanded opportunities for engagement and visibility, including vendor tables, on-site demonstrations, high-visibility sponsorship packages, and broad promotional reach across the turfgrass industry. For the first time, all sponsorships and donations will flow through the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, providing charitable tax deductions. These contributions help fund essential research, student scholarships, needed equipment, and educational programming that strengthen Virginia's turfgrass sector and support the next generation of leaders. As the event marks ten years of partnership, innovation, and shared commitment, organizers emphasize that this is more than just another field day or golf tournament. It is a celebration of the industry's collective achievements and a strategic investment in the continued advancement of turfgrass science in Virginia. Those interested in attending, sponsoring, or exhibiting are encouraged to register or secure their support by visiting www.vaturfgrass.org or contacting Brandyn Baty, at brandyn@vaturfgrass.org or 757-585-3058 for details on registration, sponsorship packages, or vendor opportunities. Presented by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation in partnership with Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research, the VGCSA, and the VTC, the 2026 Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day promises to be a milestone event the entire turfgrass industry can rally behind. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post 10 Years of the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic & Field Day appeared first on The Turf Zone.

This episode of The Turf Zone Podcast features the article “Turf Tips” by Dave Han, Ph.D. with Auburn University and Alabama Extension. When hot weather arrives, our warm season grasses will soon shift into high gear and simply keeping up with them can be a challenge. Here are some reminders of what to expect and look out for in the transition from spring to summer. Temperatures will still fluctuate Most parts of Alabama aren't truly safe from all possibility of frost until mid-April. Even then, it's possible to get stuck into a pattern of warm days (80 F or even warmer) but cool nights (temps falling into the 50s). This temperature pattern holds back the growth of warm-season grasses. They may have been green for weeks, but don't really start to show fast lateral growth until the soil temperature stays above 70 degrees consistently. This usually takes both warm days and nighttime lows remaining in the 60s. Slow lateral growth in April and May frustrates many turf managers and their clients, especially if the turf experienced some injury from cold, disease or pests during the winter. It's important to remember that as long as the soil is still relatively cool, early fertilizer applications will have little effect on the rate that grasses fill in damaged areas. It's the temperature that holds back spreading growth this time of year. Warm season turfgrass that is “stuck” in greenup mode can also be more sensitive to postemergence herbicides than it will be during hot weather. This is especially true with centipedegrass, but can happen with any species. Many postemergence herbicides have language on the label that urges caution when applying them during spring greenup, or outright recommends waiting until the grass is completely out of dormancy to apply them. This can take until well into May in north Alabama. Annual insect pests will be laying eggs soon For those in the sandy soils of the coastal plain, now is the time to think about getting ready to apply insecticides to areas that showed mole cricket tunneling damage earlier in the spring. Like any insect pest, mole crickets are easiest to control when they are very young – just hatched is perfect! They usually lay their eggs in from April to May, and eggs take 3-4 weeks to hatch. That means May is the perfect month to get an insecticide with a good residual activity into the soil so that new nymphs are killed right after they hatch, and don't ever have the opportunity to grow into the larger stages that can damage turf with their tunnelling. Likewise, white grubs will soon be pupating and adults usually emerge to mate and lay eggs in the May-July time frame, depending on the exact species of white grub. As is the case with mole crickets, an application of an insecticide with a soil residual measured in months will head off problems with grub damage in the fall. Scout for grubs in the spring by cutting back the sod and looking for the larvae, or count adults as they fly by catching them in pheromone traps. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Turf Tips appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features a summary of bills of interest from the end of the 2026 Legislative Session of the Maryland General Assembly. Prepared by Percy Public Affairs and the Maryland Turfgrass Council. Read from MTC Turf News magazine. At the stroke of midnight on Monday, April 13th, the Maryland General Assembly adjourned (SINE DIE) the 2026 Legislative Session in Annapolis, Maryland. This year, the Maryland General Assembly introduced a total of 3,473 individual pieces of legislation (1406-Senate/2067-House) – this included proposed policy bills, legislative bond initiatives, and joint resolutions. During the 90-Day Session, Percy Public Affairs flagged multiple bills of interest for the Maryland Turfgrass Council (MTC). Below is summary of the legislation that MTC took action on in Annapolis. Bill Summary House Bill 91, entitled; “Agriculture – Neonicotinoid Pesticides – Prohibitions” – This bill prohibits a person from distributing, selling, or using any corn, soybean, or wheat seeds that have been coated in or treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. In addition, the bill generally prohibits a person from using a neonicotinoid pesticide to treat outdoor ornamental plants and turf, except as specified. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to temporarily suspend both of these prohibitions under specified conditions. House Bill 164, entitled; “State Buildings and State Highways – Collection and Disposal of Yard Waste” – This bill generally prohibits State employees or contractors from disposing of yard waste collected on the grounds of a State building or a State highway in a single-use plastic container. All such yard waste must be collected in a container that (1) will not be discarded with the yard waste or (2) is a compostable paper bag. MTC and MASFMA's Position: Opposed. Bill Status: FAILED. House Bill 164, entitled; “Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers – Purchase and Use – Prohibitions” – This bill, subject to specified exceptions, prohibits, (1) beginning July 1, 2026, the State from purchasing a gasoline-powered leaf blower and (2) beginning January 1, 2031, the use of a gasoline-powered leaf blower by the State and its contractors and subcontractors working on State-owned land. Each State agency in the Executive Branch must monitor and enforce that agency's compliance with the bill. The bill also establishes (1) a provision relating to the authority of local governments to enact standards relating to gasoline powered leaf blowers and (2) a requirement for the State and its contractors and subcontractors to comply with local standards that are at least as stringent as the bill's standards when managing State property. MTC and MASFMA's Position: Support. Bill Status: Failed. House Bill 321, entitled; “Environment – Synthetic Turf Industry and Disposal Study – Deadline Extension” – This bill extends the deadline, from July 1, 2026, to January 15, 2027, by which the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) must submit a specified report relating to synthetic turf to specified committees of the General Assembly. MTC and MASFMA's Position: Opposed. Bill Status: Failed. House Bill 833/ Senate Bill 53, entitled; “Commission to Advance Lithium-Ion Battery Safety in Maryland – Reestablishment” – This bill reestablishes the Commission to Advance Lithium-Ion Battery Safety in Maryland. The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) must provide staff for the commission. Commission members may not receive compensation but are entitled to reimbursement for expenses. By December 1, 2026, the commission must submit an interim report on the progress and status of the commission to the Legislative Policy Committee. By December 1, 2027, the commission must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly. MTC was amended into the final bills as a new member of the Commission and will be an active participant. MTC and MASFMA's Position: Support. Bill Status: Passed. House Bill 1237, entitled; “Pesticide Applications – Subscription Contract Requirements and Registry Establishment” – This bill requires the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) to establish a Residential Pollinator Protection and Neighbor Notification Registry for the purpose of registering individuals residing in residential areas who are interested in receiving notice of pesticide applications on contiguous or adjacent properties. MDA may charge a reasonable registration fee to an applicant for inclusion in the registry; however, MDA must waive the fee under specified conditions. The bill establishes related requirements for MDA, pesticide business licensees, pesticide applicators, and public agency permittees. In addition, the bill establishes requirements for a pesticide business licensee that has a subscription contract for pest control with a residential customer. MTC and MASFMA's Position: Support with Amendments. Bill Status: Passed. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Maryland Bills of Interest Summary appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “What's New with Wetting Agents” written by Michael Fidanza, Ph.D., Stan Kostka, Ph.D. and Tom Malehorn Soil surfactants are commonly called “wetting agents” in the turfgrass industry, and there are many, many wetting agent products in today's turf market. In 2012, the USGA Green Section article — Understanding the different wetting agent chemistries — advanced our understanding of these products in a logical manner. Another good article on wetting agents also appeared in the USGA Green Section — Factors to consider when developing a wetting agent program. Both of those articles and more can be found at: https://tinyurl.com/4f2v8m8r. Recently, wetting agent categories were proposed in a further attempt help the end user understand their chemical properties: https://tinyurl.com/ywyexm4x. Overall, in golf course and sports turf management, wetting agents are employed to improve infiltration, mitigate water repellency (i.e., hydrophobic conditions), and enhance hydration in soils and rootzones. Wetting agents also are useful for enhancing certain soil directed pesticides, improving flushing of excess salts, indirectly helping turf survive the winter, and improving spring green-up and recovery. Retainers versus Penetrants? The marketing of some wetting agent products can lead one to believe there is precise knowledge of clearly definable modes-of-action, that specific desired outcomes under diverse environmental conditions can prescribe how and when they should be applied, that soil responses can be turned on and off simply by changing what product is applied, or that product “X” can dramatically influence a specific turfgrass surface condition or expectation. These sorts of questions have only been researched on a handful of products. Researchers at the University of Arkansas, University of Wisconsin, Michigan State University, and the University of Wageningen (Netherlands) have demonstrated that certain wetting agents can increase soil water content under droughty conditions, and lower soil water content during periods of excessive rainfall. Keep in mind, most of these results come from turf growing on sand or sandy loam rootzones. Does this mean those wetting agents tested are physically “holding onto” (retaining) water in the rootzone, or “pushing” (penetrating) water through the rootzone? Our soil physics colleagues would question that statement. The terms retainer and penetrant are not listed in the soil science terminology, but these terms are used to market wetting agents. Data remain lacking on the nature and differentiation of products sold as “wetters”, “water retainers”, and “penetrants”. There are many claims based on reports-from-the-field or on misperceptions or misinterpretations of visual observations. When considering a wetting agent ask for thorough, documented, replicated field research (either from university or industry researchers). A recent article in the USGA Green Section provides further insight into this topic: O'Brien, D., Fidanza, M., Kostka, S., and Richardson, M. 2023. Penetrants vs. Retainers: Understanding Wetting Agent Clamins and the Science Behind them. USGA Green Section Record. https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/course-care/green-section-record/61/issue-10/penetrants-vs–retainers–understanding-wetting-agent-claims-and.html Over the past two decades, wetting agents have moved from products applied to correct localized dry spots to broader applications in water management, however, marketing claims often outpace the science. Research continues to build upon our understanding of what wetting agents can and cannot do. Understanding the mode-of-action, effects on soil physical phenomena, and effects on soil biology and rhizosphere dynamics are the future. A foundation is being built to support science-based uses of these unique soil amendment compounds. Conclusion Soil surfactants or “wetting agents” lead the way for sustainable water use and water conservation practices on U.S. golf courses. Recent research has quantified beneficial effects of using wetting agents, with more work in progress. The marketing terms “retainer” and “penetrant” are not soil science terms. Ask to see research-based information when considering a wetting agent product. Research efforts are underway in the U.S. and Europe that will increase our understanding of how wetting agents affect turf rootzone physical, chemical, and biological properties. Dr. Mike Fidanza (maf100@psu.edu) is a Professor of Plant and Soil Science at the Berks Campus, Pennsylvania State University, Reading, PA; Dr. Stan Kostka (stan.kostka@gmail.com) is a Visiting Scholar at Penn State Berks Campus; Tom Malehorn (intlturf@gmail.com) is a Penn State turf alum and principal scientist with iGin Research, in Westminster, MD. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post What's New with Wetting Agents appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Autonomous Mowing on Trial” written by Landon Erbrick, Paul Bartley, Mark Hoffman and Tanzeel Rehman of Auburn University and J. Bryan Unruh of the University of Florida. As the landscape industry faces mounting labor challenges, tightening environmental regulations, and growing pressure to improve efficiency, the emergence of mowing technologies are generating widespread attention. But do these machines actually deliver on their promises of cost savings, labor efficiency, and sustainability? A multi-disciplinary team of researchers from Auburn University, the University of Florida, and the University of Georgia has launched a multi-year research initiative to answer that very question. Supported by industry partners and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), this effort is part of a larger grant-funded project titled “Landscape Equipment Sustainability Strategies: Do More with LESS.” The project involves a comprehensive evaluation of large-platform autonomous mowers to assess their real-world performance, cost-effectiveness, and operational safety across a variety of landscape conditions. Why This Research Matters The adoption of automation in turf care is no longer a theoretical discussion. Manufacturers have introduced commercial autonomous platforms, and early adopters are already deploying them on sports fields, university campuses, and business parks, yet independent research remains scarce on the topic. Most prior studies have focused on small-platform robotic mowers primarily used in residential settings. Traditionally, these machines relied on perimeter wires and random navigation patterns, limiting their efficiency and scalability. However, recent technological advancements—such as real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning and EPOS (Exact Positioning Operating System) navigation—have dramatically improved the precision, reliability, and adaptability of small autonomous mowers. This rapid evolution in positioning and sensing technologies has expanded the potential for autonomy in turf management far beyond the homeowner market. Building on these advancements, large-platform autonomous mowers, that is, commercial-scale machines capable of operating both manually and autonomously, have now entered the market. These systems aim to address many of the industry's most pressing challenges, including labor shortages, rising operational costs, and increasing sustainability demands. Our research seeks to evaluate these emerging technologies through a rigorous, data-driven approach to help landscape contractors, municipalities, and turf managers make informed decisions about integrating autonomy into large-scale operations. What We're Testing & Why It Matters This project is evaluating large-platform commercial mowers across four equipment categories: Manual gas-powered Manual battery-powered Autonomous gas-powered Autonomous battery-powered We're conducting real-world field trials using standardized test plots with varying levels of landscape complexity, from open square acres to obstacle-rich environments designed to mimic trees, bed edges, and other site constraints. Our goal is to understand how different combinations of power source (gas vs. battery) and operator mode (manual vs. autonomous) influence performance, cost, safety, and usability in professional landscaping scenarios. What We're Measuring Across hundreds of acres of mowing in diverse conditions, we're tracking: Labor Efficiency – Time per acre, supervision requirements, and total operator hours Energy or Fuel Consumption – Gallons or kilowatt-hours per acre Mowing Productivity – Speed (acres/hour) under manual vs. autonomous operation Cost of Ownership – Lifetime return on investment (ROI) including equipment price, maintenance, energy, and labor Operational Safety & Setup Time – Issues related to autonomous deployment, landscape variability, and required oversight Adaptability to Landscape Types – How autonomy performs in simple vs. complex site conditions Together, these data will help landscape contractors, fleet managers, and municipal buyers evaluate whether, how, and when to adopt autonomous and battery-powered equipment based on real numbers, not hype or pressure. Safety and Supervision Under the Microscope We're also conducting obstacle detection trials using mannequins and field hazards at multiple approach angles to understand how these machines interpret and react to real-world variables. Our team is especially interested in hybrid operation strategies, where a single operator supervises an autonomous unit while mowing with another, significantly boosting productivity without a full leap into autonomy. Implications for the Green Industry This research comes at a critical time. As noise restrictions, emissions regulations (e.g., California AB 1346), and labor shortages reshape the industry, many contractors are asking: What's the smart next investment? By delivering field-tested, brand-agnostic insights, our goal is to help professionals: Make evidence-based equipment choices Optimize labor deployment strategies Understand technology limitations and serviceability Prepare for future regulations and automation trends. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Autonomous Mowing on Trial appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Biochar Revisited: Rethinking Its Promise for Turf & Landscape Soils” written by Anthony Will and read from New England Blade magazine. In recent years, interest in biochar has grown rapidly – but so has the confusion about what it actually is and how it works as a soil amendment. Turf managers searching for guidance may find thousands of articles and research papers, many of which make conflicting claims about soil health, nutrient retention, and carbon storage. What's really going on? Let's start at the beginning with some key term definitions. Biochar: What's Is It? Biochar is produced by heating biomass to a high temperature in an environment with little or no oxygen. This heating process is known as pyrolysis. To understand this fully, it is helpful to define biomass and pyrolysis. Biomass is organic material derived from living or recently living organisms, primarily plants. Common examples include wood chips, walnut shells, crop residues, and manure. There are literally hundreds of different biomass materials that can be converted into biochar. Pyrolysis refers to the process, and the equipment, used to convert biomass into biochar. When biomass is heated under low-oxygen conditions, most of the volatile components are driven off as gases and vapors, leaving behind a charcoal-like material that is rich in stable, mineralized carbon. Modern commercial pyrolysis systems are far more effective at producing high-carbon, low-ash biochar than earlier or less controlled methods. Not all biochar is the same; it comes in many forms, depending on the feedstock and how it's produced, so not all biochar behaves the same. High-quality biochar offers a remarkable range of benefits for soil health and plant performance while a lower-quality biochar may contain excessive ash, low carbon content, or inconsistent physical properties. Until recently, there were no commercial-scale pyrolysis plants in New England producing consistently high-quality biochar. Charging Biochar: What's the Purpose? Raw biochar acts like a sponge. It readily absorbs moisture and nutrients from surrounding materials, which is why it is commonly used in filtration and remediation applications. Before being blended into soil, biochar should be charged (also called inoculated) with moisture, nutrients, and beneficial microorganisms. This is most commonly done by mixing biochar with high-quality leaf compost and allowing the blend to age or stockpile for a month or more. This step prevents the biochar from temporarily tying up nutrients after application. High-Quality Biochar: Practical Value for Turf Managers When properly produced and inoculated, high-quality biochar offers a wide range of benefits to soil health and plant performance: Efficiency: A Little Goes a Long Way Using a high-quality biochar, even at just 5% by volume, can make a real difference in soils. When incorporated into rootzones or planting beds—about two five-gallon pails per cubic yard—premium, inoculated biochar has been shown to boost water retention, nutrient availability, and soil microbial activity. Depending on soil conditions and goals, blend rates of 5–10% of a high-quality biochar can deliver lasting improvements in soil health and plant performance. Soil Physical Benefits Improved Soil Structure: Biochar improves aeration, drainage, and aggregation. Its porous structure creates space for air and water movement, supporting deeper and healthier root systems. Reduced Soil Compaction: Incorporation of biochar can reduce bulk density and improve root penetration in compacted soils. Water Retention: Biochar improves soil's ability to retain moisture, reducing irrigation demand and helping plants tolerate drought stress. Soil Nutrient and Microbial Benefits Nutrient Retention: Biochar has a high capacity to retain nutrients, reducing leaching and improving nutrient availability over time. Microbial Habitat: The pore structure of biochar provides habitat for beneficial soil microorganisms, increasing microbial diversity and enhancing nutrient cycling. Heavy Metal Sorption: Biochar can absorb certain heavy metals, reducing their bioavailability. This is particularly beneficial in disturbed or urban soils. Plant and Environmental Benefits Carbon Sequestration: Since biochar is extremely stable, it sequesters carbon for decades – or even centuries – helping reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Enhanced Plant Performance: Collectively, these benefits support improved plant vigor, resilience, and overall performance. Odor Reduction: Biochar can help reduce undesirable soil odors, improving working conditions in landscape and urban environments. Long-Term Stability: Unlike compost, which decomposes over time, high-quality biochar remains stable in the soil for decades, continuing to deliver benefits long after application. Evaluating Biochar: What Turf Managers Should Know The only reliable way to evaluate biochar quality is by reviewing laboratory test results. Manufacturers should be able to provide basic analytical data for any product containing biochar. Turf managers should at least check a biochar's organic carbon and total ash content, aiming for higher carbon levels and lower ash to get the best benefits for soil health and long-term carbon storage. As a general guideline, high-quality biochar typically has a high organic carbon content—often above 50–60% according to IBI and EBC standards—and relatively low ash content (

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode spotlights Alabama Turfgrass Association member Dr. David Han For more than two decades, Dr. David Han has been a steady and influential presence in Alabama's turfgrass industry. As an Associate Professor and Turfgrass Specialist for Extension at Auburn University, Dr. Han has dedicated his career to advancing turfgrass education, supporting industry professionals, and mentoring the next generation of leaders. His work through the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and the Alabama Turfgrass Association (ATA) continues to leave a lasting mark across the state and beyond. Roots in Science and a Path to Turfgrass Dr. Han grew up in Urbana, Illinois, and pursued his undergraduate and master's degrees at Cornell University before earning his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. With a bachelor's degree in biology, his early academic path was rooted firmly in the sciences. It was during his time at The Ohio State University that Dr. Mike Boehm, his postdoctoral advisor, helped point him toward the turfgrass industry—a direction that would ultimately shape his career. Along the way, he was influenced by some of the most respected minds in turfgrass, including Dr. A.J. Powell, Dr. Mike Goatley, and several outstanding superintendents such as Todd Voss and Mark Yoder. Their professionalism and approach to the craft demonstrated what it truly takes to excel in turf management. Closer to home, Dr. Han credits numerous Alabama turf professionals as role models, singling out James Horton as “standing out among the standouts.” A Career Built on Service and Education Dr. Han began his tenure at Auburn University in 2000 and has since worn many hats—educator, researcher, Extension specialist, and industry leader. In addition to his academic responsibilities, he serves as Educational Director for the ATA and the Deep South Turf Expo, helping shape high-quality programming for turf professionals across the region. There is no such thing as a “typical” day in his role. One day may involve teaching university students; the next, visiting a golf course, baseball field, or sod farm; and another, leading a workshop or speaking at an industry event. This variety is part of what makes his work meaningful. What does he enjoy most? Simply put: helping people do their jobs better. Whether that means diagnosing a turf issue, interpreting data, or providing practical guidance, Dr. Han is passionate about being a resource for the industry. The greatest challenge, he admits with a smile, is time—there is always more to do (and ATA is always asking for something!). Among his proudest accomplishments are the many successful graduates who have come through Auburn's turf program and are now thriving in their careers. Seeing former students excel in the field is, for him, one of the most rewarding aspects of his work. Industry Evolution and Perspective Since starting at Auburn, Dr. Han has witnessed significant changes in the turfgrass industry. The introduction of automated equipment—drones, robotic mowers, and advanced data systems—has transformed operations. While these tools offer tremendous opportunity for precision and efficiency, he cautions that data is only as valuable as the understanding behind it. “It could be good or bad if you don't know what the data is telling you,” he notes. Looking ahead, he sees both challenges and opportunities for turf professionals in Alabama. Technology continues to advance, expectations continue to rise, and environmental stewardship remains critical. For those just starting out in the industry, his advice is simple but powerful: stay curious, stay connected, and never stop learning. Commitment to ATA Dr. Han's involvement with ATA has been extensive, including his leadership role as Educational Director. Through conferences, workshops, and the Deep South Turf Expo, he has helped elevate educational opportunities for members across the state. ATA membership, in his view, fosters connection, professional growth, and a shared commitment to advancing the industry. The relationships built through ATA strengthen not only individual careers but also Alabama's turfgrass community as a whole. Life Beyond Turf Outside of work, Dr. Han's life is centered on faith and family. He and his wife, Tara, have been married for 26 years and are the proud parents of Jacob, 17, who enjoys aviation and gaming, and Laura, 13, who participates in band at East Samford School. Their home is also lively, with four cats (Dr. Han proudly admits he's a “cat man”). He is actively involved at Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, where he sings in the choir and has served as backup choir director since last fall. Much of his free time is spent supporting his children's activities and enjoying the close-knit feel of Auburn—a university town that, despite its growth, still feels like home. The weather doesn't hurt either. Looking Ahead When asked about his goals for the next five to ten years, Dr. Han responds with characteristic humor and heart: “Save the world! Keep people from destroying the world.” At its core, that means continuing to advance Auburn's turf program, promote responsible management practices, and support the professionals who care for Alabama's landscapes. Even as retirement eventually approaches, he hopes to remain connected to the industry that has given him so much. His dedication to education, mentorship, and service ensures that his influence will continue to shape Alabama turfgrass for years to come. The Alabama Turfgrass Association is honored to spotlight Dr. David Han—a leader, educator, and advocate whose passion for helping others defines both his career and his character. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Member Spotlight on Dr. David Han appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “Penn State Researcher Turns Decades of Turfgrass Work into Startup Success” written by Katie DeFiore read from Pennsylvania Turfgrass magazine. David Huff, professor of turfgrass breeding and genetics at Penn State, recently earned the Research Innovator Award through the College of Agricultural Sciences for the research and entrepreneurial leadership that led to the founding of his startup, PennPoa. PennPoa aims to transform the turfgrass industry through the commercialization of highly cultivated Poa annua, or annual bluegrass, seed varieties for the golf course industry. To launch his turfgrass startup, Huff utilized Penn State entrepreneurial resources including the Penn State Small Business Development Center (SBDC), Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Central & Northern Pennsylvania and the Office of Technology Transfer. When Huff came to Penn State in 1994, his goal was to breed and improve varieties of Poa annua for the golf course industry. This strain has desirable traits, Huff said, such as high shoot density and dwarfism, which allows the grass to tolerate extremely low mowing heights — an important characteristic for golf course turfgrass, where mowing heights can be less than one-tenth of an inch. Huff said he quickly realized there was no commercially available seed for this top-quality grass, forcing golf courses to either use lower-quality grass species or rely on bluegrass that naturally emerges as a weed. However, when Poa annua establishes itself as a weed, it can take 50 to 100 years of golf course maintenance for it to naturally evolve into the highly sought-after strain, according to Huff. “There was no one out there helping the golf industry with this problem, and so I decided it would be a good project to work on,” Huff said. “I collected seeds from a lot of places across the U.S. and Europe, bred them, and after 13 years I had a top 10 — they were just beautiful grasses.” However, when Huff moved into the seed production process with those 10 strains, he lost the dwarfism trait that made the grasses so valuable. The plants reverted to weedy grasses, prompting another 13 years of research and the additional support of three graduate students to understand why this was happening and how to ensure the seeds retained their dwarf perennial traits. After a total of 26 years of research, Huff's new seeds were finally ready for beta testing. “I ran those beta tests on five golf courses, covering the east coast, west coast and the northern and southern United States regions, and everything looked good. So, in the meantime, that's when I started the company,” Huff said. “I had no idea I'd be doing a startup. When I first started, I thought this grass was going to behave like all grasses and that I would be able to license it to a seed company.” Huff said he was already familiar with the licensing process at Penn State, as he breeds other grass varieties that are released to seed production companies. However, because of the complex and novel seed production technology he and his team developed to maintain Poa annua's favorable traits, he realized he could not simply hand off the process to a seed company. The Penn State Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) suggested that he launch a startup. “To be honest, when OTT suggested launching a startup, I thought, ‘I can't do that, I'm faculty, I'd be using the product I'm researching, it's a conflict of interest,'” Huff said. “And they said Penn State has a support system in place to help manage that for you.” OTT connected Huff to the Office for Research Protections, where a team helped Huff navigate the research commercialization process. He later entered the Ben Franklin Technology Partners Big Idea Contest, where he won the People's Choice Award. Through that experience, Huff learned more about the entrepreneurial ecosystem at Penn State and in State College, and he began attending entrepreneurial events, meetups and competitions hosted by Ben Franklin, the Penn State SBDC and other local community organizations. At one of these events, Huff met Martin Brill, a business consultant and coordinator for the Pennsylvania SBDC Agriculture Center of Excellence, who became a long-term mentor. “Martin and everyone else that I've met has just been very encouraging, and that was very important to me,” Huff said. “Starting a new company like this was very scary — I wasn't planning on it, and I haven't been trained for it. But Martin, Ben Franklin, OTT, the individuals in the Office for Research Protections, they all encouraged me, and that's what propelled me forward. I followed their advice, and I never really hit a roadblock. I hit a lot of hurdles, but everyone helped me get over those. Before I knew it, I had a license agreement, I had a formal company and we started sales.” Huff said 2025 marked his first year of sales, and he sold out of both his 2024 and 2025 crops. He already has received orders for 2026 and 2027. He added that the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences has also been critical to his startup success. Huff received funding through the College's Research Applications for INnovation (RAIN) grants program and has been able to lease college-owned land to support seed production. “One of the other things that helped me was that, at all these various workshops and seminars provided by the SBDC, there were all sorts of other folks just like me — people with ideas who live in this area who were starting their own businesses,” Huff said. “Talking with them helped me, because they are in the same boat I'm in — they don't know what they're doing either, but they're doing it, and you learn as you go.” Most recently, Huff entered the Invent Penn State Startup Leadership Network Board of Advisors program for 2026, which provides Penn State startups with industry-specific advisory boards to guide founders as they enter the market. “I've just been impressed by the entrepreneurial ecosystem that's here at Penn State, both on and off campus,” Huff said. “It has helped give me the confidence to know that I can do this. Everybody has been so helpful and has given me their time and their interest. They really are passionate about helping people, and with that kind of help, you just go forward.” About the Penn State SBDC Pennsylvania Small Business Development Centers are funded in part through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Small Business Administration, by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Department of Community & Economic Development, through support from Penn State, and by other sources of state and federal funding. Full disclosures available at: https://www.pasbdc.org/funding-sources SBDCs are hosted by leading universities, colleges, state economic development agencies and private partners, and funded in part by the U.S. Congress through a partnership with the U.S. Small Business Administration. There are nearly 1,000 local centers available to provide no-cost business consulting and low-cost training to new and existing businesses. The Penn State SBDC services Centre, Clinton, Lycoming and Mifflin counties in central Pennsylvania. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Penn State Researcher Turns Decades of Turfgrass Work into Startup Success appeared first on The Turf Zone.