Screenplays & Play

A Review of Turfgrass Fertilizer Management Practices: Implications for Urban Water Quality

Description
ABSTRACT Urban watersheds include extensive turfgrass plantings that are associated with anthropocentric attitudes toward landscapes. Native and construction-disturbed urban soils often cannot supply adequate amounts of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
Published
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  A Review of Turfgrass Fertilizer ManagementPractices: Implications for Urban Water Quality RichardO.Carey  1 ,GeorgeJ.Hochmuth 1,7 ,ChristopherJ.Martinez 2 ,Treavor H. Boyer 3 , Vimala D. Nair 1 , Michael D. Dukes 2 ,Gurpal S. Toor 4 , Amy L. Shober 4 , John L. Cisar 5 ,Laurie E. Trenholm 6 , and Jerry B. Sartain 1  A  DDITIONAL INDEX WORDS . nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient leaching, nutrient runoff, landscaping practices, turfgrass irrigation, socioeconomicsS UMMARY  . Urban watersheds include extensive turfgrass plantings that are associ-ated with anthropocentric attitudes toward landscapes. Native and construction-disturbed urban soils often cannot supply adequate amounts of nitrogen (N) andphosphorus(P)for thegrowthandbeautyoflandscape plants.Hence,fertilizationof landscape plants is practiced. Mismanaged fertilization and irrigation practicesrepresent a potential source of nutrients that may contribute to water quality impairment. This review focuses on turfgrass fertilization practices and theirimpacts on urban water quality. Research results show that fertilization during active growth periods enhances turfgrass nutrient uptake efficiencies. The majorconcern regarding the fertilization of turfgrass and landscape plants in urban watersheds,therefore, is selecting theproper combination of fertilizerrate, timing,andplacementthatmaximizesnutrientutilizationefficiencyandreducestheriskfornutrient loss to water bodies. Encouraging individuals to adopt best management practices (BMPs) is a priority for watershed managers. Research has found that educational programs are an important part of changing fertilization habits andthateducationneedstobethoroughandcomprehensive,whichisbeyondthescopeof many seminars and fact sheets currently in use. T urfgrass dominated landscapesareprominentfeaturesofurban watersheds. Milesi et al. (2005)estimated that turfgrass covers 1.9%of the total U.S. surface area, which issimilar to previous areal estimates of 10 to 16 million hectares (RobbinsandBirkenholtz,2003).RobbinsandSharp (2003) discussed several fac-tors that have contributed to theexpansionofU.S.turfgrasscoverage,including the association of turfgrassaesthetics and function with family,community,andenvironmentalvalues.Landscape plants such as ornamentalspecies are also associated with increas-inglyurbanizedenvironments(Amadoret al., 2007; Hipp et al., 1993; Shoberet al., 2010).Plant nutrients, such as N and P,arerequiredforthegrowthandbeauty of landscape plants. Numerous nutri-ent sources already present in urban watershedscansatisfytheseneedsandthesesources,excludingfertilizer,havebeen discussed in detail (R.O. Carey,G.J. Hochmuth, C.J. Martinez, T.H.Boyer, V.D. Nair, M.D. Dukes, G.S.Toor, A.L. Shober, J.L. Cisar, L.E.Trenholm,andJ.B.Sartain,unpublish-eddata).Mostnativeandconstruction-disturbed urban soils cannot supply adequate amounts of nutrients fornormal growth of landscape plants,so fertilizers are often used. To criti-cally analyze plant fertilizer needs rela-tive to potential water quality threats,an understanding of nutrient bud-gets, especially in relation to fertilizerinputs and losses in urban landscapes,is needed. Fertilization mismanage-ment of urban vegetation representsa potential source of nutrients thatmay contribute to water quality im-pairment. Many states, such as Flor-ida, are seeking toreducethe potentialfor fertilizer losses through BMPs orstate and local regulations. Water bodies impaired by highnutrient concentrations require waterquality management plans outlinedby the Total Maximum Daily LoadProgram [Florida Department of En- vironmentalProtection(FDEP),2009;U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (USEPA), 2010]. Under the federalClean Water Act, the FDEP estab-lishes surface water quality standardsforthestate(FDEP,2012).Forexam-ple, the nitrate–nitrogen (NO 3 –N)standardforFloridaspringsis0.35ppm.These standards become importantbenchmarks against which to mea-sure nutrient losses from land-basedsources, including fertilizers.Laws and regulations guide ur-ban landscape management practices,but there are no federal laws in theUnited States specifically targetingurban fertilizer use. However, severalexisting laws are indirectly applicable Units To convert U.S. to SI,multiply by U.S. unit SI unitTo convert SI to U.S.,multiply by 0.4047 acre(s) ha 2.47110.3048 ft m 3.28082.54 inch(es) cm 0.39371.1209 lb/acre kg  ha –1 0.89220.001 ppm g  kg –1 10001 ppm mg  kg –1 11 ppm mg  L  –1 1 Review  280  •  June 2012 22(3)  to fertilizers, such as the ResourceConservationandRecoveryAct,whichpertains to recycled wastes used asfertilizers (USEPA, 1999). State ag-ricultural departments are primarily responsiblefordevelopingandimple-menting fertilizer regulations. TheSafe Fertilizer Act (1998) in the stateof Washington was the first statewidelegislation regulating fertilizer con-taminants (USEPA, 1999) and otherstates have implemented similar fer-tilizerusepoliciestargeting nutrients.In 2005, Minnesota became the firststate to restrict fertilizer use on turf-grass to reduce P runoff (MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture, 2007;Rosen and Horgan, 2005). Soil testsurveysrevealedthatthevastmajority (70% to 80%) of lawns in the TwinCities Metropolitan Area had highsoilPlevels(BrayP1test > 25mg  kg –1 )that did not require additional P in-puts to maintain healthy turfgrass(Rosen and Horgan, 2005). Legisla-tive restrictions included using fertil-izerswithoutPinMinnesota,althoughexceptions allowed lawn P fertilizationduring the first year of establishment.These restrictions have led to a signif-icant increase in theavailability, at theretail level, of fertilizers without P(Rosen and Horgan, 2005). The Flor-ida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services also published theUrban Turf Fertilizer Rule [5E-1.003(2)FloridaAdministrativeCode]in2007to establish standards for N and Pcontentin fertilizers (State ofFlorida,2007), but did not remove P fromlandscape fertilizers.Local governments have also im-plemented fertilizer regulations in anattempttoimprovewaterquality.Forexample, in Florida, county and mu-nicipal fertilizer ordinances have in-cluded rules addressing applicationtiming [e.g., N blackouts during the wet (summer) season], nutrient com-position (e.g., percentage of slow- vs.quick-release N sources), restrictedareas (e.g., buffer zones surrounding water bodies), and impervious sur-faces(e.g.,intentionalorunintentionalfertilizer application) (Hartman et al.,2008;Hochmuthetal.,2009;TampaBayEstuaryProgram,2008).InMich-igan, Lehman et al. (2009) reportedadecrease in total Pconcentrations inthe Huron River watershed after thecity of Ann Arbor enacted an ordi-nance limiting P application to lawns.However,theordinancewasonlyonecomponentofamultifacetedapproachtoimprove water quality in theregion.The effectiveness of the ordinancecould not be isolated, for example,fromeducationalprogrameffectiveness. Although fertilizers have beentargeted in watershed managementprograms, the relationship betweenfertilizer use and water quality im-pairment in urban watersheds is com-plicated by multiple factors such asfertilizer inputs, fertilizer nutrientmanagement and cycling, and nutri-ent losses. For example, additionalresearch is still needed to quantify directwaterqualitybenefitsofPfertil-izer restrictions in Minnesota (Min-nesota Department of Agriculture,2007). The objectives of this review  were to 1) summarize the major fer-tilizer sources and specific fertilizermanagement practices that can affectN and P cycling and exports fromturfgrass and vegetated landscapes inurban watersheds, 2) discuss waterquality impacts associated with nu-trient runoff and leaching, and 3)identifycriticalsocioeconomicfactorsassociatedwithfertilizermanagementin urbanized areas. Finally, certain re-searchgapsareidentifiedwherefurtherinformation is needed on the overallcontribution of fertilizers to nutrientexports from urban watersheds. Fertilizer application ratesto turfgrass Normal plant growth and repro-duction are impaired when soils lack sufficient quantities of essential ele-ments. Turfgrass N applications oc-cur more frequently and in largerquantities than any other fertilizer-supplied nutrient because plants re-quire more N and it is typically themost yield-limiting nutrient. Phos-phorus, another essential plant mac-ronutrient, is required for energy reactions and is also commonly ap-plied as fertilizer. Both agriculturaland urban areas use fertilizers, butcomparedwiththeextensiveresearchdocumenting nutrient losses fromagricultural soils (Allen et al., 2006;Simsetal.,1998),relatively few stud-ies have analyzed losses from urbanlandscapes (Bierman et al., 2010;Easton and Petrovic, 2004; Ericksonetal.,2005;SoldatandPetrovic,2008).Cultural management practicesinfluence turfgrass growth, quality,and nutrient exports (Beard andGreen, 1994; Bell and Moss, 2008;Linde et al., 1995). Recycling grassclippings, for example, can improveturfgrassnutrientsequestrationinthelandscape (Hull and Liu, 2005; Qianet al., 2003; Starr and DeRoo, 1981)because clippings typically representthe largest N sink in established turf-grass, storing 25% to 60% of appliedN(PetrovicandEaston,2005).Koppand Guillard (2002) showed thatreturning clippings without adjustingfertilization rates, increased dry matter yieldsforaturfgrassmixturecontainingkentucky bluegrass [ Poa pratensis  (35%)], creeping red fescue [ Festuca rubra   (35%)], ‘Cutter’ perennialryegrass [ Lolium perenne   (15%)],and ‘Express’ perennial ryegrass (15%).If clippings are returned, a reductionin N fertilization rates (50% to 75%)may not adversely impact turfgrassquality (Heckman et al., 2000; Koppand Guillard, 2002). Clippings man-agement (removing or returning) af-fects N dynamics in turfgrass systems,butthispracticedoesnotsignificantly affect P transport from the landscape(Bierman et al., 2010; Kussow, 2008).Inadditiontofactorsthatincreasethepotential for runoff (e.g., slope, pre-cipitation rate, etc.) and sedimentmovement(Lindeetal.,1995;Steinkeet al., 2007), fertilizer sources andapplication rates also influenced Plosses (Bierman et al., 2010; Eastonand Petrovic, 2004).Effects of fertilizer sources andrates on turfgrass growth have beenstudied for many years in the UnitedStates. In general, terminology isconsistent among scientists, but sev-eral terms are clarified for use in this This paper was written with financial support fromScotts Miracle-Gro, Marysville, OH, and from theUniversity of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricul-tural Science. 1 Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida,P.O.Box110510,Gainesville,FL32611-0510 2 DepartmentofAgriculturalandBiologicalEngineer-ing, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110570, Gaines- ville, FL 32611-0570 3 DepartmentofEnvironmentalEngineeringSciences,University of Florida, P.O. Box 116450, Gainesville,FL 32611-6450 4 Soil and Water Science Department, Gulf CoastResearch & Education Center, University of Florida,14625 C.R. 672, Wimauma, FL 33598 5 Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Research and EducationCenter,UniversityofFlorida,Ft.Lauderdale,FL33314 6 EnvironmentalHorticultureDepartment,University of Florida, P.O. Box 110675, Gainesville, FL 32611-0675 7 Corresponding author. E-mail: hoch@ufl.edu. •  June 2012 22(3)  281  article. Turfgrassqualityisatermthatrelates to any or all of the followingcharacteristics: greenness in terms of hue, turfgrass density in terms of soilsurface coverage or number of tillersper unit area of land, amount of ob-served brown or yellow leaf discolor-ation, disease damage, and generalgrowth rate (Krans and Morris, 2007;Morris and Shearman, 2012). Moststudies (unless specifically defined) re-late turfgrass ‘‘quality’’ to greennesson a visual scale of 1 (yellow or brown)to 9 (dark green). Controlled-releasefertilizer(CRF)andslow-release fer-tilizer (SRF) often have been usedinterchangeably, unless specifically de-fined by the author.Turfgrass research has been con-ducted with several forms of fertil-izers, especially for N. These formsinclude soluble fertilizers and CRFs.Soluble forms include ammoniumnitrate, urea, ammonium sulfate, andpotassiumnitrate,amongothers.Overthe years, many types of CRFs havebeen evaluated for effects on turfgrassgrowth and quality and effects onnutrient losses to the environment(Easton and Petrovic, 2004; Skogley and King, 1968; Spangenberg et al.,1986). These include slowly degradedformulations such as isobutylidinediurea(IBDU)andurea-formaldehyde.In addition, CRFs have been formu-lated as a soluble N source coated withmaterials to slow the solubility andreleaseofnutrients.Theseformulationsinclude sulfur-coated urea (SCU) andpolymer-coated urea. Obreza and Sar-tain (2010) reviewed the major sour-ces of fertilizers used to enhance Nuse efficiency in horticultural crops,including turfgrass. Some examplesof recent research conducted with var-ious nutrient forms are summarizedbelow.Sartain (1981) showed that wa-ter soluble ammonium sulfate pro-duced a quicker maximum turfgrasscolor response in ‘Tifway’ hybrid ber-mudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon   ·  C  . transvaalensi  s) and ‘Derby’ ryegrass(seeded over ‘Tifway’ hybrid bermu-dagrass) than slow-release sources(e.g., IBDU). Carrow (1997) investi-gated theeffects of different N sourceson ‘Tifway’ hybrid bermudagrass andconcluded that long-term (61–95 d)turfgrass response (i.e., turfgrass qual-ity, turfgrass shoot growth rate, etc.) was dependent on sulfur, polymercontent, or both in coated fertilizers.The thickness and nature of polymer-coatings affect N-release properties(Carrow,1997).Slow-releaseNsourcesmay reduce clipping yields compared withquick-releasefertilizers(Heckmanet al., 2000), but Cisar et al. (2001)found no differences in turfgrass qual-ity and clipping yields when equalamounts of N were supplied to‘Tifgreen’ hybrid bermudagrass by CRFs and ammonium sulfate. Afterinvestigating ‘Floratam’ st. augusti-negrass ( Stenotaphrum secundatum  )and hybrid bermudagrass response toorganic and inorganic fertilizers,Trenholm and Unruh (2005) sug-gested that N application rates weremore important than N sources foroptimizing turfgrass quality.Nutrient uptake efficiencies,however, vary for different turfgrassspecies, cultivars, and growing con-ditions such as soil types (Table 1)(Bowman et al., 2002; Pare et al.,2006; Trenholm et al., 1998). Nitro-genfertilizerapplicationratesforcool-season turfgrasses [e.g., kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, creep-ing bentgrass (  Agrostis palustris  ), etc.]range from 50 to 200 kg  ha –1 per year, while rates for warm-season turfgrasses[e.g., st. augustinegrass, zoysiagrass( Zoysia  sp.),centipedegrass( Eremochloa ophiuroides  ),etc.]aresometimeshigher(50to300kg  ha –1 peryear)(Branham,2008). Dudeck et al. (1985) vegeta-tively established nine bermudagrasscultivars and investigated establish-ment rates using multiple N treat-ments. Establishment rates variedfor different cultivars, and althoughamonthlyapplicationrateof49kg  ha –1 N resulted in maximum establish-ment, establishment rates were re-duced at 59 kg  ha –1 N. Trenholmet al. (1998) evaluated ‘FloraDwarf’and ‘Tifdwarf’ bermudagrass ( C. dac- tylo  n) cultivars during establishmentin a glasshouse and found differencesin growth and quality because of Nrate, cultivar, and photoperiod.Different fertilizer requirementsfor turfgrass species and cultivars, cou-pledwithvariableturfgrassresponsetosoluble- and slow-release sources, canlead to opportunities for inappropri-ate fertilizer management practices.Several studies have suggested thatsoluble fertilizer sources are associated with increased nutrient losses, but thisis dependent on application rates, irri-gation,climate,andparticularturfgrasscharacteristics (Barton and Colmer, Table 1. Nitrogen (N) recovered and leached from turfgrass systems receiving variable fertilizer application rates.Study Species Application rate(kg   ha   1 N) z Samples aftertreatment (no.) Avg N recovered(kg   ha – 1 )  y   Avg N in leachate(kg   ha – 1 ) Frank (2008) Kentucky bluegrass 24.5 7 (15–637 d) 19.11 0.1549 36.26 2.65Miltner et al.(1996)Kentucky bluegrass 39.2 7 (18–748 d) 30.99 (Spring) 0.00234.87 (Fall) 0.011Bowman et al.(2002)Centipedegrass 50 1 (  30 d) 35.5 5.35St. augustinegrass 50 37 0.5‘Meyer’ zoysiagrass 50 31.5 6.45‘Emerald’ zoysiagrass 50 38.5 3.4‘Tifway’ bermudagrass 50 42 1.3Common bermudagrass 50 35 4.6Starr and DeRoo(1981)Kentucky bluegrass/red fescue 180 1 (  188 d) 116 (no clippings) trace137 (clippings) traceEngelsjord et al.(2004)Kentucky bluegrass 48.8 4 (2–365 d) 39.79 —Perennial ryegrass 48.8 36.29 — z 1 kg  ha –1 = 0.8922 lb/acre.  y  N recovered includes plant tissues and soil except Bowman et al. (2002), which only includes plant tissues. 282  •  June 2012 22(3) R EVIEW  2006; Easton and Petrovic, 2004).Mixtures of soluble andCRF materialsmay be a good approach where nutri-ent loss potential is high. Returningclippings to turfgrass landscapes fur-ther reduces N fertilizer requirements,but nutrient uptake efficiencies, recy-cling rates, or both among turfgrassspecies and cultivars (within a rangeofenvironmentalconditions)requirefurther assessment. Most state land-grant universities provide fertilizermanagement recommendations forturfgrass. It is beyond the scope of this article to summarize these rec-ommendations for all states. Anexample of recommendations for warm-season turfgrass can be foundfor Florida (Sartain, 2007) and a re-centexampleforcool-seasonturfgrassis provided for Wisconsin (Kussow et al., 2011). Turfgrass nutrient uptakein response to fertilizer timingand placement Increasing turfgrass nutrient useefficiency depends on optimal timingand placement of fertilizer so thatplant utilization is maximized andlosses to the environment are mini-mized. Turfgrass nutrient uptake ratesare higher during periods of activeroot development (Mangiafico andGuillard,2006;USEPA,2005;Wherley et al., 2009). Educating homeownersabout geological and environmentalfactors specific to different turfgrasstypes, such as cool-season vs. warm-season grasses, may help control nu-trient leaching and runoff (Varlamoff et al., 2001). Accounting for differ-ences in the rate of nutrient uptakebetween turfgrass and other land-scape vegetation is another concern.Fertilizerapplicationtechniquesmustmatch the type of vegetation to min-imize nutrient losses because N up-take rates for turfgrass are typically greater than for ornamental species(Cisar et al., 2004; Erickson et al.,2001). Therefore, fertilizer applica-tion rates for turfgrass can be inap-propriate for other landscape plants(Broschat et al., 2008). F ERTILIZER TIMING .  Fertiliza-tion during the turfgrass establish-ment period can lead to potentialnutrient mismanagement. Ericksonet al. (2010) compared different fertil-izer schedules on muck (organic soil)and sand-based sod and found thatdelayed fertilization (at least 30 dafter installation) significantly reducedboth NO 3 –N and orthophosphate–phosphorus (PO 4 –P) in leachate, withmuck sod retaining more nutrientsduring establishment. Calcium andmagnesium ratios in manure andmanure-impacted soils can also po-tentially improve P retention (Nairet al., 2003). Growing sod on manureamended soils increased P retention,eliminated the need for additional Papplications, accelerated turfgrass es-tablishment, and reduced dissolved Pin runoff (Vietor et al., 2004).Spring and summer fertilizer ap-plications are most effective for estab-lishedwarm-seasongrassperformance,but nutrient uptake rates peak duringspring and fall for cool-season grasses(USEPA, 2005). Fertilization datesconsequently influence nutrient leach-ing and runoff potential. For example,inappropriately timed N applicationstobothwarm-andcool-seasongrassesin North Carolina reduced the uptakeof applied fertilizers (Osmond andHardy,2004).MangiaficoandGuillard(2006) investigated fertilizer-timingeffects on NO 3 –N leaching and turf-grass quality for a Connecticut lawncomprisedofkentuckybluegrass(90%)and creeping red fescue (10%). Theauthors applied soluble N sources[ammonium–N (NH 4 –N) and urea]on different dates during the fall(September to December). Fall fertil-izationimproved turf quality, butlatefall applications (after September) didnotaffectcolor,shootdensity,orrootmass. Percolate water also containedgreater NO 3 –N concentrations andmass losses were greater followinglate fall applications (Mangiafico andGuillard, 2006). Other studies com-paring fall fertilization effects havereported similar results for late-seasonapplications (Grossi et al., 2005;Guillard and Kopp, 2004; Petrovic,1990). Wehner and Haley (1993)evaluated fertilizer timing effects onkentucky bluegrass using three differ-entsources[urea,SCU,andactivatedsewage sludge] and found turfgrasscolor ratings and clipping yields werehigher for urea applications afterOctober. The turfgrass was grownin a sandy loam soil that could po-tentially limit nutrient losses, but theauthorsrecommendedtheuseofCRFs(SCU or sludge) or split urea applica-tions (late fall/early spring) to reduceN leaching.Fertilization during periods of reducedturfgrassgrowthcanincreasenutrient losses. Bierman et al. (2010)notedthatintemperateclimates,add-ing P to soils during fall leads to anincrease in the P runoff potentialbecause of possible frozen-soil condi-tions. The authors compared ken-tucky bluegrass plots in Minnesotaunder frozen and nonfrozen condi-tionsfor3yearsandrunofffromfrozensoils accounted for 80% of runoff P.Turfgrass tissues can be the dominantsource of P in runoff (Kussow, 2008)as the amount of soluble P leachedfrom fresh vegetation can be muchlowerthanlossesfromfrozenordriedtissues (Kussow, 2004; Steinke et al.,2007). In addition to potential nutri-ent runoff or leaching, fertilizationduring periods of turfgrass dormancy mayincreasetheprevalenceofdiseases,thatch problems, and weed pressure.Busey(2003)reviewedseveralstudiesinvestigating N fertilizer timing andturfgrasscompetitivenessagainstweeds.For example, Dunn et al. (1993) re-ported an increase in winter weedsassociated with late-season fall fertil-ization of ‘Meyer’ zoysiagrass ( Zoysia  japonica  ). Turfgrass specieswith slow growth rates, such as zoysiagrass, areespeciallysusceptibletoincreasedweedencroachment because of fertilization(Busey, 2003).The length of time between fer-tilizer applications and irrigation orrainfall also determines the extent of nutrient losses from turfgrass systems(Bell and Moss, 2008; Kenna, 2008;PetrovicandEaston,2005).Inalysim-eterstudy,creepingbentgrassirrigated5 d after N application had reducedleaching losses up to 90%, compared with irrigation 1 d after fertilization(Bowman et al., 1998). Using simu-latedrainfalleventsandmultiplePrates(0,5,and11kg  ha –1 ),Shuman(2002)reported greater dissolved P losses inrunoff from bermudagrass at 4 h afterfertilizerapplications(0.5–7.5mg  L  –1 )than at 24 h after fertilization (0.5–1.75 mg  L  –1 ). Light irrigation or‘‘watering-in’’ of fertilizers decreasesrunoff by enhancing P dissolution andmovement into soils (Shuman, 2004). F ERTILIZER PLACEMENT .  Studieshave suggested that broadcast fertil-ization of turfgrass may limit the de- velopment of deeper root networks(Bowman et al., 1989; Murphy andZaurov,1994).Inagreenhousestudy,MurphyandZaurov(1994)compared •  June 2012 22(3)  283  ‘Gettysburg’ perennial ryegrass re-sponse to fertilizer applications atmultiple soil depths (0, 5, 10, and15 cm) and concluded that fertilizerplacement can affect turfgrass growthand water use efficiency. Subsurfacefertilizer applications in two soils(sandy clay loam and sandy-peat mix-ture) increased shoot and root de- velopment compared with surfacefertilization. Water use efficiency forperennial ryegrass subjected to sub-surface fertilization in both the sandy clay loam (11% increase at 10 and15 cm depths) and sandy-peat mix-ture (21% increase at 5 cm) wasgreater than with the surface fertiliza-tion treatment (Murphy and Zaurov,1994). Incorporation of fertilizersinto soil by methods such as corecultivationandtopdressingaltersturf-grass response to applied nutrients(Waddington and Duich, 1976), es-pecially under conditions where thedownward movement of nutrientsis restricted (e.g., compacted soils)(AgnewandChristians,1993).Johnsonet al. (2006) topdressed establishedkentucky bluegrass using compostedmanure to evaluate the effects on nu-trient losses. During the 2-year study,NO 3 –N and P concentrations in run-off and leachate did not increase withmanure use; however, NH 4 -N con-centrations in runoff increased.Totten et al. (2008) investigatedfertilizereffectsoncreepingbentgrassand found greater N uptake efficiency for 100% liquid fertilizers (throughfoliarabsorption)comparedwith100%granular fertilizers. Gross et al. (1990)compared nutrient runoff and soil per-colate losses from tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea  ) and kentucky bluegrassfertilized with liquid and granular ureafertilizers (Table 2). Although totalN runoff losses from plots receivingfertilizers were significantly higherthan an unfertilized control plot, nu-trient concentrations were low with alltreatments. There were no differencesin runoff losses between turfgrass fer-tilized with liquid and granular fertil-izers. However, at depths greater than0.9 m, soil NO 3 –N concentrations with the granular treatment exceededthe liquid treatment. The fertilizers were applied in split applicationsthroughout the year during activeplant growth periods, and soil per-colate was collected monthly fromlysimeters. Gross et al. (1990) sug-gested that higher NH 3  volatilizationfollowingtheliquidNtreatmentcon-tributedtolowersoilNO 3 –Nconcen-trations. Turfgrass species and cultivars Table 2. Comparison of nutrient exports (kg   ha   1 of total watershed area) from turfgrass, agricultural, forest, and otherurban land uses.Study Land use Area (ha) z DurationNutrient exports (kg   ha   1 per yr)  y  NO 3 –N NH 4 –N TN DRP TP King et al.(2008)Golf course: Creeping bentgrass/annual and kentucky bluegrass21.8 2 years 0.59 0.11 2.79 0.14 0.27Schwartz andShuman (2005)‘Tifway’ bermudagrass 0.003 4 years 3.05 — — — —King et al.(2001)Golf course: (Bermudagrass/perennialryegrass): storm events29 13 mo. 2.10 — — 0.33 —Golf course: baseflow 4.30 — — 0.05 —Coulter et al.(2004) Agricultural (95% agriculture; 5% urban) 327 1 year 20.40 0.34 — 0.28 1.13Mixed (43% agriculture; 57% urban) 506 10.80 0.95 — 0.12 1.14Urban (1% agriculture; 99% urban) 226 5.97 0.52 — 0.07 0.66Kaushal et al.(2008)Forest 41 5 years 0.11 — 0.84 — —Forest/suburb 381 5.62 — 5.66 — — Agricultural 8 20.58 — 22.88 — —Kaushal et al.(2008)Suburb 1065 8.54 — 9.68 — —Urban 1429 4.78 — 8.02 — —Steinke et al.(2007)Prairie (frozen soil) 0.002 2 years — — — 1.30 1.92Prairie (nonfrozen soil) — — — 0.02 0.04Kentucky bluegrass blend(frozen soil)— — — 1.36 2.11Kentucky bluegrass blend(nonfrozen soil)— — — 0.01 0.01Gross et al.(1990)Tall fescue/kentucky bluegrass(liquid fertilizer)0.001 2 years 0.05 0.07 0.17 — —Tall fescue/kentucky bluegrass(granular fertilizer)0.06 0.11 0.18 — —Line et al.(2002)Residential (lawns/impervious surfaces) 2.5 1–3 years 3.20 2.40 23.90 — 2.30Golf course 1.75 4.80 3.00 31.20 — 5.30Pasture 6.23 1.20 0.40 6.70 — 4.30Construction-I (clearing/grading) 4.05 1.40 0.60 8.30 — 3.00Construction-II (roads/storm drains/building phase)4.05 7.30 4.10 36.30 — 1.30 Wooded 3.32 3.60 0.30 11.40 — 1.00 z 1 ha = 2.4711 acres.  y  Nitrate–nitrogen (NO 3 –N), ammonium–nitrogen (NH 4 –N), total nitrogen (TN), dissolved reactivephosphorus (DRP), total phosphorus(TP);1kg  ha –1 = 0.8922 lb/acre. 284  •  June 2012 22(3) R EVIEW
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks