The Turf Zone Podcast

Hosted by The Turf Zone

Business Sports Leisure

Website RSS feed

Episodes

Latest episode

Jun 2026

Language

EN-US

About the show

All Your Turf News In One Place

Listen to episodes

10 recent

June 16, 20262 min

Welcome, Dr. Zia Williamson to Mississippi State University

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.

June 15, 202624 min

How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance

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 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 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.

June 12, 202617 min

Give Yourself the Edge in Managing Sedges in Lawns and Landscape Beds

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.

June 10, 20262 min

Member Spotlight on Devin McCaffrey

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.

June 8, 20264 min

A Message for VTC Members from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

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.

June 5, 202614 min

Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying

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.

June 3, 20263 min

A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort

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.

June 1, 20265 min

Creative Membership Models for Private Clubs

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.

May 22, 20262 min

Students Shine at National Turf Bowl Competition

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.

May 20, 20269 min

How Should Fertility be Used to Manage Brown Patch Disease in Tall Fescue Lawns?

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.