Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health

Golf courses require extensive use of inputs to meet the needs of playability and aesthetics. The impact of these inputs on soil biological health is largely unknown. Two field trials were conducted at a golf course in Georgia to evaluate short‐term effects of wetting agents (Cascade Plus and Duplex...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of environmental quality 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.858-868
Hauptverfasser: Diera, Alexx A., Raymer, Paul L., Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D., Bauske, Ellen, Habteselassie, Mussie Y.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 868
container_issue 4
container_start_page 858
container_title Journal of environmental quality
container_volume 49
creator Diera, Alexx A.
Raymer, Paul L.
Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D.
Bauske, Ellen
Habteselassie, Mussie Y.
description Golf courses require extensive use of inputs to meet the needs of playability and aesthetics. The impact of these inputs on soil biological health is largely unknown. Two field trials were conducted at a golf course in Georgia to evaluate short‐term effects of wetting agents (Cascade Plus and Duplex [C+D], Revolution [Rev]), plant growth regulators (PrimoMaxx [PM] and Cutless [CL]), and a product called PlantHelper (PH) on soil biological health by measuring microbial abundance and function. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure microbial abundance, which included total bacteria, total fungi, and ammonia‐oxidizing prokaryotes. Soil respiration and enzyme assays were used as additional indicators of soil health. In bentgrass putting green, total bacteria and ammonia‐oxidizing bacteria decreased in abundance in response to the wetting agents and PH, indicating their sensitivity to the products. Whereas C+D stimulated urease activity, Rev and PH caused a short‐lived but immediate increase in respiration, indicating that they acted as labile carbon sources. In a bermudagrass fairway, PM was the only product that caused an increase in total bacteria abundance. PrimoMaxx and CL caused a delayed increase in respiration, suggesting that they may have affected the microorganisms indirectly through their impact on root growth and exudate production later. Although CL caused a decrease in urease activity, none of the products significantly affected phosphatase activity. Overall, the products did not seem to have a lasting impact on soil biological health, although long‐term studies are needed to confirm these observations.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jeq2.20080
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_jeq2_20080_JEQ220080</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2448641594</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3060-2bef058e3c69a0eea6704247b4dd612572b50026d92d40df2285c07df309d4543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1OwzAQhS0EgvKz4QReIlBh7NhOskRV-RMSQoJ15DgTauTGJXZA3XEEzshJcCliidjMzOJ7T28eIYcMThkAP3vGF37KAQrYICMms3zM09gkIwCRbsHlDtkN4RmAccjVNtnJMmBKlDAil9NX7QYdbfdE4wypnS-0idS3NA59-_n-YXSPdNH7ZjAxUN_R4K2jtfXOP1mjHZ2hdnG2T7Za7QIe_Ow98ngxfZhcjW_vLq8n57djk4GCMa-xBVlgZlSpAVGrHAQXeS2aRjEuc17L9JJqSt4IaFrOC2kgb9oMykZIke2Ro7VvivQyYIjV3AaDzukO_RAqLkShBJPlCj1eo6b3IfTYVoveznW_rBhUq-KqVXHVd3EJPlnDb1j7NhiLncFfAQCo5MmKIl0gE138n57YmPr13cQPXUxS9iO1Dpd_RKpupvd8He4L17yOSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448641594</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Diera, Alexx A. ; Raymer, Paul L. ; Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D. ; Bauske, Ellen ; Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</creator><creatorcontrib>Diera, Alexx A. ; Raymer, Paul L. ; Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D. ; Bauske, Ellen ; Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</creatorcontrib><description>Golf courses require extensive use of inputs to meet the needs of playability and aesthetics. The impact of these inputs on soil biological health is largely unknown. Two field trials were conducted at a golf course in Georgia to evaluate short‐term effects of wetting agents (Cascade Plus and Duplex [C+D], Revolution [Rev]), plant growth regulators (PrimoMaxx [PM] and Cutless [CL]), and a product called PlantHelper (PH) on soil biological health by measuring microbial abundance and function. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure microbial abundance, which included total bacteria, total fungi, and ammonia‐oxidizing prokaryotes. Soil respiration and enzyme assays were used as additional indicators of soil health. In bentgrass putting green, total bacteria and ammonia‐oxidizing bacteria decreased in abundance in response to the wetting agents and PH, indicating their sensitivity to the products. Whereas C+D stimulated urease activity, Rev and PH caused a short‐lived but immediate increase in respiration, indicating that they acted as labile carbon sources. In a bermudagrass fairway, PM was the only product that caused an increase in total bacteria abundance. PrimoMaxx and CL caused a delayed increase in respiration, suggesting that they may have affected the microorganisms indirectly through their impact on root growth and exudate production later. Although CL caused a decrease in urease activity, none of the products significantly affected phosphatase activity. Overall, the products did not seem to have a lasting impact on soil biological health, although long‐term studies are needed to confirm these observations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0047-2425</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-2537</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jeq2.20080</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33016490</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Environmental Sciences ; Environmental Sciences &amp; Ecology ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Science &amp; Technology</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental quality, 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.858-868</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. Journal of Environmental Quality © 2020 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>3</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000615918800005</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3060-2bef058e3c69a0eea6704247b4dd612572b50026d92d40df2285c07df309d4543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3060-2bef058e3c69a0eea6704247b4dd612572b50026d92d40df2285c07df309d4543</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2194-2131</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjeq2.20080$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjeq2.20080$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,28253,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Diera, Alexx A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymer, Paul L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauske, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health</title><title>Journal of environmental quality</title><addtitle>J ENVIRON QUAL</addtitle><description>Golf courses require extensive use of inputs to meet the needs of playability and aesthetics. The impact of these inputs on soil biological health is largely unknown. Two field trials were conducted at a golf course in Georgia to evaluate short‐term effects of wetting agents (Cascade Plus and Duplex [C+D], Revolution [Rev]), plant growth regulators (PrimoMaxx [PM] and Cutless [CL]), and a product called PlantHelper (PH) on soil biological health by measuring microbial abundance and function. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure microbial abundance, which included total bacteria, total fungi, and ammonia‐oxidizing prokaryotes. Soil respiration and enzyme assays were used as additional indicators of soil health. In bentgrass putting green, total bacteria and ammonia‐oxidizing bacteria decreased in abundance in response to the wetting agents and PH, indicating their sensitivity to the products. Whereas C+D stimulated urease activity, Rev and PH caused a short‐lived but immediate increase in respiration, indicating that they acted as labile carbon sources. In a bermudagrass fairway, PM was the only product that caused an increase in total bacteria abundance. PrimoMaxx and CL caused a delayed increase in respiration, suggesting that they may have affected the microorganisms indirectly through their impact on root growth and exudate production later. Although CL caused a decrease in urease activity, none of the products significantly affected phosphatase activity. Overall, the products did not seem to have a lasting impact on soil biological health, although long‐term studies are needed to confirm these observations.</description><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences &amp; Ecology</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><issn>0047-2425</issn><issn>1537-2537</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AOWDO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1OwzAQhS0EgvKz4QReIlBh7NhOskRV-RMSQoJ15DgTauTGJXZA3XEEzshJcCliidjMzOJ7T28eIYcMThkAP3vGF37KAQrYICMms3zM09gkIwCRbsHlDtkN4RmAccjVNtnJMmBKlDAil9NX7QYdbfdE4wypnS-0idS3NA59-_n-YXSPdNH7ZjAxUN_R4K2jtfXOP1mjHZ2hdnG2T7Za7QIe_Ow98ngxfZhcjW_vLq8n57djk4GCMa-xBVlgZlSpAVGrHAQXeS2aRjEuc17L9JJqSt4IaFrOC2kgb9oMykZIke2Ro7VvivQyYIjV3AaDzukO_RAqLkShBJPlCj1eo6b3IfTYVoveznW_rBhUq-KqVXHVd3EJPlnDb1j7NhiLncFfAQCo5MmKIl0gE138n57YmPr13cQPXUxS9iO1Dpd_RKpupvd8He4L17yOSQ</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Diera, Alexx A.</creator><creator>Raymer, Paul L.</creator><creator>Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D.</creator><creator>Bauske, Ellen</creator><creator>Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</creator><general>Wiley</general><scope>AOWDO</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2194-2131</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health</title><author>Diera, Alexx A. ; Raymer, Paul L. ; Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D. ; Bauske, Ellen ; Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3060-2bef058e3c69a0eea6704247b4dd612572b50026d92d40df2285c07df309d4543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences &amp; Ecology</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Diera, Alexx A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymer, Paul L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauske, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental quality</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Diera, Alexx A.</au><au>Raymer, Paul L.</au><au>Martinez‐Espinoza, Alfredo D.</au><au>Bauske, Ellen</au><au>Habteselassie, Mussie Y.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental quality</jtitle><stitle>J ENVIRON QUAL</stitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>858</spage><epage>868</epage><pages>858-868</pages><issn>0047-2425</issn><eissn>1537-2537</eissn><abstract>Golf courses require extensive use of inputs to meet the needs of playability and aesthetics. The impact of these inputs on soil biological health is largely unknown. Two field trials were conducted at a golf course in Georgia to evaluate short‐term effects of wetting agents (Cascade Plus and Duplex [C+D], Revolution [Rev]), plant growth regulators (PrimoMaxx [PM] and Cutless [CL]), and a product called PlantHelper (PH) on soil biological health by measuring microbial abundance and function. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure microbial abundance, which included total bacteria, total fungi, and ammonia‐oxidizing prokaryotes. Soil respiration and enzyme assays were used as additional indicators of soil health. In bentgrass putting green, total bacteria and ammonia‐oxidizing bacteria decreased in abundance in response to the wetting agents and PH, indicating their sensitivity to the products. Whereas C+D stimulated urease activity, Rev and PH caused a short‐lived but immediate increase in respiration, indicating that they acted as labile carbon sources. In a bermudagrass fairway, PM was the only product that caused an increase in total bacteria abundance. PrimoMaxx and CL caused a delayed increase in respiration, suggesting that they may have affected the microorganisms indirectly through their impact on root growth and exudate production later. Although CL caused a decrease in urease activity, none of the products significantly affected phosphatase activity. Overall, the products did not seem to have a lasting impact on soil biological health, although long‐term studies are needed to confirm these observations.</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>33016490</pmid><doi>10.1002/jeq2.20080</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2194-2131</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0047-2425
ispartof Journal of environmental quality, 2020-07, Vol.49 (4), p.858-868
issn 0047-2425
1537-2537
language eng
recordid cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_jeq2_20080_JEQ220080
source Access via Wiley Online Library; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Environmental Sciences
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Science & Technology
title Evaluating the impact of turf‐care products on soil biological health
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T23%3A48%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20the%20impact%20of%20turf%E2%80%90care%20products%20on%20soil%20biological%20health&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20quality&rft.au=Diera,%20Alexx%20A.&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=858&rft.epage=868&rft.pages=858-868&rft.issn=0047-2425&rft.eissn=1537-2537&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jeq2.20080&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E2448641594%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448641594&rft_id=info:pmid/33016490&rfr_iscdi=true