Register free!


Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-31-2012, 03:06 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
http://itd.idaho.gov/enviro/storm%20...Management.pdf

http://www.newfieldsrestoration.com/...ngi_Ecesis.pdf

Last edited by Duekster; 05-31-2012 at 03:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:12 PM
phasthound's Avatar
phasthound phasthound is online now
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mt. Laurel, NJ
Posts: 4,100
Some scientific studies.
Attached Files
File Type: doc Koske evaluation of commercial inoculum.doc (73.5 KB, 11 views)
File Type: doc Droughtandgrassesabstractsfinal.doc (48.0 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Barry Draycott

The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:08 PM
Skipster Skipster is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 783
phasthound, I like your citation of the Tarbell and Koske paper (it also cites my research). If you read the paper, you'll find that all positive plant effects from mycorrhizae were LESS than those form using nitrogen fertilizers alone. They also found that no incoulum increased mycorrhizae numbers beyond those found in un-inoculated soil. Good try, though.

Your second attachment includes a lot of irrelevant info (remember, ther eare differences between annual and perennial croppign systems). The only relevant citation is the Genna et al paper, which simply restates the Tarbell and Koske findings. Its also interesting to note that you thought data from 2010 could be outdated when it did not support your position, but you think 1997 data is somehow better.

Again, nice try. If you're looking to deliver poor quality lawns at a high cost with no fertilizer, you certainly have found your answer!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:13 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Clearly, the use of the native top soil is preffered as it takes centuries to fully develop. This is why it is removed and carefully managed on so many sites.

The Mycoriziea is a slow mover. IE you can not spray it on top of the soil and expect it to move 12 inches deep. In Koske paper, this was sited as well. Proper soil management and good soil medium and fertilization are key factors that can not be over come by mycorrhizal products alone.

To say they are not a pancea is a far statement. However, again when we are faced with rebuilding sub-soils practically void of organic materials they are very helpful. Particularly for trees. I have seen turf around trees that I treated also respond well.

I believe the TAMU studies I first posted and their sampling of plants in the strip mines versus no-treated plants. You will find studies of some trees not doing well, that is because that species does not readily accept the relationship for some reason.

It is a shame that many of the products do not work as advertised but that is not the same as saying the concept is faulty.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:33 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
phasthound, I like your citation of the Tarbell and Koske paper (it also cites my research). If you read the paper, you'll find that all positive plant effects from mycorrhizae were LESS than those form using nitrogen fertilizers alone. They also found that no incoulum increased mycorrhizae numbers beyond those found in un-inoculated soil. Good try, though.

Your second attachment includes a lot of irrelevant info (remember, ther eare differences between annual and perennial croppign systems). The only relevant citation is the Genna et al paper, which simply restates the Tarbell and Koske findings. Its also interesting to note that you thought data from 2010 could be outdated when it did not support your position, but you think 1997 data is somehow better.

Again, nice try. If you're looking to deliver poor quality lawns at a high cost with no fertilizer, you certainly have found your answer!
Wait for a second... The Koske paper clearly stated the new greens were slow to colonize naturally.... that AMF was benificial to turf and the need to find a commerical inoculant would help greens keepers bring their product to market faster.

This disputes your statement that Mycorizial fungus did not benifit turf and that it would quickly colonize naturally.

3 of the 8 product samples did colonize but at a low rate on Turf!!! I do not use it for turf, I use for trees. The author is saying, to use it for turf, test the product first and expect to apply it 5 to 10 higher for turf. The effective products worked better on Corn.

They also would work better on Trees too.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-31-2012, 07:15 PM
phasthound's Avatar
phasthound phasthound is online now
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mt. Laurel, NJ
Posts: 4,100
For some reason I am unable to download the file with the diagrams.

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD November / December 1995
MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI
BENEFIT PUTTING GREENS
by R. KOSKE1, J.N. GEMMA2,
and N. JACKSON1
Department of Botany1 and Department of Plant Sciences2,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island

ENDOPHYTIC microorganisms occur in most species of plants as inhabitants of above- or below-ground organs. Their presence in the tissues either elicits no apparent effect in the normal functioning of the infected plants, or the endophytic may confer various benefits to the host. Grasses are no exception and present intriguing examples of these associations that can have application in turf management.
Fungi are the most frequently encountered partners with grasses, and several species that colonize leaves and stems are now known to confer protection from herbivores and environmental stresses. These properties are being exploited for turfgrass species, where resistance to depredation from surface-feeding insects is a major benefit. Unfortunately, these fungi do not inhabit root tissues, but, as in most plant roots, grass roots harbor other endophytic fungi, in particular, many species of vescular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi can be found. VAM endophytes have been extensively documented, and their beneficial effects on growth and development of a range of plant species have been demonstrated. However, the species involved and their biology and impact in the turf environment have received only cursory examination. In fact, there is a common belief that VAM fungi are of little importance in highly maintained turf where the extensive fine root system of the grasses receives ample water and nutrients that eliminate the requirement for the symbiosis. With the generous support of the USGA, a research project to investigate the subject of VAM in turfgrasses commenced at URI in 1990.
We sampled turf throughout New England and performed a variety of greenhouse and field trials to assess the incidence and importance of VAM fungi in golf greens. Our efforts were focused on creeping bentgrasses (Agrostis palustris cv Penncross) and velvet bentgrass (Agrostis canina cv Kingstown). Initially, we needed to determine how frequently the fungi occurred in association with these turfs and what species of fungi were involved.
In our four-year study we found 29 species of VAM fungi occurring with these bentgrasses, several of which were new species. None of the species have previously been studied for any particular impact on bentgrass turf, yet virtually every one of the more than 200 root zone samples examined contained VAM fungi.
We performed numerous growth experiments where bentgrasses were inoculated with different species of VAM fungi. All experiments were carried out in a medium meeting USGA Green Section specifications for sand greens. The fungi were added to the mix before seeding. The fungus that we used most frequently was Glomus Intraradices, the only species for which sufficient inoculum was commercially available. Results of inoculation were striking. Establishment of young turf was enhanced by inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi, and differences were apparent within three weeks after seeding. Turfs older by several months continued to grow more vigorously with Mycorrhizae. In addition to improved growth, mycorrhizal turf was greener than non-mycorrhizal turf and possessed up to 60% more chlorophyll.
Phosphorus fertilization rate affected how well the VAM fungi performed. The most vigorous mycorrhizal turfs were those that received frequent applications of a low-P fertilizer solution. When the P concentration was too high or too low, Mycorrhizae did not enhance growth.
Mycorrhizal fungi are sensitive to a range of pesticides (e.g., Benlate, Aliette, Phaltan, Diazinon), and the benefits to turf may thus be lost temporarily if suppressive materials are applied.
In both field miniplots and greenhouse trials in pots, mycorrhizal turf of Penncross survived drought conditions far better than did non-mycorrhizal turf. After a five-day drought, mycorrhizal turf in the field study showed 39% less water stress than did control turf, and after eight days, the difference was 60% (Figure 1).


In the greenhouse study, turf without mycorrhizae began wilting after three days, but mycorrhizal plants were wilted only after five days (Figure 2).


Mycorrhizal turfs also recovered more rapidly, producing three times as much leaf matter as the controls (Figure 3).


Preliminary trials indicated that mycorrhizae may provide some protection against the take-all fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis. As noted in the growth trials, however, this benefit was present only when P concentration was moderately low. At higher levels of P mycorrhizal turfs tended to be susceptible to take-all.
__________________
Barry Draycott

The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-31-2012, 07:21 PM
Skipster Skipster is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duekster View Post
Wait for a second... The Koske paper clearly stated the new greens were slow to colonize naturally.... that AMF was benificial to turf and the need to find a commerical inoculant would help greens keepers bring their product to market faster.

This disputes your statement that Mycorizial fungus did not benifit turf and that it would quickly colonize naturally.
Did you notice the different in colonization time for conventionallly managed greens and inoculated greens? Hint: it was less than one week! And, they found that mycorrhizae OTHER THAN THE ONES THEY APPLIED colonized quicker! They found that if they applied a commercial mycorrhizae, that same species colonized no faster than it would have naturally, while other species colonized a few days faster.

A couple of days advance does not justify the expense for me. After a week, you can't even tel lthe difference in what's been treated anyhow.

Issues like this really separate the men from the boys. Some lawn boys think that a spray will solve all their problems. Those who actually understand ecology and microbiology know better.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-31-2012, 07:23 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
Did you notice the different in colonization time for conventionallly managed greens and inoculated greens? Hint: it was less than one week! And, they found that mycorrhizae OTHER THAN THE ONES THEY APPLIED colonized quicker! They found that if they applied a commercial mycorrhizae, that same species colonized no faster than it would have naturally, while other species colonized a few days faster.

A couple of days advance does not justify the expense for me. After a week, you can't even tel lthe difference in what's been treated anyhow.

Issues like this really separate the men from the boys. Some lawn boys think that a spray will solve all their problems. Those who actually understand ecology and microbiology know better.
No I did not read that in the report. Please point me there. I got your boy for you just come and get it or back off the smack.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-31-2012, 07:43 PM
Duekster Duekster is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 7,971
Here is what I read "While turf in newly constructed greens meeting the USGA specifications will eventually form mycorrhizas, the migration of AMF fungi is slow. In a study of 20 greens not inoculated with AMF, the population of AMF spores in one- and two-year-old greens was very low or spores were absent entirely. "
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-31-2012, 09:55 PM
phasthound's Avatar
phasthound phasthound is online now
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mt. Laurel, NJ
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duekster View Post
Here is what I read "While turf in newly constructed greens meeting the USGA specifications will eventually form mycorrhizas, the migration of AMF fungi is slow. In a study of 20 greens not inoculated with AMF, the population of AMF spores in one- and two-year-old greens was very low or spores were absent entirely. "
and

The addition of high quality AMF inoculation to the greens medium prior to seeding can significantly shorten establishment time (Gemma et al., 1997a) as well as provide the benefits previously cited. Quicker establishment of turf means that putting greens may be playable earlier, an economic gain to the golf course.
__________________
Barry Draycott

The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 AM.

Page generated in 0.07161 seconds with 8 queries