You don't think that there may be differences in disease incidence between different turf species or different management practices? You should learn more about plant culture, then rethink this statement. BTW, the scientific literature has documented quite thoroughly the different affinities of the Pythium spp and the impact of management practices, such as mowing height. I'm not saying they were intentionally misleading. But, I think their research is incomplete. Did you actually read the paper? My quick calculations (I just eyeballed it) came out to about 5.5#N/M, but the math shakes out to 4.6#N/M. In the early 1990s, most golf course superintendents were using about 2.0 to 2.5#N/M/yr on creeping bentgrass, so the rate the paper used was closer to 2X. Today, many supts are using 1.75 to 2.0#N/M/yr, which gets us closer to 2.6X. Not bad for eyeballing it, I think. Either way, it makes sense that the untreated control would have more Pythium than the compost plots, since its N was delivered as soluble N, while the N in the treated plots came from the compost. This is where knowledge and understanding really come in (and where you show us that you don't have it). Pythium activity is increased by available mineral N. When you compare a plot fertilized completely with soluble mineral N to a plot fertilized with insoluble immobilized N, you have the same total N application, but a completely different environment for disease growth. A more complete and more accurate comparison would have been to use the same amount of soluble N in all plots. But, this did not happen. If you're going to use research, you have read it, understand it, and have the ability to think critically about it. You should read the paper.