Influence of Simulated Golf Cart Traffic and Nitrogen Rate on Buffalograss Quality

Application of 2 and 3 lb N/1,000 ft2 resulted in acceptable buffalograss quality when subjected to simulated golf cart traffic. Across all fertilizer treatments, traffic rates of 8 and 16 passes per week resulted in unacceptable quality ratings for the study duration.

Study Description.A field study was initiated in July 2014 at the Rocky Ford Turfgrass Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas.This study was conducted using a strip-plot design with a 4 × 5 factorial treatment structure.Treatments consisted of two main factors: nitrogen fertilizer rate and golf cart traffic.Fertilizer treatments consisted of 0, 1, 2, or 3 lb N/1,000 ft 2 of a 46-0-0 (N-P-K) urea product applied in two half-rate applications at 1 and 8 weeks after initiation.Simulated golf cart traffic treatments were applied twice per week, totaling 0, 2, 4, 8, and 16 passes per week.Traffic treatments were applied with a custom-built traffic simulator (Figure 1).Buffalograss quality (1 to 9 scale in which 1 = poor quality; 6 = acceptable quality; 9 = best quality) was assessed biweekly throughout the duration of the research trial.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
Data were subjected to analysis of variance using the Proc Glimmix procedure in SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina).Fisher's protected LSD was used to determine differences when P < 0.05.
Results.Significant main effects of fertilizer rate and traffic were observed.Fertilizer rate by traffic interaction was not significant.Applications rates of 2 and 3 lb N/1,000ft 2 resulted in acceptable buffalograss quality throughout the duration of the trial (Table 1).Golf cart traffic rates of 8 and 16 passes per week did not result in acceptable quality throughout the study (Table 2).Traffic rates of 0 and 2 passes per week had the overall highest quality ratings of all traffic treatments across all fertilizer treatments (Table 2).5.73 6.20a § 6.13a 6.40a 6.80a 6.80a 6.27a 6.27a 2lb/1000sqft 5.60 6.20a 6.00a 6.27a 6.67a 6.47a 5.73b 5.67b 1lb/1000sqft 5.73 5.80b 5.60b 5.80b 5.93b 6.07b 5.20c 4.87c 0lb/1000sqft 5.40 5.33c 5.40b 5.53b 5.33c 5.47c 4.47d 3.93d † Buffalograss quality was rated per the National Turfgrass Evaluation Guidelines for quality on a 1 to 9 scale in which 1 = poor quality, 6 = acceptable quality, and 9 = best quality.Quality ratings were taken visually every other week.‡ Indicates weeks after treatment.§ Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD test, (P<0.05).5.58 5.92a § 6.17a 6.42a 6.83a 7.33a 6.83a 6.67a 2 5.83 6.00a 6.17a 6.33ab 6.83a 6.58b 6.00b 6.00b 4 5.58 6.08a 5.75b 6.00bc 5.92b 6.17b 5.25c 4.92c 8 5.50 5.83ab 5.58bc 5.67cd 5.83bc 5.50c 4.67d 4.67c 16 5.58 5.58b 5.25c 5.58d 5.50c 5.42c 4.33d 3.67d † Buffalograss quality was rated as per the National Turfgrass Evaluation Guidelines for quality on a 1 to 9 scale win which 1 = poor quality, 6 = acceptable quality, and 9 = best quality.Quality ratings were taken visually every other week.‡ Indicates weeks after treatment.§ Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD test, (P<0.05).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The golf cart traffic simulator used in this study consisted of two independent trailers with a solid axle.Simulator obtained equivalent lbs/in 2 tire weight of average golf cart with two golfers and clubs.

Table 1 .
Main effect of fertilizer rate on buffalograss quality † when subjected to simulated golf cart traffic.

Table 2 .
Main effect of golf cart traffic on buffalograss quality † pooled across all fertilizer rates.