 |
|
Proving grounds
Putting new products through their paces in real-world settings on the golf course is a critical step for both superintendents and the industry.
 |
On-course research of new products or management procedures can be a lot like buying a new car.
Before you buy, you’ve probably read everything about the car from promotional materials to reviews in Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Consumer Reports. You have probably also talked to friends who own the car to get their opinions. Yet even with all this information, you are still not going to buy the car without kicking the tires and taking it for a test drive to determine whether the car works for you.
On-course research is a lot like that final test drive. For most superintendents, it’s an important final step before deciding whether to add a product, grass species/variety or maintenance procedure to a course management program.
Going through the paces
There are two types of on-course research: studies that are conducted on-site by university or industry researchers, and those conducted by the superintendent.
According to Nick Christians, Ph.D. at Iowa State University, researchers do on-site testing because it provides them with real-world conditions that cannot be found on small test plots at a research facility.
“This is particularly true for measuring the impact of compaction and traffic on product performance,” Christians says. “It’s difficult to re-create the impact of traffic and compaction found on a golf course in small plot work done at a research facility.”
Christians and Thomas Fermanian, Ph.D. at the University of Illinois, agree that, while important, conducting on-course studies is often challenging for university researchers. Studies done at a research facility are almost completely under the control of the researcher. This is not the case for on-course projects where the researcher often has to yield control of the study to the superintendent. This can be a significant issue since a study often lasts several months and may require management practices different from the rest of the course.
Christians notes that “the most frequent disconnect between researcher and superintendent is the inclusion of the test area into the maintenance procedures for the rest of the course, invalidating the results of the study.” To keep this from happening, Fermanian believes that researchers should try to conduct studies that are compatible with existing maintenance programs and patterns of play. In addition, he states that experiments with minimal treatment inputs — turfgrass variety trials, and fertilizer and pesticide studies — are usually best suited for on-course work.
 |
Because the superintendent plays a vital role in any on-course research project, good communication with researchers is key. GCM file photo |
Getting started
Generally, the first step in conducting a study on a golf course is finding the best place on the course to conduct it. Ideally the research plots should be located in an area that best represents the general conditions of the course — soil type, compaction, traffic, sun/shade and wind movement, for example. At the same time, the study should not be in a location that affects the playability of the course. Another consideration is the proximity of the plot area to a convenient access point, for both the convenience of the research and to prevent disruption in play.
Brian Maloy, superintendent at Coldwater Golf Links in Ames, Iowa, works closely with researchers at Iowa State University and believes that he has a good location for research.
“The course was built with an alternate fairway on the ninth hole,” the 17-year GCSAA member says. “This provides a large area in one location that can be used for research while minimizing impact on play since fewer golfers play this fairway. This lack of play does not capture the impact of traffic as other areas on the course might, but it is more realistic than other out-of-play areas.”
Realistic options
Par-3 holes can provide good locations for setting up research on turf maintained at fairway height. The closely cut areas in front of the green on these holes are often maintained at fairway heights. They generally see little play but still provide a high level of traffic and a management plan similar to regular fairways.
On-course turfgrass nurseries are probably the best compromise locations for research on turf maintained at green or tee heights of cut. These areas generally receive the same management as the greens and tees of the course, present a nearly real-world location and do not affect playability, although traffic will not be as great. Also, unused locations on tees can be used for research plots, but require a good communication effort with golfers to explain why those areas are off-limits and the reasons for the research.
The role of the superintendent
Knowing where the superintendent fits into the research plan is vital to the success of any cooperative research effort. According to Fermanian, changes can occur rapidly in almost any study. Because there is often some distance between the researcher and the research, the superintendent is in the best position to identify when these changes occur. This means that researcher and superintendent must establish a good line of communication. Without this, the research project is often doomed to failure.
Maloy feels that in most cases, cooperative efforts should be a win-win situation for both superintendent and researcher.
“The obvious win is obtaining real-world results that contribute to the decision-making process in evaluating potential changes to management practices,” he says.
Maloy notes that there can be additional benefits to on-site research. One of the experiments at Coldwater was a mowing study conducted by an Iowa State graduate student. “As a result of this contact, the student worked at the course for two years mowing greens,” Maloy says.
Self-service research
For many superintendents, self-service on-course research is as important as the studies carried out by a university researcher. Lee McLemore, CGCS, the director of golf course operations at the Country Club of Birmingham (Ala.), conducts his own research and believes “it allows us to see how products will react and perform in real-life situations and everyday maintenance procedures.”
According to Jeff Oelman, CGCS, the director of maintenance for Grand National Golf Course in Opelika, Ala., on-course research is also about risk reduction. The nine-year GCSAA member says, “When a product does not live up to expectations, you don’t have a huge expense or loss of time like you do if you had done applications on a larger scale.”
Most superintendents begin on-site research by conducting pesticide and fertilizer trials. In many cases, these efforts expand into a variety of areas.
“We have tested aerification timing, frequency and aggressiveness, summer water management on bentgrass greens, greens grooming methods, topdressing methods and frequency,” says McLemore, a 21-year member of the association.
McLemore, Oelman and Mark Langner, CGCS, the director of agronomy and applied research at FarmLinks in Sylacauga, Ala., all test any new soil conditioner or root-stimulation product before it’s applied on their golf courses.
 |
 |
 |
FarmLinks, the championship golf course in Sylacauga, Ala., was designed with product research in mind and regularly conducts turfgrass trials (pictured here) and equipment testing. Photos courtesy of FarmLinks |
Keeping control
The key to the success of any experiment is eliminating the effects of anything other than the treatment being applied. This is difficult to do with a living system such as turf where minor variations in growing conditions can occur over very short distances. There are three important steps to minimize variability in setting up any research study. For valid research you must:
• Replicate
• Randomize
• Include a control
No matter how hard a researcher tries to set up a uniform test area, there can still be variability between plots that can have some effect on a treatment. Replication and randomization are steps to eliminate as much variability as possible from an experiment.
The process of setting up a study begins with determining what the individual treatments will be — will the study be of one product or process at varying rates or several products or processes at single rates? For ease of setup and interpretation of results, it is generally better to do one or the other, but not both.
The sizes of the plots for each individual treatment are going to depend on:
• The space available. Ideally, there should be no limitation of the amount of space available to conduct an experiment. In reality, available space may be limited and the size of the plots may need to be reduced.
• The type of equipment being used to do the treatment. For convenience, plot sizes should be large enough to accommodate the width of a single pass of the equipment being used to make the treatment.
University researchers replicate treatments at least three times. Three areas of turf growing in similar conditions are measured out to accommodate one set of treatment plots each. Each area should be as similar as possible to eliminate growing conditions as a variable.
An untreated control plot should be included in each replication. The control plot serves as a standard that establishes the baseline against which the treatment effects are measured. Overall quality of the turf in the research area is likely to change over the course of the study whether a treatment was applied or not. The control accounts for these changes when evaluations are made during the course of the study.
Randomization is another method for reducing the effects of variability in a study. Placement of treatments should be randomized within each plot area. The simplest method for randomizing plots is to draw treatments, including the control, out of a hat for each plot. Each replication should be randomized separately in this way.
A treatment that looks very good a week after application may not look as good a month later. As a result, evaluate plots regularly over a period of time to determine the long-term effects of each treatment.
Reaching the finish line
You don’t need a complicated rating or statistical analysis system in measuring the results of a study. The easiest method is a one-to-five system where one represents totally unacceptable playing conditions, three equals standard playability conditions and five represents ideal playing conditions. Results for all replications should be averaged to get the final results.
Finally, trust your results. Many superintendents begin a study with an idea of what the results of a study will be before it even begins. They do the study to prove they are right. When the results don’t agree with that opinion, they consider the study flawed in some way. If the study has been properly planned, executed and evaluated, the results are valid for the conditions under which it was conducted. The only way to disprove the results is to conduct the experiment again using the exact same methods and procedures.
RECENT issues
 |
 |
January |
December |