栽培对两种匍匐弯草有机质浓度和入渗速率的影响把蔬菜

Charles J. Schmid, Roch E. Gaussoin, Robert C. Shearman, Martha Mamo, Charles S. Wortmann
{"title":"栽培对两种匍匐弯草有机质浓度和入渗速率的影响把蔬菜","authors":"Charles J. Schmid,&nbsp;Roch E. Gaussoin,&nbsp;Robert C. Shearman,&nbsp;Martha Mamo,&nbsp;Charles S. Wortmann","doi":"10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil cultivation is commonly used to manage organic matter (OM) accumulation in golf course putting greens. Our objectives were to determine: (i) if hollow-tine cultivation is more effective than solid-tine cultivation at managing OM and water infiltration, (ii) if venting methods are effective at managing OM and water infiltration, and (iii) if venting alters or interacts with effects of early- or late-season cultivation. The study was a 3 × 5 factorial repeated on two ‘Providence’ creeping bentgrass (<i>Agrostis stolonifera</i> L.) research putting greens. Tine treatments were hollow-tine, solid-tine, or no-tine cultivation. Venting treatments were Hydroject, PlanetAir, quad needle tine, bayonet tine, or no venting. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for OM content using loss on ignition. Water infiltration rates were determined in situ. After 2 years, there were few consistent differences found among the tine and venting treatments, and there were no significant interactions regarding OM concentration. This response was attributed to the small amount of surface area impacted by cultivation and to the equalization of topdressing quantity across all treatment combinations. Hollow-tine and solid-tine cultivation increased infiltration compared with no cultivation. In general, Hydroject treatments increased water infiltration rates more than all other venting treatments regardless of tine treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":100111,"journal":{"name":"Applied Turfgrass Science","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultivation Effects on Organic Matter Concentration and Infiltration Rates of Two Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Putting Greens\",\"authors\":\"Charles J. Schmid,&nbsp;Roch E. Gaussoin,&nbsp;Robert C. Shearman,&nbsp;Martha Mamo,&nbsp;Charles S. Wortmann\",\"doi\":\"10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Soil cultivation is commonly used to manage organic matter (OM) accumulation in golf course putting greens. Our objectives were to determine: (i) if hollow-tine cultivation is more effective than solid-tine cultivation at managing OM and water infiltration, (ii) if venting methods are effective at managing OM and water infiltration, and (iii) if venting alters or interacts with effects of early- or late-season cultivation. The study was a 3 × 5 factorial repeated on two ‘Providence’ creeping bentgrass (<i>Agrostis stolonifera</i> L.) research putting greens. Tine treatments were hollow-tine, solid-tine, or no-tine cultivation. Venting treatments were Hydroject, PlanetAir, quad needle tine, bayonet tine, or no venting. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for OM content using loss on ignition. Water infiltration rates were determined in situ. After 2 years, there were few consistent differences found among the tine and venting treatments, and there were no significant interactions regarding OM concentration. This response was attributed to the small amount of surface area impacted by cultivation and to the equalization of topdressing quantity across all treatment combinations. Hollow-tine and solid-tine cultivation increased infiltration compared with no cultivation. In general, Hydroject treatments increased water infiltration rates more than all other venting treatments regardless of tine treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Turfgrass Science\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Turfgrass Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Turfgrass Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/ATS-2014-0032-RS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

土壤栽培是控制高尔夫球场果岭有机质积累的常用方法。我们的目标是确定:(i)在管理有机质和水分渗透方面,中空栽培是否比固体栽培更有效;(ii)通风方法是否在管理有机质和水分渗透方面有效;(iii)通风是否会改变或与早季或晚季栽培的效果相互作用。该研究是一个3 × 5的因子重复在两个'普罗维登斯'匍匐曲草(Agrostis stolonifera L.)研究推杆果岭。时间处理分为空心培养、固体培养和无时间培养。通气处理为Hydroject、PlanetAir、四针定时、卡口定时或不通气。采集土壤样品,用着火损失法测定OM含量。水的入渗速率就地测定。2年后,时间和排气处理之间几乎没有一致的差异,并且在OM浓度方面没有显着的相互作用。这种反应归因于受栽培影响的表面积很小,以及在所有处理组合中追肥量均衡。空心期和固期栽培与不栽培相比增加了入渗。总的来说,与时间处理无关,水力处理比所有其他通风处理更能增加水渗透速率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cultivation Effects on Organic Matter Concentration and Infiltration Rates of Two Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Putting Greens

Soil cultivation is commonly used to manage organic matter (OM) accumulation in golf course putting greens. Our objectives were to determine: (i) if hollow-tine cultivation is more effective than solid-tine cultivation at managing OM and water infiltration, (ii) if venting methods are effective at managing OM and water infiltration, and (iii) if venting alters or interacts with effects of early- or late-season cultivation. The study was a 3 × 5 factorial repeated on two ‘Providence’ creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) research putting greens. Tine treatments were hollow-tine, solid-tine, or no-tine cultivation. Venting treatments were Hydroject, PlanetAir, quad needle tine, bayonet tine, or no venting. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for OM content using loss on ignition. Water infiltration rates were determined in situ. After 2 years, there were few consistent differences found among the tine and venting treatments, and there were no significant interactions regarding OM concentration. This response was attributed to the small amount of surface area impacted by cultivation and to the equalization of topdressing quantity across all treatment combinations. Hollow-tine and solid-tine cultivation increased infiltration compared with no cultivation. In general, Hydroject treatments increased water infiltration rates more than all other venting treatments regardless of tine treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Antimicrobial Compounds on Etiolation Caused by Xanthomonas translucens and on Turf Quality of Creeping Bentgrass Putting-Green Turf Applicator and Primo Effects on the Persistence of Painted Golf Course Water Hazard and Out-of-Bounds Lines on Bermudagrass Cultivation Effects on Organic Matter Concentration and Infiltration Rates of Two Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Putting Greens Amicarbazone Application Timing Influences Overseeded Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) Safety and Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L.) Control Turfgrass Winterkill Observations from the Great Lakes Region
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1