By: Carl Schimenti, Urban Environmental Scientist
Most readers may not be familiar with my favorite conference event of the year called CANVAS. Also known as the “Tri-Societies” conference, this is gathering of agronomy, soil and crop science professionals from across an array of academic and industry institutions. Turfgrass has its own C5 division, where we get to see and hear from many of our colleagues across the globe.
What makes it so exciting? I get to sit down for 6-8 hours a day listening to grad students present their research, 15 minutes at a time! Sometimes research is fully formed, and just about ready for publication. Other times, only preliminary findings or small pieces of their research is presented to receive feedback. There’s also a poster division, where I generally stare at posters attempting to translate metrics units (kg/ha) into units that are objectively less rationale, but more understandable in my small brain (lbs/1000).
Here are the top 3 themes I noticed across the work I got to see this week:
Remote sensing
The speed with which remote sensing technologies has permeated the industry is impressive. Sensors can be mounted on drones, mowers, or simply stand-alone units that indirectly measure a variety of useful metrics such as soil moisture, nitrogen status, and even organic matter (very accurately by the way!).
Most of the research suggests these technologies can save you time and money, but in almost all cases, there needs to be some sort of site calibration required before you can get that true value. For example, if a device is purporting to measure soil moisture, you’ll probably need to feed it some ACTUAL soil moisture values using a soil moisture probe so the data can be calibrated to on site conditions.
These technologies are ways to rapidly collect data across large areas at a course that cut down on the need to scout, and granularly identify how resources (irrigation, pesticides, fertilizer) can be applied in a site-specific manner. But to really unlock these benefits, you need to pair the data with the ability to treat with precision, i.e. a GPS sprayer or spreader. While this is where cost savings and improved turf uniformity can occur, it’s also where the barrier to adoption is greatest.
Processing and analyzing novel data, then generating variable rate prescriptions for a GPS application is a stark departure from the current workflow of a turf manager. The entire process of data collection, processing, interpretation, and variable rate prescription will need to be practically seamless for managers to begin using it en masse. Until then, pioneers like Jim Pavonetti will be integral in providing practical feedback with these technologies that helps shape the into practical tools for the future.
Organic Matter Testing
You may have heard of a new method of measuring organic matter called the OM246 method. Compared to the old method, where living plant material is sieved out before loss on ignition test, the new method keeps all plant material in for the burn. In the past, an OM value of 2% was a common target, but the new method will produce values anywhere from 4% to upwards of 40%.
In any organic matter related work I saw this week, all researchers used the OM246 method for analysis. Given that academics are so focused on measuring their results, this is an indication to me that practitioners should also be using the OM246 method for evaluating success of organic matter management programs. The bottom line is that if we are actively managing the living plant material with topdressing, cultivation, and PGRs, we should be measuring that same material with our organic matter tests.
Seed
I wrote about this earlier in the year, but I still can’t let it go! Grass seed is so good now, and the body of research from breeders is vast, but there is a large disconnect between the breeding efforts to create excellent new varieties and the use of those varieties in the field. One of my favorite presentations this week was Dr. Eric Watkins (UMN) who discussed their work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to re-write specifications for roadside plantings. Their turf program now works with MnDOT to test seed mixes, which inform specifications for seed, thus driving demand for new and better seed. This makes too much sense!
Unfortunately, I think many of the specifications for turfgrass plantings in the public sector (athletic fields, parks, housing developments, etc.) get written by landscape architects who pull seed specs out of a hat. I have personally seen this with athletic field projects at K-12 schools in NY, and it was not successful. And it’s not just seed, but the soil specifications as well. This has caused us to think about providing resources for seed (and soil) specifications for decision makers. There is a lot of room to grow here.
If you’re interested in the particular research projects that were presented, you can visit the C5 CANVAS program webpage, where you’ll find the abstracts for presentations, and even digital copies of many of the posters presented.