東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examinin...

O'Brien, Daniel.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens./
作者:	O'Brien, Daniel.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2024,
面頁冊數:	282 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-12B.
標題:	Agronomy. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31293370
ISBN:	9798382792460

Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens.
O'Brien, Daniel.

Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2024 - 282 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Arkansas, 2024.

Soil surfactants, commonly referred to as wetting agents, are a leading water management strategy for golf courses. Non-ionic block copolymers are the most common type of turfgrass soil surfactant. However, differences in the registration process and labeling requirements allow soil surfactants to enter the marketplace accompanied by far-less data compared to other products used on golf courses. This has led to considerable confusion among golf course superintendents. Three primary sources of confusion are: (i) the widely-used marketing terminology of "penetrants" and "retainers" to classify wetting agents; (ii) active ingredients which in some cases are not disclosed at all; and (iii) multiple application rates and intervals given on product labels. Therefore, three separate field research experiments were conducted with objectives to (i) compare the penetrant and retainer products from four different manufacturers (Aquatrols, Precision Laboratories, Floratine, and Harrell's) for their ability to move/hold water at different depths within putting green rootzones; (ii) evaluate soil surfactants at the active ingredient level, working with four structurally related block copolymer compounds (Poloxamers 181, 182, 184, 188) all with the same molecular-weight central hydrophobe, and each with a different percentage of terminal hydrophile; and (iii) compare five different application rates and intervals that included: two season-long applications at standard and high rates, two recurring monthly applications at standard and reduced rates, and a recurring application every two months. All experiments included non-treated controls (NTC). Data collection included (i) estimating volumetric water content (VWC) using portable moisture meters at multiple depths in the rootzone; above-ground assessments using (ii) digital image analysis to determine percent green turfgrass cover, color, and turfgrass quality, and (iii) visual ratings for turfgrass quality and localized dry spot (LDS) development. Between 2018 and 2023, studies were conducted{A0}primarily in Fayetteville, AR on sand-based putting greens of both creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, L.) and ultradwarf bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers x Cynodon transvaalensis Burt-Davy). In the first study, penetrant and retainer terminology was problematic because of, (i) lack of significant differences between penetrants and retainers, (ii) significant differences between soil surfactants within the same category, (iii) inconsistent abilities of both penetrants and retainers to predictably affect VWC relative to NTC, and (iv) variability in the performance of penetrants and retainers from manufacturer to manufacturer. In study two, Poloxamers 181 and 182, with the lowest HLB values of 3 and 7, respectively, consistently performed similar to a commercial turfgrass wetting agent, whereas Poloxamer 188, with the highest HLB value (29), resulted in lower turfgrass quality and lower average VWC, along with a greater incidence of LDS. Study three observed the potential for cost savings through reduced soil surfactant rates and extended intervals, as well as a three week lag-time between significant VWC differences below-ground in the rootzone and significant above-ground differences in LDS; a strong influence of weather, especially rainfall, on soil surfactant performance; and an ability to assess moisture uniformity through standard deviation of VWC. Future turfgrass soil surfactant research should include investigations into hydrophobicity development at the root-soil interface (rhizosphere).

ISBN: 9798382792460Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122783
Agronomy.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Golf course

Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens.
LDR:04819nmm a2200385 4500 001 2403493
005 20241118085750.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2024 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798382792460
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI31293370
035 $a AAI31293370
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a O'Brien, Daniel. $3 3259032
245 1 0 $a Turfgrass Soil Surfactants: Examining Active Ingredients, Application Strategies, and the Structure- Function Relationship in Sand-Based Putting Greens.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 282 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Richardson, Michael.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Arkansas, 2024.
520 $a Soil surfactants, commonly referred to as wetting agents, are a leading water management strategy for golf courses. Non-ionic block copolymers are the most common type of turfgrass soil surfactant. However, differences in the registration process and labeling requirements allow soil surfactants to enter the marketplace accompanied by far-less data compared to other products used on golf courses. This has led to considerable confusion among golf course superintendents. Three primary sources of confusion are: (i) the widely-used marketing terminology of "penetrants" and "retainers" to classify wetting agents; (ii) active ingredients which in some cases are not disclosed at all; and (iii) multiple application rates and intervals given on product labels. Therefore, three separate field research experiments were conducted with objectives to (i) compare the penetrant and retainer products from four different manufacturers (Aquatrols, Precision Laboratories, Floratine, and Harrell's) for their ability to move/hold water at different depths within putting green rootzones; (ii) evaluate soil surfactants at the active ingredient level, working with four structurally related block copolymer compounds (Poloxamers 181, 182, 184, 188) all with the same molecular-weight central hydrophobe, and each with a different percentage of terminal hydrophile; and (iii) compare five different application rates and intervals that included: two season-long applications at standard and high rates, two recurring monthly applications at standard and reduced rates, and a recurring application every two months. All experiments included non-treated controls (NTC). Data collection included (i) estimating volumetric water content (VWC) using portable moisture meters at multiple depths in the rootzone; above-ground assessments using (ii) digital image analysis to determine percent green turfgrass cover, color, and turfgrass quality, and (iii) visual ratings for turfgrass quality and localized dry spot (LDS) development. Between 2018 and 2023, studies were conducted{A0}primarily in Fayetteville, AR on sand-based putting greens of both creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, L.) and ultradwarf bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers x Cynodon transvaalensis Burt-Davy). In the first study, penetrant and retainer terminology was problematic because of, (i) lack of significant differences between penetrants and retainers, (ii) significant differences between soil surfactants within the same category, (iii) inconsistent abilities of both penetrants and retainers to predictably affect VWC relative to NTC, and (iv) variability in the performance of penetrants and retainers from manufacturer to manufacturer. In study two, Poloxamers 181 and 182, with the lowest HLB values of 3 and 7, respectively, consistently performed similar to a commercial turfgrass wetting agent, whereas Poloxamer 188, with the highest HLB value (29), resulted in lower turfgrass quality and lower average VWC, along with a greater incidence of LDS. Study three observed the potential for cost savings through reduced soil surfactant rates and extended intervals, as well as a three week lag-time between significant VWC differences below-ground in the rootzone and significant above-ground differences in LDS; a strong influence of weather, especially rainfall, on soil surfactant performance; and an ability to assess moisture uniformity through standard deviation of VWC. Future turfgrass soil surfactant research should include investigations into hydrophobicity development at the root-soil interface (rhizosphere).
590 $a School code: 0011.
650 4 $a Agronomy. $3 2122783
650 4 $a Horticulture. $3 555447
650 4 $a Soil sciences. $3 2122699
653 $a Golf course
653 $a Hydrophobicity
653 $a Putting green
653 $a Soil surfactant
653 $a Wetting agent
690 $a 0285
690 $a 0471
690 $a 0481
710 2 $a University of Arkansas. $b Horticulture. $3 2099836
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-12B.
790 $a 0011
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31293370