2011 Annual Report

Purdue University Turfgrass Science Program

Department of Agronomy
915 W State St
Purdue University
West Lafayette IN 47907-2054


In this report, you may see pesticide use in research reports that do not conform to the pesticide label. These uses are not provided as recommendations. By law, it is the responsibility of the pesticide applicator, to follow current label directions for the specific pesticide being used. No endorsement is intended for products mentioned, nor criticism of products not mentioned. The authors, Purdue University, and the Midwest Regional Turf Foundation assume no liability from misuse of pesticide applications detailed in this report. The Agricultural Experiment Station of Purdue University is an equal action/equal opportunity institution.

Understanding the Data

Most of the data presented in this report was subjected to statistical analysis. Statistical procedures are a combination of logic and arithmetic that allow us to interpret information gathered from experiments. We most frequently use a Least Significant Difference Test to explain our test data.

Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test is a statistical procedure that determines if the difference found between two treatments is due to the treatment or if the difference is simply due to random chance. For each set of data, a value termed the LSD is calculated at a chosen level of significance. If the difference between two treatment means is greater than this calculated value then it is said to be a ‘significant difference’ or a difference not due to random chance. The level of significance that we use most often is 0.05 (LSD0.05). In other words, this difference will occur 95% of the time these treatments are compared. If ‘NS’ is reported at the bottom of a column of means, then no significant difference was found among the means in this group of data at a probability = 0.05.


Table of Contents:

2011 Turf Research Report - Full Report
Introduction to the 2011 Turf Research Summary PDF

Cultivar and Species Evaluations

Evaluation of Putting Green Bentgrass Cultivars and Blends PDF

Turf Management

Diverse Responses of Perennial Ryegrass Accessions to Submergence Stress PDF

Weed Management

Controlling Poa annua on putting green height turf in Indiana, Michigan,
and Nebraska: 2011 Research Update
Controlling Yellow Nutsedge With Sedgehammer+ PDF
Do Granular Herbicide Applications Effectively Control Broadleaf Weeds in Turf? PDF
Efficacy of Current Organic Postemergent Weed Control Options in Turfgrass Systems PDF
Evaluation of Crabgrass Control with Various Dimension Formulations
and Corn Gluten Meal
Herbicide Safety and Weed Control Comparison in Spring Seeded Kentucky Bluegrass PDF
Herbicide Safety and Weed Control Comparison in Spring Seeded Tall Fescue PDF
Herbicide Selection and Timing Influences Ground Ivy Control PDF
Mowing and Herbicide Effects on Ground Ivy Control in Turf PDF
Preemergence Crabgrass Control with Various Herbicides PDF
Postemergence Broadleaf Herbicide Safety on Putting Greens PDF
Postemergence Ground Ivy Control with Herbicide Combinations PDF
Sequential Applications of Preemergence Crabgrass Herbicides for Enhanced
Control – Three Year Summary

Insect Management

Evaluating Acelepryn for adult preventive control of billbugs in Kentucky bluegrass turf PDF
Evaluating combinations of Pyriproxyfen and imidacloprid for control of
Japanese beetle larvae in Kentucky Bluegrass turf
Influence of application timing on efficacy of granular formulations of
grubicides against Japanese beetle larvae in Kentucky bluegrass turf

Disease Management

Effects of early season fungicide application on dollar spot outbreaks, 2011 PDF
Integrating fungicide and genetic host resistance for control of dollar
spot on creeping bentgrass
Residual efficacy of fungicides for brown patch management on
creeping bentgrass, 2011


Department of Agronomy, Turf Program
915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Send corrections, suggestions, and comments to