150 likes | 261 Views
Is Precision Management on Golf Courses Feasible? Phillip Fisher Soil 4213. The Golf Economy. Generates billions of dollars in national revenues yearly Per capita golf expenditures increased from $354 in 1986 to $776 in 1997 Approximately 30 million golfers in U.S. alone. Industry Growth.
E N D
Is Precision Management on Golf Courses Feasible?Phillip Fisher Soil 4213
The Golf Economy • Generates billions of dollars in national revenues yearly • Per capita golf expenditures increased from $354 in 1986 to $776 in 1997 • Approximately 30 million golfers in U.S. alone
Industry Growth • Continuous Growth: 2% annually through 2010 • Courses under development and in planning for construction exceeds 2000 • This year 442 new courses compared to pre-1987 average of 150
Show Me the Money! • U.S. Open at Southern Hills will generate around 60-70 million dollars • New courses being built creates instant money due to housing developments • Many courses have a budget of $1 million due to constant drive for perfection
Why Precision Management? • Perfectionist (Guinea pigs with money) • ENVIRONMENT*Water*Chemicals • Saving costs on the golf course*Cut application rates*Cut labor
Application of Fertilizer • Fertilizers and pesticides are applied on averages • Excess nutrients may leach • Environmental risks and economic loss
How is Turf Quality Evaluated? • Visual Evaluation*Subjective process that requires experience*Rate grass 1-9 • Optical Sensing*Objective and requires less experience*Measures irradiance reflected from turf canopy*NDVI
Research in Precision Management of Turf • Herbicide tolerance of cold-resistant bermuda cultivars • Turf quality evaluated by visual and optical sensing • Two different sensors*OSU*CA
Results • Cultivars were similar in response • V-MOS results matched visual*OKS 91-11: 73 of 80(July) 67 of 80(Sept.)*Midlawn: 65 of 80(July) 70 of 80 (Sept.) • NDVI: 0.547-0.790 (untreated plots) difference %44 where all were given 9’s visually
Evaluating V-MOS • Turf rated monthly for 1 year using VMOS & three human evaluators • VMOS required 2X time than visual • Correlation: Visual & NDVI*Color r^2 = .75(fescue) & .41(bent)*PLC r^2 = .39(fescue) & .34(bent)*Texture r^2 = .01(fescue) & .04(bent)
Consistency of Rating Techniques • NDVI more consistent over time*Coefficients of determination higher in 34 of 36 comparisons with 2 of 3 evaluators • Correlation of evaluator between consecutive days suggest visual inaccuracy • Sensor readings are repeatable with approximately 80% accuracy
Conclusion • Precision management will be the wave of the future in turf • Faster processing of V-MOS needed • Technology advances will decrease price and improve sensors • Precision Management is Feasible!
Questions • References: Dr. Greg Bell et. Al • U.S.G.A. • G.C.S.A.A.