Abstract
Humic substances are often used as an amendment in putting greens to improve turf health, but little is known regarding their effects on soil moisture retention. Commercial humic substance products and pure organic acids were applied to three golf course putting greens in Utah in 2006 and the Utah State University research putting green in 2006 and 2007. These treatments were evaluated for effects on soil volumetric water content, phosphorus uptake, and chlorophyll content of creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.). Three irrigation levels ‐ 80%, 70%, and 60% ‐ of reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) were imposed on the turf at the research putting green. Humic substances did not increase moisture retention in putting green soils as pure humic acid significantly decreased soil volumetric water content compared to the control. Both humic acid and fulvic acid‐treated plots had lower soil moisture content readings than the control at a depth of 10 to 15 cm during the growing season. Uptake of P by creeping bentgrass was significantly decreased with the application of humic acid, and no differences were observed for chlorophyll content of the turf with any humic substance treatment. While they may provide other benefits, humic substances may not provide superintendents with benefits of reducing water or P fertilizer on putting greens.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid decreased soil volumetric water content relative to the control.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrass
Agrostis stoloniferat0 - Treatment
- pure humic acide0
- Outcome
- soil volumetric water contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pure humic acid significantly decreased soil volumetric water content compared to the control”
t0“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid plots had lower soil moisture readings than the control at 10 to 15 cm.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- humic acide0
- Outcome
- soil moisture content readingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 10 to 15 cm during the growing seasone0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both humic acid and fulvic acid‐treated plots had lower soil moisture content readings than the control at a depth of 10 to 15 cm during the growing season”
t0“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fulvic acid plots had lower soil moisture readings than the control at 10 to 15 cm.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- fulvic acide0
- Outcome
- soil moisture content readingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 10 to 15 cm during the growing seasone0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both humic acid and fulvic acid‐treated plots had lower soil moisture content readings than the control at a depth of 10 to 15 cm during the growing season”
t0“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid significantly decreased phosphorus uptake by creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- humic acide0
- Outcome
- Uptake of Pe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Uptake of P by creeping bentgrass was significantly decreased with the application of humic acid”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic substance treatments showed no difference in turf chlorophyll content.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- humic substance treatmente0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no differences were observed for chlorophyll content of the turf with any humic substance treatment”
t0“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude humic substances may not reduce water or phosphorus fertilizer needs on putting greens.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Outcome
- reducing water or P fertilizer on putting greense0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“humic substances may not provide superintendents with benefits of reducing water or P fertilizer on putting greens”
t0“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
The same questions in other papers
other · physiology: pigments · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
other · nutrient: content · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.