Abstract
Abstract Creeping bentgrass putting greens experience quality decline during summer due to heat and drought stress in U.S. transition zone and other areas with similar climate. Plant biostimulants have been used to improve turfgrass tolerance to abiotic stress. This study was designed to investigate the effect and modes of action of humic acid (HA) based biostimulants on turf quality, root viability, and hormone metabolism of creeping bentgrass during summer stress. The two humic acid formulations – solid powder and liquid, were characterized and applied at two rates of each formulation to a creeping bentgrass putting green from May through August in this study. Auxin indole‐3‐butyric acid (IBA) served as the positive control. Foliar application of either solid or liquid HA at 0.2% and 0.3% biweekly improved turf quality, photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll content at certain sampling dates. The HA treatments also increased leaf growth hormone cytokinin zeatin riboside (ZR) on July 25 and August 22 and auxin indole‐3‐acetic acid (IAA) on August 22. The HA treatments improved root length, surface area (SA), root volume, biomass, and viability. Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%, 0.3% solution, liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%, and 0.3% increased root viability by 91.8%, 122.4%, 57.1%, and 71.4%, respectively, when compared to the control. This study suggests foliar application of humic acid‐based biostimulants may be considered as an effective tool to improve turf performance in creeping bentgrass putting greens during summer months.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar HA improved turf quality, photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll content at some sampling dates.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrass
Agrostis stoloniferat0 - Treatment
- Foliar application of either solid or liquid HA at 0.2% and 0.3% biweeklye0
- Outcome
- turf quality, photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- at certain sampling datese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar application of either solid or liquid HA at 0.2% and 0.3% biweekly improved turf quality, photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll content at certain sampling dates”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased zeatin riboside on July 25 and August 22.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf growth hormone cytokinin zeatin riboside (ZR)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- on July 25 and August 22e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The HA treatments also increased leaf growth hormone cytokinin zeatin riboside (ZR) on July 25 and August 22”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
HA increased indole-3-acetic acid on August 22.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse1
- Outcome
- auxin indole‐3‐acetic acid (IAA)e0
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- on August 22e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“auxin indole‐3‐acetic acid (IAA) on August 22”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
e1“The HA treatments also increased”
Claim · model-written summary
HA improved root length, surface area and volume.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse0
- Outcome
- root length, surface area (SA), root volumee0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The HA treatments improved root length, surface area (SA), root volume, biomass, and viability”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
HA improved root biomass and viability.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- HA treatmentse0
- Outcome
- biomass, and viabilitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The HA treatments improved root length, surface area (SA), root volume, biomass, and viability”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Solid HA at 0.2% increased root viability by 91.8%.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%e0
- Outcome
- root viabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 91.8%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%, 0.3% solution, liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%, and 0.3% increased root viability by 91.8%, 122.4%, 57.1%, and 71.4%, respectively, when compared to the control”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Solid HA at 0.3% increased root viability by 122.4%.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- 0.3% solutione0
- Outcome
- root viabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 122.4%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%, 0.3% solution, liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%, and 0.3% increased root viability by 91.8%, 122.4%, 57.1%, and 71.4%, respectively, when compared to the control”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid HA at 0.2% increased root viability by 57.1%.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%e0
- Outcome
- root viabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 57.1%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%, 0.3% solution, liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%, and 0.3% increased root viability by 91.8%, 122.4%, 57.1%, and 71.4%, respectively, when compared to the control”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid HA at 0.3% increased root viability by 71.4%.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferat0
- Treatment
- 0.3%e0
- Outcome
- root viabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 71.4%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Solid HA (HA‐S) at 0.2%, 0.3% solution, liquid HA (HA‐L) at 0.2%, and 0.3% increased root viability by 91.8%, 122.4%, 57.1%, and 71.4%, respectively, when compared to the control”
t0“creeping bentgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend foliar humic acid biostimulants for summer turf performance.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Outcome
- foliar application of humic acid‐based biostimulantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“foliar application of humic acid‐based biostimulants may be considered as an effective tool to improve turf performance in creeping bentgrass putting greens during summer months”
The same questions in other papers
other · physiology: photosynthesis · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
other · growth · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · physiology: photosynthesis · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.