Abstract
Abstract Golf course managers manipulate cultural practices in preparation for golf tournaments to increase ball roll distance (BRD) for short periods of time. Brushing putting greens, thought to be a relatively minimally disruptive cultural practice using brush attachments mounted to mower units to vertically orient leaf blades prior to mowing, is growing in popularity despite little research validating purported benefits. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of brush types (rotary, stiff push, and soft push brush) and brushing frequency (no brushing, once, or twice) combined with mowing on BRD and turfgrass quality on a creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.) putting green over a 2‐wk period. All brush types produced a >20‐cm BRD reduction compared with no brushing by the end of the 14‐d trial in 2016 and 2017. Additionally, all brush types significantly lowered turfgrass quality, with the stiff brush resulting in unacceptable quality. Brushing and mowing once reduced BRD and turf quality compared with not brushing with daily mowing. Double brushing and mowing increased BRD equivalent to a single mowing without brushing, but turfgrass quality declined below acceptable thresholds. The results of this study indicate that brushing incorporated into a daily mowing regimen over a short 14‐d period decreases creeping bentgrass putting green BRD and quality. Increasing mowing frequency may eliminate BRD reductions from brushing, but golf course managers should practice caution when implementing brushing, especially over shorter periods of time when BRD and turfgrass quality expectations are increased.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
All brush types reduced ball roll distance by more than 20 cm relative to no brushing after 14 days in both years.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrass
Agrostis stoloniferae1 - Treatment
- All brush typese0
- Outcome
- BRDe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- >20‐cme0
- Qualifier
- 2016 and 2017e0
- Comparator
- no brushinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All brush types produced a >20‐cm BRD reduction compared with no brushing by the end of the 14‐d trial in 2016 and 2017.”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
All brush types significantly lowered turfgrass quality.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- all brush typese0
- Outcome
- turfgrass qualitye0
- Direction
- lowerede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all brush types significantly lowered turfgrass quality”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The stiff brush yielded unacceptable turfgrass quality.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- the stiff brushe0
- Outcome
- unacceptable qualitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the stiff brush resulting in unacceptable quality”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Brushing and mowing once reduced ball roll distance and turf quality compared with daily mowing without brushing.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- Brushing and mowing oncee0
- Outcome
- BRD and turf qualitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- not brushing with daily mowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Brushing and mowing once reduced BRD and turf quality compared with not brushing with daily mowing.”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double brushing and mowing increased ball roll distance to that of a single mowing without brushing.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- Double brushing and mowinge0
- Outcome
- BRDe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- a single mowing without brushinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Double brushing and mowing increased BRD equivalent to a single mowing without brushing”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double brushing and mowing reduced turfgrass quality below acceptable thresholds.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- Double brushing and mowinge0
- Outcome
- turfgrass qualitye0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Qualifier
- below acceptable thresholdse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Double brushing and mowing increased BRD equivalent to a single mowing without brushing, but turfgrass quality declined below acceptable thresholds.”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise caution when implementing brushing over short periods with heightened expectations for ball roll and turfgrass quality.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Outcome
- practice caution when implementing brushinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“golf course managers should practice caution when implementing brushing, especially over shorter periods of time when BRD and turfgrass quality expectations are increased”
e1“creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis stolonifera L.)”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
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.