The benefits of golf course turfIn theface of today's increasedpublic scrutiny, this review

summarizes the multifaceted benefits golf coursesprovide not onlyto wildlife and the environment, but to entire communities, as well.

James B. Beard, Ph.D.

The turf grasses that cover the world's golf courses offer a wealth of benefits to society, including pollu-tion control, soil building and temperature moderation.

Over the past several years,allegations concerning theadverse effects of golf courses

on environmental quality havereceived national media attention.These allegations were typicallybased on invalid, pseudo-scientificarguments that were nonethelesseffective in enticing the media to pro-mote these suggestions to a largelyuninformed public. This articleaddresses our current state of knowl-edge concerning the benefits of golfcourse turf - as documented bysound scientific information.

Keeping perspectiveA typical 18-hole golf course in the

United States comprises 2 to 3 acres ofputting greens, 1.5to 3 acres of tees and25 to 30 acres of fairway (Table1). Inother words, only 20 to 30 percent ofthe golf course area is used and main-tained to meet specific criteria of thegame. Thus, a majority of the propertyis devoted to low-maintenance rough,natural landscapes and water features.

In fact, a properly planned andmaintained golf course offers manybenefits to the overall community, inaddition to the enjoyment, and physi-cal and mental health benefitsprovided by the game itself. Theseenvironmental and human benefits aresubstantial when compared with thoseof alternate uses such as industrialbuildings, businesses and residentialhousing - especially in urban areas,where a majority of golf courses arelocated. Greater environmental bene-fits also are derived from golf coursefacilities when compared with agricul-tural production in rural areas.

Humans have used turfgrasses toenhance their environments for morethan 10 centuries. However, the scopeand complexity of their environmentalbenefits are just now being quantita-tively documented. In general, turfgrassbenefits may be divided into three com-ponents: functional, recreational andaesthetic. This article summarizes themajor benefits of golf courses resultingfrom their extensive use of turfgrasses,as well as the associated use of trees,shrubs and flowering plants.

FUNCTIONAL BENEFITSTurfgrass serves as an inexpensive,

durable ground cover that protectsour valuable, non-renewable soil

resources. In fact, perennial turf-grasses are one of the mostcost-efficient means of controlling soilerosion from wind and water, andthus are very important in minimizingdust and mud problems aroundhomes, businesses, schools and otherpublic facilities.

Studies and research reviews haveshown that dense grass stands modifythe flow of water over land such thatthe runoff is insignificant in all but themost intense rainfall events (23, 31,33, 45, 46). In fact, only a few largestorms each year are responsible formost soil erosion losses.

Continued

Golf Course Management / March 1996 57

Table 1. Comparative turf use by area for a representative18-hole golf course in the United States.

Turf use Area (acre) Percent of area

Roughs-water-woodland 130.0 72.2

Fairways 40.0 22.2

Building-parking lots 5.2 2.9

Tees 2.3 1.3

Putting greens 2.5 1.4

Total 180.0

A key characteristic of mowed turf-grass that contributes to effectiveerosion control is a dense groundcover with a high shoot density thattypically ranges from 30 million tomore than 8 billion shoots per acre (5,29). Regular mowing, as a practice inturf culture, enhances tillering, therebyincreasing shoot density substantiallycompared with ungrazed grassland (5).Putting greens mowed at a height of0.15-inch (4 mm) possess about 27 bil-lion shoots per acre. Researchers haveconcluded that properly maintainedturfgrass stands should not be a signif-icant source of sediment enteringbodies of water (22).

Some environmental activists andgovernmental officials are promotingthe use of trees and shrubs to curb ero-sion along stream banks, waterwaysand other bodies of water, while dis-couraging the use of turfgrasses underthe idea that clippings and lateral andsubsurface movement of nutrients willpollute the water. However, the sparsenature of the surface cover and rootsystems of trees and shrubs does noteven approach the effectiveness ofgrasses in controlling surface soil ero-sion. In addition, the pollution of waterbodies by clippings has not been docu-mented and is of questionablesignificance, particularly in relation tothe volume and nutrient content oftree leaves that fall into water.

In summary, the effective erosioncontrol provided by turfgrass is thecombined result of a high shoot den-

Biodegradationof organic chemicals

A large population of diverse soilmicroflora and microfauna are sup-ported by the soil-turfgrass ecosystem.Microflora constitute the largest pro-portion of the decomposer biomass ofmost soils.The bacterial biomass com-ponent ranges from 3.3 to 33 poundsper 1,000 square feet, and for fungi, 5.5to 50 pounds per 1,000 square feet,with actinomycetes probably in a sim-ilar range (1). The soil invertebratedecomposer biomass ranges from 0.1to 2.2 pounds per 1,000 square feet,with the higher values occurring insoils dominated by earthworms (15).Though soil animals play an importantpart in the decomposition process,only 10 percent or less of the carbondioxide produced during decomposi-tion has been attributed to them (32).

The bacterial population in themoist litter of grass clippings andthatch associated with a turf is com-monly about 64.5 billionorganisms persquare inch of surface (9).The averagemicrobial biomass pool is reported to

surface water runoff from turfgrass vs.conventionally cultivated tobaccoreveal 10-fold reductions in waterrunoff, 190-fold reductions in nitrogenrunoff, and 54-fold reductions inphosphorus runoff from turfed areas(Table 2). Other investigations haveshown a similar ability of turfgrass toreduce runoff and therefore enhancesoil water infiltration and groundwa-ter recharge (7, 22, 25, 31, 45). Sinceturfgrass reduces runoff volume, italso decreases storm water manage-ment requirements, such as costlyconcrete structures, that are fre-quently specified in urban tractdevelopment (38).

In urban areas, the runoff and sedi-ment that occurs from impervioussurfaces carries many pollutants (38),including metals such as lead, cadmium,copper and zinc; hydrocarbon com-pounds such as oil,grease and fuels;andhousehold and industrial hazardouswastes such as waste oils, paint thin-ners, organic preservatives and solvents.Turfed catchment areas should bedesigned to hold, filtrate and degradethese polluted waters (38) before theyenter streams, ponds and lakes.

sity and an extraordinary root massfor soil surface stabilization, as well asa unique shoot biomass matrix thatprovides resistance to lateral surfacewater flow, thereby slowing otherwisepotentially erosive water velocities.When this major benefit is combinedwith the benefits of groundwaterrecharge and organic chemicaldecomposition, the relatively stableturfgrasses are an effective ecosystemfor soil and water conservation, aswell as soil restoration.

Surface water protectionand groundwater recharge

A key mechanism by which turf-grasses conserve water is theirsuperior capability to essentially trapand hold runoff, which results inmore water infiltrating through thesoil-turfgrass ecosystem. A mowedturfgrass possesses a low-growingleaf and stem biomass that rangesfrom 890 to 26,700 pounds per acre,depending on the grass species, sea-son and cultural regime (27). Thisbiomass is composed of a matrix ofrelatively fine-textured stems andnarrow leaves with numerous, ran-dom open spaces. The matrix isporous in terms of its water infiltra-tion capability.

Turfgrass ecosystems often supportabundant populations of earthworms(34,35). Earthworm activity increasesthe amount of macropore spacewithin the soil, which results in highersoil water infiltration rates and water-retention capacity (28).

Studies in Maryland concerning

tromp. 57BENEFITS

58 Golf Course Management / March 1996

Table 2. Comparative surface water runoff losses from cultivated tobacco andturfgrass assessed on the same research site in Maryland.

Surface runoff lossUsage Inch/acre/month Pounds/acre/month

of water Nitrogen PhosphorusTobacco 0.1 2.08 0.42

Turfgrass 0.01 0.011 0.0078

Noise abatementand glare reduction

The unique surface characteristicsof turfgrasses function in noise abate-

Continued

Heat dissipation andtemperature moderation

Turfgrasses dissipate high levels ofradiant energy in urban areas throughthe coolingprocess of transpiration. Theoverall temperature of urban areas maybe as much as 9 F to 12 F warmer thanthat of nearby rural areas. Irrigated,green turfgrass surfaces are especiallyeffective in transpirational cooling. Themaximum daily canopy temperature ofa green bermudagrass turf was found tobe 38 F cooler than that of an adjacentbrown dormant turf, and 70 F coolerthan a nearby synthetic surface (Table3). The transpirational cooling effect ofgreen turf and landsca pes can saveenergy by reducing the energy inputrequired for interior mechanical coolingof adjacent homes and buildings(26).

mate, 6,017 pounds of root biomass peracre would be turned over into the soileach year. This estimate is low, how-ever, because it does not account forroot secretions, death and decay of fineroots and root hairs, and consumptionof roots by soil animals (16,39, 40).

Planting perennial grasses canaccelerate soil restoration on environ-mentally damaged areas, such as highlyeroded rural landscapes, burned-overlands, garbage dumps, mining opera-tions and steep timber harvest areas.These areas may then be developed forgolf courses and recreational uses.

In addition to the functional benefits of golfcourse turf, the recreational benefits to the morethan 24 million American golfers are undeniable.

1.5 to 10 feet, depending on thespecies, extent of defoliation andsoil! environmental conditions. Gen-erally, C4 perennial, warm-seasonturfgrasses produce a deeper, moreextensive root system than the C3perennial, cool-season species (6).

More work has been reported onthe rooting characteristics of Kentuckybluegrass than any other species. Theroot system biomass of a Kentuckybluegrass turf is in the range of 9,790to 14,330 pounds per acre (8, 18). Inthe upper 6 inches of soil there areapproximately 461,7000 roots and 2.3x 108 root hairs per gallon of soil, witha combined length of more than 174miles and a surface area of about 106square feet (17). This extraordinarilyfibrous root density also makes turf-grass highly efficient in taking upapplied plant nutrients, with the resultbeing a negligible downward move-ment through the soil profile.

One researcher estimated that theannual root system turnover rate was42 percent for turf (18).Using his esti-

Soil restorationand improvement

An extremely important functionof turfgrass is soil improvementthrough organic matter additionsderived from the turnover of rootsand other plant tissues that are syn-thesized from atmospheric carbondioxide (C02) via photosynthesis. Ahigh proportion of the world's mostfertile soils has been developed undergrass cover (20). The root depthpotential of turfgrasses ranges from

be 623, 756 and 970 pounds C per acrefor cropland, forest and grassland sys-tems, respectively (42). A microbialbiomass of 1,068 pounds C per acrehas been reported for grasslands in theUnited States (41). Microbial biomassvalues of mowed turfgrasses are not yetavailable, but are probably even higherfor two reasons: the high carbon bio-mass contained in the senescent leavesand grass clippings that accumulatenear the soil surface, and a more favor-able soil moisture regime because ofirrigation (42).

The turfgrass ecosystem also sup-ports a diverse community of morethan 100 taxa of nonpest inverte-brates, including insects, mites,nematodes, annelids and gastropods,and dozens of species of rove beetles,ground beetles, ants, spiders and othergroups of invertebrates (4, 11, 12, 13).Earthworms, oribatid mites, Collem-bola and other invertebrates also areabundant in turfgrass soils (4, 35, 44).

In summary, a diverse, large popula-tion of soil microflora and -fauna aresupported by the decomposition of turf-grass roots, rhizomes and shoots. Theseorganisms offer one of the most activebiological systems for the degradationof organic chemicals and pesticidestrapped by the turf matrix. Thus, thisturf ecosystem is important in the pro-tection of groundwater quality.

The gaseous dimension of atmos-pheric pollution control also is aconcern. Carbon monoxide (CO) con-centrations greater than 50 III oftenoccur in urban areas, especially alongroadsides (24).Certain turfgrasses, suchas tall fescues, are useful as absorbersof carbon dioxide from these environ-ments (19).More research, however, isneeded on this aspect.

Golf Course Management / March 1996 59

Table 3. Comparative temperatures of four surfacesassessed in August, College Station, Texas.

Maximumtemperature Percent temperaturein .0 F increase over green turf

88102 16126 43158 80

AESTHETIC BENEFITSMost city dwellers appreciate the

importance of green areas with viewsof grass, trees and open space, such asthose provided by golf courses. Citiescan be quite dismal without greengrasses, with the consequences toinhabitants being a loss of productiv-ity and a greater susceptibility toanxieties and mental diseases. Forexample, an outdoor view can con-tribute to a more rapid recovery ofhospital patients (43). The role ofnature - including parks, woodlandareas and large landscape sites suchas golf courses - in contributing tothe quality of life and mental health ofthose in urban areas is significant (27).When there is a nearby natural land-scape, individuals have an increasedsense of neighborhood satisfaction

RECREATIONAL BENEFITSThere are approximately 15,000

golf courses in the United States, andtogether they offer 24 million golfersmore than 2.4 billion hours of healthyoutdoor exercise and enjoyment. Theenjoyment and physical and mentalhealth benefits derived from golfingon natural grasses are vital to a con-temporary, industrialized society,especially in densely populated cities.

courses and parks in Cincinnati hasshown conclusively that passerinebirds benefit from golf courses, evento the extent that golf courses maybe described as bird sanctuaries (2).Ponds, lakes and wetlands are verydesirable features as used on golfcourses because they create aquatichabitats, as well as diversity in theaesthetics of the landscape. Further-more, properly designed urbanlandscape "green" areas such as golfcourses and parks can promote plantand animal diversity, natural habitatsand wetlands when compared withintensive agriculture and urban resi-dential and business zones. Thus, golfcourses are important naturalizedspaces and habitats for wildlife, espe-cially in areas of urban developmentand intensive agriculture. An effectivestrategy to communicate this benefi-cial role would be publish anddistribute or post a list of speciesobserved on the golf course.

Favorable wildlife habitatThe more than 70 percent of a golf

course facility that is allocated toroughs and nonplay areas encom-passes turfgrasses, trees and water inthe primary rough, and turfgrasses,flowers, shrubs, trees and water in thesecondary rough and perimeter areas.A diverse wildlife population can beachieved with an integrated landscapecomposed of turfgrass, tree, shrub andwater features, such as that found ongolf courses (21, 30). A study of golf

Landscape views and panoramic vistas offergolfers a sense of well-being and reduce thestress of today's lifestyles.

typically are void of the many weedyspecies that often produce allergy-related pollens. Furthermore, mostturfgrasses mowed regularly at a lowheight tend to remain vegetative withminimal floral development, and thushave reduced pollen production. Culti-vars are also available that do notproduce pollen.

From a monetary standpoint, thegolf industry contributes in excess ofS18 billion annually to the U.S. econ-omy. This amount represents manyjobs and a major allotment to thenational economy.

fromp.59

Green growing turf

Dry, bare soil

Brown, dormant turf

Synthetictu rf

Type of surface

BENEFITS

ment, as well as in multidirectionallight reflection, reducing glare. Studieshave shown that turfgrass surfacesabsorb harsh sounds significantly bet-ter than hard surfaces such aspavement, gravel or bare ground (14,37). These benefits can be maximizedby an integrated landscape of turf-grasses, trees and shrubs.Unfortunately, the proper use of thiscombination of plants to maximizenoise abatement has received littleattention within the scientific commu-nity. Additional research is needed onthis beneficial dimension.

Other functional benefitsAnother long-recognized benefit of

closely mowed turf is that it substan-tially reduces the number of nuisancepests such as rodents, mosquitoes,ticks and chiggers, thereby facilitatingcomfort in outdoor recreational andrelaxation activities.

Several key insect vectors such asmosquitoes and ticks carry a numberof serious human diseases. Of currentconcern is Lyme disease, which isspread by a tick commonly found inun mowed tallgrass and woodland-shrub habitats. A closely mowed turfoffers a less favorable habitat for nui-sance insects and disease vectors (10).Chigger mite population densitieswere found to be highest at the eco-tone or transition area of aneighboring 24-inch tallgrass areabeyond a mowed turf.

In addition, pollens can causeallergy-related discomfort and poten-tially serious health problems tosusceptible individuals. Dense turfs

60 Golf Course Management / March 1996

and of general well-being.Turfgrasses provide natural beauty

and attractiveness that enhance thequality of life for human activities. Thenatural green of turfgrasses provides apleasant, clean, cool environment inwhich to work, live and play. Theseaesthetic values are of increasingimportance to the spirit and the men-tal health of citizens enmeshed in arapid-paced lifestyle and ever-increas-ing urbanization. D

Beard teaches regional seminarGCSAA is proud to count Dr. Beard as an active participant in the asso-

ciation's continuing education program. Beard and co-instructor Dr. JeffKrans from Mississippi State University teach Basic Turfgrass Botany andPhysiology, a two-day seminar presented regionally, as well as at the annualGCSAA conference and show. The seminar will be offered next on March 7-8 in Farmington, Conn. Call GCSAA at 800/472-7878 to register or foradditional information.

Literature cited1. Alexander, M. 1977. Introduction to soil

microbiology. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.2. Andrew, N.J. 1987. Wildlife and related values

of park golf course ecosystems. Res. ProjectRep., Hamilton Country Park District,Cincinnati.

3. Angle, J.S. 1985. Effect of cropping practiceson sediment and nutrient losses fromtobacco. Tob. Sci. 29:107-110.

4. Arnold, T.B., and D.A. Potter. 1987. Impact ofa high-maintenance lawn care program onnontarget invertebrates in Kentucky blue-grass turf. Environ. Entomol. 16:100-105.

5. Beard, J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and cul-ture. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

6. Beard, J.B. 1989. The role of Gramineae inenhancing man's quality of life. p. 1-9. Symp.Proc. Nat. Comm. Agric. Sci., Japanese Sci.Council.

7. Bennett, H.H. 1939. Soil conservation.McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.

8. Boeker, P 1974. Root development ofselected turfgrass species and cultivars. p. 55-61. In: E.e. Roberts (ed.). Proc. 2nd Int.Turfgrass Res. Conf., Blacksburg, Va.

9. Clark, FE., and E.A. Paul. 1970. The microfloraof grassland. Adv. Agron. 22:375-435.

10. Clopton, RE., and RE. Gold. 1993. Distribu-tion, seasonal and diurnal activity patterns ofEutrombicula alfreddugesi (Acari: Trombiculi-dae) in a forest edge ecosystem. J. Med.Entomol.30:47-53.

11. Cockfield, S.D., and D.A. Potter. 1983. Short-term effects of insecticidal applications onpredaceous arthropods and oribatid mites inKentucky bluegrass turf. Environ. EntomoJ.12:1260-1264.

12. Cockfield, S.D., and D.A. Potter. 1984. Preda-tion on sod webworm (Lepidoptera:PyraJidae) eggs as affected by chlorpyrifosapplication to Kentucky bluegrass turf. J.Econ. Entomol. 77:1542-1544.

13. Cockfield, S.D., and D.A. Potter. 1985. Preda-tory arthropods in high- and low-maintenanceturfgrass. Can. Entomol. 117-423-429.

14. Cook, D.I., and D.F Van Haverbeke. 1971.Trees and shrubs for noise abatement. Univ.Nebraska, Nebraska Agric. Exp. Stn. Res.Bull. 246, Lincoln, Neb.

15. Curry, J.P 1986. Effects of management onsoil decomposers and decompositionprocesses in grassland. p. 349-399. In: M.J.Mitchell and J.P Nakus (eds.). Microfloral andfaunal interactions in natural and agro-ecosystems. Dordrecht, Boston, Mass.

16. Dahlman, Re.' and e.L. Kucera. 1965. Rootproductivity and turnover in native prairie.Ecology 46:84-89.

17. Dittmer, HJ. 1938. A quantitative study ofthe subterranean members of three fieldgrasses. Am. J. Bot. 25:654-657.

18. Falk, J.H 1976. Energetics of a suburbanlawn ecosystem. Ecology 57:141-150.

Golf Course Management / March 1996

19. Gladon, RJ., D.J. Brahm, and N.E. Christians.1993. Carbon monoxide absorption andrelease by C3 and C4 turfgrasses in light anddark. IntI. TwJgrass Soc. Res. J. 7:649-656.

20. Gould, FW 1968. Grass systematics.McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

21. Green, B.H, and I.e. Marshall. 1987. Anassessment of the role of golf courses in Kent,England, in protecting wildlife and landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning 14:143-154.

22. Gross, e.M., J.S. Angle, RL. Hill, and M.S.Welterlen. 1991. Runoff and sediment lossesfrom tall fescue under simulated rainfall. J.Environ. Qual. 20:604-607.

23. Gross, e.M., J.S. Angle, and M.S. Welterlen.1990. Nutrient and sediment losses from tur-fgrass. J. Environ. Qual. 20:604-607.

24. Jaffe, L.S. 1968. Ambient carbon monoxideand its fate in the atmosphere. J. Air Pollut.Control Assoc. 18:534-540.

25. Jean, S., and T. Juang. 1979. Effect of bahiagrassmulching and covering on soil physical proper-ties and losses of water and soil of slopeland(first report). J. Agric. Assoc. China 105:57-66.

26. Johns, D., and J.B. Beard. 1985. A quantita-tive assessment of the benefits from irrigatedturf on environmental cooling and energysavings in urban areas. p. 134-142. TexasTurfgrass Research -1985. Texas Agric. Exp.Stn. PR-4330.

27. Kaplan, R, and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experienceof nature. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.

28. Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms: Their ecologyand relationships with soil and land use. Aca-demic Press, New South Wales, Australia.

29. Lush, WM. 1990. Turf growth and perfor-mance evaluation based on turf biomass andtiller density. Agron. J. 82:505-511.

30. Maffei, E.J. 1978. Golf courses as wildlifehabitat. Trans. Northeast. Sect. Wildl. Soc.35:120-129.

31. Morton, T.G, AJ. Gold, and WM. Sullivan.1988. Influence of overwatering and fertiliza-tion on nitrogen losses from home lawns. J.Environ. Qual. 17:124-130.

32. Peterson, H, and M. Luxton. 1982. A com-parative analysis of soil fauna populationsand their role in decomposition processes.Gikos 93:297-388.

33. Petrovic, AM. 1990. The fate of nitrogenousfertilizers applied to turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual.19:1-14.

34. Potter, D.A., B.L. Bridges, and Fe. Gordon.1985. Effect of N fertilization on earthwormand microarthropod populations in Kentuckybluegrass turf. Agron J. 77:367-372.

35. Potter, D.A, AJ. Powell, and M.S. Smith.1990. Degradation of turfgrass thatch byearthworms (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) andother soil invertebrates. J. Econ. Entomol.83:205-211.

36. Potter, D.A., M.e. Buxton, e.T. Redmond, e.GPatterson, and AJ. Powell. 1990. Toxicity ofpesticides to earthworms (Oligochaeta: Lum-

bricidae) and effect on thatch degradation inKentucky bluegrass turf. J. Econ. Entomol.83:2362-2369.

37. Robinette, GO. 1972. Plants, people and envi-ronmental quality. U.S. Dept. Interior,National Park Service, Washington, D.e., andAm. Soc. Land. Arch. Foundation.

38. Schuyler, T. 1897. Controlling urban runoff: Apractical manual for planning and designingBMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments, Washington, D.e.

39. Sims, PL., and J.S. Singh. 1971. Herbagedynamics and net primary production in cer-tain ungrazed and grazed grasslands in NorthAmerica. p. 59-123. In: N.R. French (ed.). Pre-liminary analysis of structure and function ingrasslands. Range Sci. Dept. Sci. Series. No.10. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colo.

40. Sims, PL., and J.S. Singh. 1978. The structureand function of 10 western North Americangrasslands. III. Net primary production,turnover and efficiencies of energy captureand water use. J. Ecology 66:573-597.

41. Smith, J.L., and E.A. Paul. 1988. The role ofsoil type and vegetation on microbial biomassand activity. p. 460-466. In: F Megusar andM. Gantar (eds.). Perspectives in microbialecology. Slovene Soc. of Microbiology, Ljubl-jana, Yugoslavia.

42. Smith, J.L., and EA Paul. 1990. The significanceof soil microbial biomass estimations. p. 357-396.In: J.M. Bollag and G Stotzky (eds.). Soil bio-chemistry. Vol. 6. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.

43. Ulrich, RS. 1984. View through a windowmay influence recovery from surgery. Science224:420-421.

44. Vavrek, Re., and HD. Niemczyk. 1990. Theimpact of isofenphos on nontarget invertebratesin turfgrass. Environ. EntomoI.19:1572-1577.

45. Watschke, T.L., and RD. Mumma. 1989. Theeffect of nutrients and pesticides applied to turfon the quality of runoff and percolating water.Penn State Univ. Environmental ResourcesRes. Int. ER 8904, University Park, Pa.

46. Watson, J.R 1985. Water resources in theUnited States. p. 19-36. In: V.A. Gibeault andS.T. Cockerham (eds.). Turfgrass Water Conser-vation. Univ. California, Div. Agric. and NaturalResources. Pub I. 21405, Riverside, Calif.

AcknowledgmentThis article summarizes a detailed researchreview paper published in the Journal of Environ-mental Quality by the author and RL. Green(23(3):452-460), which was sponsored by a grantfrom the USGA

James Beard is president and chief scientist of theInternational Sports JUrf Institute and professor emer-itus of turfgrass science at Texas A&M University.

61