A model of greenhouse gas emissions from the management of turf on two golf courses

A model of greenhouse gas emissions from the management of turf on two golf courses

Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from turf management of two Swedish golf courses

Carbon sequestration in golf course soils has received some attention, but energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from golf course turfgrass maintenance are poorly quantified. This study developed a model to estimate energy consumption and GHG emissions from golf turf maintenance and applied the model to 14 golf courses located in the northern USA over a 3‐yr period. Energy use and GHG emissions that result from golf course maintenance operations were divided into three scopes. Scope 1 consisted of onsite emissions (n = 14), Scope 2 consisted of offsite emissions (n = 7), and Scope 3 consisted of supply chain (upstream) emissions (n = 7). Scope 1 emissions primarily result from onsite fuel use, Scope 2 emissions primarily result from offsite electricity generation, and Scope 3 emissions primarily result from the production and transport of goods and materials (e.g., machines, fertilizers, pesticides) to the golf course. All scopes were combined to calculate total energy use and emissions (n = 4). Mean area‐normalized Scope 1 energy use was 24 GJ ha–1 yr–1, mean Scope 2 energy use was 7 GJ ha–1 yr–1, mean Scope 3 energy use was 40 GJ ha–1 yr–1 and the mean of all scopes was 72 GJ ha–1 yr–1. Mean area‐normalized Scope 1 emissions were 1,599 kg CO2e ha–1 yr–1, mean Scope 2 emissions were 1,012 kg CO2e ha–1 yr–1, mean Scope 3 emissions were 1,847 kg CO2e ha–1 yr–1 and the mean of all scopes was 4,277 kg CO2e ha–1 yr–1. Fuel and electricity use accounted for 63% of all GHG emissions. Electrifying golf course maintenance equipment and sourcing electricity generated from renewable sources are likely the most effective ways for golf course turfgrass maintenance emissions to be reduced.

Precision turfgrass management (PTM) is a combination of methods and technologies proposed to increase the resiliency of golf courses by improving input efficiency while maintaining the function and aesthetics of the playing surface. However, there is no recent review describing the status of precision management in turfgrass. The objectives of this review were to (a) summarize peer reviewed research on precision technology for turfgrass management, (b) describe adoption of PTM‐based tools, and (c) propose an agenda of research priorities to advance and promote PTM adoption. Of the articles reviewed, 94% documented the accuracy of sensors to detect turfgrass performance and stressors before or during visual symptoms. Only 6% of the research reviewed focused on developing models or decision support systems to quantify the relationship among reflectance, nitrogen uptake, visual quality, biomass production, and irrigation which are required for precision management by golf course superintendents. Efficacy or value of using PTM methods and technologies have not been reported. Golf course superintendents lack of knowledge about PTM, and lack of quantification of benefits of PTM pose limitations to promote adoption. Increasing the adoption of PTM will require research to focus additionally on automating sensor data processing; quantifying costs, benefits, and value of adopting PTM; and simplifying input applications in a PTM system. This review described the status of precision management in golf course turfgrass and shed light into the need for research to develop models and decision support tools for precision management of golf course turfgrass.

Sports facilities have been shown to have a positive impact on local biodiversity, quality of life, and the economy. Their impact on global carbon balances is less clearly understood. Increased concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) have been linked with global climate change. Currently there is a debate as to whether amenity turf is a net source or a net sink for atmospheric CO2. The turf grass of a natural sports pitch will sequester carbon through photosynthesis, but there are numerous emission sources associated with the management of turf which release CO2 into the atmosphere. These include the engines used to power mechanized operations such as mowing and spraying, the application of agrochemicals, including fertilizers, and the disposal of waste. In order to determine whether a real-world example of a sports facility was a source or sink of carbon a mechanistic mass balance model was developed. Analysis indicated that the areas of the golf course that received the most management attention were a net source of carbon emissions. The magnitude of these releases was significantly different on an equal-area basis ( p < 0.01). The net carbon budget for turf grass areas across the whole golf course accounting for the sequestration by the turfgrass was −33.01 MgC/year. The mature trees that formed an integral part of the landscape of the modelled course had a significant impact on the net carbon balance, resulting in overall net sequestration of −177.3 MgC/year for the whole golf course, equivalent to −1.93 MgC/ha/year. The variability in the size, shape, and vegetation composition of different golf courses has a considerable impact on their net carbon balance, and the resultant environmental impact of sports facilities must be assessed on an individual basis.

Thatch management in turfgrass has been recommended as part of integrated pest management; however, there is limited understanding of the microbial community in thatch. Previous studies on the turfgrass phytobiome mostly focused on the soil; however, culture-based studies have suggested that the thatch layer of golf courses contains higher bacterial and fungal abundances than the soil. In our study, quantitative PCR was used to investigate total abundance of bacteria, fungi, and the turfgrass pathogen, Sclerotinia homoeocarpa (causal agent of dollar spot) in the thatch and soil of three golf courses on two sampling dates. Additionally, we compared the abundance of these organisms among roughs, fairways, and putting greens, which are under different management intensities. Our results demonstrate bacterial abundance was higher in May than in September, but not consistently higher in the thatch or soil among the three golf courses or management areas. Fungi, and specifically S. homoeocarpa, are more abundant in the thatch than in the soil. These results show the necessity for future turfgrass phytobiome studies to analyze both thatch and soil to obtain a complete picture of bacterial and fungal microbial community structure and dynamics on golf courses. Despite the differences in fungicide usage and management inputs, there were no differences in S. homoeocarpa abundance among the three management areas in the soil. S. homoeocarpa abundance was higher in the thatch on the conventional golf course fairway in September. These results may have important practical implications for development of integrated disease management strategies and for understanding the epidemiology of S. homoeocarpa on golf courses.

This study investigated energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission across various playing surfaces (e.g., greens, tees, fairways, and roughs) in an urban parkland golf course. The turfs of golf courses require frequent maintenance to ensure high aesthetic and play quality. Maintenance includes aeration, mowing, irrigation, and fertilization. The annual energy-based carbon footprint was found to be the highest for fairways, followed by greens, tees, and roughs. However, CO2 exchange in the grass was found to be the highest for roughs, followed by fairways and greens. The higher energy consumption in fairways might be attributed to intensive maintenance and its larger surface area. Higher values of CO2 exchange for roughs might be attributed to biomass as these areas of the course were mowed lesser than the other areas. The maintenance activities such as mowing, hollow tining, and irrigation were the most energy-demanding, while GHG emissions occurred primarily due to mowing, fertilizer application, grass clippings, and CO2 turfgrass exchange. Therefore, the strategies to minimize energy consumption and GHG emissions in golf courses include the use of electric-powered equipment and a reduction in the frequency of energy-demanding maintenance activities, including those that emit large quantities of CO2. Planting more shrubs and trees along the golf course might offset the emissions and thus, turn golf courses into a carbon sink for GHG emissions. However, sustaining a low carbon footprint is not always simple for golf courses as the expectations of golfers for aesthetics and play quality might need to be prioritized against environmental concerns.

Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from biological wastewater treatment process with experimental verification: A case study of paper mill

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology have been considered a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study chose a small-scale wastewater treatment plant using MBR technology to estimate its potential for GHG emissions. The total GHG emissions from this wastewater treatment plant ranged from 2,802 to 11,946kg CO2 -eq/month within the 4-year study period, and they were mainly attributable to electricity consumption (79.94%) followed by chemical usages (17.13%) and on-site GHG emissions (2.93%). The on-site GHG emissions varied monthly, but most of them ranged from 80 to 160kg CO2 -eq/month. The aeration tank was an important operating unit for GHG emissions. Off-site GHG emissions mainly came from carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions resulting from electricity consumption. The results of this study provide useful information about the potential of GHG emissions from WWTPs using MBR technology and indicate that WWTPs can be sustainably managed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Wastewater treatment plants have been considered a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Total greenhouse gas emissions from the wastewater treatment plants using membrane bioreactor were mainly attributable to electricity consumption. On-site greenhouse gas emissions were relatively insignificant in this study.

In 2008, Glen Obear was interning at a golf course in Hawaii when the superintendent asked him to help diagnose a mysterious problem. Some of the course's putting greens were developing bald patches, spots where the turfgrasses were dying and thinning out. The failures were troubling because the expensive, exquisitely crafted greens were just five years old. A new green is normally expected to last at least five times as long. The superintendent suspected the issue lay not with the turfgrass itself but with the constructed soils underneath, known in the industry as “modified root zones.” Carefully engineered to resist compaction and promote drainage—while also retaining enough water for plant life—these soils are usually composed of 30 cm of sand over a layer of gravel. But when Obear and the superintendent dug into one, they found something curious: a red layer of cemented material about a foot down that appeared to be impeding drainage. No one had seen anything quite like it before, so Obear—then a University of Wisconsin–Madison (UW-Madison) undergraduate—took a chunk home with him to Wisconsin. His colleagues at first were underwhelmed. “To be honest, I was not interested in this when Glen started,” says Doug Soldat, a UW-Madison extension specialist in turfgrass management and urban soils who was Obear's master's degree adviser at the time. “But I let him do it, and I'm really glad I did.” The pair eventually found similar layers beneath putting greens in nearly 30 U.S. golf courses, including one in Madison. Obear went on to investigate why the layers develop and is now spearheading research at University of Nebraska–Lincoln (where he's currently a Ph.D. student) that should one day help golf course managers prevent the strange layers from forming. Along the way, the team discovered something else: The layers weren't so strange after all, but merely evidence of what all soils do—age and evolve. “The big difference is that in [turf] soils, it happens quickly because you irrigate them, and you apply lots of iron and fertilizer,” says UW-Madison pedologist Alfred Hartemink, who chairs the UW-Madison Department of Soil Science. “But there is something happening that we can explain. It's soil formation.” A putting green may seem delicate, but it's actually one tough surface. Although greens make up just 2% or so of a golf course's area, they are the spots where all play converges. Plus, the grasses—mowed to heights of less than a centimeter—are under tremendous stress. “So, the soil basically needs to be perfect,” Soldat says. The U.S. Golf Association (USGA) recognized this way back in the 1950s and has been designing, researching, and tweaking its “sand-based root zones” to meet exacting standards ever since. To ensure these soils continue providing ample air space for plant roots as golfers walk around on top, their primary component is sand—preferably coarse to medium in size and angular in shape. “You really can't over-compact a sand to the point where the grass will decline,” Soldat explains. Sand also keeps the surface dry for golfing by facilitating rapid infiltration of water. However, it's also not good for grasses if the green dries out too quickly. This is where the gravel layer underneath comes in. The presence of fine-textured sand atop a coarse gravel creates a “textural discontinuity” that boosts the water-holding capacity of the sand. The design “is beautiful in this regard,” Soldat says, and many people outside the golf industry today agree. The USGA's basic putting green design is being adapted by athletic fields and heavily trafficked green spaces around the country, including those of the Green Bay Packers, the Milwaukee Brewers, and the National Mall in Washington, DC. Tough as they are, though, modified root zones aren't immune to the passage of time—something that golf course managers have realized from the start. Still, this issue of “root zone aging” wasn't formally studied until the 1990s. It began when Bob Carrow, a University of Georgia turfgrass scientist, was asked to investigate a seasonal thinning of turfgrasses in the Southeast, known then as summer bentgrass decline. Most people attributed the decline to disease. But Carrow disagreed. “Bob was really innovative,” says University of Nebraska–Lincoln turf science professor, Roch Gaussoin. “He said, ‘No, this is due to excessive organic matter accumulation at the surface of the green as it matures, and the aggressive way we manage bentgrass for golf greens.’” As Carrow went on to describe, the heavily irrigated and fertilized bentgrasses were growing roots at such a rate that microbial decomposition couldn't keep pace and organic matter (OM) was building up rapidly in the soil. Once the thatch reached a critical level, infiltration slowed and oxygen concentrations dropped. These changes, in turn, deprived the grasses of oxygen, fostered anaerobic microbial activity, and caused other issues. The problems that Carrow observed were somewhat extreme, Gaussoin says, because Carrow was studying a cool-season grass in the humid Southeast. So, shortly afterward, Gaussoin and several University of Nebraska colleagues launched their own USGA-funded study: a 10-year experiment to understand how soil physical properties change as golf greens age. To gain even broader insight, they followed up in 2006 to 2008 with a survey of 300 putting greens on more than 100 golf courses in 15 states. What they found is that regardless of location, annual rainfall, construction methods, and other factors, OM levels do increase in sand-based putting green soils as they get older. In the survey, the average OM concentration in the soils was 3%, with levels reaching 8% or more in some cases. The Nebraska experiment further showed that air-filled pore space was reduced by 40% over time, and infiltration rates decreased by 70 to 75%. But another key finding was that OM can be kept at manageable levels through routine golf course practices—especially “topdressing,” where sand is brushed weekly or biweekly onto greens. Topdressing was nothing new at the time; it had been used for years to keep thatch at bay, Gaussoin says, along with cultivation. What the research did, however, was validate the wisdom and efficacy of this general recommendation. A profile showing the organic matter accumulation on the surface in the topdressing layer. Source: Roch Gaussoin. “The pioneers of greens management—the generation before me—always said, ‘You need to dilute that organic matter at the surface [with sand] or you're going to have problems,’” Gaussoin says. “And what we found with multiple years of data and multiple studies is that topdressing is the most important component in managing organic matter in golf course greens.” The effect of age on water infiltration for two USGA-recommended putting green root zones at the University of Nebraska. Root zone effect was not significantly different after eight years. Source: USGA. It's just one example of how the turf industry's 50 years of experience with constructed root zones helps today's managers tackle specific problems. But there is also a larger lesson here for people just getting started in soil engineering. “What happens as the soil ages is the big take-home message,” says Bill Kreuser, a University of Nebraska–Lincoln turfgrass extension specialist and Obear's Ph.D. adviser. “I think we get so caught up in the specs for construction that we forget—or underappreciate—just how dynamic the system is.” Iron- and manganese-cemented layer at the interface of sand and gravel (30-cm depth) on a golf course in Wisconsin. Source: Glen Obear. The situation was quite different when Soldat and Obear began studying the unusual chunk of cemented material from the Hawaiian course. There was no vast turf science literature or management expertise to tap into because no one had described such a thing in a putting green before. But it turned out the material was known, and it took UW-Madison pedologists Hartemink and Jim Bockheim just a short time to identify it. “The layer looked like rust, and that's what it was,” says Obear, who invited the UW soil scientists to inspect it. “A red, crusty, impermeable pan layer of iron oxide.” Iron layers often develop in iron-rich Spodosols, typically in places where a waterlogged, oxygen-depleted soil layer sits above a drier, more oxygenated one. The difference in redox potential across the boundary causes soluble, reduced iron in water to precipitate out as iron oxide—cementing clays and soil organic matter together in the process. Over decades or centuries, the accumulating iron forms an impermeable pan, called a placic horizon in soil taxonomy. Bockheim, in fact, had published a paper on placic horizons. Why similar layers were developing beneath putting greens in a fraction of the time remained unclear, but the literature on natural soils offered an excellent place to start. “I hadn't worked in these soils before,” Hartemink says. “But you take what you know about the processes in other soils and apply them to the constructed soil. By doing that, we found an effective way to explain the formation of these iron layers in the turfgrass soils.” The model that Obear, Soldat, and Hartemink ended up proposing focuses on the interface of sand and gravel in constructed root zones. Their hypothesis is that this textural discontinuity—so useful for holding moisture in the sand for turfgrasses—inadvertently sets up the conditions for iron layer formation: a saturated, sand layer sitting above a drier, more oxygenated gravel. When reduced iron reaches this boundary, it precipitates as iron oxide, just as in Spodosols. The team also found iron layers beneath the topsoil in some greens although these layers were less strongly cemented than those at the sand-gravel interface. Light and frequent sand topdressing creates smooth, firm putting surfaces. Source: USGA. Obear is quick to point out, however, that while iron layers have now been identified in turfgrass soils in more than 30 sites, they don't occur everywhere. “Right now, we're still trying to answer the basic question of why they form in some soils and not others,” he says. One factor may be the iron fertilizer that managers often add to greens. Applied to make turfgrasses greener without stimulating their growth, the extra iron may increase the risk of a cemented pan forming below. Experiments by Obear and Kreuser at University of Nebraska also suggest pH is important. “In a natural soil, the pH is defined by thousands of years of rainfall and the mineralogy,” Obear says. “But in an engineered soil, you might bring in sand from Florida and limestone [gravel] from the Southwest. So, you can have some really odd combinations of pH.” When the difference is large—for example, when an acidic sand sits atop an alkaline gravel—a pH boundary develops that also encourages iron oxidation, Kreuser says. “So, it's early, but we're pretty confident at this point that matching the pH of the sand and gravel will help.” That said, he, Obear, and Soldat are reluctant to give formal recommendations to golf course managers until they fully understand the contributing factors—especially when the advice may add expense. “One of the issues we're running into is, how do we keep the cost down?” Soldat says. “Because if we start specifying the pH of the sand and the gravel, then we also have to start going further away to get those source materials.” Slides, audio, and video from a symposium at last year's ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Annual Meeting titled, “Manufactured, Blended, and Engineered Soils for Urban Applications” are available in the ACSESS Digital Library at https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/meetings/2016am/16011. The scientists will say this, though: Anyone who works with engineered soils today needs to consider not just the physical specifications, such as particle sizes, porosity, and drainage rates, but redox potential, pH, and other chemical properties, as well. Largely overlooked in soil engineering specs to date, “the chemistry, we're discovering, is really important and where we need more guidance,” Kreuser says. Then, as Gaussoin and his colleagues demonstrated a decade ago with soil physical properties, people should be prepared for the ground to shift, quite possibly in unpredictable and confusing ways. “The engineering specs take you to Day 1, and then evolution happens and the soil starts changing,” Obear says. “That doesn't give people a practical action to take, but it's a frameshift in thinking about these soils.” Change—and the problems it often brings—are indeed par for the course; the trick is to persevere and stay curious, Soldat adds. “You're going to see failures all the time in engineered media—rain gardens, rooftop mixes, putting greens, athletic fields,” he says. “The easy thing to do is say, ‘Let's tear it up and rebuild it.’ The harder thing to do is to Glen Obear conducting a pedological investigation of a putting green in Mississippi. These greens were being removed and replaced due to drainage failure from layers that had formed between the interface of sand and gravel. ask,‘Why? Can we figure out why?’ So, when something fails, really pay attention to it. And if you don't understand why it failed, that's an opportunity.”

Municipal water and wastewater services have complicated sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and quantifying their roles is critical for tackling global environmental challenges. In this study we provide a systematic review of the state‐of‐the‐art on GHG emission characterizations of China's urban water infrastructure with the aim of shedding light on global implications for sustainable development. We started by synthesizing a framework on GHG emissions associated with water and wastewater infrastructure. Then we analyzed the different sources of GHG emissions in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. In drinking water services, electricity consumption is the largest source of GHG emissions. A particular concern in China is the common use of secondary pumping for high‐rise buildings. Optimized pressure management with an efficient pumping system should be prioritized. In wastewater services, non‐CO2 emissions such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are substantial, but vary greatly depending on regional and technological differences. Further research directions may include GHG inventory development for urban water systems at the plant level, quantifications of GHG emissions from sewer systems, emission reduction measures via water reclamation, renewable energy recovery, energy efficiency improvement, cost–benefit analyses, and characterizations of Scope 3 emissions.This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Engineering Water > Planning Water

Turfgrass Information and Pest Scouting (TIPS), a program modified from traditional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies, was incorporated into a pilot project specifically designed for turf managers. Objectives of the TIPS program were (i) identifying and incorporating scouting techniques to indicate pest presence and pressure; (ii) maximizing plant health through proper maintenance while promoting prescriptive pesticide usage to maintain acceptable appearance; and (iii) applying computer technology and remote sensing techniques for stress identification and plant problem analysis on golf course turf. Background information was compiled on maintenance practices such as mowing, fertilizing, watering practices, and applying pesticides. Scouting was performed on a 10-d cycle and involved inspecting for pest problems and improper agronomic practices. Management practices were reviewed and recommendations suggested to each manager. Results included (i) educating turf managers on recognizing important pests and determining when sufficient pest levels were present to apply pesticides rather than treating on a calendar basis as previously performed; (ii) transferring computer technology to aid in record keeping and mapping of pest or problem areas; (iii) providing aerial photographs to pinpoint controversial course design or corrections that were necessary; (iv) improving communication channels between county agents, university specialists, and turf managers; and (v) identifying research and extension needs, as well as providing on-site research and demonstration areas. L.B. McCarty, Environmental Horticulture Dep., 1523 Fifield Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; and D.W. Roberts, L.C. Miller, and J.A. Brittain, Dep. of Horticulture, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0375. Received 2 March 1989. Corresponding author. Published in J. Agron. Educ. 19:155-159 (1990). J. Agron. Educ., Vol. 19, no. 2, 1990 155 T PRODUCTION and maintenance is a major industry in the USA. In North Carolina alone, the yearly economic impact of the turfgrass industry is valued at $734 million (Anon., 1986). Premium quality golf course, sod production, athletic field, recreational ground, roadside acre, and lawn maintenance require highly trained turf managers who are able to maintain these facilities at minimum costs and disruptions. To incorporate all basic pest control techniques and cultural practices to achieve and maintain aesthetically and functionally acceptable plant health, programs such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) have been developed in traditional row-crop agriculture. Integrated Pest Management is simply a way of looking for solutions to plant health problems. The solutions should be economically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and relatively durable. Usually, the IPM solution to plant health problems involves a combination of cultural, agrochemical, and biological tactics (Brittain, 1984). Integrated Pest Management concepts and practices have not previously been targeted specifically for commercial turf operations. The one major difference between traditional IPM and turfgrass productions is that maximum yield is not the ultimate goal of turf producers as it may be with IPM in food and fiber crops. The goal of turf production is to optimize performance. This includes improved aesthetics, durability, recovery from damage, as well as uniformity. Most turf areas are complex environments. Pest and plant managers must consider multiple tuff Sl~ecies, shade and flowering trees, ponds, exotic plants, frequent human interaction through continuous play, and residential development. Experimental IPM programs in selected urban areas in Florida have resulted in approximately a 90% reduction in pesticide application without sacrificing visual quality (Short et al., 1982). Results from a similar IPM scouting program in Maryland suggested that 40 to 80% of the pest problems could be eliminated by a simple substitution of resistant ornamental varieties or elimination of pest-susceptible plants in residential lawns (Hellman et al., 1982). The most significant lawn problems in Maryland were low soil pH, low soil fertility, and weed invasion. Turfgrass Information and Pest Scouting (TIPS), program modified from traditional IPM strategies, was incorporated into a pilot project specifically designed for commercial turf producers. Objectives of the TIPS program included (i) identifying and incorporating scouting techniques and economic thresholds for various turf pests; (ii) maximizing plant health through proper maintenance while promoting prescriptive pesticide usage to maintain acceptable appearance; and (iii) applying computer technology and remote sensing techniques for stress management and plant problem analysis on golf course turf.

Rock-derived or petrogenic organic carbon has traditionally been regarded as being non-bioavailable and bypassing the active carbon cycle when eroded. However, it has become apparent that this organic carbon might not be so inert, especially in fjord systems where petrogenic organic carbon influxes can be high, making its degradation another potential source of greenhouse gas emissions. The extent to which subsurface micro-organisms use this organic carbon is not well constrained, despite its potential impacts on global carbon cycling. Here, we performed compound-specific radiocarbon analyses on intact polar lipid–fatty acids of live micro-organisms from marine sediments in Hornsund Fjord, Svalbard. By this means, we estimate that local bacterial communities utilize between 5 ± 2% and 55 ± 6% (average of 25 ± 16%) of petrogenic organic carbon for their biosynthesis, providing evidence for the important role of petrogenic organic carbon as a substrate after sediment redeposition. We hypothesize that the lack of sufficient recently synthesized organic carbon from primary production forces micro-organisms into utilization of petrogenic organic carbon as an alternative energy source. The input of petrogenic organic carbon to marine sediments and subsequent utilization by subsurface micro-organisms represents a natural source of fossil greenhouse gas emissions over geological timescales.

Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity

Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity