Ball Mark Repair and Creeping Bentgrass Recovery

Abstract

Ball marks result from golf ball impact on putting greens, and recovery of the surface may depend upon the repair strategy employed. Our objective was to compare three ball mark repair techniques for their influence on golf green surface quality and 'L-93' creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) recovery. Studies were conducted on a practice putting green on a golf course (Study I) and on a research green (Study II) near Manhattan, Kansas. Ball marks were made by a golfer striking golf balls with a pitching wedge from 100 m in Study I and from 70 m in Study II. Five treatments were imposed on the ball marks immediately after they were created: (i) no ball mark (control); (ii) unrepaired ball mark; (iii) Greenfix tool; (iv) traditional ball mark repair tool used improperly; and (v) traditional ball mark repair tool used properly. In both studies, ball marks repaired properly with the traditional tool or with the Greenfix, recovered completely in 16 to 21 days; recovery was 4 days faster with the Greenfix tool than the traditional tool in Study I. Marks repaired with the Greenfix had poorer surface quality due to the presence of an uneven surface at 3 days after the ball mark was made (ABM) in Study I and up to 10 days ABM in Study II. Using the traditional tool improperly resulted in the poorest surface quality at > 17 days ABM due to a persistent ball mark scar and poor turf quality in the mark area. Improperly repaired marks required > 38 days for recovery, 19 days longer than unrepaired marks in Study I, and at least 8 days longer than unrepaired marks in Study II. Proper use of the traditional tool or use of the Greenfix allowed for most rapid improvement in creeping bentgrass surface quality and fewest days to recovery; however, improper use of the traditional tool reduced surface quality and doubled the time for surface recovery compared to its proper use.