SYMPOSIA PAPER Published: 01 April 2025
STP165220240002

Penetrants Versus Retainers: Comparing Soil Surfactant Terminology to Performance in Sand-Based Putting Greens

Source

Soil surfactants are used to manage water on golf course putting greens in critical and diverse ways. It is highly desirable to produce firm, dry surfaces through enhanced infiltration while also maximizing water retention within the rootzone to mitigate moisture stress. Accordingly, turfgrass soil surfactants are often marketed as either “penetrants” or “retainers” to emphasize their proficiency in achieving these different purposes. However, in the absence of objective, empirical data, such marketing-based terminology tends to dominate perceptions of turfgrass soil surfactants. Critically, there are no established standards for what constitutes penetrants or retainers, and manufacturers can arbitrarily apply these terms at their own discretion. The result is inconsistent performance and confusion among end-users. This research compared turfgrass soil surfactants marketed as penetrants to those marketed as retainers for their ability to affect rootzone volumetric water content (VWC) and surface firmness. Multiple studies were conducted on sand-based putting greens in both Fayetteville, AR (2018–2021), and Lubbock, TX (2019–2020); the studies included the turfgrass species creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) and ultradwarf bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon [L.] Pers. x C. transvaalensis Burtt-Davy). Soil surfactant treatments were applied according to label recommendations and evaluated over a range of rootzone moisture conditions. VWC was estimated at multiple depths using portable moisture meters, and surface firmness was assessed through multiple methods. At the Fayetteville location, during 2018–2019, there were no significant differences in VWC between penetrants and retainers on any date or at any depth. In 2021, both penetrants and retainers were capable of producing VWC greater than nontreated controls; likewise both product types also resulted in VWC less than nontreated controls. Similar inconsistencies were documented at the Lubbock location. Collectively, these results reinforced the need to establish soil surfactant classifications based on performance data from field testing rather than marketing terminology.

Author Information

O’Brien, Daniel
University of Arkansas Horticulture Dept., Fayetteville, AR, US
Karcher, Douglas
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, US
Young, Joseph
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, US
Richardson, Michael
University of Arkansas Horticulture Dept., Fayetteville, AR, US
Kostka, Stanley
Pennsylvania State University Berks Campus, Reading, PA, US
Fidanza, Michael
Pennsylvania State University Berks Campus, Reading, PA, US
Price: $25.00
Contact Sales
Related
Reprints and Permissions
Reprints and copyright permissions can be requested through the
Copyright Clearance Center
Details
Pages: 96–119
DOI: 10.1520/STP165220240002
ISBN-EB: 978-0-8031-7752-9
ISBN-13: 978-0-8031-7751-2