Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Author "Hollman, Andrew"

Now showing 1 - 15 of 15
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2007 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2008) Watkins, Eric; Hollman, Andrew
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides, along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2008 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2009) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2009 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2010) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2010 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2011) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2011 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2012) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2012 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2013) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2013 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2014) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2014 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2015) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2015 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2016) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2016 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2017) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    2017 University of Minnesota Turfgrass Cultivar Evaluation Results
    (2018) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric
    Each year, the turfgrass research team at the University of Minnesota evaluates thousands of plots for turf performance. Typically, these evaluations are done visually, with a turfgrass researcher giving a score to each plot. The primary rating is “turfgrass quality”, which is rated on a scale of 1-9, with a 9 representing the best turfgrass quality and a 1 representing the poorest turfgrass quality. Turfgrass quality is a combination of traits that make a turf aesthetically pleasing, including color, density, freedom from disease and weeds, and uniformity. The results are separated by trial and planting year, and a table with all applications of fertilizers and pesticides along with other management information is also included.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The effect of fine fescue species and seeding rate in no-mow areas
    (2018-11) Hollman, Andrew; Watkins, Eric; Heineck, Garett
    In northern states, fine fescues species are often used for low-input areas and are recommended for “No-Mow” situations. The correct seeding rate and species to use could vary depending on the users desired aesthetics, maintenance requirements, and site use. The objectives of this study were to evaluate five commonly-used fine fescue species for their suitability to be maintained with minimal mowing and to determine a seeding rate based on Pure Live Seeds (PLS) for a given area to maintain adequate quality without excessive biomass.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Optimum Seeding Rate and Biomass Removal Timing for No-Mow Fine Fescue Golf Course Roughs
    (2019-11) Schwab, Ryan; Watkins, Eric; Hollman, Andrew; Horgan, Brian; Bauer, Sam
    The objective of this research project was to determine the optimum seeding rate and biomass removal timing for maximum weed suppression, golf ball visibility, and aesthetics.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Regional Optimization of Roadside Turfgrass Seed Mixtures
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2019-12) Watkins, Eric; Sessoms, Florence; Hollman, Andrew; Laskowski, Michael; Moncada, Kristine
    Current MnDOT specifications for roadside turfgrasses suggest statewide planting of mixtures that are grouped into five broad categories such as low maintenance turf and high maintenance turf. The objective of this research was to identify turfgrasses that possess traits necessary to survive in the harsh roadside environments found throughout Minnesota. We investigated the impacts of possibly the three most limiting environmental conditions (heat, salt and ice cover) on multiple cultivars from up to fifteen individual turfgrass species. Salt stress screening revealed several species with good levels of adaptation including alkaligrass and tall fescue. In the heat stress trial, we found cultivars and selections of Canada bluegrass, tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, strong creeping red fescue and slender creeping red fescue were among the top performers. Finally, in our ice cover screening, tall fescue and Chewings fescue did well; however, these results did not correlate well with our typical field observations. For each of these stresses, we identified top-performing cultivars that will be evaluated in field studies with the goal of identifying optimized mixtures for stakeholders in Minnesota.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Turfgrass Seed Variety Evaluation Process
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2023-05) Watkins, Eric; Yue, Chengyan; Hollman, Andrew; Moncada, Kristine
    Our project addresses two critical needs: to update existing MnDOT turfgrass recommendation lists and to develop a new process to keep lists continually updated in a fair manner with data-driven recommendations. We evaluated the current list of MnDOT-approved turfgrass varieties and found underperforming varieties that should be removed. We then found new, improved varieties that should be considered for inclusion on the MnDOT lists. To facilitate a process to keep lists updated for the future, we first conducted a survey of seed distributors. Using their input, we developed a new process that MnDOT can use to approve turfgrass varieties for inclusion as official seed mixtures. Ultimately, this will lead to a more nimble, consistent, and clear process so that existing and new seed vendors can have complete confidence in data-driven decision making by MnDOT.