Preliminary assessment of mite infestations on warmseason turfgrasses in Australia

Phytophagous mites were first identified as a problem in warm-season turfgrasses in Australia around 80 years ago. In production turfgrass fields, slower growth and weakening of sod strength by mites can cause serious commercial losses through breakage of harvested rolls. Elsewhere, mite infestation is associated with poor wear resistance coupled with very slow recovery of turf on playing fields, thereby reducing the usage that is possible on such fields. At the same time, knowledge about turfgrass mites is lacking: specifically, which mite group/species is/are causing damage and to which turfgrass species. There has long been an underlying assumption, based mainly on overseas literature, that mites of the family Eriophyidae are the main cause of the distorted growth symptoms frequently seen and attributed to mite damage. During the 2010/11 growing season, an Australia-wide survey was conducted, sampling seven warm-season turfgrass genera to determine the mites present in each case. This paper reports the results of that survey, together with data from more recent mite infestations sampled during the subsequent threeyear period. Based on their frequency of occurrence, tenuipalpid mites from the genus Dolichotetranychus appear to be at least as important as eriophyoid mites on Cynodon spp.; Dolichotetranychus mites were also recorded from two survey samples of Zoysia spp. but not in subsequent sampling. Eriophyoid mites of the genus Aceria were found on Cynodon spp., with possibly a second species on Zoysia species. A number of mixed tenuipalpid/eriophyoid populations have also been found on Cynodon species. A Steneotarsonemus species (Tarsonemidae) was found associated with Pennisetum clandestinum. Grass-webbing tetranychid mites (Oligonychus spp.) also occasionally affect a wide range of warm-season turf and other grasses non-selectively

Turfgrass education, research and information in Australia: history, development and implications

The modern Australian turfgrass industry developed from the period between World Wars I and II, in response to increasing urbanisation and construction of more sophisticated, higher quality sporting facilities. Its development intensified from the 1960s onwards with selection of the first widely used local varieties and import of new US-bred greens hybrids. This timetable, together with its underlying drivers, is similar to that in other developed countries in North America, Europe and southern Africa. However, supporting turfgrass education and research have developed very differently in Australia. Vocational greenkeeper training started in the 1940s with instructors from the NSW agriculture department, but moved into the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system in the 1950s and has developed from there in all states. University-based training at post-graduate, and now undergraduate, level has become more available in the past 20-30 years, but is still a relatively small component within the overall tertiary education sector for agriculture and environmental science. In Australia, food-and fibre-based industries have been backed by strong, stable government research for over 100 years, in contrast to turfgrass (and lifestyle horticulture generally) where formal research support from state government departments has been limited, sporadic and lacked continuity. University research initiated in the past 20-30 years remains limited but is increasing in response to industry funding. Research into specific turfgrass problems has also been conducted over the past 50-80 years by private industry-funded providers, which have come and gone at regular intervals. Australia lacks a numerically strong nucleus of technically competent scientists and educators to provide independent advice to the turfgrass industry. The implications of this in terms of the quality of information accessed by practitioners are explored