Next Article in Journal
Root Penetration Is Associated with Root Diameter and Root Growth Rate in Tropical Forage Grasses
Previous Article in Journal
Consequences of Invasive Prosopis (Mesquite) on Vegetation, Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Compliance of Management Practices in South African Rangelands: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Water Conservation Practices and Nitrogen Fertility for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Creeping Bentgrass Putting Greens
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Urban Landscapes: Turfgrass Benefits

1
Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
2
Department of Environmental Horticulture, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3205 College Ave, Davie, FL 33314, USA
3
Department of Environmental Horticulture, West Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 4253 Experiment Dr. Hwy. 182, Jay, FL 32565, USA
4
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 19 December 2024 / Accepted: 3 January 2025 / Published: 7 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainable Turfgrass Management)

Abstract

:
Recently, turfgrass has received scrutiny from the public in many parts of the United States due to the misconception that it has limited benefits and has negative impacts on the environment. These negative impacts are often associated with water and chemical usage during turfgrass maintenance. Even with these ill-advised concerns, turfgrass remains an important component of urban landscapes. Contrary to public opinion, turfgrass has numerous environmental, ecological, economical, social, and societal benefits. This review paper summarizes and highlights the benefits of turfgrass systems.

1. Introduction

Turfgrass is an important component of urban landscapes, where its uses include but are not limited to home lawns, golf courses, athletic fields, roadsides, commercial buildings, schools, and parks. However, there is a misconception that turfgrass systems have limited benefits and can have negative impacts on the environment due to their inappropriate management [1,2]. Additionally, their economic, social, and societal benefits are often overlooked. Several authors have summarized and presented the environmental, ecological, economical, social, and societal benefits of turfgrass [3,4,5,6,7]. This review paper highlights the benefits and builds upon these previous summaries with recent findings.

2. Turfgrass Benefits

2.1. Environmental and Ecological

Typically, turfgrass is established and grown on disturbed urban soils [8]. This is especially true in urban areas, where development removes existing vegetation, strips the topsoil, and compacts the subsoil, leading to urban soils generally having a loss of soil organic matter and soil structure, increased bulk density, and reduced permeability [9,10]. Turfgrass is effective for soil stabilization and erosion control due to it having a high shoot and root density, which helps to physically stabilize the soil, induces resistance to overland water flow, and allows more time for infiltration while decreasing runoff and erosion [3,6,11]. Due to the ability of turfgrass to stabilize the soil, limit soil erosion, and provide dust control, it is utilized in urban areas including closed landfills and abandoned properties [3,4,7,12].
Turfgrass roots also create a diversity of channels in the soil that increase the water infiltration within the turfgrass rootzone [6]. When turfgrass was compared to a mixed-species stand (i.e., ornamental ground covers, woody shrubs, and trees), there were no differences in the surface runoff [13]. Turfgrass also increases the time to runoff and decreases the runoff (with a mean runoff volume < 1% of the total precipitation) relative to that in impervious surfaces with or without trees and porous pavement [14,15]. Moreover, in non-frozen soil conditions, turfgrass decreased the runoff by 54% and reduced the total phosphorus (P) loading in the runoff by 50% compared to prairie vegetation [16,17]. Turfgrass stands also have greater water infiltration and retention and less runoff than artificial lawns and xeriscaping [18,19]. The ability of turfgrass to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration results in groundwater recharge [3,5]. Turfgrass (37%) provides a similar average groundwater recharge compared to that of woodchip mulch (47%) and a greater groundwater recharge compared to that of a pollinator landscape (i.e., flowering forbs; 26%) [20]. Furthermore, turfgrass provides similar groundwater protection and recharge abilities to those of prairie vegetation [21].
Properly maintained and actively growing turfgrass results in little nutrient loss from leaching and runoff and has minimal sediment runoff [7,11,13,22,23,24]. This is attributed to turfgrass having a high root and shoot density, resulting in increased infiltration and reduced runoff [25]. When fertilizer was applied within the regional recommended ranges to healthy turfgrass, it resulted in negligible nutrient leaching in the various turfgrasses [26,27,28,29,30,31]. Additionally, following the best management practices in terms of fertilizer and irrigation, the nutrient losses from turfgrass can be similar to those in unmanaged, natural systems, and the nitrogen (N) levels in the groundwater are not related to the amount of N applied to the turfgrass [32,33]. Turfgrass also resulted in 92%, 39%, and 47% lower N, P, and potassium (K) leaching compared to a mixed-species stand (i.e., ornamental ground cover, woody shrubs, and trees), respectively [13,22]. Furthermore, turfgrass reduced the N leaching by 92% and 57% relative to that in woodchip mulch and a pollinator landscape (i.e., flowering forbs), respectively [20]. However, N leaching is more likely to occur if fertilizer is applied when the turfgrass is growing slowly or is inactive [7]. Additionally, over-irrigation is also a potential factor influencing N leaching from turfgrass [24].
Its ability to utilize and tolerate reclaimed water and low-quality water is another benefit of turfgrass [34,35]. Furthermore, turfgrass irrigated with reclaimed water can achieve the same turf quality as turfgrass irrigated with well water [36]. The nutrients in reclaimed water can be assimilated into the plant tissue and can aid in turfgrass growth while also removing up to 647 kg N ha−1 yr−1 from the wastewater [34,37]. Even though turfgrass irrigated with reclaimed tailored water has been shown to minimize nitrate leaching once it is established, concerns about N leaching during its establishment from seed still exist [38]. The nitrate leaching from warm-season turfgrass species irrigated with reclaimed water was higher compared to that when using potable water irrigation up to 30 days after seeding, when neither roots nor aboveground turfgrass tissue was present. Moreover, grass with a more extensive root architecture may have an increased capacity to filter leached nitrogen compared to grasses with scarcer roots [39].
Another ecosystem service of turfgrass is sequestering carbon (C) [40,41,42,43,44]. Turfgrass has an average gross C sequestration rate of 0.9–5.4 Mg C ha−1 yr−1, a soil organic C accumulation rate of 0.22 Mg C ha−1 yr−1, and a potential soil organic C sink capacity of 20.8–96.3 Mg C ha−1 [40,42,43,45,46]. Management intensities alter the rate of C sequestration; however, even when factoring in hidden C costs (mowing, irrigation, fertilizer, etc.), turfgrass is an efficient assimilator of atmospheric C and is a net C sink, with an average net C sequestration or accumulation rate of 0.4–2.5 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 [40,43,45,46]. Managed turfgrass has greater C sequestration compared to grasslands, cropland converted into grassland, cover crop adoption, no-till agriculture, and many agricultural crop systems [45,47,48]. Additionally, following the best management practices for turfgrass fertilization and irrigation may even reduce the net global warming potential compared to that of non-fertilized turfgrass through encouraging C sequestration since fertilized and irrigated turfgrass produces more biomass [49]. Turfgrass, particularly in urban environments, is an important contributor to global C sequestration efforts [38].
Problems with urban soil contamination include the organic, inorganic, and heavy metal pollutants created from the byproducts of combustion or industrial processes and anthropogenic sources (e.g., traffic emissions, municipal waste disposal, the corrosion of construction and building materials, etc.) [50]. Remediation of contaminated soils can be achieved through turfgrass phytoremediation and the associated plant–microbe interactions [4,7,51,52,53,54]. The dense turfgrass root system and associated rhizosphere provide a greater surface area for reactions, which may enhance phytoremediation, compared to that in tap-rooted plant systems [7,55,56]. Furthermore, turfgrasses allow for the phytoremediation of many different contaminants by assimilating them into both the aboveground and belowground plant tissue [57]. Turfgrass resulted in the greatest emergence rate and biomass in polluted soils compared to trees, shrubs, and sedges, which portrays its greater potential for the rehabilitation of contaminated soils [52]. It was also determined that turfgrass can be utilized for the bioremediation of certain herbicides and nitrate-N [53]. Turfgrass also has the potential to reduce pharmaceutical contaminant loading in the environment [58]. Turfgrass phytoremediation may be a more cost-effective method of remediating contaminated soils compared to the traditional methods [59,60].
In addition to the reclamation of contaminated soils, turfgrass also absorbs atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gases and reduces fine particulate matter pollution, all of which are exacerbated by anthropogenic activities [4,7,61,62]. Coinciding with decreasing pollution, turfgrass produces oxygen, which improves air quality [6]. Turfgrass also improves water quality by reducing the total N by 64–90%, the total P by 44–94%, the total K by 33–73%, and suspended solids by >90% in water [63,64,65]. Additionally, turfgrass can reduce hormone pollutants by 98% in runoff [66]. Turfgrass has also been utilized in agricultural production to reduce nonpoint source pollution [64].
Turfgrass moderates temperature and reduces heat island effects through evapotranspiration [6]. Turfgrass offered an approximately 25 °C surface cooling effect relative to bare soil and decreased the maximum daytime temperature from 45.7 °C to 43.3 °C [67,68]. Furthermore, green, growing turfgrass decreases the temperature peaks in urban areas by an average of 1.9 °C and lowers maximum daily canopy temperature by 21–56% compared to dormant turf, synthetic turf, and bare soil [3,69]. Turfgrass also has a significant cooling potential that can surpass tree shade cooling at small temporal scales and at nighttime [70,71]. Irrigated turfgrass was shown to decrease the cumulative average heat fluxes in stucco-covered wood frame walls when compared to the non-irrigated-xeriscape, which were responsible for urban temperature increases, creating an urban heat island effect [72]. Temperature moderation via turfgrass evapotranspiration also saves energy and money and improves outdoor thermal comfort [3,68,73].
In addition to soil, water, and air quality improvements, turfgrass also reduces noise pollution, urban glare, UV-radiation reflection, and dust/mud problems [3,6,74,75,76]. Turfgrass areas decrease the numbers of noxious or nuisance pests, reduce allergy-related pollen, and limit human disease exposure, which is facilitated by certain insect vectors [3,7]. Additionally, green turfgrass lowers fire hazards and is recommended to prevent structural fire damage [3,77].
Turfgrass also has a role in supporting wildlife habitats, which include those of numerous non-pest invertebrates [3,6]. In urban environments, lawns and golf courses provide open spaces that attract predatory birds for hunting [78]. Turfgrass also supports the greatest diversity and number of natural enemy arthropods (e.g., ants, beetles, spiders, etc.) compared to urban ground covers [79,80]. However, turfgrass has lower beetle biodiversity and abundance than meadows and tall-grass prairies [81,82]. Furthermore, soil microbial biomass or populations increase with turf stand age and may be greater than those in native pine soil [83]. Managed turfgrass areas provide an opportunity to either promote or maintain biodiversity in urban environments [81,84]. Species and cultivar blends of turfgrasses are another way to create more resilient, biodiverse lawns that reduce weed pressure and increase lawn quality [85,86,87,88].

2.2. Social and Societal

Turfgrass has numerous recreational benefits along with its benefits to physical and mental health. Its recreational benefits include accessible and safe environments in which to exercise, engage in outdoor sports/activities, and socialize [4,7]. Furthermore, turfgrass provides a permeable, non-heatable, and safe playing surface for users, and overall, park visitors prefer turfgrass compared to artificial turf [6,89,90]. Turfgrass is often the best-suited area for recreational and leisure activities compared to other landscapes [7]. The list of recreation and leisure activities conducted on turfgrass is vast and includes a wide range of activities.
Turfgrass also has an impact on human physical and mental health. These physical health benefits include a reduced risk of chronic diseases and a lower body mass index due to a more physically active lifestyle [4,91,92]. Additionally, subjects’ mean systolic blood pressure decreased and their brainwave patterns increased following an interaction with turfgrass compared to artificial grass [93]. Heat stress was also reduced with the use of turfgrass versus artificial turf, and turfgrass creates a healthy outdoor thermal environment [94]. Artificial turfgrass can also lead to abrasion injuries and a higher foot and ankle injury rate compared to natural turfgrass [95,96]. Furthermore, the likelihood of a football player suffering a knee injury on artificial turf is increased relative to natural turfgrass [95]. Mental health benefits include reducing stress and depression symptoms, enhancements in the creativity, intellect, and cognitive skills of youth, and increasing relaxation or calmness and an overall sense of well-being [6,91,93,97,98,99,100]. It has also been reported that maintained turfgrass areas improve one’s sense of safety and are inversely related to the incidence of crime [4,7,101,102].
Urban lawns provide formal and informal opportunities for nature-based learning [103]. Turfgrass also provides aesthetic benefits, especially when it is combined within an integrated landscape [3]. Turfgrass is important to the aesthetics of a landscape because it is the background for all other landscape items, and it provides the framework that enhances the other landscape features [6]. Overall, turfgrass has a positive effect on people through its physical, mental, and social benefits [4].

2.3. Economical

In the United States, it is estimated that turfgrass accounts for 1.9% (163,812 km2 ± 35,850 km2) of the total continental area [104]. The turfgrass industry has many sectors, which include lawncare services, lawn and garden stores, equipment manufacturing, sod farms, golf courses, and athletic fields [105]. The total economic output and value-added impacts of the turfgrass industry, not including athletic fields, were estimated at USD 62.2 billion and USD 37.65 billion in 2005, respectively, and the industry continues to grow in the United States [105]. The golf industry had an economic activity of approximately USD 84 billion in 2016, employs around 2 million people, and provides tourism benefits [4,84,106].
Beyond its economic impacts at the industry level, a maintained landscape with healthy turfgrass, trees, and ornamental plants increases individual homeowners’ and businesses’ property value and sales prices and enhances the perception of businesses or schools [4,7]. As mentioned, turfgrass also moderates temperature, which reduces energy costs [6].

3. Conclusions

Overall, turfgrass has numerous environmental, ecological, social, societal, and economical benefits in urban areas. It also is a major contributor to the urban landscape in terms of its functionality and aesthetics, positive ecosystem services (wildlife habitats, runoff reduction, soil stabilization, groundwater recharge, nutrient uptake, carbon sequestration, improved soil structure and development in urbanized soils, and increased soil microbial populations) and economic impact, and people’s overall well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.J.L., M.S., J.B.U. and K.K.; methodology, A.J.L.; software, A.J.L.; validation, A.J.L., M.S., J.B.U. and K.K.; formal analysis, A.J.L.; investigation, A.J.L.; resources, A.J.L.; data curation, A.J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.L.; writing—review and editing, A.J.L., M.S., J.B.U. and K.K.; visualization, A.J.L.; supervision, A.J.L.; project administration, A.J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hostetler, M. Cues to care: Future directions for ecological landscapes. Urban Ecosyst. 2021, 24, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hostetler, M.E.; Main, M.B. Native landscaping vs. exotic landscaping: What should we recommend? J. Ext. 2010, 48, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Beard, J.B.; Green, R.L. The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humans. J. Environ. Qual. 1994, 23, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brosnan, J.T.; Chandra, A.; Gaussoin, R.E.; Kowalewski, A.; Leinauer, B.; Rossi, F.S.; Soldat, D.J.; Stier, J.C.; Unruh, J.B. A justification for continued management of turfgrass during economic contraction. Agric. Environ. Lett. 2020, 5, e20033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Christians, N.E.; Patton, A.J.; Law, Q.D. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Manage; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Monteiro, J.A. Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stier, J.C.; Steinke, K.; Ervin, E.H.; Higginson, F.R.; McMaugh, P.E. Turfgrass benefits and issues. Turfgrass Biol. Use Manag. 2013, 56, 105–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bigelow, C.A.; Soldat, D.J. Turfgrass root zones: Management, construction methods, amendment characterization, and use. Turfgrass Biol. Use Manag. 2013, 56, 383–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cogger, C.G. Potential compost benefits for restoration of soils disturbed by urban development. Compos. Sci. Util. 2005, 13, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kranz, C.N.; McLaughlin, R.A.; Johnson, A.; Miller, G.; Heitman, J.L. The effects of compost incorporation on soil physical properties in urban soils–A concise review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gross, C.M.; Angle, J.S.; Welterlen, M.S. Nutrient and Sediment Losses from Turfgrass; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1990; Volume 19, pp. 663–668. [Google Scholar]
  12. Montgomery, J.A.; Klimas, C.A.; Arcus, J.; DeKnock, C.; Rico, K.; Rodriguez, Y.; Vollrath, K.; Webb, E.; Williams, A. Soil quality assessment is a necessary first step for designing urban green infrastructure. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Erickson, J.E.; Cisar, J.L.; Snyder, G.H.; Volin, J.C. Phosphorus and potassium leaching under contrasting residential landscape models established on a sandy soil. Crop Sci. 2005, 45, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Armson, D.; Stringer, P.; Ennos, A.R. The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, W.; Feng, Q.; Deo, R.C.; Yao, L.; Wei, W. Experimental Study on the rainfall-runoff responses of typical urban surfaces and two green infrastructures using scale-based models. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Steinke, K.; Stier, J.C.; Kussow, W.R.; Thompson, A. Prairie and turf buffer strips for controlling runoff from paved surfaces. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Steinke, K.; Kussow, W.R.; Stier, J.C. Potential contributions of mature prairie and turfgrass to phosphorus in urban runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 1176–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chang, B.; Wherley, B.; Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.A.; McInnes, K.J. Effects of urban residential landscape composition on surface runoff generation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Simpson, T.J.; Francis, R.A. Artificial lawns exhibit increased runoff and decreased water retention compared to living lawns following controlled rainfall experiments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Boeri, P.A.; Unruh, J.B.; Kenworthy, K.E.; Blount, A.R.; Schiavon, M.; Reisinger, A.J.; Iannone, B.V., III. Nitrogen leaching and groundwater recharge of alternative lawn conversions in subtropical climates. Crop Sci. 2024, 65, e21381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Steinke, K.; Stier, J.C.; Kussow, W.R. Prairie and turfgrass buffer strips modify water infiltration and leachate resulting from impervious surface runoff. Crop Sci. 2009, 49, 658–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Erickson, J.E.; Cisar, J.L.; Volin, J.C.; Snyder, G.H. Comparing nitrogen runoff and leaching between newly established St. Augustinegrass turf and an alternative residential landscape. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1889–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Soldat, D.J.; Petrovic, A.M. The fate and transport of phosphorus in turfgrass ecosystems. Crop Sci. 2008, 48, 2051–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sun, H.; Kopp, K.; Cardon, G.; Jones, S. Numerical simulation of water and nitrogen transport in three turfgrass systems. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2021, 14, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Easton, Z.M.; Petrovic, A.M. Fertilizer source effect on ground and surface water quality in drainage from turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33, 645–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gonzalez, R.F.; Sartain, J.B.; Kruse, J.K.; Obreza, T.A.; O’Connor, G.A.; Harris, W.G. Orthophosphate leaching in St. Augustinegrass and zoysiagrass grown in sandy soil under field conditions. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 749–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Maia, L.O.; Shaddox, T.W.; Leon, R.G.; Unruh, J.B. Nitrogen leaching and Tifway bermudagrass response to simultaneous nutrient and pre-emergence herbicide applications. J. Environ. Qual. 2021, 50, 1419–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McGroary, P.; Shaddox, T.W.; Cisar, J.L.; Unruh, J.B.; Trenholm, L.E. Annual Nitrogen Requirement of Bahiagrass Lawns Maintained in Subtropical Climates. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2017, 13, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shaddox, T.W.; Bryan Unruh, J.; Trenholm, L.E.; McGroary, P.; Cisar, J.L. Nitrogen rate required for acceptable St. Augustinegrass and associated nitrate leaching. Crop Sci. 2016, 56, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Telenko, D.E.; Shaddox, T.W.; Unruh, J.B.; Trenholm, L.E. Nitrate leaching, turf quality, and growth rate of ‘Floratam’ St. Augustinegrass and common centipedegrass. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 1320–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Trenholm, L.E.; Unruh, J.B.; Sartain, J.B. Nitrate leaching and turf quality in established ‘Floratam’ St. Augustinegrass and ‘Empire’ zoysiagrass. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 793–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bock, E.M.; Easton, Z.M. Export of nitrogen and phosphorus from golf courses: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 255, 109817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Petrovic, A.M.; Cambareri, T.C.; Barnes, L.; Cohen, S. Nitrogen rate, irrigation and rainfall impacts on groundwater nitrate levels in sandy coastal golf courses. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2022, 14, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zalacáin, D.; Martínez-Pérez, S.; Bienes, R.; García-Díaz, A.; Sastre-Merlín, A. Turfgrass biomass production and nutrient balance of an urban park irrigated with reclaimed water. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zaplata, M.K.; Nhabanga, A.; Stalmans, M.; Volpers, T.; Burkart, M.; Sperfeld, E. Grasses cope with high-contrast ecosystem conditions in the large outflow of the Banhine wetlands, Mozambique. Afr. J. Ecol. 2021, 59, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hejl, R.W.; Williams, C.F.; Monaco, T.A.; Serba, D.D.; Conley, M.M. Hybrid Bermudagrass Responses to Impaired Water Sources. HortScience 2023, 58, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ma, Y.; Cui, J.; Zheng, P.; Yuan, K.; Chu, S.; Mu, K.; Hu, L. Plant uptake in subsurface wastewater infiltration systems plays an important role in removing nitrogen from sewage. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 123, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sevostianova, E.; Velasco-Cruz, C.; Leinauer, B.; Serena, M.; Sallenave, R.; Horvath, I.; Skerker, J.B. Establishing three warm-season turfgrasses with tailored water: I. Growth, cover, and nitrate leaching losses. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Leinauer, B.; Sevostianova, E.; Velasco-Cruz, C.; Sallenave, R.; Serena, M.; Horvath, I.; Skerker, J. Establishing three warm-season turfgrasses with tailored water: II. Root development, nitrate accumulation in plant tissue and soil, and relationship with leaching. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Braun, R.C.; Bremer, D.J. Carbon sequestration in zoysiagrass turf under different irrigation and fertilization management regimes. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2019, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gautam, P.; Young, J.R.; Sapkota, M.; Longing, S.; Weindorf, D.C. Soil carbon sequestration in bermudagrass golf course fairways in Lubbock, Texas. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hamido, S.A.; Guertal, E.A.; Wood, C.W. Carbon sequestration under warm season turfgrasses in home lawns. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2016, 4, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Law, Q.D.; Patton, A.J. Biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nitrogen in cool-season turfgrass systems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 158–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Qian, Y.; Follett, R.F. Assessing soil carbon sequestration in turfgrass systems using long-term soil testing data. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 930–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pahari, R.; Leclerc, M.Y.; Zhang, G.; Nahrawi, H.; Raymer, P. Carbon dynamics of a warm season turfgrass using the eddy-covariance technique. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 251, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Selhorst, A.; Lal, R. Net carbon sequestration potential and emissions in home lawn turfgrasses of the United States. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Phillips, C.L.; Wang, R.; Mattox, C.; Trammell, T.L.; Young, J.; Kowalewski, A. High soil carbon sequestration rates persist several decades in turfgrass systems: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Roald, E.; Guðmundsson, J. Carbon Par: Estimating carbon status of land used by Icelandic golf courses and measuring carbon storage of turfgrass on golf fairways and mown roughs. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2022, 14, 1061–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hong, M.; Zhang, Y.; Braun, R.C.; Bremer, D.J. Simulations of nitrous oxide emissions and global warming potential in a C4 turfgrass system using process-based models. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 142, 126668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, G.; Sun, G.X.; Ren, Y.; Luo, X.S.; Zhu, Y.G. Urban soil and human health: A review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Crouch, J.A.; Carter, Z.; Ismaiel, A.; Roberts, J.A. The US National Mall microbiome: A census of rhizosphere bacteria inhabiting landscape turf. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, S-341–S-348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grant, C.D.; Campbell, C.J.; Charnock, N.R. Selection of species suitable for derelict mine site rehabilitation in New South Wales, Australia. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2002, 139, 215–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lin, C.H.; Lerch, R.N.; Garrett, H.E.; George, M.F. Incorporating forage grasses in riparian buffers for bioremediation of atrazine, isoxaflutole and nitrate in Missouri. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 63, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thompson, O.A.; Wolf, D.C.; Mattice, J.D.; Thoma, G.J. Influence of nitrogen addition and plant root parameters on phytoremediation of pyrene-contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 189, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Toal, M.E.; Yeomans, C.; Killham, K.; Meharg, A.A. A review of rhizosphere carbon flow modeling. Plant Soil 2000, 222, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Walton, B.T.; Guthrie, E.A.; Hoylman, A.M. Toxicant degradation in the rhizosphere. Bioremediation Rhizosphere Technol. 1994, 563, 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, F.; Jin, H.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, J. Turfgrass Intercropping Exhibit Phytoremediation Potential in Sludge-Derived Nutritive Soil. SSRN 2021, 3927046, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Young, M.H.; Green, R.L.; Conkle, J.L.; McCullough, M.; Devitt, D.A.; Wright, L.; Vanderford, B.J.; Snyder, S.A. Field-Scale monitoring of pharmaceutical compounds applied to active golf courses by recycled water. J. Environ. Qual. 2014, 43, 658–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cunningham, S.D.; Shann, J.R.; Crowley, D.E.; Anderson, T.A. Phytoremediation of contaminated water and soil. Phytoremediation Soil Water Contam. 1997, 664, 2–17. [Google Scholar]
  60. Watanabe, M.E. Phytoremediation on the brink of commercialization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 182A–186A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Thwaites, R.H.; Ashmore, M.R.; Morton, A.J.; Pakeman, R.J. The effects of tropospheric ozone on the species dynamics of calcareous grassland. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhu, D.; Gillies, J.A.; Etyemezian, V.; Nikolich, G.; Shaw, W.J. Evaluation of the surface roughness effect on suspended particle deposition near unpaved roads. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 122, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hou, L.; Yang, H.; Li, M. Removal of chemical oxygen demand and dissolved nutrients by a sunken lawn infiltration system during intermittent storm events. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hu, S.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Z. Turfgrass intercropping prevents non-point source pollution in sweet pepper production. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Yang, F.; Yang, Y.; Li, H.; Cao, M. Removal efficiencies of vegetation-specific filter strips on nonpoint source pollutants. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 82, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nichols, D.J.; Daniel, T.C.; Edwards, D.R.; Moore, P.A.; Pote, D.H. Use of grass filter strips to reduce 17β-estradiol in runoff from fescue-applied poultry litter. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1998, 53, 74–77. [Google Scholar]
  67. Jenerette, G.D.; Harlan, S.L.; Stefanov, W.L.; Martin, C.A. Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: Water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 2637–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wang, Z.H.; Zhao, X.; Yang, J.; Song, J. Cooling and energy saving potentials of shade trees and urban lawns in a desert city. Appl. Energy 2016, 161, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wu, F.; Li, S.H.; Liu, J.M. The effects of greening, none-greening square and lawn on temperature, humidity and human comfort. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 2964–2971. [Google Scholar]
  70. Gómez-Navarro, C.; Pataki, D.E.; Pardyjak, E.R.; Bowling, D.R. Effects of vegetation on the spatial and temporal variation of microclimate in the urbanized Salt Lake Valley. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 296, 108211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ibsen, P.C.; Jenerette, G.D.; Dell, T.; Bagstad, K.J.; Diffendorfer, J.E. Urban landcover differentially drives day and nighttime air temperature across a semi-arid city. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 829, 154589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kanaan, A.; Leinauer, B.; Serena, M.; Sevostianova, E.; Donaldson, B.; Sevostianov, I. Effect of Different Landscapes on Heat Load to Buildings. Land 2021, 10, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Livingston, M. Effects of three landscape treatments on residential energy and water use in Tucson, Arizona. Energy Build. 1989, 13, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sliney, D.H.; Wood, R.L.; Moscato, P.M.; Marshall, W.J.; Eriksen, P. Ultraviolet exposure in the outdoor environment: Measurements of ambient ultraviolet exposure levels at large zenith angles. In Light Lasers Synchrotron Radiation; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 169–180. [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Renterghem, T.; Forssén, J.; Attenborough, K.; Jean, P.; Defrance, J.; Hornikx, M.; Kang, J. Using natural means to reduce surface transport noise during propagation outdoors. Appl. Acoust. 2015, 92, 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, L.; Hu, Z.; Fan, J.; Zhou, D.; Tang, F. A meta-analysis of the canopy light extinction coefficient in terrestrial ecosystems. Front. Earth Sci. 2014, 8, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. FDACS. Will Your Home Survive a Wildfire? Firewise USA. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2022. Available online: https://www.fdacs.gov/Forest-Wildfire/For-Communities/Firewise-USA/Will-Your-Home-Survive-a-Wildfire (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  78. Hostetler, M.E. A Bird’s-Eye View: How Birds Select Habitat; University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019; EDIS 2003, WEC 163. [Google Scholar]
  79. Braman, S.K.; Latimer, J.G.; Oetting, R.D.; McQueen, R.D.; Eckberg, T.B.; Prinster, M. Management strategy, shade, and landscape composition effects on urban landscape plant quality and arthropod abundance. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 1464–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Norton, B.A.; Thomson, L.J.; Williams, N.S.; McDonnell, M.J. The effect of urban ground covers on arthropods: An experiment. Urban Ecosyst. 2014, 17, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Billeisen, T.L.; Kilpatrick, L.D.; Seth-Carley, D.; Brandenburg, R.L. Presence of pollinator-friendly habitat on pollinator communities in managed turfgrass systems. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2021, 14, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rochefort, S.; Shetlar, D.J.; Brodeur, J. Ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and their seasonal abundance in cool season turfgrass lawns of Quebec. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1508–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Shi, W.; Yao, H.; Bowman, D. Soil microbial biomass, activity and nitrogen transformations in a turfgrass chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Petrosillo, I.; Valente, D.; Pasimeni, M.R.; Aretano, R.; Semeraro, T.; Zurlini, G. Can a golf course support biodiversity and ecosystem services? The landscape context matter. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 2213–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Doherty, E.M.; Meagher, R.L.; Dale, A.G. Turfgrass cultivar diversity provides associational resistance in the absence of pest resistant cultivars. Environ. Entomol. 2019, 48, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Friell, J.; Watkins, E.; Horgan, B. Cool-season turfgrass species mixtures for roadsides in Minnesota. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pinkney IV, J.L.; Laplante, K.A.; Dale, A.G. Mixing warm-season turfgrass cultivars to reduce weed pressure and increase lawn quality. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2021, 14, 713–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Whitman, B.; Iannone, B.V.; Kruse, J.K.; Unruh, J.B.; Dale, A.G. Cultivar blends: A strategy for creating more resilient warm season turfgrass lawns. Urban Ecosyst. 2022, 25, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Barnes, M.R.; Watkins, E. “Nothing Beats Nature”: Park Visitor Preferences for Natural Turfgrass and Artificial Turf: A Case Study. HortScience 2023, 58, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mack, C.D.; Hershman, E.B.; Anderson, R.B.; Coughlin, M.J.; McNitt, A.S.; Sendor, R.R.; Kent, R.W. Higher rates of lower extremity injury on synthetic turf compared with natural turf among National Football League athletes: Epidemiologic confirmation of a biomechanical hypothesis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Barrett, M.A.; Miller, D.; Frumkin, H. Parks and health: Aligning incentives to create innovations in chronic disease prevention. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2014, 11, E63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bell, J.F.; Wilson, J.S.; Liu, G.C. Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in body mass index of children and youth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Hassan, A.; Deshun, Z. Psychophysiological Impact of Touching Landscape Grass among Older Adults. J. Urban Health 2024, 101, 792–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Liu, Z.; Jim, C.Y. Playing on natural or artificial turf sports field? Assessing heat stress of children, young athletes, and adults in Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gould, H.P.; Lostetter, S.J.; Samuelson, E.R.; Guyton, G.P. Lower extremity injury rates on artificial turf versus natural grass playing surfaces: A systematic review. Am. J. Sports Med. 2023, 51, 1615–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Twomey, D.M.; Petrass, L.A.; Fleming, P.; Lenehan, K. Abrasion injuries on artificial turf: A systematic review. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019, 22, 550–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Beyer, K.M.; Kaltenbach, A.; Szabo, A.; Bogar, S.; Nieto, F.J.; Malecki, K.M. Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: Evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 3453–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Frumkin, H. Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2001, 20, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Heerwagen, J.H.; Orians, G.H. The Ecological World of Children. In Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 29–64. [Google Scholar]
  100. Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Kellert, S.R. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  101. Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C.; Coley, R.L.; Brunson, L. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1998, 26, 823–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Barnes, M.R. Urban Lawns as Nature-Based Learning Spaces. Ecopsychology 2021, 14, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Milesi, C.; Running, S.W.; Elvidge, C.D.; Dietz, J.B.; Tuttle, B.T.; Nemani, R.R. Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environ. Manag. 2005, 36, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Haydu, J.J.; Hodges, A.W.; Hall, C.R. Economic Impacts of The Turfgrass and Lawncare Industry in the United States; UF/IFAS Extension EDIS: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2018; FE632. [Google Scholar]
  106. National Golf Foundation. The U.S. Golf Economy Report. 2018. Available online: https://www.ngf.org/product/the-2016-u-s-golf-economy-report/ (accessed on 2 January 2025).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lindsey, A.J.; Schiavon, M.; Unruh, J.B.; Kenworthy, K. Urban Landscapes: Turfgrass Benefits. Grasses 2025, 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses4010003

AMA Style

Lindsey AJ, Schiavon M, Unruh JB, Kenworthy K. Urban Landscapes: Turfgrass Benefits. Grasses. 2025; 4(1):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses4010003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lindsey, Alex J., Marco Schiavon, J. Bryan Unruh, and Kevin Kenworthy. 2025. "Urban Landscapes: Turfgrass Benefits" Grasses 4, no. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses4010003

APA Style

Lindsey, A. J., Schiavon, M., Unruh, J. B., & Kenworthy, K. (2025). Urban Landscapes: Turfgrass Benefits. Grasses, 4(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses4010003

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop