H2Pro TriSmart independent trial in Australia

All wetting agent programmes maintained significantly (p<0.05) better turf quality and colour than untreated control at both irrigation regimes. Localised dry spot (LDS) pressure increased during the course of the trial to reach a mean greater than 50% of the control plots affected.

Trial area showing localised dry spot and drought stress 100% ET

Trial area showing localised dry spot and drought stress 60% ET

H2ProTriSmart and Competitor A reduced the incidence of dry spot to less than 10% of the plot affected throughout the trial with no significant difference between them, however TriSmart was applied at a total reduced rate for the season (75L/ha compared with 114L/ha).

Water Saving

H2Pro TriSmart receiving 60 %ET replacement through irrigation displayed significantly greater mean turf quality on 8 assessment dates when compared with mean control plots receiving 100% ET returned through irrigation. This demonstrates a significant water saving of 40% that end-users on a Trismart programme could benefit from alongside improved the surface quality from significantly reduced localised dry patch.

Mean turf quality comparing control plots with 100%ET returned irrigation regime with H2Pro TriSmart at 60%ET returned irrigation regime. Error bars illustrate standard error of the mean. Asterisks show dates when significant difference in data was present.

Conclusion

An independent trial at the STRI Australia, Brisbane has illustrated the value of utilising a wetting agent programme to significantly improve surface quality and colour and to reduce localised dry spot. The choice of a H2Pro TriSmart programme could also make a product application saving over a recognised competitor brand of up to 39L /ha with no loss in surface performance. Trismart also maintained an improved surface quality with a 40% water saving over control plots, demonstrating water use efficiency from a wetting agent programme.