search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
WARM-SEASON


Last year’s article reported on third-year data from our new warm-season trials: bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, and warm- season putting greens established in 2019. Fourth-year data, collected in 2023, is discussed in this article and is now available online.


Bermudagrass Te 2019 Bermudagrass NTEP trial contains


thirteen (13) seeded entries and twenty-two (22) vegetative entries, established at twenty-one (21) locations across the southeast, Transition Zone, and southwest U.S. Many of these entries are experimental cultivars or new commercial cultivars. NTEP evaluates warm-season grasses by comparing seeded and vegetative entries, and also by separately comparing seeded vs. seeded and vegetative vs. vegetative entries. Turfgrass quality data from eleven standard trial


sites were analyzed, and seeded and vegetative groups were compared separately as well as against each other. As in the past, the best vegetative entries often outperformed the best seeded entries in 2023 turfgrass quality data. Analysis was conducted by LPI group and by


management schedule. Te experimental vegetative entries FB 1628, JSC-2013-10S, and JSC 77V joined commercial entries Tahoma 31, Latitude 36, Riviera, Monaco, and TifTuf ™


as top performers in each LPI group. When data


was analyzed by management schedule (fairway/athletic turf or home lawn), TifTuf, Tahoma 31, Latitude 36, FB 1628, JSC 77V, and JSC 80V were the only entries to finish in the top statistical group under each schedule. Ancillary trial testing started in 2020, continuing


through 2023 again delivering some interesting data. Drought tolerance was evaluated at College Station, TX, and Riverside, CA, again in 2023. Tese two sites utilize different methods to impose drought, with College Station eliminating irrigation for a block of time (‘acute’ tolerance) and Riverside managing using a reduced ETo


replacement


(‘chronic’ tolerance). Large statistical difference was noted among entries at Riverside in 2023, similar to 2020 and 2021. In 2023, only TifTuf, FB 1628, and OKC1876 were in the top turf quality statistical group. In 2020 and 2021, few statistical differences were noted in drought data from College Station. Tat changed in 2022, and 2023 data continued that trend as TifTuf, JSC 2013-12S, Celebration Hybrid, and MSB-1042 finished with the highest quality ratings. Several additional entries landed in the top statistical group at College Station in 2023 including Copperhead, Latitude 36, JSC 77V, MSB-1048, OKS2015-3, Astro, and OKC1682. Traffic tolerance was collected at Raleigh, NC, and


Knoxville, TN. Small statistical differences were noted at 56


Knoxville, but the Raleigh site saw more entry separation. Te best ground cover at the end of the eight-week fall traffic season was delivered by Celebration Hybrid, FB 1628, Latitude 36, MSB-1050, and Tahoma 31. Other ancillary trials include salinity tolerance,


shade tolerance, and spring dead spot (Ophiosphaerella spp.) tolerance. In 2023, similar to 2022, significant statistical differences emerged from the Las Cruces, NM, salinity tolerance evaluations. In both potable and saline water field sites at Las Cruces, TifTuf, MSB-1042, Tifway, FB 1903, Celebration Hybrid, and Tahoma 31, Latitude 36, MSB 1048, and MSB 1050 were in the top turf quality group. Spring dead spot ratings collected at West


Lafayette, IN, did show statistical differences as Tifway, FB 1628, and MSB -1042 showed the least disease. Te shade evaluations at College Station, TX,


have delivered higher overall quality ratings each year of the trial. In 2022, MSB-1075 (TQ=5.4) and Celebration Hybrid (TQ=5.2) exhibited better tolerance of shade than about two-thirds of the entries. In 2023, MSB-1050, and MSB-1075 were the highest rated entries with turfgrass quality ratings of 5.6 and 5.5, respectively.


Zoysiagrass Meyer zoysiagrass was released in the early 1950s


and has been a standard in the industry ever since. Meyer is known for its medium leaf texture (for a zoysia japonica type) and excellent winter hardiness. Zeon is a zoysia matrella type that is finer textured than Meyer. Zeon is a standard for use on golf course fairways and tees because it can develop a dense turfgrass at mowing heights of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) or lower. Both grasses are included in this trial as standard entries. Our latest zoysiagrass trial, established at nineteen


locations in 2019, consists of thirty-nine (39) vegetative entries, almost all experimental. Tese new entries are demonstrating how far zoysiagrass breeding and development has advanced in the last few years. At least some of these new experimentals are destined for commercialization within the next few years, which is exciting news for the future of zoysiagrass use and adaptation. Turfgrass quality ratings collected in 2023 reflected


the fourth full year of performance after establishment. Data from the Southeast U.S. locations Raleigh, NC, and Griffin, GA, showed many promising experimental zoysias. FZ 1722, DALZ 1311, and DALZ 1707 were the entries in the top statistical group at both sites. At both the Stillwater, OK, and Knoxville, TN, locations, DALZ 1701, DALZ 1707, Emerald, DALZ 1601, and FZ 1422 finished in the top statistical group. Te Florida locations of Ft. Lauderdale,


Gainesville, and Jay, which represent a huge potential market for zoysia, delivered data that included many new top-performing entries as well. Some of the better entries at two or three of those locations include DALZ 1408, FZ 1732, FAES 1319, FZ 1723, and FZ 1722.


TPI Turf News July/August 2024


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100