search.noResults

search.searching

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
Winter injury was noted at the St. Paul, MN,


location in 2017 with tolerance ratings ranging from 7.7 – 2.3 (scale is 1-9, 9=no damage; LSD=2.7). Considering this is data from only one winter and one location, the range of ratings indicate potential separation among entries, with LPB-SD-102, BAR LP 6164, DLFPS-236/3554, and Overdrive 5G with the highest ratings. Traffic tolerance was tested at three locations in


2017, with each site using different methodology and that led to varying results. An abrasive brushing technique used at Amherst, MA, showed good entry separation with PPG-PR 424, DLFPS-236/3547 and PPG-PR 331 topping the turf quality ratings. However, ASP0118GL and DLFPS-236/3552 had the highest rating (7.0) for wear tolerance. Less entry separation was noted at Corvallis, OR, (using a cleated traffic simulator) but DLFPS-236/3552, along with DLFPS-236/3541, LPB- SD-102 and PPG-PR 343 finished in the top statistical group, among many other entries. Te Blacksburg, VA, location showed great differences in turf quality and ground cover over time, however statistical differences among entries were small. Salt tolerance evaluations were conducted in


the greenhouse at Fort Collins, CO, in 2017. First year data did not reveal large statistical differences, but performance varied greatly among entries. Entries were tested at salt levels from 8 dS/m (decisiemens per meter) to 24 dS/m. Entries started to separate at 20 dS/m, but large differences were finally noted at 24 dS/m (sea water is approximately 55 dS/m), with only Savant and DLFPS-236/354 maintaining 50 percent or greater quality of the control pots (no salt treatment).


be collected to see if this 2017 information is consistent across locations and years.


Fineleaf Fescues Te term “fineleaf fescue” includes several species.


Strong creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra spp. rubra) and slender creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra var. littoralis) possess rhizomes and therefore add knitting ability to a sod mixture. Chewings fescue (Festuca rubra ssp. fallax) has a bunch-type growth habit and traditionally better disease resistance than the creeping red-types. Hard fescues (Festuca brevipila) are also bunch-type grasses but have generally better drought tolerance than Chewings or creeping types. Sheep fescue (Festuca ovina L. ssp. hirtula) is best suited for low maintenance sites because of its unique, swirly, growth habit from within the crown of the plant. A new fineleaf fescue trial was established in


2014, with third year data from that trial now available. Tis new trial consists of 42 total entries, broken down into hard fescue (10), strong creeping red fescue (16), slender creeping red fescue (3), chewings fescue (12) and sheep fescue (1). Te trial is planted at ten standard trial locations and eleven ancillary trial locations. As in previous years, a good separation among


entries was noted at most locations in 2017. Entry, and species performance overall, varied by location and management level. For instance at Storrs, CT, the Chewings fescues and slender creeping red fescues filled the top turf quality statistical group, with strong creeping red fescue C14-OS3 at the top. College Park, MD, which typically experiences exceptional summer stress, had hard fescues as exclusively the top performers. But that trend did not hold true for the most southern location, Raleigh, NC, where the top performers were a mix of Chewings, strong creeping red fescue and slender creeping red fescue entries And interestingly, management level differences play a very important role as lawn height vs. fairway mowing height trials at St. Paul, MN, resulted in vastly different species performance. Traffic tolerance of entries in this trial is conducted


Fine fescue entries under drought stress at College Park, MD.


A few diseases were rated during year one of the new perennial ryegrass trial and grey leaf spot is one of the most significant. Grey leaf spot can attack and kill perennial ryegrass in a relatively short period of time, making it one the most destructive pathogens to attack this species. Adelphia, NJ, noted grey leaf spot infection and collected data that ranged from 1.0 – 9.0 (where 9=no disease). Entries scoring very high in this one grey leaf spot rating include Karma, 02BS1, DLFPS-236/3553, JR-197 and NP-3. More data must


46


under both fairway mowing height and lawn mowing height. In 2017, traffic was evaluated at six sites: St. Paul, MN, (fairway), East Lansing, MI, (fairway), Storrs, CT, (fairway), Corvallis, OR, (lawn), North Brunswick, NJ, (lawn) and Amherst, MA, (lawn). Te fairway sites utilize an apparatus that simulates golf cart traffic and damage. Te locations used a similar protocol: two passes per day with the traffic simulator, three times per week from May through September. In 2016, the fairway sites had a surprising level of agreement among the top entries. Tat changed somewhat in 2017 with several entries performing well at one site, but not another. Te entries performing well at both sites include Sea Mist, Compass II, DLFPS- FL/3060 and Resolute, finishing in the top turf quality statistical group at both locations.


TPI Turf News July/August 2018


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