Traffic tolerance was tested at three locations
in 2018, with each site using different methodology. In 2017, this led to varying results. However, in 2018, several entries, including Furlong, PPG-PR 372, DLFPS-236/3547 and Slugger 3GL surfaced as consistently finishing in the top statistical group at Corvallis, OR, Amherst, MA, and Blacksburg, VA. Salt tolerance evaluations were repeated in
the greenhouse at Fort Collins, CO, in 2018. In 2017, 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). In 2018, data was essentially reversed with no
statistical differences occurring at 24 dS/m, but with some statistical separation occurring at 16 dS/m. Savant again was one of the best entries scoring high for turf quality at 16 dS/m.
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 the fourth-year data from the five-year trial now available. Tis current 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 2018, with entry, and species performance overall, varying by location and management level. At Storrs, CT, the chewings fescues and slender creeping red fescues again filled out the top turf quality statistical group, however, this year the chewings fescue Radar was at the top. Urbana, IL, mean quality scores were low (all below 5.0), but slender creeping red and strong creeping red fescue entries were some of the best performers. Similarly, Amherst, MA, quality scores were low, due mainly to a new summer patch strain (Magnaporthiopsis meyeri-festucae) that severely damaged most entries in summer 2018.
54
As often happens at College Park, MD, which
typically experiences exceptional summer stress, hard fescues were exclusively the top performers. Te results from West Lafayette, IN, countered College Park’s with almost all chewings fescues at or near the top of turf quality scores. 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. Finally, management level differences play a very
important role as lawn height vs. fairway mowing height trials at St. Paul, MN, and East Lansing, MI, resulted in vastly different species performance. In both locations, hard fescues performed best in the lawn height trials while chewings fescues overall were the best performers under fairway maintenance. Traffic tolerance of entries in this trial is
conducted under both fairway mowing height and lawn mowing height. In 2018, traffic was evaluated at sites such as St. Paul, MN, (fairway), East Lansing, MI, (fairway), Storrs, CT, (fairway), Corvallis, OR, (lawn) and North Brunswick, NJ, (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. In 2018, data from the three sites was again in good agreement with chewings fescue entries mostly in the top statistical groups. Compass II, Bolster, Momentum and Radar chewings fescues finished in the top turf quality statistical group at all three fairway sites. Under lawn height traffic, data from the site at
Corvallis, OR, showed virtually no statistical significance. At North Brunswick, NJ, the best entries were again hard fescues led by Sword, Jetty, Resolute and MNHD-14. Tese results conflict with results from the Storrs, CT, fairway traffic site as chewings fescues such as Radar and Bolster were top turf quality performers in Storrs, but Sword, Jetty, Resolute and other hard fescues were in the bottom one-third of turf quality scores. Shade tolerance was again evaluated at
Carbondale, IL, where chewings fescues also dominated quality scores, with DLF-FRC 3338, Bolster, Cascade and DLFPS-FRC/3057 leading the way. And fairway maintenance sites at West Lafayette, IN, E. Lansing, MI, and St. Paul, MN, showed entries such as Compass II, Bolster and DLFPS-FRC/3057, all chewings fescues, consistently good at all sites. While the chewings fescues in general were best at West Lafayette and East Lansing, hard fescues were some of the best entries at St. Paul. Several diseases are problems on fine fescues, and
some were noted in 2018. Red thread (Laetisaria fuciformis) was rated at Corvallis, OR, and Columbia, MO, with
TPI Turf News July/August 2019
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
