At two ancillary traffic locations, Amherst, MA,
and Blacksburg, VA, very different results were noted. No statistical significance was seen at Blacksburg in 2018, while traffic tolerance ratings, evaluated three times at the Amherst, MA, site, showed Kingdom, Piranha and Nightlife with some of the highest scores. Colonial bentgrasses DLFPS-AT/3026 and Musket were excellent under the traffic stress at both sites in 2017, but neither excelled in 2018, with both finishing in the bottom 50 percent of all turf quality averages at Amherst. Disease resistance was again rated at several
locations as reducing fungicide use on fairway and tees is a major need for golf course superintendents. Brown patch, and dollar spot were major diseases noted and rated in 2018. Brown patch data collected at North Brunswick, NJ, and College Park, MD, showed several entries including L-93XD, 007, Chinook, Piranha and several others with no disease. Dollar spot data again showed the colonial
bentgrasses DLFPS-AT/3026 and Musket with some of the best ratings at four locations. Creeping bentgrass entries Chinook, Piranha and L-93XD also showed excellent dollar spot tolerance across the four locations.
Low Input Cool-Season In 2015, NTEP established its first management-
based trial, with seventeen locations that manage under ‘low input.’ Te first trial of this type includes cool-season grass cultivars, experimentals, blends and mixtures of grasses and other species. Tirty-two entries were submitted by sponsors, including single cultivars and blends of Kentucky bluegrass, fine fescue, tall fescue and perennial ryegrass; mixtures of several grass species, with some including strawberry, white or Microclover® (Trifolium spp.); and even a western yarrow entry (Achillea millefolium L.). Management is minimal for the five-year trial, with
no fertilizer applications or irrigation after establishment, no pest control at any time during the trial, and mowing at 3-3.5 inches on the thirteen standard trial sites. Tree ancillary trial sites evaluate the effect of one annual grass pre-emergence application (spring 2016) only, then following standard trial protocols for the remaining four years of the trial. One additional trial location (West Lafayette, IN) made an additional fertilizer application on one half of each plot for 2016 and 2017 only, to evaluate the effect of the small increase of fertilizer on performance and survival. Overall, these locations are maintained very minimally, which is of interest to an increasing number of our customers. Te entries in this low input trial, with no
annual grass or broadleaf weed control, need excellent establishment, and then good ground cover to resist weed invasion and deliver good quality. With many different species, mixtures with clovers and even non-grasses (western yarrow), turfgrass quality ratings are more difficult to assess, sometimes leading to less significance among entries. Turfgrass quality ratings collected in year
56
three of this trial showed lower overall ratings than a typical NTEP trial, with some locations finishing with a turf quality average score below 5.0, the NTEP threshold for minimum acceptable quality under low maintenance. However, at many locations, large differences among the entries are evident leading us to believe that selection of improved cultivars, blends or mixtures for low maintenance is possible. Data was reported from fifteen locations in 2018.
Te following entries were the most consistent, finishing in the top statistical group in at least ten locations: DLF TF- A, a blend of three tall fescue cultivars; DLFPS TFAM, a tall fescue mixture with Microclover®; DLFPS TFAStC, a tall fescue mixture with strawberry clover; and Vitality Double Coverage Mixture, a 90/10 tall fescue/Kentucky bluegrass mixture. DLFPS TFAStC was found in the top turf quality statistical group at twelve locations, the most of any entry. DLF TFAM finished in the top statistical group at eleven locations, with the highest average quality score at four of those locations. Other entries performing consistently well across at least one-half of the trial locations in 2018 include Bullseye tall fescue; DTTHO TF/KBG Mix, a tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass mixture; and Southern Mixture, a mixture of primarily tall fescue (70 percent) with 10 percent each of Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass and chewings fescue. One entry with performance that declined
somewhat, at least in comparison to other entries was Yaak, the western yarrow entry. However, Yaak was still the top entry at Logan, UT, and performed well at W. Lafayette, IN, Blacksburg, VA, and Corvallis, OR. Being a ‘non-traditional’ lawn species and therefore appearing and performing quite different from grasses may hurt Yaak’s quality ratings. Terefore, Yaak may still have a place as a lawn species or ground cover where low maintenance and native plants are requested.
Cool-Season Water Use With the need to reduce turfgrass water use, the
United States Golf Association (USGA) is partnering with NTEP to evaluate both cool- and warm-season grasses for water efficiency and performance under lower water use. Te USGA has paid to install rain exclusion shelters at ten sites, five in the northern or transition zones (to evaluate cool-season grasses) and five shelters in the southern U.S. to evaluate warm-season grass water use and drought tolerance. Within these shelters, cooperators restrict irrigation for a period of 100 days on cool-season grasses, or 120-150 days for warm-season grasses. Tese ‘drought seasons’ under the shelters are part of Approach 1, which is a measurement of the amount of water needed to maintain a prescribed level of green during that period. Ten trial locations in the drier western U.S.
states (five each for cool-season and warm-season grasses) manage under Approach 2, which utilizes three evapotranspiration replacement rates (ETo). In Approach 2
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
