Differences are apparent among the 2016 NTEP St. Augustinegrass entries at College Station, TX.


kill. And diseases, including dollar spot and leaf spot, were noted at a few locations. PST-R6CT had the highest dollar spot rating (mean rating = 8.0) in data collected at three locations, while 11-T-251 showed the least leaf spot at two locations (mean rating = 8.2) Much data was collected on bermudagrass


descriptive characteristics, where significant differences in traits such as genetic color, leaf texture and density were noted among entries. However, an interesting trend in fall color retention emerged when reviewing that data collected from several locations in the September - December period. TifTuf finished at the top in mean rating for each month in the summary report. Te only other entries to finish in the top statistical group for each month in the final summary were Tifway, FAES 1325, FAES 1327, 11- T-510 and FAES 1326.


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 turf at mowing heights of 0.5 inch or lower. Both grasses are included in this trial as standard entries. As with the bermuda trial, injury in the winters of


2013-14 and 2014-15 significantly affected some locations. Winter injury was evident at Manhattan, KS, West Lafayette, IN, and Columbia, MO, with turfgrass quality and percent cover ratings being affected by that injury. With the significant damage, several entries were replanted in 2014. A new trial will be established in 2019, but with the


60


completion of the 2013 trial, we now have a five-year zoysia data summary to review and interpret (2013-2017). Te final summary of data shows how far


zoysiagrass breeding and development has advanced in the last few years. Many new experimental entries are on the horizon, with some of these destined for commercialization within the next few years. In the summary of turfgrass quality data over fourteen locations, FAES 1305, FAES 1319, FAES 1312, FAES 1313 and DALZ 1301 finished in the top statistical group, besting commercial entries such as Empire, Zeon and Meyer. As has been consistent throughout each year of


the trial, results from the southern locations show other experimental zoysiagrasses provide higher quality turf than Meyer and Zeon. Entries including FAES 1312, DALZ 1303, and FAES 1319 performed very well at several southern locations, such as Tucson, AZ, Jay, FL, and College Station, TX. Meyer did perform well at a few locations, such as Fayetteville, AR, but finished outside the top statistical group, and in the bottom third of all entries at most southern locations throughout the trial period. Zeon performed well at some southern locations, consistently holding its own against the new experimentals at many sites. But like Meyer, Zeon also fell out of the top statistical group at several locations. Traffic evaluations at Fayetteville, AR, from 2014-


15 had the top turf quality entries as Zeon, FAES 1305, FAES 1304, FAES 1329 and 09-TZ-54-9, along with five other entries. Traffic data from Raleigh, NC, also had FAES 1304 and 09-TZ-54-9 as top entries in each of the four years of testing. In addition, FAES 1315, 09-TZ-53- 20, 10-TZ-1254 and FAES 1304 performed well over the trial period. Often, these entries performed significantly


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