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 second 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 2015, a good separation among entries was


noted at most locations in 2016. As expected, trial location seemed to have a significant influence on entry performance. More disease activity, plus summer heat and drought may have contributed to the entry separation in 2016. Entry, and species performance overall, varied by


location and management level. At a site such as College Park, MD, which experienced exceptional summer stress in 2016, more hard fescues were top performers. But that trend did not hold true for the most southern location, Raleigh, NC, where the top performers were Chewings and creeping red fescues and many hard fescue entries suffered greatly. Chewings fescue entries dominated the top statistical group at Storrs, CT where a fairway mowing height was applied. But at lawn height mowing sites in the north central U.S. (St. Paul, MN and E. Lansing, MI), hard fescues were the top performers. Te moral to this story is that breeders have made so much progress in improving the fine fescues that predicting performance based on species may be impossible. Traffic tolerance of entries in this trial is


conducted under both fairway mowing height and lawn mowing height. In 2016, traffic was evaluated at four sites, East Lansing, MI (fairway), Storrs, CT (fairway), Corvallis, OR (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. As with 2015 data, the fairway sites had a surprising level of agreement among the top entries, with entries such as C14-OS3 strong creeping red, and chewings fescues PPG-FR 113, PPG-FRC 144, DLFPS-FRC/3057 and DLFPS-FRC/3060 finishing in the top turf quality statistical group at both locations. Te exception to


40


this was the hard fescue Resolute, which was the top performer at St. Paul, but a bottom tier entry in Storrs. At the Amherst, MA (lawn height) location the


best entries for wear tolerance included the hard fescues Resolute, Minimus, and MNHD-14, even though two of those entries did not demonstrate top level turf quality. Te lawn traffic site in Corvallis, OR showed little statistical differences in 2016. Fairway maintenance levels, particularly in


regions where fine fescues may suffer heat and drought stress, is being evaluated in this trial. Sites as diverse as West Lafayette, IN and the California Golf Club of San Francisco showed similar results with strong creeping red entries such as Navigator II, 7C34 and PPG-FRR 111; and chewings entries DLFPS-FRC/3338, PPG- FRC 114 and DLFPS-FRC/3060 performing well at both sites. Te East Lansing, MI and St. Paul, MN, locations finished with only two entries in both locations’ top statistical group: hard fescue Resolute and strong creeping red fescue C14-OS3. Several diseases were rated on this trial in 2015,


seemingly more than in 2016 and most likely contributing to quality score variability. Red thread (Laetisaria fuciformis) was rated at five locations in 2016, with entries such as Jetty, Gladiator, Beacon, PST-4BND and DLFPS-FL/3060 performing consistently well across four of those locations. Te outlier was the California Golf Club in San Francisco location where top red thread entries included BAR FRT 5002, C14-OS3, RAD- FC32, MNHD-14 and BAR VV-VP3-CT. Dollar spot, leaf spot and/or melting out (Bipolaris,


Drechslera, or Exserohilum sp.) and summer patch are persistent, troublesome diseases on fineleaf fescues and each of these diseases were noted and rated at two or more locations in 2016. Dollar spot was noted at four locations, with many hard fescues (ie. Jetty, C14-OS3, MNHD-14 and others) showing consistently good results across locations. Summer patch rated at College Park, MD and


North Brunswick, NJ showed varying results in 2016. Hard fescues Resolute, DLFPS-FL/3060, Jetty and DLFPS-FL/3066 demonstrated the best resistance at College Park, MD while several creeping red fescues, including PPG-FRR 111, DLF-FRR 6162 and PST- 4BEN were the best summer patch performers at North Brunswick, NJ. Leaf spot data from New Jersey revealed Resolute, DLFPS-FL/3060 and Minimus with the best tolerance over the two ratings.


Bentgrass New trials of bentgrass were established in fall


2014, and the first data was released in spring 2016. Two species are included in the latest trials: creeping (Agrostis stolonifera) and colonial (Agrostis tenius). Second year data (from 2016) is presented here, although it should be considered with caution since results may change with further testing.


TPI Turf News July/August 2017


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