2014 NTEP Bentgrass Putting Green Trial in Athens, GA. Photo taken in May 2017, most entries are still in good condition after last summer’s heat. DALSA 0406 had more winter injury at
Raleigh, NC than Raleigh and Mercedes, but DALSA 0406 showed comparable grey leaf spot ratings to Mercedes and Raleigh. Captiva and DALSA 0602 had the highest grey leaf spot ratings in data collected at Raleigh, NC. Floratam has been the workhorse St.
Augustinegrass over the last 30 years, and it showed superior take-all patch (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis) resistance at Gainesville, FL. Floratam also keeps its color longer in fall than Raleigh, however this ability to grow in cooler weather makes Floratam more susceptible to winter injury. Floratam is also one of the fastest spreading cultivars, however, DALSA 0406 showed statistically equal spread ratings at several locations. Floratam was also the highest rated cultivar for resistance to both brown patch and large brown patch diseases.
Seashore Paspalum Seashore paspalum is known for its salt
tolerance, however some cultivars are valued for their turf quality as well. NTEP started testing of seashore paspalum for the first time in 2007. Five vegetative entries and one seeded entry were planted at eight locations in spring/summer 2007. Summarized turf quality data from 2007-2012
at six locations shows five of the six entries in the top statistical group, with only UGA 7 finishing out of the top group. At our coldest winter location, Fayetteville, AR, four of the six entries (UGA 7, UGA 22, UGA 31 and Sea Isle 1) finished in the top statistical group, but no statistical differences were noted in winter injury. Very few other ratings showed much in the way of statistical differences.
Buffalograss Tere has not been sufficient interest to start
a new buffalograss trial, therefore, the data that we compiled from 2002-2006 is the most recent we have available. Considering the four years of data from the 2002 trial, cultivar performance depended mainly on geographical location. Te vegetative cultivar Density had high quality ratings in the southern locations of Tucson, AZ, Riverside, CA and Dallas, TX, with lower turf quality ratings, relative to other entries, at more northern locations. Legacy, another vegetative entry, had the highest quality rating at Logan, UT, Manhattan, KS, and Lincoln, NE. Several seeded entries again performed well during the trial period, with Tech Turf 1 and Bowie each performing well at more than one location. In addition, Tech Turf 1, Density and SWI 2000 were consistently the fastest to establish. A few buffalograss cultivars have been released
since our last NTEP trial was initiated, two of those cultivars from the University of Nebraska. Prestige is a commercially available vegetative cultivar released in 2003. And most recently, the University of Nebraska released the seeded cultivar Sundancer.
Centipedegrass Centipedegrass performs well in the more acidic,
dense soils of the southeast U.S. and does so with probably the least maintenance required of any warm-season species. Curiously though, improved centipedegrass cultivars have been slow to become commercialized. In fact, NTEP has never tested centipedegrass due to the lack of a significant number of cultivars available. Seeded centipedegrass cultivars are dwarfed in the marketplace by common centipede, the major centipedegrass seed sold. A new cultivar, TifBlair, reportedly more cold-tolerant than other cultivars, has been commercialized within the last several years.
Kevin Morris is executive director of the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP).
All photos by Kevin Morris. 48 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