Perennial Ryegrass Perennial ryegrasses are occasionally used in
sod mixtures because of positive attributes such as fast germination, better establishment under low and high temperatures, and traffic tolerance. A new trial of perennial ryegrass, established in 2016, consists of 114 entries, most being new experimentals. Fourth year data from this trial (2020) is now available on our website. Data from 2020 showed significant performance
variation among the fifteen locations submitting data. Some entries that finished the year in the top statistical group at several locations include Stellar 4GL, Pharaoh, and 02BS2. Drought tolerance was tested at Logan, UT, again in 2020, alongside a standard irrigation trial regime. As in previous years, statistical differences were not large among entries, but PPG-PR 370, PPG-PR 423, Furlong, NP-2, and Slugger 3GL were the five highest rated entries in the drought tolerance evaluation. Entries performing in the top statistical group under both normal irrigation and drought include NP-2, PPG-PR 370, and PR-6-15. Traffic tolerance was tested at two locations,
Amherst, MA, and Corvallis, OR, in 2020, with each site using different methodology. Even though several entries performed well in only one of the two sites, there are several that performed well at these two diverse sites, 3,000 miles apart. Entries 02BS2, SR4700, Furlong, Apple 3GL, and Stellar 4GL, among several others, finished at the top of quality rating averages at Amherst, while also finishing in the top group at Corvallis. A few diseases were noted on these trials in
2020. Unfortunately, only data from pink snow mold (Microdochium nivale) collected in St. Paul, MN, showed significant entry separation. Some of the best pink snow mold entries in 2020 were PPG-PR 372, Slugger 3GL, and DLFPS-236/3547.
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 2020,
but the most recent data available is a five-year summary from our 2014 trial. Te 2014 trial consisted 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 was planted at ten standard trial locations and eleven ancillary trial locations.
TPI Turf News July/August 2021
Data summarized for each year, while also
summarized over all years and locations, show variation in performance. Te LPI groups often were sorted based on groups of species that performed well at selected locations. For instance, 2018 data was sorted into three LPI groups, the first with hard fescues as top performers, the second dominated by chewings fescues, and the third with top turf quality from the strong creeping red fescues. Tis trend continued throughout the trial; therefore, a purchaser must look closely to trials in their area to gauge the best species and cultivars for their market. For hard fescue, some of the best quality was noted with Gladiator, Jetty, Minimus, Resolute, and DLFPS-FL/3066. Chewings fescue entries Bolster, Compass II, DLF-FRC/3057, Leeward, Momentum, and Radar were the top overall performers. And 7C34, Cardinal II, DLF-FRR 6162, and PST-BEN posted some of the best turf quality scores of the creeping red fescue entries. Traffic tolerance of entries in this trial is conducted
under both fairway mowing height and lawn mowing height at sites such as St. Paul, MN, (fairway), East Lansing, MI, (fairway), Storrs, CT, (fairway), Amherst, MA, (lawn), 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.
At the Storrs, CT, site, chewings fescues such
as Radar, Bolster, and BAR VV-VP3-CT were the top performers over the trial period. At nearby Amherst, MA, but with home lawn management, a mixture of chewings, hard, and slender creeping red fescues were the best for quality under traffic. Te Corvallis, OR, site, also managed as a home lawn, finished in similar fashion as the Amherst site with a mixture of species performing well. In Corvallis, the strong creeping red entry 7C34 and slender creeping red entry Beudin were the best overall performers. Consistency in performance was evident in the
fairway traffic sites at East Lansing, MI, and St. Paul, MN. SeaMist (slender creeping red), Bolster, Leeward, and BAR-VV-VP3-CT (all chewings fescues) and Resolute (hard fescue) were top performers at both sites. And the best entries at the North Brunswick, NJ, lawn traffic trial were hard fescues Sword, Jetty, Gladiator, Resolute, and MNHD-14, and chewings fescues Bolster, Leeward, and Castle.
Other ancillary trial sites evaluated performance
under unique environmental or management conditions. Shade tolerance was evaluated at Carbondale, IL, where entries from different species were included in the top group. Chewings fescues such as DLF-FRC 3338, Leeward, Compass II, Bolster, ‘BAR-VV-VP3-CT, Castle, and Radar led the way under shade, but strong creeper DLF-FRR 6162 and slender creeping red entry SeaMist also matched the performance of the top
37
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
