PPG-TF 312, DLF-321/3693, and Tank had the highest ratings for brown patch tolerance. Small statistical differences among entries were
noted in the three Midwest U.S. locations that submitted data, i.e., 40-60 percent of entries finished in the top turf quality group at any one location. Te fourth location in the Midwest, West Lafayette, IN, separated the entries nicely with 5LSS, K18-NSE, and Raptor LS in the top three slots for turf quality. In addition, brown patch noted at West Lafayette had Rover, Degas, Finelawn Supreme, Talladega II, Paramount, and Providence with good tolerance on both rating dates. Similar to the Midwest region, locations square
in the Transition Zone, data did not show large statistical significance, with the exception of the College Park, MD, location. PPG-TF 262 finished at the top of turf quality (TQ=8.0, LSD=0.4) at College Park in 2022, with Providence, K18-NSE, Symphony, and Triad close behind at 7.8. Greater statistical significance was seen at two
western U.S. locations – Corvallis, OR, and Logan, UT. At Corvallis, entries such as DLFPS-321/3707 and DLFPS-321/3708 topped the turf quality ratings. Te Logan site maintained two trials - the first utilized optimum irrigation and the second, reduced irrigation. Entries that performed well under both irrigation schemes include Raptor LS, Bonfire, RHL2, and Spyder 2LS. Tolerance to stresses such as traffic, shade, and low
mowing are being evaluated throughout the trial period. Similar to previous years, shade data collected at Ames, IA, yielded no statistical separation again in 2022. However, data collected in 2022 from a low mowing height trial (1.5 in. [38.1 mm]) at Blacksburg, VA, did yield some statistical differences with about half of the entries in the top turf quality statistical group, led by TD2, Bladerunner 3, Gallardo, and Titanium G-LS. Traffic applied at Amherst, MA, yielded good
statistical separation with Clash, Raptor LS, Galactic, and Talladega II with consistently high wear tolerance ratings, but not necessarily top turfgrass quality ratings. Intensive traffic was applied on the tall fescue trial at North Brunswick, NJ, during the spring, summer, and fall of 2022. Like in 2021, data from 2022 showed large differences in uniformity, ground cover, and canopy fullness, but statistical differences among entries for turf quality were small or non-existent.
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. Five years of data have been summarized and are now available on our website. Data from the five trial years was reported by year in
TPI Turf News July/August 2023
LPI groups but also summarized by management schedule and within regional groups. Data separated and analyzed by management schedules (golf course fairway, athletic turf, and home lawn maintenance) showed new entries, such as Palmer Supreme, Furlong, Mystique, and PPG-PR 372 as outstanding under all the management schemes. Six geographic region analyses yielded significant
variation in performance. Entries that have performed at, or close to, top performance in several regions include Furlong, Palmer Supreme, PPG PR 372, PL2, and Fiesta Cinco. Traffic tolerance was tested at four locations,
Amherst, MA, Corvallis, OR, Blacksburg, VA, and Madison, WI, with each site using a different methodology. Even though several entries performed well in only one or two sites, entries such as Stellar 4GL, Palmer Supreme, NP-3, PR-6-15, and JR-197 were top performers at three or all four traffic sites. Drought tolerance was tested for the five years of
the trial at Logan, UT, alongside a standard irrigation trial regime. Overall, statistical differences were not large among entries, but Hatrick, PPG-PR 370, and Silver Sport were the 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 Silver Sport. Several diseases were rated on these trials over
the five years. Data from red thread (Laetisaria fuciformis) collected at Columbia, MO, and College Park, MD, showed small statistical differences among entries. Crown rust (Puccinia coronata), seen at St. Paul, MN, and North Brunswick, NJ, delivered much larger statistical significance with Furlong, Stellar 4GL, and Mystique with the highest ratings (7.6-8.0), where the damage ratings ranged as low as 2.3 (LSD=1.7). Brown patch ratings from St. Paul, MN, and Columbia, MO, finished with PR-6-15 and Spike GLS at the top with an average of 7.8 (range is 4.2 - 7.8, LSD=1.4). Finally, arguably the overall most devastating
disease on perennial ryegrass is gray leaf spot (Pyricularia grisea). Plant breeders have made great success in developing gray leaf spot resistant cultivars with many entries performing well in the presence of this disease. Te North Brunswick, NJ, site collected data that ranged from 1 - 9, with 9=no disease and an LSD=1.5. Karma (9.0), 02BS1 (8.7), DLSPS-236/3553 (8.7), JR-197 (8.7), and NP-3 (8.7) were some of the top entries in this gray leaf spot data.
Fineleaf Fescues Te term “fineleaf fescue” includes several species.
Strong creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra ssp. 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
53
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 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
