extensively in some
markets.New releases such as TamStar and CitraBlue are making their way into the marketplace, which means more, and better cultivar choices will soon be available for sod growers and homeowners alike. Our latest St. Augustinegrass trial includes three
standard entries (Floratam, Raleigh, and Palmetto) and twenty-four experimental entries, planted at ten locations. Five trial years provide data on the performance of these new entries, with a final summary now available. Turfgrass quality data from each year varied based on the region and LPI Group. Year-one data (2017) showed several entries with southeast U.S. breeding origin (FSA 1601, FSA 1608, XSA10403, FSA 1604) as the best performers in that region (LPI Group 1), with Dallas-based bred entries (DALSA 1502, DALSA 1618, DALSA 1501, and DALSA 1401) as the top performers in LPI Group 2 (south-central U.S. locations). 2018 showed a similar trend, but CitraBlue, a newly released Florida cultivar, moved up and joined FSA 1601 as a top performer in the southeast U.S. In 2019, our statistical analysis led to LPI Groups with a mixing of southeast and south-central U.S. locations, which meant that the Florida and Dallas bred entries shifted positions somewhat. Finally, in 2020, with our statistical analysis resulting in regionalized groups, entries shifted again as FSA 1613 joined DALSA 1618, DALSA 1502, and DALSA 1501 with excellent turf quality in the south-central U.S. Also, DALSA 1501 moved up in the southeast U.S. with top performance, along with CitraBlue, FSA 1610, DALSA 1613, and FSA 1606. Various ancillary trials demonstrated the
improvements made in breeding. Four years of data from our drought tolerance ancillary trial in College Station, TX, showed DALSA 1618, DALSA 1501, DALSA 1502, DALSA 1623, and FSA 1613 with the highest overall turf quality. Other entries, including Palmetto, DALSA 1404, and UGA TX SA26 also performed well under the induced drought conditions. At Ft. Lauderdale, FL, we maintained our
trial using both reduced nitrogen (about one-half of standard recommendations), as well as standard nitrogen recommendations. Surprisingly, several entries, including CitraBlue, FSA 1606, and FSA 1610 performed equally well under the reduced and standard fertilizer rates. CitraBlue was the top statistical entry over the trial period under the reduced fertilizer scenario at Ft. Lauderdale. Chinch bug, a common pest on St. Augustinegrass,
was evaluated at Gainesville, FL, in both the lab and in the field. Laboratory feeding and mortality studies indicated differences among some entries for chinch bug tolerance, but unfortunately, these results did not correlate to field performance as few statistical differences were noted among entries.
Disease resistance is a very important trait for an
improved St. Augustinegrass cultivar and these trials did yield some results. Brown patch is commonly seen on St. Augustinegrass, as it was with this trial, however, statistical
62
significance was negligible. Grey leaf spot (Pyricularia grisea), another important disease, was noted and rated at several locations during the trial period as CitraBlue, FSA 1610, XSA 11168, and DALSA 1404 demonstrated consistency in resistance. Other notable traits evaluated include winter kill
and fall color retention. Winter survival is important as St. Augustinegrass is utilized in Latitudes 32 degrees and above. A cold snap or prolonged lower-than-normal winter temperatures can either kill St. Augustinegrass stolons, or damage them, and delay spring greenup. In any case, cold temperature tolerance is an important trait for the utility of St. Augustinegrass in many locations. Winter kill was rated at three locations, and ratings were lowest (i.e., winter survival was best) for UGA/TX SA26, DALSA 1502, and Palmetto. Fall color retention is also an important
characteristic, particularly in southern regions where turfgrasses are expected to provide green turf for eight months or more. CitraBlue and FSA 1606 showed consistently good fall color, even as the temperatures dropped in the fall. Other entries with good fall color retention include FSA 1605, FSA 1601, FSA 1610, and FSA 1604.
Seashore Paspalum Seashore paspalum is known for its salt tolerance;
however, turf managers are now considering paspalum for its unique turfgrass quality as well. NTEP initiated testing of seashore paspalum in 2007. Eight new entries plus two standards are included in the latest seashore paspalum trial, planted at eight locations in 2016. Data from the five years of the trial are
summarized and available. Summarized turfgrass quality data from 2016-2020 showed that good progress has been made by breeders as several new experimental entries are performing well. In 2017, only UGP 73 finished in the top statistical turf quality category in each LPI Group. Data from 2018 had UGP 94, Salam, Sea Isle 1, and UGP 73 as overall top performers. Two of the three LPI groups in 2019 did not show large statistical significance, however, we can note that UGA 1743, UGP 94, and UGP 73 finished as top performers in all groups. For 2020, at most locations in the final year of the trial, small or little statistical significance of overall turf quality ratings was noted among entries. SeaStar did, however, finish at or near the top of turf quality average scores at four of the six locations. UGP 73 was consistently good at four locations as well. Te greatest performance difference was observed at Auburn, AL, with UGP 94, SeaStar, and UGA HYB2 alone in the top statistical group. Ancillary trial locations testing winter kill and
traffic tolerance were established and evaluated. Our northernmost location, Fayetteville, AR, rated winter kill as UGP 73 and UGA HYB2 exhibited the least kill (9.2 and 14.2 percent respectively; range is 9.2 – 65.8 percent; LSD=10.4). Traffic tolerance was evaluated at College
TPI Turf News July/August 2023
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
