Low Input Cool-Season In 2015, NTEP established its first management-


based trial, with seventeen locations that manage under ‘low input.’ Te first trial of this type includes cool-season grass cultivars, experimentals, blends, and mixtures of grasses and other species. Tirty-two entries were submitted by sponsors, including single cultivars and blends of Kentucky bluegrass, fine fescue, tall fescue, and perennial ryegrass; mixtures of several grass species, with some including strawberry, white, or Microclover®


(Trifolium spp.); and even a western yarrow


entry (Achillea millefolium L.). Management is minimal for the five-year


trial, with no fertilizer applications or irrigation after establishment, no pest control at any time during the trial, and mowing at 3-3.5 in. (7.62-8.89 cm) on the thirteen standard trial sites. Tree ancillary trial sites evaluate the effect of one annual grass pre-emergence application (spring 2016) only, then following standard trial protocols for the remaining four years of the trial. One additional trial location (West Lafayette, IN) made an additional fertilizer application on one half of each plot for 2016 and 2017 only, to evaluate the effect of the small increase of fertilizer on performance and survival. Overall, these locations are maintained very minimally, which is of interest to an increasing number of our customers. Te entries in this low input trial, with no


annual grass or broadleaf weed control, need excellent establishment, and then good ground cover to resist weed invasion and deliver good quality. With many different species, mixtures with clovers and even non-grasses


(western yarrow), turfgrass quality ratings are more difficult to assess, sometimes leading to less significance among entries. And considering the trial length, entry performance in a low input trial was expected to decline over time. With five years of data and the trial complete, analysis


of the results and trends is needed. With various mixtures of species, including clovers, it is difficult to identify any single species, blend, or mixture that provided superior performance under the low input regime. Obviously, establishment rate was important in the first year as each entry competed with weeds for cover. Terefore, entries with a significant percentage of tall fescue or fine fescue such as DLFPS TFAStC, DLFPS TFAM, Vitality Low, CS Mix, and CRS Mix #3 performed well in year one. Year two (2017) finished with mixtures with high percentages of either tall fescue or hard fescue as top performers in many locations. Te exception to that was in West Lafayette, IN, St. Paul, MN, and Logan, UT, where Yaak western yarrow was very good. Data from 2018 was similar to 2017 as tall fescue


or hard fescue dominate mixes were very good, along with Yaak in cooler, less humid sites in the Midwest or Pacific Northwest. In addition, in 2018, DLFPS TF AStC a 97 percent tall fescue, 3 percent strawberry clover mixture performed well. 2019 delivered similar results except for ratings being so low in sites such as Kennett Square, PA, and Lincoln, NE, that no entry reached the acceptable quality level threshold. Te final year of data, 2020, saw mixtures


containing the three percent of less aggressive clovers


TPI Turf News July/August 2022


43


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