At the Approach 1 site in Stillwater, OK, the amount
of water needed to maintain at least 65 percent green cover over the drought period varied from 0 – 67.7 mm (0 – 2.6 inches). Bermuda entries FB 1628, TifTuf, and Tifway did not require any water to maintain 65 percent green cover. Joining those bermudas in the top statistical grouping were Stellar zoysia (8.3 mm), Tahoma 31 bermuda (8.3 mm) and FAES 1306 zoysia (16.7 mm). More water was required to maintain 65 percent green cover at the Approach 1 site in Mississippi State, MS. Te lowest water users were all either bermudagrasses: Monaco (50.7 mm), Tahoma 31 (51.0 mm), Rio (67.7 mm), ASC 119 (93.0 mm), ASC 118 (135.7 mm) or buffalograsses: Cody (118.3 mm) and Prestige (135.7 mm), where the entry with the greatest water use needed 313.7 mm (12.3 inches). At the Approach 1 sites in Griffin, GA, and Jay,
FL, statistical significance was much smaller than at the Mississippi State and Stillwater locations. At the Griffin site, TifTuf required the least water (8.3 mm) of all entries, followed by Meyer zoysia (13.3 mm) and Tifway bermuda (25.3 mm), two standard entries in this trial. However, at Griffin, no statistical differences were noted in water use among entries with total water used ranging from 8.3 – 71.0 mm (LSD=77.8 mm). At Jay, FL, bermudas TifTuf, FB 1628, OKC
1221, Rio, and Tahoma 31, along with Meyer zoysia did not require any water during the test period. Other entries requiring only one-half inch (1.27 cm) of water or less at Jay include Monaco bermuda (4.3 mm), Stellar zoysia (8.3 mm), and FAES 1306 zoysia (12.7 mm). Tese entries and seven others are included the Jay, FL, top statistical group for water use in 2021. Te Ft. Lauderdale site’s growing season is twelve
months, therefore their Approach 2 testing period is much longer than the others. As in 2020, the surprising result from 2021 was how well the entries performed even at the
30 percent ETo replacement. On most turf quality rating .
dates, all entries had scores at or above the minimum acceptable quality level of 6 under the 30 percent ETo
As a result, sixteen of the seventeen entries finished the season in the top statistical group. Tis is the second year we have seen the lowest ETo
level producing adequate for
turf quality in south Florida. Te entries finishing with the highest overall turf quality include TifTuf (TQ=7.0), FB 1628 (6.9), and Tifway 6.9). Te Riverside, CA, Approach 2 location, again in
2021 reported much different results from the subtropical Ft. Lauderdale site. Turf quality averages were below the minimum overall turf quality average of 6.0 under 30 percent ETo
replacement. TifTuf, finishing with the
highest overall quality at 5.2, posted an acceptable turf quality rating in five of the first eight weeks, the most of any entry. Over the twenty-week drought stress period, besides TifTuf’, Dog Tuff, FB 1628, Tifway, Monaco, and five others had statistically equal overall turf quality averages. At the 45 percent ETo
replacement level at
Riverside, TifTuf (TQ=6.2) was the only entry to deliver acceptable turf quality averaged over all rating dates. At the College Station, TX, and Las Cruces,
NM, locations, the entries also performed surprisingly well under the 30 percent ETo
level with several finishing
at turf quality above 6.0. TifTuf bermuda and Prestige buffalograss were the only entries in the top statistical group to maintain at least a 6.0 quality score on each rating date across the twenty-week trial period at College Station. Similarly, the Las Cruces, NM, 30 percent ETo
level
data showed five entries, TifTuf, FB 1628, and Tifway bermuda, and FAES 1307 and Meyer zoysia, with a 6.0 or higher on each rating date. FAES 1307 and TifTuf finished tied for highest overall turf quality (6.9) at Las Cruces.
Te Warm-Season Water Use Trial, picture here in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, tracks cultivar performance at reduced percentages of ETo TPI Turf News July/August 2022
replacement. 51
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
