Figure 2.


Figure 2. Sod harvest quality for each bermudagrass cultivar. Data statistically analyzed separately for each year. Terefore, within each year, data means with the same letter are not significantly different at p £ 0.05; as adapted from Segars et al. (2022).


With sod harvesting quality, in both 2015 and 2016, the highest ratings were observed with Latitude 36, Northbridge, Tahoma 31, and Tifway, and the lowest quality rating was observed with Midlawn (Figure 2). Of note, lower sod tensile strength and lower sod handling quality does not translate into a poor- performing bermudagrass, as all those bermudagrass cultivars are utilized in the marketplace. However, sod handling quality was positively correlated with sod tensile strength, and therefore sod handling quality could be a useful measurement in the absence of a sod-pulling device to measure force.


What about the rhizomes? Te rhizome characteristics varied among the bermudagrass cultivars depending on which specific property was measured (Table 1).


Tifway had the strongest rhizomes, followed by Tahoma 31 and Midlawn, followed by Latitude 36 and Northbridge. Tahoma 31, Latitude 36, and Northbridge had the highest length/volume rhizomes measured, and also the higher surface area, as compared to Tifway and Midlawn. Tahoma 31, Northbridge, and Latitude 36 had the highest rhizome dry weight, followed-by Tifway and Midlawn. Although Tifway had the highest sod tensile strength, it also had a lower rhizome dry weight compared to other bermudagrass cultivars. Overall, rhizome characteristics measured among all the bermudagrass cultivars did not strongly correlate with sod tensile strength or sod handling quality.


From all the rhizome measurements and observations in this study, the researchers surmised that the formation and configuration of rhizomes had the largest influence on the overall strength of the sod. For example, visual examination of the sod and the formation of rhizomes within the sod revealed an important observation from this study: Tifway rhizomes formed and intermingled into a strong web in the sod, while Midlawn formed large rhizomes in a bunch-like formation instead of an intermingled mat. Terefore, knowledge of rhizome growth and development characteristics could allow bermudagrass turf breeders to select parental lines that produce mat-forming vegetative structures (i.e., rhizomes) that correspond to higher sod tensile strength and sod handling quality. Further research could provide insight into the plant physiological mechanisms and pathways responsible for rhizome formation.


_________________________________________________________________________________________


Bermudagrass 


 Midlawn   Tifway


Strength -----(kgf/dm2


)----- 139.4 cd  bc 113.4 d   b a


Length -----(cm/cm3


1.99 A 0.18 B 1.94 A  0.81 Conversion factors: 1 pound per square inch = 7.03 kgf/dm2 A B )-----


Surface area -----(cm2


)-----


Dry weight -----(g)-----


 A4.13  C 431.2 A  A 219.8 B ; 1 inch/inch3     Ab C Ab A B = 0.155 cm/cm3; 1 inch2 = 6.452 cm2 ; 1 pound = 453.6 g.


Source: Segars, C.A., Moss, J.Q., Martin, D.L., and Wu, Y. 2022. Sod production characteristics: How strong is your bermudagrass? International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 14:256-261.


Mike Fidanza, PhD, is a professor of Plant and Soil Science at Pennsylvania State University, Berks Campus. Cale Bigelow, PhD, is a professor of Turfgrass Science and Ecology in the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture at Purdue University in Indiana. They are teaming to provide a Rooted in Research article for each issue of Turf News.


TPI Turf News March/April 2025 41


Table 1. Rhizome characteristics measured for each bermudagrass cultivar. Data means with the same letter are not significantly different at p £ 0.05; as adapted from Segars et al. (2022).


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