Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
CSSA 2010 Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

CSSA 2010 Presentation

1,332

Published on

Tod Blankenship's 2010 CSSA presentation.

Tod Blankenship's 2010 CSSA presentation.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,332
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. T.  Blankenship,  R.  Golembiewski,  and  B.  McDonald Oregon  State  University
  • 2. INTRODUCTION “Species  effect  on  water  use  of  urban   landscapes  can  be  a  very  important  variable,   but  its  impact  will  be  dependent  on  which   species  are  compared  under  what  conditions.     This  is  probably  why  such  contrasting  results   have  been  reported  in  the  literature.”   (Devitt  and  Morris  2008)
  • 3. 1BASED ON THE MOST WIDELY USED CULTIVARS OF EACH SPECIES Cool  Season Turfgrass  Species1 Mean  Summer  ET  rate mm/day Relative  Ranking Hard  Fescue 7  – 8.5 Medium Chewings  Fescue 7  – 8.5 Red  Fescue 7  – 8.5 Perennial  Ryegrass 6.6  – 11.2 High Tall  Fescue 3.6  – 12.6 Creeping  Bentgrass 5  – 10 Annual  Bluegrass >10 Kentucky  Bluegrass 4  -­‐ >10 Colonial  Bentgrass * Velvet  Bentgrass * REPORTED MEAN RATES OF TURFGRASS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET)   (KENNA 2006)
  • 4. INTRODUCTION Limited  information   regarding  newly   established  sites Current  and  pending  laws   and  regulations This  research  unique  in   that  evaluating  nearly  all   cool  season  turfgrass   species  in  a  side  by  side   field  setting  
  • 5. OBJECTIVES Assess  water  use  of   newly  established  cool-­‐ season  turfgrass  species   in  a  field  setting Evaluate  the  potential  of   new  technology  to   detect  turfgrass  water   stress
  • 6. MATERIALS &  METHODS Experimental  Design Silty  clay  loam Strip-­‐split  plot  design 3  replications 10  turfgrass  species  as   horizontal  treatments,   two  mowing  heights   (16  mm  and  51  mm)  as   vertical  treatments,   and  two  nitrogen  levels   (49  and  195  kg/ha/yr)   as  subplot  treatments     Species Seeding Rate kg  per  ha   Variety   Kentucky  Bluegrass 146.4Poa  pratensis   Prosperity,  Langara  ,  Touche   Creeping  Bentgrass  (fairway  type)   73.2 Crystal  Blue  Links,  007,  MacKenzieAgrostis  stolonifera   Colonial  Bentgrass 73.2 Alister,  SR7150,  SR7100Agrostis  capillaris   Velvet  Bentgrass 73.2 Greenwich  ,  SR7200,  Vesper  Agrostis  canina   Perennial  Ryegrass 292.8 Silverdollar,  Express  II,  Zoom  Lolium  perenne   Tall  fescue 292.8 Coronado  TDH  ,  SR8650,  Mustang  4Festuca  arundinacea   Slender  Creeping  Red  Fescue 195.1 Seabreeze  GT,  Shoreline  Festuca  rubra   Chewings  Fescue 195.1 Treazure  II,  SR5130,    Windward  Festuca  rubra  ssp.  tryachyphylla   Strong  Creeping  Red  Fescue 195.1 Shademaster  III  (8000),  Garnet  Festuca  tryachyphylla   Annual  Bluegrass Sod   Northwest  Poa  GreensPoa  annua  var.  reptans  
  • 7. MATERIALS &  METHODS Treatments:   Plots  maintained  at  a   16  mm  and  51  mm   height  of  cut  were   mowed  three  times   and  1  time  per  week   respectively  
  • 8. Low  Mow High  Nitrogen High  Mow High  Nitrogen Low  Mow Low  Nitrogen High  Mow LowNitrogen 3.6  m 3.6  m 0.9  m 0.9  m 0.45  m MATERIALS &  METHODS Data  Collection: Plots  assessed  on  overall   functionality  (playability)   and  rated  daily  on  a   numerical  scale  (0-­‐2;   0=no  water  stress,   1=some  water  stress,   2=water  stressed) Once  individual  subplot     rated  a  2,  irrigation   applied  at  a  rate  of  7.6   mm  through  a  hose  end   nozzle  attached  to  a   batch  and  flow  meter
  • 9. MATERIALS &  METHODS Data  Collection: Water  use  correlated  with   rating  scale  based  on   volumetric  water  content   (VWC)  readings  taken  daily  at   3.8  cm  with  a  TDR  soil  moisture   probe Daily  visual  turf  ratings  taken   with  Underhill  Early  Stress   Detection  Glasses Digital  images  taken  weekly  and   evaluated  using  SigmaScan  
  • 10. 2009  RESULTS Annual Bluegrass Strong CRF Slender CRF Chewings Fescue Colonial Bentgrass Velvet Bentgrass Kentucky Bluegrass Creeping Bentgrass Perennial Ryegrass Tall Fescue Low Mow 203.2 196.85 184.15 144.78 138.43 106.68 105.41 105.41 96.52 93.98 High Mow 189.23 144.78 132.08 128.27 120.65 105.41 100.33 91.44 87.63 81.28 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Irrigation  Inputs  (mm) Water  Use  of  Cool  Season  Turfgrass  Species
  • 11. 2009  RESULTS Annual Bluegrass Strong CRF Slender CRF Chewings Fescue Colonial Bentgrass Velvet Bentgrass Kentucky Bluegrass Creeping Bentgrass Perennial Ryegrass Tall Fescue Low Mow 92.06 89.18 83.43 65.59 62.71 47.76 48.33 47.76 43.73 42.58 High Mow 85.73 65.59 59.84 58.11 47.76 54.66 45.46 41.43 39.70 36.82 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent  of  Reference  ET Percentage  of    2009  Reference  ET  Applied
  • 12. 2010  RESULTS Annual Bluegrass Strong CRF Slender CRF Chewings Fescue Colonial Bentgrass Velvet Bentgrass Kentucky Bluegrass Creeping Bentgrass Perennial Ryegrass Tall Fescue Low Mow 96.03 98.29 94.89 95.46 68.18 42.62 50.00 62.50 36.36 31.25 High Mow 86.37 70.46 68.75 74.43 51.14 43.75 49.51 39.21 32.39 26.13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent  of  Reference  ET Percentage  of    2010  Reference  ET  Applied
  • 13. SUMMARY OF 2009-­‐2010  COMBINED Annual Bluegrass Strong CRF Slender CRF Chewings Fescue Colonial Bentgrass Velvet Bentgrass Kentucky Bluegrass Creeping Bentgrass Perennial Ryegrass Tall Fescue Low Mow 94.04 93.74 89.16 80.52 65.45 45.19 49.17 55.13 40.05 36.91 High Mow 86.05 68.02 64.29 66.27 49.45 49.21 47.24 40.32 36.04 31.48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent  of  Reference  ET Combined  Difference  in  Percent  Reference  ET
  • 14. 1BASED ON THE MOST WIDELY USED CULTIVARS OF EACH SPECIES Cool  Season Turfgrass   Species1 Reported  Mean   Summer  ET Rate mm/day Mean  Summer  Two   Year  Study  ET  Rate mm/day Relative  Ranking Hard  Fescue 7  – 8.5 * Medium Chewings  Fescue 7  – 8.5 3.4 Red  Fescue 7  – 8.5 3.5 Perennial  Ryegrass 6.6  – 11.2 2.7 High Tall  Fescue 3.6  – 12.6 2.0 Creeping  Bentgrass 5  – 10 2.7 Annual  Bluegrass >10 4.0 Kentucky  Bluegrass 4  -­‐ >10 2.6 Colonial  Bentgrass * 2.7 Velvet  Bentgrass * 2.7 SUMMARY
  • 15. SUMMARY 3  categories  of  juvenile  cool  season  turfgrass  water  use: Lower  Water  Use Tall  Fescue Intermediate  Water  Use Perennial  Ryegrass,  Colonial  Bentgrass,  Creeping  Bentgrass,   Velvet  Bentgrass,  Kentucky  Bluegrass Higher  Water  Use Annual  Bluegrass,  Strong  CRF,  Slender  CRF,  Chewings   Fescue, Mowing  height  significantly  influenced  water  use No  differences  observed  between  fertility  treatments

×