• Like
  • Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

CSSA 2010 Presentation

on

  • 1,565 views

Tod Blankenship's 2010 CSSA presentation.

Tod Blankenship's 2010 CSSA presentation.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,565
Views on SlideShare
1,445
Embed Views
120

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

4 Embeds 120

http://groups.hort.oregonstate.edu 95
http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu 21
http://groups-dev.hort.oregonstate.edu 2
http://cohort.localhost 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    CSSA 2010 Presentation CSSA 2010 Presentation Presentation Transcript

    • T.  Blankenship,  R.  Golembiewski,  and  B.  McDonald Oregon  State  University
    • 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)
    • REPORTED MEAN RATES OF TURFGRASS EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET)   (KENNA 2006) Cool  Season Mean  Summer  ET  rate Relative  Ranking Turfgrass  Species1 mm/day 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 * 1BASED ON THE MOST WIDELY USED CULTIVARS OF EACH SPECIES
    • 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  
    • 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
    • MATERIALS &  METHODS Seeding Rate Species kg  per  ha   Variety   Experimental  Design Kentucky  Bluegrass Poa  pratensis   146.4 Prosperity,  Langara  ,  Touche   Silty  clay  loam Creeping  Bentgrass  (fairway  type)   Agrostis  stolonifera   73.2 Crystal  Blue  Links,  007,  MacKenzie Colonial  Bentgrass Strip-­‐split  plot  design Agrostis  capillaris   73.2 Alister,  SR7150,  SR7100 Velvet  Bentgrass 3  replications Agrostis  canina   73.2 Greenwich  ,  SR7200,  Vesper   Perennial  Ryegrass Lolium  perenne   292.8 Silverdollar,  Express  II,  Zoom   10  turfgrass  species  as   Tall  fescue horizontal  treatments,   Festuca  arundinacea   Slender  Creeping  Red  Fescue 292.8 Coronado  TDH  ,  SR8650,  Mustang  4 two  mowing  heights   Festuca  rubra   195.1 Seabreeze  GT,  Shoreline   Chewings  Fescue (16  mm  and  51  mm)  as   Festuca  rubra  ssp.  tryachyphylla   195.1 Treazure  II,  SR5130,    Windward   vertical  treatments,   Strong  Creeping  Red  Fescue Festuca  tryachyphylla   195.1 Shademaster  III  (8000),  Garnet   and  two  nitrogen  levels   Annual  Bluegrass (49  and  195  kg/ha/yr)   Poa  annua  var.  reptans   Sod   Northwest  Poa  Greens as  subplot  treatments    
    • 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  
    • MATERIALS &  METHODS Data  Collection: 0.9  m 3.6  m Plots  assessed  on  overall   Low  Mow 0.9  m High  Mow 0.45  m functionality  (playability)   High  Nitrogen High  Nitrogen and  rated  daily  on  a   3.6  m numerical  scale  (0-­‐2;   0=no  water  stress,   Low  Mow Low  Nitrogen High  Mow LowNitrogen 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
    • 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  
    • 2009  RESULTS Water  Use  of  Cool  Season  Turfgrass  Species 225 200 175 Irrigation  Inputs  (mm) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Annual Strong Slender Chewings Colonial Velvet Kentucky Creeping Perennial Tall Bluegrass CRF CRF Fescue Bentgrass Bentgrass Bluegrass Bentgrass Ryegrass 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
    • 2009  RESULTS Percentage  of    2009  Reference  ET  Applied 100 90 80 Percent  of  Reference  ET 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Annual Strong Slender Chewings Colonial Velvet Kentucky Creeping Perennial Tall Bluegrass CRF CRF Fescue Bentgrass Bentgrass Bluegrass Bentgrass Ryegrass 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
    • 2010  RESULTS Percentage  of    2010  Reference  ET  Applied 100 90 80 Percent  of  Reference  ET 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Annual Strong Slender Chewings Colonial Velvet Kentucky Creeping Perennial Tall Bluegrass CRF CRF Fescue Bentgrass Bentgrass Bluegrass Bentgrass Ryegrass 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
    • SUMMARY OF 2009-­‐2010  COMBINED Combined  Difference  in  Percent  Reference  ET 100 90 80 Percent  of  Reference  ET 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Annual Strong Slender Chewings Colonial Velvet Kentucky Creeping Perennial Tall Fescue Bluegrass CRF CRF Fescue Bentgrass Bentgrass Bluegrass Bentgrass Ryegrass 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
    • SUMMARY Reported  Mean   Mean  Summer  Two   Cool  Season Turfgrass   Summer  ET Rate Year  Study  ET  Rate Relative  Ranking Species1 mm/day mm/day 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 1BASED ON THE MOST WIDELY USED CULTIVARS OF EACH SPECIES
    • 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