Printer Friendly

Investigations on Texture Weed Invasion and Density Features of Some Cool Season Turf Grass Cultivars in Mediterranean Environment.

Byline: GULCAN DEMIROGLU, RIZA AVCIOGLU, BEHCET KIR AND ALI SALMAN

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted in 2003-2005 at Bornova experimental field in Ege University, Izmir-Turkey. Newly introduced and popular cultivars of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae Schreb.), kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis Sibth), sheep fescue (F. ovina L.), chewings red fescue (F. rubra spp. rubra commutata Gaud), slender creeping red fescue (F. rubra L. spp. trichophlylla Gaud) and chewings red fescue (F. rubra spp. rubra commutata Gaud) were tested for turf texture, weed invasion and density features for the aim of generating information for further investigations in the area and resembling Mediterranean ecologies and turf specialists in turf grass cultivar selection and recommendation. All of the F. arundinaceae cultivars (Mustang, Houndog, Finelawn and Cochise) with outstanding density and weed invasion scores were the best performers.

The L. perenne cultivars with an acceptable level of texture scores and relatively high density and invasion scores ranked second among all cultivars tested. Ovation and Delaware were the outstanding genotypes. All other cultivars of F. ovina, Agrostis tenuis and F. rubra subspecies, having had very limited turf scores, were found to be not recommendable for Mediterranean ecologies. (c) 2011 Friends Science Publishers

Key Words: Turf grass; Texture; Weed invasion; Density; Mediterranean environment

INTRODUCTION

Turf and turf grasses are fundamental components of green spaces, sport fields and also vital agents for safeguarding the environment by different techniques, e.g. in controlling erosion in roadsides, rivers, grazing lands and problematic agricultural areas (Tallarino and Argenti, 2001). However, since the water is becoming scarce and expensive throughout the world, turf culture must be water- economized (Beard, 1973; Avcioglu, 1997; Acikgoz, 1994). Recently, increased competition for water has fostered interest in responses of cool season turf grasses in Mediterranean environments of which dry summers and high temperatures, as well as low temperatures in winter are of tremendous significance in terms of turfgrass and proper medium growing selection.

Cool season turfgrasses such as Lolium perenne different subspecies of Festuca rubra and F. arundinaceae, Poa pratensis are widely used depending on very old data and tradition on turf sector in Mediterranean countries (Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey and resembling environments in Northern Africa). Another factor dictating the widespread use of cool season, C-3 turfgrasses instead of C-4, warm season turfgrasses consuming lower rate of water in such environments can be ascribed to their availability on the seed market (Salman, 2010), while readily available vegetative production sources of warm season turfgrasses are quite limited. Another objection to the warm-season turfgrasses, which occurs generally in the Mediterranean region is the lack of green colour during the winter dormancy period.

It is a fact that the appropriate use of C-3 turfgrasses for implanting lawns require field evaluation of the genotypes in sites with Mediterranean climate to assess the behaviour of cultivars in heat and drought resistance, which can be diagnosed by turf traits such as turf texture, weed competition and density during the growing period (Martinello and D'Andrea, 2006).

In turf grass evaluation and selection, there are various criteria described by Beard (1973). Morris and Sherman (2000) pointed out the National Turf grass Evaluation Program (NTEP) as a leader in evaluation and selection of Turf grass species. In the present study, turf texture, density and weed invasion features (NTEP) of 36 cultivars from 8 different species and subspecies were tested in a Mediterranean environment for three years, aiming to generate information for further studies in the area and resembling Mediterranean ecologies and turf specialists in heat and drought resistant and adaptable C-3 turf grass cultivar selection and recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was established in November, 2002 on the experimental farm located in Bornova (38deg 27. 236 N, 27deg 13. 576 E and 28 m above see level), Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. Meteorological data were summarized in Table I. The native root zone was composed of 80.2% sand, 18.1% silt and 1.7% clay. The soil was loamy sand with pH 8.1; total (CaCO3) 2400 mg kg -1; total nitrogen, 0.2 g kg -1; organic matter 2.27 g kg -1; available phosphorus 2.54 mg kg-1; exchangeable potassium 150 mg kg-1. The seedbed was prepared by disrupting a cereal fallow with a mould board ploughed 35 cm deep at the beginning of September. Before seedbed preparation, the experimental plots were equipped with a permanent water pipeline system based on rotary sprinklers. Supplemental irrigations were applied as needed to prevent visual wilt of the turf by sprinkling during summer season.

Prior to seeding, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were applied at 75 and 50 kg ha-1 N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively before leveling the soil with a cultivator and harrow (Kacar, 1986).

In the first week of November, 2002 seed of Taya, Belida, Capri, Sakini, Ovation, Delaware cultivars of perennial ryegrass (L. perenne L.), Geronimo, Conni, Sobra, Emprima of Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis L.) and Highland, Highlandband, Denso, Tracenta of colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis Sibth), Eldorado Wrangler, Apache, Debussy cultivars of tall fescue (F. arundinacea Schreb.); Pamela, Ridu, Nordic, Pintor cultivars of sheep's fescue (F. ovina L.); Pernille, Picnic, Victor, Engina, Franklin, Bargena cultivars of creeping red fescue (F. rubra spp rubra L.); Mocassin, Suzette, Libano, Napoli cultivars of slender creeping red fescue (F. rubra spp. trichophylla Gaud.) and Enjoy, Ivalo, Tamara, Bargreen cultivars of chewings fescue (F. rubra spp. commutata Gaud.) were hand sown in plots measuring 2 m x 1m at the seed rate of 35 g m-2 for F. arundinaceae and L. perenne 25 g m-2 for the cultivars of other turf grass species. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates.

Nit ogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer was manually applied in all entries at a rate of 10 g m-2 in five rounds (early April, May, June, July and August) in succeeding years. The plots were mown at a height of 25-30 mm, when the turf grass was 50-60 mm tall by using a rotary mover (Massport, Maxicatch 500), recovering and discarding the clippings. Turf grass texture, weed invasion and density were assessed by a visual score (Morris and Sherman, 2000; Anonymous, 2001). Observations were maintained on a monthly basis, while scoring was carried out on a seasonal basis, in the middle of each season (April, June, July, October and January).

Statistical analyses were conducted by using TOTEMSTAT statistical program (Acikgoz et al., 2004). Probabilities equal to or less than 0.05 were considered significant. If, TOTEMSTAT indicated differences between treatments means a LSD test was performed to separate them.

RESULTS

Texture: The average texture scores of cultivars of eight different turf grass species in each season and year of evaluation were shown in Table II. Main effects of year, cultivar and season were significant in L. perenne, F. arundinaceae, A. tenuis and F. rubra rubra. Two and three factor interaction effects were not significant in all species and subspecies except year x cultivar interaction effect in L. perenne, F. arundinaceae, A. tenuis and P. pratensis.

Cultivars Delaware and Ovation had significantly higher scores than other cultivars during the three experimental years. Although F. arundinaceae had generally lower texture scores than L. perenne as an indication of fine texture, cultivar Finelawn was the genotype having highest texture score among all other cultivars in this group for three succeeding years (Table II).

Cultivars Geronimo and Conni having similar texture scores in succeeding years and medium texture, were the most favorable cultivars compared to Sobra and Emprima. There were significantly different texture scores among cultivars of A. tenuis, however all had quite similar scores in different years (Table II).

All F. ovina cultivars had very high texture scores representing fine texture compared to previous genera and cultivars Ridu and Nordic having same and higher average texture scores in succeeding experimental years were the comparably successful genotypes. Cultivar Picnic displayed the highest average scores in F. rubra rubra subspecies in the experimental period of three years. The cultivars of F. rubra trichophylla subspecies had also highly similar texture scores with F. rubra commutata cultivar and cultivar Mocassin were the outstanding cultivar in this subspecies. The average texture scores of cultivar Enjoy was higher than other cultivars of F. rubra commutata subspecies.

Weed invasion: There were great variations among the turf grass species cultivars in relation to weed invasion scores in different seasons and years (Table III). Main effects of cultivar, season and year were significant in all materials tested, except F. ovina, while two and three factor interaction effects were not, except year x cultivar interaction in L. perenne, F. arundinaceae, P. pratensis, A. tenuis, F. ovina, F. rubra rubra and F. rubra commutata. The year x season interaction effect was also significant in P. pratensis, A. tenuis, F. rubra trichophylla and F. rubra commutata.

Table I: Monthly average temperatures and total precipitations recorded in different yars at experimental area.

Months###Temperature (degC)###Precipitation (mm)

###2003 2004###2005 1980-2000###2003###2004###2005 1980-2000

Januaiy###12.0###8.3###9.9###8.1###102.7###228.5 124.0###109.7

Februaiy###5.6###9.4###8.7###8.6###201.0###27.9 287.4###89.8

March###9.4 12.9###12.1###10.8###25.3###21.3###90.5###72.3

April###13.6 16.6###16.4###15.0###104.5###30.3###17.3###48.9

May###22.4 20.4###21.5###20.2###10.3###11.3###35.8###32.2

June###27.5 26.1###25.0###25.0###0.1###3.7###21.0###8.2

July###28.5 28.6###28.8###27.6###-###1.2###-###3.6

August###29.0 27.4###28.5###27.0###-###-###0.2###2.1

September 23.4 24.1###24.1###22.2###0.0###0.0###6.6###17.0

October###20.4 21.0###17.9###18.0###66.5###1.7###22.8###46.8

November###14.2 14.4###12.9###13.2###15.6###100.0 155.9###80.3

December###10.3 11.1###11.3###9.9###116.3###77.7###67.5###122.3

X-[?]###18.0 18.3###18.1###17.1###642.3###503.6 829.0###633.2

Cultivar Capri displayed the highest average weed invasion scores during the three experimental years, whereas cultivar Delaware had lower scores, which were the indication of lesser weed invasion in the plots. Although seasonal variations were also significant in all genotypes, all cultivars of L. perenne displayed higher weed encroachments in summer compared to other seasons. This inclination was also evident in all other species and subspecies. Cultivar Cochise was the outstanding genotype among all other cultivars in F. arundinaceae (Kamal-uddin et al., 2009). As a whole, F. arundinaceae cultivars were the outstanding genotypes with lower scores than all cultivars of other species and subspecies.

Among the cultivars of P. pratensis tested, cultivar Geronimo had lower weed invasion scores, namely, best performing genotype with regard to weed infestation. Increasing scores by years were also evident in P. pratensis and A. tenuis, which weed invasion score trends of these species were almost similar to each other. Weed invasion scores of F. ovina cultivars indicated a decreasing trend by years and cultivar Ridu was the best performer among other genotypes in the species. Weed invasion scores of all F. rubra species cultivars were extremely higher than other species tested in the experiment (Lower competitive ability). Similar results were monitored in F. rubra trichophylla and F. rubra commutate.

The mean density scores of the cultivars of eight turf grass species in each season and year of evaluation were shown in Table IV. Variation analysis of turf density scores mirrored the significant main effects of cultivar, year and season in all species and subspecies, except in all Festuca species. All two and three factor interactions were not significant, except year x cultivar interaction effect in all turf grass material tested.

The mean density scores of L. perenne cultivars increased with succeeding three experimental years. Since all cultivars responded differently in different years (year x cultivar interaction), the cultivars having highest scores varied by years. Cultivar Capri, having highest score in the first year, while Sakini in second and Delaware in the last experimental year were the best performers. There were remarkable differences among F. arundinaceae cultivars and to distinguish cultivars with highest or lowest density scores in different seasons and years was easier than Lolium genus. Cultivar Mustang was the most promising cultivar compared to cultivar Cochise, which had also very dense canopy in the plots in the duration of succeeding years. On the contrary, all cultivars of P. pratensis had very limited density scores, displaying very poor tillering and individual crops in the plots. Cultivar Geronimo was the genotype with highest scores.

As a result of significant year x cultivar interaction and differentiating characteristics of A. tenuis cultivars according to seasons and years, profiling the group and quoting a cultivar was difficult, the mean density scores of F. ovina cultivars were highly limited like previous species and cultivar Pintor displayed the highest scores.

The density scores of F. rubra subspecies were quite lower than other species tested and cultivar Bargena was the outstanding genotype compared the other material tested in F. rubra rubra. Cultivar Mocassin performed far better than other cultivars in F. rubra trichophylla while Cultivar Enjoy of F. rubra commutata ranked first in this subspecies.

DISCUSSION

The results obtained from the three year field experiment indicated a wide range of variation of the eight cool season turf grasses under existing Mediterranean weather conditions. The variation in adaptation to prevailing seasonal and yearly effect of climatic factors was also evident. Remarkable differences of texture, weed invasion and density scores of various cultivars of species tested proved the better growth adaptability of all turf grass material to climatic conditions of the winter, autumn and spring seasons rather than summer. Van Huylenberg et al. (1999) and Salman and Avcioglu (2010) also stated that better growth activities of cool season turf grasses in cool seasons (winter, spring and autumn) of Mediterranean environments may be ascribed to more efficient biological mechanisms during these seasons. All tested species cultivars, except F. arundinaceae and to some extent L. perenne, displayed extremely reduced adaptability in summer almost in all succeeding three experimental years.

Many turf res archers revealed that reduced adaptability observed in summer season may be attributed to the negative effects of heat and drought stress, as well as susceptibility to pathogen injuries occurring in summer period of Mediterranean environments (Avcioglu, 1997; Belisario et al., 2001; Volterani et al., 2001; Kusvuran, 2009). Our results were also in agreement with the statements of Russi et al. (2001).

The high and increasing density and lower weed invasion scores of F. arundinaceae cultivars, particularly cultivar Finelawn and cultivar Cochise were attributed to the high competitive ability and greater adaptability to heat and drought stress conditions of Mediterranean environment.

Table II: Leaf texture scores of turf grass species by seasons in different years

###Leaf texture

###2003###2004###2005

Turfgrass###WI###Si###Su###Au###M###WI###Si###Su###Au###M###WI###Si###Su###Au###M

Loliuin perenne

Taya###6.5###6.4###5.5###6.5###6.2###6.1###6.0###5.1###6.0###5.8###6.0###6.0###5.0###6.0###5.8

Belida###6.3###6.2###5.3###6.2###6.0###6.0###6.0###5.0###6.0###5.8###5.9###6.0###4.9###5.9###5.7

Capri###6.4###6.4###5.4###6.5###6.2###6.2###6.2###5.0###6.0###5.9###6.1###6.1###5.1###6.1###5.9

Sakini###6.8###6.9###5.8###6.9###6.6###6.5###6.5###5.5###6.6###6.3###6.3###6.4###5.3###6.5###6.1

Ovation###6.9###6.9###5.9###6.9###6.7###6.8###6.9###5.8###6.8###6.6###6.5###6.4###5.5###6.5###6.2

Delaware###7.0###7.1###6.0###7.1###6.8###7.0###7.0###6.0###7.0###6.8###6.9###7.0###5.9###6.9###6.7

Mean###6.7###6.7###5.7###6.7###6.4###6.4###6.4###5.4###6.4###6.2###6.3###6.3###5.3###6.3###6.1

###LSD:%5###Y: 0.04 S: 0.05###C: 0.06 YxS: ns###YxC: 0.1###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca arundiinaceae

Houndog###3.9###4.0###4.9###4.1###4.2###2.7###2.8###3.7###2.8###3.0###2.5###2.4###3.5###2.4###2.7

Mustang###4.0###4.0###5.0###4.1###4.3###2.9###2.9###3.9###2.8###3.1###2.5###2.5###3.5###2.5###2.8

Finelawn###4.5###4.6###5.5###4.5###4.8###3.5###3.5###4.5###3.5###3.8###2.9###3.0###3.9###3.0###3.2

Cochise###4.2###4.2###5.2###4.2###4.5###3.0###3.1###4.0###3.1###3.3###2.7###2.7###3.7###2.7###3.0

Mean###4.2###4.2###5.2###4.2###4.4###3.0###3.1###4.0###3.1###3.3###2.7###2.7###3.7###2.7###2.9

###LSD: %5###Y: 0.04 S:0.07###C: 0.07 YxS ns###YxC:0.12###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Poa pratensis

Geronimo###6.0###6.1###5.0###5.0###5.5###5.9###6.0###4.9###4.9###5.4###5.5###5.6###4.8###4.9###5.2

Conni###5.8###5.8###4.8###4.8###5.3###5.9###6.0###4.8###4.8###5.4###5.8###5.8###4.8###4.9###5.3

Sobra###5.5###5.6###4.5###4.5###5.0###5.6###5.4###4.5###4.5###5.0###5.5###5.6###4.5###4.4###5.0

Emprima###5.5###5.4###4.5###4.5###5.0###5.4###5.4###4.5###5.4###5.2###5.4###5.4###4.4###4.4###4.9

Mean###5.7###5.7###4.7###4.7###5.2###5.7###5.7###4.7###4.9###5.2###5.6###5.6###4.6###4.7###5.1

###LSD%5###Y:0.07 S:0.08###C: 0.08 YxS:ns###YxC: 0.13###SxC:ns###YxSxC:ns

Agrostis tenuis

Highland###6.5###6.6###5.5###5.6###6.1###6.3###6.3###5.3###5.2###5.8###6.2###6.2###5.2###5.2###5.7

Highlandbend###6.0###6.0###5.0###5.0###5.5###6.0###6.0###5.0###5.0###5.5###6.0###6.0###5.0###5.0###5.5

Denso###6.6###6.6###5.6###5.6###6.1###6.1###6.1###5.1###5.2###5.6###6.1###6.1###5.1###5.2###5.6

Tracenta###6.7###6.7###5.7###5.7###6.2###6.1###6.1###5.2###5.0###5.6###6.0###6.0###5.0###5.0###5.5

Mean###6.5###6.5###5.5###5.5###6.0###6.1###6.1###5.2###5.1###5.6###6.1###6.1###5.1###5.1###5.6

###LSD %5###Y: 0.07 S: 0.09###C: 0.09 YxS: ns###YxC: 0.15###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca ovina

Pamela###8.6###8.5###8.7###8.8###8.7###8.6###8.5###8.6###8.6###8.6###8.5###8.6###8.5###8.6###8.6

Ridu###9.0###9.0###8.9###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.7###8.9###8.8###8.8###8.8###8.9###8.9###8.8###8.9

Nordic###9.0###9.0###9.0###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.7###8.9###8.8###8.8###8.8###8.9###8.9###8.8###8.9

Pintor###8.8###8.8###8.9###8.0###8.6###8.7###8.6###8.8###8.8###8.7###8.6###8.6###8.7###8.6###8.6

Mean###8.9###8.8###8.9###8.7###8.8###8.7###8.6###8.8###8.8###8.7###8.7###8.8###8.8###8.7###8.7

###LSD %5###Y: 0.06 5: ns###C: 0.07 YxS: ns###YxC: ns###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra rubra

Pemille###8.4###8.4###8.9###9.0###8.7###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6

Picnic###8.5###8.6###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.6###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.4###8.5###8.9###9.0###8.7

Victor###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5

Engina###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.2###8.3###8.7###8.8###8.5

Franldin###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.1###8.7###8.6###8.4###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5

Bargena###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.2###8.1###8.7###8.6###8.4###8.1###8.1###8.6###8.6###8.4

Mean###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.5

###LSD %5###Y: 0.07 S: 0.08###C: 0.10 YxS: ns###YxC: ns###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra trichophylla

Mocassin###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.3###9.0###9.0###8.7###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8

Suzette###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.8###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.5###8.9###8.9###8.7

Libano###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.5###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7

Napoli###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.4###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.5###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7

Mean###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.7###8.5###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7###8.5###8.5###8.9###8.9###8.7

###LSD %5###Y: ns###S: 0.06###C: 0.06 YxS: ns###YxC: ns###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra coininutata

Enjoy###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8

Ivalo###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6

Tamara###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7

Bargreen###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.3###8.7###8.7###8.5

Mean###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.6

###LSD %5###Y: ns###S: 0.06 C:0.06###YxS: ns###YxC: ns###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Table III: Weed Invasion Scores of Turf grass Species by Seasons in Different Years

###Weed invasion

###2003###2004###2005

Turfgrass###WI###Si###Su###Au###M###WI###Si###Sn###Au###M###WI###Si###Su###Au###M

Loliuni perenne

Taya###2.3###2.4###3.3###2.2###2.6###2.3###2.3###3.2###2.4###2.6###2.5###2.7###3.5###2.5###2.8

Belida###2.5###2.4###3.5###2.5###2.7###2.6###2.6###3.6###2.6###2.9###2.9###2.8###3.9###2.8###3.1

Capri###2.8###2.8###3.8###2.7###3.0###2.7###2.6###3.6###2.7###2.9###2.7###2.7###3.7###2.8###3.0

Sakini###2.2###2.1###3.2###2.3###2.5###2.2###2.3###3.2###2.3###2.5###2.2###2.2###3.2###2.2###2.5

Ovation###2.8###2.8###3.8###2.8###3.1###2.5###2.5###3.5###2.5###2.8###2.5###2.6###3.5###2.5###2.8

Delaware###2.2###2.1###3.2###2.3###2.5###2.1###2.0###3.1###2.3###2.4###2.2###2.2###3.2###2.3###2.5

Mean###2.5###2.4###3.5###2.5###2.7###2.4###2.4###3.4###2.5###2.7###2.5###2.5###3.5###2.5###2.8

###LSD:%5###Y:0.07###5:0.08###C: 0.09###YxS: ns YxC: 0.16###Sxc: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca arundllnaceae

Houndog###1.0###1.0###1.0###1.1###1.0###0.8###0.9###0.9###0.9###0.9###0.6###0.6###0.6###0.7###0.6

Mustang###0.8###0.9###1.0###1.1###1.0###0.8###1.0###1.1###1.1###1.0###0.4###0.4###0.5###0.5###0.5

Finelawn###1.2###1.3###1.3###1.3###1.3###1.0###1.0###1.0###1.1###1.0###0.9###1.0###1.2###1.2###1.1

Cochise###0.5###0.5###0.5###0.5###0.5###0.4###0.4###0.5###0.6###0.5###0.4###0.6###0.6###0.7###0.6

Mean###0.9###0.9###1.0###1.0###0.9###0.8###0.8###0.9###0.9###0.8###0.6###0.7###0.7###0.8###0.7

###LSD: %5###Y: 0.07###5:0.08 C: 0.08###YxS : ns YxC:0.13###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Poapratensis

Geronimo###5.2###5.3###5.7###4.3###5.1###7.7###7.7###6.7###6.7###7.2###8.6###8.5###7.6###7.6###8.1

Conni###5.4###5.4###5.9###4.5###5.3###7.9###7.9###6.9###7.0###7.4###8.7###8.8###7.7###7.7###8.2

Sobra###5.9###6.0###6.4###4.9###5.8###8.5###8.6###7.5###7.7###8.1###9.0###9.0###8.7###8.8###8.9

Emprima###6.0###6.0###6.5###5.0###5.9###8.5###8.6###7.5###7.5###8.0###9.0###9.0###8.6###8.7###8.8

Mean###5.6###5.7###6.1###4.7###5.5###8.2###8.2###7.2###7.2###7.7###8.8###8.8###8.2###8.2###8.5

###LSD %5 :###Y: 0.07 S:0.09###C: 0.09###YxS: 0.15 YxC: 0.15###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Agrostis tenuis

Highland###4.8###5.0###5.4###4.8###5.0###6.0###6.0###5.9###5.9###6.0###6.8###7.0###7.0###7.0###7.0

Highlandbend###4.8###5.0###5.5###4.8###5.0###6.0###6.0###5.9###5.9###6.0###6.8###7.0###6.8###6.8###6.9

Denso###5.1###5.1###5.7###5.2###5.3###5.8###5.6###5.6###5.6###5.7###7.8###7.7###7.9###7.9###7.8

Tracenta###5.3###5.3###5.8###5.3###5.4###5.8###5.8###5.8###5.8###5.8###7.8###7.8###8.0###8.0###7.9

Mean###5.0###5.1###5.6###5.0###5.2###5.9###5.9###5.8###5.8###5.8###7.3###7.4###7.4###7.4###7.4

###LSD %5###Y: 0.11 S: 0.12 C: 0.12###YxS: 0.22 YxC: 0.22 SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca ovina

Pamela###5.7###5.8###5.8###6.0###5.8###4.9###4.8###4.8###4.9###4.9###4.4###4.4###4.5###4.5###4.5

Ridu###5.5###5.5###5.5###5.5###5.5###4.6###4.6###4.5###4.7###4.6###4.1###4.0###4.1###4.0###4.1

Nordic###5.6###5.6###5.7###5.7###5.7###4.7###4.7###4.5###4.5###4.6###4.3###4.4###4.4###4.1###4.3

Pintor###5.9###6.0###6.!###6.0###6.0###5.3###5.4###5.4###5.4###5.4###4.8###4.8###4.8###4.8###4.8

Mean###5.7###5.7###5.8###5.8###5.7###4.9###4.9###4.8###4.9###4.9###4.4###4.4###4.5###4.4###4.4

###LSD%5###Y:0.08 S:ns###C:0.09###YxS:ns###YxC: 0.16###SxC:ns###YxSxC:ns

Festuca rubra rubra

Pernille###5.3###8.4###8.9###9.0###8.7###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6

Picnic###8.5###8.6###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.6###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.4###8.5###8.9###9.0###8.7

Victor###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5

Engina###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.2###8.3###8.7###8.8###8.5

Franklin###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.1###8.7###8.6###8.4###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5

Bargena###8.3###8.2###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.2###8.1###8.7###8.6###8.4###8.1###8.1###8.6###8.6###8.4

Mean###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.5###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.5

###LSD %5###Y: 0.07 S: 0.08 C: 0.10###YxS: 0.14 YxC: 0.17###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra trichophylla

Mocassin###5.6###5.6###6.0###5.3###5.6###6.8###7.5###7.7###7.6###7.4###7.5###7.9###8.0###7.9###7.8

Suzette###5.8###5.9###6.5###6.0###6.1###7.0###7.5###7.7###7.6###7.5###7.5###7.9###7.9###7.9###7.8

Libano###6.2###6.0###6.5###6.0###6.2###7.6###8.4###8.5###8.8###8.3###7.9###8.4###8.6###8.6###8.4

Napoli###6.0###5.8###6.4###5.8###6.0###7.5###8.0###8.0###8.0###7.9###7.6###8.2###8.2###8.4###8.1

Mean###5.9###5.8###6.4###5.8###6.0###7.2###7.9###8.0###8.0###7.8###7.6###8.1###8.2###8.2###8.0

###LSD%5###Y: 0.09 S: 0.10 C: 0.10###YxS: 0.18 YxC: ns###SxC: us###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra commutata

Enjoy###6.4###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8###8.5###8.5###9.0###9.0###8.8

###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6

Tamara###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.4###8.3###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.7

Bargreen###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.2###8.7###8.7###8.5###8.2###8.3###8.7###8.7###8.5

Mean###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.6###8.3###8.3###8.8###8.8###8.6###8.4###8.4###8.9###8.9###8.6

###LSD %5###Y: 0.08 S: 0.09 C:0.09###YxS: 0.16 YxC: 0.16###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Table IV: Density Scores of Turf grass Species by Seasons in Different Years

###Density

###2003###2004###2005

Turfgrass###WI###Si###Su###Au###M###WI###Si###So###Au###M###WI###Si###Sn###Au

Lolium perenne

Taya###7.5###7.5###6.5###7.3###7.2###7.7###7.8###6.7###7.8###7.5###7.9###8.0###7.0###8.1###7.8

Belida###7.0###7.2###6.0###7.2###6.9###7.9###7.6###6.9###7.7###7.5###7.8###8.1###7.0###8.1###7.8

Capri###7.7###7.7###6.7###7.8###7.5###7.8###7.8###7.0###7.7###7.6###7.9###7.9###6.9###7.8###7.6

Sakini###7.5###7.6###6.5###7.5###7.2###7.6###7.7###7.2###7.7###7.7###7.9###7.8###6.9###7.6###7.6

Ovation###7.4###7.5###6.4###7.0###7.1###7.8###7.0###6.1###7.0###7.0###8.0###8.0###7.0###8.1###7.8

Delaware###7.0###7.0###6.8###7.6###7.1###7.9###7.6###7.0###7.8###7.6###8.1###8.0###7.1###8.3###7.9

Mean###7.4###7.4###6.5###7.4###7.1###7.8###7.6###6.8###7.6###7.5###7.9###7.9###7.0###8.0###7.7

###LSD:%S###Y: 0.07 S:0.08###C: 0.10###YxS: ns YxC: 0.17###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca arundinaceae

Houndog###8.0###8.2###8.3###8.1###8.2###8.5###8.6###8.7###8.6###8.6###8.9###9.0###8.9###8.9###8.9

Mustang###8.8###8.8###8.8###8.8###8.8###8.9###9.0###9.0###8.9###9.0###8.9###9.0###9.0###8.9###9.0

Finelawn###8.5###8.6###8.7###8.6###8.6###8.7###8.7###8.7###8.8###8.7###8.5###8.5###8.6###8.4###8.5

Cochise###8.2###8.2###8.3###8.2###8.2###8.5###8.6###8.5###8.6###8.6###8.7###8.8###8.9###8.8###8.8

Mean###8.4###8.5###8.5###8.4###8.4###8.7###8.7###8.7###8.7###8.7###8.8###8.8###8.9###8.8###8.8

###LSD: %5###Y: 0.09 S: ns###C: 0.07###YxS : ns YxC: 0.17 SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Poapratensis

Geronimo###2.1###2.2###1.5###2.1###2.0###1.9###1.8###1.4###1.9###1.8###1.5###1.7###1.0###1.7###1.5

Conni###1.8###1.9###1.3###1.7###1.7###1.6###1.6###1.1###1.6###1.5###1.5###1.7###1.0###1.5###1.4

Sobra###1.8###1.8###1.3###1.7###1.7###1.4###1.3###0.9###1.3###1.2###1.0###1.1###0.7###1.2###1.0

Emprima###1.7###1.8###1.2###1.5###1.6###1.3###1.3###0.8###1.3###1.2###1.1###1.1###0.6###1.1###1.0

Mean###1.9###1.9###1.3###1.8###1.7###1.6###1.5###1.1###1.5###1.4###1.3###1.4###0.8###1.4###1.2

###LSD%S###Y:0.06 S:0.07###C:0.07###YxS:ns YxC:0.12###SxC:ns###YxSxC:ns

Agrostis tenths

Highland###2.5###2.5###2.0###2.6###2.4###2.4###2.5###2.0###2.4###2.3###2.8###2.9###2.3###3.1###2.8

Highlandbend###2.5###2.6###2.0###2.5###2.4###2.6###2.7###2.1###2.6###2.5###2.7###2.7###2.2###2.8###2.6

Denso###2.9###3.0###2.4###3.0###2.8###2.8###2.9###2.3###3.0###2.8###2.8###2.9###2.3###2.9###2.7

Tracenta###2.8###2.7###2.3###2.8###2.7###2.4###2.5###2.0###2.5###2.4###2.7###2.6###2.2###2.6###2.5

Mean###2.7###2.7###2.2###2.7###2.6###2.6###2.7###2.1###2.6###2.5###2.8###2.8###2.3###2.9###2.7

###LSD %5###Y: 0.12 5:0.14###C: 0.14###YxS: ns YxC: 0.24###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca ovina

Pamela###3.5###3.4###3.5###3.6###3.5###2.6###2.5###2.5###2.7###2.6###2.0###2.0###1.9###1.8###1.9

###3.7###3.8###3.7###3.7###3.7###2.8###2.8###2.9###3.3###3.0###2.2###2.2###2.2###2.0###2.2

Nordic###3.8###3.8###3.7###3.9###3.8###2.5###2.5###2.6###2.6###2.6###2.3###2.4###2.5###2.3###2.4

Pintor###3.9###3.9###4.1###4.1###4.0###3.0###3.1###3.0###3.0###3.0###2.4###2.6###2.5###2.3###2.5

###3.7###3.7###3.8###3.8###3.8###2.7###2.7###2.8###2.9###2.8###2.2###2.3###2.3###2.1###2.2

###LSD %5###Y: 0.09 S: ns###C: 0.11###YxS: ns YxC: 0.19###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra nibra

Pernille###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.1###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.2###1.9###2.0###1.9###1.8###1.6###1.9###1.8

Picnic###2.2###2.2###2.3###2.2###2.2###2.1###2.!###2.3###2.0###2.1###1.8###1.8###1.7###1.7###1.8

Victor###2.5###2.6###2.5###2.7###2.6###2.6###2.4###2.4###2.3###2.4###2.0###2.0###1.9###1.9###2.0

Engina###2.1###2.2###2.3###2.0###2.2###2.0###2.0###2.2###2.0###2.1###2.0###2.0###1.9###1.9###2.0

Franklin###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.2###2.2###2.3###2.2###2.2###2.1###2.2###2.2###2.1###2.2

Bargena###3.0###3.0###3.0###3.0###3.0###2.7###2.9###3.1###2.9###2.9###2.3###2.3###2.4###2.4###2.4

Mean###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.4###2.3###2.3###2.4###2.2###2.3###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.0

###LSD %5###Y: 0.07 5: ns###C: 0.10###YxS: ns YxC: 0.17###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra trichophylla

Mocassin###2.7###2.9###2.9###3.1###2.9###2.3###2.5###2.6###2.8###2.6###2.0###2.3###2.5###2.6###2.4

Suzette###2.6###2.6###2.5###2.4###2.5###2.0###2.0###2.2###2.2###2.1###1.9###1.9###1.9###1.9###1.9

Libano###2.5###2.4###2.5###2.5###2.5###2.2###2.2###2.2###2.3###2.2###1.9###1.9###1.7###1.8###1.8

Napoli###2.5###2.5###2.4###2.3###2.4###2.1###2.0###2.0###2.1###2.1###2.1###2.2###2.1###2.1###2.1

Mean###2.6###2.6###2.6###2.6###2.6###2.2###2.2###2.3###2.4###2.2###2.0###2.1###2.1###2.1###2.1

###LSD %5###Y: 0.07 S: ns###C: 0.09###YxS: ns YxC: 0.15###SxC: 0.17 YxSxC: ns

Festuca rubra commutata

Enjoy###2.8###3.0###2.8###2.9###2.9###2.8###2.8###2.9###2.7###2.8###2.5###2.3###2.2###2.2###2.3

Ivalo###2.5###2.5###2.4###2.5###2.5###2.6###2.7###2.7###2.6###2.7###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.0###2.0

Tamara###2.5###2.5###2.5###2.4###2.5###2.7###2.7###2.8###2.6###2.7###2.1###2.0###2.1###2.0###2.1

Bargreen###2.3###2.2###2.1###2.1###2.2###2.5###2.5###2.4###2.3###2.4###2.2###2.2###2.3###2.0###2.2

Mean###2.5###2.6###2.5###2.5###2.5###2.7###2.7###2.7###2.6###2.6###2.2###2.1###2.2###2.1###2.1

###LSD %5:###Y:0.10 S: ns###C: 0.11###YxS: ns YxC :0.19###SxC: ns###YxSxC: ns

Yilmaz and Avcioglu (2000) indicated the superiority of F. arundinaceae also under the conditions of transitional zone of Anatolian Peninsula. Barton (1997) declared very similar statements for F. arundinaceae under very hot summer conditions. Youngner et al. (1981) compared F. arundinaceae with P. pratensis and found that former turf grass performed for better than latter with regard to weed competition, root depth, establishment and drought resistance. Our results of texture, weed invasion and density scores confirmed this statement and the findings of Kir et al. (2010) and Demiroglu et al. (2010). Acikgoz (1994) and Avcioglu (1997) clearly stated that P. pratensis is a cold resistant cool season turf grass and not a proper turf grass for hot and dry environments.

Intermediate level of texture and reasonable density and weed invasion scores of L. perenne cultivars ranked this turf grass second among all other turf grasses tested in the experiment. Sustainable performance of Delaware and Ovation cultivars throughout the three years proved the relatively reasonable adaptability of this turf grass species to Mediterranean environment. Barton (1997) stated that L. perenne establishes very rapidly and is included in grass mixtures to provide a quick cover. Many research workers, studying under Mediterranean conditions reported that L. perenne is a proper turf grass to be included in mixtures. (Beard, 1973; Harivandi et al., 1984; Acikgoz, 1994; Avcioglu, 1997; Barton, 1997; Kir et al., 2010).

Although the inter-and intra-species variations were highly significant in P. pratensis, A. tenuis and F. ovina, limited performances of those species in terms of density and weed competition made it clear that they are not favorable turf grasses for Mediterranean conditions of the experimental area. Our results were confirmed by Beard (1973) and Kir et al. (2010)'s statements, while Russi et al. (2001)'s results were not compatible with our findings. However, high texture scores of F. ovina cultivars were not negligible and confirmed the statements of Acikgoz (1994) and Avcioglu (1997), advising this turf grass to use in limited rates mixtures to obtain a relatively fine textured turf.

Very limited performances of three F. rubra subspecies cultivars, although their texture scores were favourable proved that those turf grasses were not proper turf components for Mediterranean environments. In another word, low competitive ability and density scores of those cultivars were the indication of being physiologically worse endowed to cope with the ecological conditions of Mediterranean climate (Daget, 1985; Zorer et al., 2009).

CONCLUSION

All F. arundinaceae cultivars (Finelawn, Mustang, Cochise and Houndog) performed best under Mediterranean conditions although the texture scores were quite limited.

The cultivars of L. perenne ranked second among all cultivars tested in the experiment and cultivars Ovation and Delaware were promising genotypes in this group. Cultivars Geronimo and Conni displayed relatively recommendable texture scores. All cultivars of A. tenuis, F. ovina and F. rubra subspecies indicated very limited capacity to cope with the Mediterranean environmental conditions.

REFERENCES

Acikgoz, E., 1994. Turf Areas, Techniques of Establishment and Maintenance. Environmental landscape, Publish, Bursa

Acikgoz, N., E. Ilker and A. Gokcol, 2004. Assessment of Biological Research on the Computer. EU TOTEM, Izmir

Anonymous, 2001. Technical Instruction for Agronomical Evaluation Experiments. Turf grass, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs, TTSM, Ankara-Turkey

Aronson, L.J., A.J. Gold and R.J. Hull, 1987. Cool Season Turf grass Responses to Drought Stress. Crop Sci., 27: 1261-1266 Avcioglu, R., 1997. Turf Technique (Turf Establishment and Management). Ege University Press, Izmir, Turkey

Barton, S., 1997. Turf grass Selection for Delaware. http: //ag.udel.edu/extension/horticulture/pdf/hyg/hyg-39.pdf

Beard, J.B., 1973. Turf grass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

Belisario, A., E. Forti, A. Santori and L. Corazza, 2001. Alcune malattie fungine di tappeti erbosi. Inform. Fitopatol., 51: 43-45

Daget, P., 1985. The Mediterranean bio climates and some of their consequences on vegetation. Int. Turf Grass Soc. Res. J., 5: 25-35

Demiroglu, G., H. Geren, B. Kir and R. Avcioglu, 2010. Performances of Some Cool Season Turf Grass Cultivars in Mediterranean Environment: II. Festuca arundinacea Scherb., Festuca ovina L., Festuca rubra spp. rubra L., Festuca rubra spp. trichophylla Gaud and Festuca rubra spp. commutata Gaud. Turkish J. Field Crop.,15: 180-187

Kacar, B., 1986. Fertilizer and Techniques of Fertilization, p: 439. Publications of Ziraat Bank, Ankara, Turkey

Kir, B., R. Avcioglu, G. Demiroglu and A. Simic, 2010. Performances of Some Cool Season Turfgrass Species in Mediterranean Environment: I. Lolium perenne L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Poa pratensis L., and Agrostis tenuis Sibth. Turkish J. Field Crops, 15: 174-179

Kusvuran, A. and V. Tansi, 2009. Determining the best suitable turf grass species, mixtures and turf performance for Cukurova conditions. Ph. D Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Cukurova University, Cukurova, Turkey

Martiniello, P. and E.D. Andrea, 2006. Cool-season turf grass species adaptability in Mediterranean environments and quality traits of varieties. Necessary Inform., 25: 234-242

Morris, K.N. and R.C. Shearman, 2000. The national turf grass evaluation program: assessing new and improved varieties. Diversity, 16: 19-22

Russi, L., P. Annicchiarico, P. Martiniello, C. Tomasoni, E. Piano and F. Veronesi, 2004. Turf Quality and Reliability in Varieties of Four Turf grass Species in Contrasting Italian Environments. Grass Forage Sci., 59: 233-239

Salman, A. and R. Avcioglu, 2010. Performances of some cool season turf grasses in different fertilizer doses. Journal of, Faculty of Agriculture, Vol. 47 (3). Ege University Izmir, Turkey Kamal-uddin, M., A.S. Juraimi, M. Begum, R.M. Ismail, A.A. Rahim and R. Othman, 2009. Floristic composition of weed community in turf grass area of west Peninsular Malaysia. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 11: 13- 20

Van Huylenbroeck, J.M., P. Lootens and E. Van Bockstaele, 1999. Photosynthetic characteristics of perennial ryegrass and red fescue turf-grass cultivars. Grass Forage Sci., 54: 267-274

Volterrani, M., S. Miele, S. Magni, M. Gaetani and G. Pardini, 2001. Bermuda-grass and seashore paspalum winter overseeded with seven cool-season turf grasses. Int. Turf grass Soc. Res. J., 9: 957-961

Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, 35100, Izmir, Turkey

Ege University, Bayindir Training Collage, Landscape and Ornamental Plants Program, Izmir, Turkey
COPYRIGHT 2011 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Demiroglu, Gulcan; Avcioglu , Riza; Kir, Behcet; Salman , Ali
Publication:International Journal of Agriculture and Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7TURK
Date:Aug 31, 2011
Words:8223
Previous Article:Histological Alterations in Cyprinus carpio Kidney Due to Sublethal Concentrations of Chromium Hexavalent.
Next Article:Evapotranspiration, Water Use Efficiency and Yield of Rainfed and Irrigated Tomato.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters