1 / 42

Kentucky Bluegrass Characterization and Blending Strategies

Kentucky Bluegrass Characterization and Blending Strategies . Leah A. Brilman, Ph.D. Research Director Seed Research of Oregon. Why Blends and Mixtures. No perfect grass cultivar Increased genetic diversity Strengths and weaknesses matched Natural selection for microenvironments

issac
Download Presentation

Kentucky Bluegrass Characterization and Blending Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kentucky Bluegrass Characterization and Blending Strategies

  2. Leah A. Brilman, Ph.D.Research DirectorSeed Research of Oregon

  3. Why Blends and Mixtures • No perfect grass cultivar • Increased genetic diversity • Strengths and weaknesses matched • Natural selection for microenvironments • Insurance policy • Match color, growth form carefully • Price competiveness

  4. Why Blends and Mixtures • Kentucky bluegrass apomictic • Single genotype - other turfgrass species are mixture of genotypes • Vegetative cultivars comparison • Vegetative bentgrasses • Vegetative bermudas, zoysias, St. Augustine • Merion Kentucky bluegrass - stripe smut • Not just for disease resistance

  5. Why Blends and Mixtures • Sports Turf Needs • Rapid establishment • Strong lateral spread • High shoot density • High sod tensile-strengthRapid repair of wear • Late fall, winter and early spring growth • Shade tolerance • Abiotic and biotic stress resistance

  6. Types of KentuckyBluegrasses • Compact Types CELA Type • Compact BVMG Type • Midnight Shamrock type • America Cheri Type • Aggressive Type Julia Type • Bellevue Type Common Type • Mid-Atlantic Type Other Type

  7. Midnight Type Cultivars • Do not have blend of only this type • Very dark green color • Low, compact growth • High quality turf • 1/2 inch cutting height • Excellent resistance to leaf spot • Long winter dormancy • Most do poor in the shade • High heat tolerance

  8. Midnight Type Cultivars • Midnight Arcadia • Liberator Odyssey • NuGlade Perfection • Tsunami Chicago II • Awesome Excursion • Freedom II Barrister • Beyond Rugby II • Impact Quantum Leap • Absolute Award • Total Eclipse Midnight II

  9. America Type Cultivars • Bright dark green color • Low, compact growth • 1/2 inch cutting height • Excellent resistance to leaf spot, powdery mildew • Finer leaf, higher density • Moderate winter dormancy • Moderate summer recovery • High summer patch resistance • Good in shade

  10. America Type Cultivars • America Showcase • Apollo SR 2284 • Unique SR 2394 • BrilliantLangara • Avalanche Blue Ridge • Glenmont Royale • Lakeshore Goldstar • Arrow Mallard

  11. SR2394/Arcadia Kentucky

  12. Shamrock Type • Moderate winter color • Good resistance to leaf spot • Good turf quality and sod strength • Billbug susceptible • High seed yields • Less stemmy than BVMG types • Summer performance variable • This type is an excellent substitute for BVMG type - Higher quality with reduced costs • Shamrock Type Varieties • Shamrock SR 2100 • Champagne Atlantis • Parkland

  13. BVMG Type Cultivars • High seed yields • Medium-good turf • Drought tolerance • Medium low growth • Medium wide leaves • Very stemmy in spring • Good resistance to necrotic ring spot • Often used to reduce costs, can reduce quality

  14. BVMG Type Cultivars • Baron Cannon • Victa Merit • Gnome Clearwater • Goldrush Dragon • Abbey BlueStar • Crest Nassua • Raven Marquis • BlueChip Fortuna • Envicta Baronette

  15. Aggressive Type • Aggressive lateral growth • High shoot density • Very wear tolerant • Quickly knit sod and repair • May predominate in blend • Variable in other characteristics

  16. Julia Type • High turf quality • High density • Good summer performance • Moderate winter performance • Good leaf spot, stripe smut resistance • Susceptible to brown patch and dollar spot • High winter wear tolerance • Julia Type Varieties • Julia SR 27832 • Caliber Ikone

  17. Bellevue Type • Medium growth and shoot density • Medium wide leaves • Excellent winter color, early spring green-up • Stemmy in spring • Moderate recovery from summer • Good leaf spot, stripe smut resistance • Susceptible to billbugs • Bellevue Type Varieties • Bellevue Suffolk • Georgetown Parade • Classic Dawn

  18. Mid-Atlantic Type • Deep extensive roots and rhizomes • Vigorous turf and medium-high density • High summer stress tolerance • Early spring green-up • Good winter performance • Rapid recovery from disease • Mid-Atlantic Type Varieties • Monopoly SR 2000 • Preakness Eagleton • Livingston Plush • Wabash

  19. Common Type • Erect growth and narrow leaf blades • Good summer stress tolerance • May go dormant in summer • High leaf spot susceptibility • Poor winter color and performance • Early seed production, dryland • Common type Varieties • South Dakota Kenblue • Geary Park • S-21 Newport • Alene Ginger • Garfield Piedmont • Huntsville

  20. Science and nonscience of blends • Blending of resistant / susceptible varieties • Creeping bentgrass - dollar spot • (Abernathy, et al. 2001. Crop Sci. 41:806-809.) • Crenshaw - susceptible, L-93 resistant, others • Blends of resistant and moderately resistant cultivars with Crenshaw reduced dollar spot from 46 to 67 % less infection centers and 71 to 91% less blighted area • Benefit of including Crenshaw for heat tolerance

  21. Science and nonscience of blends • Kentucky bluegrass • (Vargas and Turgeon, 1980. Proc. Third ITRC 45-52.) • Melting-out resistance of blend of two • cultivars intermediate between same • cultivars in monostands • Inoculum from susceptible cultivar reduced • resistance of resistant cultivar • Blends of two cultivars generally show resistance intermediate between each alone

  22. Science and nonscience of blends • Problems with disease resistance data • Disease organism not verified • Large CV in disease data - uneven in trial • Disease races • Different in different locations • Change over time • Stripe smut - Merion, Adelphi and BVMG • Dollar spot in bentgrasses • Summer patch

  23. Summer patch • 96-00 NJ NTEP 91-95 MD NTEP • Summer Summer • Cultivar Patch Patch • SR 2000 6.8 8.5 • Unique 8.2 7.8 • Nustar 5.4 7.7 • Eclipse 8.2 7.5 • Midnight 7.3 7.5 • SR 2100 7.8 7.5 • Blacksburg 4.5 7.3 • LSD@5% 1.8 1.5

  24. Science and nonscience of blends • Early blend analysis - Dr. Funk, Rutgers • Sprigged out plants to ID • Aggressive types dominated • Aggressive types based on invasion in plots • New DNA techniques allow blend analysis • (Lickfeldt et al, 2002. Crop Sci. 42:842-847.) • 3-way blend - Unique, Midnight, Blacksburg • Different management, % of each at seeding • Final composition, 40%, 46%, 14%

  25. Science and nonscience of blends • Stiers et al. 2003. • Most cool-season turf areas and athletic fields are mixtures of Poa pratensis and Lolium perenne • A 50:50 sward is desirable for traction, • recovery, and disease resistance • L. perenne germinates quickly and can outcompete P. pratensis seedlings

  26. Science and nonscience of blends • Main plot: % P. pratensis:L. perenne • 95:5 90:10 85:15 75:25 • 65:35 50:50 25:75 • Sub-plot: P. pratensis type • Aggressive: Touchdown, Limousine, Fairfax • BVMG: Victa, Merit, Cannon • Compact: Midnight, Indigo, Alpine • Common: Alene, Kenblue, Ronde

  27. Composition of P. pratensis (PP) and L. perenne (LP) Turf Stands with wear

  28. Science and nonscience of blends • Turf quality occasionally better with primarily • Poa pratensis. • All types of P. pratensis provided similar • results except for common types • At least 85% P. pratensis needed in seed mixture to provide approximately 50:50 Poa:Lolium turf sward • Fairfax predominated in Aggressive blend although classified as Other.

  29. Science and nonscience of blends • How to determine which cultivar will • predominate in a blend? • How to predict aggressiveness? • Dependent on components • Dependent on environment • Competitive environment

  30. Components of IL Blend • 1996 - 2000 NTEP • Cultivar Mean length/width UB Sod Strength • 7/97 11/98 MD NE Mean • Princeton 105 28.5 65.3 28.7 42.8 35.8 • Unique 29.1 59.9 22.3 38.7 30.5 • Midnight 26.0 56.4 21.0 37.7 29.3 • Blacksburg 23.6 47.8 19.7 10.8 15.3 • Limousine 22.9 36.6 15.7 21.0 18.3 • LSD@5% 4.7 8.0 5.4 20.9 14.6

  31. Components of IL Blend • 96-00 NTEP 91-95 NTEP • Leaf Seedling Leaf Seedling • Cultivar Spot Vigor Spot Vigor • Blacksburg 7.1 5.1 7.8 3.0 • Midnight 6.8 5.1 6.8 5.1 • Unique 5.2 5.3 6.8 5.2 • LSD@5% 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8

  32. Components of IL Blend • Lickfeldt et al, 2002. Golf Course Management. • Third site reported, Univ. of IL • Managed as lawn, year after • establishment no irrigation or herbicides • Blacksburg 24%, Unique 35%, • Midnight41%. • Higher percentage Blacksburg. • Blacksburg good stress survival, dark color

  33. Science and nonscience of blends • How to determine which cultivar will • predominate in a blend? • How to predict aggressiveness? • Further studies to compare competitiveness • within and between types • Compare in varying environments • Climatic zones, wear, shade, management • Coordinate with NTEP / Financing?

  34. Science and nonscience of blends • How to determine which cultivar will • predominate in a blend? • Examination of blends with sports field management - Irrigated, nonirrigated • Look at blends after wear during different seasons • Management after wear • Sports managers work with universities to examine

  35. Science and nonscience of blends • Why combine types in blends? • Each type has weakness as well as strengths • Single type has weaknesses • Midnight types - powdery mildew, winter color • America types - not as dark green • Aggressive - dominate in blends • Shamrock types - billbug susceptible • BVMG - Very stemmy turf, poor winter performance, stripe smut susceptible

  36. Science and nonscience of blends • How to select best in type? • Ask breeders what varieties are in type • Visit local test sites • Review data from similar locations • Examine data for important characteristics • Data can be sorted by NTEP for special reports • Darkest in type • Establishment rate • Influenced by age of seed • Important diseases

  37. Science and nonscience of blends • Cultivar availability • Seed availability and price • No production of low yielding varieties • Hard to determine yields outside fields • Seed quality - true sod quality • Previous agreements with other buyers • Blends by seed companies - each company only has access to certain varieties

  38. Long Term Performance • Older cultivars may no longer be available • Looking at sod older than 6 years may find information not useful • Many varieties in 1990 to 1995 NTEP no • longer produced • Some types are seeing less varietal • development such as Bellevue or CELA types • Decisions on development often made first few years of trials

  39. Conclusions • Blends do provide benefit • Best method and number of types uncertain • Kentucky bluegrasses difficult to breed • Multiple Julia hybrids - little improvement • Unique type hybrids - good potential • Mid-Atlantic types - difficult to obtain seed • Cooperative work breeders and NTEP to • define types and publish • Contributions to looking at competitiveness in different environments and management • Tall fescue/ bluegrass blends need to be examined

  40. Texas x Kentucky bluegrass • Female P. arachnifera x P. pratensis • Texas bluegrass drought and heat tolerant • Kentucky bluegrass higher quality • Combine attributes • Can be used with tall fescue • Selection for improved establishment • Apomixis needs to be restored • Improved types • Reveille - Dr. James Reed, Texas A&M • Scott’s Company - Thermal Blue • SRX 2TK95 in initial increase

  41. Texas x Kentucky bluegrass

  42. Texas x Kentucky bluegrass

More Related