Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Cool‐Season Turfgrass Responses to Drought Stress1

Cool‐Season Turfgrass Responses to Drought Stress1 As the supply of water available for turf irrigation becomes limited, it is important to identify water‐efficient and drought‐tolerant turfgrasses. To establish the critical soil water potential at which cool‐season turfgrasses begin to experience drought stress, the growth and quality responses of Poa pratensis L. ‘Baron’, Lolium perenne L. ‘Yorktown II’, Festuca rubra var. commutata Gaud. ‘Jamestown’ and Festuca ovina var. duriuscula (L.) Koch ‘Tournament’ drought stress were compared in a greenhouse study. Evapotranspiration (ET) rates were measured using weighing lysimeters containing undisturbed cores of mature turf growing in a silt loams oil. Tensiometers and electrical resistance blocks were installed in a separate set of eight lysimeters containing L. perenne to determine the relationship between water loss due to ET and soil water potential. The ET rates of all grasses were unaffected until the soil water potential reached −50 to −80 kPa. During further soil water depletion, ET rates declined and drought stress symptoms became apparent. Leaf water potential of P. pratensis and L. perenne decreased by 50 to 75% when soil water potential declined to −80 kPa, while that of Festuca species remained relatively constant to a soil water potential of −400 kPa. Based on the parameters measured, P. pratensis and L. perenne exhibited a more rapid decline in ET rate, quality, and leaf growth under moisture stress than the two Festuca species, which demonstrated greater ability to thrive with limited soil moisture. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Crop Science Wiley

Cool‐Season Turfgrass Responses to Drought Stress1

Aronson, L. J.; Gold, A. J.; Hull, R. J.
Crop Science , Volume 27 (6) – Nov 1, 1987
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/cool-season-turfgrass-responses-to-drought-stress1-3ukdLw81NI

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© Crop Science Society of America
ISSN
0011-183X
eISSN
1435-0653
DOI
10.2135/cropsci1987.0011183X002700060035x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

As the supply of water available for turf irrigation becomes limited, it is important to identify water‐efficient and drought‐tolerant turfgrasses. To establish the critical soil water potential at which cool‐season turfgrasses begin to experience drought stress, the growth and quality responses of Poa pratensis L. ‘Baron’, Lolium perenne L. ‘Yorktown II’, Festuca rubra var. commutata Gaud. ‘Jamestown’ and Festuca ovina var. duriuscula (L.) Koch ‘Tournament’ drought stress were compared in a greenhouse study. Evapotranspiration (ET) rates were measured using weighing lysimeters containing undisturbed cores of mature turf growing in a silt loams oil. Tensiometers and electrical resistance blocks were installed in a separate set of eight lysimeters containing L. perenne to determine the relationship between water loss due to ET and soil water potential. The ET rates of all grasses were unaffected until the soil water potential reached −50 to −80 kPa. During further soil water depletion, ET rates declined and drought stress symptoms became apparent. Leaf water potential of P. pratensis and L. perenne decreased by 50 to 75% when soil water potential declined to −80 kPa, while that of Festuca species remained relatively constant to a soil water potential of −400 kPa. Based on the parameters measured, P. pratensis and L. perenne exhibited a more rapid decline in ET rate, quality, and leaf growth under moisture stress than the two Festuca species, which demonstrated greater ability to thrive with limited soil moisture.

Journal

Crop Science – Wiley

Published: Nov 1, 1987

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

There are no references for this article.