Cool-Season Turfgrass Germination and Morphological Development Comparisons at Adjusted Osmotic Potentials

被引:7
|
作者
Goatley, Michael [1 ]
Hensler, Kevin [2 ]
Askew, Shawn [2 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Tech, CSES, 420 Smyth Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
[2] Virginia Tech, PPWS, 435 Old Glade Rd, Blacksburg, VA USA
关键词
SEED-GERMINATION; DROUGHT TOLERANCE; WATER-STRESS; GRASSES; GROWTH; RATES;
D O I
10.2135/cropsci2016.06.0482
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
One of the major factors limiting seed germination and seedling development in a low-input, low-maintenance environment is soil moisture availability, yet little is known about the germination response of cool-season turfgrasses to differing osmotic potentials. Controlled-environment studies were conducted to identify germination characteristics of cool-season turfgrass species experiencing water-restricted conditions. At osmotic potentials between 0.0 and -1.6 MPa, perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) germinated more and had greater radicle lengths than tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort], hard fescue (Festuca brevipila Tracey), strong creeping red fescue (F. rubra ssp. rubra L.), Chewings fescue [Festuca rubra L. ssp. fallax (Thuill.) Nyman], and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.). Under higher osmotic potentials of 0.0 to -0.8 MPa, strong creeping red fescue had the greatest plumule lengths, but only perennial ryegrass was able to maintain significant plumule length at an osmotic potential of -1.2 MPa. Generally speaking and with some deviation between species, decreasing water potential between 0 and -0.7 MPa serves primarily to delay germination while decreasing water potential between -0.7 and -1.6 serves primarily to prevent germination. Based on germination occurrences and initial radicle and plumule length development at decreasing osmotic potentials, utilizing perennial ryegrass in turfgrass seed mixtures may enhance establishment under low soil moisture conditions.
引用
收藏
页码:S201 / S208
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cool-Season Turfgrass Reseeding Intervals for Methiozolin
    McCullough, Patrick E.
    Gomez de Barreda, Diego
    WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 26 (04) : 789 - 792
  • [2] Cool-season turfgrass: Estimating water use
    Kerr, G
    Pochop, L
    Teegarden, T
    JOURNAL AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, 1996, 88 (01): : 91 - 96
  • [3] COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS RESPONSES TO DROUGHT STRESS
    ARONSON, LJ
    GOLD, AJ
    HULL, RJ
    CROP SCIENCE, 1987, 27 (06) : 1261 - 1266
  • [4] Impact of Salinity on Germination and Seedling Growth of Four Cool-Season Turfgrass Species and Cultivars
    Tenikecier, Hazim
    Ates, Ertan
    POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, 2022, 31 (02): : 1813 - 1821
  • [5] FACTORS INFLUENCING FENOXAPROP EFFICACY IN COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS
    NEAL, JC
    BHOWMIK, PC
    SENESAC, AF
    WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1990, 4 (02) : 272 - 278
  • [6] Cool-season turfgrass response to bispyribac-sodium
    Lycan, DW
    Hart, SE
    HORTSCIENCE, 2005, 40 (05) : 1552 - 1555
  • [7] Cool-season turfgrass species mixtures for roadsides in Minnesota
    Friell, Joshua
    Watkins, Eric
    Horgan, Brian
    ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 84 : 579 - 587
  • [8] Sod Strength Characteristics of 51 Cool-Season Turfgrass Mixtures
    Friell, Joshua
    Watkins, Eric
    Horgan, Brian P.
    Cavanaugh, Matthew
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2017, 109 (04) : 1749 - 1757
  • [9] BERMUDAGRASS AND COOL-SEASON TURFGRASS MIXTURES - RESPONSE TO SIMULATED TRAFFIC
    DUNN, JH
    MINNER, DD
    FRESENBURG, BF
    BUGHRARA, SS
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1994, 86 (01) : 10 - 16
  • [10] Biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nitrogen in cool-season turfgrass systems
    Law, Quincy D.
    Patton, Aaron J.
    URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING, 2017, 26 : 158 - 162