HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Koh, K. J. Articles by Walker, N. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Koh, K. J. Articles by Walker, N. R. Agricola Articles by Koh, K. J. Articles by Walker, N. R. Related Collections Turfgrass Management

TURFGRASS SCIENCE

Shade and Airflow Restriction Effects on Creeping Bentgrass Golf Greens

^a Dep. Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
^b Dep. Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

^* Corresponding author (bgregor{at}okstate.edu).

Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) golf greens are often shaded by trees and surrounded by shrubs or brush that restrict airflow. The objective of this study was to compare and independently evaluate turfgrass responses to light reduction and airflow restriction in ‘L93’ and ‘SR1020’ creeping bentgrass. Artificial structures (122 by 122 cm) were assembled from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and covered with black, woven polyester shade cloth (80% light reduction) to provide treatment effects. Shade cloth was applied to the structures to reduce irradiance and allow airflow or reduce airflow and allow irradiance. Plots were rated monthly for canopy, soil, and air temperature, visual color, density, and disease, soil moisture, root mass, and root glucose and fructose. Canopy and soil temperatures were lower in shade than in airflow restriction and uncovered, unsurrounded control turf. Canopy temperature was higher in airflow restriction than control but soil temperatures did not differ. Both shade and airflow restriction had a negative effect on turf color in L93. Airflow restriction caused a greater reduction in mean color rating than shade in SR1020 but shade color did not differ from control. Turf density declined in both cultivars due to both airflow restriction and shade compared with control. Air restriction reduced density more than shade in SR1020 but not in L93. The severity of brown patch (caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn) and dollar spot (caused by Sclerotinia homoeocarpa F.T. Bennett) in shade was less than in airflow restriction in both cultivars and less than control in SR1020. Soil moisture did not differ among treatments. Root mass was affected by both shade and airflow restriction in both cultivars and declined more rapidly in shade than in airflow restriction. Root glucose and fructose were not significantly affected by treatments.

Abbreviations: HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography • PAR, photosynthetically active radiation • TNC, total nonstructural carbohydrates

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Xing, Y. Xu, J. Tian, T. Gianfagna, and B. Huang Suppression of Shade- or Heat-induced Leaf Senescence in Creeping Bentgrass through Transformation with the ipt Gene for Cytokinin Synthesis J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., November 1, 2009; 134(6): 602 - 609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. Baldwin, H. Liu, L. B. McCarty, H. Luo, C. E. Wells, and J. E. Toler Impacts of Altered Light Spectral Quality on Warm Season Turfgrass Growth under Greenhouse Conditions Crop Sci., June 26, 2009; 49(4): 1444 - 1453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]