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

This Article Abstract 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 (15) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abraham, E. M. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Abraham, E. M. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Agricola Articles by Abraham, E. M. Articles by Meyer, W. A. Related Collections Water Stress Turfgrass

Evaluation of Drought Resistance for Texas Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, and Their Hybrids

^a Lab. of Range Sci., Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
^b Dep. of Plant Biology and Pathology, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Variation in (A) relative water content, (B) photochemical efficiency, and (C) electrolyte leakage among 33 genotypes of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and hybrids during the first cycle of drought stress. Each data point at a given day of treatment represents one genotype.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Classification of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids in three cluster groups based on relative water content (RWC), photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm), and electrolyte leakage (EL) under drought stress.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Turf quality and leaf wilting rates of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids during the second test of drought stress. Open squares represent the high resistance group, and diamonds represent the low and moderate resistance group.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A) Relative water content, (B) leaf photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm), and (C) electrolyte leakage as affected by drought stress in low, moderate, and high drought resistance group of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids during the first test. Bars on the lines represent standard error of mean and vertical bars at the top or bottom of the figure indicate LSD values (P 0.05) for group comparison at a given day of treatment.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Percentage of (A) green leaves, (B) leaves wilting, and (C) turf quality as affected by drought stress in the low, moderate, and high drought resistance groups of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids in the first test. Bars on the lines represent standard error of mean and vertical bars at the top or bottom of the figure indicate LSD values (P 0.05) for group comparison at a given day of treatment.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (A) Turf quality and (B) dry weight of clippings yield of drought-stressed plants following rewatering in low, moderate, and high drought resistance groups of Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids. Bars on the lines represent standard error of mean and vertical bars at the top or bottom of the figure indicate LSD values (P 0.05) for group comparison at a given day of treatment.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Correlation of physiological parameters under drought stress [(A) leaf photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) at 35 d of drought stress, (B) percentage of green leaves at 42 d of drought stress, (C) relative water content at 35 d of drought stress, (D) leaf wilting score at 42 d of drought stress] and turf quality recovery following rewatering for Texas bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and their hybrids. * Significant at P = 0.05. ** Significant at P = 0.01.