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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beasley, J. S. Articles by Spomer, L. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Beasley, J. S. Articles by Spomer, L. A. Agricola Articles by Beasley, J. S. Articles by Spomer, L. A. Related Collections Turfgrass Management Plant Growth Regulators Turfgrass

Plant Growth Regulators Alter Kentucky Bluegrass Canopy Leaf Area and Carbon Exchange

^a 226 J.C. Miller Hall, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
^b Dep. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Illinois, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Clipping biomass of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) in spring and summer 2003. Data were analyzed using raw clipping biomass but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*); TE reduced rate of 0.5x label rate and TE label rate (); and TE high rate of 1.5x label rate and TE label rate (). The line at the 100% represents the control. WAT, weeks after treatment.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Clipping biomass of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) in spring and summer 2004. Data were analyzed using raw clipping biomass but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*); TE reduced rate of 0.5x label rate and TE label rate (); and TE high rate of 1.5x label rate and TE label rate (). The line at the 100% represents the control. WAT, weeks after treatment.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Clipping biomass of Kentucky bluegrass treated with paclobutrazol (PAC) in spring and summer 2003. Data were analyzed using raw clipping biomass but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*); TE reduced rate of 0.5x label rate and TE label rate (); and TE high rate of 1.5x label rate and TE label rate (). The line at the 100% represents the control. WAT, weeks after treatment.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Clipping biomass of Kentucky bluegrass treated with paclobutrazol (PAC) in spring and summer 2004. Data were analyzed using raw clipping biomass but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*); TE reduced rate of 0.5x label rate and TE label rate (); and TE high rate of 1.5x label rate and TE label rate (). The line at the 100% represents the control. WAT, weeks after treatment.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Clipping biomass Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) or paclobutrazol (PAC) in fall 2003 and 2004. Data were combined across years and analyzed using raw clipping biomasses but plotted as percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*); TE reduced rate of 0.5x label rate and TE label rate (); and TE high rate of 1.5x label rate and TE label rate (). The line at the 100% represents the control. WAT, weeks after treatment.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Daily air temperature highs for the spring and summer clipping biomass studies in 2003 and 2004. DAT, days after treatment.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Leaf area indices (LAI) and carbon exchange rates (CER) on ground and leaf area bases of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) or paclobutrazol (PAC) in spring 2003. Data were analyzed using raw measurements but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*) and label rate of PAC to control (). The line at the 100% represents the control.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 8. Leaf area indices (LAI) and carbon exchange rates (CER) on ground and leaf area bases of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) or paclobutrazol (PAC) in summer 2003. Data were analyzed using raw measurements but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*) and label rate of PAC to control (). The line at the 100% represents the control.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 9. Leaf area indices (LAI) and carbon exchange rates (CER) on ground and leaf area bases of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) or paclobutrazol (PAC) in spring 2004. Data were analyzed using raw measurements but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*) and label rate of PAC to control (). The line at the 100% represents the control.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 10. Leaf area indices (LAI) and carbon exchange rates (CER) on ground and leaf area bases of Kentucky bluegrass treated with trinexapac-ethyl (TE) or paclobutrazol (PAC) in summer 2004. Data were analyzed using raw measurements but plotted as a percent of control. Contrasts at 0.05 alpha level were used to compare the label rate of TE and control (*) and label rate of PAC to control (). The line at the 100% represents the control.