Crop Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 1 September 2007
Published in Crop Sci 47:2121-2128 (2007)
© 2007 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCann, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McCann, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McCann, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Huang, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Water Stress
Right arrow Water Conservation

Effects of Trinexapac-Ethyl Foliar Application on Creeping Bentgrass Responses to Combined Drought and Heat Stress

Stephen E. McCann and Bingru Huang*

Dep. of Plant Biology, Cook College, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 1. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on turf quality during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Turf quality was expressed on a scale of 1 to 9 based on turf color, density, and uniformity. Unconnected symbols on the right are data for recovery (Rec.) following rewatering. Vertical bars indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for treatment comparisons at a given day of treatment.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 2. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on relative water content (RWC) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Unconnected symbols on the right are data for recovery (Rec.) following rewatering. Vertical bars indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for treatment comparisons at a given day of treatment.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 3. Changes in soil volumetric water content (%) in treatments with or without trinexapac-ethyl (TE) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Unconnected symbols on the right are data for recovery (Rec.) following rewatering. Vertical bars indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for comparison of changes over treatment period.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 4. Changes in vertical shoot growth in treatments with or without trinexapac-ethyl (TE) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Vertical bars indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for comparison of changes over the treatment period.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 5. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on canopy photosynthesis rate (Pn) (CO2 mmol m–2 s–1) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Columns with the same lowercase letters were not significantly different at a given day of treatment based on LSD values (P = 0.05).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 6. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on canopy evapotranspiration (ET) (H2O mmol m–2 s–1) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Columns with the same lowercase letters were not significantly different at a given day of treatment based on LSD values (P = 0.05).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 7. Changes in photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) in treatments with or without trinexapac-ethyl (TE) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Unconnected symbols on the right are data for recovery (Rec.) following rewatering. Vertical bars indicate LSD values (P = 0.05) for comparison of changes over treatment period.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 8. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on leaf chlorophyll content (mg g–1 of dry weight [dwt]) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Columns with the same lowercase letters were not significantly different at a given day of treatment based on LSD values (P = 0.05).

 

Figure 9
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure 9. Effects of foliar application of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) on total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) (mg g–1 of dry leaf tissue [dwt]) during combined heat and drought stress (stress). Columns with the same lowercase letters were not significantly different at a given day of treatment based on LSD values (P = 0.05).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2007 by the Crop Science Society of America.