Search
2021 Volume 1
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates

More Information
  • A 3-year experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance and playability of 24 coarse-textured zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp. Willd.) experimental genotypes in comparison to five commercially available cultivars maintained as a low-maintenance turf across multiple climates (Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and California). Following establishment in 2018, plots were maintained under low-maintenance regimes and evaluated for quality, density, uniformity, color, winterkill damage, drought resistance, and golf ball lie in 2019 and 2020. A turf performance index (TPI) was calculated for each treatment at each site, which represented the number of times the treatment occurred in the top statistical group. The unique climate for each site led to differences in TPI scores. For instance, the arid climates of Arizona and California resulted in distinct differences in performance among treatments compared to the other sites. However, consistencies in performance across sites were also observed. For example, the 2018−2019 winter resulted in winterkill differences among entries in both Indiana and North Carolina, which led to some similarities in TPI. Furthermore, the southern humid climates of North Carolina and Georgia produced consistencies in overall TPI. Under the minimal inputs and the hot-humid or arid climates evaluated in this study, all of the check cultivars were some of the poorest performing treatments, which clearly illustrates there is a need for breeding programs to develop zoysiagrass genotypes for these climates. However, experimental lines that exhibited excellent persistence under these conditions were identified indicating the genetic potential for wider adaptation to lower input environments exists within the species.
  • 加载中
  • [1] Patton AJ, Schwartz BM, Kenworthy KE. 2017. Zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.) history, utilization, and improvement in the United States: A review. Crop Science 57:S37−S72 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2017.02.0074

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2] Busey P, Myers BJ. 1979. Growth rates of turfgrasses propagated vegetatively. Agronomy Journal 71:817−21 doi: 10.2134/agronj1979.00021962007100050027x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3] Trappe JM, Karcher DE, Richardson MD, Patton AJ. 2011. Bermudagrass and zoysiagrass cultivar selection: Part 1, clipping yield, scalping tendency, and golf ball lie. Applied Turfgrass Science 8:1−12 doi: 10.1094/ATS-2011-0630-01-RS

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4] Trappe JM, Karcher DE, Richardson MD, Patton AJ. 2011. Bermudagrass and zoysiagrass cultivar selection: Part 2, divot recovery. Applied Turfgrass Science 8:1−10 doi: 10.1094/ATS-2011-0630-02-RS

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5] Christians NE, Patton AJ, Law QD. 2017. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management, Fifth Edition. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 75–95 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119308867
    [6] Du H, Wang Z, Huang B. 2008. Differential responses of tall fescue and zoysiagrass to heat and drought stress. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 783:207−14 doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.20

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Du H, Wang Z, Huang B. 2009. Differential responses of warm-season and cool-season turfgrass species to heat stress associated with antioxidant enzyme activity. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 134:417−22 doi: 10.21273/JASHS.134.4.417

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8] Baldwin CM, Liu H, McCarty LB, Luo H, Wells CE, et al. 2009. Impacts of altered light spectral quality on warm-season turfgrass growth under greenhouse conditions. Crop Science 49:1444−53 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0412

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9] Trappe JM, Karcher DE, Richardson MD, Patton AJ. 2011. Shade and traffic tolerance varies for bermudagrass and zoysiagrass cultivars. Crop Science 51:870−77 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2010.05.0248

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] Qian YL, Engelke MC. 2000. "Diamond" zoysiagrass as affected by light intensity. Journal of Turfgrass Management 3:1−13 doi: 10.1300/J099v03n02_01

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11] Qian YL, Engelke MC, Foster MJV. 2000. Salinity effects on zoysiagrass cultivars and experimental lines. Crop Science 40:488−92 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2000.402488x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Wherley BG, Skulkaew P, Chandra A, Genovesi AD, Engelke MC. 2011. Low-input performance of zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp.) cultivars maintained under dense tree shade. HortScience 46:1033−37 doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.46.7.1033

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13] Forbes I. 1952. Chromosome numbers and hybrids in Zoysia. Agronomy Journal 44:194−99 doi: 10.2134/agronj1952.00021962004400040008x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14] Patton AJ, Reicher ZJ. 2007. Zoysiagrass species and genotypes differ in their winter injury and freeze tolerance. Crop Science 47:1619−27 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.11.0737

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15] Hinton JD, Livingston III DP, Miller GL, Peacock CH, Tuong T. 2012. Freeze tolerance of nine zoysiagrass cultivars using natural cold acclimation and freeze chambers. HortScience 47:112−15 doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.47.1.112

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Patton AJ. 2009. Selecting zoysiagrass cultivars: Turfgrass quality, growth, pest and environmental stress tolerance. Applied Turfgrass Science 6:1−18 doi: 10.1094/ATS-2009-1019-01-MG

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17] Grau FV, Radko AM. 1951. Meyer (Z-52) Zoysia. United States Golf Association. Journal of Turfgrass Management 4:30−31

    Google Scholar

    [18] Chandra A, Fry JD, Engelke MC, Genovesi AD, Wherley BG, et al. 2015. Registration of 'Chisholm' zoysiagrass. Journal of Plant Registrations 9:21−26 doi: 10.3198/jpr2014.04.0020crc

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19] Chandra A, Fry JD, Genovesi AD, Meeks M, Engelke MC, et al. 2017. Registration of 'KSUZ 0802' zoysiagrass. Journal of Plant Registrations 11:100−106 doi: 10.3198/jpr2016.03.0010crc

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20] Genovesi D, Chandra A. 2015. Three university cooperative effort to develop cold hardy zoysiagrass cultivars with large patch tolerance for the transition zone. United States Golf Association Turfgrass Environment Research Online 14:28−30

    Google Scholar

    [21] Okeyo DO, Fry JD, Bremer D, Rajashekar CB, Kennelly M, et al. 2011. Freezing tolerance and seasonal color of experimental zoysiagrasses. Crop Science 51:2858−2863 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2011.01.0049

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22] Thompson C. 2019. Improving the cold tolerance, pest resistance and overall quality of zoysiagrass. United States Golf Association Green Section Record 57:1−2

    Google Scholar

    [23] Beck HE, Zimmermann NE, McVicar TR, Vergopolan N, Berg A, et al. 2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Scientific Data 5:180214 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.214

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24] Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11:1633−44 doi: 10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25] Richardson MD, Karcher DE, Patton AJ, McCalla Jr JH. 2010. Measurement of golf ball lie in various turfgrasses using digital image analysis. Crop Science 50:730−736 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2009.04.0233

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26] Anderson JA, Taliaferro CM, Wu YQ. 2007. Freeze tolerance of seed- and vegetatively-propagated bermudagrasses compared with standard cultivars. Applied Turfgrass Science 4:1−7

    Google Scholar

    [27] Strunk WD, Karcher DE, Young JR, Patton AJ, Richardson MD. 2015. Golf shot performance characteristics influenced by ball lie. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management 1:1−7 doi: 10.2134/cftm2015.0136

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28] Morris KN, Shearman RC. 1999. NTEP turfgrass evaluation guidelines. National Turfgrass Evaluation Program, Beltsville, MD.
    [29] Karcher DE, Richardson MD. 2003. Quantifying turfgrass color using digital image analysis. Crop Science 43:943−51 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2003.9430

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30] Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9:671−75 doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31] Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591−611 doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Braun RC, Milla-Lewis SR, Carbajal EM, Schwartz BM, Patton AJ. 2021. Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates. Grass Research 1: 10 doi: 10.48130/GR-2021-0010
    Braun RC, Milla-Lewis SR, Carbajal EM, Schwartz BM, Patton AJ. 2021. Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates. Grass Research 1: 10 doi: 10.48130/GR-2021-0010

Figures(2)  /  Tables(8)

Article Metrics

Article views(5440) PDF downloads(865)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates

Grass Research  1 Article number: 10  (2021)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: A 3-year experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance and playability of 24 coarse-textured zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp. Willd.) experimental genotypes in comparison to five commercially available cultivars maintained as a low-maintenance turf across multiple climates (Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and California). Following establishment in 2018, plots were maintained under low-maintenance regimes and evaluated for quality, density, uniformity, color, winterkill damage, drought resistance, and golf ball lie in 2019 and 2020. A turf performance index (TPI) was calculated for each treatment at each site, which represented the number of times the treatment occurred in the top statistical group. The unique climate for each site led to differences in TPI scores. For instance, the arid climates of Arizona and California resulted in distinct differences in performance among treatments compared to the other sites. However, consistencies in performance across sites were also observed. For example, the 2018−2019 winter resulted in winterkill differences among entries in both Indiana and North Carolina, which led to some similarities in TPI. Furthermore, the southern humid climates of North Carolina and Georgia produced consistencies in overall TPI. Under the minimal inputs and the hot-humid or arid climates evaluated in this study, all of the check cultivars were some of the poorest performing treatments, which clearly illustrates there is a need for breeding programs to develop zoysiagrass genotypes for these climates. However, experimental lines that exhibited excellent persistence under these conditions were identified indicating the genetic potential for wider adaptation to lower input environments exists within the species.

    • Zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp. Willd.), a warm-season turfgrass, can provide similar aesthetic and functional properties as other turfgrass species, but with reduced inputs (e.g. water, fertilizer, and pesticides)[1]. Zoysiagrass is generally regarded as a low maintenance turfgrass due to its slow growth rate[24], low nutritional requirements[5], and excellent resistance to weed encroachment[1]. In addition, zoysiagrass species as a group have good tolerance to heat[6,7], shade[810], and salt[11,12]; however, differences occur in levels of tolerance among the different Zoysia ssp.[1]. Therefore, zoysiagrass provides an excellent sod-forming, low-maintenance turf surface, especially for golf course areas, lawns, and grounds in the transitional and warm climatic regions of the United States[1].

      There are three primary species of zoysiagrass [Z. japonica Steud., Z. matrella (L.) Merr., and Z. pacifica (Goudswaard) M. Hotta & S. Kuroki] utilized today as turf or used by turfgrass breeders in the development of advanced lines[1]. These grasses are native to the humid continental and subtropical climates of East Asia and the Pacific Islands where their distribution is highly influenced by latitude[1]. Leaf blade width (i.e. leaf texture) is one key difference between these species, with widest to narrowest leaf blade width ranking as follows: Z. japonicaZ. matrella > Z. pacifica[1]. Another major difference among the three species is cold hardiness (i.e. winter survival and freeze tolerance), which can be a strength or shortcoming depending on the species. Ranking of cold hardiness by species is Z. japonica > Z. matrella > Z. pacifica[1,13,14]. However, cold hardiness can also be variable among cultivars within a species[14,15], which highlights the importance of selecting cultivars based on geographic location[16]. Compared to other warm-season turfgrasses, Z. japonica has superior cold hardiness, which enables its use farther north in the transitional climatic zone and even in cool-humid regions of the United States[5].

      One of the most cold hardy (or winter-hardy) zoysiagrass cultivars is 'Meyer' zoysiagrass (Z. japonica)[14], which has also been the most widely used cultivar since its release in 1951[1,17]. In the last decade, breeding programs have made some progress in the development of zoysiagrass hybrids with comparable cold hardiness to Meyer, but with superior establishment rate, turf quality, shade tolerance, finer leaf texture, or improved tolerance to pests[1821]. Current breeding programs are generally focused on developing finer-textured zoysiagrass progeny for golf course fairways, tees, and putting greens[22]. Meanwhile, coarse (i.e. wider leaf blade), aggressive zoysiagrass germplasm is often discarded by breeders as unacceptable when it may in fact be of tremendous value, especially for lower-maintenance areas such as, lawns, or golf course rough[1]. Further, zoysiagrass use in the United States is primarily in the transition zone and southeast, but demand for low-input grasses is also high in the southwestern United States. There is need for breeding advancements in zoysiagrass with less of a focus on leaf texture, and more focus on minimal-to-no inputs to reduce long-term management costs in low-maintenance areas. Preliminary local screenings of collections of "coarse-textured" germplasm from three universities have shown to have excellent stress and pest tolerance and fast establishment when managed with no inputs. We hypothesized that there would be genotypes of these coarse-textured, experimental germplasm that outperform the standard cultivars across multiple environments. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance and playability of coarse-textured zoysiagrass genotypes in comparison to commercially available turfgrass cultivars maintained as a low-maintenance turf area in Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina.

    • Climate (as described by the Köppen–Geiger classification[23,24]) differences led to variations in performance among entries across locations, which are further discussed herein (Tables 16 and Fig. 1).

      Table 1.  Site information.

      IndianaNorth CarolinaGeorgiaArizonaCalifornia
      Location, CityW.H. Daniel Turfgrass Research and Diagnostic Center, West LafayetteLake Wheeler Turfgrass Field Lab, RaleighCoastal Plain Experiment Station, TiftonEvergreen Turf, StanfieldAmerican Sod Farms, Escondido
      Latitude and Longitude40°26′31″N; 86°55′47″W35°44′18″N; 78°40′39″W31°28′30″N; 83°31′34″W32°55′23″N; 111°56′17″W33°5′26″N; 117°0′24″W
      Soil typeSilt loamSandy loamLoamy sandSandy loamSandy loam
      Climate classificationaWarm temperate, no dry season, hot summer (Cfa)Warm temperate, no dry season, hot summer (Cfa)Warm temperate, no dry season, hot summer (Cfa)Hot arid, desert, hot summer (BWh)Arid, steppe, hot dry summer, cool wet winter, (BSk)
      USDA plant hardiness zoneb5b
      (−26.1 to −23.3 °C)
      7b
      (−15 to −12.2 °C)
      8b
      (−12.2 to −9.4 °C)
      9b
      (−3.9 to −1.1 °C)
      10a
      (−1.1 to 1.7 °C)
      2018 planting date22 May10 July1 June29 May30 May
      a From Köppen-Geiger climate map[23,24]. Map retrieved from http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at.
      b Average annual extreme minimum temperature in parentheses and USDA map retrieved from https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov.

      Table 2.  Year 2019 to 2020 data and cumulative turf performance index (TPI) for treatments in West Lafayette, Indiana, treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters are highlighted in bold

      EntryWinterkillaTurf colorbDensityc2019
      Uniformityd
      2019
      Drought resistancee
      Avg turf qualityfAvg ball liegAvg leaf texturehTPIi
      20192020Spring 2019Summer 2019Autumn 2019Spring 2020Summer 2020Autumn 202020192020
      PURZ 16026.3 a-dj7.0 a-d5.7 ab6.3 d-f6.0 b-f6.0 bc7.3 ab7.0 efg5.0 b-e8.7 a5.7 cde5.7 b-f6.8 abc38.9 b-e5.2 de6
      PURZ 16036.0 bcd6.3 a-e6.7 a4.7 h4.7 fg5.7 bcd6.0 cd6.0 hi5.3 bcd6.3 b-e6.0 bcd4.7 e-h6.5 a-d32.0 d-h4.2 fg3
      PURZ 16067.3 ab6.0 b-f6.7 a5.0 gh5.0 efg6.0 bc6.0 cd6.3 gh5.7 abc6.3 b-e7.0 abc4.3 e-h6.8 abc32.0 d-h3.3 h5
      PURZ 17017.0 abc7.3 abc7.0 a5.0 gh5.0 efg6.3 b6.0 cd6.7 fgh6.0 ab8.0 ab8.3 a7.0 abc7.5 a24.1 ghi4.0 g8
      PURZ 17025.0 def5.3 d-g4.3 bc6.3 d-f4.3 g6.0 bc6.3 bcd5.3 ij4.0 c-g5.7 c-f4.7 d-g3.7 gh5.3 d-g38.4 b-e4.7 ef0
      XZ140554.0 efg7.3 abc3.3 cd9.0 a7.0 abc6.0 bc8.0 a8.0 bcd3.7 d-h8.0 ab4.3 d-h6.0 b-e6.0 a-e49.2 ab6.5 b7
      XZ140692.7 g-j6.0 b-e1.3 e8.7 ab7.3 ab5.3 b-e7.0 abc8.3 abc2.0 hi5.3 def2.7 ghi6.3 a-d4.0 gh52.3 a7.2 a6
      XZ140705.3 cde6.3 a-e4.0 bc6.7 c-f5.7 c-g5.3 b-e6.7 bcd8.0 bcd4.0 c-g6.3 b-e5.0 def6.7 abc5.8 b-f47.5 ab5.5 cd3
      XZ140712.7 g-j5.6 c-g3.0 cde8.2 abc7.5 ab4.7 c-g6.4 bcd8.5 abc3.1 e-i6.1 b-f4.1 d-i6.1 a-e5.5 c-g41.5 a-d6.8 ab5
      XZ140725.0 def6.3 a-e3.3 cd7.0 b-e5.7 c-g4.7 c-g6.0 cd6.7 fgh4.7 b-f8.7 a5.7 cde7.0 abc6.8 abc34.3 c-g6.7 ab4
      XZ140741.3 ijk0
      XZ140923.7 efg5.5 c-g2.5 cde6.9 b-f5.0 efg5.0 b-f7.0 abc6.5 fgh2.9 f-i4.3 ef3.4 f-i4.5 e-h4.1 gh37.6 b-f6.8 ab1
      ZG090048.0 a6.0 b-f7.0 a5.0 gh5.0 efg5.0 b-f6.3 bcd6.0 hi7.3 a5.7 c-f8.7 a6.7 abc7.0 abc17.2 i4.2 fg6
      ZG090557.3 ab6.0 b-f6.7 a6.0 e-h5.3 d-g5.3 b-e6.0 cd5.3 ij5.7 abc5.3 def7.7 ab6.0 b-e6.9 abc22.0 hi4.0 g5
      ZG090621.7 hij5.9 b-g1.5 de8.7 ab5.5 c-g2.8 ij8.0 a7.5 c-f1.5 i6.7 bcd2.6 ghi6.4 a-d5.0 d-h39.4 a-e6.4 b4
      09-TZ-54-91.7 hij6.0 b-f2.0 de7.5 a-e5.5 c-g5.0 b-f6.5 bcd9.0 a1.9 hi6.3 b-e2.4 hi7.0 abc4.6 e-h51.1 ab5.8 c4
      09-TZ-89-731.7 hij4.0 g1.7 de6.3 d-f6.0 b-f2.0 j4.0 e7.3 def1.7 i4.7 ef2.7 ghi5.3 c-g3.8 h45.8 abc5.8 c1
      10-TZ-9947.3 ab7.7 ab7.0 a6.0 e-h5.7 c-g6.0 bc7.3 ab7.0 efg7.3 a9.0 a8.0 a6.7 abc7.4 a48.8 ab4.5 fg10
      10-TZ-12542.7 g-j5.7 c-g2.0 de9.0 a8.0 a3.3 hi7.3 ab8.0 bcd2.3 ghi7.3 a-d4.0 e-i8.0 a6.2 a-d29.5 e-h5.5 cd7
      15-TZ-117661.0 jk0
      16-TZ-120363.7 efg4.3 fg3.0 cde6.3 d-f4.7 fg3.0 ij7.3 ab7.7 cde3.7 d-h5.3 def3.3 f-i3.3 h4.5 fgh46.7 ab6.5 b1
      16-TZ-127831.0 jk0
      16-TZ-134631.0 jk0
      16-TZ-141143.5 e-h6.0 b-f2.0 de7.0 b-e6.3 b-e3.7 ghi6.7 bcd7.7 cde2.7 ghi8.3 ab5.7 cde8.0 a7.0 ab30.2 d-h5.2 de3
      Chisholm4.0 efg6.0 b-f4.3 bc6.7 c-f5.3 d-g4.7 d-g5.7 d7.0 efg3.7 d-h7.3 a-d4.7 d-g7.3 ab6.4 a-d28.4 e-h4.7 ef3
      Meyer7.3 ab8.0 a6.3 a5.3 fgh5.7 c-g6.3 b6.7 bcd6.7 fgh6.3 ab8.7 a7.0 abc6.0 b-e7.5 a36.8 b-f5.5 cd7
      Empire2.7 g-j6.7 a-d2.0 de8.3 ab6.7 a-d4.3 e-h6.3 bcd8.0 bcd2.0 hi8.0 ab3.3 f-i6.7 abc6.0 a-e43.1 abc5.3 cd7
      Jamur3.3 fgh7.0 a-d2.0 de7.7 a-d6.7 a-d4.3 e-h6.7 bcd8.7 ab2.7 ghi8.0 ab5.0 def7.3 ab7.0 abc38.3 b-e5.3 cd7
      Zenith3.0 ghi4.7 efg2.7 cde6.7 c-f5.7 c-g4.0 f-i6.7 bcd7.0 efg2.0 hi4.0 f2.3 i4.0 fgh3.7 h5.3 cd0
      'Riviera' bermudagrass2.3 g-j7.5 abc2.0 de8.5 ab2.5 h8.0 a8.0 a4.5 j2.4 ghi7.8 abc5.4 c-f8.0 a6.0 a-e33.8 c-g6.8 ab7
      P-value< 0.00010.0035< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001 < 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001
      a Winterkill ratings: 9 = fully green; 1 = no green tissue.
      b Spring green-up/seasonal color/color retention ratings: 9 = darkest green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown turf.
      c Density: 9 = maximum density; 6 = minimally acceptable density; 1 = lowest density.
      d Uniformity: 9 = maximum uniform turf; 1 = lowest uniformity.
      e Drought stress resistance: 9 = no wilting or leaf firing; 100% green-no dormancy; 1 = complete wilting, 100% leaf firing or complete dormancy
      f Quality: 9 = maximum quality; 6 = minimum acceptable quality; 1 = lowest quality. Turf quality means (n = 33) calculated from 11 collection dates during 2019−2020.
      g Ball lie: Percentage visible golf ball within the turf canopy. Means (n = 45) calculated from five collection dates in 2019−2020 where percentage of three visible golf balls were measured within each plot from using the method developed by Richardson et al.[25].
      h Leaf texture: 9 = fine and 1 = coarse. Leaf texture means (n = 6) calculated from two collection dates during 2019−2020.
      i TPI is the turf performance index representing the number of times an entry occurred in the top statistical group (max 14), not including leaf texture ratings.
      j Means within each column (except TPI) with a common letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).
      k Entry or check either did not survive 2018−2019 winter or not enough replications remaining to analyze.

      Table 3.  Year 2018 to 2020 data and cumulative turf performance index for treatments in Raleigh, North Carolina, treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters are highlighted in bold.

      EntryWinterkillaTurf colorbDensitycUniformitydAvg turf
      qualitye
      Avg ball
      lief
      Avg Leaf
      textureg
      TPIh
      20192020Autumn 2018Summer 2019Autumn 2019Summer 2020Autumn 20202019202020192020
      PURZ 16023.3 ji7.3 abc2.7 fgh8.0 a4.7 c-f7.1 bcd4.5 e-i7.0 bcd6.5 b-f7.0 a-d6.0 bcd5.9 d-g59.26.3 efg3
      PURZ 16034.3 ij7.0 abc2.0 h6.7 cd4.0 efg6.7 cde4.0 ghi6.0 ef5.3 fg7.0 a-d6.7 a-d4.9 ij50.15.3 hi3
      PURZ 16064.3 ij7.7 ab2.0 h7.7 ab3.7 fgh6.7 cde3.3 i6.0 ef4.3 gh7.3 abc7.7 a4.8 j51.24.5 j4
      PURZ 17015.3 f-i8.0 a2.3 gh7.0 bcd3.7 fgh5.7 ef3.3 i6.3 de5.3 fg7.3 abc7.3 ab4.9 ij47.25.2 i3
      PURZ 17024.3 ij6.5 a-d2.0 h7.0 bcd2.5 hj6.0 ef7.0 a-d5.5 e-i59.76.1 fg2
      XZ140555.3 f-i6.0 a-d4.7 b-f8.0 a5.0 b-f7.6 abc6.0 bcd7.3 ab5.5 efg6.7 a-d5.5 d5.7 e-h59.17.2 cd5
      XZ140698.7 a8.0 a6.0 ab8.0 a6.3 a7.3 bc6.7 ab8.0 a8.0 a7.0 a-d6.3 bcd7.1 a74.98.0 a10
      XZ140708.0 ab6.7 abc4.0 b-h8.0 a5.0 b-f7.6 abc5.0 c-g7.7 ab7.0 a-d6.7 a-d6.5 a-d5.8 d-g57.26.8 de8
      XZ140716.7 b-f7.3 abc5.0 a-e7.7 ab5.7 abc6.7 cde5.3 c-f7.3 ab6.3 c-f7.0 a-d6.7 a-d6.1 de52.67.2 cd7
      XZ140727.7 abc7.7 ab3.7 c-h8.0 a4.3 d-g5.1 f4.5 e-i8.0 a7.5 abc7.7 ab6.5 a-d6.2 cde59.27.3 bcd7
      XZ140747.0 b-e3.0 ef4.0 b-hj0
      XZ140924.7 hij4.0 def2.7 fgh8.0 a3.9 e-h6.9 b-e6.0 cde5.2 g-j49.36.9 de1
      ZG090046.7 b-f7.3 abc2.7 fgh7.3 abc3.3 gh6.7 cde4.3 f-i5.3 f4.3 gh7.0 a-d6.7 a-d4.8 j37.45.0 ij4
      ZG090555.0 ghi5.3 cde2.3 gh7.3 abc3.3 gh7.3 bc3.7 hi6.3 de4.0 h7.0 a-d7.7 a5.1 hij50.95.2 i3
      ZG090625.3 f-i2.7 f4.0 b-h7.7 ab4.3 d-g7.3 bc6.3 abc7.0 bcd7.7 ab6.3 bcd7.0 abc6.4 bcd52.47.7 abc4
      09-TZ-54-96.7 b-f7.7 ab4.3 b-g8.0 a6.0 abc7.0 bcd6.7 ab8.0 a8.0 a6.0 cde6.0 bcd7.0 ab47.87.8 ab7
      09-TZ-89-736.7 b-f3.0 ef5.3 a-d6.3 d4.3 d-g6.1 def5.5 b-f7.0 bcd6.5 b-f7.0 a-d6.0 bcd5.7 e-h60.56.5 ef2
      10-TZ-9946.0 d-h6.0 a-d3.7 c-h8.0 a4.0 efg8.7 a5.0 c-g6.3 de6.7 b-e6.0 cde7.3 ab5.6 e-h44.26.0 fg4
      10-TZ-12547.3 a-d6.3 a-d7.0 a7.7 ab4.7 c-f6.7 cde7.5 a7.3 ab7.3 abc8.0 a7.7 a6.4 bcd52.76.5 ef9
      15-TZ-117667.0 b-e6.3 a-d4.0 b-h8.0 a5.4 a-ej6.4 cde7.0 a-d5.9 def65.76.2 fg4
      16-TZ-120366.0 d-h4.0 def5.0 a-e7.7 ab5.5 a-d7.1 bcd5.0 c-g6.7 cde6.5 b-f6.0 cde7.0 abc6.1 cde50.76.8 de4
      16-TZ-127835.7 e-i4.0 def5.7 abc8.0 a4.0 efg8.0 ab6.7 ab7.7 ab7.3 abc7.7 ab5.7 d6.8 abc57.17.2 cd8
      16-TZ-134635.7 e-i5.5 b-e4.0 b-h8.0 a5.1 a-fj6.1 def4.0 f5.8 d-g7.3 bcd2
      16-TZ-141146.0 d-h6.0 a-d5.7 abc7.3 abc3.0 gh7.1 bcd6.0 bcd6.7 cde7.0 a-d7.7 ab8.0 a5.9 def60.36.2 fg6
      Chisholm6.7 b-f6.7 abc3.7 c-h7.3 abc4.7 c-f7.0 bcd5.3 c-f6.0 ef6.7 b-e5.7 def6.7 a-d5.7 e-h42.35.8 gh3
      Meyer6.3 c-g7.0 abc3.3 d-h7.7 ab4.0 efg8.0 ab4.7 d-h6.7 cde6.7 b-e7.0 a-d7.7 a5.7 e-h54.06.3 efg5
      Empire5.3 f-i6.7 abc4.0 b-h8.0 a4.0 efg7.3 bc5.7 b-e6.3 de6.0 def7.3 abc7.7 a5.7 e-h54.65.8 gh4
      Jamur6.0 d-h5.7 bcd5.7 abc7.0 bcd3.7 fgh7.0 bcd6.0 bcd7.0 bcd7.3 abc8.0 a7.7 a6.1 cde51.36.3 efg4
      Zenith6.0 d-h5.3 cde3.0 e-h7.7 ab5.3 a-e7.7 abc4.7 d-h6.0 ef6.0 def4.7 ef6.0 bcd5.3 f-j52.75.8 gh3
      'Riviera' bermudagrass3.3 jj4.7 b-f0
      P-value< 0.0001< 0.0001 0.0009 0.0003< 0.0001 0.0003< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001 0.0064 0.0046< 0.0001 0.0602< 0.0001
      a Winterkill ratings: 9 = fully green; 1 = no green tissue.
      b Seasonal color/color retention ratings: 9 = darkest green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown turf.
      c Density: 9 = maximum density; 6 = minimally acceptable density; 1 = lowest density.
      d Uniformity: 9 = maximum uniform turf; 1 = lowest uniformity.
      e Quality: 9 = maximum quality; 6 = minimum acceptable quality; 1 = lowest quality. Turf quality means (n = 12) calculated from four collection dates during 2018−2020.
      f Ball lie: Percentage visible golf ball within the turf canopy. Means (n = 54) calculated from six collection dates in 2019−2020 where percentage of three visible golf balls were measured within each plot from using the method developed by Richardson et al.[25].
      g Leaf texture: 9 = fine and 1 = coarse. Leaf texture means (n = 6) calculated from two collection dates during 2019−2020.
      h TPI is the turf performance index representing the number of times an entry occurred in the top statistical group (max 12), not including leaf texture ratings.
      i Means within each column (except TPI) with a common letter or no letters are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).
      j Entry or check did not survive establishment in 2018 or winter, and not enough replications remaining to analyze.

      Table 4.  Year 2018 to 2020 data and cumulative turf performance index for treatments in Tifton, Georgia, treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters are highlighted in bold.

      EntryTurf coloraAvg dark green color indexbUniformitycAvg turf qualitydAvg ball lieeTPIf
      Spring 2019Summer 2019Autumn 2019Autumn 2020
      PURZ 16023.0 jkg0.730 f-j4.0 fg3.7 h-l5.7 b-f4.7 f-i55.3 e-k0
      PURZ 16033.0 jk0.736 f-i3.0 g3.0 jkl3.7 h3.9 hi53.0 g-k0
      PURZ 16062.7 jk0.796 a4.0 fg5.0 d-i4.7 e-h4.7 f-i51.8 h-k1
      PURZ 17013.3 ijk0.737 e-i4.0 fg3.7 h-l5.3 c-g4.2 hi48.7 jk0
      PURZ 17023.0 jk0.750 c-g4.0 fg3.3 i-l4.3 efg3.8 i62.8 a-h1
      XZ140553.7 h-k0.741 d-h5.7 cde4.3 f-k4.3 efg4.3 ghi68.5 a-d1
      XZ140698.0 a0.736 f-i7.7 a6.0 c-f6.3 a-d6.7 abc60.7 b-i4
      XZ140703.0 jk0.791 ab6.0 b-e5.7 c-g5.3 c-g5.8 c-f56.3 e-j1
      XZ140714.0 g-j0.709 ijk6.0 b-e4.7 e-j3.7 h4.5 ghi64.2 a-g1
      XZ140725.3 d-g0.699 k4.7 ef4.0 g-l5.3 c-g4.6 ghi66.0 a-f1
      XZ140746.7 a-d0.698 k5.0 ef2.3 l4.0 gh3.8 i71.4 ab2
      XZ140923.7 h-k0.738 e-i5.0 ef3.7 h-l5.0 d-h4.0 hi72.0 ab1
      ZG090041.0 l0.747 c-g5.3 def5.3 c-h5.3 c-g5.4 d-g55.7 e-k0
      ZG090551.0 l0.759 c-f4.7 ef4.0 g-l4.7 e-h4.2 hi60.2 c-i0
      ZG090625.7 c-f0.716 h-k6.0 b-e8.0 ab7.0 ab6.4 a-d58.1 d-j3
      09-TZ-54-96.3 b-e0.757 c-g6.7 a-d6.7 bcd7.0 ab6.8 abc63.7 a-g4
      09-TZ-89-737.0 abc0.705 jk6.0 b-e7.0 abc6.0 a-e6.0 b-e54.3 g-k3
      10-TZ-9945.0 e-h0.756 c-g4.0 fg2.7 kl5.7 b-f4.1 hi68.7 a-d1
      10-TZ-12547.7 ab0.729 g-j5.7 cde3.7 h-l4.7 e-h4.4 ghi62.1 a-h2
      15-TZ-117665.0 e-h0769 a-d7.0 abc8.7 a6.0 a-e7.2 ab53.6 g-k5
      16-TZ-120363.0 jk0.744 c-h5.7 cde7.0 abc6.7 abc6.1 b-e66.4 a-e3
      16-TZ-127837.0 abc0.790 ab7.3 ab7.0 abc6.7 abc7.3 a73.5 a7
      16-TZ-134637.3 ab0.744 c-h7.3 ab5.0 d-i5.3 c-g6.2 a-e73.2 a4
      16-TZ-141145.0 e-h0.771 abc5.7 cde6.7 bcd5.7 b-f6.0 b-e54.9 f-k1
      Chisholm3.0 jk0.733 f-j5.0 ef6.0 c-f7.3 a5.8 c-f60.2 c-i1
      Meyer2.3 kl0.765 b-e5.0 ef5.0 d-i5.0 d-h5.1 e-h56.1 e-j1
      Empire4.7 f-i0.768 a-d6.0 b-e6.3 b-e6.3 a-d6.1 b-e49.4 ijk2
      Jamur4.7 f-i0.768 a-d5.3 def6.3 b-e6.3 a-d6.0 b-e53.5 g-k2
      Zenith4.7 f-i0.694 k4.0 fg3.3 i-l5.0 d-h3.8 i59.0 d-j0
      'Riviera' bermudagrass4.0 g-j0.758 c-g5.3 def6.0 c-f4.0 gh4.8 f-i44.5 k0
      P-value< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001
      a Seasonal color ratings: 9 = darkest green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown turf.
      b Dark green color index: digital images calculated on a 0 to 1 scale with higher values corresponding to darker green color.
      c Uniformity: 9 = maximum uniform turf; 1 = lowest uniformity.
      d Quality: 9 = maximum quality; 6 = minimum acceptable quality; 1 = lowest quality. Turf quality means (n = 12) calculated from four collection dates during 2019−2020.
      e Ball lie: Percentage visible golf ball within the turf canopy. Means (n = 18) calculated from two collection dates in 2019−2020 where percentage of three visible golf balls were measured within each plot from using the method developed by Richardson et al.[25].
      f TPI is the turf performance index representing the number of times an entry occurred in the top statistical group (max 7).
      g Means within each column (except TPI) with a common letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).

      Table 5.  Year 2018 to 2020 data and cumulative turf performance index for treatments in Stanfield, Arizona, treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters are highlighted in bold.

      Entry2019 WinterkillaTurf colorb2019
      Densityc
      2019
      Uniformityd
      Avg turf
      qualitye
      TPIf
      Autumn 2018Spring 2019Autumn 2019Summer 2020
      PURZ 16026.0g6.0 cde5.7 b-f3.7 ghii4.7 ghi5.04.9 hi0
      PURZ 16036.04.0 f5.7 b-f2.3 jk4.03.0 j5.03.8 jk0
      PURZ 16067.35.6 c-f5.0 c-g2.0 k3.04.0 ij4.73.6 k0
      PURZ 17016.74.7 ef3.3 g3.3 hij4.04.0 ij4.74.0 jk0
      PURZ 17027.05.0 def5.3 b-f2.7 ijk4.54.0 ij5.03.9 jk0
      XZ140557.36.0 cde4.3 efg6.3 bc5.04.3 hi5.55.3 e-h0
      XZ140698.07.3 abc8.0 a7.7 a7.57.3 ab6.36.8 a5
      XZ140706.76.3 bcd6.3 a-d5.3 c-e5.55.3 e-h6.05.8 b-f1
      XZ140716.35.3 def4.3 fg4.7 efg6.06.0 c-f6.35.0 c-h0
      XZ140727.05.0 def6.0 b-e5.3 c-e6.05.7 d-g6.05.1 f-i0
      XZ140747.77.3 abc3.3 g6.3 bc5.06.7 a-d5.06.3 ab3
      XZ140925.36.3 bcd7.0 ab4.7 efg6.56.0 c-f5.75.6 c-h1
      ZG090046.35.7 cde5.3 b-f3.3 hij5.05.0 f-i6.34.4 ij0
      ZG09055h
      ZG090628.07.0 abc6.7 abc5.3 c-e6.06.0 c-f5.36.0 bcd2
      09-TZ-54-98.77.0 abc6.3 a-d7.0 ab7.57.0 abc6.36.9 a5
      09-TZ-89-738.05.3 def5.7 b-f6.0 bcd5.56.0 c-f6.35.9 b-e0
      10-TZ-9945.05.0 def4.3 efg3.7 ghi5.04.3 hi5.03.8 jk0
      10-TZ-12549.07.7 ab5.7 b-f5.0 def6.56.0 c-f6.06.0 bcd1
      15-TZ-117667.76.3 bcd6.0 b-e4.7 efg6.06.3 b-e7.05.6 c-h0
      16-TZ-120367.75.7 cde5.3 b-f5.3 c-e5.55.3 e-h6.05.4 d-h0
      16-TZ-127838.07.3 abc5.3 b-f6.3 bc7.07.0 abc7.06.2 abc3
      16-TZ-134637.08.0 a6.7 abc7.0 ab6.07.7 a6.36.3 ab5
      16-TZ-141147.76.3 bcd6.0 b-e6.0 bcd7.05.7 d-g5.75.7 b-g0
      Chisholm8.35.3 def6.7 abc5.3 c-e5.55.3 e-h6.35.9 b-e1
      Meyer5.35.0 def5.0 c-g4.7 efg4.04.7 ghi5.74.9 hi0
      Empire7.77.0 abc6.0 b-e5.3 c-e7.06.0 c-f6.05.4 d-h1
      Jamur7.76.0 cde6.0 b-e5.7 cde6.55.7 d-g5.75.7 b-g0
      Zenith7.56.3 bcd4.8 d-g4.3 fgh5.0 f-i4.85.1 ghi0
      'Riviera' bermudagrassh
      P-value 0.0524 0.0002 0.0013< 0.00011.000< 0.0001 0.0746< 0.0001
      a Winterkill ratings: 9 = fully green; 1 = no green tissue.
      b Spring green-up/seasonal color/color retention ratings: 9 = darkest green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown turf.
      c Density: 9 = maximum density; 6 = minimally acceptable density; 1 = lowest density.
      d Uniformity: 9 = maximum uniform turf; 1 = lowest uniformity.
      e Quality: 9 = maximum quality; 6 = minimum acceptable quality; 1 = lowest quality. Turf quality means (n = 9) calculated from three collection dates during 2018−2020.
      f TPI is the turf performance index representing the number of times an entry occurred in the top statistical group (max 5).
      g Means within each column (except TPI) with a common letter or no letters are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).
      h Entry or check not planted at site.
      i Entry did not survive or not enough replications remaining to analyze.

      Table 6.  Year 2018 to 2019 data and cumulative turf performance index for treatments in Escondido, California, treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters are highlighted in bold.

      Entry2019 WinterkillaTurf colorb2019 Densityc2019 UniformitydAvg turf qualityeTPIf
      Autumn 2018Spring 2019
      PURZ 16027.0 bcdg3.0 f6.75.3 d-g4.75.3 f-i0
      PURZ 16036.3 cde4.0 ef6.04.0 gh6.04.5 ij0
      PURZ 16066.0 cde2.5 f5.43.0 h5.93.0 k0
      PURZ 17018.0 abc2.7 f6.04.0 gh5.04.2 j1
      PURZ 1702h0
      XZ14055i
      XZ140698.7 ab6.0 a-d7.38.0 a6.07.7 a4
      XZ140704.7 e3.3 f6.35.7 c-f6.35.0 g-j0
      XZ140716.3 cde6.3 abc6.76.7 a-d6.06.5 bcd2
      XZ140728.0 abc4.0 ef7.05.7 c-f5.76.3 cde1
      XZ140749.0 a6.7 ab8.08.0 a6.07.7 a4
      XZ140925.3 cd3.0 f6.74.7 efg5.75.3 f-i0
      ZG090046.0 cde4.7 c-f7.04.0 gh6.74.7 hij0
      ZG090555.0 e5.3 b-e6.74.8 efg5.54.2 j0
      ZG090628.3 ab6.3 abc8.05.7 c-f5.76.5 bcd2
      09-TZ-54-98.0 abc6.0 a-d6.77.7 a6.37.3 ab4
      09-TZ-89-738.3 ab7.0 ab6.76.0 b-e7.06.2 def2
      10-TZ-9945.0 e3.3 f7.74.3 fgh5.34.7 hij0
      10-TZ-12548.0 abc7.0 ab7.36.7 a-d6.76.0 def3
      15-TZ-117667.3 abc5.7 b-e7.07.3 ab7.37.2 abc3
      16-TZ-120368.3 ab5.3 b-e6.76.0 b-e6.06.0 def1
      16-TZ-127837.0 bcd7.7 a6.07.7 a6.76.5 bcd2
      16-TZ-134638.0 abc4.3 def8.07.0 abc6.76.7 bcd2
      16-TZ-141147.0 bcd4.7 c-f7.75.7 c-f5.75.5 e-h0
      Chisholm7.7 abc6.3 abc8.06.0 b-e5.35.8 d-g2
      Meyer5.0 e3.3 f7.05.0 efg5.05.5 e-h0
      Empire8.0 abc6.0 a-d7.75.7 c-f5.76.0 def2
      Jamur7.7 abc6.0 a-d8.36.0 b-e6.06.0 def2
      Zenith7.2 abc4.5 def7.75.2 efg5.24.9 hij1
      'Riviera' bermudagrassi
      P-value< 0.0001< 0.0001 0.1874< 0.0001 0.1741< 0.0001
      a Winterkill ratings: 9 = fully green; 1 = no green tissue.
      b Spring green-up/seasonal color/color retention ratings: 9 = darkest green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown turf.
      c Density: 9 = maximum density; 6 = minimally acceptable density; 1 = lowest density.
      d Uniformity: 9 = maximum uniform turf; 1 = lowest uniformity.
      e Quality: 9 = maximum quality; 6 = minimum acceptable quality; 1 = lowest quality. Turf quality means (n = 6) calculated from two collection dates during 2018−2019.
      f TPI is the turf performance index representing the number of times an entry occurred in the top statistical group (max 4).
      g Means within each column (except TPI) with a common letter or no letters are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).
      h Entry did not survive establishment in 2018 and not enough remaining replications to analyze.
      i Entry or check not planted at site.

      Figure 1.  Average daily air temperature and daily precipitation from January 2018 to December 2020; and in the bottom right the maximum and minimum recorded air temperature and average annual precipitation during the experiment period from on-site or nearby weather stations for each site during 2018 to 2020.

      The colder continental climate for the Indiana site, which is consistent with the Köppen-Geiger climate classification of Cfa and USDA plant hardiness zone of 5b led to greater winterkill during the 2018−2019 winter season, which had a minimum recorded air temperature of −27.6 °C (Tables 1 & 2 and Fig. 1). Specifically, four treatments (XZ14074, 15-TZ-11766, 16-TZ-12783, and 16-TZ-13463) suffered either complete or excessive plant death to the point that not enough plant material remained to allow for future ratings as indicated by 2019 winterkill data (Table 2). There were differences in winterkill ratings following the 2019−2020 winter, but minimum temperatures were not as extreme as the previous winter and thus, less damage occurred (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters measured in Indiana were: PURZ 1701, XZ14055, 10-TZ-994, and 10-TZ-1254 (Table 2). In addition, commercially available zoysiagrass cultivar checks that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters measured in Indiana were: Meyer, 'Empire', and 'Jamur'; and 'Riviera' bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. var. dactylon) (Table 2). Furthermore, PURZ 1701 and 10-TZ-994 had higher cumulative TPI than all cultivar checks indicating better overall turfgrass performance under low maintenance conditions in Indiana. The next best-performing genotypes that ranked in the top statistical group in 25% to 49% of the parameters measured in Indiana were: PURZ 1602, XZ14069, ZG09004, PURZ1606, XZ14071, ZG09055, XZ14072, ZG09062, and 09-TZ-54-9 (Table 2).

      The North Carolina location falls within the same Köppen-Geiger climate classification of Cfa as Indiana but the USDA plant hardiness zone of 7b and weather data supports the observation of less winterkill following both winters of 2018−2019 and 2019−2020 (Tables 1 & 3 and Fig. 1). Particularly, while recorded minimum air temperatures were as low as −13.4 °C in North Carolina, winter injury was generally not as severe as Indiana, where air temperatures were as low as −27.6 °C. Although some genotypes had winterkill ratings of ≤ 4 at this location, most fully recovered. In addition, genotypes that received lower winterkill ratings did not consistently rank in the top statistical group across parameters, which is similar to the findings in Indiana (Tables 2 & 3). Treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters measured in North Carolina were: XZ14069, XZ14070, XZ14071, XZ14072, 09-TZ-54-9, 10-TZ-1254, 16-TZ-12783, and 16-TZ-14114 (Table 3). Additionally, these eight treatments also had higher cumulative TPI than all cultivar checks indicating better overall turfgrass performance under low maintenance conditions in North Carolina. The next best-performing treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in 25% to 49% of the parameters measured in North Carolina were: PURZ 1602, PURZ 1603, PURZ 1606, PURZ 1701, XZ14055, ZG09004, ZG09055, ZG09062, 10-TZ-994, 15-TZ-11766, and 16-TZ-12036; and the cultivars 'Chisholm', Meyer, Empire, Jamur, and 'Zenith' (Table 3).

      The Georgia location falls within the same Köppen-Geiger climate classification of Cfa as Indiana and North Carolina, but the USDA plant hardiness zone of 8b and weather data supports the observation of no winterkill injury for any of the treatments following the 2018−2019 and 2019−2020 winters (Tables 1 & 4 and Fig. 1). Treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters measured in Georgia were: XZ14069, 09-TZ-54-9, 15-TZ-11766, 16-TZ-12783, and 16-TZ-13463 (Table 4). These five entries had higher cumulative TPI than all six cultivar checks indicating better overall turfgrass performance when managed as a low-input site in Georgia. The next best-performing treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in 25% to 49% of the parameters measured in Georgia were: XZ14074, ZG09062, 09-TZ-89-73, 10-TZ-1254, and 16-TZ-12036; and cultivar checks Empire and Jamur.

      The Arizona and California sites with Köppen-Geiger climate classifications of BWh and BSk, respectively, had the most arid climate conditions of all five sites (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Additionally, these sites are in USDA hardiness zones 9b (AZ) and 10a (CA) and the higher minimum recorded air temperatures explain the minimal-to-no winterkill injury observed among genotypes at these sites (Tables 1, 5 & 6 and Fig. 1). The treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in ≥ 50% of the parameters measured were: XZ14069, XZ14074, 09-TZ-54-9, 16-TZ-12783, and 16-TZ-13463 in Arizona; and XZ14069, XZ14071, XZ14074, ZG09062, 09-TZ-54-9, 09-TZ-89-73, 10-TZ-1254, 15-TZ-11766, 16-TZ-12783, 16-TZ-13463, and cultivar checks Chisholm, Empire, and Jamur in California, which indicates these genotypes had the best overall performance under low maintenance conditions at these sites (Tables 5 & 6). The next best-performing treatments that ranked in the top statistical group in 25% to 49% of the parameters measured were: ZG09062 in Arizona; and PURZ 1701, XZ14072, 16-TZ-12036, and cultivar check Zenith in California. Cultivar checks ranked in the top statistical group in ≤ 20% of the parameters measured in Arizona and in ≤ 50% of the parameters measured in California.

    • When visual turf cover was evaluated at three to six months after planting, there differences in establishment rates among genotypes and cultivar checks at each site were recorded (Table 7). There were multiple instances when genotypes exhibited greater turf cover (i.e. faster establishment) at three to six months after planting compared to ≥ 2 zoysiagrass commercial checks at each respective site. The differences in establishment were more pronounced in the southern United States, especially the arid climates of Arizona and California. Moreover, at four of the five sites, a faster establishment was exhibited by some genotypes when compared to Meyer, the most widely used cultivar since 1951.

      Table 7.  Establishment differences among treatments based on visual turf cover (0−100%) at three to six months after planting (MAP) in 2018 for each site.

      EntryIndiana 5 MAPNorth Carolina 4 MAPGeorgia 3 MAPArizona 6 MAPCalifornia 6 MAP
      PURZ 160252 f-ja52 c-g48 e-i51 fgh32 gh
      PURZ 160355 e-i62 b-e16 kl29 i35 gh
      PURZ 160660 d-h50 d-g41 hij28 i29 gh
      PURZ 170153 f-j43 d-g32 ijk40 ghi18 h
      PURZ 170248 g-j33 fg26 jkl28 ib
      XZ1405552 f-j48 d-g39 hij50 fghc
      XZ1406958 d-i77 abc80 abc90 ab82 a-d
      XZ1407052 f-j57 c-f61 c-g76 a-d80 a-e
      XZ1407148 g-j62 b-e84 a62 def57 ef
      XZ1407258 d-i62 b-e51 e-i73 b-e72 b-e
      XZ1407445 hij45 d-g46 f-i82 abc45 fg
      XZ1409238 j27 g49 e-i55 fg28 gh
      ZG0900465 c-f33 fg80 abc80 abc90 abc
      ZG0905560 d-h52 c-g79 abcc72 b-e
      ZG0906267 b-f40 d-g62 c-f83 abc78 a-e
      09-TZ-54-945 ij40 d-g56 d-h91 a92 abc
      09-TZ-89-7355 e-i48 d-g64 b-f86 abc93 ab
      10-TZ-99452 f-j32 fg8 l44 ghi32 gh
      10-TZ-125470 a-e37 efg42 g-j84 abc92 abc
      15-TZ-1176652 f-j40 d-g70 a-d92 a93 ab
      16-TZ-1203655 e-i37 efg40 hij86 abc85 abc
      16-TZ-1278352 f-j63 a-d42 g-j91 a97 a
      16-TZ-1346343 ij50 d-g19 kl84 abc88 abc
      16-TZ-1411482 ab87 ab80 abc87 abc88 abc
      Chisholm48 g-j43 d-g56 d-h72 cde58 def
      Meyer63 c-g47 d-g66 a-e57 efg32 gh
      Empire72 a-d50 d-g80 abc83 abc87 abc
      Jamur83 a88 a84 a86 abc88 abc
      Zenith38 j30 g18 kl37 hi47 fg
      'Riviera' bermudagrass78 abc83 ab66 a-fcc
      P-value< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001
      a Means within each column with a common letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).
      b Entry did not survive establishment in 2018 and not enough remaining replications to analyze.
      c Entry or check not planted at site.
    • Measurements of the percent of golf ball visible within the turf canopy indicated there were differences among treatments in Indiana and Georgia, but not North Carolina, most likely because of greater variability in measurements in North Carolina (Tables 24). A higher ball lie percentage is generally the result of the turfgrass leaves providing better support of a golf ball to keep it largely above the turf canopy. The following five treatments ranked in the top statistical group (i.e. greatest percent ball lie) in both Indiana and Georgia: XZ14055, XZ14071, 09-TZ-54-9, 10-TZ-994, and16-TZ-12036. There were five and seven additional treatments in Indiana and Georgia, respectively, that ranked in the top statistical group for ball lie within each site (Tables 2 & 4). Another commonality between sites is that the following treatments ranked in the lowest statistical group (i.e. lowest percent ball lie) in both Indiana and Georgia: PURZ 1701, ZG09004, and 16-TZ-14114. Therefore, there were similar trends in average golf ball lie across sites. Overall, average visible golf ball lie across all treatments was 38%, 54%, and 60% in Indiana, North Carolina and Georgia, respectively. In addition, the greatest difference between the average maximum and minimum golf ball lie at each site was 35%, 37%, and 29% in Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia, respectively.

    • The unique climate for each site led to differences in performance across sites (Tables 17 and Fig. 1). However, consistencies across sites, which are illustrated more clearly in Fig. 2, could also be observed. Particularly, North Carolina was the most comparable to Indiana than any of the other sites, a trend that is evident when comparing TPI scores (Fig. 2). Furthermore, North Carolina and Georgia have comparable humid climates in the southern United States, and this led to some similarities in overall TPI between these two sites. There was more consistency in TPI scores among Georgia, Arizona, and California, especially between the latter two sites, because of similar climates.

      Figure 2.  Cumulative turf performance index score at each location, which is the number of times a treatment occurred in the top statistical group across all parameters. The maximum possible turf performance index number is the following: Indiana (14), North Carolina (12), Georgia (7), Arizona (5), and California (4). Treatments with a blank cell with x indicate the entry or check was not planted at the location.

      The more northern location of Indiana allowed evaluation of potential differences in cold hardiness, which was an important trait in determining which treatments may have better success in the northern transition zone (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Meanwhile, with less likelihood of the extreme minimum temperatures during winter than Indiana and little-to-no winterkill damage, the more southern and humid climates of North Carolina and Georgia, and the more southern and arid climates of Arizona and California resulted in other treatments generally performing better, as indicated by TPI scores (Fig. 2). However, entries such as XZ14069 and 09-TZ-54-9 had moderate-to-good performance across all five sites; and entries such as ZG09062 and 10-TZ-1254 had only slightly lower performance than the first two across all five sites. These four entries are the only ones that did not receive a TPI score of zero at any site. If cold hardiness is not a concern, then results indicate additional entries such as 16-TZ-12783, 16-TZ-13463, and 15-TZ-11766 could perform well at low-maintenance sites. Currently, entry XZ14069 is planned for commercial release in 2021 (S. Milla-Lewis, personal communication, 2021).

      The five zoysiagrass and one bermudagrass cultivar checks included in the experiment for standard comparison are known to have good cold hardiness[14,26]. We observed similar cold hardiness (i.e. minimal winterkill damage) performance among cultivar checks, and the majority of these continued to perform well in Indiana under low-input conditions. However, their overall performance compared to the experimental genotypes declined when grown farther south and/or in more arid climates (Fig. 2). Particularly, these six cultivars had middle-to-lower tier performance in North Carolina, and generally were some of the worst performing treatments in the warmer and humid (i.e. Georgia) or arid sites (i.e. Arizona and California). In addition, with the exception of Indiana, there were at least five entries that had a higher TPI score than the best performing cultivar check at each respective site. There were at least two entries in Indiana with a higher TPI score than the best performing cultivar check. Moreover, one to five other entries had a similar TPI score than the best performing cultivar checks at each respective site. Overall, the poor performance of commercially available coarse-textured zoysiagrass cultivars receiving minimal inputs in hot humid or arid climates indicates multiple opportunities for breeding programs to develop zoysiagrass genotypes for these climates.

      Differences in establishment among genotypes and cultivar checks were more pronounced in the southern United States, especially the arid climates of Arizona and California. Interestingly, a faster establishment was exhibited by some genotypes at four of the five sites when compared to Meyer, the most widely used cultivar since 1951. Overall, there were a few consistencies in establishment rate among genotypes across sites, and results indicate opportunities for breeding programs to utilize and develop these faster establishing genotypes.

      For ball lie measurements, which is an indication of the potential to hit a quality golf shot[27], the range of ball lie percentages slightly differed among sites, which was likely due to minor differences in mowing heights of ± 1.3 cm among sites. Regardless, there were some consistencies, and results indicate some entries may provide a better ball lie (i.e. more visible or exposed ball) for golf course rough areas. Strunk et al.[27] reported a golfer could expect a decrease in carry distance by 4.6 and 9.1 m when ball lie was below 55 and 30%, respectively. Past research by Richardson et al.[25] and Trappe et al.[3] reported generally > 91% of the golf ball is exposed above the turf canopy on mown fairway height (1.3 cm) zoysiagrass and bermudagrass cultivars and 73% to 84% of the golf ball is visible at a mowing height of 2.5 cm. It may be practical for golf course rough areas to provide an intermediate golf ball lie (40%−70%) as a way to penalize golfers for errant golf shots. Average visible golf ball ranged from 17% to 75% across sites in our experiment, which is to be expected because of the higher mowing height (7.6 ± 1.3 cm) implemented[27]. Regardless, all treatments were mown at the same height within each site and results indicate some genotypes provided a turf surface that was able to hold the golf ball higher up in the turf canopy than other treatments for an intermediate golf ball lie in Indiana and Georgia. This was most likely because these genotypes generally had greater turf density or uniformity, and also potentially leaf blades of these entries may have been more stiff and able to suspend the golf ball at the top of the zoysiagrass canopy, which is a known strength of zoysiagrass[1]; however, leaf blade stiffness was not measured.

    • Given that many zoysiagrasses have lower mowing requirements and often resist weed encroachment better than other warm-season species, expanded use of this grass could have a significant environmental impact. However, current breeding efforts in the United States are largely focused on golf course 'fairway' and 'putting green' zoysiagrass types. Little breeding effort has been placed towards the creation of aggressive, vegetatively established zoysiagrass cultivars well adapted for golf course roughs, lawns, roadsides, airports, and other infrequently mown areas where function and stress tolerance tend to be less important than aesthetics. The present study identified breeding lines with exceptional ability to persist under very low inputs. Furthermore, some of these lines showed superior performance to commercially available cultivars under warm-temperate, warm-humid and hot-arid climates, demonstrating wide adaptability. Aggressive zoysiagrass germplasm that has excellent stress tolerance when managed with low to no inputs would increase the prevalence of zoysiagrass use in new markets. Additionally, to fully realize the benefits of zoysiagrasses and develop more sustainable golf course roughs and landscapes, there is a significant need to broaden the pool of winter hardy and freeze tolerant commercial cultivars that are better adapted to warmer regions in order to expand the commercial adoption of zoysiagrass north of the transition zone north. A couple of the lines identified in our research combined excellent persistence with the ability to withstand the cold winters of Indiana. Breeding efforts between collaboration institutions, each with unique germplasm, should be initiated to hybridize germplasm with the genetic potential for wider adaptation in environments that will likely force management of turfgrass with lower inputs in the future.

    • Field experiments were established in full-sun areas between May and July in 2018 at five sites in the United States located in multiple climates (i.e. warm-arid, warm-humid, northern transition zone). Table 1 provides site, soil, and climate specifications for each location. Thirty entries were arranged in a randomized, complete-block design with three complete blocks totaling 90 plots at each site, with the exception that one entry and commercially available cultivar were not planted at the Arizona and California sites due to lack of plant material (Table 8). Twenty-four of the entries consisted of Zoysia spp. experimental breeding lines from Purdue University, North Carolina State University, and University of Georgia, and the other six entries consisted of commercially available cultivars of zoysiagrass and bermudagrass for standard comparison (Table 8).

      Table 8.  Experimental zoysiagrass entries and commercially available cultivars evaluated at five locations for overall performance under minimal inputs.

      EntrySpeciesSource
      PURZ 1602Z. japonicaPurdue University
      PURZ 1603Z. japonicaPurdue University
      PURZ 1606Z. japonicaPurdue University
      PURZ 1701Z. japonicaPurdue University
      PURZ 1702Z. japonicaPurdue University
      XZ14055Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14069Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14070Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14071Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14072Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14074Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      XZ14092Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      ZG09004Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      ZG09055Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      ZG09062Z. japonica × Z. matrellaNorth Carolina State University
      09-TZ-54-9Z. japonica × Z. matrellaUniversity of Georgia
      09-TZ-89-73Z. matrella × Z. japonicaUniversity of Georgia
      10-TZ-994Z. japonicaUniversity of Georgia
      10-TZ-1254Z. macrantha DesvauxUniversity of Georgia
      15-TZ-11766Z. matrellaUniversity of Georgia
      16-TZ-12036Z. japonica × Z. matrellaUniversity of Georgia
      16-TZ-12783Z. japonica × Z. matrellaUniversity of Georgia
      16-TZ-13463Z. matrella × Z. japonicaUniversity of Georgia
      16-TZ-14114Z. japonicaUniversity of Georgia
      Commercially available cultivarsSpeciesSource
      'Chisholm' zoysiagrassZ. japonicaTexas A&M AgriLife Research and Kansas State University
      'Meyer'Z. japonicaUnited States Department of Agricultre
      'Empire' zoysiagrassZ. japonicaSod Solutions, Inc.
      'Jamur' zoysiagrassZ. japonicaBladerunner Farms, Inc.
      'Zenith' zoysiagrassZ. japonicaPatten Seed Co.
      'Riviera' bermudagrassC. dactylon var. dactylonOklahoma State University

      At planting, genotypes were transplanted as 20 × 25.8 cm2 grass plugs (5.1 × 5.1 cm) into the center of each 1.5 by 1.5 m plot with 0.5 m borders. To promote establishment after planting in 2018, the study areas were irrigated and one month after planting the plots received fertilizer at a rate of 49 kg N ha−1 (urea; 46-0-0). Additional pest (e.g. weeds) control was applied only on an as needed basis during the first year to promote establishment. During the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons, plots were maintained with minimal-to-no inputs (i.e. N fertilization, pesticides, irrigation) to simulate a low-maintenance turf area. Irrigation was applied at the Arizona and California locations when wilt became severe in plots. Plots were mown as needed at typical golf course rough or home lawn heights (7.6 ± 1.3 cm), with the exception of the Arizona site which was managed at 5.1 cm.

      Data collection began in the autumn of 2018 and continued through 2020. Data collected included ratings of quality, density, and uniformity rated visually on a 1 to 9 scale in which 9 = highest possible, 6 = minimally acceptable, and 1 = undesirable; seasonal color (i.e. spring green-up, summer, autumn) rated visually on a 1 to 9 scale in which 9 = dark green; 6 = minimally acceptable color; 1 = straw brown; winter kill rated visually on a 1 to 9 scale in which 9 = fully green and 1 = no green tissue; leaf texture on a 1 to 9 scale in which 9 = fine and 1 = coarse; and drought stress resistance rated visually on a 1 to 9 scale in which 9 = no wilting or leaf firing, 100% green-no dormancy and 1 = complete wilting, 100% leaf firing or complete dormancy. Turf cover was rated visually on 0−100% scale. Collection ratings and timings were conducted in accordance to National Turfgrass Evaluation Program guidelines[28]. Average turf quality for each plot was calculated from multiple collection timings for each site. Digital images were taken in Georgia using a lighted camera box and analyzed with SigmaScan Pro 5.0 (ver 5.0, SPSS Science Marketing Dept., Chicago, IL) using the method developed by Karcher and Richardson[29] to calculate dark green color index (DGCI) on a 0 to 1 scale with higher values corresponding to darker green color. Average DGCI for each plot was then calculated from five collection timings during the 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons. Golf ball lie on a 0 to 100% scale was measured at five, six, or two dates during the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons in Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia, respectively, using the method developed by Richardson et al.[25]. Average ball lie for each plot was then calculated from the multiple collection timings at each site. Additional data included digital images collected at the other four sites with a mounted digital camera and analyzed with ImageJ version 1.52a[30] to assess green vegetation cover (0−100%) to determine establishment rate differences and changes in turf cover over time. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions, less data collection events occurred in 2020 compared to 2019, especially in Georgia, Arizona, and California. At the conclusion of the study, a cumulative turf performance index (TPI) score was generated for each treatment within each location, representing the number of times it occurred in the top statistical grouping across all parameters (except leaf texture ratings because of research objectives) and all sampling dates similar to the methods of Wherley et al.[12]. Weather data was collected from either an on-site or nearby weather station for each location.

    • Data for each parameter were analyzed for each location separately with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.), utilizing the GLIMMIX procedure with block as a random effect. Residual normality was tested with the w statistic of the Shapiro–Wilk[31] test via the UNIVARIATE procedure of SAS. Means were separated with Fisher's Protected LSD test (α = 0.05) when the F-tests were significant (P ≤ 0.05).

      • The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support by the United States Golf Association. We thank Jimmy Fox and Jonathon Fox; and personnel at Lake Wheeler Turfgrass Field Laboratory, W. H. Daniel Turfgrass Research and Diagnostic Center, and Coastal Plain Experiment Station for their efforts in this research.
      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
      • Copyright: © 2021 by the author(s). Exclusive Licensee Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (2)  Table (8) References (31)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Braun RC, Milla-Lewis SR, Carbajal EM, Schwartz BM, Patton AJ. 2021. Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates. Grass Research 1: 10 doi: 10.48130/GR-2021-0010
    Braun RC, Milla-Lewis SR, Carbajal EM, Schwartz BM, Patton AJ. 2021. Performance and playability of experimental low-input coarse-textured zoysiagrass in multiple climates. Grass Research 1: 10 doi: 10.48130/GR-2021-0010

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return