ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Performance of turfgrass under supplemental irrigationand rain-fed conditions in the Central Great Plains of USAM. Anowarul Islam, Augustine K. Obour, James M. Krall, Jack T. Cecil and Jerry J. Nachtman
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA
Keywords
Drought tolerant; rain-fed condition;
supplemental irrigation; turf quality; turfgrass
cultivars.
Correspondence
M. Anowarul Islam, Department of Plant
Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie,
WY 82071, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Received 10 December 2012;
accepted 3 March 2013.
doi: 10.1111/grs.12018
Abstract
Identifying drought tolerant turfgrass for semiarid Central Great Plains (CGP)
of Wyoming is imperative because of limited water availability for irrigation.
This study evaluated the performance and quality of different turfgrass species/
cultivars under irrigated and rain-fed conditions in southeastern Wyoming.
The species/cultivars evaluated in the study included Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis L. ‘Bandera’, ‘Common 85/80’ and ‘Midnight’), tall fescue
(Schedonorus arundinaceus [Schreb.] Dumort., formerly Festuca arundinacea
Schreb.; ‘Blackwatch’, ‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’), buffalograss (Bouteloua
dactyloides [Nutt.] J.T. Columbus; ‘Bison’, ‘Bowie’ and ‘Cody’), and blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis [Willd. ex Kunth] Lag. ex Griffiths; ‘Alma’, ‘Bad River’ and
‘Hachita’). The study was planted in a randomized complete block with four
replicates in a factorial design. Coverage of turfgrasses used in the study was
similar in both irrigated and rain-fed conditions. In general, better performance
and turf quality in terms of vigor and color were obtained in irrigated condi-
tions compared to rain-fed. Plant vigor and color rankings were in the order
of tall fescue > Kentucky bluegrass > buffalograss > blue grama under irrigated
conditions. However, plant vigor and color were superior for the warm-season
turfgrass species (buffalograss and blue grama) under rain-fed conditions.
Overall performance of the turfgrass species tested in the study was tall fes-
cue � Kentucky bluegrass > blue grama � buffalograss. Tall fescue cultivars
‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’, blue grama cultivar ‘Bad River’, and buffalograss
cultivar ‘Cody’ were among the most promising drought tolerant cultivars.
Introduction
Most traditional turfgrass species require large amounts
of irrigation water to produce good quality turf. In the
semiarid Central Great Plains (CGP) of Wyoming where
average annual precipitation is low (~350 mm), water
availability for turfgrass irrigation is limited. Identifying
drought tolerant and low maintenance turfgrass is of
prime interest to both land owners and turf managers.
Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue are the most widely
planted cool-season turfgrass species used for both high
and low-maintenance turf systems. Recent studies
reported that several cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass and
tall fescue provided high visual quality under reduced
inputs (e.g. irrigation and fertilization) (Meyer and Funk
1989; Karcher et al. 2008; Richardson et al. 2009, 2012).
Although tall fescue has been reported to produce high
quality turf under low maintenance conditions across sev-
eral regions in the Midwestern United States (Diesburg
et al. 1997), information on the performance of recently
released cool-season turfgrasses under drought conditions
is limited in the semiarid CGP. Selecting grasses that have
the ability to maintain green cover for long periods with-
out supplemental irrigation could have a significant
impact on seasonal water use.
Blue grama and buffalograss are native grass species
found in the North American Great Plains (Beetle 1950).
These warm-season grasses are tolerant to drought,
adapted to semiarid regions, and are currently being used
as low-maintenance turfgrass species across the US Great
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119 111
Japanese Society of Grassland Science ISSN1744-6961
Japanese Society of Grassland Science
Plains (Phillips 1999; Mintenko et al. 2002). Efforts have
been made to breed native grass species, particularly buf-
falograss for their suitability as turfgrass in the CGP.
‘Bowie’ and ‘Cody’ are turf-type buffalograss cultivars
released recently by the University of Nebraska with supe-
rior turf quality and drought tolerance (Severmutlu et al.
2005a,b). Elsewhere in Manitoba (Canada), blue grama
cultivar ‘Bad River’ has been reported to produce good
quality turf with excellent drought tolerance with great
potential as a low maintenance turf (Mintenko et al.
2002). These newly released cultivars are reported to have
wider geographic adaptability but their performance in
the CGP has not been widely evaluated. The objectives of
this study were to identify turfgrasses adapted to the
semiarid conditions of Wyoming and compare the perfor-
mance and quality of different turfgrass species/cultivars
under irrigated and rain-fed conditions.
Materials and methods
Study site
The study was conducted at the University of Wyoming
James C. Hageman Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Extension Center (SAREC), Lingle, WY (42°14′N, 104°30′W; 1272 m elevation) during 2009–2011. The CGP region
is characterized by cool temperatures and short growing
seasons (Curtis and Grimes 2004). Average frost-free per-
iod at SAREC is 125 days with average annual precipita-
tion of 350 mm. Precipitation amounts during the 3-year
study period (2009–2011) of the study were greater than
or near the 30-year average (Table 1). In general, more
than 70% of annual precipitation in the experimental site
occurred in March through August, with May and June
being the months with the highest rainfall. The year 2011
was relatively dry compared to 2009 and 2010. Except for
the fall of 2009, monthly average temperatures were simi-
lar to the 30-year average (Table 1). The soils are gener-
ally loams and sandy loams with organic matter content
of 1–2%. The soil at the experimental site was a Haverson
loam soil (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous,
mesic Aridic Ustifluvent) with 1.2% organic matter, pH
8.0, phosphorus (P) 20 mg kg�1 and potassium (K)
344 mg kg�1.
Experiment set up and treatments
Two treatments were imposed: cultivars/species and irri-
gation management. Three cultivars of Kentucky blue-
grass (‘Bandera’, ‘Common 85/80’ and ‘Midnight’), tall
fescue (‘Blackwatch’, ‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’), buf-
falograss (‘Bison’, ‘Bowie’ and ‘Cody’), and blue grama
(‘Alma’, ‘Bad River’ and ‘Hachita’) were included in the
study (Table 2). Cultivar selection for each species was
based on reported drought tolerance (Mintenko et al.
2002; Severmutlu et al. 2005a,b; Richardson et al. 2009).
Irrigation management included irrigated versus rain-fed.
Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete
block with four replicates in a factorial design. The indi-
vidual plot size of the study was 1.5 m by 6.1 m. The
study was planted on 11 May 2009. Seeds were broadcast
onto a clean, firm and smooth seed bed then softly
raked-in, and finally rolled into soil. Sowing rates (pure
live seed) were 196, 489, 98 and 147 kg ha�1 for Ken-
tucky bluegrass, tall fescue, buffalograss and blue grama,
respectively.
During the establishment year of 2009, rain-fed plots
received irrigation water as needed to ensure good emer-
gence. Good precipitation conditions following sowing in
2009 aided rapid plant establishment. Plot establishment
in the autumn of 2009 was identical among all treat-
ments. This was critical for drought tolerance assessment
in 2010 and 2011, which was accomplished by comparing
grasses in one-half of the study which received continu-
ous irrigation to the other one-half, which did not receive
any supplemental irrigation. The irrigated and rain-fed
plots were separated by an 8-m grass alleyway to ensure
that supplemental irrigation water from the irrigated plots
does not get into the rain-fed plots. The supplemental
amounts of water added to the irrigated turfgrass plots
through center pivot sprinkler irrigation were 229, 245
and 267 mm in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. On
average, the irrigated treatment received 67% more water
than the rain-fed treatment (Table 1). Starting in July
2009, all plots were mowed bi-weekly to control weeds
and stimulate growth. Plots were fertilized (based on soil
test results) with 56 kg ha�1 of N (as urea) and P (as
mono-ammonium phosphate), and 22 kg ha�1 of sulfur
(as elemental sulfur) in mid-September in the second and
third year of the study.
Data collection and statistical analysis
Data on seedling emergence and turfgrass visual ratings
during the establishment year were collected on 1 July
(51 days after seeding) and 29 July, respectively in 2009.
In subsequent years, data collection for early summer was
done on 1 and 6 June in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Late
summer visual ratings were done on 5 August in 2010
and 26 July in 2011. Visual rating data included coverage,
plant vigor, color, dormancy, steminess, density and weed
infestation. All visual ratings (based on National Turfgrass
Evaluation Program (NTEP, http://ntep.org/contents2.
shtml); available at www.ntep.org/reports/ratings.htm)
except for coverage, dormancy and weed infestation were
based on a scale of 1–9; where 1 was poor and 9 was the
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119112
Performance of turfgrass M. A. Islam et al.
best. For steminess, 9 was no stem and 1 was the maxi-
mum stem (i.e. the higher the number the better). Turf-
grass density was recorded as living plants or tillers per
unit area (excluding dead patches) with a visual rating of
1–9 with 9 equaling maximum density. Coverage, dor-
mancy and weed infestation were rated from 0 to 100%,
with 0 being least and 100 being the highest. For instance,
100% coverage meant the entire plot area was covered by
the turfgrass species while 0% meant no plant cover. Sim-
ilarly, 100% dormancy represented limited growth with
turfgrass turning brown in color, whereas 0% dormancy
meant plants were actively growing with green leaves.
Also, 100% weed infestation meant the entire plot was
covered by undesirable plant species and 0% weed infes-
tation represented a weed free plot.
Statistical analyses for analysis of variance (ANOVA)
for all visual responses were done using the PROC MIXED
procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 2010). Turfgrass species/
Table 1 Monthly precipitation and irrigation over the study period and average temperature at the University of Wyoming James C. Hageman
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center (SAREC)
Month
Precipitation (mm) Irrigation (mm) Temperature (°C)
2009 2010 2011 30-yr average† 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 30-yr average
January 12 0 5 8 – – – �2.8 �3.6 �3.7 �3.9
February 4 23 14 10 – – – 0.2 �4.7 �4.6 �1.1
March 17 26 25 18 – – – 2.3 3.6 3.9 3.1
April 64 85 59 42 – – – 6.1 7.8 6.9 7.8
May 23 66 114 64 78 82 90 13.5 11.2 10.0 13.4
June 82 108 53 52 75 82 90 16.8 18.2 17.3 19.1
July 22 25 24 45 76 81 87 20.3 20.9 22.7 22.4
August 86 21 28 30 – – – 19.3 21.2 22.0 21.2
September 16 0 3 32 – – – 13.4 15.4 15.3 15.4
October 41 24 3 24 – – – 3.9 10.2 8.7 8.7
November 3 14 11 14 – – – 3.1 �0.1 1.7 1.1
December 9 11 6 9 – – – �7.7 �2.3 �4.8 �3.2
Average 31 34 29 29 76 82 89 7.8 7.3 8.0 8.7
Total 379 403 345 348 229 245 267 – – – –
†From 1972 to 2001 (Curtis and Grimes 2004).
Table 2 Seed sources and characteristics of turfgrass entries used in the study
Species Cultivar Seed sources Characteristics
Blue grama ‘Alma’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Bunch-type grass that spread by tillers, adapted to US Great Plains,
deep roots and drought tolerant
‘Bad River’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Bunch-type grass that spread by tillers, quality turf, adapted to US
Great Plains, deep roots and drought tolerant, selection from
South Dakota
‘Hachita’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Bunch-type grass that spread by tillers, quality turf, adapted to US
Great Plains, drought tolerant
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Stoloniferous and sod forming, native to US Great Plains, easily seeded,
low maintenance, cold tolerant
‘Bowie’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Stoloniferous and sod forming, native to US Great Plains with wide
adaptation range, easily seeded, low maintenance, cold tolerance.
‘Cody’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Stoloniferous and sod forming, native to US Great Plains, easily seeded,
low maintenance, early fall dormancy
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Semi-upright growth, spread by rhizomes, goes dormant in extreme drought
‘Common 85/80’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Rhizomatous, fine textured, some drought tolerance
‘Midnight’ Pawnee Buttes Seed, Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
High quality turf but needs maintenance, adapted to Central Great Plains
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Perennial bunch-type, deep rooted, some drought tolerance, requires
maintenance
‘Tar Heel II’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Perennial bunch-type, deep rooted, some drought tolerance, requires
maintenance
‘Watchdog’ Pawnee Buttes Seed Inc.,
Greeley, CO, USA
Perennial bunch-type, deep rooted, some drought tolerance, requires
maintenance
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119 113
M. A. Islam et al. Performance of turfgrass
cultivars, irrigation management and year were considered
as fixed effects and replicate and their interactions were
considered as random effects. Since year interaction with
treatments was significant (P < 0.001), data were analyzed
separately for each year and irrigation management. Turf-
grass cultivar mean separation was done by Fisher’s Least
Significant Difference (LSD) test at P � 0.05. Interactions
and treatment effects were considered significant when F
test P-values were � 0.05.
Results and discussion
Turfgrass performance in establishment year
Turfgrass establishment was successful and plant perfor-
mance was similar among irrigated and rain-fed treat-
ments (Table 3). Average plant emergence recorded on 1
July 2009 was 72 and 75% for irrigated and rain-fed
plots, respectively. Emergence counts were highest among
tall fescue cultivars (93–95%) and least for buffalograss
(47–59%). Similarly, coverage, vigor, color and density of
buffalograss cultivars in the summer of the establishment
year (29 July 2009) were least among the turfgrass culti-
vars tested. Tall fescue cultivars had the best visual rat-
ings. The performance of blue grama and Kentucky
bluegrass were intermediate between tall fescue and buffa-
lograss under both irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Ste-
miness was similar among all cultivars except cultivars of
buffalograss.
Buffalograss performed poorly in terms of coverage,
vigor, color and density but it had the least dormancy
(2–4%) among the cultivars tested (Table 3). The poor
performance of buffalograss is probably due to the poor
germination and emergence, consistent with previous
studies that reported the difficulty and slow establishment
of buffalograss from seed (Fry et al. 1997; Frank et al.
1998). As a warm-season grass, early planting (May)
might have contributed to the poor performance as well;
however, there was variation between cultivars. ‘Cody’
which provided the highest emergence (56–59%) had the
highest coverage, vigor and color ratings among the buf-
falograss cultivars evaluated thus supporting the above
Table 3 Turfgrass performance under irrigated and rain-fed conditions at SAREC, Lingle in the establishment year (emergence recorded on 1 July
2009 [51 days after seeding]; other parameters recorded on 29 July 2009)
Species Cultivar Emergence (%) Coverage (%) Vigor† Color† Dormancy (%) Density†
Irrigated
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 72.5 81.3 6.0 5.3 13.8 7.5
‘Bad River’ 78.8 88.8 6.5 6.5 13.8 8.3
‘Hachita’ 55.0 40.0 5.5 5.8 3.8 2.3
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 55.0 45.0 5.5 5.3 4.0 1.8
‘Bowie’ 46.5 60.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0
‘Cody’ 58.8 68.8 6.8 6.3 1.8 4.0
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 68.8 72.5 6.8 7.3 15.0 7.0
‘Common 85/80’ 73.8 77.5 7.3 6.8 9.0 7.3
‘Midnight’ 72.5 77.5 7.5 9.0 29.0 6.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 93.8 97.3 8.8 9.0 6.3 8.5
‘Tar Heel II’ 95.0 93.8 8.5 8.3 42.5 8.8
‘Watchdog’ 92.5 95.0 8.3 8.5 38.8 8.5
Mean 71.9 74.8 6.9 7.0 15.2 6.3
SE 5.3 7.4 0.7 0.6 8.3 0.5
Rain-fed
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 71.3 90.0 6.8 5.8 13.8 8.5
‘Bad River’ 72.5 90.0 6.3 5.8 14.0 8.3
‘Hachita’ 61.3 51.3 5.3 5.0 10.5 4.3
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 58.8 45.0 5.5 5.3 4.0 1.8
‘Bowie’ 58.8 60.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0
‘Cody’ 56.3 68.8 6.8 6.3 1.8 4.0
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 80.0 85.0 7.5 7.5 10.0 8.0
‘Common 85/80’ 83.8 96.3 7.8 7.0 4.0 8.8
‘Midnight’ 78.8 95.0 7.5 8.5 4.0 8.8
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 95.0 93.8 8.3 8.3 10.0 8.8
‘Tar Heel II’ 92.5 96.3 8.0 8.0 29.0 8.8
‘Watchdog’ 92.5 93.8 8.0 8.5 25.0 8.3
Mean 75.1 80.4 6.9 6.8 10.8 7.0
SE 5.3 7.4 0.7 0.6 8.3 0.5
†Visual ratings are based on 1–9 rating scale where 1 = poorest or lowest and 9 = best or highest. SAREC,Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Extension Center; SE, standard error for mean comparison.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119114
Performance of turfgrass M. A. Islam et al.
statement of relationship of establishment with emer-
gence.
Early summer (early June) performance ofturfgrass
Visual ratings differed significantly (P < 0.001) among
turfgrass cultivars under both irrigated and rain-fed con-
ditions in 2010 (Table 4). Plant coverage under irrigated
conditions ranged from 60% for ‘Hachita’ (blue grama)
to 100% (Kentucky bluegrass cultivar ‘Common 85/80’;
tall fescue cultivars ‘Blackwatch’ and ‘Tar Heel II’). In
rain-fed conditions, coverage ranged from 70% for
‘Hachita’ (blue grama) to 100% for ‘Tar Heel II’ (tall fes-
cue). In general, plant coverage for tall fescue culti-
vars > Kentucky bluegrass > blue grama > buffalograss
under both irrigated and rain-fed conditions (Table 4).
Among the tall fescue cultivars, performance of ‘Tar Heel
II’ was similar in both irrigated and rain-fed conditions.
The performance of blue grama and buffalograss cultivars
were similar in both irrigated and rain-fed conditions.
However, performance of the cool-season grasses (Ken-
tucky bluegrass and tall fescue) were superior under irri-
gated conditions compared to the water limiting
conditions.
In the third year of the study (2011), plant coverage
was not different among turfgrass cultivars under irri-
gated conditions (Table 5). However, plant coverage
under irrigation (99.8%) was superior to rain-fed (81.4%)
conditions. In rain-fed conditions, plant coverage ranged
from 53% for ‘Blackwatch’ (tall fescue) to 100% for
‘Cody’ (buffalograss). Plant vigor and color for tall fescue
cultivars were > Kentucky bluegrass > blue grama > buf-
falograss in both irrigated and rain-fed plots. Dormancy
rankings were buffalograss > blue grama > Kentucky
bluegrass > tall fescue (Table 5). This observation is con-
sistent with growth pattern of warm- and cool-season
grasses. Most warm-season grasses show complete green-
up by early June while cool-season grasses show complete
green-up in early May (Mintenko et al. 2002). Turf
density was similar among cultivars under irrigation but
significantly different (P = 0.001) under rain-fed condi-
Table 4 Turfgrass performance under irrigated and rain-fed conditions at SAREC, Lingle in early summer (data [visual ratings] recorded on 1 June
2010)
Species Cultivar Coverage (%) Vigor† Color† Dormancy (%) Steminess† Density†
Irrigated
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 92.5 5.5 6.3 4.8 7.8 8.3
‘Bad River’ 97.5 7.8 7.0 8.5 8.0 9.0
‘Hachita’ 60.0 6.0 6.8 6.0 6.8 6.0
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 72.5 7.0 7.3 5.8 8.0 6.8
‘Bowie’ 82.5 7.0 7.0 6.8 7.8 8.8
‘Cody’ 82.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 7.8 7.8
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 92.5 8.0 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.5
‘Common 85/80’ 100.0 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.5 8.8
‘Midnight’ 87.5 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.0 8.5
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 100.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.3 9.0
‘Tar Heel II’ 100.0 8.0 7.3 8.0 8.0 9.0
‘Watchdog’ 95.0 7.5 7.0 7.8 8.0 8.3
Mean 88.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.7 8.2
SE 5.0 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.5 0.4
Rain-fed
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 82.5 4.8 6.8 5.5 6.8 8.3
‘Bad River’ 92.5 7.8 7.3 8.0 8.0 9.0
‘Hachita’ 70.0 7.0 6.3 6.3 7.5 6.5
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 80.0 7.0 7.3 6.8 7.5 8.0
‘Bowie’ 72.5 7.8 7.5 7.3 7.8 7.5
‘Cody’ 85.0 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.8 8.5
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 82.5 7.8 7.5 7.0 7.8 8.5
‘Common 85/80’ 95.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.8
‘Midnight’ 92.5 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.8 8.8
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 87.5 7.8 7.0 7.8 7.8 8.3
‘Tar Heel II’ 100.0 8.0 7.3 8.0 8.0 9.0
‘Watchdog’ 85.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.8 8.8
Mean 85.4 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.7 8.3
SE 14.6 0.9 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.4
†Visual ratings are based on 1–9 rating scale where 1 = poorest or lowest and 9 = best or highest; for steminess, 1 = highest stem or seed head
and 9 = no stem or seed head. SAREC, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center; SE, standard error for mean comparison.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119 115
M. A. Islam et al. Performance of turfgrass
tions. Turf density under rain-fed conditions were least
for ‘Hachita’ (blue grama; 2.5) and ‘Bowie’ (buffalograss;
3.0) and highest (9.0) for tall fescue cultivar ‘Watchdog’
(Table 5). Steminess ratings were least among buffalograss
cultivars, followed by blue grama. However, Kentucky
bluegrass and tall fescue cultivars had similar steminess
ratings.
Late summer (late July to early August)performance of turfgrass
Plant coverage ratings were similar under both irrigated
and rain-fed conditions in the late summer of 2010 with
average coverage of 96% (Table 6). Coverage for all turf-
grass cultivars except ‘Hachita’ (blue grama; 77.5%)
was � 91% under irrigated conditions. In rain-fed con-
ditions, only buffalograss cultivar ‘Bison’ had coverage
below 90% (Table 6). After 3 years of the study in 2011,
ratings of turfgrass cultivar coverage under irrigated
conditions in the late summer were buffalograss > tall
fescue > blue grama > Kentucky bluegrass (Table 7).
Under rain-fed conditions, coverage rankings were in
the order of buffalograss (72.6%) > blue grama
(63.1%) > Kentucky blue grass (60.9%) > tall fescue
(49.9%). There was little to no weed infestation in tall
fescue plots in both irrigated and rain-fed plots compared
to the other turfgrass species (Tables 6 and 7). Weed
infestation rankings during the study period were tall fes-
cue < Kentucky bluegrass < buffalograss < blue grama.
Among the warm-season grasses, ‘Bad River’ (blue grama)
and ‘Cody’ (buffalograss) showed better weed competi-
tion. Although both ‘Cody’ and ‘Bowie’ are acclaimed as
highly tolerant to drought and well adapted to the CGP
region (Severmutlu et al. 2005a), the performance of
‘Cody’ was the best among the buffalograss cultivars eval-
uated in the present study. This observation can partly be
explained by the ability of ‘Cody’ to outcompete with
weeds. Species/cultivars selected for low-maintenance
turfgrass should have the capability to withstand environ-
mental stresses such as extreme temperature, low mois-
ture availability, low fertility levels and weed competition
due to limited pesticide use (Diesburg et al. 1997). The
greater competitive ability of tall fescue against weed
invasion makes it a suitable candidate for low-mainte-
Table 5 Turfgrass performance under irrigated and rain-fed conditions at SAREC, Lingle in early summer (data [visual ratings] recorded on 6 June
2011)
Species Cultivar Coverage (%) Vigor† Color† Dormancy (%) Steminess† Density†
Irrigated
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 100.0 2.3 1.3 94.2 3.3 9.0
‘Bad River’ 100.0 3.5 3.0 75.0 5.8 9.0
‘Hachita’ 98.8 2.0 1.3 97.0 2.8 9.0
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 100.0 1.5 1.0 95.5 2.5 9.0
‘Bowie’ 100.0 2.0 1.0 95.0 3.0 9.0
‘Cody’ 100.0 1.5 1.0 97.0 3.3 9.0
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 99.5 6.0 6.0 22.0 5.5 8.8
‘Common 85/80’ 100.0 5.8 4.5 21.0 5.3 8.8
‘Midnight’ 99.2 5.8 5.8 16.3 6.0 9.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 100.0 6.8 6.0 9.5 5.3 8.8
‘Tar Heel II’ 100.0 6.8 6.5 7.3 5.0 9.0
‘Watchdog’ 99.5 6.3 6.0 8.3 5.0 9.0
Mean 99.8 4.2 3.6 53.2 4.4 9.0
SE 5.0 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.5 0.4
Rain-fed
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 74.5 4.5 4.8 32.5 5.0 7.0
‘Bad River’ 92.0 3.3 3.0 53.3 5.3 5.8
‘Hachita’ 78.5 2.0 2.0 81.3 3.5 2.5
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 88.7 1.0 1.0 100.0 2.0 3.3
‘Bowie’ 94.5 1.5 1.3 96.5 3.0 3.0
‘Cody’ 100.0 1.5 1.5 91.3 3.3 7.5
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 94.3 6.0 6.3 5.3 6.3 8.3
‘Common 85/80’ 77.5 4.5 4.5 29.3 5.0 5.8
‘Midnight’ 81.3 6.3 7.0 3.5 5.8 7.5
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 53.0 6.5 6.8 2.8 5.3 7.5
‘Tar Heel II’ 74.5 4.5 4.8 32.5 5.0 7.0
‘Watchdog’ 67.5 5.8 6.0 8.0 4.8 9.0
Mean 81.4 4.0 4.1 44.7 4.5 6.2
SE 14.6 0.9 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.4
†Visual ratings are based on 1–9 rating scale where 1 = poorest or lowest and 9 = best or highest; for steminess, 1 = highest stem or seed head
and 9 = no stem or seed head. SAREC, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center; SE, standard error for mean comparison.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119116
Performance of turfgrass M. A. Islam et al.
nance turfgrass species where inputs such as pesticide and
water application are often reduced (Diesburg et al.
1997).
Plant vigor ratings were 7.5 and 3.7 for irrigated and
rain-fed plots, respectively in the late summer of 2010
(Table 6). Vigor ratings of blue grama cultivar ‘Bad River’
(7.8), Kentucky bluegrass cultivar ‘Midnight’ (8.8) and tall
fescue cultivar ‘Watchdog’ (8.3) were above the mean
plant vigor under irrigated conditions (Table 6). Vigor
ratings in rain-fed plots ranged from 2.3 for ‘Bad River’
(blue grama) to 5.5 for ‘Bandera’ (Kentucky bluegrass).
Similarly, plant color ratings in late summer of 2010 were
significantly different among irrigated and rain-fed plots.
Average plant color was 6.9 for irrigated plots and 3.4 for
rain-fed plots. Under irrigated conditions, color ratings of
Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue were similar and greater
than ratings for blue grama and buffalograss. However, in
rain-fed conditions, color ratings for turfgrass cultivars
were 2.3–4.3 for blue grama, 3.3–4.3 for buffalograss, 1.5–4.5 for Kentucky bluegrass, and 2.5–5.5 for tall fescue.
At the end of the study, plant vigor and color ratings
were superior for irrigated plots compared to rain-fed
plots (Table 7). In irrigated plots, vigor ratings for tall
fescue cultivars (6.8–7.3) and Kentucky bluegrass
(6.5–7.0) were greater than buffalograss (6.0–6.5) and
blue grama (6.3). Similarly, color rankings were tall fes-
cue > Kentucky bluegrass > buffalograss > blue grama
under irrigated conditions. Under rain-fed conditions,
plant vigor and color were superior for the warm-season
turfgrass species (blue grama and buffalograss) compared
to cool-season grasses (tall fescue and Kentucky blue-
grass) (Table 7). This performance of warm-season turf-
grass in terms of vigor and color during the hot summer
periods is expected because of C4 physiology. C4 (warm-
season) grasses are well adapted to high temperature and
low moisture conditions and have high water use effi-
ciency compared to C3 (cool-season) grasses (Biran et al.
1981; MacAdam and Nelson 2003). Due to their drought
tolerance and better adaption to semiarid environments,
warm-season grasses have been recommended to use as
Table 6 Turfgrass performance under irrigated and rain-fed conditions at SAREC, Lingle in late summer (data [visual ratings] recorded on 5
August 2010)
Species Cultivar Coverage (%) Vigor† Color† Dormancy (%) Steminess† Density† Weeds (%)
Irrigated
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 95.0 7.0 6.3 17.5 7.5 8.5 20.0
‘Bad River’ 100.0 7.8 6.8 13.8 7.3 9.0 15.0
‘Hachita’ 77.5 7.0 6.8 17.5 7.5 7.8 48.8
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 91.3 7.3 6.8 13.8 7.3 8.5 23.8
‘Bowie’ 97.5 7.3 6.0 10.0 7.3 9.0 11.3
‘Cody’ 100.0 7.3 5.8 22.5 8.0 9.0 11.3
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 98.8 7.5 7.8 20.0 7.5 9.0 2.5
‘Common’ 85/80’ 96.3 7.3 6.3 52.5 7.3 8.5 2.8
‘Midnight’ 97.5 8.8 8.8 10.5 7.5 9.0 5.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 100.0 7.0 6.0 50.0 6.8 9.0 0.0
‘Tar Heel II’ 97.5 7.5 7.5 42.5 6.0 8.0 0.0
‘Watchdog’ 95.0 8.3 8.0 38.8 6.5 8.3 2.5
Mean 95.5 7.5 6.9 25.8 7.2 8.6 11.9
SE 6.9 0.4 0.3 10.0 0.4 0.7 7.0
Rain-fed
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 97.5 4.8 4.3 53.8 5.3 8.0 27.5
‘Bad River’ 100.0 2.3 2.3 71.0 3.8 9.0 17.5
‘Hachita’ 93.8 3.5 2.8 71.3 3.3 8.5 40.0
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 86.3 4.3 4.0 60.0 4.8 7.5 66.3
‘Bowie’ 95.0 4.5 4.3 50.0 4.3 8.8 52.5
‘Cody’ 98.8 3.3 3.3 62.5 4.3 9.0 37.5
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 98.8 5.5 4.5 49.5 5.0 9.0 42.5
‘Common 85/80’ 100.0 2.5 1.5 73.8 2.3 9.0 40.0
‘Midnight’ 93.8 1.8 1.8 93.8 1.3 8.5 45.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 95.0 2.5 2.5 81.3 2.5 8.8 0.0
‘Tar Heel II’ 96.3 5.0 5.5 52.5 4.8 8.3 0.0
‘Watchdog’ 91.3 4.0 4.0 68.8 3.3 9.0 0.0
Mean 95.5 3.7 3.4 65.7 3.8 8.6 30.7
SE 13.4 1.5 1.2 22.0 1.0 1.2 5.3
†Visual ratings are based on 1–9 rating scale where 1 = poorest or lowest and 9 = best or highest; for steminess, 1 = highest stem or seed head
and 9 = no stem or seed head. SAREC, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center; SE, standard error for mean comparison.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119 117
M. A. Islam et al. Performance of turfgrass
low-maintenance turfgrass species in semiarid regions of
the US Great Plains (Phillips 1999; Mintenko et al. 2002).
The value of warm-season grasses, particularly buffalo-
grass as turfgrass species, which withstand extreme
environmental stresses including cold, heat and drought,
has long been recognized in the CGP (Beetle 1950).
Hence, buffalograss has been extensively studied and sev-
eral cultivars have been developed for potential use as
low-maintenance turfgrass (Riordan et al. 1993; Johnson
et al. 2000). The ability of buffalograss to thrive in
extreme conditions is primarily due to its profuse stolon-
iferous morphology and structure, prostrate growth habit,
and ability to enter dormancy under stress conditions
(Beetle 1950; Riordan et al. 1993).
Dormancy rating under irrigation in late summer of
2010 was least in the warm-season grasses (buffalograss,
10.0–22.5%; blue grama, 13.8–17.5%) compared to cool-
season grasses (Kentucky bluegrass, 10.5–52.5%; tall
fescue, 38.8–50%) (Table 6). Dormancy of all turfgrass
cultivars were significantly greater in rain-fed plots, with
dormancy ranging from 49.5 for ‘Bandera’ (Kentucky
bluegrass) to 93.8 in ‘Midnight’ (Kentucky bluegrass). In
both irrigated and rain-fed conditions, plant dormancy
was least in warm-season grasses over the 3-year study
period. Turfgrass with more green color during the sum-
mer months will provide more desirable aesthetic values
than dormant lawns to home owners or turf managers.
Therefore, buffalograss and blue grama will be more
suitable in this regard. Notwithstanding, the performance
of tall fescue cultivars ‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’ were
similar to blue grama and buffalograss cultivars under
rain-fed conditions indicating their superior performance
under limited water supply. Water availability had either
no or minimal effect on turfgrass density; however, ste-
miness rating was greater under irrigation (mean 7.2)
compared to rain-fed turfgrass plots (mean 3.8)
(Table 6). Steminess ratings for all turfgrass cultivars
were above 5.5 under irrigation. Steminess ratings ranged
from 1.3 for Kentucky bluegrass cultivar ‘Midnight’ to
5.3 (blue grama cultivar ‘Alma’) under rain-fed
conditions (Table 6). Density was greatest in buffalo-
grass, followed by blue grama and least for Kentucky
bluegrass cultivars under rain-fed conditions (Table 7).
Superior performance of warm-season turfgrass (e.g. buf-
Table 7 Turfgrass performance under irrigated and rain-fed conditions at SAREC, Lingle in late summer (data [visual ratings] recorded on 26 July
2011)
Species Cultivar Coverage (%) Vigor† Color† Dormancy (%) Steminess† Density† Weeds (%)
Irrigated
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 69.5 6.3 6.0 23.0 6.0 5.8 23.3
‘Bad River’ 82.0 6.3 6.0 17.0 6.0 7.0 11.7
‘Hachita’ 56.2 6.3 5.8 17.5 6.0 4.0 43.3
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 62.3 6.3 5.8 11.3 6.3 4.5 18.3
‘Bowie’ 87.5 6.5 6.3 10.3 6.0 6.5 15.0
‘Cody’ 83.7 6.0 5.3 17.0 6.5 6.8 13.3
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 61.5 6.8 6.5 19.5 7.0 5.0 3.3
‘Common 85/80’ 74.3 6.5 6.3 10.5 7.5 5.8 0.0
‘Midnight’ 55.0 7.0 7.0 34.5 8.0 5.3 5.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 82.5 7.3 7.8 16.5 8.0 6.8 0.0
‘Tar Heel II’ 73.8 7.3 7.3 20.0 7.5 6.3 0.0
‘Watchdog’ 74.0 6.8 7.0 22.0 6.3 8.0 0.0
Mean 71.8 6.6 6.4 18.3 6.8 6.0 11.1
SE 6.9 0.4 0.3 10.0 0.4 0.7 7.0
Rain-fed
Blue grama ‘Alma’ 66.5 5.0 5.0 30.0 4.8 3.3 33.3
‘Bad River’ 66.3 3.3 3.5 49.3 3.5 5.8 23.3
‘Hachita’ 56.5 3.8 4.0 47.5 5.3 4.3 43.3
Buffalograss ‘Bison’ 62.5 3.5 5.0 42.5 6.3 3.8 23.3
‘Bowie’ 76.5 3.3 3.5 73.4 6.0 5.0 26.7
‘Cody’ 78.8 4.0 4.2 46.3 5.5 6.3 13.3
Kentucky bluegrass ‘Bandera’ 80.5 2.5 2.8 86.3 1.5 3.8 6.7
‘Common 85/80’ 42.3 1.5 1.5 94.5 1.0 2.8 16.7
‘Midnight’ 60.0 1.8 1.8 96.5 1.5 3.5 30.0
Tall fescue ‘Blackwatch’ 46.0 2.8 2.5 88.3 2.0 2.5 10.0
‘Tar Heel II’ 65.0 3.8 4.0 61.3 4.8 5.0 0.0
‘Watchdog’ 38.8 4.0 4.5 55.0 4.5 4.0 0.0
Mean 61.6 3.3 3.5 64.3 4.0 4.1 18.9
SE 13.4 1.5 1.2 22.0 1.0 1.2 5.3
†Visual ratings are based on 1–9 rating scale where 1 = poorest or lowest and 9 = best or highest; for steminess, 1 = highest stem or seed head
and 9 = no stem or seed head. SAREC, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center; SE, standard error for mean comparison.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119118
Performance of turfgrass M. A. Islam et al.
falograss, blue grama) under water stress conditions is in
agreement with other published reports (Beetle 1950;
Phillips 1999; Mintenko et al. 2002; Severmutlu et al.
2005a,b).
Conclusions
Coverage of turfgrasses used in the study was similar in
both irrigated and rain-fed conditions. In general, better
performance and turf quality in terms of vigor and color
were obtained in irrigated plots. Plant vigor and color
rankings were tall fescue > Kentucky bluegrass > buffalo-
grass > blue grama under irrigated conditions. However,
under limited water supply, plant vigor and color were
superior for the warm-season turfgrass species (buffalo-
grass and blue grama). Notwithstanding, tall fescue culti-
vars ‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’ performed very well
under rain-fed conditions showing their superior drought
tolerance and low water requirements comparable to
‘Cody’ (buffalograss) and ‘Bad river’ (blue grama). There
was little to no weed invasion in tall fescue turfgrass plots
over the 3-year study period indicating its superior com-
petitiveness to weed infestation compared to other turf-
grass species tested. Based on 3-year results from the
study, tall fescue cultivars ‘Tar Heel II’ and ‘Watchdog’,
blue grama cultivar ‘Bad River’, and buffalograss cultivar
‘Cody’ are the most promising drought tolerant cultivars
and have potential for use in the CGP of Wyoming, and
perhaps beyond, under limited irrigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr Justin Moss with Oklahoma State
University for providing cultivar information, Emi
Kimura for assistance in visual scoring, and Wyoming
Department of Agriculture for funding.
References
Beetle AA (1950) Buffalograss – Native of the Shortgrass Plains.
Bulletin B-293. University of Wyoming Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Laramie, WY, USA, 1–31.
Biran I, Bravdo B, Bushkin-Harav I, Rawitz E (1981) Water
consumption and growth rate of 11 turfgrasses as affected
by mowing height, irrigation frequency, and soil moisture.
Agron J 73: 85–90.
Curtis J, Grimes K (2004) Wyoming climate atlas. Wyoming
state climate office, Larmie, available from URL: http://www.
wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsc/climateatlas/title_page.html [cited
10 October 2012].
Diesburg KL, Christians NE, Moore R et al. (1997) Species for
low-input sustainable turf in the U.S. upper Midwest. Agron
J 89: 690–694.
Frank KW, Gaussoin RE, Riordan TP, Miltner ED (1998) Date
of planting effects on seeded turf-type buffalograss. Crop Sci
38: 1210–1213.
Fry JD, Gaussoin RE, Beran DD, Masters RA (1997) Buffalo-
grass establishment with pre-emergence herbicides.
HortScience 32: 683–686.
Johnson PG, Riordan TP, Johnson-Cicalese J (2000)
Low-mowing tolerance in buffalograss. Crop Sci 40: 1339–
1343.
Karcher DE, Richardson MD, Hignight K, Rush D (2008)
Drought tolerance of tall fescue populations selected for
high root/shoot ratios and summer survival. Crop Sci 48:
771–777.
MacAdam JW, Nelson CJ (2003) Physiology of forage plants.
In: Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture (Eds
Barnes RF, Nelson CJ, Collins M, Moore KJ), Iowa State
Press, Ames, 73–97.
Meyer WA, Funk CR (1989) Progress and benefits to human-
ity from breeding cool-season grasses for turf. In: Contribu-
tions from Breeding Forage and Turf Grasses (Eds Sleper DA,
Asay KH, Pedersen JF), Crop Science Society of America
Inc, Madison, 31–48.
Mintenko AS, Smith SR, Cattani DJ (2002) Turfgrass evalua-
tion of native grasses for the northern Great Plains region.
Crop Sci 42: 2018–2024.
Phillips J (1999) Native grasses for high desert landscapes. In:
Easy Lawns: Low Maintenance Native Grasses for Gardeners
Everywhere (Ed Daniels S), Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New
York, 81–86.
Richardson MD, Karcher DE, Hignight K, Rush D (2009)
Drought tolerance of Kentucky bluegrass and hybrid blue-
grass cultivars. Appl Turfgrass Sci. doi: 10.1094/ATS-2009-
0112-01-RS
Richardson MD, Karcher DE, Hignight K, Hignight D (2012)
Irrigation requirements of tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass
cultivars selected under acute drought stress. Appl Turfgrass
Sci. doi: 10.1094/ATS-2012-0514-01-RS
Riordan TP, deShazer SA, Johnson-Cicalese JM, Shearman RC
(1993) An overview of breeding and development of buffa-
lograss. Int Turfgrass Soc Res J 7: 816–822.
SAS Institute (2010) SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers.
Version 9.3. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
Severmutlu S, Rodgers C, Riordan TP, Shearman RC (2005a)
Registration of ‘Bowie’ buffalograss. Crop Sci 45: 2113–2115.
Severmutlu S, Riordan TP, Shearman RC (2005b) Registration
of ‘Cody’ buffalograss. Crop Sci 45: 2122–2123.
© 2013 Japanese Society of Grassland Science, Grassland Science, 59, 111–119 119
M. A. Islam et al. Performance of turfgrass