DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance Assessment of Three Turfgrass Species, in Three Different Soil Types, and their Responses to Water Deficit in Reinforced Cells, Growing in the Urban Environment

  • Ow, L.F (Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens) ;
  • Ghosh, S. (Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens) ;
  • Chin, S.W. (Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens)
  • Received : 2015.10.02
  • Accepted : 2015.11.17
  • Published : 2015.12.30

Abstract

Reinforcement cells are used to aid grass growth and taken together, this serves to extend greenery beyond the conventional spaces of lawns, tree pits, gardens, and parks, and is advantageous to urban cities since space for greening is often limited. Drought has variable effects on plant life and the resilience of turf to drought resistance also varies with species. Changes in photosynthetic ability were more pronounced for media rather than grass species. The media of sand without organic matter was found to be least suited for drought resistance. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and digital image analysis (DIA) data were generally in favour of Zoysia species as oppose to A. compressus. In A. compressus, selective traits such as, a more extensive root system and lower specific leaf area (SLA) were not an underlying factor that assisted this grass with enhanced drought resistance. Generally, WUE was found to be strongly related to plant characterises such as overall biomass, photosynthetic features as well as the lushness indexes, and specific leaf area. This study found a strong relationship between WUE and a suite of plant characteristics. These traits should serve as useful selection criteria for species with the ability to resist water stress.

References

  1. Akkasaeng, C., Vorasoot, N., Jogloy, S. and Patanothai, A. 2003. Relationship between SPAD readings and chlorophyll contents in leaves of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Thai J. of Agriculture Sci. 36(3):279-284.
  2. Anwar, M.R., McKenzie, B.A. and Hill, G.D. 1999. Water use efficiency of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars in Canterbury: effect of irrigation and sowing date. Agronomy New Zealand 29:1-8.
  3. Arunyanark, A., Jogloy, S., Akkasaeng, C., Vorasoot, N., Kesmala, T., et al. 2008. Chlorophyll stability is an indicator of drought tolerance in peanut. J. of Agronomy and Crop Sci. 194:113-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00299.x
  4. Bremer, D.J., Lee, H., Su, K. and Keeley, S.J. 2011. Relationships between normalized difference vegetation index and visual quality in cool season turfgrass: II Factors affecting NDVI and its component reflectances. Crop Sci. 51(5):2219-2227. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2010.12.0729
  5. Choudhary, M.L., Patel, V.B., Mohammed, W.S. and Sheraz, S.M. 2015. Climate dynamics in Horticulture Sci.: Principles and Applications. (Vol. 1). Canada: Apple Academic Press, Inc. Canada.
  6. Comas, L.H., Becker, S.R., Von Mark, V.C., Byrne, P.F. and Dierig, D.A. 2013. Root traits contributing to plant productivity under drought. Frontiers in Plant Sci. 4(442):1-24.
  7. Connellan, G. 2013. Water Use Efficiency for irrigated turf and landscape. Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
  8. Gartland, L. 2012. Heat Islands; Understanding and mitigating heat in urban areas. London: Sterling, VA.
  9. Hayatu, M. and Mukhtar, F.B. 2010. Physiological responses of some drought resistant cowpea genotypes (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) to water stress. Bayero J. of Pure and Applied Sci. 3(2):69-75.
  10. Huang, B. and Gao, H. 1999. Physiological responses of diverse tall fescue cultivars to drought stress. HortSci. 34(5):897-901.
  11. Jiang, Y. and Huang, B. 2001. Ses to heat stress alone or in combination with drought: a comparison between tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. HortSci. 36(4):682-686.
  12. Kowalewski, A.R., Schwartz, B.M., Grimshaw, A.L., Sullivan, D.G., Peake, J.B., et al. 2013. Biophysical effects and ground force of the baldree traffic simulator. Crop Sci. 53(5):2239-2244. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0118
  13. Lawson, T. and Blatt, M.R. 2014. Stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiol. 164(4):1556-1570. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.237107
  14. Leinauer, B., VanLeeuwen, D.M., Matteo, S., Schiavon, M. and Sevostianova, E. 2014. Digital image analysis and spectral reflectance to determine turfgrass quality. Agronomy J. 106(5):1787-1794. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0088
  15. Li, H. 2015. Pavement material for heat island mitigation: design and management strategies. Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), Kidlington, Oxford, UK.
  16. Liu, F. and Stutzel, H. 2004. Biomass partitioning, specific leaf area, and water use efficiency of vegetable amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) in response to drought stress. Scientia Horticult. 102:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2003.11.014
  17. Marcelo, A.S., JifonII, J.L., Moura dos SantosI, C., JadoskiI, C.Jnr. and SilvaII, J.A.G. 2013. Photosynthetic capacity and water use efficiency in sugar cane genotypes subject to water deficit during early growth phase. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technol. 56(5):735-748. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132013000500004
  18. McMillen, G.G. and McClendon, J.H. 1983. Dependence of Photosynthetic rates on leaf density thickness in deciduous woody plants grown in sun and shade. Plant Physiol. 72:674-678. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.72.3.674
  19. Mittler, R. 2006. Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends in Plant Sci. 11(1):15-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.11.002
  20. Muhammad, J., Shafiq, R., Kui, J.L., Jeong, M.K., Kim, H.S., et al. 2007. Salinity reduced growth PS2 photochemistry and chlorophyll content in radish. Scientia Agricola. 64(2):111-118. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162007000200002
  21. Nageswara, R., Talwar, R.C. and Wright, G.C. 2001. Rapid assessment of specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) using a chlorophyll meter. J. of Agronomic Crop Sci. 186:175-182. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2001.00472.x
  22. Nageswara, R., Udaykumar, R.C., Farquhar, M., Talwar, G.D. and Prasad, T.G. 1995. Variation in carbon isotope discrimination and its relationship to specific leaf area and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase content in groundnut genotypes. Functional Plant Biol. 22(4):545-551.
  23. Nigam, S.N. and Aruna, R. 2008. Stability of soil plant analytical development (SPAD) chlorophyll meter reading (SCMR) and specific leaf area (SLA) and their association across varying moisture stress conditions in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Euphytica. 160:111-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9581-5
  24. Nigam, S.N., Basu, M.S. and Cruickshank, A.W. 2003. Hybridisation and description of the trait-based and empirical selection programs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of a Collaborative Review Meeting, 25-27 Feb, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
  25. Nigam, S.N., Chandra, S., Sridevi, K.R., Bhukta, M., Reddy, A.G.S., et al. 2005. Efficiency of physiological trait-based and empirical selection approaches for drought tolerance in groundnut. Annals of Application Biol. 146:433-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2005.040076.x
  26. Percival, G.C. and Sheriffs, C.N. 2002. Identification of drought tolerant woody perennials using chlorophyll fluorescence. J. of Arboricult. 28(5):215-223.
  27. Pessarakli, M., Kopec, D.M. and Gilbert, J.J. 2008. Growth responses of selected warm season turfgrasses under salt stress. Turfgrass, Landscape and Urban IPM Research Summary pp. 47-54.
  28. Pound, W.E. and Street, J.R. 2001. Managing turfgrass under drought conditions. Horticulture and Crop Sci. pp. 1-2.
  29. Qian, Y.L. and Engelke, M.C. 1999. Performance of 5 turfgrasses under linear gradient irrigation. HortSci. 34(5):893-896.
  30. Qian, Y.L. and Fry, J.D. 1997. Water relations and drought tolerance of four turfgrasses. J. of American Society of Hort. Sci. 122(1):129-133.
  31. Resco, V., Ignace, D.D., Sun, W., Huxman, T.E., Weltzin, J.F., et al. 2008. Chlorophyll fluorescence, predawn water potential and photosynthesis in precipitation pulse-driven ecosystems-implications for ecological studies. Functional Ecol. 22:479-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01396.x
  32. Richardson, M.D., Duigan, S.P. and Berlyn, G.P. 2002. An evaluation of noninvasive methods to estimate foliar chlorophyll content. New Phytologist 153:185-194. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00289.x
  33. Richardson, M.D., Karcher, D.E., Hignight, K. and Rush, D. 2008. Drought tolerance and rooting capacity of Kentucky Bluegrass cultivars. Crop Sci. 48:2429-2436. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.01.0034
  34. Simioni, G., Roux, X.L., Gignoux, J. and Walcroft, A.S. 2004. Leaf gas exchange characteristics and water-and nitrogen-use efficiencies of dominant grass and tree species in a west African savanna. Plant Ecol. 173:233-246. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VEGE.0000029323.74523.80
  35. Songsri, P., Jogloy, S., Holbrook, C.C., Kesmala, T., Vorasoot, N., et al. 2009. Association of root, specific leaf area and SPAD chlorophyll meter reading to water use efficiency of peanut under different available soil water. Agriculture Water Manage. 96:790-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.10.009
  36. Upadhyaya, H.D. 2005. Variability for drought resistance related traits in the mini core collection of peanut. Crop Sci. 45:1432-1440. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0389
  37. Wright, G.C. and Nageswara, R. 1994. Peanut water relations. pp. 281-325. In: Smartt, J. (Ed.). The ground nut crop. London: Chapman and Hall. UK.
  38. Youngner, V.B., Marsh, A.W., Strohman, R.A., Gibeault, V.A. and Spaulding, S. 1981. Water use and turf quality of warm season and cool season turfgrasses. Californian Turfgrass Culture 31(3):1-4.