Control and Conservation

Thomas, I

doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1959.tb07274.x

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The different drought response of separate varieties and breeding lines can be explained by the diversity of morphological characteristics (different leaf width and root system) [7][8][9].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drought tolerance of turfgrass genetic resources

Kanapeckas¹,

Lemežienė²,

Stukonis³

et al. 2008

Biologija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field trials were carried out at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture in 2006. The tests involved 120 genotypes of 9 major grass species bred for turf in Lithuania: Festuca rubra L. (subsp. commutata and subsp. rubra) and Festuca ovina L., Poa L. and Poa compressa L., Agrostis capillaris L., Lolium perenne L., Koeleria glauca DC and Deschampsia caespitosa Beauv. A large part of the genetic resources were collected in various natural habitats of Lithuania and other countries (Latvia and Estonia).The aim of this work was to estimate drought susceptibility of turfgrass species and genotypes.Experimental findings suggest that drought has a severe adverse effect on the quality of all the turfgrass species tested. After 75 days of drought, the ornamentality of various turfgrass species declined by 58.9% (Festuca ovina) to 83.3% (Deschampsia caespitosa). According to drought resistance, the test species can be ranked in the following sequence: Festuca ovina > Lolium perenne = Poa compressa > Poa pratensis = Koeleria glauca > Festuca rubra subsp. Rubra > Festuca rubra subsp. Commutata > Agrostis capillaris > Deschampsia caespitosa.During the test period, drought resistance of individual varieties or breeding lines was revealed. The most resistant genotypes were identified within each species.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%