Determining a Profile of Protocols and Standards used in the Visual Field Assessment of Turfgrasses: A Survey of National Turfgrass Evaluation Program-Sponsored University Scientists

Abstract

The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) is a not‐for‐profit organization that facilitates the assessment of experimental and commercial turfgrasses for the turfgrass seed and sod industries in cooperation with university turfgrass scientists. The objective of this survey was to identify and compare common protocol and standards used by NTEP‐sponsored university scientists to aid NTEP staff in writing a document entitled Protocol and Standards for the Visual Field Assessment of Turfgrasses. Twelve NTEP‐sponsored university scientists were asked seven questions to ascertain the protocol and standards they used for the visual field assessment (VFA) of turfgrass quality. Collectively, scientists listed seven protocol categories and two or three options within each category. All scientists were aware of the definition of turfgrass quality, yet their ability to articulate all components of quality varied. The majority of scientists listed uniformity and density as the most important components of quality and one scientist each listed density and texture, density and color, or color as the most important. The majority of scientists used the 6 score as minimally acceptable quality and one scientist each listed 7, 5, or 4 as their minimally acceptable score. There were three methods used among scientist to determine a turfgrass quality score (1 to 9). Two methods used reference standards based on an idealized image and the other approach assigned a score based on a relative ranking without regard to a standard. All scientists stated that hosting NTEP trials was very important to their universities’ turfgrass research / teaching / extension programs.

An Integrated Nutritional and Chemical Approach to Poa Annua Suppression in Creeping Bentgrass Greens

“…Previous research has shown increased physiological function, as measured by canopy photochemical efficiency and leaf antioxidant and chlorophyll levels, for drought‐ or heat‐stressed creeping bentgrass due to repeated SWE application (Zhang and Ervin, 2004, 2008), but these measurements were not taken for the current study, nor was drought stress allowed. Visual quality ratings are a subjective assessment of a plot's uniformity, density, texture, and color (Krans and Morris, 2007). Given the canopy‐darkening effects of FeSO 4 , much of the quality differences noted in this study were due primarily to these color difference effects, with the most aesthetically pleasing color being provided by the medium FeSO 4 rate.…”

“…Quality was rated 1 wk after each biweekly treatment during the growing season between March and November. Quality ratings were based on a 1‐to‐9 scale with 1 = dead, poor turf, 6 = minimally acceptable turf, and 9 = healthy, high‐quality turf (Krans and Morris, 2007).…”

Drought Performance and Physiological Responses of Bermudagrass and Seashore Paspalum

“…Measured parameters included a visual rating of turf quality (TQ) on a scale of 1 to 9 based on color, density, and uniformity (Krans and Morris, 2007). Measured parameters included a visual rating of turf quality (TQ) on a scale of 1 to 9 based on color, density, and uniformity (Krans and Morris, 2007).…”

Effects of Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Daconil Action (Acibenzolar‐S‐Methyl and Chlorothalonil) on Heat and Drought Tolerance of Creeping Bentgrass

“…Physiological assessment was performed every 14 d after the initial spray each year. This included a visual rating of turf quality (TQ), which was measured on a 1 to 9 scale with 9 being the best for the qualities of color, density, and overall plant health (Krans and Morris, 2007). Membrane stability was estimated via electrolyte leakage (EL) using the protocol previously described by Blum and Ebercon (1981).…”