<b>SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION PROGRAM EFFECTS ON VARIOUS LAWN GRASSES IN THE COOL-HUMID ZONE</b>
Creators: name: Verzotto, Antonio
Publisher: name: Purdue University Graduate School
Year: 2024
Subjects: classificationCode: 300802
subject: Horticultural crop growth and development
classificationCode: 300899
subject: Horticultural production not elsewhere classified

description: Water scarcity and acute drought continue to be serious concerns, even in humid climates where precipitation normally exceeds evapotranspiration (ET), highlighting the need for improved landscape water conservation practices. Lawns represent the largest area in most managed landscapes and require regular mowing, feeding and sometimes supplemental summer irrigation to persist. A general historical guideline for lawn irrigation is to supply 25-38 mm per growing wk-1 in the absence of rainfall. This fixed volume is often applied on a programmatic “set and forget” three times per week schedule (e.g. M-W-F). This application guideline often results in excess irrigation as it does not take into account plant need or prevailing environmental conditions. Further, in times of acute summer drought policymakers may restrict irrigation to once or twice weekly to conserve water. The effects of these regulations on turf health and potential water savings are unclear. Thus, two multi-year summer field studies were conducted to identify opportunities for improved lawn water conservation. Study one evaluated the effect of varying weekly irrigation volume and frequency on mature Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.:KBG) located under a fixed-roof rainout structure. Turfgrass response was measured as visual turf quality (TQ), digital green color (DGC), volumetric soil water content (VWC) and area under the curve for each response variable. In year one, KBG was subject to six irrigation programs and compared to a high deficit control for 49 days. The programs were: 25 mm total water wk-1 applied either three times (M-W-F) or twice (M and F) weekly, 19 mm total wk-1 twice weekly (M and F), 13 mm total wk-1 once weekly and 60 or 80% accumulated ETo three times weekly. Due to poor performance, the high deficit control and 60% ETo were excluded from further evaluation. In year two, seven programs were evaluated: 33 mm total water wk-1 applied once, twice, or three times weekly, or every-other-day, 25 mm total wk-1 applied twice or three times weekly and 80% ETo twice weekly for 63 days. In both years, generally, 25-33 mm wk-1 applied two or three times wk-1 produced the most consistent TQ, DGC and highest VWC. Study two compared three supplemental irrigation programs to a natural rainfall control for six widely planted cool-season lawn grasses for 70 days. The six lawn grasses were: a KBG sod, seeded drought tolerant and susceptible KBG cultivars, a turf-type tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Durmort.: TTTF) blend and two KBG and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.:PRG) mixtures. In Study two, highly significant differences p &lt; .001 occurred for irrigation program and lawn grasses. While supplemental irrigation aided all grasses, rainfall in year one and two measured 119 mm and 343 mm, respectively, affecting data in each study year. Area under the turfgrass quality curve (AUTQC) was lowest for the rainfall control (339 and 425) and highest for 33 mm wk-1 applied three times (507 and 526) and 80% ETo programs (508 and 535) in year one and two, respectively. Annual responses for DGC and VWC generally followed TQ trends. For grasses subject only to natural rainfall, TTTF, and the KBGs were generally superior to the KBG:PRG mixtures, thus emphasizing the importance of species selection. In summary, these studies compared a traditional “set and forget” irrigation program to a range of alternative programs and different lawn grasses. These data provide evidence for irrigation savings by employing a combination of planting drought tolerant lawn species and adopting a more limited irrigation program. Future field studies should include the evaluation of adaptive, data-driven programs based on forecast environmental conditions and threshold responses like DGC or predetermined VWC set points calibrated for varying soil types and growing environments.