Investigating the Prospect of Fine Fescue Turfgrass Seed Production in Minnesota
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Investigating the Prospect of Fine Fescue Turfgrass Seed Production in Minnesota A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY David Rodriguez Herrera IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIERMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Nancy Ehlke and Dr. Eric Watkins January 2020 © David Rodriguez Herrera Acknowledgements I want to give thanks to my advisors Dr. Nancy Ehlke, Dr. Eric Watkins, along with my committee member Dr. Carl Rosen. Their guidance was essential in this project. I also want to acknowledge Donn Vellekson, Andrew Hollman, Dave Grafstrom, Garrett Heineck, and the entire turf team for their support. None of this would have been possible with the generous financial support from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the University of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Turf Seed Council. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents Eberardo Rodriguez and Evodia Herrera. i Dedication I would like to dedicate this thesis to the hard-working turfgrass seed producers of northern Minnesota. ii Executive Summary The fine fescues (Festuca spp.) are a group of specialized cool-season turfgrasses that have consistently demonstrated average to exceptional quality across a range of minimally managed environments. Introducing commercial seed production of these turfgrasses in northern Minnesota is being considered because evidence suggests that consumers strongly desire and are willing to pay for the sustainable characteristics they possess. Fine fescue turfgrass seed has been historically difficult to produce successfully in Minnesota due to low yields and noxious weed infestations, but steady improvements in germplasm have encouraged agronomists to develop improved fine fescue seed production practices. Nitrogen fertility and safe herbicide use were investigated in fine fescue field experiments across Minnesota under the objective of determining whether commercial seed production is viable. Fertility management trials were established in three sites in Minnesota; St. Paul, Becker, and Roseau. Five taxa of fine fescue were tested: Chewings fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. commutata) ‘Windward’, strong creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. rubra) ‘Cindy Lou’, hard fescue (Festuca brevipila T.) ‘MNHD’, sheep fescue (Festuca ovina L.) ‘Quatro’, and slender creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. litoralis) ‘Shoreline’. Entries seeded in 2016 and grown for two seasons. Stands were managed under five nitrogen fertility management strategies, two fall-applied treatments of high (89.6 kg ha-1) and low (44.8 kg ha-1), and two fall and spring treatments of split high (44.8 kg ha-1) and split low (22.4) kg ha-1, and a control. All entries, except strong creeping red fescue ‘Cindy Lou’, had at least one seed yield meaningfully influenced by a nitrogen treatment. However, these seed yields were not affected consistently or in any pattern in any specific year and location combination. iii Hard fescue ‘MNHD’ had seed yields that were increased by an average of 250 kg ha-1 from the high and split high nitrogen treatments in two locations, Roseau and St. Paul, during the first harvest year compared to the control. Previous nitrogen fertility experiments showed that certain taxa and cultivars of fine fescues had a seed yield response from spring nitrogen applications of approximately 50 kg ha-1. Harvest index of all fine fescues, except strong creeping red fescue ‘Cindy Lou’ was also influenced in at least one year-location combination, similar to seed yield, not in any pattern or meaningful way. Thousand seed weight, panicle weight, spikelets per panicle, florets per panicle, and panicle density were variables measured in the 2018 growing season but ultimately not affected by any nitrogen fertility management treatment. The herbicide safety trial was established on Magnusson Research Farm using hard fescue ‘MNHD’. It was seeded in both 2015, from which two harvests were taken, and 2017, from which only one harvest was taken. Herbicide treatment applications consisted of effective turfgrass seed production herbicides clethodim, fluazifop, mesotrione, dicamba, 2,4–D amine, and a combination 2,4–D amine and dicamba, and a control. Seed yield, thousand seed weight, and germination of hard fescue ‘MNHD’ was severely reduced by the clethodim treatment in 2016 and 2018, both of which were first-year establishments. None of the herbicide treatments influenced hard fescue ‘MNHD’ in the 2016 growing season, the second year of the 2015 seeding. Past investigations have provided evidence that fine fescue’s susceptibility to certain herbicides can change depending on the age of the stand. Based on these field experiments fine fescue seed yields range between 500 and 1000 kg ha-1 in Minnesota. These seed yields reflect the averages of the competing regions of Oregon and Western Canada, and were achieved with and without the use of iv supplemental nitrogen applications. Therefore, the use of supplemental nitrogen may not be required to obtain these seed yields for a range of fine fescue taxa. Hard fesuce seed yield ‘MNHD’ may benefit from additional nitrogen amendments in first-year stands. Furthermore, ensuring the commercial value of fine fesuce seed harvests can be achieved through the application of most turfgrass seed production herbicides without damaging seed yield, weight, or germination. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………...………………………..i Dedication…………………………………………………………………..…………….ii Executive Summary………………………………………………………………..……iii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….……ix List of Figures…………………………………………………………..………………..xi Chapter 1: Overview of the Fine Fescues Introduction…………………………………………………………….………….1 Classification and Evolutionary History………………………………….……….2 Cytogenetic Classification………………………………..……………………….2 Physical Description……………………………………………………..………..3 Adaptation for Present Turfgrass Use………………..……………………………4 Disadvantages in the Fine Fescues……………………………….……………….8 Breeding…………………………………………………………………….……10 Economic Value…………………………….……………………………………11 Consumer Attitudes Toward Low-Input Turfgrasses……………………………13 Seed Production Regions of the World…………………………………..………14 Oregon in the Northwestern United States……………………....………………15 Peace River Region in Northwestern Canada……………………………………16 Denmark………………………………………………………………….………17 Northern Minnesota……………………………………………………...………17 vi Post-Harvest Residue Management Trials from Oregon and Canada……………………………………………...…………………………….18 Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Rates and Timing………………………………21 Herbicide Use for Seed Purity……………………………………..…….………24 Summary and Hypotheses……………………………………………..…………26 Chapter 2: Seed Yield and Components of Five Fine Fescue Taxa Under Different Nitrogen Fertility Practices Introduction………………………………………………………………...…….28 Materials and Methods………………………...…………………………………30 Results……………………………………………………………………………35 Rainfall, Temperature, and Residual Soil Nitrate………………………..………35 Harvest Index, Seed Weight, and Seed Yield Components……………………...36 Yield……………………………………………………………………………...36 Comparing Experimental Environments Broadly………………………………..37 Discussion…………………………………………..……………………………38 Rainfall, Temperature, and Residual Soil Nitrate………………………………..38 Harvest Index, Seed Weight, and Seed Yield Components……………………...40 Yield……………………………………………………………………...………41 Comparing Experimental Environments Broadly………………………………..44 Conclusions and Implications.……………….…………………………………..45 Chapter 3: Seed Yield, Weight, and Germination of Hard Fescue (Festuca brevipila T.) ‘MNHD’ Under Different Turfgrass Seed Production Herbicides Introduction………………………………………………………………………66 vii Materials and Methods…………………………………………………………...69 Results…………………………………………………………………………....72 Discussion and Conclusions…..…………………………………………………73 Bibliography…………………………….………………………………………………89 viii List of Tables Chapter 2 Table 1. Fine fescue taxa, common name, and respective cultivar used in the fertility experiments ……………………………………………………………………………...49 Table 2. Nitrogen treatments used in the field experiments. Key for figures 1 through 6 and for tables 6 through 11…………………………………………………..…………..50 Table 3. Dates of nitrogen treatment applications (Date) across the six experimental environments and the number of days elapsed (Rain) before a rain event occurs………………………………………………………………………….………....51 Table 4. Soil nitrate content, precipitation, and maximum and minimum mean temperature data across the six experimental environments. Precipitation and temperature are measured March through July…………………………………..………………..…..52 Table 5. Analysis of variance for yield, harvest index, thousand seed weight, panicle weight, spikelets panicle-1, florets spikelet-1, and panicles m-2 across six experimental environments. Significance for these response variables at the nitrogen treatment(A), taxa(B), and interaction(A*B) is depicted.………..……………………………………..53 Table 6. Seed yield, harvest index and thousand seed weight of five taxa of fine fescue in St. Paul 2017….………………………………………………………..………………...60 Table 7. Seed yield, harvest index and thousand seed weight of five taxa of fine fescue in Becker 2017……………………………………………………………..…………….…61 Table 8. Seed yield, harvest index and thousand seed weight of five taxa of fine fescue in Roseau 2017…………………………………………………………..……………….…62 ix Table 9. Seed yield, harvest index, thousand seed weight, panicle weight, spikelets panicle-1, florets panicle-1, and panicles m-2 of five taxa of fine fescue in St. Paul 2018……...…………………………………………………………….…………………63 Table 10. Seed yield, harvest index, thousand seed weight,