Search

Green spaces comprising natural turfgrass are ubiquitous in urban areas globally and allow for a variety of ecosystem services that benefit nature and people. However, traditional natural turfgrass is often critiqued for the number of inputs (e.g., fertilizer, water) required to maintain it. With those critiques in mind, some cities have turned to artificial turf as an alternative groundcover despite environmental and human health concerns (e.g., heavy metal leaching, volatile organic compounds). Research of artificial turf has been minimal compared with that of the growth of installations, especially related to social aspects of the surface. The current research used an in-person experiential case study of park visitors in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, USA, to investigate how individuals perceived artificial turf compared with natural turfgrass as it relates to potential uses (e.g., resting/relaxing) and beliefs about sustainability (e.g., environmental impacts). Overall, participants preferred natural turfgrass across all uses but two (recreational and organized sports). The largest differences were observed for the use for picnic areas and the use for play areas for pets. Participants also perceived natural turfgrass as more sustainable than artificial turf, corresponding to the contribution to human health and well-being. In contrast, participants equally perceived the use of these surfaces in terms of natural resources. These findings have implications for public land managers, urban planners, city councils, and other stakeholders because they consider the adoption of artificial turf or other possible alternatives (e.g., low-input turfgrasses, bee lawns) to traditional turfgrass in the communities and their sustainability, maintenance, and cost-savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Agronomy Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There is a need to reduce inputs on golf course putting greens. In the north‐central United States, the use of alternative species, like fine fescues (Festuca spp.), could be part of a solution, but information is needed on management and cultivar choices. Our objectives were twofold: (a) to compare performance of fine fescues (strong creeping red [Festuca rubra L. ssp. rubra Gaudin, STF], slender creeping red [Festuca rubra L. ssp. littoralis (G. Mey.) Auquier, SLF], Chewings [Festuca rubra L. ssp. commutata Gaudin, CHF], and hard fescue [Festuca brevipila Tracey, HDF]) to bentgrasses (creeping bentgrass [Agrostis stolonifera L., CRB], and colonial bentgrass [Agrostis capillaris L., CLB]) managed as low‐input greens treated with 0, 48.9, 97.7, or 195.3 kg N ha−1 yr−1 during 2017–2018; and (b) to evaluate multiple fine fescue cultivars for multiyear performance when maintained as low‐input greens in St. Paul, MN. In 2017, CHF and SLF maintained the highest quality of the fine fescues and maintained higher quality at low N compared with both bentgrasses, primarily due to less dollar spot (Clarireedia spp.). During 2018, fine fescue responses to N were similar to those in 2017, but summer patch (Magnaporthe spp.) disease resulted in decline of some taxa. In the cultivar study, top‐performing cultivars were CHF, most of which performed similarly. However, SLF and STF cultivars performed more variably. Chewings fescue and SLF maintained with 48.9–97.7 kg N ha−1 yr−1 may be alternatives to CRB for low‐input greens in the north‐central United States, primarily due to reduced dollar spot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Weed suppression has been observed in the fine fescues, a group of low‐input turfgrasses. Of the fine fescues, Chewings fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. commutata Gaudin; CH) and strong creeping red fescue (F. rubra L. ssp. rubra Gaudin; ST) displayed the strongest weed suppression ability in previous research while hard fescue (F. brevipila Tracey; HF) did not appear to have the same level of suppression. However, most of this research occurred more than 10 years ago and did not lead to improved cultivars. There is a need for confirmation of these results using diverse germplasm that may have genetic variability for weed suppression; this information would be useful for turfgrass breeding efforts. Our objective was to screen for weed suppression abilities in 19 fine fescue accessions originally collected in Europe, at two distinct field locations, St. Paul, MN and West Lafayette, IN, infested with smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. ex Muhl.). Our results confirmed previous reports that the F. rubra taxa are more crabgrass suppressive than HF. Chewings fescue and slender creeping red fescue [F. rubra L. ssp. littoralis (G. Mey.) Auquier; SL] displayed the strongest ability to suppress smooth crabgrass. Results also indicated that there is large variability between the entries within each taxon, including within HF. Slender creeping red fescues were relatively more weed suppressive than previously shown, and this taxon needs further attention. Results suggest further opportunities for plant breeders to develop new weed suppressive cultivars for low‐input turfgrass systems. Core Ideas: Festuca rubra taxa are more crabgrass suppressive than F. ovina.There is large variability in weed suppression across entries within each fine fescue taxon.Opportunities exist for plant breeders to develop new weed suppressive cultivars.Future studies should aim to separate allelopathic effects from plant competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]