Journal of Crops Improvement

Journal of Crops Improvement

Evaluation of practical usability in two Iranian native grass species

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Elham Mostafaee
Mostafa Arab
Nematollah Etemadi
Mahmood Reza Roozban
10.22059/jci.2015.53599
Abstract
Nowadays, establishment and maintenance of turfgrasses due to high water requirements was faced with serious doubts. Hence, screening of drought resistance native grasses, and introduces them as turfgrass is not only effective in reduction of water usage but can also preserve plant gene pools of the country. In the present experiment, Wheat grass and Bromus as two native grasses were compared with perennial ryegrass as control. After establishment and coverage of the pots surfaces by turfgrass in outdoor, three mowing heights including 2, 4 and 6 cm were applied on the species weekly. During the experiment, shoot growth, tillering, leaf color and leaf width, fresh and dry weight were measured weekly. The results of this research showed that Bromus due to undesirable tissue (leaf width more than 3 mm) and low density is not suitable for use in landscape. Wheat grass despite of rougher texture and less color than perennial ryegrass, has higher tillering, suitable color (7.59) and good texture (leaf width about 2 mm). Also, mowing height of 2 cm was determined as the best for three species studied.
Keywords
Texture
Color
Bromus
Ryegrass
Tillering
Wheat grass
1 . احمدی ص (1388) مقایسه و بررسی مقاومت به خشکی پنج گونه، رقم و جمعیت چمن برای استفاده در فضای سبز. دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان. اصفهان. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد.
2. اعتمادی، ن. (1384) بررسی تنوع ژنتیکی تحمل به خشکی و خصوصیات ظاهری جمعیت‌های گیاه چمنی مرغ، رسالۀ دکتری علوم باغبانی (گرایش گل‌های زینتی)، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
3. اعتمادین و فولادی ح (1388) مدیریت چمن در مناطق معتدله. مرکز نشر جهاد دانشگاهی واحد صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان. 343 ص.
4. سلاح‌ورزی ی، تهرانی‌فر ع و گزانچیان ع (1387) بررسی تغییرهای فیزیومورفولوژیک سبز قرش‌‌های بومی و خارجی در تنش خشکی و آبیاری دوباره. علوم و فنون باغبانی ایران. 9: 193-204.
5. قاسمی قهساره م و کافی م (1384) گلکاری علمی و عملی. جلد دوم، انتشارات گلبن، اصفهان. 396 ص.
6. هاشمی­گرم دره ا، مصطفی‌زاده ب و حیدرپور م (1386) برآورد نیاز آبی برخی از گونه‌های غالب فضای سبز شهر اصفهان با استفاده از لایسیمتر. سومین همایش ملی فضای سبز و منظر شهری: 247-255.
7 . Beard JB (1973) Turf grass science and culture. First Ed. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 658p.
8 . Carrow RN (1995) Drought resistance aspects of turfgrasses in the southeast. Crop Science 35: 1685-1690.
9 . EtemadiN, Khalighi A, Razmjo KH, Lessani H and Zamani Z (2005) Drought resistant of selected Bermodagrass (Cynodondactylon L. Pers. Accession). International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 4: 612-615.
10 . Johnson PG (2008) Native grasses as drought–tolerant turfgrass of the future. In: Pessarakli M (Ed.), Handbook ofturfgrass management and physiology. CRC Press, New York. Pp. 619-640.
11 . Riordon, TP and Horst GL (1991) Cool season turfgrasses for Nebraska. 2nd Ed. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Pp:1049
12 . Roohollahi I, Kafi, M and Naderi R (2010) Drought reaction and rooting characteristics in response to plant growth regulators on Poa pratensis cv. Barimpala. International Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 8: 258-288.
13 . Stukonis V, Lemezien N and Kanapeckas J (2010) Suitability of narrow-leaved Festuca species for turf. Agronomy Research 8 (Special Issue III): 729-734.
14 . Turgeon AJ (1991) Turfgrass management. 1st Ed. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Journal of Crops Improvement
Volume 16, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
Spring 2015
Pages 1027-1036