Grzegorz ¯urek1, Bartosz Tomaszewski2
1
De part ment of Grasses, Le gumes and En ergy Plants, Lab o ra tory of Nonfooder Grasses and En ergy Plants, Radzików 05-870 B³onie; 2 Cen tre for Plant Ge netic Re sources, Bo tan i cal Gar den, Bydgoszcz
LOW MAINTENANCE TURF – QUALITY AND WEED ASPECTS
ABSTRACT
Turfgrass va ri et ies of Fes tu ca rubra ssp. rubra, F.r. ssp. trichophylla, F. nigrescens, F.arundinacea, F.ovina ssp. vulgaris, F.o. ssp duriuscula, Lolium perenne and Poa pratensis as well as mix tures of high and low share of Lolium perenne were tested in low main te nance con di tions dur ing 5 years and eval u ated for: shoot den sity, vi sual merit and for weed in fes ta tion. None of tested en tries was able to keep ini tial qual ity. Only for few of them (mostly va ri et ies of Fes tu ca ovina ssp. duriuscula and F.arundinacea) vi sual merit af ter 5 years was still close to the level of min i mal user-ac cepted value (5 in 1-9 scale). The least vi sual merit val ues were noted for Poa pratensis and Fes tu ca rubra ssp. rubra. Twenty weed spe cies of dif fer ent liv ing forms (geophytes, hemicryptophytes and terophytes) were de scribed. Con sid er ing gen eral turf per for mance, low num ber of weed spe cies and low num ber of terophytes, turf mix tures with low share of pe ren nial ryegrass could be rec om mended for low-main te nance turf.
Key words: Fes tu ca arundinacea, Fes tu ca nigrescens, Fes tu ca rubra, Fes tu ca ovina, Lolium perenne, low-in put, cultivars, mix tures, Poa pratensis
INTRODUCTION
Along with in creas ing en vi ron ment pol lu tion, wa ter def i cits and other re sources scar city, de mands for low in put tech nol o gies in ag ri cul ture, gar -den ing or other en vi ron ment-re lated tech nol o gies are grow ing. Turf is of ten the most vis i ble of plantings in ur ban ar eas and in many coun tries there is an in creas ing pub lic pres sure for the turfgrass in dus try to re duce main te nance in puts (Mintenko et al. 2002). Even un der in ten sive man age -ment, the goal of turf sustainability is be com ing more of a re al ity than
a hope, as turfgrass sci en tists and man ag ers have worked to iden tify
turfgrass man age ment sys tems that are more ef fi cient, thus re quir ing less in puts. Low main te nance turf is there fore the only one rea son able pos si bil ity to cover large, mu nic i pal green ar eas due to its eco log i cal role and po -ten tial re sources sav ings.
De spite of turf qual ity as pects, lit tle re search is cur rently pres ent on spon -ta ne ous weed in fes -ta tion on turf ar eas, with re gards on nat u ral ‘de fen sive’
Communicated by Andrzej Anio³
P L A N T B R E E D I N G A N D S E E D S C I E N C E
Volume 59 2009
abil ity of grass spe cies to cope with weeds. There fore, the aim of our stud ies was to eval u ate turf qual ity of some turf grass va ri et ies and mix tures, along with weed in fes ta tion un der 5 years of low main te nance man age ment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Turf ex per i ment on 24 turf grass va ri et ies and 6 com mer cial turf mix tures was car ried out from 2002 to 2006 (Ta ble 1). Ex per i ment was con ducted in
Ta ble 1 Spe cies, va ri et ies and mix tures used in ex per i ment with spe cies share dur ing sow ing
No. Genus, species, mixture type(genus code) Variety name,mixture no Species share during sowing [%] L.p. F.r. P.p. F.o. A.c. F.a. 1
Festuca arundinacea (F.a.)
Bartes 100 2 Skarpa 100 3 Terros 100 4 Festuca nigrescens (F.n.) Lifalla 100 5 Nimba 100 6 WOM-198 100 7
Festuca ovina ssp. Duriuscula (F.o.d.)
Espro 100
8 Gabi 100
9 Mimi 100
10
Festuca ovina ssp. Vulgaris (F.o.v.)
Livina 100
11 Noni 100
12 Witra 100
13
Festuca rubra ssp. rubra (F.r.r.) Areta 100 14 Ensylva 100 15 Leo 100 16 Festuca rubra ssp. Trichophylla (F.r.t.) Adio 100 17 Barcrown 100 18 WOM-298 100 19 Lolium perenne (L.p.) Lisuna 100 20 Nira 100 21 Stadion 100 22 Poa pratensis (P.p.) Conni 100 23 Cynthia 100 24 Limusine 100 25
mixture, high L.p. share (MixHLP)
1 50 40 10
26 2 60 25 15
27 3 60 30 10
28
mixture, low L.p. share (MixLLp)
4 0 88 5 5 2
29 5 10 57 30 3
30 6 5 45 25 25
cen tral Po land, on lessive, sandyloam soil. Area planned for this ex per i -ments laid fal low for 4 years, with fre quent sur face cul ti va tion to re duce weeds emerg ing from seed soil bank. Start ing fer til iza tion (60 kg N, 120 Kg P, 120 kg K per ha) was ap plied and grass seed was sown in April of 2001 on
ran dom ized plots (1m2) in 3 rep li ca tions. Sow ing quan ti ties, (ex pressed in
grams per 1m2) ranged from 10 for Poa pratensis, 15 for Fes tu ca rubra, F.
ovina, F. nigrescens, 20 for Lolium perenne, Fes tu ca arundinacea and 25 for all turf mix tures. Turf plots were fur ther man aged with out fer til iza tion, with mow ing at 7 – 10 cm, ca. 10 times a year with clip pings col lected, wa -tered only dur ing heavy drought and with no chem i cal weed con trol. Vi sual merit (VM) and shoot den sity (SD) were eval u ated 5 times a year (early spring, spring, sum mer, au tumn and win ter) us ing 1 – 9 scale. For VM rat -ing value of 9 is re served for a per fect or ideal grass, rat -ing of 6 is gen er ally con sid ered ac cept able and 1 – poor est (Mor ris and Sherman, 2007). For shoot den sity 9 means max i mum den sity (100%), 7 – ca.80% of ground cov -ered by leaves and till ers, 5 – ca. 60%, 3 – ca. 20% and 1 – 0%, no green cover (Proñczuk, 1993). For the pur pose of above work, yearly means od SD and VM from 2002 and 2006 were only given and fur ther an a lyzed. Weed cover (WC) ex pressed as a% of plot cover by weed spe cies (i.e. dicotyledonous plant spe cies and grasses not sown) was as sessed in au tumn of 2003 and 2006, and av er age num ber of weed spe cies (NWS) per en try was cal cu lated. All data were sub jected to arcsine trans for ma tion for better ap prox i ma tion to nor mal dis tri bu tion prior to sta tis ti cal anal y sis per formed
with SAS® sta tis ti cal pack age. Least sig nif i cant dif fer ence (LSD) was per
-formed with Fisher test (P = 0.05).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
One from the most im por tant traits for low main te nance turf is the abil ity to cover ground, which is of great util i tar ian pur pose of sta bi liz ing soil (re -duc tion of dust, mud or weed prob lems) (Diesburg et al. 1997). Ground cover was not di rectly eval u ated in our ex per i ment, how ever it could be in di rectly ex pressed by means of shoot den sity (SD). Men tioned trait de
-creased for most of tested en tries af ter 5 years of low main te nance
man age ment (Ta ble 2). Low re duc tion of SD was noted for Fes tu ca ovina ssp. duriuscula ESPRO and all mix tures with low share of Lolium perenne (86.5 and 82.9% of ini tial value, re spec tively). In con trast, high SD re duc -tion was ob served for Fes tu ca nigrescens LIFALLA, mix ture no. 2 (high share of Lolium perenne) and Fes tu ca nigrescens WOM-198 (62.5, 64.0 and 65.1% of ini tial value, re spec tively).
Vi sual merit (VM) of tested en tries also de creased with dif fer ent rates af ter 5 years. Rel a tively low de crease of VM (range from 86.4 to 82.0% of ini -tial value) was noted for all Fes tu ca ovina ssp. duriuscula cultivars as well as for Fes tu ca arundinacea SKARPA and TERROS, and two mix tures of
. 2 el ba T n oi t a t se f ni de e w d n a ) M V( ti re m l a u s i v , ) D S( yti s ne d t o o hs n o n oi t a vr e s b o f o stl u s e R yt ei ra v, e d oc s ei ce p S e ma n ,e r ut xi m r o D S M V ] %[ C W ] %[ se ic e ps r of C W S W N .c a xa ra T .l a ni ci ff o H T G 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 2 1 se tr a B . a. F 7 2. 4 8. 7 1. 5 2. 8 3. 2 3 5. 5 8. 3 1 3. 7 1 5. 1 7. 3 7. a pr a k S . a. F 6 2. 4 8. 6 1. 5 0. 0 1 0. 7 4 5. 2 1 5. 9 3 2. 7 5. 0 8. 4 7. s or re T . a. F 6 3. 4 7. 5 9. 4 8. 6 7. 7 2 5. 0 1 8. 8 1 3. 8 3. 0 8. 4 3. .a . F r of na e M 6 6. 4 8. 6 4. 5 0. 8 3. 5 3 8. 9 7. 3 2 6. 1 1 1. 1 1. 4 2. all afi L . n. F 7 5. 4 7. 7 1. 2 8. 5 0. 4 1 2. 0 1 0. 1 1 7. 2 5. 0 0. 2 3. a b mi N . n. F 8 0. 5 5. 7 5. 4 0. 1 1 7. 0 8 7. 2 5 7. 5 6 3. 1 1 2. 4 2. 5 0. 8 9 1-M O W . n. F 7 9. 5 2. 7 7. 4 0. 1 1 7. 3 4 3. 5 1 0. 3 2 3. 3 1 3. 6 7. 5 7. . n. F r of na e M 7 8. 5 1. 7 4. 3 6. 9 4. 6 4 1. 5 2 9. 3 3 4. 9 0. 3 6. 4 3. or ps E . d. o. F 6 9. 6 0. 6 1. 5 7. 1 0. 9 2 2. 6 7. 6 1 7. 0 1 0. 2 5. 5 0. i ba G . d. o. F 7 1. 5 7. 6 4. 5 3. 3 3. 0 6 5. 5 2 2. 4 4 3. 6 1 2. 0 0. 5 0. i mi M . d. o. F 7 3. 5 5. 6 4. 5 3. 7 3. 2 4 5. 0 1 0. 0 3 0. 1 1 7. 0 8. 4 0. . d. o. F r of na e M 7 1. 5 7. 6 3. 5 4. 3 9. 4 4 1. 3 1 9. 0 3 3. 2 1 6. 1 1. 4 7. a ni vi L . v. o. F 6 9. 5 2. 6 1. 4 0. 3 1 3. 9 5 8. 5 2 2. 0 5 3. 8 7. 0 8. 5 3. i n o N . v. o. F 7 5. 5 2. 6 6. 4 5. 0 1 3. 9 2 2. 1 7. 6 1 7. 1 1 7. 0 8. 3 7. a mi S . v. o. F 6 6. 5 2. 5 8. 4 0. 1 1 7. 6 2 7. 0 1 8. 8 1 3. 7 5. 0 8. 4 0. . v. o. F r of na e M 7 0. 5 2. 6 2. 4 2. 1 1 8. 8 3 6. 2 1 6. 8 2 4. 9 3. 0 8. 4 3. at er A . r. r. F 6 6. 5 0. 6 2. 3 7. 6 1 7. 8 5 3. 5 2 8. 5 4 8. 1 1 7. 0 8. 4 3. a vl ys n E . r. r. F 7 2. 5 0. 6 8. 3 0. 5 0. 2 7 5. 2 4 5. 9 5 2. 1 1 7. 1 7. 4 7. oe L . r. r. F 6 9. 5 0. 6 3. 3 7. 5 1 0. 0 4 8. 8 1 3. 4 2 2. 5 1 8. 0 8. 5 0. .r. r. F r of na e M 6 9. 5 0. 6 4. 3 4. 2 1 2. 7 5 2. 8 2 9. 3 4 1. 3 1 1. 1 1. 4 7.
. 2 el ba T ) de u ni t n oc ( n oi t a t se f ni de e w d n a ) M V( ti re m l a u s i v , ) D S( yti s ne d t o o hs n o n oi t a vr e s b o f o stl u s e R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 1 2 1 oi d A . t. r. F 6 9. 5 2. 6 6. 4 0. 0 1 0. 7 5 5. 5 2 8. 1 3 7. 5 1 8. 0 1 0. 5 3. n w or cr a B . t. r. F 8 4. 5 5. 7 8. 4 2. 5 0. 8 6 2. 0 4 2. 7 5 8. 0 1 3. 0 0. 4 0. 8 9 2-M O W . t. r. F 8 1. 5 5. 7 6. 4 5. 5 3. 4 5 2. 7 1 5. 4 3 2. 9 1 2. 0 8. 4 3. .t. r. F r of na e M 7 8. 5 4. 7 3. 4 2. 6 8. 9 5 9. 7 2 8. 1 4 2. 5 1 1. 3 6. 4 6. a n us i L . p. L 6 8. 5 0. 6 3. 4 7. 5 1 0. 6 3 7. 6 7. 8 1 3. 7 1 5. 0 8. 3 3. ari N . p. L 6 2. 4 5. 5 8. 4 5. 8 1 3. 5 4 0. 4 1 2. 6 2 7. 7 1 5. 0 8. 5 0. n oi da t S . p. L 6 7. 4 8. 6 3. 4 7. 5 1 0. 0 4 0. 8 1 3. 6 2 7. 1 1 7. 1 7. 4 7. . p. L r of na e M 6 6. 4 8. 6 1. 4 6. 6 1 1. 0 4 6. 3 1 1. 3 2 9. 5 1 6. 1 1. 4 3. i n n o C . p. P 7 6. 5 2. 7 3. 3 7. 5 1 0. 7 5 5. 3 3 3. 8 3 3. 9 1 2. 0 0. 5 3. ai ht n y C . p. P 6 6. 4 3. 5 6. 2 7. 0 2 0. 1 8 7. 2 4 5. 6 6 7. 0 1 0. 5 0. 5 3. e ni s u mi L . p. P 7 6. 5 0. 6 5. 3 7. 0 1 0. 5 6 0. 4 3 2. 1 5 7. 0 1 8. 2 5. 4 7. . p. P r of na e M 7 2. 4 8. 6 4. 3 3. 5 1 0. 8 6 1. 6 3 7. 2 5 2. 3 1 3. 2 5. 5 1. 1 P L H xi M 6 1. 5 0. 5 9. 4 8. 0 3 0. 8 3 8. 0 2 0. 8 2 8. 8 8. 1 3. 3 5. 2 P L H xi M 6 4. 5 0. 6 2. 4 8. 5 0. 7 3 5. 6 2 3. 7 2 5. 0 1 0. 0 0. 3 0. 3 P L H xi M 6 3. 4 0. 6 2. 4 8. 2 1 5. 1 3 3. 0 2 0. 2 2 5. 7 5. 1 3. 3 0. P L H r of na e M 6 2. 4 7. 6 1. 4 8. 5 1 8. 5 3 8. 2 2 1. 6 2 3. 8 8. 0 8. 3 2. 1 P L L xi M 6 1. 5 0. 5 8. 4 8. 3 5. 1 6 3. 0 5 0. 1 5 3. 8 8. 1 3. 3 0. 2 P L L xi M 6 6. 5 5. 6 4. 4 8. 6 0. 5 4 0. 6 2 3. 6 3 3. 7 5. 1 3. 3 5. 3 P L L xi M 6 1. 5 0. 5 9. 4 8. 5 0. 6 3 3. 6 2 3. 5 3 0. 0 0. 1 3. 2 5. P L L r of na e M 6 2. 5 2. 6 0. 4 8. 4 8. 7 4 5. 4 3 2. 0 4 8. 5 4. 1 3. 3 0. na e m l ar e ne G 7 0. 5 0. 6 4. 4 2. 0 1 8. 8 4 1. 2 2 9. 5 3 0. 1 1 4. 1 7. 4 3. ) % 5 9 > P( se ic e ps r of D S L 0 2 4. 0 1 5. 0 3 4. 0 4 7. 6 5. 7 2 4. 8 1 5. n .s. n .s. n .s. 1 1. se i c e ps de e w f o re b m u n – S M N , re v oc de e w – C W , se t y h p oe g – G , se t y h p or et – T , se t y h p ot p yr ci me h – H : n oi t a na l p x E
low share of Lolium perenne (no. 4 and 5). High qual ity of tall and sheep fes cue in low-main te nance was also con firmed by oth ers (Dernoeden et al. 1998; Diesburg et al. 1997; Brede 2000). High VM de crease (ca. 50% or more than ini tial value) was noted for all Poa pratensis cultivars, Fes tu ca nigrescens LIFALLA and Fes tu ca rubra ssp. rubra ENSYLVA. Turfgrass va ri et ies and spe cies are known to dif fer in their per for mance un der re duced main te nance (Brede, 2000).
To tal num ber of 20 weed spe cies was iden ti fied, most of them (75%) perennials, with no sta tis ti cal dif fer ence of spe cies cover be tween rep li ca tions and tested en tries (Ta bles 2, 3). How ever, for turf grass spe cies, sig nif -i cant d-if fer ences were cal cu lated for 14 of all -iden t-i f-ied weed spe c-ies. Av er age num ber of weed spe cies was the high est for Poa pratensis (5.1) but the low est for turf mix tures (3.0 – 3.2). Weed cover (WC) val ues were the
Ta ble 3. Weed spe cies iden ti fied and weed cover val ues (WC) af ter 4 years on low-main te nance
No. Genus, species,authority Living form
WC [%]
Average Range deviationStandard
1 Taraxacum officinale Weber H 22.4 0 - 62.5 20.02 2 Trifolium campestre Schreber T 9.19 0 - 37.5 8.55
3 Trifolium repens L. C 6.48 0 - 37.5 10.48
4 Hieracium pilosella L. H 3.03 0 - 28 4.47
5 Equisetum arvense L. G 1.63 0 - 37.5 4.01
6 Helichrysum arenarium (L.) Moench H 0.74 0 - 15 2.43
7 Hypericum perforatum L. H 0.55 0 - 2.5 1.04
8 Plantago lanceolata L. H 0.41 0 - 2.5 0.93
9 Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. T, H 0.27 0 - 2.5 0.77 10 Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O. E. Schulz T, H 0.25 0 - 2.5 0.75
11 Cichorium intybus L. H 0.16 0 - 2.5 0.61 12 Diplotaxis muralis (L.) DC. T 0.13 0 - 2.5 0.55 13 Dactylis glomerata L. H 0.09 0 - 2.5 0.48 14 Solidago canadensis L. H, G 0.08 0 - 2.5 0.44 15 Vicia cracca L. H 0.06 0 - 2.5 0.39 16 Lotus corniculatus L. H 0.05 0 - 2.5 0.34 17 Astragallus glycyphyllos L. H 0.03 0 - 2.5 0.28 18 Hypochoeris glabra L. T 0.03 0 - 2.5 0.28 19 Artemisia vulgaris L. C 0.02 0 - 2.5 0.20
20 Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. G 0.02 0 - 2.5 0.20 Ex pla na tion for liv ing forms: H – hemicryptophyte, T – terophyte, G – geophyte, C – chamephyte
high est for Poa pratensis and Fes tu ca rubra ssp. trichophylla (68.1 and 59.9%, re spec tively) and the low est for mix tures of high share of Lolium perenne, Fes tu ca arundinacea (35.8% for both), Fes tu ca ovina ssp. vulgaris and Lolium perenne (38.6 and 40.6%, re spec tively). Sim i lar re sults con cern ing weed in fes ta tion of Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne, Fes tu -ca ovina, F. arundinacea were ob tained in low main te nance turf trails in Can ada by McKernan and Ross (1993; 1996 af ter Brede 2000).
Weeds of the high est WC val ues were: Taraxacum officinale Weber (22.8%), Trifolium campestre Schreber (9.2%), T. repens L. (6.5%) and Hieracium pilosella L. (3.0%). De spite of the lack of sta tis ti cally sig nif i -cant dif fer ences be tween en tries, the low est Taraxacum cover was noted for: Fes tu ca ovina ssp. vulgaris NONI, Fes tu ca arundinacea BARTES, Fes tu ca ovina ssp. duriuscula ESPRO, and Lolium perenne LISUNA (1.7, 5.8, 6.7, 6.7%, re spec tively). The high est Taraxacum cover were ob served on Fes tu ca rubra ssp. trichophylla BARCROWN, Poa pratensis
CYNTHIA, Fes tu ca rubra ssp. rubra ENSYLVA, mix ture no. 4 (low share
of Lolium perenne) and Fes tu ca nigrescens NIMBA (40.2, 42.5, 42.5, 50, 52.7%, re spec tively). Prob a bly due to its high est cover val ues, Taraxacum was the only spe cies that neg a tively af fected fi nal VM value (r = - 0.42**).
Weed cover in creased over time, but with dif fer ent mag ni tudes. High in -crease (WC2006 – WC2003) was noted for Fes tu ca rubra ssp. trichophylla, Poa pratensis and mix tures of high share of Lolium perenne, as well as for cultivars of Lolium perenne amd Fes tu ca ovina ssp. duriuscula (20.0, 24.5 and 26.8%, re spec tively).
Weeds on low man aged turfs are in many cases dom i nat ing com po nents of sward. Weed in fes ta tion on War saw city turfs ranged from 41 to 76% (Wysocki, Stawicka 2000). Rel a tively high share of terophytes (an nual spe -cies) in our ex per i ment is sim i lar to re sults ob tained by Wysocki and Stawicka (2000). Such re la tion is neg a tive for turf, but we have no ticed rel -a tively low v-al ues of terophytes cover in mix tures of low sh-are of Lolium perenne (5.4%) as com pared to other en tries (range from 8.8 for mix tures of high share of Lolium perenne to 15.6% for Lolium perenne). Geophytes and hemicrypthophytes ac counted for ma jor ity (70%) of iden ti fied weed spe -cies. It was also con firmed also by Wysocki (1994) and Wysocki and Stawicka (2000) on turf ar eas in parks.
Turf weed in fes ta tion is dif fer ently af fected by ir ri ga tion, fer til iza tion and mow ing (Fry, Huang 2004). Wa ter is nec es sary to ger mi na tion and emer gence of weeds, but each year it is quite nar row ‘win dow’ dur ing which win ter or sum mer an nu als emerge. There fore, if low main tained ar eas are not ar ti fi cially wa tered, an nual weeds in va sion will not be stim u -lated. Turf re ceiv ing in ad e quate lev els of fer til iz ers, es pe cially ni tro gen, is gen er ally not re sis tant to weed in va sion. Ni tro gen fix ing weeds as clo vers could be there fore quite fre quent, as in our ex per i ment (15.7% of weed
cover). In con trast, mow ing with clip pings col lected may re duce weed pop -u la tions, mostly of seed pro d-uc ers (Fry and H-uang 2004).
Weeds on large, low man aged mu nic i pal ar eas (parks, gar dens, cem e ter -ies etc.) are in her ent com po nent of turf. How ever, still much has to be done to bal ance the share of weeds and grasses on turf sward. Oth er wise, turf will no lon ger be green area but the ini tial stage of suc ces sion of un pre dict able di rec tion.
CONCLUSIONS
None of tested va ri et ies and mix tures was able to keep ini tial val ues of shoot den sity and vi sual merit af ter 5 years of re duced main te nance.
De spite of ini tial dif fer ences in vi sual merit, turf mix tures were very sim i -lar af ter given time of ex per i ment with no dif fer ences in side or be tween group of mix tures.
Turf mix tures of low share of Lolium perenne should be rec om mended for low main te nance turfs due to its rel a tively high turf qual ity, high abil ity to cope with weeds and known sig nif i cantly lower in put re quire ments con sid -er ing mow ing.
REFERENCES
Brede D. 2000. Turfgrass Main te nance Re duc tion Hand book: Sports, Lawns and Golf. Ann Ar bor Press, Chelsea, Mich i gan, USA, pp. 374.
Dernoeden P.H., Carroll M.J., Krouse M.J. 1993. Weed man age ment and tall fes cue qual ity as in flu enced by mow ing, ni tro gen, and her bi cides. Crop Sci. 33: 10155 – 1061.
Dernoeden P. H., Fidanza M. A., Krouse M. J. 1998. Low main te nance per for mance of five Fes cue spe cies in monostands and mix tures. Crop Sci. 38, 2: 434 - 438.
Diesburg K.L., Chris tians N.E., Moore R., Branham B., Danneberger T.K., Reicher Z. J., Voigt T., Minner D.D., Newman R.. 1997. Spe cies for low-in put sus tain able turf in the U.S. Up per Mid west. Agron. J. vol. 89, no. 4; 690 - 694.
Fry J., Huang B. 2004. Ap plied Turfgrass Sci ence and Phys i ol ogy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jer sey, pp. 310.
Mintenko A. S., Smith R.S., Cattani D.J. 2002. Turfgrass eval u a tion of na tive grasses for the North ern Great Plain re gions. Crop Sci. 42: 2018 – 2024.
Mor ris K.N., Sherman R.C., 2007. NTEP Turfgrass Eval u a tion Guide lines. via internet: http://www.ntep.org/pdf/ratings.pdf
Proñczuk S. 1993. Sys tem oceny traw gazonowych. Biul. IHAR, 186: 127 – 132.
Wysocki C. 1994. Studia nad funkcjonowaniem trawników na obszarach zurbanizowanych (na przyk³adzie Warszawy). Rozprawy i Monografie Naukowe. Wydawnictwo SGGW; 1 – 95
Wysocki C., Stawicka J. 2000. Ocena zmian florystycznych runi trawników miejskich. £¹karstwo w Polsce (Grass land Sci ence in Po land), 3: 169 – 176.
