NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT PERMISSION
2009 Annual Report
Purdue University Turfgrass Science Program
Department of Agronomy
915 W State St
Purdue University
West Lafayette IN 47907-2054
765-494-8039
In this report, you may see pesticide use in research reports that do not conform to
the pesticide label. These uses are not provided as recommendations. By law, it is the
responsibility of the pesticide applicator, to follow current label directions for
the specific pesticide being used. No endorsement is intended for products mentioned, nor
criticism of products not mentioned. The authors, Purdue University, and the Midwest
Regional Turf Foundation assume no liability from misuse of pesticide applications
detailed in this report. The Agricultural Experiment Station of Purdue University is an
equal action/equal opportunity institution.
Understanding the Data
Most of the data presented in this report was subjected to statistical analysis.
Statistical procedures are a combination of logic and arithmetic that allow us to
interpret information gathered from experiments. We most frequently use a Least
Significant Difference Test to explain our test data.
Fishers Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test is a statistical procedure that
determines if the difference found between two treatments is due to the treatment or if
the difference is simply due to random chance. For each set of data, a value termed the
LSD is calculated at a chosen level of significance. If the difference between two
treatment means is greater than this calculated value then it is said to be a
significant difference or a difference not due to random chance. The
level of significance that we use most often is 0.05 (LSD0.05). In other words,
this difference will occur 95% of the time these treatments are compared. If
NS is reported at the bottom of a column of means, then no significant
difference was found among the means in this group of data at a probability = 0.05.
Table of Contents:
Supporters of the Purdue University Turf Program in 2009 |
PDF |
Abiotic Stress Physiology |
|
| Towards Association Mapping of Drought Tolerance in Perennial Ryegrass |
PDF |
| Identification of Differentially Expressed Genes of Perennial Ryegrass Under Drought Stress |
PDF |
| Physiological and Molecular Responses of Prairie Junegrass to Drought Stress |
PDF |
| Seasonal environmental factors affecting rough bluegrass (Poa trivialis) physiology |
PDF |
| Rough bluegrass (Poa trivialis) physiology in response to high temperatures |
PDF |
Cultivar and Species Evaluations |
|
| Bentgrass Putting Green Cultivar Evaluation 2009 |
PDF |
| Bermudagrass Cultivar Evaluation 2009 |
PDF |
Management Studies |
|
| Evaluation of Pre-Stress Conditioning Liquid Programs on Research Putting Green Aerification Recovery |
PDF |
Insect Management |
|
| Influence of Application Rate on the Curative Efficacy of Aloft Against Japanese Beetle Larvae in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf |
PDF |
| Influence of Post-Application Irrigation of Efficacy of Acelepryn and Merit Applied at Optimal Timing Against Japanese Beetle Larvae in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf |
PDF |
| Influence of Post-Application Irrigation on the Preventive Efficacy of Acelepryn and Merit Against Japanese Beetle Larvae in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf |
PDF |
Weed Management |
|
| BASF Goosegrass Control |
PDF |
| Post Emergence Crabgrass Control from Commercially Available Herbicides |
PDF |
| QUALI-PRO USA09110 – Comparison of Quali-Pro’s Prodiamine to Barricade |
PDF |
| Sequential applications of preemergence crabgrass herbicides: Does the active ingredient in the sequential application have to be the same as used in the intial application? |
PDF |
| First Report of Quinclorac-Tolerant Biotype of Smooth Crabgrass in Indiana |
PDF |
Disease Management |
|
| Evaluation of Fungicides for Control of Brown Patch on Colonial Bentgrass |
PDF |
| Fungicides for Dollar Spot Control Against a DMI-insensitive strain of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa. |
PDF |
| Fungicides for Dollar Spot Control on Creeping Bentgrass |
PDF |