Araştırma Makalesi

Responses of Different Turfgrass Mixtures to Drought

Cilt: 20 Sayı: Özel Sayı 23 Aralık 2024
PDF İndir
EN TR

Responses of Different Turfgrass Mixtures to Drought

Abstract

In this study, the responses of the most frequently used grass plants in landscape areas to drought were determined. To ensure the continuity of grass areas and to keep them green in all seasons, mixtures are widely used instead of a single species. Therefore, eight different grass mixtures were used as experimental material. The experiment was carried out under laboratory conditions at two different temperatures, 20ºC±1 and 30ºC±1. The plant was put into water stress by applying four different irrigation treatments at both temperatures. The four different irrigation treatments were determined as completing the lost moisture to the pot capacity when 40±5% of the usable water holding capacity was consumed (control) and 75%, 50% and 25% of the water applied to the control subject. Plant water consumption of grass mixtures was determined under different temperatures and irrigation treatments and changes in their visual quality were examined. Plant water consumption values varied between 3.5 and 2 mm for 20ºC±1 and 4.4 and 2.0 mm for 30ºC±1. No significant difference was observed between the varieties in terms of plant water consumption values at both temperatures. Since the I75 treatments of the 4M-JG, 4M-J, 4M-S, 4M-D and 7M varieties were above the visual quality limit at 30ºC±1 temperature, it was determined that 25% water restriction could be applied to these varieties. At 20ºC±1 temperature, it was observed that the I100, I75 and I50 subjects of all varieties were above the acceptable visual quality limit.

Keywords

Turfgrass , Landscape , Irrigation , Drought , Visual quality

Kaynakça

  1. Ahmad, I., Khan, M.A., & Qasım, M. (2003). Growth and Development of Different Turfgrasses as Influenced by Nitrogen Application and Leaf Nitrogen Contents. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 5, 175–178.
  2. Anonim, (2019). https://www.ulusoyseed.com.tr/urunlerimiz/cim-tohumu-karisimlari. Erisim tarihi: 30.08.2024.
  3. Arnell, N.W. (1999). Climate change and global water resources. Global Environmental Change, 9, 31-49.
  4. Arslan, M., & Çakmakçı, S. (2004). Farklı Çim Tür ve Çeşitlerinin Antalya İli Sahil Koşullarinda Adaptasyon Yeteneklerinin ve Performanslarinin Belirlenmesi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 31-42.
  5. Aydınşakir, K., Baştuğ, R., & Büyüktaş, D. (2003). Antalya Yöresinde Çim Kıyas Bitki Su Tüketimini Veren Bazı Eşitliklerin Tarla ve Lizimetre Koşullarında Kalibrasyonu. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 16 (1), 107-119.
  6. Beard, J.B., & Kim, K.S. (1989). Low Water-Use Turfgrasses. Green Section Record, 27 (1), 12-13.
  7. Cengiz, S., & Demirel, K. (2022). Turfgrass: To Be or Not To Be. 3rd International Mountain and Ecology Congress Within the Framework of Sustainable Development (MEDESU 2022), 552-558, Trabzon.
  8. Cengiz, S., Demirel, K., & Çamoğlu, G. (2023). Bazı Çim Karışımlarının Bitki Su Tüketimi Ve Görsel Kalitesi Üzerine Su Stresinin Etkisi. Mimarlık Planlama ve Tasarım Alanında Uluslararası Araştırma ve Derlemeler, Serüven Yayınevi, 103-114.
  9. Cereti, C.F., Ruggeri, R., & Rossini, F. (2010). Cool-Season Turfgrass Species and Cultivars: Response to Simulated Traffic in Central Italy. Ital. J. Agron., 5, 53-59.
  10. Çamoğlu, G. (2013). The effects of water stress on evapotranspiration and leaf temperatures of two olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 100 (1), 91–98.

Kaynak Göster

APA
Demirel, K., Cengiz, S., Çamoğlu, G., Doğan, G. R., & Nar, H. (2024). Responses of Different Turfgrass Mixtures to Drought. Düzce Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Ormancılık Dergisi, 20(Özel Sayı), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1549036