Minimum Water Requirements for Creeping, Colonial, and Velvet Bentgrasses under Fairway Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of water use requirements of various grass species is important for identifying grasses that persist with reduced water inputs and also for developing efficient irrigation management practices. This study was designed to examine minimum water requirements for maintaining acceptable quality fairways established to creeping (Agrostis stolonifera L.), colonial (A. capillaris L.) and velvet (A. canina L.) bentgrasses. Field experiments were conducted from July to November in 2002 and 2003. Plots were irrigated at four levels of irrigation on the basis of the percentage of actual evapotranspiration determined with minilysimeters (ETa): 100, 80, 60, and 40% ETa replacement. Turf performance was evaluated by measuring visual turf quality (TQ), canopy spectral parameters, canopy photosynthetic rates (Pn), and soil moisture status. Results generally demonstrated that irrigating at 100% ETa was not necessary to maintain acceptable TQ and physiological processes and that the minimum water requirements depended on species and time of year. Colonial bentgrass required irrigating at 80 to 100% ETa, while creeping and velvet bentgrasses required 60 to 80% ETa to maintain acceptable turf performance in the summer of 2002. During the summer treatment period in 2003, however, irrigating at 60% ETa was sufficient for all three species. Irrigating at 40% ETa in the fall treatment period in both 2002 and 2003 was sufficient to maintain acceptable TQ, canopy Pn, and comparable canopy growth parameters to plots receiving 100% ETa. The results from this study demonstrate the potential for significant water and monetary savings by utilizing deficit irrigation practices on bentgrass species used for golf course fairways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".