Abstract
Shade is a major cause of poor performance and loss of turf, especially on putting greens. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of trinexapac-ethyl (TE) [4-(cyclopropyl-alpha-hydroxymethylene)-3, 5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethylester] and nitrogen (N) on the performance and carbohydrate content of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’) grown under reduced light conditions (RLC). The effect of rate and frequency of TE applications to creeping bentgrass under RLC also were evaluated. Two field experiments were conducted during 1998 and 1999 in East Lansing, MI on an established sand-based putting green mowed to a height of 4 mm. In the first experiment (1998 and 1999), turf grown under 80% black shade cloth received multiple applications of TE (0, 0.042 or 0.070 kg a.i. ha−1) in combination with N (low = 150–185 kg N ha−1 season−1 or high = 212–235 kg N ha−1 season−1). Turf quality and cover were reduced greatly under 80% shade. Application of TE increased turf cover from 6 to 33%, tillers from 40 to 52%, but had no effect on root mass when compared with turf not treated with TE. Fructose content increased by 40 and 37% in turf treated with TE at 0.042 and 0.070 kg a.i. ha−1, respectively. No differences in tissue levels of other carbohydrates or starch were found. Turf cover was 3.3 to 7.2% greater in plots treated with low N when compared with high N. There were no significant interactions between TE and N. In the second experiment (1999), turf grown under 60% green shade cloth received TE (0, 0.025, or 0.050 kg a.i. ha−1) applied on 2- or 4-wk intervals. There were no differences in turf cover in bentgrass grown under 60% shade, regardless of TE treatment. In general, creeping bentgrass quality and color were improved by TE, when compared with untreated turf. Overall, data indicated that TE and judicious use of N can improve creeping bentgrass quality under RLC.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Turf quality and cover were reduced under 80% shade in creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrass
Agrostis stoloniferae0 - Treatment
- 80% shadee1
- Outcome
- Turf quality and covere1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e1“Turf quality and cover were reduced greatly under 80% shade”
Claim · model-written summary
TE increased creeping bentgrass turf cover from 6 to 33% compared with untreated turf.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe2
- Outcome
- turf covere2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- from 6 to 33%e2
- Comparator
- turf not treated with TEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e2“Application of TE increased turf cover from 6 to 33%, tillers from 40 to 52%, but had no effect on root mass when compared with turf not treated with TE”
Claim · model-written summary
TE increased creeping bentgrass tiller number from 40 to 52% compared with untreated turf.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe2
- Outcome
- tillerse2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- from 40 to 52%e2
- Comparator
- turf not treated with TEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e2“Application of TE increased turf cover from 6 to 33%, tillers from 40 to 52%, but had no effect on root mass when compared with turf not treated with TE”
Claim · model-written summary
TE had no effect on creeping bentgrass root mass compared with untreated turf.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe2
- Outcome
- root masse2
- Direction
- had no effecte2
- Comparator
- turf not treated with TEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e2“Application of TE increased turf cover from 6 to 33%, tillers from 40 to 52%, but had no effect on root mass when compared with turf not treated with TE”
Claim · model-written summary
TE at 0.042 kg a.i. ha-1 increased fructose content by 40 percent in creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe3
- Outcome
- Fructose contente3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 40e3
- Qualifier
- 0.042e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e3“Fructose content increased by 40 and 37% in turf treated with TE at 0.042 and 0.070 kg a.i. ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
TE at 0.070 kg a.i. ha-1 increased fructose content by 37 percent in creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe3
- Outcome
- Fructose contente3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 37%e3
- Qualifier
- 0.070 kg a.i. ha−1e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e3“Fructose content increased by 40 and 37% in turf treated with TE at 0.042 and 0.070 kg a.i. ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No differences were found in tissue levels of other carbohydrates or starch in creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Outcome
- tissue levels of other carbohydrates or starche4
- Qualifier
- No differencese4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e4“No differences in tissue levels of other carbohydrates or starch were found”
Claim · model-written summary
Turf cover was 3.3 to 7.2 percent greater with low N than with high N in creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- low Ne5
- Outcome
- Turf covere5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Value
- 3.3 to 7.2%e5
- Comparator
- high Ne5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e5“Turf cover was 3.3 to 7.2% greater in plots treated with low N when compared with high N”
Claim · model-written summary
No significant interaction between TE and N was found for creeping bentgrass.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TE and Ne6
- Outcome
- interactions between TE and Ne6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e6“There were no significant interactions between TE and N”
Claim · model-written summary
TE did not change turf cover of creeping bentgrass grown under 60% shade.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae0
- Treatment
- TEe7
- Outcome
- turf covere7
- Direction
- no differencese7
- Qualifier
- under 60% shadee7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cv. ‘Penncross’)”
e7“There were no differences in turf cover in bentgrass grown under 60% shade, regardless of TE treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
TE improved creeping bentgrass quality and color compared with untreated turf.
- Taxon
- creeping bentgrassAgrostis stoloniferae1
- Treatment
- TEe1
- Outcome
- quality and colore1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Comparator
- untreated turfe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In general, creeping bentgrass quality and color were improved by TE, when compared with untreated turf”
The same questions in other papers
trinexapac-ethyl · growth · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
trinexapac-ethyl · quality: postharvest · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
trinexapac-ethyl · yield · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
trinexapac-ethyl · molecular: metabolites · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
shade · quality: general · Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent grass)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.