2009 Annual Report

Purdue University Turfgrass Science Program

Department of Agronomy
915 W State St
Purdue University
West Lafayette IN 47907-2054


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.

Fisher’s 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

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


Department of Agronomy, Turf Program
915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Send corrections, suggestions, and comments to