Next Article in Journal
Digital Competence, Validation and Differential Patterns between Spanish and Portuguese Areas as Assessed from the Latest PISA Report as a Pathway to Sustainable Education and Social Concerns
Next Article in Special Issue
Systematic Modeling and Policy Analysis on the Urban Water–Energy Nexus for Sustainable Resources Management
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Aerated Irrigation on the Growth and Rhizosphere Soil Fungal Community Structure of Greenhouse Grape Seedlings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Crop Diversification and Resilience of Drought-Resistant Species in Semi-Arid Areas: An Economic and Environmental Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/su141912722
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Pertinent Water-Saving Management Strategies for Sustainable Turfgrass in the Desert U.S. Southwest

by
Desalegn D. Serba
1,*,
Reagan W. Hejl
1,
Worku Burayu
2,
Kai Umeda
3,
Bradley Shaun Bushman
4 and
Clinton F. Williams
1
1
USDA-ARS, U.S. Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ 85138, USA
2
School of Agriculture, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix, VI 00850, USA
3
Maricopa County Cooperative Extension, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85138, USA
4
USDA-ARS, Forage and Range Research Unit, Logan, UT 84321, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12722; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su141912722
Submission received: 14 July 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 30 September 2022 / Published: 6 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Management and Efficiency for Sustainable Development Strategies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drought and heat stresses are major challenges for turfgrass management in the desert southwest of the United States where rainfall is insufficient to support managed turfgrass growth. Irrigation water availability and its quality are increasingly strained due to diminishing surface water supplies. Unprecedented drought conditions threaten the reliance on groundwater supplies that are heavily scrutinized for irrigation practices on landscape and recreational turfgrass. Therefore, development of drought tolerant cultivars, lower input turf management strategies that sustains turfgrass appearance and performance with less irrigation water, and tolerance to higher seasonal temperatures will be critically important. Sustainability of acceptable quality turfgrass can be accomplished through harnessing the natural genetic variation, genetic manipulation using modern genomic technology, and optimizing turfgrass management practices for improved drought tolerance. Besides persistent efforts of varietal development and improved turfgrass management for drought tolerance and performance, redefining the quality of irrigated turfgrass for consumers to align with the environmental conditions is envisioned to foster a sustainable golf, sports fields, and landscape turfgrass industry in the region. A comprehensive study encompassing different turfgrass species and enhancing management practices to achieve acceptable performing turfgrass as well as outreach education to improve public perception of realities for a “green” environment will be critically important. The recent developments in turfgrass science and contemporary communication platforms are instrumental in increasing awareness for a sustainable turfgrass paradigm and sustain eco-tourism of the region.

1. Introduction

Turfgrass is a vital component of various landscape ecosystems such as golf courses, sports fields, home lawns, and parks with significant ecological, environmental, and economic importance [1,2]. It also has a transformative effect on the natural ecosystem through soil conservation, enhanced soil water infiltration and groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration, heat dissipation and temperature moderation, and reduced air pollution [2,3,4,5,6,7].
The turfgrass industry also has positive economic impacts by creating employment and provides direct and indirect income to the state governments [8]. Golf courses contribute billions of dollars to the economy (www.forbes.com; accessed on 28 June 2022) and create thousands of jobs for local communities (https://azallianceforgolf.org; accessed on 28 June 2022). There are more than 16,000 golf courses in the United States (www.golfmonthly.com; accessed on 28 June 2022) extending over many ecoregions and within a large variety of social contexts, from urban to rural, from forest to swamp, grassland to desert. The sport of golf has grown tremendously in the past half century [9,10] which has consequently elevated the demand for inputs needed to manage golf courses such as water, fertilizer, and pesticides. For example, metroplexes like Phoenix, AZ, are among the most popular golf course destinations in the world, especially during winter months, and the golf industry plays an important role in state and local economies. Therefore, a desired quality of the turfgrass is important to the industry to maintain its tourism base.
In the low desert of the southwest U.S.A., rainfall does not supply the necessary amount and quality of water for optimal turfgrass growth and development. The harsh growing conditions provided by a hot and dry climate is exacerbated by rapid urbanization [11] and anthropogenic climate change [12] that increasingly strains water availability in the southwest U.S. Empirical models estimating future climatic patterns predict a worsening scenario [13,14] where water availability is affected to a greater extent. Consequently, water availability in the region for turfgrass irrigation is progressively in a great peril. The Colorado River, which is a major source of water for the low desert, is over-allocated and problems are amplified by decades of recurrent drought in the Colorado River Basin [15]. This situation undoubtedly places pressure on water consumption for recreational turfgrass and landscapes in the desert southwest U. S. Ensuring sustainability by redefining the ‘green’ that is acceptable to consumers could enable and ensure sustainability without affecting playability of golf and other sports.
As the results of deficit irrigation studies indicate, reasonable levels of reduced irrigation had no detrimental effect on the aesthetic quality and performance of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) [16]. However, it is difficult to generalize the tolerable level of deficit irrigation for other species or varieties as inter- and intraspecies variation for drought resistance are apparent and evapotranspiration (ET) replacement requirements vary across ecologies [17]. Actions are needed for the seasonal management of low water use crops to avoid wastage and exploring sustainable alternative supplies of water for agriculture. Further technology development and application is needed for more efficient irrigation practices in the low desert. In this review, we propose that golf courses and other sports fields should continue to seek innovations with a focus on sustainability that optimize the playing quality of turfgrass for sports and landscapes in harmony with the conservation of their natural environments. Therefore, redefining the green industry towards sustainability with turfgrass variety improvement, optimizing turf management practices and enlightening the public perception of acceptable quality turf is urgently needed to sustain the industry in the desert environment.

2. Turfgrass Water Requirements

Understanding the role of water in turfgrass and the effects of drought stress is essential to maintaining quality turfgrass when water availability is limited.
Water usually makes up 75 percent or more of the fresh weight of actively growing turfgrasses [18], and is a limiting factor for maintaining turfgrass health and quality. The water requirement of turfgrasses has been scientifically established but amounts exceeding the plant requirements are typically applied [2,18]. Social norms or habitual behaviors driven overwatering of turfgrasses is common mostly during summer months when water availability is over strained. The critical roles of water include buffering the plant against high temperature by evaporative cooling, maintaining plant cell structure or turgidity, acting as a reactant in photosynthesis, and acting as a solvent of minerals in the soil for plant absorption. Thus, the total amount of water required by turfgrass includes the amount of water lost through transpiration from the leaves, water lost through evaporation from the soil surface, and the amount used in plant metabolic processes. Level of ET, crop coefficient, differential drought response of turfgrass species and genotype are important characteristics to determine irrigation requirements [17]. Crop ET exhibits both spatial and temporal variations as it is dependent on hydro-climatic conditions. In general, ET increases with aridity which is a commonplace in U. S. southwest. A deficit irrigation study in Central California showed that 70–80% reference evapotranspiration (ETo) replacement irrigation is required to maintain an acceptable hybrid bermudagrass turf quality during the summer months when the ET demand is high [19]. Drought stress accompanied by high temperature affects turfgrass growth rate, aesthetic quality, and ET [17]. However, a survey of urban homeowners with home lawns found that social norm-based information such as awareness for local water scarcity, attitudes toward water conservation, and socio-demographics are more effective to promote household water conservation behavior than knowledge of the water requirement of the turfgrasses [20].
Despite many years of research, the mechanisms involved in water-stress resistance and water-use efficiency are still not clearly understood in turfgrasses. Perhaps the current genomics and metabolomics era may provide insights into anti-drought gene resources that have anatomical and physiological effect for a practical prospect to improve drought tolerance.

3. Drought Stress Effect on Turfgrass

Drought stress strongly affects the cell physiology of plants through interference of stomatal movement, photosynthesis, and plant respiration; therefore, affecting plant growth and development. Drought stress occurs during periods of stomatal closure when available soil moisture decreases to the point at which the rate of water lost through transpiration exceeds root absorption. This lack of water in the plant system disrupts biochemical reactions and physiological activities [21]. Prolonged stomatal closure disrupts important physiological and biochemical processes such as photosynthesis, ion uptake and translocation, chlorophyll synthesis, respiration, nutrient and carbohydrates metabolism [22,23].
As common for most plants, growth inhibition, damage to cell structure, and metabolic dysfunction are some of the harsh effects of drought stress in turfgrass. To mitigate such adversities of the drought stress, turfgrasses exert a series of adaptive modifications in physiological, biochemical, and molecular changes that are ultimately exhibited in morphological changes. These adaptive strategies include mechanisms of expelling phytotoxic substances, regulation of gene expression to increase activities of stress response related enzymes, phytohormones, and signal molecules that improve the stress tolerance in turfgrass [24]. Some genetic mechanisms that control drought and heat tolerance are identified along with candidate genes for further manipulation of the turfgrass cultivars but transferring this knowledge from the laboratory to field production remains a significant challenge.
Maintenance of high leaf water potential (LWP) in plants is found to be associated with dehydration avoidance mechanisms [25,26,27]. Stomatal closure because of reduced LWP and turgor pressure leads to decreased cell growth and development [22]. Disruption of vital physiological activities such as inhibition of CO2 assimilation, changes in photosystem activities or photosynthetic electron transport capacity, result in accelerated production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [28] at a level that cannot be scavenged by antioxidants in the plant systems.
In severe drought stress conditions, elevated production of ROS contributes to a process of oxidative deterioration, which leads to cell death (Figure 1). The phytohormone abscisic acid (ABA) is one of the major root-to-shoot stress signals that induces the production of ROS in drought stressed plants [29,30]. Accumulation of ROS in the form of either free superoxide radical (O−2) and hydroxyl radical (OH*) or non-radicals like hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and singlet oxygen (1O2) in the plant system may bring extensive cellular damage and death [28,31,32].
Large seasonal, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade climate fluctuations have become a common scenario in the southwest [33]. Large year-to-year variation in monsoon and wintertime precipitation, with overall increase in maximum and minimum temperatures over time, has been documented [34]. These increases in temperature facilitate the loss of water through ET by limiting the time for the moisture in the soil to be utilized by the plant physiological activity leading to growth and development. This unprecedented drought and increased temperature trend demonstrate a glimpse into a future in terms of limited water availability for turfgrass irrigation in the region.

4. Genetic Variation for Drought Tolerance in Turfgrass

As drought stress inhibit the growth and development of turfgrass species, drought tolerance is generally defined as the ability of a plant to survive and continue growing during periods of soil water scarcity. One means of protecting our diminishing freshwater resources involves improving the productivity of turfgrasses with reduced water demand. These drought-tolerant turfgrasses could use less water or thrive in water-scarce conditions to provide beauty and function in the landscape. Addressing this issue specifically in turfgrass systems requires the utilization of turfgrass species and/or genotypes that have a minimal water requirement. Understanding the genetic mechanisms controlling drought tolerance, and manipulation using both forward and reverse genetic approaches, can accelerate the turfgrasses drought-tolerance research to allow for better resilience to the effects of climate change.
The genetic interactions and inheritance of drought tolerance mechanisms in turfgrass can vary both at intra- and interspecific levels. An investigation in bermudagrass ecotypes observed association of lower stomatal conductance and greater depression of canopy temperature with superior drought tolerance [35], irrespective of geographic origin of genotypes. In water limited arid and semiarid regions, drought tolerant bermudagrass could be irrigated at 50% evaporation and still provide acceptable visual quality [36]. Genotypic variations were also studied in fine fescues (Festuca sp.) for heat and drought tolerance for the identification of cultivars that could be used in hot and dry environments [37]. Exposure of certain fescue genotypes exhibiting differential performance during summer months in field conditions to heat, drought, or combined heat and drought stresses allowed to detect greater genotypic variation in heat tolerance than drought tolerance in fescue species [38]. The report revealed turf quality (TQ) indices, relative water content (RWC), and electrolyte leakage (EL) were variable, indicating intraspecies variation in drought and heat stress tolerance.
On the other hand, there are certain species preferred for water limited environments. Based upon their photosynthetic pathway, turfgrasses are categorized as warm-season and cool-season turfgrass. Compared to cool season turfgrasses, warm season grasses such as bermudagrass, zoysiagrass (Zoysia sp.), seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum) are more adapted to arid and semi-arid environments. These warm season grasses exhibit active growth during summer heat with less water consumption and heat stress. Cool-season grasses such as fescues, ryegrasses (Lolium sp.), and some bluegrasses (Poa sp.) have bimodal growth pattern in the spring and fall; and exhibit summer stress mainly due to heat and drought stress [39]. The TQ, RWC, and EL indexes were variable between fescue and bermudagrass, with bermudagrass performing better at higher temperatures and lower irrigation levels [24].
Although some drought related genes are identified for different species, the mechanism of their drought stress response at molecular level is not yet clearly understood. The functions of the genes and the regulation of pathways are not very clear for manipulation. Furthermore, some phytohormones are reported to contribute to increasing drought stress tolerance in plants [40], and an increased use of plant growth regulators interfering in hormones biosynthesis in commercial setup may augment better turfgrass performance under environmental stresses.
Ultimately, drought tolerance in plants is a result of numerous physiological and biochemical changes driven by a series of stress responsive gene expression of the tolerant plants (Figure 2). Plants vary at both species and genotype level in stress perception and facilitating signal transduction towards tolerating the effect of drought on growth and development. Plant physiological responses to drought stress at different stages are driven by changes in gene expression [41]. Plants make a substantial change in the metabolism through regulation of transcription, gene expression, and extensive transcriptome reprogramming to withstand adverse drought stress conditions [42].

5. Breeding Turfgrass for Drought Tolerance

Unraveling the genetic bases of drought and heat tolerance and genetic improvement with increased resilience to stresses is paramount for sustainable turfgrass system in the southwest desert. Much needed disruptive changes in breeding output may be realized through either efficient harnessing of the natural genetic variation available in germplasm, utilization of drought adapted wild relatives, and development of low input native grasses. Advanced breeding strategies that integrate DNA sequence and high-throughput phenotyping of germplasm facilitates the identification of genes of interest for important traits.
A large variety of traits have been suggested to be associated with drought tolerance in turfgrass. Drought tolerant plants exhibit characteristic root and shoot attributes. There is a steadfast demand to develop turfgrass varieties with improved drought and heat stresses tolerance in the southwest. Turfgrasses with deep root architecture can maintain cellular hydration by avoiding water deficit in drought condition [43]. Deep penetration, high root density through the soil profile, and adequate longitudinal conductance are important root attributes for efficient extraction of moisture from the deep soil profile [44]. Some plant genotypes were shown to have deeper root growth [45,46], but in general, screening turfgrass germplasm and selection for rooting depth on a large scale is arduous. Shoot attributes important for drought tolerance are more related to development, structure, and surface properties of the canopy [25]. When water deficit develops in plants, osmotic adjustment is an important physiological factor to tolerate drought stress [43]. The ability of certain genotypes to adjust their leaf area to a given moisture availability and osmotic adjustment (OA) play vital roles in regulating water use in plants. Some relatively drought tolerant turfgrass cultivars have been released and examples are listed in Table 1.
Recent advances in genomics technology discovered many genes and transcription factors governing morpho-physiological traits imparting drought tolerance. The genes with spatial and temporal regulation of root system architecture and stomatal density play important roles in soil moisture extraction and its retention in the plant system [47]. Innovative genomic breeding strategies where combinations of genomic loci that contribute to drought tolerance can be considered as groups of haplotypes that facilitate the breeding process. Genome sequencing of warm- and cool-season grasses possibly will spur the development of next-generation drought tolerant varieties of turfgrasses by connecting genes to the adaptive traits. High throughput phenotyping using novel hyperspectral sensor technologies can facilitate accurate marker-trait association to identify functional genes or validating associations between traits and genes for stress tolerance.

6. Genetic Manipulation for Enhanced Drought Stress Tolerance

Plant genetic engineering is a faster and an efficient mechanism for developing stress-tolerant variants. Transgenic plants overexpressing transcription factors, ion transport channels, osmoprotectants, stress-signaling genes, and maintaining osmotic balance were found to impart stress tolerance [54]. RNA-seq based transcriptome analysis in different turfgrass species revealed that genes underlying ROS, transcription factors, hormones, carbohydrate metabolisms, and protein phosphorylation and ubiquitination, were largely enriched in stressed plants [55,56]. Therefore, drought stress tolerance in turfgrass can be enriched through genetic manipulation for these genes.
For instance, transgenic creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) overexpressing Osa-miR393a has been found to exhibit improved multiple stress tolerance [57]. A non-yellowing gene (NYE)/Stay GReen FaSGR gene expression study in tall fescue indicated that proline, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) were probably the key enzymes to protect tall fescue cells from severe drought stress [58]. Proline is an osmolyte that protects enzymes and cellular structures under water scarcity, SOD converts superoxide to H2O2, while APX detoxifies H2O2 into H2O [59].
The random nature of genetic recombination and the random insertion of gene constructs in the target genome are the main downsides of the conventional breeding and transgenic approaches, respectively. The new CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat)-Cas (CRISPR-associated) mediated genome editing technique which is adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system in bacteria [60] increased the extent and precision in generating targeted mutations and corrections in a specific gene sequence in plants [61]. The advantages of CRISPR-Cas gene (genome) editing includes its ability to enhance or silence a gene with high specificity with no or minimum foreign genome involved. Mainly because of large genome sizes and biological complexity attributed to apomixis, polyploidy, and interspecific hybridization [62,63,64,65,66], genomic approach of turfgrass improvement is lagging. However, with the current efforts in genome sequencing of turfgrasses [67], genome editing may bring a paradigm shift in targeted gene editing for both biotic and abiotic stress tolerance. This novel approach of gene editing is mostly applicable in developing stresses tolerant turfgrasses through manipulating the sequences of candidate regulatory and/or coding genes.

7. Cultural Practices Leveraging Turfgrass Drought Tolerance

While environmental factors and species are the primary determinants of turfgrass drought response, management practices can be manipulated to best utilize water resources. Mowing and fertilization are among the most basic elements in turfgrass management which influence turfgrass system health, quality, and function. Mowing height and mowing frequency induce physiological and ecological changes like canopy density, canopy roughness, and root growth; however, mowing heights are primarily chosen depending on turfgrass species, cultivars, maintenance capabilities, and desired playing conditions [68]. Healthy plant growth is impaired in the absence of sufficient quantities of essential nutrients in the soil. Thus, landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices [69] such as landscape components design, target irrigation practices, frequency and amount of fertilizer application are important factors. These practices impact water use and therefore irrigation requirements depending on how they are performed.

7.1. Mowing Height and Frequency

Mowing is a common practice in turfgrass maintenance. The mowing frequency and height of cut are important criteria for maintaining a healthy and dense stand, but clipping of the leaf blades is a significant stress factor that reduces photosynthetic area to manufacture assimilates [70]. In addition to reduced food manufacturing because of mowing, healing the cutting wounds fast is an essential trait for sustainable turfgrass. Further, cutting too short affects turfgrass root development that restricts water and nutrient acquisition and utilization efficiency [71]. Higher cutting height improves root growth, turf quality, and have a profound shading effect on the soil surface to maintain cooler soil temperatures and soil moisture.
On golf courses, cutting height and frequency are also dependent on the specific surfaces (i.e., tees, greens, fairway, roughs, native area) which distinguish these areas throughout the course. The closely mowed areas within the playable course (greens, tees, and fairways) constituted 36.5 acres or 46.5% of the median maintained turf areas on an 18-hole golf course in the southwest U.S. [72]. Higher mowing heights (≥2.54 cm) are primarily utilized in roughs which in 2005 represented 47 acres (54%) of maintained turfgrass acres to 41.9 acres (53%) in 2015 for 18-hole golf courses in the Southwest U.S. In 2015, virtually all greens, tees, fairways, and rough areas in this region were irrigated (100%, 100%, 99.7%, and 99.5% irrigated, respectively).
As room for change in mowing height and frequency are limited on golf courses, a common strategy to reduce water consumption on golf courses has been to reduce the overall irrigated acreage. Irrigated acreage in rough areas was decreased by 11% for 18-hole golf courses in the southwest U.S. in years 2005–2015 [72]. Given the lack of updated survey data, it is unclear whether this trend has continued. However, these higher mowed areas are still representing a large proportion of irrigated turf acres on golf courses in this region which in turn would represent opportunities for continued water conservation. Outside of improved irrigation scheduling, methods for increased water conservation could be to further reduce irrigated rough areas or adoption of native grasses/low water requiring shrubs for rough areas.
Regardless, more research is needed regarding specific strategies to leverage mowing height to maintain desired levels of turfgrass quality while simultaneously decreasing water use. Several studies on tolerance to prolonged deficit irrigation indicated variable responses and difference in water requirements among warm season turfgrasses [17,73,74,75]. So, more research is needed to document the impacts of cutting height on turfgrass water requirements, stress response, and process-based modeling that can increase understanding of turfgrass traits for efficient use of water. Further the development of native grasses with low water requirements that provide desired quality levels and functionality of fairway or rough conditions would provide value to the industry with increased water conservation.

7.2. Turfgrass Nutrition

Nutrient management plans are designed by practitioners to optimize turfgrass quality and performance while maintaining healthy ecosystem function. This balance entails maximizing plant uptake of applied fertilizers through proper tissue/soil testing practices, application timing, and fertilizer selection. While there are 16 plant elements required by turfgrasses, nitrogen (N) is the nutrient required in the highest quantity. Thus, most nutrient management plans are centered around nitrogen management as well as the majority of turfgrass nutrition research. However, few studies have evaluated the impacts of nutrient management along with imposed drought or deficit irrigation conditions. In these few studies, increased N application increased plant ET [76,77] and deficit irrigation reduced NO3−N in runoff [78]. Several studies investigated N nutrition rate reported effective in ameliorating the adverse effect of drought stress in turfgrass. Optimum N fertilization is known to significantly reduce oxidative stress by maintaining osmoprotectants, elevating the activity of antioxidant enzymes and sustaining metabolic activities at reduced tissue water potential to impact drought tolerance in turfgrass [79,80,81].

7.3. Winter Overseeding

The process of overseeding cool-season grasses into bermudagrass turf during fall months is a common management practice utilized in the southern U.S. It aims to provide a green, uniform playing surface for local and traveling golfers throughout the mild winters that this region provides [72]. However, the implementation of overseeding involves the increased use of water, fertilizers, pesticides, and labor. While overseeding golf course turf in the region provides aesthetic, recreational and economic benefits, it represents a target for further refinement to reduce water consumption. Water savings could be realized through further reductions in overseeded turf areas as there was already a documented 36% decrease in overseeded turf acreage on southwest U.S. golf courses from 2005–2015 [72]. The identification and adoption of warm-season cultivars that maintain adequate green color during winter months would allow for the maintenance of recreational and economic benefits while vastly reducing water and other costly inputs, since overseeding would be bypassed. Also, research aiming to best define water requirements throughout the overseed life cycle (grow-in, maintenance, spring transition) could enhance water conservation.
Colorants have been used to dye dormant turfgrasses to extend their green appearance and enhance turfgrass performance [82,83,84,85,86,87]. Use of colorants has become an alternative to winter overseeding of warm season turfgrasses during periods of extended dormancy in the winter [88]. Overseeding operation involves aggressive verticutting, scalping and the shade from the overseeding species has negative effect on greening up of the warm season grass and spring transition. Therefore, painting dormant bermudagrass putting greens has been practiced as a viable option to overseeding for maintaining green playing surfaces in the winter [88]. Use of colorants and other inputs improve visual quality of the turfgrass and saves the water required for overseeding.

7.4. Irrigation Application Methods and Scheduling

The manner how irrigation water applied, how much, how often, and when to irrigate are the corner stones in turfgrass irrigation management. In most of the turfgrass establishments, water is applied by sprinkler irrigation; which basically matches with the moisture absorption rate of the soil. The amount of water to apply at any given time should consider the water-holding capacity of the soil, the existing soil moisture level, drainage, and the water holding capacity of the soil [89].
Proper irrigation scheduling is the delivery of water through properly timed events and at appropriate depths is one of the most important drivers of water conservation in turfgrass systems. Advancements in irrigation system technologies along with the development and implementation of best management practices have drastically improved the capacity for water savings while maintaining turfgrass quality demands. Time-domain reflectometer (TDR) soil moisture sensors (SMS) [90], remote sensing of soil moisture stress through the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) [91], highly sensitive image-derived canopy indices [92] such as water band index (WBI), a simple visible vegetation index called green-to-red ratio index (GRI) [93], optical signature of leaves including hyperspectral radiometer [94,95] and other systems have been used to measure volumetric water content (VWC) or estimating moisture stress for irrigation scheduling strategies in turfgrass system. Use of soil moisture sensors was found to reduce water usage by 39% as compared to using historical ET data [96]. However, the continual improvement of irrigation scheduling practices is warranted to meet the demand for high quality turfgrass in the face of increased strains on quality water supplies in the low desert.
Many golf facilities now can incorporate data-driven metrics to accurately determine daily irrigation replacement needs through the access of computerized control systems and weather stations or use of soil moisture sensors. The incorporation of such metrics allows the ability to meet plant demand under changing weather conditions and adapt to various local water restrictions. Further water savings could be accomplished through the documentation of seasonal crop coefficient values for newly adopted turfgrass varieties along with corresponding ET replacement values to maintain acceptable quality. More research is also needed for further defining water requirements throughout the overseeding process and determining the influence of water quality on plant water consumption and requirements.
Considerable efforts have also been made to adapt and incorporate soil moisture measurements into irrigation scheduling on golf courses [97] and optical signatures of leaves [95]. The soil moisture sensor technology adds much promise in to soil-water balance maintenance as well as further implementation of precision irrigation practices and turfgrass management which allows for increased input efficiency by utilizing a site-specific, targeted approach to management [98]. Rapid improvements have been accomplished for handheld and in-ground soil moisture meters that provide rapid, objective soil moisture data and could be utilized in conjunction with valve-in head sprinkler systems. Study using wireless capacitance SMS over a wide soil moisture range and smart irrigation controllers resulted in significant water savings of up to 24–65% [99]. However, the water savings potential of SMS compared to conventional ET scheduling practices could be dependent on how SMS data is utilized [100]. Nevertheless, this type of irrigation management can provide increased irrigation efficiency by allowing for increased control of the high degree of soil moisture variability present on golf courses due to different soil types, topography, and other factors [101,102,103]. However, further research is warranted given lingering questions regarding sensor placement, the number of sensors required, how to properly set irrigation thresholds, and matching technological capabilities with feasible daily scheduling.
Study of homeowner perceptions of watering restriction scenarios in non-water-scarce areas indicated equally likely watering of the landscape across scenarios compared to non-restriction and the presence of irrigation systems predicted increased watering likelihood [104]. In a desert city such as Phoenix, AZ, where outdoor water use makes up over two-thirds of residential water consumption, structural constraints that attitudinal drivers force to shift to water-conserving landscaping than grass lawns [105]. A more sustainable ecological approaches that encompass innovative landscape architecture practices [106] and component designs are required along with demand driven irrigation scheduling.

7.5. Exogenous Application of Hormones and Osmoprotectants

External application of different kinds of hormones to seed or growing plants may improve establishment and lessen any oxidative damage caused by drought stress in turfgrass. Exogenous application of small molecules such as abscisic acid (ABA), nitrogen oxide, CaCl2, H2S, polyamine and melatonin induced the accumulation of antioxidants and osmoprotectants that kept cell membrane integrity and ion homeostasis in drought stressed bermudagrass [107]. Application of glycinebetaine to creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) mitigated the adverse effect of drought stress by significantly reducing superoxide anion content (O2−) and malondialdehyde content and increased turf quality, chlorophyll content, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase, and peroxidase in water stressed plants [108]. In a halophyte grass, Puccinellia distans, application of osmoprotectants, such as glycine betaine or chitosan greatly increased shoot growth under high salinity condition [109]. Therefore, identification and application of osmoprotectants or small molecules stimulating the production of antioxidants, and organic osmolytes that provide osmoregulation to stressed plant cells could have a synergistic effect in boosting drought tolerance in turfgrass. On the other hand, different classes of plant growth regulators (PGRs) with various physiological effects [110,111] have been used in turfgrass. PGRs have predominantly been used in turfgrass as retardants to slow vertical growth and reduce mowing intensity with little to no negative effects on turf functionality [112,113]. Application of PGRs also lowered turfgrass water requirement while maintaining high quality under deficit irrigation conditions [114]. It is also suggested that transgenic technology and metabolic engineering can target genes controlling these traits to stimulate the endogenous production these molecules by the stressed plants in response to environmental stimuli. CRISPR gene editing technology with its ability to add or eliminate a gene with high specificity [115] can increase our understanding of drought stress genes and signaling pathways [116] and their utilization for practical purpose.

7.6. Use of Native Grasses for Water Saving

Replacement of irrigated turfgrass with warm season native grasses may offer irrigation water savings and create a more sustainable golf course in the desert. The introduction of native grasses for golf course design and renovations to reduce acreage of highly maintained turf can improve golfers’ and homeowners’ experiences by offering a new visual attraction (www.usga.org, accessed on 28 June 2022).
Golf courses across the United States can have 50 to 70% of the total acreage as non-play areas such as roughs planted with native grasses that retain good greenness in the winter to save irrigation water [117]. About 64% non-play area under a naturalized landscape at Ambiente Golf Course in Scottsdale AZ saves 40 to 50 million gallons of water per year [118]. Naturalized landscapes for roughs and edge plantings not only saves irrigation water, costs on pesticides and labor, but also improves natural biodiversity and benefits for wildlife. Flowers of desert-adapted plants enhance the attraction to the pollinators as well as for golfers and spectators.
There are several alternative warm season native grasses and ground covers that can be used for reduced irrigation acreage. For the desert southwest U. S., native grass species such as alkali muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), desert saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), big galleta (Hilaria rigida), and plains lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia) [119,120] require less water and other maintenance inputs and can serve as suitable candidates. Year-round green grasses such as alkali sacaton, alkali muhly, plains lovegrass, blue grama, and a turf-alternative ground cover kurapia (Lippia nodiflora) performed adequately with less frequent mowing, less inputs of irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides in low desert [118]. Year-round greenness was observed as a promising outcome of these species in desert landscape.

7.7. Use of Recycled Water

Turfgrass irrigation water quality is an important element for golf courses, athletic fields, and landscapes. Utilization with non-potable alternatives or recycled water broaden the breadth of water availability for turfgrass irrigation. The use of reclaimed wastewater has been shown to be a viable option for turfgrass [121]. However, recycled water can be of non-neutral (acid or alkaline) pH, high carbonate (CO3−2) and bicarbonate (HCO3−) level, residual sodium carbonate, and high total dissolved solids (TDS) that have detrimental effect on soil quality and consequently affect turfgrass performance.
Another unconventional water resource is brackish surface or ground water with chloride content more than 400 mg L−1 or an electrical conductivity greater than 1.5 dS m−1 [122]. To meet emerging demands for water in the U. S. southwest, desalinization brackish water can be considered as an option. Responsible utilization of this resource through addition of leaching fraction, blending with potable water, sub-surface drip irrigation, or alternating sources of irrigation water have been suggested as strategies to manage salinity accumulation in landscapes [123,124,125]. Depending on treatment, wastewater can contain significant amounts of nutrients, including N, phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). However, wastewater may also contain deleterious constituents including Na+ and Cl− [126], which is toxic to many crop plants, including most turfgrasses [127]. Accumulation of salt in a plant system decreases the leaf water potential and disrupt water absorption. Depending on the concentration of salt, yellowing of leaf tips, poor cell membrane stability, or total plant death can occur in turfgrass. In addition, cation imbalance, related to water softening, can be a significant obstacle to reuse of reclaimed wastewater for turfgrass. Increased Na+ relative to Ca2+ can lead to large scale soil dispersion and reduced turf quality. Soil dispersion leads to reduced infiltration and waterlogging of the soil. High concentrations of N and P in the reclaimed water may also significantly exceed the turfgrass assimilation capacity and pose a long-lasting risk to the groundwater [121]. In general, continued use of reclaimed water causes ion toxicities (Na−, Cl−), ionic imbalances or cation exchange capacity, osmotic stress, and soil permeability problems [128] that impairs quality of turfgrass due to deleterious effects of high salt (Na−) concentration and limited nutrient uptake. Therefore, selection of new turfgrass variety that can account for elevated Cl− and Na+ concentrations, tolerance to reduced infiltration, and high nutrient assimilation capacity needs to be given due attention. Native and adapted grasses may serve as a potential source of genes for salt-tolerance [129].

8. Turfgrass Aesthetic Quality and Sustainability

The impact of climate change will continue to be an existential problem and will be an important challenge for generations to come. Projected disruption of ecosystems because of climate change will limit the availability of high-quality fresh water and increase the enforcement of strict regulations on water resources. Proactive implementation of adaptation measures by reducing the demand for water is a viable option for a sustainable turfgrass system. Reduced irrigation may result in poor turfgrass performance. Therefore, other drought tolerance aspects need to be optimized and integrated to dilute the effect of reduced irrigation on the quality of golf courses. Some of the factors that have positive or negative influence on maintaining good quality of golf courses are depicted in Figure 3 below.
Warm season grasses have a higher heat and drought resistance than cool-season species. Studies showed that drought resistant turfgrasses are able to maintain better turfgrass quality and less leaf firing during drought stress [74]. As there is water demand difference between the warm season and cool season grasses, species within the same category have genotypic differences with different water requirement and drought stress tolerance. Species with low percent of ET replacement irrigation gave acceptable quality in several species. The use of different kinds of wetting agents have shown to ameliorate hydrophobic soil conditions, improve water retention, and improve water-use efficiency of deficit-irrigated turfgrass [130,131,132,133]. These surfactants or wetting agents have synergistic effect to enhance hydrophilicity in water repellent soils and efficiency of deficit irrigation. On the other hand, amounts of play and traffic have negative effects on turfgrass quality and needs to be properly managed [134,135].

9. Summary and Recommendations

The review of available information suggests that growing and maintaining acceptable quality of turfgrass with reduced irrigation is within our reach. Development of relatively drought tolerant turfgrass cultivars with the application of modern technology and system biology approach needs to be fine-tuned. Best turfgrass management strategies are required to leverage the genetics of turfgrass drought tolerance. Replacement of the non-play area of the golf courses with evergreen native grasses and strategic use of brackish and municipal recycled water will augment the freshwater conservation effort with respect to.
The potential of golf course and recreational turfgrass is vast, and it can ensure positive possibilities for current and future generations; but it requires the audacity, vision, and paradigm to think beyond playability. A paradigm shift is required from playability to sustainability in the face of climate change strengthened by thoughtful assessment, principled responsibility and persistent renovations in low input management practices, technologies, and values. In general, a comprehensive approach of leveraging drought tolerance and management strategy might reconcile the demand for turfgrass irrigation water requirement and ensure the sustainability of the vibrant golf industry as well as recreational turfgrass in the desert southwest U.S.A.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.D.S.; writing—review and editing, R.W.H., W.B., K.U., B.S.B. and C.F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was part of USDA-ARS National Program 215: Pastures, Forage and Rangeland Systems.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research was part of USDA-ARS National Program 215: Pastures, Forage and Rangeland Systems. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of a trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by any part herein.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beard, J.B. Turfgrass: Science and Culture; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beard, J.B.; Green, R.L. The Role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humans. J. Environ. Qual. 1994, 23, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Gross, C.M.; Angle, J.S.; Welterlen, M.S. Nutrient and sediment losses from turfgrass. J. Environ. Qual. 1990, 19, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Beard, J.B.; Johnson, E.C. The comparative heat dissipation from three typical urban surfaces: Asphalt, concrete, and bermudagrass turf. Tex. Turfgrass Res. 1985, PR-4329, 125–133. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandaranayake, W.; Qian, Y.L.; Parton, W.J.; Ojima, D.S.; Follett, R.F. Estimation of soil organic carbon changes in turfgrass systems using the CENTURY model. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Braun, R.C.; Bremer, D.J. Carbon sequestration in zoysiagrass turf under different irrigation and fertilization management megimes. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2019, 2, 180060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stier, J.C.; Steinke, K.; Ervin, E.H.; Higginson, F.R.; McMaugh, P.E. Turfgrass benefits and Issues. In Turfgrass: Biology, Use, and Management; Stier, J.C., Horgan, B.P., Bonos, S.A., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2013; Volume 56, pp. 105–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Duval, D.; Kerna, A.; Frisvold, G.; Umeda, K.; Li, R. Contribution of the Golf Industry to the Arizona Economy in 2014; The University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wheeler, K.; Nauright, J. A global perspective on the environmental impact of golf. Sport Soc. 2006, 9, 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smolianov, P.; Morrissette, J.N.; Ridpath, B.D.; Boucher, C.; Dion, S.; Schoen, C.; Stone, N.; O’Connor, C.; Miles, K.B. Comparing the practices of US golf against a global model for integrated development of mass and high performance sport. Int. J. Golf Sci. 2020, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, H.; Marshall, C.W.; Cheng, M.; Xu, H.; Li, H.; Yang, X.; Zheng, T. Changes in land use driven by urbanization impact nitrogen cycling and the microbial community composition in soils. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rosenzweig, C.; Karoly, D.; Vicarelli, M.; Neofotis, P.; Wu, Q.; Casassa, G.; Menzel, A.; Root, T.L.; Estrella, N.; Seguin, B.; et al. Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 2008, 453, 353–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oliveira, A.; Lopes, A.; Correia, E.; Niza, S.; Soares, A. An urban climate-based empirical model to predict present and future patterns of the urban thermal signal. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 147710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Suckling, E. Seasonal-to-decadal climate forecasting. In Weather & Climate Services for the Energy Industry; Troccoli, A., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Glennon, R.; The Conversation. As Colorado River Basin States Confront Water Shortages, It’s Time to Focus on Reducing Demand. Available online: https://theconversation.com/as-colorado-river-basin-states-confront-water-shortages-its-time-to-focus-on-reducing-demand-165646 (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  16. Schiavon, M.; Leinauer, B.; Serena, M.; Maier, B.; Sallenave, R. Plant growth regulator and soil surfactants’ effects on saline and deficit irrigated warm-season grasses: I. Turf quality and soil moisture. Crop Sci. 2014, 54, 2815–2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Colmer, T.; Barton, L. A review of warm-season turfgrass evapotranspiration, responses to deficit irrigation, and drought resistance. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, S-98–S-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, B. Turfgrass water requirements and factors affecting water usage. In Water Quality Quantity Issues Turfgrasses Urban Landscapes; Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Ames, IA, USA, 2008; Volume 27, pp. 193–203. [Google Scholar]
  19. Haghverdi, A.; Reiter, M.; Sapkota, A.; Singh, A. Hybrid bermudagrass and tall fescue turfgrass irrigation in central California: I. Assessment of visual quality, soil moisture and performance of an ET-Based smart controller. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yue, C.; Cui, M.; Kong, X.; Watkins, E.; Barnes, M. Landscape irrigation and water conservation in urban areas: An analysis of information-based strategies. Horttechnology 2022, 32, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fahad, S.; Bajwa, A.A.; Nazir, U.; Anjum, S.A.; Farooq, A.; Zohaib, A.; Sadia, S.; Nasim, W.; Adkins, S.; Saud, S.; et al. Crop production under drought and heat Stress: Plant responses and management options. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Kobayashi, N.; Fujita, D.; Basra, S.M.A. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Shao, H.-B.; Chu, L.-Y.; Jaleel, C.A.; Zhao, C.-X. Water-deficit stress-induced anatomical changes in higher plants. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2008, 331, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fan, J.B.; Zhang, W.H.; Amombo, E.; Hu, L.X.; Kjorven, J.O.; Chen, L. Mechanisms of Environmental Stress Tolerance in Turfgrass. Agronomy 2020, 10, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Reddy, P.S. Breeding for abiotic stress resistance in sorghum. In Breeding Sorghum for Diverse End Uses; Aruna, C., Visarada, K.B.R.S., Bhat, B.V., Tonapi, V.A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Senthilkumar, M.; Amaresan, N.; Sankaranarayanan, A. Determination of physiological traits telated to abiotic stresses. In Plant-Microbe Interactions; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vesala, T.; Sevanto, S.; Grönholm, T.; Salmon, Y.; Nikinmaa, E.; Hari, P.; Hölttä, T. Effect of leaf water potential on internal humidity and CO2 dissolution: Reverse transpiration and improved water use efficiency under negative pressure. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Das, K.; Roychoudhury, A. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci. 2014, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sah, S.K.; Reddy, K.R.; Li, J. Abscisic acid and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Takahashi, F.; Kuromori, T.; Urano, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K. Drought stress responses and resistance in plants: From cellular responses to long-distance intercellular communication. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 556972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cruz de Carvalho, M.H. Drought stress and reactive oxygen species: Production, scavenging and signaling. Plant Signal. Behav. 2008, 3, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J. Bot. 2012, 2012, 217037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Bales, R.C.; Liverman, D.M. Climate patterns and trends in the Southwest. In Climate Variability and Change in the Southwest: Impacts, Information Needs, and Issues for Policymaking; Merideth, R., Liverman, D., Bales, R., Patterson, M., Eds.; The University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1997; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pendergrass, A.G.; Knutti, R.; Lehner, F.; Deser, C.; Sanderson, B.M. Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Zhou, Y.; Lambrides, C.J.; Fukai, S. Drought resistance of bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) ecotypes collected from different climatic zones. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 85, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aydinsakir, K.; Buyuktas, D.; Bastug, R.; Yilmaz, S. Evapotranspiration and quality characteristics of some bermudagrass turf cultivars under deficit irrigation. Grassl. Sci. 2016, 62, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, J.; Burgess, P.; Bonos, S.A.; Meyer, W.A.; Huang, B. Differential physiological responses and genetic variations in fine fescue species for heat and drought stress. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2017, 142, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cross, J.W.; Bonos, S.A.; Huang, B.; Meyer, W.A. Evaluation of heat and drought as components of summer stress on tall fescue genotypes. HortScience 2013, 48, 1562–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huang, B.; Fry, J.; Wang, B. Water relations and canopy characteristics of tall fescue cultivars during and after drought stress. HortScience 1998, 33, 837–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ullah, A.; Manghwar, H.; Shaban, M.; Khan, A.H.; Akbar, A.; Ali, U.; Ali, E.; Fahad, S. Phytohormones enhanced drought tolerance in plants: A coping strategy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 33103–33118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. He, C.; Du, Y.; Fu, J.; Zeng, E.; Park, S.; White, F.; Zheng, J.; Liu, S. Early drought-Responsive genes are variable and relevant to drought tolerance. G3 (Bethesda) 2020, 10, 1657–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Janiak, A.; Kwasniewski, M.; Sowa, M.; Gajek, K.; Żmuda, K.; Kościelniak, J.; Szarejko, I. No time to waste: Transcriptome study reveals that drought tolerance in barley may me attributed to stressed-like expression patterns that exist before the occurrence of stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 8, 2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Huang, B. Mechanisms and strategies for improving drought resistance in turfgrass. Acta Hortic. 2008, 783, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fischer, K.S.; Johnson, E.C.; Edmeades, G.O. Breeding and selection for drought resistance in tropical maize. In Drought Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice; IRRI: Laguna, Philippines, 1982; pp. 377–399. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gulman, S.L.; Turner, N.C. Differences in root and shoot development of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) varieties across contrasting soil environments. Plant Soil 1978, 49, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bawazir, A.A.; Idle, D.B. Drought resistance and root morphology in sorghum. Plant Soil 1989, 119, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kulkarni, M.; Soolanayakanahally, R.; Ogawa, S.; Uga, Y.; Selvaraj, M.G.; Kagale, S. Drought response in wheat: Key genes and regulatory mechanisms controlling root system architecture and transpiration efficiency. Front. Chem. 2017, 5, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Schwartz, B.M.; Hanna, W.W.; Baxter, L.L.; Raymer, P.L.; Waltz, F.C.; Kowalewski, A.R.; Chandra, A.; Genovesi, A.D.; Wherley, B.G.; Miller, G.L.; et al. ‘DT-1′, a drought-tolerant triploid turf bermudagrass. HortScience 2018, 53, 1711–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Burton, G.W. Tifway (Tifton 419) bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 1966, 6, 93–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Riley, R.J. Cynodon dactylon Plant Named ‘Riley’s Super Sport’. U.S. Patent PP11181, 18 January 2002. [Google Scholar]
  51. Youngner, V.B. Santa Ana—A new vegetatively propagated turf bermudagrass developed for California. Weeds Trees Turf. 1967, 6, 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gibeault, V.A.; Cockerham, S.T. “El Toro” Zoysiagrass. 1988; 38. [Google Scholar]
  53. Shearman, R.C.; Riordan, T.P.; Abeyo, B.G.; Heng-Moss, T.M.; Lee, D.J.; Gaussoin, R.E.; Gulsen, O.; Budak, H.; Serba, D.D. Buffalograss: Though Native Turfgrass, USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online. 2006; 5, 1–13.
  54. Goel, S.; Madan, B. Genetic engineering of crop plants for abiotic stress tolerance. In Emerging Technologies and Management of Crop Stress Tolerance; Ahmad, P., Rasool, S.B.T., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 99–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bushman, B.S.; Robbins, M.D.; Warnke, S.E.; Martin, R.; Harris-Shultz, K.; Amundsen, K.E. Gene expression differences for drought stress response in three cool-season turfgrasses. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2020, 14, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Amundsen, K.; Warnke, S.E.; Bushman, B.S.; Robbins, M.D.; Martin, R.; Harris-Shultz, K. Colonial bentgrass transcript-expression differences compared with creeping bentgrass in response to water-deficit stress. Crop Sci. 2021, 61, 2135–2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhao, J.; Yuan, S.; Zhou, M.; Yuan, N.; Li, Z.; Hu, Q.; Bethea, F.G., Jr.; Liu, H.; Li, S.; Luo, H. Transgenic creeping bentgrass overexpressing Osa-miR393a exhibits altered plant development and improved multiple stress tolerance. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Sarmast, M.K. Ameliorating drought-induced stress in turfgrass through genetic manipulation. In Water Stress Plants; Rahman, I.M.M., Rahman, M., Begum, Z.A., Hasegawa, H., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Asada, K. Ascorbate peroxidase—A hydrogen peroxide-scavenging enzyme in plants. Physiol. Plant 1992, 85, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Jennifer, A.D.; Charpentier, E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012, 337, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Feng, Z.; Zhang, B.; Ding, W.; Liu, X.; Yang, D.-L.; Wei, P.; Cao, F.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, F.; Mao, Y.; et al. Efficient genome editing in plants using a CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res. 2013, 23, 1229–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Barnes, B.D.; Kopecký, D.; Lukaszewski, A.J.; Baird, J.H. Evaluation of turf-type interspecific hybrids of meadow fescue with perennial ryegrass for improved stress tolerance. Crop Sci. 2014, 54, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pepin, G.W.; Funk, C.R. Intraspecific hybridization as a method of breeding kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratemis L.) for turf. Crop Sci. 1971, 11, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Warnke, S.E. Detection of interspecific hybrids between creeping bentgrass and colonial bentgrass using DNA marker analysis. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Reasor, E.H.; Brosnan, J.T.; Trigiano, R.N.; Elsner, J.E.; Henry, G.M.; Schwartz, B.M. The genetic and phenotypic variability of interspecific hybrid bermudagrasses (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. × C. transvaalensis Burtt-Davy) used on golf course putting greens. Planta 2016, 244, 761–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Bushman, B.S.; Warnke, S.E. Genetic and genomic approaches for improving turfgrass. Turfgrass Biol. Use Manag. 2013, 56, 683–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Phillips, A.; Seetharam, A.; AuBuchon-Elder, T.; Buckler, E.; Gillespie, L.; Hufford, M.; Llaca, V.; Romay, M.C.; Soreng, R.J.; Kellogg, E.A.; et al. A happy accident: A novel turfgrass reference genome. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Huang, B.; Fry, J.D. Turfgrass evapotranspiration. J. Crop Prod. 2000, 2, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hayden, L.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Haver, D.; Oki, L.R. Residential landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices: Homeowner perceptions and preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 144, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Liu, X.; Huang, B. Mowing height effects on summer turf growth and physiological activities for two creeping bentgrass cultivars. HortScience 2003, 38, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Salaiz, T.A.; Horst, G.L.; Shearman, R.C. Mowing height and vertical mowing frequency effects on putting green quality. Crop Sci. 1995, 35, 1422–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gelernter, W.D.; Stowell, L.J.; Johnson, M.E.; Brown, C.D. Documenting trends in energy use and environmental practices on US golf courses. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2017, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cathey, S.E.; Kruse, J.K.; Sinclair, T.R.; Dukes, M.D. Tolerance of three warm-season turfgrasses to increasing and prolonged soil water deficit. HortScience 2011, 46, 1550–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Qian, Y.; Fry, J.D. Water relations and drought tolerance of four turfgrasses. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1997, 122, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Hejl, R.W.; Wherley, B.G.; Fontanier, C.H. Long-term Performance of Warm-season Turfgrass Species under Municipal Irrigation Frequency Restrictions. HortScience 2021, 56, 1221–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kneebone, W.R.; Pepper, I.L. Consumptive water use by sub-irrigated turfgrasses under desert conditions. Agron. J. 1982, 74, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Barton, L.; Wan, G.G.Y.; Buck, R.P.; Colmer, T.D. Nitrogen increases evapotranspiration and growth of a warm-season turfgrass. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chhetri, M.; Fontanier, C.; Koh, K.; Wu, Y.; Moss, J.Q. Turf performance of seeded and clonal bermudagrasses under varying light environments. Urban For. Urban Green 2019, 43, 126355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Dong, H.; Teng, K.; Han, L.; Zhang, X. Effects of cytokinin and nitrogen on drought tolerance of creeping bentgrass. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Saud, S.; Fahad, S.; Cui, G.; Yajun, C.; Anwar, S. Determining nitrogen isotopes discrimination under drought stress on enzymatic activities, nitrogen isotope abundance and water contents of Kentucky bluegrass. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Saud, S.; Fahad, S.; Yajun, C.; Ihsan, M.Z.; Hammad, H.M.; Nasim, W.; Amanullah, Jr.; Arif, M.; Alharby, H. Effects of nitrogen supply on water stress and recovery mechanisms in kentucky bluegrass plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Henry, J.M.; Gibeault, V.A. Paspalum vaginatum winter color management study. Calif. Turfgrass Cult. 1985, 35, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  83. Van Dam, J. The economics of overseeding and colorizing dormant bermudagrass. Calif. Turfgrass Cult. 1972, 22, 26–28. [Google Scholar]
  84. Van Dam, J.; Kurtz, K. A turfgrass colorant study. Calif. Turfgrass Cult. 1971, 21, 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  85. Youngner, V.B.; Fuchigami, T. Colorants for dormant bermuda and other subtropical grasses. South Calif. Turfgrass Cult. 1958, 8, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  86. Shearman, R.C.; Wit, L.A.; Severmutlu, S.; Budak, H.; Gaussoin, R.E. Colorant effects on dormant buffalograss turf performance. HortTechnology 2005, 15, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Liu, H.; McCarty, B.; Baldwin, C.M.; Sarvis, W.G.; Long, S.H. Painting dormant bermudagrass putting greens. Golf Course Mgt 2007, 75, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  88. Hargey, D.; Wherley, B.; Reynolds, C.; White, R.; Parker, G. Performance of winter overseeded and colorant-treated ‘Tifway’ bermudagrass receiving weekly irrigation and simulated traffic. HortScience 2016, 51, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Harper, J.C. Principles of Turfgrass Irrigation. PennState Ext. 2016. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  90. Ledieu, J.; De Ridder, P.; De Clerck, P.; Dautrebande, S. A method of measuring soil moisture by time-domain reflectometry. J. Hydrol. 1986, 88, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rouse, J.W. Monitoring the Vernal Advancement and Retrogradation of Natural Vegetation; No. RSC-1978-2; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  92. Kim, D.M.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, H.; Du, T.; Wu, Q.; Mockler, T.C.; Berezin, M.Y. Highly sensitive image-derived indices of water-stressed plants using hyperspectral imaging in SWIR and histogram analysis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Adamsen, F.J.; Pinter, P.J., Jr.; Barnes, E.M.; LaMorte, R.L.; Wall, G.W.; Leavitt, S.W.; Kimball, B.A. Measuring wheat senescence with a digital camera. Crop Sci. 1999, 39, 719–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Huete, A.R. Remote sensing for environmental monitoring. In Environmental Monitoring and Characterization; Artiola, J.F., Pepper, I.L., Brusseau, M.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Burlington, VT, USA, 2004; pp. 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. An, N.; Goldsby, A.L.; Price, K.P.; Bremer, D.J. Using hyperspectral radiometry to predict the green leaf area index of turfgrass. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 36, 1470–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Grabow, G.L.; Ghali, I.E.; Huffman, R.L.; Miller, G.L.; Bowman, D.; Vasanth, A. Water application efficiency and adequacy of ET-based and soil moisture—based irrigation controllers for turfgrass irrigation. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2013, 139, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Moeller, A.D. Identify soil moisture status more accurately than ever before. Michigan State Univ. Greeen Sect. Rec. 2012, 50, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  98. Carrow, R.N.; Krum, J.M.; Flitcroft, I.; Cline, V. Precision turfgrass management: Challenges and field applications for mapping turfgrass soil and stress. Precis. Agric. 2010, 11, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Serena, M.; Velasco-Cruz, C.; Friell, J.; Schiavon, M.; Sevostianova, E.; Beck, L.; Sallenave, R.; Leinauer, B. Irrigation scheduling technologies reduce water use and maintain turfgrass quality. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 3456–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hejl, R.W.; Wherley, B.G.; McInnes, K.; Straw, C.M.; Fontanier, C. Evaluation of irrigation scheduling approaches within sand-capped turfgrass systems. Agron. J. 2022, 114, 1694–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Krum, J.M.; Carrow, R.N.; Karnok, K. Spatial mapping of complex turfgrass sites: Site-specific management units and protocols. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Straw, C.M.; Wardrop, W.S.; Horgan, B.P. Golf course superintendents’ knowledge of variability within fairways: A tool for precision turfgrass management. Precis. Agric. 2020, 21, 637–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hejl, R.; Straw, C.; Wherley, B.; Bowling, R.; McInnes, K. Factors leading to spatiotemporal variability of soil moisture and turfgrass quality within sand-capped golf course fairways. Precis. Agric. 2022, 23, 1908–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Barnes, M.R.; Yue, C.; Watkins, E. Homeowner perceptions of watering restriction scenarios in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2021, 7, e20131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wheeler, M.M.; Larson, K.L.; Andrade, R. Attitudinal and structural drivers of preferred versus actual residential landscapes in a desert city. Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ignatieva, M.; Haase, D.; Dushkova, D.; Haase, A. Lawns in cities: From a globalised urban green SPACE phenomenon to sustainable nature-based solutions. Land 2020, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Chan, Z.; Shi, H. Improved abiotic stress tolerance of bermudagrass by exogenous small molecules. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015, 10, e991577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Liu, S.; Yin, S.; Gan, L.; Zhang, X. Mitigating effect of glycinebetaine pretreatment on drought stress responses of creeping bentgrass. HortScience 2018, 53, 1842–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Oddo, E.; Russo, G.; Grisafi, F. Effects of foliar application of glycine betaine and chitosan on Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Pari, subjected to salt stress. Biol. Futur. 2019, 70, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rademacher, W. Plant growth regulators: Backgrounds and uses in plant production. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 845–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fidanza, M.A.; Wetzel Iii, H.C.; Agnew, M.L.; Kaminski, J.E. Evaluation of fungicide and plant growth regulator tank-mix programmes on dollar spot severity of creeping bentgrass. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. March, S.R.; Martins, D.; McElroy, J.S. Growth inhibitors in turfgrass. Plant. Daninha 2013, 31, 733–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Glab, T.; Szewczyk, W.; Gondek, K.; Knaga, J.; Tomasik, M.; Kowalik, K. Effect of plant growth regulators on visual quality of turfgrass. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 267, 109314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cohen, I.; Netzer, Y.; Sthein, I.; Gilichinsky, M.; Tel-Or, E. Plant growth regulators improve drought tolerance, reduce growth and evapotranspiration in deficit irrigated Zoysia japonica under field conditions. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 88, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Svitashev, S.; Schwartz, C.; Lenderts, B.; Young, J.K.; Mark Cigan, A. Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR–Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Dlamini, P.J. Drought stress tolerance mechanisms and breeding effort in sugarcane: A review of progress and constraints in South Africa. Plant Stress 2021, 2, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Dunning, S. Evaluation of Ornamental Grasses for Use as Golf Course Plantings; UF/IFAS Extension; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2014; 23p. [Google Scholar]
  118. Burayu, W.; Umeda, K. Versatile native grasses and a turf-alternative groundcover for the arid southwest United States. J. Environ. Hortic. 2021, 39, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Watkins, E.; Brilman, L.; Kopec, D. Development of native grasses for turf. Turfgrass Biol. Use Manag. 2013, 56, 661–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Chadde, S.W. Grasses of the Southwest: A Key to Common Species Using Vegetative Features; Orchard Innovations: Sunnyvale, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  121. Evanylo, G.; Ervin, E.; Zhang, X. Reclaimed water for turfgrass irrigation. Water 2010, 2, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Gray, S.; Semiat, R.; Duke, M.; Rahardianto, A.; Cohen, Y. Seawater use and desalination technology. In Treatise Water Science; Wilderer, P.B.T., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 73–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sevostianova, E.; Leinauer, B.; Sallenave, R.; Karcher, D.; Maier, B. Soil salinity and quality of sprinkler and drip irrigated warm-season turfgrasses. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 1773–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Schaan, C.M.; Devitt, D.A.; Morris, R.L.; Clark, L. Cyclic irrigation of turfgrass using a shallow saline aquifer. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Dean, D.E.; Devitt, D.A.; Verchick, L.S.; Morris, R.L. Turfgrass quality, growth, and water use influenced by salinity and water stress. Agron. J. 1996, 88, 844–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zalacáin, D.; Martínez-Pérez, S.; Bienes, R.; García-Díaz, A.; Sastre-Merlín, A. Turfgrass biomass production and nutrient balance of an urban park irrigated with reclaimed water. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Hull, R.J. Sodium plays role in certain turfgrass processes. Turfgrass Trends 2004, 64–67. [Google Scholar]
  128. Ashraf, M.; Athar, H.R.; Harris, P.J.C.; Kwon, T.R. Some Prospective Strategies for Improving Crop Salt Tolerance; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2008; Volume 97, pp. 45–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Song, J.; Wang, B. Using euhalophytes to understand salt tolerance and to develop saline agriculture: Suaeda salsa as a promising model. Ann. Bot. 2015, 115, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Chang, B.; Wherley, B.; Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.; Ojeda, N.; Fontanier, C.; Dwyer, P. Effect of wetting agent on nutrient and water retention and runoff from simulated urban lawns. HortScience 2020, 55, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Xiang, M.; Schiavon, M.; Orlinski, P.; Forconi, A.; Baird, J.H. Identification of wetting agents for water conservation on deficit-irrigated hybrid bermudagrass fairways. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 3846–3856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kostka, S.J.; Cisar, J.L.; Mitra, S.; Park, D.M.; Ritsema, C.J.; Dekker, L.W.; Franklin, M.A. Irrigation efficiency: Surfactants can save water and help maintain turfgrass quality. In Soil Surfactants Can Save Water and Help Maintain Turfgrass Quality; Golf Course Industry: Cuyahoga County, OH, USA, 2007; pp. 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  133. Kostka, S.J.; Bially, P.T. Synergistic surfactant interactions for enhancement of hydrophilicity in water repellent soils. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2005, 10, 108–114. [Google Scholar]
  134. Braun, R.C.; Bremer, D.J.; Hoyle, J.A. Simulated traffic on turfgrasses during drought stress: I. Performance and recovery of turf canopies. Crop Sci. 2020, 61, 2926–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hejl, R.W.; Wherley, B.G.; White, R.H.; Thomas, J.C.; Fontanier, C.H. Deficit Irrigation and Simulated Traffic on ‘Tifway’ Bermudagrass Summer Performance and Autumn Recovery. Crop Sci. 2016, 56, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 12722 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of drought stress on turfgrass physiological and biochemical activities ([22,23]).
Figure 1. Effect of drought stress on turfgrass physiological and biochemical activities ([22,23]).
Sustainability 14 12722 g001
Sustainability 14 12722 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of drought stress and regulation of gene expression for drought stress tolerance in turfgrass.
Figure 2. Effects of drought stress and regulation of gene expression for drought stress tolerance in turfgrass.
Sustainability 14 12722 g002
Sustainability 14 12722 g003 550
Figure 3. Factors influencing golf course green quality and green speed. Factors on the left of the figure have positive effect and those on the right have negative effect on turf quality.
Figure 3. Factors influencing golf course green quality and green speed. Factors on the left of the figure have positive effect and those on the right have negative effect on turf quality.
Sustainability 14 12722 g003
Table
Table 1. Relatively drought tolerant turfgrass species and cultivars.
Table 1. Relatively drought tolerant turfgrass species and cultivars.
SpeciesCultivarRelease
Year		Reference or Source
Bermudagrass (C. dactylon × C. transvaalensis) 
(C. dactylon)		TifTuf
Tifway		2014
1960		[48]
[49]
Celebration *
Santa Ana		2002
1966		[50]
[51]
Zoysiagrass
(Zoysia japonica × Z. matrella)		El Toro
Empire
Zeon 		1986
-
1996		[52]
Developed in Brazil
Proprietary
Buffalograss
(Buchloe dactyloides)		Prestige
Legacy		2003
2000		[53]
[53]
St. Augustine
(Stenotaphrum secundatum)		Palmetto
Citrablue		1990
2018		Proprietary
University of Florida
Seashore paspalum
(Paspalum vaginatum)		SeaDwarf
Salam
Sea Star+		-
1990s
2014		Proprietary
Proprietary
University of Georgia
* Also known as Riley’s Super Sport; + Excellent salt tolerance, superior tolerance to short-term drought; - = Information not found.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Serba, D.D.; Hejl, R.W.; Burayu, W.; Umeda, K.; Bushman, B.S.; Williams, C.F. Pertinent Water-Saving Management Strategies for Sustainable Turfgrass in the Desert U.S. Southwest. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12722. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su141912722

AMA Style

Serba DD, Hejl RW, Burayu W, Umeda K, Bushman BS, Williams CF. Pertinent Water-Saving Management Strategies for Sustainable Turfgrass in the Desert U.S. Southwest. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12722. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su141912722

Chicago/Turabian Style

Serba, Desalegn D., Reagan W. Hejl, Worku Burayu, Kai Umeda, Bradley Shaun Bushman, and Clinton F. Williams. 2022. "Pertinent Water-Saving Management Strategies for Sustainable Turfgrass in the Desert U.S. Southwest" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12722. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su141912722

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop