Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:22:49.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertilization and Mowing on Persistence of Indian Mockstrawberry (Duchesnea indica) and Common Blue Violet (Viola papilionacea) in a Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Lawn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Elmer Gray  and
Neysa M. Call
Elmer Gray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric., West. Kentucky Univ., Bowling Green, KY 42101
Neysa M. Call
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric., West. Kentucky Univ., Bowling Green, KY 42101
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine the influence of soil fertilization and mowing on persistence of Indian mockstrawberry and common blue violet in an old, weakened tall fescue lawn. Fertilization treatments included: F0 = none applied; F1 = spring and fall application of 0.49 kg N, 0.21 kg P, and 0.41 kg K 100 m-2; and F2 = spring and fall application of twice the F1 rate. Mowing treatments were: M0 = not mowed; and M1 and M2 = mowing heights of approximately 4 and 6 cm, respectively, at biweekly intervals. Persistence of both weeds was influenced more by mowing than by fertilization. Survival of Indian mockstrawberry was greatest when mowed at 6 cm and not fertilized and lowest when highly fertilized and not mowed. Blue violets were virtually eliminated by either mowing treatment and did not respond to fertilization. Mowing and fertilization effectively reduced survival of Indian mockstrawberry and common blue violet in the tall fescue lawn.

Keywords

Indian mockstrawberry, Duchesnea indica (Andr.) Focke # DUCINcommon blue violet, Viola papilionacea Prush # VIOPPtall fescue, Festuca arundinacea Schreb. ‘Kentucky 31’Turf managementDUCINVIOPP
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 548 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Pages 802–803 and 1022–1034 in Gray's Manual of Botany. American Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
2. Jain, S. 1979. Adaptive strategies: polymorphism, plasticity, and homeostasis. Pages 160–187 in Solbrig, O. T., Jain, S., Johnson, G. B., and Raven, P. H., eds. Topics in Plant Population Biology. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
3. Miller, R. S. 1967. Pattern and process in competition. Adv. Ecol. Res. 4:1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Powell, A. J. 1982. Lawn establishment in Kentucky. Univ. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. AGR-50. 3 pp.Google Scholar
5. Powell, A. J. 1987. Lawn fertilization in Kentucky. Univ. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. AGR-53. 4 pp.Google Scholar
6. Powell, A. J. 1987. Mowing, dethatching, coring, and rolling Kentucky lawns. Univ. Kentucky Coop. Ext. Serv. AGR-54. 4 pp.Google Scholar
7. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Pages 390–393 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
8. Turgeon, A. J. 1991. Pages 145–179 in Turfgrass Management. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
9. Turkington, R. and Mehrhoff, L. A. 1990. The role of competition in structuring pasture communities. Pages 307–340 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar