Loading content, please wait..
loading..
Logo
Version 3.21
or
Authors Sun, YP; Palmer, AL
Author Full Name Sun, Youping; Palmer, Alyssa Lanae
Title Responses of Ornamental Grass and Grasslike Plants to Saline Water Irrigation
Source HORTTECHNOLOGY
Language English
Document Type Article
Author Keywords salt tolerance; reclaimed water; blue grama; fox sedge; indian sea oats; common rush; sand ryegrass; pink muhly grass; fountain grass
Keywords Plus PHYSIOLOGICAL-RESPONSES; SALT SPRAY; GROWTH; QUALITY; CROPS; REUSE
Abstract Ornamental grasses are popular in urban landscapes in Utah and the Intermountain West United States, one of the driest and fastest growing regions in the United States. This experiment evaluated the responses of five ornamental grass species [blue grama (Bouteloun gracilis), indian sea oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), 'Blue Dune' sand ryegrass (Leymus arenarius), pink muhly grass (Mublenbergin capillaris), 'Foxtrot' fountain grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides)] and two ornamental grasslike species [fox sedge ( Carex vulpinoiden), common rush (Juncos effuses)] to saline irrigation water in a greenhouse. Plants were irrigated weekly with a nutrient solution at an electrical conductivity (EC) of 1.2 dS.m(-1) (control) or saline solutions at an EC of 5.0 or 10.0 dS.m(-1). At the first harvest (9 weeks after the initiation of treatment), sand ryegrass, pink muhly grass, and fountain grass irrigated with solutions at an EC of 5.0 and 10 dS.m(-1) had good visual quality with no or minimal foliar salt damage; however, the remaining species exhibited slight or moderate foliar salt damage. There were no significant differences in shoot dry weight (DW) among treatments within any species, except fox sedge and fountain grass. At the second harvest (18 weeks after the initiation of treatment), sand ryegrass, pink muhly grass, and fountain grass still had no or minimal foliar salt damage, and indian sea oats and fox sedge exhibited slight or moderate foliar salt damage. Compared with the control, all species irrigated with solutions at an EC of 10.0 dS.m(-1) had reduced shoot DWs with the exception of blue grama. However, only common rush and pink muhly grass irrigated with solutions at an EC of 5.0 dS.m(-1) had lower shoot DWs than the control. These results demonstrated that seven ornamental grass or grasslike species had a very strong tolerance to the salinity levels used in the 4-month experiment. Although plant growth was inhibited as a result of saline irrigation, plant visual quality of sand ryegrass, pink muhly grass, and fountain grass was still acceptable. These three species appear to be more suitable for landscapes in which saline irrigation water is used. Further research is needed to evaluate more ornamental grasses for landscapes in salt-prone areas and nearby coastal regions.
Author Address [Sun, Youping; Palmer, Alyssa Lanae] Utah State Univ, Dept Plants Soils & Climate, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA
Reprint Address Sun, YP (reprint author), Utah State Univ, Dept Plants Soils & Climate, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322 USA.
E-mail Address youping.sun@usu.edu
Funding Agency and Grant Number U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project [UTA01381]; Office of Research and Graduate Studies, the Center for Water-Efficient Landscaping at Utah State University; Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University
Funding Text This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project UTA01381, New Faculty Start-up Funds from the Office of Research and Graduate Studies, the Center for Water-Efficient Landscaping at Utah State University. This research was also supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, and approved as journal paper no. 9112.
Times Cited 1
Total Times Cited Count (WoS, BCI, and CSCD) 1
Publisher AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
Publisher City ALEXANDRIA
Publisher Address 113 S WEST ST, STE 200, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2851 USA
ISSN 1063-0198
29-Character Source Abbreviation HORTTECHNOLOGY
ISO Source Abbreviation HortTechnology
Publication Date DEC
Year Published 2018
Volume 28
Issue 6
Beginning Page 799
Ending Page 806
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.21273/HORTTECH04159-18
Page Count 8
Web of Science Category Horticulture
Subject Category Agriculture
Document Delivery Number HJ7ZM
Unique Article Identifier WOS:000457416000014
Plants associated with this reference

LEGAL NOTICES — This website is protected by Copyright © The University of Sussex, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. The eHALOPH database is protected by Database Right and Copyright © The University of Sussex and other contributors, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. This database is based on an earlier work by James Aronson.
THIS WEBSITE AND THIS DATABASE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND YOU USE THEM AND RELY ON THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Contact email: halophytes@sussex.ac.uk
Credits – Tim Flowers, Joaquim Santos, Moritz Jahns, Brian Warburton, Peter Reed