Water resources continue to be depleted as the world’s population grows. American families can use up to 1500 L of water per day, and more than 50% may be used outdoors (Smith and Brown, 2003). Alig et al. (2004) used population and land development models to predict urbanization to increase by as much as 80% between 2004 and 2025, indicating more land will be used for irrigated residential and commercial landscapes. This, along with already limited water supplies, illustrates a need for conserving water in the lawn and landscape. Selection of drought-tolerant species for use in the landscape may be one solution.
It is not uncommon for water municipalities to impart water restrictions on residential landscapes, which can cause plants to experience drought stress. Including plants in the landscape that have the ability to maintain their quality longer or experience dormancy during drought, and recover afterward, would be beneficial in areas with water restrictions and contribute to reduced water use in areas without water restrictions. A number of studies have evaluated drought tolerance of turfgrass species in the greenhouse or growth chamber (Huang and Gao, 1999; Jiang and Huang, 2001; Liu et al., 2007; Qian and Fry, 1997) or in the field (Hook et al., 1992; Karcher et al., 2008; Merewitz et al., 2010; Richardson et al., 2008; Steinke et al., 2010). Few studies, however, have assessed drought resistance of ornamental landscape species or directly compared drought resistance between turf and non-turf groundcovers (Devitt and Morris, 2008; Domenghini et al., 2013; Staats and Klett, 1995).
Previous research has indicated succulents such as those in the Sedum genus have performed well on green roofs, where moisture is typically a limiting factor (Bousselot et al., 2010, 2011; Kircher, 2004; Monterusso et al., 2005). One reason Sedum is well suited for possible drought situations such as on green roofs is that it has the ability to switch from using a C3 photosynthetic pathway to a crassulacean acid metabolism photosynthetic pathway when growing in an environment where water is limiting (Phillips and Burrell, 1993; Sayed et al., 1994). This minimizes water loss during the day, when temperatures and evaporation are highest.
Among cool-season grasses, Poa pratensis is the most commonly used in the United States for residential and commercial lawns, parks, and golf courses (Christians, 2004; Lyman et al., 2007; Turgeon, 2005). One advantage of P. pratensis is its ability to survive during extended drought through dormancy (Christians, 2004; Goldsby, 2013). Drought resistance of P. pratensis has been studied by initiating severe drydowns and evaluating plant responses (Keeley and Koski, 2001; Liu et al., 2007; Merewitz et al., 2010; Richardson et al., 2008, 2009). Richardson et al. (2009) found wide variation in responses to drought among P. pratensis cultivars and suggested selection of better-performing cultivars could result in water conservation.
Turfgrasses are often singled out for replacement by presumably more water-efficient plant species to save water. For example, in 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a voluntary program called WaterSense to promote water efficiency (WaterSense, 2008). This program lists criteria for builders to follow to have a home labeled a WaterSense home. At the inception of WaterSense in 2006, the outdoor water efficiency component of the program required a reduction in the area of turfgrass in the landscape for the home to qualify for the WaterSense label. Research is needed, however, to either validate or refute claims that turfgrass uses more water or is less drought-resistant than herbaceous ornamentals.
The objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate visual drought stress and water status of one turfgrass and eight herbaceous non-turf ornamental landscape species during a severe drydown; and 2) evaluate percentage of green groundcover of the same species during recovery from the severe drydown.
BousselotJ.M.KlettJ.E.KoskiR.D.2011Moisture content of extensive green roof substrate and growth response of 15 temperate plant species during dry downHortScience46518522
BremerD.J.2003Evaluation of microlysimeters used in turfgrass evapotranspiration studies using the dual-probe heat-pulse techniqueAgron. J.9516251632
ChristiansN.2004Fundamentals of turfgrass management. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken NJ
DevittD.A.MorrisR.L.2008Urban Landscape water conservation and the species effect p. 171–192. In: Beard J.B. and M.P. Kenna (eds.). Water quality issues for turfgrasses in urban landscapes. Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology Ames IA
DomenghiniJ.BremerD.J.FryJ.D.DavisG.L.2013Evapotranspiration and performance among turfgrass and ornamental landscape species in response to irrigation deficitIntl. Turf. Soc. Res. J.405414
GoldsbyA.2013Establishment drought tolerance and recovery and canopy analysis of turfgrasses in the transition zone. PhD diss. Kansas State Univ. Manhattan KS
HopkinsW.G.1999Introduction to plant physiology. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York NY
JiangY.HuangB.2001Physiological responses to heat stress alone or in combination with drought: A comparison between tall fescue and perennial ryegrassHortScience36682686
KarcherD.E.RichardsonM.D.HignightK.RushD.2008Drought tolerance of tall fescue populations selected for high root/shoot ratios and summer survivalCrop Sci.48771777
KeeleyS.J.KoskiA.J.2001Dehydration avoidance of diverse Poa pratensis cultivars and cultivar groups in a semi-arid climateIntl. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J.9311316
KirkhamM.B.2005Principles of soil and plant water relations. Elsevier Academic Press Burlington MA
LymanG.T.ThrossellC.S.JohnsonM.E.StaceyG.A.BrownC.D.2007Golf course profile describes turfgrass landscape and environmental stewardship features. Online. Applied Turfgrass Science. doi:10.1094/ATS-2007-1107-07-RS
MerewitzE.MeyerW.BonosS.HuangB.2010Drought stress responses and recovery of Texas × kentucky hybrids and kentucky bluegrass genotypes in temperate climate conditionsAgron. J.102258268
MonterussoM.A.RoweD.B.RughC.L.2005Establishment and persistence of Sedum spp. and native taxa for green roof applicationsHortScience40391396
PhillipsE.BurrellC.C.1993Illustrated encyclopedia of perennials. Rodale Press Inc. Emmaus PA
RanneyT.G.BirR.E.SkrochW.A.1991Comparative drought resistance among six species of birch (Betula): Influence of wild water stress on water relations and leaf gas exchangeTree Physiol.8351360
RichardsonM.D.KarcherD.E.HignightK.RushD.2008Drought tolerance and rooting capacity of kentucky bluegrass cultivarsCrop Sci.4824292436
RichardsonM.D.KarcherD.E.HignightK.RushD.2009Drought tolerance of kentucky bluegrass and hybrid bluegrass cultivars. Online. Applied Turfgrass Science. doi:10.1094/ATS-2009-0112-01-RS
SayedO.H.EarnshawM.J.CooperM.1994Growth, water relations, and CAM induction in Sedum album in response to water stressBiol. Plant.36383388
SmithJ.BrownT.2003Water efficient irrigation study final report. <http://www.irrigation.org/swat/images/puget_sound.pdf>
StaatsD.KlettJ.E.1995Water conservation potential and quality of non-turf groundcovers versus kentucky bluegrass under increasing levels of drought stressJournal of Environmental Horticulture14181185
SteinkeK.ChalmersD.ThomasJ.WhiteR.FippsG.2010Drought response and recovery characteristics of St. Augustinegrass cultivarsCrop Sci.5020762083
TaizL.ZeigerE.2006Plant physiology. 4th Ed. Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA
TurgeonA.J.2005Turfgrass management. 7th Ed. Pearson Education Inc. Upper Saddle River NJ
WaterSense2008U.S. EPA. 4 Feb. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/>