Investigating the Practices and Challenges for Turfgrass Breeders and Distributors

in HortScience

An online survey was conducted to investigate the current practices of and challenges for turfgrass breeders and turfgrass seed distributors (or sales staff) in the United States. We found that turfgrass seed breeders rated producers/growers and consumers as more important parties compared with other interested parties. However, variations in ratings were found for breeders/distributors according to different program characteristics. The volume of seed sales of the species was the most highly rated technical consideration for both breeders and distributors. Compared with distributors, breeders considered the following technical factors more important than others: funding, labor, field trial performance, diversity in working priorities, availability of germplasms, scheduling, and staff training. Costs, followed by resource allocation and resource availability, were rated as the most challenging factors when breeders were implementing priorities. Our findings provide important insight regarding breeding and distribution practices and management in the turfgrass industry.

Contributor Notes

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Specialty Crops Research Initiative under award numbers 2012-51181-19932 and 2017-51181-27222.

Corresponding author. E-mail:

Article Sections

Article References

  • AligR.J.KlineJ.D.LichtensteinM.2004Urbanization on the US landscape: Looking ahead in the 21st centuryLandsc. Urban Plan.692219234

  • BeardJ.B.GreenR.L.1994The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection and their benefits to humansJ. Environ. Qual.233116

  • BonosS.A.ClarkeB.B.MeyerW.A.2006Breeding for disease resistance in the major cool-season turfgrassesAnnu. Rev. Phytopathol.44213234

  • BonosS.A.HuffD.R.2013Cool-season grasses: Biology and breeding p. 591–660. In: J.C. Stier B.P. Horgan and S.A. Bonos (eds.). Turfgrass: Biology use and management. American Society of Agronomy Crop Science Society of America Soil Science Society of America Madison WI

  • BoydJ.WaingerL.2002Landscape indicators of ecosystem service benefitsAmer. J. Agr. Econ.84513711378

  • CarenaM.J.2013Challenges and opportunities for developing maize cultivars in the public sectorEuphytica1912165171

  • CisarJ.2010Reducing environmental impacts of fertilizers and pesticides through sustainable high performance turfgrass systems p. 105–112. In: G.E. Welbaum J.A. Monteiro P.A. Nektario and R. Fernandez (eds.). XXVIII International Horticultural Congress on Science and Horticulture for People (IHC 2010): Environmental Edaphic and Genetic Factors Affecting Plants Seeds and Turfgrass. International Society for Horticultural Science Leuven

  • GilliomR.J.BarbashJ.E.CrawfordC.G.HamiltonP.A.MartinJ.D.NakagakiN.NowellL.H.ScottJ.C.StackelbergP.E.ThelinG.P.WolockD.M.2006Pesticides in the nation's streams and ground water 1992-2001 (No. 1291). U.S. Geological Survey

  • GreeneW.2007Econometric analysis. 6th ed. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River NJ

  • JohnsonP.G.2008Native grasses as drought-tolerant turfgrasses of the future p. 619–640. In: M. Pessarakli (ed.). Handbook of turfgrass management and physiology. CRC Press Boca Raton FL

  • KrenitskyE.C.CarrollM.J.HillR.L.KrouseJ.M.1998Runoff and sediment losses from natural and man-made erosion control materialsCrop Sci.38410421046

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McPhersonE.G.SimpsonJ.R.LivingstonM.1989Effects of three landscape treatments on residential energy and water use in Tucson, ArizonaEnergy Build.132127138

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MilesiC.ElvidgeC.NemaniR.2009Assessing the extent of urban irrigated areas in the United States p. 217–236. In: P. Thenkabail J.G. Lyon H. Turrel and C. Biradar (eds.). Remote sensing of global croplands for food security. CRC Press Boca Raton FL

  • MilesiC.RunningS.W.ElvidgeC.D.DietzJ.B.TuttleB.T.NemaniR.R.2005Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United StatesEnviron. Mgt.363426438

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MintenkoA.S.SmithS.R.CattaniD.J.2002Turfgrass evaluation of native grasses for the northern Great Plains regionCrop Sci.42620182024

  • NogueiraL.MichalskiJ.MarshT.L.McCrackenV.2015Welfare implications of Washington wheat breeding programsJ. Agr. Appl. Econ.472147174

  • RobbinsP.BirkenholtzT.2003Turfgrass revolution: Measuring the expansion of the American lawnLand Use Policy202181194

  • SolomonM.R.StuartE.2003Marketing: Real people real choices. 5th ed. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River NJ

  • WatkinsE.GardnerD.S.StierJ.C.SoldatD.J.St JohnR.A.ChristiansN.E.HathawayA.D.DiesburgK.L.PoppeS.R.GaussoinR.E.2014Cultivar performance of low-input turfgrass species for the North Central United StatesAppl. Turfgrass Sci.11117

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • YueC.GallardoR.K.McCrackenV.A.LubyJ.McFersonJ.R.LiuL.IezzoniA.2012Technical and socioeconomic challenges to setting and implementing priorities in North American rosaceous fruit breeding programsHortScience4713201327

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Article Information

Google Scholar

Related Content

Article Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 496 496 109
Full Text Views 92 92 2
PDF Downloads 48 48 2