Search Results
Six native Texas and six introduced ornamental grass species were chosen for an evaluation of water use performance and aesthetic value under drought stress to identify material most appropriate for water conserving landscapes. Greenhouse and field experiments determined the overall performance of the grasses under drought conditions. A public survey evaluated the aesthetic value of investigated species. Greenhouse work determined that examination of total chlorophyll content was not a useful parameter for predicting drought stress. Water use and visual aesthetic decline rates were determined for all species in the greenhouse. On average, native and introduced species performed equally well. Imperata cylindrica exhibited the lowest rates of water use (by 92%) and visual decline (by 51%) in the greenhouse and was the most conservative water user in the field with lowest stomatal conductance (by 76%). The survey found that grasses were acceptable as ornamentals in the landscape and natives and introduced species equal in preference.
Seeds of three columbine species, Aquilegia caerulea James, Aquilegia canadensis L., and Aquilegia hinckleyana Munz., were studied to determine if seed priming can be used to enhance or completely bypass stratification. The effect of priming varied among species. Germination percentage of nonstratified, primed seed of A. caerulea was as high as nonprimed stratified seed at the termination of the study. Nonstratified primed seeds of A. canadensis did not perform as well as stratified seed, but priming did enhance the germination percentage of stratified seed. Priming had no effect on seed germination–of A. hinckleyana.
Twelve species of native and introduced ornamental grasses were subjected to a drought treatment in a greenhouse. The objective of this study was to determine which species had the lowest water use and which were most aesthetically pleasing under water stress. Visual observations of progressive water stress were compared to instrumental measurements of water consumption, leaf water potential, stomatal resistance, and transpiration. Differences in water use were found between species when compared on a leaf area basis. The relationship between visual observations and plant water status was not consistent across species.