Interspecific comparisons of C\u3csub\u3e3\u3c/sub\u3e turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Previous studies in the evaluation of wear tolerance have been conducted using wear simulators. Research to investigate wear tolerance of C3 turfgrasses under actual playing conditions and their carrying capacity is limited. Three grass tennis courts (replicates) maintained as official size (single) courts were constructed. Eight species and cultivars were randomized within the three courts (blocks): (1) ‘Keeneland’ Kentucky bluegrass (KB, Poa pratensis L.), (2) ‘Rubix’ KB, (3) ‘Villa’ velvet bentgrass (VBG, Agrostis canina L.), (4) ‘Puritan’ colonial bentgrass (CL, Agrostis capillaris L.), (5) ‘007’ creeping bentgrass (CB, Agrostis stolonifera L.), (6) fine fescue (FF, Festuca spp.) mixture, (7) ‘Karma’ perennial ryegrass (PR, Lolium perenne L.), and (8) ‘Wicked’ PR. Injury at the baseline was measured by counting healthy grass on four dates in 2017 and 2019 using an intersect grid. Carrying capacity at the baseline was derived as hours of play to sustain 90, 80, 70, and 60% grass cover. After 6 wk of actual tennis play involving \u3e120 participating players in 2017 and 2019, KB and PR were superior to other C3 turfgrass for wear tolerance and carrying capacity. These two species exhibited four times the carrying capacity of FF species and nearly 60% more carrying capacity than bentgrass (BG) species. Species of BG afforded higher shoot density and better traction than KB and PR, with VBG exhibiting the best traction, and FF and PR exhibiting the poorest traction. In 2017, greater cell wall content increased wear tolerance and carrying capacity. Velvet bentgrass was as good as KB and PR in overall wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play