TABLE 3. RANKING OF MEAN TURFGRASS QUALITY RATINGS OF TALL FESCUE CULTIVARS AT NINETEEN LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1/ 1987 DATA QUALITY RANKINGS ; 1=HIGHEST MEAN: STATE LOCATIONS REPORTING 2/ NAME AR1 AR2 CA3 KY1 MA1 MD1 MO2 MS1 NE1 NE2 ARID 25.5 11.5 3.0 2.5 17.5 12.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 JAGUAR 16.5 11.5 5.0 6.0 11.0 9.5 29.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 APACHE 3.0 4.0 13.0 1.0 6.0 22.0 14.0 1.0 7.5 9.5 5L4 (BONANZA) 16.5 24.0 10.0 11.5 1.0 4.0 19.0 5.0 10.0 17.5 REBEL 8.5 20.0 3.0 8.5 3.0 9.5 16.0 14.0 2.0 5.5 MUSTANG 8.5 1.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 27.0 17.0 9.0 7.0 ADVENTURE 18.5 27.0 3.0 8.5 3.0 1.5 21.0 7.0 4.0 3.5 OLYMPIC 13.0 15.5 6.0 11.5 11.0 11.0 4.0 13.0 12.0 11.5 FINELAWN 5GL 28.0 25.5 13.0 2.5 23.5 6.5 2.0 16.0 7.5 5.5 UNKNOWN 27.0 18.5 8.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 11.5 3.0 3.0 20.0 TF 813 (TRIDENT) 14.5 17.0 8.0 19.5 6.0 1.5 25.0 10.0 6.0 3.5 HOUNDOG 21.0 6.0 13.0 16.5 11.0 6.5 25.0 8.0 11.0 15.5 SYN-GA-1 23.0 30.0 8.0 15.0 11.0 14.0 17.0 18.5 13.0 8.0 FALCON 10.0 25.5 16.5 18.0 11.0 25.5 11.5 12.0 14.0 17.5 MAVERICK 2.0 23.0 13.0 19.5 17.5 24.0 9.5 9.0 16.0 11.5 WILLAMETTE 1.0 5.0 16.5 7.0 17.5 12.5 25.0 24.0 16.0 15.5 ISI.CJ (PACER) 7.0 21.0 18.0 11.5 17.5 18.0 23.0 20.0 18.0 13.0 TEMPO 29.0 9.0 19.0 11.5 23.5 3.0 13.0 21.0 19.0 14.0 FINELAWN I 18.5 28.0 20.0 16.5 11.0 16.0 3.0 18.5 20.0 22.0 BROOKSTON 14.5 9.0 13.0 21.0 17.5 28.0 6.0 25.0 16.0 9.5 CLEMFINE 11.0 18.5 22.0 22.0 23.5 23.0 5.0 4.0 27.5 20.0 MER FA 83-1 4.5 13.5 25.0 23.0 23.5 19.0 9.5 11.0 22.0 25.0 KS 78-4 (CHESAPEAKE) 4.5 7.0 24.0 26.0 29.0 15.0 8.0 22.0 24.0 25.0 BARCEL 22.0 9.0 23.0 24.0 26.0 20.5 7.0 27.5 23.0 23.0 NK 82508 30.0 22.0 21.0 14.0 11.0 30.0 30.0 27.5 21.0 20.0 KY-31 6.0 2.0 29.0 27.0 27.5 25.5 18.0 26.0 26.0 28.5 JOHNSTONE 25.5 3.0 26.0 29.0 21.0 27.0 28.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 NK 81425 12.0 13.5 27.0 28.0 30.0 29.0 15.0 23.0 29.0 28.5 FESTORINA 20.0 29.0 28.0 25.0 27.5 17.0 21.0 29.0 27.5 27.0 KENHY 24.0 15.5 . 30.0 17.5 20.5 21.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 1/ THIS TABLE CONTAINS NO STATISTICAL VALUES (LSD VALUES), THEREFORE IT SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO DETERMINE THE GENERAL PERFORMANCE OF A VARIETY OR VARIETIES ACROSS SEVERAL LOCATIONS OR REGIONS. TO ASSESS STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES AMONG VARIETIES, REFER TO THE MEANS AND LSD VALUES IN TABLE 1. TABLE 3. RANKING OF MEAN TURFGRASS QUALITY RATINGS OF TALL FESCUE (CONT'D) CULTIVARS AT NINETEEN LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 1987 DATA QUALITY RANKINGS ; 1=HIGHEST MEAN: STATE LOCATIONS REPORTING NAME NJ1 OH1 OR1 OR2 RI1 UB1 VA1 VA4 WA1 MEAN ARID 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 12.0 4.0 5.5 12.0 14.0 1 JAGUAR 4.0 6.5 1.0 1.0 12.0 8.0 3.5 26.0 3.0 2 APACHE 6.0 1.5 6.0 8.5 8.0 1.0 9.0 15.0 19.5 3 5L4 (BONANZA) 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 18.5 2.0 2.0 10.0 14.0 4 REBEL 11.0 4.5 8.0 10.5 5.0 11.0 3.5 14.0 3.0 5 MUSTANG 2.0 11.0 12.0 4.0 10.0 5.0 16.0 29.0 8.0 6 ADVENTURE 10.0 18.5 4.5 6.0 3.0 12.0 5.5 28.0 3.0 7 OLYMPIC 13.0 9.0 4.5 8.5 9.0 3.0 10.5 25.0 8.0 8 FINELAWN 5GL 4.0 6.5 7.0 5.0 20.5 6.5 7.0 27.0 8.0 9 UNKNOWN 9.0 9.0 10.5 10.5 15.5 13.0 8.0 17.0 3.0 10 TF 813 (TRIDENT) 7.5 20.5 13.0 13.0 12.0 15.0 1.0 23.5 14.0 11 HOUNDOG 7.5 13.0 14.0 15.0 27.0 9.0 13.5 20.5 3.0 12 SYN-GA-1 14.5 4.5 10.5 7.0 1.0 16.0 10.5 20.5 8.0 13 FALCON 16.0 9.0 9.0 17.5 7.0 10.0 13.5 3.0 19.5 14 MAVERICK 12.0 12.0 19.0 19.0 22.5 17.0 15.0 8.0 14.0 15 WILLAMETTE 14.5 15.5 20.0 12.0 30.0 20.0 22.5 9.0 14.0 16 ISI.CJ (PACER) 18.0 15.5 17.0 14.0 15.5 14.0 20.0 13.0 19.5 17 TEMPO 21.0 27.0 18.0 16.0 18.5 18.5 12.0 5.0 8.0 18 FINELAWN I 20.0 18.5 15.0 20.0 15.5 6.5 17.0 17.0 14.0 19 BROOKSTON 17.0 20.5 25.0 17.5 20.5 18.5 26.0 30.0 22.5 20 CLEMFINE 22.0 22.5 23.0 26.0 2.0 25.0 19.0 4.0 19.5 21 MER FA 83-1 25.0 22.5 26.0 23.5 4.0 22.5 24.0 6.5 26.0 22 KS 78-4 (CHESAPEAKE) 24.0 15.5 21.0 29.0 24.0 24.0 21.0 6.5 29.5 23 BARCEL 27.5 15.5 24.0 22.0 15.5 29.0 22.5 11.0 14.0 24 NK 82508 19.0 25.5 16.0 21.0 25.5 27.5 25.0 17.0 26.0 25 KY-31 27.5 24.0 28.0 23.5 22.5 22.5 18.0 19.0 22.5 26 JOHNSTONE 26.0 25.5 27.0 28.0 25.5 26.0 27.0 23.5 26.0 27 NK 81425 23.0 29.0 22.0 25.0 28.0 27.5 29.0 22.0 29.5 28 FESTORINA 30.0 28.0 30.0 27.0 6.0 30.0 28.0 1.0 26.0 29 KENHY 29.0 30.0 29.0 30.0 29.0 21.0 . 2.0 26.0 30 2/ RANKING OF MEAN QUALITY IS ACHIEVED BY ASSIGNING "1" TO THE HIGHEST MEAN, "2" TO THE SECOND HIGHEST MEAN, ETC. FOR EACH LOCATION. IF MEANS ARE TIED, THE MEAN OF THE RANKS THEY ARE TIED FOR IS USED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF TWO MEANS ARE TIED FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RANKS, BOTH ARE ASSIGNED "2.5".