JOHN NEYL AN
Grounds for change Understand your soil conditions – dig a hole and have a look
I
n April 2017 a research project funded by the Sports Turf Association (Victoria) was commenced to study the effects of hours of use on sportsfields of different construction types and levels of maintenance. The results of the first year of the study were published in ATM Volumes 20.3 (May-June 2018) and 20.4 (July-August 2018). The research was completed in December 2018 and the detailed final report is now available at vicsportsturf.asn.au. This article is the first of a two-part series on the completed study and presents the soils data collected over the 21-month study period. The second part will look at the data collected on surface quality parameters including turf composition, wear, traction and turf health.
Over the past two years John Neylan and David Nickson have undertaken an STA Victoria-funded project to determine the potential hours of use for sports fields of different construction types and maintenance regimes. In the first of a two-part article they look at the project’s findings.
FIELDS AND SOIL TYPES The project was undertaken on local government sports fields that are in play and maintained by the council or their service provider. The fields included sand profiles with a subsoil drainage system and fields constructed with a native soil profile. All fields have an irrigation system. There were two Santa Ana couch sports fields of which one is over-sown each autumn/ winter with ryegrass and two kikuyu sports fields. The project selected both elite sports fields and community fields so that a good 44
comparison could be made in terms of budget, resources and playing surface quality. The description of the sports fields is detailed in ATM Volume 20.3. The key periods of the study were prewinter sports, mid and late winter and through the spring/early summer. Because sports fields suffer the most damage from winter sports (e.g. soccer, AFL, rugby league and rugby union) when the weather is wetter and cooler and the growth and recovery of the turf
AUSTRALIAN TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT 21.2
is slower, the research concentrated on this period of the year. The following soil test parameters were determined; l At each location, profile samples were initially taken to a depth of 300mm-500mm (or to subsoil depth) to describe the soil texture, depth of topsoil, thatch depth, compaction and root growth. At subsequent dates thatch depth and root depth were measured. l Soil moisture content was measured using a TDR probe at five locations in each test area and related back to the soil type, condition of the playing surface and recent weather conditions. l Soil infiltration rate was measured at each test location using a single ring infiltrometer and related back to soil type, compaction and thatch depth. It also related to the effective irrigation of the sportsfield. l Soil strength/compaction was measured at five locations in each test area using a soil penetrometer and used to gauge the degree of soil compaction.
WEATHER DATA Weather data was collected for the closest Bureau of Meteorology sites and the results are detailed in Figures 1 and 2. The most noticeable aspect of the weather