The Turf Zone Podcast

Arkansas Turfgrass – Doug Karcher, Ph.D., Professor, University of Arkansas

There are a few things that turf enthusiasts can count on each spring, like fescue lawns looking brilliant in the landscape, large patch and spring dead spot showing up in wet or cold environments as our warm-season grasses green up, the need to tune up our mower engines and sharpen blades, and unfortunately, the publication of anti-turf articles in the popular press. Like clockwork this month, it was when I was changing the spark plug and sharpening my mower blades to keep up with my fast-growing fescue lawn that I noted lower than normal spring dead spot occurrence on the north-facing, low-lying bermudagrass areas across the street, and then received a text message from a friend outside of the turf industry with, “Your thoughts?” and a link to a CNN article. The article was titled, “Designing an end to a toxic American obsession: The Lawn” (published April 17, 2020). This article contended that lawns are a big waste of space and water that should be converted to food production and wild-flower areas. Each spring when reading these types of articles, I find it very frustrating that several unsubstantiated claims are made (citations or references rarely included), and as the same outrageous claims are repeated from year to year, no effort is made at offering a counterpoint from turf industry professionals. I first noticed this trend in May of 2014 when the New York Times published, “The Toxic Brew in our Yards”.  And, as of this writing, the New York Times has very recently recycled much of that story as, “America’s Killer Lawns”, which was published on May 18, 2020.

The two most common inflammatory implications from these articles are 1) that homeowners apply 10 times more pesticides per acre to their lawns compared to farmers and 2) that lawns require more irrigation than any other agricultural crop. The pesticide use claim seems to have originated from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife publication on protecting frogs, with no data or references included for substantiation. I’ve called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get info on the basis of the claim but have only been able to leave messages and my calls have yet to be returned. I am not aware of any such claim being published in the peer-reviewed, fact-based literature. The water requirement claim is likely a misinterpretation of a journal paper published by Milesi et al. (2005) that assumed if 100% of the total area in the United States covered in turf (which they estimated to be 63,244 square miles) was irrigated with an inch of water per week throughout the season whenever minimum temperatures were above 40 degrees (late March to early November in Arkansas), only then would turfgrass be the single largest irrigated crop in the country. Unfortunately, that paper was interpreted as, “Residential lawns cover 2% of US land and require more irrigation than any agricultural crop grown in the country” in the latest CNN article. And this is why I have palm imprints on my forehead a few times each spring.

Our industry often gets an undeserved “black-eye” with regard to water usage, which has led some municipalities and even the EPA to encourage the removal of turf areas in lawns and replacement with other landscape plants in the name of water conservation. Obviously, that is not good for our industry and from a water-requirement standpoint, it simply does not make sense in a humid climate. We receive 40 to 60 inches of rain annually in Arkansas, which can easily sustain our turfgrass species with no additional irrigation because contrary to popular opinion, turfgrass species are by nature drought tolerant.

The turfgrass species we utilize in our lawns evolved naturally over many millennia in geographic regions around the globe where water was limiting, either due to limited rainfall, sandy soils, or shallow soils with low water-holding capacity. Essentially,

New England Blade – Tom Serensits, Penn State University Center for Sports Surface Research

This article describes best management practices for the maintenance and care of synthetic turf fields. The management practices refer to “infill” synthetic turf systems, which consist of plastic pile fibers infilled with crumb rubber, a mixture of crumb rubber and sand, or other granular materials.

A common misconception is that synthetic turf fields are maintenance-free. This is not the case. Synthetic turf fields require regular maintenance to preserve and enhance safety and playability, along with maximizing the turf’s lifespan.

The field care practices described are applicable to all infill synthetic turf fields, regardless of manufacturer. However, it is important to be familiar with and follow field care instructions specifically from your turf’s manufacturer.

 

Best Management Practice #1 – Surface Hardness

Surface hardness (g-max) testing should be conducted on synthetic turf fields on a regular basis, preferably every year. Testing agencies equipped to perform g-max testing are located throughout the country and can test your field for a fee.

All field locations are to meet the requirement of < 200 g-max, as measured with the test method described in ASTM F355, Procedure A. The 200 g-max threshold has been accepted by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission.

If a g-max value is 200 g’s or above at any location, the field is to be remediated and should not be used until g-max values return to below 200 g’s at all locations.

Elevated surface hardness levels can often be reduced by adding additional infill material (crumb rubber). Over time, infill material is removed from the field, a phenomenon termed “walk-off crumb rubber.” As small amounts of infill material are removed from the field in shoes, equipment, etc., the thickness of the infill “cushion” is reduced, resulting in increased surface hardness. Heavily-used areas on fields are especially prone to the loss of infill material and elevated hardness levels.

Your turf manufacturer can provide instructions or services for incorporating additional infill material into your field.

 

Best Management Practice #2 – Infill Depth

Infill depth should be measured on a routine (monthly) basis to ensure infill levels have not fallen below your turf manufacturer’s specified infill depth range. Infill depth should be measured across the entire field (at least 20 locations), with the majority of testing taking place at locations of heavy use.

Infill depth can be measured using a fire-proofing depth gauge. These devices often cost less than $20.

Your turf’s manufacturer can provide you with the specified infill depth range for your turf system.

If your infill depth measurements fall below your manufacturer-specified range, additional crumb rubber should be added. Small areas with low infill depths can be remediated with several buckets of crumb rubber. The rubber should be applied in a thin layer, broomed into the turf, and the process should be repeated until the infill level meets the specified depth range. It is important to use the same size rubber as originally installed in your field.

In some cases, large areas or the entire field may require additional rubber. Your turf manufacturer can provide instructions or services for incorporating additional infill material into your field.

 

Best Management Practice #3– Grooming

Grooming helps keep turf fibers upright and infill evenly distributed across the field. Grooming refers to both brushing and the loosening of infill granules.

Brushing the field with equipment specifically designed for synthetic turf should be done every three to four weeks during the season. The brush should be set to “tickle” the surface and not so that the entire weight of the unit is on the turf.

New England Blade – Olga Kostromytska

Crane flies are relatively common insects, especially in wet or waterlogged areas. They’re also known as “mosquito hawks,” “mosquito killers,” or “giant mosquitos” because at first glance look very similar to mosquitoes. For the most part they are harmless and have no economic or medical significance. Larvae of native species often live in wet, even water-logged, areas and can feed on decaying organic matter.

However, larvae of two invasive species – European crane flies (T. paludosa) and common or marsh crane flies (T. oleracea) can cause serious damage to turfgrasses.  Both species are originally from Europe, where their larvae has been reported as damaging to turfgrass, pasture grass, seedlings in nurseries and many other crops. In the northeastern United States, European crane flies were detected earlier than common crane flies and the species biology and management have been extensively studied. Common crane fly is the less studied species, but recently, it has been reported as damaging or nuisance throughout the region more often than European crane fly (confirmed populations in southeastern, eastern and western Massachusetts, northern Connecticut). According to the recent reports, this species seems to be spreading and the infestations at some locations have intensified in the past few years. Very wet soils are the key factor for crane fly egg and larvae survival. Two years of wet springs and a wet fall in 2019 favored crane flies infestations. If the same trend of weather conditions persist, crane flies will likely to become a reoccurring and a serious problem for turf.

Damage caused by both invasive species is often underestimated and misdiagnosed. On the higher cuts, crane flies cause mostly thinning of the grass and some dead patches. This type of damage is very general and is easy to attribute to factors other than crane flies (such as drought, shade, other insects, etc.). On shorter grass, crane fly damage looks like ball marks, very similar to black cutworm damage.

Common crane fly is potentially the more damaging species because it has two generations per year, larvae are present and can feed throughout the year, with most severe damage in the fall. Often damage caused by common crane flies intensifies after aerification, which has not been noticed for European crane flies. European crane fly has only one generation per year, its larvae are more sensitive to hot summer temperatures and do not actively feed in the summer. European crane flies’ larvae can become a nuisance when they aggregate on the surface in large numbers, which has never been reported for common crane flies. Adults of both species can become a nuisance during the fall flight. Only common crane fly adults fly in the spring (end of April – mid May).

It is important to be on the lookout, understand the invasive crane flies damaging potential to turfgrass and recognize the species predominant in the area. If you suspect a crane fly infestation, please send us a sample or pictures and let us know WHERE and when you saw them (we are trying to get a better understanding of both species’ distribution in the region).

 

Olga Kostromytska is an Extension Assistant Professor with a specialty in turf entomology at the University of Massachusetts.  Reach her via email at [email protected].

New England  Blade – Julie Holt, Content Director, TheTurfZone.com

Grounds Manager at Greens Farms Academy in Westport, Connecticut

* M.S. in Turfgrass Management from UConn

* NESTMA’s 2020 Sports Turf Manager of the Year

* Sustainability Champion

What was your first job in the industry?

I was 15 years old and worked on the grounds crew at a public 18-hole golf course.

What are your current responsibilities at Greens Farms Academy?

I manage the maintenance of 45- acres of grounds which includes three natural grass multi-use fields, two artificial turf fields, general lawn areas, landscape beds, pollinator gardens and all hardscaped areas with a crew of four. I develop and implement cultural programs for the maintenance of turfgrass and landscape plants without the use of “lawn care” pesticides. I also teach high school level courses to students related to the landscape and sustainability.

Who was your mentor when you were first starting out in the business, and why?

Two instructors at UConn, Karl Guillard and Steve Rackliffe were both mentors for me from the beginning. Karl was my advisor throughout my time at UConn and I ended up going to graduate school studying under Karl. He is innovative and intelligent. I learned so much from him including how to manage turfgrass in an environmentally sensitive way. His research focused on sustainable fertilization practices which I use to this day. Steve Rackliffe has helped me with every career decision I’ve made since college. He is the reason I decided to go back for my Master’s degree. That decision opened up many opportunities for me including teaching at Naugatuck Valley Community College in Waterbury, Conn. where I have been Adjunct Instructor in the Horticulture Department for 10 years.

What is the biggest change you’ve seen in today’s sports turf industry?

I believe there is a greater level of professionalism. Over the years, I have seen NESTMA and STMA bring value to the Sports Turf Manager. When I go back and talk to my instructors from college, they tell me there is a more equitable split between students interested in golf and sports turf management, which tells me there are high-quality positions for trained, educated turf managers. Also, with the great educational programs NESTMA and STMA put on we have the best science and technology to bring sports turf management to a new level, creating some of the best playing conditions.

What’s the best business advice you’ve ever received?

When I was in grad school at UConn, my advisor Karl Guillard told me that when you are starting out in the industry never say no to an opportunity. That really stuck with me. For me this includes teaching opportunities, meeting other industry members, being a guest speaker at events, etc. Not saying no has helped me get to where I am today.

What is the next “game-changer” you see on the horizon for the sports turf industry? 

I am very passionate about sustainability and the game changer is technology that reduces reliance on pesticides. Whether it be a fraze mower, or another mechanical method for managing weeds on athletic fields, or turfgrass breeding of species and cultivars with greater pest resistance and reduced input requirements, we as an industry need to promote ourselves as the environmentalists that we are so that we can stay ahead of potential regulations.

What’s your favorite/most useful . . .

Equipment? Redexim overseeder, Procore aerator

Product? Grubgone (BTg) biological control for grubs, Earthworks: Replenish 5-4-5

Technology? Hunter ET Sensors for Irrigation system and IMMS Central Command System for managing controllers remotely

Can you share a bit about your family life and/or what you enjoy doing in your free time?

My amazing wife Nicky and I have two children: Ben (8) and Makena (6). We love to ski together.

Virginia Turfgrass Journal – Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. and John Sorochan, Ph.D.

This article was originally published in SportsField Management.

Athletic fields require maintenance whether they are natural or synthetic. The challenging aspect for athletic fields is that they change as a season progresses. One of the best ways to reduce injuries and increase performance is to have a consistent playing surface that is within acceptable ranges for athlete safety. Without regular field testing, it is hard to determine variances in playing surface consistency as use/wear increases. Knowing how a field is changing throughout the year can help field managers make data driven decisions to optimize the performance of the playing surface and in turn the safety of the surface for the athlete. Keeping records of different field properties across a season and years can help paint the picture for the field managers on what is also going on below the surface. Unfortunately, testing takes time and can be expensive, and these draw backs can lead to many overlooking the need to test a field. However, testing is another important tool to have in the field managers toolbox.

One of the main benefits of testing a field is it indicates consistency and characteristics of a field’s impact on athletes. Tests that are conducted give clues to the health of a field and help identify maintenance practices that are needed. While there are different testing criteria for natural and synthetic surfaces, there are shared tests beneficial for both. However, not all tests can be used on both types of fields. In determining what tests are needed for a surface, a few questions need to be answered: first, is it natural or synthetic; second, what sport or sports are played on the field; and lastly, what is the budget and time available for testing. This information will help determine what tests would be the most beneficial information for a surface. To start, some basic tests need to be established for field managers as a base.

The University of Tennessee Center for Athletic Field Safety (UTCAFS) has a suggested basic kit for natural and synthetic fields. Natural field basic test kit should include a soil moisture probe, a side soil profiler, and a rotational traction testing device. The cost for the components to buy new will range from $2,500 to $5,000 depending on which products are selected. On a synthetic surface the basic kit recommended is an infill depth gauge, surface temperature measuring device, and some type of rotational traction device. The costs for synthetic turf range from $850 to $1,000. All kit estimates are from price researching different suppliers’ websites and totaling the cost. The purpose of this article is not to promote one specific brand’s testing equipment, there are a variety of products available.

All testing done is a snapshot of that field at that particular time, the same test could be conducted the following week with different results being observed. That is why taking multiple readings in a year will give a more detailed picture of what is happening. The other key in getting a good snapshot is testing for the variables that have the greatest impact. Published research has identified a few variables that have been found to influence many parts of the field (Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018). For natural grass fields, the soil moisture content of the field has been found to impact: surface hardness, traffic tolerance of grass, rotational traction/resistance, increase in soil bulk density when trafficked, head injury criterion, and translational traction (Baker and Gibbs, 1989; Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018a, Dickson et al., 2018b). Soil type of a field is important, because soil moisture content will have a greater influence on the playability of a soil that is higher in silt plus clay than a sand based field (Dickson et al., 2018). While there are a multitude of tests for additional field per...

Tennessee Turfgrass – Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. and John Sorochan, Ph.D.

This article was originally published in SportsField Management. 

Athletic fields require maintenance whether they are natural or synthetic. The challenging aspect for athletic fields is that they change as a season progresses. One of the best ways to reduce injuries and increase performance is to have a consistent playing surface that is within acceptable ranges for athlete safety. Without regular field testing, it is hard to determine variances in playing surface consistency as use/wear increases. Knowing how a field is changing throughout the year can help field managers make data driven decisions to optimize the performance of the playing surface and in turn the safety of the surface for the athlete. Keeping records of different field properties across a season and years can help paint the picture for the field managers on what is also going on below the surface. Unfortunately, testing takes time and can be expensive, and these draw backs can lead to many overlooking the need to test a field. However, testing is another important tool to have in the field managers toolbox.

One of the main benefits of testing a field is it indicates consistency and characteristics of a field’s impact on athletes. Tests that are conducted give clues to the health of a field and help identify maintenance practices that are needed. While there are different testing criteria for natural and synthetic surfaces, there are shared tests beneficial for both. However, not all tests can be used on both types of fields. In determining what tests are needed for a surface, a few questions need to be answered: first, is it natural or synthetic; second, what sport or sports are played on the field; and lastly, what is the budget and time available for testing. This information will help determine what tests would be the most beneficial information for a surface. To start, some basic tests need to be established for field managers as a base.

The University of Tennessee Center for Athletic Field Safety (UTCAFS) has a suggested basic kit for natural and synthetic fields. Natural field basic test kit should include a soil moisture probe, a side soil profiler, and a rotational traction testing device. The cost for the components to buy new will range from $2,500 to $5,000 depending on which products are selected. On a synthetic surface the basic kit recommended is an infill depth gauge, surface temperature measuring device, and some type of rotational traction device. The costs for synthetic turf range from $850 to $1,000. All kit estimates are from price researching different suppliers’ websites and totaling the cost. The purpose of this article is not to promote one specific brand’s testing equipment, there are a variety of products available.

All testing done is a snapshot of that field at that particular time, the same test could be conducted the following week with different results being observed. That is why taking multiple readings in a year will give a more detailed picture of what is happening. The other key in getting a good snapshot is testing for the variables that have the greatest impact. Published research has identified a few variables that have been found to influence many parts of the field (Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018). For natural grass fields, the soil moisture content of the field has been found to impact: surface hardness, traffic tolerance of grass, rotational traction/resistance, increase in soil bulk density when trafficked, head injury criterion, and translational traction (Baker and Gibbs, 1989; Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018a, Dickson et al., 2018b). Soil type of a field is important, because soil moisture content will have a greater influence on the playability of a soil that is higher in silt plus clay than a sand based field (Dickson et al., 2018). While there are a multitude of tests for additional field performan...

North Carolina Turfgrass – Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. and John Sorochan, Ph.D.

This article was originally published in SportsField Management.

Athletic fields require maintenance whether they are natural or synthetic. The challenging aspect for athletic fields is that they change as a season progresses. One of the best ways to reduce injuries and increase performance is to have a consistent playing surface that is within acceptable ranges for athlete safety. Without regular field testing, it is hard to determine variances in playing surface consistency as use/wear increases. Knowing how a field is changing throughout the year can help field managers make data driven decisions to optimize the performance of the playing surface and in turn the safety of the surface for the athlete. Keeping records of different field properties across a season and years can help paint the picture for the field managers on what is also going on below the surface. Unfortunately, testing takes time and can be expensive, and these draw backs can lead to many overlooking the need to test a field. However, testing is another important tool to have in the field managers toolbox.

One of the main benefits of testing a field is it indicates consistency and characteristics of a field’s impact on athletes. Tests that are conducted give clues to the health of a field and help identify maintenance practices that are needed. While there are different testing criteria for natural and synthetic surfaces, there are shared tests beneficial for both. However, not all tests can be used on both types of fields. In determining what tests are needed for a surface, a few questions need to be answered: first, is it natural or synthetic; second, what sport or sports are played on the field; and lastly, what is the budget and time available for testing. This information will help determine what tests would be the most beneficial information for a surface. To start, some basic tests need to be established for field managers as a base.

The University of Tennessee Center for Athletic Field Safety (UTCAFS) has a suggested basic kit for natural and synthetic fields. Natural field basic test kit should include a soil moisture probe, a side soil profiler, and a rotational traction testing device. The cost for the components to buy new will range from $2,500 to $5,000 depending on which products are selected. On a synthetic surface the basic kit recommended is an infill depth gauge, surface temperature measuring device, and some type of rotational traction device. The costs for synthetic turf range from $850 to $1,000. All kit estimates are from price researching different suppliers’ websites and totaling the cost. The purpose of this article is not to promote one specific brand’s testing equipment, there are a variety of products available.

All testing done is a snapshot of that field at that particular time, the same test could be conducted the following week with different results being observed. That is why taking multiple readings in a year will give a more detailed picture of what is happening. The other key in getting a good snapshot is testing for the variables that have the greatest impact. Published research has identified a few variables that have been found to influence many parts of the field (Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018). For natural grass fields, the soil moisture content of the field has been found to impact: surface hardness, traffic tolerance of grass, rotational traction/resistance, increase in soil bulk density when trafficked, head injury criterion, and translational traction (Baker and Gibbs, 1989; Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018a, Dickson et al., 2018b). Soil type of a field is important, because soil moisture content will have a greater influence on the playability of a soil that is higher in silt plus clay than a sand based field (Dickson et al., 2018). While there are a multitude of tests for additional field perfo...

Mississippi Turfgrass – Logan Freeman

A superintendent discusses collaborating with professionals in other sectors of turf management and offers steps fellow supers can take to promote a united front.

The following story was originally published in the June 2019 issue of GCM and is reprinted with permission.

While there is no debating that the turf industry has come under increased attacks from activist groups and one-sided legislation in the past few years, I believe there is a potentially dangerous gap in our defense.

Though not often talked about, a lack of cohesion among the different professions within turfgrass management has left us isolated and separated.

In the specific world of golf course management, we often discuss the importance of communication between the superintendent and golf shop staff, golfers, boards and committees. We also recognize the benefit of camaraderie and shared knowledge among golf course superintendents. Although the collaboration and community in golf is critical to the success of our work, the lack of communication and support across the various sectors of turfgrass management — golf, sports turf, home lawn care, university professionals, distributors, sales representatives — is rarely addressed. (Photo 1)

The origin of this divide is difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps we superintendents felt that cultivating this long-term supportive relationship would have taken too much time and effort away from our immediate day-to-day operations. Or maybe we just saw no value in immersing ourselves in its complexities. Whatever the history, this disconnect now seriously undermines the future of our industry as a whole.

 

An eye-opening gathering

Like so many in our profession, I used to think that sports turf and lawn care just did their thing, and we as golf course turfgrass managers did ours. That’s the way it had always been and likely would remain. Then I went to a meeting for the formation of a local chapter of the Sports Turf Managers Association. This organic creation of the Mid-Atlantic STMA (https://mastma.org) opened my eyes to an entirely different approach to my profession.

Of the hundred or so in attendance, I was the only golf course superintendent in the room. Yet instead of feeling alone and territorial, I felt a sense of connection and an appreciation for my presence. I also felt the support of what the people attending the meeting were trying to achieve.

I discovered a side of turfgrass management I had never before experienced, and I formed bonds with local sports turf managers I likely never would have met had I not attended as a sign of support for the new organization. (Photo 2)

Immediately following that meeting, I couldn’t stop wondering why the golf and sports sides of the industry were not more jointly associated. After all, we have far more commonalities than differences. We all manage turfgrass for its playability, in addition to juggling the management of people, budgets and the environment.

I also began to question why lawn care and other sectors were not a part of this supportive mix. If we are looking to move the turfgrass industry forward and address all the adversity facing us, we must come together in support and appreciation.

No matter our titles — golf course superintendent, head groundskeeper, lawn care provider, researcher, distributor — we all have a passion for this industry as well as a part to play in the narrative of its future.

 

The future of the turf industry

Our industry is increasingly challenged.

Part of this growing tension is positive, as ever-restrictive pesticide- and nutrient-management laws lead to innovation, ingenuity and leadership.

The downside, however, is equally present, as lawmakers who view the turfgrass industry as an easy target issue uninformed,

Mississippi Turfgrass – Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. and John Sorochan, Ph.D.

This article was originally published in SportsField Management. 

Athletic fields require maintenance whether they are natural or synthetic. The challenging aspect for athletic fields is that they change as a season progresses. One of the best ways to reduce injuries and increase performance is to have a consistent playing surface that is within acceptable ranges for athlete safety. Without regular field testing, it is hard to determine variances in playing surface consistency as use/wear increases. Knowing how a field is changing throughout the year can help field managers make data driven decisions to optimize the performance of the playing surface and in turn the safety of the surface for the athlete. Keeping records of different field properties across a season and years can help paint the picture for the field managers on what is also going on below the surface. Unfortunately, testing takes time and can be expensive, and these draw backs can lead to many overlooking the need to test a field. However, testing is another important tool to have in the field managers toolbox.

One of the main benefits of testing a field is it indicates consistency and characteristics of a field’s impact on athletes. Tests that are conducted give clues to the health of a field and help identify maintenance practices that are needed. While there are different testing criteria for natural and synthetic surfaces, there are shared tests beneficial for both. However, not all tests can be used on both types of fields. In determining what tests are needed for a surface, a few questions need to be answered: first, is it natural or synthetic; second, what sport or sports are played on the field; and lastly, what is the budget and time available for testing. This information will help determine what tests would be the most beneficial information for a surface. To start, some basic tests need to be established for field managers as a base.

The University of Tennessee Center for Athletic Field Safety (UTCAFS) has a suggested basic kit for natural and synthetic fields. Natural field basic test kit should include a soil moisture probe, a side soil profiler, and a rotational traction testing device. The cost for the components to buy new will range from $2,500 to $5,000 depending on which products are selected. On a synthetic surface the basic kit recommended is an infill depth gauge, surface temperature measuring device, and some type of rotational traction device. The costs for synthetic turf range from $850 to $1,000. All kit estimates are from price researching different suppliers’ websites and totaling the cost. The purpose of this article is not to promote one specific brand’s testing equipment, there are a variety of products available.

All testing done is a snapshot of that field at that particular time, the same test could be conducted the following week with different results being observed. That is why taking multiple readings in a year will give a more detailed picture of what is happening. The other key in getting a good snapshot is testing for the variables that have the greatest impact. Published research has identified a few variables that have been found to influence many parts of the field (Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018). For natural grass fields, the soil moisture content of the field has been found to impact: surface hardness, traffic tolerance of grass, rotational traction/resistance, increase in soil bulk density when trafficked, head injury criterion, and translational traction (Baker and Gibbs, 1989; Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018a, Dickson et al., 2018b). Soil type of a field is important, because soil moisture content will have a greater influence on the playability of a soil that is higher in silt plus clay than a sand based field (Dickson et al., 2018). While there are a multitude of tests for additional field perform...

Arkansas Turfgrass – Kyley Dickson, Ph.D. and John Sorochan, Ph.D.

This article was originally published in SportsField Management.

Athletic fields require maintenance whether they are natural or synthetic. The challenging aspect for athletic fields is that they change as a season progresses. One of the best ways to reduce injuries and increase performance is to have a consistent playing surface that is within acceptable ranges for athlete safety. Without regular field testing, it is hard to determine variances in playing surface consistency as use/wear increases. Knowing how a field is changing throughout the year can help field managers make data driven decisions to optimize the performance of the playing surface and in turn the safety of the surface for the athlete. Keeping records of different field properties across a season and years can help paint the picture for the field managers on what is also going on below the surface. Unfortunately, testing takes time and can be expensive, and these draw backs can lead to many overlooking the need to test a field. However, testing is another important tool to have in the field managers toolbox.

One of the main benefits of testing a field is it indicates consistency and characteristics of a field’s impact on athletes. Tests that are conducted give clues to the health of a field and help identify maintenance practices that are needed. While there are different testing criteria for natural and synthetic surfaces, there are shared tests beneficial for both. However, not all tests can be used on both types of fields. In determining what tests are needed for a surface, a few questions need to be answered: first, is it natural or synthetic; second, what sport or sports are played on the field; and lastly, what is the budget and time available for testing. This information will help determine what tests would be the most beneficial information for a surface. To start, some basic tests need to be established for field managers as a base.

The University of Tennessee Center for Athletic Field Safety (UTCAFS) has a suggested basic kit for natural and synthetic fields. Natural field basic test kit should include a soil moisture probe, a side soil profiler, and a rotational traction testing device. The cost for the components to buy new will range from $2,500 to $5,000 depending on which products are selected. On a synthetic surface the basic kit recommended is an infill depth gauge, surface temperature measuring device, and some type of rotational traction device. The costs for synthetic turf range from $850 to $1,000. All kit estimates are from price researching different suppliers’ websites and totaling the cost. The purpose of this article is not to promote one specific brand’s testing equipment, there are a variety of products available.

All testing done is a snapshot of that field at that particular time, the same test could be conducted the following week with different results being observed. That is why taking multiple readings in a year will give a more detailed picture of what is happening. The other key in getting a good snapshot is testing for the variables that have the greatest impact. Published research has identified a few variables that have been found to influence many parts of the field (Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018). For natural grass fields, the soil moisture content of the field has been found to impact: surface hardness, traffic tolerance of grass, rotational traction/resistance, increase in soil bulk density when trafficked, head injury criterion, and translational traction (Baker and Gibbs, 1989; Baker, 1991; Dickson et al., 2018a, Dickson et al., 2018b). Soil type of a field is important, because soil moisture content will have a greater influence on the playability of a soil that is higher in silt plus clay than a sand based field (Dickson et al., 2018). While there are a multitude of tests for additional field performance...