Effects of Lightweight Rolling Frequencies on Athletic Field
Surface and Subsurface Conditions
Nicholas D. Binder, Nikolai, T.A., Crum, J.R., Merewitz, E.B., and Flore, J.A.
Michigan State University
LIGHTWEIGHT ROLLING
Rolling in golf (Hartwiger, et al., 1994)
• Early 1900’s – Important part of putting green management
• Mid 1900’s – Fallen out of favor due to compaction concerns
• 1990’s – Resurgence in popularity
• Sand-based greens and topdressing
• Improved technology (lighter rollers)
• Scientific data
LIGHTWEIGHT ROLLING
Lightweight rolling - athletic fields
•
•
•
•
Sod installation
Alleviate frost heaving in spring
Very seldom used on consistent basis
Lack of research!
STUDY OBJECTIVES
1.
Determine if the benefits of routine lightweight rolling on golf course
greens can also be seen in an athletic field setting
2.
Identify negative impacts on surface and subsurface conditions due to
frequent lightweight rolling
MATERIALS AND METHODS
•
•
•
•
Initiated July 1st, 2013
Two year study, concluded October 2014
Hancock Turfgrass Research Center – Michigan State University
Native soil base, approximately 2/3 Colwood-Brookston loam,
1/3 Aubbeenaubbee-Capac sandy loam
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• Poa pratensis L. (Kentucky bluegrass) athletic field
• Established 2005
• Nine-way blend, formulated for 2001 Spartan Stadium modular field (Gilstrap, et al., 2002)
Cultivar
% Live Seed
Champagne
15.8%
Coventry
9.4%
Limousine
10.9%
Midnight
10.7%
Moonlight
9.6%
Northstar
11.4%
Rugby II
13.3%
Serene
11.0%
Unique
7.9%
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Athletic Field Management Practices
•
•
•
•
Maintained at 2.54 cm mowing height throughout study
24.46 g/m2 N fertility applied during course of each growing season
Daily irrigation (approximately .25 cm per day)
Core cultivation (aerification) in spring and fall
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• One factor, three treatment study, replicated
three times
• Randomized, complete block design
• Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test,
p value = 0.05
NR
NR
3X
5X
5X
NR
3X
3X
5X
3X
5X
NR
3X
5X
NR
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• 16.54 m x 16.54 m plots
• Treatments
1) Plots not rolled (control)
2) Plots rolled three times per week (M, W, F)
3) Plots rolled five times per week (M, Tu, W, Th, F)
• Rolling treatments applied between 8:00am
and 10:00am (weather permitting)
NR
NR
3X
3X
5X
5X
NR
3X
NR
3X
3X
5X
5X
5X
NR
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• Tru-Turf SR72 Sports Turf Roller
• Three rollers: 165 mm diameter, 1.9 m width each
• Total weight: 750 kg
• Pulled by John Deere 5400 tractor with “turf” style tires
PARAMETERS
• Ball Roll Distance – Soccer Fieldgauge (Cockerham, et al., 1995)
•
•
•
•
Developed by Steve Cockerham to evaluate and standardize fields used in 1994 FIFA World Cup
3.049m ramp, elevated 2.135m high
Nike Omni Premium Match Ball, inflated to .77 kg/cm2
Six samples taken in two opposite directions for each plot
PARAMETERS
• Soil Moisture Content – TDR Soil Moisture Meter
• Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) measures relationship between
dielectric properties of the soil and its moisture content. (Evett, 2003)
• Measured at 7.62cm depth
• Five random subsamples per plot
PARAMETERS
• Root Stability (Shear Vane Strength) – Shear Strength Tester
• Measures maximum amount of torque (Nm) that can be applied
to the turf before it tears
• Five random subsamples per plot
PARAMETERS
• Soil Compaction (Surface Hardness) – Clegg Impact Soil Tester
• Measures deceleration of free falling mass (hammer) from a set height
onto the surface
• 2.25kg hammer
• Five random subsamples per plot
PARAMETERS
• Turf Quality (Chlorophyll Content) – NDVI Turf Color Meter
• Records Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which
measures both red and near infrared reflectance
• Values range from -1 to 1, with high numbers indicating greater
plant health
• Five random subsamples per plot
PARAMETERS
• Study Endpoint Measures
• Root Mass – soil cores at 20.32 cm depth
• Broadleaf Weed Count
•
•
Taraxacum officinale (dandelion)
Plantago major L. (broadleaf plantain)
• Infiltration Rate – double ring infiltrometer
RESULTS
12
11
Not Rolled
Rolled 3X / Week
Rolled 5X / Week
10
a*
9
ab
b
a*
a*
b
8
BALL ROLL DISTANCE (METERS)
BALL ROLL DISTANCE (METERS)
12
Ball Roll 2013
Ball Roll 2014
a*
11
10
b
b
a*
b
a*
Not Rolled
Rolled 3X / Week
Rolled 5X / Week
9
8
7
7
*(P=.05, Fisher’s LSD)
*(P=.05, Fisher’s LSD)
RESULTS
Soil Moisture Content 2014
Soil Moisture Content 2013
44.0
44.0
39.0
34.0
*
NR
29.0
3X
5X
24.0
19.0
PERCENTAGE MOISTURE
PERCENTAGE MOISTURE
49.0
39.0
34.0
*
29.0
NR
3X
24.0
5X
19.0
14.0
14.0
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
RESULTS
Shear Vane Strength 2014
27.00
27.00
26.00
26.00
25.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
*
NR
22.00
3X
5X
21.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
*(P=.05, LSD)
TORQUE (NEWTON METERS)
TORQUE (NEWTON METERS)
Shear Vane Strength 2013
24.00
*
23.00
NR
22.00
21.00
3X
5X
20.00
19.00
18.00
*(P=.05, LSD)
RESULTS
Surface Hardness 2014
Surface Hardness 2013
7.50
7.50
*(P=.05, Fisher’s LSD)
7.00
6.50
a*
a*
6.00
*
5.50
b
NR
3X
5X
5.00
4.50
GRAVITIES (GMAX)
GRAVITIES (GMAX)
7.00
6.50
6.00
*
NR
5.50
3X
5X
5.00
4.50
4.00
4.00
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
RESULTS
Chlorophyll Content 2013
Chlorophyll Content 2014
0.770
0.770
0.750
0.730
0.710
a
a
b*
NR
3X
0.690
5X
NDVI RATING ( -1 TO 1)
NDVI RATING ( -1 TO 1)
*(P=.05, Fisher’s LSD)
0.750
0.730
*
0.710
NR
3X
0.690
0.670
0.670
0.650
0.650
5X
*(P=.05, LSD)
RESULTS
Root Mass
ROOT SAMPLE MASS (GRAMS)
1.00
1.09 a
0.93 a
0.89 a
0.80
*
*
0.60
0.40
0.20
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
0.00
Not Rolled
Rolled 3X / Week
Rolled 5X / Week
RESULTS
NO. OF WEEDS PER PLOT (273.57 M2)
90
Broadleaf Weed Count
87.0 a
80
70.3 a
70
68.7 a
*
60
*
50
40
30
20
*(P=.05, LSD)
10
*(P=.05, LSD)
0
Not Rolled
Rolled 3X / Week
Rolled 5X / Week
RESULTS
Infiltration Rate
INFILTRATION RATE (CM/HR)
0.80
0.79
0.79 a
0.79 a
*
*
0.78
0.77 a
0.77
0.76
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
0.75
Not Rolled
Rolled 3X / Week
Rolled 5X / Week
CONCLUSIONS
• There were multiple dates in which rolling (both three and five times per
week) did statistically increase ball roll distance.
• On our plots, routine lightweight rolling did not show any consistent
benefits based on any other study parameter.
*
• It is to be noted that no* consistent detrimental effects were seen for any
parameter, even with rolling five times per week.
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Simulated traffic in combination with rolling
• Sand-based root zone athletic fields
• Comparison different rollers
• Reparative studies
*
*
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
REFERENCES
Cockerham, S.T., Waston, J.R., & Keisling, J.C. (1995). The soccer field gauge: Measuring
field performance. California Turfgrass Culture, 45(3&4), 13-16.
Evett, S. R. (2003). Soil water measurement by time domain reflectometry. Encyclopedia
of water science, 894-898.
Hartwiger, C. E., DiPaola, J. M., Peacock, C. H., Cassel, D. K., & Lucas, L. T. (1994).
The
*
effects of rolling bentgrass putting
greens. Annual Meeting Abstract, 86, 184.
*
Gilstrap, D. M., J. C. Sorochan, R. N. Calhoun, and J. N. III Rogers. 2002. PEGS method for
blending and mixing seed: A novel approach for the Spartan Stadium modular field. p.
121-122. In Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference. East Lansing,
MI: January 21-24, 2002. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
ACKNOWEDLGEMENTS
Dr. Thomas A. Nikolai
*
Dr. James R. Crum
Dr. Emily B. Merewitz
Dr. James A. Flore
*
Michigan Turfgrass Foundation
Tru-Turf Pty. Ltd.
J.W. Turf, Inc.
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)
QUESTIONS?
*
*
*(P=.05, LSD)
*(P=.05, LSD)