SportsTurf provides current, practical and technical content on issues relevant to sports turf managers, including facilities managers. Most readers are athletic field managers from the professional level through parks and recreation, universities.
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/678624
36 SportsTurf | June 2016 www.sportsturfonline.com IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE located around the perimeter. Unfortunately, the drains on the east side of the field were installed behind a track and field runway (Figure 4). This lengthy concrete pad acts as a dam and causes water to puddle in that portion of the field. The DU for soil moisture and catch can data was 71 and 73%, respectively. Therefore, the irrigation system is performing at an acceptable level. The correlation coefficient for soil moisture and catch can data was 0.34. A positive value was again expected; however, the strength of the relationship was still moderate. This is likely due to the concrete runway blocking drains on the east side of the field and the presence of a 5-inch sand cap on top of a clay subgrade that allows for lateral water movement along the clay layer. CONCLUSIONS The objective of the case studies was to introduce a new, novel approach to examining irrigation efficiency, the soil moisture based audit, and compare it to the standard catch can audit. Results and interpretation differed substantially between our examples. This was expected due to the variation between sites with respect to soil type, irrigation system design, field construction, and other plant and soil properties that were not measured. The moderate correlation between soil moisture and catch can data suggests that additional agronomic conditions may be affecting irrigation distribution and efficiency. For this reason, further data collection and site analysis (i.e. surface hardness, localized dry spot, etc.) may be warranted. The current method of irrigation system evaluation, which relies solely on DU values to interpret uniformity, may not be sufficient. DU values for soil moisture and catch can data were nearly identical for each field example. These results could be deceiving and lead sports turf managers to believe the distributions to be similar. However, spatial maps were able to reveal differences through a more detailed analysis of the distribution, which could not be concluded from DU values alone. Technology used to create spatial maps in turfgrass is becoming more prevalent, but unfortunately adoption by sports turf managers has been slow. Future research, development, and awareness of GPS technologies and capabilities should be considered to aide in the management of sports fields. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Troy Carson and Kathy Rice, The Toro Company, for technical support with the Precision Sense 6000. Chase Straw is a graduate research assistant, University of Georgia; Dr. Gerald Henry is an Athletic Association Endowed Professor, University of Georgia. Stephen Richwine is with the Oconee County School District, Watkinsville, GA. REFERENCES IA, 2003. Irrigation Association. Certified golf irrigation auditor training manual. Irrigation Association of America. Falls Church, VA. STMA. Conducting an Irrigation Audit. Sports Turf Managers Association, http://www.cosatx.us/home/ showdocument?id=10396. Figure 4. Locations of drains on the wrong side of a concrete runway causing water build up in the northeast corner of Field 2. Figure 2. Soil moisture (left) and catch can (right) spatial distribution maps for Field 1 (sandy loam). Figure 3. Soil moisture (left) and catch can (right) spatial distribution maps for Field 2 (sand capped).