| |
| DOI: | 10.1002/agj2.20255 |
|---|
| Web URL(s): | https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/agj2.20255
Last checked: 11/18/2020
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/agj2.20255
Last checked: 11/18/2020
Requires: PDF Reader
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Dalsgaard, Tim O.;
Thoms, Adam W.;
Christians, Nick E.;
Mertz, Issac;
Horton, Robert |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Department of Horticulture and Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA |
|---|
| Title: | Comparison of Shockwave aerification and conventional aerification methods on athletic fields |
|---|
| Section: | European Turfgrass Conference
Other records with the "European Turfgrass Conference" Section
|
|---|
| Source: | Agronomy Journal. Vol. 112, No. 5, September/October 2020, p. 3470-3477. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 8 |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "The Shockwave (Imants) offers the potential to minimally disrupt the playing surface, relieve soil compaction, and potentially lower surface hardness. However, data are lacking on how the Shockwave compares to traditional aerification. The effects of hollow-tine (HT), solid-tine (ST), and Shockwave with a single pass (SW1) and perpendicular passes (SW2) were investigated and compared to an untreated control (C) for surface hardness, surface stability, soil moisture, water infiltration, percent green cover, and bulk density on established cultivar Rush Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) turf growing on native soil. Treatments were applied JuneAugust with SW1 and SW2 receiving an additional treatment in September of each year. A modified Baldree traffic simulator was used to simulate 28 traffic events in the fall of each year. Data were analyzed using an exponential decay model, and the slope indicating cover loss event1 was used to compare treatments. In both years of the study, the HT (0.031 in 2017 and 0.085 in 2018) treatment had the least green cover loss per event. The SW2 (0.051) had the greatest cover loss event1 in 2017, while the C (0.102) treatments experienced the largest cover loss event1 in 2018. In 2017 after 20 simulated traffic events, surface hardness on SW2 treatments were 30% lower than the highest surface hardness. After simulated traffic in 2018, SW1 treatments resulted in 10% lower surface hardness compared to the hardest surface, indicating the Shockwave can reduce surface hardness. This research indicates that the Shockwave could replace ST in maintaining athletic fields." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 31 |
|---|
| See Also: | See also related article, Comparison of Shockwave Aerification and Conventional Aerification Methods on Athletic Fields, 2019, R=306603. R=306603 |
|---|
| Note: | Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
2020. Comparison of Shockwave aerification and conventional aerification methods on athletic fields. Agron. J. 112(5):p. 3470-3477. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=313073 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 313073. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| DOI: 10.1002/agj2.20255 |
| Web URL(s):
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/agj2.20255
Last checked: 11/18/2020
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/agj2.20255
Last checked: 11/18/2020
Requires: PDF Reader
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
| 
MSU catalog number: b2212646a |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
