Interspecific comparisons of C<sub>3</sub>turfgrass for tennis use: II. Investigation of ball friction, ball bounce, and associated factors in replicated grass courts

Ebdon, J. S.; James, Ian; DaCosta, Michelle; Lu, J.

doi:10.1002/csc2.20277

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Associated cell wall components, shoot density, and tennis shoe traction were also investigated at the interspecific level. This current study is Part 1 of a companion study, whereas Part 2 investigates ball-surface interactions (Ebdon, James, DaCosta, & Lu, 2020). (medium high) and 21 mg P kg −1 (high), with a soil pH of 6.3.…”

Section: Crop Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, tennis play and associated wear injuries and their assessment were only conducted in 2017 and 2019. In 2018 and 2019, other measurements related to tennis pace (speed of play) such as surface hardness, soil moisture, ball bounce, and ball-to-surface friction were measured in the service area and are presented in a companion paper (Ebdon et al, 2020).…”

Section: Hours Per Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cell wall fractions measured in 2017 and 2019 were used in this current study to investigate the relationship between cell wall components (TCW, hemi, and ligno) and wear tolerance (percentage grass cover), carrying capacity, and traction. In addition, leaf fiber analysis measured in 2018 and 2019 was used to correlate cell wall components with ball friction and ball bounce (discussed in Ebdon et al, 2020).…”

Section: Cell Wall Fractions and Shoot Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies in the evaluation of wear tolerance have been conducted using wear simulators. Research to investigate wear tolerance of C 3 turfgrasses under actual playing conditions and their carrying capacity is limited. Three grass tennis courts (replicates) maintained as official size (single) courts were constructed. Eight species and cultivars were randomized within the three courts (blocks): (1) 'Keeneland' Kentucky bluegrass (KB, Poa pratensis L.), (2) 'Rubix' KB, (3) 'Villa' velvet bentgrass (VBG, Agrostis canina L.), (4) 'Puritan' colonial bentgrass (CL, Agrostis capillaris L.), (5) '007' creeping bentgrass (CB, Agrostis stolonifera L.), (6) fine fescue (FF, Festuca spp.) mixture, (7) 'Karma' perennial ryegrass (PR, Lolium perenne L.), and (8) 'Wicked' PR. Injury at the baseline was measured by counting healthy grass on four dates in 2017 and 2019 using an intersect grid. Carrying capacity at the baseline was derived as hours of play to sustain 90, 80, 70, and 60% grass cover. After 6 wk of actual tennis play involving >120 participating players in 2017 and 2019, KB and PR were superior to other C 3 turfgrass for wear tolerance and carrying capacity. These two species exhibited four times the carrying capacity of FF species and nearly 60% more carrying capacity than bentgrass (BG) species. Species of BG afforded higher shoot density and better traction than KB and PR, with VBG exhibiting the best traction, and FF and PR exhibiting the poorest traction. In 2017, greater cell wall content increased wear tolerance and carrying capacity. Velvet bentgrass was as good as KB and PR in overall wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play.

show abstract

Section: Crop Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hours Per Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cell Wall Fractions and Shoot Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sustainability of athletic field turf comparing organic and synthetic practices under two heights of cut

Dest,

Ebdon

2024

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long‐term comparisons over several years between organic and synthetic management are lacking in sports turf research. Our objective was to investigate playing surface qualities and soil properties over an 8‐year period. For this trial, Kentucky bluegrass (KBG, Poa pratensis L.) sod was established and annually inter‐seeded with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and KBG. Factors included height of cut (3.2 and 6.4 cm) and management systems (MSs; synthetic and organic) with three replicates. Synthetic practices included chemical fertilizers and pesticides, while the organic system used hand‐weeding and biological fertilizers (leaf compost and naturally derived organics) with biological controls. In all years, wear was simulated in the fall using a slip‐wear machine and evaluated for playing qualities including visual wear tolerance, ball bounce (BB), surface hardness, and traction. Soil properties were evaluated in some years including pH, soil organic matter (SOM), soil bulk density, soil aggregate stability (SAG), and soil available P. Both MS received the same total N of 196 kg ha−1 year−1 but P applied varied with the MS (synthetic, 7.6 kg ha−1 year−1; organic, 23.2 kg ha−1 year−1). Synthetic practices provided acceptable visual wear tolerance (1–9, ≥6 acceptable) in 4 of 8 years compared to only 1 year for organic practices. Shorter cut grass (3.2 cm) consistently provided better visual wear tolerance (average = 5.6), harder surfaces (average = 51 g), and higher BB (average = 35.8%) consistent with accepted player standards. Synthetic practices afforded better tolerance to wear compared to organic practices in 5 of 8 years but little difference was observed in the other surface properties. Organic practices were consistently above 6.0 in soil pH (higher by 12%), 20% higher in soil available P, 25% higher in SOM, and with lower soil bulk density. SAG was higher following 8 years of simulated traffic by the last year of the test under organic practices. Results suggest competing benefits with synthetic practices affording better wear tolerance while organic practices promote better soil health.

show abstract

A biomechanics-based study of stroke technique in student tennis players

Kang,

Liu

2024

Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studying the hitting technique of student tennis players is of great significance in improving the technical and tactical level of student tennis and promoting the popularization and scientificization of tennis. Since the performance of tennis hitting action recognition depends on the representation of the action, this study utilizes the Gaussian mixture distribution as a statistical distribution of human action data to provide a more accurate description of tennis hitting action. This paper presents the LM skeletal point coordinate fitting method to enhance the structure of the Gaussian mixture distribution-based Hidden Markov Model to capture the act of hitting the ball. In the end, the biomechanical properties of the tennis hitting technique were examined by analyzing the motion images of forehand and backhand hitting techniques of college tennis players. The mean values of the angle between the racket surface and the ground during the forehand stroke and the topspin stroke were 82.96° and 35.95°, respectively, and the speed of the grip point and wrist joint was faster than that of the flat stroke during the topspin stroke. The angles and velocities of the knee, hip, and ankle joints of the lower limbs were faster than those of the open backhand stroke in the closed backhand stroke. The angle and speed are smaller than that of the open backhand stroke, while the angle of the shoulder and elbow joints is larger than that of the open backhand stroke. The tennis action recognition model and algorithm designed in this paper can effectively acquire and analyze the technical characteristics of tennis hitting.

show abstract

Interspecific comparisons of C₃turfgrass for tennis use: II. Investigation of ball friction, ball bounce, and associated factors in replicated grass courts

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Sustainability of athletic field turf comparing organic and synthetic practices under two heights of cut

A biomechanics-based study of stroke technique in student tennis players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interspecific comparisons of C3turfgrass for tennis use: II. Investigation of ball friction, ball bounce, and associated factors in replicated grass courts

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Interspecific comparisons of C3 turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Interspecific comparisons of C3 turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Sustainability of athletic field turf comparing organic and synthetic practices under two heights of cut

A biomechanics-based study of stroke technique in student tennis players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interspecific comparisons of C₃turfgrass for tennis use: II. Investigation of ball friction, ball bounce, and associated factors in replicated grass courts

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play

Interspecific comparisons of C₃ turfgrass for tennis use: I. Wear tolerance and carrying capacity under actual match play