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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Surface hardness and shoot density (reported in Ebdon et al., 2020) were found to be inversely related (Table 4). Greater green biomass (verdure) softens the court surface and increases the energy absorbed by the surface with less energy returned as BB.…”

“…Most species–cultivars in 2019 (Table 9) would be categorized as high (≥0.71) in overall friction according to ITF rules. The greater friction observed in 2019 is most likely the result of the 60% greater shoot density (see Ebdon et al., 2020) observed in 2019 compared with previous years, which is the result of an aggressive overseeding program to reestablish baselines and other areas worn from traffic caused by tennis play.…”

“…The objectives of Part 2 of this companion study were (a) to evaluate six different turfgrass species (eight turfgrass species-cultivar combinations) at the interspecies level for their ball-to-surface friction and restitution maintained as grass tennis courts, (b) to investigate the variation of soil hardness on COR to develop appropriate soil hardness recommendation at the species level to achieve ITF standard for restitution of 0.70 (BB ≈ 50%), (c) to evaluate cell wall components from Part 1 of this companion study (Ebdon, James, DaCosta, & Lu, 2020) as they relate to COF and COR, and (d) to calculate court pace ratings (CPR, slow to fast) at the species level according to ITF guidelines (ITF, 2019) derived from measured friction (COF) and restitution (COR).…”

“…Management practices to slow court pace by promoting greater COF is an area of future research. It is important to recognize, however, that cultural practices to slow court pace need to be implemented without compromising wear tolerance, as discussed in Ebdon et al (2020).…”

“…Thus, irrigation practices to promote soil drying are practical strategies for most cool-season turfgrass to increase COR and slow court pace. Interestingly, cell wall components (hemi and lingo fractions) reported in Ebdon et al (2020) covaried with surface hardness and COR, which exhibited opposite associations (Table 4). Lignocellulose fractions possess high mechanical rigidity and therefore serve to strengthen both stems and vascular tissues (Taiz & Zeiger, 1972) and physical toughness (Van Soest, 1994), whereas greater hemi content increases fiber flexibility (Sitch & Marshall, 2011…”