Shade Effects on Overseeded Bermudagrass Athletic Fields: II. Rooting, Species Composition, and Traction

Abstract

Shade from athletic stadium structures can be a significant detriment to turfgrass performance. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of shade on rooting and playing surface stability, measured as traction, on overseeded or non‐overseeded bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) turf. An experiment was established in 2013 on a mature bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. cv. Riviera] turf that was either overseeded with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) or non‐overseeded. Shade structures were installed to create four light level treatments, including 0%, 30%, 60%, or 90% light‐reducing shade cloth. The light treatments resulted in average daily light integrals (DLI) of 40.8, 26.2, 14.8, and 3.3 mol m–2 d–1, respectively. Data were collected on rooting characteristics, species composition, and two forms of traction measurements. Moderate levels of shading (30%) caused a significant decline in rooting characteristics in non‐overseeded turf, while rooting of overseeded turf was not significantly affected until a 60% light reduction. Rotational resistance and peak horizontal force, measurements of athlete traction, were affected by increasing shade in both overseeded and non‐overseeded turf, but the association between traction and a minimum DLI was not conclusive. The persistence of bermudagrass in overseeded turf was significantly reduced at all shade levels studied. This study clearly demonstrates that rooting, bermudagrass persistence and traction of overseeded and non‐overseeded bermudagrass athletic fields are negatively affected by even modest levels of shade.

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

“…Traction is a function of soil type, soil density, grass root density, soil moisture content, and shoe‐to‐surface interaction (influenced by the choice of stud pattern) (Stiles, Guisaola, James, & Dixon, 2011). For example, bermudagrass offers greater shoe‐to‐surface traction than PR (Orchard, 2001; Richardson et al., 2019). Like bermudagrass, KB exhibits a spreading type growth habit due to the horizontal growth habit of rhizomes, which increases traction compared with nonspreading PR.…”

Adaptive Responses of Common and Hybrid Bermudagrasses to Shade Stress Associated With Changes in Morphology, Photosynthesis, and Secondary Metabolites

“…( Bell et al, 2000 ). Richardson et al (2019) concluded that the shade degraded the turf quality of bermudagrass and also increased the cost of management and maintenance of bermudagrass turf in football court. The study of Trappe et al (2011) found that there were significant variations among hybrid bermudagrasses because “Princess 77” and “Riviera” showed higher coverage than “Patriot,” “Tifsport,” and “Tifway” when these cultivars were grown under some shade condition.…”

Effects of perennial ryegrass competition on bermudagrass and hybrid bermudagrass cover, biomass, and total nonstructural carbohydrate accumulation

“…Therefore, bermudagrass produces more reserve carbohydrates in summer months than any other times of year (Howard, 2006). The competition for light between perennial ryegrass and bermudagrass can result in injury to the bermudagrass, leaving the bermudagrass less prepared to survive winter dormancy (Jiang et al., 2004; Richardson et al., 2019). It is generally accepted by turfgrass managers that bermudagrass requires 100 ds of active growth without perennial ryegrass competition to accumulate enough reserve carbohydrates required for winter survival (Yelverton, 2004).…”