104archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/thesdiss/mcnitt1994c.pdf · studded shoe. Why this particular stand of bluegrass yielded results in which there was little difference between linear traction

104DISCUSSION

The results section was divided into seven sections, one

section for each of six separate experiments conducted, and

one describing turfgrass stand characterization. The results

of each individual experiment have been summarized in the

results section. This section examines trends or observations

across experiments. Topics to be discussed include the

effects of: species; soil water content; species and soil

water content interaction; verdure wetness; shoe type; shoe

type and soil water content interaction; shoe type and

species interaction; shoe type and traction measurement type

interaction; and turfgrass stand characteristics including

cutting height, verdure, tiller density, and below-ground

biomass on traction values obtained using PENNFOOT.

Species

Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue had higher traction than

perennial ryegrass and red fescue at peak traction

measurements of 4.4 cm of linear travel in Experiment 2. From

1.3 cm to 2.5 cm of linear travel perennial ryegrass traction

was higher than red fescue, though not significantly higher,

and from 3.2 cm to 5.1 cm of linear travel perennial ryegrass

and red fescue traction values were essentially equal. The

effects of four turfgrass species on traction values in

Experiment 2 were similar to those obtained by Middour

105

(1992), who reported that Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue

had the highest traction and red fescue the lowest with

perennial ryegrass having intermediate traction values. In

Experiment 2 these species trends held over soil water values

that ranged from an average of 0.18 to 0.34 kg kg-i.

In Experiment 3, traction values due to species differences

were not significantly different. At peak traction

measurements of 40 degrees of rotation, tall fescue had the

highest traction with a value of 29.8 Nm, perennial ryegrass

had the least with a value of 28.6 Nm, and Kentucky bluegrass

was intermediate with a peak traction value of 29.1 Nm. The

magnitude of these differences is small. Middour (1992) found

statistical differences among species when measuring traction

rotationally although perennial ryegrass did not separate

from red fescue. Both perennial ryegrass and red fescue

showed lower rotational traction than Kentucky bluegrass and

tall fescue. While significant differences were not detected

in Experiment 3 the trends due to species were consistent.

In Experiment 4 linear traction values showed a similar

trend, with respect to species, to the results reported by

Middour (1992) and Experiment 2, although Kentucky bluegrass

was not significantly greater than perennial ryegrass in this

instance. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, species effects on

traction were confounded by other treatments and fewer

106

significant differences were found than Middour (1992)

reported.

Soil Water Content

Soil water content had a varying effect on traction over the

six experiments. In Experiment 1, the average post-irrigation

soil water content of 0.30 kg kg-1 resulted in significantly

higher traction values than the average pre-irrigation soil

water content of 0.21 kg kg-1. In Experiment 2, the traction

values obtained for post-irrigation treatments were not

significantly different from the pre-irrigation treatments

(average soil water contents were 0.33 and 0.18 kg kg-1,

respectively). In experiment 6, the combined experiment

analysis showed that the pre-precipitation treatment produced

higher traction values than the post-precipitation treatment.

Soil water contents averaged '0.17 for the post-precipitation

treatment and 0.13 kg kg-1 for the pre-precipitation

treatment, on this sandy soil. Soil water contents were

measured in Experiments 3, 4, and 5 but were not a treatment.

There was no significant correlation between traction values

and soil water content in Experiment 3. In Experiment 4,

traction values obtained from individual shoes did positively

correlate with soil water contents; however, this result was

confounded by varying water contents among species and is

addressed in the section entitled Species and Soil Water

Content Interaction. Correlation coefficients could not be

107

calculated for Experiment 5 due to experimental design. A

further examination of the effect of soil water content on

traction is discussed in the sections entitled Species and

Soil Water Content Interaction and Shoe Type and Soil Water

Interaction.

Species and Soil Water Content Interaction

No significant statistical interaction between species and

irrigation treatments occurred in Experiment 2. Each species

in Experiment 2 had lower traction values 20 minutes after an

irrigation treatment consisting of 5 cm of water. At 4.4 cm

of linear travel, Kentucky bluegrass traction dropped 43 N

after irrigation was applied, tall fescue dropped 122 N,

perennial ryegrass dropped 120 N, and red fescue dropped 102

N. While the interaction was not statistically significant in

this experiment, Kentucky bluegrass appeared to be less

affected by high soil water conditions than the other

species. Species other than Kentucky bluegrass had a

significant negative correlation with soil water (red fescue,

r = -0.96, perennial ryegrass, r = -0.91, tall fescue, r =-0.93) while Kentucky bluegrass (r = -0.76) did not have a

significant correlation with soil water.

It may be that the rhizomonous growth habit of Kentucky

bluegrass enables it to provide higher traction values under

high soil water condition where soil strength decreases and

108

the morphological characteristics of the grass become more

important. Kentucky bluegrass had significantly more below-

ground biomass than the other species. However, below-ground

biomass alone cannot explain this trend with Kentucky

bluegrass because there was a low correlation between

traction and below-ground biomass. More likely this result is

due to a combination of effects due to both plant and soil

interactions. More work needs to be done on plant

morphological characteristics and their effect on traction

under various soil water contents and soil textural classes.

Verdure Wetness

Experiment 3 was designed to investigate the effects of

moisture on verdure with respect to traction. No significant

traction differences were found between dry and wet verdure

at peak traction values of 40 degrees of rotation; however,

dry verdure had consistently higher traction values under

both loading weights. Due to statistical design, traction

differences due to verdure wetness were tested with an error

term that has only two degrees of freedom. This experiment

should be repeated using a different experimental design. It

can be theorized that dew or gutation water has little effect

on traction until it becomes dislodged and wets the soil

surface. The act of placing a studded foot on the turf can

dislodge the water.

109

Shoe Type

Experiment 4 was designed to compare traction values obtained

using the two shoe types described previously, across species

and cutting heights. The studded shoe had consistently

higher, but not statistically significant, linear traction

values when averaged across species and cutting heights than

did the molded shoe. Traction differences due to shoe types

were tested with an error term that has only 2 degrees of

freedom. The magnitude of difference between peak traction

values obtained with the different shoes was 148 N and is

considered large when compared to other differences that have

been found to be statistically different by this and other

researchers. Significant shoe by species interaction

(discussed later) did show significant shoe differences with

three of the four turfgrass species. It can be assumed that

by using a different statistical design these shoe types

would yield statistically different traction values.

In Experiment 5 there was virtually no difference between the

peak traction values obtained with the molded and studded

shoes when averaged over all loading weights. Although the

difference was not significant, the studded shoe gave

slightly greater traction than the molded shoe at peak

traction values occurring at 4.4 cm of travel for only the

116 kg loading weight. Lighter loading weights of 88 and 59.9

kg showed the molded shoe to 'have higher traction than the

110studded shoe. Why this particular stand of bluegrass yielded

results in which there was little difference between linear

traction values using the different shoes is not clear. The

soil water contents in Experiment 5 averaged approximately

0.24 kg kg-1 for plots on which linear traction was measured

as compared to an average of 0.19 kg kg-1 for Experiment 4.

More soil water in Experiment 5 may have allowed greater

cleat penetration than in Experiment 4; however, cleat

penetration was not determined and differences due to

penetration is only speculation. Kentucky bluegrass tiller

densities were not appreciably different with averages of 168

tillers per plug in Experiment 4 and 167.6 tillers per plug

in Experiment 5. The 'Kentucky bluegrass plots' in Experiment

5 did have a small amount of thatch present, while the

'species plots' had virtually no thatch. The effects of

various levels of thatch have not been investigated; however,

it is possible that thatch would prevent or lessen stud

penetration into the soil. Also it is conceivable that

differences in stand age or degree of wear on a species could

alter its responsiveness to a given shoe type.

In Experiment G.b, rotational traction values obtained with

the molded shoe were significantly higher than those obtained

with the studded shoe at each 10 degree increment of

rotation.

111Shoe Type and Soil Water Content Interaction

Experiment 1 and 2 included similar irrigation treatmentswith the exception that linear traction measurements weremade 20 hours after irrigation was applied in Experiment 1 asopposed to 20 minutes after irrigation was applied inExperiment 2. Experiment 6 was conducted on a sand-modifiedsoil with rotational traction measurements taken before and

immediately after a rainfall.

In Experiment 1, traction values due to irrigation treatmentswere statistically different at 4.4 and 5.1 cm of lineartravel, with the post-irrigation treatment having highertraction values than the pre-irrigation treatment. Althoughnot statistically significant, post-irrigation traction waslower than pre-irrigation traction in Experiment 2 by thesame magnitude difference as in Experiment 1 (114 and 115 Nmrespectively). Experiment 1 and 2 were conducted on differentplot areas, but both were a Hagerstown silt loam soil (seeMaterial and Methods). A loading weight of 102 kg was used inboth Experiment 1 and 2, whereas a 116 kg loading weight wasused in Experiment 6. The molded shoe was used in Experiment1 and 6, whereas the studded shoe was used in Experiment 2.

In practice, the molded shoe is used by athletes on dry soilsand the studded shoe is used when there is more soil waterpresent. The molded shoe has 18 triangular studs (12 rom long)

112

around the perimeter of the sole and 35 smaller studs (9 rom

long) in the center. The studded shoe contains 12 cylindrical

studs, each 12 rom long and 11 rom in diameter. The molded shoe

used in Experiment 1 has more stud surface area than the

studded shoe. Gravimetric soil water values for Experiment 1

averaged 0.21 kg kg-1 pre-irrigation and 0.30 kg kg-1 post-

irrigation. Soil water correlated significantly (r = 0.71)

with traction values when compared across all treatments in

Experiment 1. The increase in traction 20 hours after the

irrigation treatment may be due to increased stud penetration

of the molded shoe. In Experiment 6, significantly lower

traction was obtained on the sandy soil post-precipitation

using the molded shoe. Experiment 6 differed from Experiment

1 in that a heavier loading weight was used to measure

rotational rather than linear traction. Traction values did

not correlate significantly with soil water values in

Experiments 6. A study in which varying water content, shoe

type, soil textural class, and measurement type (rotational

or linear) should be conducted and stud penetration into the

soil should be measured.

In Experiment 3, rotational traction values did not

significantly correlate with soil water content values. Soil

water was not a treatment in Experiment 3 and as a result the

range of soil water values was small, ranging from 0.20 to

0.24 for Kentucky bluegrass, 0.22 to 0.29 for tall fescue and

0.21 to 0.28 for perennial ryegrass.

113

In Experiment 4 there was no significant correlation between

traction on individual species and soil water content.

Individual shoe types did significantly correlate with soil

water content when considered across all treatments. This

result is confounded by varying water contents across

species. Tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass had average soil

water contents of 0.21 and 0.19 kg kg-i and have been shown to

have higher traction values than perennial ryegrass and red

fescue which had average soil water contents of 0.17 and 0.14

kg kg-i, respectively. It is interesting to note that the

molded shoe was significantly correlated to soil water

content at the 0.01 level (r = 0.88) while the studded shoe

was significant at only the 0.05 level (r = 0.62) and that

traction values obtained with the studded shoe were

significantly correlated with below-ground vegetation (r =0.62) while those obtained with the molded shoe were not (r =0.27). Although soil water contents may have had a greater

effect on the studded shoes' ability to penetrate into the

soil versus the higher stud surface area molded shoe, without

measuring stud penetration this can only be speculated.

Taking all six experiments into consideration it can be said

that although soil water extremes do affect traction, soil

water alone cannot describe varying traction results. In

these studies, it appears that soil water differences not

114

resulting from soil water treatments were confounded with

cutting height and species, which also affect traction.

Conclusions about soil water's effect on traction cannot be

made when data are collected from plots where soil water is

not a treatment or a significant range of soil water levels

does not exist. Since Experiment 2 represents the only

traction measurements taken on plot areas where soil water

was approaching saturation, the possibility that under these

conditions Kentucky bluegrass yielded higher traction values

than other species, possibly due to its rhizomonous

morphology, deserves more study.

The influence of more and varied soil types and soil water

contents on traction needs to be investigated. Also, soil

strength parameters such as the plastic and liquid limits,

should be compared to traction values.

Shoe Type and Species Interactions

A statistically significant shoe by species interaction

occurred in Experiment 4. All linear traction values obtained

on a species with the molded shoe were less than on the same

species with the studded shoe, but this difference was not

significant on the tall fescue stand. At peak traction, the

magnitude of change was much less with tall fescue (29 N)

than with the other species (Kentucky bluegrass - 147 N,

115

perennial ryegrass - 134 N, red fescue - 182 N). The reason

tall fescue maintained higher traction values with the molded

shoe are not apparent. Tall fescue did have the highest soil

water content average when compared to other species, thus

allowing more stud penetration than other species. The strong

bunch-type growth habit of tall fescue may interact with the

molded shoe differently than the way other species interact.

More work is required to explain why species differences

occurred with the molded shoe but not with the studded shoe,

and why tall fescue was unaffected by shoe type.

Shoe Type and Traction Measurement Type Interaction

When measuring traction rotationally in Experiment 5 and 6,

the molded shoe resulted in significantly higher traction at

all incremental degrees of rotation. Thus, under the

conditions of these experiments it can be concluded that when

using PENNFOOT rotationally the molded shoe yields higher

traction values than the studded shoe. When using PENNFOOT

linearly a more mixed picture emerges. In Experiment 4

traction with the studded shoe was consistently higher than

with the molded shoe on three of the four species. In

Experiment 5, however, there was little difference in

traction values obtained with different shoes on Kentucky

bluegrass. Before a standard method of measuring traction on

natural turf is established, more work needs to be done to

establish a standard loading weight and shoe type as well as

116

whether rotational or linear traction should be measured. The

range of traction values obtained when using different shoe

types was greatest when PENNFOOT was used rotationally. When

PENNFOOT was used linearly a greater range of traction values

was obtained from varying turfgrass conditions including

species and cutting heights. Perhaps a standard traction test

method should include more than one loading weight and one

shoe, as well as both rotational and linear measurements.

Vegetative Characteristics

The mowing height treatments in Experiments 2, 3, and 4

affect the vegetative characteristics of the turfgrass plots.

Within the mowing height tolerance for a given species a

lower cutting height results in increased tiller (shoot)

density per unit area, reduction in depth and total quantity

of roots produced, decreased rhizome production, and

decreased transpiration rate (Beard, 1973).

Cutting Height

Differences in traction values due to varying turfgrass

cutting heights were detected when PENNFOOT was measuring

traction linearly in Experiments 1, 2, and 4. Lower cutting

heights resulted in higher traction values regardless of

other treatments. When measuring traction rotationally in

Experiment 3, the same trend of lower cutting heights

117resulting in higher traction values was evident. The

magnitude of the differences was smaller than those found

when measuring traction linearly and differences were

statistically non-significant. These results are consistent

with those of Middour (1992),'who found that traction

differences resulting from varying cutting heights could be

detected when using PENNFOOT linearly but not when it is used

rotationally. The bulk of this work found these conclusions

to be consistent over several years and under a range of

conditions on different plots.

Verdure

In Experiment 1, it was hypothesized that the mass of verdure

between the sole of the shoe and the soil prevents the studs

from penetrating into the soil and thus higher cutting

heights result in lower traction values. Significant

differences in traction values due to varying cutting heights

did occur; however, when verdure was removed just prior to

traction being measured no difference in traction, due to

verdure, was detected. These results suggest that the amount

of verdure, in the range measured, has little effect on

traction.

118

Tiller Density

Numerous researchers (Baker and Canaway, 1991, Baker and

Isaac, 1987, Bell and Holmes, 1988, Canaway, 1983, Holmes and

Bell, 1986, Rogers et al., 1988, Rogers and Waddington, 1989,

Shildrick and Peel, 1984; Winterbottom, 1985) have reported

an increase in traction values as turfgrass cover increases.

In Experiment 1, soil with turfgrass had significantly higher

traction than bare soil.

Shildrick and Peel (1984) attributed increased traction

values to an increase in tiller density. In Experiment 1,

tiller density of tall fescue correlated positively with

linear traction values both before (r = 0.87) and after (r =0.93) irrigation treatments. In Experiments 2 and 3, which

were conducted on the 'species plots', traction values did

not correlate significantly with tiller density under any

condition.

In Experiment 4, individual shoe types negatively correlated

with tiller density when compared across species. This result

is confounded by tiller densities among species. Red fescue

and perennial ryegrass have had consistently higher tiller

densities and lower traction than Kentucky bluegrass and tall

fescue. Shildrick and Peel (1984) describe a method for

comparing tiller size and density to traction. Tiller density

and traction comparisons are most useful when made within a

119

species since morphological differences, such as tiller size,

are not accounted for when comparing tiller counts across

species.

Experiment 6 was conducted on plots in which mowing height

was not a treatment and the range of tiller densities was

small. Traction values did not significantly correlate with

tiller density.

The range of tiller densities between the 'tall fescue' plots

in Experiment 1 and the 'species plots' in Experiments 2, 3,

and 4 was slightly greater in the 'tall fescue' plots. The

lower cutting height plots had the higher tiller densities.

Since results with PENNFOOT have consistently shown lower

cutting height to have the higher traction there should be a

relationship, whether direct or indirect, between tiller

density and traction values in experiments conducted on the

'species plots'. The fact that none existed could be due to

the relative youth and less consistent stand characteristics

of the 'species plots'. In Experiment 1, because of design,

each replication had two tall fescue plots mowed at a

particular height, effectively doubling the number of points

used in the correlation.

120

Below-ground Biomass

No significant correlation existed between traction values

and below-ground vegetation or verdure in Experiments 2 and

3. In Experiment 1, below-ground vegetation correlated (r =-0.88) with linear traction values obtained after irrigation

was applied, and over all treatments (r = -0.66). The higher

cutting heights plots had more below-ground vegetation (Table

30), thus these results are confounded by cutting height

treatments and it becomes difficult to discern the effect of

each. Most likely it is a dynamic relationship in which

below-ground vegetation becomes increasingly important as

soil water content moves towards saturation allowing

increased stud penetration. Below-ground vegetation

correlated positively (r = 0.62) with traction when using the

studded shoe, but had low correlation (r = 0.27) with

traction when using the molded shoe (Table 13). These results

support the supposition that under certain conditions the

lower stud surface area studded shoe will penetrate deeper

into the surface than the molded shoe and allow below-ground

vegetation to affect traction values to a greater degree.

Vegetative characteristics of turfgrass and their

relationship to traction values obtained using PENNFOOT are

inconclusive, with the exception of verdure effects. The

effects of verdure were directly investigated in Experiment 1

and found to have little effect on traction values. In future

121

experiments, vegetative characteristics should be better

controlled so their individual effects can be discerned.

Traction values should be obtained from turfgrass stands

exposed to various levels of wear. Under these conditions a

wider range of vegetative characteristics may occur and any

differences in traction values would be more appropriate when

compared to actual athletic fields.

122

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This thesis includes a review of methods developed to measure

traction of natural turfgrass surfaces, a review of the

relevancy of these methods to the actual athlete to shoe to

surface interaction, and a review of turfgrass vegetative and

soil conditions that affect traction.

An apparatus (PENNFOOT) was developed at The Pennsylvania

State University to measure traction. PENNFOOT is a device

that more closely meets the requirements for valid traction

evaluation set forth by Nigg (1990). This device has the

advantage of measuring traction both rotationally and

linearly, accommodating various athletic footwear, and using

loading weights similar to those exerted by athletes. The

device is portable and measurements can be made in situ.

In order to more fully test PENNFOOT over a wider range of

conditions and to evaluate the turfgrass and soil

characteristics that affect traction values obtained with

this device, more research was required.

PENNFOOT was used in six experiments to determine the effects

of various factors on traction. These factors included

turfgrass species (Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue, perennial

ryegrass, red fescue), cutting heights (ranging from 2.3 to

7.6 cm), verdure (present or removed), soil water contents

123

(averaging from 0.20 to 0.30 kg kg-1 and 0.18 to 0.34 kg kg-1

on silt loam soils and 0.13 to 0.17 kg kg-1 on a sandy loam

soil), loading weights (ranging from 47.6 to 116 kg), and

shoe types (molded and studded sole) .

Species differences were detected with the molded shoe but

not the studded shoe. In general, traction on species

followed the order tall fescue ~ Kentucky bluegrass >

perennial ryegrass ~ red fescue. Shoe type did not

significantly affect traction on tall fescue, but with the

other species traction was greater with the studded shoe.

Linear traction was usually higher with lower cutting

heights. Rotational traction was not significantly influenced

by cutting height, but a trend for greater traction with

lower cutting height was present. Removal of verdure on tall

fescue maintained at three cutting heights did not influence

traction. Soil water content affected traction, but the

effect was not consistent across experiments, apparently due

to differences such as range of soil water contents, and type

of traction measurements used. Traction increased with

increasing loading weight.

Although traction on natural surfaces was affected by turf

species, cutting height, soil water content, and shoe type,

it is difficult to generalize about these effects due to

interactions among these factors and the influence of other

factors not measured.

124

This research has raised questions that should be addressed

in future research. For example, why did a shoe by species

interaction exist, how does varying soil water content

interact with soil texture to affect traction, and what

relationship exists among compaction, turfgrass cover, and

traction? The depth of stud penetration into the turf could

explain some differences in traction, but it was not

measured. This factor should be taken into consideration in

future work.

Under the conditions of these experiments, it appears that

recording peak values, rather than the entire curve, would be

sufficient to assess the effects of the various treatments.

In this and previous experiments the peak traction values

generally occurred at 30 or 40 degrees rotation and at 3.8 or

4.4 cm of linear travel. However, in future work on areas

having somewhat different surface characteristics, the

incremental values should be observed to determine

similarities or differences in values throughout the entire

range of motion.

A much more extensive data base is needed to provide

guidelines for maximum playability and to predict the

influence of management practices on traction. Within this

data base an evaluation of human performance as it relates to

traction measurements should be included.

125Bibliography

Adams, W.A., C. Tanavud and C.T. Springsguth. 1985. Factorsinfluencing the stability of sports turf rootzones. In:

Proc. 5th Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf., Avignon, France(Ed. F. Lemaire), INRA, Paris, p. 391-399.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1990. Annual Bookof ASTM Standards-Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;Geosynthetics. Standard test method for moisture, ash,and organic matter of peat and other organic soils. D2974-87. American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, PA.Baker, S.W. 1989. Technical Note: A standardized sole for

evaluating the' traction and sliding resistanceproperties of artificial turf. J. Sports Turf Res.

Inst. 65:168-170.Baker, S.W. 1991. Temporal variation of selected mechanical

properties of natural turf football pitches. J. Sports

Turf Res. Inst. 67:83-92.Baker, S.W. and M.J. Bell. 1986. Playing Characteristics of

Natural and Synthetic Turf. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.

62:9-36.Baker, S.W. and P.M. Canaway. 1991. The cost-effectiveness of

different construction methods for Association Footballpitches. II. Ground cover, playing quality and costimplications. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 67:53-65.

126Baker, S.W. and P.M. Canaway. 1993. Concepts of playing

quality: Criteria and Measurement. Int. Turfgrass Soc.Res. J. 7:172-181.

Baker, S.W. and S.P. Isaac. 1987. The effect of rootzonecomposition on the performance of winter games pitches.II. Playing quality. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 63:67-

81.

Beard, J.B. 1973. Turfgrass science and culture. prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Bell, M.J. and G. Holmes. 1988. The playing quality of sportsof association football pitches. J. Sports Turf Res.

Inst. 64:19-48.Bonstingl, R.W., C.A. Morehouse, and B. Niebel. 1975. Torques

developed by different types of shoes on variousplaying surfaces. Med. Sci. Sports and Exerc. 7:127-

131.Bramwell, S.T., R.K. Requa, and J.G. Garrick. 1972. High

school football injuries: A pilot comparison of playing

surfaces. Med. and Sci. in Sports. 4:166-169.Canaway, P.M. 1975. Fundamental techniques in the study of

turfgrass wear: an advanced report on research. J.

Sports Turf Res. Inst. 51:104-115.Canaway, P.M. 1978. Studies on turfgrass abrasion. J. Sports

Turf Res. Inst. 54:107-120.

127Canaway, P.M. 1983. The effect of rootzone construction on

the wear tolerance and playablity of eight turfgrassspecies subject to football type wear. J. Sports Turf

Res. Inst. 60:27-36.Canaway, P.M., 1985. The response of renovated turf of Lolium

perenne (perennial ryegrass) to fertilizer nitrogenIII. Ball Bounce resilience and traction. J. Sports

Turf Res. Inst. 61:104-110.Canaway, P.M. and S.W. Baker. 1993. Soil and turf properties

governing playing quality. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J.

7:192-200.Canaway, P.M. and M.J. Bell. 1986. Technical note: an

apparatus for measuring traction and friction onnatural and artificial playing surfaces. J. Sports Turf

Res. Inst. 62:211-214.Canaway, P.M., and J.W. Hacker. 1988. The response of Lolium

perenne L. grown on a pruty - mulqueen sand carpetrootzone to fertiliser nitrogen II. Playing quality. J.

Sports Turf Res. Inst. 64:75-86.Giancoli, D.C., 1985. Physics. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Gibbs, R.J., W.A. Adams and S.W. Baker. 1989. Factors

affecting the surface stability of a sand rootzone. In:Proc. 6th Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf,. Tokyo, Japan (Ed.

H. Takotoh), p. 189-191.Gramckow, J. 1968. Athletic field quality studies. Cal-Turf

Inc. Camarillo Ca. 48 p.

128Harper, J.C., C.A. Morehouse, D.V. Waddington, and W.E.

Buckley. 1984. Turf management, athletic-fieldconditions, and injuries in high school football.Pennsylvania Agri. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 384. 9 pp.

Henderson, R.L. 1986. Impact absorption characteristics andother properties of turf and soil surfaces. M.Agr.

Paper. University Park, PA 16802.Holmes, G. and M.J. Bell. 1986. A pilot study of the playing

quality of football pitches. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.

62:74-91.Holmes, G. and M.J. Bell. 1987. Standards of playing quality

for natural turf. The Sports Turf Research Institute.

Bingley, West Yorkshire.Lush, W.M., and P.R. Franz. 1991. Estimating turf biomass,

tiller density, and species composition by coring.

Agron. J. 83:800-803.Middour, R.O. 1992. Development and evaluation of a method to

measure traction on turfgrass surfaces. M.S. Thesis.Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.

Nigg, B.M. 1990. The validity and relevance of tests used forthe assessment of sports surfaces. Med. Sci. in Sports

Exerc. 22:131-139.Powell, J.W. and M. Schootman. 1992.'A multivariate risk

analysis of selected playing surfaces in the NationalFootball League: 1980 to 1989. Am. J. Sports Med.

20:686-694.

129Powell, J.W. and M. Schootman. 1993. A multivariate risk

analysis of natural grass and AstroTurf playingsurfaces in the National Football League. Int.Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 7:201-221.

Richards, C.W. and S.W. Baker. 1992. Technical note. Theeffect of sward height on ball roll properties forAssociation Football. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 68:124-

127.Rogers III, J.N., and D.V. Waddington. 1989. The effect of

cutting height and verdure on impact absorption andtraction characteristics in tall fescue turf. J. Sports

Turf Res. Inst. 65:80-90.Rogers III, J.N., and D.V. Waddington. 1990. Effects of

management practices on impact absorption and shearresistance in natural turf. p. 136-146. In R.C. Schmidtet al. (ed.) Natural and artificial playing fields:characteristics and safety features. ASTM STP 1073.

ASTM, philadelphia, PA,Rogers, J.M., D.V. Waddington and J.C. Harper. 1988.

Relationships between athletic field hardness andtraction, vegetation, soil properties, and maintenance

practices. Progress Report 393. The Penna. St. Univ.,College of Agri., Exp. Station., Univ. Park, PA. 15 pp.

Shildrick, J.P. and C.H. Peel. 1984. Shoot numbers, biomassand shear strength in smooth-stalked meadow-grass (poa

Pratensis). J. Sports Turf Res. Inst .. 60:66-72.

130Stanitske, C.L,. McMaster, J.H. and Ferguson, R.J.

(1974) .Synthetic turf and grass - a comparative study.J. Sports Medicine 2, I, 22-26.

Torg, J.S. and T.C. Quedenfeld. 1973. Knee and ankle injuriestraced to shoes and cleats. Physician Sports Med. 1:39-

43.

Torg, J.S. and T.C. Quendenfeld and S. Landau .. 1974. Theshoe-surface interface and its relationship to footballknee injuries. J. Sports Med. 2:261-269.

Waddington, D.V., T.L. Zimmerman, G.J. Shoop, L.T. Kardos andJ.M. Duich. 1974. Soil modification for turfgrassareas. I. Physical properties of physically amendedsoils. Pennsylvania Agri. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 337.

Winterbottom, W. 1985. Artificial grass surfaces forAssociation Football, Sports Council, London, 127 pp.

Zebarth, B.J. and R.W. Sheard. 1985. Impact and shearresistance of turfgrass racing surfaces forthoroughbreds. Am. J. Vet. Res. 46(4) :778-784.

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

131

...;..,~:....

:;(~{)~~${~~r.iii::'

Fig. 19. PENNFOOT traction measuring device.

132

133

Fig. 20. Studded and Molded shoes used with PENNFOOTtraction measuring device.

Table 26. Mean traction values for the designated variable in Experiment 1.

Variable 1.3 1.9 2.5ernof travel

3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

Treatment2.3 ern2.3 em*5.1 ern5.1 em*7.6 ern7.6 em*

Bare soillsd (0.05)

----------------------------------- N ------------------------------------1022 1219 1382 1496 1601 1609 16151027 1222 1374 1478 1569 1583 15891004 1202 1324 1417 1511 1537 15431030 1214 1345 1435 1522 1516 15131016 1176 1292 1365 1435 1458 14671007 1199 1342 1412 1487 1493 1490978 1065 1132 1131 1118 1100 1091NS 63 55 66 65 76 72

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Soil water

-------------------------------- N ---------------------------------

pre- 1007 1180 1306 1369 1428 1424 1415irrigation

post- 1017 1191 1321 1412 1498 1518 1530irrigationlsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS 62 35

*verdure removed

Table 27. Gravimetric water content for each pre- and post-irrigationtreatment plot in Experiment 1.

Treatment----- Replications -----

Cutting height Verdure I II III Average

cm ------- kg H20/ kg dry soil --------

Pre-irriaation2.3 present .21 .26 .27 .255.1 present .15 .24 .27 .227.6 present .18 .22 .23 .212.3 absent .24 .29 .28 .275.1 absent .21 .23 .24 .237.6 absent .18 .19 .21 .19

Bare soil .10 .10 .10 .10

Post-irriaation2.3 present .30 .34 .32 .325.1 present .28 .34 .35 .327.6 present .30 .33 .36 .332.3 absent .32 .36 .36 .355.1 absent .28 .34 .34 .327.6 absent .32 .28 .33 .31

Bare soil .17 .20 .14 .17

-IN\.1'1

Table 28. Mean linear traction values for treatment x soil water for Experiment 1.

----------------------- em of travel -----------------------Cutting Verdure Irrigation 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1height

(em) ---------------------------- N -----------------------------2.3 present pre 1019 1222 1374 1484 1566 1560 15482.3 absent pre 1036 1217 1385 1461 1537 1531 15312.3 present post 1024 1217 1391 1508 1636 1659 16822.3 absent post 1019 1228 1362 1496 1601 1636 16475.1 present pre 984 1176 1298 1368 1455 1478 14615.1 absent pre 1013 1199 1327 1403 1484 1473 14495.1' present post 1024 1228 1350 1467 1566 1595 16245.1 absent post 1048 1228 1362 1467 1560 1560 15777.6 present pre 1019 1176 1281 1339 1391 1409 14147.6 absent pre 1009 1199 1350 1409 1461 1438 14207.6 present post 1013 1176 1304 1391 1478 1508 15197.6 absent post 995 1199 1333 1414 1513 1548 1560

Bare soil pre 960 1071 1123 1118 1100 1048 1083Bare soil post 995 1059 1141 1144 1135 1118 1100lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

137

Table 29. Mean weight of verdure, below-ground vegetation,and tiller counts per sample plug for eachtreatment plot in Experiment 1.

Treatment Replications --Cutting height Verdure I II III Average

cm ------ g/81 cm2 plug ------

Verdure

2.3 present 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.15.1 present 3.3 3.3 2.4 3.07.6 present 3.7 3.1 2.8 3.22.3 absent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05.1 absent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07.6 absent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bare soil 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Below-aroundveaetation

------ g/81 cm2 plug ------

2.3 present 3.2 4.1 5.1 4.15.1 present 3.7 4.4 4.7 4.37.6 present 4.8 4.2 5.5 4.82.3 absent 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.05.1 absent 4.1 4.9 4.2 4.47.6 absent 3.8 5.7 5.6 5.0

Bare soil 0 0 0 0.0

Table 30. Mean traction values for the designated variable obtainedfrom Experiment 2.

1.3 1.9 2.5 em of travel ----------------------3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesKy. bluegrassTall fescuePro ryegrassRed fescuelsd .(0.05)

---------------------------- N1277 1410 1486 15481237 1367 1450 15171223 1336 1415 14461210 1312 1377 143529 71 71 86

1604157614661478

90

162815991478148492

1622160314821477101

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cutting Height3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em

lsd (0.05)

124712291234NS

13761350134331

14551425141531

15061480147428

15531525151533

157315411528

36

15681543152723-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Irrigation

pre- 1297 1403 1483 1543 1588 1595 1584irrigation

post- 1176 1309 1381 1430 1474 1499 1508irrigationlsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 31. Mean gravimetric soil water values before and after irrigation treatmentfor blocks, species, and cutting heights for Experiment 2.

Blocks123

lsd (0.05)

SpeciesKy. bluegrassTall fescuePro ryegrassRed fescueIsd (0.05)

Cutting height3.8 cm5.1 cm6.4 cm

Isd (0.05)

Pre-irrigation

0.170.180.18. NS

0.190.210.170.14

0.016

0.170.180.18NS

Soil water

kg / kgPost-irrigation

0.310.370.33

0.019

0.340.360.330.31

0.022

0.340.330.33NS

Table 32. Mean traction values for the species x irrigation treatment obtainedfrom Experiment 2.

1.3 1.9 2.5cm of travel --------------------

3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassTall fescueTall fescuePro ryegrassPro ryegrassRed fescueRed fescueIsd (0.05)

Irrigationprepostprepostprepostprepost

------------------------- N -------------------------1339 1467 1541 1597 1643 1650 16331215 1352 1432 1500 1563 1607 16111283 1405 1495 1576 1640 1660 16471191 1329 1405 .1458 1513 1538 15581298 1380 1447 1510 1535 1538 15271122 1244 1306 1360 1397 1418 14261269 1362 1450 1492 1535 1535 15281178 1310 1381 1401 1422 1433 1436NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

....~o

Table 33. Mean weight of below-ground vegetation per sample plug(81 cm2 by 2 cm depth) for each species x cutting heightplot in Experiments 2, 3, and 4.

----- Replications -----Species Cutting I II III Average

Heightcm -------------- g/plug -------------

Red fescue 3.8 5.0 5.4 5.2 5.2Red fescue 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3Red fescue 6.4 5.2 5.7 5.0 5.3

Ky. bluegrq.ss 3.8 7.5 8.3 8.9 8.2Ky. bluegrass 5.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.9Ky. bluegrass 6.4 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.1

Pro ryegrass 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.8 3.5Pro ryegrass 5.1 4.3 2.8 3.7 3.6Pro ryegrass 6.4 3.5 3.8 3.3 3.5

Tall fescue 3.8 4.9 5.4 4.6 5.0Tall fescue 5.1 5.7 5.3 4.8 5.3Tall fescue 6.4 6.2 7.0 5.4 6.2

Isd (0.05) 1.23

....~....

Table 34. Mean traction values for cutting height x irrigationfor Experiment 2.

Cuttingheight

3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em

Isd (0.05)

Irrigation

prepreprepostpostpost

---------------- em of travel ----------------1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

--------------------- N -----------------------1316 1426 1509 1564 1612 1623 16091288 1397 1480 1538 1588 1596 15891288 1387 1460 1528 1564 1567 15541179 1326 1401 1448 1494 1524 15271170 1302 1371 1422 1462 1486 14961180 1298 1371 1420 1465 1489 1500

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 35. Mean traction values for species x cutting height obtainedfrom Experiment 2.

1.3 1.9 2.5 cm of travel --------------------3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassTall fescue

.Tall fescueTall fescuePro ryegrassPro ryegrassPro ryegrassRed fescueRed fescueRed fescuelsd (0.05)

CuttingHeight3.8 em5.1 cm6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 cm5.1 cm6.4 cm

NS

------------------------- N -------------------------1292 1426 1510 1577 1636 1653 16411266 1397 1478 1537 1593 1621 16251272 1405 1470 1531 1583 1609 16011234 1380 1458 1526 1593 1625 16251231 136& 1461 1516 1586 1609 16091246 1354 1429 1510 1551 1563 15741225 1345 1415 1464 1496 1507 14931196 1295 1353 1424 1450 1461 14641208 1295 1362 1418 1453 1467 14721237 1353 1438 1458 1491 1507 15131222 1339 1408 1443 1472 1472 14721211 1316 1400 1438 1471 1472 1461NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 36. Mean weiqht of verdure per sample plug (81 em2) for eachspecies x cuttinq heiqht plot in Experiments 2, 3, and 4.

Replications -----Species Cuttinq T II III Averaqe...

heiQhtem ------------- q/plug--------------

Red fescue 3.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.4Red fescue 5.1 3.t 3.2 2.9 3.2Red fescue 6.4 4.4 3.4 3.3 3.7

Ky. bluegrass 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8Ky. bluegrass S.l 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.3Ky. bluegrass 6.4 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9


Tall fescue 3.8 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8Tall fescue S.l 3.4 2.9 2.9 3.1Tall fescue 6.4 3.6 3.7 3.0 3.4

....

Table 37. Mean number of tillers per plug (81 cm2) for eachspecies x cutting height plot in Experiments 2, 3, and 4.

----- Replications ----Species Cutting I II III Average

heightcm ------------ no./plug ------------

Red fescue 3.8 217 153 226 199Red fescue 5.1 257 217 213 229Red fescue 6.4 183 205 186 191

Ky. bluegrass 3.8 193 183 lS9 188Ky. bluegrass 5.1 178 162 175 171Ky. bluegrass 6.4 144 149 145 146

Pro ryegrass 3.8 235 243 229 236Pro ryegrass 5.1 248 187 198 211Pro ryegrass 6.4 165 164 163 164

Tall fescue 3.8 111 148 123 127Tall fescue 5.1 120 99 103 107Tall fescue 6.4 92 100 91 94

-~\JI

Table 38. Mean traction values for the designated variablesobtained from rotational measurements in Experiment 3using a 102 kg. loading weight.

Variable

Species

-------- degrees of rotation ---------10 20 30 40

----------------- Nm -----------------Tall fescue

Ky. bluegrassPro ryegrass

lsd (0.05)

22.722.222.0NS

26.726.125.8NS

29.428.728.4NS

29.829.128.6NS

--------------------------------------------------------------Cutting height

2.3 em 22.6 26.5 29.2 29.45.1 em 22.1 26.0 28.7 29.17.6 em 22.2 26.0 28.6 29.0

lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS

--------------------------------------------------------------Verdure wetness

Dry verdureWet verdurelsd (0.05)

22.522.1NS

26.326.1NS

29.428.2NS

29.928.5NS

Table 39. Mean traction values for the designated variablesobtained from rotational measurements in Experiment 3using a 47.6 kg loading weight.

Variable -------- degrees of rotation ---------10 20 30 40

----------------- Nm -----------------Species

Tall fescueKy. bluegrassPro ryegrass

lsd (0.05)

12.512.211.8NS

14.714.313.7NS

16.015.514.9NS

16.115.715.3NS

Cutting height

2.3 cm 12.2 14.2 15.3 15.65.1 cm 12.1 14.3 15.6 15.87.6 cm 12.3 14.2 15.4 15.7


Verdure wetness

Dry verdureWet verdurelsd (0.05)

12.312.1NS

14.514.0NS

15.815.1NS

16.215.3NS

Table 40. Mean rotational traction values for grass species x verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 102 kg.

Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------Species wetness 10 20 30 40

----------------.Nm ---------------Tall fescue dry 22.8 26.7 29.9 30.3Tall fescue wet 22.7 26.6 28.9 29.3Ky. bluegrass dry 22.0 26.0 29.2 29.7Ky. bluegrass wet 22.4 26.1 28.3 28.6Pro ryegrass dry 22.6 26.1 29.3 29.6Pro ryegrass wet 21.3 25.5 27.6 27.6lsd (0.05) 1.4 NS NS NS

Table 41. Mean rotational traction values for grass species x Verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 47.6 kg.

Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------Species wetness 10 20 30 40

---------------- Nm ---------------Tall fescue dry 12.4 14.8 16.2 16.4Tall fescue wet 12.6 14.6 15.7 15.8Ky. bluegrass dry 12.4 14.7 16.0 16.3Ky. bluegrass wet 12.1 13.9 15.0 15.1Pro ryegrass dry 11.9 14.0 15.2 15.8Pro ryegrass wet 11. 8 13.4 14.6 14.9


Table 42. Mean rotational traction values for grass species x cuttingheight in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 102 kg.

Cutting - -- --- degrees of rotation-------Species height 10 20 30 40

--------------- Nm ----------------Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em 22.2 26.2 28.7 29.0Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em 22.0 25.9 28.8 29.4Ky. bluegrass 7.6 em 22.3 26.1 28.6 28.9Pro ryegrass 2.3 em 22.2 26.1 28.8 28.9Pro ryegrass 5.1 em 21.6 25.2 27.9 28.1Pro ryegrass 7.6 em 22.1 26.1 28.6 28.9Tall fescue 2.3 em 23.2 27.2 30.1 30.4Tall fescue 5.1 em 22.7 26.8 29.5 29.8Tall fescue 7.6 em 22.3 26.0 28.6 29.3lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

....VIo

Table 43. Mean rotational traction values for grass species x cuttingheight in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 47.6 kg.

Cutting ------ degrees of rotation-------Species height 10 20 30 40

--------------- Nm ----------------Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em 12.1 14.3 15.3 15.6Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em 12.2 14.3 15.7 15.9Ky. bluegrass 7.6 em 12.4 14.3 15.5 15~6Pro ryegrass 2.3 em 11.9 13.5 14.6 15.1Pro ryegrass 5.1 em 11.7 13.7 15.1 15.4Pro ryegrass 7.6 em 12.0 14.0 15.0 15.5Tall fescue 2.3 em 12.6 14.8 16.0 16.2Tall fescue 5.1 em 12.5 14.9 16.0 16.2Tall fescue 7.6 em 12.4 14.4 15.9 15.9lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

.....VI.....

Table 44. Mean rotational traction values for cutting height x verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 102 kg.

Cutting Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------height wetness 10 20 30 40

---------------- Nm ---------------2.3 em dry 22.6 26.7 30.0 30.22.3 em wet 22.5 26.3 28.4 28.65.1 em dry 22.2 25.9 29.2 29.75.1 em wet 22.0 26.0 28.3 28.57.6 em dry 22.5 26.2 29.1 29.77.6 em wet 21.9 25.9 28.1 28.4


~VIN

Table 45. Mean rotational traction values for cutting height x verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 47.6 kg.

Cutting Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------height wetness 10 20 30 40

---------------- Nm ---------------2.3 em dry 12.1 14.5 15.7 16.02.3 em wet 12.3 14.0 15.0 15.25.1 em dry 12.3 14.5 15.8 16.25.1 cm wet 12.0 14.2 15.3 15.47.6 em dry 12.4 14.7 15.9 16.27.6 cm wet 12.1 13.8 15.0 15.1


Table 46. Mean rotational traction values for species x cutting height x verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 102 kg.

Species CUtting Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------height wetness 10 20 30 40

--------------- Nm ----------------Tall fescue 2.3 cm dry 22.5 26.3 28.4 28.6Tall fescue 2.3 em wet 22.2 25.9 29.2 29.7Tall fescue 5.1 em dry 22.0 26.0 28.3 28.5Tall fescue 5.1 em wet 22.5 26.2 29.1 29.7-Tall fescue 7.6 em dry 21.9 25.9 28.1 28.4Tall fescue 7.6 em wet 22.2 26.2 28.3 29.0Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em dry 21.9 26.1 29.4 29.6Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em wet 22.5 26.3 28.1 28.4Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em dry 21.6 25.5 28.8 29.6Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em wet 22.4 26.4 28.9 29.2Ky. bluegrass 7.6 em dry 22.4 26.5 29.4 29.8Ky. bluegrass 7.6 em wet 22.2 25.6 27.8 28.1Pr. ryegrass 2.3 em dry 23.0 26.9 30.3 30.5Pr. ryegrass 2.3 em wet 21.5 25.2 27.2 27.2Pr. ryegrass 5.1 em dry 22.2 25.2 28.4 28.7Pro ryegrass 5.1 em wet 21.1 25.2 27.4 27.5Pr. ryegrass 7.6 em dry 22.8 26.2 29.1 29.7Pr. ryegrass 7.6 em wet 21.3 25.9 28.1 28.1


-U\$:-

Table 47. Mean rotational traction values for species x cutting height x verdurewetness in Experiment 3 using a loading weight of 47.6 kg.

Species Cutting Verdure ------ degrees of rotation-------height wetness 10 20 30 40

--------------- Nm ----------------Tall fescue 2.3 cm dry 12.3 14.7 16.0 16.2Tall fescue 2.3 cm wet 12.9 14.9 16.0 16.2Tall fescue 5.1 cm dry 12.1 14.5 15.9 16.3Tall fescue 5.1 cm wet 12.9 15.2 16.0 16.2Tall fescue 7.6 cm dry 12.9 15.2 16.7 16.7Tall fescue 7.6 em wet 12.0 13.7 15.0 15.1Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em dry 11. 9 14.7 16.2 16.5Ky. bluegrass 2.3 em wet 12.3 13.9 14.5 14.6Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em dry 12.7 14.9 16.2 16.4Ky. bluegrass 5.1 em wet 11.7 13.8 15.2 15.5Ky. bluegrass 7.6 cm dry 12.5 14.6 15.7 15.9Ky. bluegrass 7.6 em wet 12.3 13.9 15.3 15.3Pro ryegrass 2.3 em dry 12.0 13.9 14.9 15.4Pro ryegrass 2.3 em wet 11.7 13.1 14.4 14.7Pro ryegrass 5.1 em dry 11.9 14.0 15.4 16.0Pro ryegrass 5.1 em wet 11.6 13.4 14.7 14.9Pro ryegrass 7.6 em dry 11. 9 14.2 15.2 16.0Pro ryegrass 7.6 em wet 12.0 13.8 14.7 15.0

lsd (O.05) NS 1.15 NS NS

-VIVI

Table 48. Mean soil water for species x cutting height subplots in Experiment 3.

----- ReplicationsSpecies CUtting I II III Average

heightcm grams H20 per grams of dry soil --

Ky. bluegrass 3.8 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.22Ky. bluegrass 5.1 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.23Ky. bluegrass 6.4 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.22

Pro ryegrass 3.8 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.27Pro ry~rass 5.1 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.25Pro ryegrass 6.4 0.21 0.29 0.23 0.24


Table 49. Mean traction values for the designated variable obtainedfrom Experiment 4.

Variable 1.3 1.9 2.5em of travel

3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesTall fescue

Ky. bluegrassPr. ryegrassRed fescuel..d CO.05)

---------------------------- N ----------------------------1237 1389 1506 1576 1636 1644 16381256 1389 1464 1522 1573 1576 15621193 1304 1384 1446 1472 1472 14511185 1277 1340 1377 1400 1394 138067 79 107 137 147 147 140

CUtting height3.8 em 1238 1369 1458 1513 1551 1551 15295.1 em 1209 1332 1416 1481 1522 1524 15166.4 em 1206 1319 1386 1446 1487 1489 1478

lsd CO.05) NS NS 54 47 42 54 NS

Shoe type

Studded shoe 1297 1403 1485 1543 1588 1595 1584Molded shoe 1138 1276 1355 1417 1452 1447 1431lsd CO.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 50. Mean traction values for species x shoe type obtainedfrom Experiment 4.

------------------- em of travel1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesTall fescueTall fescueKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassPr. ryegrassPr. ryegrassRed fescueRed fescue

lsd (0.05)

Shoe typestuddedmoldedstuddedmoldedstuddedmoldedstuddedmolded

-------------------------N -------------------------1283 1405 1504 1576 1640 1659 16471191 1374 1480 1577 1632 1630 16281339 1467 1541 1597 1643 1649 16341174 1312 1387 1447 1502 1502 14901298 1380 1447 1510 1535 1539 15271088 1228 1321 1381 1409 1405 13761269 1362 1449 1492 1535 1535 15291100 1191 1230 1261 1265 1253 1230NS 114 118 113 117 139 149

Table 51. Mean traction values for species x cutting height obtainedfrom Experiment 4.

------------------ em of travel1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

SpeciesKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassKy. bluegrassTall fescueTall fescueTall fescuePro ryegrassPro ryegrassPro ryegrassRed fescueRed fescueRed fescueIsd (0.05)

Cuttingheight3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em

NS

------------------------- N -------------------------1272 1417 1499 1563 1618 1615 15921260 1385 1476 1531 1580 1583 15751237 1365 1417 1473 1519 1528 15191246 1417 1526 1598 1639 1650 1:6361228 1382 1490 1583 1659 1665 16621237 1368 1461 1548 1609 1618 16151222 1336 1435 1493 1522 1522 14811167 1289 1362 1429 1446 1449 14411190 1286 1356 1414 1446 1444 14321211 1304 1374 1400 1423 1417 14091182 1272 1336 1382 1403 1400 13851161 1254 1310 1348 1374 1365 1345NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

-V1\0

Table 52. Mean traction values for cutting height x shoe typefor Experiment 4.

Cuttingheight

3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em3.8 em5.1 em6.4 em

lsd (0.05)

Shoe type

moldedmoldedmoldedstuddedstuddedstudded

---------------- em of travel ----------------1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

---------------------- N ----------------------1160 1311 1400 1462 1489 1480 14491131 1267 1352 1425 1457 1452 14421125 1250 1313 1364 1410 1410 14011316 1426 1517 1564 1612 1623 16091288 1397 1480 1538 1588 1596 15891288 1387 1460 1528 1564 1567 1554NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

-0-o

Table 53. Mean rotational traction values for species x cutting height x shoe typefor Experiment 4.

Species Shoe CUtting ----------------- cm of travel ------------------type height 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

----------------------- N ------------------------Tall fescue molded 2.3 em 1199 1397 1513 1607 1624 1612 1595Tall fescue molded 5.1 em 1182 1362 1467 1589 1653 1647 1653Tall fescue molded 7.6 em 1193 1362 1461 1537 1618 1630 1636Tall fescue studded 2.3 em 1292 1438 1538 1589 1653 1688 1676Tall fescue studded 5.1 cm 1275 1403 1513 1577 1665 1682 1671Tall fescue studded 7.6 em 1281 1375 1461 1560 1601 1607 1595Ky. bluegr~ss molded 2.3 em 1187 1345 1432 1496 1560 1554 1537Ky. bluegrass molded 5.1 em 1187 1321 1409 1473 1513 1502 1490Ky. bluegrass molded 7.6 em 1147 1269 1321 1374 1432 1449 1444Ky. bluegrass studded 2.3 em 1356 1490 1566 1630 1676 1676 1647Ky. bluegrass studded 5.1 em 1333 1449 1543 1589 1647 1665 1659Ky. bluegrass studded 7.6 em 1327 1461 1513 1572 1607 1607 1595Pro ryegrass molded 2.3 em 1135 1286 1397 1467 1496 1490 1432Pro ryegrass molded 5.1 em 1054 1199 1286 1339 1356 1362 1350Pr. ryegrass molded 7.6 em 1077 1199 1281 1339 1374 1362 1345Pro ryegrass studded 2.3 em 1310 1385 1473 1519 1548 1554 1531Pro ryegrass studded 5.1 em 1281 1380 1438 1519 1537 1537 1531Pro ryegrass studded 7.6 em 1304 1374 1432 1490 1519 1525 1519Red fescue molded 2.3 em 1118 1217 1257 1281 1275 1263 1234Red fescue molded 5.1 em 1100 1187 1246 1298 1304 1298 1275Red fescue molded 7.6 em 1083 1170 1187 1205 1217 1199 1182Red fescue studded 2.3 em 1304 1391 1490 1519 1572 1572 1583Red fescue studded 5.1 em 1263 1356 1426 1467 1502 1502 1496Red fescue studded 7.6 em 1240 1339 1432 1490 1531 1531 1508

1sd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS~C7\~

Table 54. Mean traction values for blocks across species, cutting height, and shoetypes for Experiment 4.

1.3 1.9 2.5em of travel

3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

Block123

lsd(0.05)

---------------------------------N --------------------------------1216 1346 1428 1489 1530 1533 15251265 1373 1446 1498 1521 1518 15041172 1300 1386 1453 1508 1513 1494

64 NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 55. Mean soil water content for species x cutting height subplots in Experiment 4.

----- Replications ----Species Cutting I II III Average

heightcm ------------ kg / kg -------------

Red fescue 3.8 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.10Red fescue 5.1 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15Red fescue 6.4 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17

Ky. bluegrass 3.8 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.20Ky. bluegrass 5.1 0.20 0.16 Q.18 0.18Ky. bluegrass 6.4 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.19



Table 56. Mean traction values for the designated variable obtainedfrom linear measurements in Experiment 5.

---------------------------- N ----------------------------Loading weight

116 kg88 kg

59.9 kglsd (0.05)

Shoe type

Molded shoeStudded shoelsd (0.05)

1.3

1222106886729

10241081

23

1.9

14141179~4937

11701191NS

2.5

1519124099832

12481257NS

cm of travel3.2

160713481051

45

13311339NS

3.8

17201394107155

13991391NS

4.4

1752141710~850

14161409NS

5.1

175214171068

50

14161409NS

Table 57. Mean traction values for the designated variablesobtained from rotational measurements in Experiment 5.

Variable

Loading weight

-------- degrees of rotation ---------10 20 30 40

----------------- Nm -----------------116 kg88 kg

59.9 ~glsd (0.05)

2220151

2825192

3328212

3530222

--------------------------------------------------------------Shoe type

Molded shoeStudded shoe

lsd (0.05)

20181

26221

30252

32262

Table 58. Mean traction values for the loading weight x shoe type interactionobtained from Experiment 5.

Loadingweight

Shoetype

-------------------cm of travel1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1

59.9 kg88 kg116 kg59.9 kg88 kg116 kg

lsd (0.05)

MoldedMoldedMoldedStuddedStuddedStudded

------------------------- N -------------------------856 949 1001 1071 1088 1083 10831036 1164 1228 1333 1391 1420 .14201182 1397 1513 1589 1717 1746 1746879 949 995 1030 1054 1054 10541100 1193 1251 1362 1397 1414 14141263 1432 1525 1624 1723 1758 1758NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table 59. Mean rotational traction values for loading weight xshoe type in Experiment 5.

Loading Shoe ------ degrees of rotation-------weight type 10 20 30 40

--------------- Nm ----------------59.9 kg Molded 16 20 23 2488 kg Molded 22 28 31 33116 kg Molded 23 31 3.6 3959.9 kg Studded 15 17 19 2088 kg Studded 18 23 25 27116 kg Studded 22 26 30 31


Table 60. Plot characteristics for blocks in Experiment 5 for bothrotational and linear measurements.

BelowMeasurement ground Tiller Soil

type Block vegetation Verdure density water

---- g/plug -no/plug- - kg/kg -Linear 1 9.7 2.8 162 0.23Linear 2 11.7 3.2 166 0.25Linear 3 10.4 3.5 175 0.25

Rotational 1 10.5 3.1 176 0.23Rotational 2 8.3 3.7 163 0.24Rotational 3 10.1 3.9 194 0.27

Table 61. Mean rotational traction values for blocks acrossloading weights in Experiment 6.a, inside and outsidethe hashmark, using the studded shoe.

Yard ------ degrees of rotation-------lines 10 20 30 40

Inside hashmark---------------- Nm ---------------

10 to 15 15.3 18.9 21.2 21.215 to 20 14.7 18.2 20.8 21.020 to 25 14.2 18.0 20.4 20.7

Isd (0.05) NS NS NS NS .

Outside hashmark

10 to 15 14.2 17.6 19.5 19.815 to 20 14.4 18.3 20.0 20.420 to 25 14.2 17.7 20.0 20.4

Isd (0.05) NS NS NS NS

Table 62. Mean rotational traction values for blocks acrossshoe types in Experiment 6.b, inside and outside thehashmark, using a 116 kg loading weight.

Yard ------ degrees of rotation ------lines 10 20 30 40


10 to 15 20.5 26.5 30.1 29.915 to 20 20.3 26.0 29.5 29.720 to 25 19.1 24.9 28.5 29.3


Outside hashmark

10 to 15 19.5 25.1 27.1 27.915 to 20 20.5 27.1 29.9 29.420 to 25 20.3 26.0 28.8 30.8


...........o

Table 63. Mean rotational traction values for blocks acrosssoil water treatments in Experiment 6.c, inside andoutside the hashmark, using a 116 kg loading weightand the molded shoe.

Yard ------ degrees of rotation-------lines 10 20 30 40


10 to 15 22.3 29.4 33.1 33.115 to 20 21.9 0.0 32.2 32.220 to 25 21.0 28.7 31.8 32.4


Outside hashmark

10 to 15 21.2 27.8 30.8 31.715 to 20 21.9 28.5 32.9 33.620 to 25 22.3 28.8 32.2 32.4


-"-

172

Table 64. Mean rotational traction values for the designatedvariables for the ~ombined Experiments, inside andoutside the hashmarks, for loading weightsin Experiment 6.a.

Variable ------ degrees of rotation ------10 20 30 40

Loading weight---------------- Nm ---------------

116 kg 16.9 21. 6 24.4 24.888 kg 14.8 18.5 20.8 21.1

59.9 kg 11.7 14.2 15.7 15.8lsd (0.05) 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.2

-------------------------------------------------------------Experiment

Inside hashOutside hash

lsd (0.05)

14.714.2NS

18.417.8NS

20.819.80.9

21.020.21.0

-------------------------------------------------------------

Interaction

Loading Hashweight mark

59.9 kg Inside 12.1 14.6 16.2 16.259.9 kg Outside 11.3 13 .8 15.3 15.488 kg Inside 15.3 19.0 21.2 21.588 kg Outside 14.3 18.0 20.4 20.8116 kg Inside 16.7 21.5 23.6 25.3116 kg Outside 17.1 21.7 23.8 24.4

lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

173

Table 65. Mean rotational traction values for the designatedvariables, for the combined experiments, inside andoutside the hashmark, for shoe types inExperiment 6.b.


Shoe type---------------- Nm ---------------

Molded shoe 23.2 30.3 33.5 34.1Studded shoe 16.9 21.6 24.4 24.8lsd (0.05) 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.4

-------------------------------------------------------------Experiment


lsd (0.05)

20.020.1NS

25.826.1NS

29.428.6NS

29.629.4NS

-------------------------------------------------------------

Interaction

Shoe Hashtype mark

Molded shoe inside 23.2 30.2 33.7 34.0Molded shoe outside 23.1 30.4 33.4 34.3Studded shoe inside 16.7 21.5 25.0 25.3Studded shoe outside 17.1 21.7 23.8 24.4lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

174

Table 66. Mean rotational traction values for the designatedvariables, for the combined experiments, inside andoutside the hashmark, for soil waterin Experiment 6.c.


Soil water

Pre-precipitationPost-precipitation

lsd (0.05)

23.2 30.320.4 26.81.8 2.4

Nm ---------------33.5 34.130.8 31.02.2 2.2

-------------------------------------------------------------Experiment


lsd (0.05)

21.821.8NS

28.728.4NS

32.432.0NS

32.532.5NS

-------------------------------------------------------------

Interaction

Soil Hashwater mark

Pre-precip. Inside 23.2 30.2 33.7 34.0Pre-precip. Outside 23.1 30.4 33.4 34.3Post-precip. Inside 20..3 27.2 31.0 31.1Post-precip. Outside 20.5 26.3 30.5 30.8

lsd (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

Table 67. Plot characteristics for individual experimental units in Experiment 6 bothpre- and post-precipitation.

Shear Infil. Bulk Soil Tiller VerdureYard marker Precipe Hash. Hardness resistance rate density water density weight

g-max Nm cm/hr g/cm3 kg/kg no. /plug grams10 to 15 pre in 105 13.5 3.6 1.61 13.5 45 1.4

post in 92.5 16.5 16.915 to ~O pre in 100.3 14.5 3.3 1.59 13.9 67 1.1

post in 85.7 16.3 17.320 to 25 pre in 100.9 14.9 1.0 1.58 15.2 55 1.3

post in 75.9 17.0 20.310 to 15 pre out 86.1 16.3 9.7 1.61 13 .2 64 1.4

post out 75.7 16.7 15.815 to 20 pre out 86.5 16.2 20.3 1.59 12.4 55 1.6

post out 83.5 15.3 15.620 to 25 pre out 86.3 16.7 11.4 1.56 12.7 48 1.3

post out 77.7 16.5 15.9

Documents

104archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/thesdiss/mcnitt1994c.pdf · studded shoe. Why this particular stand of bluegrass yielded results in which there was little difference between linear traction