Website Home

The Role of water run-off on grassed sports pitches

November 28th, 2011

Muddy football pitches are common throughout Europe during the wet winter months. In most instances, particularly in the United Kingdom, topsoils are relatively impermeable with high silt and clay content. Infiltration measurements using a double ring infiltrometer are negligible varying between 0.1 and 0.5 mm/hr after they have been subject to compaction in wet conditions and have developed a degree of thatch growth. With winter rainfall there is negligible evapotranspiration and consequently topsoils take in moisture slowly. Having a high water holding capacity they can retain a wet and plastic condition throughout the winter. Hence, the rapid removal of surplus surface water is required soon after rain and before water softens the pitch surface; the object being to make pitches playable within the shortest time thereafter.

Water run-off on the pitch
Water run-off is not easily gauged though it is very evident after heavy rainfall with the development of ponded areas on uneven ground. While the preparation of the subsoil prior to topsoil replacement and the on-going level of maintenance all influence the infiltration capacity of sports pitches, there remains a point at which there is run-off of surplus surface water. Once rainfall begins a proportion is withheld within the grass cover. The height of grass growth on sports pitches varies from 25 to 35 mm for football and 50 to 75 mm for rugby. Though no measurements appear to have been recorded, the top growth including the surface litter and thatch retains a considerable volume of water adsorbed to the plant surface and this could be in the region of 2 to 4 mm over the playing area. Micro-irregularities including foot depressions must further retain water that eventually infiltrates into the soil. This volume could also amount to in the region of 4 to 5mm. Finally some water evaporates, some infiltrates into the soil or is contained in surface slit drains. Referred to as abstractions, the sum of these retentions must be complete before run-off commences (Tindall and Kunkel, 1999) and to summarize, there would probably be at least 8 to 12mm falling in the first hour before any significant water reaches lateral drains and is discharged from site.
Slit drains function as a by-pass system in impermeable topsoils. However, positive surface run-off must occur for surplus water to reach the slits even though they are a short distance apart. Without it water is simply retained on the surface. Calculations employing a modified Hooghoudt’s formula can be made to estimate the rate of removing surface water using close spaced slit drains. Expectedly, the rate of removal in slit drains is much less than would be possible in a permeable sand rootzone and capacities of slit drains are generally estimated over 24 hours with the drainage of not much more than 100 mm in a day (Adams and Gibbs, 1994).
For effective run-off from a pitch to be initiated after abstractions are complete, there must naturally be an even grade to specified tolerances and a positive gradient in the playing area. A minimum gradient of 1:70 is needed for satisfactory run-off (McIntyre and Jacobsen, 1998). Adams and Gibbs further maintain a diagonal fall of between 1:67 and 1:100 is advisable. Slit drain systems must remove surplus water from the surface soon after rain has fallen. Installed at 1 m spacing they have proved very effective though the introduction of 260 mm spaced sand-injected mini-slits offer an even greater potential for rapid water removal. In this way the relatively impermeable topsoil can be maintained in a firm and playable condition. Otherwise, isolated muddy areas soon develop. Also vital is the importance of sand dressings to promote surface water flow laterally to slit drains and prevent these drains from being smeared with adjacent clay loam soil dislodged during play (Adams and Gibbs,1994).

Run-off outside the playing area
In many instances water run-off is initiated from higher ground passing down on to the pitches. The long-term performance of cut-off drains or those at the toe of the cut slope depend on the degree of maintenance as silting at the surface is bound to accumulate. The installation of shallow grassed swales or diversion ditches with appropriate gradient is an approved alternative solution (CIRIA, 2000). Controlling surface water movement moving on to the pitches must be the first priority.
The potential for surplus water run-off from sports pitches is of greater consequence after prolonged heavy rain. In a study of the rainfall in southern England the data from the recognized meteorological station at the Wisely Horticultural Research site was chosen. Over 11 years during the wet winter months of October to April, the average number of rain days per month was 16.5. Of these 15.1 days had rainfall totals less than 10 mm in a day and on 8.7 days the daily rainfall measured less than 2 mm. It was estimated earlier that at least the first 8 to 12 mm of rain is retained by abstraction. However, the 1 in 2 year or 1 in 10 year storm in southern England can produce rainfall of 25 to 35 mm in one hour (FEH,1993). With this extreme rainfall in excess of the amount that can be abstracted, surface run-off must occur. Naturally, the immediate surroundings below the playing area now become a vital factor. On graded sports pitches water run-off is generally not significantly more than would occur if the land had not been developed. With the use of diversion ditches, shallow swales, shorter grass cover, a gradient levelled to be suitable for sport and the installation of lateral and slit drains, there is a significant control in surface water flow and a degree of attenuation is achieved.
With run-off into a stream, pond, watercourse or open pasture there is generally no concern. However, where outfall locations are restricted or do not exist in the case of built up areas, provision must be made for the attenuation of this surplus water to prevent peak flow and distribute the surplus water more evenly over the boundary. Furthermore, with a diagonal gradient over a graded area there will be concentrated flow of water run-off after heavy storms. Swales become a vital provision and temporary storage structures incorporating large stone of 150 to 200 mm dimension, large diameter twin wall plastic piping and reinforced plastic cells are used for this purpose. The latter materials have maximum potential for storage and are used extensively under car park areas.

Conclusion
Water run-off is a vital factor in sports pitch design. The control of surplus water flow on to pitches remains the first priority. Acceptable gradient and grade are vital to create surface movement of surplus water on the pitch at times of high intensity rainfall and prevent the development of water-logged areas. Notwithstanding surface drainage provisions in the form of gradient, swales and slit drains, the pitch surroundings will dictate the extent to which attenuation is taken to accommodate water run-off off the pitch at times of heavy rainfall. However, it therefore becomes essential to define the rainfall risk to be catered for in terms of the maximum rainfall intensity allowed for over a nominated return period.

Literature cited
Adams, W.A. and Gibbs, R.J. 1994. Natural turf for sport and amenity. CAB International.p.102-156.
CIRIA, 2000. Sustainable urban drainage systems design manual. Construction Industry Research and
Information. C522. p. 8, 74-77.
McIntyre, K. and Jacobsen, B. 1998. Drainage for sports turf and horticulture. Horticulture Agency
Consulting. p. 110.
FEH, 1993. Flood estimation handbook. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Wallingford.
Tindall, J.A. and Kunkel, J.R.. 1999. Unsaturated zone hydrology for scientists and engineers. Prentice Hall. p. 367-368.

Concern with surface water flow over sports pitches in confined areas

November 24th, 2011

Today there is increasing need to control stormwater surface flow over levelled grassed sites. Suitable outfalls do not always exist in residential areas and so efforts are needed to attenuate this flow with the use of swales and temporary storage areas.

Reference to www.turfandgrass.com/s_articles/Restricting Drainage.php can be made for a more detailed account of attenuation in a local authority playing field complex.

Low priority given to maintaining sports pitches

November 21st, 2011

It is sad to see how often local authorities, schools and sports clubs fail to budget for the essential treatments needed to sustain acceptable playing conditions on sports pitches. While up-grading structural facilities, somehow the importance of the playing fields are side-lined. Besides limiting attention to irregular and untidy mowing, the vital need to nourish the grass cover and control weeds – apart from other treatments – is scarcely considered.

Sport can be a microcosm of life and develop in our youth much-needed discipline and respect for others – hence in the unsettled world today, maintenance of playing fields warrants far greater consideration.

Muddy sports pitches

November 11th, 2011

On one of my recent site visits there were a number of puddles that had developed as a result of there being no provision for surface drainage. Being almost flat water collects in the smallest depressions as most topsoils are of a heavy loam texture. The infiltration is minimal in these soils and after a little use these depressions become muddier and muddier.

There is nothing that can be done at this time other than keeping off these pitches until there is sufficient drying out. The only real solution short of installing close spaced drains is to regrade the pitch in the summer to create an adequate gradient to promote surface water run-off. Aerating the pitch by vertidraining does not alleviate the situation especially if the subsoil is of a clay texture.

Soil additives – which way to go

November 4th, 2011

More and more is expected of golf courses today. Stress increases with play on wet soils, increasing all-year round use, added fixtures, close mowing, removal of grass cuttings and moisture and temperature extremes. Hence the performance of the golf green is becoming increasingly dependent upon frequency and degree in a standard routine maintenance programme. What this means varies with course managers and unfortunately much depends on the annual budget available.

Now included as standard are extra inputs incorporating better aeration, a revised approach to nutrition and an ever-increasing number of supplements both of organic and inorganic origin. The demands made on golf courses have encouraged commercial production of an array of organic products including organic fertiliser formulations, biotic stimulants, soil conditioners, humic substances, amino acid formulations, microbial and enzyme innoculants and micorrhizal fungi – all seemingly well researched and soundly promoted based on scientific facts. This wide variety of products brings confusion to many a course manager – so which way does he/she go?

Why is there the need?

Situations have simply arisen where there has been an inability or failure to sustain suitable physical and chemical conditions for healthy microbial activity and properly nourished grass growth.

The symptoms are there for all to see in poor moisture penetration, faster meadowgrass encroachment, excessive thatch and organic matter, black layer accumulations, weak top and root growth, greater dependency on fungicides to control disease, reliance on high levels of nutrition and poor drainage performance.

This may appear damming and all the symptoms are not normally present together, but few golf courses do not exhibit any of these shortfalls. Notwithstanding the added stress to grass cover, these conditions are generally due to the absence of a systematic and structured maintenance programme and/or inheriting physical and environmental conditions that severely restrict performance and over which little can be done.

Surely, the first step must be to go back to the basics. A specific audit or factual assessment brings to light the magnitude of the weakness(es): physical analysis of the rootzone, grass cover density, root depth and density, compaction, depth of thatch, organic matter content in the top 100mm, drainage design (surface and underground), water infiltration rate, water holding capacity, hydraulic conductivity, degree of shade and barriers to air circulation, form and degree of aeration treatments and the basic nutritional status of the rootzone.

The reasons may or may not be readily apparent, but with determination many of the factors can be improved with persistent effort – in many cases without applying additives.

Inorganic and organic

The turfgrass plant is one of the greatest organic matter producers in the top 50mm of the soil. It is primarily dependant on the availability of essential mineral nutrients in the soil solution to ensure uptake by the roots. In the presence of an adequate oxygen supply, a vast beneficial microbial population develops naturally in the organic soil, giving rise to many of the essential nutrients and organic substances now commercially available.

Tom Bruulsema of the Potash and Phosphate Institute recently stated, “Commercial fertilisers supply nutrients in the inorganic form – the form that plants actually absorb – to boost the growth of plants. Plants are the only original producers of organic materials that structure and cover the soil and feed its organisms. So inorganic nutrients are vital to the ecology and health of the soil ecosystem.”

It is clear that the mineral nutrient supply from organic matter in the soil goes a long way to provide plant nutrition. Any deficiencies existing in the soil or arising from the removal of grass cuttings must be supplemented in inorganic form either in the form of commercial fertilisers or selective organic products containing these minerals.

Every golf course is different. In the region of 70 hectares there is a wide range of circumstances occurring, all of which exhibit factors that can have a significant affect on maintenance requirements. Only a fool does not listen to a genuine sales promotion – or to anyone offering comment. Acceptance of what is offered is another matter – but some remedies are sure to give promise of improvement. A golf course offers ample scope to try out a treatment or remedy that shows interest but including a control area in the same location is vital if a meaningful comparison is to be made of the benefit.

Now attracting more attention are microbial innoculants, micorrhizal fungi, amino and fulvic acids, zeolite and compost tea. One or other are ascribed to improve the microbial performance in the rootzone, increase root growth, restrict mineral leaching from the rootzone, reduce the occurrence of disease and make better availability of existing minerals in the soil so reducing fertiliser requirements. Yet so often treatments are judged without any consideration of the physical, chemical and weather conditions at the time. Unreliable judgement is certain to follow when a treatment is not properly evaluated relative to the prevailing conditions and a control treatment.

Balanced nutrition

Though standard NPK formulations are generally used many managers are unaware of the cumulative application of relevant minerals and see little need for periodic soil analysis. There are established ‘sufficiency levels’ of dependable mineral nutrients in the soil below which plants will respond to added fertilisers and above which they will not respond. This basis in making recommendations is generally accepted but an alternative approach aimed at creating ideal ratios between calcium, potassium and magnesium content in the soil solution is receiving wider acclaim. These approaches can lead to significantly different recommendations which again becomes confusing to many.

With the overall objective to reduce the amounts of mineral nutrients applied – especially nitrogen – and the use of chemicals, trials with appropriate organic additives have their worth particularly if circumstances warrant their use. However the first move surely must be to reinstate optimum physical conditions and ensure a balanced nutrition supply of the main mineral elements is available to the plant amidst a thriving microbial population and within a well-drained environment.

Cutting maintenance budget on playing fields

May 30th, 2011

This action can be very short-sighted. After heavy use, often in wet conditions, grass cover has been lost in many areas. If acceptable conditions are expected in the following season there is the need to re-level goal mouths, de-compact the surface, remove weeds, over-seed and fertilize. Where athletic events are held, creating an even surface and safe long jump pits becomes vital.

Avoiding the end of season renovation programme can lead to unsafe playing conditions in the following season. Uneven surfaces become a hazard and if left untreated remaining depressions in the playing areas will collect water after rain forming puddles that will become muddy and deteriorate in the winter months. They will become slippery and unsafe.

Apart from the need for safety, poor playing conditions hardly attract youngsters to play.

Irrigating grass in May

May 11th, 2011

It is still only spring but after the driest April in years following an equally dry March, we are well into water deficit situation in the ground. Does daily light watering have any useful value?

Ideally, there should be water supply in the soil to the depth of the grass roots. Water below that is of no immediate benefit to the grass plant. It becomes logical too to expect that a sprinkler operation programme must enable water to penetrate to at least 40mm into the soil profile to avoid being quickly lost by the power of the sun. Applying enough water to barely wet the surface makes it highly probable that this water will be lost in a day by evapotranspiration. Furthermore, water in the soil below the surface is lost more slowly and becomes more effective – this all means that ensuring penetration into the soil makes it unnecessary to water every day and irrigation cycles can be comfortably spaced out to at least two or three day intervals.

A vital dimension to summer maintenance

July 18th, 2010

Maintaining grass in the summer is a matter of common sense – so many of the uninformed believe.  It simply incorporates a combination of mowing, aerating, soil conditioning, fertilisation, top dressing, pest control and irrigation – all standard operations.  However, with today’s exacting demands of grassed sporting surfaces, the planning and execution of general maintenance has become so exacting that many competent greenkeepers and groundsmen fail where others succeed.  So where is the complexity?  Is there more to cost-effective maintenance than carrying out a sequence of standard set of treatments when felt to be necessary?

Objectives

While treatments and applications may appear to be standard undertakings they need to be specific in planning to achieve what is desired.  The objective must be clear.

The condition of the equipment, its capability, the settings and the actual application determines the success of the undertaking – not to mention the proficiency of the operator. 
Understandably, the operation must achieve what is intended.  Scarifying means the removal of significant top growth and thatch and yet so often the result is little more than a light verticutting.  Aeration objectives must be clearly defined before selection of equipment.   Close spaced deep pencil tines, shallow solid tining, star slitting, use of the sarrel roller, earthquake and vertidrain all create a degree of aeration but to different depth and intensity.

Applying chemicals whether fertilisers, biotic stimulants, soil conditioners or pesticides is a precise task.  Success with an application depends on the right equipment, proper calibration and competent application as well as the choice of the correct product for the task.  Preparing a seedbed whether on bare ground or into weakened grass cover demands special attention.  Distributing seed without adequate soil cover or not into clean or sufficiently set-back grass cover has little chance of success.

In all, however simple the operation, a sensibly thought out plan of action is vital if an application or treatment is to achieve in a single effort the objective envisaged from the start.

 

What is done in soon forgotten – yet the treatment or application is an integral part of year-round maintenance needed to create the best grass cover possible.  So many factors determine the success or failure of the operation.  Recording can be painful but tabulated essential information is as important in a scarifying or fertilising operation as it is in a COSHH controlled application of a pesticide.  Apart from the date, type of equipment and name of operator, the settings however basic become essential if future treatments are to be repeated or adjusted.

Prevailing grass, soil and weather conditions

 

Every treatment or application, however well planned and executed is influenced by the prevailing environmental conditions.  Few seem to realise the importance of regularly measuring rainfall, maximum and minimum temperatures, the soil temperature, humidity and wind.  Yet all have a profound effect on the treatments and applications made to grass cover.  Whether scarifying, fertilising or applying a pesticide, all these measurements will to a degree influence the result.The condition of the grass cover too can strongly influence the result.  Grass cover under stress suffers when an added shock is given – whereas strong vigorous growth is stimulated and responds to even drastic cultural treatment.  The soil condition, particularly the upper depth in which roots are active, further sets the stage for success or failure in many instances.  The moisture content and health of the top 100mm should be recorded facts.  Knowing and recording the soil and weather conditions along with the grass cover and pertinent details of the application all form a sound base on which to later judge the result.

 

 

Monitoring results

 

Seldom is inference made to the outcome is recorded information of a treatment.  Simple and unnecessary as it sounds, a few comments provide valuable information for further application of the treatment.  Judging the time in which the objective is achieved and particularly the degree of effectiveness that resulted becomes vital for future planning.

 

Tabled treatments in chronological order allows easy reference.  Mixed notes in a diary, often without the pertinent facts, offers little help when it comes to diagnosing the failure of a treatment or application.  Thought should be given to the setting out of the details of the application and prevailing conditions in a way that monitoring can be comparative.  The judgement of one treatment over another can only be properly assessed when all the facts are clearly tabulated in an easy-to-read format.

 

Monitoring essential criteria such as thatch depth, root growth, vigour, shoot density, root zone condition and moisture content at least four times a year gives a good indication of progress made.  Hence, being able to quickly assess the reasons for success or failure of treatments carried out provides a final ‘tool’in judging the maintenance performance.

 

 

Maintaining grass cover can be a simple undertaking but to be cost-effective, planning, recording and judging are three vital considerations that should always be made if desired progress is to follow.

New school sports complex remains water-logged

May 13th, 2010

The main sports field accommodating two football pitches either side of a cricket square has not been used since establishment a year ago.  Initially the entire area was filled with subsoil excavated from the site of the school buildings.  Grass was established with quality turf laid on an imported rootzone material into which a drainage reticulation was installed.

 

Surface water did not penetrate the turf and the almost level area has remained under a centimetre of water most of the winter.  Dispute has arisen between the company laying the turf and the sports pitch contractor for non-payment.  The latter has alleged that the subsoil layer was not prepared and was excessively compacted.  A detailed investigation has identified a lack of suitable surface gradient, an unacceptable rootzone material and an inadequate drainage system.  In addition, the subsoil was compacted and not properly prepared.  Tests in the subsoil resulted in negligible infiltration.  The soil imported with the turf was considerably higher in clay and silt causing the saturation in the turf before any water penetration into the subsoil.

 

The expert witness report has highlighted the reasons for the failure and enabled solicitors to reach settlement without going to court.

Dispute on the performance of stadium football pitch

May 13th, 2010

The pitch has remained water-logged after persistent rains during the winter of 2009-10.  This has led to a dispute between the contractor and client resulting in claim and counter-claim.  A detailed assessment of the pitch identified a lack of suitable gradient, an impervious turf, inadequate drains with permeable material not brought to the playing surface.  Protection of surface water above the pitch was also not catered for.

 

Isolating the short fall in specification has given Counsel essential facts to assist in the allocation of blame and has provided a clearer understanding of the failure in order to agree settlement.