HEALTHY PARKS & GARDENS

SITE TESTING

2010

Ron MacCartney

Sportsturf Consultants (Aust) P/L

SITE TESTING

• WHY?

– Observations are good but not complete

– Observable differences are significant

– Need to quantify effects of treatments

SITE TESTING• WHAT TESTS?

Assess effect of Organics on: Test

Soil Texture Total Porosity

(Air spaces in soil)

Soil Moisture Moisture Retention

(Water held by soil)

Plant Nutrition Leaf Analysis

(Nutrient content of plant tissue)

Surface Performance Surface Hardness

(Player safety & comfort)

1. Total Porosity• Effect on Air Spaces in soil

Reserve With Organics Without Organics

Atherton Reserve

Fitzroy

53.9% 50.1%

Peterson Oval

Fitzroy

42.0% 46.8%

Moore Oval North

Reservoir

51.9% 50.0%

Zwar Reserve

Preston

48.3% 48.9%

G.Pentland Botanic Gdns, Frankston

54.0% 52.0%

2. Soil Moisture

• Moisture retained by soil, available for plant useReserve With Organics Without Organics

Atherton Reserve

Fitzroy

53.9% 50.1%

Peterson Oval

Fitzroy

42.0% 46.8%

Moore Oval North

Reservoir

51.9% 50.0%

Zwar Reserve

Preston

48.3% 48.9%

G.Pentland Botanic Gdns, Frankston

54.0% 52.0%

3. Plant Nutrition• Nutrient content of plant tissue

Peterson Oval

Fitzroy

With Organics Without Organics

Nitrogen (%) 5.6 4.3

Phosphorus (%) 0.69 0.55

Potassium (%) 3.8 3.0

Calcium (%) 0.35 0.47

Magnesium (%) 0.27 0.27

Iron (ppm) 260 480

Copper (ppm) 10 12

Zinc (ppm) 54 110

3. Plant Nutrition• Nutrient content of plant tissue

Morrison Reserve

Mt. Evelyn

With Organics Without Organics

Nitrogen (%) 4.0 3.6

Phosphorus (%) 0.60 0.42

Potassium (%) 3.5 2.8

Calcium (%) 0.41 0.50

Magnesium (%) 0.27 0.29

Iron (ppm) 380 330

Copper (ppm) 10 11

Zinc (ppm) 46 47

3. Plant Nutrition• Nutrient content of plant tissue

G.Pentland Bot. Gdns, Frankston

With Organics Without Organics

Nitrogen (%) 1.4 1.2

Phosphorus (%) 0.59 0.34

Potassium (%) 0.57 0.35

Calcium (%) 0.55 0.25

Magnesium (%) 0.28 0.17

Iron (ppm) 100 42

Copper (ppm) 1.8 1.0

Zinc (ppm) 8.5 2.9

4. Surface Hardness• Potential for player injury

– Higher the value = harder surface

Reserve With Organics Without Organics

Moore Oval North

Reservoir

Range

Ave.

60 – 100

78

100 – 130

111

Morrison Reserve

Mt Evelyn

Range

Ave.

60 – 80

69

100 – 140

117

Test Results Show

• Trends for improvement in– Porosity– Moisture retention– Plant nutrients

• Significant difference in surface hardness– Less hard where organics used

• Better grass cover• Less bare ground

The Future …

• Use of Organics on sportsfields are:– Are worth considering;– Can show positive results

However

• Don’t expect fast responses

• Need further evaluation

• Need to be fitted into good maintenance program