By NIGEL FAHEY Baileys of Norfolk
The importance of
ROOTZONE ANALYSIS
SOIL analysis is the most important tool available to anyone considering the construction of a sports surface, without scientific analysis the suitability of materials to be used cannot be evaluated. Soil analysis can determine the suitability of raw materials; it can be used to monitor the rootzone or topdressing manufacturing process, and can verify the exact specification of a finished product. Particle size distribution analysis is a primary indicator of material suitability. If the rootzone meets the desired particle size distribution, then further analysis, such as hydraulic conductivity and porosity can be evaluated. If a material does not meet the particle size distribution criteria it should be rejected and no further testing of that material need take place. One area of concern is the way in which particle size distribution is described in the sports surface construction and management sector, professional jargon such as 80/20, 70/30 and 60/40 are all terms used to describe rootzones. Whilst one might have a notion of what these terms mean and what performance one might reasonably expect from them, they are not robust enough to adequately describe the particle size arrangement needed when determining the
suitability of a rootzone for its eventual use. The use of particle size distribution analysis allows all parties involved in the construction process to be much more precise in the way that they describe their requirements. Rootzone and topdressing manufacturers need to demonstrate an ability to provide a reliable, prompt, competent service, and must have the infrastructure to manufacture their products to a required standard; a soil analysis laboratory should be a part of that infrastructure. Whether constructing an 18-hole golf course or a village bowls green, the rootzone material should meet a defined recommendation. The use of a rootzone material, which has not been tested, can lead to the failure of the surface. Although the initial installation cost may be higher, the long term costs of rebuilding a failed green, or the lost revenue, because the rootzone surface is unplayable due to poor performance characteristics, more than justify the use of a quality controlled sports surface construction material. Ideally, suppliers should have their
owns rootzone laboratory; ours has been in place since 1995. This is used both in quality control of the finished product as well as analysing customers' existing Rootzone in order to provide
maximum compatibility. If it is deemed appropriate, then a custom blend will be manufactured and supplied to match the existing physical conditions exactly. When unsuitable materials are used on a sports playing surface, for example, a top dressing that bears little or no compatibility to the ootzone material that is currently in place, then capping-off of the existing rootzone may occur. The most common symptom of this is “root-break”. Layered or capped-off turf will have several undesirable effects. Turfgrass root systems cannot grow through layers. A poorly developed root system will lead to inferior turf performance. Capping, at its extreme, can prevent turf emergence and, in lesser form, restrict early plant growth until roots and stems develop sufficiently or the capped layer is broken. For this reason a physical analysis by a competent lab of the existing greens’ rootzone should be undertaken and the dressing under consideration should be closely compared to any dressing that is going to be employed. One factor that should be scrutinised is the organic matter content of the existing rootzone compared to any material to be added to the turf.
Good soil structure is hard to maintain in rootzones low or devoid of
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108