The control of Annual Meadow- Grass on professional football pitches
By Dr Christian Spring, STRI Soil Scientist and Dr Stephen Baker, STRI Head of Soils and Sports Surface Science
STRI plots following Koro treatment AISE
remove arising debris using a conveyor system. The fraise mowing treatment comprised removing the herbage from the top of the pitch, whilst the deeper treatment went down to a depth of 18mm, thereby removing the vegetation and the immediate surface layer. The material removed by the deeper Koro treatment was replaced using a matching sand-dominated rootzone. The chemical treatments consisted of applications of the herbicide ethofumesate, which has proven to be effective at controlling annual meadow- grass on sports turf. Both applications involved the post-emergence spraying with ethofumesate following renovation and oversowing, with one using a single application of 10 litres per hectare after four weeks whilst the other consisted of two applications, four and eight weeks, at an application rate of 5 litres per hectare. The ethofumesate applied was Stefes Fumat 2 (200g/l, 21% w/w,
Ethofumesate) and, for the following year, Nortron Flo (500g/l, 44.3% w/w, Ethofumesate), both applied at an equivalent rate.
In addition to the physical and chemical treatments, the effect of over- watering on the spread of annual meadow-grass was investigated. The individual plots received either conventional watering to replace evapotranspiration losses, using a Toro Trident irrigation controller, or were over-watered by 30% above the conventional irrigation rate. Wear was applied during the football playing season, twice a week using a differential slip wear machine. The aim was to simulate grass cover loss through the central areas of a pitch.
The botanical composition of the plots
was recorded three times during each football season. Assessments of total live cover of the plots were recorded on four occasions during each playing season. Additional measurements were made on playing quality, including ball rebound, hardness and traction.
Trial results
Over-watering Initially, the amount of annual meadow- grass in the sward at the start of the trial was low at around 1-2%. By the beginning of the second season annual meadow-grass had risen to nearly 20%
for the over-watered treatment as compared to 14% for the conventionally watered plots. The amount of annual meadow-grass increased to around 45% for both watering treatments at the beginning of the third season, after the summer watering period.
Chemical control
The use of ethofumesate was effective at reducing the proportion of annual meadow-grass in the sward (Figure 1). The amount of annual meadow-grass was low for all treatments during the first playing season (data not shown). However, during the subsequent two seasons the annual meadow-grass, as a proportion of the live grass cover, in the untreated control plots rose significantly to around 40% where it remained for the following playing season. Where ethofumesate was applied annual meadow-grass content remained below 5% of total live grass cover. There were no significant differences in the amount of annual meadow-grass between the two ethofumesate treatments.
It was noted that, after the first year of ethofumesate applications, the two 5 litre per hectare treatment appeared to have a phytotoxic effect on the perennial ryegrass, the proportion of perennial ryegrass dropping to 66%, with the amount of bare ground and dead grass reaching 34%. This effect was not seen in those plots treated with only one
71
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120