Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2016
Volume 19
Issue 4
Topic:
Agronomy
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Wolski K. , Talar-Krasa M. , ¦wierszcz S. , Biernacik M. , Dradrach A. , Szymura M. 2016. VISUAL AND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF FOOTBALL TURF, EJPAU 19(4), #01.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume19/issue4/art-01.html

VISUAL AND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF FOOTBALL TURF

Karol Wolski, Marta Talar-Krasa, Sebastian ¦wierszcz, Magdalena Biernacik, Agnieszka Dradrach, Magdalena Szymura
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

 

ABSTRACT

Preparation of the turf surface of the football field directly affected on quality and spectacular aspects of the game. Appropriate species selection, pratotechnical treatments and pitch exploitation have influence on the high functional and visual turf advantages. This paper is an original research work with data from 10 years, containing sport turf assessment carried out according to the visual and functional methods and the COBORU classification system. Research was conducted from 2002 to 2011 at the Training Centre for ASA of Polish national women's football in Wrocław. The study includes analysis changes in the species composition after 10 years intensive pitch exploitation and the evaluation of turf quality on the difficult parts of pitch in the particular seasons of observation. Research can be the basis for the development of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of sports fields in Poland. Results confirmed the relationship between selections of mixture of the grasses and intensity of use on the visual and functional quality of sport turfgrass. Value of evaluations depending of part of football field and date of observation.

Key words: football field, functional quality of turf, visual evaluation, turfgrasses, sod.

INTRODUCTION

Training and developing appropriate strategies became necessary factors in enabling football teams to enjoy victories during competitions. In order to play football well, the preparation of the turf surface of the football field is important. Turf quality directly affects the spectacular aspects of the game [21]. Many studies have been conducted which aimed to demonstrate the factors that have an impact on turf quality. This research could enable the Polish standards for sod on football facilities to be developed. Currently, however, there is a lack of such guidelines in Poland. This situation forces investors to use a German standard [DIN 18035], which was worked out in the sixties of the last century, and contains a detailed list of the necessary steps and materials needed for the proper construction of sports turf [23].

The condition of turf in football facilities in Poland is weak. This assessment is confirmed by a subjective comparison of the grassy surfaces of stadiums in England, Germany and Switzerland. Many factors have contributed to this situation including the lack of obligatory technical documentation, and low financial outlays during preparation, installation and maintenance of the turf. The substrate used to construct football fields is also an important factor [10]. The condition of the substrate is determined by weather conditions and the intensity of use. If it is impossible to completely replace an unfavourable substrate, a comprehensive renovation using sandblasting is recommended. Wysocki  [23] wrote that the optimal solution for improving the quality of football pitches is a complete transformation in their realization.

The selection of appropriate species in grass mixtures has a significant influence on the final result, which is turf with high functional and visual advantages. Each species of grass is characterized by a number of traits, which when combined properly with other specialized varieties can be used to achieve the best turf [7]. The usefulness of a particular species for use in sports fields is determined by low soil requirements, the ability to adapt to changes of habitat, a long growing season, a high capacity for vegetative propagation, a large root mass, high promotion and creation of numerous new vegetative shoots after defoliation, the ability to benefit from supplied fertilizers, alignment of growth, high durability and resistance to trampling, and the ability to be mown very short. Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne and Festuca rubra are particularly favoured for football turf due to their ability to form strong and compact sod [1, 5, 15, 18].

The condition of turf in the years after it has been installed is based on pratotechnical treatments, including care treatments, aiming to achieve and maintain the best turf quality [17, 19]. These treatments are especially important in the initial phase of turf development. Types and methods of treatment are determined by the way the grassy surface is used [16]. Basic treatments carried out on sports fields are mowing, watering, fertilizing, rolling, aeration, verticulation, sanding, renovation, and weed and pest control [21, 24]. The treatments, when performed comprehensively, in the right way and at the right time, provide a guarantee of good quality of the sports field [2].

The aim of this study was a visual and functional turf assessment on the ASA football field in Wrocław. This paper presents the results of sward evaluation, as well as final conclusions about changes in the species composition after 10 years intensive pitch exploitation and the influence of pitch using for the quality of turf. The study includes analysis changes the sod quality on the difficult parts of pitch in the particular seasons of observation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis was performed on the main pitch of the Academic Sports Association (ASA) in Wrocław, which comprises part of the hotel and recreation complex GEM (N: 51°7'31" E: 17°4'14"). The study area is located in the picturesque district of Zacisze in Wrocław, in the Szczytnicki Natural and Landscape Complex, in the neighbourhood of the Odra River, a park, exhibition areas, and the Olympic stadium. The turf on the football field was established on substrate consisting of medium and coarse sand fractions (permeability 5 cm×h-1). The participation of clay particles in the vegetation layer was about 8%, with organic substance forming 4%. The soil reaction was acid with a pH close to 6.

The football field is located in the zone called the "Wrocław – Opole heat area". Within the city the conditions for plant vegetation are closely related to the nature of land use (typical of big agglomerations – ''urban heat island'') and the seasons early spring (starting on 22 II, lasting 34 days), spring (28 III – 65 days), summer (1 VI – 92 days), autumn (1 IX – 68 days) and early winter (8 XI – 41 days). In Wrocław six thermal seasons can be distinguished.

During the league season the football field was operated over 50 hours per month. Turf mowed at 3 cm  height, 2 times a week by rotary mower with collection of biomass. Irrigation during the growing season was dependent on the weather and was 5–10 l·m-2. For the fertilization had been used multicomponent fertilizer with nitrogen at 150 kg·ha-1, divided into 4 doses. Every 2 years on football field performed scarification, scarification, aeration and sand blasting.

Observations of the turf were made three times per year in successive growing seasons (spring – 14 days after the start of the growing season, summer – July/August, autumn – mid-October), for 10 years (2002–2011). Each time the same traits were studied in four replications for each season, according to the principles of the complete randomization method for two variable factors.

Factor I (A) – season of pitch use:

Factor II (B) – part of the football field:

Control area (A) – turf unused for sports. This object is located within the pitch, behind the goal.

Goal area (B) – part of the pitch which is bordered by a goal line of two perpendicular lines 5.5 m long.

Penalty area (C) – field surrounded by perpendicular lines with a length of 16.5 m to the goal line. The arc of a circle with a radius of 9.5 m designates the centre of the penalty area of 11 m (the place where the penalty kick is per­formed).

Field of play (D) – all parts of the pitch where football is played, except for the goal area, penalty area and centre circle.

Centre circle (E) – place situated in the centre of the pitch, surrounded by a circle with a radius of 9.15 m, which is intersected by the halfway line.

Assessment of the football turf was based on visual and functional traits [21] and the COBORU (The Research Centre for Cultivar Testing) classification system [6]. Additionally, a chemical soil analysis for macro- and microelements was performed.

The statistical analysis was performed using complete randomization method. Each time the analysis was performed according to the same pattern on the same places in four replications. For analysis was taken square round 1 m2. Variability for parameters was determined. LSD was calculated for significant differences.

Evaluation by COBORU classification system
This method was used for evaluation of the utility of the football sward. The rating scale contained points from 1 to 9, the higher number being the more desirable parameter value. The most significant features among the characteristics of football grass were taken into consideration in the study. The following features were assessed:

Evaluation by visual method
Assessment of the turf using the visual method was performed on the basis of three features: density, texture and homogeneity of turf.

Evaluation by functional method
The evaluation of the functional quality of the turf was executed on the five-point scale. It covered the following traits, taking into account individual properties:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The quality of sodded sports surfaces depends on many factors: species composition, conditions presented by the ground and created by man (such as pratotechnical treatments), and intensity of use [23]. These elements can cause degradation of sports turf. Wolski [22] considered the most common causes of turf degradation to be dehydration of the area and poor surface irrigation, low content of mineral substances, and intensive use of the pitches. The presented study confirms that the majority of these factors affect sports turf quality. Lower turf quality may also be caused by deficiencies of certain nutrients in the soil. Chemical analysis of the substrates on the main football field at ASA in Wrocław indicated deficiencies of nitrogen and magnesium (Tab. 1).

Table 1. Chemical soil composition on the beginning of research period (2002)
Parameter
Unit
Method of analysis
Subsoil
Turf level
Mean
reaction (H2O)
[pH]
potentiometric method
7.2±0.5
6.5±0.4
6.8
reaction (1M KCl)
6.6±0.5
5.7±0.4
6.1
ammonia nitrogen
(N-NH4)
[mg·kg-1 of dry soil]
Kjeldahl method
2.83±0.85
3.79±1.14
3.31
nitrate nitrogen
(N-NO3)
[mg·kg-1 of dry soil]
spectrophotometric method
1.95±0.56
1.12±0.34
1.53
Organic carbon
(C org.)
[%]
Tiurin method
4.23
5.21
4.72
Phosphorus
(P2O5)
[mg in 100 g of dry soil]
spectrophotometric method
12.60
33.70
23.15
Potassium
 (K2O)
[mg in 100 g of dry soil]
flame photometry
5.59
11.50
8.55
Magnesium (MgO)
[mg in 100 g of dry soil]
FAAS
11.3
11.1
11.2
Calcium (Ca)
[mg·kg-1 of dry soil]
FAAS
13.5±5.0
2.63
8.06
Iron (Fe)
[mg·kg-1 of dry soil]
FAAS
12020
5080
8550

The first evaluated trait of turf was the general aspect (Fig. 1). The general aspect scores for the studied football field are highest in the spring period, which confirms the good environmental conditions and homogeneity of grass mixture composition. The scores decreased in the second observation period (summer – league break), and rose again slightly in autumn (Tab. 2). These results confirm the proper interaction between grass and environmental factors. The relatively constant general aspect score at individual seasons of the year in the penalty area was observed, the scores in the other parts of the pitch were significantly different depending on the research time (Figs. 2 and 3).
Fig. 1. Aesthetic quality of football sward in year of installation (photo by K. Wolski)

Table 2. Evaluation of turf on football field from 10 years (2002–2011) – COBORU method
Specification
Tested traits
Season
of observation
Area
General aspekt
(1–9)
Compactness
(1–9)
Colour
(1–9)
LeafFineness
(1–9)
Resistance to disease
(1–9)
Regrowth
[cm]
Spring
Control area
– A
6.5 b
7.0
5.3 b
5.5 b
9.0
3.5
Goal area
– B
7.3 a
7.8
7.5 a
6.3 ab
9.0
3.5
Penalty area
– C
7.0 a
7.5
7.0 a
5.3 b
9.0
3.5
Field of play
– D
8.0 a
7.8
7.5 a
6.5 ab
9.0
3.5
Centre circle
– E
7.8 a
7.8
7.8 a
7.0 a
9.0
3.5
Mean for pitch
7.9
7.7
7.5
6.2
9.0
3.5
LSDα=0.05
1.1
ns
1.3
1.2
–
–
Summer
Control area
– A
5.3
7.8
7.0
6.2 a
8.3
3.9
Goal area
– B
3.8
6.3
5.5
5.1 b
7.6
3.8
Penalty area
– C
6.1
8.0
7.0
6.3 a
8.3
3.8
Field of play
– D
3.8
6.0
5.3
5.0 b
7.8
4.0
Centre circle
– E
4.8
6.3
5.8
4.8 b
7.5
3.5
Mean for pitch
4.6
6.7
5.9
5.3
7.8
3.8
LSDα = 0.05
ns
ns
ns
0.8
ns
ns
Autumn
Control area
– A
4.6
8.1
7.3
5.1
8.8
4.8 a
Goal area
– B
5.3
6.6
6.8
6.1
9.0
2.8 b
Penalty area
– C
7.1
8.1
7.6
6.3
9.0
3.1 b
Field of play
– D
6.1
7.3
7.1
5.1
8.8
3.1 b
Centre circle – E
4.6
6.3
6.6
5.1
8.1
2.8 b
Mean for pitch
5.8
7.1
7.0
5.5
8.8
3.0
LSDα = 0.05
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.5
ns – no significant differences
ab – homogeneous groups

Fig. 2. Appearance of football sward after 5 football season (photo by K. Wolski)

Fig. 3. General aspect of football sward in 10 years of use (photo by K. Wolski)

The compactness was the next evaluated factor [6]. The scores of this trait depended largely on the period of year, as other studies have confirmed [9]. The highest score for compactness was obtained in spring, while in the summer period the score for this trait decreased. The biggest decrease in the summer, as compared with the spring season, was recorded in the intensively used field of play, and the smallest in the penalty area. The average scores for individual traits on the main pitch, obtained from different parts of it in spring, showed no signifi­cant differences compared with the control area, where the turf  was not used.

The next evaluated trait was the colour of the turf. The most stable green colour in the growing season was found in the penalty area, while the largest fluctuations were noticed in the field of play. In the summer, during the league break, significant differences were recorded in regard to leaf fineness, that is, the narrowness of leaf blade. On the field of play, in comparison with turf in the control area, an increased width of grass leaves (around 5 points on average) was observed on the football field. When the leaf is thinner, the turf looks better. Leaf fineness had the highest score in the springtime. In spring, the leaves of grasses were slender and in alignment. Significant differences were observed for the intensity of grass regrowth from the main pitch and the control area. In autumn a definitely lower rate of growth occurred in turf on the football field. Analysis of the scores obtained on the pitch disclosed relative alignment on all three test dates. Regular mowing of turf kept the average height of regrowth at the 3 cm level.

A large number of pratotechnical treatments, such as frequent biomass removal and intense fertilization, increases the risk of infection of plants by pathogens. A well-designed program of disease protection has a very big impact on the condition of turf  [13]. If the maintenance program is managed improperly, the endangerment is higher. This leads to a shortening of the root system, and consequently to a reduction of the affluence of plants, weakness, and increased susceptibility to disease [14]. In the studied football field no disease symptoms were noted in the growing season, which means that the maintenance program was good. The plants resistance to disease was better in the springtime, obtaining the maximum score, which indicates the absence of any signs of infection. During the league break in the summer, the scores lightly decreased, then in autumn it again reached the level observed at the beginning of the growth season (just below the maximum score). Using the visual method to evaluate the turf on the main football field at ASA in Wroclaw included evaluation of three traits. Within the examined traits, between mean values for the main pitch and the control area the differences in evaluation were not observed (Tab. 3).

Table 3. Evaluation of turf on football field from 10 years (2002–2011) – visual method
Specification
Tested traits
Season of observation
Area
Density
[PCs.×cm-2]

Texture
(1–5)

Homogeneity
(1–5)
Spring
Control area – A
13.8 ab
3.5 ab
3.8 ab
Goal area – B
14.5 a
3.0 b
4.5 a
Penalty area – C
14.5 a
3.3 ab
3.0 b
Field of play – D
13.5 b
3.5 ab
4.0 a
Centre circle – E
13.8 ab
4.0 a
3.5 ab
Mean for pitch
14.0
3.4
3.8
LSDα = 0.05
0.7
0.9
1.0
Summer
Control area – A
16.0
3.6
2.6
Goal area – B
14.8
3.3
2.0
Penalty area – C
16.0
2.8
2.8
Field of play – D
14.0
3.3
2.8
Centre circle – E
14.8
3.3
3.3
Mean for pitch
14.9
3.2
2.7
LSDα = 0.05
ns
ns
ns
Autumn
Control area – A
14.8
4.3
2.1 b
Goal area – B
15.8
3.8
2.6 ab
Penalty area – C
16.8
4.6
3.8 a
Field of play – D
15.3
4.6
4.1 a
Centre circle – E
14.0
4.1
3.6 ab
Mean for pitch
15.5
4.3
3.5
LSDα = 0.05
ns
ns
1.5
ns – no significant differences
ab – homogeneous groups

The first evaluated trait was turf den­sity. This corresponds to the number of top shoots per unit area [6, 19]. In this study the lowest density was in the springtime. A positive tendency was noticed in all evaluated areas, which reached the highest value at the end of the season. In autumn the best quality of turf was noted. Significant differences in the values for individual areas on the pitch were visible in the spring. The goal area with an adjacent penalty area received higher values than the field of play.

The increase of turf density improves the texture of turf [19]. Results of the presented study confirm this, because, as was the case with the previous factor, the highest texture score was in autumn. The leaves had the narrowest blade width during this time, which increased the attractiveness of the lawn. The score of this trait in the goal area was at an average level, and the highest score occurred on the field of play and penalty area.

The results of the evaluation on turf homogeneity were not satisfactory. In all three time periods the mean score was around 3 on a 5-point scale, which indicates low homogeneity: an undesirable result. Turgeon [19] and Wolski [20] found, inter alia, species composition, weeds, colour, density, texture and mowing height as factors to be considered when evaluating homogeneity (Fig. 4). The goal area and penalty area showed significant differences in homogeneity at the beginning of the spring season. The goal area had a high level of turf homogeneity – above 4 points – while the penalty area had only 3 points. During the league break all parts of the main pitch scored similarly, while in autumn the scores for the goal area were noticeably worse (below 3 points).
Fig. 4. Turf homogeneity, that is the appearance of turf after mowing (photo by K. Wolski)

The functional method was used to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the football field (Tab. 4). The hue of green is a trait which considers turf function­ality and visual qualities. The desired greenness of grass can be achieved by maintaining a good frequency and appropriate height of mowing, thus ensuring resilience and springiness. On the studied football field, the hue of green had the lowest score in the summer, whereas in spring and in autumn the score was higher. Thus the high attractiveness of turf at the beginning and the end of the league season was noted. Grabowski et al. [9] explain that the colour of grasses changes during the growing season. The inferior condition of grasses in summer is due to the scarcity of water during the hot months, leading very often to turf appearing yellow, white or a ''dirty'' grey hue of green. The research on individual areas of the main pitch in spring showed that the goal area had the best hue of green. This area had a much better score than the others in this time, especially when compared to the lowest-classified penalty area. In spring, on the centre circle, in significant differences in score were noted, but in the summer, despite the general trend of a decline in the green quality on all pitch areas, the biggest decline occurred exactly in this area. In autumn the hue of the grass improved, but the condition of the centre circle was still worse than in other areas, particularly the penalty area, which scored just below the maximum value.

Table 4. Evaluation of turf on football field from 10 years (2002–2011) – functional method
Specification
Tested traits
Season of observation
Area
Hue of Green
(1–5)
Rooting
[cm]
Development, Tillering
(1–5)
Spring
Control area – A
4.4 a
6.6
3.6
Goal area – B
4.4 a
6.4
3.6
Penalty area – C
3.2 b
6.1
3.6
Field of play – D
3.7 ab
6.0
3.4
Centre circle – E
3.9 ab
5.6
2.9
Mean for pitch
3.8
6.2
3.4
LSDα = 0.05
1.1
ns
ns
Summer
Control area – A
3.3
6.8
3.5
Goal area – B
3.3
5.8
3.8
Penalty area – C
3.3
6.5
3.3
Field of play – D
3.3
5.5
2.8
Centre circle – E
2.3
6.8
3.0
Mean for pitch
3.0
6.2
3.2
LSDα = 0.05
ns
ns
ns
Autumn
Control area – A
4.1 ab
5.5 a
3.0
Goal area – B
3.8 ab
6.0 a
2.8
Penalty area – C
4.8 a
7.0 a
3.0
Field of play – D
4.3 ab
5.3 a
3.0
Centre circle – E
3.1 b
3.3 b
2.5
Mean for pitch
4.0
5.4
2.8
LSDα = 0.05
1.4
1.7
ns
ns – no significant differences
ab – homogeneous group

The rooting of grass species on the turf was low. Wysocki [24] asserts that the main biomass of root systems of grasses occurs in the soil layer at a depth of 20 cm. The average length of root mass of evaluated grasses reached a level of only 6 cm. Intensive maintenance treatments, associated with frequent, short mowing of the turf on the field, reduced the intensity of root growth and made it shallow [19]. Systematic reduction of the leaf surface decreases the availability and auto production of nourishing substances in the underground part of the grass as well, which causes inhibition of growth [8]. In the growing season the length of the root system of grasses in different parts of the field remained at a relatively balanced level, with a slight downward trend. Large discrepancies in roots were recorded for grasses in the centre circle, where roots declined to the 3 cm level in the autumn. This value significantly differs from the rest, especially the grasses in the penalty area, the root systems of which grew to a depth of 7 cm.

The third trait evaluated by the functional method was tillering. Environmental conditions affect the tillering of grasses. In the presented study, the best score for this trait was noted in spring. In subsequent seasons the scores decreased; however, the same thing happened with the unused grass in the control area. This phenomenon can be explained by the natural dependencies which result from the different climatic conditions prevailing on particular dates. The tillering of grasses in all parts of the football field were at a similar level. A slight difference was observed only in the spring, in the centre circle, which scored below the average.

Football fields are areas with very high intensity of usage, which shapes the specific conditions for the development of the grasses. Species used on sports surfaces must have a number of beneficial features in order to be used in such places. They should create strong and compact sod, characterized by a high resistance to trampling, moving and mechanical damage (such as abrasion and tearing). Many authors [3–5, 18] indicate three species: Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne and Festuca rubra as especially suitable for football fields. Estimated species analysis carried out on the main football field at ASA in Wrocław has shown that these three species were used in the mixture forming the turf (Tab. 5). The perfect grass, which could fulfil all the requirements of a sports surface, does not exist, but a proper, homogeneous composition of several species can create the desired effect. This situation was observed on the studied football field. The selected species seem to be mutually complementary.

Table 5. Species composition of turfgrasses in the year of installation (2002) and after 10 years of football field using (2011)
Grass species
Cultivar
(participation of component in initial mixture %)
Percentage species composition [%]
– in the year of installation
– after 10 years of pitch using
Lolium perenne
Gazon (15)
50
30
Stadion (15)
Poa pratensis
Alicja (25)
30
55
Gol (25)
Festuca rubra
Nimba (10)
20
15
Leo (10)

Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass), making a 50% contribution to the initial composition of the turf on the studied football field, also has many disadvantageous properties, which, through correct species selection and proportions, did not negatively affect the final evaluation of the turf. Analysis confirmed the differential permanence of Lolium perenne, its sensitivity to low tempera­tures and retention of snow cover, unfavourable reaction to summer drought [11], and large fluctuations in amplitude of temperature [16]. After 10 years intensive use the proportion of Lolium perenne in the turf on football field decrease to 30%.

Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), in contrast with Lolium perenne, is highly resistant to unfavourable habitat conditions (especially temperature and water absence). Kentucky bluegrass has a  good overwintering  and tolerates long-lasting downpours [12]. Thanks to this properties the percentage  in composition (on 30% level) increased to 55% after 10 years.  

Festuca rubra (red fescue) was the third species used. Its use has been associated with good resistance to trampling and adverse climatic conditions such as drought and low temperatures [11]. Festuca rubra does not have high competitive ability, but in subsequent years of use increased its percentage in the studied football field, thanks to its allopathic properties. The presented study showed a decline from 20% of the initial contribution to 15%. This may be explained due to the use of Festuca rubra in combination with a highly competitive species, namely Lolium perenne. The smallest percentage is also associated with the relatively lower resistance to trampling compared to the other two species.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

  1. Bara R.F., Fickson W.K., Murphy J.A., Smith D.A., Funk C.R., 1993. Performance of Kentucky bluegrass cultivars and selection in New Jersey turf trials. Rutger turfgrass. Proc. of the New Jersey Turfgrass Expo, Atlantic City.
  2. Canaway P.M., 1990. A comparison of different methods of establishment using seed and sod on the cover and playing quality of turf for football. Journal of Sports Turf Research Institute, 66, 9–28.
  3. Charles G., 2006. Kosiarki wrzecionowe. [Spindle mowers]. Sportowe nawierzchnie trawiaste, 17/2006 [In Polish].
  4. Czarnecki Z., Harkot W., 2002. Wpływ częstotliwości koszenia na zadarnianie powierzchni przez trawnikowe odmiany Lolium perenne L. [Effect of cutting frequency on surface sodding by lawn cultivars of Lolium perenne L.]. Łąkarstwo w Polsce [Grassland in Poland] 5, 43–48 [In Polish].
  5. Domański P.J., 2002. Gatunki i odmiany traw w mieszankach na trawniki i boiska sportowe [Grass species and varieties in mixtures for lawns and sports stadiums]. Przegląd naukowy Wydziału Inżynierii i Kształtowania Środowiska SGGW [Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences SGGW], 1 (24), 83–105 [In Polish].
  6. Domański P., 1992. System badań i oceny odmian traw gazonowych w Polsce. [System of research and assessment of lawn grasses in Poland]. Biuletyn IHAR, 183, 251–263 [In Polish].
  7. Frey L., 2007. Polska księga traw. [The Polish Grass Book]. Instytut Botaniki im. W. Szafera, Polska Akademia Nauk, Kraków [Polish Academy of Sciences, Władysław Szafer Institute of Botany Krakow] [In Polish].
  8. Fry I., Huang B., 2004. Applied Turfgrass Science and Physiology, 21–23, 57–68, 83–89, 97–99, 115.
  9. Grabowski K., Grzegorczyk S., Benedycki S., Kwietniewski H., 1999. Ocena wartości użytkowej wybranych gatunków i odmian traw gazonowych do obsiewu nawierzchni trawiastych [Estimation of utility value of selected turf grasses species and va­rieties to sowing grass surface]. Folia Univ. Agric. Stetin. Agricultura, 75 (197), 81–88 [In Polish].
  10. Hejduk S., Baker S.W., Spring C.A., 2012. Evaluation of the effects of incorporation rate and depth of water-retentive amendment materials in sports turf constructions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B – Soil & Plant Science, 62, Supplement 1, 155–164.
  11. Jankowski K., Jodełka J., Ciepiela G. A., Kolczarek R., 2003. Ocena traw gazonowych w ekstensywnym użytkowaniu trawnika [Assessment of lawn grasses in exten­sive lawn utilization]. Biul. IHAR, 225, 259–265 [In Polish].
  12. Jankowski K., Jodełka J., Ciepiela G. A., Kolczarek R., 2001. Ocena bonitacyjna traw gazonowych [Bonitation evaluation of turfgrasses]. Pamiętnik Puławski, 125, 343–348 [In Polish].
  13. Pląskowska E., Wolski K., Moszczyńska E., Kaczmarek J., 2006. Badania zdrowotności gatunków i odmian traw gazonowych oraz ich mieszanek przeznaczonych do zakładania muraw piłkarskich [Study of the healthiness of species and cultivars of turfgrass and their mixtures for football pitches].  Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego we Wrocławiu [Scientific Journal of Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences] 545, Series of Agronomy LXXXVIII, 211–217 [In Polish].
  14. Prończuk M., 2006. Choroby traw w uprawach trawnikowych i sposoby zapobiegania ich występowaniu [Grass diseases on the lawns and ways to prevent their occurrence]. Sportowe nawierzchnie trawiaste nr 20, 19–26 [In Polish].
  15. Prończuk M., Prończuk S., 2006. Cechy użytkowe odmian Poa pratensis przeznaczonych na trawniki zacienione [Useful traits of Poa pratensis cultivars recommended for shady lawns]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego we Wrocławiu [Scientific Journal of Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences], 545, Series of Agronomy LXXXVIII, 229–238 [In Polish].
  16. Prończuk S., 2002. Uwarunkowania technologiczne w uprawie i ocenie trawników [Technological conditioning in the cultivation and the evaluation of lawns]. Przegląd naukowy Wydziału Inżynierii i Kształtowania Środowiska SGGW [Scientific Review Engineering and Environ­mental Sciences SGGW], 24, 70–78 [In Polish].
  17. Sherratt P., 2005. Nawierzchnie boiskowe [Pitches surfaces]. Sportowe Nawierzchnie Trawiaste, 13, 5–7 [In Polish].
  18. Sherratt P., 2001. Cool-season turf grasses for sports fields and recreational areas. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet.
  19. Szczykutowicz A., Jankowski K., 2003. Przydatność kostrzewy czerwonej (Festuca rubra) do zakładania trawników [Red fescue (Festuca rubra) usefulness for lawn establishment]. Wiadomości melioracyjne i łąkarskie [Water in rural areas and grassland news], t. XLVI nr 3, 128–129 [In Polish].
  20. Turgeon A.J., 2002. Turfgrass Management. Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-027823-8, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  21. Wolski K., Gawęcki J., Bartmański A., Sokulska D., Baranowski M., 2006. Analiza przydatności gatunków i odmian traw gazonowych oraz ich mieszanek do zakładania muraw piłkarskich [Suitability of turfgrass species, varieties and mixtures for turfing football grounds]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego we Wrocławiu [Scientific Journal of Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences] 545, Series of Agronomy LXXXVIII, 285–290 [In Polish].
  22. Wolski K., 2002b. Wpływ różnych sposobów renowacji na nawierzchnię trawiastą boisk piłkarskich po wieloletniej eksploatacji [Effect of different ways of renovation on grass football fields after long-term utilization]. Przegląd naukowy Wydziału Inżynierii i Kształtowania Środowiska [Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences SGGW], 1 (24), 202–205 [In Polish].
  23. Wysocki C., 2002a.  Główne przyczyny złego stanu trawników sportowych w Polsce [Principal causes of the poor quality of sports turf in Poland]. Przegląd naukowy Wydziału Inżynierii i Kształtowania Środowiska  [Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences SGGW], 1 (24), 136–142 [In Polish].
  24. Wysocki C., 2002b. Przyrodniczo-techniczne uwarunkowania w opracowaniach projektowych trawników sportowych [Natural and technical determinants in design projects of sports]. Przegląd naukowy Wydziału Inżynierii i Kształtowania Środowiska  [Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences SGGW], 1 (24), 34–42 [In Polish].

Accepted for print: 30.09.2016

Karol Wolski
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
phone: (+48) 71 320 16 51
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland
email: karol.wolski@up.wroc.pl

Marta Talar-Krasa
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland

Sebastian ¦wierszcz
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland

Magdalena Biernacik
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland

Agnieszka Dradrach
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland

Magdalena Szymura
Department of Agroecosystems and Green Areas Management, Wroc³aw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Grunwaldzki 24A
50-363 Wroc³aw
Poland

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.

Main  -  Issues  -  How to Submit  -  From the Publisher  -  Search  -  Subscription