_ 2
man“

I.

 

 

 

x
.zbtm

_ 2....
E

m.
3.:
an.

$3

a 22

2.3....gunflfifi
1." w

. .n :3. a. .1
5.1.5. . X! z:
t .3
‘

 

 

” t. ‘ firfh,‘
.. a .c "qmfieui, $34.. (any.
$21.”... 2.7.... e .fgwuanfim .

 

Timer 9

 

2
1003 LIBRARY
51mm 35 Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF ROOT ZONE DEPTH AND SOIL TYPE ON SURFACE
MOISTURE UNIFORMITY ON A SLOPED USGA PUTTING GREEN

presented by

Brian E. Leach

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Crop and Soil Sciences

76qu

Major professor

Date March 20, 2003

0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

910596

A1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopss-sz

THE EFFECTS OF ROOT ZONE DEPTH AND SOIL TYPE ON SURFACE
MOISTURE UNIFORMITY ON A SLOPED USGA PUTTING GREEN

By

Brian E. Leach

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Crop and Soil Science

2003

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF ROOT ZONE DEPTH AND SOIL TYPE ON SURFACE
MOISTURE UNIFORMITY ON A SLOPED USGA PUTTING GREEN

By

Brian E. Leach

The United States Golf Association (USGA) specification for putting green
construction requires a uniform root zone mix depth of 30 cm over a pea gravel layer.
Greens constructed to these specifications have experienced soil moisture problems
especially in areas of undulation. Lateral flow of water has lead to excessive soil
moisture in low areas, and insufficient soil moisture in elevated areas. A sloping putting
green with two construction types, and three different soil types was constructed at the
Hancock Turfgrass Research Center at Michigan State University. The two construction
types were: the standard USGA, with a uniform root zone depth of 30 cm; and a modified
USGA, with a variable root zone depth of 20 and 40 cm at the highest and lowest
elevations, respectively. The three soil types were: sand, sand/peat and sand/soil root
zone mixes. Time domain reflectometry was used to measure volumetric soil moisture
content (VWC) at four locations within each profile.

The results show that the addition of peat and/or soil to the root zone mix
increased the water holding capacity; however, increasing the water holding capacity of
the root zone mix had a limited effect on improving the uniformity of VWC across all
locations of a sloped putting green. The modification of the root zone depth, regardless
of soil type, resulted in more uniform moisture contents within the 0-20 depth, across all

locations of a sloped putting green.

To Joyce for all of your love, encouragement, and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Kevin Frank, for his
invaluable assistance, guidance and support throughout my graduate program. I thank
my committee members, Dr. James Crum and Dr. James Hart, for their expertise, and for
answering nearly as many questions as they created. I would like to thank Mark Collins
and everyone at the Hancock Turfgrass Research Center for all their assistance. I would
also like to thank Dr. Thomas Nikolai and Ron Calhoun for sparking my interest in
turfgrass research. I would like to thank the United States Golf Association, Michigan
Turf Foundation, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, and the OJ. Noir
Foundation for their support of this research. And a special thank you to Kevin O’Reilly

for so much help with so many of the “little” things.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Construction x Location x Soil Interaction
Construction x Location x Soil Interaction: 0-10 cm depth
Construction x Location x Soil Interaction: 10-20 cm depth
Location x Soil Interaction: 0-10 cm depth
Location x Soil Interaction: 10-20 cm depth
Construction x Location Interaction: 0-10 cm depth
Construction x Location Interaction: 10-20 cm depth
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vi

12

2O
27
27
34
39
43
47
54

61

63

97

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table l 1.

LIST OF TABLES

Root zone mix physical properties.
Root zone mix particle size distribution.

Analysis of variance for 2000 volumetric water
contents at the 0-10 cm depth, for dry down 1 a)D1)
through dry down 5 (DDS).

Analysis of variance for 2001 volumetric water
contents at the 0-10 cm depth, for dry down 1 (DDl)
through dry down 4 (DD4).

Analysis of variance for 2002 volumetric water
contents at the 0-10 cm depth for, dry down 1 (DDl)
through dry down 4 (DD4).

Analysis of variance for 2000 volumetric water
contents at the 10-20 cm depth, for dry down 1 (DDl)
through dry down 5 (DDS).

Analysis of variance for 2001 volumetric water
contents at the 10-20 cm depth, for dry down 1 (DDl)
through dry down 4 (DD4).

Analysis of variance for 2002 volumetric water
contents at the 10-20 cm depth, for dry down 1 (DDl)
through dry down 4 (DD4).

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the first dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, at the 0-10 cm depth for the
third dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, at the 10-20 cm depth for the
fifth dry down in 2000.

vi

14

15

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

29

36

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 1A.

Table 2A.

Table 3A.

Table 4A.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, 10-20 cm depth, day 0, for the third dry
down in 2000, and the second dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location interaction, day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x

location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth

for the first four dry downs in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x

location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth

for the four dry downs in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x

location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth

for the four dry downs in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x

location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth

for the first four dry downs in 2000.

vii

40

41

45

46

49

50

56

57

62

63

64

65

Table 5A.

Table 6A.

Table 7A.

Table 8A.

Table 9A.

Table 10A.

Table 1 1A.

Table 12A.

Table 13A.

Table 14A.

Table 15A.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the fifth dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the four dry downs in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the four dry downs in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the fifih dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

viii

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

83

Table 16A.

Table 17A.

Table 18A.

Table 19A.

Table 20A.

Table 21A.

Table 22A.

Table 23A.

Table 24A.

Table 25A.

Table 26A.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the four dry downs in 2001, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the four dry downs in 2002, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the four dry downs in 2001, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the four dry downs in 2002, at
the 0-10 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the four dry downs in 2001, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 0, for the four dry downs in 2002, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the four dry downs in 2001, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

Volumetric water contents for the location x soil
interaction, day 3, for the four dry downs in 2002, at
the 10-20 cm depth.

ix

84

85

86

87

88

89

9O

91

92

93

94

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 1 1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Cross sectional view, and dimensions of putting
surface: (a) north toe slope, (b) 7% north slope, (c)
summit, (d) 3% south slope, and (e) south toe slope.

Three-dimensional diagram of the sloping green.

Cross sectional three-dimensional view of standard
and modified construction types with TDR probe
locations: (1) Location 1, (2) Location 2, (3) Location
3, and (4) Location 4.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the first dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the third dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the first dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the second dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the third dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth
for the fourth dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the fifth dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the first dry down in 2001.

l3

17

31

31

32

32

33

33

37

37

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 1A.

Figure 2A.

Figure 3A.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the second dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the third dry down in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 0-10
cm depth, in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 0-10
cm depth, in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 0-10
cm depth, in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 10-
20 cm depth, in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 10-
20 cm depth, in 2001.

Volumetric water contents for the significant
construction x location interactions, day 3, at the 10-
20 cm depth, in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the second dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the third dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the fourth dry down in 2000.

xi

38

38

51

52

53

58

59

6O

76

76

77

Figure 4A.

Figure 5A.

Figure 6A.

Figure 7A.

Figure 8A.

Figure 9A.

Figure 10A.

Figure 1 1A.

Figure 12A.

Figure 13A.

Figure 14A.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x

location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the fifih dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the first dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the second dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm
depth for the fourth dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the second dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the third dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the fifth dry down in 2000.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the first dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the second dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the third dry down in 2002.

Volumetric water contents for the construction x
location x soil interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm
depth for the fourth dry down in 2002.

xii

77

78

78

79

79

80

80

81

81

82

82

INTRODUCTION

The quality of a golf course is largely determined by the condition of the putting
greens. A great deal of time and money is spent maintaining putting greens to the
standards golfers have come to expect. To maintain high quality putting surfaces, a golf
course superintendent must institute superior mowing, fertilization, cultivation, and
irrigation programs.

Mowing, fertilization, and cultivation are flexible cultural practices that can be
tailored to fit the unique and variable growing conditions of individual putting greens,
however, irrigation is less flexible. Irrigation on an individual putting green is dependent
on the initial installation of the in-ground irrigation system, and on the design of the
putting green. While irrigation systems are designed to apply a uniform amount of water
to the irrigated area, even the most effective design can be rendered ineffective if the
irrigated area does not “dry out” uniformly.

For 40 years the United States Golf Association (USGA) has provided
specifications for the construction of putting greens. The USGA specifies that a uniform
30 cm layer of a sand-based root zone mix be placed over a 10 cm layer of pea stone or
gravel. The sand-based root zone mix provides adequate aeration and is resistant to
compaction. Placing the sand mixture over gravel increases the water holding capacity of
the sand while avoiding complete saturation of the root zone following irrigation or
rainfall (Dougrameji, 1965). Putting greens constructed to USGA specifications fimction
very well on a level putting surface (Taylor et al., 1993); however, when the green has
undulating areas, moisture extremes in the rootzone may lead turfgrass decline

(Prettyman and McCoy, 1999).

Two conditions associated with moisture extremes in the rootzone are localized
dry spot (LDS) and black layer (Cullimore et al., 1990; Berndt and Vargas, 1992;
Wilkinson and Miller, 1978). Both impair turfgrass grth and can be problematic on
undulating USGA putting greens.

Localized dry spot (LDS) appears on putting greens as small irregular areas of
stressed turfgrass (Kamok and Tucker, 2001). The sand particles in these areas have
become hydrophobic, making it difficult to return to optimum moisture levels (Hudson, et
al., 1994). The formation of LDS is not well understood; however, LDS occurs most
frequently in dry sandy soils (Cisar et al., 2000). The best method to avoid the formation
of LDS is to maintain adequate soil moisture (Wilkinson and Miller, 1978; Henry, 1970).
Localized dry spots are normally a problem on high areas of an undulating USGA green.

Black layer is the term used to describe a black banding of the root zone in sand
based putting greens. Putting greens provide can be an ideal growing environment for
cyanobacteria and other organisms that are responsible for the formation of black layer:
“The abundance of water, nutrients, light, and calcareous sands ofien used in the
construction of high—sand greens provide ideal conditions for cyanobacteria]
proliferation” (Hodges, 1992). The formation of black layer reduces the internal drainage
of putting greens due to the cyanobacteria produced organic matter that fills the pore
spaces in the sand material (Bond, 1964 and Fogg, 1973). While several explanations
have been suggested for the cause of turfgrass decline associated with black layer, one
constant has been anaerobic conditions in the soil profile due to near saturated conditions
(Elliot, 1998). Black layer formation can become a problem on low areas of undulating

USGA putting greens.

Moisture extreme problems on USGA putting greens can be attributed to the
uniform depth of the root zone layer. On a level putting surface, equal gravitational
potential results in minimal lateral flow of water, and the putting green dries at a uniform
rate. On an undulating putting green, unequal gravitational potential results in the lateral
flow of water from the higher elevations to lower elevations, and the putting green does
not dry at a uniform rate. A root zone layer of uniform depth on an undulating putting
green does not compensate for the lateral movement of water, resulting in soil moisture
contents in the low elevations to be greater than soil moisture contents in high elevations,
making it difficult to maintain an optimum moisture level across the entire putting green
with an in-ground irrigation system.

The objective of this research is to determine whether a modification of the depth
of the root zone layer will increase the uniformity of soil moisture levels in USGA
putting greens. Reducing the depth of the root zone layer at the peak of a slope from 30
cm to 20 cm will potentially increase the soil moisture at the surface, reducing the
occurrence of LDS. Increasing the depth of the root zone layer from 30 cm to 40 cm at
the base of the slope will potentially reduce the amount of water at the surface, reducing

the occurrence of black layer formation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

According to the United States Golf Association (U SGA) “the putting green is all
the ground of the hole being played which is specially prepared for putting, or otherwise
defined as such by the committee” (U SGA, 2002). To play a model round of golf on a
par 72, 18-hole course, 36 shots will be putts played on the putting green, “which
represents approximately 1.6 % of the total area of the golf course” (Beard, 2002). Dave
Pelz observed that a foursome left as many as 500 footprints on each putting green (Pelz,
2000). Bengeyfield (1963) calculated that if golfers wore shoes averaging 24 spikes per
pair, two hundred golfers would leave 72,576,000 spike marks daily on the putting greens
of an 18-hole golf course. The large amount of traffic that is concentrated on putting
greens results in excessive turfgrass wear and soil compaction leading to a decline in
turfgrass quality.

In the earliest days of golf course construction many putting greens were
constructed by pushing and shaping the existing soil to achieve the desired contoured
putting surface, hence the term of “push-up” green. Because of the variability in soils,
golf course superintendents were often forced to employ different maintenance practices
on each putting green to achieve uniform playing conditions. In the late 1940’s and early
1950’s, in an effort to improve the overall quality of golf courses, the USGA began
examining the soils used in the construction of putting greens (Latham, 1990).

In one of the earliest USGA-funded studies (Humbert and Grau, 1949), golf
course superintendents supplied one soil sample from their best putting green, and one
from their worst, so that soil characteristics could be compared. The most notable

difference between the two samples was in pore size distribution. The samples from the

good greens had a better balance of small pores to retain moisture, and large pores to
support drainage. Although the authors stressed that no definitive conclusions could be
made without further research, they did recommend that “in the construction of new
greens, or in the rebuilding of old ones, the total sand content be developed to 50 or 65
percent, and the clay content be held below 15 percent” (Humbert and Grau, 1949). The
use of a high sand content soil, with low clay content, was suggested as a means to
reduce the effects of compaction.

The effect of traffic on soil compaction can be severe. A study conducted at
Pennsylvania State College (Alderfer, 1951) reported that foot traffic on test plots with an
unspecified soil type reduced the water infiltration rate (from 1.7 to 1.2 cm per hour),
increased water runoff (from 52 to 67%), and reduced “non-capillary” porosity in the
upper 2.54 cm of the soil (fi'om 19.2 to 8.6%). Comparing the effect of “trampling” on
two different soil types, clay loam and sandy loam, showed no difference in the amount
of permeability, runoff, and “non-capillary” porosity in the upper 2.54 cm of either soil.
Alderfer, however, did not ascertain the ratio of sand, silt, and clay of each soil type.

By 1956, soil specifications for putting green construction were becoming more
precise. Lunt (1956) noted that the lack of oxygen, associated with reduced porosity,
might be a reason for turfgrass decline in areas of heavy traffic. In a laboratory study,
Lunt examined the effect of compaction on porosity in soils with different sand contents,
and concluded that soil required a minimum of 85% sand to reduce the effects of
compaction encountered on a putting green. When columns of soil (85% sand) were
compressed, a 10.2 cm layer of sand was sufficient to protect an underlying soil from the

effects of compaction. Particle size distribution of the sand materials was analyzed and

Lunt determined that in a desirable sand mixture, 75% of the sand particles should be in
the 0.4 to 0.2 mm range, with no more than 6—10% smaller than 0.10 mm.

A field study was conducted by Kunze et al. (1957), to determine the ratio of
sand, soil, and peat best suited for putting greens. The best ratio should hold enough
moisture for turfgrass growth, while providing adequate drainage to remove excess
amounts of water. Test plots were constructed using various particle sizes, and mixtures
of sand, soil, and peat. To evaluate the effectiveness of the mixtures, clipping weights
and percolation rates were compared before and afier compaction. It was recommended
that the soil mixture best suited for the construction of a putting green would have a sand,
soil, peat ratio of 8:1 :1, or 8.5:0.5:1 (Kunze et al., 1957).

In 195 7, Dr. Walter Gardner, produced a time-lapsed movie titled “Water
Movement in Soils”. The movie demonstrated that water movement through a layer of
fine-textured soil was interrupted (perched) as it came in contact with an underlying layer
of coarse-textured soil. As Dougrameji (1965) explained, at the interface of the two soils,
high moisture tension in the unsaturated small pores prevents movement of water into the
larger pores below. As the fine-textured soil nears saturation, the moisture tension
decreases to the point that water enters the large pores of the underlying course-textured
soil.

The above studies laid the groundwork for the first USGA specifications for
putting green construction in 1960 (The USGA Green Section Staff, 1960). The USGA
cited two main reasons for publishing their specifications. At the time the number of golf
courses being built, or rebuilt, was at an all time high. To keep maintenance costs low,

many courses were building putting greens that were flat and featureless. The USGA felt

that a standardized construction method would allow designers more creativity, while
assuring owners that the greens would be easy to maintain. The second reason cited was
that, as the number of golfers increased, the importance of drainage and resistance to
compaction increased.

The 1960 specification for putting green construction was divided into seven
individual steps, with “each step in construction dependent upon all the others” (The
USGA Green Section Staff, 1960):

Step #1: Subgrade

Step #2: Drainage

Step #3: Gravel and Sand Base

Step #4: “Ringing the Green” (Preparing the area surrounding the green.)
Step #5: Soil Mixture

Step #6: Soil Covering, Placement, Smoothing and Firming

Step #7: Sterilization of Soil and Establishment of Turf

To provide good drainage and resistance to compaction, the 1960 publication
specifies that putting greens be constructed by layering soils of different textures. A
subgrade was to be excavated into the existing soil, 35.6 cm below the surface of the
proposed putting green, with the same contour as the finished grade. Placed over the
subgrade were 10.2 cm of gravel, 3.8 to 5.1 cm of coarse sand, and 30.5 cm of topsoil. It
was specified that the topsoil meet certain physical properties. When compacted the
topsoil should have a minimum total pore space of 33%, with 12 to 18% non-capillary

pores, and 15 to 21% capillary pores (The USGA Green Section Staff, 1960). According

to Hummel (1993) the permeability of the root zone mix, “expressed in terms used
today”, should have a saturated conductivity rate of 15 to 46 cm hr".

The first USGA specification was very innovative. The topsoil root zone mixture
provided the necessary aeration and drainage that previous research had shown to be
important in a putting green. Placement of the root zone mixture over a coarse sand and a
layer of gravel increased the water available to the plants, yet provided rapid drainage
after heavy rains.

The USGA published revisions to the putting green construction specifications in
1973, 1989, and 1993. Modifications were made to all seven steps of the specification;
however, one portion remained unchanged. There have been no changes to the
specification that the root zone mix be a uniform depth of 30.5 cm. Putting greens
constructed to USGA specifications function very well where the putting surfaces are
horizontal (Taylor et al., 1993); however, when the green has undulating areas, moisture
extremes in the root zone may contribute to turfgrass decline (Prettyman and McCoy,
1999). Two conditions associated with moisture extremes in the root zone are localized
dry spot (LDS) and black layer. Both impair turfgrass growth and can be problematic on
undulating USGA putting greens.

On putting greens, LDS appears as irregular patches of dry soil with moisture
stressed turfgrass that are surrounded by moist soil and healthy turfgrass. Because the
dry soil is hydrophobic, the LDS areas are very diffith to return to optimum moisture.
Both humic (Roberts and Carbon, 1972) and fulvic acids (Miller and Wilkinson, 1977)
have been identified as organic substances that coat soil particles and cause soils to

become hydrophobic. Bond and Harris (1964) suggested that the cause of hydrophobic

soils might be of fungal origin. The mycelium of Marasmius oreades (Bolt ex. Fr), a
fairy ring producing fungi, have been shown to create hydrophobic conditions on putting
greens in the United Kingdom (York and Canaway, 2000), however the exact cause of
the phenomenon could not be ascertained. The exact cause of hydrophobic soils on
putting greens is not known.

Wilkinson and Miller (1978) used scanning electron micrograph photographs
(SEM) to examine soil particles taken from a high sand content green (SS-90% sand).
The SEM photographs revealed that sand particles in LDS areas had fungal mycelium
present, and were coated with an irregular shaped material. There were no fungal
mycelium or coatings on sand particles in areas of healthy turf. Heating the coated sand
particles to 500° C removed the coating, revealing that the coating was an organic
material. Washing the sand particles with 5% HCl did not remove the coating, however
washing with 5% NaOH did, revealing that the material was an acidic material.
Wilkinson and Miller (1978) concluded that the organic coating was a result of fungal
mycelial growth that was responsible for the hydrophobic condition of the soil, however,
since the fungi were not present at the time of testing it was not possible to identify the
causal organism.

To control and/or reduce the effects of LDS on putting greens, Karnok, et a1
(1993) attempted to solubilize the organic coating by raising the pH of the soil. While
putting greens treated with 0.1 M NaOH, and flushed with water, did show some
reduction in soil hydrophobicity, the authors felt that the phytotoxic nature of NaOH may
limit its use. Slow release fertilizers have been used to stimulate the microbial

breakdown of waxes that form on soil particles. Slow release fertilizers increased the

populations of wax degrading microorganisms, however during the heat of the summer,
the accumulations of wax exceeded the microbial breakdown, and LDS was formed
(Franco, et al., 2000).

The use of wetting agents and surfactants has been shown to temporarily reduce
the hydrophobicity of LDS. Cisar, et a1 (2000) demonstrated that five different brands of
surfactants improved the quality of turfgrass when compared to untreated plots. Three
products drastically reduced the percent dry spot compared to the control plots (from
92.5% to 2.5%, 6.3%, and 10.0 %). Kamok and Tucker (2001) demonstrated that wetting
agents improved turfgrass color and quality 78% of the time, and increased root length
27%, in the 0-7.6 cm depth. Karcher (1999) concluded that the combination of a wetting
agent, with fungicide and water injection cultivation showed the potential to lessen the
symptoms of LDS.

The best method to avoid the formation of LDS is to maintain adequate soil
moisture (Wilkinson and Miller, 1978; Henry, 1970). The severity of hydrophobicity
increases if the soil is allowed to dry. Frequent irrigation is ofien required to maintain
high soil moistures, however this can be a problem in areas where water sources are
scarce. Over watering can also lead to problems with the formation of black layer.

Black layer is a disorder that is commonly found on high sand content putting
greens. A continuous or irregular subsurface blackened layer in the root zone
characterizes Black Layer. Excessive amounts of water from rain or irrigation provide an
environment for the formation of black layer (Elliot, 1998). The black layer may be
formed by an assortment of bacteria or cyanobacteria that produce biofilms in the sand

that impede drainage of water. The biofilms generate anaerobic conditions and provide

10

organic matter that supports the formation of sulfate-reducing bacteria and the subsequent
development of black layer (Hodges and Campbell, 1998). The black layer is often
associated with a noxious sulfur odor, and over time the turfgrass may show symptoms of
chlorosis, wilting, thinning, and eventually death.

Black layer formation results from the interaction of cyanobaterium growing on
the surface of the putting green and the sulfate reducing bacterium Desulfovibrio
desulfuricans (Hodges, 1992 A). Hodges observed the growth responses of creeping
bentgrass (Agrostris palustris) grown in soil columns exposed to black layer formed by
this interaction. He concluded that the organisms responsible for the formation of black
layer were not the direct cause of death of creeping bentgrass, the roots of creeping
bentgrass seem to have the ability to aerate the soil in the area of the black layer reducing
the severity of black layer, and that shoot growth of creeping bentgrass is more sensitive
to black layer formations than root growth (Hodges, 1992 B). To avoid the adverse
effects of black layer, it is important to avoid excessive amounts of water in the root
zone. Anything that impedes water percolation to create a waterlogged zone can initiate
the formation of black layer (Carrow, et a1, 2001). Smith (2001) suggests that reduced

irrigation and improved soil drainage will help prevent the formation of black layer.

11

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sloped USGA putting green was constructed at Michigan State University’s
Hancock Turfgrass Research Center in 1998. The putting green was designed for
monitoring the down slope movement of water in the root zone. Time domain
reflectometry (TDR) instrumentation was installed to monitor soil volumetric water
content (V WC), and rain gauge tipping buckets were installed to monitor drainage.

The putting green was constructed with a summit 36.3 cm in height, with two
downhill slopes of different magnitude (Figure 1). The peak of the summit was
constructed 7.8 m from the northern edge of the green, and 16.7 m from the southern
edge. North of the summit, the putting green has a seven percent slope (north slope) to
the flat north toe slope. South of the summit, the putting green has a gradual three
percent slope (south slope) to the flat south toe slope.

The putting green was divided into 15 plots, 2.5 m wide and 24.5 m long. Twelve
of the plots were test plots, and three were utility strips built to accommodate the
installation of monitoring equipment (Figure 2). Three root zone mixes were used in the
construction of the test plots: four plots were built with a sand root zone, four plots were
built with an 85:15 sand/peat root zone material, and four plots were constructed with an
85:15 sand/soil root zone material. The sand/peat root zone and sand/soil root zone
mixes conform to USGA specifications (Table 1 and 2). The sand root zone mix does not
conform to the USGA specifications for hydraulic conductivity and percent capillarity

(Table 1 and 2).

l2

 

 

 

l .
+| 2.5m $5.3m_+___12.2m—,|._4.5m‘.|

Figure 1. Cross sectional view, and dimensions of putting surface:
(a) north toe slope, (b) 7% north slope, (c) summit,
(d) 3% south slope, and (6) south toe slope.

 

Figure 2. Three—dimensional diagram of the sloping green.

- Standard plots I: Sand plots
iii-$332 Modified plots - Sand/peat plots
[HID] Maintenance strips Sand/soil plots

 

.33 58m .83on 50.5 <OmD 2E:

 

New
QB
odm

SN
4:
E.
o.~
3.3m.

mom
5.3
Q?

mom
Rs
3m
3
no.3

mHN
0.x
Nmm

wed
mu.—
New
N;
a

 

 

 

“.22 28a Hood

on: ex: seas :5 8 a 8:5 e<
«Ni @e 582 so 3. a Ezaao
2-2 Aé Eoe
”.388;
Sz 3.60 3 bacon 225a
<2 3.60 3 bacon ism
2...: f: as $352.80 2383:
2 ea sea: 28ch
.coumvcoEEooom <OmD momtoaloi 3295.5

 

.893on 186.93 58 ocou Loom ._ 933.

14

 

.motMmBeo 025 05 50253 :39 $3 mo 8:9:me “
.28: bow—omen ...\..m we 85::me .2

.83 58m cozoom 520 <OmD 2E:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M page: “83 v
as S E . .
m 8:832 “8 o - go o
2 2 2 m asses: “as - 3o
92 2: <2 cm 82522 as - 25
93 4.3 on. one - as
8 8:832
3a 4.8 cam S - 3
ed 3 E 3 - A:
S saga:
we 3 3 3m - 3
ea momeam ea afieg $33 ea .aeaeaoaaooé 3:5 35 229$

 

x32 econ “com

<OmD

 

.cousnwsmzo 05m 22th 58 BEN Hood .N 2an

15

Six test plots were built to standard USGA specifications consisting of a uniform
depth (30 cm) sand based root zone. The remaining six test plots were built with variable
depth sand based root zone: 20 cm at the summit and 40 cm at the toe slopes (Figure 3).

A polyvinyl chloride liner was placed between adjacent plots to prevent the lateral
movement of water between plots. Drainage tiles were installed at five locations within
each test plot: at the extreme north and south end of each plot, the base of each slope, and
3.0 m from the summit on the south slope (Figure 3). Each tile was connected to a solid
drainage tile that discharged either out the north or south end of the putting green. The
amount of drainage from each location was quantified with a rain gauge tipping bucket
(TE525, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT.), connected to a series of multiplexers (MDX8,
Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT.), that are controlled by a datalogger(CR10X, Campbell
Scientific, Logan, UT.), programmed to record the amount of water draining from each
individual drainage tile.

After the construction of the putting green was completed, 108 TDR probes
(locally manufactured by B.R. Leinauer) were buried in the soil to measure volumetric
soil moisture at four locations within each test plot: probe location 1 at the base of the
north slope, probe location 2 at the summit, probe location 3 at the base of the south
slope, and probe location 4 in the middle of the south toe slope (Figure 3). Each probe
was electronically connected to a portable TDR 100 (Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT.)
through a series of multiplexers (MDXSO, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT.) that are
controlled by a data logger (CRIOX, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT), which is

programmed for synchronized measurements at all 108 locations. The TDR probes were

16

.4 828.. as as .m 8:83 6 .N season 5 ._ 8:83 E 2:382 BE ”a."

£3, womb cowosbmaoo 35on use “c8283 mo 32> awn—29086685 3:288 380 .m 95me

5.93
3286

a:
ocoN

Hood

 

 

09¢. 5:05.350 35on

 

 

EU 0?

 

c984
3230

52
BEN

 

  
 

 

 

09¢. 5503.580 335%

 
 

 

 

80 OM

 

 

 

 

83—

 

l7

positioned in the soil at a 45-degree angle to measure VWC at depths of 10-20, 20-30,
and 30-40 cm. A hand-held TDR (Trime-F M, FM2, Mesa Systems Co., Framingham,
MA) was used to record volumetric soil moisture contents at the four locations at the
surface level (0-10 cm). The two TDR’s were calibrated according to manufacturer’s
recommendations.

After installation of the TDR probes, in the summer of 1998, the putting green
was seeded with creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris cv. L-93). After establishment the
putting green was mowed five times a week at a height of 4.0 mm. The putting green
was fertilized at an annual rate of 24.4 g N-m'z.

To evaluate water movement within the two construction types, and the three root
zone materials, the putting green was subjected to “dry down” cycles, five cycles in the
summer of 2000, and four cycles in the summer of 2001, and 2002. Dry down cycles
were scheduled during dry periods without rainfall, and no irrigation was applied to the
putting green. During each cycle, VWC was monitored daily with the 108 permanently
installed probes connected to the TDR 100T”, and with the hand held TRIME-FMTM TDR
at the four locations in each plot. VWC readings were recorded at the 0—10 cm depth on
49 out of a possible 52 dates, and at the 10-20 cm depth on 44 out of 52 dates.

Each dry down cycle began with uniform, healthy turf across the entire putting
surface. To establish near field capacity soil moisture content, irrigation (0.25 cm) was
applied the night before each cycle, and the morning of “day 0” (1.25 cm). After the
morning irrigation, TDR readings were taken at the four locations on each individual

plot. The TDR readings were taken at 24-hour intervals for the length of the cycle. Each

18

dry down cycle was ended when there were visible signs of severe turfgrass moisture
stress.

Experimental design of the sloping green was a split plot design with two factors.
The whole plot factor was construction type consisting of the standard and modified
construction types. The split plot factor was soil type consisting of the sand, sand/peat,
and sand/soil root zone rrrixes. For each dry down cycle statistical analysis was
conducted independently on the daily VWC at the 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm depths, as these
were the only depths present at each location within each test plot. Treatment differences
were tested using Proc Mixed statistical analysis (SAS Institute Inc., 1999). When

appropriate, means were separated using Fisher’s LSD procedure.

19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five dry down cycles were completed in 2000, and four dry downs were
completed in 2001 and 2002. During each dry down cycle, volumetric water content
(VWC) was recorded at four locations at depths of 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, and 30-40 cm.
Statistical analysis was conducted independently on the VWC at the 0-10 and 10-20 cm
depths, as these were the only depths present at each location within each construction
type.

At the 0-10 cm depth, the construction x location x soil interaction was significant
on one out of a possible 49 dates, the location x soil interaction was significant on 26 out
of 49 dates, the soil main effect was significant on all 49 dates, the construction x
location interaction was significant on 35 out of 49 dates, and the location main effect
was significant on 17 out of 49 dates. Analysis of variance for the VWC at the 0-10 cm
depth is listed in Tables 3-5.

At the 10-20 cm depth, the construction x location x soil interaction was
significant on two out of a possible 44 dates, the location x soil interaction was
significant on 14 out of 44 dates, the soil main effect was significant on 37 out of 44
dates, the construction x location interaction was significant 28 out of 44 dates, and the
location main effect was significant on 15 out of 44 dates. Analysis of variance for the

VWC at the 10-20 cm depth is listed in Tables 6-8.

20

 

.300 oz 11.

Seesaw... .2510 1352060.. .8 e8 .20 .851. a 85.2.0.0... 38...... 02 e5. ..... ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 m2 m2 m2 1. m2 m2 m2 m2 wZ c =0m x .004 x .6000
m2 1.1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1. m2 1. o =0m x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N :0m x .3000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. N =0m
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1. 1.1. 1. m .004 x 00000
1. m2 m2 1. m2 1. m2 m2 1.1. 1.1. m 0000004
wZ m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 1. _ 0000000000
RAH; «MAE mAum mAum mAum OAE mAum .mAum mAum .mAum ”~ng 00.30m
mOO VOO mOO NOO _OO mOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
m 00 88 N 00 88
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 u m2 m2 m2 0 20m x .004 x 00000
1. 1. 1. 1.1. m2 m2 3. 1. 1.1. m2 0 mom x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 N mom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. m. 1. 1. 1. N mom
1. 1. 1.1. 1.1. 1. 1.1. u 1.1. 1. 1.1. m .004 x 00000
1.1. 1. m2 1.1. m2 m2 10 m2 1.1. m2 m 0000004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 111. m2 m2 1.... _ 0000500000
LAum "OAS OAHAO mAum «MAE mAum ”—Aum .mAum mAhm .mAHm .mO0SZ 00.50m
mOO vOO mOO NOO .OO mOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
_ an 88 o 00 88
.0000 m :38 be

3:85 OOOV 4 0300 .30 00.4 .5000 80 3-0 05 00 3000000 00003 050.039, oocm 00.4 000000.» .00 max—00¢. .m 0300.

21

 

3.... oz 1.

002.818. 521 0.. 285.00 .9. 2... .2 .o .8.ou._ .1 8:80:00 28...... 62 0.... .2. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 1* 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. m2 0 0 00m x .004
m2 1.1. m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0. N OOom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0 N OOom
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1a m .004 x .6000
m2 1. 1.1. 1. 1.1. 1. m2 0. m 0030004
m2 m2 1.... m2 m2 m2 m2 0 O 0000006000
"OAkO mAkO .mAkO "OAkO nOAkO .mAkO mAunO .mAkO "OOESZ 00.50m
vOO mOO NOO O OO VOO mOO NOO O OO
1 .30 88 N 0.0 88
m2 $4 1.1. m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
1. m2 1. 1. 1.1. 1.... m2 m2 0 OOom x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. N mom
1. 1. 1. 1. m2 m2 m2 1. m .004 x .6000
m2 .1. 1.1. 1. m2 m2 1. m2 m 0000004
1.1. m2 m2 1.1. m2 m2 m2 m2 O 0030006000
mAkO "OAkO ...OA0AO nOAkO ...OA01O nOA0nO nOAkO nOAkO mOfizz 00.0.10m
vOO mOO NOO OOO VOO mOO NOO OOO
_ N10 88 o 0.0 88
0.000 .1 :32. E.

@0000 One O 0300 .00 00.0 .5000 80 070 0.0 00 3000000 00003 0000829 Ooom 00.0 000000., .00 0.03051 .0 030B

22

 

0... 02..

022.8%... 20".. .. .5050... .2. B... .2... .031 .. 89.00.10... 28...... 62 E... .2. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 1.... m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
1. 1. m2 m2 m2 1. 1. m2 0 mom 0 .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. N OOom
1. 1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1. 1. 1. m .004 x .6000
1. 1. 1. m2 1.... 1. 1. 1. m 0000004
m2 1.... m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 O 0000006000
.OAE .OAHAO nOAunO mAunO ”OAunO nOAunO «OAS nOAhnO .OO03 00.000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
m 0.0 0.8 N 0.0 88
m2 1.1. m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 0 mom 0 .004 x .6000
m2 1. 1. m2 1.... m2 1. 0 0 OOom x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 N mom 0 .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0 N OOom
m2 1. 1. m2 1. 1.1. 1. h m .004 x .6000
m2 1. m2 m2 m2 1.... 1. 0 m 0000004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0. O 0000006000
“OAS nOAbO ,OAE nOAkO nOAuaO nOAunO "OAuaO "OAHAO ..OO0.SZ 00000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
_ 0.0 88 o 0.0 88
0.000 0 =32. 0..

@0000 OOQV O 0300 .00 .000 5000 80 3-0 05 00 3000000 0000? 2.000000.» NocN 00.0 000000.» .00 66.0000. .m 0300.

23

 

0.... oz 0

0.0.0.0.... 20".. .. 0.8.0.0.. .2. 0... .2... .03“. .. 8.....0000 98...... 62 ...... .: ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. 0 m2 m2 0.. m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 mom 0 .004 x .6000
1. 0. 1. 1. m. 1. 1. m2 1. 1. o mom 0 .004
m2 .0 m2 m2 .1... m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 0.. 1. 1. 0.. 1. m2 1.... 1. 1. N OOom
1. 0. 1. 1. .0 1.1. m2 m2 1.1. m2 m .004 x .6000
m2 0. m2 1. .0 m2 m2 m2 1.1. m2 m 0000004
m2 .0 m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 O 0000006000
“OAS 0A5 nOAkO “0A5 nOAbO 0A0nO 0A5 0A5 ”OAS ,nOAkO ”OOO007O 00000m
mOO vOO mOO NOO OOO mOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
m 0.0 88 N 0.0 88
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 1.1. m2 1.1. m2 1.... 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
1. 1. m2 m2 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0 mom 0 .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 1.1. 1.... 1.1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1. 1. 1. N OOow
1.1. 1. 1.... m2 1.... 1. 1. 1. m2 1.... m .004 x .6000
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 1. m2 m2 m 0000004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 O 0000006000
nOAkO 0A0NO nOAkO "OAE nOAkO nOAkO nOA..nO “OAE 0A0AO 0A0AO "OO0007O 00000m
mOO VOO mOO NOO OOO mOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
. 0.0 88 o 0.0 88
.0000 m Ea... 0..

000005 OOOOV O 0300 .00 000 .5000 80 8.3 05 00 3000000 00003 00.005000.» OOON .80 000000.. 00 00.0004. .0 030 0.

24

 

3.... oz...

08.8.2.8. 20".. .. 0.8.0.0... .2. ...... .2... .80". .. 858000.. 38...... 62 ...... ...... ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 m2 m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
0 m2 m2 m2 0. m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004
0 m2 m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 N Omom x .6000
0 1. 1. 1. 0 1. 1. 1. N Omom
.0 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. m .004 x .6000
0 1. 1. 1. 0 1. 1. 1. m 0000004
0. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. 0. 1.1. 1.1. 1.1. O 0000006000
,nOAunO .HOAkO nOAkO .nOAkO nOAkO "OAS nOAkO nOA.OnO nOO000 00000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
m 0.0 88 N 0.0 SON
0 0 m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
m. 0. m2 m2 0. m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004
0 0 m2 m2 .0 m2 m2 m2 N mom 0 .6000
0 0. 1. 1. 0 m2 1. 1. N mom
0. a. 1. 1. .0 m2 1. 1. m .004 x .6000
0 0 1.1. 1. 0 m2 m2 1. m 0000004
0 0 1.... 1.1. 0 m2 1.... 1.1. O 0000006000
“OAE nOA..nO "OAS “OAkO nOA..nO ."OAkO nOAkO nOAkO 0OE0 00000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
. 0.0 SON o 0.0 88
0.000 .. Ea... 0..

000005 OOOOV O 0300 .00 .00 .5000 0.0 3.2 05 00 00.00000 .0003 00.00.0003 SON .80 000000> 00 606.000.... .0 030 0.

25

 

0.... Oz ..

088...... .2.On.. .. .5800... .2. ...... .O..O .mO.Ou.. .. 8.0.3.00... 28...... 62 ...... .2. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 mom 0 .004 x .6000
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 OOom x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. N OOom
m2 1. 1. 1. 1.1. 1.1. 1. 1. m .004 x .6000
m2 1.... 1. 1. m2 m2 1. 1. m 0000004
m2 1.1. 1.... 1.1. m2 m2 1.... 1.... O 0000006000
nOAkO 0A00 0A01O 0A0OO 0A5 0A0OO 0A5 0A5 ”OOO00 00000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
m 0.0 NOON N 0.0 NOON
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 m2 0 OOom x .004 x .6000
1.1. m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 .0 m2 0 OOom x .004
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 0 m2 N OOom x .6000
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0 1. N OOom
1. 1.... 1. 1. 1. 1. 0 1. m .004 x .6000
m2 m2 1. 1.1. m2 m2 0 m2 m 0000004
1. 1. m2 1. 1. 1. 1. m2 1. 1. 0 m2 O 0000006000
0A0AO 0A0nO nOA0nO 0A00 0A0nO nOA0nO 0A0nO 0A5 ...OO0O0 00000m
vOO mOO NOO OOO vOO mOO NOO OOO
. 0.0 NOON O 0.0 NOON
.0000 .. .2... E.

000005 :09 O 0300 .00 000 .5000 0.0 3.3 05 00 60000000 0000.5 0000.000? NOON 000 000000.» 00 006.000... .0 030 H

26

thstmction x Locgmon x Soil Interaction:

Although the complexity of the construction x location x soil interaction led to
infrequent statistical significance, the interaction demonstrated consistent practical
significance. (See Appendix Tables 1A-14A for VWC construction x location x soil data
for day 0 and day 3.)

Construction x Location x Soil Interaction: 0-10 cm depth

The construction x location x soil interaction was significant on day 3 of the first
dry down in 2000 (Table 3). Within the standard construction type, the VWC at the peak
of the slope, location 2, was less than the highest value among the four locations (Table
9). Within the modified construction type, the VWC at location 2 was equal to the
highest value among the four locations (Table 9). Location 2 had a low VWC on all three
of the soil types within the standard construction type, and a high VWC on all three of the

soil types within the modified construction type.

The construction x location x soil interaction was significant, 0. = 0.10, on day 1

and day 3 of the third dry down in 2002 (Table 5). At the beginning of the dry down, day
0, the effect of the irrigation event (1.5 cm) prior to the start of the dry down cycle
resulted in no significant differences in VWC among the locations, soil types, and
construction types (Table 10). After one, and three days without irrigation, within the
standard construction type, location 2 had the lowest VWC among the four locations;
however, within the modified construction type, the VWC at location 2 was equal to the
highest VWC among the four locations (Table 10). Location 2 had a low VWC on all
three of the soil types within the standard construction type, and a high VWC on all three

of the soil types within the modified construction type.

27

Table 9. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the first dry down in 2000.
Location
1 2 3 4

Standard Sand 16.1 B*dI 14.1 Be 20.2 Acd 19.5 Ac
Standard Sand/Peat 28.0 ABa 25.8 Bab 29.9 Aa 27.4 ABa
Standard Sand/Soil 27.1 Aab 23.1 Cb 26.2 ABb 23.9 BCb
Modified Sand 14.6 Bd 16.4 ABc 17.6 Ad 15.5 ABd
Modified Sand/Peat 24.1 Bb 28.4 Aa 22.0 Be 23.3 Bb
Modified Sand/Soil 19.9 Bc 25.6 Aab 20.6 Bcd 21.5 Bbc

fMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

tMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischermotected LSD (p=0.05)

28

Table 10. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, at the 0-10 cm depth for the third dry down in 2002.

 

D_av_Q

Standard Sand
Standard Sand/Peat
Standard Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

2411.

Standard Sand
Standard Sand/Peat
Standard Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

Day 2
Standard Sand

Standard Sand/Peat
Standard Sand/Soil
Modified Sand

Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

Day 3
Standard Sand

Standard Sand/Peat
Standard Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
23.5" 23.2 23.3 22.8
30.2 31.5 32.4 32.0
29.7 30.6 30.6 30.6
23.6 23.5 24.0 21.7
30.2 32.8 30.1 29.2
29.4 31.7 29.6 29.1
1 2 3 4
24.2 A‘c§ 16.3 Bb 23.8 Abc 24.8 Ac
33.4 Aa 27.4 Bab 33.2 Aa 31.5 Aa
35.3 Aa 26.4 Cb 31.5 Ba 29.7 Bab
18.8 Bd 22.1 Ac 21.1 Ac 20.7 ABd
28.5 Bb 31.1 Aa 25.2 Cb 26.6 BCbc
28.8 Ab 30.0 Aab 25.8 Bb 25.4 Bb
1 2 3 4
23.5 13.1 24.7 25.5
32.9 26.6 32.4 31.1
34.1 24.0 30.7 29.8
17.0 18.2 18.4 17.6
28.6 27.8 25.8 26.0
26.8 28.0 25.0 25.1
1 2 3 4
20.8 Ac 11.8 Bd 21.1 Ac 22.2 Ab
29.9 Aa 23.8 Ba 30.9 Aa 29.0 Aa
31.4 Aa 20.3 Cb 28.0 Bb 28.1 Ba
14.3 Ad 14.7 Ac 15.1 Ad 14.2 Ac
24.3 ABb 26.1 Aa 22.2 Bc 22.0 Bb
21.6 ABc 23.7 Aa 20.5 Be 21.6 ABb

 

’Not significant at P=0. 10.

2Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

§Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

29

When the construction x location x soil interaction was significant, the results
show that the modification of the root zone depth resulted in a more uniform VWC
among the four locations within all three of the soil types (Figures 4 and 5). This trend
was evident on day 3 of all of the dry downs, even on dates when the construction x
location x soil interaction was not significant (See Figures 6-9 for 2001 data, and

Appendix Figures 1A-7A for 2000 and 2002 data).

30

35.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30.0 -.
25.0 4
20.0 -
VWC
15.0 —‘
10.0 fill—F TB: $1,333.31 #2 T # FA—O—FHStandard Sand/Peatw 1‘
5.0 _.! —A-— Standard Sand/Soil - - B - - Modified Sand F
1 "0" Modified Sand/Peat --A-- Modified Sand/Soil ;
0.0 T" “”“—”“;_ *‘**—— ”‘1’" .
1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 4. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil

interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the first dry down in
2000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.0

30.0 -

25.0 ~

20.0 —

VWC

15.0 ~~

10") t1 E—StandatdSand +Standatd Sand/Peat.— 1“

5.0 —A— Standard Sand/Soil --1:1-- Modified Sand
L - - <> - - Modified Sand/Peat - - - - Modified Sand/Soil i

0.0 ” _ ‘4“ “ "g“ “0‘“ 1 *- _—---

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 5. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil

interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the third dry down in
2002.

31

r_ ___,.___fi,-4.fi H1. F.. L -1 A -_ __ ”Of“ -wh- .— _ _

35.0 7 —a— Standard Sand 40— Standard Sand/Peat F
-&— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3 - - Modified Sand 1
30'0 i :93 Modified Sand/Peat - - 0- - ModifiedSarrdlSoilml

25.0 -

BL._.__1 v 4.. ’_ -.#. _._. ‘1 ‘— 0... # ._. 1_4._._._ ’_‘_

 

 

 

20.0 ..
VWC

 

15.0 -.

10.0 ~

 

5.0 ~>

 

 

0.0 T , T
1 2 Location 3 4

 

Figure 6. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the first dry down in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001.
35.0 11 £ +77 Standard Sand * + Standard Sand/Peat 1
j —-A-— Standard Sand/ Soil - - {3 - - Modified Sand
30°0 3 L. ,_ -f_0_- - Modified Sand/Peat j- 19- - Modified Sand/Soilk‘ J:
25.0 .. ‘
20.0 -.
VWC

15.0 ~ -
10.0 1

5.0 -.

0.0

 

 

 

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 7. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the second dry down in
2001.

32

 

; —a—Standard Sand —e—Standard Sand/Peat I
3 5.0 .1 —fi—- Standard Sand/Soil - - El - - Modified Sand
--<>--_Modified SanggeaL - - A" Modified Sand/Soi1__ 1

30.0 -- ,_____‘\ -_'":‘--..-. ._-__:4

 

 

   

 

 

25.0 ~

 

20.0
VWC
15.0 *7
10.0 -

5.0 i~--~— ——-~— —~—'--—O- —— -— ——-~— —“ __ ._-_.___.1______

 

 

0.0 I .
1 2 Location 3 4

 

Figure 8. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the third dry down in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001.
35 0 «f ”—B—V I "sn;EaE§an“ i _ _—9—h—_ Standard Sand/Peat—
i —A— Standard Sand/Soil - - El - - Modified Sand
30-0 “'1‘ f --<>--_1v1»oc_l_ifi_ed_Sand/Peat_q you Modified Sand/Soil
25.0 - 0
20.0 ~~ 0
VWC

15.0

10.0 1- — _-
5.0 -. ~— ..
0.0

 

 

 

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 9. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil

interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the fourth dry down in
2001.

33

Construction x LocaLtion x Soil Interaction: 10-20 cm depth

The construction x location x soil interaction was significant at the beginning, day
0 (a = 0.10), and the end, day 3 (a = 0.05), of the fifth dry down in 2000 (Table 6). On

day 0, within the uniform construction type: the sand root zone location 2 had the lowest
VWC among the four locations, the sand/peat root zone location 2 had a VWC less than
the highest value among the four locations, and the sand/soil root zone had no differences
in VWC among the four locations. There was less variability within the modified
construction type: the sand/peat and sand/soil root zones had no differences in VWC
among the four locations, and the sand root zone location 2 had a VWC equal to the
highest value among the four locations (Table 11).

Afier three days without inigation, within the uniform construction type: the sand
root zone location 2 continued to have the lowest VWC among the four locations, the
sand/peat root zone location 2 continued to have a VWC less than the highest value
among the four locations, however the sand/soil location 2 developed a VWC less than
the highest value among the four locations. There continued to be less variability within
the modified construction type: the sand/peat and sand/soil root zones had no differences
among the four locations, and the sand root zone location 2 had a VWC equal to the
highest VWC among the four locations (Table 11).

When the construction x location x soil interaction was significant, the results
show that the modification of the root zone depth resulted in more uniform VWC among
the four locations within all three of the soil types (Figure 10). This trend was evident on

day 3 of all of the dry downs, even on dates when the construction x location x soil

34

interaction was not significant (See Figures 11-13 for 2001 data, and Appendix Figures

8A-14A for 2000 and 2002 data).

35

Table 11. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, at the 10—20 cm depth for the fifth dry down in 2000.

 

 

 

Location
Day 0 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.7 Albc‘ 13.5 Bb 21.6 Aa 21.0 Ab

Uniform Sand/Peat 25.2 Aa 19.6 Ba 22.4 ABa 25.7 Aa
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.0 Aab 18.4 Aa 22.5 Aa 19.2 Ab
Modified Sand 12.6 Bd 20.3 Aa 17.2 ABb 14.1 Bc
Modified Sand/Peat 20.8 Abc 20.9 Aa 17.8 Ab 17.8 Ab
Modified Sand/Soil 17.6 Ac 20.6 A3 17.2 Ab 16.9 Abc

 

 

 

Day; 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.6§ 13.1 21.7 21.0
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.2 19.4 22.4 25.7
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.2 17.7 21.1 19.2
Modified Sand 12.5 16.7 17.2 14.2
Modified Sand/Peat 20.7 20.5 17.6 17.6
Modified Sand/Soil 17.1 20.1 17.1 16.7
Day; 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.7 12.3 21.0 20.4
Uniform Sand/Peat 24.5 18.3 21.4 24.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 22.6 17.0 22.0 18.8
Modified Sand 11.9 15.3 16.6 13.9
Modified Sand/Peat 20.3 18.9 17.3 17.3
Modified Sand/Soil 16.7 18.4 16.4 16.5
m; 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.1 A“bcii 11.3 Bb 20.4 Aa 19.7 Ab

Uniform Sand/Peat 23.2 ABa 17.3 Ca 20.6 BCa 24.6 Aa
Uniform Sand/Soil 22.4 Aa 16.4 Ca 21.3 ABa 18.4 BCb
Modified Sand 11.1 Bd 14.9 ABab 15.7 Ab 13.7 ABc
Modified Sand/Peat 19.8 Aab 17.9 Aa 17.1 Aab 17.1 Ab
Modified Sand/Soil 16.2 Ac 16.9 Aa 16.0 Ab 16.4 Abc

 

lMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

§Not significant at P=0.10.

ll'Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

"Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.0 -_.... ___... O _ .. ___ .__._._;_____ .. ___.
l —8— Standard Sand + Standard Sand/Peat
30.0-11 —A— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3- - Modified Sand
25 0 L __' ' 0' ‘ Mogifiid §an_d/1_’_ea_- - 10:;M3dfiieisind15011 __ _1
20.0 .- * — \. -—»- — ———————- A -7 ‘_ a ——
VWC --\_/II".:::: ::::::::::::::
15.0 ~——~ —— ..... —_., = - .11.... _.______1_.E] ._
100-0..- ETL,_1 _ E... _ _ 1 --1_ .. ______
5.0..______ ——— ———WO— O—H-
0.0
1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 10. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the fifth dry down in

2000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.0
30.0 -~ - . _--- ./ . ___ __9 _ _-
25.0 "0 rr _3 -
20.0 -1- ~ - /: ...... __
VWC - . /. . . , A """" <>
.............. A
15.0 --~~ Y -
El ------ V ---------- El -------------- E]
10.0 ~~ W. — -
j —0— Standard Sand/Peat
5.0 "1 —A— Standard Sand/Soil - - El - - Modified Sand .....
1 - - 0 - - Modified Sand/Peat - - fl - - Modified Sand/Soil
0.0 ’ TW" _ _ __ 1 .. r _

 

 

1 2

Location

3 4

Figure 11. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the first dry down in

2001.

37

35.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3004—— 9- - - - - w -- -1”,
6 A
25.0 -— _ - - - - 1- r v__ _ -
20.0 -»— _
vwc
15.0
1°") 1 2—9— Standard Sand —e—Standard Sand/Peat .
5,0 +Standard Sand/Soil --B-- Modified Sand 1
i- -"3';M°£ifisd$£nd/Peat _:_19_:'_,M°dified Sand/Soil '
0.0 0 . 1
1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 12. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the second dry down

35.0

in 2001.

 

30.0 4

25.0

20.0 ~-
VWC

15.0 1-
10.0 -.

5.0«1

 

0.0

 

2—8— Standard Sand
—-A— Standard Sand/Soil
1.... 0 modified Sand/Feat

 

 

i 2 FT —9— Standard Sand/Feat

 

 

 

- - {3 - - Modified Sand
- - ~A - - Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

l

1 2

Location 3 4

Figure 13. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the third dry down

in 2001.

38

Location x Soil Interaction: 0-10cm depth

The irrigation event (1.5 cm) prior to the start of the dry down cycles resulted in
no significant differences in the VWC among locations and soil types on nine of eleven
possible dates, on day 0. The location x soil interaction was significant on day 0 of dry
down 3 in 2000, and dry down 2 in 2002 (Tables 3-5). In 2000, the sand/peat and
sand/soil root zones had no differences in VWC among the four locations. In 2002,
within the sand/peat and sand/soil root zones, location 2 had a VWC that was equal to the
highest value among the four locations. In 2000 and 2002, within the sand root zone,
location 2 had the lowest VWC among the four locations (Table 12). (See Appendix
Tables ISA-20A for VWC location x soil data for day 0 and day 3 of each year.)

After three days without irrigation, the location x soil interaction was significant
on nine of 13 possible dates (Tables 3-5). There was more variability among the four
locations within the sand root zone than the sand/peat and sand/soil root zones. Within
the sand root zone, location 2 had the lowest VWC among the four locations on eight of
the nine dates, and on the remaining date had a VWC less than the highest value among
the four locations (Table 13). The sand/peat root zone had no differences in VWC among
the four locations on three of the nine dates. Within the sand/peat root zone, location 2
had a VWC equal to the lowest value among the four locations on five of the remaining
Six dates, and had the lowest VWC among the four locations on one date (Table 13). The
sand/soil root zone had no differences in VWC among the four locations on one of the

nine dates. The sand/soil root zone location 2 had a VWC value equal to the lowest value

39

Table 12. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction, 0-10 cm depth,
day 0, for the third dry down in 2000, and the second erdown in 2002.

Dry down 3, 2000 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 11.1 BC’b‘ 7.1 Cc ' 16.6 Ab 15.2 ABb
Sand/Peat 23.2 Aa 23.8 Aa 23.9 Aa 19.9 Aa
Sand/Soil 21.4 Aa 17.8 Ab 20.2 Aab 18.4 Aab

Dry down 2, 2002

1 2 3 4
Sand 12.1 Ab 7.9 Bb 15.7 Ab 13.2 Ab
Sand/Peat 26.2 Aa 23.3 ABa 21.4 ABa 22.3 Ba
Sand/Soil 22.8 Aa 21.8 ABa 20.7 ABa 18.3 Ba

 

*Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
Significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different accordingto Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

40

 

$0th amu— 030880 00:00..— 8W£01o8a 0020000 b.0850w0 8: 93 .802 3.8 0032 203 can 0032.00 5028 a 5 8821

Amoduav am; 08089:. 10213.0.— 8 $00088 0:20.00 3.52.0000 8: Pa 302 .888 209. 20 .3 0032—8 38 a E 382..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Om NO. 3 N.: Om 2: a... EN .633
3.. 6.2 a... NO. 3.. we 3.. EN 86.08am
o< N.N_ O4. 3: cm Z O... ON. 8%
a O N _
_OON .N .56.. 00
Om 2: am 0.0N am no. a... O.ON Oomaafl Om OOO OO O.: Om NO. .2... EN _Oombeam
am O.NN am NON em O.NN 1.... EN 36.13am am... N. .N am... NON am we 3. O.NN .eo%§m
2.. Ni O... 0.: Om .O O... 4.2 gm 3... 4.2 o... 0.: cm E O... or: 2am
a N N O a N N O
NOON .4 .56.. 010 88 ._ .56.. 00
83. SN Om N...N O0 O.NN 3. SN __omeeam em 2: am? NON 82 O. _N 3. O.NN __omOoeam
am< 3N am... EN 3 SN 9.. EN .ao%§m em O.NN .5... EN .5... NON a< NON .8103
O... NO. 3.. 2: cm Ni O... O: Ram O< N0 O< 1.2 Om ON O... ..N. 2.8
a m N _ a N N _
NOON .m :38 O5 OOON .O 56.30
Oam 2: O8? «.2 OO O6. 2 O.NN Oomeeam Om O.N_ Oam 3; O0 NO. 2 1.: __ombeam
9.. WON 8.. O.NN a... O.NN 5.. O.NN 86.5.3 3 O0 .5 1.: a0 a: 5.. OON 86.5.5
O... OO. O... OO. om ON O... 2; Sam O< O.N_ O< ON. om O... O... OO. Ham
4 m N 0 a m N _
88 .4 .56.. .00 OOON .N :38 be
Om 3: Om OON Om no. a... 3N __omOoeom O< N.NN O... EN 8.. SN O< 3N __om0eam
am a.NN em... SN 8.... O.NN 9.. «ON .aoaaeam .2 MON 3. OON 3... EN 9.. _ON 8an50
c... 1.: O1. O0 cm N... O... OO. Ham 8.. n: 2.. O0 om 1.2 .60 Of 2%
a N N O 1. N N _
.8083 _OON .m 56.. fig 8083 OOON ._ .56.. 15

 

.5000 08 c To 20 .00 £510 0000885 :8 x 00080— 20 00.0 303000 0203 £02020> .2 030,—.

41

among the four locations on six of the remaining eight dates, and had the lowest VWC
among the four locations on two dates (Table 13).

The difference in water holding capacity among the three soil types was evident
in a comparison of the VWC, on day 3, at the peak of the slope, location 2 (Table 13). At
location 2, the sand root zone had the lowest VWC among the three soil types on all nine
dates. On two of the nine dates, the sand/peat location 2 and sand/soil location 2 had
equal VWC, however, on the remaining seven dates, the sand/peat location 2 had a VWC
higher than the sand/soil location 2 (Table 13). The lateral movement of water down the
Slope resulted in inconsistent differences among the three soil types at the lower
elevations, locations 1, 3, and 4. The addition of peat and soil into the root zone mix
increased the water holding capacity of the sand/peat and sand/soil root zones.

The results from the location x soil interaction show that increasing the water
holding capacity of the root zone mix, regardless of construction type, had a limited
effect on improving the uniformity of VWC among the four locations at the 0-10 cm
depth. The peak of the slope for the sand/peat plots had the highest VWC among the
three soil types on seven of nine dates, however on four of the nine dates the peak of the
slope had a VWC less than the highest VWC among the four locations, and the four

locations had similar VWC on three of the nine dates (Table 13).

42

Logrtion x Soil Interaction: 10-20 cm depth

At the 10-20 cm depth, significant differences in VWC among locations and soil
did not occur as frequently as at the 0-10 cm depth. Drainage from the surface layer
resulted in a more uniform VWC among the four locations and three soil types. The
location x soil interaction was not Significant on any date in 2001 or 2002. In 2000, the
interaction was Significant on day 0 of all five dry downs in 2000 (Table 14). The
interaction was significant on day 3 of all three of the possible dry downs (Table 15) (See
Appendix Tables 21A-26A for VWC location x soil data for day 0 and day 3 of each
year.)

On day 0 of the fifth dry down, there were no significant differences in VWC
among the four locations within the three soil types (Table 14). After three days without
irrigation, during the fifth dry down there remained no differences in VWC among the
four locations within the sand/soil root zone, however, within the sand/peat and sand root
zones, location 2 had a VWC less than the highest value among the four locations (Table
15). On day 3 of the second dry down in 2000, within all three soil types, location 2 had
a VWC less than the highest value among the four locations. On day 3 of the third dry
down in 2000 there were no differences among the four locations within the sand/peat
root zone, the sand/soil root zone location 2 had a VWC equal to the highest value among
the four locations, and the sand root zone location 2 had a VWC less than the highest
value among the four locations (Table 15).

The difference in water holding capacity among the three soil types was evident
in a comparison of the VWC, on day 3, at the peak of the slope. On all three significant

dates, the sand root zone location 2 had the lowest VWC among the three soil types, and

43

 

the sand/peat location 2 and the sand/soil location 2 had equal VWC. The addition of
peat and soil into the root zone mix increased the water holding capacity of the sand/peat
and sand/soil root zones.

The results from the location x soil interaction show that increasing the water
holding capacity of the root zone mix by adding peat or soil, regardless of construction
type, had a limited effect on improving the uniformity of VWC among the four locations
at the 10-20 cm depth. On day 3, within the sand/peat root zone there were no
differences among the four locations on one of the three dates, however, on the two
remaining dates location 2 had a VWC less than the highest value among the four
locations. On day 3, within the sand root zone there were no differences among the four
locations on one of the three dates, however, on the two remaining dates location 2 had a

VWC less than the highest value among the four locations.

44

Table 14. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.1 BClb‘ 14.9 Cb 21.2 Aa 17.9 Bb
Sand/Peat 22.9 Aa 20.8 ABa 20.4 Ba 21.0 ABa
Sand/Soil 19.7 Bb 23.1 Aa 18.9 Ba 18.0 Bb
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 15.7 Bb 14.1 Bb 20.9 Aa 17.5 ABa
Sand/Peat 22.0 Aa 18.2 Ba 19.4 ABa 19.8 ABa
Sand/Soil 20.0 Aa 17.8 Aa 19.5 Aa 18.0 Aa
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 15.8 BCb 13.6 Cb 19.5 Aa 17.8 ABb
Sand/Peat 22.0 Aa 16.7 Ba 19.5 Aa 20.2 Aa
Sand/Soil 20.4 Aa 16.9 Ba 20.1 Aa 18.4 ABab
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 18.4 Ac 20.2 Aa 20.9 Aa 18.8 Aa
Sand/Peat 26.8 Aa 23.2 ABa 21.4 Ba 22.2 Ba
Sand/Soil 22.1 Ab 21.9 Aa 19.1 Aa 20.0 Aa
Dry down 5 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 16.2 Ac 16.9 Ab 19.4 Aa 17.6 Ab
Sand/Peat 23.0 Aa 20.3 Aa 20.1 Aa 21.7 Aa
Sand/Soil 20.3 Ab 19.5 Aab 19.9 Aa 18.1 Ab

 

TMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
Significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different accordingto F ischers protected LSD (50.05)

45

Table 15. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 5

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location
1 4
It 1! It *
III 1|! II! It
at: 1t 1|: 1:
Location
1 2 3 4
16.0 B’bi 13.2 Cb 19.6 Aa 18.1 ABb
22.3 Aa 16.4 Ca 19.4 Ba 20.5 ABa
21.0 Aa 16.6 Ca 20.6 ABa 18.3 BCb
Location
1 2 3 4
16.2 Bb 15.7 Bb 20.0 Aa 17.6 ABa
22.1 Aa 20.4 Aa 19.8 Aa 20.2 Aa
20.7 ABa 20.0 ABa 22.0 Aa 18.1 Ba
Location
1 2 4
It II! it
’1‘ II! It i
it It ll! 4!
Location
1 2 3 4
14.6 BCc 13.1 Cb 18.1Aa 16.7 ABb
21.5 Aa 17.6 Ba 18.8 ABa 20.9 Aa
19.3 Ab 16.6 Aa 18.6 Aa 17.4 Ab

 

lMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

'No data.

 

46

Construction x Locgion Interaction: 0-10 cm depth:

The irrigation event (1.5 cm) prior to the start of each dry down cycle resulted in
no significant differences in VWC among construction types and locations on seven of
eleven possible dates, on day 0 (Tables 3-5). Within the standard construction type,
location 2 had the lowest VWC among the four locations, on three of the four dates that
the interaction was significant (Table 16). The VWC at location 2 was less than the
highest value among the four locations on the remaining date. Within the modified
construction type, there were no differences among the four locations on any of the four
significant dates (Table 16).

After three days without irrigation, the interaction was significant on 13 of 13
possible dates (Tables 3-5). Within the standard construction type, location 2 had the
lowest VWC among the four locations on 12 of the 13 dates (Table 17). The VWC at
location 2 was less than the highest value among the four locations on the remaining date.
Within the modified construction type, there were no differences in the VWC among the
four locations on 11 of 13 dates (Table 17). The VWC at location 2 was equal to the
highest value among the four locations on the remaining two dates.

The results from the construction x location interaction show that the modification
of the root zone depth, when compared to the standard construction type, resulted in more
uniform VWC among the four locations (Figures 14-16). The uniformity of VWC within
the modified construction type can be attributed to the differences between the two
construction types at each location.

After three days without irrigation, the modified construction type consistently

had a lower VWC than the standard construction type at the north and south toe Slopes

47

(locations 1, 3, and 4) (Table 17). At location 2 there were no differences in VWC
between the two construction types on 10 out of 13 dates, however, the modified
construction type had higher VWC than the standard construction type on the remaining
three dates (Table 17). The results from the construction x location interaction show that
increasing the depth of the root zone at the base of the slope reduced the VWC within the
0-10 cm depth, and decreasing the depth of the root zone at the peak of the slope did not

decrease the VWC within the 0-10 cm depth.

48

Table 16. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location interaction,

on day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 24.91 19.0 23.7 22.0
Modified 18.5 19.7 18.5 18.5
Dry down 2: Standard 23.9 A‘a§ 15.7 Ba 22.3 Aa 21.7 Aa
Modified 16.8 Ab 18.6 Aa 16.6 Ab 16.1 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 21.2 13.9 22.1 20.6
Modified 16.0 18.5 18.3 15.1
Dry down 4: Standard * * * *
Modified * * * *
Dry down 5: Standard 24.2 17.5 23.4 22.5
Modified 17.5 20.8 16.2 17.6
2001 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 26.7 Aa 24.2 Ba 26.7 ABa 24.4 ABa
Modified 24.9 ABa 26.4 Aa 22.8 Bb 22.6 Ba
Dry down 2: Standard 29.2 27.6 26.9 25.2
Modified 28.0 28.2 25.7 25.0
Dry down 3: Standard 27.7 24.1 26.3 25.1
Modified 25.2 25.2 24.3 24.0
Dry down 4: Standard 27.9 24.6 25.8 26.3
Modified 25.2 26.9 24.1 24.8
2002 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard * * * *
Modified * "‘ *
Dry down 2: Standard 28.4 Aa 19.2 Ba 28.3 Aa 26.1 Aa
Modified 22.1 Ab 22.4 Aa 19.7 Ab 20.5 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 27.8 28.4 28.7 28.5
Modified 27.7 29.3 27.9 26.6
Dry down 4: Standard 28.6 Aa 21.4 Ba 29.4 Aa 26.7 Aa
Modified 24.3 Aa 25.5 Aa 22.6 Ab 23.8 Aa
+Not significant at P=0.05.

zMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)
9Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)
* No data

49

Table 17. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location interaction,

on day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 23.7 A*a‘ 21.0 Ba 25.4 Aa 23.6 ABa
Modified 19.5 Bb 23.5 Aa 20.1 Bb 20.1 Bb
Dry down 2: Standard 20.8 Aa 8.3 Ca 18.5 ABa 17.5 Ba
Modified 11.8 Ab 10.8 Aa 11.1 Ab 11.1 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 23.8 Aa 15.5 Ba 23.5 Aa 20.7 Aa
Modified 17.0 Ab 19.8 Aa 15.0 Ab 15.1 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard 21.5 Aa 13.8 Ba 23.2 Aa 21.3 Aa
Modified 15.8 Ab 17.8 Aa 14.0 Ab 14.3 Ab
Dry down 5: Standard 21.2 Aa 11.3 Ba 20.8 Aa 19.1 Aa
Modified 14.1 Ab 14.5 Aa 14.8 Ab 13.6 Ab
20 1 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 23.5 Aa 12.0 Bb 21.6 Aa 20.7 Aa
Modified 15.7 Ab 15.9 Aa 12.6 Ab 13.6 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard 20.7 Aa 13.0 Ba 20.4 Aa 19.2 Aa
Modified 16.1 Ab 16.2 Aa 12.9 Ab 13.0 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 26.2 Aa 15.5 Ca 23.5 ABa 21.6 Ba
Modified 18.1 Ab 19.0 Aa 18.1 Ab 16.5 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard 23.9 Aa 13.2 Bb 23.1 Aa 21.9 Aa
Modified 16.] Ab 18.2 Aa 14.7 Ab 14.5 Ab
2002 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 24.4 Aa 14.8 Ba 21.4 Aa 21.0 Aa
Modified 15.3 Ab 16.2 Aa 14.1 Ab 14.0 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard 21.0 Aa 11.6 Ba 22.7 Aa 22.3 Aa
Modified 15.7 Ab 14.5 Aa 14.2 Ab 13.4 Ab
Dry down 38: Standard 27.3 Aa 18.6 Bb 26.6 Aa 26.4 Aa
Modified 20.1 Ab 21.5 Aa 19.2 Ab 19.3 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard 26.2 Aa 16.0 Ca 22.6 ABa 21.4 Ba
Modified 20.2 Ab 18.1 ABa 16.2 Bb 16.0 Bb

 

 

fMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

50

.003 E
.5000 08 070 00 00 .m .00 .80 000000.002 000000. x 00000000000000.1003.“ 05 00.0 800000 00003 00008300, .2 0.5me

 

 

v n 000005 N _

O i 1 il l i ii ‘01 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 011. 111 .I1 1 1 1 O O.O

O O

O

O1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, on

O O

O _

O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 O CA:

O O

O1 1 1 O 0.2

03>

, 1 1 1 O 0.0N
O

O11 11111 111 “1 11111111 111111111 11 o.mN

O 1 1 11 1 1 . 1 1 1 11 ,1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1:

O_ 2380080062....r. O

1O m 0.500 5 0.000000 llfll. v 0.500 .05 000002 . .X. . - v 0.500 .05 0.000000 1+ . 0 cm

O

OO m 0300 .05 000002 . . O . . m 0300 .05 0000005 11¢I. N 0300 .05 000002 . .X. . . O

.O N 0300 .05 0000005 |1X|1 0 0300 .05 000002 . . U - - _ 0300 0.5 000000 E O 0 mm

51

.SON E

.0000 80 00-0 00 00 .m .00 00.0 000000.005 000002 01 00001100000000.0000 00 .80 00000000 .0003 000000001, .2 0.505

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. m .5083 N
a 1 1 1 1 11111H111M11w11111|11_1-,1 M11111 1 1.11111WM1 11111111m 1.11
O O 4.5.800 80.82 ..x. : 4:38 00 20.50101
OO 1 1 1 1 O O§6O0080__662..9: OEOOEOaOesmlol
O O N .56.. 00 80.82 ..x. .. N ..an 00 3.850le
O O 500.0000 6 ,.§......a1.....1...0a1161
. uuuuunuuuu- ccccccccc .uum "nut. «“1
O1 1 1111111 .01....1...........|.l..X111.....1u1u1u|u1.|..PP\\-/r 1i 1
. o .......................... .. uuuu
O x1 50:... ..:-.H%H.... .......
O1 1 111111 .. 1 1 1 1 -
O W M
O
T111111111111 11 1111111111111

    

  

52

Noon E
.naov So 26 05 «a .m .98 N8 928825 5:32 x 532588 28333 2: 8m $588 683 otuo§_o> .2 oSwE

 

 

 

 

 

 

v m .8383 m _
O1 1 1 1. H 11 .11 H11.11. 1111111111111 1 1111111,- H111 H11111111,11.11111 1 1 . o.o
O O :38 be 8582 :x... «goubauaussmlxl ,
O 1 1 .O mgoubocésoz..oz 238E u§§m+ 1 . 3
O O N858 as 8582 :x. .. N :38 an usuqsmIXI
. O1 _1Emmfiéé1. .1.”. .1. 1 1 1.15% $1....me w
11 1 . 111 11111 - 11111111111 1- 1 1 1 .3:
O
1 1.. of
, 03>
O o.oN
O
111 3N
O
_O. 1 1 1 11 1111 11 11111 1 1111 111 11 11 11 111 1.3.3
O .
O 1 1 1 1 1 O

-11 .11 1 - 1111 1 1 9mm

53

Construction x Location Interaction: 10-20 cm depth:

The construction x location interaction was significant on day 0, eight out of l 1
dates (Tables 6-8). The peak of the standard construction type had the lowest VWC
among the four locations on four of the eight significant dates (Table 18). The VWC at
location 2 was less than the highest value among the four locations on the remaining four
dates. Within the modified construction type there were no differences among the four
locations on five of the eight dates (Table 18). The VWC at location 2 was equal to the
highest VWC among the four locations on two dates, and had the highest VWC among
the four locations on one date.

After three days without irrigation, the construction x location interaction was
significant on 9 out of 10 dates (Tables 6-8). The peak of the standard construction type
had the lowest VWC among the four locations on all nine significant dates (Table 19).
Within the modified construction type there were no significant differences among the

four locations on 8 of 9 dates, and a VWC equal to the highest value among the four

locations on the remaining date (Table 19).

The results from the construction x location interaction show that the modification
of the root zone depth, when compared to the standard construction type, resulted in more
uniform VWC among the four locations (Figures 17-19). The uniformity of VWC within

the modified construction type can be attributed to the differences between the two

construction types at each location.

Afier three days without irrigation, the modified construction type consistently

had a lower VWC than the standard construction type at the north and south toe slopes

54

 

 

 

(locations 1, 3, and 4). At location 2 there were no differences in VWC between the two
construction types on 8 out of 9 significant dates, however, the modified construction
type had higher VWC than the standard construction type on the remaining date (Table
19). The results from the construction x location interaction show that increasing the
depth of the root zone at the base of the slope reduced the VWC within the 10-20 cm
depth, and decreasing the depth of the root zone at the peak of the slope did not decrease
the VWC within the 10-20 cm depth (Table 19).

The construction x location interaction demonstrates that a modification of the
depth of the sand based root zone, regardless of soil type, resulted in more uniform

moisture contents within the 0-20 cm depth, across all locations of a sloped putting green.

55

 

 

Table 18. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location
interaction, day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M9 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 24.91 19.0 23.7 22.0
Modified 18.5 19.7 18.5 18.5
Dry down 2: Standard 22.2 15.2 20.5 20.8
Modified 16.3 18.2 19.3 16.1
Dry down 3: Standard 21.9 A1a§ 14.1 Ba 22.1 Aa 21.1 Aa
Modified 16.9 Ab 17.4 Aa 17.3 Ab 16.5 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard 25.2 Aa 19.4 Bb 22.0 ABa 22.6 ABa
Modified 19.6 ABb 24.2 Aa 18.9 ABa 18.1 Bb
Dry down 5: Standard 22.6 Aa 17.2 Ba 22.1 Aa 22.0 Aa
Modified 17.0 Ab 20.6 Aa 17.4 Ab 16.3 Ab
220; Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 27.2 Aa 17.3 Ba 29.3 Aa 28.3 Aa
Modified 17.6 Ab 19.8 Aa 17.6 Ab 16.7 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard 25.7 Aa 17.9 Ba 25.5 Aa 24.4 Aa
Modified 17.4 ABb 19.9 Aa 17.2 ABb 16.2 Bb
Dry down 3: Standard 25.8 17.4 24.4 23.3
Modified 17.2 28.7 16.7 16.2
Dry down 4: Standard * * * *
Modified * * * *
2002 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 23.2 Aa 18.0 Ba 21.2 ABa 21.4 ABa
Modified 17.6 Ab 20.2 Aa 16.8 Ab 16.2 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard * * "‘ *
Modified * * * *
Dry down 3: Standard 25.8 Aa 20.3 Ba 24.1 ABa 22.6 ABa
Modified 18.5 Bb 23.7 Aa 17.6 Bb 16.7 Bb
Dry down 4: Standard 23.5 ABa 18.7 Ba 24.3 Aa 22.3 ABa
Modified 18.3 Ab 21.7 Aa 18.9 Ab 17.6 Aa
1Not significant at P=0.05.

:Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

’Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not

significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

*No data

56

Table 19. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard * * * *
Modified * * * "'
Dry down 2: Standard 22.2 Ala: 14.0 Ba 22.2 Aa 21.3 Aa
Modified 17.4 Ab 16.8 Aa 17.5 Ab 16.6 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 22.5 Aa 16.8 Bb 23.2 Aa 21.3 Aa
Modified 16.8 ABb 20.6 Aa 18.2 ABb 16.0 Bb
Dry down 4: Standard * "‘ *
Modified * *
Dry down 5: Standard 21.2 Aa 15.0 Ba 20.7 Aa 20.9 Aa
Modified 15.7 Ab 16.6 Aa 16.3 Ab 15.7 Ab
2001 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 24.6 Aa 14.3 Ba 26.1 Aa 26.0 Aa
Modified 16.3 Ab 15.4 Aa 16.0 Ab 15.8 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard 23.3 Aa 14.1 Ba 22.7 Aa 22.3 Aa
Modified 15.9 Ab 15.2 Aa 15.6 Ab 15.3 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 24.5 Aa 14.8 Ba 23.4 Aa 22.7 Aa
Modified 16.3 Ab 16.3 Aa 15.8 Ab 15.6 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard * * * *
Modified * * * *
2002 Location
1 2 3 4
Dry down 1: Standard 19.7 Aa 14.2 Ba 19.7 Aa 18.6 Aa
Modified 15.7 Ab 15.1 Aa 15.2 Ab 14.7 Ab
Dry down 2: Standard 18.7 Aa 13.2 Ba 19.2 Aa 18.5 Aa
Modified 15.1 Ab 13.9 Aa 14.5 Ab 14.1 Ab
Dry down 3: Standard 23.1 Aa 16.6 Ba 22.9 Aa 21.7 Aa
Modified 17.2 Ab 18.3 A3 16.6 Ab 15.7 Ab
Dry down 4: Standard 21 .5§ 15.3 19.9 20.8
Modified 16.8 16.9 16.1 16.4

 

fMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

§Not significant at P=0.05.

"' No data

 

57

 

 

.ocom E
.592. Eu 8.3 05 an .m 3v 8.. 28:8..an 5:82 x 532588 agocEwi 2: 8.. $5280 .633 oEoE=_o> .: 059m

 

a N 8:83 N _
O1 1 11 1.1 111m H111111111Ww1w w 11 H1w111111 M111 H1111 mm 11 11 .1 1 1 1 1 13
O O 238 be 8582 :0: 238 be 333ml? .
O11 11 O 238.5 8582.8: 238.5 cavdsmlvl , 3
O1 1 1 1 1 O 11 mfiwwaméfifiwmm 11 1 Néawmfifiawmd 11 11 1 1 1 1 1. 2:

   

....... a

 

  

 

O
O

O .
O..1 1 me\ 1 .-..1..1-.1.1.1.-..1.1.o 1 1 . o:
O . .

O 1

O

O

O

O

O

O

1111 11 1 1 1 111-98
11 111 111 11 111 111 1 1 111 111 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O QWN
O
m 111111 111 111 11 11 111 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1O Odm
O O.
O11111 1 1 11 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11O 9mm

58

 

 

.Som 2
.283 :8 8.3 05 8 .m .98 8% 9830882 .8532 x 828.588 883:2.“ 05 8m $588 883 250828, .2 oSwE

 

 

 

 

 

 

a N 8:83 N _
O 1 1 1 1 1. 1.11m1w1111 11 11.11M1M 11.111111-.T11111.M1111.1.N1.1.11-111 111 1- 11 w 1. Qo
O O N .52. be 8582 ..o .. N :3an vaudsmlol O O
O 1 11 1 O Ngoubauofiuoz:x: Ngoabauaadsmlxl . 1+ 1 1 .3
. O 11 Endgame d1.- - 11......Nmawd1mam1m11 1 1 O
O
.1111 1 1- -1 1111-1111 1.3:
O
_ O
.1 11 111111m11111 ..1....mmmmmmm1m. -1 1 1 8.2
O 03>
.O 1 1 11 1 1 1 98
O «W O
O1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1O .
O D1 1.... _ oNN
O O
O1111 1 1 1 NodN
O

59

.Noom 2

.2828 :8 8.3 ofi “a .m .88 8.2 828822 8:82 x 228.588 afiowmewmm 2: 8.2 8:380 883 250523, .3 08% 1.2

m :2884 N

1N§18 3.8982 . .01. .-
N :38 E 8E8: :x- :
1 .1 awe-E Ea: . d . .

N :38 to 325m IVT
_ 15.2. 8 mafia 1m1 1

 

 

N 5:21. 818 mamim |¢I1 1 1

od

9m

03>

60

CONCLUSIONS

The United States Golf Association (U SGA) specifications for putting green
construction, first published in 1960, were designed to improve the quality of putting
greens. Although the USGA published revisions in 1973, 1989 and 1993, the
recommendation for a uniform 30 cm root zone layer has remained unchanged. The
layering of a sand based root zone mix over a gravel layer maintains optimum moisture
across the putting green on a level-putting surface, however, in areas of undulation the
uniform root zone layer can result in moisture extremes at the different elevations.

The occurrence of moisture extremes across the surface of an undulating putting
green will diminish the efficiency of an irrigation system, which is designed to apply a
uniform amount of moisture. Irrigating to maintain optimum water contents at higher
elevations will result in excessive water contents at lower elevations. Irrigating to
maintain optimum water contents at lower elevations will result in water deficiencies at
higher elevations.

The location x soil interaction confirmed that the addition of peat and/or soil to
the root zone mix increased the water holding capacity. Increasing the water holding
capacity, however, had a limited effect on improving the uniformity of VWC among the
four locations at the 0-20 cm depth, regardless of construction type. These data suggest
that for greens constructed with a more porous material, such as the sand root zone, it
would be beneficial to modify the depth of the root zone to maintain uniform water
contents across the surface of the putting green.

Although the construction x location x soil interaction was not consistently

significant, the interaction demonstrates that a modification of the root zone depth

61

increased the uniformity of VWC across the Slope of the green. Within the standard
construction type, the peak of all three of the soil types became drier than the lower
elevations. Within the modified construction type, all three of the soil types had more
uniform water content across all of the locations on the putting green.

The construction x location interaction shows that modifying the depth of the root
zone mix, regardless of soil type, resulted in improved uniformity of moisture contents
across the surface of an undulating putting green. The peak of the standard construction
type consistently had the lowest VWC among the four locations, while there were no
differences among the four locations of the modified construction type. The uniformity
of VWC within the modified construction type was the direct result of the changes to the
root zone depth. Reducing the depth of the root zone from 30 cm to 20 cm at the peak of
the slope maintained or increased the VWC when compared to the standard construction
type. Increasing the depth of the root zone depth from 30 cm to 40 cm at the lower
elevations decreased the VWC in the top 20 cm when compared to the standard
construction type.

Modification of the root zone depth will result in more uniform VWC across the
surface of the putting green, increasing the effectiveness of irrigation systems and
reducing problems associated with moisture extremes. A modification to the depth of
root zone material, regardless of soil type, on an undulation USGA putting green will

enhance the overall quality of the putting green.

62

APPENDIX

63

Table 1A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.5“ 12.9 19.8 19.2
Uniform Sand/Peat 28.6 22.9 27.2 24.0
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.7 21.1 24.2 22.9
Modified Sand 13.7 13.9 15.5 14.6
Modified Sand/Peat 22.6 21.7 21.1 21.3
Modified Sand/Soil 19.4 23.6 19.1 19.7
Location
down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 17.5 8.7 17.7 18.6
Uniform Sand/Peat 27.3 21.9 25.4 23.9
Uniform Sand/Soil 26.9 16.5 23.9 22.6
Modified Sand 11.3 11.3 12.7 13.1
Modified Sand/Peat 21.7 24.3 20.5 19.4
Modified Sand/Soil 17.4 20.3 16.6 15.9
Location
down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 15.0 5.0 17.9 16.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 24.3 22.7 25.7 23.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 24.3 14.2 22.8 21.9
Modified Sand 7.2 9.1 15.4 14.2
Modified Sand/Peat 22.1 24.9 22.0 16.2
Modified Sand/Soil 18.6 21.5 17.7 14.8
Location
Dry down 5 l 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 17.6 8.5 19.3 18.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 27.9 23.7 27.5 26.5
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.1 20.5 23.6 22.8
Modified Sand 9.7 14.0 14.5 13.5
Modified Sand/Peat 22.9 25.5 15.8 20.7
Modified Sand/Soil 20.0 23.0 18.2 18.7

 

’Not significant at P=0.05.

 

64

Table 2A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,

day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

 

down 1

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

Dry down 2
Uniform Sand

Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

flydown3

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

down 4
Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
20.81 17.9 23.0 18.9
31.2 28.6 29.4 29.4
30.8 26.0 27.6 25.0
19.3 19.9 17.5 18.6
29.0 30.9 26.6 24.5
26.5 28.5 24.3 24.8
Location
1 2 3 4
23.9 23.4 22.7 20.5
32.0 30.7 30.1 28.4
31.9 28.9 28.0 26.8
21.6 21.6 19.9 19.5
32.1 33.1 29.9 28.6
30.3 29.8 27.4 26.9
Location
1 2 3 4
23.1 18.0 22.1 21.0
30.5 28.2 29.3 27.5
29.6 26.1 27.6 26.7
19.7 19.5 20.8 20.0
29.2 28.6 26.7 26.2
26.8 27.7 25.4 25.9
Location
1 2 3 4
21.0 18.5 22.3 22.6
31.7 28.1 29.1 28.8
31.0 27.2 25.9 27.6
19.3 20.1 20.5 21.3
29.2 31.3 26.1 26.2
27.3 29.3 25.6 26.9

 

lNot significant at P=0.05.

 

65

 

Table 3A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 0, at the 0-10 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
Dry down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand * * * *
Uniform Sand/Peat " * * *
Uniform Sand/Soil * * t *
Modified Sand * * * *
Modified Sand/Peat " t * "
Modified Sand/Soil * t t "
Location
D9; down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 22.31 13.5 23.8 22.8
Uniform Sand/Peat 32.0 27.0 31.0 29.2
Uniform Sand/Soil 30.8 17.2 30.1 26.4
Modified Sand 16.5 15.8 17.9 14.5
Modified Sand/Peat 25.3 27.7 20.0 24.3
Modified Sand/Soil 24.5 23.7 21.3 22.7
Location
Dg down 3 l 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 23.5 23.2 23.3 22.8
Uniform Sand/Peat 30.1 31.4 32.3 32.0
Uniform Sand/Soil 29.7 30.6 30.5 30.5
Modified Sand 23.6 23.5 24.0 21.7
Modified Sand/Peat 30.2 32.8 30.1 29.2
Modified Sand/Soil 29.4 31.6 29.5 29.1
Location
Dry down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 23.0 13.1 22.0 17.8
Uniform Sand/Peat 32.8 25.1 25.3 23.1
Uniform Sand/Soil 31.2 20.6 30.2 20.5
Modified Sand 18.0 14.0 17.8 15.0
Modified Sand/Peat 21.4 26.8 22.8 22.5
Modified Sand/Soil 23.1 24.3 20.6 20.2

 

TNot significant at P=0.05.
‘No Data

 

66

 

Table 4A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 0—10 cm depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

 

Location
down 1 1 2 3 4

Uniform Sand 16.1 3%“ 14.1 Bc 20.2 Acd 19.5 Ac
Uniform Sand/Peat 28.0 ABa 25.8 Bab 29.9 Aa 27.4 ABa
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.1 Aab 23.1 Cb 26.2 ABb 23.9 BCb
Modified Sand 14.6 Bd 16.4 ABc 17.6 Ad 15.5 ABd
Modified Sand/Peat 24.1 Bb 28.4 Aa 22.0 Bc 23.3 Bb
Modified Sand/Soil 19.9 Be 25.6 Aab 20.6 Bcd 21.5 Bbc

 

 

 

 

Location
down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 14.5§ 3.9 15.4 15.7
Uniform Sand/Peat 24.9 12.7 21.4 20.4
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.1 8.4 18.8 16.5
Modified Sand 6.4 5.8 9.2 8.3
Modified Sand/Peat 16.7 14.7 14.0 15.6
Modified Sand/Soil 12.3 12.1 10.2 9.4
Location
down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 15.7 4.5 19.1 16.7
Uniform Sand/Peat 28.7 22.0 27.0 24.4
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.0 20.2 24.4 21.1
Modified Sand 8.6 11.3 12.3 9.7
Modified Sand/Peat 23.7 24.6 15.8 20.2
Modified Sand/Soil 18.7 23.4 17.0 15.5
Location
D9: down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 16.2 5.2 18.6 16.7
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.7 21.0 27.7 25.7
Uniform Sand/Soil 22.6 15.1 23.3 21.4
Modified Sand 10.1 9.7 9.2 11.1
Modified Sand/Peat 20.7 24.7 18.6 18.5
Modified Sand/Soil 16.6 19.1 14.1 13.2

 

*Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)
zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)
§Not significant at P=0.05.

 

67

 

8
\.

 

Table 5A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the fifth dry down in 2000.

 

 

Location

Dy down 5 1 2 3 4

Uniform Sand 14.7’r 4.6 17.3 16.0
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.5 17.8 24.3 23.0
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.3 11.6 20.8 18.4
Modified Sand 8.6 7.9 12.3 10.1
Modified Sand/Peat 19.3 19.4 16.9 17.2
Modified Sand/Soil 14.6 16.2 15.1 13.6

 

fNot significant at P=0.05.

68

 

Table 6A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,

day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location
down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 17.31 4.8 16.6 16.7
Uniform Sand/Peat 26.2 17.6 26.2 25.7
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.1 13.6 22.0 19.7
Modified Sand 10.5 9.5 9.6 10.2
Modified Sand/Peat 20.9 21.3 15.2 16.8
Modified Sand/Soil 15.8 16.9 13.1 14.0
Location
fly down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 12.6 6.0 16.8 14.5
Uniform Sand/Peat 22.9 17.6 23.0 23.8
Uniform Sand/Soil 26.7 15.6 21.6 19.5
Modified Sand 11.5 10.2 10.5 10.1
Modified Sand/Peat 20.0 21.4 15.6 16.1
Modified Sand/Soil 16.8 17.0 12.8 12.9
Location
D_y down 3 l 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.7 7.5 19.0 17.5
Uniform Sand/Peat 28.0 21.4 26.9 25.8
Uniform Sand/Soil 31.9 17.7 24.6 21.4
Modified Sand 13.2 12.0 16.3 14.1
Modified Sand/Peat 22.8 24.2 22.0 19.1
Modified Sand/Soil 18.3 20.9 16.0 16.5
Location
Dy down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.1 4.5 18.8 19.5
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.7 21.1 25.9 24.1
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.9 14.0 24.6 22.3
Modified Sand 11.4 11.4 13.2 12.4
Modified Sand/Peat 20.4 23.6 16.6 16.9
Modified Sand/Soil 16.6 19.7 14.2 14.4
Not significant at P=0.05.

 

69

Table 7A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
121% 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 191* 8.7 16.3 16.1
Uniform Sand/Peat 27.5 20.1 25.1 25.4
Uniform Sand/Soil 26.7 15.6 22.7 21.6
Modified Sand 10.1 9.9 10.1 8.9
Modified Sand/Peat 19.0 21.0 17.5 18.2
Modified Sand/Soil 16.8 17.9 14.8 15.0
Location
fly down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 15.8 5.8 16.9 18.7
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.6 17.9 26.3 27.2
Uniform Sand/Soil 21.7 11.3 24.9 20.9
Modified Sand 10.0 8.5 11.1 9.7
Modified Sand/Peat 21.5 18.6 16.1 16.4
Modified Sand/Soil 15.7 16.4 15.6 14.3
Location
Dy down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 20.8 A‘c§ 11.8 Bd 21.1 Ac 22.2 Ab
Uniform Sand/Peat 29.9 Aa 23.8 Ba 30.8 Aa 29.0 Aa
Uniform Sand/Soil 31.4 Aa 20.3 Cb 28.0 Bb 28.1 Ba
Modified Sand 14.3 Ad 14.7 Ac 15.1 Ad 14.1 Ac
Modified Sand/Peat 24.3 ABb 26.1 Aa 22.2 Be 22.0 Bb
Modified Sand/Soil 21.6 ABc 23.7 Aa 20.5 Be 21.6 ABb
Location
I_)y down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 20.1 7.9 16.3 17.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 30.0 22.6 27.4 25.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 28.5 17.4 24.1 21.3
Modified Sand 12.6 10.3 11.9 11.1
Modified Sand/Peat 24.8 22.3 19.2 21.6
Modified Sand/Soil 23.3 21.6 17.6 15.2

 

TNot significant at P=0.10.

zMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)
§Mem3 in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0. 10)

7O

Table 8A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

 

Dy down 1
Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

down 2

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

down 3
Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

D_rydown4

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
21.0 Alab" 13.9 Be 22.9 Aa 21.6 Aab
24.9 Aa 20.3 Bb 22.8 ABa 24.0 Aa
21 .SBab 25.7 Aa 20.5 Bab 19.4 Bb
13.1 Be 15.8 Be 19.5 Ab 14.2 Be
20.8 Aab 21.3 Ab 17.9 Bb 17.8 Bbc
17.5 Bb 20.5 Ab 17.2 Bb 16.6 Bbc
Location
1 2 3 4
19.2§ 12.2 21.6 20.9
24.1 17.8 21.5 22.1
23.3 15.5 18.2 19.3
12.1 15.9 20.1 14.1
19.9 18.5 17.1 17.4
16.6 20.1 20.7 16.6
Location
1 2 3 4
19.1 Ab 10.3 Bb 21.8 Aa 21.0 Aab
23.5 Aa 16.7 Ba 21.8 Aa 22.3 Aa
23.1 Aa 15.4 Ca 22.8ABa 19.9 Babe
12.5 Bc 17.0 Aa 17.2 Ab 14.6 ABd
20.5 Aab 16.8 Ba 17.3 Bb 18.0 ABbc
17.7 Ab 18.5 Aa 17.4 Ab 16.8 Acd
Location
1 2 3 4
22.8 16.3 23.3 22.2
28.7 22.1 23.7 24.6
24.2 19.8 19.2 21.1
13.9 24.2 18.5 15.5
24.8 24.4 19.1 19.8
20.0 24.0 19.1 18.9

 

lMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

§Not sijnificant at P=0.10.

71

Table 9A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth for the fifth dry down in 2000.

 

 

Location
Dy down 5 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.7 Albcz 13.5 Bb 21.6 Aa 21.0 Ab

Uniform Sand/Peat 25.2 Aa 19.6 Ba 22.4 ABa 25.6 Aa
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.0 Aab 18.4 Aa 22.5 Aa 19.2 Ab
Modified Sand 12.6 Bd 20.3 Aa 17.2 ABb 14.1 Bc
Modified Sand/Peat 20.7 Abc 20.9 Aa 17.7 Ab 17.8 Ab
Modified Sand/Soil 17.6 Ac 20.6 Aa 17.2 ABb 16.9 Abc

'Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.10)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.lQ)

72

Table 10A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 21.6“ 14.0 28.0 27.4
Uniform Sand/Peat 32.5 21.1 34.5 33.3
Uniform Sand/Soil 27.4 16.9 25.3 24.2
Modified Sand 13.6 16.8 14.6 14.0
Modified Sand/Peat 21.2 22.3 20.2 19.2
Modified Sand/Soil 18.1 20.5 18.0 17.1
Location
Dy down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 20.9 15.6 24.5 22.8
Uniform Sand/Peat 29.6 21.4 29.0 28.5
Uniform Sand/Soil 26.5 16.6 23.0 21.9
Modified Sand 13.4 16.6 14.3 13.5
Modified Sand/Peat 20.6 22.7 19.8 18.2
Modified Sand/Soil 18.2 20.6 17.7 17.0
Location
Dy down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 20.9 14.5 23.4 21.8
Uniform Sand/Peat 30.6 21.4 27.4 26.8
Uniform Sand/Soil 25.9 16.5 22.4 21.2
Modified Sand 13.3 43.4 13.6 13.5
Modified Sand/Peat 20.4 22.1 19.3 18.0
Modified Sand/Soil 18.1 20.6 17.4 17.2
Location
Dy down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand * * * *
Uniform Sand/Peat * * * "‘
Uniform Sand/Soil * * * *
Modified Sand * * * *
Modified Sand/Peat * * * *
Modified Sand/Soil * * * *

 

fNot significant at P=0.10.
'No data.

 

73

Table 11A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,

day 0, at the 10-20 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

 

down 1

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

flydown2

Uniform Sand
Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

Dy down 3
Uniform Sand

Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

Dy down 4
Uniform Sand

Uniform Sand/Peat
Uniform Sand/Soil
Modified Sand
Modified Sand/Peat
Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
20.21 14.8 21.7 20.3
25.1 21.3 24.9 23.3
24.3 18.0 17.0 20.6
13.4 17.2 13.2 13.0
21.1 22.1 19.8 18.1
18.3 21.4 17.3 17.5
Location
1 2 3 4
18.8 11.8 21.2 23.4
24.0 20.3 24.8 20.5
23.1 15.4 19.9 15.6
12.4 14.3 13.3 12.9
20.7 20.1 19.6 17.9
17.2 18.1 16.9 15.9
Location
1 2 3 4
20.9 17.2 22.7 20.7
31.3 24.8 26.6 25.1
25.3 18.9 23.1 22.0
14.2 20.0 14.2 13.9
22.2 26.6 20.8 19.1
19.1 24.7 17.9 17.2
Location
1 2 3 4
20.4 15.6 22.7 20.5
25.5 22.7 26.5 25.8
24.7 17.8 23.7 20.4
14.0 18.5 17.1 13.8
22.0 24.7 21.1 21.4
18.8 21.9 18.4 17.6

 

’Not Significant at P=O. 10.

74

5
\.

 

Table 12A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the first four dry downs in 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
Dy down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand * * * "
Uniform Sand/Peat * * t *
Uniform Sand/Soil "' * t *
Modified Sand ‘ * " *
Modified Sand/Peat * * * "
Modified Sand/Soil * * * *
Location
Dy down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.1T 10.1 22.0 21.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 23.9 16.5 21.6 22.4
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.7 15.4 23.2 20.0
Modified Sand 13.0 16.4 17.1 14.9
Modified Sand/Peat 20.8 16.4 17.2 18.5
Modified Sand/Soil 18.4 17.7 18.1 16.6
Location
m down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.9 12.6 22.4 21.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 23.9 19.5 22.1 22.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.8 18.3 25.1 19.9
Modified Sand 12.4 18.8 18.1 13.9
Modified Sand/Peat 20.4 21.2 17.5 17.7
Modified Sand/Soil 17.6 21.8 18.9 16.3
Location
down 5 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.1 At‘bo§ 11.3 Bb 20.4 Aa 19.7 Ab

Uniform Sand/Peat 23.2 ABa 17.3 Ca 20.6 BCa 24.6 Aa

Uniform Sand/Soil 22.4 Aa 16.4 Ca 21.3 ABa 18.4 BCb
Modified Sand 11.1 Bd 14.9 ABab 15.7 Ab 13.7 ABc
Modified Sand/Peat 19.8 Aab 17.9 Aa 17.1 Aab 17.1 Ab

Modified Sand/Soil 16.2 Ac 16.9 Aa 16.0 Ab 16.4 Abc
tNot significant at P=0.10.

zMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

‘Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)
*No data.

75

(-

 

Table 13A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location
Dy down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 18.1“ 11.5 24.2 24.3
Uniform Sand/Peat 30.0 17.4 31.3 31.2
Uniform Sand/Soil 25.6 13.9 22.8 22.3
Modified Sand 12.3 11.8 12.6 12.8
Modified Sand/Peat 20.0 17.8 18.9 18.2
Modified Sand/Soil 16.6 16.7 16.4 16.3
Location
down 2 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 17.8 11.7 21.3 20.5
Uniform Sand/Peat 27.3 17.6 25.7 26.0
Uniform Sand/Soil 24.8 13.0 21.1 20.5
Modified Sand 12.1 11.8 12.4 12.4
Modified Sand/Peat 19.3 17.3 18.3 17.3
Modified Sand/Soil 16.5 16.5 16.3 16.2
Location
Dy down 3 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.6 11.9 22.3 21.2
Uniform Sand/Peat 28.5 18.4 26.0 26.1
Uniform Sand/Soil 25.5 14.0 22.0 20.8
Modified Sand 12.2 12.6 12.8 12.7
Modified Sand/Peat 19.7 18.6 18.3 17.6
Modified Sand/Soil 17.0 17.9 16.4 16.6
Location
down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand * * * *
Uniform Sand/Peat * ‘ t ’
Uniform Sand/Soil ‘ * * *
Modified Sand * * * *
Modified Sand/Peat * * * *
Modified Sand/Soil * * * *
'No Data

Not significant at P=O.10.

 

 

76

Table 14A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil interaction,
day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the four dry downs in 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

Location
Dy down 1 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 16.1" 11.2 17.9 16.9
Uniform Sand/Peat 21.6 17.5 21.5 20.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 21.3 13.8 19.7 18.2
Modified Sand 11.7 12.5 12.1 12.5
Modified Sand/Peat 19.2 16.7 18.1 16.6
Modified Sand/Soil 16.4 16.3 15.5 15.1
Location
down 2 l 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 14.9 9.8 17.4 16.5
Uniform Sand/Peat 21.0 16.6 20.9 20.6
Uniform Sand/Soil 20.3 13.3 19.3 18.5
Modified Sand 11.0 11.3 10.7 11.4
Modified Sand/Peat 18.9 15.3 17.8 16.3
Modified Sand/Soil 15.6 15.3 15.0 14.8
Location
Dy down 3 l 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 19.5 13.2 21.3 20.0
Uniform Sand/Peat 25.8 20.6 24.9 24.]
Uniform Sand/Soil 24.1 16.1 22.6 21.1
Modified Sand 13.2 14.5 12.8 13.0
Modified Sand/Peat 20.9 20.9 19.8 18.3
Modified Sand/Soil 17.4 19.5 17.2 15.9
Location
Dy down 4 1 2 3 4
Uniform Sand 17.8 12.1 19.9 18.6
Uniform Sand/Peat 23.8 19.3 23.9 24.5
Uniform Sand/Soil 23.1 14.7 15.9 19.4
Modified Sand 12.4 14.0 12.5 12.7
Modified Sand/Peat 20.8 19.0 19.5 20.2
Modified Sand/Soil 17.4 17.9 16.4 16.3

 

fNot significant at P=O.10.

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.0 __w _ O O _ O
1 —a— Standard Sand —6— Standard Sand/Peat
3o 0 .1 —'A—' Standard Sand/Soil --13-- Modified Sand 1_
' L.O“<>;:_M2€1Oifi§<i§§nOd/.139L O - O :24" Modified Sand/SQLOO
25.0 - OO .
20.0 «1 O O
vwc
15.0 OOO
10.0 1 ~ - _ ,OOOO O OO.
0.0

 

 

l 2 Location 3 4
Figure 1A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the second dry down

 

 

 

 

 

 

in2000.
.‘ _' ”113—" "”"s‘nn‘da‘a‘sa’n‘n _ — "_ :9? m Standard Sand/Pea; T
35-0 "1 —-A-— Standard Sand/Soil --13-- Modified Sand 1
30.0 1 fl- - 0- -ModififlflPeat A W . - - A- - Modified Sand/Soil '1
25.0 «1-- -
20.0 ~>— A
VWC
15.0 mm. ‘
10.0 ~~— #-
5.o N
0.0

 

 

1 2 Location 3 4
Figure 2A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil

interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the third dry down in
2000.

78

 

1 ' —9— Standard Sand + Standard Sand/Peat_— *
1 —A-— Standard Sand/Soil --13-- Modified Sand 1
30_0 11 _O'..' 0- - Modified Sand/Peat - f _ _ _:A- - Modified Sand/Soil y I

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 . 1 1 -
l 2 Location 3 4

 

Figure 3A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0—10 cm depth for the fourth dry down
in 2000.

35.0 —1 v—a—‘ Standard Sand W

 

O.__‘

—-+. WT Standard Sand/Peat ' -—
—A—— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3 - - Modified Sand

W _ 7- - 0 - :Modified Sand/Beat - - A - - _Modified Sand/Soil __

25.0 O ~ --—

30.0 -5

 

20.0 e
vwc

 

 

15.0 N ~ -

10.0 —-

 

 

 

0.0

 

1 2 Location 3 4
Figure 4A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil

interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the fifth dry down in
2000.

79

 

 

 

,.__ O ___ O __.__. O..— _____ ___.— .___.. ._O..__ f O _ __ w__ _____.. _. _—

3 5,0 —8— Standard Sand —0—' Standard Sand/Peat —
1 —A-— Standard Sand/Soil - - 13 - - Modified Sand
30.0 1. --<>-_-Modified Sand/Peat _ t_ ”A- Modified Sand/Soil

._O1OOO

 

 

 

25.0 ~

 

20.0 r

 

VWC

 

15.0 .

10.0 ~

 

5 0 _. __ ___ --O v--O O O _.O ___ ___._O.O-.OOO-OOOOOO.___OOOO

 

 

0.0

 

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 5A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, the 0-10 cm depth for the first dry down in
2002.

35.0 1-1 '—a— Standard Sand 7 —e— 1 Standard Sand/Peat _ 1.
—-A-— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3 - - Modified Sand

30.0 ..1 . .
w __ __g _j - A- - Modified Sand/S011
25.0 ~~— —1 1....— - ._ O O 71'“ __y

 

 

 

20.0 ~ -
VWC
15.0 7

10.0 --

 

5.0 -.

 

 

0.0 1 1 f
1 2 Location 3 4

 

Figure 6A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the second dry down
in 2002.

80

l —8— Standard Sand 3*

35.0 __‘ —A— Standard Sand/Soil

30.0 v
25.0 n,

20.0 ~
VWC

15.0 a *
10.0
5.0 4»

 

0.0

"0' 'quified Sand/Peat

v
5 l

‘ _ —o—" 2' Standard Sand/Feat _—
- - El - - Modified Sand
3°: Modifieé San/§0il- L

 

 

 

 

Figure 7A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 0-10 cm depth for the fourth dry down

30.0

1 2 Location

in 2002.

3 4

 

25.0 --

20.0 --

VWC 15.0
10.0

5.0-.

0.0

Figure 8A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the second dry down

 

 

La: saacfaat Sand
—&— Standard Sand/Soil
- -<> - - Modified Sand/Peat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ TéndEd Sanfiaat "

- - {3 - - Modified Sand

 

- - A - - Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

1 2 Location

in 2000.

81

3 4

 

30.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25.0 a i
20.0 *
VWC 15.0 *-
10.0 " 7 O: O—j‘::’O_i O‘ O*::-j_i O ; i: :: A; :a:;_—_ _:—~ :a
' —8— Standard Sand —0— Standard Sand/Peat
5.0 d . —-A-— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3- - Modified Sand F
l - - <> - - Modified Sand/Peat - - A - - Modified Sand/Soil
0.0 w ”___ F d *7 MT” " ,
1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 9A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the third dry down

 

 

   
 

 

in 2000.
35.0 OOO O O O O OOO OO OOOO
; —B— Standard Sand —0—- Standard Sand/Peat
30.0 1 + Stande Sand/Soil --a-- Modified Sand 4
25 O O :53." Modified Sand/Peat , A'OModifieOd 23994391- ,,
20.0 -~ a a —
vwc
15.0 O
10.0? -— - _ O OO O ,O O _ O
5.0 -- — — —— - — — ._ 4—
0.0

 

 

 

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 10A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the fifth dry down
in 2000.

82

35.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30.0 " ****** i r A A A A A 77777 OOO ,, O _ OO ___._O4
25.0 e ee— __O *O O O O O-.. ____O____ O O O OO O
20.0~- ~—-\ ——O_ :oOOO,
VWC .-.::--:'.".'.°.-.::::"" --- ‘5
15.0~— --— ‘ _ __ _O V O--- O-OoOO ------- . , __ O
a ---------- --= ------------- a -------------- a
10.0 e OOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOO ___ O “OOO:
—B— Standard Sand —0— Standard Sand/Peat
5.0 J —A—-Standard Sand/Soil ..g.. Modified Sand r
L --<>-- Modified Sand/Peat nan Modified Sand/Soil
0.0 "'* AA AA, A A AA A , ~——— ___-
1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 11A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the first dry down

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in 2002.
35.07 __ ___O ___ O_ ___ , _ __ .OO O
_ —8— Standard Sand + Standard Sand/Peat
3O°O —-A— Standard Sand/Soil - - {3 - - Modified Sand
25.0 ~t -f i f - - 0- - Modified Sand/Peat" fi- - A- - Modified Sand/Soil i
20.0 t»
VWC
15.0
10.0 t A
5.0 ~~ A AA A AA A i
0.0

 

 

 

1 2 Location 3 4

Figure 12A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the second dry
down in 2002.

83

35.0

 

30.0

25.0 A

20.0 A
VWC
15.0 A

10.0 ~lr

5.0 J

0.0

l

 

1” O, _O

 

 

 

 

—A— Standard Sand/Soil
. - - 0 - - Modified Sand/Peat

‘3 —a— Standard Sand

 

F :6— Standard Sand/Peat“ ‘7‘

--i:i-- Modified Sand
uto- - Modified Sand/Soil

 

 

T

l 2

l

Location 3 4

Figure 13A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the third dry down

35.0

in 2002.

 

30.0

25.0

20.0 t—

VWC
15.0

10.0

50 n.

 

I
1

i —B-— Standard Sand

AA— Standard Sand/Soil
--<>-' Modified Sand/Peat

 

 

 

+ Standard Sand/Peat
- - {3- - Modified Sand
- - A - - ModifiedSand/Soil

 

 

0.0

l 2

Location 3 4

Figure 14A. Volumetric water contents for the construction x location x soil
interaction, day 3, at the 10-20 cm depth for the fourth dry

down in 2002.

84

 

 

Table 15A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 16.11 13.4 17.6 16.9
Sand/Peat 25.6 22.3 24.1 22.7
Sand/Soil 23.5 22.4 21.6 21.3
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 14.4 10.0 15.2 15.9
Sand/Peat 24.5 23.1 23.0 21.6
Sand/Soil 22.1 18.4 20.2 19.2
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 11.1 BC‘b§ 7.1 Cc 16.6 Ab 15.2 ABb
Sand/Peat 23.2 Aa 23.8 Aa 23.9 Aa 19.9 Aa
Sand/Soil 21.4 Aa 17.8 Ab 20.2 Aab 18.4 Aab
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand * * it *
Sand/Peat * * * *
Sand/Soil * * * *
Dry down 5 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 13.7‘ 11.2 16.9 15.9
Sand/Peat 25.4 24.6 21.6 23.6
Sand/Soil 23.5 21.7 20.9 20.7

 

'Not significant at P=0.05.

zMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
Significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

§Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

 

85

Table 16A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,

day 0, for the four dry downs in 2001, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
20.11 18.9 20.3 18.7
30.1 29.7 28.0 26.9
28.6 27.2 25.9 24.9
Location
1 2 3 4
22.7 22.5 21.3 20.0
32.0 31.9 30.0 28.5
31.1 29.3 27.7 26.8
Location
1 2 3 4
21.4 18.7 21.4 20.5
29.8 28.4 28.0 26.8
28.2 26.9 26.5 26.3
Location
1 2 3 4
20.1 19.3 21.4 21.9
30.4 29.7 27.6 27.5
29.1 28.2 25.7 27.3

 

TNot significant at P=0.05.

 

86

Table 17A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 0, for the four dry downs in 2002, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/ Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Drydown3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
2|: at: an: 1:
III * It 1‘
* 1|! 1|: It
Location
1 2 3 4
19.4 AW 14.7 Be 20.9 Ab 18.6 Ab
28.6 Aa 27.3 Aa 25.5 Aa 26.8 Aa
27.6 Aa 20.4 Bb 25.7 Aa 24.6 Aa
Location
1 2 3 4
23.5§ 23.4 23.7 22.2
30.2 32.1 31.2 30.6
29.6 31.] 30.1 29.8
Location
1 2 3 4
20.5 15.9 21.7 21.6
31.5 28.5 29.0 27.9
27.4 25.9 27.3 26.2

 

*Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

§Not significant at P=0. 10.

*No data.

 

87

Table 18A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 15.3 B’e‘ 15.3 Be 18.9 Ac 17.5 Ac
Sand/Peat 26.1 Aa 27.1 Aa 26.0 Aa 25.3 Aa
Sand/Soil 23.5 Ab 24.3 Ab 23.4 Ab 22.7 Ab
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 10.5 Ab 4.8 Bc 12.3 Ab 12.0 Ab
Sand/Peat 20.8 Aa 13.7 Ca 17.7 Ba 18.0 Ba
Sand/Soil 17.7 Aa 10.2 Cb 14.5 Bab 12.9 Bb
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 12.] Ab 7.9 Bb 15.7 Ab 13.2 Ab
Sand/Peat 26.2 Aa 23.3 ABa 21.4 ABa 22.3 Ba
Sand/Soil 22.8 Aa 21.8 ABa 20.7 ABa 18.3 Ba
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 13.2§ 7.4 13.9 13.9
Sand/Peat 23.2 22.8 23.2 22.1
Sand/Soil 19.6 17.1 18.7 17.3
Dry down 5 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 11.6 6.3 14.8 13.0
Sand/Peat 22.4 18.6 20.6 20.1
Sand/Soil 18.9 13.9 17.9 16.0

 

+Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

§Not significant at P=0.05.

88

Table 19A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,

day 3, for the four dry downs in 2001, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/ Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
13.9 AlbI 7.1 Be 13.1 Ac 13.4 Ac
23.5 Aa 19.5 Ba 20.7 ABa 21.2 ABa
21.4 Aa 15.2 Bb 17.6 Bb 16.9 Bb
Location
1 2 3 4
12.0 Ab 8.1 Be 13.6 Ab 12.3 Ac
21.5 Ab 19.5 Aa 19.3 Aa 19.9 Aa
21.7 Ab 16.3 Bb 17.2 Ba 16.2 Bb
Location
1 2 3 4
15.9 Ab 9.7 Bc 17.6 Ab 15.8 Ac
25.4 Aa 22.8 ABa 24.5 ABa 22.4 Ba
25.1 Aa 19.3 Bb 20.3 Bb 18.9 Bb
Location
1 2 3 4
14.7 Ab 7.9 Be 16.0 Ab 15.9 Ab
23.0 Aa 22.3 Aa 22.3 Aa 20.5 Aa
22.3 Aa 16.9 Bb 19.4 ABab 18.3 Bab

 

fMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

89

Table 20A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 3, for the four dry downs in 2002, at the 0-10 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 14.61 9.3 13.2 12.5
Sand/Peat 23.3 20.5 21.3 21.8
Sand/Soil 21.7 16.7 18.7 18.3
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 12.9 7.1 14.0 14.2
Sand/Peat 23.5 18.2 21.2 21.8
Sand/Soil 18.7 13.8 20.2 17.8
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.6 A‘b§ 13.2 Bc 18.1 Ac 18.2 Ab
Sand/Peat 27.1 Aa 24.9 Ba 26.5 ABa 25.5 ABa
Sand/Soil 26.5 Aa 22.0 Cb 24.2 Bb 24.9 ABa
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 16.4 Ab 9.1 Bb 14.1 Ab 14.2 Ac
Sand/Peat 27.4 Aa 22.5 Ba 23.3 Ba 23.6 Ba
Sand/Soil 25.9 Aa 19.5 Ba 20.9 Ba 18.3 Bb

 

tNot significant at P=0.05.

:Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

§Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

9O

Table 21 A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 0, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

Dry down 1

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 5

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/ Soil

 

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
17.1 BelbI 14.9 Cb 21.2 Aa 17.9 Bb
22.9 Aa 20.8 ABa 20.4 Ba 21.0 ABa
19.7 Bb 23.1 Aa 18.9 Ba 18.0 Bb
Location
1 2 3 4
15.7 Bb 14.1 Bb 20.9 Aa 17.5 ABa
22.0 Aa 18.2 Ba 19.4 ABa 19.8 ABa
20.0 Aa 17.8 Aa 19.5 Aa 18.0 Aa
Location
1 2 3 4
15.8 BCb 13.6 Cb 19.5 Aa 17.8 ABb
22.0 Aa 16.7 Ca 19.5 Aa 20.2 Aa
20.4 Aa 16.9 Ba 20.1 Aa 18.4 ABab
Location
1 2 3 4
18.4 Ac 20.2 Aa 20.9 Aa 18.8 Aa
26.8 Aa 23.2 ABa 21.4 Ba 22.2 Ba
22.] Ab 21.9 Aa 19.1 Aa 20.0 Aa
Location
1 2 3 4
16.2 Ac 16.9 Ab 19.4 Aa 17.6 Ab
23.0 Aa 20.3 Aa 20.1 Aa 21.7 Aa
20.3 Ab 19.5 Aab 19.9 Aa 18.1 Ab

 

+Means in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

zMeans in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not
significantly different according to F ischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

91

Table 22A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,

day 0, for the four dry downs in 2001, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.61 15.4 21.3 20.7
Sand/Peat 26.9 21.7 27.4 26.2
Sand/Soil 22.8 18.7 21.6 20.6
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.1 16.1 19.4 18.1
Sand/Peat 25.1 22.0 24.4 23.3
Sand/Soil 22.4 18.6 20.3 19.5
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.1 29.0 18.5 17.7
Sand/Peat 25.5 21.7 23.3 22.4
Sand/Soil 22.0 18.5 19.9 19.2
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 1! It 1' III
Sand/Peat * * * *
Sand/Soil * * * *
lNot significant at P=0.05.
I"No data.

 

92

Table 23A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 0, for the four dry downs in 2002, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 16.81 16.0 17.4 16.6
Sand/Peat 23.1 21.7 22.4 20.7
Sand/Soil 21.3 19.7 17.1 19.1
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 1! t It It
Sand/Peat * * * *
Sand/Soil "‘ * * *
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.5 18.6 18.5 17.3
Sand/Peat 26.8 25.7 23.7 22.1
Sand/Soil 22.2 21.8 20.5 19.6
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 17.2 17.0 19.9 17.2
Sand/Peat 23.7 23.7 23.8 23.6
Sand/Soil 21.7 19.8 21 .O 19.0
Not significant at P=0.05.
*No data.

 

93

Table 24A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,
day 3, for the five dry downs in 2000, at the 10-20 cm depth.

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/ Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 5

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
III III 4! *
III 1|: * t
at: at at: al-
Location
1 2 3 4
16.0 ab 13.2 Cb 19.6 Aa 18.1 ABb
22.3 Aa 16.4 Ca 19.4 Ba 20.5 ABa
21.0 Aa 16.6 Ca 20.6 ABa 18.3 BCb
Location
1 2 3 4
16.2 Bb 15.7 Bb 20.0 Aa 17.6 ABa
22.1 Aa 20.4 Aa 19.8 Aa 20.2 Aa
20.7 ABa 20.0 ABa 22.0 Aa 18.1 Ba
Location
1 2 3 4
1| II t t
It III III *
* III 4! III
Location
1 2 3 4
14.6 BCc 13.1 Cb 18.1Aa 16.7 ABb
21.5 Aa 17.6 Ba 18.8 ABa 20.9 Aa
19.3 Ab 16.6 Aa 18.6 Aa 17.4 Ab

 

lMeans in a row followed by the same capital letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

:Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not

significantly different according to Fischers protected LSD (p=0.05)

*No data.

94

Table 25A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,

day 3, for the four dry downs in 2001, at the 10-20 cm depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry down 1 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 152* 11.7 18.4 18.6
Sand/Peat 25.0 17.6 25.1 24.7
Sand/Soil 21.1 15.3 19.6 19.3
Dry down 2 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 14.9 11.7 16.9 16.4
Sand/Peat 23.3 17.4 22.0 21.6
Sand/Soil 20.6 14.8 18.7 18.3
Dry down 3 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand 15.9 12.2 17.5 17.0
Sand/Peat 24.1 18.5 22.2 21.8
Sand/Soil 21.2 15.9 19.2 18.7
Dry down 4 Location

1 2 3 4
Sand * t * *
Sand/Peat * * * *
Sand/Soil * * * "‘
’Not significant at P=0.05.
*No data.

 

95

Table 26A. Volumetric water contents for the location x soil interaction,

day 3, for the four dry downs in 2002, at the 10-20 cm depth.

Drydownl

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 2

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/ Soil

Dry down 3

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

Dry down 4

Sand
Sand/Peat
Sand/Soil

 

 

 

 

Location
1 2 3 4
13.8* 11.8 15.0 14.7
20.4 17.1 19.8 18.6
18.8 15.1 17.6 16.6
Location
1 2 3 4
13.0 10.5 14.1 13.9
19.9 15.9 19.4 18.5
17.9 14.3 17.2 16.6
Location
1 2 3 4
16.4 13.8 17.1 16.5
23.3 20.7 22.4 21.2
20.7 17.8 19.9 18.5
Location
1 2 3 4
15.1 13.0 16.2 15.7
22.3 19.1 21.7 22.4
20.2 16.3 16.1 17.9

 

*Not significant at P=0.05.

96

BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderfer, RB. 1951. Compaction of turf soils — some causes and effects. USGA J. Turf
Manage. Vol. 4, No. 2, June, p. 25-28.

Bengeyfield, W.H. 1963. The traffic problem. USGA Green Section Record. Vol. 1, No.
1, May, p. 1-2.

Beard, J .B. 2002. Turf management for golf courses. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.

Bemdt, W.L. and J .M. Vargas, 1992. Elemental sulfur lowers redox potential and
produces sulfide in putting green sand. Hortscience, 27(11): 1188-1190.

Bond, RD. and J .R. Harris. 1964. The influence of the microflora on the physical
properties of soils. 1: Effects associated with filamentous algae and fungi. Aust. J.
of Soil Res. 2:1 1 1-122.

Carrow, R.N., D.V. Waddington, and RE. Rieke. 2001. Turfgrass soil fertility and
chemical problems: Assessment and management. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.

Cisar, J .L., K.E. Williams, H.E. Vivas, J .J . Haydu, 2000. The occurrence and alleviation
by surfactants of soil-water repellency on sand-based turfgrass systems. J. Hydro].
231: 352-358. Sp. ISS. SI MAY 29.

Cullimore, D.R., S. Nilson, S. Taylor, and K. Nelson. 1990. Structure of a black plug
layer in a turfgrass putting sand green. J Soil Water Conserv. 45 (6): 657-659
Nov-Dec.

Dougrameji, J .S. 1965. Soil-water relationships in stratified sands. PhD. Diss. Michigan
State University.

Elliot, ML. 1998. Use of fungicides to control blue-green algae on bermuda grass
putting-green surfaces. Crop Prot. 17(8):631-637.

Franco, C.M., P.P. Michelsen, and J .M. Oades. 2000. Amelioration of water repellency:

application of slow-release fertilisers to stimulate microbial breakdown of waxes.
Journal of Hydrology. 231-232z342-351.

Henry, J .M. 1970. Nonwettable Sands: A problem of putting green soils. Master Thesis.
University of California Davis.

Hodges, CF. 1992 A. Interaction of cyanobacteria and sulfate-reducing bacteria in
subsurface black-layer formation in high-sand content golf greens. Soil Biol
Biochem. 24(1): 1 5-20.

98

Hodges, CF. 1992 B. Pathogenicity of Pythium torulosum to roots of Agrostis palustris
in black-layered sand produced by the interaction of the cyanobacteria species
Lyngbya, Phormidium, and Nostoc with Desulfovibrio desulfuricans. Can. J. Bot.
70:2193-2197.

Hodges, CF. and DA. Campbell. 1997. Nutrient salts and the toxicity of black-layer
induced by cyanobacteria and Desulfovibrio desulfitricans to Agrostis palustris.
Plant and Soil. 195: 53-60.

Humbert, RP. and RV. Grau. 1949. Soil and turf relationships, Part 11. USGA J. and Turf
Manage. Vol. 2, No. 3, July, p. 28-29.

Hummel, NW. 1993. Rationale for the revisions of the USGA green construction
specifications. USGA Green Section Record. Vol. 31, No. 2, March/April,
p. 7-21.

Karcher, DE. 1999. Investigations on statistical analysis of turfgrass rating data,
localized dry spots of greens, and nitrogen application techniques for turf. PhD.
Diss. Michigan State University.

Kamok, K.J., and K.A. Tucker. 2001. Fight localized dry Spots through the roots: Using
wetting agents to treat an entire green may be the best way to combat localized
dry spots. Golf Course Manage. Vol. 69, No. 7, July, p. 58-60.

Kamok, K.J., E.J. Rowland, and K.H. Tan. 1993. High pH treatments and the alleviation
of soil hydrophobicity on golf greens. Agron. J. 85:983-986.

Kunze, R.J., M.H. Ferguson, and J .B. Page. 1957. The effects of compaction on golf
green mixtures. USGA J. and Turf Manage. Vol. 10, No. 6, November, p. 24-27.

Latham, J .M. 1990. The history of USGA greens. USGA Greens Section Record. Vol.
28, No. 3, May/June, p. 1-5.

Lunt, OR. 1956. Minimizing compaction in putting greens. USGA J. Turf manage.
9(5):25-30.

Miller, RH, and J .F. Wilkinson. 1977. Nature of the organic coating on sand grains of
nonwettable golf greens. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41 (6):1203-1204.

Pelz, D. 2000, Dave Pelz’s putting bible. Doubleday, New York, NY.

Prettyman, G., and E. McCoy, 1999. Subsurface drainage of Modern Putting Greens.
USGA Greens Section Record. Vol. 37, No. 4, July/Aug, p. 12-15.

99

Roberts, F.J., and BA. Carbon. 1972. Water repellence in sandy soils of south-western
Australia: Some chemical characteristics of the hydrophobic skins. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 10:35-42.

SAS Institute Inc. 1999. The SAS system for Windows release 8.00. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.

Taylor, D.H., S.D. Nelson, and CF. Williams. 1993. Sub-root zone layering effects on
water retention in sports turf soil profiles. Agron. J. 85:626-630.

The United States Golf Association. 2002. The rules of golf and the rules of amateur
status 2002-2003.

US. Golf Association Green Section Staff. 1960. Specifications for a method of putting
green construction. USGA J. Turf Management. 13(5):24-28.

U.S. Golf Association Green Section Staff. 1993. USGA Recommendations for a Method
of Putting Green Construction. USGA Green Section Record. March/April, p. 1-3.

Wilkinson, J .F. and RH. Miller, 1978. Investigation and treatment of localized dry Spots
on sand golf greens. Agron. J. 70:299-304.

York, CA. and PM. Canaway. 2000. Water repellent soils as they occur on UK golf
greens. J. Hydrol. 231: 126-133 Sp. 135. S1 MAY 29.

100