james robert hutchinson by - amazon s3 · characteristics of strong creeping red ... owen for his...

An Investigation into the Suitability of Recycled Sands

and Compost Materials for use on the Golf Course

by

James Robert Hutchinson


4

A dissertation submitted to the

University of Central Lancashire

Faculty of Science and Technology

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

Bachelor of Science with Honours

In

BSc (Hons) Sports Turf Science and Management

19th

April 2013

An Investigation into the Suitability of

Recycled Sands and Compost

Materials for use on the Golf Course

by



5

Abstract:

The effects of recycled material on grass species within a winter teeing environment is an

area of limited research, one which provides the turf manager with little recommendations on

the ideal or immeasurable instructions on which materials to use. This research aims to

provide specific information in helping to form an integral part of winter tee management

strategy whilst highlighting a proposed use of recycled materials on a golf course.

The effects that two recycled materials (recycled sand and compost) had on the growth

characteristics of Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra) and Perennial Ryegrass

(Lolium perenne) was investigated. Colour, NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight was

observed using 200mm PVC growing tubes. Final shoot and root weights were used to

calculate total biomass for each treatment. The project was grown in a greenhouse

environment with average temperatures of 12 – 20°C. Pots were trimmed weekly to a height

of 15mm.

Results found significant differences (p<0.005) between treatments suggesting that turfgrass

growth and development is affected by recycled materials. NDVI readings, pot coverage,

clippings dry weight and total biomass increased significantly in the compost grown fescues

whereas no significant differences were noted in the ryegrass grown in either treatments.


6

For Lynsey.


7

Acknowledgements:

I would firstly like to offer my sincerest gratitude to the R&A for their support throughout the

past four years. Without their financial assistance I could not have followed my dream to

become a scholar and an educated man. Equally, I offer my thanks to Fairhaven Golf Club for

their past, present and future support throughout my time on the course.

Thank you to British Seed Houses for supplying me with the seed to carry out this project.

I wish to express my gratitude to Myerscough College for giving me the opportunity to

pursue a Bachelor of Science degree. I would also like to offer my thanks to Myerscough’s

highly knowledgeable lab instructor, Dr Alan Birtles for his valuable time and awe –

Inspiring assistance, including his skills regarding coffee making; Also to Owen Mullen for

his time and agronomy advice. I would like to extend extra special gratitude to Dr Andy

Owen for his invaluable help since I started out on this path to academia and science five

years ago. I am enormously grateful to my dissertation guide, Dr Irene Weir, and her methods

in enabling this enthusiastic undergraduate to understand in – depth statistical analysis,

structured writing skills and general level six study – had I been allocated another guide then

I fear it may have been a very long year!

To Jean Hutchinson (Mam) for taking the time to proof read this dissertation.

To Mam and Dad who knew I could do it.

Finally, to Lynsey Hutchinson who has endured a ‘missing’ husband for the duration of this

BSc (Hons) degree and who is the sole reason I have decided to be the person I wanted to

become.

Declaration:

I declare the work in this dissertation to be my own and not a collaboration of others.

Literature compiled by other authors is acknowledged and appropriately referenced.

James Hutchinson.

19/04/2013


8

Contents:

1 Abstract

2 Acknowledgements

3 Declarations

1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………...…………...……….Page 11

1.1 Recycled Sand………….……………………………………………………………..…12

1.2 Compost……………………………………………………………………...……..……12

1.3 Project’s Chosen Grass Species……………………….…………………………………13

1.3.1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue……………………………………………………….….13

1.3.2 Perennial Ryegrass…………………………………………………………………..…13

1.4 Winter Golf Tees………………………………………………………………………....14

1.5 Plant Health Measurement………………………………………………….………14 – 15

1.7 Aims and Objectives……………………………………….…………………….………16

2.0 Growing Mediums…………………..……………………………………………………17

2.1 Recycled Sand……………………………………………………………………..…….17

2.1.1 The Physical Properties of Sand………………………………………………………17

2.2 Compost/ Humus……………………………………………………………………18 – 19

3.0 Project’s Grass Species and Identification……………..………………………….…….20

3.1 Maxima Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra spp.)……………..………20

3.2 Abermagic Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and its Identification………...………21

4.0 Aims and Objectives Recap…..……………………………….…………………………22


9

5.0 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………..........23

5.1 Health and Safety………………………………………………………………..………23

5.2 Trial Site……………………………………………………………………………...….23

5.3 Growing Media……………………………………………………………………..........23

5.3.1 Recycled Sand…………………………………………………………………………23

5.3.2 Compost……………………………………………………………………………….23

5.4 Preparation of Plant Material……………………….…..…………………….…....24 – 26

5.5 Management of the Project………………………………………………………………26

5.6 Data Collection………………………….……………………………….………………27

5.7 Colour Assessment………………………………………………………………………27

5.8 NDVI Readings………………………………………………………………………….28

5.9 Pot Coverage……………………………………………………………………………..28

5.10 Clippings Dry Weight……………………………………………………………..........28

5.11 Total Biomass…………………………………………………………………………..29

6.0 Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………………….30

7.0 Results………………………………………………………………………………...….31

7.1 Recycled Sand Laboratory Test…………………………………………………….31 - 32

7.2 Compost Laboratory Test…………………………………………………..………33 – 34

7.3 Particle Analysis……………………………………………………………………..…..35

7.4 Coverage Data……………………………………………………………………………36

7.5 NDVI Data…………………………………………………………………….…………37


10

7.6 Clippings Data……………………………………………………………………………38

7.7 Biomass Data………………………………………………………………………….....39

7.8 Colour Assessment……………………………………………………………………….40

8.0 Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………….……41 - 45

8.1 Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………….41

9.0 References…………………………………………………………..………….……46 - 50

10.0 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………...51 - 58

List of Plates:

Plate 1………………………………………………………………………………………..23

Plate 2…………………………………………………………………………………..……25

Plate 3………………………………………………………………………………………..26

Plate 4………………………………………………………………………………….…….28

Plate 5………………………………………………………..…………………………...….28

Plate 6…………………………………………………………………………………….….28

Plate 7………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Plate 8………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Plate 9……………………………………………………………………………..…………32

Plate 10………………………………………………………………………………………34


11

1.0 Introduction:

Following a recent Royal and Ancient sustainability programme update targeting golf course

waste (R&A, 2012) and the relative lack of research within the turfgrass industry focusing

directly on the effects on recycled sand and compost on root and sward development, the

problem of what to do with recycled materials in a fine turf environment consequently arose

and had a significant impact regarding the decision making for this trial. The majority of

research in this area is focused on materials ideally suited to USGA or STRI specification

including soil mechanics (Dodgson, 2005; STRI, 2005) and turf quality (Handreck and Black,

2002).

The concept of applying recycled materials to turf surfaces has gained considerable

momentum in recent years with the arrival of the R&A’s aforementioned sustainable

programme. Products such as recycled sand and compost have been applied to golf courses

actively encouraging growth to winter surfaces including areas damaged by golfers taking

divots. However, their physiological effects to plant growth and development from seed have

not been measured.

Attaining successful seed germination and establishment is critical to the future performance

of any given surface as it affects turf quality, sward quality and the general overall

performance of a sward throughout the early stages of development, therefore having a direct

effect on how a grass might be able to deal with issues such as frost. Danneburger (2004)

found winter injury is often a combination of numerous factors, one of which is frost cover.

While continuous frost cover alone is not a common event for golf courses on the North –

West coast of England, freeze/ thaw cycles in winter can create a situation where excessive

water in and around grass crowns can create freeze injuries from the frost which has formed

from freezing water. This particular winter related research however, examines the

establishment responses of two types of sportsturf; strong creeping red fescue (Festuca spp.)

and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne spp.) growing in two different recycled materials

within a greenhouse environment, and whilst it is possible that the management carried out in

this research favoured specific cultivars, the research was conducted as close as possible to

reflect the management of a winter golf tee at Fairhaven Golf Course.


12

1.1 Recycled Sand:

Sand – dominated rootzones are now extensively used in the creation of sportsturf pitches and

golf course environs. Typically, the rootzone is developed from a blend of sand with different

amendment materials, for example organic sources (Adams, 1986; Baker et al, 1997). The

purpose of the amendment materials is usually to increase nutrient and moisture content or

sometimes to improve extra stability (Baker et al, 1997; Waddington et al, 1974).

The characteristics of the rootzone mixtures have a major impact on soil physical properties

and can therefore govern the success or failure of newly constructed sportsturf areas. In

consequence, various recommendations for rootzone materials have been made (Baker, 1990;

USGA Green Section, 2013) with the main aims being to achieve adequate drainage rates and

an acceptable balance between pore spaces. In addition, on winter teeing grounds there is a

need to ensure adequate stability for situations where grass cover is lost through wear.

1.2 Compost:

The collection and dispersal of nutrient enriched (via fertiliser applications) greens, tees and

fairway clippings coupled with leaves and brown clubhouse waste (potato peelings) has

become an ever increasing problem within golf over the latter part of the last century and

indeed the earlier part of this century through a wide variety of issues including:

Poor tee management techniques

A demand for wider teeing areas

All year round golf

A demand for ‘cleaner’ tees via a lower cutting height

(Bulleted list taken from Taylor and Penrose (2000)).

Traditionally, fine turf clippings and general organic waste have formed an important part of

compost manufacture on the golf course and have been considered a valuable commodity

(Taylor and Penrose, 2000). The ability to buy in ready – made composts meant this practice

largely ceased over the last 30 years. Since that time, the disposal of this potentially useful

asset has become a hindrance to the golf course manager.


13

Inappropriate disposal of grass waste can be a problem (Taylor, 1995). Indiscriminate

dumping of grass clippings behind trees or in the rough has become commonplace and as

grass cuttings break down, they release a whole range of products such as salts, sugars,

organic acids and other organic materials (Lawson, pers com, 2013; Taylor, 1995). This

combination of materials is concentrated to the extent that a pile of grass clippings will

scorch any underlying turf. If the subsequent liquid contaminates the soil it will render it

unsuitable for plant growth, again due to the build – up of salinity. Eventually, any toxic

materials may leach through the soil, but this may take considerable amount of time. Not only

is this bad practice leading to increased nutrification of the rough but it is potentially illegal

too (Lawson, pers com, 2013; Taylor, 1995; Taylor and Penrose, 2000). Even widespread

dispersal of clippings into the rough will increase the nutrient status of the soil, thus leading

to the sward becoming dominated by broad leaved grass species such as annual meadow

grass (Poa annua) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) (Bechelet and Windows, 2007).

As with grass clippings, the major problem with leaves is that they are perceived as untidy,

particularly during leaf fall (Witteveen and Bavier, 2012). Leaf litter is clearly a problem

where it impacts on play in that it can have a smothering effect on the playing surfaces

leading to water retention – which in turn could give rise to disease (Sachs and Luff, 2002)

and its disposal thereafter should be given appropriate consideration.

1.3 Project’s Chosen Grass Species:

1.3.1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue:

Brede (2000) explains that fescue is a low growing and winter hardy grass species which

gives quick germination and attractive winter colour. Fescue’s fine blades and low fertility

requirements make it a good winter tee species whereas its dense striking sward is resistant to

wear and repairs rapidly after divoting.

1.3.2 Perennial Ryegrass:

Perennial rye is one of the most extensively used sportsturf species for it is fast recovery time

and its significant wear tolerance (Beard, 1973). These characteristics make this species of

grass ideal for winter tee usage. Funk (1983) indicates that with its fine texture, cold weather

tolerance and attractive appearance make it especially valuable for tees to provide an

attractive winter turf.


14

1.4 Winter Golf Tees:

Winter teeing areas are often just mown – out patches of spare land where the objective is to

alleviate stress and wear from the main summer tees. However, White (2000) suggests that

winter tee construction methods have been the source of much discussion over the last few

years of golf course development; the trend has been to cap the tees with 10 – 15 cm of

compacted sand/ sand mix to create a better, more compaction resistant, growing and playing

environment (Brede, 2000). In many cases, the wrong sand is chosen leading to problems

with poor drainage and fine grass establishment, this leads on to the question: what is the

correct sand to use for a winter tee and at what rates as there are no specifications for a winter

tee. There are however, guidelines for the correct sands specifications which are to be used

on a green environment (Baker, 2006; USGA, 2013). One area where recycled materials may

be appropriate are the winter tees as fewer funds are made available for projects such as

these. Sands which do not fall directly in Baker’s and the USGA’s green specifications may

be of use in a more relaxed environment, such as a winter tee.

1.5 Plant health Measurement:

Plant health is an important feature of this research and will be assessed with an NDVI

(Normalised Difference Vegetation Index) meter. An ‘NDVI’ is an equation that takes into

account the amount of infrared reflected by plants. The NDVI for this dissertation is

calculated as follows: NDVI = (Channel 2 - Channel 1) / (Channel 2 + Channel 1). The

principle behind NDVI is that channel 1 is in the red – light region of the electromagnetic

spectrum (660 nm), where chlorophyll causes considerable absorption of incoming sunlight,

whereas channel 2 is in the near – infra red region (850 nm) where a plant’s spongy

mesophyll leaf structure creates considerable reflectance (Tucker, 1979; Jackson et al, 1983;

Tucker et al, 1991). As a result, vigorously growing healthy vegetation has low – red light

reflectance and high near – infrared reflectance, and hence, high NDVI values (Tucker et al,

1991), the NDVI values nearer to zero indicate poorer vegetation. Live green plants absorb

solar radiation, which they use as a source of energy in the process of photosynthesis. The

reason NDVI is related to vegetation is that healthy vegetation reflects very well in the near –

infra red part of the electromagnetic spectrum (USGS, 2013). Overall, NDVI provides an

estimate of the plants growth (vigour), vegetation health, biomass production and a means of

monitoring changes in vegetation over a period of time (USGS, 2013), in the case of this

experiment, 12 weeks.


15

Turf colour assessment is a useful indicator of the general condition of the plants health.

Yellowing or chlorotic appearances are often an indication of nutritional deficiencies from

unfavourable growing conditions. Findings for colour assessment in this research were

reflected by Landschoot and Mancino (2000) who evaluated turf colour for visual against

instrumental methods; they discovered that turf which was a lighter colour of green was also

less dense i.e. less blades and less succulent than the turf which was a darker green colour.

Landschoot and Mancino (2000) and Pessarakli (2007) suggest colour is a relative assessment

and may often depend on management and fertilisation and that it is an important factor in the

assessment of turfgrass sward health. The colour is assessed in this trial using the ‘Birtles 0 –

5 Scale’ method (Figure3, page 17). It is possible however, that variations in colour between

different types of grasses may be due to genetic traits i.e. a cultivar may receive a low score

of ‘0’ if it is lime green (Rye) or a high score ‘5’ if it is dark green (Fescue). One or the other

may produce dead or chlorotic tissue as a consequence of unfavourable conditions (Gooding

and Gamble, 1990). Alternatively, a high score may be awarded if the growing conditions are

favourable. In this research however, it should be possible to asses turf sward trends in colour

change from germination through to the conclusion of the growth part of the experiment.

Cockerham (2008) suggests that turf density is affected by height of cut and mowing

frequency. Both Cockerham (2008) and Pessarakli (2007) propose that the height of cut

affects a number of turf – growing factors namely a reduction in carbohydrate production and

the depth of rooting. The severity of height mowing also has the potential to decrease the

plants rhizome and stolon number, weight and internode length; turf vigour gradually

decreases with decreasing plant size (Pessarakli, 2007). Turfgrasses however, are well

adapted to frequent mowing as leaf formation continues after each defoliation (Turgeon,

2008). Measurements of the photosynthetic activity of grass leaves have shown that newly

emerging leaves may use all the food they manufacture plus some photo – assimilates from

other leaves. Young, fully expanded leaves have the highest photosynthetic rate and

contribute photo – assimilates to various parts of the plant plus some for storage

(carbohydrate reserves), primarily in the crowns. Prior to the initiation of photosynthetic

activity, emerging leaves are totally dependent on carbohydrate reserves in storage organs

from other leaves (Danneberger, 1993; Turgeon, 2008). Hence, excessive defoliation from

mowing may severely reduce turf vigour. Mowing is considered the most basic and

significant main cultural practice that influences other operations such as fertilising and

irrigation (Danneberger, 1993).


16

1.7 Aims and Objectives:

This research aims to collect results for NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight and total

biomass. Pot coverage is a vital component to a winter tee as it represents visual quality and

divot recovery respectively. Whereas the scientifically based NDVI, clippings dry weight and

total biomass results can be directly related to the overall health of the turf stand.

The various aspects of critical winter teeing growth and the competencies required to enhance

the skill and qualities to sustain it are without a doubt a major part of a golf course manager’s

armoury. From observations of the researched literature, there seems to be a distinct lack of

references to the use of recycled sand and compost and its suitability to be used on golf

course winter tees, divot mixes or otherwise; both are being investigated by the Sports Turf

Research Institute (STRI) as a tool for the addition of nutrients in a growing medium

(Lawson, 2002; Lawson, 2005). The objective of this current work therefore was to examine

the potential influence these materials have on two different grass species in the on – going

winter tee construction trials at Fairhaven Golf Club with the intention of highlighting the

aforementioned gap by offering its findings to the golf course industry.

The photographs are taken by James Hutchinson. The diagrams are drawn by James

Hutchinson.


17

2.0 Growing Mediums:

2.1 Recycled Sand: “(Recycled sand is a material that has been used before)” (Greenspec,

2012). In the case of this research, the recycled sand had previously been used on a golf

course as bunker sand and naturally occurring links sand. Sand however, comes in many

different forms, all of varying quality with a range of properties and physical characteristics,

so the challenge is to select the right one for sportsturf usage (Higgins, 2012). Welland

(2009) suggests that sand is an inorganic granular mineral composed of individual particles of

grains formed by the weathering and erosion of rock. Higgins (2012) concurs with Welland’s

(2009) statement and goes on to say that these small, finely divided pieces of rock will vary

in chemical composition depending on the source and condition of the parent rock from

which they were derived.

2.1.1: The Physical Properties of Sand:

As far as the UK is concerned, sand refers to a material which has a grain size distribution

between 0.063 to 2 mm (Baker, 2006). The majority of sands quarried here in the UK consist

mainly of silica dioxide (SiO2), otherwise known as silica, and its size, uniformity and shape

control its physical behaviour (Baker, 2006; Higgins, 2012). It is essential to be able to

outline the qualities required from the playing surface, i.e. stability, water retention or

drainage rates, and then to choose a size range which closely meets these criteria. Baker

(2006) mentions that for rootzone mix, the addition of organic amendments can be modified

to suit the individual sportsturf environment; nevertheless, the original characteristics of the

sand typically have a major influence on the mix that is produced.

For the majority of golf related constructions, the effect of grain shape is moderately small

compared to the importance of grain size and uniformity. STRI field and laboratory trials

have found that mixes containing rounded and elongated grains had lower values of porosity.

Conversely, hydraulic conductivity and air – filled pore space were greater when the sand

contained either angular or spherical particles (Baker, 2006; Hummel, 1995). A golf tee

therefore should be firm and level, root growth should not be constrained, and the moisture

content of the medium should not affect playing quality. The turf must receive and drain

away surplus water quickly and at the same time retain enough when irrigated so that

frequent watering is unnecessary.


18

2.2 Compost/ Humus:

Humus refers to any organic matter that has reached a point of stability where it will break

down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries (Dent,

2011); however, conditions in a sportsturf environment do change and this can result in the

continuing decomposition of humus. It is consequently important that the correct compost is

used in any fine turf environment.

Humus contributes to recycled sand’s capacity to hold onto water and air – two essential

constituents for most sand organisms including red fescue and perennial ryegrass (Sachs and

Luff, 2002). Humus can hold between 80 – 90% of its weight in water, so sand rich in humus

is more drought resistant and subsequently is effective at holding mineral nutrients from

being washed away during periods of irrigation. As humus decays, it releases mild organic

acids, which dissolve soil minerals, freeing them for plant use. Certain metallic nutrients such

as iron and zinc react with soil chemicals to form insoluble compounds. Humus molecules

form a ring around the metal in a process called chelation. These chelates protect metal atoms

from being locked in the soil helping to keep the iron or zinc more available to the plant

(Bassirad. 2005; Plaster, 2008). Compost affects the plants health and its ability to take up

nutrients by chelation (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008).

Decomposition of dead plant material causes complex organic compounds to be slowly

oxidized or to break down into simpler forms (sugars and amino sugars, aliphatic and

phenolic organic acids), which are further transformed into microbial biomass (microbial

humus) or are reorganised, and further oxidised into humic assemblages (fulvic and humic

acids), which bind to minerals and metal hydroxides (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008; Plaster,

2008). There has been a long debate about the ability of grass plants to take up humic

substances from their root systems and to metabolise them. There is now a consensus about

how humus plays a hormonal role rather than simply a nutritional role in plant physiology.

Humus however, is a colloidal substance, and increases the soil’s cation exchange capacity,

hence its ability to store nutrients by chelation (Berg and McClaugherty, 2008; Handreck and

Black, 2002). While these nutrient cations are accessible to grass plants, they are held in the

soil safe from being leached by rain or irrigation (Handreck and Black, 2002).


19

Composting, the initial stages of humus, is the aerobic decomposition of organic materials by

microorganisms under controlled conditions (Rynk et al, 1992). This process transforms the

original materials into a useable and valuable end product that can be used as a growing

medium or a soil and sand conditioner. Bertoldi (1996) comments that the composting

process and subsequently, humus, depends on the degradation of organic materials by

naturally occurring microorganisms. It is a dynamic and complicated ecological process in

which temperature, pH and nutrient availability are constantly changing (Brandli, 2006).

Chen et al. (1997) define composting to be a four stage process: mesophyllic; thermophyllic;

stabilisation and maturation. This is an in depth study in its own right, however, these

processes can be refined and explained thus: the initial mesophyllic phase lasts for a few

days, and is characterised as microbes growing at normal temperature (mesophiles) starting

degradation and generating heat. This heat begins the 1 – 6 week thermophyllic phase by

triggering the multiplication of other microbes and generates further metabolic heat

(thermophiles). It is during this phase that temperatures are 58°C or higher should be attained

for at least 12 hours in order for sanitisation to occur. Oxygen should be made available

during this phase (by turning the compost) in order for anaerobic decomposition to occur

(Brady and Weil, 1999). In the stabilisation phase thermophyllic activity declines and

temperatures drop to around 45 - 55°C, allowing fungal spores to invade the compost and to

carry out enzymic degradation (humification). In the final maturation stage little heat is

generated, and mesophyllic microorganisms and macro fauna colonise the compost (Brandli,

2006; Thompson, 2011). The four aforementioned stages lead subsequently on to humus

which is the desired end product for the compost part of the project.


20

3.0 Project’s Grass and Identification:

3.1 Maxima 1 Strong Creeping Red Fescue (Festuca rubra rubra):

This particular species of fescue is used for winter teeing purposes and is native throughout

most of Europe and Great Britain (Aldous and Chivers, 2002). The USDA (2001) reports that

this species of fescue is also native to Asia and North America, in addition to Europe and that

it grows in temperate climates around the world. Strong creeping red fescue shows more

compatibility in mixtures with perennial rye than the other fine leaved fescues spp (Casler

and Duncan, 2003). It thrives under a wide range of conditions but is notable for its tolerance

to dry, rather poor soils. It is reasonably resistant to frost and drought and it tolerates surface

water during the winter. By forming strong rhizomes, it is able to close gaps in the grass

sward reasonably quickly, depending on weather conditions (DLF Trifolium, 2013; Aldous

and Chivers, 2002).

Strong creeping red fescue will not tolerate close mowing to 5 mm or less, but in a winter

teeing environment, 10 mm upwards, will produce rhizomes which are able to spread quickly

throughout the divot/ damaged area (Casler and Duncan, 2003). It is adapted to sandy,

gravelly, calcareous soils in cool temperate

climates such as the ones found on or near

Fairhaven Golf Club, North West coast of

England. It prefers a pH of 5.5 – 6.5 but can

survive considerable acidity. It will produce

better yields under irrigation and it is

climatically adapted to all the UK’s golf

courses that receive adequate moisture and

have well drained soils. Newly seeded areas

however, require protection from foot traffic

for up to a year or until the stand is well

established (USDA, 2012). Aldous and

Chivers (2002) indicate that these attributes

make strong creeping red fescue a good

cultivar for a winter tee grass species.

Figure 1: Creeping red fescue and its characteristics.


21

3.2 Abermagic Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and its Identification:

Perennial rye is found and used for turf purposes throughout the temperate world but most

extensively in the US and the UK (Casler and Duncan, 2003). Rye is also used in temperate

Europe, where it is naturalised, on winter games pitches, fairways and golf tees (Cornish and

Graves, 1989). It is sometimes used on its own but often in a mixture with red fescue (Beard,

1982).

Perennial rye is best adapted to cool, moist climates and on fertile, well drained soils, but has

a wide range of soil adaptability. It will tolerate extended periods of flooding (up to 25 days)

when temperatures are below 80°F (27°C) (Beard, 1973). Minimum annual rainfall

requirement is 45 – 63 cm. Perennial rye tolerates both acidic and alkaline soils, with a pH

range of 5 to 8, with an optimum pH of 6.5. During hot summers, rye becomes dormant and

will not tolerate climatic extremes of cold, heat or drought. Optimum growth occurs between

68 - 75 °F (20 - 25°C) (Beard, 1973). Mowing quality of rye is generally poor because of the

tough fibrous vascular bundles in the leaves, although modern cultivars have improved

mowing characteristics (Casler and

Duncan, 2003).

Modern rye varieties were bred for higher

maintenance tasks such as fairways and

golf tees and have one remarkable attribute

that makes it difficult to ignore: an

overwhelming fast establishment rate

(Elford, 2007). Perennial rye can establish

with more ease and less skill than any

other turfgrass (Elford, 2007)

Figure 2: Perennial rye and its characteristics.


22

4.0 Aims and Objectives Recap:

The aim of the trial was to determine if two different recycled materials had an effect over

time on the growth and development of two different grass species; Strong Creeping Red

Fescue and Perennial Ryegrass, grown in a controlled environment. Growth and development

will be analysed by measuring NDVI, pot coverage, clippings dry weight and total biomass.

Turf colour will also be assessed.


23

5.0 Materials and Methods:

5.1 Health, Safety and Ethics:

The analysis provided in this section was conducted at Myerscough College. Risk and

COSHH assessments were already in place for the procedures to be used (See appendix 10.10

for the full laboratory risk assessments). The student/ author carrying out all the laboratory

research had experience of working in this environment and was fully trained to carry out all

technical protocols related to the experiment (Birtles, pers com, 2012).

5.2 The trial site:

The project was conducted at Myerscough College. The location was chosen due to the easy

access to scientific equipment allowing the researcher to receive the maximum amount of

professional guidance whilst being easily accessible and safe and secure. Risk assessments

have been completed and are included in the appendix.

5.3 Growing Media:

5.3.1 Recycled Sand:

The RS used in the experiment is a combination of old bunker material and the natural ‘links’

sand which can be found beneath Fairhaven GC. Both have been used before as either

material for traps or for top dressing of new turf.

5.3.2 Compost: The majority of green and brown waste at Fairhaven GC is recycled to

produce compost; the compost used in this research was chosen at random from one of

Fairhaven’s three mature compost

heaps.

Plate 1: Recycled sand (left) and

compost (right) placed in Fairhaven’s

drying room ready for sieving from 4 –

2mm.

Recycled sand Compost


24

5.4 Preparation of Plant Material:

The plants were grown in 70 mm diameter poly – vinyl chloride (PVC) irrigation pipe cut to

a depth of 200 mm, the depth of which is ample to correctly measure limited winter root

growth and above the minimum tee topsoil depth of 150 mm (200 mm loose). The depth of

the vessels represented the average mean depth of a rootzone found in a general winter golf

tee at Fairhaven Golf Club. One end of each individual pipe was secured with fine plastic

mesh and terram. Terram is a geosynthetic application which is specifically designed for

wrapping drainage systems to prevent mixing of the granular infill within the surrounding

soil. Terram also acts as a filter preventing fines within the moving water from entering the

system leading to failure through clogging (Terram, 2013). Both the mesh and terram were

secured using cable clips. After construction 32 were filled with 2 mm sieved recycled sand

and 32 were filled with 2 mm sieved compost. All were then compacted to 25 mm below the

top. The pots were then labelled thus:

Green: Rye and sand

Red: Rye and compost

Yellow: Fescue and sand

Blue: Fescue and compost

There were a total of 16 replicates for each treatment. The recommended sowing depth for

each cultivar was 10 – 15 mm as given by the supplier, British Seed Houses. In order to

establish a consistent sowing depth for the seed, each vessel was sown after compacting then

the remaining 10 – 15 mm was backfilled and consolidated. The sowing rate given by the

supplier was 35 – 50g for sowing and 25 – 35g for oversowing. Rye Sowing Rate Application

= 0.116g:

Radius = 3.5 cm

Area = 3.14

πr² = 3.142 × (3.5)² = 38.5. Seed rate = 30g/m². 30

100×100 = 0.003g/cm²

Seeds per tube = 0.003 × 38.5 = 0.116g.

Fescue Rate = 0.183g.


25

A two weeks germination rate test prior to the experiment taking place (October 6th – 20th

)

returned figures of 80% fescue and 90% Rye. 60 seeds of each species were counted by hand

and split into two pots (30 seeds in each pot). At the end of the two weeks each pot was

checked and the germinated seeds counted.

Table 1: Number of seeds germinated from the two week experiment.

Pot Number/ Species: Amount of Seeds Germinated:

1 Fescue 23

2 Fescue 25

3 Rye 28

4 Rye 29

Fescue Equation: 23 and 25

average: 24.

24 ÷ 30 (number of seeds) = 0.8 ×

100 = 80.

Rye Equation: 28 and 29 average:

27.

27 ÷ 30 (number of seeds) = 0.9 ×

100 = 90.

Plate 2: After four days growth, the rye showed signs of germination whereas the fescue

started to germinate on day nine.

Due to the research being conducted during the coldest months of the year (December –

March), a greenhouse heated between 12 – 20°C with a sodium supplementation to natural

daylight photoperiod of 16hr day and 8hrs night was used in order to protect the new plants

as temperatures regularly fell below freezing during night time. Protecting the plants during

winter, and subsequent frosts, ensured the trial vessels were not damaged by freezing

temperatures.


26

Both turf grasses were grown from seed to establishment for 12 weeks under a Phillips

horticultural incandescent photosynthetic grow lamp which outputted approximately 375

µmol m¯² sec¯¹. This was the only photosynthetic lamp and output available at the time of

establishment.

Arrangement in the greenhouse was via a randomised Latin Square (appendix10.1). Each tray

was moved clockwise one place each week to ensure all vessels had the same amount of light

by the end of the experiment.

Plate 3: Greenhouse arrangement. Four plastic trays containing 16 pots in each were moved

clockwise on a weekly basis.

5.5 Management of the Project:

The vessels were lightly and evenly watered twice per week via capillary matting during

establishment. No additional maintenance was provided other than an application of Scotts

Greensmaster liquid fertiliser 12:4:6 @1gm² during week five. It was agreed at this point that

the plants were looking mildly chlorotic and in need of a small application of fertiliser

(Birtles, pers com, 2013; Owen, pers com, 2013)


27

5.6 Data Collection:

Data was collected weekly from 21/12/2012 for NDVI readings; pot coverage and clippings

dry weight, whilst total biomass dry weight was measured on completion of the experiment.

Subjective data was also collected on greenness. Careful individual cutting to 15 mm,

collection and overnight drying at 102°C (± 0.5) of each grass plant ensued – the height of 15

mm is reflective of tee mowing heights during the winter months.

5.7 Colour Assessment:

In this project, plant colour is based on subjective visual scores using the ‘Birtles 0 – 5 Scale’

method (Birtles, pers com, 2013). For instance, 0 equals straw brown colour whereas 5 equals

dark green (Figure 3)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3: 0 – 5 Birtles Scale.


28

5.8 NDVI Readings:

All NDVI readings were taken with a hand held digital Fieldscout TCM 500 NDVI meter

prior to trimming the pots.

5.9 Pot Coverage:

Visual quality ratings were taken weekly on a 0 – 5 scale with 0 representing none or very

little grass coverage and 5 representing total pot coverage.

Plate 4: 1 rating, very little pot coverage Plate 5: 5 rating, total pot coverage

5.10 Clippings Dry Weight:

Clipping yield was collected weekly. All harvested clippings were dried at 102°C (±0.5) for

24 hours and weighed to 4 decimal places to quantify dry matter.

Plate 6: Harvested clippings ready for drying to 102°C ±0.5.


29

5.11 Total Biomass Dry Weight:

Once the final clipping had been made, the tubes were moved into the ‘washing’ room at

Myerscough College where the roots and shoots were harvested and retained ready for

drying. Harvesting was undertaken by unscrewing the clip and removing the terram at the

bottom of the tube so as to expose the bottom of the rootzone. Any loose rootzone was gently

shaken off into a plastic container ready for sieving. The remaining rootzone was gently

prized out of the tube so as not to damage any root material and then placed into a 4mm and

then 2mm sieve respectively – A similar method was used by Gibbs et al, (2001) to remove

any root material prior to their root experiment analysis. Any root material captured by the 2

mm sieve was placed with its respective biomass container and room dried for 24 hours.

Sandy rootzone is a good growth medium as it is easy to remove particles from the root

system (Beard, 1992). Compost holds a significant amount of organic matter which the roots

attach themselves to, however, drying the compost prior to attempting to remove any root

material proved prudent as when the compost was pressed together gently between the

fingers it simply fell away.

All samples were dried in an oven at 102°C (± 0.5) for a minimum of 24 hours to drive out

any moisture. Dry weights of all the samples were recorded to 4 decimal places (d.p).

Plate 7: Dried fescue/ compost biomass example Plate 8: Dried rye/ compost biomass

example


30

0

1

6.0 Statistical Analysis:

H – There will be no significant differences in NDVI readings, pot coverage, clippings

dry weight and total biomass dry weights between the different samples.

H – The healthier plants will be rye grown in the compost treatments.

Statistical significance of the results was analysed using Minitab 16 Statistical computer

software package to ensure that the figures were normal (parametric) and could thus be

statistically tested. The data was split into its separate treatments and individual sections and

the residuals plotted (residuals are the distance from the mean), then tested for normality

using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.; the test proved Coverage and NDVI data were not

normal thus a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed whereas clippings data and

biomass was normal and could thus be tested with ANOVA (general linear module).

The data collected for the project can be found in 10.2 and 10.3 of the appendix section.


31

7.0 Results:

7.1 Recycled Sand Laboratory Test:

The characteristics of rootzones can be measured in numerous ways. For sportsturf use, the

size and uniformity, particle shape and chemical composition is required. The

aforementioned factors define the physical and chemical attributes of a rootzone in terms of

water retention, hydraulic conductivity, porosity and density.

Table 2: Recycled sand chemical analysis. Red figures indicate unacceptable, whereas green

indicates an acceptable level for sportsturf use (Baker, 2006).

pH Potassium

(mg/litre)

Phosphorus

(mg/litre)

Organic Matter

(%w/w)*

Mineral Matter

(%w/w)

Stone Sand Silt Clay

8.05 50 14 2.61 5 85 8 2

Table 3: Particle Size Distribution for recycled sand.

Sieve Size (mm) Weight Retained (g) % Retained % Passing

2.000 0.23 0.46 99.54

1.000 0.46 0.92 98.62

0.710 0.22 0.44 98.18

0.500 0.32 0.64 9.54

0.250 7.47 14.94 82.60

0.125 36.89 73.78 8.82

0.063 1.43 2.86 5.96

<0.063 2.98 5.96

50.00

*Note: Although the USGA and STRI encourage the use of organic matter in rootzones due to its valuable

assets, it is recognised that some sands may meet the physical properties guidelines without modification.

Therefore, the guidelines no longer specify a minimum organic matter percentage. However, it is widely

accepted by greenkeepers to be about 2.5 – 5% (Butler, 2007).


32

Figure4: The project’s recycled sand’s D values: D90 = 300. D10 = 135.

300 (D90)/ 135 (D10) = 2.2. The figure 2.2 confirms uniformity and less likelihood of

interpacking (Baker, 2006).

Plate 9: The project’s recycled sand magnified × 140. Grain shapes are sub – angular and sub

– rounded suggesting less scope for interpacking (Baker, 2006).


33

7.2 Compost Laboratory Test:

Table 4: Compost’s chemical analysis. Red figures indicate unacceptable, whereas green

indicates an acceptable level for sportsturf use (Baker, 2006).

pH Potassium

(mg/litre)

Phosphorus

(mg/litre)

Organic Matter

(%w/w)

Mineral Matter

(%w/w)

Stone Sand Silt Clay

7.23 425 48 5.92 4 83 11 2

Table 5: Particle size distribution for compost.

Sieve Size (mm) Weight Retained (g) % Retained % Passing

2.000 1.35 2.70 97.30

1.000 1.46 2.92 94.38

0.710 0.58 1.16 93.22

0.500 0.89 1.78 91.44

0.250 9.71 19.42 72.02

0.125 27.03 54.06 17.96

0.063 2.50 5.00 12.96

<0.063 6.48 12.96

50.00


34

Figure 4: Compost D values: D90 = 465. D10 = 63.

465 (D90)/ 63 (D10) = 7.4. The figure 7.4 suggests a wide spread of sizes and the risk that

the particles will interpack (Baker, 2006).

Plate 10: Compost magnified ×140. Note the organic matter content around the sand particles

highlighting the cation exchange capacity of the material.


35

7.3 Particle Analysis:

Table 6: The determination of the project’s particles. Figures highlighted in green indicate

comparisons to either the USGA or the STRI’s specifications. Figures highlighted in red do

not fall between the aforementioned guidelines (Baker, 2006).

Recycled Sand Compost

Bulk Density 153 (g/ml) 142 (g/ml)

Total Porosity 41.54 (%) 45.48 (%)

Air Filled Porosity 2.97 (%) 4.49 (%)

Hydraulic Conductivity 6.14 (cm/hr) 4.36 (cm/hr)

Organic Matter 2.61 (%w/w) 5.92 (%w/w)

The analysis indicates that the rootzones would not fall between the USGA and STRI’s

desirable properties guidelines for a golf green.


36

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fescue Rye

7.4 Coverage Data:

The data was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. A non-parametric Kruskal-

Wallis test was performed as the data was not normally distributed. Kruskal-Wallis

determined statistical significance between the data and this showed that there was no

significance between rootzones on coverage. The data collected on species coverage showed

there was a significant difference.

Figure 5: Mean figures for rootzone Figure 6: Mean figures for species

Table 7: Kruskal-Wallis for pot coverage and rootzone/ species interaction.

Factors H DF Mean P Significant

Rootzone 3 2.04 1 1.834 0.153 X

4 2.54 1 1.666 0.111 X

Species 1 90.97 1 2.225 0.000

2 11. 1 1.275 0.000

No significant results (P=0.153 and P=0.111) are found between rootzones. Highly

significant results (P=0.000 and P=0.000) are found between species suggesting that rootzone

had no effect on rye, but had a significant effect of fescue.

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

Compost Sand

Species Rootzone


37

0.147

0.148

0.149

0.15

0.151

0.152

Compost Sand

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Fescue Rye

7.5 NDVI Data:

The data was not normal (tested by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov). A non-parametric Kruskal-

Wallis was performed to determine statistical significance between the data and this showed

that there was no significance between NDVI versus rootzones. The data collected on NDVI

versus species showed that there was a significant difference.


Table 8: Kruskal-Wallis for NDVI and rootzone/ species interaction.

Factors H DF Mean P Significant

Rootzone 3 0.01 1 0.152 0.908 X

4 0.01 1 0.150 0.908 X

Species 1 65.31 1 0.184 0.000

2 65.32 1 0.120 0.000

The data indicates that no significant results are found between rootzones (P=0.908 and

P=0.908). Highly significant results are found between species (P=0.000 and P=0.000). This

suggests that rootzone had no effect on rye but had an effect on fescue.

Rootzone Species


38

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Fescue Rye

7.6 Clippings Data:

The data proved normal using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data was tested using an

ANOVA (General Linear Model). The data proved that there was no significant difference

between clippings dry weight versus rootzone. There was a significant difference between

species clippings dry weight versus species.


Table 9: ANOVA (general linear model) for rootzone versus dry weight of clippings data.

Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence.

Factors Mean Standard Error Grouping

Rootzone 3 2.9 0.033 A

4 2.5 0.029 B

Species 1 2.9 0.040 A

2 2.6 0.026 B

Table 10: Means that do not share a grouping letter are significantly different.

The results indicate that fescue/ compost is significantly different to rye/ sand. This suggests

that the rootzone had an effect on fescue but not on rye.

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Compost Sand

Rootzone Species N Mean Grouping Significant

3 1 160 3.0 A

3 2 160 2.8 B X

4 1 160 2.7 B X

4 2 160 2.4 C

Rootzone Species


39

7.7 Biomass Data:

The data proved normal using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data was tested using an

ANOVA (General Linear Model).

Figure 11: Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

This shows there is a difference between fescues and rye. It shows that the rootzone is not

having an effect on the rye but it is on the fescues.

Table 11: Means that do not share a grouping letter are significantly different.

rootzone species Mean1 SEMean1 N1 letters Significance

1 1 6.46687 0.070417 16 A comp fes

1 2 4.984071 0.050173 16 C comp rye X

2 1 6.188516 0.072193 16 B sand fes

2 2 4.925924 0.079455 16 C sand rye X

The results show that rootzone had no effect on rye but there was a significant difference

between the fescues. This shows that rootzone had an effect on fescue growth.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

compost fescue compost rye sand fescue sand rye

C

B

mg's

A

C


40

7.8 Colour Assessment:

The turf colour was a visual assessment which was subjectively scored on a 0 – 5 Birtles

Scale.

Figure 12: Colour assessment based on the Birtles Scale.

The chart shows a collective score for both materials and grass species and indicates that

there was little colour change throughout the research with a difference of 0.4 between both

cultivars. This suggests that neither rootzone had an effect on colour. Interestingly, colour

scores noticeably dropped during weeks five and six prior to the application of fertiliser, then

rose again after the application. Both species were looking mildly chlorotic during this

period.

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Week

1

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

Turf Colour Assessment Chart

Vis

ual

Sco

res


41

0

1

8.0 Discussion and Conclusion:

8.1 Hypothesis:

For this trial the H hypothesis could not be accepted as significant benefits were found.

Results from the trial showed the healthier plants to be the fescues over rye in both growing

mediums therefore the H hypothesis is rejected.

This research aimed to understand the effect that recycled materials had on two types of grass

cultivars, Maxima 1 strong creeping red fescue and Abermagic perennial rye, on a typically

constructed winter tee. The results highlighted the importance of rootzone selection on the

performance of grass species.

NDVI readings, pot coverage, biomass data and clippings data were influenced mainly by the

compost. The growing mediums also appeared to have significant effects on some of the

plants physical characteristics, in particular the fescue’s total biomass. The difference

between the subjective data collected on colour assessment showed that there were minimal

amounts of difference between cultivars. However, differences in leaf colour between

cultivars was of little significance as the cultivars performed as predicted in relation to one

another by the official STRI characteristic colour assessment (STRI, 2007). The results

therefore suggest that recycled materials (in particular, compost) had an effect on fescue, but

not on rye. Fescue was affected by recycled materials with highly significant differences

noted in all the scientific based results. Rye appeared to show no real differences in any

treatment and had only minimal differences in colour assessment.

With significant differences noted between cultivars in mind (the best performing in materials

with a higher organic matter content), Landschoot and Mancino (2000) cautioned that all

grasses that are given the same management as controlling factors may have favoured one

cultivar and limited another, since different cultivars may have different management traits.

For a turfgrass manager however, the research provides further evidence of plant

improvement with scientific investigation of recycled materials


42

Today’s modern sports turf surfaces are mainly sand dominated structures where the

emphasis is on playing characteristics. Agronomists have identified sand as having the

majority of the desired properties for a model rootzone and that the main characteristics of

the sand should be a narrow particle size distribution (Baker, 2006). The particle size

analyses contain material which is too fine for a golf green environment, but are suitable for a

winter tee situation. Both materials had the majority of their particles within the 0.25 mm or

less range; the USGA suggests that only 20% of particles may fall within this range for a golf

green; a D90/D10 index of 2.2 and 7.4 for sand and compost respectively means that both are

not within the ‘acceptable range’ of 2 – 6 for a golf green’s drainage rates. This percentage

‘obstacle’ would not be a problem for a winter teeing environment where continuous porosity

with the underlying sand could continue. However, because sand has a lower water holding

capacity and a higher rate of plant nutrient leachate than many loam based mixtures, trials

with compost introduction could be analysed as a potential for water and nutrient retaining

properties (Baker, Binns and Cook, 1997).

Today, the majority of ‘high end’ golf tees are constructed using a mixture of sand and

organic matter. Amendments are included to sand chiefly to produce a growing medium that

has superior physical qualities than sand alone. Compost can be added to sand to retain water

or to increase infiltration rates and air – filled porosity (Handreck and Black, 2002; White,

2000). Compost has already been certified for use in USGA rootzones (Baker, Binns and

Cook, 1997). Therefore, as a practical replacement for unsustainable peat, the greenkeeping

industry could afford more research for compost integration into sand based rootzones. This

could not only highlight the attempts the industry is making towards a more sustainable

future but would also provide an ideal environment for soil life to become established.

Compost however, can vary not only with source, but also from group to group within a

source. Both the USGA and STRI indicate that untested composts must be shown to be

nonphytotoxic using a bentgrass bioassay on the compost excerpt.

The results for coverage, NDVI, clippings data and biomass data all suggested that rootzone

had an effect on fescue but not on rye. It is widely regarded that fescue varieties require less

water and nutrients than the majority of other sportsturf grasses (Beard, 1973; Beard, 1982;

Bechelet and Windows, 2007). Nevertheless, the question remains of why the rye grass

performed below the minimum level of acceptance for turf density and root mass, this maybe

where the ‘third rule’ is relevant. Cockerham (2008); Pessarakli (2007) and Turgeon (2008)

propose that the height of cut affects a number of factors, namely a reduction in carbohydrate


43

production and root depth. Fescue has a slower growing bunch type of growth than rye which

grows fast and upwards. The third rule suggests that no more than a third of the grass plant

shall be removed at any one time. As the pots were trimmed once per week, the very nature

of the rye’s growth pattern meant approximately half the leaf area was removed at each cut.

Both Danneberger (1993) and Turgeon (2008) advise excessive defoliation will severely

reduce turf vigour and root mass. The severity of the clipping height and ratio suggests that

the rye grass could not thrive in such an environment and simply gave up. Fescue on the other

hand, succeeded over rye for the polar opposite reason. Its above-mentioned growth pattern

meant that it was content to be trimmed weekly since it was not only growing upwards but

outwards too and removal of minimal amounts of growth ensured it tillered effectively.

pH has an effect on availability of nutrients (Handreck and Black (2002). Many grass species

show a preference in regard to soil pH. Fine fescues are somewhat more tolerant to slightly

acid soils (6.0 – 6.5), whereas rye prefers an optimum pH of 6.5. The recycled sand and

compost gave a pH of 8.05 and 7.23 respectively indicating that had the research been

allowed to progress further, then changes in the pH may have had to be made to allow for a

less alkaline environment more suited to the projects grass species.

Assessment of shoot material showed a clear effect on plant growth and development after

twelve weeks; however, if the trial was assessed over a longer period of time, a better

understanding of the effects to shoot growth could be evaluated. This would be useful as the

research suggests the inclusion of composted materials enhance fescue growth. Further work

on this topic alone may allow for an enhanced understanding of the relationship between

turfgrass species and recycled materials to be developed. In addition to this Dunifon et al,

(2011) suggested that different rates of compost could be beneficial to gaining an improved

fescue sward, therefore increasing the chances of survival on a winter teeing environment.

This practice may help to provide a new insight into the relationship certain grass species

have with compost thus highlighting any other physiological developments that might occur

as a result in changes in functional diversity. Different concentrations of compost may also be

of interest to the greenkeeping industry as research in this field could collect a comparable set

of results to the ones noted in this trial.


44

The significant differences have been determined between a range of grass species and

treatments within this trial. It would now be beneficial to research the most favourable

treatments to evaluate how they perform under similar growing conditions to other turf

related problems such as drought tolerance or the potential to suppress pathogen and disease.

STERF (2012) demonstrates compost control over fusarium patch in Scandinavia; they also

suggest that course managers along with scientists are also speculating that humus uptake is

the reason for this protection. This suggestion is supported by compost/ humus uptake

investigations undertaken by Shimozona et al., (2008) and Walters and Daniel (2007).

Turf plots with differing levels of compost amended sand rootzones could be established and

assessed over a longer period of time than this project’s 12 week trial. The turf plots could be

established with a variety of grass species including bent’s (Agrostis spp.) and meadow

grasses (Poa spp.), (both of which would be acceptable for a winter tee environment), of

which could be maintained with their respective cultural practices and winter cutting heights.

The trial plots would ideally be segregated from one another so as to limit the migration of

particles and soil life through irrigation, burrowing animals and earthworm activity.

Assessment of the plots may have to be slightly different to the assessments in this project,

although current methods used by agronomists would be sufficient to measure the effects of

the trials. The aforementioned trials could have a significant impact to the greenkeeping

industry as the majority of turf professionals would want to see quantifiable results prior to

implementing compost related applications.

The trial itself however, may have provided more rationality had it been carried out earlier in

the growing season i.e. September – November as this time of year is more closely related to

the trial’s aims and objectives. The very nature of the experiment intends to research cold

weather scenarios, herein lies the problem of growth as seed will not germinate unless the

environmental conditions are deemed suitable.

Preservation and safeguarding the quality of the environment is becoming an area of

greenkeeping which turf professionals are increasingly aware of. However, methods and

procedures such as the incorporation of compost into a rootzone specifically for a golf tee

will generate numerous questions relating to the impacts of surface quality and sustainability.

If the inclusion of independent field based research could be implemented to critically

analyse the approaches explained in this research project, the results may have the potential

to significantly reduce the costs and maintenance of winter teeing areas across the UK.


45

Further research is required to determine the fundamentals of practically implementing this

style of management; any further research could enable the turf manger to move gradually

into a more environmentally controlled and diverse way of greenkeeping – resembling the

R&A’s ‘Managing Waste’ guidelines.

The potential of compost integration into the sand dominated rootzone of a winter tee remains

largely unexplored. For reasons explained in the aforesaid paragraphs, recycled sand and

compost could offer significant agronomic importance to the turfgrass manager with very

little damage to a golf course’s environs. However, whether the industry offers unity towards

this style of ‘antique’ management would surely remain to be seen as not all turf mangers are

quite so environmentally minded as the experimenter in this research.

This project concludes with the fact that fescue was affected differently by the treatments

whereas rye was not. This is clearly apparent with reference to NDVI, clippings dry weight,

pot coverage and total biomass results. Therefore it would be reasonable to recommend that

when trying to establish a turf surface, specific recycled materials would not be beneficial in

every case as different grasses could be inhibited by different types of recycled materials – as

fescue and rye proved in this particular case. This would imply that establishment of a mixed

sward such as Fescue and Lolium on a recycled material constructed winter tee could affect

the two different plants differently i.e. one plant could become dominant over the other

through the correct environment conditions being produced.

For the greenkeeping industry and its mentors to become more sustainable, it should adopt an

approach to golf course construction and maintenance which exploits scientific results;

results which promote the profits of introducing alternative techniques to the golf course and

its members. Understanding recycled sand and compost dynamics further within a winter tee

environment either for rootzone or a divot mix may help whether sustainable programmes are

really of benefit to the greenkeeping industry under ‘everyday’ circumstances. This theory

may facilitate a move away from the unsustainable approach with the hope of establishing

greater sustainable practitioners for the future of the greenkeeping industry.


46

9.0 References:

Aldous, D.E. Chivers, I.H., 2002. Sports Turf and Amenity Grasses: A Manual for Use and

Identification. Landlinks Press.

Baker, S.W., 2006. Rootzones, Sands and Top Dressing Material for Sportsturf. STRI.

Baker, S.W. Binns, D.J. Cook, A., 1997. Performance of Sand – Dominated Golf Greens in

Relation to Rootzone Charateristics. Journal of Turfgrass Science. 73, 43 – 57.

Bassirad, H., 2005. Nutrient Acquisition by Plants: An Ecological Perspective. Springer.

Beard, J.B., 1973. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.

Beard, J.B., 1982. Turf Management for Golf Courses. Burgess Publication.

Bechelet, H. Windows, R., 2007. STRI Disturbance Theory: A Collection of Articles. STRI.

Berg, B. McClaugherty, C., 2008. Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon

Sequestration. Springer.

Bertoldi, M.C., 1996. Science of Composting. Springer.

Brady, N.C. Weil, R.R.., 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soil. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.

Brandli, R.C., 2006. Organic Pollutants in Swiss Compost and Digestsate. The Biocycle

Guide. Springer.

Brede, D., 2000. Turfgrass Maintenance Reduction Handbook: Sports, Lawns and Golf. John

Wiley and Sons.

Butler, T., 2007. Organic Matter on Sand Based Rootzones. Pitchcare. [Online] Available at:

http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/soil-organic-matter-on-sand-based-rootzones.html [Accessed

14 January, 2013].

Casler,M.D. Duncan, R.R., 2003. Fine- Leaved Fescues. Turfgrass Biology: Genetics and

Breeding. 23,pp.67 – 73.

Chen,Y. Hadar, Y. Inbar, Y., 1992. Composted Residues Reduce Peat and Pesticide Use.

Biocycle. 6,48 – 51.

http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/soil-organic-matter-on-sand-based-rootzones.html


47

Christians, N., 2000. Fairway Grasses for Midwest Golf Courses: Diseases and Tough

Climatic Conditions Make Choices Tricky. Golf Course Management. 68(4), pp.49 – 56.

Christians, N. ed., 2011. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management. John Wiley and Sons.

Dent, D., 2011. The Black Earth. London. Springer.

DLF Trifolium., 2013. Seeds and Science [online] Available at:

http://www.dlf.com/Turf/Species_and_varieties/Red_fescue.aspx [Accessed 25th March,

2013].

Dodgson, R.G., 2005. Sustainable Golf Courses: a guide to environmental stewardship.

Michigan. John Wiley and Sons.

Dunifon, S.N., Evanylo, G.K., Maguire, R.O., Goatley, J.M., 2011. Soil Nutrient and Fescue

(Festuca spp.) Responses to Compost and Hydroseed on a Disturbed Roadside. Compost

Science and Utilization. [online] Available at:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/66238182/soil-nutrient-fescue-festuca-spp-

responses-compost-hydroseed-disturbed-roadside v 19, 3. p147 .[Accessed 29th March,

2013].

Elford, E.M.A., 2007. The Effects of Perennial Ryegrass Overseeding on Weed Suppression

and Sward Composition. University of Guelph.

Gershuny, G., 2011. Compost, Vermicompost and Compost Tea: Feeding the soil on the

organic farm. Noth East Organic Farming Association. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Gooding, M.J. Gamble, L.J., (1990) Colour evaluation of Poa pratensis Cultivars. J. Sports

Turf Res. Inst. 66, p134.

Graves R.M. Cornish, G.S., 1989. Golf Course Design. John Wiley and Sons.

Greenspec., 2012. Reclaimed Materials: why reclaim? [online] Available at:

http://www.greenspec.co.uk/reclaimed-materials.php [Accessed 23rd

November, 2012].

Handreck, K.A. Black, N. D., 2002. Growing Media For Plants And Turf. New Jersey.

UNSW Press.

Higgins, M., 2011. Sands for Sportsturf. Pitchcare. [online] Available at:

http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/sand-for-sportsturf.html [Accessed 8th December 2012].

http://www.dlf.com/Turf/Species_and_varieties/Red_fescue.aspx

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/66238182/soil-nutrient-fescue-festuca-spp-responses-compost-hydroseed-disturbed-roadside

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/66238182/soil-nutrient-fescue-festuca-spp-responses-compost-hydroseed-disturbed-roadside

http://www.greenspec.co.uk/reclaimed-materials.php

http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/sand-for-sportsturf.html


48

Hubbard, J.C.E. ed., 1984. Grasses: A Guide to Their Structure, Identification, Uses and

Distribution Throughout the British Isles. Viking Penguin Inc. New York.

Hummel, N.W., 1995. Material Selection for USGA Greens. p. 133 – 143. In: Proc. Of 65th

Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference Proceedings.

Jackson, R.D., P.N. Slater, and P.J. Pinter, 1983. Discrimination of growth and water stress in

wheat by various vegetation indices through clear and turbid atmospheres. Remote Sensing of

the Environment, v. 15, p.187-208.

Landschoot, P.J., Mancino, C.F., 1997. Assessment of the Minolta CR-310 Chroma Meter for

Predicting Nitrogen Status of Agrostis stolonifera. International Turfgrass Society Journal. 8,

711 – 718.

Lawson, D.M., 2000. Fertilisers for Turf. Bingley. STRI.

Lawson, D.M., 2005. Compost and Amenity Turf. International Turfgrass Bulletin. STRI

Meyer, W.A. Funk, C.R., 1989. Progress and Benefits to Humanity for Breeding Cool –

Season Grasses for Turf. Contributions from Breeding Forage and Turf Grasses. Crop

Science Society of America. 15,pp.31 – 48.

Pessarakli, M., 2007. Handbook of Turfgrass Management and Physiology. CRC Press.

Plaster. E.J., Soil Science and Management. Texas. Cengage Learning.

Rynk, R. Van De Kamp, M. Wilson, G.B. Singley, M.E. Richard, T.L. Kolega, J.J. Gouin,

F.R. Laiberly, J.G.L. Kay, D. Murphy, D.W. Hoitink, H.A.J. Brinton, F.W., 1992. On – Farm

Composting Handbook. Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service. Ithaca. New

York. USA.

Sachs, P.D. Luff, R.T., 2002. Ecological Golf Course Management. John Wiley and Sons.

Shimozona, N., Fukuyama, M., Kawaguchi, M., Iwaya – Inoue., Molla, A.H., 2008. Nutrient

Dynamics Through Leachate and Turfgrass Growth in Sands Amended with Food – Waste

Compost. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 39pp 241 – 256.

STERF., 2012. Red Fescue Management. Guidelines Based on Greenkeeper’s Experiences.

[online] Available at:

http://sterf.golf.se/dynamaster/file_archive/130201/4a9d068608eb6dc1461a4c508026702c/R

http://sterf.golf.se/dynamaster/file_archive/130201/4a9d068608eb6dc1461a4c508026702c/Red%20Fescue%20handbook%20final%201%20feb%202013.pdf


49

ed%20Fescue%20handbook%20final%201%20feb%202013.pdf [Accessed 29th

March,

2013].

STRI., 2005. STRI Guidelines, Golf Green Construction in the United Kingdom. Bingley.

STRI.

Taylor, R.S., 1995. A Practical Guide to Ecological Management of the Golf Course.

BIGGA. STRI. Bingley.

Taylor, R.S. Penrose, L., 2000. Waste Management: Best Practice Approach for English and

Welsh Clubs. STRI.

Terram., 2013. Geosynthetics you can Trust. [online] Available at:

http://www.terram.com/applications/drainage.html [Accessed 22nd March, 2013].

Thompson, K., 2011. Compost: The Natural Way to Make Food for Your Garden. Dorling

Kindersley.

Tucker, C.J., 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring

vegetation. Remote Sensing of the Environment, v. 8, p.127-150.

Tucker, C. J., W. W. Newcomb, S. O. Los, and S. D. Prince, 1991. Mean and inter-year

variation of growing-season normalized difference vegetation index for the Sahel 1981-

1989. International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 12, p.1113-1115.

USDA., 2001. Agriculture Factbook 20012 – 2002. [online] Available at:

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/2002factbook.pdf [Accessed 17th December, 2012].

USGA., 2013. Green Section Recommendations for a Method of Putting Green Construction.

[online] Available at: http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=26124 [Accessed 19th

March,

2013].

USGS., 2013. Science for A Changing World. [online] Available at:

http://ivm.cr.usgs.gov/whatndvi.php [Accessed 14th March 2013].

Waddington, D.V. Zimmerman, T.L. Shoop, G.J. Kardos, L.T. Duich, J.M., 1974. Soil

Modification for Turfgrass Areas. Physical Properties of Physically Amended Soils. Penn

State University Progress Report. 337.

http://sterf.golf.se/dynamaster/file_archive/130201/4a9d068608eb6dc1461a4c508026702c/Red%20Fescue%20handbook%20final%201%20feb%202013.pdf

http://www.terram.com/applications/drainage.html

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/2002factbook.pdf

http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=26124

http://ivm.cr.usgs.gov/whatndvi.php


50

Walters, D., Daniell, T., 2007. Microbial Induction of Resistance to Pathogens, in Induced

Resistance for Plant Defence: A Sustainable Approach to Crop Protection. Blackwell

Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Welland, M., 2009. Sand: The Never Ending Story. University of California.

White, C.B., 2000. Turf Managers Handbook for Golf Course Construction, Renovation and

Grow – In. John Wiley and Sons.

Witteveen, G. Bavier, M. eds., 2012. Practical Golf Course Maintenance: The Magic of

Greenkeeping. John Wiley and Sons.


51

10.0 Appendices:

B E H C A D G F

D C E B G F H A

H D C E F B A G

G A B H D E F C

F B D G C A E H

E H F A B G C D

A F G D H C B E

C G A F E H D B

10.1: Latin Square courtesy of Dr Alan Birtles

10.2: Colour, NDVI and coverage data.

Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment:

Week 2: Tube Number/ colour: Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour: Colour Score:NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage: Tube Number/ colour:Colour Score: NDVI: Coverage:

treatment speci Colour Score:NDVI: Coverage: Week 3: Week 4: Week 5: Week 6: Week 7: Week 8: Week 9: Week 10: Week 11:

blue 4 0.106 1 b 4 0.262 1 b 5 0.0256 1 b 5 0.0308 2 b 5 0.0296 1 b 4 0.039 2 b 5 0.0446 3 b 5 0.0524 4 b 5 0.589 4 b 5 0.62 4

blue 4 0.21 1 b 4 0.237 1 b 5 0.0197 1 b 5 0.0244 1 b 4 0.0308 1 b 5 0.0343 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.043 3 b 5 0.515 4 b 5 0.557 4

blue 4 0.238 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.019 1 b 5 0.0262 1 b 4 0.0318 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.0387 3 b 5 0.048 3 b 5 0.531 3 b 5 0.535 4

blue 4 0.211 1 b 4 0.28 1 b 4 0.0294 1 b 5 0.0286 2 b 5 0.04 2 b 5 0.0401 3 b 5 0.0475 3 b 5 0.053 4 b 5 0.605 4 b 5 0.59 4

blue 5 0.256 1 b 4 0.242 1 b 5 0.0223 1 b 5 0.0288 1 b 5 0.0379 2 b 4 0.0423 3 b 5 0.046 3 b 5 0.0548 4 b 5 0.604 4 b 5 0.63 4

blue 4 0.244 1 b 4 0.28 1 b 4 0.0302 1 b 5 0.0338 2 b 5 0.0423 2 b 5 0.046 3 b 5 0.0508 4 b 5 0.0603 4 b 5 0.649 5 b 5 0.654 5

blue 5 0.217 1 b 4 0.262 1 b 5 0.0256 1 b 5 0.028 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 5 0.0362 3 b 5 0.0405 3 b 5 0.0497 4 b 5 0.562 4 b 5 0.628 4

blue 4 0.248 1 b 4 0.26 1 b 5 0.0248 1 b 5 0.0297 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 4 0.0386 3 b 4 0.0368 3 b 5 0.0437 3 b 5 0.49 4 b 5 0.525 4

blue 4 0.169 1 b 4 0.197 1 b 5 0.0189 1 b 5 0.0231 1 b 5 0.03 1 b 4 0.0309 2 b 5 0.0364 3 b 5 0.046 3 b 4 0.515 3 b 5 0.559 4

blue 4 0.211 1 b 5 0.268 1 b 5 0.231 1 b 5 0.0266 2 b 5 0.0349 2 b 5 0.0361 3 b 5 0.041 3 b 4 0.0466 4 b 5 0.508 4 b 5 0.553 4

blue 4 0.217 1 b 5 0.223 1 b 4 0.231 1 b 5 0.026 1 b 5 0.0353 2 b 5 0.0392 3 b 4 0.041 4 b 5 0.0486 4 b 5 0.551 4 b 5 0.596 4

blue 4 0.222 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.211 1 b 5 0.0242 1 b 4 0.0302 1 b 5 0.0232 2 b 5 0.0324 3 b 5 0.039 3 b 5 0.427 3 b 4 0.44 3

blue 4 0.189 1 b 4 0.237 1 b 5 0.237 1 b 4 0.0302 2 b 5 0.0362 2 b 5 0.0386 3 b 5 0.0443 4 b 5 0.0579 4 b 5 0.608 4 b 5 0.619 5

blue 3 0.228 1 b 5 0.197 1 b 5 0.217 1 b 5 0.0262 1 b 4 0.0388 2 b 5 0.0434 2 b 5 0.0467 3 b 5 0.0544 4 b 5 0.602 4 b 5 0.625 5

blue 4 0.217 1 b 4 0.231 1 b 5 0.221 1 b 5 0.0286 2 b 4 0.0371 2 b 4 0.039 3 b 4 0.0443 4 b 5 0.0535 4 b 5 0.584 4 b 5 0.603 5

blue 4 0.217 1 b 5 0.286 1 b 5 0.224 1 b 4 0.0268 2 b 5 0.0342 2 b 4 0.0404 3 b 5 0.0399 3 b 5 0.0508 4 b 5 0.564 4 b 5 0.559 4

green 3 0.277 1 g 3 0.228 1 g 4 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0243 1 g 4 0.025 1 g 4 0.0261 2 g 4 0.0243 2 g 3 0.0297 2 g 3 0.346 2 g 3 0.209 1

green 3 0.28 1 g 3 0.248 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 2 0.0228 1 g 3 0.0261 1 g 3 0.0254 1 g 3 0.0238 2 g 4 0.0298 1 g 3 0.313 2 g 4 0.283 2

green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 4 0.0209 1 g 3 0.0232 1 g 3 0.0222 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 4 0.0264 1 g 4 0.243 2 g 5 0.474 3

green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 3 0.0164 1 g 2 0.0191 1 g 3 0.0203 1 g 2 0.0177 1 g 2 0.0177 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 4 0.221 1 g 3 0.189 1

green 3 0.209 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 3 0.0203 1 g 2 0.0185 1 g 3 0.0228 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0264 2 g 3 0.0282 2 g 3 0.313 2 g 2 0.227 2

green 4 0.239 1 g 3 0.227 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0227 1 g 3 0.0239 1 g 2 0.025 1 g 3 0.0228 2 g 3 0.0284 2 g 3 0.321 2 g 2 0.326 2

green 3 0.239 1 g 3 0.25 1 g 3 0.025 1 g 4 0.0239 1 g 2 0.0244 1 g 3 0.0262 1 g 3 0.0232 2 g 3 0.025 1 g 3 0.264 2 g 3 0.293 2

green 3 0.244 1 g 3 0.197 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 2 0.0209 1 g 3 0.0184 2 g 2 0.0165 1 g 2 0.0178 1 g 3 0.0244 1 g 2 0.227 1 g 2 0.237 1

green 3 0.228 1 g 3 0.187 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 4 0.0222 1 g 2 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0203 2 g 4 0.024 1 g 3 0.239 1 g 2 0.226 1

green 3 0.203 1 g 3 0.209 1 g 3 0.177 1 g 4 0.0165 1 g 2 0.0148 1 g 2 0.0176 1 g 4 0.0165 1 g 3 0.0216 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 2 0.176 1

green 3 0.227 1 g 2 0.216 1 g 3 0.177 1 g 1 0.0185 1 g 2 0.0203 1 g 3 0.0194 1 g 3 0.0194 1 g 4 0.0244 1 g 3 0.25 1 g 2 0.256 2

green 3 0.19 1 g 3 0.184 1 g 3 0.169 1 g 4 0.0176 1 g 3 0.019 1 g 3 0.0197 1 g 2 0.0197 1 g 3 0.0246 1 g 3 0.24 1 g 3 0.243 2

green 3 0.21 1 g 3 0.203 1 g 2 0.216 1 g 5 0.0221 1 g 2 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0221 1 g 3 0.0191 1 g 3 0.0232 1 g 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.226 1

green 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.221 1 g 4 0.197 1 g 3 0.0191 1 g 2 0.0244 1 g 2 0.0194 2 g 2 0.0217 1 g 3 0.0264 2 g 3 0.279 1 g 2 0.306 2

green 3 0.21 1 g 3 0.222 1 g 3 0.184 1 g 5 0.0203 1 g 3 0.0269 2 g 3 0.025 2 g 3 0.0266 2 g 3 0.0338 2 g 3 0.362 2 g 3 0.367 2

green 3 0.197 1 g 2 0.228 1 g 3 0.228 1 g 4 0.024 2 g 3 0.0306 1 g 3 0.02872 2 g 3 0.0256 2 g 3 0.0303 2 g 3 0.329 2 g 4 0.319 3

red 4 0.217 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 3 0.0217 1 r 2 0.0232 1 r 3 0.025 1 r 3 0.0226 1 r 3 0.0206 2 r 2 0.0232 2 r 3 0.266 1 r 3 0.212 1

red 4 0.223 1 r 3 0.197 1 r 3 0.0175 1 r 2 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0184 1 r 4 0.0211 1 r 3 0.0178 1 r 4 0.0244 1 r 2 0.287 1 r 3 0.288 2

red 4 0.237 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 3 0.0223 1 r 2 0.0244 1 r 3 0.0228 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 4 0.0239 2 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.254 1 r 4 0.227 2

red 4 0.169 1 r 3 0.216 1 r 4 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0211 1 r 3 0.0258 2 r 3 0.0227 2 r 4 0.0222 2 r 3 0.0298 2 r 3 0.296 2 r 3 0.29 2

red 4 0.161 1 r 3 0.155 1 r 3 0.019 1 r 3 0.0184 1 r 3 0.0232 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 4 0.0209 1 r 4 0.0246 1 r 3 0.222 2 r 3 0.247 2

red 4 0.209 1 r 3 0.221 1 r 2 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 3 0.0228 2 r 2 0.0191 1 r 4 0.02 2 r 3 0.0239 1 r 3 0.263 1 r 2 0.245 1

red 4 0.182 1 r 3 0.145 1 r 3 0.0169 1 r 3 0.0197 1 r 2 0.0258 1 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.0123 2 r 4 0.0248 2 r 3 0.277 2 r 3 0.295 2

red 4 0.24 1 r 3 0.228 1 r 3 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 2 0.0271 1 r 2 0.0248 2 r 2 0.0217 2 r 4 0.0289 2 r 2 0.304 2 r 3 0.291 2

red 3 0.145 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 2 0.0203 1 r 2 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0221 1 r 3 0.0232 2 r 4 0.0227 2 r 3 0.275 1 r 2 0.211 2

red 3 0.169 1 r 3 0.198 1 r 3 0.21 1 r 3 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0178 1 r 2 0.0194 1 r 3 0.0152 1 r 3 0.0185 1 r 2 0.209 1 r 2 0.195 1

red 3 0.175 1 r 2 0.222 1 r 3 0.217 1 r 3 0.0203 1 r 3 0.0244 1 r 3 0.0227 1 r 3 0.0217 2 r 4 0.0226 1 r 3 0.222 1 r 3 0.221 2

red 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.248 1 r 4 0.0227 1 r 3 0.0271 2 r 3 0.0228 2 r 3 0.0141 1 r 3 0.0273 2 r 3 0.28 1 r 3 0.262 2

red 4 0.175 1 r 3 0.222 1 r 4 0.242 1 r 2 0.0216 1 r 2 0.0279 2 r 3 0.025 2 r 3 0.0232 2 r 3 0.0298 2 r 3 0.325 2 r 2 0.288 2

red 3 0.203 1 r 3 0.221 1 r 2 0.176 1 r 4 0.0222 1 r 2 0.0227 1 r 2 0.0221 1 r 2 0.0182 1 r 3 0.0244 1 r 3 0.264 1 r 3 0.226 2

red 3 0.197 1 r 3 0.203 1 r 2 0.217 1 r 5 0.0203 1 r 2 0.024 1 r 2 0.0209 2 r 3 0.0222 1 r 3 0.0258 2 r 3 0.253 1 r 2 0.245 2

red 3 0.168 1 r 3 0.176 1 r 3 0.15 1 r 4 0.0176 1 r 3 0.019 1 r 2 0.0209 2 r 2 0.0209 1 r 3 0.0303 1 r 3 0.282 1 r 2 0.245 2

yellow 4 0.26 1 y 4 0.277 1 y 5 0.0228 1 y 5 0.0248 1 y 5 0.0277 2 y 4 0.0228 1 y 5 0.0305 2 y 5 0.0405 2 y 5 0.45 3 y 5 0.467 3

















52

10.3: Clippings dry weight data.

Particle Size Analysis

Recycled Sand

Sieve size (mm) Wt.Retained (g) %

Retained

%

Passing

2.000 0.23 0.46 99.54

1.000 0.46 0.92 98.62

0.710 0.22 0.44 98.18

0.500 0.32 0.64 97.54

0.250 7.47 14.94 82.60

0.125 36.89 73.78 8.82

0.063 1.43 2.86 5.96

<0.063 2.98 5.96

50.00

10.4: Recycled sand’s particle size analysis.

Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment: Treatment:

28/12/12 Week 2: 4/1/13 week 3: 11/01/13 Week 4: 18/1/13 Week 5: 25/1/13 Week 6: 01/02/2013 Week 7: 08/2/13 Week 8: 15/2/13 Week 9: 22/2/13 Week 10: 1/3/13 Week 11: 8/3/2013 Week 12:

Pot Number: rootzone species CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g): Pot Number:CDW (g):

g 2 2 0.0142 b 0.0173 b 0.0116 b 0.0111 b 0.0116 b 0.0261 b 0.0274 b 0.03 b 0.0535 b 0.0678 b 0.0654

g 2 2 0.0019 b 0.0126 b 0.0074 ` b 0.008 b 0.0067 b 0.0074 b 0.017 b 0.0199 b 0.0296 b 0.0468 b 0.0543

g 2 2 0.0255 b 0.0161 b 0.0084 b 0.01 b 0.0134 b 0.0141 b 0.0208 b 0.0302 b 0.0441 b 0.051 b 0.0591

g 2 2 0.0194 b 0.0149 b 0.0098 b 0.0124 b 0.0132 b 0.0198 b 0.0224 b 0.0289 b 0.0337 b 0.0678 b 0.0735

g 2 2 0.0204 b 0.0215 b 0.0127 b 0.0102 b 0.0091 b 0.0195 b 0.0263 b 0.0341 b 0.0368 b 0.0733 b 0.0726

g 2 2 0.0094 b 0.0156 b 0.0107 b 0.0103 b 0.0154 b 0.0272 b 0.0274 b 0.0381 b 0.0566 b 0.0794 b 0.0713

g 2 2 0.0228 b 0.0168 b 0.0085 b 0.0107 b 0.0124 b 0.0246 b 0.0216 b 0.0244 b 0.0344 b 0.0538 b 0.0548

g 2 2 0.0155 b 0.0188 b 0.0087 b 0.0099 b 0.0113 b 0.0223 b 0.0178 b 0.0257 b 0.0294 b 0.0424 b 0.0395

g 2 2 0.0209 b 0.0095 b 0.0065 b 0.007 b 0.0052 b 0.0084 b 0.0157 b 0.0171 b 0.0348 b 0.0507 b 0.0521

g 2 2 0.0162 b 0.0191 b 0.0086 b 0.0104 b 0.0088 b 0.02 b 0.0174 b 0.0287 b 0.0381 b 0.0377 b 0.0449

g 2 2 0.0172 b 0.0171 b 0.0099 b 0.0106 b 0.0112 b 0.0202 b 0.0185 b 0.0312 b 0.0385 b 0.0555 b 0.0555

g 2 2 0.0191 b 0.0157 b 0.0103 b 0.0076 b 0.008 b 0.014 b 0.0134 b 0.0127 b 0.0124 b 0.0409 b 0.0251

g 2 2 0.0056 b 0.0199 b 0.0081 b 0.011 b 0.0092 b 0.0209 b 0.0213 b 0.0318 b 0.0562 b 0.0903 b 0.0652

g 2 2 0.0261 b 0.0084 b 0.0053 b 0.0068 b 0.0082 b 0.0209 b 0.0228 b 0.0398 b 0.0639 b 0.0908 b 0.0764

g 2 2 0.0233 b 0.003 b 0.0043 b 0.0062 b 0.0062 b 0.0148 b 0.026 b 0.031 b 0.0494 b 0.0675 b 0.0653

g 2 2 0.0251 b 0.0238 b 0.0097 b 0.0108 b 0.0146 b 0.0225 b 0.0219 b 0.03 b 0.0338 b 0.046 b 0.0455

g 2 2 0.0169 g 0.0217 g 0.0156 g 0.0079 g 0.0102 g 0.0183 g 0.0147 g 0.0178 g 0.0257 g 0.0247 g 0.0412

r 2 2 0.0043 g 0.0244 g 0.014 g 0.0062 g 0.0077 g 0.0111 g 0.0101 g 0.0119 g 0.0115 g 0.0205 g 0.0192

r 1 2 0.0082 g 0.0217 g 0.0116 g 0.0048 g 0.0093 g 0.0089 g 0.0092 g 0.0097 g 0.0151 g 0.014 g 0.0253

r 1 2 0.0044 g 0.021 g 0.0131 g 0.0059 g 0.0108 g 0.0068 g 0.0071 g 0.008 g 0.0101 g 0.0104 g 0.0072

r 1 2 0.001 g 0.0262 g 0.0142 g 0.0071 g 0.0072 g 0.0095 g 0.0065 g 0.009 g 0.0147 g 0.0165 g 0.0189

r 1 2 0.001 g 0.0177 g 0.009 g 0.0058 g 0.0105 g 0.0118 g 0.0107 g 0.0097 g 0.0178 g 0.0202 g 0.0189

r 1 2 0.0011 g 0.0217 g 0.0145 g 0.0087 g 0.0139 g 0.013 g 0.0128 g 0.0126 g 0.0131 g 0.0154 g 0.0113

r 1 2 0.0042 g 0.0159 g 0.0082 g 0.0065 g 0.0071 g 0.0105 g 0.0066 g 0.0069 g 0.0057 g 0.0141 g 0.0098

r 1 2 0.0018 g 0.0198 g 0.0071 g 0.0059 g 0.0065 g 0.0104 g 0.0071 g 0.0087 g 0.0119 g 0.0143 g 0.0089

r 1 2 0.0028 g 0.0255 g 0.0085 g 0.0061 g 0.0041 g 0.0074 g 0.0044 g 0.0055 g 0.0058 g 0.009 g 0.006

r 1 2 0.0024 g 0.0244 g 0.0109 g 0.0069 g 0.0076 g 0.0101 g 0.0071 g 0.0086 g 0.0119 g 0.0165 g 0.0097

r 1 2 0.0014 g 0.019 g 0.0116 g 0.0053 g 0.0055 g 0.0099 g 0.0044 g 0.0036 g 0.0134 g 0.0137 g 0.0109

r 1 2 0.0049 g 0.0138 g 0.0091 g 0.0072 g 0.0079 g 0.0082 g 0.0088 g 0.0065 g 0.0086 g 0.01 g 0.0079

r 1 2 0.0026 g 0.014 g 0.0081 g 0.0086 g 0.0088 g 0.0124 g 0.01 g 0.0101 g 0.0161 g 0.017 g 0.0136

r 1 2 0.0056 g 0.0179 g 0.0069 g 0.0066 g 0.0081 g 0.0129 g 0.0151 g 0.0161 g 0.0211 g 0.0238 g 0.022

r 1 2 0.0073 g 0.0179 g 0.0116 g 0.0098 g 0.0132 g 0.0167 g 0.0171 g 0.0199 g 0.0264 g 0.0236 g 0.023

r 0.024 r 0.0184 r 0.0101 r 0.0126 r 0.0214 r 0.0156 r 0.0151 r 0.0225 r 0.0216 r 0.0214

r 0.0361 r 0.0222 r 0.0093 r 0.012 r 0.0129 r 0.0117 r 0.013 r 0.0138 r 0.0188 r 0.0164

r 0.0206 r 0.022 r 0.0117 r 0.0189 r 0.0253 r 0.0199 r 0.0191 r 0.0286 r 0.0289 r 0.0182

r 0.0339 r 0.0212 r 0.0128 r 0.0142 r 0.0238 r 0.0192 r 0.0238 r 0.0296 r 0.0282 r 0.0296

r 0.0143 r 0.0186 r 0.0096 r 0.0133 r 0.0162 r 0.0156 r 0.0186 r 0.023 r 0.0198 r 0.0172

r 0.0231 r 0.0169 r 0.0128 r 0.0112 r 0.015 r 0.0101 r 0.016 r 0.0196 r 0.0162 r 0.018

r 0.0101 r 0.0184 r 0.01 r 0.0146 r 0.0209 r 0.0162 r 0.019 r 0.0281 r 0.0264 r 0.0268

r 0.0256 r 0.0164 r 0.0093 r 0.0188 r 0.0227 r 0.0162 r 0.0252 r 0.0302 r 0.029 r 0.0251

r 0.0258 r 0.0135 r 0.0067 r 0.0098 r 0.017 r 0.013 r 0.0161 r 0.023 r 0.0214 r 0.0169

r 0.0256 r 0.0161 r 0.009 r 0.0106 r 0.0166 r 0.0122 r 0.0149 r 0.0127 r 0.0153 r 0.015

r 0.0233 r 0.017 r 0.0097 r 0.0127 r 0.0159 r 0.0111 r 0.0099 r 0.0109 r 0.0193 r 0.0109

r 0.0193 r 0.016 r 0.0124 r 0.0173 r 0.0247 r 0.0198 r 0.0185 r 0.017 r 0.0211 r 0.0239

r 0.034 r 0.0152 r 0.0105 r 0.0161 r 0.0197 r 0.019 r 0.0205 r 0.0202 r 0.0212 r 0.0229

r 0.0213 r 0.0172 r 0.0112 r 0.0146 r 0.0229 r 0.018 r 0.0164 r 0.0135 r 0.0157 r 0.0146

r 0.0346 r 0.0138 r 0.0075 r 0.0106 r 0.0165 r 0.0137 r 0.0126 r 0.0143 r 0.022 r 0.0167

r 0.031 r 0.0112 r 0.0055 r 0.008 r 0.0106 r 0.008 r 0.0098 r 0.0141 r 0.0225 r 0.0233

y 0.0232 y 0.0144 y 0.01 y 0.0034 y 0.0102 y 0.0131 y 0.0138 y 0.0164 y 0.0267 y 0.0205

y 0.0274 y 0.0176 y 0.0103 y 0.011 y 0.0149 y 0.0148 y 0.0172 y 0.0188 y 0.0354 y 0.0123

y 0.0188 y 0.0098 y 0.0112 y 0.0057 y 0.0152 y 0.0098 y 0.0124 y 0.023 y 0.0207 y 0.0306

y 0.0181 y 0.017 y 0.0095 y 0.0089 y 0.0187 y 0.0145 y 0.0154 y 0.0224 y 0.0301 y 0.0326

y 0.0208 y 0.0151 y 0.0119 y 0.0117 y 0.019 y 0.0144 y 0.0092 y 0.0222 y 0.0277 y 0.0192

y 0.027 y 0.0172 y 0.0086 y 0.0164 y 0.0174 y 0.0202 y 0.0168 y 0.0243 y 0.0379 y 0.032

y 0.0189 y 0.015 y 0.0056 y 0.01 y 0.0164 y 0.0168 y 0.0157 y 0.0207 y 0.0308 y 0.0299

y 0.0202 y 0.0134 y 0.0093 y 0.0078 y 0.0193 y 0.0167 y 0.0151 y 0.0322 y 0.0386 y 0.0209

y 0.0136 y 0.0061 y 0.005 y 0.005 y 0.0063 y 0.0083 y 0.0062 y 0.0084 y 0.0183 y 0.023

y 0.0166 y 0.0103 y 0.008 y 0.0065 y 0.0084 y 0.007 y 0.0082 y 0.0162 y 0.0295 y 0.0293

y 0.0204 y 0.01 y 0.0081 y 0.0084 y 0.013 y 0.015 y 0.0219 y 0.0315 y 0.0538 y 0.0427

y 0.0194 y 0.0129 y 0.0058 y 0.009 y 0.0089 y 0.0107 y 0.0129 y 0.0218 y 0.0327 y 0.0203

y 0.0182 y 0.0125 y 0.0086 y 0.0046 y 0.0063 y 0.0096 y 0.0111 y 0.0139 y 0.0169 y 0.0201

y 0.0258 y 0.0116 y 0.0093 y 0.006 y 0.011 y 0.0139 y 0.0173 y 0.0254 y 0.0274 y 0.0194

y 0.0243 y 0.0126 y 0.0096 y 0.0091 y 0.0136 y 0.0177 y 0.0203 y 0.0266 y 0.0368 y 0.0325

y 0.0205 y 0.0135 y 0.0062 y 0.0053 y 0.0095 y 0.008 y 0.0104 y 0.0136 y 0.0162 y 0.0118


53

Particle Size Analysis

Compost

Sieve size (mm) Wt.Retained (g) % Retained % Passing

2.000 1.35 2.70 97.30

1.000 1.46 2.92 94.38

0.710 0.58 1.16 93.22

0.500 0.89 1.78 91.44

0.250 9.71 19.42 72.02

0.125 27.03 54.06 17.96

0.063 2.50 5.00 12.96

<0.063 6.48 12.96

50.00

10.5: Particle size analysis for compost

Porosities

Material Sand Sand Sand Comp Comp Comp Ring No. 1 8 13 9 19 14 Soil column (cm) 5.78 5.87 6.07 5.84 5.93 5.92 Soil volume (ml) 132.36 134.42 139.00 133.74 135.80 135.57 Bulk density (g/ml) 1.53 1.54 1.53 1.43 1.42 1.41 Particle density (g/ml) 2.62 2.62 2.62

2.60 2.60 2.60 Weight ring (g) 335.00 329.84 333.18 333.84 368.07 370.60 Weight ring + soil (g) 588.65 589.59 599.57 578.97 616.47 618.93 Weight foil tray (g) 12.32 11.87 11.89 11.74 11.88 11.74 Weight tray + dry soil (g) 214.83 219.17 224.81 202.96 204.61 203.50 Organic matter (%) 2.61 2.61 2.61 5.92 5.92 5.92 Mineral matter (%) 97.39 97.39 97.39 95.94 95.94 95.94

Total porosity (%) 41.60 41.14 41.54 45.08 45.48 45.67 Water-filled porosity (%) 38.64 39.02 38.47 40.31 41.00 41.73 Air-filled porosity (%) 2.97 2.12 3.07 4.77 4.49 3.94 Gravimetric water content

(%)

25.25 25.30 25.11 28.19 28.88 29.50

10.6: Recycled material’s laboratory analysis.


54

Hydraulic conductivity

Sand Sand Sand

Ring No. 1 8 13

Soil column (cm) 5.78 5.87 6.07

Water volume (ml) 4.62 4.05 4.13

Hydraulic head (cm) 11.76 11.56 11.47

Ring area (ml) 22.90 22.90 22.90

Collection time (secs) 60.00 60.00 60.00

Water viscosity 1.0801 1.0801 1.0774

Hydraulic conductivity (cm/hr) 6.39 5.79 6.14

10.7: Sand’s hydraulic conductivity.

Comp Comp Comp

55/45 55/45 55/45

9 19 14

5.84 5.93 5.92

3.08 3.30 2.38

11.62 11.66 12.02

22.90 22.90 22.90

60.00 60.00 60.00

1.0801 1.0801 1.0801

4.36 4.73 3.30

10.8: Compost’s hydraulic conductivity.

Organic matter analysis Sand Comp

100/0 0/100

Crucible No. 38 1

Wt. crucible (g) 24.08 26.17

Wt. crucible + soil (g) 47.10 46.28

Wt. soil (g) 23.02 20.11

Wt. crucible + soil after ashing (g) 46.50 45.09

Wt. loss on ignition (g) 0.60 1.19

Organic matter (%w/w) 2.61 5.92

10.9: Recycled materials organic matter analysis.


55

MYERSCOUGH COLLEGE

RISK

ASSESSMENT

TITLE

Working within

a Laboratory

PROGRAMME

AREA

Laboratories

ASSESSMENT

UNDERTAKEN

Signed: A Birtle

Date: May 2012

ASSESSMENT REVIEW

Date: May 2013

STEP ONE STEP TWO STEP THREE

List significant hazards here:

Chemicals

Equipment

Bench gas supply and gas cylinders.

Broken glass and other sharp objects such as needles and

knives.

Clinical waste

Contaminated surfaces/equipment

Exposure to disease/infection

Slipping on wet surfaces.

Manual handling of equipment

Bunsen Burners and other heat

generating equipment.

Stools and waste bins.

List groups of

people who are at

risk from the

significant hazards

you have

identified.

Staff

Students

Cleaners

Visitors

List existing controls or note

where the information may

be found. List risks which

are not adequately controlled

and the action needed:

Chemical Safety Data Sheets are available on the

Staff Intranet for the stock

chemicals held.

Risk assessments for the use of specific equipment

and glassware are available

on the Staff Intranet.

A Practical Risk Assessment must be

completed prior to starting

an experiment. This will

include such things as the

concentrations of any

chemical being used, the

equipment that is to be used

and how the risks are to be

controlled within the

environment in which you

are working. The laboratory

staff can help and advise

with this process.

Students should have a basic understanding of

health and safety, COSHH

and the laboratory rules

before undertaking any

practical work. Important


56

issues such as to where the nearest First Aider and First

Aid boxes are, where

emergency exits are, what to

do in an emergency,

chemical spillage or fire

need to be discussed.

‘In situ’ equipment that is

known to have a significant hazard should:

a) Be clearly identified as

such.

b) Not be used

unsupervised.

c) Have safety measures in

place to isolate the

hazard or restrict access.

Before each practical

commences, full

instructions will be given as

to how to carry out the

practical safely and any

dangers or precautions to be

taken should be highlighted.

Such precautions may

include:

1. Laboratory coats to be

worn at all times to

prevent contamination of

clothes and skin. If this

happens, the coat can be

removed and disposed of

by autoclaving,

incinerating or washing as

appropriate.

2. Disposable gloves to be

worn when necessary

except when using a

Bunsen burner, as they are

highly flammable.

3. Heat proof gloves to be

worn when necessary i.e.

when lifting things out of

ovens.

4. Protective goggles to be

worn when necessary.

5. Facemasks should be worn

when necessary,


57

sometimes in conjunction with fume cupboards.

6. Long hair to be

tied/clipped back to

prevent contamination

from items used in

practical work.

7. Safe disposal of chemicals

- COSHH procedures

should be followed for

chemical disposal. If items

such as tissues have come

into contact with or been

used to mop up chemicals,

they should be rinsed in

the sink until the chemical

is diluted to a safe level

before disposing of. This

will prevent injury to

persons responsible for

emptying bins in the

laboratory.

8. Broken glass - broken

glass should be swept up

and put in the Broken

Glass box within the

laboratory.

9. Contaminated items -

contaminated items, such

as gloves and tissues that

have been used during a

dissection, should be

placed in a yellow hazard

bag for incineration.

10. The importance of

cleaning workbenches and

any equipment that maybe

contaminated by bacteria

or chemicals must be

stressed.

Correct procedures must

be followed if a spillage

occurs. This involves

following COSHH

procedures if necessary to

clear away the spillage

and, if necessary, using the

yellow ‘slippage’ warning

signs if the floor is wet,

thus preventing a fall.


58

Students must inform the lecturer/person in charge

of all spillages.

11. Students should also be

made aware of correct

manual handling

procedures for moving

equipment as necessary.

12. When moving about the

laboratory, always plan

your route to avoid

tripping over stools and

waste bins.

It is the responsibility of

the member of staff in

charge of a class or a

student working

independently to ensure

that before they leave a

room that:

1. Benches are cleared and

free of spillages and

soiling.

2. All electrical items are

switched off.

3. Chemicals for disposal are

clearly identified.

4. Unused

chemicals/solutions have

stoppers in place.

5. Dissection equipment is

left soaking in a

disinfectant solution.

6. All faults are reported.

7. Any accidents or

potentially dangerous

incidences are reported.

10. 10: Laboratory health and safety/ risk assessment.

james robert hutchinson by - amazon s3 · characteristics of strong creeping red ... owen for his...

Documents