Comparison of Shockwave aerification and conventional aerification methods on athletic fields

Abstract

AbstractThe Shockwave (Imants) offers the potential to minimally disrupt the playing surface, relieve soil compaction, and potentially lower surface hardness. However, data are lacking on how the Shockwave compares to traditional aerification. The effects of hollow‐tine (HT), solid‐tine (ST), and Shockwave with a single pass (SW1) and perpendicular passes (SW2) were investigated and compared to an untreated control (C) for surface hardness, surface stability, soil moisture, water infiltration, percent green cover, and bulk density on established cultivar Rush Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) turf growing on native soil. Treatments were applied June–August with SW1 and SW2 receiving an additional treatment in September of each year. A modified Baldree traffic simulator was used to simulate 28 traffic events in the fall of each year. Data were analyzed using an exponential decay model, and the slope indicating cover loss event–1 was used to compare treatments. In both years of the study, the HT (–0.031 in 2017 and –0.085 in 2018) treatment had the least green cover loss per event. The SW2 (–0.051) had the greatest cover loss event–1 in 2017, while the C (–0.102) treatments experienced the largest cover loss event–1 in 2018. In 2017 after 20 simulated traffic events, surface hardness on SW2 treatments were 30% lower than the highest surface hardness. After simulated traffic in 2018, SW1 treatments resulted in 10% lower surface hardness compared to the hardest surface, indicating the Shockwave can reduce surface hardness. This research indicates that the Shockwave could replace ST in maintaining athletic fields.