Best management practices for sustainable and safe playing surface of Australian Football League sports fields

In 2002, AFL Queensland and the Brisbane Lions Football Club approached the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) for advice on improving their Premier League sports fields. They were concerned about player safety and dissatisfaction with playing surfaces, particularly uneven turf cover and variable under-foot conditions. They wanted to get the best from new investments in ground maintenance equipment and irrigation infrastructure. Their sports fields were representative of community-standard, multi-use venues throughout Australia; generally ‘natural’ soil fields, with low maintenance budgets, managed by volunteers. Improvements such as reconstruction, drainage, or regular re-turfing are generally not affordable. Our project aimed to: (a) Review current world practice and performance benchmarks; (b) Demonstrate best-practice management for community-standard fields; (c) Adapt relevant methods for surface performance testing; (d) Assess current soils, and investigate useful amendments; (e) Improve irrigation system performance; and (e) Build industry capacity and encourage patterns for ongoing learning. Most global sports field research focuses on elite, sand-based fields. We adjusted elite standards for surface performance (hardness, traction, soil moisture, evenness, sward cover/height) and maintenance programs, to suit community-standard fields with lesser input resources. In regularly auditing ground conditions across 12 AFLQ fields in SE QLD, we discovered surface hardness (measured by Clegg Hammer) was the No. 1 factor affecting player safety and surface performance. Other important indices were turf coverage and surface compaction (measured by penetrometer). AFLQ now runs regularly audits affiliated fields, and closes grounds with hardness readings greater than 190 Gmax. Aerating every two months was the primary mechanical practice improving surface condition and reducing hardness levels to < 110 Gmax on the renovated project fields. With irrigation installation, these fields now record surface conditions comparable to elite fields. These improvements encouraged many other sporting organisations to seek advice / assistance from the project team. AFLQ have since substantially invested in an expanded ground improvement program, to cater for this substantially increased demand. In auditing irrigation systems across project fields, we identified low maintenance (with < 65% of sprinklers operating optimally) as a major problem. Retrofitting better nozzles and adjusting sprinklers improved irrigation distribution uniformity to 75-80%. Research showed that reducing irrigation frequency to weekly, and preparedness to withhold irrigation longer after rain, reduced irrigation requirement by 30-50%, compared to industry benchmarks of 5-6 ML/ha/annum. Project team consultation with regulatory authorities enhanced irrigation efficiency under imposed regional water restrictions. Laboratory studies showed incorporated biosolids / composts, or topdressed crumb rubber, improved compaction resistance of soils. Field evaluations confirmed compost incorporation significantly reduced surface hardness of high wear areas in dry conditions, whilst crumb rubber assisted turf persistence into early winter. Neither amendment was a panacea for poor agronomic practices. Under the auspices of the project Trade Mark Sureplay®, we published > 80 articles, and held > 100 extension activities involving > 2,000 participants. Sureplay® has developed a multi-level curator training structure and resource materials, subject to commercial implementation. The partnerships with industry bodies (particularly AFLQ), frequent extension activities, and engagement with government/regulatory sectors have been very successful, and are encouraged for any future work. Specific aspects of sports field management for further research include: (a) Understanding of factors affecting turf wear resistance and recovery, to improve turf persistence under wear; (b) Simple tests for pinpointing areas of fields with high hardness risk; and (c) Evaluation of new irrigation infrastructure, ‘water-saving’ devices, and irrigation protocols, in improving water use and turf cover outcomes.

Driving better vegetable irrigation through profitable practice change

The availability and quality of irrigation water has become an issue limiting productivity in many Australian vegetable regions. Production is also under competitive pressure from supply chain forces. Producers look to new technologies, including changing irrigation infrastructure, exploring new water sources, and more complex irrigation management, to survive these stresses. Often there is little objective information investigating which improvements could improve outcomes for vegetable producers, and external communities (e.g. meeting NRM targets). This has led to investment in inappropriate technologies, and costly repetition of errors, as business independently discover the worth of technologies by personal experience. In our project, we investigated technology improvements for vegetable irrigation. Through engagement with industry and other researchers, we identified technologies most applicable to growers, particularly those that addressed priority issues. We developed analytical tools for ‘what if’ scenario testing of technologies. We conducted nine detailed experiments in the Lockyer Valley and Riverina vegetable growing districts, as well as case studies on grower properties in southern Queensland. We investigated root zone monitoring tools (FullStop™ wetting front detectors and Soil Solution Extraction Tubes - SSET), drip system layout, fertigation equipment, and altering planting arrangements. Our project team developed and validated models for broccoli, sweet corn, green beans and lettuce, and spreadsheets for evaluating economic risks associated with new technologies. We presented project outcomes at over 100 extension events, including irrigation showcases, conferences, field days, farm walks and workshops. The FullStops™ were excellent for monitoring root zone conditions (EC, nitrate levels), and managing irrigation with poor quality water. They were easier to interpret than the SSET. The SSET were simpler to install, but required wet soil to be reliable. SSET were an option for monitoring deeper soil zones, unsuitable for FullStop™ installations. Because these root zone tools require expertise, and are labour intensive, we recommend they be used to address specific problems, or as a periodic auditing strategy, not for routine monitoring. In our research, we routinely found high residual N in horticultural soils, with subsequently little crop yield response to additional nitrogen fertiliser. With improved irrigation efficiency (and less leaching), it may be timely to re-examine nitrogen budgets and recommendations for vegetable crops. Where the drip irrigation tube was located close to the crop row (i.e. within 5-8 cm), management of irrigation was easier. It improved nitrogen uptake, water use efficiency, and reduced the risk of poor crop performance through moisture stress, particularly in the early crop establishment phases. Close proximity of the drip tube to the crop row gives the producer more options for managing salty water, and more flexibility in taking risks with forecast rain. In many vegetable crops, proximate drip systems may not be cost-effective. The next best alternative is to push crop rows closer to the drip tube (leading to an asymmetric row structure). The vegetable crop models are good at predicting crop phenology (development stages, time to harvest), input use (water, fertiliser), environmental impacts (nutrient, salt movement) and total yields. The two immediate applications for the models are understanding/predicting/manipulating harvest dates and nitrogen movements in vegetable cropping systems. From the economic tools, the major influences on accumulated profit are price and yield. In doing ‘what if’ analyses, it is very important to be as accurate as possible in ascertaining what the assumed yield and price ranges are. In most vegetable production systems, lowering the required inputs (e.g. irrigation requirement, fertiliser requirement) is unlikely to have a major influence on accumulated profit. However, if a resource is constraining (e.g. available irrigation water), it is usually most profitable to maximise return per unit of that resource.