The Effects Of Reinforcement Inclusions On Wear Tolerance, Playing Quality And Physical Properties In A Silt Loam And Sand Rootzone Matrix

Reinforcement inclusions have been advocated to alleviate wear, compaction, and unstable surfaces in sports fields, but little research on the effects of these materials has been conducted in the USA. Experiments were established on a native silt loam and a sand rootzone matrix, seeded with a Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) blend, at the Joseph Troll Turf Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA to determine the effects of reinforcement inclusions on wear, surface hardness, traction, ball roll, ball bounce resilience, water infiltration rate, soil bulk density, air porosity, total porosity, and root weights. Three types of reinforcement inclusions (Sportgrass, Netlon, Turfgrids) were tested along with a non-reinforced control in a three year study. The treatments were set out in a randomized complete block design with four replications in both soils. No inclusion provided less wear or greater infiltration or air-filled porosity relative to the control. Reinforcement inclusions showed significant differences, however, in surface hardness, traction, and ball roll relative to the control, although this varied with the time of year. Infiltration rates, airfilled porosity, total pore space, bulk density, hardness, traction, ball roll, and ball rebound were greater on the sand rootzone than on the silt loam. Significant correlations were present between soil bulk density, surface hardness, traction, and ball roll. Based on our study, the use of reinforcement inclusions to provide better wear tolerance for sand or native soil athletic fields is not warranted. Certain playing surface characteristics, however, may be slightly improved with the use of reinforcement inclusions. The use of sands for sports surfaces is justified based upon the improvement in playing quality characteristics and soil physical properties important to a good playing surface.

Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?

Our paper asks the question: Does mode of instruction format (live or online format) effect test scores in the principles of macroeconomics classes? Our data are from several sections of principles of macroeconomics, some in live format, some in online format, and all taught by the same instructor. We find that test scores for the online format, when corrected for sample selection bias, are four points higher than for the live format, and the difference is statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the classes that had the online format. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 25% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 75% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that for the relatively older student with the appropriate online learning skill set, and with schedule constrains created by family and job, the online format provides them with a more productive learning environment than does the alternative traditional live class format. Also, because our data are limited to the student s academic transcript, we recommend future research include data on learning style characteristics, and the constraints formed by family and job choices.