Figures (0)  Tables (5)
    • MonthsMean air
      temperature (°C)      		Precipitation
      (mm)      		Relative
      humidity
      (%)      		Wind
      speed
      (m·s−1)
      minmaxmeanmeanmean
      June 201719.828.70.275.01.8
      July 201723.932.70.071.41.7
      Aug. 201724.232.80.470.81.6
      Sept. 201721.131.10.068.51.5
      Oct. 201714.227.05.254.81.3
      Nov. 201710.321.4105.665.21.3
      Dec. 20177.418.749.270.91.2
      Jan. 20186.215.6153.075.01.3
      Feb. 20187.318.244.074.71.0
      Mar. 20189.821.013.872.91.5
      April 201812.023.810.469.91.3
      May 201817.228.320.067.31.4
      June 201820.529.74.072.41.8
      July 201823.431.50.074.31.8
      Aug. 201823.732.40.072.41.8
      Sept. 201820.931.31.865.51.5
      Oct. 201815.427.656.863.41.3
      Nov. 201810.722.119.463.71.2

      Table 1. 

      Meteorological parameters during the experiment period from Erdemli Weather Station in Mersin, Turkey.

    • YearTreatmentGreen cover percentage*
      Traffic‡No trafficAvg§
      2017Cultivar
      A4-496 ab¶100 a98.0
      B3-689 c100 a94.5
      C12-13396 ab100 a98.0
      Princess 7790 c100 a95.0
      Riviera97 ab100 a98.5
      Tifway93 bc100 a96.5
      Avg.93.510096.8
      Mowing height
      2.5 cm96 a100 a98.0
      5.0 cm91 b100 a95.5
      Avg.93.510096.8
      2018Cultivar
      A4-481 b100 a90.5
      B3-666 d100 a83.0
      C12-13381 b100 a90.5
      Princess 7769 cd100 a84.5
      Riviera83 b100 a91.5
      Tifway74 c100 a87.0
      Avg.75.510087.8
      Mowing height
      2.5 cm80 b100 a90.0
      5.0 cm71 c100 a85.5
      Avg.75.510087.8
      * Green cover percentage (GCP) was rated using a 0–100 visual rating scale, where 0 = no green vegetation cover and 100 = 100% green vegetation cover. ‡ Traffic was applied using Brinkman Traffic simulator at a level equivalent to two and four soccer games per week in 2017 and 2018, respectively. §The interaction of cultivar and traffic level, and mowing height and traffic level were significant, so no statistical separation is applied to traffic, cultivar or mowing height averages. ¶ Means followed by the same letter within each variable are not significantly different according to Fisher's LSD (p < 0.05) test.

      Table 2. 

      Green cover percentage as affected by cultivar, traffic and mowing height in, Mersin-Turkey, 2017 and 2018.

    • YearTreatmentTurfgrass quality (1 to 9)*
      Traffic¶No trafficAvg
      2017‡Cultivar
      A4-47.17.97.5 a
      B3-66.27.36.7 c
      C12-1336.87.67.2 b
      Princess 776.17.46.8 c
      Riviera6.97.77.3 ab
      Tifway6.27.36.8 c
      Avg.6.6 A7.5 B7.1
      Mowing height2.5 cm5.0 cmAvg
      7.4 a6.7 b7.1
      2018§Cultivar
      A4-45.5 c7.3 ab6.4
      B3-64.6 d6.8 b5.7
      C12-1335.5 c7.2 ab6.4
      Princess 774.9 cd7.2 ab6.1
      Riviera5.7 c7.4 ab6.6
      Tifway5.0 cd7.6 a6.3
      Avg.5.27.36.3
      Mowing height2.5 cm5.0 cmAvg
      2.5 cm6.4 a6.1 a6.3
      * Turf quality was rated on a visual scale of 1 (the worst; completely dead and brown turf) to 9 (the best). ‡ In 2017 the interaction of cultivar and traffic was not significant but main effects were significant, so statistical separation is applied to cultivar and traffic averages. Upper case letters are used to differentiate between traffic levels. §In 2018 the interaction of cultivar and traffic level was significant, so no statistical separation is applied to traffic or cultivar averages. ¶ Traffic was applied using the Brinkman Traffic simulator at a level equivalent to two and four soccer games per week in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Means followed by the same letter within each variable are not significantly different according to Fisher's LSD (p < 0.05) test.

      Table 3. 

      Turfgrass quality as affected by cultivar, traffic and mowing height in, Mersin-Turkey, 2017 and 2018.

    • SHTSSSDTVDLTNDVICHLGCP
      TQns ***
      −0,73**      		0.43**
      0.67**      		−
      0.57**      		0.49**
      0.89**      		0.29*
      0.53**      		0.82**
      0.83**      		0.68**
      0.85**      		0.77**
      0.91**
      GCP−0.23*
      −0.75**      		0.46**
      0.73**
      		−
      0.65**      		0.38**
      0.89**      		0.44**
      0.58**      		0.72**
      0.86      		0.47**
      0.82**
      CHL−0.42**
      −0.61**      		0.48**
      0.69**
      		−
      0.56**      		0.39**
      0.81**      		0.26*
      0.52**      		0.69**
      0.87
      NDVI−0.24*
      −0.58**      		0.47**
      0.68**
      		−
      0.65**      		0.50**
      0.86**      		0.42**
      0.65**
      LT−0.24*
      −0.38**      		ns
      0.42**
      		−
      0.67**      		0.59**
      0.72**
      TVDns
      −0.71**      		ns
      0.68**
      		−
      0.74**
      SD−
      −0.52**      		−
      0.48**
      SHS−0.33**
      −0.68**
      ns, *, **, indicate non-significant and significant correlations at the p = 0.05 or 0.01 respectively.
      ***, The values above and below within each row indicates related correlation values belongs to 2017 and 2018 respectively.

      Table 4. 

      Pearson correlations (r) among traits (SH: Surface hardness, TSS: Turf shear strength, SD: Shoot density, TVD: Turf visual density, LT: Leaf texture, NDVI: Normalized difference vegetation Index, CHL: Chlorophyll index, GCP: Green cover percentage, and TQ: Turfgrass quality) measured after simulated traffic in a field experiment conducted at Mersin, Turkey in 2017 and 2018.

    • Treatments Turf density*Leaf textureCHLNDVIShear strengthSurface hardnessShoot density
      Traffic level ‡
      2017 Traffic7.6 a§7.5 a203 b0.631 b14.6 b86.5 a−
      No Traffic7.9 b7.8 b220 a0.691 a16.4 a79.1 b−
      Mowing Height
      2.5 cm8.0 a7.7 a218 a0.695 a15.8 a85.0 a−
      5.0 cm7.4 b7.5 a205 b0.629 b15.2 a81.0 b−
      Cultivar
      A4-47.9 a7.8 b220 b0.691 a15.5 b83.2 a−
      B3-67.5 b7.3 e206 c0.614 d15.3 b83.8 a−
      C12-1337.9 a7.6 c205 c0.674 ab15.8 b82.7 a−
      Princess 777.5 b7.5 d197 d0.625 cd13.9 c85.3 a−
      Riviera7.5 b7.6 c228 a0.703 a17.1 a81.9 a−
      Tifway8.0 a8.2 a212 c0.663 bc15.1 b80.4 a−
      Traffic level
      2018 Traffic6.3 b7.3 b175 b0.528 b12.5 a96.1 a310 b
      No Traffic8.1 a7.8 a215 a0.638 a15.7 b75.2 b383 a
      Mowing height
      2.5 cm7.3 a7.6 a204 a0.602 a14.4 a87.3 a366 a
      5.0 cm6.9 b7.4 a186 b0.562 a13.8 a84.0 a327 b
      Cultivar
      A4-47.5 ab7.7 b200 b0.615 ab14.6 a84.8 a363 b
      B3-66.8 c7.1 d184 d0.525 c13.9 a86.8 a311 c
      C12-1337.3 b7.5 c193 bc0.597 b14.9 a84.8 a382 ab
      Princess 776.8 c7.2 d187 cd0.545 c12.0 b88.6 a313 c
      Riviera7.2 b7.5 c211 a0.631 a15.0 a84.7 a321 c
      Tifway7.8 a8.0 a196 b0.585 b14.4 a86.1 a390 a
      * Turf density was assessed on a visual scale of 1 (bare soil) to 9 (very high density); Turfgrass texture was rated on a visual scale of 1 (very coarse) to 9 (very fine leaf texture); CHL (Canopy-level chlorophyll content index) was collected with a handheld chlorophyll meter; NDVI values were collected with a handheld turf NDVI color meter; Shear strength was measured using a Turf Tech Shear Strength tester (Nm); Surface hardness was measured using a 2.5-kg Clegg impact soil tester (Gmax); Shoot density was determined by manually counting the shoots on three 100 mm-diameter plugs randomly collected from varying locations in each treatment plot in 2018.
      ‡ Traffic was applied using Brinkman Traffic simulator at a level equivalent to two and four soccer games per week in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
      § Within columns, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s LSD (p < 0.05) test.

      Table 5. 

      Turf density (visual), leaf texture, Chlorophyll index (CHL) and Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), Shear Strength, Surface hardness and Shoot density as affected by traffic, mowing height and cultivar in 2017 and 2018.