Sports fields are among the most intensively managed soils, raising concerns about their soil health. The primary objective of this study was to compare soil health in sports field soils with other less intensively managed systems. Soil samples ( n = 130) were collected from a diverse range of sports fields and compared to farm fields, urban lawns, undisturbed forests, and nonvegetated sandy soils. Samples were analyzed for a suite of soil health indicators, including biological, chemical, and physical properties. Soil health indicators were generally positively correlated, with stronger relationships among chemical and biological parameters than with physical properties. Across venues, soil health in sports fields was largely comparable to nonsport environments; however, sand‐based sports fields exhibited lower aggregation and tended toward reduced chemical/biological soil health parameters. Vegetation presence was the strongest driver of soil health, with nonvegetated sands consistently showing the lowest values across most indicators. Among venues, forest and golf systems generally exhibited higher soil health metrics, while football fields, especially professional, tended to be the lowest. Deep freezing of samples did not negatively affect soil health indicators but was associated with increased TOC and decreased TIC, suggesting a redistribution of carbon pools. Overall, soil health in sports fields is similar to other venues but varies with vegetation, soil texture, and management intensity, highlighting the importance of sustaining plant cover and minimizing disturbance.
Barnes et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: