FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Spatial Variation in Turf Surface Properties of Polo Pitches...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2026; 16(4); 685; doi: 10.3390/ani16040685

Spatial Variation in Turf Surface Properties of Polo Pitches: A Case Study of Different Handicaps of Argentina.

Abstract: Polo is a high-speed equestrian sport that imposes mechanical demands on horses and turf, yet limited research has examined the functional behavior of polo playing surfaces. This study characterizes the spatial variability of mechanical surface properties across turf polo pitches representing high-, medium-, and low-handicap categories. Three fields were assessed using lightweight field-based instruments, including the Impact Test Device (ITD), Rotational Peak Shear (RPS) tester, Going Stick© for penetration (GSP) and shear (GSS), and a TDR probe for volumetric moisture content (VMC%). A total of 210-223 grid-based sampling points per pitch were analyzed to evaluate mechanical responses under vertical and horizontal loading conditions. Significant differences among pitches were observed, with ITD and VMC emerging as the indicators of surface behaviour. Spatial analysis revealed heterogeneous within-pitch patterns, expressed as directional gradients and localized variability. Linear discriminant analysis demonstrated that the combined measurements could differentiate pitches associated with different handicap levels with high classification accuracy (0.88). Although the applied instruments do not replicate full equine biomechanical loading, they proved effective in detecting spatial variability in surface uniformity, a functional property relevant to performance and equine welfare. These findings support integration of spatially explicit surface assessments into routine turf management practices.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-02-22 PubMed ID: 41751146PubMed Central: PMC12937303DOI: 10.3390/ani16040685Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study investigates how the mechanical properties of polo pitch turf vary spatially across fields used for different handicap levels of play in Argentina.
  • It uses multiple field instruments to measure turf firmness, shear strength, penetration, and moisture, revealing significant differences both between and within pitches.

Introduction and Background

  • Polo is a fast-paced equestrian sport that places mechanical stresses on playing surfaces and horses.
  • Despite the critical role of turf conditions on player and horse performance as well as welfare, there is limited research on the functional mechanical behavior of polo turf surfaces.
  • The study aims to fill this gap by characterizing spatial variation in surface mechanical properties on polo pitches classified by different playing handicaps (high, medium, low).

Methodology

  • Three polo fields in Argentina, representing high-, medium-, and low-handicap categories, were selected for the study.
  • A grid-based sampling approach was used, with 210-223 points per pitch to ensure spatial coverage.
  • Multiple lightweight, field-compatible instruments were employed to capture diverse aspects of turf mechanics:
    • Impact Test Device (ITD) for assessing vertical impact firmness.
    • Rotational Peak Shear (RPS) tester to measure resistance to rotational forces (shear strength).
    • Going Stick© used in two modes:
      • Penetration (GSP) for evaluating turf resistance to vertical penetration.
      • Shear (GSS) for assessing horizontal shear strength.
    • Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) probe for measuring volumetric moisture content (VMC%).
  • The data collected reflected mechanical responses to both vertical and horizontal loading, linking them to real-world biomechanical stresses.

Results

  • Significant differences were found between the three pitches:
    • ITD and VMC were the most indicative parameters distinguishing surface behavior among pitches.
  • Spatial analysis within individual pitches showed heterogeneous surface conditions:
    • Directional gradients indicated consistent patterns in some areas of turf firmness and moisture.
    • Local variability highlighted patchy heterogeneity in mechanical properties across the fields.
  • Linear discriminant analysis combining the mechanical and moisture measurements successfully classified pitches according to handicap level with high accuracy (0.88), demonstrating predictive value of these surface parameters.

Discussion

  • Although the measurement devices do not fully replicate the complex biomechanical loads applied by polo horses, they effectively detect relevant spatial variability in turf surface uniformity.
  • Surface uniformity is a key functional property linked to performance quality and the welfare of horses, as uneven or inconsistent turf conditions can increase injury risk or degrade gameplay quality.
  • Incorporating spatially explicit assessments into regular turf management can assist groundskeepers and facility managers in maintaining optimal playing surfaces.

Conclusions and Implications

  • The study highlights that mechanical properties of polo turf vary significantly both between fields of different competition levels and within individual pitches.
  • Key parameters like impact firmness (ITD) and moisture content (VMC) serve as practical indicators for evaluating and classifying pitch conditions.
  • Spatially detailed surface assessments represent a valuable tool for enhancing turf management practices, improving player experience, and supporting equine health and safety.
  • Future work could explore integrating these measurement tools with equine biomechanics for more comprehensive surface performance evaluations.

Cite This Article

APA
Blanco MA, Peterson ML, Cipriotti PA, Apecechea F. (2026). Spatial Variation in Turf Surface Properties of Polo Pitches: A Case Study of Different Handicaps of Argentina. Animals (Basel), 16(4), 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16040685

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 16
Issue: 4
PII: 685

Researcher Affiliations

Blanco, María Alejandra
  • Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agropecuarias, Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, Buenos Aires B1300, Argentina.
Peterson, Michael L
  • Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky and Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, 907 National Ave, Lexington, KY 40502, USA.
Cipriotti, Pablo Ariel
  • Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires B1417, Argentina.
Apecechea, Fernando
  • Escuela Superior de Ingeniería, Informática y Ciencias Agroalimentarias, Universidad de Morón, Gral. Machado 854, Morón, Buenos Aires B1708, Argentina.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 60 references
  1. Houston Polo Club About Polo—Houston Polo Club. [(accessed on 19 February 2025)]. Available online: https://houstonpoloclub.com/about-polo/
  2. Ewart P, Louie K, Zhou H. A Review of Equestrian Polo and a Methodology for Testing the Mechanical Properties of the Mallet. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association Online. 15 June 2020; p. 99.
  3. Campbell J. Polo is the World’s Oldest Equestrian Sport. Salem Press; Encyclopedia CA, USA: 2017. p. 4.
  4. Federation of International Polo. [(accessed on 10 April 2025)]. Available online: https://fippolo.com/
  5. Best R, Standing R. External Loading Characteristics of Polo Ponies and Corresponding Player Heart Rate Responses in 16-Goal Polo. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;98:103368.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103368pubmed: 33663720google scholar: lookup
  6. Best R, Standing R. The Spatiotemporal Characteristics of 0–24-Goal Polo. Animals 2019;9:446.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9070446pmc: PMC6680633pubmed: 31315210google scholar: lookup
  7. . Handicapping Explained. The Hurlingham Polo Association Oxfordshire, UK: 2019.
  8. Beard JB. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: 1973.
  9. . Aeration & Topdressing. Michigan State University Knoxville, TN, USA: 1990.
  10. Rogers JN III. Athletic field root zone mixes: What is the best mix for your field?. Proceedings of the 71st Annual Michigan Turfgrass Conference East Lansing, MI, USA. 15–18 January 2001.
  11. Samples TSJ. Turfgrass Maintenance: Cultivation. The University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN, USA: 2008.
  12. Samples TSJ. Turfgrass Maintenance: Topdressing. The University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN, USA: 2008.
  13. Handicap Policy, Approved 2018; USPA Official Handicap Documentation. [(accessed on 2 April 2025)]. Available online: https://d3uxdg7queknzi.cloudfront.net/assets/docs/USPA-Handicap-Policy-Approved-9_22_18.pdf.
  14. Best R. Player Heart Rate Responses and Pony External Load Measures during 16-Goal Polo. Data 2020;5:34.
    doi: 10.3390/data5020034google scholar: lookup
  15. Schumacher A, Merle R, Stöckle S, Gehlen H. Player-Reported Perceptions of Lameness Risks and Contributing Factors for Polo Horses: Results from a Survey. Animals 2025;15:3136.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15213136pmc: PMC12606728pubmed: 41227466google scholar: lookup
  16. Inness CM, Morgan KL. Falls and Injuries to Polo Players: Risk Perception, Mitigation and Risk Factors. Sports Med.-Open 2015;1:2.
    doi: 10.1186/s40798-014-0002-8pmc: PMC4532710pubmed: 27747839google scholar: lookup
  17. Peterson ML, Reiser RF II, Kuo PH, Radford DW, McIlwraith CW. Effect of Temperature on Race Times on a Synthetic Surface. Equine Vet. J. 2010;42:351–357.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00072.xpubmed: 20525055google scholar: lookup
  18. Parkes RSV, Witte TH. The Foot–Surface Interaction and Its Impact on Musculoskeletal Adaptation and Injury Risk in the Horse. Equine Vet. J. 2015;47:519–525.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12420pubmed: 25640598google scholar: lookup
  19. Hobbs SJ, Northrop A, Mahaffey CA, Martin J, Clayton H, Murray R, Roepstorff L, Peterson M. Equestrian Surfaces—A Guide. Swedish Equestrian Federation; Strömsholm, Sweden: 2014. pp. 1–66.
  20. Lewis K, Northrop AJ, Crook GM, Mather J, Martin JH, Holt D, Clayton HM, Roepstorff L, Peterson ML, Hobbs SJ. Comparison of Equipment Used to Measure Shear Properties in Equine Arena Surfaces. Biosyst. Eng. 2015;137:43–54.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.07.006google scholar: lookup
  21. Thomason JJ, Peterson ML. Biomechanical and Mechanical Investigations of the Hoof-Track Interface in Racing Horses. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Equine Pract. 2008;24:53–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2007.11.007pubmed: 18314036google scholar: lookup
  22. Mahaffey CA, Peterson ML, Roepstorff L. The Effects of Varying Cushion Depth on Dynamic Loading in Shallow Sand Thoroughbred Horse Dirt Racetracks. Biosyst. Eng. 2013;114:178–186.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.12.004google scholar: lookup
  23. Rogers CW, Bolwell CF, Gee EK, Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW. Profile and Surface Conditions of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racetracks. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2014;34:1105–1109.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2014.06.017google scholar: lookup
  24. Hernlund E. Sport Surfaces in Show Jumping. Ph.D. Thesis. Volume 54. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Uppsala, Sweden: 2016.
  25. Ross D. Racetrack Surfaces: Where HISA’s Rubber Meets the Road. 2022.
  26. Northrop AJ, Hobbs SJ, Holt D, Clayton-Smith E, Martin JH. Spatial Variation of the Physical and Biomechanical Properties Within an Equestrian Arena Surface. Procedia Eng. 2016;147:866–871.
    doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.288google scholar: lookup
  27. Holt D, Northrop A, Owen A, Martin J, Hobbs SJ. Use of Surface Testing Devices to Identify Potential Risk Factors for Synthetic Equestrian Surfaces. Procedia Eng. 2014;72:949–954.
    doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.160google scholar: lookup
  28. Mahaffey CA, Peterson ML, Thomason JJ, McIlwraith CW. Dynamic Testing of Horseshoe Designs at Impact on Synthetic and Dirt Thoroughbred Racetrack Materials. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:97–102.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12360pubmed: 25251227google scholar: lookup
  29. Parkin TDH, Clegg PD, French NP, Proudman CJ, Riggs CM, Singer ER, Webbon PM, Morgan KL. Race- and Course-Level Risk Factors for Fatal Distal Limb Fracture in Racing Thoroughbreds. Equine Vet. J. 2004;36:521–526.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164044877332pubmed: 15460077google scholar: lookup
  30. Hernandez J, Hawkins DL, Scollay MC. Race-Start Characteristics and Risk of Catastrophic Musculoskeletal Injury in Thoroughbred Racehorses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2001;218:83–86.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2001.218.83pubmed: 11149721google scholar: lookup
  31. Williams JM, Marks F, Mata F, Parkin T. A Case Control Study to Investigate Risk Factors Associated with Horse Falls in Steeplechase Races at Cheltenham Racetrack. Comp. Exerc. Physiol. 2013;9:59–64.
    doi: 10.3920/CEP13005google scholar: lookup
  32. Hitchens PL, Morrice-West AV, Stevenson MA, Whitton RC. Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Racehorse Catastrophic Musculoskeletal Injury in Flat Racing. Vet. J. 2019;245:29–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.11.014pubmed: 30819423google scholar: lookup
  33. Peterson M, Reiser RF II, McIlwraith W. Dynamic Response of Racetrack Surfaces. Proceedings of the 2005 SEM Annual Conference and Exposition, Society for Experimental Mechanics; Portland, OR, USA. 1–4 June 2005; p. 258.
  34. Thomas VJ, Murphy JW, Field TRO. Racetrack Assessment by Penetrometer. Part I: The Model. J. Turfgrass Manag. 1996;1:37–49.
    doi: 10.1300/J099v01n04_04google scholar: lookup
  35. Murphy JW, Field TRO, Thomas VJ. Racetrack Traction Assessment by Penetrometer. Part II. Application of the Model. J. Turfgrass Manag. 1996;1:51–62.
    doi: 10.1300/J099v01n04_05google scholar: lookup
  36. Gibson MJ, Legg KA, Gee EK, Rogers CW. The Reporting of Racehorse Fatalities in New Zealand Thoroughbred Flat Racing in the 2011/12–2021/22 Seasons. Animals 2023;13:612.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13040612pmc: PMC9951738pubmed: 36830402google scholar: lookup
  37. Straw CM, Henry GM. Spatiotemporal Variation of Site-Specific Management Units on Natural Turfgrass Sports Fields during Dry Down. Precis. Agric. 2018;19:395–420.
    doi: 10.1007/s11119-017-9526-5google scholar: lookup
  38. Straw CM, Samson CO, Henry GM, Brown CN. Does Variability within Natural Turfgrass Sports Fields Influence Ground-Derived Injuries?. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018;18:893–902.
    doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1457083pubmed: 29614918google scholar: lookup
  39. Straw CM, Carrow RN, Bowling WJ, Tucker KA, Henry GM. Uniformity and Spatial Variability of Soil Moisture and Irrigation Distribution on Natural Turfgrass Sports Fields. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018;73:577–586.
    doi: 10.2489/jswc.73.5.577google scholar: lookup
  40. Rohlf CM, Garcia TC, Fyhrie DP, Le Jeune SS, Peterson ML, Stover SM. Shear Ground Reaction Force Variation among Equine Arena Surfaces. Vet. J. 2023;291:105930.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2022.105930pubmed: 36427603google scholar: lookup
  41. Rohlf C, Garcia-Nolen T, Fyhrie D, Le Jeune S, Peterson M, Stover S. Surface Compaction Affects Vertical Ground Reaction Forces of Equine Arena Surfaces More Than Surface Type. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 2022;35:A086.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758265google scholar: lookup
  42. Blanco MA, Hourquebie R, Dempsey K, Schmitt P, Peterson M. An Experimental Comparison of Simple Measurements Used for the Characterization of Sand Equestrian Surfaces. Animals 2021;11:2896.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11102896pmc: PMC8532901pubmed: 34679917google scholar: lookup
  43. Blanco MA, Di Rado FN, Peterson M. Warm Season Turfgrass Equine Sports Surfaces: An Experimental Comparison of the Independence of Simple Measurements Used for Surface Characterization. Animals 2023;13:811.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13050811pmc: PMC10000090pubmed: 36899668google scholar: lookup
  44. Schmitt PR, Sanderson W, Rogers J III, Barzee TJ, Peterson M. A Comparison of Devices for Race Day Characterization of North American Turfgrass Thoroughbred Racing Surfaces. Animals 2023;14:38.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14010038pmc: PMC10777964pubmed: 38200768google scholar: lookup
  45. . Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Impact Value (IV) of a Soil. American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2016.
    doi: 10.1520/D5874-16google scholar: lookup
  46. . Standard Test Method for Traction Characteristics of the Athletic Shoe-Sports Surface Interface. American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2017.
    doi: 10.1520/F2333-04R17google scholar: lookup
  47. . Standard Test Methods for Water Content and Density of Soil in situ by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR). American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM; West Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2019.
    doi: 10.1520/D6780_D6780M-19google scholar: lookup
  48. Mumford C. The Optimization of Going Management on UK Racecourses Using Controlled Water Applications. Doctoral Dissertation. Cranfield University; Bedford, UK: 2006. 297p.
  49. Dufour MJD, Mumford C. GoingStick® Technology and Electromagnetic Induction Scanning for Naturally-turfed Sports Surfaces. Sports Technol. 2008;1:125–131.
    doi: 10.1080/19346182.2008.9648463google scholar: lookup
  50. Webster R, Oliver MA. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2010.
  51. Lenth RV. Response-Surface Methods in R, Using Rsm. J. Stat. Softw. 2009;32:1–17.
    doi: 10.18637/jss.v032.i07google scholar: lookup
  52. Ratzlaff MH, Hyde ML, Hutton DV, Rathgeber RA, Balch OK. Interrelationships between Moisture Content of the Track, Dynamic Properties of the Track and the Locomotor Forces Exerted by Galloping Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1997;17:35–42.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(97)80456-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  53. Özkan ŞS. Quality Concept for Football Turf. New Trends in Agriculture, Forestry & Aquaculture Science Duvar; Sarıyer, Turkey: 2022. pp. 321–337.
  54. Caple MCJ, James IT, Bartlett MD. Using the GoingStick to Assess Pitch Quality. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2013;227:83–90.
    doi: 10.1177/1754337112447268google scholar: lookup
  55. Smith RKW, Goodship AE. The Effect of Early Training and the Adaptation and Conditioning of Skeletal Tissues. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2008;24:37–51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2007.11.005pubmed: 18314035google scholar: lookup
  56. Martig S, Chen W, Lee PVS, Whitton RC. Bone Fatigue and Its Implications for Injuries in Racehorses. Equine Vet. J. 2014;46:408–415.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12241pubmed: 24528139google scholar: lookup
  57. Edwards WB. Modeling Overuse Injuries in Sport as a Mechanical Fatigue Phenomenon. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2018;46:224–231.
    doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000163pubmed: 30001271google scholar: lookup
  58. Warden SJ, Edwards WB, Willy RW. Preventing Bone Stress Injuries in Runners with Optimal Workload. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2021;19:298–307.
    doi: 10.1007/s11914-021-00666-ypmc: PMC8316280pubmed: 33635519google scholar: lookup
  59. Bennet ED, Parkin TDH. Novel Risk Factors Associated with Fatal Musculoskeletal Injury in Thoroughbreds in North American Racing (2009–2023). Equine Vet. J. 2026;58:20–30.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14503pmc: PMC12699123pubmed: 40134143google scholar: lookup
  60. Ministerio de Agroindustria de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Informe Agrometeorológico. Estación Experimental de Mercedes; Buenos Aires, Argentina: 2019. (Año XXXIV NO. 1,2,3,4,5,6).

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,030 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.