Sports field users in Minnesota support herbicide use for weed-free recreation

Weeds are a consistent nuisance, and intrusion can impact turfgrass in multiple ways. On sports fields, weed pressure can disrupt surface consistency, which can impair playability, performance, and lead to injury risk (Aldahir & McElroy, 2014; Brosnan et al., 2014; Straw et al., 2018). Surface inconsistency then can diminish the benefits that sports participation can have on individuals' health and well-being (Eigenschenk et al., 2019).

Controlling weeds in turfgrass can involve cultural practices, mechanical removal, and application of herbicides. While cultural practices and mechanical removal can be effective for minimizing weeds, eliminating weeds in turf frequently requires the use of herbicides (Hahn et al., 2020; McElroy & Martins, 2013). The use of herbicides though has been challenged by urban residents and decision makers due to concerns around human and environmental impacts resulting in increased regulations or usage bans (Camargo et al., 2020; Larson et al., 2010; Riches et al., 2020). However, a gap exists in understanding user perceptions of weed control methods, including herbicides, on sports fields. The primary goal was to survey adult sports field users to evaluate their views on herbicide use and other weed control measures concerning health and safety, playing surface quality, and aesthetics.

An online survey conducted from August to October 2023 was distributed via municipal and private recreational sports programs to reach adult sports field users in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area of Minnesota. Participants were asked about the acceptability of weed presence in sports fields, and the amount of weeds that would impact their performance, safety, and enjoyment using a photo series (Figure 1). Additionally, participants were asked about weed control methods and their support for use, harmfulness to humans/environment, and effectiveness of the method; all questions were measured using a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Demographic questions included age, gender, and recreational sports participation. Repeated measures analysis of variance, post-hoc Tukey's honest significant difference, and effect size analyses were conducted using Stata version 18 to assess differences between perceptions and weed control methods.

Two hundred forty-one completed survey responses were received. Participants had an average age of 30 years old (min = 18, max = 63), and the sample was 51% female and 49% male. Half of the participants played multiple sports (M = 2.5). The most common sports participated in were soccer (30%), baseball/softball (21%), kickball (18%), ultimate frisbee (14%), disc golf (11%), volleyball (9%), flag football (8%), tackle football (1%), and golf (1%).

Herbicide use on turfgrass is often needed for sports turf to maintain a safe, consistent, and aesthetically pleasing surface. The current study aimed to understand perceptions of adult recreational athletes in Minnesota towards weeds and weed control methods on sports fields.

Participants favored weed-free surfaces for recreation, supporting perceived effective weed control methods like IPM and traditional herbicides. While expressing a desire for weed-free home lawns, the endorsement and use of chemicals for this purpose have been less direct (Blaine et al., 2012; Varlamoff et al., 2001). This distinction may arise from the specific use-based nature of sports fields compared to other turfgrass areas. Sports fields have user-specific requirements and preferences, with users attentive to surface qualities and characteristics (Barnes & Watkins, 2022; Roberts et al., 2019; Straw et al., 2018).

Participants showed support for using IPM and traditional herbicide controls, emphasizing weed impact on enjoyment, performance, or safety at medium or high-pressure levels. While some weeds didn't affect sporting aspects, a clear preference for surfaces with no or low weeds emerged, reflecting a broader desire for weed-free turfgrass stands (Barnes et al., 2020; Blaine et al., 2012). Additionally, participants endorsed such methods despite acknowledging potential harm to the environment and human health, aligning with previous work in residential yards in which individuals opted for selective herbicide use for weed-free aesthetics, emphasizing ease of use and effectiveness while acknowledging potential harm (Blaine et al., 2012; Larson et al., 2010; Varlamoff et al., 2001). This highlights the tradeoffs individuals make between desired outcomes and potential harms across turfgrass landscapes.

Enhancing maintenance of natural turfgrass sports fields could curb artificial turf installations, which are disliked but accepted for consistency and performance (Barnes & Watkins, 2022, 2023). Improving IPM and targeted herbicide use on natural turf can address climate change concerns and herbicide resistance (Brosnan et al., 2020; Mallen & Dingle, 2017). The study supports the need for advancing IPM practices to maintain high-quality turfgrass sports fields, meeting user demands for weed-free surfaces, while minimizing impacts on human and environmental health.

Michael R. Barnes: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Eric Watkins: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; project administration; supervision; writing—review and editing.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.