Purdue Extension Bulletin Number 2007-B18246
In cooperation withCornell UniversityUniversity of IllinoisIowa State UniversityUniversity of KentuckyMichigan State UniversityNorth Dakota State UniversityThe Ohio State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State UniversitySouthern Illinois University
Purdue UniversityDepartment of Horticulture and
Landscape ArchitectureOffice of Agricultural Research ProgramsWest Lafayette, Indiana
Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007
Table of Contents Sources of Vegetable Seeds ........................................................................................................7
Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Eastern Muskmelon Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana)
Christopher C. Gunter, Melborn K. Lang, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson .............13
Specialty Melon Variety Evaluations (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter, and Chris Smigell .........................16
Powdery Mildew Resistant Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York)
Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................23
Evaluation of Specialty Melon Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................26
Onion Adaptability of Eight Onion Cultivars for Production in Southwest Michigan (Michigan)
Ron Goldy............................................................................................................................27
NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE Influence of Tillage and Herbicides in Onion Field Data (Year 1) (North Dakota) Sarah Gegner, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, Walt Albus, and Collin Auwarter.......................31
NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE Weed Control Using Herbicides Applied as Micro-Rates in Onion (North Dakota) James R. Loken, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, and Collin Auwarter.......................................33
2007 Sweet Spanish Onion Variety Trial (Pennsylvania) M.D. Orzolek .......................................................................................................................42
Pepper 2007 DSAC Pepper Variety Trial (Illinois)
Bronwyn Aly and J.D. Kindhart ...........................................................................................47
Bell Pepper Cultivar Evaluation Under High Phytophthora capsici Incidence (Illinois) S. Alan Walters, Jamie R. Stieg, Jason P. Bond, and M. Babadoost ......................................48
Evaluation of Twelve Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan (Michigan) Ron Goldy............................................................................................................................52
Evaluation of Bell Pepper Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................55
Continued on next page
3
Table of Contents (continued) Pumpkin Small Pumpkin Cultivar Trial Using No-Till Culture in Southern Illinois (Illinois)
S. Alan Walters ....................................................................................................................57
Pumpkin Cultivar Observation Trial, Indiana 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...........................................................................................................61
Weed Control in No-Till Pumpkins (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...........................................................................................................66
Hard-Rinded Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation for Phytophthora Fruit Rot, New York 2007 (New York)
Margaret T. McGrath and George M. Fox ............................................................................72
Powdery Mildew Resistant Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................75
Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation in Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Bob Precheur, Jim Jasinski, Mac Riedel, Landon Rhodes, Mike Kelly, and Alvaro Trierweiler............................................................78
Squash Evaluation of Summer Squash Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio)
Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................81
Powdery Mildew Resistant Winter Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................82
Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................85
Sweet Corn Sweet Corn Hybrid Disease Nursery — 2007 (Illinois)
Jerald Pataky, Marty Williams, Bryan Warsaw, Mike Meyer, and Jim Moody......................91
Public Evaluation of Sweet Corn Eating Quality, Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 105
Sugar-Enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 108
Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 112
Continued on next page
4
Table of Contents (continued) Sweet Corn (continued) Sweet Corn Population Effects on Yield and Ear Quality, 2007 (Indiana)
Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 116
Sweet Corn Cultivar Trial — 2007 (Iowa) Vince Lawson .................................................................................................................... 120
Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Central Kentucky (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, Chris Smigell, Darrell Slone, and John Snyder............................. 123
Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Eastern Kentucky, 2007 (Kentucky) Terry Jones and Stephanie Dunn ........................................................................................ 126
2007 Sugary-Enhanced and Shrunken 2 Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Southeast Michigan (Michigan)
Hannah Stevens.................................................................................................................. 129
Tomato On-Farm Evaluation of Tomato Cultivars for Disease Resistance, 2007 (Indiana)
Dan Egel, Butch Zandstra, and Elizabeth Maynard............................................................. 135
2007 Tomato Cultivar Trial for Southern Illinois (Illinois) J.D. Kindhart and Bronwyn Aly ......................................................................................... 137
Season Extension of Tomatoes Using High Tunnel Technology in Eastern Kentucky (Kentucky) Terry Jones, Stephanie Dunn, and John Snyder .................................................................. 138
Yield and Income of Fall Staked Tomato Cultivars in Eastern Kentucky (Kentucky) R. Terry Jones, Crystal Sparks, and John C. Snyder............................................................ 142
High-Tunnel Yields Differ Among 20 Tomato Cultivars (Michigan) Ron Goldy.......................................................................................................................... 148
Nutrient Alternatives for Fresh Market Tomato and Cucumber Production (Michigan) Ron Goldy.......................................................................................................................... 151
Evaluation of Fresh Market Tomato Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ................................................................................ 154
Watermelon Seedless Watermelon Cultivar Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana)
Christopher C. Gunter, Melborn K. Lang, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson ........... 157
Continued on next page
5
Table of Contents (continued) Watermelon (continued) Watermelon Cultivar Trial — 2007 (Iowa)
Vince Lawson and Henry Taber ......................................................................................... 165
Seedless and Seeded Watermelon Variety Evaluations (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter, and Chris Smigell ....................... 169
Mixed Crops Organic/Transitional Edamame (Vegetable Soybean) and Sweet Corn Seedling Establishment — 2007 (Ohio)
Mark Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, Jordan Miller, and Brian McSpadden Gardener ............ 175
Use of ABA (Abscisic Acid) and PEG 8000 (Polyethylene Glycol) to Control Vegetable Transplant Height — 2007 (Ohio)
Mark Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, and Matt Hofelich ........................................................ 178
Authors’ Addresses................................................................................................................. 183
6
Sources of Vegetable Seeds* Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address
AC Abbott and Cobb, Inc., PO Box 307, Trevose, PA 19053-0307; (800) 345-SEED; www.abbottcobb.com
ACR Alf Christianson Seed Co., PO Box 98, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 336-9727; www.chriseed.com
AT American Takii, Inc., 301 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906; (831) 443-4901; www.takii.com
BC Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds, 2278 Baker Creek Road, Mansfield, MO 65704; (417) 924-8917; rareseeds.com
Bas Basso Seeds, Monteverde 3390, 1852 Burzaco, Buenos Aires, Argentina; (54) 11 4299 0880; Fax: (54) 11 4238 3527; www.basso-seed.com
BE Bejo Seeds, Inc., 1972 Silver Spur Place, Oceano, CA 93445; (805) 473-2199; www.bejoseeds.com
BHN BHN Seed, PO Box 3267 Immokalee, FL 34142; (239) 352-1100; Fax: (239) 352-1981; www.bhnseed.com
BS Bodger Seed Ltd., 1800 North Tyler Ave., South El Monte, CA 91733; www.bodger.com
BU Burpee, 300 Park Ave., Warminster, PA 18991; www.burpee.com
CS Chesmore Seed Co., PO Box 8363, St. Joseph, MO 64508
CE Centest Seeds, 23017 Rte. 173, Harvard, IL 60033
CF Cliftons Seed Co., 2586 NC 43 West, Faison, NC 28341; www.cliftonseed.com
CO Cook’s Garden Seed, PO Box 5010, Hodges, SC 29653; www.cooksgarden.com
CN Corona Seeds, Inc., 590-F Constitution Ave., Camarillo, CA 93012; (805) 388-2555; Fax: (805) 445-8344; www.coronaseeds.com
CR Crookham Co., PO Box 520, Caldwell, ID 83606; www.crookham.com
DP D. Palmer Seed Co., 8269 South Highway 95 (at Mile Post 35), Yuma, AZ 85365; Fax: (928) 341-8496; www.dpalmerseed.com
DR DeRuiter Seeds, Inc., 13949 W. Colfax Ave, Building #1, Suite 220, Lakewood, CO 80401; (303)-274-5511; Fax: (303)-274-5514; www.deruiterusa.com
*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.
Continued on next page
7
Sources of Vegetable Seeds* (continued) Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address
DVG Dutch Valley Growers, Inc., PO Box 304, South Holland, IL 60473; Fax: (708) 333-1029; www.dutchvalleygrowers.com
EV Evergreen Seeds, Evergreen YH Enterprises, PO Box 17538, Anaheim, CA 92817; (714) 637-5769; www.evergreenseeds.com
EW East/West Seed International Ltd., No. 50/1 Moo 2, Sainoi-Bang Bua Thong Road, Amphur Sainoi, Nonthaburi 11150, Thailand; www.eastwestseed.com
EX Express Seed, 51051 US Highway 20, Oberlin, OH 44074; (800) 774-2259; Fax: (440) 774-2728; www.expressseed.com
EZ Enza Zaden, PO Box 7, 1600 AA, Enkhuisen, Netherlands 02280-15844; www.enzazaden.com
GU Gurney’s Seed and Nursery Co., PO Box 4178, Greendale, IN 47025-4178; (513) 354-1491; www.Gurneys.com
HM Harris Moran Seed Company, PO Box 4938, Modesto, CA 95352; (209) 579-7333; Fax: (209) 527-5312; www.harrismoran.com
HR Harris Seeds, 60 Saginaw Drive, Box 22960, Rochester, NY 14692; (800) 514-4441; Fax: (716) 442-9386; www.harrisseeds.com
HL Hollar & Co., Inc., PO Box 106, Rocky Ford, CO 81067; www.hollarseeds.com
HO Holmes Seed Co., 2125-46th St., N.W., Canton, OH 44709; (330) 492-0123; www.holmesseed.com
HZ Hazera Seed, Ltd., PO Box 1565, Haifa, Israel; www.hazerainc.com
IFS Illinois Foundation Seeds, PO Box 722, Champaign, IL 61824-0722; (217) 485-6260; Fax: (217) 485-3687; www.seedgenetics.com
J Jordan Seeds, Inc., 6400 Upper Afton Road, Woodbury, MN 55125; (651) 738-3422; www.jordanseeds.com
JS Johnny’s Selected Seeds, Foss Hill Road, Albion, ME 04910-9731; (877) 564-6697; www.johnnyseeds.com
JU Jung Seed and Nursery, Randolph, WI 53957; (800) 297-3123; www.jungseed.com
KU Known-You Seed Co., LTD., 26 Chung Cheng 2nd Road, Kauhsiung, Taiwan 80271; www.knownyou.com
*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.
Continued on next page
8
Sources of Vegetable Seeds* (continued) Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address
MM Mesa Maize, Inc., PO Box 250, 202 Industrial Ave., Olathe, CO 81425; www.mesamaize.com
NH/NU Nunhems Seed, 1200 Anderson Corner Road, Parma, ID 83660; (800) 733-9505; www.nunhemsusa.com
NC North Carolina State University, 2016 Fanning Bridge Road, Fletcher, NC 28732
NS New England Seed Co., 3580 Main St., Hartford, CT 06120; (800) 825-5477; www.neseed.com
OS L.L. Olds Seed Co., PO Box 7790, Madison, WI 53707-7790
P Pacific Seed Production Co., 94904 Highway 99 E, PO Box 85, Junction City, OR 97448; (800) 547-8004; www.forbesseed.com/PacificSeedProduction.htm
PA/PK Park Seed Co., 1 Parkton Ave., Greenwood, SC 29647-0002; www.parkseed.com
PG The Pepper Gal, PO Box 23006, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307-3006; www.peppergal.com
PT Pinetree Garden Seeds, PO Box 300, New Gloucester, ME 04260; www.superseeds.com
PL Pure Line Seeds, Inc., Box 8866, Moscow, ID; www.purelineseed.com
R Reed’s Seeds, 3334 N.Y.S. Rt. 215, Cortland, NY 13045-9440
RI Rispens Seeds, Inc., 1357 Dutch American Way, Beecher, IL 60401; (888) 874-0241; www.rispensseeds.com
RU Rupp Seeds, Inc., 17919-Co. Road B, Wauseon, OH 43567; (800) 700-1199; www.ruppseeds.com
SK Sakata Seeds America, Inc., PO Box 880, Morgan Hill, CA 95038-0880; (408) 778-7758; www.sakata.com
SC Scott Seeds, 4876 N. Road H., Vale, OR 97918; (541) 473-3246
S Seeds Trust, PO Box 596, Cornville, AZ 86325; (928) 649-3315; www.seedstrust.com
SW Seedway, Inc., 99 Industrial Road, Elizabethtown, PA 17022; (800) 952-7333; Fax: (800) 645-2574; www.seedway.com
SM, Sem Seminis Inc., 2700 Camino del Sol, Oxnard, CA 93030; us.seminis.com
*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.
Continued on next page
9
Sources of Vegetable Seeds* (continued) Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address
SnRv Snowy River Seed Coop, Ltd. Princes Hwy, Orbost, VIC, Australia 3888; (03) 5154 1878
SO Solar Seed Inc., 302 South C Street, Eustis, FL; (352) 357-5065
SVR/SE Seneca Vegetable Research, 5267 Flat St., Hall, NY 14463; (585) 526-7044; Fax (585) 526-7045
SR Shamrock Seed Co., 3 Harris Place, Salinas, CA 93901; (408) 771-1500; Fax: (408) 771-1517
SI/SG Siegers Seed Co., 13031 Reflections Drive, Holland, MI 49424; (800) 962-4999; www.siegers.com
SWS Southwestern Seeds, PO Box 11449, Casa Grande, AZ 85230; (520) 836-7595; Fax: (520) 836-0117; www.southwesternseed.com
ST Stokes Seeds, Inc., PO Box 548, 737 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14240; www.stokeseeds.com
SY/RG Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Rogers Brands, 600 North Armstrong Place (83704), PO Box 4188, Boise, ID 83711-4188; (208) 322-7272; Fax: (208) 378-6625; www.rogersadvantage.com
TR Territorial Seed Company, PO Box 157, Cottage Grove, OR 97424; www.territorialseed.com
TGS Tomato Growers Supply, PO Box 2237, Fort Myers, FL 33902; www.tomatogrowers.com
TW Twilley Seeds Co., Inc., PO Box 65, Trevose, PA 19047; www.twilleyseed.com
UG United Genetics, 8000 Fairview Road, Hollister, CA 95023; (831) 636-4882; Fax: (831) 636-4883 www.unitedgenetics.com
UA US Agriseeds, 3424 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; (805) 547-9391; Fax: (805) 547-9395; www.usagriseeds.com
US US Seedless, 325 E. Walnut Street, Perkasie, PA 18944, (877) 332-7733; www.usseedless.com
VL Vilmorin Inc., 2551 North Dragoon, 131 Tucson, AZ 85745; (520) 884 0011; Fax: (520) 884 5102; www.vilmorin.com
*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.
Continued on next page
10
Sources of Vegetable Seeds* (continued) Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address
WI Willhite Seed Co., PO Box 23, Poolville, TX 76076; (800) 828-1840; Fax: (817) 599-5843; www.willhiteseed.com
WP Wood Prairie Farm, 49 Kinney Road, Bridgewater, ME 04735; (800) 829-9765; www.woodprairie.com
ZG Zeraim NAFTA Inc., 3101 SW 34th Ave., #905, PMB 195, Ocala FL 34474, (979) 200-1876, Fax: (979) 272-9504; www.zeraimgedera.com
*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.
11
Eastern Muskmelon Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007
Christopher C. Gunter1*, Melborn K. Lang2, Dennis Nowaskie2, Angie Thompson2 1 Currently, Department of Horticulture Science, 230 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609; Formerly, Southwest Purdue
Agricultural Program, Vincennes, IN 47591 2Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN 47591
*Vegetable Production Specialist and the author to whom correspondence should be addressed Indiana is a leader in the nation for the production of eastern muskmelon, with Knox, Sullivan, and Gibson counties ranking in the nation’s top 100 melon producing counties. The evaluation of newly released varieties and advanced experimental breeding lines in an independent assessment is extremely valuable for growers and seed producers in the commercial melon industry. The objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate and identify potential new cultivars and advanced experimental breeding lines that may be adaptable to the growing conditions in southwestern Indiana. Growers are seeking high yielding, high quality, early maturing types with excellent disease resistance and acceptable keeping quality during shipping and storage. Fruit need to be medium to large and have high uniformity in both size and shape. Traditionally, markets have demanded fruit with heavy netting and distinct ridges. Melons that can be stored and held easily for longer periods, and those that can be harvested at a slightly earlier slip-stage and still retain acceptable quality, would also be desirable.
Experiment Setup Sixteen eastern muskmelon cultivars and advanced experimental lines were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each entry was first direct seeded in the greenhouse on April 17, 2007, and transplanted into the field on May 14. Plots consisted of single, 55-foot long rows, covered with 4-foot wide black plastic mulch. Rows were centered 6 feet apart, and between-plant spacing (within a row) was 2.5 feet, allowing 22 plants per row. Each variety and experimental line was grown in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the 2007 Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers (Purdue Extension publication ID-56). Trickle irrigation lines placed beneath the plastic mulch provided water as needed. Fruits were harvested three times per week by hand from July 9 through August 3, 2007. Data were analyzed with the SAS Software package (SAS Corp., Cary, NC).
Results High Yield, Earliness, and Internal Quality Rating The average yield was 23.0 tons per acre, with a range of 20.9 tons to 26.5 tons per acre (Table 1). The mean fruit weight was 6.6 pounds per fruit, with a range of 5.2 to 7.7 pounds per fruit. This translated to 4,884 to 9,504 fruit per acre, with a mean fruit number of 7,180 fruit per acre. ‘Minerva’ had the highest yield in this year’s trial, followed by ‘Crescent Moon,’ ‘RML 0410,’ and ‘SSX 1029.’ The earliest fruit in this trial were harvested at 83 days. Quality ratings of each tested variety or advanced experimental line showed variability in soluble solids, shape, size, uniformity, flavor, netting, and degree of ridges on the fruit surface (Table 2). Selected comments noted during quality evaluation are mentioned here: ‘Aphrodite,’ ‘ES594,’ and ‘05H15’ all had soluble solids at or above 11% (brix). The highest flavor ratings in this trial were
13
‘SSX 1099’ and ‘RML 0408.’ Most fruit were medium to large, with average uniformity. Heavy netting, a thick rind, and a small seed cavity are also desirable characteristics, and ‘ES 293’ and ‘05H015’ had all of these characteristics. Table 1. Yield comparison of Eastern muskmelon cultivars in Southwestern Indiana, 2007.
% of Fruit Harvested Between: Cultivar Seed
Source Days to Harvest
Yield Cwt./A
Yield Tons/A
Fruit No./A
Average Fruit
Weight (lbs.)
7/9-7/13 7/14-7/29 7/30-8/3
Minerva RG 86 529.8 26.5 6,908 7.7 11 55 34 Crescent Moon SE 83 494.5 24.7 6,556 7.6 23 55 22 RML 0410 RG 85 486.4 24.3 7,480 6.5 20 49 31 SSX 1029 STS 84 484.4 24.2 5,632 8.6 18 59 23 SSX 1099 STS 84 481.9 24.1 9,504 5.1 8 66 26 ES 293 AC 91 478.8 23.9 4,884 9.9 1 55 44 Diva HM 85 466.0 23.3 7,172 6.5 12 73 15 ES 594 AC 87 460.4 23.0 6,776 6.8 3 52 45 Aphrodite RG 84 457.6 22.9 6,864 6.7 26 54 20 Jaipur SM 87 444.0 22.2 7,788 5.7 9 71 20 Rockstar SE 83 443.5 22.2 6,952 6.4 44 47 9 Athena RG 83 437.4 21.9 8,316 5.2 31 43 26 RML 0408 RG 84 431.7 21.6 6,556 6.6 14 69 17 RML 0409 RG 83 425.7 21.3 7,524 5.6 25 55 20 05H015 SE 83 424.1 21.2 7,832 5.4 47 40 13 Strike HL 84 417.5 20.9 8,140 5.2 42 37 21 Grand Mean 84.8 460.2 23.0 7,180 6.6 21.0 55.1 24.0 LSD (5%) 2.8 47.1 2.4 739 0.4 11.9 13.6 8.6 C.V. (%) 2.2 6.2 6.2 16 4.1 34.1 14.8 21.9
14
Tabl
e 2.
Qua
lity
com
paris
on o
f Eas
tern
mus
kmel
on c
ultiv
ars i
n so
uthw
este
rn In
dian
a, 2
007.
Cul
tivar
Se
ed
Sour
ce
%
SSq
Shap
er Si
zes
Uni
form
ityt
Flav
oru
Net
tingv
Rid
gesw
R
indx
Seed
C
avity
y Pr
essu
rez
Min
erva
R
G
10.1
O
v V
L 2
1.9
3 3
2 M
-L
4.0
Cre
scen
t Moo
n SE
7.
2 O
v L
2 1.
7 3
3 2
M
1.5
RM
L 04
10
RG
9.
0 R
M
2
1.3
3 1
1 M
1.
0 SS
X 1
029
STS
6.5
R-O
b L-
VL
1 3.
6 3
1 1
S 2.
0 SS
X 1
099
STS
10.5
R
S
3 4.
6 3
0.5
0.5
S 2.
0 ES
293
A
C
10.4
O
v V
L 2
3.0
3 1
2 S
4.0
Div
a H
M
9.5
Ob
L 3
3.0
3 1
1 M
2.
5 ES
594
A
C
11.0
O
v L
2 3.
3 3
1 2
S 6.
0 A
phro
dite
R
G
11.1
R
M
3
2.9
3 1
1 L
2.0
Jaip
ur
SM
9.0
R
S 2
2.9
3 2
2 L
3.5
Roc
ksta
r SE
9.
5 O
v M
3
3.4
2 2
2 S
3.0
Ath
ena
RG
9.
0 O
b S
2 3.
9 2
1 1
S 2.
5 R
ML
0408
R
G
9.0
R
S 3
4.1
2 1
1 S
2.0
RM
L 04
09
RG
10
.5
R
S 3
2.9
2 1.
5 1
S 3.
0 05
H01
5 SE
11
.0
R
M
3 2.
0 3
2 2
S 2.
0 St
rike
HL
8.0
Ob
S 3
2.1
3 1
1 S
2.5
q %SS
= P
erce
nt S
olub
le S
olid
s: th
e hi
gher
the
valu
e, th
e gr
eate
r the
am
ount
of t
otal
suga
r. r Sh
ape:
Rd=
roun
d, O
v=ov
al, O
b=ob
long
. s Si
ze: S
=sm
all,
M=m
ediu
m, L
=lar
ge, V
L=ve
ry la
rge.
t U
nifo
rmity
(1 to
3):
1=la
ck a
ll un
iform
/var
iabl
e, 2
=ave
rage
, 3=v
ery
unifo
rm.
u Flav
or (1
to 5
): 1=
very
poo
r, 3=
acce
ptab
le, 5
=gre
at.
v Net
ting
(1 to
3):
1=w
eak,
2=m
oder
ate,
3=h
eavy
. wR
idge
s (0
to 3
): 0=
abse
nt, 1
=lig
ht, 2
=mod
erat
e, 3
=hea
vy/la
rge.
x R
ind
(1 to
3):
1=th
in, 2
=mod
erat
e, 3
=thi
ck.
y Seed
cav
ity: S
=sm
all,
M=m
ediu
m, L
=lar
ge, V
L=ve
ry la
rge.
Z Pr
essu
re =
Pre
ssur
e te
st re
adin
g (in
pou
nds p
er sq
uare
inch
).
15
Specialty Melon Variety Evaluations John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter and Chris Smigell Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Thirty-one specialty melon varieties were evaluated in a replicated trial for their performance under Kentucky conditions. These included ananas, Asian, canary, gourmet, hami, honeydew, hybrid, Eastern muskmelon, muskmelon galia crosses, and specialty-type melons.
Materials and Methods Varieties were seeded on April 26 into Styrofoam plug trays (72 cells per tray) at the Horticulture Research Farm in Lexington. Plug trays were set on a greenhouse bench to germinate seeds and seedlings were subsequently thinned to one per cell. Plants were set into black plastic-mulched, raised beds using a waterwheel setter on May 24. Each plot was 21 feet long, with seven plants set 3 feet apart within the row. Rows were spaced 6 feet apart. Each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.
Fifty lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate and 100 lbs./A K as 0-0-60 were applied to the soil and incorporated into the field prior to bed shaping and planting. Drip irrigation was used to provide water and fertilizer as needed. The plot was fertigated with a total of 27 lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate divided into four applications over the season. Twelve and a half pounds of Epsom salts were applied through the irrigation lines. The systemic insecticide Admire 2F was applied with a hand sprayer as a drench to the base of each plant after transplanting; using the maximum rate of 24 fl. oz./A. Foliar insecticide applications included Pounce and Capture. Weekly foliar fungicide applications included fixed copper, Quadris, Bravo, Cabrio, Abound, and Nova. Curbit and Sandea pre-emergent herbicides were applied and incorporated between the rows, just as the vines began to grow off the plastic mulch. One fruit from each replication was measured and evaluated for flavor, soluble solids, interior color, rind color, and net type.
Results A hailstorm on June 5 killed some plants and damaged many others. Dead and severely damaged plants were replaced. The growing season was hot and very dry, making it an excellent one for melon quality. During most of the season vine cover was thick with no plant death. No virus was observed. By the end of the season powdery mildew became established on some of the more susceptible varieties. Fruit were generally harvested twice a week. Harvest and evaluation data are in Tables 1 and 2. Most melon varieties evaluated previously performed well again. Varieties are grouped by melon type and listed in order of declining yield within the grouping.
Honeydew NUN 7225, Honey Brew, Nun 7227, and Temptation #1 were all excellent honeydews. Unfortunately, the NUN varieties are not on the market. Surface checking and cracking, which are problems in wet seasons, were minimal this year. Honey Brew, which has done well in previous trials, and NUN 7227 were rated as having the best flavor. Temptation #1 also had a nice flavor and had orange flesh. Bartlett is a very attractive, bright yellow honeydew. The flesh is slightly crisp and very good. Honey Yellow, a smaller melon, had the highest sugar content of the honeydew melons and excellent flavor. Its dark yellow rind was very attractive. It had some
16
cracking problems following a rain and will need to be tested further. Several varieties developed small rusty spots on the surface, which we have not encountered before.
Canary Sugar Nut is a small melon and Golden Beauty is a large one. Both again performed exceptionally well, producing high yields of high-quality, attractive melons with few or no culls.
Muskmelon Galia Crosses The three melons of this type had very attractive, excellent tasting, very firm, orange flesh. Sweetie and Pixie had the best flavor and sugar contents. Sweetie was the larger of the melons and Pixie the smallest. Harvest maturity in this melon type is assessed by looking for yellow highlights on the rind.
Asian Sprite is an outstanding Asian melon and has been consistent in our trials over the years. It is a small, cream-colored melon with crisp flesh that has a strong consumer following. Jade Delight yielded well, but was somewhat difficult to determine harvest maturity on.
Specialty Melon These melons do not seem to fit into any of the melon classes. Sunrise and Napoli resemble small, tightly netted cantaloupes on the exterior, but they do not have the musky flavor of cantaloupes, and Napoli has creamy green flesh. Melon flavor and flesh texture are excellent. The fruit of both varieties are very uniform in size and have a relatively long harvest period. These varieties have the potential to be developed into a specialty niche market.
Eastern Muskmelon Wrangler and Athena were the top Eastern muskmelons in this trial. Athena is the industry standard. Wrangler is a small Tuscan muskmelon and very distinctive in that it has very attractive green sutures that make it stand out. Wrangler was superior to Athena in flavor and sugar content.
Ananas Abu was the only ananas melon in the trial and a good one. Unlike other melons of this type, Abu has orange, instead of cream colored, flesh. Ananas melons should be harvested daily, because of their rapid ripening, short harvest window, and short storage life. A number of these melons were not harvested due to over maturity because our twice-weekly harvest was not frequent enough for these varieties.
Hami These melons are very popular in China and have a crisp flesh similar to watermelons. New Century is a very high quality hami melon. The window was narrow for determining the optimum maturity to obtain the highest sugar content. Consequently, a number of melons split and decayed with our twice a week harvest and yield was reduced.
Gourmet Sensation is an outstanding melon in its appearance, flavor, and sugar content. It has performed exceptionally well in previous years. The high temperatures of this season accelerated ripening
17
and our twice weekly harvest left many over mature melons in the field, substantially reducing yield.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following persons for their hard work and assistance in the successful completion of this trial: Matthew Anderson, Katie Arambasick, Jessica Ballard, Charles Bobrowski, Ekkapot Boonnu, Ryan Capito, Jessica Cole, Carolyce Dungan, Christopher Fuehr, Lucas Hanks, Dave Lowry, Jackie Neal, Amy Poston, Kirk Ranta, Kiefer Shuler, Matthew Simpson, Matthew Stewart, Danurit Supamoon, Joseph Tucker, Bonka Vaneva, David Wayne, and Terry Williams.
18
Tabl
e 1.
Spe
cial
ty m
elon
var
iety
tria
l yie
lds a
nd fr
uit c
hara
cter
istic
s, Le
ton,
Ky.
, 200
7.
Out
side
Mea
sure
men
ts
Seed
Cav
ity
Var
iety
M
elon
Ty
pe1
Seed
So
urce
D
ays t
o H
arve
st
Yie
ld
(cw
t/A)2
Avg
. No.
M
elon
s/A
Avg
. W
t./Fr
uit
(lbs.)
Cul
ls
(%)
Leng
th
(in.)
Wid
th
(in.)
Fles
h Th
ickn
ess
(in.)
Leng
th
(in.)
Wid
th
(in.)
Des
taca
do
HD
SM
85
-90
1,08
2 a
14
,866
7.
3 1
7.9
7.5
2.3
4.5
3.1
NU
N 7
225
HD
N
U
85
887
ab
14,4
34
6.2
0 7.
9 6.
9 2.
0 4.
8 2.
9 B
artle
tt H
D
BU
88
83
9 b
cd
10,8
04
7.8
1 9.
1 8.
4 2.
0 6.
1 4.
6 H
oney
Bre
w
HD
R
U
90
826
bcd
11
,149
7.
4 1
8.8
7.1
1.8
5.6
3.4
NU
N 7
227
HD
N
U
80
795
bcd
e 13
,396
6.
0 1
7.4
7.1
2.2
4.4
2.8
HM
X45
93
HD
H
M
85-9
0 73
5 b
cdef
11
,841
6.
3 1
7.8
7.0
1.8
4.7
3.2
Tem
ptat
ion
#1
HD
SK
85
-90
733
bcd
ef
11,4
09
6.4
2 8.
5 7.
4 2.
1 5.
4 3.
1 Sa
lmon
Dew
H
D
RU
80
73
2 b
cdef
11
,581
6.
3 4
7.9
7.3
2.1
4.9
3.2
Hon
ey S
tar
HD
N
U
90
725
bcd
efg
11,4
09
6.4
0 9.
1 7.
7 1.
6 6.
3 4.
5 H
oney
Yel
low
H
D
JS
71
551
fghi
j 17
,545
3.
2 11
6.
5 5.
9 1.
6 4.
0 2.
5 H
oney
Ora
nge
HD
JS
85
49
9 h
ij 10
,631
4.
7 3
7.7
6.6
1.6
5.1
3.3
Gol
den
Bea
uty
CA
JS
80
76
4 b
cde
12,1
86
6.3
2 9.
0 6.
6 1.
5 6.
2 3.
3 G
olde
n La
dy
CA
K
U
79
734
bcd
ef
25,4
96
2.9
1 6.
5 5.
2 1.
4 4.
1 2.
6 Su
gar N
ut
CA
JS
77
72
4 b
cdef
g 24
,459
3.
0 1
6.2
5.1
1.6
3.5
1.9
Swee
tie
MG
K
U
85
730
bcd
ef
16,5
94
4.4
2 7.
1 6.
2 1.
8 4.
2 2.
6 H
SR 4
290
MG
H
L 80
-85
655
def
ghi
19,3
60
3.4
0 6.
5 6.
0 1.
7 4.
3 2.
7 Pi
xie
MG
H
L 80
47
9 ij
16
,076
3.
0 3
5.7
5.5
1.6
3.4
2.1
Jade
Del
ight
A
S N
U
80
868
bc
12,7
91
6.8
0 7.
7 6.
9 2.
0 4.
8 2.
9 Sp
rite
AS
CF
90
661
def
ghi
51,5
11
1.3
1 4.
9 4.
0 1.
0 3.
3 2.
2 Su
n A
S K
U
80
553
fghi
j 14
,261
3.
9 15
7.
7 6.
4 1.
7 5.
4 3.
3 Ja
de L
ady
AS
KU
75
55
0 fg
hij
12,7
91
4.4
6 7.
3 6.
6 1.
7 4.
6 3.
1 Ja
de F
low
er
AS
KU
80
54
3 fg
hij
13,1
37
4.2
4 7.
8 6.
4 1.
6 5.
1 3.
2 1 M
elon
type
: AN
= a
nana
s, A
S =
Asi
an m
elon
, CA
= c
anar
y, G
O =
gou
rmet
, HA
= h
ami,
HD
= h
oney
dew
, MG
= m
uskm
elon
gal
ia c
ross
, MM
= e
aste
rn
mus
kmel
on, S
P =
spec
ialty
type
. 2 N
umbe
rs fo
llow
ed b
y th
e sa
me
lette
r are
not
sign
ifica
ntly
diff
eren
t (W
alle
r-D
unca
n LS
D P
= 0
.05)
. Cw
t/A =
hun
dred
wei
ghts
(100
-lb. u
nits
) per
acr
e.
3 Cul
l per
cent
by
wei
ght.
Cont
inue
d on
nex
t pag
e
19
Tabl
e 1
(con
tinue
d)
Out
side
Mea
sure
men
ts
Seed
Cav
ity
Var
iety
M
elon
Ty
pe1
Seed
So
urce
D
ays t
o H
arve
st
Yie
ld
(cw
t/A)2
Avg
. No.
M
elon
s/A
Avg
. W
t./Fr
uit
(lbs.)
Cul
ls
(%)
Leng
th
(in.)
Wid
th
(in.)
Fles
h Th
ickn
ess
(in.)
Leng
th
(in.)
Wid
th
(in.)
Gol
den
Priz
e A
S K
U
85
532
ghi
j 11
,409
4.
7 6
8.7
6.3
1.6
7.0
3.2
Sunr
ise
SP
EV
72
681
cde
fgh
20,6
56
3.3
2 5.
4 5.
3 1.
6 3.
3 2.
3 N
apol
i SP
EV
72
62
6 e
fghi
19
,101
3.
3 2
5.6
5.4
1.7
3.4
2.0
Ath
ena
MM
SW
79
62
1 e
fghi
11
,236
5.
5 4
7.5
6.6
1.8
4.8
3.0
Wra
ngle
r M
M
HL
85
609
efg
hi
16,5
94
3.7
6 7.
0 5.
6 1.
7 4.
6 2.
3 St
rike
MM
H
L 80
-85
562
fghi
j 10
,458
5.
4 12
8.
3 6.
6 2.
1 5.
4 2.
5 A
bu
AN
N
S 90
-95
678
cde
fgh
11,5
81
5.8
2 8.
6 6.
6 1.
9 5.
4 2.
9 N
ew C
entu
ry
HA
K
U
85
511
hij
8,29
7 6.
1 5
10.1
6.
8 1.
9 7.
2 3.
0 Se
nsat
ion
GO
H
L/R
U
80
405
j 8,
297
4.9
14
7.0
6.4
1.6
4.1
3.2
1 Mel
on ty
pe: A
N =
ana
nas,
AS
= A
sian
mel
on, C
A =
can
ary,
GO
= g
ourm
et, H
A =
ham
i, H
D =
hon
eyde
w, M
G =
mus
kmel
on g
alia
cro
ss, M
M =
eas
tern
m
uskm
elon
, SP
= sp
ecia
lty ty
pe.
2 Num
bers
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent (
Wal
ler-
Dun
can
LSD
P =
0.0
5). C
wt/A
= h
undr
edw
eigh
ts (1
00-lb
. uni
ts) p
er a
cre.
3 C
ull p
erce
nt b
y w
eigh
t.
20
Table 2. Specialty melon trial fruit characteristics, Lexington, Ky., 2007.
Variety Flavor (1-5)1
Sugar (%)
Interior Color2
Rind Color3
Fruit Shape
Net Type4 Comments
Destacado 4.4 14.6 lt. gr. lt cr. gr. round na
Soft, slightly grainy flesh; little or no surface checking; develops small rusty spots on rind; harvest when rind turns a cream color
NUN 7225 4.4 15.9 lt. gr. cr. oval na Firm flesh; excellent flavor; very few surface blemishes; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is cream colored and waxy
Bartlett 4.1 15.2 lt. gr. by. oblong na Slightly crunchy flesh; attractive; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow
Honey Brew 4.6 15.1 cr. gr. cr. gr. oblong na Slightly crisp flesh; excellent flavor; harvest when rind is waxy
NUN 7227 4.6 16.3 lt. gr. cr. round na Crunchy flesh; nice flavor; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is waxy and a dark cream color
HMX 4593 3.9 14.8 lt. gr. cr. oval na Firm flesh; rind develops small rusty spots; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is cream colored and waxy
Temptation #1 4.3 15.0 or. cr. almond diffuse
Firm flesh; nice delicate flavor; uniform shape and size; some exterior checking; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind becomes cream colored and waxy
Salmon Dew 3.9 12.9 or. cr. round na Medium firm flesh; rind checking; doesn’t slip; harvest at solid cream color; powdery mildew susceptible
Honey Star 4.1 14.8 lt. gr. beige round md Firm, crisp flesh; surface checking; rind uneven with spots; cracks at maturity; harvest when rind is waxy
Honey Yellow 4.5 16.6 or. dk. yl. round na Firm, fine grained flesh; harvest when dark yellow; some cracked after rain
Honey Orange 4.2 14.6 lt. or. lt. gr. oval na
Very firm, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind and ground spot turn a cream color; powdery mildew susceptible
Golden Beauty 4.3 14.0 lt. gr. by. almond na Soft, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow
Golden Lady 3.9 13.8 lt gr. by. almond na Crunchy flesh; severe cracking following rain; harvest when dark yellow
Sugar Nut 4.6 15.2 lt. gr. by. oval na Smooth, crunchy flesh; very sweet; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow
Sweetie 4.8 15.9 or. lt. bl. yl.
round to oval
md. co.
Smooth, firm, excellent tasting flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind develops yellow highlights; powdery mildew susceptible
1Flavor: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Interior color: o = orange; cr = cream; lg = light green; wh = white; cr = creamy; pk = pink. 3Rind color: lg = light green; gr = green; dg = dark green; yl = yellow; by = bright yellow; wh. = white; str = straw; tn = tan; or = orange; gd = gold; cr = cream. 4Net type: na = none; lt = light netting; md = medium netting; hv = heavy netting; fi = fine; co = coarse.
Continued on next page
21
Table 2 (continued)
Variety Flavor (1-5)1
Sugar (%)
Interior Color2
Rind Color3
Fruit Shape
Net Type4 Comments
HSR 4290 4.2 15.2 or. lt. gr. cr. round md.
Firm, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is light blue, and yellow highlights appear and the ground spot is yellowish
Pixie 4.5 16.1 or. lt. gr. yl round hv. co. Very firm, sweet flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when yellow highlights appear in rind
Jade Delight 3.7 13.8 cr. cr. wh. oval na Soft, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when soft; cream colored and waxy
Sprite 4.4 16.9 cr. cr. oval na
Attractive crisp flesh; harvest when rind becomes slightly waxy, develops a yellowish tinge and minute concentric checks appear around blossom end
Sun 2.8 12.7 cr. gr. lt. yl. almond na Coarse textured flesh; cracks following rain; doesn’t slip; harvest when uniform light yellow
Jade Lady 3.0 11.1 lt. gr. cr. gr. oval na Soft, coarse flesh; difficult to determine when to harvest
Jade Flower 2.5 14.8 cr. cr. oblong na. Soft, coarse textured flesh; rind develops rusty spots; difficult to determine when to harvest; powdery mildew susceptible
Golden Prize 3.3 14.4 cr. by. almond na Crunchy flesh; stem end cracking; doesn’t slip; harvest when bright yellow
Sunrise 4.6 14.6 lt. or. str. round hv. co. Excellent flavor; soft melting flesh; harvest when rind turns yellows before slip
Napoli 4.6 16.0 cr. gr. cr. gr. round hv. fi. Excellent flavor; soft, smooth, melting flesh; harvest at first slip when rind color is creamy green
Athena 3.9 11.4 or. str. oval md. fi. Attractive, firm flesh; harvest at full slip; industry standard
Wrangler 4.4 12.6 or. str. oblong hv. fi. Excellent flavor; attractive dark green sutures; attractive interior; harvest at full slip
Strike 3.8 10.7 or. str. oval co. Medium firm flesh; harvest at full slip; not as attractive this season
Abu 4.1 12.0 lt. or. str. oblong hv. md.
Firm flesh; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently; harvest at first slip
New Century 3.9 13.2 lt. or. cr. gr. long oval
diffuse lt.
Very crisp flesh like watermelon; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently when cream rind color develops; difficult to judge ripeness before cracking
Sensation 4.4 13.2 cr. cr. round lt. co. Soft, melting flesh; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently as rind yellows just before slip
1Flavor: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Interior color: o = orange; cr = cream; lg = light green; wh = white; cr = creamy; pk = pink. 3Rind color: lg = light green; gr = green; dg = dark green; yl = yellow; by = bright yellow; wh. = white; str = straw; tn = tan; or = orange; gd = gold; cr = cream. 4Net type: na = none; lt = light netting; md = medium netting; hv = heavy netting; fi = fine; co = coarse.
22
Powdery Mildew Resistant Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Cultivar Evaluation,
New York 2007 Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901
George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Cultivars with resistance are a valuable tool for managing powdery mildew, a very common disease that can reduce yield (fruit quantity and/or size) and market quality (flavor, color, storability, etc). Races of the powdery mildew fungus have been differentiated on muskmelon. Several cultivars with resistance to races 1 and 2 have been commercially available for a few years. New resistant cultivars of muskmelon and of specialty melon types were released recently. The goal of this study was to evaluate some of these new cultivars compared to Athena, a resistant cultivar that is grown commonly, and to Superstar, a standard cultivar lacking genetic resistance. Growers need information on performance of resistant cultivars in terms of disease suppression and yield to guide their selection of the most appropriate cultivars for their operations. An additional reason this experiment was conducted is the need to monitor resistant cultivars in order to detect new races when they develop.
Materials and Methods A field experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted into black plastic mulch on June 11. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 1,000 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on May 11. Water was provided as needed through drip irrigation lines placed beneath the mulch.
During the season, weeds were controlled with Strategy (2 pt/A) applied on May 21 and Roundup WeatherMax (22 oz./A) applied June 29 with a shielded sprayer to soil between plastic, and by hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with Admire 2F applied after transplanting as a soil drench around transplants (0.02 ml/plant) on June 18 and with Asana XL (9.6 oz./A) applied to foliage on July 16. No fungicides were applied specifically for powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): Forum 4.16SC (6 oz./A) on July 16, Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl. oz./A) on August 12, Acrobat 50 WP (6.4 oz./A) on August 19, and Previcur Flex 6 F (1.2 pt/A) on August 29. Neither disease developed before the end of this experiment.
Plots were three adjacent rows each with four plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A plant of Multipik summer squash, a susceptible variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
Upper and lower surfaces of leaves were assessed for powdery mildew beginning on July 26. Fifty old leaves were selected on July 26 in each plot in one replication based on leaf appearance
23
and position in the canopy. On August 14, eight old and eight mid-aged leaves were assessed. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was assessed when colonies could not be counted accurately because they had coalesced and/or were too numerous. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. Powdery mildew control was calculated for upper and lower leaf surfaces using average canopy severity values for August 14 relative to the average value for Superstar.
Melon fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured when they reached maturity. Fruit characteristics were also evaluated and overall appearance was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1= poor and 5 = best.
Results and Discussion Powdery mildew was first observed on July 26 at a very low level (one spot in two plots). On August 14, powdery mildew severity on the susceptible cultivar Superstar averaged 48% on upper leaf surfaces and 20% on the lower surfaces. All of the cultivars tested with powdery mildew resistance exhibited at least 48% suppression of mildew on upper leaf surfaces. Crème de Menthe was the only cultivar not significantly less severely affected by powdery mildew than Superstar on lower leaf surfaces. The specialty melons, most of which are not advertised as raving resistance to both races 1 and 2, exhibited less suppression of powdery mildew than the muskmelons, which all have resistance to both races. Four of the six muskmelons exhibited a very high level of suppression (at least 99%). Strike and Goddess contain two different sources of resistance in contrast with Athena.
Acknowledgments Donations provided for this experiment included seed from Harris Moran Seed Company, Hollar & Company, and Siegers Seed Company; and donations of pesticides by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Cerexagri, DuPont Crop Protection, ISK Biosciences Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.
24
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld a
nd c
ontro
l of p
owde
ry m
ildew
for m
uskm
elon
and
spec
ialty
mel
on c
ultiv
ars c
ompa
red
on L
ong
Isla
nd, N
ew Y
ork,
20
07. T
he la
st en
try is
the
stand
ard,
susc
eptib
le c
ultiv
ar in
clud
ed fo
r com
paris
on.
Pow
dery
Mild
ew
Con
trol
(%)
Mar
keta
ble
Yie
ld
Tota
l Yie
ld
Cul
tivar
(r
esist
ance
)y Se
ed
Sour
ce
Mel
on
Type
U
pper
Le
af
Surf
ace
Low
er
Leaf
Su
rfac
e N
umbe
r/
Plan
t W
eigh
t (lb
s.)/P
lant
N
umbe
r/
Plan
t W
eigh
t (lb
s.)/P
lant
God
dess
(PM
1,2
) H
M
mus
kmel
on
100.
0 dz
100.
0 d
1.54
de
f 9.
39
c 1.
94
d 10
.97
bc
Strik
e (P
M 1
,2)
HL
mus
kmel
on
100.
0 d
100.
0 d
2.19
cd
12
.53
ab
2.63
cd
14
.59
a
Mav
eric
k (P
M 1
,2)
HM
m
uskm
elon
99
.0
d 99
.6
d 3.
21
b 10
.63
abc
3.77
b
12.0
1 ab
Lil’
Loup
e (P
M 1
,2)
HM
m
uskm
elon
74
.9
c 93
.6
cd
5.46
a
9.49
c
6.06
a
10.1
9 bc
d
Ath
ena
(PM
1,2
) SI
m
uskm
elon
65
.4
bc
84.6
cd
2.
13
cd
10.5
1 bc
2.
69
c 12
.76
ab
Bol
ero
(PM
) SI
C
rens
haw
m
elon
72
.9
c 79
.3
cd
0.90
fg
6.
29
d 1.
13
e 7.
92
de
Dor
ado
(PM
1,2
) SI
ca
nary
m
elon
57
.0
bc
72.3
cd
1.
10
efg
5.03
d
1.17
e
5.23
ef
Vic
ar (P
M 1
) SI
G
alia
mel
on
58.5
bc
60
.1
bc
1.75
de
5.
19
d 2.
81
c 9.
04
cd
Crè
me
de M
enth
e (P
M)
SI
hone
ydew
m
elon
48
.2
b 31
.8
ab
0.63
g
4.20
d
0.69
e
4.46
f
Supe
rsta
r (St
d)
HM
m
uskm
elon
0
a 0
a 2.
65
bc
13.6
0 a
2.98
c
14.6
1 a
P-va
lue
< .0
001
< .0
001
< .0
001
0.00
01
< .0
001
< .0
001
y Gen
etic
resi
stan
ce a
s spe
cifie
d in
the
cata
logu
e. “
PM 1
, 2”
indi
cate
s res
ista
nce
to ra
ces 1
and
2. “
PM”
used
whe
n in
form
atio
n on
race
no
t spe
cifie
d in
the
cata
logu
e.
z Num
bers
in e
ach
colu
mn
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent f
rom
eac
h ot
her a
ccor
ding
to F
ishe
r's p
rote
cted
LS
D (P
=0.0
5).
25
Evaluation of Specialty Melon Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007
Brad R. Bergefurd and Dr. Shawn Wright The Ohio State University South Centers
1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661-9749 Phone: (740) 289-2071
This cultivar trial evaluated five specialty melon cultivars for their suitability in southern Ohio.
Methods Seeds were planted April 23 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted to the field on June 7 using a waterwheel transplanter onto raised beds covered with black plastic mulch with trickle irrigation. Plot rows were 6 feet apart. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. One hundred units of N, P, and K were applied before forming beds and laying plastic mulch. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program was followed, following OSU Bulletin #672.
Results There was a slight difference in the number of fruit per acre between ‘Wrangler’ and ‘Diva’ and ‘Goddess.’ ‘Wrangler’ produced an average of 16,825 fruit per acre, ‘Diva’ produced an average of 8,333 fruit per acre, and ‘Goddess’ produced the fewest fruit per acre, 1,522.
There was no effect of variety on pounds per acre of melon production.
Variety Mean Weight (lbs.) s.e.m. Diva 9.0 0.0 Strike 5.9 0.6 Goddess 5.7 0.3 Sensation 5.0 0.3 Wrangler 4.0 0.2
26
Adaptability of Eight Onion Cultivars for Production in Southwest Michigan
Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
Objective The objective of this trial was to determine the potential of eight large-bulb onions for production in Michigan and to identify if any of the sweet onions had commercial potential for production in Michigan.
Summary Three cultivars, ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Super Star,’ and ‘Mars,’ were found suitable for commercial consideration for Michigan onion producers. The bulb color of ‘Sweet Spanish’ is yellow, ‘Super Star’ is white, and ‘Mars’ is red. These three were determined suitable based on high total yield (400, 379, and 369 hundred weight per acre, respectively), the number of colossal and jumbo bulbs, and the low number of culled bulbs. The low number of culls is impressive given the difficult weather conditions experienced during harvest in 2007 (high temperatures, relative humidity, and rainfall). ‘Ailsa Craig’ and ‘Walla Walla’ had a significant amount of culled bulbs due to neck rot. ‘Texas 1015Y’ was not adapted to Michigan conditions and should not be planted.
Methods Fertilizer Prior to planting, 0-0-60, 33-0-0 and Cal-Fortified were broadcast and incorporated at 350, 150, and 100 lbs./A, respectively. After planting, fertilizer was applied through the drip system as 10 gal./A of Nitro Formula (17-0-0-5-1.5Mg-Zn-B) on June 11, 2007; and 20 lbs./A of Urea Mate (5-10-27+micronutrients) on July 9, 16, and 23, 2007. Three lbs./A actual nitrogen was also applied on May 14, 2007 in combination with Lorsban. A seasonal total of 76 lbs./A of nitrogen was applied.
Weed Control Prowl was applied May 10, 2007 at 1.5 pts./A. Later season weed control was obtained through hand hoeing.
Planting Cultivars were chosen due to ready commercial availability and obtained as transplants from Jung Seed Co., Randolph, Wisconsin. They were set in the field on May 2, 2007 into double rows, 12 inches between rows and 4 inches in the row. Double rows were on 5.5-foot centers. Each plot consisted of a 10-foot long double row of 60 plants (47,520 plants per acre). The trial was planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications.
Plant Care Plants were drip irrigated with a single drip line placed between the double rows on the soil
27
surface. The drip tape had 4-inch emitter spacing and a 0.25 gpm flow rate. Lorsban was applied on May 14, 2007 for onion maggot control.
Harvest and Data Collection The trial was harvested on August 3, 2007 (93 days from transplanting to harvest) by pulling bulbs and lining them out on the ground for further drying. Bulbs were topped and brought inside for curing on August 7. Bulbs were graded on August 22 into super colossal (≥4.5 inches), colossal (4-4.5 inches), jumbo (3-4 inches), medium (2-3 inches), small (1-2 inches), and cull bulbs. Each category was then weighed.
Results Michigan’s onion industry primarily produces a pungent cooking onion capable of long-term storage. Sweet onions have a shorter storage life and must therefore be sourced from locations across the United States as the production season changes. Michigan onion growers could help meet the increasing demand for sweet onions since they would be available August through October, or longer under proper storage conditions. This harvest season comes at a time when sweet onion production is down, or from areas requiring significant transportation distances (Washington, California, Georgia, and others). This trial was performed to determine if readily available sweet onion cultivars could be produced under Michigan growing conditions.
Significant differences were found in total yield, size, and number of cull bulbs (Table 1). ‘Ailsa Craig’ had the highest total yield at 443 hundred weight per acre (hwpa). ‘Sweet Spanish.’ ‘Super Star.’ ‘Walla Walla.’ and ‘Mars’ all had statistically similar total yield to “Ailsa Craig’ (400, 379, 375, and 369 hwpa, respectively). ‘Ailsa Craig’ and ‘Walla Walla’ were the only entries to have super colossal bulbs (≥4.5 inches). All but ‘Copra’ and ‘Texas 1015’ had bulbs in the colossal category (4-4.5 inches). Colossal bulb yield was statistically similar for the six other entries with yields ranging from 11 to 36 hwpa.
Jumbo bulbs had the largest yields for most entries and the greatest statistical differences. Yields ranged from 7 hwpa for ‘Texas 1015’ to 323 hwpa for ‘Mars.’ ‘Super Star,’ at 271 hwpa, had a similar jumbo bulb yield as ‘Mars.’
Medium and small bulbs also had large differences between entries. ‘Copra,’ a pungent onion, had the highest yields at 102 hwpa for medium sized bulbs. ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Copra,’ and ‘Candy’ had the highest amount of small bulbs (27.5, 20.4, and 19.7, respectively).
‘Walla Walla’ and ‘Ailsa Craig’ had the highest amount of cull bulbs at 292 and 251 hwpa, respectively. This represents 78% of ‘Walla Walla’ and 57% of ‘Ailsa Craig’ production. ‘Candy,’ at 132 hwpa (40% of total), also had a high number of cull bulbs. Most bulbs were culled due to neck rot symptoms. These levels would be commercially unacceptable. The lowest percentages of culls were found in ‘Copra’ (5%), ‘Mars’ (7%), and ‘Sweet Spanish’ (11%).
Weather near and after harvest probably contributed to the high level of culled bulbs. Bulbs were harvested on August 3 and removed from the field on August 7. During that time, they experienced 5.44 inches of rain, daytime temperatures between 83oF and 90oF, and 93% to 96% nighttime relative humidity. What is more surprising is the low level of culls in ‘Copra,’ ‘Mars,’ and ‘Sweet Spanish.’ Cultivars having lower culls were noted to have a round shape or a flat top
28
with a small neck. Entries with greater amounts of neck rot were more teardrop-shaped, or had thicker necks (Figure 1). Levels of cull bulbs would probably be lower for all entries under more normal conditions. However, if these three perform well under adverse conditions they can be expected to do even better when weather is more normal.
Commercial yields could be increased by adapting different planting strategies than what were used in this trial. Spacing in this trial only gave plant populations of 47,520 plants per acre when populations could potentially be three times greater by closer between-row spacing. This is not to say, however, that yields would be three times greater. Yields could also be increased if transplants were set earlier. Longer growing periods prior to bulb formation could potentially shift more bulbs into larger categories. Planting date for this trial was determined by the availability of planting stock but could have been two to three weeks earlier.
Harvest was 93 days from transplanting to harvest. Cultivar maturity is listed as 85 (‘Candy’) to 125 days (‘Walla Walla’). Harvest date was chosen when top growth had reached a senescence level indicating they should be harvested. Based on bulb size, some entries could have been harvested two weeks earlier. Early bulb size may have been due to the drip irrigation system delivering more timely irrigation than in an overhead irrigation situation.
‘Candy’ produced a fair number of “seeders.” Whenever seeders were observed in a plot, it was more than likely ‘Candy.’ Even though ‘Texas 1015’ is listed as being adapted to northern production, it was obvious in this trial that it was not and will not be considered for future trials.
From this trial, three cultivars can be recommended for commercial planting in Michigan: ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Super Star,’ and ‘Mars.’ All three had high total yields, high yields of colossal and jumbo bulbs (63%, 77%, and 91%, respectively), and low levels of cull bulbs. These three also give Michigan producers a yellow, white, and red onion suitable for Michigan growing conditions.
Figure 1. Bulb shape and color of seven large bulbed onions planted at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2007.
29
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld in
hun
dred
weig
ht p
er a
cre
of e
ight
oni
on c
ultiv
ars a
t the
Sou
thwe
st M
ichi
gan
Rese
arch
and
Ext
ensio
n Ce
nter
, Ben
ton
Har
bor,
Mic
higa
n in
200
7.
Var
iety
C
olor
To
tal
Yie
ld
Supe
r C
olos
sal
Col
ossa
l Ju
mbo
M
ediu
m
Smal
l C
ull
Ails
a C
raig
Y
44
3 13
30
14
0 8
.4
251
Swee
t Spa
nish
Y
40
0 0
32
218
76
27.5
45
Su
per S
tar
W
379
0 22
27
1 9
.6
75
Wal
la W
alla
Y
37
5 3
36
38
5 .5
29
2 M
ars
R
369
0 12
32
3 9
.2
25
Can
dy
Y
329
0 11
11
9 47
19
.7
132
Cop
ra
Y
327
0 0
189
102
20.4
15
Te
xas 1
015Y
Y
52
0
0 7
26
13.5
6
Ls
d=.0
5 11
0 10
31
55
19
10
.5
98
Colo
r Y =
yel
low
W =
whi
te
R =
red.
Si
zes Su
per c
olos
sal =
≥4.
5 in
ches
Co
loss
al =
4-4
.5 in
ches
Ju
mbo
= 3
-4 in
ches
M
ediu
m =
2-3
inch
es
Smal
l = 1
-2 in
ches
Cu
ll bu
lbs
30
Influence of Tillage and Herbicides in Onion Field Data (Year 1)
Sarah Gegner, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, Walt Albus, and Collin Auwarter North Dakota State University and Oakes Research Extension Center
THIS REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE
31
Weed Control Using Herbicides Applied as Micro-Rates in Onion
James R. Loken, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, and Collin Auwarter, North Dakota State University
THIS REPORT NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE
33
2007 Sweet Spanish Onion Variety Trial M. D. Orzolek
Dept. of Horticulture The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802 Plot Size: Four row/bed, 6.0 feet long with 6-inch x 6-inch spacing, 48 plants per replication.
Transplanting Date: April 24, 2007
Production System: Raised bed with black plastic mulch and two rows of drip tape, high flow 0.45 gal./min./100 ft. at 12-inch orifice spacing.
Herbicide Application: One post-emergence application of Chateau at 1.0 oz./A.
Fungicide: None.
Insecticide: One application of Spintor at 5.0 oz./A for onion thrip control on July 6, 2007. Also, injected Root Power at 2.0 pts./A plus Molybdenum at 0.5 pts./A on July 6, 2007
Fertility: Broadcast and incorporated 80 lbs./A N, 60 lbs./A P, and 120 lbs./A K and one application of calcium nitrate injected in the drip system for a total of 25 lbs./A N.
Harvest Date: August 9, 2007.
Drying: Bulbs from individual plots were placed in 100-pound potato burlap bags and placed on benches in a 30-foot x 96-foot high tunnel covered with two layers of row over for 7 days.
Dates Graded: August 20-27, 2007.
Design: Randomized complete block with three replications.
Varieties Seed Source Bulb Color 1. Candy* SW yellow 2. Condor* AT yellow 3. NuMex Arthur New Mexico State U. yellow 4. NuMex Freedom New Mexico State U yellow 5. NMSU 05-52-2 New Mexico State U yellow 6. NMSU 05-52-4 New Mexico State U yellow 7. NMSU 05-53-4 New Mexico State U yellow 8. NMSU 06-80-3 New Mexico State U yellow 9. NMSU 06-80-4 New Mexico State U yellow
*Eagle from American Takii has been discontinued. Continued on next page
42
Varieties Seed Source Bulb Color 10. NMSU 06-83-2 New Mexico State U yellow 11. Expression* SW yellow 12. Exacta* SM yellow 13. 9003G* AT yellow 14. Milestone AT yellow 15. Medallion* SK yellow 16. Ovation* SK yellow 17. Mt. Whitney* SK white 18. Vaquero NU/NH yellow
*Eagle from American Takii has been discontinued. Results Growing conditions in 2007 were more ideal for sweet Spanish onions grown on raised beds with plastic mulch and two rows of drip tape than the last four growing seasons — warm and dry. Varieties were transplanted in mid-April, about 4 weeks earlier than normal. In 2007, onion transplant tops were cut and maintained at a 4-inch height in the greenhouse prior to transplanting in the field. Twenty-five pounds of N were injected into the drip irrigation tape over a 7-8 week period after transplanting. Onions were irrigated at least twice a week for 3 to 4 hours per application. While weed control was good to excellent the first 10 weeks after transplanting, rain in late June resulted in significant weed populations (especially grasses) between the onion rows. The single application of Chateau significantly reduced weeds and increased harvesting efficiency. There was a significant onion thrip population that developed in early July; however, the foliar application of Spintor and the injection of Root Power at 2.0 pts./A plus Molybdenum at 0.5 pts./A (Stoller Chemical) into the drip tape on July 6, cleaned up the thrip problem within 2 days and kept the onions thrip free.
The highest marketable onion bulb yield was obtained from the following varieties: Exacta, Medallion, Ovation, and Expression compared to Candy or Condor (current sweet Spanish onion standards in Pennsylvania Table 1). The pungency ratings for the onion varieties in 2007 were remarkably low, all below 5.0 mM of pyruvic acid, which describes a mild sweet onion flavor (Table 2). Exacta, NMSU 05-52-2, NMSU 05-52-4, Medallion, Ovation, and Expression produced the highest percentage of large/jumbo onion bulbs that were 3.0 inches in diameter or larger. Mt. Whitney was the only white onion variety evaluated in the 2007 trial. Mt. Whitney has beautifully white skins and a round to oblong shape. Yield of this variety was similar to Candy, with an acceptable soluble solids level and low pungency.
43
Table 1. The marketable yield of eighteen Spanish onion varieties evaluated at the Horticulture Research Farm, Rock Springs, PA – 2007.
Variety Total MKT
Yield T/Ax Avg. Bulb. Wt.
lbs.y % Large z % Non-MKT
Candy 22.4 0.80 73.9 0.0 Condor 23.6 0.90 72.8 0.1 NM Arthur 19.7 0.70 62.1 5.9 NM Freedom 19.8 0.70 55.6 8.5 NMSU 05-52-2 25.8 0.90 90.0 1.5 NMSU 05-52-4 28.5 1.10 91.1 1.0 NMSU 05-53-4 22.6 0.80 69.3 2.9 NMSU 06-80-3 21.1 0.80 74.1 1.0 NMSU 06-80-4 26.3 1.00 84.7 2.2 NMSU 06-82-3 23.5 0.90 80.3 1.0 Expression 32.8 1.20 91.4 2.8 Exacta 37.7 1.40 89.9 2.9 9003G 23.8 0.90 76.3 3.9 Milestone 22.1 0.80 81.8 0.0 Medallion 31.9 1.20 95.5 0.0 Ovation 35.1 1.30 95.0 1.0 Mt. Whitney 22.7 0.90 76.3 4.7 Vaquero 23.3 1.00 75.3 4.3 xThe total marketable yield is based on an onion population of 50,000 plants/A including jumbo and colossal bulb sizes. yThe average bulb weight in pounds included all bulbs greater than 2.5 inches in diameter. zThe percentage of large bulbs included all onion bulbs greater than 3.0 inches in diameter.
44
Table 2. The percent harvest, soluble solids and pungency rating of 18 Spanish onion varieties evaluated at the Horticulture Research Farm, Rock Springs, PA – 2007.
Variety % Harvestedx % Soluble Solidsy Pungencyz
Candy 96.7 6.4 2.9 Condor 86.7 8.2 4.1 NM Arthur 93.9 5.1 1.9 NM Freedom 98.5 5.6 3.1 NMSU 05-52-2 98.1 6.2 3.6 NMSU 05-52-4 93.8 5.9 3.8 NMSU 05-53-4 92.3 6.0 2.5 NMSU 06-80-3 85.2 6.5 3.5 NMSU 06-80-4 95.2 5.1 3.4 NMSU 06-82-3 90.8 6.2 4.0 Expression 95.0 7.0 3.5 Exacta 95.0 6.5 3.0 9003G 91.2 8.1 4.3 Milestone 95.0 7.8 3.5 Medallion 91.2 6.6 3.6 Ovation 96.5 6.6 4.0 Mt. Whitney 88.1 6.0 3.2 Vaquero 81.9 6.5 3.9
xPercent of onion bulbs that were harvested from the 48 onion plants in each plot. yThe percent of soluble solids as measured by Waters Agricultural Laboratories, Camilla, GA. zPungency was measured by determining the pyruvic acid content of the bulb by Waters Agricultural Laboratories, Camilla, GA. Onions may be classified as to pungency according to the following scheme: Very mild sweet onion:1-4 mmoles pyruvic acid/kg weight of bulbs
• Mild sweet onion: 5-7 mmoles • Intermediate pungency: 8-10 mmoles • Pungent: 11-15 mmoles • Very pungent >15 mmoles
45
2007 DSAC Pepper Variety Trial Bronwyn Aly and J.D. Kindhart, Senior Research Specialists
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Dixon Springs Agricultural Center University of Illinois, Simpson, IL
A pepper cultivar trial was established and evaluated at the Dixon Springs Ag Center (DSAC) in Pope County, Illinois. The plots were established from transplants set on May 8. The plots were grown in twin rows at 12-inch spacing on raised beds at 5.5-foot spacing with black plastic mulch and trickle irrigation. They were harvested on July 9, 24, and August 7. Each variety was replicated three times.
Table 1 shows yield data. The varieties are listed in descending order of U.S. No. 1 yield.
Table 1. Yield data for pepper varieties at DSAC.
Variety Source Color
Average Fruit Size U.S. No.1
(oz)
Yield U.S. No. 1 (bu/A)
Yield U.S. No. 2 (bu/A)
Culls (no./plant)
Revolution SW Red 10.1 1,684 449 0.9 HMX 7649 SW Red 10.1 1,642 428 0.6 HMX 7648 SW Red 9.6 1,637 554 0.8 Polaris SW Red 8.4 1,558 449 0.8 Heritage SW Red 8.9 1,447 454 1.1 Socrates X3R SW Red 9.4 1,404 628 1.0 Paladin SW Red 9.1 1,404 517 1.4 Aristotle SW Red 9.3 1,404 422 0.8 HMX 6644 SW Red 9.3 1,346 655 1.1 Granny Gold SW Yellow 7.0 1,093 306 0.5 Tabby SW Yellow 6.8 523 502 0.5
47
Bell Pepper Cultivar Evaluation Under High Phytophthora capsici Incidence
S. Alan Walters, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Jamie R. Stieg, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Jason P. Bond, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL
M. Babadoost, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Introduction Phytophthora capsici causes Phytophthora blight, which is a devastating disease of bell peppers and many other vegetables grown in the Midwest. Recently, the incidence of this rapidly spreading disease has dramatically increased in Illinois and has caused yield losses of up to 100% in bell pepper fields. This trial was established to determine the impact of P. capsici on yield and farm-gate revenues of susceptible, tolerant, and resistant bell pepper cultivars.
Materials and Methods Nine bell pepper cultivars (Alliance, Aristotle X3R, Cal. Wonder, Commandment, King Arthur, Legionnaire, Paladin, Red Knight X3R, and Revolution) were evaluated during 2005 and 2006 in a commercial field infested with P. capsici near Shawneetown, Illinois. ‘Paladin’ is resistant to P. capsici, while ‘Alliance,’ ‘Aristotle X3R,’ and ‘Revolution’ are tolerant. All other cultivars evaluated are highly susceptible. The experiment was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Raised beds were formed on 7-foot centers and covered with 1.25-mil black plastic mulch with drip irrigation. Six-week-old bell pepper seedlings were transplanted on double rows spaced 1.5 feet apart. Plots were 7.5 feet long with five plants per row. Each plot had 10 plants. About 120 lbs./A N was applied over the growing season. No insecticides or fungicides were used.
Phytophthora blight disease incidence was rated 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after transplanting (WAT). Visible symptoms included wilting of plants, crown rot, stem lesions, and fruit rot. Farm-gate revenues were calculated using a $10 per 28-pound box conversion factor, based on average St. Louis, Missouri produce terminal market prices for 2005 and 2006. Harvests began on July 25, 2005 and July 6, 2006, and ended on October 7, 2005 and September 6, 2006, with a total of six harvests. Fruit were weighed and graded into marketable (Fancy, No. 1, and No. 2) and cull (misshapen or decaying fruit) based on USDA standards. Bell pepper plants showing symptoms of Phytophthora blight were collected both years. Phytophthora capsici was isolated and ‘Cal. Wonder’ seedlings were inoculated in a greenhouse with the isolated pathogen. In all cases, Phytophthora blight disease symptoms developed and P. capsici was again re-isolated.
Data were subjected to analysis of variance procedures appropriate for a randomized complete block design using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) tests were used to separate differences among bell pepper cultivar means at P ≤ 0.05.
Results Phytophthora blight incidence data were combined over the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons since no year by cultivar interactions (P > 0.05) were observed. However, a year by cultivar
48
interaction (P ≤ 0.05) was observed for bell pepper yields and farm-gate revenues indicating that cultivar performance for these variables depended on year. The two years provided different growing seasons primarily due to more rainfall during July and August of 2005 compared to 2006, resulting in higher soil moisture amounts with water often standing between rows. Therefore, yield and farm-gate revenue results will be presented by year.
Only 7% Phytophthora blight disease incidence was detected on P. capsici-resistant ‘Paladin’ at 16 WAT (Table 1). The tolerant cultivars (Aristotle X3R, Revolution, and Alliance) had lower Phytophthora blight disease incidence at 16 WAT (52%, 53%, and 65% in plots, respectively) compared to most of the susceptible cultivars. At 98%, ‘Cal. Wonder’ had the highest Phytophthora blight disease incidence rating of all bell pepper cultivars evaluated at 16 WAT.
Table 1. Phytophthora capsici incidence on nine bell pepper cultivars combined over the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons in a P. capsici-infested field in Shawneetown, Ill.
% Phytophthora Blight Incidence (Weeks After Transplanting — WAT)
Cultivarz
4 8 12 16
Paladiny 0 a 2 a 3 a 7 a Aristotle X3Rx 7 a 20 ab 33 a-c 52 b Revolutionx 2 a 17 ab 32 ab 53 bc Alliancex 10 a 18 ab 42 b-d 65 b-d Red Knight X3R 8 a 28 b 65 b-d 73 b-e King Arthur 10 a 25 ab 58 b-d 78 b-e Commandment 8 a 18 ab 53 b-d 85 c-e Legionnaire 17 a 35 b 73 d 92 de Cal. Wonder 14 a 30 b 46 b-d 98 e
zCultivars are ranked according to least percentage of Phytophthora blight incidence at 16 WAT. Symptoms included wilting of plants, crown rot and stem lesions, and fruit rot. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yPhytophthora capsici-resistant. xPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.
2005 Early-season marketable yields and farm-gate revenues were similar among most bell pepper cultivars (Table 2). ‘Paladin’ had greater marketable weights (7,100 pounds per acre) and farm-gate revenues ($5,600 per acre) during the late-season harvests compared to all cultivars except ‘Alliance.’ ‘Paladin,’ ‘Aristotle X3R,’ and ‘Alliance’ had the highest total-season marketable weights (≥ 6,000 pounds per acre) and farm-gate revenues (≥ $4,800 per acre) compared to all other cultivars. In contrast to ‘Paladin,’ ‘Alliance’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ did not differ from most other lower-yielding cultivars; however, ‘Cal. Wonder’ and ‘Legionnaire’ generated lower total-season yields and farm-gate revenues than ‘Paladin,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R.’
49
2006 ‘Paladin,’ ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ produced high early- and late-season marketable yields (≥ 15,000 and 10,900 pounds per acre, respectively) and early- and late-season farm-gate revenues (≥ $11,900 and $8,700 per acre, respectively) compared to the five susceptible cultivars (Table 3). However, ‘Paladin’ generated greater marketable yields and farm-gate revenues compared to all cultivars for both late- and total-season harvests. Yields and farm-gate revenues of P. capsici-tolerant ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ did not differ for early-, late-, or total-season harvests. Overall, P. capsici-resistant or tolerant ‘Paladin,’ ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ and susceptible ‘King Arthur’ generally produced the highest total-season yields and farm-gate revenues. In contrast, ‘Cal. Wonder’ and ‘Legionnaire’ produced the lowest total-season yields and farm-gate revenues.
Table 2. Impact of Phytophthora capsici on marketable weights and farm-gate revenues during the 2005 growing season for nine bell pepper cultivars at Shawneetown, Ill.
Early-seasonz (x 1,000)
Late-seasonz (x 1,000)
Total-seasonz (x 1,000)
Cultivary MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
Paladinx 2.5 ab 2.0 ab 7.1 a 5.6 a 9.6 a 7.6 a Aristotle X3Rw 4.2 a 3.3 a 2.5 b 2.0 b 6.6 ab 5.3 ab Alliancew 2.4 ab 1.9 ab 3.6 ab 2.9 ab 6.0 a-c 4.8 a-c Red Knight X3R 2.6 ab 2.1 ab 1.3 b 1.1 b 3.9 b-d 3.1 b-d King Arthur 2.2 ab 1.8 ab 1.3 b 1.0 b 3.5 b-d 2.8 b-d Commandment 2.5 ab 2.0 ab 0.7 b 0.5 b 3.2 b-d 2.5 b-d Revolutionw 1.0 b 0.8 b 2.0 b 1.6 b 3.0 b-d 2.4 b-d Legionnaire 1.5 b 1.2 b 0.2 b 0.1 b 1.7 d 1.3 d Cal. Wonder 0.2 b 0.1 b 0.4 b 0.3 b 0.6 d 0.5 d
zEarly-season = first 3 harvests, late-season = harvests 4 to 6, and total-season = all 6 harvests. MW = marketable weights. FGR = farm-gate revenues based on St. Louis, MO produce terminal market prices during 2005. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yCultivars are ranked according to total-season marketable yields. xPhytophthora capsici-resistant. wPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.
50
Table 3. Effect of Phytophthora capsici on marketable weights and farm-gate revenues during the 2006 growing season for nine bell pepper cultivars at Shawneetown, Ill.
Early-seasonz (x 1,000)
Late-seasonz (x 1,000)
Total-seasonz (x 1,000)
Cultivary MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
MW
(lbs./acre) FGR
($/acre)
Paladinx 20.8 a 16.6 a 26.8 a 21.3 a 47.6 a 37.9 a Revolutionw 15.7 a-c 12.5 a-c 16.0 b 12.7 b 31.7 b 25.2 b Alliancew 17.6 ab 14.0 ab 13.7 bc 10.9 bc 31.3 bc 25.0 bc Aristotle X3Rw 15.0 a-d 11.9 a-d 10.9 bc 8.7 bc 25.9 b-d 20.6 b-d King Arthur 14.5 b-e 11.5 b-e 9.9 bc 7.9 bc 24.4 b-e 19.4 b-e Red Knight X3R 13.0 b-f 10.4 b-f 8.4 bc 6.7 bc 21.4 d-f 17.1 d-f Commandment 9.2 d-g 7.3 d-g 9.5 bc 7.5 bc 18.7 d-f 15.0 d-f Cal. Wonder 4.6 g 3.6 g 9.2 bc 7.3 bc 13.8 f 11.0 f Legionnaire 8.2 fg 6.6 fg 5.2 c 4.1 c 13.4 f 10.7 f
zEarly-season = first 3 harvests, late-season = harvests 4 to 6, and total-season = all 6 harvests. MW = marketable weights. FGR = farm-gate revenues based on St. Louis, MO produce terminal market prices during 2006. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yCultivars are ranked according to total-season marketable yields. xPhytophthora capsici-resistant. wPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.
51
Evaluation of Twelve Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan
Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
Objective The objective of this trial was to evaluate performance of 12 pepper cultivars for adaptability to Southwest Michigan growing conditions. Cultivars included seven bells, four jalapenos, and one sweet banana.
Summary Significant differences were noted in most traits evaluated. Bell pepper total yield ranged from 1,645 (‘Paladin’) to 1,421 (‘Declaration’) bushels per acre. ‘Paladin,’ ‘Excursion II,’ and AC8620 were among the leaders in yield of jumbo-, extra large-, large-, and medium-sized fruit. ‘Red Bull’ had the largest average of No. 1 fruit weight (209 grams per fruit). ‘Taos’ and ‘Capsico’ were the highest yielding jalapeno cultivars (1,351 and 1,248 bushels per acre, respectively). They were also among the leaders in yield of No. 1 fruit and average No. 1 fruit weight. The jalapeno J-7 had darker green fruit than other jalapenos. ‘Pageant,’ the lone sweet banana, had a total yield of 1,641 bushels per acre and an average fruit weight of 65 grams per fruit.
Methods Fertilizer Prior to planting, 0-0-60, sulfur and solubor were broadcast and incorporated at 200, 20, and 20 lbs./A, respectively. Pre-plant nitrogen was supplied through a hairy vetch cover crop planted in August 2006. After planting, 43 gal./A of Nitro Formula (17-0-0-5Ca-1.5Mg Zn-B) was applied through the drip irrigation system prior to first fruit set. After fruit set, 20 lbs./A per week of Urea Mate (5-10-27 + micronutrients) was again supplied through the drip system. Fertilization began June 11, 2007 and ended August 20.
Fumigation/Weed Control Beds were fumigated with 300 pounds per acre 67/33% methyl bromide/chloropicrin at bed shaping, and plastic laying on May 2, 2007. Between-row weeds were controlled through cultivation and hand hoeing.
Planting Seed was started in a greenhouse on April 2, 2007 and planted to the field on May 23. Beds were 6 inches high and spaced 5.5 feet on centers. Plants were set in double rows 14 inches between rows and 18 inches between plants (10,560 plants per acre). The trial was planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design with 16 plants per plot and four replications. Plots were separated by four guard plants. Bell peppers were planted in one trial and jalapenos and banana pepper in another. Each trial was analyzed separately. The banana pepper was excluded from statistical analysis.
52
Plant Care Plots were irrigated daily and pests controlled using standard commercial practices.
Harvest and Data Collection Harvest was conducted three times: August 2, 16, and 30, 2007. Fruit was graded and weighed for each category.
Results The seven bell peppers were similar in total yield, with only ‘Declaration’ having a significantly lower value than ‘Paladin,’ the top yielding entry (Table 1). All cultivars also had similar yields of extra large and No. 2 fruit. The greatest differences were found in the yields of large, medium, and cull fruit. Average No. 1 fruit weight also varied, with ‘Red Bull,’ ‘Declaration,’ and HMX6646 having similarly high weights (Table 1).
‘Declaration,’ HMX6646, and 8620 had comparable cull yields (248, 247, and 194 bushels per acre, respectively). Fruit was culled primarily due to blossom end rot (BER) symptoms at first harvest. BER symptoms were probably made worse due to high temperatures experienced through June and especially in July when fruit would have been developing.
‘Taos’ was the top performing jalapeno cultivar in total yield and yield of No. 1 fruit (Table 2). However, ‘Capsico’ was similar to ‘Taos’ for both traits. Both cultivars were also in the top three for average No. 1 fruit weight. J-7 had fruit that was obviously darker green than the other three entries.
53
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld in
bus
hels
per a
cre
and
qual
ity o
f sev
en b
ell p
eppe
r cul
tivar
s gro
wn a
t the
Sou
thwe
st M
ichi
gan
Rese
arch
and
Ex
tens
ion
Cent
er, B
ento
n H
arbo
r, M
ichi
gan
in 2
007.
Ave
rage
frui
t wei
ght i
s exp
ress
ed in
gra
ms p
er fr
uit.
Var
iety
SS
To
tal
Yie
ld
Ave
rage
No.
1 Fr
uit W
eigh
t Y
ield
Ju
mbo
Y
ield
Ext
ra
Larg
e Y
ield
La
rge
Yie
ld
Med
ium
Y
ield
N
o. 2
Y
ield
C
ull
Pala
din
SY/R
G
1,64
5 18
4 32
9 33
3 32
1 37
7 23
9 47
Ex
curs
ion
II
AC
1,
637
186
364
324
319
287
220
124
8620
A
C
1,59
6 17
9 21
7 32
9 34
4 27
9 23
3 19
4 A
CX
270
A
C
1,58
4 17
5 15
1 31
5 38
1 31
2 26
5 16
1 H
MX
6646
H
M
1,56
5 19
6 33
0 33
3 26
3 21
8 17
5 24
7 R
ed B
ull
SK
1,48
9 20
9 31
6 28
8 26
7 21
2 24
1 16
5 D
ecla
ratio
n H
M
1,42
1 20
8 36
9 29
7 20
3 11
8 18
5 24
8
Ls
d=.0
5 18
4 20
17
2 ns
89
13
8 ns
69
Tabl
e 2.
Yie
ld in
bus
hels
per a
cre
of fo
ur ja
lape
no a
nd o
ne sw
eet b
anan
a (‘
Page
ant’)
pep
pers
gro
wn a
t the
Sou
thwe
st M
ichi
gan
Rese
arch
and
Ext
ensio
n Ce
nter
, Ben
ton
Har
bor,
Mic
higa
n in
200
7. ‘P
agea
nt’ w
as n
ot in
clud
ed in
stat
istic
al a
naly
sis. A
vera
ge fr
uit
weig
ht is
exp
ress
ed in
gra
ms p
er fr
uit.
Var
iety
SS
To
tal Y
ield
Y
ield
No.
1
No
1 Fr
uit W
eigh
t Y
ield
No.
2
Yie
ld C
ull
Taos
SY
/RG
1,
351
1,11
2 37
15
7 82
C
apsi
co
SY/R
G
1,24
8 1,
030
40
173
46
J-7
AT
1,13
9 91
6 39
15
9 64
C
ompa
dre
SY/R
G
1,09
8 94
4 36
12
5 28
Pa
gean
t SY
/RG
1,
641
1163
65
36
0 11
8
Ls
d=.0
5 13
4 12
4 3
46
28
54
Evaluation of Bell Pepper Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007
Brad R. Bergefurd and Dr. Shawn Wright Thanks to Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Wayne Lewis, and Al Welch
for management of this trial The Ohio State University South Centers
1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661-9749 Phone: (740) 289-3727
This cultivar trial evaluated eight bell pepper cultivars for their suitability in southern Ohio.
Methods Seeds were planted April 14 in the greenhouse. Plants were transplanted to raised beds covered with black plastic on May 31 using a waterwheel transplanter. There was trickle irrigation under the plastic. Plots rows were 6 feet apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. One hundred units of N, P, and K were applied before forming beds and laying plastic mulch. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program was followed, following OSU Bulletin #672.
Results There was no effect of treatment on the number of medium, large, or select fruit per acre.
There was a significant effect on total fruit per acre. ‘BSS 518’ and ‘HMX 6646’ were not significantly different from each other (127,381 and 105,476 total fruit respectively). ‘Wahoo,’ ‘HMX 7648,’ and ‘Alliance’ were not significantly different from each other (78,333, 75,238, and 74,048 total fruit respectively) but were different from ‘BSS 518’ and ‘HMX 6646’ (LSD=22865). ‘HMX 6646,’ ‘Polaris,’ ‘Revolution,’ and ‘HMX 6644’ were intermediate and did not differ from each other.
‘BSS 518’ produced the most small fruit pounds per acre (24,336). ‘HMX 6646,’ ‘HMX 6644,’ and ‘Polaris’ produced the next greatest amount of small pounds per acre (15,581-19,079). ‘Alliance,’ ‘HMX 7648,’ ‘Wahoo,’ and ‘Revolution’ produced the fewest pounds of small fruit per acre (10,880-13,026). There was no effect of variety on production of pounds of medium, large, or select fruit per acre.
There was a slight effect of variety on total pounds of pepper produced per acre. ‘HMX 6646’ and ‘BSS 518’ were not statistically different from each other and produced 42,673 and 41,064 pounds per acre. ‘Wahoo,’ ‘HMX 7648,’ and ‘Alliance’ produced the fewest pounds per acre (30,076-31,133). The least significant difference for total pounds per acre was 9,405 pounds.
There was a highly significant effect of treatment on average fruit weight. ‘Alliance,’ ‘HMX 7648,’ ‘Polaris,’ ‘Revolution,’ and ‘HMX 6646’ had an average weight of 0.4-0.42 pounds. ‘HMX 6644’ and ‘Wahoo’ had an average weight of 0.38 pound. ‘BSS 518’ had an average weight of 0.32 pound.
55
Bell Pepper Cultivars in 2007 Trial 1. BSS 518 2. Revolution 3. Alliance 4. HMX 6646 5. HMX 6644 6. Wahoo 7. HMX 7648 8. Polaris
56
Small Pumpkin Cultivar Trial Using No-Till Culture in Southern Illinois
S. Alan Walters, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Introduction Although small diameter ornamental pumpkins are often referred to as “pie pumpkins,” they are not grown for consumption purposes. These small pumpkins are becoming an important part of the industry, especially in those markets that cater to school groups during the autumn months, since they are a perfect size for small children to hold and carry. Therefore, a small trial was conducted to compare several “pie pumpkins” for yield and quality characters.
Materials and Methods This study was conducted during 2006 at the Southern Illinois University Horticulture Research Center in Carbondale, Illinois. The test was set up as a randomized complete block design with four replications. Five pie pumpkin cultivars were evaluated: Cannonball, Ironman, Mystic Plus, Pik-A-Pie, and Touch of Autumn.
Pumpkins were grown in a greenhouse until the 2 to 3 leaf-stage and then transplanted on June 30 into a no-till harvested wheat field. Plots were 20 feet long with plants spaced 2 feet apart in the row, allowing 10 plants per plot. Center-to-center row spacing was 5 feet. Prior to pumpkin transplanting, all weeds were killed with 0.78 lb./A a.e. glyphosate; and, two days later, Strategy (clomazone + ethalfluralin) was applied pre-emergence at 2.5 qts./A. Pumpkins were transplanted the day after Strategy application. Pumpkins were fertilized with 40 lbs./A N, 48 lbs./A P, and 88 lbs./A K on July 15 and with 50 lbs./A N on August 10. Admire was applied as a drench at 20 oz./A during transplanting to provide insect control for the first month. Starting 30 days after transplanting, insect and disease pests were controlled by spraying recommended rates of Asana and Cuprofix MZ Disperss + Topsin M once a week for the duration of the experiment. No supplemental irrigation was used.
Foliar diseases were rated in early September each year with 0 = none, 1 to 3 = low, 4 to 6 = moderate, and 7 to 9 = high. Pumpkins were harvested on September 12, with fruit numbers and weights recorded for each plot. The diameter of each harvested pumpkin was then measured in inches and recorded. An overall fruit quality rating based on shape and appearance for each plot was then determined ranging from 1 to 3 = poor, 4 to 6 = average, and 7 to 9 = excellent.
Data were subjected to analysis of variance procedures using the general linear models procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.) appropriate for a randomized complete block design to determine the effects of cultivar on the various variables evaluated. Fisher’s Least Significance Difference (LSD) at P ≤ 0.05 was used to make comparisons among cultivars.
Results Although Mystic Plus and Pik-A-Pie had high foliar disease symptoms, Touch of Autumn had the most with several dead plants observed in each plot (Table 1). Conversely, Cannonball and Ironman had the least amount of foliar disease.
57
Pik-A-Pie, Ironman, and Cannonball provided the highest quality fruits, while Mystic Plus and Touch of Autumn had similar lower ratings (Table 1). Pik-A-Pie typically produced fruits that were flattened in shape, light to medium orange in color, and had a longer handle than most others evaluated. Cannonball and Ironman were hardshell types with rounded, medium to dark orange colored fruits having a short-thickened handle. Mystic Plus produced medium to dark orange rounded fruits that were somewhat flattened at each end having a nice straight, sturdy handle. Touch of Autumn fruit were typically small, light to medium orange, and round to elongated in shape with a long, thin handle.
Table 1. Evaluation of pie pumpkin cultivars for foliar disease resistance, fruit quality, and yield parameters, and fruit per plant during 2006.
Cultivar (seed source)z Foliar Diseasey
Fruit Quality
Fruit no./A
Fruit Wt.
(lbs.)/A
Average Wt.
(lbs.)/frt
Fruit no./plant
Mystic Plus (SW) 6.8 ab 6.3 a 8,422 ab 27,907 b 3.3 b 1.9 ab Pik-A-Pie (RU) 6.6 ab 7.7 b 8,712 b 26,615 b 3.1 b 2.0 b Ironman (SW) 5.0 a 7.8 b 7,841 ab 22,107 b 2.8 b 1.8 ab Cannonball (SW) 5.4 a 7.3 ab 5,663 a 14,931 a 2.6 b 1.3 a Touch of Autumn (SW) 8.1 b 6.1 a 9,293 b 13,417 a 1.4 a 2.1 b
zCultivars are ranked according to fruit weights (lbs./A). Means followed by the same letter within a column do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. yFoliar disease: 0 = none, 1 to 3 = low, 4 to 6 = moderate, and 7 to 9 = high.
Touch of Autumn, Mystic Plus, Pik-A-Pie, and Ironman produced similar high numbers of fruit per acre (Table 1), whereas Cannonball had the least. Mystic Plus, Pik-A-Pie, and Ironman had the highest weights per acre (> 22,100 lbs./A), while Cannonball and Touch of Autumn produced the least (< 15,000 lbs./A). Due to high fruit numbers and low weights generated per acre, Touch of Autumn had the lowest average fruit size at 1.4 pounds; all others produced fruit between 2.6 and 3.3 pounds in size. Cannonball had the lowest fruit numbers per plant, although it did not differ (P > 0.05) from Ironman and Mystic Plus. However, besides Cannonball, all cultivars evaluated produced around two fruit per plant.
Touch of Autumn and Cannonball produced the smallest average diameter fruit at 3.7 and 4.0 inches, respectively; whereas Mystic Plus, Pik-A-Pie, and Ironman were all similar with fruit having an average diameter of about 5 inches (Table 2). All cultivars produced more than 90% of their fruit in the medium category, which was between 3 and 5 inches in diameter. All fruit produced by Cannonball and Ironman were in the medium-diameter classification. Although almost 95% Pik-A-Pie fruit were medium-sized in diameter, the rest were split between small and large diameter categories. Mystic Plus produced 93% medium-sized diameter fruit, with the other 7% in the large-size classification. For Touch of Autumn, 91% of fruit were medium-sized based on diameter, while the other 9% were in the small-size category.
58
Table 2. Average fruit diameter and percent of small, medium, and large diameter fruit for the pie pumpkin cultivars evaluated during 2006.
% Fruit Within Each Diameter Classificationy Cultivarz
Average Fruit Diameter (inches) Small Medium Large
Pik-A-Pie 5.1 b 2.5 a 94.7 a 2.8 a Mystic Plus 5.0 b 0.0 a 92.8 a 7.2 b Ironman 4.9 b 0.0 a 100.0 a 0.0 a Cannonball 4.0 a 0.0 a 100.0 a 0.0 a Touch of Autumn 3.7 a 9.0 b 91.0 b 0.0 a
zCultivars are ranked according to highest average fruit diameter. Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. ySmall diameter is < 3 inches; medium diameter is 3 to 5 inches; and large > 5 inches.
Discussion This study detected differences in foliar disease resistances, fruit yield and quality, and fruit size between the “pie pumpkin” cultivars evaluated. All cultivars would probably be acceptable to grow in southern Illinois, depending on the target market. The attributes and disadvantages of each cultivar evaluated will briefly be discussed.
Although Touch of Autumn produced the highest fruit numbers per acre, it had the lowest yields and smallest-sized pumpkin based on both weight and diameter. This cultivar also produced a moderate quality fruit with an elongated, thin handle. This pumpkin would probably be a good choice for a grower who is marketing directly to small children or school groups. However, due to its high susceptibility to foliar diseases, it would most likely need to be maintained on a rigorous fungicide spray schedule.
Both Cannonball and Ironman are rounded, medium to dark orange, hardshell pumpkin types with a short-thickened handle that are often prized for painting purposes. Fruit size averaged slightly less than 3 pounds for both cultivars. Each was highly consistent with respect to fruit diameter with all fruit within the 3 to 5 inch range. Cannonball produced less fruit yield than Ironman. Cannonball only generated 1.3 fruits per plant, and was next to the lowest for numbers and weights produced per acre. Ironman produced 1.8 fruits per plant and more than 7,800 fruit per acre. However, both had the lowest amount of foliar disease development compared to the other cultivars evaluated.
Mystic Plus and Pik-A-Pie produced similar high yields, numbers of fruits per plant, average pumpkin weights, and fruit diameters (Table 1). These two cultivars produced high fruit numbers (> 8,400/A) and the greatest weights per acre (> 26,600 lbs./A) of all cultivars evaluated in the trial. Both produced approximately 2 fruit per plant, with fruit averaging slightly more than 3 pounds. Although most fruit diameters were in the medium category for both cultivars, Mystic Plus produced 7.2% large-diameter fruit, while Pik-A-Pie was more variable with 2.5% and 2.8% in the small and large categories, respectively. The overall fruit
59
quality of Pik-A-Pie was higher than Mystic Plus. Fruits of Pik-A-Pie were squatty or flattened in shape with a light to medium orange color and long handle. Mystic Plus produced rounded, medium- to dark orange-colored fruit that were somewhat flattened at each end and had a nice straight, sturdy handle. Both Mystic Plus and Pik-A-Pie had fairly high disease ratings and would need to be placed on a fairly rigorous fungicide spray program to prevent foliar disease development.
60
Pumpkin Cultivar Observation Trial, Indiana 2007 Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391
Introduction Pumpkins for decorative use are grown on more than 4,000 acres in Indiana. Combined acreage in Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio represents about a quarter of pumpkins grown for decorative use in the United States. Successful pumpkin production requires the use of cultivars that yield well and produce pumpkins of the size, shape, color, and quality demanded by the market. There is keen interest in cultivars that also show resistance to powdery mildew. This trial was conducted to observe the performance of jack-o-lantern, pie, and mini-pumpkin cultivars in northern Indiana.
Materials and Methods The trial was conducted at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center on a Tracy sandy loam with 2.4% organic matter and 57 ppm phosphorus (P), 139 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), 750 ppm calcium (Ca), and pH 6.7. Winter wheat planted in fall 2006 following a soybean crop was killed with glyphosate (0.75 lb. ae/A) on May 9, 2007 and incorporated on May 22. A total of 80 lbs./A N was applied; half from urea broadcast on June 7 and the remainder from urea ammonium nitrate injected in early July. Pumpkins were planted on June 8 using a modified John Deere Maximerge 7000 planter and dropping seeds by hand into the seed tube. Each pumpkin cultivar was planted in a plot 36 feet long by 27 feet wide with two rows spaced 9 feet apart. Each mini-pumpkin cultivar was planted in a single row, with two cultivars in a 36-foot by 27-foot plot. Weeds were controlled with the preemergence herbicide Strategy® (ethalfluralin+clomazone) applied at 4 oz./A on June 11, hoeing and hand weeding in mid-July, and cultivation between plots. Overhead irrigation was applied on June 11 to incorporate Strategy® and during the season as needed. Pumpkins were thinned to achieve the desired stand of 12 plants per row for jack-o-lantern pumpkins (1,075 plants per acre), and 24 plants per row for pie and mini-pumpkins (2,150 plants per acre). The insecticide Arctic® 3.2 EC (permethrin) was applied at 4 oz./A on July 3 for squash vine borer and on August 27 for squash bug. Fungicides were applied as follows to manage powdery mildew, downy mildew, plectosporium, and other diseases: July 21 Topsin M® 0.5 lb./A and Bravo Ultrex® 1.6 lbs./A.; July 27 Ranman® 2.5 oz./A and Bravo Ultrex®; August 3 Bravo Ultrex® and Tanos® 8 oz./A; August 11 Bravo Ultrex® and Previcur Flex® 1.2 pt./A; August 13 Quadris® 13 oz./A; August 16 Bravo Ultrex® and Ranman®; August 27 Bravo Ultrex®, Topsin M®, Previcur Flex®. Pumpkin plant vigor was evaluated on September 1 using a scale of 9=extremely vigorous to 1=very low vigor. Pumpkins were harvested on September 5-6, and 28. Harvested fruit were graded into marketable orange (at least one-half orange), marketable green (full size and starting to turn but less than one-half orange), and cull. Fruit that collapsed before the first harvest were not included in the cull category. The number and weight of pumpkins in each group were recorded and used to calculate average fruit size and percent of total yield in each category. On September 15, pumpkins from the first harvest were evaluated for color, shape, suture depth, peduncle length, width and health, uniformity, and overall quality, and vines were rated for powdery mildew.
61
Results and Discussion The growing season was dry at first, averaging less than a 1 /2 inch of rain weekly for the latter half of June and first half of July. July was cool: temperatures averaged 2°F to 4°F below normal, and there was only one week when temperatures exceeded 90°F. August was wet and warm, with more than 9 inches of rain and high temperatures reaching 90°F every week except one. Pumpkins emerged quickly and grew well. Fruit set began in mid-July. By the first harvest in early September, pumpkin fruit were either more than one-half orange, or had not yet started to turn. Dry weather in September with high temperatures at or above 90°F every week except one provided good conditions for growth and maturation of pumpkins set later in the summer.
Table 1 reports yield measurements, vine ratings, and fruit quality observations. Without replication it isn’t possible to judge the repeatability of any differences observed in this trial, but when considered together with information from other trials the information should be useful.
Pumpkins fell into six groups based on fruit size. Six entries averaged nearly 20 pounds or more: Gold Medal, Mr. Wrinkles (SSX 5019), SSX 5121, HSR 7010, HSR 7020, and HSR 7007. All of these entries except HSR 7010 had very vigorous vines; HSR 7010 vines were dark green and tall, but not as spreading as the others. The three HSR entries had low levels of powdery mildew; SSX 5121 a little bit more, and Mr. Wrinkles and Gold Medal had higher levels of the disease. Gold Medal was the earliest of this group, with 66% of marketable yield harvested on September 5-6, and HSR 7020 and HSR 7007 the latest, both with less than 40% of marketable yield harvested on September 5-6. The HSR entries were lighter orange and HSR 7007 and HSR 7020 had shallower sutures than the others in this size group. Mr. Wrinkles and SSX 5121 had deep sutures. Gold Medal and SSX 5121 had the best peduncles of this group. SSX 5121 received the highest rating for uniformity in this group, and it and Mr. Wrinkles were the top two for overall fruit quality.
Five entries averaged 17- to 18-pound pumpkins: Gold Medallion, Spartan, RPX 1295, Appalachian and HMX 6685 (Warlock). RPX 1295 and Appalachian both had greater than 18% culls, higher than any other entries in the trial. Many of the culls were due to a hole approximately 3/8 inch in diameter that penetrated into the rind and appeared to be caused by an insect, although none were present at the time. Later in the season a similar hole was observed with squash vine borer larva. Since most of the culls were harvested on September 5-6, all the entries in this group had a similar percentage of fruit mature on the first harvest date. Gold Medallion and Appalachian had very extensive vines; the other entries had less vigorous vine growth. HMX 6685 had the lowest level of powdery mildew in this group, followed by Spartan. RPX 1295 and HMX 6685 received the best ratings for peduncle health in this group. RPX 1295 and Spartan were judged to be the most uniform in size and shape. RPX 1295 received the highest rating for overall fruit quality, followed by Spartan and HMX 6685. HMX 6685 was notable for its hard shell, which gave it a bumpy, rough surface. It did not show symptoms of bacterial fruit spot, which were common on fruit of other varieties in the first harvest.
Seven entries averaged 13- to 16-pound pumpkins: Gold Challenger, 20 Karat Gold, Gladiator, HMX 6686 (Magic Wand), Magic Lantern, RPX 1626, and HSR 7018. Gold Challenger was the earliest, with 64% of fruit marketable and orange at the first harvest. Gladiator and RPX 1626 were the latest, with under 36% of fruit marketable and orange at the first harvest. By September 28, Gladiator still had nearly 50% of fruit less than half orange. RPX 1626 and Gladiator also
62
had the most vigorous vines in this group; the other entries were not as extensive. Powdery mildew was lowest on HMX 6686, followed by Gladiator and HSR 7018. Gold Challenger and 20 Karat Gold received the best ratings for peduncles in this group, followed by RPX 1626 and HMX 6686. Gladiator was the most uniform in size and shape, followed by HMX 6686. Gladiator and Magic Lantern were rated the best overall fruit quality, followed by Gold Challenger and HMX 6686.
Two entries averaged 11-pound pumpkins: 325 and Charisma. Both had vigorous vines and fairly heavy powdery mildew. The peduncles of 325 were a little shorter than might be desirable, and on both cultivars peduncles tended to be shriveled or twisted. Size and shape were very uniform for both cultivars, and they received similar ratings for overall fruit quality.
Three “pie” pumpkins were included in the trial, with average weights between 3 and 4 pounds: HMX 5683 (Gargoyle), Prankster, and SSX 5078. SSX 5078 was later maturing than the other two, with nearly a third of the fruit still green on September 28. SSX 5078 had extremely vigorous vines, HMX 5683 less vigorous, and Prankster the least spreading vines. SSX 5078 had little powdery mildew, HMX 5683 had more, and Prankster had the most. The peduncles of SSX 5078 were fairly long, and tended to twist. HMX 5683 received the highest rating for uniformity and SSX 5078 received the highest rating for overall fruit quality. HMX 5683 was notable for warts on the fruit.
Four entries were in the mini-pumpkin category, with average fruit size less than 1 pound: Kandy Korn, Sweet Lightning, Gold Dust and Gold Speck. Kandy Korn had the smallest vines and the most powdery mildew. The fruit were slightly squat with shallow sutures, and a peduncle of suitable length and width that tended to be in fair condition. The fruit were very uniform. Sweet Lightning is a winter squash that doubles as an ornamental because of its color: white with orange stripes. Vine vigor and powdery mildew were average. The fruit is squat with deep sutures, and a healthy peduncle. Gold Dust vines were similar to Sweet Lightning. The fruit is medium orange, squat with deep sutures and a long peduncle. Gold Speck has smaller vines than Gold Dust, fruit of similar shape and size, but slightly smaller. Sweet Lightning and Gold Dust received the highest overall quality ratings among these four entries.
The fruit sizes in Table 1 used to group the entries for the above discussion were calculated using orange fruit from both harvest dates. This masks some variation in fruit size between the two dates. For the following entries, average fruit size decreased 17% to 29% from September 5-6 to September 28 (values in parenthesis are the average weights of orange fruit on first and second harvests, respectively): Gladiator (16, 11), RPX 1295 (19, 14), Appalachian (18, 14), SSX 5121 (24, 18), 325 (12, 9), RPX 1626 (15, 12). Three entries showed an increase in average fruit size between 16% and 49%: Gold Medallion (17, 20), HSR 7020 (19, 25), and Magic Lantern (12, 17). In cases where a small range in fruit size is desirable, it may be worth selecting varieties that tend to produce fruit of a similar size throughout the growing season.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center staff, managed field operations; N. DeFrank, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, J. Smiddy, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte counties assisted with field work; the seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed.
63
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld, n
umbe
r of f
ruit,
ave
rage
frui
t wei
ght,
and
fruit
qual
ity o
f pum
pkin
cul
tivar
s in
Wan
atah
, Ind
iana
200
7z .
Plan
ts
Mar
keta
ble
Ora
nge
Frui
tx
Tota
l M
arke
tabl
e Fr
uitx
Mkt
. O
rang
e 9/
5
Mkt
. O
rang
e 9/
28
Mkt
. G
reen
9/
28
Cul
l C
ultiv
ar
Seed
So
urce
y
no/
plot
lb
s./
plot
no
/ pl
ot
lbs./
frt
lb
s./
plot
no
/ pl
ot
perc
ent o
f tot
al n
o.
Vine Vigorw
Vine PMRw
Colorw
Shapew
Suturesw
Peduncle Lengthw
Peduncle Widthw
Peduncle Healthw
Uniformw
Overallw
Gol
d M
edal
R
U
24
744
32
23.3
85
8 41
66
12
22
0
9 3
M
S-O
M
6
7 7
4 5
Mr.
Wrin
kles
SK
24
53
0 23
23
.0
800
41
55
0 43
2
9 4
M
R-O
D
4
4 4
7 7
SSX
512
1 SK
24
52
6 23
22
.9
669
33
51
11
27
11
9 6
M
O
D
5 7
7 8
6 H
SR 7
010
HO
24
86
4 39
22
.2
1072
53
51
20
25
4
6 7
L R
-O
M
5 4
3 7
4 H
SR 7
020
HO
24
60
4 28
21
.6
972
47
31
20
35
13
9 8
L S-
R
S 5
4 3
6 4
HSR
700
7 H
O
24
558
28
19.9
82
8 48
37
20
41
2
8 7
L R
-O
S 5
6 5
7 5
Gol
d M
edal
lion
RU
24
40
8 23
17
.7
520
32
58
12
27
3 9
3 M
R
-O
M
5 6
4 3
3 Sp
arta
n SW
24
63
8 36
17
.7
774
46
47
27
20
6 6
6 D
R
M
4
5 4
7 6
RPX
129
5 R
U
24
381
22
17.3
46
3 29
36
25
19
19
6
4 M
R
S
7 6
7 8
7 A
ppal
achi
an
RU
24
36
0 21
17
.1
514
36
39
9 34
18
9
3 M
R
-O
S 5
4 4
6 5
HM
X 6
685
HM
/ST
24
582
34
17.1
77
7 47
55
17
28
0
4 8
M
R-O
S
4 7
7 5
6 G
old
Cha
lleng
er
RU
24
41
4 26
15
.9
446
30
64
15
12
9 5
4 M
R
-O
M
6 6
7 6
6 20
Kar
at G
old
RU
24
50
9 33
15
.4
647
46
42
21
25
12
5 4
M
R-O
S
6 6
7 4
5 G
ladi
ator
H
M/S
T 24
29
2 20
14
.6
560
43
33
8 47
12
8
7 D
S-
R
M
4 5
4 8
7 H
MX
668
6 H
M/S
T 24
53
2 37
14
.4
718
55
40
22
30
8 5
8 D
S
D
4 6
6 7
6 z Pl
ot si
ze: 3
6 fe
et X
27
feet
with
44.
8 pl
ots a
nd 1
,075
pla
nts/
A fo
r pum
pkin
s >
1.5
lbs.
ave
rage
wei
ght;
othe
rwis
e 36
feet
X 1
3.5
feet
and
89.
6 pl
ots a
nd 2
,150
pl
ants
/A.
y HM
=Har
ris M
oran
, HO
=Hol
lar,
JS=J
ohnn
y’s s
elec
ted
seed
s, R
U=R
upp,
SK
=Sak
ata,
ST=
Stok
es, S
W=S
eedw
ay.
x Mar
keta
ble
oran
ge fr
uit i
nclu
des
all f
irm fr
uit a
t lea
st o
ne-h
alf o
rang
e; to
tal m
arke
tabl
e in
clud
es a
ll fir
m fr
uit o
f mat
ure
size
and
star
ting
to tu
rn o
rang
e.
wV
ine
vigo
r on
Sept
embe
r 1, v
ine
resi
stan
ce to
pow
dery
mild
ew, p
edun
cle
and
over
all f
ruit
qual
ity o
n Se
ptem
ber 1
5. R
ated
on
a 1
to 9
sca
le: 2
=low
vig
or, h
eavy
po
wde
ry m
ildew
, sho
rt/th
in/s
hriv
eled
ped
uncl
e, n
on-u
nifo
rm, p
oor q
ualit
y; 5
=ave
rage
; 8=g
ood
vigo
r, lit
tle p
owde
ry m
ildew
, ext
ra lo
ng/e
xtra
thic
k/da
rk g
reen
so
lid p
edun
cle,
ver
y un
iform
, hig
h qu
ality
. Fru
it co
lor:
D=d
ark,
M=m
ediu
m, L
=lig
ht o
rang
e, M
T=m
ulti-
colo
red.
Sha
pe: S
=squ
at, R
=rou
nd, O
=obl
ong.
Sut
ures
: S=
shal
low
, M=m
ediu
m, D
=dee
p.
Cont
inue
d on
nex
t pag
e
64
Tabl
e 1
(con
tinue
d)z
Plan
ts
Mar
keta
ble
Ora
nge
Frui
tx
Tota
l M
arke
tabl
e Fr
uitx
Mkt
. O
rang
e 9/
5
Mkt
. O
rang
e 9/
28
Mkt
. G
reen
9/
28
Cul
l C
ultiv
ar
Seed
So
urce
y
no/
plot
lb
s./
plot
no
/ pl
ot
lbs./
frt
lb
s./
plot
no
/ pl
ot
perc
ent o
f tot
al n
o.
Vine Vigorw
Vine PMRw
Colorw
Shapew
Suturesw
Peduncle Lengthw
Peduncle Widthw
Peduncle Healthw
Uniformw
Overallw
Mag
ic L
ante
rn
HM
/ST
24
560
41
13.7
69
6 52
46
24
19
12
4
5 M
R
-O
M
4 5
5 6
7 R
PX 1
626
RU
24
53
2 39
13
.6
654
51
35
37
22
6 9
5 M
R
-O
M
6 5
6 6
5 H
SR 7
018
HO
24
67
2 50
13
.4
798
62
45
33
19
3 4
7 L
R
S 4
4 4
6 4
325
SW
24
566
51
11.1
63
6 62
58
20
17
6
7 4
M
S-R
D
3
4 3
8 5
Cha
rism
a JS
24
34
1 31
11
.0
457
44
42
23
27
8 8
3 M
S
D
5 4
3 8
5 H
MX
568
3 H
M/S
T 43
40
8 11
3 3.
6 45
6 12
5 67
22
10
1
7 6
L R
S
6 6
5 8
6 SS
X 5
078
SK
48
408
132
3.1
608
196
54
13
32
1 9
8 M
S-
R
M
7 4
4 7
7 K
andy
Kor
n SW
20
72
79
0.
9 72
79
90
1
0 9
2 3
M
S-R
S
5 5
3 7
5 Sw
eet L
ight
ning
R
U
21
82
103
0.8
82
103
83
17
0 0
6 5
MT
S D
6
4 7
5 7
Gol
d D
ust
RU
22
98
21
7 0.
5 98
21
7 76
24
0
0 6
6 M
S
D
7 4
5 5
7 G
old
Spec
k R
U
23
72
198
0.4
72
198
79
21
0 0
4 5
M
S D
8
4 5
5 6
z Plot
size
: 36
feet
X 2
7 fe
et w
ith 4
4.8
plot
s and
1,0
75 p
lant
s/A
for p
umpk
ins
> 1.
5 lb
s. a
vera
ge w
eigh
t; ot
herw
ise
36 fe
et X
13.
5 fe
et a
nd 8
9.6
plot
s and
2,1
50
plan
ts/A
. y H
M=H
arris
Mor
an, H
O=H
olla
r, JS
=Joh
nny’
s sel
ecte
d se
eds,
RU
=Rup
p, S
K=S
akat
a, S
T=St
okes
, SW
=See
dway
. x M
arke
tabl
e or
ange
frui
t inc
lude
s al
l firm
frui
t at l
east
one
-hal
f ora
nge;
tota
l mar
keta
ble
incl
udes
all
firm
frui
t of m
atur
e si
ze a
nd st
artin
g to
turn
ora
nge.
wV
ine
vigo
r on
Sept
embe
r 1, v
ine
resi
stan
ce to
pow
dery
mild
ew, p
edun
cle
and
over
all f
ruit
qual
ity o
n Se
ptem
ber 1
5. R
ated
on
a 1
to 9
sca
le: 2
=low
vig
or, h
eavy
po
wde
ry m
ildew
, sho
rt/th
in/s
hriv
eled
ped
uncl
e, n
on-u
nifo
rm, p
oor q
ualit
y; 5
=ave
rage
; 8=g
ood
vigo
r, lit
tle p
owde
ry m
ildew
, ext
ra lo
ng/e
xtra
thic
k/da
rk g
reen
so
lid p
edun
cle,
ver
y un
iform
, hig
h qu
ality
. Fru
it co
lor:
D=d
ark,
M=m
ediu
m, L
=lig
ht o
rang
e, M
T=m
ulti-
colo
red.
Sha
pe: S
=squ
at, R
=rou
nd, O
=obl
ong.
Sut
ures
: S=
shal
low
, M=m
ediu
m, D
=dee
p.
65
Weed Control in No-Till Pumpkins Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391
Introduction No-till production systems for pumpkins are of interest to Midwest producers, but achieving acceptable weed control without cultivation can be difficult. Research was conducted in Wanatah, Indiana in 2007 to evaluate postemergence weed control options for pumpkins no-till planted into a fall-seeded, spring-killed winter wheat cover crop.
Materials and Methods The trial was conducted at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center on a Tracy sandy loam with 2.4% organic matter and 57 ppm phosphorus (P), 139 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), 750 ppm calcium (Ca), and pH 6.7. Winter wheat was planted in fall 2006 following a soybean crop. In spring 2007 six treatments were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications (Table 1).
Table 1. Tillage and weed control treatments for pumpkins in Wanatah, IN 2007.
Treatment Tillage Weed Control Date of Treatment
1. ST No-till glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A Strategy® 4 pt./A
May 21, June 8 June 11
2. SAN No-till glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A Strategy® 4 pt./A Sandea® 0.5 oz./A
May 21, June 8 June 11 July 13
3. GLY No-till
glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A Strategy® 4 pt./A glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A, row-middles with hooded sprayer
May 21, June 8 June 11 July 13
4. WDY No-till glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A May 21, June 8
5. HW No-till glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A Strategy® 4 pt./A Hand weed
May 21, June 8 June 11 July 13-August 3
6. CT Conventional Strategy® 4 pt./A Cultivation
June 11 July 13
Individual plots were 36 feet long by 27 feet wide with two pumpkin rows spaced 9 feet apart. Wheat in CT plots was treated on May 9 with glyphosate at 0.75 lb. ae/A and incorporated on May 22. A total of 80 lbs./A N was applied; half from urea broadcast on June 7 and the remainder from UAN injected in early July. ‘Magic Lantern’ pumpkins were seeded on June 11 with a modified John Deere Maximerge 7000 planter. After Strategy® application, overhead
66
sprinklers were used to apply 0.33 inch of water. Subsequently pumpkins were irrigated as needed. Pumpkins emerged unevenly, so seedlings were transplanted from plots with high numbers to plots with low numbers and thinned as needed to achieve the desired stand of 24 plants per plot (1,075 plants per acre). The insecticide Arctic® 3.2 EC (permethrin) was applied at 4 oz./A on July 3 for squash vine borer and on August 27 for squash bug. Fungicides were applied as follows to manage powdery mildew, downy mildew, plectosporium, and other diseases: July 21 Topsin M® 0.5 lb./A and Bravo Ultrex® 1.6 lbs./A.; July 27 Ranman® 2.5 oz./A and Bravo Ultrex®; August 3 Bravo Ultrex® and Tanos® 8 oz./A; August 11 Bravo Ultrex® and Previcur Flex® 1.2 pt./A; August 13 Quadris® 13 oz./A; August 16 Bravo Ultrex® and Ranman®; August 27 Bravo Ultrex®, Topsin M®, Previcur Flex®. Weed control, crop vigor, and crop injury were evaluated on July 2, 21, and August 15. On the 9-point rating scale, 9=no weeds present, most vigorous crop, or extreme crop injury; 1=solid stand of weeds, extremely low crop vigor, or no crop injury. Pumpkins were harvested September 6-7, and September 28 . Harvested fruit were graded into marketable orange (at least one half orange), marketable green (full size and starting to turn but less than one half orange), and cull. The number and weight of pumpkins in each group were recorded and used to calculate average fruit size and percent of total yield in each category. Analyses of variance (AOV) were performed and means separated using Fisher’s protected LSD. When the variance for a treatment was zero for a particular response, an AOV was performed without that treatment.
Results and Discussion Stand Establishment and Crop Vigor Emergence ranged from a quarter to more than double the desired stand for individual plots, but there was no effect of tillage or weed control treatment, and after thinning and transplanting to achieve desired stand, differences in emergence did not influence plot yield (data not shown). Observations suggested that low emergence was more likely when the planting slot was on top of a wheat row instead of between two wheat rows.
Significant differences in crop vigor were not recorded until August 15 (Table 2). At that time, pumpkins were most vigorous in CT and GLY plots, followed by HW plots, which did not differ significantly. ST plots were intermediate in vigor between HW and SAN plots. WDY plots were least vigorous. Pumpkins in SAN plots showed some leaf chlorosis recorded as crop injury on July 21 and the injury was still visible on August 15 (Table 2). Pumpkins in GLY plots showed slight leaf chlorosis and distortion recorded as crop injury on both dates.
Weed Control Early season weed control (July 2) was poor with no preemergence herbicide (WDY) and fair to good in other treatments (Table 2). Common lambsquarters and carpetweed were the most prevalent weeds. Some of the common lambsquarters had survived the burndown treatments applied to the winter wheat before planting pumpkins. On July 21, 8 days after postemergence herbicide application or cultivation, overall weed control was best for GLY and CT, but those treatments did not differ significantly from SAN or HW. ST plots had significantly worse control than GLY or CT, but did not differ from SAN or HW. WDY plots had greater weed pressure than any other treatment. Control of common lambsquarters was best in CT, but not significantly different from GLY. Treatments with SAN, HW, and ST didn’t differ significantly for control of common lambsquarters. Control of carpetweed was fair to poor, did not differ among herbicide
67
treated plots, and was worst in WDY. Control of giant ragweed was better in SAN and HW than ST or CT; GLY and WDY treatments were intermediate between SAN and ST. All treatments with preemergence herbicide controlled fall panicum equally well (data not shown). On July 21 control of pigweeds, ivyleaf morningglory, and eastern black nightshade did not differ among treatments (data not shown). By August 15, overall weed control was best in HW, but not significantly different from GLY. CT plots received a lower rating than, but were not significantly less than, GLY, and were also similar to SAN. ST plots were worse than any of the post-treated plots, but better than WDY. Control of common lambsquarters was best in CT, but did not differ significantly from GLY or HW. Those two treatments in turn did not differ from the ST or SAN treatments. The WDY plot had the worst control of common lambsquarters. Control of carpetweed was rated better in GLY than HW or CT, but the difference wasn’t significant. SAN plots were rated lower, but not significantly different from HW and CT. ST and WDY treatments showed similar poor control of carpetweed. Giant ragweed control was similar in all NT plots, and a little worse in CT plots. Pigweed control was best in SAN, but not significantly better than HW or CT. Those two were not significantly better than the GLY or WDY. The ST treatment showed the worst control of pigweeds, but not significantly different from GLY or WDY.
Yield and Fruit Size The number of orange pumpkins was greater in HW and GLY plots than SAN and WDY; CT and ST were intermediate (Table 3). Yield of orange pumpkins in tons per acre followed a similar pattern, but only HW was significantly greater than SAN, and all except SAN were significantly greater than WDY. Average size of an orange pumpkin followed a similar pattern: HW produced the largest pumpkins, but not significantly different from GLY or CT; SAN and WDY had the smallest pumpkins; ST were intermediate in size.
The yield and number of all marketable pumpkins (both orange and green) were greatest in GLY and HW; CT was lower but not significantly different. ST and SAN treatments were intermediate between CT and the lowest-yielding WDY plots. Average fruit size followed a similar pattern.
For WDY plots, more than two-thirds of the total harvest was made up of marketable orange pumpkins picked on September 6-7. This was not significantly different from ST plots at 57%, but was more than any of the other plots, which had between 40% and 45% picked on the first harvest. The percent of all harvested pumpkins that were still green at the second harvest was about a quarter to a third (24% to 31%) for treatments with a postemergence weed control measure; and around 10% for those without (ST and WDY). Cull percentages varied between 7% and 17%, but did not differ among weed control treatments.
Summary Weeds in no-till pumpkins were controlled reasonably well with a preemergence herbicide (Strategy®) followed by a hooded sprayer, row-middle application of a nonselective, nonresidual herbicide (glyphosate). Weed control, yield, and fruit size with this treatment were comparable to conventional tillage with a preemergence herbicide (Strategy®) and one cultivation. Hand weeding could be substituted for the nonselective herbicide with similar results. Other treatments for weed control in no-till pumpkins did not work as well. Use of the preemergence herbicide followed by a selective postemergence herbicide (Sandea®) did not control weeds as well as hand
68
weeding and resulted in crop injury, reduced yield, and smaller fruit. Use of the preemergence herbicide alone resulted in poor weed control and a trend towards reduced yield and fruit size. Even the best weed control treatment in this trial had large weeds present at season’s end. Additional weed control measures would be required to prevent weed seed production and shed. Future trials could include additional herbicides labeled for preemergence or row-middle use, different cover crop management practices, and treatments designed specifically to minimize weed seed additions to the soil.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center staff, managed field operations; N. DeFrank, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, J. Smiddy, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte counties assisted with field work.
69
Tabl
e 2.
Cro
p vi
gor,
crop
inju
ry, a
nd w
eed
cont
rol r
atin
gs fo
r ‘M
agic
Lan
tern
’ pum
pkin
s und
er c
onve
ntio
nal t
illag
e wi
th
pree
mer
genc
e he
rbic
ide
and
culti
vatio
n or
no-
till p
rodu
ctio
n wi
th v
ario
us w
eed
cont
rol p
rogr
ams,
Wan
atah
, Ind
iana
, 200
7z .
Wee
d C
ontr
olx
Cro
p V
igor
C
rop
Inju
ry
Ove
rall
LQ
CW
G
R
PW
Trt.y
7/2
7/21
8/
15
7/21
8/
15
7/2
7/21
8/
15
7/21
8/
15
7/21
8/
15
7/21
8/
15
8/15
ST
5.
2 7.
0 5.
8 bc
1.
0 1.
0 7.
2 ab
5.
8 b
3.5
d 6.
0 cd
4.
8 b
6.2
a 2.
8 c
7.8
bc
7.5
a 6.
2 c
SAN
5.
0 5.
8 4.
5 c
3.5
3.0
7.5
ab
7.0
ab
5.2
c 6.
2 bc
5.
0 b
6.8
a 5.
0 b
8.8
a 8.
2 a
8.8
a
GLY
6.
0 7.
0 7.
2 a
1.8
1.8
8.2
a 8.
0 7.
0 ab
7.
5 ab
7.
0 a
7.8
a 7.
0 a
8.5
ab
8.5
a 7.
2 bc
WD
Y
6.8
7.0
2.8
d 1.
0 1.
0 5.
0 c
3.8
c 1.
8 e
4.8
d 2.
0 c
4.5
b 1.
5 c
8.2
ab
8.0
7.0
bc
HW
6.
5 7.
2 7.
0 ab
1.
0 1.
0 8.
0 6.
8 ab
7.
2 a
7.0
bc
6.8
a 7.
0 a
6.2
ab
8.8
a 9.
0 8.
2 ab
CT
6.5
7.8
7.8
a 1.
0 1.
0 6.
5 b
7.2
a 6.
0 bc
8.
8 a
8.0
7.5
a 6.
0 7.
0 c
6.2
b 8.
0 ab
z 1
to 9
ratin
g sc
ales
. C
rop
vigo
r: 9=
extre
mel
y vi
goro
us, 5
=ave
rage
vig
or, 1
=ext
rem
ely
low
vig
or
C
rop
inju
ry: 9
=cro
p de
ath,
1=n
o in
jury
Wee
d co
ntro
l: 9=
near
ly c
ompl
ete
cont
rol,
1=so
lid w
eed
cove
r M
eans
with
in a
col
umn
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tters
do
not d
iffer
sign
ifica
ntly
at P≤.
05 b
ased
on
Fish
er’s
pro
tect
ed L
SD.
y ST=N
o-til
l see
ded
on Ju
ne 1
1 in
to g
lyph
osat
e-ki
lled
win
ter w
heat
cov
er c
rop,
Stra
tegy
® 4
pt./
A a
fter s
eedi
ng; S
AN
=ST+
Sand
ea® 0
.5
oz./A
on
July
13;
GLY
=ST+
glyp
hosa
te 0
.75
lb. a
e/A
to ro
w-m
iddl
es o
n Ju
ly 1
3; W
DY
=ST
with
out S
trate
gy®; H
W=S
T +
hand
w
eedi
ng Ju
ly 1
3-A
ugus
t 3; C
T=co
nven
tiona
l till
age,
seed
ed Ju
ly 1
1, S
trate
gy® 4
pt./
A a
fter s
eedi
ng, c
ultiv
atio
n on
July
13.
x W
eed
spec
ies:
LQ
=com
mon
lam
bsqu
arte
rs, C
W=c
arpe
twee
d, G
R=g
iant
ragw
eed,
PW
=pig
wee
ds.
70
Table 3. Yield and fruit size of ‘Magic Lantern’ pumpkins under conventional tillage with preemergence herbicide and cultivation or no-till production with various weed control programs, Wanatah, Indiana, 2007.
Mkt. Orange Fruit Total Mkt. Fruit Mkt.
Orange 9/6
Mkt. Orange
9/28
Mkt. Green Cull Treatmentz
no./A ton/A lb./fruit no./A ton/A lb/fruit percent of total no.
ST 1,154 ab 7.0 bcd 12.0 b 1,344 bc 7.9 bc 11.5 a 57 ab 19 a 13 b 12
SAN 919 b 4.7 cd 9.9 c 1,344 bc 6.7 c 9.5 b 41 b 17 ab 26 a 16
GLY 1,434 a 9.6 ab 13.5 ab 2,174 a 14.4 a 13.2 a 45 b 17 ab 31 a 7
WDY 829 b 3.9 d 9.4 c 941 c 4.4 c 9.1 b 72 a 6 c 9 b 13
HW 1,591 a 11.0 a 13.9 a 2,129 a 14.0 a 13.1 a 44 b 24 a 24 a 8
CT 1,165 ab 7.9 abc 13.3 ab 1,826 ab 11.8 ab 12.7 a 44 b 10 bc 28 a 17 zST=No-till seeded on June 11 into glyphosate-killed winter wheat cover crop, Strategy® 4 pt./A after seeding; SAN=ST+Sandea® 0.5 oz./A on 7/13; GLY=ST+glyphosate 0.75 lb. ae/A to row-middles on July 13; WDY=ST without Strategy®; HW=ST + hand weeding July 13-August 3; CT=conventional tillage, seeded June 11, Strategy® 4 pt./A after seeding, cultivation on July 13.
71
Hard-Rinded Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation for Phytophthora Fruit Rot, New York 2007
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901
Phytophthora fruit rot is a destructive disease on pumpkin causing total loss in some areas and has proven to be extremely difficult to control, even with fungicides. The first pumpkins developed with hard rinds (shells) that are like gourds were demonstrated to produce fruit that, when mature, were much less susceptible to Phytophthora fruit rot than pumpkins with conventional rinds in experiments conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center (LIHREC) in 1997-1998. One of these, Lil' Ironsides, is now available commercially. The goal of the experiment conducted in 2007 was to continue a research started in 2006 to examine new pumpkins with this trait plus a cultivar with a tough skin (Cannon Ball), all developed by Harris Moran. The size of fruit for these varieties ranges from 1 to 25 pounds. They were compared to Lil' Ironsides and to two commonly grown cultivars with conventional soft rinds (Mystic Plus and Magic Lantern). All cultivars tested, except Apprentice and Lil' Ironsides, have resistance to another important disease, powdery mildew.
Materials and Methods The experiment was conducted at LIHREC in Riverhead, New York, in a field of Haven loam soil where Phytophthora blight had developed in at least part of the field in 1991 to 1993, 1995 to 1999, and 2003 to 2006. All 13 pumpkin cultivars and experimental lines were seeded in the greenhouse and transplanted into bare ground plots on July 2. Each plot consisted of 10 plants spaced 2 feet apart in two 10-foot rows spaced 8.5 feet apart. The buffer zone between plots was planted with a Multipik summer squash plant in each row. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 400 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on June 27. Water was provided as needed using overhead irrigation. Weeds were controlled by applying Strategy (2 pt/A) between rows after transplanting, cultivating, and hand weeding. Powdery mildew was controlled with Procure (8 fl oz./A) applied on August 17, 26, and September 22; and Quintec (6 fl oz./A) applied on September 1, 10, and 28. Fruit were examined for symptoms of Phytophthora fruit rot and other types of fruit rot on October 3 and 18. Symptoms with spores of the pathogen were considered definitive. Fruit with suspected symptoms were also counted. Fruit were not harvested.
Results and Discussion Rain in August provided favorable conditions for Phytophthora blight in the low end of this experiment, which resulted in death of most plants in replication 4. Few symptoms of fruit rot were observed in the rest of the experiment until the end of September. A high percentage of fruit of the susceptible cultivars, Magic Lantern and Mystic Plus, developed symptoms. Cannon Ball, which has a tough-skin, did not have significantly fewer affected fruit. Apprentice had the fewest fruit with symptoms of Phytophthora fruit rot and the most healthy-appearing fruit. This variety also performed well in 2006. Lil' Ironsides and Iron Man did not perform as well as in 2006, when less than 3% of fruit developed definitive plus suspected symptoms by October 9; however, these did not have significantly more affected fruit than Apprentice in 2007. HMX
72
6685 and HMX 7791 have a new source of the hard shell trait than the other cultivars and experimentals in this experiment. This trait is associated with a softer, carvable, hard shell. These two differed greatly in the proportion of fruit that developed symptoms of Phytophthora fruit rot; however, many fruit of HMX 6685 rotted due to other causes, consequently these two experimentals had a similar low percentage of good fruit.
Acknowledgments This project was supported by funding from New York State Ag & Markets; donation of seed by Harris Moran Seed Company; and pesticides from Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Crop Protection, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.
73
Tabl
e 1.
Occ
urre
nce
of P
hyto
phth
ora
frui
t rot
in h
ard-
rind
ed, t
ough
-ski
nned
, and
con
vent
iona
l sof
t-rin
ded
pum
pkin
cul
tivar
s fro
m
Har
ris M
oran
See
d C
ompa
ny c
ompa
red
on L
ong
Isla
nd, N
ew Y
ork,
200
7.
%
Mat
ure
Frui
t with
Phy
toph
thor
a Fr
uit R
ot
Def
initi
ve S
ympt
oms
All
Sym
ptom
s %
Rot
ten
Frui
t O
ther
Cau
ses
% G
ood
Frui
t Pu
mpk
in
Cul
tivar
O
ct. 3
O
ct. 1
8 O
ct. 3
O
ct. 1
8 O
ct. 1
8 O
ct. 3
O
ct. 1
8
App
rent
ice
0.0
c 0.
5 cz
0.0
b 10
.2
e 15
.2
bc
61.7
a
51.7
a
Lil'
Iron
side
s 1.
4 bc
2.
7 c
1.4
b 36
.2
bcde
29
.4
abc
13.7
bc
d 9.
0 bc
d Ir
on M
an
1.3
bc
19.7
bc
19
.4
ab
34.7
bc
de
3.7
c 18
.3
b
15.7
b
H
MX
468
2 1.
0 bc
1.
0 c
1.9
b 14
.4
de
51.6
a
13
.3
bcd
11.0
bc
d H
MX
468
4 0.
0 c
1.3
c 0.
0 b
26.4
bc
de
37.4
ab
18
.0
b 9.
0 bc
d H
MX
568
3 0.
0 c
2.2
c 0.
0 b
12.3
e
39.5
ab
16
.3
bc
12.7
bc
H
MX
568
0 10
.6
bc
48.1
ab
10
.6
b 62
.4
ab
4.8
c 7.
7 cd
e 5.
7 bc
d H
MX
568
1 6.
5 bc
12
.1
bc
10.7
b
23.2
cd
e 27
.6
abc
6.3
de
6.7
bcd
HM
X 6
685
3.7
bc
14.4
bc
3.
7 b
18.1
de
40
.4
ab
5.3
de
4.0
cd
Can
non
Bal
l 14
.5
bc
20.8
bc
47
.9
a
58.3
ab
c 1.
7 c
7.0
de
6.0
bcd
Mag
ic
Lant
ern
19.9
ab
c 27
.9
bc
19.9
ab
42
.0
abcd
e 21
.8
abc
6.0
de
4.3
cd
Mys
tic P
lus
43.5
a
45
.6
ab
46.3
a
49.5
ab
cd
0.0
c 5.
7 de
6.
3 bc
d H
MX
779
1 27
.8
ab
76.2
a
27
.8
ab
76.2
a
0.0
c 3.
7 e
1.7
d P-
valu
e
0.07
47
0.01
24
0.03
57
0.01
41
0.01
70
< 0.
0001
<
0.00
01
z Num
bers
in e
ach
colu
mn
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent f
rom
eac
h ot
her a
ccor
ding
to F
ishe
r's p
rote
cted
LS
D (P
=0.0
5) e
xcep
t the
firs
t col
umn.
Mea
n se
para
tion
valu
es a
re in
clud
ed fo
r the
firs
t var
iabl
e.
74
Powdery Mildew Resistant Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901
Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY There are many pumpkin cultivars now on the commercial market that are advertised as having resistance to powdery mildew. Previous experiments have demonstrated that the level of resistance among these cultivars can be highly variable. In this study, nine Halloween-type pumpkin cultivars plus two specialty-type decorative squashes, One Too Many and Sweet Lightning, were evaluated for their ability to resist powdery mildew relative to two standard pumpkin cultivars without known genes for resistance, Fantasia and Sorcerer. Sweet Lightning is edible as well as ornamental.
Materials and Methods A field experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Seeds were sown on June 1 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted into black plastic mulch on June 14. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 400 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on May 16. Additional fertilizer (N-P-K 46-0-0) at 30 lbs./A was injected through the drip irrigation system on July 9 and 30. Water was provided as needed through drip irrigation lines placed beneath the mulch.
During the season, weeds were controlled with Strategy (2 pt/A) applied on June 1 between the rows of black plastic mulch, hand weeding, and mowing. Cucumber beetles were managed with Admire 2F applied after transplanting as a soil drench around transplants (0.02 ml/plant) on June 21 and with Asana XL 9.6 oz./A applied to foliage on July 16. No fungicides were applied specifically for powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): Forum 4.16SC (6 oz./A) on July 16, Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl. oz./A) on August 12, Acrobat 50 WP (6.4 oz./A) on August 19, and Previcur Flex 6 F (1.2 pt/A) on August 29. Neither disease developed before the end of this experiment.
Plots were two adjacent rows each with four plants spaced 2 feet apart. Rows were spaced 8.5 feet apart. A plant of Multipik summer squash, a susceptible variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
Upper and lower surfaces of 50 old leaves were assessed for powdery mildew on July 27. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was assessed when colonies could not be counted accurately because they had coalesced and/or were too numerous. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Powdery mildew control was calculated relative to the average severity value for Sorcerer.
Pumpkin fruit were harvested and weighed in September. Unmarketable fruit were counted.
75
Results and Discussion All cultivars evaluated for powdery mildew resistance exhibited control of powdery mildew on upper leaf surfaces relative to the susceptible variety Fantasia on July 27, which was early in powdery mildew development, except 20 Karat Gold. All cultivars, except 20 Karat Gold and King Midas, exhibited control on lower surfaces. These two also did not exhibit control when compared to Sorcerer and Howden in 2006. However, powdery mildew was significantly more severe on the upper surface of old leaves of Fantasia (16.8%) than of Sorcerer (6.2%), and numerically more severe on lower surfaces (23% versus 9%). None of the evaluated cultivars were significantly less severely infected on both leaf surfaces than Sorcerer. Interestingly, Wee-B-Little was the only cultivar that was less severely affected on upper surfaces. This cultivar was not bred to have resistance, but it has exhibited resistance in previous experiments conducted in New York and elsewhere. The cultivars evaluated exhibited a range in fruit size and quality.
Acknowledgments This project was supported by funding from the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grants Program; donations of seed by Harris Moran Seed Company, Seedway, and Siegers Seed Company; and donations of pesticides by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Cerexagri, DuPont Crop Protection, ISK Biosciences Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.
76
Table 1. Control of powdery mildew and yield for Halloween-type pumpkin and specialty squash cultivars compared on Long Island, New York, 2007. The last two entries are the standard pumpkin cultivars without resistance included for comparison. The two entries above these are specialty squashes.
Powdery Mildew Control (%)y Marketable Fruit
Pumpkin Cultivar
Seed Source Upper Leaf
Surface Lower Leaf
Surface #/plant Weight (lbs.)/ plant
Wee-B-Little SI 99.9 cz 99.8 b 3.9 ab 2.2 e Rockafellow SI 98.4 bc 99.3 b 3.3 b 5.3 cd Magician HM 96.8 bc 98.1 b 1.4 cd 13.6 a Spartan SW 97.0 bc 95.6 b 0.9 de 8.2 bc Iron Man HM 91.6 bc 95.6 b 2.1 c 7.2 bc Prankster SI 70.4 bc 73.9 b 1.4 cd 3.8 de Super Herc HM 45.5 bc 62.9 b 0.7 de 8.9 b King Midas SI 52.0 bc 32.6 ab 1.0 d 12.1 a 20 Karat Gold SI 19.5 ab 0 a 0.8 de 8.0 bc Sweet Lightning SI 97.6 bc 98.9 b 4.3 a 4.4 de One Too Many SI 96.2 bc 98.8 b 0.2 e 2.1 e Fantasia (Std) SI -- a -- a 0.8 de 8.3 b Sorcerer (Std) HM -- bc -- ab 0.8 de 7.8 bc
P-value 0.0208 0.0261 <0.0001 <0.0001 yControl based on severity of powdery mildew on old leaves on July 27 relative to the average value for Fantasia and Sorcerer, the two standard varieties without known genes for resistance to powdery mildew. zNumbers in each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other according to Fisher's protected LSD (P=0.05).
77
Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation in Ohio, 2007 Bob Precheur, Jim Jasinski, Mac Riedel,
Landon Rhodes, Mike Kelly, and Alvaro Trierweiler Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science, Southwest Extension IPM, Department of Plant
Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 Introduction Pumpkins are the third largest fresh market vegetable in Ohio with nearly 7,000 acres in production. Pumpkins account for 10% to 40 % of annual gross income for some vegetable producers. It is important for our producers to use cultivars that consistently produce high yields of quality fruit. Of equal importance is the need to incorporate new cultivars into the program that provide good disease tolerance in order to reduce pesticide input and production costs while maintaining high quality. This project was supported in part by a research grant from the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program.
Methods Eighteen cultivars were evaluated at the OARDC Western branch in South Charleston, Ohio. Prior to planting, 100 lbs./A of actual N, P2O5, and K2O were applied. An additional 30 lbs./A pounds of actual N was sidedressed prior to vine tip. All plots were transplanted on May 30, 2007. All transplants were germinated in 72 cells deep, 10 days prior to transplanting. Admire, for cucumber beetle and bacterial wilt control, was applied to the seedling trays one day prior to transplanting. Plots were 30 feet long with 10 feet between rows and 4 feet between plants in the row. Strategy was applied for weed control pre-planting. The experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design with four replications. Trickle irrigation was available for all plots and was used two or three times per week from late June through August. A standard disease control program included the fungicides Cabrio on July 25, Manex + Nova on August 2, Quadris Opti on August 9 and 24, Bravo + Procure on August 16 and September 14, and Pristine on September 4. A boom sprayer with cone nozzles at 40 psi was used for fungicide application. A standard insect control program included Pounce on June 21, August 1, and August 25 to control beetle feeding on fruit. Fruit were harvested on September 11.
Results Cultivars are listed in Table 1 ranked according to tons produced per acre. Super Freak, a specialty mid-size (8-10 pounds) pumpkin, was planted one month later on July 7. Two small types (< 4 pounds per fruit) and two mini-pumpkins are at the bottom of the table.
The highest yielding varieties (>20 pounds per fruit) in terms of tons per acre were: Mr. Wrinkles, SSX 5120, Midas Touch, Gold Medal, RPX 1295, and HMX 6685, with SSX 5120 having the highest average fruit size at 36 pounds. In second place was Mr. Wrinkles with 26 pounds per fruit.
The highest yielding varieties in the 16- to 20-pound fruit size category were: HMX 6686, Hannibal, 20 Karat Gold, and Gold Challenger. HMX 6686 produced 24 tons. Hannibal, 20
78
Karat Gold, and Gold Challenger all produced fruit greater than 16 pounds, with yields ranging from 16 to 17 tons per acre.
In the small types, SSX 5078 and HMX 5683 produce nice, small, round, 4-pound fruit. HMX 5683 has attractive, slight bumpiness.
Powdery mildew tolerance was evaluated four times near the end of the season but only the last evaluation on September 4 is listed in Table 1. The only varieties with 30% or less of the bottom of the leaves infected by powdery mildew were: HMX 6686, HMX 6685, SSX 5078, Gold Speck, and Gold Dust. SSX 5120 was more than 30% at 31.5%, but significantly lower than other varieties, with infection ranging from 58% to 78%.
Individual pictures of each variety plus comparison views among varieties are available at the VegNet Web site: http://vegnet.osu.edu.
79
Tabl
e 1.
Pre
limin
ary
2007
Pum
pkin
Cul
tivar
Eva
luat
ion,
Sou
th C
harle
ston,
OH
.
ID
# V
arie
ty
Mar
keta
ble
Ora
nge
Frui
t/A
Mar
keta
ble
Ora
nge
Tons
/A
Ave
rage
Fr
uit
Size
(lb
s.)
Frui
t D
iam
eter
(in
)
Pow
dery
M
ildew
Se
veri
ty
Top,
%
Leaf
C
over
age1
Pow
dery
M
ildew
Se
veri
ty,
Bott
om
% L
eaf
Cov
erag
e1
Dow
ny
Mild
ew %
Le
af
Cov
erag
e 2
Mic
rodo
-ch
ium
3 V
irus
4 So
urce
17
HM
X 6
686
2,89
7 24
16
.8
12
1.6
13.8
10
.6
3.2
2 H
M
8 M
r. W
rinkl
es
1,73
8 22
26
.1
13
4.8
66.7
17
.1
2.6
2 SK
10
SS
X 5
120
1,15
9 21
35
.8
12.7
1.
8 31
.5
11.2
2.
5 2
SK
11
Mid
as T
ouch
1,
979
21
22
11.9
4.
8 63
.8
19
2.7
1.8
SI
2 G
old
Med
al
1,88
3 20
22
12
.7
3.6
68.4
15
.8
2.5
1.9
RU
5
RPX
162
6 2,
752
19
13.8
10
.7
0.6
38.5
8.
7 2.
4 1.
8 R
U
7 R
PX 1
295
1,69
0 17
20
12
.3
6.2
66
12.5
3.
2 1.
7 R
U
12
Han
niba
l 1,
979
17
17.4
11
.4
4.3
74.5
19
.5
3.2
1.7
SI
16
HM
X 6
685
1,78
6 17
20
12
.4
0.5
9.8
9.7
2.4
1.9
HM
4
20 K
arat
Gol
d 2,
028
16
15.7
10
.8
4.4
58.2
12
.3
4.3
1.9
RU
6
Gol
d C
halle
nger
1,
786
16
18.1
11
.6
4.3
79
17.5
3.
7 1.
9 R
U
20
Supe
r Fre
ak-K
nuck
le
Hea
d 6,
180
10
8 10
.4
0 72
.5
8.5
1.4
2 SI
21
Supe
r Fre
ak -
Goo
sebu
mps
1,
883
8 9
8.9
1.1
66.5
1.
9 1.
6 2
SI
9 SS
X 5
078
5,98
7 11
3.
6 6.
7 0.
33
27
20.8
3.
2 1.
7 SK
18
H
MX
568
3 4,
538
9 4
6.4
1.4
62.3
15
.4
2.7
1.9
SK
1 G
old
Spec
k 24
,864
5
0.4
4 0
15
6.3
1.4
2 R
U
3 G
old
Dus
t 26
,264
7
0.5
4 1.
2 9.
8 0.
9 1.
9 2
RU
LSD
0.0
5%
6511
8.
2 3.
7 0.
9 5.
7 18
.3
13.1
1.
2 0.
3
Key
To
Dis
ease
Rat
ings
1 Po
wde
ry m
ildew
: onl
y 4th
ratin
g (S
epte
mbe
r 4, 2
007)
is s
how
n. P
erce
ntag
e of
leaf
are
a in
fect
ed o
n to
p an
d bo
ttom
of t
he le
af. A
vera
ge o
f thr
ee ra
nker
s, ea
ch
usin
g th
ree
leav
es p
er p
lot.
2 Dow
ny m
ildew
: per
cent
age
of le
af a
rea
infe
cted
. Ave
rage
of t
hree
rank
ers,
eac
h us
ing
thre
e le
aves
per
plo
t. 3 M
icro
doch
ium
(ple
ctos
poriu
m o
r whi
te sp
eck)
. Rat
ing
scor
e on
folia
ge, p
etio
les,
vine
s, a
nd fr
uit:
0 =
none
, 1 =
low
, 2 =
med
ium
, 5=
mod
erat
e, 7
= h
igh,
10
= de
ath.
4 V
irus:
pre
senc
e or
abs
ence
of v
irus o
n fo
liage
or f
ruit:
1 =
viru
s pre
sent
. 2 =
no
viru
s.
80
Evaluation of Summer Squash Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007
Brad R. Bergefurd and Dr. Shawn Wright The Ohio State University South Centers
1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661-9749 Phone: (740) 289-3727
This trial evaluated 10 summer squash cultivars for their suitability in southern Ohio.
Methods Seeds were planted May 21, 2007, on raised beds (double rows 12 inches apart, 18 inches in row) covered with black plastic mulch with trickle irrigation under the plastic. Plots rows were 5 feet apart. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. The field is located in southern Ohio at the Ohio State University South Centers research and demonstration plots. One hundred units of N were applied prior to laying the plastic mulch. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program following OSU Bulletin #672, The Vegetable Production Guide, was followed, on a 7- to 10-day schedule.
Results There was a highly significant effect of variety on the number of small fruit produced per acre. ‘Fortune’ produced more than all other varieties, an average of 68,095 small fruit per acre. ‘RSQ 6004,’ ‘HMX 7729,’ and ‘RSQ 6006’ produced significantly fewer small fruit per acre (an average of 26,191, 28,810, and 30,238 respectively). There was a significant effect of variety on weight of small fruit per acre. ‘Fortune’ produced an average of 21,954 pounds per acre, which was greater than the other varieties. ‘HMX 7729’ and ‘RSQ 6004’ produced the fewest pounds of small fruit (9,100-9.600 pounds). The other varieties, ‘Leopard,’ ‘HMX 5703,’ ‘RSQ 4145,’ ‘Payroll,’ ‘RSQ 6006,’ and ‘RSQ 2054,’ were not statistically different from each other and produced between 10,000 and 15,000 pounds per acre.
There was no effect of variety on the number, or pounds (18,500-24,000 pounds), of medium fruit produced per acre. There was no effect of variety on the number of large fruit produced per acre, and only a slightly significant effect of treatment on weight of large fruit produced. ‘Leopard’ and ‘Payroll’ produced more total pounds of large fruit than ‘HMX 5703,’ ‘HMX 7729,’ ‘RSQ 4145,’ ‘Fortune,’ ‘RSQ 6006,’ and ‘RSQ 6004.’
There was a slightly significant effect of variety on total number of fruit produced per acre. ‘Fortune’ produced a mean of 141,667 fruit per acre. There was no significant difference between the other varieties (mean total fruit number ranged from 80,000-107,143; LSD=27,213). There was no significant effect of variety on total pounds per acre produced. Total pounds ranged from a mean of 53,144 to 70,907 pounds.
The average weight of fruit was statistically different. ‘RSQ 4145’ and ‘Fortune’ averaged 0.51 and 0.49 pound per fruit respectively. The other varieties ranged in weight from 0.62 to 0.69 pound per fruit, and were not statistically different from each other (LSD= 0.6 pound).
81
Powdery Mildew Resistant Winter Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901
George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Cultivars with resistance are a valuable tool for managing powdery mildew, a very common disease that can reduce yield (fruit quantity and/or size) and market quality (flavor, color, storability, etc). Several winter squash cultivars recently became available on the commercial market advertised as having resistance to powdery mildew. These cultivars include hybrid and open-pollinated lines of butternut, acorn, and specialty squashes. The goal of this study was to evaluate two solid green acorn-type winter squash cultivars and two striped acorn-types with powdery mildew resistance for their ability to resist this disease as well as their yielding ability relative to Table Ace, a standard cultivar lacking powdery mildew resistance that is commonly grown.
Materials and Methods A field experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Seeds were sown on May 30 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted into black plastic mulch on June 19. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 1,000 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on May 11. Water was provided as needed through drip irrigation lines placed beneath the mulch.
During the season, weeds were controlled with a clover living mulch broadcast seeded between plastic mulch on May 25, hand weeding, and mowing. Cucumber beetles were managed with Admire 2F applied after transplanting as a soil drench around transplants (0.02 ml/plant) on June 21 and with Asana XL 9.6 oz./A applied to foliage on July 16. No fungicides were applied specifically for powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): Forum 4.16SC (6 oz./A) on July 16, Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl. oz./A) on August 12, Acrobat 50 WP (6.4 oz./A) on August 19, and Previcur Flex 6F (1.2 pt/A) on August 29. Neither disease developed before the end of this experiment.
Plots were three adjacent rows each with four plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A plant of Multipik summer squash, a susceptible variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
Upper and lower surfaces of leaves were assessed for powdery mildew beginning on August 2. Fifteen old leaves were selected on August 2 in each plot based on leaf appearance and position in the canopy. On August 17 old and mid-aged leaves were assessed. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was assessed when colonies could not be counted accurately because they had coalesced and/or were too numerous. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Average severity for the entire
82
canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the entire assessment period. Powdery mildew control was calculated for upper and lower leaf surfaces using AUDPC values relative to the average AUDPC value for Table Ace.
Winter squash fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured on September 10. Three representative fruit per plot were selected for measuring fruit width, fruit length, and cavity width and for assessing sugar content, which was done with a hand-held refractometer using fruit samples that were frozen and thawed first. Fruit characteristics were also evaluated and overall appearance was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1= poor and 5 = best.
Results and Discussion Only Autumn Delight exhibited control of powdery mildew on upper and lower leaf surfaces relative to Table Ace based on AUDPC values, with control on upper surfaces only significant at P=0.09. In sharp contrast, these cultivars all effectively suppressed powdery mildew in a similar experiment conducted in 2006, providing 63-93% control on upper leaf surfaces and 51-92% control on lower surfaces.
Celebration produced the greatest number and weight of marketable fruit. Fruit of Harlequin had the highest sugar content. Fruit of Table Star and Celebration also had significantly higher sugar content than fruit of Table Ace; Autumn Delight was the only cultivar with fruit that did not have significantly higher sugar content than Table Ace. External appearance was rated 4 for all. Autumn Delight was the only one rated 5 for cavity size, internal appearance, and also flesh color, while most of the rest were rated 4. Fruit of Celebration were orange, yellow, green, and white speckled. Harlequin fruit were green and white. The other three cultivars produced dark green fruit. Table Star had a white ring around the stem resembling a star.
Acknowledgments This project was supported by funding from the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grants Program; donations of seed by Seedway; and donations of pesticides by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Cerexagri, DuPont Crop Protection, ISK Biosciences Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.
83
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld a
nd c
ontro
l of p
owde
ry m
ildew
for w
inte
r squ
ash
culti
vars
com
pare
d on
Lon
g Is
land
, New
Yor
k, 2
007.
The
firs
t two
en
tries
are
gre
en a
corn
-type
cul
tivar
s with
resi
stanc
e to
pow
dery
mild
ew li
sted
in o
rder
of d
iseas
e co
ntro
l. T
hey
are
follo
wed
by tw
o str
iped
aco
rns,
then
the
conv
entio
nal g
reen
aco
rn c
ultiv
ar in
clud
ed fo
r com
paris
on.
Mar
keta
ble
Frui
t Po
wde
ry M
ildew
Con
trol
(%)
Win
ter
Squa
sh
Cul
tivar
Seed
So
urce
N
umbe
r/
Plan
t
Wei
ght/
Plan
t (lb
s.)
Frui
t Le
ngth
(in
)
Cav
ity
Wid
th (i
n)
Sucr
ose
(%)
Upp
er L
eaf
Surf
ace
Low
er L
eaf
Surf
ace
Aut
umn
Del
ight
SW
1.
7 cz
2.9
c 12
.6
b 6.
7 c
7.6
cd
71.1
b
73.7
c
Tabl
e St
ar
SW
1.9
c 2.
9 c
9.3
c 8.
0 a
9.8
ab
23.7
ab
36
.1
b
Har
lequ
in
SW
3.6
b 4.
2 b
8.7
c 7.
3 b
10.7
a
33.7
ab
30
.4
ab
Cel
ebra
tion
SW
4.2
a 5.
0 a
9.5
c 7.
3 b
8.6
bc
9.5
a 13
.1
ab
Tabl
e A
ce (S
td)
SW
1.6
c 2.
8 c
14.0
a
7.3
b 7.
0 d
0 a
0 a
P-va
lue
< .0
001
< .0
001
<.00
01
0.00
13
0.00
23
0.09
33
0.00
64
z Num
bers
in e
ach
colu
mn
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent f
rom
eac
h ot
her a
ccor
ding
to F
ishe
r's p
rote
cted
LS
D (P
=0.0
5), e
xcep
t for
pow
dery
mild
ew c
ontro
l on
uppe
r lea
f sur
face
s.
84
Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901
George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Powdery mildew is an annual production problem for growers of cucurbit crops throughout the United States, reducing yield potential and fruit quality when not controlled. Effective control with fungicides alone has been challenged by development of fungicide resistance to key chemistries. Recently a variety of zucchini cultivars have become available that are advertised with resistance to this disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate six green zucchini cultivars, three experimental lines, two grey zucchini cultivars (Amatista and Topazio), and one golden yellow cultivar (Sebring Premium) with resistance by comparing them to a susceptible cultivar that is an industry standard (Zucchini Elite). Romulus PM is open-pollinated. Many cultivars evaluated also have resistance to virus. For Judgement III and Justice III this resistance is genetically engineered.
Materials and Methods A field experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Seeds were sown on June 8 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted into black plastic mulch on June 18. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 400 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on May 16. Additional fertilizer (N-P-K 46-0-0) at 30 lbs./A was injected through the drip irrigation system on July 9 and 30. Water was provided as needed through drip irrigation lines placed beneath the mulch.
During the season, weeds were controlled with Strategy (2 pts./A) applied on June 1 between the rows of black plastic mulch, hand weeding, and mowing. Cucumber beetles were managed with Admire 2F applied after transplanting as a soil drench around transplants (0.02 ml/plant) on June 21, and with Asana XL 9.6 oz./A applied to foliage on July 16. No fungicides were applied specifically for powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): Forum 4.16SC (6 oz./A) on July 16, Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl. oz./A) on August 12, Acrobat 50 WP (6.4 oz./A) on August 19, and Previcur Flex 6F (1.2 pts./A) on August 29. Neither disease developed before the end of this experiment.
Plots were two adjacent rows each with six plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. One yellow squash plant of a susceptible cultivar (Multipik) was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
Upper and lower surfaces of 15 old and mid-aged leaves were assessed for powdery mildew on July 26, 14 days after fruit were harvested for the first time. Ten old, 10 mid-aged, and 10 young leaves were examined on August 9 in each plot. Leaves were categorized based on leaf physiological appearance and position in the canopy. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were
85
counted; severity was assessed when colonies could not be counted accurately because they had coalesced and/or were too numerous. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. Powdery mildew control was calculated for upper and lower leaf surfaces relative to Zucchini Elite using severity values for August 9. A square root transformation was used when needed prior to analysis to achieve homogeneity of variance.
Zucchini fruit were harvested and weighed a total of eight times: July 12, 17, 20, 24, 27, and 31, and August 3 and 7. Fruit were separated into marketable and unmarketable grades based on length, then weighed. There were no unmarketable fruit with blemishes due to disease or insect feeding. Fruit characteristics were evaluated and overall appearance was rated on a scale of 1 to 9; 1= poor, 5 = marginal, 7 = acceptable, and 9 = good.
Results and Discussion Only Romulus PM and Amatista exhibited control of powdery mildew on upper and lower leaf surfaces relative to Zucchini Elite based on severity on August 9. The table contains the six standard green zucchini squash cultivars listed in order based on severity on lower leaf surfaces on August 9, followed by the three experimental lines, the golden yellow cultivar (Sebring Premium), the two grey zucchinis, then the standard cultivar included for comparison. Results were substantially different in 2006 when a similar experiment was conducted with most of these cultivars. Severity on lower leaf surfaces on August 9, 2006 was 0% to 5% for the resistant cultivars and 23% for Zucchini Elite. Other powdery mildew resistant squash types and pumpkins evaluated in additional experiments at LIHREC in 2007 also exhibited reduced suppression. The pathogen may have evolved to overcome the main resistant gene in these cultivars. Romulus PM was less severely affected by powdery mildew than the other cultivars likely because it is homozygous resistant and has at least one modifier gene.
HMX 7729 produced the greatest number of marketable fruit, but did not differ significantly in yielding ability from Justice III and RSQ6006. Romulus PM had the lowest yield, as in 2006. This was partly due to delayed fruit production: this is the only cultivar with no fruit at the first and second harvest dates. Sebring Premium also had low yield initially.
All cultivars produced fruit with acceptable characteristics, which were rated at least 7 out of 9, except for Romulus PM.
Envy Wide, dark green fruit that curve slightly toward the stem end. Glossy appearance. Bulbous blossom end, light green stem, and some ridges near the stem end. Overall appearance 8.5.
HMX 7729 Fruit of this variety were green with many small, light green flecks. The stem was small and a light green color. Fruit was medium in length and width. Bulbous blossom end that tapered slightly toward the stem end. 8.4 overall appearance rating.
86
Judgement III Green fruit had many large, light green flecks and slight ridges. Stem was medium in size, and green speckled in color. Semi-gloss appearance. Bulbous blossom end that tapers to a slightly bulbous stem end. Overall appearance rated 8.1.
Justice III Semi-glossy, green fruit with white flecking. Fruit were long and slender with some ridging. Light green stem and a slightly bulbous stem and blossom end. Appearance was rated 8.
Payroll Fruit were grass green with many small white flecks and had a semi-gloss appearance. The fruit curved slightly and had some ridges. Green stem. Slightly bulbous blossom end that constricts at the neck and continues into a slightly bulbous stem end. Overall appearance rated 8.4.
Romulus PM This variety produced glossy, dark green fruit with a few small light green flecks. Fruit was much shorter and wider than the other varieties evaluated and had pronounced ridges. Many were lumpy in appearance. The stem was small and light green. Rated 6.4 in overall appearance.
RSQ6004 Dark green fruit had more of a matte appearance. Tiny, light green flecks. Light green stem. Fruit tended to be long and wide and were mostly uniform from end to end. Nice shape and size. Overall appearance rated 8.1.
RSQ6006 Long and slender fruit were dark green with a matte finish. Tiny, light green flecking throughout and a light green stem. Bulbous blossom end that slightly tapers to the stem end. Rated 8.3 in overall appearance.
Wildcat Dark green, glossy fruit with a few small light green flecks. Light green speckled stem, slight ridging, and a slightly bulbous blossom end. Fruit were long and slender. Rated 8.5 in overall appearance.
Sebring Premium Golden yellow fruit with a green and yellow stem. Semi-glossy appearance with ridges on the fruit. Very uniform width the length of the fruit. Rated 7.8 in overall appearance.
Amatista Yields of this variety were low. Fruit was short and wide with a semi-gloss appearance. Green skin that appeared almost white due to numerous white flecks. Bulbous blossom end that tapers to the stem end. A useful variety for specialty markets. Rated 7 in overall appearance.
Topazio Very small fruit was light green with numerous white specks that gave the fruit an almost whitish/gray color. Yields were also very low in this variety in comparison to the other varieties
87
evaluated. Fruit were short and wide with a very bulbous blossom end tapering towards the stem end. Slight ridging. Rated 7 in overall appearance.
Zucchini Elite Semi-glossy green fruit with many, small light flecks giving the fruit a much lighter appearance. Light green stem and a slightly bulbous blossom end. Ridging near the stem end. Rated 7.6 in overall appearance.
Acknowledgments This project was supported by funding from the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grants Program; donations of seed by Harris Moran Seed Company, Siegers Seed Company, Sygenta Seeds, and Territorial Seed Company; and donations of pesticides by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Cerexagri, DuPont Crop Protection, ISK Biosciences Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.
88
Tabl
e 1.
Con
trol o
f pow
dery
mild
ew a
nd y
ield
for z
ucch
ini c
ultiv
ars c
ompa
red
on L
ong
Isla
nd, N
ew Y
ork,
200
7. T
he fi
rst n
ine
entri
es
are
conv
entio
nal,
gree
n fru
it ty
pe c
ultiv
ars w
ith re
sista
nce
to p
owde
ry m
ildew
liste
d in
ord
er o
f dise
ase
cont
rol.
Nex
t is a
gol
den
yello
w cu
ltiva
r, th
en tw
o gr
ey zu
cchi
ni c
ultiv
ars,
and
lastl
y th
e su
scep
tible
cul
tivar
incl
uded
for c
ompa
rison
.
Pow
dery
Mild
ew C
ontr
ol (%
) M
arke
tabl
e Fr
uit (
July
12-
Aug
. 7)
Upp
er L
eaf S
urfa
ce
Low
er L
eaf S
urfa
ce
Zucc
hini
C
ultiv
ar
Seed
So
urce
Ju
ly 2
6 A
ug. 9
Ju
ly 2
6 A
ug. 9
N
umbe
r/
Plan
t W
eigh
t (lb
s.)
/Pla
nt
Frui
t W
eigh
t (lb
s.)
Rom
ulus
PM
TR
99
.9
d z
91.4
c
99.1
d
98.8
e
1.44
f
1.14
d
0.83
a
Payr
oll
SY
83.8
bc
d 32
.5
ab
77.2
bc
d 57
.6
cd
3.85
bc
2.
27
bc
0.56
ef
Wild
cat
SW
94.0
cd
17
.1
ab
89.6
cd
32
.2
abcd
3.
73
bc
2.19
bc
0.
60
cde
Just
ice
III
SI
99.0
d
13.7
ab
85
.3
cd
48.3
bc
d 4.
00
ab
2.18
bc
0.
54
f
Judg
emen
t III
SI
0
a 13
.5
ab
23.0
ab
25
.9
abcd
3.
25
cde
1.88
c
0.58
de
f
Envy
SY
72
.6
abcd
0
a 61
.5
abc
0 a
3.88
bc
2.
39
ab
0.61
cd
e
HM
X 7
729
HM
86
.0
bcd
8.9
ab
64.1
ab
c
9.3
abc
4.56
a
2.74
a
0.
60
cde
RSQ
6004
SY
41
.6
abcd
15
.8
ab
81.0
bc
d 31
.7
abcd
3.
46
bcd
2.27
bc
0.
66
bc
RSQ
6006
SY
80
.6
bcd
2.1
a
81.4
bc
d 3.
9 ab
4.
04
ab
2.54
ab
0.
63
cd
Sebr
ing
Prem
ium
SW
0
ab
1.3
a 70
.7
abcd
16
.0
abc
3.
85
bc
2.74
a
0.71
b
Am
atis
ta
SY
95.7
cd
41
.6
b 88
.3
cd
63.1
d
2.77
e
0.61
e
0.25
g
Topa
zio
SY
84.9
bc
d 11
.5
ab
89.6
cd
14
.9
abc
2.94
de
0.
69
e 0.
26
g
Zucc
hini
Elit
e H
M
0 ab
c
0 a
0 a
0 ab
3.
65
bc
2.34
ab
0.
66
bc
P-va
lue
0.06
8 0.
0001
0.
0417
0.
005
< .0
001
< .0
001
< .0
001
z N
umbe
rs in
eac
h co
lum
n fo
llow
ed b
y th
e sa
me
lette
r are
not
sign
ifica
ntly
diff
eren
t fro
m e
ach
othe
r acc
ordi
ng to
Fis
her's
pro
tect
ed
LSD
(P=0
.05)
.
89
Sweet Corn Hybrid Disease Nursery — 2007 Jerald Pataky, Marty Williams*, Bryan Warsaw, Mike Meyer, and Jim Moody*
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 *USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
Common rust, northern leaf blight (NLB), Stewart's wilt, maize dwarf mosaic (MDM), and southern leaf blight (SLB) can reduce yields of susceptible and moderately susceptible sweet corn hybrids. These diseases can be managed more efficiently if reactions of hybrids are known.
Resistance and susceptibility are the two extremes of a continuum of host reactions to diseases. Resistance is a measure of the ability of the host to reduce the growth, reproduction, and/or disease-producing abilities of the pathogen, thus resulting in less severe symptoms of disease. Major genes for resistance, such as Rp1-D, Ht1, or Mdm1, can prevent or substantially limit disease development if specific virulence (i.e., races) is not prevalent in pathogen populations. Hybrids with major gene resistance usually have clearly distinguishable phenotypes. Major gene resistance may be ineffective if specific virulence occurs, such as the Rp1-D-virulent race of the common rust fungus and race 1 of the northern leaf blight fungus.
In the absence of effective major gene resistance, disease reactions often range from partially resistant to susceptible. Hybrids can be grouped into broad classes such as resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderate (M), moderately susceptible (MS), and susceptible (S) based on severity of disease symptoms. This procedure produces statistically “overlapping” groups without clear-cut differences between groups (e.g., the hybrid with least severe symptoms in the MR class does not differ significantly from the hybrid with the most severe symptoms in the R class). Thus, disease reaction categories are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, a consistent response over several trials produces a reasonable estimate of the disease reaction of a hybrid relative to the response of other hybrids. These reactions can be used to assess the potential for diseases to become severe and affect yield.
Sweet corn hybrids can also be damaged by certain post-emergence herbicides. Reactions of hybrids to herbicides can be classified in a manner similar to disease reactions. This information can be used to identify sweet corn hybrids with the greatest risk of being damaged and to develop lists of hybrids on which specific herbicides should not be used.
This report summarizes the reactions of 249 sweet corn hybrids to Stewart’s wilt, common rust, NLB, MDM, and SLB based on their performance in the University of Illinois sweet corn disease nursery in 2007. The reactions of these hybrids to post-emergence applications of Callisto (mesotrione) and Laudis (tembotrione) herbicides also are reported.
Materials and Methods Hybrids Two hundred and forty-nine sweet corn hybrids and three popcorn lines were evaluated in 2007. This included 118 sh2 hybrids, 66 se hybrids, and 65 su hybrids. Hybrids with multiple endosperm mutations were placed in the most appropriate of these three categories. Standard hybrids with relatively consistent reactions to common rust, Stewart's wilt, NLB, MDM, and
91
SLB (Table 1) were included to compare the results of the 2007 nursery to those from previous nurseries.
Table 1. Reactions of sweet corn hybrids included as standards in the 2007 disease nursery. Stewart’s Wilt Rust Races (07) NLB (Races 0 & 1) MDM A&B SLB Hybrid
Prior 07 Rating Prior avir G D Prior 07 Rating Prior 07 Rating Prior 07 Rating
277A 4 5 3.5 6 6 7 6 5 5 31% 9 7 78% 3 7 4.5 Ambrosia 2 2 1.7 5 6 7 6 5 6 35% 9 9 95% 6 . . Bonus 1 1 1.3 Rp Rp Rp 3 5 4 26% 1 2 7% 7 6 4.3 El Toro 4 2 2.0 Rp Rp Rp 8 7 5 30% 2 3 18% 4 3 2.5 Eliminator 2 1 1.3 Rp Rp Rp 7 6 6 32% 1 2 2% 6 8 5.0 Green Giant 27 2 2 1.7 2 2 3 2 3 3 22% 8 9 95% 4 2 2.0 GH 1829 5 3 2.5 Rp Rp 5 Rp 6 5 29% 9 9 91% 6 4 3.0 Jubilee 9 9 4.8 5 7 7 7 8 9 45% 9 9 98% 4 3 2.8 Miracle 1 3 2.5 2 4 3 3 3 4 27% 9 9 98% 3 3 2.5 Sensor 5 4 3.0 4 4 4 3 4 4 24% 9 9 98% 3 4 3.0 Snow White 7 4 3.2 9 9 9 9 7 6 33% 3 15% 3 1 1.8 Tuxedo 3 3 2.7 3 3 4 3 2 3 22% 9 9 100% 1 1 1.8
Prior: reaction in previous years (1984-2004). 07: reaction in 2007, 1=resistant, 3=moderately resistant, 5=moderate, 7=moderately susceptible, 9=susceptible. Rating: 2007 mean rating, 1 to 9 for Stewart’s wilt and SLB; 0% to 100% severity of NLB, 0 to 100% incidence of MDM. Experiment Design and Procedures Each disease or herbicide trial was a separate experiment with two replicates of hybrids arranged in randomized complete blocks. Each trial was split into two main blocks: sh2 hybrids and su or se hybrids. Each experimental unit was a 12-foot row with about 18 plants per row. Seven trials were planted May 21 on the University of Illinois South Farms, including: Stewart’s wilt, D-virulent common rust, NLB, SLB, MDM, and evaluations of two herbicides, Callisto (mesotrione) and Laudis (tembotrione). Two trials in which avirulent and G-virulent common rust were evaluated were in isolated fields planted June 6. Hybrid responses to Callisto also were evaluated from all of the above mentioned disease trials. Two additional trials to evaluate hybrid responses to Laudis were planted June 21.
Inoculation and Disease Assessment Trials were inoculated with: Erwinia stewartii (Stewart’s wilt), Exserohilum turcicum (NLB) races 0 and 1, Bipolaris maydis (SLB) race O, maize dwarf mosaic (MDM) virus strains A and B (SCMV), and three isolates of Puccinia sorghi: Rp1-D/Rp-G-avirulent (avirulent), Rp1-D-virulent (D-rust), and Rp-G-virulent (G-rust). Plants were inoculated with E. stewartii on June 15 and 19 by wounding leaves in the whorl and introducing bacteria into wounds. A mixture of conidia of races 0 and 1 of E. turcicum were sprayed into plant whorls June 19, 22, and 27, and July 6. Conidia of B. maydis were sprayed into whorls on June 20, 22, and July 3. Plants were inoculated with MDMV-A and B on June 13 and 20 by wounding leaves in the whorl and introducing viruses into wounds. Plants in the Stewart’s wilt trial also were mistakenly inoculated with MDM on June 18. In the trials inoculated with each of the races of rust, urediniospores of P. sorghi were sprayed into plant whorls. D-virulent was sprayed on June 18, 21, and 29, and July 3; G-virulent was sprayed on June 25, and July 2, 5, and 12; and avirulent was sprayed on June 25 and 27, and July 5.
92
The total number of plants and the number of plants infected with MDM were counted July 11 and 19 in the MDM and Stewart’s wilt trials, respectively. Incidence (%) of MDM-infected plants was calculated for each hybrid from totals from both replicates of both trials. For the other diseases, symptom severity was rated. Each plot (row) was given a separate rating by two people. Stewart's wilt was rated July 13 using a scale from 1 (symptoms within 2 cm of inoculation wounds) to 9 (severe systemic infection or dead plants). Percent leaf area infected with common rust was rated on August 9 in the D-virulent trial, August 13 in the G-virulent rust trial, and August 14 in the avirulent trial. Leaf area infected with NLB was rated from 0% to 100% on August 8. Hybrids with chlorotic lesions typical of Ht-resistance also were noted. Symptoms of SLB were rated on a 1 to 9 scale (very mild to severe) on August 10.
Herbicide Application and Assessment Post-emergence herbicides were applied when plants ranged from the 4- to 5-leaf stages and from about 8 to 12 inches. Laudis was applied at a 2X rate of 6 oz./A with a 1% (v/v) crop oil concentrate (COC) and 2% (v/v) 28% UAN. In one trial, Callisto was applied at a 2X rate of 6.0 oz./A with 1% (v/v) COC and 3.6% (v/v) 28% UAN. In all other trials, Callisto was applied at the recommended rate of 3.0 oz./A with 1% (v/v) (COC) and 3.6% v/v 28% UAN. All fields were treated pre-emergence with metachlor + atrazine.
Corn injury was rated visually 7 days after application. Each row was classified from 0 to 10, where 0 was no injury apparent, 5 was moderate injury, 9 was severe injury, and 10 was dead plants. Injury was then calculated as a percentage of the most severe rating of 10.
Data Analysis Disease and herbicide injury ratings were analyzed by ANOVA. Hybrid reactions to diseases and herbicides were classified from 1 (highly resistant) to 9 (highly susceptible) according to standard deviations from the mean (z-scores), Bayesian least significant difference (BLSD) separations (k=100), ranks of standard hybrids, and/or the FASTCLUS procedure of SAS using various groupings of 6 to 12 clusters.
Results and Discussion Symptoms ranged from slight disease to severely infected plants (Table 3). Reactions of standard hybrids to Stewart’s wilt, common rust, NLB, MDM, and SLB were within expected ranges (Table 1). The criteria for classifying hybrid reactions are listed in Table 2. Table 3 includes reactions and actual ratings of 249 hybrids based solely on the 2007 trial. This is the only data we have for some of these hybrids. For hybrids that have been evaluated previously, an assessment of disease reactions based on multiple trials is most representative of hybrid performance.
93
Table 2. Criteria for classifying hybrid reactions to diseases in the 2007 nursery. Classification of Reaction
Rp Resistant Moderately Resistant Moderate Moderately Susceptible Susceptible Disease (rating)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rust: avirulent (%) 0 < 10 < 18 < 24 < 28 < 31 < 34 < 37 < 40 ≥ 40 Rust: G-virulent (%) 0 < 20 < 23 < 28 < 32 < 36 < 39 < 45 ≥ 45 Rust: D-virulent (%) 0 < 17 < 22 < 26 < 29 < 33 < 38 < 45 ≥ 45 NLB races 0&1 (%) < 10 < 19 < 24 < 28 < 32 < 37 < 40 < 44 ≥ 44 Stewart’s wilt (1-9) < 1.6 < 2.3 < 2.8 < 3.3 < 3.6 < 4.1 < 4.6 < 5 ≥ 5 MDM-A&B (%) 0 < 10 < 20 < 30 < 50 < 70 < 80 < 90 ≥ 90 SLB (1-9) < 2 < 2.5 < 3 < 3.5 < 4 < 4.5 < 5 < 6 ≥ 6 Callisto (%) 0 < 5 < 10 < 20 < 30 < 50 < 70 ≥ 70 Laudis (%) 0 ≥ 70
See text for description of disease and herbicide assessments.
Stewart’s Wilt Stewart’s wilt ratings ranged from 1.2 to 6.0 with a mean of 3.1. Stewart’s wilt ratings were confounded somewhat by the presence of MDM throughout the trial. Thirty-four hybrids that were rated 4.6 or higher (i.e., frequent systemic infection) were classified as moderately susceptible to susceptible (7 to 9). Hybrids that were rated from 2.8 to 4.5 (i.e., occasional systemic infection) were classified as moderate (4 to 6). Symptoms of Stewart’s wilt were minor on 47 hybrids classified as resistant or R/MR (1 or 2), and on 43 hybrids that were classified as moderately resistant (3). Nine hybrids that were rated 1.5 or below were not different from Mirai 334 BC and Tamarack, the hybrids with the least severe symptoms. These included: Bonus, Eliminator, EX 0870 5640, EX 0873 5807, EX 0875 5780, EX 0875 5821, GG Code 175, GG Code 197, and GG Code 199. Yield is affected minimally if Stewart’s wilt is non-systemic (i.e., ratings <3).
Northern Leaf Blight Severity of NLB (% leaf area symptomatic) ranged from 1% to 56% and averaged 28% in the 2007 trial. In comparison, severity ranged from 8% to 86% and averaged 38% in 2005. NLB severity was 37% or higher on 38 hybrids with moderately susceptible to susceptible reactions (7 to 9). One-hundred-and-forty-eight hybrids with 24% to 36% severity were classified between MR and MS (4 to 6).
Severity was less than 10% on seven hybrids classified as resistant (1), including: 0874 5919, 7641WMR, ACX 5009 MRY, ACX 5010 MRBC, BSS 1693, Calvary, and Ranger. Twenty-one hybrids with 10% to 18% leaf area infected were classified as R/MR (2). Thirty-four hybrids that were classified as moderately resistant (3) had 19% to 23% leaf area infected. Effects of NLB on yield are minimal when severity is below 20%.
Forty-eight of the 62 hybrids classified from R to MR for NLB had chlorotic lesions indicative of an Ht gene that conveyed resistance to E. turcicum race 0. Only three of 38 hybrids classified as MS to S had Ht-gene resistant reactions. NLB severity averaged 21% and ranged from 1% to 54% on 87 hybrids with Ht-gene reactions. Severity averaged 31% and ranged from 10% to 56% for 158 hybrids without Ht-gene reactions.
94
Maize Dwarf Mosaic Incidence of MDM-infected plants 2 weeks after inoculation (about 6- to 7-leaf stage) ranged from 0% to 100% and averaged 69%. Fourteen hybrids classified as resistant were completely asymptomatic, including: BC 503, Evita, EX 0873 5414, EX 0873 5807, EX 0875 5780, EX 0875 6690, Exp 17, Exp 26, Garrison, GG Code 186, GG Code 199, HMX 6384, Ranger, and Symmetry. All of these hybrids (except Ranger) also were Rp-resistant to at least two races of P. sorghi. Seven more of these hybids were Rp-resistant to all three rust races (avirulent, G-virulent, and D-virulent). Twenty-six additional hybrids were rated R-MR with less than 10% symptomatic plants; and 33 hybrids were rated from MR to M with 10% to 49% MDM-infected plants. Of the 73 hybrids rated from R to M with less than 50% MDM-infected plants, 66 were Rp-resistant to common rust and 22 were resistant to all three races.
Southern Leaf Blight SLB ratings (1 to 9 scale) ranged from 1.3 to 6.8, and averaged 3.3. Ratings were 5 or above for 51 hybrids classified as moderately susceptible to susceptible to SLB (reactions of 7 to 9). Eighty hybrids with ratings from 3 to 5 were classified between MR and MS (4 to 6). One hundred and three hybrids were classified as R to MR with ratings lower than 3. Thirty-six hybrids with ratings of below 2 were rated R.
Common Rust Fifty-six percent of the hybrids (139 of 249) in the 2007 nursery had an Rp-resistant reaction characterized by the absence of rust pustules. Thirty-four hybrids were Rp-resistant to all three races: avirulent, G-virulent, and D-virulent. These hybrids probably carry the Rp1-D gene and an Rp gene that conveys resistance to the D-virulent race (e.g., Rp-G, Rp1-E, or Rp1-I). In some of these hybrids, each inbred parent may contribute a different Rp gene. In other hybrids, one inbred may contribute multiple Rp genes via the compound rust resistance genes in which different combinations of closely linked Rp genes are in coupling phase (e.g., Rp1-DGJ). Eighty-five hybrids were Rp-resistant to the avirulent and G-virulent race, but susceptible to the D-virulent race. These hybrids probably carry the Rp1-D gene. Severity of D-virulent rust on these 85 hybrids ranged from 10% (R-MR) to 54% (S). Twenty hybrids were Rp-resistant to the avirulent and D-virulent races but susceptible to the G-virulent race. These hybrids probably carry the Rp-G, Rp1-I, or Rp1-E genes. Severity of G-virulent rust on these 20 hybrids ranged from 20% (MR) to 43% (MS-S).
In the trial inoculated with avirulent P. sorghi, severity of rust on 113 hybrids that did not have Rp-resistance ranged from 2% to 58%, and averaged 30%. Four hybrids with less than 18% rust were classified as R or R-MR (1 or 2), including Green Giant Code 6, GG Code 27, GG Code 74, and Mirai 148Y. Seven hybrids with 18% to 23% rust were classified as MR (3).
In the trial inoculated with G-virulent P. sorghi, severity of rust on 130 hybrids that did not have Rp-resistance ranged from 15% to 64%, and averaged 33%. Three hybrids with less than 20% rust were classified R-MR (2), including GG Code 74, HY1089OM and Mirai 334BC. Seven hybrids with 20% to 22% rust were classified MR (3), including two hybrids that were Rp-resistant to avirulent and D-virulent rust: GG Code 180 and GG Code 197.
In the trial inoculated with D-virulent P. sorghi, severity of rust on 194 hybrids that did not have Rp-resistance ranged from 10% to 54%, and averaged 29%. Seven hybrids with less than 17%
95
rust were classified MR (2), including GG Code 6, GG Code 27, and five hybrids that were Rp-resistant to avirulent and G-virulent rust: 0874 5919, GG Code 175, Harvest Gold, HM 2390, and Turbo. Twelve hybrids with 17% to 21% rust were classified MR (3) including five hybrids that were Rp-resistant to avirulent and D-virulent rust: Bonus, HMX 7387, Kokanee, Sockeye, and Symmetry.
Reactions to Herbicides Sweet corn hybrids were either uninjured or severely injured by Laudis; whereas a range of responses was observed 7 days after application of Callisto. No visual symptoms of injury from either herbicide were seen on 88 hybrids. An additional 106 hybrids were uninjured by Laudis and had less than 10% injury from Callisto. These 194 hybrids appeared to be tolerant of both herbicides. Fifty-one hybrids were uninjured by Laudis but displayed intermediate levels of injury (10% to 50%) following applications of Callisto. Seven hybrids were severely injured (>50%) by both herbicides, including: 0873 5623, 177A, DM 20-38, HMX 6386S, Merit, Shogun, and XTH 3175. Injury from Laudis and Callisto 7 days after treatment were nearly equal on these seven herbicide-sensitive hybrids; however, by 21 days after treatment; hybrids treated with Callisto appeared to have recovered from herbicide injury, whereas hybrids treated with Laudis were dead or nearly dead. Thus, the most sensitive hybrids in the nursery were injured more severely by Laudis than by Callisto, while hybrids with intermediate reactions to Callisto were uninjured by Laudis. We believe that the seven hybrids sensitive to both herbicides are homozygous for a non-functional, mutant gene on chromosome 5S that regulates cytochrome P450-metabolism of these herbicides. Hybrids with moderate injury from Callisto but no symptoms of injury from Laudis probably are heterozygous for a non-functional, mutant gene and a functional P450 gene on chromosome 5S.
Multiple Disease Resistance Four hybrids in the 2007 nursery were rated R to MR for all diseases and herbicides. BSS 1693, GH 6223, Garrison, and GG Code 199 were Rp-resistant to all three races of rust; resistant to MDMV A&B; moderately resistant to resistant to Stewart’s wilt, NLB and SLB; and tolerant of Callisto and Laudis.
96
T
ab
le 3
. R
ea
cti
on
s o
f s
we
et
co
rn h
yb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Su
ga
ry h
yb
rid
s
su
YS
em
08
74
59
19
Rp
0R
p0
21
61
5H
t2
1.8
88
96
4.0
10
10
su
YS
em
08
75
70
57
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
04
25
Ht
53
.32
26
4.3
10
10
su
YR
og
Bo
ldR
p0
Rp
08
39
21
22
2.2
54
24
3.0
24
10
su
YR
og
Bo
nu
sR
p0
Rp
03
21
42
6H
t1
1.3
27
64
.32
11
0
su
YH
MC
oh
oR
p0
Rp
05
28
73
75
3.3
31
32
2.3
10
10
su
YC
rC
SU
YP
2-3
5R
p0
Rp
06
30
63
63
2.7
25
53
.81
01
0
su
YC
rC
SU
YP
5-1
66
Rp
0R
p0
42
57
37
63
.82
86
4.3
10
10
su
YC
rC
SU
YP
5-1
67
Rp
0R
p0
42
25
30
Ht
21
.79
10
08
5.3
10
10
su
YD
MD
M 2
0-3
8R
p0
Rp
06
31
73
89
6.0
99
88
5.3
98
79
87
su
YC
rE
limin
ato
rR
p0
Rp
07
33
63
21
1.3
22
85
.02
41
0
su
YS
nR
vE
mp
ire
63
24
26
42
57
37
32
.39
10
05
3.8
41
31
0
su
YS
nR
vE
nte
rpri
se
Rp
0R
p0
42
52
16
Ht
22
.22
61
1.8
10
10
su
YC
rE
vita
Rp
0R
p0
62
96
36
32
.71
03
2.5
21
10
su
YS
em
EX
08
30
24
24
Rp
0R
p0
42
43
20
Ht
22
.29
92
96
.31
01
0
su
YS
em
EX
08
32
41
48
Rp
0R
p0
42
56
33
43
.09
99
96
.04
18
10
su
YS
em
EX
08
70
56
40
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
19
Ht
11
.54
28
74
.83
71
0
su
YS
em
EX
08
73
58
07
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
23
Ht
11
.51
09
6.3
21
10
su
YS
em
EX
08
75
57
80
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
02
18
Ht
11
.51
08
5.3
21
10
su
YS
em
EX
08
75
58
21
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
19
Ht
11
.52
48
5.3
24
10
su
YS
em
EX
08
75
66
90
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
05
28
Ht
21
.71
05
3.5
23
10
su
YS
em
EX
84
9 0
23
9R
p0
Rp
07
34
73
96
3.7
91
00
32
.51
01
0
su
YE
xp
11
Rp
0R
p0
52
89
56
74
.29
99
85
.03
61
0
su
YE
xp
23
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
08
41
74
.32
22
2.0
52
61
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e
6
21
73
22
21
63
21
Ht
21
.89
93
32
.81
01
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e
27
21
23
20
21
13
22
Ht
21
.79
95
22
.01
01
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e
74
12
21
83
18
32
40
22
.29
94
64
.01
01
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
62
Rp
0R
p0
73
3.
43
.25
42
.2
11
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
66
Rp
04
25
Rp
04
25
32
.34
21
22
.32
41
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
68
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
05
28
Ht
22
.06
69
11
.82
11
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
75
Rp
0R
p0
21
03
19
Ht
11
.56
50
11
.81
01
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
80
Rp
03
20
Rp
07
39
43
.09
96
64
.02
11
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
86
Rp
0R
p0
42
45
28
21
.71
02
2.3
39
10
La
ud
isA
&B
MD
MV
SL
BC
all
isto
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
Ste
wa
rt's
wil
t
97
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
93
52
84
27
42
45
28
63
.79
98
32
.55
26
10
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
94
Rp
04
25
Rp
03
20
Ht
32
.74
22
11
.53
61
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
97
Rp
03
21
Rp
03
22
Ht
11
.34
23
53
.51
01
0
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 1
99
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
23
Ht
11
.51
02
2.3
10
10
su
YG
GG
G C
od
e 2
01
Rp
07
36
Rp
04
24
32
.54
29
11
.51
01
0
su
YR
og
GH
18
29
Rp
05
29
Rp
05
29
32
.59
91
43
.01
01
0
su
YR
og
GH
21
71
Rp
04
27
Rp
09
45
Ht
43
.03
14
43
.03
61
0
su
YR
og
GH
61
98
Rp
06
35
Rp
09
54
Ht
53
.32
33
2.5
41
31
0
su
YR
og
GH
62
23
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
02
18
32
.73
11
11
.32
41
0
su
YR
og
GH
63
77
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
32
Ht
21
.82
33
2.5
41
51
0
su
YS
em
Ha
rve
st
Go
ldR
p0
Rp
02
13
32
2H
t2
2.2
77
45
3.8
10
10
su
YH
MH
M 2
39
0R
p0
Rp
02
15
84
14
3.0
99
95
3.8
10
10
su
YH
MH
MX
70
18
37
83
95
26
73
83
2.5
99
8.
10
10
su
YH
MH
MX
63
84
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
35
42
.81
01
1.8
10
10
su
YH
MH
MX
73
87
Rp
0R
p0
32
04
24
Ht
32
.72
51
1.8
10
10
su
YH
MH
MX
73
88
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
04
26
53
.33
19
11
.84
13
10
su
YR
og
Ju
bile
e7
34
73
67
33
94
58
4.8
99
83
2.8
41
71
0
su
YH
MK
oka
ne
eR
p0
Rp
03
21
73
94
2.8
99
74
3.3
10
10
su
YH
ML
eg
acy
Rp
0R
p0
42
27
38
53
.39
99
74
.51
01
0
su
YH
ML
um
ina
Rp
0R
p0
63
07
38
63
.89
96
43
.02
11
0
su
YS
em
Me
rit
83
98
39
73
74
26
Ht
43
.09
10
05
3.8
99
19
88
su
YS
em
Me
rku
rR
p0
Rp
06
30
21
6H
t2
1.8
31
18
5.8
24
10
su
YS
nR
vP
relu
de
63
36
35
42
26
34
43
.09
97
43
.01
01
0
su
YH
MS
ocke
ye
Rp
0R
p0
31
99
44
43
.29
10
05
3.8
10
10
su
YC
rT
am
ara
ck
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
34
11
.22
47
4.5
38
10
su
YH
MT
urb
oR
p0
Rp
02
16
52
9H
t3
2.3
31
53
2.5
36
10
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 0
60
7 O
JR
p0
Rp
08
38
73
76
3.8
91
00
96
.82
11
0
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 0
71
2 O
JR
p0
Rp
05
26
53
13
2.3
27
53
.51
01
0
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 1
95
3 O
K6
32
52
84
22
42
5H
t2
1.8
27
11
.52
21
0
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 2
83
0 O
L6
31
53
04
25
63
23
2.7
99
23
2.8
35
10
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 2
83
5 O
L6
32
63
34
22
63
64
2.8
99
76
4.0
38
10
su
YS
nR
vU
Y 3
43
5 O
MR
p0
Rp
07
33
73
74
3.0
99
69
6.0
10
10
su
WR
og
WH
28
01
Rp
0R
p0
95
45
28
22
.29
93
53
.82
21
0
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tS
LB
Ca
llis
toL
au
dis
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
A&
B
98
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Su
ga
ry e
nh
an
ce
r h
yb
rid
s
se
WS
em
08
72
57
07
Rp
0R
p0
42
25
30
22
.09
91
22
.01
01
0
se
WS
em
08
73
53
82
63
36
35
73
38
41
74
.39
94
.1
01
0
se
su
YS
em
08
73
56
23
Rp
0R
p0
42
46
33
42
.82
22
2.3
86
08
52
se
BM
MA
cco
rd8
38
84
27
33
21
84
3.0
99
83
2.8
41
31
0
se
BC
rA
mb
rosia
63
27
36
63
26
35
21
.79
95
.1
01
0
syn
YC
rA
pp
lau
se
52
95
29
73
66
35
53
.59
94
53
.51
01
0
se
WM
MA
ug
usta
63
37
37
73
74
27
32
.79
96
74
.52
11
0
su
se
BR
og
BC
08
08
Rp
04
27
Rp
08
40
53
.58
85
43
.01
01
0
se
YC
rB
od
acio
us
63
16
34
52
86
32
42
.89
98
43
.02
41
0
se
YC
rB
od
acio
us R
MR
p0
Rp
0R
p0
73
85
3.3
42
36
4.3
10
10
se
BM
MB
on
Ap
pe
tit
TS
W7
34
52
88
38
53
16
3.8
99
83
2.5
10
10
se
YM
MB
ree
de
rs C
ho
ice
73
69
50
52
73
24
53
.37
74
43
.31
01
0
se
BM
MB
roca
de
73
56
32
62
94
27
53
.59
99
22
.32
31
0
syn
WC
rC
ap
tiva
te6
31
53
03
17
42
64
2.8
91
00
64
.02
41
0
syn
WC
rC
ind
ere
lla7
34
63
54
24
42
74
3.2
99
62
2.3
24
10
syn
se
BM
MC
oh
asse
t9
45
94
89
51
63
47
4.2
99
05
3.5
10
10
se
YM
MC
olo
row
TS
W7
34
84
37
34
52
95
3.3
91
00
22
.02
41
0
se
BC
rC
SE
BF
5-1
74
42
55
30
63
23
21
32
.59
10
0.
10
10
syn
YC
rC
SY
YF
5-1
83
42
66
33
63
05
31
64
.09
10
0.
10
10
syn
WC
rD
ash
er
52
95
31
52
84
24
43
.09
98
43
.32
31
0
se
WM
MD
en
ali
53
06
35
73
34
27
21
.79
98
74
.54
14
10
se
BM
MD
ou
ble
Ge
m5
29
42
66
29
32
36
3.7
91
00
22
.32
11
0
se
su
YS
em
El T
oro
Rp
0R
p0
83
95
30
Ht
22
.03
18
32
.54
18
10
se
BM
ME
nvo
y7
35
94
87
34
.6
3.8
99
2.
10
10
syn
WC
rE
qu
ino
x7
35
73
65
28
52
84
3.0
99
9.
10
10
su
se
YS
em
EX
08
45
72
99
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
35
43
.08
82
64
.03
81
0
se
YS
em
EX
08
73
54
14
Rp
0R
p0
42
56
32
32
.71
08
5.5
10
10
se
su
YS
em
EX
84
7 5
41
8R
p0
Rp
05
28
63
43
2.3
99
91
1.8
21
10
se
sy
YS
em
EX
93
3 0
10
94
26
32
26
32
63
26
3.7
88
02
2.0
10
10
su
se
WE
xp
10
Rp
0R
p0
73
34
25
32
.59
10
03
2.8
24
10
su
se
BE
xp
21
Rp
06
32
Rp
05
28
43
.29
93
32
.51
01
0
su
se
BE
xp
22
63
36
33
42
52
17
21
.79
92
53
.81
01
0
se
-he
tY
Exp
24
Rp
05
30
Rp
07
39
63
.72
32
2.0
41
81
0
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
99
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
se
YM
ME
xp
. Y
30
74
84
26
52
95
26
52
92
2.0
91
00
11
.84
11
10
se
BM
MF
astla
ne
63
36
35
84
07
37
84
.79
97
.1
01
0
sg
BH
MH
MX
63
58
BE
S7
36
84
19
49
.9
5.2
99
9.
10
10
sg
WH
MH
MX
63
59
WE
S6
31
73
67
36
53
07
4.3
99
0.
10
10
sg
YH
MH
MX
73
61
YE
S5
30
53
17
34
73
76
3.7
26
11
.51
01
0
sg
BH
MH
MX
73
64
BE
SR
p0
Rp
04
24
53
03
2.7
99
96
4.0
10
10
sg
WH
MH
MX
73
67
WE
S7
35
63
56
29
42
72
2.0
91
00
11
.82
11
0
se
YR
og
Ho
ne
y S
ele
ct
73
66
33
52
87
38
42
.89
92
53
.52
11
0
se
BM
ML
uscio
usT
SW
63
26
33
52
74
27
63
.79
94
32
.51
01
0
syn
se
BM
MM
an
ito
u9
43
84
36
30
53
06
4.0
91
00
53
.51
01
0
syn
se
WM
MM
att
ap
ois
ett
73
68
39
73
75
29
63
.79
96
43
.31
01
0
se
YC
rM
ira
cle
42
43
21
31
84
27
32
.59
98
32
.53
71
0
syn
se
WM
MM
isq
ua
mic
ut
83
77
38
73
65
30
53
.39
10
06
4.3
21
10
syn
se
BM
MM
on
tau
k8
39
83
97
35
53
06
3.7
88
76
4.0
21
10
se
BM
MN
ative
Ge
m7
35
94
67
34
.4
3.2
99
2.
10
10
se
BM
MO
va
tio
n6
31
52
85
26
53
06
3.8
99
82
2.0
24
10
syn
BC
rP
olk
a6
31
84
27
36
42
76
3.7
99
8.
10
10
se
BM
MP
recio
us G
em
42
64
27
63
14
27
42
.89
94
22
.04
11
10
sg
BH
MR
efle
ctio
n7
35
52
95
27
32
16
3.7
91
00
43
.01
01
0
sg
BH
MR
eve
latio
n8
39
83
98
43
52
97
4.3
99
8.
10
10
se
BS
em
Se
nso
r4
26
42
53
19
42
44
3.0
99
44
3.0
10
10
se
WM
MS
ha
sta
52
94
27
52
75
31
53
.59
95
43
.31
01
0
se
WM
MS
pri
ng
Sn
ow
52
85
28
73
75
30
63
.79
94
85
.51
01
0
se
YC
rS
ug
ar
Bu
ns
42
73
20
63
24
25
53
.59
92
.1
01
0
se
WM
MS
ug
ar
Pe
arl
63
37
36
63
05
29
74
.59
92
64
.01
01
0
se
sy
BS
em
Syn
erg
y3
23
42
45
26
42
6H
t2
2.2
88
63
2.8
10
10
se
BS
em
Te
mp
tatio
n6
32
73
78
43
63
36
4.0
99
98
5.0
10
10
se
BC
rT
rin
ity
63
39
46
94
94
27
63
.79
10
0.
10
10
se
YM
MT
uxe
do
32
14
24
31
83
22
32
.79
10
01
1.8
21
10
syn
BC
rV
alo
r6
33
52
96
29
52
96
3.8
99
55
3.8
10
10
se
sy
BS
em
Vita
lity
83
88
41
62
95
29
63
.79
90
.1
01
0
su
se
WR
og
WH
11
63
42
76
33
42
35
31
64
.02
82
2.0
52
01
0
se
WM
MW
hite
Ou
t 7
36
73
87
33
63
35
3.5
88
4.
10
10
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
100
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Sh
run
ke
n-2
hyb
rid
s
sh
sy
BS
em
08
73
69
97
Rp
0R
p0
73
34
27
84
.82
73
2.5
41
01
0
sh
2Y
Se
m0
87
4 5
04
0R
p0
Rp
0R
p0
53
12
2.2
88
63
2.8
41
11
0
sh
sy
YS
em
08
75
64
70
52
96
35
52
84
26
63
.79
97
22
.31
01
0
sh
sy
YS
em
08
75
64
76
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
05
28
53
.57
79
22
.35
26
10
sh
2B
Se
m0
87
6 5
39
1R
p0
Rp
0R
p0
42
75
3.5
99
39
6.3
63
21
0
sh
sy
YS
em
08
76
66
23
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
36
43
.02
66
4.0
38
10
sh
sy
YS
em
08
76
71
39
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
04
26
Ht
22
.09
93
64
.02
31
0
sh
sy
YS
em
08
76
71
40
Rp
0R
p0
42
43
20
Ht
43
.09
10
05
3.5
10
10
sh
sy
YS
em
08
76
71
41
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
02
12
Ht
22
.29
10
01
1.8
21
10
sh
sy
BS
em
08
76
71
42
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
22
Ht
42
.89
91
43
.02
11
0
sh
sy
BS
em
08
76
71
43
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
24
Ht
42
.89
95
22
.31
01
0
sh
sy
BS
em
08
76
71
44
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
02
17
Ht
22
.09
98
64
.01
01
0
sh
2Y
IFS
17
7 A
53
05
31
63
25
30
Ht
32
.59
96
53
.89
74
85
0
sh
2Y
IFS
17
9 A
73
46
33
62
93
22
32
.79
96
53
.54
11
10
sh
2Y
IFS
18
2 A
Rp
0R
p0
52
62
17
Ht
22
.29
94
11
.52
21
0
sh
2B
IFS
27
3 A
42
44
25
63
29
54
74
.28
85
74
.82
41
0
sh
2B
IFS
27
7 A
63
37
38
62
95
31
53
.57
78
74
.54
12
10
sh
2W
AC
76
41
W M
RR
p0
73
8R
p0
11
Ht
32
.79
95
22
.02
11
0
sh
2W
AC
81
01
W M
RR
p0
Rp
04
22
21
7H
t4
3.0
91
00
11
.81
01
0
sh
2B
CA
CA
CR
71
56
BC
Rp
06
35
Rp
02
10
43
.29
95
11
.32
31
0
sh
2Y
AC
AC
X 5
00
7 Y
42
66
35
83
94
26
Ht
32
.79
10
02
2.0
39
10
sh
2Y
AC
AC
X 5
00
8 Y
Rp
0R
p0
84
35
30
Ht
42
.89
97
53
.52
21
0
sh
2Y
AC
AC
X 5
00
9 M
R Y
Rp
08
39
Rp
01
3H
t3
2.3
88
71
1.5
35
10
sh
2B
CA
CA
CX
50
10
MR
BC
Rp
06
33
Rp
01
5H
t5
3.5
99
61
1.8
24
10
sh
2Y
AC
AC
X 5
13
8 Y
42
76
32
42
43
24
Ht
42
.88
85
22
.03
91
0
sh
2Y
Se
mB
asin
RR
p0
Rp
06
31
63
45
3.3
42
56
4.0
63
51
0
sh
2Y
Ba
sB
C 5
03
Rp
0R
p0
73
65
29
Ht
22
.01
01
1.5
41
41
0
sh
2Y
AC
Be
yo
nd
Rp
0R
p0
73
34
27
Ht
53
.37
71
22
.03
91
0
sh
2Y
Cr
Bo
un
tifu
l7
36
73
68
41
63
27
4.2
99
46
4.3
10
10
sh
2 a
ug
BR
og
BS
S 0
98
2R
p0
Rp
04
25
63
4H
t6
4.0
31
48
5.0
23
10
sh
2B
Ro
gB
SS
16
93
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
01
8H
t2
1.7
22
11
.53
91
0
sh
2W
Cr
CA
AW
F5
-20
13
21
42
74
23
52
95
3.5
99
59
6.8
10
10
sh
2W
Cr
Ca
sca
de
73
47
36
73
35
31
74
.39
95
64
.02
11
0
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
101
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
sh
2B
HM
Ca
va
lry
Rp
0R
p0
42
41
6H
t3
2.3
25
11
.81
01
0
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
Co
lum
bu
s4
27
63
55
26
21
2H
t3
2.7
99
71
1.8
63
41
0
sh
2B
Cr
CS
AB
F5
-15
75
28
83
97
36
63
37
4.2
99
84
3.0
10
10
sh
2W
Cr
CS
AW
F5
-19
9R
p0
Rp
06
29
32
15
3.3
53
02
2.3
23
10
sh
2W
Cr
CSAWP5-2
02
63
16
33
42
54
25
42
.88
86
32
.83
81
0
sh
2Y
Cr
CS
HY
P3
-99
Rp
0R
p0
63
15
29
Ht
63
.89
98
85
.53
61
0
sh
sy
WS
em
De
vo
tio
n4
26
52
95
26
63
4H
t4
3.2
91
00
32
.55
26
10
sh
2Y
DM
DM
C 2
1-8
4R
p0
Rp
04
25
63
2H
t3
2.3
42
89
6.0
23
10
sh
2W
Se
mE
ve
n S
we
ete
r8
39
73
78
39
42
46
3.8
91
00
11
.55
27
10
sh
2W
Sn
Rv
Eve
rest
73
57
36
73
36
34
84
.89
10
03
2.8
37
10
sh
sy
YS
em
EX
08
41
30
49
52
94
24
83
95
29
53
.39
10
08
5.0
10
10
sh
sy
BS
em
EX
08
43
47
12
Rp
0R
p0
62
96
34
Ht
74
.39
94
43
.05
21
10
sh
sy
YS
em
EX
08
70
81
88
42
55
28
42
23
24
Ht
43
.09
91
11
.31
01
0
sh
sy
YS
em
EX
08
71
71
87
Rp
0R
p0
52
75
31
Ht
53
.52
25
3.8
10
10
sh
sy
BS
em
EX
08
73
70
09
Rp
0R
p0
52
85
31
Ht
53
.53
10
53
.55
24
10
sh
sy
BS
em
EX
08
74
58
57
Rp
04
23
Rp
03
24
Ht
32
.39
93
85
.34
15
10
sh
sy
BS
em
EX
08
74
60
57
Rp
04
25
Rp
03
23
Ht
32
.76
67
85
.05
22
10
sh
2Y
Se
mE
X 0
87
4 6
10
6R
p0
Rp
0R
p0
84
27
4.2
42
31
1.8
41
41
0
sh
2Y
Exp
16
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
24
Ht
42
.82
23
2.8
10
10
sh
2Y
Exp
17
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
04
25
43
.01
02
2.3
36
10
sh
2Y
Exp
25
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
35
74
.54
25
85
.86
40
10
sh
2 a
ug
WE
xp
26
Rp
0R
p0
63
16
34
43
.21
04
3.3
35
10
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
arr
iso
nR
p0
Rp
0R
p0
21
0H
t2
1.8
10
22
.02
41
0
sh
2Y
GG
GG
Co
de
17
7R
p0
Rp
08
41
53
15
3.5
99
89
6.0
35
10
sh
2Y
GG
GG
Co
de
17
9R
p0
Rp
05
28
42
74
3.2
91
00
85
.52
31
0
sh
2Y
GG
GG
Co
de
19
5R
p0
84
3R
p0
63
36
3.8
88
27
4.5
21
10
sh
2B
GG
GG
Co
de
19
87
34
73
76
32
63
25
3.5
65
18
5.5
21
10
sh
2Y
GG
GG
Co
de
20
2R
p0
Rp
0R
p0
32
44
3.0
53
53
2.8
23
10
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
SS
09
69
73
46
35
31
72
17
Ht
53
.59
95
74
.83
91
0
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
SS
20
08
Rp
0R
p0
42
47
39
Ht
53
.38
88
96
.01
01
0
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
SS
56
49
Rp
0R
p0
63
15
29
Ht
64
.03
18
43
.32
41
0
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
SS
65
50
Rp
04
27
Rp
02
12
Ht
21
.73
14
32
.85
26
10
sh
2Y
Ro
gG
SS
76
27
Rp
0R
p0
42
24
27
32
.39
92
32
.52
11
0
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
102
Ta
ble
3.
Re
ac
tio
ns
of
sw
ee
t c
orn
hyb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
01
92
OJ
Rp
0R
p0
73
39
44
74
.29
98
32
.52
41
0
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
21
62
OL
Rp
0R
p0
63
27
38
74
.39
93
85
.05
24
10
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
24
50
OM
Rp
0R
p0
73
56
36
64
.09
95
64
.32
41
0
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
26
22
OM
Rp
0R
p0
63
25
29
74
.59
95
53
.83
61
0
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
26
30
OM
R
p0
Rp
07
33
63
27
4.3
91
00
43
.02
11
0
sh
2B
Sn
Rv
HB
26
42
OM
Rp
0R
p0
73
46
33
74
.39
93
32
.52
31
0
sh
2Y
HM
HM
X 4
38
8 S
42
75
28
42
26
36
64
.09
10
05
3.8
39
10
sh
2Y
HM
HM
X 4
39
6 S
Rp
0R
p0
63
17
37
74
.36
58
74
.53
61
0
sh
2Y
HM
HM
X 6
38
6 S
Rp
06
35
Rp
04
25
Ht
42
.83
10
11
.59
73
86
3
sh
2Y
HM
HM
X 7
38
9 S
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
03
20
Ht
53
.39
97
22
.06
32
10
sh
2Y
HM
HM
X 7
39
0 S
Rp
0R
p0
42
46
33
Ht
43
.24
26
22
.35
29
10
sh
2B
Cr
Ho
lida
yR
p0
Rp
07
36
32
3H
t2
2.2
99
73
2.5
22
10
sh
2B
Se
mH
olly
wo
od
Rp
0R
p0
73
65
31
53
.59
97
85
.06
44
10
sh
2W
Sn
Rv
HW
13
36
OK
63
35
31
63
04
24
53
.39
10
04
3.0
41
21
0
sh
2W
Sn
Rv
HW
25
45
OM
Rp
0R
p0
52
85
30
53
.32
75
3.5
52
61
0
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
10
89
OM
32
32
19
.7
39
95
.09
90
96
.51
01
0
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
14
39
OM
Rp
0R
p0
52
85
28
Ht
74
.29
10
05
3.8
35
10
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
14
71
OM
Rp
0R
p0
84
28
43
84
.79
94
74
.51
01
0
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
14
81
OM
Rp
0R
p0
63
04
27
Ht
63
.79
10
03
2.8
24
10
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
17
90
OK
Rp
0R
p0
73
45
29
Ht
63
.89
97
22
.01
01
0
sh
2Y
Sn
Rv
HY
57
9 O
K3
21
53
14
24
42
7H
t5
3.3
91
00
11
.82
31
0
sh
2W
HM
Ice
be
rg (
53
54
WS
)7
36
73
77
33
52
94
3.0
42
61
1.8
21
10
sh
2Y
Cr
Ma
rve
l R
Rp
0R
p0
Rp
06
33
53
.59
10
06
4.3
10
10
sh
2Y
HM
Ma
xR
p0
Rp
05
28
53
14
2.8
31
23
2.8
41
91
0
sh
2Y
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 1
48
Y2
17
42
64
24
52
9H
t5
3.3
88
99
6.5
24
10
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
01
BC
52
94
27
63
16
33
32
.58
85
43
.33
71
0
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
02
BC
32
35
31
63
06
34
32
.59
91
53
.84
16
10
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
08
BC
42
44
23
42
26
34
Ht
32
.78
85
96
.52
41
0
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
34
BC
32
12
15
32
15
28
11
.29
97
32
.83
91
0
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
36
BC
42
44
25
52
65
28
Ht
22
.29
96
22
.34
11
10
sh
2B
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 3
50
BC
42
76
32
42
54
27
Ht
43
.09
96
74
.52
31
0
sh
2W
Ce
nt
Mir
ai 4
21
W6
33
63
36
32
63
53
2.7
99
76
4.0
23
10
sh
sy
BS
em
Ob
se
ssio
nR
p0
Rp
04
23
32
0H
t3
2.3
99
32
2.0
21
10
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
103
T
ab
le 3
. R
ea
cti
on
s o
f s
we
et
co
rn h
yb
rid
s i
n t
he
Un
ive
rsit
y o
f Il
lin
ois
dis
ea
se
nu
rse
ry -
20
07
C
om
mo
n r
us
t N
ort
he
rn
lea
f b
lig
ht
ET
KC
Sd
Co
Hyb
rid
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
Ht
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
nR
ate
Rx
n%
Rx
n%
sh
2B
Cr
Op
tim
um
73
56
35
73
66
34
74
.29
91
64
.01
01
0
sh
sy
YS
em
Pa
ssio
nR
p0
Rp
04
25
32
0H
t3
2.5
99
64
3.0
23
10
sh
2Y
HM
Ra
ng
er
83
77
38
73
41
6H
t5
3.3
10
22
.04
17
10
sh
2Y
HM
Se
ntin
el
Rp
0R
p0
52
72
18
Ht
32
.52
92
2.3
24
10
sh
2Y
Se
mS
him
me
rR
p0
Rp
04
24
21
5H
t3
2.5
99
31
1.5
39
10
sh
2Y
Cr
Sh
og
un
Rp
0R
p0
63
22
11
Ht
21
.84
21
11
.89
81
98
0
sh
2W
HM
Sn
ow
Wh
ite
95
89
64
95
86
33
43
.23
15
11
.82
31
0
sh
2su
WA
CS
um
me
r S
we
et
78
1 U
ltra
73
68
43
83
92
17
Ht
32
.59
94
43
.34
16
10
sh
2Y
Ro
gS
up
ers
we
et
Ju
bile
e6
33
63
47
36
84
18
4.8
99
48
5.0
52
31
0
sh
2Y
Ro
gS
up
ers
we
et
Ju
bile
e P
lus
Rp
0R
p0
63
17
39
95
.09
10
08
5.0
63
91
0
sh
2Y
HM
Su
re G
old
Rp
0R
p0
73
65
31
63
.83
15
22
.05
29
10
sh
2B
Cr
Su
rpa
ss
83
78
40
73
65
29
64
.09
93
64
.01
01
0
sh
2W
Cr
Sym
me
try
Rp
0R
p0
32
13
20
Ht
42
.81
05
3.8
41
61
0
sh
2W
Ro
gW
SS
12
62
52
96
34
73
36
33
Ht
64
.08
87
96
.86
36
10
sh
2Y
IFS
XT
H 1
17
45
29
63
57
37
63
36
4.0
77
55
3.8
24
10
sh
2B
IFS
XT
H 2
17
96
31
73
65
28
63
44
3.0
99
05
3.5
39
10
sh
2W
IFS
XT
H 3
17
36
32
83
97
36
73
95
3.3
99
79
6.5
41
91
0
sh
2W
IFS
XT
H 3
17
57
36
94
58
41
84
06
3.8
91
00
74
.88
51
85
7
sh
2Y
AC
Y0
10
YR
p0
Rp
07
37
63
4H
t7
4.5
99
28
5.0
22
10
Me
an
30
.4*
32
.5*
29
.3*
28.4
3.1
69
.43
.38
2
SD
6.7
*7
.3*
7.7
*8
.60
.93
81
.41
41
2
BL
SD
(0
.05
)6
.2*
6.4
*7
.5*
8.5
1.0
16
2.1
11
na
Be
st
(min
.)2
*1
5*
10
*1
1.2
01
.30
0
Be
st
25
%2
7*
27
*2
4*
24
2.5
25
2.3
00
Me
dia
n3
2*
33
*2
9*
29
3.0
93
3.0
30
Wo
rst
25
%3
5*
37
*3
4*
34
3.7
98
4.2
90
Wo
rst
(ma
x.)
58
64
58
56
6.0
10
06
.89
18
8
* e
xclu
din
g R
p-h
yb
rid
s
Rxn
- c
lassific
atio
n o
f h
yb
rid
dis
ea
se
re
actio
ns:
1 -
re
sis
tan
t,
3 -
mo
de
rate
ly r
esis
tan
t,
5 -
mo
de
rate
, 7
- m
od
era
tely
su
sce
ptib
le,
9 -
su
sce
ptib
le
Ra
te -
dis
ea
se
ra
tin
g:
1 t
o 9
sca
le (
Ste
wa
rt's
wilt
, S
LB
);
0 t
o 1
00
% le
af
are
a in
fecte
d (
NL
B,
avir
ule
nt,
G-v
iru
len
t ru
st,
D-v
iru
len
t ru
st)
;
0
to
10
0%
in
cid
en
ce
of
infe
cte
d p
lan
ts (
MD
M)
Se
ed
so
urc
e:
AC
- A
bb
ott
& C
ob
b,
Ba
s -
Ba
sso
, C
en
- C
en
test,
C
r -
Cro
okh
am
,
DM
- D
el M
on
te,
GG
- G
ree
n G
ian
t, H
M -
Ha
rris
Mo
ran
,
IF
S -
Illi
no
is F
ou
nd
atio
n S
ee
ds,
MM
- M
esa
Ma
ize
, R
og
- R
og
ers
(S
yn
ge
nta
), S
em
- S
em
inis
, S
nR
- S
no
wy R
ive
r
Ste
wa
rt's
MD
MV
avir
G-v
irD
-vir
wil
tA
&B
SL
BC
all
isto
La
ud
is
104
Public Evaluation of Sweet Corn Eating Quality, Northern Indiana, 2007
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391 This paper reports on the evaluation of eating quality for many of the sweet corn varieties included in 2007 trials in Northern Indiana.
Materials and Methods Twenty-three varieties of sweet corn were planted at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center between June 26 and July 10. Each variety was planted on two dates, approximately four days apart, scheduled so that one of the plantings would be near harvest maturity on September 11. Supersweet (sh2) varieties were planted in one block and se and synergistic varieties in another block at least 250 feet distant. Each variety was planted in four adjacent rows on each planting date. Cultural practices and pest management followed standard procedures for the area. On September 11, ears were harvested from the center two rows of those plots judged to be at market maturity. Ears were dehusked, broken into 2.5- to 4-inch sections, rinsed, and stored in a cooler at approximately 40°F until evening when they were cooked by immersing in boiling water. Care was taken to prevent mixing of varieties. After cooking, ear sections were served to attendees at a pumpkin and sweet corn twilight meeting along with pork chops, sliced tomatoes, and zucchini salad. Attendees were invited to evaluate sweet corn on a scale of 1 (dislike very much) to 5 (like very much), and write in comments as they wished. Attendees were free to evaluate as many or as few varieties as they wished. Corn varieties were identified to tasters by a single code letter. Data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance with mean separation using Student’s t for means with unequal variances.
Results and Discussion Forty-five people evaluated the corn out of approximately 95 who ate the meal. Evaluators included gardeners, sweet corn farmers, seed company representatives, and others. On average, each person evaluated 6.8 varieties. Two people evaluated 16 varieties each, and four people evaluated just two varieties each. Each variety was evaluated by two to 26 people, with an average of 15.8 people per variety.
Table 1 shows results for varieties that were rated by at least nine people. The top six varieties were supersweets and did not differ significantly: Optimum, Gourmet Sweet Grand (GSB) 274A, Valor, Cascade, BSS 0982, and Holiday. The next two varieties, a homozygous se (Ambrosia), and a synergistic (Kristine) fell in the middle of a group of 11 varieties that didn't differ significantly. Supersweets, homozygous se, and synergistic types were also represented among varieties at the bottom end of the ranking. Comments provided by evaluators indicated that individuals judged some ears to be over- or under-mature, which influenced the rating.
This trial does not provide a definitive evaluation of eating quality for these varieties. Slight differences in maturity can influence eating quality, and based on the comments and field observations it seems likely that was an issue for at least some of the cultivars in this evaluation. It does provide information beyond the evaluation of uncooked ears performed during harvest of
105
the replicated trials that are summarized in separate reports. The information presented here should be considered together with results of other trials to identify cultivars with superior eating quality.
Table 1. Eating quality ratings for 16 sweet corn cultivars, Northern Indiana 2007.
Cultivar
Seed Sourcez
Eating Quality Mean y
Std. Dev.
Nx
Comments
Optimum CR 4.38 a 0.8 25
Good corn flavor; has a very good taste; best; sweet; excellent, tender; sweetest — good flavor, firm milk; very tender; great taste, kernels come off very easily; sweet, tender; very sweet
GSB 274A ST 4.18 ab 0.8 11 Very sweet; sweet
Valor CR 4.00 abc 0.9 9 Has a real good taste; very good and sweet; tasty, crisp, sweet
Cascade CR 3.84 abc 0.9 19 My favorite; best; tender, small kernels; too much white; tender, not much taste; very sweet; plain white; not as good as L (‘Optimum’)
BSS 0982 SY 3.78 abc 1.0 16 Be OK for freezer corn; the best; crisp, sweet, good flavor; good taste; this is best, has good taste; tough, not sweet
Holiday CR 3.77 abc 1.2 22 Sweeter than G (‘Revelation’), D (‘Ambrosia’), J (‘Polka’); not much taste; not sweet, no taste; good; juicy — very good.
Ambrosia RI 3.77 bc 1.1 26
Tender, not sweet; watery, mushy; has a little better taste; ?se juicy soft kernel; pasty dry; very sweet — I like the best; nothing to talk about — so-so; somewhat tender, but not very sweet; not as sweet as G (‘Revelation’); slightly less sweet than G (‘Revelation’); overmature, no sweetness; overmature
Kristine CR 3.65 bcd 1.3 17 Just like G (‘Revelation’); very sweet; very good; has no taste; real good
Polka CR 3.58 bcd 1.1 18 Very sweet; doesn’t seem as sweet as the others; somewhat chalky; chewy but good; bland taste
Montauk ST 3.56 bcd 0.9 16 My favorite; a bit young, flat; very good; flat taste
zCR=Crookham, HM=Harris Moran, RI=Rispens, ST=Stokes, SY=Syngenta. yEars rated by volunteers attending a sweet corn and pumpkin twilight meeting. 1=dislike very much, 3=neutral, 5=like very much. Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at P=.05 according to Student’s t Test. xN=number of people who rated that variety.
Continued on next page
106
Table 1 (continued)
Cultivar
Seed Sourcez
Eating Quality Mean y
Std. Dev.
Nx
Comments
GSB 2171 ST 3.42 bcdf
1.1 19 Tender, no sweetness; good, low sugar, low corn taste; nice flavor — good crunch; snappy, not real sweet; good corn flavor; kernels tender
Revelation HM
3.38 cdf
1.1 26
Did not have a taste; not very sweet, creamy taste; crisp, better texture, hard to determine taste; seems sweet — slightly; tender; tender kernels; candy sweet; good tenderness
BC 0805 SY 3.17 cdef 1.1 15 Odd taste; sweet; crisp, small kernel; tender, right on flavor; too young to tell
Navajo ST 2.72 e
1.1 20 Too much fibery pericarp — chewy; small kernels; underdeveloped; se, soft; very good and sweet; not sweet.
BC 0808 SY 2.69 efg 0.9 13 Chewy; chewy, not as sweet; bland, soft, not good texture; poor flavor
GSB 2281 ST 2.00 g 1.3 16 Has a cob taste to it; field corn; sweet; crisp, starchy cob taste; Tasteless
zCR=Crookham, HM=Harris Moran, RI=Rispens, ST=Stokes, SY=Syngenta. yEars rated by volunteers attending a sweet corn and pumpkin twilight meeting. 1=dislike very much, 3=neutral, 5=like very much. Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly at P=.05 according to Student’s t Test. yN=number of people who rated that variety.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and staff, Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center; N. DeFrank, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte counties; seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed.
107
Sugar-Enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391 The Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service reported sweet corn for fresh market sales was harvested from 5,200 acres in Indiana in 2006 and had a total value of $7.6 million. Sweet corn fields are located throughout the state. In northern Indiana, bicolor corn is most commonly grown. Varieties with improved eating quality are of interest to both producers and consumers. Producers are also interested in yield, ear size, appearance, and agronomic characteristics. This paper reports on 11 sugar enhanced and synergistic sweet corn cultivars that were evaluated at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center in Wanatah, Indiana.
Materials and Methods The trial was conducted on a Tracy sandy loam with 2.4% organic matter and 57 ppm phosphorus (P), 139 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), 750 ppm calcium (Ca), and pH 6.7. It was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Cultivars were assigned to individual plots one row (30 inches) wide by 30 feet long. Corn was seeded May 2, 2007 with a finger pick-up planter set to drop 23,200 seeds per acre, and later thinned to 35 plants per 30-foot row (20,328 plants per acre). Nitrogen (N) (20.3 lbs./A) and P (18.2 lbs./A P2O5) were applied at planting from 19-17-0 (10 gal. /A) and an additional 70 lbs./A N from urea ammonium nitrate solution was injected in mid-June. Tefluthrin (Force 3G) was applied at planting to control corn rootworms. Permethrin (Pounce 3.2 EC, 4 oz./A) was applied on June 8 to control cutworms. Weeds were controlled with atrazine and s-metolachlor applied after seeding, cultivation, and hand weeding. Irrigation was applied to incorporate herbicides and during the growing season as needed. Emergence was recorded 14 and 21 days after planting (DAP), before thinning. Prior to harvest, height from the soil to the middle of the ear was measured for three ears per plot, and after harvest plant vigor and tillering were rated. Each plot was harvested when corn reached marketable stage. Weight and number of marketable ears were recorded. Three ears from each plot were used to evaluate degree of husk cover, husk tightness, degree of tip fill, overall attractiveness, average ear diameter, length after husking, and shank length. Two people rated the flavor of each entry. Rating scales are described below and in footnotes to Table 1. Quantitative data were analyzed using ANOVA followed by mean separation using Fishers protected least significant difference at P≤ 0.05. Relationships between yield components, ear and plant characteristics, and average days to harvest were analyzed using linear regression.
Characteristic Rating Scale
Husk Cover 5: > 2-inch cover, 4: 1.25-2 inches, 3: 0.75-1.25 inches, 2: < 0.75 inch, 1: ear exposed
Husk Tightness 3: tight, 2: firm, 1: loose
Tip Fill 5: kernels filled to tip of cob, 4: < 0.5 inch unfilled, 3: 0.5-1 inch unfilled, 2: > 1 inch unfilled, 1: > 2 inches unfilled
108
Results and Discussion Emergence 14 and 21 DAP averaged 91% and 93% of the seeding rate, respectively, but did not differ among varieties (data not shown). Results for yield and ear quality are presented in Table 1. Marketable yield averaged 6.6 tons per acre. BC 0808 and BC 0805 produced the highest yield of 8.5 tons and 8.0 tons per acre, respectively. Montauk and Navajo produced the next highest yields of 7.3 tons and 7.1 tons per acre, and were not significantly different from BC 0805, Cameo, or Revelation. Polka produced the lowest yield of 4.7 tons per acre, but did not differ significantly from Dasher at 5.2 tons per acre. The number of marketable ears ranged from 1,258 to 1,597 dozen per acre, and averaged 1,418. Five varieties produced more than 1,516 dozen per acre and did not differ significantly, including BC 0805, BC 0808, Navajo, Revelation, and Valor. Cameo produced the fewest ears per acre, 1,258 dozen, but did not differ significantly from five others including Montauk, Kristine, Dasher, Polka, and Gateway. Average weight per ear ranged form 0.95 pound (Montauk) to 0.59 pound (Polka) and was strongly correlated with days to harvest: later-maturing varieties tended to produce heavier ears. BC 0808 produced ears a little heavier than would be expected based on its harvest date.
Ear length ranged from 7.0 to 8.4 inches and diameter from 1.76 to 2.01 inches. The longest ears were produced by Cameo, BC 0808, Montauk, and Gateway (8.1 to 8.4 inches.); BC 0805 was 7.8 inches and not significantly shorter than any of those except Cameo. Navajo and Polka produced the shortest ears but ere not significantly shorter than any of the remaining varieties except for Kristine. The widest ears included Cameo, Montauk, BC 0808 and Kristine, followed by Navajo and Revelation — all of these were more than 1.91 inches. The remaining varieties were between 1.76 and 1.79 inches and did not differ in diameter. Ear length was strongly positively correlated with days to harvest. BC 0808 produced longer ears than would be expected based on its harvest date. Shank length ranged from 3.1 inches for Revelation to 4.7 inches for Cameo, averaging 3.8 inches. Eight cultivars had shanks between 3.4 and 4.0 inches long and did not differ significantly (data not shown).
Husk cover ratings averaged 3.4. BC 0805 and Navajo averaged 4.9, indicating more than 2 inches of husk cover. Valor, Dasher, Kristine, Montauk, and Revelation averaged between 3.2 and 3.8, indicating 0.75 to 1.25 inches of cover. Polka, Cameo, BC 0808, and Gateway ranged from 2.1 to 2.9, indicating less than 0.75 inch of cover. The husks of BC 0805, Montauk, and Navajo were fairly tight around the ear tip. The husks of Polka, BC 0808, and Gateway were loose around the ear tip. Tip fill was generally good: all varieties except Cameo received ratings of 4 or more, indicating less than 0.5 inch of the tip was not filled. Navajo, Dasher, BC 0808, and Montauk received ratings above the average of 4.3. For overall ear quality in terms of appearance, Montauk and Valor received the highest ratings. Other varieties above the average of 5.8 included Kristine, Revelation, Navajo, and BC 0805. Polka received the lowest rating for overall ear appearance.
Ear height, measured from the ground to mid-ear, ranged from 20.7 inches for Revelation to 32.7 inches for Cameo and was strongly correlated with harvest date — later varieties had higher ears. Ears of Navajo were higher than expected based on its harvest date. Most varieties produced some tillers (data not shown). BC 0805 and BC 0808 both produced tillers long enough that they might get in the way during harvest. Polka produced very few tillers. The later varieties BC 0805, Montauk, and Cameo received the highest ratings for plant vigor (data not shown). Polka and Dasher received the lowest vigor ratings, followed by Navajo and Valor.
109
Varieties that received flavor ratings of very good to good, or better, included Polka, Revelation, Dasher, Gateway, and Montauk.
Many varieties in this trial performed well. Careful evaluation of results presented in Table 1, combined with results from other locations and years should aid producers in selecting varieties best suited to their operations.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center staff managed field operations; N. DeFrank, R. Shay, J. Sheets, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte counties assisted with field work; seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed.
110
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld, e
ar si
ze, a
nd q
ualit
y of
syne
rgist
ic a
nd su
gar-
enha
nced
swee
t cor
n in
Nor
ther
n In
dian
a, 2
007.
Day
s to
Har
vest
y
Yie
ld o
f M
arke
tabl
e Ea
rs
Cul
tivar
Coz
Col
or
Pred
. A
ctua
l
GD
D to
H
arve
stx
doz/A
to
n/A
Avg
. Ea
r W
eigh
t (lb
s.)
Ear
Leng
th
(in.)
Ear
Dia
. (in
.)
Hus
k C
over
w
Hus
k Ti
ghtn
essw
Tip
Fillw
Ove
rallw
Ear
Ht.
(in.)
Flav
orv
Polk
a C
R
BI
70
79
1,42
2 1,
339
4.7
0.59
7.
0 1.
76
2.9
1.1
4.3
3.7
21.4
V
G-G
Rev
elat
ion
HM
BI
68
79
1,42
2 1,
533
6.3
0.68
7.
3 1.
92
3.1
1.9
4.2
6.5
20.7
V
G-G
Nav
ajo
ST
BI
67
79
1,42
2 1,
533
7.1
0.77
7.
0 1.
92
4.9
2.3
4.9
6.3
25.9
M
Val
or
CR
BI
72
79
1,42
2 1,
517
6.0
0.66
7.
0 1.
78
3.8
1.7
4.1
7.0
22.9
M
-VG
Das
her
CR
W
71
82
1,46
3 1,
323
5.2
0.66
7.
0 1.
78
3.7
1.6
4.6
5.3
24.4
V
G
BC
080
8 SY
B
I 75
84
1,49
9 1,
581
8.5
0.89
8.
2 2.
00
2.6
1.2
4.9
5.3
24.0
M
-G
Kris
tine
CR
BI
80
86
1,54
4 1,
291
6.2
0.81
7.
4 1.
94
3.2
1.7
4.2
6.7
24.1
G
-VG
Gat
eway
SY
B
I 77
86
1,54
4 1,
339
6.2
0.77
8.
0 1.
78
2.1
1.1
4.2
4.7
26.8
V
G-E
BC
080
5 SY
B
I 82
90
1,62
8 1,
597
8.0
0.83
7.
8 1.
79
4.9
2.6
4.0
6.0
30.0
G
Mon
tauk
ST
BI
78
90
1,62
8 1,
291
7.3
0.95
8.
2 2.
01
3.2
2.4
4.7
7.7
30.8
V
G-E
Cam
eo
CR
BI
84
90
1,62
8 1,
258
6.6
0.88
8.
4 2.
01
2.6
1.7
3.6
5.0
32.7
M
-VG
Gra
nd m
ean
1,
418
6.6
0.77
7.
6 1.
88
3.4
1.7
4.3
5.8
25.8
–
LSD
.05u
21
7 1.
02
0.06
0.
4 0.
07
1.2
– –
– –
– r2t
ns
ns
0.64
0.
69
ns
ns
– –
– 0.
75
– z Se
ed S
ourc
e: C
R=C
rook
ham
, HM
=Har
ris M
oran
, ST=
Stok
es, S
Y=S
ynge
nta.
y D
ays
from
pla
ntin
g to
har
vest
. Pre
dict
ed n
umbe
r is f
rom
seed
supp
lier.
x GD
D: c
orn
grow
ing
degr
ee d
ays.
wH
usk
cove
r, tip
fill:
1 (w
orst
) to
5 (b
est).
Hus
k tig
htne
ss: 1
(loo
se) t
o 3
(ver
y tig
ht).
Ove
rall:
1 (w
orst
) to
9 (b
est).
v Fl
avor
: M=m
ediu
m, G
=goo
d, V
G=v
ery
good
, E=e
xcel
lent
. u M
eans
diff
erin
g by
mor
e th
an th
is a
mou
nt a
re si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent a
t P≤.
05. –
AO
V n
ot p
erfo
rmed
. t r2 fo
r reg
ress
ion
vs. a
ctua
l day
s to
harv
est i
s the
pro
porti
on o
f var
iabi
lity
expl
aine
d by
day
s to
har
vest
. ns=
regr
essi
on n
ot si
gnifi
cant
at P
<.05
.
111
Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391 The Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service reported sweet corn for fresh market sales was harvested from 5,200 acres in Indiana in 2006 and had a total value of $7.6 million. Sweet corn fields are located throughout the state. In northern Indiana, bicolor corn is most commonly grown. Varieties with improved eating quality are of interest to both producers and consumers. Producers are also interested in yield, ear size, appearance, and agronomic characteristics. This paper reports on 12 sh2 sweet corn entries that were evaluated at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center in Wanatah, Indiana.
Materials and Methods The trial was conducted on a Tracy sandy loam with 2.4% organic matter and 57 ppm phosphorus (P), 139 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), 750 ppm calcium (Ca), and pH 6.7. It was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Cultivars were assigned to individual plots one row (30 inches) wide by 30 feet long. Corn was seeded May 9, 2007 with a finger pick-up planter set to drop 23,200 seeds per acre and later thinned to 35 plants per 30 feet of row (20,328 plants per acre). Nitrogen (N) (20.3 lbs./A) and P (18.2 lbs./A of P2O5) were applied at planting from 19-17-0 (10 gal. /A) and an additional 70 lbs./A N from urea ammonium nitrate was injected in mid-June. Tefluthrin (Force 3G) was applied at planting to control corn rootworms. Permethrin (Pounce 3.2 EC, 4 oz./A)) was applied on June 8 to control cutworms. Weeds were controlled with atrazine and s-metolachlor applied after seeding, cultivation, and hand weeding. Irrigation was applied to incorporate herbicides and during the growing season as needed. Emergence was recorded 7, 14, and 21 days after planting (DAP), before thinning. Prior to harvest, height from the soil to middle of the ear was measured for three ears per plot and plant vigor and tillering were rated. Each plot was harvested when corn reached marketable stage. The weight and number of marketable ears were recorded. Three ears from each plot were used to evaluate degree of husk cover, husk tightness, degree of tip fill, overall attractiveness, average ear diameter, length after husking, and shank length. Two people rated the flavor of each entry. Rating scales are described below and in footnotes to Table 1. Quantitative data were analyzed using ANOVA followed by mean separation using Fisher’s protected least significant difference at P≤ 0.05. Relationships between yield components, ear and plant characteristics, and average days to harvest were analyzed using linear regression. One variety was omitted from ANOVA for length and ear diameter because measured values were the same in all reps.
Characteristic Rating Scale
Husk Cover 5: > 2-inch cover, 4: 1.25-2 inches, 3: 0.75-1.25 inches, 2: < 0.75 inch, 1: ear exposed
Husk Tightness 3: tight, 2: firm, 1: loose
Tip Fill 5: kernels filled to tip of cob, 4: < 0.5 inch unfilled, 3: 0.5 to 1 inch unfilled, 2: > 1 inch unfilled, 1: > 2 inches unfilled
112
Emergence 7 and 14 DAP averaged 48% and 95% of the seeding rate, respectively (data not shown). On the earlier date, Gourmet Sweet Brand (GSB) 2281 had the highest emergence at 85%. Garrison, Fantastic, Surpass, GSB 274A, Optimum and GSB 2171 averaged between 63% and 50%, but did not significantly differ. Optimum Recip. and CSAWP5-202 averaged between 40% and 50%. BSS 0982, at 10% emergence, was the lowest, but not significantly different from Cascade or Holiday which both averaged close to 25%. By two weeks after planting, emergence ranged from 79% for Cascade to 105% for Fantastic, but varieties did not differ significantly.
Results for yield and ear quality are presented in Table 1. Marketable yield averaged 6.6 tons per acre. Garrison produced the highest yield of 8.2 tons per acre, but did not differ significantly from GSB 2281, Fantastic, or Holiday (7.9 tons, 7.3 tons, and 7.1 tons per acre, respectively). Those varieties did not differ from any of the lower yielding varieties except Cascade. The number of marketable ears ranged from 1,291 dozen (GSB 274A) to 1,646 dozen per acre (Garrison), and averaged 1,499. Varieties did not differ significantly. Average weight per ear ranged from 0.84 pound (GSB 274A) to 0. 64 pound (CSAWP5-202). Four varieties averaged more than 0.8 pound per ear, significantly more than the other eight.
Ear length ranged from 6.6 to 8.0 inches and diameter from 1.78 to 2.02 inches. The longest ears were produced by Holiday, BSS 0982, GSB 274A, Garrison and GSB 2281 (8.0 to 7.6 inches); the remaining varieties were between 7.1 and 7.5 inches except for the shortest, CSAWP5-202 at 6.6 inches. The widest ears included Holiday, Fantastic, GSB 274A, and GSB 2281, all greater than 1.94 inches. Surpass was the narrowest at 1.78 inches, but not significantly narrower than Cascade, BSS 0982 or Optimum. Shank length averaged 3.6 inches. GSB 2281 and Garrison had the longest shanks, more than 4.4 inches. Optimum had the shortest shanks at 2.9 inches, but did not differ from six other varieties with shanks up to 3.8 inches.
Husk cover ratings averaged 3.6. Surpass averaged 5.0, indicating more than 2 inches of husk cover. Cascade, Optimum, Optimum Recip., CSAWP5-202 and Holiday averaged between 4.0 and 4.4, indicating more than 1.25 inches of husk cover. BSS 0982, Fantastic, GSB 274A and GSB 2171 ranged from 2.3 to 2.9, indicating less than 0.75 inch of cover. The husks of Cascade, Surpass and BSS 0982 were tight around the ear tip. Husks of GSB 274A were loose around the ear tip. Tip fill was generally good to excellent: seven varieties received ratings of 4.9 or 5.0 and all others received ratings of 4 or higher. For overall ear appearance, Fantastic and BSS 0982 received the highest ratings followed by Optimum and Optimum Recip. Other varieties ranged from 6.0 to 6.7, except for CSAWP5-202 which received the lowest rating of 3.3.
Ear height, measured from the ground to mid-ear, ranged from 23.7 inches for Surpass to 31.1 inches for ‘Holiday.’ ‘Holiday’ and ‘CSAWP5-202’ produced few tillers; ‘BSS 0982’ and ‘Optimum’ produced many large tillers (data not shown). ‘GSB 2281’ received the highest rating for plant vigor followed by ‘Holiday’ and ‘Garrison,’ while ‘Cascade’ received the lowest rating for vigor, just behind ‘Optimum’ and ‘Optimum Recip.’ (data not shown).
Holiday, Optimum and CSAWP5-202 received flavor ratings of very good to excellent or better, and GSB 273A, Fantastic, Optimum Recip. and Surpass received ratings of very good. Pericarp was rated as no more than ‘somewhat tough’ for GSB 274A, Cascade, Fantastic, Optimum,
113
Surpass, and Holiday. GSB 2171 and Garrison received the highest ratings for pericarp toughness.
Many varieties in this trial performed well. Careful evaluation of results presented in Table 1, combined with results from other locations and years should aid producers in selecting varieties best suited to their operations.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and staff, Pinney-Purdue Ag Center, managed field operations; N. DeFrank, R. Shay, J. Sheets, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte Counties assisted with field work; Seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed.
114
Tabl
e 1.
Yie
ld, e
ar si
ze, a
nd q
ualit
y of
supe
rswe
et sw
eet c
orn
in N
orth
ern
Indi
ana,
200
7.
Day
s to
Har
vest
y
Yie
ld o
f M
arke
tabl
e Ea
rs
Cul
tivar
Co.z
Col
or
Pred
. A
ctua
l
GD
D to
H
arve
stx
doz/A
ton/A
Avg
. Ea
r W
eigh
t (lb
s.)
Ear
Leng
th
(in.)
Ear
Dia
. (in
.)
Hus
k C
over
w
Hus
k Ti
ght-
ness
w
Tip
Fill w
Ove
rallw
Ear
Ht.
(in.)
Flav
orv
Peri
carp
To
ughn
essu
GSB
274
A
ST
BI
74
81
1502
1,29
1 6.
5 0.
84
7.9
2.00
2.
6 1.
0 4.
9 7.
0 23
.9
VG
ST
GSB
217
1 ST
BI
71
81
1502
1,
500
6.2
0.69
7.
5 1.
92
2.3
1.6
5.0
6.3
26.6
M
-VG
ST-V
T Fa
ntas
tic
ST
BI
75
82
1522
1,
613
7.3
0.75
7.
4 2.
00
2.8
1.6
5.0
7.7
28.0
V
G
N-S
T C
asca
de
CR
W
78
83
1543
1,
355
5.3
0.65
7.
1 1.
83
4.4
2.9
5.0
6.7
25.1
G
-VG
ST
Opt
imum
C
R
BI
78
83
1543
1,51
7 6.
2 0.
68
7.2
1.86
4.
4 2.
3 5.
0 7.
3 24
.8
VG
-E
N-S
T O
ptim
um R
. C
R
BI
78
83
1543
1,56
5 6.
7 0.
71
7.3
1.88
4.
2 2.
4 4.
9 7.
3 25
.1
VG
N-T
BSS
098
2 SY
B
I 82
84
1565
1,50
0 6.
4 0.
71
7.9
1.85
2.
9 2.
8 4.
1 7.
7 27
.2
G-E
ST-T
Surp
ass
CR
BI
78
85
1588
1,48
4 6.
2 0.
70
7.4
1.78
5.
0 2.
9 4.
3 6.
0 23
.7
VG
N-S
T G
SB 2
281
ST
BI
81
86
1614
1,58
1 7.
9 0.
83
7.6
1.94
3.
1 2.
6 4.
9 6.
7 30
.8
G
ST-T
Gar
rison
SY
Y
79
88
1651
1,64
6 8.
2 0.
83
7.8
1.90
3.
7 1.
6 4.
1 7.
0 30
.0
M
VT-
T C
SAW
P5-2
02
CR
W
82
89
1676
1,53
3 5.
9 0.
64
6.6
1.87
4.
2 2.
4 4.
2 3.
3 25
.8
VG
-E
ST-T
H
olid
ay
CR
BI
84
90
1704
1,40
4 7.
1 0.
84
8.0
2.03
4.
0 2.
2 4.
3 6.
3 31
.1
E-G
ST
Gra
nd m
ean
1,
499
6.6
0.74
7.
5 1.
91
3.6
2.2
4.6
6.6
26.8
–
– LS
D .0
5t
ns
1.3
0.06
0.
5 0.
09
– –
– –
2.8
r2s
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
–
– .5
6 –
ns
z Seed
Sou
rce:
CR
=Cro
okha
m, S
T=St
okes
, SY
=Syn
gent
a.
y Day
s fro
m p
lant
ing
to h
arve
st. P
redi
cted
num
ber i
s fro
m se
ed su
pplie
r. x G
DD
: cor
n gr
owin
g de
gree
day
s. wH
usk
cove
r, tip
fill:
1 (w
orst
) to
5 (b
est).
Hus
k tig
htne
ss: 1
(loo
se) t
o 3
(ver
y tig
ht).
Ove
rall:
1 (w
orst)
to 9
(bes
t).
v Flav
or: M
=Med
ium
, G=G
ood,
VG
=Ver
y G
ood,
E=E
xcel
lent
. u Pe
ricar
p to
ughn
ess:
N=N
ot T
ough
; ST=
Som
ewha
t Tou
gh; T
=Tou
gh; V
T=V
ery
Toug
h.
t Mea
ns d
iffer
ing
by m
ore
than
this
amou
nt a
re si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent a
t P≤.
05. –
AO
V n
ot p
erfo
rmed
. s r2 fo
r reg
ress
ion
vs a
ctua
l day
s to
harv
est i
s the
pro
porti
on o
f var
iabi
lity
expl
aine
d by
day
s to
harv
est.
ns=r
egre
ssio
n no
t sig
nific
ant a
t P<.
05.
115
Sweet Corn Population Effects on Yield and Ear Quality, 2007
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, Indiana 46391 Current recommendations for fresh market sweet corn suggest row spacing of 30 to 40 inches and in-row spacing of 8 to 10 inches for early varieties and 9 to 12 inches for late varieties. This corresponds to populations from 13,068 to 26,136 plants per acre. Variety trials at Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center have been planted at row spacings of 30 or 36 inches and populations of 20,328 plants per acre. Some cultivars may perform well at higher populations. This trial was conducted to evaluate yield and ear characteristics of two cultivars at populations up to 50% higher than normally used in Purdue variety trials.
Materials and Methods The trial was conducted on a Tracy sandy loam with 2.4% organic matter and 57 ppm phosphorus (P), 139 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (M)g, 750 ppm calcium (Ca), and pH 6.7. It was set up as a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments formed a factorial, with two cultivars (Holiday and Optimum R.) and four populations (100%, 110%, 120%, and 150% of the standard 20,328 plants per acre). Treatments were assigned to individual plots four rows (10 feet) wide by 30 feet long. In two reps, Holiday at 110% had only three or two rows due to restrictions on plot size. Prior to seeding, 70 lbs./A N, atrazine and s-metolachlor were broadcast and incorporated. Corn was seeded 29 June 2007 with a finger pick-up planter set to drop 35,600 seeds per acre, and later thinned to the desired stand for each treatment. N (20.3 lbs./A) and P (18.2 lbs./A of P2O5) were applied at planting from 19-17-0 (10 gal. /A). To control rust, propiconazole (Tilt, 4 oz./A) was applied on July 27 and August 11, and mancozeb (Dithane DF, 1.5 lbs./A) was applied on August 3. Either permethrin (Arctic 3.2EC, 6 oz./A) or zeta-cypermethrin (Mustang, 4.2 oz./A) was applied on August 16, 27, 29, 31, September 4 to control caterpillars. Irrigation was applied to incorporate herbicides and during the growing season as needed. Distance from the soil to the node of the primary ear was measured for five ears per plot. All plots of each cultivar were harvested on the same day. All primary ears from the center two rows of each plot were harvested. For the two reps of Holiday at 110% population with less than four rows, only one row was harvested. The weight and number of marketable ears were recorded and converted to per acre values based on area harvested. Three marketable ears from each plot were used to evaluate degree of husk cover, husk tightness, and degree of tip fill. Average ear diameter and length after husking, and shank length were determined for 10 marketable ears per plot. The number of USDA Fancy ears out of the 10 was recorded. The number and weight of cull ears were determined. Rating scales are described below. Quantitative data meeting assumptions of ANOVA were analyzed using ANOVA to test for the main effects of rep, cultivar, and linear and quadratic trends with respect to population. Interactions between cultivar and linear or quadratic trends were evaluated further when significant at P≤ 0.15.
116
Characteristic Rating Scale
Husk Cover 5: > 2 inches covered, 4: 1.25-2 inches, 3: 0.75-1.25 inches, 2: < 0.75 inches, 1: ear exposed
Husk Tightness 3: tight, 2: firm, 1: loose
Tip Fill 5: kernels filled to tip of cob, 4: < 0.5 inch unfilled, 3: 0.5 to 1 inch unfilled, 2: > 1 inch unfilled, 1: > 2 inches unfilled
Results and Discussion For both cultivars the number of marketable ears per acre showed a similar linear increase as plant population increased (Fig. 1A). Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to 35 dozen more marketable ears. Marketable yield in tons per acre was not influenced by population (Fig. 1B). Holiday produced 5% more marketable ears and 6% greater yield than Optimum R.
For both cultivars the average weight of a marketable ear decreased as plant population increased (Fig. 1E). Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to a decrease in average ear weight of 0.15 ounce, or about 1.8% of the average weight per ear. Average ear weight did not differ between the cultivars. Marketable ear length and diameter both decreased as population increased (Figs. 1F and 1G). Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to a decrease of 0.017 inch and 0.0035 inch for length and width, respectively, corresponding to about 0.2% of the average dimensions. Holiday had significantly longer and wider ears than Optimum R. Shank length averaged 2.75 inches for Optimum R. and 2.22 inches for Holiday. Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to a decrease in shank length of 0.034 inch (data not shown). Holiday produced ears higher on the stalk than Optimum R., 24.2 inches versus 15.3 inches. As population increased, there was a gradual but significant trend towards greater ear height for both cultivars. An increase in 1,000 plants per acre led to 0.14 inch increase in ear height (data not shown).
Quality of marketable ears as measured by the proportion of USDA Fancy ears declined as population increased for Optimum R. but not for Holiday (Fig. 1C). Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to 4% fewer Fancy ears for Optimum R. Overall, Optimum R. produced a higher proportion of Fancy ears than Holiday. Ratings for the quality characteristic of tip fill declined for both cultivars as population increased (Fig. 1H). Over the population range investigated, an increase of 1,000 plants per acre led to a decrease of 0.1 in the rating for tip fill. Optimum R. had better tip fill than Holiday, 4.0 versus 2.8. Ratings for husk cover and husk tightness did not show trends with respect to population (data not shown). Optimum R. averaged 5 and Holiday averaged 3.7 for husk cover; the two had similar ratings for husk tightness, averaging 1.3. The percent of cull ears, increased as population increased for Holiday but not for Optimum R. (Fig. 1D) Optimum R. averaged 12% culls and Holiday averaged 9% culls over all populations.
Increasing plant population by 50% resulted in 23% more marketable ears, but also led to reduced ear quality and smaller ears. Reduction in quality was related to reduced tip fill, a smaller proportion of Fancy ears (for Optimum R.), and a greater percentage of cull ears (for
117
Holiday). The ideal population for any particular farm will take into account both yield and quality in addition to production costs and expected revenue.
Acknowledgments J. Leuck and Pinney-Purdue Ag Center staff, managed field operations; N. DeFrank, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, J. Smiddy, and Master Gardeners from Porter and LaPorte counties assisted with field work; Crookham provided financial support and seed.
118
Figure 1. Relationships between yield and ear characteristics of Holiday and Optimum sweet corn and plant density, Wanatah, Indiana, 2007. Open circles=Optimum; Solid circles=Holiday. Significance of cultivar main effect (CV), linear trend across cultivars (LIN), or, if CV X LIN significant at P<.10, linear trend for each cultivar separately (LIN-H and LIN-O) indicated by ****=P≤.0001, **=P≤.01, *=P≤.05, ns=not significant. A. Number of marketable ears per acre. B. Yield of marketable ears per acre. C. Number of Fancy ears out of 10. D. Percent cull ears by number. E. Average weight per ear. F. Average ear length. G. Average ear diameter. H. Tip Fill Rating.
119
Sweet Corn Cultivar Trial — 2007 Vince Lawson, superintendent
Muscatine Island Research Farm, Fruitland, Iowa Introduction The 2007 sweet corn cultivar trial was conducted to identify cultivars with good ear characteristics for local marketing or short-distance shipping. This year’s trial focused on the bi-colored, high-quality sh2 types, often referred to as augmented or improved sh2, that are reported to be exceptionally sweet and tender. These hybrids need isolation from other corn genetic types in the field and careful handling at harvest, but can provide the best combination of gourmet eating quality with shelf life that is available.
Materials and Methods Planting Trial planted on April 23, 2007, on a dark-colored loamy-sand soil type.
Plot Design A randomized complete block design with three replications was used. Plots consisted of two rows, 25 feet long and row spacing was 30 inches. After emergence, plants were thinned to approximately eight inches apart and a uniform population of 28,000 plants per acre.
Fertility and Irrigation Water was applied as needed by a center pivot irrigation system to supplement rainfall. Fertilizer applied preplant incorporated at a rate of 60 lbs./A nitrogen (N) and 100 lbs/A potassium (K2O). After crop emergence, 45 lbs./A N (UAN) was sidedressed on May 21 and again on June 9.
Pest Control Dual II Magnum, Atrazine 4L, and Callisto herbicides were applied crop preemergence. Fanfair insecticide was sprayed on a 3- to f4-day schedule once silking started.
Results and Discussion After harvest, informal comparisons of kernel sweetness and tenderness were made between cultivars. Differences were noted but there aren’t any really bad choices for eating quality in this group. Overall, considering ear appearance, ear size, kernel depth, husk cover, tip fill, and eating quality the following cultivars produced ears with superior quality: 274A, Mirai 334 BC, Mirai 301 BC, Fantastic, 277A, Mirai 350 BC, XTH 2281, and Obsession.
Cultivars are arranged by maturity, early-to-late, in the tables. 272A was the earliest maturing cultivar in the trial and had surprising seedling vigor and ear size for its maturity and genetic type. All cultivars produced acceptable yields except Fantastic and Mirai 308BC. Their poor yields might have been due to bad seed causing weak plant emergence. Fantastic showed excellent vigor and performance in 2005 and 2006 trials. XTH 2171, XTH 2281, Obsession, and BSS 0982 are new to the trial this year and performed well showing average to good seedling vigor, yield, and ear quality. BSS 0982 is an insect-protected (Bt) hybrid.
120
Table 1. Sweet corn cultivar seed source and trial comments. Cultivar Source* Comments
272A ST Good plant vigor, yield, and ear quality for early maturing cultivar. XTH 2171 ST Long shanks and flag leaves, skinny ear, good eating quality, looked promising. 274A ST Strong plant and yield, good ear quality. Optimum CR Seedling vigor can be weak, medium-sized ears were good quality. Mirai 334BC CE Nice ears, tender and sweet, but tip fill could be a little better. Mirai 308 BC CE Poor yield due to poor stand, ears tender and sweet. Fantastic ST Excellent ear quality, poor yield due to bad seed this year? Mirai 302BC CE Nice big ears, tip fill okay but could be better, some plant lodging noted. Mirai 301BC CE Attractive and good eating ears, bad plant lodging and uneven ear maturity. Triumph ST Attractive ears, sweet and tender kernels, severe plant lodging at harvest.
277A ST Some plant lodging, only fair husk cover and tip fill, short ear length but deep kernels tender and sweet – one of the best eating cultivars in trial.
Mirai 350BC CE Weak seedling vigor, uneven plant development, but some nice ears. Mirai 336BC CE Uneven maturity, skinny ears, and shallow kernels. XTH 2281 ST First year of trialing, showed good characteristics, looked promising. Obsession SE Strong plant and yield, a few small secondary ears in husk, crunchy sweet kernels. BSS 0982 RG Insect protected (Bt) hybrid, a lot of foliage, multiple ears, decent eating quality. Holiday CR Big attractive ears had shallow kernels that were sweet and tender. 282A ST Poor seedling vigor but strong plant once established, multiple ears per plant.
*Source: CE=Centest, CR=Crookhams, RG=Rogers, ST=Stokes. Table 2. Sweet corn cultivar marketable yield and ear characteristics.
Cultivar DTH Seedling
Vigor Rating*
Dozen Ears/ Acre
Yield (cwt/acre)
Husked Ear Wt. (lbs.)
Ear Length (inches)
Ear Diameter (inches)
Husk Cover
Tip Fill
272A 75 G 1,525 127.5 0.51 7.7 1.84 G G XTH 2171 77 G 1,392 112.7 0.47 7.7 1.72 G G 274A 77 G 1,343 129.1 0.62 8.2 1.96 G G Optimum 77 F-G 1,198 92.1 0.45 7.4 1.74 G G Mirai 334BC 77 G 1,125 102.4 0.53 8.3 1.86 G F-G Mirai 308 BC 77 P 617 50.3 0.52 8.0 1.87 F-G G Fantastic 78 F 968 92.2 0.54 7.7 1.89 F-G G Mirai 302BC 80 F 1,476 139.5 0.59 8.5 1.94 G F-G Mirai 301BC 80 F 1,319 120.1 0.57 8.0 1.94 G G Triumph 80 G 1,246 113.7 0.56 7.7 1.89 F G 277A 80 F 1,162 91.5 0.50 7.3 1.81 F F Mirai 350BC 81 F 1,331 116.2 0.50 7.8 1.83 G G Mirai 336BC 81 F 1,174 106.1 0.50 8.4 1.72 G F-G
*Seedling Vigor: based on plant size four weeks after planting: G=good, F=fair, P=poor. Continued on next page
121
Table 2 (continued)
Cultivar DTH Seedling
Vigor Rating*
Dozen Ears/ Acre
Yield (cwt/acre)
Husked Ear Wt. (lbs.)
Ear Length (inches)
Ear Diameter (inches)
Husk Cover
Tip Fill
XTH 2281 83 G 1,573 152.5 0.54 7.8 1.89 G G Obsession 84 F-G 1,585 166.0 0.56 8.3 1.87 F-G G BSS 0982 84 G 1,331 137.8 0.57 8.3 1.89 G G Holiday 84 F 1,319 132.1 0.56 8.3 1.90 G G 282A 86 P-F 1,113 116.3 0.53 7.8 1.92 G G
Average 1,266 116.6 0.54 7.9 1.86 LSD 5% 256 26.9
*Seedling Vigor: based on plant size four weeks after planting: G=good, F=fair, P=poor.
122
Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Central Kentucky
John Strang, Katie Bale, Chris Smigell, Darrell Slone, and John Snyder Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Introduction Locally produced sweet corn is a high-demand item at Kentucky retail markets. This trial was designed to evaluate super sweet corn varieties.
Materials and Methods Sixteen super sweet corn varieties were planted by hand on 10 May. Plots consisted of a 20-foot long row of each cultivar and were replicated four times. Rows were spaced 33 inches apart and 100 seeds were planted in each 20-foot row. Plants were thinned to a distance of 8 inches apart.
Prior to planting, 100 lbs./A of actual N as ammonium nitrate and 18 lbs./A K as 0-0-60 were applied to the soil and tilled in. Plants were sidedressed through the trickle lines with 40 lbs./A of actual N as ammonium nitrate.
Bicep II Magnum at the rate of 25 fl.oz./A was applied on 11 May 2007, for weed control. Capture, SpinTor, Asana, and Baythroid were used for insect control.
Results and Discussion Variety evaluation results can be found in Tables 1 through 3. Zenith, a super sweet variety that has been available for a number of years, was the best performing yellow variety. This has been a top variety in previous trials and was placed in this trial for comparative purposes. Other excellent yellow varieties were Passion, GSS0966, and Sweet Shipper RS.
Devotion was excellent and the only white variety in the trial. It is notable for its exceptionally sweet flavor.
Obsession, Fantastic, Mirai 301, and Candy Corner were the best bicolor varieties. Both Mirai 301 and Candy Corner had lower husk cover and Mirai 301 had a lower tip fill value, which were accentuated by the excessively dry season. Candy Corner, a standard in the trial, had extremely tender and very sweet ears. It has had much better husk cover in previous trials.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following persons for their hard work and assistance in the successful completion of this trial: Matthew Anderson, Katie Arambasick, Jessica Ballard, Charles Bobrowski, Ekkapot Boonnu, Ryan Capito, Daniel Carpenter, Jessica Cole, Carolyce Dungan, Christopher Fuehr, Lucas Hanks, Dave Lowry, Jackie Neal, Amy Poston, Kirk Ranta, Kiefer Shuler, Matthew Simpson, Matthew Stewart, Danurit Supamoon, Joseph Tucker, Bonka Vaneva, David Wayne, and Terry Williams.
123
Table 1. Plant characteristics and yields of super sweet corn varieties, Lexington, KY, 2007.
Cultivar
Seed Source1
Days to
Maturity
Plant
Stand2 (%)
Seedling Vigor (1-5)
Height to
First Harvested Ear (in.)
Ease of
Ear Harvest4
(1-5)
Yield (dozens
of ears per acre)
Zenith HR 81 73.3 2.9 25.8 3.4 2,706 A Mirai 308BC SW 70 56.8 3.0 23.8 2.9 2,657 AC Passion RU 81 87.5 3.5 18.9 1.8 2,541 ABC Obsession SW 78 75.3 3.5 21.6 1.8 2,459 ABCD GSS0966 SW 79 71.8 3.8 18.8 1.6 2,426 ABCDE Fantastic SW 74 50.3 2.5 18.6 2.6 2,376 ABCDE Mirai 301 HR 76 59.8 2.5 22.5 2.9 2,145 BCDEF Candy Corner HR 76 63.8 3.3 16.5 2.1 2,030 CDEF Sweet Shipper RS RI 75 85.3 3.3 17.3 1.8 2,030 CDEF Devotion SW 82 78.5 4.4 22.9 2.3 2,013 DEFG Mirai 131Y RU 71 54.5 3.0 20.2 1.3 2,013 DEFG Triumph RI 75 77.0 5.0 17.7 4.0 1,914 EFG Sweet Perfection RS RI 77 59.3 2.8 15.0 1.3 1,815 FG Vision Xtra Tender SW 75 57.0 2.6 13.0 2.0 1,767 FG XTH 1273 HR 73 54.5 3.4 12.1 1.3 1,650 FG Calvary SW 84 30.8 1.8 28.0 3.4 1,502 G Waller-Duncan LSD (P=0.5) 11.1 3.1 1.4 515
1See Sources of Vegetable Seeds listing for seed company addresses. 2Plant Stand is percentage emergence of 100 seeds planted. 31 = poor, 5 = excellent. 4Ease of Ear Harvest: 1= hard, 5 = easy.
Table 2. Ear characteristics of super sweet corn varieties, Lexington, KY, 2007.
Cultivar
Husk Coverage1 (1-10)
Ear Length
(in)
Ear Width
(in)
Tip Fill2
(1-10)
Kernel Color3
Zenith 9.0 7.3 1.6 8.0 Y Mirai 308BC 5.8 7.6 1.7 4.0 BC Passion 9.8 8.1 1.7 7.0 Y Obsession 9.5 7.9 1.7 6.3 BC GSS0966 9.5 7.5 1.7 8.0 Y Fantastic 9.3 7.6 1.8 9.3 BC Mirai 301 7.3 8.3 1.9 7.3 BC Candy Corner 6.8 7.5 1.7 8.3 BC Sweet Shipper RS 9.0 7.2 1.7 6.3 Y Devotion 8.0 8.2 2.0 8.3 W Mirai 131Y 7.0 8.4 1.8 5.5 Y Triumph 9.3 7.7 1.7 9.3 BC Sweet Perfection RS 7.5 7.7 1.9 8.8 Y Vision Xtra Tender 8.3 7.2 1.7 8.0 Y XTH 1273 7.8 7.1 1.6 8.5 Y Calvary 1.0 8.4 2.0 2.3 BC 1Number of ears out of 10 that had tight husk coverage over the ear tip. 2Number of ears out of 10 that had good tip fill. 3Y = yellow, W = white, BC= bicolor.
124
Table 3. Ear quality characteristics of super sweet corn , Lexington, KY, 2007.
Cooked Corn
Cultivar
Pericarp Tenderness1
(1-4)
Kernel
Tenderness2 (1-4)
Sweetness3
(1-4)
Comments
Zenith 3.0 2.0 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, long flags, some tassels on ear tips.
Mirai 308BC 4.0 3.5 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, long flags. Passion 2.0 2.5 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, short flags. Obsession 3.0 2.0 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, short flags. GSS0966 2.5 2.5 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, medium flags. Fantastic 4.0 4.0 3.5 Attractive ear, medium long flags.
Mirai 301 3.0 2.0 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, short flags, husks very easily.
Candy Corner 4.0 4.0 4.0 Attractive husk and ear, medium flags. Sweet Shipper RS 4.0 2.0 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, long flags.
Devotion 2.5 3.0 4.0 Attractive husk and ear, medium flags, good corn flavor.
Mirai 131Y 3.0 3.0 3.5 Attractive husk and ear, short flags.
Triumph 4.0 3.5 3.0 Attractive husk and ear, medium flags, shucks easily.
Sweet Perfection RS 3.5 2.5 2.7 Attractive husk and ear, long flags.
Vision Xtra Tender 3.5 1.5 3.8 Attractive husk and ear, very long flags.
XTH 1273 2.5 1.5 2.5 Attractive husk and ear, long flags, shucks easily.
Calvary 3.5 2.0 3.0 Short flags. 11= tough, 4 = tender. 21 = crisp, 4 = creamy and tender. 31 = starchy, 4 = very sweet; ratings are based on one microwaved ear.
125
Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Eastern Kentucky, 2007
Terry Jones and Stephanie Dunn, Department of Horticulture, Robinson Station, 130 Robinson Road, Jackson, KY 41339
Introduction Sweet corn remains a very popular item at roadside and farmers’ markets and is Kentucky’s most commonly planted vegetable crop. This research was undertaken to evaluate supersweet sweet corn varieties that might be suitable for production in eastern Kentucky.
Methods Soil test results (Table 1) showed that additional potassium (K) was needed. Therefore, 50 lbs./A nitrogen (N), and 100 lbs./A K2O were applied prior to planting. Sixteen supersweet sweet corn cultivars were planted by hand on 1 June. Plots consisted of a row 20 feet long of each cultivar replicated four times in a randomized block design. Rows were spaced 3 feet apart and 100 seeds were planted for each plot of a cultivar. The plots were sidedressed (50 lbs./A N) when plants were approximately 14 inches tall, and again when plants were 30 inches tall. Supplemental overhead irrigation was needed.
One day after planting, 1.7 pts./A of Dual Magnum II were applied preemergence to control weeds. Capture 2EC was applied every 5 days during silking to reduce worm problems. However, corn earworms showed resistance to pyrethrin insecticides and control was less than expected.
In evaluating and ranking cultivars, points were awarded based on plant stand, husk coverage, tip fill, commercial acceptability, and yield. Disease tolerance was not used in the equation in 2007 because there was so little disease present at harvest.
Results This was a good year to evaluate sweet corn cultivars for pollination and ear fill under extremely hot, dry weather, which occurred during all of the 2007 growing season. Quicksand received 8.36 inches of rain between 1 June and 31 August. At planting, the soils were extremely dry with a 6.7- inch water deficit since March. The average monthly temperatures for June, July, and August were 5°F, 2°F, and 9°F above normal, respectively. Irrigation was required in order to get seed germination. Harvest for these cultivars occurred between 11 and 15 August. Because of the very dry conditions, northern corn leaf blight, southern corn leaf blight, yellow leaf spot, and gray leaf spot were not severe enough to rate, so we were not able to determine which cultivars had good disease tolerance, and thus better suited for late-season production in disease-prone areas.
Passion and GSS0969 were rated as the two top yielding, best quality, yellow sweet corn cultivars (Table 2). Passion seemed to germinate better under the very dry planting conditions.
126
Obsession and Calvary were the best bicolor supersweet varieties (Table 2). Triumph was also a very nice bicolor and had attractive ears.
Devotion was the best white cultivar, receiving the second highest rating overall in this trial (Table 2.).
Sweet corn cultivar selection should take into consideration the cultivar's ability to produce over an extended planting season where site location, weather, and changes in disease pressure may drastically change performance.
Table 1. 2007 Sweet corn cultivar trial soil test results.
pH Buffer pH P K Ca Mg Zn 6.64 7.05 91 233 2757 399 7.0
127
Tabl
e 2.
200
7 Su
pers
weet
swee
t cor
n pl
ant c
hara
cter
istic
s and
yie
ld c
ompo
nent
s, Ro
bins
on S
tatio
n, Q
uick
sand
, KY.
C
ultiv
ar N
ame1
Seed
So
urce
Pl
ant
Stan
d2 H
usk
Cov
erag
e3 T
ip F
ill4,
7 D
isea
se
Rat
ing5
Com
mer
cial
Acc
epta
bilit
y6,7
Doz
en
Ear
s/
Acr
e
Cul
tivar
Po
ints
8
Ran
k B
ased
on
Poin
ts
Pass
ion
(Y)
RU
66
.5
9.3
9.5
- 5
1,92
1 3,
232.
1 1
Dev
otio
n (W
) SW
72
.5
9.5
9.0
- 4
2,14
8 3,
190
2 O
bses
sion
(BC
) SW
56
.8
10
8.9
- 5
1,83
0 3,
138
3 G
SS09
69 (Y
) SW
46
.3
9.3
9.9
- 5
1,64
9 3,
040
4 C
alva
ry (B
C)
SW
47.8
10
9.
3 -
4 2,
042
3,00
7 5
Triu
mph
(BC
) R
ispe
n 61
.5
9.7
8.7
- 4
1,51
3 3,
000
6 C
andy
Cor
ner (
BC
) H
R
32.5
9.
0 9.
3 -
4 1,
311
2,68
9 7
XTH
127
3 (Y
) H
R
45.3
9.
3 7.
9 -
3 1,
225
2,58
8 8
Swee
t Shi
pper
(RS)
(Y)
Ris
pen
32.5
8.
5 9.
8 -
2 1,
089
2,46
7 9
Mira
i 301
(BC
) H
R
19
9.0
9.7
- 4
848
2,43
0 10
V
isio
n X
tra T
ende
r (Y
) SW
30
.3
8.7
8.8
- 2
983
2,34
3 11
Fa
ntas
tic (B
C)
SW
16
8.7
8.8
- 3
1,08
9 2,
314
12
Mira
i 131
(Y)
RU
31
8.
3 8
- 2.
5 93
8 2,
279
13
Zeni
th (Y
) H
R
14
9.3
9.1
- 2
827
2,26
3 14
Sw
eet P
erfe
ctio
n R
S (Y
) R
ispe
n 20
8.
5 9
- 1
499
2,09
7 15
M
irai 3
08 (B
C)
SW
10
8 8.
5 -
2.5
424
2,04
5 16
1 B
C=b
icol
or, W
=Whi
te, Y
=Yel
low
. 2 Pl
ant S
tand
: per
cent
em
erge
nce
of 1
00 s
eeds
. 3 H
usk
Cov
erag
e: 1
=poo
r, 10
=exc
elle
nt.
4 Tip
Fill:
num
ber o
f ear
s out
of 1
0 th
at h
ad g
ood
tip fi
ll.
5 Dis
ease
Rat
ing
(at t
ime
of h
arve
st):
0=no
dis
ease
, 1=m
ild, 2
=slig
ht-m
oder
ate
(infe
cted
to ju
st b
elow
ear
leve
l), 3
=mod
erat
e (in
fect
ed a
bove
ear
leve
l), 4
=
mod
erat
e-se
vere
(inf
ecte
d to
flag
leaf
) 5 =
sev
ere
(pla
nt d
ead)
. 6 C
omm
erci
al A
ccep
tabi
lity:
1=p
oor,
5=ex
celle
nt.
7 Bas
ed o
n 10
ear
s of c
orn.
8 C
ultiv
ar P
oint
s obt
aine
d (R
ank)
= (1
0 x
Stan
d) +
(100
x H
usk
Cov
erag
e) +
(100
x T
ip F
ill) +
(100
x C
omm
erci
al A
ccep
tabi
lity)
+ (y
ield
÷ 1
0) -
(Dis
ease
Rat
ing
x 10
0). D
isea
se R
atin
g w
as n
ot in
clud
ed in
200
7 po
int r
anki
ng.
128
2007 Sugary-Enhanced and Shrunken 2 Sweet Corn Cultivar
Evaluation for Southeast Michigan Hannah Stevens, Macomb County MSU Extension
21885 Dunham Rd., Clinton Twp MI 48036 586-469-6440
[email protected] Objective To evaluate 23 bi-color sweet corn cultivars including homozygous se and mixed se and sh2 genetics.
Materials and Methods The research was located at the George Van Houtte Farm in Macomb County, Michigan where trials have been hosted since 2001. The trials were supported in part by the Michigan Vegetable Council and by the generous contribution of George Van Houtte and his employees, whose culture and care of the crop was invaluable to the success of the trials.
The sweet corn was planted on a Dryden coarse loamy sand, fertilized with 15 gal./A of 9-36-18 and 15 gal./A 28-0-0 at seeding, with an additional application of 15 gal./A of 28-0-0 as a sidedress application in mid-June. All cultivars were planted on May 22 into warm soils. Se and sh2 genetics were isolated from each other spatially and by wind direction. The trial was arranged as a randomized complete block design with three replications and a fourth staggered planting for a field day on August 22. Cultivars were assigned to individual, three-row plots at 30-inch spacing by 20 feet in length. The plots were seeded with a hand planter and thinned after emergence to a spacing of 8-12 inches. Weeds were controlled with a preplant application of Lumax herbicide followed by a single cultivation and hand weeding. Irrigation was applied through overhead sprinklers as needed. To control European corn borer, Mustang was applied mid-season. A 17-foot-5-inch row length of each plot was harvested when corn reached marketable stage and the ease of picking was noted. The number and weight of marketable ears were determined. Five randomly selected ears from each plot were used to evaluate degree of husk cover, degree of tip fill, and average ear diameter and length after husking. Quantitative data were analyzed followed by mean separation using Fisher’s protected least significant difference at P≤. 05. The fourth replication was harvested the morning of the field day and a panel of 37 tasters, including growers, seed dealers, and consumers, rated cooked quality. All but three varieties were harvestable although some were slightly immature.
Results and Discussion It should be noted that lack of precipitation and high temperatures during the period of the trials took a toll on the yield and, to some extent, the quality of many varieties. The nearest weather
129
station, 5 miles south and east, recorded a total of 6.7 inches of rain from May 22 through August 17, including only 1.5 inches through July.
Both consumer- and grower-oriented traits are quantified in Tables 1 and 2. Sixteen sugary enhanced and seven shrunken 2 varieties were included. Sweet corn cultivars in trials conducted in previous years at the same location have matured 7 to10 days later than the predicted days, while this year most varieties were ready for harvest within 4 days of predicted maturity.
Yields The yields ranged from 944 to 1,500 dozen ears per acre for the sh2 cultivars and from 667 to 1,806 dozen ears per acre for the sugar-enhanced varieties. These numbers may be higher than one would typically see in commercial plantings as these plots are over-planted and thinned to the desired stand. In addition, per acre yields do not account for the presence of headlands or other non-productive areas. Yield did not always correlate well with days to maturity or, for that matter, with tonnage. For example, Vitality, the earliest of the se varieties significantly out-yielded 14 later maturing varieties in terms of ear numbers but yielded only average tonnage, and Bonjour, the second earliest, out-yielded 8 later varieties in terms of ear number with tonnage significantly higher than three varieties. Sweet Surprise, an early (73 day) sh2 and Holiday, a late (84 day) sh2 both out-yielded three varieties of the seven sh2 varieties in the trial. Luscious and Manitou, with their large ears, yielded significantly higher tonnage than seven se varieties by weight, but in the middle in terms of ears per acre.
Ear size There were significant differences among the cultivars with respect to ear size. Ear length in the se varieties ranged from 7.0 to 8.2 inches with BC0808, Montauk, and BC0805 having the longest ears and Manitou and Luscious having ears with the greatest diameter. In the sh2 cultivars Holiday produced the largest all-around ear.
Vegetative characteristics Tip fill was excellent in all varieties as was husk tightness. Tip cover, the length of the husk covering the tip, did demonstrate some significant differences. BC0805 and Ovation had significantly more tip cover than 13 varieties of the se genetics, while Cameo and Fast Lane had 1.3 and 0.6 inches of tip cover respectively, significantly lower than the others. In the sh2 varieties, EX084347 had 3 inches of cover, while at 1.3 inches, Holiday and Obsession had significantly less.
Eating Quality Thirty-seven tasters participated in the blind test to evaluate cooked eating quality. These included growers, seed company representatives, and consumers. Tasters did not see the responses of others and were asked to comment on and rate varieties based on texture, flavor, sweetness, and any other characteristics important to them. Four varieties were too immature for the evaluation and some had too few ears for everyone to try. The number of tasters per variety ranged from four to 36. We asked them to taste the corn without benefit of butter and salt but did give them a choice in the matter. The corn was boiled for 5 minutes.
130
Optimum and EX08745857, both sh2 varieties, were the highest ranked varieties overall, while Valor and Polka scored highest of the SE category. However, it bears mentioning that an impartial test would require that all entries be available in similar quantity and peak quality. In addition, it is always interesting to see the comments. For example, one variety elicited comments that varied from “pasty,” “dry,” and “starchy,” to “yum,” “tender,” and “sweet.” The explanation, if there is one, resides in additional research; however, the grower was curious to know the average age and gender of the panel, which was 48 years old and 59% male.
Conclusion Growers must meet the challenge of selecting varieties that satisfy both their needs and customer wants. A superior tasting variety is highly desired but early corn is typically better tasting to retail customers hungry for the first corn of the season. In these trials, Vitality, a 66-day se, had small ears but excellent yield. Sweet Surprise, a 73-day sh2, had a yield and ear size that compared favorably with the others in the trial. In years where European corn borer or corn earworm pressure is high, conventional growers may benefit from Bt varieties. BC0805 had significantly higher yields and larger ears than several of the other varieties. While BC0808, an early Bt variety, did not stand out in terms of yield; it also had a large and attractive ear. The sh2 variety BSS0982, a BT, did not perform well in these trials but in a year of sufficient rainfall it might have achieved better yields.
131
Tabl
e 1.
Swe
et C
orn
Varie
ty T
rials
2007
, Mac
omb
Coun
ty, M
SU E
xten
sion.
SE
Nam
e
Seed
So
urce
Har
vest
M
atur
ity
Day
s1
Pred
icte
d D
ays1
Yie
ld
(doz
./A)
Yie
ld
(ton
s/A)
Har
vest
Ea
se2
Tip
Cov
er
(inch
es)
Tip
Fill3
Avg
. Le
ngth
(in
ches
)
Avg
. Ear
D
iam
eter
(in
ches
)
Coo
ked
Eatin
g Q
ualit
y4
Vita
lity
SM
69
66
1,80
6 5.
60
E 1.
2 1
7.0
1.7
NA
Fa
st L
ane
MM
69
67
1,
194
4.16
E
0.6
1 7.
4 1.
7 2.
9 Bo
n Jo
ur
MM
72
70
1,
528
6.01
E
1.8
1 7.
5 1.
8 3
Polk
a C
R
72
70
1,11
1 4.
09
E 2.
1 2
7.4
1.7
2.3
Val
or
CR
75
72
1,
056
3.71
E
2.5
2 7.
4 1.
6 2.
2 BC
0808
(BT)
SY
/RG
75
72
91
7 4.
14
E 1.
9 2
8.2
1.9
2.8
Ova
tion
MM
75
75
1,
000
4.59
E
2.8
1 7.
3 1.
8 3
Lusc
ious
M
M
75
75
1,22
2 6.
26
E 2.
2 2
7.6
2.1
2.8
Mon
omoy
M
M
82
76
1,11
1 4.
49
E 2.
1 2
7.5
1.9
2.8
Acc
ord
MM
82
78
80
6 4.
13
E 2.
3 1
7.1
1.9
2.7
Prec
ious
Gem
M
M
87
80
1,02
8 4.
54
M
2.3
1 8.
0 2.
0 2.
9 M
anito
u M
M
82
80
1,19
4 6.
23
E 2.
3 2
7.7
2.1
3 M
onta
uk
MM
82
80
91
7 4.
89
E 1.
5 1
8.2
2.0
2.5
Kri
stin
e C
R
82
80
667
3.07
E
2.2
1 7.
4 1.
9 2.
6 BC
080
5 (B
T)
SY/R
G
87
82
1,25
0 5.
79
M
2.9
1 8.
1 1.
9 2.
6 C
ameo
C
R
87
84
917
3.93
E
1.3
1 7.
6 2.
0 2.
9 G
rand
Mea
n
1,10
8 4.
73
2.
0
7.6
1.9
LSD
.05
(mea
ns d
iffer
ing
by m
ore
than
th
is a
mou
nt a
re s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ent)
42
0 2.
06
0.
5
0.5
0.1
1 Day
s afte
r pla
ntin
g.
2 E=ea
sy, M
=med
ium
, H=h
ard.
3 1=
Com
plet
ely
fille
d to
tip,
2=f
illed
nea
rly to
tip
(<0.
5 in
ches
). 4 1=
exce
llent
, 2=g
ood,
3=f
air,
4=po
or (p
anel
of 3
7 ta
ster
s).
132
Tabl
e 2.
Swe
et C
orn
Varie
ty T
rials
2007
, Mac
omb
Coun
ty, M
SU E
xten
sion.
SH2
Nam
e
Seed
So
urce
Har
vest
M
atur
ity
Day
s1
Pred
icte
d D
ays1
Yie
ld
(doz
./A)
Yie
ld
(ton
s/A)
Har
vest
Ea
se2
Tip
Cov
er
(inch
es)
Tip
Fill3
Avg
. Le
ngth
(in
ches
)
Avg
. Ear
D
iam
eter
(in
ches
)
Coo
ked
Eatin
g Q
ualit
y4
Swee
t Sur
prise
R
I 76
73
1,
444
6.94
E
2.4
1 7.
7 1.
9 N
A
EX08
7458
57
SM
76
76
1,08
3 3.
66
H
1.8
1 7.
4 1.
9 1.
8 EX
0843
4712
SM
78
76
1,
333
6.39
E
3.0
1 6.
9 1.
9 N
A
Opt
imum
C
R
78
78
1,22
2 5.
29
E 2.
3 1
7.7
1.9
1.6
Obs
essio
n SM
82
80
1,
417
6.82
E
1.4
2 7.
9 1.
9 2.
8 BS
S098
2 (B
T)
SY/R
G
78
81
944
4.18
M
1.
8 1
7.5
1.8
2.2
Hol
iday
C
R
87
84
1,50
0 6.
98
M
1.3
2 8.
0 2.
0 2.
3 G
rand
Mea
n
1,27
8 5.
8
2
7.6
1.9
LS
D .0
5 (m
eans
diff
erin
g by
mor
e th
an
this
am
ount
are
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t)
336
1.5
0.
23
0.
4 0.
1
1 Day
s afte
r pla
ntin
g.
2 E=ea
sy, M
=med
ium
, H=h
ard.
3 1=
Com
plet
ely
fille
d to
tip,
2=f
illed
nea
rly to
tip
(<.5
inch
es).
4 1=ex
celle
nt, 2
=goo
d, 3
=fai
r, 4=
poor
(pan
el o
f 37
tast
ers)
.
133
On-Farm Evaluation of Tomato Cultivars for Disease Resistance, 2007
Dan Egel, Southwest Purdue Ag Program, Vincennes, IN 47591 Butch Zandstra, Zandstra’s Farm and Greenhouse, Highland, IN 46322
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Westville, IN 46391 Introduction Bacterial spot of tomatoes (Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria) causes lesions on leaves, stems, and fruit. Under hot, humid, rainy conditions, defoliation can result in a loss of yield. In addition, lesions on fruit result in a direct loss of marketability. This disease is managed primarily with applications of fixed copper bactericides, crop rotations, greenhouse sanitation, and healthy seed/transplants. Even in properly managed commercial fields, however, bacterial spot can cause yield losses.
Although there are no varieties with complete resistance to bacterial spot, we report here the results of an on-farm trial that indicate some varieties may have partial resistance.
Methods Seeds of 20 varieties were planted in the greenhouse facilities of Butch Zandstra in Lake County, Indiana. Transplants were planted in the field on June 7, 2007 in a completely randomized block design with three replications. Each replication consisted of 50 plants. The plants were placed on 4-foot-wide black plastic and were staked and weaved. A contact fungicide and fixed copper bactericide were applied approximately weekly from early July through mid-September.
On August 29 and September 24, each plot was rated for bacterial spot using the Horsfall-Barratt scale (J.G. Horsfall and R.W. Barratt, Phytopathology 35:655). Vigor of the plants in each plot was rated on August 29. The Horsfall-Barratt scale is used to assign percent foliage affected into one of 11 severity classes. Because the scale is based on human ability to detect the percent of leaf area affected by a disease, disease severity ratings representing low and high severities correspond to relatively narrower percentage ranges than ratings representing moderate disease severity. The ratings were analyzed by ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference at P=0.05. The Horsfall-Barratt ratings were converted back into percentages for presentation using the Elanco Conversion Tables (Eli Lilly Company, Indianapolis, Indiana).
Results and Discussion There were significant differences in the amount of disease present on the varieties on September 24. The percent of disease ranged from a mean of 15 percent for ‘RFT 6153’ to 70 percent for ‘Applause.’ Since disease ratings were performed relatively late in the season, the percentages shown below are a snapshot of the amount of disease present and do not reflect the amount of disease that occurred over the entire season. However, the size of the differences shown here suggests that partial resistance to bacterial spot could play a part in the management of this disease. It is interesting to note that the lowest vigor rating (‘Sunshine’ 2.3) and the highest vigor rating (‘Mountain Fresh Plus’ 8.3) are associated with high and low amounts (respectively) of
135
bacterial spot on September 24. In a similar trial published in this bulletin last year, ‘Applause’ and ‘Mountain Fresh’ held similar ranking as to the amount of bacterial spot present.
Table 1. Plant vigor and disease ratings for fresh market tomato varieties grown in Lake County, Indiana, 2007.
HB Ratingz Variety Seed Source Plant Vigory
Aug. 29 Sept. 24
Applause Seminis 4.3 defx 19 70 a
Sunshine Seminis 2.3 g 15 70 a
Red Defender Harris Moran 5.3 cdef 19 70 a
Bella Rosa Sakata 4.0 efg 9 63 ab
SVR 0170 1236 Seminis 3.7 fg 15 55 abc
RFT 4974 Syngenta 6.7 bc 12 45 abcd
Crista F1 Harris Moran 7.0 bc 19 45 abcd
STM 6701 Sakata 9 a 9 38 abcde
Linda Sakata 5.7 cde 7 38 abcde
Redline Syngenta 6.0 cd 7 38 abcde
Talladega Syngenta 7.0 bc 7 38 abcde
BHN 589 Seedway 7.0 bc 6 30 bcde
Reba Sakata 6.0 cd 7 30 bcde
Biltmore Rispens 9 a 12 30 bcde
Scarlet Red Harris Moran 5.7 cde 13 30 bcde
Florida 91 Rispens 8 ab 9 24 cde
Red Pride Sakata 6.0 cd 5 24 cde
Phoenix Rispens ND ND 24 cde
Mountain Fresh Plus Rispens 8.3 ab 5 19 de
RFT 6153 Seedway 8.0 ab 6 15 e
P-value 0.0001 0.1491 0.0359 zPlots were rated for severity of bacterial spot using the Horsfall-Barratt scale. Ratings converted to percent foliage affected. yPlant vigor was rated August 29 on a 1 to 9 scale, with 1 the least vigorous and 9 the most vigorous. xMeans within each column with a letter in common are not significantly different (P=0.05, LSD).
136
2007 Tomato Cultivar Trial for Southern Illinois J.D. Kindhart and Bronwyn Aly, Senior Research Specialists
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Dixon Springs Agricultural Center University of Illinois, Simpson, IL
A tomato cultivar trial was conducted at the Dixon Springs Agricultural Center (DSAC) located in Pope County, Illinois. Transplants used in the study were grown at DSAC and field set on May 17, 2007. The plants were grown on raised beds with black plastic mulch and trickle irrigation. Plants were set 24 inches apart in rows with 5.5-foot bed spacing. They were grown using a trellis weave and pruned to below first cluster. All plots were replicated three times. Pest control practices followed recommendations given in the Midwest Vegetable Production Guide, 2007.
The plots were harvested twice a week for the period of July 16 to August 30. Cultivars are listed in descending order of total pounds of U.S. No. 1 fruit harvested. We wish to thank the seed companies for their contribution in this trial.
Table 1. Results of 2007 DSAC tomato variety trial.
* Specialty tomato.
Early 7/16-7/20
Midseason 7/24-7/31
Total #1 7/16-8/30 Cultivar Source
U.S. No. 1 pounds per plant
Total Mktbl. Yield
7/16-8/30
Size (oz)
Culls (no.)
NC 0377 NC 1.6 5.7 15.0 18.0 10.7 4.8 NC 05137 NC 1.6 4.5 12.7 16.1 9.9 12.0 Crista SW 2.5 4.2 12.2 15.9 10.6 11.3 NC 0392 NC 2.4 5.5 11.2 13.6 10.5 7.5 Fabulous SW 1.3 3.9 10.5 12.7 10.2 10.7 Big Beef SW 1.3 4.1 10.2 15.0 9.2 10.2 NC 0718 SW 2.5 4.1 9.7 12.1 10.6 8.8 Florida 47 SW 1.3 4.3 9.2 17.8 10.7 6.9 BHN 589 SW 2.1 4.1 9.2 11.9 11.2 8.9 Pink Girl SW 0.6 1.6 6.3 9.5 10.3 14.1 Tough Boy SW 0.1 0.2 2.4 7.4 8.0 36.4 NC 05255 * NC 0.3 3.0 13.5 13.5 4.4 NC 05114* NC 2.1 2.9 13.4 13.4 1.6 Smarty* NC 1.6 2.0 11.0 0.4
137
Season Extension of Tomatoes Using High Tunnel Technology in Eastern Kentucky
Terry Jones, Stephanie Dunn, and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Introduction Economically, the best times of year for Kentucky tomato growers to sell vine- ripened tomatoes are in the early spring or fall due to the lack of available local field-grown tomatoes. Cool, rainy weather and frosts prevent Kentucky growers from consistently having a high quality early spring or late fall tomato. By using a high tunnel, or a simplified greenhouse, they could greatly reduce the risks associated with freezing temperatures and other weather-related factors that reduce fruit quality. Most Kentucky high tunnel growers transplant the spring crop in March, almost two months ahead of most field production in the area, and finish harvesting the fall crop in late November or early December, one to two months later than field-grown fall tomatoes. Low light intensity during December through February and the high cost of heating prohibit greenhouse production during that time.
Six fresh market, red-fruited tomato cultivars were evaluated in the spring of 2007 to determine their suitability for high tunnel production.
Methods The varieties chosen were Polbig, Polfast, Polset, Tormenta, Townsville, and Amelia (Table 1). The tomatoes were seeded in a greenhouse on 23 February. They were transplanted on 13 April into black plastic mulch with trickle irrigation. Rows were 45 feet long and 5.5 feet apart. The in-row spacing was 18 inches. Based on soil test results (Table 2) the planting site received the equivalent of 60 lbs./A of N, P2O5, and K2O. The tomatoes then received weekly applications of nitrogen in the form of ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, or calcium nitrate until a total of 120 lbs./A N were applied. The temperature and humidity inside and outside the high tunnel were monitored with Spec Data loggers during the growing season. The high tunnel was 48 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 12 feet high. In the high tunnel, an inexpensive home heater and a greenhouse fan were added to moderate the cool spring temperatures and provide protection if nighttime lows threatened the crop.
There were 14 to 16 harvests beginning on 6 June and continuing until 8 August. The tomatoes were harvested at the breaker stage. Data collected included: grade; weight; and count for jumbos (>3.5 inches), extra large (3-0-3.5 inches), large (2.5-3.0 inches), No. 2, small (2.0-2.5 inches), and cull tomatoes. The reasons for culling included: catfacing, concentric or radial cracks, disease, scars, blossom-end rot, fruit size, and uneven ripening. Only one application of fungicide and two applications of insecticide were used on the crop. Some spider mite problems did develop late in the season.
Results The early spring (February and March) was very warm but set record lows for several nights during 9 -12 April. The daily temperatures for the high tunnel and nearby garden during April
138
are shown in Figures 1 and 2. While the daytime high temperatures inside the high tunnel were much higher than the outside highs, the nighttime lows were not much different. On 14 April the inside low was 47°F and the outside low was 42°F. On 17 April the outside low was 30°F and the inside was 33°F. Thus, the high tunnel did not provide much protection from low temperatures at night.
The first tomato harvest was approximately 54 days after transplanting but early yields were low (Table 3). During the first 30 days of harvest only 56 % of Polfasts’ total yield and 30 % of Amelias’ total yield were picked. During the first 10 days following transplanting outside temperatures were low and the high tunnel was kept closed. Perhaps there was not adequate wind movement to set fruit on the first two flower clusters. It was noticed that growers who had bumble bees in their high tunnels had good initial fruit set, while those who relied on wind pollination did not have as many fruit in the first two clusters.
Amelia produced significantly more jumbo and extra large tomatoes than the other five cultivars (Table 4). Amelia also had significantly larger fruit size. Customers tended to leave the smaller fruited cultivars when large fruited ones were available. There was no significant difference in pounds of No. 2 or cull tomatoes among the six cultivars. Polbig, Townsville, and Amelia produced significantly more fruit per plant than the other three cultivars.
Table 1. 2007 Robinson Station Spring High Tunnel Tomato Cultivars.
Cultivar Days to Maturity Comments1
Amelia 75 Determinate; large 8 1/2 oz. red fruit with resistance to FW 1 & 2, VW, TSWV
Polbig 57-60 Determinate; round 4 oz. red fruit, resistance to FW, VW
Polset 62 Determinate; flat-round 5 oz. red fruit; resistance to VW, FW 1 & 2. High yielder
Tormenta 73 Semi determinate; roma type 3 oz. red fruit; resistance to TMV, VW, FW 1,2.
Townsville 65 Determinate; globe shaped meaty,6 oz. red fruit; resistance to VW, Fusarium 1 & 2.
Polfast 54-56 Small determinate plants; 5 oz. oblate dark red fruit; good set at cold temps; resistance to VW, Fusarium 1 & 2.
1FW=Fusarium Wilt, VW=Verticillium Wilt, TSWV=Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus
Table 2. 2007 High Tunnel Soil Test.
pH Buf-pH P K Ca Mg Zn 6.22 6.69 71 347 4013 166 23.1
139
Table 3. 2007 Robinson Station Spring High Tunnel Tomato Cultivar Trial (Early Yield).
Cultivar
No. 1 Jumbo + Extra Large (%)
Average Fruit
Weight (oz)
No. 2 (lbs.) Culls (%)
Total Early Marketable
Yield/plant (lbs.)
Amelia 98 A 10.7 A 0.49 AB 3.5 B 4.8 A Polbig 75.8 B 7.8 B 0.58 AB 10.9 AB 5.5 A Polset 44.1 E 5.8 D 0.8 A 15.6 A 4.8 A Tormenta 0.8 F 4.1 F 0.18 B 3.0 B 2.6 A Townsville 74.4 C 6.6 C 0.41 AB 2.9 B 5.8 A Polfast 57.9 D 5.7 E 0.62 AB 5.2 AB 6.2 A
Table 4. 2007 Robinson Station Spring High Tunnel Tomato Cultivar Trial (Total Yield).
Cultivar
No. 1 Jumbo +
Extra Large (%)
Avg. Fruit wt.
(oz.)
No. 2 (lbs.)
Culls (%) Total weight/plant
(lbs.)
Amelia 92 A 8.3 A 1.6 A 3.4 A 15.6 AB Polbig 74.7 B 6.8 B 1.5 A 10.3 A 18.2 A Townsville 65.4 C 6.3 C 3.5 A 2.0 A 20.7 A Polfast 57.4 D 5.9 D 1.2 A 8.8 A 11 B Polset 40.3 E 5.6 E 1.7 A 10.1 A 11.2 B Tormenta 3.8 F 3.7 F 0.3 A 1.5 A 10.9 B
140
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Apr 11 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 19 Apr 21 Apr 23 Apr 25 Apr 27 Apr 29
*F 2007High
TMP Figure 1. 2007 High Tunnel Outside Temperatures.
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
Apr 11 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 19 Apr 21 Apr 23 Apr 25 Apr 27 Apr 29
*F2007HTIn
TMP Figure 2. 2007 High Tunnel Inside Temperature.
141
Yield and Income of Fall Staked Tomato Cultivars in Eastern Kentucky
R. Terry Jones, Crystal Sparks, and John C. Snyder, Department of Horticulture Introduction Kentucky growers produce approximately 1,200 acres of staked, vine-ripe tomatoes for local and national sales. Kentucky tomatoes have an excellent reputation for quality among produce buyers. This trial evaluated new and existing cultivars to identify those that might produce well as late-season (fall) tomatoes with heat tolerance and resistance to various disease problems. Cultivars were evaluated for yield, appearance, and potential return to growers. We wanted to see which tomato cultivars would produce good yields of attractive fruit acceptable to the industry.
Materials and Methods Thirteen market, red-fruited tomato cultivars were evaluated at Quicksand, Kentucky (Table 1). According to soil test results, the plot received 20 lbs. P2O5, and 50 lbs. N/A preplant (Table 2). An additional 75 lbs. of N/A was applied through the drip irrigation lines during the growing season. Pest control was based on recommendations from ID-36, Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers. Fungicides were applied weekly and insecticides, as needed.
Trays were seeded in the greenhouse at Quicksand on May 2. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 26 and tomatoes were transplanted the next day. Cultivars were replicated four times with six plants per replication. Plants were spaced 18 inches within rows. Rows (bed centers) were 7 feet apart to allow the sprayer to be driven between beds.
Eight harvests were made during this trial. The tomato cultivars were harvested when the fruit was at the breaker stage. Data collected included: grade, weight, and count for jumbo and extra large (>3.5 in.), large (>2.5, <3.5 in.), No. 2, mediums (<2.5, >2.0 in), and cull tomatoes. Reasons for culling included catfacing, concentric or radial cracks, disease, scars, and blotchy ripening. Incomes were calculated based on the prices received by growers for staked tomatoes at the Lincoln County Produce Auction in 2007 (Table 3).
Results and Discussion The 2007 growing season was drier and much warmer than normal. Rainfall totals for June through September were: 1.95, 4.00, 2.41, and 2.49 inches for a total of 10.85 inches. Through September 21, 2007, Quicksand had a 12.5-inch deficit. Extreme heat and other weather-related problems may have increased the incidence of blotchy ripening in the last three harvests. Despite hot, dry weather, bacterial speck was present in the planting
Mt. Fresh Plus had the highest fall total marketable yield and income, but it was not significantly different from Scarlet Red or Nico in total marketable fruit or income (Table 4). Mt. Fresh Plus and Crista were not significantly different in marketable yield but Mt. Fresh Plus did have a significantly higher income. Six of the 12 large-fruited red tomatoes, Nico, Mt Fresh Plus, Scarlet Red, Crista, Solar Fire, and Talladega produced the greatest number of boxes of jumbo
142
and extra large tomatoes. While Amelia had the highest percentage (15.7%) of cull tomatoes, it was not significantly higher than the other cultivars (Table 4). Talladega, Redline, and Solar Fire produced the most No. 2 tomato fruit. Looking at the prices received for fall tomatoes in Table 3 it can be seen that cultivars that produced a lot of fruit later in the season (Sept 19, 26, and October 4), when prices were higher, would have been favored in the income produced. Redline, Scarlet Red, Solar Fire, and Talladega had the largest fruit size (Table 5). There was a significant difference in the percentage of jumbo/extra large tomatoes. Redline and Scarlet Red produced significantly more jumbo and extra large fruit than seven of the other large fruited cultivars.
Tomato plants were rated visually for severity of bacterial speck and blotchy ripening disorder. Based on visual ratings of the 13 cultivars (Table 6), Plum Crimson, Mt. Glory and Red Defender had the highest disease ratings. Mt. Fresh Plus and Nico had the lowest ratings. For some reason the stem end scars on Amelia and Talladega were large and rough looking. Most of the cultivars showed some blotchy ripening on the next to the last two harvests.
Growers should use caution when selecting any vegetable cultivar based on one year’s results at a single location.
Table 1. Tomato cultivars, descriptions, and reported disease resistance, grown at Quicksand and Lexington, Ky., 2007.
Variety Name (Company) Comments/Description1
1. Plum Crimson (HM) Determinate, 80-day high yield saladette. Resistance to FW 1, 2, 3; VW.
2. Nico (HM) Determinate, mid-maturity, dark red fruit. Resistance to VD, FW 1,2; ASC, Nt, TSWV.
3.Red Defender [HMX 5825] (HM)
Determinate, mid-maturity, dark red fruit. Resistance to VD, FW 1,2; ASC, TSWV.
4. Mt. Fresh Plus (HM) Determinate, red, 78 days, Resistance to FW 1,2; Nt, Vd.
5. Scarlet Red (HM) Determinate, 73 days, extra lg., red fruit, Resistance to VW 1, FW 1, 2; GLS, ASC.
6. Crista [NC 0256] (HM) Determinate, red, 75 days, Resistance to FW 1 1,2,3; VD, TSWV, Nt.
7. Amelia VR (HM) Determinate, red, 80 days, Resistance to FW 1,2; TSWV, Nt, Vd, ST.
8. Solar Fire (SW, HM) Heat set, 73 days, determinate compact plant, red fruit. Resistance to FW 1, 2, 3; VW 1, ST.
9.Mt Glory [NC 0392] (ST) Determinate, large, red-fruited Mt. Spring type. Resistance to FW1,2; VW 1,2,3 ST, TSWV (tol.).
1VW 1=Verticillium wilt 1, 2, 3; FW FW 1=Fusarium wilt R1; FW2=Fusarium wilt R2; GLS=gray leaf spot; Nt=nematode tolerant; ASC=Alternaria stem canker tolerant; ST=Stemphylium tolerant; 9=Fusarium wilt R3; TSWV=Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus ED=early blight tolerant; VD=Verticillium dahliae; BW=bacterial wilt, BSR=bacterial speck resistant.
Continued on next page
143
Table 1 (continued)
Variety Name (Company) Comments/Description1
10. Finishline [RFT 4974] (ST) Determinate for extra lg. green harvest. Resistance to FW 1, 2, 3; VW; ST; TSWV.
11. Redline (ST) Determinate, L-XL red fruit. Resistance to TSWV, FW 1, 2, 3.
12. Talladega (ST) Heat set, 76 days, determinate, vigorous plts, XL red fruit. Resistance to: FW 1, 2, ST, TSWV, VW.
13. Florida 7514 (RU) Determinate, 75 days, lg. red fruit. Resistance to BW, FW 1, 2; . ST, BSR, VW, BSR.
1VW 1-Verticillium Wilt 1, 2, 3; FW FW 1 -Fusarium Wilt R1, FW2 -Fusarium Wilt R2, GLS-Gray Leaf Spot, Nt-Nematode tolerant, ASC-Alternaria Stem Canker Tolerant, ST-Stemphylium Tolerant, 9-Fusarium Wilt R3, TSWV- Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus- TSWV, ED-Early Blight Tolerant. VD- Verticillium dahliae, BW - Bacterial Wilt, BSR- Bacterial speck resistant. Table 2. Results from soil test at Quicksand, Ky., 2007.
pH Buffer pH P K Ca Mg Zn 6.25 6.8 70 473 3,311 415 6.5
Table 3. Prices used to calculate incomes — average farm gate prices paid at the Lincoln County Produce Auction in 20071.
Week Price per 25-Pound Box
Aug 21st $6.31 Aug 27th $5.39 Aug 30th $5.39 Sept 5th $5.39 Sept 12th $5.36 Sept 19th $7.33 Sept 26th $11.17 Oct 4th $11.59
1Yields for extra large and jumbo grades were multiplied by these prices for the appropriate harvest dates to calculate “income per acre” for each cultivar.
144
Tabl
e 4.
200
7 fa
ll fre
sh m
arke
t tom
ato
yiel
ds a
t Qui
cksa
nd, K
y., 2
007.
Dat
a ar
e m
eans
of f
our r
eplic
atio
ns.
Cul
tivar
Ju
mbo
& E
xtra
L
arge
(b
oxes
/acr
e)3
Poun
ds E
xtra
L
arge
3
Tot
al
Mar
keta
ble
Yie
ld (l
bs.)1,
3
Inco
me
($)
Poun
ds
No.
2
Tom
atoe
s3
Perc
ent
Cul
ls2,
3 M
t. Fr
esh
Plus
2,
270
AB
40
,236
A
B
62,2
32
A
20,2
02
A
3,97
8 D
E 10
.1
A
Scar
let R
ed
2,24
2 A
B
33,8
15
BC
57
,557
A
B
17,7
23
AB
6,
444
BC
D
8.9
A
Nic
o
2,29
0 A
41
,733
A
61
,466
A
17
,025
A
BC
6,
705
BC
D
9.6
A
Cris
ta
1,91
3 A
BC
35
,254
A
BC
51
,335
A
BC
15
,741
B
C
4,25
8 D
6.
3 A
Sola
r Fire
1,
881
AB
CD
36
,817
A
BC
48
,881
B
C
14,3
25
BC
D
9,34
5 A
B
11.4
A
Mt.
Glo
ry [N
C 0
392]
1,
811
CD
36
,576
A
BC
49
,021
B
C
14,2
57
BC
D
4,68
6 D
9.
6 A
Red
line
1,
860
BC
D
31,2
87
C
47,6
40
BC
14
,194
B
CD
8,
517
AB
C
12.5
A
Am
elia
1,
530
CD
30
,385
C
41
,243
C
14
,125
B
CD
6,
868
BC
D
15.7
A
Talla
dega
1,
906
AB
C
35,5
26
AB
C
49,3
90
BC
13
,929
B
CD
11
,200
A
13
.9
A
Fini
shlin
e [R
FT 4
974]
1,
766
CD
31
,497
C
46
,194
C
13
,755
B
CD
6,
747
BC
D
11.3
A
Red
Def
ende
r [H
MX
582
5]
1,49
5 D
31
,264
C
41
,943
C
13
,370
D
C
5,17
2 C
D
7.3
A
Flor
ida
7514
1,
579
CD
35
,137
A
BC
44
,140
C
11
,076
D
E 5,
095
CD
12
.0
A
Plum
Crim
son
12
.4
E 31
1 D
28
,934
D
8,
707
E 35
0 E
15.2
A
Min
imum
Sig
nific
ant D
iffer
ence
(M
SD 5
%)
410.
3 6,
703.
2 10
,994
4,
088.
6 3,
654
10.4
1 Incl
udes
all
grad
es e
xcep
t cul
ls.
2 A s
mal
l am
ount
of b
lotc
hy ri
peni
ng w
as se
en in
som
e cu
ltiva
rs d
urin
g th
e la
st th
ree
harv
ests
in S
epte
mbe
r and
Oct
ober
. 3 M
eans
with
in a
col
umn
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent a
s det
erm
ined
by
MSD
(5%
).
145
Table 5. 2007 Fall tomato cultivar trial, average fruit weight and percentage of jumbo and extra large fruit, Quicksand, KY.
Cultivar Avg. Fruit Wt. (oz) % Fruit Jumbo
and Extra Large
Redline 10.29 A 97.64 A Scarlet Red 9.92 AB 97.54 A Solar Fire 9.72 ABC 96.31 ABC Talladega 9.38 ABCD 96.48 AB Finishline [RFT 4974] 9.23 BCDE 95.41 ABCD Crista 9.08 BCDE 93.07 BCDE Nico) 8.92 BCDEF 93.11 BCDE Mt. Fresh Plus 8.86 CDEF 90.35 E Amelia 8.46 DEF 92.32 CDE Mt. Glory [NC 0392] 8.28 EF 92.15 DE Red Defender [HMX 5825] 7.99 F 89.13 E Florida 7514 7.96 F 89.81 E Plum Crimson 3.96 G 1.05 F Minimum Significant Difference (MSD 5%) 1.0155 4.1216
Table 6. Bacterial speck severity ratings on tomato plant appearance from Quicksand, Ky., 2007.
Visual Rating1 Quicksand Cultivar
R1 R2 R3 R4 Average Comments
(Quicksand2)
Redline 2 2.5 1.5 3 2.25 Some blotchy ripening late in season.
Scarlet Red 3 3.5 3 3 3.13 Pretty tomato.
Solar Fire 3 2 2 2 2.25 Slight blotchy ripening late, some ugly fruit following a rain shower.
Talladega 3 2.5 3 4 3.13 Big stem scars.
Finishline [RFT 4974] 3 1.5 3 3 2.63 Some blotchy ripening late in season.
Crista 2 3.5 4 4 3.38 Pretty tomato. 11=no infection, 5=severe infection (100 %). Rated on October 4, 2007. 2BR/YSD=blotchy ripening or yellow shoulder disorder present in several late harvests.
Continued on next page
146
Table 6 (continued)
Visual Rating1 Quicksand Cultivar
R1 R2 R3 R4 Average Comments
(Quicksand2)
Nico 2.5 1.5 2 2 2.0 Some blotchy ripening late in season.
Mt. Fresh Plus 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1.4 Slight blotchy ripening late. Amelia 3 4 2.5 3 3.13 Ugly stem scars. Mt. Glory [NC 0392] 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.38 Pretty tomato. Red Defender [HMX 5825]
2 4 3 4 3.25 Pretty tomato.
Florida 7514 1 3 3 2.5 2.38 Blotchy ripening late in season.
Plum Crimson 3.5 3.5 4 4.5 3.88 Fruit slightly smaller than spring crop.
11=no infection, 5=severe infection (100 %). Rated on October 4, 2007. 2BR/YSD=blotchy ripening or yellow shoulder disorder present in several late harvests.
147
High-Tunnel Yields Differ Among 20 Tomato Cultivars
Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022
Objective The objective of this trial was to determine if a better cultivar(s) could be identified for high-tunnel production among the twenty tomato cultivars (14 fresh market and 6 saladette-types) evaluated. Special attention was paid to differences in yield and fruit quality traits, especially gray wall.
Summary Statistical differences were found in tomato fruit yield and quality in a high-tunnel environment. Total yield of fresh market fruit ranged from 2629 (‘Indy’) to 1806 (FL 7514) cartons/acre. Saladette-types ranged from 2787 (‘Plum Crimson’) to 2054 (‘Plum Dandy’). Yield of No. 1 large fresh market fruit ranged from 642 (‘Paragon’) to 217 (‘Red Delight’) cartons per acre and saladette No. 1 fruit yield ranged from 2096 (‘Plum Crimson’) to 977 (‘Miroma’). Average No. 1 fruit weight from fresh market fruit ranged from 280 (‘Linda’) to 226 (FL 7514) grams/ fruit. Saladette No. 1 fruit weight ranged from 142 (‘Mireina’) to 84 (‘Plum Dandy’) grams/fruit. No. 1 fruit yield was generally low due to the heavy emphasis placed on gray wall symptoms. Of the 20 cultivars evaluated, ‘Mt. Spring,’ ‘Mt. Crest,’ and ‘Crista’ appear best for fresh market types, and ‘Plum Crimson’ and ‘Marianna’ appear best for saladette types for production in high tunnel systems.
Methods Fertilizer Prior to planting 0-0-60, sulfur, solubor, and Cal-Fortified were broadcast and incorporated at 200, 20, 20, and 100 lbs./A, respectively. One ton/A of agricultural lime was also applied and incorporated. After planting, fertilizer was applied through the drip system as 4-0-8-2Ca at a rate of 1/3 pound of nitrogen per acre per day. Fertigation began June 11, 2007, and ended August 20.
Fumigation/Weed Control Beds were fumigated with 300 lbs./A 67%/33% methyl bromide/chloropicrin at bed shaping and plastic laying on May 2, 2007. Between row weeds were controlled through cultivation and hand hoeing.
Planting Seed was started in a greenhouse on April 11, 2007 and planted to the field on May 23. Beds were 6 inches high and spaced on 5.5-foot centers with in row spacing of 1.5 feet (5,280 plants per acre). The trial was planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design. There were eight plants per plot and four replications. Plots were separated by a single guard plant. Fresh market and saladette tomatoes were placed in separate plantings and analyzed separately.
148
Plant Care Plots were irrigated daily and pests controlled using standard commercial practices.
Harvest and Data Collection Harvest was conducted five times beginning on July 30, 2007 and ending on August 29. Fruit was graded and weighed for each category. Special emphasis was placed on grading for gray wall symptoms.
Results Gray wall (a physiological disorder where portions of the fruit wall stay hard and yellow) is a poorly understood condition experienced by many Michigan tomato growers. Factors thought to contribute to gray wall include nitrogen fertilization, nitrogen to potassium ratios, temperature, light levels, genetics, and others. A significant amount of fruit (50%+) can be discarded at certain harvests due to gray wall. Previous experience in trials at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center has found significant levels of fruit expressing gray wall symptoms when grown under high tunnels. The purpose of this trial was to investigate if there are specific genotypes that might be better adapted under high tunnels and see if they exhibited lower levels of gray wall. To determine this, 20 cultivars were grown under a high-tunnel situation for evaluation.
Statistical differences were found in all traits measured except for yield of No. 2 fruit for the saladette types (Tables 1 and 2). For fresh market types, ‘Indy’ had the highest total yield at 2,629 cartons/acre (carton = 25 pounds). Nine other entries had statistically similar total yields (Table 1). At 2,787 cartons/acre ‘Plum Crimson’ had the highest yield among the saladette types (Table 2). Only ‘Plum Dandy’ had significantly lower total yields.
The more important measurements are No. 1 large and cull fruit. No. 1 large fruit yields were lower due to significant amounts of fruit culled because of gray wall and blossom end rot. This, in turn, resulted in elevated numbers in the cull yield column. For fresh market types, ‘Paragon’ had the highest No. 1 large yield at 642 cartons/acre. For saladettes, ‘Plum Crimson’ had highest No. 1 yield at 2,096 cartons/acre. Seven other fresh market cultivars had similar yields to ‘Paragon.’ In the saladettes, only ‘Marianna’ had similar yields to ‘Plum Crimson’ (Table 2). ‘Soraya’ had the highest yield of cull fruit for the fresh market types at 1,828 cartons/acre (82% of the fruit). Highest cull fruit for the saladettes occurred in ‘Mireina’ (1,333 cartons/acre). In general, more cull fruit was found in the fresh market types than in the saladette.
Considering all traits measured, three fresh market cultivars appear better than the others; ‘Mt. Spring,’ ‘Mt. Crest,’ and ‘Crista.’ All three where leaders in No. 1 large yield and fruit weight, and they had a lower number of culls. ‘Marianna’ and ‘Plum Crimson’ were the best saladette cultivars.
Plant growth and appearance, and fruit quality of the trial were much poorer than in previous high-tunnel trials. Plants and fruit were generally smaller, blossom end rot (BER) was a serious problem, which had not occurred in the past, and gray wall incidence appeared greater than in previous years. A number of factors may have contributed to this. Temperatures during June and July were significantly above normal, which could have contributed to BER expression. Due to high temperatures and light levels plants may have required higher nutrient levels then what they
149
were given. The 1/3 pound per acre per day level was used due to previous trials finding field rates of nutrients too high for tunnels production. Trials indicated levels between 1/2 and 1/4 pound per acre per day were adequate, but this may not have been the case in a high light, high temperature year. Another factor could be that this was the third year of use on the overhead plastic and as the plastic ages it becomes less transparent, producing lower light levels. It may be important to fertilize tomatoes under tunnels according to weather conditions that year.
Table 1. Yield in 25-pound cartons per acre of 14 fresh market tomatoes grown under high tunnels at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2007. Fruit weight is in grams.
Variety Seed Source
Total Yield
Yield No. 1 Large
Avg. Fruit
Weight
Yield No.1 Small
Yield No. 2
Yield Cull
Indy SY/RG 2,629 600 262 277 218 1,533 Paragon JS 2,602 642 250 251 128 1,581 ACR 2012 AC 2,478 583 246 444 75 1,376 Mt. Spring SY/RG 2,473 611 277 222 234 1,405 Mt. Crest NU 2,427 618 256 230 217 1,362 Linda SK 2,417 616 280 93 110 1,598 Soraya SY/RG 2,237 304 270 69 36 1,828 Crista RI 2,168 613 278 104 99 1,352 NRT 6785 NU 2,144 357 279 115 86 1,587 Red Delight SK 2,125 217 278 78 149 1,682 Big Shot RI 1,997 328 255 102 93 1,474 Sebring SY/RG 1,966 234 232 60 42 1,630 Florida 47 RI 1,857 304 247 137 82 1,333 FL 7514 RU 1,806 421 226 281 68 1,037
Lsd = .05 569 256 26 83 93 404
Table 2. Yield in 25-pound cartons per acre of six saladette tomatoes grown under high tunnels at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2007. Fruit weight is in grams.
Variety SS Total Yield
Yield No. 1
No. 1 Fruit Wt.
Yield No. 2
Yield Cull
Plum Crimson RI 2,787 2096 103 0 691 ACR 8625 AC 2,388 1319 122 0 1,069 Marianna SK 2,383 1751 125 0 632 Mireina SY/RG 2,325 986 142 6 1,333 Miroma SY/RG 2,234 977 125 7 1,250 Plum Dandy HM 2,054 1216 84 6 832
Lsd=.05 575 458 9 ns 229
150
Nutrient Alternatives for Fresh Market Tomato and Cucumber Production
Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center
Objectives The objective of this trial was to evaluate alternative nutrient sources for their effects on cucumber and tomato yield and quality. For this trial, two organically approved sources (Microstart 60Plus and Naturesafe 13-0-0) were compared to a more standard nutrient program. Summary All three treatments gave similar total yield, yield of No. 1 and cull fruit for slicing cucumber. Nature Safe 13-0-0 produced the lowest number of cull cucumber fruit. For tomato, 4-0-8-2Ca and Microstart 60Plus had similar total yield. However, 4-0-8-2Ca had a higher yield of No. 1 fruit than the other two treatments. Differences may be due to the plants not having access to all the nutrients in the Nature Safe and Microstart products, which were applied as dry products prior to bed shaping and plastic laying. The 4-0-8-2 was applied as a liquid product through the drip system, which would have concentrated the nutrients in the area where the greatest number of roots would have grown.
Methods Fertilizer Prior to planting, 200 pounds of 0-0-60, 20 pounds of sulfur, 20 pounds of Solubor, and the following nitrogen sources and amounts were broadcast and incorporated:
Treatment Number Nitrogen Source Pounds
Nitrogen/acre Pounds
Product/acre 1 Ammonium Nitrate 33 100 2 Microstart 60Plus 7-2-2 140 2,000 3 Nature Safe 13-0-0 140 1,077
To apply preplant nitrogen, reference points outside the trial were established, plots were laid out and the appropriate amount of each product was hand applied on April 10, 2007. To minimize soil and nutrient movement, the trial was rotovated and plot location reestablished. Treatment 1 was supplemented with 4-0-8-2Ca through the drip irrigation system at 1 pound nitrogen per acre per day beginning June 16, 2007 and ending August 20 for a seasonal total of 96 pounds per acre of nitrogen. Microstart 60Plus and Nature Safe 13-0-0 were applied to attain approximately 140 pounds per acre of nitrogen.
Weed Control Weeds in beds were controlled with black plastic mulch. Between-row weeds were controlled by cultivating and hoeing.
151
Planting ‘Mountain Spring’ fresh market tomato seed was planted April 11, 2007 to 72 cell trays in a greenhouse and transplanted to the field on June 1 in beds 6 inches high and spaced 5.5 feet on center with an in row spacing of 1.5 feet (5,280 plants/acre). ‘Speedway’ slicing cucumber was direct seeded on June 1, 2007 at a rate of two seeds every 1.5 feet (10,560 plants/acre). The trial was planted and analyzed as a split plot design with nitrogen source as the main plot and crop as the subplot. There were four replications — 10 plants per replication for tomato and 20 plants for cucumber.
Plant Care Plots were irrigated as needed and disease and insect pests controlled using recommended cultural practices.
Harvest and Data Collection Harvest was conducted eight times for cucumber from July 19 to August 13, and six times for tomato from August 14 to September 19. Cucumber fruit was graded into No. 1, No. 2, and cull fruit; and tomato was graded into No. 1 large (>2.5” in dia.) and small (2.0 to 2.5” in dia.), No. 2, and cull fruit.
Results Few significant differences were found between the three nutrient programs in either ‘Speedway’ or ‘Mt. Spring’ (Tables 1 and 2). Total yield, yield of No. 1, and yield of cull fruit between treatments had no significant differences for ‘Speedway.’ The only difference was in the yield of No. 2 ‘Speedway’ fruit, where the 4-0-8-2 treatment had higher yield than Nature Safe 13-0-0.
Differences for ‘Mt. Spring’ were more critical. The 4-0-8-2 treatment had the highest level of total yield and yield of No. 1 large fruit. Microstart 60Plus had similar total yield but 4-0-8-2 stood alone for yield of No. 1 large fruit.
Differences between 4-0-8-2 and the other treatments may be due to how the products were applied. Microstart and Nature Safe were applied dry and spread throughout the shaped bed. Even though soil was moist at bed shaping the weather during June and July was warm and dry, which would cause the beds to dry out except around the drip tape emitters. Plant roots only explore moist areas, and since the 4-0-8-2 product is a liquid applied through the drip, roots would have access to most of the nutrients in that product. A significant portion of the two dry products, however, may have been left unused since it would have been in areas outside the wetting pattern were there was minimal moisture for microbial activity and root growth.
152
Table 1. Yield in 1-1/9 bushels per acre of ‘Speedway’ slicing cucumber from three nutrient treatments at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2007.
Treatment Total Yield Yield No. 1 Yield No. 2 Yield Cull Standard 4-0-8-2 1,787 864 578 345
Microstart 60+7-2-2 1,787 865 543 380 Nature Safe 13-0-0 1,575 809 464 302
Lsd = .05 ns ns 93 ns Table 2. Yield in 25-pound cartons per acre of ‘Mt. Spring’ fresh market tomato from three nutrient treatments at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2007. Fruit weight is in grams.
Treatment Total Yield
Yield No. 1 Large
Weight No. 1 Large
Yield No. 1 Small
Yield No. 2
Yield Cull
Standard 4-0-8-2 4,055 2,154 285 356 841 705 Microstart 60+7-2-2 3,844 1,856 279 400 761 828 Nature Safe13-0-0 3,648 1,654 291 390 789 815
Lsd = .05 379 266 ns ns ns ns
153
Evaluation of Fresh Market Tomato Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007
Brad R. Bergefurd and Dr. Shawn Wright Thanks to Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Wayne Lewis, and Al Welch
for management of this trial The Ohio State University South Centers
1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661-9749 Phone: (740) 289-2071
This trial evaluated 10 fresh market tomato cultivars for their suitability in southern Ohio.
Methods Seeds were planted April 16 in the greenhouse. Transplants were transplanted to the field on May 31 using a waterwheel transplanter onto raised beds covered with black plastic mulch with trickle irrigation. Plots rows were 6 feet apart. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. One hundred units of N, P, and K were applied before forming beds and laying plastic mulch. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program was followed, following OSU Bulletin #672.
Results ‘Townsville’ and ‘BHN LD709’ were not statistically different from each other and produced 58,887 and 48,667 pounds of small fruit per acre. ‘Crista’ produced the fewest pounds of small fruit per acre (18,749).
There was no effect of variety on production of pounds of medium fruit per acre.
‘BHN 591,’ ‘Mt Fresh Plus,’ and ‘Talladega’ produced the most total pounds of large fruit per acre and were not different from each other (17,301-18,702 pounds). ‘Townsville’ and ‘Polset’ produced the fewest pounds of large fruit per acre (1,045-3,493 pounds.)
‘Townsville,’ ‘BHN LD709,’ and ‘BHN 591’ produced the greatest total pounds per acre (81,494, 76,826, and 73,108 respectively) and were statistically different from ‘Crista’ and ‘Polset,’ which produced the fewest total pounds per acre (49,606 and 46,806 respectively). ‘Crista’ and ‘Polset’ were not different from each other. The other varieties produced between 60,138 and 70,660 pounds per acre. Total pounds per acre LSD was 21,554 pounds.
There was a highly significant effect of variety on average weight. ‘Crista’ had the highest average weight (0.67 pound) but was not significantly different from ‘Mt Fresh Plus,’ ‘Talladega,’ or ‘BHN 591.’ ‘TUN 3004974’ was just slightly less (0.62 pound). ‘BHN LD709’ was intermediate with an average weight of 0.56 pound. ‘Townsville’ and ‘Polset’ had the lowest average weight of 0.43 and 0.39 pound, respectively. The LSD was 0.05 pound.
154
Tomato Cultivars in 2007 Trial 1. BSS 486 2. TUN 3004974 3. Townsville 4. Tonico 5. BHN LD709 6. Polset 7. BHN 591 8. Mt Fresh Plus 9. Talladega 10. Crista
155
Seedless Watermelon Cultivar Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007
Christopher C. Gunter1*, Melborn K. Lang2, Dennis Nowaskie2, Angie Thompson2 1 Currently, Department of Horticulture Science, 230 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609; Formerly, Southwest Purdue
Agricultural Program, Vincennes, IN 47591 2Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN 47591
*Vegetable Production Specialist and the author to whom correspondence should be addressed Seedless watermelons continue to generate both grower and consumer excitement, and in many urban markets around the United States the percentage of seedless melons purchased has risen considerably. Indiana remains a strong producer of seedless (triploid) watermelons, and since 1994, we have conducted extensive annual variety trials for seedless varieties. This trial, along with the seeded (diploid) watermelon variety trial provides an objective and independent comparative assessment of new watermelons for the commercial industry. This year’s study included 39 seedless watermelons and one seeded variety.
Methods Seeds of 40 watermelon cultivars were sown in the greenhouse on April 19 and transplanted on May 17 into a randomized complete block design with three replications. Pollimax (Nunhems Seed, Parma, ID) was used as the pollenizer and planted within each row. A water wheel transplanter with two planting spikes at 48 inches was modified to include a third spike at 24 inches on one side of the wheel. Care was taken to ensure that plots were planted with a pattern of seedless-pollenizer-seedless, and that pattern repeated until 12 seedless plants had been planted. Plots were single rows, 48 feet long, centered 8 feet apart, and covered with 4 feet of black plastic mulch. Each plot had 12 seedless plants and six pollenizer plants. The recommendations in the 2007 Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers (Purdue Extension publication ID-56) were followed for fertilization, weed, disease, and insect control. Trickle irrigation was used as necessary to provide ample water to the field plots. Plots were harvested on July 11, 19, and 25, and August 2, 5, and 9. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) package (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Yield data and quality data for all varieties in the trial are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Size distribution data are presented in Table 3.
Results and Conclusions Yields and Quality Yields ranged from 12.1 tons to 30.3 tons per acre with 1,733 to 3,767 fruit per acre harvested across all entries (Table 1). The average weight of seedless fruit was down this year to 15.0 pounds per fruit, with a range of 12.7 to 20.3 pounds per fruit. The highest yielding cultivars in this trial were: Crunchy Red, USS 7031, Matrix, Nun 6033, and Majestic. Most of the fruit in the trial this year were round to oval with dark pink to red flesh. The melon varieties with the highest soluble solids were Palomar, RWT 8173, WT-05-98, RWT 8207, Nu 7561, and L-2, all of which had a soluble solids greater than 12 Brix.
157
Seedless watermelons should be a part of your melon production strategy as long as you have a market that will purchase the fruit at a higher price than the seeded watermelons.
The majority of cultivars tested produced watermelon in the 12- to18-pound range (Table 3). Notable exceptions were Matrix and USS 7031, which produced a little more than a third of their fruit in the 18- to 24-pound category. If a larger fruit size is desirable, WT-05-99 produced the most fruit over 24 pounds (12%).
Table 1. Comparison of Yield of Seedless Watermelon in Southwestern Indiana, 2007.
Cultivar Seed Source Yield Cwt/Acre Yield
z Tons/Acre
Fruit No./Acre
Average Fruit Weight
lbs.
Crunchy Red HM 607.2 30.3 a 3,767 16.3 USS 7031 US 559.3 28.0 ab 3,293 17.1 Matrix RG 558.8 28.0 ab 3,202 17.4 Nun 6033 NU 540.4 27.0 abc 3,428 15.7 Majestic SM 534.1 26.7 abcd 3,352 16.0 9651 HQ AC 529.5 26.5 abcde 3,277 16.3 WT-05-99 DP 527.5 26.4 abcde 2825 18.9 Cooperstown SM 520.6 26.0 abcdef 3,315 15.8 SSX 7401 SK 508.0 25.4 abcdefg 3,654 14.1 WT-05-98 DP 505.1 25.3 abcdefg 3,089 16.5 8134 SM 487.1 24.4 abcdefgh 3,352 14.6 RWT 8174 RG 481.4 24.1 abcdefgh 3,363 14.4 SSC 1704 SR 479.8 24.0 abcdefgh 3,315 14.5 L1 AT 472.7 23.6 bcdefghi 3,051 15.7 HMX 4915 HM 467.1 23.4 bcdefghij 3,390 13.7 Liberty NU 460.2 23.0 bcdefghij 3,089 15.0 Vagabond HM 450.9 22.6 bcdefghij 3,239 14.0 Revolution NU 428.3 21.4 bcdefghijk 2,448 17.5 5335 SM 427.9 21.4 cdefghijk 3,126 13.7 C-25 AT 418.4 21.0 cdefghijk 2,034 20.3 RWT 8207 RG 417.8 20.9 cdefghijk 3,051 13.7 Sugarheart ZG 414.2 20.7 cdefghijk 2,863 14.5 Super Crisp 85 ZG 412.9 20.6 cdefghijk 2,863 14.4 Super Crisp ZG 411.0 20.6 cdefghijk 2,904 14.0 Nu 7561 NU 405.4 20.3 defghijk 3,202 12.9 Nun 6032 NU 403.7 20.2 defghijk 2,750 14.8 212 RG 398.7 19.9 efghijk 2,900 13.8 Sweet Delight RG 396.4 19.8 fghijk 2,674 15.0
zYield weight averages spanned by the same letter are not significantly different. Continued on next page
158
Table 1 (continued)
Cultivar Seed Source Yield Cwt/Acre Yield
z Tons/Acre
Fruit No./Acre
Average Fruit Weight
lbs.
Rwt 8173 RG 393.9 19.7 fghijk 2,561 15.3 Triple Threat RG 381.9 19.1 ghijk 2,863 13.3 Super Crisp 32 ZG 381.7 19.1 ghijk 2,486 15.3 Palomar RG 364.0 18.2 hijkl 2,637 13.8 313 RG 363.2 18.2 hijkl 2,486 14.6 Constitution NU 357.9 17.9 hijkl 2,712 13.4 RWT 8203 RG 345.6 17.3 ijkl 2,448 14.0 9570 HQ AC 338.3 16.9 jkl 2,222 14.7 7176 AC 317.0 15.9 kl 2,147 14.8 L-2 AT 316.5 15.8 kl 2,335 13.5 Freshcut ESL WI 302.3 15.1 kl 2,335 12.7 Cutmaster ESL WI 241.4 12.1 l 1,733 14.0
Grand Mean 433.2 21.7 2,893 15.0 L.S.D. (5%) 131.1 6.6 596 4.5
C.V. (%) 8.6 8.6 6 8.5 zYield weight averages spanned by the same letter are not significantly different.
159
Tabl
e 2.
Com
paris
on o
f Qua
lity
of S
eedl
ess W
ater
mel
on in
Sou
thwe
stern
Indi
ana,
200
7.
Cul
tivar
%
SSq
Flav
orr
Uni
form
itys
Leng
tht
Wid
thu
Rat
iov
Shap
ew
Fles
hx D
egre
e of
Se
edle
ssne
ssy
Pres
sure
z
Cru
nchy
Red
10
.4
2.9
2 11
.5
8.8
1.3
Ov
Pink
3
2.0
USS
703
1 11
.6
3.6
3 11
.5
9.5
1.2
Rd
D-p
ink
3 1.
8 M
atrix
10
.4
2.0
3 12
.0
8.3
1.4
Ob
Red
2
1.5
Nun
603
3 11
.5
4.4
3 10
.6
9.2
1.2
Rd
D-p
ink
3 1.
5 M
ajes
tic
9.9
2.3
1 11
.1
9.1
1.2
Ov
Red
3
1.5
9651
HQ
11
.4
3.7
3 9.
6 8.
7 1.
1 R
d R
ed
3 1.
2 W
T-05
-99
11.2
2.
7 2
10.3
9.
2 1.
1 R
d D
-pin
k 1
1.0
Coo
pers
tow
n 11
.2
3.7
1 9.
9 8.
4 1.
2 O
v R
ed
3 1.
2 SS
X 7
401
11.9
3.
7 2
10.4
8.
7 1.
2 O
v R
ed
3 1.
3 W
T-05
-98
12.3
2.
4 2
10.4
9.
1 1.
1 O
v R
ed
2 1.
0 81
34
10.0
3.
5 3
10.6
8.
0 1.
3 O
v R
ed
3 1.
1 R
WT
8174
10
.8
3.2
3 10
.8
8.7
1.2
Rd
Red
2
1.3
SSC
170
4 10
.3
2.8
3 11
.1
9.2
1.2
Ov
Red
3
1.5
L-1
11.9
3.
1 3
11.5
9.
1 1.
3 O
v R
ed
2 1.
7 H
MX
4915
10
.1
2.6
2 10
.8
8.4
1.3
Ov
Red
2
1.2
Libe
rty
10.8
4.
0 2
11.0
9.
1 1.
2 O
v D
-pin
k 3
1.3
q %SS
= P
erce
nt so
lubl
e so
lids:
the
high
er th
e va
lue,
the
grea
ter t
he a
mou
nt o
f tot
al su
gar.
r Flav
or (1
to 5
): 1=
very
poo
r, 3=
acce
ptab
le, 5
=gre
at.
s Uni
form
ity (1
to 3
): 1=
lack
s uni
form
ity/v
aria
ble,
2=a
vera
ge, 3
=ver
y un
iform
. t Le
ngth
: len
gth
of fr
uit f
rom
ste
m a
ttach
men
t end
to b
loss
om e
nd (i
n in
ches
). u W
idth
: wid
th o
f fru
it as
mea
sure
d fo
llow
ing
a lo
ngitu
dina
l cut
from
ste
m e
nd to
blo
ssom
end
(in
inch
es).
v Rat
io: l
engt
h di
vide
d by
the
wid
th o
f the
frui
t. wSh
ape:
Rd=
roun
d, O
v=ov
al, O
b=ob
long
. x Fl
esh:
LR
=lig
ht re
d, R
O=r
ed-o
rang
e, R
=red
, LP=
light
pin
k, P
=pin
k, D
P=da
rk p
ink,
Y=y
ello
w.
y Deg
ree
of S
eedl
essn
ess (
1 to
3):
1=br
own
or b
lack
seed
s pre
sent
, 2=w
hite
see
ds p
rese
nt, 3
=no
seed
s pre
sent
. z Pr
essu
re: p
ress
ure
test
read
ing
(in p
ound
s per
squa
re in
ch).
Cont
inue
d on
nex
t pag
e
160
Tabl
e 2
(con
tinue
d)
Cul
tivar
%
SSq
Flav
orr
Uni
form
itys
Leng
tht
Wid
thu
Rat
iov
Shap
ew
Fles
hx D
egre
e of
Se
edle
ssne
ssy
Pres
sure
z
Vag
abon
d 11
.0
3.7
1 10
.3
8.8
1.2
R-O
v D
-pin
k 3
1.5
Rev
olut
ion
9.9
2.7
1 16
.2
9.5
1.7
Ob
Red
3
2.0
5335
11
.0
3.2
2 10
.7
8.3
1.3
Ov
Red
1
1.5
C-2
5 11
.7
3.4
1 13
.8
8.8
1.6
Ob
Red
N
/A
1.0
RW
T 82
07
12.3
3.
6 2
9.6
9.2
1.0
Rd
Red
3
1.3
Suga
rhea
rt 10
.2
3.7
3 11
.9
8.8
1.3
Ov
D-p
ink
2 1.
2 Su
per C
risp
85
10.9
2.
6 2
10.7
8.
7 1.
2 O
v R
ed
1 1.
0 Su
per C
risp
10.8
2.
7 1
10.7
7.
9 1.
3 R
-Ov
Red
2
1.0
Nu
7561
12
.3
2.8
3 9.
4 9.
1 1.
0 R
d R
ed
3 1.
5 N
un 6
032
9.8
3.8
2 9.
8 9.
1 1.
1 R
d Pi
nk
3 1.
5 21
2 11
.8
2.7
3 10
.3
8.8
1.2
Rd
Red
3
1.0
Swee
t Del
ight
11
.4
3.8
1 11
.1
9.1
1.2
Ov-
Ob
Pink
3
1.0
RW
T 81
73
12.4
3.
3 2
10.0
8.
3 1.
2 R
-Ov
Red
3
1.5
Trip
le T
hrea
t 11
.4
3.2
2 9.
1 9.
1 1.
0 R
d R
ed
3 1.
5 Su
per C
risp
32
10.8
2.
6 2
12.0
8.
7 1.
4 O
v R
ed
1 1.
0 Pa
lom
ar
12.4
3.
1 3
9.1
8.8
1.0
Rd
Red
2
1.0
q %SS
= P
erce
nt so
lubl
e so
lids:
the
high
er th
e va
lue,
the
grea
ter t
he a
mou
nt o
f tot
al su
gar.
r Flav
or (1
to 5
): 1=
very
poo
r, 3=
acce
ptab
le, 5
=gre
at.
s Uni
form
ity (1
to 3
): 1=
lack
s uni
form
ity/v
aria
ble,
2=a
vera
ge, 3
=ver
y un
iform
. t Le
ngth
: len
gth
of fr
uit f
rom
ste
m a
ttach
men
t end
to b
loss
om e
nd (i
n in
ches
). u W
idth
: wid
th o
f fru
it as
mea
sure
d fo
llow
ing
a lo
ngitu
dina
l cut
from
ste
m e
nd to
blo
ssom
end
(in
inch
es).
v Rat
io: l
engt
h di
vide
d by
the
wid
th o
f the
frui
t. wSh
ape:
Rd=
roun
d, O
v=ov
al, O
b=ob
long
. x Fl
esh:
LR
=lig
ht re
d, R
O=r
ed-o
rang
e, R
=red
, LP=
light
pin
k, P
=pin
k, D
P=da
rk p
ink,
Y=y
ello
w.
y Deg
ree
of S
eedl
essn
ess (
1 to
3):
1=br
own
or b
lack
seed
s pre
sent
, 2=w
hite
see
ds p
rese
nt, 3
=no
seed
s pre
sent
. z Pr
essu
re: p
ress
ure
test
read
ing
(in p
ound
s per
squa
re in
ch).
Cont
inue
d on
nex
t pag
e
161
Tabl
e 2
(con
tinue
d)
Cul
tivar
%
SSq
Flav
orr
Uni
form
itys
Leng
tht
Wid
thu
Rat
iov
Shap
ew
Fles
hx D
egre
e of
Se
edle
ssne
ssy
Pres
sure
z
313
10.6
2.
8 1
9.6
8.3
1.2
R-O
v R
ed
3 1.
0 C
onst
itutio
n 11
.4
2.3
2 9.
4 8.
7 1.
1 R
d D
-pin
k 2
1.3
RW
T 82
03
11.0
2.
7 2
9.8
8.3
1.2
Ov
Red
3
1.5
9570
HQ
11
.7
3.3
3 9.
9 8.
8 1.
1 R
d R
ed
1 1.
0 71
76
10.6
3.
1 1
11.6
9.
4 1.
2 R
-Ov
Pink
1
1.6
L-2
12.0
3.
8 3
10.8
8.
3 1.
3 O
v D
-pin
k 3
1.0
Fres
hcut
ESL
10
.2
1.5
1 11
.2
8.7
1.3
Ov
Red
3
1.3
Cut
mas
ter E
SL
11.2
2.
4 3
10.0
8.
4 1.
2 O
v R
ed
2 1.
0 r Fl
avor
(1 to
5):
1=ve
ry p
oor,
3=ac
cept
able
, 5=g
reat
. s U
nifo
rmity
(1 to
3):
1=la
cks u
nifo
rmity
/var
iabl
e, 2
=ave
rage
, 3=v
ery
unifo
rm.
t Leng
th: l
engt
h of
frui
t fro
m s
tem
atta
chm
ent e
nd to
blo
ssom
end
(in
inch
es).
u Wid
th: w
idth
of f
ruit
as m
easu
red
follo
win
g a
long
itudi
nal c
ut fr
om s
tem
end
to b
loss
om e
nd (i
n in
ches
). v R
atio
: len
gth
divi
ded
by th
e w
idth
of t
he fr
uit.
wSh
ape:
Rd=
roun
d, O
v=ov
al, O
b=ob
long
. x Fl
esh:
LR
=lig
ht re
d, R
O=r
ed-o
rang
e, R
=red
, LP=
light
pin
k, P
=pin
k, D
P=da
rk p
ink,
Y=y
ello
w.
y Deg
ree
of S
eedl
essn
ess (
1 to
3):
1=br
own
or b
lack
seed
s pre
sent
, 2=w
hite
see
ds p
rese
nt, 3
=no
seed
s pre
sent
. z Pr
essu
re: p
ress
ure
test
read
ing
(in p
ound
s per
squa
re in
ch).
162
Table 3. Percent of fruit broken down into size categories. Categories given are in pounds per fruit.
Cultivar <12z 12-18 18-24 >24
Crunchy Red 5 71 21 3 USS 7031 6 53 37 3 Matrix 2 59 35 4 Nun 6033 10 65 24 1 Majestic 7 70 24 0 9651 HQ 9 62 28 1 WT-05-99 3 51 35 12 Cooperstown 8 76 14 2 SSX 7401 27 65 8 0 WT-05-98 7 65 27 1 8134 16 78 7 0 RWT 8174 15 77 8 0 SSC 1704 18 70 10 1 L-1 11 69 20 0 HMX4915 21 73 6 0 Liberty 10 83 7 0 Vagabond 20 77 3 0 Revolution 3 62 29 6 5335 27 70 4 0 C-25 22 74 4 0 RWT 8207 15 74 11 0 Sugarheart 13 78 9 0 Super Crisp 85 17 74 9 0 Super Crisp 21 71 8 0 Nu 7561 39 58 4 0 Nun 6032 15 77 7 1 212 32 61 6 0 Sweet Delight 17 65 18 0 RWT 8173 15 65 21 0 Triple Threat 32 67 1 0 Super Crisp 32 15 67 17 2 Palomar 24 69 7 0 313 32 61 6 0 zSize categories in pounds.
Continued on next page
163
Table 3 (continued)
Cultivar <12z 12-18 18-24 >24
Constitution 33 61 6 0 RWT 8203 23 63 14 0 9570 HQ 14 69 15 2 7176 14 74 12 0 L-2 29 68 3 0 Freshcut ESL 40 56 5 0 Cutmaster ESL 24 70 7 0 zSize categories in pounds.
164
Watermelon Cultivar Trial — 2007 Vince Lawson and Henry Taber
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Introduction The 2007 watermelon cultivar trial evaluated 12 entrants, including several described as seedless sugar baby types, with the objective of identifying good quality, distinctive cultivars suited for local marketing. Historically, Sugar Baby has been a popular cultivar for local marketing because of its earliness, attractive blackish green rind color, and convenient size. When hybrid cultivars like Jade Star became available, many growers switched because they looked similar to Sugar Baby but had improved yield, shelf life, and eating quality. Currently, we are seeing consumer preferences shifting to seedless watermelons, creating demand for seedless Sugar Baby types. These trial results provide information on several cultivars with characteristics fitting this specific market.
Materials and Methods Location The trial was conducted at two locations: Horticulture Research Station, Ames, Iowa; and Muscatine Island Research Farm, Fruitland, Iowa.
Planting The trial was planted in the greenhouse on April 20, one seed per cell, in 98 cell trays filled with Metro Mix 360 growing media. The trays were placed on a heated bench to keep planting media at approximately 90°F. At plant emergence, the trays were removed from the heated bench and the plants were grown at ambient air temperatures in the greenhouse until field transplanting on May 21 (both locations).
Plot Design A randomized complete block design with three replications was used at both locations. A plot consisted of a single row of five plants spaced 24 inches apart. One plant of Side Kick was planted at both ends of plot for pollination. Rows were 6-foot on center at Ames and 7-foot on center at Fruitland.
Culture Ames: The trial was gown on loam soil with black plastic mulch and drip irrigation. All fertilizer was broadcast preplant incorporated at 80-100-200 (N-P2O5-K2O) lbs./A.
Fruitland: The trial was grown on coarse sand soil using clear plastic mulch with drip irrigation. Fertilizer was applied preplant and incorporated under plastic mulch at 50-50-170 (N-P2O5-K2O) lbs./A, with an additional 60 lbs./A nitrogen through trickle tubes during the growing season.
Pest Control Ames: Sandea and Strategy herbicide were applied in row middles. Capture insecticide was applied for cucumber beetle control, and Bravo Weather Stik, Quadris, and Champion fungicides
165
were applied for foliar disease control.
Fruitland: Prefar herbicide was applied under the clear plastic mulch, and Curbit and Sandea were applied along mulch edges. Fanfair and Furadan insecticides were used for cucumber beetle control, and Acramite for spider mite control. Bravo Weather Stik and Dithane fungicides were used for disease control.
Results and Discussion Triploid watermelon seed is notoriously difficult to germinate because of hard seed coats. Trial plants were started in the greenhouse using recommended germination procedures including heated germination bench and careful watering. When emergence counts were taken 14 days after planting, differences between cultivars were noted (Table 1). Percent plant emergence varied from 63% for Imagination to 100% for Jade Star. Imagination, Vanessa, 402 Seedless, and #9570 had the worst stands with emergence less than 75%. Poor germination can be a cultivar trait or due to other factors such as temperature or seed age. Before buying expensive triploid watermelon seed, it is recommended that growers become familiar with triploid seed germination techniques and cultivar characteristics.
The trial was conducted at two locations, the Horticulture Research Station in central Iowa near Ames, and the Muscatine Island Research Farm in southeast Iowa at Fruitland. The Ames site was a loam soil and produced good yields and fruit size. The Fruitland location had a coarse sand soil and although drip irrigation was used, a long period of drought during fruit filling probably caused some reduction in fruit size. Note that the average fruit weight for trial was 11.7 pounds at Fruitland and 16.0 pounds at Ames (Tables 2 and 3). In the Fruitland trial, Jade Star, Lantha, SXW 0017, Imagination, Vanessa, and Mini Yellow were the first cultivars to produce ripe fruit 67 days from transplanting. Miniput, #9651HQ, and #9570 were the slowest to ripen, taking 78 days or more. At Ames, all cultivars matured at about the same time and were first picked on August 9.
Although we experienced several hot, sunny days, surprisingly few fruit exhibited sunburn. And when they did, it was usually just a lightening of the rind color on the top of the fruit, hurting appearance but not enough to prevent marketability. The cultivars #9561HQ, #9570, and 402 Seedless most frequently showed these symptoms.
Imagination, although it can have emergence problems, continues to perform well in the field. Its seedless fruit mature reasonably early, are consistently attractive, of good quality, and usually weighed 11 to 14 pounds. Lamar, 402 Seedless, SXW 0017, and Millenium have also performed well and are recommended for trial. Cultivars #9651HQ and #9570 are not really Sugar Baby types because of their larger size and medium green coloration. However, they were very productive, excellent eating, and would be desirable in the right market. Vanessa produced attractive, nice fruit in the 7- to 10-pound range and would be a good choice when smaller fruit size are desired. Miniput bore the largest number of fruit but was slow to mature. Fruit size ranged from 8 to 12 pounds and had very firm, crunchy, dark red flesh.
166
Table 1. Watermelon seed source, percent seed emergence, and trial comments.
Cultivar Seed Source*
% Emerge** Comments
#9651HQ AC 89 Oval to round, medium green rind, bright red flesh, firm crunchy good tasting. Rind color bleaches out on top of fruit.
#9570 AC 69 Round, medium green rind, firm crisp flesh, light red, and sweet. Rind color bleaches out on top of fruit.
Miniput TW 89 Round, black, slow to mature, flesh very firm and dark red.
Lamar HL 88 Round, dark green with black stripes, flesh a little soft and spongy early pickings, later fruit good quality.
Millennium HM 91 Blocky oval, dark green, light red flesh, excellent quality. Imagination RG 63 Round, blackish green, consistently good quality.
402 Seedless SW 68 Round to oval, dark green with slight striping, a few fruit had light sunburn, flesh sweet and juicy, sometimes a little soft.
SXW 0017 NU 77 Round, dark green with thin black stripes, nice quality. Lantha RU 100 Round, black, seeded fruit, early maturity, good quality. Jade Star SW 100 Round, black, seeded, early maturity, good quality. Vanessa NU 69 Round, black fruit 7 to 10 pounds, good quality.
Mini Yellow RU 88 Round, black fruit, yellow flesh. Good quality at Ames, Fruitland noted soft, spongy flesh around hard seeds.
*Seed Source: AC=Abbott & Cobb, HM=Harris Moran, NU=Nunhems, RG=RogersBrand/Syngenta, RU=Rupps, SW=Seedway, TW=Twilleys. **Seed planted in 98 cell trays on April 20 in the greenhouse. Stand counts taken 14 days later. Table 2. Cultivar yield and fruit characteristics at Horticulture Research Station, Ames, Iowa.
Cultivar # Fruit/ Plant
Yield (cwt/acre)
Avg. Fruit Wt.
(lbs)
Fruit Width
(inches)
Fruit Length (inches)
Ratio (Length/Width)
#9651HQ 1.9 1,213.1 24.4 9.1 10.1 1.11 #9570 1.4 930.2 24.2 10.0 11.5 1.15 Miniput 3.1 1,022.7 12.1 8.3 8.3 1.00 Lamar 2.3 957.4 15.2 8.9 9.3 1.04 Millennium 1.7 767.0 16.6 8.4 11.3 1.35 Imagination 2.3 897.6 14.1 8.3 8.8 1.06 402 Seedless 1.5 631.0 15.3 8.6 9.9 1.15 SXW 0017 1.9 701.8 14.2 9.1 9.3 1.02 Lantha 1.3 636.5 17.0 10.1 10.3 1.02 Jade Star 1.5 696.3 17.4 9.0 9.4 1.04 Vanessa 1.3 331.8 9.9 7.7 7.9 1.03 Mini Yellow 1.5 462.4 11.0 8.0 8.2 1.03 Average 1.8 770.7 16.0
167
Table 3. Cultivar yield and fruit characteristics at Muscatine Island Research Farm, Fruitland, Iowa.
Cultivar First Pick* # Fruit/Plant Yield (cwt/acre)
Avg. Fruit Wt.
(lbs.)
% Soluble Solids
#9651HQ Aug 6 3.4 1,046.4 15.3 11.1 #9570 Aug 6 2.8 873.3 15.4 11.8 Miniput Aug 8 4.4 733.4 8.3 11.4 Lamar July 31 2.8 576.0 10.3 11.0 Millennium Aug 2 2.4 639.5 13.2 11.5 Imagination July 26 2.2 483.1 11.1 10.6 402 Seedless Aug 2 2.7 651.0 12.2 11.3 SXW 0017 July 24 2.7 567.0 10.6 10.8 Lantha July 24 1.4 442.5 15.7 10.7 Jade Star July 24 1.3 342.7 12.9 10.3 Vanessa July 26 4.1 591.1 7.3 10.8 Mini Yellow July 24 2.4 409.8 8.4 11.5 Average 2.7 612.5 11.7 11.1
* Transplanted onto clear plastic mulch May 21.
168
Seedless and Seeded Watermelon Variety Evaluations
John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter and Chris Smigell, Department of Horticulture
Sixteen triploid, seedless and five standard, seeded watermelon varieties were evaluated in a replicated trial for their performance under Kentucky conditions.
Materials and Methods Varieties were seeded on April 26 into Styrofoam plug trays (72 cells per tray) at the Horticulture Research Farm in Lexington. Plants were set into black plastic-mulched, raised beds using a waterwheel setter on May 25. Each plot was 20 feet long, with 6 plants set 4 feet apart within the row and 8 feet between rows. Each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Fifty lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate and 100 lbs./A 0-0-60 were applied and incorporated into the field prior to bed shaping and planting. Drip irrigation was used to provide water and fertilizer as needed.
The plot was fertigated with a total of 30 lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate divided into five applications over the season. Twelve and a half pounds of Epsom salts were applied through the irrigation lines. The systemic insecticide Admire 2F was applied with a hand sprayer as a drench to the base of each plant after transplanting; using the maximum rate of 24 fl. oz./A. Foliar insecticide applications included Pounce, Capture, and Spintor. Weekly foliar fungicide applications included fixed copper, Bravo, Quadris, and Cabrio. Curbit and Sandea, pre-emergent herbicides were applied and incorporated between the rows, when the vines had grown off the plastic mulch. One fruit from each replication was measured and evaluated for flavor, soluble solids, interior color, rind thickness, and type.
Results The growing season was hot and extremely dry and watermelon quality and taste were excellent. A hailstorm on June 5 killed some plants and damaged many others. Dead and severely damaged plants were replaced however there were not enough plants to replant several varieties in the fourth replication. Additionally, weeds became a problem in the forth replication and consequently the fourth replicate was omitted from the statistical analysis. No virus was observed and all fruit were harvested once per week. Harvest and evaluation data are in Tables 1 and 2.
Although yield values in Table 1 range from roughly 600 to 1,200 cwt/A, there was no significant difference in yield between any of the seeded or seedless varieties. This is attributed to wide variations in yield between replications and the lack of a fourth replication in the analysis. The high quality of all melons in the trial also made it difficult to find varieties that stood out.
Stars ‘N Stripes, one of the seeded standards in the trial, performed very well in terms of yield and quality, as did StarGazer and Sangria. Sangria, an old variety, consistently has an outstanding taste and is a good indicator of exceptional taste. Carson had a nice red flesh color
169
and the highest taste rating of the seeded melons.
Revolution was the best large elongated seedless variety. Crunchy Red, Vagabond, Sugar Heart, Olympia, and Independence were excellent oblong melons and Harmony, Poquito, Cooperstown, Indiana, and Ruby were excellent round watermelons. Indiana was the earliest maturing melon at 76 days and had the highest taste rating of the seedless melons. Poquito is a mini or palm melon when planted at a closer spacing and it had the second highest taste rating of the seedless watermelons.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following persons for their hard work and assistance in the successful completion of this trial: Matthew Anderson, Katie Arambasick, Jessica Ballard, Charles Bobrowski, Ekkapot Boonnu, Ryan Capito, Jessica Cole, Carolyce Dungan, Christopher Fuehr, Lucas Hanks, Dave Lowry, Jackie Neal, Amy Poston, Kirk Ranta, Kiefer Shuler, Matthew Simpson, Matthew Stewart, Danurit Supamoon, Joseph Tucker, Bonka Vaneva, David Wayne, and Terry Williams.
170
Tabl
e 1.
See
dles
s and
seed
ed w
ater
mel
on h
arve
st va
lues
and
frui
t cha
ract
erist
ics,
Lexi
ngto
n, K
y., 2
007
Out
side
M
easu
rem
ents
In
teri
or
Mea
sure
men
ts
Var
iety
Se
ed
Sour
ce
Day
s to
Har
vest
Y
ield
(c
wt/A
)1
Avg
. N
o.
Frui
t/A
Avg
. W
t./
Frui
t (lb
s.)
Cul
ls
(%)2
Len
gth
(in.)
Wid
th
(in.)
Rin
d T
hick
ness
(in
.) H
ollo
w
Hea
rt3
Seed
s/
Frui
t (n
o.) 4
Seed
ed
Star
s ‘N
Stri
pes
SW
85
1,19
5.2
a
4,46
2 27
.0
1.7
16.4
8.
8 0.
7 1.
5 -
Star
Gaz
er
RU
85
1,
123.
4 a
4,
840
23.0
0
17.1
8.
8 0.
6 1.
8 -
Sang
ria
SW
87
1,05
9.5
a
4,76
4 22
.2
0 18
.1
8.8
0.6
1.5
- C
arso
n SW
85
98
4.1
a
3,85
7 25
.1
3.6
17.1
8.
9 0.
5 2.
0 -
Jam
bore
e SW
88
77
1.8
a
2,72
3 28
.3
0 17
.1
9.5
0.6
1.5
- Se
edle
ss
Cru
nchy
Red
SW
90
1,
138.
2 a
5,
445
20.8
0
11.8
9.
5 0.
7 2.
0 2.
7 H
arm
ony
SW
84
1,05
2.8
a
6,88
2 15
.2
0 10
.9
9.6
0.7
2.0
1 M
illen
ium
SW
78
94
4.7
a
6,88
2 13
.7
0 10
.7
8.6
0.5
1.7
1 V
agab
ond
SW
82
902.
1 a
5,
521
16.6
0
11.1
9.
4 0.
7 2.
0 2
Suga
r Hea
rt SI
85
89
6.5
a
5,36
9 16
.8
0 11
.3
9.3
0.7
1.8
1 O
lym
pia
RU
85
-90
881.
6 a
4,
764
18.3
0
12.1
9.
9 0.
7 2.
0 1.
8 In
depe
nden
ce
SW
85
876.
2 a
5,
143
17.0
0
12.0
9.
8 0.
6 1.
8 1.
8 Po
quito
R
U
90
851.
5 a
5,
521
15.6
0
11.1
9.
7 0.
6 2.
0 1.
8 M
atrix
SW
86
83
8.9
a
4,00
8 20
.9
0 13
.5
9.0
0.6
2.0
1 C
oope
rsto
wn
SW
86
820.
5 a
4,
916
16.9
0
10.5
9.
6 0.
6 2.
0 1
Gyp
sy
SW
82
810.
1 a
4,
916
16.4
0
10.5
10
.0
0.6
2.0
1.8
Rev
olut
ion
SW
84
800.
8 a
4,
159
19.5
0
14.5
9.
1 0.
6 2.
0 2.
5 In
dian
a SW
76
72
9.9
a
5,06
7 14
.5
1.2
9.5
9.1
0.6
2.0
0.8
Rub
y SW
85
66
4.7
a
4,31
1 15
.9
0 10
.7
9.6
0.6
1.7
1.7
Gen
esis
SW
82
65
8.5
a
4,61
3 14
.4
0 10
.1
9.5
0.6
1.5
3.0
Cris
p ‘N
Sw
eet
SI
83
597.
2 a
3,
479
18.3
1.
6 10
.8
9.3
0.7
2.0
2.0
1 Num
bers
follo
wed
by
the
sam
e le
tter a
re n
ot si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent (
Wal
ler-
Dun
can
LSD
P=0
.05)
. Hun
dred
wei
ght (
cwt)
= 10
0-lb
. uni
ts p
er a
cre.
2 C
ull p
erce
nt b
y w
eigh
t. 3 H
ollo
w h
eart:
1 =
hol
low
hea
rt (a
ny a
mou
nt) o
bser
ved,
2 =
no
hollo
w h
eart.
4 Se
eded
var
ietie
s w
ere
not i
nspe
cted
for s
eed
num
ber.
Onl
y ha
rd se
eds w
ere
coun
ted.
171
Table 2. Seedless and seeded watermelon fruit characteristics, Lexington, Ky., 2007.
Variety Taste (1-5)1
Sugar (%)
Flesh Color2
Rind Color3 Comments
Seeded
Stars ‘N Stripes 4.3 11.6 pk rd CS Tender flesh, nice flavor, harvest when ground spot is dark yellow and large
StarGazer 4.4 11.9 pk rd AS
Tender flesh, very attractive interior, large seeds, susceptible to sunburn, uniform shape among melons
Sangria 4.5 11.8 rd AS Bright colored tender flesh, attractive interior and exterior, medium-sized seeds, some sunburn
Carson 4.6 11.6 rd AS
Tender flesh, attractive, red interior, nice flavor, medium-sized seeds, uniform shape among melons
Jamboree 4.4 12.1 rd, pk rd AS Tender flesh, nice, sweet flavor,
lots of medium-sized seeds Seedless
Crunchy Red 4.3 12.2 lt rd, pk lt gr md gr stripes
Crunchy, firm flesh, very attractive interior, tiny, black undeveloped seeds, ground spot must be very yellow
Harmony 4.5 11.5 rd, pk rd CS
Bright firm flesh, harvest when ground spot is straw color and large
Millenium 4.5 12.7 pk, pk rd BK Some with interior white fibrous
material
Vagabond 4.5 11.6 pk rd md gr dk stripe
Firm, crunchy flesh, attractive interior, nice flavor, harvest when ground spot is very yellow
Sugar Heart 4.5 11.9 pk rd CS Crisp, medium firm flesh, harvest when ground spot is dark straw color
1Taste: 1= poor, 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Flesh color: rd = red, pk = pink, lt = light. 3Rind color: AS= Allsweet, medium green rind w/dark green, broad mottled stripes; JU= Jubilee, light green rind with distinct, narrow, dark green stripes; BK=Black, solid dark green rind; CS= Crimson Sweet, light green rind w/mottled, dark green stripes; dk = dark; gr = green; lt = light; md = medium.
Continued on next page
172
Table 2 (continued)
Variety Taste (1-5)1
Sugar (%)
Flesh Color2
Rind Color3 Comments
Seedless (continued)
Olympia 4.4 11.7 pk rd md gr narrow stripe
Crisp firm flesh, attractive interior and exterior
Independence 4.5 12.7 pk, pk rd dk CS
Poquito 4.6 12.3 pk rd CS Firm flesh, excellent flavor
Matrix 4.3 11.3 rd, pk rd AS
Tender flesh, nice, sweet flavor, harvest when ground spot is dark yellow and large
Cooperstown 4.4 11.6 pk rd CS Tender flesh, attractive interior, good flavor
Gypsy 4.4 12.0 pk md. gr, dk stripe Tender flesh, very good flavor
Revolution 4.5 11.9 rd, pk rd AS Very attractive, red interior,
excellent flavor
Indiana 4.7 12.5 pk rd JU dk
background
Very attractive exterior, some dark, undeveloped seeds, early maturing
Ruby 4.5 12.1 pk rd md gr
w/dk gr stripes
Firm flesh, very attractive exterior
Genesis 4.0 11.5 lt rd CS
Crisp ‘N Sweet 4.3 11.8 lt rd pk CS Harvest when ground spot is light straw color
1Taste: 1= poor, 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Flesh color: rd = red, pk = pink, lt = light 3Rind color: AS= Allsweet, medium green rind w/dark green, broad mottled stripes; JU= Jubilee, light green rind with distinct, narrow, dark green stripes; BK=Black, solid dark green rind; CS= Crimson Sweet, light green rind w/mottled, dark green stripes; dk = dark; gr = green; lt = light; md = medium
173
Organic/Transitional Edamame (Vegetable Soybean) and Sweet Corn Seedling
Establishment — 2007 Mark Bennett1, Elaine Grassbaugh1, Jordan Miller1, and Brian McSpadden Gardener2
The Ohio State University 1Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science, Columbus, OH
2Dept. of Plant Pathology, Wooster, OH Introduction This project focuses on the use of organic/biological seed treatments for optimum stand establishment of sweet corn and edamame. Traditional seed treatments, due to their composition, cannot be used in organic production systems. Use of untreated seed often reduces seed germination and field stands. Organic/biological treatments may be useful to organic and transitional farmers when direct seeding crops such as sweet corn and edamame. This project assessed establishment when sown under lab, greenhouse conditions, and field seedling establishment to maximize agronomic and horticultural usefulness.
Materials and Methods Sweet corn (‘Xtra-tender 272A’) and edamame (‘Envy’) seed were treated with various biological treatments: Champion, PlantShield® HC, and Pseudomonas fluorescens strain Delaw 1(Pf1) in three formulations (A, C, D) which differed only in the age and moisture content of the inoculum. All three formulations of P. fluorescens are suitable for organic production. Laboratory standard germination tests and cold tests (five replications of 50 seeds) were performed on treated seeds and an untreated control. Seeds were also planted in plug trays in four replications of 50 seeds. Trays were put into a germinator at 60oF for 4 days (8 hours light, 16 hours dark). Trays were then transferred to a greenhouse bench and grown for an additional 7 days. Stand counts were recorded and 10 plants from each replication were sampled for dry weight accumulation. Field plots were also established at an organic grower site near Fremont, Ohio. Plots were mechanically seeded using five replications on June 11. Edamame seeds were planted in 30-inch rows at a population of 120 seeds per plot. Sweet corn was planted in 30-inch rows at a population of 60 seeds per plot. Stand counts were recorded on July 20. Statistical analysis was performed for data sets with missing data. Due to a planter malfunction, some treatments (in the field study only) are averaged over two to four reps.
Results Sweet corn showed significant differences for standard germination, cold tests, and plug tray emergence but not for seedling dry weights among the seed treatments (Table 1). Pf1 formulations A and C were promising treatments in the sweet corn cold test and plug tray assessments. There were significant treatment differences for edamame (‘Envy’) plug tray emergence and seedling dry weights, but no differences among seed treatments for laboratory cold tests (Table 1).
175
Field results show no significant differences among seed treatments for either the sweet corn or edamame, although the three Pf1 formulations tended to perform best in field data comparisons for sweet corn emergence and seedling growth (Table 1). Percent field emergence was lower in general for edamame than for sweet corn, with the exception of the PlantShield HC treatment. Field emergence for sweet corn ‘Xtra-tender 272A’ ranged from 45-72%, and for edamame ‘Envy’ from 30-52%. Future studies should also look at seed treatment effects on final yield.
Acknowledgements • Thanks and appreciation to the Paul C. and Edna H. Warner Endowment Fund for
Sustainable Agriculture for financial support of this project. • Thanks and appreciation to the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and
Development Program for financial support of this project. • We express our appreciation to the Knox Wittmeyer Scholarship Fund for awarding
scholarship funding (to Jordan Miller) and project funds for this undergraduate research study.
• Thanks to Samuel Contreras for help with statistical analysis for field emergence. • Special thanks to Matt Hofelich and the crew at the North Central Ag Research Station
for assistance with planting and stand counts.
176
Table 1. Organic/transitional edamame (vegetable soybean) and sweet corn seedling establishment — 2007
Sweet Corn ‘Xtra-tender 272A’
Plug Tray Study
Treatment Standard Germ. %
Cold Test (% germ) Emergence
(% germ) Seedling Dry Wt.
(gm)
Percent Field
Emergence
Untreated 98 68 97 0.32 58 PlantShield HC 95 63 88 0.29 51 Champion 92 82 84 0.29 45 P. fluorescens strain
Delaw1-A 96 94 95 0.35 64
P. fluorescens strain Delaw1-C 96 95 95 0.39 69
P. fluorescens strain Delaw1-D 96 88 90 0.35 72
LSD (0.05) 3.2 6.7 3.8 NS NS pvalue 0.024 0.016 0.016 0.08 0.770 CV 3.0 16.5 6.4 16.3
Edamame ‘Envy’
Plug Tray Study
Treatment Standard Germ. %
Cold Test (% germ) Emergence
(% germ) Seedling Dry Wt.
(gm)
Percent Field
Emergence
Untreated 97 90 86 1.39 34 PlantShield HC 92 90 85 1.47 52 Champion 92 90 84 1.29 37 P. fluorescens strain
Delaw1-A 88 92 78 1.48 30
P. fluorescens strain Delaw1-C 98 90 92 1.37 38
P. fluorescens strain Delaw1-D 94 82 72 1.34 45
LSD (0.05) NS NS 10.2 0.12 NS p value 0.061 0.165 0.015 0.025 0.350 CV 5.8 6.8 10.4 7.0
177
Use of ABA (Abscisic Acid) and PEG 8000 (Polyethylene Glycol) to Control Vegetable
Transplant Height — 2007 Mark Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, and Matt Hofelich
Ohio State University/OARDC Columbus, OH
Introduction Vegetable transplants can become tall and leggy prior to field establishment, producing challenges for growers using mechanical transplanters to establish their crops. Preliminary greenhouse research in 2005 showed that the use of abscisic acid (ABA) reduced tomato transplant heights by as much as 67% compared to untreated control plants.
Materials and Methods Plug trays were seeded on April 26 with ‘BHN 685’ (seed source: SW) plum tomatoes (288-cell plug trays) and ‘Wahoo’ (seed source: SW) bell peppers (200-cell plug trays). ABA was applied as a drench application on May 23 (tomatoes) and May 30 (peppers) at a rate of 100, 200, or 400 ppm 5 days before transplanting. PEG 8000 (polyethylene glycol) was incorporated into the growing mix (Metro-Mix) at the rate of 20 gallons per liter of mix prior to seeding plug trays to control transplant height in vegetable transplants. Plots were mechanically transplanted on May 30 (tomatoes) and June 5 (peppers) into raised beds spaced 5 feet apart with in-row plant spacing of 12 inches. Treatments were evaluated for their effect on transplant height control, field establishment, crop growth, and final marketable yield. Tomato plant height and stem diameter measurements were recorded prior to ABA application and 7 days after application (plant height only). Plant height, stem diameter, percent survival, and dry weights were recorded 3 weeks after transplanting (tomatoes) and 2 weeks after transplanting (peppers). The same measurements, plus plant height, were recorded on peppers 6 weeks after transplant. Tomatoes were harvested on September 6, and peppers were harvested on August 15 and September 6.
Results PEG incorporated into the growing mix prior to seeding significantly reduced tomato plant height prior to transplanting but not peppers (Tables 1 and 2). ABA applied at the rates of 100, 200, and 400 ppm significantly reduced tomato transplant height 7 days after application (DAA) compared to untreated control (Tables 1). No plant height differences were seen in peppers 7 days after application (Table 2). No differences in height were seen in peppers 2 weeks after transplanting or in tomatoes 3 weeks after transplant. There were no differences in final marketable yield in either crop. The use of ABA and PEG helped control tomato transplant height prior to transplanting without adverse effects on final yield. No differences were seen in height control for peppers (except for results with 200 ppm at 6 weeks after transplant), and there was no effect on final yield. Effects of ABA and PEG were more prominent in 2006 in both crops (Figures 1 and 2) and more research is needed to see the effect of these height controlling compounds on other vegetable crop species.
178
Acknowledgements • Special thanks to the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development
Program and the OARDC Small Industry Grant Program for their financial support of this research.
• Thanks to Seedway for their seed donations for this project. • Thanks to Valent BioSciences for their donation of ABA for this project.
• Special thanks and appreciation to Sean Mueller, Stan Gahn and the summer crew at the North Central Ag Research Station for plot maintenance and harvest assistance.
179
Tabl
e 1.
Use
of A
BA a
nd P
EG 8
000
to C
ontro
l Fre
sh M
arke
t Veg
etab
le T
rans
plan
t Hei
ght —
200
7 fo
r Tom
ato
Culti
var B
HN6
85.
Prio
r to
AB
A A
pplic
atio
n
Trea
tmen
t Pl
ant H
eigh
t (c
m)
Stem
Dia
met
er
(mm
)
Unt
reat
ed
17.5
2.
8 PE
G
16.2
2.
5
LSD
0.
80
0.10
p
valu
e 0.
015
0.03
C
V
4.9
5.9
Perc
ent
Surv
ival
Pl
ant
Hei
ght
(cm
)
Stem
D
iam
eter
(m
m)
Dry
Wei
ght
of 5
Pla
nts
(gm
) Tr
eatm
ent
Plan
t Hei
ght
(cm
) at
Tran
spla
nt
(7 d
ays a
fter
AB
A
appl
icat
ion)
3
wee
ks a
fter t
rans
plan
ting
Red
T/
A
Cul
l T/
A
Perc
ent
Red
Fru
it
Ave
rage
Fr
uit
Wei
ght
(lbs.)
Con
trol
19.2
99
22
.4
7.05
37
.90
32.6
6.
6 83
0.
20
AB
A 1
00
ppm
17
.7
98
21.5
7.
25
39.3
1 30
.8
7.9
79
0.18
AB
A 2
00
ppm
17
.5
99
22.8
7.
90
41.0
8 31
.7
6.0
84
0.20
AB
A 4
00
ppm
15
.5
93
21.7
7.
28
37.2
5 33
.3
6.3
84
0.21
PEG
16
.7
98
20.1
7.
28
38.8
4 30
.5
7.6
80
0.22
LSD
1.
17
3.8
NS
0.54
N
S N
S N
S N
S N
S p
valu
e 0.
041
0.02
4 0.
442
0.04
8 0.
944
0.98
4 0.
174
0.18
1 0.
065
CV
8.
2 3.
6 9.
0 6.
4 19
.9
20.9
19
.1
4.7
8.0
180
Tabl
e 2.
Use
of A
BA a
nd P
EG 8
000
to C
ontro
l Fre
sh M
arke
t Veg
etab
le T
rans
plan
t Hei
ght —
200
7 fo
r Pep
per C
ultiv
ar W
ahoo
.
Prio
r to
AB
A A
pplic
atio
n
Trea
tmen
t Pl
ant H
eigh
t (c
m)
Stem
Dia
met
er
(mm
)
Unt
reat
ed
11.9
2.
8 PE
G
11.0
2.
9
LSD
N
S N
S p
valu
e 0.
122
0.60
8 C
V
6.4
6.2
Perc
ent
Surv
ival
Pl
ant
Hei
ght
(cm
)
Stem
D
iam
eter
(m
m)
Dry
W
eigh
t of
5 Pl
ants
(g
m)
Trea
tmen
t
Plan
t Hei
ght
(cm
) at
Tran
spla
nt
(5 d
ays a
fter A
BA
ap
plic
atio
n)
2 w
eeks
afte
r tra
nspl
antin
g
Plan
t Hei
ght
(cm
) (6
wee
ks a
fter
trans
plan
ting)
Mar
keta
ble
T/A
C
ull
T/A
Ave
rage
Fr
uit
Wei
ght
(lbs.)
Con
trol
11.5
92
16
.5
4.45
3.
9 29
.4
7.3
2.7
0.63
A
BA
100
pp
m
10.8
99
16
.3
4.48
4.
1 28
.2
8.2
2.4
0.63
AB
A 2
00
ppm
11
.3
99
15.2
4.
33
3.8
26.5
8.
8 2.
0 0.
67
AB
A 4
00
ppm
10
.6
98
16.1
4.
30
3.7
28.9
8.
3 2.
6 0.
65
PEG
11
.5
100
15.7
4.
35
3.9
29.0
7.
8 2.
8 0.
68
LSD
N
S N
S N
S N
S N
S 1.
58
NS
NS
NS
p va
lue
0.66
6 0.
435
0.43
8 0.
569
0.89
1 0.
014
0.77
7 0.
707
0.40
9 C
V
9.4
7.1
4.2
7.3
13.6
6.
2 19
.5
33.4
7.
3
181
Figure 1. Plant height 7 days (2006) and 5 days (2007) after ABA application on tomatoes ‘BHN 685.’
0
5
10
15
20
25
Con
trol
ABA 100
ABA 200
ABA 400
PEG
Treatment
Pla
nt
ht
(cm
)
2006 (LSD 1.32)
2007 (LSD 1.17)
Figure 2. Plant height 5 days after ABA application on peppers ‘Wahoo.’
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Con
trol
ABA 100
ABA 200
ABA 400
PEG
Treatment
Pla
nt
ht
(cm
)
2006 (LSD 1.47)
2007 (NS)
182
Authors’ Addresses Illinois
Bronwyn Aly University of Illinois Dixon Spring Agriculture Center Simpson, IL 62985 (618) 695-2444 [email protected] J. D. Kindhart University of Illinois Dixon Spring Agriculture Ctr. Simpson, IL 62985 [email protected]
Jerald K. Pataky University of Illinois AW-101 Turner Hall 1102 South Goodwin Ave. Urbana, IL 61801-4798 (217) 333-6606 [email protected] S. Alan Walters Dept. Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4415 (618) 453-2496 [email protected]
Marty Williams USDA-ARS University of Illinois N-325 Turner Hall 1102 South Goodwin Ave. Urbana, IL 61801-4798 [email protected]
Indiana Dan Egel Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center 4469 N. Purdue Road Vincennes, IN 47591 (812) 886-0198 [email protected]
Christopher C. Gunter 230 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7609 (919) 513-2807 Fax: (919) 515-2505 [email protected] Elizabeth T. Maynard Purdue University 1401 U.S. Highway 421 Westville, IN 46391 (219) 785-5673 [email protected]
Iowa Vince Lawson Muscatine Island Research Farm P.O. Box 40 Fruitland, IA 52749 (563) 262-8787 [email protected]
Henry Taber Department of Horticulture Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-0025 [email protected]
Kentucky Daniel Carpenter University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture N-318 Agr. Science Bldg North Lexington, KY 40546-0091 (859) 272-5513 [email protected]
Terry Jones Robinson Station 130 Robinson Road Jackson, KY 41339 (606) 666-2438 ext. 234 [email protected]
183
Authors’ Addresses (continued) Kentucky (continued)
Darrell Slone University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture N-318 Agr. Science Bldg North Lexington, KY 40546-0091 (859) 272-5513 Chris Smigell University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture N-318 Agr. Science Bldg. North Lexington, KY 40546-0091 (859) 257-3598 [email protected]
John C. Snyder University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture N-318 Agr. Science Bldg. North Lexington, KY 40546-0091 (859) 257-5635 [email protected] John G. Strang University of Kentucky Department of Horticulture N-318 Agr. Science Bldg. North Lexington, KY 40546-0091 (859) 257-5685 [email protected]
Michigan Ron Goldy Michigan State University SW Michigan Res. & Ext. Ctr. 1791 Hillandale Road Benton Harbor, MI 49022 (616) 944-1477 [email protected]
Hannah Stevens Michigan State University SW Michigan Res. & Ext. Ctr. 1791 Hillandale Road Benton Harbor, MI 49022 [email protected]
New York Margaret Tuttle McGrath Department of Plant Pathology and Plant Microbe-Biology
Cornell University Long Island Horticultural Research & Extension Center
3059 Sound Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901-1098 (631) 727-3595 ext. 20 [email protected]
North Dakota Walt Albus Research Supervisor Oakes Irrigation Research Site P.O. Box 531 Oakes, ND 58474-0531 (701) 742-2189 [email protected] Collin Auwarter Department of Plant Sciences North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105 [email protected]
Sarah Gegner North Dakota State University 106 Walster Hall P.O. Box 5638 Fargo, ND 58102 [email protected]
Harlene Hatterman-Valenti North Dakota State University Department of Plant Sciences 266 D Loftsgard Hall Fargo, ND 58105-5051 (701) 231-8536 [email protected]
184
Authors’ Addresses (continued)Ohio
Mark Bennett The Ohio State University Dept. of Hort. & Crop Science 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-3864 [email protected]
Brad R. Bergefurd The Ohio State University OSU South Centers 1864 Shyville Road Piketon, OH 45661-9749 (740) 289-2071 ext. 136 [email protected] Elaine M. Grassbaugh The Ohio State University Dept. of Hort. & Crop Science 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-3858 [email protected]
Matt Hofelich OARDC North Central Ag Research Station
1165 CR 43 Fremont, OH 43420 (419) 332-5142 [email protected] Robert J. Precheur The Ohio State University Dept. of Hort. & Crop Science 2001 Fyffe Court Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-3857 [email protected]
Shawn Wright OSU South Centers 1864 Shyville Road Piketon, OH 45661-9749 (740) 289-2071 [email protected]
Pennsylvania
Michael D. Orzolek, Director Penn State Center for Plasticulture 203 Tyson Bldg. The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 [email protected] (814) 863-2251
185
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs, services, activities, and facilities without regard to race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, disability or status as a veteran.
Purdue University is an Affirmative Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.
Purdue Agriculture
Order or download materials at the Purdue Extension Education Store • www.ces.purdue.edu/new
New 2/08
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
12/06
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, David C. Petritz, Director, that all persons shall have equal opportunity and access to the programs and facilities without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, or disability. Purdue University is an A�rmative Action institution.
This material may be available in alternative formats.
You can order or download materials on this and other topics at the Purdue Extension Education Store.
www.ces.purdue.edu/new
Order additional copies from Purdue Extension for $20
Visit the Purdue Extension Education Store at
www.ces.purdue.edu/new
Call the Agricultural Communication Media Distribution Center toll-free at
(888) EXT-INFO (398-4636)
PURDUE EXTENSIONPurdue extension