LITERATURE CITED Armitage, A. 2001. Armitage’s Manual of Annuals, Biennials, and Half-Hardy...
1
Table 2 .Top ten plants according to the average ofseason rating (m ustbe > 3.5),flow errating (> 3.0),and bloom period (> 6 w eeks). Rank N am e Average 1 a Lantana camara ‘PatriotPetticoat’ 7.38 2 a Lantana montevidensis 7.35 3 a Salvia farinacea ‘Victoria Blue’ 7.14 4 a Stachys albotomentosa 7.10 5 a Agastache rupestris 6.99 6 a Cuphea hyssopifolia 6.94 7 b Scutellaria ‘Rose Fountains’ 6.67 8 a Leonotis ocymifolia 6.52 8 a Lantana camara ‘PatriotCow boy’ 6.52 9 a Ruellia brittoniana 6.12 10 c Agastache ‘Blue Fortune’ 5.67 a see Table 1 forseason rating,flow errating and bloom period b season rating:4.01;flow errating:4.00;bloom period:12 w eeks c season rating:4.13;flow errating:3.88;bloom period:9 w eeks LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Armitage, A. 2001. Armitage’s Manual of Annuals, Biennials, and Half-Hardy Perennials . Timber Press, Portland, OR. Monroe, C. and Kistler, C. 1998. Annual fever: annuals are hot in 1998. Green Scene 26:4-9. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. 1998 Census of Horticultural Specialties. Available from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97horticultu re/table 54.pdf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Marilyn Daly, MEd, Research Mentor Richard H. Daly, Jr., MD Matthew T. Davis Michele Luckenbaugh James Mulligan Jeffrey Thompson, PhD To these and my friends and family that helped to plant and maintain the beds, I am extremely grateful. • If an emphasis is placed on floriferousness by ranking plants according to the average of season rating, flower rating, and bloom period, as opposed to ranking plants according to season rating alone, a change in ranking occurs (Table 2). A ranking system that overemphasizes floriferousness may give ineffectual results, i.e., a plant that ranks high in floriferousness may score poorly in resistance to disease and pests, and therefore may not be a suitable choice for some gardeners. • Several plants performed extremely well in foliage and non-flower related categories, but they either did not bloom or scored poorly in the flower-related categories. Examples include Plectranthus madagascariensis, Centaurea gymnocarpa, and Helichrysum petilolare ‘Minus.’ These plants would be useful in containers where floriferousness may not be a necessity. • Future studies may examine the performance of these plants in other hardiness zones to determine their potential across the Northeastern United States. EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED TENDER PERENNIALS EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED TENDER PERENNIALS GROWN IN A 2002 PLANT TRIAL GROWN IN A 2002 PLANT TRIAL Jessica M. Luckenbaugh Jessica M. Luckenbaugh York College of Pennsylvania, Department of Biological Sciences York College of Pennsylvania, Department of Biological Sciences ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Tender perennials, plants that are hardy perennials in their warmer native habitats, may be grown as summer annuals in Pennsylvania’s USDA Zone 6, where they are not normally hardy. However, they must perform well in this region’s summer conditions and reach their horticultural potential within one growing season when grown from seeds or cuttings. This study evaluated 47 tender perennials to determine which had horticultural potential as annuals in USDA Zone 6. Evaluations occurred from July 2 to September 22, 2002 using seven horticultural criteria (plant vigor, resistance to disease, pests and predation, uniformity of size, flower appearance, bloom percentage, uniformity of bloom, and foliage appearance) and six bonus criteria (fragrance, uniqueness, architecture, attraction of wildlife, and self-cleaning blooms). The top performers were Lantana camara ‘Patriot Petticoat,’ Lantana montevidensis, and Cuphea hyssopifolia. Opening the trial to public observation exposed gardeners to exceptional, and in some cases unknown, tender perennials. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION • An annual is a plant that completes its entire life cycle, including growth, flower and seed production, and death, within one year, regardless of environmental conditions (Armitage 2001). • As recent as 1998, Americans spent over $1.7 billion on annual bedding and garden plants, with over $65 million being spent by Pennsylvania gardeners (National Agricultural Statistics Service). • Annuals are popular for their vibrant colors and rapid growth, and they are popularly used in beds, containers, and borders (Monroe and Kistler 1998). • Tender perennials that demonstrate tolerance to regional conditions during summer months, and that reach their full potential as plants of horticultural value within one season, may be grown as annuals to promote their usage in gardens and to improve the selection of annuals as a group. The objectives of this study were to: • Develop a well-defined, objective horticultural evaluation system • Evaluate 47 selected tender perennials to determine which plants have the greatest horticultural potential for being grown as summer annuals in USDA Zone 6 • Promote awareness of tender perennials determined to have horticultural merit as 1) Soil of four beds, (24.4m x 2.44m) was tilled; pH, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium soil tests were performed. Mushroom soil was spread over bed surface to a depth of approximately 15cm. 2) Ten South African species were germinated from seed for four weeks; 37 other varieties grown from cuttings were obtained from a nursery. Germinated plants were transplanted to market packs. 3) Sets of eighteen plants of each variety were planted; beds were watered and weeded as necessary. No fertilizer was used, but each plant was dipped in soap detergent prior to planting to help repel insects. 4) Each set of 18 plants was evaluated once a week for 12 weeks according to seven horticultural criteria: Vigor, Resistance to Disease, Pests and Predation, Uniformity of Size, Flower Appearance, Bloom Percentage, Uniformity of Bloom, and Foliage Appearance. Each set earned 0-5 points in each category. Sets could potentially earn one bonus point per week for each of the following novel traits: Fragrant Blooms/Foliage, Unique Blooms, Unique Foliage, Outstanding Plant Architecture, Attraction of Hummingbirds/Butterflies, and Self-Cleaning Blooms. 5) Weekly ratings were determined by averaging a set’s scores in each category each week. The season rating was found from the mean of the weekly ratings for each set. Flower rating was determined from the mean of weekly averages of Flower Appearance and Bloom Percentage scores. Bloom Period was calculated from the number of weeks flower rating was ≥ 3. RESULTS RESULTS Twenty-two varieties attained a season rating ≥ 3.5. Sixteen varieties attained a season rating ≥ 3.5, plus a flower rating ≥ 3.0 and a bloom period ≥ 6 weeks. All plants of the latter group originated from cuttings from a nursery. Lantana montevidensis Hebenstretia dura Agastache ‘Blue Fortune’ DISCUSSION DISCUSSION • A useful evaluation system for annuals/summer garden plants must include several flower- related criteria, because these plants are usually grown for their flowers. • Plants that earned high scores in flower- related and vigor categories generally ranked higher according to season ranking than those that earned lower scores in these areas. L. camara ‘Patriot Petticoat’ Ruellia brittoniana Cuphea hyssopifolia P. madagascariensis Figure 1 Figure 1 Figure 1. Performance of top ten plants (Table 1) according to Vigor (V), Resistance to Disease, Pests and Predation (Res), Uniformity of Size (UniSz), Foliage Appearance (FolAp), Flower Appearance (FAp), Uniformity of Bloom (UniB), Bloom Percentage (BL%), and Novel Traits (Nov). The height of each multicolored vertical bar indicates mean total points earned in a week. Height of each block composing these bars represents the mean points earned in each category. Numbers inside blocks represent mean points earned per category. 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.3 4.8 4.9 3.3 3.9 3.3 4.3 5.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.7 5.0 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 2.4 3.8 3.9 4.8 4.9 3.3 4.3 4.9 3.8 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.2 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.0 4.3 4.9 4.5 3.4 3.9 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.8 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.9 3.5 3.4 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.2 3.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 T op T en P erform ers M ean W eekly Points N ov FolAp BL% UniB FA p UniSz Res V METHODS METHODS Table 1 .Top ten plants according to season rating thatalso attained a flow errating > 3.0 and a bloom period > 6 w eeks. Rank Nam e SR a FR b BP c 1 Lantana camara ‘PatriotPetticoat’ 5.23 4.92 12 2 Lantana montevidensis 5.10 4.96 12 3 Cuphea hyssopifolia 4.68 4.13 12 4 Stachys albotomentosa 4.67 4.63 12 5 Salvia farinacea ‘Victoria Blue’ 4.49 4.92 12 6 Ruellia brittoniana 4.44 3.92 10 7 Leonotis ocymifolia 4.43 4.13 11 8 Agastache rupestris 4.38 4.58 12 9 Lantana camara ‘PatriotCow boy’ 4.35 4.21 11 10 Asclepias physocarpa 4.14 3.21 7 a season rating b flow errating c bloom period
-
Upload
cynthia-haynes -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of LITERATURE CITED Armitage, A. 2001. Armitage’s Manual of Annuals, Biennials, and Half-Hardy...
Table 2. Top ten plants according to the average of season rating (must be >3.5), flower rating (>3.0), and bloom period (>6 weeks).
Rank Name Average 1 aLantana camara ‘Patriot Petticoat’ 7.38
2 aLantana montevidensis 7.35
3 aSalvia farinacea ‘Victoria Blue’ 7.14
4 aStachys albotomentosa 7.10
5 aAgastache rupestris 6.99
6 aCuphea hyssopifolia 6.94
7 bScutellaria ‘Rose Fountains’ 6.67
8 aLeonotis ocymifolia 6.52
8 aLantana camara ‘Patriot Cowboy’ 6.52
9 aRuellia brittoniana 6.12
10 cAgastache ‘Blue Fortune’ 5.67 asee Table 1 for season rating, flower rating and bloom period bseason rating: 4.01; flower rating: 4.00; bloom period: 12 weeks cseason rating: 4.13; flower rating: 3.88; bloom period: 9 weeks
LITERATURE CITEDLITERATURE CITEDArmitage, A. 2001. Armitage’s Manual of Annuals, Biennials, and Half-Hardy Perennials. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Monroe, C. and Kistler, C. 1998. Annual fever: annuals are hot in 1998. Green Scene 26:4-9.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. 1998 Census of Horticultural Specialties. Available from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97horticulture/table 54.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMarilyn Daly, MEd, Research Mentor Richard H. Daly, Jr., MD
Matthew T. Davis Michele Luckenbaugh
James Mulligan Jeffrey Thompson, PhD
To these and my friends and family that helped to plant and maintain the beds, I am extremely grateful.
• If an emphasis is placed on floriferousness by ranking plants according to the average of season rating, flower rating, and bloom period, as opposed to ranking plants according to season rating alone, a change in ranking occurs (Table 2). A ranking system that overemphasizes floriferousness may give ineffectual results, i.e., a plant that ranks high in floriferousness may score poorly in resistance to disease and pests, and therefore may not be a suitable choice for some gardeners.
• Several plants performed extremely well in foliage and non-flower related categories, but they either did not bloom or scored poorly in the flower-related categories. Examples include Plectranthus madagascariensis, Centaurea gymnocarpa, and Helichrysum petilolare ‘Minus.’ These plants would be useful in containers where floriferousness may not be a necessity.
• Future studies may examine the performance of these plants in other hardiness zones to determine their potential across the Northeastern United States.
EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED TENDER PERENNIALSEVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED TENDER PERENNIALSGROWN IN A 2002 PLANT TRIALGROWN IN A 2002 PLANT TRIAL
Jessica M. LuckenbaughJessica M. LuckenbaughYork College of Pennsylvania, Department of Biological SciencesYork College of Pennsylvania, Department of Biological Sciences
ABSTRACTABSTRACTTender perennials, plants that are hardy perennials in their warmer native habitats, may be grown as summer annuals in Pennsylvania’s USDA Zone 6, where they are not normally hardy. However, they must perform well in this region’s summer conditions and reach their horticultural potential within one growing season when grown from seeds or cuttings. This study evaluated 47 tender perennials to determine which had horticultural potential as annuals in USDA Zone 6. Evaluations occurred from July 2 to September 22, 2002 using seven horticultural criteria (plant vigor, resistance to disease, pests and predation, uniformity of size, flower appearance, bloom percentage, uniformity of bloom, and foliage appearance) and six bonus criteria (fragrance, uniqueness, architecture, attraction of wildlife, and self-cleaning blooms). The top performers were Lantana camara ‘Patriot Petticoat,’ Lantana montevidensis, and Cuphea hyssopifolia. Opening the trial to public observation exposed gardeners to exceptional, and in some cases unknown, tender perennials. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION• An annual is a plant that completes its entire life
cycle, including growth, flower and seed production, and death, within one year, regardless of environmental conditions (Armitage 2001).
• As recent as 1998, Americans spent over $1.7 billion on annual bedding and garden plants, with over $65 million being spent by Pennsylvania gardeners (National Agricultural Statistics Service).
• Annuals are popular for their vibrant colors and rapid growth, and they are popularly used in beds, containers, and borders (Monroe and Kistler 1998).
• Tender perennials that demonstrate tolerance to regional conditions during summer months, and that reach their full potential as plants of horticultural value within one season, may be grown as annuals to promote their usage in gardens and to improve the selection of annuals as a group.
The objectives of this study were to:
• Develop a well-defined, objective horticultural evaluation system
• Evaluate 47 selected tender perennials to determine which plants have the greatest horticultural potential for being grown as summer annuals in USDA Zone 6
• Promote awareness of tender perennials determined to have horticultural merit as summer garden plants
1) Soil of four beds, (24.4m x 2.44m) was tilled; pH, Nitrogen,
Phosphorous, Potassium soil tests
were performed. Mushroom soil was
spread over bed surface to a depth of approximately 15cm.
2) Ten South African species were germinated from seed for four
weeks; 37 other varieties grown from cuttings were obtained from a nursery. Germinated plants were transplanted to
market packs.
3) Sets of eighteen plants of each variety were planted; beds were
watered and weeded as necessary. No fertilizer was
used, but each plant was dipped in soap detergent prior to
planting to help repel insects.4) Each set of 18 plants was evaluated once a week for 12 weeks according to seven horticultural criteria: Vigor, Resistance to Disease, Pests and Predation, Uniformity of Size, Flower Appearance, Bloom Percentage, Uniformity of Bloom, and Foliage Appearance. Each set earned 0-5 points in each category. Sets could potentially earn one bonus point per week for each of the following novel traits: Fragrant Blooms/Foliage, Unique Blooms, Unique Foliage, Outstanding Plant Architecture, Attraction of Hummingbirds/Butterflies, and Self-Cleaning Blooms.
5) Weekly ratings were determined by averaging a set’s scores in each category each week. The season rating was found from the mean of the weekly ratings for each set. Flower rating was determined from the mean of weekly averages of Flower Appearance and Bloom Percentage scores. Bloom Period was calculated from the number of weeks flower rating was ≥ 3.RESULTSRESULTS
Twenty-two varieties attained a season rating ≥ 3.5. Sixteen varieties attained a season rating ≥ 3.5, plus a flower rating ≥ 3.0 and a bloom period ≥ 6 weeks. All plants of the latter group originated from cuttings from a nursery.
Lantana montevidensis
Hebenstretia dura
Agastache ‘Blue Fortune’
DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION• A useful evaluation system for annuals/summer garden
plants must include several flower-related criteria, because these plants are usually grown for their flowers.
• Plants that earned high scores in flower-related and vigor categories generally ranked higher according to season ranking than those that earned lower scores in these areas.
L. camara ‘Patriot Petticoat’
Ruellia brittoniana
Cuphea hyssopifolia
P. madagascariensis
Figure 1Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance of top ten plants (Table 1) according to Vigor (V), Resistance to Disease, Pests and Predation (Res), Uniformity of Size (UniSz), Foliage Appearance (FolAp), Flower Appearance (FAp), Uniformity of Bloom (UniB), Bloom Percentage (BL%), and Novel Traits (Nov). The height of each multicolored vertical bar indicates mean total points earned in a week. Height of each block composing these bars represents the mean points earned in each category. Numbers inside blocks represent mean points earned per category.
5.0 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.8
4.3 4.8 4.93.3 3.9 3.3 4.3 5.0 4.0
4.5
5.0 4.7 5.0
4.7 3.7 3.83.8 2.4 3.8
3.9
4.8 4.93.3
4.3 4.93.8
4.04.3 3.9
3.0
5.0 5.0
5.05.0 4.5
4.25.0
5.0 4.0 3.3
5.0 5.05.0
5.0 4.9
4.0
4.3 4.94.5
3.4
3.9 3.04.0
4.03.0
4.83.0 4.0
3.03.9
3.53.4
2.22.3 2.7 2.2
3.12.2
1.1
1.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Top Ten Performers
Mean W
eekly
Poin
ts
Nov
FolAp
BL%
UniB
FAp
UniSz
Res
V
METHODSMETHODS
Table 1. Top ten plants according to season rating that also attained a flower rating > 3.0 and a bloom period > 6 weeks. Rank Name SRa FRb BPc 1 Lantana camara ‘Patriot Petticoat’ 5.23 4.92 12
2 Lantana montevidensis 5.10 4.96 12
3 Cuphea hyssopifolia 4.68 4.13 12
4 Stachys albotomentosa 4.67 4.63 12
5 Salvia farinacea ‘Victoria Blue’ 4.49 4.92 12
6 Ruellia brittoniana 4.44 3.92 10
7 Leonotis ocymifolia 4.43 4.13 11
8 Agastache rupestris 4.38 4.58 12
9 Lantana camara ‘Patriot Cowboy’ 4.35 4.21 11
10 Asclepias physocarpa 4.14 3.21 7 aseason rating bflower rating cbloom period
