Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007

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

Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007

Compiled by Elizabeth T. Maynard

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


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


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.


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



8


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



9


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



10


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


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

xing

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


Husk Cover 5: > 2-inch cover, 4: 1.25-2 inches, 3: 0.75-1.25 inches, 2: < 0.75 inch, 1: ear exposed


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


Husk Cover 5: > 2 inches covered, 4: 1.25-2 inches, 3: 0.75-1.25 inches, 2: < 0.75 inches, 1: ear exposed


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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

Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007

Documents

Transcript of Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007