Watermelon and Cantaloupe Variety Trials 2014

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Watermelon and Cantaloupe Variety Trials 2014"

Samson Flowers
5 years ago
Views:

Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center Watermelon and Cantaloupe Variety Trials 2014 Presented at a meeting of the Southwest Indiana Melon and Vegetable Growers Association November 20, 2014.

1 Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center Watermelon and Cantaloupe Variety Trials 2014 Presented at a meeting of the Southwest Indiana Melon and Vegetable Growers Association November 20, Presentation: Daniel S. Egel, Extension Plant Pathologist, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, egel@purdue.edu Document Development: Michael Russell

2 Midwest Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2014 Daniel S. Egel, Extension Plant Pathologist; Dennis Nowaskie, Superintendent; Sara Hoke, Agricultural Technician; Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, Introduction Indiana continues to rank well in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) production nationally; in 2013, Indiana was 6 th in acres planted at 7,400 acres as well as total value of production at over $30,000,000. Indiana watermelon growers ranked 4 th in yield per acre at 34,000 lbs./acre. Variety selection is one of the keys to remaining competitive in watermelon production. The objective of this study was to evaluate yield and internal quality of 23 triploid watermelon varieties grown under southwestern Indiana conditions. Materials and Methods On April 18, 2014, 250 seeds of each of 23 varieties were sown in the greenhouse. Seeds were planted in 50-cell black polystyrene flats (T.O. Plastics, Clearwater, MN) using a peat-based soilless media: Jiffy-Mix Grower s Choice Plus (Jiffy Products of America, Lorain, Ohio). The pollenizer utilized for the trial was Accomplice and transplants of this variety were produced in the same manner. The field location was prepared by cultivating and forming raised beds covered with black plastic mulch and drip tape in the bed. Plants were irrigated as needed when rainfall was insufficient. Prior to bed formation, fertilizer materials were applied preplant, including 350 lbs. (46-0-0), 100 lbs. (0-0-60), and 200 lbs. of pelletized lime. The transplants were taken to the field on May 21, 2014, and planted in the designated locations based on the randomized complete block design with three replications. Row spacing was 8 feet center-to-center with 4- foot spacing between plants within the row. Experimental plots were 48 feet in length, which led to a planting density of 12 triploid plants and six pollenizers per plot. Pollenizers were interplanted in the same row as the triploid varieties arranged between each pair of triploid plants. Pests were managed using recommendations in the Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers, 2014 (Egel et al, 2014) Fruit were harvested on a weekly basis for a total of five pickings on July 22, July 29, August 5, August 12, and August 21. Aside from harvest data, fruit quality data were also collected for nine fruit from each variety for parameters such as brix, fruit firmness, and presence of hollow heart. Yield data were analyzed by Fisher s least significant difference test using SAS statistical programs (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Results There were significant differences in most of the fruit quality characteristics. For example, UG , Troubadour and SV0258WA, had significantly higher brix than 6 varieties. It is interesting to note that Crunchy Red had a significantly higher firmness rating than all other 2

3 varieties, but the lowest brix value numerically. Troubadour was in the top 3 for brix and firmness values. All varieties were rated for hollow heart (Gordon and Ernest, 2011). Relatively low amounts of hollow heart were observed in Eight varieties were never observed with hollow heart. Liberty, which was placed in the trials due to a suspected likelihood of hollow heart had significantly less hollow heart than 4 varieties. Unbridled had the highest hollow heart rating at value 1.2 mm, significantly more than 18 different varieties. Captivation and ORS had the highest weight per acre values which were significantly higher than 9 other varieties. There were no significant differences in the number of fruit per acre. Maxima had the highest average fruit weight; Troubadour had the lowest average fruit weight which corresponds to the lowest weight per acre. Literature Cited Egel, D., R. Foster, E. Maynard, R., et al Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers, 2014 (ID-56). Purdue University. Johnson, G. and Ernest, E The Effect of Growth Regulator Applications and Pollen Availability on Fruit Set and Hollow Heart in Triploid Watermelons. Southern Region American Society for Horticultural Sciences. Birmingham, AL, February 4-6. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2013 Summary. 3

4 Table 1: Varieties, seed companies and comments for SW Purdue Ag Center triploid watermelon trial, Triploid Variety Seed Source Comments AC 7167 Nunhems SWPAC entry ACX 6177 TSS Captivation Crunchy Red Exclamation Fascination Nunhems Syngenta Harris Moran Syngenta Syngenta Liberty Syngenta SWPAC entry Maxima Nun ORS Razorback Revelation Secretariat SV0241WA SV0258WA Traveler Origene Nunhems Origene Highmark Seeds Highmark Seeds Sakata Seminis Seminis Harris Moran Tri-X 313 Syngenta SWPAC entry Troubadour UG UG Unbridled Wolverine Yuval Harris Moran United Genetics United Genetics Sakata Highmark Seeds Highmark Seeds 4

5 Table 2: Fruit quality of triploid watermelon varieties, Variety Brix Rind thickness (in) Firmness (lbs- Force) Fruit length (in) Fruit Width (in) Degree of Seedlessness Y UG a X fg 28.3 cdefgh 22.8 fg 0.2 SV0258WA 12.4 a bcde 29.1 cd 24.4 bcd 0.2 Troubadour 12.4 a b 27.9 defgh 22.2 g 0.0 Fascination 12.3 ab efg 28.4 cdefg 24.1 cde 0.2 Yuval 12.2 abc g 31.1 b 24.6 abcd 0.0 Secretariat 12.2 abc bcdef 27.9 defgh 23.7 def 0.3 Razorback 12.2 abc b 26.9 hi 24.9 abc 0.0 Wolverine 12.2 abc bc 27.1 hi 24.9 abc 0.1 Unbridled 12.2 abc bcdef 27.7 defgh 25.0 abc 0.1 SV0241WA 12.1 abcd cdefg 27.7 defgh 22.7 fg 0.1 Nun abcde fg 29.1 cde 23.2 efg 0.2 Tri-X abcde fg 27.8 defgh 23.7 def 0.1 UG abcde defg 27.5 fgh 22.8 fg 0.0 Liberty 11.9 abcde cdefg 29.5 c 23.7 def 0.0 AC abcde bcdef 28.5 cdefg 23.6 def 0.0 Revelation 11.9 abcde fg 39.8 a 20.6 h 0.0 ACX 6177 TSS 11.8 abcde bc 28.2 cdefgh 25.4 ab 0.0 Exclamation 11.4 bcde bcd 27.7 defgh 25.5 a 0.6 Captivation 11.4 cde bc 29.6 c 24.3 cd 0.0 ORS cde b 28.6 cdef 25.1 abc 0.3 Maxima 11.3 de bc 27.6 efgh 25.6 a 0.0 Traveler 11.2 e bc 25.6 i 22.8 fg 0.0 Crunchy Red 11.2 e a 29.1 cde 23.5 def 0.0 Z Brix: Percent soluble solids are positively correlated with sugar content in the fruit. Y Degree of seedlessness: 0 = no seeds, 1 = 1 5 black seeds, 2 = >5 black seeds X Means in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 5

6 Table: 3 Hollow Heart severity of triploid watermelon varieties, Variety Hollow Heart * Unbridled 1.2 a ** Fascination 1 ab Yuval 0.9 ab Revelation 0.9 ab UG abc Razorback 0.4 bcd Tri-X bcd Liberty 0.4 bcd SV0258WA 0.2 cd Troubadour 0.2 cd Secretariat 0.2 cd SV0241WA 0.2 cd Nun cd UG cd AC cd Wolverine 0 d ACX 6177 TSS 0 d Exclamation 0 d Captivation 0 d ORS d Maxima 0 d Traveler 0 d Crunchy Red 0 d * Hollow heart, 1=less than 10 mm gap, 2=gap between mm, 3=gap more than 20 mm ** Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 6

Figure 1: Hollow heart severity of watermelon by harvest date as a percent of the total number of fruit harvested on that date. No hollow heart data was taken on 29 August.

7 Figure 1: Hollow heart severity of watermelon by harvest date as a percent of the total number of fruit harvested on that date. No hollow heart data was taken on 29 August. * Hollow heart, 1=less than 10 mm gap, 2=gap between mm, 3=gap more than 20 mm ** The differences shown here are numerical; the experiment was not designed for statistical analysis of hollow heart differences between harvests. 7

8 Table 4: Total harvest of triploid watermelon varieties, Triploid Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight Weight (lb) per Acre Variety per Acre (lb) Captivation 66,464 a * 3, abc ORS ,017 a 3, ab Wolverine 65,161 ab 4, efg Exclamation 64,513 abc 3, ab Unbridled 63,452 abcd 3, bcde Maxima 63,221 abcde 3, a Yuval 61,978 abcde 3, efg ACX 6177 TSS 61,550 abcde 3, abc Razorback 60,958 abcde 3, efgh SV0258WA 59,262 abcdef 3, abcd SV0241WA 59,214 abcdef 3, fghi Crunchy Red 58,106 abcdefg 3, fgh Nun ,136 abcdefg 3, def Liberty 56,028 abcdefgh 3, fgh Revelation 54,774 bcdefgh 3, abc UG ,225 cdefgh 3, fghi Traveler 53,848 defgh 3, ghi AC ,723 efgh 3, efgh UG ,910 fgh 3, hi Secretariat 48,839 fgh 3, fghi Tri-X ,528 gh 3, fghi Fascination 47,896 gh 2, cdef Troubadour 45,638 h 3, i * Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 8

9 Table 5: 22 July harvest of seedless watermelon varieties, Triploid Variety Weight (lb) per Plot Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight per Plot (lb) Yuval 38.2 a * 2.3 a 17.1 abc Maxima 34.8 ab 2.3 a 16.7 abcd ORS abc 1.7 ab 19.9 ab Unbridled 29.3 abcd 1.7 ab 17.5 ab SV0258WA 27.8 abcde 1.3 abc 21.6 a Revelation 25.2 abcde 1.3 abc 12.6 abcde Crunchy Red 24.9 abcde 1.3 abc 19.1 ab Razorback 23.2 abcdef 1.7 ab 14.9 abcde Exclamation 17.6 bcdefg 1.0 bcd 17.6 ab Tri-X bcdefg 1.3 abc 8.8 bcdef Fascination 16.6 bcdefg 1.0 bcd 16.6 abcd Liberty 16.1 cdefg 1.0 bcd 11.0 abcdef UG cdefg 1.0 bcd 15.0 abcde Troubadour 14.5 cdefg 1.0 bcd 9.7 bcdef Captivation 12.7 defg 0.7 bcd 6.4 cdef Nun defg 0.7 bcd 11.7 abcde Secretariat 10.9 efg 0.7 bcd 10.9 abcdef SV0241WA 10.2 efg 0.7 bcd 10.2 bcdef ACX 6177 TSS 5.9 fg 0.3 cd 5.9 def AC fg 0.3 cd 5.7 def Wolverine 5.4 fg 0.3 cd 5.4 ef Traveler 4.5 g 0.3 cd 4.5 ef UG g 0.0 d 0.0 f *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 9

10 Table 6: 29 July harvest of seedless watermelon varieties, Triploid Variety Weight (lb) per Plot Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight per Plot (lb) ORS abc * Exclamation ab Maxima a UG bcd Captivation abc Nun bcd Traveler cde Unbridled abcd Razorback abcd SV0258WA abc Liberty bcd Crunchy Red abcd Wolverine abcd AC bcd Yuval ab ACX 6177 TSS ab Fascination abc Secretariat e SV0241WA bcd Revelation abcd Troubadour de UG bcd Tri-X abc *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 10

11 Table 7: 5 August harvest of seedless watermelon varieties, Triploid Variety Weight (lb) per Plot Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight per Plot (lb) Captivation ab * Unbridled abcd SV0241WA ijk Exclamation a Maxima abc Wolverine defghi SV0258WA abcdef Liberty ghij AC ghij ORS abcd ACX 6177 TSS abcd Yuval fghij Nun bcdefg Razorback cdefgh Secretariat hijk Crunchy Red efghij Troubadour k Traveler jk UG jk Fascination abcde Revelation ab Tri-X ijk UG k *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 11

12 Table 8: 12 August harvest of seedless watermelon varieties, Triploid Variety Weight (lb) per Plot Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight per Plot (lb) ACX 6177 TSS abcde * Revelation abcd Wolverine e UG bcde Crunchy Red e AC de SV0241WA de Nun cde SV0258WA bcde Exclamation abcd Razorback bcde ORS a Traveler de Tri-X e Secretariat e Captivation ab Unbridled ab UG e Yuval bcde Fascination bcde Troubadour de Maxima abc Liberty cde *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 12

13 Table 9: 29 August harvest of seedless watermelon varieties, Triploid Variety Weight (lb) per Plot Number of Fruit Mean Fruit Weight per Plot (lb) Yuval bcd * Captivation bcde Wolverine bcde Razorback bcde UG cde Maxima a Liberty bcde Unbridled bcde Revelation ab Tri-X bcde ORS bc Crunchy Red bcde Traveler cde UG bcde SV0241WA cde Exclamation bc Fascination de Nun bcde SV0258WA bcde Troubadour e ACX 6177 TSS bc Secretariat cde AC cde *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 13

14 Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2014 Daniel S. Egel, Extension Plant Pathologist; Dennis Nowaskie, Superintendent; Sara Hoke, Agricultural Technician; Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, Introduction Indiana is 3 rd in the U.S. in both the weight of cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) produced and the total value of the crop, behind only California and Arizona. The latter two states are primarily producers of Western shipper cantaloupes, making Indiana the leader in Eastern cantaloupe production (USDA, 2014). The total value of Indiana s cantaloupe production in 2013 was $11.5 million. This figure, while important, does not count the ripple effect of cantaloupe production in the Indiana economy. One of the primary starting points for a commercial producer is finding a variety capable of good yield and fruit quality. The objective of this project is to evaluate the growth and yield of 12 cantaloupe varieties grown under southwestern Indiana conditions. Materials and Methods On April 15, 2014, the experiment was established when seeds of each variety were sown. This season there were 12 varieties submitted from various seed companies. Seeds were started in 50- cell black seedling flats (T.O. Plastics, Clearwater, MN) using a peat based soilless media, Jiffy- Mix Grower s Choice Plus (Jiffy Products of America, Lorain, Ohio). The experimental field was prepared by tillage, application of fertilizer material, formation of raised beds, and installation of black plastic mulch and drip tape. Fertilizer was applied at a rate of 350 lbs ( ), 100 lbs (0-0-60), and 200 lbs of pelletized lime. Planting density was 22 plants per plot, with plot dimensions of 6 feet x 55 feet. In-row plant spacing was 2.5 feet. On May 12, 2011, transplants were planted in the field in the appropriate plots. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replicates. Plants were harvested three times per week over four weeks for a total of twelve harvests beginning July 18 and ending on August 12. Fruit number, weight, and average fruit weight were all collected during harvest. Additionally nine fruit from each variety (three fruit per replicate) were evaluated for various quality parameters such as soluble solids, fruit firmness, seed cavity length, seed cavity width, overall fruit length, overall fruit width, and rind thickness. Data were analyzed by Fisher s least significant difference test using SAS statistical programs (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.). Pests were managed using recommendations in the Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers, 2014 (Egel et al, 2014) Results The highest brix reading was obtained from NUN 9000, which also gave the reading for firmest flesh. The next two brix readings were for the hybrids NUN and Samoa. Wrangler, NUN MEM and Eclipse had the highest number of fruit per acre, with the former having significantly more fruit than any other hybrid. NUN MEM had the highest weight of fruit per acre numerically. Majus had significantly more fruit per acre than any other hybrid in harvests 1-4. NUN MEM produced a significantly larger fruit than any other hybrid. 14

15 Literature Cited Egel, D., R. Foster, E. Maynard, R., et al Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers, 2014 (ID-56). Purdue University. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2013 Summary. Table 10: Varieties, seed companies and comments for SW Purdue Ag. Center cantaloupe trial, ACR 4067 ES Aphrodite Athena Variety Seed Source Comments Nunhems Syngenta Syngenta Eclipse Rupp Seeds inc. SWPAC entry Majus NUN MEM NUN MEM NUN MEM NUN 9000 Samoa Tirreno Rupp Nunhems Nunhems Nunhems Nunhems Harris Moran Rupp Wrangler Hollar SWPAC entry 15

16 Table 11: Fruit quality of cantaloupe varieties, Variety Brix * Rind Thickness (in) Length of Cavity (in) Width of Cavity (in) Firmness (lbs- Force) Fruit Length (in) Fruit Width (in) NUN a ** 0.80 cde 12.9 cde 6.9 def 9.6 a 20.0 de 17.6 ef NUN MEM 12.2 b 0.63 e 12.0 de 6.5 efg 8.8 ab 18.4 e 16.4 fg Samoa 11.8 bc 0.73 de 15.0 b 7.0 cdef 6.3 dce 21.7 bc 18.2 de Majus 11.6 bc 0.87 cde 14.0 bc 7.2 cde 4.1 efg 20.3 cd 17.4 ef Tirreno 11.3 bcd 1.03 bcd 13.9 bc 6.7 defg 8.0 abc 21.0 bcd 17.6 ef Wrangler 11.1 cd 0.90 cde 11.9 e 5.9 g 5.6 defg 18.5 e 15.5 g Aphrodite 10.9 cd 1.10 bc 14.1 bc 10.0 a 5.4 defg 21.6 bcd 20.9 b Athena 10.6 cde 1.07 bc 12.9 cde 7.9 bc 3.7 fg 20.0 de 18.0 de ACR 4067 ES 10.6 cde 1.33 b 14.0 bc 7.0 cdef 6.0 dcef 21.8 bc 19.2 cd NUN MEM 10.4 de 0.87 cde 13.2 cd 6.1 fg 6.7 bcd 22.3 b 18.7 de NUN MEM 9.6 e 1.83 a 18.5 a 7.6 bcd 7.2 bcd 28.7 a 22.7 a Eclipse 9.6 e 0.80 cde 12.3 de 8.6 b 3.4 g 20.5 cd 20.5 bc **Brix: Percent soluble solids are positively correlated with sugar content in the fruit. *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 16

17 Table 12: Total harvest of cantaloupe varieties, Variety Number of Fruit per Acre Weight (lb) per Acre Mean Fruit Weight (lb) Wrangler 7,163 a * 31,647 cde 4.4 g NUN MEM 5,711 b 43,121 a 7.5 cd Eclipse 5,082 bc 37,707 ab 7.4 d Athena 4,888 bcd 30,650 cdef 6.3 e NUN MEM 4,840 cd 25,893 f 5.3 f NUN ,792 cd 29,940 ef 6.2 e Majus 4,646 cde 28,507 ef 6.2 e Aphrodite 4,211 defg 35,787 bcd 8.5 b Samoa 3,824 efg 28,021 ef 7.5 d ACR 4067 ES 3,630 fg 30,678 cdef 8.4 b Tirreno 3,388 g 25,075 f 7.4 d NUN MEM 2,323 h 32,382 bcde 13.9 a *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. Table 13: Harvest 1-4 of cantaloupe varieties, Variety Number of Fruit per Acre Weight (lb) per Acre Mean Fruit Weight (lb) Majus a * 3,934.9 a 4.3 ab Wrangler b 2,026.0 b 3.8 abc Athena c 1,041.6 bc 3.2 abc Eclipse 96.8 c cd 5.1 a Tirreno 48.4 c cd 0.8 dc Aphrodite 48.4 c cd 1.7 bcd NUN MEM 48.4 c cd 1.1 dc Samoa 0 c 0 d 0 d ACR 4067 ES 0 c 0 d 0 d NUN MEM 0 c 0 d 0 d NUN MEM 0 c 0 d 0 d NUN c 0 d 0 d *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 17

18 Table 14: Harvest 5-8 of cantaloupe varieties, Variety Number of Fruit per Acre Weight (lb) per Acre Mean Fruit Weight (lb) Wrangler 4,549.6 a * 20,748 cde 4.6 h Eclipse 4,210.8 ab 31,594 a 7.5 de Athena 3,872.0 ab 24,330 bc 6.3 f Aphrodite 3,436.4 bc 30,107 ab 8.8 b NUN MEM 2,952.4 cd 23,343 bcd 7.9 cd NUN ,516.8 d 15,763 ef 6.2 f NUN MEM 2,371.6 de 12,745 f 5.4 g Majus 2,323.2 de 15,089 ef 6.6 f Samoa 2,274.8 de 16,667 edf 7.4 de Tirreno 1,597.2 fe 11,033 f 6.9 ef ACR 4067 ES 1,306.8 fg 10,875 f 8.3 bc NUN MEM g 9,890 f 14.7 a *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. Table 15: Harvest 9-12 of cantaloupe varieties, Variety Number of Fruit per Acre Weight (lb) per Acre Mean Fruit Weight (lb) NUN MEM 3,098 a * 21,928 ab 7.1 def ACR 4067 ES 3,049 a 25,287 a 8.3 b NUN MEM 3,001 a 15,994 bcd 5.3 h NUN ,856 a 17,285 bc 6.0 gh Wrangler 2,565 ab 10,834 def 4.2 i Samoa 2,420 abc 17,939 bc 7.5 bcd Tirreno 2,323 abc 18,384 bc 8.0 bc NUN MEM 2,033 bcd 27,321 a 13.4 a Majus 1,742 cd 11,122 def 6.4 efg Eclipse 1,210 ef 7,880 ef 6.4 efg Athena 1,113 ef 7,067 ef 6.3 fg Aphrodite 726 f 5,433 f 7.2 cde *Averages in columns separated by Fisher s least significant difference test (P 0.05), averages with the same letters are not statistically significantly different. 18

19 The authors would like to thank Bill Davis and Angie Thompson for their invaluable technical assistance with the variety trials, the seed companies involved for their financial support and the Illiana Watermelon Association for funding the hollow heart studies described here. We thank Barbara Joyner for running the office and Michael Russell for assistance with report preparation. 19

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2013

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2013 Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Trial 2013 Shubin K. Saha 1 and Larry Sutterer 2 1 Vegetable Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546 2 Agriculture Technician,