|
Flower Color, Plot Development Over Time, Data and Comments |
|
Data and pictures will be added as time allows. |
|
|
|
Vinca |
| GCREC-HOME | ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS | BACK to CURRENT TRIAL |
|
Vinca |
|
Botany |
| Family: | Malvaceae. |
||
| Scientific names: | Hibiscus sabdariffa L. [The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)]. | ||
| Common names: | Indian-sorrel, Jamaica-sorrel, red Sorrel, roselle or sorrel (GRIN); Queensland jelly plant, sour-sour, lemon-bush, and Florida cranberry (Scott D. Appell, Brooklyn Botanical Garden). | ||
| Native habitat: | Africa is the probable origin, but species is widely cultivated (GRIN). | ||
View
maps related to habitat and other topics from this link to the National
Geographic MapMachine:  . |
|||
|
Pests |
|||
| Common plant arthropods (insects/other)/other: | Reported arthropod symptoms in literature: Cotton stainer (Dysdercus suturellus) and Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) (Featured Creatures, U. of Florida). | ||
| Arthropod symptoms observed in this trial: Minor thirps-like damage was seen only in mid May on few leaves. | |||
| Common plant diseases/other: | Reported disease symptoms in literature: Diseases listed under "other Hibiscus species": Alternaria sp., leaf spot; Armillariella (Clitorchbe) tabescens (Scop. ex Fr.) Singer, mushroom root rot; Botryosphaeria sp. leaf spot; Botrytis cinerarea Pers. ex Fr., gray mold; Cephaleuros virescens Kunze, algal leaf spot, green scurf; Cercospora abelmochi Ell % Ev. (C. Hibisci Tracy & Earle); Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes Penz., anthracnose; Colletotrichum hibisci, dieback; Dendrophoma sp., leaf spot; Diplodia sp., leaf spot; Erysiphe cichoracearum DC., powdery mildew; Fusarium sp., fruit rot; Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht., wilt; Gloeosporium sp., black leaf spot; Kuehneola malvicola (Speg.) Arth., rust; Leptosphaeria agnita (Desm.) Ces. & de Not., leaf spot; Microsphaera euphorbiae (Pk.) Berk. & Curt., powdery mildew; Phomopsis sp., limb dieback, leaf spot; Phyllosticta hibiscina Ell. & Ev., leaf spot; P. idaecola Cke., leaf spot; Phytophthora parasitica Dast., damping-off, root rot; Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn, target leaf spot, stem and root rot; Xanthomonas compestris (Pamm.) Dows. pv. malvacearum (E. F. Sm.) (Index of Plant Diseases in Florida, 1984 revision.). | ||
| Diseases symptoms observed in this trial: Powdery mildew and some Alternaria-like spots were very slight in late June on foliage, ratings remaining very high. | |||
| Commercial control: | Greenhouse. | Field/shade house. | |
| Arthropod information: | Pests identified on crops. | Florida pest facts and images. | |
| Disease information: | Plant Disease Facts (Pennsylvania State University) | The American Phytopathological Society | |
|
More Links and Information |
|||
| Performance evaluations: | Trial reports and other publications. | ||
| More resources: | Additional information. | ||
| Honors: | Best-of-class (BC). We select the best performer in each class, based on the "overall performance rating". This rating may not be high, if the class does not perform well (indicating a possible need for improvement in the class). The rating may be significantly different from one or more members of the class. If two or more members of a class received the same highest overall performance rating, we used another rating (such as overall foliage/flower rating or flower average rating) to determine BC. If only one cultivar was entered in a class, it automatically becomes uncontested BC. BC is evaluated in future trials against the performance of new entries in the same class. Refer to a report in "Articles, Papers & Reports" for detailed information. In addition to BC, other "honors" received for these cultivars may be added to BC at a later date, time permitting. Seed companies may forward these honors (awards) to Rick Kelly. |
| Rating System: | The rating is a 1 to 7 scale: 7- all foliage and flowers free from defects; 4- average foliage and flower condition, minimal plant defects or pest damage to tissue, but still acceptable; 1- foliage and/or flowers with severe defects and/or severely infested with pests and damage unacceptable, making plant undesirable. Plant death due to soilborne pests may be factored into the overall performance rating, if it is a significant problem. Refer to a report in "Articles, Papers & Reports" for details. If listed, ratings with an "a" are the best in a class. If cultivars share the same letters, those ratings are considered to be similar to each other. If there are no letters, there is only one cultivar in a class or all the members of a class have similar ratings. |
|
|
|
Scroll down the page or click on the color of choice to view individual cultivars within a color class: |
|
Winter |
|
|
|
Winter |
|
Hibiscus sabdariffa mix class |
|
Picture date: |
1 May (week 111) | 14 May (week 13) | 31 May (week 15) | 24 June (week 19) | |||
|
'Mixed Colours' |
Sprayed Field
Unsprayed Field |
Sprayed Field
Unsprayed Field |
Sprayed Field
Unsprayed Field |
Plot B
Plot C Sprayed Field
Plot A
Plot B Unsprayed Field |
|||
| Cultivar No: 164 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Flowers and Fruits: |
|
|
|
 
|
 
|
||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter2 |
Days to First Flower3 |
Overall Foliage/Flower/Fruit Rating4 |
Overall Pest Rating5 |
Overall Performance Rating6 |
| 13 Feb. | 4.4 (1.7) | 70 | 3.0 | 6.8 | 5.6/4.6^ |
| Honors: Best-of-class, uncontested. |
| Comments: New for spring 2004. ‘Mixed Colours’ mix was the first entry of this species into our trials. Large, robust plants produced very good, uniform foliage, quickly filling the plot by early June, but the foliage covered flowers and fruit. Some wide-angled stems, laden with fruit, broke late in June. Though the pastel-colored flowers were attractive, they were few in number and only opened early in the day. The cultivars in the mix produced dark red or white fruits that were very numerous and attractive, resembling strings of holiday lights. Thirps-like damage was seen only in mid May on few leaves. Powdery mildew and some Alternaria-like spots were very slight in late June on foliage, ratings remaining very high. |
| Details of performance for this cultivar will be posted on the web in "Articles, Papers & Reports" at the completion of this trial. These details will include ratings over the entire season and pest problems. |
| Back to Color of Choice | Back to the Top |
| Details of performance for this cultivar will be posted on the web in "Articles, Papers & Reports" at the completion of this trial. These details will include ratings over the entire season and pest problems. |
| ROK |
| 1. The number of weeks from seed sowing to the date the plant was photographed. Photographs were taken in a field sprayed on demand as needed, after scouting for pests, and a field that is not sprayed at all. |
| 2. Measured in centimeters and inches [cm (inches)]. |
| 3. Average number of days from sowing to unfurling of the first flower in the plots. Flowering for alyssum was completed in the flat prior to planting in the field. Values with an "a" are considered significantly greater than those with a "b", "c", etc., and those without a letter are not considered to be significantly different. |
| 4. The average of the combined foliage and flower/fruit data in the sprayed field as an expression of cultivar quality. Values with an "a" are considered significantly greater than those with a "b", "c", etc., and those without a letter are not considered to be significantly different. This crop's main color was contributed by the colorful fruits. |
| 5. The average of the combined foliage and flower data in the unsprayed field as an expression of arthropod and disease symptoms. Values with an "a" are considered significantly greater than those with a "b", "c", etc., and those without a letter are not considered to be significantly different. |
| 6. The average of the combined overall foliage/flower rating and overall pest rating. If plant death from a soilborne pathogen resulted, this was factored into the rating. Values with an "a" are considered significantly greater than those with a "b", "c", etc., and those without a letter are not considered to be significantly different. See Articles, Papers & Reports for further explanation in the reports. ^Two ratings for overall performance (OP): OP/adjusted OP^. Though absence of pest symptoms is important, good flower, fruit and foliage characteristics are the primary focus in selecting the best cultivar, the overall pest rating is often much higher than the “overall foliage/flower/fruit rating”. If an average foliage, flower or fruit rating for any of the plots is unacceptable (< 4.0), but the overall pest rating (P) is acceptable (> 4.0), we adjust the overall performance rating for each plot to lower the weight of P, penalizing the cultivar by 0.1 point increments for very 0.1 decrease in the rating as follows: -3.0 points for a rating of 1 to -0.1 for a rating of 3.9. This example follows (using avg. flower rating (Flavg)]: if OP = 5 for a plot and Flavg = 1 for that plot, then OP^ = 2.0 instead of 5; if OP = 6 and Fl = 2.6, then OP^ = 4.6 instead of 6, and so forth. All the plot ratings for the cultivar are then re-analized and both OP and OP^ ratings listed for comparison. The differences may be too small to show differences between OP^ and OP. The OP is actually OPadj (adjusted overall performance rating) in the paper, an adjustment made before OP^ to account for plant death from soilborne pathogens. |
|
|
| GCREC-HOME | ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS | |
| Back to the Top | Back to Color of Choice | Back to Current Trial |
