Hibiscus - Spring 2005

Flower Color, Plot Development Over Time, Data and Comments
 

Vinca
GCREC-HOME

TRIALS FRONT PAGE

 ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS BACK to CURRENT TRIAL

Vinca

Botany
Family: Malvaceae.
Scientific names:  Hibiscus moscheutos L.
Common names: Common rose-mallow, mallow-rose, sea-hollyhock, swamp rose-mallow and water-mallow [The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)].
Native habitat:

Found in Northern America in United States in the northwest in Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia; in the north-central section in Illinois; in the southeast in Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia; and in the south-central section in Texas (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: Whitefly, flea beetles, and various lepidopterous larvae.
Arthropod symptoms observed in this trial:
Common plant diseases/other:   Reported disease symptoms in literature: Leaf spots, canker and rust.
Diseases symptoms observed in this trial:
Commercial control:  Greenhouse. Feld/shade house.
Arthropod information: Pests identified on crops.

Search the Arthropod/Host Plant Database.

 Florida pest facts and images.

Featured Creatures
Disease information: Plant Disease Facts (Pennsylvania State University)

Ornamental Plant Disease Fact Sheets

 The American Phytopathological Society

Search Common Names of Plant Diseases
More Links and Information
Performance evaluations: Trial reports and other publications.
More resources: Additional information.

RATINGS
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.
 
American Takii Ball Seed Bodger Seeds Floranova Plant Breeders Goldsmith Seeds Grimes Seeds & Plants Kieft Seeds Holland E. Benary Seed of America PanAmerican Seed Sahin Sakata Seed America Syngenta Seeds
 

 

Scroll down the page or click on the color of choice to view individual cultivars within a color class:

White/pink class

Winter

Winter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White/pink class

Picture date:

 18 June (week 171) 3 July (week 19) 15 July (week 20) 1 Aug.  (week 23 )

'Luna Pink Swirl'

 46C1a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-1.JPG (131421 bytes)

North view.

46C2a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-1.JPG (156312 bytes)

South view.

46B1a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (211356 bytes)

46B2a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (159423 bytes)

46B3a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (93751 bytes)

46A-VT-Sp05-HibB15-3.JPG (330259 bytes)

Plot A

Sprayed Field

46C-VT-Sp05-HibB15-3.JPG (361522 bytes)

Plot C

Sprayed Field

46A1-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (399857 bytes)

Plot A

Sprayed Field

46B1-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (411619 bytes)

Plot B

Sprayed Field

46C1-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (408044 bytes)

Plot C

Sprayed Field

Cultivar No: 46

VT-Sp05-46bFL.JPG (291078 bytes)

Ball Seed

Picture date:

 3 July

  46&128a1-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (178862 bytes)

46 in foreground and background.

Seed Sowing Date

Flower Diameter

Days to First Flower2

Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3

Overall Pest Rating4

Overall Performance Rating5

2/22/2005 16.0 cm (6.3 inches)

111.7

4.2

6.1

5.1
Honors: 
Comments: New entry in 2005.  ‘Luna Pink Swirl’ is darker pink, compared with its series member, ‘Luna Blush’ (best-of-class in 2003), a very pale pink. Both cultivars had fairly good overall performance ratings, due to good to very good early (mid June) ratings for foliage quality and uniformity (all season) and flower quality and display, but these ratings fell dramatically in July from low flowering and pest symptom ratings (see below). ‘Luna Blush’ remained best-of-class.  Pest symptoms resulted from feeding damage from the American grasshopper (Schistocerca americana; Univ. of Florida, 1996-2005), affecting ratings to the greatest degree in mid July. Another potential pest, the cotton stainer (Dysdercus suturellus), was observed in large numbers of mating pairs in between the calyx and flower buds; nymphs later developed, and feeding from them was observed on both seed pods and some flowers, but no damage symptoms were observed by the end of the trial. Whitefly was not observed in large numbers, but virus symptoms were obvious to pathologists; samples sent to a diagnostic clinic set up for virus inclusion body identification were negative, but virus was not ruled out by our pathologists. Symptoms were bronze, malformed leaves, plant stunting (more prominent in unsprayed field), and very low flower numbers, compared to spring 2003 evaluations of ‘Luna Red’ and ‘Luna Pink Blush’.

White/pink class

Picture date:

 18 June (week 171) 3 July (week 19) 15 July (week 20 ) 1 Aug.  (week 23)

'Luna Blush'

 128B1-VT-Sp05-HibB15-1.JPG (134552 bytes) 128B1a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (153607 bytes)

46B3a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (93751 bytes)

128B2a-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (108573 bytes)

128A-VT-Sp05-HibB15-3.JPG (358357 bytes)

Plot A

Sprayed Field

128C-VT-Sp05-HibB15-3.JPG (356243 bytes)

Plot C

Sprayed Field

128A1-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (406339 bytes)

Plot A

Sprayed Field

128B1-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (363376 bytes)

Plot B

Sprayed Field

128C1a-VT-Sp05-HibB4-4extra.JPG (428351 bytes)

Plot C

Sprayed Field

Cultivar No: 128

VT-Sp05-128b1FL.JPG (144623 bytes)

Ball Seed

Picture date:

3 July

  46&128b1-VT-Sp05-HibB15-2.JPG (172708 bytes)

128 to right and left, with 46 in center.

Seed Sowing Date

Flower Diameter

Days to First Flower2

Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3

Overall Pest Rating4

Overall Performance Rating5

2/22/2005

17.0 cm (6.7 inches)

113.3

4.7

6.3

5.5
Honors: Remains best-of-class in 2005.
Comments: Uncontested best-of-class in spring 2003.  ‘Luna Blush’ is lighter pink, compared with its series member, ‘Luna Pink Swirl’. Both cultivars had fairly good overall performance ratings, due to good to very good early (mid June) ratings for foliage quality and uniformity (all season) and flower quality and display, but these ratings fell dramatically in July from low flowering and pest symptom ratings (see below). ‘Luna Blush’ remained best-of-class.  Pest symptoms resulted from feeding damage from the American grasshopper (Schistocerca americana; Univ. of Florida, 1996-2005), affecting ratings to the greatest degree in mid July. Another potential pest, the cotton stainer (Dysdercus suturellus), was observed in large numbers of mating pairs in between the calyx and flower buds; nymphs later developed, and feeding from them was observed on both seed pods and some flowers, but no damage symptoms were observed by the end of the trial. Whitefly was not observed in large numbers, but virus symptoms were obvious to pathologists; samples sent to a diagnostic clinic set up for virus inclusion body identification were negative, but virus was not ruled out by our pathologists. Symptoms were bronze, malformed leaves, plant stunting (more prominent in unsprayed field), and very low flower numbers, compared to spring 2003 evaluations of ‘Luna Red’ and ‘Luna Pink Blush’.
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.  Average number of days from sowing to unfurling of the first flower in the plots.
3.  The average of the combined foliage and flower data in the sprayed field as an expression of cultivar quality; rating scale: 1 = poor to 7 = excellent (details above).
4.  The average of the combined foliage and flower data in the unsprayed field as an expression of arthropod and disease symptoms; rating scale: 1 = poor to 7 = excellent (details above).
5.  The average of the combined overall foliage/flower rating and overall pest rating; rating scale: 1 = poor to 7 = excellent (details above).  If plant death from a soilborne pathogen resulted, this was factored into the rating.  See Articles, Papers & Reports for further explanation in the reports. 

 

GCREC-HOME

TRIALS FRONT PAGE

 ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Back to the Top Back to Color of Choice Back to Current Trial