|
Ornamental Millet - Spring 2005 |
|
Flower Color, Plot Development Over Time, Data and Comments |
|
|
|
Vinca |
| GCREC-HOME | ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS | BACK to CURRENT TRIAL |
|
Vinca |
|
Botany |
|||
| Family: | Poaceae | ||
| Scientific names: | Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br. [The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)]. | ||
| Common names: | Bajra, bulrush millet, cattail millet and pearl millet (GRIN). | ||
| Native habitat: |
This plant is cultivated in Africa, India, United States & elsewhere (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: lesser cornstalk borer, European corn borer, corn earworm, fall armyworm and vegetable leafminer; other pests: sting nematode (Featured Creatures, U. of Florida and *Floranova Plant Breeders). | ||
| Arthropod symptoms observed in this trial: In past trials we did not observe any arthropod pests. | |||
| Common plant diseases/other: | Reported disease symptoms in literature: [for species in the genus Pennisetum] Bipolaris sacchari (eye spot), Drechslera graminea (leaf spot), Puccinia stenotaphri (rust), Pythium sp. (root rot), and sugarcane mosaic virus. | ||
| Diseases symptoms observed in this trial: In past trials we did observed rust very late in the season, but ratings were not affected. | |||
| Commercial control: | Greenhouse. | Feld/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 |
|
This was a special comparison of new millet entry, ‘Jester’ (uncontested best-of-class; purple/green class) and ‘Purple Majesty’ (Purple class) a best-of-class. Pest symptoms. Leaffooted bug (Leptoglossus phyllopus) and southern green stink bug (Nezara viridula) heavily infested the unsprayed seed heads of both millet cultivars, but no deleterious affects were seen in flower quality. Rust symptoms were minor in spring 2002, but not observed in 2005. |
|
Winter |
|
Picture date: |
6 May (week 111) | 20 May (week 13) | 3 June (week 15) | ||||
|
'Purple Majesty' |
|
|
|
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 120 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 10) | 20 May (week 13) |
|
|
|
|
|
'Purple Majesty' - first and third rows. |
|
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/18/2005 | No data taken. |
83.0 |
5.4 | 7.0 | 6.2 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: Best-of-class established in spring 2002. A lack of flower spikes and uniform flowering for ‘Jester’ early in the season was the major difference in performance, compared with 'Purple Majesty'. By early June, the cultivars became good to outstanding plants in both flower and foliage, with ‘Jester’ producing the most uniform and full foliage and flower spike display. |
|
|
|
Picture date: |
6 May (week 111) | 20 May (week 13) | 3 June (week 15) | ||||
|
'Jester' |
|
|
|
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 22 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 10) | 20 May (week 13) |
|
|
|
|
|
'Jester' - first and third rows. |
|
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/18/2005 | No data taken. |
84.3 |
5.5 |
7.0 |
6.3 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. A lack of flower spikes and uniform flowering for ‘Jester’ early in the season was the major difference in performance, compared with 'Purple Majesty'. By early June, the cultivars became good to outstanding plants in both flower and foliage, with ‘Jester’ producing the most uniform and full foliage and flower spike display. |
| 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 | ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS | |
| Back to the Top | Back to Color of Choice | Back to Current Trial |
