|
Triploid Marigold - Spring 2005 |
|
Flower Color, Plot Development Over Time, Data and Comments |
|
|
|
Vinca |
| GCREC-HOME | ORNAMENTALS RESEARCH PROGRAMS | BACK to CURRENT TRIAL |
|
Vinca |
|
Botany |
|||
| Family: | Asteraceae. | ||
| Scientific names: | Tagetes erecta × T. patula | ||
| Common names: | Mule marigold or triploid marigold. | ||
| Native habitat: | Native to North America in northern Mexico in Durango, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas; central Mexico in Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Morelos, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Puebla, Queretaro, Veracruz; Southern America in mesoamerican countries of Belize; Guatemala; Mexico (Chiapas and Yucatan), Nicaragua and Panama; western South America in the counties of Ecuador; Peru (Ucayali). This plant is said to be "widely cultivated and sometimes naturalized" (The Germplasm Resources Information Network). | ||
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: Mites, thrips, armyworms and leafminer. Others include tarnished plant bug, greenhouse leaf tier, leafhopper, tobacco bud worm and slugs. | ||
| Arthropod symptoms observed in this trial: | |||
| Common plant diseases/other: | Reported disease symptoms in literature: Alternaria sp. (leaf spot), Ascochyta sp. (leaf spot), Botrytis cinerea (leaf and flower rot), Cercospora tageticola (leaf spot), Choanephora cucurmitarum (leaf spot), Fusarium oxysporum (stem rot and wilt), Phyllostica sp. (leaf spot), Phytophthora cryptogea (stem rot and wilt), Ralstonia (Pseudomonas) solanacearum (bacterial wilt), Pythium sp. (damping-off), Rhizoctonia solani (stem rot and damping off), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (stem rot or wilt), Sclerotium rolfsii (southern blight), Septoria tageticola (leaf spot), and cumcumber moosaic virus (Index of Plant Diseases in Florida, 1984 revision.). | ||
| Diseases symptoms observed in this trial: | |||
| 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 single-flowered mule marigold classes (‘Sunburst’ series), compared with a double-flowered best-of-class (‘Zenith’ series). New entries become best-of-class, double-flowered cultivars remain best-of-class, uncontested. Pest symptoms. Unlike any other crop, this season, thrips symptoms were observed on both foliage and flowers between early and mid May, affecting all cultivars similarly, but not in late May; ratings remained high. |
|
Winter |
|
Double Flowered Orange Class |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Zenith Orange' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 1 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 6.1 cm (2.4 inches) |
43.0 |
5.3 |
6.5 |
5.9 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: Best-of-class established in fall 1999. Both ‘Zenith Orange’ and ‘Sunburst Orange’ had good display of foliage and flowers in May, but in mid May ’Zenith Orange’ had denser, more uniform foliage with more flowers. By late May ‘Sunburst Orange’ plant was similarly good. |
|
Single Flowered Orange Class |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Sunburst Orange' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 9 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 6.0 cm (2.3 inches) |
44.0 |
5.1 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. Both ‘Sunburst Orange’ and ‘Zenith Orange’ had good display of foliage and flowers in May, but in mid May ’Zenith Orange’ had denser, more uniform foliage with more flowers. By late May ‘Sunburst Orange’ plant was similarly good. |
| 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 |
|
Double Flowered Yellow Class |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Zenith Lemon Yellow' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 145 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 4.9 cm (1.9 inches) |
38.0 |
4.2 |
6.8 |
5.5 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: Best-of-class established in fall 1999. ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’ and ‘Sunburst Yellow’ were both rather open, leggy plants; and more dwarf that the other colors, with ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’ more so than ‘Sunburst Yellow’. By mid May, both cultivars had a similarly good display of flowers into late May, but the lack of foliage uniformity and fullness was much more pronounced for ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’, without any apparent effect from pests or environment on plant condition. |
|
Single Flowered Yellow Class |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Sunburst Yellow' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 11 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 5.1 cm (2.0 inches) |
49.0 |
5.1 |
6.7 |
5.9 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. ‘Sunburst Yellow’ and ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’ were both rather open, leggy plants; and more dwarf that the other colors, with ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’ more so than ‘Sunburst Yellow’. By mid May, both cultivars had a similarly good display of flowers into late May, but the lack of foliage uniformity and fullness was much more pronounced for ‘Zenith Lemon Yellow’, without any apparent effect from pests or environment on plant condition. |
| 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 |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Zenith Extra Red' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 2 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 5.0 cm (2.0 inches) |
41.3 |
4.9 |
6.7 |
5.8 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: Best-of-class established in fall 1999. ‘Zenith Extra Red’ (double orange/red class) had less uniform, but denser foliage than ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’ (single yellow/red class). Flowers were more numerous and uniform for‘ Zenith Extra Red’ than ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’. In mid May, ‘Zenith Extra Red’ had many leaf spots on all plants in all plots, while ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’ and all the other marigolds did not have any. These spots were not apparent at the end of the season. All of these effects balanced out and resulted in similarly very good performance. |
| 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. |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Sunburst Yellow Red' |
Plot A Sprayed Field |
Plot B Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 10 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/24/2005 | 5.3 cm (2.1 inches) |
49.7 |
4.8 |
6.7 |
5.7 |
| Honors: Uncontested best-of-class. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’ (single yellow/red class) foliage was less dense, while ‘Zenith Extra Red’ (double orange/red class) had less uniform foliage, however, ‘Zenith Extra Red’ had more numerous and uniform flower flowering than ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’. In mid May, ‘Zenith Extra Red’ had many leaf spots on all plants in all plots, while ‘Sunburst Yellow Red’ and all the other marigolds did not have any. These spots were not apparent at the end of the season. All of these effects balanced out and resulted in similarly very good performance. |
| 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 |