|
Ageratum - Spring 2005 |
|
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: | Asteraceae | ||
| Scientific names: | Ageratum houstonianum Mill. | ||
| Common names: | Ageratum, blue billygoat-weed, and flossflower [The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)]. | ||
| Native habitat: |
This plant is considered to have a pantropical distribution (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: Heliothis virescens (Featured Creatures. University of Florida.). | ||
| Arthropod symptoms observed in past trials and in this trial: In spring 2001, aphids caused severe foliage distortion in one plot. Leafminer damage was very minor; in spring 2002, ageratum was more severely attacked by worms (primarily a small unidentified looper-like species). Twospotted spider mites [Tetranychus urticae Koch (Arachnida: Acari: Tetranychidae)] were a problem all season, and their combined affect with whitefly later in the season resulted in unacceptable levels of damage for some cultivars, consistently in all plots. The looper adult and pupa may be seen on our pests web page under “Arthropod Pests” and “Worms – Lepidopterous Larvae and Adults”. | |||
| Common plant diseases/other: | Reported disease symptoms in literature: [species other than A. conyzoides] Alteraria sp., (collar rot), and Pythium sp. (root rot), Sclerotinium rolfsii (southern blight). | ||
| Diseases symptoms in past trials and in this trial: None observed on foliage or flowers in past trials. | |||
| 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. |
|
All the cultivars qualified for display in our best-of-class public gardens with foliage/flower ratings > 4.5 and overall performance ratings > 5.0 and will be added to our Best of the Best-of-class spring list. |
|
Scroll down the page or click on the color of choice to view individual cultivars within a color class: |
|
Winter |
|
Winter |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'High Tide Blue' |
Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot B Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 18 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/18/2005 | 1.4 cm (0.6 inches) | 53.3 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 5.9 |
| Honors: Not best-of-class. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. Lodging and stem breakage were a factor in lowering foliage ratings. Insect feeding was only observed on foliage (pest was not observed), and was minor and the same for all cultivars. No plant deaths occurred. |
|
Blue class |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'Leilani Blue' |
Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 119 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/18/2005 | 1.3 cm (0.5 inches) | 56.0 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 6.4 |
|
Honors: Remains best-of-class (established in spring 2002). |
| Comments: Best-of-class established in 2001. ‘Leilani Blue’ remained best-of-class with a higher adjusted overall performance rating, because it did not have the lodging and stem breakage exhibited by ‘High Tide Blue’ and flowering was fuller and more uniform. Insect feeding was only observed on foliage (pest was not observed), and was minor and the same for all cultivars. No plant deaths occurred. |
| 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 |
|
Picture date: |
2 May (week 101) | 16 May (week 12) | 30 May (week 14) | ||||
|
'High Tide White' |
Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot C Sprayed Field |
Plot A Sprayed Field Plot C Sprayed Field |
|
|||
| Cultivar No: 31 | |||||||
|
Picture date: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Seed Sowing Date |
Flower Diameter |
Days to First Flower2 |
Overall Foliage/Flower Rating3 |
Overall Pest Rating4 |
Overall Performance Rating5 |
| 2/18/2005 | 1.4 cm (0.6 inches) | 59.7 | 5.7 | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| Honors: Best-of-class, uncontested. |
| Comments: New entry for 2005. No lodging occurred (see 'High Tide Blue' comments), and by the end of the season, was very good in fullness and uniformity. However, this cultivar was late to flower, resulting in lower early season flower ratings, while flowers were numerous late in the season. Insect feeding was only observed on foliage (pest was not observed), and was minor and the same for all cultivars. No plant deaths occurred. |
| 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 |