Advertisement
ASHS 2024 Annual Conference

 

Ornamental Rhizoma Peanut: Perceptions and Use by Florida Consumers

Authors:
Kelly M. Thomas Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Kelly M. Thomas in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Ann R. Blount Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Ann R. Blount in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Gary W. Knox Environmental Horticulture Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Gary W. Knox in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Cheryl L. Mackowiak Department of Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Cheryl L. Mackowiak in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Lynn E. Sollenberger Agronomy Department, University of Florida, McCarty Hall B, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Search for other papers by Lynn E. Sollenberger in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close

Abstract

Ornamental rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.; ORP) is a low-maintenance groundcover for use in urban and residential landscapes. Despite its availability since 2002, consumer insights on ORP have never been assessed. Online surveys are readily accepted by academic researchers as a valuable research tool. An online survey was distributed to 5820 Floridians with the objective to assess the use and perceptions of ORP by consumers. A total of 907 survey responses were received. Most respondents identified themselves as home gardeners (89%), white (93%), female (75%), and over age 65 (60%). Out of several turfgrass alternative benefits, respondents most valued reducing herbicide/pesticide and fertilizer/water usage and preventing weed establishment (χ2 = 204, df = 6, P < 0.001). The ORP selection purchased by respondents was predominately unknown. Most preferred ORP to flower heavily and frequently and maintain a canopy height below 20 cm in the landscape with infrequent mowing. Survey data show there is a potentially large consumer demand for ORP in Florida, but product availability, branding, and consumer access and engagement with information sources require additional focus in the coming years.

Ornamental rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.; ORP) is a perennial leguminous groundcover native to South America. Current fertilizer ordinances and water restrictions (Dukes et al. 2020; Rouse et al. 2004) have increased the need for drought-tolerant, low-input landscape plants to replace more resource-demanding species. Ornamental rhizoma peanut is used in median, street island, and sidewalk border plantings and as a turfgrass alternative or border in residential landscapes in Florida (Prine et al. 2010). It is drought tolerant once established (Ortega-S et al. 1992; Prine et al. 1990; Williams et al. 2005), pest and disease resistant (Quesenberry et al. 2010), and requires no nitrogen fertilizer applications (Mylavarapu et al. 2021). Compared with St. Augustinegrass [Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walter) Kuntze], ORP requires fewer inputs and less frequent mowing, thereby resulting in annual cost-savings of roughly $300 per 100 m2 after 3 years (Rouse et al. 2004).

Several ORP selections (i.e., cultivars or germplasms) have been released over the past 2 decades for ornamental use. The US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) released ‘Brooksville 67’, or “Waxy Leaf,” and ‘Brooksville 68’, or “Pointed Leaf,” in 2002 (Pfaff and Maura 2002). The University of Florida released Ecoturf and Arblick as germplasms in 2008. Ecoturf has since garnered acceptance by the commercial landscape industry (Prine et al. 2010). In 2012, the University of Georgia released PP-1, or “Cowboy” (Hanna et al. 2018).

Consumers of horticultural products represented nearly half of the $42.3 billion (USD) US nursery and garden revenue in 2021. Other contributing groups include farmers, retailers, and wholesalers. Horticultural consumers between the ages of 35 and 54 were responsible for 20% of this revenue, followed by 16.5% for consumers over age 55. The share of revenue by consumers between the ages of 35 and 54 is on the rise, a trend that Daly (2021) asserted is partially due to the adoption of new hobbies by this group spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. The nursery and garden industry has experienced an annual revenue growth of 0.8% since 2016, and revenue is forecasted to continue increasing by 0.7% annually over the next 5 years (Daly 2021).

Consumer research can increase the likelihood of a product’s success by understanding how consumers perceive products and how their needs influence their product choices (Van Kleef et al. 2005). Yet consumer insights and other market data on ORP have never been sampled. Online survey research has grown in popularity over the past 2 decades and is now accepted by academics and other practitioners as a valuable research tool. Despite advances in online research technologies, researcher-controlled online surveys will continue to be the leading research tool for academics and will be best used to study special topics such as consumer sentiment (Evans and Mathur 2018).

A survey was conducted with the objective to gather the following consumer data: 1) demographics, 2) knowledge of ORP, 3) perceptions regarding turfgrass alternative/ornamental groundcover characteristics and benefits, 4) purchasing history and landscape use of ORP, 5) current and preferred ORP maintenance practices, and 6) challenges experienced while buying or growing ORP.

Materials and Methods

Survey design.

An online survey was developed using Qualtrics XM® survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). An online format was chosen for control of survey flow, flexibility, convenience, affordability, timeliness, and ease of obtaining a large sample (Evans and Mathur 2018). The survey, ranging in length from 12 to 29 questions, was customized to each respondent using the skip and display logic features in Qualtrics XM®. These features determine succeeding questions based on the responses of the survey participant, thereby eliminating irrelevant questions, and reducing respondent confusion (Evans and Mathur 2005). Survey participants were provided the study purpose, a general plant description, and a picture of ORP in flower before taking the survey.

Multiple choice questions, consisting of single answer, multiple answer, and/or text-entry options, were the dominant question type in the online survey. Two Likert scale questions were also included.

Survey distribution.

An anonymous link to the online survey (approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, ID no. 202000345) was emailed in Aug 2021 to 5820 horticultural newsletter, green industry professional, and Florida Master Gardener contacts using established University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) mailing lists. The use of IFAS mailing lists was preferred over a research panel in Qualtrics XM® because of inherent costs (this effort was unfunded). The total reach of the survey request was unknown due to potential untraceable sharing by respondents. Any Floridian over age 18 with access to the anonymous link was eligible to participate in the study. Survey participation was optional, and responses were recorded anonymously in Qualtrics XM® through Dec 2021.

Statistical analysis.

All analyses were conducted using R Statistical Software (v4.2.0; R Core Team 2022). When appropriate, a chi-square test of independence (Pearson 1900) at a significance level of P < 0.05 was used to assess the association between categorical variables. Two-proportions z-tests were conducted post hoc to compare cells (Sharpe 2015).

The mean and standard deviation of Likert scale ratings were calculated in Qualtrics XM®. Likert scale data sets were compared using a Kruskal–Wallis test (Kruskal and Wallis 1952), followed by a Dunn’s Multiple Comparison test (Dunn 1964) with a Bonferroni correction. The R package ‘dunn.test’ was used to run these analyses (Dinno 2015).

Results

Consumer profile

A total of 907 useable survey responses were received from Aug to Dec 2021. Most survey respondents were over age 65 (60% of 876 responses received for this question), compared with 25% aged 50 to 64, 14% aged 30 to 49, and 2% aged 18 to 29, female (75% of 876 responses, compared with 25% male and 1% third gender or nonbinary), and white (93% of 899 responses, compared with 2% black, 3% Asian, 2% American Indian, and 1% native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander). For comparison, 21% of Florida’s population was over age 65, 51% was female, and 77% was white in 2021, compared with 17% black, 3% Asian, 0.5% American Indian, and 0.1% native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (US Census Bureau 2021).

Survey respondents were asked to refer to the climate division map of Florida [Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (CPC-NCEP-NOAA) 2005] and select the climate division where they currently resided or conducted business. Climate divisions are regions of generally homogenous climate, as determined by temperature and precipitation data collected by the NOAA. All seven of Florida’s climate divisions were represented in the 873 responses received for this question (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Total number of survey respondents living or working in each Florida climate division (Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005).

Citation: HortScience 58, 10; 10.21273/HORTSCI17254-23

Survey participants were then asked to choose the category of horticultural consumer that best described them at the time of taking the survey. Of the 873 respondents that answered this question, 89% identified themselves as a home gardener, 8% as green industry, and 3% as new to plants or gardening.

Consumer knowledge

Respondents best defined their knowledge of ORP given the following choices: “knowledgeable,” explained as “I know about this plant’s uses and benefits, cultivars/varieties available, and its cultural requirements”; “somewhat knowledgeable”; and “not knowledgeable,” explained as “I know little to nothing about this plant.” A total of 56% of 873 survey respondents defined their knowledge of ORP at the time of taking the survey as “somewhat knowledgeable,” 22% as “knowledgeable,” and 22% as “not knowledgeable.”

A chi-square test of independence found a significant relationship between consumer knowledge of ORP and consumer category (χ2 = 84.52, df = 4, P < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of green industry professionals defined their ORP knowledge as “knowledgeable” (50%), compared with the proportion of “knowledgeable” home gardeners (20%; χ2 = 29.99, df = 1, P < 0.001) and the proportion of “knowledgeable” respondents new to plants/gardening (3%; χ2 = 17.65, df = 1, P < 0.001). Conversely, a significantly greater proportion of respondents new to plants/gardening defined their ORP knowledge as “not knowledgeable” (73%), compared with the proportion of “not knowledgeable” home gardeners (22%; χ2 = 38.37, df = 1, P < 0.001) and the proportion of “not knowledgeable” green industry professionals (2%; χ2 = 54.52, df = 1, P < 0.001). The proportion of “not knowledgeable” home gardeners was also significantly greater than the proportion of “not knowledgeable” green industry professionals (χ2 = 14.75, df = 1, P < 0.001; Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Proportion of respondents by consumer category who defined their ornamental rhizoma peanut (ORP) knowledge as “knowledgeable,” “somewhat knowledgeable,” or “not knowledgeable.” Knowledge of ORP was dependent on consumer category, as determined by a chi-square test of independence (χ2 = 84.52, df = 4, P < 0.001).

Citation: HortScience 58, 10; 10.21273/HORTSCI17254-23

Valued plant characteristics and benefits

A Likert scale question asked respondents to rate desired characteristics of turfgrass alternative or ornamental groundcover plants from one to five in terms of importance (1 = not important and 5 = extremely important). Mean ratings ranged from 3.6 ± 1.3 for “native plant” to 4.5 ± 0.9 for “pest or disease resistant.” Some attributes were significantly more important to respondents than others, as determined by a Kruskal–Wallis test (χ2 = 838.52, df = 10, P < 0.001). Respondents viewed “pest and disease resistance,” “low maintenance requirements,” “noninvasiveness,” and “drought tolerance” as most important. “Shade tolerance,” “nitrogen fixation,” and “native plant” received the lowest ratings (Table 1).

Table 1.

Mean consumer rating of turfgrass alternative/ornamental groundcover characteristics.

Table 1.

The second Likert scale question in the survey asked participants to rate desired benefits provided by turfgrass alternative or ornamental groundcover plants from one to five in terms of importance (1 = not important and 5 = extremely important). Mean ratings ranged from 4.1 ± 1.0 for “soil moisture retention” to 4.6 ± 0.9 for “reduction in herbicide or pesticide usage.” A Kruskal–Wallis test determined that some attributes were significantly more important than others (χ2 = 203.91, df = 6, P < 0.001). Survey respondents were most interested in reducing herbicide/pesticide and fertilizer/water usage and preventing weed establishment. “Erosion prevention” and “soil moisture retention” were considered as least important benefits, as reflected by lower respondent ratings (Table 2).

Table 2.

Mean consumer ratings of turfgrass alternative/ornamental groundcover benefits.

Table 2.

Purchasing history and use

All survey participants were asked if they had ever purchased ORP at a nursery or garden center. Of 874 respondents who answered this question, 57% had never purchased ORP, 35% had purchased ORP, and 8% had never purchased ORP but it was growing in their landscape. A chi-squared test of independence found a significant relationship between ORP respondent knowledge and purchasing history (χ2 = 174.71, df = 4, P < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of “knowledgeable” consumers (57%) had purchased ORP compared with the proportion of “not knowledgeable” consumers (3%; χ2 = 133.72, df = 1, P < 0.001). Conversely, a significantly greater proportion of “not knowledgeable” respondents had never purchased ORP (95%) compared with “knowledgeable” respondents (31%; χ2 = 168.16, df = 1, P < 0.001).

Survey respondents that had previously purchased ORP (Group 1) were asked questions about the timing of their ORP purchases and use of ORP in the landscape. Of 305 respondents, 16% had purchased ORP within a year of taking the survey, 11% purchased it 1 year before taking the survey, 50% purchased it 2 to 5 years before taking the survey, and 37% purchased ORP more than 5 years before taking the survey. Group 1 predominately purchased ORP in a container (87% of 304 respondents), followed by sprigs or plugs (14%), “other” (3%), and sod or roll (1%). Text entry submissions for “other” indicated that five of these nine respondents purchased ORP as seed. As ORP is nearly exclusively propagated vegetatively, these consumers were likely confusing ORP with its stoloniferous relative, Arachis pintoi, which can be grown from seed (Sanchez et al. 2020).

Strikingly, 82% of 302 respondents in Group 1 stated that the ORP selection name was unknown at the time of purchase. Ecoturf was purchased by 13% of these respondents, ‘Brooksville 67’ by 2%, and ‘Brooksville 68’ by 3% of respondents. “Other” was chosen by 4% and text entry submissions revealed that ‘PP-1’ and ‘Florigraze’ (University of Florida/USDA- NRCS release in 1978) were also purchased by survey respondents.

Survey respondents that had previously purchased ORP or had not purchased ORP but had it growing in their landscape used ORP most often as a groundcover (60% of 302 respondents responses), followed by a turfgrass alternative or lawn (39%), in a mix with turfgrass (25%), in a container (4%), and 2% had not yet planted ORP. A turfgrass alternative or lawn was defined in the survey as “an area of land covered by long-lived plant(s) maintained at a short height for aesthetic or recreational purposes.” Of 374 respondents, 37% had success growing ORP in the home or urban landscape, 36% had moderate success, 18% stated that they have had little to no success with this plant, and 9% had not yet planted ORP or it was newly planted. When these respondents were asked to select which uses of ORP they would consider implementing in the future, “as a turfgrass alternative or lawn” was chosen by 57% of 256 respondents, “as a groundcover” by 43%, “mixed with turfgrass” by 32%, “undecided” by 13%, and “in a container” by 12%.

All survey participants were asked if they would purchase ORP in the future. Of 863 respondents that answered this question, 54% stated they would purchase ORP in the future, 37% stated that they might purchase ORP in the future, and 9% stated that they would not purchase ORP in the future. Of 299 respondents who had previously purchased ORP, 76% stated that they would purchase ORP again in the future, 15% stated they might, and 8% would not purchase ORP again. More than 83% of the survey respondents in all seven climate divisions of Florida (CPC-NCEP-NOAA 2005) were open to purchasing ORP in the future, selecting they would or might purchase ORP (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Proportion of respondents by climate division (Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005) who would (“yes”), would not (“no”), or might (“maybe”) purchase ornamental rhizoma peanut in the future. Respondents selected the climate zone where they lived or conducted business at the time of taking the survey.

Citation: HortScience 58, 10; 10.21273/HORTSCI17254-23

Maintenance practices and preferences

Flowering.

To determine how much and how often consumers prefer ORP to flower in the home and urban landscape, survey participants were asked to choose from five flowering levels (“occasional and light,” “occasional and heavy,” “frequent and light,” “frequent and heavy,” and “no preference”) for each ORP use they were currently/would consider implementing in the landscape (“container,” “mix with turfgrass,” “turfgrass alternative or lawn,” and “groundcover”). A chi-square test of independence determined that there was no association between ORP use and flowering preference (χ2 = 20.10, df = 12, P = 0.066). Regardless of use, respondents favored “frequent and heavy flowering” in ORP (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Respondents were polled regarding their ornamental rhizoma peanut (ORP) flowering preferences. The proportions of respondents who chose “no preference,” “frequent and heavy,” “frequent and light,” “occasional and heavy,” and “occasional and light” are displayed by ORP use in the landscape. A chi-square test of independence determined there was no association between ORP use and flowering preference (χ2 = 20.08, df = 12, P = 0.066).

Citation: HortScience 58, 10; 10.21273/HORTSCI17254-23

Mowing.

Survey participants in Group 1 were asked about their mowing practices. Of 287 respondents, 43% never mowed their ORP, 16% mowed once or twice a year, 8% mowed every month, 16% mowed every week to 2 weeks, and 17% stated their ORP was not established enough to mow. Of 115 respondents, 12% mowed ORP at a height of 4 to 5 cm, 58% at 6 to 10 cm, and 30% mowed ORP at a height greater than 10 cm.

Survey participants were asked how often they preferred to mow ORP in the landscape. Of 668 respondents, 42% preferred never to mow, 33% once or twice a year, 17% every month, and 7% preferred to mow every couple of weeks. When all survey participants were polled regarding ORP height preferences, 15% of 761 respondents preferred ORP to remain below 10 cm in the landscape, 51% preferred a height between 10 to 20 cm, 22% preferred a height between 20 to 30 cm, 4% of respondents would prefer ORP to remain above 30 cm, and 8% of respondents did not have a preference.

Herbicide use.

Respondents that were growing or had grown ORP were asked to provide information pertaining to herbicide use. Most survey respondents did not use herbicides on ORP in the home and urban landscape (91% of 371 respondents), 3% respondents have used a post-emergent herbicide for grass and broadleaf weeds, 5% used post-emergent herbicides for grass weeds, 2% used post-emergent herbicides for broadleaf weeds, and 4% used pre-emergent herbicides. A follow-up question on the timing of herbicide application was answered by 32 respondents. Herbicide was applied while ORP was dormant by 34% of these respondents, 12% as ORP emerged from winter dormancy, 22% during the fall, 47% during the spring, and 47% during the summer. After herbicide application, 50% of 30 respondents did not observe any herbicide injury, 40% stated that ORP showed signs of herbicide injury but quickly recovered, and 10% of these respondents reported herbicide injury that delayed or affected ORP growth.

Challenges experienced

Survey participants in Group 1 were asked to identify challenges they experienced when buying or growing ORP. Of several listed challenges, 44% of 369 respondents reported a lack of availability of ORP products, 36% reported competition with weeds, and 31% reported problems with ORP establishment. A smaller number of respondents reported that ORP was too expensive (16%), the quantity (i.e., number of pots or pallets of sod) of ORP products offered by retailers was too small (15%) or too large (4%) for a given purpose, reported plant death (10%), lacked knowledge about cultural care or planting methods (8%), or did not have access to growing space or correct conditions (6%) when buying or growing ORP. “None of the above” was selected by 21% of these survey participants.

Survey participants that had never purchased ORP (Group 2) were asked to select which challenges, if any, had hindered them from purchasing ORP in the past. A total of 27% of 562 respondents reported a lack of availability of ORP products, 23% did not know the plant existed, 20% lacked knowledge about planting methods or cultural care, and 15% did not have access to growing space or correct conditions. A fewer number of participants reported that the quantity of ORP products offered by retailers was too small (6%) or too large (2%) for a given purpose or was too expensive (4%). “None of the above” was chosen by 30% of these survey participants. Overall, a lack of availability was identified as the top challenge associated with buying or growing ORP.

Discussion

Despite the many strengths associated with online surveys, sampling issues are a main weakness (Evans and Mathur 2018). Regardless, the results of this study provide pertinent and valuable information for producers, wholesalers, and retailers working with ORP. At least 85% of survey respondents represented the top-spending age groups of horticultural consumers in 2021 (Daly 2021). Survey results suggest that there is a potentially large consumer demand for ORP across Florida. However, there are several aspects pertaining to the marketing and production of ORP that show room for improvement.

Survey responses indicate that ORP selection names were not well communicated to the horticultural consumers that participated in this study. There also appears to be a lack of distinction between stoloniferous and rhizomatous Arachis species. The homogenization of Arachis products could in part be attributed to improper labeling. Rusnak (2008) reported that much of the available A. pintoi in Florida was mislabeled as ORP. To add to the confusion, both species have been colloquially referred to as “perennial peanut” or “ornamental peanut” by retailers and in popular press articles and extension bulletins.

Although customer satisfaction was not directly measured in this survey, stoloniferous and rhizomatous Arachis differ in several aspects that could affect a customer’s experience, including cold tolerance and establishment time. Selections of ORP vary in leaf texture and color, flowering, and canopy height (Hanna et al. 2018). Beyond improving product labeling, creating distinct brands or identities for ornamental Arachis products may alleviate confusion among consumers and further improve their experiences. Additionally, Collart et al. (2010) found that consumer brand awareness was positively correlated with their willingness to purchase ornamental plants.

An increase in the supply of ORP products is necessary to meet consumer demand in Florida. In addition, expanding the diversity of commercially available ORP selections will offer consumers more buying choices to meet their needs and preferences. In the past, matching plant characteristics with consumer preferences increased both consumer gratification and producer profit margin (Khachatryan et al. 2017; Rihn et al. 2014). On the basis of survey responses, horticultural consumers may prefer ORP selections that maintain a canopy height below 20 cm and flower frequently and heavily while mowing “never” or “once or twice a year.” Selections of ORP that quickly emerge from winter dormancy and form a dense groundcover might alleviate weed pressure, resulting in less need for herbicide.

Survey data indicate there is an opportunity for knowledge gain in beginner horticultural consumers, as well as home gardeners. Kelley and Wehry (2006) found that personal acquaintances/family, garden center staff, and gardening books were the sources most used by consumers to obtain gardening knowledge. In comparison, lesser-used sources included university websites, extension offices, and master gardener programs. Greater effort should be made to disseminate regionally specific ORP cultural and maintenance information through a variety of methods, such as product labeling, public workshops, trainings, webinars, extension bulletins, academic publications, popular press articles, and social media.

The knowledge of horticultural consumers can affect their response to marketing cues. In one study, less knowledgeable consumers were more persuaded by cues implying value rather than plant functionality. The opposite was true for knowledgeable consumers (Johar and Sirgy 1991). Marketing strategies should be developed to appeal to both knowledgeable and less knowledgeable consumers, such as emphasizing the long-term cost savings of ORP while continuing to highlight its utilitarian qualities.

The results of this survey suggest that Florida horticultural consumers are most interested in noninvasive ornamental groundcovers and turfgrass alternatives, as well as those that reduce maintenance and input requirements. The nitrogen-fixing, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant qualities of ORP make it a desirable option for the home and urban landscape, especially for areas under formal fertilizer ordinances or water restrictions. Although ORP is not listed as an invasive or problem species by any regulatory or nonregulatory authority, surrounding ORP with a physical barrier or using edging practices can prevent the undesired spread of this plant (Pfaff and Maura 2002; Rouse et al. 2004). To bolster the market success of ORP over the coming years, focus should be placed on increasing consumer access and engagement with ORP information sources, expanding the supply and diversity of ORP products while considering consumer preferences, and establishing distinct brands for ornamental Arachis.

References Cited

  • Collart AJ, Palma MA, Hall CR. 2010. Branding awareness and willingness-to-pay associated with the Texas Superstar™ and Earth-Kind™ brands in Texas. HortScience. 45:12261231. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.21.6.698.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Climate divisions w/counties—Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_ monitoring/regional_monitoring/CLIM_DIVS/florida.gif. [accessed Jun 2022].

  • Daly J. 2021. Nursery & garden stores in the US. IBISWorld, US Industry (NAICS) Report, 44422. Feb 2021.

  • Dinno A. 2015. Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn’s test. Stata J. 15:292300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dukes M, Krimsky L, Lusk M, Trenholm LE, Unruh JB, Atkinson M, Mylavarapu R, Warwick CR. 2020. Urban fertilizer ordinances in the context of environmental horticulture and water quality extension programs: Frequently asked questions. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, AE534. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ae534-2020.

  • Dunn OJ. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics. 6:241252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181.

  • Evans JR, Mathur A. 2018. The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Res. 28:854887. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Evans JR, Mathur A. 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 15:195219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360.

  • Hanna WW, Schwartz BM, Blount AR, Knox GW, Mackowiak CL. 2018. ‘PP-1’ ornamental perennial Arachis. HortScience. 53:17151718. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13402-18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johar JS, Sirgy MJ. 1991. Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. J Advert. 20:2333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kelley KM, Wehry RH. 2006. Consumer interest in gardening topics and preferred information sources. J Ext. 4:235249.

  • Khachatryan H, Rihn AL, Campbell B, Yue C, Hall C, Behe B. 2017. Visual attention to eco-labels predicts consumer preferences for pollinator friendly plants. Sustainability. 9:1743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101743.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 47:583621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mylavarapu R, Wright D, Kidder G. 2021. UF/IFAS standardized fertilization recommendations for agronomic crops. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, SS163. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ss163-2021.

  • Ortega‐S JA, Sollenberger LE, Quesenberry KH, Jones CS, Cornell JA. 1992. Productivity and persistence of rhizoma peanut pastures under different grazing managements. Agron J. 84:799804. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400050008x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pearson K. 1900. X. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci. 50:157175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pfaff SC, Maura C. 2002. Notice of release of perennial peanut Brooksville 68. USDA-NRCS Brooksville Plant Materials Center, Brooksville, FL, USA.

  • Prine GM, French EC, Blount AR, Williams MJ, Quesenberry KH. 2010. Registration of Arblick and Ecoturf rhizoma peanut germplasms for ornamental or forage use. J Plant Regist. 4:145148. https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.07.0392crg.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prine GM, Dunavin LS, Glennon RJ, Roush RD. 1990. Registration of ‘Arbrook’ rhizoma peanut. Crop Sci. 30:743744. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030060x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quesenberry KH, Blount AR, Mislevy P, French EC, Williams MJ, Prine GM. 2010. Registration of ‘UF Tito’ and ‘UF Peace’ rhizoma peanut cultivars with high dry matter yields, persistence, and disease tolerance. J Plant Regist. 4:1721. https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.07.0397crc.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  • Rihn AL, Yue C, Hall C, Behe BK. 2014. Consumer preferences for longevity information and guarantees on cut flower arrangements. HortScience. 49:769778. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI. 49.6.769.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rouse RE, Miavitz EM, Roka FM. 2004. Guide to using rhizomal perennial peanut in the urban landscape. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, HS960/EP135. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ep135-2004.

  • Rusnak P. 2008. Mistaken identity. Ornamental Outlook. 17:3840.

  • Sanchez JD, Vendramini J, Silveira ML, Dubeux J Jr , Sollenberger MP. 2020. Pintoi peanut: A seed-propagated perennial peanut forage option for Florida. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, AG445. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ag445-2020.

  • Sharpe D. 2015. Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Pract Assess, Res Eval. 20:110. https://doi.org/10.7275/tbfa-x148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Census Bureau. 2021. QuickFacts Florida. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/PST045221. [accessed Apr 2023].

  • Van Kleef E, van Trijp HC, Luning P. 2005. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer. 16:181201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams MJ, Quesenberry KH, Prine GM, Olson CB. 2005. Rhizoma peanut—More than a ‘Lucerne’ for subtropical USA. Proc. Intl. Grassland Congress. 20:33.

  • Collart AJ, Palma MA, Hall CR. 2010. Branding awareness and willingness-to-pay associated with the Texas Superstar™ and Earth-Kind™ brands in Texas. HortScience. 45:12261231. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.21.6.698.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Climate divisions w/counties—Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_ monitoring/regional_monitoring/CLIM_DIVS/florida.gif. [accessed Jun 2022].

  • Daly J. 2021. Nursery & garden stores in the US. IBISWorld, US Industry (NAICS) Report, 44422. Feb 2021.

  • Dinno A. 2015. Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn’s test. Stata J. 15:292300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1501500117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dukes M, Krimsky L, Lusk M, Trenholm LE, Unruh JB, Atkinson M, Mylavarapu R, Warwick CR. 2020. Urban fertilizer ordinances in the context of environmental horticulture and water quality extension programs: Frequently asked questions. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, AE534. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ae534-2020.

  • Dunn OJ. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics. 6:241252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181.

  • Evans JR, Mathur A. 2018. The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Res. 28:854887. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Evans JR, Mathur A. 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 15:195219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360.

  • Hanna WW, Schwartz BM, Blount AR, Knox GW, Mackowiak CL. 2018. ‘PP-1’ ornamental perennial Arachis. HortScience. 53:17151718. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13402-18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johar JS, Sirgy MJ. 1991. Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. J Advert. 20:2333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kelley KM, Wehry RH. 2006. Consumer interest in gardening topics and preferred information sources. J Ext. 4:235249.

  • Khachatryan H, Rihn AL, Campbell B, Yue C, Hall C, Behe B. 2017. Visual attention to eco-labels predicts consumer preferences for pollinator friendly plants. Sustainability. 9:1743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101743.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 47:583621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mylavarapu R, Wright D, Kidder G. 2021. UF/IFAS standardized fertilization recommendations for agronomic crops. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, SS163. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ss163-2021.

  • Ortega‐S JA, Sollenberger LE, Quesenberry KH, Jones CS, Cornell JA. 1992. Productivity and persistence of rhizoma peanut pastures under different grazing managements. Agron J. 84:799804. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400050008x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pearson K. 1900. X. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci. 50:157175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pfaff SC, Maura C. 2002. Notice of release of perennial peanut Brooksville 68. USDA-NRCS Brooksville Plant Materials Center, Brooksville, FL, USA.

  • Prine GM, French EC, Blount AR, Williams MJ, Quesenberry KH. 2010. Registration of Arblick and Ecoturf rhizoma peanut germplasms for ornamental or forage use. J Plant Regist. 4:145148. https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.07.0392crg.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prine GM, Dunavin LS, Glennon RJ, Roush RD. 1990. Registration of ‘Arbrook’ rhizoma peanut. Crop Sci. 30:743744. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030060x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quesenberry KH, Blount AR, Mislevy P, French EC, Williams MJ, Prine GM. 2010. Registration of ‘UF Tito’ and ‘UF Peace’ rhizoma peanut cultivars with high dry matter yields, persistence, and disease tolerance. J Plant Regist. 4:1721. https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.07.0397crc.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  • Rihn AL, Yue C, Hall C, Behe BK. 2014. Consumer preferences for longevity information and guarantees on cut flower arrangements. HortScience. 49:769778. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI. 49.6.769.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rouse RE, Miavitz EM, Roka FM. 2004. Guide to using rhizomal perennial peanut in the urban landscape. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, HS960/EP135. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ep135-2004.

  • Rusnak P. 2008. Mistaken identity. Ornamental Outlook. 17:3840.

  • Sanchez JD, Vendramini J, Silveira ML, Dubeux J Jr , Sollenberger MP. 2020. Pintoi peanut: A seed-propagated perennial peanut forage option for Florida. Univ. of Fla./IFAS extension fact sheet, AG445. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ag445-2020.

  • Sharpe D. 2015. Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Pract Assess, Res Eval. 20:110. https://doi.org/10.7275/tbfa-x148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Census Bureau. 2021. QuickFacts Florida. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/PST045221. [accessed Apr 2023].

  • Van Kleef E, van Trijp HC, Luning P. 2005. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer. 16:181201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams MJ, Quesenberry KH, Prine GM, Olson CB. 2005. Rhizoma peanut—More than a ‘Lucerne’ for subtropical USA. Proc. Intl. Grassland Congress. 20:33.

Kelly M. Thomas Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Kelly M. Thomas in
Google Scholar
Close
,
Ann R. Blount Agronomy Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Ann R. Blount in
Google Scholar
Close
,
Gary W. Knox Environmental Horticulture Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Gary W. Knox in
Google Scholar
Close
,
Cheryl L. Mackowiak Department of Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351, USA

Search for other papers by Cheryl L. Mackowiak in
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Lynn E. Sollenberger Agronomy Department, University of Florida, McCarty Hall B, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Search for other papers by Lynn E. Sollenberger in
Google Scholar
Close

Contributor Notes

We gratefully acknowledge Wendy Wilbur and Claire Lewis for aiding in the distribution of this survey.

This research was presented as an E-poster at the American Society for Horticultural Science Annual Conference, 30 Jul–3 Aug 2022, Chicago, IL.

K.M.T. is the corresponding author. E-mail: thomaskm2013@gmail.com.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 351 351 20
PDF Downloads 186 186 18
Save