Search Results

You are looking at 91 - 100 of 2,280 items for :

  • landscape plant x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Clydette M. Alsup and Pamela A. Trewatha

Poster Session 28—Ornamental/Landscape and Turf 1 19 July 2005, 1:15–2:00 p.m. Poster Hall–Ballroom E/F

Free access

J.A. LaMondia, V.L. Smith, and T.M. Rathier

1 Dept. of Plant Pathology and Ecology. 2 Valley Laboratory. We thank T. Burr and W. Wilcox for supplying strains of Agrobacterium species and Phytophthora cactorum . The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment

Free access

Christopher Lindsey, Gary Kling, and Mark Zampardo

UIPLANTS is a program developed under Microsoft Windows to help students in woody plant materials courses. Its many options include an encyclopedic format that displays 256-color high-resolution images of plant identification characteristics and ornamental features coupled with text, side by side image comparisons, “book markers” to return to selected screens, and a slide show that runs a display of images in a user-defined format. The system is being used to study how students learn information presented to them through computers and which program features are most effective in improving plant knowledge. Through computer logging of all student activity within the program and surveys given to the test groups, some basic usage patterns were derived. Students using the program with no incentive tended to use the program in a more comprehensive manner, switching back and forth between the slide show and encyclopedic entries with equal time spent in each. The comparison and “bookmark” features were used but less frequently. Half of the students, given an extra credit incentive based on time, followed this same usage pattern, but the other half simply used the slide show with minimal student–computer interaction.

Free access

Gary Kling, Christopher Lindsey, and Mark Zampardo

The authors present a case study of the progress and development of UIPLANTS from its inception to marketing. Topics such as determining the objectives of the software program, choosing equipment, authoring software, hardware, personnel, and funding will be addressed. The authors will lead the audience through the path of development and show how the product being produced evolves as each of the above factors change in time. Included in the presentation will be issues relating to copyrights, patents, publishers, and royalties. The effects of continuous evaluation and testing of software development will be demonstrated. Also discussed will be changes in software development as influenced by each of these factors. The presentation will include future development of UIPLANTS as it is being modified to meet industry needs.

Free access

Clydette M. Alsup and Pamela B. Trewatha

Many homeowners have difficulty establishing ornamental gardens in shallow, rocky soils. “Gardening in a Bag” (planting directly into bags of topsoil) offers a viable alternative for growing many herbaceous ornamental plants. This study compares the growth and appearance of several herbaceous bedding plants using “Gardening in a Bag” versus “in the ground” planting methods. Twenty-five cultivars of Alternanthera dentata R. Br., ornamental pepper (Capsicum annuum var. annuum L.), dianthus (Dianthus barbatus L.), gazania [Gazania rigens (L.) Gaertn.], marigold (Tagetes patula L.), petunia (Petunia hybrida hort. ex E. Vilm.), salvia (Salvia splendens Sellow ex Schult.), peek-a-boo plant (Spilanthes oleracea L.), verbena (Verbena hybrida hort. ex Groenl. & Rümpler), and vinca [Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don] were evaluated in 2002 under the two planting methods: in the ground versus in bags of topsoil. Wave petunias, dianthus, vinca, and rose moss (Portulaca grandiflora Hook.) were evaluated using the same methods in 2003. All plants were mulched with 7.5 cm coarse sawdust. In 2002, the planting method had no effect on the average height for 16 of the 25 cultivars tested. Seven cultivars were taller when grown in the ground whereas two cultivars were shorter during that treatment. Planting method had no effect on average plant spread of 13 of the cultivars. Plant spread was greater for nine cultivars grown in bags, whereas three cultivars were wider when grown in the ground. Visual ratings of overall appearance were similar for 14 of the cultivars regardless of planting method. In 2003, performance of the five species was evaluated on 3 July, 29 July, and 5 Sept. Planting method did not affect growth and appearance of rose moss or vinca. The two petunia cultivars and the dianthus tended to be taller and wider and had more flowers when grown in the ground compared with growth in bags. Visual quality of the petunias and the dianthus was unaffected by planting method until September when the `Purple Wave' petunias and the dianthus grown in the ground received better ratings than plants grown in bags.

Free access

Peter R. Hicklenton and Kenneth G. Cairns

Nutrient release from Nutricote Type 100 (100-day N release; 16N-4.4P-8.1K), and from a 1:3 mixture of Nutricote Type 40 (40-day N release; 16N-4.4P-8.1K) and Type 100 was affected by time and temperature. The Type 40/100 mixture released nutrients more rapidly over a 5 to 35C range in laboratory studies. Seasonal growth of containerized cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri C.K. Schneid `Coral Beauty') and juniper (Juniperus horizontalis Moench. `Plumosa Compacta') increased with increasing application rates of either Nutricote Type 100 or a 1:3 mixture of Type 40/100 over the range 2-10 kg·m-3. Between 25 June and 27 July, cotoneaster grew more rapidly in media with Type 40/100 Nutricote, but by the end of the season (27 Sept.), fertilizer type showed no effect on plant dry weight. Shoot N was higher in cotoneaster plants grown with Type 40/100 Nutricote than with the Type 100 formulation during the first 2 months of growth, reflecting the more rapid release and uptake of N from the mixture. During the last month the situation was reversed, as nutrients from the Type 40/100 mixture were depleted. Potassium and P shoot concentrations were not affected by fertilizer type. Juniper growth and shoot concentrations of N, K, and P were not affected by fertilizer type at any time during the season. The results provided no evidence that seasonal growth could be enhanced in either cotoneaster (grows rapidly) or juniper (slower growing) by mixing rapid and more slowly releasing types of Nutricote.

Full access

Rolston St. Hilaire, Dawn M. VanLeeuwen, and Patrick Torres

water use would be to replace turfgrass with drought-tolerant plants (J.R. Brown, N. Carrillo, and H. Jenkins-Smith, unpublished data). Public opinion surveys are used to gain knowledge of residents’ preferred landscape elements ( St. Hilaire et al

Full access

Malik G. Al-Ajlouni, Dawn M. VanLeeuwen, and Rolston St. Hilaire

water features in a landscape and irrigate plants to nonstress conditions ( Al-Kofahi et al., 2012a ; St. Hilaire et al., 2008 ). However, St. Hilaire et al. (2008) cautioned that many landscape groundcovers and shrubs have acceptable aesthetic

Free access

Paul E. Cappiello, John F. Wachter, and B. Libby

65 ORAL SESSION 14 (Abstr. 470–477) Characterization, Evaluation, Utilization–Landscape Plants