Search Results
Restrictions on pumping water from underground aquifers are limiting vegetable production in Southwest Texas. To determine yield, quality, and water use efficiency (WUE) of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L. group Cantalupensis, `Caravelle'), six irrigation systems with varying input levels and their interactions with stand establishment (containerized transplants vs. direct seeding) were examined. Irrigation systems were: 1) pre-irrigated followed by dryland conditions; 2) furrow/no mulch; 3) furrow/mulch (40-μm-thick black polyethylene); 4) surface drip (0 cm depth)/mulch; 5) subsurface drip (10-cm depth)/mulch; and 6) subsurface drip (30-cm depth)/mulch. Field experiments were conducted on a silty clay loam soil during four seasons (1995-98). In 1995, marketable fruit yields were greater for subsurface drip systems at 30-cm depth than for furrow systems, with or without plastic mulch. Transplants grown with surface drip irrigation produced 75% greater yield in the 9-count fruit class size during early harvest than did those grown with subsurface drip (10- or 30-cm depth), but total yield was unaffected by drip tape depth placement. In 1996, the driest season of these studies, direct-seeded plants had higher total yields than did transplants; yield was greatest for direct-seeded plants on subsurface drip placed at 10- or 30-cm soil depth, and for transplants on subsurface drip at 10-cm depth. Soluble solids content was minimally affected by irrigation method, but was higher in fruit from transplants than in those from direct-seeded plants in 3 years. Across all seasons, the average water applied for drip systems was 53% lower than that for conventional furrow systems, and WUE was 2.3-fold as great.
A comprehensive survey of American and Canadian universities that offer masters, doctoral, or both degrees in horticulture resulted in responses from 27 academic units. Units were surveyed regarding types of degrees offered, admissions policies, demographic characteristics of students, financial assistance provided to students, faculty ranks and salaries, and metrics by which the programs were evaluated by university administration. About 80% of the programs resided in 1862 Morrill Act land-grant institutions (LG) with the remainder housed in other non-land-grant institutions (NLG). Thirty-eight percent of reporting LG programs existed as stand-alone horticulture departments, whereas horticulture programs were combined with other disciplines in the remainder. Admissions criteria were most consistent among LG programs. Participation in distance education programs was low, but growing. Financial support of graduate students was more common in LG programs. Most schools offered some sort of tuition reduction to those students on assistantships/fellowships and offered health insurance options. Payment of fees was rare and the level of stipends provided varied substantially among programs. International student enrollment was greatest at LG programs and had remained steady in recent years. Gender equity was present among graduate students, with nearly equal male and female enrollment. Most graduate students at both LG (63.6%) and NLG (75.0%) programs were non-Hispanic White; although overall minority enrollment had increased but was still not similar in distribution to that of the general U.S. population. Professors (46.7%) and Associate Professors (28.3%) dominated the faculty ranks while Assistant Professors (19.3%) and lecturers/instructors (5.7%) constituted a much smaller portion of the faculty. Faculty salaries varied tremendously among institutions, especially for senior faculty. Female and ethnic minorities were underrepresented in faculty ranks compared with the general U.S. population. Aside from total graduate program enrollment, the relative importance of various evaluation metrics for programs was highly variable among institutions. Data discussed herein should be useful to universities with horticulture graduate programs for peer institution comparisons during program assessments, accreditation reviews, or for strategic planning purposes.
Annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) control with postemergence herbicides in cool-season turfgrass is often inconsistent. Amicarbazone and mesotrione have complementary modes of action but have not been evaluated in tank-mixtures for control of mature annual bluegrass in cool-season turfgrass. Field experiments were conducted during 2018 in New Jersey, and in Indiana, Iowa, and New Jersey during 2019 to evaluate springtime applications of amicarbazone and mesotrione for POST annual bluegrass control in cool-season turfgrass. On separate tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) and kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) sites in 2018, three sequential applications of amicarbazone (53 g⋅ha−1) + mesotrione at 110 to 175 g⋅ha−1 provided >70% annual bluegrass control, whereas three sequential applications of amicarbazone alone at 53 and 70 as well as two sequential applications at 110 g⋅ha−1 provided <15% control at 14 weeks after initial treatment (WAIT). In 2019, results in New Jersey were similar to 2018 where amicarbazone alone provided less control than mesotrione + amicarbazone tank-mixtures. In Indiana, where the annual bluegrass infestation was severe and most mature, tank-mixtures were more effective than amicarbazone alone at 6 WAIT, but at 12 WAIT all treatments provided poor control. In Iowa, where the annual bluegrass infestation was <1 year old, all treatments provided similar control throughout the experiment and by >80% at the conclusion of the experiment. This research demonstrates that sequential applications of mesotrione + amicarbazone can provide more annual bluegrass control than either herbicide alone, but efficacy is inconsistent across locations, possibly due to annual bluegrass maturity and infestation severity.
Field studies were conducted during four consecutive tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) -cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations to examine the longterm residual effects of tomato methyl bromide (MBr) alternatives on soilborne pests in double-cropped cucumber. Four treatments were established in tomato fields: a) nontreated control; b) MBr + chloropicrin (Pic) (67:33 by weight) at a rate of 350 lb/acre; c) tank-mixed pebulate + napropamide at 4 and 2 lb/acre, respectively, followed by 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) + Pic (83:17 by volume) at 40 gal/acre; and d) napropamide at 2 lb/acre followed by soil solarization for 7 to 8 weeks. Each of the following seasons, cucumber was planted in the same tomato plots without removing mulch films. For nutsedge [purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus)] densities, napropamide followed by solarization plots had equal control (≤15 plants/m2) as MBr + Pic during all four cropping seasons. However, nematode control with solarization was inconsistent. Marketable yield data proved that fumigation in tomato fields with either MBr + Pic or pebulate + napropamide followed by 1,3-D + Pic had a long-term effect on double-cropped cucumber.
The effect of various integrated crop management practices on productivity (fruit yield, grade, and sire) and returns of `Washington Navel' oranges [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck] was determined in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Seventy-two combinations of treatments comprised of three irrigation levels [80%, 100%, and 120% evapotranspiration demand (ETc)], three N fertilizer levels (low, medium, and high based on 2.3%, 2.5%, and 2.7% leaf N, respectively), gibberellic acid (±), miticide (±), and fungicide-nematicide (±) were included in the analysis. Using a partial budgeting procedure, returns after costs were calculated for each treatment combiition. Costs of treatments, harvesting, packing, and processing were subtracted from the value of the crop. The value of the crop was calculated as the sum of returns of crop in each size and grade category. The overall result indicated that returns after costs were higher for the +fungicide-nematicide treatment and also were generally more with increased irrigation. The combination of 120% ETc, +fungicide-nematicide, medium or high N, -miticide, and -gibberellin showed the highest return of all treatment combinations. Second highest returns were obtained with high N or with miticide and gibberellin used together.