Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • Author or Editor: E.E. Burns x
  • HortScience x
Clear All Modify Search
Authors: , , and

Intercropping is a management system that maximizes production per unit area of land. Intercropping has to be carried out with crops that are compatible in order to ensure increased productivity. An intercropping study was conducted to determine a suitable planting pattern for corn (Zea mays), an overstory crop, and sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas), an under-story crop. Five relative planting dates were established for each component crop (3 week; before, 3WB; 2 weeks before, 2WB; simultaneous, SIM; 2 weeks after, 2WA; and 3 weeks after, 3WA planting the other crop). Monocrop of each component was also planted. The marketable yields of sweetpotato were reduced by 48, 57, 75, 76 and 74% when sweetpotato was intercropped with corn and planted 3WB, 2WB, SIM, 2WA and 3WA corn, respectively. Corn grain yields were reduced 28, 28, 26, 57, and 66% when intercropped with sweetpotato beginning 3WB, 2WB, SIM, 2WA and 3WA sweetpotato, respectively. Although yields of individual component crop were reduced in intercrop, there was no significant difference in land utilization. Land equivalent ratio, area time equivalent ratio, and competition ratio were not significantly affected by planting date. Intercropping corn and sweetpotato was compatible when both crops were simultaneously planted.

Free access

The effect of fruit temperature and fruit maturity on the development of blossom end clearing (BEC) in Florida grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf. vars. Ruby Red and Marsh) was investigated. Field and storage temperature studies indicated that development of BEC was directly associated with temperature; BEC increased when fruit temperature rose above 21 °C. Cooling fruit prior to packingline operations reduced BEC significantly. Older fruit were more susceptible to BEC than were younger fruit.

Free access

Experiments were conducted to determine the effect of varying solution N concentrations on fruit yield and NO3-N concentration in leachate from rockwool-grown `Midal' peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) in Florida. Treatment 1 plants received a series of nutrient solutions containing N at 60, 90, and 120 mg·liter–1 (60–90–120 mg·liter–1) during their growth cycle. Plants in treatments 2 and 3 were grown with N at 120 or 175 mg·liter–1, respectively, throughout their entire growth cycle. Two trials were conducted; trial 1 from 17 Nov. 1991 to 1 July 1992, and trial 2 from 31 July 1992 to 23 Feb. 1993. In both trials, total marketable fruit weight was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher (16% to 67%) for plants grown with N at 175 than with 60–90–120 mg·liter–1. In trial 2, plants receiving N at 175 mg·liter–1 produced significantly more fruit (8%) and 14% higher total fruit weight than plants receiving N at 120 mg·liter–1. The trend toward higher yield with N at 175 rather than 120 mg·liter–1 also occurred during trial 1, but differences were not significant. Nitrogen concentration did not significantly affect the percentage of total fruit having blossom-end rot in either trial (41% in trial 1; 13% in trial 2). Nitrogen at 175 mg·liter–1 resulted in 10% to 40% increases in total nutrient solution use and 2.5- to 3.5-fold increases in leachate NO3-N concentration compared to N at 120 mg·liter–1.

Free access

Many nutrient recommendations for greenhouse production of vegetable crops were developed in northern climates and may not be optimum for Florida production. Experiments were designed to determine nitrogen (N) levels that would maximize yield of rockwool-grown peppers (Capsicum annuum `Midal') in Florida, while reducing nitrate leaching. Treatment 1 plants were fed 60, 90, and 120 ppm N during vegetative, early fruit, and late fruit stages, respectively. Plants in Treatments 2 and 3 were grown at 120 and 175 ppm N, respectively, throughout their entire growth cycle.

In Trial 1, increasing N did not affect the number of marketable fruit produced, but increased fruit size. Marketable fruit weight was significantly greater for plants in Treatment 3 compared to Treatment 1. However, there was not a significant difference in marketable yield between plants grown at 120 ppm N and 175 ppm N. Excess N provided by the 175 ppm N treatment caused a 10% increase in total water use and a 250% increase in nitrate-N in the leachate compared to the 120 ppm N treatment. Nitrogen level did not affect blossom end rot (BER) occurrence. Early results of Trial 2 indicate higher occurrence of BER with increasing N concentration and are again showing that 120 ppm N will maximize yield and reduce environmental impact of greenhouse pepper production in Florida.

Free access

Varying the cellulose component of coating formulations affected the survival of two yeast biocontrol agents, Candida guillermondii (Castelani) Langeron and Guerra strain US7 and Debaryomyces sp. strain 230, when these yeasts were incorporated into the coating. Using methylcellulose as the main film-former gave the most recovery of the yeasts after an incubation period for both strains. Significant control of decay on naturally infected `Pineapple' and `Valencia' oranges [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] was demonstrated for US7 in a methylcellulose-based coating for the first 2 to 4 weeks of storage at 16C and 90% relative humidity. During this time, US7 in methylcellulose formulations was similar in decay control to a commercial shellac coating with imazalil at 2000 mg·liter–1. A US7 concentration of at least 105 colony-forming units/cm was maintained on the coated fruit surface of `Valencia' oranges for 3 weeks of storage. Suppression of decay by US7 was improved by the addition of glucose and calcium chloride to the coating formulation. Although nearly equal in concentration recovered, Debaryomyces strain 230 was not as effective as US7 in disease suppression of `Pineapple' oranges. The addition of US7 to Nature Seal, a coating material made with methylcellulose, had neither a quantitative nor a qualitative effect on the pathogen population compared to the same formulation without the antagonist. Chemical name used: 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1H-imidazole (imazalil).

Free access