Search Results
Peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch. `Biscoe'/Lovell) trees were grown in a sandy loam soil under six orchard floor management systems, including five vegetative covers (continuous under the tree) and a vegetation-free control (bare ground). At the end of the fifth year, trees grown in bare ground and nimblewill grass (Muhlenbergia schreberi J.F. Gmel.) had a significantly larger trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) than trees grown in weedy plots, centipedegrass [Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack.], or bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge). Trees grown in brome (Bromus mollis L.) did not differ significantly in TCSA from any other treatment. Soil profile excavations of the root system revealed that trees grown in bare ground or with nimblewill had significantly higher root densities than those in the weedy plots or grown with bahiagrass. Vector analysis of root distribution indicated that trees grown in bare ground or nimblewill rooted deeper than trees in all other treatments. The greatest reduction in deep rooting occurred with bahiagrass.
Peach trees (`Biscoe'/Lovell) were planted in March, 1988 in ten different ground cover management systems. The trees were planted at the Sandhills Research Station in Southeastern North Carolina on a Candor sand and Eunola sandy loam. In December, 1991 the trench profile method was used to evaluate root distribution under the six orchard floor management systems of nimblewill, bare ground control, centipedegrass, brome, bahiagrass, and weedy control. Trenches were dug parallel to the tree row 60 cm from the center of the row on both sides of the tree. Grids 1 meter square, sectioned into 10 cm squares, were placed on the profile walls and root distribution (in three size categories) was recorded for 1 meter on each side of the tree in each trench. Root numbers were greatly reduced under the vegetative covers that provided the greatest suppression of vegetative tree growth. Total root densities under the trees in the vegetative covers were ranked into three size categories which were correlated with the amount of vegetative tree growth.
Consumer horticulture encompasses a wide array of activities that are practiced by and of interest to the gardening public, garden-focused nongovernmental organizations, and gardening-related industries. In a previous publication, we described the current lack of funding for research, extension, and education in consumer horticulture and outlined the need for a strategic plan. Here, we describe our process and progress in crafting a plan to guide university efforts in consumer horticulture, and to unite these efforts with stakeholders’ goals. In 2015, a steering committee developed a first draft of a plan, including a mission statement, aspirational vision, core values, goals, and objectives. This draft was subsequently presented to and vetted by stakeholders at the 2015 American Society for Horticultural Science Consumer Horticulture and Master Gardeners (CHMG) working group workshop, a 2015 Extension Master Gardener Coordinators’ webinar, and a 2015 meeting in Washington, DC. Feedback received from these events is being used to refine and focus plan goals and objectives. The most recent working draft of the plan can be found on the website, where stakeholders and other interested parties can register to receive updates and to provide input into the process.
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.