Seeded Watermelon Cultivar Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2000

Mario R. Morales and James E. Simon

Department of Horticulture, Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

and

Angie Thompson, Melborn K. Lang and Dennis Nowaskie

Southwest Purdue Agricultural Research Center

SWPAC, Vincennes, Indiana 47951

Introduction: Indiana remains a major watermelon producer for the Midwest. With the proliferation of new varieties, the increased competition and the need to maximize profitability/unit area, the identification of new varieties that are of high quality, high yielding and disease resistant as well as meet market expectations, is of importance to commercial growers. This trial, along with the seedless watermelon variety trial provides an objective and independent comparative assessment of new watermelons for the commercial industry. This year’s study included 29 seeded watermelons, with 13 named varieties, and 16 experimental lines.

Methods: Twenty-nine seeded melon cultivars were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each entry was first direct seeded in the greenhouse on April 19, 1999 and transplanted into the field on May 15. Plots consisted of 55-foot long single rows, covered with 4 ft. black plastic mulch, with rows centered eight feet apart, 11 plants per row and 5 feet between plants. Each trial was grown in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers (ID-56, 2000). Trickle irrigation lines placed beneath the plastic mulch provided water as needed. Fruits were harvested from July 14 through August 15. Data was analyzed with the Purdue University VARTEST computer program for variety testing.

Results and Conclusions:

Yields and Quality. Yields ranged from 22.6 to 31.8 tons/acre with 1881 to 3201 fruit/acre harvested across all the entries (Table 1). Yields in tonnage and fruit number were higher this year than in the 1999 seeded watermelon trials. Average fruit weight was 21.7 lbs/fruit, ranging from 18.9 to 25.3 lbs/fruit. Highest yielders included: Stars N Stripes, ACX 5411, Fiesta, Star Brite, #800, Mardi Gras, RWM8074 and RWM8036. Most fruit were oblong to oval in shape and of medium size. Hollow heart was noted in many of the trailed varieties this summer including #820, #910, ACX 5411, EX 6931, RWM 8036, RWM 8110, as well as on Fiesta, Sangria and others, the latter being named melons that are not known to exhibit hollow heart or cracking under normal conditions. This suggested that even those experimental lines that exhibited cracking this year may still not be prone to it in most years. Star Gazer exhibited a slightly tapered end. Athens exhibited notably good taste/flavor and soluble solids scores. Celebration appeared promising. Seeded watermelon selection should be in large part based upon the size, shape and class of fruit to which your market is focused.

 

Table 1. Comparison of Yield and Quality of Seeded Watermelon in Southwestern Indiana, 2000.

Cultivar

Seed Source

Yield Cwt. Lb/A

Yields Tons/A

 

Fruit No./A

Ave. fruit weight Lbs

%SSt

Flavoru

Uniformityv

Rindw

Sizex

Shapey

Fleshz

Stars N Stripes

AS

635.1

31.8

a

2904

21.9

9.0

3.5

3

M-Th

L

Ob

DP

ACX5411

AC

610.8

30.6

ab

2871

21.3

10.2

2

2

M

M

Ob

DP-LR

Fiesta

NV

606.2

30.3

abc

2805

21.6

10.0

4

2

Th

M

Ov

R

Star Brite

AS

584.3

29.2

abcd

2475

23.8

9.0

4

3

M

M

Ob

P

#800

AC

574.9

28.7

abcde

2607

22.1

11.0

3

2

Th

M

Ob

R-P

Mardi Gras

NV

552.1

27.6

abcdef

2508

22.1

9.1

1

1

M

M

Ob

P

RWM8074-VP

NV

551.4

27.6

abcdef

2508

22.1

8.8

2

2

M

L

Ob

P

RWM8036-VP

NV

551.2

27.6

abcdef

2343

23.6

9.6

4

2

Th

M

Ob

DP

Dumara

SS

545.2

27.3

bcdef

2640

20.8

11.0

3

2

M

M-L

Ov

DP

Sangria

NV

536.9

26.9

bcdefg

2574

20.9

10.8

4

2

T-M

L

Ob

R

ACX5451

AC

531.3

26.5

bcdefg

2277

23.5

9.8

2

2

M

L

Ob

LP-P

RWM8102-VP

NV

526.9

26.3

bcdefg

2409

22.1

10.2

4

3

Th

M

Ob

R

Star Gazer

AS

524.9

26.2

bcdefg

2409

22.0

10.0

4

1

Th

L

Ob

R

#910

AC

522.2

26.1

cdefg

2442

21.4

9.8

3

2

M

L

Ob

DP

EX6931

AS

515.0

25.8

defg

2277

23.0

10.6

2

1

T

L-VL

Ob

DP

EX4526607

AS

511.2

25.6

defg

3201

16.0

9.4

1.5

2

T-M

S

Ov

RO

ASR4927037

AS

509.9

25.5

defg

2508

20.4

10.0

3

2

M

M

Ob

P-DP

Carnival-VP

NV

506.6

25.3

defg

2475

20.3

10.0

4

3

T

M

Ov

R

RWM8110-VP

NV

505.6

25.3

defg

2442

20.9

10.6

3

2

M

L

Ob

DP

SXW5023

SS

502.6

25.1

defg

2376

21.3

9.8

3

3

M

M

Ob

R

#900

AC

501.3

25.1

defg

2310

21.9

11.4

3

1

Th

M-L

Ob

LP-P

Sentinel

PS

498.5

24.9

defg

2310

21.6

11.4

4

1

Th

M

Ob-Ov

R

Celebration-VP

NV

490.6

24.5

efg

2178

22.5

8.8

3

3

M

L

Ov

R

#820

AC

487.6

24.4

efg

2046

24.0

11.2

2

3

T

L

Ob

R-P

Delta

PS

480.2

24.0

fg

2211

21.9

11.4

4

1

Th

S-M

Ob-Rd

R

ASR4927067

AS

476.7

23.8

fg

2508

19.2

9.6

3.5

3

M

S-M

Ob

DP

Athens (5025)

SS

473.1

23.7

fg

1881

25.3

11.2

5

2

Th

M

Ob-Ov

DP

XP4525247

AS

468.1

23.4

fg

2475

18.9

10.0

2

1

T-M

M

 

R

Lady

SS

451.8

22.6

g

2013

22.6

9.4

3

2

Th

M

Ov

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grand mean

 

525.2

26.3

 

2448

21.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LSD (5%)

 

90.8

4.5

 

541

2.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.V. (%)

 

10.4

10.4

 

13

7.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randomized complete block design: 3 replications.

s Yield wt. (tons) averages spanned by the same letter are not significantly different.

t %SS = Percent soluble solids: the higher the value, the greater the amount of total sugar.

u Flavor (1 to 5): 1=very poor, 3=acceptable, 5=great.

v Uniformity (1 to 3): 1=lacks uniformity/variable, 2=average, 3=very uniform.

w Rind: T=thin, M=medium, Th=thick.

x Size: S=small, M=medium, L=large, VL=very large.

y Shape: Rd=round, Ov=oval, Ob=oblong.

z Flesh: LR=light red, RO=red-orange, R=red, LP=light pink, P=pink, DP=dark pink.