WATERMELON AND CANTALOUPE VARIETY TRIALS FOR 2005
G. E. Boyhan1 and C. R. Hill2
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension
Department of Horticulture1
Statesboro, GA 30460
Vidalia Onion & Vegetable Research Center2
Lyons, GA 30436
gboyhan@uga.edu
Introduction
Watermelon and cantaloupe variety trials were conducted in 2005 at the Vidalia
Onion and Vegetable Research Center, Lyons, GA. These trials were to evaluate
commercial varieties as well as advanced breeding lines as determined by the
participating companies. Each year for the past eight years we have conducted these
trials. These trials are to assess yield and fruit characteristics of the varieties entered.
Materials and Methods
Watermelon and cantaloupe seed were sown in 1-in. Styrofoam cells of
commercial mix at a local commercial greenhouse on 15 Apr. 2005. These seedlings
were transplanted to the field on 16 May 2005.
Prior to transplanting the field was prepared according to University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension Service recommendations and had 750 lbs/acre of 10-10-10
fertilizer preplant incorporated.
The watermelon seedlings were planted with a 5-ft in-row and a 6-ft between-row
spacing. In addition, there was a 5-ft in-row alley between adjacent plots. Each plot or
experimental unit consisted of 10 plants. The experiment was arranged as a randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with four replications.
The cantaloupe seedlings were planted with a 3-ft in-row and 6-ft between-row
spacing. In all other respects the experimental layout mirrored the watermelon trial
including the RCBD.
An additional 750 lbs/acre of 10-10-10 was applied 4 weeks after transplanting
just prior to vine cover. Weed control followed University of Georgia Cooperative
Extension Service recommendations. No insect or disease control measures were used.
The watermelon fruit were harvested on 20-21 July 2005 and the cantaloupe fruit
were harvested on 15 July and 22 July 2005. The watermelon fruit were weighed
individually so an assessment of weight classes could be made. Cantaloupe fruit were
counted and then weighed together.
Two fruit from each plot of watermelons were cut and the length (stem end to
blossom end) measured. In addition, the width and rind depth were measured. A sample
from the central part of the watermelon was used to determine percent soluble solids
(sugar content). Finally, the flesh color was noted and rated on a 1-5 scale with 1
indicating the best and 5 the worst for the visual appeal of the flesh.
- 267 -
Four fruit of cantaloupe were cut with the length and width determined as per the
watermelon. In addition, the flesh depth was measured from the central cavity to the rind.
A portion of the flesh next to the cavity was used to determine soluble solids.
Yield parameters and soluble solids were subjected to analysis of variance with
Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD) and coefficient of variation (CV)
calculated.
Results and Discussion
There were 34 entries in the watermelon trial and seven in the cantaloupe trial. Of
the 34 watermelon entries, two-thirds of the entries (23) were from D. Palmer Seed and
represented both commercial varieties and advanced breeding lines from this company
(Table 1). The other two companies represented in the watermelon trial were Seminis and
Rogers.
Only two entries had any watermelons in the over 30-lb class range and they were
WD-05-96 and WD-05-57 both from D. Palmer Seed. The majority of entries had sizes in
the 20 lb and under size classes.
There were five entries that had all of there fruit in the under 10-lb size class.
These included ‘Petite Perfection’, ‘Bambino’, ‘Bibo’, ‘RWT 8149’, ‘Mini Yellow’, and
‘Precious Petite’. All were among the lowest yielding except for ‘Petite Perfection’. All
of these would be classed as ‘palm’ melons which are very small (about the size of an
average cantaloupe). These melons generally have produced lower yields in our trials and
probably should be grown at closer spacing in a separate trial. Perhaps 20 sq. ft. per plant
or less instead of the 30 sq. ft per plant as in this trial. These varieties are often handled in
a vertical production system where the grower is contracted to grow the melons and they
are sold by melon rather than by weight. These melons may represent a whole new
market for watermelons that caters to a more affluent, urban customer.
Yields ranged from 513 to 30,250 lbs/acre, which is marginally acceptable. A
well managed crop can yield twice the highest yield in this study. Watermelons in the 1825 lb size class continue to dominate with somewhat smaller triploids.
Allsweet rind patterns continue to predominate, although there are some other
types and few yellow fleshed entries. The three highest entries for soluble solids or sugar
content were ‘Petite Perfection’, ‘Bibo’, and ‘Precious Petite’ all from Rogers and all in
the ‘palm’ size class. There were 12 entries that had soluble solids content below 10%,
which is the minimum for “very good internal quality”.
The yields in the cantaloupe trial ranged from 19,421-36,929 lbs/acre and the
number of fruit per acre ranged from 3,328-6,776. The soluble solids were lower than
would be expected in commercial production. We have tremendous problems with
southern blight as the fruit ripen. We therefore harvest our fruit somewhat earlier than we
should.
In conclusion, we hope to have much better trials in the future with the acquit ion
of plastic laying equipment. This should allow us to have better weed control particularly
early in the crop as well as more rapid early growth. In particular we hope this will
improve conditions for the cantaloupe trial. We will be able to leave fruit on the plastic,
allowing it to more fully mature without rotting.
- 268 -
Table 1. Watermelon variety trial entries, source, company description, yield, and size distribution, 2005.
Entries
Royal Flush
WD-04-61
Wrigley
Sentinel
Plantation Pride
WD-05-97
WD-05-96
WT-05-92
WD-05-57
Waddie
WT-05-91
Cooperstown
WD-02-25
WD-04-56
WT-05-90
Comiskey
WT-04-41
Petite Perfection
WD-02-45
WD-02-23
Promise
Yellow Bird
Summertime
WT-04-63
Company
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
Seminis
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
Rogers
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
Description
2N
2N
3N
2N
2N
2N
2N
3N
2N
2N Mottled, elongate
3N
3N
2N
2N
3N
3N
3N
3N Palm
2N
2N
3N
3N
3N
3N
269
Yield
(lbs/acre)
30,250
27,327
26,978
24,490
23,551
21,122
20,609
19,844
19,176
17,927
17,492
16,098
14,617
14,026
12,923
12,768
12,478
11,268
11,026
10,358
10,300
10,135
8,809
8,160
≤10
5%
10%
30%
33%
22%
16%
10%
39%
21%
15%
48%
14%
32%
9%
36%
40%
19%
100%
26%
14%
27%
65%
20%
44%
Size Class (lbs)
>10-≤20 >20-≤30
(%)
79%
15%
85%
5%
63%
7%
47%
17%
73%
5%
84%
0%
43%
38%
61%
0%
58%
17%
81%
4%
52%
0%
68%
18%
64%
4%
82%
9%
64%
0%
60%
0%
81%
0%
0%
0%
68%
5%
64%
21%
73%
0%
35%
0%
80%
0%
56%
0%
>30
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
10%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Sunsation 2
D. Palmer Seed
Butterball
D. Palmer Seed
Sweet Eat'n
D. Palmer Seed
Majestic
Seminis
Bambino
Seminis
Bibo
Rogers
RWT 8149
Rogers
Mini Yellow
D. Palmer Seed
Precious Petite
Rogers
z
Color:1-5, 1-best, 5-worst
3N
3N
3N
3N
3N Palm
3N
3N
3N
3N Palm
CV
LSD (P≤0.05)
270
8,025
6,292
5,750
4,550
3,872
3,417
2,478
1,210
513
78%
14,541
36%
89%
40%
13%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
64%
11%
60%
88%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 2. Watermelon fruit characteristics.
z
Entries
Royal Flush
WD-04-61
Wrigley
Sentinel
Plantation Pride
WD-05-97
WD-05-96
WT-05-92
WD-05-57
Waddie
WT-05-91
Cooperstown
WD-02-25
WD-04-56
WT-05-90
Comiskey
WT-04-41
Petite Perfection
WD-02-45
WD-02-23
Promise
Yellow Bird
Summertime
WT-04-63
Color Rating
(1-5 Scale)
2.5
2.0
3.7
2.5
2.3
2.8
2.5
1.6
2.8
2.5
3.8
2.3
3.5
3.3
1.3
2.5
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
Color
Red-Dark red
Red
Red-Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red
Red-Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red
Red
Red
Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red
Red
Red-Dark red
Red-Dark red
Red
Red
Red
Yellow
Red
Red
Length
(in.)
15.0
14.8
10.8
11.8
13.7
12.1
13.1
10.9
11.3
14.1
10.0
11.0
15.0
10.1
9.1
11.7
10.1
7.4
13.3
12.8
9.8
8.2
9.2
9.0
271
Width
(in.)
7.1
6.7
7.8
7.2
7.0
7.3
8.3
7.4
9.3
7.3
8.1
8.3
6.9
8.5
8.3
6.7
7.9
6.2
6.2
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.9
Rind Depth
(in.)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
Sugar Content
(%)
10.1
9.5
11.4
10.7
9.4
10.0
10.7
9.5
9.5
9.7
11.2
10.7
9.9
11.3
10.0
10.7
11.1
12.4
8.7
9.7
9.4
8.9
11.3
11.3
Sunsation 2
Butterball
Sweet Eat'n
Majestic
Bambino
Bibo
RWT 8149
Mini Yellow
Precious Petite
z
Color:1-5, 1-best, 5-worst
1.5
2.3
3.0
1.8
2.8
3.8
3.5
5.0
4.5
Red
Yellow
Red
Red
Red
Red-Dark red
Dark red
Yellow
Dark red
12.2
7.6
9.8
10.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.8
7.3
6.8
7.3
7.7
6.7
5.6
6.2
6.6
6.1
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
CV
LSD (P≤0.05)
272
9.8
9.0
10.5
10.3
10.7
12.1
11.2
11.0
11.5
12%
1.7
Table 3. Cantaloupe Variety Trial 2005.
Entries
Orange Sherbet
Orange Star
Savannah
Delta
Southern Belle
Honey Max
Abu
Company
D. Palmer Seed
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
D. Palmer Seed
Seminis
D. Palmer Seed
CV
LSD (P≤0.05)
Yield
(lbs/acre)
36,929
28,859
28,641
27,624
25,253
23,498
19,421
19%
7,684
Yield
(No./acre)
5,687
6,474
5,929
5,687
6,776
5,022
3,328
16%
1,341
Fruit Length
(in.)
8.4
7.1
6.4
8.1
6.5
5.9
8.1
273
Fruit Width
(in.)
6.4
6.1
6.2
6.2
5.9
5.8
6.4
Flesh Depth
(in.)
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.5
Soluble
Solids
(%)
7.6
6.8
7.4
9.6
8.2
7.8
8.2
11%
1.3