J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(6):724-726. 1979.

Plant and Row Spacing, Mulch, and Fertilizer Rate Effects

on Watermelon Production1
G. H. Brinen and S. J. Locascio
Vegetable Crops Department, University o f Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
G. W. Elmstrom2
IF AS, University o f Florida Agricultural Research Center, Leesburg, FL 32748
A d d itio n a l index w ords, plant d ensity, Citrullus lanatus
A b stra ct. The effects o f plant and row spacing, m ulch, and fertilizer rate on ‘Charleston Gray’ w aterm elons
[ C itrullus lanatus (T hunb.) Matsum. & N akai] were evaluated in field studies on 2 Florida sandy soils. Marketable
fruit yields decreased w hile y ield /p lan t and mean fruit w eight increased w ith an increase in plant spacing from 0 .6
to 2.4 m and row spacing from 1.5 to 4.5 m. On a Kanapaha sandy soil w ith adequate w ater, yields and m ean
fruit w eights were higher w ith m ulch than w ith o u t and w ith 1680 than 8 4 0 kg/ha o f 12-7-13 (N-P-K) fertilizer.

Although watermelons are commonly grown with plant spac- was placed in a 0.3 m band at one edge of the mulch at layby.
ings of 0.9 to 2.4 m and row spacings of 2.4 to 3.0 m (14), Unmulched 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 m row treatments received 33.3,
little research has been conducted to evaluate the effects of 16.7 and 11.0% of the fertilizer applied broadcast preplant
spacing on watermelon growth and yield. In one Florida water- respectively, to maintain similar soluble salt concentrations
melon study, fruit yield decreased and mean fruit weight in the beds. One-half of the remainder was applied 3 weeks
increased with an increase in plant spacing from 0.9 to 3.7 after planting and at layby in 0.3 m bands on the bed shoulder.
m on 3.0 m rows (7). With a small-fruited cultivar, ‘Sugarbaby’, Irrigation was provided by overhead sprinkler to supplement
yield also decreased and fruit size increased with an increase rainfall (Table 1). Fruit was harvested twice in June from the
in spacing from 1.2 x 1.2 m to 2.4 x 2.4 m (17). Proposed center rows at both locations. Mature fruit that weighed 6.8
relationships between spacings (plant density) and yield were kg and above were considered marketable and smaller or mis-
classified by Holliday (8) who described the relationship for shappen fruit were considered culls.
fruiting crops as parabolic. Yield increases to a maximum but
decreases at very high plant densities. Plant densities for maxi- Results and Discussion
mum watermelon yield on Florida sandy soils have not been Marketable fruit yield. Main effects of plant spacing on
determined. Increases in watermelon yield have also been ob- fruit yields were significant at both locations. With increased
tained with the use of plastic mulch (1, 12, 15) and with in- plant spacing from 0.6 to 2.4 m, fruit yields decreased, and
creases in fertilizer rate (4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17). Rates of 168, yield/plant and mean fruit weight increased (Table 2). At
84 and 140 kg/ha of N, P and K, respectively, were reported Gainesville, yield decreased linearly from 71.7 to 52.2 MT/ha,
as required for maximum yield on Florida sandy soils (10). yield/plant increased quadratically from 12.3 to 20.7 and then
The study reported here was conducted to evaluate the to 35.9 kg, and mean fruit weight increased from 10.2 to 11.9
effects of plant and row spacings, mulch, and fertilizer rate on kg. At Leesburg, yield decreased from 45.2 to 30.4 MT/ha,
watermelon production. yield/plant increased from 8.0 to 21.3 kg and mean fruit weight
increased from 9.2 to 10.6 kg. The decreased total yield and
Materials and Methods increased mean fruit weight with an increase in plant spacing
‘Charleston Gray’ watermelons were grown on a Kanapaha were consistent with earlier watermelon studies (7, 17).
fine sandy soil (loamy, siliceous, hyperthermic, Grossarenic Similar yield responses were obtained with an increase in
Paleaquult) at Gainesville and on an Apopka sandy soil (loamy, row spacing. Marketable fruit yields decreased and yield/plant
siliceous, hyperthermic, Grossarenic, Paleudult) at Leesburg and mean fruit weight increased with increased row spacing
during the spring of 1977. A split-plot design of repeated from 1.5 to 4.5 m. Yields decreased from 76.2 to 48.6 MT/ha,
subdivisions with 2 fertilizer rates [840 and 1680 kg/ha of yield/plant increased from 15.8 to 28.7 kg and mean fruit
12-7-13 (N-P-K)] as main plots, 3 row spacings (1.5, 3.0, and
4.5 m) as subplots, 3 plant in-row spacings (0.6, 1.2, and 2.4
m) as sub-subplots and mulch treatments (mulch and no mulch)
as sub-sub-subplots was employed. Treatments plots were
12.2 m long by 3 rows wide and were replicated 3 times. Seeds Table 1. Monthly rainfall and irrigation for Gainesville and Leesburg
were planted in early March. Fertilizer was applied in 1, 2 or during the 1977 growing season.
3 applications depending on row spacing and mulch. The
Rainfall Irrigation
initial applications were broadcast preplant over a 0.9 m bed Month (cm) (cm)
and incorporated 15 to 20 cm deep. With mulch, the 1.5 m
row treatments received all of the fertilizer preplant, and the Gainesville
3.0 and 4.5 m row treatments received 50 and 33.3% preplant, March 4.8 13.3
respectively. The remainder for 3.0 and 4.5 m row treatments April 2.5 17.1
May 0.7 7.6
June 13.1 0.0
1Received for publication April 9, 1979. Florida Agricultural Experi- Total 21.1 38.0
ment Stations Journal Series No. 1713. Leesburg
The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment of March 4.6 2.5
page charges. Under postal regulations, this paper must therefore be April 0.6 12.8
hereby marked advertisement solely to indicate this fact. May 2.7 7.6
^Former Graduate Assistant, and currently Agricultural County Agent, June 3.2 2.5
Alachua County, Gainesville, FL 32601. Professor; and Associate Pro- Total 11.1 25.4
fessor, respectively.

724 J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(6):724-726. 1979.

 Table 2. Main effects of plant spacing, row spacing, mulch and fertilizer rate on watermelon marketable fruit yield, yield/
plant, mean fruit weight, and unmarketable yield at Gainesville and Leesburg in the spring of 1977.

Gainesville Leesburg
Marketable fruit Culls Marketable fruit Culls
Treatment (MT/ha) (kg/plant) (kg/fruit) (MT/ha) (MT/ha) (kg/plant) (kg/fruit) (MT/ha)

Plant spacing, (m)

0.6 71.7 12.3 10.2 5.3 45.2 8.0 9.2 9.1
1.2 60.4 20.7 11.1 2.7 41.7 14.4 10.0 2.5
2.4 52.2 35.9 11.9 1.1 30.4 21.3 10.6 1.7
J^**Q** L* L** L* L** L** J^**Q**
F value2 L**
Row spacing, (m)
1.5 76.2 15.8 10.0 6.3 43.1 8.6 9.5 10.4
3.0 61.4 24.4 11.4 1.7 42.1 16.0 10.0 1.7
4.5 48.6 28.7 11.9 1.1 32.0 19.1 10.4 1.2
L* L** L**Q* L** *
F value L** L**
Mulch
Mulch 65.1 24.0 11.3 3.3 38.3 13.7 9.9 4.3
No mulch 59.1 22.0 10.9 2.8 40.0 15.5 10.0 4.5
F value * NS ** NS NS * NS NS
Fertilizer rate, (kg/ha)
840 58.1 21.8 11.0 3.2 40.1 15.1 10.0 3.9
1680 66.1 24.2 11.2 2.9 38.2 14.0 9.9 5.0
F value * * NS NS NS NS NS NS

zTreatment effects were not significant (NS) or significant at the 5% (*) or 1% (**) level and for row spacing and plant
spacing, the effects were linear (L) or quadratic (Q).

weight increased quadratically from 10.0 to 11.9 kg at Gaines-
ville. At Leesburg, yield decreased from 43.1 to 32.0 MT/ha,
yield/plant increased from 8.6 to 16.0 and to 19.1 kg, and
mean fruit weight increased from 9.5 to 10.4 kg. With an
increase in row spacing from 1.5 to 4.5 m. These results agreed
with those obtained in previous work with watermelons (17),
cucumbers (9) and muskmelons (2, 18).
The main effects of mulch on yield and mean fruit weight
were significant only at Gainesville. Fruit yields were 65.1 and
59.1 MT/ha and mean fruit weights were 11.3 and 10.9 kg for
mulched and unmulched treatments, respectively (Table 2).
At Leesburg, yield/plant was lower with mulch than without.
This may have resulted from insufficient wetting of the soil
under the mulch. The increases in yield obtained at Gainesville
with mulch were similar to those found in other mulch studies
(1 ,1 2 ,1 5 ).
The main effects of fertilizer rate were significant only at
Gainesville where fruit yield and yield/plant were higher with
1680 than with 840 kg/ha rate (Table 2). Yields were 66.1
and 58.1 MT/ha and yields/plant were 24.2 and 21.8 kg for the
two rates, respectively. This yield increase with a fertilizer
rate increase was consistent with previous research (3, 4, 5, 10,
13,16,17).
At Leesburg, mulch and row spacing interacted in their
effects on yield. With mulch, fruit yields increased linearly
from 29.4 to 46.8 MT/ha with a decrease in row spacing from
4.5 to 1.5 m (Table 3). With no mulch yields were highest with
the 3.0 m row spacing. An interaction between mulch, row
spacing and fertilizer rate significantly influenced the yield/
plant (Table 4). With the lower fertilizer rate, yield/plant in-
creased linearly with an increase in row spacing with both
mulch and no mulch. With the higher fertilizer rate, the maxi-
mum yield/plant was produced with no mulch and the 3.0
row spacing.
Cull fruit yield. The yield of culls significantly decreased
with increases in both plant and row spacings at the two loca-
tions (Table 2). Cull fruit yield decreased from 5.3 to 1.1
MT/ha and from 6.3 to 1.1 MT/ha with increases in plant and
row spacings, respectively, on the Kanapaha soil. On the
Apopka soil, the cull yield decreased from 9.1 to 1.7 MT/ha
and from 10.4 to 1.2 MT/ha with increases in plant and row
spacings, respectively.
Soil and leaf nutrient levels (data not presented). Leaf
nutrient concentrations were similar to those found in other

Table 4. Interaction of row spacing, mulch and fertilizer rate on fruit

yield/plant at Leesburg.2
Table 3. Interaction of row spacing and mulch on
marketable fruit yield at Leesburg. Fruit yield (kg)/plant
Fertilizer
rate Row spacing
Fruit yield (MT/ha) (kg/ha) Mulch 1.5 m 3.0 m 4.5 m
Row spacing
840 Mulch 10.12 14.9 17.6
Mulch 1.5 m 3.0 m 4.5 m
No mulch 8.1 15.9 24.1
Mulch 46.8Z 38.5 29.4 1680 Mulch 8.7 13.5 17.3
No Mulch 39.5 45.9 37.4 No mulch 7.6 19.4 17.6

interaction significant at 5% level. interaction significant at 5% level.

J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(6):724-726. 1979. 725

watermelon studies (3, 5, 6, 11) and were not consistently
influenced by plant or row spacing. In earlier studies, correla-
tions between yield and tissue N and K levels were poor (3, 6).
In this study, however, yield/plant was correlated (p = 5%) with
leaf K level at early fruit set (r values ranged from 0.38 to 0.49).
On the Kanapaha soil, yield/plant was also correlated with N
and K levels at early harvest (r values were 0.37 and 0.42,
respectively).
Yield per plant was not correlated with soil N (N 03 + NH4)
and K at either location. In previous research, such poor correla-
tions were attributed to nutrient levels being within a suffi-
ciency range with all treatments (6, 11). Leaf N and K levels
were correlated with soil N and K levels at early fruit set and
early harvest on the Kanapaha soil only (r values ranged from
0.19 to 0.34).
The yield responses were generally linear for row and plant
spacing effects at both locations. Yields on the more poorly
drained Kanapaha soil were higher with mulch and at the
higher fertilizer rate. On the better drained Apopka soil with
minimum supplemental water, mulch and the higher fertilizer
rate were not beneficial and may have reduced yield. Data
from this study show that considerable increase in watermelon
fruit yield can be obtained by a reduction in both plant and
row spacing. The data also indicate that additional increase in
yield may result from the use of even closer spacings than those
employed in this study.
Literature Cited
1. Bryan, H. H. 1966. Effect of plastic mulch on yield of several vege-
table crops in North Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 79:139-
147.
2. Davis, G. N. and U. G. H. Meinert. 1965. The effect of plant spacing
and fruit pruning on the fruits of PMR 45 cantaloupe. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 87:299-302.
3. Elstrom, G. W., J. G. A. Fiskell, and F. G. Martin. 1973. Nutrient
distribution in the soil and watermelon plant uptake: Effect of
fertilizer timing, rate and placement. Proc. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla.
3 2 ;154-15 8.
4. Everett, P. H. 1960. The influence of nitrogen source and fertilizer
rate on watermelon yields. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 73:107-111.
5. Fiskell, J. G. A., S. J. Locascio, P. H. Everett, and H. W. Lundy.
1967. Effect of fertilizer placements and rates on watermelon yields.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 80:169-173.
6 . ----------------- , ------------------- , and F. G. Martin. 1970. Pattern of
fertilization for watermelons: II. Influence on nutrient distribution
in soil and plant uptake. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 83:149-154.
7. Halsey, L. H. 1959. Watermelon spacing and fertilization. Proc.
Fla. State Hort. Soc. 72:131-135.
8. Holliday, R. 1960. Plant population and crop yield. Nature. 186:
22-24.
9. Konsler, T. R. 1972. Responses of trellised cucumbers to varying
in-row spacings and pruning severity. HortScience 7:337. (Abstr.)
10. Locascio, S. J., J. G. A. Fiskell, and P. E. Everett. 1970. Advances
in watermelon fertility. Proc. Trop. Reg. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
14:223-231.
1 1 . ----------------- , ____________ , and H. W. Lundy. 1970. Pattern of
fertilization for watermelons: I. Influences on plant growth and
fruit yield. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 83:144-148.
1 2 . ----------------- a n d ______________ 1973. Watermelon response to
sulfur-coated urea, mulches and nitrogen rates. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. Soc. 86:201-204.
1 3 . ----------------- , _____________, and F. G. Martin. 1972. Influence
of fertilizer and micronutrient rate on watermelon composition
and yield. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 97:119-123.
14. Montelaro, J. and S. R. Kostewicz. 1974. Watermelon production
guide. Fla. Coop. Ext. Service. Cir. 96F.
15. Nettles, V. F. 1963. Planting and mulching studies with cucurbits.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 76:178-182.
16. ____________ and H. W. Lundy. 1958. Results of watermelon fer-
tilizer trials at Gainesville and Live Oak in 1958. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. Soc. 71:13-15.
17. Patil, C. B. and R. J. Bhosale. 1976. Effect of nitrogen fertilization
and spacings on the yield of watermelons. Indian J. Agron. 21:300-
301.
18. Zahara, M. 1972. Effects of plant density on yield and quality of
cantaloupes. Cal. Agr. 26(7): 15.

J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(6):726-728. 1979.

Chicory: A Valuable Source of Resistance to Turnip Mosaic

for Endive and Escarole1
R. Prowidenti2 , R. W. Robinson3, and J. W. Shail3
New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, N Y 14456
Additional index words, aster yellows, broad bean wilt virus, cucumber mosaic virus, lettuce mosaic virus, bidens
mottle virus
Abstract. In greenhouse tests, d om estic and foreign accessions o f Cichorium endivia L. w ere susceptible to turnip
m osaic virus (TuM V ), the m ost com m on and o fte n destructive virus occurring in late plantings o f endive and
escarole in the N ortheast U nited States, whereas those o f chicory (C. intybus L.) and C. pumilum Jacq. were
resistant. Thus, chicory represents a valuable source o f TuMV resistance for interspecific gene transfer to endive
and escarole. R esistance was dom inant in ¥i plants o f C. intybus x C. endivia.

Viral diseases are a constant threat to endive and escarole
(Cichorium endivia L.) grown in the Northeast United States.
Frequently, late plantings are so severely damaged that they
remain unharvested. Citir and Varney (1) reported that turnip
1Received for publication
The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment of
page charges. Under postal regulations, this paper must therefore be
hereby marked advertisement solely to indicate this fact.
^Department of Plant Pathology.
^Department of Seed and Vegetable Sciences.
mosaic virus (TuMV) is the causal agent of a severe mosaic
affecting these crops throughout New Jersey. Our surveys have
established that this virus is also prevalent in New York State.
The purpose of this study was to locate sources of resistance
to TuMV for endive and escarole.
Materials and Methods
Seed of known cultivars of endive, escarole, and chicory
were obtained from domestic and foreign commercial sources.
Plant introductions (PI) were secured from the North Central
Regional Plant Introduction Station, Ames, Iowa. Seed of wild

726 J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(6):726-728. 1979.