AFES Miscellaneous Publication 2013-03

Tracking the growth and development of a new industry is critical to the assessment of its success. Growers, industry support groups, government leaders, educational and research organizations and more use basic statistics on crop production, markets, and growth over time to support and fund activities that promote this industry. Annual statistics also provide an indicator of industry health and can be used to develop models of long-term trends in industry growth. Beginning in 2011, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station began compiling industry statistics. We summarize confidential grower information to provide baseline data that the industry can use to obtain funding, make business decisions, and promote their industry

Circular 119

The annual flower trials were planted from 30 May through 2 June, 2000 in the Perennial Landscape and All America Selections Display Garden of the Georgeson Botanical Garden (64°51/N, 147°52'W ). Fairbanks silt loam soil was fertilized with 10-20-20S (4 lbs per 100 sq feet; 195 g per sq meter) on 28 May. With the exception of dahlias, all flowers were grown as seedling transplants, and were hardened off outdoors for one week prior to transplanting. Tuberous roots of dahlias were planted in containers five weeks prior to transplanting and were hardened off

AFES Miscellaneous Publication 2010-02

Research has been conducted since 2001 to assist growers in identifying components of peony field cut flower production and distribution from field selection and planting to post harvest handling and packaging for export. This experiment addressed three components of the production cycle: field planting dates, root quality and plant productivity, and post harvest handling of cut stems. In a comparison of planting times (autumn, spring or as containerized plants in mid summer), ‘Sarah Bernhardt’ and ‘Felix Crouse’ showed no difference in shoot number and growth one full year after planting. ‘Duchess de Nemours’ and ‘Alexander Fleming’ showed significant reductions in growth compared to the other cultivars, and we suspect disease rather than planting time as the problem. All treatments where bud break had occurred in storage with ‘Duchess de Nemours’ and ‘Alexander Fleming,’ new shoots rotted, and recovery was slow. A treatment of elemental sulfur was not sufficient to protect roots from storage rot. ‘Sarah Bernhardt’ roots and crown buds were weighed, counted and measured prior to planting in order to learn if a correlation exists between root quality and subsequent growth and flowering. Three root attributes were correlated with the total number of stems produced: total number of eyes per plant, total number of roots per plant, and root fresh weight. Characteristics such as root length and maximum diameter were not correlated with subsequent growth. We found no relationship between any root characteristics and the number of flowering stems and foliage height in the first year. The attributes that showed correlation could not be fitted to a linear or curvilinear model explaining the nature of the correlation. Larger sample sizes will be necessary to clarify these relationships. The best method for handling peony cut flowers for greatest vase life is to cut peonies dry and store them dry in a cooler (34°F) at 80+% relative humidity until shipping. Use of water in buckets in the field or pulsing flowers with water in the cooler does not improve vase life of peonies. Under optimum conditions, ‘Sarah Bernhardt’ peonies lasted up to 15 days in a vase, 8-9 days from bud break to full bloom, and an additional 5-6 days in full bloom. Chilling in a cooler is the most important attribute to long vase life

Circular 114

Trials were begun in 1989 at the Georgeson Botanical Garden (64°51’N, 147° 52’W, elevation 475 feet; 136 meters) to evaluate the hardiness and ornamental potential of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous perennial ornamentals. Woody ornamentals are tested for 10 years, and herbaceous perennials for five years. This report is the first summary of perennials that have survived the trial period with a winter hardiness rating between zero and 2.5. Each plant in the trial is evaluated annually for winter injury and rated on a scale of zero through four. A zero rating denotes no visible injury, and four is death. A score of 2.5 and lower indicates the plant grew well in the Garden. It may have shown symptoms of winter injury but recovered in subsequent seasons. The species and cultivars listed in Table 1 are recommended for further trial throughout Interior Alaska. Plants are grown on a south-facing slope in Fairbanks silt loam soil. The plots have been cultivated since about 1910. All plants receive full sun except those located in the shade house. Plants receive supplemental irrigation, mostly hand weeding, and an annual application of 500 lb per acre (560.5 kg/ha) 10-20-20S fertilizer. Lilies receive 1500 lb (1,681.5 kg/ha) per acre of the same fertilizer. No plant receives winter protection such as mulches, wind barriers or snow fences. Weather data are compiled annually from U.S. Weather Service station (elevation 475 feet; 136 meters) located approximately 350 feet (105 meters) west of the Garden. A summary of pertinent weather statistics is shown in Table 2

MP 2012-02

Final report to BP.The Prudhoe Bay oil fields, Alaska were discovered in 1968, and commercial production commenced in 1977 with the completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Oil production has been declining since 1989, although additional exploratory drilling continues. Support facilities for oil production are built on permafrost soils that surface-thaw in summer to form extensive wetlands composed of moist meadows, sedge marshes, moist sedge-dwarf shrub tundra, grass marshes, small ponds and lakes (Walker and Acevedo 1987). To prevent thawing and subsidence of subsurface, ice-rich soils, gravel pads, 2m (6 ft) or more thickness have been built to support drilling sites as well as roads, airstrips and building pads (Kidd et al. 2006). As well sites are decommissioned, the gravel is wholly or partially removed resulting in the need for site rehabilitation and/or restoration to support wetland plants and, in some instances, enhance wildlife habitat (McKendrick 1991, Jorgenson and Joyce 1994, Kidd et al. 2004, 2006). Since the 1970s, methods to revegetate arctic wetlands have included a variety of planting techniques, seed treatments, seeding with native and non-native species (mostly grasses), and fertilizer applications (Chapin and Chapin 1980; Bishop and Chapin 1989, Jorgenson 1988, Kidd and Rossow 1998, Kidd et al. 2004, 2006, Maslen and Kershaw 1989, McKendrick 1987, 1991, 2000, McKendrick et al. 1980, McKendrick and Mitchell 1978, Mitchell et al. 1974). Treatments also have included sprigging and plug transplantation (Kidd et al. 2004, 2006), surface manipulation (Streever et al. 2003), as well as natural re-colonization (Ebersole 1987, Schwarzenbach 1996). These methods have been partially successful. The gravelly soils often are dry, nutrient-poor, and have a higher pH and lower organic matter content than surrounding soils, so natural recolonization does not occur readily (Bishop and Chapin 1989, Jorgenson and Joyce 1994). Methods such as sprigging and plug transplanting are slow, labor intensive and expensive compared to direct seeding. Fertilization, especially with phosphorus, is recommended for long-term survival of plants grown on gravelly sandy soils (BP Exploration and McKendrick 2004). Two common species in the arctic coastal wetlands are water sedge, Carex aquatilis Wahlenb. and cotton sedge, Eriophorum angustifolium Honck. Carex aquatilis in particular forms large populations that spread vegetatively by rhizomes and often dominate these wetland environments (Shaver and Billings 1975). Despite their abundance, these species have not been considered for revegetation because of poor seed germination and inadequate information on seed development and viability (Dr. William Streever, BP Alaska, pers. comm.). Both Carex and Eriophorum in arctic environments produce abundant seeds, but seed viability and germination often is low and highly variable among years and locations (Archibold 1984, Billings and Mooney 1968, Ebersole 1989, Gartner et al. 1983). Germination recommendations for both species vary by location and have included an array of pretreatments such as light, alternating temperatures, cold stratification, scarification, and high and low temperature dry storage (Amen 1966, Billings and Mooney 1960, Bliss 1958, Hunt and Moore 2003, Johnson et al. 1965, Phillips 1954 and Steinfeld 2001). The purpose of this project was to explore methods of seed germination of Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum angustifolium, to learn the conditions for germination and dormancy control mechanisms, and identify seed treatments that might enhance germination for eventual use in direct-seeding or plug production for arctic wetland revegetation

Circular 102

In 1989, a systematic evaluation of woody and herbaceous perennial landscape plants was begun at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Georgeson Botanical Garden (64°51’N, 147°52’W). These evaluations were expanded to include annual flowers in 1992 and ferns in 1993. The purpose of this research is to identify hardy perennials capable of surviving in subarctic environments; to evaluate the ornamental potential of perennials and annuals; and to fulfill a growing demand for information on landscape plant materials by homeowners, commercial growers, and landscapers.Introduction -- Explanation of Plant Evaluation Tables -- Table 1. Weather records for the test years -- Table 2. All plant materials evaluated in 1994: Herbaceous perennials; Ferns; Ornamental grasses; Woody perennials -- Table 4. Plantings from 1994 that have not yet been evaluated for winter survival: Herbaceous perennials; Ferns; Woody perennials -- Table 5. Annual flowers evaluated in 1994 -- Appendix 1. Commercial Sources and Organizations -- Map of GB

Circular 109

Introduction -- Explanation of Plant Evaluation Tables -- Table 1. Weather records for the test years -- Table 2. All plant materials evaluated in 1996 -- Table 3. All plants that have been evaluated but did not survive the minimum number of test years -- Table 4. Plantings from 1996 that have not yet been evaluated for winter survival -- Table 5. Annual flowers evaluated in 1996 -- Appendix 1. Commercial Sources and Organizations -- Map of GB