A Survey of Selection Preferences for Crabapple Cultivars and Species James Paul Romer Iowa State University

Home , Apple scab, Malus baccata, Malus sargentii, Malus spectabilis

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations

1-1-2002 A survey of selection preferences for crabapple cultivars and species James Paul Romer Iowa State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Horticulture Commons

Recommended Citation Romer, James Paul, "A survey of selection preferences for crabapple cultivars and species" (2002). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 17486. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/17486

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A survey of selection preferences for crabapple cultivars and species

James Paul Romer

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major: Horticulture Program of Study Committee: Jeffery Iles, Major Professor Kathleen Delate William Graves Paul Wray

Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2002

Graduate College Iowa State University

This is to certify that the master's thesis of James Paul Romer has met the thesis requirements oflowa State University

Signatures have been redacted for privacy

I or UICI lYrdJOI I 1og1 dlll iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Thesis Organization 2 Literature Review 2 Literature Cited 11

CHAPTER 2. SELECTION PREFERENCES FOR CRABAPPLE CULTIVARS AND SPECIES Summary 14 Methods 16 Results and discussion 17 Tables 21 Literature cited 28

CHAPTER 3. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 30

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT 32

APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL TABLES 38

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 84 CHAPTERl. GENERALINTRODUCTION

Introduction Upon entering the graduate program in the Department of Horticulture, I was given the opportunity to select a woody landscape plant taxon that piqued my interest and offered several problems for investigation. In addition, I wanted the subject of my thesis research to have desirable ornamental traits that would make it an asset in managed landscapes. In my estimation, crabapples (Malus spp.) satisfied all of these criteria. Much attention has been given to the more ornamental members of the genus

Malus. Horticulture professionals and consumers have made crabapples [having fruits :S 5.1 cm (2 inches) in diameter] the most widely cultivated small landscape tree in the northern United States and southern Canada (Egolf, 1987). Hamilton (1986) reported that crabapples had been the most popular flowering tree in 1956, 1970, 1976, and 1982 according to a survey conducted by the National Landscaping Association, however, no specific crabapple selections were mentioned. In general, crabapples are popular because of their excellent floral displays in spring, colorful fruits (shades of lime green, amber, gold, yellow, orange, red, and purple), wide range of growth habits, and potential for attracting wildlife (Dirr, 1998; Fiala, 1994; Green, 1996). But because there are hundreds of crabapple taxa available in the nursery and landscape trade, it is difficult, if not unwise, to refer to them in a generic sense. My research objectives were to identify preferences for crabapple cultivars and species among nursery and landscape professionals across the United States and to investigate the possibility of regional tendencies regarding these preferences. This study identifies perceptions and preferences of nursery and landscape professionals for specific crabapple taxa, factors influencing cultivar selection, and specific traits that limit the use of certain crabapples. This information will help retail nurseries and landscape design/build firms decide which crabapple selections to offer, help wholesalers decide which taxa should be grown in larger quantities, and provide plant breeders important insight as they develop new selections. This study also will 2 benefit extension professionals and their many clients interested in making informed choices of plant material.

Thesis Organization A review of the literature completes the rest of this chapter. Included is an overview of the genus Matus, usage trends, and professional, commercial, and consumer crabapple preferences. The second chapter is a paper to be submitted to HortTechnology, a journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS), which summarizes the results of my survey on crabapple preferences. The final chapter is a brief discussion of my general conclusions and recommendations for future investigation based upon my research. I also have included my survey instrument in Appendix A with additional tables in Appendix B.

Literature Review Matus History Matus, or apple tree, was named by Phillip Miller (1691 - 1771). There are 83 species of Malus Mill., a genus that contains both the apple and crabapple (Fiala, 1994). The crabapple gets its name from English gardeners who divided apples into those that had a good taste and those that had a bitter or "crabbed" taste (denBoer, 1959). However, the major distinguishing feature between crabapples and apples is the size of the fruit. Crabapple fruits are less than or equal to 5.1 cm (2 inches) in diameter. Fruits greater than 5.1 cm (2 inches) in diameter are considered apples. Members of Malus are widespread and native throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Species have been found in Siberia, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Italy, and the United States. Crabapples, such as Chinese double-flowering crabapple (Malus spectabilis 'Plena') (Ait.) have been incorporated into landscapes since the mid-1700's. The Knox Nursery (Vincennes, IN) listed 'Plena' in their 1890 catalog, and 19 other crabapples in their fruit section based on the larger fruit size and potential for consumption (personal communication, Bill Hendricks, 2001 ). 3

Plant explorers searched throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia to find and introduce new crabapple taxa (Fiala, 1994). The 1940 Andora Nursery (Philadelphia, PA) catalog points out that men have been known to follow the progress of the crabapple bloom from the highlands of the Carolinas to the seacoast of Nova Scotia.

Ma/us Classification There is much debate surrounding the classification and nomenclature of crabapples. For instance, a certain crabapple might be classified as a distinct species by some, while others might consider the selection a variety or hybrid (den Boer, 1959). Because seed propagation is a method of sexual propagation, many seedlings do not resemble the parent plants due to genetic variability, however, seed propagation has led to the introduction of many new selections (Hartman et al., 1990). Regional differences in appearance, seed propagation, and the desire to introduce a new species, hybrid, or cul ti var contributed to the misnaming or dual naming of many crabapple selections (Jefferson, 1970). Several crabapples have been named and renamed several times with both common and botanically different names. For example, the Italian crabapple (Malus florentina) (Zuccagni) has been reclassified botanically seven times (den Boer, 1959). Often, it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace the provenance of a particular cultivar since many species may have been involved in its development. Fiala (1994) claims the Arnold Arboretum (Jamaica Plain, MA) was the most active horticultural institution for discovering and introducing new species to the world. One of the most significant introductions for the Arnold was the Sargent crabapple (Mafus sargentii Rehd.), which was grown from seed collected by Charles Sargent, former director of the Arboretum. The Arnold also developed other noteworthy selections of crabapples such as 'Bob White' (before 1876), 'Dorothea' (1943), ' Barbara Ann ' (1953), and 'Donald Wyman' (1970). Crabapples used as landscape plants has undergone many changes since the discovery and introduction of those selected in the 1800's. For example, 'Hyslop' (before 1869) eventually declined in popularity because of its large size, 11.2 m (over 20 feet), large diameter fruit 4 cm (1.6 in.), and lack of disease resistance. Others, however, 4 remain as popular now as when they were first introduced (den Boer, 1959). Some of those selections include the redbud crabapple (Malus xzumi) (Matsum.) Rehd., 'Dolgo' (1917), 'Hopa' (1920), 'Profusion' (before 1938), ' Ormiston Roy' (1954), 'Liset' (1952), 'Red Silver' (1928), and Malus sargentii (1892). More recently the development of rosybloom crabapples, Zumi hybrids, multibrids, and polyploid selections has dramatically increased the number of crabapples available and improved their ornamental qualities. Rosybloom crabapples, so named because of their deep pink, rose, or purple-rose flowers, are either open-pollinated seedlings of the red vein crabapple (Matus pumila 'Niedzwetzkyana') or crosses between Matus pumila 'Niedzwetzkyana' and the Siberian crabapple (Malus baccata) (Fiala, 1994). Unfortunately, many of the rosyblooms · defoliate prematurely because of the fungal disease apple scab (Venturia inaequalis Cooke). A few of the better-known rosyblooms include Matus ' Ho pa', 'Red Silver', 'Red Splendor', and ' Selkirk'. The Zumi hybrids, introduced to the United States from Japan in the late 1800's (den Boer, 1959), are known for their abundant white flowers, smaller, colorful, and plentiful fruit, and excellent disease resistance. The taxonomy associated with this group of crabapples is unsettled. Traditionally, these crabapples have been classified as Matus sieboldii var. zumi, or Matus xzumi (M. baccata var. mandshurica x siebotdii). Recently, Fiala (1994) proposed using the older name (Malus sieboldii var. zumi), but without the variety designation, thereby granting this group species status (Matus sieboldii). The more conventional Matus xzumi classification is used hereafter. Two of the better-known seedling clones are the redbud crabapple (Malus xzumi 'Calocarpa') with outstanding bright red fruit, and the orange-red fruited Matus xzumi ' Wooster'. In an effort to produce even better crabapples, propagators began crossing Zumi hybrids, interspecific hybrids, and Rosybloom hybrids to create the multibrid (Fiala, 1994). Although it is virtually impossible to trace their exact lineage, several multibrids have gained fairly wide acceptance in the nursery trade. The selections 'Chrishozam' (Christmas Holly™) and ' Serenade' are particularly noteworthy because of their superior disease resistance, annual flower, and fruit display. 5

The polyploids (mostly tetraploids and octoploids) are the most recent development in crabapple breeding. Polyploids possess more than the usual two sets of chromosomes and are known for their smaller stature, thick, leathery leaves, disease resistance, larger and sometimes double flowers, and colorful, persistent fruit. The selection ' Coralcole' (Coralburst®), with its double rose-colored flowers and relatively sparse fruit production, is one of the best known octoploids.

Attributes Crabapples are popular ornamental trees throughout the United States and Canada (Brewer et al., 1979; Dirr, 1998; Egolf, 1987; Fiala, 1994; Iles, 1999), offering interest in the landscape throughout the year (Draper et al., 1996; Green, 1996). In spring, the crabapple floral display can be spectacular for up to 7 to 10 days, depending on the selection and weather conditions (Iles and Stookey, 1997). Flowers can be single or double and come in shades of white, pink, purple, and red. Nursery and landscape professionals can maximize the spring floral display by incorporating several crabapple selections into the same site that flower at slightly different times. For example, combining 'Pink Spires' (early bloom), with 'Prairifire' (mid-season bloom), and ' Silver Moon' (late bloom) can provide a bloom period up to four weeks (Iles, 1999; Fiala, 1994). The value of crabapple fruit has been the subject of much controversy because of its litter potential, but, the ornamental value of the fruit is unquestioned (Green, 1996). Some selections such as 'Doubloons' and 'Hargozam' (Harvest Gold®) have fruit that change from light green to lemon-yellow in summer, and to lemon-gold after frost (Iles, 1999). Several authors have suggested the gardening public would be more accepting of fruit if it remained on the tree for longer periods of time (Draper et al. , 1996; Green, 1996; Guthery and Hasselkus, 1992). For example, the fruit of ' Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) is bright cherry-red through December, fades to dark red, and persists until the following spring when mummified fruit drop from the tree. Unfortunately the fruit of ' Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) is not preferred by birds (Yanny, 1996), however, some crabapples provide 6 food for wildlife ('Mary Potter' and 'Canary') and human consumption ('Dolgo') (Flint, 1991; Green, 1996; Guthery and Hasselkus, 1992). Crabapples exhibit a variety of mature sizes and growth habits including rounded, oval, weeping, and columnar. Many of the fust crabapples such as Siberian crab [Malus bacatta (L.) Borkh.], and 'Ormiston Roy' (den Boer, 1959) were too large for smaller home landscapes and gardens (Fiala, 1994). The recent introduction (circa 1991) of the Round Table Series™ from Lake County Nursery (Perry, OH) include selections that reach mature heights of only 2.4 - 3 m (8 - 10 feet). Smaller size allows more flexibility when designing a landscape. For example, 'Lanzam' (Lancelot®), growing approximately 3 m (10 feet) tall, makes a suitable tree for raised planters, permanent containers, and other sites where space is limited (Iles, 1999). Crabapples also have different foliage colors and types. Some like 'Royalty' have purple foliage, setting them apart from other trees and shrubs in the summer landscape. A variety of leaf shapes and sizes also contributes to ornamental interest. ' Schmidtcutleaf (Golden Raindrops®), best known for its golden-yellow fruit, has three- lobed leaves that resemble those of Amur maple [Acer tataricum L. ssp. ginnala (Maxim.) Wesm.]. Fall leaf color is rarely noteworthy among crabapples, but is distinctive in selections such as 'Indian Magic' (golden-bronze), 'Robinson' (golden- yellow), and ' Winter Gem' (yellow).

Limitations Although many useful crabapple selections are available today, several cultivars ('Hopa', 'Radiant', and 'Royalty' for example), are generally considered undesirable because of poor disease resistance, but are still available in the nursery trade. Wholesalers continue to grow and retailers continue to sell these selections because they have name recognition, and in more arid regions of the country, are relatively free from disease. But for most regions of the United States, these selections should not be encouraged. To avoid choosing an inferior cultivar, Green (1996) suggests floral display should be the last aspect considered after disease resistance, fruit persistence, and 7 ultimate tree size in the selection process. However, this hierarchy of selection criteria is seldom followed because of strong consumer interest in flower color (Green, 1996). Unsightly suckering, or vigorous vegetative growth arising from the understock is another potential limitation of crabapples. Selections such as 'Snowdrift' tend to sucker more frequently when grown on their own roots (Warren, 1989). Utilizing a rootstock such as Siberian crab (Matus bacatta), or domestic crab (Matus domestica Borkh.) can increase the frequency of suckering (Warren, 1989). Environmental stressors such as poorly drained soil, planting too shallow, and damage to the bark also can cause increased suckering of crabapples. Rootstocks such as EMLA 111 or EMLA 106 have greatly reduced the incidence of suckering (Warren, 1989; Fiala, 1994). Fruit litter is the primary complaint of consumers, ranking ahead of premature leaf drop caused by several foliar diseases (Green, 1996; Guthery and Hasselkus, 1992). A substantial percentage (4 7%) of nursery and landscape professionals in Iowa reported at least 26% of their retail customers find crabapple fruit objectionable (Iles and Stookey, 1997). All fruit is potentially troublesome, but large, non-persistent fruit is most problematic. 'Dolgo' drops its large-sized fruit ( 1.5 in.) from mid-August to mid- September. Once on the ground, the fruit quickly soften, emit a foul odor, and often attract undesirable insects such as yellow jacket wasps. Selecting taxa such as 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®), 'Adams', or 'Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) that retain their fruit until spring can alleviate this situation. Apple scab (Venturia inaequalis Cooke), fire blight (Erwinia amytovora Burill), cedar-apple rust (Gymnosporangiumjuniperi-virginianae Schwein.), and frogeye leafspot (Botryosphaeria obtusa Schwein. Shoemaker) are the most common foliar diseases of crabapple (Brewer et al., 1979; Gleason et al., 2000). Arguably, the most serious disease is apple scab, a fungal disease that causes premature leaf drop (Smith, 1979; Smith, 1982; Smith and Treaster, 1986; Smith and Treaster, 1989; Smith and Treaster, 1990; Smith and Treaster, 1991 ). Resistance to apple scab is lowest in spring during bud break and in late summer when leaves start to senesce and highest when mature leaf size is reached (Gleason et al., 2000). The condition of fluctuating resistance is known as onto genetic resistance (Gleason et al., 2000). Good sanitation by raking and disposing of the infected 8 leaves will help reduce a large source of inoculum for the next growing season. Taxa consistently affected by apple scab in Ohio include 'Hopa', 'Pink Perfection', and 'Radiant' (Smith, 1979; Smith, 1982; Smith and Treaster, 1986; Smith and Treaster, 1989; Smith and Treaster, 1990; Smith and Treaster, 1991). Taxa such as ' Adirondack', 'Mary Potter', and 'Purple Prince' exhibit excellent vigor and resistance to apple scab (Jacobs and Spravka, 1996), but even so-called scab-resistant cultivars (' Donald Wyman' and ' Prairifire') can show increased susceptibility to apple scab (Gleason et al. , 2000). Increased susceptibility may result from the natural selection and genetic variation in the fungal spore population. In this scenario, the most genetically aggressive spores overwinter on fallen leaves and then re-infect emerging leaves in spring via the action of splashing rain droplets. The annual repetition of this cycle favors the survival of the most aggressive spores, which can result in the erosion of resistance to the apple scab fungus. Fire blight, a destructive bacterial disease, can injure or kill many parts of the tree including blooms, twigs, and branches (Steiner and Biggs, 1998). Initial infection can occur on blooms or new growth (Brewer et. al. , 1979) and is favored by rainfall or humidity levels above 60 percent and temperatures above l 8°C (65°F) during crabapple bloom. In regions where humidity levels above 60 percent or rainfall with temperatures above 18°C (65°F) commonly occur, taxa such as 'Coralcole' (Coralburst®), Malus bacatta 'Jackii' (Rehd. ), and 'Pink Princess' show good fire blight resistance (Hagan et al. , 1995). However, selections such as 'Red Jade', ' Snowdrift', and ' Schmidtcutleaf (Golden Raindrops®) should be avoided due to their susceptibility to fire blight (Hagan et al. , 1995; Brewer et. al., 1979). Frogeye leafspot (Botryosphaeria obtusa) is a fungal pathogen often mistaken for apple scab. Similar to apple scab, frogeye leaf spot produces brown to tan spots with dark brown margins on leaves and causes the leaves to senesce (Gleason et al., 2000). A distinction is that frogeye leaf spot typically develops later in the spring season than apple scab. Insects also can be a problem for crabapples. Aphids (several species) can distort developing foliage (Brewer et al. , 1979). The twospotted mite (Tetranychus urticae Coch), a piercing/sucking insect, can cause leaf discoloration through the removal of 9 chlorophyll. Several species of appletree borers can injure both young and old trees. Th e Japanese beetle (Popilliajaponica Newman), currently found in large, established populations in states east of the Mississippi River, may be the most serious pest of crabapples. The beetles are voracious feeders and can defoliate a tree if present in large numbers (Fiala, 1994). In a study evaluating feeding preferences, Ranney and Walgenbach (1992) concluded that out of 33 crabapple taxa, Malus baccata 'Jackii' was the least affected, with no leaf damage identified. 'Red Splendor' was the most affected, with 83 % of the leaf area skeletonized. Spicer et al. (1995) found similar results: Malus bacatta 'Jackii' foliage was among the least skeletonized and 'Red Splendor' was among the most affected by Japanese beetles. Spicer et al. (1995) hypothesized that darker foliage with higher concentrations of anthocyanin pigmentation, may be more susceptible to defoliation by Japanese beetles. Gypsy moth [Lymantria dispar (L.)], fall cankerwonn [Alsophila pometaria (Harris)], eastern tent caterpillar [Malacosoma americnum (Fabricius)], apple-and-thorn skeletonizer [Choreutis pariana (Clerck)], rose chafer [Macrodactylus subspinosus (Fabricius)], and codling moths [ Cydia pomonella (L.)] are other insect pests of crabapples. Smitley and Peterson ( 1993) found that 'Adams', 'Red Splendor', 'Velvetcole' (Velvet Pillar®), 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®), and ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) demonstrated high levels ofresistance to these insect pests. Cold hardiness, the ability of all plant parts to survive low temperatures and/or widely fluctuating temperatures, also can impact crabapples. McNamara and Pellett (1996) found cold hardiness varies among crabapple taxa in both the time of year and rate at which acclimation/deacclimation occurs. No one taxon consistently possessed the lowest survival temperature during six sampling dates from November to April. 'Dolgo ', ' Red Jade', 'Red Splendor', ' Selkirk', and Malus bacatta 'Jackii' were among the most cold hardy, while 'Jewelberry' and Japanese flowering crab [Malus jloribunda (Siebold)] demonstrated the poorest tolerance to low temperatures.

Crabapple Preferences Because most consumers prefer crabapples with noteworthy floral displays, many crabapple selections introduced to the nursery trade in the 1940's and 1950's, such as 10

'Radiant' (1940) and 'Royalty' (1958), were introduced primarily because of their floral attributes with little regard for fruit display, fruit retention, and disease resistance (Green, 1996; Guthery and Hasselkus, 1992). The National Landscape Association conducted surveys in 1956, 1970, 1976, and 1982 on usage trends of flowering and shade trees. Factors the respondents considered were hardiness, maintenance, and aesthetics. The crabapple was selected each year as the top flowering tree (Hamilton, 1986). Redbud, dogwood, hawthorn, and callery pear ranked second in the above-mentioned years, respectively. Unfortunately, no specific selections of crabapple were documented in this survey. A survey of nursery and landscape professionals in Iowa found that 'Prairifire' and ' Spring Snow' were the most preferred crabapple selections by retail customers (Iles and Stookey, 1997). ' Spring Snow' was the most popular selection in Iowa, presumably because it is fruitless (Iles and Stookey, 1997). 'Prairifire' also was a popular choice primarily because of its flower color and because of its standing as Iowa' s tree of the year. The memorable name and marketing campaign have been aids to its consumer preference. The National Crabapple Evaluation program was created to provide professionals and consumers with information to select the right crabapple selection. In 1984, 1530 trees were divided between 15 different sites across the United States for study to determine the differences between selections (Green, 1986).

Literature Cited

Brewer, J.E. , L.P. Nichols, C.C. Powell, and E.M. Smith. 1979. The flowering crabapple - a tree for all seasons. Coop. Ext. Serv. of Northeast States. NE223, NCR 78. den Boer, A.F. 1959. Flowering crabapples. American Assoc. of Nurserymen, Washington, D.C. 226 pp.

Draper, E.A., J.A. Chatfield, and K.D. Cochran. 1996. The magic ofMalus. Amer. Nurseryman 184:46-55. 11

Dirr, M.A. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Fifth Edition. Stipes Publishing Co., Champaign, Ill. 630-660 p.

Egolf, D.R. 1987. ' Adirondack' crabapple. HortScience 22:969-970.

Fiala, J.L. 1994. Flowering crabapples: The genus Malus. Timber Press, Portland. 21- 238 p. Flint, H. 1991. Ornamental crabapples. Horticulture 69:66-70.

Gleason, M.L., J.K. Iles, and J.R. Hartman. 2000. Hard to resist. Amer. Nurseryman 191 :38-42.

Green, T.L. 1986. The national crabapple evaluation program. Morton-Arbor. Lisle, Ill. 22:44-48.

Green, T.L. 1996. Crabapples - When you're choosing one of those apple cousins, make flowers your last consideration. Amer. Horticulturist 75: 18-23.

Guthery, D.E. and E.R. Hasselkus. 1992. Jewels of the landscape. Amer. Nurseryman 175:28-41.

Hagan, AK., M. Tilt, J.D. Williams, and J.R. Akridge. 1995. Fire blight-resistant crabapple cultivars. Ornamentals Research Report. 13.

Hartmann, H.T., D.E. Kester, and F.T. Davies. 1990. Plant Propagation Principles and Practices. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 6-7 p.

Hamilton, D. 1986. Supply and demand information - "The most popular shade and flowering trees." Ornamentals Northwest Newsletter & Index IV 10:8 . Spring.

Iles, J.K. and J .S. Stookey. 1997. Crabapples: Sales Trends and Consumer Preferences in Iowa. J. Arboric. 23:94-99.

Iles, J.K. 1999. Crabapples for Midwestern landscapes. Iowa State University Extension publication PM #1814.

Jacobs, K.A. and M. Spravka. 1996. High- and low-performing crabapples during abnormally severe apple scab conditions. HortTechnology. 6: 140.

Jefferson, R.M. 1970. History, progeny, and locations of crabapples of documented authentic origin. National Arboretum Contribution No. 2.:1-107 p.

McNamara, S. and H. Pellett. 1996. Cold hardiness of flowering crabapple cul ti vars. J. Environ. Hort. 14: 111-114. 12

Ranney, T.G. and J.F. Walgenbach. 1992. Feeding preferences of Japanese beetles for taxa of birch, cherry, and crabapple. J. Environ. Hort. 10:177-180.

Smith, E.M. 1979. A 10-year evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr., Res. c'irc. 246, Ornamental Plants-1979, A Sum. ofRes. 36-39.

Smith, E.M. 1982. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1982. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. , Ornamental Plants-1983 , A Sum. of Res. 47-50.

Smith, E.M. and S.A. Treaster. 1986. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1986. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr., Res. Circ. 291, Ornamental Plants- 1987, A Sum. of Res. 3-7.

Smith, E.M. and S.A. Treaster. 1989. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1989. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr., Spec. Circ. 135, Ornamental Plants: A Sum. ofRes.-1990. 21 -26.

Smith, E.M. and S.A. Treaster. 1990. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1990. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr., Spec. Circ. 137, Ornamental Plants: A Sum. ofRes.-1991. 10-15.

Smith, E.M. and S.A. Treaster. 1991. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1991. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr., Ornamental Plants: A Sum. of Res.- 1992. 15-20.

Smitley, D.R. and N.C. Peterson. 1993. Evaluation of selected crabapple cultivars for insect resistance. J. Environ. Hort. 11: 171-175.

Spicer, P.G., D.A. Potter, and R.E. McNiel. 1995. Resistance of flowering crabapple cultivars to defoliation by the Japanese beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88:979-985.

Steiner, P.W. and A.R. Biggs. 1998. Fire blight, Erwinia amylovora. Fruit Disease Focus. 1-5.

Warren, K. 1989. Perfecting the crab. Ma/us 4: 4-7.

Yanny, M. 1996. Ornamental crabapples - For the birds. Malus 10:21-22. 13

CHAPTER 2. SELECTION PREFERENCES FOR CRABAPPLE CULTIV ARS AND SPECIES

A paper to be submitted to HortTechnology

James P. Romer, Jeffery K. Iles, and Cynthia L. Haynes

AnoITIONAL lNDEX WORDS. Malus spp., survey, questionnaire, regional preferences, landscape

Summary Crabapples (Ma/us spp.) are frequently planted ornamental trees throughout the upper United States. However, selections differ in growth habit, disease tolerance, and fruit litter. A survey questionnaire was received by 1,810 members of state nursery and landscape associations and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America (ALCA) in 13 states. The objectives of this study were to assess crabapple preferences across the United States, and to investigate whether regional disease problems are responsible for crabapple inventories in green-industry businesses. States represented in the survey were Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Five hundred and eleven (28.2%) of the survey questionnaires were returned. Most respondents (79.4%) noted their retail customers most often emphasized flower color. 'Prairifire', 'Snowdrift', and 'Spring Snow' were identified as the most popular selections across all regions. The central region respondents selected 'Red Splendor' the most for attracting or feeding birds (39.7%) and second-most when tree size was not an issue (25.4%). The west-central region selected 'Spring Snow' (48.7%) when tree size was not important due apple scab being less frequent. Apple scab was ranked the most frequently reported disease problem in all regions except west central where fire blight was identified. 'Radiant' and 'Royalty' were noted as the most frequently discontinued. Most respondents (71.5%) cited disease problems as the primary reason for discontinuing a selection. We conclude that these results can be used to help nursery and landscape professionals, extension 14

Crabapples are the most widely cultivated small landscape tree in the northern United States and southern Canada (Brewer, et al., 1979; Guthery and Hasselkus, 1992; Draper et al., 1996). J. Frank Schmidt and Son Co. (Boring, OR), one of the largest wholesale growers in the country, lists 59 crabapple selections in their 2001 catalog. Crabapples are popular because of their wide variety of growth habits and mature sizes, wildlife-attracting capabilities, and excellent flower display in the spring (Dirr, 1998). Hamilton (1986) surveyed members of the National Landscaping Association and found crabapples the most popular flowering tree in 1956, 1970, 1976, and 1982. Unfortunately, specific selections were not rated. Popularity notwithstanding, the use of crabapples between the nursery and landscape industry and the gardening public they serve, often has been strained. The sheer number of crabapple selections available has created confusion and skepticism over the quality and uniqueness of individual taxa (Iles and Stookey, 1997). In addition, selections having poor disease resistance ('Radiant' and 'Royalty') and/or undesirable fruit litter (' Hopa') have damaged the reputation of the entire genus (Fiala, 1994). Smith (1979) and Smith and Treaster (1989; 1990; 1991) performed annual evaluations of crabapple taxa and their susceptibility to diseases such as apple scab at the Secrest Arboretum, in Wooster, Ohio. Fire blight, cedar-apple rust, and frogeye leafspot are the rest of the most common foliar diseases of crabapple (Brewer et al., 1979; Gleason et al. , 2000). They evaluated 150 cultivars and species and found 74 selections were resistant or highly resistant to apple scab. This was an important finding as apple scab is common in and near Ohio. However, because rainfall and humidity levels differ across the country, their findings may not hold true elsewhere. Iles and Stookey (1997) surveyed members of the Iowa Nursery and Landscape Association to assess the importance of crabapples to the nursery and landscape industry in Iowa, to identify crabapple taxa sold, and to characterize consumer preferences. They found 'Prairifire', ' Spring Snow', and ' Snowdrift' were the best-selling selections, respectively. 'Radiant' and 'Royalty' were most frequently mentioned as selections dropped from nursery inventories. 15 respectively. 'Radiant' and 'Royalty' were most frequently mentioned as selections dropped from nursery inventories. Stolzenburg surveyed customers of Bailey Nurseries, Inc., St. Paul, MN, about crabapple usage. Although the response rate was low (1. 7% ), it was evident that flowering display is the most popular reason to select a crabapple, and that fruit litter is the main deterrent from selection (J Stolzenburg, personal communication, 1999). Very little data exists that characterizes preferences for crabapple across the United States. Therefore, we developed and conducted a survey of nursery and landscape professionals to determine selection preferences for crabapple cultivars and species in several regions of the United States and to identify potential regional tendencies.

Methods Survey questionnaires were sent by first-class mail on 5 October 2000 to members of either state nursery/landscape associations or the Associated Landscape Contractors of America in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These states were chosen because of the prominence of crabapples in landscapes across the region. Retail nurseries and landscape design/ build firms were the target audience of the survey. All in the target audience of any one particular state received a survey if the total number of addresses was :S 100. If the list contained> 100 addresses in any one state, one-half of the total addresses were selected. Lawn-care firms, equipment rental and sales companies, nurseries selling only herbaceous plant materials, wholesale nurseries, mass merchandisers, and home-improvement stores were excluded from the study. Mass merchandisers and home improvement stores were not surveyed due to the seasonal personnel in their horticulture departments. A total of 1850 questionnaires were mailed however, 40 surveys were not delivered to members due to address changes. Questionnaires included a cover letter explaining our research objectives and instructions for returning the completed questionnaire. On 19 October 2000, reminder postcards were sent to individuals who had not responded. 16

The questionnaire contained 21 numbered questions in closed-end (12) and open- end (9) form. Questions addressed: number of crabapple cul ti vars or species offered, crabapple selections offered for specific landscape use, crabapple traits and their relative importance, alternatives to crabapples, fruitless selections, crabapple selections eliminated from inventories, and crabapple diseases and their relative importance. Responses were tabulated initially by state, combined into five regions, and analyzed. The regions and states include: west region (Oregon and Washington), west- central region (Colorado and Utah), central region (Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri), east- central region (Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan), and east region (New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). Closed-end and open-end questions were coded and tabulated. All data were tabulated and analyzed by using ProcFreq procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether proportions of the selections chosen by survey respondents were statistically significant between regions (Garber and Bondari, 2000). This analysis was aimed at formally testing for regional differences. Infrequently chosen responses were consolidated into an "other" category. Preference for the top taxon was estimated by the difference between the most- and the second-most frequently chosen selection.

Results and discussion Completed questionnaires were received from 511 individuals (28.2% response rate). Owners and nursery/garden center managers (74.7%) completed most of the returned questionnaires. Landscape installation managers, assistant managers, general managers, landscape designers, landscape architects, buyers, and estimators composed the remaining respondents. State totals for surveys sent and returned were compiled (Table 1). No singular subset from the population of the survey respondents differed from those that never returned a survey. States furthest from Iowa showed the lowest response rates (18.7% west region, 23.6% east region). This may be due to less importance placed on surveys originating from the Midwest or reflect the regional importance of crabapples. 17

When asked to identify the number of crabapple selections they sell, the majority ofrespondents (55.3%) reported at least six offerings of crabapple selections to their customers. Few respondents (8.6%) offered no crabapple selections. When respondents were asked to explain the number of selections they offered, 32.6% noted the primary reason as personal preference. The "other" category had the second most responses with 25.4% citing limited selection from their distributor and lack of demand for crabapples. Next, respondents were asked to recommend specific crabapple selections for several unique landscape situations. When asked to recommend a dwarf form, survey participants responded with 43 suggestions; however, the Sargent crabapple (Malus sargentii) (52.4%) and its cultivars 'Tina' (8.7%) and 'Candymint' (consolidated in the "other" category with 0.7%) combined were favored across all regions by most respondents (61.2%) (Table 2). Respondents in the east-central region favored M. sargentii more than did respondents from other regions. Regional differences were apparent when respondents were asked to recommend an upright or narrow-growing form. 'Pink Spires' and 'Red Barron' overall were most frequently recommended (Table 2). However, no consensus was evident across all regions. 'Pink Spires', one of the first crabapples to bloom in spring (Fiala, 1994 ), was a strongly favored upright selection (44.2%) in the central region. 'Red Barron' (25.5% and 28 .5% respectively) was noted in the east-central and west-central regions. 'Adirondack' ( 19. 0% ), that resists the fungal pathogen causing apple scab and the bacterium responsible for fire blight (Egolf, 1987) was a preferred upright or narrow selection in the west region. 'Velvetcole' (Velvet Pillar®) (21.1 %) was selected in the east region. When asked to name a crabapple they would recommend if tree size were not an issue, respondents in all regions except the west-central region most frequently mentioned the cultivar 'Prairifire' (Table 2). ' Snowdrift', 'Spring Snow' (preferred overall in the west-central region), and 'Red Splendor' were the next most frequently recommended selections respectively. Respondents in the central region ranked 'Red Splendor' second behind 'Prairifire' if tree size was not an issue. The disproportionate 18 popularity of 'Red Splendor' in the central region could be an artifact of the origin of this cultivar (Bergeson Nursery, Fertile, MN) or increased awareness of the selection in the region. The fruit of all crabapple selections are not equally palatable to birds (Y anny, 1996). Softening of the fruit from frosts influences their palatability to birds. Survey participants identified 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) as the best crabapple for attracting birds, with the highest overall ranking (15.0%) (Table 2). This response is somewhat perplexing since the fruit of 'Jewelcole' are known to be extremely persistent, and seem to attract very little attention from birds. A total of 39.3% either chose to not answer the question or indicated the ability of a crabapple to serve as a "bird feeder" was not an important selection criterion for them. Flowers, fruit, and growth habit are examples of crabapple traits that provide interest in the landscape. Survey respondents ranked the three most important crabapple traits they emphasize when dealing with retail and commercial clients. Flower color was identified as the trait retail businesses emphasized the most (Table 3). Only respondents in the west and east-central region emphasized disease resistance over flower color. One respondent across all regions noted food for wildlife as being their number one trait emphasized to retail clients. To avoid choosing an inferior cultivar, Green (1996) suggests floral display should be the last aspect considered after disease resistance, fruit persistence, and ultimate tree size in the selection process. However, this pattern of selection criteria is seldom followed because of strong consumer interest in flower color (Green, 1996). A large percentage of all respondents (79.4%) perceived flower color as the trait that most interested retail clients when choosing a crabapple for their home landscape (Table 3). Respondents also noted that growth habit was more important to retail customers than disease resistance in all regions except the east-central. 19

Respondents across all regions noted their commercial clients showed the most interest in growth habit (32.5%) and flower color (28.7%) (Table 3). Respondents assigned very little value to wildlife feeding as an important selection criterion, regardless of client (Table 3). Resistance to the use of crabapples by either consumers or commercial clients must be anticipated due to concerns with fruit litter. We asked our survey participants to identify another small flowering tree they would recommend as an alternative to crabapples. Considering all regions, serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.) was the most frequently mentioned alternative (15 .2%) (Table 4). Dogwood (Cornus spp.), flowering cherry (Prunus spp.), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), and flowering pear (Pyrus spp.) also were considered viable alternatives (14.8%, 13 .3%, 12.1 %, and 10.9%). Respondents from the central region specified Japanese tree lilac (Syringa reticulata) as the most likely substitute for crabapples. According to survey respondents, the popularity of fruitless crabapples among clients is high (61.2%); however, 38 .7% said they were not popular. The lack of popularity in fruitless selections as perceived by respondents in the east (58.8%) and east- central (49.5%) regions was particularly noteworthy. Over all regions, respondents identified 'Spring Snow' (90.1 %) as the most popular fruitless crabapple. Respondents across all regions did not consider crabapples to be short-lived landscape plants (88.2%); however, expectations about the number of years a crabapple should live if planted on an ideal site were variable. Most (42.1 %) believe 16 to 30 years was a reasonable life span, whereas 31.9% expected crabapples to live between 31 and 40. Only 1.5% said crabapples would live between 1-15 years. Most respondents (59.5%) reported they had discontinued using or carrying a crabapple selection during the past ten years primarily due to disease problems (71.5%). The cultivars 'Radiant' (11.7%), 'Royalty' (8.5%), 'Hopa' (7.0%), ' Indian Magic' (6.6%), and ' Snowdrift' (5.7%) were the most commonly mentioned selections (Table 5). Trends exist even though no consensus from any region occurred for a single crabapple selection dropped from inventory. ' Radiant' and 'Royalty' ranked first or second in the 20 central, east-central and east regions, whereas 'Hopa' was the most frequently discontinued cultivar in the west-central region. Apple scab was identified as the most prevalent crabapple disease across all regions except in the west-central region, where fire blight was considered most problematic. The higher frequency of fire blight is due to changing weather patterns affecting the later blooming periods at higher elevations (Smith, 1998). Our study examined market areas in which crabapples are a prominent landscape plant and identified crabapple preferences among nursery and landscape professionals across a broad region of the United States. Regional and nationwide preferences for different selections exist due to frequency of disease and to professional preferences. These results can be used to help nursery and landscape professionals, extension specialists, and retail consumers choose crabapple selections that possess superior fruit, flowers, disease resistance, or growth habits. Disease resistance has been stressed more than any other topic with regard to crabapples at the university level (Iles and Stookey, 1997), but both retail and commercial clients are more concerned with flowers and growth habit. Many retail clients and horticulture professionals want crabapples with high resistance to disease and ornamental versatility. Table 1. Distribution of questionnaires, numbers returned per state, and state and regional return percentage. A survey questionnaire was sent to members of state nursery and landscape associations and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America (ALCA) in 13 states to assess preferences concerning crabapple (Malus spp.) and to investigate whether regional disease problems are responsible for shaping crabapple inventories in green-industry businesses. Each state was assigned to a region of the United States.

Region State Questionnaires sent l\fumberreturned Return by state Return by region (%) (%)

West 18.7 Oregon 178 25 14 Washington 99 27 27 West-central 29.8 N Colorado 69 27 39 Utah 85 19 22 Central 37.6 Iowa 71 34 48 Minnesota 211 78 37 Missouri 63 18 29 East-central 31.6 Indiana 87 28 32 Illinois 147 54 37 Michigan 246 70 28 East 23.6 New York 134 29 22 Ohio 289 73 25 Pennsylvania 131 29 22 Table 2. Crabapple (Ma/us spp.) selections recommended by survey respondents in their regions for different landscape situations. Values are listed by percentage first followed by actual number of responses in parentheses. Less frequent responses have been consolidated in an "other" category. Chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether proportions of the selections chosen by survey respondents were statistically significant between regions.

Percentage of responses by regionz (actual number of responses)

"When a dwarf form is needed" West West-central Central East-central East Total

Malus sargentii 51.7 (15) 31.0 (9) 24.0 (25) 73.3 (102) 58.5 (65) 52.4 (216) M. 'Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 6.8 (2) 6.8 (2) 13.4 (14) 2.8 (4) 13.5 (15) 8.9 (37) Malus sargentii 'Tina' 0.0 (0) 6.8 (2) 16.3 (17) 7.1 (10) 6.3 (7) 8.7 (36) IV IV M. ' Red Jade' 0.0 (0) 6.8 (2) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (3) 6.3 (7) 2.9 (12) Other 41.3 (12} 48.2 (14} 46.1 (48} 16.8 (20} 15.3 (17} 26.9 (111} n=29 n = 29 n= 104 n = 139 n = 111 n = 412 x 2 (Chi-sguare}107.1 (P < 0.0001)

"When an upright or narrow form is needed"

M. ' Prairifire' 40.0 (10) 2.5 (1) 29.0 (32) 34.4 (40) 25.0 (27) 27.6 (110) M . ' Snowdrift' 8.0 (2) 0.0 (0) 4.5 (5) 11.2 (13) 12.0 (13) 8.2 (33) M . x 'Spring Snow' 0.0 (0) 48.7 (19) 9.0(10) 1.7 (2) 0.9 (1) 8.0 (32) M . 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 25.4 (28) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 7.0 (28) M. ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 2.7 (3) 7.7 (9) 12.0 (13) 6.5 (26) Other 52.0 (13) 46.1 (18) 29.0 (32) 44.8 (52) 50.0 (54) 42.4 (169) n=25 n=39 n=l 10 n=l 16 n=108 n=398 2 x (Chi-sguare) 241.6 (P = 0.0022)

"When attracting (feeding) birds is important"

M . ' Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) 15.7 (3) 0.0 (0) 7.5 (7) 17.3 (16) 24.6 (20) 15 .0 (46) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 39.7 (37) 3.2 (3) 1.2 ( 1) 13.2 (41) M. ' Snowdrift' 10.5 (2) 12.0 (3) 7.5 (7) 7.6 (7) 11. l (9) 9.0 (28) M. 'Prairifire' 15.7 (3) 8.0 (2) 8.6 (8) 8.6 (8) 8.6 (7) 9.0 (28) M. 'Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 5.2 (1) 4.0 (1) 4.3 (4) 8.6 (8) 14.8 (12) 8.3 (26) Other 52.6 (10) 76.0 (19) 32.6 (30) 54.3 (50) 39.5 (32) 45.4 (141) n = 19 n = 25 n= 93 n = 92 n = 81 n = 310 2 x (Chi-sguare) 128.1 (P = 0.0067) zRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region= respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region =respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. Table 3. Most important crabapple traits identified by respondents for different clientele. Respondents were asked to identify specific crabapple attributes they might recommend for several unique landscape situations. Chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether proportions of the selections chosen by survey respondents were statistically significant between regions.

Percentage of responses by regionz (actual number of responses)

Traits respondents emphasize to retail customers

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Flower color 31.0 (9) 52.7 (19) 34.7 (40) 29.7 (36) 42.2 (46) 36.5 (150) N Disease resistance 44.8 (13) 13.8 (5) 29.5 (34) 39.6 (48) 33.9 (37) 33.4 (137) .!'> Growth habit 20.6 (6) 13 .8 (5) 21.7 (25) 26.4 (32) 19.2 (21) 21.7 (89) Fruit color/persistence 0.0 (0) 11. l (4) 8.6 (10) 3.3 (4) 1.8 (2) 4.8 (20) Environmental tolerance 3.4 (1) 5.5 (2) 5.2 (6) 0.8 (1) 2.7 (3) 3.1 (13) Food for wildlife 0.0 (0) 2.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) n=29 n = 36 n = 115 n = 121 n = 109 n = 410 2 x (Chi-square) 44.8 (P < 0.0001)

Survey respondents' perception of the most important crabapple trait for their retail customers

Flower color 69.2 (18) 67.6 (23) 80.0 (92) 76.5 (88) 88 .5 (93) 79.4 (314) Growth habit 15 .3 (4) 14.7 (5) 9.5 (11) 9.5 (11) 5.7 (6) 9.3 (37) Disease resistance 11.5 (3) 0.0 (0) 4.3 (5) 10.4(12) 2.8 (3) 5.6 (23) Fruit color/persistence 3.8 (1) 17.6 (6) 6.0 (7) 3.4 (4) 2.8 (3) 5.3 (21) Food for wildlife 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) n = 26 n = 34 11 = 115 11 = 115 n = 105 n = 395 x2 (Chi -square) 41.3 (P < 0.0001) (Table 3. Continued) Respondents perception of the most important crabapple trait of commercial customers

Growth habit 41.6 (10) 25 .7 (9) 36.0 (36) 33.3 (39) 27 .6 (26) 32.5 (120) Flower color 29.1 (7) 28.5 (10) 33.0 (33) 23.0 (27) 30.8 (29) 28.7 (106) Disease resistance 29.1 (7) 8.5 (3) 17.0 (17) 33.3 (39) 29.7 (28) 25.2 (93) Environmental tolerance 0.0 (0) 17.1 (6) 6.0 (6) 7.6 (9) 6.3 (6) 7.3 (27) Fruit color/persistence 0.0 (0) 20.0 (7) 8.0 (8) 2.5 (3) 5.3 (5) 6.2 (23) Food for wildlife 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) n = 24 n = 35 n = 100 n = 117 n = 94 n = 369 2 x (Chi-square) 57.1 (P < 0.0001) zRegions West region= respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region= respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. Table 4. Small flowering trees most frequently recommended as an alternative to crabapples. Respondents were asked to list the small flowering tree they most frequently recommend to clients who oppose the use of crabapples. Infrequent responses have been consolidated in an "other" category. Chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether proportions of the selections chosen by survey respondents were statistically significant between regions.

Percentage of responses by regionz (actual number of responses)

Alternative Plant West West-central Central East-central East Total

Serviceberry 3.3 (1) 2.7 (1) 7.8 (9) 26.4 (32) 20.1 (22) 15.2(63) Dogwood 23.3 (7) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (4) 19.0 (23) 24.7 (27) 14.8 (61) N Flowering Cherry 20.0 (6) 8.3 (3) 5.2 (6) 17.3 (21) 17.4 (19) 13.3 (55) 0\ Hawthorn 0.0 (0) 27.7 (10) 18.2 (21) 9.0 (11) 7.3 (8) 12.1 (50) Flowering Pear 6.6 (2) 30.5 (11) 7.8 (9) 8.2 (10) 11.9 (13) 10.9(45) Redbud 0.0 (0) 5.5 (2) 13.0 (15) 9.9 (12) 1.8 (2) 7.5 (31) Japanese Tree Lilac 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 23.4 (27) 1.6 (2) 0.9 (1) 7.2 (30) Other 46.6 (14) 25.0 (9) 20.8 (24) 8.2 (10) 15.5 (17) 17.9 (74) n=30 n = 36 n = 115 n = 121 n = 109 n = 412 2 x (Chi-sguare) 191.4 (P <.0001) zRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region= respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. Table 5. Respondents' identification of discontinued crabapple selections. Infrequent responses have been consolidated in an "other" category. Chi-square analysis was conducted to determine whether proportions of the selections chosen by survey respondents were statistically significant between regions.

Percentage ofresponses by regionz (actual number ofresponses)

Crabapple selections discontinued West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Radiant' 5.2 (2) 2.8 (1) 18.1 (29) 9.3 (20) 11.9 (19) 11.7 (71) M. ' Royalty' 2.6 (1) 5.7 (2) 7.5 (12) 12.1 (26) 6.9 (11) 8.5 (52) M. 'Hopa' 2.6 (1) 31.4 (11) 8.7 (14) 3.7 (8) 5.6 (9) 7.0 (43) N M. 'Indian Magic' 2.6 (1) 8.5 (3) 7.5 (12) 6.0 (13) 6.9 (11) 6.6 (40) -.) M . 'Snowdrift' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 4.3 (7) 8.8 (19) 5.0 (8) 5.7 (35) M. 'Profusion' 7.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (3) 7.9 (17) 3.1 (5) 4.6 (28) M. 'Bechtel' 7.8 (3) 22.8 (8) 0.6 (1) 3.2 (7) 3.7 (6) 3.3 (25) M. 'Red Jade' 7.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (2) 3.2 (7) 5.0 (8) 9.9 (20) M. 'Indian Summer' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 3.1 (5) 3.7 (8) 2.5 (4) 2.9 (18) M. 'Dolgo' 5.2 (2) 5.7 (2) 1.2 (2) 3.2 (7) 3.1 (5) 2.9 (18) M. 'Branzam' (Brandywine®) 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (4) 2.3 (5) 5.0 (8) 2.9 (18) Other 28.9 (11} 2.8 (1} 21.8 (35} 14.4 (31} 18.2 (29} 17.6 (107} n= 38 n = 35 n= 160 n=214 n = 159 n=606 x2 (Chi-sguare) 30.7 (P = 0.3266) zRegions West region= respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region= respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. 28

Literature cited

Brewer, J.E., L.P. Nichols, C.C. Powell, and E.M. Smith. 1979. The flowering crabapple - a tree for all seasons. Cooperative Extension Service of the Northeast States. NE223, NCR78.

Dayton, D.F. 1982. 'Prairifire'. HortScience 17:262.

Draper, E.A., J.A. Chatfield, and K.D. Cochran. 1996. The magic ofMalus. Amer. Nurseryman 184(4) :46-5 5.

Dirr, M.A. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Fifth edition. Stipes Publishing Co. , Champaign, IL.

Egolf, D.R. 1987. 'Adirondack' Crabapple. HortScience 22:969-970.

Fiala, J.L. 1994. Flowering crabapples: The genus Malus. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Garber, M.P. and K. Bondari. 2000. Selling Plants through Horticulture Distribution Centers. J. Environ. Hort. 18:179-183.

Guthery, D.E. and E.R. Hasselkus. 1992. Jewels of the landscape. Amer. Nurseryman 175(1 ):28-41.

Hamilton, D.1986. Supply and demand information - "The most popular shade and flowering trees". Ornamentals Northwest Newsletter & Index IV 10 :8. Spring.

Iles, J.K. and J.S. Stookey, 1997. Crabapples: sales trends and consumer preferences in Iowa. Journal of Arboric. 23:94-99.

SAS Institute, Inc. 2000. version 8e for windows. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.

Smith, EM. 1979. A 10 year evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio. Ohio Agr. Res. And Dev. Ctr. , Res. Cir. 246. Ornamental Plants-1979: A Sum. of Res. 36-39.

Smith, EM. and S.A. Treaster. 1989. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1988. OSU and OARDC Spec. Circ. Ornamental Plants: A Sum. of Res.1989. 21-26. 29

Smith, EM. and S.A. Treaster. 1990. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio-1990. OSU and OARDC Spec. Circ. 135. Ornamental Plants: A Sum. ofRes.1990. 10-15.

Smith, EM. and S.A. Treaster. 1991. Evaluation of flowering crabapple susceptibility to apple scab in Ohio - 1991. OSU and OARDC Spec. Circ. Ornamental Plants: A Sum. of Res.1991.15-20.

Smith, T. 1998. Fireblight: a 1998 Washington State perspective. Good Fruit Grower. 1- 7.

Yanny, M. 1996. Ornamental crabapples - For the birds. Malus 10:21-22. 30

CHAPTER 3. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

There were two objectives for my survey. One was to determine selection preferences of nursery and landscape professionals for crabapples. This survey provides insight about why specific selections are chosen. These results can be used to help nursery and landscape professionals, extension specialists, and retail consumers choose crabapple selections that possess superior fruit, flowers, disease resistance, or growth habits. My second objective was to identify regional tendencies with regard to crabapple selections. Regional and nationwide preferences for different selections exist due to frequency of disease and to professional preferences. Based on my survey, I believe that retail and commercial clients are most interested in flowers and growth habit. Additionally, there seems to be interest from the survey respondents in fruitless crabapples that have attractive flowers. There are few selections that can meet these criteria. Based on this study, current popular crabapple selections include 'Prairifire', ' Spring Snow', and ' Snowdrift'. All have a spectacular display of flowers in the spring, but that is where the similarities end. 'Spring Snow' is fruitless, but has problems with apple scab in most parts of the United States. Most of the west-central respondents (48 .7%) chose ' Spring Snow' as the crabapple of choice when size was not an issue. This preference has merit because the west-central region noted fire blight, not apple scab, as the most prevalent disease. ' Snowdrift' has attractive orange fruit, but also has problems with apple scab in areas that receive higher amounts ofrainfall. 'Prairifire' is the only cul ti var of the three listed that provides attractive red flowers, distinct purple fruit, and disease resistance. However, ' Prairifire' has a tendency to be top heavy in growth habit deterring some consumers from choosing this selection. Furthermore in wet years, 'Prairifire' shows signs of susceptibility to apple scab. ' Red Splendor' is another example ofregional preference. This selection was virtually unknown in all areas except the central region. Minnesota respondents selected 'Red Splendor' when tree size was not an issue and also for attracting and feeding birds. It will be interesting to see if preferences change in Minnesota as the Japanese beetle advances into the state. Japanese beetles feed heavily on 'Red Splendor' . 31

I believe that more breeding work should be done using selections such as 'Purple Prince' and 'Adirondack' as the parent plants. The need for additional breeding is necessary for crabapples to retain their prominent position among ornamental flowering trees. Many clients and horticulture professionals are looking for and insist on crabapples with high resistance to disease and ornamental versatility. There was lack of interest in selecting crabapples that provided food for attracting (feeding) birds. Three out of five regions selected 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) as a selection best suited for attracting/feeding birds. There may be confusion among respondents between fruit availability and fruit preferences of birds. The bright red fruit is attractive and persists on the trees, but would not be there if birds preferred consuming the crabapples. The fruit of many crabapples not only provides ornamental interest, but also is a viable source of food for birds during the fall and winter months. There are still negative feelings about fruit; the misconception remains that all crabapples have non- persistent fruit and create a mess wherever they are planted. Future studies including the mass merchandisers and the preferences they may have towards crabapples and comparing them to the results found in this survey may have merit. Above all, educating the public and professionals on the best crabapple selections is imperative. Our study examined market areas in which crabapples are a prominent landscape plant and identified crabapple preferences among nursery and landscape professionals across a broad region of the United States. We were relying on their perceptions of the general public' s preferences. A follow-up study focussing on how accurately horticultural professionals can predict consumer preferences would be worthwhile. 32

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT

September, 2000

Dear Colleagues:

ISU is conducting a research study to find out why certain crabapple cultivars are used over others across the United States. Flowering crabapples (Malus spp.) are extremely popular ornamental trees included in many landscape plantings across the United States. With hundreds of cultivars available, deciding which crabapples to include in an inventory can be a daunting task. In addition, disease susceptibility information may be lacking. This sometimes results in negative feedback from disappointed clientele.

I have enclosed a questionnaire designed to provide useful information about crabapples and appreciate your help in answering these questions. You will need approximately ten minutes to complete this questionnaire. All information provided will be kept strictly confidential and responses will be combined with those from other respondents and released in summary form.

After answering all of the questions, please return the questionnaire by folding and taping this packet so that the return address appears on the outside. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact me at (515) 294-2336 or Dr. Jeff Iles at (515)-294-0029. Thank you for your help and cooperation.

Sincerely,

James Romer Extension Program Specialist Department of Horticulture 106 Horticulture Hall Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 33

Unless otherwise indicated, please circle one response number or fill in a blank for each question.

1. Which of the following best describes your primary responsibilities in your workplace?

1 =owner, 2 =nursery/garden center manager, 3 = landscape installation manager, 4 =assistant manager, 5 =landscape designer, 6 =landscape architect, or 7 = other (please specify) ______

2. How many crabapple selections do you offer for sale or use in your landscape designs?

1 = None (If none, go to question 17) 2 = 1-3 3 =4-5 4 = 6-10 5 =more than 10

3. Approximately, what percentage of your total small flowering tree sales are crabapples? (Include those used in your landscape designs)

---%

4. Please select the statement below that describes the primary reason your company offers the number of crabapple selections that it does.

1 =You personally like crabapples 2 = You personally dislike crabapples 3 = Your customers demand a broad selection of crabapples 4 = Your customers are happy with only a few choices 5 =Other reason (please specify) ______

S. Which crabapple selection do you most frequently recommend or use when a dwarf form is needed?

(Please specify)______34

6. Which crabapple selection do you most frequently recommend or use when an upright or narrow form is needed for a restricted space?

(Please specify)______

7. Which crabapple selection do you most frequently recommend or use when tree size is not an important issue?

(Please specify)______

8. In your opinion, which crabapple selection is best for attracting (feeding) birds in the fall and winter?

(Please specify)______

9. When describing a crabapple selection to a client, which plant traits do you tend to emphasize? (Please rank the three most important traits (1,2,3) with 1 being the most important.)

Flower color Fruit color and persistence Environmental tolerance Growth habit (tree size and shape) Disease resistance Food for wildlife

10. In which attribute of crabapples do your retail customers (homeowners) show the most interest? (Please rank the three most important traits (1,2,3) with 1 being the most important.)

Flower color Fruit color and persistence Environmental tolerance Growth habit (tree size and shape) Disease resistance Food for wildlife 35

11. In which attribute of crabapples do your commercial clients (landscaping firms, grounds managers, golf course superintendents, etc.) show the most interest? (Please rank the three most important traits (1,2,3) with 1 being the most important.)

Flower color Fruit color and persistence Environmental tolerance Growth habit (tree size and shape) Disease resistance Food for wildlife

12. If a client opposes the use of crabapples, what other small flowering tree do you most frequently recommend as an alternative?

(Please specify)______

13 . Are fruitless crab apples popular with your clientele?

1 =Yes

2=No

14. Regardless of their overall popularity, which fruitless crabapple selection is the most popular with your customers?

(Please specify)______

15. Do you consider crabapples to be short-lived landscape plants?

1 =Yes

2=No 36

16. How many years should a crabapple tree live if planted in an ideal site?

1 = 1 - 15 years 2 = 16 - 30 years 3 = 3 1 - 40 years 4=41-50years 5 =more than 50 years

17. During the last ten years, have you dropped from your inventory, or discontinued the use of certain crabapple selections?

1 =Yes

2 =No (Please go to question 19)

18 . Please specify the crabapple selections you have discontinued using.

19. Which of the following reasons influenced your decision to discontinue using certain crabapple selections? (Please rank the three most important traits (1,2,3) with 1 being the most important.)

Disease problems Messy fruit Lack of customer demand Poor flowering Unsightly sucker/watersprout production Slow growth/poor form Other reason (please specify) ______37

20. If you could design the "perfect" crabapple, what features would it include?

(Please specify) ______

21 . Please rank the frequency of disease problems in your state. (Please rank the three most important traits (1,2,3) with 1 being the most important.)

a) Apple Scab b) Frog Eye Leaf Spot c) Fire Blight d) Cedar Apple Rust e) Other (please specify) ______

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Please return the survey to me by folding and taping this packet so that the return address appears on the outside. 38

APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL TABLES Table 1. Profile of survey respondents.

Percentage of respondents by positionz (actual number of responses)

Positionz Total

Owner 63.4 (324) Nursery I Garden Center Manager 11.3 (58) Landscape Designer 9.7 (50) Other (Buyer, General Manager Estimator etc.) 8.6 (44) Landscape Installation Manager 2.9 (15) Landscape Architect 2.9 (15) w Assistant Manager 0.9 (5) \0 n = 511 zRespondents were asked to describe their primary job responsibilities. Table 2. Number of crabapple selections offered for sale by nursery/landscaping firms by region.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Number of selectionsz West West-central Central East-central East Total

> 10 5.8 (3) 34.7 (16) 30.4 (39) 28.4 (43) 23.6 (31) 26.0 (132) 6- 10 9.8 (5) 34.7 (16) 31.2 (40) 37.0 (56) 24.4 (32) 29.3 (149) 4 - 5 23 .5 (12) 17.3 (8) 21.8 (28) 25 .1 (38) 31.2 (41) 25.0 (127) 1-3 29.4 (15) 6.5 (3) 10.9 (14) 6.6 (10) 9.9 (13) 10.8 (55) .i>- None 31.3 (16) 6.5 (3) 5.4 (7) 2.6 (4) 10.6 (14) 8.6 (44) 0 n = 51 n=46 n = 128 n = 151 n = 131 n = 507 zRespondents were asked to select a range that represented the number of crabapple selections offered for sale or used in landscape designs YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 86.9 (P < 0.0001) Table 3. Survey respondents estimates of crabapple sales as a percentage of total small flowering tree sales.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Percentage(%) of salesz West West-central Central East-central East Total l - 25 81.8 (27) 47.6 (20) 36.0 (44) 48.5 (69) 54.3 (63) 49.0 (223) 26 - 50 18. l (6) 38.0(16) 17.2 (21) 32.3 (46) 31.8 (37) 27.6 (126) 51 - 75 0.0 (0) 14.2 (6) 28.6 (35) 10.5(15) 8.6(10) 14.5 (66) 76 - 100 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 18.0 (22) 8.4 (12) 5.1 (6) 8.7 (40) n= 33 n = 42 n = 122 n= 142 n = 116 n = 455 ...... ~ zRespondents were asked to estimate crabapple sales as a percentage of total small flowering tree sales. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. X2 (Chi-square) 103.4 (P < 0.0001) Table 4. Reasons for offering a particular number of crabapple selections as identified by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Reasonsz West West-central Central East-central East Total

Personally like crabapples 31.4(11) 20.9 (9) 33.3 (41) 26.8 (39) 43.5 (51) 32.6 (151) Otherx 37.1 (13) 23.2 (10) 19.5 (24) 30.3 (44) 23.0 (27) 25.4 (118) Customers demand broad selection 8.5 (3) 41.8 (18) 30.8 (38) 26.2 (38) 15.3(18) 24.8 (115) Customers happy with few choices ~ 22.8 (8) 13 .9 (6) 14.6 (18) 13.7 (20) 13.6 (16) 14.9 (68) N You dislike crabai;mles 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 1.6 (2} 2.7 (4} 4.2 (5} 2.4 (11} n = 35 n = 43 n = 123 n = 145 n = 117 n = 463 zRespondents were asked to select a statement that best described the primary reason their company offers the number of crabapple selections that it does. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xSurvey respondents suggested that limited availability, crabapples were seldom requested, and that the ones they offered were the only options. x2 (Chi-square) 57.8 (P < 0.0001) Table 5. Crabapple selection most frequently recommended by respondents when a dwarf form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"When a dwarf form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

Malus sargentii 51.7 (15) 31.0 (9) 24.0 (25) 73 .3 (102) 58.5 (65) 52.4 (216) M. 'Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 6.8 (2) 6.8 (2) 13.4 (14) 2.8 (4) 13.5 (15) 8.9 (37) Ma/us sargentii 'Tina' 0.0 (0) 6.8 (2) 16.3 (17) 7.1 (10) 6.3 (7) 8.7 (36) M. ' Red Jade' 0.0 (0) 6.8 (2) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (3) 6.3 (7) 2.9 (12) ~ M. 'Camzam' (Camelot®) 3.4 (1) 6.8 (2) 6.7 (7) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.4 (10) w M. 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 5.7 (6) 0.7 (1) 1.8 (2) 2.1 (9) M. 'Pink Princess' 10.3 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 1.4 (2) 0.9 (1) 1.6 (7) M. 'Prairifue' 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 3.8 (4) 0.7 (1) 0.9 (1) 1.6 (7) M. 'Red Barron' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 4.8 (5) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.4 (6) TM Round Table Series 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.7 (1) 3.6 (4) 1.4 (6) M. 'Lanzam' (Lancelot®) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 4.8 (5) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.4 (6) M. 'Pink Spires' 3.4 (1) 3.4 (1) 2.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (5) M. 'Cinzam' (Cinderella®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (2) 2.1 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (5) M. ' David' 0.0 (0) 10.3 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (4) M. 'Royalty' 3.4 (1) 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (3) M. 'Candymint' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (3) M. 'Louisa' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 1.8 (2) 0.7 (3) M. x ' Spring Snow' 0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.7 (3) M . 'Madonna' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.4 (2) Table 5 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended by respondents when a dwarf form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"When a dwarf form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. ' Sinai Fire' 3.4 (I) 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) M. 'Red Delicious' 0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) M. ' Jewelberry' 0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) M. ' Thunderchild' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) ~ M. x zumi 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.4 (2) ~ M. ' Guinivere' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) M. ' Lollizam' (Lollipop®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.4 (2) M. ' Mary Potter' 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (2) M. ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M. 'Firebird' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Radiant' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. ' Kelsey' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 ( 1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. ' Profusion' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 ( 1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Amaszam' (American Masterpiece®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. ' Liset' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (I) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Micromidget' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. ' Snowdrift' 0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. x 'Adirondack' 3.4 ( 1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 ( I) Table 5 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used when a dwarf form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"When a dwarf form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Bechtel' 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Hubtures' 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Echtmeyer' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M. 'Molazam' (Molten Lava®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) Vl""'" M. 'Almey' 0.0 (O} 3.4 (1} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.2 (1} n = 29 n=29 n = 104 n = 139 n = 111 n = 412 zRespondents were asked to write-in the name of a crabapple selection they would recommend for a specific landscape purpose. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region= respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 107. l (P < 0.0001), Table 6. Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when an upright or narrow form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY (actual number of responses)

"When an upright or narrow form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M 'Pink Spires' 9.5 (2) 7.1 (1) 44.2 (42) 8.5 (8) 4.4 (4) 18.1(57) M. 'Red Barron' 14.2 (3) 28.5 (4) 10.5 (10) 25.5 (24) 16.6 (15) 17.8 (56) M. 'Velvetcole ' (Velvet Pillar®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 5.2 (5) 5.3 (5) 21.1 (19) 9.2 (29) M. 'Red Jewel' 0.0 (0) 7.1 (1) 5.2 (5) 13.8 (13) 5.5 (5) 7.6 (24) -""" M. x 'Adirondack' 19.0 (4) 7.1 (1) 4.2 (4) 7.4 (7) 3.3 (3) 3.7 (19) 0\ M. 'Centzam' (Centurion®) 9.5 (2) 21.4 (3) 1.0 (1) 3.1 (3) 6.6 (6) 6.0 (15) M x 'Spring Snow' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 8.4 (8) 2.1 (2) 1.1 (1) 3.5 (11) M. 'Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 3.1 (3) 5.5 (5) 2.8 (9) M. 'Hargozam'(Harvest Gold®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.1 (3) 1.0 (1) 3.3 (3) 2.2 (7) M . 'Madonna' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 5.2 (5) 0.0 (0) 2.2 (2) 2.2 (7) M. 'Prairifire' 9.5 (2) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 1.0 (1) 2.2 (2) 2.2 (7) M. 'Sentinel' 0.0 (0) 7.1 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 3.3 (3) 1.9 (6) M. 'Van Eseltine' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 4.2 (4) 2.2 (2) 1.9 (6) M bacatta 'Colurnnaris' 0.0 (0) 7.1 (1) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 4.4 (4) 1.9 (6) M. x zumi 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.1 (3) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (4) M sargentii 'Tina' 4.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 2.2 (2) 1.2 (4) M. 'White Candle' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 2.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (4) M. 'Thunderchild' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.1 (3) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) l.2 (4) M . 'King Arthur' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.3 (3) 0.9 (3) M. 'Royalty' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 2.2 (2) 0.9 (3) M. 'Selkirk' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) Table 6 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when an upright or narrow form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY (actual number of responses)

"When an upright or narrow form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Pink Dawn' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) M. ' Silver Moon' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 1.1 (1) 0.6 (2) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 1.1 (1) 0.6 (2) ~ M. ' Collinade' 0.0 (0) 7.1 (1) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) -..J M. 'Robinson' 0.0 (0) 7.1 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.1 (1) 0.6 (2) M. ' Cinzarn' (Cinderella®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.1 (1) 0.3 (1) M. 'Purple Prince' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.1 (1) 0.3 (1) M. 'Snowdrift' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Lady Northcliff 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.1 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ' Grandiflorida' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . 'Beverly' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Molazam' (Molten Lava®) 4. 7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Lanzarn' (Lancelot®) 4.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Prof. Sprenger' 4.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 4.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Radiant' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.1 (1) 0.3 (1) M sargentii 4.7 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . 'Adams' 4.7(1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . 'Indian Summer' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . 'Rawhide' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) Table 6 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when an upright or narrow form is needed.

Percentage of responses by regionY (actual number of responses)

"When an upright or narrow form is needed"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'David' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Siberian' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'David White' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) .!>- M. 'Pink Princess' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 00 M. 'Bechtel' 4.7 (1} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.3 (l} n = 21 n= 14 n = 95 n=94 n=90 n= 314 zRespondents were asked to write-in the name of a crabapple selection they would recommend for a specific landscape purpose. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 123. l (P < 0.0001) Table 7. Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when tree size is not an important issue.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"When tree size is not important"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Prairifire' 40.0 (10) 2.5 (1) 29.0 (32) 34.4 (40) 25.0 (27) 27.6 (110) M. 'Snowdrift' 8.0 (2) 0.0 (0) 4.5 (5) 11.2 (13) 12.0 (13) 8.2 (33) M. ' Spring Snow' 0.0 (0) 48.7 (19) 9.0(10) 1. 7 (2) 0.9 (1) 8.0 (32) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 25.4 (28) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 7.0 (28) ~ M. 'Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 2.7 (3) 7.7 (9) 12.0 (13) 6.5 (26) \0 M. 'Donald Wyman' 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.7 (3) 5.1 (6) 7.4 (8) 4.5 (18) M. 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 4.5 (5) 4.3 (5) 4.6 (5) 3.7 (15) M. 'Profusion' 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (2) 7.7 (9) 1.8 (2) 3.5 (14) M. ' Royalty' 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 2.7 (3) 5.1 (6) 2.7 (3) 3.2 (13) M. x zumi 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 4.3 (5) 5.5 (6) 3.2 (13) M. 'Radiant' 0.0 (0) 17.9 (7) 0.9 (1) 0.8 (1) 0.9 (1) 2.5 (10) M. floribunda 12.0 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 1.7 (2) 2.7 (3) 2.2 (9) M. 'Robinson' 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 0.9 (1) 2.5 (3) 3.7 (4) 2.2 (9) M. 'Adams' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 4.5 (5) 1.7 (2) 1.8 (2) 2.2 (9) M. 'Bechtel' 12.0 (3) 10.2 (4) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (8) M. 'Indian Magic' 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 2.7 (3) 1.7 (2) 0.9 (1) 1.7 (7) M. 'Hargozam' (Harvest Gold®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 3.7 (4) 1.2 (5) M. 'Branzam' (Brandywine®) 0.0 (0) 5.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (2) 1.0 (4) M. 'Louisa' 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (2) 0.7 (3) M sargentii 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (2) 0.9 (1) 0.7 (3) M. 'Thunderchild' 0.0 (0) 2.5 (1) 1.8 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (3) Table 7 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when tree size is not an important issue.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"When tree size is not important"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Schmidtcutleaf' (Golden Raindrops®) 4.0 (1) 2.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.7 (3) M. 'Mary Potter' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.5 (2) Vl M. 'Centzarn '(Centurion®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.5 (2) 0 M. 'Selkirk' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.5 (2) M. ' lndian Summer' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (2) 0.5 (2) M. 'Candymint' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M. 'Prairie Maid' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M. ' Strawberry Parfait' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M . 'Madonna' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M . 'Tea' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) M. ' Purple Prince' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M . 'Evereste' 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M . 'Dolgo' 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M . 'Snow White' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Cardinal' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Table 7 (cont.). Crabapple selection most frequently recommended or used by respondents when tree size is not an important issue.

Percentage of responses by regionY (actual number of responses)

"When tree size is not important"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Hopa' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. ' Velvetcole' (Velvet Pillar®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (I) M. 'Prof. Sprenger' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) M. 'Molazam' (Molten Lava®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Ul M. 'David' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) - n = 25 n = 39 n = 110 n = 116 n= 108 n = 398 zRespondents were asked to write-in the name of a crabapple selection they would recommend when tree size is not important. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 241.6 (P = 0.0022) Table 8. The best crabapple for attracting (feeding) birds as identified by respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) 15 .7 (3) 0.0 (0) 7.5 (7) 17.3 (16) 24.6 (20) 14.8 (46) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 39.7 (37) 3.2 (3) 1.2 ( 1) 13.2 (41) M. 'Snowdrift' 10.5 (2) 12.0 (3) 7.5 (7) 7.6 (7) 11.1 (9) 9.0 (28) M. 'Prairifire' 15.7 (3) 8.0 (2) 8.6 (8) 8.6 (8) 8.6 (7) 9.0 (28) Ul M. ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 5.2 (1) 4.0 (1) 4.3 (4) 8.6 (8) 14.8 (12) 8.3 (26) N M. sargentii 21.0 (4) 0.0 (0) 3.2 (3) 8.6 (8) 6.1 (5) 6.4 (20) M. 'Indian Magic' 0.0 (0) 16.0 (4) 7.5 (7) 2.1 (2) 3.7 (3) 5.1 (16) M. x zumi 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 10.8 (10) 3.7 (3) 4.8 (15) M. 'Radiant' 0.0 (0) 28.0 (7) 2.1 (2) 1.0 (1) 1.2 (1) 3.5 (11) M. ' Red Jade' 5.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 1.0 (1) 3.7 (3) 1.9 (6) M. 'Robinson' 0.0 (0) 4.0 (1) 2.1 (2) 2.1 (2) 1.2 (1) 1.9 (6) M. 'Mary Potter' 5.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 4.3 (4) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (5) M. ' Hargozam' (Harvest Gold®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 2.1 (2) 2.4 (2) 1.6 (5) M. ' Adams' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 4.3 (4) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (5) M. ' Donald Wyman' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 2.1 (2) 1.2 (1) 1.6 (5) M. ' David' 0.0 (0) 8.0 (2) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 1.2 (1) 1.6 (5) Table 8 (cont.). The best crabapple for attracting (feeding) birds as identified by respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Dolgo' 5.2 (1) 12.0 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (4) M. 'Profusion' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 3.2 (3) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (4) M. jloribunda 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 2.4 (2) 1.2 (4) M. 'Beverly' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.2 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (3) Vl M . 'Pink Spires' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.2 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (3) l>J M. 'Schrnidtcutleaf (Golden Raindrops®) 5.2 (1) 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) M. 'Molazam' (Molten Lava®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) M. ' White Candle' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) M. 'Royalty' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.6 (2) M . x 'Adirondack' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M . ' Golden Hornet' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M . ' Cardinal' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ' Indian Summer' 5.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Hopa' 5.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Madonna' 0.0 (0) 4.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . ' White Angel ' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Weepcanzam' (Weeping Candied Apple®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ' Firebird' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) Table 8 (cont.). The best crabapple for attracting (feeding) birds as identified by respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. ' Centzam' (Centurion®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ioensis 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Sparkler' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) VI M. 'Ralph Shay' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) .j:>. M. 'Bonfire' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) M. 'Jewelberry' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.3 (1) n = 19 n = 25 n = 93 n = 92 n = 81 n = 310 zRespondents were asked to identify the best crabapple for attracting (feeding) birds in the fall and winter. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 128. l (P = 0.0067) Table 9a. Primary crabapple trait emphasized to retail clients by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Traie West West-central Central East-central East Total

Flower Color 31.0 (9) 52.7(19) 34.7 (40) 29.7 (36) 42.2 (46) 36.5 (150) Disease Resistance 44.8 (13) 13.8 (5) 29.5 (34) 39.6 (48) 33.9 (37) 33.4 (137) Growth Habit 20.6 (6) 13.8 (5) 21.7 (25) 26.4 (32) 19.2 (21) 21.7 (89) Fruit Color/Persistence 0.0 (0) 11.1 (4) 8.6 (10) 3.3 (4) 1.8 (2) 4.8 (20) Vi Environmental Tolerance 3.4 (1) 5.5 (2) 5.2 (6) 0.8 (1) 2.7 (3) 3.1 (13) Ul Food for Wildlife 0.0 (O} 2.7 (1} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.2 (1} n = 29 n = 36 n= 115 n = 121 n = 109 n = 410 zRespondents were asked to identify the crabapple trait they first emphasize to retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 44.8 (P < 0.0001) Table 9b. Second most important crabapple trait emphasized to retail customers by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Flower Color 42.8 (12) 24.3 (9) 27.8 (32) 29. l (35) 31.2 (34) 29.8 (122) Growth Habit 32. l (9) 13 .5 (5) 26.9 (31) 38.3 (46) 27.5 (30) 29.5 (121) Disease Resistance 10.7 (3) 16.2 (6) 18.2(21) 20.0 (24) 19.3 (21) 18.3 (75) Fruit Color/Persistence 7.1 (2) 29.7 (11) 20.0 (23) 9.1(11) 18.3 (20) 16.3 (67) Vl Environmental Tolerance 3.5 (1) 16.2 (6) 4.3 (5) 3.3 (4) 2.7 (3) 4.6 (19) 0\ Food for Wildlife 3.5 (1} 0.0 (O} 2.6 (3} 0.0 (O} 0.9 (1} 1.2 (5} n = 28 n = 37 n = 115 n = 120 n = 109 n = 409 zRespondents were asked to identify the second crabapple trait they emphasize to retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 60.1 (P <.0001 ) Table 9c. Third most important crabapple trait emphasized to retail customers by survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Traif West West-central Central East-central East Total

Fruit Color /Persistence 21.4(6) 18.9 (7) 27.8 (32) 27.5 (33) 25.6 (28) 25.9 (106) Flower Color 25 .0 (7) 21.6 (8) 21.7 (25) 28.3 (34) 19.2 (21) 23.2 (95) Growth Habit 14.2 (4) 24.3 (9) 20.0 (23) 16.6 (20) 24.7 (27) 20.2 (83) VI Disease Resistance 17.8 (5) 18.9 (7) 18.2 (21) 21.6 (26) 18.3 (20) 19.3 (79) -...) Environmental Tolerance 7.1 (2) 8.1 (3) 7.8 (9) 3.3 (4) 5.5 (6) 5.8 (24) Food for Wildlife 14.2 (4) 8.1 (3) 4.3 (5) 2.5 (3) 6.4 (7) 5.3 (22) n = 28 n = 37 n = 115 n = 120 n = 109 n = 409 zRespondents were asked to identify the third crabapple trait they emphasize to retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region= respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 43.4 (P = 0.0088) Table 1Oa . Most important crabapple trait for retai I customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Traif West West-central Central East-central East Total

Flower Color 69.2 (18) 67.6 (23) 80.0 (92) 76.5 (88) 88 .5 (93) 79.4 (314) Growth Habit 15.3 (4) 14.7 (5) 9.5 (11) 9.5 (11) 5.7 (6) 9.3 (37) Disease Resistance 11.5 (3) 0.0 (0) 4.3 (5) 10.4 (12) 2.8 (3) 5.6 (23) Fruit Color/Persistence 3.8 (1) 17.6 (6) 6.0 (7) 3.4 (4) 2.8 (3) 5.3 (21) u. Food For Wildlife 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 00 n = 26 n = 34 n = 115 n = 115 n = 105 n = 395 zRespondents were asked to identify the crabapple trait most important to their retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 41.3 (P < 0.0001) Table 1Ob . Second most important crabapple trait for retail customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Growth Habit 45.8 (11) 30.5 (11) 31 .5 (36) 49.5 (56) 41.5 (42) 40.2 (156) Fruit Color/ Persistence 4.1 (1) 16.6 (6) 36.8 (42) 20.3 (23) 27.7 (28) 25.7 (100) Flower Color 25 .0 (6) 27.7 (10) 13 .1 (15) 14. l (16) 9.9 (10) 14.6 (57) Disease Resistance 20.8 (5) 11.1 (4) 10.5 (12) 11.5 (13) 15.8 (16) 12.8 (50) V> Food for Wildlife 0.0 (0) 5.5 (2) 7.0 (8) 2.6 (3) 3.9 (4) 4.3 (17) \0 Environmental Tolerance 4.1 (1) 8.3 (3) 0.8 (1) 1. 7 (2) 0.9 (1) 2.0 (8) n = 24 n= 36 n = 114 n = 113 n= 101 n=388 zRespondents were asked to identify the second most important crabapple trait to their retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. Table lOc. Third most important crabapple trait for retail customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number of responses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Growth Habit 20.8 (5) 37.1 (13) 30.7 (35) 24.1 (27) 33.0 (33) 29.3 (113) Fruit Color/Persistence 12.5 (3) 25 .7 (9) 28.0 (32) 23.2 (26) 30.0 (30) 25.9 (100) Disease Resistance 29.1 (7) 8.5 (3) 15.7(18) 34.8 (39) 23 .0 (23) 23.3 (90) Food for Wildlife 25 .0 (6) 0.0 (0) 13.1 (15) 8.0 (9) 9.0 (9) 10.1 (39) Environmental Tolerance 8.3 (2) 22.8 (8) 5.2 (6) 1.7 (2) 4.0 (4) 5.7 (22) °'0 Flower Color 4.1 (l} 5.7 (2} 7.0 (8} 8.0 (9} 1.0 (l} 5.4 (21} n = 24 n = 35 n = 114 n = 112 n = 100 n= 385 zRespondents were asked to identify the third most important crabapple trait to their retail customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. Table 1 la. Most important crabapple trait for commercial customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Growth Habit 41.6 (10) 25 .7 (9) 36.0 (36) 33 .3 (39) 27.6 (26) 32.5 (120) Flower Color 29.1 (7) 28.5 (10) 33.0 (33) 23.0 (27) 30.8 (29) 28.7 (106) Disease Resistance 29.1 (7) 8.5 (3) 17.0 (17) 33 .3 (39) 29.7 (28) 25.2 (93) Environmental Tolerance 0.0 (0) 17.1 (6) 6.0 (6) 7.6 (9) 6.3 (6) 7.3 (27) Fruit Color/ Persistence 0.0 (0) 20.0 (7) 8.0 (8) 2.5 (3) 5.3 (5) 6.2 (23) Food For Wildlife 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (O) 0.0 (0) n = 24 n=35 n = lOO n = ll7 n = 94 n = 369 zRespondents were asked to identify the crabapple trait most important to their commercial customers. superintendents, etc.) show the most interest. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pem1sylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 57.1 (P < 0.0001) Table 11 b. Second most important crabapple trait for commercial customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY (actual number ofresponses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

Growth Habit 41.6 (10) 33.3 (12) 25 .2 (25) 37.3 (43) 5 (21) 30.2 (111) Disease Resistance 33.3 (8) 11.1 (4) 28.2 (28) 30.4 (35) 6 (23) 26.7 (98) Flower Color 16.6 (4) 27.7 (10) 15.1 (15) 21.7 (25) 6 (23) 20.9 (77) Fruit Color/ Persistence 4.1 (1) 16.6 (6) 21.1 (21) 3.4 (4) 2 (9) 11.1 (41) Environmental Tolerance 4.1 (1) 11.1 (4) 10.1 (10) 6.9 (8) 4 (17) 10.8 (40) °'N Food For Wildlife 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0 (O} 0.0 (O} n=24 n = 36 n=99 n = 115 n = 93 n = 367 zRespondents were asked to identify the second most important crabapple trait to their commercial customers. YRegions West region= respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region= respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 57.4 (P < 0.0001) Table l lc. Third most important crabapple trait for commercial customers as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Traif West West-central Central East-central East Total

Flower Color 41.6 (10) 25.0 (9) 26.5 (26) 33.0 (38) 27.9 (26) 29.7 (109) Disease Resistance 12.5 (3) 22.2 (8) 17.3 (17) 23.4 (27) 18.2 (17) 19.6 (72) Growth Habit 12.5 (3) 25.0 (9) 20.4 (20) 13.0 (15) 21.5 (20) 18.3 (67) Fruit Color/Persistence 8.3 (2) 19.4 (7) 17.3 (17) 17.3 (20) 18.2 (17) 17.2 (63) 0\ Environmental Tolerance 25.0 (6) 8.3 (3) 16.3 (16) 12.1 (14) 12.9 (12) 13 .9 (51) (.,.) Food for Wildlife 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (2) 0.8 (1) 1.0 (1) 1.0 (4) n = 24 n = 36 n= 98 n= 115 n = 93 n= 366 zRespondents were asked to identify the third most important crabapple trait to their commercial customers. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 30.2 (P = 0.0655) Table 12. Other small flowering trees most frequently recommended to clients by survey respondents as an alternative to crabapples.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY (actual number ofresponses)

Altemativez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Serviceberry 3.3 (1) 2.7 (1) 7.8 (9) 26.4 (32) 20.1 (22) 15.2 (63) Dogwood 23.3 (7) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (4) 19.0 (23) 24.7 (27) 14.8 (61) Flowering Cherry 20.0 (6) 8.3 (3) 5.2 (6) 17.3 (21) 17.4 (19) 13.3 (55) Hawthorn 0.0 (0) 27.7 (10) 18.2 (21) 9.0 (11) 7.3 (8) 12.1 (50) °' Flowering Pear 6.6 (2) 30.5 (11) 7.8 (9) 8.2 (10) 11.9 (13) 10.9 (45) """ Redbud 0.0 (0) 5.5 (2) 13.0 (15) 9.9 (12) 1.8 (2) 7.5 (31) Japanese Tree Lilac 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 23.4 (27) 1.6 (2) 0.9 (1) 7.2 (30) Flowering Plum 16.6 (5) 25.0 (9) 6.0 (7) 2.4 (3) 3.6 (4) 6.7 (28) Magnolia 6.6 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 1.6 (2) 4.5 (5) 2.4 (10) Mountain Ash 3.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (4) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.4 (6) Lilac 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (4) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (2) 1.4 (6) Hydrangea (Tree) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (4) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (5) Japanese Snowbell 16.6 (5) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (5) Fringetree 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.8 (1) 0.9 (1) 0.7 (3) Peashrub 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 1.8 (2) 0.7 (3) Table 12 (cont.). Other small flowering trees most frequently recommended to clients by survey respondents as an alternative to_crabapples.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Altemativez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Peach 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Almond 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) Mountain Stewartia 3.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Summersweet Clethra 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) °'Vl Viburnum 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Amur Maple 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Japanese Maple 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.2 (1) Katsura 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.9 (1} 0.2 (l} n= 30 n = 36 n = 115 n = 121 n = 109 n = 412 zRespondents were asked to list the small :flowering tree they most frequently recommend to clients who oppose the use of crabapples. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 191.4 (P < 0.0001) Table 13. Perceived popularity of fruitless crabapples with all clients of survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

"Are fruitless crabapples popular"z West West-central Central East-central East Total

Yes 59.2 (16) 97.4 (38) 78.1 (93) 50.4 (61) 41.1 (42) 61.2 (250) No 40.7 (11) 2.5 (1) 21.8 (26) 49.5 (60) 58.8 (60) 38.7 (158) n = 27 n = 39 n = 119 n = 121 n = 102 n=408 zRespondents were asked for their perceptions of fruitless crabapple popularity with all clients. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 97.9 (P < 0.0001) Table 14. Fruitless crabapple selection most popular with retail and commercial clients as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Spring Snow' 37.5 (3) 97.3 (37) 95.0 (96) 88.8 (72) 85.7 (48) 90.1 (256) M. 'Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.4 (2) l.7 (1) 1.0 (3) M. 'Prairifire' 12.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.4 (2) 0.0 (0) 1.0 (3) M. 'American Beauty' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.5 (2) 0.7 (2) 0\ M. 'Royalty' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (1) 0.7 (2) -..J M. floribunda 12.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (1) 0.7 (2) M. 'Profusion' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.4 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (2) M. 'Prince Georges' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Almey' 0.0 (0) 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Lollipop' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Snow White Spring' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. tschonoskii 12.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. ' Weepcanzam' (Weeping Candied Apple®) 12.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) Table 14 (cont.). Fruitless crabapple selection most popular with retail and commercial clients as perceived by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. sargentii ' Tina' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M. 'Velvetcole' (Velvet Pillar®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (1) 0.3 (1) M . 'Amaszam' 0\ (American Masterpiece®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 00 M . ' Snowdrift' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) M . 'Royal Ruby' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (1) 0.3 (1) M. ' White Candle' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1 ) M. ' Bechtel' 12.5 (1} 0.0 (0) 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.0 (O} 0.3 (1) n = 8 n = 38 n = 101 n = 81 n = 56 n = 284 zRespondents were asked to identify the fruitless crabapple selection most popular with all their clients regardless of overall popularity. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, [ndiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 101.6 (P < 0.0001) Table 15. Survey respondents answer to the question, "Are crabapples considered to be a short-lived landscape plants?"

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Responsez West West-central Central East-central East Total

No 93 .7 (30) 92.3 (36) 86.5 (103) 88.8 (112) 86.3 (95) 88.2 (376) Yes 6.2 (2) 7.6 (3) 13.4 (16) 11.1 (14) 13.6 (15) 11.7 (50) n = 32 n = 39 n = 119 n = 126 n = 110 n = 426 zRespondents were asked if they thought crabapples were short-lived landscape plants. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 26.0 (P = 0.0010) Table 16. Survey respondents expectations about the number of years a crabapple should live if planted on an ideal site.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number of responses)

West West-central Central East-central East Total

1 - 15 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.4 (3) 2.1 (3) 0.8 (1) 1.5 (7) 16 - 30 42.4 (14) 20.0 (8) 42.6 (52) 44.3 (63) 46.4 (53) 42. l (190) 31 - 40 30.3 (10) 35.0 (14) 35.2 (43) 28.1 (40) 32.4 (37) 31.9 (144) 41 - 50 12. l (4) 30.0 (12) 12.2 (15) 9.1 (13) 9.6 (11) 12. l (55) -..J > 50 15.1 (5) 15.0 (6) 7.3 (9) 16.1 (23) 10.5 (12) 12.1 (55) 0 n = 33 n = 40 n = 122 n = 142 n = 114 n = 451 zRespondents were asked to estimate the number of years a crabapple tree should live if planted on an ideal site. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 54.6 (P < 0.0001) Table 17. Respondents' answer to the request, "Have there been crabapple selections dropped from inventory or discontinued during the last ten years?"

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Responsez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Yes 51.0 (25) 48.8 (22) 58.1 (71) 68.0 (100) 57.9 (73) 59.5 (291) No 48.9 (24) 51.1 (23) 41.8(51) 31.9 (47) 42.0 (53) 40.4 (198) n = 49 n = 45 n= 122 n = 147 n= 126 n=489 zRespondents were asked if they had discontinued or dropped crabapple selections from their inventory during the last ten years. YRegions West region= respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 10.6 (P = 0.2211) Table 18. Crabapples eliminated from respondents' product line since 1991 .

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Radiant' 5.2 (2) 2.8 (1) 18.1 (29) 9.3 (20) 11.9 (19) 11.7 (71) M. 'Royalty' 2.6 (1) 5.7 (2) 7.5 (12) 12.1 (26) 6.9(11) 8.5 (52) M. 'Hopa' 2.6 (1) 31.4(11) 8.7 (14) 3.7 (8) 5.6 (9) 7.0 (43) M. ' Indian Magic' 2.6 (1) 8.5 (3) 7.5 (12) 6.0 (13) 6.9 (11) 6.6 (40) -...) M. ' Snowdrift' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 4.3 (7) 8.8 (19) 5.0 (8) 5.7 (35) N M . 'Profusion' 7.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (3) 7.9 (17) 3.1 (5) 4.6 (28) M. 'Bechtel' 7.8 (3) 22.8 (8) 0.6 (1) 3.2 (7) 3.7 (6) 3.3 (25) M. 'Red Jade' 7.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (2) 3.2 (7) 5.0 (8) 9.9 (20) M. 'Indian Summer' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 3.1 (5) 3.7 (8) 2.5 (4) 2.9 (18) M. 'Dolgo' 5.2 (2) 5.7 (2) 1.2 (2) 3.2 (7) 3.1 (5) 2.9 (18) M. 'Branzam' (Brandywine®) 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (4) 2.3 (5) 5.0 (8) 2.9 (18) M. x zumi 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (3) 2.8 (6) 4.4 (7) 2.6 (16) M. 'Thunderchild' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 7.5 (12) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (13) M. floribunda 15.7 (6) 2.8 (1) 1.2 (2) 1.4 (3) 0.6 (1) 2.1 (13) M. 'Centzam' (Centurion®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (4) 1.8 (4) 2.5 (4) 1.9 (1 2) M. 'Robinson' 2. 6 (1) 2.8 (1) 1.8 (3) 0.9 (2) 3. 1 (5) 1.9 (1 2) M. 'Weepcanzam' (Weeping Candied Apple®) 7.8 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 5.6 (4) 1.8 (3) 1.8 ( 11 ) M. ' Velvetcole' (Velvet Pillar®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (4) 3.7 (6) 1.6 ( 10) M . ' Red Barron' 5.2 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 1.8 (4) 0.6 (1) 1.3 (8) M. sargentii 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 3.7 (6) 0.4 (1 ) 0.0 (0) 1.3 (8) Table 18 (cont.). Crabapples eliminated from respondents' product line since 1991.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Pink Spires' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.7 (6) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 3.9 (8) M. ' Vangaurd' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 2.5 (4) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 1. 1 (7) M . ' Selkirk' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 1.4 (3) 1.2 (2) 0.9 (6) M. 'Almey' 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 2.5 (4) 0.9 (6) -..J M. 'Van Eseltine' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 1.8 (4) 0.6 (1) 0.9 (6) l;.) M. 'Red Splendor' 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 1.8 (3) 0.9 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.9 (6) M . 'Ectermeyer' 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (4) 0.6 (1) 0.9 (6) M. ' Spring Snow' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 1.4 (3) 0.6 (1) 0.8 (5) M . 'Eleyi' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.9 (2) 1.2 (2) 0.8 (5) M. 'Lizet' 5.2 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 0.8 (5) M. 'Cascole' (White Cascade®) 0.0 (0) 2.8 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.4 (3) 0.6 (1) 0.8 (5) M. ' Sutyzam' (Sugar Tyme®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.9 (2) 1.2 (2) 0.8 (5) M. ' Adams' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (4) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (4) M. 'David' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.4 (3) 0.6 (1) 0.6 (4) M. 'Kelsey' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (4) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (4) M. 'Hargozam' (Harvest Gold®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.9 (2) 0.6 (1) 0.6 (4) M. ' Sparkler' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (3) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (4) M. ' Coralcole' (Coralburst®) 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (3) M. 'Flame' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.4 (3) M . 'Prairifire' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (2) M. ' Silver Moon' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 0.3 (2) Table 18 (cont.) . Crabapples eliminated from respondents' product line since 1991.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY (actual number ofresponses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. 'Candymint' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 0.3 (2) M tschonoskii 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (2) M. 'Bob White' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (2) 0.3 (2) M. ' White Angel' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (2) 0.3 (2) M. 'Mary Potter' 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (2) ..-.J M. 'Madonna' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 0.3 (2) M. 'Dorothea' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Jewelberry' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Cardinal' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. ' Beverly' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (l) M. 'Royal Ruby' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. ' Snow Magic' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. ' Pink Perfection' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Jewelcole' (Red Jewel®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'American Beauty' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Donald Wyman' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Pink Princess' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Doubloons' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Red Silver' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Louisa' 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) Table 18 (cont.). Crabapples eliminated from respondents' product line since 1991.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Selectionz West West-central Central East-central East Total

M. spectabilis 'Alba Plena' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Barbara Ann' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Snow Cloud' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. 'Purple Prince' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) -...) M. 'Naragansett' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) U1 M. 'Amaszam' (American Masterpiece®) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) M. 'Charlotte' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. x 'Adirondack' 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 0.1 (1) M. ' Strawberry Parfait' 2.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) n = 38 n = 35 n = 160 n= 214 n = 159 n = 606 zRespondents were asked to identify up to three crabapple selections that had been dropped from their inventory during the past ten years. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region= respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x.,2 (Chi-square) 30.7 (P = 0.3266) Table l 9a. Respondents' primary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections.

Percentage of responses by regionY (actual number of responses)

Reasonz West West-central Central East-central East Total

Disease Problems 65.8 (27) 39.3 (13) 73 .7 (76) 82.4 (108) 68.4 (78) 71.5 (302) Lack of Demand 12. l (5) 21.2 (7) 9.7 (10) 5.3 (7) 11.4 (13) 9.9 (42) Messy Fruit 2.4 (1) 27.2 (9) 7. 7 (8) 1.5 (2) 3.5 (4) 5.6 (24) Otherx 7.3 (3) 6.0 (2) 1.9 (2) 3.8 (5) 6.1 (7) 4.5 (19) -..J Slow Growth/Poor Form 9.7 (4) 6.0 (2) 3.8 (4) 3.0 (4) 2.6 (3) 4.0 (17) °' Sucker/Watersprouts 2.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 3.0 (4) 7.0 (8) 3.0 (13) Poor Flowering 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.9 (3) 0.7 (1) 0.8 (1) 1.1 (5) n = 41 n = 33 n = l03 n = l31 n = ll4 n = 422 zRespondents were asked to identify the primary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xSurvey respondents noted lack of hardiness, flower color, poor acclimation, and insect problems as "other" reasons a selection had been dropped. 2 x (Chi-square) 51.9 (P = 0.0003) Table 19b. Respondents' secondary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Responsez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Messy Fruit 9.0 (3) 22.2 (6) 31.1 (29) 33.9 (37) 24.7 (24) 27.5 (99) Lack of Customer Demand 27.2 (9) 25 .9 (7) 17.2 (16) 18.3 (20) 20.6 (20) 20.0 (72) Unsightly Suckering 21.2 (7) 7.4 (2) 15.0 (14) 8.2 (9) 29.8 (29) 16.9 (61) Disease Problems 12.1 (4) 29.6 (8) 16.1 (15) 15.5 (17) 9.2 (9) 14.7 (53) -...J Slow Growth/Poor Form 18.1(6) 7.4 (2) 10.7 (10) 13.7 (15) 8.2 (8) 11.4 (41) -...J Poor Flowering 12.1 (4) 3.7 (1) 5.3 (5) 9.1 (10) 5.1 (5) 6.9 (25) Otherx 0.0 (O} 3.7 (1} 4.3 (4) 0.9 (l} 2.0 (2} 2.2 (8} n = 33 n=27 n=93 n = 109 n=97 n = 359 zRespondents were asked to identify the secondary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region= respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xSurvey respondents noted lack of hardiness, flower color, poor acclimation, and insect problems as "other" reasons a selection had been dropped. 2 x (Chi-square) 41.8 (P = 0.0133) Table 19c. Respondents' tertiary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Responsez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Lack of Customer Demand 20.6 (6) 34.7 (8) 28.5 (24) 29.9 (32) 13 .7 (12) 24.8 (82) Unsightly Suckering 27.5 (8) 4.3 (1) 19.0 (16) 28.9 (31) 17.2(15) 21.5 (71) Messy Fruit 13 .7 (4) 26.0 (6) 14.2 (12) 13.0 (14) 20.6(18) 16.3 (54) Slow Growth/ Poor Form 10.3 (3) 21.7(5) 13 .0(11) 15.8 (17) 19.5(17) 16.0 (53) -..J Poor Flowering 10.3 (3) 0.0 (0) 13.0 (11) 8.4 (9) 18.3 (16) 11.8 (39) 00 Disease Problems 13.7 (4) 13.0 (3) 3.5 (3) 1.8 (2) 5.7 (5) 5.1 (17) Otherx 3.4 (1) 0.0 (0) 8.3 (7) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (4) 4.2 (14) n = 29 n=23 n = 84 n = 107 n= 87 n= 330 zRespondents were asked to identify the tertiary reason influencing their decision to discontinue certain crabapple selections. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xSurvey respondents noted lack of hardiness, flower color, poor acclimation, and insect problems as "other" reasons a selection had been dropped. 2 x (Chi-square) 37.8 (P = 0.0093) Table 20. Features the "perfect" crabapple would posses according to survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Features2 West West-central Central East-central East Total

Disease Resistance 28.5 (26) 14.5 (18) 19.3(62) 25.5 (98) 23.2 (74) 22.4 (278) Flowers 24.1 (22) 25.8 (32) 18 .7(60) 20.1 (77) 18.5 (59) 20.2 (250) Fruit 15.3 (14) 9.6 (12) 17.5 (56) 16.1 (62) 16.3 (52) 15.8 (196) Form 9.8 (9) 7.2 (9) 10.0 (32) 8.6 (33) 7.8 (25) 8.3 (108) -...) Size 3.2 (3) 12.9 (16) 5.9 (19) 7.8 (30) 6.9 (22) 7.2 (90) 'Cl Suckers 3.2 (3) 0.8 (1) 4.0 (13) 5.4 (21) 11 .3 (36) 5.9 (74) Fruitless 3.2 (3) 21.7 (27) 6.2 (20) 2.3 (9) 2.2 (7) 5.3 (66) Leaves 7.6 (7) 2.4 (3) 5.6 (18) 4.6(18) 4.7 (15) 4.9 (61) Flowering Time 2.1 (2) 0.8 (1) 5.0 (16) 2.8 (11) 4.7(15) 3.6 (45) Fall Color 1.0 (1) 4.0 (5) 2.8 (9) 2.6 (10) 0.6 (2) 2.1 (27) Branching 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (4) 0.7 (3) 0.9 (3) 0.8 (10) Insect Resistance 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.7 (3) 0.6 (2) 0.4 (6) Fragrance 1.0 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.5 (2) 0.3 (1) 0.4 (5) Table 20 (cont.). Features the "perfect" crabapple would posses according to survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Featuresz West West-central Central East-central East Total

Cold Hardiness 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (4) 0.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (5) Fast Growth 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.7 (3) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (4) Bark 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.2 (3) Larger Flowers 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (2) 0.1 (2) 00 Evergreen 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) 0 No Pruning 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) Clump Form 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) Earlier Flowering 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.1 (1) Life Span 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (1) Drought Resistance 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (1) 0.1 (1) n = 91 n= 124 n = 320 11=383 n = 318 n = 1236 zRespondents were asked to identify up to three features that the "perfect' crabapple would possess. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. x2 (Chi-square) 141.3 (P = 0.0052) Table 21 a. Most prevalent disease on crabapples as identified by survey respondents.

Percentage ofresponses by regionY(actual number ofresponses)

Diseasez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Apple Scab 77.5 (31) 4.7 (2) 60.8 (73) 78.3 (112) 81.7 (94) 67.8 (312) Fire Blight 15.0 (6) 80.9 (34) 15.8 (19) 11.1 (16) 6.0 (7) 17.8 (82) Cedar Apple Rust 0.0 (0) 4.7 (2) 19. l (23) 8.3 (12) 5.2 (6) 9.3 (43) Frog Eye Leaf Spot 0.0 (0) 2.3 (1) 2.5 (3) 2.0 (3) 5.2 (6) 2.8 (13) Otherx 7.5 (3} 7.1 (3} 1.6 (2} 0.0 (O} 1.7 (2} 2.1 (IO} 00 n = 40 n = 42 n = 120 n= 143 n = 115 n = 460 zRespondents were asked to select the disease found most frequently on crabapples in their region. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xPowdery mildew was another disease that was noted in the "other" category by survey respondents. x2 (Chi-square) 176.8 (P < 0.0001) Table 21 b. Second most prevalent disease on crabapples as identified by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Diseasez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Cedar Apple Rust 31.0 (9) 56.6 (17) 40.5 (47) 38.5 (54) 31.4 (34) 38.0 (161) Fire Blight 34.4 (10) 6.6 (2) 27.5 (32) 32. l (45) 37.0 (40) 30.4 (129) Apple Scab 6.8 (2) 33.3 (10) 25.0 (29) 17.8 (25) 12.0 (13) 18.6 (79) Frog Eye Leaf Spot 0.0 (0) 3.3 (1) 4.3 (5) 8.5 (12) 17.5(19) 8.7 (37) 00 Otherx 27.5 (8) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (3) 2.8 (4) 1.8 (2) 4.0 (17) N n = 29 n = 30 n = 116 n = 140 n = 108 n = 423 zRespondents were asked to select the disease found the second most frequent on crabapples in their region. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xPowdery mildew was another disease that was noted in the "other" category by survey respondents. x2 (Chi-square) 100.5 (P < 0.0001) Table 21 c. Third most prevalent disease on crabapples as identified by survey respondents.

Percentage of responses by regionY(actual number of responses)

Diseasez West West-central Central East-central East Total

Fire Blight 26.3 (5) 4.3 (1) 40.0 (42) 44.4 (56) 39.0 (39) 38.3 (143) Cedar Apple Rust 47.3 (9) 17.3 (4) 30.4 (32) 34.9 (44) 40.0 (40) 34.5 (129) Frog Eye Leaf Spot 5.2 (1) 21.7 (5) 16.1 (17) 13.4 (17) 13.0 (13) 14.2 (53) Apple Scab 0.0 (0) 52.1 (12) 11.4 (12) 4.7 (6) 5.0 (5) 9.3 (35) Otherx 21.0 (4) 4.3 (1) 1.9 (2) 2.3 (3) 3.0 (3) 3.4 (13) ..,.,00 n = 19 n = 23 n= 105 n = 126 n = 100 n =373 zRespondents were asked to select the disease found third most frequent on crabapples in their region. YRegions West region = respondents from Oregon and Washington. West-central region = respondents from Colorado and Utah. Central region = respondents from Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. East-central region = respondents from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. East region = respondents from Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. xPowdery mildew was another disease that was noted in the "other" category by survey respondents. x2 (Chi-square) 116.4 (P < 0.0001) 84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The culmination of my project would simply not be possible without the help and guidance of many. I regret that I can only acknowledge a few below. I thank Dr. Jeff Iles, my major professor, mentor, and a man that leads by example in everything that he does. He is a huge asset to the horticulture department and the horticulture industry in Iowa. I also thank the members of my graduate committee: Drs. Bill Graves, Kathleen Delate, and Paul Wray. Their input, time, and encouragement spent on my project are greatly appreciated. Special thanks go to Dr. Cindy Haynes for her help, motivation, and encouragement throughout my project, especially for those times this whole thing looked too impossible to complete. I could not have asked for a better colleague and friend. The department of horticulture faculty, staff and students are fortunate to have her at Iowa State. In addition, I wish to thank Richard Jauron and Donald Lewis for their understanding, willingness to answer questions, and take on extra duties when I was involved with my project. I also thank Carol LaFaver, Craig Dilley, and Sarah Gross for their help with SAS, proofreading, and tabulation of data. I thank my parents, Jim and Judy Romer for their support, understanding, interest, and flexibility over the past years. Without their love of horticulture that they instilled in me, who knows what I would have been. Most of all, I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for strength, guidance, wisdom, and eternal life. May He bless you and the United States of America.