![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Text | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbt
Flo3&,.,. SFL "'Z AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER IFAS, University of Florida Immokalee, Florida STAKED TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS -- FALL 1982 Paul H. Everett and Karen A. Armbresterl Inrokalee ARC Research Report 1I233-2 August, 1933 A replicated trial was conducted at the Agricultural Research Center, Irmokalee, Florida, during the fall season (Aug. -- Dec) of 1982 to evaluate the performance of nineteen tomato cultivars and/or breeding lines. The following table is a list of entries and seed sources used in this trial. Table 1. List of entries and seed sources Cultivar or bridA4vi 14 -n Seed Source *Sunny 327024-I11 *Castlehy 1035 *Hayslip *FTE 12 *FTE 20 827025-S3K M * *Burgis U AVX 3384 D76127 *Duke *Corda. . *Count II 1060 '27068 '132 327015-IBKT UF-A2868 *Flora-Dade *Cultivars commercially available Asgrow Seed Company IFAS Dreeders Seed A.L. Castle, Inc. IFAS Foundation Seed Petoseed Company \ Petoseed Company S IFAS "reeders Seed IFAS Foundation Seed L U \Agrigenetics IFAS Breeders Seed Fo\' Petoseed Company i..- Sluis & Groot .--,.- Petoseed Company A.L. Castle, Inc. IFAS Breeders Seed Sluis & Groot IFAS Breeders Seed IFAS breeders Seed IFAS Foundation Seed EXPERE;NLTAL PROCEDURE All entries were seeded into styrofoam trays (173 inch square cells) on August 20, 1932, and were transplanted to field plots on September 9, 1982. Field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each plot consisted of 10 plants spaced 15 inches apart on raised plant beds spaced 6 feet on centers. Plant beds were irrigated with 1Professor and Biologist, respectively, IFAS, University of Florida, Agricultural Research Center, Immokalee, FL 33934. Seed Sourc an open ditch seep system with lateral ditches spaced 41.5 feet apart. With this arrangement there were 5 plant beds between lateral ditches. Reported yields are based on 7260 linear bed feet per acre. All plots were fertilized with 5-8-3-1.2 + micronutrients at 7 lb/100 linear bed feet. This was spread in a 30 inch band on a prebed and then bedded over to a depth of 3-4 inches. In addition to the 5-8-3-1.2 fertilizer, all plots were fertilized with 19-0-30 at 14 lb/130 linear bed feet applied on the surface of the finished bed in a narrow band 10 inches to each side of the plant ro-. The finished bed was then mulched with white plastic film. Plants were staked. Fungicides were applied on a 5-7 day schedule and insecticides were applied on a need basis. Insects were not a serious problem in this test, but bacterial leaf spot disease was moderately severe from mid-season through harvesting. Fruit were harvested on December 7 and on December 16, 1932. At each harvest, fruit were sized, counted, weighed and graded into marketable or cull fruit. The general weather conditions during this trial are given in Table 2. Table 2. Weather conditions for the season TemperatureF? Rainfall Ionth Avg. max Avg. min. (inches) Sept. 89 72 6.14 Oct. 84 67 4.86 Jov. 82 62 0.58 Dec. (1-16) 31 62 3.12 RESULTS AlO DISCUSSION There were statistically significant difference among the entries in marketable yield and average fruit weight (Table 3). Ularketable yields (total for the two harvests) ranged from a high of 3587 25 lb boxes/A for 'Sunny' to a low of 2096 25 lb boxes/A for 'Flora-Dade'. Statistically, there were no significant differences in yield among the first 13 entries. 'Sunny' produced significantly higher yields than 6 entries and the breeding line 327024-I11 had yields that were significantly better than 5 entries. Yields from 'Castlehy 1035' and 'Hayslip' were significantly better than the 3 lowest yielding entries. Average weight of fruit for the first harvest (Table 3) ranged from 7.2 oz/ fruit for 'iayslip' to 4.9 oz/fruit for UF-A2368. 'Hayslip' ranked significantly larger in size than five entries. 'Duke' and 'Castlehy 1035' ranged second in size and were significantly larger than four of the remaining entries. For the second harvest, fruit weights ranged from 4.9 oz/fruit for 827063 to 3.0 oz/fruit for UF-A2368. 327063 was significantly larger than fifteen entries, and 'Duke' retaining its rank as second largest in size, was significantly larger than three of the entries. LU-A2863 had the lowest (3.6%) percentage of cull fruit and E132 had the highest (29.3%) (Table 3). Three of the 19 entries had cull percentages in the 0-5% range, 11 entries were in the 5-10% range, 3 entries were in the 10-15% range, 1 entry was in the 15-20% range and 1 entry had more than 20% culls. Categories of cull fruit, by harvest, are shown in Table 4. Large and/or leaky blossom-end scars were responsible for most of the cull fruit in both the first and second harvests. Graywall was most severe on 'Corda' and E132 and puff was most severe on B132. Cracking, odd shape and zipper scars -3- were not a serious problem. Other categories such as decay, fleck, etc. accounted for some culls, but these were minor. Table 5 shows the percent (by weight) of the total marketable fruit in each of four size categories. 'Hayslip' (79.3%) had the highest percentage large plus extra large fruit followed closely by 'Duke' (79.0%), 327068 (78.5%), 'Sunny' (77.3%), and 'FTE 12' (76.6%). Table 3. marketable yields, average fruit weight, percent cull fruit, and relative maturity for 19 tomato cultivars or breeding lines. Cultivar or Hkt. lIkt. Av. fr. wt. Relative breeding line yield1 yield2 1st Har. 2nd IEar. culls maturity3 --25 lb boxes--- -----oz/fruit---- % Sunny 3537a4 494 6.9a-c 4.2b-e 4.9 --- 827024-11 3269a-b 450 G.7a-c 4.3b-e 11.3 equal Castlehy 1035 3180a-c 433 7.1a-b 4.3b-e 4.9 equal Hayslip 3176a-c 437 7.2a 4.4b-d 6.5 later FTE 12 3067a-d 422 6.7a--c 4.5a-c 9.4 equal F E 23 2051a--d 393 6.4a-d 4.5a-c 7.2 equal 327025-SBK 2783a-d 333 6.3a-c 4.4b-d 8.0 later Burgis 2733a-d 333 6.6a-d 4.4b~d 6.1 later AV[ 3334 2781a-cd 383 6.2c-d 4.2b-e 6.4 earlier D76127 2697a-d 372 6.6a-d 4.3b-e 10.3 later Duke 2523a-d 362 7.1a-b 4.6a-b 9.5 later Corda 2609a-d 359 5.Sd-e 3.9d-e 19.9 earlier** Count II 2590a-d 357 G.5a-d 4.4b-d 5.2 equal 1300 2483b-d 343 6.5a-d 4.2b-e 5.9 equal 327033 2235c-d 308 7.0a-c 4.9a 8.3 later* E132 2158c-d 297 5.4e-f 4.1c-e 29.3 earlier 327015-IBK 2123d 292 6.6a-d 4.3b--d 12.9 later UF-A2868 2112d 291 4.9f 3.8e 3.6 later Flora-Dade 2096d 289 6.4b-d 4.3b-e 6.1 later LSO 5% 364 119 0.7 0.4 1Yield per acre based on 7260 linear bed feet/acre 2Yield per 1000 linear bed feet 3Based on % fruit showing color at first harvest as compared to 'Sunny' 4lean separation by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level. *Latest in trial **Earliest in trial Table 4. Percent cull fruit in six categories at each harvest Cultivar or 1st harvest 2nd harvest breeding line CR1 BES4 GW3 OS ZS" PUFF6 CR BES GW OS ZS PUFF ----.--------% of total number of fruit/harvest------------ Sunny 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 327024-I1 0.9 9.9 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.2 2.7 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 Castlehy 1035 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 Hayslip 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 FTE 12 0.0 3.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.4 0.0 :0.2 FTE 20 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 827025-SBK 0.3 5.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 Burgis 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 AVX 3334 0.2 1.1 3.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 076127 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 Duke 0.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 3.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.4 Corda 0.1 2.9 14.3 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.0 3.1 6.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 Count II 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1050 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.3 9.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 327063 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 E132 0.1 1.3 16.1 1.1 0.1 12.5 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 327015-IUK 0.2 11.1 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 UF-A236C 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.0 3.4 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.0 Flora-Dade 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1Cracks (radial 2blossom-end-scw 3Gray wall 4Odd shape 5Zipper scars 60pen locules and concentric) -5- Table 5. Percent marketable fruit in each of four size categories. Cultivar or Size category' breeding line Small Uedium Large X-Large (Large + X-Large) ----- ---------------------% -- ------------------ --- -- ----- Sunny 2.8 20.0 35.1 42.2 77.3 327024--11 3.7 22.6 36.6 37.2 73.3 Castlehy 1035 3.6 23.5 31.8 41.1 72.9 Iiayslip 1.3 18.9 33.9 45.4 79.3 FiE 12 2.2 21.2 37.9 38.7 76.6 FTE 20 3.0 25.1 40.6 31.3 71.9 327025-SBK 4.5 21.4 37.7 36.4 74.1 Burgis 3.9 26.6 33.4 31.1 69.5 AVX 3334 4.1 28.9 40.1 27.0 67.1 D76127 5.1 24.7 40.8 29.5 70.3 Duke 2.1 18.9 33.7 45.3 79.0 Corda 9.0 30.3 34.4 26.4 60.3 Count II 4.3 25.8 39.3 30.6 69.9 1360 5.0 31.9 35.9 27.3 63.2 C273J3 1.0 20.4 39.9 33.6 73.5 E132 11.5 33.9 31.0 23.6 54.6 327315-IBK 3.6 26.7 39.0 30.3 69.3 UF-A2868 17.2 40.1 35.9 6.3 42.7 Flora-Dade 4.5 34.9 34.4 26.1 60.5 LSD 5% 9.6 1Small 7 x 7 1iedium 6 x 7 Large 6 x 6 X-Large 5 x 6 and larger HISTORIC NOTE The publications in this collection do not reflect current scientific knowledge or recommendations. These texts represent the historic publishing record of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences and should be used only to trace the historic work of the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS research may be found on the Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) site maintained by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University of Florida |