![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Text | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
S P-L AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER g-_, IFAS, University of Florida Immokalee, Florida STAKED TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS FALL 198 Paul H. Everett and Karen A. Armbrester1 U E LIBRARY Immokalee AREC Research Report IMM84-2 4aioh,j93l 4 A replicated trial was conducted at the Agricultural Rese .h/ ati o Center, Immokalee, Florida, during the fall season (August-Dec q.brorida evaluate the performance of twenty tomato cultivars and/or breeding lines. Tab e 1 is a list of entries and seed sources used in this trial. Hereafter, breeding lines from BradentonGCREC and Homestead-TREC will be identified by the first numerical sequence only. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE All entries were seeded in ToddR planter trays #150 (1.5 inch cell size) on August 8, 1983, and were transplanted to field plots on September 2, 1983. Field plots were arranged in randomized complete blocks with four replications of each entry. Each plot consisted of 10 plants spaced 15 inches apart in the row on raised plant beds spaced 6 feet on centers. Plant beds were irrigated with an open ditch seep system with lateral ditches spaced 41.5 feet apart. There were 5 plant beds between lateral ditches. All plots were fertilized with 6.1 lb of triple superphosphate (45% P205)/100 linear bed feet applied on the flat in a 5 foot swathe to coincide with the plant beds, 7 lb of 5-8-8-1.2 + micronutrients/100 linear bed feet applied in a 30 inch wide band on a pre-bed and bedded over to a depth of 3-4 inches, and 14 Ib of 19-0-30/100 linear bed feet applied on the sur- face of the finished bed in a narrow band 10 inches to each side of the plant row. The plant beds were fumigated with VorlexR at 21 ounces/100 linear bed feet and then mulched with white plastic film. Plants were staked but not pruned. Fung- icides were applied on a 5-7 day schedule and insecticides were applied on a need basis. General weather conditions during this trial are shown in Table 2. Insects were not a serious problem but early blight disease became moderately severe between the first and second harvests. Tomatoes were harvested on November 30 and on December 13, 1983. At each harvest fruit were graded, sized, counted and weighed. Per acre yields in this report are based on 7,260 linear feet of plant bed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION There were significant differences among the entries in marketable yield and average fruit weight (Table 3). Marketable yields (total of the two harvests) ranged from a high of 4100 25 lb boxes/A for PSR 46480 to a low of 2476 25 lb boxes/A for D79000. PSR 46480 produced significantly higher yields than 9 entries and 'Hayslip', closely followed by PSR 74180, had yields that were significantly higher than 7 entries. Yields from 'FTE 12' were significantly better than the 4 lowest yielding entries. Average weight of fruit for the first harvest (Table 3) ranged from 8.3 oz for 7065 to 5.3 oz for D79000. Entries 7065 and 7060 ranked significantly larger in size than all other entries. Entry 7057 and 'Duke' ranked third and fourth, iProfessor and Biologist, respectively, IFAS, University of Florida Agricultural Research Center, Immokalee, FL 33934 -2- respectively, in size and were significantly larger than eight of the remaining entries. D79000 was significantly smaller than all other entries. For the second harvest fruit weights ranged from 5.4 oz for 7065 to 4.1 oz for D79000. Entry 7065 was significantly larger than 15 entries, and 7060 retained its rank as second largest in size and was significantly larger than 14 of the entries." Entry 803148 had the lowest percentage (2.1%) of cull fruit and D79000 had the highest (15.0%) (Table 3). Five of the 20 entries had cull percentages in the 0-5% range, 11 entries were in the 5-10% range, and 4 entries were in the 10-15% range. Categories of cull fruit, by harvest, are shown in Table 4. Radial cracking (CR) at the stem end was responsible for the highest percentage of cull fruit in both the first and second harvests. 'Atlantic City' had the highest percentage of cracking in both harvests followed by AVX 8384 and E423. Leaky blossom-end- scars (BES) were responsible for some cull fruit in the first harvest, but was of minor importance in the second harvest. Oddshape, zipper scars, cat facing and speck accounted for some culls but were not a serious problem. Other categories such as decay and scarring accounted for a considerable number of fruit in both harvests. Table 5 shows the percent (by weight) of the total marketable fruit in each of four size categories. Entry 7065 (94.3%) had the highest percentage large plus extra large fruit followed by 7060 (93.3%), PSR 74180 (91.3%), 'FTE 12' (9.8%) and 'Atlantic City' (88.7%). Table 1. List of entries and seed sources Cultivar or breeding line PSR 46480 *Hayslip PSR 74180 *FTE 12 *Sunny 7065-TBK-ESBK AVX 8384 803148-SpBK-DSpBK-DSpBK XPH 724 7025-ESBK-1-SBK *Duke *E423 ('Pirate') 7067-T1-E1 *Walter PF 7093-El *Atlantic City 7060-ESBK-T1 7057-T1=SBK *Flora-Dade D79000-D31-DSpBK *Cultivars commercially available. Seed Sources Petoseed Company Bradenton -GCREC Petoseed Company Petoseed Company Asgrow Seed Company Bradenton -GCREC Agrigenetics Homestead -TREC Asgrow Seed Company Bradenton-. GCREC Petoseed Company Sluis & Groot Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Ferry-lbrse Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Homestead-TREC -3- Table 2. Weather conditions for the season Temperature "F Rainfall bonth Avg. Max. Avg. Min. (inches) Sept. 89 71 7.24 Oct. 87 68 3.17 Nov. 79 59 1.89 Dec. (1-13) 80 60 0.66 Table 3. Marketable yields, percent cull fruit, average fruit weight, and relative maturity for 20 tomato cultivars or breeding lines. Cultivar or Marketable Marketable % Av. fr. wt. Relative breeding line Yield1 Yield2 culls 1st Har. 2nd Har. Maturity3 ------25 lb boxes------ -----oz/fruit----- PSR 46480 4100a 565 3.9 6.9b-d 4.6e-g Later Hayslip 3961a-b 546 4.1 7.2b 4.8c-f Later PSR 74180 3903a-b 538 6.6 7.0b-c 5.0a-d Equal FTE 12 3703a-c 510 8.3 6.8b-e 5.0a-e Equal Sunny 3624a-d 499 6.1 6.8b-e 4.8c-f --- 7065 3598a-d 496 8.7 8.3a 5.4a Earlier AVX 8384 3566a-d 491 8.5 6.5d-e 4.7d-g Equal 803148 3543a-d 488 2.1 6.6c-e 4.6e-g Earlier** XPH 724 3538a-d 487 10.6 6.7c-e 4.5f-g Equal 7025 3480a-d 479 4.5 6.4e-f 4.6d-g Later Duke 3457a-d 476 6.5 7.2b 5.0b-e Later E423 3394b-d 467 12.1 6.5d-e 4.7d-g Equal 7067 3357b-d 462 9.6 7.Ob 4.6e-g Equal Walter PF 3189c-d 439 4.4 6.5d-e 4.5f-g Equal 7093 3120c-e 430 7.3 6.9b-d 4.4f-g Later* Atlantic City 2999c-e 413 13.0 6.9b-d 5.1a-c Equal 7060 2918d-e 402 5.7 8.0a 5.3a-b Later 7057 2915d-e 402 6.8 7.2b 4.8c-f Later Flora-Dade 2913d-e 401 6.4 6.OF 4.3g-h Later D79000 2476e 341 15.0 5.3g 4.1h Earlier LSD5% 590 81 0.4 0.3 'Yield 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 *Latest in trial **Earliest in trial to 'Sunny' Table 4. Percent cull fruit in seven categories at each harvest Cultivar or 1st Harvest 2nd Harvest breeding line CRI BES2 OS3 ZS4 CF5 S6 O' CR BES OS ZS CF S 0 ----------------% of total number of fruit/harvest------------ --- PSR 46480 Hayslip PSR 74180 FTE 12 Sunny 7065 AVX 8384 803148 XPH 724 7025 Duke E423 7067 Walter PF 7093 Atlantic City 7060 7057 Flora-Dade D79000 0.3 0.4 2.5 2.8 0.9 0.5 4.5 0.1 5.8 0.8 2.1 3.8 4.6 0.6 1.3 7.4 0.7 1.3 2.6 2.4 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.9 0.4 3.7 0.5 0.8 0.1 1.,2 1.5: 0.3 1.9 0.8 2.9 0.5 0.1 3.3 0.7 8.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 3.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 --- 0.9 2.3 1.4 0.5 2.0 1.3 0.4 0.6 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.5 3.2 0.8 3.3 1.0 3.2 1.4 4.2 5.2 1.1 1.6 7.5 0.7 6.1 0.6 1.6 7.5 1.9 3.3 0.9 7.6 1.4 1.8 0.7 1.7 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.4 --- 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 --- --- 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 --- 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 --- --- 0.2 0.6 1Cracks (radial and concentric) 2Blossom-end-scar 30dd Shape 4Zipper Scars 5Cat Face 6Speck 70ther (decay, scars, etc.) 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.4 1.5 4.0 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.3 3.8 3.3 0.2 2.0 0.6 IOracks (radial and concentric) 2Blossom-end-scar SOdd Shape 4Zipper Scars 5Cat Face 6Speck 7Other (decay, scars, etc.) Table 5. Percent marketable fruit in each of four size categories for first and second harvests combined. Cultivar or breeding line Small1 Medium2 Large3 X-Large4 (Large + X-Large) ------------------------------- ------------------------------ PSR 46480 1.0 12.4 30.4 56.2 86.6 Hayslip 1.0 12.0 33.5 53.6 87.1 PSR 74180 0.7 7.9 29.8 61.5 91.3 FTE 12 0.8 10.3 32.1 56.7 88.8 Sunny 0.9 11.9 32.2 55.1 87.3 7065 0.3 5.4 21.1 73.2 94.3 AVX 8384 0.9 15.5 40.5 43.1 83.6 803148 1.7 16.3 37.4 44.6 82.0 XPH 724 0.8 11.6 33.9 53.7 87.6 7025 1.2 17.2 42.0 39.6 81.6 Duke 0.6 10.9 29.3 59.2 88.5 E423 0.7 13.7 33.4 52.2 85.6 7067 1.2 13.6 29.0 56.2 85.2 Walter PF 2.5 17.9 36.4 43.2 79.6 7093 1.3 17.3 34.1 47.3 81.4 Atlantic City 0.4 10.9 32.0 56.7 88.7 7060 0.6 6.2 20.1 73.2 93.3 7057 0.9 13.7 31.8 53.5 85.3 Flora-Dade 2.8 21.9 41.6 33.8 75.4 D79000 5.8 30.2 45.8 18.3 64.1 LSD 5% 4.6 1Small (7X7) 2Medium (6X7) SLarge (6X6) 4X-Large (5X6 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 |