![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Text | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
r 6-0
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER IFAS, University of Florida Immokalee, Florida / STAKED TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS F 1984 '4/ Paul H. Everett and Karen A. Armbre ter1 /iV / j / Immokalee AREC Research Report IMM85-2 Mr, 1985 A replicated trial was conducted at the Agricultural Researc ucati Center, Immokalee, Florida, during the fall season (August-December) evaluate the performance of twenty-two tomato cultivars and/or breeding 1 a Table 1 is a list of entries and seed sources used in this trial. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE All entries were seeded in ToddR planter trays #150 (1.5 inch cell size) on August 9, 1984, and were transplanted to field plots on August 30, 1984. 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 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 a total of 14 lb of 19-0-30/100 linear bed feet applied on the surface of the finished bed in narrow bands 10 inches to each side of the plant row. The plant beds were fumigated with TorlexR at 21 ounces/100 linear bed.feet and then mulched with white plastic film. ?lants were staked but not pruned. Fungicides were applied on a 5-7 day schedule and insecticides were applied as needed. General weather conditions during this trial are shown in Table 2. Insects and diseases were not a serious problem in this test. Tomatoes were harvested on November 19, November 29, and on December 11, 1984. At each harvest fruit were graded, counted and weighed. Per acre yields in this report are based on 7,260 linear feet of plant bed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 3 shows the marketable yields for each of the 22 entries. Marketable yields for the first harvest ranged from a high of 1754 25-1b cartons/A for 'FTE 12' which produced a significantly higher yield than 10 of the remaining entries, to a low of 926 25-1b cartons/A for entry 'Piedmont'. Yields from all entries were statistically equal at the second and third harvests. At the second harvest PSX 72482 had the highest yield at 1212 25-1b cartons/A. The highest third harvest yield came from 'Independence' at 912 25-1b cartons/A. Total marketable yields ranged from a high of 3365 25-1b cartons/A for PSX 72482, which was significantly higher in yield than only 3 of the remaining entries, to a low of 2074 25-1b cartons/A for 'Summit'. Average weight of fruit for the first harvest (Table 4) ranged from 9.1 oz for XPH 5074, which was significantly heavier in size than 17 of the remaining 21 1Professor and Biologist, respectively, IFAS, University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL 33934 -2- entries, to a low of 7.1 oz for 'Pirate'. Second heaviest was 'Duke' at 8.9 oz, followed by XPH 5011 and 7133 at 8.5 oz. For the second harvest entry XPH 5074 at 6.2 oz retained its rank as hea-:ic- and was significantly heavier than 9 of the other entries. 'Atlantic City' at 6.1 oz ranked second in weight and 7130 at 6.0 oz ranked third along with XPH 5031. 'Piedmont' had the heaviest fruit size for the third harvest at 5.8 oz., 'Atlantic City' ranked second at 5.7 oz and 'Summit' ranked third at 5.6 oz. Overall, XPH 5074 had the heaviest fruit at 7.0 oz followed by 7130 (6.8 oz), 'Atlantic City'. (6.7 oz) and 'Piedmont' (6.7 oz). 'Pirate' had the lightest fruit at 5.9 oz. Percent cull fruit are shown in Table 4 with XPH 5074 having the lowest per- centage (2.8%) and 7130 having the highest (8.8%). Categories of cull fruit, by harvest, are shown in Table 5. Large and leaky blossom-end-scars (BES) were responsible for the highest percentage of cull fruit in all three harvests. Entries 7136 and 7130 had the highest percentages of BES in the first harvest. This continued to be a problem in the second harvest where only 'Summit' had a higher percentage of BES. Radial cracking, odd shape, zipper scars and cat facing accounted for some culls but were not a serious problem. Other categories such as decay and scarring accounted for a considerable number of culls by the third harvest. Table 1. List of Entries and Seed Sources Cultivar or breeding line breeding line Seed Source PSX 72482 *FTE 12 *Independence *Pirate XPH 5074 *Sunny PSX 74180 7130 *Duke 7132 7129 *Horizon *Atlantic City XPH 5011 XPH 5031 7131 *Hayslip 7133 7136 7134 *Piedmont *Summit Petoseed Petoseed Abbott & Cobb Sluis & Groot Asgrow Seed Company Asgrow Seed Company Petoseed Bradenton-GCREC Petoseed Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Ferry MIrse Asgrow Seed Company Asgrow Seed Company Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC Bradenton-GCREC N.C. State Univ. N.C. State Univ. *Cultivars commercially available Seed Source -3- Table 2. Weather Conditions for the Fall 1984 Season Temperature F Rainfall Month Avgg. Mx. Avg. Min. (inches) September 88 71 11.24 October ;86 66 0.91 November 78 58 6.90 December (1-11) 77 53 0.02 Table 3. Marketable Yields for 22 Tomato Cultivars or Breeding Lines Cultivar or .-Marketable Yieldl breeding line 1st Har. 2nd Har. 3rd Har.. Total S- --------25-1b cartons--------------- PSX 72482 1321 a-e2 1212 a 833 a 3365 a FTE 12 1754 a 916 a 688 a 3356 a Independence 1481 a-d 935 a 912 a 3326 a Pirate 1377 a-e 1163 a 763 a 3302 a XPH 5074 1572 ab 888 a 823 a 3284 a Sunny 1372 a-e 1105 a 777 a 3254 ab PSX 74180 1533 a-c 828 a 779 a 3140 ab 7130 1519 a-c 963 a 595 a 3077 ab Duke 1221 b-e 1065 a 737 a 3026 ab 7132 1288 a-e 909 a 812 a 3009 ab 7129 1281 a-e 826 a 851 a 2958 ab Horizon 1181 b-e 979 a 777 a 2940 ab Atlantic City 1328 a-e 916 a 691 a 2935 ab XPH 5011 1363 a-e 740 a 772 a 2874 ab XPH 5031 1072 b-e 1133 a 653 a 2858 ab 7131 1119 b-e 881 a 802 a 2802 a-c Hayslip 1077 b-e 974 a 670 a 2721 a-c 7133 986 de 970 a 723 a 2679 a-d 7136 1023 c-e 1030 a 621 a 2674 a-d 7134 1160 b-e 919 a 493 a 2572 b-d Piedmont 926 e 605 a 674 a 2207 cd Summit 963 de 584 a 528 a 2074 d LSD 5% 428 567 1Yield per acre based on 7260 linear bed feet/acre 2Mean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level Table 4. Average Fruit Weight and Percent Cull Fruit for 22 Tomato Cultivars or Breeding Lines. Cultivar or Avg Fruit Wt by Harvest Avg Fruit Wt 7 breeding line 1st Har. 2nd Har. 3rd Har. Total all Harvest Culls S--------------------- oz/fruit--------------------- PSX 72482 FTE 12 Independence Pirate XPH 55074 Sunny PSX 74180 7130 Duke . 7132 7129 Horizon Atlantic City XPH 5011 XPH 5031 7131 Hayslip 7133 7136 7134 Piedmont Summit LSD 5% 7.6 e-h1 7.7 d-h 7.6 e-h 7.1 h 9.1 a 7.5 e-h 8.0 c-g 8.4 a-d 8.9 ab 7.4 f-h 7.6 d-h 7.2 gh 8,1 c-f 8.5 a-c- 8.0 c-g 8.0 c-g 7.7 d-h 8.5 a-c 8.0 c-f 8.2 b-e 8.3 b-e 8.0 c-f 0.7 IMean Separation by Duncan's Multiple Ringe Test, 5% level. 5.9 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.2 5.9 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.5 6.1 5.5 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.9 5.9 0.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.8 5.3 5.0 4.9 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.4 4.9 5.1 5.8 5.6 6.2 6.3 6.0 5.9 7.0 6.2 6.4 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.7 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.5 6.2 6.5 6.7 6.6 0.4 5.2 3.4 4.8 3.4 2.8 4.7 6.1 8.8 4.6 7.0 7.6 3.8 3.2 5.3 6.9 3.5 6.6 7.8 8.0 6.0 6.2 7.2 2.7 0.6 Table 5. Percent Cull Fruit in Seven Categories at Each Harvest Cultivar or 1st Harvest 2nd Harvest 3rd Harvest breeding line CRI BESS OS3 ZS' CFS Ob CR BES OS ZS CF 0 CR BES OS ZS CF 0 ---------------------------% of total number of fruit/harvest------------------------- - PSX 72482 0.2 4.9 0.2 0.2 -- -- --- 2.1 0.5 0.3 --- 0.9 --- 2.3 0.4 -- --- 2.1 FTE 12 0.2 1.7 0.5 0.5 --- --- --- 2.9 0.4 --- --- 0.4 --- 0.8 -- --- ---0.3 Independence 1.0 3.7 0.3 --- --- --- 0.4 1.9 --- 0.8 --- 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 --- --- 0.8 Pirate 0.2 3.5 0.7 --- 0.9 --- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 --- 0.3 0.2 0.7 --- --- --- 0.5 XPH 5074 0.2 1.4 --- 0.8 0.2 --- 0.3 1.0 --- --- -- 0.5 0.2 --- -- 0.2 --- 1.6 Sunny 0.2 2.6 --- 0.9 0.2 -- --- 1.7 0.7 1.1 --- 0.4 --- 1.4 0.9 -- --- 1.4 PSX 74180 0.2 4.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 --- 2.0 0.5 0.7 --- 1.2 1.5 1.5 0.4 --- -- 1.7 7130 --- 9.4 0.2 0.9 0.2 -- --- 3.5 0.2 -- --- 0.4 0.6 2.5 0.3 -- --- 0.6 Duke --- 4.7 --- 0.2 --- --- 0.4 2.5 0.4 1.9 -- 0.2 --- .5 7132 --- 6.1 0.2 --- --- --- 0.2 3.4 1.1 --- --- 1.5 --- 2.9 --- --- --- 1.1 7129 --- 7.5 0.6 --- 0.6 --- --- 2.8 0.5 0.2 --- 0.5 --- 2.3 --- 0.4 --- 2.8 Horizon 0.4 1.1 --- 0.6 --- --- 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.8 -- --- 1.2 0.5 --- --- --- 1.4 Atlantic City --- 2.6 0.2 --- --- 0.2 --- 0.7 -- --- --- 0.5 0.6 0.6 --- --- --- 3.7 XPH 5011 0.9 4.3 0.2 --- -- 0.2 0.8 2.8 0.3 0.3 --- 0.5 1.8 1.3--- -- -- -- XPH 5031 4.3 2.3 --- 1.5 0.5 --- 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.4 --- 0.6 1.9 0.5 -- --- --- 0.5 7131 --- 2.7 0.2 0.5 --- -- --- 2.0 --- --- -- 0.5 0.5 0.5 --- --- -- 1.2 Hayslip --- 7.1 0.5 --- 1.7 --- --- 2.3 0.2 0.6 --- 0.2 --- 1.1 --- 0.3 --- 1.1 7133 0.3 9.2 0.8 --- --- --- 0.2 1.9 --- 0.4 --- 1.1 0.8 2.1 --- 1.3 --- 0.5 7136 --- 9.8 0.2 1.0 --- --- -v- 3.5 0.2 1.0 --- 0.4 0.8 2.5 --- --- --- 1.1 7134 --- 8.0 --- 0.2 --- --- --- 1.8 --- 1.1 --- --- --- 3.3 --- --- --- 0.7 Piedmont --- 2.2 --- 2.2 --- -- 0.6 1.9 --- 2.6 --- 2.6 0.3 1.8 --- 0.6 --- 1.5 Summit --- 3.4 --- 1.1 --- -- --- 4.8 1.4 0.7 --- 1.0 1.1 0.7 --- --- --- 4,4 1Cracks (radial and concentric) 2Blossom-end scars (large and leaky) 3Odd shape 4Zipper scars 5Cat face 6ther (decay, scars, etc.) 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 |