|
IUU
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
IFAS, University of Florida
Rt. 2, Box 157
Dover, Florida 33527
IHUM iE Li f BRAiIY
Dover ARC Research Report DOV-1982-4 December 1982
JuN Li '95
STRAWBERRY VARIETY TRIALS 1982
i.F.A.S.- Univ. of Florida
E. E. Albregts and C. M. Howard
INTRODUCTION
Strawberry fruit yield and quality characteristics are dependent on the
cultivar, climate, soil, fertility, irrigation, and cultural conditions. The
purpose of this report is to provide results from trials with selected strawberry
cultivars and the most promising breeding lines grown at the Agricultural Research
Center, Dover, Florida during the winter of 1981-82.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four cultivars and ten advanced breeding lines were evaluated in the fruit
production field. Beds were fumigated with 400 lbs/bedded acre of MC-33, and
fertilized with 2000 lbs/acre of a 10-4-10. One fourth of the fertilizer was
broadcast before bed preparation, and the remainder was banded 2 inches deep
in bed center. One-half of the applied nitrogen was slow-release material.
All plants were set on October 20, 1981. All breeding lines and the 'Dover'
cultivar were from ARC-Dover nurseries. The other cultivars were obtained from
a local grower. Five replications per cultivar with 14 plants per replication
were used. Plants were sprayed with pesticides as needed, and moisture was
applied as required by overhead sprinkler irrigation. Fruit were harvested
twice weekly from late December (included in January yield) to mid-April and
graded, counted, and weighed. Marketable fruit were also evaluated for several
quality factors as noted in the Tables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
January marketable fruit yields were highest for 'Dover' and breeding lines
77-163, 77-869, and 78-1268 (Table 1). The February yields of these same clones
were also among the highest. Early fruit production is important since fruit
prices generally decline with time with the lowest prices coming in April.
'Tufts', 'Douglas', and 'Pajaro' yields for January and February were among the
lowest of all clones tested. March yields of 'Tufts', 'Douglas', and 'Pajaro'
were among the highest. 'Tufts', 'Dover', 'Douglas', and 'Pajaro' gave average
Professor (Soils) and Professor (Plant Pathologist), respectively, with the
University of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural Research Center, Rt. 2, Box 157,
Dover, Florida 33527.
total marketable yields in comparison with all clones. Clones 77-873 and 77-163
gave the highest total yields. 'Douglas' fruit weight was greatest followed by
'Pajaro', 77-873, 79-1164, 78-1268, and 77-169. Fruit weight was fairly good for
all clones. All clones produced considerable cull fruit (Table 2). Clones
78-1124, 79-1164, 77-869, 79-1126, and 'Tufts' had the greatest percentage of
their fruit rated as cull.
Fruit firmness and resistance to abrasion is listed in Table 3. 'Tufts' and
'Douglas' fruit were rated as soft or very soft on more harvest dates than were
any of the other clones. Also, these two clones were much more susceptible to
abrasion than other clones. Slight to moderate damaged fruit caused by grading
was listed as marketable. This was not a problem except with the 'Douglas' and
'Tufts' clones. These damaged fruit would not be acceptable for shipment and if
counted as cull would have moderately reduced the marketable yields for these
two clones especially for the 'Douglas' clone. However, this damage would be
unlikely to occur commercially since growers do not squeeze and roughly handle
their fruit.
Fruit were rated for other fruit quality characteristics and these are presented
in Table 4. 'Douglas' and 77-163 fruit had the greatest tendency for green tips,
while 'Pajaro' fruit had the greatest tendency for green shoulder and water
damage. Fruit from clone 77-163 had the greatest tendency to produce distorted
tips. Fruit from clones 78-1164 and 78-1268 had greatest number of splits and
misshapen fruit. A high percentage of the 'Douglas' and 'Pajaro' fruit were
damaged by rainfall or irrigation, and a high percentage of the 'Douglas' and
'Tufts' fruit were fan shaped. Clones 78-1164, 'Douglas', and 'Pajaro'
produced the most fruit with poor color. Fruit from 'Douglas' and 'Tufts'
were rated as seedy a large percentage of the time. A storage test was
conducted in which fruit were harvested on March 2 and stored in a cooler one
week and evaluated (Table 5). Since the fruiting cycle was not the same for
all clones, and they never are, the values are only a comparison for one date.
Runner production in the fruit production field is another facet which should
be considered when comparing strawberry clones. Runners are removed manually
to eliminate excess foliage which can interfere with harvest and spray
operations. The number of runners/mother plant produced in the fruit production
field is as follows: 'Tufts' 1.04, 78-1124 0.81, 79-1119 0,76, 'Dover' 0.44,
77-869 0.43, 77-169 0.27, 79-1125 0.26, 79-1126 0.20, 78-1268 0.20, 77-873 0.14,
78-1164 0.13, 'Douglas' 0.11, 77-163 0.06, 'Pajaro' 0.03.
Table 1. Marketable fruit yield for several cultivars and breeding lines for
1981-82 season.
Breeding lines
or Marketable yield (Flats/acre) Average
cultivars January February March April Total fruit wt
(grams/fruit)
77-163 432by 1081 769 419 2701b 14.57de
77-169 301f 1076 857 274 2507cd 15.07d
77-869 379c 991 778 291 2438d 13.38f
77-873 314ef 902 1476 294 2986a 16.45b
79-1119 80h 1047 1263 201 2591c 14.29e
78-1124 255g 889 717 229 2091f 12.67g
79-1125 329e 832 682 315 2157ef 13.58f
79-1126 297f 910 955 321 2483d 14.46e
79-1164 256g 924 815 222 2217e 15.56c
78-1268 384c 855 689 156 2084f 15.14cd
Douglas 353d 435 1272 423 2483d 17.14a
Pajaro 277fg 352 1224 366 2219e 16.48b
Tufts 316ef 619 1265 389 2589c 14.91d
Dover 495a 1076 779 172 2522cd 14.22e
z28.5 gram/ounce
YNumber followed by different letters in a column are significantly different
by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.
Table 2, Cull fruit yields for cultivars and breeding lines for 1981-82 season.
Breeding lines Cull yield (flats/acre) %
or cultivars January February March April Total Cull
77-163 0 81 316 173 570dy 17.4
77-169 0 51 423 80 555de 18.1
77-869 1 63 355 202 621cd 20.3
77-873 0 37 469 195 702b 19.0
79-1119 0 57 391 98 546de 17.4
78-1124 1 223 609 80 914a 30.4
79-1125 0 87 335 101 523e 19.5
79-1126 0 97 342 182 622cd 20.0
79-1164 0 137 352 102 591d 21.0
78-1268 3 97 .259 69 428f 17.0
Douglas 1 35 212 198 446f 15.2
Pajaro 0 20 228 129 376g 14.5
Tufts 2 45 390 210 646c 20.0
Dover 1 99 412 72 584d 18.8
ZCull fruit were those that either weighed less than 10
rot, were damaged, or were severely misshapen.
lNumbers followed by different letters in a column are
by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.
grams (1/3 ounce), have
significantly different
Table 3. Fruit firmness and resistance to abrasion for several cultivars and
breeding lines for 1981-82 season.
Breeding Percent of harvests that fruit exhibited these qualities
lines or Fruit firmness Resistance to abrasionY
cultivars Hard Firm Soft Very soft High Moderate Low
77-163 27dx 66a 6d lb 95b 3b 2c
77-169 36cd 63ab Id Ob 100a Ob Oc
77-869 43c 53b 4d Ob 98a lb Ic
77-873 25d 66a 8d Ib 92bc 5b 3c
79-1119 12e 71a 17c Ob 94b 3b 3c
78-1124 16e 61ab 22c lb 90c 5b 5c
79-1125 21de 72a 7d Ob lOOa Ob Oc
79-1126 56b 43c Id Ob lOa Ob Oc
79-1164 36cd 61ab 3d Ob 97ab 2b Ic
78-1268 64a 35cd ld Ob l0a Ob Oc
Douglas 4f 29d 55b 12a 36e 16a 48a
Pajaro 38cd 57b 5d Ob 98a Ob 2c
Tufts Of 17e 75a 8ab 57d 21a 22b
Dover 19de 63ab 17c lb 90c 6b 4c
ZFruit firmness: Relative resistance to pressure when hand squeezed.
YResistance to abrasion: Damage to flesh surface when rubbing fruit surface
with mild pressure. A high rating means no damage and a low rating means
damage to surface of fruit.
Numbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different
by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.
Table 4. Quality of marketable size fruit of several cultivars and breeding lines for 1981-82 season.
Percent of total number with the listed characteristics
Moderately Slightly
Breeding Green Green deformed deformed Water Poor Seedyz Fan
lines or
uiltivars tips shoulders tips tips Splits Misshapen damaged color appr. shaped Albiy
77163 5.09 0.12 5.72 0.04 1.74 0.64 0.79 052 0.08
77-169 1. 4 1.99 0.31 1.82 2.4 05 0.22 0.75 0.09
77-869 0.89 2.10 1.54 0.]2 0.40 0.69 0.85 0.49 0.85
77-873 1.58 2.92 1.66 0.08 2.35 1.02 3.86 0.97 0.20
79-1119 2.97 0.28 3.90 0.08 1.58 0.77 0.45 0.37 0.37
78-1124 1.70 1.79 1.16 0.31 1.88 0.45 0.09 0.7 0.18
79-1125 2.27 0.09 3.20 0.14 2.23 1.76 1.35 0.14 2.9 1.02
79-1126 4.55 0.51 2.02 0.04 1.12 1.42 1.37 0.99 0.43
78-1164 1.34 0.47 3.36 5.84 6.05 1.03 3.21 2.3 1.34
78-1268 0.43 3.05 1.39 0.21 4.49 3.75 2.14 0.86 1.93
Douglas 5.34 0.86 2.90 0.81 1.27 5.90 2.44 70.6 7.78
Pajaro 1.04 4.87 0.77 0.05 0.27 1.24 11.43 1.91 1.09 0.10
Tufts 2.50 0.47 1.02 0.64 1.27 1.78 0.64 33.1 7.21
Dover 4.53 2.70 2.16 0.83 1.37 1.08 0.08 0.58
ZSeedy appearance
YAlbinism, light colored fruit which are easily bruised.
Table 5. Fruit quality rating made March 9, 1982 after 1 week in cooler at 33 to 361.
Breeding lines Fruit Total % %
or cultivars Calyx Color General appearance- Taste no. Bruised Rot
- lent xodllExlenntt lent l SI light)
77-869 Sl. dry Good Excellent Good 35 6 6
77-u73 Excellent Fair Fair (Sl. dark) Fair 36 47 0
79-1119 Poor Poor Poor (Dull) Fair 49 33 0
78-1124 Sl. dry Good Excallent (bright) Good 45 44 0
(Sl. sour)
79-1125 Good Excellent Excellent Fair 50 18 0
79-1126 Good Fair Fair (Sl. dark) Poor 44 2 0
Black blotches
78-1164 Good Fair (dark) Fair Good 40 0 0
78-1268 Dry, dull
shriveled Poor (dull) Poor (dull) Fair 37 8 8
Douglas Good Poor (dark) Poor (seedy, dark, dull
Blaca blotches) Good(sour30 57 0
Pajaro Excellent Fair (dark) Poor (dark, dull) Poor
(Bland) 28 14 4
Tufts Sl. dry Good Fair (sl. dull) Fair
(Sl. sour) 38 61 0
Dover Sl. dry Good Good (sl. dark) Fair 41 22 0
ZGeneral
splits,
appearance: Fruit quality characteristics (seediness, green tips or shoulders, shape,
etc) and color intensity.
Ysl.: slijthtly
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
|
