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
Ilb
2 August 1985 Llttetit855 (Technical)
Evaluation of Lycopersicon sp.
Accessions for Resistance to Bacterial
Spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv.
vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye)
J. W. Scott and J. B. Jones
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
EVALUATION OF LYCOPERSICON SP. ACCESSIONS FOR
RESISTANCE TO BACTERIAL SPOT (XANTHOMONAS
CAMPESTRIS PV. VESICATORIA DODGEG) DYE)
J. W. Scott and J. B. Jones
J. W. Scott and J. B. Jones are Assistant Professor of Vegetable
Crops and Assistant Professor of Plant Pathology, respectively,
at IFAS, University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education
Center, Bradenton, Florida 34203.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of
Tommy Cline.
INTRODUCTION
Bacterial leaf spot caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv.
vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye (XCV) is one of the most serious
diseases of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in Florida.
Disease incidence on leaves, stems, and fruit may become
especially heavy during the summer, when temperatures are high
and rainfall is frequent (16, 21). Cultural measures (2, 13) are
often ineffective in controlling bacterial spot, especially
under such conditions. Breeding for bacterial spot resistance
has been difficult (5, 21), and at present no commercially grown
cultivars in Florida have appreciable levels of resistance (18).
'Campbell 28' (C28) has been among the most resistant genotypes
tested in Florida, and this level of resistance may not be
adequate under some conditions (5). Several other genotypes are
reported to have some level of resistance to bacterial spot (35,
9, 11, 20, 21), bacterial speck (Pseudomonas syringae pv.
tomato) (12, 14, 15, 22), bacterial canker (Corynebacterium
michiganense) (1, 6, 10), and bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas
solanacearum) (10, 19). Over 280 of these genotypes were
obtained in order to evaluate them under field conditions for
bacterial spot severity in 1982 and 1983. Evaluations were made
during the summer when disease pressure was high and the chances
of escapes were very low. The purpose of this bulletin is to
report the bacterial spot incidence for all the genotypes tested.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1982 Experiment: Seeds of 225 tomato genotypes with reported
resistance to bacterial diseases (1, 36, 912, 14, 15, 1922)
and susceptible control lines, 'Red Cherry Large' and 'Cherry
Grande,' were sown into SAFTBLAST (Mineral Aggregates,
Inc.), a processed product of spent coal, on June 11, 1982,
in a greenhouse. The seedlings were transplanted into TODD
planter flats (#100 1 in (2.54 cm) cell size) containing peat
and vermiculite (1:1) on June 23. On July 15 the seedlings were
transplanted in the field on raised, 34 inch (86.4 cm) wide, beds
of Myakka fine sand. The beds were fertilized with 1860 lb/A
(2083 kg/ha) of 180252 distributed in two bands 18 in (45.7
cm) apart, and 135.6 lb/A (151.9 kg/ha) of 180252 and
Nitroform (3800) broadcast in the center of each bed
(acre = 9680 linear ft of row). Beds were treated with Tillam
at 4 lb a.i./A (4.48 kg/ha) and Dowfume MC33 at 350 lb/A
(392.3 kg/ha) and were covered with white plastic mulch. Plants
were set 18 in (45.7 cm) apart within plots and 36 in (91.4 cm)
between plots. Rows were spaced 54 in (137.2 cm) apart. Plants
were staked, and normal insecticide practices were used. To
control fungal diseases, only Bravo was used so as not to
inhibit XCV. Genotypes were arranged in a completely randomized
design with two replications of five plant plots. A culture
of XCV was grown on nutrient yeast dextrose agar (8) for 48 hr
at 25 C. The bacteria were washed nrom the plates, suspended in
0.01 M MgS04 and adjusted to 10 c.f.u./mL. The resulting
bacterial suspension was misted on the tomato plants early in the
morning when heavy dew was present, two weeks after transplanting
into the field.
Bacterial spot severity was rated on three dates: August 4,
August 20, and September 14, 1982. The percentage leaf area
affected per plant was recorded at the first rating (R1). For
the second and third ratings, the percentage of diseased leaf
area on the bottom half (R2B, R3B) and upper half (R2T, R3T) of
the plants were rated for each plot. These ratings were
transformed to the HorsfallBarratt (HB) scale for analysis (7).
A zero percentage rating was given a HB value of 1; all other
overlapping percentages were given a mean HB score (e.g., 3% =
2.5, 6% = 3.5, 12% = 4.5, 25% = 5.5, 50% = 6.5, 75% = 7.5, 87% =
8.5, 93% = 9.5, 97% = 10.5). The five ratings (R1, R2B, R2T,
R3B, and R3T) were summed and divided by 5 to give an overall
rating (RO). By observation it appeared that the ratings most
indicative of resistance levels were R2B, R2T, and R3T. The
total of these three ratings was summed and divided by 3 to give
an effective rating (RE). Ratings were also made for XCV
infection of fruit, but data are not presented as many accessions
did not set well and could not be rated.
1983 Experiments: Fiftynine new accessions and 'Walter'
(susceptible control) were seeded on June 29, transplanted to
speedling trays on July 11, and transplanted to the field on
August 9. Disease ratings were made on September 22. Both the
field design and all growing and inoculation procedures were the
same as in 1982. The percentage leaf area infected was rated on
both the bottom (R1B) and top (R1T) halves of the plants for each
plot, and these figures were summed and divided by 2 to give an
overall rating (R1). As previously described, data were
transformed to the HB scale.
The 25 genotypes with lowest disease ratings from 1982
(except PI 414172 which did not germinate), plus 'Early Red
Rock', plus PI 270248 (low bacterial spot on fruit in 1982),
'Walter' (susceptible control), and 'Lyconorma' (very susceptible
control), were seeded on July 3, transplanted to speedling trays
on July 14, transplanted to the field on August 12, and rated for
disease on September 23, 1983. A complete randomized block
design was used with four blocks of five plant plots. All
growing and inoculation conditions were as previously described,
and disease ratings were the same as described for the other 1983
experiment. Temperature and rainfall information for the 1982
and 1983 growing seasons are summarized in Table 1.
Technically, summing and then averaging disease over time is not a valid
statistical procedure. However, after careful consideration of alternatives,
we decided to leave RE and RO ratings in this report and feel they are
helpful in comparing genotypes. The reader should consider this in inter
pretation of the results.
2
Table 1. Temperature and rainfall summary for the 1982 and 1983
bacterial spot evaluation experiments.
1982 1983
July 15 to Sept. 14 Aug. 9 to Sept. 22
Mean temperature (oC):
Maximum 90.9 90.9
Minimum 72.6 73.5
Rainfall:
Total (cm) 47.7 19.3
Frequency (#days) 30 17
3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In 1982, disease incidence was quite low early (R1) and
increased over the next two ratings (Table 2). A large number of
accessions appeared quite resistant at R1 when disease incidence
was not great. However, many genotypes reported to have some
resistance (35, 9, 11, 19, 20) to bacterial spot were
susceptible in this experiment when disease pressure increased
(Table 2). Moreover, a large proportion of genotypes which had
the highest levels of resistance in this experiment had been
previously evaluated and selected in Florida (21 and unpublished
IFAS breeding records). These trends could be due to different
XCV races between locations, or are due to the high level of
disease pressure in Florida versus other locations. There were
over 40 accessions with statistically comparable resistance (RE,
RO) to C28 in 1982 (Table 2). Included in this group was Cherry
Grande which is a known susceptible cultivar. Although not
different than C28 statistically, Cherry Grande and many of the
other accessions did not appear to have good resistance levels.
The 24 genotypes with the lowest XCV incidence (RO) in 1982
were retested in 1983, and only 13 were statistically similar to
or better than (R1, R1B) C28 (Table 3). These 13 may have
useful levels of resistance for breeding purposes (Table 3).
Of the newly tested entries in 1983, only the top three (R1B)
were statistically better than Walter (Table 4). However, the 11
or so most resistant accessions might be worth retesting with
more replications against the most resistant 13 from Table 3.
These field screening procedures were probably effective in
identifying the most resistant genotypes. The relative resistance
of the best 1982 lines when tested in 1983 was reasonably
consistent (Tables 2, 3). Although some of the 1982 tested
genotypes not selected for retrial in 1983 might have some level
of resistance, it is not likely that they would be useful for
breeding purposes. One accession, PI 270248 'Sugar', was quite
susceptible to foliage infection (Tables 2, 4), but had only one
spot on thousands of fruit examined over the two seasons. This
was the best resistance to fruit spot, but some other accessions
did not set well enough to rate, and little fruit spot was seen
in 1983.
The response of Hawaii 7998 (Table 4) was of particular
interest. There was no evidence of any definite bacterial
symptoms, but a few unidentified spots were rated as a 1%
infection. This was easily the best response from a "tomato"
plant type. PI 379032 which had an equivalent rating, is a
Lycopersicon parvifolium. Later testing (to be reported
elsewhere) indicated Hawaii 7998 had a hypersensitive resistant
reaction while PI 379032 has not been highly resistant. Ohio
40144 (Tables 2, 4) is a frosttolerant tomato (17) which grows
slowly and wilts on sunny days. In F2's from crosses with
susceptible lines, recovery of bacterial spot tolerance is
14
Table 2. Incidence of bacterial spot leaf infection on
Lycopersicon genotypes tested in 1982, Bradenton,
Florida.
HorsfallBarratt ratings
Genotypez SpeciesY R1 R2B R2T R3B R3T RE RO
Ohio 40133 Le 1.50 2.25 2.25 4.50 2.50 2.33 2.60
Ohio 40144 Le 1.75 3.25 3.25 2.75 2.75 3.08 2.75
Heinz 1568 F3 Le 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.75 2.50 2.50 2.85
Heinz 820 Le 2.50 3.75 2.00 5.50 3.50 3.08 3.45
[(SAD x MH1) x
H603] F5W Le 2.00 3.75 2.00 6.00 3.50 3.08 3.45
6204 x Cl11d Le 2.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.75 3.58 3.55
Heinz 2990 Le 2.00 3.25 3.00 5.75 4.25 3.50 3.65
PI 414172 Le 2.00 3.75 3.75 5.00 4.00 3.83 3.70
Texas 204B5 Le 2.00 4.75 2.25 6.50 3.00 3.33 3.70
Heinz 1568 F6 Le 2.00 3.75 2.00 6.50 4.50 3.42 3.75
PI 324708 Lpi 2.00 3.75 2.25 5.75 5.00 3.67 3.75
Heinz 603 F11 Le 2.75 4.00 2.00 5.75 4.50 3.50 3.80
Campbell 28 Le 2.00 4.00 2.00 7.50 3.50 3.17 3.80
Monense Le 3.00 4.00 2.25 5.50 4.50 3.58 3.85
PI 309666 Le 2.00 4.00 3.25 5.00 5.00 4.08 3.85
PI 127813 Le 2.00 4.75 2.50 5.50 4.50 3.92 3.85
PI 117899 Le 2.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 5.25 3.75 4.05
PI 270217 Le 2.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 4.50 3.50 4.10
PI 159199 Le 2.50 3.25 2.00 7.50 5.25 3.50 4.10
PI 224573 Le 2.00 4.75 2.50 7.00 4.75 4.00 4.20
PI 203232 Le 2.00 4.00 2.00 7.75 5.25 3.75 4.20
Fla. 1339 Le 2.00 4.50 2.00 6.00 3.50 3.33 4.20
420 Le 2.25 4.75 2.50 6.50 5.00 4.08 4.20
L556 Le 2.50 4.50 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.17 4.20
L2024 Le 2.00 4.00 2.00 8.50 4.50 3.50 4.20
Heinz 1569 Le 2.25 4.25 2.25 7.75 5.25 3.92 4.35
282 Le 2.50 4.00 2.00 8.00 5.25 3.75 4.35
Roma VF Le 2.25 4.00 2.00 8.50 5.00 3.67 4.35
Cherry Grande Le 1.75 4.50 2.75 8.00 5.00 4.08 4.40
6204 x Cl11d Le 2.75 4.50 2.75 7.25 5.25 4.17 4.50
D79040 Le 2.25 4.00 2.50 8.50 5.50 4.00 4.55
PI 234255 Le 2.00 4.25 2.00 9.00 5.50 3.92 4.55
PI 279565 
Caro Red Le 2.50 4.00 2.00 8.50 6.00 4.00 4.60
PI 157992 
Prezioso Le 3.00 4.75 2.25 7.75 5.25 4.08 4.60
1561 Le 2.75 4.25 2.00 9.00 5.25 3.83 4.65
PI 309909 Le 2.25 4.00 2.50 8.50 6.00 4.17 4.65
PI 190256 Le x
Lpi 1.75 3.75 2.00 10.00 5.75 3.83 4.65
156 Le 2.75 4.75 2.00 9.00 5.00 3.92 4.70
(continued)
5
Table 2. continued
1559 Le 1.75 4.50 2.00 9.50 5.75 4.08 4.70
PI 263713 Le 2.00 2.00 2.00 12.00 5.50 3.17 4.70
PI 309668 
Marion Le 3.00 5.00 2.25 8.50 5.00 4.08 4.75
PI 298934 Le x
Lpe 3.00 6.50 2.50 8.00 4.00 4.33 4.80
PI 270243  2.25 4.50 2.25 9.50 5.50 4.08 4.80
Heinz 603 F9 Le 2.25 4.00 2.00 9.50 6.50 4.17 4.85
PI 283935 Le 2.50 5.25 5.00 6.25 5.25 5.17 4.85
PI 127811 Le 2.00 4.50 2.50 9.50 5.75 4.25 4.85
Rehovot 13 Le 3.25 4.00 2.00 9.00 6.25 4.08 4.90
PI 390687 Lpe 2.00 6.00 3.75 5.50 3.00 4.25 4.90
PI 224594 Le 2.00 4.50 2.25 9.50 6.25 4.33 4.90
PI 213187 Le 2.25 4.75 2.50 9.00 6.00 4.42 4.90
PI 271385 Le 2.00 4.25 2.25 10.50 5.75 4.08 4.95
PI 128608 Le 2.00 3.75 2.00 10.50 6.50 4.08 4.95
PI 272722 Le 2.25 5.25 2.00 10.50 5.00 4.08 5.00
PI 128642 Le 2.00 5.00 2.00 9.50 6.50 4.50 5.00
PI 306212 Le 2.25 4.50 2.00 10.50 6.00 4.17 5.05
PI 126437 Le x
Lpi 3.25 6.50 3.00 7.50 5.00 4.83 5.05
PI 109832 Le 2.75 4.50 2.50 10.50 5.00 4.00 5.05
Scotia Le 2.00 4.25 2.00 10.50 6.75 4.33 5.10
PI 367982 Le 2.75 5.00 2.50 9.00 6.25 4.58 5.10
PI 306215 Le 2.50 4.50 2.00 10.00 6.50 4.33 5.10
PI 273445
Nagcarlan Le 2.75 5.25 2.00 10.00 5.50 4.25 5.10
PI 159006 Le 3.75 3.50 2.25 8.50 7.50 4.42 5.10
PI 127795  3.50 5.50 2.00 10.00 6.00 4.50 5.10
PI 126428 Le 2.25 6.00 2.00 9.00 6.25 4.75 5.10
PI 118409 Le x
Lpi 1.75 4.50 2.00 10.50 6.75 4.42 5.10
PI 115601 Le 3.25 5.00 2.00 9.50 5.75 4.25 5.10
PI 273103 Le 2.00 4.25 2.00 10.50 7.00 4.42 5.15
PI 273088 Le 2.25 4.75 2.75 10.00 6.00 4.50 5.15
PI 159193 Le 1.75 3.50 2.00 11.00 7.50 4.33 5.15
PI 126920 Le 2.00 4.50 2.00 11.00 6.25 4.25 5.15
Ailsa Craig Le 2.00 3.25 2.25 11.00 7.50 4.33 5.20
PI 298933 Le x
Lpe 2.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 5.00 4.00 5.20
PI 290857 Le 2.00 6.00 2.00 10.00 6.00 4.67 5.20
PI 283930 Le 3.50 4.50 2.00 9.50 6.50 4.33 5.20
PI 273076 Le 2.00 5.25 2.00 10.50 6.25 4.50 5.20
PI 118789 Le 2.75 5.25 2.50 10.00 5.50 4.42 5.20
817 Le 3.00 4.00 2.00 11.00 6.25 4.08 5.25
PI 273050 Le 2.00 4.75 2.25 10.50 6.75 4.58 5.25
PI 272763 Le 2.25 4.75 2.00 11.00 6.25 4.33 5.25
PI 372393 Le 2.00 4.75 2.00 12.00 5.75 4.17 5.30
PI 379054 Le 1.75 6.00 2.50 10.50 6.00 4..83 5.35
PI 273015 Le 2.00 4.25 2.00 11.00 7.50 4.58 5.35
PI 270215 Le 2.50 4.25 2.25 11.00 6.75 4.42 5.35
PI 262906 Le 3.25 5.25 2.50 9.50 6.25 4.67 5.35
6
Table 2. continued
PI 99782 Le 2.75 5.75 2.50 9.75 6.00 4.75 5.35
Saturn Le 3.00 4.75 2.50 11.00 5.75 4.33 5.40
PI 390731 Lpi 2.50 6.00 3.00 9.50 6.00 5.00 5.40
PI 272837 Le 2.25 5.00 2.00 11.00 6.75 4.58 5.40
PI 224574 Le 2.25 4.50 2.75 11.00 6.50 4.58 5.40
PI 155375 Le x
Lpi 2.00 6.25 2.50 9.50 6.75 5.17 5.40
PI 127816 Le 2.00 5.50 2.75 10.50 6.25 4.83 5.40
PI 127808 Le 2.75 3.75 2.25 11.00 7.25 4.42 5.40
PI 127807 Lpi 2.50 7.50 3.25 8.50 5.25 5.33 5.40
PI 126932 Le 2.00 6.00 2.50 10.50 6.00 4.83 5.40
PI 419203 Le 2.00 5.75 3.00 10.00 6.50 5.08 5.45
PI 262173 Le 4.00 4.50 2.50 10.00 6.25 4.42 5.45
PI 129112 Le x
Lpi 2.00 5.75 2.50 11.00 6.00 4.75 5.45
PI 117898 Le 2.50 5.50 3.00 10.00 6.25 4.92 5.45
PI 342707 Le 2.50 5.25 2.75 11.00 6.00 4.67 5.50
PI 263715 Le 1.75 4.75 2.25 12.00 6.75 4.58 5.50
PI 128593 Le 2.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 6.50 4.50 5.50
PI 92863 Le 2.50 5.75 2.25 10.50 6.50 4.83 5.50
PI 283924 Le 2.50 4.75 2.50 10.00 8.00 5.08 5.55
PI 273077 Le 2.50 4.25 2.00 12.00 7.00 4.42 5.55
PI 272776 Le 2.00 4.50 2.75 12.00 6.50 4.58 5.55
PI 270419 Le 2.00 4.50 2.25 12.00 7.00 4.58 5.55
PI 163245 Le 2.00 4.25 2.00 12.00 7.50 4.58 5.55
PI 155367 Le 2.00 4.50 2.50 12.00 6.75 4.58 5.55
PI 140418 Le 2.00 4.25 2.50 12.00 7.00 4.58 5.55
PI 129134 Le 2.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.58 5.55
PI 114490 Le 2.75 4.75 2.00 12.00 6.25 4.33 5.55
Red Cherry 
Large Le 3.25 5.25 2.25 10.50 6.50 4.67 5.55
Amazon Le 2.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 7.00 4.67 5.60
PI 163254 Le 2.00 4.50 2.50 12.00 7.00 4.67 5.60
PI 309666 
Epoch Le 2.00 6.00 2.75 10.50 6.75 5.17 5.60
PI 308182  2.25 5.00 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.58 5.60
PI 127814 Le 2.50 4.25 2.25 12.00 7.00 4.50 5.60
PI 126448 Lgl 3.50 5.25 3.75 10.00 5.50 4.83 5.60
PI 125831 Le 2.00 5.00 3.00 11.00 7.00 5.00 5.60
PI 124582 Le 3.00 6.00 2.50 10.50 6.00 4.83 5.60
PI 102884 Le 2.25 5.50 2.50 10.50 7.25 5.08 5.60
PI 65023 Le 3.00 5.25 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.67 5.60
PI 319893 Le 2.50 6.00 2.75 11.00 6.00 4.92 5.65
PI 291334 Le 2.00 5.25 2.00 10.50 8.50 5.25 5.65
PI 273127 Le 2.25 5.25 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.67 5.65
PI 273085 Le 2.00 4.25 2.50 12.00 7.50 4.75 5.65
PI 273053 Le 2.00 6.25 2.50 10.50 7.00 5.25 5.65
PI 244672 Le 3.00 4.50 2.25 12.00 6.50 4.42 5.65
PI 159009 Le 3.25 5.25 2.50 11.00 6.25 4.67 5.65
PI 131880 Le 2.75 4.25 2.25 12.00 7.00 4.50 5.65
PI 129019 Le 2.25 4.25 2.75 12.00 7.00 4.67 5.65
PI 128611 Le 3.00 4.75 2.00 12.00 6.50 4.42 5.65
(continued)
7
Table 2. continued
PI 419145 Le 3.00 5.00 3.00 10.00 7.50 5.17 5.70
PI 273049 Le 2.00 5.25 2.75 12.00 6.50 4.83 5.70
PI 244956 Le 2.50 4.75 2.25 12.00 7.00 4.67 5.70
PI 195785  2.00 6.00 3.00 10.50 7.00 5.33 5.70
PI 376072 Le 2.00 6.50 3.00 10.50 6.75 5.42 5.75
PI 273141 Le 2.00 4.50 2.25 12.00 8.00 4.92 5.75
Red Rock Le 3.00 5.25 2.50 12.00 6.25 4.67 5.80
PI 273073 Le 2.75 5.50 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.75 5.80
PI 272701 Le 2.25 5.75 2.00 12.00 7.00 4.92 5.80
PI 258469 Le 2.00 4.50 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.00 5.80
PI 233903 Le x
Lpi 1.75 5.25 2.00 12.00 8.00 5.08 5.80
PI 215709 Le 2.00 6.00 2.00 12.00 7.00 5.00 5.80
PI 169581 Le 2.00 4.75 2.25 12.00 8.00 5.00 5.80
PI 128601 Le 2.75 5.00 2.25 12.00 7.00 4.75 5.80
PI 128215 Le 3.00 5.25 3.00 12.00 5.75 4.67 5.80
PI 92861 Le 2.25 4.50 2.25 12.00 8.00 4.92 5.80
PI 92858 Le 2.75 4.25 3.00 12.00 7.00 4.75 5.80
PI 92853 Le 2.50 5.00 2.50 12.00 7.00 4.83 5.80
PI 231730 Le 3.00 6.00 3.75 11.00 5.50 5.08 5.85
PI 159198 
Vetomold Le 3.00 4.00 3.25 12.00 7.00 4.75 5.85
PI 95590 Le 3.25 5.75 3.25 12.00 5.00 4.67 5.85
PI 169589 Le 3.25 5.50 3.00 10.50 7.25 5.25 5.90
PI 159008 Le 2.25 4.75 2.50 12.00 8.00 5.08 5.90
PI 155373 Le 3.25 4.75 2.50 12.00 7.00 4.75 5.90
PI 129061  2.25 5.25 3.00 12.00 7.00 5.08 5.90
PI 128178 
Marzana Le 2.50 5.50 3.50 10.50 7.50 5.50 5.90
PI 126426 Le 2.00 4.25 2.25 12.00 9.00 5.17 5.90
PI 324707 Le 3.25 5.75 2.00 12.00 6.75 4.83 5.95
PI 177007 Le 2.00 6.25 2.75 12.00 6.75 5.25 5.95
PI 114968 Le 2.25 5.50 2.50 12.00 7.50 5.17 5.95
PI 155378 Le x
Lpi 3.25 6.75 3.00 10.50 6.25 5.33 5.95
PI 155372 Le 2.25 6.50 2.25 12.00 6.75 5.17 5.95
PI 79532 Lpi 4.00 7.50 3.50 10.50 4.50 5.17 6.00
Florida MH1 Le 3.00 6.00 3.25 12.00 5.75 5.00 6.00
Venus Le 3.00 5.50 3.00 12.00 6.75 5.08 6.05
PI 419188 Le 4.50 6.00 3.50 10.00 6.25 5.25 6.05
PI 304252 Le 2.75 6.00 3.00 10.50 8.00 5.67 6.05
PI 272734 Le 2.25 6.50 2.50 12.00 7.00 5.33 6.05
PI 155379 Le x
Lpi 2.75 6.25 2.50 12.00 6.75 5.17 6.05
PI 143522 Lpi 3.50 6.50 3.50 10.50 6.25 5.42 6.05
PI 120278 Le 2.75 5.00 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.17 6.05
PI 100697 Le 3.00 5.50 3.50 12.00 6.25 5.08 6.05
PI 91909 Le 2.25 5.00 3.00 12.00 8.00 5.33 6.05
PI 379050 Le 2.00 6.25 3.50 12.00 6.75 5.50 6.10
PI 195322 Le x
Lpi 2.00 5.75 2.25 10.50 6.50 4.83 6.10
PI 179944 Le 2.00 6.25 2.75 12.00 7.50 5.50 6.10
(continued)
8
Table 2. continued
PI 155368 Le x
Lpi 3.25 5.75 2.50 12.00 7.00 5.08 6.10
PI 128606 Le 2.00 6.00 2.50 12.00 8.00 5.50 6.10
PI 128216 Le 3.00 6.00 2.50 12.00 7.00 5.17 6.10
PI 114969 Le 2.50 6.50 3.00 12.00 6.50 5.33 6.10
PI 111409 Le 3.00 6.75 2.00 12.00 6.75. 5.17 6.10
Marmande Le 3.25 6.75 2.50 12.00 6.25 5.17 6.15
PI 379059 Lpi 2.25 7.50 4.25 11.00 5.75 5.83 6.15
PI 379057 Le 2.75 7.50 3.00 11.00 6.50 5.67 6.15
PI 375937 Le 3.25 6.00 2.50 12.00 7.00 5.17 6.15
PI 306216  3.00 7.00 3.50 11.00 6.25 5.58 6.15
PI 270192 Le 2.00 5.50 2.75 12.00 8.50 5.58 6.15
PI 129062 Le x
Lpi 2.50 6.25 3.00 12.00 7.00 5.42 6.15
PI 126408 Le 2.00 6.50 2.75 12.00 7.50 5.58 6.15
PI 118778 Le 2.50 5.50 3.75 12.00 7.00 5.42 6.15
Fla. 1841 Le 4.50 6.50 3.00 11.00 6.00 5.17 6.20
PI 220863 Le 3.00 6.00 2.50 12.00 7.50 5.33 6.20
PI 319894 Le 2.50 5.50 3.00 12.00 8.00 5.50 6.20
PI 308182  2.50 5.50 4.50 12.00 6.50 5.50 6.20
PI 155376 Le 4.50 7.00 3.00 11.00 5.50 5.17 6.20
PI 108244 Le 2.25 6.25 2.50 12.00 8.00 5.58 6.20
PI 155371 Le x
Lpi 3.00 6.75 2.50 12.00 7.00 5.42 6.25
PI 155370  2.75 6.00 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.50 6.25
PI 128888 Le 3.00 6.00 2.75 12.00 7.50 5.42 6.25
PI 272736 Le 3.25 5.50 2.50 12.00 8.00 5.33 6.25
PI 195784  1.75 6.00 2.50 12.00 9.00 5.83 6.25
PI 163252 Le 3.25 5.50 2.25 12.00 8.50 5.42 6.30
PI 155374 Le 3.00 6.50 3.00 12.00 7.00 5.50 6.30
PI 129129 Le 2.00 6.50 3.00 12.00 8.00 5.83 6.30
PI 102885 Le 3.00 6.00 3.50 12.00 7.00 5.50 6.30
PI 367957 
Manalucie Le 4.50 5.00 3.25 12.00 7.00 5.08 6.35
PI 344102 Lpi 4.00 7.50 4.00 10.50 6.00 5.83 6.40
PI 272664  2.50 7.00 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.83 6.40
PI 195615 Le 3.00 6.75 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.75 6.45
PI 128660 Lpe 4.00 8.00 5.25 9.00 6.00 6.42 6.45
PI 159181 Le 3.75 6.50 3.25 12.00 7.00 5.58 6.50
PI 251306 Lpe 3.25 8.00 5.50 10.00 6.25 6.58 6.60
PI 163253 Le 2.50 6.75 3.75 12.00 8.00 6.17 6.60
PI 159007 Le x
Lpi 3.25 7.00 3.25 12.00 7.25 5.92 6.60
PI 390710 Lpi 5.00 7.00 3.50 12.00 5.75 5.42 6.65
PI 270248 
Sugar Le 2.50 6.50 4.25 12.00 8.00 6.25 6.65
PI 128663 Lpe 3.00 7.50 5.50 10.00 7.25 6.75 6.65
PI 102719 Le 4.25 6.50 3.00 12.00 7.50 5.67 6.65
PI 128657 Lpe 3.50 9.00 5.75 9.00 6.25 7.00 6.70
PI 108245 Le x
Lpi 2.75 7.00 3.50 12.00 8.50 6.33 6.75
PI 340905 Lpi 2.00 7.75 4.50 12.00 7.50 6.58 6.75
(continued)
9
Table 2. continued
PI 169584 Le 4.00 5.75 4.75 12.00 8.00 6.17 6.90
PI 126443 Lgl 4.00 8.00 5.25 12.00 6.25 6.50 7.10
PI 128661 Lpe 3.75 8.50 5.50 12.00 7.50 7.17 7.45
Farthest North Le 5.50 7.50 5.75 12.00 7.00 6.75 7.55
LSDO.05 1.38 1.80 1.22 3.05 1.57 1.06 1.02
"ZListed in order from lowest to highest RO ratings.
YLycopersicon species abbreviations: Le = L. esculentum,
Lgl = L. glandulosum, Lpi = L. pimpinellifolium, Lpe
L. peruvianum. A "" means not identified.
XRating codes: R1 = first rating, whole plant; R2B = second
rating, bottom half of plant; R2T = second rating, top half of
plant; R3B = third rating, bottom half of plant; R3T = third
rating, top half of plant; RE = effective rating, (R2B + R2T
+ R3T)/3; RO = overall rating, (R1 + R2B + R2T + R3B + R3T)/5.
WAbbreviated pedigree = [(Subartic Delite x Fla. MH1) x
Heinz 603]F5.
10
Table 3. Incidence of bacterial spot leaf infection in 1983
for the most resistant Lycopersicon genotypes from
1982, Bradenton, Florida.
HorsefallBarratt Ratingsx
Genotypez SpeciesY R1B RIT R1
Ohio 40133 Le 2.00 ow 1.00 e 1.50 k
Ohio 40144 Le 2.50 no 1.25 e 1.88 j
Heinz 1568F3 Le 3.13 mn 1.75 d 2.44 i
[(SAD x MH1)xH603] F5v Le 3.50 lm 2.00 cd 2.75 hi
L556 Le 3.63 km 2.75 b 3.19 eg
Campbell28 Le 3.88 j1 2.00 cd 2.94 gh
PI127813 Le 3.88 j1 2.00 cd 2.94 gh
Heinz 603F11 Le 4.25 ik 2.00 cd 3.13 fh
PI224573 Le 4.33 hj 2.00 cd 3.17 eg
Monense Le 4.38 hj 2.00 cd 3.19 eg
Heinz 2990 Le 4.38 hj 2.13 cd 3.25 eg
PI324708 Lpi 4.50 gj 2.17 c 3.33 dg
Heinz 1568F6 Le 4.63 gi 2.00 cd 3.31 dg
PI117899 Le 4.75 fi 2.00 cd 3.38 df
[(6204)xC1 11d] F7 Le 4.88 ei 2.00 cd 3.44 cf
Texas 204B5 Le 5.00 dh 2.00 cd 3.50 cf
PI270217 Le 5.00 dh 2.13 cd 3.56 ce
Heinz 820 Le 3.13 dg 2.00 cd 3.56 ce
PI159199 Le 5.13 dg 2.00 cd 3.56 ce
PI203232 Le 5.37 cf 2.00 cd 3.69 bd
Early Red Rock Le 5.38 cf 2.00 cd 3.69 bd
(420) F8 Le 5.50 be 2.13 cd 3.81 bc
PI309666 Le 5.63 bd 2.00 cd 3.81 be
L2024 Le 6.00 bc 2.00 cd 4.00 b
PI270248 Sugar Le 6.00 bc 2.00 cd 4.00 b
Walter Le 6.00 bc 2.13 cd 4.06 b
Fla 1339 Le 6.13 b 2.00 cd 4.06 b
Lyconorma Le 7.00 a 5.25 a 6.13 a
"z Listed in order from lowest to highest R1B ratings.
Y Lycopersicon species abbreviations: Le = L. esculentum,
Lpi = L. pimpinellifolium.
x Rating codes: R1B = bottom half of plants; RIT = top half
of plants; R1 = overall rating, (R1B + R1T)/2.
w Means in columns separated by Duncan's multiple range test,
5% level.
v Abbreviated pedigree = [(Subartic Delite x Fla. MH1) x
Heinz 603] F5
11
Table 4. Incidence of bacterial spot leaf infection on new
Lycopersicon genotypes tested in 1983 at Bradenton,
Florida.
HorsefallBarratt Ratingsx
Genotypez SpeciesY RIB RIT R1
Hawaii 7998 Le 2.00 jw 2.00 gh 2.00 n
P1379032 Lpa 2.00 j 2.00 gh 2.00 n
Burgess Crack Proof Le 4.00 j 2.00 gh 3.00 1n
PI127817 Le 4.25 hi 1.50 h 2.88 mn
PI330727 
'Bulgaria 12' Le 4.25 hi 1.50 h 2.88 mn
PI432913 Le 4.50 gi 2.00 gh 3.25 km
Ontario 7710 Le 4.50 gi 2.00 gh 3.25 km
PI224574 Le 4.50 gi 1.50 h 3.00 1n
PI433011 Le 4.75 fi 2.00 gh 3.38 jm
TK705  4.75 fi 2.25 fh 3.50 im
Oregon 450 Le 4.75 fi 2.75 eh 3.75 hm
PI432949 Le 5.00 ei 2.00 gh 3.50 im
Ohio 7663 Le 5.00 ei 2.00 gh 3.50 im
PI195616  5.00 ei 2.00 gh 3.50 im
PI319895 Le 5.00 ei 2.00 gh 3.50 im
PI128241 Le 5.25 di 1.50 h 3.38 jm
PI215709 Le 5.25 di 1.50 h 3.38 jm
IRATL3 Le 5.50 ci 2.00 gh 3.75 hm
PI432996 Le 5.50 ci 2.50 fh 4.00 gm
Bulgarian 136T1  5.50 ci 2.00 gh 3.75 hm
PI91914 Le 5.50 ci 2.00 gh 3.75 hm
Walter Le 5.50 ci 2.50 fh 4.00 gm
P1124235 Le 5.50 ci 2.00 gh 3.75 hm
PI433032 Le 5.75 ci 2.50 fh 4.13 em
Ontario 7615E Le 6.00 bg 2.00 gh 4.00 gm
PI272736 Le 6.00 bg 2.00 gh 4.00 gm
P1134208 Le 6.00 bg 2.25 fh 4.13 fm
Imp. Garden State Le 6.00 bg 2.25 fh 4.13 em
Heinz 1939 Le 6.00 bg 2.00 gh 4.00 gm
Porense Le 6.00 bg 2.00 gh 4.00 gm
UC 134 Le 6.00 bg 3.00 dg 4.50 ek
PI224594 Le 6.00 bg 2.50 fh 4.25 el
PI155369 Le x Lpi 6.25 bf 2.00 gh 4.13 fm
Early Red Rock Le 6.25 bf 2.50 fh 4.38 ek
PI433010 Le 6.25 bf 2.00 gh 4.13 fm
PI127824 Le 6.25 bf 2.50 fh 4.38 ek
Ohio MR13 Le 6.25 bf 2.00 gh 4.13 fm
PI111409 Le 6.25 bf 2.00 gh 4.13 em
Jubilee Le 6.50 bf 2.25 fh 4.38 ek
PI126430 Lpi 6.50 be 2.50 fh 4.50 ek
PI224709 Lpi 6.50 be 2.00 gh 4.25 el
PI212408 Lpi 6.50 be 2.25 fh 4.38 ek
Proc. US 28 Le 6.50 be 3.50 cf 5.00 dh
Tiny Tim Le 6.50 be 6.50 a 6.50 bc
(continued)
12
Table 4. continued
Okitsu sozai #1 Le 6.50 be 2.00 g 4.25 e1
PI127818 Le 6.50 be 2.00 gh 4.25 e1
PI126938 Lpi 6.75 bd 2.00 gh 4.38 ek
PI126923 Le x Lpi 6.75 bd 3.50 cf 5.13 dg
PI195784 Le 6.75 bd 2.00 gh 4.38 ek
PI134417 Lh 6.75 bd 4.00 bd 5.38 cf
PI308182 Lh 6.75 bd 2.50 fh 4.63 ej
PI128643  7.00 bc 4.00 bd 5.50 ce
PI27801 Le 7.00 be 2.25 fh 4.63 ej
PI306216 Lpi 7.00 be 2.25 fh 4.63 ej
P1126939 Lpi 7.00 bc 2.50 fh 4.75 ei
Ontario 7522 Le 7.00 bc 2.75 eh 4.88 dh
PI127798 Le 7.00 bc 3.75 ce 5.38 cf
PI126910 Le 7.50 b 4.50 bc 6.00 bd
PI126948 Le x Lpi 7.50 b 4.50 bc 6.00 bd
PI127818 Le 9.00 a 2.00 gh 5.50 e1
P1128651 Le 9.00 a 6.60 a 7.80 a
z Listed in order from lowest to highest R1B ratings.
Y Lycopersicon species abbreviations: Le = L. esculentum,
Lh = L. hirsutum, Lpi = L. pimpinellifolium. A "" means
not identified.
x Rating codes: RIB = bottom half of plants; RIT = top half
of plants; R1 = overall rating, (R1B + R1T)/2.
w Means in columns separated by Duncan's multiple range test,
5% level.
13
associated with wilting (J. W. Scott, unpublished data). Ohio
40133 is related to Ohio 40144, but should be examined further,
as its wilting is not so severe as that of 40144. Other
genotypes with intermediate bacterial spot resistance could be
examined in greater detail, but probably would not provide
resistance greater than that of C28. In fact several genotypes
could be related to C28, notably the Heinz lines or those with
Heinz contributors to their pedigree. Another genotype, 'Burgess
Crack Proof,' is in the pedigree of C28. The bacterial spot
resistance of these lines is likely controlled by a similar
genetic mechanism.
Scientists interested in examining genotypes for resistance
to other tomato bacterial pathogens might screen some of the more
resistant accessions reported here. As has been demonstrated in
these experiments, resistance to one bacterial pathogen does not
insure resistance to others; however, some trends are worth
exploring. For example, Hawaii 7998 is reported to have good
resistance to bacterial wilt (Sonoda, R. M., personal
communication) and 'Monense' is highly resistant to bacterial
canker (1). These accessions had resistant and partially
resistant responses, respectively, to bacterial spot (Tables 1,
2, 3). Many such L. esculentum genotypes might have better
resistance to bacterial pathogens than exotic species with
reported resistance (19), and might be easier to use in breeding
work. Regarding bacterial spot, Hawaii 7998 and perhaps some of
the other partially resistant genotypes provide some hope in
breeding for resistance to a disease to which there is no genetic
answer in present day cultivars.
14
LITERATURE CITED
1. Boelema, B. H. 1980. Resistance to Corynebacterium
michiganense in tomato cultivars and breeding lines.
Phytophylactica 12: 8182.
2. Conover, R. A., and Gerhold, N. R. 1981. Mixtures of
copper and maneb or mancozeb for control of bacterial spot
of tomato and their compatibility for control of fungus
diseases. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 94: 154156.
3. Courtney, W. H., G. E. Banfield, and V. T. Gray. 1983.
Tomato Cultivar Trials 1983. Ontario Hort. Res. Inst.
Research Rpt. #68.
4. Coyne, D. P. and M. L. Schuster. 1967. A source of tolerance
and reaction of tomato species and varieties to bacterial
spot pathogen. Plant Disease Reporter 51: 2528.
5. Crill, Pat, John Paul Jones, and D. S. Burgis. 1972.
Relative susceptibility of some tomato genotypes to
bacterial spot. Plant Disease Reporter 56: 504507.
6. Emmatty, D. A. and C. A. John. 1973. Evaluation of
resistance to bacterial canker of H2990, a new tomato
variety. Plant Disease Reporter 57: 584586.
7. Horsfall, J. G. and R. W. Barratt. 1945. An improved system
for measuring plant disease. Phytopathology 35: 655
(Abstract).
8. Jones, J. B., S. M. McCarter and R. D. Gitaitis. 1981.
Association of Pseudomonas syringe with a leaf spot disease
of tomato transplants in southern Georgia. Phytopathology
71:12811285.
9. Knzeva, Z. V. and G. S. Kunnukh. 1979. Breeding tomato for
resistance to Xanthomonas vesicatoria. Referativnyi Zhurnal
6.65.238: 141149 (RussianEnglish abstract cited).
10. Laterrot, H., and F. Kaan. 1978. Resistance to
Corynebacterium michiganense of lines bred for resistance to
Pseudomonas solanacearum. Tomato Genet. Coop. Rpt. 28:78.R
11. Lawson, Vince F. and W. L. Summers. 1984. Disease
reaction of diverse sources of Lycopersicon to Xanthomonas
campestris pv. vesicatoria pepper strain race 2. Plant
Disease 68: 117119.
12. Lawson, Vince F. and W. L. Summers. 1984. Resistance to
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in wild Lycopersicon
species. Plant Disease 68: 139141.
13. Marco, G. M., and Stall, R. E. 1983. Control of bacterial
spot of pepper initiated by strains of Xanthomonas
15
campestris pv. vesicatoria that differ in sensitivity to
copper. Plant Disease 67:779781.
14. Pilowsky, M. and 0. Zutra. 1982. Screening wild tomatoes
for resistance to bacterial speck pathogen (Pseudomonas
tomato). Plant Disease 66: 4647.
15. Pitblado, R. E. and E. A. Kerr. 1979. A source of
resistance to bacterial speckPseudomonas tomato. Tomato
Genet. Coop. Rpt. 29:30.
16. Pohronezny, K. and R. B. Volin. 1983. The effect of
bacterial spot on yield and quantity of fresh market
tomatoes. HortScience 18: 6970.
17. Scott, J. W. 1982. A frost tolerant tomato. Tomato Genet.
Coop. Rpt. 32: 45.
18. Scott, J. W. and J. B. Jones. 1984. Severity of bacterial
spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria (Doidge)Dye)
on leaves and fruit of Florida grown tomato cultivars Proc.
Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97: (157159).
19. Sonoda, R. M. and J. J. Augustine. 1978. Reaction of
bacterial wiltresistant tomato lines to Pseudomonas
solanacearum in Florida. Plant Disease Reporter 62: 464
466.
20. Sotirova, Violeta and Liliya Beleva. 1975. Resistance of
tomato wild species, varieties and cultivars to Xanthomonas
vesicatoria (Doidge) Dowson. C. R. Acad. Agric. G. Dimitrov
8: 4347.
21. Volin, R. B. 1979. Selecting freshmarket tomatoes in
Florida for resistance to bacterial leafspot, and
inheritance studies in improved root development. In: First
International Symposium Tropical Tomato. AVRDC, Shanhua,
Taiwan.
22. Yunis, H. Y. Bashin, Y. Okon, and Y. Henis. 1980. Two
sources of resistance to bacteria speck of tomato caused by
Pseudomonas tomato. Plant Disease 64: 851852.
16
This publication was produced at a cost of $509.10, or 33.9 cents per
copy, to provide information about evaluation of Lycopersicon sp. ac
cessions for resistance to Bacterial Spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv.
vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye).
All programs and related activities sponsored or assisted by the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations are open to all persons regardless of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or handicap.
ISSN 0096607X
