• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Introduction, results, and...
 List of Tables














Group Title: AREC-H research report - Agricultural Research and Education Center-Homestead ; SB-73-4
Title: Response of four tomato varieties to rates of N, P and K
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067831/00001
 Material Information
Title: Response of four tomato varieties to rates of N, P and K
Series Title: Homestead AREC research report
Physical Description: 3 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Orth, Paul G
Agricultural Research and Education Center, Homestead
Publisher: University of Florida, Agricultural Research and Education Center
Place of Publication: Homestead Fla
Publication Date: 1973
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- Varieties -- Fertilizers -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Paul G Orth.
General Note: "September 4, 1973"
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067831
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 72443889

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Introduction, results, and discussion
        Page 1
    List of Tables
        Page 2
        Page 3
Full Text





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







Homestead AREC Research Report SB73-4 .....-... September-4;- 1973


Response of Four Tomato Varieties to Rates of N, P, and K
1/ :
-i -" Paul G. Orth-


The role of fertilizers in the production of tomatoes needs continued 'tudyP'forjat
least two reasons. First, tomato quality and yield vary-as the influence of father
interacts with fertilization and other cultural practices. Many tests are needed to
measure the response to fertilizer under the different types of weather patterns
normally encountered. Second, tomato varieties respond differently to weather.
Therefore, more is learned about these differences in response if more than one
variety is included in a fertilizer test. The following experiment was carried out
to measure the response of four varieties of tomatoes to five rates of fertilization,

Four varieties of tomatoes were grown at the fertility levels shown in Table 1.
Fertilization was uniform until the second side-dressing, 38 days after planting.
Treatment 1 was low fertility and treatment 5 medium fertility. Treatment 2 was low
in nitrogen, 3 was low in phosphorus, and 4 was low in potassium. The first side-
dressing was placed between the rows, the second on the outside. The four varieties
grown, (direct-seeded) Tropi-Red, Walter, MH-l and a "908" line from the breeding
program were planted two rows per bed and replicated seven times. Each plot con-
sisted of ten feet of bed with about 20 plants at harvest. Other cultural practices
were routine and uniform for all treatments.


* Results and Discussion

Two weeks after planting MH-1 seedlings were largest and "908" seedlings were small-
est, but five days later Walter seedlings were smallest, and the other three vari-
eties about equal in size. Most plants increased 25% in weight per day during the
first half of December; this growth rate declined to 12%/day by the end of December.
The plants developed good size. Visually, MH-l plants were the least vigorous with
a tendency toward lighter green color whereas plants of "908" variety were darker
green and the most vigorous at all fertilizer rates. As fruit neared maturity,
plants on treatment 5 appeared the most vigorous and those on treatment 1 the least.

Some fruit was picked between February 15 and 28, but the main pickings were March 6
and 13. Cool weather during February delayed maturity and probably increased fruit
size. Yield data are summarized in Table 2. Fertilizer treatment had no statisti-
cally significant effect on marketable yield or fruit size. Variety did have a
significant effect on yield and fruit size. MH-1 gave the lowest yield and 908 the
highest. Both MH-l and Tropi-Red tended to produce a greater proportion of larger
fruit than the other two varieties. For example about 44% were in the 6 X 6 size
and 21% in the 7 X 7 size for these varieties compared with 30% 6 X 6 size and 26%
7 X 7 size for Walter and "908".

Five fruit of each variety and each fertilizer treatment were rated for three quality
factors by Dr. Bryan four weeks after picking. On a rating scale of 1 to 5 with 5
being firm,fruit from treatment 5 (average rating 4.0) were significantly firmer
than those from treatment 1 (average rating 3.1). MH-l and "908" produced firmer



1/
SAssistant Soils Chemist, Agricultural Research and Education Center, University
of Florida, IFAS, Homestead, Fla. 33030.









Table 1. Fertilization rates applied to four tomato varieties.

At Planting (11/10/72)


N P205


Pounds/A
K20


MgO


MnO


Semi-banded with2 eed-
Banded near seed-


At Side-dressing #1 (12/12/72)--

Pounds/A
N P205 K20 Mg0


30 80


At Side-dressing


72 15


#2 (12/18/72)3/


Pounds/A


N P205


K20


0
120'
120
0
120


Total Fertilizer Application


N P205


Pounds/A
K20


1 72 165 114 32 35
2 72 280 234 57 40
3 122 165 234 57 40
4 122 280 114 57 40
5 122 280 234 57 40


SN and K came from slow release fertilizer Osmocote.

2/
/ N and K came from slow release fertilizer Sulfur-coated
urea and KC1.

3/
2 Nutrient sources were ammonium nitrate (33-0-0), concentrated
superphosphate (0-46-0), potassium sulfate (0-0-50), magne-
sium sulfate, and manganous oxide.


Treatment
number


MgO


MnO


Treatment
number


MgO


MnO











Table 2. Marketable tomato yields in response to variety
and fertilizer rate.


Marketable Yields Tons/Acre*


MH-1 Tropi-Red Walter


2.20a
4.17a
4.37a


Yield by Size-
2.92 c 4.00 c
4.26a 6.78 b
6.48 c 4.54ab


10.74a 13.76 b


908


4.67 d
7.44 c
5.46b


15.32 c 17.57 d


Fertilizer
Treatment
number


10.18
10.80
11.02
9.95
11.77


- Yield by Treatment -


12.29
14.26
14.56
12.96
14.74


15.20
13.72
16.86
16.28
14.56


10.74a 13.76 b


15.32 c 17.57 d


Comparing numbers horizontally, numbers followed by the
same letter are not statistically different at the 5%
level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.
fruit (average rating 4.3) than the other two varieties (average rating 3.0). There
were smaller differences in internal color and green gel. The trend was for poorer
quality for treatment 1 and better quality for treatment 5. Variety had little
effect except for lighter internal color with "908".

A good crop of tomatoes was produced in this experiment with 122 Ibs/A of N, 280 lbs/
A of P205, and 234 Ibs/A of K20. Although yield was not significantly reduced by
using 72 lbs of N, 165 lbs of P205 or 114 lbs of K20, fruit quality was somewhat
reduced. As mentioned previously fertilizer is only one factor affecting fruit
quality and yield, therefore, these rates serve only as guidelines. More important
is the evidence that all four varieties responded similarly and that variety was the
most important factor affecting fruit yield and size.


Size
7x7
6x7
6x6

Total


Average


18.52
17.46
17.47
16.72
17.66




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs