• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Table of Contents
 Main














Group Title: Quincy AREC research report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; 84-1
Title: Tomato research, 1982
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074339/00001
 Material Information
Title: Tomato research, 1982
Series Title: Quincy AREC research report
Physical Description: 9 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Olson, Stephen Michael
Agricultural Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- Field experiments -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Varieties -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: S.M. Olson.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074339
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 85577452

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Table of Contents
        Table of contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
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















Agricultural Research and Education Center
IFAS, University of Florida
Quincy, Florida 32351


Quincy AREC Research Report QUIN 84-1


Tomato Research 1982

S. M. Olson1




CONTENTS


Title

Tomato Transplant Age and Cell Size

N Fertilizer Application on Tomato

Tomato Variety Trials

Tomato Herbicide Trials


Page Number

1

4

4

8


Assistant Professor Vegetable Crops, Quincy AREC, Route 3 Box
638, Quincy, FL 32351.









TOMATO FIELD STUDIES 1982


Commercial tomato production is fairly new in Northwest
Florida, with first crop about 8 years ago. Many of the pro-
duction practices have been adapted from South Florida. This
adaptation has presented some problems due to differences in soil
types and different methods of irrigation.

These studies were initiated to look at how transplant age
and cell size affect yield, how N levels through trickle
irrigation affect yield, adaptation of various tomato varieties
in relation to yield and effectiveness of various herbicide
treatments on weed control and tomato yield.


TOMATO TRANSPLANT AGE AND CELL SIZE

Materials and Methods

The soil type was a Ruston loamy fine sand. Dolomitic
limestone was applied on January 19 at 4000 Rb/A. Raised beds
were used and were treated with Terr-o-Gas 67 at 250 Ib/A 4
weeks before planting. Fertilizer levels were 200-100-200 lb
NPK/A. A minor element mix (Micromat 2424 ) was broadcast before
bedding at 40 lb/A. Beds were spaced 6 ft apart and inrow
spacing of plants was 2 ft. Irrigation was by overhead sprnklers
and was applied as needed. Pest control was used when needed.
Variety used was 'Flora Dade'.

Design was a random complete block with 4 replication. Each
replicate contained 10 staked plants.

Treatments consisted of all combinations of transplant ages
(5, 6, 7 and 8 weeks old) and cel. sizes (1, 1.5 and 2 inches).
All plants were grown in Speedling trays.


Results

The yield results are shown in Table 1. The highest early
and total marketable yield occurred with the 6 week old plants
from 2 in. cells. The 5 and 8 week old plants from 2 in. cells
and 8 week old plants from 1 in. cells had comparable early and
total marketable yields with the 6 week old plants from 2 in.
cells. The 6 and 7 week old plants from 1.5 in. cells and 7 week
old plants from 2 in. cells had comparable total yield to the 6
week old plants from 2 in. cells. The highest percent marketable
fruit occurred with the 6 week old plants from 2 in. cells. The
heaviest fruit weight occurred with the 6 week old plants from 2
in. cells but were only statistically greater than the 6, 7 and 8
week old plants from 1.5 in. cells and 7 week old plants from 1
in. cells (Table 2). The 6 week old plants from 2 in. cells also
had the largest seasonal fruit size though not statistically
greater than all others.







Table 1. Effect
marketable yield


of transplant age and cell size on marketable and non-marketable yield and percent
of tomatoes.


Transplant
age
(weeks)


Marketable Yield


Cell
size
(in.)


=rT Total


25 lb boxes/A
Early Total


Non-Marketable Yield


cwt/A
Early Total


25 lb boxes/A
Early Total


Percent
marketable
fruit


148.8ey
186.4de
245.8ab
180.6de
199.2bcde
289.la
193.2cde
189.8cde
213.7bcd
240.5abc
156.3e
276.1la


367.1c
396.7bc
482.7ab
410.0bc
442.0abc
512.0a
417.1bc
470.6ab
423.5abc
480.7ab
411.8bc
474.6ab


595e
746de
983ab
722de
797bcde
1156a
773cde
759cde
855bcd
962abc
625e
1104a


1468c
1587bc
1931ab
1640bc
1768abc
2048a
1668bc
1882ab
1694abc
1923ab
1647bc
1898ab


109.6cde
124.0bcde
154.3ab
103.2cde
100.ldef
132.0bcd
114.5cde
91.9ef
132.9bc
114.3cde
72.0f
175.1a


291.3ab
278.lab
267.4ab
288.3ab
257.1ab
244.7b
273.2ab
268.7ab
273.4b
269.6ab
248.6ab
299.7a


438cde
496cde
617ab
413cde
400def
528bcd
458cde
368ef
532bc
457cde
288f
700a


1165ab
1112ab
1070ab
1153ab
1028ab
979b
1093ab
1075ab
1094ab
1078ab
994ab
1199a


55.8
58.8
64.4
58.7
63.2
67.7
60.4
63.7
60.8
64.1
62.4
61.3


ZHarvested before June 16, 1982.
YMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.


5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8


1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0


_









Table 2. Effect of transplant age and cell size on fruit weight and number of open flower clusters.


Transplant
age
(weeks)


Cell
size
(in.)


1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0


Marketable
Early Sea


6.28aby
5.91abc
5.93abc
5.88abc
5.57c
6.50a
5.69bc
5.83bc
5.86abc
5.90abc
5.54c
5.87abc


Fruit Weight (oz)
Non-marketable
sonal Early Seasonal


8.45a
7.60a
7.54a
7.90a
7.89a
8.51a
7.82a
8.06a
7.86a
8.04a
8.25a
7.60a


5.42a
4.64bc
4.29bc
4.81b
4.78b
4.34bc
4.89b
4.67b
4.35bc
4.88b
4.07c
4.49bc


5.08a
4.62bc
4.27c
4.68b
4.58bc
4.29bc
4.59bc
4.59bc
4.34bc
4.58bc
4.30bc
4.31bc


Plants with open flower clusters
(%)
Number of flower clusters
1 2 3


2.5
85.0
100.0
2.5
82.5
100.0
15.0
82.5
97.5
27.5
22.5
100.0


0.0
5.0
67.5
0.0
10.0
90.0
0.0
12.5
92.5
0.0
0.0
100.0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
27.5


ZHarvested before June 16, 1982.

YMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.


m









When open flower clusters were counted, all treatments from
2 in. cells had a greater number of open clusters.


N FERTILIZER APPLICATION ON TOMATO

Soil type, lime application and fumigation were described in
the tomato transplant study. Preplant fertilizer consisted of
100 lbs P20 and 200 Ibs of K20. Minor elements were broadcast
as described earlier. Treatments consisted of 2 N levels applied
before laying plastic and 4 N levels through the trickle irriga-
tion. Nitrogen levels are shown in Table 3. Nitrogen through
the trickle irrigation was applied 4 times at 25% of total each
time. Nitrogen source was ammonium nitrate.

Results

The highest yield was with 134 lb N/A preplant though it was
not statistically greater than the other treatments (Table 3).
With the increasing N level applied through the trickle there was
a decrease in yield. This decrease was thought to be due to NH4
toxicity that was visibly evident especially at the highest rate
of N. Marketable yields in all plots were low in comparison to
yields in other experiments. Much of the fruit was small and a
high percentage of fruit had blossom-end rot. This was evident
from the percent marketable fruit which was low from 29 to 39
percent. Rate of N application did not effect fruit size except
at the preplant level of 268 lb N/A.


TOMATO VARIETY TRIALS

Materials and Methods

The soil type, lime application, fumigation, fertilizer
levels and production practices were same as for the Age and
Cell Size study. All varieties were grown in 1.5 in. Speedling
trays for 6 weeks before transplanting into plots. A plot
consisted of 10 staked plants arranged in a random complete block
design with 4 replications. Fruit were harvested as breakers to
full color. Eighteen entries were evaluated for yield, percent
marketable fruit, fruit weight and cull characteristics.
Results

The results are shown in Table 4 and 5. 'Castlehy 1035' had
the highest early yield with 1241 25 lb boxes/A but it was not
significantly higher than 'Burgis' 'Castlehy 1041', 'FTE 12'
'Duke', or 'Walter PF'. 'Sunny' had the highest total yield with
2313 25 Ib boxes/A but it was not significantly higher than
'Burgis'r, 'Castlehy 1035', 'Castlehy 1041', 'Blazer', 'FTE 12'
or 'D76127'. 'Sunny' had the highest percentage of marketable
fruit. 'Blazer' had the heaviest fruit with an average fruit
weight of 7.52 oz but it was not significantly higher than

'Castlehy 1041', 'PL-1A' r 'L-B' or 'FL-C' -









Table 3. The effect
marketable fruit and


of amount of preplant N and trickle irrigation applied of N on yield, percent
fruit weight.


Trickle
Preplant Irriga-
N tion N


0

0

0

0

134
268


60

120

180

240

0

0


Marketable
yield
cwt/A 25 lb boxes/A


z


177.6az

170.6a

128.4a

101.5a

180.0a

142.3a


710a

682a

514a

406a

720a

569a


Non-marketable Percent Fruit
yield Total yield marketable weight
cwt/A 25 Ib boxes/A cwt/A 25 Ib boxes/A fruit (oz)


296.4a

259.0ab

279.lab

247.7ab

278.2ab

235.2b


1186a

1036ab

1116ab

991ab

1113ab

941b


474.0a

429.6abc

407.5abc

349.2c

458.2ab

377.5bc


1896a

1718abc

1630abc

1397c

1833ab

1510bc


37.4

39.7

31.5

29.1

39.3

37.7


5.53a

5.05ab

5.11ab

4.88ab

5.32ab

4.69c


ZMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.









Table 4. Tomato Entry Results, Spring 1982, Quincy, AREC.


Marketable


Earlyz


cwt/A
Total


Yield Percent Fruit
25 lb boxes/A Marketable Wt.


Early


Total


Fruit (oz.)


Sunny
Burgis
Castlehy 1035
Castlehy 1041
Blazer
FTE 12
D76 127
Hayslip
Duke
Walter PF
810396-2
D76125
FL-1A
Flora-Dade
FL-1B
FL-1C
810370-BK
NCX 3059


ZFruit harvested before June 15.
YMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range


Test, 5% level.


Entry


257.3
301.5
310.3
290.8
207.7
294.2
146.8
146.7
270.6
257.6
201.3
180.1
216.5
159.3
224.4
210.0
191.8
229.1


a-dy
a
a
ab
c-g
a
g
g
abc
a-d
d-g
efg
c-f
fg
c-f
c-g
d-g
b-e


578.4
564.9
550.0
515.9
496.6
495.0
487.2
467.6
463.1
462.1
455.5
453.6
452.1
447.8
447.8
441.7
408.7
396.7


a
a
ab
abc
a-d
a-d
a-d
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
cd
cd
cd
d
d


1029
1206
1241
1163
831
1177
587
587
1082
990
805
720
866
637
898
840
767
916


a-d
a
a
ab
c-g
a
g
g
abc
a-d
d-g
efg
c-f
fg
c-f
c-g
d-g
b-e


2313
2260
2200
2064
1986
1980
1949
1870
1852
1848
1822
1814
1808
1791
1791
1767
1635
1587


a
a
ab
abc
a-d
a-d
a-d
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
bcd
cd
cd
cd
d
d


75.0
71.0
72.8
73.5
70.7
61.7
67.6
66.5
67.1
64.7
68.0
62.8
66.4
68.5
66.4
63.9
61.8
59.0


6.88
6.42
6.14
7.27
7.52
6.44
6.09
6.52
6.70
6.39
6.56
6.19
7.33
5.69
7.29
7.17
6.85
6.38


b-e
ef
fg
abc
a
ef
fg
ef
b-e
ef
def
fg
ab
g
abc
a-d
b-e
ef







Table 5 shows the cull characteristics of the various entries
evaluated in spring 1982 at Quincy AREC.



Table 5. Cull characteristics of tomato entries evaluated. Spring, 1982,
Quincy, FL.


Blossom Off-
Beaked end Catface CracksY shaped Small Zippers
Entry fruit rot fruit -fruits

Castlehy 1035 X X X X
Sunny X X X
Duke X X X X X
Flora-Dade X X X X
FTE 12 X X X X X
Hayslip X X R X X X
Walter PF X C X X
Burgis X X C X
810370BK X X X X X
810396-2 X X X X
D 76125 X X R X X X
D 76127 X X X X
Castleby 1041 X X X X X
FL 1A X X X X X X
FL lB X X X X X X
FL 1C X X X C X X X
NCX 3059 X X X X X
Blazer X X R X X X


x= present
r = radial, c = concentric









TOMATO HERBICIDE TRIALS


Materials and Methods

Soil type was a Ruston loamy fine sand. Dolomitic limestone
was applied at 3000 lb/A on January 19 and area was treated with
D-D at 22 gal/A on January 22. Preplant fertilization was
120-120-120 lb/A N-P 05-K 0. Plots were sidedressed twice during
season with 40 lbsA each of N and K20 each time. Crops were
grown on raised beds with sprinkler irrigation. Six week old
"Flora-Dade' plants were transplanted March 19. Treatments were
arranged in a random complete block design and replicated 4 times
in 6 ft by 25 ft plots. Plants were spaced 24 in. within row and
were staked, pruned once and tied 4 times. Herbicides were
applied in a 40 in. band over the row with a CO2 backpack sprayer
at 30 psi pressure with 2 8003 Tee jet nozzles that delivered
23.1 gal/A. Herbicides were incorporated on the same day of
application with 0.5 in. of water applied by overhead irrigation.

Principal broadleaf weeds were Amaranthus species mainly
spiny Amaranth (A. spinosus L.), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia
L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and Florida
beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum (Scwartz) D.C.). Principal
grasses included crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scopoli)
and goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L.) Goertn.).


Results and Discussion

Fruit yields from the herbicide treated areas were never
significantly greater than the hoed check (Table 6). The high
rate of Antor 4E (4 qt/A) produced significantly lower yields
than all other herbicide treatments except for 2 qt/A rate of
Antor 4E. The 2 qt/A rate of Antor 4E produced yields lower than
all other herbicide treatments except the combination treatment
of Sencor 50W (1 lb/A pre) and Fusilade 4E (8 oz/A post).

The percent marketable fruit was lowest with the unhoed
check and both rates of Antor 4E. Both Devinol 50W (4 lb/A post)
and low rate of Antor 4E (2 qt/A post) failed to give acceptable
grass control. The low rate of Antor 4E (2 qt/A post) also
failed to give acceptable broadleaf control.

The high rate of Antor 4E (4 qt/A), combination of Sencor
50W (1 lb/A pre) and Fusilade 4E (8 oz/A post) and combination of
Sencor 50W (1 lb/A pre) and Prowl 4E (1.5 pts/A pre) caused a
reduction in vigor. All plots that received Sencor 50W showed
some damage but soon grew out of it.

The only materials that are legally cleared for tomatoes are
Sencor and Devinol.








Table 6. Effect of herbicide treatment rates and timing on yield, percent marketable fruit, weed
control and vigor on field grown tomatoes, 1982, Quincy, Florida.


Treatment


Rate/A


Yield
Marketable Total Percent
Applicationz 25 lb 25 lb Marketable
Time boxes/A boxes/A Fruit


Weed Controly
Grasses Broadleaf


Vigorx


Unhoed check
Hoed Check
Sencor 50W
Sencor 50W/Fusilade 4E
Sencor 50W/Devrinol 5C
Sencor 50W
Sencor 50W/Prowl 4E
Prowl 4E
Prowl 4E/Sencor 50W
Prowl 4E/Fusilade 4E
Prowl 4E/Devrinol 50W
Devrinol 50W
Antor 4E
Antor 4E
Fusilade
(2 applications)


1 lb
1 lb/8 ozs
)W 1 lb/4 lb
1 lb
1 lb/1.5 pt
1.5 pts
1.5 pt/1 lb
1.5 pt/8 oz
1.5 pt/4 Ib
4 lbs
2 qts
4 qts
8 oz


I
Pre/
Pre/
I
Pre/


Pre,
Pre/
Pre/


527.6
-- 966.7
?re 1077.0
/Post 924.6
/Post 1126.0
Post 1111.1
/Pre 1015.7
?re 1029.9
/Post 1137.6
/Post 1117.3
/Post 991.7
Post 1053.8
Post 685.7
Post 601.1
Post 1076.7


cW 1196.7 c
a 1810.6 ab
a 1996.1 a
ab 1735.1 ab
a 2045.1 a
a 2072.3 a
a 1834.2 ab
a 1891.2 ab
a 2011.0 a
a 1986.6 a
a 1912.3 a
a 1994.6 a
bc 1584.1 abc
c 1359.1 bc
a 1877.0 ab


z Herbicides were applied pretransplant (pre) or post transplant (post).

Y Rating 0-10; 0 no control, 10 complete control.
x Rating 0-10; 0 all plants dead, 10 plants very vigorous.

w Mean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test; 5% level.


44.0
53.4
54.0
53.3
55.0
53.6
55.4
54.5
56.6
56.2
51.9
52.8
43.3
44.2
57.4


0.0
10.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.8
10.0
9.8
9.1
6.5
5.8
8.0
9.8


0.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.2
9.2
8.5
7.0
8.5
0.0


9.0
8.5
8.5
6.0
7.5
8.8
6.8
8.5
8.5
8.8
8.0
9.5
8.0
6.0
9.0




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