Title: Pepper Variety trial
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076400/00001
 Material Information
Title: Pepper Variety trial
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Ozaki, H. Y.
Publisher: Plantation Field Laboratory, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076400
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 126878419

Full Text
/ F L


Plantation Field Laboratory Mlineo Report PEL 65-3


April, 1965


PEPPER VARIETY 'TRA ..
S. Y. Ozaki/

EXPERIMENT. Pepper Variety Trial 391 1964 I.

OBJECT: To evaluate 22 varieties aw./or .lines" of fail-sown peppers '(1963
Southern Cooperative Pepper Trial / 2 new varieties), in Palm Beach
County.

SUNMARY: Although outylelded by many varieties, Early Caiwonder (2) produced
the highest yields of fancy pods during-%he 1963-64 growing season.

COOPERATOR: Ted Winsberg


LOCATION:- '. Delray Beach, 'Florida "

VARIETIES : (1963 SOUTHERN COOPERATIVE PEPPER


Variety
California Wonder
Early Calwonder
Resistant Florida Giant
Yolo Wonder A
Yolo Wonder L
Rio Wonder
Liberty Bell
Idabelle
Calif. Wonder 300
Yolo Won. Improved B
Calcom
Delaware Belle
Keystone Res* Giant
*Illinois #6
YRP 10
Yolo Wonder
Pacific Bell
Florida Giant
XP 106 .
Florida Giant
Early Wonder
*BS-202-7-6


Lot No.
77123-1
87126
14920-15763
67424
87135
2470
87463-15741

PC613039


4300-200


VARIETIES / EXTRA)

Seed Source
Asgrow Seed Company
Asgrow,' Seed Company
Ferry-Morse Seed Co.
SAgrow' Seed Company
Asgrow.- Seed Company
Walter Baxter Seed Co.
Ferry-Morse Seed Co.
R. Foley, Univ. of Idaho
Asgrow Seed Co. .
Ferry-Morse Seed Co.
H. P. Cannon & Sons,Inc.
Ut! 1H. P. Cannon & Sons, Inc.
,?\ Corneli Seed Company
\Corneli Seed Company
I A. A. Cook, Univ. Of Fla.
2Germain's, Inc.
'Germain's, Inc.
A Asgrove Seed Company
S Asgrow Seed Company
Geo. Pedric4 & Sons, Inc.
S Corneli Seed Company
R. E. Stall, IRFL


*Replaced varieties in 1963 Southern Cooperative Trial.

PLANTING: Each plot consisted of a single row 10 feet long. Cn each bed two
pepper rows were sown.

1. This presentation of the performance of pepper varieties was prepared for
research and industry. Results herein neither constitute noraimply recom-
mendation of any particular pepper variety.,
2. Assistant'Horticulturist, Plantation Field Laboratory, University of Florida


No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
154
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
226









Pepper seeds were sown with a Planet Junior seeder set at hole 15 (except
Variety 22 at hole 14) and at the 10th notch of the depth regulator. The
plants were thinned to a nine inch spacing in the row.

FERTILIZER: Commercial growers' practices were applied.

PESTICIDES: Commercial growers' program was applied.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Complete randomized block with 4 replications.

LOG: Sown: 9/12/63.
Transplanted missing hills: 10/16.
Thinned: 10/18.
Harvests: First: 12/16. Last of 8: 3/16/6 .

DISCUSSION AND RESULTS: The weather was variable during the growing season.
Yates (Weather Forecasting Mimeo WEA-64-11 Report on Protection Work, Lower
East Coast District, 1963-64. U. S. Dept. of Commerce Fla. Agr, Expt. Sta.,
Lakeland, Fla.) has described in detail the weather for the 1963-64 season.
September was characterized by heavy rains. A total of 15.6 inches fell in
Pompano during the month of September, 1963, but only 6.2 inches fell in
October. The heaviest rain in November was 1.50 inches which fell on November
5 over eastern Palm Beach County.

December was characterized by cold weather. Average temperature for the
month was lowest on record. Temperatures were below normal, with 20 nights
in the 4o's.

On January 14, the highest temperature attained at Palm Beach was 48
degrees F. The minimum on the 15th dropped to 35 degrees. On January 12,
numerous stations reported 1.00 to 1.5 inches of rain.

February was cool with only six nights in the normal 60 degree tempera-
ture range. In addition to being cool, up to 6.0 inches of rain fell in Palm
Beach County on February 4-6. Winds of 40 to 55 knots on the 6th toppled 60
foot pine trees. Also, high winds occurred on the 18th and 26th.

Hail on March 16 terminated the pepper variety trial.

A few of the plots required transplanting to replace missing hills.
BS-202-7-6 (22) which did not have adequate supply of seed, required extensive
transplanting in Replication I.

Eight harvests of pepper pods were made before hail destroyed the plants.
The first harvest was made in mid-December- 96 days after seeding, and the last
harvest was made 3 months after the first harvest.

Bacterial spot (Xanthomonas vesicatoria (Doidge) Dows.) was fclund, in
general, to be more prevalent on the varieties with the Yolo type of resis-
tance to tobacco mosaic virus in ratings made by Dr. R. E. Stall, formerly
Plant Pathologist at the Indian River Field Laboratory. Tables 1 and 2
contain those ratings which were estimated during the last week of January
and between the 4th and 5th harvests. Although differences for the regular
analysis of variance were not significant (Table 1), the cing'l ieogr"- of
freedom analysis for Yolo vs. Non-Yolo was significant at the 5 le-vel(.iTable 2).
Hail destroyed the plants before another rating could be made.







Ghost spot disease was, in general, more severe on the tobacco mosaic virus
resistant varieties than the other varieties. Ghost spot, as described by
Dr. H. I. Borders, (1964 Plant Disease Reporter Vol. 48, No. 4, April 15:
325-326) infected at least one pod of almost all varieties in the trial.
One plot each. of Yolo Wonder A (4), Rio Wonder (6), Liberty Bell (7), Yolo
Wonder Improved B (10) and Florida Giant (20) in different replications,
were noted on the fourth harvest as infected. By the fifth harvest, the
infestation was severe on certain plots. (The grower lost 10% Early Calwonder
to the ghost spot disease in one field). Florida Giant (20), which was more
susceptible than Florida Giant (18), was the only non-tobacco mosaic virus
variety that was heavily infested. CW 300 (9) and BS-202-7-6 (22) each had 1
pod with a ghost spot that was questionable. California Wonder (1) and
Early Wonder (21) pods did not show any spots, as graded in field from the
last 4 of 8 harvests.

Although the fifth harvest had the highest number of infected pods, the
total yield from the fifth harvest was not much heavier than the total
yields from the sixth harvest. The last harvest (eighth) had both the
lightest infection and the lightest total pod yield.

Yolo Wonder (16) produced the highest total (including culls) and U. S.
fancy grade pod yields on the first harvest. Varieties resulted in yield
differences for the first harvest at the 1% level of statistical significance.

Illinois #6 (14) and Yolo Wonder (16) produced the highest total yields
from the first three harvests, but Yolo Wonder (16) and Early Calwonder (2)
produced the highest fancy yields. Table 3 contains the pod yield data for
the first three harvests. The means followed by the same letter are not sig-
nificantly different from each other. Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used
to separate the means.

Delaware Belle (12) produced the highest total and marketable (fancy /
U. S. #1) yields from 8 harvests, but Early Calwonder (2) produced the highest
U. S. fancy pod yields. Table 4 contains the pod yield data for 8 harvests.

Quality ratings, based largely on appearance of pods, were made at each
harvest. California Wonder (1), Early Calwonder (2), and Early Wonder (<21) pro-
duced good quality crown pods in the first 3 harvests. In later harvests,
California Wonder (1), Early Calwonder (2), Liberty Bell (7), Idabelle (8),
and CW 300 (9), produced fair quality limb fruits. The shape of pods of
XP 106 (19) was slightly elongated. On one of the early harvests, some pods
of Yolo Wonder A (4) were misshapen because a heavy first set of pods grew
in the narrow spaced forks of the branches. Some pods of BS-202-7-6 had
corky cracks on the surface.

Considering yield, quality and disease resistance, Early Calwonder (2)
produced the best yields of quality pods in Palm Beach County trial harvested
8 times during the 1963-64 growing season.









*Table 1. Bacterial spot disease ratings-/
*_____ 1964. 391 __ 1964 peppers.


SVariety
No.


on'pepper varieties on


January 29,


Mean '


California Wonder
Early CAlwonder
Resistant Florida Giant
Yolo Wonder A
Yolo Wonder L
Rio Wonder *
Liberty Bell
Idabelle
CW 300
Yolo Wonder Imp. B
Calcom
Delaware Bellet
Keystone Resistant Giant
Illinois 16
YRP 10 -.
Yolo Wonder
Pacific Bell
Florida Giant
xP 106
Florida Giant
Early Wonder
C* O _072.7


*1/ Rating based on a'0-10 scale, in which 0 equals no .disease and 10
equals at least 1 lesion on all leaves. Ratings made by R. E. Stall.
Table 2. Bacterial spot disease ratings/- on Yolo Wonder and California
Wonder types of pepper varieties by Dr. Stall on January 29, 1964.
391 I 1964 peppers.
Var-i .v ..t..


No.


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
20.
21.


California Wonder (ck)
Early Calwonder
*Res. Florida Giant
*Yolo Wonder A
*Yolo Wonder L
*Rio Wonder.
*Yolo Wonder Imp. B
*Keystone Resistant Giant
*YRP 10
*Yolo Wonder
*Pacific Bell
Florida Giant
Florida Giant
Early Wonder


Mean
2.0
1.2
3.0
2.5
3.2.
2.2
2.5'
2.7
2.7
3.2
2.0
1.7
3.0
1.2


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.* 6.
7.
S 8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
'13.
.14.
15.
16.,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
00


2.0
1.2
3.0
2.5.
3.2
2.2
3.0
2.2
3.0
2.5
1.7
1.5
'2.7
1.7
2.7
S3.2
2.0"
1.7
1.5
3.0
1.2


1/ Ratings based on a 0-10 scale, in which 0 equals no disease and 10
equals at least 1 lesion on all leaves.
*Considered to be of the Yolo type.


-





Table 3. Buhacls of pepper pods per acre, from first 3 harvests of 1964 pepper


experiment.
No. Variety


16.
2.
14.
5.
7.
18.
21.
1.
13.
3.
20.
6.
9.
10.
17.
12.
8.
4.
11.
15.
19.
22.


Fancy


Yolo Wonder
Early Calwonder
Illinois #6
Yol Wonder L
Liberty Bell
Florida Giant
Early Wonder
Calif. Wonder (ck)
Keys. Res. Giant
Res. Fla. Giant
Florida Giant
Rio Wonder
CW 300
Yolo Won. Imp. B
Pacific Bell
Delaware Belle
Idabelle
Yolo Wonder A
Calcom
YRP 10
XP 106
BS-202-7-6


610
595
564
549
544
538
533
513
508
492
492
487
477
477
456
4o5
4005
390
385
313
308


Marketable*Total


5%
a
a
ab
abc
abc
abc
abc
abc
abc
abc
abe
abc
abc
abc
bcd
bed
bed.
bed
ed
cd
d
d


1%
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
ab
abc
abc
abc
abc
abc
abe
abc
abe
abc
abc
abe
abc
bc
c
c


769
661
790
615
651
687
661
667
641
579
667
661
595
708
559
733
538
528
538
544
415
482


785
661
790
626
661
687
672
667
656
6o0
682
661
544
718
564
769
502
533
544
600
420
487


*Means not separated by Duncan's Multiple Range Test.


5%
a
abcde
a
abcde
abcde
abed
abed
abcde
abcde
cde
abed
abcde
cdef
abc
cdef
ab
def
cdef
cdef
bcde


Table 4. Bushels of pepper pods per acre, from 8 harvests of 1964 pepper


experiment.


Early Calwonder
Keys. Res. Giant
Illinois #6
Yolo Wonder L
Rio Wonder
Yolo Wonder
Liberty Bell
Early Wonder
Calif. Wonder
CW 300
Res. Fla. Giant
Pacific Bell
Yolo Wonder A
Idabelle
Florida Giant
Florida Giant
Yolo Won. Imp. B
Delaware Belle
YRP 10
Calcom
XP 106
BS-202-7-6


Fancy
5%
815 a
790 ab
790 ab
785 ab
785 ab
774 abc
744 abc
723 abc
718 abc
718 abc
703 abc
703 abc
697 abc
687 abc
646 abc
641 abc
626 abed
574 bade
569 bcde
554 cde
420 de
400 e


Marketable
1%
a 1103
a 1210
a 1395
a 1185
a 1374
a 1313
a 1108
a 1226
a 1159
a 1195
ab 1118
ab 1143
ab 1185
ab 1051
abc 1128
abc 1123
abc 1251
abd 1579
abc 1128
abc 1133
be 1128
c 972


5%
a de
bcde
ab
bede
be
bed
de
bede
cde
bcde
de
de
bcde
ef
de
de
bede


1%
bed
be
ab
be
ab
abc
bed
be
bed
be
bed
bed
be
cd
bed
bed
bc


a a
de bed
de bed
ef cd
f d


Total

1128
1267
1441
1267
1415
1390
1226
1277
1185
1195
1190
1210
1231
1067
1220
1200
1318
1718
1267
1236
1113
1026


5% 1%
def cde
bcde bed
b b
bcde bed
be be
be be
bcdef bed
bcde bed
cdef bed
cdef bed
cdef bed
cdef bed
bcdef bed
ef d
bcdef bed
cdef bed
bed bed
a a
bcde bed
bedef bed
def cd
f d


1%
a
abed
a
abcde
abed
abed
abed
abed
abcde
abcde
abed
abed
bcde
abed
abcde
abc
de
cde
cde
abede
e
de












S




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