• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Tables
 Copyright






Group Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1984.
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076493/00004
 Material Information
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1984.
Series Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Alternate Title: Research report - Dover, Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; DOV-1984-3.
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Albregts, E. E.
Howard, C. M.
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1984
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076493
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 143118825

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Tables
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text



AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
IFAS, University of Florida
Rt. 2, Box 157
Dover, Florida 33527 HUME LIBRARY

Dover ARC Research Report DOV-1984-3 jL 'T2r 1 g

STRAMIERRY VARIETY TRIALS 1984
i.F.A.S.- Univ. of Florida
E. E. Albregts and C. I.:. Howard

INTRODUCTION

Strawberry fruit yield and quality characteristics are dependent on the clone
and the climate of the area in which they are grown. Soil fertility and soil type
as well as cultural conditions also affect plant response. Thus, a clone must be
evaluated within a region to determine its response of the environment of the
region. The purpose of this report is to provide results from a trial with
selected strawberry cultivars and the most promising breeding lines grown at the
Agricultural Research Center, Dover during the winter of 1983-84.

IATERILS AND L:T-THODS

Forty two advanced breeding lines and nine cultivars were evaluated in the
fruit production field. Reported within are the evaluations of the nine cultivars
and 15 of the most promising breeding lines. All cultivars except 'Dover' were
developed in California. Beds were fumigated with 400 lbs/bedded acre of 1C-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, sulfur
coated urea. All plants were set on October 20, 1983. All breeding lines and the
'Dover' cultivar were from ARC-Dover nurseries. The other cultivars were obtained
from local growers. 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 in
December until a freeze on the 25th. Because of extensive and uneven flower and
.cruit damage, fruit were not harvested again until February when flowers produced
after the freeze. became harvestable as fruit. Harvest continued until the end of
April. Fruit were graded, counted, and weighed, and marketable fruit were also
ova:luated for several quality factors as noted in Tables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
December miare+,ab.e fruit yields were confined to the day-neutral cultivars,
'Fern' and 'Selva', and to three of the breeding lines (Table 1). February yields
were highest with clones.81-318, 81-2689, 80-866, 81-2553, and 'Dover'. Lowest
February yields were from clones 79-1125, 'Selva', 'Fern', and 'Santana'. Seasonal
yields above 3000 flats/acre were harvested from clones 81-2465, 80-1340, 79-1126,
81-1183, 81-872, and 'Dover'. 'Tufts', and 'Pajaro' gave high seasonal yields, but
yields came late in season when fruit prices were very low.


Professor (Soils) and Professor (Plant Pathologist), respectively, with the Univ.
of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural Researo~h Center, Rt. 2, Box 157, Dover, FL 33527.





1 1.


Average uarhetable fruit weight was highest with 'Santana' followed by 81-
2689, 'Parker', 80-866, and 79-.1126. All cultivars,' except 'Dover', 'Fern', and
'Selva' plus breeding' lines 1--2465 and 79-1126 had the lowest percentage of their
fruit rated as cull (Table 2). Cull fruit were generally the result of siall
fruit harvested late in the season vhen large nu.11ers of fruit are on the plant at
one time.

Fruit firmniess and resistance to abrasion are .measures of shipping ability of
the fruit (Table 3). Fruit firiaiess and resistance to abrasion are cor.e-.,hat
related attributes, but there are exceptions. "."arm breather, longer intervals
between harvests, excess rainfall, excess foliage, etc usually results in a greater
number of clones exhibiting fruit which are easily bruised. In January and
February, during cool weather most fruit are not easily bruised, however, during
larch and Anril with the warner weather, clones could be separated by their
susceptibility to bruising. Fruit in this study vere harvested on. a 3 and 4 day
schedule, but cor.mercial rovers generally have longer intervals between harvest,
especially late in the season. Therefore, bruising can be .:ore cou-on in
commercial fields. Fruit of the clones 'Parker', 'Cantana', 79.-1126, 01.-872, 77..
369, 81-2465, and 'Tuston' were rated as hard in 40' or more of the harvests.
iost other clones were rated as firLn except for 'Tufts'. The resistance to
abrasion t.as greatest :with 'Parker', but many other clones shoved good resistance
to abrasion. 'Tufts' Lave the least resistance to abrasion.

Additional fruit quality data are given in Table 4. 'Santana', 'Tuston',
79-1126, and 79-1120 had greater than 3' of their fruit rated :with green tips.
'Chandler', 'Pajaro', 'Fern', 'Selva', 77.193, 1-26G9, and 'Dover' had greater
than 5% of their fruit rated witi green shoulders. ::ore than 2Y of the fruit fror.n
clones 79-1120 and 61-872 had deformed fruit tips. 'Parker', 'Gantana', and
'Tuston' had greater than 7.5' of their fruit rated ac Liscshapen. Clone '1--2465
had more than 6% of its fruit rated as splits. The California clones had the
greatest percentage of their fruit rated as fans and with water dar.age except for
'Tufts'.

Fruit quality as related to percent bruised and percent with rots after a
week of storage as well as the rercent.soluble solids in the fruit before and
after storage is ,iven in Tables 5, 6, and 7. 'Chandler' gave the highest soluble
solids content with the 'arch 9 harvest. The percent of the fruit wNith rots after
one week in storage was equal to or greater than 12.5% vith the clones 'Tufts',
'Selva', 'Tuston', 'Pajaro', and 01-..72. With the :Iarch 21 harvest, clones 81-313,
77-869, 'Tufts', 'Tuston', and 'Santana' had the highest soluble solids. The
percent of the fruit bruised before storage w-as high and increased after one week
of storage. The percent of the fruit with rots was equal to or greater than 9.5 :
for clones 'Tufts', 'Chandler', 80.866, 81-.2465, 81-.2553, and 61-149. For the
April 4 harvest date, soluble solids were highest with clones 77-869 and 81-313.
DruisingL was high with most clones after one week of storage, and the percent of
the fruit :ith rots was greater than 11.5, winth clones 77-198, 'Tufts', and 'Tuston'.

Data for the 1983-84 season indicate that many AT.C. Dover breeding lines gave
higher earlier and seasonal yields than the California cultivars and :ere also of
superior quality.








-3-


Table 1. Marketable fruit yield (flats/acre) and avg fruit wt (g/fruit) for 1983-
84 season.


Sn l


December February March April


Seasonaly


av. fruit wt.


Marketable yield (flats/acre)


334egfx
243fghijk
751a
651abc
306fghi
337efg
263fghijk
126k
307fghi
451de
498cd
219ghijk
608bc
692ab
315efgh
270fghij
577bcd
164ijk
366ef
280fghij
173hijk
151jk
297fghij
347efg


1518
2124
1616
1740
1624
2047
2089
1841
2083
2164
2127
2800
1934
1702
1824
1201
2291
1027
1085
1244
1350
1025
1465
1360


998
538
107
320
300
760
423
395-
767
537
932
615
367
386
427
1038
227
115
1348
673
1004
264
1112
682


2850bc
2905bc
2480cde
2711bcd
2230e
3144b
2786bcd
2362de
3157b
3152b
3557a
3634a
2909bc
2780bcd
2566cde
2509cde
3095b
1306f
2799bcd
2197c
2527cde
1440f
2874bc
2389de


g/fruit

14.56cdef
15.00abcd
13.79fgh
15.26abc
12.79ij
13.90fgh
13.81fgh
13.86fgh
15.20abc
14.19defg
13.18hi
14.27defg
14.20defg
15.53ab
13.69fgh
14.99abcd
13.24hi
12.24j
14.29defg
15.31abc
15.79a
12.44ij
13.82fgh
14.91cde


"28.5 gram/ounce.

hMay not equal 100% of total of monthly yield because of rounding.

INumbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different by
Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.

WFruit weighing 10 gram (1/3 ounce) or more and of marketable quality.


Gultivars
or lines


6



2





1




123


81-149
77-198
81-318
80-866
77-869
81-872
79-1120
79-1125
79-1126
81-1183
80-1340
81-2465
81-2553
81-2689
81-3114
Chandler
Dover
Fern
Pajaro
Parker
Santana
Selva
Tufts
Tuston


--








-4-
Table 2. Cull fruit yield for cultivars and breeding lines for 1983-84 season.

Cultivars Cull yieldsc (flats/acre)
or lines December February aIvarch April Seasonal % Cull

81-149 50 264 516 830cdey 22.56
77-198 142 390 251 783def 21.24
81-318 174 463 49 686efg 21.68
80-866 152 357 324 833cde 23.51
77-869 43 361 238 642fgh 22.34
81-872 92 516 649 1257a 28.57
79-1120 64 583 291 938bcd 25.20
79-1125 58 439 222 719efg 23.37
79-1126 83 335 292 710efg 18.38
81-1183 107 411 481 999bc 24.07
80-1340 53 436 446 935bcd 20.82
81-2465 42 574 242 858cde 19.10
81-2553 215 477 353 1045b 26.08
81-2689 132 441 292 865bcde 23.75
81-3114 89 558 341 988bc 27.81
Chandler 41 217 282 540ghi 17.71
Dover 260 768 201 1229a 28.43
Fern 18 26 312 86 4421j 23.65
Pajaro 35 193 341 569ghi 16.89
Parker 34 132 141 307j 11.93
Santana 39 185 272 496hi 16.42
Selva 5 33 295 141 474hij 23.99
Tufts 27 184 391 602fghi 17.32
Tuston 36 223 226 485hi 16.85


ZCull fruit were those that either weighed less
were damaged, or were severely misshapen.


than 10 grams (1/3 ounce), had rot,


YNumbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different by
Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.









-5-


Table 3. Fruit firmness and resistance
several cultivars and breeding lines


to abrasion for marketable size fruit for
for 1983-84 season.


Fruit firmness
H .F S


Resistance to abrasion"


Percent of harvests that fruit


exhibited


these qualities


81-149
77-198
81-318
80-866
77-869
81-872
79-1120
79-1125
79-1126
81-1183
80-1340
81-2465
81-2553
81-2689
81-3114
Chandler
Dover
Fern
Pajaro
Parker
Santana
Selva
Tufts
Tuston


19efghx
19efgh
33cde
31cdef
44bc
45bc
29cdef
29cdef
52b
34cde
30cdef
44bc
34cde
34cde
9h
26defg
21efgh
20efgh
15fgh
88a
76a
25defg
llgh
40bcd


59abcd
60abcd
63abcd
59abcd
51bcde
51bdde
60abcd
55abcd
46def
64abc
66ab
52bcde
58abcd
47cdef
63abcd
64abc
70a
48cdef
33fg
lOgh
23gh
54abcd
17gh
36efg


20cd
18cd
4ef
10def
5ef
3ef
lldef
14de
2ef
2ef
4ef
3ef
9def
19cd
29c
9def
9def
28c
40b
If
If
20cd
52a
21cd


2c
3c





Ic
m--










2c

4c
llb
le
Ic

2c
20a
3c
llb

--


39hi
69bcd
59cdef
50efgh
68cd
69bcd
70bcd
72bc
88a
71bcd
85ab
72bc
46fghi.
51efgh
43ghi
71bcd
59cdef
63cde
55defg
98a
93a
70bcd
33i
70bcd


48a
27def
35abcde
43ab
30bcde
28cdef
25efg
27def
12ghi
29cdef
15fgh
28cdef
47a
40abcd
45a
26ef
37abcde
26ef
27def
2i
5hi
23efg
41abc
23efg


12bc
3cd
6cd
6cd
ad
Id
5d
Id

----


8cd
9cd
12bc
3cd
4cd
lObcd
18b

2d
6cd
26a
6cd


ZFruit firmness: Relative resistance to pressure when hand squeezed, H
F = frim, S = soft, and VS = very soft.


= hard,


YResistance to abrasion: Damage to flesh surface when rubbing fruit surface with
mild pressure, A = high rating, means no damage to fruit; B = slight damage to
fruit; C = considerable damage to fruit, and D = severely damaged to fruit.

XNumbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different by
Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.


uulilvar
or lines


,,., ,,,, ..


-~---


- -I I mI


-- -










Table 4. Quality of marketable size fruit of several cultivars and breeding lines
for 1983-84 season.

Cultivars Green Green Deformed Vater
or lines tips shoulders tips M1isshapen Split Fans damage

Percent of total marketable size fruit with listed characteristics

81-149 2.32 1.30 1.64 '4.32 1.18 0.96 0.12
77-198 1.04 5.78 0.72 0.90 0.20 4.14 2.72
81-318 2.34 3.96 0.98 1.88 0.12 1.38 0.76
80-866 1.82 4.60 0.70 2.32 0.28 2.16 0.20
77-869 0.22 4.40 0.12 0.98 0.00 0.32 1.00
81-872 2.66 1.74 2.34 0.66 1.06 1.36 0.94
79-1120 3.12 0.36 2.88 0.82 0.94 3.12 0.08
79-1125 1.14 1.02 0.84 4.50 0.68 1.98 1.06
79-1126 3.60 1.00 1.06 2.48 0.66 1.22 0.52
81-1183 1.70 2.80 0.26 2.06 0.92 2.30 1.30
80-1340 0.48 2.92 0.18 0.64 0.22 3.02 0.32
81-2465 1.72 0.34 1.16 2.60 6.12 1.30 0.08
81-2553 0.22 1.98 0.58 1.16 0.04 1.40 0.96
81-2689 0.48 5.96 0.32 1.98 0.28 2.28 2.16
81-3114 1.50 1.92 0.76 0.68 0.44 1.14 0.16
Chandler 2.26 7.78 0.76 3.38 0.32 2.88 0.88
Dover 1.30 5.04 1.34 0.98 0.08 2.08 0.18
Fern 0.64 6.90 0.60 1.38 1.34 4.36 1.66
Pajaro 0.76 7.02 0.12 1.36 0.34 7.22 3.96
Parker 2.44 0.08 1.88 9.96 2.12 4.98 8.68
Santana 3.84 1.06 0.94 8.98 1.98 6.22 5.82
Selva 0.64 6.56 0.96 2.20 0.86 4.52 3.02
Tufts 0.68 0.84 0.38 2.12 0.80 8.80 0.34
Tuston 3.20 1.98 0.88 7.56 1.42 5.10 3.74










Table 5. Quality of fruit harvested and evaluated on March 9 and then stored for
one week at 45oF and evaluated again on March 16, 1984.


March 9, 1984 March 16, 1984
Cultivar Range of Avg. % Fruit Range of Avg. %
or soluble soluble no. soluble soluble Percent Percent
"lines ___w_ 3 i l, nl i d -c f-r'nit-hgal__gr vlt nml -- \ bmil P,(--rontt.PT--
81-149 7.0-8.8 8.1 20 6.4-7.4 7.0 5.0 0.0
77-198 4.4-8.6 6.6 22 7.0-7.8 7.1 4.5 9.1
81-318 6.0-8.2 7.0 27 5.8-7.2 6.4 18.5 0.0
80-866 6.0-11.2 8.4 21 6.8-10.4 8.2 4.8 9.5
77-869 8.4-11.0 9.4 26 6.8-9.6 8.4 3.8 0.0
81-872 5.0-8.4 7.0 24 5.4-7.8 6.6 0.0 12.5
79-1120 6.8-7.6 7.2 22 6.4-9.0 7.6 0.0 0.0
79-1125 5.4-8.4 6.8 15 5.8-9.4 7.3 6.7 6.7
79-1126 8.0-9.2 8.7, 29 6.6-8.0 7.7 34.0 0.0
81-1183 7.2-11.0 9.1 22 7.0-8.0 7.5 4.5 0.0
80-1340 6.4-8.8 7.7 25 6.4-8.0 7.1 4.0 0.0
81-2465 6.2-8.4 7.3 36 5.0-7.4 6.3 5.6 2.8
81-2553 6.4-9.4 7.6 26 5.8-7.0 6.2 42.3 0.0
81-2689 6.0-7.8 7.3 20 4.8-10.6 6.6 25.0 0.0
81-3114 6.8-8.8 7.6 29 5.6-8.0 6.8 20.7 3.4
Chandler 8.8-13.0 11.2 20 8.4-11.0 9.4 0.0 10.0
Dover 5.4-9.2 7.6 32 5.8-9.0 6.9 3.1 0.0
Fern 7.4-9.8 8.7 30 6.0-9.2 7.7 6.7 3.3
Pajaro 7.0-9.8 8.2 6 5.0-10.2 7.4 0.0 16.7
Parker 7.0-8.4 7.6 20 6.0-9.0 7.9 10.0 0.0
Santana 5.8-10.4 8.4 15 6.2-10.0 8.2 0.0 0.0
Selva 6.8-10.0 8.8 20 7.0-11.4 9.0 25.0 20.0
Tufts 6.4-10.2 7.8 28 5.2-10.8 8.6 14.3 21.4
Tuston 7.2-11.4 8.6 18 6.8-10.8 8.2 11.1 16.7








-8-


Table 6. Quality of fruit harvestedand evaluated on March
one week at 450F and evaluated again on March 28, 1984.


21 and then stored for


March 21, 1984 March 28, 1984
Cultivars Range of Avg. I Total Range of Avg.
Cutivars soluble soluble no. % soluble soluble Percent Percent
or solids solids fruit Bruised solids solids bruised rotten
lino s
-*linoa---------------- ------- ----------------

81-149 5.4-8.0 7.2 20 3.0 5.8-8.0 6.9 65.0 10.0
77-198 4.8-10.4 6.4 19 21.0 5.0-7.0 5.9 36.8 5.3
81-318 6.0-11.8 8.0 32 6.25 7.0-9.6 8.1 71.9 3.1
80-866 5.6-10.2 7.5 22 27.3 6.0-9.0 7.1 63.6 13.6
77-869 6.8-10.2 8.5 37 5.4 6.4-9.2 8.0 48.6 2.7
81-872 4.8-7.6 6.6 22 13.6 5.0-7.0 5.9 77.3 4.5
79-1120 5.6-7.8 7.2 30 3.3 5.8-8.4 6.8 43.4 6.7
79-1125 4.8-7.0 6.3 30 10.0 6.4-10.0 7.5 53.3
79-1126 6.8-9.0 7.6 28 10.7 6.2-7.8 7.0 25.0 3.6
81-1183 5.8-7.4 6.7 28 ---- 6.0-7.8 6.9 35.7
80-1340 6.8-9.0 7.8 32 18.8 5.6-9.8. 7.6 53.1 ---
81-2465 4.8-7.4 5.8 35 14.3 4.4-6.4 5.5 65.7 11.4
81-2553 5.8-8.8 6.4 21 42.9 5.6-8.6 6.6 71.4 9.5
81-2689 5.2-8.8 6.4 22 18.2 5.0-6.8 5.7 68.2 ---
81-3114 5.6-8.2 7.0 26 15.4 5.8-7.0 6.5 65.4 ---
Chandler 5.8-8.2 6.8 24 8.3 6.0-9.4 7.5 45.8 12.5
Dover 5.6-7.8 6.9 28 17.9 5.2-7.8 6.2 82.1 --
Fern 5.8-7.6 6.7 18 33.3 .4.8-9.8 6.9 94.4 ---
Pajaro ------- --- -- ------- --- ---- ----
Parker 5.6-13.0 7.8 28 ---- 6.0-10.0 7.7 10.7
Santana 7.6-10.8 8.6 17 11.8 5.6-9.0 7.1 41.2
Selva 5.0-8.0 6.4 25 12.0 5.8-7.2 6.6 48.0 ---
Tufts 5.4-11.0 8.1 20 15.0 5.8-8.6 7.2 25.0 20.0
Tuston 6.2-9.8 8.0 29 10.3 5.4-8.2 6.5 51.7 6.9











Table 7. Quality of fruit harvested and evaluated on April 4 and then stored for
one week at 450F and evaluated again on April 11, 1984.


April 4, 1984 April 11, 1984
Cultivar Range of Avg. % Total Range of Avg. 7
or soluble soluble no. % soluble soluble Percen Percent
Lines solids solids Fruit Bruised solids solids bruised rotter

81-149 5.8-8.0 6.7 27 ---- 6.2-8.8 6.7 51.9 7.4
77-198 4.6-9.0 5.9 44 --- 5.4-7.6 6.4 52.3 22.7
81-318 7.0-10.8 9.3 32 ---- 7.0-10.4 9.2 28.1 3.1
80-866 7.2-10.6 9.1 25 32.0 6.0-8.8 7.5 52.0 20.0
77-869 6.8-10.8 9.4 40 5.0 8.4-11.0 9.4 32.5 2.5
81-872 6.0-9.4 7.1 38 5.3 5.2-8.2 7.1 28.9 2.6
79-1120 7.8-10.2 8.9 47 --- 5.6-9.4 8.1 25.5 4.3
79-1125 6.4-10.8 7.8 46 6.5 5.8-9.0 7.6 43.5 ---
79-1126 7.0-10.8 8.2 41 --- 6.2-7.8 7.0 29.3 2.4
81-1183 5.2-9.8 8.2 57 3.5 7.6-10.0 8.5 40.4 7.0
80-1340 6.8-9.8 8.1 45 8.9 6.2-8.4 6.9 62.2 8.9
81-2465 6.8-8.6 7.7 36 2.8 7.4-10.0 8.5 36.1 ---
81-2553 4.8-9.4 7.3 44 2.3 6.4-7.8 7.0 52.3 2.3
81-2689 5.4-10.6 8.1 27 11.1 6.8-10.8 8.2 33.3 7.4
81-3114 7.6-11.2 9.2 28 ---- 7.4-9.6 8.1 25.0 3.6
Chandler 5.6-10.4 8.0 36 ---- 6.4-9.0 7.3 33.3 8.3
Dover 6.8-10.0 8.1 37 2.6 6.2-8.8 7.2 29.7 ---
Fern 7.2-9.8 8.6 37 2.7 8.8-10.6 9.2 73.0
Parker 5.8-8.8 7.3 29 ---- 7.4-9.4 8.5 27.6 ---
Santana 5.2-8.2 7.1 37 ---- 6.2-10.4 8.1 35.1 2.7
Selva 8.6-11.0 8.6 38 5.3 7.0-9.0 8.0 42.1 7.9
Tufts 5.2-10.4 7.5 21 19.0 6.6-8.6 7.4 47.6 19.0
Tuston 6.4-8.8 7.2 26 3.8 5.4-8.0 6.6 42.3 11.5









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




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