• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Tables
 Copyright






Group Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1987.
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076493/00006
 Material Information
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1987.
Series Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Alternate Title: Research report - Dover, Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; DOV-1987-2
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Albregts, E. E.
Howard, C. M.
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1987
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076493
Volume ID: VID00006
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
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text




AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
IFAS, University of Florida
13138 Lewis Gallagher Road
Dover, Florida 33527

Dover AREC Research Report DOV-1987-2 -June, 137

SCentral Science
STRAWBERRY VARIETY TRIALS 1987 library

E.E. Albregts and C.M. Howard AUG 25 1987

INTRODUCTION University of Florida

Since the 1981-82 season, some 5000 acres of strawberry have n
annually in Florida. Most of the acreage has been in the west central part of the
state. Crop value has varied from 40 to 50 million dollars since 1982. Crop value
fluctuates from season to season because of yield, but more importantly because of
price. Florida produces most of the nation's winter crop of strawberries until
California production starts. Depending on the weather, California starts producing
in volume from early March to early April. California controls the price when
their production is in volume. Thus early fruit yields are as important to the
grower, if not more so, than the total seasonal yields during most seasons. To
reflect this situation, yield data are shown monthly to indicate performance in-
relation to marketing conditions. The purpose of this report is to provide results
from evaluations of selected strawberry cultivars and AREC-Dover breeding lines
conducted at the Agricultural Research and Education Center, Dover during the
winter of 1986-87.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three cultivars and 26 advanced breeding lines were evaluated in 'the fruit
production field. Beds were fumigated with 400 lbs/bedded acre of MC 98-2 (Methyl
bromide: chloropicrin, 98%:2%) and fertilized with 2000 lbs/acre of a .10-4-10
fertilizer. One-fourth of the fertilizer was broadcast before bed preparation, and
the remainder was banded 1 to 2 inches deep in the bed center. One-half of the
nitrogen was sulfur-coated urea with the remainder composed of ammonium nitrate.
All plants were set on October 29, 1986. All breeding lines were from AREC-Dover
nurseries. The cultivar 'Selva' was obtained from Tennessee, 'Douglas' from
Ontario, Canada, and the 'Pajaro' was grown locally. Five replications/clone with
14 plants/replication were used. Approved pesticides were applied as needed, and
moisture was applied by overhead sprinkler irrigation as required. Fruit were
harvested, graded and weighed twice weekly from December through April.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Several clones produced fruit in December (Table 1). 'Douglas' had received
chilling in the nursery prior to setting in fruiting plots, and 'Selva' is a day
neutral cultivar. Neither 'Douglas' nor 'Selva' produced well in January or for

1Professor (Soil Scientist) and Professor (Plant Pathologist), respectively, with
the Univ. of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural Research and Education Center, 13138
Lewis Gallagher Road, Dover, Florida 33527.









-2-


the season. Florida breeding lines 81-2689 and 81-1350 produced some fruit in
December and the highest yields in January (Table 1). Highest seasonal marketable
yields were produced by FL-84-1528, FL-81-2465, FL-84-2260, FL-79-1126, and FL-83-
457. Seasonal yields were very low with the 3 cultivars. 'Selva' was infested
with mites upon planting and plants were never completely free of them which
probably reduced 'Selva' yields. However, 'Douglas' plants were some of the
largest in the trial while 'Pajaro' were of normal size, yet both produced poor
yields. Highest average marketable fruit weight came from FL-82-594 and FL-82-
1452. Seven other Florida breeding lines produced fruit weighing 16 g or more.
Clones producing more than 75% of their fruit as marketable were FL-82-1452, FL-83-
418, and FL-83-3385 (Table 2). Forty-three percent of the 'Douglas' and 'Pajaro'
fruit" were cull; about one-half were too small and one-half had rots. Breeding
lines FL-82-67 and MS-74 had lowest percent marketable fruit and these were noted
cull mostly because of small size. Table 3 indicates why fruit of each clone were
graded as cull.

Fruit firmness and resistance to abrasion (Table 4) determines to some degree
the shipping ability of strawberry fruit. Resistance to abrasion is more important
than firmness in determining the shipping ability of the fruit. Bruising of the
fruit is more likely in a wet and warm environment than under dry and cool
conditions. Of course, rough handling of fruit, overripe fruit, and excess foliage
on plant (soft fruit) can result in more fruit damage. Florida breeding lines 84-
2433, 84-2260, 79-1126, 84-1932, and 'Selva' had the firmest fruit. All the fruit
from Florida breeding lines 83-118, 79-1126, 82-1565, 84-1932, and 84-2260 were
very resistant to abrasion, and thirteen other clones were not significantly
different from these.

Fruit color can vary because of clone, harvest interval, temperature, amount
of plant foliage, soil moisture levels, amount of sunlight and perhaps because of
nutritional deficiencies. The effect of these variables can be seen in the clones
MS-74 and 'Douglas' where the fruit vary from light to dark (Table 5). Breeding
lines FL-83-457, FL-84-1528, FL-84-1932, and FL-83-3349 were fairly dark yn color.
Clones FL-83-414, FL-81-1350, FL-82-1556, FL-84-2433, FL-81-2689, FL-83-3385, and
'Douglas' were lighter in color than most other clones.

Clones 'IS-74, FL-83-4017, FL-84-2260, and FL-81-1350 had a considerable number
of green fruit tips (Table 6). Clones FL-84-1665 and FL-83-118 had the greatest
percentage of fruit with green shoulders while clone FL-82-1565 had the highest
percentage of fan-shaped fruit. Clones FL-82-1452 and MS-74 were most easily
damaged by irrigation or rainfall.

Clones rated acceptable for the 1986-87 season were FL-79-1126, FL-84-1528,
FL-82-1556, FL-84-2260, FL-84-2433, FL-81-2465, FL-81-2689, and FL-83-4017. Clones
FL-79-1126, FL-82-1556, FL-81-2465, and FL-81-2689 were also rated acceptable for
the 1985-86 season. Several additional breeding lines had good fruit size and
quality but were not rated acceptable because of low yields. Yet almost all
breeding lines had greater fruit yields than the cultivars.








-3-


Table 1. Marketable fruit yield (flats/acre) and avg. wt. of marketable fruit
S(g/fruit) for variety trial 1986-87 season.

Cultivars Seasonalz
or lines December January February March April SeasonalY avg. wt.

Marketable yield (flats/acre)w g/fruit

83-5P -- 266ijklmx 424 991 244 1926defgh 14.08
83-37P 1 398efghi 245 1221 303 2168bcdefg 14.68
82-67YG 3 1931mn 48 354 4 6021 13.74
MS-74 -- 228klm 177 5 443 852k1 11.61
83-118P -- 240jklm 493 923 228 1883efgh 16.77
83-414P -- 442defg 526 976 46 1990cdefgh 15.57
83-418 --- 78n 105 810 223 2162bcdefg 16.78
83-428 -- 270ijklm 186 1094 85 1635ghi 11.46
83-457 8 463defg 311 1611 64 2457abcd 13.15
82-594EYP 1 626bc 582 859 137 2206bcdef 18.07
79-1126 42 425efgh 166 1389 491 2513abc 15.16
81-1350 40 736ab 383 926 142 2228bcdef 16.50
82-1452P 1 493cdef 317 932 47 1791fgh 17.33
84-1528 --- 561cd 543 1373 422 2899a 14.81
82-1556P 1 264ijklm 346 1388 276 2274bcdef -16.48
82-1565 6 368fghijk 313 1195 49 1931defgh 14.85
82-1656EY --- 325ghijkl 269 1195 392 2181bcdefg 13.05
84-1665E -- 362fghijk 860 664 405 2291bcdef 16.39
84-1932P -- 84n 662 661 231 1587hij 15.86
84-2260 9 427defgh 228 1715 266 2646ab 14.79
84-2433E 14 527cde 371 1379 102 2393abcde 14.68
81-2465Y 1 264ijklm 323 1911 260 2866a 13.41
81-2689EY 46 792a 316 987 100 2242bcdef 16.81
83-3349 1 2081mn 464 851 211 1736fgh 15.26
83-3385P --- 163mn 425 913 134 1634ghi 16.17
83-4017 22 290hijklm 189 1531 225 2257bcdef 14.29
Douglas 109 249ijklm 153 430 154 1095jk 15.44
Pajaro -- 388efghij 344 158 280 1170ijk 14.85
Selva 118 2111mn 74 646 100 1149ijk 15.06


228.5 gram/ounce.

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

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

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










-4-


Table 2. Cull fruit (flats/acre) for variety trial, and percent
1986-87 season.


marketable for


Cultivars Cull yields (flats/acre)
or lines January February March April Seasonal Marketable

83-5P 6 44 327 324 702fghijkY 73.28bcde
83-37P 12 46 234 169 462jk 82.45a
82-67YG 17 42 333 59 451jk 57.18h
MS-7A 15 72 53 871 lOllabcdef 45.75i
83-118P 40 39 367 257 703fghijk 72.81bcde
83-414P 13 112 384 127 679ghijk 74.57abcd
83-418 2 39 446 202 689ghijk 75.82abc
83-428 37 214 623 216 1090abc 60.00fgh
83-457 9 88 662 281 1040abcde 70.26bcde
82-594EYP 83 155 630 296 1166ab 65.42efg
79-1126 22 144 633 392 1194ab 67.79cdef
81-1350 66 115 409 172 761defghij 74.54abcd
82-1452P 127 67 230 73 498ijk 78.25ab
84-1528 8 26 545 514 1094abc 72.61bcde
82-1556P 36 102 529 298 964abcdefg 70.22bcde
82-1565 97 232 392 95 817cdefgh 70.28bcde
82-1656EY 16 175 530 446 1167ab 65.14efgh
84-1665E 5 39 410 355 810cdefgh 73.88abcde
84-1932P 9 63 434 255 731efghijk 68.46cdef
84-2260 28 39 810 476 1354a 67.72cdef
84-2433E 16 96 458 271 841cdefg 73.98abcde
81-2465Y 12 84 869 310 1266a 69.36bcde
81-2689EY 88 108 574 294 1070abcd 67.69cdef
83-3349 5 40 477 382 905bcdefg 65.73defg
83-3385P 5 21 312 186 524hijk 75.71abc
83-4017 32 26 432 292 788cdefghi 74.13abcde
Douglas 39 31 333 418 823cdefgh 57.09h
Pajaro 8 79 184 577 848cdefg 57.98gh
Selva 75 38 199 104 434k 72.58bcde


ZCull fruit were those
were damaged, or were


that either weighed less than 10 grams (1/3 ounce), had rot,
severely misshapen.


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















-5-


Table 3. Percent of cull fruit rated small, rotten, or misshapen for variety
trial, 1986-87 season.


Cultivar
or lines Small Rotten Misshapen

83-5P 75 19 6
83-37P 78 19 3
82-67YG 31 68 1
MS-74 73 15 12
83-118P 63 28 9
83-414P 66 31 3
83-418 66 26 8
83-428 87 11 2
83-457 87 13 --
82-594EYP 47 40 13
79-1126 68 24 8
81-1350 66 27 7
82-1452P 72 23 5
84-1528 61 33 6
82-1556P 75 14 11
82-1565 79 20 1
82-1656EY 78 21 1
84-1665E 54 27 19
84-1932P 57 34 9
84-2260 62 16 22
84-2433E 66 22 12
81-2465Y 68 13 19
81-2689EY 72 19 9
83-3349 74 14 12
83-3385P 70 25 5
83-4017 65 25 10
Douglas 55 32 13
Pajaro 66 50 4
Selva 78 19 3









-6-


Table 4. Numbers in table represent the percent of harvests each cultivar or
breeding line rated as H, F, S, VS, or A, B, and C for variety trial
1986-87 season.


Cultivar Fruit firmness' Resistance to abrasion"
or lines H F S VS A B C


83-5P
83-37P
82-67YG
MS-74
83-118P
83-414P
83-418
83-428
83-457
82-594EYP
79-1126
81-1350
82-1452P
84-1528
82-1556P
82-1565
82-1656EY
84-1665E
84-1932P
84-2260
84-2433E
81-2465Y
81-2689EY
83-3349
83-3385P
83-4017
Douglas
Pajaro
Selva


10.37efghz
4.90fgh
30.68b
5.56fgh
28.57bc
0.78h
1.61h
9.45efgh
9.15efgh
31.39b
47.22a
2.68gh
25.00bc
27.66b
14.18def
27.66bc
1.44h
18.37cde
42.98a
47.55a
51.37a
30.07b
22.70bcd
12.93defg
7.09fgh
19.05cde
3.21gh
25.89bc
47.83a


82.22a
54.55efghi
60.23cdefg
83.33a
71.43abc
20.16k
36.29j
70.08abcd
74.65ab
67.15bcde
52.78fghi
73.83abc
63.28bcdef
63.83bcdef
71.63abc
70.21abcd
45.32hij
71.43abc
57.02defgh
51.75fghi
47.95ghij
67.13bcde
63.12bcdef
70.08abcd
73.05abc
72.79abc
43.59ij
71.43abc
45.65hij


6.06fgjik
39.86b
9.09efghij
11.lldefgh
----j
58.14a
58.06a
18.90cd
15.49cdef
1.46ij
-----j
22.82c
11.72defg
7.80efghij
13.48def
2.13hij
51.80a
9.52efghi
--j
0.70ij
0.68ij
2.80ghij
13.48def
16.33cde
19.15cd
8.16efghij
50.64a
2.68ghij
6.52fghij


0.74
0.70



20.93
4.03
1.57
0.70


0.67

0.71
0.71

1.44
0.68




0.71
0.68
0.71

2.56


97.78ab
84.62f
98.86a
95.56abcc
100.OOa
34.88i
71.77g
85.04f
90.78cdel
99.27a
100.00a
87.25ef
97.64ab
97.87ab
97.04abc
100.OOa
61.15h
89.86def
100.00a
100.OOa
99.32a
99.30a
94.33abcc
91.78bcde
90.78cdel
99.32a
70.97g
98.21fg
99.27a


1.42fg
6.99cde
--g
2.22efg
9.30b
9.30b


12.90ab 15.32c


8.66bc
S5.67cdef
0.73fg
--g
2.01efg
0.79fg
1.42fg
0.74fg
----g
14.39a
7.43cd
---g
----g
0.68fg
0.70fg
I 1.42fg
S6.16cdef
S2.84defg
0.68fg
8.39bc
0.89fg
----g


*H = hard, F = firm, S = soft, and VS = very soft

A = very resistant to abrasion, B = moderate resistance to abrasion, C = low
resistance to abrasion.

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


0.74fg
8.39de
1.04fg
2.22fg
----g
55.81a


6.30def
3.45efg
--g
----g
10.74cd
1.57fg
0.71fg
2.22fg
----g
24.46b
2.70fg
---g
----g
----g
--g

4.26efg
2.05fg
6.38def
--g
20.65b
0.89fg
0.73fg









-7-


Table 5. .Color rating of marketable fruit during the harvest season for 1986-87
season.


Cultivars Color rating
or lines 1 2 3 4 5 6

83-5P 34 54 43 4 -
83-37P 1 34 58 43 7
82-67YG 2 28 23 27 8
MS-74 5 29 19 13 13 11
83-118P 1 38 53 39 9 -
83-414P 1 61 44 23 -
83-418 1 48 49 23 3
83-428 1 35 59 32 -
83-457 1 29 61 50 1 -
82-594EYP 2 40 50 42 3 -
79-1126 1 44 61 33 5 -
81-1350 1 67 45 31 4 -
82-1452P 2 38 43 40 5 -
84-1528 1 22 33 55 30 -
82-1556P 10 61 41 26 3 -
82-1565 1 42 38 60 -
82-1656EY 1 41 46 50 1 -
84-1665E 1 42 71 33 -
84-1932P 16 37 47 14 -
84-2260 1 36 71 34 2 -
84-2433E 2 67 53 24 -- -
81-2465Y 1 49 64 29 -
81-2689EY 3 67 45 19 6 -
83-3349 1 18 40 69 18 1
83-3385P 2 64 50 25 -
83-4017 1 53 54 38 1 -
Douglas 64 39 30 13 10
Pajaro 2 32 44 30 -
Selva 1 22 65 40 9 1


ZFruit color rating: 1 = very light color, 2 =
red color, 4 = bright red color, 5 = moderately


moderately light color, 3 = average
dark color, and 6 = dark color.


Numbers in table are the number of times fruit were given a particular color
rating. Fruit of each replicate of a clone were given a color rating at all
harvest dates that fruit were present.










Table 6. Quality of marketable size fruit of several
for 1986-87 season.


cultivars and breeding lines


Cultivars Percentz
or lines GTY GS FAN WA

83-5P 3.11 1.58 0.42
83-37P 1.46 1.90 --- 0.15
82-67YG 2.96 2.13 0.16 0.33
MS-74 10.49 1.08 -- 4.12
83-118P 2.26 11.67 -- 1.35
83-414P 3.15 2.87 0.73 0.11
83-418 0.34 3.75 0.39 1.45
83-428 1.92 -- 1.46 --
83-457 0.08 2.24 2.27
82-594EYP 4.37 8.97 1.06 0.12
79-1126 5.47 0.39 2.95 0.30
81-1350 7.84 --- 0.53 0.32
82-1452P 1.32 1.18 1.95 5.02
84-1528 1.40 2.02 0.18 0.15
82-1556P 1.88 0.26 1.56 1.76
82-1565 0.89 0.39 5.15 --
82-1656EY 0.17 2.54 0.52 0.13
84-1665E 1.75 13.03 1.13 0.15
84-1932P 1.73 0.94 0.07 1.22
84-2260 8.41 0.12 0.44 0.04
84-2433E 2.25 4.95 1.94 2.96
81-2465Y 2.06 0.20 1.28 0.03
81-2689EY 1.40 1.83 1.51 1.57
83-2249 0.44 3.73 3.92 0.06
83-3385P 0.36 1.00 0.50 0.57
83-4017 9.30 0.36 0.87 0.18
Douglas 1.93 2.54 1.62 2.64
Pajaro 0.09 7.04 0.18 2.47
Selva 0.57 3.49 1.60 0.57


ZPercent of total marketable size fruit with listed characteristics.


YGT = green tips, GS = green
damage.


shoulders, FAN = fan shaped fruit, and WA = water









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