• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Blank
 Program
 Update on late blight on tomat...
 Introducing grafting technology...
 Evaluation of TYLC virus-resistant...
 Tomato purple leaf
 Sudden decay of tomato fruit
 Studies to determine the cause...
 Tomato varieties for Florida
 Water management for tomato
 Fertilizer and nutrient management...
 Weed control in tomato
 Selected insecticides
 Nematicides registered
 Notes






Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089451/00006
 Material Information
Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings 2009
Series Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Simonne, Eric ( Compiler )
Whidden, Alicia ( Compiler )
Affiliation: University of Florida -- Horticultural Sciences Department
University of Florida -- Seffner -- Hillsborough County Extension Service
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research and Education Center. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Wimauma, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089451
Volume ID: VID00006
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

tomatoproceedings08 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Blank
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Program
        Page 5
    Update on late blight on tomato
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Introducing grafting technology to the Florida tomato industry
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Evaluation of TYLC virus-resistant varieties
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Tomato purple leaf
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Sudden decay of tomato fruit
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Studies to determine the cause of tomato purple leaf disorder
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Tomato varieties for Florida
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Water management for tomato
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Fertilizer and nutrient management for tomato
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Weed control in tomato
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
    Selected insecticides
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Nematicides registered
        Page 51
    Notes
        Page 52
Full Text
"a,.X


"LORIDA TOM
P R OC E.


N


:STITUTE

IS
IR S '^


A''1







PAGE


SS


ING


FROM
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT


MI







PAGE


SS


ING


FROM
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT


MI







PAGE


SS


ING


FROM
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT


MI










2008 FLORIDA TOMATO INSTITUTE
The Ritz-Carlton, Naples, Florida

September 3,20081 PRO 525


MODERATOR: CRYSTAL SNODGRASS, MANATEE COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE, PALMETTO
9:00 Welcome Daniel Cantliffe, Distinguished Professor and Chair, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville
9:15 State of the Industry Reggie Brown, Florida Tomato Committee, Maitland
9:30 CUE and Fumigant Assessment Update Mike Aerts, FFVA, Maitland
9:50 Fumigant Update Steve Olson, UF/IFAS, NFREC, Quincy
10:10 Update on Late Blight on Tomato: Recent Late Blight Isolates in Florida and Updated Management Options -
Pam Roberts, UF/IFAS, SWFREC, Immokalee: page 6
10:30 Introducing Grafting Technology to the Florida Tomato Industry: Potential Benefits and Challenges -
Xin Zhao, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville:page 9
10:50 Evaluation of TYLC Virus-resistant Varieties Under Commercial Conditions in Southwest Florida -
Monica Ozores-Hampton, UF/IFAS, SWFREC, Immokalee: page 12
11:10 Food Safety Update Martha Roberts, UF/IFAS,Tallahassee
11:30 Lunch (on your own)


MODERATOR: DAVID SUI, PALM BEACH COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE, WEST PALM BEACH
TOMATO PURPLE LEAF DISORDER WORKSHOP
1:00 Introduction Gary Vallad, UF/IFAS, GCREC, Wimauma
1:10 Tomato Purple Leaf: A New Disorder or Disease of Tomato? Gary Vallad, UF/IFAS, GCREC, Wimauma:page 16
1:30 Sudden Decay of Tomato Fruit Jerry Bartz, UF/IFAS Plant Pathology Dept.,Gainesville:page 20
1:50 Studies to Determine the Cause of Tomato Purple Leaf Disorder Jane Polston, UF/IFAS Plant Pathodlogy Dept.,
Gainesville:page 22
2:10 Questions and answers
2:30 Industry New Product Update Alicia Whidden, Hillsborough County Extension Service, Seffner
3:30 Adjourn

PRODUCTION GUIDES
Tomato Varieties for Florida Stephen M. Olson, UF/IFAS NFREC, Quincy, and Gene McAvoy, UF/IFAS, Hendry County
Extension, LaBelle:page 24
Water Management for Tomato Eric H. Simonne, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville: page 27
Fertilizer and Nutrient Management for Tomato Eric H. Simonne, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville:page 32
Weed Control in Tomato William M. Stall, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville: page 36
Tomato Fungicides and Other Disease Management Products Gary Vallad, UF/IFAS, GCREC, Wimauma:page 39
Selected Insecticides Approved for Use on Insects that Attack Tomatoes Susan E. Webb, UF/IFAS, Entomology and
Nematology Dept., Gainesville: page 44
Nematicides Registered for Use on Florida Tomatoes Joe Noling, UF/UFAS, CREC, Lake Alfred:page 51


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS U











UPDATE ON LATE BLIGHT ON TOMATO:

RECENT LATE BLIGHT ISOLATES IN FLORIDA AND UPDATED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Pamela D. Roberts1, Diana C. Schultz1, and Kenneth DeahP
SUniversity of Florida, SWFREC, Immokalee, FL, 34120, pdr@ufl.edu
2 Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705-235


Late blight,caused by the fungal-like plant infestans is monitored by characterization
pathogen Phytophthora infestans, is a chron- of isolates using several techniques. Isolates
ic disease problem on tomato and potato in are described by the mating type (Al or A2),
Florida and has occurred in south Florida on sensitivity to fungicide, pathogenicity,and
these hosts in nine out of the previous ten determination of genotypes through the
production seasons (Table 1). Environmen- use of molecular techniques. Genotyping
tal conditions in south Florida are generally typically includes cellulose acetate electro-
favorable for late blight development with phoresis (CAE) for the glucose-6-phosphate
moderate temperatures and adequate isomerase (GPI) and peptidase (PEP) al-
nighttime durations of leaf wetness during lozymes loci,mitochondrial DNA haplotype
TABLE 1. Occurrence of Phytophthorainfestans for the previous 10 growing seasons in South
Florida.


FLORIDA GROWING SEASON DATE OF FIRST RECORDED FT HT R T
FIRST HOST REPORTED
(AUGUST-MAY) DETECTIONz
1998-99 DEC 22, 1998
1999-00 JAN 29, 2000 POTATO
2000-01 FEB 9, 2001 POTATO
2001-02 FEB 15, 2002 TOMATO
2002-03 NONE
2003-04 JAN 23, 2004 POTATO
2004-05 JAN 7, 2005 POTATO
2005-06 JAN 10, 2006 TOMATO
2006-07 NOV 17, 2006 TOMATO
2006-07 NOV 20, 2006 POTATO
2007-08 FEB 7, 2008 TOMATO
O cnIURCE: FLORIDA YEXTENSION PI ANT DISEASE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC IMMOKALEE I AND SOUIITH FLORIDA VEGETABLE PEST


AND DISEASE HOTLINE.


the production season. Fungicide spray
programs are typically sufficient to manage
the disease in commercial fields except dur-
ing ideal environmental conditions when
a more intensive fungicide spray program
may be required.

BACKGROUND
Historically,the worldwide population of
P.infestanswas relatively stable until the
late 1980's and consisted of a single clonal
lineage,named US-1 which was of the Al
mating type. The exception was P.infestans
in Mexico where both Al and A2 mating
types occurred and the population was
more diverse. In Pinfestans, sexual recombi-
nation leading to new genetic combinations
is possible when mating types Al and A2
are present together. The population of P.


(mtDNA),and DNA fingerprinting. A clonal
lineage of P.infestans represents a popula-
tion reproduced asexually from a single
isolate or genotype.
However,in the early 1980's the A2 mat-
ing type was found in Europe and by the
early 1990's, it was also found in the U.S.
(Deahl et al. 1991). Dramatic population
shifts of P infestans including increased
aggressiveness occurred worldwide and
within Florida in the early 1990's (Goodwin
et al., 1992; Goodwin et al., 1998;Weingart-
ner and Tombololato,2002). Additionally,
isolates became resistant to phenylamide
(metalaxyl) and it became increasingly more
difficult to control the disease (Deahl et al.
2002; Fry and Smart, 1999). In Florida,a new
genotype, US-6,was detected for the first
time from tomato in Lee County in 1991


(Weingartner and Tombolato,2002). How-
ever, it was not until 1993 that epidemics
associated with the new genotype occurred
in the state. From 1993 through 2002,the
population of Pinfestans on tomato became
much more diverse as genotypes character-
ized as US-1,US-6,US-7, US-8, US-10,US-11
and US 17 were detected in Florida (Table 2).

CURRENT SITUATION
Currently,it appears that another shift in
pathogen population is occurring within
Florida,the US,and Europe. Isolates with
unique genotypes and epidemiological
parameters including increased aggressive
were detected in Florida and throughout
the northeastern region of the United States
and Europe (Cooke et al.,2007a; Deahl,au-
thor, unpublished, 2008; Schultz et al., 2006).
The more aggressive, fungicide-resistant and
host-specialized isolates have appeared on
potato and tomato crops and changes to
the late blight population are documented
throughout Europe (www.eucablight.org).
In Florida,during the 2004-05 production
season,a different late blight was recog-
nized by growers who reported that the
disease on tomato was very aggressive and
that fungicides were not nearly as effective
to control the disease as compared to previ-
ous seasons. Growers along the northeast
growing region of the US reported the same
phenomenon later in the same season.
Characterization of P infestans isolates from
tomato documented a new, unique geno-
type of P infestans with apparently increased
aggressiveness that confirmed field reports
(Fig. 1; Shultz et al. 2006; Deahl, unpublished
data). Isolates of P.infestans from Florida to-
mato in the 2004-05 and the two following
seasons were characterized and compared
by mating type, GPI and PEP allozymes
loci, mitochondrial genomic haplotype,
RG57 DNA fingerprint, pathogenicity and
sensitivity to metalaxyl (Goodwin et al., 1992;
Goodwin et al., 1995; Griffith and Shaw, 1998;
Shattock, 1998). Isolates from the 2004-05


U 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


'^"~ '~~"' '~"'~^ "~"^~" '"'










TABLE 2. Genotypes of Phytophthorainfestans and years detected during the period 1993 to
2007 in Florida (Modified from Weingartner and Tombolato, 2002).
YEAR GENOTYPES YEAR GENOTYPES
1993 US-1, US-6, US-7 2000 US-8, US-10, US17
1994 US-8 2001 US-8
1995 US-1, US-8 2002 US-11, US17
1996 US-7, US-8 2004-05 N/DZ
1997 US-1, US-8, US17 2005-06 US-8, N/Dz,Y
1998 US-8, US-11, US17 2006-07 N/Dz,Y
1999 US-8, US-10, US17
z N/D = NOT DETERMINED, DOES NOT CONFORM TO ANY PUBLISHED US GENOTYPE; ON TOMATO
Y DIFFERENT GENOTYPE FROM 2004-05 ISOLATES (SEE TABLE 3)


epidemic shared identical profiles by these
techniques and were sensitive to metalaxyl,
except one which exhibited intermediate
resistance. In the following growing seasons,
the genotype profile of the isolates which
occurred in 2004-05 has not been detected;
however,characterization of isolates from
these seasons showed that they are also
unique compared to previously document-
ed US genotypes in Florida and within the
US (Table 3; Deahl,unpublished data). The
isolates collected in 2006 and 2007 exhib-
ited a greater range in response to metalaxyl
from sensitive to resistant. In contrast,the
population of Pinfestans on potato appears
to be more stable and is genotyped in Flor-
ida as US-8 which is also the predominant
population in the US (Wangsomboondee
etal.,2002). However,the presence of this
genotype,adds to the increased the risk
of variability within the population since it
could possibly recombine with the isolates
on tomato (Weingartner and Tombololato,
2002). Continued studies are needed to
determine the range of genomic diversity
of the pathogen and if the population
is continuing to change.Therefore,it is


-Ki


I-ILUKI i. ratnogenicity test on -lorlaa
47'tomato plants inoculated with 103
sporangial suspension.Two representative
isolates from 2004-05 (left) and two from
2006 (right) are presented after 14 days in
greenhouse.


importantto monitor the population shift
of P.infestans continuously to determine the
risk of increased aggressiveness,including
the risk of fungicide insensitivity by the new
genotypes.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The initial source of inoculum for late blight
may be from infected cull piles,volunteers,
and alternative hosts. Sporangia of RP
infestans are readily airborne and dispersed
by wind and rain. Under tropical/subtropical
conditions,the sporangia are always abun-
dant and were concluded to have more
important role in late blight outbreaks than
inoculum from crop debris or alternative
hosts in Brazil (Lima et al.,2008). There are
no reports of oospores in Florida although
both mating types have occurred (Wein-
gartner and Tom bolto, 2002;Tombolato,
2002). Oospores survive in the soil for long
periods of time in the absence of host tissue.
Whether oospores exist and may initiate
late blight is not understood in Florida. The
importance of oospores as an additional
source of inoculum means a genetically
more diverse pathogen population and its
presence early in the growing season gives
the pathogen a greater ability to respond
to control strategies such as fungicide treat-
ments (Andersson et al. 2008).Additionally,
it has been reported that in rare cases,a
few isolates are self-fertile and able to form
oospores alone which would mean greater
ability to survive long term,particularly in
soil (Smart, 1998).
Quick profiling of Pinfestans isolates
from the field during at the beginning of an
outbreak can aid in grower management
decisions.However, complete characteriza-
tion including the genotype is time-con-
suming since the pathogen must be isolated


and purified prior to testing. For a quick (less
than 24 hour) preliminary identification,the
GPI profile can be used. Since the 2004-05
R infestans isolates and some of other US
genotypes are distinct by the GPI profile,in
particular when compared to the isolates
which occurred in the previous three sea-
sons,the GPI profile can be used to quickly
differentiate between some of these popula-
tions. Therefore,we have used this as quick
tool in the diagnostic clinic in Immokalee to
determine tentative isolate profile pending
completion of the other assays.
Late blight management recommenda-
tions are similar for tomato and potato.
However,one important difference is that
late blight tolerant potato cultivars are avail-
able but no commercial resistance is avail-
able in tomato. Although not seed-borne on
tomato, transplants may be infected while in
the transplant house,therefore transplants
must be free from symptoms. Since potato
is vegetatively propagated and tubers may
be infested,therefore certified,disease-
free seed pieces should be planted. Other
practices that help manage the disease
are cultural practices to remove sources
of inoculum such as destroying cull piles
and destroying volunteer potato or tomato
plants. Other sources of inoculum may be
weeds or other solanaceous plants (Deahl
and Fravel, 2003; Deahl et al. 2005; Deahl
et al.2006;Tombolato 2002). Tombolato
(2002) determined through pathogenicity
tests conducted in greenhouse studies that
P infestans can also infect pepper, petunia,
American Black nightshade and Jimson
weed. These hosts occur widely throughout
south Florida home gardens and farms. Sur-
veys have not been conducted to identify
natural sources ofinoculum on weeds or
pepper or petunia of P. infestans in Florida.
Early detection through scouting for plant
symptoms of late blight is critical to initiate a
fungicide spray program. The first report of
late blight within a county was recorded in
the 2006-07 growing season (Fig.2). The first
report for the season was from Collier Coun-
ty in November and subsequent findings in
other counties were recorded in south and
central Florida through April 2007. Addition-
ally,growers are usually recommended to
begin fungicide applications when weather
conditions (cool temperatures and extend-
ed leaf moisture periods) are conducive to


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS 1


_W___

































FIGURE 2. Confirmed reports of Late
Blight by county in growing season 2006-
07 (November-April).

DATE OF FIRST COUNTY
REPORTED DETECTION
11/21/06 COLLIER
01/18/07 HENDRY
01/18/07 PALM BEACH
01/19/07 LEE
01/19/07 HILLSBOROUGH
01/30/07 MIAMI-DADE
02/02/07 OKEECHOBEE
03/27/07 HENDRY
03/30/07 COLLIER (SWFREC)
04/2007 MANATEE


disease development. Although late blight
forecasting models and spray decision
aids have been developed since 1979 (i.e.
LATEBLIGHT),their use in south Florida has
been largely precluded due to the favorable
environmental conditions which exist dur-
ing much of the production season. Several
fungicides including those representing
new classes of chemistry and novel modes
of action are now labeled for late blight on
tomato and potato in Florida. *


SELECTED REFERENCES
Andersson, B., Widmark,A-K, Yuen,J.E., Kessel,
G.J.T,Evenhuis, B., Turkensteen, LJ., Hannukkala,A.,
Lehtinen, A., Nielsen, B, Ravnskov, S., Hansen,J.G,
Hermansen, A., Brurberg, M-B, and Nordskog, B. 2008.
The role of oospores in the epidemiology of potato
late blight. Third International Late Blight Conference,
Beijing, China.

Cooke, D.E.L., Lees, A.K., Shaw, D.S., Taylor, M., Prentice,
M.W.C., Bradshaw, NJ., and Bain, R.A.2007. Survey
of GB blight populations. Tenth Workshop of an
European Network for Development of an Integrated
Control Strategy of potato late blight, Bologna, Italy.


TABLE 3. Mating type, mitochondrial DNA haplotype (mtDNA), metalaxyl sensitivity, al-
lozyme genotype (GPI), and RG57 fingerprint of isolates of Phytophthora infestans on tomato
from 2004-2007.
GROWING SAMPLE MATING METALAXYL RG57 DNA
mtDNA GPI US GENOTYPE
SEASON SIZE TYPE SENSITIVITYz FINGERPRINT
S (85%) UNIQUE
2004-05 N=7 A2 IA 100/100 N/DY
1(15%)
UNIQUE
S(12%) FROM
2004-5
2005-06 N=8 A2 IA 100/122 AND OTHER N/D
AND OTHER
I(88%) PUBLISHED
PROFILES
S (25%)

(42%) SAME AS
2006-07 N=12 A2 IA 100/122 2005-06 N/D
R (8%)
U (25%)
Z FNSITIVITV Tf MFTAAI XYI (FF I fLA TFS OFF P INIFFSTANS: D DFSISTANT = SFNITIVF I INTFDMFnflATF I(A nFFFINF


BY SHATTOCK, 1988). U = UNDETERMINED
YN/D = NOT DETERMINED, DOES NOT CONFORM TO ANY PUBLISHED US GENOTYPE


Deahl, K. L, Cooke, L. R., Black, L, Wang, T., Perez, F.,
Moravec, B., Quinn, M. and Jones, R. 2002. Population
changed in Phytophthora infestans in Taiwan associ-
ated with the appearance of resistance to metalaxyl.
J. Pest ManagementSci. 58:951-958.

Deahl, K. L. and Fravel, D. 2003. Occurrence of leaf
blight of petunia, caused by Phytophthora infestans
in Maryland Plant Disease 87:1004.

Deahl, K.L., Goth, R. W, Young., R., Sinden, S.L, and Gal-
legley, M.E. 1991. Occurrence of theA2 mating type
of Phytophthora infestans in the United States and
Canada. Am. Potato J. 68:717-725.

Deahl, K. L., Jones, R., and Wanner, L.A. 2005. Late
blight Caused by Phytophthora infestans on Solanum
sarrachoides in Northeastern Maine. Plant Dis.
89:435.

Deahl, K.L.,Jones, R.W., Perez, FG., Shaw, D.S., and
Cooke, L.R. 2006. Characterization of isolates of
Phytophthora infestans from foursolanaceous hosts
growing in association with late-blighted potatoes.
Hortscience 41:1-6.

Deahl, K. L., Shaw, D. S., and Cooke, L. R. 2004. Natural
occurrence of Phytophthora infestans on black night-
shade (Solanum nigrum) in Wales.PlantDis. 88:771.

Fry, WE. and Smart, CD. 1999. The return of Phytoph-
thora infestans, a potato pathogen that just won't
quit. Potato Research 42:279-282.

Goodwin, S.B., Drenth,A., and Fry, WE. 1992. Cloning
and genetic analyses of two highly polymorphic
moderately repetitive nuclear DNAs from Phytoph-
thora infestans. Curr. Genet. 22:107-115.

Goodwin, S.B., Schneider, R.E., and Fry, WE. 1995.
Use of cellulose-acetate electrophoresis for rapid
identification of allozyme genotypes of Phytophthora
infestans. PlantDis.79:1181-1185.

Goodwin, S.B., Smart, C.D, Sandrock, R. W, Deahl,
K.L., Punja,Z.K., Fry, WE. 1998. Genetic change


within populations of Phytophthora infestans in the
United States and Canada during 1994 to 1996: Role
of migration and recombination. Phytopathology
88:939-949.

Griffith, G. W, and Shaw, D.S. 1998. Polymorphisms
in Phytophthora infestans: Four mitochondrial hap-
lotypes are detected after PCR amplification of DNA
from pure cultures or from host lesions. Apple. Environ.
Microbiol. 64:4007-4014.

Lima, M. A., Maffia, L.A., Barreto R. W, and Mizubuti,
E.S.G. 2008. Phytophthora infestans in a tropical
region: survival, temporal dynamics of airborne
sporangia and alternative hosts. Third International
Late Blight Conference. Beijing, China.

Schultz, D.C., Tejado, S., Perez, F.G., Deahl, K.L, and
Roberts, P.D. 2006. Characterization of Phytophthora
infestans isolates from tomato in Florida. Phytopa-
thology 96:5105 (abstract).

Smart, CD., Willmann, M.R., Mayton, H., Mizubuti,
E.S.G., Sandrock, R. W, Muldoon, A.E., and Fry, WE.
1998. Self-fertility in two clonal lineages of Phytoph-
thora infestans. Fungal Genetics and Biol. 25:134-142.

Shattock, R.C. 1988. Studies on the inheritance of
resistance to metalaxyl in Phytophthora infestans.
PlantPathol.37:4-11.

Tombolato, D. 2002. Characterization of isolates of
Phytophthora infestans collected in Florida in 1999
and 2001. PhD dissertation. University of Florida.
113 pages.

Wangsomboondee, T., Trout Groves, C, Shoemaker,
PB., Cubeta, M.A., and Ristaino,J.B.2002. Phytoph-
thora infestans populations from tomato and potato
in North Carolina differ in genetic diversity and
structure. Phytopathology 92:1189-1195.

Weingartner, P. and Tombololato, D. 2002. Perspec-
tives on a decade of late blight in Florida tomatoes
(and potatoes). In:2002 Florida Tomato Institute Pro-
ceedings. Eds. P. Gilreath and C.S. Vavrina, University
of Florida. PRO 519:42-50.


1 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


... ... ... I. .











INTRODUCING GRAFTING TECHNOLOGY

TO THE FLORIDA TOMATO INDUSTRY:

POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES

Xin Zhao and Eric H. Simonne
University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville, FL 32611, zxin@ufl.edu


Vegetable grafting follows the same prin-
ciples applied to fruit tree grafting.A new
"graft hybrid"with combined desirable
traits consists of the producing shoots
that are removed from a plant called the
scion and the roots that are provided by
a plant called the rootstock. Production
of grafted vegetables began in the 1920s
when watermelon was grafted onto
gourd rootstocks to battle Fusarium wilt
in Japan and Korea.Although research
efforts have continued thereon, veg-
etable grafting did not become popular
until grafted eggplant transplants were
used for commercial production in the
1960s (Lee, 1994; Oda, 1999).To date, this
innovative technology has been suc-
cessfully practiced on solanaceous and
cucurbitaceous vegetables including
eggplant, tomato, pepper, watermelon,
cucumber,and melon, particularly in
asian (e.g.,Japan, Korea, China,and Israel)
and mediterranean countries (e.g., Spain,
Italy,Turkey, and Morocco; Lee, 2003; Lee,
2007; Leonardi and Romano, 2004; Oda,
2007). In addition to disease resistance,
grafted plants have shown improved tol-
erance to various environmental stresses
as well as enhanced uptake of water and
nutrients, resulting in vigorous growth,
extended growing period,and possible
yield increase. Interest in vegetable graft-
ing is expanding while the multifaceted
benefits of grafted vegetables continue
to be elucidated.

HOW CAN THE FLORIDA TOMATO
INDUSTRY BENEFIT FROM USING
GRAFTED TOMATO?
Alternative to methyl bromide. In
commercial tomato production,the
availability of broad spectrum fumigants
together with reduced rotation and land
availability have created a dependence
on methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixes
for the control of soil-borne pathogens,


TABLE 1. List of selected suppliers for tomato rootstock seeds in the United States.
COMPANY WEBSITE
AMERICAN TAKII SEED http://www.takii.com/
BRUINSMA SEEDS http://www.bruinsma.com/engels/
DE RUITER SEEDS http://www.deruiterusa.com/
D. PALMER SEED http://www.dpalmerseed.com/
JOHNNY'S SELECTED SEEDS http://www.johnnyseeds.com/
RIJK ZWAAN USA http://www.rijkzwaanusa.com/


weeds,and nematodes.With the phased-
out ban on methyl bromide in the U.S.
as described in the Montreal Protocol,
intense efforts have been made in the
U.S. and Florida to find alternative chemi-
cal strategies. Little importance has been
given to grafting in that quest. However,
interest in this technique as an effective
means to control disease is emerging
today. USDA Horticultural Research Labo-
ratory and several land-grant universi-
ties, such as University of Florida, North
Carolina State University,The Ohio State
University, and University of Arizona, have
recently launched research programs on
tomato grafting.
At UF,we have initiated a project to
investigate the feasibility of grafted
tomato production using disease-resis-
tant rootstocks in the absence of soil
fumigants.Tomato rootstocks are bred
primarily for their resistance to Fusarium
wilt,Verticillium wilt, bacterial wilt, crown
and root rot, root-knot nematodes,
and/or tobacco mosaic virus (Lee,2003;
Oda,2007). A few seed companies can
currently provide tomato rootstocks in
the U.S. (Table 1).We are currently test-
ing'Maxifort'(De Ruiter Seeds) which is
one of the most popular rootstocks for
greenhouse tomato production in the
US because of its prominent disease
resistance, high grafting compatibility,
and strong vigor. Another newly released
rootstock by De Ruiter is also included in
our on-going study, which is claimed by


the company to be especially suitable for
growing grafted tomato in the open field
(personal communication).
Complementary to tomato breeding
programs. Grafting can create a new to-
mato plant by joining through a physical
contact (the graft) a rootstock plant and
a scion plant. It appears that grafting is a
technique that could be more rapid than
breeding in combining the advantages
of disease resistance of the rootstock
with the horticultural characteristics
of the scion.One of the greatest chal-
lenges in plant breeding is the difficulty
of combining multiple desirable traits
into a single variety. In tomato breeding,
the use of hybrids is driven principally by
the convenience of combining varieties
with dominant disease resistance genes.
Likewise, the use of grafted tomatoes has
the potential to accelerate the breeding
process and take full advantage of the
tomato germplasm. It is known that some
of the commercially available rootstocks
are interspecific hybrids derived from
Lycospericon esculentum and L. hirsutum
(Oda, 2007). Scion varieties with desirable
above-ground traits (such as fruit qual-
ity and resistance to foliar diseases and
insects) may be grafted onto rootstock
varieties with desirable below-ground
qualities (resistance to soil-borne dis-
eases). Furthermore, new genetic sources
of resistance to emerging pest prob-
lems may be more rapidly deployed as
rootstocks without the need to integrate


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS U


_W___










them into existing elite high quality lines.
In short,grafting allows simultaneous
breeding for above and below ground
traits, thereby requiring the breeding of
four parents.
Innovative component of best man-
agement practices. Increased efficiency
of nutrient and water absorption has
been observed on grafted vegetables,
possibly caused by the vigorous root sys-
tem of the rootstock (Lee, 1994). Reduced
fertilizer inputs have been reported on
grafted cucurbits (Lee, 2003). However,
performance of grafted vegetables varies
substantially among grafting combina-
tions with different rootstocks. In a
recent study, out of three rootstocks
tested, only'Beaufort'(De Ruiter Seeds)
exhibited significantly higher uptake of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, cal-
cium,magnesium,and sulfur on the basis
of production area accompanied by a
significant yield increase,as compared to
the self-grafted control plants (Leonardi
and Giuffrida,2006). Given the availability
of appropriate rootstocks for targeted
tomato scion varieties, a distinctive nutri-
ent management program for grafted
tomato production may be established to
achieve improved fertilizer use efficiency
in Florida where nutrient leaching and
runoff may be of environmental concern.
Double-stem pruning and lower plant
density can be used for cultivation of


grafted tomatoes (Leonardi and Romano,
2004). In-depth studies are underway to
evaluate the rootstock effect on water
and nutrient uptake characteristics in
grafted tomato plants.
Potential for increase of crop
productivity even under little disease
pressure. Despite the initial objec-
tive of vegetable grafting to improve
crop resistance to soil-borne diseases,
yield increase of grafted vegetables has
been directly linked to improvement of
tolerance to abiotic stresses (including
low and high temperatures, salinity,and
flooding), enhancement of nutrient and
water uptake,and delayed senescence
due to the grafting vigor. Modification
of endogenous plant hormone status by
rootstock has also been indicated as play-
ing a role in promoting growth of grafted
vegetables (Edelstein, 2004; Lee, 1994,
2003).With improved yield performance,
fruit quality attributes of grafted toma-
toes (measured as firmness, pH,soluble
solids, titratable acidity,and concentra-
tions of lycopene,and minerals) were
not affected by rootstocks (Khah et al.,
2006). In our greenhouse study of grafted
tomato/Florida 47'grafted onto'Maxi-
fort'showed an overall increase in fruit
number and fruit size compared to the
self-rooted 'Florida 47'
Unique role in organic and sustain-
able tomato production. Pest control


FIGURE 1. Overview of procedures for grafted tomato production


SELECT THE SCION
Y
TEST SEED GERMINATION
Y
PLANT THE SEEDS
V
MONITOR GROWTH OF TRANSPLANTS


SELECT THE ROOTSTOCK
Y
TEST SEED GERMINATION
Y
PLANT THE SEEDS
MONITOR GROWTH OF TRANSPLANTS
MONITOR GROWTH OF TRANSPLANTS


and nutrient management represent
critical challenges in organic vegetable
production. A team at The Ohio State
University is investigating the benefits of
grafting technology for sustainable and
organic tomato production systems (The
Vegetable Growers News,2006). Grafting
disease susceptible heirloom tomatoes
with resistant rootstocks is recommend-
ed for organic cultivation by researchers
at North Carolina State University (Rivard,
2006; Rivard and Louws, 2006). As an
environmentally friendly practice for
disease management and enhancement
of crop productivity that can be easily
incorporated into organic systems, graft-
ing is very likely to be adopted by the
rapidly growing organic tomato industry
in Florida.

DEALING WITH LIMITATIONS AND
CHALLENGES
Vegetable grafting technology is cer-
tainly not a panacea. Limitations and
challenges associated with growing
grafted tomatoes should be considered
to optimize management practices and
ensure both economic viability and envi-
ronmental benefits.
Cost. The cost of using grafted plants
in commercial production is often per-
ceived as an obstacle for the wide-spread
adoption of this technique. However,
the cost of grafted transplants should
be compared to the potential savings in
pest-control products and potential yield
increase. A glance at the procedures
used for grafted tomato production re-
veals the additional cost of seeds (2 seeds
vs 1), greenhouse space (2 transplants
vs 1), supplies, and labor associated with
grafting (Fig. 1). Current tomato rootstock
varieties are mostly developed abroad,
resulting in high price of seeds and
limited availability.With development
of domestic tomato rootstock breeding
programs, low price of rootstock seeds
is expected.The main grafting methods
for tomatoes include splice grafting
(tube grafting), cleft grafting,and tongue
approach grafting (Oda, 1999; 2007). A
trained person can graft 125-150 seed-
lings per hour. Grafting machines and
robots with high efficiency (300-1,200
grafts per hour) are now available (Lee,


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


\ /
SCHEDULE THE BEST TIME TO GRAFT BASED ON GRAFTING METHOD
V
MAKE THE GRAFTS
Y
MONITOR THE HEALING PROCESS
V
ACCLIMATE THE HEALED GRAFTS
Y
PLANT THE GRAFTED TRANSPLANTS

REMOVE SUCKERS FROM ROOTSTOCKS WHILE PRUNING DURING PRODUCTION










1994; 2003).The grafting technique and
systems have been improved over the
decades and will continue to evolve
towards higher efficiency and quality. A
parallel comparison of grafted tomatoes
to non-grafted tomatoes at various pro-
duction conditions will help to determine
the profitability. An important objective
of our on-going tomato grafting project
is to provide an objective, updated
economic analysis for grafted tomato
production in Florida, in which cost of
grafting, cost reduction of soil fumi-
gants, potentially higher yield of grafted
tomatoes,and contribution of grafting to
protecting environmental quality are all
taken into account.
Incompatibility. Graft incompatibility
refers to the failure of the scion to unite
with the rootstock and the lack of healthy
growth of the grafted plant. Incompatibil-
ity between scion and rootstock causes
physiological disorder, considerable yield
decrease, undesirable fruit quality,and
even plant collapse (Edelstein, 2004).
Although survival rate of grafts follow-
ing the healing process may be used to
assess incompatibility,field evaluation is
often necessary for selection of root-
stocks with good compatibility. Modern
rootstock varieties are selected to avoid
incompatibility problem, however, in
practice, scion-rootstock combinations
still need to be experimented prior to
commercial production.
Incomplete resistance. Although
rootstocks can be highly resistant to a
variety of soil-borne pathogens, com-
plete resistance to all the root diseases
and strains is unachievable. Successful
production of grafted tomatoes in a
given region will largely depend upon a
careful selection of rootstocks that cope
with prevalent devastating pathogens on
site. Additionally, microclimate condi-
tions may affect expression of resistance.
For example, tomato rootstocks resistant
to root-knot nematodes may become
susceptible at soil temperature above 28
OC. During field establishment, transplant
depth must be such that graft unions of
tomato plants are above the soil surface
to reduce the risk of secondary infection.
When infection risk is high,tomato scion
varieties with resistance to viruses and


foliar pathogens should be used since
current rootstocks are not known to con-
fer resistance again these infections. Little
is known about competition of grafted
tomato plants with weeds commonly
found in Florida tomato field production.
Detrimental effects of rootstock on
fruit quality. Adverse effects of certain
rootstocks on fruit quality of grafted
cucurbits have been reported,such as un-
desirable fruit shape and taste (Edelstein,
M. 2004; Lee, 1994). Even though the
quality of grafted tomatoes is generally
comparable to that of self-rooted plants,
analysis of fruit quality is necessary espe-
cially when a new rootstock is used.
Delay of early harvest. Grafting may
delay first flowering date and first harvest
due to the physical stress incurred by
grafting (Khah et al., 2006). Market to-
mato growers ought to be fully aware of
such inconvenience and carefully sched-
ule grafting and planting to minimize
the effect. On the other hand, rootstocks
that promote early production, however,
might also be available.
Lack of studies of molecular basis
for grafting vigor. Growth vigor of the
"graft hybrid"is essentially an outcome of
expression or interaction of the rootstock
genetic material with that of the scion.
Characterizing and sequencing the genes
involved in the grafting vigor would al-
low targeted selection of rootstock-scion
combinations. Previous research on graft
vigor utilized in commercial production
focused on the biochemical-physiologi-
cal mechanisms. Not until recently did
the research start to shed light on the
function of long-distance transportation
of RNA through phloem in grafted plants
(Kudo and Harada, 2007). Elucidating the
role of graft-transmissible RNA in altering
the characters of scion and achieving
desirable grafting vigor also presents
tremendous opportunities for innova-
tive use of genetic resources in tomato
production.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Florida tomato industry which com-
prises 40,000 acres of tomatoes is faced
with the complete phase-out of methyl
bromide in the near future. Among all
the possible alternatives, the grafting


technique deserves full attention thanks
to the multifold benefits that it may bring
to the large tomato industry in Florida.As
for perennial crops,successful grafting of
tomato involves not only the selection of
a mechanical technique that unites two
plants, but also a judicious choice of the
rootstock and the scion. Integration of
grafting into the present tomato produc-
tion systems will require a comprehen-
sive analysis of cost and returns. Adap-
tion of rootstocks to specific production
environments deserves intensive evalu-
ation.We believe that in the near future,
grafting will become an integral part of
sustainable commercial tomato produc-
tion in Florida.*

LITERATURE CITED
Edelstein, M. 2004. Grafting vegetable-crop plants:
Pros and cons.Acta Hort. 659:235-238.

Khah, E.M., E. Kakava,A. Mavromatis, D. Chachalis,
and C. Goulas. 2006. Effect of grafting on growth and
yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in
greenhouse and open-field. J.Applied Hort. 8:3-7.

Kudo, H. and T. Harada. 2007. A graft-transmissible
RNA from tomato rootstock changes leaf morphol-
ogy of potato scion. HortScience 42:225-226.

Lee,J.M. 1994. Cultivation of grafted vegetables I
Current status, grafting methods, and benefits. Hort-
Science 29:235-239.

Lee, J.M. 2003.Advances in vegetable grafting.
Chronic Hort. 43:13-19.

Lee, S.G. 2007. Production of high quality vegetable
seedling grafts.Acta Hort. 759:169-174.

Leonardi, C. and F. Giuffrida. 2006. Variation of plant
growth and macronutrient uptake in grafted toma-
toes and eggplants on three different rootstocks.
Europ.J.Hort.Sci.71:97-101.

Leonardi, C. and D. Romano. 2004. Recent issues in
vegetable grafting.Acta Hort. 631:163-174.

Oda, M. 1999. Grafting of vegetables to improve
greenhouse production. Food & Fertilizer Technology
Center, Extension Bulletin. 480:1-11.

Oda, M. 2007. Vegetable seedling grafting in Japan.
Acta Hort.759:175-180.

Researchers look atgrafting to solve problems in
tomatoes. The vegetable growers news. November
2006:20,22.

Rivard, C.L.2006. Grafting tomato to manage
soilborne diseases and improve yield in organic
production systems. M.S. thesis. North Carolina State
University.

Rivard, C.L., and FJ. Louws. 2006. Grafting for disease
resistance in heirloom tomatoes. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service AG-675.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___












EVALUATION OF TYLC VIRUS-RESISTANT VARIETIES

UNDER COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

Monica Ozores-Hampton7, Eugene McAvoy2, Eric Simonne3 and Phil Stansly'
'University of Florida/IFAS, SWFREC, Immokalee, FL 2Hendry County Extension Service
3University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL


During the spring of 2007, tomato crops
in Southwest Florida experienced high
whitefly populations and high incidence of
tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) which
resulted in significant yield losses. Con-
sidered by some to be the worst tomato
virus worldwide,TYLCV is now endemic to
Florida. The virus causes stunted growth
and flower abortion with early infections
resulting in almost no fruit set (Schuster
and Stansly, 1996).Tomato growers have fo-
cused on whitefly control to reduce losses.
Management of whitefly and TYLCV rests
primarily on insecticides, particularly the
neonicotinoids,and tomato-free planting
periods initiated by timely crop destruction
after harvest (Schuster and Polston, 1999).
However,insufficient control, in part due to
insecticide resistance calls for alternative
management tools.
The most important of these manage-
ment tools is to the use ofTYLCV-resistant
varieties. TYLCV-resistant varieties adapted
to Florida have already been developed by
several seed companies and the University
of Florida, and were evaluated 8 years ago
(Gilreath etal. 2000) and more recently
by Cushman and Stansly (2006). With the
availability of new promising advanced
selections,the objectives of this study were
to document the TYLCV resistance and
horticultural characteristics of theseTYLCV-
resistant tomato varieties.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiments were conducted in
the spring,one at the University of Florida's
Southwest Florida Research and Education
Center (SWREC) in 2007 on an Immokalee
fine sand and the other on a commercial
tomato farm in Immokalee, FL in 2008 on
an EauGallie fine sand. Eleven (in 2007) and
14 (in 2008) TYLCV-resistant varieties were
evaluated and compared to susceptible
standard varieties in a completely random-
ized experimental design with four and
three replications, respectively.


TABLE 1. Tomato varieties and advanced breeding lines evaluation during Spring 2007 and 2008.
NUMBER OF VIRUS BACTERIAL FUSARIUM
VARIETY SOURCE SUCKERS INCIDENCEz SPOT RATING CROWN ROT
PRUNED (%) (1-5) (%)
SPRING 2007 ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 BHN SEED 2-3 33.9CD N/D N/D
FLA 8576 UFY 2-3 39.3C N/D N/D
FLA 8579 UF 2-3 32.1CD N/D N/D
FLA 8580 UF 2-3 62.5B N/D N/D
HA 3074 ('INBAR') HAZERA 2-3 21.4CD N/D N/D
HA 3075 ('OFRI') HAZERA 2-3 35.7CD N/D N/D
HA 3078 HAZERA 2-3 28.6CD N/D N/D
TYGRESS SEMINIS 2-3 16.1D N/D N/D
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) SEMINIS 2-3 94.6A N/D N/D
SIGNIFICANCEx
SPRING 2007 ROMA TOMATOES
HA 3071 HAZERA 2-3 23.2B N/D N/D
HA 3811 HAZERA 2-3 91.1A N/D N/D
SIGNIFICANCE ..
SPRING 2008 ROUND TOMATOES
BHN765 BHN NO OB 4.0A OB
BHN 745 BHN NO OB 2.0BC 3.4B
FLA 8579 UF NO OB 2.0BC OB
FLA 8632 UF NO OB 1.3C 3.4B
FLA 8633 UF NO OB 2.7ABC OB
HA 3074 ('INBAR') HAZERA 4-5 OB 3.3AB 18.5A
HA 3075 ('OFRI') HAZERA 2-3 OB 2.0BC 3.4B
HA 3091 HAZERA 2-3 OB 3.0AB 5B
SAK 5421 SAKATA NO OB 2.0BC 5B
SAK 5443 SAKATA NO OB 2.7ABC 3.4B
SECURITY 28 HARRIS MORAN 2 OB 3.0AB 3.4B
TYGRESS SEMINIS 2-3 OB 3.3AB 3.4B
SEBRING (CONTROL) SYNGENTA 2-3 11.5A 3.0AB OB
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) SEMINIS 2-3 6.3A 2.7ABC OB
SIGNIFICANCE ** *
SPRING 2008. ROMA TOMATOES"
SHANTY HAZERA NO OB 3.3 0
SAK 5808 SAKATA 4-5 OB 3.0 5
MARIANA (CONTROL) SAKATA NO 10A 2.3 6.5
SIGNIFICANCE ** NS NS
PERCENTAGE OF TYLVC-AFFECTED PLANTS AT END OF TRIAL, AFTER THIRD HARVEST. VALUES ARE MEANS OF FOUR AND
THREE REPLICATIONS OF 10 AND 20 PLANTS DURING SPRING 2007 AND 2008, RESPECTIVELY.
Y UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
x MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY DIFFERENT LETTERS ARE
STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT; ** SIGNIFICANCE AT P 0.01; SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS











Cultural Practices.The fields were
rototilled,and the pre-plant fertilizer (bot-
tom and hot mix) was applied following
the modified broadcast method to supply
243-64-264 and 300-60-462 Ib./acre of N-
P205-K20, in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
Beds were 32-inch wide and 8-inch tall in
2007,and 36-inch wide and 9-inch tall in
2008,and formed on 6-ft centers on both
years (1 acre = 7,260 linear bed feet). Beds
were then fumigated with methyl bromide
and chloropicrin (67:33,w:w) at a rate of
350 Ib./acre in 2007,and (50:50,w:w) at the
rate of 200 Ib./acre in 2008. All beds were
immediately covered with low-density
black polyethylene mulch.
On 20 Feb, 2007 and 4 Jan, 2008 (0 days
after transplanting, DAT),transplants grown
at the Redi Plants Corp. greenhouse were
established in the field at a within-row
spacing of 18 (in 2007) and 22 (in 2008)
inches, which created a stand of approx.
4,840 and 4,035 plants/acre, respectively.
Plots were 21-ft long in 2007 (14 plants)
and 36-ft long in 2008 (20 plants). On
28 DAT, each tomato variety was pruned
following the seed company specification
(Table 1). The field was seepage irrigated
and tomato plants staked and tied. Toma-
toes were then grown following UF/IFAS
pesticide recommendations according to
the scouting reports (Olson et al., 2006).
Ten tomatoes plants were harvested three
times on 7,22,29 May, 2007 (66,91 and 98
DAT) and 7,21 and 30 Apr., 2008 (93,107
and 116 DAT).
Data collection.Whitefly (Bemisia
argentifolii) population was monitored by
number of adult whitefly per leaf during
the season and counts of TYLCV-symp-
tomatic plants at the third harvest (30
Apr.,2008). The number of plants showing
symptoms offusarium crown rot (caused
by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lyco-
persici) in each plot was counted at third
harvest (30 Apr.,2008). Bacterial spot
(caused by Xanthomonas campestris) was
rated on a 1-to-5 scale (1=low and 5=high)
at the third harvest (30 Apr., 2008). Using a
1-to-5 scale (1= very poor; 5=very good),
earliness, plant vigor, fruit size, firmness,
fruit quality, potential yield and an overall
plant rating were determined by 28 partici-
pants at first harvest (7 Apr., 2008).To avoid
bias,tomato varieties were coded and the


TABLE 2. First harvest and total marketable fruit yield categories for selected tomato varieties
grown at the South West Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, in Spring 2007.


YIELD (25-LB BOXES/ACRE)
VARIETIES FIRST HARVEST TOTAL HARVEST
XLZ L Mz FHTZ XL L M CULL
ROUND TOMATOES
BHN745 630CDY 72ABC 41 744 770AB 128D 175 1,433A 1,073BCD
FLA 8576 442CD 39C 48 530 584AB 128D 273 1,095BC 985CD
FLA 8579 694BC 64ABC 39 797 888AB 175BCD 249 1,022BC 1,312BCD
FLA 8580 590CD 105A 36 731 813AB 305A 324 694D 1,442BC
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 991AB 68ABC 33 1,092 1,472A 232ABC 311 833CD 2,015A
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 726BC 96AB 56 878 1,025A 264AB 271 708D 1,561AB
HA 3078 1,118A 70ABC 50 1,238 1,590A 217ABCD 262 1,094BC 2,069A
TYGRESS 722BC 59BC 53 835 1,039A 211BCD 269 1,146B 1,518ABC
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 330D 43C 59 431 430B 69CD 255 596D 854D
SIGNIFICANCEY ** NS NS ** ** NS ** **
ROMA TOMATOES
HA 3071 N/D N/D N/D 600 N/D N/D N/D 1,300 951
HA 3811 N/D N/D N/D 159 N/D N/D N/D 314 622
SIGNIFICANCE *
z XL= EXTRA-LARGE 15X6 INDUSTRY GRADE)I L=LARGE 16X6)1 M=MEDIUM 16X7)1 S=SMALL: FHT = FIRST HARVEST TOTAL


Y MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY DIFFERENT LETTERS ARE
STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT; ** SIGNIFICANCE AT P 0.01; SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.

TABLE 3. First harvest and total marketable fruit yield categories for selected tomato varieties


grown on a commercial farm in Immoalee, I-L, In spring 2008.
YIELD (25 LB-BOXES/ACRE)
VARIETIES FIRST HARVEST TOTAL HARVEST
XLX Lx Mx FHTx XL L M CULL
ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 957ABY 204BC 89BCD 1,250A 1,593AB 787 327CD 1,092AB 2,706
BHN 765 972AB 214BC 81BCD 1,266A 1,580AB 741 432BCD 1,151AB 2,752
FLA 8579 624CD 422A 165BCD 1,211A 889D 905 579BC 657CDE 2,373
FLA8632 141E 212BC 331A 684C 171E 578 1,436A 557DEF 2,185
FLA 8633 464D 175BC 75BCD 714CB 848D 850 588BC 842BCD 2,286
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 782ABC 171BC 169BCD 1,123ABC 1,091CD 511 600BC 516DEF 2,202
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 782ABC 199BC 143BCD 1,314A 1,365ABC 731 436BCD 681CDE 2,532
HA 3091 1,027AB 109C 43D 1,179AB 1,635A 594 215D 1,332A 2,444
SAK 5421 823ABC 169BC 137BCD 1,129ABC 1,249BC 649 534BC 1,320A 2,432
SAK 5443 884ABC 172BC 59CD 1,115ABC 1,571AB 707 335CD 1,010ABC 2,613
SECURITY 28 1,059A 125C 36D 1,221A 1,667A 491 231D 991ABC 2,389
TYGRESS 1,019AB 307AB 223AB 1,549A 1,262BC 719 598BC 231F 2,580
SEBRING (CONTROL) 721BCD 307AB 203ABC 1,230A 1,279ABC 972 629B 487DEF 2,880
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 922ABC 225BC 78BCD 1,225A 1,627A 768 367BCD 448EF 2,761
SIGNIFICANCEY ** ** ** ** ** NS ** ** NS
YIELD (25 LB-BOXES/ACRE)
VARIETIES FIRST HARVEST TOTAL HARVEST
XL L M S FHT XL L M S CULL
ROMA TOMATOES
SHANTY 504 19B 0 0 523 757AB 620B 262B 43 2,181A 1,682B
SAK 5808 337 304A 0 0 641 655B 1,656A 659A 51 298B 3,021A
MARIANA (CONTROL) 774 73B 0 0 847 1,086A 846B 710A 242 394B 2,884A
SIG W. NS NS NS NS NS **
YI FYTRI-AI lRGEF 15Y6 IN)IISTRYV RPEr)Fll I -I ARGEF I6X6)R M=MF)IIIM I6RY7) S=SMAI I FHT FIRST TOTAI HARVFST


Y MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P K 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME LETTER ARE
NOT STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT. ** SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.01; *SIGNIFICANCE AT P 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W ___ ^


i


Z










TABLE 4. Total culls (TC) and cull distribution in the categories of blossom end scar (BES), zipper
and catface (Zip+CatF), sunscald and yellow shoulder (SS + YS), radial and concentric cracking
(Crk), odd shape (OS) and other defects (Other) for tomato varieties grown in Spring 2007'.
RELATIVE AMOUNT OF UNMARKETABLE FRUIT (%)z
VARIETY I --- I I I--
TC BES ZIP/CATF SS+YS CRK OS OTHER
ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 133Az 7.2AB 13.2AB 60.9A 30.5A 15.6A 6.0
FLA 8576 112A 6.6AB 30.3A 48.6A 11.8AB 8.5B 6.1
FLA 8579 78AB 7.0AB 8.3B 26.5B 11.4AB 19.7A 5.0
FLA 8580 48B 2.6B 7.4B 16.7B 7.9B 9.5B 4.0
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 42B 2.7B 8.0B 14.2B 7.4B 6.1B 3.4
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 45B 5.0B 4.4B 26.3AB 2.2B 6.1B 1.4
HA 3078 53B 11.6A 4.3B 14.5B 4.4B 14.2A 3.9
TYGRESS 75AB 2.9B 9.2AB 33.4AB 21.3A 6.0B 2.6
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 70AB 3.2B 8.0B 15.6B 35.4A 4.6B 3.0
SIGNIFICANCEY ** ** ** ** ** ** NS
ROMA TOMATOES
HA 3071 137 2.4 6.7 43.8 1.7 75.7 6.4
HA 3811 51 0.0 24.5 6.8 7.7 10.9 1.6
SIGNIFICANCEY ** NS ** ** ** ** NS
RELATIVE TO TOTAL MARKETABLE YIELD
Y MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P K 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY DIFFERENT LETTERS ARE
STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT; ** SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.01; SIGNIFICANCE AT P K 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.

TABLE 5. Total culls (TC) and cull distribution in the categories of blossom end scar (BES), zipper
and catface (Zip+CatF), sunscald and yellow shoulder (SS + YS), radial and concentric cracking
(Crk), odd shape (OS) and other defects (Other) for tomato varieties grown in Spring 2008z.
UNMARKETABLE FRUIT BY TYPEz (%)
VARIETIES---- I ------------ -- -- ---
VARIETIES TC BES ZIP+CATF SC OS GW CRK OTHER

ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 40.9BCDz 2.3B 2.3B 17.9A 16.4A 0.6 1.4 0
BHN 765 4.8BC 2.8B 1.9B 21.2A 14.2A 1.5 3.2 0
FLA 8579 27.3CDEF 1.1B 0.9B 10.7B 13.1A 0.9 1.1 0
FLA 8632 25.2EF 2.0B 13.0A 5.9B 3.5B 0.3 1.6 0
FLA 8633 35.1CD 6.4A 1.6B 7.3B 15.4A 0.5 3.8 0
HA 3074 (INBAR) 45B 2.9B 3.9B 7.9B 5.9B 0.1 0.6 0
HA 3075 (OFRI) 53B 3.7B 1.3B 13.2A 9.9B 0.7 0.0 0
HA 3091 75AB 3.3B 6.2B 24.1A 17.4A 2.8 0.6 0
SAK 5421 70AB 7.3A 0.6B 20.6A 23.2A 0.9 0.1 0
SAK 5443 35.7CDE 8.4A 1.6B 14.2A 10.6 0.2 0.7 0
SECURITY 28 43.5BCD 3.2B 4.6B 10.8B 24.2A 0.6 0.2 0
TYGRESS 9.6G 0.2B 1.3B 3.0B 4.5B 0.0 0.4 0
SEBRING (CONTROL) 15.6FG 0.3B 1.8B 6.5B 6.1B 0.4 0.5 0
FL 47 (CONTROL) 16.5FG 1.3B 1.3B 4.8B 8.0B 0.5 0.4 0
SIGNIFICANCE' NS NS NS
ROMA TOMATOES
SHANTY 130.3A 0.4 1.9 10.0A 112.9A 1.2 0.0 3.9
SAK 5808 10.0B 0.1 0.2 4.4B 5.2B 0.1 0.0 0
MARIANA (CONTROL) 14.2B 0.1 0.5 2.4B 10.8B 0.4 0.0 0
SIGNIFICANCE NS NS ** NS NS **
RELATIVE TO TOTAL MARKETABLE YIELD
Y MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P K 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME LETTER ARE
NOT STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT. ** SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.01; SIGNIFICANCE AT P K 0.05; NS= NOT SIGNIFICANT.


names were not known to those making
the ratings.Yield measures for marketable
mature-green and colored tomatoes were
done in the field according to USDA speci-
fications for extra-large (5x6), large (6x6),
and medium (6x7) fruit categories (USDA,
1997). Total non marketable tomato fruit
numbers were recorded and categorized
into blossom end rot,zippering, misshapen,
rain check,gray wall,etc.as described by
Gilreath et al.(2000). After harvest,toma-
toes were placed in 25-lb boxes and trans-
ported to the Garguilo, Inc. packing house
(Immokalee, FL).After 12 (in 2007) and 10
(2008) days of ethylene ripening treatment,
post-harvest fruit quality measurements of
firmness and color were made on 15 uni-
form tomatoes of each variety,at the BHN
Research, Inc. (Immokalee, FL). Firmness
was measured with a custom-made BHN
instrument where measurements between
40 and 47 corresponded to"hard fruits"
and measurements less than 39 were"soft
fruits"Color was measured using a 1-to-10
scale (1=green;6-7 = red; 10= purple).
Extension Activities. Well attended
field days (124 and 65 attendees in 2007
and 2008, respectively) were held at
IFAS/SWREC and growers cooperator in
Immokalee.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Whitefly population,TYCLV incidence
and bacterial spot rating. Typical springs
in South Florida are dry,with temperatures
cool at the start and warm or hot at the
end of the season. Changes in whitefly
populations often follow those in tem-
perature. Whitefly pressure was heavier in
spring 2007 than in spring 2008. In 2007,
the average whitefly count was 9.9 0.38
(mean SE) adult per leaf,as compared
to 0.8 1.04 adult per leaf in 2008. The
number of TYCLV symptomatic plants was
lower in 2008 than in 2007 (Table 1). In
2007,symptoms of TYCLV were visible in
the plots with the susceptible'Florida 47'
and HA 3811 varieties (Table 1). 'Tygressa
TYCLV-resistant variety, showed least virus
symptoms although not significantly less
than the remaining TYCLV-resistant variet-
ies with the exception of FLA 8580. The
only tomato plants showing TYCLV symp-
toms were those of the susceptible'Florida
47;'Sebring'and 'Mariana'varieties (Table


. 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS











1). No symptomaticTYCLV tomato plants
were found among resistant varieties. In
2008, the varieties with the highest bacte-
rial spot ratings at the third harvest were
BHN 765,HA 3091and HA 3074 ('lnbar','Se-
curity 28"'Tygress and'Sebring while FLA
8632 had the significantly lowest incidence
rating (Table 1). But,the incidence rating
of FLA 8632 was not significantly different
from that of BH N 745, FLA 8579, HA 3075
('Ofri',and Sak 5421. The incidence ratings
of'Florida 47, Sak 5443 and FLA 8633 were
not significantly different from those of any
other entry. HA 3074 ('lnbar';18.5% of the
tomato plants affected by the disease) had
the highest incidence of fusarium crown
rot among the TYCLV varieties (all ranging
from 0 to 5%). No significant differences
were found in bacterial spot or fusarium
crown rot incidence among Roma varieties.
Fruit yields. In general, the first harvest
accounted approximately for 70%-90%
of the total yield,while the second and
third harvest accounted for only 30%-10%.
Tomato round and Roma yield reduction
was significant under higher virus pressure
during 2007 as compared with a lower
virus pressure during 2008 (Tables 2 and
3). Therefore, each year will be discussed
separately. For the round tomato varieties
in 2007,first harvest of extra-large fruit
yields were higher for HA 3078 and HA
3074 ('Inbar' than for'Florida 47'(P<0.05;
Table 2). Total extra-large fruit yield for all
varieties were greater than that of'Florida
47' Total yields were higher with HA 3078,
3074 ('Inbar',3075 ('Ofri' and'Tygress'
than with'Florida 47' Total yields ranged
from 2,015 to 854 25-lb boxes/acre. Culls
yields were greatest with BHN 745 than
with the rest of the varieties.'Florida 47'had
the lowest unmarketable fruit production.
HA 3071 produced higher first harvest
and total yields and cull weights than HA
3811 (P<0.05;Table 2).
For the round tomatoes in spring 2008,
first harvest of extra-large fruit yields were
higher for'Security 28; HA 3091,'Tygress'
HA 3075 ('Ofri', BHN 745, BHN 765,'Florida
47; Sak 5443, Sak 5421 and HA3074, than
for FLA 8632 and FLA 8633 (P<0.05;Table
3). Total extra-large fruit categories were
higher for'Security 28; HA 3091,'Florida 47,
Sak 5443,'Sebring'and HA 3075 ('Ofri' than
those of FLA 8632, FLA 8633 and FLA 8579.


TABLE 6. Firmness and color of selected tomato varieties after exposure to ethylene and storage.

FIRMNESSz COLOR
VARIETIES (PRESSURE RATING) (RATING 1-10)

SPRING 2007, ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 45.2C 6.0B
FLA 8576 45.0C 7.0A
FLA 8579 45.3C 5.5B
FLA 8580 45.2C 6.0B
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 45.7BC 5.0D
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 47.0AB 5.0D
HA 3078 45.2C 6.0B
TYGRESS 47.7A 4.0C
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 44.2C 5.5C
SIGNIFICANCEY ** **
SPRING 2007, ROMA TOMATOES
HA 3071 46.3 5.0B
HA 3811 45.6 7.0A
SIGNIFICANCE NS **
SPRING 2008, ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 45.7BC 5.0D
BHN 765 45.0CD 5.0D
FLA 8632 43.0E 5.0D
FLA 8579 42.7E 4.5E
FLA 8633 43.0E 6.5A
HA 3091 44.8CD 5.5C
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 42.9E 6.0B
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 45.1CD 4.5E
SAK 5421 43.2E 5.0D
SAK 5443 45.1CD 6.0B
SECURITY 28 46.8AB 4.OF
TYGRESS 42.5E 4.5E
SEBRING (CONTROL) 47.1A 5.0D
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 43.8DE 5.0D
SIGNIFICANCE ** **
SPRING 2008, ROMA TOMATOES
SHANTY 46.9A 6.0A
SAK 5808 44.5B 5.5B
MARIANA (CONTROL) 46.4A 5.OC
SIGNIFICANCE ** **
MEASURED WITH A CUSTOM-MADE BHN INSTRUMENT WHERE MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN 40 AND 47 CORRESPONDED TO
"HARD FRUITS" AND MEASUREMENTS LESS THAN 39 WERE "SOFT FRUITS"
Y MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME LETTER ARE
NOT STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT. = SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.01; = SIGNIFICANCE AT P 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.


Cull yields were highest with HA 3091 and
HA 3075 ('Ofri'), BHN 745 and 765,Sak 5443
and 'Security 28' than with 'Tyg ress-'Se-
bring'and'Florida 47: FLA 8632 produced
the highest medium fruit yield and lowest
extra-large first harvest and total extra-
large harvest. Differences among round
varieties were not significant (P>0.05) for
total large and season total fruit yields dur-
ing spring 2008.
At first harvest, no significant differences
were found in extra-large yields among
Roma varieties (Table 3). Total extra-large
fruit category was higher with'Mariana'
than with Sak 5808 and'Shanty'(P<0.05).


Total yield was higher with'Mariana'and
Sak 5808 than with'Shanty' Cull weights
were higher with'Shanty'than with'Mari-
ana'and Sak 5808. Total cull yields were
overall higher in spring 2007 than 2008
(Tables 4 and 5).
In round tomatoes during spring 2007,
the largest percentage of culls were BHN
745, FLA 8576 and 8580,Tygress,and FL47
than FLA 8580,HA 3074 ('Inbar') and HA
3080 ('Ofri') and HA 3078. The most com-
mon defect were zipper and catface (high-
est percentage for FLA 8576),sunscald and
yellow shoulder (highest percentage for
BNH 745, FLA 8576, HA 3075,and'Tygress),


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___










radial and concentric cracking (highest
percentage for BHN 745, FLA 8576, FLA
8579,'Tygress'and'Florida 479. For Roma
varieties during spring 2007,the largest
percentage of culls were HA 3071 than
HA 3811. The most common defect types
among TYCLV varieties were zipper and
catface (for HA 3811) and sunscald and yel-
low shoulder and odd shape in HA 3071.
In round tomatoes during spring 2008,
the largest percentage of culls was with
HA 3091 and Sak 5421 and the lowest with
'Tygress:The most common defect types
were scars (highest percentages with BNH
745 and BHN 765, HA 3075, HA 3091,Sak
5421 and Sak 5443) and odd shape (high-
est percentages with BNH 745, BHN 765,
FLA 8579, HA 3074, HA 3091,Sak 5421 and
'Security 28:
In Roma tomatoes during spring 2008,
the largest percentage of culls with'Shanty'
was greater than that with Sak 5808 and
'Mariana'(Control).
Post-harvest evaluation. In general for
both years, the firmer fruits had the lowest
color ratings (Table 6). In spring 2007,the
round variety with the firmest fruit and the


lowest color rating was'Tygress' while the
variety with the softest fruit and the high-
est color rating was FLA 8576. The rest of
the varieties were intermediate in firmness
and color. In 2007, no significant differ-
ences in firmness were found among the
Roma varieties, but HA 3811 had a higher
color rating than HA 3071.
During spring 2008,the firmest round
varieties were'Sebring'and'Sec 28'and the
varieties with lowest color rating were'Sec
28'and'Tygress:The softest fruits were those
of FLA 8632, FLA 8579, FLA 8633, HA 3074
('lnbar9,Sak 5421,and'Tygress:The highest
color rating was that of FLA 8633. The rest of
the varieties were intermediate in firmness
and color. The firmest Roma varieties were
'Shanty'and'Mariana'while the highest color
rating was that of'Shanty'and the lowest
that of'Mariana:
Field blind evaluations. In the spring
2008,the earliest variety rating was that
of FLA 8633 and the latest was that of HA
3075 ('Ofri9,'Tygress'and 'Florida 47: The
most vigorous plant rating was that of
FLA 8632 and least vigorous were those of
FLA 8579, HA 3091, HA 3074, HA3075 and


TABLE 7. Blind ratings (1 to 5 scale; 1= very poor and 5= very good) by 28 participants, of the
plants and fruits of selected tomato varieties grown on a commercial farm in Immokalee, FL, in
Spring 2008.
RATINGS
VARIETIES PLANT FRUIT FIRMNESS FRUIT YIELD OVERALL
EARLINESS VIGOR SIZE QUALITY POTENTIAL RATING

2008, ROUND TOMATOES
BHN 745 2.8EFGz 3.7C 3.1CD 3.6ABCD 3.4BCD 3.6DE 3.2B
BHN765 3.5C 3.3D 3.6B 2.9EF 3.1DE 4.4AB 3.1BC
FLA 8579 4.1B 2.6E 2.2E 2.8F 3.2CD 3.6DE 2.4DE
FLA 8632 3.4CD 4.7A 1.3F 2.7F 3.2CD 1.8H 1.8F
FLA 8633 4.4A 4.2B 2.3E 2.2G 2.5F 2.8FG 2.2EF
HA 3091 3.7C 2.7E 4.0A 3.0EF 3.0DE 4.2ABC 2.7CD
HA 3074 ('INBAR') 2.9EF 2.6E 3.3C 3.7ABC 3.7AB 2.6G 3.0BC
HA 3075 ('OFRI') 2.4H 2.7E 4.1A 3.2DEF 3.2CD 3.9CD 3.2BC
SAK 5421 3.6C 4.1B 3.4BC 2.8F 2.7EF 4.1BC 3.1BC
SAK 5443 3.1DE 4.3B 4.1A 3.9AB 3.6ABC 4.5A 3.7A
SECURITY 28 3.5C 3.9BC 4.2A 4.1A 3.4BCD 4.4AB 3.8A
TYGRESS 2.5HG 2.4E 2.8D 3.7ABC 3.8AB 2.9F 2.9BC
SEBRING (CONTROL) 2.8EFG 4.3B 3.1CD 3.3CDE 3.9A 3.4E 3.1BC
FLORIDA 47 (CONTROL) 2.6FGH 3.3D 3.2C 3.5CDE 3.5ABC 3.7DE 3.2B
SIGNIFICANCEZ ** ** ** ** ** ** **
2008, ROMA TOMATOES
SHANTY 3.9A 3.0A 3.9A 3.6 1.8B 4.5A 2.2B
SAK 5808 2.0C 2.1B 2.7B 3.4 3.8A 2.9C 2.6B
MARIANA (CONTROL) 3.5B 2.1B 3.9A 3.5 3.8A 3.8B 3.6A
SIGNIFICANCE ** ** ** NS ** ** **
MEANS SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, P K 0.05 LEVEL, MEANS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME LETTER ARE
NOT STATISTICALLY DIFFERENT. = SIGNIFICANCE AT P < 0.01; = SIGNIFICANCE AT P K 0.05; NS = NOT SIGNIFICANT.


'Tygress: The largest tomatoes were from
HA 3091, HA 3075,Sak 5443 and Sec 28,
while the smallest were those of FLA 8633.
The firmest fruits were those of Sec 28,Sak
5443, HA 3074 and'Tygress while the soft-
est were those of FLA 8633. The varieties
rated with the highest fruit quality were
'Sebring'/Florida 472'Tygress Sak 5443 and
HA 3074,and the lowest was FLA 8633.The
highest yield potential ratings were those
of Sak 5443,'Security 28; BHN 765 and
HA 3091,and the lowest was that of FLA
8632. 'Security 28'and Sak 5443 received
the overall highest ratings,while FLA 8632
received the lowest.
The earliest Roma variety rating was with
'Shanty'and the latest was with Sak 5808.
The most vigorous plant was'Shanty'and
the least vigorous were Sak 5808 and'Mari-
ana; Ratings for the largest tomatoes were
for'Shanty'and'Mariana'and the smallest
for Sak 5808. No significant differences in
firmness were found. Highest fruit quality
ratings were for Sak 5808 and'Mariana'
while the lowest was for'Shanty:The high-
est yield potential rating was for'Shanty'
and the lowest for Sak 5808. 'Mariana're-
ceived the overall highest rating,while Sak
5808 and'Shanty' received the lowest.

SUMMARY
1.The highest whitefly population and
counts ofTYCLV symptomatic plants
were during the spring 2007 than 2008.
The least symptomatic TYCLV plant
under high virus pressure (spring 2007)
was 'Tygress:
2. Under high virus pressure during spring
2007,the highest extra-large and total
yield yielding varieties were HA 3078,
HA 3074 ('lnbar9, HA 3075 ('Ofri').These
varieties also had the lowest percentage
of culls fruits.'Tygress'had high yield as
well, but high percent of cull fruits with
sunscald and yellow shoulder. The best
Roma variety was HA 3071, but it had a
high percentage of cull fruits.
3. Under low virus pressure during spring
2008, no difference in total yield among
TYCLV varieties were found, but based
in extra-large fruit yield,the highest
yielding varieties were'Security 28;
'Tygress' BHN 745, BHN 765, HA 3091,
3075 ('Ofri'), HA 3074 ('Inbar'), Sak 5443
and Sak 5421. But, high percentages of


f 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










cull fruits were observed with HA 3091,
Sak 5421, BHN 765,'Security 28, BHN
745, Sak 5443 and HA 3075 ('Ofri') as
compared to'Sebring'and'Florida 47'
the controls. Most of the fruit defects
in these TYCLV varieties were scar and
oddly shaped fruits. ThereforeTygress'
and HA 3074 had the highest extra-
large yield and the lowest percent of
culls. The best Roma TYCLV variety was
Sak 5808 based on total yield and low
percentage of cull fruits.
4. In general for both years,the firmest
fruits had the lowest color ratings.
During 2007,the firmest round fruits
were those of'Tygress'and HA 3075
('Ofri'), but'Tygress'fruits had a low
color rating. No differences were found
in firmness, but HA 3811 had a higher
color rating. During the spring 2008,
the firmest fruits were those of'Security
28' but they also had the lowest color
rating. The firmest and highest color
ratings among the Roma varieties were
those of'Shanty'
5. Based the participant's blind ratings,
the best round TYCLV varieties for the
spring 2008 were'Security 28; Sak 5443,
HA 3074 ('Inbar'),and'Tygress:The best
Roma variety was'Shanty:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to give thanks to
Southwest Vegetable Growers Association,
Redi Plants Corp., Sakata, Hazera, Harris
Moran, Seminis, BHN and Six'L Farms for
providing monetary or in-kind support to
this project.*

REFERENCES
Cushman,Kand P.A.Stansly. 2006. TYCLV-resistant
tomato cultivar trial and whitefly control. Proceed-
ings: Florida Tomato Institute. P.Gilreath [Ed.],
Vegetable Crops Special Series, IFAS, U. of Florida,
Gainesville, PRO 523, pp. 29-34.

Gilreath, P., K. Shuler, J. Polston, T. Sherwood, G.
McAvoy, P. Stansly, and E. Waldo. 2000. Tomato yellow
leaf curl virus resistant tomato variety trials. Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 113:190-193.

Schuster, D.J., P.A.Stansly and Jane E. Polston. 1996.
Expressions ofplant damage of Bemisia. In: Bemisia
1995: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage Control and
Management. Andover, Hants, UKD.D. Gerling and R.
T. Mayer fEds.) PP: 153-165.

Schuster, D. andJ. Polston, 1999. Whitefly manage-
ment guide: Tomato yellow leaf curl virus.Citrus and
Vegetable, July, A6-A7.


Tomato Purple Leaf Disorder (TPLD) was
first observed in 2006 in isolated fields of
Hillsborough and Manatee counties, but
has since been found in numerous fields
throughout both counties, in Miami-Dade
county and recently in Suwannee county.
Symptoms ofTPLD first appear 6 to 8
weeks after transplanting and consist
of an intense interveinal purpling of the
upper surface of leaflets. Symptoms can
begin as a purpling of the leaf margin
or as purple blotches radiating from the
main leaf vein. While the entire leaf blade
gradually turns purple,the undersides
of affected leaves and leaf veins do not.
Symptom development appears to be re-
lated to light exposure,since shaded leaf
tissues often remain green. No bronzing
or deforming of the leaves has been ob-
served. However,as the symptoms prog-
ress, affected leaves develop chlorosis
and senesce prematurely, leading to an
overall decline in the plant. WhileTPLD
has been observed on all tomato types,
symptoms appear to be most severe on
indeterminate grape tomato varieties.
Symptoms were initially thought to
be caused by a phosphorous deficiency.


However, subsequent testing of 450
samples from plants with and with-
out symptoms sampled in Homestead
and Apollo Beach failed to reveal any
nutritional deficiency. Spray damage was
ruled out, since TPLD has been observed
in fields with greatly different spray
programs. Environmental factors such
as ozone damage also were ruled out
either through direct testing or reviewing
field history. This has led to a focus on
possible pathological agents. However,
no known pathogen has been associated
with TPLD. Testing for novel pathologi-
cal agents is in progress (J. Polston et al.
2008, Proceedings of the Tomato Insti-
tute, p. 22).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
In Spring 2008,a field study was initiated
to monitor the spread of TPLD from two
plantings of'Sweetheart'grape tomato
at a farm with a history of TPLD in Apollo
Beach. The first planting made on 11 Jan.
consisted of nearly 14 acres divided by
a tree row into a 6 and 8 acre block. The
second planting made on 7 Mar.con-
sisted of a single 4 acre block. The goal


FIGURE 1 .Total incidences of TPLD over time in the first planting at Apollo Beach in 2008.


250


, 200


o 150

E
z 100


BL
BL


UCK (LANUS l1 IU 46)
OCK 1 (LAND 1 TO 18)


,76
.47
.40
31





31 58 69


3/23 3/31 4/7 4/14


4/21 4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19


' THE INCIDENCE OF TPLD WAS RECORDED USING A HANDHELD GPS UNIT TO MARK EACH SITE. EACH SITE REPRESENTS 1
TO 5 PLANTS.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


TOMATO PURPLE LEAF:

A NEW DISORDER OR DISEASE OF TOMATO?

Gary E. Vallad, Bielinski M. Santos and David J. Schuster
UF/IFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma


1 A B A R ..... A IA A J l


_W___










FIGURE 2. New incidence of TPLD over time in the first planting at Apollo Beach in 2008'.


S 40



E 20
z
2


BLOCK 2 (LANDS 19 TO 46)

BLOCK 1 (LAND 1 TO 18)


17 25 27


1 7


11 g 7


5


3/23 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19
FIGURE LEGEND:
HT HEALTHY TOMATO, PT TLPD SYMPTOMATIC TOMATO, CE CITRUS EXOCORDIS VIROID, CV CITRUS VIROIDS CVD II

FIGURE 3. Distribution of TPLD sites across beds over time in the first planting at Apollo
Beach'.


BLOCK 1





I I II
I


BLOCK 2


i~iIiill


~i~hII~~


E 19-MAY
E 12-MAY
D 5-MAY
28-APR
* 21-APR
* 14-APR
S7-APR
* 31-MAR
* 23-MAR


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546
BED NUMBER
z THE INCIDENCE OF TPLD WAS RECORDED USING A HANDHELD GPS UNIT TO MARK EACH SITE. EACH SITE REPRESENTS 1
TO 5 PLANTS.


of the study was to describe the distribu-
tion ofTPLD in the field, using handheld
global positioning system (GPS) units to
map the incidence of symptoms dur-
ing production of the crop. The severity
and development ofTPLD were also
rated. Any pattern in the distribution or
development of symptoms in relation to
various production practices or environ-
mental conditions could provide clues
regarding the source and cause ofTPLD.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Apollo Beach First Planting. The first
planting of grape tomatoes was moni-
tored from 18 Feb. to 19 May. The field
was composed of 46 sets of 3 beds,


oriented north-to-south and separated
by a ditch. Block 1 consisted of the
west side of the field (lands 1 to 18) and
block 2 consisted of the east side of the
field (lands 19 to 46). The ditch-side of
every third bed was monitored for TPLD.
Because spray damage was considered
a possible cause ofTPLD,the two blocks
were managed differently. Block 1
received pesticide applications based
on the recommendation of a commer-
cial scout, while the grower's regular
pesticide program was applied to block
2. However, in the end,there were few
differences in the incidence or severity of
TPLD between the two blocks.
The first symptoms of TPLD were


observed on 23 Mar., coinciding with fruit
set at 10 weeks after planting (WAT), on
two plants in Block 1. The incidence of
TPLD doubled every week before reach-
ing a plateau on 4WAT (Fig. 1). After
4WAT,the number of new TPLD sites
dropped until the final week of scouting
when the number of new sites rose again
(Fig. 2). By 19 May (18 WAT), 267 sites
with TPLD were observed and recorded
with GPS (Fig. 1). The intensity ofTPLD
increased with time as indicated by an
increase in the severity of symptoms and
an increase in the number of symptom-
atic plants at each GPS site, with each
site representing 1 to 5 plants along 3
to 12 linear feet of bed. These data are
consistent with an infectious disease,
with increased symptoms over time and
apparent spread to neighboring plants.
Several plants also exhibited symptoms
ofTPLD and TYLCV indicating that co-
infection is possible.
While the incidence ofTPLD was
monitored in the field with handheld GPS
units, symptomatic leaves were carefully
tagged at each site. The tagging allowed
symptom development to be monitored
at each GPS site over time. During the
initial three weeks of scouting (23 Mar
to 14 Apr.), new symptoms of TPLD were
observed mostly at the bottom of the
plants, while subsequent symptoms ap-
peared to move up the plant. However,
during the last three weeks (5 to 19 May),
new symptoms appeared near the top of
the plant.
Few differences in the frequency or
distribution ofTPLD were observed
between Block 1 and 2 (Fig. 3). This
suggests that the different pesticide pro-
grams had little impact on the develop-
ment ofTPLD. The incidence ofTPLD was
higher in Block 2. However, Block 2 was
nearly 2 acres larger than Block 1. Based
on GPS coordinates, the appearance of
new TPLD sites overtime occurred from
East to West,following the contours of
the field and the road along the south
end of the field (Fig.4). The most notable
cluster of sites appeared in the southwest
corner of Block 2. Certain beds remained
free ofTPLD until the last weeks of the
trial. In many cases, the first incidence of
TPLD in a bed occurred on the south end,


* 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


*


* * *


I *










with subsequent incidences appear-
ing further north along the bed. These
spatial patterns correspond with cultural
operations, such as tying, spraying, top-
ping and harvesting, which began on
the south end of the field and typically
proceeded from east to west. IfTPLD
is caused by an infectious agent, then
the pattern of spread suggests that the
agent is either transmitted mechanically
or by a vector that moved in a northwest
direction, possibly in response to cultural
operations.
Apollo Beach Second Planting. The
field was composed of 15 sets of 3 beds
oriented east-to-west and separated by
a ditch. The north-side and south-side
of every first and third bed, respectively,
was monitored forTPLD beginning 8
May. The first symptoms of TPLD were
observed on 8 WAT on 2 plants (on 8
May). The number ofTPLD sites quickly
increased to 178 by 16 June. Based on
preliminary results, the severity and in-
cidence of plants with TPLD at each site
increased over time in a manner similar
to the first planting,and several plants
with symptoms of TPLD and TYLCV were
observed (data not shown). However,
unlike the first planting, initial symptoms
appeared in the middle of the plants and
later towards the top of plants.
Rooted Field Cuttings. Several symp-
tomatic cuttings of'Sweetheart'grape
tomato cultivar were collected in April
from the first planting. The cuttings
consisted of 4 to 6 inch stem segments
with a single internode bearing one to
two leaves. The basal end of each cut-
ting was dipped in root tone to promote
root development, planted in a pasteur-
ized potting mix and maintained in a
greenhouse facility at the GCREC in Balm.
While symptoms of TPLD persisted in
symptomatic tissues, new growth re-
mained free of symptoms for the initial 3
to 4 weeks after rooting. Several cuttings
also exhibited symptoms of TPLD and
TYLCV. The appearance and persistence
of TPLD in rooted cuttings maintained
in a greenhouse support the hypothesis
thatTPLD is caused by a biological agent,
and further rules out environmental
factors and production-related practices
such as fertilization and pesticide ap-


plications as the cause. The cause and economic impact of
TPLD remains unclear. However,the de-
SUMMARY velopment and persistence of symptoms
Preliminary results from the Apollo on rooted field cuttings suggest that
Beach field study found that the distribu- TPLD is caused by a biological agent. No
tion ofTPLD over time was not random, known pathogen has been associated
but rather clustered along the southern with TPLD, so current testing is focused
edge of the field from east to west. This on novel pathological agents (J. Polston
pattern corresponded with the direction et al. 2008, Proceedings of the Tomato
of most farm operations and could be Institute, p. 22). Results of transmission
the result of mechanical transmission, studies will also be important. IfTPLD is
the movement of a vector in response to mechanically transmitted then hygienic
cultural practices, or just chance. Results measures will be necessary to limit
from the second planting should clarify the spread of the pathological agent
these results, since the field is oriented through equipment and personnel, while
east-to-west rather than north-to-south such practices would have little impact
like the first planting. Little difference in on an insect-vectored agent. In addition
the distribution ofTPLD was observed to understanding the mode of transmis-
over time between the two blocks, sug- sion,additional studies are necessary
gesting that TPLD is not related to the to determine the impact of TPLD on
pesticide program. production. *

FIGURE 4.The spread of TPLD in the first planting at Apollo Beach'.


March23 Aprl7


0 2.0 O 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0 3.1-3.5 3.6-4.0
zA RATING OF 2 = MILD PURPLING ON LEAVES; 2.6 TO 3.0 = STRONG PURPLING; AND 3.6 TO 4.0 = STRONG PURPLING AND
CHLOROSIS.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___











SUDDEN DECAY

OF TOMATO FRUIT


J. A. Bartz', G. M. Karuiki and Stephen Jordan'
'Department of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
2Department of Plant Pathology, National Agricultural Research Laboratories,
Kenya Agricultural Institute, P.O. Box 14733-00800, Nairobi, Kenya


Sudden decay refers to a progressive decay
of tomato fruit that begins within 12 h after
harvest. Initial symptoms are water soak-
ing around wounds or the stem scar. With
packed fruit,wet patches may be observed
on the external surfaces of the containers
by the end of a 2-3day period in the ripen-
ing room. In boxes showing wet patches,
one can observe fruit in various stages of
decay that are emitting fluids that spread
the pathogens to nearby sound fruit. Fruits
in the wet boxes are unmarketable and
must be repacked or discarded. Repack-
ing is often not successful since incipient
lesions may be not detected during the
repack operation and sanitation is difficult
at best. Several different pathogens may
be involved. Critical factors leading to
"sudden decay"are fruit condition and the
storage environment. Both of these factors
involve water.
Fruit naturally have different amounts
of water. Tomatoes showing shrivel have
insufficient water,whereas those with
radial, concentric or cuticle cracks have had
too much water,at least temporarily. Fruit
cracking develops because the fruit surface
has lost its elasticity and cannot expand
enough to accommodate an influx of water
and metabolites. This influx is often related
to an imbalance in root uptake of water rel-
ative the water requirements of the plant.
For example, heavy rainfall after a period of
relative dryness floods the roots with water
at a time when the needs of the canopy are
reduced due to cloud cover and surface
moisture. Since the root system does not
have an on/off switch for water uptake,
water continues to move through the
vascular system ending up in intercellular
spaces in the leaves as well as fruit. Fruits
with excessive water at the time of harvest
are injury prone and are more likely to
absorb water after harvest. Excessive water
compromises the resistance of green fruit
to sour rot caused by Geotrichum candidum


and appears to exacerbate all types of
decay. In the field excessive water can lead
to buckeye rot (Phytophthora parasitica or P.
capsici) even on fruit that are not touching
water puddles or the soil. Additionally,wet
canopies enable populations of the patho-
gens responsible for progressive decays to
develop on injuries and senescing tissues.
Surges of water after a dry period can lead
to fruit cracking and blossom end rot.
Free water on freshly harvested fruit en-
hances the risk of decay and an internaliza-
tion of bacteria located on the fruit surface.
Free water on wounds enables rapid soft
rot development as well as internaliza-
tion of the microbes on the wound. The
source of the free water may be preexist-
ing (harvest from wet plants), rainfall on
bins or gondolas of fruit, or condensation
(cool fruit introduced into warm humid air).
Condensation can develop in palletized
boxes of fruit if air temperatures outside
of storage are warmer than the fruit, par-
ticularly if cool fruit are loaded into a warm
truck trailer.
The effect of a water congestion of fruit
and free water on fruit surfaces at harvest
explains sporadic outbreaks of sour rot (G.
candidum) in harvested tomatoes. Exten-
sive research by Butler (1960) in California
demonstrated that while ripe tomatoes
were highly susceptible to sour rot,green
fruit would not develop this decay unless
chilled. Yet, market pathologists have
described symptoms of sour rot on green
tomatoes and often noted the disease
appeared to start at the edge of the stem
scar and progress in a sector toward the
blossom end of the fruit (McColloch et al.,
1968). Pritchard and Porte (1923) named
the disease watery rot due to the copious
amount of clear fluids that emanated from
lesions. However,the disease progressed
much more slowly than bacterial soft rot
when fruit were allowed to dry and were
held on a laboratory bench. The first


description of the disease noted that ripe
fruit were infected through cracks,whereas
green fruit were relatively resistant (Poole,
1922). Butler observed that infections
following the inoculation of green fruits
became arrested.
Isolations of pathogens from several re-
cent sporadic postharvest decay outbreaks
in production areas ranging from the west
coast of Florida, the Florida panhandle and
the Delmarva Peninsula of Virginia yielded
mostly G.candidum with low numbers
of Erwinia. carotovora (bacterial soft rot).
The decaying fruit developed extensive
coverings of yeast-like fungi typical of G.
candidum. The lesions were mostly on the
fruit surface with penetration into locular
cavities. It is likely that the clear fluid as-
sociated with these decay outbreaks was
from lysis of the gel in the locular cavity.
The decay failed to rapidly collapse the fruit
as would occur with bacterial soft rot.
In certain citrus fruits,sour rot is a
problem that is associated with high peel
water content (Baudoin and Eckert, 1982).
By contrast, wound inoculations of dry fruit
produced mostly arrested lesions. When
we congested green tomato fruit with wa-
ter,sour rot infection became quite active
encompassing large areas of the fruit (Fig.
1). These were clearly not arrested lesions.
The amount of water infused into the
fruit ranged from 2%to 6% of their initial
weight. Both a soak in water and a pressure
treatment on submerged tomatoes pro-
duced a similar effect. With the longer soak
(overnight as compared with up to 60 min),
surface cracks would radiate from some of
the wounds. Fruits were inoculated prior
to and after the soak treatment. In both
treatments extensive decay developed
although the lesions were smaller after the
post versus pre-soak inoculation. Control
fruit that had not been soaked before or af-
ter inoculation had arrested lesions despite
storage in a water saturated atmosphere.


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










Clearly, the infusion of water into the fruit
tissues was responsible for the sour rot
development. Pin hole wounds developed
into large brown lesions (>2-3 cm in di-
ameter) within 72 hr after green fruit were
soaked for 45 min in a spore suspension of
G.candidum, whereas only arrested lesions
were observed among fruit that had been
soaked for 5 min. Thus, it was the soaking
and likely penetration of water into the
wound and not just inoculation that led to
the lesion development.
The temperature and humidity of the
storage environment are also important
factors in rapidly developing decays. Both
sour and soft rot progress more rapidly
among fruit stored at 86oF (30oC) as com-
pared with 68oF (20oF). Consequently, in
times of high climatic temperatures, provi-
sion for uniformly cooling palletized stacks
of packed tomatoes is highly desirable.
Both diseases are favored by high humidity
as well. However, reducing the humidity
surrounding pallets of boxed tomatoes is
not a viable control option. Moreover, hu-


midity was not a factor in the development
of sour rot among green tomatoes.
A more recent decay outbreak followed
harvest of fruit during a cold period where
temperatures were in the low 50's oF. Here,
the lesions were internal and dark in color.
The surface over the lesions was softened
by not broken. Once again water conges-
tion,injury and free water on fruit surfaces
were implicated as critical factors. The
problem occurred among pink tomatoes
and was notas severe among the mature
green fruit from the same harvest. The
pathogens involved were likely Alternaria
alternate (black mold rot) with probable
assistance of soft rot bacteria. The internal
lesions were largely confined to locular
cavities and were linked to the fruit surface
by pathogen growth down the stylar pore
or vascular tissues beginning at the stem
scar. This type of development would not
be likely unless the fruit were wet for a pe-
riod of time at or shortly after harvest. Fruit
wetness could have been associated with
harvest operations beginning before the


plants were dry or cold fruit were packed
into a warmer humid ripening/storage
room. An additional feature was that many
of the seeds in the affected locular cavities
had lost their gel capsule,which could
have occurred if the fruit were bruised.The
grower indicated that he'd observed this
in the past and that it was very transient,
meaning it did not appear among fruit in
subsequent harvests of the same field. *

LITERATURE CITED
Baudoin,A.B.A.M.,and Eckert,J. W. 1982. Factors
influencing the susceptibility of lemon to infection by
Geotrichum candidum. Phytopathology 72:1592-
1597.

Butler, A. 1960. Pathogenicity and taxonomy of
Geotrichum candidum. Phytopathology50:665-672.

McColloch, L. P., Cook, H. T., and Wright, W. R. 1968.
Market diseases of tomatoes, peppers and eggplants.
ARS. U.S. Dept.Agric.,Agric. Handb. No.28.

Poole, FR. 1922.A newfruit rot of tomatoes. Botan.
Gaz.74:210-214.

Pritchard, FJ., and Porte, W.S. 1923. Watery-rot of
tomato fruits. J.Agric. Res. 24:895-906.


FIGURE 1. Sour rot development in green or red tomato fruit as a function of soaking the wounded fruit in water.



100%

90%

80%

70%

W 60%
z
1 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

00%
GREEN FRUIT
UNTREATED
INOCULATED, NO
WATER CONGESTION WATER CONGESTED, RED FRUIT
WATER CONGESTED
NO INOCULATION
INOCULATED INOCULATED DURING
TREATMENT RED FRUIT WATER CONGESTION

U GREEN FRUIT


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___











STUDIES TO DETERMINE

THE CAUSE OF TOMATO PURPLE LEAF DISORDER

Jane E. Polston1, F.Akad' and Gary E. Vallad2
SUF/UFAS Dept of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville,jep@ufl.edu
2 Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, gvallad@ufl.edu


Tomato purple leaf disorder (TPLD)
has been observed in tomato farms in
Hillsborough and Manatee counties since
2006. The disorder can first be observed
as an interveinal purple discoloration on
the upper leaf surfaces. Leaves produced
after the initial symptoms may have
varying amounts of purple which can
extend to the entire surface of the leaf.
The intensity of the purple color and the
extent of purpling vary among leaves
and among cultivars. No deformation of
the leaf has been observed, but affected
leaves appear to decline and senesce
prematurely.The amount or quality of
light plays a role in the expression of the
purpling; lower light levels often mean
less or no purpling. For example when
two leaves partially overlap, the TPLD
only shows on the surface exposed to
sunlight, leaving a shade of green tissue
on the overlapped leaf.
There are no reports in the literature of
a pathogen causing symptoms like those
ofTPLD. The results of studies conducted
in the field earlier this year support the
hypothesis that this disorder is the result
of an infectious agent (G.Vallad et al
2008 Proceedings of the Tomato Institute,
p. 17). One method to determine if an
infectious agent is responsible for a set
of symptoms is to demonstrate that the
symptoms can be transferred to a non-
symptomatic host though some means of
transmission (such as mechanical, insect,
or nematode).

STUDIES ON TRANSMISSION OF AN
AGENT THAT CAUSES TPLD
Samples from symptomatic plants were
collected from Homestead and inocu-
lated to healthy'Celebrity'tomato plants
in Feb. 2008 using a standard protocol
for an easily mechanically transmitted
agent. Six weeks after inoculation, pur-
pling symptoms were observed on the
inoculated plants. This time to symptom


appearance is consistent with observa-
tions from field studies (G.Vallad et al
2008 Proceedings of the Tomato Insti-
tute). This inoculation was repeated once
more in Gainesville in May using tissue
from symptomatic'Celebrity' plants. The
results suggest that a biological agent
is responsible for the symptoms. This
does not imply that the agent cannot be
moved by other means, such as mites,
insects, or pollen. Therefore a series
of studies was conducted to identify a
pathogen that can be associated with the
purpling symptoms.

STUDIES CONDUCTED TO IDENTIFY
A BIOLOGICAL AGENT
A wide array of laboratory and green-
house studies were conducted to identify
a biological agent associated with TPLD.
Plant diseases can be caused by an array
of pathogens, some of which can be
cultured and readily identified and others
which cannot be cultured,and there-
fore more challenging to detect. Fungi,
bacteria, algae, phytoplasmas, viruses
and viroids are known types of plant
pathogens. However, only fungi, bacteria,
viruses and viroids can be mechanically
transmitted. In general,the smaller the
size of the pathogen the more difficult
the detection and recognition.
Fungi and Bacteria. Many fungi and
bacteria can be transmitted by mechani-
cal inoculation. Leaf,stem and root sam-
ples were collected from symptomatic
and non-symptomatic plants and tested
for the presence of a variety of fungi
and bacteria. Standard microbiological
techniques and diagnostic media were
used to prepare and test various plant
tissues. Although fungi and bacteria
were recovered from symptomatic plants,
there was no clear association of any of
these pathogens with TPLD. Therefore,
laboratory and greenhouse tests were
conducted to test for the presence of a


virus or viroid. PCR assays were conduct-
ed on three symptomatic samples for the
presence of Clavibacter michiganensis
subsp.sepedonicus and for Phytoplasmas,
organisms similar but different from bac-
teria. All these tests were negative.
Viruses. Several techniques are avail-
able for the detection and identification
of plant viruses. Two basic types of assays
were conducted; those that look for evi-
dence of any virus without any specificity
for any particular virus ("Non-specific
Assays") and those that detect a specific
and well characterized virus ("Specific
Assays"). Several of each of these types of
assays were conducted with symptomatic
and asymptomatic plant samples.

NON-SPECIFIC ASSAYS FOR VIRUSES
A. Inclusion Body Visualization. Symp-
tomatic leaf samples were tested
for the presence of inclusion bodies
(structures produced by viruses inside
plant cells) by treating the samples
with particular stains and looking
for the presence of stained inclusion
bodies in the cells of affected plants
using a compound light microscope.
This approach can detect about 75% of
known viruses and can give an indica-
tion ifa virus is present and in general
what family of virus it is. No inclusion
bodies were observed.
B. Electron Microscopy. Another method
which can demonstrate the pres-
ence of a virus is to examine sap from
symptomatic plants with an electron
microscope for the presence of virus
particles. This method is effective for
the detection of many plant viruses.
No particles were seen from symptom-
atic plants.
C. dsRNA Analysis. Six symptomatic leaf
samples were sent to R.Valverde an
expert in the use of dsRNA for the
identification of new viruses from
Louisiana State University. This assay


I 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










detects almost all viruses that produce
a double strand of RNA (approximately
60% of known plant viruses). No virus
was detected in the samples.
D. Broad-Spectrum PCR and RT-PCR As-
says. There are 16 known families of
plants viruses composed of 55 genera,
and 22 genera not assigned to families.
Broad-spectrum PCR and RT-PCR as-
says have been developed which will
detect most (but not all) the viruses
within 30 genera of plant viruses.These
assays are very powerful because they
can detect many different viruses with
just a single test. In addition, if a virus
sequence is detected the amplified
piece of DNA can be cloned and se-
quenced.This sequence can be used to
identify the virus to species or can be
a starting point to obtain more of the
viral sequence,which is essential for
identification. The use of broad-spec-
trum PCR assays can rapidly identify a
new virus that belongs to a well-char-
acterized genera, but will not detect
viruses from the remaining 47 genera
or from unknown genera.
Samples were sent to AgDia and
tested with all available (18) broad-
spectrum PCR assays. PCR assays were
conducted for viruses belonging to
the following virus genera/families:
Geminiviridae (Begomovirus, Curtovirus),
Bromoviridae (4 genera plus Ilarvirus),
Flexiviridae (Carlavirus, Potexvirus, and
Trichovirus genera), Closteroviridae
(3 genera), Comoviridae (Comovirus,
Fabavirus, and Nepovirus genera),
Luteoviridae (3 genera), Potyviridae
(6 genera), Togaviridae (Tobamovirus
genus), Tombusviridae (Tombusvirus,
Carmovirus, and Dianthovirus genera),
and Tospovirus.
Only one test was positive with all
6 symptomatic samples the PCR for
Closteroviridae. The DNA fragments
generated by this PCR assay were
cloned and sequenced. The sequences
that were obtained were 92% to 99%
identical to the Heat shock protein
gene of Tomato chlorosis virus, which
belongs in the genus Crinivirus.

SPECIFIC ASSAYS FOR VIRUSES
E. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


TABLE 1. Summary of results of PCR assays for a Crinivirus in TPLD symptomatic plants
NO. OF SAMPLES DATE LOCATION RESULTS NO. POSITIVE/
TESTED COLLECTED TOTAL NO. SAMPLES
1 15 DEC 2007 RUSKIN 0/1
5 19 FEB 2008 GAINESVILLE UF GNHS. 1/5
3 21 FEB 2008 RUSKIN 0/3
2 26 FEB 2008 RUSKIN 0/2
4 25 MARCH 2008 HOMESTEAD 2/4


(ELISA). Six samples of symptomatic
leaves were sent to Agdia to test for
the presence of 16 specific tomato-in-
fecting viruses using ELISA and nucleic
acid hybridization assays. Although no
known tomato virus causes symptoms
of TPLD, it is possible that a new strain
of a known viral pathogen was the
cause. These tests would be likely to
detect new strains of known viruses.
The following viruses were tested for
but were not detected in any of the
samples: Alfalfa mosaic virus, Cucumber
mosaic virus, Impatiens necrotic spot
virus, Pepino mosaic virus, Potato leaf
roll virus, Potato virus X, Potato virus Y,
Tobacco etch virus, Tobacco mosaic virus,
Tobacco ringspot virus, Tobacco streak
virus, Tomato aspermy virus, Tomato
bushy stunt virus, Tomato mosaic virus,
Tobacco ringspot virus,and Tomato
spotted wilt virus. An ELISA was also
conducted which detects approxi-
mately 95% of all known Potyviruses.
No virus was found consistently in all
6 leaves. This indicates that the causal
agent is probably not one of these
viruses.
F. Crinivirus polymerase chain reaction
(PCR). Fifteen symptomatic samples
were sent to W.Wintermantel,a
specialist in Closterovirus identifica-
tion. He used PCR tests that detect the
coat protein and polymerase genes of
Criniviruses. He detected Criniviruses
in some of the field samples but not
in any of the greenhouse samples. His
results indicate that the presence of a
Crinivirus, including Tomato chlorosis
virus, is not associated with the pur-
pling symptoms. Therefore a Crinivirus,
including Tomato chlorosis virus, is not
the cause of the symptoms ofTPLD.
PCR primers designed from the Ag-
Dia generated sequence (Tomato chlo-
rosis virus Heat shockprotein gene) and


primers to the Crinivirus polymerase
(developed byW.Wintermantel) were
tested on the same plant samples at
the same time. PCR for actin,a plant
gene, were used as an internal control
(Table 1). The PCR for the Tomato chlo-
rosis virus Heat shock protein gene was
positive for all samples collected from
symptomatic plants and for 2/4 plants
that were not-inoculated and were not
showing any symptoms at the time of
sampling.These plants were collected
and are being held for observation to
determine if they were infected but
just not showing symptoms yet.
Since the results of W.Winterman-
tel and AgDia are at odds,and could
be due to the fact the different tests
were conducted at different locations,
we conducted further tests to try to
resolve these differences. We designed
primers to the sequence obtained from
the AgDia assays and tested plants
with and without purpling symptoms
with these primers and with primers
for the ToCV polymerase gene. We ob-
tained somewhat similar results-the
primers for the heat shock protein
gene gave a positive result while the
polymerase primers were always nega-
tive (Table 2). In two cases asymp-
tomatic plants were positive using
heat shock primers. These plants were
set aside and within four weeks the'Ce-
lebrity'showed symptoms of purpling,
while the symptoms on the'FL Lanai'
were inconclusive. These results are
not clear, but could be explained by
the presence of a unique crinivirus
which has a genome that is identical in
one part to ToCV but the rest is unique.
But there may be other explanations
and further testing is needed.
Viroids. The ease of transmission, the
nature of the symptoms,and the absence
of clear evidence for a virus suggest the


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___










possibly of a viroid as the causal agent.
Viroids, like Potato spindle tuber viroid,are
small circular pieces of RNA. They differ
from viruses in that they have no coat
protein and they are unable to produce
any proteins. Viroids are pollen- and
seed-borne,and are very easily mechani-
cally transmitted. There are about 30
known viroids, but there are probably
many awaiting discovery. New viroids
can be very difficult to detect and iden-
tify.They can be detected by RT-PCR if
the sequence of the viroid is known or is
similar to a known viroid,and by hybrid-
ization assays if their sequence is similar
to the viroid sequence used as the probe.
They can also be detected by techniques
which preferentially extract and concen-
trate small RNAs from plants. The latter
technique is the one that must be used
for new viroids.
G. RT-PCR Assays. Three symptomatic
samples were tested by RT-PCR us-
ing viroid-specific or group specific
primers. These RT-PCR assays are used
routinely to assay citrus for viroids
(laboratory of P. Sieburth, Citrus Bud-
wood Testing Program). These assays
would detect the following viroids (or
viroids with similar sequences): Citrus
exocortis viroid (CEVd), Bentleaf viroid
(CVd I), Citrus Viroid One (CVd II), Citrus
Viroid three (CVd III), Citrus viroid four
(CVd IV), and Citrus Viroid five (CVd V).
All RT-PCR tests were negative indicat-
ing that none of these five viroids or
related viroids was present in the TPLD
samples.
In addition, RT-PCR tests were
conducted that were designed to am-
plify viroid sequences that were more
distantly related to known viroids.
Transcription was conducted using


random hexamers, followed by viroid
group specific primers. This is an ap-
proach that has successfully amplified
new viroids. We used internal positive
controls of CEVd and CVd II plus CVd III.
The assay detected the known viroids
but did not detect any viroid sequenc-
es from the symptomatic tissue.
H. Nucleic Acid Hybridization. Nine
symptomatic samples were tested us-
ing probes made from three known vi-
roids: Chrysanthemum chlorotic mottle
viroid (CChMVd), Chrysanthemum stunt
viroid (CSVd),and Potato spindle tuber
viroid (PSTVd). All samples were nega-
tive which indicates that none of the
three virioids or closely related viroids
were present in the symptomatic tis-
sue.
I. Extraction of small dsRNAs. Several
different techniques which have been
used to successfully purify viroid RNA
(small circular double stranded RNA)
were conducted on symptomatic and
healthy tomato tissues. One extrac-
tion technique revealed the presence
of dsRNA of a size consistent with
viroids. Bands of dsRNA were seen in
extracts from symptomatic tomato but
not healthy tomato samples. Multiple
bands of dsRNA were seen in native
gels as expected and like the extract
from CEVd-infected citrus (gel not
shown). Evidence of dsRNA could be
seen in the lithium pellet from the
extraction technique is consistent with
dsRNA of viroids that are similar to
viroids in the Asunviroidae (type mem-
ber:Avocado sunblotch viroid). A faint
but visible band was observed in the
denaturing gel from the lithium pellet.
This band of dsRNA was similar in size
to that of the extract containing CVd


II plus CVd Ill,one of which belongs to
the Asunviroidae family. These results
suggest the presence of a viroid that
belongs to the Asunviroidae family.
The extractions were conducted
with only a sample from a single TPLD
affected tomato. This work must be
repeated with more samples to associ-
ate the presence of this viroid with the
purpling symptoms. It is possible that
a viroid is present in some plants, but
has nothing to do with the purpling
symptoms. If there is a good associa-
tion,then the dsRNA in these bands
must be transcribed into DNA, cloned
and sequenced in order to identify the
viroid.

SUMMARY
The ability to transmit the TPLD symp-
toms from one to plant to another
indicates that a pathogen is probably
responsible for the disorder. Many differ-
ent assays were conducted to determine
the identity of the pathogen. The results
suggest that the agent is most likely
a virus or viroid. It is unlikely that this
agent is a virus or viroid known to infect
tomato. The results are not conclusive
at this point and suggest both a virus
and a viroid may be responsible. The
virus appears to have a gene essentially
identical to that of Tomato chlorosis virus,
but the rest of the genome is likely to be
very different. It is not clear if the virus is
a Crinivirus,as most of the tests for Crini-
viruses indicated that a crinivirus was not
present. If the causal agent turns out to
be a viroid then it is probably one that
belongs to the Asunviroidae family. More
research will be necessary to clarify the
current results and confirm the identity
of the causal agent.*


TABLE 2. Comparison of PCR results using Primers to the Tomato chlorosis virus Heat Shock Protein and to the Crinivirus polymerase on plants
with and without purpling symptoms.

PLANTS WITHOUT SYMPTOMS OF PURPLING PLANTS WITH SYMPTOMS OF PURPLING
PRIMER
NICOTIANA NICOTIANA
TARGET FLA LANAI FLA7613 CELEBRITY NIOTIANA CELEBRITY CELEBRITY CELEBRITY NICOTIANA
NON-INOC. NON-INOC. NON-INOC. LUTINA INOC. INOC. INOC. INOS
NON-INOC. INOC.
ACTIN + + + + + + + +
TOCV HEAT SHOCK
PROTEIN + + + + + +
CRINIVIRUS
POLYMERASE


U 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS












TOMATO VARIETIES

FOR FLORIDA


Stephen M. Olson' and Eugene McAvoy2
I North Florida Research & Education Center, Quincy;smolson@ufl.edu
2 Hendry County Extension, LaBelle; gmcavoy@ufl.edu


Variety selections, often made several
months before planting,are one of the
most important management decisions
made by the grower. Failure to select the
most suitable variety or varieties may lead
to loss of yield or market acceptability. The
following characteristics should be consid-
ered in selection of tomato varieties for use
in Florida.
Yield -The variety selected should have
the potential to produce crops at least
equivalent to varieties already grown. The
average yield in Florida is currently about
1400 25-pound cartons per acre. The
potential yield of varieties in use should be


out, fruit shape, ripening ability,firmness,
and flavor.
Current Variety Situation Many
tomato varieties are grown commercially
in Florida, but only a few represent most
of the acreage. In years past we have been
able to give a breakdown of which varieties
are used and predominantly where they
were being used but this information is no
longer available through the USDA Crop
Reporting Service.
Tomato Variety Trial Results Table 1
shows results of spring trials for 2007 and
Table 2 shows results of fall trial of 2007
conducted at the North Florida Research


and Education Center, Quincy.
Tomato Varieties For Commercial
Production -The following varieties are
currently popular with Florida growers or
have down well in university trials. It is by
no means a comprehensive list of all variet-
ies that may be adapted to Florida condi-
tions. Growers should try new varieties on
a limited basis to see how they perform for
them.

LARGE FRUITED VARIETIES
AMELIA. Vigorous determinate, main
season,jointed hybrid. Fruit are firm and
aromatic suitable for green or vine ripe. Good


much higher than average.
Disease Resistance Varieties
selected for use in Florida must
have resistance to Fusarium wilt,
race 1, race 2 and in some areas
race 3;Verticillium wilt (race 1);
Gray leaf spot;and some toler-
ance to Bacterial soft rot. Avail-
able resistance to other diseases
may be important in certain situ-
ations,such as Tomato yellow leaf
curl in south and central Florida
and Tomato spotted wilt and Bac-
terial wilt resistance in northwest
Florida.
Horticultural Quality- Plant
habit,stem type and fruit size,
shape, color,smoothness and
resistance to defects should all be
considered in variety selection.
Adaptability Successful to-
mato varieties must perform well
under the range of environmental
conditions usually encountered
in the district or on the individual
farm.
Market Acceptability The
tomato produced must have
characteristics acceptable to
the packer, shipper, wholesaler,
retailerand consumer. Included
among these qualities are pack


TABLE 1. Tomato variety trial results, Spring 2007. NFREC,Quincy.
ENTRY SOURCE MARKETABLE YIELD MARKETABLE
ENTRY SOURCE (25 CARTONS/A) FRUIT (%) FRUIT WT.(OZ)
MEDIUM LARGE EXTRA LARGE TOTAL
FLETCHER NCS 73 C-F z 241 D-G 2732 A 3046 A 84.1 A 8.0 B-E
BHN 640 BHN 129 B 391 AB 2458 AB 2978 A 76.6 A-D 7.1 DE
BHN 444 BHN 68 D-F 234 D-H 2358 A-D 2660 AB 76.2 A-D 7.9 C-E
BHN 602 BHN 44 D-G 271 C-F 2295 A-D 2610 AB 77.7 A-D 7.8 C-E
FLA. 7964 GCREC 58 D-G 297 B-E 2194 A-E 2549 AB 73.1 B-E 6.8 DE
QUINCY SEMINIS 41 D-G 185 F-G 2318 A-D 2544 AB 77.1 A-D 8.2 B-E
FTM-05-S145 SAKATA 8 G 53 KL 2433 A-C 2494 AB 73.2 B-E 9.4 AB
FLA.8363 GCREC 27 E-G 175 F-J 2277 A-D 2479 A-D 70.9 B-F 8.1 B-E
FTM-05-S142 SAKATA 116 BC 345 A-C 1999 A-E 2460 AB 80.1 AB 7.3 C-E
FTM-05-S230 SAKATA 150 AB 331 A-D 1946 B-E 2427 A-C 71.5 B-F 7.0 DE
NC 0718 NCS 42 D-G 143 G-L 2218 A-E 2403 A-C 71.6 B-F 8.3 B-D
RED DEFENDER HARRIS MORAN 68 D-F 206 E-I 2043 A-E 2317 A-C 71.9 B-F 6.9 DE
MOUNTAIN GLORY NCS 49 D-G 166 F-J 2082 A-E 2297 A-C 78.1 A-C 7.4 C-E
AMELIA HARRIS MORAN 34 D-G 130 H-L 2088 A-E 2252 A-C 79.2 AB 8.9 A-C
BELLA ROSA SAKATA 37 D-G 143 G-L 2062 A-E 2242 A-C 71.2 B-F 8.2 B-E
FTM-05-S468 SAKATA 178 A 406 A 1654 C-F 2238 A-C 72.7 B-F 6.6 E
FLA. 8367 GCREC 23 FG 118 I-L 1902 B-E 2043 B-D 63.3 F 8.0 B-E
RFT 4974 SYNGENTA 46 D-G 174 F-J 1778 B-F 1998 B-D 64.7 EF 7.8 C-E
REDLINE SYNGENTA 41 D-G 171 F-J 1769 B-F 1981 B-D 68.9 C-F 7.2 DE
NC 05137 NCS 75 C-E 215 E-I 1677 B-F 1967 B-D 75.6 A-D 7.2 DE
NC 056 NCS 42 D-G 155 G-K 1759 B-F 1956 B-D 73.2 B-E 7.6 C-E
SVR 01721400 SEMINIS 11 G 46 L 1884 B-E 1941 B-D 66.3 EF 9.9 A
CRISTA HARRIS MORAN 80 CD 161 G-J 1657 C-F 1898 B-D 76.0 A-D 7.5 C-E
NC 05232 NCS 74 C-F 196 E-J 1610 D-F 1880 B-D 78.3 AB 7.5 C-E
TALLADEGA SYNGENTA 30 D-G 132 G-L 1482 EF 1644 CD 68.5 D-F 7.7 C-E
PHOENIX SEMINIS 34 D-G 127 H-L 1117 F 1278 D 65.5 EF 7.8 C-E
FL 47 SEMINIS 25 E-G 93 J-L 388 G 506 E 50.0 G 7.0 DE
z MEAN SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, 5 % LEVEL; IN-ROW SPACING 20 INCHES, BETWEEN ROW SPACING 6 FEET, DRIP
IRRIGATION UNDER BLACK POLYETHYLENE MULCH, FERTILIZER APPLIED 195-60-195 LBS/A N-P205-K20, TRANSPLANTED 23 MARCH 2007, 2
HARVESTS 18 AND 27 JUNE.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS 1


_W ___ ^










TABLE 2. Tomato variety trial results, Fall 2007. NFREC,Quincy.
MARKETABLE
ENTRY SOURCE MARKETABLE YIELD (25 LB BOXES/A) MAR TABLE FRUIT WT.
FRUIT
LARGE EXTRA LARGE TOTAL (%) (OZ)
FLA 8363 GCREC 244 B-D z 1094 A 1455 A 74.7 AB 6.8 AB
BHN 602 BHN 263 BC 1056 AB 1422 A 61.3 DE 7.1 A
RED DEFENDER HARRIS MORAN 421 A 727 B-F 1388 A 69.5 A-D 5.7 F-H
BELLA ROSA SAKATA 263 BC 1001 A-C 1368 AB 68.0 A-D 6.8 AB
TALLADEGA SYNGENTA 261 BC 931 A-D 1302 A-C 66.0 B-D 6.9 AB
FLA 8314 GCREC 244 B-D 912 A-D 1263 A-D 68.0 A-D 6.6 A-C
FLA 8367 GCREC 296 B 750 B-F 1180 A-E 76.5 A 6.2 B-F
NC 05232 NCS 201 B-E 874 A-E 1170 A-E 73.8 AB 6.7 A-C
QUINCY SEMINIS 234 B-E 674 C-G 1067 A-F 71.4 A-C 6.3 B-F
RFT 4971 SYNGENTA 247 B-D 687 C-F 1064 A-F 63.2 C-E 6.3 B-E
CRISTA HARRIS MORAN 242 B-D 687 C-F 1036 A-F 68.8 A-D 6.5 A-C
PHOENIX SEMINIS 233 B-E 635 D-G 956 B-F 61.5 C-E 6.4 B-D
FLA 8413 GCREC 163 C-E 652 C-G 914 C-F 67.8 A-D 6.7 A-C
SOLAR FIRE HARRIS MORAN 240 B-D 558 E-H 895 C-F 62.6 C-E 6.3 B-F
RFT 4974 SYNGENTA 208 B-E 548 E-H 873 D-F 66.1 B-D 6.4 B-D
FLETCHER NCS 250 B-D 433 F-H 839 EF 63.8 CD 5.7 F-H
FL 91 SEMINIS 149 DE 556 E-H 783 EF 59.7 DE 6.6 A-C
TASTY-LEE GCREC 253 B-D 331 GH 749 F 62.1 C-E 5.4 GH
FL 47 SEMINIS 215 B-E 405 F-H 743 F 65.3 B-D 5.8 D-G
AMELIA HARRIS MORAN 133 E 526 E-H 730 F 61.6 C-E 6.7 A-C
MOUNTAIN GLORY NCS 173 C-E 418 F-H 705 F 61.4 DE 6.0 C-F
INBAR HAZERA 218 B-E 263 H 643 F 54.1 E 5.1 H
MEAN SEPARATION BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST, 5 % LEVEL. IN-ROW SPACING 20 INCHES, BETWEEN ROW SPACING 6 FEET, DRIP
IRRIGATION UNDER WHITE ON BLACK VIF MULCH, FERTILIZER APPLIED 195-60-195 LBS/A OF N-P205-K20, TRANSPLANTED 2 AUG 2007, 3
HARVESTS; 22 OCT 7 NOV 2007.


canker and Gray leaf
spot. (Seminis)

FLETCHER. Midseason
maturity. Large,globe
to deep oblate fruit with
compactplants. Does best
with moderate pruning
and high fertility. Good
flavor, color and shelf-life.
For vine ripe use only due
to nipple characteristic
on green fruit. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1),
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3),
Tomato spotted wilt and
root-knot nematode.

FLORA-LEE. It was
released for the premium
tomato market. A midsea-
son, determinate,jointed
hybrid with moderate
heat-tolerance. Fruitare
uniform green with a high
lycopene contentand
deep red interior color
due to the crimson gene.
Resistant: Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2,3), Verticillium
wilt (race 1), and Gray leaf
spot. For Trial.


crack resistance. Resistant: Verticillium wilt
(race 1), Fusarium wilt(race 1,2,3), root-knot
nematode, Gray leaf spot and Tomato spot-
ted wilt. (Harris Moran)

BELLA ROSA. Heat tolerant determinate
type. Produces large to extra-large, firm,
uniformly green and shaped fruit. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2), Tomato spotted wilt. (Sakata)

BHN 586. Midseason maturity. Fruit are
large to extra-large, deep globed shaped
with firm, uniform green fruits well suited
for mature green or vine-ripe production.
Determinate, medium to tall vine. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2) Fusarium crown rot and root-knot
nematode. (BHN)

BHN 602. Early-midseason maturity. Fruit
are globe shape but larger than BHN 640,
and green shouldered. Resistant: Verticillium


wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3) and
Tomato spotted wilt. (BHN)

BHN 640. Early-midseason maturity.
Fruit are globe shape but tend to slightly
elongate, and green shouldered. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2,3) and Tomato spotted wilt. (BHN)

CRISTA. Midseason maturity. Large, deep
globe fruit with tall robustplants. Does best
with moderate pruning and high fertility.
Good flavor, color and shelf-life. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2,3), Tomato spotted wilt and root-knot
nematode. (Harris Moran)

CROWN JEWEL. Uniform fruit have a deep
oblate shape with good firmness, quality
and uniformly-colored shoulders. Deter-
minate with medium-tall bush. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2) Fusarium crown rot,Alternaria stem


FLORIDA 47. A late midseason, determinate,
jointed hybrid. Uniform green,globe-shaped
fruit. Resistant: Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Verticil-
lium wilt (race 1),Altenaria stem canker, and
Grayleafspot. (Seminis)

FLORIDA 91. Uniform green fruit borne on
jointed pedicels. Determinate plant. Good
fruit setting ability under high temperatures.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium
wilt (race 1,2),Altenaria stem canker, and Gray
leaf spot. (Seminis)

HA 3073. A midseason,determinate,jointed
hybrid. Fruit are large, firm, slightly oblate
and are uniformly green. Resistant: Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2), Gray leaf spot, Tomato yellow leaf Curl
and Tomato mosaic. (Hazera)

LINDA. Main season. Large round,smooth,
uniform shouldered fruit with excellent firm-


f 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










ness and a small blossom end scar. Strong
determinate bush with good cover. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2),Alternaria stem canker and Gray leafspot.
(Sakata)

PHOENIX. Earlymid-season. Fruitarelarge
to extra-large, high quality, firm,globe-shaped
and are uniformly-colored. "Hot-set"variety
Determinate, vigorous vine with good leaf cover
forfruitprotection. Resistant:Verticillium wilt
(race 1),Fusarium wilt(race 1,2),Altemaria stem
canker and Grayleaf spot. (Seminis)

QUINCY. Full season. Fruit are large to
extra-large, excellent quality, firm,deep oblate
shape and uniformly colored. Very strongly
determinate plants. Resistant: Verticillium wilt
(race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2),Altemaria stem
canker, Tomato spotted wilt and Gray leafspot.
(Seminis)

RPT 6153. Main season. Fruit have good
eating quality and fancy appearance in a
large sturdy shipping tomato and are firm
enough for vine-ripe. Large determinate plants.
Resistant:Verticillium wilt(race 1), Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2) and Grayleaf spot. (Seedway)

SANIBEL. Main season. Large, firm, smooth
fruit with lightgreen shoulder and a tight blos-
som end. Large determinate bush. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2),
root-knotnematodes, Alternaria stem canker
and Grayleaf spot. (Seminis)

SEBRING. A late midseason determinate,
jointed hybrid with a smooth,deep oblate, firm,
thick walled fruit. Resistant:Verticillium wilt
(race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3), Fusarium
crown rot and Grayleaf spot. (Syngenta)

SECURITY 28. An earlyseason determinate
variety with a medium vine and good leaf
cover adapted to different growing conditions.
Produces extra large, round and firm fruit.
Resistant: Alternaria stem canker, Fusarium wilt
(race 1 and 2),Grayleaf spot, Tomato yellow leaf
curl and Verticillium wilt (race 1). (Harris Moran)

SOLAR FIRE. An early, determinate,jointed
hybrid. Has good fruitsetting ability under
high temperatures. Fruitare large, flat-round,
smooth, firm, light green shoulder and blossom
scars are smooth. Resistant:Verticillium wilt


(race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2 and 3) and gray
leaf spot. (Harris Moran)

SOLIMAR. A midseason hybrid producing
globe-shaped,green shouldered fruit. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1
and 2),Altenaria stem canker, gray leafspot.
(Seminis)

SORAYA Full season. Fruit are high quality,
smooth and tend toward large to extra-large.
Continuous set. Strong, large bush. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2,3), Fusarium crown rotand Grayleaf spot.
(Syngenta Rogers Seed)

TALLADEGA. Midseason. Fruitare large
to extra-large,globe to deep globe shape.
Determinate bush. Has some hot-setability.
Performs well with light to moderate pruning.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2), Tomato spotted wilt and Gray leaf
spot. (Syngenta Rogers Seed)

TYGRESS. A midseason,jointed hybrid
producing large, smooth firm fruit with good
packouts. Resistant: Verticillium wilt(race 1),
Fusarium wilt(race 1 and 2),grayleaf spot,
Tomato mosaic and Tomato yellow leaf curl.
(Seminis)

PLUM TYPE VARIETIES
BHN410. Midseason. Large,smooth,blocky,
jointless fruit tolerant to weather cracking.
Compact to small bush with concentrated
high yield. Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Bacterial speck (race 0)
and Grayleafspot. (BHN Seed)

BHN 411. Midseason. Large,smooth,jointless
fruit is tolerant to weathercracks and has
reduced tendency for graywall. Compact
plant with concentrated fruit set. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race
1,2), Bacterial speck (race 0) and Gray leaf spot.
(BHN Seed)

BHN 685. Midseason. Large to extra-large,
deep blockyglobe shaped fruit. Determinate,
vigorous bush with no pruning recommended.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),Fusarium
wilt (race 1,2,3) and Tomato spotted wilt. (BHN
Seed)

MARIANA. Midseason. Fruit are predominate-


ly extra-large and extremely uniform in shape.
Fruit wall is thick and external and internal
color is very good with excellent firmness and
shelf life. Determinate,small to medium sized
plant with good fruit set. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), root-knot
nematode,Alternaria stem canker and tolerant
to Grayleafspot. (Sakata)

MONICA. Midseason. Fruitare elongated, firm,
extra-large and uniform green color. Vigorous
bush with good cover. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Bacterial
speck(race 0) and Grayleafspot. (Sakata)

PLUM DANDY. Medium to large determinate
plants. Rectangular, blocky,defect-free fruit for
fresh-marketproduction. When grown in hot,
wet conditions, it does notset fruit well and is
susceptible to bacterial spot. For winter and
spring production in Florida. Resistant:Verti-
cillium wilt, Fusarium wilt (race 1), Early blight,
and rain checking. (Harris Moran)

SUNOMA. Main season. Fruit are medium-
large,elongated and cylindrical. Plant main-
tains fruit size through multiple harvests.
Determinate plant with good fruit cover.
Resistant:Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium
wilt (race 1,2), Bacterial speck (race 0), root-
knot nematodes,Tomato mosaic and Gray
leaf spot. (Seminis)

CHERRY TYPE VARIETIES
BHN 268. Early. An extra firm cherry tomato
that holds,packs and ships well. Determinate,
small to medium bush with high yields. Resis-
tant: Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt
(race 1). (BHN Seed)

CAMELIA. Midseason. Deep globe,cocktail-
cherry size with excellent firmness and long
shelf life. Indeterminate bush. Outdoor or
greenhouse production. Verticillium wilt (race
1), Fusarium wilt (race 1) and Tobacco mosaic.
(Siegers Seed)

CHERRY BLOSSOM. 70 days. Large cherry,
holds and yields well. Determinate bush.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt(race 1), Fusarium
wilt (race 1,2), Bacterial speck (race 0), root-knot
nematodes,Alternaria stem canker and Gray
leafspot. (Seedway)

MOUNTAIN BELLE. Vigorous, determinate


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___










typeplants. Fruitare round to slightlyovate
with uniform green shoulders borne onjoint-
lesspedicels. Resistant: Fusarium wilt (race
2), Verticillium wilt (race 1). (Syngenta Rogers
Seed)

SUPER SWEET 100 VF. Produces large
clusters ofround uniform fruit with high sugar
levels. Fruit somewhat small and may crack
during rainy weather. Indeterminate vine with
high yieldpotential. Resistant: Verticillium wilt
(race 1) and Fusarium wilt(race 1). (Siegers
Seed, Seedway)

SHIREN. Compactplant with high yieldpoten-
tial and nice cluster. Resistant: Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2), root-knot nematodes and Tomato
mosaic. (Hazera)

GRAPE-TOMATO TYPE VARIETIES
BRIXMORE. Very early. Indeterminate. Very
uniform in shape and size, deep glossy red color
with veryhigh earlyand totalyield. High brix
and excellent firm flavor. Resistant:Verticillium
wilt(race 1), root-knot nematodes and Tomato
mosaic. (Harris Moran)

CUPID. Early. Vigorous,indeterminate bush.
Oval-shaped fruit have an excellent red color
and a sweetflavor. Resistant: Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2), Bacterial speck (intermediate resis-
tance race 0) and Gray leafspot. (Seminis)

JOLLY ELF. Earlyseason. Determinate plant.
Extended market life with firm, flavorful grape-
shaped fruits. Average 10% brix. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 2)
and cracking. (Siegers Seed, Seedway)

SANTA. 75 days. Vigorous indeterminate
bush. Firm elongated grape-shaped fruit with
outstanding flavorand up to 50 fruitsper truss.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt(race 1), Fusarium
wilt(race 1), root-knot nematodes and Tobacco
mosaic. (Thompson and Morgan)

ST NICK. Mid-earlyseason. Indeterminate
bush. Oblong,grape-shaped fruitwith brilliant
red color and good flavor. Up to 10% brix.
(Siegers Seed)

SMARTY. 69 days. Vigorous, indeterminate
bush with short internodes. Plants are 25%
shorter than Santa. Good flavor, sweet and
excellentflavor. (Seedway)


Water and nutrient management are two
important aspects of tomato production
in all production systems. Water is used
for wetting the fields before land prepa-
ration, transplant establishment, and
irrigation. The objective of this article is
to provide an overview of recommen-
dations for tomato irrigation manage-
ment in Florida. Irrigation management
recommendations should be considered
together with those for fertilizer and
nutrient management.
Irrigation is used to replace the
amount of water lost by transpiration
and evaporation. This amount is also
called crop evapotranspiration (ETc). Ir-
rigation scheduling is used to apply the
proper amount of water to a tomato crop
at the proper time. The characteristics of
the irrigation system,tomato crop needs,
soil properties,and atmospheric condi-
tions must all be considered to properly
schedule irrigations. Poor timing or
insufficient water application can result
in crop stress and reduced yields from
inappropriate amounts of available water
and/or nutrients. Excessive water appli-
cations may reduce yield and quality,are
a waste of water, and increase the risk of
nutrient leaching
A wide range of irrigation schedul-
ing methods is used in Florida,with
corresponds to different levels of water
management (Table 1). The recommend
method to schedule irrigation for tomato
is to use together an estimate of the
tomato crop water requirement that is
based on plant growth,a measurement
of soil water status and a guideline for
splitting irrigation (water management
level 5 in Table 1;Table 2). The estimated
water use is a guideline for irrigating to-
matoes. The measurement of soil water
tension is useful for fine tuning irrigation.
Splitting irrigation events is necessary
when the amount of water to be applied
is larger than the water holding capacity
of the root zone.


TOMATO WATER REQUIREMENT
Tomato water requirement (ETc) depends
on stage of growth,and evaporative
demand. ETc can be estimated by
adjusting reference evapotranspiration
(ETo) with a correction factor call crop
factor (Kc; equation [1]). Because differ-
ent methods exist for estimating ETo, it
is very important to use Kc coefficients
which were derived using the same ETo
estimation method as will be used to
determine ETc. Also, Kc values for the
appropriate stage of growth and produc-
tion system (Table 3) must be used.
By definition, ETo represents the water
use from a uniform green cover surface,
actively growing,and well watered (such
as a turf or grass covered area). ETo
can be measured on-farm using a small
weather station. When daily ETo data are
not available, historical daily averages of
Penman-method ETo can be used (Table
4). However,these long-term averages
are provided as guidelines since actual
values may fluctuate by as much as 25%,
either above the average on hotter and
drier than normal days, or below the
average on cooler or more overcast days
than normal. As a result, SWT or soil
moisture should be monitored in the
field.
Eq. [1] Crop water requirement = Crop
coefficient x Reference evapotranspi-
ration ETc = KcxETo
Tomato crop water requirement may
also be estimated from Class A pan
evaporation using:
Eq. [2] Crop water requirement = Crop
factor x Class A pan evaporation ETc
= CFxEp
Typical CF values for fully-grown
tomato should not exceed 0.75 (Locascio
and Smajstrla, 1996). A third method for
estimated tomato crop water require-
ment is to use modified Bellani plates
also known as atmometers. A common
model of atmomter used in Florida is the
ETgage. This device consists of a can-


U 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


WATER MANAGEMENT

FOR TOMATO

Eric H. Simonne
UF/IFAS Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, esimonne@ufl.edu











vas-covered ceramic evaporation plate
mounted on a water reservoir.The green
fabric creates a diffusion barrier that con-
trols evaporation at a rate similar to that
of well water plants. Water loss through
evaporation can be read on a clear sight
tube mounted on the side of the device.
Evaporation from the ETgage (ETg) was
well correlated to ETo except on rainy
days, but overall, the ETgage tended to
underestimate ETo (Irmak et al., 2005).
On days with rainfall less than 0.2
inch/day, ETo can be estimated from ETg
as: ETo = 1.19 ETg.When rainfall exceeds
0.2inch/day, rain water wets the canvas
which interferes with the flow of water
out of the atmometers,and decreases the
reliability of the measurement.

TOMATO IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT
Irrigation systems are generally rated
with respect to application efficiency (Ea),
which is the fraction of the water that
has been applied by the irrigation system
and that is available to the plant for use.
In general, Ea is 20% to 70% for seepage
irrigation and 90% to 95% for drip irriga-
tion. Applied water that is not available
to the plant may have been lost from
the crop root zone through evaporation,
leaks in the pipe system, surface runoff,
subsurface runoff, or deep percolation
within the irrigated area. When dual
drip/seepage irrigation systems are used,
the contribution of the seepage system
needs to be subtracted from the tomato
irrigation requirement to calculate the
drip irrigation need. Otherwise, exces-
sive water volume will be systematically
applied.Tomato irrigation requirement
are determined by dividing the desired
amount of water to provide to the plant
(ETc), by Ea as a decimal fraction (Eq. [3]).
Eq. [3] Irrigation requirement = Crop
water requirement/Application ef-
ficiency IR = ETc/Ea

IRRIGATION SCHEDULING FOR TO-
MATO
For seepage irrigated crops, irrigation
scheduling recommendations consist
of maintaining the water table near the
18-inch depth shortly after transplanting
and near the 24- inch depth thereafter
(Stanley and Clark, 2003). The actual


TABLE 1. Levels of water management and corresponding irrigation scheduling method for
tomato.
WATER MANAGEMENT WATER MANAGEMENT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING METHOD
LEVEL RATING
0 NONE GUESSING (IRRIGATE WHENEVER)
1 VERY LOW USING THE >FEEL AND SEE= METHOD

2 LOW USING SYSTEMATIC IRRIGATION (EXAMPLE: 2 HRS EVERY
DAY)

SITEMEDATE USING A SOIL MOISTURE MEASURING TOOL TO START IR-
3 INTERMEDIATE RIGATION

USING A SOIL MOISTURE MEASURING TOOL TO SCHEDULE
4 ADVANCED IRRIGATION AND APPLY AMOUNTS BASED ON A BUDGETING
PROCEDURE

USING TOGETHER A WATER USE ESTIMATE BASED ON TO-
MATO PLANT STAGE OF GROWTH, A MEASUREMENT OF SOIL
5 RECOMMENDED WATER MOISTURE, DETERMINING RAINFALL CONTRIBUTION
TO SOIL MOISTURE, AND HAVING A GUIDELINE FOR SPLITTING
IRRIGATION. IN ADDITION, BMPS HAVE SOME RECORD KEEP-
ING REQUIREMENTS


TABLE 2. Summary of irrigation management guidelines for tomato.

IRRIGATION SYSTEMz
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENTIRRIGATION SYSTEM
COMPONENT SEEPAGEY DRIPx

HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA OR CROP
1- TARGET WATER KEEP WATER TABLE BETWEEN 18 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ETC) CALCU-
APPLICATION RATE AND 24 INCH DEPTH LATED FROM REFERENCE ET OR CLASS A
PAN EVAPORATION
2- FINE TUNE APPLICATION
FINE TUNE ALITION MONITOR WATER TABLE DEPTH MAINTAIN SOIL WATER TENSION IN THE
TH SIL MOISTURE WITH OBSERVATION WELLS ROOT ZONE BETWEEN 8 AND 15 CBAR
MEASUREMENT

POOR LATERAL WATER MOVEMENT ON
SANDY AND ROCKY SOILS LIMITS THE
3- DETERMINE THE TYPICALLY, 1 INCH RAINFALL CONTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL TO CROP
CONTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL RAISES THE WATER TABLE BY WATER NEEDS TO (1) FOLIAR ABSORP-
1 FOOT TION AND COOLING OF FOLIAGE AND
(2) WATER FUNNELED BY THE CANOPY
THROUGH THE PLAN HOLE.

IRRIGATIONS GREATER THAN 12 AND 50
GAL/100FT (OR 30 MIN AND 2 HRS FOR
4- RULE FOR SPLITTING NOT APPLICALE MEDIUM FLOW RATE) WHEN PLANTS ARE
IRRIGATION SMALL AND FULLY GROWN, RESPEC-
TIVELY ARE LIKELY TO PUSH THE WATER
FRONT BEING BELOW THE ROOT ZONE

IRRIGATION AMOUNT APPLIED IRRIGATION AMOUNT APPLIED AND TOTAL
5-RECORD KEEPING AND TOTAL RAINFALL RECEIVED RAINFALL RECEIVED
DAYS OF SYSTEM OPERATION DAILY IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING ALSO REQUIRES A PROPERLY DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
PRACTICAL ONLY WHEN A SPODIC LAYER IS PRESENT IN THE FIELD
SON DEEP SANDY SOILS
REQUIRED BY THE BMPS


depth of the water table may be moni-
tored with shallow observation wells
(Smajstrla, 1997).
Irrigation scheduling for drip irrigated
tomato typically consists in daily applica-
tions of ETc, estimated from Eq. [1] or [2]
above. In areas where real-time weather
information is not available, growers use
the >1,000 gal/acre/day/string= rule for
drip-irrigated tomato production. As the
tomato plants grow from 1 to 4 strings,
the daily irrigation volumes increase from
1,000 gal/acre/day to 4,000 gal/acre/day.


On 6-ft centers, this corresponds to 15
gal/1001bf/day and 60 gal/i 001bf/day for
1 and 4 strings, respectively.

SOIL MOISTURE MEASUREMENT
Soil water tension (SWT) represents
the magnitude of the suction (negative
pressure) the plant roots have to create
to free soil water from the attraction of
the soil particles,and move it into its root
cells. The dryer the soil,the higher the
suction needed,hence, the higher SWT.
SWT is commonly expressed in centibars


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___










TABLE 3. Crop coefficient estimates (Kc) for
tomato.
TOMATO GROWTH TICULTURE
PLASTICULTURE
STAGE
1 0.30
2 0.40
3 0.90
4 0.90
5 0.75
ACTUAL VALUES WILL VARY WITH TIME OF PLANTING,
LENGTH OF GROWING SEASON AND OTHER SITE-SPECIFIC
FACTORS. KC VALUES SHOULD BE USED WITH ETo VALUES
IN TABLE 4 TO ESTIMATED CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
(ETC)

(cb) or kiloPascals (kPa; 1 cb = 1 kPa). For
tomatoes grown on the sandy soils of
Florida, SWT in the rooting zone should
be maintained between 6 (field capacity)
and 15 cb.
The two most common tools available
to measure SWT in the field are tensi-
ometers and time domain reflectometry
(TDR) probes,although other types
of probes are now available (Muhoz-
Carpena,2004). Tensiometers have
been used for several years in tomato
production. A porous cup is saturated
with water,and placed under vacuum.
As the soil water content changes, water
comes in or out of the porous cup,and
affects the amount of vacuum inside the


tensiometer. Tensiometer readings have
been successfully used to monitor SWT
and schedule irrigation for tomatoes.
However, because they are fragile and
easily broken by field equipment, many
growers have renounced to use them. In
addition, readings are not reliable when
the tensiometer dries,or when the con-
tact between the cup and the soil is lost.
Depending on the length of the access
tube, tensiometers cost between $40 and
$80 each. Tensiometers can be reused as
long as they are maintained properly and
remain undamaged.
It is necessary to monitor SWT at two
soil depths when tensiometers are used.
A shallow 6-in depth is useful at the
beginning of the season when tomato
roots are near that depth. A deeper 12-in
depth is used to monitor SWT during the
rest of the season. Comparing SWT at
both depth is useful to understand the
dynamics of soil moisture. When both
SWT are within the 4-8 cb range (close to
field capacity),this means that moisture
is plentiful in the rooting zone. This may
happen after a large rain, or when tomato
water use is less than irrigation applied.
When the 6-in SWT increases (from 4-8 cb
to 10-15cb) while SWTat 12-in remains


TABLE 4. Historical Penman-method reference ET (ETo) for four Florida locations (in gallons
per acre per day)
MONTH TALLAHASSEE TAMPA WEST PALM BEACH MIAMI
JANUARY 1,630 2,440 2,720 2,720
FEBRUARY 2,440 3,260 3,530 3,530
MARCH 3,260 3,800 4,340 4,340
APRIL 4,340 5,160 5,160 5,160
MAY 4,890 5,430 5,160 5,160
JUNE 4,890 5,430 4,890 4,890
JULY 4,620 4,890 4,890 4,890
AUGUST 4,340 4,620 4,890 4,620
SEPTEMBER 3,800 4,340 4,340 4,070
OCTOBER 2,990 3,800 3,800 3,800
NOVEMBER 2,170 2,990 3,260 2,990
DECEMBER 1,630 2,170 2,720 2,720
z ASSUMING WATER APPLICATION OVER THE ENTIRE AREA WITH 100% EFFICIENCY

TABLE 5. Estimated maximum water application (in gallons per acre and in gallons/100fb)
in one irrigation event for tomato grown on 6-ft centers (7,260 linear bed feet per acre) on
sandy soil (available water holding capacity 0.75 in/ ft and 50% soil water depletion). Split
irrigations may be required during peak water requirement.

WETTING GAL/100FT GAL/100FT GAL/100FT GAL/ACRE GAL/ACRE GAL/ACRE
WIDTH TO WET TO WET TO WET TO WET TO WET TO WET
T DEPTH OF DEPTH OF DEPTH OF DEPTH OF DEPTH OF DEPTH OF
(FT) 1FT 1.5 FT 2 FT 1 FT 1.5FT 2 FT
1.0 24 36 48 1,700 2,600 3,500
1.5 36 54 72 2,600 3,900 5,200


within 4-8 cb,the upper part of the soil
is drying,and it is time to irrigate. If the
6-in SWT continues to rise above 25cb,
a water stress will result; plants will wilt,
and yields will be reduced. This should
not happen under adequate water man-
agement.
A SWT at the 6-in depth remaining
with the 4-8 cb range, but the 12-in read-
ing showing a SWT of 20-25 cb suggest
that deficit irrigation has been made:
irrigation has been applied to re-wet
the upper part of the profile only. The
amount of water applied was not enough
to wet the entire profile. If SWT at the
12-in depth continues to increase,then
water stress will become more severe
and it will become increasingly difficult
to re-wet the soil profile. The sandy
soils of Florida have a low water hold-
ing capacity. Therefore, SWT should be
monitored daily and irrigation applied
at least once daily. Scheduling irrigation
with SWT only can be difficult at times.
Therefore, SWT data should be used to-
gether with an estimate of tomato water
requirement.
Times domain reflectometry (TDR) is
not a new method for measuring soil
moisture but its use in vegetable produc-
tion has been limited in the past. The
recent availability of inexpensive equip-
ment ($400 to $550/unit) has increased
the potential of this method to become
practical for tomato growers. A TDR unit
is comprised of three parts:a display unit,
a sensor,and two rods. Rods may be 4
inches or 8 inches in length based on the
depth of the soil. Long rods may be used
in all the sandy soils of Florida,while the
short rods may be used with the shallow
soils of Miami-Dade county.
The advantage of TDR is that probes
need not being buried permanently,and
readings are available instantaneously.
This means that, unlike the tensiometer,
TDR can be used as a hand-held, portable
tool.
TDR actually determines percent soil
moisture (volume of water per volume of
soil). In theory,a soil water release curve
has to be used to convert soil moisture in
to SWT. However, because TDR provides
an average soil moisture reading over the
entire length of the rod (as opposed to


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










the specific depth used for tensiometers),
it is not practical to simply convert SWT
into soil moisture to compare readings
from both methods. Preliminary tests
with TDR probes have shown that best
soil monitoring may be achieved by plac-
ing the probe vertically,approximately
6 inches away from the drip tape on the
opposite side of the tomato plants. For
fine sandy soils, 9% to 15% appears to be
the adequate moisture range. Tomato
plants are exposed to water stress when
soil moisture is below 8%. Excessive ir-
rigation may result in soil moisture above
16%.

GUIDELINES FOR SPLITTING IRRIGA-
TION
For sandy soils,a one square foot vertical
section of a 100-ft long raised bed can
hold approximately 24 to 30 gallons of
water (Table 5). When drip irrigation is
used, lateral water movement seldom
exceeds 6 to 8 inches on each side of the
drip tape (12 to 16 inches wetted width).
When the irrigation volume exceeds the
values in table 5,irrigation should be split
into 2 or 3 applications. Splitting will not
only reduce nutrient leaching, but it will
also increase tomato quality by ensuring
a more continuous water supply. Uneven
water supply may result in fruit cracking.

UNITS FOR MEASURING IRRIGATION
WATER
When overhead and seepage irrigation
were the dominant methods of irrigation,
acre-inches or vertical amounts of water
were used as units for irrigations recom-
mendations. There are 27,150 gallons
in one acre-inch; thus, total volume was
calculated by multiplying the recommen-
dation expressed in acre-inch by 27,150.
This unit reflected quite well the fact that
the entire field was wetted.
Acre-inches are still used for drip ir-
rigation,although the entire field is not
wetted. This section is intended to clarify
the conventions used in measuring water
amounts for drip irrigation. In short,
water amounts are handled similarly to
fertilizer amounts, i.e., on an acre basis.
When an irrigation amount expressed in
acre-inch is recommended for plasticul-
ture, it means that the recommended


volume of water needs to be delivered
to the row length present in a one-acre
field planted at the standard bed spacing.
So in this case, it is necessary to know
the bed spacing to determine the exact
amount of water to apply. In addition,
drip tape flow rates are reported in gal-
lons/hour/emitter or in gallons/hour/100
ft of row. Consequently, tomato grow-
ers tend to think in terms of multiples
of 100 linear feet of bed,and ultimately
convert irrigation amounts into duration
of irrigation. It is important to correctly
understand the units of the irrigation
recommendation in order to implement
it correctly.

EXAMPLE
How long does an irrigation event need
to last if a tomato grower needs to apply
0.20 acre-inch to a 2-acre tomato field.
Rows are on 6-ft centers and a 12-ft spray
alley is left unplanted every six rows?
The drip tape flow rate is 0.30 gallons/
hour/emitter and emitters are spaced 1
foot a part.
. In the 2-acre field, there are 14,520 feet
of bed (2 x 43,560/6). Because of the
alleys, only 6/8 of the field is actually
planted. So, the field actually contains
10,890 feet of bed (14,520x 6/8).
2. A 0.20 acre-inch irrigation corresponds
to 5,430 gallons applied to 7,260
feet of row, which is equivalent to
75gallons/1 O0feet (5,430/72.6).
3.The drip tape flow rate is 0.30 gallons/
hr/emitter which is equivalent to 30
gallons/hr/1 O0feet. It will take 1 hour
to apply 30 gallons/1 00ft, 2 hours to
apply 60gallons/100ft,and 2 2 hours
to apply 75 gallons. The total volume
applied will be 8,168 gallons/2-acre (75
x 108.9).

IRRIGATION AND BEST MANAGE-
MENT PRACTICES
As an effort to clean impaired water
bodies, federal legislation in the 70's,
followed by state legislation in the 90's
and state rules since 2000 have progres-
sively shaped the Best Management
Practices (BMP) program for vegetable
production in Florida. Section 303(d)
of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972
required states to identify impaired wa-


ter bodies and establish Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) for pollutants enter-
ing these water bodies. In 1987,the
Florida legislature passed the Surface
Water Improvement and Management
Act requiring the five Florida water
management districts to develop plans
to clean up and preserve Florida lakes,
bays, estuaries, and rivers. In 1999,
the Florida Watershed Restoration Act
defined a process for the development
of TMDLs. More recently, the"Florida
vegetable and agronomic crop water
quality/quantity Best Management Prac-
tices" manual was adopted by reference
and by rule 5M-8 in the Florida Admin-
istrative Code on Feb.9,2006 (FDACS,
2005).The manual which is available
at www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com,
provides background on the state-wide
BMP program for vegetables, lists all
the possible BMPs, provides a selection
mechanism for building a customized
BMP plan, outlines record-keeping
requirements, and explains how to par-
ticipate in the BMP program. By defini-
tion, BMPs are specific cultural practices
that aim at reducing nutrient load while
maintaining or increasing productivity.
Hence, BMPs are tools to achieve the
TMDL.Vegetable growers who elect to
participate in the BMP program receive
three statutory benefits: (1) a waiver of
liability from reimbursement of cost and
damages associated with the evaluation,
assessment, or remediation of contami-
nation of ground water (Florida Statutes
376.307); (2) a presumption of compli-
ance with water quality standards (F.S.
403.067 (7)(d)), and (3); an eligibility for
cost-share programs (F.S. 570.085 (1)).
BMPs coverall aspects of tomato
production: pesticide management, con-
servation practices and buffers, erosion
control and sediment management,nu-
trient and irrigation management, water
resources management,and seasonal
or temporary farming operations. The
main water quality parameters of impor-
tance to tomato and pepper production
and targeted by the BMPs are nitrate,
phosphate and total dissolved solids
concentration in surface or ground
water.All BMPs have some effect on
water quality, but nutrient and irrigation


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS I


_W___










management BMPs have a direct effect
on it. *

ADDITIONAL READINGS
FDACS. 2005. Florida Vegetable and Agronomic
Crop Water Quality and Quantity BMP Manual.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services
http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/PDFs/
BMPs/vegetable&agronomicCrops.pdf

Gazula, A., E. Simonne, and B. Bowman. 2007.
Guidelines for enrolling in Florida's BMP program
for vegetable crops, EDIS Doc. 367, http://edis.ifas.
ufl.edu/HS367.

Irmak, S., M. Asce, M.D. Dukes, and J.M. Jacobs.
2005. Using modified Bellani plate evapotranspi-
ration gauges to estimate short canopy reference
evapotranspiration.J. Irr. Drainage Eng. (2):164-
175.

Locascio, S.J. andA.G. Smajstrla. 1996. Water
application scheduling by pan evaporation for
drip-irrigated tomato. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
121(1):63-68

Munoz-Carpena, R. 2004. Field devices for monitor-
ing soil water content. EDIS Bul. 343. http://edis.
ifas.ufl.edu/AE266.

Simonne, E., R. Hochmuth,J. Breman, W. Lamont,
D. Treadwell, andA. Gazula.2008. Drip-irriga-
tion systems for small conventional and organic
vegetable farms. EDIS HS388, http://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu/HS388.

Simonne, E.H., D. W. Studstill, R.C. Hochmuth, G.
McAvoy, M.D. Dukes and S.M. Olson. 2003. Visual-
ization of water movement in mulched beds with
injections of dye with drip irrigation. Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 116:88-91.

Simonne, E.H., D.W. Studstill, T.W. Olczyk, and
R. Munoz-Carpena. 2004. Water movement in
mulched beds in a rocky soil of Miami-Dade
county. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc 117:68-70.

Simonne, E. and B. Morgan. 2005. Denitrification in
seepage irrigated vegetable fields in South Florida,
EDIS, HS 1004, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS248.

Simonne, E.H., D. W. Studstill, R.C. Hochmuth, J.T.
Jones and C.W. Starling. 2005. On-farm demon-
stration of soil water movement in vegetables
grown with plasticulture, EDIS, HS 1008, http://
edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS251.

Simonne, E.H, M.D. Dukes, and D.Z. Haman. 2006.
Principles of irrigation management for veg-
etables, pp.33-39. In: S.M. Olson and E. Simonne
(eds) 2006-2007 Vegetable Production Handbook
for Florida, Vance Publ., Lenexa, KS.

Smajstrla, A.G. 1997. Simple water level indicator
for seepage irrigation. EDIS Circ. 1188, http://edis.
ifas.ufl.edu/AE085.

Stanley, C.D. and G.A. Clark. 2003. Effect of reduced
water table and fertility levels on subirrigated
tomato production in Southwest Florida. EDIS SL-
210, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS429.


FERTILIZER AND NUTRIENT

MANAGEMENT FOR TOMATO

Eric H. Simonne
UF/IFAS Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, esimonne@ufl.edu


Fertilizer and nutrient management are
essential components of successful com-
mercial tomato production. This article
presents the basics of nutrient manage-
ment for the different production systems
used for tomato in Florida.

CALIBRATED SOIL TEST: TAKING THE
GUESSWORK OUT OF FERTILIZATION
Prior to each cropping season,soil tests
should be conducted to determine fertil-
izer needs and eventual pH adjustments.
Obtain a UF/IFAS soil sample kit from the
local agricultural Extension agent or from
a reputable commercial laboratory for
this purpose. Ifa commercial soil testing
laboratory is used, be sure the lab uses
methodologies calibrated and extractants
suitable for Florida soils.When used with
the percent sufficiency philosophy, routine
soil testing helps adjust fertilizer applica-
tions to plant needs and target yields. In
addition,the use of routine calibrated soil
tests reduces the risk of over-fertilization.
Over fertilization reduces fertilizer ef-
ficiency and increases the risk of ground-
water pollution. Systematic use of fertilizer
without a soil test may also result in crop
damage from salt injury.
The crop nutrient requirements of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
(designated in fertilizers as N,P205,and
K20, respectively) represent the optimum
amounts of these nutrients needed for
maximum tomato production (Table 1).
Fertilizer rates are provided on a per-acre
basis for tomato grown on 6-ft centers.
Under these conditions, there are 7,260
linear feet of tomato row in a planted acre.
When different row spacings are used, it
is necessary to adjust fertilizer application
accordingly. For example,a 200 Ibs/A N rate
on 6-ft centers is the same as 240 Ibs/A N
rate on 5-ft centers and a 170 Ibs/A N rate
on 7-ft centers. This example is for illustra-
tion purposes,and only 5 and 6 ft centers
are commonly used for tomato production
in Florida.


Fertilizer rates can be simply and ac-
curately adjusted to row spacings other
than the standard spacing (6-ft centers) by
expressing the recommended rates on a
100 linear bed feet (Ibf) basis, rather than
on a real-estate acre basis. For example,in
a tomato field planted on 7-ft centers with
one drive row every six rows, there are only
5,333 Ibf/A (6/7 x 43,560 / 7). If the recom-
mendation is to inject 10 Ibs of N per acre
(standard spacing),this becomes 10 Ibs
of N/7,260 Ibf or 0.141bs N/100 Ibf. Since
there are 5,333 Ibf/acre in this example,
then the adjusted rate for this situation
is 7.46 Ibs N/acre (0.14 x 53.33). In other
words,an injection of 10 Ibs of N to 7,260
Ibf is accomplished by injecting 7.46 Ibs of
N to 5,333 Ibf.

LIMING
The optimum pH range for tomato is 6.0
and 6.5.This is the range at which the avail-
ability of all the essential nutrients is high-
est. Fusarium wilt problems are reduced by
liming within this range, but it is not advis-
able to raise the pH above 6.5 because of
reduced micronutrient availability. In areas
where soil pH is basic (>7.0), micronutri-
ent deficiencies may be corrected by foliar
sprays.
Calcium and magnesium levels should
be also corrected according to the soil
test. If both elements are"low"and lime is
needed,then broadcast and incorporate
dolomitic limestone (CaCO3, MgCO3).
Where calcium alone is deficient,a hi-cal
(CaCO3) limestone should be used. Ad-
equate calcium is important for reducing
the severity of blossom-end rot. Research
shows that a Mehlich-l (double-acid) index
of 300 to 350 ppm Ca would be indicative
of adequate soil-Ca. On limestone soils,add
30-40 pounds per acre of magnesium in
the basic fertilizer mix. It is best to apply
lime several months prior to planting.
However, if time is short, it is better to apply
lime any time before planting than not to
apply it at all. Where the pH does not need


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS











TABLE 1. Fertilization recommendations for tomato grown in Florida on sandy soils testing very low in Mehlich-1 potassium (K20).
RECOMMENDED BASE FERTILIZATIONz RECOMMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZATIONz
INJECTEDx
PRODUCTION NUTRIENT (LBS/A/DAY) MEASURED "LOW" EXTENDED
SYSTEM TOTAL PREPLANTY LEACHING RAINR, PLANT NUTRIENT HARVEST
(LBS/A) (LBS/A) WEEKS AFTER TRANSPLANTING CONTENTS SEASONS
1-2 3-4 5-11 12 13
DRIP IRRIGATION, N 200 0-50 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 N/A 1.5 TO 2 LBS/A/DAY 1.5-2 LBS/A/
RAISED BEDS, AND 1.5 FOR DAYS DAY
POLYETHYLENE 1.5-2 LBS/A/DAY FOR 1.5-2 LBS/A/
MULCH K20 220 0-50 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 N/A 7DAYST DAYP
SEEPAGE
IRRIGATION, N 200 200V 0 0 0 0 0 30 LBS/AQ 30 LBS/AT 30 LBS/AP
RAISED BEDS, AND
POLYETHYLENE K20 220 220v 0 0 0 0 0 20 LBS/AQ 20 LBS/AT 20 LBS/AP
MULCH
1 A = 7,260 LINEAR BED FEET PER ACRE (6-FT BED SPACING); FOR SOILS TESTING >VERY LOW= IN MEHLICH 1 POTASSIUM (K20).
Y APPLIED USING THE MODIFIED BROADCAST METHOD (FERTILIZER IS BROADCAST WHERE THE BEDS WILL BE FORMED ONLY, AND NOT OVER THE ENTIRE FIELD). PREPLANT FERTILIZER CANNOT
BE APPLIED TO DOUBLE/TRIPLE CROPS BECAUSE OF THE PLASTIC MULCH; HENCE, IN THESE CASES, ALL THE FERTILIZER HAS TO BE INJECTED.
x THIS FERTIGATION SCHEDULE IS APPLICABLE WHEN NO N AND K20 ARE APPLIED PREPLANT. REDUCE SCHEDULE PROPORTIONALLY TO THE AMOUNT OF N AND K20 APPLIED PREPLANT.
FERTILIZER INJECTIONS MAY BE DONE DAILY OR WEEKLY. INJECT FERTILIZER AT THE END OF THE IRRIGATION EVENT AND ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR PROPER FLUSHING AFTERWARDS.
* FOR A STANDARD 13 WEEK-LONG, TRANSPLANTED TOMATO CROP GROWN IN THE SPRING.
v SOME OF THE FERTILIZER MAY BE APPLIED WITH A FERTILIZER WHEEL THOUGH THE PLASTIC MULCH DURING THE TOMATO CROP WHEN ONLY PART OF THE RECOMMENDED BASE RATE IS AP-
PLIED PREPLANT. RATE MAY BE REDUCED WHEN A CONTROLLED-RELEASE FERTILIZER SOURCE IS USED.
u PLANT NUTRITIONAL STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED WITH TISSUE ANALYSIS OR FRESH PETIOLE-SAP TESTING, OR ANY OTHER CALIBRATED METHOD. THE >LOW= DIAGNOSIS NEEDS TO BE
BASED ON UF/IFAS INTERPRETATIVE THRESHOLDS.
T PLANT NUTRITIONAL STATUS MUST BE DIAGNOSED EVERY WEEK TO REPEAT SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION.
s SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED WHEN IRRIGATION IS SCHEDULED FOLLOWING A RECOMMENDED METHOD. SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZATION IS TO BE APPLIED IN AD-
DITION TO BASE FERTILIZATION WHEN APPROPRIATE. SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZATION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED >IN ADVANCE= WITH THE PREPLANT FERTILIZER.
R A LEACHING RAIN IS DEFINED AS A RAINFALL AMOUNT OF 3 INCHES IN 3 DAYS OR 4 INCHES IN 7 DAYS.
Q SUPPLEMENTAL AMOUNT FOR EACH LEACHING RAIN
P PLANT NUTRITIONAL STATUS MUST BE DIAGNOSED AFTER EACH HARVEST BEFORE REPEATING SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZER APPLICATION.


modification, but magnesium is low,apply
magnesium sulfate or potassium-magne-
sium sulfate.
Changes in soil pH may take several
weeks to occur when carbonate-based lim-
ing materials are used (calcitic or dolomitic
limestone). Oxide-based liming materials
(quick lime -CaO- or dolomitic quick lime
-CaO, MgO-) are fast reacting and rapidly
increase soil pH. Yet, despite these advan-
tages, oxide-based liming materials are
more expensive than the traditional liming
materials,and therefore are not routinely
used.
The increase in pH induced by liming
materials is not due to the presence of
calcium or magnesium. Instead,it is the
carbonate ("C03") and oxide ("O") part of
CaCO3 and"CaO" respectively, that raises
the pH. Through several chemical reactions
that occur in the soil, carbonates and ox-
ides release OH- ions that combine with H+
to produce water. As large amounts of H+
react, the pH rises. A large fraction of the
Ca and/or Mg in the liming materials gets
into solution and binds to the sites that are
freed by H+ that have reacted with OH-.

FERTILIZER-RELATED PHYSIOLOGICAL
DISORDERS
Blossom-End Rot. Growers may have
problems with blossom-end-rot, espe-
cially on the first or second fruit clusters.


Blossom-end rot (BER) is a Ca deficiency in
the fruit, but is often more related to plant
water stress than to Ca concentrations in
the soil. This is because Ca movement into
the plant occurs with the water stream
(transpiration). Thus, Ca moves preferen-
tially to the leaves. As a maturing fruit is
not a transpiring organ, most of the Ca is
deposited during early fruit growth.
Once BER symptoms develop on a
tomato fruit,they cannot be alleviated on
this fruit. Because of the physiological role
of Ca in the middle lamella of cell walls, BER
is a structural and irreversible disorder. Yet,
the Ca nutrition of the plant can be altered
so that the new fruits are not affected. BER
is most effectively controlled by attention
to irrigation and fertilization, or by using
a calcium source such as calcium nitrate
when soil Ca is low. Maintaining adequate
and uniform amounts of moisture in the
soil are also keys to reducing BER potential.
Factors that impair the ability of tomato
plants to obtain water will increase the
risk of BER.These factors include damaged
roots from flooding, mechanical dam-
age or nematodes,clogged drip emitters,
inadequate water applications, alternating
dry-wet periods,and even prolonged over-
cast periods. Other causes for BER include
high fertilizer rates, especially potassium
and nitrogen.
Calcium levels in the soil should be ad-


equate when the Mehlich-1 index is 300 to
350 ppm, or above. In these cases,added
gypsum (calcium sulfate) is unlikely to
reduce BER. Foliar sprays of Ca are unlikely
to reduce BER because Ca does not move
out of the leaves to the fruit.
Gray Wall. Blotchy ripening (also called
gray wall) of tomatoes is characterized by
white or yellow blotches that appear on
the surface of ripening tomato fruits, while
the tissue inside remains hard.The affected
area is usually on the upper portion of
the fruit. The etiology of this disorder has
not been fully established, but it is often
associated with high N and/or low K,and
aggravated by excessive amount of N. This
disorder may be at times confused with
symptoms produced by the tobacco mo-
saic virus. Gray wall is cultivar specific and
appears more frequently on older cultivars.
The incidence of gray wall is less with drip
irrigation where small amounts of nutrients
are injected frequently,than with systems
where all the fertilizer is applied pre-plant.
Micronutrients. For acidic sandy soils
cultivated for the first time ("new ground"),
or sandy soils where a proven need exists,
a general guide for fertilization is the addi-
tion of micronutrients (in elemental Ibs/A)
manganese -3, copper -2,iron -5, zinc -2,
boron -2,and molybdenum -0.02. Micro-
nutrients may be supplied from oxides or
sulfates. Growers using micronutrient-


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___











TABLE 2. Deficient, adequate, and excessive nutrient concentrations for tomato [most-recently-matured (MRM) leaf (blade plus petiole)].
N P K CA MG S FE MN ZN B CU MO
% PPM
DEFICIENT <3.0 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 40 30 25 20 5 0.2
MRMz LEAF TE RAN 3.0 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 40 30 25 20 5 0.2
5-LEAF STAGE ADEQUATE RANGE 5.0 0.6 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 100 100 40 40 15 0.6
HIGH >5.0 0.6 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 100 100 40 40 15 0.6
DEFICIENT <2.8 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 40 30 25 20 5 0.2
M F ADEQUATE RANGE 2.8 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 40 30 25 20 5 0.2
MRM LEAF ADEQUATE RANGE 4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 100 100 40 40 15 0.6
FIRST FLOWER
HIGH >4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 100 100 40 40 15 0.6
TOXIC (>) 1500 300 250
DEFICIENT <2.5 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
SL ADE TE R 2.5 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
MRM LEAF ADEQUATE RANGE 4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
EARLY FRUIT SET
HIGH >4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
TOXIC (>) 250
DEFICIENT <2.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
MRM LEAF ADQ R E 2.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
FIRST RIPE FRUIT ADEQUATE RANGE 3.5 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
HIGH >3.5 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
DEFICIENT <2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
DURING HARVEST ADEQUATE RANGE 2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
PERIODEST ADEQUATERANGE 3.0 0.4 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
HIGH >3.0 0.4 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
ZMRM=MOST RECENTLY MATURED LEAF.


containing fungicides need to consider
these sources when calculating fertilizer
micronutrient needs.
Properly diagnosed micronutrient de-
ficiencies can often be corrected by foliar
applications of the specific micronutrient.
For most micronutrients,a very fine line ex-
ists between sufficiency and toxicity. Foliar
application of major nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorus, or potassium) has not been
shown to be beneficial where proper soil
fertility is present.

FERTILIZER APPLICATION
Mulch Production with Seepage Irriga-
tion. Under this system,the crop may be
supplied with all of its soil requirements
before the mulch is applied (Table 1).It is
difficult to correct a deficiency after mulch
application,although a liquid fertilizer
injection wheel can facilitate sidedressing
through the mulch.The injection wheel will
also be useful for replacing fertilizer under
the used plastic mulch for double-cropping


systems. A general sequence of operations
for the full-bed plastic mulch system is:
1. Land preparation,including develop-
ment of irrigation and drainage systems,
and liming of the soil,if needed.
2. Application of"cold" mix comprised of
10% to 20% of the total nitrogen and
potassium seasonal requirements and all
of the needed phosphorus and micro-
nutrients.The cold mix can be broadcast
over the entire area prior to bedding and
then incorporated. During bedding,the
fertilizer will be gathered into the bed
area. An alternative is to use a "modified
broadcast"technique for systems with
wide bed spacings. Use of modified
broadcast or banding techniques can
increase phosphorus and micronutrient
efficiencies,especially on alkaline (basic)
soils.
3. Formation of beds,incorporation of her-
bicide,and application of mole cricket
bait.
4.The remaining 80% to 90% of the nitro-


TABLE 3. Recommended nitrate-N and K concentrations in fresh petiole sap for tomato.

STAGE OF GROWTH SAP CONCENTRATION (PPM)
STAGE OF GROWTH
NO3-N K
FIRST BUDS 1000-1200 3500-4000
FIRST OPEN FLOWERS 600-800 3500-4000
FRUITS ONE-INCH DIAMETER 400-600 3000-3500
FRUITS TWO-INCH DIAMETER 400-600 3000-3500
FIRST HARVEST 300-400 2500-3000
SECOND HARVEST 200-400 2000-2500


gen and potassium is placed in one or
two narrow bands 9 to 10 inches to each
side of the plant row in furrows. This"hot
mix"fertilizer should be placed deep
enough in the grooves for it to be in con-
tact with moist bed soil. Bed presses are
modified to provide the groove. Only
water-soluble nutrient sources should
be used for the banded fertilizer.A mix-
ture of potassium nitrate (or potassium
sulfate or potassium chloride),calcium
nitrate,and ammonium nitrate has
proven successful. Research has shown
that it is best to broadcast incorporate
controlled-release fertilizers (CRF) in the
bed with bottom mix than in the hot
bands.
5. Fumigation, pressing of beds,and
mulching.This should be done in one
operation, if possible. Be sure that the
mulching machine seals the edges of the
mulch adequately with soil to prevent
fumigant escape.
Water management with the seep
irrigation system is critical to successful
crops. Use water-table monitoring devices
and tensiometers orTDRs in the root zone
to help provide an adequate water table
but no higher than required for optimum
moisture. It is recommended to limitfluc-
tuations in water table depth since this can
lead to increased leaching losses of plant
nutrients.An in-depth description of soil


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS










moisture devices may be found in Munoz-
Carpena (2004).
Mulched Production with Drip Ir-
rigation. Where drip irrigation is used,
drip tape or tubes should be laid 1 to 2
inches below the bed soil surface prior to
mulching.This placement helps protect
tubes from mice and cricket damage.The
drip system is an excellent tool with which
to fertilize tomato.Where drip irrigation
is used,apply all phosphorus and micro-
nutrients, and 20 percent to 40 percent
of total nitrogen and potassium preplant
in the bed.Apply the remaining nitrogen
and potassium through the drip system in
increments as the crop develops.
Successful crops have resulted where
the total amounts of N and K20 were
applied through the drip system.Some
growers find this method helpful where
they have had problems with soluble-salt
burn.This approach would be most likely
to work on soils with relatively high organic
matter and some residual potassium. How-
ever, it is important to begin with rather
high rates of N and K20 to ensure young
transplants are established quickly. In most
situations, some preplant N and K fertilizers
are needed.
Suggested schedules for nutrient injec-
tions have been successful in both research
and commercial situations, but might need
slight modifications based on potassium
soil-test indices and grower experience
(Table 1).

SOURCES OF N-P205-K20
About 30% to 50% of the total applied
nitrogen should be in the nitrate form for
soil treated with multi-purpose fumigants
and for plantings in cool soil. Controlled-
release nitrogen sources may be used to
supply a portion of the nitrogen require-
ment. One-third of the total required ni-
trogen can be supplied from sulfur-coated
urea (SCU),isobutylidene diurea (IBDU),or
polymer-coated urea (PCU) fertilizers incor-
porated in the bed. Nitrogen from natural
organic and most controlled-release ma-
terials is initially in the ammoniacal form,
but is rapidly converted into nitrate by soil
microorganisms.
Normal superphosphate and triple su-
perphosphate are recommended for phos-
phorus needs. Both contribute calcium and


TABLE 4. Progressive levels of nutrient management for tomato production.
NUTRIENT
NUTRIENT DESCRIPTION
MANAGEMENT
RATING
NONE GUESSING
VERY LOW SOIL TESTING AND STILL GUESSING
LOW SOIL TESTING AND IMPLEMENTING "A" RECOMMENDATION

INTERMEDIATE SOIL TESTING, UNDERSTANDING IFAS RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND CORRECTLY IMPLEMENTING THEM
ADVAND SOIL TESTING, UNDERSTANDING IFAS RECOMMENDATIONS, CORRECTLY
ADVANCE IMPLEMENTING THEM, AND MONITORING CROP NUTRITIONAL STATUS
SOIL TESTING, UNDERSTANDING IFAS RECOMMENDATIONS,
CORRECTLY IMPLEMENTING THEM, MONITORING CROP NUTRITIONAL
RECOMMENDED STATUS, AND PRACTICE YEAR-ROUND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
AND/OR FOLLOWING BMPS (INCLUDING ONE OF THE RECOMMENDED
IRRIGATION SCHEDULING METHODS).
'THESE LEVELS SHOULD BE USED TOGETHER WITH THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL OF IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT


normal superphosphate contributes sulfur.
All sources of potassium can be used for
tomato. Potassium sulfate, sodium-potas-
sium nitrate, potassium nitrate, potassium
chloride, monopotassium phosphate,and
potassium-magnesium sulfate are all good
K sources. If the soil test predicted amounts
of K20 are applied,then there should be
no concern for the K source or its associ-
ated salt index.

SAP TESTING AND TISSUE ANALYSIS
While routine soil testing is essential in
designing a fertilizer program, sap tests
and/or tissue analyses reveal the actual
nutritional status of the plant. Therefore
these tools complement each other, rather
than replace one another.
When drip irrigation is used,analysis of
tomato leaves for mineral nutrient content
(Table 2) or quick sap test (Table 3) can help
guide a fertilizer management program
during the growing season or assist in diag-
nosis of a suspected nutrient deficiency.
For both nutrient monitoring tools, the
quality and reliability of the measurements
are directly related with the quality of the
sample. A leaf sample should contain at
least 20 most recently,fully developed,
healthy leaves. Select representative
plants,from representative areas in the
field.

SUPPLEMENTAL FERTILIZER APPLICA-
TIONS
In practice, supplemental fertilizer applica-
tions allow vegetable growers to numeri-
cally apply fertilizer rates higher than the
standard UF/IFAS recommended rates
when growing conditions require doing


so. Applying additional fertilizer under the
three circumstances described in Table
1 (leaching rain,'low'foliarcontent,and
extended harvest season) is part of the
current UF/IFAS fertilizer recommendations
and nutrient BMPs.

LEVELS OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
FOR TOMATO PRODUCTION
Based on the growing situation and the
level of adoption of the tools and tech-
niques described above,different levels of
nutrient management exist for tomato pro-
duction in Florida. Successful production
and nutrient BMPs requires management
levels of 3 or above (Table 4). *

ADDITIONAL READINGS:
Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer
Services. 2005. Florida Vegetable andAgronomic Crop
Water Quality and Quantity BMP Manual.
http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/PDFs/BMPs/
vegetable&agronomicCrops.pdf

Gazula,A., E.Simonne and B. Boman. 2007. Update
and outlook for 2007 of Florida's BMP program
for vegetable crops, EDIS 367, http://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu/HS367.

Hochmuth, G, D. Maynard, C Vavrina, E. Hanlon, and E.
Simonne.2004. Plant tissue analysis and interpretation
for vegetable crops in Florida. EDIS http://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu/EPO81.

Munoz-Carpena, R. 2004. Field devices for monitoring
soil water content. EDIS. Bul343. http://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu/HS266.

Olson, S.M.,W.M. Stall, M.T. Momol, S.E. Webb, T.G. Tay-
lor, SA. Smith, E.H. Simonne, and E. McAvoy.2007. To-
mato production in Florida, pp. 409-429 In:S.M. Olson
and E. Simonne (Eds.) 2007-2008 Vegetable Production
Handbook for Florida, Vance Pub., Lenexa, KS.

Studstill, D., E. Simonne, R. Hochmuth, and T. Olczyk.
2006. Calibrating sap-testing meters. EDISHS 1074,
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS328.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___











WEED CONTROL IN TOMATO

William M. Stall, UF/IFAS Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, wmstall@ufl.edu


Although weed control has always been an
important component of tomato produc-
tion,its importance has increased with the
introduction of the sweet potato whitefly
and development of the associated irregu-
lar ripening problem. Increased incidence
of several viral disorders of tomatoes also
reinforces the need for good weed control.
Common weeds,such as the difficult-to-
control nightshade,and volunteer toma-
toes (considered a weed in this context)
are hosts to many tomato pests, including
sweet potato whitefly, bacterial spot,and
viruses. Control of these pests is often tied,
at least in part,to control of weed hosts.
Most growers concentrate on weed control
in row middles; however, peripheral areas
of the farm may be neglected.Weed hosts
and pests may flourish in these areas and
serve as reservoirs for re-infestation of
tomatoes by various pests.Thus, it is impor-
tant for growers to think in terms of weed
management on all of the farm, not just the
actual crop area.
Total farm weed management is more
complex than row middle weed control
because several different sites,and possible
herbicide label restrictions are involved.
Often weed species in row middles differ
from those on the rest of the farm,and this
might dictate different approaches. Sites
other than row middles include roadways,
fallow fields, equipment parking areas, well
and pump areas, fence rows and associated
perimeter areas,and ditches.
Disking is probably the least expensive
weed control procedure for fallow fields.
Where weed growth is mostly grasses,
clean cultivation is not as important as in
fields infested with nightshade and other
disease and insect hosts. In the latter situa-
tion,weed growth should be kept to a min-
imum throughout the year. If cover crops
are planted,they should be plants which do
not serve as hosts for tomato diseases and
insects. Some perimeter areas are easily
disked, but berms and field ditches are not
and some form of chemical weed control
may have to be used on these areas.We are
not advocating bare ground on the farm


as this can lead to other serious problems,
such as soil erosion and sand blasting of
plants; however,where undesirable plants
exist, some control should be practiced, if
practical,and replacement of undesirable
species with less troublesome ones,such as
bahiagrass, might be worthwhile.
Certainly fence rows and areas around
buildings and pumps should be kept weed-
free, if for no other reason than safety. Her-
bicides can be applied in these situations,
provided care is exercised to keep them
from drifting onto the tomato crop.
Field ditches and canals present special
considerations because many herbicides
are not labeled for use on aquatic sites.
Where herbicidal spray may contact water
and be in close proximity to tomato plants,
for all practical purposes, growers prob-
ably would be wise to use Diquat only.
On canals where drift onto the crop is not
a problem and weeds are more woody,
Rodeo,a systemic herbicide, could be used.
Other herbicide possibilities exist,as listed
inTable 1. Growers are cautioned against
using Arsenal on tomato farms because to-
matoes are very sensitive to this herbicide.
Particular caution should be exercised if
Arsenal is used on seepage irrigated farms
because it has been observed to move in
some situations.
Use of rye as a windbreak has become a
common practice in the spring; however,in
some cases,adverse effects have resulted.
If undesirable insects such as thrips build
up on the rye, contact herbicide can be
applied to kill it and eliminate it as a host,
yet the remaining stubble could continue
serving as a windbreak.
The greatest row middle weed problem
confronting the tomato industry today is
nightshade. Nightshade has developed
varying levels of resistance to some post-
emergent herbicides in different areas of
the state. Best control with post-emergence
(directed) contact herbicides is obtained
when the nightshade is 4 to 6 inches tall,
rapidly growing and not stressed.Two ap-
plications in about 50 gallons per acre us-
ing a good surfactant are usually necessary.


With post-directed contact herbicides,
several studies have shown that gallon-
age above 60 gallons per acre will actually
dilute the herbicides and therefore reduce
efficacy. Good leaf coverage can be ob-
tained with volumes of 50 gallons or less
per acre.A good surfactant can do more to
improve the wetting capability of a spray
than can increasing the water volume.
Many adjuvants are available commercial-
ly. Some adjuvants contain more active in-
gredient than others and herbicide labels
may specify a minimum active ingredient
rate for the adjuvant in the spray mix.
Before selecting an adjuvant, refer to the
herbicide label to determine the adjuvant
specifications.

POSTHARVEST VINE DESSICATION
Additionally important is good field
sanitation with regard to crop residue.
Rapid and thorough destruction of tomato
vines at the end of the season always has
been promoted; however, this practice
takes on new importance with the sweet
potato whitefly. Good canopy penetra-
tion of pesticidal sprays is difficult with
conventional hydraulic sprayers once the
tomato plant develops a vigorous bush
due to foliar interception of spray droplets.
The sweet potato whitefly population on
commercial farms was observed to begin
a dramatic, rapid increase about the time
of first harvest in the spring of 1989.This
increase appears to continue until tomato
vines are killed. It is believed this increase
is due, in part,to coverage and penetra-
tion.Thus, it would be wise for growers to
continue spraying for whiteflies until the
crop is destroyed and to destroy the crop
as soon as possible with the fastest means
available. Gramoxone Inteon and Firestorm
are labeled for postharvest desiccation of
tomato vines. Follow the label directions.
The importance of rapid vine destruc-
tion cannot be overstressed. Merely
turning off the irrigation and allowing
the crop to die will not do; application of
a desiccant followed by burning is the
prudent course.*


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS












TABLE 1. Chemical weed controls for tomatoes.


HERBICIDE LABELED CROPS TIME OF APPLICATION TO CROP
MINERAL MUCK

CARFENTRAZONE (AIM) TOMATO PREPLANT DIRECTED-HOODED ROW-MIDDLES 0.031 0.031


Remarks:Aim maybeappliedas a preplant burndown treatment and/or as a post-directed hooded application to row middles for the burndown of emerged broadleaf weeds. May
1. r.ini ,rl, :rl, ..1 r,.. ,i1..;, II. lbeappliedatupto2oz(0.031 Ibai). Use a qualitysprayadjuvantsuch ascropoilconcentrate (COC) ornon-ionicsurfactant at
recommended rates.


CLETHODIM (SELECT 2 EC) (ARROW) (SELECTMAX) TOMATOES POSTEMERGENCE 0.9-.25


Remarks: Postemergence control ofactively growing annual grasses.Apply at 6-16 fl ozacre. Use high rate under heavy grass pressure and/or when grasses are at maximum height
Always use a crop oil concentrate at 1% v/v in the finished spray volume, or a non-ionic Surfactant with SelectMAX. Do not apply within 20 days of tomato harvest.


DCPA (DACTHAL W-75) ESTABLISHED TOMATOES POSTTRANSPLANTING A6.0-8.0
DCPA (DACTHAL W-75) ESTABLISHED TOMATOES ESTABLISHMENT (NON-MULCHED)


Remarks: Controls germinating annuals.Apply to weed-free soil 6 to 8 weeks after crop is established and growing rapidly or to moist soil in row middles after crop establishment
Note label precautions against replanting non-registered crops within 8 months.

EPTC (EPTAM 7E) TOMATOES PRETRANSPLANT 2.62-3.5

Remarks: Labeled for transplanted tomatoes grown on plastic mulch.Apply 3-4 pints/A to thebed top and shoulders immediately prior to the installation of the mulch. Do not trans-
plant the tomato plants for a minimum of 14 days following the application. A 24c special local needs label for Florida.

FLUMIOXAZIN (CHATEAU) FRUITING VEGETABLES TOMATOES DIRECTED ROW-MIDDLES 0.125


1i..I. 1, 1., r: 1- ,;1 ,1 ir, 1r: ,: I 111. : ,.1,. 1ii. r,:, ,.,:i 11i. 1. .r i .. .. i than thetreated rowmiddle andthe mulched
bed must be a minimum of a 24-inch bedwidth. Do not apply after crops are transplanted. All applications must be made with shielded orhooded equipment For control of emerged weeds,
a burn down herbicide maybe tank-mixed. Labelis a Third-Party registration (TPR, Inc.). Use without a signedauthorization and waiver of liability is a misuse of the product.

GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP, DURANGO, TOUCHDOWN, TOMATOES CHEMICAL FALLOW PREPLANT, PREEMERGENCE, 0.3-1.0
GLYPHOMAX) PRETRANSPLANT

Remarks: Roundup, Glyphomax and Touchdown have several formulations. Check the label of each for specific labeling directions.

HALOSULFURON (SANDEA) TOMATOES PRETRANSPLANT POSTEMERGENCE ROW MIDDLES 0.024-0.036


Remarks:A total of2 applications ofSandea may be applied as either one pre-transplant soil surface treatment at 0.5-0.75 oz. product; one over-the-top application 14 days after
transplanting at 0.5-0.75 oz. product; and/or postemergence applications(s) ofup to oz. product (0.047 Ib ai) torow middles.A 30-day PHI will be observed For postemergence and
row middle applications, a surfactant should be added to the spray mix.


LACTOFEN (COBRA) FRUITING VEGETABLES ROW MIDDLES 0.25-0.5


Remarks: Third Party label for use pre-transplant or post transplant shielded or hooded to row middles.Apply 16 to32 fluid oz per acre.A minimum of24 fl oz is required for residual
control.Add a COC ornon-ionic surfactant for control of emerged weeds. 1 pre and 1 post application may be made per growing season. Cobra contacting green foliage or fruit can
cause excessive injury. Drift of Cobra treated soil particles onto plants can cause contact injury. Do not apply within 30 days of harvest. The supplemental label must be in the posses-
sion of the user at the time of application.


S-METOLACHLOR (DUAL MAGNUM) TOMATOES PRETRANSPLANT- ROW MIDDLES 1.0-1.3

Remarks:Apply Dual Magnum preplantnon-incorporated to the top ofa pressed bed as the last step prior to laying plastic. May also be used to treat row middles. Label rates are 1.0-
1.33 pts/A iforganic matter is less than 3%. Research has shown that the 1.33 pt may be too high in some Florida soils except in row middles. Good results have been seen at 0.6 pts to
1.0 pints especially in tank mixsituations under mulch. Use on a trial basis.


METRIBUZIN (SENCOR DF) (SENCOR 4) TOMATOES POSTEMERGENCE POSTTRANSPLANTING AFTER 0.25 0.5
ESTABLISHMENT

Remarks: Controls small emerged weeds after transplants are established or when direct-seeded plants reach 5 to 6 true leafstage. Apply in single or multiple applications with a
minimum of 14 days between treatments and a maximum of 1.0 Ib ai/acre within a crop season.Avoid applications for 3 days following cool, wet or cloudy weather to reduce pos-
sible crop injury.


METRIBUZIN (SENCOR DF) (SENCOR 4) TOMATOES DIRECTED SPRAY IN ROW MIDDLES 0.25 1.0


Remarks:Apply in single or multiple applications with a minimum of 14 days between treatments and maximum of 1.0 Ib ai/acre within crop season. Avoid applications for3 days
following cool, wet or cloudy weather to reduce possiblecropinjury.Labelstates controlofmanyo'i i'. .... i.,;.i 1 i.-, I, i. n ...n -.i .,
thus sp., Florida pusley, common ragweed, sicklepod, and spotted spurge.

Continued on next page.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M












TABLE 1. (CONTINUED) Chemical weed controls for tomatoes.

HERBICIDE LABELED CROPS TIME OF APPLICATION TO CROP
MINERAL MUCK

NAPROPAMID (DEVRINOL 50DF) TOMATOES PREPLANT INCORPORATED 1.0-2.0

Remarks:Apply to well worked soil that is dry enough to permit thorough incorporation to a depth of I to 2 inches. Incorporate same day as applied For direct-seeded or transplanted
tomatoes.

NAPROPAMID (DEVRINOL 50DF) TOMATOES SURFACE TREATMENT 2.0


Remarks: Controls germinating annuals.Apply to bed tops after bedding but before plastic application. Rainfall or overhead-irrigate sufficient to wetsoil I inch in depth should follow
treatment within 24 hours. May be applied to row middles between mulched beds. A special Local Needs 24(c) Label for Florida. Label states control of weeds including Texas panicum,
pigweed, purslane, Florida pusley, andsignalgrass.

OXYFLUORFEN (GOAL 2XL) (GOALTENDER) TOMATOES FALLOW BED 0.25-0.5

Remarks: Must have a 30-day treatment-planting interval for transplanted tomatoes. Apply as a preemergence broadcast to preformed beds or banded treatment at 1-2 pt/A or 1/2
to I pt/A for Goaltender. Mulch may be applied any time during the 30-day interval.

PARAQUAT (GRAMOXONE INTEON) (FIRESTORM) TOMATOES PREMERGENCE; PRETRANSPLANT 0.62-0.94


Remarks: Controls emerged weeds. Use anon- ionic spreader and thoroughly wet weed foliage.


PARAQUAT (GRAMOXONE INTEON) (FIRESTORM) TOMATOES POST DIRECTED SPRAY IN ROW MIDDLES 0.47

Remarks: Controls emerged weeds. Direct spray over emerged weeds 1 to6 inches tall in row middles between mulched beds. Use a non-ionic spreader. Use low pressure and shields to
control drift. Do not apply more than 3 times per season.

PARAQUAT (GRAMOXONE INTEON) (FIRESTORM) TOMATOES POSTHARVEST DESICCATION 0.62-0.93 0.46-0.62

Remarks: Broadcast spray over the top of plants after last harvest. Gramoxone label states use of 2-3 pts. Use a non-ionic surfactant at I pt/100 gals to I qt/100 gals spray solution.
Thorough coverage is required to ensure maximum herbicide burndown. Do not use treated crop for human or animal consumption.

PELARGONIC ACID (SCYTHE) FRUITING VEGETABLES (TOMATO) PREPLANT PREEMERGENCE DIRECTED-SHIELDED 3-10% V/V

Remarks:Product is a contact, nonselective, foliar applied herbicide. There is no residual control. May be tank mixed with several soil residual compounds. Consult the label for rates.
Has a greenhouse and growth structure label.

PENDIMETHALIN PROWL H20 TOMATOES POST-DIRECTED ROW MIDDLES 0.0475-0.72

Remarks:May be applied pre-transplant but not under mulch. May be applied at 1.0 to .5 pts/A to rowmiddles. Do notapply within 70 days ofharvest.

RIMSULFURON (MATRIX) TOMATOES POSTTRANSPLANT AND DIRECTED-ROW MIDDLES 0.25-0.5 OZ


Remarks: Matrix may be applied preemergence (seeded), postemergence, posttransplant and applied directed to row middles. May be applied at 1-2 oz. product (0.25-0.5 oz ai) in
single or sequential applications. A maximum of 4 oz. product per acre per year may be applied For post (weed) applications, use a non-ionic surfactant at a rate of 0.25% vv. for
preemergence (weed) control, Matrix must be activated in the soil with sprinkler irrigation or rainfall. Check crop rotational guidelines on label.

SETHOXYDIM (POAST) TOMATOES POSTEMERGENCE 0.188-0.28


Remarks: Controls actively growing grass weeds. A total of4 1/2 pts. product per acre may be applied in one season. Do not apply within 20 days of harvest. Apply in 5 to 20 gallons of
water adding 2 pts. of crop oil concentrate per acre. Unsatisfactory results may occur if applied to grasses under stress. Use 0.188 Ib ai (1 pt.) to seedling grasses and up to 0.28 Ib ai (1
1/2 pts.) to perennial grasses emerging from rhizomes etc. Consult label for grass species and growth stage for best control.

TRIFLOXYSULFURON (ENVOKE) TOMATOES (TRANSPLANTED) POST DIRECTED 0.007-0.014

Remarks: Envoke can be applied at 0.1 to 0.2 ozproduct/A post-directed to transplanted tomatoes for control of nutsedge, morningglory, pigweeds and other weeds listed on the
label.Applications should be made prior to fruit set and at least 45 days prior to harvest.A non-ionicsurfactant should be added to the spray mix.

TRIFLURALIN (TREFLAN HFP) (TREFLAN TR-10) TOMATOES (EXCEPT DADE PRETRANSPLANT INCORPORATED 0.5
(TRIFLURALIN 4EC) COUNTY)

Remarks: Controls germinating annuals. Incorporate 4 inches or less within 8 hours of application. Results in Florida are erratic on soils with low organic matter and clay contents.
Note label precautions against planting noncrops within 5 months. Do not apply after transplanting.


M 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS












TOMATO FUNGICIDES

AND OTHER DISEASE MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS (UPDATED MAY 2008)

Gary E. Vallad, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, gvallad@ufl.edu

BE SURE TO READ A CURRENT PRODUCT LABEL BEFORE APPLYING ANY CHEMICAL.


CHEMICAL


Manex4F (maneb)


FUNGICIDE
GROUP'


APPLIC.


SEASON


MIN. DAYS
TO HARVEST


PERTINENT DISEASES
OR PATHOGENS


i + I i i i


2.4 qts.


16.8 qts.


Dithane, Manzate or Penncozeb M3 3 Ibs. 22.4 Ibs. 5
75 DFs (mancozeb)

Maneb 80 WP (maneb) M3 3 Ibs 21 Ibs. 5

Dithane F 45 or Manex II 4 FLs .
M3 2.4 pts. 16.8 qts. 5
(mancozeb)

Dithane M-45, Penncozeb 80,
orManzeM3 3 Ibs. 21 Ibs. 5
or Manzate 80 WPs (mancozeb)


Maneb 75 DF (maneb)


3 Ibs.


22.4 Ibs.


Early blight
Late blight
Gray leaf spot
Bacterial spot3


REMARKS2


See label for
details


Anthracnose
Early blight
Bonide Mancozeb FL Gray leaf spot See label for
M3 5tsp/gal 5
(mancozeb) Late blight details.
Leaf mold
Septoria leaf spot

Anthracnose Do not use on cher-
Ziram (ziram) M3 4 Ibs 24 Ibs 7 Early blight ry tomatoes. See
Septoria leaf spot label for details.

Equus 7204, Echo 720,hloro M 3 pts.or 20.1 pts. 2 Early blight Use higher rates at
Gold 720 6 FIs (chlorothalonil) 2.88 pts. Late blight fruit set and lower

Gray leaf spot rates before fruit
Echo 90 DF or Equus 82.5DF
(chlorothalonil) M5 2.3 Ibs. 2 Target spot set,see label
(chlorothalonil)

Early blight
Ridomil Gold Bravo 76.4 W / 3 s 1 Late blight Limit is 4 appl./
4/M5 3 Ibs. 12lbs 14
(chlorothalonil +mefenoxam) Gray leaf spot crop, see label
Target Spot

Early blight Limit is 6 appl/crop.
Amistar 80 DF (azoxystrobin) 11 2 oz 12 oz 0 Late blight Must alternate
Sclerotinia Powdery or tank mix with
mildew a fungicide from
Quadris (azoxystrobin) 11 6.2 fl.oz. 37.2 fl.oz. 0 Target spot a different FRAC
Buckeye rot group, see label.

Only 2 sequential
Early blight appl. allowed. Limit
Late blight is 6 appl/crop. Must
Sclerotinia alternate or tank
Cabrio 2.09 F (pyraclostro-bin) 11 16 floz 96floz 0 Per t a
Powdery mildew mix with a fungi-
Target spot cide from a differ-
Buckeye rot ent FRAC group,
see label.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


MAXIMUM RATE /ACRE


_W___













CHEMICAL


FUNGICIDE
GROUP'


APPLIC.


SEASON


MIN.DAYS
TO HARVEST


PERTINENT DISEASES
OR PATHOGENS


REMARKS2


Limit is 5 appl/crop.
Must alternate
Early blight or tank mix with
Flint (trifloxystro-bin) 11 4oz 16 oz 3 Late blight .
Gray leaf spot a fungicide from
a different FRAC
group, see label.

Limit is 4 appl/crop.
Early blight Must alternate
Late blight or tank mix with
Evito (fluoxastrobin) 11 5.7 fl oz 22.8 fl oz 3 Late blight ortankmix with
Southern blight a fungicide from
Target spot a different FRAC
group, see label.
Early blight See label for
Reason 500SC (fenamidone) 11 8.2 oz 24.6 Ib 14 Late blight
Septoria leaf spot

2 pts./ 3 pts Itrtd. See label for
Ridomil Gold EC (mefenoxam) 4 ptstrtd. 28 Pythium diseases See label for
trtd.acre acre details

Pythium and See label for
Ultra Flourish (mefenoxam) 4 2 qts 3 qts Phytophthora rots details
Phytophthora rots details

Ridomil MZ 68 WP Limit is 3 appl./
4 6WP4/M3 2.5 Ibs. 7.5 Ibs. 5 Late blight
(mefenoxam + mancozeb) crop, see label

Limit is 3 appl./
Ridomil Gold Copper 64.8 crop.Tank mix with
W (mefenoxam + copper 4/M1 2 Ibs. 14 Late blight maneb or manco-
hydroxide) zeb fungicide, see
label

Potato See label for
Potato Virus Y
restrictions and
JMS Stylet-Oil (paraffinic oil) 3 qts. Tobacco Etch Virus r s
CMV use (e.g. use of 400
psi spray pressure)

See label for warn-
ings concerning
Aliette 80 WDG (fosetyl-al) 33 5 Ibs. 20 Ibs. 14 Phytophthora root rot te use of coper
the use of copper
compounds.

Early blight
Bravo Ultrex (chlorothalonil) M5 2.6 Ibs. 18.3 Ibs 0 Late blight
Gray leaf spot Use higher rates at
-------------------------------------------T arg et sp o t .. 1 1
Target spot fruit set, see label
Bravo Weather Stik Botrytis
(chlorothalonil) M5 2.75 pts. 20 pts 0 Rhizoctonia fruit rot
(c h lo r o t h a lo n il) L e a f m o l d
Leaf mold

Greenhouse use
only. Limit is4
applications. Seed-
Botran 75W (dichloran) 14 1 lb. 4 Ibs. 10 Botrytis ling s or newy se
lings or newly set
transplants may be
injured, see label

Note that a 30
day plant back
Nova 40W (myclobutanil) 3 4 ozs. 1.25 Ibs. 0 Powdery mildew dayplantback
restriction exists,
see label


0 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


I MAXIMUM RATE /ACRE













CHEMICAL


FUNGICIDE
GROUP'


APPLIC.


SEASON


MIN.DAYS
TO HARVEST


PERTINENT DISEASES
OR PATHOGENS


REMARKS2


Follow label close-
Sulfur (many brands) M2 1 Powdery mildew ly, it may cause
phytotoxicity.

Bacterial spot Bacte-
rial speck Tomato Do not use high-
spotted wilt a viral est labeled rate
Actigard .75oz. 4.75 oz 14 disease (use in in early sprays to
(acibenzolar-S-methyl) combination of UV- avoid a delayed on-
reflective mulch and set of harvest. See
vector thrips specific label for details.
insecticides.

Bacterial spot
,. Bacterial speck
ManKocide 61.1 DF Bacterial speck
(mancozeb + copper hydroxide) M3/M1 5 Ibs. 112 Ibs. 5 Late blight See label
(mancozeb + copper hydroxide) E b
Early blight
Gray leaf spot

Buckeye rot
Gavel 75DF Early blight
(mancoz) M3/22 2.0 Ibs 16 Ibs 5 Gray leaf spot See label
(mancozeb + zoaximide) bi
Late blight
Leaf mold
Only in a tank
Previcur Flex 1.5 pints mixture with chlo-
(prop b h) 28 (see 7.5 pints 5 Late blight rotalonil,maneb
(propamocarb hydrochloride)
Label) or mancozeb, see
label
30 oz per 12 Do not use alone,
Curzate60DF (cymoxanil) 27 5 oz 3 Late Blight D ,
month see label for details

4 apps. per season;
Anthracnose Black no more than 2
RevusTop mold Early blight Gray sequential apps.
(mandipropamid+ 403 7floz 28oz leafspot Late blight Do not use on vari-
(mandipropamid + 40/3 7floz 28 oz 1
difenconazole) Leaf mold Powdery eties with mature
difenconazole)
mildew Septoria tomatoes of less
leafspot Target spot than 2 inches; see
label

Do not alternate
Late blight Target o tan m t
or tank mix with
Tanos spot
Tanos 11/27 8oz 72 oz 3 other FRAC group
(famoxadone + cymoxanil) Bacterial spot (sup- S
pressing) 11 fungicides. See
label for details

See label for
Acrobat 50 WP (dimethomorph) 15 6.4 oz 32 oz 4 Late blight ee lael
details

Only 2 sequential
Forum (dimethomorph) 15 6oz 30 oz 4 Late blight appl. See label for
details

K-phite 7LP
Fosphite Phythophthora spp. Do not apply with
Fungi-Phite Pythium spp. copper-based fun-
Helena Prophyte 33 Seelabel Fusarium spp. gicides. See label
Phostrol Rhizoctonia for restrictions and
Topaz Late Blight details
(mono-and di-potassium salts Powdery Mildew
of phosphorous acid)


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


I MAXIMUM RATE /ACRE


_W___













CHEMICAL


FUNGICIDE
GROUP'


APPLIC.


SEASON


MIN.DAYS
TO HARVEST


PERTINENT DISEASES
OR PATHOGENS


REMARKS2


K-phite 7LP
Fosphite Phythophthora spp.
S. Do not apply with
Fungi-Phite Pythium spp. chopped fn
copper-based fun-
Helena Prophyte Fusarium spp. op-eu
Helena Prophyte 33 See label 0 Fusarium s. gicides. See label
Phostrol Rhizoctonia
for restrictions and
Topaz Late Blight details
(mono-and di-potassium salts Powdery Mildew
of phosphorous acid)

Early blight
Late blight
Manex4F (maneb) M3 2.4 qts. 16.8 qts. 5 Late blight See label for details
Gray leaf spot
Bacterial spot3

Use only in a tank
mix with another
7 floz 35 fl oz Early blight mix with another
Scala SC (pyrimethanil) 9 1 effective fungicide
0.27 Ibs 1.4 Ibs Botrytis (non FRAC code 9),
(non FRAC code 9),
see label

Target spot Alternate with
(Corynespora non-FRAC code
Endura (boscalid) 7 12.5 oz 25 0 cassiicola)
Early Blight 7 fungicides, see
Early Blight lb
label
(Alternaria solani)

Soil See label for
See Southern blight
Terraclor 75 WP (PCNB) 14 Label See Label treatment at (Scerotium rolfsii) application type
planting and restrictions

Mancozeb or
maneb enhances
Fix (Copper + mancozeb M1 /M3 Bacterial spot bactericidal effect
Mll / M3 5
or maneb) Bacterial speck of fix copper com-
pounds. See label
for details.

Kocide 101 or Champion 77 4 bs. 2
M1 4 Ibs. 2
WPs (copper hydroxide)

Kocide 4.5 LF (copper 2.66 pts 1
M1 2.66 pts 1
hydroxide)
Anthracnose
Kocide 2000 53.8 DF (copper M1 3 Ibs. 1 Bacterial speck Mancozeb or
hydroxide) Bacterial Spot maneb enhances
Early blight bactericidal effect
Champ 57.6 DP (copper M1 1.3 Ibs 1 Grey leaf mold of fix copper com-
hydroxide) Grey leaf spot pounds. See label
Late blight for details.
Septoria leaf spot
Basicop 53 WP M1 4 Ibs. 1 Septoria leaf spot


Kocide 61.4 DF (copper 4
hydroxide)

Cuprofix Disperss 36.9 DF 6 bs
(copper hydroxide)bs
(copper hydroxide)


E 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS


I MAXIMUM RATE /ACRE 11













CHEMICAL


FUNGICIDE
GROUP'


APPLIC.


SEASON


MIN.DAYS
TO HARVEST


PERTINENT DISEASES
OR PATHOGENS


REMARKS2


Anthracnose
Nu Cop 50WP (copper M1 4 b Bacterial speck Mancozeb or
hydroxide) Bacterial Spot maneb enhances
Early blight bactericidal effect
Grey leaf mold of fix copper com-
Bonide Liquid Copper Grey leaf spot pounds. See label
(copper salts) M1 6tsp/gal 0Late blight for details.
Septoria leaf spot

Greenhouse use
B s only.Allow can to
Botrytis
Lef mold remain overnight
1 can/ Leaf mold and then ventilate.
Allpro Exotherm Termil 1 can/ Late blight and then ventilate.
M5 1000sq. 7 Do not use when
(20% chlorothalonil) 1000 sq. Early blight Do not use when
ft. l t greenhouse tem-
Gray leaf spot
raea spot perature is above
Target spot 75 F. See label for
details.

Greenhouse use
Pythium and Phy-
Terramaster4EC (etridiazole) F3 7 fl oz 27.4 fl oz 3 Pythium andPhy- only. See label for
tophthora root rots details

2.1-2.75 Limit is 6 appl./
Ranman (cyazofamid) 21 16oz 0 Late Blight .
oz crop, see label

Agri-mycin 17 (streptomycin 25 200 ppm Bacterial spot See label for details
sulfate)

Ag Streptomycin (streptomycin 25 200 ppm
sulfate) 25 200 ppm
sulfate) Bacterial speck See label for details
Bacterial spot
AgriPhage (bacteriophage)

Anthracnose Bacterial
speck Bacterial spot
1:100 Botrytis
Oxidate (hydrogen dioxide) Early blight See label for details
Late blight
Powdery mildew Rhi-
zoctonia fruit rot

Amicarb 100
Kaligreen
Kaligreen See label Powdery mildew See label for details
Milstop
(Potassium bicarbonate)

Bacterial spot
Serenade ASO Early Blight M
Mix with copper
Serenade Max Biological See label See label Late Blight compounds,see
See label See label 0 compounds,see
Sonata material Powdery mildew label
(Bacillus sp.) Target spot
Botrytis

'FRAC code (fungicide group): Numbers (1-37) and letters (M, U, P) are used to distinguish the fungicide mode of action groups.All fungicides within the same group (with same number
or letter) indicate same active ingredient or similar mode of action. This information must be considered for the fungicide resistance management decisions. M = Multi site inhibitors,
fungicide resistance risk is low; U = Recent molecules with unknown mode of action; P = host plant defense inducers. Source: http//www.frac.info/ (FRAC = Fungicide Resistance Action
Committee).

'Information provided in this table applies only to Florida. Be sure to read a current product label before applying any chemical. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of
commercial products or services in the publication does not imply endorsement by the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service nor discrimination against similar products or
services not mentioned.
'Tank mix of mancozeb or maneb enhances bactericidal effect of copper compounds.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


I MAXIMUM RATE /ACRE 11:1


_W___












SELECTED INSECTICIDES

APPROVED FOR USE ON INSECTS ATTACKING TOMATOES

Susan Webb, UF/IFAS Entomology and Nematology Department, Gainesville, sewe@ufl.edu


TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO N MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE'

Acramite-50WS
0.75-1.0 Ib 12 3 twospotted spider mite 2 One application per season.
(bifenazate)

Actara aphids, flea beetles, Maximum of 11 oz/acres per season.
(thia ) 2.0-5.5 oz 12 0 leafhoppers,stinkbugs, 4A Do not use following a soil application
(thiamethoxam)
whiteflies of a Group 4A insecticide.

aphids, Colorado potato .
aphids, Colo o p o Most effective if applied to soil at
Admire2F beetle, flea beetles, leaf-
mi. ri 16-24 fl oz 12 21 l, 4A transplanting. Limited to 24 ozlacre.
(imidacloprid) hoppers, thrips (foliar feed- Admire Pro limited to 10.5 fl oz/acre.
ing thrip nywhiteiAdmire Pro limited to 10.5 fl ozlacre.
ing thrips only), whiteflies

Admire Pro 7-10.5 fl oz

Admire 2F 1.4 fl oz/1000 0 ( a w Greenhouse Use: 1 application to ma-
12 0 (soil) aphids,whiteflies 4A
(imidacloprid) plants ture plants,see label for cautions.

0.6 fl oz/1000
Admire Pro
plants

Admire2F 0.1 fl oz/1000
(mir. d p s 12 21 aphids,whiteflies 4A Planthouse: 1 application. See label.
(imidacloprid) plants

0.44 fl oz/10,000
Admire Pro
plants

Agree WG Apply when larvae are small for best
(Bacillusthungi- armyworms,hornworms,
(Bacillus thuringi- 0.5-2.0 Ib 4 0 s, 11B1 control.Can be used in greenhouse.
ensis subspecies loopers, tomato fruitworm OMRI-listed2.
aizawai)

broad mite,Colorado
*Agri-Mek C potato beetle, Liriomyza Do not make more than 2 sequential
(amectin) 8-16 fl oz 12 7 leafminers, spider mite, 6 applications. Do not apply more than
(abamectin)
Thrips palmi, tomato pin- 48 fl oz per acre per season.
worms, tomato russet mite

beet armyworm, cabbage
looper, Colorado potato Do not use on cherry tomatoes. Do
*Ambush 25W up to beetle, granulate cutworms, not apply more than 1.2 Ib ailacre per
(permethrin) 3.2-12.8 oz 12 day of hornworms, southern army- 3 season (76.8 oz). Not recommended
harvest worm, tomato fruitworm, for control of vegetable leafminer in
tomato pinworm, vegetable Florida.
leafminer

beet armyworm (aids in
control), cabbage looper,
Colorado potato beetle, Not recommended for control of
cutworms, flea beetles, vegetable leafminer in Florida. Do not
*Asana XL 12 1
(0.66EC) (esfenval- 2.9-9.6 fl oz grasshoppers, hornworms, apply more than 0.5 Ib ai per acre per
(0.66EC) (esfenval- 2.9-9.6 fl oz p aphid,3 southern
potato aphid, southern season,or 10 applications at highest
armyworm, tomato fruit- rate.
worm, tomato pinworm,
whiteflies,yellowstriped
armyworm


0 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS











TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO I S MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE1

Do not apply to crop that has been
already treated with imidacloprid
or thiamethoxam at planting. Begin
Assail 70WP aphids, Colorado potato
Asai 0.6-1.7 oz 12 7 t, 4A applications for whiteflies when first
(acetamiprid) beetle, thrips, whiteflies .
adults are noticed. Do not apply more
than 4 times per season or apply more
often than every 7 days.

Assail 30 SG 1.5-4.0 oz

beet armyworm, horn-
Avaunt worms, loopers, southern Do not apply more than 14 ounces of
(indo ) 2.5-3.5 oz 12 3 armyworm, tomato fruit- 22 product per acre per crop. Minimum
(indoxacarb)
worm, tomato pinworm, spray interval is 5 days.
suppression of leafminers

aphids, beetles, caterpillars,
Aza-Direct 1-2 pts, up to 3.5 leafhoppers, leafminers, Antifeedant, repellant, insect growth
azadirachtinn) pts, if needed mites, stink bugs,thrips, regulator. OMRI-listed2.
weevils,whiteflies

aphids, beetles, caterpillars,
Azatin XL aphids, beetles, caterpillars, Antifeedant, repellant, insect growth
azadirtin) 5-21 fl oz 4 0 leafhoppers, leafminers, 18B regu
azadirachtinn) wtiregulator.
thrips, weevils, whiteflies

beet armyworm(1), cab-
bage looper, Colorado
potato beetle, dipterous
potato beetle, ipterous (1) Ist and 2nd instars only
leafminers(2), European
corn borer,flea beetles,
(2) Suppression
*Baythroid XL hornworms, potato aphid, S e
Baythroid XL 1.6-2.8 fl oz 12 0 ornwrm, 3 Do not apply more than 0.132 Ib
(beta-cyfluthrin) southern armyworm(1), ai per acre per season.
stink bug, t t (Baythroid XL) ai per acre per season.
stink bugs, tomato fruit-
worm, tomato pinworm,
variegated cutworm, west-
ern flower thrips,whitefly
adults(2)

Beleaf 50 SG Do not apply more than 8.4 ozlacre
) 2.0-2.8 oz 12 0 aphids, plant bugs 9C per season. Begin applications before
pests reach damaging levels.

Biobit HP Treat when larvae are young.Good
(Bacillus thuringi- 0.5-2.0 lb caterpillars (will not control 11 B2 coverage is essential. Can be used in
ensis subspecies large armyworms) the greenhouse.
kurstaki) OMRI-listed2.

BotaniGard 22 WP: May be used in greenhouses. Contact
WP, ES 0.5-2 lb/100 gal 4 0 aphids thripswhiteflies dealer for recommendations if an ad-
4 0 aphids, thrips,whiteflies
(Beauveria bassi- ES: juvant must be used. Not compatible
ana) 0.5-2 qts 100/gal in tank mix with fungicides.

aphids, armyworms, corn
earworm, cutworms, flea
earworm, cut fa Make no more than 4 applications per
*Brigade 2EC beetles, grasshoppers,
Brifti *2.1-5.2 fl oz 12 1 3 season.Do not make applications less
(bifenthrin) mites, stink bug spp.,
tarnished plant bug, thrips, than 10 days apart.
whiteflies

TPW:
CheckMateTPW, T
TPW-F 200 dispenser tomato pinworm For mating disruption -
TPW-F T 0 0 tomato pinworm S le
(pheromone)TPW-F: See label.
1.2-6.0 fl oz


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS 0


_W___











TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO N MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE'

Product is a slow-acting IGR that will
Confirm 2F 6-floz armyworms, black cut- 18A not kill larvae immediately. Do not
6-16 fl oz 4 7 18A
(tebufenozide) worm, hornworms, loopers apply more than 1.0 Ib ai per acre per
season.

beet armyworm, Colo-
rado potato beetle, fall
armyworm, hornworms, Can be applied by drip chemigation
rynax r) 3.5-7.5 fl oz 4 1 leafminer larvae loop- 28 See label. Do not use more than 15.4
(rynaxypyr)
ers, southern armyworm, fl oz product/acre per crop.
tomato fruitworm, tomato
pinworm

See label for plantback restrictions.
Apply when a threshold is reached
of 5 nymphs per 10 leaflets from
Courier 40SC 1 1 wit n 1 the middle of the plant. Product is
(buprofezin) a slow-acting IGR that will not kill
nymphs immediately. No more than 2
applications per season.Allow at least
28 days between applications.

CrymaxWDG armyworms, loopers,
(Bacillus thuringi- 0.5-2.0 lb tomato fruitworm, tomato 11 2 Use high rate for armyworms.Treat
ensis subspecies hornworm, tomato pin- when larvae are young.
kurstaki) worm

beet armyworm, cabbage Use alone for control of fruitworms,
3 days, looper,fruitworms, potato stink bugs, tobacco hornworm,
or 7 if aphid, silverleaf whitefly, twospotted spider mites,and yel-
*Danitol 2.4 EC 10.67 fl oz 24 mixed stink bugs, thrips, tobacco lowstriped armyworms.Tank-mix with
(fenpropathrin) with hornworm, tomato pin- Monitor 4 for all others, especially
Moni- worm, twospotted spider whitefly. Do not apply more than 0.8
tor 4 mites, yellowstriped army- Ib ai per acre per season. Do not tank
worm mix with copper.

Deliver
armyworms, cutworms,
(Bacillus thuringi- Use higher rates for armyworms.
ensis subspecies 0.25-1.5 Ib 4 0 loopers,tomato fruitworm, 11B2 OMRIlisted2
ensis subspecies t OMRI-listed2.
tomato pinworm
kurstaki)

*Diazinon AG500; AG500,4E:
*Diazino A O AO,4: ,cutworms, mole crickets, .
4E;*50 W 1-4 qts 48 preplant 1wormsB Incorporate into soil see label.
wireworms
(diazinon) 50W: 2-8 Ib

4EC:
Dimethoate 4 EC, 4EC:
2.67 EC 0.5-1.0 pt 48 7 aphids, leafhoppers, 1B Will not control organophosphate-re-
(dime ) 2.67: leafminers sistant leafminers.
(dimethoate)
0.75-1.5 pt

DiPel DF
(Bacillus thuringi- 0.5-2.0b caterpillars 11B2 Treat when larvae are young.Good
ensis supspecies coverage is essential. OMRI-listed2.
kurstaki)

armyworms, Colorado
potato beetle, flower thrips,
Sb f Do not apply more than 9 oz per acre
Entrust hornworms, Liriomyza
0.5-2.5 oz 4 1 5 per crop.
(spinosad) leafminers, loopers, other OMRI-listed2
caterpillars, tomato fruit-
worm, tomato pinworm

Esteem Ant Bait
1.5-2.0 Ib 12 1 red imported fire ant 7C Apply when ants are actively foraging.
(pyriproxyfen)


W 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE


PROCEEDINGS











TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO I S MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE1

Slow-acting IGR (insect growth regu-
lator). Best applied early spring and
fall where crop will be grown. Colonies
xti h 1.0-1.5 Ib 4 0 fire ants 7A will be reduced after three weeks and
((S)-methoprene) 1 l
eliminated after 8 to 10 weeks. May
be applied by ground equipment or
aerially.
0-if2
applica-
i i green peach aphid, po- Do not make more than four ap-
2.75 oz 12 4 tato aphid,suppression of 9B plications. (FL-040006) 24(c) label for
(pymetrozine) 14 if 3 or
whiteflies growing transplants also (FL-03004).
4 applica-
tions

beet armyworm, cabbage
Intrepid 2F looper, fall armyworm, Do not apply more than 64 fl oz acre
Intrepid 2F
(methoxyfeno- 4-16 fl oz hornworms, southern 18A per season.
zde) armyworm, tomato fruit- Product is a slow-acting IGR that will
zide)
worm, true armyworm, not kill larvae immediately.
yellowstriped armyworm

Javelin WG
Javn WG most caterpillars, but not Treat when larvae are young.Thor-
(Bacillus thuringi-
(Bacillusthuringi- 0.12-1.5 Ib 4 0 Spodoptera species (army- 11B2 ough coverage is essential.
ensis subspecies
ensis subspecies worms) OMRI-listed2.
kurstaki)

Apply when a threshold is reached
14 of 5 nymphs per 10 leaflets from
KnackIGR 7 SLN the middle of the plant. Product is
8-10 fl oz 12 No FL- immature whiteflies 7C a slow-acting IGR that will not kill
(pyriproxyfen) 200002 nymphs immediately. Make no more
than two applications per season.
Treat whole fields.

armyworm, blister beetle,
K e cabbage looper, Colorado Minimum of 7 days between applica-
cryolie) 8-16 Ib 12 14 potato beetle larvae, flea 9A tions. Do not apply more than 64 Ibs
beetles, hornworms, tomato per acre per season.
fruitworm, tomato pinworm

aphids, armyworm, beet
LV: armyworm, fall armyworm,
LV: armyworm,fall armyworm, Do not apply more than 21 pt LV/
*Lannate LV,*SP 1.5-3.0 pt 48 hornworms, loopers, south- A acrecrop (15 for tomatillos) or 7
48 1 1A acre/crop (15 for tomatillos) or 7 Ib
(methomyl) SP: em armyworm, tomato SPlacre/crop (5 Ib for tomatillos).
0.5-1.0 Ib fruitworm, tomato pin-
worm,variegated cutworm

Lepinox WDG .
Lepinox WDG for most caterpillars, includ-
(Bacillus thuringi- 1.0-2.0 b 12 ing beetarmyworm (see 112 Treat when larvae are small.Thorough
1.0-2.0 Ib 12 0 ing beet armyworm (see 11B2
ensis subspecies label) coverage is essential.
kurstaki)

Malathion 5
1.0-2.5 .0 pt
Malathion 8 F 12 1 aphids, Drosophila, mites 1B Can be used in greenhouse (8F).
(malathion)

*Monitor4EC (1) Suppression only
(2) Use as tank mix with a pyrethroid
(methamidophos) aphids, fruitworms,
for whitefly control.
[24(c) labels] 1.5-2 pts 96 7 leafminers, tomato pin- 1B or tly oro
Do not apply more than 8 pts per acre
FL-800046 worm(1),whiteflies(2)
FL-900003 per crop season, nor within 7 days of
harvest.

M-Pede 49% EC aphids, leafhoppers, mites,
( i ) 1-2% VIV 12 0 plant bugs, thrips,white- OMRI-listed2.
(Soap,insecticidal)flies
flies


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___












TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO I S MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE1

beet armyworm, cab-
bage looper, Colorado
potato beetle, cutworms,
fall armyworm, flea beetles,
grasshoppers, green
*Mustang and brown stink bugs, Not recommended for vegetable
*Mustang Max
*M x hornworms, leafminers, leafminer in Florida. Do not make
stang Mx E 2.24-4.0 oz 12 1 leafhoppers, Lygus bugs, 3 applications less than 7 days apart.
eta er- plant bugs, southern army- Do not apply more than 0.15 Ib ai per
thrin)
worm, tobacco budworm, acre per season.
tomato fruitworm, tomato
pinworm, true armyworm,
yellowstriped armyworm.
Aids in control of aphids,
thrips and whiteflies.


aphids,armyworms, horn-
worms, psyllids, Colorado
Neemix 4.5 4-floz 12 potato beetle, cutworms, 18B IGR,feeding repellant.
4-16floz 12 0 18B
azadirachtinn) leaf miners, loopers, tomato OMRI-listed2.
fruitworm (corn earworm),
tomato pinworm,whiteflies


NoMate MEC TPW For mating disruption -
0 0 tomato pinworm
(pheromone) See label.


broad mite,twospotted
Oberon 2SC broad mite, spotted Maximum amount per crop: 25.5 fl
(spiromesifen) 7.0-8.5 fl oz 12 7 spider mite, whiteflies (eggs 23 a .
(spiromesifen) oz/acre. No more than 3 applications.
and nymphs)


Platinum aphids, Colorado potato
Platinum 5-11 fl oz a s,Clado ptato Soil application.See label for rotation-
beetles, flea beetles, leaf-
12 30 4A al restrictions. Do not use with other
Platnum 75 SG hoppers, thrips, tomato grh
1.66-3.67 oz growth insecticides.
(thiamethoxam) pinworm,whiteflies

beet armyworm, cabbage
looper, Colorado potato
eetledipteros leai- Do not apply to cherry or grape
*Pounce 25W ip l in tomatoes (fruit less than 1 inch in
3.2-12.8oz 12 0 ers, granulate cutworm, 3
(permethrin) 1 0 er n utrm diameter).Do not apply more than 1.2
hornworms, southern army- lb ai per acre per season.
m t Ib ai per acre per season.
worm, tomato fruitworm,
tomato pinworm

aphids(1), beet army-
worm(2), blister beetles,
cabbage looper, Colorado
potato beetle, cucumber
beetles (adults), cut-
worms, hornworms, fall ( .
(1) Suppression only.
armyworm(2), flea beetles,
*Proaxis Insecti- armyworm(2), flea beetles, (2) First and second instars only.
grasshopperspe, leafhoppers,
cide (gamma-cy- 1.92-3.84 fl oz 24 5 grasshoppers, eafhoppers, 3
plant bugs,southern army-
halothrin) plant bugs, southern army- Do not apply more than 2.88 pints per
worm(2),spider mites(1),
acre per season.
stink bugs, thrips(1),tobac-
co budworm, tomato fruit-
worm, tomato pinworm,
vegetable weevil (adult),
whiteflies( 1),yellowstriped
armyworm(2)


0 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS












TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO I S MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE1

beet armyworm, cabbage
looper,fall armyworm,
*Proclaim hornworms, southern army-
(emamectin ben- 2.4-4.8 oz 12 7 worm, tobacco budworm, 6 No more than 28.8 ozlacre per season.
zoate) tomato fruitworm, tomato
pinworm,yellowstriped
armyworm

blister beetle, cabbage Minimum of 7 days between applica-
Prokil Cryolite 96 looper, Colorado potato 9A tions. Do not apply more than 64 Ibs
10-16 Ib 12 14 9A
(cryolite) beetle larvae, flea beetles, per acre per season. Not for cherry
hornworms tomatoes.

hd, d p o Do not apply to crop that has been
P d 1.6F aphids, Colorado potato
Provado 1.6F apls 11 rao already treated with imidacloprid or
Provado 1.6F 3.8-6.2 fl oz 12 0 beetle, leafhoppers, white- 4A already treated with imidacloprid or
(imidacloprid) le thiamethoxam at planting. Maximum
flies
per crop per season 19 fl oz per acre.

aphids, Colorado potato
beetle,cucumber beetles,
Pyrellin EC flea beetles,flea hoppers,
(pyrethrin + rote- 1-2 pt 12 12 hours leafhoppers, leafminers, 3,21
none) loopers, mites, plant bugs,
stink bugs, thrips,vegeta-
ble weevil, whiteflies

armyworms, Colorado
potato beetle, flower thrips,
Radiant SC 5-10 fl o hornworms, Liriomyza Maximum of 34 fl oz per acre per
(spinetoram) leafminers, loopers,Thrips season.
palmi, tomato fruitworm,
tomato pinworm

Colorado potato beetle,
cutworms, fall armyworm,
flea beetles, lace bugs, leaf-
Sevin 80S;XLR;4F 80S:0.63-2.5 hoppers, plant bugs, stink
12 3 1A Do not apply more than seven times.
(carbaryl) XLR;4F:0.5-2.0 A bugs(l),thrips(1),tomato l
Do not apply a total of more than 10
fruitworm, tomato horn-
Ib or 8 qt per acre per crop.
worm, tomato pinworm,
sowbugs

10%Sevin Gran- ants, centipedes, crick-
10% Sevin Gran-
ules 20 lb 12 3 ets, cutworms, earwigs, 1A Maximum of 4 applications, not more
ules 20 Ib 12 3 1A
(carbaryl) grasshoppers, millipedes, often than once every 7 days.
sowbugs, springrails

Do not apply to seedlings grown for
armyworms, Colorado transplant within a greenhouse or
potato beetle, flower thrips, shadehouse. Leafminer and thrips
SpinTor 2SC (spi- 1.5-8.0 fhornworms, Liriomyza control may be improved by adding
1.5-8.0 fl oz 4 1 5
nosad) leafminers, loopers,Thrips an adjuvant. Do not apply more than
palmi, tomato fruitworm, three times in any 21 day period. Do
tomato pinworm not apply more than 29 oz per acre
per crop.

May burn fruit and foliage when
Sulfur (many See label 24 see label tomato russet mite, temperature is high. Do not apply
See label 24 see label
brands) twospotted spider mite within 2 weeks of an oil spray or EC
formulation.

*Telone C-35 5 days
dlon e Se labl (e p lant garden centipedes (sym- See supplemental label for restric-
chloroprn S label ( p phylans),wireworms tions in certain Florida counties.
+ chloropicrin) label)


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS 0


_W___












TRADE NAME RATE REI DAYS TO I S MOA
INSECTS NOTES
(COMMON NAME) (PRODUCT/ACRE) (HOURS) HARVEST CODE1

*Telone II
(dichloropropene)

aphids, blister beetle,
cabbage looper,Colorado
cabbage looper, Colorado Do not exceed a maximum of 3.0 Ib
Thionex EC potato beetle, flea beetles,
Thionex EC 0.66-1.33 qt potato beetle, flea beetles, active ingredient per acre per year or
Thionex 50W 24 2 hornworms, stink bugs, 2
Thio W 1,0-2.9 Ib, apply more than 6 times. Can be used
endosulfann) tomato fruitworm, tomato
in greenhouse.
russet mite, whiteflies,yel-
lowstriped armyworm

d C o p o b e No more than 6 applications per crop.
Trigard Colorado potato beetle
Trigar 2.66 oz 12 0 o 17 Does not control CPB adults. Most ef-
(cyromazine) (suppression of), leafminers festive against 1st & 2nd instar larvae.
fective against 1st & 2nd instar larvae.

Apply morning or evening to reduce
Trilogy aphids, mites, suppression potential for leaf burn.Toxic to bees
(extract of neem 0.5-2.0% VIV 4 0 ps18B exposed to direct treatment. Do not
of thrips and whiteflies
oil) exceed 2 gallacre per application.
OMRI-listed2.

Ultra Fine Oil,
JS Stylet-Oil, 3-6 qts/100 gal Do not exceed four applications per
JMS Stylet-Oil, (MS) aphids, beetle larvae, leaf-
water (JMS) season.
and others (oil, hoppers, leafminers, mites,
insecticidal) thrips,whiteflies,aphid- Organic Stylet-Oil and Saf-
trasmite v s Organic Stylet-Oil and Saf-
transmitted viruses (JMS) 2
Saf-T-Side 1-2 gal/100 gal T-Side are OMRI-listed2.

Colorado potato beetle, Use only one application method (soil
Colorado potato beetle,
foliar: 1-4 oz or foliar). Limited to three applica-
Venom Insecticide foliar: 1 flea beetles, leafhoppers, t
12 4A tions per season. Do not use on grape
(dinotefuran) soil:21 leafminers, thrips,white-
soil: 5-6 oz or cherry tomatoes.
flies
Toxic to honeybees.

aphids, Colorado potato
*Vydate L foliar:2-4 pt 48 beetle, leafminers (except 1A Do not apply more than 32 pts per
(oxamyl) Liriomyza trifolii),whiteflies acre per season.
(suppression only)


aphids(1), beet army-
worm(2), cabbage looper,
Colorado potato beetle, cut- (
(1) suppression only
worms, fall armyworm(2),
worms, fall armyworm(2), (2) for control of 1st and 2nd instars
*Warrior II flea beetles,grasshoppers, only.
*Warrior II only.
(lambda-cyhalo- 0.96-1.92 fl oz 24 5 hornworms, leafhoppers, 3 Do not apply more than 0.36 Ib ai per
thri) leafminers(1), plant bugs,
thrin) acre per season.
southern armyworm(2),
southern a, (3)Does not control western flower
stink bugs, thrips(3),
tomato fruitworm, tomato
pinworm,whiteflies(1), yel-
lowstriped armyworm(2)


Xentari DF
(Bacillus thuringi-
ensis subspecies
aizawai)


0.5-2 Ib


caterpillars


11B1


Treat when larvae are young.Thor-
ough coverage is essential. May be
used in the greenhouse. Can be used
in organic production. OMRI-listed2.


DI I I S LL C B I UIS SL S


5 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS













'MOA CODE LEGEND
Mode of Action codes for vegetable pest insec-
ticides from the Insecticide Resistance Action
Committee (IRAC) Mode of Action
Classification v.5.2 September 2006.

1A.Acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, Carba-
mates

1 B.Acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, Organo-
phosphates

2A.GABA-gated chloride channel antagonists

3. Sodium channel modulators

4A.NicotinicAcetylcholine receptor agonists/
antagonists, Neonicotinoids

5.Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptor agonists (not
group 4)

6.Chloride channel activators

7A.Juvenile hormone mimics,Juvenile hor-
mone analogues

7C.Juvenile hormone mimics, Pyriproxifen

9A.Compounds of unknown or non-selective
mode of action (selective feeding blockers),
Cryolite

9B. Compounds of unknown or non-selective
mode of action (selective feeding blockers),
Pymetrozine

9C.Compounds of unknown or non-selective
mode of action (flonicamid)

11 B1.Microbial disruptors of insect midgut
membranes, B.t.var aizawai

11 B2. Microbial disruptors of insect midgut
membranes, B.t.var kurstaki

12B.Inhibitors of oxidative phosphorylation,
disruptors of ATP formation, Organotin miticide

15.Inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis, type 0,
Lepidopteran

16. Inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis, type 1,
Homopteran

17.Molting disrupter, Dipteran

18A.Ecdysone agonist/disruptor (methoxyfe-
nozide,tebufenozide)

18B.Ecdysone agonist/disruptor azadirachtinn)

20.Site II electron transport inhibitors

21.Site I electron transport inhibitors

22.Voltage-dependent sodium channel blocker

23.Inhibitors of lipid biosynthesis

25.Neuronal inhibitors

2 OMRI listed: Listed by the Organic Materials
Review Institute for use in organic production.

* Restricted Use Only


NEMATICIDES REGISTERED

FOR USE ON FLORIDA TOMATO

Joseph W. Noling, Extension Nematology, UF/IFAS, Citrus
Research & Education Center, Lake Alfred, jnoling@ufl.edu


ROW APPLICATION (6' ROW SPACING 36" BED)4
PRODUCT BROADCAST RECOMMENDED CHISELS RATE/1000
(RATE) CHISEL SPACING (PER ROW) RATE/ACRE FT/CHISEL

FUMIGANT NEMATICIDES

METHYL BROMIDE" 67-33 225-375 LB 12" 3 112-187 LB 5.1-8.6 LB

METHYL BROMIDE13 50-50 300-480 LB 12" 3 150-240 LB 6.8-11.0 LB

CHLOROPICRIN1 300-500 LB 12" 3 150-250 LB 6.9-11.5 LB

TELONE 112 9-12 GAL 12" 3 4.5-9.0 GAL 26-53 FL OZ

TELONE C-17 10.8-17.1 GAL 12" 3 5.4-8.5 GAL 31.8-50.2 FL OZ

TELONE C-35 13-20.5 GAL 12" 3 6.5-13 GAL 22-45.4 FL OZ

METHAM SODIUM 50-75 GAL 5" 6 25-37.5 GAL 56-111 FL OZ

NON FUMIGANT NEMATICIDES

VYDATE L TREAT SOIL BEFORE OR AT PLANTING WITH ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NEMATICIDE OR A VYDATE
TRANSPLANT WATER DRENCH FOLLOWED BY VYDATE FOLIAR SPRAYS AT 7 14 DAY INTERVALS THROUGH THE
SEASON; DO NOT APPLY WITHIN 7 DAYS OF HARVEST; REFER TO DIRECTIONS IN APPROPRIATE "STATE LABELS",
WHICH MUST BE IN THE HAND OF THE USER WHEN APPLYING PESTICIDES UNDER STATE REGISTRATIONS.


If treated area is tarped with impermeable
mulch, dosage may be reduced by50%.
2The manufacturer of Telone II, Telone C 17,
and Telone C-35 has restricted use only on soils
that have a relatively shallow hardpan or soil
layer restrictive to downward water movement
(such as a spodic horizon) within six feet of the
ground surface and are capable of support-
ing seepage irrigation regardless of irrigation
method employed. Crop use of Telone products
do not apply to the Homestead, Dade county
production regions of south Florida. Higher
label application rates are possible for fields with
cyst-forming nematodes. Consult manufactur-
ers label for personal protective equipment and
other use restrictions which might apply.
3 As a grandfather clause, it is stillpossible to
continue to use methyl bromide on anyprevious
labeled crop as long as the methyl bromide
used comes from existing supplies produced
prior to January 1, 2005. A critical use exemption
(CUE) for continuing use of methyl bromide for
tomato, pepper, eggplant and strawberry has
been awarded for calendar years 2005 through
2008. Specific, certified uses and labeling require-
ments for CUE acquired methyl bromide must
be satisfied prior to grower purchase and use in


these crops. Product formulations are subject to
change and availability.
4Rate/acre estimated for row treatments to
help determine the approximate amounts of
chemical needed per acre of field. If rows are
closer, more chemical will be needed per acre; if
wider, less. Reduced rates are possible with use of
gas impermeable mulches.
Rates are believed to be correct for products
listed when applied to mineral soils. Higher rates
may be required for muck (organic) soils. Grow-
ers have the final responsibility to guarantee
that each product is used in a manner consistent
with the label. The information was compiled
by the author as of July 7,2008 as a reference
for the commercial Florida tomato grower. The
mentioning of a chemical or proprietary product
in this publication does not constitute a written
recommendation or an endorsement for its use
by the University of Florida, Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences, and does not imply its
approval to the exclusion of other products that
may be suitable. Products mentioned in this pub-
lication are subject to changing Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) rules, regulations, and
restrictions. Additional products may become
available or approved for use.


2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS M


_W___







NOTES


E 2008 TOMATO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS




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