Front Cover
 Critical issues for the tomato...
 Results of nitrogen BMP tomato...
 Recent developments and release...
 Western flower thrips: on...
 Got gas? Keep it under wraps: soil...
 Whitefly resistance update
 Small viruses that cause big problems...
 Tomato varieties for Florida
 Water management for tomato
 Fertilizer and nutrient management...
 Update and outlook for Florida's...
 Weed control in tomato
 Tomato fungicides and other disease...
 Selected insecticides approved...
 Nematicides registered for use...

Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089451/00005
 Material Information
Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings 2007
Series Title: Florida Tomato Institute proceedings
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Whidden, Alicia ( Compiler )
Gilreath, Phyllis ( Compiler )
Simonne, Eric ( Compiler )
Affiliation: University of Florida -- Seffner -- Hillsborough County Extension Service
University of Florida -- Palmetto -- Manatee County Extenion Service
University of Florida -- Horticultural Sciences Department
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research and Education Center. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Wimauma, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089451
Volume ID: VID00005
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

02007%20Final%20TOMATO%20PROCEEDINGS_4C%20(2) ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Critical issues for the tomato industry: preventing a rapid postharvest breakdown of fruit
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Results of nitrogen BMP tomato trials for the 2006-2007 season
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Recent developments and release outlook from the University of Florida tomato breeding program
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Western flower thrips: on the move?
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Got gas? Keep it under wraps: soil fumigation options for tomatoes
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Whitefly resistance update
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Small viruses that cause big problems in tomato
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Tomato varieties for Florida
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Water management for tomato
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Fertilizer and nutrient management for tomato
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Update and outlook for Florida's BMP program for vegetable crops
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Weed control in tomato
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Tomato fungicides and other disease management products
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Selected insecticides approved for use on insects attacking tomatoes
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Nematicides registered for use on Florida tomato
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
Full Text



,S P MR5... .



Compiled by:
t .Alicia Whidden, UF/IFAS, Hillsborough County Extension Service, Seffndr
P lis Gilreath, UF/IFAS, Manatee County Extension Service, Palmetto
ErfAibimnonne, UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville
-: ] ... ...




r; r.li
:"~~ ;, iiZ:l:i;-
::....1. i;i
c). :II







RitzCarton Naples,Florida September5,2007 PRO 524

Moderator: Alicia Whidden, Hillsborough County Extension Service, Seffner
9:00 Welcome Joan Dusky, Associate Dean & Professor, UF/IFAS, Gainesville

9:10 State of the Industry Reggie Brown, Florida Tomato Committee, Maitland

9:20 CUE and Fumigant Assessment Update Mike Aerts, FFVA, Maitland

9:40 Critical Issues for the Tomato Industry: Preventing a Rapid Postharvest Breakdown of Fruit Jerry Bartz,
Gainesville PAGE 4

9:50 Food Safety Update and TGAP Program Martha Roberts, UF/IFAS,Tallahassee

10:20 Results of Latest BMP Trials Monica Ozores-Hampton, UF/IFAS, SWFREC, Immokalee PAGE 8

10:50 Recent Developments and Release Outlook from the University of Florida Tomato Breeding Program Jay
Scott, UF/IFAS, GCREC, Balm PAGE 13

11:10 Western Flower Thrips: on the Move? Joe Funderburk, UF/IFAS, NFREC,Quincy PAGE 16

11:30 Lunch and Visit Information Cafe

Moderator: Phyllis Gilreath, Manatee County Extension Service, Palmetto
1:00 Got Gas? Keep it Under Wraps Jim Gilreath, PhytoServices, Myakka City PAGE 20

1:20 Whitefly Resistance Update Dave Schuster, UF/IFAS, GCREC, Balm PAGE 23

1:40 Small Viruses That Cause Big Problems in Tomatoes Jane Polston, UF/IFAS, Gainesville PAGE 29

2:00 Industry New Product Updates TBA

3:00 Adjourn and Visit Information Cafe


Tomato Varieties for Florida Stephen M. Olson, UF, NFREC, Quincy, PAGE 30
Water Management for Tomatoes Eric. H. Simonne, Horticultural Sciences Dept., UF, Gainesville, PAGE 34
Fertilizer and Nutrient Management for Tomatoes Eric H. Simonne, Horticultural Sciences Dept., UF,Gainesville, PAGE 38
Update and Outlookfor 2007 of Florida's BMP Program for Vegetable Crops, Aparna Gazula and Eric Simonne, UF/
IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept.,Gainesville and Brian Boman, UF/IFAS, IRREC, Ft. Pierce PAGE 43
Weed Control in Tomato William H. Stall, Horticultural Sciences Dept., UF,Gainesville, PAGE 52
Tomato Fungicides and Other Disease Management Products -Tim Momol and Laura Ritchie, UF, NFREC, Quincy, PAGE 54
Selected Insecticides Approved for Use on Insects Attacking Tomatoes Susan E.Webb, Entomology and Nematology
Dept., UF, Gainesville, PAGE 57
Nematicides Registered for Use on Florida Tomatoes J.W. Noling, UF, CREC, Lake Alfred, PAGE 63





J. A. Bartz', S. A. Sargent2 and P. R. Gilreath3
1UF/IFAS, Plant Pathology Dept., Gainesville, softbart@ufl.edu
2UF/IFAS, Horticultural Sciences Dept., Gainesville, sasa@ufl.edu
3UF/IFAS, Manatee County Extension Service, Palmetto, phyllisg@ufl.edu

What is rapid fruit breakdown?
Rapidly growing lesions become visible
within 12 to 18 hours after harvest and
continue to develop among packed fruit
in the ripening room. The lesions produce
large amounts of fluid leading to wet
patches appearing on the exterior of the
cartons and the spread of decay within the
box. Affected fruit are out-of-grade either
prior to shipment or upon arrival at the

Severe outbreaks of postharvest
decay have occurred sporadically in
the Florida and eastern U.S. tomato
production areas for the past several
years. During the summer of 2006, the
problem was persistent in the produc-
tion areas of Virginia and Maryland. In
October, extensive losses occurred at the
beginning of the harvest season in north
Florida but disappeared within a few
days. The decay losses feature a rapid
breakdown of green fruit where lesions
can appear within 18 hours of harvest.
At the time ripening rooms are opened,
packers observe lesions on fruit surfaces
along with a release of fluids. Wet spots
may appear on the lower part of cartons
where the fluid has leak.
Growers suggest that a condition called
"tender fruit" leads to decay losses. The
term "tender fruit" does not have a scien-
tific definition, but to growers it means
enhanced bruising during harvest. In
1964, R. S. Cox observed a field disorder,
shoulder pox, on tomatoes produced in
the lower east coast of Florida, which he
attributed to the combination of tender
fruit, cool moist weather and the applica-
tion of certain pesticides. However, rapid

fruit breakdown has usually occurred dur-
ing or after warm, moist weather, which is
also a likely promoter of fruit tenderness.
A quick change in the weather from very
warm, dry conditions to cooler tempera-
tures featuring heavy fogs has also been
associated with tender fruit. Conditions
leading to tender fruit likely coincide with
wet fields and moist plant canopies. This
wetness promotes an increase in the pop-
ulations of decay pathogens on the plants,
and insect wounds and other types of in-
juries lead to infections. Moisture on fruit
at the time of harvest readily disperses
the pathogens to wounds. The common
recommendation for avoiding decay is-
sues associated with wet fields is "don't
harvest if the plants have free moisture on
them." However, at times, this may not be
a viable option for growers either due to
price, crop maturity or labor issues.
The following guide is intended as a
quick checklist of suggestions for mini-
mizing rapid breakdown of tomato fruit.
This breakdown is normally caused by two
postharvest diseases, bacterial soft rot and
sour rot. Key symptoms and causes about
each type of disease follow.

* Are found in all humid growing areas
and exist in highest populations on
plants and in surface water.
* May cause lesions at injuries on stems
or petioles if the canopy remains wet
for several days.
* Are dispersed to tomato fruit via rain
splash, storms, insects, equipment, and
the hands of field crews during harvest.
* Infect fruit equally well at any stage of
maturity or ripeness.

* Cannot cause decay on healthy tissue
they enter via wounds or are forced
into fruit by water.
* Rapidly disintegrate fruit tissues and
usually produce cloudy fluids and an
unpleasant aroma.
* Their infection first becomes visible as a
water-soaking of wounds or portions of
wounds including cuticle cracks, surface
cracks, stem punctures, insect wounds,
abrasions, etc.
* If internalized (forced into the fruit),
cause lesions beside or beneath the
stem scar, the attached stem (fruit still
on plant) or beneath the blossom-end
scar (Figs. 1-3).
* Become internalized when fruit are
harvested wet (wet stem scars absorb
bacteria), exposed to rainfall after har-
vest or submerged too long or deeply in
dump tank water.
* A white yeast-like fungus may grow
over the surface of the bacterial soft rot
lesions (see sour rot section below).
* Decaying fruit collapse within a few
days after disease onset, depending on
the storage temperature.
* The contact of healthy fruit with the
cloudy fluid from decaying fruit will
spread the disease among packed fruit
in cartons or among fruit still on the
* Initial water soaking and disintegration
of tissues can become visible within 12
h of inoculation, particularly among
fruit stored at higher temperatures
* The disease is favored by moist condi-
tions (dry wounds may remain free of
disease for several days) and develops
most rapidly at 77 to 97F.
* Onset of the disease is delayed up to

3 days among fruit stored at 70"F as
compared with those stored at 86"F.

* Include certain Geotrichum species as
well as bacteria that produce lactic acid.
* Have been isolated from the soil, plant
debris, decaying tissues, garbage, and
sewage as well as from the canopies of
healthy plants (although the latter had
only small populations).
* Are dispersed from sources to tomato
fruit by splashing rainfall, field crews,
equipment, and insects -- including
fruit flies and those causing surface in-
* Cannot cause fruit decay unless they
get into wounds or inside fruit (see soft
rot bacteria for a description of internal
* Initial symptoms appear as a water-
soaking of tissues in or around the edg-
es of wounds including the stem scar,
open blossom-end pore or scar, cuticle
cracks, etc. (Figs. 4-6).
* Lesions do not enlarge as rapidly as
those produced by soft rot bacteria.
* The minimum interval between inocu-
lation of wounds and the beginning of
water soaking is unclear but appears to
take longer than soft rot.
* The liquid seeping out of sour rot le-
sions is generally clear and has a dis-
tinctive sour odor or no odor at all.
* Lesions usually become covered by a
white yeast-like growth within 24 hours
of exposure to air (Figs. 4 & 5).
* Warm moist conditions favor disease
development (optimum = 86F).
* Green tomatoes have been described

as being resistant to sour rot except if
weakened by chilling injury. With ex-
posure to air, sour rot lesions on tender
green fruit (Fig. 7) often become ar-
rested (Fig. 8). However, red tomatoes
are susceptible. The susceptibility of
green fruit being gassed with ethylene,
bruised green fruit or tender green
Fruit is currently being investigated.
* Cracks in the fruit surface, including
rain checks (Fig. 5) and cuticle cracks,
may lead to infection particularly under
moist conditions.
* It is unclear if sour rot infects the peti-
oles, stems or leaves of the fruit, but
increased populations of lactic acid bac-
teria have been associated with humid
weather in the field.

* Field practices. Provisions should be
made for insuring adequate drainage,
particularly if unsettled weather might
occur during the production season.
* Recommended disease and insect con-
trol practices should be used.
* If at all possible, fruit should not be
harvested if the plants are wet, even
if there are only a few droplets of free
moisture on or at the edges of leaves
as this will lead to the spread of decay
pathogens among the fruit. Figs. 9 &
10 illustrate that wet stem scars rapidly
internalize decay pathogens that con-
tact the scar surface.
* Clean and disinfect all harvest contain-
ers prior to first harvest and periodically
during the harvest season. Some packers
clean and sanitize bins after each use.
* Immediately clean and disinfect any
container that has been in contact with

Figure 1. Bacterial soft rot internal
lesion. Bacteria entered into fruit under
the stem attachment Credits: S. R. Bartz

Figure 2. Bacterial soft rot internal le-
sion. Bacteria entered through blossom-
end scar of fruit. Credits: S. R. Bartz

Figure 3. Bacterial soft rot internal le-
sions. Internal view of bacterial soft rot
that began at blossom and stem ends of
fruit. Credits: S. R. Bartz


Figure 4. Rain check. Dark checked ar-
eas are a severe form of cuticle cracking
that develops in wet weather. The cracks
enable attack by postharvest pathogens.
Credits: M.J. Mahovic

Figure 5. Sour rot from natural out-
break. Dark rough areas are rain checks.
Fruit (upper right) has surface split-
ting due to decay spread in the carton.
Credits: M.J. Mahovic

decayed fruit.
* Teach harvest crews to avoid handling
or picking partially decayed fruit.
* Require harvest crews to wear gloves so
that the glove surfaces can be washed
in chlorinated water immediately after
encounters with decaying fruit, as well
as periodically during the day (lunch
breaks, etc.).
* Avoid mechanically injuring fruit dur-
ing harvest and avoid excessive load
shifting during transport to the pack-
* Bins or gondolas of harvested tomatoes
should not be exposed to rainfall or
suffer prolonged exposure to direct sun-
light; loads hauled from fields to distant
packinghouses should be covered with a
tarpaulin (Figs 9 & 10).
* Postharvest practices. The water in
dump tanks and flumes should contain
a minimum of 150 ppm free chlorine
at pH 6.5 to 7.5 at the point where the
fruit enter the water.
* Containers of chlorine products must
be kept out of direct sunlight (heating
causes a rapid loss of free chlorine) and
should be stored in a cool, well-venti-
lated location.

* Flumes must be designed to avoid
"dead" pockets, where fruit float in an
eddy current are not floated promptly
to the packing line elevator.
* Fruit should not be allowed to remain
in the water more than 2 minutes.
* The water can be warmed 5 to 10 de-
grees above the fruit temperature to
improve fruit handling and drying.
* The spray rinse on the fruit exiting
the flume should contain some free
chlorine so that the fruit carry active
disinfectant down the moist part of the
packing line.
* At this time it is not recommended
to replace the chlorine spray with an
organic acid or other natural product-
based material because the efficacy of
these products for preventing biofilm
development (sliminess on sponge
beds or other equipment) is unknown.
Additionally, the ability of these prod-
ucts to control lactic acid bacteria or

Figure 8. Arrested sour rot lesions.
Sour rot lesions in green fruit may be-
come arrested when exposed to air.The
decay will resume development as the
fruit ripens. Credits: M.J.Mahovic

Figure 6. Sour rot internal lesions Figure 7. Sour rot infection in green
from natural outbreak. Rough fruit be- tomato involves high water content. An
came infected through blossom end apparent bruise with infection occurring
scars and wounds. Tissues appear to be at tiny cracks in the fruit surface is evi-
pickled with only a little evidence of fun- dence that this fruit is tender, which like-
gal development at the surface. Credits: ly means high water content. Credits: M.
P.R.Gilreath J. Mahovic

It r0

/ Er


4 :

the sour rot yeast (two of the decay
agents isolated from decaying fruit) is
* All injured tomatoes must be culled
prior to packing.
* The packed fruit should be promptly
cooled to 70F or less, particularly
when the fruit appear to be tender and
field conditions and temperatures favor
decay development. Stacked pallets
should be placed so as to ensure that all
boxes are exposed to the circulating air
in the gas room.
* If a harvest must be scheduled while
the plants are wet or the fruit are
tender, the following will reduce the
decay risk:
* Picking containers of fruit must be
gently emptied into field bins or gon-
dolas as wet and/or tender fruit are
prone to bruising and abrasions that
lead to infection.
* Fruit must be gently hauled from field
to packinghouse speeding over rough
roads can cause excessive fruit bouncing
and vibration, which leads to bruising
* Rapidly removing field heat will slow
decay development. Tomatoes cooled to

68F or lower by forced-air cooling are
unlikely to develop lesions quickly. The
moving air dries moisture from stem
scars and fruit surfaces, which decreases
the chances for infection.
* Holding bins of tender fruit overnight
to facilitate the disappearance of minor
bruises is likely to favor growth of de-
cay pathogens if the pulp temperature
remains high (>85"F). However, if the
fruit are cool (< 70F), the overnight
holding period should decrease decay
risks (dry wounds and stem scars aren't
as susceptible as wet ones).
* People responsible for culling fruit on
the packing line must "cull tight" and
remove all injured fruit, even those with
minor surface cracks.
* Chlorine concentrations in dump tanks
and flumes must be monitored carefully,
and should not be excessive. Higher chlo-
rine concentrations will not control decay
any better than recommended levels.
* Bins of fruit harvested from wet fields
contain leaves and other debris and the
fruit will appear "grimy." Such loads
have an unusually high chlorine de-
mand and quickly depress active chlo-
rine levels in the dump tank and flume.

* Maintaining adequate free chlorine
concentration and pH in dump tank
water during these periods requires
vigilance. Frequent free-chlorine mea-
surements are recommended, even
if an automated oxidation-reduction
measurement (ORP) system is in place.
With the latter, false readings may oc-
cur due to fouled electrodes or other
measurement problems.

The Growers IPM Guide for Florida
Tomato and Pepper Production. http://
ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/resources/success stories/

Identifying and Controlling
Postharvest Tomato Diseases in Florida.
EDIS publication HS866. http://edis.ifas.

Physiological, Nutritional and Other
Disorders ofTomato Fruit. EDIS
Publication HS-954. http://edis.ifas.ufl.

Figure 9. Fruit picked during a shower
and then dye added to wet stem scar.The
dye was washed off after 2 minutes and
the fruit was sliced. Note the green dye
moving down vascular tissues from the
stem scar (top). Credits: S. R. Bartz

Figure 10. Bacterial soft rot internal
lesion. Water congested stem scar, such
as was present in Figure 9, eliminated
protection provided by a dry stem scar
and enabled bacteria to enter fruit by
capillary forces. Credits: S. R. Bartz



FOR THE 2006-2007 SEASON

Monica Ozores-Hampton1, Eric Simonne2, Eugene McAvoy3, Fritz Rokal, Pam Roberts',
Phil Stansly', Sanjay Shukla1, Kent Cushman' Morgan Kelly' Tom Obreza4, Phyllis Gilreath5, Darrin Parmenter6

'University ofFlorida/IFAS, SWFREC, Immokalee, FL. 2University ofFlorida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL.
3Hendry County Extension Service. 4University ofFlorida, Soil and Water Science Department, Gainesville, FL.
sManatee County Extension Service, 6Palm Beach County Extension Service.

Best management practices (BMPs) for
Florida vegetable crops are a combination
of nonstructural and structural practices
which have been determined to be effec-
tive for reducing or preventing pollutant
load in target watersheds. There are 49
BMPs in the Florida BMP manual (www.
floridaagwaterpolicy.com) including an
"Optimum fertilization management
and application" section that adopts the
University of Florida (UF/IFAS) N rate
recommendations. Hence, N fertilizer
recommendations and practices should
reflect the different growing seasons, soil
types, and irrigation systems used for
tomato production. In partnership with
tomato growers, the objectives of this
project are to evaluate N fertilizer rate ef-
fects on plant growth, petiole N sap, fruit
yield, and disease incidence. Data were
subjected to ANOVA,T-test and Duncan
Multiple Range Test as well as regression
analysis. In the 2006-07 growing season,
thirteen on-farm trials were conducted in
the fall, winter and spring with N rates
ranging from 200 to 330 lb/acre. Each
trial included the UF-IFAS recommend-
ed rate and at least one grower-defined
rate, except the multiple N rate study with
eight N rates from 20 to 420 lb/acre at 60
lb/acre increments. Routine sap NO3-N
and K were above published sufficiency
ranges in all the trials and seasons. In
this dry season, IFAS and grower rates
produced significant higher yield in first
harvest of extra-large tomatoes and total
yields in 1 and 2 out of 13 trials, respec-
tively. The trend indicated an increase in
total yield and first harvest extra-large
and total extra-large fruit from 20 to 240
lb/acre N, but a plateau with higher rates
of N. These results show that it may be

possible to reduce N rates especially when
the risk of rainfall is low (winter, spring
and dry year), or when only two harvests
are expected (late spring). Differences in
yield under current fertilizer prices ($40
per 100 lb/acre of N) were much lower
than traditional ANOVA, t-test and
Duncan Multiple Range Test could detect
(less than 300 boxes/acre of 25 lb box of
tomato) due to the variability of weather
conditions and the interaction with sea-
sons and year. Together the cooperating
farms represented 16,000 acres (80%) of
staked tomato production in southern and
eastern Florida and 310 acres under BMP

Seventy percent of Florida tomato
production is in the South Florida coun-
ties of Collier, Manatee and Palm Beach
with approximately 41,200 acres in 2006
(NASS, 2006). Tomatoes are grown
primarily in sandy soils. These crops are
mostly grown in South Florida in the
fall, winter or spring growing seasons
under intensive irrigation and fertilizer
management. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer
management has become an issue of
environmental concern for Florida veg-
etable growers following the adoption by
the State of Florida of vegetable BMPs
[Best Management Practices, (www.flori-
daagwaterpolicy.com)]. BMPs empha-
size the need to better manage fertilizer,
increase fertilizer efficiency, and reduce
N loss to the environment. The optimum
fertilization management and applica-
tion section of the manual incorporates
University of Florida (UF/IFAS) N rate
recommendations. he most common
method for producing tomato in South
Florida is to use seepage-irrigation to-

gether with fumigated raised beds with
polyethylene mulch. Therefore, nutrient
management is tied to this unique irriga-
tion system. Because the plastic mulch
covers the soil surface, all fertilizers (N, P,
K, and micronutrients) are applied pre-
plant. Typically, fertilizer is applied as a
"bottom mix" (or "cold mix") and a "top
mix" (or "hot mix"). All the P and micro-
nutrients, and 20% to 30% of the N and K
are applied broadcast and incorporated in
the bed as the bottom mix. The remain-
ing N and K are applied in 1 or 2 grooves
made on the top of the bed. Fertilizer in
the "top mix" is slowly solubilized as the
water moves up by capillarity (Olson et
al., 2006a and b). While this system is
simple and well established, growers often
use N fertilizer rates above the UF/IFAS
recommended rate because N may be lost
by leaching or denitrification (Cockx and
Simonne, 2003), but mostly as an inex-
pensive insurance if the market conditions
remain favorable resulting in a longer-
than-expected harvest season. When
soluble fertilizers are leached by excessive
rainfall (a leaching rainfall is defined as 3
inches of rain in 3 days or 4 inches in 7
days), UF-IFAS recommendations (Olson
et al., 2006a and b) and vegetable BMPs
(BMP 331, p.96 of the BMP manual for
vegetable and agronomic crops) allow for
a supplemental application (per planted
acre basis) of 30 lbs of N and 20 lbs of
K20. Supplemental fertilizer applica-
tions should be made after a leaching rain,
not before or preventively. While drip
irrigation allows for easy in-season fertil-
izer application, crops grown with plastic
mulch and seepage irrigation require a
down-the-row application of fertilizer,
done either manually or using a fertilizer
wheel increasing the production cost.

Table 1. Experiment number, irrigation type, N rates evaluated, plot size, planting date,and number of harvests in the 2006-07
N management trials in southwestern and eastern Florida.
Trial Location Season Irrigation N rate (Ib/acre)z Experiment Planting Number of
number type size (acres) date harvest
1 Collier Fall Seepage 200 and 260 21 (CRD) Aug 31 3
2 Collier Winter Drip 200 and 300 35 Oct 16 3
3 Collier Winter Seepage 200,250,200+Cy 1 (CRD) Oct 17 3
4 Collier Winter Seepage 200 and 320 3 (CRD) Oct 26 3
5 Collier Winter Seepage 200 and 260 21 (CRD) Nov15 3
6 Collier Winter Drip 200 and 300 50 Nov27 3
7x Palm Beach Winter Seepage 200 and 300 5.5 (CRD) Nov21 3
8x Palm Beach Winter Seepage 200 and 300 5.5 (CRD) Nov24 3
9 Collier Spring Seepage 200 and 260 18(CRD) Feb 12 3
10 Manatee Spring Seepage 20 to 420 0.4 (CRD) Feb 15 3
11 Manatee Spring Drip 225 and 330 19 Feb 19 3
12 Manatee Spring Drip 225 and 330 19 Feb 19 3
13 Manatee Spring Drip 225 and 330 13 Feb 19 3
Total 310-

Sbased on 6-ft spacing
C C = Yard Waste compost 12 tons/acre
x25 % of the total N slow release fertilizer in the hot-mix

BMP education is a slow process that
requires the reconciliation of the rigor
of science with the reality of vegetable
production today (Simonne and Ozores-
Hampton, 2006; Cantliffe et al., 2006).
However, when BMP education is based
on trust and a mutual commitment to the
success of the project, a win-win situation
develops where productivity, profitability,
and environmental impact are integrated.
Since the first 3 x 100-ft long bed dem-
onstrations conducted in the 2003-2004
season by G. McAvoy and E. Simonne, a
lot of trust has been developed between
UF-IFAS, FDACS, and South Florida
growers on nutrient management issues.
This is best shown by the number and size
of trials conducted in 2006-2007 (mul-
tiple rate trials, randomization and repli-
cation of the treatments, and 3-acre plots;
Ozores-Hampton et al., 2006).
A 3-year project was initiated in south-
west Florida in 2004-05 to 1) establish
partnerships with selected tomato growers
to evaluate the effects of N fertilization
in commercial fields; 2) evaluate the ef-
fect of N fertilizer rate on plant growth,
nutritional status, yield, disease and pest
incidences, and crop market value; 3) de-
termine the optimum N rate for tomato
production; and 4) evaluate the cost ef-
fectiveness of selected N application rates.
This paper reports the results of the 3rd

year of this project and focuses on objec-
tives (1) and (2).

We conducted thirteen trials at five
commercial farms in multiple locations
and seasons (fall, winter and spring) dur-
ing the 2006-2007 seasons (Table 1).
Together the cooperating farms repre-
sented 16,000 acres (80%) of staked to-
mato production in southern and eastern
Florida. Soils in the area have a sandy
surface layer that is prone to leaching
mostly Immokalee and EauGallie fine
sand. Growing seasons are defined as fall
with planting dates from 1 August to 15
Oct., winter from 15 Oct. to 15 Dec. and
spring from 15 Dec. to 1 Feb. These sea-
sons differ in rainfall patterns, tempera-
tures and day length. For example, fall
may bring hurricanes, leaching rains, and

wide-ranging temperatures; winter brings
cool temperatures and unpredictable
freezes accompanying cold fronts; spring
is typically dry with temperatures cool
at the start and warm or hot at the end.
Typical growing season lengths are 18,20,
and 16 weeks for fall winter and spring,
respectively. Therefore, eight trials were
done with seepage, two with drip and
three with a combination seepage/drip
irrigation. One trial was conducted in fall
2006, nine in the winter (2006-07) and
four in spring 2007. Treatments consisted
of N fertilizer rates ranging from 200 to
330 lb/acre N applied to seepage-irrigated
tomatoes in a completely randomized ex-
perimental design with three replications
(Table 1), except the multiple N rate study
with eight N rates from 20 to 420 lb/acre
at 60 lb/acre increments in a completely
randomized block experimental design

Table 2. Initial multiple N fertilizer treatments for seepage irrigated tomatoes
grown during spring 2007, Manatee County.
Treatments Fertilizer Bottom Fertilizer Hot mix Fertilizer Total N
mix (Ib N/acre) (Ib N/acre) Rate (Ib N/acre)
1 20 0 20
2 20 40 60
3 20 100 120
4 20 160 180
5 20 220 240
6 20 280 300
7 20 340 360
8 20 400 420

Table 3. Summary of rainfall, number of leaching rain events and possible and applied supplemental N during
2006-07 tomato season.
Trial Season Number of days Location Total rainfall Number of Possiblez and applied
from planting to (inches) leaching supplemental N
last harvest rainfalls (Ib/acre)
1 Fall 188 Collier 4.89 0 0/0
2 Winter 136 Collier 2.97 0 0/0
3 Winter 141 Collier 1.26 0 0/0
4 Winter 112 Collier 1.26 0 0/0
5 Winter 128 Collier 0.53 0 0/0
6 Winter 135 Collier 2.25 0 0/0
7 Winter 122 Palm Beach 13.37 1 30/0
8 Winter 120 Palm Beach 13.37 1 30/0
9 Spring 108 Collier 1.83 0 0/0
10 Spring 117 Manatee 10.38 1 30/0
11 Spring 113 Manatee 9.43 1 30/0
12 Spring 113 Manatee 9.43 1 30/0
13 Spring 113 Manatee 9.43 1 30/0
z UF-IFAS supplemental fertilizer application is allowed after a leaching rain defined as 3 inches in 3 days or 4 inches in 7 days for to-
matoes (Olson etal., 2005)

Figure 1. Effect of multiple N rates (trial 10) on N03-N sap on tomato during season
N-NO Sap

Figure 2. Effect of multiple N rates (trial 10) on K-sap on tomato during season

K Sap

. o00

with four replications (Table 2). In drip-
irrigated fields, there were two individual
zones representing IFAS and grower N
rates. At the seepage-irrigated fields, the
UF-IFAS rates were achieved by chang-
ing the rate or composition of the hot mix
and by applying custom-made blends to
keep P, K and micronutrient rates con-
stant. Hot-mix N and K fertilizer sources
were water soluble nutrients, except trials
7 and 8 with a 25% slow release fertilizer.
The trials represented diverse growing
conditions found in Southwest and East
Florida, and also included different variet-
ies (mostly 'Florida 47' and 'Sebring'),
plant densities (in-row spacing of 18 to
26 inches between plants; 5 or 6 ft bed
centers), soil types (described above),
and farm sizes (700 to 5,000 acres).
Cooperators prepared beds, fumigated the
soil, applied bottom and hot mixes and
installed polyethylene mulch, transplant-
ed, pruned, staked, irrigated and provided
pest and disease control.

Data collection: Water table depth
was recorded bi-weekly throughout the
growing season. Beginning at first flower
buds and continuing until third harvest,
fresh petiole sap NO,-N and K concen-
trations were measured bi-weekly using
ion-specific meters (Cardi, Spectrum
Technologies, Inc., Plainfield, IL) (Olson
et al., 2005). Harvested plots were 15

S-2007 TOMAO 120 -1PROC 0






360 420 IFAS

Tomato Yields Second Harvest
Season 2006-2007



0 1,000

S 500

J 1,200
S 1,000
0 800
" 400
S 200

0 100 200 300 400 500
N Rate (Iblacre)

Tomato Yields Third Harvest
Season 2006-2007

0 100 200 300 400 500
N Rate (Iblacre)

Tomato Yields Total Harvest
Season 2006-2007



:S 2,000
. 1,000



First (boxes/acre)
N Rate
Ha XL L M Total
Trial Fall
1 200 and 260 ns ns IFAS ns
2 200 and 300 GROWER ns GROWER GROWER
3 200 0 ns IFAS IFAS ns
4 200 and 320 ns ns ns ns
5" 200 and 260 ns ns ns ns
6 200 and 300 GROWER IFAS ns ns
7 200 and 300 ns ns ns ns
8 200 and 300 ns ns ns ns

9" 200 and 260 ns
11 225 and 330 ns
12 225 and 330 ns
13 225 and 330 ns

ns ns
ns ns
ns ns
ns ns

Second N Rate (boxes/acre)
Harvest XL L M Total
Trial Fall

1 200 and 260 ns ns ns ns
2 200 and 300 ns GROWER GROWER ns
3 200,250, ns ns ns ns
4 200 and 320 ns GROWER ns ns
5" 200 and 260 ns IFAS ns ns
6 200 and 300 ns ns IFAS ns
7 200 and 300 ns ns ns ns
8 200 and 300 ns ns ns ns
9" 200 and 260 ns ns ns ns
11 225 and 330 GROWER ns IFAS ns
12 225 and 330 ns ns ns ns
13 225 and 330 ns ns ns ns

z 25-lb tomatoes/box
Y XL = Extra-large (5x6 industry grade); L = Large (6x6); M =
Medium (6x7)
x C = Yard waste compost 12 tons/acre
growers, IfasSignificant and ns non-significant at P <0.01.
v Trials effected by TYLCV
Trial 10 not show in the tables.




Tomato Yields First Harvest
Season 2006-2007

J 2,500 AA A A
| 2,000 *Fall
o 1,500 mWinter
S1,000 ASpring
S500 -

0 100 200 300 400 500
N Rate (Iblacre)

O n




0 100 200 300 400 500
N Rate (Ib/acre)

I ___ ,___

to 22-ft long row segments of 10 plants.
They were clearly marked to prevent un-
scheduled harvest by commercial crews.
Marketable green and color tomatoes
were graded in the field according to
USDA specifications of number and
weight of extra-large (5x6), large (6x6),
and medium (6x7) fruit (USDA, 1997)
of green and color. Yield data were sub-
jected to analysis of variance (ANOVA)
mean separation using Duncan's Multiple
Range Test at the 5% level of significance
as well as non-parametric analysis tests
like binomial distribution and probability.

Weather conditions and supplemental
fertilizer applications. Overall, South
Florida was hot and dry throughout the
fall, and cool and dry during the win-
ter and spring of 2006-2007. Rainfall
recorded by the Florida Automated
Weather Network (FAWN) and growers
during the 2005-2006 season showed ac-
cumulations of 5, 0.5 to 13 and 10 inches
for fall, winter and spring, respectively
(Table 3). The IFAS tomato fertilizer
recommendation allows supplemental
N and K fertilizer applications in spe-
cific situations (Olson et al., 2006b), as
does the BMP manual (Simonne and
Hochmuth, 2003). Under this recom-
mendation, 30 lb/acre of N can be added
for each leaching rain event. Therefore,
using fall/winter/spring 2006-07 as an
example, a supplemental application of
30 lbs/acre of N fertilizer was permissible
in two trials (7 and 8) in Palm Beach and
four trials (10,11, 12 and 13) in Manatee
due to three leaching rains. No fertilizer
addition due to leaching rain was justi-
fied in the rest of the trials, so N fertilizer
application consisted of the base 200
lbs/acre rate only (Olson et al., 2005).
These results suggest that analysis and
prediction of leaching rain frequency and
timing would be valuable for Florida's
vegetable growing areas.
Irrigation management. The BMP
trial acreage was irrigated 80% by seepage
and 20% by drip systems. The water table
in the seepage-irrigated trials fluctuated
between about 16 to 20 inches deep and

tensiometer readings were between 4 and 8
kPa. In the drip-irrigated fields, water was
applied daily at a volume estimated from
the Weather Service Class A Pan evapora-
tion combined with a crop coefficient.

Plant nutritional status. Petiole sap
NO3-N concentrations were above the
UF-IFAS sufficiency threshold through-
out the season in all thirteen locations
and under all N treatments, except for the
lower N rates in the multiple N rate trials
(Figure 1). In general, in the multiple N
rates (trial 10) the higher N rates pro-
duced tomato sap NO,-N concentrations
that were greater compared to the lower
rates. Petiole sap K concentrations tended
to be above the UF-IFAS sufficiency
threshold during the season (Figure 2).

Yield response to N rates. In this dry
season, IFAS and higher N rate pro-
duced significantly higher yield in first
harvest of extra-large tomatoes (80% of
the total harvest) and total yields in 1
and 2 out of 13 trials [ Table 4 (P<0.05)],
respectively. In general, during the sea-
son when soluble fertilizer was used
there were between 90 to 300 boxes/acre
more in total yields with higher N rates,
although the differences were not signifi-
cant [Figure 3 (P<0.05)]. At the high-
est prices during the season of $23/box,
growers revenues would be $2,070 for 90
boxes/acre and $6,900 for 300 boxes/acre
to off-set $20 to $45 in cost of extra fer-
tilizer. Regression analysis of first and
total harvest extra-large yields and total
yields indicated a quadratic response to
the multiple N rates in trial 10 (Figure 3).
The trend indicated an increase in total
yield and first harvest extra-large and total
extra-large fruit from 20 to 240 lb/acre
N, but a plateau with higher rates of N.
There was no response to N treatment by
other tomato size categories at first, sec-
ond and third harvest or all harvests com-
bined. These results show that it may be
possible to reduce N rates especially when
the risk of rainfall is low (winter, spring
and dry year), or when only two harvests
are expected (late spring).
Grower participation in the project.

We would like to thank the growers
participating in the project for their in-
kind contribution and valuable inputs.
The BMP trials are a popular on-farm
research project where growers and IFAS
cooperators work as a team. Together
the cooperating farms represented 16,000
acres (80%) of staked tomato production
in southern and eastern Florida and 310
acres under BMP experiments.

2006-2007 SEASONS:

a. On farm trials continue to be a grower pre-
ferred research method for N BMP studies.
Extensive one-on-one grower contact was
an effective means to engage growers in
the implementation and outcome of this
research and demonstration project.
b. Petiole sap NO,-N and K concentra-
tions throughout the season tended to be
above the UF-IFAS sufficiency thresh-
old for all N treatments and seasons.
c. In this a dry season, IFAS and grower
rates produced significantly higher yield
in first harvest of extra-large tomatoes
and total yields in 1 and 2 out of 13 tri-
als [ Table 4 (P<0.05)], respectively. The
trend indicated an increase in total yield
and first harvest extra-large and total
extra-large fruit from 20 to 240 lb/acre
N, but a plateau with higher rates of N.
These results show that it may be pos-
sible to reduce N rates especially when
the risk of rainfall is low (winter, spring
and dry year), or when only two harvests
are expected (late spring).
d. Grower cooperator surveys during
2007 indicated that they would like to
continue two more years of N-BMP
studies for a total of five years of study.
The main areas of interest are: testing
grower vs. IFAS N rates under dry,
moderate rainfall and wet years; testing
N rates in different crops: cherry, grape,
plum, peppers, etc.; testing P, K and
minor elements with N; continue with
the economics of N; fall, winter and
spring studies with multiple N rates in
different farms; more drip and N; and
finally more data is needed in the early
fall with high rainfall.

Cantliffe, D., P. Gilreath, D. Haman,
C. Hutchinson, Y. Li, G. McAvoy, K.
Migliaccio, T. Olczyk, S. Olson, D.
Parmenter, B. Santos, S. Shukla, E.
Simonne, C. Stanley, and A. Whidden.
2006. Review of nutrient management
systems for Florida vegetable producers
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 119:240-248.

Cockx, E.M. and E.H. Simonne. 2003.
Reduction of the impact of fertilization
and irrigation on processes in the nitrogen
cycle in vegetable fields with BMPs. EDIS,
HS 948, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS201.

Olson, S.M., Maynard, D.N., G.J.
Hochmuth, C.S. Vavrina, W.M. Stall, T.A.
Kucharek, S.E. Webb, T.G. Taylor, S.A.
Smith, and E.H. Simonne. 2005.Tomato
production in Florida, EDIS, HS-739,

Olson, S.M., E.H. Simonne, W.M.
Stall, K.L. Pernezny, S.E. Webb, T.G.
Taylor, S.A. Smith, and D.M. Parmenter.
2006a. Pepper production in Florida, pp.
331-343 In: S.M. Olson and E. Simonne
(Eds.) 2006-2007 Vegetable Production
Handbook for Florida, Vance Pub.,
Lenexa, KS.

Olson, S.M., W.M. Stall, M.T. Momol,
S.E. Webb, T.G. Taylor, S.A. Smith, E.H.
Simonne, and E. McAvoy. 2006b. Tomato
production in Florida, pp. 407-426 In:
S.M. Olson and E. Simonne (Eds.) 2006-
2007 Vegetable Production Handbook for
Florida, Vance Pub., Lenexa, KS.

Simonne, E.H. and G.J. Hochmuth.
2003. Supplemental fertilizer application
for vegetable crops grown in Florida in
the BMP era, EDIS HS-906, http://edis.

Simonne, E. And M. Ozores-
Hampton. 2006. Challenges and op-
portunities for extension educators
involved in best management practices.
HortTechnology 16(3):403-407.

USDA. 1997. United States standards
for grades of fresh tomatoes. Agr. Markt.
Serv. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/

NSS, 2006. National Statistics Service.
http://www.nss.usda.gov. Incomplete




J.W. Scott1, S.M. Olson2, DJ Schuster', Yuanfu Ji1, and W. Klassen3

'University ofFlorida/IFAS, IFAS, GCREC, Wimauma, FL. 2University ofFlorida/IFAS,
NFREC, Quincy, FL. 3University of Florida/IFAS, TREC, Homestead,FL. jwsc@ufl.edu

When the senior author began as a
University of Florida tomato breeder in
1981 there was another tomato breeder
located at the Homestead station, Dr. Ray
Volin. Ray moved on to the private sec-
tor a few years later and is presently with
Western Seeds. By the time of this years'
Tomato Institute there will once again be
a second tomato breeder at the University
of Florida thanks to an endowment from
Paul Dimare. This position will be at the
Gulf Coast Research & Education Center
(GCREC) and has been filled by Dr.
Jeremy Edwards.Jeremy had a job on the
field crew at GCREC, later worked for

me in the late 1990's before starting grad-
uate school at Cornell. He is the first (and
may quite possibly be the last) person to
go from field crew to faculty at GCREC!
We at GCREC are excited at the skills
Dr. Edwards brings to the breeding pro-
gram and anticipate increased outputs in
the coming years. At present there is a lot
going on in the breeding program which
is beyond the scope of this report but
some of the major issues of interest to the
grower community will be covered.

This hybrid was released in October,
2006 and seed production is underway

and should be available from Florida
Foundation Seed Producers in fall 2007.1
can be contacted by those with interest in
growing this variety. It features high lyco-
pene due to the crimson (og) gene which
also provides a deep red interior fruit
color. Fla. 8153 has done well for overall
flavor in numerous taste panels over the
last four years. A marketing strategy for
this variety has yet to be worked out. It
was released as a field grown variety that
could be branded to compete with green-
house tomatoes in the supermarket. This
would require a vine-ripe harvest system
to insure proper maturity for optimal fla-
vor. Fla. 8153 has a determinate vine and

Table 1. Marketable and extra large fruit yield and cull percentage for selected to-
mato cultivars at Gulf Coast Research and Education Center,Wimauma, FL Spring 2007z.
Marketable yield (25 Ib cartons/A) Culls
Tomato hybrids Total Extra larqe (% by wt)

Fla. 8415
Fla. 8552
Crown Jewel
Florida 47
Fla. 8485
Solar Fire
Fla. 8413


1833 abY
2222 a
1436 bc
2202 a
1610 bc
1720 b
1448 bc

22 b
28 ab
23 b
26 ab
25 b
22 b
29 ab
24 b
30 ab
33 ab
24 b
28 ab
20 b
48 a

I Fruit harvested at vine ripe stage 3 times at weekly intervals.
Y Mean separation in columns by Duncan's multiple range test at P< 0.05.

firm fruit that have consistently graded
well (Tables 1,2). Fruit size is not as
large as tomato varieties typically grown
in Florida as seen at GCREC in spring
2007 (Table 1), but it had a good percent-
age of extra large fruit in the fall Quincy
variety trial (Table 2).

Fla. 8413 has looked good on grower
farms and in IFAS trials and is presently
being widely tested for possible release
perhaps in early 2008.This hybrid is a main
season hybrid with a strong vine that has
had a high percentage of large, market-
able fruit with good firmness. Besides the
normal disease resistances it may have re-
sistance to fusarium crown and root rot. We
have had some problems with the crown
rot disease screen and the "resistant" parent
may not actually be resistant. A test this fall
should determine this one way or the other.
The hybrid would have greater utility if it
does have crown rot resistance, but even if it
doesn't it has attributes that may merit re-
lease anyway. It did well in the spring 2007
trial at GCREC (Table 1). Flavor is good
although it did not come out particularly
good for overall flavor in a spring 2007 taste
panel (data not shown). At present no nega-
tive attributes have been seen in this hybrid


but further testing will be done to see if
there are any serious drawbacks.
Fla. 8485 is a crimson, heat-tolerant
hybrid that has performed well in recent
trials (Table 1). It also did well for overall
flavor in a spring 2007 taste panel (data
not shown). Since it has not been widely
tested considerably more testing is needed
before a decision can be made for release.
Florida still needs improved heat-tolerant
tomato varieties.
Dr. Jim Strobel was the University of
Florida tomato breeder at Homestead
before Ray Volin. He moved on to sev-
eral administrative positions including
President of Mississippi College for
Women before he retired a few years
ago. He is now doing some more tomato
breeding and we are cooperating on a
project primarily to develop a new joint-
less hybrid aimed at Dade County and
perhaps elsewhere in Florida. Several of
these were trialed at GCREC this spring
and performed well; they are designated
154, 144, 140, and 149 in Table 1. All of
them have the crimson gene so will be
high in lycopene. Flavor is also being em-
phasized in this material. Further testing
will be done especially in Dade County in
conjunction with Dr. Waldy Klassen.
In Table 1 also are two UF hybrids re-

sistant to spotted wilt Fla. 8367 and Fla.
8363. These are being tested for possible
release as well with primary testing in
North Florida.

This project has been ongoing since
1990 in cooperation with Entomologist
Dr.David Schuster. The focus is on utili-
zation of resistance genes from the wild
species Solanum chilense. We have devel-
oped tomato lines with genes from three
accessions.The resistances are inherited
additively meaning that for a hybrid to
have adequate resistance requires the
resistance to be bred into both parents.
Furthermore, each parent requires two
resistance genes and these factors increase
the difficulty of developing resistant
hybrids with horticultural attributes com-
parable to those of susceptible varieties
presently being grown in Florida. The
breeding process could be accelerated
dramatically if molecular markers tightly
linked to the resistance genes could be
identified and used for marker assisted
selection (MAS). This would allow for
two backcrosses to be made per year with-
out cumbersome inoculations and field
screening. At present with field screening,
only one backcross cycle can be made
every two years. Development of such
markers has been a goal of the program
for many years now. The intensive work
of Dr. Yuanfu Ji over the last three and
one-half years has made some progress in
making MAS a reality. Recently we have
identified a resistance gene designated
Ty-3 in lines derived from two accessions;
LA2779 and LA1932 (Ji et al., 2007). A
reliable molecular marker that works in
both backgrounds has also been identified.
Our plan is to license this marker and
large-round, plum, and cherry breeding
lines from both sources to tomato breed-
ers interested in using this resistance gene.
The mentioned breeding lines are pres-
ently being harvested to provide data for
this procedure but data are not available
for this writing.We have still not found
markers for the other genes. For lines
from LA1932 we have evidence based on
earlier lines with markers that the gene is
located on the lower part of chromosome
6. However, new lines no longer have the

markers of previous lines and the resis-
tance gene is apparently in a region where
we do not presently have marker coverage.
Despite considerable testing we have not
located the second gene from LA2779.
We do know several regions of the ge-
nome where the gene is not located.
Several TYLCV resistant hybrids have
also been tested over the last few years.
Linkage drag (Scott, 2005) still ham-
pers this project despite the fact that the
breeding lines have had seven or more
backcrosses from S. chilense.The parent
lines being used do have some positive
attributes and it is hoped that two parents
will compliment the defects of each other
and a commercially acceptable hybrid will
emerge. Some hybrids have performed
well but further testing is needed to de-
termine if they actually have commercial

With the present TYLCV threat loom-
ing, bacterial spot has become "that other
disease" but it is still probably the most
common disease problem that Florida
tomato growers face. Breeding for this re-
sistance has been a priority for my entire
Florida career and still there have been no
varieties released. Complex genetics and
shifting races of the pathogen have been
the bane of the breeding effort (Scott et
al., 2003). The two races that we presently
have in Florida are races T3 and T4. It is
not known how prevalent race T4 is but
by observation it appears well established.
Ph.D. student Mr. Sam Hutton is study-
ing the inheritance of resistance to race
T4 and searching for molecular markers
linked to the resistance genes. We have
breeding lines with fair levels of resistance
to T4 that are derived from three different
sources; PI 114490, and S. pimpinellifo
lium accessions PI 128216 and PI 126932.
The former two have shown resistance
to T4 in recent testing but not the lat-
ter, which is confusing since breeding
lines with this accession in their pedigree
have been resistant (Scott et al., 2006).
Our present thinking is that combining
resistance genes from different sources
may provide enhanced levels of resistance
but this has to be demonstrated yet.

Table 2. Marketable and extra large fruit yield and fruit size for tomato hybrids at
North Florida Research and Education Center,Quincy,FL Fall 2006.
Marketable Yield (25 Ib cartons/A)
Tomato hybrid Total Extra large Marketable (%) Fruit wt (oz)

Quincy 2521 az 1708 ab 84.6 a 6.2 bc
Bella Rosa 2217 ab 1802 a 79.3 ab 6.7 a-c
Fla.8153 2154 ab 1527 a-c 80.6 ab 6.2 bc
RFT 4971 2077 ab 1445 a-c 83.8 a 6.3 bc
Fla.8367 2072 ab 1610 a-c 81.0 ab 6.5 a-c
Phoenix 1971 ab 1489 a-c 77.6 ab 6.6 a-c
FL 91 1965 ab 1613 a-c 79.2 ab 6.6 a-c
Fla. 8363 1904 ab 1550 a-c 80.0 ab 6.7 a-c
Amelia 1887 ab 1525 a-c 70.9 ab 6.8 ab
NC 03289 1876 ab 1395 a-c 77.6 ab 6.4 bc
Fla.8314 1870ab 1364 a-c 73.8 ab 6.3 bc
Solar Fire 1731 ab 1321 a-c 74.3 ab 7.4 a
RFT4974 1714ab 1278a-c 74.6ab 6.6a-c
HMX 5825 1692ab 1154 a-c 76.4 ab 6.0 b-d
Crista 1577 ab 1178 a-c 76.1 ab 6.5 a-c
XTM 3301 1576 ab 1280 a-c 66.9 b 6.7 a-c
NC 056 1574 ab 1204 a-c 78.4 ab 6.4 bc
HA 3074 1540 ab 775 cd 69.1 b 5.3 d
Talladega 1511 ab 1136 a-c 67.2 b 6.4 bc
FL47 1320 bc 955 b-c 76.0 ab 6.4 bc
HA 3617 498 c 305 d 47.4 c 5.9 cd
I Mean separation in columns by Duncan's multiple range test at P< 0.05.

Furthermore, there is evidence that a gene
from PI 114490 has effects against mul-
tiple races (Yang et al., 2005) and such a
gene may be useful in developing durable
resistance that doesn't break down as new
races of the pathogen emerge.
Fla. 8314 is a hybrid with T3 tolerance
that has performed well in numerous
grower and IFAS trials (Tables 1,2) but
since it is not quite as large fruited as sus-
ceptible Florida varieties and since T4 has
been widespread the decision has been
made not to release it. Numerous hybrids
with tolerance to races T3 and T4 have
been tested in recent years. To date none
have shown enough horticultural type or
bacterial spot resistance. One new one,
Fla. 8552 did well in the spring 2007 trial
at GCREC and will be tested further. We
also selected some promising inbreds in
the spring and perhaps these will make
good parents for hybrid varieties in the
near future.


Ji, Y, D.J. Schuster, and J.W. Scott.
2007. Ty-3, a begomovirus resistance
locus near the tomato yellow leaf curl virus

resistance locus Ty-1 on chromosome 6
of tomato. Molecular Breeding (in press;
presently on-line)

Scott, 2005. Perspcetives on tomato dis-
ease resistance breeding: past, present, and
future. Acta Horticulturae 695:217-224.

Scott J.W, S. F. Hutton, J.B. Jones,
D.M. Francis, and S.A. Miller. 2006
Resistance to bacterial spot race T4
and breeding for durable, broad range
resistance to other races. Rept. Tomato
Genetics Coop. 54:33-36.

Scott, J.W., D.M. Francis, S.A. Miller,
G.C. Somodi, and J.B. Jones.2003.
Tomato bacterial spot resistance derived
from PI 114490: Inheritance of resistance
to race T2 and relationship across three
pathogen races.J Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

Yang, W., S.A. Miller, J.W. Scott, J.B.
Jones, and D.M. Francis. 2005. Mining
tomato genome sequence databases for
molecular markers: Application to bacte-
rial resistance and marker assisted selec-
tion. Acta Horticulturae 695:241-249.



Joe Funderburk
UF/IFAS, North Florida Research & Education Center, Quincy, jef@ufl.edu

There are over 5,000 described species
of thrips (Thysanoptera). These insects
are small with fringed wings and unique
piercing, sucking mouthparts. About 87
species ofthrips are pests of commercial
crops due to the damage caused by feeding
on developing flowers or vegetables which
causes discoloration, deformities, and re-
duced marketability of the crop. Because of
their small size, cryptic habits, and biologi-
cal characteristics of rapid development,
rapid mobility, high reproductive rate,
and parthenogenesis (ability to reproduce
without mating), some species ofthrips
are excellent invaders. Over 20 species are
now cosmopolitan. Recent invasive species
established in the landscape in Florida
include the chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis,
and a legume pest, Megalurothrips mucanae.
Global trade in ornamental greenhouse
plants rapidly spread the western flower
thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, around the
world in the 1980's.The species is native
to the southwestern US and it is the key

vector of Tomato spotted wilt virus (Kirk and
Terry 2003).The western flower thrips was
first found established in the landscape of
northern Florida in 1985, and tomato plants
infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus were
first noted in 1986.The insect and the virus
rapidly emerged as the key pest problems of
tomato and other crops in northern Florida,
but (until recently) they were not pests in
most years of tomato and other crops in
central and southern Florida.
The adults of the western flower thrips
inhabit the flowers of tomato sometimes
in large numbers where they feed on the
pollen and flower tissues. The females lay
eggs individually on the small developing
fruit of the flower, and the larva hatches
in about six days. A small dimple some-
times surrounded by a white halo remains
on the developing fruit (Salguero Navas
et al. 1991b). This damage can result in
cull-out and lowering of grade of the har-
vested fruit, with tolerance based on price
and demand in the marketplace. Direct
feeding by the western flower thrips also

Figure 1.Effect of mulch type, insecticides,and insecticides plus Actigard on final in-
cidence of tomato spotted wilt in an experiment conducted in 2000 in Quincy,Gadsden
County, FL (adapted from Momol et al. 2004).The insecticides were Spintor and Monitor
applied alternately on a weekly schedule for six weeks.

can cause cosmetic fruit damage referred
to as 'flecking' (Ghidiu et al. 2006)
Other species of flower thrips sometimes
occur in large numbers in the flowers of to-
mato in Florida. The eastern flower thrips,
Frankliniella tritici, is common in north-
ern Florida but it is very rare in central
and southern Florida. The Florida flower
thrips, Frankliniella bispinosa, is common
throughout the state, especially in central
and southern Florida. These native species
do not appear to cause dimples or fleck-
ing damage to the fruits, even when their
numbers are very great. Tomato is a poor
reproductive host for all thrips species in
Florida, including the western flower thrips
(Momol et al. 2004, Reitz et al. 2002).
Many plant species growing in and around
tomato fields are inhabited by the thrips
adults (Chellemi et al. 1994). Some plant
species serve as food hosts and not as re-
productive hosts.The larvae of the common
thrips are not distinguishable from one an-
other, and there is inadequate information
about the plant species serving as reproduc-
tive hosts. The tobacco thrips, Frankliniella
fusca, occurs in low numbers in tomatoes,
and Franklinella shultzei, occurs in low
numbers in central and southern Florida.
The eastern flower thrips is the only thrips
species mentioned above that is not a
potential vector of Tomato spotted wilt virus.
Epidemics of tomato spotted wilt in north-
ern Florida apparently are due primarily
to western flower thrips, although in some
rare cases other vector species are involved.
Localized epidemics of the disease are rare
in central and southern Florida.
The pest status of individual species
obviously differs in tomato. The western
flower thrips damages fruit and it is the
key vector of Tomato spotted wilt virus.
The eastern flower thrips is virtually a
non-pest. It does not damage fruit, and
it is an incapable vector of Tomato spotted
wilt virus. The Florida flower thrips is
not damaging to fruit. Although it is a

capable vector of Tomato spotted wilt virus
(Avila et al. 2006), epidemics are rare in
central and southern Florida where it
is the predominate species. Despite the
ability to distinguish the adults to species
and the great differences in pest status,
the numbers of the individual species are
rarely determined in scouting programs.
The population dynamics of the indi-
vidual species has been well studied in
northern Florida (e.g., Salguero Navas
et al. 1991a, Reitz et al., 2002, Momol
et al. 2004), though such information in
tomato in southern Florida is not well
documented in the published literature.
Based mostly on unpublished observations
by university and private industry scien-
tists, it is certain that the abundance and
population dynamics of different thrips
species in central and southern Florida
differs greatly from northern Florida. The
western flower thrips, in particular, has
never (until recently) been found in abun-
dance in central and southern Florida. A
published study in pepper supports this
conclusion (Hansen et al. 2003).
A lack of knowledge of the reproduc-
tive plant hosts serving as sources of thrips
invading crop fields has hampered efforts
to develop better management strategies
for Tomato spotted wilt virus. The virus
is acquired only by the larvae, and the
adults can transmit to host plants. Usually
primary spread of the disease is due to
infections caused by incoming virulifer-
ous adults to a crop (such as tomato) from
outside sources that are usually host weed
species. Adults persistently transmit, and
their control with insecticides does not
prevent transmission due to the short time
of feeding for infection to occur (Momol
et al. 2004). Secondary spread is caused
by viruliferous adults that acquired the
virus as larvae feeding on an already in-
fected plant. For secondary spread, thrips
need to colonize and reproduce on that
season's crop. Secondary spread can be
reduced with insecticides targeted against
larval populations. Most viral infections
in commercial tomato in northern Florida
usually are the result of primary spread,
although some secondary viral infections
occur late in the season (Momol. et al.
2004) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.The percentage of final tomato spotted wilt incidence due to primary and
secondary spread in an experiment conducted in 2000 in Quincy, Gadsden County, FL
(adapted from Momol et al. 2004).These values were estimated based on the amount of

Secondary infection

Primary infection

Producers in northern Florida and other
parts of the world responded to the threat
of western flower thrips and Tomato spot
ted wilt virus by the calendar application
(twice per week or more) of broad-spectrum
highly toxic insecticides. Tomato growers
applied insecticides an average 12.3 to 16.4
times per season in Georgia and northern
Florida, respectively (Bauske et al. 1998).
Yet research revealed that losses were the
result of primary infections which were not
prevented by such intensive insecticide use
(Puche et al. 1995). Salguero Navas et al.
(1994) established a threshold of one half of
tomato flowers infested by western flower
thrips to prevent dimpling and flecking.
However, efforts to develop therapeutic
strategies were hampered by the lack of a
practical method to identify the thrips to
species in scouting programs. Usually, most
of the thrips in the flowers were non-pest
species that are highly susceptible to most
insecticides.The introduced population of
western flower thrips was resistant to the
available insecticides (Immaraju, et al. 1992).
Spinosad (Spintor, Dow Agro Sciences,
Indianapolis, IN) is a natural macrocy-
clic lactone insect control product with
a unique mode of action. In laboratory
assays against un-exposed feral populations
of Frankliniella species base-line toxici-
ties were established (Eger et al. 1998).

These assays showed that the insecticide
was equally toxic to western flower thrips,
eastern flower thrips, and Florida flower
thrips. However, eastern flower thrips and
Florida flower thrips are rapid re-coloniz-
ers, and sometimes there is an apparent
lack of control for these species under field
conditions (Ramachandran et al. 2001).
The benefits of other management
tactics were investigated, and an effec-
tive, sustainable program developed that
was adopted by tomato growers (Momol
et al. 2004). Ultra-violet reflective mulch
(aluminum layered) is very effective in
reducing colonization of Frankliniella
species thrips onto the tomato plants
and in reducing the incidence of primary
infections (Figure 1). Development of the
larval instars is about 5 days, and weekly
applications of insecticides is sufficient
to prevent successful larval development
and subsequent secondary spread of
Tomato spotted wilt virus. Methamidophos
(Monitor, Valent USA Corp., Walnut
Creek, CA) and spinosad are in different
chemical classes with different modes of
action. Alternating applications for thrips
control during the season is recommend-
ed as an integrated resistance manage-
ment strategy. Few other insecticides are
efficacious against the western flower
thrips. Acibenozar-S-methyl (Actigard,
Syngenta, Inc., Greensboro, NC) is an
inducer of systemic resistance and it is has


Figure 3. Percent mortality of western flower thrips adults collected on five dates
from fields on the same farm in southern Florida and exposed in the laboratory to con-
centrations of spinosad expected to kill 90 and 99 % (LC90 and LC99) of a susceptible
population (Eger et al. 1998).Vegetable production on the farm ended in May 2006 and
began again in October 2006.The data indicated a susceptible population was collected
from a field not yet sprayed with spinosad in January (Jan07N) and varying levels of
resistance were indicated from populations collected in fields previously sprayed with
spinosad on each of the other sample dates.

some benefit in reducing the incidence of
tomato spotted wilt.
Primary spread of Tomato spotted wilt
virus accounts for most of the inci-
dence of the disease in northern Florida,
although secondary spread must also be
managed especially mid- to late season
(Momol et al. 2004, Figure 2). Cultivars
resistant to Tomato spotted wilt virus with
acceptable yield and fruit quality are
available, and growers are rapidly adopt-
ing resistant cultivars in northern Florida.
Strains of Tomato spotted wilt virus that
have overcome resistance from the single-
gene-dominate trait have appeared in
other geographical areas (Rosello et al.
1998). An integrated approach therefore
is recommended to reduce feeding by
thrips and to manage the development of
virus-resistant strains.

Populations of Florida flower thrips
typically predominate in the agro-eco-
system on crops and the surrounding
vegetation in central and southern Florida
(Hansen et al. 2003). The only other
thrips sometimes common in southern
Florida is the melon thrips, 7Tripspalmi.
The western flower thrips has been estab-


listed for about two decades in central
and southern Florida, as low population
levels are detectable during at least some
times of the year (Hansen et al. 2003).
Several localized outbreaks from the
western flower thrips have been noted
recently in central and southern Florida.
There also are indications of increased
incidences of Tomato spotted wilt virus
in vegetables and other crops, although
epidemics have remained localized (S.
Adkins, personal communication).
For example, a large population of
western flower thrips was detected on
a vegetable farm on the east coast of
southern Florida in May 2006. The farm
had sprayed on a calendar schedule many
insecticides from different chemical
classes including spinosad. The popula-
tion of western flower thrips was very
resistant to spinosad as determined by
bioassay procedures reported in Eger et
al. (1998) (Figure 3). Vegetable produc-
tion on the farm ended for the summer
months. The demographics of individual
thrips species was monitored on this farm
during the next production season that
began in October of 2006. Populations of
thrips during November and December
were >95% Florida flower thrips. Bioas-
says of their populations showed expected

susceptibility to spinosad (Figure 3).
Populations of thrips shifted in January
to >95% western flower thrips for the rest
of the production season. The popula-
tion was susceptible to spinosad in a field
not yet sprayed with spinosad in January
2007. This indicated that the population
of western flower thrips had reverted to
normal susceptibility. In pepper fields
treated with spinosad on the farm, bioas-
says revealed low levels of resistance, but
not at the very resistant level documented
at the end of the previous season. The
farm had sprayed fewer insecticides of all
chemical class during the November 2006
to May 2007 vegetable production season.
Flecking and dimpling due to western
flower thrips feeding and egg-laying
activities was noted on tomato fruits
for the first time on the farm. Bioassays
of western flower thrips collected from
several other farms in southern Florida
revealed a mix of susceptible and resistant
populations in 2007. Efforts currently are
underway to implement integrated pest
management programs for western flower
thrips on farms in this production area in
order to manage resistance to spinosad.
In pepper, natural populations of minute
pirate bugs are very effective in control-
ling thrips (Funderburk et al. 2000), and it
is recommended that pepper growers use
control tactics for thrips and other pests
that conserve their populations. Pepper,
unlike tomato, is an excellent reproductive
host for thrips to develop and spread to
other crops such as tomato. Minute pirate
bugs do not inhabit tomato.
Chilli thrips is established in central
Florida (Silagyi and Dixon 2006). It is
listed as a 'reportable/actionable pest'
which means that if detected on for-
eign cargo at US ports, the cargo must
be treated before it can enter domestic
commerce. There currently is no federal
quarantine to restrict domestic spread
but Florida has a state restriction. As a
consequence, nurseries are attempting
control with heavy insecticides. Personal
observations have revealed very large
populations of western flower thrips in
nurseries in central Florida. Efforts are
underway to better determine the extent
of the pest status of western flower thrips

O LC90
* LC99

5-May-06 Jan07S Jan07N 6-Mar-07 21-Mar-

in central and southern Florida nurseries.
Populations of western flower thrips are
induced by broad-spectrum insecticides
(Funderburk et al. 2000). Replacement
and resurgence of non-target pests such
as western flower thrips as a result of
broad-spectrum insecticides targeted
against chilli thrips is related to the killing
of natural enemies and competing thrips
species and apparently to the beneficial
effects of some insecticides especially py-
rethroids on development and reproduc-
tion of western flower thrips populations.
The recent outbreaks of western flower
thrips in central and southern nursery
and vegetable crops appear to be caused
by efforts to control pests with calendar
sprays of broad-spectrum insecticides. The
outbreaks in ornamental and vegetable
crops in central and southern Florida
undoubtedly were in part a product of the
droughts which favor survival of western
flower thrips over the competing native
thrips species
Populations of chilli thrips currently
are susceptible to a broad range of com-
mercial insecticides (Seal et al. 2005).
However, heavy use of insecticides as a
result of the Florida restriction on move-
ment of infested plant material on nursery
plants may result in the development and
spread of resistant thrips populations. The
chilli thrips will eventually be a pest of
field pepper and other vegetable crops. Its
pest status on individual vegetable crops
such as tomato in Florida is not yet de-
termined. A Chilli Thrips Task Force was
formed with the objectives of conducting
surveys to establish the spread of chillis
thrips, developing domestic regulations to
prevent spread to un-infested areas, and
developing management plans. An Indus-
try Group with representation from the
vegetable industry in Florida is charged
with giving feedback to the Technical
Group about issues and concerns such as
the development and spread of resistant
thrips populations.


Avila, Y., J. Stavisky, S. Hague, J.
Funderburk, S. Reitz, and T. Momol.
2006. Evaluation of Frankliniella bispinosa

(Thysanopera: Thripidae) as a vector of
the Tomato spotted wilt virus in pepper.
Fla. Entomol. 89: 204-207.

Eger, Jr., J. E.,J. Stavisky, and J. E.
Funderburk. 1998. Comparative toxic-
ity of spinosad to Frankliniella spp.
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae), with notes on
a bioassay technique. Fla. Entomol. 81:

Funderburk, J., J. Stavisky, and S. Olson.
Predation of Frankliniella occidentalis
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in field pep-
pers by Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera:
Anthocoridae). Environ. Entomol. 29:

Ghidiu, G. M., E. M. Hitchner, and
J. E. Funderburk. 2006. Goldfleck dam-
age to tomato fruit caused by feeding of
Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera:
Thripidae). Fla Entomol. 89: 279-281.

Hansen, E. A.,J. E. Funderburk, S.
R. Reitz, S. Ramachandran, J. E. Eger,
and H. McAuslane. 2003. Within-plant
distribution of Frankliniella species
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and Orius in
sidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) in
field pepper. Environ. Entomol. 32: 1035-

Immaraju, J. A., T D. Paine, J.
A. Bethke, K. L. Robb, and J. P.
Newman. 1992. Western flower thrips
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) resistance to
insecticides in coastal California green-
houses.J. Econ. Entomol. 85: 9-14.

Kirk, W. D. J., and L.I. Terry. 2003.
The spread of the western flower thrips
Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande). Agric.
For. Entomol. 5:301-310.

Momol, M.T., S. M. Olson, J. E.
Funderburk, J. Stavisky, and J.J. Marois.
2004. Integrated management of tomato
spotted wilt on field-grown tomatoes.
Plant Dis. 88: 882-890.

Puche, H., R. D. Berger, and J. E.
Funderburk. 1995. Population dynam-

ics ofFrankliniella thrips and progress
of tomato spotted wilt virus. Crop Prot.

Ramachandran, S., J. Funderburk, J.
Stavisky, and S. Olson. 2001. Population
abundance and movement of Frankliniella
species and Orius insidiosus in field pepper.
Agric. For. Entomol. 3:1-10.

Reitz, S. R. 2002. Seasonal and within
plant distribution ofFrankliniella thrips
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in northern
Florida. Fla. Entomol. 85:431-439.

Rosello, S., M.J. Diez, and F. Nuez.
1998. Genetics of tomato spotted wilt virus
resistance coming from Lycopersiconperu
vianum. Eur.J. Plant Pathol. 104:499-509.

Salguero Navas, V. E.,J. E. Funderburk,
R.J. Beshear, S. M. Olson, and T P. Mack.
1991a. Seasonal patterns of Frankliniella
spp. (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in tomato
flowers. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 1818-1822.

Salguero Navas, V. E.,J. E. Funderburk,
S. M. Olson, and R.J. Beshear. 1991b.
Damage to tomato fruti by the western
flower Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae).J.
Entomol. Sci. 26: 436-442.

Salguero Navas, V. E.,J. E. Funderburk,
T. P. Mack, R.J. Beshear, and S. M. Olson.
1994. Aggregation indices and sample
size curves for binomial sampling of
flower-inhabiting Frankliniella species
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on tomato.J.
Econ. Entomol. 87: 1622-1626.

Seal, D. R., M. Ciomperlik, and W
Klassen. 2005. Chilli thrips (castor thrips,
Assam thrips, yellow tea thrips, strawberry
thrips), Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, provi-
sional management guidelines. University
of Florida, Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. EDIS
Document ENY-725.

Silagyi, A.J., and W. N. Dixon. 2006.
Assessment of Chili Thrips, Scirtothrips
dorsalis, in Florida. Florida Coop. Agric.
Pest Surv., Division of Plant Industry,
FDACS, Gainesville.




James P. Gilreath
PhytoServices, Myakka City, FL DrGilreath@aol.com

Since 1991 research and grower tri-
als have been conducted in Florida to
improve performance of methyl bromide
formulations and potential alternatives
to methyl bromide. Results of those
studies have led to a better understand-
ing of fumigant movement and retention
in soil which has allowed growers to
achieve good soilborne pest control with
lower rates of methyl bromide and have
enhanced performance of what previ-
ously were considered marginal products.
Most of the research with reduced rates
and barrier films was conducted at the
Florida Soil Fumigation Experiment
Farm which I established and operated
for 2.5 years near Ruskin, Florida. This
farm was a cooperative effort between my
research program with the University of
Florida and Deseret Farms of Ruskin. It
was established to conduct research under
real world conditions on an old tomato
farm which was infested with nutsedge,
Fusarium wilt, and nematodes. As such,
it served to provide a well coordinated,
scientifically valid research program for
tomato as required by the CUE process
under the Montreal Protocol and built
much good will and understanding by
hosting visitors from MBTOC as well as
regulatory agencies. Most of the soil fu-
migant research in Florida was conducted
at that farm during the time of its opera-
tion. Up to 50 acres were dedicated to to-
mato herbicide, fumigant and mulch film
research during one season and acreage
under production never dropped below
20, which is a sizeable area for research
plots. The space provided by this farm al-
lowed the use of large plots, not the small
plots typical of most experiment stations.
Staffed and operated almost exclusively
with grant funds, the farm was closed
after 2.5 years due to insufficient support
from industry and federal programs. I left
the University of Florida after making the

decision to close the farm and spent much
of the fall of 2006 moving equipment to
the UF facility at Balm and cleaning up
the farm provided by Deseret Farms. It
was unfortunate that the tomato industry
had to lose this program, but the lack of
support made it impossible to continue.
Some of the advances developed at that
farm included the use of greatly reduced
rates of methyl bromide with metalized film
and vif, improvements in fumigant applica-
tion equipment via simple modifications of
existing equipment which were critical to
the application of reduced rates, and much
of the development work for Midas (methyl
iodide) and DMDS. Advances in applica-
tion of K-Pam also were developed at this
facility, to name just a few.
Many factors contribute to fumigant
performance, including the fumigant itself,
environmental conditions, mulch film se-
lection and application equipment. There
is little a grower can do about environmen-
tal conditions, other than water manage-
ment and application timing in relation to
soil temperature, and sometimes even that
is not possible, so attention needs to be
focused on what a grower can control.

Currently the price of methyl bromide
(50/50 formulation) is about $3.80 a
pound, resulting in a cost of approxi-
mately $760 per treated acre or $380 per
row acre for 200 lb. per treated acre in
3 feet-wide beds. Combined with this
is the cost of high barrier plastic mulch
which is required for acceptable pest
control with this formulation/rate of
methyl bromide. The required high bar-
rier film may be either one of the better
metalized films or virtually impermeable
film (vif), both of which cost substan-
tially more than conventional low density
polyethylene (ldpe) film (approximately
$400 per row acre for vif). Today we

have several sources of virtually imper-
meable film, including Pliant's Blockade,
Klerk's Barricade, and IPM's Bromostop,
as well as some metalized films (Canslit
and Pliant) which are capable of greatly
reducing the loss of methyl bromide
through the film over time. This charac-
teristic allows us to reduce our bromide
rate to 12 or less of what we used in the
past and still have good pest control
with vif and metalized. Unfortunately,
the greater retention of methyl bromide
also means the fumigant will be held in
the soil longer than normal, so we have
to delay planting for at least 3 weeks on
average. These films are more expensive
than standard Idpe or hdpe, so some
of the decrease in fumigant expense is
offset by increased mulch expense. VIF
and metalized films appear to work with
all of the fumigants which are highly
volatile, but they do not make much of
a difference with products like Vapam
and K-Pam, both of which form rela-
tively weak gases. Among the products
which have been shown to respond well
are Midas (iodomethane or methyl io-
dide), Telone products, chloropicrin, and
DMDS, an experimental fumigant. As
a result of the higher cost of high barrier
films, the cost for methyl bromide fumi-
gation alone is about $780 per row acre.
This higher cost makes some alternatives
look more promising.
Not all vif mulches have the same han-
dling characteristics, so you need to gain
some experience with them before order-
ing large quantities. Also, please remem-
ber that not all metalized films restrict
movement of fumigants the same. Canslit
and the non-embossed Pliant metalized
films have performed well under field
conditions, but several other metalized
films do not have the barrier properties of
these two films. Make sure the film you
choose meets your barrier needs.

Regardless of what fumigant a grower
chooses, he must make certain that his
equipment is set up correctly for the fu-
migant of choice and that it is operating
properly. Highly volatile fumigants, such
as methyl bromide, chloropicrin, Telone
products and Midas (iodomethane or
methyl iodide), require sufficient back
pressure in the system all the way to the
gas knives in order for the product to be
applied uniformly and accurately. If at-
tention to these details is insufficient, then
even methyl bromide may result in poor
performance. I have seen a lot of marginal
fumigant performance due to lack of atten-
tion to this detail. Results can range from
marginal to bad with methyl bromide and
even worse with some other products, such
as Midas. The difference in results between
the two fumigants is related to differences
in vapor pressure. Midas is less volatile
than methyl bromide, so the lower vapor
pressure means differences in fumigant
distribution will be more greatly amplified
with the lower pressure fumigant. Colored
polypropylene tubing is available for distri-
bution of fumigant from the flow divider
on the bedder to the gas knives. The differ-
ent colors (yellow, red and black) represent
different flow capacities and it makes it
easy to determine whether or not the flow
capacity of the system is appropriate for
the desired fumigant rate. Unfortunately,
the red tubing which generally is con-
sidered acceptable for methyl bromide is
not always the preferred tubing for other
fumigants and, in some cases, may not be
appropriate for methyl bromide, so growers
need to pay close attention to this detail.
A 0 to 30 psi pressure gauge is a valu-
able addition at the flow divider as it
allows a means of monitoring fumigant
back pressure in the system. If there is
not at least 15 to 20 psi of back pressure
when measured at the flow divider, then
the rate will not be consistent across all
knives and pest control will suffer. With
3 row gas rigs, crop injury also may result
due to one row receiving more fumigant
than another. All of the tubing must be
the same length from the flow divider to
the knives or rates will vary as a result of
friction loss inside the tubing. At present,

I feel that yellow tubing is appropriate for
Midas, chloropicrin and reduced rates of
Telone products, and red tubing generally
can be used for methyl bromide. Again,
the final decision should be based upon
the desired flow rate per tube and the
fumigant. To determine this, you have to
calculate what the flow rate per minute
will be for each individual tube/line/gas
knife and compare that to the capacity
for each tubing type. For example, if you
needed to flow 12 oz. per minute to each
gas knife, yellow tubing would allow you
to do so and maintain about 20 psi of
back pressure, but if you tried to use red
tubing, you would not be able to achieve
even 10 psi and product would not flow
uniformly to all of the gas knives. If it
is not delivered uniformly, results will be
non-uniform and control will suffer.
Another equipment-related consideration
is the flow meter. When bromide rates were
350 lb./treated acre and higher, most growers
had the correct flow meter for their situa-
tion, but the shift to greatly reduced rates
means that the older flow meters may not
be acceptable. The accuracy of most meters
drops off greatly as they approach 10% and
90% of flow capacity. Applications requiring
rates of 17% are not going to be as accurate
as those in the 50% range and a smaller me-
ter should be obtained. While Raven radar
controlled units have improved rate accuracy
and uniformity when applying higher rates,
their performance has been less than stellar
for the reduced rates of today. This is because
the system was designed for higher flow rates
and equipment changes are required to ad-
dress the diminished flow of today's rates.

Chloropicrin is going to be a compo-
nent of any fumigant-based alternative
program because chloropicrin is generally
the most effective product against soil-
borne diseases. Unfortunately, chloropic-
rin is going through re-registration review
at this time and, unless changed, current
thinking about buffer zones will severely
limit its use in many areas. It has long
been believed that to be effective, the rate
had to be about 120 lb./treated acre. This
is true under low density and high density
polyethylene films, but no one knows re-

quired rates under high barrier films like
metalized film and VIF. I suspect the rate
could be reduced to 80 lb./treated acre or
less with no loss of disease control, based
on some of my earlier research.
Midas or methyl iodide has an experi-
mental use permit (EUP) at the present
time and is being evaluated in 5 acre trials
on a number of commercial farms through-
out the southeastern USA. Results appear
to be positive at this time and it is hoped
that a full registration will come in the near
future. The current formulation is a 50%
blend with chloropicrin. The use rate is
in the range of 120 to 160 lb./treated acre
under metalized or vif mulch. Rates would
have to be doubled to be effective under
Idpe or hdpe film. Issues associated with
Midas are mainly cost and planting delay
requiring at least 3 weeks. Nutsedge control
has been good in experiments when com-
bined with vif or metalized film at about
150 lb./treated acre. Midas does not move
in the soil as readily as methyl bromide and
wet soil greatly impedes its distribution so
greater attention to soil conditions at ap-
plication are required. It can be applied
with your existing gas rig, provided the tub-
ing from the flow divider to the chisels is
changed to provide sufficient back pressure
so that uniformity of delivery results. Since
this product is heavier than methyl bromide
and not as volatile, flow rates will be lower
and less back pressure will result in the
system. The size of the tubing will depend
upon the rate and ground speed, but the
red tubing being fitted on gas rigs in order
to accommodate reduced rates of methyl
bromide may not be restrictive enough and
I feel yellow tubing which has a 1/16 inch
diameter interior is the more appropriate
choice. You need to pay close attention to
this back pressure issue.
DMDS or dimethyl disulfide will have
a different trade name and will be available
under an EUP in fall 2007. It will be com-
bined with chloropicrin, but the concentra-
tion is not known at this time. Good con-
trol of nutsedge and other soilborne pests
was attained with DMDS / chloropicrin
mixture in trials in the Ruskin area using
74 gal/treated acre under vif and metalized
films. Performance under Idpe and hdpe
suffered greatly, so metalized or vif will


be the only way to go with this product.
Planting delay was not a major issue with
the product, but odor was. It has a very
pungent aroma that lingers for quite some
time. DMDS can be applied with your ex-
isting gas rig, but you will probably require
a larger capacity flow meter.
Vapam and K-Pam have a long history
of erratic performance in Florida. They
can be very effective, especially for weed
control, but they require greater attention
to application details than methyl bromide.
Many different means of application have
been tried and some folks have had great
success with one particular method while
others swear it does not work. It really
depends upon the user and his attention to
details and willingness to do what it takes
to make it work. Currently, I see Vapam
and K-Pam as weed control products in
the bed, especially for nutsedge, and the
most successful application procedure is
one where the product is concentrated
in the top 3 to 4 inches of the bed where
most of the emerged nutsedge tubers are
located. These products form very weak
gases in the soil and this means they do not
move much laterally. Since movement is
so limited, you have to distribute the prod-
uct uniformly throughout that shallow area
of the bed or place it in shallow bands no
more than about 5 inches apart. Previous
attempts to do this using gas knives did
not work because the large number of
knives wrecked the bed. Today there is
equipment available which uses small coul-
ters mounted in a bedder to make narrow
grooves into which the product is sprayed
in streams, not fans,just ahead of the press
pan. Results in trials have been quite good.
This application equipment was evaluated
on 2 farms in the Manatee Ruskin area
during spring 2007 and in large plot ex-
periments. Nutsedge control varied from
excellent to good, but the bed shoulders
were a weak area, most likely due to equip-
ment adjustments. Just like with Telone,
methyl iodide and DMDS, an effective
program requires chloropicrin for soilborne
disease control. Combining K-Pam with
Telone products or chloropicrin looks good
and will probably be tested on more acre-
age in the area in the fall of 2007. Vapam
and K-Pam effectiveness is not improved

by use of high barrier films, so a grower can
use the cheaper Idpe with these combina-
tions and expect good performance.

So far I have discussed applications based
primarily on standard application equip-
ment, but delivery through the drip irriga-
tion system is an option with some prod-
ucts, especially Vapam and K-Pam, provided
you can wet most of the bed. Wetting more
than about 60% of the bed requires the use
of 2 drip tapes per bed, except in some areas
with some clay in the soil. Research was
conducted for several years to determine
the effectiveness of drip delivery of K-Pam
following application of Inline (drip) or
chloropicrin (gas knives) under standard
Idpe versus vif. What we found was that
K-Pam did control nutsedge about the same
under either film and did it with or without
Inline or chloropicrin but there was some
improvement in control when it followed
either of these products. While film type
did not influence K-Pam, it had a major ef-
fect on nutsedge control with Inline alone or
in combination with K-Pam, but much less
impact on performance of chloropicrin. The
take home lesson from this study was that
if you had a nutsedge problem, you could
control it, but to do so with Inline + K-Pam
required vif, whereas with Pic + K-Pam you
could use Idpe.
The role of chloropicrin in these trials
was researched separately and it was found
that chloropicrin actually increased nutsedge
tuber sprouting and emergence up to a rate
of about 200 lb./treated acre and then it
declined, but it never actually controlled
nutsedge. From these results a manage-
ment strategy was developed which utilized
chloropicrin to stimulate nutsedge tuber
sprouting, then apply K-Pam or Vapam 5 to
7 days later to kill those tubers which had
begun to sprout. Finally we studied the ef-
fect of time of K-Pam application following
chloropicrin application from the day of
chloropicrin application out to 8 days after
application. What we discovered was that
timing was very important. Control of nut-
sedge was poor when K-Pam was applied
from 0 to 4 days after chloropicrin. Six days
after application provided improvement, but
the greatest improvement occurred when we

waited 8 days before applying the K-Pam
through the drip tubing. Remember this if
you choose to follow this program.

1.A combination ofTelone C-35 and
K-Pam or Vapam in the bed.
Let's assume that you are using stan-
dard LDPE polyethylene mulch. You
would first inject Telone C-35 at about
26 gallons per treated acre in the bed
with your gas rig. What about PPE? As
long as there is no fertilizer hopper on
the unit with people on it, it should not
be a problem. (Another option to avoid
excessive PPE is to put it out with gas
knives on the pre-bedder.) You then fol-
low this with Vapam or KPam at a rate
of 75 or 60 gal/A, respectively, placed 3
inches in the bed top. This can be done
using a new piece of equipment built
by Mirusso Enterprises which consists
of a bedder with a precision application
system of up to 8 coulters (depending on
bed width) mounted in the bedder. This
gives more uniform application and thus
more consistent results than past applica-
tion methods. Follow this immediately
with your plastic rig. If you use vif or
metalized film, you still have to use about
26 gal ofTelone C-35 in the bed in order
to deliver enough chloropicrin to achieve
the historical 120 lb. minimum rate. The
rate of K-Pam or Vapam would remain
the same regardless of film type.
If you trust my educated guess about
80 lb. of chloropicrin being enough
under vif, then you should be able to
reduce the Telone C-35 rate to about
16 gal/treated acre and still have good
soilborne disease and nematode control.
That is your call.

2. Broadcast application ofTelone II fol-
lowed by Chloropicrin in the bed (and
K-Pam or Vapam in some situations).
Broadcast application of Telone II
would eliminate the PPE requirement
for everyone except the tractor driver.
(Please note that even though the
driver may be in an enclosed cab, if the
label specifies a particular respirator,
this must still be worn.) Broadcasting

Telone II at 12 to 15 gallons per acre
may be advantageous for nematode
problems as it should give nematode
control over the whole field. It will not,
however, give significantly improved
weed control in the row middles of the
finished field. After waiting 7 days,
follow with your bedding equipment
and apply 120 lbs ofchloropicrin in the
bed. If you know you have significant
nutsedge problems, you can either use
Sandea (make sure it's labeled for the
crop you are growing) after the nut-
sedge emerges through the plastic or
use K-Pam or Vapam in the bed as de-
scribed above in option #1.
If you are using high barrier film, you
still need to use the 12 to 15 gal rate
because you are not applying product in
the bed. Again, if you trust my guess,
you may wish to reduce the chloropicrin
rate to no less than 80 lb. treated acre in
the bed. Additional K-Pam or Vapam
will need to be applied at 60 and 75
gal/treated acre, respectively. Your suc-

cess with reduced rates of any product
depends upon your attention to detail
before and during application. If you
are going to use reduced rates of these
products, you should try it in several
places on your own farm under your own
soil, pest and cultural conditions. Please
remember that for success with reduced
rates you MUST adjust your application
equipment by using smaller diameter
tubing between the manifold and the
chisels to compensate for reduced flow
capacity and to increase back line pres-
sure. If you do not, you will not get uni-
form application and coverage and will
have problems later on.

3. Application ofTelone C-35 broad-
cast followed by additional chloropic-
rin in the bed.
Telone C-35 would be applied at 20 to
24 gal per acre to supply enough 1,3-D
(Telone II) and about 80 lb. of chloropic-
rin per acre, then additional chloropicrin
would be applied to the bed no sooner

than 7 days later. If using Idpe, apply 120
lb. of chloropicrin in the bed and reduce
the rate to about 80 lb. under vif or met-
alized. You either can use Sandea to con-
trol nutsedge or apply K-Pam to the bed
as described previously.

4. A fourth alternative to consider is Midas.
This is currently being trialed under
a non crop-destruct Experimental Use
Permit (EUP). Even though the price
currently seems quite high, price is rela-
tive in comparison to the cost of other
materials, which may change. The rate
will vary depending upon the type of
plastic you use and your pest pressure.
One benefit is that Midas can be ap-
plied through your standard fumigation
equipment and this one product alter-
native has shown good results in field
trials. The PPE required is a half face
respirator for all those in the field. IfI
were going to use Midas, I would apply
it at a rate of 150 lb./treated acre under
vif or metalized film.


David J. Schuster
UF/IFAS, Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, Wimauma, dschust@ufl.edu

The silverleafwhitefly (SLWF), Bemisia
argentifolii Bellows & Perring [also
known as biotype B of the sweetpotato
whitefly, B. tabaci (Gennadius)] and
Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV)
remain the key pests of tomatoes in
southern Florida. Insecticides, particular-
ly the neonicotinoids (Admire Pro, imi-
dacloprid; Bayer CropScience, Research
Triangle Park, NC; Assail, acetamiprid;
Cerexagri Inc., King of Prussia, PA;
Platinum, thiamethoxam; Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC;
and Venom, dinotefuran, Valent U.S.A.
Corp., Walnut Creek, CA), remain in-
tegral tools for the management of the

pests. Because of the potential of the
whitefly to develop resistance to the insec-
ticides, a program to monitor the suscep-
tibility of field populations of the SLWF
to Admire and Platinum using a cut leaf
petiole method was conducted from 2000
to 2006 (Schuster and Thompson 2001,
2004; Schuster et al. 2002,2003,2006).
Susceptibility of the SLWF to Admire
decreased from 2000 to 2003, increased in
both 2004 and 2005, and then decreased
tremendously in 2006. Susceptibility of
the SWLF to Platinum decreased from
2003 to 2005 and then, as with Admire,
susceptibility decreased dramatically in
2006. Because of the reduced suscepti-
bility indicated in 2006, the resistance

monitoring program was continued in
2007 and expanded to include the other
neonicotinoids Assail and Venom.
Resistance was estimated in the labo-
ratory using a cut leaf petiole bioassay
method (Schuster and Thompson 2001,
2004; Schuster et al. 2002, 2003, 2006).
Bioassays were conducted using adults
reared from foliage infested with nymphs
that had been collected from each crop
field. Standard probit analyses (SAS
Institute 1989) were used to estimate the
LCso values (the concentration estimated
to kill 50% of the population) for a labo-
ratory colony and for each field popula-
tion. The laboratory colony used as a
susceptible standard in this study has been

Table 1. Results of resistance bioassays of silverleaf whitefly populations collected from west central, southwest and southeast
Florida to neonicotinoid insecticides, Spring 2007.

Population Generation Admire Assail Platinum Venom
site Crop Tested1 LCC RS, LC,, RS, LC_ RSn LCC RSn
GCREC/Lab Tomato ---- 0.38 ---- 0.58 ---- 1.36 ---- 0.32
Apollo Beach Tomato 1st 2.75 7.3 ---- ---- 13.8 10.1 1.25 4.0
Collier-2 Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 25.4 18.7
F1 Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.4 7.6
FM Tomato 1st 2.13 5.6 ---- ---- 6.58 4.8
Homestead Tomato 2nd2 10.7 28.3 ---- ---- 29.8 21.9
HomesteadB Bean 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 4.37 3.2
HSRC Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 3.83 2.8
Myakka-1 Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 6.15 4.5
Maykka-5 Tomato 1st ---- ---- 2.16 3.7 5.30 3.9 1.39 4.4
NECollier Tomato 2nd2 32.5 85.8 ---- ---- 31.1 22.9
P 1&2 Pepper 2nd ---- ---- 1.60 2.8 24.8 18.2 1.19 3.8
P9 Potato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.31 4.1
Parrish-1 Tomato 1st3 18.1 47.8 ---- ---- 8.82 6.5 2.21 7.0
SWFREC Watermelon 2nd 12.6 33.2 ---- ---- 29.7 21.8 2.24 7.1
T 5 Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.70 5.4
T6 Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- 8.00 5.9 1.28 4.0
TG12N Tomato 2nd ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.61 5.1
TomG#2 Tomato 1st 2.08 5.5 ---- ---- 14.3 10.5 0.90 2.8
TR 3 Tomato 2nd 4.67 12.3 ---- ---- 19.7 14.5 --

1The first generation would be those whitefly adults emerging from the foliage collected in the field. The second and third genera-
tions were reared on tomato plants in the laboratory that had not been treated with neonicotinoid.
These populations were tested in the 3rd generation for Admire.
3This population was tested in the 2nd generation for Admire.

in continuous culture since the late 1980's
without the introduction of whiteflies col-
lected from the field and, therefore, would
be expected to be particularly susceptible
to insecticides. The relative susceptibility
(RSs) of each field population compared
to the laboratory colony was calculated
by dividing the LCs, values of the field
populations by the LCs, value of the labo-
ratory colony. Increasing values greater
than one suggest decreasing susceptibil-
ity in the field population. While values
approaching 8 could indicate decreasing
susceptibility of the whiteflies, such vari-
ability is not unexpected when comparing
field-collected insects with susceptible,
laboratory-reared insects. Values of 10 or
greater, especially those of 20 or higher,
are sufficiently high to draw attention.
The average RS, value for Admire for
2007 did not decrease from 2006 while
that for Platinum decreased about 60%
(Fig. 1). One population, NECollier,
was particularly high for Admire with an
RSso value of 85.8 (Table 1). This is the

highest RS,0 ever identified in 8 years of
monitoring, especially considering the
population had been reared for two gen-
erations (3rd generation) in the lab with-
out further exposure to Admire. Research
in the past has indicated that reduced
susceptibility declines as the whiteflies
are reared on successive generations on
plants not treated with Admire (Schuster
and Thompson 2004). The NECollier
population was also higher for Platinum.
Some other populations were also high
for both Admire and Platinum includ-
ing Homestead, SWFREC (Southwest
Florida Research & Education Center,
Immokalee), and TR 3. However, there
were two populations that were higher for
Platinum but not Admire (Apollo Beach
and TomG#2) and one that was higher
for Admire but not Platinum (Parrish-1).
These results may suggest that there isn't
cross tolerance between the two neonicot-
inoids but that there may be simultaneous
selection for tolerance. Previous monitor-
ing had suggested a similar conclusion

(Schuster and Thompson 2004). All 10
populations evaluated for susceptibility
to Venom were susceptible, even some
populations that were higher for Admire
and/or Platinum. The two populations
evaluated with Assail were susceptible,
although one, P 1&2, was higher with
Biotype Qof the sweetpotato white-
fly is the most prevalent biotype in the
Mediterranean region and has plagued
greenhouse-grown crops in southern
Spain for years. This biotype is resistant
to many of the commonly used insecti-
cides for managing whiteflies, including
the pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, pyme-
trozine and insect growth regulators
(Courier and Knack). Furthermore, re-
sistance in biotype Qis more stable than
that in biotype B, i.e. resistance does not
diminish over time. Biotype Qhas now
been found in greenhouses and nurseries
in 22 states including Florida. Although
the biotype has not been detected in the
field, it represents a new threat to veg-

tables and other crops in Florida. Strict
adherence to management guidelines,
especially those dealing with crop hygiene
and cultural controls, is important in in-
hibiting or delaying the establishment of
biotype Qin the field.
A Resistance Management Working
Group was formed in 2003 to promote
resistance management on a regional basis.
The group modified previous resistance
management recommendations (Schuster
and Thompson 2001,2004; Schuster et
al. 2002,2003) and met with growers to
encourage their adoption. The Working
Group consisted of University of Florida
research and extension personnel, represen-
tatives of the chemical companies market-
ing neonicotinoid insecticides, representa-
tives of commodity organizations, and
commercial scouts. Because of the threat
of biotype Qand decreased insecticide sus-
ceptibility demonstrated in 2006 (Schuster
et al. 2006), the group was expanded and
met in May, 2006 to once again discuss
and revise the whitefly and resistance man-
agement recommendations. The recom-
mendations include field hygiene and cul-
tural practices which should be considered
a high priority and should be included as
an integral part of the overall strategy for
managing whitefly populations,TYLCV
incidence, and insecticide resistance. These
practices will help reduce the onset of the
initial infestation ofwhitefly and lower the
initial infestation level during the cropping
period, thus reducing insecticide use and
selection pressure for insecticide resistance
development. The recommendations also
include insecticide use recommendations
which help improve whitefly and resistance

A. Crop Hygiene.
Field hygiene should be a high priority
and should be included as an integral
part of the overall strategy for man-
aging whitefly populations, TYLCV

incidence, and insecticide resistance.
These practices will help reduce the
onset of the initial infestation of
whitefly, regardless ofbiotype, and
lower the initial infestation level dur-
ing the cropping period.
1. Establish a minimum 2 month crop
free period during the summer,
preferably from mid-June to mid-
2. Disrupt the virus-whitefly cycle in
winter by creating a break in time
and/or space between fall and
spring crops, especially tomato.
3. Destroy the crop quickly and thor
oughly, killing whiteflies and pre
venting re-growth.
a. Promptly and efficiently destroy
all vegetable crops within 5 days
of final harvest to decrease
whitefly numbers and sources of
plant begomoviruses like
b. Use a contact desiccant ("burn
down") herbicide in conjunction
with a heavy application of oil
(not less than 3% emulsion) and
a non-ionic adjuvant to destroy
crop plants and to kill whiteflies quickly.
c. Time burn down sprays to avoid
crop destruction during windy
periods, especially when pre
vailing winds are blowing white
flies toward adjacent plantings.
d. Destroy crops block by block as
harvest is completed rather than
waiting and destroying the en
tire field at one time.
B. Other Cultural Control Practices.
Reduce overall whitefly populations,
regardless of biotype, and avoid intro-
ducing whiteflies and TYLCV into
crops by strictly adhering to correct
cultural practices.
1. Use proper pre-planting practices.
a. Plant whitefly and virus-free
1) Do not grow vegetable
transplants and vegetatively
propagated ornamental
plants (i.e. hibiscus, poinset
tia, etc.) at the same location,
especially if bringing in plant
materials from other areas of

the US or outside the US.
2) Isolate vegetable transplants
and ornamental plants if both
are produced in the same
3) Do not work with or ma
nipulate vegetable transplants
and ornamental plants at the
same time.
4) Practice worker isolation
between vegetable transplants
and ornamental crops.
5) Avoid yellow clothing or
utensils as these attract
whitefly adults.
6) Cover all vents and other
openings with whitefly resis
tant screening (0.25 x 0.8
mm openings or less for
passive ventilation, less for
forced air ventilation). Use
double doors with positive
pressure. Cover roofs with
UV absorbing films.
b. Delay planting new fall crops as
long as possible.
c. Do not plant new crops near or
adjacent to old, infested crops.
d. Use determinant varieties of
grape tomatoes to avoid ex
tended crop season (see addi-
tional information below for list).
e. Use TYLCV resistant tomato
cultivars (see additional infor-
mation below for list) where
possible and appropriate, es
pecially during historically criti-
cal periods of virus pressure.
Whitefly control must continue
even with use ofTYLCV resis-
tant cultivars because these cul-
tivars can carry the virus.
f. Use TYLCV resistant pepper
cultivars (see additional infor-
mation below for a source of a
list) when growing pepper and
tomato in close proximity.
g. Use ultraviolet light reflective
(aluminum) mulch on plantings
that growers find are historically
most commonly infested with
whiteflies and infected with
2. Use proper post-planting practices.


a. Apply an effective insecticide
to kill whitefly adults prior to
cultural manipulations such as
pruning, tying, etc.
b. Rogue tomato plants with
symptoms ofTYLCV at least
until second tie. Plants should
be treated for whitefly adults
prior to roguing and, if nymphs
are present, should be removed
from the field, preferably in
plastic bags, and disposed of as
far from production fields as
c. Manage weeds within crops to
minimize interference with
spraying and to eliminate alter-
native whitefly and virus host
d. Dispose of cull tomatoes as far
from production fields as pos-
sible. If deposited in pastures,
fruit should be spread instead
of dumped in a large pile to
encourage consumption by
cattle. The fields should then be
monitored for germination of
tomato seedlings, which should
be controlled by mowing or with
herbicides if present.
e. Avoid u-pick or pin-hooking
operations unless effective
whitefly control measures are
f. Destroy old crops within 5 days
after harvest, destroy whitefly
infested abandoned crops, and
control volunteer plants with a
desiccant herbicide and oil.
g. Plant non-host cover crops such
as Sudex to discourage weeds
and volunteer crop plants from
growing and being infested by
C. Insecticidal Control Practices.
1. Delay resistance to neonicotinoid
and other insecticides by using a
proper whitefly insecticide pro-
gram. Follow the label!
a. On transplants in the produc-
tion facility, do not use a neo-
nicotinoid insecticide ifbiotype
Qis present. Ifbiotype B is
present, apply a neonicotinoid


one time 7-10 days before ship-
ping. Use products in other
chemical classes, including
Fulfill, soap, etc. before this time.
b. Use neonicotinoids in the field
only during the first six weeks
of the crop, thus leaving a neo
nicotinoid-free period at the end
of the crop.
c. As control of whitefly nymphs
diminishes following soil
drenches of the neonicoti-
noid insecticide or after more
than six weeks following trans
planting, use rotations of in
secticides of other chemical
classes including insecticides
effective against biotype Q.
Consult the Cooperative
Extension Service for the latest
d. Use selective rather than broad-
spectrum control products where
possible to conserve natural en
emies and enhance biological
e. Do not apply insecticides on
weeds on field perimeters. These
could kill whitefly natural en
emies and, thus, interfere with
biological control, as well as
select for biotype Q if present,
which is more resistant to many
insecticides than biotype B.
2. Soil applications of neonicotinoid
insecticides for whitefly control.
a. For best control, use a neonicoti-
noid as a soil drench at trans
planting, preferably in the trans
plant water.
b. Soil applications of neonic
otinoids through the drip
irrigation system are inefficient
and not recommended.
c. Do not use split applications of
soil drenches of neonicotinoid
insecticides (i.e. do not apply at
transplanting and then again later).
3. Foliar applications of neonicotinoid
insecticides for whitefly control.
a. Foliar applications, if used in-
stead of or in addition to soil
drenches at transplanting,
should be restricted to the first

6 weeks after transplanting.
Do not exceed the maximum
active ingredient per season ac
cording to the label.
b. Follow scouting recommenda-
tions when using a foliar neonic-
otinoid insecticide program.
Rotate to non-neonicotinoid
6 weeks and do not use any
neonicotinoid class insecticides
for the remaining cropping period.
D. Do unto your neighbor as you
would have him do unto you.
1. Look out for your neighbor's welfare.
This may be a strange or unwel-
come concept in the highly com-
petitive vegetable industry but it
is in your best interest to do just
that. Growers need to remember
that, should the whiteflies develop
full-blown resistance to insecticides,
especially the neonicotinoids,
it's not just the other guy that
will be hurt-everybody will feel
the pain! This is why the Resistance
Management Working Group has
focused on encouraging region-wide
cooperation in this. .
2. Know what is going on in the
neighbor's fields.
Growers should try to keep abreast
of operations in upwind fields,
especially harvesting and crop
destruction, which both disturb the
foliage and cause whitefly adults to fly.
Now that peppers have been added
to the list ofTYLCV hosts, tomato
growers will need to keep in touch
with events in that crop as well.

IRAC (Insecticide Resistance Action
Committee) Website http://www.irac-
More suggestions for breaking the
whitefly/TYLCV cycle and a list of
TYLCV resistant pepper cultivars can
be found in articles by Dr. Jane Polston
in the 2002 and 2003 Proceedings of
the Florida Tomato Institute. TYLCV
resistant tomato cultivars can be found
in an article by Dr. Jay Scott in the 2004
Florida Tomato Institute Proceedings
and in an article by Dr. Kent Cushman

in the 2006 Florida Tomato Institute
Proceedings. Information on determinant
grape tomato cultivars can be found in an
article by Dr. Eric Simmone in the 2006
Florida Tomato Institute Proceedings.
All of these proceedings can be accessed
via Adobe AcrobatM at the Gulf Coast
Research & Education Center website

The author wishes to express his ap-
preciation to Sabrina Spurgeon and Aaron
Shurtlefffor conducting the 2007 bioas-
says; to Phil Stansly, Dak Seal, Henry
Yonce, Sarah Hornsby and Leon Lucas for
identifying and/or collecting whitefly sam-
ples for the 2007 monitoring; and to Bayer
CropScience, Cerexagri Inc., Syngenta
Crop Protection, Valent Agricultural
Products and the Florida Tomato
Committee for providing funding for
the neonicotinoid resistance monitoring.
Appreciation also is expressed to represen-
tatives of the Florida Tomato Committee,
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association,
Bayer CropScience, Syngenta Crop
Protection, Cerexagri Inc., Glades Crop
Care, Agricultural Crop Consulting, Agri-
Tech Services, KAC Agricultural Research,
and Integrated Crop Management, and
to UF/IFAS personnel Phyllis Gilreath,
Alicia Whidden, Gene McAvoy, Jim Price
and Phil Stansly for their participation
in the Resistance Management Working
Group and for their many contributions to
the whitefly and resistance management

SAS Instititute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT
User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition,
Vol. 2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Schuster, D.J. and S.Thompson. 2001.
Monitoring susceptibility of the silverleaf
whitefly to imidacloprid, pp. 16-18. In P.
Gilreath and C. S. Vavrina [eds.], 2001
Fla. Tomato Institute Proc., Univ. Fla.,
Gainesville, PRO 518.

Schuster, D.J. and S.Thompson. 2004.
Silverleaf whitefly resistance manage-
ment update, pp. 19-25. In P. Gilreath and

W. H. Stall [eds.], Fla.Tomato Institute
Proc., Univ. Fla., Gainesville, PRO 521.

Schuster, D.J., S.Thompson, P. A.
Stansly and J. Conner. 2002. Update on
insecticides for whitefly and leafminer
control, pp. 51-60. In P. Gilreath and C. S.
Vavrina [eds.], 2002 Fla.Tomato Institute
Proc., Univ. Fla., PRO 519.

Schuster, D.J., S. Thompson and P. R.
Gilreath. 2003. What's up with all these
whiteflies?, pp. 12-19. In P. Gilreath and
W. H. Stall [eds.], Fla.Tomato Institute
Proc., Univ. Fla., PRO 520.

Schuster, D.J., R. Mann and P. R.
Gilreath. 2006. Whitefly resistance update
and proposed mandated burn down rule.
Pp. 24-28. In K. Cushman and P. Gilreath
[eds.], Fla. Tomato Institute Proc., Univ.
Fla., PRO 523.




Jane E. Polston, Dept. of Plant Pathology,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32607


Begomoviruses have become the largest
genus of viruses with more than 140 ap-
proved species. here are more than 1,000
plant viruses known, and begomoviruses
represent 10 15% of all known plant viruses.
This huge increase in their number has oc-
curred just in the last 15 years and they have
become very important pathogens of plants.
The emergence of begomoviruses is due
to several factors. One is the movement of
known begomoviruses throughout the world
through the commercial trade in plant mate-
rial. Tomato transplants, which often show

Figure 1. Begomovirus particles as seen w
electron microscope

- .-

the unique
nate ("twin

no symptoms of infection by begomoviruses,
can easily be shipped long distances in very
short periods of time. These plants are then
put in the fields, and if the vector is present,
the virus can easily spread to other tomato
plants as well as to other crop and weed spe-
cies, which allows the new virus to become
established in the environment. Another
factor in the emergence ofbegomoviruses
in tomato is the increase in the global dis-
tribution of a whitefly vector which can
feed and reproduce on tomato. This vector
is capable of moving viruses present in the
weeds (which previously had no way to infect
tomato) into tomato plants and creating a
new disease. Still another factor in the emer-
gence of begomoviruses is the
ith an fact that new begomoviruses can
come into being when different
,-begomoviruses are present in
the same plant at the same time.
: Begomoviruses can exchange
parts of their DNA sequences
and form new virus strains and
S new viruses.
Tomato appears to be a very
suitable host for begomoviruses.
Approximately 95 begomo-
viruses have been reported to
infect tomato. Begomoviruses
infect tomato in many pro-
duction areas throughout the
tropics and subtropics. Almost
90% of these viruses have been
Found in symptomatic field
.S' *' plants, rather than as the result
of artificial greenhouse host
of a be- range experiments.To be con-
showing sidered an approved species, the
gemi- complete sequence of the be-
ned") gomovirus must be determined
and reported. However, only
a partial genome sequence is
known for a large number of the
begomoviruses found in symp-

tomatic plants; only 50 of these viruses have
been approved as species. Table 1 lists the
approved species known to infect tomato
either experimentally (only in greenhouse
transmission studies) or naturally (sequence
came from infected field plants). Many of
these viruses have only been identified with-
in the last 10 years. Although the sequence
of these viruses has been reported, there is
a lag in the reporting of biological data (re-
sponse to resistance genes, host range, ecol-
ogy, and recognition of strains) for most of
these viruses. It is expected that even more
new begomoviruses will be added to this
list, based in part on the long list of tentative
species (45 reported to date).
All begomoviruses have a unique gemi-
nate particle morphology (Figure 1), and
have the ability to be transmitted by the
members of the Bemisia tabaci species
complex (or were once able to in the case
of a few). Begomoviruses can be divided
into two groups those with a monopartite
genome (about 5,200 nt) and those with
bipartite genomes (about 2,500 nt per com-
ponent). Begomoviruses with monopartite
genomes probably originated in the Old
World, although at least one, Tomatoyellow
leafcurl virus, now occurs in the New World
due to its recent spread across continents
through the movement of infected plant
material. The bipartite begomoviruses occur
in both the Old and New Worlds; a center
of origin for these is not known.

Tomato chlorosis virus or ToCV is another
whitefly transmitted virus, but it is very dif-
ferent from TYLCV or other begomovirus-
es (Figure 2). ToCV belongs to the genus
Criniviruses. These viruses are all transmit-
ted by whiteflies. There are two viruses in
this genus that can infect tomato, ToCV


Viruses with gray backgrounds were found in naturally occurring in tomato. All others are the result of greenhouse experiments

and Tomato infectious chlorosis virus or TiCV.
Only ToCV has been found in Florida and
has been known here since 1989.
ToCV and TiCV cause very similar
symptoms in tomato. The symptoms are
unusual for those caused by viruses because
they are first observed on older leaves, gradu-
ally advancing toward the top of the plant.
The symptoms OfToCV resemble those of
nutrient deficiencies, particularly magnesium
or nitrogen, and consist of a yellowing of the
areas between the veins, leafbrittleness, and
rolling of leaves. As the plant ages, interveinal
necrotic flecking or bronzing may be ob-
served as well. The effect ofToCV on yield
has not been established; however, TiCV has
been shown to reduce fruit size and number
and to cause premature senescence.
Like Begomoviruses,TICV is only trans-
mitted by the Bemisia tabaci species complex.
However, unlike the Begomoviruses,TiCV
is transmitted in a semi-persistent manner. It
can only be acquired by the feeding of an adult
whitefly on an infected plant, and can only be
transmitted for a period of up to five days.
The geographic distribution of both

TICV and ToCV appears to
be increasing. ToCV is wide-
spread in field tomato produc-
tion in Florida and other areas
of the southeastern US, Israel,
and Puerto Rico. TICV has
been reported from the U.S.
(California, North Carolina),
Mexico, Central and Southern
Europe, and Taiwan. In the
U.S.,ToCV and TICV are
primarily a problem for field
tomato, but they are found in
greenhouse production facili-
ties in other parts of the world.
TICV is readily found in tomato fields
in production in California and Mexico.
Although these viruses have the potential
to cause yield losses in both field and green-
house tomatoes, in most years and locations
they cause only minor losses.
Detection ofToCV (as with all other
Criniviruses) is very difficult. 'he virus is
located in the phloem, it is not evenly dis-
tributed within the plant, and it occurs in
very low amounts. The proteins it produces

Figure 2. Image of Crinivirus particles
from the electron microscope showing
the long flexuous rod shape. (Image cour-
tesy of ICTV Descriptions)

are also present in low amounts, so ELISA
and similar techniques are unreliable. Also,
it does not cause easily recognized inclu-
sions. ToCV has a very long and unstable
particle shape and its RNA genome is
harder to work with than DNA viral ge-


Table. List of Approved Species of Begomoviruses Known to Infect Tomato
Begomovirus Acronym Begomovirus Acronym
Abutilon mosaic virus AbMV Tomato golden mosaic virus TGMV
Ageratum yellow vein virus AYW Tomato golden mottle virus ToGMoV
Bean calico mosaic virus BCMoV Tomato leaf curl Bangalore virus ToLCBV
Bean dwarf mosaic virus BDMV Tomato leaf curl Bangladesh virus ToLCBDV
Chino del tomate virus CdTV Tomato leaf curl Gujarat virus ToLCGV
Cotton leaf curlAlabad virus CLCuAV Tomato leaf curl Karnataka virus ToLCKV
Cotton leaf curl virus Kokhran CLCu KV Tomato leaf curl Laos virus ToLCLV
Cotton leaf curl Multan virus CLCuMV Tomato leaf curl Malaysia virus ToLCMV
Honeysuckle yellow vein mosaic virus HYVMV Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus ToLCNDV
Papaya leaf curl virus PaLCuV Tomato leaf curl Sri lanka virus ToLCSLV
Pepper golden mosaic virus PepGMV Tomato leaf curl Taiwan virus ToLCTWV
Pepper hausteco virus PHYW Tomato leaf curl Vietnam virus ToLCW
Pepper leaf curl Bangladesh virus PepLCBV Tomato leaf curl virus ToLCV
Potato yellow mosaic virus PYMV Tomato mosaic Havana virus ToMHV
Potato yellow mosaic Panama virus PYMPV Tomato mottle Taino virus ToMoTV
Potato yellow mosaic Trinidad virus PYMTV-[TT] Tomato mottle virus ToMoV
Sida golden mosaic Costa Rica virus SiGMCRV Tomato rugose mosaic virus ToRMV
Sida yellow vein virus SiYW Tomato severe leaf curl virus ToSLCV
Sida golden mosaic virus SiGMV Tomato severe rugose virus ToSRV
Tobacco curly shoot virus TbCSV Tomato yellow leaf curl china virus TYLCCNV
Tobacco leaf curl Japan virus TbLCJV Tomato yellow leaf curl Gezira virus TYLCGV
Tobacco leaf curl Kochi virus TbLCKoV Tomato yellow leaf curl Malaga virus TYLCMaIV
Tobacco leaf curl Yunnan virus TbLCYNV Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus TYLCSV
Tobacco leaf curl Zimbabwe virus TbLCZV Tomato yellow leaf curl Thailand virus TYLCTHV
Tomato chlorotic mottle virus ToCMV Tomato yellow leaf curl virus TYLCV

Figure 3. Diagram of the Genomes of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus and a DNA B satel-
lite showing the differences in sizes of the genomes and number of genes.

Genome of TYLCV
DNA genome
Sw genes on the genome

nomes. PCR and nucleic acid hybridiza-
tion are the best techniques to utilize, but
because the virus is present in such low
amounts in the plant it can be missed even
by such highly sensitive techniques.

"Great feas have littlefleas, Upon their backs
to bite 'em, And littlefleas have lesserfleas, and
so, adinfinitum." A. DeMorgan, 1806-1871
Although begomoviruses by themselves
are bad enough from an economic per-
spective, the damage they cause can be

Genome of
DNA Satellite

intensified by the presence of"parasitic"
sequences of DNA known as DNA & sat-
ellites. DNA f satellites are much smaller
than begomoviruses (approximately 1,400
nt in their genome) and share no sequence
homology with begomoviruses (Figure 3).
These satellites are single stranded circular
DNAs that completely depend upon a
monopartite begomovirus for replication,
movement, and transmission to new hosts.
DNA & satellites have been found in cot-
ton, tomato, pepper, and a few weed hosts
primarily in the Old World; they have not
yet been found in the New World. Many
of the diseases caused by monopartite be-

gomoviruses in this area of the world have
been found to involve a DNA & satellite.
More than 100 DNA & satellites have
been reported, and fortunately all of
these have been found in the Old World
(primarily in Asia). The DNA f satellite
genome encodes one gene (9fC1) which
suppresses the plants' ability to resist the
begomovirus. By decreasing the plants'
resistance, the DNA f satellites 1) in-
crease the severity of symptoms caused
by the begomoviruses and 2) increase the
amount of begomovirus in the plants.
When they are present, the DNA 1 satel-
lites are the main determinant of symp-
tom severity in the infected host.
In addition, new diseases can arise from
mixtures of begomoviruses and DNA &
satellites. DNA & satellites can turn off
normal resistance mechanisms, and this
can allow the begomovirus to replicate in
a plant that is immune, highly resistant, or
moderately resistant to the begomovirus
in the absence of the DNA & satellite.
The presence of DNA & satellites and
their role in increasing symptom severity
was first found in begomoviruses that infect
cotton. However, the number of diseases
in tomato that are attributable to DNA f
satellites are increasing rapidly -- reports
of the involvement of DNA f satellites in
tomato diseases have come from China,
India, Pakistan, and Mali. It is likely that
the number ofbegomoviruses associated
with DNA f satellites will increase, and that
DNA & satellites may be found to play a
greater role in the creation of new diseases
in tomato as well as other crops.


Stephen M. Olson1 and Eugene McAvoy2
'North Florida Research & Education Center, University of Florida, Quincy; smolson@ufl.edu
2Hendry County Extension, University of Florida, 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
considered 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 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 tolerance to
Bacterial soft rot. Available resistance
to other diseases may be important in
certain situations, such as Tomato yellow
leaf curl in south and central Florida and
Tomato spotted wilt and Bacterial wilt
resistance in northwest Florida.
Horticultural Quality Plant habit, stem
type and fruit size, shape, color, smooth-
ness and resistance to defects should all
be considered in variety selection.
Adaptability Successful tomato variet-
ies must perform well under the range
of environmental conditions usually
encountered in the district or on the
individual farm.
Market Acceptability The tomato pro-
duced must have characteristics accept-
able to the packer, shipper, wholesaler,
retailer and consumer. Included among
these qualities are pack out, fruit shape,
ripening ability, firmness, and flavor.

Many tomato varieties are grown com-
mercially in Florida, but only a few rep-
resent 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 infor-
mation is no longer available through the
USDA Crop Reporting Service.

Table 1 shows results of spring trials for
2005 and Table 2 shows results of fall trial
of 2005 conducted at the North Florida
Research and Education Center, Quincy.

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 varieties that may
be adapted to Florida conditions. Growers
should try new varieties on a limited basis
to see how they perform for them.

Amelia. Vigorous determinate, main season,
jointed hybrid. Fruit are firm and aromatic

suitable for green or vine ripe. Good
crack resistance. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3),
root-knot nematode, Gray leaf spot and
Tomato spotted 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 spot-
ted 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 640. Early-midseason matu-
rity. Fruit are globe shape but tend to
slightly elongate, and green shouldered.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3), Gray leaf
spot, and Tomato spotted wilt. (BHN).
Crista. Midseason maturity. Large, deep
globe fruit with tall robust plants. 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 shoul-
ders. Determinate with medium-tall
bush. Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race
1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2) Fusarium
crown rot, Alternaria stem canker and
Gray leaf spot. (Seminis)
Flora-Lee. It was released for the pre-
mium tomato market. A midseason,
determinate, jointed hybrid with mod-
erate heat-tolerance. Fruit are uniform
green with a high lycopene content
and deep red interior color due to the
crimson gene. Resistant: Fusarium wilt
(race 1,2,3), Verticillium wilt (race 1),
and Gray leaf spot. ForTrial.
Florida 47. A late midseason, deter-
minate,jointed hybrid. Uniform
green, globe-shaped fruit. Resistant:
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Verticillium

wilt (race 1), Alternaria stem canker,
and Gray leaf spot. (Seminis).
Florida 91. Uniform green fruit borne
on jointed pedicels. Determinate plant.
Good fruit setting ability under high tem-
peratures. Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race
1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Alternaria
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 excel-
lent firmness 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 leaf spot. (Sakata)
Phoenix. Early mid-season. Fruit are
large to extra-large, high quality, firm,
globe-shaped and are uniformly-colored.
"Hot-set"variety. Determinate, vigorous
vine with good leaf cover for fruit protec-
tion. Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Alternaria stem
canker and Gray leaf spot. (Seminis)
Quincy. Full season. Fruit are large
to extra-large, excellent quality, firm,
deep oblate shape and uniformly col-
ored. Very strong determinate plant.
Resistant: Verticillium wilt (race 1),
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), Alternaria
stem canker, Tomato spotted wilt and
Gray leaf spot. (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 deter-
minate plants. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2)
and Gray leaf spot. (Seedway)
Sanibel. Main season. Large, firm,
smooth fruit with light green shoulder
and a tight blossom end. Large deter-
minate bush. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2),
root-knot nematodes, Alternaria stem
canker and Gray leaf spot. (Seminis)
Sebring. A late midseason determinate, jointed
hybrid with a smooth, deep oblate, firm,


Table 1. Tomato variety trial results, spring 2006. NFREC-Quincy, FL.
Entry Source Marketable Yield (25 Ib Marketable Fruit wt.
cartons/a) (%) (oz)
Large Extra large Total


Fla 8367

BHN 444




SVR 01420224 Seminis

NC 056

308 a-d 2585 a

2956 a 84.3 a-c

7.2 bc

320 a-c 2164ab 2565 ab 81.6b-d 6.8 b-e

299 b-e 2167ab 2542ab 82.4a-d 7.1 b-d

288 b-e 2047 b

297 b-e 2043 b

2415 bc 84.0 a-d 7.0 b-e

2379 bc 82.8 a-d 6.9 b-e

Amelia Harris Moran 223 c-f 2082 b 2371 bc 87.0ab 7.1 b-d

BHN 602

SVR 01408580 Seminis

NC 0392

303 b-e 2011 b

279 b-e 1988 b

2368 bc 85.1 a-c

2329 bc 83.0 a-d 7.1 b-d

284 b-e 1962 bc 2307 b-d 82.8 a-d 7.0 b-d

SVR 01409432 Seminis

206 ef 2021 b

2267 b-d 86.0 a-c 7.3 ab

HMX 5825 Harris Moran 398 a 1717 bc 2249 b-d 83.4 a-d 6.5 e


Harris Moran 212d-f 1877 bc 2129 b-d 85.0 a-c 7.2 bc

SVR 01721400 Seminis

NC 03289 NCS

BHN 640

161 f 1935 bc 2127 b-d 87.1 a

274 b-e 1763 bc 2098 b-d 83.6 a-d 6.8 b-e

352 ab 1667 bc 2096 b-d 82.2 a-d 6.6 de

NC 0377 NCS 265 b-e 1709 bc 2043 b-d 86.6 ab 6.8 b-e

Bella Rosa Sakata

221 d-f 1700 bc 1975 cd 80.9 cd

Talladega Syngenta 249 c-f 1465 c

1773 d 78.7 d

SMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5 % level.
Comments: In-row spacing 20 inches, between row spacing 6 ft., Drip irrigation
under black polyethylene mulch, Fertilizer applied 195-60-195 Ibs/A of N-P205-K20.
Transplanted 22 March 2006

thick walled fruit. Resistant: Verticillium wilt
(race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 12,3), Fusarium
crown rot and Gray leaf spot. (Syngenta)
Solar Fire. An early, determinate, jointed
hybrid. Has good fruit setting abil-
ity under high temperatures. Fruit are
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), Alternaria
stem canker, gray leaf spot. (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 rot and
Gray leaf spot. (Syngenta Rogers Seed)
Talledega. Midseason. Fruit are large
to extra-large, globe to deep globe
shape. Determinate bush. Has some
hot-set ability. 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), gray leaf spot, Tomato mosaic and
Tomato yellow leaf curl. (Seminis).

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
Gray leaf spot. (BHN Seed)
BHN411. Midseason. Large, smooth,
jointless fruit is tolerant to weather
cracks and has reduced tendency for
graywall. Compact plant with concen-
trated fruit set. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2),
Bacterial speck (race 0) and Gray leaf
spot. (BHN Seed)
BHN485. Midseason. Large to extra-
large, deep blocky, globe shaped fruit.
Determinate, vigorous bush with no prun-
ing recommended. Resistant: Verticillium
wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1,2,3) and
Tomato spotted wilt. (BHN Seed)
Marianna. Midseason. Fruit are predomi-
nately extra-large and extremely uniform
in shape. Fruit wall is thick and external
and internal color is very good with excel-
lent 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 Gray leaf spot. (Sakata)
Monica. Midseason. Fruit are 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 Gray leaf spot. (Sakata)
Plum Dandy. Medium to large deter-
minate plants. Rectangular, blocky,
defect-free fruit for fresh-market
production. When grown in hot, wet
conditions, it does not set fruit well
and is susceptible to bacterial spot.
For winter and spring production in

Florida. Resistant: Verticillium wilt,
Fusarium wilt (race 1), Early blight, and
rain checking. (Harris Moran).
Sunoma. Main season. Fruit are medium-
large, elongated and cylindrical. Plant
maintains fruit size through multiple har-
vests. 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)

BHN268. Early. An extra firm cherry
tomato that holds, packs and ships well.
Determinate, small to medium bush with

high yields. Resistant. 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 leaf
spot. (Seedway)
Mountain Belle. Vigorous, determinate

type plants. Fruit are round to slightly
ovate with uniform green shoulders
borne onjointless pedicels. Resistant:
Fusarium wilt (race 2), Verticillium wilt
(race 1). (Syngenta Rogers Seed).
Super Sweet 100 VF. Produces large clusters
of round uniform fruit with high sugar
levels. Fruit somewhat small and may
crack during rainy weather. Indeterminate
vine with high yield potential. Resistant:
Verticillium wilt (race 1) and Fusarium
wilt (race 1). (Siegers Seed, Seedway)
Shiren. Compact plant with high yield
potential and nice cluster. Resistant:
Fusarium wilt (race 1,2), root-knot nem-
atodes and Tomato mosaic. (Hazera)

Table 2. Tomato variety trial results, fall 2006. NFREC-Quincy,FL.
Entry Source Marketable Yield (25 Ib cartons/a) Marketable (%) Fruit wt.(oz)
Medium Large Ex-large Total
Quincy Seminis 215 abL 596 a 1708 ab 2521 a 84.6 a 6.2 bc

Bella Rosa Sakata

Flora-Lee GCREC





Phoenix Seminis 124 b-d 357 b-d 1489 a-c 1971 ab 77.6 ab 6.6 a-c



Fla. 8363 GCREC


Harris Moran

NC 03289 NCS

Fla.8314 GCREC 152 b-d 353 b-d 1364 a-c 1870 ab 73.8 ab 6.3 be

Solar Fire Harris Moran

RFT4974 Syngenta
HMX 5825 Harris Moran


Harris Moran

76 cd

104 cd

143 b-d

99 cd

333 b-d

330 b-d

394 a-c

299 b-d

1321 a-c

1278 a-c

1154 a-c

1178 a-c

1731 ab




74.3 ab

74.6 ab

76.4 ab

76.1 ab

7.4 a

6.6 a-c

6.0 b-d

6.5 a-c

.XTM 3301i S-aTata -------- 8----- 237c---- 1280 a-c 1576 ab--- 66.9" -- 6.7 a-c

NC 056

HA 3074 Hazera

Talladega Syngenta



"RA 36g'f" _H zR a --------- 5-9-------- -- ~ --------- 3---------- 4- 931--------- 4- 74,--------------- -- -- -
HA 3617 Hazera 59 d 133 d 305 d 498 c 47.4 c 5.9 cd

SMean separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test,%5 level.
Comments: In-row spacing 20 in., between row spacing 6 ft., Drip irrigation under white on black polyethylene mulch. Fertilizer ap-
plied 195-60-195 Ib/a of N-P205-K20. Transplanted 31 July 2006.


104 cd

167 bc

176 a-c

146 b-d

310 b-d

460 a-c

456 a-c

315 b-d

1802 a

1527 a-c

1445 a-c

1610 a-c



2077 ab


79.3 ab

80.6 ab

83.8 a

81.0 ab

81 cd

62 d

79 cd

6.7 a-c

6.2 bc

6.3 bc

6.5 a-c

271 cd

292 b-d

281 b-d

346 b-d

135 b-d

1613 a-c

1550 a-c

1525 a-c

1395 a-c





79.2 ab

80.0 ab

70.9 ab

77.6 ab

6.8 ab

6.7 a-c

6.8 ab

6.4 bc

120 b-d

262 a

89 cd

89 cd

249 cd


285 b-d

274 cd

1204 a-c

775 cd

1136 a-c

955 b-d



1511 ab

1320 bc

78.4 ab

69.1 b

67.2 b

76.0 ab

6.4 bc

5.3 d

6.4 bc

6.4 bc

Brixmore. Very early. Indeterminate.
Very uniform in shape and size, deep
glossy red color with very high early
and total yield. High brix and excel-
lent 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 ex-
cellent red color and a sweet flavor.
Resistant: Fusarium wilt (race 1,2),

Bacterial speck (intermediate resistance
race 0) and Gray leaf spot. (Seminis)
Jolly Elf. Early season. 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 flavor and up to 50
fruits per truss. Resistant: Verticillium

wilt (race 1), Fusarium wilt (race 1),
root-knot nematodes and Tobacco mo-
saic. (Thompson and Morgan)
St Nick. Mid-early season. Indeterminate
bush. Oblong, grape-shaped fruit with
brilliant red color and good flavor. Up to
10% brix. (Siegers Seed)
Smarty. 69 days. Vigorous, indeter-
minate bush with short internodes.
Plants are 25% shorter than Santa.
Good flavor, sweet and excellent flavor.


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

Water and nutrient management are two
important aspects of tomato production in
all production systems. Water is used for
wetting the fields before land preparation,
transplant establishment, and irrigation.
The objective of this article is to provide
an overview of recommendations for to-
mato irrigation management 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 evapo-
ration. This amount is also called crop

Water Management
Level Rating

Very low

5 Recommended

evapotranspiration (ETc). Irrigation
scheduling is used to apply the proper
amount of water to a tomato crop at the
proper time. The characteristics of the ir-
rigation system, tomato crop needs, soil
properties, and atmospheric conditions
must all be considered to properly schedule
irrigations. Poor timing or insufficient wa-
ter application can result in crop stress and
reduced yields from inappropriate amounts
of available water and/or nutrients.
Excessive water applications may reduce
yield and quality, are a waste of water, and
increase the risk of nutrient leaching

Irrigation scheduling method

Guessing (irrigate whenever)
Using the >feel and see= method
Using systematic irrigation (example: 2 hrs every day)
Using a soil moisture measuring tool to start irrigation
Using a soil moisture measuring tool to schedule irrigation
and apply amounts based on a budgeting procedure
Using together a water use estimate based on tomato plant
stage of growth,a measurement of soil water moisture,
determining rainfall contribution to soil moisture,and
having a guideline for splitting irrigation. In addition, BMPs
have some record keeping requirements

A wide range of irrigation scheduling
methods is used in Florida, with corre-
sponds to different levels of water manage-
ment (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 (wa-
ter management level 5 in Table 1; Table
2). The estimated water use is a guideline
for irrigating tomatoes. The measurement
of soil water tension is useful for fine tun-
ing 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 (ETc) de-
pends on stage of growth, and evapora-
tive 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 de-
termine ETc. Also, Kc values for the ap-
propriate stage of growth and production
system (Table 3) must be used.
By definition, ETo represents the water


Table 1. Levels of water management and corresponding irrigation scheduling meth-
od for tomato

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 sta-
tion. 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 evapotranspiration
ETc = Kc x ETo
Tomato crop water requirement may
also be estimated from Class A pan evap-
oration using:

Eq. [2] Crop water requirement = Crop
factor x Class A pan evaporation
ETc = CF x Ep
Typical CF values for fully-grown to-
mato 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 ET
This device consists of a canvas-covered
ceramic evaporation plate mounted on a
water reservoir. The green fabric creates a
diffusion barrier that controls 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
ETage (ETg) was well correlated to ETo
except on rainy days, but overall, the ET
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.

Irrigation systems are generally rated

Table 2. Summary of irrigation management guidelines for tomato.
Irrigation Irrigation system
management SeepageY Dripx
1- Target water Keep water table between Historical weather data or crop
application rate 18 and 24 inch depth evapotranspiration (ETc) calculated from
reference ET or Class A pan evaporation
2- Fine tune Monitor water table depth Maintain soil water tension in the root
application with with observation wells zone between 8 and 15 cbar
soil moisture
3- Determine the Typically, 1 inch rainfall Poor lateral water movement on sandy
contribution of raises the water table by and rocky soils limits the contribution
rainfall 1 foot of rainfall to crop water needs to (1)
foliar absorption and cooling of foliage
and (2) water funneled by the canopy
through the plan hole.
4- Rule for splitting Not applicable Irrigations greater than 12 and 50
irrigation gal/100ft (or 30 min and 2 hrs for medium
flow rate) when plants are small and fully
grown, respectively are likely to push the
water front being below the root zone
5-Record keeping Irrigation amount applied Irrigation amount applied and total
and total rainfall received" rainfall received"
Days of system operation Daily irrigation schedule
SEfficient irrigation scheduling also requires a properly designed and maintained ir-
rigation systems
Y Practical only when a spodic layer is present in the field
x On deep sandy soils
w Required by the BMPs

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 ir-
rigation and 90% to 95% for drip irrigation.
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 to-
mato irrigation requirement to calculate the
drip irrigation need. Otherwise, excessive
water volume will be systematically applied.
Tomato irrigation requirement are deter-
mined 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 efficiency
IR = ETc/Ea

For seepage irrigated crops, irrigation
scheduling recommendations consist
of maintaining the water table near the
18-inch depth shortly after transplant-
ing and near the 24- inch depth there-
after (Stanley and Clark, 2003). The
actual depth of the water table may be
monitored with shallow observation wells
(Smajstrla, 1997).
Irrigation scheduling for drip irrigated
tomato typically consists in daily appli-
cations 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/1001bf/day for 1 and 4 strings,


Table 3. Crop coefficient estimates (Kc)
for tomatoes.
Tomato Growth Plasticulture

1 0.30

2 0.40

3 0.90

4 0.90

5 0.75
z 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
2 to estimated crop evapotranspiration

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.
rThe dryer the soil, the higher the suction
needed, hence, the higher SWT SWT is
commonly expressed in centibars (cb) or
kiloPascals (kPa; lcb = IkPa). For toma-
toes grown on the sandy soils of Florida,
SWT in the rooting zone should be main-
tained 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 (Munoz-
Carpena, 2004). Tensiometers have been
used for several years in tomato produc-
tion. 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 success-
fully 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 contact 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 mois-
ture 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 SWT at
12-in remains 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 management.
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 holding capac-
ity. 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 together 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 ofTDR is that probes
need not being buried 1"-. 1 .ii-. 1,h. 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 1. ....'. I, ..il 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 the specific
depth used for tensiometers), it is not practi-
cal 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 placing the probe vertically, ap-
proximately 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 irrigation may result in
soil moisture above 16%.
Guidelines for Splitting Irrigation.
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 recommendations.
There are 27,150 gallons in one acre-inch;
thus, total volume was calculated by multiply-

ing the recommendation 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 irriga-
tion, although the entire field is not wetted.
This section is intended to clarify the conven-
tions 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
plasticulture, 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 ap-
ply. In addition, drip tape flow rates are re-
ported in gallons/hour/emitter or in gallons/
hour/100 ft ofrow. C........ .'....-.. tomato
growers tend to think in terms of multiples of
100 linear feet of bed, and ultimately convert
irrigation amounts into duration of irriga-
tion. It is important to correctly understand
the units of the irrigation recommendation in
order to implement it correctly.
Example. How long does an irriga-
tion 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 apart.
1. 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 cor-
responds to 5,430 gallons applied to
7,260 feet of row, which is equivalent to
75gallons/100feet (5,430/72.6).
3. The drip tape flow rate is 0.30 gal-
lons/hr/emitter which is equivalent to 30
gallons/hr/100feet. It will take 1 hour to
apply 30 gallons/100ft, 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).

As an effort to clean impaired water

Table 4. Historical Penman-method reference ET (ETo) for four Florida locations (in
gallons per acre per day)z
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
Assuming water application over the entire area with 100% efficiency

bodies, federal legislation in the 70's, fol-
lowed by state legislation in the 90's and
state rules since 2000 have progressively
shaped the Best Management Practices
(BMP) program for vegetable produc-
tion in Florida. Section 303(d) of the
Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 required
states to identify impaired water bod-
ies and establish Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL) for pollutants entering
these water bodies. In 1987, the Florida
legislature passed the Surface Water
Improvement and Management Act
requiring the five Florida water manage-
ment districts to develop plans to clean
up and preserve Florida lakes, bays, es-
tuaries, 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 Practices" manual was
adopted by reference and by rule 5M-8
in the Florida Administrative Code on
Feb.9, 2006 (FDACS, 2005). The manual
which is available at www.floridaagwater-
policy.com, provides background on the

state-wide BMP program for vegetables,
lists all the possible BMPs, provides a se-
lection mechanism for building a custom-
ized BMP plan, outlines record-keeping
requirements, and explains how to partici-
pate in the BMP program. By definition,
BMPs are specific cultural practices that
aim at reducing nutrient load while main-
taining or increasing productivity. Hence,
BMPs are tools to achieve the TMDL.
Vegetable growers who elect to participate
in the BMP program receive three statu-
tory benefits: (1) a waiver of liability from
reimbursement of cost and damages asso-
ciated with the evaluation, assessment, or
remediation of contamination of ground
water (Florida Statutes 376.307); (2) a
presumption of compliance with water
quality standards (F.S. 403.067 (7)(d)),
and (3); an eligibility for cost-share pro-
grams (F.S. 570.085 (1)).
BMPs cover all aspects of tomato produc-
tion: pesticide management, conservation
practices and buffers, erosion control and
sediment management, nutrient and irriga-
tion management, water resources manage-
ment, and seasonal or temporary farming

Table 5. Estimated maximum water application (in gallons per acre and in gallons/
1001fb) 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/i 00ft Gal/i 00ft Gal/i 00ft Gal/acre Gal/acre to Gal/acre
width (ft) to wet to wet to wet to wet wet depth to wet
depth of depth of depth of depth of of 1.5ft depth of
1 ft 1.5ft 2ft 1 ft 2ft
1.0 24 36 48 1,700 2,600 3,500
1.5 36 54 72 2,600 3,900 5,200


operations. The main water quality param-
eters of importance 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 qual-
ity, but nutrient and irrigation management
BMPs have a direct effect on it.

FDACS. 2005. Florida Vegetable
and Agronomic Crop Water Quality
and Quantity BMP Manual. Florida
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services http://www.

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

Locascio, S.J. and A.G. Smajstrla. 1996.

Water application scheduling by pan
evaporation for drip-irrigated tomato.J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(1):63-68

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

Simonne, E.H., D.W. Studstill, R.C.
Hochmuth, G. McAvoy, M.D. Dukes and
S.M. Olson. 2003. Visualization of water
movement in mulched beds with injec-
tions 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 veg-
etable 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 demonstration of soil
water movement in vegetables grown with
plasticulture, EDIS, HS 1008, http://edis.

Simonne, E.H, M.D. Dukes, and D.Z.
Haman. 2006. Principles of irrigation
management for vegetables, 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.

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,



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

Fertilizer and nutrient management are es-
sential components of successful commercial
tomato production. This article presents the
basics of nutrient management for the different
production systems used for tomato in Florida.

Prior to each cropping season, soil tests
should be conducted to determine fertilizer
needs and eventual pH adjustments. Obtain
a UF/IFAS soil sample kit from the local ag-
ricultural Extension agent or from a reputable
commercial laboratory for this purpose. If a
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 applications
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 efficiency and increases the
risk of groundwater 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, P20,, and K20, respectively)
represent the optimum amounts of these
nutrients needed for maximum tomato pro-
duction (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 lbs/A N rate
on 6-ft centers is the same as 240 lbs/A N
rate on 5-ft centers and a 170 lbs/A N rate on
7-ft centers. This example is for illustration
purposes, and only 5 and 6 ft centers are com-
monly used for tomato production in Florida.
Fertilizer rates can be simply and accurately
adjusted to row spacings other than the stan-
dard 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 lbf/A (6/7 x 43,560
/ 7). If the recommendation is to inject 10 lbs
of N per acre (standard spacing), this becomes

Table 1. Fertilization recommendations for tomato grown in Florida on sandy soils testing very low in Mehlich-1 potassium (K20).
Production system Nutrient Recommended base fertilization Recommended supplemental fertilization
Total PreplantY Injectedx Leaching rain'" Measured >low= Extended
(Ibs/A) (Ibs/A) (Ibs/A/day) plant nutrient harvest season'
Weeks after transplanting" contentu'
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 Ibs/A/day 1.5-2 Ibs/A/
raised beds,and for 7dayst dayP
polyethylene K O 220 0-50 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5-2 Ibs/A/dayfor 1.5-2 Ibs/A/
mulch 7dayst dayP
Seepage irrigation, N 200 200v 0 0 0 0 0 30 Ibs/Aq 30 Ibs/At 30 Ibs/AP
raised beds,and K O 220 220v 0 0 0 0 0 20 Ibs/Aq 20 Ibs/At 20 Ibs/AP
polyethylene mulch

z 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.
xThis 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.
w For a standard 13 week-long, transplanted tomato crop grown in the Spring.
SSome 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 applied preplant. Rate may be reduced when a controlled-release fertilizer source is used.
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.
SPlant 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 addition to base fertilization when appropriate. Supplemental fertilization is not to be applied >in advance=with the preplant fertilizer.
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.

10 lbs ofN/7,260 lbfor 0.141bs N/100 lbf.
Since there are 5,333 lbf/acre in this example,
then the adjusted rate for this situation is 7.46
lbs N/acre (0.14 x 53.33). In other words, an
injection of 10 lbs of N to 7,260 lbf is accom-
plished by injecting 7.46 lbs of N to 5,333 lbf.

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 highest.
Fusarium wilt problems are reduced by lim-
ing within this range, but it is not advisable
to raise the pH above 6.5 because of reduced
micronutrient availability. In areas where soil
pH is basic (>7.0), micronutrient deficiencies
may be corrected by foliar sprays.
Calcium and magnesium levels should be
also corrected according to the soil test. If
both elements are Alow=, and lime is needed,
then broadcast and incorporate dolomitic
limestone (CaCO3, MgCO3).Where cal-
cium alone is deficient, Ahi-cal= (CaCO,)
limestone should be used. Adequate cal-

cium is important for reducing the severity
of blossom-end rot. Research shows that a
Mehlich-I (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 plant-
ing than not to apply it at all. Where the pH
does not need modification, but magnesium
is low, apply magnesium sulfate or potas-
sium-magnesium 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 mate-
rials, and therefore are not routinely used.
The increase in pH induced by liming ma-

trials is not due to the presence of calcium or
magnesium. Instead, it is the carbonate (ACO3")
and oxide (AO=) part ofCaCO3 and"CaO",
.'-..p 'i...1 ..1. i .-. thepH. Through several
chemical reactions that occur in the soil, carbon-
ates and oxides release OH- ions that combine
with H to produce water. As large amounts of
Hreact, the pH rises. A large fraction of the Ca
and/or Mg in the liming materials gets into solu-
tion and binds to the sites that are freed by H
that have reacted with OH.

Blossom-End Rot. Growers may have
problems with blossom-end-rot, especially 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
preferentially to the leaves. As a maturing
fruit is not a transpiring organ, most of the Ca


is deposited during early fruit growth, sulfate) is unlikely to reduce BER. Foliar sprays and molybdenum -0.02. Micronutrients may
Once BER symptoms develop on a tomato of Ca are unlikely to reduce BER because Ca be supplied from oxides or sulfates. Growers
fruit, they cannot be alleviated on this fruit. does not move out of the leaves to the fruit. using micronutrient-containing fungicides
Because of the physiological role of Ca in the GrayWall. Blotchy ripening (also called gray need to consider these sources when calculat-
middle lamella of cell walls, BER is a structural wall) oftomatoes is characterized by white oryel- ing fertilizer micronutrient needs.
and irreversible disorder. Yet, the Ca nutrition low blotches that appear on the surface ofripen- Properly diagnosed micronutrient deficien-
of the plant can be altered so that the new fruits ing tomato fruits,while the tissue inside remains cies can often be corrected by foliar applica-
are not affected. BER is most effectively con- hard.The affected area is usually on the upper tions of the specific micronutrient. For most
trolled by attention to irrigation and fertiliza- portion of the fruit. The etiology of this disorder micronutrients, a very fine line exists between
tion, or by using a calcium source such as cal- has not been filly established, but it is often asso- sufficiency and toxicity. Foliar application of
cium nitrate when soil Ca is low. Maintaining cited with high N and/or low K, and aggravated major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, or po-
adequate and uniform amounts of moisture in by excessive amount of N. This disorder may be tassium) has not been shown to be beneficial
the soil are also keys to reducing BER potential. at times confused with symptoms produced by where proper soil fertility is present.
Factors that impair the ability of tomato the tobacco mosaic virus. Graywall is cultivar
plants to obtain water will increase the risk specific and appears more frequently on older FERTILIZER APPLICATION
of BER.These factors include damaged roots cultivars. The incidence ofgraywallis less with Mulch Production with Seepage
from flooding, mechanical damage or nema- drip irrigation where small amounts of nutrients Irrigation. Under this system, the crop may
todes, clogged drip emitters, inadequate wa- are injected frequently, than with systems where be supplied with all of its soil requirements
ter applications, alternating dry-wet periods, all the fertilizer is applied pre-plant. before the mulch is applied (Table 1). It is
and even prolonged overcast periods. Other Micronutrients. For acidic sandy soils difficult to correct a deficiency after mulch
causes for BER include high fertilizer rates, cultivated for the first time ("new ground"), application, although a liquid fertilizer
especially potassium and nitrogen. or sandy soils where a proven need exists, a injection wheel can facilitate sidedressing
Calcium levels in the soil should be adequate general guide for fertilization is the addition through the mulch. The injection wheel will
when the Mehlich-1 index is 300 to 350 ppm of micronutrients (in elemental lbs/A) man- also be useful for replacing fertilizer under
or above. In 1.- ...... i. ,11. psum (calcium ganese -3, copper -2, iron -5, zinc -2, boron -2, the used plastic mulch for double-cropping

Table 2. Deficient,adequate,and excessive nutrient concentrations for tomato [most-recently-matured (MRM) leaf (blade plus petiole)].

N P K Ca Mg S
--------------------------- % -------------------
Tomato MRMz 5-leaf Deficient <3.0 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
leaf staae

Adequate 3.0 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
range 5.0 0.6 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.8
High >5.0 0.6 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.8
MRM First Deficient <2.8 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.3
leaf flower
Adequate 2.8 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.3
range 4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.8
High >4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.8
Toxic (>)

Fe Mn Zn B Cu Mo
----------------------------- ppm ---- -----
40 30 25 20 5 0.2

40 30 25 20 5
100 100 40 40 15
100 100 40 40 15
40 30 25 20 5

40 30 25 20 5
100 100 40 40 15
100 100 40 40 15
1500 300 250

MRM Early Deficient <2.5 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
leaf fruit set
Adequate 2.5 0.2 2.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
range 4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
High >4.0 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 100 100 40 40 10 0.6
Toxic (>) 250
Tomato MRM First ripe Deficient <2.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
leaf fruit
Adequate 2.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
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
MRM During Deficient <2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
leaf harvest
Adequate 2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.25 0.3 40 30 20 20 5 0.2
range 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.

systems. A general sequence of operations
for the full-bed plastic mulch system is:
1. Land preparation, including develop-
ment of irrigation and drainage sys-
tems, and liming of the soil, if needed.
2. Application of Acold= mix comprised of
10% to 20% of the total nitrogen and po-
tassium seasonal requirements and all of
the needed phosphorus and micronutri-
ents.The cold mix can be broadcast over
the entire area prior to bedding and then
incorporated. During bedding, the fertil-
izer will be gathered into the bed area. An
alternative is to use a Amodified broad-
cast~ technique for systems with wide
bed spacings. Use of modified broadcast
or banding techniques can increase phos-
phorus and micronutrient efficiencies,
especially on alkaline (basic) soils.
3. Formation of beds, incorporation of herbi-
cide, and application of mole cricket bait.
4. The remaining 80% to 90% of the nitrogen
and potassium is placed in one or two nar-
row bands 9 to 10 inches to each side of the
plant row in furrows. This "hot mix" fertil-
izer should be placed deep enough in the
grooves for it to be in contact with moist
bed soil. Bed presses are modified to pro-
vide the groove. Only water-soluble nutri-
ent sources should be used for the banded
fertilizer. A mixture 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 con-
trolled-release fertilizers (CRF) in the bed
with bottom mix than in the hot bands.
5. Fumigation, pressing of beds, and mulch-
ing. 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 irriga-
tion 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 limit fluctuations in
water table depth since this can lead to in-
creased leaching losses of plant nutrients. An
in-depth description of soil moisture devices
may be found in Munoz-Carpena (2004).

Mulched Production with Drip
Irrigation. Where drip irrigation is used, drip
tape or tubes should be laid 1 to 2 inches be-
low 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 micronutrients, and 20 percent to 40 per-
cent of total nitrogen and potassium preplant
in the bed. Apply the remaining nitrogen and
potassium through the drip system in incre-
ments as the crop develops.
Successful crops have resulted where the total
amounts of N and KO were applied through
the drip system. Some growers find this
method helpful where they have had problems
with soluble-salt bum.nTis approach would be
most likely to work on soils with relatively high
organic matter and some residual potassium.
However, it is important to begin with rather
high rates of N and KIO to ensure young trans-
plants are established quickly. In most situations,
some preplant N and K fertilizers are needed.
Suggested schedules for nutrient injections
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).

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 ni-
trogen sources may be used to supply a por-
tion of the nitrogen requirement. One-third
of the total required nitrogen can be supplied
from sulfur-coated urea (SCU), isobutylidene
diurea (BDU), or polymer-coated urea
(PCU) fertilizers incorporated in the bed.
Nitrogen from natural organic and most
controlled-release materials 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
normal superphosphate contributes sulfur.
All sources of potassium can be used for
tomato. Potassium sulfate, sodium-potassium
nitrate, potassium nitrate, potassium chloride,
monopotassium phosphate, and potassium-
magnesium sulfate are all good K sources. If

the soil test predicted amounts of K2O are
applied, then there should be no concern for
the K source or its associated salt index.

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 pro-
gram during the growing season or assist in
diagnosis of a suspected nutrient deficiency.
For both nutrient monitoring tools,
the quality and reliability of the measure-
ments are directly related to 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.

In practice, supplemental fertilizer ap-
plications allow vegetable growers to nu-
merically 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' foliar con-
tent, and extended harvest season) is part
of the current UF/IFAS fertilizer recom-
mendations and nutrient BMPs.

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
production in Florida. Successful produc-
tion and nutrient BMPs requires manage-
ment levels of 3 or above (Table 4).

Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services. 2005. Florida


Table 3. Recommended nitrate-N and
K concentrations in fresh petiole sap for
Sap concentration
Stage of growth NO3-N K
First buds 1000-1200 3500-4000
First open flowers 600-800 3500-4000
Fruits one-inch 400-600 3000-3500
Fruits two-inch 400-600 3000-3500
First harvest 300-400 2500-3000
Second harvest 200-400 2000-2500

Vegetable and Agronomic Crop Water
Quality and Quantity BMP Manual.

Gazula, A., E. Simonne and B. Boman.
2007. Update and outlook for 2007 of
Florida=s BMP program for vegetable
crops, EDIS HSXXX (In press).

Gilbert, C.A and E.H. Simonne. 2005.
Update and outlook for 2005 of Florida=s
BMP program for vegetable crops, EDIS
HS1013, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS256.

Hochmuth, G. 1994. Plant petiole
sap-testing for vegetable crops. Univ. Fla.

Coop. Ext. Circ. 1144, http://edis.ifas.

Hochmuth, G., D. Maynard, C.
Vavrina, E. Hanlon, and E. Simonne.
2004. Plant tissue analysis and interpreta-
tion for vegetable crops in Florida. EDIS

Maynard, D.N., and GJ. Hochmuth. 1997.
Knott=s Handbook for vegetable growers. 4th
ed. Wiley Interscience, New York.

Munoz-Carpena, R. 2004. Field devices
for monitoring soil water content. EDIS.
Bul 343. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS266.

Olson, S.M.,W.M. Stall, M.T. Momol,
S.E. Webb, T.G. Taylor, S.A. Smith, E.H.
Simonne, and E. McAvoy. 2006. Tomato
production in Florida, pp. 407-426 In:
S.M. Olson and E. Simonne (Eds.) 2006-
2007 Vegetable Production Handbook for
Florida, Vance Pub., Lenexa, KS.

Simonne, E.H. and GJ. Hochmuth.
2006. Soil and fertilizer management for
vegetable production in Florida, pp. 3-15 In:
S.M. Olson and E. Simonne (Eds.) 2006-
2007 Vegetable Production Handbook for
Florida, Vance Pub., Lenexa, KS.

Table 4. Progressive levels of nutrient management for tomato production.z
Nutrient Management Description

Level Rating

0 None

1 Very low

2 Low


Soil testing and still guessing

Soil testing and implementing >a= recommendation

3 Intermediate Soil testing, understanding IFAS recommendations,and
correctly implementing them

4 Advanced

5 Recommended

Soil testing, understanding IFAS recommendations, correctly
implementing them,and monitoring crop nutritional status

Soil testing, understanding IFAS recommendations, correctly
implementing them, monitoring crop nutritional status,
and practice year-round nutrient management and/or
following BMPs (including one of the recommended irrigation
scheduling methods).

Simonne, E., D. Studstill, B.
Hochmuth, T Olczyk, M. Dukes, R.
Munoz-Carpena, and Y. Li. 2002. Drip
irrigation: The BMP era An integrated
approach to water and fertilizer manage-
ment in Florida, EDIS HS917, http://

Simonne, E.H. and G.J. Hochmuth.
2003. Principles of irrigation and fer-
tilization management for vegetable
crops grown in Florida in the BMP era:
Introduction. EDIS HS897, http://edis.

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

w For a standard 13 week-long, trans-
planted 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.
Plant nutritional status may be deter-
mined 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.
SPlant nutritional status must be diag-
nosed every week to repeat supplemental
s Supplemental fertilizer applications
are allowed when irrigation is sched-
uled following a recommended method.
Supplemental fertilization is to be applied
in addition to base fertilization when ap-
propriate. Supplemental fertilization is
not to be applied >in advance= with the
preplant fertilizer.
SA 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 leach-
ing rain
P Plant nutritional status must be diag-
nosed after each harvest before repeating
supplemental fertilizer application.

zThese levels should be used together with the highest possible level of irrigation




Aparna Gazula1, Eric Simonnel, and Brian Boman2
University of Florida, IFAS, 1Horticultural Sciences Department and 21RREC, Ft. Pierce

The BMPs developed for vegetable
crops grown in Florida are described in a
manual titled "Water Quality/Quantity
Best Management Practices for Florida
Vegetable and Agronomic Crops". The
manual, which is electronically accessible
at ,
was adopted by reference in Rule No
5M-8.004 of the Florida Administrative
Code on February 8,2006. (The Florida
Administrative Code is the official com-
pilation of the rules and regulations of
Florida regulatory agencies.) The purpose
of this rule is to achieve pollutant reduc-
tion through the implementation of non-

regulatory and incentive based programs
which may be determined to have minimal
individual or cumulative adverse impacts to
the water resources of the state.
BMPs are defined in s. 373.4595(2)(a),
F.S. as "practices or combinations of
practices determined by the coordinating
agencies, based on research, field-testing,
and expert review, to be the most effec-
tive and practicable on-location means,
including economical and technological
considerations, for improving water qual-
ity in agricultural and urban discharges".
The 5M-8 rule includes information
about the approved BMP's, presumption

of compliance, notice of intent to imple-
ment, and record keeping. The statutory
benefits for enrolling in the BMP pro-
gram are: (1) obtaining a presumption of
compliance with water quality standards
(s. 403.067 (7)(d) Florida Statutes.), (2)
receiving a waiver of liability from the
reimbursement of costs and damages as-
sociated with the evaluation, assessment,
or remediation of nutrient contamina-
tion of ground water (s. 376.307), and
(3) eligibility for cost-share programs (s.
570.085 (1)). (The Florida Statutes are
the codified, statutory laws of the state of
Florida which are approved by the Florida

Table 1.Table of contents and corresponding BMPs of the"Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida
Vegetable and Agronomic Crops"
Sections: General Area / Area of Contents of Section: BMPs
1. Introduction Outlines the history and purpose of the program.
Gives a general outline and how to use the manual, including information on developing a
2. BMP Evaluation and
Imple station BMP implementation plan. In this section,there are decision tree flow charts and a geographic
region map designed to help growers identify BMPs applicable to their operations.
3. Pesticide Management Explains integrated pest management and how to manage pesticides.
4. Conservation Practices and Buffers Aquatic ecosystems and the practices necessary to help protect water quality by preventing
4. Conservation Practices and Buffers l runoff
leaching runoff.
5. Erosion Control and Sediment Techniques that help prevent movement of soil from agricultural fields.
Nutrient and Irrigation Soil testing and pH,water table observation wells,precision agriculture,crop establishment,double
6. Nutrient and Irrigation
SP 7-1, cropping in plasticulture system,proper use of organic fertilizer materials, controlled-release fertilizers,
Management Pages 75-130, .
Sections 26-42 optimum fertigation management/application,chemigation/fertigation,tissue testing,water supply,
tailwater recovery,tailwater refuse,and waterborne plant pathogens,irrigation system maintenance
and evaluation, irrigation scheduling,frost and freeze protection,water control structures.
W R M Update industry on the most common irrigation and storm water management techniques
7. Water Resources Management
available to date. In this section,there is a subsection focusing on plasticulture.
8. Seasonal orTemporary Farming BMPs to address issues related to seasonal farming.
9. Glossary Definitions of words used within manual.
A. BMP Checklist, NOI Form, BMP Effectiveness Summary
STypical Bed Spacings
SConversion of Fertilizer Rates
.Appendices Irrigation Application Rates for Cold Protection
Precipitation Rates by Nozzle Flow Rate and Sprinkler Spacing
C. Soil testing information
D. Incentive programs for agriculture
E. Federal Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/


Table 2 Record keeping requirements for the Florida vegetable BIV
5 Pesticide Equipment Calibration

6 Well Head Protection

26 Soil Testing/Soil pH

26 Soil Testing/Soil pH

26 Soil Testing/Soil pH

33 Optimum Fertilization Management/Application

34 Chemigation/Fertigation

39 Irrigation System Maintenance and Evaluation

40 Irrigation Scheduling

49 Seasonal orTemporary Farming Operations

49 Seasonal orTemporary Farming Operations

Record keeping requirement

Record calibration dates for future reference.

Maintain records of well construction.

Record or sketch where soil samples were taken within each area.
Record date, rate of application, materials used,and method of
lime application.
Keep the soil testing lab report for each field and crop as well as
information about the soil testing lab and the soil test method used.
Keep records of the fertilizers used, the amounts applied, and
dates of application.
On a regular basis, record the flow rate and pressure of the injection
device and irrigation pump(s),as well as the energy consumption of
the power unit for the irrigation pump.
Record the flow rate, pressure delivered by the pump,and energy
consumption of the power unit frequently enough to gain an
understanding of system performance.
Keep records of irrigation amounts applied and total rainfall
received. Flag values where rainfall rate or duration exceeds the
definition of a leaching rainfall event
Keep permanent records of crop history.
Keep records of flooded field including the duration,water level,
and water quality analyses.

Legislature and signed into law by the
Governor of Florida). The BMP program
for vegetables applies to the whole state of
Florida, except for the Lake Okeechobee
Priority Basin (rule 5M-3 F.A.C.) and
the EAA and C-139 basin (under rule
40E-63, F.A.C.) where pre-existing regu-
lations are already in place.

The BMP programs for all major agri-
cultural commodities of Florida have been
developed under the provisions of the
1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act
(FWRA .s. 403.067 F.S.). The FWRA
specifically outlines the process for the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) to develop and
implement total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) for impaired waters of the
state. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act requires states to submit lists of sur-
face waters that do not meet applicable
water quality standards and to establish
TMDLs for these waters on a prioritized
schedule. TMDLs are defined as the


maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet the
water quality standards as established by
the Clean Water Act of 1972.
The purpose of the FWRA was to better
coordinate the numerous pollution control
efforts that were implemented prior to
1999 and develop a standard to address
future water quality issues. The FWRA
requires that TMDLs be developed for
all pollution sources "agricultural and ur-
ban" to ensure water quality standards are
achieved.The FWRA affects all Floridians;
thus, in order to effectively implement the
TMDL program the FDEP coordinates
its efforts with a variety of entities includ-
ing the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, the Water
Management Districts, the local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, the environ-
mental community, the agricultural com-
munity, as well as concerned citizens.
BMP measures are not regulatory or
enforcement-based, they are strictly vol-
untary. As part of the BMP implementa-
tion, growers perform an environmental
assessment of their operations. This

process identifies which BMPs should
be considered to achieve the greatest
economic and environmental benefit. The
adopted BMPs may be a single practice or
grouping of practices that, when imple-
mented, are designed to improve water
quality. Ihe BMPs that are selected for
each parcel of land with a tax ID are spec-
ified on a Notice of Intent to Implement and
submitted to FDACS. If the practices
are not yet implemented, the dates when
they will be implemented are included
on the Notice of Intent. Once enrolled
in the BMP program, landowners must
maintain records and provide documenta-
tion regarding the implementation of all
BMPs (i.e. fertilizer application dates and
amounts or design and construction de-
tails of a water control structure).
One of the most innovative elements
of the FWRA and the associated agricul-
tural BMP program is the Presumption of
Compliance with water quality standards
to landowners who voluntarily implement
adopted BMPs that have been verified to
be effective by FDEP. This component
of the FWRA provides a powerful incen-

Table 3. Contact Information for Mobile Irrigation Labs (MIL) of Florida (current as of April 2007; contact NRCS office for updated

County Contact Address Phone & Fax
Lee Garry Bailey 3434 Hancock Bridge Parkway Phone:239-995-5678 ext. 3
garry.bailey@fl.nacdnet.net Suite 209B FAX: 239-997-7557
James (Nik) Nikolich North Fort Myers, FL 33903
Website: http://www.lee-county.com/utilities/Mobile%201rrigation%20Lab/Mobile%201rrigation%20Lab.htm
Miami-Dade Robert Perez South Dade SWCD Phone:305-242-1288
rperez@southdadeswcd.org 1450 N Krome Ave., Suite 104 FAX: 305-242-1292
Michelle Codallo Florida City, FL 33034
Don Grimsley
Website: http://www.southdadeswcd.org/Mobile%201rrigation%20Lab.htm
Collier Mark Siverling 14700 Immokalee Rd. Phone:239-455-4100
Hendry mark.siverling@fl.nacdnet.net Naples, FL 34120 Cell: 239-961-4292
Charlotte Jovino Marquez FAX: 239-455-2693
Website: http://www.collierswcd.org/Page315.html
Broward Willie Rojas 6191 Orange Drive,Suite 6181-P Phone:954-873-7594
browardmil@aol.com Davie, FL 33314 954-584-1306
FAX: 954-792-4919
Website: http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/publicservices/water/pdf/Mobile%201rrigation%20Laboratory.pdf
Broward David DeMaio Palm Beach SWCD Phone:561-683-2285 ext. 3
Palm Beach ddemaio@pbswcd.org 750 South MilitaryTrail Suite G 561-385-1240
West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 FAX: 561-683-8205
Website: http://www.pbswcd.org/AgMobilelrrigationLab.htm
Broward David Legg Natural Resources Consulting Services, FAX: 561-649-5627
Palm Beach dlegg1149@bellsouth.net 3344 Palomino Dr. Cell: 561- 385-1240
Lake Worth, FL, 33462

Columbia Doug Ulmer SL
Suwannee Andy Schrader 2
Hamilton Li
Website: http://www.kineticnet.net/flrcd/suwannee.html

uwannee River RC&D Council
34 Court Street, S.E.
ve Oak, FL 32060

Phone: 386-364-4278

For counties not listed in the table contact your local NRCS District Conservationist for the mobile irrigation lab closest to your


tive to encourage landowners to enroll in
the BMP programs since landowners are
protected from cost recovery by the state
if water quality standards are not met.
This unique approach to addressing water
quality concerns has been well received by
the environmental and agricultural com-
munities alike and as a result is becoming
the primary method for addressing water
quality concerns. In addition, growers
enrolled in the BMP program become

eligible for cost-sharing funds to imple-
ment specific BMP practices.
In approximately 2 years, the Florida
Legislature will assess the success of this
non-regulatory program by examining the
participation and enrolment of agricultural
operations on a regional and commodity
basis. By participating in BMP programs,
growers are telling the Florida Legislature
that the Florida agriculture industry has
endorsed the challenge to remain in busi-

Fig. 1. Decision tree in the"BMP Evaluation and Implementation Section" of the
"Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and
Agronomic Crops" used to select BMPs for specific cropping systems and geographical
areas of Florida.

ness while minimizing environmental
impact. By making the BMP program a
success, growers are also telling the Florida
legislature that there is no need for a more
stringent regulatory program.
How to sign up for the program?
Participation in the program requires
that applicable BMPs are implemented
and documented as noted in the manual
(Table 1). Parcels of lands may be enrolled
in the vegetable BMP program by:
(1) completing the "BMP checklist" (page
A-5 of the manual),
(2) completing the "Vegetable production
Best Management Practices Checklist"
if applicable (pages A1-A3 of the
BMP manual),
(3) submitting a "Notice of Intent to
Implement" to FDACS, and
(4) keeping these documents and those
required by the program (Table 2) on
file for possible later inspection.

The BMP checklist (found on page A-1
of the BMP manual) is designed to assist
vegetable growers in identifying appro-
priate BMPs for their specific site and
growing conditions. It should be used
together with the decision tree flow chart
(found on pages 7-8 of the BMP manual).
Growers should check the boxes cor-
responding to the BMPs they are already
implementing, and identify the year they
plan to implement other applicable BMPs
not yet implemented. It should be noted
that BMP 33 "Optimum fertilization
management/application" (found on pages
93-98 of the BMP manual) has to be a
part of all BMP plans.

Vegetable growers and land owners
who need one-on-one help to complete
the BMP checklist and/or Notice of Intent
to Implement may contact their UF/IFAS
County Extension Agent (go to http://so-
for the addresses of all counties of Florida
) or visit the FDACS web site at http://
pdf for contact information on the BMP


implementation team member in your
area. In addition, implementation team
members may conduct on-farm demon-
strations of selected BMPs and assist in
locating cost-share funds to partially off-
set the cost of BMP implementation.

The "Best Management Practices for
the Florida Vegetable Industry" web site
etable/) was developed as a quick resource
for growers, Extension educators, imple-
mentation team members and all those
involved in the BMP process. Currently,
the site is organized in four sections regu-
larly updated:
1. The BMP manual for vegetables and
agronomic crops accessible on-line.
2. Background documents on how to
participate in the BMP program.
Among others, this section contains
the BMP checklist for self evaluation
of current BMP adoption.
3. A list of selected UF/IFAS on-line
Extension publications applicable to
the state-wide BMP program and in-
terim measures.
4. Additional BMP-related resources.

This section contains a link to a series
of frequently asked question regarding
BMPs, and how to locate and contact
the implementation teams.

BMP selection for vegetable farms
is based on parcel location and type of
production system. Based on the decision
tree flow chart of the manual (p.7-8 of the
BMP manual), regions of Florida with
specific BMP requirements are (1) areas
where a BMAP/TMDL has been estab-
lished, (2) North Florid region, (3) springs
recharge basins, (4) EAA or the C139
basin, (4) south Miami-Dade county, and
(5) Okeechobee watershed priority basins
(Fig.l). Recognized production systems
are bare ground or plastic culture, drip
or seepage irrigation, and permanent or
temporary farming operations. Growers
and/or land owners should assess their
operation and complete the "Candidate
BMP checklist" (found on page A-5 of
the BMP manual).
Vegetable growers who follow nutri-
ent management option 2 in BMP 33
"Optimum fertilization management/ap-
plication" (found on pages 93-98 of

the BMP manual) should fill up the
"Vegetable production Best Management
Practices Checklist" (found on pages A-1
to A-3 of the BMP manual). Option 2
(page 93 of manual) deals with production
systems that use IFAS published fertilizer
recommendations as a general starting
point. When these rates are exceeded,
growers are expected to "employ addition-
al nutrient and irrigation BMPs to negate
possible environmental impacts".

The mission of the MIL is to improve
irrigation management by making cus-
tomized recommendations to improve the
performance of an irrigation system (over-
head, drip, or other) and encourage better
water management practices. Composed
of 1 to 2 qualified irrigation technicians,
MILs visit farms and test pump flow
rates, drip emitter and sprinkler pressures
and flow rates, and estimate irrigation
uniformity (Table 3). MIL services are
available free of charge and they provide
a confidential irrigation system evaluation
with recommendations regarding system
upgrades, irrigation scheduling, and other
maintenance items.

Fig. 2. Sample BMP list that may apply to fields equipped with drip or seepage irrigation in South Florida.
BMP Question Drip Seep
1. Integrated Pesticide Management
IPM practices are utilized (soil preparation,crop rotation, resistant varieties, modified irrigation methods, cover crops, augmenting
beneficial insects, etc.).
Scouting is used to monitor pest populations in order to decide when control measures are needed.(Insects, disease, weeds, nematodes,
Varieties are selected based on factors such as maturity, lodging resistance, climate, market value,yield potential, and pest resistance. Y Y
Spray/dust drift to other crops and off-site areas is minimized. Y Y
Classes of insecticide and fungicide are alternated to prevent resistance buildup. Y Y
Pesticide applications are coordinated with soil moisture, weather forecast,and irrigation. Y Y
2. Pesticide Mixing and Loading Activities
Mix and load operations are conducted at locations well away from ground water wells and surface water bodies (or berms or mounds
are used to keep spills out of surface waters if such areas cannot be avoided).
Properly constructed and maintained permanent or portable mix/load facilities are used. Or, mixing and loading operations are
conducted at random locations in the field.
Nurse tanks are used to transport clean water to the field in order to fill the sprayer. Y Y
A check valve or air gap separation is ALWAYS used to prevent backflow into the water source. Y Y
Adequate headspace (usually 10%) is left when filling the tank. Y Y
3. Spill Management
Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPEs) as indicated on the Material Safety Data Sheet or label are ALWAYS used when
handling pesticides.
Pesticide spills are properly contained and cleaned up. Y Y
Employees receive periodic spill response training. Y Y
4. Pesticide Application Equipment Wash Water and Container Management


Required personal protective equipment are ALWAYS worn when conducting rinse operations. Y Y
Empty containers are pressure-rinsed or triple-rinsed and the rinse water is added to the sprayer. Y Y
Pesticide containers are properly disposed or recycled after cleaning. Y Y
All application equipment is washed on a mixing/loading pad or at random areas in the field. Y Y
5. Pesticide Equipment Calibration (Recordkeeping)
Equipment is calibrated at appropriate intervals based use, on spray coverage, and nozzle replacement. Y Y
The flow rates of all nozzles on the sprayer are checked. Y Y
6.Wellhead Protection (Recordkeeping)
Wells are sited as far as possible from septic tanks or chemical mixing areas. Y Y
Abandoned or flowing wells are properly plugged or valved before constructing any new wells.The procedures provided by the Water
Management District are used to plug wells.
Backflow prevention devices are used when fertigating or chemigating. Y Y
Wellheads and pads are inspected regularly for leaks or cracks and if needed, repairs are made promptly. Y Y
No agrichemicals in the well house and no mixing within 100 ft of any well. Y Y
7. Wetland Protection
Wetlands (>1ac=35 ft wide, 1/2-1 ac=50 ft wide) and perennial watercourses (i.e., creeks, rivers, min 25 ft buffer) have appropriate
undisturbed upland buffers.
The use of pesticides and fertilizers around wetlands is limited and spray drift into wetlands is minimal. Y Y
8. Grassed Waterways
The bottom and side slopes of grassed waterways are maintained to preserve their function and integrity. Y Y
Side slopes are not be steeper than 2:1,and are be designed to accommodate equipment crossing. Y Y
Tillage equipment is lifted and sprayers are shut off when crossing waterways. Y Y
9. Filter Strips
Filter strip vegetation is suited to the climate and soil types of the area. Y Y
Heavy equipment use and grazing are avoided when filter strips are saturated. Y Y
Invasive plant species are controlled. Y Y
Rills or gullies that have formed have been repaired. Y Y
10. Field Borders
Field borders (strips of permanent vegetation at the edge of or around fields) are established, maintained, and are wide enough so
equipment can turn around.
Waterbars, berms, or mounds are used (if needed) to break up or redirect concentrated water flow within the borders. Y Y
11. Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers (areas of trees/shrubs) are used adjacent to natural water bodies (35+ ft wide). Y Y
Riparian buffers consist of two or more woody or herbacious species, with individual plants suited to the seasonal variation of soil
moisture conditions.
The riparian buffer is maintained, dead trees or shrubs removed and replaced,and undesirable vegetation is controlled. Y Y
12. Contour Farming
Row direction is established as closely as possible to the natural contour (most effective when slopes are between 2 and 10 percent). NA NA
The established contour line is followed for all tillage and planting operations. NA NA
Farming operations begin on the contour baselines and proceed both up and down the slope in a parallel pattern until patterns meet. NA NA
Sod turn strips are established on sharp ridge points or other areas, as needed, where contour row curvature becomes too sharp to keep NA NA
machinery aligned with rows during field operations.
13.Land Leveling
The design and layout for leveling land is based on a detailed engineering surveydesign and layout. Y Y
Leveling operations are conducted in such a manner to minimize erosion. Y Y
Exposed areas of highly permeable soils (that can inhibit proper distribution of water over the field) are not left after leveling work is
14. Soil Survey
Grower is familiar with the basic characteristics of each soil series that is identified on the property. Y Y
The information from the soil survey is used to help make farm-management decisions related to irrigation, fertilization, erosion control,
15.Sediment Basins
Sediment basins constructed upstream of control structures are used to trap sediment and debris in runoff water. Y Y
Accumulated sediment is removed before it significantly reduces the capacity of the basin. Y Y
16. Access Roads
Road widths are consistent with the type and size of vehicles. Y Y
Perennial vegetative cover on road banks is maintained. Y Y
Soils are stabilized with vegetation or armor around the ends of pipes to prevent erosion when crossing conveyance systems. Y Y
Access roads are sloped towards field production areas. Y Y
17. Critical Area Plantings
Highly erodible areas are stabilized by well-maintained vegetation. Y Y
Plants are non-invasive species that are suited to the soil and climate. Y Y
18. Diversions/Terraces
Diversions or terraces are used where appropriate to divert runoff water away from cropland. NA NA
19.Temporary Erosion Control Measures


Temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw bale barrier, silt fence erosion-control blankets, gabions-wire mesh containers filled with
stone, or floating turbidity barriers) are used to minimize sediment transport from disturbed areas.
20. Raised Bed Preparation
Old crop residues are plowed down well in advance (6-8 weeks) of crop establishment. Y Y
Bed height is determined by the amount of drainage needed in the field (excessively high beds are prone to rapid drying and can be
difficult to re-wet).
Drip tube is appropriately located considering the soils, bed geometry, and crop. Y NA
Fertilizer rates and placement are appropriate so that leaching is minimized. Y Y
Plastic mulch is properly removed and recycled or legally disposed. Y Y
21.Grade Stabilization Structures
Stabilization structures are used and maintained in areas that are prone to erosion due to changes in flow velocity or water level. Y Y
22. Ditch Construction and Maintenance
Ditches are set back appropriate distances from wetlands. Y Y
Ditch spacings,depths,and side-slopes are consistent with soil types. Y Y
Ditches are cleaned when necessary and vegetation is maintained on side slopes. Y Y
Accumulated aquatic weeds are routinely removed. Y Y
23. Conservation Tillage
Where appropriate, conservation tillage (no-till, strip-till, ridge-till, mulch till,and seasonal-till) are used to reduce soil erosion. NA NA
Required % of residue or groundcover being maintained. NA NA
24. Cover Crops
A cover crop that is suitable for the climate, soil type, cropping system, and specific goals (i.e., nutrient uptake, nitrogen fixation, etc.) is
used to protect the land from erosion until the main crop is planted.
25. Conservation Crop Rotation
Crops are adapted to the local climate and soil conditions and grown in a planned, recurring sequence. NA NA
Alternate crops to break the pest cycle and/or allow the use of a variety of IPM strategies. NA NA
26. Soil Testing/ Soil pH (Recordkeeping)
Soil pH is tested regularly (every 2-3 years) and if needed, amendments are used to maintain soil pH between 6.0 and 6.5 for most crops. Y Y
27. Water Table Observation Wells
Water table observation wells are used to monitor water table levels as a tool to aid irrigation and drainage decisions. Y Y
28. Precision Agriculture
Precision application technology is used where appropriate to apply site-specific inputs (fertilizer, seed, pesticides, etc.) in order to
minimize potential for leaching and runoff of applied materials.
29. Crop Establishment
Weather forecasts and season are considered when planning for crop establishment. Y Y
Soil moisture measurement devices (such as tensiometers) and/or water table observation wells are used so that over-watering of fields
is minimized.
30. Double Cropping in Plasticulture Systems
Soil samples are used to determine residual fertilizer available from first crop and rates for the second crop are adjusted accordingly. NA NA
Soil moisture is maintained at appropriate levels between removal of the first crop and planting of the second crop. NA NA
31. Proper Use of Organic Fertilizer Materials
Application rates are based on laboratory analysis of product and on individual crop requirements. NA NA
Fertilizer spreaders are calibrated and excessive material is not applied. NA NA
Uncomposted animal manure is not spread on cropland. NA NA
32. Controlled-Release Fertilizer
Controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) are applied at lower rates than that recommended rate for soluble fertilizers. NA NA
The CRF's release time is matched with the crop nutrient needs. NA NA
Do not exceed the recommended fertilization rate. NA NA
33.Optimum Fertilization Management/Application (Recordkeeping)
(1) IFAS published fertilizer recommendations are used (which include provisions for supplemental nutrient applications) or alternate
recommendations that are supported by other credible research institutions are used; or
(2) IFAS published fertilizer application recommendations are used as a general starting point. If these rates are exceeded,additional
nutrient and irrigation BMPs are used minimize environmental impacts;or
(3) For farming operations in basins that have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients (issued by the Dept. of Environmental
Protection),all recommendations set forth in the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) are followed.
Fertilizer application equipment is calibrated accurately and fertilizer is applied at the appropriate rate and position with respect to the
plant's root zone.
A calibrated micronutrient soil test is conducted every to 2 to 3 years. Micronutrients are applied only when a specific deficiency has
been clearly diagnosed.
A calibrated soil test is used to determine P fertilizer needs. Required P is applied P to the root zone. Y Y
The Linear Bed Foot system is used, where appropriate. Y Y
When using drip irrigation, no more than 20-40% of the N and K is applied as a cold mix in the bed. Y NA
Where possible, applications of the mobile nutrients are split to reduce leaching losses. Y Y
Supplemental fertilizer applications after leaching rainfall events is limited to less than 30 Ibs. N per acre and 20 Ibs K,0 per acre Y Y
Plant tissue analysis or sap tests are that fall below the sufficiency ranges are used as a basis for supplemental fertilizer applications. Y Y
34. Chemigation / Fertigation (Recordkeeping)


When the production system permits, chemigation and fertigation is utilized to apply frequent, low rates of fertilizers and agrichemicals Y NA
to the crop via irrigation.
When chemigating or fertigating,over-irrigation resulting in chemical leaching is avoided. Y NA
Materials are injected only after the irrigation system is brought up to full pressure and the system is operated long enough after Y NA
completion of injection to flush system.
Split applications are used whed the required injection period would result in water and fertilizer moving below the plant root zone. Y NA
All chemicals applied through the irrigation system are appropriately labeled chemigation use. Y NA
35. Tissue Testing (Recordkeeping)
Tissue sampling is used regularly to diagnose plant nutrient status and fertilizer applications are adjusted according to results. Y Y
36.Water Supply
Seepage losses on reservoir-supplied sources are reduced by lining dikes with appropriate materials or construction techniques. NA NA
Backflow devices are used to ensure that the water source does not become contaminated from chemigation activities. Y Y
37 & 38. Tailwater Recovery
Where appropriate, tailwater recovery systems are used to collect and re-use irrigation water or rainfall that runs off cropped areas. NA NA
39. Irrigation System Maintenance and Evaluation (Recordkeeping)
Irrigation system uniformity is periodically checked (can utilize Mobile Irrigation Lab, or MIL). Y Y
Flow meters and pressure gauges are used to determine existing operating parameters and to properly manage the irrigation system. Y Y
Irrigation water quality is tested at least once each year. Y Y
Manufacturers maintenance recommendations are followed for pumps, filters, valves, injection equipment,etc. Y Y
40. Irrigation Scheduling (Recordkeeping)
Soil moisture content is measured and used to determine effectiveness of irrigation schedules. Y Y
Irrigation schedules are adjusted for time ofyear,plant size,and soil moisture status.(rrigation application may need to be split into 2 or 3 daily applications). Y Y
Irrigation and fertilization are managed together, especially if liquid fertilizer is being applied through the irrigation system. Y Y
Excess irrigations are avoided. Y Y
41. Frost and Freeze Protection
Over-application and potential offsite runoff is minimized by not initiating irrigation events too soon, or continuing protection after all
the ice has melted.
Computers, satellite, etc.are used to access regional weather data. Y Y
42. Water Control Structures
Riser-board control structures (which facilitate deposition of sediments and their accompanying nutrients or pesticides upstream) are NA NA
used at outfall locations.
43. Flood Protection
A water management/drainage plan has been developed to deal with potential flooding resulting from high rainfall events (e.g.tropical
storms or hurricanes).
44. Ponds/Reservoirs and Ditches
Detention ponds/reservoirs are used to capture and temporarily store stormwater runoff. Y Y
Culverts are maintained free of debris. Y Y
Sediment sumps are used and maintained in ditches at pump stations and where the velocity of the water creates erosion problems. NA NA
Vegetative cover on dikes and berms is mowed and properly maintained. NA NA
45. Farm Pond
Vegetative cover of farm ponds (used for irrigation water supply and/or for holding and treating runoff water) is maintained by mowing NA NA
or burning and nuisance or exotic species are controlled.
Pond size acree and <14'deep, with 4:1 side slopes. NA NA
46. Fields and Beds
Soil type,field slope, and crop characteristics are considered when laying out rows with regard to length and alignment. Y Y
If plastic mulch is used,drip irrigation is used. Y NA
Fields with persistent drainage problems are leveled or re-graded to improve stormwater management. Y Y
47. Plasticulture Farming
Depressional areas are utilized as catchment areas. Y Y
Tillage practices are appropriate to minimize the development of plow pans. Y Y
Where practical, inter-row cover crops such as grasses or legumes are used to reduce runoff. Y Y
Plastic mulch and tubing is not left on farm fields unduly long after harvest. Y Y
Undesirable weed species growing in holes in the plastic mulch are controlled. Y Y
48. Springs Protection
Conservation buffer setbacks (buffer areas of perennial vegetation) are established and maintained for springs, spring runs, functional NA NA
sinks,or other conduits.
49.Seasonal or Temporary Farming Operations (Recordkeeping)
Crops on a particular piece of land are alternated to break the pest and disease cycles and to allow for the use of a variety of Integrated NA NA
Pest Management control strategies.
All agricultural surface water management system features are restored to equivalent, pre-development, hydrologic conditions when NA NA
the farming is completed.
Soil tests are used and fertilizer recommendations are followed to avoid over fertilizing. NA NA
Plastic mulch and tubing is removed within 30 days after harvest of the last crop. NA NA

Recommended rotation intervals including prescribed fallow periods are used for each 5-year rotation interval (2- year farming period, NA NA
no more than 4 seasons; 3-year farming period, no more than 1 season per year).


Fig.3. Example of a Candidate BMP Checklist found on page A-5 of the BMP manual for vegetables based on answers provided in
the BM P questionnaire (see Fig. 2)

Candidate BMP Checklist
Instructions: Using the Florida Vegetable andAgronomic Crops Best Management Practices Checklist, check"yes"for all BMPs currently
practiced and"no"for BMPs not currently implemented. For those BMPs that will be implemented in future years, enter the year you
plan initiate the BMP in the"year" column. Enter N/A in the"year" column if the practice is not applicable to your operation or if it
conflicts with other BMPs that have been implemented.

Pesticide Management Nutrient and Irrigation Management
Yes No Year BMP Yes No Year BMP

1 Integrated Pest Management
2 Pesticide Mixing and Loading
3 Spill Management
4 Pesticide App.Eq.Washwater
and Container Mgmt.
5 Pesticide Equipment Calibration

Conservation Practices and Buffers
Yes No Year BMP
6 Well Head Protection

X 7 Wetlands Protection
X 8 Grassed Waterways
X 9 Filter Strips
X 10 Field Borders
11 Riparian Buffers
12 Contour Farming

X 13 Land Leveling
X 14 Soil Survey

Erosion Control & Sediment Mgmt
Yes No Year BMP
X 15 Sediment Basins
X 16 Access Roads
X 17 Critical Area Plantings
NA 18 Diversions/Terraces
18 Temporary Erosion Control
X Measures

4/5 NA 20 Raised Bed Preparation
X 21 Grade Stabilization Structures
22 Ditch Construction and



Conservation Tillage
Cover Crops
Conservation Crop Rotation













Soil Testing/Soil pH
WaterTable Observation Wells
Precision Agriculture
Crop Establishment

30 Double Cropping in Plasticulture
31 Proper Use of Organic Fertilizer
32 Controlled-Release Fertilizers
33 Optimum Fertilization Management/
34 Chemigation/Fertigation
35 TissueTesting
36 Water Supply
37 Tailwater Recovery
38 Tailwater Reuse and Waterborne Plant
39 Irrigation System Maintenance and
40 Irrigation Scheduling
41 Frost and Freeze Protection
42 Water Control Structures

Water Resources Management
Yes No Year BMP
X 43 Flood Protection
2/4 NA 44 Ponds/Reservoirs and Ditches
NA 45 Farm Ponds
46 Fields and Beds
2/3 NA

X 47 Plasticulture Farming
NA 48 Springs Protection

Seasonal or Temporary Farming
Yes No Year BMP
Y 1 49 Plasticulture Farming








William M. Stall' and James P. Gilreath2
'UF/IFAS Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, wmstall@ufl.edu
2PhytoServices, Myakka City, FL DrGilreath@aol.com

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 irregular rip-
ening problem. Increased incidence of sev-
eral viral disorders of tomatoes also reinforces
the need for good weed control. Common
weeds, such as the difficult to control night-
shade, and volunteer tomatoes (considered
a weed in this context) are hosts to many
tomato pests, including sweetpotato 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, pe-
ripheral areas of the farm maybe neglected.
Weed hosts and pests may flourish in these
areas and serve as reservoirs for re-infesta-
tion of tomatoes by various pests. Thus, it is
important for growers to think in terms of
weed management on all the farm, not just
the actual crop area.
Total farm weed management is more com-
plex than row middle weed control because
several different sites, and possible herbicide
label restrictions are involved. Often weed spe-
cies in row middles differ from those on the
rest of the farm, and this might dictate different
approaches. Sites other than row middles in-

clude roadways, fallow fields, equipment park-
ing 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
situation, weed growth should be kept to
a minimum 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 ar-
eas are easily disked, but berms and field

Table 1.Chemical weed controls: tomatoes.
Herbicide Labeled Crops Time of Application Rate (Ibs.Al./Acre)
I I to Crop Mineral I Muck
Carfentrazone (Aim) Tomato Preplant, Directed-Hooded row-middles 0.031 0.031
Remarks: Aim may be applied as a preplant burndown treatment and /or as a post-directed hooded application to row middles for the
burndown of emerged broadleaf weeds. May be tank mixed with other registered herbicides. May be applied up to 2 oz (0.031 Ib ai). Use a
quality spray adjuvant such as crop oil concentrate (coc) or non-ionic surfactant at recommended rates.
Clethodim (Select 2 EC) Tomatoes IPostemergence 0.9-.125 ---
Remarks: Postemergence control of actively growing annual grasses. Apply at 6-8 fl oz/acre.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. Do not apply within
20 days of tomato harvest.
DCPA (Dacthal W-75) Established Tomatoes Posttransplanting after crop establishment 6.0-8.0
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 of replanting non-registered crops within 8 months.
Glyphosate (Roundup,Durango Tomato Chemical fallow Preplant, pre-emergence,Pre 0.3-1.0
Touchdown, Glyphomax) transplant
Remarks: Roundup, Glyphomax and touchdown have several formulations.Check the label of each for specific labeling directions.

Halosulfuron (Sandea) Tomatoes Pre-transplant,Postemerqtence, Row middles 0.024 0.036 ---
Remarks: A total of 2 applications of Sandea 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) of up to 1 oz. product
(0.047 Ib ai) to row middles. A 30-day PHI will be observed. For postemergence and row middle applications,a surfactant should be added to
the spray mix.
S-Metolachlor (Dual Magnum) Tomatoes Pretransplant, Row middles 1.0-1.3 ---
Remarks: Apply Dual Magnum preplant non-incorporated to the top of a 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 if organic 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 mix situations under mulch.
Use on a trial basis.
Metribuzin (SencorDF) (Sencor4) Tomatoes Postemergence,Posttransplantinafterestablishment 10.25 -0.5 ---
Remarks: Controls small emerged weeds after transplants are established direct-seeded plants reach 5 to 6 true leaf stage.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 possible crop injury.
Metribuzin (SencorDF) (Sencor4) Tomatoes IDirected 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 for 3 days following cool, wet or cloudy weather to reduce possible crop injury. Label states control of many
annual grasses and broadleaf weeds including, lambsquarter, fall panicum,amaranthus sp., Florida pusley, common ragweed, sicklepod,and
spotted spurge.


Table 1.Chemical weed controls: tomatoes.
Herbicide Labeled Crops Time of Application Rate (Ibs.Al./Acre)
I I 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 1 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 wet soil 1 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,and
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 or banded
treatment at 1-2 pt/A or /2 to 1 pt/A for Goaltender to preformed beds.Mulch may be applied any time during the 30-day interval.
Paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon) Tomatoes Premergence; Pretransplant 0.62 -0.94
Remarks: Controls emerged weeds. Use a non-ionic spreader and thoroughly wet weed foliage.
Paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon) Tomatoes Post directed spray in row middle 0.47
Remarks: Controls emerged weeds. Direct spray over emerged weeds 1 to 6 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) Tomato Postharvest dessication 0.62-0.93 0.46-0.62
Remarks: Broadcast spry over the top of plants after last harvest. Label for Boa states use of 1.5-2.0 pts while Gramoxone label is from 2-3
pts. Use a nonionic surfactant at 1 pt/100 gals to 1 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 Vegetable (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.
Rimsulfuron (Matrix) Tomato 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% v/v.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 of 42 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 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 (12 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 oz product/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 least45 days prior to harvest.A non-
ionic surfactant should be added to the spray mix.
Trifluralin (Treflan HFP) (Treflan Tomatoes Pretransplant incorporated 0.5
TR-10) (Trifluralin 4EC) (except Dade 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 of planting non-registered crops within 5 months. Do not apply after transplanting.

ditches are not and some form of chemi-
cal 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 ero-
sion and sand blasting of plants; however,
where undesirable plants exist, some con-
trol 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.
Herbicides can be applied in these situa-
tions, provided care is exercised to keep it

from drifting onto the tomato crop.
Field ditches as well as canals are a
special consideration because many her-
bicides 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
probably 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 ex-
ist, as listed in Table 1. Growers are cau-
tioned against using Arsenal on tomato
farms as tomatoes are very sensitive to
this herbicide. Particular caution should

be exercised if Arsenal is used on seepage
irrigated farms as 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 result-
ed. If undesirable insects such as thrips
buildup on the rye, contact herbicide can
be applied to kill it and eliminate it as a
host, yet the remaining stubble could con-
tinue serving as a windbreak.
The greatest row middle weed con-
trol problem confronting the tomato
industry today is control of nightshade.
Nightshade has developed varying levels
of resistance to some post-emergent her-


bicides in different areas of the state. Best
control with post-emergence (directed)
contact herbicides are obtained when the
nightshade is 4 to 6 inches tall, rapidly
growing and not stressed. Two applica-
tions in about 50 gallons per acre using 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 vol-
ume. Many adjuvants are available com-
mercially. Some adjuvants contain more
active ingredient than others and herbi-
cide 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.

Additionally, good field sanitation is
important 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 sweetpotato
whitefly. Good canopy penetration of pes-
ticide 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 har-
vest 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 penetration. 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 avail-
able. Gramoxone Inteon is now labeled
for postharvest dessication of tomato vines.
The label differs slightly from the previous
Gramoxone labels, so it's important to read
and follow the label directions.
The importance of rapid vine destruc-
tion can not be overstressed. Merely
turning off the irrigation and allowing the
crop to die is not sufficient; application
of a desiccant followed by burning is the
prudent course.




Be sure to read a current product label before applying any chemical.
Maximum Rate
Acre /
Fungicide Min.Days Pertinent Diseases or
Chemical Group1 Applic. Season to Harvest Pathogens Remarks2
Manex4F (maneb) M3 2.4 qts. 16.8 qts. 5 Early blight, Late blight, See label
Dithane, Manzate or Penncozeb M3 3 Ibs. 22.4 Ibs. 5 Gray leaf spot Bacterial spot3
75 DFs (mancozeb)
Maneb 80 WP (maneb) M3 3 Ibs 21 Ibs. 5
Dithane F 45 or Manex I 4 FLs M3 2.4 pts. 16.8 qts. 5
Dithane M-45,Penncozeb 80, or M3 3 Ibs. 21 Ibs. 5
Manzate 80 WPs (mancozeb)
Maneb 75 DF (maneb) M3 3 Ibs. 22.4 Ibs. 5 See label for details
Bonide Mancozeb FL (mancozeb) M3 5 tsp/ gal 5 Anthracnose, Early blight, See label for details.
Gray leaf spot, Late blight,
Leaf mold, Septoria leaf spot
Ziram (ziram) M3 4 lbs 24 lbs 7 Anthracnose, Early blight, Do not use on cherry tomatoes.
Septoria leaf spot See label for details.
Equus 720, Echo 720,Chloro Gold M5 3 pts. or 20.1 pts. 2 Early blight, Late blight, Use higher rates at fruit set and
720 6 Fls (chlorothalonil) 2.88 pts. Gray leaf spot,Target spot lower rates before fruit set, see
Echo 90 DF or Equus 82.5DF M5 2.3 Ibs. 2 label


Ridomil Gold Bravo 76.4 W 4 / M5 3 Ibs. 12 Ibs 14 Early blight, Late blight, Limit is 4 appl./crop, see label
(chlorothalonil +mefenoxam) ____Gray leaf spot,Target Spot
Amistar 80 DF (azoxystrobin) 11 2 ozs 12 ozs 0 Early blight, Late blight, Limit is 2 seqential appl. or 6
Quadris (azoxystrobin) 11 6.2 fl.ozs. 37.2 fl.ozs. 0 Sclerotinia Powdery mildew, application total. Alternate
Cabrio 2.09 F (pyraclostro-bin) 11 16 fl oz 96 fl oz 0 Target spot, or tank mix with a multi-site
Buckeye rot effective fungicide (FRAC code
M), see label
Flint (trifloxystro-bin) 11 16 oz 3 Early blight, Late blight, See label for details
Gray leaf spot
Evito (fluoxastrobin) 11 5.7 fl oz 22.8 fl oz 3 Early blight. Late blight, Limit is 4 appl/crop
Southern blight,Target spot
Reason 500SC (fenamidone) 11 5.5-8.2 oz 24.6 Ib 14 Early blight, Late blight, See label for details
Septoria leaf spot
Ridomil Gold EC (mefenoxam) 4 2 pts./ 3 pts/trtd 28 Pythium diseases See label for details
trtd.acre /acre
Ultra Flourish (mefenoxam) 4 2 qts 3 qts Pythium and Phytophthora rots See label for details
Ridomil MZ 68 WP (mefenoxam 4 / M3 2.5 Ibs. 7.5 Ibs. 5 Late blight Limit is 3 appl./crop, see label
+ mancozeb)
Ridomil Gold Copper 64.8 W 4 / M1 2 Ibs. 14 Late blight Limit is 3 appl./crop.Tank mix
(mefenoxam + copper hydroxide) with maneb or mancozeb
fungicide, see label
JMS Stylet-Oil (paraffinic oil) 3 qts. Potato Virus Y,Tobacco Etch See label for restrictions and use(e.g.
Virus, CMV use of 400 psi spray pressure)
Aliette 80 WDG (fosetyl-al) 33 5 Ibs. 20 Ibs. 14 Phytophthora root rot Using potassium carbonate or
Diammonium phosphate,the
spray of Aliette should be raised
to a pH of 6.0 or above when
applied prior to or after copper
fungicides, see label
Bravo Ultrex (chlorothalonil) M5 2.6 Ibs. 18.3 Ibs 2 Early blight, Late blight, Use higher rates at fruit set, see
Gray leaf spot,Target spot, label
Bravo Weather Stik M5 2.75 pts. 20 pts 2 Botrytis, Rhizoctonia fruit rot,
(chlorothalonil) ___ _Leaf mold
Botran 75 W (dichloran) 14 1 lb. 4 Ibs. 10 Botrytis Greenhouse use only. Limit is 4
applications. Seedlings or newly
set transplants may be injured,
see label
Nova 40W (myclobutanil) 3 4 ozs. 1.25 lbs. 0 Powdery mildew Note that a 30day plant back
restriction exists, see label
Sulfur (many brands) M2 1 Powdery mildew Follow label closely, it may cause
Actigard (acibenzolar-S-methyl) P 0.75 oz 4 ozs. 14 Bacterial spot Bacterial speck Do not use highest labeled
Tomato spotted wilt a viral rate in early sprays to avoid a
disease (use in combination of delayed onset of harvest. See
UV-reflective mulch and vector label for details.
thrips specific insecticides.
ManKocide 61.1 DF (mancozeb + M3 / M1 5 Ibs. 112 lbs. 5 Bacterial spot, Bacterial speck, Seelabel
copper hydroxide) Late blight, Early blight, Gray
leaf spot
Gavel 75DF (mancozeb + M3/22 2.0 Ibs 16 Ibs 5 Buckeye rot Early blight See label
zoaximide) Gray leaf spot Late blight
Leaf mold
Previcur Flex (propamocarb 28 1.5 pints 7.5 pints 5 Late blight Only in a tank mixture with
hydrochloride) (see chlorotalonil, maneb or
Label) mancozeb, see label
Curzate 60DF (cymoxanil) 27 5 oz 30 oz per 3 Late Blight Do not use alone, see label for
12 month details
Tanos (famoxadone + cymoxanil) 11 /27 8 oz 72 oz 3 Early blight, Late blight, See label for details
Target spot, Bacterial spot
Acrobat 50 WP (dimethomorph) 15 6.4 oz 32 oz 4 Late blight See label for details
Forum (dimethomorph) 15 6 oz 30 oz 4 Late blight See label for details
K-phite 33 2 qts/ 100 0 Phythophthora sp. (root rot) Dosage given is for drip
(Phosphorous acid) gal. Pythium sp.(Damping-off) application. See label for
restrictions and details


Scala SC (pyrimethanil) 9 7 fl oz 35 fl oz 1 Early blight Use only in a tank mix with
0.27 Ibs 1.4 Ibs Botrytis another effective fungicide
(non FRAC code 9), see label
Endura (boscalid) 7 3.5 oz 21 0 Target spot (Corynespora Alternate with non-FRAC code 7
cassiicola), Early Blight fungicides, see label
(Alternaria solani)
Terraclor 75 WP (PCNB) 14 See Label See Label Soil treat- Southern blight (Sclerotium See label for application type
ment at rolfsii) and restrictions
Fix (Copper +mancozeb or M1 / M3 5 Bacterial spot Mancozeb or maneb enhances
maneb) Bacterial speck bactericidal effect of fix copper
compounds. See label for
Kocide 101 or Champion 77 WPs M1 4 Ibs. 2 Anthracnose Mancozeb or maneb enhances
(copper hydroxide) Bacterial speck bactericidal effect of fix copper
Kocide 4.5 LF (copper hydroxide) M1 2.66 pts 1 Bacterial Spot compounds. See label for
Kocide 2000 53.8 DF (copper M1 3 Ibs. 1 Early blight details.
hydroxide) Early bli
Champ 57.6 DP (copper M1 1.3 Ibs 1 Grey leaf mold
hydroxide) Grey leaf spot
Basicop 53 WP (copper M1 4 Ibs. 1 Late blight
hydroxide) Septoria leaf spot
Kocide 61.4 DF(copper M1 4 bs
Cuprofix Disperss 36.9 DF(copper M1 6 Ibs
Nu Cop 50WP (copper hydroxide) M1 4 Ib
Bonide Liquid Copper (copper M1 6 tsp/ gal 0
Allpro Exotherm Termil MS 1 can / 7 Botrytis, Leaf mold, Late blight, Greenhouse useonly.Allow
(20 % chlorothalonil) 1000 sq.ft. Early blight Gray leaf spot, can to remain overnight and
Target spot then ventilate.Do not use when
greenhouse temperature is above
75 F.See label for details.
Terramaster 4EC (etridiazole) 14 7 fl oz 27.4 fl oz 3 Pythium and Phytophthora Greenhouse use only. See label
root rots for details
Ranman (cyazofamid) 21 2.1-2.75oz 16 oz 0 Late Blight Limit is 6 appl./crop, see label
Agri-mydn 17 (streptomydn sulfate) 25 200 ppm Bacterial spot See label for details
Ag Streptomycin (streptomycin 25 200 ppm
Topsin M WSB (thiophanate 1 lb. 3.5 Ib. 2 White mold Section 18 exemption through
methyl) April 12,2008
AgriPhage (bacteriophage) Biological Bacterial speck See label for details
material Bacterial spot
Serenade Biological See label See label 0 Bacterial spot mix with copper compounds,
Serenade ASO material see label
Serenade Max
(Bacillus subtilis)
1FRAC 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 endorse-
ment by the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service nor discrimination against similar products or services not men-




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

Trade Name Rate REI Days to Insects MOA Notes
(Common Name) (product/acre) (hrs) Harvest Code1

Acramite-50WS 0.75-1.0 Ib 12 3 twospotted spider mite 2 One application per season.
Admire2F 16-24 fl oz 12 21 aphids,Colorado potato beetle,flea 4A Most effective if applied to soil at
(imidacloprid) beetles, leafhoppers, thrips (foliar transplanting. Limited to 24 oz/acre.
feeding thrips only),whiteflies Admire Pro limited to 10.5 fl oz/acre.
Admire Pro 7-10.5 fl oz
Admire2F 1.4 fl oz/1000 12 0 (soil) aphids, whiteflies 4A Greenhouse Use: 1 application to
(imidacloprid) plants mature plants, see label for cautions.
0.6 fl oz/1000
Admire Pro plants

Admire2F 0.1 floz/1000 12 21 aphids, whiteflies 4A Planthouse: 1 application. See label.
(imidacloprid) plants
0.44 fl oz/10,000
Admire Pro plants

AgreeWG 0.5-2.0 Ib 4 0 lepidopteran larvae (caterpillar pests) 11 B1 Apply when larvae are small for best
(Bacillus thuringiensis control.Can be used in greenhouse.
subspecies aizawai) OMRI-listed2.
*Agri-Mek 0.15EC 8-16 fl oz 12 7 Colorado potato beetle, Liriomyza 6 Do not make more than 2 sequential
(abamectin) leafminers, spider mite, tomato applications.Do not apply more than 48 fl
pinworms, tomato russet mite oz per acre per season.
*Ambush 25W 3.2-12.8 oz 12 up to beet armyworm,cabbage looper,Colorado 3 Do not use on cherry tomatoes. Do not
(permethrin) day of potato beetle,granulate cutworms, apply more than 1.2 Ib ai/acre per season
harvest hornworms,southern armyworm,tomato (76.8 oz).Not recommended for control of
fruitworm,tomato pinworm,vegetable vegetable leafminer in Florida.
*Asana XL (0.66EC) 2.9-9.6 fl oz 12 1 beet armyworm (aids in control), 3 Not recommended for control of
(esfenvalerate) cabbage looper,Colorado potato beetle, vegetable leafminer in Florida. Do not
cutworms,flea beetles,grasshoppers, apply more than 0.5 Ib ai per acre per
hornworms,potato aphid,southern season, or 10 applications at highest
armyworm,tomato fruitworm,tomato rate.
Assail 70WP 0.6-1.7 oz 12 7 aphids, Colorado potato beetle, 4A Do not apply to crop that has been
(acetamiprid) thrips, whiteflies already treated with imidacloprid
or thiamethoxam at planting. Begin
applications for whiteflies when first
adults are noticed.Do not apply more
than 4 times per season or apply more
Assail 30 SG 1.5-4.0 oz often than every 7 days.
Avaunt 2.5-3.5 oz 12 3 beetarmyworm,hornworms,loopers, 22 Do not apply more than 14 ounces of
(indoxacarb) southern armyworm,tomato fruitworm, product per acre per crop. Minimum
tomato pinworm,suppression of spray interval is 5 days.
Aza-Direct 1-2 pts,upto 3.5 4 0 aphids, beetles,caterpillars,leafhoppers, 18B Antifeedant,repellant, insect growth
azadirachtinn) pts, if needed leafminers, mites,stink bugs,thrips, regulator. OMRI-listed2.
AzatinXL 5-21 floz 4 0 aphids, beetles, caterpillars, 18B Antifeedant,repellant, insect growth
azadirachtinn) leafhoppers, leafminers, thrips, regulator.
weevils, whiteflies


*Baythroid 2 1.6-2.8 fl oz 12 0 beet armyworm(1),cabbage looper, 3 ) Ist and 2nd instars only
(cyfluthrin) Colorado potato beetle,dipterous
leafminers, European corn borer,flea (2) suppression
*Baythroid XL beetles, hornworms, potato aphid, Do not apply more than 0.26 Ib ai per
(beta-cyfluthrin) southern armyworm'), stink bugs, acre per season. (Baythroid 2) or 0.132
tomato fruitworm,tomato pinworm, Ib (Baythroid XL).
variegated cutworm,western flower
thrips,whitefly(2) Maximum number of applications:6.
Beleaf 50 SG 2.0-2.8 oz 12 0 aphids, plant bugs 9C Do not apply more than 8.4 oz/acre per
(flonicamid) season. Begin applications before pests
reach damaging levels.
Biobit HP 0.5-2.0 Ib 4 0 caterpillars (will not control large 11B2 Treat when larvae are young. Good
(Bacillus thuringiensis armyworms) coverage is essential.Can be used in
subspecies kurstaki) the greenhouse. OMRI-listed2.
BotaniGard 22 WP, ES WP: 4 0 aphids, thrips, whiteflies May be used in greenhouses.Contact dealer
(Beauveria bassiana) 0.5-2 Ib/100 gal for recommendations if an adjuvant must
ES: be used.Not compatible in tankmixwith
0.5-2 qts 100/gal fungicides.
*Capture 2EC 2.1-5.2 fl oz 12 1 aphids,armyworms,cornearworm, 3 Make no more than 4 applications per
(bifenthrin) cutworms,flea beetles,grasshoppers, season. Do not make applications less
mites,stink bug spp.,tarnished plant bug, than 10 days apart.
CheckMate TPW, TPW: 0 0 tomato pinworm For mating disruption-
TPW-F 200 dispenser See label.TPW
(pheromone) TPW-F: formulation. OMRI-listed2.
1.2-6.0 fl oz
Confirm 2F 6-16 fl oz 4 7 armyworms, black cutworm, 18A Product is a slow-acting IGR that will
(tebufenozide) hornworms, loopers not kill larvae immediately. Do not
apply more than 1.0 Ib ai per acre per
Courier 40SC 9-13.6 fl oz 12 1 whitefly nymphs 16 See label for plantback restrictions.Apply
(buprofezin) when a threshold is reached of 5 nymphs
per 10 leaflets from the middle of the
plant.Product is 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 0.5-2.0 Ib 4 0 caterpillars 11B2 Use high rate for armyworms.Treat
(Bacillus thuringiensis when larvae are young.
subspecies kurstaki)
*Danitol 2.4 EC 10.67 fl oz 24 3 days, or beet armyworm, cabbage 3 Usealone for control offruitworms,stink
(fenpropathrin) 7 if mixed looper, fruitworms, potato aphid, bugs,tobacco hornworm, twospotted
with silverleaf whitefly, stink bugs, spider mites,and yellowstriped armyworms.
Monitor thrips, tobacco hornworm,tomato Tank-mixwithMonitor4forall others,
4 pinworm, twospotted spider mites, especiallywhitefly.Donotapplymorethan
yellowstriped armyworm OBlbaiperacreper season.Donottankmix
With copper.
Deliver 0.25-1.5 Ib 4 0 caterpillars 11B2 Use higher rates for armyworms.OMRI-
(Bacillus thuringiensis listed2.
subspecies kurstaki)
*Diazinon AG500;4E; AG500,4E: 24 1 aphids, beet armyworm, banded 1B Will not control organophosphate-
*50 W 0.5-1.5 pts cucumber beetle, Drosophila, fall resistant leafminers. Do not apply more
(diazinon) 50W: armyworm,dipterous leafminers, than five times per season.
0.5-1.5 Ib southern armyworm
AG500,4E:1-4 qts 24 preplant cutworms, mole crickets, wireworms
50W: 2-8 1b_
Dimethoate 4 EC,2.67 EC 4EC:0.5-1.0 pt 48 7 aphids, leafhoppers, leafminers 1B Will not control organophosphate-
(dimethoate) 2.67:0.75-1.5 pt r __ esistant leafminers.
DiPel DF 0.5-2.0 Ib 4 0 caterpillars 11B2 Treat when larvae are young.Good
(Bacillus thuringiensis coverage is essential.OMRI-listed2.
subspecies kurstaki)
Endosulfan 3EC 0.66-1.33 qt 24 2 aphids,blister beetle,cabbage looper, 2 Do not exceed a maximum of 3.0 Ib
endosulfann) Colorado potato beetle,flea beetles, active ingredient per acre per year or
hornworms,stinkbugs,tomato apply more than 6 times. Can be used
fruitworm,tomato russet mite,whiteflies, in greenhouse.
yellowstriped armyworm


Entrust 0.5-2.5 oz 4 1 armyworms, Colorado potato beetle, 5 Do not apply more than 9 oz per acre
(spinosad) flower thrips, hornworms, Liriomyza per crop.
leafminers, loopers, other caterpillars, OMRI-listed2.
tomato fruitworm, tomato pinworm
Esteem Ant Bait 1.5-2.0 Ib 12 1 red imported fire ant 7C Apply when ants are actively foraging.
Extinguish 1.0-1.5 Ib 4 0 fire ants 7A Slow-acting IGR (insect growth regulator).Best
((S)-methoprene) applied early spring and fall wherecropwill
begrown.Colonieswill be reduced afterthree
weeksand eliminated after8to 10weeks.May
beapplied bvaround equipment oraerially.
Fulfill 2.75 oz 12 0 if 2 green peach aphid, potato aphid, 9B Donotmakemorethanfourapplications.
(pymetrozine) suppression of whiteflies (FL-040006) 24(c) label for growing
transplantsalso (FL-03004).
Intrepid 2F 4-16 fl oz 4 1 beet armyworm,cabbage looper,fall 18A Do not apply more than 64 fl oz acre
(methoxyfenozide) armyworm, hornworms, southern per season.
armyworm, tomato fruitworm, true Product is a slow-acting IGR that will
a__ _rmvworm,vellowstriped armyworm not kill larvae immediately.
Javelin WG 0.12-1.5 Ib 4 0 most caterpillars, but not Spodoptera 11 B2 Treat when larvae are young.Thorough
(Bacillus thuringiensis species armywormss) coverage is essential.
subspecies kurstaki) ____ OMRI-listed2.
Kelthane MF 4 0.75-1.5 pt 12 2 tomato russet mites, twospotted and 20 Do not apply more than twice a season
(dicofol) other spider mites or more than 1.6 pts per year.
Knack IGR 8-10 fl oz 12 14 immature whiteflies 7C Apply when a threshold is reached
(pyriproxyfen) 7 SLN of 5 nymphs per 10 leaflets from
No FL- the middle of the plant. Product is
200002 a slow-acting IGR that will not kill
or FL- nymphs immediately. Make no more
000002 than two applications per season.Treat
Kryocide 8-16 Ib 12 14 armyworm, blister beetle,cabbage 9A Minimum of 7 days between
(cryolite) looper, Colorado potato beetle applications. Do not apply more than
larvae,flea beetles, hornworms, 64 Ibs per acre per season.
tomato fruitworm, tomato pinworm
*Lannate LV,*SP LV: 48 1 aphids,armyworms,beetarmyworm,fall Do not apply more than 21 pt LV/acre/
(methomyl) 0.75-3.0 pt armyworm,hornworms,loopers,southern 1A crop (15 for tomatillos) or 7 Ib SP/acre/
SP: armyworm,tomatofruitworm,tomato crop (5 Ib for
0.25-1.0 Ib pinworm.varieaated cutworm tomatillos).
LepinoxWDG 1.0-2.0 Ib 12 0 for most caterpillars, including beet 11B2 Treat when larvae are small.Thorough
(Bacillus thuringiensis armyworm (see label) coverage is essential.
subspecies kurstaki)
Malathion 8 F 1.5-2 pt 12 1 aphids, Drosophila, mites 1B Can be used in greenhouse.
*Monitor 4EC 1.5-2 pts 96 7 aphids,fruitworms,leafminers, 1B ( Suppression only
(methamidophos) tomato pinworm'", whiteflies'2) (2) Use as tank mix with a pyrethroid for
[24(c) labels] whitefly control.Do not apply more than
FL-800046 8 pts per acre per crop season,nor within
FL-900003 7 days of harvest.
M-Pede49% EC 1-2% V/V 12 0 aphids, leafhoppers, mites, plant -- OMRI-listed2.
(Soap, insecticidal) bugs, thrips, whiteflies
*Mustang Max 2.24-4.0 oz 12 1 beetarmyworm,cabbagelooper,Colorado 3 Not recommended for vegetable
(zeta-cypermethrin) potato beetle,cutworms,fall armyworm, leafminer in Florida. Do not make
flea beetles,grasshoppers,green and applications less than 7 days apart. Do
brown stinkbugs,hornworms,leafminers, not apply more than 0.15 Ib ai per acre
leafhoppers,Lygusbugs,plant bugs, per season.
southern armyworm,tobacco budworm,
tomato fruitworm,tomato pinworm,true
armyworm,yellowstriped armyworm.Aids
in control ofaphids,thrips and whiteflies.
Neemix 4.5 4-16fl oz 12 0 aphids, armyworms, hornworms, 18B IGR, feeding repellant.
azadirachtinn) psyllids,Colorado potato beetle, OMRI-listed2.
cutworms, leafminers, loopers, tomato
fruitworm (corn earworm), tomato
NoMate MEC TPW 0 0 tomato pinworm For mating disruption -
(pheromone) See label.


Oberon 2SC 7.0-8.5 fl oz 12 7 broad mite,twospotted spider mite, 23 Maximum amount per crop: 25.5 fl oz/
(spiromesifen) whiteflies (eggs and nymphs) acre. No more than 3 applications.
Platinum 5-8 fl oz 12 30 aphids,Colorado potato beetles,flea 4A Soil application. See label for rotational
(thiamethoxam) beetles, whiteflies restrictions.
*Pounce 25W 3.2-12.8 oz 12 0 beet armyworm,cabbage looper, 3 Do not apply to cherry or grape
(permethrin) Colorado potato beetle,dipterous tomatoes (fruit less than 1 inch in
leafminers,granulate cutworm, diameter). Do not apply more than 1.2
hornworms,southern armyworm, Ib ai per acre per season.
tomato fruitworm,tomato pinworm
*Proaxis Insecticide 1.92-3.84 fl oz 24 5 aphids', beetarmyworm'2,blister beetles, 0) Suppression only.
(gamma-cyhalothrin) cabbage looper,Colorado potato beetle, 3 2) First and second instars only.
cucumber beetles (adults),cutworms,
hornworms,fall armyworm),flea beetles, Do not apply more than 2.88 pints per
grasshoppers,leafhoppers, plant bugs, acre per season.
southern armyworm'),spider mites0',stink
bugs,thrips',tobacco budworm,tomato
fruitworm,tomato pinworm,vegetable
weevil (adult),whiteflies'co,ydlowstriped
*Proclaim 2.4-4.8 oz 48 7 beet armyworm,cabbage looper,fall 6 No more than 28.8 oz/acre per season.
(emamectin benzoate) armyworm, hornworms,southern
armyworm,tobacco budworm,
tomato fruitworm,tomato pinworm,
vellowstriped armyworm
Prokil Cryolite 96 10-16 Ib 12 14 blister beetle, cabbage looper, 9A Minimum of 7 days between
(cryolite) Colorado potato beetle larvae,flea applications. Do not apply more than
beetles, hornworms 64 Ibs per acre per season. Not for
S_ cherry tomatoes.
Provado 1.6F 3.8 oz 12 0 aphids, Colorado potato beetle, 4A Do not apply to crop that has been
(imidacloprid) leafhoppers, whiteflies already treated with imidacloprid or
thiamethoxam at planting.Maximum per
crop per season 19 fl oz per acre.
Pyrellin EC 1-2 pt 12 12 hours aphids,Colorado potato beetle, 3,21
(pyrethrin + rotenone) cucumber beetles, flea beetles, flea
hoppers, leafhoppers, leafminers,
loopers, mites, plant bugs, stink bugs,
thrips, vegetable weevil,whiteflies
Sevin 80S;XLR;4F 80S: 0.63-2.5 12 3 Colorado potato beetle,cutworms, 1A "suppression
(carbaryl) XLR;4F: 0.5-2.0 A fall armyworm, flea beetles,lace bugs,
leafhoppers, plant bugs, stink bugs(', Do not apply more than seven times.
thrips'", tomato fruitworm,tomato Do not apply a total of more than 10 Ib
hornworm,tomato pinworm, sowbugs or 8 qt per acre per crop.
SpinTor2SC (spinosad) 1.5-8.0 fl oz 4 1 armyworms, Colorado potato beetle, 5 Do not apply to seedlings grown for
flower thrips, hornworms, Liriomyza transplant within a greenhouse or
leafminers, loopers, Thrips palmi, shadehouse. Leafminer and thrips
tomato fruitworm, tomato pinworm control may be improved by adding an
adjuvant. Do not apply more than three
times in any 21 day period. Do not apply
more than 29 oz per acre per crop.
Sulfur (many brands) See label 24 see label tomato russet mite

*Telone C-35 See label days preplant garden centipedes (symphylans), See supplemental label for restrictions
(dichloropropene + (See wireworms in certain Florida counties.
chloropicrin) label)
*Telone II
Trigard 2.66 oz 12 0 Colorado potato beetle (suppression 17 No more than 6 applications per crop.
(cyromazine) of),leafminers Does not control CPB adults.Most effective
against 1s & 2nd instar larvae.
Trilogy 0.5-2.0% V/V 4 0 aphids, mites, suppression of thrips 18B Apply morning or evening to reduce
(extract of neem oil) and whiteflies potential for leaf burn.Toxic to bees
exposed to direct treatment.OMRI-listed2.
Ultra Fine Oil, 3-6 qts/100 gal 4 0 aphids, beetle larvae, leafhoppers, Do not exceed four applications per
JMS Stylet-Oil, and others (JMS) leafminers, mites, thrips, whiteflies, season. Organic Stylet-Oil is
(oil,insecticidal) aphid-transmitted viruses (JMS) OMRI-listed2.


Venom Insecticide foliar: 1-4 oz 12 foliar: 1 Colorado potato beetle,flea beetles, 4A Use only one application method (soil
(dinotefuran) soil: 21 leafhoppers, leafminers, thrips, or foliar). Limited to three applications
soil: 5-6 oz whiteflies per season. Do not use on grape or
cherry tomatoes.
*Vydate L foliar: 2-4 pt 48 3 aphids,Colorado potato beetle, 1A Do not apply more than 32 pts per acre
(oxamyl) leafminers (except Liriomyza trifolii), per season.
whiteflies (suppression only)
*Warrior 1.92-3.84 fl oz 24 5 aphids('),beetarmyworm2),cabbage 3 0) suppression only
(lambda-cyhalothrin) looper,Colorado potato beetle, (2) for control of 1 st and 2nd instars
cutworms,fall armyworm(2),flea beetles, only.
grasshoppers, hornworms, leafhoppers, Do not apply more than 0.36 Ib ai per
leafminers', plant bugs,southern acre per season.
armyworm(),stink bugs,thrips(),tomato ')Does not control western flower
fruitworm,tomato pinworm,whiteflies0', thrips.
vellowstriped armyworm'2)
Xentari DF 0.5-2 Ib 4 0 caterpillars 11B1 Treat when larvae are young.Thorough
(Bacillus thuringiensis coverage is essential. May be used
subspecies aizawai) in the greenhouse. Can be used in
organic production.OMRI-listed2.

The pesticide information presented in this table was current with federal and state regulations at the time of revision.The user is responsible for
determining the intended use is consistent with the label of the product being used. Use pesticides safely. Read and follow label instructions.

'Mode of Action codes for vegetable pest insecticides from the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) Mode of Action Classification v.5.2
September, 2006.
1A. Acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, Carbamates
1B. Acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, Organophosphates
2A. GABA-gated chloride channel antagonists
3. Sodium channel modulators
4A. Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptor agonists/antagonists, Neonicotinoids
5. Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptor agonists (not group 4)
6. Chloride channel activators
7A. Juvenile hormone mimics,Juvenile hormone 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)
11B1. Microbial disruptors of insect midgut membranes, B.t. var aizawai
11B2. 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 (methoxyfenozide,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




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

Row Application (6'row spacing 36" bed)4
Broadcast Recommended Chisels Rate/i 000
Product (Rate) ChiselSpacing (per Row) Rate/Acre Ft/Chisel

Methyl Bromide3 67-33 225-375 Ib 12" 3 112-187 Ib 5.1-8.6 Ib
Methyl Bromide 50-50 300-480 Ib 12" 3 150-240 Ib 6.8-11.0 Ib
Chloropicrin' 300-500 Ib 12" 3 150-250 Ib 6.9-11.5 Ib
Telone ll2 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


Vydate L treat soil before or at planting with any other appropriate nematicide or a Vydate transplant water drench followed byVydate 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.

SIf treated area is tarped, dosage may be reduced by 33%.
2 The manufacturer of Telone II,Telone C-17,and Telone C-35 has restricted use only on soils that have a relatively shallow hard pan or soil layer
restrictive to downward water movement (such as a spodic horizon) within six feet of the ground surface and are capable of supporting 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 manufacturers label for personal protective
equipment and other use restrictions which might apply.
3 As a grandfather clause, it is still possible to continue to use methyl bromide on any previous 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 requirements 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.
4 Rate/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. Growers have
the final responsibility to guarantee that each product is used in a manner consistent with the label. This information was compiled by the author as
of June 25,2007 as a reference for the commercial Florida tomato grower.The mention 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 publication are subject to changing
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, regulations, and restrictions.Additional products may become available or approved for use.










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