other studies(Cartia et al., 1989; Chellemi et al., 1997). Soil Heald, C. M. and A. F. Robinson. 1987. Effects of soil solarization on Rotylen- chulus reniformis in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. J. Nematol. samples measured for nematode density did not contain - 19:93-103. knot species for any of three locations prior to planting. Thus, Jenkins, W. R. 1964. A rapid centrifugal-flotation technique for separating itis advisable to include treatments for the management of nematodes from soil. Dis. Rptr. 48:692. root-knot nematodes when utilizing solarization for cucurbit McSorley, R. andj. L. Parrado. 1986. Application of soil solarization to rock- dale soils in a subtropical environment. Nematropica 16:125-140. production. Overman, A. J. 1985. Off-season land management, soil solarization and fu migation for tomato. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 44:35-39. RistainoJ. B., K. B. Perry and R. D. Lumsden. 1991. Effect of solarization and Literature Cited Gliocladium vixens on sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii, soil microbiota and the incidence of southern blight of tomato. Phytopathology 81:1117-1124. Cantliffe, D. J., G. J. Hochmuth, S. J. Locascio, P. A. Stansly, C. S. Vavrina, J. Ristaino, J. B., K. B. Perry and R. D. Lumsden. 1996. Soil solarization and Glio E. Polston, D. J. Schuster, D. R. Seal, D. O. Chellemi and S. M. Olson. cladium vixens reduce the incidence of southern blight {Sclerotium rolfsii) 1995. Production of solanaceae for fresh market under field conditions: in bell pepper in the field. Biocon. Sci. and Tech. 6:583-593. current problems and potential solutions. Acta Hort. 412:229-244. Spreen, T. H.,J. J. VanSickle, A. E. Moseley, M. S. Deepak and L. Mathers. Cartia, G., N. Greco and T. Cipriano. 1989. Effect of solarization and fumi- 1995. Use of methyl bromide and the economic impact of its proposed gants on soilborne pathogens of pepper in greenhouse. Acta Hort. ban on the Florida fresh and vegetable industry. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. 255:111. Tech. Bull. 898, Gainesville, FL. Chellemi, D. O., S. M. Olson, J. W. Scott, D. J. Mitchell and R. McSorley. 1993. Stapleton, J.J. andj. E. DeVay. 1995. Soil solarization: a natural mechanism Reduction of phytoparasitic nematodes on tomato by soil solarization and of integrated pest management, pp. 309-322, In: Innovative Approaches genotype. J. Nematol. 25(suppl.):800-805. to Integrated Pest Management. R. Reuveni, (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Ra Chellemi, D. O., S. M. Olson, D. J. Mitchell, I. Seeker and R. McSorley. 1997. tion, FL. Adaptation of soil solarization to the integrated management of soilborne Taylor, A. L. and J. N. Sasser. 1978. Biology, identification and control of pests of tomato under humid conditions. Phytopathology 87:250-258. root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species). North Carolina State Univ. Federal Registrar. 1993. Fed. Registrar. 58:65018-65082. Graphics, Raleigh, NC.

Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110:336-342. 1997.

CULTIGEN AND PLANT SPACING EFFECTS ON PLANT GROWTH, DISEASE, YIELD AND FRUIT QUALITY OF TOMATOES

H. H. Bryan, L. J. Ramos and M. M. Codallo Additional index words. Bacterial spot, brachytic gene, cat- Tropical Research and Education Center face, cracking, graywall, phenotypes, population densities, University of Florida, IFAS postrate habits, Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Homestead, FL 33031-3314 Abstract. This research was undertaken to study the effects of J. W. Scott plant spatial arrangement and plant population densities on Gulf Coast Research and Education Center growth, productivity and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicon University of Florida, IFAS escufentun Mill.). Tomato varieties were compared under dif ferent spatial schemes. In the fall 1995 studies, that included Bradenton, FL 34203-9324 only non-staked tomatoes, no significant difference was found between tomato varieties planted in double-rows and those R. G. Gardner planted in single-rows for total marketable yield and large fruit North Carolina State University yield. In the first harvest, however, tomato planted in double- Mountain Horticultural Crop Research & Extension Center rows had significantly greater total marketable yields, and North Carolina State University large fruit yields than tomato planted in single-rows. In the fall 2016 Fanning Bridge Road 1996 studies, that included non-staked and staked tomatoes, Fletcher, NC 28732 non-staked tomatoes planted in double-rows had greater total marketable yields than staked tomatoes planted in single- rows. Tomatoes planted in double-rows, had more early, red- ripe in the first harvest than tomatoes planted in single- rows. Double-rows planting was associated with a significant

Thanks to Dr. Waldemar Klassen, Director of TREC, for providing sup earlier fruits maturation. Tomatoes grown in staked single- port to this program, and his critical review of the manuscript. The authors rows, however, were more infected by stem cankers caused by gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Laura Vasquez in the preparation of Alternaria solani (Ell. & G. Martin) Sor, and Phoma destructiva the manuscript. Thanks to several companies for supplying the for the Plowr. than tomatoes planted in double-rows. The results of two tests and to Iori Farms and Strano Farms for providing land and produc 1995 fall studies indicated that tomatoes planted 30.5 and 40.6 tion practices for the 1995 trial. cm (12 and 16 in) apart within-row produced more total market- Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. N-01530.

336 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. able fruits than tomatoes planted 61 cm (24 in) apart within-row deep. Diseases and insects were controlled by standard use of (single- and double-rows included). Since the single-row and pesticides. The 1995 experiments were conducted at two loca double-row data were pooled, the above within-row distances tions, N.W. of Homestead and S.E. of Florida City with the co 30.5 and 40.6 cm correspond on average, to 26,898 and 20,174 operation of Strano Farms and Iori Farms, respectively. A ha1 (single- and double-rows included), whereas the 61 factorial split-split plot design with four replications (2 at each cm within-row distance corresponds on average to 13,449 location) was used. Non-staked tomatoes were planted in sin plantsha1. There were significant interactions between space x cultigens for marketable fruit size (fruit weight) and early red- gle or double-rows, with 30.5, 40.6, 50.8 and 61 cm (12, 16, 20 ripe yields in 1995. On the other hand the interaction between and 24 in) with-in-row spacing and included 768 single plots row x cultigen was significant for marketable yields in 1996. and 22 tomato cultigens. The 1996 studies were conducted at Non-staked tomatoes planted in double-rows showed higher the Tropical Research and Education Center, and included incidences of graywall and cracks than non-staked tomatoes non-staked tomato planted in double-rows 40.6 cm (16 in) planted in single-rows. No difference was found in the inci and 50.8 cm (20 in) apart, and staked tomatoes planted in sin dence of bacterial leaf spot (Xanthomonas campesths pv. ves- gle rows 50.8 cm (20 in) apart with three replications. This icatoria (Doige) Dy between single- and double-rows. Bacterial study included 20 tomato cultigens and a total of 165 plots. A leaf spot, however was directly correlated with population den similar surface area was harvested in each plot. In the 1995 sity (R = 0.868). These findings provide evidence that higher studies, 3.1 m (10 linear feet) was harvested from each 5.6 m marketable yields and comparable fruit size and quality can be obtained by decreasing plant spatial arrangements from 61 cm (16.5 ft) long plot. Plot area = 5.6 m2 (10 ft x 6 ft = 60 ft2) area to 40.6 and 30.5 cm in non-staked tomato plantings. Some sav (Yields in kg/plot x 1.7657 = t-ha1). In the 1996 experiments ings can be obtained from the cost of stakes, strings, materi 4 m (13.333 linear feet) were harvested from each 5.1 m (16.5 als, labor, and the possibilities of mechanical harvesting. The ft) long plot. Plot area = 13.3 x 6 = 80 ft2 or 7.4 m2 (yield in kg/ advantages of double-row plantings and tomato cultigens with plot x 1.4126 = t-ha1). In addition to yields, data were collect brachytic, short internodes and postrate growth for the ed for incidence of bacterial leaf spot, graywall cat face, radial improvement of mechanical harvested are also discussed. cracks and zipper. Bacterial leaf spot was evaluated on the ob servations of all plants from each plot and rated using a scale Introduction of 1 = none to 5 = severe symptoms. Observations of the length of non-staked tomatoes were based on measurements Economic factors determined by foreign and domestic of 3 plants from each single plot. competition, and federal trade regulations are changing the tomato industry of Florida. Unless production and marketing Results and Discussion costs can be significantly reduced, the viability of the Florida tomato industry could be threatened (Cantliffe, 1995). For Plant spacing studies fall 1995. Results of the fall 1995 the past several years Florida tomatoes have been grown on spacing study are presented in Tables 1 to 5. Yields of toma stakes at 40 to 74 cm within-row spacings and between row toes planted in double- and single-rows were compared in Ta spacings of 1.5 to 2.1 m. Previous studies have shown that clos ble 1. The 1995 studies, included only non-staked tomatoes. er plant spacing increased yield and quality of tomatoes and No significant difference was found between tomatoes plant other vegetables (Bryan 1967, 1970, 1977). ed in double-rows and those planted in single-rows for total A tomato plant spacing project was undertaken to study marketable yields and large fruit yields. In the first harvest, the effects of different planting arrangements on growth, however, tomatoes planted in double-rows had greater total yields, fruit quality, and the relationships among plant spac marketable yields, and large fruit yields than tomato planted ings and the incidences of the bacterial leaf spot, graywall, cat in single-rows (data not shown). The results of 1995 studies face, radial cracking and zippering of the fruits. The effects of also indicated that tomatoes planted 30.5 and 40.6 cm (12 single-rows (staked and non-staked), and non-staked double- and 16 in) apart within-row produced more total marketable row plantings were investigated. Another objective was the yields than tomatoes planted 61 cm (24 in) apart within-row evaluation of tomato varieties better adapted to the condi (single-and double-rows included) (Table 1). Since the sin tions of South Florida. gle-row and double-row data were pooled, the above within- row distances 30.5 and 40.6 cm correspond on average, to Materials and Methods 26,898 and 20,174 plants-ha1 whereas the 61 cm within-row distance corresponds on average to 13,449 plants per hectare Plant spacing experiments were conducted in Krome very (Table 1). In an early study (Bryan, 1967) early tomato fruit gravelly loam soil during the fall 1995 and fall 1996 at Home size was smaller in very high plant populations of 61,256 stead, and Florida City, FL. Tomato seeds were sown in flats plants-ha-1 (26,800 plants-acre1) than in 15,314 plants t-ha] with Pro-Mix (Premier Brandy Inc., Redhill, PA) on Oct. 3, (6,200 plants-acre1). No significant differences were found in 1995 and Nov. 8, 1996. Six weeks later, seedlings were trans total marketable or large fruit sizes of tomato planted 30.5, planted into plastic mulched beds 91.4 cm (36 in) wide and 40.6, 50.8 or 61 cm apart within-rows (Table 1). Space x culti 20.3 cm (8 in) high with centers 1.8 m (6 ft) apart. Soil under gen interaction was significant for marketable fruit size the plastic mulch was fumigated with methyl bromide-chlo- (weight); but interaction between row x cultigen was not sig ropicrin (MC 75-25) at the rate of 169 kg per hectare (150 lb nificant for any variables studied (Table 1). per acre). T-tape (T-Systems International, Inc. San Diego, Effects of single and double-rows on vine length, the inci CA) drip irrigation was placed 2 cm deep in bed center for dence of bacterial leaf spot, and the disorders graywall, cat double-row beds and 15 cm from bed center for single-row face, cracks, and zipper, are in Table 2. Double-rows increased beds. Fertilizer was double banded 25.4 cm (10 in) each side incidence of graywall from 54 to 167 fruits-ha1 (P > 0.007), and of bed-center in single-row beds and 7.6 cm from bed-center the incidence of cracks, from 217 to 520 fruits-ha1 (P > 0.043) in double-row beds. Fertilizer was rototilled 10.2 cm (4 in) but had no effect on the incidence of bacterial leaf spot, cat

Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. 337 Table 1. Effects of single and double-rows and plant spacing within-rows on the yield and size of tomatoes, Fall 1995.

Total of three harvest

Marketable fruits Large fruits Total US No. 1 fruits Culls Treatment yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha'

Row Double 38.7 a' 150 a 24.5 a 142 a 22.8 a 172 a 4.5 a Single 34.0 a 148 a 21.1 a 144 a 18.8 a 173 a 4.7 a Spacing within-row (cm) 30.5 37.3 a 146 a 23.1 a 143 a 21.3 a 174 a 4.3 a 40.6 38.0 a 148 a 23.1 a 139 a 21.9 a 16 a 4.1 a 50.8 36.1 ab 149 a 23.2 a 142 a 20.5 a 171 a 4.9 a 61.0 33.9 b 150 a 21.6a 148 a 19.4 a 175 a 4.9 a

Row P>F 0.1914 0.6569 0.3157 0.6721 0.1710 0.9055 0.4996 Space P>F 0.0265 0.8023 0.2587 0.3471 0.0756 0.2823 0.0516 Row x Space P>F 0.6573 0.4819 0.2649 0.7573 0.1443 0.1149 0.1495 Cultigen P>F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Space x Cult P>F 0.3390 0.0200 0.7584 0.3940 0.3121 0.0841 0.5644 Row x Cult P>F 0.1106 0.5432 0.3085 0.4568 0.0697 0.7540 0.0374 Row x Space x Cult P>F 0.3341 0.5695 0.9877 0.2310 0.7369 0.9688 0.0685

'Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05).

face or zipper. Low numbers of graywall and crack fruits would There were significant difference among the tomato culti- have no commercial significance. Row x cultigen interaction gens in all variables studied, including total marketable yield, was significant only for the fruit crack disorder (P > 0.0007), large fruits (Table 3) or large number US # 1 fruits. The total whereas interaction of space x cultigen was significant only for marketable yields ranged from over 40 t-ha1 for 'Sanibel', the graywall disorder (P > 0.025). Single or double-row plant 'NC 95324' and for 'FE 4', to under 30 t-ha-1, T0086', 'Agriset ings had no significant effect on the incidence of bacterial leaf 1000' (Table 3). spot, but the incidence of bacterial leaf spot was directly asso Large fruit yields ranged over 21 t-ha1 for 'FE4', 'Sanibel', ciated to the population densities (P > 0.0001 data not shown). and 'FE1', to under 20 t-ha-1 for 'Sunex 6590', 'Sunre 6590', The incidence of bacterial leaf spot was correlated with the 'Sunex 6593', T1011' and 'Agriset 1000', (Table 3). The population density (R = 0.868R2 = 0.57). The spatial arrange large US #1 fruit yields ranged over 24 t-ha1 for 'Sanibel', ments studied range from 8,970 plants-ha1 for single-rows at 'Sunbrite', and 'FE 4', under 15 t-ha1, for 'T 0086', 'Agriset 61 cm within-row spacing, to 35,879 for double-rows at 30.5 cm 1000' and 'Sunex 6593' (Table 4). Marketable fruit size within-row spacing (data not shown). The crack incidence in ranged from 170 g for 'Sunbrite', 'FE 1 'FE 4', 'FE 3' and creased with the population density, but decreased slightly 'Mountain Spring', to under 13 g for 'Agriset 1000' and 'Bo- when within row spacing was reduced from 61 cm to 40.6 and nita' (Table 3). Early yields were above 10 t-ha1 for 'FE 4', 'NC 30.5 cm. In addition, interaction between population x culti 95324', and FE 1 and were below 4 t-ha-1 for 'T 0086', T1011 gen was also significant for this variable. and 'Agriset 1000' (Table 4).

Table 2. Effects of single and double-rows and four plant spacing within-rows on the incidence of bacterial leaf spot, graywall, cat face, radial cracks and zip per on fruits, Fall 1995.

Fruit disorder (fruit no-ha1)

Treatment Vine lengths Bacterial leaf spot* Graywall Cat face Cracks Zipper

Row Double 72.19 3.15 167* 500 520 a 556 Single 74.93 2.71 54 b 269 217b 353 Spacing within-row (cm) 30.5 72.57 2.86 149 a 461 285 a 436 40.6 73.55 3.00 97 a 349 289 a 493 50.8 74.02 2.91 75 a 423 448 a 436 61.0 73.88 2.94 127 a 292 497 a 454

Row* P>F 0.0983 0.2131 0.0069 0.6060 0.0433 0.4525 Space" P>F 0.7987 0.7126 0.8655 0.5144 0.3282 0.9044 Row x Space* P>F 0.7519 0.7665 0.1882 0.7746 0.5558 0.5648 Cultigen P>F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0076 0.2210 0.0001 0.2274 Cult x Row P>F 0.9844 0.4910 0.0461 0.8366 0.0007 0.9689 Cult x Space P>F 0.5187 0.2116 0.0025 0.2734 0.4157 0.1285 Cult x Row x Space P>F 0.9972 0.6941 0.2513 0.9003 0.2318 0.5367

'Bacterial leaf spot 1 = none, 5 = severe. "Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). "Hypothesis using type III: MS for Rep x Row as an error term. "Hypothesis using type II: MS for Rep x Space x Row as an error term.

338 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. Table 3. Combined yield and size response of twenty-two tomato cultigens planted at different spacings, Fall 1995.

Marketable fruits Large fruits Large no. 1 fruits Culls

Cultigen Source yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha1 size (g) yield t-ha'

Equinox UF GCREC 32.9 b-f' 146 d-h 24.3 b-e 146 a-f 20.9 d-h 173 b-g 3.6 e-g NC 95324 NCSU 42.1 ab 144 e-h 25.2 b-d 143 c-g 23.9 a-e 166 c-g 3.6 e-g Leading Lady Sun 39.7 b-d 142 f-i 24.5 b-e 137 b-g 21.8 b-g 166 c-g 4.8 c-f Sunex 6568 Sun Seed 35.9 d-h 155 c-e 24.9 b-e 150 a-e 21.3 c-g 176 b-g 5.6 be Sunex 6590 Sun Seed 21.1 hi 145 e-h 19.2 gh 139 b-f 18.5 g-j 164 d-g 3.4 fg Sunre 6591 Sun Seed 33.8 f-i 137 g-i 19.1 hg 130 e-g 19.4 f-i 158 fg 4.3 c-f Sunex 6593 Sun Seed 34.0 f-i 149 c-f 19.0 gh 135 b-g 17.1 ij 162 e-g 4.9 c-e Agriset 1000 Agris Sales 26.5 lj 1321 13.5 i 129 fj 12.9 k 155 g 3.6 e-g Sunbrite Asgrow Seed 39.7 b-d 170 a 27.2 ab 162 a 25.3 ab 207 a 3.9 d-g Fel Frontier Seed 32.1 c-g 166 ab 26.6 a-c 155 ab 22.6 a-f 184 be 6.4 ab Fe3 Frontier Seed 38.5 b-f 157 b-d 25.5 a-d 152 a-d 22.5 a-f 183 b-d 5.7 be Fe4 Frontier Seed 41.6 a-c 159 be 29.2 a 162 a 24.9 a-c 189 b 7.3 a Bonita Rogers Seed 34.8 e-h 136 hi 19.3 gh 133 c-g 18.4 g-j 160 fg 4.2 c-f Cobia Rogers Seed 36.4 d-h 147 d-h 21.3 e-g 141 b-g 20.2 f-i 172 b-g 5.3 b-d Santiago Rogers Seed 35.9 d-h 148 c-g 22.2 d-g 140 a-e 19.8 f-i 174 b-g 2.7 g Merced Rogers Seed 39.4 b-e 156 b-e 25.3 b-d 153 a-c 22.8 a-f 181 b-e 5.7 be Mountain Spring Rogers Seed 35.2 d-h 157 b-d 23.2 c-f 148 a-f 21.8 b-g 177 b-f 4.4 c-f T0086 Pioneer Seed 29.5 ij 139 f-i 16.8 hi 127 g 15.6 jk 163 d-g 4.4 c-f T1011 Pioneer Seed 32.5 g-i 143 f-h 21.8 d-g 132 d-g 19.9 f-i 165 c-g 3.7 e-g PSX 872591 Peto Seed 39.6 b-d 150 c-f 25.5 a-d 137 b-g 24.2 a-d 174 b-g 4.9 c-e Sanibel Peto Seed 44.3 a 148 d-h 27.3 ab 145 a-f 26.1a 174 b-g 4.4 c-f

Cultigen P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

'Duncan's Multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). Plot area 3.049 x 1.83 m = 5.6 m2 (10' x 6' = 60 sq. ft). Kg/plot x 1.7657 = metric tons per hectare.

There was significant variability in the vine length and the from 2.6 for 'NC 95324', 'Equinox', 'PSX 822591' to 3.2 for incidence of bacterial leaf spot, graywall and cracks among to 'Merced', 'FE 1' and 'Sunex 6593' (Table 5). The graywall in mato cultigens (Table 5). Vine length ranged from 55 cm for cidence ranged from 640 fruits-ha1 for 'Mountain Spring', to 'NC 95324', to 71 cm for 'Merced' 'PSX 872591' to 79 cm for 0 for 'Equinox', 'Sanibel', 'Bonita', 'Cobia', 'Santiago', 'Sun 'T1001', and 'Sunex 6593' (Table 5). The bacterial leaf spot ex 6568', 'Sunnex 6590', 'C2', 'Sunbrite', 'T0086' (Table 5). incidence (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being severe) ranged The highest graywall incidence of 2,494 fruit-ha1 was record ed for 'Agriset 6000', which was dropped from the test be cause of insufficient plants. The incidence of cracks ranged Table 4. Early yield response of twenty-two tomato lines planted at different from 0 fruit-ha1 for Equinox and 'Agriset 1000' and 127 for spacing, Fall 1995. 'Mountain Spring' to 192 for 'Sunbrite' to 1404 for 'Sunex

First harvest yield 6593' (Table 5). Plant spacing studies fall 1996. Results of the fall 1996 to Marketable Large US#1 mato spacing study are in Tables 6, 7 and 8. Plant spacing ex Cultigen Source t-ha1 t-ha1 t-ha1 periments revealed that non-staked tomatoes on double-rows Equinox UF GCREC 6.8 d-h' 6.4 e-g 5.5 c-g planted 50.8 cm (20 in) apart within-row at 21,518 plants-ha1 NC 95324 NCSU 10.8 a 9.7 ab 7.7 b (8,712 plants-acre1), and 40.6 cm (16 in) apart within-row Leading Lady Sun Seed 5.5 f-i 5.5 f-i 4.6 e-i spacing at 26,898 plants-ha1 (10,890 plants-acre1) produced Sunex 6568 Sun Seed 6.3 f-i 5.6 f-i 4.8 d-h Sunex 6590 Sun Seed 6.9 d-h 6.0 f-h 4.9 d-g more red ripe early fruits, total marketable fruits, and large Sunre 6591 Sun Seed 5.3 g-i 4-8 g-j 4.1 f-i fruits, than staked tomato planted in single-rows 50.8 cm (20 Sunex 6593 Sun Seed 6.9 d-h 4.1 h-k 3.2 g-k in) apart within-rows at 8,712 plants-ha1 (4,356 plants per 2.4jk 0.9 k 1.7 k Agriset 1000 Agris Sales acre) (Table 6). The early red-ripe fruit yields, total market Sunbrite Asgrow Seed 6.9 d-h 4.1 h-k 3.2 g-k able and large fruit yields of non-staked tomatoes planted in C2 Frontier Seed 5.9 f-i 5-1 g-j 3.8 f-k FE1 Frontier Seed 10.2 a-c 8.8 be 7.7 b double-rows 50.8 cm and those planted 40.6 cm were not sig FE3 Frontier Seed 9.1 b-d 8.5 b-e 7.3 be nificantly different (Table 6). These results confirmed that FE4 Frontier Seed 12.3 a 11.5 a 10.2 a double-row plantings increase of early maturation of toma Bonita Rogers Seed 4.6 h-j 4.0 h-k 3.4 f-k toes and marketable yields. No differences were found be Cobia Rogers Seed 8.2 c-f 6.7 c-g 5.6 b-f Santiago Rogers Seed 4.0 i-k 3.5 i-k 2.7 h-k tween non-staked, double-row plantings within-row spacings Merced Rogers Seed 9.3 b-d 8.6 b-d 6.8 b-d of 50.8 cm and 40.6 cm for any yield variables studied (Table Mountain Spring Rogers Seed 8.3 c-f 7.7 b-f 6.4 b-e 6). In 1996, the interaction between row x cultigen for the to Pioneer Seed 3.4jk 2.9 jk 2.4jk T0086 tal marketable yields, and the interaction between space x T1011 Pioneer Seed 3.4jk 0.7 jk 2.5 i-k PSX 872591 Peto Seed 5.9 e-i 5.8 f-h 5.2 c-g cultigen was significant for the early red-ripe fruits (Table 6). Sanibel Peto Seed 7.3 d-g 6.6 d-g 5.6 b-f An analysis of the 1995 (Table 1) and 1996 (Table 6) ex periments indicate that the interaction between space x culti 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Cultigen P > F gen was significant for marketable fruit size in 1995, and for 'Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the early red-ripe fruits harvested in 1996 (Table 6). Conversely, same letter are not significantly different (0.05). the interaction between row x cultigen was not significant for

Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. 339 Table 5. Combined responses of twenty-two tomato lines planted at different spacings systems to their vine lengths, and incidences of bacterial leaf spot, graywall, cat face, radial cracks and zipper of fruits, Fall 1995.

Fruit defects (fruit no-ha1) Bacterial spot Cultigen Source Vine length (cm) rating' Graywall Cat face Radial cracks Zipper

Equinox UF GCREC 72.30 cd' 2.63 gf 0c 133 Oe 597 NC 95324 NCSU 54.82 e 2.61 g 266 be 827 344 c-e 414 Leading Lady Sun Seed 75.86 a-d 2.83 c-g 64 be 256 64 de 897 Sunex 6568 Sun Seed 75.25 a-d 3.10 a-d 0c 215 574 b-e 431 Sunex 6590 Sun Seed 72.14 cd 2.93 a-g 0c 179 179 c-e 299 Sun re 6591 Sun Seed 75.41 a-d 2.87 b-g 61 be 371 185 c-e 371 Sunex 6593 Sun Seed 79.22 ab 3.21 ab 233 be 468 1404 a 156 Agriset 1000 Agris Sales 74.38 b-d 3.00 a-e 77 be 156 Oe 468 Sunbrite Asgrow Seed 71.36 d 2.97 a-f 0c 192 192 c-e 138 C2 Frontier Seed 73.76 b-d 3.16 a-c 0c 68 138 c-e 185 Fel Frontier Seed 74.08 b-d 3.22 ab 233 be 468 1471 a 233 Fe3 Frontier Seed 77.17 a-c 2.78 d-g 66 be 796 730 b-d 465 Fe4 Frontier Seed 75.55 a-d 2.84 c-g 298 be 748 1121 ab 0 Bonita Rogers Seed 73.32 cd 2.78 d-g 0c 468 78 de 38 Cobia Rogers Seed 72.51 cd 3.18 a-c 0c 359 287 c-e 861 Santiago Rogers Seed 74.96 a-d 2.73 e-g 0c 321 64 de 384 Merced Rogers Seed 71.24 d 3.24 a 127 be 321 769 be 513 Mountain Spring Rogers Seed 70.51 d 3.18 a-c 640 a 513 127 c-e 513 T0086 Pioneer Seed 73.08 cd 2.80 d-g 0c 398 133 c-e 863 T1011 Pioneer Seed 79.85 a 2.90 a-g 398 ab 66 332 c-e 332 PSX 872591 Peto Seed 71.33 d 2.63 fg 68 be 897 206 c-e 552 Sanibel Peto Seed 75.04 a-d 2.83 c-g 0c 265 66 de 863

Cultigen P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.00760 0.2210 0.0001 0.2274

'Bacterial leaf spot 1 = none, 5 = severe. Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). Within-row spacing: 50.8 cm (20 inches) for single-rows staked tomatoes; 40.6 cm and 50.8 cm (16 and 20 inches) for double-rows non-staked tomatoes. Bed length harvested per plot 4.065 m (13.333 feet).

any of the variables studied in the 1995, whereas it was signif brachytic prostrate habits, that were expected to perform bet icant for total marketable yields in 1996. This results suggest ter in double-rows than in single-rows, were not planted in the that some within-row spacing of some row systems might be latter because of a seed shortage. more favorable for some cultigens than others for early red- There was significant difference of early, red ripe fruit ripe fruits, total marketable yields of fruit size (weight). These and total marketable yields large tomato fruits among the findings will require further analysis with comparison of the cultigens (Table 7). The early red-ripe fruits ranged from yields of each cultigen under different within-row spacing 16.2 t-ha1 for 'NC 17-1' and 15.3 for 'NC 17-3' to 4.6 for 'PSR and row systems. Nevertheless, Table 8 presents some limited 888994', and 3.2 for 'Sunre 6629' (Table 7). Total marketable comparison of the yields to tomato cultigens planted in single yield (non-staked double-row and staked single-row data were or double-rows, even though the effects of the staked and pooled) of two harvests were:34.3 t-ha-1 for 'NC 32-2' brachyt non-staked variables are ignored. It should be noted that ic postrate tomato plants, with 32.9 for 'FE 10', 31.5 for 'NC breeding lines 'NC 17-1', '17-3', '20-1', '32-2' and '37-1', with 32-2', 31.5 for 'PSR 891994', 30.6 for 'PSR 888994' to 17.9 for

Table 6. Effects of single and double-rows and plant spacings of plants within-row on the yields of tomato, Fall 1996.

Red fruits Marketable fruits Large fruits

yield yield number x size yield number x size Treatment t-ha1 t-ha1 1000 (g) t-ha1 1000 (g)

Row Double 50.8 cm (non-staked) 9.7 a' 27.1a 190 a 148 a 16.8 a 96 a 185 a Single 50.8 cm (staked) 2.7 b 20.4 a 1413 a 147 a 12.9 a 76 a 177 a Spacing within-row Double 50.8 cm' 8.1a 28.7 a 194 a 157 a 19.1 a 105 a 202 a Double 40.6 cm" 8.5 a 26.9 a 190 a 145 a 16.8 a 97 a 178 a

Row P>F 0.0058 0.0626 0.0797 0.3835 0.0850 0.0548 0.4474 Space P>F 0.1742 0.7468 0.5965 0.6156 0.1266 0.0889 0.5805 Cultigens P>F 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.2493 0.0001 0.0001 0.2717 Row x Cult P>F 1.0000 0.0385 0.0334 0.1979 0.0363 0.0135 0.1759 Space x Cult P>F 0.0010 0.2909 0.9615 0.2461 0.2869 0.9726 0.1970

'Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). >Double-rows non-staked with plants spaced 50.8 cm within-rows; 21,527 plants per hectare. "Double-rows non-staked with plants spaced 40.6 cm within-rows; 26,909 plants per hectare. "Single-rows staked with plants spaced 50.8 cm within-rows; 10,764 plants per hectare. Kg/plot x 1.3245 = metric tons per hectare.

340 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. Table 7. Combined yield and size responses for early, total marketable and large fruits of twenty tomato cultigens planted at different spacings, Fall 1996.

Marketable red ripe First harvest Total marketable Large fruits

Cultigen Source % of total yield yield t-ha1 yield t-ha' number x 1000 size (g) yield t-ha1 size (g)

900497-1 UF GCREC 37.9 c-f 10.2 dc 26.9 a-e 137 gh 212 18.8 ab 348 900503-1 UF GCREC 72.4 a 5.6 e-g 7-7 g 62 i 126 3.3 b 168 NC 17-1 NCSU 59.7 a 16.3 a 27.3 a-e 187bc-f 149 18.3 b 185 NC 17-3 NCSU 71.2 a 15.4 ab 21.6 c-f 159 e-h 139 12.4 b 174 NC 20-1 NCSU 49.1 a-c 11.4 c 23.2 b-f 196 b-e 123 8.7 b 153 NC32-2 NCSU 37.2 c-f 11.8c 34.3 a 272 a 130 16.4 b 167 CN37-1 NCSU 63.9 ab 13.1 be 20.5 d-f 148 f-h 141 12.3 b 2 75 FEl Frontier Seed 33.3 c-f 6.2 e-g 18.7 ef 130 h 132 12.9 b 169 FE4 Frontier Seed 36.8 c-f 6.6 ef 18.0 f 140 gh 136 10.3 b 161 FE10 Frontier Seed 14.4 f 4.8 fg 33.1 a 250 a 134 18.3 b 164 Solimar Asgrow Seed 29.3 def 8.1 de 27.5 a-d 207 a-d 136 16.7 b 163 Sunbritz Asgrow Seed 29.7 def 7.3 def 24.5 a-f 161 e-j 154 18.8 b 182 Sunbeam Asgrow Seed 25.8 f 7.1 ef 27.7 a-d 180 c-g 160 18.8 b 179 Sunre 6629 Sun Seed 12.0 f 3.2 g 26.5 a-f 173 d-h 157 19.2 ab 185 Leading Lady Sun Seed 25.1 f 7.5 d-f 30.1 a-c 227 ab 135 16.7 a-c 165 Sunre 6611 Sun Seed 28.3 c-f 6.5 ef 22.9 c-f 161 e-h 145 15.1 a-d 173 PSR 891994 Peto Seed 16.4 f 5.2 e-g 31.4 ab 203 b-e 157 21.7 a 174 PSR 888994 Peto Seed 15.1 f 4.6 fg 30.7 ab 222 a-c 142 17.6 a-c 168 PSR 67396 Peto Seed 22.3 f 6.3 ef 27.8 a-d 212 a-d 136 17.3 a-c 162 HMX5819 Harris-Moran 19.9 f 4.9 e-g 24.6 a-f 145 f-h 175 19.1 ab 222

Cultigen P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7596 0.0001 0.9475

Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). Bed length harvested per plots 4.06 m (13.333 feet). Plants per plot: single-rows spaced 50.8 cm, 8 plants harvested; double-rows spaced 40.6 cm, 20 plants harvested; double-row spaced 50.8 cm 16 plants harvested. Space area of plots harvested 4.065 m x 1.83 m = 7.439 m2 (13.333' x 6' = 79.99 sq. ft.). Kg/plot x 1.3245 = metric tons per hect-

'FE 4', and 7.6 for 'UF 900503-1' (Tables 7 and 8). When re 32-2', 33.5 for 'Leading Lady', 32.9 for 'UF 900497-1' and 32.8 sults were computed for non-staked tomatoes planted in dou for 'PSR67396' (Table 8). The large fruit yields ranged from ble-rows only, excluding the staked single-rows data, the yield 21.6 t-ha-1 for 'PSR 891994', 19.1 for 'Sunre 6629', 18.9 for sequence of some cultigens was changed. The best total mar 'HMX 5819' to 8.7 for 'NC 20-1', and 3.3 for 'UF 900503-1' ketable yields of non-staked tomatoes planted in double-rows (Table 7). No significant differences were found in the fruit were 35.7 t-ha-1 for 'FE10', 34.4 for 'PSR891994', 34.3 for 'NC size among the twenty cultigens tested (Table 7). The market-

Table 8. Comparative total marketable yields of tomato cultigens for single-rows staked, double-rows non-staked and for single and double-rows combined, Fall 1996.

Total marketable yield

single-row staked double-row non-staked single & double-rows pooled Cultigen Source t-ha1 t-ha1 t-ha-1

900497-1 UF GCREC 7.4 cd' 32.9 ab 26.8 a-e 900503-1 UF GCREC 3.7 e 7.7 f 7.6 g NC 17-1 NCSU v 27.2 a-e 27.2 a-e NC 17-3 NCSU >• 21.6 c-e 21.5 c-f NC 20-1 NCSU 23.1 b-e 23.1 b-f NC 32-2 NCSU 34.3 a 34.3 a NC 37-1 NCSU y 20.4 de 20.4 d-f FEl Frontier Seed 8.0 cd 19.4 de 18.6 ef FE4 Frontier Seed 8.4 bed 18.4 e 17.9 f FE10 Frontier Seed 13.8 ab 35.7 a 32.9 ab Solimar Asgrow Seed 9.7 be 31.5 a-c 27.4 a-d Sunbrite Asgrow Seed 10.3 be 26.2 a-e 24.4 a-f Sunbeam Asgrow Seed 9.8 be 31.7 a-c 27.6 a-d Sunre 6629 Sun Seed 11.2 be 28.4 a-e 26.4 a-f Leading Lady Sun Seed 11.4 be 33.5 ab 29.9 a-c Sunre 6611 Sun Seed 6.3 de 28.0 a-e 22.8 c-f PSR 891994 Peto Seed 12.5 be 34.4 a 31.3 ab PSR 888994 Peto Seed 18.5 a 29.7 a-d 30.6 ab PSR 67396 Peto Seed 9.7 be 32.8 ab 28.4 a-d HMX 5819 Harris-Moran 11.0 be 25.7 a-e 24.5 a-f

Cultigen P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

'Duncan's multiple range test. Means of the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (0.05). VN.C. breeding line not sown due to seed shortage.

Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997. 341 able yields of staked tomato varieties planted in single-rows stakes have a potential for improved harvesting efficiency. were significantly lower than those of non-staked tomatoes The use of brachytic tomato cultigens recently developed by planted in double-rows (Table 8). The results, however, R. G. Gardner from North Carolina State University have an should be taken with caution, because single-row staked to advantage for double-row planting and mechanical harvest mato were more seriously infected by stem canker caused by ing. Tomato plants with brachytic, Br gene (Butler, 1952) the fungi Alternaria solani and Phoma destructiva, than tomato have shorter internodes, and more spreading or prostate hab planted in double-rows. its than normal plants and will fit well if grown on double- The brachytic postrate lines as a group (NC selections) rows. This character was first described in the Rouge showed comparable total marketable yields, and were signifi Naine Hative (Buttler, 1952). A concern with present brachyt cantly higher in the first harvest early red-ripe and marketable ic prostrate types is their smaller fruit size compared to most yields at the first harvest than normal growth-habit . adopted normal growth habit cultigens. Thus, the marketable yield of NC-9534 (41.9 t-ha1) planted in double-rows, was not significantly different of the Sanibel Literature Cited

(44.3 t-ha-1) that showed the higher yield in 1995 (Table 3). Bryan, H. H. 1967. Effects of plant populations, fertilizer rates on tomato Similarly, the total marketable yield of NC-32-2 (34.3 t-ha-1) in yields on rockdale soils. Proc. Fla. State. Hort. Soc. 80:149-156 1996 was not statistically different of the yields of FE 10, PSR Bryan, H. H. 1970. Plant population and fertilizer concentration of tomato 891994 or Leading Lady with 35.7, 34.4 and 33.5 t-ha"1, respec yields for one-over harvest rockdale soils. Proc. Trop. Reg. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 14:244-253. tively (Table 8). Finally, the breeding lines NC-17-1 and NC- Bryan, H. H. 1977. Effects of irrigation method, plant population and alpha 17.3 with 16.3 and 15.4 t-ha1 respectively were leading the ear keto acids mixture on tomato yields. Proc. Trop. Reg. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. ly red-ripe fruit yields over all other tomato cultivars (Table 21:36-37. 7), and marketable yield in the first harvest of NC 95324 (10.8 Bryan, H. H., P. H. Everett, L. N. Shaw, K. Pohronezny and V. H. Wadclill. 1980. Cultural management for machine harvest of market tomatoes on t-ha-1) was not statistically different that the yield of FE 4 (12.3 mulched beds. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 93:227-230. t-ha-1) that was the higher in this test (Table 4). Butler, L. 1952. The linkage map of tomato. J. Heredity 43:(1)25-35. Previous studies (Bryan, 1970 and 1977) showed that Cantliffe, D. 1995. Workshop Summary. Workshop on Tomato Production higher plant populations have increased the yields of toma and Marketing in Dade County, Homestead, Florida, August 22-23, 1995. Ellal, G., H. H. Bryan and R. T. McMillan, Jr. 1982. Influence of plant spacing toes and other vegetables. In an effort to improve harvest ef on snap bean yield and disease incidence. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. ficiency, machine harvesting of tomatoes from plastic 95:325-328. mulched beds were evaluated in Florida (Bryan et al., 1980). Stoffella, P.J. and H. H. Bryan. 1988. Plant population influence growth and These authors recommended management practices that yield of bell pepper Jorn. Amer. Soc. for Hort. Sci. 113:835-839. could concentrate crop maturity, increase yields and reduce Stoffella, P.J. and H. H. Bryan and K. D. Schuler 1988. Within-row spacing effects on yields of celery for processing and fresh market. Hort. Science mechanized harvest problems. Tomatoes grown without 23:988-991.

342 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997.