Cultigen and Plant Spacing Effects on Plant Growth, Disease, Yield and Fruit Quality of Tomatoes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 root- 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 it is advisable to include treatments for the management of nematodes from soil. Plant 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 fruit 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 leaf 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 fruits 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 seeds 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 plants 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 habit 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 vine 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).