Evaluation of Tomato Varieties with TSWV Resistance. Craig H. Canaday and Jim E. Wyatt. Interpretative Summary. Introduction

Similar documents
Craig H. Canaday, Jim E. Wyatt, and Don D. Tyler. Interpretative Summary

Effects of Different Fertilizers and Continuous No-Till Production on Diseases, Growth, and Yield of Staked Tomato

EVALUATION OF DUAL MAGNUM AND OUTLOOK USED PRE-EMERGENCE ON DIRECT-SEEDED DRY BULB ONIONS WITH ACTIVATED CHARCOAL

Evaluation of FCR-resistant Tomato Varieties under Commercial Conditions in Southwest Florida Spring 2011

HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS AND ADJUVANTS FOR YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT SUGAR BEET

TYLCV-resistant Tomato Cultivar Trial and Whitefly Control Strategies

Response of Tomato to Fertilization with Meister Controlled-Release Fertilizers George J. Hochmuth 1

EVALUATION OF DUAL MAGNUM AND OUTLOOK USED PREEMERGENCE ON DIRECT-SEEDED DRY BULB ONIONS WITH ACTIVATED CHARCOAL

Response of Pepper to Fertilization with Meister Controlled-Release Fertilizers George J. Hochmuth 1

HEIRLOOM TOMATOES AND PROFITABILITY

Evaluation of Monopotassium Phosphate-Based Starter Fertilizer Solution Effects on Vegetable Production in Florida George J.

COMPARISON OF CALENDAR DAYS AND GROWING DEGREE-DAYS FOR SCHEDULING HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS IN SUGAR BEET

NITROGEN FERTILIZATION FOR DRIP-IRRIGATED ONIONS

Evaluation of Herbicides for Greens Crops, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins and Angela Harrison. Interpretative Summary

TIMELY INFORMATION Agriculture & Natural Resources

Snapbean and Sweet Corn Response to N Rate and Furrow-Placed Growplex Humate George J. Hochmuth 1

Response of Mulched Tomato to Meister Controlled-Release Fertilizers George J. Hochmuth 1

NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW POTATO VARIETIES UNDER FURROW IRRIGATION

Response of Mulched Lettuce, Cauliflower, and Tomato to Megafol Biostimulant George J. Hochmuth 1

Effect of Crop Stand Loss and Spring Nitrogen on Wheat Yield Components. Shawn P. Conley Cropping Systems Specialist University of Missouri, Columbia

PREVIOUS YEAR MID-SUMMER SOIL INCORPORATION OF DUAL MAGNUM AND EPTAM TO CONTROL YELLOW NUTSEDGE IN ONION THE FOLLOWING YEAR

Fresh Market and Saladette Tomato Cultivar Evaluation in Southwest Michigan, 2017

Tomato Tips for Success. Introduction to Tomatoes! In The Beginning. Tomatoes in Europe 8/17/2017

Introduction to Tomatoes!

UF-IFAS Nitrogen Fertilization and Management Recommendations for Fresh Tomato Production in Florida in the BMP Era

Overview of the Sod Based Rotation Using Conservation Techniques

Influence of Fungicides on Black Dot Suppression and Russet Norkotah Yield

Dark Tobacco Topics Dark variety update Black shank control Angular leaf spot Supplemental products Tobacco fertility Potassium Boron Nutrient prices

Pumpkin Fungicide and Cultivar Evaluation, 2017

2011 Protocol for On-Farm Research Trials: Evaluating Early-Applied Foliar Fungicide to Corn

Evaluation of Foliar-Applied Insecticides in Soybean

Procedures for Tomato Variety Field Trials

Conducted Under GEP (Y/N): Y Guideline Description: To Protocol

INSECTICIDE APPLICATIONS TO SUGAR BEETS FOR CROWN BORER CONTROL

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE CROP ROTATION SYSTEMS TO MANAGE YELLOW NUTSEDGE IN THE TREASURE VALLEY

NITROGEN FERTILIZATION AND PLANT POPULATION FOR SUBSURFACE DRIP-IRRIGATED ONIONS

2014 High Tunnel Tomato Variety Trials

PLANT PATHOLOGY SERIES TIMELY INFORMATION Agriculture & Natural Resources

SUGAR BEET VARIETY TESTING RESULTS. Eric Eldredge, Clint Shock, and Monty Saunders Malheur Experiment Station Oregon State University Ontario, OR

Effects of Rye Cover Crop on Strip-Till Pumpkin Production in Northern Illinois

Evaluation of Monopotassium Phosphate-Based Starter Fertilizer Solutions for Tomato and Pepper Production in Florida George J.

Evaluation of Compact Bed Geometries for Water, Nutrient, and Economic Efficiency for Drip-Irrigated Tomato and Pepper

POTENTIAL PHYTOTOXICITY OF RIMON ON LEAFY GREENS

Effect of Crop Stand Loss and Spring Nitrogen on Wheat Yield Components. Shawn P. Conley

CONTROLLED-RELEASE FERTILIZERS FOR ONIONS IN THE TREASURE VALLEY

Drip Irrigation Management Factors for 'Umatilla Russet' potato Production

Managing Planting Density for Production of Whole Seed Potatoes. Jake Dyer Maine Potato Board

EVALUATION OF SUSTAIN ADJUVANT FOR IMPROVED HERBICIDE WEED EFFICACY IN DIRECT-SEEDED ONION

EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN POTATO. Joel Felix Malheur Experiment Station Oregon State University Ontario, OR, 2009.

KNOWING YOUR FIELD A Guide to On-Farm Testing for Peanut Growers

Fertilizer Placement Options Demonstration

Evaluation of Pursell Controlled-Release Polymer-Coated Urea for Tomato and Pepper George J. Hochmuth 1

2017 Evaluation of Soybean Varieties, Jay, Florida

Purdue On-Farm Nitrogen Rate Trial Protocol

Foliar Fungicide Study Block 5S Beaumont, TX 2009

PLANT POPULATION AND NITROGEN FERTILIZATION FOR SUBSURFACE DRIP-IRRIGATED ONIONS

Powdery Mildew Resistant Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation, New York, 2010

PLANT POPULATION AND NITROGEN FERTILIZATION FOR SUBSURFACE DRIP-IRRIGATED ONIONS

Strip Till Systems for Burley Tobacco in Tennessee

2013 Purdue Soybean On-Farm Trial ROW WIDTHS

BURLEY TOBACCO FIELD TEST DATA

Trial: 2002-maxyield A Comparison of Corn Herbicide/Insecticide Programs Bruce Potter, Jodie Getting University of Minnesota SWROC

' S. Mississippi Branch Expt. Sta.. Poplarville, MS. Mississippi State Univ. ' Brown Loam Branch Expt. Sta.. Raymond. MS.

Weed Control in No-Till Pumpkins

A top issue: Quality. Manual of Tomato and Eggplant Field Production

Evaluation of Compact Bed Geometries for Water, Nutrient, and Economic Efficiency for Drip-Irrigated Tomato and Pepper

WEED CONTROL IN TOMATOES RESEARCH RESULTS 2010 PREPARED BY DARREN ROBINSON, UNIV. GUELPH, RIDGETOWN CAMPUS FOR THE ONTARIO TOMATO RESEARCH INSTITUTE

KWAZULU-NATAL PROJECT TITLE: LADYSMITH CULTIVAR TRIAL & TRAINING. PROJECT MANAGER: T N Project Management Services. BEGIN DATE: July 2006

RESEARCH REPORT SUWANNEE VALLEY AREC 92-5 August, 1992 COMPARISON OF VARIOUS N SCHEDULING METHODS FOR SNAPBEANS

Evaluation of biodegradable mulches in fresh market sweet corn, pepper production

Todd P. Trooien South Dakota State University Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Brookings, South Dakota

C.S. Vavrina Vegetable Horticulturist

SUGAR BEET VARIETY 2003 TESTING RESULTS. Clint Shock, Eric Eldredge, and Monty Saunders Malheur Experiment Station Oregon State University Ontario, OR

PERFORMANCE OF HYBRID POPLAR CLONES ON AN ALKALINE SOIL

11. RISK OF PESTS IN PEANUT, INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, AND PESTICIDE STEWARDSHIP

NO-TILL PUMPKIN PRODUCTION

Cost of Producing, Harvesting and Marketing Field Grown Tomatoes in the Southeastern United States May 2012

Low Residue Cover Crops for Strawberry Production (putting the straw back into strawberries)

Wheat and Cotton Nitrogen Research in 2005 and 2006 University of Missouri Delta Center, Portageville, MO Gene Stevens, David Dunn, and Matthew Rhine

RURAL CONSERVATION CLUBS PROGRAM CHARING CROSS CONSERVATION CORPORATION "Manure Management in High Residue Applications" FINAL REPORT

A ONE-YEAR STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OXAMYL (VYDATE L ) TO CONTROL THRIPS IN ONIONS WHEN INJECTED INTO A DRIP-IRRIGATION SYSTEM

RESULTS OF AGRONOMIC AND WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL MONTANA

IRRIGATION FREQUENCY, DRIP TAPE FLOW RATE, AND ONION PERFORMANCE

2014 Giant Ragweed Control with Diflexx Herbicide in Field Corn in Rochester, MN.

SOILS AND PLANT NUTRITION

Results of 2002 Early, Mid, and Full Season and Roundup Ready Cotton Variety Tests in Florida 1

DEVELOPMENT OF HERBICIDE OPTIONS FOR WEED CONTROL IN POTATOES

ONION RESPONSE TO LATE-SEASON WATER STRESS AND HIGH NITROGEN UNDER TWO PLANT POPULATIONS

Cucumbers (Pickles and Slicers) IPM Element Revised March, 2012

Common Pokeweed Management in Field Crops A Final Report to the Pennsylvania Soybean Board, Kelly Patches and William Curran

Corn Responds Positively to Rate & Timing of Environmentally Smart Nitrogen (ESN) & Urea

ONION VARIETY RESPONSE TO PLANT POPULATION AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Accelegrow. Accele-Grow-M. accelegrow.com. Accelegrow Technologies, Inc. PO BOX 569 West Point, GA

HIGHLAND RUSSET AGRONOMY NOTES. Highland Russet (A9045 7) Fertilization Total Yield Response to N Rate of Highland Russet vs.

Poly-Coated Urea Rate Influences Sweet Corn Yield

EVALUATION OF PYROXASULFONE FOR WEED CONTROL IN DIRECT- SEEDED ONION

CORN & SOYBEAN AGRONOMY UPDATES. Angela McClure December 2015

Effects of Potassium Fertilizer Sources, Timing, and Rates On Tuber Specific Gravity

Replicated Irrigated Transgenic Cotton Variety Demonstration, Dumas, TX Cooperator: Keith Watson

MANAGEMENT FACTORS ENHANCING THE FEASIBILITY OF SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION FOR POTATO

Transcription:

Evaluation of Tomato Varieties with TSWV Resistance Craig H. Canaday and Jim E. Wyatt Interpretative Summary Tomato varieties BHN 444 and BHN 555 with reported resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus (SWV) and two experimental lines with reported TSWV resistance, HMX800 and HMX9800, were compared against the popular tomato variety Mt. Fresh in a small variety trial. BHN 555 flowered earlier than the other four entries and grew more quickly than all athe other entries except BHN 444. TSWV was not observed in any of the entry rows. Entry losses to Sclerotinia stem rot did not differ significantly. There were no significant differences among the entries in total marketable yields or the yields of large and extra-large tomatoes. Highest early and season-long yields were with BHN 555. Introduction In the 2000 growing season, the marketable yields of many West Tennessee tomato growers were greatly reduced by an outbreak of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). This outbreak was prompted by unusually high numbers in the spring of western flower thrips, one of the important insect vectors for TSWV. Some tomato producers experienced >90% yield loss in their early harvests. Growers became extremely interested in any tomato variety or line with TSWV resistance. This tomato variety trial was initiated to examine the horticultural adaptability of such lines to West Tennessee growing conditions. Materials and Methods Site description. The soil in the test field was a Calloway-Henry silt loam complex, 0-2T slope with 1% O.M., high soil test levels of available P, and moderate to high soil test levels of available K. The soil contained over 1280 lb Ca/acre, over 64 lb Mg/acre, and approximately 5 lb Zn/acre. Soil ph in plots ranged from 6.8 to 7.3 with a mean ph of 7.0 (fall 2000 soil tests). Pelletized Dolomitic Limestone with a Tennessee Relative Neutralizing Value (RNV) of 98.2 was hand-broadcast Feb 4, 1002, as needed over each 5 x 50 ft. plot at rates recommended by the fall 2000 soil tests. Experimental design. The 2001 test was a randomized incomplete block design with four replications. Each rep contained four of the following five tomato varieties or lines; BHN 444, BHN 555, HMX 800, HMX 9800, and Mt. Fresh. Experimental units were onerow tomato plots with eight plants spaced two feet apart per row. The plots constituted the north and south border rows of a much larger no-till tomato test. All entries were seeded in 72-cell Speedling trays filled with Pro-Mix BX on March 26. Cultural practices. Nitrogen fertilizers at 15 lb N/4356 row-ft were applied seven times:

once as ammonium nitrate in 30-inch-wide strips down the center of each plot (April 11, 3 ½ weeks before setting transplants), five tiems as calcium nitrate in 18-inch-wide bands on each side of rows (May 8 and 18; June 5, 113, and 21), and once as urea at 9.8 lb N/4356 row-ft in 18-inch-wide bands on each side of rows (June 27). All plots were fertilized twice with sulfate of potash at a30 lb K 2 0/4356 row-ft per application, once 3 ½ weeks before setting transplants and again as a sidedressing one month after transplanting. Herbicides, supplemented with occasional mowing or hand-hoeing, were used for weed control. Roundup-Ultra at 1.5 quart/acre (2.0% solution) was applied down the center of each plot in 30-inch-wide bands on March 115, April 5 and May 3. The last spray was applied one day before setting transplants to kill emerging yellow nutsedge. The test was planted on the afternoon of May a4 using a modified mechanical transplanted equipped with a furrow-opening shank and two 100-lb weights to help close the furrow. Plants were suckered once. When needed to avoid moisture stress or to dissolve sidedressed fertilizers, plots were irrigated using a drip irrigation system consisting of 0.5 gallon/hr emitters spaced every two feet along side tomato rows. Plants were tied to stakes using a modified Florida weave. Poast at 1.5 pint/acre was applied as a directed spray (18-inch-wide bands) on each side of rows on June 8. Sencor 75 DF at 1.25 lb/acre was applied as a directed spray on each side of the tows on June 12 (15-inch-wide bands). Fungicides were applied four times using a hydraulic sprayer; three applications of Quadris 2.08 SC at 5.8-6.2 fl oz/acre/application (on May 25, June 18 and July 24) plus one application of Bravo WeatherStik at 1.3 quart/acre (on June 29). Insecticides were applied five times; SpinTor 2SC at 5.8 fl oz/a on May 25 and Asana XL at 7.0-9.6 fl oz/acre on June 18, June 29, July 24, and July 30. All fungicide and insecticide sprays were applied at 300 psi using a hydraulic sprayer equipped with one to four (depending on plant height) ceramic, hollow-cone drop nozzles on each side of rows. Data collection. The number of flowers/plant was recorded May 16. Plant heights were recorded June 6 and 20. Plots were checked every 1-2 weeks for the presence of any diseases, and disease incidence or severity ratings were collected as appropriate. Tomatoes were picked 2-3 times/week from June 29 through August 7 at the breakerstage of maturity (12 harvests). A final (13 th ) harvest of all remaining green tomatoes of marketable size was made on August 9. Harvested tomatoes of marketable quality were graded by size into four categories; small (7 x 7 boxes), medium (6 x 7 boxes), large (5 x 6 boxes), and extra-large (4 x 5 boxes). Yields (boxes/acre) in the following tabes are based on 3600 plants/acre. Small tomatoes were considered unmarketable and are not included in yield tables. All disease, growth, and yield data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) for an experiment with an incomplete block design. Results and Discussion

There were significant differences among the entries in early flowering on May 16 and mean plant height on June 6 (Table 1). BHN 555 appeared to flower earlier than all the other entries. Both HMX lines appeared to flower earlier than Mt. Fresh. Both BHN varieties were significantly taller than Mt. Fresh on June 6. By June 20, these significant differences had disappeared.. Three tomato diseases were observed in the adjoining no-till tomato test during the spring and summer of 2001; Sclerotinia stem rot (white mold), southern blight, and tomato spotted wilt virus. Of these three diseases, only Sclerotinia stem rot was present in the border-row variety test reported here. Plant losses due to this disease ranged from 4 to 12% with no significant difference between entries (Table 1). There were no significant differences among the entries in tomato size and total marketable yields (Table 2). If, however, yields are corrected for differences in plant loss due to Sclerotinia stem rot, then Mt. Fresh and BHN 555 produced significantly more small tomatoes than BHN 444 and HMX 9800 (Table 3). Expressing yields in this manner did not lead to any differences in large or extra-large fruit or total m arketable yields. There were also no significant differences in entry yields when examined by harvest period (Table 4). Table 1. Flower number, plant heights, and disease losses of tomato entries, Jackson, TNB, 2001 Mean plant height (in.) ntry Mean number flowers/row May 16 June 6 June 20 Plant growth June 67 to 20 (in) Plant loss to Sclerotium stem rot (%) HN444 1.7 bc* 17.4 ab 25.4 8.0 4 HN555 14.3 a 19.5 a 27.9 8.4 8 HMX800 3.0 b 17.1 bc 24.9 7.8 4 HMX9800 3.9 b 17.0 bc 26.1 9.1 112 Mt. Fresh 1.1 c 15.1 c 24.6 9.5 9 Value 43.28 4.71 1.26 1.55 0.41

Probability >F 0.0001 0.03 0.36 0.28 0.80 *Values are the means of 3-4 rows/entry. Means followed by a different letter are significantly different (P = 0.05). Table 2. Effects of tomato entry on marketable yields of staked tomato, June 29 - August 9 (13 harvests), Jackson, TN, 2001* Number 20 lb boxes per acre ntry 6 x 7 5 x 6 4 x 5 Total HN444 113 451 720 1285 HN555 194 422 751 1367 MX800 163 384 503 1051 MX9800 99 344 718 1162 Mt. Fresh 205 380 418 1004. Value 2.49 1.40 2.30 1.63 robability >F 0.13 0.32 0.15 0.26 *Values are the means of 3-4 rows/entry. Yields NOTcorrected for the plant losses due to disease, etc. Table 3. Effects of tomato entry on marketable yields of staked tomato, June 29-0 August 9 (13 harvests), Jackson, TN, 2001. Number 20 lb boxes per acre ntry 6 x 7 5 xx 6 4 xx 5 Total HN444 118 b* 474 754 1347 HN555 211 a 462 817 1491

HMX800 169 ab 395 532 1095 HMX9800 110 b 395 843 1348 Mt. Fresh 227 a 439 470 1135 F Value 4.41 1.61 2.13 1.73 Probability >F 0.04 0.263 0.17 0.24 *Values are the means of 3-4 rows/entry. Yields CORRECTED for the plant losses due to disease, etc. Means followed by a different letter are significantly different (P = 0.05). Table 4. Effects of tomato entry on marketable yields of staked tomato, Jackson, TN 2001 - by harvest period.* Number 20 lb boxes per acre June 29 - July 16 July 17 - July 31 August 1 - August 9 ntry 4 x 5 Total 4 x 5 Total 4 x 5 Total HN444 95 151 283 527 343 606 HN555 140 239 309 529 302 599 HMX800 85 118 213 414 205 518 HMX9800 81 118 414 615 223 429 Mt Fresh 12 45 215 480 191 480 Value 2.05 2.03 1.83 0.61 1.58 1.55 robability >F 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.67 0.27 0.28 *Values are the means of 3-4 rows/entry. Copyright 1999 by The University of Tennessee. All rights reserved.

This research represents one season's data and does not constitute recommendations. After sufficient data is collected over the appropriate number of seasons, final recommendations will be made through research and extension publications.