An Observational Study of Tomato Cultivars

An Observational Study of Tomato Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, 2001

Charles A. Mullins and A. Brent Smith

Interpretative Summary

Tomato yields were lower than expected. ‘SR 150822' was one of the most productive cultivars and produced a higher yield of No. 1 grade fruit than all cultivars except ‘NC 0017'. ‘NC98100' had heavier fruit than all cultivars.

Introduction

Tomatoes are the highest value vegetable crop grown in Tennessee. Tennessee tomatoes are gown primarily for fresh market usage. Although some tomatoes are gown for local market, most tomatoes are gown for the shipping market. This market prefers relatively large fruit that are firm and free from defects. A relatively large part of the tomato acreage is on the Cumberland Plateau and in east Tennessee, but tomatoes are grown through the state. Cultivars have been found to perform differently at different locations. Diseases are a problem on tomatoes in humid Tennessee, and spotted wilt virus, and Race 3 Fusarium wilt were reported problems on standard cultivars in 2000. An experiment was conducted at the Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, TN in 2001 to evaluate performance of 15 tomato cultivars.

Materials and Methods

The site was prepared for planting by conventional tillage methods. Fertilizer was broadcast at 60a0 lb/A of 15-15-15 and incorporated with a disk on May 15. Pebulate (Tillam) was soil incorporated at 67.0 lb ai/A on May 16 for week control. Four foot wide black plastic mulch was laid on 6 ft centers on May 16. Drip irrigation tape was laid with the plastic mulch. Greenhouse grown seedlings were transplanted to the field on May 22. Plot size was one row, 12 ft. long with 6 ft. between rows. Each row contained 8 plants. A single replication of each cultivar was planted. Metribuzin (Sencor) at 0.5 lb ai/A and Sethoxydim (Poast) at 0.2 lb ai/A were applied for post emergence week control on May 30. Five applications of insecticides were applied to the planting. Insecticides were carbaryl (Sevin) at 1.0 lb ai/A or esfenvalerate (Asana) at 0.05 lb ai/A. Five applications of fungicides were made, and fungicides used were a combination of mancozeb (Dithane DF) at 1.6 lb ai/A plus chlorothalonil (Bravo) at 1.5 lb ai/A alternated with azoxystrobin (Quadris) at 0.1 lb ai/A.

Eight harvests were made on a weekly schedule. Some tomatoes were ripe using this frequency, but breaker tomatoes also were harvested at each harvest date. Tomatoes were graded into grades of No. 1, No. 2, and cull. Reasons for defects that reduced grade to cull were recorded by number. Catface included fruit with a blossom scar over an inch in length. Crack fruit had cracks of over an inch in length. Shape was fruit that were off shape.

Size was fruit that weighed less than 0.25 lb. All data were analyzed by analysis of variance methods, and means were separated by Duncan’s multiple range tests at the 0.05 level of probability.

Results and Discussion

Tomato yields were relatively low for all cultivars (Table 1). Unusual weather patterns are a possible reason for this. ‘PSR 150822' was one of the most productive cultivars and produced a higher yield of No. 1 grade fruit than all cultivars except ‘NC 0017'. The No. 1 grade is usually the only grade that is marketed. ‘NC 98128' produced more No. 2 grade fruit than all cultivars except ‘PSR 150822' and ‘BHN 563'. No. 2 grade fruit is sometimes marketable, but much of this grade is not marketable. There were no significant differences among cultivars as to production of culls. ‘NC 998100' had heavier fruit than all cultivars. The pear shaped cultivars ‘CP25068/40', "NC 98128' and PSR 150822' produced fruit with the smallest weight. All other varieties produced red, round fruit. Sources of seed used in the trial are presented in Table 1.

Defects that reduced grade to cull are presented by number of fruit per acre (Table 2). ‘NC 98100' was among those cultivars that produced more catfaced fruit. ‘BHN 586' was among the cultivars that produced the most cracked fruit. ‘NC 02017' led several cultivars that produced higher numbers of fruit of small size. Blossom rot was not very severe in the trial. ‘XP 25406840' was among cultivars that produced the most fruit with blossom rot. No significant differences were found for shape and rot among the cultivars tested.

Table 1. Yield in tons per acre of No. 1, No. 2, and cull grade fruit of tomato cultivars at The University of Tennessee Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, 2001.

Cultivar	No. 1 grade tons/A	No. 2 grade tons/A	Cull grade tons/A	Avg. Wt No. 1 grade lb/fruit	Seed Source
XP 1405037	3.67 abcd^z	9.62 b	1.32 a	0.68 bc	Geminis
ASR 1432547	2.00 bcd	8.43 b	1.64 a	0.58 bcd	Geminis
NC 0015	2.17 bcd	10.67 b	1.65 a	0.60 bc	MHCREC
NC 0016	2.19 bcd	14.09 b	2.93 a	0.74 b	MHCREC
NC 0017	7.79 a	18.06 b	2.15 a	0.31 def	MHCREC
NC 98128	1.59 cd	10.08 b	1.21 a	0.23 f	MHCREC
BHN 591	2.11 bcd	11.38 b	2.87 a	0.68 bc	BHN Seeds
BHN 586	2.25 bcd	15.88 b	3.41 a	0.75 b	BHN Seeds
BHN 577	1.55 cd	10.08 b	4.94 a	0.66 bc	BHN Seeds
BHN 563	1.07 cd	11.38 ab	3.90 a	0.50 bcde	BHN Seeds
BHN 555	2.91 abcd	6.89 b	3.36 a	0.61 bc	BHN Seeds
BHN 575	0.15 d	8.43 b	1.90 a	0.43 cdef	BHN Seeds
PSR 150822	7.01 ab	21.81 ab	3.70 a	0.32 def	Geminis
XP 2506840	5.08 abcd	12.76 b	2.47 a	0.26 ef	Geminis
NC 98100	5.86 abc	45.92 a	5.18 a	1.04 a	MHCREC

^{zMeans within a column followed by the same
letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, Duncan’s
multiple range tests.
Table 2. Fruit count per acre for reasons fruit were classed as cull at The
University of Tennessee Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, 2001.}

Cultivar	Catface no./A	Crack no./A	Shape no./A	Size no./A	Blossom rot no./A	Rotten no./A
XXP 1405037	1343 b^z	448 ab	448 a	269 ab	00 c	3134 a
ASR 1432547	2239 ab	449 ab	449 a	179 ab	90 bc	3582 a
NC 0015	2238 ab	896 ab	000 a	224 ab	00 c	1791 a
NC 0016	2240 ab	1791 ab	1343 a	761 ab	314 abc	3134 a
NC 0017	2239 ab	0000 b	000 a	2418 a	134 bc	7612 a
NC 98128	1343 b	0000 b	000 a	179 ab	403 abc	7164 a
BHN 591	1791 b	1791 ab	1343 a	537 ab	00 v	3582 a
BHN 586	2687 ab	3582 a	000 a	672 ab	90 bc	3582 a
BHN 577	6717 ab	896 ab	2687 a	1164 ab	90 bc	2687 a
BHN 563	2239 ab	1791 ab	448 a	134 ab	403 abc	3582 a
BHN 555	4478 ab	1343 ab	000 a	90 b	582 ab	2239 a
BHN 575	1791 b	1791 ab	000 a	448 ab	90 bc	3134 a
PSR 150822	4926 ab	448 ab	3134 a	627 ab	49 c	2687 a
XP 2506840	4926 ab	449 ab	000 a	358 ab	716 a	8956 a
NC 98100	8508 a	896 ab	3136 a	1478 ab	224 bc	5373 a

^{zMeans within a column followed by the same
letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, Duncan’s
multiple range tests.}

Email all comments and suggestions to ghonea@utk.edu
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.