Nationally, Florida ranks first in fresh-market tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production value with U.S. $455 million in the 2013 season [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014]. In 2013, Florida had the largest fresh-market tomato area in the United States with 13,760 ha harvested and an average yield of 29.7 Mg·ha−1 resulting in 408,397 Mg of tomato fruit (USDA, 2014). The majority of the tomato cultivars grown for the Florida fresh market are hybrids with a determinate upright growth habit that require staking, tying, pruning, and manual harvest. These cultural practices account for as much as 55% of the total tomato production cost (Davis and Estes, 1993), estimated at $34,595·ha−1 (G. McAvoy, personal communication). Mexico is the main Florida competitor for fresh-market tomatoes in the United States with the ability to produce tomatoes at lower cost per unit, which forces the Florida industry to seek new production systems to reduce cost and/or increase yields and fruit quality (McAvoy and Ozores-Hampton, 2011).
CGH tomatoes, which are determinate plants with a unique architecture, may be the basis of an alternative production system for Florida tomatoes. These tomato plants have low growth and spreading characteristics, forming compact vines that hold fruit above the ground as a result of their short branches and do not require staking, tying, or pruning (Kemble et al., 1994). When in the field, these tomato plants will cover the polyethylene-mulched bed but will not grow into the row middles, holding most of the fruit above the bed surface (Scott et al., 2010). As a result of the plant architecture of CGH tomatoes, they may be grown in a higher plant density than the currently used tomato cultivars, which may recover the losses of vertical space use. Studies with the CGH tomato line NC 13G-1, evaluated in North Carolina, planted in single or double rows showed that higher early and total marketable yields were produced in double rows compared with single rows (Gardner and Davis, 1991; Kemble, 1993). When NC 13G-1 in double rows was compared with the staked-upright tomato ‘Mountain Spring’ (Syngenta, NC) in a single row, NC 13G-1 produced 48% higher yield, although the staked-upright tomato cultivar had higher individual fruit weight than the NC 13G-1 line (Kemble, 1993).
Compact growth habit cultivars that have the jointless pedicel characteristic (j or j-2 genes) may be once-over mechanically harvested, eliminating the need for expensive hand-harvest labor (Scott et al., 2010). Because CGH tomatoes have in general a concentrated fruit set, they can be harvested once or twice (if manually harvested), reducing the harvesting cost when compared with the currently grown staked-upright tomatoes, which are generally harvested three or more times. Production costs would also be reduced because the time from transplant to final harvest in CGH tomatoes may be 2 to 4 weeks shorter than the currently grown cultivars (Ozores-Hampton et al., 2013a).
The development of a concentrated fruit set that is generally early in maturity in CGH plants compared with currently grown staked-upright tomato cultivars (Ozores-Hampton et al., 2013a; Scott et al., 2010) will be critical to enable once-over mechanical harvest (George and Berry, 1992). In processing tomatoes, which are mechanically harvested, plants set fruit and the fruit reaches maturity in a concentrated time period, which maximizes the harvest while maintaining fruit quality (George and Berry, 1992). For the fresh-market, mature-green tomato industry, a concentrated fruit set will maximize the amount of mature-green fruit at the time of harvest and enable the use of exogenous ethylene application, which is currently used by this industry.
Compact growth habit tomatoes with jointless pedicels that would be commercially acceptable have not been completely developed for the Florida market at this time, but progress is being made by the University of Florida Tomato Breeding Program (UF/TBP). Evaluation of the performance of new CGH tomato BLs and appropriate cultural practices to maximize yields at different locations will be crucial in the process of selecting lines that are suitable for the target market. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two planting configurations (single and double row) and BL on CGH tomato growth, flowering pattern, yield, and postharvest quality.
Cecchi, H.M. 1999 Fundamentos teóricos e práticos em análise de alimentos. 1st Ed. Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil
Davis, J.M. & Estes, E.A. 1993 Spacing and pruning affect growth, yield, and economic returns of staked fresh-market tomatoes J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118 719 725
FDA 2013 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 23 May 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/causesofillnessbadbugbook/ucm122561.htm>
Ferreira, S.M.R., Freitas, R.J.S., Karkle, E.N.L., de Quadros, D.A., Tullio, L.T. & de Lima, J.J. 2010 Qualidade do tomate de mesa cultivado nos sistemas convencional e orgânico Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 30 24 30
Gardner, R.G. & Davis, J.M. 1991 Evaluation of a fresh-market tomato breeding line with brachytic and prostrate growth habits HortScience 26 713 [abstr.]
George, W.L. Jr & Berry, S.A. 1992 Genetics in breeding of processing tomatoes, p. 85–101. In: Gould, W.A. (ed.). Tomato production, processing, and technology. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Sawston, Cambridge, UK
Hutton, S.F., Scott, J.W. & Santos, B.M. 2013 Developing machine harvestable tomatoes; and other highlights from the UF breeding program Proc. Fla Tomato Inst. 529 8 9
Johnson, G. 2012 Excess nitrogen and vegetables and fruits. Univ. Delaware, Coop. Ext. 25 June 2014. <http://extension.udel.edu/weeklycropupdate/?p=4814>
Jones, J.P., Stall, R.E. & Zitter, T.A. 1991 Compendium of tomato diseases. 1st Ed. Amer. Phytopathological Soc., St. Paul, MN
Kaniszewski, S., Elkner, K. & Rumpel, J. 1987 Effect of nitrogen and irrigation on yield, nitrogen status in plants and quality of fruits of direct seeded tomatoes Acta Hort. 200 195 202
Kemble, J.M. 1993 Cultural and genetic manipulation of compact growth habit fresh-market tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). North Carolina State Univ., Fletcher, MS Thesis. Abstr. 304053740
Kemble, J.M., Davis, J.M., Gardner, R.G. & Sanders, D.C. 1994 Spacing, root cell volume, and age affect production and economics of compact-growth-habit tomatoes HortScience 29 1460 1464
Le Strange, M., Schrader, W.L. & Hartz, T.K. 2000 Fresh-market tomato production in California. Univ. California, Veg. Res. Info. Ctr., 8017. 26 Aug. 2014. <http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8017.pdf>
McAvoy, E. & Ozores-Hampton, M. 2011 Unique challenges for Florida growers in tomato and pepper production. Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Electronic Data Info. Source, IPM-201. 24 May 2014. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in733>
Mills, L. 1988 Common tomato disorders under desert conditions. Univ. Nevada Coop. Extension. 2 July 2014. <http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ho/other/fs8860.pdf>
Olson, S.M. 2012 Physiological, nutritional, and other disorders of tomato fruit. Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Electronic Data Info. Source. HS954. 24 May 2012. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS20000.pdf>
Olson, S.M., Stall, W.M., Vallad, G.E., Webb, S.E., Smith, S.A., Simonne, E.H., McAvoy, E. & Santos, B.M. 2010 Tomato production in Florida, p. 295–316. In: Olson, S.M. and B.M. Santos (eds.). 2010–2011 Vegetable production handbook for Florida. Vance Publishing, Lenexa, KS
Ozores-Hampton, M., Coelho Frasca, A., Scott, J. & Hutton, S. 2013a Compact growth habit tomatoes. Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Electronic Data Info. Source. HS1231. 18 May 2014. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS123100.pdf>
Ozores-Hampton, M., Stansly, P.A. & McAvoy, E. 2013b Evaluation of round and roma-type tomato varieties and advanced breeding lines resistant to tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Florida HorTechnology 23 689 698
Ozores-Hampton, M., McAvoy, E., Sargent, S. & Roberts, P. 2010 Evaluation of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) resistant and fusarium crown rot (FCR) resistant tomato variety under commercial conditions in southwest Florida Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. 53 11 15
Ozores-Hampton, M., Simonne, E., Roka, F., Morgan, K., Sargent, S., Snodgrass, C. & McAvoy, E. 2012a Nitrogen rates effects on the yield, nutritional status, fruit quality, and profitability of tomato grown in the spring with subsurface irrigation HortScience 47 1129 1135
Ozores-Hampton, M., Kiran, F. & McAvoy, G. 2012b Blossom drop, reduced fruit set, and post-pollination disorders in tomato. Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Electronic Data Info. Source, HS1195. 9 July 2014. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS119500.pdf>
Santos, B.M., McAvoy, E.J., Ozores-Hampton, M., Vallad, G.E., Dittmar, P.J., Webb, S.E., Smith, H.A. & Olson, S.M. 2013 Tomato production in Florida, p. 295–316. In: Santos, B.M. and G.E. Vallad (eds.). 2013–2014 Vegetable production handbook for Florida. Vance Publishing, Lenexa, KS
Sargent, S.A., Brecht, J.K. & Olczyk, T. 2005 Handling Florida vegetables series—Round and Roma tomato types. Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Electronic Data Info. Source, VEC928. 24 May 2014. <http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00002860/00001>
SAS 2011 SAS/STAT user’s guide, Version 9.3. SAS Institute, Cary, NC
Scott, J.W., Hutton, S.F. & Strobel, J. 2010 Some highlights from the University of Florida tomato breeding program Proc. Florida Tomato Inst. 53 9 10
Seminis 2014 Products—Fresh-market tomatoes. 24 May 2014. <http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/FreshMarketTomatoesFlorida47R.aspx>
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997 United States standards for grades of fresh tomatoes. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Mktg. Serv., Washington, DC. 24 May 2014. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5050331>
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2014 Vegetables 2013 summary. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Mktg. Serv., Washington, DC. 24 May 2013. <http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-03-27-2014.pdf>