Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:59:08.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tomato variety trials for productivity and quality in organic hoop house versus open field management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

G.K. Healy ,
B.J. Emerson  and
J.C. Dawson
G.K. Healy
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
B.J. Emerson
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
J.C. Dawson*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tomatoes are a profitable direct-market crop for diversified Midwestern farmers. Unfortunately, many tomatoes with the flavor and quality characteristics consumers desire (such as heirloom varieties) lack agronomic traits important to organic farmers. Hoop-house production offers potentially higher yields and quality than field-grown tomatoes, and has become a popular option for organic farmers. This study compares 19 varieties of tomatoes in both organic hoop house and field conditions, to identify high-performing varieties for future plant breeding, and to characterize the effect of hoop houses on productivity and quality traits. We found that tomatoes grown in a hoop house had significantly higher yield, lower disease severity and higher °Brix (soluble sugars) than those grown in an adjacent field; and that management (hoop house versus field) had significantly more influence over those traits than other variables (variety, market class or year). This lack of varietal differences between management systems will simplify breeding efforts aimed at introducing varieties for hoop house production.

Keywords

season extensionhoop housetomatoesorganicvariety trials
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 562 - 572
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annicchiarico, P., Pecetti, L., and Torricelli, R. 2012. Impact of landrace germplasm, non-conventional habit and regional cultivar selection on forage and seed yield of organically grown lucerne in Italy. Journal of Agricultural Science 150:345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, E.A., Scott, J.W., Einstein, M.A., Malundo, T.M., Carr, B.T., Shewfelt, R.L., and Tandon, K.S. 1998. Relationship between sensory and instrumental analysis for tomato flavor. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 123: 906–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1(7).Google Scholar
Bucheli, P., Voirol, E., de la Torre, R., López, J., Rytz, A., Tanksley, S.D., and Pétiard, V. 1999. Definition of nonvolatile markers for flavor of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as tools in selection and breeding. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 47: 659–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campanelli, G., Acciarri, N., Campion, B., Delvecchio, S., Leteo, F., Fusari, F., Angelini, P., and Ceccarelli, S. 2015. Participatory tomato breeding for organic conditions in Italy. Euphytica 204: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrol, R.M. and Nordholm, L.A. 1975. Sampling characteristics of kelley's ε2 and hays ω2 . Educational and Psychological Measurement 35: 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolong, T. 2009. Heirloom Vegetables. Coop. Ext.Serv., College of Agr., Univ. of Kentucky. Available at Web site http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/introsheets/heirloom.pdf (verified 26 September 2011).Google Scholar
Dawson, J.C., Murphy, K.M., and Jones, S.S. 2008. Decentralized selection and participatory approaches in plant breeding for low-input systems. Euphytica 160:143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harel, D., Fadida, H., Slepoy, A., Gantz, S., and Shilo, K. 2014. The effect of mean daily temperature and relative humidity on pollen, fruit set and yield of tomato grown in commercial protected cultivation. Agronomy 4:167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, L., Navazio, J., Cerruti, N., Maynard, L., Kaplan, I., and Gibson, K. 2014. Breeding regionally adapted fresh-market tomato varieties for organic production in the Midwestern US. Proceedings of the 7th Organic Seed Growers Conference: Innovation in the Field. Jan 31-Feb 1, 2014, Corvallis, OR, p. 47–48.Google Scholar
Hoagland, L., Navazio, J., Zystro, J., Kaplan, I., Gomez Vargas, J., and Gibson, K. 2015. Key traits and promising germplasm for an organic participatory tomato breeding program in the U.S. midwest. HortScience 50:1301–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J.B., Nyquist, W.E., Cervantes-Martnez, . 2003. Estimating and interpreting heritability for plant breeding: An update. Jules Janick. ed. Plant Breeding Reviews. Volume 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, B., Drost, D. and Black, B. 2010. High Tunnel Tomato Production. Utah State University Cooperative Extension. Available at Web site https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/Horticulture_HIghTunnels_2010-03pr.pdf (verified 13 October 2016).Google Scholar
Jayasena, V. and Cameron, I. 2008. Brix/acid ratio as a predictor of consumer acceptability of Crimson Seedless table grapes. Journal of Food Quality 31:736–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, C. and Ernst, M. 2012. High Tunnel Tomatoes. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Available at Web site https://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/hightunneltomatoes.pdf (verified May 2012).Google Scholar
Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Jones, S.S., Tamm, L., Murphy, K.M., Myers, J.R., Leifert, C., and Messmer, M.M. 2011. The need to breed crop varieties suitable for organic farming, using wheat, tomato and broccoli as examples: A review. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 58:193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R.V. 2016. Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software 69:1–33. doi: 10.18637/jss.v069.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H.F., Wu, B.H., Fan, P.G., Li, S.H. and Li, L.S. 2006. Sugar and acid concentrations in 98 grape cultivars analyzed by principal component analysis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86:1526–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, A., Silva, E., Zystro, J., and Bell, M. 2015. Seed and plant breeding for Wisconsin's organic vegetable sector: understanding farmers’ needs. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39:601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. 2015. Managing Diseases of Organic Tomatoes in Greenhouses and High Tunnels. Ohio State University Extension. Available at Web site http://articles.extension.org/pages/18337/managing-diseases-of-organic-tomatoes-in-greenhouses-and-high-tunnels (verified 6 October 2016).Google Scholar
O'Connell, S., Rivard, C., Peet, M.M., Harlow, C., and Louws, F. 2012. High tunnel and field production of organic heirloom tomatoes: Yield, fruit quality, disease, and microclimate. HortScience 47:1283–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M. and McAvoy, G. 2015. Blossom Drop, Reduced Fruit Set and Post-Pollination Disorders in Tomato. University of Florida Extension. Available at Web site https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS119500.pdf (verified 14 November 2015).Google Scholar
Powell, A.L., CNguyen, C.V., Hill, T., Cheng, K.L., Figueroa-Balderas, R., Aktas, H., Ashrafi, H., Pons, C., Fernández-Muñoz, R., and Vicente, A. 2012. Uniform ripening encodes a Golden 2-like transcription factor regulating tomato fruit chloroplast development. Science 336:1711–1715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, T.A., Yang, R.C., Salmon, D.F., Navabi, A., and Spaner, D. 2011. Realized gain from selection for spring wheat yield are different in conventional and organically managed systems. Euphytica 177:253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renaud, E.N.C., Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Paulo, M.J., van Eeuwijk, F.A., Juvik, J.A., Hutton, M.G., and Myers, J.R. 2014. Broccoli cultivar performance under organic and conventional management systems and implications for crop improvement. Crop Science 54:1539–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, H.G., Havlovic, B., and Howell, N.P. 2007. High Tunnel Tomato Production. Iowa State Research Farm Progress Reports. Paper 693. Available at Web site http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/farms_reports/693 (verified 13 October 2016).Google Scholar
USDA-ERS 2013. Organic statistics. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/naturalresources-environment/organic-agriculture.aspx#.U2tz-oFdV8E (verified 8 May 2014).Google Scholar
USDA-ERS 2015. Trends in U.S. local and regional food systems: A report to Congress. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1763062/ap068_report-summary.pdf (verified 23 March 2015).Google Scholar
Walker, S., Bates, D., Maechler, M. and Bolker, B. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48. Available at Web site https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823 Google Scholar
Whiting, D., O'Meara, C. and Wilson, C. 2015. CMG Garden Notes: Growing Tomatoes. Colorado State University Extension. Available at Web site http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/Gardennotes/717.pdf (verified July 2016).Google Scholar