{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0457516339869281, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02054154995331466, 'mean_word_length': 5.916129032258064, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Stability Differences among Fresh Market Tomato Genotypes—1. Fruit Yields


Ten fresh market tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) genotypes were evaluated for yield stability in 7 environments within Florida. Genotype × environment interaction was significant for yield of marketable fruit. Linear relationships between mean yields of individual genotypes and environmental mean yields were evaluated to determine genotype stability. Mean square deviations from linear regression (s2d), regression coefficients (b1) and coefficient of linear determination (R2) were used to evaluate phenotypic stability. ‘Sunny’, Castlehy 1035’, ‘Burgis’, ‘FTE 12’, and ‘Duke’ were considered stable and high yielding. An advanced breeding line, 827015-IBK, was considered stable but low yielding. ‘Hayslip’, D76127, ‘Flora-Dade’, and ‘Walter PF’ were considered unstable. This study suggests that yield stability differences occur among fresh market tomato genotypes. Therefore, selection of tomato genotypes for improved adaptability should be considered in tomato breeding programs.