TREA

Corylus plant named 'Burgundy Lace'

Follow

Information

  • Patent Application
  • 20170086341
  • Publication Number
    20170086341
  • Date Filed
    September 21, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Published
    March 23, 2017
    7 years ago
  • US Classifications
  • International Classifications
    • A01H5/00
Information
Abstract
A new and distinct Corylus plant named ‘Burgundy Lace’ characterized by rich dark burgundy-colored developing leaves and burgundy-colored fully expanded leaves during the spring and summer; deeply dissected leaves; burgundy color of the catkins and leaf buds; moderate vigor and upright-spreading plant habit; resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller; presence of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers 152-800 and 258-580 in DNA; expression of incompatibility alleles S6 and S20 in the styles; catkins that are abnormal and small, and produce little pollen; and DNA fingerprints at 14 of 24 microsatellite marker loci differ from ‘Cutleaf’.
Description

Botanical denomination: Corylus avellana cultivar.


Variety designation: ‘Burgundy Lace’.


BACKGROUND

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct cultivar of Corylus plant, botanically known as Corylus avellana, and hereinafter referred to by the name ‘Burgundy Lace’.


The new Corylus resulted from a controlled cross of female parent OSU 562.034 (unpatented)×OSU 562.062 (unpatented) made in 1998 to create a new ornamental cultivar (FIG. 1). OSU 562.034 is from a cross of ‘Cutleaf’×VR6-28 (unpatented), and OSU 562.062 is from a cross of ‘Cutleaf’×Redleaf #3 (unpatented). The grandparent ‘Cutleaf ’(unpatented) is known as Corylus avellana f. heterophylla, for which the form names laciniata, urticifolia, quercifolia and incisa pinnatifida are also used. VR6-28 is from a cross of ‘Riccia di Talanico’בGasaway’, and carries a dominant allele for a very high level of resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) from ‘Gasaway’ (unpatented). OSU 562.062 and Redleaf #3 carry a dominant allele for leaf anthocyanin. Redleaf #3 is an open-pollinated seedling of ‘Barcelona’ (unpatented). The pollen parent is believed to be the Redleaf ‘Rode Zeller’ (syn. ‘Rote Zellernuss’) (unpatented).


Hybrid seeds from the controlled cross were harvested in August 1998, stratified, and the resulting seedlings grown in a glasshouse during the summer of 1999. Seedlings that combined red leaf color and the ‘Cutleaf’ trait were preferred, and 38 of the 40 seedlings planted in the field in October 1999 combined these two traits. ‘Burgundy Lace’ was discovered and selected as a single plant within the progeny of the stated cross-pollination in a controlled environment in Corvallis, Oreg., USA. The new variety was originally assigned the designation OSU 954.076, which indicates the row and tree location of the original seedling.


The new cultivar was asexually reproduced by rooted suckers annually for five years (2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013). The unique features of this new Corylus are stable and reproduced true-to-type in successive generations of asexual reproduction.


SUMMARY

The following traits have been observed and are determined to be the unique characteristics of ‘Burgundy Lace’. These characteristics in combination distinguish ‘Burgundy Lace’ as a new and distinct cultivar:


1. Rich dark burgundy-colored developing leaves and burgundy-colored fully expanded leaves during the spring and summer.


2. Deeply dissected leaves.


3. Burgundy color of the catkins and leaf buds.


4. Moderate vigor and upright-spreading plant habit.


5. Resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller.


6. Presence of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers 152-800 and 268-580 in DNA of ‘Burgundy Lace’ amplified by the polymerase chain reaction. These two markers are linked to a dominant allele for resistance to eastern filbert blight from the cultivar ‘Gasaway’ (unpatented).


7. Expression of incompatibility alleles S6 and S20 in the styles.


8. Catkins that are abnormal and small, and produce little pollen.


9. DNA fingerprints of ‘Burgundy Lace’ differ from ‘Cutleaf’ at 14 of 24 microsatellite marker loci. Additional DNA fingerprints of ‘Gasaway’ and ‘Rode Zeller’, which are ancestors of ‘Burgundy Lace’, and 12 other reference cultivars, are shown in Table 7.


‘Burgundy Lace’ is well-suited to the ornamental market. ‘Burgundy Lace’ combines red leaf color, deeply dissected leaves, and resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller. Comparisons in two trials conducted in Corvallis, Oreg., plants of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in the guard rows differed from plants of the Corylus avellana cultivars ‘Barcelona’ (unpatented) and ‘Jefferson’ (unpatented), and other cultivars and selections of Corylus avellana known to the Inventors primarily in nut size, nut shape, kernel percentage (ratio of kernel weight to nut weight), frequency of defects (blank nuts, moldy kernels, twins, etc.), time of pollen shed, time of nut maturity, length of the husk or involucre, and plant size.


The tree is moderately vigorous, similar in size to ‘Jefferson’, and has a desirable upright-spreading growth habit that should be easy to manage in a landscape setting. The nuts are small and the kernels are edible, but nut yields are low and quality is not suitable for the kernel market. ‘Burgundy Lace’ has far fewer blanks (shells lacking kernels) than ‘Cutleaf’. ‘Burgundy Lace’ has intermediate ratings for bud mite (primarily Phytoptus avellanae Nal.), similar to ‘Clark’. Like its grandparent ‘Cutleaf’, catkins of ‘Burgundy Lace’ shed very little pollen. Pollen shed and female receptivity are late.


DNA markers and field observations indicate that ‘Burgundy Lace’ has resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller. The resistance is conferred by a dominant allele from ‘Gasaway’. EFB is now present throughout the Willamette Valley and in the eastern USA where it naturally occurs on the wild American hazelnut (C. americana), but causes little damage. Pruning to remove cankers and fungicide applications are currently used to manage the disease in susceptible cultivars. Thus, ‘Burgundy Lace’ is suitable for planting in areas with high disease pressure.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying colored photographs illustrate the overall appearance of the new cultivar, showing the colors as true as it is reasonably possible to obtain in colored reproductions of this type. Foliage colors in the photographs may differ slightly from the color values cited in the detailed botanical description which accurately describe the colors of the new Corylus.



FIG. 1 is a chart showing the pedigree of hazelnut selection ‘Burgundy Lace’ (OSU 954.076).



FIG. 2 is a chart showing time of pollen shed (green), female receptivity (red) and leaf budbreak for ‘Burgundy Lace’ and ‘Cutleaf’ over two years for ornamental hazelnut selection.



FIG. 3 is a digital image taken at end of the 6th growing season of a tree of ‘Burgundy Lace’ growing in Corvallis, Oreg., in the winter, showing upright-spreading growth habit. Tree was planted in the spring of 2007.



FIG. 4 is a digital image taken in June of the 5th growing season of the original ‘Burgundy Lace’ tree growing in Corvallis, Oreg.



FIG. 5 is a digital image taken in June of the 5th growing season of a tree of ‘Burgundy Lace’ growing in Corvallis, Oreg. Tree planted in the spring of 2007.



FIG. 6 is a digital image taken in mid-August of the 5th growing season of the original ‘Burgundy Lace’ tree growing in Corvallis, Oreg., showing older leaves. Tree planted in the spring of 2007.



FIGS. 7-9 are digital images showing young leaves of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in Corvallis, Oreg. in late May.



FIG. 10 is a digital image showing nuts and husks of ‘Burgundy Lace’ on a branch in Corvallis, Oreg. in August of the 4th growing season.



FIG. 11 is a digital image of catkins of ‘Burgundy Lace’ with frost.



FIG. 12 is a digital image showing shoots of ‘Burgundy Lace’ grown in Corvallis, Oreg. with nuts.



FIG. 13 is a digital image showing shoots of ‘Burgundy Lace’ grown in Corvallis, Oreg. showing upper and lower leaf surfaces.



FIGS. 14-15 are digital images showing leaves, husks and nuts of ‘Barcellona’, ‘Cutleaf’ and ‘Burgundy Lace’ varieties. FIG. 14 shows the lower surface of the leaves and nuts, and FIG. 15 shows the upper surface of the leaves and nuts.



FIG. 16 is a digital image of comparing nuts of ‘Barcelona’, ‘Cutleaf’ and ‘Burgundy Lace’.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The cultivar ‘Burgundy Lace’ has not been observed under all possible environmental conditions. The phenotype may vary somewhat with variations in environment such as temperature and light intensity, without, however, any variance in genotype. The aforementioned photographs and following observations and measurements describe plants grown in Corvallis, Oreg. under commercial practice outdoors in the field during the fall, winter and spring. Plants used for the photographs and description were propagated by tie-off layerage and growing on their own roots, and seven or eight years old. In the following description, color references are made to The Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart, 1966 Edition, except where general terms of ordinary dictionary significance are used.

  • Botanical classification: Corylus avellana cultivar ‘Burgundy Lace’.
  • Parentage:
      • Female, or seed, parent.—Corylus avellana cultivar ‘OSU 562.034’ (unpatented).
      • Male, or pollen, parent.—Corylus avellana cultivar ‘OSU 562.062’ (unpatented).
  • Propagation (type rooted suckers):
      • Time to initiate roots.—About 30 days at 20° C.
      • Time to produce a rooted young plant.—About six months at 22° C.
      • Root description.—Fine to thick; freely branching; creamy white in color.
  • Propagation (type whip grafting):
      • Time to budbreak on the scions.—About 14 days at 25° C.
      • Time to produce a grafted plant.—About six months at 25° C.
  • Plant description:
      • General appearance.—Perennial shrub. Upright-spreading plant habit.
      • Growth and branching habit.—Freely branching; about 15 lateral branches develop per plant. Pinching, that is, removal of the terminal apices, enhances branching with lateral branches potentially forming at every node.
      • Vigor.—Moderate vigor growth habit.
      • Size.—Plant height is about 5 meters; plant diameter or spread is about 5 meters.
  • Lateral branch description:
      • Length.—About 51 cm.
      • Diameter.—About 3.8 mm.
      • Internode length.—About 3.3 cm.
      • Texture.—Smooth, glabrous.
      • Strength.—Strong.
      • Color, immature.—152B.
      • Color, mature.—152B.
  • Foliage description:
      • Arrangement.—Alternate, simple.
      • Length.—About 11.4 cm.
      • Width.—About 7.4 cm.
      • Shape.—Cutleaf (deeply serrated).
      • Apex.—Obtuse to acute.
      • Base.—Cordate.
      • Margin.—Deeply serrated.
      • Texture, upper and lower surfaces.—Slightly pubescent.
      • Venation pattern.—Pinnate.
      • Color.—Developing foliage, upper surface 144A, lower surface 145A. Fully expanded foliage, upper surface: Spring and summer, 143A; late summer and fall, 143A. Fully expanded foliage, lower surface: Spring and summer, 139C; late summer and fall, 139C. Venation, upper surface: Spring and summer, 139C; late summer and fall, 139C. Venation, lower surface: Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
  • Petiole description:
      • Length.—About 27 mm.
      • Diameter.—About 1.8 mm.
      • Texture, upper and lower surfaces.—Pubescent.
      • Color, upper surface.—Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
      • Color, lower surface.—Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
  • Flower description: Male inflorescences are catkins, color prior to elongation 194C. Female inflorescence style color 048B.
  • Nut description:
      • Length.—About 19.1 mm.
      • Width.—About 20.7 mm.
      • Depth.—About 18.2 mm.
      • Nut shape.—Round. Nut shape index [(Width+Depth)/2*Length]=1.02. Nut compression index (Width/Depth)=1.14.
      • Nut shell color.—164B. Nut weight: About 1.72 grams.
      • Kernel weight.—About 0.76 grams.
      • Kernel percentage (kernel weight/nut weight).—About 44%.
  • Disease/pest resistance: Plants of the new Corylus are highly resistant to eastern filbert blight caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller, although a few small cankers may develop under high disease pressure. Plants of the new Corylus are moderately susceptible to bud mites (Phytoptus avellanae Nal.), while plants of ‘Tonda Gentile delle Langhe’ are highly susceptible, and plants of ‘Barcelona’ are highly resistant.
  • Temperature tolerance: Plants of the new Corylus have been observed to tolerate temperatures from −21 to 38° C. in the field in Corvallis, Oreg.
  • Comparative data:
      • Tree size, growth habit, yield, and yield efficiency.—Tree sizes in the trials were estimated by measuring trunk diameters 30 cm above the soil line, at the end of the 7th growing season (December 2013 and 2014, respectively). Trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) was calculated from trunk diameter. Trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are moderately vigorous, similar in size to ‘Jefferson’ (Tables 1 & 2). In previous trials, TCAs of ‘Jefferson’ and ‘Lewis were about 70% of ‘Barcelona’. Their upright-spreading growth habit of ‘Burgundy Lace’ trees should be easy to manage in a landscape setting. In the 2007 trial, total nut yield per tree averaged 10.04 kg for ‘Burgundy Lace’, which is less than the other four cultivars (Table 1). Nut yield efficiency for OSU 954.076 (0.122 kg/cm2), which adjusts for differences in tree size, was similar to ‘Felix’ (0.133 kg/cm2), and lower than ‘Jefferson’ (0.299 kg/cm2), ‘Santiam’ (unpatented) (0.267 kg/cm2) and ‘McDonald’ (0.245 kg/cm2). In the 2008 trial, total nut yield per tree averaged 11.39 kg for ‘Burgundy Lace’, which is more than ‘Eta’ (unpatented) (7.78 kg) but less than the other 13 genotypes (Table 2). Nut yield efficiency for OSU 954.076 (0.134 kg/cm2), which adjusts for differences in tree size, was similar to the pollinizer ‘Theta’ (unpatented) (0.149 kg/cm2), higher than ‘Eta’ (0.100 kg/cm2) and lower than ‘Jefferson’ (0.292 kg/cm2) and the others in the trial. Although ‘Burgundy Lace’ would generally not be planted for nut production, its nuts show a very low frequency of defects (Tables 3 & 4). In the 2007 trial, nut weight was 1.72 g and kernel percentage was 44.1%, the latter being similar to ‘Barcelona’ (typically 43%). The amount of fiber on the pellicle was rated on a scale of 1 (no fiber) to 4 (heavy fiber) (Table 5). The rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (2.8) was similar to ‘Jefferson’ (3.0) and indicates a moderate amount of fiber. Kernel blanching, or ease with which the pellicle can be removed with dry heat followed by rubbing, was rated on a scale of 1 (complete pellicle removal) to 7 (no pellicle removal). The rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (6.6) indicates that very little of the pellicle is removed by dry heat. Very few moldy kernels were observed in ‘Burgundy Lace’ (0.5%), in striking contrast to ‘Santiam’ (17.3%) (Table 3). The results from the second trial (Table 4) were nearly identical: nut weight 1.71 g, kernel percentage 44%, fiber rating 2.8, blanching rating 6.6, with 87.5% good nuts and very few defects. The kernels, raw or roasted, are not attractive.
      • Nut maturity date.—Most nuts of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are borne in clusters of two, in husks about half as long as the nuts. The nuts are slightly long and compressed. The husks open as they dry at maturity, and about 98% of the nuts fall free of the husk. When mature, the shells are medium brown in color and have pubescence at the apical end. Harvest date is estimated to be three days before ‘Barcelona’.
      • Incompatibility and pollinizers.—‘Burgundy Lace’ has incompatibility alleles S6and S20 as determined by fluorescence microscopy. Both alleles are expressed in the females, but only S6 is expressed in the pollen because of dominance. By convention, alleles expressed in the pollen are underlined. The trees set a moderate number of catkins. The catkins are abnormal and small, as are those of ‘Cutleaf’, and shed very little pollen. For practical purposes, ‘Burgundy Lace’ is male-sterile, although collection of a handful of catkins can give a trace of pollen. Time of pollen shed and female receptivity were observed weekly from December 2012 to March 2013 and December 2013 to March 2014 (FIG. 2). Female flower receptivity of ‘Burgundy Lace’ is late and about one week earlier than ‘Cutleaf’ and four weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Time of catkin elongation of ‘Burgundy Lace’ is also late and about three weeks earlier than ‘Cutleaf’ and three weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Date of leaf budbreak is about one week later than ‘Cutleaf’ and 2.5 weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Pollen of the following EFB-resistant cultivars is compatible on females of ‘Burgundy Lace’: ‘Yamhill’ (S8 S26), ‘Dorris’ (S1 S12), ‘McDonald’ (S2 S15), ‘Wepster’ (S1 S2), ‘York’ (S2 S21), ‘Gamma’ (S2 S10), ‘Jefferson’ (S1 S3), ‘Felix’ (S15S21) and ‘Theta’ (S5S15). Because females of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are receptive late in the season, the late-shedding pollinizers ‘Felix’ and ‘Theta’ are most effective.
      • Pests and diseases.—Based on DNA marker data, ‘Burgundy Lace’ has a very high level of resistance to EFB conferred by a dominant allele from ‘Gasaway’, so fungicide applications are not needed. RAPD markers 152-800 and 268-580 that flank the resistance allele in ‘Gasaway’, are present in ‘Burgundy Lace’. Trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ have not yet been challenged with the EFB pathogen in glasshouse or structure inoculations. Susceptibility to bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. corylina has not been quantified, but none of the three trees in the two trials were affected. Nevertheless, copper sprays to minimize damage from this pathogen can be performed. Susceptibility to big bud mite (primarily Phytoptus avellanae Nal.) was rated in the 2007 trial (Table 3) after leaf fall once per year for five years (December 2009-2013). The scale was from 1 (no blasted buds) to 5 (many blasted buds). The average rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (3.0) is similar to that for ‘Clark’ and lower than for ‘Cutleaf’ (4.0), which was rated one year at the Smith Farm and three years (2000-2002) at the nearby USDA National Clonal Germplasm Repository. In the 2008 trial, the rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (3.1) is the same as for the moderately susceptible ‘Clark’ (3.0). The number of blasted buds for ‘Burgundy Lace’ is lower than ‘Cutleaf’ and sprays should not be necessary to control this pest. The other check cultivars in the two trials had lower bud mite ratings.
      • Propagation.—‘Burgundy Lace’ was propagated by tie-off layerage of the suckers of the original seedling tree in late June over five years (2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013). On average, 22 suckers were layered, with rooting rated good on 11 and fair on 7, poor on 3 and no roots on one. The size (caliper) was rated as medium to large in most years. Layers are moderately vigorous and root well, but have lower vigor and caliper than those of ‘Jefferson’ and ‘Barcelona’.
      • DNA fingerprinting.—Primers used are shown in Table 6, and results shown in Table 7. ‘Burgundy Lace’ differs from ‘Cutleaf’ at 14 of 24 loci.


REFERENCES:

Bassil N. V., Botta R., Mehlenbacher S. A. 2005a. Microsatellite markers in hazelnut: Isolation, characterization and cross-species amplification. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 130:543-549.


Bassil N. V., Botta R., Mehlenbacher S. A. 2005b. Additional microsatellite markers of the European hazelnut. Acta Hort. 686:105-110.


Bassil N., Boccacci P., Botta R., Postman J. and Mehlenbacher S. 2012. Nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite markers to assess genetic diversity and evolution in hazelnut species, hybrids and cultivars. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution (on-line) DOI10.1007/s10722-012-9857-z


Boccacci P., Akkak A., Bassil N. V., Mehlenbacher S. A., Botta R. 2005. Characterization and evaluation of microsatellite loci in European hazelnut (C. avellana) and their transferability to other Corylus species. Molec. Ecol. Notes 5:934-937.


Boccacci R, Akkak, A. and Botta, R. 2006. DNA typing and genetic relations among European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars using microsatellite markers. Genome 49:598-611.


Gökirmak T., Mehlenbacher S. A., Bassil N. V. 2009. Characterization of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) cultivars using SSR markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56:147-172.


Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2010. Transferability of microsatellite markers in the Betulaceae. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 135:159-173.


Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2010. Development of microsatellite marker loci for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from ISSR fragments. Molecular Breeding 26:551-559.


Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher and V. Erdogan. 2010a. Genetic diversity in hazelnut cultivars from Black Sea countries assessed using SSR markers. Plant Breeding129:422-434. (available on-line doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01753.x).


Gürcan, K., S. A. Mehlenbacher, R. Botta and P. Boccacci. 2010b. Development, characterization, segregation, and mapping of microsatellite markers for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from enriched genomic libraries and usefulness in genetic diversity studies. Tree Genetics and Genomes 6:513-531. (available on-line as DOI:10.1007/s11295-010-0269-y)


Mehlenbacher et al., 2004. RAPD markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance in Corylus avellana. Theor. Appl. Genet. 108:651-656.


Mehlenbacher and Smith. 1995. Inheritance of the cutleaf trait in hazelnut. HortScience 30:611-612.


Sathuvalli, V. R. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2012. Characterization of American hazelnut (Corylus americana) accessions and Corylus americana×Corylus avellana hybrids using microsatellite markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59:1055-1075. DOI10.1007/s10722-011-9743-0.









TABLE 1







Nut yield, trunk cross-sectional area, yield efficiency and bud mite ratings of hazelnut cultivars and


selections (including two trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in a guard row) in a trial planted in 2007.













No.
Yield per tree (kg)
TCAz
YEy


















Cultivar
trees
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Total
(cm2)
(kg · cm−2)
BBM




















‘McDonald’
4
0.15
1.10
4.85
7.38
7.95
21.43
87.6
0.245
1.8


‘Felix’
4
0.06
1.04
2.91
7.93
4.95
16.88
128.4
0.133
2.0


‘Jefferson’
4
0.55
1.97
5.63
4.60
10.25
22.99
77.5
0.299
1.2


‘Santiam’
4
0.20
1.11
4.09
5.46
6.83
17.68
66.8
0.267
2.2


LSD 0.05

0.21
0.43
0.54
2.04
1.18
2.45
13.48
0.029
0.2


‘Burgundy Lace’
2
0.09
0.56
2.29
2.87
4.24
10.04
82.2
0.122
3.0






zTrunk cross-sectional area calculated from trunk diameters measured in late fall at the end of the 7th season.



yYield efficiency = Total nut yield/TCA.













TABLE 2







Nut yield, trunk cross-sectional area, yield efficiency and bud mite ratings of hazelnut cultivars and


selections in two trials planted in 2008.
















Nut yield per tree (kg)





















Selection
SelNo
No. trees
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
TCAz
YldEffy
BBMx










EFB-resistant selections


















 918.045
1
4
0.233
2.593
3.585
4.513
6.148
17.070
69.0
0.249
1.5


 951.086
2
4
0.213
1.718
5.073
7.557
9.510
24.069
92.7
0.258
2.0


 964.073
3
4
0.100
1.163
40.998
6.223
8.870
20.453
85.1
0.242
1.0


 981.067
4
4
0.027
0.968
2.740
3.630
6.550
13.914
83.3
0.168
1.2


 990.035
5
4
0.088
1.258
4.350
4.800
8.420
18.915
72.5
0.259
1.7


 992.015
6
4
0.053
0.945
2.068
3.625
6.288
12.978
74.0
0.177
1.4


 992.022
7
4
0.040
1.978
4.470
7.338
8.340
22.165
98.8
0.224
1.4


1014.058
8
4
0.210
3.580
3.148
5.538
6.368
18.843
74.0
0.256
2.3


1018.001
9
4
0.105
2.210
2.738
4.695
6.178
15.925
74.1
0.215
1.3


Eta
10
4
0.055
0.665
1.688
1.867
3.503
7.777
77.9
0.100
2.0


Gamma
11
4
0.153
0.780
3.310
5.133
8.240
17.615
97.6
0.181
2.9


Jefferson
12
4
0.223
2.650
4.793
5.875
8.570
22.110
75.9
0.292
1.2


Theta
13
4
0.038
1.240
4.003
4.910
4.560
14.750
101.7
0.149
1.6


Yamhill
14
4
0.218
2.833
4.793
6.805
8.698
23.345
73.7
0.318
1.1


LSD 0.05


0.113
0.524
0.945
1.243
1.552
3.296
14.4
0.038
0.4


Burgundy Lace
h
1
0.020
1.480
2.270
3.110
4.510
11.390
84.9
0.134
3.1







Performance of hazelnut cultivars and selections (including ‘Burgundy Lace’) in two trials planted in 2008.


EFB-susceptible selections in nearby trial


















 919.031
1
3
0.050
1.547
4.890
5.200
8.057
19.743
102.0
0.195
1.0


 961.021
2
3
0.225
1.527
3.507
4.770
7.793
17.821
91.1
0.196
2.5


 961.063
3
3
0.153
1.707
2.707
3.937
4.490
12.993
56.4
0.231
1.7


 978.057
4
3
0.227
1.553
3.063
5.710
5.037
15.590
83.3
0.189
2.9


 978.058
5
3
0.207
1.533
3.297
5.025
7.633
17.695
88.1
0.201
1.7


 978.064
6
3
0.190
2.083
2.790
4.270
4.387
13.720
57.7
0.238
1.0


1012.074
7
3
0.127
0.790
1.340
3.937
4.475
10.668
93.6
0.115
3.0


Barcelona
8
3
0.197
1.650
4.670
5.357
8.313
20.187
125.8
0.161
1.0


Clark
9
3
0.483
3.416
1.873
6.130
6.320
18.223
72.5
0.251
3.0


Lewis
10
3
0.370
3.350
2.210
7.643
6.833
20.407
80.0
0.255
2.7


Sacajawea
11
3
0.050
0.857
4.247
6.855
9.060
21.068
99.1
0.214
1.1


LSD 0.05


0.185
0.580
0.866
0.942
1.569
2.811
16.7
0.028
0.4






zTrunk cross-sectional area calculated from trunk diameters measured in late fall at the end of the 7th season.



yYield efficiency = Total nut yield/TCA.



xSusceptibility to bud mite (primarily Phytoptusavellanae Nal.) was rated on four trees of each selection on a scale of 1 (no blasted buds) to 5 (many blasted buds). Shown are mean ratings for 5 years (2010-2014). (many blasted buds). Shown are mean ratings for 5 years (2010-2014).


LSD = least significant difference.













TABLE 3







Frequency of good nuts, and of nut and kernel defects in hazelnut cultivars and selections


(including two trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in a guard row) in a trial planted in 2007.











Frequency (%)z




















Brown




Black


Selection
# trees
Good
Blanks
stain
Moldy
Shrivel
Poor fill
Twins
tips



















‘McDonald’
4
83.5
5.1
0.1
2.1
4.5
4.5
0.1
0.3


‘Felix’
4
88.9
4.2
0.2
2.1
0.4
2.9
0.3
1.1


‘Jefferson’
4
80.1
4.3
0.3
5.7
0.4
8.9
0.6
0.6


‘Santiam’
4
68.8
2.8
0.1
17.3
1.8
9.6
0.1
0.1


LSD 0.05

3.5
2.5
0.3
2.3
1.0
2.5
0.4
0.5


‘Burgundy Lace’
2
87.5
6.8
0.0
0.5
0.3
4.8
0.0
0.3






zMeans of years 4-7.


LSD = Least Significant Difference













TABLE 4





Frequency of good nuts and of nut and kernel defects in hazelnut cultivars and selections in a trial planted in 2008.






























Selection
SelNo
# trees
10-NutWt
10-KerWt
PctKer
Fib
Blanch
GD
BL
BS
MO
SH
PF
TW
BT










EFB-resistant selections






















 918.045
1
4
25.81
11.69
45.31
1.5
3.9
73.26
4.18
0.56
2.18
0.44
18.38
1.06
0.12


 951.086
2
4
27.88
12.43
44.54
2.2
5.4
82.92
5.86
0.64
1.78
0.08
11.22
0.58
0.50


 964.073
3
4
26.09
12.33
47.20
2.2
4.7
82.20
1.80
0.14
1.34
1.26
13.14
0.00
0.26


 981.067
4
4
23.97
11.38
47.53
3.7
3.9
90.62
4.32
0.18
0.56
0.18
2.82
1.26
0.06


 990.035
5
4
23.90
11.34
47.56
1.6
4.7
75.11
3.50
0.06
2.94
1.26
15.62
1.32
0.44


 992.015
6
4
24.33
12.32
50.71
2.6
4.5
85.06
7.56
0.18
2.06
0.50
4.06
0.12
0.76


 992.022
7
4
26.50
12.82
48.41
3.2
3.8
80.32
4.62
0.00
3.18
0.82
10.76
0.18
0.26


1014.058
8
4
25.20
11.73
46.63
1.7
4.9
92.32
1.44
0.32
0.76
0.88
3.76
0.18
0.38


1018.001
9
4
25.60
12.05
47.17
2.9
3.8
83.68
4.88
0.06
4.18
0.18
6.62
0.50
0.12


Eta
10
4
30.21
14.21
47.12
3.1
3.9
85.86
2.80
1.80
2.06
0.40
5.74
1.00
0.66


Gamma
11
4
24.06
12.40
51.66
3.0
6.4
78.76
5.18
0.68
2.18
1.38
11.50
0.26
0.12


Jefferson
12
4
36.51
16.48
45.23
2.9
4.5
75.56
4.06
0.12
5.82
0.38
13.12
0.62
1.18


Theta
13
4
22.73
11.48
50.52
2.2
2.6
89.06
2.38
0.26
1.76
0.32
5.82
0.26
0.26


Yamhill
14
4
23.59
11.13
47.26
1.4
5.1
76.00
2.32
0.12
2.50
0.82
18.44
0.06
0.26


LSD 0.05


0.94
0.34
0.77
0.2
0.4
3.58
2.56
0.56
1.22
0.74
3.38
0.48
0.08


‘Burgundy

1
17.16
7.56
44.08
2.8
6.6
87.50
6.75
0.00
0.50
0.25
4.75
0.00
0.25


Lace’





Selection
SelNo

NutWt
KerWt
PctKer
Fib
Blanch
GD
BL
BS
MO
SH
PF
TW
BT










EFB-susceptible selections in nearby trial






















 919.031
1
3
26.53
13.55
51.15
2.3
2.1
81.50
4.30
0.40
1.60
0.60
11.20
0.00
0.40


 961.021
2
3
25.53
12.00
46.99
1.3
3.5
84.26
4.76
0.16
2.00
3.34
4.76
0.66
0.26


 961.063
3
3
25.87
12.25
47.48
1.9
2.6
88.84
2.16
0.76
1.84
0.58
4.34
1.42
0.34


 978.057
4
3
29.38
13.91
47.42
3.1
3.0
83.50
8.00
0.00
2.66
1.00
4.16
0.26
0.76


 978.058
5
3
30.98
14.78
47.71
2.6
2.6
85.82
4.36
0.36
1.46
1.00
5.18
0.72
1.18


 978.064
6
3
25.62
13.13
51.22
2.2
3.3
74.50
7.58
0.08
3.76
6.66
5.92
0.16
1.66


1012.074
7
3
23.17
11.84
51.08
2.1
2.2
89.36
3.64
0.64
1.82
0.64
3.46
0.18
0.36


Barcelona
8
3
38.87
17.08
44.00
2.5
4.3
68.26
5.26
0.16
4.00
1.42
16.00
6.00
0.16


Clark
9
3
24.73
12.41
50.02
2.6
3.1
73.08
2.58
1.00
4.00
0.50
18.34
0.84
0.34


Lewis
10
3
29.41
13.60
46.20
1.3
4.1
65.26
2.00
0.16
11.00
1.26
19.66
2.00
0.76


Sacajawea
11
3
28.07
14.55
51.85
1.3
3.1
82.72
4.90
0.00
4.72
2.10
5.00
0.18
0.54


LSD 0.05


1.64
0.67
0.72
0.3
0.3
5.94
2.02
0.70
1.60
1.10
6.36
0.78
0.50


 919.031
1
3
26.53
13.55
51.15
2.3
2.1
81.50
4.30
0.40
1.60
0.60
11.20
0.00
0.40


 961.021
2
3
25.53
12.00
46.99
1.3
3.5
84.26
4.76
0.16
2.00
3.34
4.76
0.66
0.26


 961.063
3
3
25.87
12.25
47.48
1.9
2.6
88.84
2.16
0.76
1.84
0.58
4.34
1.42
0.34


 978.057
4
3
29.38
13.91
47.42
3.1
3.0
83.50
8.00
0.00
2.66
1.00
4.16
0.26
0.76


 978.058
5
3
30.98
14.78
47.71
2.6
2.6
85.82
4.36
0.36
1.46
1.00
5.18
0.72
1.18


 978.064
6
3
25.62
13.13
51.22
2.2
3.3
74.50
7.58
0.08
3.76
6.66
5.92
0.16
1.66


1012.074
7
3
23.17
11.84
51.08
2.1
2.2
89.36
3.64
0.64
1.82
0.64
3.46
0.18
0.36


Barcelona
8
3
38.87
17.08
44.00
2.5
4.3
68.26
5.26
0.16
4.00
1.42
16.00
6.00
0.16


Clark
9
3
24.73
12.41
50.02
2.6
3.1
73.08
2.58
1.00
4.00
0.50
18.34
0.84
0.34


Lewis
10
3
29.41
13.60
46.20
1.3
4.1
65.26
2.00
0.16
11.00
1.26
19.66
2.00
0.76


Sacajawea
11
3
28.07
14.55
51.85
1.3
3.1
82.72
4.90
0.00
4.72
2.10
5.00
0.18
0.54


LSD 0.05


1.64
0.67
0.72
0.3
0.3
5.94
2.02
0.70
1.60
1.10
6.36
0.78
0.50





Notes (%):


GD = good kernels, BL = blanks, BS = brown stain, MO = moldy kernels, SH = shriveled kernels, PF = poorly filled nuts, TW = twins, BT = black tips.













TABLE 5







Ten-nut and 10-kernel weight, kernel percentage,


and ratings for fiber and blanching for hazelnut cultivars and


selections (including ‘Burgundy Lace’) in a trial planted in 2007.














No.
10-nut
10-ker
Kernel




Selection
trees
wt
wt
percentage
Fibery
Blanchingx
















McDonald
4
26.2
13.7
52.3
2.6
3.3


Felix
4
27.1
13.7
50.8
3.0
2.2


Jefferson
4
37.6
16.7
44.5
3.0
4.3


Santiam
4
22.8
11.5
50.6
3.0
4.2


LSD 0.05

2.2
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.4


‘Burgundy
2
17.2
7.6
44.1
2.8
6.6


Lace






zMeans for nuts and kernels are over four years.



yAmount of fiber on the pellicle was rated in the second trial from 1 (none) to 4 (much).



xBlanching was rated from 1 (complete pellicle removal) to 7 (no pellicle removal).


LSD = least significant difference.













TABLE 6







Primers, annealing temperatures, and characterisitics for


the 24 microsatellite marker loci used to fingerprint


‘Burgundy Lace’ and other hazelnut cultivars.






















Primers (5′-3′)












Repeat
Allele
(forward above,
Tm










Locus
Motif
sizes
reverse below)
(° C.)
n
He
Ho
PIC
r
LG
Locus
Reference






















A613
(TC)13(CA)12
149-
Ned-
60
14
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.00
11R
A613
Gurcan et al.




177
CACACGCCTT








2010





GTCACTCTTT














(SEQ ID NO: 1)














CCCCTTTCAC














ATGTTTGCTT














(SEQ ID NO: 2)














A614
(TC)17(CA)10
125-
Hex-
60
14
0.85
0.85
0.84
0.00
6S,
A614
Gurcan et al.



NNN(CA)6
156
TGGCAGAGCT






6R

2010





TTGTCAGCTT














(SEQ ID NO: 3)














GCAGTGGAGG














ATTGCTGACT














(SEQ ID NO: 4)














A616
(AC)11
136-
Fam-
60
13
0.85
0.85
0.83
0.00
8R
A616
Gurcan et al.




162
CACTCATACC








2010





GCAAACTCCA














(SEQ ID NO: 5)














ATGGCTTTTG














CTTCGTTTTG














(SEQ ID NO: 6)














A640
(CT)15(CA)13
354-
F-
67
11
0.80
0.73
0.77
0.04
10R
A640
Gurcan et al.




378
TGCCTCTGCA








2010





GTTAGTCAT














(SEQ ID NO: 7)














Fam-














CGCCATATAATTG














GGATGCTTGTTG














(SEQ ID NO: 8)














B617
(GA)15
280-
Fam-
60
9
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.01
8S,
B617
Gurcan et al.




298
TCCGTGTTGA






8R

2010





GTATGGACGA














(SEQ ID NO: 9)














TGTTTTTGGT














GGAGCGATG














(SEQ ID NO: 10)














B619
(TC)21
146-
Fam-
60
14
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.00
3S,
B619
Gurcan et al.




180
AGTCGGCTCC






3R

2010





CCTTTTCTC














(SEQ ID NO: 11)














GCGATCTGAC














CTCATTTTTG














(SEQ ID NO: 12)














B634
(AG)15
218-
Hex-
60
9
0.76
0.76
0.73
0.00
4R
B634
Gurcan et al.




238
CCTGCATCCA








2010





GGACTCATTA














(SEQ ID NO: 13)














GTGCAGAGGT














TGCACTCAAA














(SEQ ID NO: 14)














B657
(AG)15
210-
Ned-
60
8
0.84
0.98
0.82
−0.08
11S,
B657
Gurcan et al.




228
GAGAGTGCGT






1

2010





CTTCCTCTGG






1R







(SEQ ID NO: 15)














AGCCTCACCT














CCAACGAAC














(SEQ ID NO: 16)














B662
(TC)15
220-
Hex-
60
9
0.74
0.68
0.72
0.04
3R
B662
Gurcan et al.




236
CGAAAGATGGA








2010





CTTCCATGAC














(SEQ ID NO: 17)














CAAGTTGAGAT














TCTTCCTGCAA














(SEQ ID NO: 18)














B671
(AG)6NN(GA)17
221-
Hex-
60
13
0.86
0.88
0.84
−0.01
9S,
B671
Gurcan et al.




249
TTGCCAGT






9R

2010





GCATACTC














(SEQ ID NO: 19)














ACCAGCTCTG














GGCTTAACAC














(SEQ ID NO: 20)














B709
(GA)21
219-
Ned-
60
8
0.74
0.76
0.70
−0.01
5S,
B709
Gurcan et al.




233
CCAAGCACGA






5R

2010





ATGAACTCAA














(SEQ ID NO: 21)














GCGGGTTCTC














GTTGTACACT














(SEQ ID NO: 22)














B733
(TC)15
161-
Ned-
60
8
0.68
0.68
0.63
0.00
7S,
B733
Gurcan et al.




183
CACCCTCTTC






2R

2010





ACCACCTCAT














(SEQ ID NO: 23)














CATCCCCTGT














TGGAGTTTTC














(SEQ ID NO: 24)














B741
(GT)5(GA)12
176-
Fam-
60
10
0.77
0.78
0.74
0.00
5S,
B741
Gurcan et al.




194
GTTCACAGGC






5R

2010





TGTTGGGTTT














(SEQ ID NO: 25)














CGTGTTGCTC














ATGTGTTGTG














(SEQ ID NO: 26)














B749
(TC)12
200-
Hex-
60
6
0.60
0.64
0.51
−0.03
1R
B749
Gurcan et al.




210
GGCTGACAAC








2010





ACAGCAGAAA














(SEQ ID NO: 27)














TCGGCTAGGG














TTAGGGTTTT














(SEQ ID NO: 28)














B751
(GA)15
141-
Fam-
60
7
0.80
0.78
0.77
0.01
7S,
B751
Gurcan et al.




153
AGCTGGTTCT






2R

2010





TCGACATTCC














(SEQ ID NO: 29)














AAACTCAAATAA














AACCCCTGCTC














(SEQ ID NO: 30)














B767
(TC)15(AT)7
198-
Fam-
60
16
0.87
0.80
0.86
0.04
8S,
B767
Gurcan et al.




238
CCACCAACTG






8R

2010





TTTCACACCA














(SEQ ID NO: 31)














GCGAAATGGA














GCTCTTGAAC














(SEQ ID NO: 32)














B774
(AG)15
195-
Ned-
60
8
0.80
0.80
0.77
0.00
5S,
B774
Gurcan et al.




213
GTTTTGCGAG






5R

2010





CTCATTGTCA














(SEQ ID NO: 33)














TGTGTGTGGTC














TGTAGGCACT














(SEQ ID NO: 34)














B795
(TC)8Ns(CT)7Ns
296-
Fam-
60
12
0.76
0.74
0.74
0.01
NA
B795
Gurcan et al.



(CT)10Ns(TC)5
332
GACCCACAAACA








2010





ATAACCTATCTC














(SEQ ID NO: 35)














TGGGCATCAT














CCAGGTCTA














(SEQ ID NO: 36)














C115
(TAA)5(GAA)12
167-
Fam-
60
10
0.84
0.90
0.82
−0.035
4S,
C115
Bassil 2005b;




225
CATTTTCCGCA






4R

Gokirmak et





GATAATACAGG








al. 2009





(SEQ ID NO: 37)














GTTTCCAGATCTG














CCTCCATATAAT














(SEQ ID NO: 38)














KG807
(TAAA)AA
226-
AAGCAAGAA
54
4
0.67
0.78
0.60
−0.07
11
KG807
Gurcan and



(TAAA)2
248
AGGGATGGT








Mehlenbacher,



A(TAAA)2

(SEQ ID NO: 39)








2010





Fam-














CTTACAGATAA














ATGGCTCAAA














(SEQ ID NO: 40)














KG809
(AGG)6
333-
GGAAGGTGAGA
55
5
0.66
0.64
0.60
0.01
4
KG809
Gurcan and




345
GAAATCAAGT








Mehlenbacher,





(SEQ ID NO: 41)








2010





Hex-














AGGCATCAG














TTCATCCAA














(SEQ ID NO: 42)














KG811
(GA)17
240-
GAACAACTGAA
58
12
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.01
2
KG811
Gurcan and




278
GACAGCAAAG








Mehlenbacher,





(SEQ ID NO: 43)








2010





Ned-














AAGGCGGCA














CTCGCTCAC














(SEQ ID NO: 44)














KG827
(CT)13AA(CA)7
264-
Fam-
67
9
0.78
0.84
0.75
−0.04
9
KG827
Gurcan and




282
AGAACTCCGACTAAT








Mehlenbacher,





AATCCTAACCCTTGC








2010





(SEQ ID NO: 45)














GAGGGAGCAAGTCA














AAGTTGAGAAGAAA














(SEQ ID NO: 46)














KG830
(CT)14GTATT
279-
Ned-
67
9
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.00
9
KG830
Gurcan and



(CA)8
311
TGGAGGAAGTTTTGA








Mehlenbacher,





ATGGTAGTAGAGGA








2010





(SEQ ID NO: 47)














AAAGCAACTCATAG














CTGAAGTCCAATCA














(SEQ ID NO: 48)





Primers fluorescent tags are FAM, HEX and NED


Tm annealing temperature (° C.); n number of alleles; He expected heterozygosity;


Ho observed heterozygosity; PIC polymorphism information content;


r estimated null allele frequency; LG linkage group; NA = not yet assigned


Reference for development and characterization













TABLE 7







Allele sizes in ‘Burgundy Lace’ and 12 other hazelnut cultivars at 24 microsatellite loci.

























Tonda











Burgundy


Rode
G.d.










Marker
Lace
Cutleaf
Gasaway
Zeller
Langhe
Barcelona
Yamhill
Dorris
Wepster
McDonald
York
Felix
Theta





A640
372/372
368/372
362/368
355/355
355/368
355/374
355/368
372/374
368/374
362/368
363/374
368/372
362/368


B662
232/232
228/232
232/238
232/232
232/232
232/232
232/232
228/232
232/232
232/232
232/232
232/232
228/232


KG809
339/339
339/339
339/348
342/345
339/342
339/339
348/348
339/348
342/342
339/339
339/348
339/348
339/348


B774
207/213
207/213
203/209
203/207
203/211
203/207
203/211
203/207
203/207
203/213
203/209
203/213
203/213


B619
158/158
158/166
172/176
168/178
150/166
158/172
158/172
158/166
166/172
158/172
158/166
158/166
158/166


B767
214/240
212/214
214/214
212/216
214/218
214/240
214/238
214/218
200/242
200/214
236/238
214/214
212/214


B617
289/293
291/293
291/295
281/291
285/295
285/289
289/295
287/295
293/295
293/293
287/289
287/287
281/285


A614
152/158
152/152
143/158
150/150
125/135
125/132
132/158
132/158
135/158
135/158
124/158
138/143
138/158


B749
205/209
205/205
207/209
207/209
207/209
209/209
209/209
207/207
207/209
207/209
209/209
207/207
209/209


B733
167/167
167/167
175/175
175/175
173/175
173/175
181/185
173/181
173/175
173/175
173/181
175/181
163/181


B709
223/229
223/229
229/229
229/229
229/229
227/235
229/229
229/229
229/235
227/229
229/233
229/233
229/229


KG830
293/303
297/305
291/305
303/303
291/295
291/295
291/295
295/297
295/305
291/295
295/295
293/303
297/297


A616
144/156
152/156
150/150
144/148
150/152
144/152
150/150
150/152
152/160
150/160
144/152
150/152
132/134


C115
216/216
216/216
216/219
194/216
174/174
174/194
197/216
194/216
183/194
174/197
197/197
197/216
197/216


KG827
274/282
272/272
272/282
272/282
268/278
282/284
268/282
272/284
270/282
272/284
268/272
272/284
270/272


B671
241/251
225/237
237/249
249/249
239/243
225/229
225/243
229/249
239/249
229/237
243/249
229/237
229/249


A613
161/179
179/179
161/163
153/167
153/153
153/161
153/163
151/169
167/167
153/169
159/179
151/153
167/179


KG811
257/257
255/257
257/261
255/257
257/267
261/267
251/261
257/267
257/257
245/267
257/257
251/267
257/257


B751
146/152
146/152
144/144
148/152
150/154
144/154
152/152
144/152
144/144
144/144
152/154
152/154
144/152


B741
178/184
184/184
186/188
178/184
176/184
178/186
178/186
178/186
176/186
178/188
178/186
186/186
184/186


KG807
242/252
242/252
242/252
238/238
238/252
238/252
230/252
242/252
252/252
252/252
242/252
238/242
252/252


B795
333/333
333/333
317/319
317/333
315/333
333/333
333/333
333/333
333/333
317/333
333/333
321/333
299/333


B634
228/228
228/228
222/234
220/240
228/228
228/228
236/236
228/228
228/228
222/228
228/236
228/236
228/236


B657
223/227
223/227
225/229
211/227
219/227
219/223
219/229
211/227
227/227
211/219
221/223
219/227
219/223








Claims
  • 1. A new and distinct cultivar of Corylus plant as herein illustrated and described.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

This invention was made with government support under Specific Cooperative Agreement No. 58-5358-4-025 awarded by the United States Department of Agriculture. The government has certain rights in the invention.