Corylus plant named ‘Burgundy Lace’

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) in Corvallis, Oreg. 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 6^th 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 5^th growing season of the original ‘Burgundy Lace’ tree growing in Corvallis, Oreg.

FIG. 5 is a digital image taken in June of the 5^th 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 5^th 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 4^th 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 7^th 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 Breeding 129:422-434. (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.