USPP11110P - Strawberry plant named `Cavendish` - Google Patents

Strawberry plant named `Cavendish` Download PDF

Info

Publication number
USPP11110P
USPP11110P US08/535,610 US53561095V US11110P US PP11110 P USPP11110 P US PP11110P US 53561095 V US53561095 V US 53561095V US 11110 P US11110 P US 11110P
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
cavendish
kent
honeoye
fruit
color
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Expired - Lifetime
Application number
US08/535,610
Inventor
Andrew R. Jamieson
Nancy L. Nickerson
Katherine A. Sanford
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Agriculture and Agri Food Canada AAFC
Original Assignee
Agriculture and Agri Food Canada AAFC
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Agriculture and Agri Food Canada AAFC filed Critical Agriculture and Agri Food Canada AAFC
Priority to US08/535,610 priority Critical patent/USPP11110P/en
Assigned to AGRICULTURE CANADA reassignment AGRICULTURE CANADA ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: JAMIESON, ANDREW R.
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of USPP11110P publication Critical patent/USPP11110P/en
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Expired - Lifetime legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01H—NEW PLANTS OR NON-TRANSGENIC PROCESSES FOR OBTAINING THEM; PLANT REPRODUCTION BY TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUES
    • A01H6/00—Angiosperms, i.e. flowering plants, characterised by their botanic taxonomy
    • A01H6/74—Rosaceae, e.g. strawberry, apple, almonds, pear, rose, blackberries or raspberries
    • A01H6/7409—Fragaria, i.e. strawberries
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01H—NEW PLANTS OR NON-TRANSGENIC PROCESSES FOR OBTAINING THEM; PLANT REPRODUCTION BY TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUES
    • A01H5/00—Angiosperms, i.e. flowering plants, characterised by their plant parts; Angiosperms characterised otherwise than by their botanic taxonomy
    • A01H5/08—Fruits

Definitions

  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ strawberry (Fragaria ⁇ ananassa Duchesne) offers strawberry growers of the Northeast climatic zone (Himelrick and Galletta, (ed) "Small Fruit Crop Management” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, N.J., 1990, pp. 14-82) a cultivar that is high yielding and resistant to red stele, producing large fruit of good quality in the midseason. Breeding for resistance to red stele root rot (caused by Phytophthora fragariae Hickman) began at Kentville in 1969, after Gourley and Craig (Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 48:93-94, 1968) demonstrated the field resistance of ⁇ Guardsman ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is named after the most popular tourist location of Price Edward Island.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ tested as K83-4, is a seedling from a ⁇ Glooscap ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ cross made under the direction of D. L. Craig in 1981 at Kentville, Nova Scotia.
  • the seed parent of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ was ⁇ Glooscap ⁇ which is a hybrid of ⁇ Micmac ⁇ Bounty ⁇ .
  • the pollen parent of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ was ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ , from ⁇ K74-5 ⁇ Earliglow ⁇ .
  • the parentage of ⁇ K74-5 ⁇ was ⁇ Micmac ⁇ Raritan ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Glooscap ⁇ is a high yielding, winter hardy cultivar released from the Agriculture Canada, Kentville breeding program in 1983.
  • ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ , released in 1984 is an early maturing Kentville cultivar, that is resistant to red stele root rot. Seedlings of the cross were screened for red stele resistance using the sand bench method of Scott et al.
  • FIG. 1 shows the fruit of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ .
  • FIG. 2 shows the interior of the fruit of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ .
  • FIG. 3 shows ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ fruit with calyx attached, on a plate, and the orientation of some of the fruit is such that whiteness under the calyx is evident.
  • FIG. 4 shows ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ fruit and leaves of the ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ plant.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ plants are moderately vigorous, runnering well under good growing conditions but not excessively.
  • the vigor of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is rated as medium compared to strong for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Crown size is small to medium.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ leaves emerge from the crown in the same way and at the same time as for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ plants are smaller and canopy density is less than for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ . Leaves (FIG.
  • the mean terminal leaflet width (mm) was found to be 74.6 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 70.3 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 72.3 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Terminal leaflet width (mm) was found to range from 55 to 90 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 55 to 87 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 60 to 87 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • the terminal leaflet length/width ratio of mean values was found to be 1.07 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compare to 1.19 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 1.14 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • the leaflets of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ are less elongated than those of ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Leaf blade serrations (21-28 leaflet) are moderately shallow and moderately blunt.
  • Leaf petioles are of medium length with moderately numerous lateral to weakly descending hairs. Petiole bracts are absent from ⁇ Caven
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is typically grown in the matted row system in which it is planted in the spring of year one and produces flowers and fruit in following years, as are ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ begins to flower after ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and before ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ begins to flower at or near June 2 at Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada.
  • Mean stalk length (cm) of flower stalks was found to be 20.4 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 21.8 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 29.8 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Flower stalk (cm) length was found to range from 15 to 24 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 19 to 24 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 24 to 36 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • the flower stalk length for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is similar to that for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and shorter than that of ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ flowers beneath the canopy whereas ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ flowers open level with the canopy and ⁇ Kent ⁇ flowers above the canopy.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ flowers are medium in size and ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ flowers are medium-large.
  • the diameter of the calyx is the same size as the diameter of the corolla for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ but for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ , the diameter of the calyx is smaller than the diameter of the corolla.
  • the diameter of the inner calyx is the same as the diameter of the outer calyx for all three varieties.
  • the petals of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ are slightly broader (12 mm) than long (11 mm) while the petals of ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ are as long as broad. Petals of all three varieties are white.
  • Primary flowers of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ generally have 6 to 8 petals while secondary flowers have 5 to 6 petals.
  • the sepal number is twice the number of the petals; primary flowers have 12 to 16 sepals while secondary and later flowers have 10 or 12 sepals. All three varieties have perfect flowers. However, the stamens are less well developed on ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ than an ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ . The stamens on ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ produce less pollen than do the stamens on ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ . ⁇ Kent ⁇ is intermediate in pollen production. In general, colors are: petals, white; sepals, mid-green; anthers, yellow; filaments, yellow-green; stigmas, yellow-green; styles, light yellow-green. Primary fruit are large, cordate in shape and slightly irregular (FIG.
  • Fruit length (mm) was found to range from 28 to 35 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 27 to 33 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 25 to 30 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Mean fruit width (mm) was found to be 34.6 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 30.7 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 36.3 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Fruit width (mm) was found to range from 29 to 39 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 27 to 34 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 31 to 40 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Fruit length/width ratio of mean values was found to be 0.92 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ compared to 0.97 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 0.76 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish fruit were found to have a seasonal means of 15 g compared to 10 g for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 12 g for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • Fruit surface color is deep red except under the calyx where it is white (FIG. 3).
  • the white coloration of the flesh beneath the calyx distinguishes ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ from ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ ; however, there are a few other varieties (e.g., ⁇ Blomidon ⁇ ) which share this trait.
  • Fruit glossiness is tempered somewhat by a minute pubescence. Internal color fades from red near the skin to white just beneath the calyx at the core (FIG. 2).
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ flesh is firm and skin is medium firm.
  • the calyx is moderately reflexed at maturity and calyx removal (capping or hulling) is moderately difficult.
  • the seed on fruit of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ and ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ is indented from the fruit surface, while for ⁇ Kent ⁇ , the seed is even with the fruit surface.
  • the seeds of all three varieties are ovate with one side flattened. Seeds of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ are the same size as those of ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ (0.0005 g/seed) whereas those of ⁇ Kent ⁇ are larger (0.0007 g/seed).
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ consistently yielded higher than ⁇ Redcoat ⁇ and ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ (Table 1).
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ equalled the yield of ⁇ Kent ⁇ at Fredericton in 1988.
  • the seasonal fruit weight of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ exceeded all other cultivars at Kentville (Table 1).
  • fruit weights were averaged at Kentville over the first two harvest dates in 1988 and 1989.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ primary fruits averaged 25.1 g compared to ⁇ Kent ⁇ at 17.0 g.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is highly resistant to P. fragaraie races A-4, A-6, and A-7, the three races known to occur in commercial strawberry fields in Nova Scotia (Nickerson, unpublished). Resistance to red stele has been effective in grower trials on soils heavily infested with P. fragariae.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ shows an intermediate reaction to powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca macularis (Walls. ex Fr.) Jacz.) on the foliage. This level of resistance is higher than ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ but lower than ⁇ Kent ⁇ . Powdery mildew has not been observed on the fruit.
  • Virus diseases of strawberries are uncommon in Atlantic Canada and the virus tolerance of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is unknown.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is highly susceptible to green petal disease, as is its seed parent ⁇ Glooscap ⁇ .
  • a trained sensory panel rated the intensity of color, appearance, flavor and texture attributes. Methods used for the selection and training of panelists along with attribute definitions and reference material was previously reported by Sanford et al. (Tech. Mem. No. 89-02, Food Res., Agric. Canada Res. Sta. Kentville N.S., 1989). All experimental conditions including sample preparation, presentation and experimental design were similar to those described by Sanford and Jamieson (Tech. Mem. No. 89-03, Food Res., Agri. Canada Res. Sta. Kentville, N.S, 1989) where for each grouping of 4 cultivars, both harvest and panelist were treated as blocks. Harvest, panelist and cultivar effects were estimated through an analysis of variance for each sensory attribute.
  • the cultivars did not vary in level of mustiness or honey-like flavor, but ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ had a stronger melon-like flavor.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ was described as significantly sweeter and less tart than ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ . While soluble solids were not significantly different among the cultivars, the titratable acid levels were comparable with the sensory data with ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ being less acid than ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ (Table 2).
  • the lower acid level may have also resulted in the berries being perceived as sweeter than ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ even though the soluble solids levels were similar.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ fruit was described by the trained sensory panel as dark red and glossy, similar in depth of color to ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and in glossiness to ⁇ Kent ⁇ (Table 3). According to both the sensory and instrumental measurements (Table 3), the firmness of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ and ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ were similar. Also, the two cultivars received comparable ratings for pulpiness. Like ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ , the fruit of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ was very juicy.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ received higher acceptance ratings than ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ (Table 3). Panelists rated ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ , ⁇ Kent ⁇ , ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ and ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ as acceptable (rating scale categories 5-8) in 76, 73, 66, and 56%, respectively, of the acceptance tests.
  • Munsell colors are described in terms of three attributes: hue, value and chroma.
  • Hue describes the color by name (e.g. red), while value indicates lightness or darkness of color and chroma indicates the degree of departure of a given hue from a neutral gray of the same value.
  • Munsell color determined for the crowns of dormant runners was 2.5GY 9/2 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ , ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ . ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ had a short crown, and ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ had long crowns.
  • the Munsell color for petiole on the lower one inch of petiole attached to a dormant crown was determined to be 5GY 7/6 for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ , 2.5GY 7/4 for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ , and 5GY 6/6 for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • the Munsell color of the yellow ground color of seed of the three varieties was the same 7.5Y 8/6 and of the red over-color of the three varieties was the same 5R 4/8. Fifteen percent of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ seed were found to have over-color compared to 30 percent for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and 40 percent for ⁇ Kent ⁇ .
  • the colors of the leaves, calyx, and petals are typical of the species and market class.
  • the color of ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ fruit was also determined on a D25-L Hunterlab Tristimulus Colorimeter (Hunter Associates, Reston, Va.).
  • the Hunterlab instrument gives color measurements in the Hunter L, a, and b, opponent color scales.
  • the dimension ⁇ L ⁇ gives a measure of lightness and ranges from 0 for black to 100 for perfect white.
  • the ⁇ a ⁇ value gives a measure of ⁇ redness ⁇ and when negative the amount of ⁇ greenness ⁇ is estimated.
  • a positive Hunter ⁇ b ⁇ value gives a measure of ⁇ yellowness ⁇ while a negative ⁇ b ⁇ gives a rating of the ⁇ blueness ⁇ .
  • a scale value of 0 is grey.
  • L, ⁇ a ⁇ and b describe the strawberry in terms of the perceptual attributes of color--lightness, hue and saturation.
  • Lightness indicates how ⁇ light ⁇ or ⁇ dark ⁇ the color is, while hue describes the actual color by name e.g. red. green, yellow. by describing how much the sample is colored as opposed to achromatic, saturation characterizes the vividness or dullness of color.
  • the pedicels of picked primary fruit are short (0.5-2 cm), thick, curved and pubescent, and primary berries are difficult to pick.
  • the peduncles of picked secondary berries are short (1-3 cm), medium in thickness, slightly curved and pubescent, and secondary berries are easy to pick.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is more difficult to harvest than ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ because of a great force needed to break the pedicels of the primary fruit.
  • the removal of calyx from the berry is difficult for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ and ⁇ Kent ⁇ but easier for ⁇ Honeoye ⁇ .
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is not adapted for mechanical harvest. At Kentville, Nova Scotia, the harvest for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ is in the early mid-season, and has been observed to begin on June 28 and end on July 24 and to last for about four weeks.
  • Runner plants are typically dug in November, and in Nova Scotia have received significant chilling in the nursery field. In addition, they are typically stored at minus 2° C. for five or six months until planting in the spring. Alternatively, plants are dug in the spring after a full winter of chilling in the field.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ responds like other northern varieties; no special pre-planting treatment is required. We do not know how ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ would respond to southern conditions.
  • Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) patterns were determined for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ and six other strawberry varieties using primers UBC59, UBC76, UBC85, UBC100, and UBC287 in testing done in the Biotechnology Lab of the Atlantic Food and Horticultural Research Centre following the techniques of Levi, et al., "Identification of Strawberry Genotypes and Evaluation of their Genetic Relationships Using Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) Analysis," Advances in Strawberry Research, 13, 36-39 (1994). The results are set forth in Table 4, below, where bands from reliable polymorphic RAPD fragments from three replications are represented as 0 equal to absent or 1 equal to present.
  • Primers UBC59, UBC100 and UBC287 provided banding patterns for ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ distinct from the banding patterns of the other varieties.
  • the primer UBC100 produced a distinct pattern for each of the seven varieties.
  • ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ appears to be well adapted throughout the Atlantic provinces of Canada, when green petal disease is managed. Wider suitability to Northeastern U.S.A. and Quebec is likely, based on parental performance. ⁇ Cavendish ⁇ will be of particular value on soils infested with P. fragariae, providing a high yielding cultivar following ⁇ Annapolis ⁇ in ripening. The fruit should meet the fresh market requirements for pick-your-own and short distance shipping.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Physiology (AREA)
  • Botany (AREA)
  • Developmental Biology & Embryology (AREA)
  • Environmental Sciences (AREA)
  • Natural Medicines & Medicinal Plants (AREA)
  • Breeding Of Plants And Reproduction By Means Of Culturing (AREA)

Abstract

A new and distinct variety of strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duchesne) offers strawberry growers of the Northeast climatic zone a cultivar that is high yielding and resistant to red stele, producing large fruit of good quality in the midseason. The strawberry is named `Cavendish` and was tested as K83-4.

Description

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of plant application Ser. No. 08/263,391, filed Jun. 20, 1994, now abandoned, which is a continuation of plant application Ser. No. 08/056,865, filed Apr. 20, 1993, now abandoned, which is a continuation of plant application Ser. No. 07/815,987, filed Jan. 2, 1992, now abandoned.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`Cavendish` strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duchesne) offers strawberry growers of the Northeast climatic zone (Himelrick and Galletta, (ed) "Small Fruit Crop Management" Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, N.J., 1990, pp. 14-82) a cultivar that is high yielding and resistant to red stele, producing large fruit of good quality in the midseason. Breeding for resistance to red stele root rot (caused by Phytophthora fragariae Hickman) began at Kentville in 1969, after Gourley and Craig (Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 48:93-94, 1968) demonstrated the field resistance of `Guardsman`. Significant progress was not made until `Earliglow` was included in the crossing program in 1977, and the sand bench screening method (Scott et al., HortSci - 11:257-258, 1976) was adopted in 1978. The `Earliglow` derivatives `Annapolis` and `Cornwallis`, released in 1984, provided immediate relief for those growers with soils infested in P. fragariae. These two early-midseason cultivars have achieved only moderate yields when compared to the midseason cultivars `Kent` and `Cavendish`.
`Cavendish` is named after the most popular tourist location of Price Edward Island.
Origin
`Cavendish`, tested as K83-4, is a seedling from a `Glooscap`×`Annapolis` cross made under the direction of D. L. Craig in 1981 at Kentville, Nova Scotia.
The seed parent of `Cavendish` was `Glooscap` which is a hybrid of `Micmac`×`Bounty`. The pollen parent of `Cavendish` was `Annapolis`, from `K74-5`×`Earliglow`. The parentage of `K74-5` was `Micmac`×`Raritan`. `Glooscap` is a high yielding, winter hardy cultivar released from the Agriculture Canada, Kentville breeding program in 1983. `Annapolis`, released in 1984, is an early maturing Kentville cultivar, that is resistant to red stele root rot. Seedlings of the cross were screened for red stele resistance using the sand bench method of Scott et al. (1976, Supra) with six isolates of race A-6 as inoculum. Symptomless plants were moved to a field infested with P. fragariae located at Robinsons Corner, Lunenburg Co., N.S. in the spring of 1982. A. R. Jamieson made the discovery/selection in 1983 that came to be known as `Cavendish`. At the time of his discovery/selection, Dr. Jamieson called over D. L. Craig and G. W. Bishop and informed them of his discovery/selection which was made in accordance with Dr. Jamieson having sole responsibility to make a decision on selection. The new variety was first asexually reproduced by runners in 1984 under Dr. Jamieson's supervision at the Kentville Research Station in Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Since 1987, propagules of the new variety have been tested at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centers in Kentville, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; and Fredricton, New Brunswick--all of Canada, and the variety has been found to retain its distinctive structure through successive propagation. `Cavendish` has been stable and no off-types have been observed.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
FIG. 1 shows the fruit of `Cavendish`.
FIG. 2 shows the interior of the fruit of `Cavendish`.
FIG. 3 shows `Cavendish` fruit with calyx attached, on a plate, and the orientation of some of the fruit is such that whiteness under the calyx is evident.
FIG. 4 shows `Cavendish` fruit and leaves of the `Cavendish` plant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
`Cavendish` plants are moderately vigorous, runnering well under good growing conditions but not excessively. The vigor of `Cavendish` is rated as medium compared to strong for `Honeoye` and `Kent`. Crown size is small to medium. `Cavendish` leaves emerge from the crown in the same way and at the same time as for `Honeoye` and `Kent`. `Cavendish` plants are smaller and canopy density is less than for `Honeoye` and `Kent`. Leaves (FIG. 4) are trifoliolate and pinnate: the central leaflet is roundish-ovate with a slightly attenuated leaflet base, the side leaflets are oblique. Leaflet color is medium green on the upper surface and light waxy green on the lower surface. Leaflets commonly cup upwards at the margins exposing the lower surface and giving the foliage a light green appearance. Mean terminal leaflet through (mm) was found to be 79.9 for `Cavendish` compared to 83.8 for `Honeoye` and 82.5 for `Kent`. Terminal leaflet length (mm) was found to range 64 to 89 for `Cavendish` compared to 65 to 97 for `Honeoye` and 72 to 100 for `Kent`. The mean terminal leaflet width (mm) was found to be 74.6 for `Cavendish` compared to 70.3 for `Honeoye` and 72.3 for `Kent`. Terminal leaflet width (mm) was found to range from 55 to 90 for `Cavendish` compared to 55 to 87 for `Honeoye` and 60 to 87 for `Kent`. The terminal leaflet length/width ratio of mean values was found to be 1.07 for `Cavendish` compare to 1.19 for `Honeoye` and 1.14 for `Kent`. The leaflets of `Cavendish` are less elongated than those of `Honeoye` and `Kent`. Leaf blade serrations (21-28 leaflet) are moderately shallow and moderately blunt. Leaf petioles are of medium length with moderately numerous lateral to weakly descending hairs. Petiole bracts are absent from `Cavendish`.
`Cavendish` is typically grown in the matted row system in which it is planted in the spring of year one and produces flowers and fruit in following years, as are `Honeoye` and `Kent`. `Cavendish` begins to flower after `Honeoye` and before `Kent`. `Cavendish` begins to flower at or near June 2 at Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Mean stalk length (cm) of flower stalks was found to be 20.4 for `Cavendish` compared to 21.8 for `Honeoye` and 29.8 for `Kent`. Flower stalk (cm) length was found to range from 15 to 24 for `Cavendish` compared to 19 to 24 for `Honeoye` and 24 to 36 for `Kent`. The flower stalk length for `Cavendish` is similar to that for `Honeoye` and shorter than that of `Kent`. `Cavendish` flowers beneath the canopy whereas `Honeoye` flowers open level with the canopy and `Kent` flowers above the canopy. `Cavendish` and `Kent` flowers are medium in size and `Honeoye` flowers are medium-large. The diameter of the calyx is the same size as the diameter of the corolla for `Cavendish` but for `Honeoye` and `Kent`, the diameter of the calyx is smaller than the diameter of the corolla. The diameter of the inner calyx is the same as the diameter of the outer calyx for all three varieties. The petals of `Cavendish` are slightly broader (12 mm) than long (11 mm) while the petals of `Honeoye` and `Kent` are as long as broad. Petals of all three varieties are white. Primary flowers of `Cavendish` generally have 6 to 8 petals while secondary flowers have 5 to 6 petals. The sepal number is twice the number of the petals; primary flowers have 12 to 16 sepals while secondary and later flowers have 10 or 12 sepals. All three varieties have perfect flowers. However, the stamens are less well developed on `Cavendish` than an `Honeoye` and `Kent`. The stamens on `Cavendish` produce less pollen than do the stamens on `Honeoye`. `Kent` is intermediate in pollen production. In general, colors are: petals, white; sepals, mid-green; anthers, yellow; filaments, yellow-green; stigmas, yellow-green; styles, light yellow-green. Primary fruit are large, cordate in shape and slightly irregular (FIG. 1), beginning to ripen between `Honeoye` and `Kent`. The primary berries of `Cavendish` range from 25 to 45 g. Secondary and later ripening berries are medium in size and short conic to conic in shape. Fruit shape of secondary berries for `Cavendish` was similar to fruit shape of secondary berries for `Honeoye` while the fruit shape of secondary berries for `Kent` was broader. Mean fruit length (mm) for `Cavendish` was found to be 31.8 compared to 29.91 for `Honeoye` and 27.7 for `Kent`. Fruit length (mm) was found to range from 28 to 35 for `Cavendish` compared to 27 to 33 for `Honeoye` and 25 to 30 for `Kent`. Mean fruit width (mm) was found to be 34.6 for `Cavendish` compared to 30.7 for `Honeoye` and 36.3 for `Kent`. Fruit width (mm) was found to range from 29 to 39 for `Cavendish` compared to 27 to 34 for `Honeoye` and 31 to 40 for `Kent`. Fruit length/width ratio of mean values was found to be 0.92 for `Cavendish` compared to 0.97 for `Honeoye` and 0.76 for `Kent`. `Cavendish fruit were found to have a seasonal means of 15 g compared to 10 g for `Honeoye` and 12 g for `Kent`. Fruit surface color is deep red except under the calyx where it is white (FIG. 3). The white coloration of the flesh beneath the calyx distinguishes `Cavendish` from `Honeoye` and `Kent`; however, there are a few other varieties (e.g., `Blomidon`) which share this trait. Fruit glossiness is tempered somewhat by a minute pubescence. Internal color fades from red near the skin to white just beneath the calyx at the core (FIG. 2). `Cavendish` flesh is firm and skin is medium firm. The calyx is moderately reflexed at maturity and calyx removal (capping or hulling) is moderately difficult. The seed on fruit of `Cavendish` and `Honeoye` is indented from the fruit surface, while for `Kent`, the seed is even with the fruit surface. The seeds of all three varieties are ovate with one side flattened. Seeds of `Cavendish` are the same size as those of `Honeoye` (0.0005 g/seed) whereas those of `Kent` are larger (0.0007 g/seed).
Performance
`Cavendish` consistently yielded higher than `Redcoat` and `Annapolis` (Table 1). `Cavendish` equalled the yield of `Kent` at Fredericton in 1988. The seasonal fruit weight of `Cavendish` exceeded all other cultivars at Kentville (Table 1). As an estimate of primary fruit size, fruit weights were averaged at Kentville over the first two harvest dates in 1988 and 1989. `Cavendish` primary fruits averaged 25.1 g compared to `Kent` at 17.0 g.
              TABLE 1                                                     
______________________________________                                    
Fruit production of `Cavendish` and three standard                        
cultivars, averaged over two harvest seasons (1988 and 1989), in          
plots established in 1987 at                                              
Kentville, Nova Scotia and Fredericton, New Brunswick                     
             Total yield                                                  
                      Unmarketable                                        
                                  Seasonal fruit                          
Cultivar     (t ha.sup.-1)                                                
                      (%)         weight (g)                              
______________________________________                                    
Kentville                                                                 
Kent         31.7     4.4         11.1                                    
Cavendish    27.8     4.6         15.5                                    
Redcoat      21.8     4.2         8.9                                     
Annapolis    21.3     3.1         11.3                                    
Significance ***      *           ***                                     
SEM (n = 4, df = 24).sup.z                                                
             0.91      0.39       0.35                                    
Fredericton                                                               
Kent         24.1     9.9         18.4                                    
Cavendish    20.8     4.9         19.8                                    
Redcoat      16.3     4.7         14.9                                    
Annapolis    15.9     1.1         19.7                                    
Significance *        ***         ***                                     
SEM (n = 3, df = 14).sup.z                                                
             1.58      0.87       0.38                                    
______________________________________                                    
 .sup.z Degrees of freedom for the standard error of the mean (SEM) reflec
 a total number of clones of 8 at Kentville and 7 at Fredericton. Plots   
 were 55 cm wide matted rows developed from an initial 60 cm inrow plant  
 spacing. Plots at Kentville were 6.0 m long with 4 replications and plots
 at Fredericton were 4.2 m long with 3 replications.                      
 ***, *Significant difference at P < 0.001, and P < 0.05, respectively.
Disease Response
The response of `Cavendish` to Verticillium wilt (V. dahliae Kleb.) has been evaluated in the greenhouse with methods similar to Galletta et al. (Adv. Strawberry Prod. 1:21, 1982). One isolate, obtained from a diseased `Micmac` plant, was used as inoculum. `Cavendish`, `Annapolis`, `Cornwallis`, and `Veestar` proved more resistant than `Glooscap`, `Micmac`, `Kent`, `Honeoye`, and `Bounty`. `Cavendish` was rated as resistant by the criteria of Galletta et al. (1982, Supra). however, in the field, plants with Verticillium wilt have been observed.
`Cavendish` is highly resistant to P. fragaraie races A-4, A-6, and A-7, the three races known to occur in commercial strawberry fields in Nova Scotia (Nickerson, unpublished). Resistance to red stele has been effective in grower trials on soils heavily infested with P. fragariae.
Fruit rot, principally caused by Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr., is the primary cause for categorizing fruit as unmarketable in our trials. The proportion of the total yield of `Cavendish`, `Kent`, and `Redcoat` considered unmarketable ranged from 2 to 7 percent over two years with no consistent cultivar differences. The incidence of postharvest fruit rot was recorded after 3 days incubation of fruit at 20 C and high relative humidity. `Cavendish` has consistently produced fewer fruit with postharvest fruit rot than `Kent` (Jamieson and Nickerson, Acta Hort. 265:85-90, 1989). In addition, the extent of colonization was less than on `Kent`.
`Cavendish` shows an intermediate reaction to powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca macularis (Walls. ex Fr.) Jacz.) on the foliage. This level of resistance is higher than `Annapolis` but lower than `Kent`. Powdery mildew has not been observed on the fruit.
Virus diseases of strawberries are uncommon in Atlantic Canada and the virus tolerance of `Cavendish` is unknown. `Cavendish` is highly susceptible to green petal disease, as is its seed parent `Glooscap`.
Fresh Fruit Evaluation
The fruit of `Cavendish` was compared with that of `Honeoye`, `Annapolis` and `Kent`. Three methods of assessment were used to measure the quality of the cultivars:
1. A trained sensory panel rated the intensity of color, appearance, flavor and texture attributes. Methods used for the selection and training of panelists along with attribute definitions and reference material was previously reported by Sanford et al. (Tech. Mem. No. 89-02, Food Res., Agric. Canada Res. Sta. Kentville N.S., 1989). All experimental conditions including sample preparation, presentation and experimental design were similar to those described by Sanford and Jamieson (Tech. Mem. No. 89-03, Food Res., Agri. Canada Res. Sta. Kentville, N.S, 1989) where for each grouping of 4 cultivars, both harvest and panelist were treated as blocks. Harvest, panelist and cultivar effects were estimated through an analysis of variance for each sensory attribute.
2. Selected instrumental measurements were made. At each harvest, firmness of 10 berries of each cultivar was measured using a notched head probe attached to an Accuforce II model AF-100 digital force gauge (Ametek, Hunter Spring Division, Hatfield, Pa.). Twice at each harvest soluble solids of juice expressed from the fruit was measured using a refractometer and total acidity was measured by titrating a 50 mL sample with 0.5N NaOH to pH 8.1 with a Mettler DL40RC automatic titrator (Mettler Instruments AG, Zurich, Switzerland).
3. An acceptance test was conducted with a panel composed of 56 staff members rating each cultivar for overall acceptability at each of two harvests in 1989. Histograms describing the distributions of the responses in each category of the 8-point scale were produced for each cultivar. After determining that the distributions were unimodal, the cultivar effects were estimated in a regression using a general linear model for the normal distribution.
              TABLE 2                                                     
______________________________________                                    
Taste panel evaluation of flavor components and instrumental              
measurements of soluble solids and acidity of `Cavendish` and             
three other strawberry cultivars grown at Kentville, Nova                 
______________________________________                                    
Scotia.                                                                   
Flavor Component Ratings.sup.z                                            
                              Flavor Melon-                               
                                           Honey-                         
Cultivar                                                                  
       Aroma   Sweet    Tart  strength                                    
                                     like  like                           
______________________________________                                    
Cavendish                                                                 
       7.2     7.1      6.0   6.4    4.7   2.8                            
Honeoye                                                                   
       8.3     5.7      7.8   6.6    3.9   2.4                            
Annapolis                                                                 
       7.3     6.7      6.6   6.8    3.0   2.5                            
Kent   4.7     6.0      6.3   4.7    3.4   2.2                            
Signif.                                                                   
       ***     *.sup.y  *     **     *.sup.x                              
                                            NS                            
SEM     0.44    0.38     0.47  0.47   0.42  0.30                          
(n = 40, df = 60)                                                         
______________________________________                                    
                   Instrumental Measurements                              
Flavor               Soluble  Titratable                                  
Component Ratings.sup.a                                                   
                     solids   acids                                       
Cultivar                                                                  
       Musty    Bitter Astringent                                         
                               (%)    (mg/100 mL)                         
______________________________________                                    
Cavendish                                                                 
       3.3      4.2    5.9     8.1    0.84                                
Honeoye                                                                   
       3.4      5.2    7.4     8.2    1.14                                
Annapolis                                                                 
       3.9      4.3    5.4     8.8    1.00                                
Kent   2.6      3.4    4.9     7.9    0.93                                
Signif.                                                                   
       NS       NS     *       NS     **                                  
SEM     0.57     0.53   0.54    0.29   0.042                              
                   (n = 8, df = 7)                                        
______________________________________                                    
 .sup.z Mean values of 40 ratings (10 panelists × 2 harvests ×
 2 years). Ratings were on a scale of 0-15 representing weak-strong (aroma
 falvor strength, melonlike, honeylike, and mustiness) and                
 slightly-extremely (sweetness, tartness, bitterness, and astrigency).    
 .sup.y A significant (P < .05) harvest by variety interaction indicated  
 that `Annapolis` was rated more sweet at the second harvest.             
 .sup.x A significant (P < .05) harvest by variety interaction indicated  
 that `Honeoye` was rated more intense in melonlike flavor at the first   
 harvest.                                                                 
 ***, **, *, NS significant at P < .001, P < .01, P < .05, not significant
 respectively.
The sensory panel described `Cavendish` as having a similar intensity of berry aroma and flavor as `Honeoye`, and `Annapolis` but significantly stronger aroma and flavor than `Kent` (Table 2). The cultivars did not vary in level of mustiness or honey-like flavor, but `Cavendish` had a stronger melon-like flavor. `Cavendish` was described as significantly sweeter and less tart than `Honeoye`. While soluble solids were not significantly different among the cultivars, the titratable acid levels were comparable with the sensory data with `Cavendish` being less acid than `Honeoye` (Table 2). The lower acid level may have also resulted in the berries being perceived as sweeter than `Honeoye` even though the soluble solids levels were similar. `Cavendish` fruit was described by the trained sensory panel as dark red and glossy, similar in depth of color to `Honeoye` and in glossiness to `Kent` (Table 3). According to both the sensory and instrumental measurements (Table 3), the firmness of `Cavendish` and `Honeoye` were similar. Also, the two cultivars received comparable ratings for pulpiness. Like `Annapolis`, the fruit of `Cavendish` was very juicy.
`Cavendish` received higher acceptance ratings than `Honeoye` and `Annapolis` (Table 3). Panelists rated `Cavendish`, `Kent`, `Annapolis` and `Honeoye` as acceptable (rating scale categories 5-8) in 76, 73, 66, and 56%, respectively, of the acceptance tests.
              TABLE 3                                                     
______________________________________                                    
Taste panel evaluation of appearance and texture, instrumental            
measurement of firmness, and consumer acceptance of `Cavendish`           
and three other strawberry cultivars grown at Kentville, Nova Scotia.     
Appearance    Texture.sup.z                                               
                           Firmness Accep-                                
Cultivar                                                                  
        Color  Gloss  Firm Juicy                                          
                                Pulpy                                     
                                     (N)    tance.sup.y                   
______________________________________                                    
Cavendish                                                                 
        11.1   9.2    5.5  10.1 4.6  4.0    5.6                           
Honeoye 10.5   6.7    5.4  8.9  4.7   3.8   4.5                           
Annapolis                                                                 
        7.1    7.7    4.0  10.6 3.5  3.7    4.9                           
Kent    6.7    10.0   6.7  8.9  6.1  4.8    5.2                           
Significance                                                              
        ***    ***    **   **   **   NS     **                            
SEM     0.51   0.47   0.45 0.51 0.47 0.33   0.22                          
(n = 40, df = 60)      (n = 40, (n = 112,                                 
                       df = 7)  df = 11)                                  
______________________________________                                    
 .sup.z Mean values of 40 ratings (10 panelists × 2 harvests ×
 2 years). Ratings were on a scale of 0-15 representing light red-dark red
 (color), flat-glossy (gloss), soft-firm (firmness), dry-juicy (juiciness)
 and none-extremely (pulpiness)                                           
 .sup.y Mean values for overall acceptance (1 = extremelyunacceptable, 8 =
 extremely acceptable) as measured at each of two harvests in 1989 by 1   
 56member panel. As part of a larger, uinbalanced experiment, these 4     
 cultivars were compared with 8 other cultivars.                          
 ***, **, NS significant at P < .001, P < .01, not significant,           
 respectively.
As reported in Table 3, the cultivar `Cavendish` received a color rating of 11.2 (dark red) on a 0-15 scale. This scale was referenced to the Munsell color system (Munsell Book of colors, MacBeth, Kollmorgen Corp., Baltimore, Md.).
The following Munsell color chips were used as scale reference points:
______________________________________                                    
SCALE POINT                                                               
           DESCRIPTION  MUNSELL COLOR CHIP                                
______________________________________                                    
1.5        Light Red   7.5R 4/12                                          
7.5        Medium Red  7.5R 3/10                                          
13.5       Dark Red    7.5R 2/8                                           
______________________________________
Munsell colors are described in terms of three attributes: hue, value and chroma. Hue describes the color by name (e.g. red), while value indicates lightness or darkness of color and chroma indicates the degree of departure of a given hue from a neutral gray of the same value.
Munsell color determined for the crowns of dormant runners was 2.5GY 9/2 for `Cavendish`, `Honeoye` and `Kent`. `Cavendish` had a short crown, and `Honeoye` and `Kent` had long crowns.
The Munsell color for petiole on the lower one inch of petiole attached to a dormant crown was determined to be 5GY 7/6 for `Cavendish`, 2.5GY 7/4 for `Honeoye`, and 5GY 6/6 for `Kent`.
The Munsell color of the yellow ground color of seed of the three varieties was the same 7.5Y 8/6 and of the red over-color of the three varieties was the same 5R 4/8. Fifteen percent of `Cavendish` seed were found to have over-color compared to 30 percent for `Honeoye` and 40 percent for `Kent`.
The colors of the leaves, calyx, and petals are typical of the species and market class.
The color of `Cavendish` fruit was also determined on a D25-L Hunterlab Tristimulus Colorimeter (Hunter Associates, Reston, Va.). The Hunterlab instrument gives color measurements in the Hunter L, a, and b, opponent color scales. The dimension `L` gives a measure of lightness and ranges from 0 for black to 100 for perfect white. When positive, the `a` value gives a measure of `redness` and when negative the amount of `greenness` is estimated. A positive Hunter `b` value gives a measure of `yellowness` while a negative `b` gives a rating of the `blueness`. For both the `a` and `b` values, a scale value of 0 is grey. Together the three values (L, `a` and b) describe the strawberry in terms of the perceptual attributes of color--lightness, hue and saturation. Lightness indicates how `light` or `dark` the color is, while hue describes the actual color by name e.g. red. green, yellow. by describing how much the sample is colored as opposed to achromatic, saturation characterizes the vividness or dullness of color.
The Hunterlab values for `Cavendish` averaged over two years and with two harvests per year were:
L=19.0
a=+21.4
b=+7.6
Hue=19.3
Saturation=22.7
Harvest
The pedicels of picked primary fruit are short (0.5-2 cm), thick, curved and pubescent, and primary berries are difficult to pick. The peduncles of picked secondary berries are short (1-3 cm), medium in thickness, slightly curved and pubescent, and secondary berries are easy to pick. `Cavendish` is more difficult to harvest than `Honeoye` and `Kent` because of a great force needed to break the pedicels of the primary fruit. The removal of calyx from the berry is difficult for `Cavendish` and `Kent` but easier for `Honeoye`. `Cavendish` is not adapted for mechanical harvest. At Kentville, Nova Scotia, the harvest for `Cavendish` is in the early mid-season, and has been observed to begin on June 28 and end on July 24 and to last for about four weeks.
Planting
Runner plants are typically dug in November, and in Nova Scotia have received significant chilling in the nursery field. In addition, they are typically stored at minus 2° C. for five or six months until planting in the spring. Alternatively, plants are dug in the spring after a full winter of chilling in the field. `Cavendish` responds like other northern varieties; no special pre-planting treatment is required. We do not know how `Cavendish` would respond to southern conditions.
Genetic Fingerprinting
Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) patterns were determined for `Cavendish` and six other strawberry varieties using primers UBC59, UBC76, UBC85, UBC100, and UBC287 in testing done in the Biotechnology Lab of the Atlantic Food and Horticultural Research Centre following the techniques of Levi, et al., "Identification of Strawberry Genotypes and Evaluation of their Genetic Relationships Using Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) Analysis," Advances in Strawberry Research, 13, 36-39 (1994). The results are set forth in Table 4, below, where bands from reliable polymorphic RAPD fragments from three replications are represented as 0 equal to absent or 1 equal to present.
              TABLE 4                                                     
______________________________________                                    
       PRIMER                                                             
       UBC59  UBC76   UBC85   UBC100  UBC287                              
       Band Number for each primer and DNA pattern                        
Variety  12345    123     123   12345   123                               
______________________________________                                    
`Cavendish`                                                               
         11011 a  101 c   000 a 11100 a 111 d                             
`Scott`  10010 b  100 a   100 b 0010 b  010 a                             
`Honeoye`                                                                 
         10011 c  000 b   010 c 10100 c 011 b                             
`Totem`  10001 d  100 a   000 a 11110 d 101 c                             
`Annapolis`                                                               
         01111 t  101 c   010 c 11101 e 011 b                             
`Blomidon`                                                                
         11111 f  101 c   010 c 11010 g 011 b                             
`Kent`   11111 f  100 a   011 e 10110 h 011 b                             
______________________________________
In each vertical column in Table 4, identical letters identify identical patterns.
Primers UBC59, UBC100 and UBC287 provided banding patterns for `Cavendish` distinct from the banding patterns of the other varieties. The primer UBC100 produced a distinct pattern for each of the seven varieties.
Adaptability and Use
`Cavendish` appears to be well adapted throughout the Atlantic provinces of Canada, when green petal disease is managed. Wider suitability to Northeastern U.S.A. and Quebec is likely, based on parental performance. `Cavendish` will be of particular value on soils infested with P. fragariae, providing a high yielding cultivar following `Annapolis` in ripening. The fruit should meet the fresh market requirements for pick-your-own and short distance shipping.

Claims (1)

We claim:
1. The new and distinct variety of strawberry plant herein described and illustrated and identified by the characteristics enumerated above.
US08/535,610 1992-01-02 1995-09-08 Strawberry plant named `Cavendish` Expired - Lifetime USPP11110P (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US08/535,610 USPP11110P (en) 1992-01-02 1995-09-08 Strawberry plant named `Cavendish`

Applications Claiming Priority (4)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US81598792A 1992-01-02 1992-01-02
US5686593A 1993-04-20 1993-04-20
US26339194A 1994-06-20 1994-06-20
US08/535,610 USPP11110P (en) 1992-01-02 1995-09-08 Strawberry plant named `Cavendish`

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
USPP11110P true USPP11110P (en) 1999-10-26

Family

ID=27369109

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US08/535,610 Expired - Lifetime USPP11110P (en) 1992-01-02 1995-09-08 Strawberry plant named `Cavendish`

Country Status (1)

Country Link
US (1) USPP11110P (en)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040205869P1 (en) * 2001-08-23 2004-10-14 Jamieson Andrew R. Strawberry variety named 'Sable'
USPP17312P2 (en) * 2005-09-09 2006-12-26 Plant Sciences, Inc. Strawberry plant named ‘PS-5016’

Non-Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
Agriculture Canada, Kentville Research Station Information Release No. 13, Jan. 22, 1990, describes the cultivar to be related in the future. *
Agriculture Canada, Kentville Research Station Information Release No. 14, Feb. 2, 1990, describes the cultivar to be released in the future. *
Jamieson et al, HortScience , 26:1561 1563 (1991) is the scientific publication naming and making available Cavendish . *
Jamieson et al, HortScience, 26:1561-1563 (1991) is the scientific publication naming and making available `Cavendish`.

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040205869P1 (en) * 2001-08-23 2004-10-14 Jamieson Andrew R. Strawberry variety named 'Sable'
USPP17312P2 (en) * 2005-09-09 2006-12-26 Plant Sciences, Inc. Strawberry plant named ‘PS-5016’

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
USPP16558P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Sabrosa’
USPP8649P (en) Strawberry plant called `Key Largo`
USPP11110P (en) Strawberry plant named `Cavendish`
USPP10960P (en) Strawberry plant named `Tudnew`
USPP22781P2 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Puget Crimson’
USPP32757P2 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Plared 1075’
USPP32221P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘CIVRH612’
USPP12067P2 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Schwartze’
USPP31259P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Plared 0822’
USPP30542P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Planasa 0955’
USPP11438P (en) Strawberry variety named `Mira`
USPP28834P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Planasa 0949’
USPP15153P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Plahuelfre’
US20040205869P1 (en) Strawberry variety named &#39;Sable&#39;
USPP10686P (en) Strawberry plant named `PS-1269`
USPP22506P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Sabrina’
US20030159189P1 (en) Strawberry variety named &#39;Evangeline&#39;
USPP12219P2 (en) Apple tree named ‘Triple E’ Fuji
USPP10832P (en) Apple tree named `Cumberland Spur`
USPP16898P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Macarena’
USPP26710P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Safari’
USPP15783P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘Carmela’
USPP13967P3 (en) Strawberry plant named ‘PLARIONFRE’
USPP9770P (en) Strawberry plant named `Arena`
USPP11000P (en) Apple cultivar `Fortune`

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AS Assignment

Owner name: AGRICULTURE CANADA, CANADA

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:JAMIESON, ANDREW R.;REEL/FRAME:009903/0266

Effective date: 19990412

CC Certificate of correction