U.S. patent number PP26,705 [Application Number 14/121,659] was granted by the patent office on 2016-05-10 for pecan tree named `tom`.
This patent grant is currently assigned to University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.. The grantee listed for this patent is University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.. Invention is credited to Darrell Sparks.
United States Patent |
PP26,705 |
Sparks |
May 10, 2016 |
Pecan tree named `Tom`
Abstract
A pecan tree distinguished by the following unique combination
of characteristics: high prolificacy, consistent production, early
nut maturity, kernel size suited to confection trade, excellent
color, absence of kernel speckling, excellent resistance to the
scab fungus (Fusicladosporium effusum), and high resistance but not
immunity to black aphid (melanocallis caryaefoliae) and leaf scorch
mite (Eotetranychus hicoriae).
Inventors: |
Sparks; Darrell (Athens,
GA) |
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. |
Athens |
GA |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
University of Georgia Research
Foundation, Inc. (Athens, GA)
|
Appl.
No.: |
14/121,659 |
Filed: |
October 3, 2014 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20160100512 P1 |
Apr 7, 2016 |
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
PLT/153 |
Current International
Class: |
A01H
5/02 (20060101) |
Field of
Search: |
;PLT/153 |
Primary Examiner: Grunberg; Anne
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Claims
I claim:
1. A new and distinct cultivar of pecan tree, substantially as
herein illustrated and described.
Description
Latin name of the genus and species of the plant: Carya
illinoinensis.
Variety denomination: `Tom`.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of
pecan tree named `Tom`. My new tree can be used in gardens or for
commercial production of pecan nuts. This new tree was selected
from seedlings grown from controlled pollination in Watkinsville,
Ga., in 1989. The `Tom` selection resulted from crossing `Wichita`
(unpatented) as the seed parent with `Pawnee` (unpatented) as the
pollen parent. The resulting tree was selected when growing in a
cultivated area at Watkinsville, Ga.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`Tom` is distinguished from other pecan varieties known to the
inventor due to the following unique combination of
characteristics: High prolificacy, consistent production, early nut
maturity, a kernel size suited to the confection trade, excellent
kernel color, absence of kernel speckling, and excellent resistance
to the scab fungus (Fusicladosporium effusum), and high resistance
but not immunity to black aphid (melanocallis caryaefoliae) and
pecan leaf scorch mite (Eotetranychus hicoriae).
Asexual reproduction of `Tom` by grafting (top working) onto
`Desirable` (unpatented) pecan trees in 2006 and 2011 at NILO
Plantation, Albany, Ga. and experimental plantings at NILO in 2011
and 2012 and at Graham Pecan Farm, Leary, Ga. in 2009 and at Ray
City, Ga. in 2011 was performed in order to evaluate these trees.
Asexual reproduction of `Tom` has shown that the forgoing
characteristics come true to form, are firmly fixed, and are
established and transmitted through succeeding propagations.
Certain characteristics of this variety, such as growth and color,
may change with changing environmental conditions (e.g., light,
temperature, moisture, nutrient availability, or other factors).
Color descriptions and other terminology are used in accordance
with their ordinary dictionary descriptions, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise. Color designations are made with
reference to The Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S.) Colour Chart,
2001. The color characteristics of this type may vary with lighting
and other conditions. Therefore, color characteristics of this new
variety should be determined with reference to the observations
described herein, rather than from these illustrations alone.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a photograph showing scaly bark of `Tom`. Initially the
bark is tight and the scaly characteristic develops with tree
maturity.
FIG. 2 is a photograph showing the leaf architecture of `Tom`.
Leaflets droop from the rachis and curve inward, forming a "tunnel"
configuration. One margin of the leaflets flares upward creating a
ruffed appearance. The terminal leaflet also droops and was removed
(from the nearest group of leaflets shown in FIG. 2) before
photographing.
FIG. 3 is a photograph showing the characteristic stippled shuck of
`Tom`. Stippling is a distinguishing characteristic.
FIG. 4 is a photograph showing nut shape and kernel characteristics
of `Tom`. Nut: left to right; suture side, non-suture side. Kernel:
left to right; ventral side, dorsal side. Cross section, dorsal
side up.
FIG. 5 is a photograph showing nut shape and kernel characteristics
of `Tom` in comparison to `Elliott` (unpatented). Nut: left to
right; `Tom` suture side, non-suture side; `Elliott` suture side,
non-suture side. Kernel: left to right; `Tom` ventral side, dorsal
side; `Elliott` ventral side, dorsal side. Kernel cross section:
left to right `Tom`, dorsal side up; `Elliot`, dorsal side up.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Botanical: The following detailed description of `Tom` is based on
observations of the original tree growing in Watkinsville, Ga. and
of asexually reproduced progeny growing in Albany, Ga. and Leary,
Ga. Varietal name.--`Tom`. Parentage.--Seed parent: `Wichita`.
Pollen parent: `Pawnee`. Tree.--Overall shape: moderately
spreading, height to width ratio is about 0.7. Vigor: Vigorous.
Height: Of original tree, about 10 meters. Width: Of original tree,
about 15 meters. Trunk: Of original tree (measured 0.5 m above
ground level) about 0.4 m circumference. Trunk bark texture: Scaly
with tree maturity. Trunk bark color: Grey (RHS 202B). Patches:
Trunk has no markings. Shoot: Shoots in woody stage are Grey-brown
(RHS 199A) in color, smooth in texture with Grey-brown lenticels
(RHS 199D) that are elliptical shaped and about 0.8 mm long by 0.1
mm wide. There are about 151 lenticels per square cm. Branch Color:
Grey-brown (RHS 201C). Internodes: Average internode length is
about 0.9 cm, between the 3.sup.rd and 4.sup.th leaf from base of
shoot. Bearing: Not precocious but prolific. Original tree fruited
11 years from seed. `Tom` fruited the second year after grafting
(top working) onto `Desirable` trees, and has fruited consistently
in subsequent years. Disease and insect resistance: High resistance
to black pecan aphid [Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Davis)] (Table
12). High resistance to pecan leaf scorch mite [Eotetranychus
hicorire (McGregor)] (Table 13). No scab disease [Fusicladosporium
effusum (G. Winters) Partridge & Morgan-Jones.] has been
observed on sprayed trees (Tables 14-17); but during the
excessively wet 2013 growing season slight scab (lesions barely
detectable) occurred on about 2% of the fruit on an unsprayed tree
at Watkinsville but not on an unsprayed tree in Albany.
Leaves.--The mature leaf is odd pinnate compound, deciduous with
leaflets having a dark green upper surface and a lighter green
lower surface. Each mature leaf has from 9 to 15 leaflets. Leaflets
droop from the rachis, curve inward and form a tunnel
configuration. One margin of the leaflets flares upward creating a
ruffed appearance (see FIG. 2). Size of mature leaf (fourth leaf
from base of shoot): 30.9 cm long, 21.9 cm wide. Peduncle: Oval in
cross-section, tan in color (RHS 199B). The length of the peduncle
of the fourth leaf from the base is about 2.9 cm. The diameter of
the peduncle of the fourth leaf from the base is about 2.0 mm.
Leaflet: Size and shape: Fourth leaflet on fourth leaf from base
11.7 cm long by 2.9 cm wide. Falcate in shape. Base oblique. Margin
serrate. Leaflets are convoluted which increases acropetally on the
leaf and on leaves on the shoot. Texture: Smooth. Sheen: Glossy.
Petiole: Sessile. Margin: Serrate. Tip shape: Acuminate and narrow.
Leaflet color: Upper leaf surface: Forest green (RHS 137A). Lower
leaf surface: Green (RHS 138A). Pubescence: Upper leaf surface is
not pubescent. Lower surface is pubescent. The length, width and
other measurements were obtained from observations of a typical
leaf. Inflorescence.--General: The `Tom` pecan is monoecious,
anemophilous. Dichogamy is protandrous, pollinated by `Schley`
(unpatented) and `Elliott` (unpatented). `Tom` will pollinate its
pollinizers (see Table 2). Flowers: Pistil flowers are borne on a
determinate spike, with staminate flowers borne on a determinate
pendulous catkin. Two-six individual pistillate flowers per spike,
borne alternately on terminally-positioned spikes. The pistillate
flower is symmetrical with no stamens or petals. Pedicels: none.
The staminate or catkin length is 59 mm and width is 5 mm. The
staminate color is Green (RHS 144B) with gold pollen (RHS 3A). The
involucre size, which includes the stigma, is 4.1 mm long by 2.0 mm
wide. The flower has one pistil with an oxblood (RHS 61A) stigma.
The flower has four bracts, which are green (RHS 144A), linear,
lanceolate, 3.9 mm long by 1.0 mm wide and are fused at the bases,
forming a copular involucre. Fruit.--Has fruited consistently thus
far (see Tables 9 and 10). Mature fruit is dehiscent. Shuck: Green
(RHS 144B), stippled with maturity (see FIG. 3). The shuck sutures
are winged which is accentuated acropetally (see FIG. 3) and the
shuck surface is not indented. Fruit split during liquid endosperm
stage: Not observed to be a problem. Shuck decline: Shuck dieback
during kernel formation has not been observed to be a problem.
Nuts.--Observations from a limited number of typical nuts from
several growing seasons in Watkinsville, Ga. Size: Small (58
nuts/lb), length about 36 mm, width about 22.2 mm (width
measurement taken midway along the length of the nut and across
sutures); length to width ratio about 1.6. Nut flatness (ratio of
width across sutures to width between sutures) is about 0.96. Form:
General nut shape ovate, base round, round cross section, apex
shape is slightly cuspidate, apex is grooved. Sutures:
Non-elevated. Weight: 7.8 grams per nut (non-limiting soil
moisture). Cluster size: About 2.8 fruits per cluster. Shell
Texture: Ridged. Shell thickness: Thick, 0.84 mm. Kernel color:
Good color, Greyed-orange (RHS 165B). Kernel coat: No speckling has
been observed. Kernel percentage of nut: About 55 percent (non
limiting soil moisture). Dorsal grooves: Wide and deep, thereby
decreasing the percentage kernel in the nut. Nut maturity:
September 24th and later than `Byrd` by about 2 days.
Harvestability: Suitable for machine harvest. Cracking/shelling
ability: Cracks exceptionally well, percentage of kernels with
intact halves is high. Typically, less than five percent of chipped
or broken kernels were observed.
COMPARISONS TO OTHER VARIETIES
The form of `Tom` is moderately spreading and more so than either
parent. The timing of bud break (Table 1) of `Tom` is similar to
`Stuart` (unpatented) and later than `Byrd` (U.S. Plant Pat. No.
20,867), `Desirable, `Huffman` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 25,465),
`Morrill` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 23,335), `Cunard` (U.S. Plant Pat.
No. 24,373) and `Treadwell (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 25,740). Thus,
`Tom` is somewhat less susceptible to late-spring freezes in
Georgia than most pecan varieties. The leaves of `Tom` are forest
green and darker in color than both parents and most other
varieties. Leaflet orientation of `Tom` leaves is unlike both
parents, `Huffman`, `Treadwell`, `Cunard`, `Byrd`, and `Morrill`.
That is, leaflets droop from the rachis, curve inward and form a
`tunnel` configuration (FIG. 2). The stigmatic surface of `Tom` is
oxblood (RHS 61A), similar to the oxblood color of parent `Pawnee`
and in contrast to the green surface of parent `Wichita`. In the
comparison tables below, `Cheyenne`, `Stuart`, `Schley`, and
`Sumner` are unpatented varieties.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Bud break date for `Tom`, `Stuart`,
`Huffman` `Morrill, `Byrd`, `Treadwell`, and `Cunard` pecans,
Watkinsville, Georgia, 6 year average. Cultivar Bud break date
`Tom` 4/2a `Stuart` 3/31ab `Huffman` 3/30b `Morrill` 3/30b `Byrd`
3/27c `Treadwell` 3/27c `Cunard` 3/26c Means followed by the same
letter are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 6.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Approximate periods of pollen shedding and
stigma receptivity for `Tom` and selected other pecan cultivars in
April, Watkinsville, Georgia. April 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Protandrous cultivars `Cheyenne`
.......... _ ________________ `Desirable` .......... _____________
`Tom` ................... _________________________ Protogynous
`Elliott` ................................... _______________
`Schley` .................. __________ `Stuart` ...............
__________ ..... = Period of stigma receptivity. __ = Period of
pollen shedding.
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Comparison of nut characteristics of
`Treadwell`, `Byrd`, `Tom`, `Cunard`, `Morrill`, `Elliott`, and
`Huffman` pecans, Albany, Georgia, 2009-2012. Wt./ Nut Shell Nut
nut length Length/ Nut.sup.y Thickness Kernel Maturity Cultivar (g)
Nuts/lb (mm) Width.sup.z Flatness (mm) (%) date `Treadwell` 9.5cd
48cd 41.5d 1.92b 0.97d 0.70bd 62.2b 24a `Byrd` 8.9d 51c 42.4d 1.88b
1.04b 0.51e 62.3b 24a `Tom` 7.8e 58b 36.3e 1.64c 0.96d 0.84a 54.7cd
25a `Cunard` 11.1b 41e 52.2a 2.18a 1.03b 0.66cd 62.5b 26a `Morrill`
10.1c 46d 49.2b 2.07a 1.11a 0.63d 65.9a 35b `Elliott` 7.1f 64a
32.5f 1.39d 1.04b 0.70bc 52.0e 38b `Huffman` 12.2a 37e 44.7c 1.65c
1.03b 0.72b 55.5cd 33b Means followed by the same letter within a
column are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 4.
.sup.zLength to width ratio = nut length divided by width. Width
was measured midway the length of the nut and across the suture.
.sup.yNut flatness = ratio of nut width across suture to width
between suture. Measurement was made midway the length of the nut.
.sup.xDate when shuck dehiscence had occurred on 50% of the fruit,
days from September 1.
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Comparison of kernel characteristics of
`Elliott` and `Tom` pecans, NILO Plantation, Albany, Georgia, 2012.
Kernel length Kernel width Kernels/lb Cultivar (cm) (cm) (no.)
`Elliott` 2.51b 1.88b 268a `Tom` 2.83a 2.05a 216b Means followed by
the same letter within a column are not statistically different, P
.ltoreq. 0.05, n = 15.
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Susceptibility of `Tom`, `Byrd`, `Morrill`,
"Huffman`, `Pawnee`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, and `Desirable` pecans
to kernel speckling, Watkinsville, Georgia, 2000-2006, 2008, n = 8.
No. of years with Cultivar Kernel speckling `Tom` 0 `Byrd` 0
`Morrill` 0 `Huffman` 0 `Pawnee` 4 `Cunard` 0 `Treadwell` 0
`Desirable` 0
Pecan nuts that mature relatively early command a premium price.
The price per pound normally declines as the harvest becomes later.
Consequently, cultivars that exhibit early maturity at harvest are
commercially important. The color of a kernel's seed coat (lighter
is preferred), and the percentage kernel of the nut also affects
the selling price of pecans. Nut maturity of `Tom` is early,
similar to `Byrd`, `Cunard` and `Treadwell`, 8 days before
`Huffman` and 13 days before `Elliott` (Table 3). `Elliott` is
believed to be the leading early, small nut cultivar planted in
Georgia.
As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, the nut size of `Tom` nuts is
slightly larger than that of `Elliott`, smaller than `Byrd`, and
much smaller than `Treadwell`, `Cunard`, `Morrill` and `Huffman`.
However, the nut length is longer in the case of `Tom` nuts than
`Elliott` nuts and the nut shape differs. As indicated by the
length to width ratio, `Tom` nuts are more oblong than `Elliott`
nuts. In cross-section, `Tom` nuts are near round (flatness ratio
0.96 while `Elliott` nuts are flatter on the suture side than the
non-suture side. Referring to Table 3, the shell thickness of `Tom`
is thicker than `Treadwell`, `Byrd`, `Cunard`, `Morrill`, `Elliott`
and `Huffman`. The percentage kernel is a direct function of the
shell thickness and the percentage of the shell cavity filled with
the kernel. In Table 3, high percentage kernel nuts have a thin
shell. The notably exception is `Tom` which has a higher percent
kernel than `Elliott` even though the shell of `Elliott` is much
thinner. The ventral side of the kernel of `Elliott` is concave
resulting in a lower proportion percentage of the shell cavity
being filled with kernel. The greater plumpness of `Tom` makes it
more suitable for the confection trade than `Elliott`. The
morphology of the dorsal grooves also affects percentage kernel.
`Morrill` has exceptional narrow and shallow grooves resulting in a
very high percentage kernel. Under stress, primarily fruiting
stress, when `Pawnee` cultivar pecan trees are grown in humid
southeastern United States, the kernel seed coats of nuts can
develop conspicuous and unattractive dark spots. This speckling
reduces the marketability of these nuts. Speckling has not been
observed to be a problem of `Tom` nuts grown in Georgia (Table 5).
Kernel color is outstanding and superior to the other two early
maturing varieties, `Byrd and `Cunard` and equal to the early
`Treadwell` and the later maturing `Elliott`. Kernel development of
`Tom`, like `Elliott`, is good during a heavy production year which
contrasts with `Pawnee` where a high percentage of the nuts can be
unmarketable or of reduced value. Although not precocious (Tables 6
and 7), `Tom` is highly prolific and is equal to the unusual
prolific `Cunard` (Table 8). Regardless, alternate or irregular
bearing has not been a problem (Table 9) and consistence of
production is similar to `Huffman` and `Morrill` (Table 10), in
spite of a larger cluster size (Table 11). Unlike both parents,
`Tom` has excellent resistance to scab disease fungus which is
similar to `Huffman`, better than `Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`,
`Byrd` and much superior to `Desirable` (Tables 14 and 15). Unlike
parent `Wichita`, fruit split during the liquid endosperm stage has
not been observed.
`Tom` was released as an early maturing small nut for the
confection/gift package trade. Currently, `Elliott` is the ideal
nut for this trade as it produces a high percentage of intact
kernels, kernel color is excellent, and the small kernel is ideal
for the pecan ice cream and chocolate covered trade and its size is
suited for an almond, cashew, pecan mix. `Tom` is similar to
`Elliott` in kernel size, color, and intact halves, and scab
disease resistance. It is superior to `Elliott` in consistency of
production (Tables 9 and 10), about two times more productive
Tables 8 an 9), and substantial earlier nut maturity (Table 3).
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Precocity of `Cunard`, `Byrd`, `Treadwell`,
`Morrill`, `Desirable`, `Elliott`, `Tom`, `Huffman`, and `Stuart`.
Variety Years to initial fruiting.sup.z `Cunard` 2 `Byrd` 3
`Treadwell` 3 `Morrill` 4 `Desirable` 4 `Elliott` 5 `Tom` 5
`Huffman` 5 `Stuart` 6 .sup.zYearsfrom planting nursery trees.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Nut production of young `Tom` and
`Desirable` pecan trees, Leary, Georgia.sup.z. Cultivar Yield
(lb/tree) `Tom` 0.3b `Desirable` 2.9a Means followed by the same
letter are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 14.
.sup.zProduction 4 years after top working 2 year-old trees.
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Production, nuts per pound, percentage
kernel of trees top worked to `Tom`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`,
`Huffman`, `Morrill`, and `Elliott` pecans, NILO Plantation,
Albany, Georgia, 2009-2013. Cultivar Lbs/tree Nuts/lb. Kernel (%)
`Tom 57a 58b 54.7cd `Cunard`.sup.y 44ab 41e 62.5b `Treadwell`.sup.y
30b 48cd 62.2b `Huffman` 32b 37e 55.5cd `Morrill` 35b 46d 65.9a
`Elliott`.sup.z 26b 64a 52.0e Means followed by the same letter
within a column are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n
= 4. .sup.zData for `Elliott` were from non-top worked trees
planted in 2002. .sup.y`Cunard` and `Treadwell` were fruit thinned
as needed. About 50% of the fruit was removed. Other cultivars were
not fruit thinned.
TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Production consistency, nuts per pound, and
percentage kernel of `Tom` and `Elliott` pecan trees, NILO
Plantation, Albany, Georgia, 2009-2013. .sup.z Lbs/tree Nuts/lb.
Kernel (%) Year `Elliott` `Tom` `Elliott` `Tom` `Elliott` `Tom`
2009 13 29 67 59 52.7 57.0 2010 43 34 62 62 50.6 53.0 2011 20 68 63
54 54.0 54.2 2012 30 90 65 59 50.9 53.9 2013 52 125 68 59 54.4 54.9
Mean 32 69 65 59 52.5 54.6 .sup.z All data are on an individual
tree basis. `Elliott` borne alternately or irregular, `Tom` did
not.
TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Alternate bearing tendency of `Byrd`,
`Treadwell`, `Elliott`, `Huffman`, `Tom`, `Morrill`, and `Cunard`
pecans, NILO Plantation, Albany, Georgia. Years until bearing
Cultivar Years to fruiting (no.) alternate (no.) `Byrd` 2 3
`Treadwell` 2 3 `Elliott` 2 4.sup.y `Huffman` 2 >7 `Tom` 2 >7
`Morrill` 2 >10 `Cunard` 2 11.sup.z .sup.yYears after top
working mature trees to the respectively cultivar, n = 3. Top
working simulates a mature tree and allows for earlier evaluation
of alternate bearing, kernel development under heavy fruit load,
and suitability for mechanical harvest and ease of fruit thinning.
.sup.zAnnual production maintained by fruit thinning. .sup.yData
for `Elliott` were from non-top worked trees planted in 2002--years
from initial fruiting.
TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Fruit cluster size of `Byrd`, `Desirable`,
`Huffman`, `Tom`, `Morrill`, `Pawnee`, Cunard, `Treadwell`, and
`Elliott` pecans, Watkinsville, Georgia. Data are averages of three
years, 2005, 2006, and 2008. Cultivar Fruits/cluster (no.).sup.z
`Byrd` 3.1abc `Desirable` 1.8f `Huffman` 1.6f `Tom` 2.8bcd
`Morrill` 2.9bcd `Pawnee` 3.2ab `Cunard` 3.2ab `Treadwell` 2.7cd
`Elliott` 2.8bcd Means followed by the same letter are not
statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 30. .sup.zCluster
counts made after the second drop was completed.
TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Leaf susceptibility of `Byrd`, `Huffman`,
`Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Tom`, `Treadwell`, and `Sumner` pecans to
black pecan aphids at two Georgia locations. Leaf rating .sup.z
Leary Watkinsville `Cultivar` 2009 2011 2012 2011 `Byrd` 1.5d 1.9
1.1c 1.8ab `Huffman` 1.4e 1.4b 1.1c 1.0b `Morrill` 2.3b 1.9a 2.3a
2.0a `Cunard` 1.1e 1.9a 1.3c 2.0a `Tom` 1.1e 1.2bc 2.3a 1.0b
`Treadwell` 1.9c 2.1a 1.2c 1.8ab `Sumner` 2.8a 1.8a -- -- Means
followed by the same letter within a column are not statistically
different, P .ltoreq. 0.05%, n = 19. .sup.z 1 = no injury 2 =
<1% of leaves with injury 3 = 1-10% of leaves with injury 4 =
11-50% of leaves with injury 5 = >50% of leaves with injury and
partial defoliation.
TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Leaf susceptibility of `Tom`, `Byrd`,
`Morrill`, `Huffman`, `Cunard`, and `Treadwell` pecans to pecan
leaf scorch mite, Graham Pecan Farm, Leary, Georgia, 2009. Cultivar
Leaf rating .sup.z `Tom` 1.1b `Byrd` 1.1b `Morrill` 1.2b `Huffman`
1.6c `Cunard` 2.2d `Treadwell` 2.7a Means followed by the same
letter are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05%, n = 19.
.sup.z 1 = no damage 2 = trace 3 = multiple lesions 4 = minor
defoliation 5 = severe defoliation.
TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Leaf scab susceptibility of `Byrd`,
`Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, "Tom`, `Elliott`, and `Desirable`
pecans at two Georgia locations. Leaf scab .sup.x Leary .sup.y
Watkinsville .sup.z Cultivar 2009 2010 2011 2010 2011 `Byrd` 1.0b
1.0b 1.0a 1.4b 1.0a `Morrill` 1.3b 1.0b 1.0a 2.0b 1.0a `Cunard`
1.3b 1.b 1.0a 1.8b 1.0a `Treadwell` 1.2b 1.0b 1.0a 1.6b 1.0a `Tom`
1.0b 1.0b 1.0a -- 1.0a `Elliott` 1.0b -- -- 1.0a `Desirable` 4.7a
2.9a 1.4a 3.8a 1.0a Means followed by the same letter within a
column are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05. .sup.x 1 =
no scab lesions 2 = occasional lesion on leaf, less than 1% of
leaves with lesions 3 = lesions scant on 2 to 10% of leaves 4 =
lesions widespread but no leaf distortion 5 = lesions widespread
and severe leaf distortion. .sup.y n = 19, trees sprayed with
fungicide. .sup.z n = 5, trees sprayed with fungicide.
TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Fruit scab susceptibility of `Tom`,
`Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, `Byrd`, `Huffman`, and
`Desirable` pecans at two Georgia locations. Fruit scab .sup.z
Leary .sup.y Watkinsville .sup.z Cultivar 2012 Five year average
`Tom` 1.0a 1.0c `Morrill` 1.0a 1.8b `Cunard` 1.0a 2.3b `Treadwell`
1.0a 2.2b `Byrd` 1.0a 1.7bc `Huffman` 1.0a 1.0c `Desirable` 4.3b
3.3a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not
statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05. .sup.z 1= no lesions 2 =
occasional lesions, <10% of fruit with scab 3 = lesions common
on fruit but not damaging, 1-50% of fruit with scab 4 = wide spread
lesions on fruit but not damaging, 51-75% of fruit with scab 5 =
widespread lesions on fruit, fruit size suppressed, n = 19. .sup.y
n = 19 .sup.x Years 2005, 08, 09, 10, 11,12, n = 5, trees sprayed
with fungicide.
TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 Fruit scab susceptibility of `Tom` and
`Desirable`, Leary, Georgia, Aug. 28, 2013. Cultivar .sup.y Fruit
scab rating .sup.z `Tom` 1.0a `Desirable` 4.0b Means followed by
the same letter are not statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05.
.sup.z 1 = no lesions 2 = occasional lesions, <10% of fruit with
scab 3 = lesions common on fruit but not damaging, 1-50% of fruit
with scab 4 = wide spread lesions on fruit but not damaging, 51-75%
of fruit with scab 5 = widespread lesions on fruit, fruit size
suppressed. .sup.y n = 4, trees sprayed with fungicides.
TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 Fruit scab susceptibility of `Tom` and
`Desirable`, Albany, Georgia--five year average .sup.y. Cultivar
Fruit scab rating .sup.z `Tom` 1.0a `Desirable` 3.0b Means followed
by the same letter are not statistically different, P .ltoreq.
0.05. .sup.y years 2009-2013, n = 5, trees sprayed with fungicides.
.sup.z 1 = no lesions 2 = occasional lesions, <10% of fruit with
scab 3 = lesions common on fruit but not damaging, 1-50% of fruit
with scab 4 = wide spread lesions on fruit but not damaging, 51-75%
of fruit with scab 5 = widespread lesions on fruit, fruit size
suppressed.
* * * * *