U.S. patent number PP29,422 [Application Number 14/999,825] was granted by the patent office on 2018-06-26 for pecan tree named `tanner`.
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 |
PP29,422 |
Sparks |
June 26, 2018 |
Pecan tree named `Tanner`
Abstract
A pecan tree distinguished by the following unique combination
of characteristics: Consistent and acceptable fruit production,
small fruit cluster, early nut maturity, large nut producing
mammoth kernels with excellent color, and high resistance to scab
fungus.
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)
|
Family
ID: |
60892668 |
Appl.
No.: |
14/999,825 |
Filed: |
July 5, 2016 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20180014440 P1 |
Jan 11, 2018 |
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
PLT/153 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A01H
6/74 (20180501); A01H 6/54 (20180501); A01H
5/08 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
A01H
5/08 (20180101) |
Field of
Search: |
;PLT/153 |
Other References
Conner. University of Georgia College of Agricultural &
Environmental Sciences, Cultivar Options for Georgia Orchards,
retrieved on Aug. 15, 2017, retrieved from the Internet at
https://www.georgiapecan.org/skins/userfiles/file/PecanVarieties.pdf
pp. 1 and 30. cited by examiner .
Screen shot of Google search of pecan tanner university georgia on
Aug. 15, 2017, one page. cited by examiner.
|
Primary Examiner: Hwu; June
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Claims
I claim:
1. A new and distinct cultivar of pecan tree, as herein illustrated
and described.
Description
Latin name of the genus and species of the plant: Carya
illinoinensis.
Variety denomination: `Tanner`.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of
pecan tree named `Tanner`. 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 at the University
of Georgia Horticulture Farm in Watkinsville, Ga., in 1995. The
`Tanner` selection resulted from crossing `Desirable` (unpatented)
as the seed parent with `Pawnee` (unpatented) as the pollen parent
(FIG. 1). The chart of FIG. 1 illustrates the most likely pedigree
of the new `Tanner` variety. The seedlings in the FIG. 1 chart are
unnamed. All of the varieties in the FIG. 1 chart are unpatented,
except for Starking Hardy Giant (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 1,361). The
question marks in FIG. 1 after several of the pecan trees indicate
that there is some uncertainty as to whether the identified tree is
actually a part of the lineage of the new `Tanner` pecan tree. The
resulting tree was selected when growing in a cultivated area at
Watkinsville, Ga.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`Tanner` is distinguished from other pecan varieties known to the
inventor due to the following unique combination of
characteristics: Consistent and acceptable fruit production, small
fruit cluster, early nut maturity, large nut producing mammoth
kernels with excellent color and high resistance to scab fungus
(Fusicladosporium effusum) and moderate resistance to black aphid
(Melanocallis caryaefoliae). `Tanner` will fill a niche for large
nuts similar in size to `Desirable` but with the advantage of
earlier maturity and high resistance to scab.
Asexual reproduction of `Tanner` by grafting, (top working) onto
`Desirable`/seedling pecan trees in 2009 and 2012 in Albany, Ga.
and onto `Cape Fear` (unpatented) trees in 2009 in Leary, Ga. was
performed in order to evaluate these trees. Asexual reproduction of
`Tanner` 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 2001 Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S.) Colour
Chart.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a chart showing the pedigree of `Tanner`.
FIG. 2 is a photograph showing scaly bark of `Tanner`.
FIG. 3 is a photograph of leaf architecture of `Tanner`.
FIG. 4 is a photograph of a young fruit of `Tanner` just before
shuck dehiscence.
FIG. 5 is a photograph of fruit of `Tanner` during shuck
dehiscence.
FIG. 6 is a photograph of nut shape and kernel characteristics of
`Tanner`.
FIGS. 7A and 7B are comparison photographs of nut shape and kernel
characteristics of `Tanner` vs. `Desirable`. The `Tanner` nuts and
kernels are shown in FIG. 7A and the `Desirable` nuts and kernels
are shown in FIG. 7B.
FIG. 2 is a photograph of bark of a 13 year old `Tanner` tree;
FIGS. 3 and 4 are photographs of leaves and young fruit of a six
year old `Tanner` tree; and FIG. 5 is a photograph of a five year
old `Tanner` tree.
The colors of an illustration 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.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Botanical: The following detailed description of `Tanner` is based
on observations of the original tree growing in Watkinsville, Ga.
that was about twenty-one years old and of four to six year old
asexually reproduced `Tanner` progeny growing in Albany, Ga. and
Leary, Ga. Varietal name: `Tanner`. Parentage: Seed
parent.--`Desirable`. Pollen parent.--`Pawnee`. Tree: Overall
shape.--Moderately upright, height to width ratio is about 1.5.
Vigor.--Vigorous, prolific, `Tanner` fruited the second year after
grafting (top working) onto `Desirable` trees and has done so in
subsequent years. The original `Tanner` tree fruited 10 years from
seed. Height.--Of original tree. About 7.5 m. Width.--Of original
tree. About 5 m. Trunk.--Of original tree diameter (measured 1/2
meter above ground level) about 0.4 m. Trunk bark texture.--Scaly
as mature tree. Trunk bark color.--Grey (RHS 202B).
Patches.--Mature trunk bark characteristically has holes pecked
(FIG. 2) by yellow bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius). Branch
color.--Branch shoots in woody stage are Grey-brown (RHS 199A) in
color with Grey-brown lenticels (RHS 199D) that are elongated and
about 1 mm long by 0.05 mm wide. Internodes.--Average length is
about 1.3 cm, 3.sup.rd and 4.sup.th leaf from base of shoot.
Disease and insect resistance.--Very high resistance to scab
disease. [Fusicladosporium effusum (G. Winters) Partridge &
Morgan-Jones] and moderate resistance to black aphid Melanocallis
caryaefoliae (Davis). Leaves.--The mature leaf is odd pinnate
compound, deciduous with leaflets having a forest green color (RHS
137A). Six to 13 leaves per shoot with 11 to 13 leaflets per mature
leaf. Leaflets' pairs are oriented at 180.degree. to the rachis as
in `Pawnee` but on vigorous growth they droop non curving at about
45.degree.. Leaflet blade is flat and not convoluted (FIG. 3)
except when growth is vigorous. Size of mature leaf (fourth leaf
from base of shoot): 27 cm long, 20 cm wide. Petiole: Round in
cross-section, tan in color (RHS 199B). Length of the peduncle of
the fourth leaf from the base is about 5.2 cm. The diameter of the
peduncle of the fourth leaf from the base is about 2.1 mm. Leaflet:
Size and shape: Fourth leaflet on fourth leaf from base of shoot is
10.7 cm long by 2.5 cm wide. Falcate in shape. Base oblique.
Leaflet margins are non-convoluted on mature trees but on young
vigorous trees convolution increases from basal to apical leaves on
the shoot. Texture: Upper leaf smooth. Sheen: Upper leaf glossy.
Petiolule: Sessile or nearly so. Margin: Serrate. Tip shape:
Acuminate and narrow. Leaflet color: Upper leaf surface: Dark green
(RHS 139A). Lower leaf surface: Green (RHS 138A). Pubescence: Upper
leaf surface is not pubescent. Lower leaf surface is slightly
pubescent. Inflorescence.-- General.--The `Tanner` pecan is
monoecious, anemophilous, and protandrous (Table 1).
Flowers.--Pistil flowers are borne on a determinate spike, with
staminate flowers borne on a determinate pendulous catkin. One-six
individual pistillate flowers per spike, are borne alternately on
terminally-positioned spikes. The pistillate flower is symmetrical
with no stamens or petals. The pedicels are sessile. The staminate
or catkin length is 8.6 mm and width is 6.7 mm. The staminate color
is green (RHS 144B) with gold pollen (RHS 3A). The involucre size,
includes the stigma, is 5.5 mm long and 2.0 mm wide. Anthocyan on
stigma is strong. The flower has one pistil with an oxblood red
(RHS 61A) stigma. The flower has four bracts, which are green (RHS
144A), lanceolate, 3.4 mm long by 1.0 mm wide and are fused at the
bases, forming a copular involucre. Fruit: Mature fruit is
dehiscent. Shuck.--Green (RHS 144B) but slightly stippled near
maturity (FIG. 4). Open widely during dehiscence (FIG. 5). Fruit
split during water 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 Albany, Leary and
Watkinsville, Ga.). Size.--Large, length about 45 mm, width about
27 mm (width measurement taken midway along the length of the nut
and across sutures); length to width ratio about 1.7. Nut flatness
(ratio of width across sutures to width between sutures) is 1.03.
Form.--Oblong with a round cross-section, base shape is obtuse,
apex shape is acute-acute asymmetric, the apex is slightly grooved,
shell suture is not elevated, shell surface is slightly ridged,
otherwise shell topography is smooth. Dorsal grooves.--Wide,
thereby decreasing the percentage kernel in the nut. Ventral
grooves.--Narrow and deep. Weight.--About 10.0 g per nut
(non-limiting soil moisture). Cluster size.--About 2.2 fruits per
mature cluster. Shell topography.--Faint ridges, otherwise smooth.
Shell thickness.--Moderately thick, 0.87 mm. Shell
color.--Grey-brown (RHS N199B). Kernel color.--Good color,
Grayed-orange (RHS 165B). Kernel coat.--Occasional minute specks.
Kernel percentage of nut.--About 55.0 percent. Nut maturity.--About
September 20th. Harvest ability.--Exceptionally suitable for
machine harvest. Uniform maturity. Cracking/shelling
ability.--Cracks exceptionally well, percentage of kernels with
intact halves is high. Typically, less than one percent of chipped
or broken kernels were observed. When over dried, suture
occasionally partially splits.
COMPARISONS TO OTHER VARIETIES
Tree form of `Tanner` is moderately upright in contrast to both
parents and almost all other pecan cultivars. Shoot growth is long
or "leggy" producing an open canopy. Thus, `Tanner`, like upright
`Whiddon` (U.S. Plant patent application Ser. No. 14/999,823) trees
can be planted in higher tree density than most cultivars. The
timing of bud break (Table 2) of `Tanner` is similar to `Whiddon`,
`Tom` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 26,705) `Huffman` (U.S. Plant Pat. No.
25,465), `Morrill` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 23,335) and `Stuart`
(unpatented) pecan trees making it is less susceptible to
late-spring freezes than `Byrd` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 20,867),
`Cunard` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 24,373), `Desirable` and `Treadwell`
(U.S. Plant Pat. No. 25,740). The leaves of `Tanner` are forest
green as in pollen parent `Pawnee` but are unlike the pale green of
`Desirable`. Leaflet orientation is similar to `Pawnee` and `Byrd`
and unlike most pecan genotypes; that is opposite leaflets are
oriented at 180 degrees relative to each other. (FIG. 3). Leaflet
margins on vigorous shoots are convoluted. The stigmatic surface of
`Tanner` is oxblood, similar to the oxblood color of both parents
and in contrast to the green stigma of `Wichita` (unpatented) and
some other cultivars. `Tanner`, like `Tom` and `Huffman`, is highly
resistant to the scab fungus (Table 3) and contrasts with the high
susceptibility of both parents and to almost all other pecan
cultivars. In the humid southeastern United States, scab fungus
resistance is a major attribute of `Tanner`. Resistance to black
pecan aphid is moderate and similar to `Morrill` (Table 4). Mature
bark is pecked by yellow bellied sapsucker (FIG. 2) as in `Stuart`,
`Whiddon` and `Wichita`.
Table 1 below compares periods of pollen shedding and stigma
receptivity for `Tanner` and selected other pecan cultivars in
April, 2012, Watkinsville, Ga.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 April 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Protandrous cultivars `Cheyenne` * .....
___________ `Desirable` * ........ _________ `Tanner` ............
______________________ Protogynous `Elliott` * ..................
_________ `Schley` * .......... ________ `Stuart` *
................ ________ .... = Period of stigma receptivity. ___
= Period of pollen shedding. * Unpatented
Table 2 below compares bud break date for `Byrd`, `Tom`, `Huffman`,
`Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, `Stuart`, `Whiddon`, `Desirable`
and `Tanner` pecans. Observations were of trees growing in
Watkinsville, Ga.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Bud break Cultivar date `Byrd` 3/27c `Tom`
4/2a `Huffman` 3/30b `Morrill` 3/30b `Cunard` 3/26c `Treadwell`
3/27c `Stuart` 3/31ab `Whiddon` 3/30b `Desirable` 3/27c `Tanner`
4/1ab Means followed by the same letter are not statistically
different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 5.
Table 3 below compares fruit scab susceptibility of `Tanner` with
`Byrd`, `Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, `Tom`, `Huffman` and
`Desirable` growing at two Georgia locations. In addition, `Pawnee`
has been observed to be more susceptible to scab disease than
`Tanner` when grown in Georgia.
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Fruit scab.sup.z Leary.sup.y
Watkinsville.sup.x Cultivar 2011 2012 2013 2014 5 yr. mean.sup.y
`Byrd` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.1d 1.7bc `Morrill` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.3d 1.8b
`Cunard` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 2.3b 2.3b `Treadwell` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.8c
2.2b `Tom` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.0d 1.0c `Huffman` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.0d
1.0c `Whiddon` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.0d 1.0c `Desirable` 1.4a 4.3a 2.8a
3.6a 3.3a `Tanner` 1.0b 1.0b 1.0b 1.0d 1.0c Means followed by the
same letter within a column are not statistically different, P
.ltoreq. 0.05. .sup.z1 = no lesions, 2 = occasional lesions,
<10% of fruit with scab, 3 = lesions common on fruit and
damaging, 1-50% of fruit with scab, 4 = wide spread lesions on
fruit and damaging, 51-75% of fruit with scab, 5 = widespread
lesions on fruit, fruit size suppressed and/aborted. .sup.yn = 19,
sprayed with fungicide. .sup.xYears 2005, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12,
sprayed with fungicide.
Table 4 below compares leaf susceptibility of `Byrd`, `Huffman`,
`Morrill`, `Cunard`, `Tom`, `Treadwell`, `Sumner` (unpatented),
`Whiddon`, `Desirable`, and `Tanner` pecans to black pecan aphids
in Leary, Ga.
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Leaf rating.sup.z Year Cultivar (2011)
(2012) `Byrd` 1.9a 1.1c `Huffman` 1.4b 1.1c `Morrill` 1.9a 2.3a
`Cunard` 1.9a 1.3c `Tom` 1.2bc 2.3a `Treadwell` 2.1a 1.2c `Sumner`
1.8a -- `Whiddon` 1.8a -- `Desirable` 1.0c 1.8c `Tanner` 1.8a 2.5a
Means followed by the same letter are not statistically different,
P .gtoreq. 0.05%, n = 19. .sup.z1 = 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 5 below compares nut characteristics of `Treadwell`, `Byrd`,
`Tom`, `Cunard`, `Morrill`, `Elliott`, `Huffman`, `Whiddon`,
`Desirable`, and `Tanner` pecans. Observations were of trees
growing in Albany, Ga., from 2009-2012.
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Wt./ Nuts/ Nut nut lbs length Length/
Cultivar (g) (no.) (mm) width .sup.z `Treadwell` 9.5de 48d 41.5e
1.92b `Byrd` 8.9e 51c 42.4e 1.88bc `Tom` 7.8f 58b 36.3f 1.64e
`Cunard` 11.1b 41f 52.2a 2.18a `Morrill` 10.1cd 46d 49.2b 2.07a
`Elliott` 7.1g 64a 32.5g 1.39f `Huffman` 12.2a 37g 44.7d 1.65e
`Whiddon` 11.3b 40fg 45.2cd 1.81bcd `Desirable` 10.7bc 42ef 46.7c
1.76cde `Tanner` 10.0cd 45de 45.4cd 1.71de Shell Nut Nut .sup.y
thickness Kernel maturity Cultivar flatness (mm) (%) date .sup.x
`Treadwell` 0.97d 0.70cd 62.2b 24a `Byrd` 1.04b 0.51e 62.3b 24a
`Tom` 0.96d 0.84a 54.5c 25a `Cunard` 1.03b 0.66cd 62.5b 25a
`Morrill` 1.11a. 0.63d 65.9a 35b `Elliott` 1.04b 0.70cd 52.0e 38b
`Huffman` 1.03b 0.72c 55.5c 33b `Whiddon` 1.01c 0.78b 55.9c 39b
`Desirable` 1.11a 0.72c 52.6d 50c `Tanner` 1.03b 0.87a 54.7c 20a
Means followed by the same letter within a column are not
statistically different, P .ltoreq. 0.05, n = 4. .sup.z Length to
width ratio = nut length divided by width. Width was measured
midway the length of the nut and across the suture. .sup.y Nut
flatness = ratio of nut width across suture to width between
suture. Measurement was made midway the length of the nut. .sup.x
Date when shuck dehiscence had occurred on 50% of the fruit, from
September 1.
Pecan nuts of large size that mature 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. `Tanner` is in the early maturity class of
`Treadwell`, `Byrd`, `Tom`, and `Cunard`. `Tanner` nut size is
large (wt./nut) and greater then `Byrd` and `Tom`, similar to
`Treadwell` and `Desirable` and less than `Cunard` and `Huffman`
(Table 5). Consequently, `Tanner` kernels like `Treadwell`, `Byrd`,
`Cunard`, `Huffman`, and `Desirable` are suitable for the
profitable mammoth half trade. `Tanner` is not well suited as a
replacement tree or as an inter plant in a `Stuart`-`Schley`
(unpatented)-`Desirable` orchard, a common combination in the
southeastern United States. Nut maturity date of `Tanner`, like
similar early maturing `Byrd`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`, and `Tom` is
too early to allow a once over blended nut harvest of a `Desirable`
`Stuart`, and `Schley` orchards. Color of a kernel's seed coat
(lighter is preferred) and the percentage kernel of the nut also
affects the selling price of pecans. `Tanner` seed coat color is
excellent (FIGS. 6 and 7), similar to `Treadwell` and `Tom` and
better than `Byrd` and `Cunard`. Like `Tom`, `Huffman` and
`Whiddon` the shuck opens widely which minimizes premature
germination and promotes rapid pre harvest drying of the nut.
Unlike `Huffman` and `Treadwell`, the shuck surface is not russet.
Also unlike `Huffman`, the shuck sutures are not serrated.
As can be seen from Table 5, the nut length is less than `Cunard`
and `Morrill` and similar to `Desirable` and `Huffman`. General nut
shape (length/width) is similar to `Desirable`, `Whiddon`,
`Huffman`, `Tom` and `Byrd` but is less oblong than `Treadwell`,
`Cunard` and `Morrill`. In cross-section (nut flatness), `Tanner`
nuts are near round (flatness ratio 1.03) and are similar to
`Byrd`, `Cunard`, `Elliott`, and `Huffman`, but less symmetrical
than `Whiddon`, `Treadwell` and `Tom`, however more than `Morrill`
and `Desirable`. The shell is thicker than `Desirable` but the
percentage kernel is higher than `Desirable`. In pecan percentage
kernel is a direct function of shell thickness and percentage of
the shell cavity filled with kernel. The percentage kernel of
`Desirable`, in spite of a thinner shell, is not greater than
`Tanner` because of a concave kernel/dorsal grooves are
wide/central partition is thick which reduces the percentage of
shell cavity filled with kernel. The percentage kernel of `Tanner`
nuts is higher than the industry standard, `Desirable`.
Under stress, primarily fruiting stress, and when `Pawnee` pecan
trees are grown in humid southeastern United States, the kernel's
seed coat can develop large conspicuous and unattractive dark
spots. This speckling reduces the marketability of these nuts. This
speckling has not been observed to be a problem of `Tanner` nuts
grown in Georgia. However, kernels sometimes have minute specs
(FIG. 6). They differ from `Pawnee` specking in that they are tiny
and occur sparsely. A panel of growers, buyers, and processors who
examined the kernels have indicated that the spots are
insignificant and would have an insignificant effect on
marketability and consumer preference. Kernel color is good (FIGS.
6 and 7). Kernel color retention is good. In addition, during a
heavy "on" nut production year for `Pawnee` trees growing in
Georgia, kernel development is relatively poor, resulting in a high
percentage of the nuts being unmarketable or of reduced value. The
`Tanner` cultivar does not have this problem.
`Tanner` is not precocious relative to `Cunard`, `Byrd`, and
`Treadwell` (Table 6). Precocity is similar to `Desirable`,
`Morrill`, and `Whiddon`. `Tanner` is not as precocious as `Byrd`
or `Treadwell` as is indicated by the onset of alternate fruit
bearing in the third year from top working, in contrast to a lack
so far of alternate fruit bearing in `Tanner` (Table 7) as is also
the case in `Desirable`, `Huffman` and `Tom`. Although not
precocious, prolificacy as mature top worked trees is good and
similar to `Morrill`, `Huffman`, and `Tom` (Table 8). Thus, annual
production is as in `Desirable` and for the same reason, a small
fruit cluster size (Table 9).
As indicated in (Table 9), the cluster size of `Tanner` is larger
than `Desirable`. Consequently, with increasing tree maturity,
alternate bearing may be more of a problem than with `Tanner`.
However, because of the small cluster size and consistent
production exhibited by `Tanner` following top working to mature
pecan trees, it is expected to bear more or less consistently with
increasing tree maturity as occurs with its seed parent
`Desirable`. `Tanner` is superior to `Desirable` in having a large
nut that matures early, a higher percentage kernel, and especially
important high resistance to scab disease.
Table 6 below compares Precocity of `Cunard`, `Byrd`, `Treadwell`,
`Desirable`, `Morrill`, `Tom`, `Elliott`, `Huffman`, `Whiddon`,
`Stuart`, and `Tanner` pecans. Observations were of trees growing
in Albany and Leary, Ga.
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Cultivar Years to initial fruiting.sup.z
`Cunard` 2 `Byrd` 3 `Treadwell` 3 `Desirable` 4 `Morrill` 4
`Elliott` 5 `Tom` 3 `Huffman` 5 `Whiddon` 4 Stuart 6 `Tanner` 4
.sup.zYears from transplanting from the nursery.
Table 7 below compares alternate bearing tendency of `Byrd`,
`Treadwell`, `Huffman`, `Tom`, `Cunard`, `Morrill`, `Whiddon`, and
`Tanner` pecans. Observations were of trees growing in Albany,
Ga.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Years to Years until fruiting bearing
Cultivar (no.) alternate (no.).sup.y `Byrd` 2 3 `Treadwell` 2 3
`Huffman` 2 >6 `Tom` 2 >6 `Desirable` 2 >6 `Cunard` 2
10.sup.z `Morrill` 2 >9 `Whiddon` 2 4 `Tanner` 2 >6
.sup.yYears after top working mature trees to the respective
cultivar. 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.
Table 8 below compares production, weight per nut, nuts per pound,
and percentage kernel of trees top worked to `Morrill`, `Huffman`,
and `Tanner` pecans. Observations were of trees growing in Albany,
Ga, 2009-12..sup.z
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Cultivar Lbs/tree Wt./nut (g) Nuts/lb. (no.)
Kernel (%) `Morrill` 35a 10.1b 46b 65.9a `Huffman` 32a 12.2a 37a
55.5b `Tanner` 31a 10.0b 45b 54.7b Means followed by the same
letter within a column are not statistically different, P .ltoreq.
0.05, n = 4. .sup.zData are average of the second through fifth
year following top working.
Table 9 below compares fruit cluster size of `Byrd`, `Desirable`,
`Huffman`, `Tom`, `Morrill`, `Pawnee`, `Cunard`, `Treadwell`,
`Elliott`, `Whiddon` and `Tanner` pecans. Observations were of
trees growing in Watkinsville, Ga. Data are averages of three
years, 2005, 2006, and 2008.
TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Cultivar Fruits/cluster(no.).sup.z `Byrd`
3.1abc `Desirable` 1.8e `Huffman` 1.6e `Tom` 2.8bcd `Morrill`
2.9abcd `Pawnee` 3.2ab `Cunard` 3.2ab `Treadwell` 2.7cd `Elliott`
2.8bcd `Whiddon` 1.8e `Tanner` 2.2d 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.
Under the humid growing conditions in southeastern United States,
the pecan fruit is highly susceptible to splitting during the
"water stage" (liquid endosperm stage) of fruit development. Fruit
split can occur following rain and accompanying prolonged high
humidity in early August in Georgia. Water split has not been
observed in `Tanner`.
The `Tanner` pecan tree is therefore an improved new and distinct
pecan.
* * * * *
References