A new and distinct variety of pistachio tree denominated ‘Lost Hills’ is described. This selections most significant advantage is the superior size and appearance of the in-shell nut. The variety is less chilling sensitive than ‘Kerman’ which improves uniformity of foliation, bloom, nut set, nut fill and uniformity of nut maturity at harvest.

Patent
   PP17701
Priority
Mar 21 2005
Filed
Mar 21 2005
Issued
May 08 2007
Expiry
Jun 22 2025
Extension
93 days
Assg.orig
Entity
unknown
1
0
n/a
1. A new and distinct variety of pistachio tree substantially as shown and described herein.

Botanical/commercial classification: (Pistacia vera)/new Pistachio variety.

Variety denomination: ‘Lost Hills’.

The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of Pistachio tree Pistacia vera which has been denominated varietally as ‘Lost Hills,’ and more particularly to such a pistachio tree which has a harvest date of four to sixteen days earlier than the industry standard pistachio tree variety ‘Kerman’.

Its novel features include an earlier harvest than ‘Kerman’, an individual nut size larger than ‘Kerman’ and the percentage of split nuts greater than ‘Kerman’. The earlier harvest date will permit growers to extend their harvest period and reduce competition for scarce harvesting resources and will permit harvest in northern areas of the state before fall rains which can promote disease. The cultivar requires less chilling for dormancy than ‘Kerman’, which improves uniformity of foliation, bloom, pollination, nut filling and nut maturity at harvest in years with insufficient chilling for ‘Kerman’.

It was found that the new cultivar exhibits the following combination of characteristics as compared to ‘Kerman’, the industry standard: a)This cultivar produced 26% higher grower paid yield than ‘Kerman’, the primary cultivar grown on a commercial basis in California (<95% of the crop), totaled across all 3 years and equal to ‘Kerman’ in 2004; b) Nut size is on average larger than ‘Kerman’ and weight is similar; c) Percent splits were consistently higher than ‘Kerman’, especially in 2003; d) Flowering and harvest are 2 to 4 weeks earlier than ‘Kerman’. This earlier harvest date is important as it permits growers to more efficiently use their equipment and labor by spreading the harvest period across 6 weeks, rather than the current 3 week harvest period. Fruit ripening is also more uniform than was observed for ‘Kerman’; e) Earlier harvest resulted in significantly less naval orangeworm damage (0.3% vs. 9.3%). This is an important characteristic since nut damage on the tree is associated with aflatoxin contamination; and f) ‘Lost Hills’ buds were about 1 mm longer than ‘Kerman’ buds.

‘Lost Hills’ has been asexually reproduced in Kern County, Calif. and Madera County, Calif. The cultivar was propagated from buds, inserted into both ‘PG-1’ and ‘UCB1’ rootstocks (budded onto). All of the cultivars are present at field locations in Kern Co. and Madera Co. (test plots). In addition 2 trees of each have been budded on ‘UCB1’ rootstocks in pots at Davis, Calif. for planting into the field this spring. In addition Lost Hills is grafted onto ‘UCB1’ rootstock in the field at the Wolfskill experimental farm near Winters, Calif. at row 4, trees 11A and B.

FIG. 1. Flowers and leaves from grafted trees at the Bakersfield test plot in 2003.

FIG. 2. ‘Lost Hills’ flowers—Mar. 31, 2004. About one week ahead of ‘Kerman’, flowers have set, end of bloom period.

FIG. 3. ‘Kerman’ flowers—Mar. 31, 2004, mid-bloom. Note that leafing is more advanced than for ‘Lost Hills’ even though flowering is later.

FIG. 4. Comparisons of ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ leaves and flowers—Mar. 31, 2004.

FIG. 5. Fruit clusters on ‘Lost Hills’ tree at Bakersfield plot, 2003.

FIG. 6. Picture of ‘Lost Hills’ trees at the Bakersfield test plot in 2003.

FIG. 7. Roasted seed harvested from ‘Lost Hills’ grafted trees in the Bakersfield plot, 2003.

FIG. 8. ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ roasted nuts.

FIG. 9. Year by variety mean values for total yield (CCP assessed weight).

FIG. 10. Year by variety mean values for yield of split nuts.

FIG. 11. Year by variety mean values for yield of % split nuts—untransformed data.

FIG. 12. Year by variety mean values for grower paid yield.

FIG. 13. Lenticel pictures from each of 5 trees for ‘Kerman’ and ‘Lost Hills’. The areas shown are 25 sq. cm, 5 cm on each side.

The following description describes the key characteristics of a new female pistachio cultivar named ‘Lost Hills’ as well as reference to the standard pistachio cultivar ‘Kerman’ in California.

The Royal Horticultural Society color chart from 1986 is used in the identification of color. Also, common color terms are to be accorded their ordinary dictionary significance.

TABLE 1
ANOVA Table for bud I (mm)
Sum of Mean F- P- Pow-
DF Squares Square Value Value Lambda er
Cultivar 2 25.473 12.736 25.503 <.0001 51.007 1.000
Residual 147 73.411 .499
Means Table for bud I (mm)
Effect: Cultivar
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Golden Hills 50 8.340 .626 .089
Kerman 50 7.476 .643 .091
Lost Hills 50 8.360 .832 .118

TABLE 2
Effect: Cultivar
Significance Level: 5%
Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value
Fisher's PLSD for bud I (mm)
Golden Hills, Kerman .864 .279 <.0001 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills <.020 .279 .8877
Kerman, Lost Hills <.884 .279 <.0001 S
Scheffe for bud I (mm)
Golden Hills, Kerman .864 .350 <.0001 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills <.020 .350 .9900
Kerman, Lost Hills <.884 .350 <.0001 S

Data from grafted test plot in Kern County: Trees were grafted on either ‘UCB1’ or ‘Pioneer Gold-1’ rootstocks. Visits to the two experimental sites were made at intervals of three to four days through the bloom period. In 2004 (8th year since grafting), a bloom-rating of 1 through 6 was used with 1=dormant; 2=early bloom, 3=mid bloom, 4=full bloom and 5=late bloom. Bloom evaluation is subjective; the number of individual flowers in bloom within an inflorescence varies, as does the degree of flowering at different locations along a branch. Full bloom was an estimate of when the maximum number of receptive stigmas were present on the tree. On Mar. 25, 2004 ‘Lost Hills’ was at full or mid bloom (3.3), ‘Kerman’ was just beginning to break buds (1.5).

TABLE 3
Average individual nut length and width1 of nuts for
‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’ rootstock from
a test plot in northwestern Kern County
from 2002 through 2004 (7th and 8th leaf).
nut length, mm nut width, mm
Cultivar 2003 2004 2003 2004
‘Lost Hills’ 21.3 19.8 12.5 13.4
‘Kerman’ 17.8 17.0 12.2 12.3
1In 2003 the values in the table were based on one 50 nut sample from each variety. In 2004 the values in the table were based on one 50 nut sample from each of the two replicates of each variety.

Split nuts as a percentage of total nuts (at Kern Co. location unless otherwise noted):

TABLE 4
Harvest dates for ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’
on ‘PG-1’ rootstock from a test plot in northwestern
Kern County from 2002 through 2004 (6th through 8th leaf).
Cultivar 20021 20031 2004
‘Lost Hills’ September 4 August 29 August 25
‘Kerman’ September 4 September 19 September 21
1Oil applied in February of 2002 and 2003 to promote earlier bloom in the surrounding orchard (and also in the test plot).

Additional harvest timing, yield and nut quality information (2002 and 2003) for ‘Lost Hills’ compared to ‘Kerman’ on PG-1 rootstock is shown below. The data from the Kern County Plot is from a different sampling than that shown below. (Table 19).

TABLE 19
2002 2003
‘Lost ‘Lost
Characteristic ‘Kerman’ Hills’ ‘Kerman’ Hills’
nut yield (CPC weight) (5% 12.8 12.6 8.0 16.2
moisture) , lbs/tree
split edible in-shell, lbs/tree 10.0 10.9 4.7 14.9
edible in-shell split 78 86 52 89
percentage
loose shell and kernel 1 10 0 1
percentage
closed shell percentage 20 3 46 10
blank nuts (no kernel) 7 2 6 4
percentage
individual nut weight 1.44 1.57 1.25 1.48
(grams)
approximate date ready for Sep. 4, Sep. 1, Sep. 16, Aug. 29,
harvest 2002 2002 2003 2003

Values for total yield, inshell yield, and grower paid yield are presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5
Cumulative nut yields1 for ‘Lost Hills’ and
‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’ rootstock from a test plot
in northwestern Kern County from 2002 through 2004
(6th through 8th leaf).
CPC assessed Edible split inshell Grower-paid
Cultivar weight, lbs./acre nuts, lbs./acre yield2, lbs./acre
‘Lost Hills’ 6891 6198 6543
‘Kerman’ 5707 4721 5211
1Yields based on two replications of 10 trees each. Trees were on PG-1 rootstock.
2Grower-paid yield is the weight of harvested nuts for which the grower is paid. This yield is basically the CPC assessed weight minus the weight of the shells from closed shell and shelling stock.

Evaluation data from the Madera County Test plot is presented in Table 6. This data is relatively preliminary, representing only the first harvestable yield. As was true at the Kern County location, split nut percentages were higher for ‘Lost Hills’ and blank nut percentages were lower for ‘Lost Hills’ as compared to ‘Kerman’. Nut weights were similar to ‘Kerman’. Tables 7-18 show additional data on the yield of ‘Lost Hills’ as compared to both ‘Kerman’ (unpatented) and ‘Golden Hills’ (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/086,170).

TABLE 6
Nut characteristics for three advanced selections
and ‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’ and ‘UCB1’ rootstock
in a test plot located in southern Madera County, 2004
blank loose average nut
split nut, adhering nuts, shell and weight1,
Cultivar % hull, % % kernel, % grams
‘Kerman’ 59.4 10.6 13.8 3.7 1.29
‘Lost Hills’ 73.6 11.2 5.2 0.9 1.19
1Based on 50 nut samples.

TABLE 7
ANOVA for total yield (CCP assessed weight).
Years, varieties, and interactions were significant.
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
year 2 11657142.111 5828571.056 51.397
variety 2 1888152.111 944076.056 8.325
year * variety 4 1710508.889 427627.222 3.771
Residual 9 1020624.500 113402.722
P-Value Lambda Power
year <.0001 102.794 1.000
variety .0090 16.650 .880
year * variety .0455 15.083 .668
Residual

TABLE 8
Total yield means table
(lbs/acre CCP assessed weight) for varieties x years.
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
2002, Kerman 2 1593.500 88.388 62.500
2002, Lost Hills 2 1707.500 67.175 47.500
2002, Golden Hills 2 1762.500 540.937 382.500
2003, Kerman 2 1081.500 55.861 39.500
2003, Lost Hills 2 2185.000 537.401 380.000
2003, Golden Hills 2 2048.500 386.787 273.500
2004, Kerman 2 3032.000 52.326 37.000
2004, Lost Hills 2 2998.000 345.068 244.000
2004, Golden Hills 2 4276.000 390.323 276.000

TABLE 9
Mean differences for yield (CCP assessed weight),
protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5% significance) for varieties.
‘Golden Hills’ had significantly higher yield than ‘Kerman’ at
the 1% significance level.
‘Lost Hills’ had higher yields than ‘Kerman’, but only at the 7.3%
level and lower yield than ‘Golden Hills’, also at the 7% level.
S denotes significant difference at 5%.
Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value
LSD
Golden Hills, Kerman 793.333 439.819 .0028 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 398.833 439.819 .0705
Kerman, Lost Hills −394.500 439.819 .0730
Scheffe
Golden Hills, Kerman 793.333 567.273 .0090 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 398.833 567.273 .1780
Kerman, Lost Hills −394.500 567.273 .1836

TABLE 10
ANOVA for split nut yields.
Years, varieties, and interactions were significant.
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
year 2 11502633.333 5751316.667 59.748
variety 2 1966566.333 983283.167 10.215
year * variety 4 2154286.333 538571.583 5.595
Residual 9 866340.500 96260.056
P-Value Lambda Power
year <.0001 119.495 1.000
variety .0048 20.430 .938
year * variety .0153 22.380 .848
Residual

TABLE 11
Split nut yields means table (lbs/acre) for varieties x years.
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
2002, Kerman 2 1355.000 171.120 121.000
2002, Lost Hills 2 1474.000 65.054 46.000
2002, Golden Hills 2 1677.500 478.711 338.500
2003, Kerman 2 641.000 106.066 75.000
2003, Lost Hills 2 2016.500 504.167 356.500
2003, Golden Hills 2 1484.000 216.375 153.000
2004, Kerman 2 2725.500 .707 .500
2004, Lost Hills 2 2707.500 327.390 231.500
2004, Golden Hills 2 3968.500 429.214 303.500

TABLE 12
Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5% significance)
for varieties (split nut yields). Both ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Golden Hills’
had significantly higher yields of split nuts than
‘Kerman’ at the 1% significance level.
S denotes significant difference at 5%.
Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value
LSD
Golden Hills, Kerman 802.833 405.215 .0015 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 310.667 405.215 .1169
Kerman, Lost Hills −492.167 405.215 .0226 S
Scheffe
Golden Hills, Kerman 802.833 522.641 .0051 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 310.667 522.641 .2732
Kerman, Lost Hills −492.167 522.641 .0645

TABLE 13
ANOVA for % split nuts (transformed data).
Years, varieties, and interactions were significant.
Sum of Mean P- Pow-
DF Squares Square F-Value Value Lambda er
year 2 11.297 5.649 23.416 .0003 46.832 1.000
variety 2 5.627 2.813 11.663 .0032 23.325 .964
year * variety 4 11.524 2.881 11.943 .0012 47.771 .995
Residual 9 2.171 .241

TABLE 14
Mean % split nuts (lbs/acre) for varieties x years - untransformed data.
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
2002, Kerman 2 84.866 6.031 4.265
2002, Lost Hills 2 86.317 .414 .293
2002, Golden Hills 2 95.507 2.152 1.521
2003, Kerman 2 59.602 12.886 9.112
2003, Lost Hills 2 92.241 .387 .274
2003, Golden Hills 2 72.743 3.172 2.243
2004, Kerman 2 89.904 1.528 1.081
2004, Lost Hills 2 90.280 .529 .374
2004, Golden Hills 2 92.737 1.573 1.112

TABLE 15
Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5% significance)
for varieties (% split nuts - transformed data). Both ‘Lost Hills’ and
‘Golden Hills’ had significantly higher yields of split nuts than
‘Kerman’ at the 1+% significance level. ‘Lost Hills’ and
‘Golden Hills’ were not significantly different with respect to split
nut percentages. S denotes significant difference at 5%.
Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value
LSD
Golden Hills, Kerman .051 .041 .0187 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills −.016 .041 .4090
Kerman, Lost Hills −.067 .041 .0047 S
Scheffe
Golden Hills, Kerman .051 .041 .0187 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills −.016 .041 .4090
Kerman, Lost Hills −.067 .041 .0047 S

TABLE 16
ANOVA for grower paid yield.
Years, varieties, and interactions were significant.
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
year 2 11536201.444 5768100.722 56.150
variety 2 1925492.111 962746.056 9.372
year * variety 4 1888457.889 472114.472 4.596
Residual 9 924545.000 102727.222
P-Value Lambda Power
year <.0001 112.299 1.000
variety .0063 18.744 .916
year * variety .0269 18.383 .763
Residual

TABLE 17
Grower paid yield means table (lbs/acre) for varieties x years.
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
2002, Kerman 2 1474.000 130.108 92.000
2002, Lost Hills 2 1591.000 66.468 47.000
2002, Golden Hills 2 1720.500 509.824 360.500
2003, Kerman 2 861.500 24.749 17.500
2003, Lost Hills 2 2099.500 519.723 367.500
2003, Golden Hills 2 1766.500 301.935 213.500
2004, Kerman 2 2875.500 21.920 15.500
2004, Lost Hills 2 2853.000 336.583 238.000
2004, Golden Hills 2 4122.500 409.415 289.500

TABLE 18
Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5% significance)
for varieties (grower paid yield). Both ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Golden Hills’
had significantly higher grower paid yield of split nuts than ‘Kerman’
at the 5% significance level. ‘Golden Hills’ had higher grower paid yield
than ‘Lost Hills’ at the 9% significance level.
S denotes significant difference at 5%.
Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value
LSD
Golden Hills, Kerman 799.500 418.605 .0019 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 355.333 418.605 .0870
Kerman, Lost Hills −444.167 418.605 .0399 S
Scheffe
Golden Hills, Kerman 799.500 539.912 .0064 S
Golden Hills, Lost Hills 355.333 539.912 .2133
Kerman, Lost Hills −444.167 539.912 .1079

‘Lost Hills’ is a female tree with a harvest date 2 to 4 weeks earlier than ‘Kerman’, which is the industry standard. ‘Lost Hills’ produces a higher percentage of split, edible nuts than ‘Kerman’ in all years, especially in 2003 when split percentages for ‘Kerman’ were very poor. Nut size is larger than ‘Kerman’, but weight is similar. The earlier harvest date will permit growers to extend their harvest period and reduce competition for scarce harvesting resources and may reduce disease in the northern production areas of the state by permitting an earlier harvest before fall rains. The cultivar requires less chilling than ‘Kerman’, which improves uniformity of foliation, bloom, nut set, nut fill, and uniformity of nut maturity at harvest in years with insufficient chilling for ‘Kerman’.

Parfitt, Dan E., Maranto, Joseph, Kallsen, Craig E.

Patent Priority Assignee Title
PP29124, Sep 29 2015 DUARTE, JOHN SCOTT; DUARTE, JEFFREY THOMAS; DUARTE NURSERY, INC Pistachio rootstock named ‘UCB1-D154’
Patent Priority Assignee Title
////
Executed onAssignorAssigneeConveyanceFrameReelDoc
Mar 14 2005PARFITT, DAN E Regents of the University of California, TheASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS 0164040459 pdf
Mar 18 2005MARANTO, JOSEPHRegents of the University of California, TheASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS 0164040459 pdf
Mar 18 2005KALLSEN, CRAIG E Regents of the University of California, TheASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS 0164040459 pdf
Mar 21 2005The Regents of the University of California(assignment on the face of the patent)
n/a
Date Maintenance Fee Events


n/a
Date Maintenance Schedule