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.
|
|
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 on | Assignor | Assignee | Conveyance | Frame | Reel | Doc |
Mar 14 2005 | PARFITT, DAN E | Regents of the University of California, The | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 016404 | /0459 | |
Mar 18 2005 | MARANTO, JOSEPH | Regents of the University of California, The | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 016404 | /0459 | |
Mar 18 2005 | KALLSEN, CRAIG E | Regents of the University of California, The | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 016404 | /0459 | |
Mar 21 2005 | The Regents of the University of California | (assignment on the face of the patent) | / |
Date | Maintenance Fee Events |
Date | Maintenance Schedule |