Strawberry plant called `MNUS 210`
A new and distinct variety of June-bearing strawberry plant named MNUS 210 combines the characteristics of late season fruit ripening, large fruit size, resistance to red stele root rot and common foliar diseases, tolerance to black root rot, and adaptability to various climates typical of the midwestern United States. MNUS 210 yields strawberries characterized by a flavor that is balanced between sweetness and acidity, a glossy appearance with a smooth texture, and a firm flesh.
Latest Regents of the University of Minnesota Patents:
- PROCESSOR AND COMPILER FOR SECURE MULTIPARTY COMPUTATION
- Therapeutic methods involving modulating inflammasome activation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells
- Skin care formulations and skin cancer treatment
- Fluidic control valve
- STENT, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING STENT, AND METHOD FOR SECURING AIR FLOW BY RELIEVING STENOSIS OF RESPIRATORY ORGAN
MNUS 210 is a June-bearing or short-day strawberry variety (Fragaria.times.ananassa) that is notable for its combination of traits that include a late season of fruit ripening, large fruit size, resistance to five Eastern North American races of Phytophthora fragariae Hickman, the causal organism of red stele root rot, tolerance or resistance to several other diseases, and moderate to high productivity in the continental climate of Minnesota with warm summer maximum temperatures of about 40.degree. C., and cold winter minimum temperatures of about -40.degree. C.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHSThe accompanying photographs are typical specimens of the plants of the variety and the fruit thereof as depicted in color. The plants and fruit illustrated were grown at the University of Minnesota West Central Experiment Station at Morris, Minn. in July 1995. References to color relate to The Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart, 1966 edition, noted herein as R.H.S., except for color terms of ordinary dictionary meaning which may occasionally be referred to.
FIG. 1 is a photograph of plants of the variety showing the fruit at different stages of maturity.
FIG. 2 is a close-up view of fruits of the variety at different stages of maturity. Following is a detailed description or specification of the present variety.
ORIGIN OF THE VARIETYMNUS 210 is a result of a cross between Earliglow.times.an unnamed seedling designated MNUS 52, made in a controlled breeding program in St. Paul, Minn. MNUS 210 was discovered and selected at Becker, Minn. in 1987. The variety has been stable and uniform through propagation by stolons and by in vitro micropropagation. Off-types, variants and mutations have not been observed. It was propagated by stolons for later observation in trials at the University of Minnesota Horticultural Research Center near Excelsior, Minn. and the North Central Experiment Station at Grand Rapids, Minn. from 1988 to 1990 and at the USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Md. in 1991.
MNUS 210 was evaluated in replicated yield trials from 1992 through 1995 at the Horticultural Research Center, the North Central Experiment Station, and the West Central Experiment Station at Morris, Minn. (Tables 1 through 8). At each site, plantings were established in 1991 and 1993 and harvested for the two subsequent season. MNUS 210 and other common cultivars of the midwestern United States and Eastern Canada were planted in a randomized complete block design. Plants were spaced 0.45 m apart within rows that were 1.2 m apart and 4 m long. The plants were permitted to form a matted row that was approximately 0.4 m wide. At Grand Rapids, a split plot design was employed on 7 m long plots which were split with half of the plot being mulched for protection during the winter and the other half receiving no mulch. All plots were irrigated, fertilized, and sprayed with fungicide and insecticide as needed in accordance with standard commercial recommendations.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIETYFruit: The fruit of MNUS 210 matures in the latter part of the fruiting season for short day varieties. The fruit matures approximately at the same time as fruit of the cultivars Lateglow, Blomidon and Bounty which are commonly grown in Minnesota (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Compared to these varieties the berries of MNUS 210 has been as large or larger (as measured by average berry weight) in all trials (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Subjective comparisons of the fruit characteristics of MNUS 210 with other adapted varieties are presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The flavor is well balanced between sugars and acids and is slightly aromatic. The flesh is firm and the skin is medium to firm. Skin breakdown has been observed in very wet harvest seasons. The berries are strongly glossy and have a scarlet external color corresponding to, plates 45A and 46A of the R.H.S. Colour Chart. The surface of the fruit is smooth to slightly uneven. The flesh is orange red and pink at the center (corresponding to plates 33A and 33B of the R.H.S. Colour Chart). The shape is blunt-wedge on primary berries to blunt-conic on the secondary and tertiary berries. The berries are equal in length and width to slightly longer than broad. The peduncle is medium in length and prostrate by the time of the first harvest. The calyx is large (equal in diameter to the fruit), showy, generally not inserted in a basin, and partially reflexed, especially on primary berries. Sepals are borne in two whorls with the inner whorl being broad elliptic with sharp points, and the outer whorl being narrow lanceolate with rounded tips. The achenes are yellow and level with or slightly raised from the surface of the fruit.
Flowers: The inflorescence is usually below the level of the foliage when the flowers are open. The flower size is medium to large. The diameter of the calyx is larger than the diameter of the corolla. The diameter of the inner calyx is similar to the diameter of the outer calyx. Flowers have five petals, and these are generally free and only occasionally touching or overlapping one another on secondary and lower order flowers in an inflorescence. The color of the petal corresponds to plate 155C of the R.H.S. Colour Chart.
Plants: Plants of MNUS 210 have large crowns with many petioles and usually form a matted row of medium density. Stolons are thick and green proximal to the mother plant and, distally, take on a medium to strong, red anthocyanin coloration. Pubescence on the stolons is sparse to moderate in density and is appressed.
Leaves: The leaves have long petioles giving the appearance of a tall, upright to globose canopy. Pubescence on the petioles is thick and spreading (divaricate). The leaves have three leaflets with weak interveinal blisters and medium pubescence on the adaxial side of the leaflets. Leaflets are equal in size, broadly elliptic, sparsely pubescent, medium green on top, light green on the bottom with prominent veins. The terminal leaflet is equal in length and width to slightly longer in length, has a flat or cupped profile, an obtuse base, and single teeth that are obtuse on younger leaves and rounded on older leaves. Stipules are of medium length and pointed and tan to brown (if dry). The color of the terminal leaflet corresponds to R.H.S. Colour Chart 147A on the upper side and 147B on the lower side.
Fruiting: Results are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 from replicated trials conducted at three University of Minnesota experiment station sites in Minnesota: the Horticultural Research Center near Excelsior, the North Central Experiment Station at Grand Rapids, and the West Central Experiment Station at Morris. In all trials, MNUS 210 has consistently had yields similar to or greater than the other late season varieties, Bounty, Blomidon, and Lateglow (Table 1). MNUS 210 has been productive on soils of heavy and light texture in matted row production systems. It has not been trialled in hill systems.
Responses to diseases and stresses: Relative to other cultivars tested in Minnesota, MNUS 210 has moderate to high resistance to the common foliar diseases, powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca macularis Walls ex Fr.), leaf scorch (Diplocarpon earliana Ell. and Ev.) and leaf spot (Mycosphaerella fragariae Tul.) (Tables 7 and 8). MNUS 210 is resistant to five eastern North American races of Phytophthora fragariae Hickman (Races A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6), the fungus that causes red stele root rot (Table 9). It is also tolerant, relative to other cultivars tested, of black root rot-causing organisms, Rhizoctonia spp. and Pythium spp. based on field observations at the Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, Minn. (Table 8). Plants of MNUS 210 have exhibited symptoms of winter injury in some Minnesota trials but has been similar in response compared with other adapted varieties (as indicated by plant stand and vigor ratings in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and subjective ratings in Table 8).
TABLE 1
______________________________________
Performance of strawberry cultivars at the Univ. of Minnesota North
Central Experiment Station, Grand Rapids, Minnesota
in 1992-1995..sup.1
Cultivar Mulched Unmulched Mulched Unmulched
______________________________________
Yield (1000 lb/A)
Berry weight (g)
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
MNUS 210 16.0 13.7 17.2 17.0 21.3 14.8 18.5 14.3
Blomidon 7.7 7.4 5.1 8.5 13.1 10.1 12.5 9.1
Bounty 16.4 13.9 13.8 20.5 14.8 11.9 12.1 10.8
Lateglow 9.8 7.3 11.4 9.0 19.2 15.5 16.4 12.5
Trumpeter
16.4 14.3 12.8 13.0 13.0 11.0 13.1 10.8
Northland
16.8 19.9 14.3 20.1 14.3 11.6 13.7 10.5
Cavendish
15.6 14.8 10.6 17.2 18.9 14.1 16.8 9.6
Glooscap 11.0 11.9 8.0 10.0 13.7 11.6 12.1 12.0
Kent 21.4 18.5 19.0 17.9 15.7 13.1 14.2 11.8
Honeoye 12.0 11.8 12.3 13.7 16.1 13.2 14.1 10.3
Annapolis
12.2 9.1 9.9 7.8 16.2 13.0 13.9 10.9
Veestar 6.8 8.2 7.3 7.3 11.1 6.9 9.1 6.8
LSD 5% 3.9 4.3 4.9 5.8 2.9 1.9 2.7 2.0
______________________________________
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 21U 9.0 5.5 7.9 7.8 13.9 12.1 10.2 11.9
Blomidon 3.0 2.1 4.3 1.5 7.9 8.2 13.4 7.8
Lateglow 4.4 3.9 4.7 3.9 14.5 9.3 12.3 9.1
Cavendish
5.4 5.6 5.9 6.3 14.7 9.2 15.3 12.4
Glooscap 8.2 11.4 9.5 13.7 12.0 8.5 13.2 8.6
Jewel 5.9 7.4 6.3 5.0 10.8 11.3 12.2 11.3
Kent 5.4 5.8 6.1 7.0 11.4 8.9 15.1 8.7
Honeoye 2.6 8.3 3.1 10.0 10.6 8.4 11.5 8.0
Seneca 3.2 4.9 3.6 2.6 9.8 9.8 12.8 9.0
Chambly 1.9 7.8 1.5 5.9 10.1 7.8 14.9 8.2
Annapobs 5.0 8.7 4.8 8.5 13.7 10.7 12.9 9.0
Veestar 6.2 9.2 6.7 7.9 8.6 6.2 9.6 7.0
Earliglow
2.2 2.7 2.0 3.4 9.5 6.2 11.0 6.9
LSU 5% 2.3 3.1 3.4 4.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3
______________________________________
% Early harvest.sup.2
Stand (%).sup.3
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
MNUS 210 4 16 16 41 97 71 99 96
Blomidon 18 16 36 30 94 75 91 81
Bounty 1 3 14 10 97 99 97 91
Lateglow 7 9 30 38 94 89 94 93
Trumpeter
28 21 61 50 96 96 95 98
Northland
25 25 56 50 95 91 93 91
Cavendish
21 27 54 52 92 81 90 85
Glooscap 28 27 57 50 86 79 84 88
Kent 16 28 46 51 99 98 96 95
Honeoye 22 36 54 49 93 90 94 76
Annapolis
57 56 79 76 97 94 97 93
Veestar 58 41 74 59 89 74 92 99
LSU 5% 11 12 17 16 10 26 17 23
______________________________________
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 210 3 9 13 16 90 93 100 80
Blomidon 3 28 21 50 80 57 78 50
Lateglow 15 13 75 25 80 88 75 80
Cavendish
36 31 50 40 74 60 80 80
Glooscap 20 38 32 37 84 80 89 92
Jewel 15 35 30 51 93 85 84 77
Kent 31 39 48 46 86 65 61 48
Honeoye 56 58 68 67 64 88 61 88
Seneca 30 32 42 62 69 67 76 70
Chambly 40 62 75 71 48 87 85 70
Annapobs 57 61 84 76 85 90 85 90
Veestar 75 70 78 80 88 93 90 95
Earliglow
49 53 49 70 74 85 49 85
LSU 5% 14 16 14 13 20 26 22 29
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and harvested in the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 % Early harvest = % of total crop harvested from 7/02/92 to 7/13/9
(full season 7/02/92 to 8/05/92); 7/02/93 to 7/12/93 (full season 7/02/93
to 8/02/93); 6/23/94 to 7/1/94 (full season 6/23/94 to 7/22/94); and
6/26/95 to 6/29/95 (full season 6/26/95 to 7/21/95).
.sup.3 % Stand was evaluated during June of each year.
.sup.4 Vigor was rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being very vigorous.
.sup.5 Winter stand loss was the difference between % Stand in June and %
Stand in October of the previous year.
TABLE 2
______________________________________
Performance of strawberry cultivars at the West Central Experiment
Station, Morris, Minnesota, in 1992-1995.sup.1.
______________________________________
Yield Berry % Early
Cultivar (1000 lb/A) weight (g) harvest.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 12.0 10.5 17.4 15.0 13 3
Blomidon 9.9 7.9 11.1 12.6 3 4
Bounty 6.1 4.7 11.8 8.5 2 5
Lateglow 12.0 8.0 16.0 11.2 0 1
Trumpeter
7.6 9.2 13.4 9.5 5 15
Cavendish
9.0 9.1 12.6 15.9 31 19
Glooscap 4.9 6.4 9.4 9.5 30 22
Jewel 5.5 3.8 10.0 11.2 26 37
Kent 10.5 11.7 12.4 13.9 26 27
Honeoye 5.5 8.9 15.4 12.4 18 24
Redcoat 12.9 9.3 9.5 10.7 26 31
Annapolis
6.8 4.7 10.0 10.4 49 46
Veestar 3.3 3.7 6.4 8.2 61 65
LSD 5% 3.7 3.0 3.5 1.5 12 10
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 5.6 6.3 9.6 8.2 0 18
Blomidon 6.7 8.3 9.2 10.5 4 6
Lateglow 6.1 4.6 7.4 8.5 0 18
Cavendish
19.6 15.4 12.5 13.7 18 17
Glooscap 13.9 15.4 10.2 9.1 10 42
Jewel 14.3 11.9 12.3 11.7 4 17
Kent 17.0 11.7 10.0 9.4 23 29
Honeoye 15.1 10.7 10.6 9.3 25 53
Seneca 11.7 10.3 11.7 10.4 12 25
Chambly 9.6 6.2 8.3 7.1 20 42
Annapolis
1 1.5 7.8 9.3 9.4 37 61
Veestar 14.5 9.6 6.9 7.4 54 75
Earliglow
8.2 3.8 6.3 6.3 44 72
LSD 5% 3.6 4.4 1.6 1.6 11 14
______________________________________
Winter stand
Cultivar % Stand.sup.3
Vigor.sup.4 loss (%).sup.5
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 70 68 7.8 7.8 n.a. -5
Blomidon 85 73 8.5 7.5 n.a. -10
Bounty 83 80 8.8 7.2 n.a. -15
Lateglow 88 85 8.5 8.2 n.a. -5
Trumpeter
88 83 8.5 8.2 n.a. -12
Cavendish
80 75 7.8 7.5 n.a. -5
Glooscap 70 58 6.8 6.2 n.a. -15
Jewel 75 63 8.0 7.2 n.a. -18
Kent 78 70 8.8 6.8 n.a. 0
Honeoye 88 83 8.8 8.8 n.a. -13
Redcoat 88 93 8.8 7.5 n.a. -5
Annapolis
80 73 7.8 7.0 n.a. -8
Veestar 80 73 7.5 7.5 n.a. -8
LSD 5% 16 21 1.2 1.6 n.a. 12
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 93 25 7.5 6.0 -8 -18
Blomidon 93 78 7.8 7.3 -8 -5
Lateglow 88 63 7.0 6.8 -13 3
Cavendish
95 83 8.5 8.3 3 -3
Glooscap 85 85 8.0 8.0 -5 5
Jewel 98 73 9.0 8.3 0 0
Kent 80 55 7.5 7.3 -8 -3
Honeoye 88 70 7.8 7.8 0 3
Seneca 80 63 8.3 8.0 -13 -5
Chambly 80 48 7.3 6.3 -13 -8
Annapolis
83 65 8.0 7.5 -10 0
Veestar 98 88 9.0 8.3 0 5
Earliglow
85 70 8.3 8.0 -15 0
LSD 5% 13 23 1.3 2.1 12 8
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and harvested in the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 % Early harvest = % of total crop harvested from 06/15/92 to
06/24/92 (full season 06/15/92 to 07/15/92); 06/21/93 to 06/28/93 (full
season 06/21/93 to 07/19/93); 06/08/94 to 06/15/94 (full season 06/08/94
to 07/05/94); and 06/19/95 to 06/23/95 (full season 06/19/95 to 07/06/95)
.sup.3 % Stand was evaluated during June of each year.
.sup.4 Vigor was rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being very vigorous.
.sup.5 Winter stand loss was the difference between % Stand in June and %
Stand in October of the previous year.
TABLE 3
______________________________________
Performance of strawberry cultivars at the University of Minnesota
Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, Minnesota in
1992, 1994, and 1995..sup.1
______________________________________
Yield (1000 lb/A)
Berry weight (g)
Cultivar 1992 1994 1995 1992 1994 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 210 5.8 11.7 14.7 17.5 14.0 13.2
Blomdon 6.6 7.3 6.7 11.8 9.5 10.2
Bounty 6.5 n.a. n.a. 10.0 n.a. n.a.
Lateglow 6.5 9.3 9.0 14.4 11.5 11.2
Cavendish
5.5 15.4 16.2 15.0 12.2 10.5
Glooscap 4.6 13.1 14.0 10.6 10.0 7.3
Jewel 5.2 12.7 12.1 12.9 12.8 10.8
Kent 8.1 14.2 10.8 16.3 9.6 8.6
Honeoye 12.9 10.4 9.5 14.1 9.1 7.5
Seneca n.a. 10.7 9.8 n.a. 11.9 9.8
Startyme n.a. 8.6 6.5 n.a. 12.0 11.8
Chambly n.a. 8.5 13.2 n.a. 9.3 7.9
Redcoat 8.7 n.a. n.a. 11.2 n.a. n.a.
Annapolis
7.1 8.8 10.2 17.4 14.8 8.9
Veestar 9.1 10.4 9.9 7.5 9.1 8.0
Earliglow
n.a. 6.5 9.5 n.a. 9.7 9.1
LSD 5% 3.3 3.5 2.7 3.1 1.3 1.1
______________________________________
% Early harvest.sup.2
Stand (%).sup.3
Cultivar 1992 1994 1995 1992 1994 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 210 52 4 22 68 68 83
Blomdon 37 15 22 68 60 68
Bounty 18 n.a. n.a. 75 n.a. n.a.
Lateglow 35 3 0 75 70 83
Cavendish
52 27 20 63 55 75
Glooscap 60 15 34 58 70 85
Jewel 79 26 25 58 68 73
Kent 63 29 47 65 68 73
Honeoye 64 51 67 83 65 65
Seneca n.a. 32 47 n.a. 70 65
Startyme n.a. 15 24 n.a. 60 70
Chambly n.a. 36 55 n.a. 63 73
Redcoat 71 n.a. n.a. 75 n.a. n.a.
Annapolis
94 57 49 80 65 73
Veestar 58 61 69 78 80 90
Earliglow
n.a. 66 55 n.a. 65 78
LSD 5% 22 14 12 18 18 11
______________________________________
Vigor.sup.4
Cultivar 1992 1994 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 210 7.5 7.0 8.0
Blomdon 7.3 6.3 6.8
Bounty 7.8 n.a. n.a.
Lateglow 7.8 7.0 8.0
Cavendish
7.0 7.0 8.0
Glooscap 8.5 7.3 7.3
Jewel 6.8 8.0 8.0
Kent 8.0 6.3 7.0
Honeoye 8.3 6.5 5.8
Seneca n.a. 6.8 7.3
Startyme n.a. 7.0 7.5
Chambly n.a. 7.3 7.5
Redcoat 8.0 n.a. n.a.
Annapolis
8.0 6.8 7.3
Veestar 7.0 7.3 8.3
Earliglow
n.a. 7.5 8.8
LSD 5% 1.1 1.1 1.0
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and harvested in the
subsequent one or two years, respectively.
.sup.2 % Early harvest = % of total crop harvested from 6/11/92 to 6/16/9
(full season 6/11/92 to 7/02/92); 6/14/94 to 6/17/1/94 (full season
6/14/94 to 7/05/94); and 6/16/95 to 6/23/95 (full season 6/16/95 to
7/06/95).
.sup.3 % Stand was evaluated during June of each year.
.sup.4 Vigor was rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being very vigorous.
TABLE 4
______________________________________
Fruit quality ratings of strawberry cultivars at the North Central
Experiment Station, Grand Rapids, Minnesota in trials from
1992-1995..sup.1
______________________________________
Cultivar Appearance.sup.2
Skin color.sup.2
Flesh color.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 7.5 7.7 7.0 7.7 8.0 7.7
Blomidon 7.5 7.3 8.0 7.3 8.5 7.8
Bounty 7.0 8.0 6.5 8.2 8.0 6.2
Lateglow 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.0
Northland
7.0 7.7 7.0 7.7 8.0 8.3
Trumpeter
7.5 7.7 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.3
Cavendish
7.5 7.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8
Glooscap 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.3
Kent 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.0 8.0
Honeoye 7.0 7.7 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0
Annapolis
7.5 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.7
Veestar 6.5 5.3 7.5 6.3 8.0 8.0
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Blomidon 7.5 5.5 8.5 6.5 8.0 8.0
Lateglow 8.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 8.0 8.7
Cavendish
7.5 6.0 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.5
Glooscap 8.0 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5
Jewel 8.0 7.3 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.7
Kent 8.0 6.7 8.0 7.3 8.0 6.3
Honooye 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Seneca 6.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5
Chambly 8.0 6.5 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.5
Annapolis
7.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
Veestar 6.5 6.0 6.5 7.8 7.5 7.3
Earliglow
7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0
______________________________________
Overall
Cultivar Firmness.sup.2
Flavor.sup.2
fruit quality.sup.3
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.5
Blomidon 8.0 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.5
Bounty 6.0 6.2 7.0 6.7 6.5 7.5
Lateglow 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.7
Northland
5.0 5.3 6.5 6.3 7.0 6.7
Trumpeter
6.0 5.3 7.0 5.7 7.0 6.3
Cavendish
7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.0
Glooscap 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.7
Kent 6.5 7.2 7.0 6.7 8.0 8.2
Honeoye 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.0 7.0 6.8
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.2
Veestar 6.0 5.7 6.5 5.7 6.0 5.3
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 7.0 7.5 6.0 7.5 -- 8.0
Blomidon 7.0 8.0 5.0 6.5 -- 5.5
Lateglow 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0
Cavendish
7.5 6.3 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0
Glooscap 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 8.0
Jewel 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.7
Kent 6.5 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.5 6.7
Honooye 6.5 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.0
Seneca 7.5 8.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Chambly 7.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.0
Annapolis
7.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Veestar 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Earliglow
7.0 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.5
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings were established in 1991 and 1993 and evaluated for the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 Appearance, Skin color, FIesh color, Firmness, and Flavor are rate
on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being excellent or very pleasing in
appearance, color, or flavor, and very firm flesh in response to thumb
pressure.
.sup.3 Overall fruit quality is rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being
best or most desirable.
TABLE 5
______________________________________
Fruit quality ratings of strawberry cultivars at the West Central
Experiment Station, Morris, Minnesota in 1992-1995..sup.1
______________________________________
Cultivar Appearance.sup.2
Firmness.sup.2
Skin toughness.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Blomidon 8.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Bounty 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lateglow 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Trumpeter
6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0
Cavendish
6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0
Glooscap 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0
Jewel -- 7.0 -- 7.0 -- 8.0
Kent 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Honeoye 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 6.0
Redcoat 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Annapolis
8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0
Veestar 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Blomidon 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.0
Lateglow 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.5
Cavendish
7.5 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5
Glooscap 7.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Jewel 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Kent 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Honeoye 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Seneca 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Chambly 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0
Annapolis
8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Veestar 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Earliglow
6.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 6.0 7.0
______________________________________
Overall fruit
Cultivar
Flavor.sup.2
quality.sup.3
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210
7.0 8.0 3.5 4.0
Blomidon
7.0 7.0 3.0 4.0
Bounty 8.0 7.0 2.5 2.5
Lateglow
7.0 7.5 3.0 3.5
Trumpeter
7.0 6.0 2.0 2.0
Cavendish
7.0 7.0 3.0 2.0
Glooscap
7.0 7.0 2.5 2.5
Jewel -- 8.0 -- 3.0
Kent 6.0 6.0 2.0 3.5
Honeoye 6.0 6.0 2.5 3.0
Redcoat 7.0 6.0 2.0 2.5
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 3.0 3.5
Veestar 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0
1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210
7.0 8.0 2.5 3 5
Blomidon
7.5 7.0 3.5 3.0
Lateglaw
7.0 7.0 2.5 2.5
Cavendish
7.5 7.0 3.5 3.0
Glooscap
7.0 7.0 3.0 2.5
Jewel 6.5 7.5 3.0 3.5
Kent 7.0 7.5 3.0 2.5
Honeoye 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0
Seneca 7.5 7.0 3.5 3.5
Chambly 6.0 6.5 2.5 2.5
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 3.5 3.0
Veestar 7.0 8.0 2.0 2.0
Earliglow
6.0 8.0 2.0 3.0
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and evaluated in the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 Appearance, Firmness, Skin toughness, and Flavor are rated on a
scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being excellent or very pleasing in appearance or
flavor, and very firm flesh or tough skin in response to thumb pressure.
.sup.3 Overall fruit quality is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being
best or most desirable.
TABLE 6
______________________________________
Fruit quality ratings of strawberry cultivers at the University of
Minnesota
Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, Minnesota in 1992 and
1994..sup.1
______________________________________
Appearance.sup.2
Firmness.sup.2
Skin toughness.sup.2
Cultivar 1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994
______________________________________
MNUS 210 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Blomidon 8.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0
Bounty 6.5 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 5.0 n.a.
Lateglow 7.5 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.0
Cavendish
7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Chambly n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0
Glooscap 7.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Jewel 9.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0
Kent 8.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0
Honeoye 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Seneca n.a. 8.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 7.0
Startyme n.a. 7.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 8.0
Redcoat 8.0 n.a. 6.0 n.a. 6.0 n.a.
Annapolis
9.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0
Veestar 8.5 7.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0
Earliglow
n.a. 8.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0
______________________________________
Overall fruit
Flavor.sup.2
quality.sup.2
Cultivar
1992 1994 1992 1994
______________________________________
MNUS 210
7.0 8.0 3.0 3.0
Blomidon
7.0 7.0 4.0 3.0
Bounty 7.0 n.a. 2.0 n.a.
Lateglow
8.0 7.0 4.0 2.5
Cavendish
8.0 7.0 4.0 3.0
Chambly n.a. 7.0 n.a. 2.5
Glooscap
7.0 7.0 3.0 3.0
Jewel 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0
Kent 7.0 7.0 4.0 3.0
Honeoye 7.0 7.0 3.0 2.5
Seneca n.a. 7.0 n.a. 3.0
Startyme
n.a. 9.0 n.a. 3.5
Redcoat 6.0 n.a. 2.0 n.a.
Annapolis
7.0 7.0 4.0 3.5
Veestar 7.0 7.0 1.0 2.0
Earliglow
n.a. 8.0 n.a. 3.0
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 were evaluated in 1992 and
1994, respectively.
.sup.2 Appearance, Firmness, Skin toughness, and Flavor are rated on a
scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being excellent or very pleasing in appearance or
flavor, and very firm flesh or tough skin in response to thumb pressure.
.sup.3 Overall fruit quality is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being
best or most desirable.
TABLE 7
______________________________________
Disease responses of strawberry
cultivars at the University of Minnesota
North Central Experiment Station, Grand
Rapids, Minnesota in 1992 and 1993..sup.1,2
Cultivar Leat spot Powdery mildew
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993
MNUS 210 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.2
Blomidon 7.0 7.2 7.5 6.7
Bounty 6.5 6.2 7.2 7.2
Lateglow 4.5 4.7 5.2 4.5
Northland 6.2 6.5 4.7 4.7
Trumpeter 7.2 7.0 4.7 4.7
Cavendish 7.0 7.0 5.5 5.7
Glooscap 7.0 7.5 7.0 6.2
Kent 5.5 6.0 8.0 7.2
Honeoye 6.2 6.7 6.2 6.0
Annapolis 7.0 7.2 5.7 5.7
Veestar 7.2 7.0 5.5 5.5
LSD 5% 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8
1994 1995 1994 1995
MNUS 210 7.8 7.0 7.5 7.7
Blomidon 7.5 7.7 7.0 8.0
Lateglow 5.3 3.7 5.3 4.7
Cavendish 6.3 7.0 5.8 5.7
Chambly 7.5 6.7 5.3 5.0
Glooscap 7.8 5.0 5.5 7.0
Jewel 6.8 6.7 7.8 7.7
Kent 4.5 5.0 7.8 7.0
Honeoye 6.3 5.7 6.5 6.3
Seneca 7.0 5.7 7.8 7.7
Annapolis 7.5 7.0 6.0 6.0
Veestar 7.3 6.3 5.8 6.3
Earliglow 7.5 7.3 5.8 5.7
LSD 5% 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.7
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and observed for the
subsequent 2 years.
.sup.2 Leaf spot and powdery mildew ratings are on a scale from 1 = very
severe infection to 9 = no infection.
TABLE 8
______________________________________
Disease responses of strawberry cultivars at the University of
Minnesota Horticultural Research
Center, Excelsior, Minnesota, in 1994 and 1995..sup.1,2
Powdery
Winter injury Black root rot
Leaf scorch
mildew
Cultivar
1994 1995 1994 1995 1995
______________________________________
MNUS 210
6.5 7.5 8.0 7.3 7.0
Blomidon
7.3 5.5 8.0 7.5 8.0
Lateglow
7.3 7.5 7.0 6.3 6.0
Cavendish
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 7.3
Glooscap
7.8 7.0 8.0 7.8 7.0
Jewel 6.5 6.8 8.0 7.3 7.5
Kent 7.0 5.3 5.0 5.5 7.8
Honeoye 7.0 4.3 7.0 5.8 8.0
Seneca 6.8 5.8 8.0 6.5 8.0
Startyme
7.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.0
Chambly 7.5 6.5 9.0 8.0 6.5
Annapolis
7.3 6.5 8.0 8.5 7.3
Veestar 7.3 8.3 8.0 8.3 7.0
Earliglow
7.3 8.5 9.0 8.0 6.0
LSD 5% 0.7 1.7 n.a. 0.8 0.7
______________________________________
.sup.1 Planting established in 1993.
.sup.2 Winter injury, Black root rot, Leaf scorch, and Powdery mildew wer
rated on a scale from 1 = very severe infection or damage to 9 = no
infection or damage.
TABLE 9
______________________________________
Responses of strawberry genotypes to red stele root rot screening with
mix if Pytophthora tragariae races A-1, A.2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 by root-
dip inoculation at Beltsville, Maryland, 1993-94..sup.1
Replicatian mean root scores.sup.2
Genotype Range Mean
______________________________________
MNUS 210 8.0-8.5 8.2
Yaquina B (resistant standard)
8.0-8.5 8.2
Del Norte (intermediate standard)
8.0-8.5 8.2
Blakemore (Susceptible standard)
4.5-5.0 4.7
______________________________________
.sup.1 See G. J. Galleta, Strawbarry Cultivar and Selection Red Stele
Screernng at USDA Beltsville in 1993-94, 13 Advances in Strawberry
Research 40 (1994).
.sup.2 Three replications with twoplant plots were scored for root injury
with 1-3 being very susceptible, 4-5 being susceptible, 8-7 being
tolerant, and 89 being resistant. Blakemore was significantly more
susceptible than the other varieties at P = 0.05 using Duncan's Multiple
Range Test for mean separation.
Claims
1. A new and distinct variety of strawberry plant, substantially as illustrated and described, characterized by the combined characteristics of its late season of fruit ripening, large size of fruit, resistance to red stele root rot and to the common foliar diseases, tolerance to black root rot, and adaptability to various climates typical of the midwestern United States.
| PP5897 | March 10, 1987 | Sanford et al. |
| PP8853 | August 2, 1994 | Buszard et al. |
| PP8991 | November 29, 1994 | Sanford et al. |
- Galleta et al., "Strawberry Cultivar and Selection Red Stele Screening at USDA-Beltsville in 1993-94," Advances in Strawberry Research, 13 40-43 (1994). Luby et al., "Midwest and Plains States Strawberry Cultivars," Fruit Varieties Journal, 43 (1) 22-31 (1989).
Type: Grant
Filed: Aug 20, 1996
Date of Patent: Jan 13, 1998
Assignee: Regents of the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN)
Inventors: James J. Luby (St. Paul, MN), David K. Wildung (Grand Rapids, MN), Gene J. Galletta (Laurel, MD)
Primary Examiner: James R. Feyrer
Attorney: Grace P. Malilay
Application Number: 8/700,297
International Classification: A01H 500;
