Strawberry plant named `MNUS 248`
A new and distinct variety of Junebearing strawberry plant named MNUS 248 combines the characteristics of midseason ripening, high productivity or yield, excellent survival in cold temperatures, resistance to red stele root rot, and moderate resistance to common foliar diseases. MNUS 248 yields strawberries characterized by a flavor that is balanced between sweetness and acidity, a glossy appearance, a firm flesh with a melting, creamy texture in the mouth.
Latest Regents of the University of Minnesota Patents:
- Magnetic material including ??-Fe(NZ)or a mixture of ??-FeZand ??-FeN, where Z includes at least one of C, B, or O
- Modulation of extracellular vesicles with electrical stimulation
- COMPOUNDS USEFUL AS HAIR DYES
- Iron-nitride magnet by nitriding a porous structure
- Glycan Targets of Serum IgG and IgM Antibodies
MNUS 248 is a Junebearing or short-day strawberry variety (Fragaria.times.ananassa) that is notable for its combination of traits that include a midseason ripening period; high productivity or yield; excellent survival in cold temperatures; resistance to five Eastern North American races of Phytophthora fragariae Hickman, the causal organism of red stele root rot; moderate resistance to common foliar diseases such as leaf spot, powdery mildew and leaf scorch; and a fruit with a smooth, creamy texture.
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, 1996 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 a row of plants of the variety showing the typical growth habit behind a tray of typical fruit as harvested.
FIG. 2 is a photograph of a cluster of fruit of the variety showing several stages of maturity.
FIG. 3 is a photograph of a cluster of fruit of the variety showing mostly fully ripened fruit.
FIG. 4 is a photograph of several sliced ripe fruit showing the internal coloring of the fruit.
Following is a detailed description or specification of the present variety.
Origin of the VarietyMNUS 248 is a result of a cross between Glooscap and an unnamed seedling designed MNUS 99, made in a controlled breeding program in 1986 at Beltsville, Md. MNUS 248 was discovered and selected at the University of Minnesota North Central Experiment Station at Grand Rapids, Minn. in 1988. The variety has been stable and uniform through propagation by stolons and by in vitro micropropagation from stolon meristems. Off-types, variants, and mutations have not been observed. MNUS 248 was propagated by stolons for later observation in trails at the University of Minnesota Horticultural Research Center near Excelsior, Minn. and the North Central Experiment Station at Grand Rapids, Minn. from 1989 to 1990, and at the USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Md. in 1991 and in 1996.
MNUS 248 was evaluated in replicated yield trials from 1992 through 1996 at The Horticultural Research Center, the North Central Experiment Station, and the West Central Experiment Station at Morris, Minn. (Tables 1 through 12). At each site, plantings were estabished in 1991, 1993 and 1995 and harvested for one or two subsequent seasons. MNUS 248 and other common cultivars of the midwestern U.S. 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 248 matures in the middle part of the fruiting season for short day varieties. The fruit matures approximately at the same time as fruit of the cultivars Glooscap, Kent, Cavendish, and Jewel which are commonly grown in Minnesota (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). Compared to these varieties, the berries of MNUS 248 generally have been similar in size to those of Glooscap and Kent and smaller than those of Cavendish and Jewel (as measured by average berry weight; Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). Subjective comparisons of the fruit characteristics of MNUS 248 with other adapted varieties are presented in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The flavor is well balanced between sugars and acids with a characteristic strawberry aroma. The flesh is moderately firm with a consistent, creamy, melting mouthfeel. The skin is of medium toughness but tends to become weak in hot weather. The fruit of MNUS 248 have a glossy skin with slightly uneven deep crimson skin color corresponding to R.H.S. Colour Chart plate 53A in lighter areas and 185A in darker areas. The skin does not tend to darken as much as Glooscap. The flesh color is fairly uniform dark red through the fruit and corresponds to R.H.S. Colour Chart plate 34A except for a whitish vascular cylinder. The surface of the fruit is smooth to slightly uneven. The shape is blunt-wedge or blunt-conic with large shoulders on primary berries to blunt-conic on the secondary and tertiary berries. The berries are equaal in length and width to slightly longer than broad. The peduncle is medium to long in length and prostrate by the time of the first harvest. The calyx is equal in diameter to the fruit, showy, inserted in a shallow basin, and clasping to partially reflexed. Sepals are borne in two whorls with the inner whorl being elliptic with sharp points, and the outer whorl being narrow lanceolate with rounded tips. The achenes are yellow and below the surface of the fruit and are absent from only a narrow band at the calyx end of the fruit.
Flowers: The inflorescence is usually slightly below or level with the foliage when the flowers are open. The flower size is medium. The diameter of the calyx is similar to or larger than the diameter of the corolla. The diameter of the inner calyx is similar to the diameter of the outer calyx. Secondary flowers have five petals which tend to be greater in breadth than in length and these are free or touching but usualy not greatly overlapping one another. The color of the petal corresponds to plate 155C of The R.H.S. Colour Chart.
Plants: Plants of MNUS 248 have crowns that are medium in height with many petioles and usually form a matted row of high plant density and flat to flat-globose habit. Stolons are thin and green proximal to the mother plant and, distally, take on a slight red anthocyann coloration. Stolons may have bracts at the blind nodes. Pubescence on the stolons is sparse to moderate in density and spreading.
Leaves: The leaves have medium to short petioles giving the appearance of a flat-globose to globose canopy. Pubescence on the petioles is sparse and spreading (divaricate). Petiolules may be present on the petiole. The leaves have three leaflets with medium roughness from interveinal blisters and sparse pubescence on the adaxial side of the leaflets, primarily on top of veins. Leaflets are equal in size, broadly elliptic, sparsely pubescent, medium green on top, light green on the bottom with prominent veins. The leaflets of MNUS 248 have a slight waxy bloom on the upper side giving a slightly bluish-green cast. The color of the terminal leaflet corresponds to R.H.S. Colour Chart 146A on the upper side and 147C on the lower side. The terminal leflet is equal in length and width, has a flat to cupped profile, a rounded base, and single teeth that are obtuse on older leaves. Stipules are small to medium in size and pointed.
Fruiting: Results are pesented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 from replicated trials conducted at three Uniersity 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. MNUS 248 has generally produced high yields and medium-large berries in trils in Minnesota. The fruit matures in the middle part of the season for short-day cultivars, approximately at the same time as its parent, Glooscap, and other common midseason cultivars grown in Minnesota such as Kent, Jewel and Cavendish. In all trials in Minnesota, MNUS 248 consistently had yields similar to or greater than these other mid-season varieties. Glooscap, a parent of MNUS 248, is currently to most widely planted midseason cultivar among commercial Minnesota producers. MNUS 248 had a higher yield than Glooscap in 16 of 19 trials and a greater average berry weight in 17 of 19 trials. MNUS 248 has been productive on soils of heavy and light texture in matted row production systems. It has had limited testing in hill systems.
Responses to diseases and stresses: Relative to other cultivars tested in Minnesota, MNUS 248 has moderate resistance to the common foliar diseases, leaf spot (Mycosphaerella fragariae Tul.) and powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca macularis Walls ex Fr.) and moderate to high resistance to leaf scorch (Diplocarpon earliana Ell. and Ev.) (Tables 10, 11 and 12). MNUS 248 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 13). It is moderately tolerant, relative to other cultivars tested, of black root rot-causing organisms, Rhizoctonia spp. and Pythium spp. based on field observations in The Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, MN (Table 11). Plants of MNUS 248 seldom have exhibited symptoms of winter injury in Minnesota trials and have been among the most hardy of varieties and selections tested (as indicated by plant stand, winter stand loss and vigor ratings in Tables 1,2,3 and 4; and winter injury ratings in Table 11). Thus, it is particularly hardy in temperatures to about -40.degree. C., typical of the United States Department of Agriculture Zone Hardiness 3 and 4.
TABLE 1
______________________________________
Performance of strawberry cultivars at the University 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
______________________________________
Annapolis
12.2
9.1 7.8 16.29
13.0 13.9 10.9
Veestar 8.2 6.8
7.3
7.3 11.1 6.9 9.1 6.8
Honeoye 12.0
11.8
12.3
13.7 16.1 13.2 14.1 10.3
MNUS 248 17.8
22.2
17.1
21.5 15.2 13.6 13.7 13.3
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
Cavendish
15.6
14.8
10.6
17.2 18.9 14.1 16.8 9.6
Trumpeter
16.5
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
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
Lateglow 9.8
7.3
11.4
9.0 19.2 15.5 16.4 12.5
Bounty 16.4
13.9
13.8
20.5 14.8 11.9 12.1 10.8
LSD 5% 3.9
4.3
4.9
5.8 2.9 1.9 2.7 2.0
______________________________________
1994
1995 1994
1995 1994 1995 1944 1995
______________________________________
Veestar 9.26.2
6.7
7.9 8.6 6.2 9.6 7.0
Annapolis
5.0
8.7
4.8
8.5 13.7 10.7 12.9 9.0
Honeoye 2.6
8.3
3.1
10.0 10.6 8.4 11.5 8.0
Chambly 1.9
7.8
1.5
5.9 10.1 7.8 14.9 8.2
Earliglow
2.2
2.7
2.0
3.4 9.5 6.2 11.0 6.9
MNUS 248 6.1
14.1
7.5
11.3 14.9 11.0 12.0 11.3
Glooscap 8.2
11.4
9.5
13.7 12.0 8.5 13.2 8.6
Kent 5.4
5.8
6.1
7.0 11.4 8.9 15.1 8.7
Cavendish
5.4
5.6
5.9
6.3 14.7 9.2 15.3 12.4
Jewel 5.9
7.4
6.3
5.0 10.8 11.3 12.2 11.3
Seneca 3.2
4.9
3.6
2.6 9.8 9.8 12.8 9.0
Blomidon 3.0
2.1
4.3
1.5 7.9 8.2 13.4 7.8
MNUS 210 9.0
5.5
7.9
7.8 13.9 12.1 10.2 11.9
Lateglow 4.4
3.9
4.7
3.9 14.5 9.3 12.3 9.1
LSD 5% 2.3
3.1
4.4 1.7.4
1.9 2.0 2.3
______________________________________
% Early harvest.sup.2
Stand (%).sup.3
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Annapolis
567 79 76 97 94 97 93
Veestar 41 74 58
59 89 74 92 99
Honeoye 362 54 49 93 90 94 76
MNUS 248 249 60 36 95 95 95 95
Glooscap 278 57 50 86 79 84 88
Kent 2816 46 51 99 98 96 95
Cavendish
271 54 52 92 81 90 85
Trumpeter
218 61 50 96 96 95 98
Northland
255 56 50 95 91 93 91
MNUS 210 16 16 41 97 71 99 96
Blomidon 168 36 30 94 75 91 81
Lateglow 97 30 38 94 89 94 93
Bounty 31 14 10 97 99 97 91
LSD 5% 121 17 16 10 26 17 23
______________________________________
1995 1994
1995 1994 1995 1944 1995
______________________________________
Veestar 70 75
78 80 88 93 90 95
Annapolis
617 84 76 85 90 85 90
Honeoye 586 68 67 64 88 61 88
Chambly 620 75 71 48 87 35 70
Earliglow
539 49 70 74 85 49 85
MNUS 248 316 42 35 66 90 86 85
Glooscap 380 32 37 84 80 89 92
Kent 3931 48 46 86 65 61 48
Cavendish
316 50 40 74 60 80 80
Jewel 3515 30 51 93 85 84 77
Seneca 320 42 62 69 67 76 70
Blomidon 28 21 50 80 57 78 50
MNUS 210 93 13 16 90 93 100 80
Lateglow 135 75 25 80 88 75 80
LSD 5% 184 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.
TABLE 2
______________________________________
Peformance of strawberry cultivars at the West Central Experiment
Station, Morris, Minnesota, in 1992-1995..sup.1
______________________________________
Yield (1000 Berry weight
% Early
Cultivar lb/A) (g) harvest.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Veestar 3.3
3.7 6.4 8.2 61 65
Annapolis
6.8 4.7 10.0 10.4 49 46
Honeoye 5.5 8.9 15.4 12.5 18 24
Redcoat 12.9 9.3 9.5 10.7 26 31
MNUS 248 12.4 13.0 10.8 11.7 20 18
Glooscap 4.9 6.4 9.4 9.5 30 22
Kent 10.5 11.7 12.4 13.9 26 27
Cavendish
9.0 9.1 12.6 15.9 31 19
Jewel 5.5 3.8 10.0 11.2 26 37
Trumpeter
7.6 9.2 13.4 9.5 5 15
MNUS 210 12.0 10.5 17.4 15.0 13 3
Blomidon 9.9 7.9 11.1 12.6 3 4
Lateglow 12.0 8.0 16.0 11.2 0 1
Bounty 6.1 4.7 11.8 8.5 2 5
LSD 5% 3.7 3.0 3.5 1.5 12 10
______________________________________
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
Veestar 14.5 9.6 6.9 7.4 54 75
Earliglow
8.2 3.8 6.3 6.3 44 72
Annapolis
11.5 7.8 9.3 9.4 37 61
Honeoye 15.1 10.7 10.6 9.3 25 53
Chambly 9.6 6.2 8.3 7.1 20 42
MNUS 248 16.4 18.2 9.9 9.3 8 28
Glooscap 13.9 15.4 10.2 9.1 10 42
Kent 17.0 11.7 10.0 9.4 23 29
Cavendish
19.6 15.4 12.5 13.7 18 17
Jewel 14.3 11.9 12.3 11.7 4 17
Seneca 11.7 10.3 11.7 10.4 12 25
Blomidon 6.7 8.3 9.2 10.5 4 6
Lateglow 6.1 4.6 7.4 8.5 0 18
MNUS 210 5.6 6.3 9.6 8.2 0 18
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
______________________________________
Veestar 80
73 7.5 7.5 n.a. -8
Annapolis
80 73 7.8 7.0 n.a. -8
Honeoye 88 83 8.8 8.8 n.a. -13
Redcoat 88 93 8.8 7.5 n.a. -5
MNUS 248 73 73 7.8 6.2 n.a. -5
Glooscap 70 58 6.8 6.2 n.a. -15
Kent 78 70 8.8 6.8 n.a. 0
Cavendish
80 75 7.8 7.5 n.a. -5
Jewel 75 63 8.0 7.2 n.a. -18
Trumpeter
88 83 8.5 8.2 n.a. -12
MNUS 210 70 68 7.8 7.8 n.a. -5
Blomidon 85 73 8.5 7.5 n.a. -10
Lateglow 88 85 8.5 8.2 n.a. -5
Bounty 83 80 8.8 7.2 n.a. -15
LSD 5% 16 21 1.2 1.6 12
______________________________________
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
Veestar 98 88 9.0 8.3 0 5
Earliglow
85 70 8.3 8.0 -15 0
Annapolis
83 65 8.0 7.5 -10 0
Honeoye 88 70 7.8 7.8 0 3
Chambly 80 48 7.3 6.3 -13 -8
MNUS 248 100 80 8.5 6.8 0 -5
Glooscap 85 85 8.0 8.0 -5 5
Kent 80 55 7.5 7.3 -8 -3
Cavendish
95 83 8.5 8.3 3 -3
Jewel 98 73 9.0 8.3 0 0
Seneca 80 63 8.3 8.0 -13 -5
Blomidon 93 78 7.8 7.3 -8 -5
Lateglow 88 63 7.0 6.8 -13 3
MNUS 210 93 25 7.5 6.0 -8 -18
LSD 5% 13 23 1.3 2.1 12 8
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1991 and 1993 and harvested for the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 % Early harvest = % of total crop harvested from 6/15/92 to 6/24/9
(full season 6/15/92 to 7/15/92); 6/21/93 to 6/28/93 (full season 6/21/93
to 7/19/93); 6/08/94 to 6/15/94 (full season 6/08/94 to 7/05/94); and
6/19/95 to 6/23/95 (full season 6/19/95 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.
.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
Cultivar 1992 1994 1995
______________________________________
Yield (1000 lb/A)
Earliglow n.a. 6.5 9.5
Veestar 9.1 10.4 9.9
Annapolis 7.1 8.8 10.2
Honeoye 12.9
10.4 9.5
Chambly n.a.
8.5 13.2
Redcoat 8.7 n.a. n.a.
MNUS 248 14.8
19.4 15.8
Glooscap 4.6 13.1 14.0
Kent 8.1
14.2 10.8
Cavendish 5.5 15.4 16.2
Jewel 5.2
12.7 12.1
Seneca n.a.
10.7 9.8
Startyme n.a.
8.6 6.5
Blomidon 6.6 7.3 6.7
MNUS 210 5.8 11.7 14.7
Lateglow 6.5 9.3 9.0
Bounty 6.5 n.a. n.a.
LSD 5% 3.3 3.5 2.7
Berry weight (g)
Earliglow n.a. 9.7 9.1
Veestar 7.5
9.1 8.0
Annapolis 17.4
14.8 8.9
Honeoye 14.1
9.1 7.5
Chambly n.a.
9.3 7.9
Redcoat 11.2
n.a. n.a.
MNUS 248 15.5
11.0 9.5
Glooscap 10.6
10.0 7.3
Kent 16.3
9.6 8.6
Cavendish 15.0
12.2 10.5
Jewel 12.9
12.8 10.8
Seneca n.a.
11.9 9.8
Startyme n.a.
12.0 11.8
Blomidon 11.8
9.5 10.2
MNUS 210 17.5
14.0 13.2
Lateglow 14.4
11.5 11.2
Bounty 10.0
n.a. n.a.
LSD 5% 3.1
1.3 1.1
% Early harvest.sup.2
Earliglow n.a. 66 55
Veestar 58
61 69
Annapolis 94
57 49
Honeoye 64
51 67
Chambly n.a.
36 55
Redcoat 71
n.a. n.a.
MNUS 248 57
14 26
Glooscap 60
15 34
Kent 63
29 47
Cavendish 52
27 20
Jewel 79
26 25
Seneca n.a.
32 47
Startyme n.a.
15 24
Blomidon 37
15 22
MNUS 210 52
4 22
Lateglow 35
3 0
Bounty 18
n.a. n.a.
LSD 5% 22
14 12
Stand (%).sup.3
Earliglow n.a. 65 78
Veestar 78
80 90
Annapolis 80
65 73
Honeoye 83
65 65
Chambly n.a.
63 73
Redcoat 75
n.a. n.a.
MNUS 248 70
85 80
Glooscap 58
70 85
Kent 65
68 73
Cavendish 63
55 75
Jewel 58
68 73
Seneca n.a.
70 65
Startyme n.a.
60 70
Blomidon 68
60 68
MNUS 210 68
68 83
Lateglow 75
70 83
Bounty 75
n.a. n.a.
LSD 5% 18
17.86 11.21
Vigor.sup.4
Earliglow n.a. 7.5 8.8
Veestar 7.0
7.3 8.3
Annapolis 8.0
6.8 7.3
Honeoye 8.3
6.5 5.8
Chambly n.a.
7.3 7.5
Redcoat 8.0
n.a. n.a.
MNUS 248 6.0
7.3 6.5
Glooscap 6.5
7.3 7.3
Kent 8.0
6.3 7.0
Cavendish 7.0
7.0 8.0
Jewel 6.8
8.0 8.0
Seneca n.a.
6.8 7.5
Startyme n.a.
7.0 7.5
Blomidon 7.3
6.3 6.8
MNUS 210 7.5
7.0 8.0
Lateglow 7.8
7.0 8.0
Bounty 7.8
n.a. n.a.
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 6/17/94 (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
______________________________________
Performance of strawberry cultivars in Minnesota in 1996..sup.1
Gr.
Gr. Rapids
Rapids Un-
Mulched mulched Morris Excelsior
Cultivar 1996 1996 1996 1996
______________________________________
Yield (1000 lb/A)
Annapolis
4.2 4.8 9.7 5.7
Honeoye 9.2 11.2 10.9 6.0
MNUS 248 19.9 16.8 20.6 12.5
Glooscap 11.1 13.9 8.5 7.6
Kent 13.7 14.7 13.2 6.7
Cavendish
10.1 12.4 12.7 8.2
Jewel 6.4 10.2 14.9 5.8
Mira 8.6 9.2 14.5 9.7
Startyme 4.1 3.9 6.1 2.9
MNUS 210 10.7 10.6 15.8 9.6
Lateglow 5.5 7.1 11.0 6.3
LSD 5% 3.6 2.7 3.7 2.3
Berry weight (g)
Annapolis
13.6 13.6 10.2 12.2
Honeoye 12.9 11.8 9.5 10.7
MNUS 248 15.4 14.9 9.8 10.9
Glooscap 13.3 12.9 8.2 9.8
Kent 14.2 14.5 8.9 9.9
Cavendish
17.0 16.2 11.9 11.5
Jewel 13.8 13.2 10.5 11.2
Mira 13.6 13.9 9.4 10.6
Startyme 12.8 12.4 8.6 8.0
MNUS 210 18.5 18.2 11.8 12.9
Lateglow 13.5 14.1 8.1 10.1
LSD 5% 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4
% Early harvest.sup.2
Annapolis
41 62 74 85
Honeoye 35 47 69 81
MNUS 248 21 20 48 35
Glooscap 15 17 70 56
Kent 23 23 44 57
Cavendish
19 20 36 40
Jewel 11 21 32 49
Mira 14 20 40 45
Startyme 8 15 44 44
MNUS 210 1 5 34 23
Lateglow 1 5 26 30
LSD 5% 8 9 12 14
Stand (%).sup.3
Annapolis
73 79 80 63
Honeoye 90 93 75 65
MNUS 248 91 88 83 73
Glooscap 89 90 63 70
Kent 91 93 73 53
Cavendish
86 91 73 70
Jewel 90 96 85 65
Mira 94 92 80 70
Startyme 76 77 62 68
MNUS 210 95 86 80 80
Lateglow 88 86 83 65
LSD 5% 14 11 12 11
Vigor.sup.4
Annapolis
8.8 9.0 6.3 7.3
Honeoye 9.0 9.0 7.3 7.3
MNUS 248 8.5 8.7 5.8 6.3
Glooscap 9.0 8.0 6.0 7.8
Kent 8.9 8.9 5.8 6.8
Cavendish
8.5 8.7 6.8 7.3
Jewel 9.0 9.0 8.3 7.5
Mira 8.9 9.0 7.0 8.3
Startyme 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.3
MNUS 210 9.0 9.0 7.3 8.5
Lateglow 8.0 8.9 7.5 7.0
LSD 5% 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0
Winter stand loss (%)
Annapolis -3 -8
Honeoye -10 -3
MNUS 248 -8 -3
Glooscap -10 0
Kent -10 -13
Cavendish -8 -5
Jewel -10 -8
Mira -10 -8
Startyme -14 -15
MNUS 210 -8 3
Lateglow -3 -10
LSD 5% 9 13
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1995.
.sup.2 % Early harvest = % of total crop harvested from 6/28 to 7/05 (ful
season to 7/26/96) at Grand Rapids; from 6/21 to 7/1 (full season to
7/17/96) at Morris and from 6/28/96 to 7/1 (full season to 7/16/96) at
Excelsior.
.sup.3 % Stand was evaluated during June of each year.
.sup.4 Vigor rated from 1 (very low) to 9 (very high).
.sup.5 Winter stand loss was the difference between % stand in June and %
stand in October of the previous year.
TABLE 5
______________________________________
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
______________________________________
Veestar 5.3.5 7.5 6.3 8.0
8.0
Annapolis
7.5
7.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.7
Honeoye 7.0
7.7 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0
MNUS 248 7.5
8.0 7.5 8.2 8.0 8.3
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
Cavendish
7.5
7.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8
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
Blomidon 7.5
7.3 8.0 7.3 8.5 7.8
MNUS 210 7.5
7.7 7.0 7.7 8.0 7.7
Lateglow 8.0
7.7 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.0
Bounty 7.0
8.0 6.5 8.2 8.0 8.2
______________________________________
1994
1995 1994 1995 1994
1995
______________________________________
Earliglow
7.0
7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0
Veestar 6.5
6.0 6.5 7.8 7.5 7.3
Annapolis
7.0
6.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
Honeoye 8.0
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Chambly 8.0
6.5 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.5
MNUS 248 8.0
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.3
Glooscap 8.0
7.8 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5
Kent 8.0
6.7 8.0 7.3 8.0 6.3
Cavendish
7.5
6.0 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.5
Jewel 8.0
7.3 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.7
Seneca 6.0
7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5
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 6.7
______________________________________
Overall fruit
Cultivar Firmness.sup.2
Flavor.sup.2
quality.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Veestar 6.0
5.7 6.5 5.7 6.0 5.3
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.2
Honeoye 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.0 7.0 6.8
MNUS 248 7.5 7.3 8.0 7.0 7.5 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
Cavendish
7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.0
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
Blomidon 8.0 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.5
MNUS 210 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.5
Lateglow 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.7
Bounty 6.0 6.2 7.0 6.7 6.5 7.5
______________________________________
1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
Earliglow
7.0 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.0 6.5
Veestar 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Annapolis
7.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Honeoye 6.5 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.0
Chambly 7.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.0
MNUS 248 7.5 7.3 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.7
Glooscap 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 8.0
Kent 6.5 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.5 6.7
Cavendish
7.5 6.3 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0
Jewel 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.7
Seneca 7.5 8.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
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
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings were established in 1991 and 1993 and evaluated for the
subsequent two years.
.sup.2 Appearance, Firmness, Skin toughness, Flavor, and Overall fruit
quality are rated on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being best.
TABLE 6
______________________________________
Fruit quality of strawberry
selections at Grand Rapids, Minnesota in 1996..sup.1,2
Sym- Appear- Skin Flesh
Firm- Overall
Selection
metry ance color
color
ness Flavor
rating.sup.3
______________________________________
Annapolis
7.0 7.3 7.0 8.0 7.5 7.3 3.0
Honeoye 7.5 7.8 8.0 8.5 7.0 6.5 3.0
MNUS 248
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.8 3.5
Glooscap
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 3.3
Kent 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.3 3.3
Cavendish
7.5 7.0 6.5 8.5 7.5 8.0 2.8
Jewel 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.5 3.5
Mira 6.5 7.0 7.5 6.0 7.0 6.5 2.8
Startyme
7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 2.0
MNUS 210
7.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.3
Lateglow
8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.5
______________________________________
.sup.1 Average of fruit ratings from 6/10/96 and 6/12/96.
.sup.2 All ratings except overall quality are on a 1 to 9 scale with 9
being best.
.sup.3 Overall quality is rated on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being best.
TABLE 7
______________________________________
Fruit quality ratings of strawberry cultivars at the West Central
Experiment Station, Morris, Minnesota in 1992-1995..sup.1
______________________________________
Skin
Cultivar Appearance.sup.2
Firmness.sup.2
toughness.sup.2
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Veestar 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Annapolis
8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 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
MNUS 248 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Glooscap 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0
Kent 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Cavendish
6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0
Jewel n.a.
7.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 8.0
Trumpeter
6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0
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
______________________________________
1994
1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
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
Annapolis
8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Honeoye 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Chambly 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0
MNUS 248 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 5.0 7.0
Glooscap 7.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Kent 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0
Cavendish
7.5 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5
Jewel 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Seneca 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
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
MNUS 210 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
______________________________________
Overall fruit
Cultivar
Flavor.sup.2
quality.sup.3
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Veestar 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 3.0 3.5
Honeoye 6.0 6.0 2.5 3.0
Redcoat 7.0 6.0 2.0 2.5
MNUS 248 7.0 6.0 2.0 2.5
Glooscap 7.0 7.0 2.5 2.5
Kent 6.0 6.0 2.0 3.5
Cavendish
7.0 7.0 3.0 2.0
Jewel n.a.
8.0 n.a. 3.0
Trumpeter
7.0 6.0 2.0 2.0
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
______________________________________
1994
1995 1994 1995
______________________________________
Veestar 7.0 8.0 2.0 2.0
Earliglow
6.0 8.0 2.0 3.0
Annapolis
7.0 7.5 3.5 3.0
Honeoye 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0
Chambly 6.0 6.5 2.5 2.5
MNUS 248 7.0 7.0 2.5 3.0
Glooscap 7.0 7.0 3.0 2.5
Kent 7.0 3.5 3.0 2.5
Cavendish
7.5 7.0 3.5 3.0
Jewel 6.5 7.5 3.0 3.5
Seneca 7.5 7.0 3.5 3.5
Blomidon 7.5 7.0 3.5 3.0
Lateglow 7.0 7.0 2.5 2.5
MNUS 210 7.0 8.0 2.5 3.5
______________________________________
.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 best.
.sup.3 Overall fruit quality is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being
best.
TABLE 8
______________________________________
Fruit quality ratings of strawberry cultivars at the University of
Minnesota Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, Minnesota in
1992 and 1994..sup.1
______________________________________
Skin
Appearance.sup.2
Firmness.sup.2
toughness.sup.2
Cultivar 1992 1994 1992 1994 1992 1994
______________________________________
Earliglow
n.a.
8.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0
Veestar 6.5 7.0 4 6.0 5 6.0
Annapolis
9 8.0 8 7.0 7 8.0
Redcoat 8 n.a. 6 n.a. 6 n.a.
Honeoye 8 7.0 6 7.0 6 6.0
Chambly n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0 n.a. 7.0
MNUS 248 7 8.0 7 7.0 6 6.0
Glooscap 7.5 6.0 6 7.0 6 7.0
Kent 8.5 8.0 8 7.0 7 6.0
Cavendish
7.5 8.0 8 7.0 8 7.0
Jewel 9 8.0 8 7.0 7 8.0
Seneca n.a. 8.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 7.0
MNUS 210 7 8.0 8 8.0 8 8.0
Blomidon 8.5 8.0 8 7.0 8 7.0
Lateglow 7.5 6.0 7 8.0 8 7.0
Bounty 6.5 n.a. 6 n.a. 5 n.a.
Startyme n.a. 7.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. 8.0
______________________________________
Overall fruit
Flavor.sup.2
quality.sup.3
Cultivar 1992 1994 1992 1994
______________________________________
Earliglow
n.a.
8.0 n.a. 3.0
Veestar 7 7.0 1.0 2.0
Annapolis
7 7.0 4.0 3.5
Redcoat 6 n.a. 2.0 n.a.
Honeoye 7 7.0 3.0 2.5
Chambly n.a. 7.0 n.a. 2.5
MNUS 248 8 7.0 3.0 2.5
Glooscap 7 7.0 3.0 3.0
Kent 7 7.0 4.0 3.0
Cavendish
8 7.0 4.0 3.0
Jewel 7 7.0 4.0 4.0
Seneca n.a. 7.0 n.a. 3.0
MNUS 210 7 8.0 3.0 3.0
Blomidon 7 7.0 4.0 3.0
Lateglow 8 7.0 4.0 2.5
Bounty 7 n.a. 2.0 n.a.
Startyme n.a. 9.0 n.a. 3.5
______________________________________
.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 best.
.sup.3 Overall fruit quality is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being
best.
TABLE 9
______________________________________
Fruit quality of strawberry selections at Morris and Excelsior,
Minnesota in 1996..sup.1,2
______________________________________
Appearance
Firmness Skin toughness
Ex- Ex- Ex-
Cultivar Morris celsior Morris
celsior
Morris
celsior
______________________________________
Annapolis
7.3 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.0
Honeoye 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.0
MNUS 248 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 7.0
Glooscap 7.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0
Kent 8.0
7.5 7.0 8.0 6.5 6.0
Cavendish
6.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.5 8.0
Jewel 7.5
7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0
Mira 7.5
9.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0
Startyme 7.0 6.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 9.0
MNUS 210 7.5 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 8.0
Lateglow 7.8 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0
______________________________________
Flavor Overall fruit quality.sup.3
Morris Excelsior
Morris Excelsior
______________________________________
Annapolis 7.0 6.5 3.5 3.0
Honeoye 6.0 7.0 2.3 3.0
MNUS 248 7.3 7.0 3.5 3.5
Glooscap 7.0 6.0 3.0 2.5
Kent 6.5
7.0 3.0 3.0
Cavendish 6.3 7.0 2.5 3.0
Jewel 7.0
8.0 3.3 3.0
Mira 6.0
6.0 3.5 3.0
Startyme 6.0 2.5
MNUS 210 8.0 8.0 3.5 3.0
Lateglow 7.0 7.5 3.0 3.0
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1995.
.sup.2 All ratings except overall quality are on a 1 to 9 scale with 9
being best.
.sup.3 Overall quality is rated on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being best.
TABLE 10
______________________________________
Disease responses of strawberry cultivars at the Univ. of Minnesota
North Central Experiment Station, Grand Rapids, Minnesota
in 1992 and 1993..sup.1
Cultivar Leaf spot Powdery mildew
______________________________________
1992 1993 1992 1993
______________________________________
Veestar 6.0 4.56.2
4.5
Annapolis 6.20 4.7 4.7
Honeoye 5.72 5.2 5.0
MNUS 248 5.07 5.0 5.5
Glooscap 6.50 6.0 5.2
Kent 5.0.5 7.0 6.2
Cavendish 6.00 4.5 4.7
Northland 5.52 3.7 3.7
Trumpeter 6.02 3.7 3.7
MNUS 210 6.20 6.5 6.2
Blomidon 6.20 6.5 5.7
Lateglow 3.75 4.2 3.5
Bounty 5.25 6.2 6.2
LSD 5% 0.91 0.7 0.8
______________________________________
199594 1994 1995
______________________________________
Earliglow 7.35 5.8 5.7
Veestar 6.33 5.8 6.3
Annapolis 7.05 6.0 6.0
Honeoye 5.73 5.8 6.3
Chambly 6.75 5.3 5.0
MNUS 248 6.05 6.5 7.0
Glooscap 5.08 7.5 7.0
Kent 5.0.5 7.8 7.0
Cavendish 7.03 5.8 5.7
Jewel 6.7.8 7.8 7.7
Seneca 5.70 7.8 7.7
Blomidon 7.75 7.0 8.0
Lateglow 3.73 5.3 4.7
MNUS 210 7.08 7.5 7.7
LSD 5% 1.29 0.8 0.7
______________________________________
.sup.1 Leaf spot and powdery mildew ratings are on a scale from 1 = very
severe infection to 9 = no infection.
TABLE 11
______________________________________
Disease responses of strawberry cultivars at the University of Minn-
esota Horticultural Research Center, Excelsior, Minnesota
in 1994 and 1995..sup.1,2
Winter
Black Powdery
injury root rot Leaf scorch mildew
Cultivar 1994 1995 1994 1995 1995
______________________________________
Earliglow
7.3 8.5 9.0 8.0 6.0
Veestar 7.3 8.3 8.0 8.3 7.0
Annapolis
7.3 6.5 8.0 8.5 7.3
Honeoye 7.0 4.3 7.0 5.8 8.0
Chambly 7.5 6.5 9.0 8.0 6.5
MNUS 248 8.3 5.5 7.0 7.3 7.3
Glooscap 7.8 7.0 8.0 7.8 7.0
Kent 7.0 5.3 5.0 5.5 7.8
Cavendish
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 7.3
Jewel 6.5 6.8 8.0 7.3 7.5
Startyme 7.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.0
Seneca 6.8 5.8 8.0 6.5 8.0
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
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 to 9 = no infection.
TABLE 12
______________________________________
Disease reactions of strawberry selections in Minnesota in
1995-1996..sup.1,2
Grand Rapids Morris Excelsior
Leaf spot Powdery Mildew
Iron Leaf
Fall Summer Fall Summer
chlorosis
Scorch
Cultivar
1995 1996 1995 1996 1996 1996
______________________________________
Annapolis
7.8 7.8 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.8
Honeoye 8.0 6.3 5.8
7.0
6.8
7.3
MNUS 248
7.8 7.0 6.5
7.0
4.5
6.3
Glooscap
8.0 7.3 6.3
7.3
6.5
7.5
Kent 7.5 5.0 7.0
7.0
6.5
4.5
Cavendish
7.8 6.8 5.5
6.0
7.0
7.0
Jewel 8.0 7.0 6.0
7.0
7.8
7.0
Mira 7.8 6.0 5.8
6.8
6.8
7.5
Startyme
7.7 5.7 6.0
7.7
5.3
5.8
MNUS 210
8.0 7.8 7.0
7.0
7.8
8.0
Lateglow
7.5 4.8 5.3
5.8
7.8
7.3
LSD 5% ns 0.6 0.7
0.5
0.9
0.9
______________________________________
.sup.1 Plantings established in 1995.
.sup.2 Disease reactions reated on a scale from 1 (severe symptoms) to 9
(no symptoms).
TABLE 13
______________________________________
Responses of strawbery genotypes to red stele root rot screening with
mix
of Phytophthora fragariae races A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 by root-dip
inoculation at Beltsville, Maryland, 1993-94..sup.1
Replication
mean root scores.sup.2
Genotype Range Mean
______________________________________
MNUS 248 8.0-9.0 8.5
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 From Galletta, Maas, and Enns, Strawberry cultivar and selection
red stele screening at USDABeltsville in 1993-1994. Advances in Strawberr
Research 13:40-43 (1994).
.sup.2 Three replications with twoplant plots were scored for root injury
with 1-3 being very susceptible, 4-5 being suceptible, 6-7 being tolerant
and 8-9 being resistant. Blakemore was significantly more susceptible tha
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 mid-season of fruit ripening, high productivity or yield, excellent survival in cold temperatures and resistance
Type: Grant
Filed: Sep 19, 1997
Date of Patent: Nov 2, 1999
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: Elizabeth Kemmerer
Law Firm: Mueting, Raasch & Gebhardt, P.A.
Application Number: 8/933,768
International Classification: A01H 500;
