plant named ‘Burgundy Lace’

- Oregon State University

A new and distinct Corylus plant named ‘Burgundy Lace’ characterized by rich dark burgundy-colored developing leaves and burgundy-colored fully expanded leaves during the spring and summer; deeply dissected leaves; burgundy color of the catkins and leaf buds; moderate vigor and upright-spreading plant habit; resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller; presence of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers 152-800 and 258-580 in DNA; expression of incompatibility alleles S6 and S20 in the styles; catkins that are abnormal and small, and produce little pollen; and DNA fingerprints at 14 of 24 microsatellite marker loci differ from ‘Cutleaf’.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

This invention was made with government support under Specific Cooperative Agreement No. 58-5358-4-025 awarded by the United States Department of Agriculture. The government has certain rights in the invention.

Botanical denomination: Corylus avellana cultivar.

Variety designation: ‘Burgundy Lace’.

BACKGROUND

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct cultivar of Corylus plant, botanically known as Corylus avellana, and hereinafter referred to by the name ‘Burgundy Lace’.

The new Corylus resulted from a controlled cross of female parent OSU 562.034 (unpatented)×OSU 562.062 (unpatented) made in 1998 to create a new ornamental cultivar (FIG. 1). OSU 562.034 is from a cross of ‘Cutleaf’×VR6-28 (unpatented), and OSU 562.062 is from a cross of ‘Cutleaf’×Redleaf #3 (unpatented). The grandparent ‘Cutleaf ’(unpatented) is known as Corylus avellana f. heterophylla, for which the form names laciniata, urticifolia, quercifolia and incisa pinnatifida are also used. VR6-28 is from a cross of ‘Riccia di Talanico’בGasaway’, and carries a dominant allele for a very high level of resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) from ‘Gasaway’ (unpatented). OSU 562.062 and Redleaf #3 carry a dominant allele for leaf anthocyanin. Redleaf #3 is an open-pollinated seedling of ‘Barcelona’ (unpatented). The pollen parent is believed to be the Redleaf ‘Rode Zeller’ (syn. ‘Rote Zellernuss’) (unpatented).

Hybrid seeds from the controlled cross were harvested in August 1998, stratified, and the resulting seedlings grown in a glasshouse during the summer of 1999. Seedlings that combined red leaf color and the ‘Cutleaf’ trait were preferred, and 38 of the 40 seedlings planted in the field in October 1999 combined these two traits. ‘Burgundy Lace’ was discovered and selected as a single plant within the progeny of the stated cross-pollination in a controlled environment in Corvallis, Oreg., USA. The new variety was originally assigned the designation OSU 954.076, which indicates the row and tree location of the original seedling.

The new cultivar was asexually reproduced by rooted suckers annually for five years (2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013) in Corvallis, Oreg. The unique features of this new Corylus are stable and reproduced true-to-type in successive generations of asexual reproduction.

SUMMARY

The following traits have been observed and are determined to be the unique characteristics of ‘Burgundy Lace’. These characteristics in combination distinguish ‘Burgundy Lace’ as a new and distinct cultivar:

    • 1. Rich dark burgundy-colored developing leaves and burgundy-colored fully expanded leaves during the spring and summer.
    • 2. Deeply dissected leaves.
    • 3. Burgundy color of the catkins and leaf buds.
    • 4. Moderate vigor and upright-spreading plant habit.
    • 5. Resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller.
    • 6. Presence of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers 152-800 and 268-580 in DNA of ‘Burgundy Lace’ amplified by the polymerase chain reaction. These two markers are linked to a dominant allele for resistance to eastern filbert blight from the cultivar ‘Gasaway’ (unpatented).
    • 7. Expression of incompatibility alleles S6 and S20 in the styles.
    • 8. Catkins that are abnormal and small, and produce little pollen.
    • 9. DNA fingerprints of ‘Burgundy Lace’ differ from ‘Cutleaf’ at 14 of 24 microsatellite marker loci. Additional DNA fingerprints of ‘Gasaway’ and ‘Rode Zeller’, which are ancestors of ‘Burgundy Lace’, and 12 other reference cultivars, are shown in Table 7.

‘Burgundy Lace’ is well-suited to the ornamental market. ‘Burgundy Lace’ combines red leaf color, deeply dissected leaves, and resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller. Comparisons in two trials conducted in Corvallis, Oreg., plants of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in the guard rows differed from plants of the Corylus avellana cultivars ‘Barcelona’ (unpatented) and ‘Jefferson’ (unpatented), and other cultivars and selections of Corylus avellana known to the Inventors primarily in nut size, nut shape, kernel percentage (ratio of kernel weight to nut weight), frequency of defects (blank nuts, moldy kernels, twins, etc.), time of pollen shed, time of nut maturity, length of the husk or involucre, and plant size.

The tree is moderately vigorous, similar in size to ‘Jefferson’, and has a desirable upright-spreading growth habit that should be easy to manage in a landscape setting. The nuts are small and the kernels are edible, but nut yields are low and quality is not suitable for the kernel market. ‘Burgundy Lace’ has far fewer blanks (shells lacking kernels) than ‘Cutleaf’. ‘Burgundy Lace’ has intermediate ratings for bud mite (primarily Phytoptus avellanae Nal.), similar to ‘Clark’. Like its grandparent ‘Cutleaf’, catkins of ‘Burgundy Lace’ shed very little pollen. Pollen shed and female receptivity are late.

DNA markers and field observations indicate that ‘Burgundy Lace’ has resistance to eastern filbert blight (EFB) caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller. The resistance is conferred by a dominant allele from ‘Gasaway’. EFB is now present throughout the Willamette Valley and in the eastern USA where it naturally occurs on the wild American hazelnut (C. americana), but causes little damage. Pruning to remove cankers and fungicide applications are currently used to manage the disease in susceptible cultivars. Thus, ‘Burgundy Lace’ is suitable for planting in areas with high disease pressure.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying colored photographs illustrate the overall appearance of the new cultivar, showing the colors as true as it is reasonably possible to obtain in colored reproductions of this type. Foliage colors in the photographs may differ slightly from the color values cited in the detailed botanical description which accurately describe the colors of the new Corylus.

FIG. 1 is a chart showing the pedigree of hazelnut selection ‘Burgundy Lace’ (OSU 954.076).

FIG. 2 is a chart showing time of pollen shed (green), female receptivity (red) and leaf budbreak for ‘Burgundy Lace’ and ‘Cutleaf’ over two years for ornamental hazelnut selection.

FIG. 3 is a digital image taken at end of the 6th growing season of a tree of ‘Burgundy Lace’ growing in Corvallis, Oreg., in the winter, showing upright-spreading growth habit. Tree was planted in the spring of 2007.

FIG. 4 is a digital image taken in June of the 5th growing season of the original ‘Burgundy Lace’ tree growing in Corvallis, Oreg.

FIG. 5 is a digital image taken in June of the 5th growing season of a tree of ‘Burgundy Lace’ growing in Corvallis, Oreg. Tree planted in the spring of 2007.

FIG. 6 is a digital image taken in mid-August of the 5th growing season of the original ‘Burgundy Lace’ tree growing in Corvallis, Oreg., showing older leaves. Tree planted in the spring of 2007.

FIGS. 7-9 are digital images showing young leaves of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in Corvallis, Oreg. in late May.

FIG. 10 is a digital image showing nuts and husks of ‘Burgundy Lace’ on a branch in Corvallis, Oreg. in August of the 4th growing season.

FIG. 11 is a digital image of catkins of ‘Burgundy Lace’ with frost.

FIG. 12 is a digital image showing shoots of ‘Burgundy Lace’ grown in Corvallis, Oreg. with nuts.

FIG. 13 is a digital image showing shoots of ‘Burgundy Lace’ grown in Corvallis, Oreg. showing upper and lower leaf surfaces.

FIGS. 14-15 are digital images showing leaves, husks and nuts of ‘Barcellona’, ‘Cutleaf’ and ‘Burgundy Lace’ varieties. FIG. 14 shows the lower surface of the leaves and nuts, and FIG. 15 shows the upper surface of the leaves and nuts.

FIG. 16 is a digital image of comparing nuts of ‘Barcelona’, ‘Cutleaf’ and ‘Burgundy Lace’.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The cultivar ‘Burgundy Lace’ has not been observed under all possible environmental conditions. The phenotype may vary somewhat with variations in environment such as temperature and light intensity, without, however, any variance in genotype. The aforementioned photographs and following observations and measurements describe plants grown in Corvallis, Oreg. under commercial practice outdoors in the field during the fall, winter and spring. Plants used for the photographs and description were propagated by tie-off layerage and growing on their own roots, and seven or eight years old. In the following description, color references are made to The Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart, 1966 Edition, except where general terms of ordinary dictionary significance are used.

  • Botanical classification: Corylus avellana cultivar ‘Burgundy Lace’.
  • Parentage:
      • Female, or seed, parent.—Corylus avellana cultivar ‘OSU 562.034’ (unpatented).
      • Male, or pollen, parent.—Corylus avellana cultivar ‘OSU 562.062’ (unpatented).
  • Propagation (type rooted suckers):
      • Time to initiate roots.—About 30 days at 20° C.
      • Time to produce a rooted young plant.—About six months at 22° C.
      • Root description.—Fine to thick; freely branching; creamy white in color.
  • Propagation (type whip grafting):
      • Time to budbreak on the scions.—About 14 days at 25° C.
      • Time to produce a grafted plant.—About six months at 25° C.
  • Plant description:
      • General appearance.—Perennial shrub. Upright-spreading plant habit.
      • Growth and branching habit.—Freely branching; about 15 lateral branches develop per plant. Pinching, that is, removal of the terminal apices, enhances branching with lateral branches potentially forming at every node.
      • Vigor.—Moderate vigor growth habit.
      • Size.—Plant height is about 5 meters; plant diameter or spread is about 5 meters.
  • Lateral branch description:
      • Length.—About 51 cm.
      • Diameter.—About 3.8 mm.
      • Internode length.—About 3.3 cm.
      • Texture.—Smooth, glabrous.
      • Strength.—Strong.
      • Color, immature.—152B.
      • Color, mature.—152B.
  • Foliage description:
      • Arrangement.—Alternate, simple.
      • Length.—About 11.4 cm.
      • Width.—About 7.4 cm.
      • Shape.—Cutleaf (deeply serrated).
      • Apex.—Obtuse to acute.
      • Base.—Cordate.
      • Margin.—Deeply serrated.
      • Texture, upper and lower surfaces.—Slightly pubescent.
      • Venation pattern.—Pinnate.
      • Color.—Developing foliage, upper surface 144A, lower surface 145A. Fully expanded foliage, upper surface: Spring and summer, 143A; late summer and fall, 143A. Fully expanded foliage, lower surface: Spring and summer, 139C; late summer and fall, 139C. Venation, upper surface: Spring and summer, 139C; late summer and fall, 139C. Venation, lower surface: Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
  • Petiole description:
      • Length.—About 27 mm.
      • Diameter.—About 1.8 mm.
      • Texture, upper and lower surfaces.—Pubescent.
      • Color, upper surface.—Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
      • Color, lower surface.—Spring and summer, 139D; late summer and fall, 139D.
  • Flower description: Male inflorescences are catkins, color prior to elongation 194C. Female inflorescence style color 048B.
  • Nut description:
      • Length.—About 19.1 mm.
      • Width.—About 20.7 mm.
      • Depth.—About 18.2 mm.
      • Nut shape.—Round. Nut shape index [(Width+Depth)/2*Length]=1.02. Nut compression index (Width/Depth)=1.14.
      • Nut shell color.—164B. Nut weight: About 1.72 grams.
      • Kernel weight.—About 0.76 grams.
      • Kernel percentage (kernel weight/nut weight).—About 44%.
  • Disease/pest resistance: Plants of the new Corylus are highly resistant to eastern filbert blight caused by the fungus Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. Müller, although a few small cankers may develop under high disease pressure. Plants of the new Corylus are moderately susceptible to bud mites (Phytoptus avellanae Nal.), while plants of ‘Tonda Gentile delle Langhe’ are highly susceptible, and plants of ‘Barcelona’ are highly resistant.
  • Temperature tolerance: Plants of the new Corylus have been observed to tolerate temperatures from −21 to 38° C. in the field in Corvallis, Oreg.
  • Comparative data:
      • Tree size, growth habit, yield, and yield efficiency.—Tree sizes in the trials were estimated by measuring trunk diameters 30 cm above the soil line, at the end of the 7th growing season (December 2013 and 2014, respectively). Trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) was calculated from trunk diameter. Trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are moderately vigorous, similar in size to ‘Jefferson’ (Tables 1 & 2). In previous trials, TCAs of ‘Jefferson’ and ‘Lewis’ were about 70% of ‘Barcelona’. Their upright-spreading growth habit of ‘Burgundy Lace’ trees should be easy to manage in a landscape setting. In the 2007 trial, total nut yield per tree averaged 10.04 kg for ‘Burgundy Lace’, which is less than the other four cultivars (Table 1). Nut yield efficiency for OSU 954.076 (0.122 kg/cm2), which adjusts for differences in tree size, was similar to ‘Felix’ (0.133 kg/cm2), and lower than ‘Jefferson’ (0.299 kg/cm2), ‘Santiam’ (unpatented) (0.267 kg/cm2) and ‘McDonald’ (0.245 kg/cm2). In the 2008 trial, total nut yield per tree averaged 11.39 kg for ‘Burgundy Lace’, which is more than ‘Eta’ (unpatented) (7.78 kg) but less than the other 13 genotypes (Table 2). Nut yield efficiency for OSU 954.076 (0.134 kg/cm2), which adjusts for differences in tree size, was similar to the pollinizer ‘Theta’ (unpatented) (0.149 kg/cm2), higher than ‘Eta’ (0.100 kg/cm2) and lower than ‘Jefferson’ (0.292 kg/cm2) and the others in the trial. Although ‘Burgundy Lace’ would generally not be planted for nut production, its nuts show a very low frequency of defects (Tables 3 & 4). In the 2007 trial, nut weight was 1.72 g and kernel percentage was 44.1%, the latter being similar to ‘Barcelona’ (typically 43%). The amount of fiber on the pellicle was rated on a scale of 1 (no fiber) to 4 (heavy fiber) (Table 5). The rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (2.8) was similar to ‘Jefferson’ (3.0) and indicates a moderate amount of fiber. Kernel blanching, or ease with which the pellicle can be removed with dry heat followed by rubbing, was rated on a scale of 1 (complete pellicle removal) to 7 (no pellicle removal). The rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (6.6) indicates that very little of the pellicle is removed by dry heat. Very few moldy kernels were observed in ‘Burgundy Lace’ (0.5%), in striking contrast to ‘Santiam’ (17.3%) (Table 3). The results from the second trial (Table 4) were nearly identical: nut weight 1.71 g, kernel percentage 44%, fiber rating 2.8, blanching rating 6.6, with 87.5% good nuts and very few defects. The kernels, raw or roasted, are not attractive.
      • Nut maturity date.—Most nuts of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are borne in clusters of two, in husks about half as long as the nuts. The nuts are slightly long and compressed. The husks open as they dry at maturity, and about 98% of the nuts fall free of the husk. When mature, the shells are medium brown in color and have pubescence at the apical end. Harvest date is estimated to be three days before ‘Barcelona’.
      • Incompatibility and pollinizers.—‘Burgundy Lace’ has incompatibility alleles S6 and S20 as determined by fluorescence microscopy. Both alleles are expressed in the females, but only S6 is expressed in the pollen because of dominance. By convention, alleles expressed in the pollen are underlined. The trees set a moderate number of catkins. The catkins are abnormal and small, as are those of ‘Cutleaf’, and shed very little pollen. For practical purposes, ‘Burgundy Lace’ is male-sterile, although collection of a handful of catkins can give a trace of pollen. Time of pollen shed and female receptivity were observed weekly from December 2012 to March 2013 and December 2013 to March 2014 (FIG. 2). Female flower receptivity of ‘Burgundy Lace’ is late and about one week earlier than ‘Cutleaf’ and four weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Time of catkin elongation of ‘Burgundy Lace’ is also late and about three weeks earlier than ‘Cutleaf’ and three weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Date of leaf budbreak is about one week later than ‘Cutleaf’ and 2.5 weeks later than ‘Barcelona’. Pollen of the following EFB-resistant cultivars is compatible on females of ‘Burgundy Lace’: ‘Yamhill’ (S8 S26), ‘Dorris’ (S1 S12), ‘McDonald’ (S2 S15), ‘Wepster’ (S1 S2), ‘York’ (S2 S21), ‘Gamma’ (S2 S10), ‘Jefferson’ (S1 S3), ‘Felix’ (S15S21) and ‘Theta’ (S5 S15). Because females of ‘Burgundy Lace’ are receptive late in the season, the late-shedding pollinizers ‘Felix’ and ‘Theta’ are most effective.
      • Pests and diseases.—Based on DNA marker data, ‘Burgundy Lace’ has a very high level of resistance to EFB conferred by a dominant allele from ‘Gasaway’, so fungicide applications are not needed. RAPD markers 152-800 and 268-580 that flank the resistance allele in ‘Gasaway’, are present in ‘Burgundy Lace’. Trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ have not yet been challenged with the EFB pathogen in glasshouse or structure inoculations. Susceptibility to bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. corylina has not been quantified, but none of the three trees in the two trials were affected. Nevertheless, copper sprays to minimize damage from this pathogen can be performed. Susceptibility to big bud mite (primarily Phytoptus avellanae Nal.) was rated in the 2007 trial (Table 3) after leaf fall once per year for five years (December 2009-2013). The scale was from 1 (no blasted buds) to 5 (many blasted buds). The average rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (3.0) is similar to that for ‘Clark’ and lower than for ‘Cutleaf’ (4.0), which was rated one year at the Smith Farm and three years (2000-2002) at the nearby USDA National Clonal Germplasm Repository. In the 2008 trial, the rating for ‘Burgundy Lace’ (3.1) is the same as for the moderately susceptible ‘Clark’ (3.0). The number of blasted buds for ‘Burgundy Lace’ is lower than ‘Cutleaf’ and sprays should not be necessary to control this pest. The other check cultivars in the two trials had lower bud mite ratings.
      • Propagation.—‘Burgundy Lace’ was propagated by tie-off layerage of the suckers of the original seedling tree in late June over five years (2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013). On average, 22 suckers were layered, with rooting rated good on 11 and fair on 7, poor on 3 and no roots on one. The size (caliper) was rated as medium to large in most years. Layers are moderately vigorous and root well, but have lower vigor and caliper than those of ‘Jefferson’ and ‘Barcelona’.
      • DNA fingerprinting.—Primers used are shown in Table 6, and results shown in Table 7. ‘Burgundy Lace’ differs from ‘Cutleaf’ at 14 of 24 loci.

REFERENCES

Bassil N. V., Botta R., Mehlenbacher S. A. 2005a. Microsatellite markers in hazelnut: Isolation, characterization and cross-species amplification. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 130:543-549.

Bassil N. V., Botta R., Mehlenbacher S. A. 2005b. Additional microsatellite markers of the European hazelnut. Acta Hort. 686:105-110.

Bassil N., Boccacci P., Botta R., Postman J. and Mehlenbacher S. 2012. Nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite markers to assess genetic diversity and evolution in hazelnut species, hybrids and cultivars. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution (on-line) DOI10.1007/s10722-012-9857-z

Boccacci P., Akkak A., Bassil N. V., Mehlenbacher S. A., Botta R. 2005. Characterization and evaluation of microsatellite loci in European hazelnut (C. avellana) and their transferability to other Corylus species. Molec. Ecol. Notes 5:934-937.

Boccacci R, Akkak, A. and Botta, R. 2006. DNA typing and genetic relations among European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars using microsatellite markers. Genome 49:598-611.

Gökirmak T., Mehlenbacher S. A., Bassil N. V. 2009. Characterization of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) cultivars using SSR markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56:147-172.

Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2010. Transferability of microsatellite markers in the Betulaceae. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 135:159-173.

Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2010. Development of microsatellite marker loci for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from ISSR fragments. Molecular Breeding 26:551-559.

Gürcan, K. and S. A. Mehlenbacher and V. Erdogan. 2010a. Genetic diversity in hazelnut cultivars from Black Sea countries assessed using SSR markers. Plant Breeding 129:422-434. (available on-line doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01753.x).

Gürcan, K., S. A. Mehlenbacher, R. Botta and P. Boccacci. 2010b. Development, characterization, segregation, and mapping of microsatellite markers for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from enriched genomic libraries and usefulness in genetic diversity studies. Tree Genetics and Genomes 6:513-531. (available on-line as DOI:10.1007/s11295-010-0269-y)

Mehlenbacher et al., 2004. RAPD markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance in Corylus avellana. Theor. Appl. Genet. 108:651-656.

Mehlenbacher and Smith. 1995. Inheritance of the cutleaf trait in hazelnut. HortScience 30:611-612.

Sathuvalli, V. R. and S. A. Mehlenbacher. 2012. Characterization of American hazelnut (Corylus americana) accessions and Corylus americana×Corylus avellana hybrids using microsatellite markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59:1055-1075. DOI10.1007/s10722-011-9743-0.

TABLE 1 Nut yield, trunk cross-sectional area, yield efficiency and bud mite ratings of hazelnut cultivars and selections (including two trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in a guard row) in a trial planted in 2007. No. Yield per tree (kg) TCAz YEy Cultivar trees Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total (cm2) (kg · cm−2) BBM ‘McDonald’ 4 0.15 1.10 4.85 7.38 7.95 21.43 87.6 0.245 1.8 ‘Felix’ 4 0.06 1.04 2.91 7.93 4.95 16.88 128.4 0.133 2.0 ‘Jefferson’ 4 0.55 1.97 5.63 4.60 10.25 22.99 77.5 0.299 1.2 ‘Santiam’ 4 0.20 1.11 4.09 5.46 6.83 17.68 66.8 0.267 2.2 LSD 0.05 0.21 0.43 0.54 2.04 1.18 2.45 13.48 0.029 0.2 ‘Burgundy Lace’ 2 0.09 0.56 2.29 2.87 4.24 10.04 82.2 0.122 3.0 zTrunk cross-sectional area calculated from trunk diameters measured in late fall at the end of the 7th season. yYield efficiency = Total nut yield/TCA.

TABLE 2 Nut yield, trunk cross-sectional area, yield efficiency and bud mite ratings of hazelnut cultivars and selections in two trials planted in 2008. Nut yield per tree (kg) Selection SelNo No. trees 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total TCAz YldEffy BBMx EFB-resistant selections  918.045 1 4 0.233 2.593 3.585 4.513 6.148 17.070 69.0 0.249 1.5  951.086 2 4 0.213 1.718 5.073 7.557 9.510 24.069 92.7 0.258 2.0  964.073 3 4 0.100 1.163 40.998 6.223 8.870 20.453 85.1 0.242 1.0  981.067 4 4 0.027 0.968 2.740 3.630 6.550 13.914 83.3 0.168 1.2  990.035 5 4 0.088 1.258 4.350 4.800 8.420 18.915 72.5 0.259 1.7  992.015 6 4 0.053 0.945 2.068 3.625 6.288 12.978 74.0 0.177 1.4  992.022 7 4 0.040 1.978 4.470 7.338 8.340 22.165 98.8 0.224 1.4 1014.058 8 4 0.210 3.580 3.148 5.538 6.368 18.843 74.0 0.256 2.3 1018.001 9 4 0.105 2.210 2.738 4.695 6.178 15.925 74.1 0.215 1.3 Eta 10 4 0.055 0.665 1.688 1.867 3.503 7.777 77.9 0.100 2.0 Gamma 11 4 0.153 0.780 3.310 5.133 8.240 17.615 97.6 0.181 2.9 Jefferson 12 4 0.223 2.650 4.793 5.875 8.570 22.110 75.9 0.292 1.2 Theta 13 4 0.038 1.240 4.003 4.910 4.560 14.750 101.7 0.149 1.6 Yamhill 14 4 0.218 2.833 4.793 6.805 8.698 23.345 73.7 0.318 1.1 LSD 0.05 0.113 0.524 0.945 1.243 1.552 3.296 14.4 0.038 0.4 Burgundy Lace h 1 0.020 1.480 2.270 3.110 4.510 11.390 84.9 0.134 3.1 Performance of hazelnut cultivars and selections (including ‘Burgundy Lace’) in two trials planted in 2008. EFB-susceptible selections in nearby trial  919.031 1 3 0.050 1.547 4.890 5.200 8.057 19.743 102.0 0.195 1.0  961.021 2 3 0.225 1.527 3.507 4.770 7.793 17.821 91.1 0.196 2.5  961.063 3 3 0.153 1.707 2.707 3.937 4.490 12.993 56.4 0.231 1.7  978.057 4 3 0.227 1.553 3.063 5.710 5.037 15.590 83.3 0.189 2.9  978.058 5 3 0.207 1.533 3.297 5.025 7.633 17.695 88.1 0.201 1.7  978.064 6 3 0.190 2.083 2.790 4.270 4.387 13.720 57.7 0.238 1.0 1012.074 7 3 0.127 0.790 1.340 3.937 4.475 10.668 93.6 0.115 3.0 Barcelona 8 3 0.197 1.650 4.670 5.357 8.313 20.187 125.8 0.161 1.0 Clark 9 3 0.483 3.416 1.873 6.130 6.320 18.223 72.5 0.251 3.0 Lewis 10 3 0.370 3.350 2.210 7.643 6.833 20.407 80.0 0.255 2.7 Sacajawea 11 3 0.050 0.857 4.247 6.855 9.060 21.068 99.1 0.214 1.1 LSD 0.05 0.185 0.580 0.866 0.942 1.569 2.811 16.7 0.028 0.4 zTrunk cross-sectional area calculated from trunk diameters measured in late fall at the end of the 7th season. yYield efficiency = Total nut yield/TCA. xSusceptibility to bud mite (primarily Phytoptus avellanae Nal.) was rated on four trees of each selection on a scale of 1 (no blasted buds) to 5 (many blasted buds). Shown are mean ratings for 5 years (2010-2014). (many blasted buds). Shown are mean ratings for 5 years (2010-2014). LSD = least significant difference.

TABLE 3 Frequency of good nuts, and of nut and kernel defects in hazelnut cultivars and selections (including two trees of ‘Burgundy Lace’ in a guard row) in a trial planted in 2007. Frequency (%)z Brown Black Selection # trees Good Blanks stain Moldy Shrivel Poor fill Twins tips ‘McDonald’ 4 83.5 5.1 0.1 2.1 4.5 4.5 0.1 0.3 ‘Felix’ 4 88.9 4.2 0.2 2.1 0.4 2.9 0.3 1.1 ‘Jefferson’ 4 80.1 4.3 0.3 5.7 0.4 8.9 0.6 0.6 ‘Santiam’ 4 68.8 2.8 0.1 17.3 1.8 9.6 0.1 0.1 LSD 0.05 3.5 2.5 0.3 2.3 1.0 2.5 0.4 0.5 ‘Burgundy Lace’ 2 87.5 6.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 4.8 0.0 0.3 zMeans of years 4-7. LSD = Least Significant Difference

TABLE 4 Frequency of good nuts and of nut and kernel defects in hazelnut cultivars and selections in a trial planted in 2008. Selection SelNo # trees 10-NutWt 10-KerWt PctKer Fib Blanch GD BL BS MO SH PF TW BT EFB-resistant selections  918.045 1 4 25.81 11.69 45.31 1.5 3.9 73.26 4.18 0.56 2.18 0.44 18.38 1.06 0.12  951.086 2 4 27.88 12.43 44.54 2.2 5.4 82.92 5.86 0.64 1.78 0.08 11.22 0.58 0.50  964.073 3 4 26.09 12.33 47.20 2.2 4.7 82.20 1.80 0.14 1.34 1.26 13.14 0.00 0.26  981.067 4 4 23.97 11.38 47.53 3.7 3.9 90.62 4.32 0.18 0.56 0.18 2.82 1.26 0.06  990.035 5 4 23.90 11.34 47.56 1.6 4.7 75.11 3.50 0.06 2.94 1.26 15.62 1.32 0.44  992.015 6 4 24.33 12.32 50.71 2.6 4.5 85.06 7.56 0.18 2.06 0.50 4.06 0.12 0.76  992.022 7 4 26.50 12.82 48.41 3.2 3.8 80.32 4.62 0.00 3.18 0.82 10.76 0.18 0.26 1014.058 8 4 25.20 11.73 46.63 1.7 4.9 92.32 1.44 0.32 0.76 0.88 3.76 0.18 0.38 1018.001 9 4 25.60 12.05 47.17 2.9 3.8 83.68 4.88 0.06 4.18 0.18 6.62 0.50 0.12 Eta 10 4 30.21 14.21 47.12 3.1 3.9 85.86 2.80 1.80 2.06 0.40 5.74 1.00 0.66 Gamma 11 4 24.06 12.40 51.66 3.0 6.4 78.76 5.18 0.68 2.18 1.38 11.50 0.26 0.12 Jefferson 12 4 36.51 16.48 45.23 2.9 4.5 75.56 4.06 0.12 5.82 0.38 13.12 0.62 1.18 Theta 13 4 22.73 11.48 50.52 2.2 2.6 89.06 2.38 0.26 1.76 0.32 5.82 0.26 0.26 Yamhill 14 4 23.59 11.13 47.26 1.4 5.1 76.00 2.32 0.12 2.50 0.82 18.44 0.06 0.26 LSD 0.05 0.94 0.34 0.77 0.2 0.4 3.58 2.56 0.56 1.22 0.74 3.38 0.48 0.08 ‘Burgundy 1 17.16 7.56 44.08 2.8 6.6 87.50 6.75 0.00 0.50 0.25 4.75 0.00 0.25 Lace’ Selection SelNo NutWt KerWt PctKer Fib Blanch GD BL BS MO SH PF TW BT EFB-susceptible selections in nearby trial  919.031 1 3 26.53 13.55 51.15 2.3 2.1 81.50 4.30 0.40 1.60 0.60 11.20 0.00 0.40  961.021 2 3 25.53 12.00 46.99 1.3 3.5 84.26 4.76 0.16 2.00 3.34 4.76 0.66 0.26  961.063 3 3 25.87 12.25 47.48 1.9 2.6 88.84 2.16 0.76 1.84 0.58 4.34 1.42 0.34  978.057 4 3 29.38 13.91 47.42 3.1 3.0 83.50 8.00 0.00 2.66 1.00 4.16 0.26 0.76  978.058 5 3 30.98 14.78 47.71 2.6 2.6 85.82 4.36 0.36 1.46 1.00 5.18 0.72 1.18  978.064 6 3 25.62 13.13 51.22 2.2 3.3 74.50 7.58 0.08 3.76 6.66 5.92 0.16 1.66 1012.074 7 3 23.17 11.84 51.08 2.1 2.2 89.36 3.64 0.64 1.82 0.64 3.46 0.18 0.36 Barcelona 8 3 38.87 17.08 44.00 2.5 4.3 68.26 5.26 0.16 4.00 1.42 16.00 6.00 0.16 Clark 9 3 24.73 12.41 50.02 2.6 3.1 73.08 2.58 1.00 4.00 0.50 18.34 0.84 0.34 Lewis 10 3 29.41 13.60 46.20 1.3 4.1 65.26 2.00 0.16 11.00 1.26 19.66 2.00 0.76 Sacajawea 11 3 28.07 14.55 51.85 1.3 3.1 82.72 4.90 0.00 4.72 2.10 5.00 0.18 0.54 LSD 0.05 1.64 0.67 0.72 0.3 0.3 5.94 2.02 0.70 1.60 1.10 6.36 0.78 0.50  919.031 1 3 26.53 13.55 51.15 2.3 2.1 81.50 4.30 0.40 1.60 0.60 11.20 0.00 0.40  961.021 2 3 25.53 12.00 46.99 1.3 3.5 84.26 4.76 0.16 2.00 3.34 4.76 0.66 0.26  961.063 3 3 25.87 12.25 47.48 1.9 2.6 88.84 2.16 0.76 1.84 0.58 4.34 1.42 0.34  978.057 4 3 29.38 13.91 47.42 3.1 3.0 83.50 8.00 0.00 2.66 1.00 4.16 0.26 0.76  978.058 5 3 30.98 14.78 47.71 2.6 2.6 85.82 4.36 0.36 1.46 1.00 5.18 0.72 1.18  978.064 6 3 25.62 13.13 51.22 2.2 3.3 74.50 7.58 0.08 3.76 6.66 5.92 0.16 1.66 1012.074 7 3 23.17 11.84 51.08 2.1 2.2 89.36 3.64 0.64 1.82 0.64 3.46 0.18 0.36 Barcelona 8 3 38.87 17.08 44.00 2.5 4.3 68.26 5.26 0.16 4.00 1.42 16.00 6.00 0.16 Clark 9 3 24.73 12.41 50.02 2.6 3.1 73.08 2.58 1.00 4.00 0.50 18.34 0.84 0.34 Lewis 10 3 29.41 13.60 46.20 1.3 4.1 65.26 2.00 0.16 11.00 1.26 19.66 2.00 0.76 Sacajawea 11 3 28.07 14.55 51.85 1.3 3.1 82.72 4.90 0.00 4.72 2.10 5.00 0.18 0.54 LSD 0.05 1.64 0.67 0.72 0.3 0.3 5.94 2.02 0.70 1.60 1.10 6.36 0.78 0.50 Notes (%): GD = good kernels, BL = blanks, BS = brown stain, MO = moldy kernels, SH = shriveled kernels, PF = poorly filled nuts, TW = twins, BT = black tips.

TABLE 5 Ten-nut and 10-kernel weight, kernel percentage, and ratings for fiber and blanching for hazelnut cultivars and selections (including ‘Burgundy Lace’) in a trial planted in 2007. No. 10-nut 10-ker Kernel Selection trees wt wt percentage Fibery Blanchingx McDonald 4 26.2 13.7 52.3 2.6 3.3 Felix 4 27.1 13.7 50.8 3.0 2.2 Jefferson 4 37.6 16.7 44.5 3.0 4.3 Santiam 4 22.8 11.5 50.6 3.0 4.2 LSD 0.05 2.2 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.4 ‘Burgundy 2 17.2 7.6 44.1 2.8 6.6 Lace zMeans for nuts and kernels are over four years. yAmount of fiber on the pellicle was rated in the second trial from 1 (none) to 4 (much). xBlanching was rated from 1 (complete pellicle removal) to 7 (no pellicle removal). LSD = least significant difference.

TABLE 6 Primers, annealing temperatures, and characterisitics for the 24 microsatellite marker loci used to fingerprint ‘Burgundy Lace’ and other hazelnut cultivars. Primers (5′-3′) Repeat Allele (forward above, Tm Locus Motif sizes reverse below) (° C.) n He Ho PIC r LG Locus Reference A613 (TC)13(CA)12 149- Ned- 60 14 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.00 11R A613 Gurcan et al. 177 CACACGCCTT 2010 GTCACTCTTT (SEQ ID NO: 1) CCCCTTTCAC ATGTTTGCTT (SEQ ID NO: 2) A614 (TC)17(CA)10 125- Hex- 60 14 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.00 6S, A614 Gurcan et al. NNN(CA)6 156 TGGCAGAGCT 6R 2010 TTGTCAGCTT (SEQ ID NO: 3) GCAGTGGAGG ATTGCTGACT (SEQ ID NO: 4) A616 (AC)11 136- Fam- 60 13 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.00 8R A616 Gurcan et al. 162 CACTCATACC 2010 GCAAACTCCA (SEQ ID NO: 5) ATGGCTTTTG CTTCGTTTTG (SEQ ID NO: 6) A640 (CT)15(CA)13 354- F- 67 11 0.80 0.73 0.77 0.04 10R A640 Gurcan et al. 378 TGCCTCTGCA 2010 GTTAGTCAT (SEQ ID NO: 7) Fam- CGCCATATAATTG GGATGCTTGTTG (SEQ ID NO: 8) B617 (GA)15 280- Fam- 60 9 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.01 8S, B617 Gurcan et al. 298 TCCGTGTTGA 8R 2010 GTATGGACGA (SEQ ID NO: 9) TGTTTTTGGT GGAGCGATG (SEQ ID NO: 10) B619 (TC)21 146- Fam- 60 14 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.00 3S, B619 Gurcan et al. 180 AGTCGGCTCC 3R 2010 CCTTTTCTC (SEQ ID NO: 11) GCGATCTGAC CTCATTTTTG (SEQ ID NO: 12) B634 (AG)15 218- Hex- 60 9 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.00 4R B634 Gurcan et al. 238 CCTGCATCCA 2010 GGACTCATTA (SEQ ID NO: 13) GTGCAGAGGT TGCACTCAAA (SEQ ID NO: 14) B657 (AG)15 210- Ned- 60 8 0.84 0.98 0.82 −0.08 11S, B657 Gurcan et al. 228 GAGAGTGCGT 1 2010 CTTCCTCTGG 1R (SEQ ID NO: 15) AGCCTCACCT CCAACGAAC (SEQ ID NO: 16) B662 (TC)15 220- Hex- 60 9 0.74 0.68 0.72 0.04 3R B662 Gurcan et al. 236 CGAAAGATGGA 2010 CTTCCATGAC (SEQ ID NO: 17) CAAGTTGAGAT TCTTCCTGCAA (SEQ ID NO: 18) B671 (AG)6NN(GA)17 221- Hex- 60 13 0.86 0.88 0.84 −0.01 9S, B671 Gurcan et al. 249 TTGCCAGT 9R 2010 GCATACTC (SEQ ID NO: 19) ACCAGCTCTG GGCTTAACAC (SEQ ID NO: 20) B709 (GA)21 219- Ned- 60 8 0.74 0.76 0.70 −0.01 5S, B709 Gurcan et al. 233 CCAAGCACGA 5R 2010 ATGAACTCAA (SEQ ID NO: 21) GCGGGTTCTC GTTGTACACT (SEQ ID NO: 22) B733 (TC)15 161- Ned- 60 8 0.68 0.68 0.63 0.00 7S, B733 Gurcan et al. 183 CACCCTCTTC 2R 2010 ACCACCTCAT (SEQ ID NO: 23) CATCCCCTGT TGGAGTTTTC (SEQ ID NO: 24) B741 (GT)5(GA)12 176- Fam- 60 10 0.77 0.78 0.74 0.00 5S, B741 Gurcan et al. 194 GTTCACAGGC 5R 2010 TGTTGGGTTT (SEQ ID NO: 25) CGTGTTGCTC ATGTGTTGTG (SEQ ID NO: 26) B749 (TC)12 200- Hex- 60 6 0.60 0.64 0.51 −0.03 1R B749 Gurcan et al. 210 GGCTGACAAC 2010 ACAGCAGAAA (SEQ ID NO: 27) TCGGCTAGGG TTAGGGTTTT (SEQ ID NO: 28) B751 (GA)15 141- Fam- 60 7 0.80 0.78 0.77 0.01 7S, B751 Gurcan et al. 153 AGCTGGTTCT 2R 2010 TCGACATTCC (SEQ ID NO: 29) AAACTCAAATAA AACCCCTGCTC (SEQ ID NO: 30) B767 (TC)15(AT)7 198- Fam- 60 16 0.87 0.80 0.86 0.04 8S, B767 Gurcan et al. 238 CCACCAACTG 8R 2010 TTTCACACCA (SEQ ID NO: 31) GCGAAATGGA GCTCTTGAAC (SEQ ID NO: 32) B774 (AG)15 195- Ned- 60 8 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.00 5S, B774 Gurcan et al. 213 GTTTTGCGAG 5R 2010 CTCATTGTCA (SEQ ID NO: 33) TGTGTGTGGTC TGTAGGCACT (SEQ ID NO: 34) B795 (TC)8Ns(CT)7Ns 296- Fam- 60 12 0.76 0.74 0.74 0.01 NA B795 Gurcan et al. (CT)10Ns(TC)5 332 GACCCACAAACA 2010 ATAACCTATCTC (SEQ ID NO: 35) TGGGCATCAT CCAGGTCTA (SEQ ID NO: 36) C115 (TAA)5(GAA)12 167- Fam- 60 10 0.84 0.90 0.82 −0.035 4S, C115 Bassil 2005b; 225 CATTTTCCGCA 4R Gokirmak et GATAATACAGG al. 2009 (SEQ ID NO: 37) GTTTCCAGATCTG CCTCCATATAAT (SEQ ID NO: 38) KG807 (TAAA)AA 226- AAGCAAGAA 54 4 0.67 0.78 0.60 −0.07 11 KG807 Gurcan and (TAAA)2 248 AGGGATGGT Mehlenbacher, A(TAAA)2 (SEQ ID NO: 39) 2010 Fam- CTTACAGATAA ATGGCTCAAA (SEQ ID NO: 40) KG809 (AGG)6 333- GGAAGGTGAGA 55 5 0.66 0.64 0.60 0.01 4 KG809 Gurcan and 345 GAAATCAAGT Mehlenbacher, (SEQ ID NO: 41) 2010 Hex- AGGCATCAG TTCATCCAA (SEQ ID NO: 42) KG811 (GA)17 240- GAACAACTGAA 58 12 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.01 2 KG811 Gurcan and 278 GACAGCAAAG Mehlenbacher, (SEQ ID NO: 43) 2010 Ned- AAGGCGGCA CTCGCTCAC (SEQ ID NO: 44) KG827 (CT)13AA(CA)7 264- Fam- 67 9 0.78 0.84 0.75 −0.04 9 KG827 Gurcan and 282 AGAACTCCGACTAAT Mehlenbacher, AATCCTAACCCTTGC 2010 (SEQ ID NO: 45) GAGGGAGCAAGTCA AAGTTGAGAAGAAA (SEQ ID NO: 46) KG830 (CT)14GTATT 279- Ned- 67 9 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.00 9 KG830 Gurcan and (CA)8 311 TGGAGGAAGTTTTGA Mehlenbacher, ATGGTAGTAGAGGA 2010 (SEQ ID NO: 47) AAAGCAACTCATAG CTGAAGTCCAATCA (SEQ ID NO: 48) Primers fluorescent tags are FAM, HEX and NED Tm annealing temperature (° C.); n number of alleles; He expected heterozygosity; Ho observed heterozygosity; PIC polymorphism information content; r estimated null allele frequency; LG linkage group; NA = not yet assigned Reference for development and characterization

TABLE 7 Allele sizes in ‘Burgundy Lace’ and 12 other hazelnut cultivars at 24 microsatellite loci. Tonda Burgundy Rode G.d. Marker Lace Cutleaf Gasaway Zeller Langhe Barcelona Yamhill Dorris Wepster McDonald York Felix Theta A640 372/372 368/372 362/368 355/355 355/368 355/374 355/368 372/374 368/374 362/368 363/374 368/372 362/368 B662 232/232 228/232 232/238 232/232 232/232 232/232 232/232 228/232 232/232 232/232 232/232 232/232 228/232 KG809 339/339 339/339 339/348 342/345 339/342 339/339 348/348 339/348 342/342 339/339 339/348 339/348 339/348 B774 207/213 207/213 203/209 203/207 203/211 203/207 203/211 203/207 203/207 203/213 203/209 203/213 203/213 B619 158/158 158/166 172/176 168/178 150/166 158/172 158/172 158/166 166/172 158/172 158/166 158/166 158/166 B767 214/240 212/214 214/214 212/216 214/218 214/240 214/238 214/218 200/242 200/214 236/238 214/214 212/214 B617 289/293 291/293 291/295 281/291 285/295 285/289 289/295 287/295 293/295 293/293 287/289 287/287 281/285 A614 152/158 152/152 143/158 150/150 125/135 125/132 132/158 132/158 135/158 135/158 124/158 138/143 138/158 B749 205/209 205/205 207/209 207/209 207/209 209/209 209/209 207/207 207/209 207/209 209/209 207/207 209/209 B733 167/167 167/167 175/175 175/175 173/175 173/175 181/185 173/181 173/175 173/175 173/181 175/181 163/181 B709 223/229 223/229 229/229 229/229 229/229 227/235 229/229 229/229 229/235 227/229 229/233 229/233 229/229 KG830 293/303 297/305 291/305 303/303 291/295 291/295 291/295 295/297 295/305 291/295 295/295 293/303 297/297 A616 144/156 152/156 150/150 144/148 150/152 144/152 150/150 150/152 152/160 150/160 144/152 150/152 132/134 C115 216/216 216/216 216/219 194/216 174/174 174/194 197/216 194/216 183/194 174/197 197/197 197/216 197/216 KG827 274/282 272/272 272/282 272/282 268/278 282/284 268/282 272/284 270/282 272/284 268/272 272/284 270/272 B671 241/251 225/237 237/249 249/249 239/243 225/229 225/243 229/249 239/249 229/237 243/249 229/237 229/249 A613 161/179 179/179 161/163 153/167 153/153 153/161 153/163 151/169 167/167 153/169 159/179 151/153 167/179 KG811 257/257 255/257 257/261 255/257 257/267 261/267 251/261 257/267 257/257 245/267 257/257 251/267 257/257 B751 146/152 146/152 144/144 148/152 150/154 144/154 152/152 144/152 144/144 144/144 152/154 152/154 144/152 B741 178/184 184/184 186/188 178/184 176/184 178/186 178/186 178/186 176/186 178/188 178/186 186/186 184/186 KG807 242/252 242/252 242/252 238/238 238/252 238/252 230/252 242/252 252/252 252/252 242/252 238/242 252/252 B795 333/333 333/333 317/319 317/333 315/333 333/333 333/333 333/333 333/333 317/333 333/333 321/333 299/333 B634 228/228 228/228 222/234 220/240 228/228 228/228 236/236 228/228 228/228 222/228 228/236 228/236 228/236 B657 223/227 223/227 225/229 211/227 219/227 219/223 219/229 211/227 227/227 211/219 221/223 219/227 219/223

Claims

1. A new and distinct cultivar of Corylus plant as herein illustrated and described.

Referenced Cited
Other references
  • Bassil et al, “Additional Microsatellite Markers of the European Hazelnut,” Acta Hortic. vol. 686, pp. 105-110, 2005.
  • Bassil et al, “Microsatellite Markers in Hazelnut: Isolation, Characterization, and Cross-species Amplification,” J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., vol. 130(4), pp. 543-549, 2005.
  • Bassil et al, “Nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite markers to assess genetic diversity and evolution in hazelnut species, hybrids and cultivars,” Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., vol. 60(2), pp. 543-568, 2012.
  • Boccacci et al, “Characterization and evaluation of microsatellite loci in European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) and their transferability to other Corylus species,” Molecular Ecology Notes, vol. 5, pp. 934-937, 2005.
  • Boccacci et al, “DNA typing and genetic relations among European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars using microsatellite markers,” Genome, vol. 49, pp. 598-611, 2006.
  • Gökirmak et al, “Characterization of European hazelnut (Corylus avellana) cultivars using SSR markers,” Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., vol. 56(2), pp. 147-172, 2008.
  • Gürcan et al, “Genetic diversity in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars from Black Sea countries assessed using SSR markers,” Plant Breeding, vol. 129, pp. 422-434, 2010.
  • Gürcan et al, “Development, characterization, segregation, and mapping of microsatellite markers for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from enriched genomic libraries and usefulness in genetic diversity studies,” Tree Genetics & Genomes, vol. 6, pp. 513-531, 2010.
  • Gürcan et al, “Transferability of Microsatellite Markers in the Betulaceae,” J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 135(2), pp. 159-173, 2010.
  • Gürcan and Mehlenbacher. “Development of microsatellite marker loci for European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) from ISSR fragments,” Molecular Breeding 26:551-559, 2010.
  • Mehlenbacher et al., “Inheritance of the Cutleaf Trait in Hazelnut,” HortScience, vol. 30(3), pp. 611-612, 1995.
  • Mehlenbacher et al., “‘Tonda Pacifica’ hazelnut,” HortScience 46:505-508, 2011.
  • Mehlenbacher et al., “‘Santiam’ hazelnut” HortScience 42:715-717, 2007.
  • Mehlenbacher et al., “RAPD markers linked to eastern filbert blight resistance in Corylus avellana,” Theor. Appl. Genet., vol. 108, pp. 651-656, 2004.
  • Sathuvalli et al., “Characterization of American hazelnut (Corylus americana) accessions and Corylus americana×Corylus avellana hybrids using microsatellite markers,” Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol., vol. 59, pp. 1055-1075, 2012.
Patent History
Patent number: PP28216
Type: Grant
Filed: Sep 21, 2015
Date of Patent: Jul 25, 2017
Patent Publication Number: 20170086341
Assignee: Oregon State University (Corvallis, OR)
Inventors: Shawn A. Mehlenbacher (Corvallis, OR), David C. Smith (Corvallis, OR), Rebecca L. McCluskey (Corvallis, OR)
Primary Examiner: Anne Grunberg
Application Number: 14/756,596
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Nut (including Ornamental Variety) (PLT/152)
International Classification: A01H 5/12 (20060101);