Registration of 'Ho 00-961' Sugarcane - PubAg - USDA

3 downloads 422 Views 514KB Size Report
Registration of 'Ho 00-961' Sugarcane ..... section (I through VIII) show name of the SSR marker (first row), allele size (base pairs) (second row), sequential order.
Published September, 2011

C U LT I VA R

Registration of ‘Ho 00-961’ Sugarcane William H. White,* Thomas L. Tew, Robert M. Cobill, David M. Burner, Michael P. Grisham, Edwis O. Dufrene, Yong-Bao Pan, Edward P. Richard, Jr., and Benjamin L. Legendre ABSTRACT ‘Ho 00-961’ (Reg. No. CV-146, PI 659769) sugarcane (a complex hybrid of Saccharum officinarum L., S. spontaneum L., S. barberi Jeswiet, and S. sinense Roxb. amend. Jeswiet) was selected by the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit and evaluated cooperatively with the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the American Sugar Cane League, Inc. Ho 00-961 is a progeny of the cross US 94-1 × ‘HoCP 91-552’ made in 1995 and selected in the first-ratoon seedling crop in 1997. Ho 00-961 is being released as a cultivar with moderately high fiber content, moderately high sugar content, and high total cane yield—important traits for sugarcane to be grown as a biofuel feedstock. In 12 harvested evaluations, Ho 00-961 had an overall mean Brix value of 141 g kg −1 versus 146 g kg −1 for the cultivar standard ‘LCP 85-384’. The mean fiber content (stalks processed with tops and leaves) for Ho 00-961 was 186 g kg −1, compared with a fiber content of 164 g kg −1 for the cultivar LCP 85-384. Finally, Ho 00-961 had a total cane yield 14% greater than that of LCP 85-834. Ho 00-961 appears resistant to mosaic (caused by Sugarcane mosaic virus and Sorghum mosaic virus), brown rust (caused by Puccinia melanocephala H. and P. Sydow), and leaf scald [caused by Xanthomonas albilineans (Ashby) Dowson]. Although natural infection of smut (caused by Ustilago scitaminea H. and P. Sydow) was not observed in yield evaluations, Ho 00-961 was susceptible under artificial inoculation. Ho 00-961 is also resistant to the sugarcane borer (Diatraea saccharalis F.).

‘H

o 00-961’ (Reg. No. CV-146, PI 659769) sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) is a complex hybrid whose genomic makeup consists primarily of genes contributed by S. officinarum L. and S. spontaneum L., with lesser contributions from S. barberi Jeswiet and S. sinense Roxb. amend. Jeswiet. It is a BC2 derivative from the introgression breeding effort (locally referred to as the basic program) that was initiated at the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit in

W.H. White, T.L. Tew, M.P. Grisham, E.O. Dufrene, Y.-B. Pan, and E.P. Richard, Jr., USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Rd., Houma, LA 70360; R.M. Cobill, current address: CERES Inc., 1535 Rancho Conejo, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320; D.M. Burner, current address: USDA-ARS Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, 6883 South State Hwy. 23, Booneville, AR 72927; B.L. Legendre, current address: Audubon Sugar Institute, Louisiana State Univ. Agricultural Center, 3845 Hwy. 75, Saint Gabriel, LA 70776. Registration by CSSA. Received 17 June 2010. *Corresponding author (William. [email protected]). Abbreviations: LSU, Louisiana State University; SCMV, Sugarcane mosaic virus; SrMV, Sorghum mosaic virus; SSR, single-sequence repeat. Published in the Journal of Plant Registrations 5:332–338 (2011). doi: 10.3198/jpr2010.06.0354crc Posted online 21 July 2011. © Crop Science Society of America 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.

332

1972 (Dunckelman and Legendre, 1982). This introgression program was undertaken to increase genetic variability to expedite the incorporation of disease and insect resistance, vigor, stalk population, stubble longevity, and cold tolerance into new cultivars. This strategy was validated with the release of ‘LCP 85-384’ in 1993 (Milligan et al., 1994). LCP 85-384, a BC4 derivative of US 56-15-8 (S. spontaneum), undoubtedly retained many of the traits of its S. spontaneum ancestry, and this background is thought to be responsible for the 20% increase in sugar yields over varieties heretofore grown by Louisiana sugarcane farmers. The Sugarcane Research Unit’s breeding program has recently expanded its efforts to include the development of sugarcane cultivars that can serve as a feedstock for the production of biofuel. Because it is not certain how the technology required for this industry will develop, that is, fermentation (sucrose and cellulosic) or cogeneration, we chose to identify two types of potential sugarcane feedstocks: type I and type II (Tew and Cobill, 2008). A type-I feedstock would have somewhat lower sugar content (10– 14%), but with a higher fiber percentage (14–20%) than would be acceptable for a sugarcane cultivar. Conversely, a type-II cane would principally be a biomass (total cane yield) sugarcane expressing a low sugar content (20%). With this strategy implemented, Ho 00-961 was released to the public in April 2007 as a type-I feedstock sugarcane because of its moderately high fiber content, moderately high sucrose content, and high total cane yield.

Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

Methods Early-Stage Selection Ho 00-961 was selected from the cross US 94-1 × ‘HoCP 91-552’. The maternal parent, US 94-1, is a progeny of US 87-6 (a BC2 derivative of S. spontaneum accession SES 205A) × US 88-7 (an F1 progeny from ‘CP 72-355’ × S. spontaneum accession SES 231). These two S. spontaneum accessions, SES 205A and SES 231, were collected in India. HoCP 91-552 is a progeny of ‘LCP 81-10’ × ‘CP 72-356’. Progeny from the subject cross were planted to the field in April 1996; selection was made in the first-ratoon crop in the fall of 1997. A thorough description of the early-stage selection of the Louisiana sugarcane breeding program (USDA and LSU Agricultural Center) is found in Bischoff et al. (2008) and Tew et al. (2009). Ho 00-961 was assigned a permanent number in 2000 based on its estimated stalk population and cane and sugar yield at the first-ratoon, second clonal stage (year five). Ho 00-961 had greater stalk number (27%), cane yield (22%), sugar yield (18%), and fiber (15%) than the commercial standard LCP 85-384. Following issuance of a commercial cultivar designation, it was advanced into two off-station yield evaluations rather than being used only for breeding purposes to continue backcrossing toward the commercial type.

Yield Trials Replicated nursery evaluations were planted in 2000 at the Louisiana State University (LSU) Agricultural Center’s Sugar Research Station, St. Gabriel, LA and Iberia Research Station, Jeanerette, LA. At each location a randomized complete block design with two replications was used. Plots consisted of single 1.8-m-wide rows that were 4 m long with a 0.9-m gap between plots. Data were collected for Ho 00-961 only in the plant-cane crop. Data obtained were stalk population, stalk weight, Brix, cane yield, and sugar yield. The number of harvestable stalks in each plot was determined in early August. Yield estimates were based on 10-stalk, hand-cut samples, and the samples were processed using the prebreaker/press method (Legendre, 1992). Three evaluations, one in 2001 and two in 2003, were conducted comparing Ho 00-961 with other potential feedstock cultivars and with commercial sugarcane standards. The 2001 evaluation was planted on a Sharkey clay soil (very-fine, montmorillonitic, nonacid, thermic Vertic Haplaquept) at the Sugarcane Research Laboratory’s Ardoyne Research Farm near Schriever, LA. In 2003, the second and third evaluations were established at the Ardoyne Research Farm and on a Crowley silt loam (fine, smectitic, thermic Typic Albaqualfs) at the Diamond W Ranch near Welsh, LA. The evaluations were planted in a randomized complete block design with seven (2001) or nine (2003) cultivars each replicated four times. Individual plots were two rows, 12 m long with an interrow spacing of 1.8 m. A 1.5-m alley was left between each cultivar. Plant-cane and first-, second- and third-ratoon crops were harvested from each experiment. Sugarcane in each plot was cut with a chopper harvester and total cane weight (Mg ha−1) of harvested cane determined with a single-axle Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

weigh-wagon equipped with electronic loads cells mounted on the spindles at the ends of the axle and the wagon hitch (John Deere Thibodaux, Thibodaux, LA; Johnson and Richard, 2005). No burning was done before harvesting, and the harvester’s leaf-extractor fans were turned off. A 15-stalk sample, not stripped or topped, was collected from each plot before harvest for quality analysis. The resulting analysis, including Brix (g kg−1 w/w) and fiber content (g kg−1), was performed for each sample (Gravois and Milligan, 1992). The PROC MIXED procedure (SAS v9.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used to analyze the linear model with replication as a random variable and cultivar as a fi xed variable. For the analysis across crop-year, crop-year was analyzed as a fi xed effect. Least square means were generated for each cultivar and were separated using the PDIFF option (P = 0.05).

Disease Evaluations The reaction of HoCP 00-961 to the important endemic diseases of sugarcane in Louisiana was determined from observations in performance trials and from artificially inoculated greenhouse and field trials.

Mosaic In year 8, when experimental clones were introduced to the outfield trials (Tew et al., 2009), young plants were artificially inoculated in the greenhouse as described by Grisham and Pan (2007) with Sorghum mosaic virus (SrMV) and Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV), the two viruses reported to cause mosaic in the continental United States.

Smut Two inoculated field trials were conducted in 2002 to test Ho 00-961 for susceptibility to smut (Ustilago scitaminea H. and P. Sydow): one at the Ardoyne Research Farm and the other at the LSU Agricultural Center’s Sugar Research Station. A third trial was conducted in 2010 at the Ardoyne Research Farm. Eighteen stalks (six stalks per replicate) of each cultivar were dipped in a suspension of approximately 5 × 106 smut teliospores mL −1 (having >90% germination) for 10 min then planted immediately. The experimental design for each of these trials was a randomized complete block with three replications and individual plots consisting of a single row 4.9 m long with an interrow spacing of 1.8 m. Disease ratings were made in mid-June to mid-July during the subsequent plant-cane growing season. Clones were ranked according to the percentage of stalks with sori (whips) and assigned a rating of 1 to 9 where 1 indicates no sori formation, and a rating of 9 represents the group of clones with the highest percentage of stalks with sori, generally >30%. Because the range of the percentage of stalks with sori that defined each rating varied from trial to trial as a result of environmental effects, 10 cultivar standards that ranged from resistant (rating < 3) to susceptible (rating > 7) were included as standards for comparison.

Leaf Scald The smut field trials were also used for testing experimental clones for resistance to leaf scald [caused by Xanthomonas C U LT I VA R

333

albilineans (Ashby) Dowson]. At the Ardoyne Research Farm, plants were inoculated in April, which was approximately 1 mo after growth was initiated following winter dormancy. The leaf whorls of all plants in the trial were cut by hand to a height of about 5 cm and immediately sprayed with a suspension of X. albilineans cells. Bacterial cells were recovered from 7–10-d-old cultures grown on Wilbrink agar plates and suspended in distilled water. Bacterial densities were adjusted to approximately 1 × 106 colony-forming units mL −1 based on spectrophotometer analysis. Plants at the LSU Agricultural Center’s Sugarcane Experiment Station were inoculated when they were approximately 3 mo old by hand-clipping the leaf whorl of each shoot and spraying the cut surface immediately with a suspension of X. albilineans cells at a similar concentration as that in the Sugarcane Research Unit’s studies. Clones of both trials were visually inspected for leaf scald susceptibility in August and October, and the percentage of stalks showing acute (systemic) infection was determined for each clone. An average severity rating of 1 to 9 was assigned to each plot where 1 = no symptoms, 3 = single “white pencil line” symptoms, 5 = multiple white pencil lines per leaf that become necrotic, 7 = significant disease development with younger leaves showing necrotic lines, and 9 = leaf whorl dying and lateral buds germinating. Ratings were based on a comparison with inoculated varieties with known levels of resistance and susceptibility to leaf scald.

Characteristics Field Performance

Brown Rust Performance trials were observed during the spring and summer when the conditions for the development of brown rust (caused by Puccinia melanocephala H. and P. Sydow) from natural infection were favorable. Clones were rated for disease severity on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 = no rust visible, and 9 = coalescing pustules causing leaf death).

Sugarcane Borer Evaluation The sugarcane borer (Diatraea saccharalis F.) is an important insect pest of sugarcane throughout the Americas and the most important insect pest of sugarcane in Louisiana (White et al., 2008). Reaction to the sugarcane borer was determined in a replicated field evaluation planted 6 Sept. 2006 at the Ardoyne Research Farm with infestation data collected in 2007. Plots were planted as a randomized complete block design with 10 varieties and four replications. Individual plots comprised three rows, each 4.9 m long, with an interrow spacing of 1.8 m, and a 1.2-m alley was left between plots. Every fourth row of the experiment was left fallow until the spring of 2007. This row configuration permitted artificial induction of sugarcane borer infestations using maize as an inoculated host following procedures as described by White et al. (1996). Maize was planted on the fallow rows 12 Mar. 2007 at an average plant population of 10,850 ha−1. On 24 Apr. 2007, the individual maize plants were infested with 16 laboratory-reared, first-instar larvae. We estimated the moth infestation level in the maize at approximately 38,000 moths (male and female) ha −1. This estimate was derived from a random 50-plant sample

334

obtained on 31 May 2007, when the number of sugarcane borer pupae per plant was determined. Infestation by the sugarcane borer was determined only in the plant-cane crop with a random 15-stalk sample taken on 10 Dec. 2007 from each plot. Stalks were topped at the last hard internode, and the leaves and associated leaf sheaths were removed. Individual stalks were inspected for larvae entrance holes and moth exit holes. The percentage of damaged internodes is the best predictor of yield loss from sugarcane borer when extensive yield-loss evaluations are not conducted (Milligan et al., 2003). An entrance hole represents a successful larval establishment in the stalk, while an exit hole represents a successful moth emergence. Adult emergence indicates the potential for a cultivar to contribute to area-wide infestations of the sugarcane borer. These two types of holes are easily distinguishable because the moth exit hole is two to three times the diameter of the entrance hole and frequently possess an emergence gate (flap). Data were expressed as the percentage of damaged internodes and total number of exit holes. The MIXED procedure of SAS was used to analyze the linear model (SAS v9.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) that used replication as a random variable and cultivar as a fi xed variable. Varieties were separated using the PDIFF option with the SAXTON macro (Saxton, 1998) at P = 0.05.

C U LT I VA R

Although Ho 00-961 performed well as a sugarcane cultivar in the unreplicated second-clonal evaluation, its performance in the on-station yield trials in the plant-cane crop was disappointing. Ho 00-961 had significantly lower theoretical recoverable sucrose levels and biomass yield than most clones being evaluated; however, when averaged across both on-station yield trials, it had a significantly greater stalk population than all but three test clones, including the cultivar standard LCP 85-384 (t = −0.28; df = 77; Pr = 0.7789). Stalk population is a trait highly correlated with ratooning ability, an important trait for a putative biofuel feedstock. Nevertheless, Ho 00-961 did not perform well in the plant-cane crop of these trials and therefore was no longer considered for release as a traditional sugarcane cultivar; hence, data collection ceased in the ratoon crops of Ho 00-961. In evaluations with other potential sugarcane feedstock, however, Ho 00-961 performed well. When averaged across crops, Ho 00-961’s Brix values were not significantly different from those of the cultivar standard LCP 85-384 but were significantly greater than those of the recently released sugarcane cultivar ‘L 79-1002’, a cultivar meeting the criteria of a type-II biofuel feedstock sugarcane (Bischoff et al., 2008; Table 1). Although Ho 00-961 had a numerically higher fiber content than the commercial standard, its fiber content was significantly less than that of L 79-1002. Ho 00-961 did not differ from any cultivar evaluated for cane yield, including the cultivar ‘TucCP 77-42’. TucCP 77-42 is a BC1 derived from the Houma introgression program and selected for release in Argentina (Mariotti et al., Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

Table 1. Mean Brix, fiber, and total cane yield of sugarcane cultivars in the plant-cane through the third-ratoon crops at the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory’s Ardoyne Farm, Schriever, LA.† Cultivar

Brix

Fiber content

Brix + fiber content

——————————— g kg −1 ———————————

Brix yield

Fiber yield

Brix + fiber yield

Cane yield

——————————————— Mg ha −1 ———————————————

Plant cane harvested in 2002 Ho 00-961

144

167

312

14.2 9.4−

16.8

31.0

99.3 93.0

L 79-1002

101−

251+

349+

23.2+

32.7

LCP 85-384

158+

141

308

15.7

14.1

29.8

99.9

TucCP 77-42

129−

155

304

10.9−

12.9

23.7

84.4

First ratoon harvested in 2003 Ho 00-961

117

L 79-1002

83−

212

311

257+

352

11.6 8.3−

21.3

32.9

99.6

25.8

34.1

100.6

LCP 85-384

112

193

299

10.6

18.3

29.0

94.8

TucCP 77-42

112

193

284

11.0

18.9

29.8

97.6

Ho 00-961

156

142

328

14.9

30.9

103.4

245+

340+

17.4

23.9

73.1−

305

11.6

11.7

23.3

77.0

306

12.7

11.1

23.8

77.8

12.3

23.6

69.1

20.6+

28.3

77.0

Second ratoon harvested in 2004 L 79-1002

92−

LCP 85-384

152

151

TucCP 77-42

163

143

16.0 6.5−

Third ratoon harvested in 2005 Ho 00-961

164

L 79-1002

99−

177

299

267+

337+

LCP 85-384

173+

153

303−

TucCP 77-42

158

163

306−

Ho 00-961

145

175

341

11.4 7.7− 8.4−

7.5−

10.5

15.9−

48.8−

10.9

21.5

66.8

16.3

29.6

92.9

Average across crops L 79-1002

255+

366+

21.7+

29.7

85.4

LCP 85-384

149

160

326

11.6

12.9

24.5

80.1

TucCP 77-42

141

164

321−

11.3−

13.4

24.7

81.6



94−

13.3 8.0−

Statistically significant (P = 0.05) differences from Ho 00-961 are denoted with a plus (+) or minus (−) sign.

1991). It also is being considered as a biofuel feedstock sugarcane in Louisiana because of its high cane yields. Ho 00-961 performed well in subsequent evaluations at the Ardoyne Farm and Diamond W Ranch. When averaged over locations and years in these evaluations, the Brix value of Ho 00-961 was similar to that of the commercial standard LCP 85-384 (Table 2). Its yield for all parameters evaluated was not significantly different from that of HoCP 91-552, a cultivar also being considered as a sugarcane biofuel feedstock. Ho 00-961 had significantly higher Brix values but significantly lower cane yield (biomass) than the two clones Ho 01-03 and Ho 01-07. These two clones exhibit traits of a type-II sugarcane biofuel feedstock.

Disease Reactions Natural Infection No visual symptoms of mosaic (SCMV and SrMV), brown rust, smut, or leaf scald were observed among plants of HoCP 00-961 in nurseries or performance trials during the cultivar development program. The susceptibility of HoCP 00-961 to infection by Sugarcane yellow leaf virus is unknown. Orange rust [caused by Puccinia kuehnii (W. Krüger) E.J. Butler], first confirmed in Florida on 17 July 2007 (Comstock et al., 2008), has not yet been observed in Louisiana. Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

Artificial Inoculation HoCP 00-961 was resistant to mosaic (SCMV and SrMV), smut, and leaf scald diseases in inoculated trials. In two of the three inoculated trials, HoCP 00-961 appeared to be resistant to smut; however, in the 2010 trial it was susceptible. The level of susceptibility was similar to that of the susceptible controls: ‘CP 73-351’, ‘LHo 83-153’, and ‘Ho 95-988’.

Sugarcane Borer Evaluation Damage from sugarcane borer was considered moderate since the mean of the percentage of bored internodes was less than 10% in the plant-cane crop in 2007 (Table 3). In Louisiana, borer damage less than 10% is not considered to be economically significant. However, four varieties exceeded 10% damaged internodes, and Ho 00-961 had significantly less damage than this group. Ho 00-961 is therefore considered resistant to the sugarcane borer at infestation intensities similar to those encountered in this evaluation. Resistance of Ho 00-961 to the sugarcane borer may be related to its high fiber; a trait associated with borer resistance (White et al., 2006). Because there were no significant differences among the 10 varieties evaluated for total number of adult emergence holes, there is no evidence that extensive planting of Ho 00-961 will contribute to greater area-wide infestations of the sugarcane borer. C U LT I VA R

335

Table 2. Combined mean Brix, fiber, and cane yield of sugarcane cultivars in the plant-cane through the third-ratoon crops at the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory’s Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, LA and the Diamond W Ranch in Welsh, LA.† Cultivar

Brix

Fiber content

Brix + fiber content

−1

——————————— g kg ———————————

Brix yield

Fiber yield

Brix + fiber yield

Cane yield

−1

——————————————— Mg ha ———————————————

Plant cane harvested in 2004 Ho 00-961

113

198

311

11.5

22.0

33.5

109.1

LCP 85-384

119

172−

290

9.7

14.9

24.6

86.8

HoCP 91-552

128

163−

291

10.6

14.2

24.9

88.4

Ho 01-03

105

186

291

12.3

22.6

35.0

121.7

Ho 01-07

104

176

280

11.7

21.0

32.8

119.1 83.7

First ratoon harvested in 2005 Ho 00-961

139

173

313

11.6

14.6

26.2

LCP 85-384

154

146−

301

11.8

11.1

22.9

76.2

HoCP 91-552

137

153−

291

11.7

13.1

24.8

85.1

Ho 01-03

133

183

316

12.7

17.6

30.3

95.3

Ho 01-07

127

162

289

12.5

16.1

28.6

99.1

Second ratoon harvested in 2006 Ho 00-961

136

219

355

12.3

19.4

31.7

90.1

LCP 85-384

148

179

327

12.7

15.4

28.1

85.9

HoCP 91-552

137

210

348

13.1

19.9

33.0

94.8

Ho 01-03

118−

205

323

12.8

21.9

34.6

107.2+

Ho 01-07

116−

230

346

14.112

27.8

41.9+

121.5+

Third ratoon harvested in 2007 Ho 00-961

156

196

352

14.1

17.7

31.7

LCP 85-384

147

171−

318-

10.2

11.8−

22.0

90.0 69.5

HoCP 91-552

153

196

350

15.2

19.5

34.7

99.1

Ho 01-03

125−

206

331−

13.5

22.2

35.7

107.9

Ho 01-07

129−

189

318−

13.2

19.6

32.8

103.2

Average across crops Ho 00-961

136

197

333

12.4

18.4

30.8

93.2

LCP 85-384

142

167

309

11.1

13.3−

24.4

79.6

HoCP 91-552

139

181

320

12.7

16.7

29.3

91.9

Ho 01-03

120−

195

315

12.8

21.0

33.8

108.0+

Ho 01-07

119−

190

308

12.9

21.1

34.0

110.7+



Statistically significant (P = 0.05) differences from Ho 00-961 are denoted with a plus (+) or minus (−) sign.

Botanical and Molecular Description The USDA-ARS GRIN system’s plant descriptors for sugarcane were used as the template for Ho 00-961 (http://www .ars-grin.gov/npgs/descriptors/sugarcane; verified 15 June 2011). When planted in the fall, Ho 00-961 usually emerges in less than 2 wk. Its spring emergence appears to be comparable to currently recommended varieties. The canopy of Ho 00-961 is more erect than that of LCP 85-384 and similar to that of ‘HoCP 96-540’ (Tew et al., 2005). The following leaf, leaf sheath, and stalk descriptions for Ho 00-961 were obtained on 16 November 2007, based on 10 stalks exposed to sunlight. The leaf length and width of Ho 00-961 are similar to those of LCP 85-384 and HoCP 95-540; a range of 1.5–1.6 m × 33–35 mm, respectively. Unlike HoCP 00-950 (Tew et al., 2009), whose leaves bend at the tip, the leaves of Ho 00-961 bend near the middle. The dewlaps (sheath collars) of Ho 00-961 are wide and deltoid in shape and are brown when exposed to sunlight.

336

C U LT I VA R

The auricles associated with the dewlaps are generally greater than 10 mm in length, making them longer than those of both LCP 84-384 and HoCP 96-540. Ho 00-961 has a distinctive ligule, which is broad and triangular in shape, unlike most sugarcane ligules, which are narrow and crescent shaped. The stalk rind of Ho 00-961 is green to yellowish-green when the stalks are not exposed to sunlight, but they become yellower when exposed to sunlight. A white waxy bloom covers the stalks of Ho 00-961 but is less pronounced than the bloom on stalks of LCP 85-384 and HoCP 96-540. The average stalk diameter of Ho 00-961 at mid-internode in the plant-cane crop is 21.0 mm, slightly smaller than the diameter of HoCP 96-540 (23.0 mm). Ho 00-961 has cylindrical internodes, like the current cultivars in Louisiana, but the alignment from one internode to the next of Ho 00-961 is distinctively zig-zag, more so than any other cultivar grown in Louisiana. Ho 00-961 exhibits a round Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

Table 3. Mean percentage damage internodes and total adult emergence holes for 10 sugarcane cultivars under artificially induced sugarcane borer infestation in the 2007 plant-cane crop at the USDAARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory’s Ardoyne Farm, Schriever, LA. Cultivar

Damaged internodes†

Emergence holes†

%

no.

HoCP 00-950

19.3 a

1.8 a

Ho 95-988

13.6 b

2.8 a

HoCP 96-540

12.1 bc

2.5 a

L 97-128

12.0 bc

1.0 a

L 01-283

7.6 cd

0.8 a

L 99-226

7.4 cd

1.0 a

L 99-233

7.2 d

0.3 a

L 01-299

5.3 d

0.8 a

Ho 00-961

5.0 d

2.3 a

HoCP 02-623

5.0 d

1.3 a

Overall mean

9.5

1.4



bud shape with a central germ pore, unlike LCP 85-384 and HoCP 96-540, both of which have pentagonal buds. The older, more mature buds of H 00-961 often extend above the growth ring. Ho 00-961 does not exhibit a bud groove. Under the climatic conditions of southern Louisiana, Ho 00-961 will occasionally flower in late fall. When induced to flower in photoperiod-controlled facilities, Ho 00-961 is considered an early flowering cultivar, that is, it flowers in early December of a crossing season that extends from November to February at Houma. The molecular identity of Ho 00-961 was defined with 21 microsatellite markers using a high-throughput genotyping procedure (Table 4). The primer sequences of these single-sequence repeat (SSR) markers can be found in the paper by Pan (2006). Based on a previous survey, the total number of SSR fragments or alleles produced by these 21 sugarcane SSR markers from Louisiana cultivars was 144, and the potential number of SSR fragments or alleles produced per SSR marker varied from 3 to 11 (Pan et al., 2007). The letter A was used to indicate the presence of a fingerprint or allele, and the letter C was used to indicate its absence (fourth row in each section, Table 4). The overall

Means within a column followed by a different letter are statistically different using the Saxton mean separation procedure (Saxton, 1998) at P = 0.05.

Table 4. The molecular identity of Ho 00-961 defined with 21 microsatellite DNA (SSR) markers. Data within each section (I through VIII) show name of the SSR marker (first row), allele size (base pairs) (second row), sequential order (third row), the presence (A) or absence (C) of each allele (fourth row), and number of allele per marker (fifth row). I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

SMC119CG 106 112 1 2 C C 5 SMC278CS 140 153 23 24 C C 9 SMC334BS 146 149 43 44 A C 6 SMC486CG 224 227 63 64 C C 5 SMC597CS 144 148 79 80 C C 11 SMC851MS 128 130 99 100 C A 6 SMC1751CL 140 144 119 120 C A 5 mSSCIR74 217 220 140 141 A A 5

118 3 A

128 4 A

131 5 C

SMC1604SA 109 112 115 6 7 8 A C A 6

118 9 A

121 10 A

166 25 A

168 26 A

170 27 A

174 28 A

182 31 C

SMC31CUQ 138 150 160 32 33 34 C C C 11

151 45 C

161 46 C

163 47 A

164 51 C

166 52 A

237 65 A

239 66 C

241 67 C

219 71 C

222 72 A

154 81 A

157 82 C

159 83 A

165 87 A

168 88 A

132 101 A

134 102 A

136 103 A

132 107 A

134 108 C

147 121 A

151 122 A

154 123 C

154 127 A

157 128 C

223 142 A

226 143 C

229 144 C

176 29 C

178 30 C

SMC336BS 141 154 49 50 C C 11 SMC569CS 167 170 210 68 69 70 C C C 5 164 48 A

161 84 A

163 85 C

164 86 C

mSSCIR66 127 130 105 106 C A 4 SMC22DUQ 125 148 151 124 125 126 C A A 7 141 104 C

Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011

124 11 C

167 53 C

SMC18SA 137 140 12 13 C C 5

169 54 A

144 14 A

147 15 C

150 16 A

SMC24DUQ 126 128 131 17 18 19 A A A 6

135 20 A

162 35 A

163 36 C

165 37 A

167 38 C

171 39 A

173 40 C

179 42 C

171 55 A

173 56 C

175 57 A

177 58 C

183 59 C

SMC36BQ 112 118 60 61 C C 3

121 62 C

168 77 C

170 78 C

210 93 A

212 94 A

214 95 A

216 96 A

220 97 C

222 98 C

175 113 A

177 114 C

178 115 A

180 116 A

182 117 A

187 118 C

233 133 C

235 134 C

237 135 C

239 136 C

248 137 A

250 138 A

SMC7CUQ 158 162 164 166 73 74 75 76 C C A A 6 SMC703BS 174 201 206 208 89 90 91 92 C C A C 9 mSSCIR3 141 145 171 173 109 110 111 112 C C C A 10 mSSCIR43 160 163 206 209 129 130 131 132 C C C C 9

C U LT I VA R

177 41 C

137 21 A

142 22 A

252 139 A

337

amplification profile of Ho 00-961, in terms of A or C based on sequential order from 1 through 144 (third row in each section, Table 4), was represented by CCAACACAAACCCACAAAAAAACCAAAACCCCCCACACACCCACCCAACCCACA ACACCCCCCCACCCCCCACCA ACCCCACA AC C A AC C AC A A A AC C C A A A AC C A AC C C C A AC A A AC CAAACCAAACCCCCCCCCAAAAAACC. This sequence has been used to represent the molecular identity of Ho 00-961 when comparing genotypes of other Louisiana sugarcane cultivars (Pan et al., 2007).

Availability The USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Unit will make available small quantities of vegetative setts for breeding and research purposes. These setts may be obtained from the corresponding author.

References Bischoff, K.P., K.A. Gravois, T.E. Reagan, J.W. Hoy, C.A. Kimbeng, C.M. LaBorde, and G.L. Hawkins. 2008. Registration of ‘L 79-1002’ Sugarcane. J. Plant Reg. 2:211–217. doi:10.3198/jpr2007.12.0673crc Comstock, J.C., S.G. Sood, N.C. Glynn, J.M. Shine, Jr., J.M. McKemy, and L.A. Castlebury. 2008. First report of Puccinia kuehnii, causal agent of orange rust of sugarcane, in the United States and Western Hemisphere. Plant Dis. 92:175. doi:10.1094/PDIS-92-1-0175A Dunckelman, P.H., and B.L. Legendre. 1982. Guide to sugarcane breeding in the temperate zone. Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, ARM-S-22. USDA, Science and Education Administration, New Orleans, LA. Gravois, K.A., and S.B. Milligan. 1992. Genetic relationships between fiber and sugarcane yield components. Crop Sci. 32:62–67. doi:10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200010014x Grisham, M.P., and Y.-B. Pan. 2007. A genetic shift in the virus strains that cause mosaic in Louisiana sugarcane. Plant Dis. 91:453–458. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0453 Johnson, R.M., and E.P. Richard, Jr. 2005. Sugarcane yield, sugarcane quality, and soil variability in Louisiana. Agron. J. 97:760–771. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0184 Legendre, B.L. 1992. The core/press method for predicting the sugar from cane for the use in cane payment. Sugar J. 54:2–7.

338

C U LT I VA R

Mariotti, J.A., C.A. Levi, P.H. Dunckelman, and B.L. Legendre. 1991. Registration of ‘TUCCP 77-42’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 31:492. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100020076x Milligan, S.B., M. Balzarini, and W.H. White. 2003. Broad-sense heritabilities, genetic correlations, and selection indices for sugarcane borer resistance and their relation to yield loss. Crop Sci. 43:1729– 1735. doi:10.2135/cropsci2003.1729 Milligan, S.B., F.A. Martin, K.P. Bischoff, J.P. Quebedeaux, E.O. Dufrene, K.L. Quebedeaux, J.W. Hoy, T.E. Reagan, B.L. Legendre, and J.D. Miller. 1994. Registration of ‘LCP 85-384’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 34:819–820. doi:10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400030042x Pan, Y.-B. 2006. Highly polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers for sugarcane germplasm evaluation and variety identity testing. Sugar Technol. 8:246–256. doi:10.1007/BF02943564 Pan, Y.-B., B.S. Scheffler, and E.P. Richard, Jr. 2007. High throughput genotyping of commercial sugarcane clones with microsatellite (SSR) DNA markers. Sugar Technol. 9:176–181. Saxton, A.M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. p. 1243–1246. In Proc. Ann. SAS Users Group Intl. Conf., 23rd, Nashville, TN. 22–25 March 1998, SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Tew, T.L., and R.M. Cobill. 2008. Genetic improvement of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) as an energy crop. p. 249–272. In W. Vermerris (ed.) Genetic improvement of bioenergy crops. Springer, New York. Tew, T.L., E.O. Dufrene, D.D. Garrison, W.H. White, M.P. Grisham, Y.-B. Pan, E.P. Richard, Jr., B.L. Legendre, and J.D. Miller. 2009. Registration of ‘HoCP 00–950’ sugarcane. J. Plant Reg. 3:42–50. doi:10.3198/jpr2008.07.0430crc Tew, T.L., W.H. White, B.L. Legendre, M.P. Grisham, E.O. Dufrene, D.D. Garrison, J.C. Veremis, Y.-B. Pan, E.P. Richard, Jr., and J.D. Miller. 2005. Registration of ‘HoCP 96-540’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 45:785–786. doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.0785 White, W.H., B.L. Legendre, and J.D. Miller. 1996. Progress in breeding for sugarcane borer resistance. Sugar Cane 5:3–7. White, W.H., T.L. Tew, and E.P. Richard, Jr. 2006. Association of sugarcane pith, rind hardness, and fiber with resistance to the sugarcane borer. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 26:87–100. White, W.H., R.P. Viator, E.O. Dufrene, Jr., C.D. Dalley, E.P. Richard, Jr., and T.L. Tew. 2008. Re-evaluation of sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) bioeconomics in Louisiana. Crop Prot. 27:1256– 1261. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.03.011

Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011