Journal of Plant Registrations
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published in JOURNAL OF PLANT REGISTRATIONS 2:200-204 (2008)
DOI: 10.3198/jpr2007.11.0629crc
© 2008 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.

CULTIVARS

Registration of ‘DP-1’ Peanut

D. W. Gorbet and B. L. Tillman*

Agronomy Dep., North Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida, 3925 Hwy. 71, Marianna, FL 32446

* Corresponding author (btillman{at}ufl.edu).

ABSTRACT

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea L. subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea) cultivar DP-1 (Reg. No. CV-103, PI 633047) was developed by the University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and approved for release in 2002. Tested under the experimental designation UF97318, DP-1 has runner market-type seed and pod size with a runner growth habit. Under irrigation, it matures about 150 d after planting, which places it in the category of late relative maturity. Release of DP-1 was based on its resistance to spotted wilt caused by tomato spotted wilt tospovirus, white mold caused by Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc., and late leaf spot caused by Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Deighton, as well as competitive pod yield and grade characteristics.

Abbreviations: LLS, late leaf spot • ns, not significant • TSMK, total sound mature kernel • TSWV, tomato spotted wilt virus

‘DP-1’ (Reg. No. CV-103, PI 633047) peanut (Arachis hypogaea L. subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea) cultivar was developed by the University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and was approved for release in 2002. DP-1 is a runner market-type peanut with good to excellent resistance to spotted wilt caused by tomato spotted wilt virus (genus Tospovirus; family Bunyaviridae) (TSWV), late leaf spot [(Cercosporidium personatum) (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) Deighton] (LLS), and white mold or stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.). The diseases LLS, TSWV, and white mold are major problems for peanut growers in the southeastern U.S. production area. Growers in that area spend the majority of their fungicide budget for control of LLS and white mold. Host plant resistance is very important in managing these three diseases, and resistance is the primary method of limiting losses from TSWV (Brown et al., 2005). Because DP-1 requires approximately 150 d to mature in Florida, it is primarily adapted to the southeastern United States, where the long growing season will allow it to reach full maturity (Gorbet, 2003).

Tested experimentally as UF97318, DP-1 originates from the 1986 cross between ‘Southern Runner’ (Gorbet et al., 1987) and UF81206 (Gorbet, 2003). Both parents have PI 203396 as a parent, which has good LLS resistance. The cross was made to provide material to select for good pod yield, improved grade, and strong multiple disease resistance (LLS, white mold, TSWV) (Gorbet, 2003). Southern Runner was the first U.S.-developed peanut cultivar with resistance to LLS and was later shown to have some resistance to white mold and TSWV (Gorbet et al., 1987). UF81206 is an unreleased Florida Agricultural Experiment Station peanut breeding line with excellent resistance to LLS and good resistance to white mold and TSWV (Chiteka et al., 1988; Gorbet, 2003).

Methods

DP-1 was developed in a pedigree selection program from the F2 through the F7 generations. Most selection nurseries were grown without the typical full-season fungicide program for control of leaf spots. This assisted in selection for resistance to leaf spot and white mold. Up to the F7 generation, seed were space-planted in rows 91 cm apart with a seeding density of approximately 3 seeds m–1. Most tests were conducted under center-pivot irrigation. Single plant selections were made with focus on LLS, white mold, and TSWV resistance, as well as runner plant, pod, and seed type. The F2 plots had approximately 130 plants from each F1, with approximately 30 plants (two rows) in each subsequent plot or F2 family in the F3 through F6 generations. Seed from two F7 plants was bulked to initiate replicated yield tests in 1994 at Marianna, FL. Yield tests of DP-1 were conducted at Marianna and Gainesville, FL, from 1997 to 2001, many without fungicides for control of LLS. Pod yield, disease resistance, and grade data were obtained on all replicated yield tests using small-plot equipment (Gorbet, 2003). Evaluations for resistance to white mold were conducted in field tests that were inoculated with S. rolfsii. These tests were grown near Marianna from 1999 to 2001, and disease severity was rated on a proportional scale of 1 to 10, where 1 indicates no disease and 10 indicates all plants in the plot dead or severely diseased (Gorbet et al., 2004; Gorbet, 2003). Resistance to TSWV was evaluated in replicated field tests conducted in 1997 and 1998 near Marianna, FL, and Tifton, GA. In those studies, the seeding density was 4 seeds 30 cm–1 of row, and the tests were planted in early to mid-April to stimulate development of TSWV (Culbreath et al., 1999). Other tests were also rated for TSWV when the disease was present (Gorbet, 2003). Quality data (grade, oil chemistry, flavor, and blanching characteristics) were collected from pod and seed samples harvested from field plots from 1999 to 2001. These data included evaluations in University of Florida and commercial laboratories. Fatty acid composition was determined with a Hewlett Packard 5890A gas chromatography system (Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA). Blanching and flavor evaluations were conducted by commercial labs (J. Leek Associates, Albany, GA). Grading was conducted using standard farmer stock grading equipment and standard Federal-State Inspection Service procedures (Gorbet, 2003).

Characteristics

DP-1 is a late-maturing (150 d to harvest) runner market-type peanut cultivar. Plants are prostrate with a typical runner growth habit and medium-dark green (G-137A) foliage, similar to ‘C-99R’ (Gorbet and Shokes, 2002a). Plants are typical of the hypogaea botanical variety with alternate pairs of vegetative and reproductive branches. Vine mass of DP-1 is somewhat less than C-99R with runner market-type pods and seed. Pods average approximately 26 mm long by 13 mm wide. Seed are plump, rounded to somewhat elongated with a tan testa, and measure approximately 15 mm long by 9 mm wide. Testa color is similar to Southern Runner, with seed shape and size similar to ‘Florunner’ (Norden et al., 1969). DP-1 has an average 100-seed weight of approximately 62 g (Gorbet, 2003).

DP-1 has shown good resistance to LLS, white mold, and TSWV in field tests in Florida. In 37 tests (sprayed for leaf spot control, 1996–2001), the pod yield of DP-1 was the same as for C-99R (5202 vs. 5292 kg ha–1, not significant [ns]). Averaged across nine sprayed tests, pod yield of DP-1 was greater than that of ‘Georgia Green’ (Branch, 1996) (5011 vs. 3861 kg ha–1, P ≤ 0.05). DP-1 had lower total sound mature kernel (TSMK) content than C-99R (75.9 vs. 78.2%, P ≤ 0.05), as well as smaller seed size, with 61.9 g vs. 73.3 g 100-seed weight (P ≤ 0.05) (Gorbet, 2003; Gorbet and Shokes, 2002a). In 27 nonsprayed (no fungicides) tests, DP-1 was not different than C-99R in pod yield (3569 vs. 3424 kg ha–1, ns), but DP-1 rated more resistant to LLS than C-99R, based on the Florida 1 to 10 disease severity scale rating, 3.9 vs. 5.4 (P ≤ 0.05) (Chiteka et al., 1988; Gorbet, 2003).

The results of studies on TSWV resistance in Georgia and Florida are shown in Table 1 . Pod yield and disease values evaluated in studies conducted in Georgia and Florida clearly indicate the superior TSWV resistance of DP-1 compared with the checks Georgia Green and ‘Georgia Runner’ (Branch, 1991; Culbreath et al., 1999) (Table 1). Ratings from other Florida tests confirm the TSWV resistance of DP-1 (Gorbet, 2003).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Comparison of peanut cultivar DP-1 to other runner-type peanut cultivars for disease incidence of spotted wilt and pod yield in field studies conducted in Florida and Georgia during 1997 and 1998.{dagger}

 
DP-1 showed good resistance to white mold in paired-row inoculated studies conducted near Marianna, FL (1999–2001). In those tests, DP-1 has a pod yield advantage with less white mold disease than Florunner, C-99R, and Georgia Green (Table 2 ). Plots were rated for disease symptoms just before digging (Gorbet, 2003; Gorbet et al., 2004). DP-1 had a pod yield advantage and had less white mold than Florunner, C-99R, and Georgia Green (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Performance of peanut cultivar DP-1 relative to other runner-type cultivars in paired-row tests inoculated with Sclerotium rolfsii to evaluate white mold resistance in Marianna, FL, 1999–2001.

 
Pod yields and disease severity ratings for leaf spot (mainly LLS) in tests at Marianna and Gainesville, FL, during 1998 to 2001 document that leaf spot resistance of DP-1 is as good as some of the most resistant cultivars developed to date (Table 3 ). These tests were conducted as split-plot designs with leaf spot control as a main-plot treatment (nonsprayed vs. four applications of fungicide for leaf spot control) and cultivars and breeding lines as subplot treatments. Due to interaction between years and locations for pod yield, data are presented by year and location. DP-1 consistently gave the best pod yield with the lowest disease rating (most resistant) at Marianna, but not always at Gainesville. DP-1 had the lowest disease rating at Marianna and Gainesville, or was not significantly different from the lowest. The overall correlation between genotypic means for leaf spot rating and pod yield in the tests was negative (r = –0.27, P ≤ 0.01) indicating that higher leaf spot disease severity reduced harvested pod yields. Overall, the yield of DP-1 was not different than C-99R but DP-1 had less leaf spot disease than C-99R.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Pod yield and leaf spot ratings comparing peanut cultivar DP-1 with other late-maturing runner peanut cultivars near Marianna and Gainesville, FL, 1998–2001.

 
Grade characteristics of DP-1 are shown in Table 4 . In tests from Marianna, TSMK of DP-1 was similar to Southern Runner in comparison to ‘Florida MDR 98’ (Gorbet and Shokes, 2002b) and C-99R (77.3 vs. 78.2, 80.3, and 79.4%, respectively). Seed size of DP-1 is intermediate to that of Southern Runner and C-99R based on jumbo kernel content and 100-seed weight. The seed size was somewhat larger (P ≤ 0.05) in sprayed vs. nonsprayed treatments for all genotypes (Gorbet, 2003; Gorbet et al., 1997, 1987; Gorbet et al., 2002a,b; Gorbet et al., 2006).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Grading characteristics of peanut cultivar DP-1 compared with other late-maturing runner cultivars in fungicide-sprayed versus nonsprayed tests near Marianna, FL, 1998–2001.

 
In the sprayed plots of the split-plot leaf spot test near Marianna, DP-1 had less TSWV than Southern Runner in all tests and less than Florida MDR 98 in 2001, but not less than C-99R (Table 5 ). DP-1 had numerically less TSWV seed symptoms than C-99R, but the difference was significant only in 1998. There was a highly significant negative relationship between TSWV ratings and pod yields from Marianna data (r = –0.67, P ≤ 0.01). The relationship for seed TSWV symptoms to pod yields was also negative and significant (r = –0.40, P ≤ 0.05) (Gorbet 2003; Culbreath et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2005).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Performance of peanut cultivar DP-1 compared with other late-maturing peanut cultivars in field tests with naturally occurring tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) near Marianna, FL, 1998–2001.

 
Quality data indicate that seed of DP-1 has approximately 62% oleic (18:1) and 18% linoleic (18:2) fatty acids with 51% oil content (Table 6 ). This is similar to Southern Runner, which had 61% oleic acid, 19% linoleic acid, and 51% total oil content. DP-1 rated essentially the same as C-99R for protein (27%), sugar (3.5%), blanching, and flavor (Gorbet, 2003).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 6. Comparison of total oil and major fatty acid content of peanut cultivar DP-1 to other late-maturing runner-type cultivars. Data are from tests near Marianna, FL, 1998–2001.

 
Availability

DP-1 has seen very limited commercial success because of difficulty with production of viable seed and poor vigor using current methods of commercial peanut seed handling and processing. Field stands do not correlate well with laboratory germination tests from commercial (certified) seeds, and poor stands are often experienced (Morton, 2007; Morton et al., 2008). Thus, commercial seed is currently unavailable.

DP-1 has received approval for a U.S. Plant Variety Protection Certificate (PVP No. 200300206) in August 2005 for production only as a class of certified seed. Inquiries concerning Foundation seed and production of DP-1 should be made to Florida Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., P.O. Box 309, Greenwood, FL 32443. Breeder seed will be maintained by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Seed has been submitted to the Natural Plant Germplasm System for past Plant Variety Protection expiration distribution. Further inquiries regarding small seed samples for research purposes should be submitted to the authors.

Footnotes

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.

Received for publication November 16, 2007.

References





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Gorbet, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Tillman, B. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome