| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
a Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences Dep., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
b Eastern Virginia Agric. Res. and Ext. Ctr., Warsaw, VA 22572
c Eastern Shore Agric. Res. and Ext. Ctr., Painter, VA 23420
d Northern Piedmont Agric. Res. and Ext. Ctr., Orange, VA 22960
e Tidewater Agri. Res. and Ext. Ctr., Holland, VA 23437
f Southern Piedmont Agric. Res. and Ext. Ctr., Blackstone, VA 23824
g Virginia Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Mt. Holly, VA 22524
h Virginia Crop Improvement Association, Mechanicsville, VA 23116
i USDA-ARS National Small Grains Germplasm Research Facility, Aberdeen, ID 83210
j USDA-ARS Soft Wheat Quality Lab., Wooster, OH 44691
k USDA-ARS Eastern Regional Genotyping Lab., Plant Sciences Research Unit, Raleigh, NC 27695
l USDA-ARS Cereal Disease Lab., St. Paul, MN 55108
m Wheat Genetics, Quality, Physiology and Disease Research Unit, Pullman, WA 99164
n USDA-ARS, Dep. of Entomology, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN 47907
* Corresponding author (cgriffey{at}vt.edu).
ABSTRACT
Soft red winter (SRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) ‘5205’ (Reg. No. CV-1038, PI 656755) developed and tested as VA01W-205 by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station was released in March 2008. 5205 was derived from the three-way cross Pioneer Brand ‘2684’ /VA93-54-185//‘Pocahontas’. Cultivar 5205 is broadly adapted, high-yielding, midseason maturity, short in stature, and semidwarf (Rht2), and it has very good milling and pastry baking quality. It also is notably resistant to powdery mildew [Blumeria graminis (DC.) E.O. Speer], leaf rust (Puccinia triticina Eriks.), and stripe rust (P. striiformis Westend.) and moderately resistant to Fusarium head blight [caused by Fusarium graminearum (Schwabe)]. In Virginia average grain yield (2006–2008) of cultivar 5205 (6114 kg ha–1) has been equal to that of the highest-yielding cultivars. In USDA–ARS uniform southern SRW wheat nursery trials conducted at 26 locations in 2006 and at 19 locations in 2007, 5205 produced average grain yields of 5362 and 4488 kg ha–1, respectively, in comparison to nursery mean yields of 5180 and 4146 kg ha–1. In these nursery trials, 5205 was most similar in milling quality to the check ‘AGS 2000’, which ranks 25th among 830 soft wheat cultivars evaluated by the USDA–ARS Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory for Allis milling quality. 5205 has softer flour texture (softness equivalent of 61.1 vs. 57.5 g 100 g–1), has stronger gluten strength (lactic acid solvent retention capacity of 118 vs. 107 g 100 g–1), and produces cookies that are larger in diameter (18.58 vs. 17.75 cm) than AGS 2000.
Abbreviations: AACC, American Association of Cereal Chemists • FHB, Fusarium head blight • SRW, soft red winter
Soft red winter (SRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar 5205 (Reg. No. CV-1038, PI 656755) provides producers and end users in the Deep South, mid-South, and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States with a high-yielding, mid-season, short-height cultivar that has good straw strength, resistance to powdery mildew [Blumeria graminis (DC.) E.O. Speer], leaf rust (Puccinia triticina Eriks.), stripe rust (P. striiformis Westend.), and Fusarium head blight[caused by Fusarium graminearum (Schwabe)] and has very good milling and baking quality.
Considerable variability exists among SRW wheat cultivars in end-use quality and for specific quality traits such as protein concentration and quality (Souza et al., 2008). For example, the range in protein concentration among SRW wheat often varies from 8 to 12% annually, and protein strength varies by cultivar from very weak to strong. Soft red winter wheat is used in making many diverse products, requiring vastly different end-use properties. Differences in end-use properties relate primarily to protein quality. In general SRW wheat cultivars can be classified into two groups: (i) weak-gluten traditional pastry type soft wheat and (ii) strong-gluten cracker-type soft wheat. The cultivar 5205 provides end users with grain having excellent pastry-making qualities, and its moderately strong gluten strength allows for its use in other products, such as crackers, requiring more protein strength. Marketing and distribution of 5205 will be conducted primarily by Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 6606 West Broad St., Richmond, VA 23230.
Methods
Parentage, Breeding History, and Line Selection
5205 was derived from the three-way cross Pioneer Brand 2684 (PI 566923 PVPO)/VA93-54-185//Pocahontas (PI 602598, Griffey et al., 2001). Parentage of VA93-54-185 is ‘Wheeler’ (CItr 17900, Starling et al., 1984b)/3/‘Massey’ (CItr 17953, Starling et al., 1984a) *3/‘Balkan’ //‘Saluda’ (PI 480474, Starling et al., 1986). The final cross from which 5205 originated was made in spring 1994, and the F1 generation was grown in the field as a single 1.2-m headrow in 1995 to produce F2 seed. The population was advanced from the F2 to the F5 generation using a modified bulk breeding method. Wheat spikes were selected from the population in each segregating generation (F2–F4) on the basis of absence of obvious disease, early maturity, short straw, and desirable head shape and size. Selected spikes were threshed in bulk, and the seed was planted in 20.9-m2 blocks at Blacksburg and Warsaw, VA, in the fall of each year. Spikes selected from the F5 bulk were threshed individually and planted in separate 1.2-m headrows at Warsaw, VA. 5205 was derived as a bulk of one of these F6 headrows selected in 2000 and was evaluated as entry 205 in nonreplicated observation yield tests at Blacksburg and Warsaw, VA, in 2001.
Evaluation in Replicated Yield Trials
5205 was evaluated in Virginia Tech's replicated preliminary yield test at three locations in 2002 (data not presented). It was evaluated in Virginia's Official State Variety Trial at five to eight locations over 5 yr (2003–2007) in replicated tests before its release and in subsequent years (see the Virginia Tech Corn & Small Grain Management Website, http://www.grains.cses.vt.edu/ [verified 8 July 2009]). The cultivar 5205 also was evaluated throughout most of the SRW wheat region in the USDA–ARS Uniform Southern Soft Red Winter Wheat Nursery in 2006 and 2007. A majority of these trials were conducted using randomized complete block designs with two to four replications, standard variety testing protocols, and recommended management practices that vary slightly from state to state (USDA–ARS, 2006, 2007). Plant traits assessed visually (e.g., winter kill, straw strength, and disease resistance) were rated using a scale from 0 (no visible symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms) based on intensity and severity of the affected plant area. Disease ratings were scored using a modified Cobb Scale (Peterson et al., 1948) and reported in the Uniform SRW wheat nurseries and were converted to a 0 to 9 scale. Milling and baking data evaluations of the regional nursery used approved methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemistry (AACC, 2000). A composite of multiple locations was provided by the nursery coordinator to the USDA–ARS Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory at Wooster, OH. Samples of 200 g of each genotype were milled using modifications to AACC Method 26-50 as described by Finney and Andrews (1986). Flour quality was assessed using near infra-red reflectance to determine protein concentration and lactic acid solvent retention capacity to determine gluten strength (AACC, 2000, Approved Method 56-11). Baking quality of the flour samples was measured using the micro-sugar-snap cookie method (AACC, 2000, Approved Method 10-52).
All replicated yield tests in Virginia were conducted according to small grain production and management protocols recommended by Brann et al. (2000). Conventional-till yield plots in the Virginia Official Wheat Variety Trial were composed of six 2.74-m rows spaced 0.18 m apart at Blackstone, Orange, and Painter and seven 2.74-m rows spaced 0.15 m apart at Warsaw and Blacksburg with harvest areas of 4.2 m2 at all locations. No-till test plots planted into corn (Zea maize L.) stubble were composed of seven 6.71-m rows spaced 0.19 m apart at Warsaw, six 6.12-m rows spaced 0.18 m apart at Holland, and six 4.87-m rows spaced 0.18 m apart at Shenandoah Valley locations with harvest areas of 10.2, 9.3, and 7.4 m2, respectively. Conventional-till tests were planted at 22 seeds per 0.304 m of row, and no-till tests were planted at 28 seeds per 0.304 m of row. Assessment of reaction to Fusarium head blight (FHB) was conducted in replicated inoculated and mist-irrigated nurseries according to the procedures described by Chen et al. (2006). Analysis of variance was conducted on data from individual locations and years and across locations and years using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Mean comparisons of traits using a protected LSD (P = 0.05) test were made to identify significant differences among genotypes.
Seed Purification and Increase
During fall 2005, 228 F12 headrows of cultivar 5205 were planted in an isolation block and evaluated for purity and trueness of type. Among these 228 Breeder seed headrows, 40 rows were removed and discarded on the basis of poor vigor, disease susceptibility, and/or variability and lack of trueness to cultivar type. The 188 remaining rows that were similar in phenotype and visually homogenous were harvested in bulk, and this initial Breeder seed was planted by Virginia Crop Improvement Association on 0.41 ha during fall 2006. Grain harvested in 2007 was subsequently sown on 12.2 ha during fall 2007 and produced approximately 2880 units (22.7 kg unit–1) of Foundation seed that was distribution to seed producers in fall 2008. Certified seed will be available to producers in fall 2009. Certification of Foundation seed fields of wheat cultivar 5205 identified up to 0.50% plants that were 7.6 to 25.4 cm taller in height, 0.02% plants that were 30.5 to 45.7 cm taller in height, and 0.01% plants having spikes with long awns.
Description of the Cultivar
Botanical and Agronomic Characteristics
A majority of the data presented here (Tables 1–4
) is from the 2006 to 2008 Virginia Official Variety Trials (http://www.grains.cses.vt.edu/) and from the Uniform Southern SRW Wheat Nursery (USDA–ARS, 2006, 2007) as complete reports are readily available. Statistical analysis is not performed on the latter nursery, so only data means are presented herein.
|
|
|
|
Spike emergence (days to heading from January 1) of 5205 ranges from 113 to 120 d in the southern soft wheat region (Tables 1 and 2). Head emergence is most similar to that of ‘McCormick’ (PI 632691, Griffey et al., 2005). Plant height of 5205 (71–79 cm) is 0 to 4.5 cm shorter than McCormick. Straw strength (0 = erect to 9 = completely lodged) of 5205 (1.0–1.4) is very good in comparison to ‘USG 3209’ (PI 617055, PVPO) with mean values ranging from 1.6 to 3.0. On the basis of data from the 2006 (three sites) and 2007 (four sites) Uniform Southern Nurseries, winter hardiness (0 = no injury to 9 = complete kill) of 5205 (1.0 and 5.1) is similar to that of USG 3209.
Field Performance
In Virginia the 3-yr average (2006–2008) grain yield of 5205 (6114 kg ha–1) has been equal to the top-yielding cultivars (Table 1). Average grain volume weight of 5205 (77.0 kg hL–1) is similar to that of ‘8302’ (PI 634975, PVPO). 5205 was evaluated in the Uniform Southern SRW Wheat Nursery (Table 2) in 2006 (41 entries, 26 environments) and 2007 (45 entries, 19 environments) and ranked 13th in grain yield among all entries in 2006 (5362 kg ha–1) and sixth in 2007 (4488 kg ha–1). The four check cultivars had mean grain yields ranging from 4878 to 5489 kg ha–1 in 2006 and from 3769 to 4199 kg ha–1 in 2007. Grain volume weight (76.1 kg hL–1) of 5205 was most similar to that of McCormick.
Disease and Insect Resistance
Reaction of 5205 to disease and insect pests (0 = immunity to 9 = very susceptible) was evaluated over diverse environments (Tables 1 and 3). It is resistant to powdery mildew (0.5–1.7), leaf rust (0–1.1), and stripe rust (0.6–0.9). 5205 was evaluated for reaction to leaf and stem rust in seedling tests of entries in the 2006 and 2007 Uniform Southern Nurseries by the USDA–ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul, MN (USDA–ARS, 2006, 2007). 5205 expressed resistance to all races of leaf rust evaluated except MCRK and TCRK, which collectively have virulence for resistance genes Lr 1, 2a, 2c, 3, 3ka, 10, 11, 14a, 18, 26, and 30. In disease screening tests conducted in the field at St. Paul, MN, stem rust severity ratings (0–100%) for cultivar 5205 varied from 5% in 2007 to 30% in 2006. In seedling tests conducted at the Cereal Disease Laboratory, 5205 was resistant to stem rust races QFCS, QTHJ, MCCF, and TTKS, moderately resistant to races RCRS and TPMK, and susceptible to races RKQQ and TTTT. Reaction (0–9) of 5205 to Barley yellow dwarf virus has varied from 1.0 to 4.5. Its reaction to Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus (3.0) and Soilborne mosaic virus (2.5–3.5) have been moderate. Reaction of 5205 to leaf blotch (Septoria tritici Roberge in Desmaz.) has varied from 2.3 to 4.1, and reaction to glume blotch [Stagonospora nodorum (Berk.) Castellani & E.G. Germano] has varied from 3.3 to 3.6. It is moderately susceptible (6.0) to black chaff [Xanthomonas campestris pathovar (pv.) translucens]. It has expressed a moderate level of resistance to FHB with a 3-yr (2006–2008) average disease index score (0–100) of 11, and deoxynivanenol toxin concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 1.3 mg kg–1 (ppm) in Virginia Tech's inoculated, mist-irrigated FHB nursery (Table 1). In the 2006 uniform southern nursery (Table 3), the average FHB disease rating (0–9) for 5205 was 3.1 compared with an overall entry average of 4.9. 5205 expressed moderate susceptibility (5.3) to Hessian fly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)] in field tests and in seedling tests conducted in a growth chamber by the USDA–ARS at West Lafayette, IN, was susceptible to biotypes B, C, D, and L (USDA–ARS, 2006, 2007).
End-Use Quality
Four independent advance quadrumat milling and baking quality evaluations were conducted over two crop years (2006–2007) by the USDA–ARS Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory in Wooster, OH, to estimate flour yield and softness equivalent of the sample (Table 4). Softness equivalent is an estimator of grain softness and break flour yield in long-flow milling (Finney and Andrews 1986). Flour softness equivalent values of 5205 (57.3–63.8 g 100 g–1) were most similar to those of McCormick and higher than those of the other check cultivars. Straight grade flour yields of cultivar 5205 (69.7–71.2 g 100 g–1) were lower than those of AGS 2000 (PI 612956) but higher than those of the other check cultivars. While 5205 had flour protein concentrations (7.4–9.1 g 100 g–1) that were lower than all other check cultivars, it had gluten strength values (114–123 g 100 g–1) assessed via lactic acid solvent retention capacity (AACC Method 56-11) that were higher than all the checks. Cookie spread diameters (18.13–19.33 cm for two cookies) of 5205 were notably higher than those of the check cultivars. Additional quality data for 5205 (VA01W-205) is reported in Souza et al. (2008).
Availability
The Foundation Seed Stocks Division of the Virginia Crop Improvement Association provided Foundation seed of cultivar 5205 to seed producers during fall 2008, and certified seed will be available to producers in fall 2009. Application for U.S. Plant Variety Protection has been submitted for 5205. A seed sample has been deposited in the USDA–ARS National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation and will become available for distribution after expiration of its U.S. Plant Variety Protection. Small quantities of seed for research purposes may be obtained from the corresponding author for at least 5 years from the date of this publication.
Acknowledgments
Cultivar 5205 was developed with financial support from the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, the Virginia Small Grains Board, the Virginia Agricultural Council, the Virginia Crop Improvement Association, the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, and the USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 59-0790-4-102 and 2006-55606-16629. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
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 May 15, 2009.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
