California Avocado Varieties: Past, Present and Future (?)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
California Avocado Varieties: Past, Present and Future (?) Mary Lu Arpaia, Eric Focht, Rodrigo Iturrieta The UC Riverside team working to develop new varieties and understand avocado genetics Eric Focht Rodrigo Iturrieta Mary Lu Arpaia The past and current challenges do we need additional varieties? Mary Lu Arpaia Botany and Plant Sciences, UCR The industry has been dominated by 2 varieties over the last 100 years Fuerte (1920 – 1970’s) Hass (1970’s – present) Alejandro Le Blanc FUERTE Brought from Atlixco, Mexico in 1911 Popenoe, CAS, 1919 FUERTE • The leading variety from 1920’s to 1970’s • Adapted to a wide variety of climates, especially cold • Known for high fruit quality (Winter-Spring) • Large spreading tree • Recognized to have erratic or severe alternate bearing The rise of Hass It took a long time Facts about Hass . Chance find in La Habra Heights in 1926 and patented in 1935 . High fruit quality when harvested at proper maturity . Considered interesting but black skin considered a flaw as compared to leading variety Fuerte . Did not overtake Fuerte in importance until the planting boom of the mid-1970’s . Now worldwide leading variety and major variety marketed in US Rudolph and Elizabeth Hass Other varieties…. Pinkerton, Reed, Zutano, Bacon, Sharwil etc…. The contributions of B. O. Bergh B. O. Bergh oversaw an active program B.O. Bergh from the 1950’s through 1994. Based on industry input he set out to develop a “green-skinned” Hass. This resulted in the release of ‘Gwen’ in 1984. In a second wave, ~60,000 seedlings, primarily derived from ‘Gwen’, ‘Whitsell’, ‘Hass’ and ‘Pinkerton’, were planted. This effort yielded ‘Lamb Hass’, ‘Sir Prize’, ‘Harvest’, and ‘GEM’. Late 1960’s – early 70’s seedling from the GWEN UC, Riverside breeding program Patented 1984 .Most successful commercial release from its 1980s cohort (Esther, Whitsell) .Specifically bred to be a green-skinned ‘Hass’ .Slightly smaller tree than Hass, slightly less alternate bearing, very similar season and appearance other than color Griswold on Hass, 1945: “Its single disadvantage is its black color which has been associated in the minds of the public with poor quality fruits.” GWEN Bergh & Martin on Gwen, 1988: “A second drawback of the green Gwen skin is that 80% of our production is now the black Hass, and so black is the standard and preferred in most of our markets.” The progeny of Gwen…. Released - 1996 Released - 2003 Differences between Hass and Lamb Hass . Lamb Hass maturity season – mid to late summer NOT A SUBSTITUTE BUT SUPPLEMENT TO HASS . Fruit shape and size – more “square” but larger . Lamb Hass has more upright growth habit . Flexible wood – fruit borne interior of tree; tends to set fruit in clusters . Lamb Hass is more “tolerant” to Persea mite and other pests (?) . Photosynthetic rate approximately 30% higher than Hass and higher chlorophyll content Growth habit differences between Hass and Lamb Hass Hass Lamb Hass Differences between Hass and GEM . Maturity seasons overlap; GEM slightly later - COULD BE A SUBSTITUTE TO HASS . Can accumulate very high levels of dry matter . Fruit shape – more “tear drop” . GEM growth habit more vaselike and compact . Flexible wood – interior fruiting; tends to set fruit in clusters . Pest tolerance (?) . Less Alternate Bearing . Tends to be more productive under most conditions Gem is a more compact tree than Hass, very similar to Gwen Bears fruit on the inside of the tree Comparing Hass, GEM and Lamb Hass UC South Coast, Irvine 1999 - 2005 400 GEM Alternate Bearing Index 350 Lamb Hass 300 Hass 250 2005 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Yield 2004 (kg/tree) 200 2003 GEM 150 2002 2001 Lamb Hass 100 2000 1999 50 Hass 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Hass Lamb Hass GEM Average Fruit Size (g) We had other varieties in these trials. In all trials the cumulative yield of Gem and Lamb Hass was typically higher than Hass. Alternate bearing was least in GEM at all sites. We have noted that climate can greatly influence fruit shape (as in all varieties); in very hot climates GEM can be very elongated. Anecdotal observations following 2007 Freeze was that GEM did best in return bloom Canopy Volume by Variety Butler Trial, Ventura county 25 20 Carmen 15 GEM 10 Hass 5 Lamb Hass 0 Reed 2013 2014 2016 2017 2019 Dry weight changes compared to Hass Minimum dry weight for both varieties is 22.8% GEM 40 35 30 25 20 Hass 15 GEM 10 10/24 12/6 1/9 2/5 3/1 3/20 4/10 5/1 5/23 6/12 7/1 7/22 8/13 LAMB HASS 35 30 25 20 15 Hass Lamb Hass 10 10/24 12/6 1/9 2/5 3/1 3/20 4/10 5/1 5/23 6/12 7/1 7/22 8/13 Data from 2001, De Luz, CA GEM Maturity 35 Release Date Project 30 In year 2/3 2019 data by region 25 The difference between the South and the North is similar to the 2018 – 2019 results. 20 In both years, the South trends slightly higher as shown in the graph. The San Joaquin Valley is much earlier than the other 2 regions. 15 28-Oct 28-Nov 28-Dec 28-Jan 28-Feb 28-Mar 28-Apr We are focusing on size 40 and 48. North South San Joaquin Minimum Maluma Hass (PBR) Photo of fruit and tree by Edrean Ernst, Allesbeste Nursery, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38351359 Maluma Hass • Originated in South Africa; currently grown in several countries, • Patented in the USA, 2010 • Released from USDA-APHIS quarantine in CA, 2019 • Upright tree, growth similar to Lamb Hass • Slightly earlier than Hass • Minimum Dry Weight (SA) is 20% • Adaptable to high density, trellising • Appears to be higher yielding and more stress tolerant than Hass Is there life beyond Hass (or Maluma, GEM, or anything else we may release in the future)? Or should we be content with what we currently have? Our leading cultivar, ‘Hass’ CAN BE improved: Tree size and structure Bearing habit Alternate bearing Stress tolerance (Cold, Heat, Salinity) Disease and pest tolerance Productivity Seasonality It is dangerous to have an industry based on one variety From a grower perspective we need to go from Here Production Efficiency Stress Tolerance There Finding new varieties…… How difficult is it? The challenge of finding new avocado varieties • Long process – 15 to 25 years from seed to commercialization • “Looking for a needle in a haystack” – success is low • Finding both the horticultural and fruit traits in a single selection is challenging • Defining what traits are the most important The challenge of finding new avocado varieties • Long seasonality • Fruit must be ripened in order to evaluate; ripening time depends on maturity • Eating quality changes throughout the season; it takes a lot of work to find optimum maturity window for selection • Industry standard ‘Hass’ sets a high standard for postharvest and eating quality Program Goal is to develop new varieties that: • Expand environmental adaptability • Enhance yield potential • Minimize grower inputs • Deliver consistent high-quality fruit • Grow consumer demand Breeding objectives: • Precocious and low AB varieties with high fruit quality • Upright, slender tree architecture for HD plantings • High fruit quality and postharvest shelf life THE ULTIMATE GOAL Enhanced productivity Satisfied consumers and and production efficiency increased consumption The Future Is it just one endless bowl of guacamole? We hope so but… We need to enhance industry viability We need to offer increasingly sophisticated consumers CHOICE What we will soon release aimed at addressing needs of industry Eric Focht Botany and Plant Sciences, UCR UC, Riverside and Eurosemillas have entered into a partnership to sponsor the variety and rootstock programs For the variety program we anticipate the release of 4 new varieties within the next 2 years. THE BIG PICTURE Have a range of both dark skin and green skin varieties that are comparable to ‘Hass’ in terms of eating quality We HAVE material that potentially can • Provide 12-month market coverage • Improved tree architecture • Precocious • Greater yield efficiency UCR-03 UCR-02 HASS UCR-04 UCR-01 Early Early Middle Middle Late Breeding Information Year seed Year planted Year selected to Year planted Selector(s) collected (Irvine) Tier 2 (Irvine) to Tier 3 Stottlemyer, Focht, UCR‐01 1999 2000 2004 2011 Arpaia Stottlemyer, Focht, UCR‐02 1999 2000 2005 2011 Arpaia Stottlemyer, Focht, UCR‐03 1999 2000 2006 2012 Arpaia Martin, Bergh, 1986 UCR‐04 1983 1991 2013 Stottlemyer, (Camarillo, CA) Arpaia, Focht Planted 2011 in Irvine, CA Dusa rootstock UCR-01 Late season ‘A’ flower type Ripens dark-green to black Picture taken January 2019; pole is 1.5m UCR‐01 Fruit from Irvine, CA Fruit Characteristics Projected Ripe Peel Peel Peel Relative Fruit Shape Peelability Harvest Seasonz Color Texture Thickness Seed Size Late Somewhat Very good UCR‐01 Pear Black Medium Medium Spring/Summer pebbly to excellent Medium Hass Spring/Summer Pear Black Pebbly Excellent Medium thick Footnotes: zHarvest Season: Depends on where in California the variety is grown. What is provided is an estimate of the statewide harvesting window. Tree Characteristics Production High Tree Flower Heat Cold Alternate Fruit Potential Tree Shape Density Growth Type Tolerance Tolerance Bearing Bearing (w/ optimized Potentialz spacing)y Medium Greater UCR‐01 Upright A Unknown Unknown Consistent High Inside to Large than Hass Moderately Moderately Mostly Hass Large Spreading A Susceptible Moderate sensitive sensitive outside Footnotes: zHigh Density Potential includes adaptability to heavy pruning. yProduction Potential: Based on data from Irvine Tier 3 site and Tier 2 site. Data collected on a per tree basis and ultimate tree spacing not yet optimized.