Registration of ‘Vision 50’ Wheat

Published March 28, 2019 JOURNAL OF PLANT REGISTRATIONS C U LT I VA R Registration of ‘Vision 50’ Wheat L. Liu,* M. D. Barnett, C. A. Grifey, S. Malla, W. S. Brooks, J. E. Seago, J. Fitzgerald, W. E. Thomason, E. G. Rucker, H. D. Behl, R. M. Pitman, D. W. Dunaway, M. E. Vaughn, J. T. Custis, B. Seabourn, R. Chen, M. Fountain, D. Marshall, C. Cowger, S. Cambron, Y. Jin, B. R. Beahm, P. Browning, T. H. Hardiman, C. J. Lin, D. F. Mennel, and D. L. Mennel H ard wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) producers in the US mid-Atlantic region beneit from the diferentially higher prices paid for hard red winter (HRW) wheat compared with sot red winter (SRW) wheat, and millers reap the beneits of lower grain transportation costs sourcing locally grown HRW wheat (Hall et al., 2011). Following release of ‘Vision 30’ (PI 661153, Hall et al., 2011) in 2010 and ‘Vision 45’ (PI 667642, Liu et al., 2015) in 2012, HRW wheat production in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States has increased steadily. For the 2017–2018 planting season, hard wheat planted in Virginia were 2000 to 2400 ha (Clougherty, 2018). ‘Vision 50’ (Reg. No. CV-1152, PI 679953) is widely adapted and provides producers in the mid-Atlantic region with a HRW wheat cultivar that has good milling and baking quality for use in bread lour blends and grain yields that are competitive with those of SRW wheat cultivars. Mean yields of Vision 50 have been similar to the highest-yielding HRW wheat cultivar, Vision 45, over 6 yr (2012–2017) in the Virginia Bread Wheat Elite Test (4347 kg ha-1) and in the USDA-ARS Uniform Bread Wheat Trial (UBWT) in 2015 (4464 kg ha-1) and 2016 (4506 kg ha-1). Vision 50 is resistant to leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina Erikss.), moderate resistant to powdery mildew [caused by Blumeria graminis (DC) E.O. Speer], stripe rust (caused by Puccinia striiformis Westend.), Barley yellow dwarf virus, and Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus. Abstract ‘Vision 50’ (Reg. No. CV-1152, PI 679953), a hard red winter (HRW) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar, was derived from the cross ‘Jagalene’/‘Provinciale’ using a modiied bulk breeding method. Vision 50 was tested as VA09HRW-64 in replicated yield trials in Virginia (2011–2017) and in the USDAARS Uniform Bread Wheat Trials (2012–2017) and released by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station in 2016. Vision 50 is a widely adapted, high-yielding, awned, semidwarf (unknown Rht gene) HRW wheat having mid- to late-season spike emergence, strong straw strength, and resistance or moderate resistance to diseases prevalent in the mid-Atlantic region. In the Virginia Bread Wheat Elite Test from 2014 to 2017, Vision 50 produced a mean yield of 5067 kg ha−1 that was similar to the highest-yielding (5757 kg ha−1) cultivar Shirley, a soft red winter wheat check. Vision 50 has acceptable end-use quality on the basis of comparisons with the HRW wheat check cultivar Jagger for wheat protein (11.3 vs. 12.2 g 100 g−1), lour yield (72.7 vs. 66.4 g 100 g−1), lour water absorption (59.5 vs. 62.3 g 100 g−1), dough mixing tolerance (2.7 vs. 3.0), pup-loaf volume (815 vs. 822 cm3), and crumb grain scores (4.2 vs. 3.8). L. Liu, C.A. Grifey, S. Malla, W.S. Brooks, J.E. Seago, J. Fitzgerald, W.E. Thomason, E.G. Rucker, and H.D. Behl, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; M.D. Barnett, Limagrain Cereal Seeds LLC, Wichita, KS 67204; R.M. Pitman, D.W. Dunaway, and M.E. Vaughn, Eastern Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Warsaw, VA 22572; J.T. Custis, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420; B. Seabourn and R. Chen, USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Lab., Manhattan, KS 66502; M. Fountain, D. Marshall, and C. Cowger, USDA-ARS Plant Sciences Research Unit, Raleigh, NC 27695; S. Cambron, USDA-ARS Crop Production and Pest Control Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN 47907; Y. Jin, USDA Cereal Disease Lab, St. Paul, MN 55108; B.R. Beahm and P. Browning, Virginia Crop Improvement Association Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Mt. Holly, VA 22524; T.H. Hardiman, Virginia Crop Improvement Association, Mechanicsville, VA 23116; C.J. Lin, D.F. Mennel, and D.L. Mennel, The Mennel Milling Company, Fostoria, OH 44830. Any opinions, indings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily relect the view of the US Department of Agriculture. Copyright © Crop Science Society of America. All rights reserved. Journal of Plant Registrations 13:193–198 (2019) doi:10.3198/jpr2018.03.0012crc Received 6 Mar. 2018. Accepted 18 Jan. 2019. Registration by CSSA. 5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA *Corresponding author (limeiliu@vt.edu) Abbreviations: AACC, American Association of Cereal Chemists; HRW, hard red winter; SRW, soft red winter; UBWT, Uniform Bread Wheat Trial. 193 Vision 50 was derived as an F5 headrow from a cross of ‘Jagalene’ (PI 631376)/‘Provinciale’. he French bread wheat cultivar Provinciale was derived from a cross between ‘Barodeur’/‘Genesis’ and developed by the Serasem Company in Premesques, France. he cross from which Vision 50 originated was made in spring 2003, and the F1 generation was grown in the ield as a single 1.2-m headrow in 2004 to produce F2 seed. he population was advanced from the F2 to F4 generation using a modiied bulk breeding method. Wheat spikes (100–200 spikes produce seed around 100–150 g) were selected from the population in each segregating generation (F2–F3) 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/or Warsaw, VA, in the fall of each year. Spikes selected from the F4 bulk were threshed individually and planted in separate 1.2-m headrows. Vision 50 was derived as a bulk of one of these F4:5 headrows selected in 2008. he line was tested as entry 64 in nonreplicated observation yield tests at Blacksburg and Warsaw in 2009 and was designated VA09HRW-64. Subsequently it was tested in Virginia Tech bread wheat yield tests from 2010 to 2015 and in the USDA-ARS UBWT from 2012 to 2015 before its release in 2016. Ater its release, Vision 50 was included as a HRW wheat check in both Virginia Tech bread wheat variety trials and the UBWT. of Cereal Chemists [AACC] Method 55-31; AACC, 2000). Wheat and lour protein (%N × 5.7) were determined via AACC Method 46-30 using a nitrogen determinator (Leco Corp.). Moisture and ash contents were determined by AACC Methods 08-01 and 44-15A, respectively. Wheat samples, tempered to constant moisture (16%), were milled on a Quadrumat Senior experimental mill (C.W. Brabender Co.) according to AACC Methods 26-10A and 26-50. Flour yield was determined as percentage of straight grade lour. A mixogram for each lour sample (10 g on a 14% moisture basis) was obtained using a 10-g mixograph (National Mfg. Co.) with optimum water adsorption (Finney and Shogren, 1972). Dough mixing time was visually determined from the mixogram. Mixing time to peak dough development and mixing tolerance were also determined from the mixogram (AACC Method 54-40). Corrected mixograph mixing time was adjusted based on protein content of the lour. A straight-dough, 100-g pup-loaf bake test method was used to measure breadmaking properties, loaf volume, and crumb grain score (AACC Method 10-10B). Crumb grain of representative bread slices were graded from poor open grain (0) to outstanding closed grain (6). Analysis of variance was conducted on data from individual locations and years and across locations and years in Virginia Tech tests using R 3.2.4 (R Core Team, 2016), and statistical analyses of data from the UBWT were performed using Agrobase Generation II SQL version 36.5.1 (Agronomix Sotware, 2004). Means and standard deviations for grain, milling, and baking data were obtained with Microsot Excel 2010 (Microsot, 2013). Mean comparisons of traits between genotypes were based on Fisher’s unprotected LSD (P = 0.05) test (Saville, 1990; Piepho, 2004). Evaluation in Replicated Yield Trials Seed Puriication and Increase Vision 50, previously designated and tested as VA09HRW-64, has been evaluated in Virginia Tech yield tests since 2010 and in the UBWT since 2012. he UBWT 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, 2019). Plant traits assessed visually (e.g., winter kill, straw strength, and disease resistance) were rated using an ordinal scale from 0 (no visible symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms) based on intensity and severity of the afected plant area. All replicated yield tests in Virginia were conducted according to small grain production and management protocols recommended by Brann et al. (2000) with late season nitrogen applied to tests at Warsaw, VA according to homason et al. (2007). Conventional till yield plots were planted at 22 seeds per 0.304 m of row with a harvest area of 4.2 m2 . At Painter, VA, plots were composed of six rows with 17.8 cm between rows; at Warsaw and Blacksburg, VA, plots consisted of seven 15.2-cm rows. Assessment of reaction to Fusarium head blight, caused by Fusarium graminearum (Schwabe), was conducted in replicated inoculated and mist-irrigated nurseries according to the procedures described by Chen et al. (2006). Grain samples (1000 g) from Warsaw were supplied to the USDA Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory in Manhattan, KS, for grain, lour, and milling and baking quality analysis. Single kernel wheat characteristics were determined using the single kernel characterization system (American Association During fall 2012, 348 F8:9 headrows of Vision 50 were planted in an isolation block and evaluated for purity and trueness of type. Among the 348 breeder seed headrows, 35 rows were removed before harvest and discarded on the basis of variability and lack of trueness to cultivar type. he remaining 177 centermost rows that were similar in phenotype and visually homogenous were harvested in bulk. his initial breeder seed of Vision 50 was planted by the Virginia Crop Improvement Association in a 0.22-ha block at their Foundation Seed Farm during fall 2013 and produced 60 units (22.7 kg unit-1) of seed in 2014. his seed was used to plant 5.2 ha in fall 2014 from which 1035 units of seed was harvested in 2015. Of this seed, 65 units were planted on 10 ha in 2015, and this increase produced about 1800 units of foundation seed for distribution to seed producers in fall 2016. Methods Parentage, Breeding History, and Line Selection 194 Characteristics Botanical and Agronomic Characteristics Vision 50 is a widely adapted, full-season, medium-height HRW wheat with high yield potential and good end-use quality. At the boot stage, plants of Vision 50 are yellow-green in color and have lag leaves that are erect, twisted, and waxy. Stems are hollow and waxy, lack anthocyanin, and have four internodes; peduncles are erect; auricles are hairless and lack anthocyanin; and terminal rachis internodes are hairless. Anthers of Vision 50 are yellow in color. Spikes of Vision 50 are awned, inclined, middense, tapering in shape, and white in color at maturity. Straw is Journal of Plant Registrations yellow in color and lacks anthocyanin at physiological maturity. Glumes are white, lack pubescence, and are long in length and medium in width with acuminate beaks, and elevated shoulders of narrow width. he hard red kernels of Vision 50 are ovate in shape with rounded cheeks, narrow-width and deep creases, large germs, and medium noncollared brushes. he phenol test color of seed is fawn. In the Virginia Bread Wheat Elite Test, Vision 50 had a 4 yr (2014–2017) average head emergence (days from 1 January) of 125 d, which was similar to Vision 45 and 4 d later than Vision 30 (Table 1). Average plant height of Vision 50 (84 cm) was similar to those of ‘LCS Wizard’ (PI 669574, Liu et al., 2016) and Vision 30 (81 cm) and 10 cm shorter than that of Vision 45. Straw strength (0 = erect to 9 = completely lodged) of Vision 50 (0.3) was similar to that (0.2) of ‘Soissons’ (PI 573744) and signiicantly (P ≥ 0.05) stronger than that of Vision 30 (1.6) or ‘Jagger’ (1.8) (PI 593688, Sears et al., 1997b). Field Performance In the Virginia Bread Wheat Elite Test from 2014 to 2017 (Table 1), Vision 50 produced a mean grain yield of 5067 kg ha-1. he mean yield of Vision 50 was similar to the HRW wheat cultivar Vision 45 (5368 kg ha-1) but lower than those of the highest-yielding SRW wheat check cultivar Shirley (5757 kg ha-1) (PI 656753, Grifey et al., 2010). Average test weight of Vision 50 (73.1 kg hL-1) was slightly higher than that of Shirley (72.7 kg hL-1) but 2.3 kg hL-1 lower than that of Vision 45 in Virginia. Vision 50 also was evaluated in 177 environments over 6 yr (2012–2017) in the USDA-ARS UBWT. Only data from the 2015 and 2016 trials are presented herein (Tables 2 and 3). Mean grain yields of Vision 50 in the 2015 (4464 kg ha-1) and 2016 (4506 kg ha-1) UBWT did not difer signiicantly from those of the top-yielding cultivar Vision 45 (4815 and 4593 kg ha-1, respectively). In the 2015 and 2016 UBWT, mean grain volume weights of Vision 50 (73.9 and 72.0 kg hL-1) were not signiicantly diferent than those of Vision 30 (74.2 and 74.1 kg hL-1). Cold hardiness of Vision 50, based on ratings of 0 = no injury to 9 = complete kill, was the same as that of ‘Everest’ (PI 659807, Jin et al., 2013) for late winter freeze damage in 2015 (Table 2) (6.0) and of Vision 45 for winter stress in 2016 (Table 3) (5.0). Disease and Insect Resistance Reaction of Vision 50 to diseases (0 = highly resistant to 9 = very susceptible) was evaluated in diverse environments in Virginia and in multiple states and locations (Tables 1–3). Vision 50 is resistant (0.9–1.0) to leaf rust and moderately resistant (0.1–2.7) to powdery mildew. Vision 50 is moderately resistant (1.6–3.0) to stripe rust on the basis of average infection type (Line and Qayoum, 1992) ratings (0–9) in ield trials and a disease nursery (Tables 1–3). Seedlings of Vision 50 were moderately resistant to stem rust (caused by Puccinia graminis Pers.:Pers. f. sp. tritici Erikss. & E. Henn.) races (QFCSC, QTHJC, MCCFC, RKQQC) evaluated in 2012 to 2015 greenhouse tests by the USDA-ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul, MN. Adult plants of Vision 50 were moderately resistant Table 1. Four-year (2014–2017) mean performance of Vision 50 hard red winter wheat in the Virginia Tech Bread Wheat Elite Test in Virginia.† Cultivar Shirley‡‡ Tribute‡‡ Vision 45 Vision 30 Soissons LCS Wizard Karl 92 Jagger Vision 50 Mean (n = 16) LSD (0.05) CV (%) No. of site-years Grain yield kg ha−1 5757 a§§ 5012 bc 5368 ab 4627 c 4575 c 4867 bc 4013 d 3806 d 5067 bc 4825.2 c 511.1 21.1 11 Grain volume weight Heading date kg hL−1 d after 1 Jan. 72.7 d 122 abc 78.0 a 121 bcd 75.4 bc 125 a 74.9 bc 121 bcd 72.2 d 124 ab 76.3 b 123 abc 75.5 bc 120 cd 75.2 bc 118 d 73.1 d 125 a 74.6 c 121.8 abc 1.5 3.7 5.9 5.9 11 8 Plant height Lodging cm 78 d 78 d 94 a 81 c 78 d 81 c 80 cd 79 d 84 b 81.2 c 3.0 7.4 8 0–9# 0.6 abc 1.4 de 0.7 abc 1.6 e 0.2 a 0.8 bc 1.4 de 1.8 e 0.3 ab 0.9 cd 0.5 119.0 8 Leaf rust Powdery mildew Disease resistance Stripe FHB§ FHB BYDV‡ rust incidence severity ———————— 0–9†† ———————— 0.2 a 0.2 a 1.0 ab 6.7 d 1.3 bc 3.5 e 1.7 d 2.9 bc 1.0 b 0.7 b 1.4 cd 0.0 a 3.7 f 0.3 ab 1.0 abc 5.0 c 3.5 ef 0.6 ab 0.7 ab 0.0 a 2.1 d 1.2 c 0.6 a 2.0 ab 3.7 f 2.0 d 1.6 d 1.9 ab 2.9 e 4.9 f 2.5 e 0.0 a 1.0 b 0.6 ab 1.4 cd 3.0 bc 1.7 cd 1.2 c 1.2 bcd 1.9 ab 0.6 0.4 0.5 2.5 62.3 58.1 60.3 120.1 5 10 4 2 FHB index¶ —————— % —————— 63.9 c 45.5 d 29.2 b 42.9 a 27.2 a 17.3 a 49.6 ab 36.6 bc 20.5 ab 57.0 bc 42.6 c 26.0 ab 62.0 c 30.0 ab 25.7 ab 59.5 bc 43.2 c 29.6 b 57.8 bc 35.7 abc 21.7 ab 52.3 abc 32.1 ab 23.7 ab 53.3 abc 33.2 ab 25.9 ab 54.7 abc 34.8 abc 23.9 ab 12.2 9.3 10.2 22.2 26.5 42.3 4 4 4 † Grain yield and grain volume weight data from Blacksburg (2014–2017), Warsaw (2014–2017), and Painter (2014–2016); head date, plant height, and lodging from Blacksburg (2014–2017) and Warsaw (2014–2017); leaf rust from Blacksburg (2014, 2016, 2017) and Warsaw (2014–2016); powdery mildew data from Blacksburg (2014–2016), Warsaw (2015, 2016), and Painter (2014, 2015); Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) data from Blacksburg (2015), Warsaw (2016, 2017), and Painter (2014); stripe rust data from Blacksburg (2014) and Warsaw (2016); Fusarium head blight (FHB) data from Scab Nursery in Blacksburg (2014–2016) and Mt. Holly (2017). ‡ BYDV = Barley yellow dwarf virus. § FHB = Fusarium head blight. ¶ FHB index = % incidence × % severity ÷ 100. # 0 = erect; 9 = completely lodged. †† 0 = highly resistant; 9 = highly susceptible. ‡‡ Soft red winter wheat check cultivar. §§ Means in a column followed by the same letter are not signiicantly diferent at the 0.05 probability level based on Fisher’s unprotected LSD pairwise comparison. Journal of Plant Registrations 195 † Stag. nod. = Stagonospora nodorum. ‡ BYDV = Barley yellow dwarf virus. § 0 = erect; 9 = completely lodged. ¶ Growth habit (midwinter rating): 0 = very upright; 9 = very prostrate. # late frozen damage (late-winter rating leaf damage): 0 = no injury to 9 = complete kill. †† 1 = highly resistant; 9 = highly susceptible. ‡‡ 0 = highly resistant; 9 = highly susceptible. §§ Means in a column followed by the same letter are not signiicantly diferent at the 0.05 probability level based on Fisher’s unprotected LSD pairwise comparison. ¶¶ Soft red winter wheat check. Appalachian White Everest NuEast Shirley¶¶ TAM 303 USG 3120¶¶ Vision 30 Vision 45 Vision 50 Mean (n = 35) LSD (0.05) CV (%) No. of locations kg ha-1 4053 bcd§§ 3890 bcd 3482 d 3896 bcd 3605 d 4435 abc 3722 d 4815 a 4464 ab 3858 cd 590.6 9.4 16 kg hL-1 d after 1 Jan. 72.9 bcd 126 a 75.8 ab 119 d 76.2 a 123 b 70.2 d 123 b 72.1 cd 121 c 74.0 abc 119 d 74.2 abc 122 bc 74.2 abc 126 a 73.9 abc 122 a 73.6 abc 123 a 3.1 1.7 2.5 1.7 11 8 cm 88 b 81 cd 89 b 77 d 87 b 87 b 84 bc 96 a 86 bc 85 bc 5.1 5.6 10 0–9§ 2.5 bcd 3.3 de 2.5 bcd 1.2 a 4.3 e 1.3 ab 3.0 cd 1.0 a 1.6 abcd 1.9 abc 1.4 85.0 8 0–9¶ 5.7 def 4.5 bcd 4.0 abc 6.8 f 4.8 cde 2.8 a 3.5 ab 6.0 ef 4.5 bcd 4.8 cde 1.2 25.0 3 Disease resistance Late Fusarium Stag. nod.† frozen Bacterial Powdery Stripe rust Strip rust Stag. nod.† Leaf rust glume BYDV‡ damage leaf streak head mildew tests nursery leaf blotch blight blotch 0–9# 1–9†† ——————————————————— 0–9‡‡ ——————————————————— 4.0 ab 3.0 ab 5.5 bc 4.0 c 0.7 ab 1.3 ab 2.0 3.7 ab 1 1.3 a 6.0 cd 5.0 c 4.5 ab 1.5 ab 0.8 ab 4.9 def 9.0 6.0 ab 6.5 1.0 a 7.0 d 4.5 bc 6.0 cd 2.5 abc 2.0 bc 5.4 ef 9.0 6.0 ab 6 1.8 a 3.0 a 7.5 e 7.0 de 1.0 a 0a 6.5 f 9.0 3.5 a 3 1.0 a 5.0 bc 5.5 cd 7.0 de 3.5 c 3.7 d 4.5 def 4.0 7.0 b 6 1.3 a 7.0 d 1.5 a 7.5 e 1.5 ab 0.8 ab 3.6 bcd 8.0 5.0 ab – 1.0 a 6.0 cd 6.0 cde 5.0 bc 8.0 d 0a 6.5 f 9.0 4.7 ab 3 1.3 a 4.0 ab 5.0 c 5.5 bc 3.0 bc 1.2 abc 0.9 a 3.0 4.7 ab 1 1.0 a 6.0 cd 7.0 de 3.5 a 1.0 a 2.7 cd 1.6 abc 2.0 5.7 ab 6.5 1.7 a 5.1 bc 4.5 bc 6.2 cd 3.7 c 1.3 abc 3.2 bcd 6.3 5.0 ab – 1.2 a 1.19 1.91 1.12 1.82 1.5 2 3.4 – 1.3 14.0 20.2 9 21.8 121.9 47.2 23.6 – 27.0 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 Growth habit Lodging Plant height Head date Volume weight Grain yield Cultivar Table 2. Mean performance of Vision 50 hard red winter wheat in the 2014–2015 USDA-ARS Uniform Bread Wheat Trial. 196 to stem rust, with disease severity (0–100%) ratings from trace to 50% in ield tests conducted using a composite of races including QFCSC, QTHJC, RCRSC, RKQQC, and TPMKC at St. Paul from 2012 to 2017. Adult plants of Vision 50 were susceptible (50% severity) to race TTKSK (Ug99) in a ield trial of entries in the 2016 UBWT evaluated in Kenya (Table 3). Molecular marker analyses indicates that Vision 50 has the Sr24/Lr24 gene complex. Vision 50 is also moderately resistant (0.4–1.7) to Barley yellow dwarf virus (Tables 1– 3) and Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus (0–5.0, data not presented). Vision 50 was susceptible (7.0) to bacterial leaf streak, caused by Xanthomonas translucens pv. Undulosa, at one test site in the 2015 UBWT (Table 2). Vision 50 has expressed moderate resistance to moderate susceptibility to glume blotch (3.0–6.5) and leaf blotch (3.5–5.7) both caused by Stagonospora nodorum (Tables 2 and 3). Under natural ield infection by Fusarium graminearum, reaction of Vision 50 varied from moderately resistant (3.5) (Table 2) to susceptible (8.0) in the 2015 and 2014 UBWT (data not show). In Virginia’s inoculated and mist-irrigated scab nursery (Table 1), Vision 50 had a 4-yr mean Fusarium head blight index (incidence × severity/100) value (0–100) of 25.9, which was slightly higher than that of the moderately resistant check ‘Tribute’ (17.3) (PI 654422, Grifey et al., 2005) and slightly lower than that of the susceptible check cultivar Shirley (29.2). Vision 50 was susceptible to ive biotypes (B, C, D, O, and L) of Hessian ly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)] in seedling tests conducted by USDAARS Crop Production and Pest Control Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN. In three North Carolina ield trials of entries in the 2014 UBWT, Vision 50 also was moderately susceptible to Hessian ly (mean rating of 5.3, where 0 = no plant damage to 9 = yellow and/ or dead lower leaves, fewer tillers, and stunting) under natural infestation (data not presented). Reaction of Vision 50 to speckled leaf blotch (caused by Septoria tritici Roberge in Desmaz.), Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus, and Wheat streak mosaic virus is not known. End-Use Quality Grain characteristics and milling and baking quality of Vision 50 in Virginia Tech tests have been evaluated by the USDA-ARS Hard Wheat Quality Laboratory in Manhattan, KS, since 2010; and 3 yr of data from 2014 to 2016 are presented in Table 4. Data from the single kernel characterization system indicate that kernels of Vision 50 are hard in Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of Plant Registrations Table 3. Mean performance of Vision 50 hard red winter wheat in the 2015–2016 USDA-ARS Uniform Bread Wheat Trial. Disease resistance Cultivar Yield Appalachian White Everest NuEast Shirley¶¶ TAM 303 USG 3120¶¶ Vision 30 Vision 45 Vision 50 Mean (N = 39) LSD (0.05) CV (%) No. of locations kg ha-1 3894 c§§ 4432 ab 3813 c 4405 ab 3813 c 4560 a 3793 c 4593 a 4506 ab 4096 bc 422.7 14.7 11 Volume weight Head date kg hL-1 d after 1 Jan. 74.7 abc 117.3 a 76.0 ab 104.5 e 76.3 a 113.3 c 71.6 e 114.8 bc 72.9 cde 109.7 d 75.1 ab 101.1 f 74.1 bcd 109.4 d 74.6 abc 117.0 ab 72.0 de 116.5 ab 74.3 abc 110.4 d 2.1 2.4 4.0 2.4 11 7 Plant height Lodging Winter stress cm 88 bc 78 fg 90 ab 75 g 86 cd 86 cd 80 ef 92 a 83 de 83 de 3.6 5.4 9 0–9§ 3.4 cd 2.3 bc 2.6 bc 2.0 ab 4.0 d 1.7 ab 2.6 bc 2.4 bc 0.7 a 2.2 bc 1.4 66.4 6 0–9¶ 4.0 bc 3.0 ab 2.0 a 2.0 a 3.0 ab 6.0 d 4.0 bc 5.0 cd 5.0 cd 3.8 bc 1.3 20.3 1 Powdery mildew 0.7 ab 2.1 abc 4.0 c 0.0 a 3.7 c 2.7 bc 0.8 ab 0.1 a 0.1 a 1.8 abc 2.36 77.8 3 Leaf rust Stripe rust BYDV† ——— 0–9# ——— 1.0 a 1.7 ab 1.2 0.3 a 3.5 ab 0.7 0.5 a 3.5 ab 0.6 0.4 a 4.9 b 0.3 1.0 a 3.4 ab 1.4 1.0 a 3.0 ab 0.7 3.5 b 4.0 ab 0.7 1.5 b 0.6 a 0.6 0.9 b 2.3 ab 0.4 1.4 b 2.2 ab 0.9 1.60 3.63 – 85.7 72.7 33.3 5 4 3 Root rot 5.5 c 2.5 a 7.5 d 3.0 ab 7.5 d 3.5 abc 5.5 c 5.5 c 5.0 bc 5.3 c 2.2 24.6 1 Stag. nod.‡ glume leaf blotch blotch — 1–9†† — 3.5 2.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 6.0 6.5 7.5 3.5 6.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 5.4 4.4 – – 23.7 39.9 1 1 Stem rust St. Paul, Njoro, MN Kenya Hessian ly resist biotype — rating‡‡ — 40S TMSS 50MSS 50MSS 40MSMR 60SMS 0 15MR 20MSMR 40MRMS 20S 20MR 0 40MSS 20S 50S 10S 50S – – – – – – 1 1 BCOL none none BCOL none none none B none none – – – 1 † BYDV = Barley yellow dwarf virus. ‡ Stag. nod. = Stagonospora nodorum. § 0 = erect; 9 = completely lodged. ¶ Winter stress (midwinter rating leaf damage): 0 = no injury; 9 = complete kill. # 0 = highly resistant; 9 = highly susceptible. †† 1 = highly resistant; 9 = highly susceptible. ‡‡ Stem rust ield reaction; St. Paul, MN, used a composite races of QFCSC, QTHJC, RCRSC, RKQQC, and TPMKC; Kenya race was TTKSK (Ug99). Ratings included severity as percentage area afected from 0 to 100, and infection response types of resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderately susceptible (MS), and susceptible (S); T = trace. §§ Means in a column followed by the same letter are not signiicantly diferent at 0.05 probability level based on Fisher’s unprotected LSD pairwise comparison. ¶¶ Soft red winter wheat check cultivar. texture, with an average index value of 48.3 (0 = very sot; 100 = very hard), which was most similar to that of Soissons (48.8). Flour yields of Vision 50 ranged from 71.8 to 74.2 g 100 g-1 with an average of 72.7 g 100 g-1, which was most similar to that of Soissons (72.6 g 100 g-1), a high lour yield check. Grain and lour protein contents of Vision 50 (11.3 and 9.8 g 100 g-1) were most similar to those of Soissons and LCS Wizard (11.4 and 10.0 g 100 g-1). Vision 50 has acceptable mixograph water absorption (59.5 g 100 g-1), and is similar to Vision 45 (59.2 g 100 g-1), LCS Wizard (59.6 g 100 g-1), and Soissons (59.3 g 100 g-1) but is slightly lower than Jagger (62.3 g 100 g-1). Dough mixing time (3.06 min) of Vision 50 was most similar to Vision 45 (3.30 min). Mean dough mixing tolerance of Vision 50 (2.7) was the same as ‘Karl 92’ (PI 56425, Sears et al., 1997a). Average 100-g pup loaf volume of Vision 50 (815 cm3) was similar to Jagger (822 cm3). Average crumb grain score (0 = open to 6 = dense) of Vision 50 (4.2) was slightly higher than the other hard wheat checks except for Soissons (4.3). Availability he Virginia Crop Improvement Association provided foundation seed of Vision 50 to seed producers during fall 2016. Vision 50 will be marketed by the Mennel Milling Company based in Fostoria, OH, and seed will be produced and distributed by Virginia Identity Preserved Grains, LLC, West Point, VA. An application for Plant Variety Protection of Vision 50 is currently under review by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Science & Technology Plant Variety Protection Oice. A seed sample of Vision 50 has been deposited with the USDA-ARS National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, where it will be available for distribution ater expiration of its US Plant Variety Protection. Small amounts of seed for research purposes may be obtained from the corresponding author for at least ive years ater the date of this publication. Acknowledgments Vision 50 was developed with inancial support from the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, the Virginia Small Grains Board, the Virginia Agricultural Council, the 197 Table 4. Milling and baking quality of Vision 50 hard red wheat in 2014–2016 Virginia Tech tests conducted by the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory, Manhattan, KS. Cultivar Vision 30 Vision 45 LCS Wizard Jagger Karl 92 Soissons Vision 50 Mean§ SD§ (0.05) Cultivar Vision 30 Vision 45 LCS Wizard Jagger Karl 92 Soissons Vision 50 Mean§ SD§ (0.05) Wheat protein Flour ash Flour protein SKCS† kernel hardness at 14% moisture Flour yield at 14% moisture at 14% moisture 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean ———————————————————————— g 100 g-1 ———————————————————————— 11.8 12.6 12.2 12.2 67.4 69.1 65.3 67.3 0.38 0.37 0.45 0.40 10.2 11.6 11.2 11.0 10.8 12.6 10.9 11.4 69.4 71.5 69.5 70.1 0.42 0.36 0.45 0.41 9.4 11.2 10.1 10.2 11.0 11.7 11.5 11.4 66.9 70.3 66.7 68.0 0.42 0.39 0.49 0.43 9.2 10.2 10.6 10.0 11.3 12.4 13.0 12.2 66.6 67.0 65.6 66.4 0.41 0.43 0.50 0.45 9.8 11.2 11.4 10.8 12.0 14.2 13.2 13.1 66.3 66.0 64.4 65.6 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.43 10.1 12.9 12.0 11.7 10.5 12.2 11.3 11.4 71.4 75.2 71.1 72.6 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.43 9.0 10.8 10.1 10.0 10.6 11.9 11.4 11.3 71.8 72.1 74.2 72.7 0.38 0.39 0.42 0.39 9.0 10.3 10.2 9.8 11.0 12.4 11.5 11.7 66.8 68.5 67.3 67.5 0.4 0.40 0.48 0.43 9.4 11.0 10.4 10.2 0.7 0.8 0.6 – 2.8 2.7 2.4 – 0.0 0.03 0.04 – 0.6 0.9 0.6 – Adjusted dough Flour water absorption Dough mixing tolerance mixing time Crumb score Loaf volume 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2016 2015 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean 2014 2015 2016 Mean ——— 0–100‡ ——— 54.0 50.0 70.5 58.2 56.6 43.3 63.8 54.6 67.0 55.9 77.2 66.7 60.9 59.7 73.5 64.7 51.6 50.0 62.7 54.8 52.5 38.7 55.3 48.8 53.0 41.1 50.9 48.3 56.0 48 70.9 58.3 15.9 17 9.0 – ——— g 100 g-1 ——— 60.3 61.2 63.4 61.6 59.3 58.4 59.8 59.2 58.2 59.8 60.7 59.6 60.4 62.1 64.5 62.3 61.4 64.2 63.5 63.0 58.2 59.2 60.5 59.3 59.6 58.6 60.3 59.5 58.6 60.1 61.5 60.1 2.1 2.4 1.6 – ———— 0–6¶ ———— 3 3 4 3.3 2 2 2 2.0 2 1 2 1.7 2 3 4 3.0 4 0 4 2.7 4 3 4 3.7 3 2 3 2.7 2.5 2.3 3 2.5 1.2 1.3 1 – ———— min ———— 4.34 5.02 3.15 4.17 2.91 4.31 2.68 3.30 2.68 2.76 2.08 2.51 3.11 4.85 3.46 3.81 4.44 6.75 4.25 5.15 4.01 6.46 3.87 4.78 2.89 3.56 2.73 3.06 3.1 4.71 3.0 3.59 1.1 1.94 0.9 – ———— 0–6# ———— 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.0 1.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 – ———— cm3 ———— 795 945 810 850 775 885 835 832 780 815 835 810 770 850 845 822 805 920 855 860 745 900 855 833 760 850 835 815 741 852 791 795 52.4 63.6 70.8 – † Single kernel characterization system (SKCS), AACC Method 55-31.01 (http://methods.aaccnet.org/methods/55–31.pdf). ‡ 0 = very soft; 100 = very hard. § Mean value of all entries evaluated in trial in 2014 (N = 34), 2015 (N = 32), and 2016 (N = 29). ¶ 0 = weak dough with poor mixing tolerance; 6 = strong dough with good mixing tolerance. # 0 = poor open grain; 6 = outstanding closed grain. Virginia Crop Improvement Association, and the Mennel Milling Company. his work is/was supported by the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station (Blacksburg) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture (Washington, DC). References Agronomix Sotware. 2004. Agrobase Generation II user’s manual. Agronomix Sotware, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. American Association of Cereal Chemists. 2000. Approved methods of the AACC. 10th ed. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN. Brann, D.E., D.L. Holshouser, and G.L. Mullins. 2000. Agronomy handbook. Pub. 424-100, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg, VA. Chen, J., C.A. Grifey, M.A. Saghai Maroof, E.L. Stromberg, R.M. Biyashev, W. Zhao, M.R. Chappell, T.H. Pridgen, Y. Dong, and Z. Zeng. 2006. Validation of two major quantitative trait loci for Fusarium head blight resistance in Chinese wheat line W14. Plant Breed. 125:99–101. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2006.01182.x Clougherty, S. 2018. Hard red winter wheat getting push in VA. he Delmarva Farmer. https://americanfarmpublications.com/hard-red-winter-wheatgetting-push-in-va/ (accessed 4 Dec. 2018). Finney, K.F., and M.D. Shogren. 1972. A ten-gram mixograph for determining and predicting functional properties of wheat lours. Bakers Digest 42:32–35, 38–42, 77. Grifey, C.A., W.L. Rohrer, T.H. Pridgen, W.S. Brooks, J. Chen, J.A. Wilson, et al. 2005. Registration of ‘Tribute’ wheat. Crop Sci. 45:419–420. doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.0419 Grifey, C.A., W.E. homason, R.M. Pitman, B.R. Beahm, J.J. Paling, J. Chen, et al. 2010. Registration of ‘Shirley’ wheat. J. Plant Reg. 4(1):38–43. doi:10.3198/jpr2009.05.0260crc Hall, M.D., C.A. Grifey, A. Green, S. Liu, P. Gundrum, G. Berger, et al. 2011. Registration of ‘Vision 30’ wheat. J. Plant Reg. 5:353–359. doi:10.3198/ jpr2011.03.0183crc 198 Jin, F., D. Zhang, W. Bockus, P.S. Baenziger, B. Carver, and G. Bai. 2013. Fusarium head blight resistance in US winter wheat cultivars and elite breeding lines. Crop Sci. 53:2006–2013. doi:10.2135/cropsci2012.09.0531 Line, R.F., and A. Qayoum. 1992. Virulence, aggressiveness, evolution, and distribution of races of Puccinia striiformis (the cause of stripe rust of wheat) in North America, 1968–87. USDA Technical Bull. 1788. USDAARS, Washington, DC. Liu, L., M.D. Barnett, C.A. Grifey, S. Malla, W.S. Brooks, J.E. Seago, et al. 2015. Registration of ‘Vision 45’ wheat. J. Plant Reg. 9:338–344. doi:10.3198/jpr2015.03.0019crc Liu, L., M.D. Barnett, C.A. Grifey, S. Malla, W.S. Brooks, J.E. Seago, et al. 2016. Registration of ‘LCS Wizard’ wheat. J. Plant Reg. 10:28–35. doi:10.3198/jpr2015.06.0035crc Microsot. 2013. Oice 2010 update: September 10 2013. Version 14.0.7106.5001 (64 bit). Microsot, Redmond, WA. Piepho, H.-P. 2004. An algorithm for a letter-based representation of all–pairwise comparisons. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 13(2):456–466. R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Saville, D.J. 1990. Multiple comparison procedures: he practical solution. Am. Stat. 44(2):174–180. Sears, R.G., T.J. Martin, T.S. Cox, O.K. Chung, S.P. Curran, W.F. Heer, and M.D. Witt. 1997a. Registration of ‘Karl 92’ wheat. Crop Sci. 37:628. 10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020057x Sears, R.G., J.M. Mofatt, T.J. Martin, T.S. Cox, R.K. Bequette, S.P. Curran, O.K. Chung, and W.F. Heer. 1997b. Registration of ‘Jagger’ wheat. Crop Sci. 37:1010. doi:10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700030062x homason, W.E., S.B. Phillips, T.H. Pridgen, J.C. Kenner, C.A. Grifey, B.R. Beahm, and B.W. Seabourn. 2007. Managing nitrogen and sulfur fertilization for improved bread wheat quality in humid environments. Cereal Chem. 84:450–462. doi:10.1094/CCHEM-84-5-0450 USDA-ARS. 2019. Uniform bread wheat trial inal report. Plant Science Research, Raleigh, NC. https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-area/raleighnc/plant-science-research/docs/nursery-reports/page-1/. Journal of Plant Registrations