For Review Only
AAC Crossfield Red Spring Wheat
Journal: Canadian Journal of Plant Science
Manuscript ID CJPS-2019-0237.R1 Manuscript Type: Cultivar description Date Submitted by the
Author: 04-Oct-2019
Complete List of Authors: Randhawa, Harpinder; AAFC,
Brown, P.D.; Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Cereal Research Centre; Doug Brown,
Mitchell Fetch, J.; Agrinculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon Research Centre
Fetch, Thomas Gilbert, Jeannie Mccallum, Brent
Menzies, James G.; Agr , Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Gaudet, Denis; Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada
Keywords: Triticum aestivum L., cultivar description, Canada Prairie Spring wheat, grain yield, quality, disease resistance, Agronomy Is the invited manuscript for
consideration in a Special
For Review Only
CULTIVAR DESCRIPTION
AAC Crossfield Red Spring Wheat
H.S. Randhawa 1,5, P.D. Brown 2, J. Mitchell Fetch 3, T. Fetch 3, J. Gilbert 2, B. McCallum 4, J. Menzies 4 D. Gaudet 1
1Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 5403-1st Ave South, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1J 4B1
2Cereal Research Centre Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9 (former address)
3Brandon Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2701 Grand Valley Road, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada R7A 5Y3
4Morden Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 101 Route 100 Morden, Manitoba, Canada R6M 1Y5
5Corresponding author: harpinder.randhawa@canada.ca, phone 317-2238, fax 403-382-3156
For Review Only
Randhawa et al. 2019. AAC Crossfield Red Spring Wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. xx: xx-xx. AAC Crossfield, an awned hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cultivar, combines high grain yield and good agronomic characteristics with excellent resistance to leaf, stem and stripe rust. AAC Crossfield is significantly shorter than Conquer and AAC Foray, and has maturity, straw strength, and test weight similar to the check cultivars. AAC Crossfield has improved farinograph stability and is eligible for grade of the Canada Prairie Spring Red wheat market class.
List of Abbreviations: CPSR: Canada Prairie Spring Red, DON: deoxynivalenol, FHB:
Fusarium head blight
Key Words: Triticum aestivum L., cultivar description, Canada Prairie Spring wheat, grain yield, quality, disease resistance
For Review Only
AAC Crossfield is a hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivar developed cooperatively by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Cereal Research Centre, Winnipeg, MB and the Lethbridge Research and Development Centre (LRDC), Lethbridge, AB. It was assigned registration number 7870 by the Variety Registration Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency on 08 January 2016. AAC Crossfield is adapted to western Canada and meets the quality specifications of the Canada Prairie Spring Red (CPSR) wheat market class.
Pedigree and Breeding Methodology:
AAC Crossfield was developed from the cross Howard/2*5701PR made at the AAFC Cereal Research Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 2005. The primary objective of this cross was to develop a high-yielding CPSR wheat cultivar adapted to western Canada, with broad resistance to rust diseases. Howard is a semi-dwarf hard red spring wheat cultivar developed from the cross Parshall/5/Grandin/3/IAS20*4/H567.71//Amidon/4/ ND674 at North Dakota State University. It combined a good level of Fusarium head blight (FHB) resistance derived from the tetraploid wheat relative Triticum dicoccoides, high grain yield, and high end-use quality for the domestic and export wheat markets. (Mergoum et al 2006). 5701PR is a registered CPSR cultivar developed by AgriPro in 2001.
A modified pedigree breeding method was used to develop AAC Crossfield, with contra-season nurseries in New Zealand at the F3, F5 and F7 generations. Twenty-five BC1F1 plants
were grown in the greenhouse to produce sufficient seed for twenty F2 plots (each about
1.2 m2) planted at Glenlea, MB in 2006. The nursery was established on land where the
For Review Only
planting, the F2 seeds were inoculated with common bunt [Tilletia laevis Kuhn in Rabenh.
and T. tritici (Bjerk.) (Bjerk.) R. Wolff] spores. Susceptible spreader rows on either side of each plot were inoculated with leaf (Puccinia triticina Eriks. = P. recondita Roberge ex Desmaz.), and stem rust (Puccinia graminis Pers.: Pers. f. sp. tritici Eriks. & e. Henn.). The F2 plants that were rust, bunt and/or FHB susceptible, tall, or prone to lodging, or late
maturing were discarded. All of the remaining plants were harvested in bulk. After cleaning and sizing, 240 grams of F3 seeds were space-planted in six 40-meter long rows near
Palmerston North, New Zealand during the winter of 2006-2007. After discarding plants based on criteria that were similar to those used in the F2 generation, 750 F3 heads were
selected from agronomically desirable plants. These F3 heads were threshed individually
and examined for kernel visual distinguishability (KVD) and good appearance. Seed of 224 F4 head rows were inoculated with common bunt and planted near Portage la Prairie
MB in a disease nursery that was artificially inoculated with, leaf and stem rust in 2007. This F4 nursery was also inoculated with FHB-infested corn spawn to permit screening for
FHB resistance/tolerance as described by Gilbert and Woods (2006). Mist irrigation was used every second day to encourage disease incidence. Based on visual disease ratings, plant type, and kernel appearance, seed from 30 head rows was advanced to the next generation. The F5 generation was planted in 1 m rows near Palmerston North, New
Zealand (2007-2008). These lines were concurrently screened for common bunt resistance in the AAFC-CRC greenhouses and for basic quality (protein content, kernel hardness and sedimentation) at the CRC Cereal Quality Lab. Based on bunt resistance and quality data, plus the agronomic characteristics and disease resistance in New Zealand, F5 rows were
For Review Only
alternating checks every tenth plot at Glenlea and Brandon MB, and Saskatoon SK, and in inoculated leaf and stem rust/common bunt/FHB disease nurseries planted at Glenlea and Portage la Prairie. Twelve of these lines were advanced based on high yield, productivity traits, and resistance to leaf rust, stem rust, common bunt, and FHB. Fifteen spikes were randomly collected from each of the 12 lines. Seed from six spikes of each were advanced for further purification and were planted near Palmerston North, New Zealand (2008-09) as 72 F7 head rows. This material was handled and selected in the same manner as the F5.
Eight F7:8 lines were selected and subsequently evaluated in 2009 F8 agronomic trials
planted at Brandon, Glenlea and Saskatoon using criteria similar to the F6 generation.
Five F9 lines were advanced to the 2010 Eastern Prairie Wheat (EPW) ‘A’ trial, a replicated
yield trial grown at five locations (Brandon, Glenlea, Portage la Prairie, Indian Head and Saskatoon) with supplementary disease nurseries described below. Based on agronomic performance, disease resistance and quality analysis (protein content, kernel hardness, sedimentation volume, flour yield, ash content, flour yield, flour colour, mixograph, farinograph and baking) , four F10 lines were advanced to the EPW ‘B’ test grown at seven
locations (Brandon, Glenlea, Portage la Prairie, Indian Head, Saskatoon, Swift Current and Melfort) in 2011 and disease nurseries. One entry EPWB11-317 (08W3556), was advanced to the High Yield Wheat Cooperative (HYWC) Registration trials as HY1632 in 2012 to 2014.
As part of these tests, artificially inoculated field nurseries were used to determine reactions to leaf rust and stem rust at AAFC-CRC (Winnipeg) using the modified Cobb scale (Peterson et al. 1948). Seedling reactions were determined in the greenhouse for leaf rust
For Review Only
races MBDS (12-3), MGBJ (74-2), TJBJ (77-2), TDBG (06-1-1) and MBRJ (128-1) (McCallum et al 2018) and to stem rust races TMRTK (C10), RKQSR (C63), TPMKR (C53) RTHJT (C57), QTHST (C25) and RHTSK (C20) (Fetch et al 2018; Roelfs and Martens 1988). Severity reaction to stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis Westend) was recorded based on natural field infection in stripe rust nurseries near Lethbridge (Randhawa et al. 2012). Fusarium head blight tolerance was evaluated at Glenlea and Carman, MB in mist irrigated field nurseries spray inoculated with a macroconidial suspension and rated using a visual index (% incidence x % severity/100) as described by Gilbert and Woods (2006). Resistance to loose smut [Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Rostr.] was estimated as described by Menzies et al. (2003) using a composite of races T2, T9, T10 and T39. Evaluation of common bunt resistance was conducted at the AAFC Lethbridge Research and Development Centre using a composite of races L1, L16, T1, T6, T13 and T19, and planting into cold soil (Gaudet and Puchalski 1989; Gaudet et al. 1993).
End-use quality (for traits listed in Table 4) was evaluated by the Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission in Winnipeg based on composite samples for each test entry prepared from test locations selected on the basis of protein content and grade of the check cultivars.
Analyses of variance were conducted on data from the registration tests using a combined mixed effects model for agronomic data with years, environments and their interactions treated as random effects and cultivar treated as a fixed effect. The least significant difference (LSD) test was used to identify significant differences of the means for AAC Crossfield from those of the check cultivars. For end-use quality data the standard deviation is based on annual repeated testing of Allis-Chalmers mill check
For Review Only
samples and standard bake flour samples with replicate tests performed over an extended time period.
Performance and Adaptation:
Based on 42 station years of data in the registration trials from 2012 to 2014, the yield of AAC Crossfield was significantly higher than 5700PR in all zones within western Canada. (Table 1). Overall, AAC Crossfield yielded about 17% higher than 5700PR (P < 0.05) but similar to other checks (P> 0.05). AAC Crossfield (Table 2) was equal in maturity to check cultivars (P> 0.05). Straw strength was similar to AAC Foray but significantly stronger than Conquer. Plant height was significantly shorter than both AAC Foray and Conquer (P < 0.05). AAC Crossfield had test weight similar to 5700PR and AAC Foray. The kernel mass was similar to 5700PR but smaller than AAC Foray and Conquer. The protein concentration of AAC Crossfield was similar to AAC Foray and Conquer but than 5700PR (P < 0.05) (Table 2).
AAC Crossfield was resistant to the prevalent western Canadian races of leaf, stem and stripe rust, and intermediate in reaction to common bunt and loose smut (Table 3). AAC Crossfield expressed improved resistance to Fusarium head blight, with intermediate to moderately resistant reactions and lower DON production compared to the check cultivars (Table 3). End-use quality assessment by the Canadian Grain Commission showed that AAC Crossfield has acceptable CPSR quality as defined by the checks (Table 4).
For Review Only
Plant characteristics were recorded from experimental field plots grown in 2015 at Lethbridge, AB.
SEEDLING CHARACTERISTICS
Coleoptile colour: absent Juvenile growth habit: erect
Seedling leaves: medium green, glabrous
Tillering capacity (at low densities): Moderately high ADULT PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Growth habit: Erect
Flag leaf: dark green, rectilinear curvature, glabrous, slightly waxy blade, medium length and width, leaf auricle with weak anthocyanin and slightly pubescent margin
Flag leaf attitude: intermediate Culm colour: glabrous
SPIKE CHARACTERISTICS Shape: Fusiform Length: Medium Density: Medium Attitude: Inclined Colour: White
Awns: Awned; awns equal in length to spike SPIKELET CHARACTERISTICS
For Review Only
shoulder, medium length beak with acuminate shape Lemma: slightly curved.
KERNEL CHARACTERISTICS
Type: Hard, Red in colour
Size: large; long, medium width; elliptical shape; rounded cheeks; medium length brush hairs; heavy; narrow, mid deep crease depth
Embryo: medium oval
Maintenance and Distribution of Pedigreed Seed
Breeder Seed of AAC Crossfield was produced by collecting random spikes from an F7
-derived F13 rogued increase plot grown at Lethbridge in 2014 and growing about 100
heads as F14 head rows in isolation near Irwell, New Zealand in 2014. These were
observed for uniformity within and among rows, with contaminated, segregating and off-type rows discarded. Ninety F15 single-plant progeny lines were subsequently planted at
the AAFC Seed Increase Unit at Indian Head in spring 2015.
Following the elimination of variant and off type rows in summer 2015, the remaining 79 lines were inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in cooperation with the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association. These lines were harvested as a bulk to constitute the initial breeder seed. The breeder seed of AAC Crossfield will be maintained by the AAFC Seed Increase Unit, Indian Head, SK Canada S0G 2K0 following the CGSA breeder seed production guidelines. Multiplication and distribution of all other pedigreed seed classes will be handled by Canterra Seeds 201 – 1475 Chevrier Blvd.Winnipeg, MB
For Review Only
R3T 1Y7 (www.canterra.com).
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the producer supported Western Grains Research Foundation check-off on wheat and the P4 wheat partnership (Canterra Seeds, Alberta Wheat Commission, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) is gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is expressed to the following: D. Niziol (CRC, AAFC, Winnipeg) and B. Dupuis (Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission, Winnipeg, MB) for end-use suitability analysis; A. Brule-Babel and R. Larios (University of Manitoba), H. Voldeng (AAFC-ORDC, Ottawa), R. Martin (AAFC-CRDC, Charlottetown) for assessing reaction to Fusarium head blight; B. Puchalski, and T. Despins (AAFC-LRDC) for assessing reaction to common bunt and stripe rust, M. Meiklejohn, D. Green (AAFC-CRC), M. Virginillo, and K. Ryan LRDC), for field assessment, and H. Naeem, (AAFC-Seed Increase Unit, Indian Head, SK) for production of Breeder (AAFC-Seed.
Fetch, T. Mitchell Fetch, J., Zegeye, T and Xue, A. 2018. Races of Puccinia graminis on barley, oat, and wheat in Canada in 2011 and 2012, Can. J. Plant Pathol. 40:1, 11-21
Gaudet, D. A., and Puchalski, B. L. 1989. Races of common bunt (Tilletia caries and T. foetida) in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 11:415-418.
Gaudet, D. A., Puchalski, B. L., Schallje, G. B. and Kozub, G. C. 1993. Susceptibility and resistance in Canadian spring wheat cultivars to common bunt (Tilletia tritici and T. laevis). Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:797-804.
For Review Only
Gilbert, J. and Woods, S. 2006. Strategies and considerations for multi-location FHB screening nurseries. Pages 93-102. in T. Ban, J.M. Lewis and E.E. Phipps, eds. The global Fusarium initiative for international collaboration: A strategic planning workshop. CIMMYT, El Batàn, Mexico; March 14-17, 2006. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.
Mergoum, M., R.C. Frohberg, R.W. Stack, J.B. Rasmussen, and T.L. Friesen. 2006.
Registration of ‘Howard’ Wheat Registration by CSSA. Crop Sci. 46:2702-2703. doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.03.0185
McCallum, B. D., Seto-Goh, P, Foster, A. and Xue, A. 2018. Physiological specialization of Puccinia triticina, the causal agent of wheat leaf rust, in Canada in 2012. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 40:3, 434-441.
Menzies, J.G., Knox, R.E., Nielsen, J., and Thomas, P.L. 2003. Virulence of Canadian isolates of Ustilago tritici: 1964-1998, and the use of the geometric rule in understanding host differential complexity. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 25: 62-72.
Peterson, R. F., Campbell, A. B., and Hannah, A. E. 1948. A diagrammatic scale for estimating rust intensity on leaves and stems of cereal. Can. J. Res. 26: 496-500
Randhawa, H.S., Puchalski, B.J., Frick, M., Goyal, A., Despins, T., Graf, R. J., Laroche A., Gaudet, D. A. 2012. Stripe rust resistance among western Canadian spring wheat and triticale varieties. Can. J. of Plant Sci. 92:713-722.
Roelfs, A.P., and Martens, J.W. 1988. An international system of nomenclature for Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici. Phytopathology 78:526-533.
For Review Only
Table 1: Grain yield (Kg ha-1) of AAC Crossfield compared to the check cultivars in the Registration Trials, (2012-2014).
Zone 1a Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Meanb
Entry 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012-14 5700 PR 3674 5281 4883 3965 4774 4990 3957 5570 3581 4989 1910 5433 4328 Conquer 3222 6759 5203 4161 6136 6390 4369 7688 5758 5132 6664 7674 5412 AAC Foray 4143 6175 5282 5002 5868 5315 4587 6862 5137 6071 6142 7893 5341 CDC Terrain 4086 6145 5474 4578 5761 5487 4553 6869 5072 5141 5026 7779 5241 AAC Crossfield 4165 6086 5337 4420 5931 5429 3917 6777 4848 5841 5765 8009 5180 LSD 0.05c 186 385 477 193 223 409 239 421 330 496 244 691 500 No. of Stations 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 1 1 1 42
a Zone 1: Brandon, Glenlea, Indian Head, Rosebank; Zone 2: Kamsack, Kernen, Pense, Scott, Swift Current; Zone 3: Beaverlodge, Ellerslie, Lacombe, Melfort; Zone 4: Lethbridge (Irrigated) b Means are based on LSMEANS procedure of SAS.
c LSD, least significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) includes the appropriate genotype × environment interaction variation.
Table 2: Three-year meansa of agronomic characteristics of AAC Crossfield as compared to the check cultivars grown in the Registration Trials.
(2012-2014).
Maturity Height StrengthStraw Test Weight TKW Protein
Entry (Days) (cm) Score b (1-9) (Kg/hL-1) (mg) (%) 5700 PR 100.6 80.9 1.4 76.4 36.0 11.9 Conquer 100.1 94.7 2.5 78.0 38.4 12.8 AAC Foray 100.3 91.3 2.2 76.9 42.5 12.9 CDC Terrain 99.4 86.3 2.0 77.3 38.7 12.5 AAC Crossfield 99.5 84.2 1.8 76.6 36.4 12.6 LSD 0.05c 1.6 2.8 0.6 1.2 1.7 0.43 Stations 38 42 24 41 41 27
a Means are based on LSMEANS procedure of SAS.
b Straw strength rated on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 = all plants in a plot are erect and 9 = all plants in a plot are lying horizontally. c LSD, least significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) includes the appropriate genotype × environment interaction variation.
For Review Only
Table 3: Reaction to various diseasesa of AAC Crossfield compared to the check cultivars in the Registration Trials (2012-2014).
Leaf Rust Stem Rust Stripe Rust
Entry 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 5700 PR 25 MR 5 R 0/80 S 50 MS 25 I 35 I 68 S 85 S 75 S Conquer 21 MR 32 I 17 MR 35 I 20 MR 1 R -- 1 R 1 R AAC Foray 13 MR 1 R 8 R 10 MR 10 R 1 R 16 I 15 R 5 R CDC Terrain 10 R 0 R 8 R 60 S 30 I 40 I 3 R 25 MR 5 R AAC Crossfield 2 R 0 R 0 R 30 I 10 R 5 MR 0 VR 10 R 5 R
Common Bunt Loose Smut Leaf Spotb
Entry 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 5700 PR 3 R 2 R 3 R 11 R 3 R 0 R 8.0 I 8.7 MS 7.3 I Conquer 0 R 2 R 3 R 11 R 35 MR 23 MR 6.7 MR 7.3 I 9.7 S AAC Foray 22 I 3 R 16 I 54 I 34 MR 21 MR 8.7 MS 7.7 I 9.0 MS CDC Terrain 7 R 13 MR 6 MR 16 MR 5 R 0 R 7.0 I 8.0 I 9.0 MS AAC Crossfield 19 I 11 MR 43 S 35 I 38 I 12 MR 9.0 MS 6.7 MR 8.5 MS FHBc Carman FHBc Glenlea/Portage/Morden DON (ppm) Carman DON (ppm) Glenlea/Portage/Morden Entry 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 5700 PR 56 S 68 S 50 S 20 MS 41 S 89 S 9.2 - 20.0 7.8 - 61.2 Conquer 58 S 68 S 46 MS 21 S 22 MS 19 R 0.8 - 22.5 9.0 - 42.4 AAC Foray 37 I 63 S 36 MS 7 MR 27 MS 64 S 6.8 - 15.0 5.3 - 64.6 CDC Terrain 48 MS 38 I 15 MR 5 MR 26 MS 74 S 8.6 - 14.5 8.4 - 61.9 AAC Crossfield 55 MS 54 MS 24 I 6 MR 21 I 52 MS 6.2 - 16.5 7.4 - 58.3
aFor the rust diseases numeric ratings are severity in percentage of tissue affected, for loose smut and bunt numeric ratings are incidence of disease in percentage of spikes infected over total
spikes and for FHB numeric values are disease index. Infection response or disease rating class are: VR=very resistant, R=resistant, MR=moderately resistant, I=intermediate rating, S=susceptible.
For Review Only
Table 4: Three-year means of quality characteristics of AAC Crossfield compared to the check cultivars in the Registration Trials, (2012-2014). Wheat and Flour Characteristics Milling Performance
Entry Wheat Protein (%) Flour Protein (%) Protein Loss (%) Hagberg Falling No. (Sec) Amylograph Peak viscosity (BU) Clean Wheat Flour Yield (%) Flour Yield 0.50 Ash (%) Flour Ash (%) Starch Damage (%) 5700 PR 12.6 11.6 1.0 380 617 75.4 77.0 0.44 7.7 Conquer 13.1 12.2 0.9 408 650 76.2 79.3 0.39 6.3 AAC Foray 12.9 11.9 1.0 452 770 75.8 78.8 0.40 6.8 Glenna 13.7 12.9 0.8 392 713 75.6 78.8 0.40 8.0 Mean of Checks 13.1 12.2 0.9 408 688 75.8 78.5 0.41 7.2 AAC Crossfield 13.1 12.3 0.8 405 763 76.3 79.0 0.40 6.1 SD of Checks 0.60 0.69 0.16 48.7 144 0.39 1.27 0.03 1.12 Dough Properties
Entry Absorption (%)Farinograph Farinograph DDT (Min) Farinograph MTI (FU) Stability (Min)Farinograph Extensograph Area (cm2) Extensograph Rmax (BU) Extensograph Length (cm)
5700 PR 64.6 7.7 26.7 10.5 104 439 18.7 Conquer 61.4 8.4 18.3 14.8 96 418 18.4 AAC Foray 63.0 7.3 15.0 17.2 108 488 18.1 Glenna 65.9 9.8 21.7 14.7 135 597 18.7 Mean of Checks 63.7 8.3 20.4 14.3 110 485 18.4 AAC Crossfield 60.9 10.8 13.3 20.0 134 549 20.1 SD of Checks 3.07 2.16 10.51 6.21 17.39 77.83 0.75 Baking Quality
Entry Absorption (%)Remix Remix Peak Time (Min) Remix Energy (Whr/kg) Remix Loaf Volume (cc) Remix Loaf Volume /Unit Protein (cc)
5700 PR 60 2.1 4.1 937 80.5 Conquer 59 1.9 3.9 893 73.3 AAC Foray 61 2.1 4.0 863 72.7 Glenna 63 2.7 5.4 932 72.2 Mean of Checks 61 2.2 4.3 906 74.7 AAC Crossfield 59 1.7 3.4 928 75.5 SD of Checks 2.70 0.47 1.18 63.26 5.40
