HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Juárez, J. L. Articles by Deren, C. W. PubMed Articles by Juárez, J. L. Articles by Deren, C. W.

CULTIVARS

Registration of ‘CP 88-1165’ Sugarcane

^a Magdalena Sugar Mill, La Democracia, Escuintla, Guatemala
^b USDA–ARS Sugarcane Field Station, 12990 US Hwy. 441 N, Canal Point, FL 33438
^c Centro Guatemalteco de Investigación y Capacitación de la Caña de Azúcar (CENGICAÑA), Km. 92.5, Carretera al Pacífico, Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, Escuintla, Guatemala
^d Univ. of Florida, Everglades Res. and Educ. Ctr., 3200 East Palm Beach Road, Belle Glade, FL 33430; current address, Univ. of Arkansas, Rice Research and Extension. Center, 2962 Hwy. 130 E., Stuttgart, AR 72160. Mention of trade names of commercial products is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA

^* Corresponding author (Barry.Glaz{at}ars.usda.gov).

ABSTRACT

‘CP 88-1165’ (Reg. No. CV-131, PI 651884) sugarcane (a complex hybrid of Saccharum spp.) was developed through cooperative research conducted by the USDA–ARS, the Centro Guatemalteco de Investigación y Capacitación de la Caña de Azucar, and the University of Florida. It was released to growers in Guatemala in September 2004. CP 88-1165 was selected from the cross ‘CL 61-620’ x CP 81-1302 made at Canal Point, FL, in January 1986. The female parent, CL 61-620, formerly a major commercial cultivar in Florida, was developed by a private breeding program in Clewiston, FL, conducted by the United States Sugar Corp. The male parent, CP 81-1302, was advanced to the final testing stage (Stage 4) of the Canal Point (CP) cultivar development program but was not released due to susceptibility to brown rust (caused by Puccinia melanocephala Syd. & P. Syd.). CP 88-1165 was not released in Florida because of its susceptibility to brown rust and low yield of commercial recoverable sucrose. However, after testing in Guatemala, CP 88-1165 was released there because of its high plant cane and ratoon per hectare yields of cane and sucrose and its acceptable resistance or tolerance to smut [caused by Ustilago scitaminea (Sydow & P. Sydow], brown rust, Sugarcane mosaic virus strain E (mosaic), Sugarcane yellow leaf virus, and red stripe (Acidovorax avenae subsp. avenae) in Guatemala.

Abbreviations: bp, base pair • CENGICAÑA, Centro Guatemalteco de Investigación y Capacitación de la Caña de Azucar • CP, Canal Point • CRS, commercial recoverable sucrose • SSR, simple sequence repeat

‘CP 88-1165’ (Reg. No. CV-131, PI 651884) sugarcane (a complex hybrid of Saccharum spp.) was developed through cooperative research conducted by the USDA–ARS, Centro Guatemalteco de Investigación y Capacitación de la Caña de Azucar (CENGICAÑA), and the University of Florida and was released to growers in Guatemala in September 2004. Modern sugarcane cultivars are allopolyploid (with aneuploidy) hybrids that can be traced back to 17 founder clones (Deren, 1995). These founders were used in S. officinarum x S. spontaneum crosses, and the F₁ hybrids were backcrossed to the S. officinarum background to recover high sucrose content (Roach, 1972; Sreenivasan et al., 1987). CP 88-1165 was not released in Florida because of its susceptibility to brown rust (caused by Puccinia melanocephala Syd. & P. Syd.) and its low commercial recoverable sucrose (CRS). However, after testing in Guatemala, CP 88-1165 was released there because of its high plant-cane and ratoon per hectare yields of cane and sucrose and its acceptable resistance or tolerance to the major and minor sugarcane diseases in Guatemala. The name CP 88-1165 was assigned according to routine Canal Point (CP) naming protocol. The name indicates assignment in 1988 (CP 88), as the 165th selection in the first clonal selection stage that contained about 15,000 genotypes. Selection numbers of <1000, 1000 to 2999, and >3000 are reserved for genotypes resulting from CP seed that are selected in Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, respectively.

CP 88-1165 was selected from the cross CL 61-620 x CP 81-1302 made at Canal Point, FL, in January 1986. The female parent, CL 61-620 (Holder and Todd, 1981), was developed by a private breeding program in Clewiston, FL, conducted by the United States Sugar Corp. CL 61-620 was grown on 14.8% of Florida's sugarcane acreage in 1992 and 1993 when it was the most widely planted sugarcane cultivar in Florida (Glaz, 1994). The male parent of CP 88-1165, CP 81-1302, was advanced to the final testing stage (Stage 4) of the Canal Point cultivar development program but was not released due to susceptibility to sugarcane rust (Glaz et al., 1988). One great grandparent of CP 88-1165, ‘CP 63-588’ (Rice et al., 1969), was the most widely used sugarcane cultivar in Florida from 1975 to 1981 (Glaz, 1981).

Methods

Crossing and Early Selection Stages—Florida
CP 88-1165 was selected through standard selection procedures of the CP and CENGICAÑA programs (Table 1 ). The cross (X85-135) between CL 61-620 and CP 81-1302 was made at Canal Point in January 1986. The F₁ seed was planted in the greenhouse in early 1987 and was transplanted in May 1987 to the field at Canal Point with approximately 100,000 unique genotypes in the CP Seedling Stage. From this stage on, the CP program propagates genotypes clonally. One stalk from the stool that was to become CP 88-1165 was selected from the Seedling Stage and planted in Stage 1 in January 1988 with about 15,000 other unreplicated selections. Stage 1 plots were 0.5 m long and were separated by 0.5-m alleys. As in all other selection stages, row width was 1.5 m. Selection in Seedling and Stage 1 was visual. Emphasis was placed on vigor and resistance to diseases (primarily brown rust, smut [caused by Ustilago scitaminea (Sydow & P. Sydow], and leaf scald [caused by Xanthomonas albilineans (Ashby) Dowson]) by natural infection.

Stalks were counted in Stage 2 in July and August 1989. In October 1989, 10-stalk samples were collected from each plot and weighed. Cane yield was estimated as the product of stalk weight by stalk number. All stalks were then milled to extract juice and determine CRS, calculated in Florida according to a simplification of the Winter–Carp–Geerligs formula (Arceneaux, 1935). An explanation of this formula was provided by Rice and Hebert (1972). Deren et al. (1995) developed a theoretical economic index that integrates sucrose content with Florida costs of harvesting, hauling, and milling the cane produced. Profitability (an economic index in dollars per hectare) was calculated for yields in Florida based on this procedure.

The major selection criterion in Stage 2 (and later in Stages 3 and 4) was production of sucrose. Sucrose yield (megagram per hectare) was calculated as

where S = sucrose yield.

Yield Trials in Commercial Fields—Florida
From Stage 2, 135 genotypes were advanced to Stage 3 in November–December 1989. The 135 Stage 3 genotypes and two commercial reference cultivars (CP 70-1133 [Rice et al., 1978] and CP 72-1210) were planted in commercial fields at four grower farms in the Florida sugarcane industry. Farms A. Duda & Sons, Inc., Okeelanta Corp., and Sugar Farms Cooperative North–Osceola Region had organic (muck) soils, and Hilliard Brothers' of Florida Ltd. had a sand soil. All four trials had two replications of genotypes planted in randomized complete-block designs in plots with two rows 4.5 m long. Plots were arranged in sections such that the first plot was separated from the second by a 1.5-m alley. The second plot in each section was separated from the first plot of the next section by a 6.0-m alley. Data were collected in the plant-cane (October 1990) and first-ratoon (October 1991) crops. Estimates of CRS and cane and sucrose yields were determined as described for Stage 2. On the basis of its cane and sucrose yields and its resistance to brown rust, leaf scald, and smut, CP 88-1165 was among 10 genotypes advanced from Stage 3 to Stage 4 in November 1991.

The 10 Stage 4 genotypes and two reference cultivars, CP 70-1133 and CP 72-1210, were planted in yield trials within commercial fields at nine farms in November–December 1991. These included the same four farms used for Stage 3 trials plus four more locations with organic soils (Eastgate Farms, Inc., Knight Management, Inc., Sugar Farms Cooperative North–SFI Region, and Wedgworth Farms, Inc.) and one more location with a sand soil (Lykes Brothers, Inc.). Trials were planted with four replications in randomized complete-block designs with plots 12 m long and four rows wide. Data were collected in the plant-cane (October 1992–March 1993), first-ratoon (October 1993–March 1994), and second-ratoon (October 1994–March 1995) crops. In the plant-cane crop, yields were estimated by weighing recently burnt sugarcane with a tractor-mounted weighing device. To estimate CRS and stalk weight, 15 burnt stalks were sampled from each plot. In the first-ratoon and second-ratoon crops, yields were estimated by stalk counting and sampling as described for Stage 2, except that two, rather than one, samples of 10 stalks were collected from each plot. In May 1995, it was decided not to release CP 88-1165 due to its susceptibility to brown rust and low CRS.

Early Selection Stage—Guatemala
CP 88-1165 was planted in what is equivalent to Stage 2 of the CP program in Guatemala on 3 March 1993, at the El Balsamo Farm in the mid-altitude zone. An additional 741 imported genotypes from several breeding programs were included in this planting. This was the first group of CP genotypes evaluated by CENGICAÑA. Plots were two rows, 5 m long, and row spacing was 1.5 m. The reference cultivar, CP 72-2086 (Miller et al., 1984), was interspersed every 20 genotypes throughout the trial in plots that were two rows and 3 m long. The major selection criteria in Stage 2 were visual estimation of stalk number along with Brix obtained by hand refractometer from three stalks per plot.

Yield Trials in Commercial Fields—Guatemala
From Stage 2, 81 genotypes were advanced to Stage 3 in March 1994. The 81 Stage 3 genotypes and reference cultivar CP 72-2086 were planted in commercial fields at three locations in the Guatemalan sugarcane industry (Musunga with Concepcion Mill, Cerritos Farm with Santa Ana Mill, and Belen Farm with La Union Mill). These trials had three replications planted in plots with two rows 5 m long in randomized complete-block designs. Plots were separated by alleys of 2 m on one end and 5 m on the other end. Data were collected in the plant-cane crop in January and February 1995. Commercial recoverable sucrose and cane and sucrose yield estimates were determined as described for Stage 2 in the CP program, except that CRS was estimated from a 5-stalk rather than a 10-stalk sample and was calculated as described by Legendre (1992). On the basis of yields and reactions to brown rust, red stripe (Acidovorax avenae subsp. avenae), smut, leaf scald, and Sugarcane mosaic virus strain E (mosaic), 10 early-maturing genotypes and 15 late-maturing genotypes were advanced to Stage 4 in January 1996. CP 88-1165 was not one of the genotypes advanced to Stage 4. However, the Research Department of Magdalena Mill continued informal evaluations of CP 88-1165 through 2000, and in 2001 CP 88-1165 was advanced to Stage 4 of the CENGICAÑA selection program.

In Stage 4, CP 88-1165, 13 other genotypes selected from Stage 3 in 2001, and the reference cultivar CP 72-2086 were planted at four farms (San Carlos I with La Union Mill, San Fernando with Magdalena Mill, Primavera with San Diego Mill, and La Giralda with Santa Ana Mill) in the low-altitude zone and four farms (Palo Gordo Mill, Velásquez with Magdalena Mill, and Cuncun and Acarigua with Santa Ana Mill) in the medium-altitude zone of the Guatemalan sugarcane industry in February and March 2001. Trials were planted with four replications in randomized complete-block designs with plots 10 m long and five rows wide. Data were collected in the plant-cane (February–April 2002), first-ratoon (February–April 2003), and second-ratoon (February–April 2004) crops. Yields were estimated by weighing all five rows of recently burnt sugarcane. To estimate CRS and stalk weight, three samples of 5 stalks were randomly selected from each plot immediately before burning the field. On the basis of sucrose yields and favorable disease ratings, commercial use of CP 88-1165 began in September 2004, and it was formally released in October 2007.

Using five-stalk samples collected from border rows in Florida, fiber analyses were processed for CP 88-1165. Leaves were stripped from these stalks, which were then cut into three approximately even sections (bottom, middle, and top stalk sections). Two randomly selected bottom, middle, and top sections were processed through a Jeffco cutter-grinder (Jeffries Brothers, Ltd., Brisbane Queensland, Australia). About 400 g of material (bagasse) processed through the cutter-grinder were collected and weighed. These fresh bagasse samples were then placed in cloth bags and washed twice in a washing machine to remove soluble solids. Samples were then dried at 63°C until their weights no longer dropped. The fiber percentage of a genotype was

where F = fiber percentage.

Samples of a reference cultivar were processed on all dates that fiber samples of CP 88-1165 were processed. All fiber percentages calculated on a given day were corrected to the historical fiber percentage of the reference cultivar. For example, the reported fiber percentage of CP 70-1133 was 10.37%. On days when CP 70-1133 was the reference cultivar, if its estimated fiber was 10.00%, then all estimated fiber samples of other genotypes were multiplied by 1.037.

Characterization by Microsatellite Genotyping
The molecular fingerprint of CP 88-1165 was generated with a panel of 12 sugarcane-derived microsatellite (simple sequence repeat [SSR]) pairs, developed by the International Consortium of Sugarcane Biotechnology (Cordeiro et al., 2003), and was compared with those of six other cultivars (CP 70-1133, CP 72-2086, CP 78-1628 [Tai et al., 1991], CP 80-1743 [Deren et al., 1991], CP 88-1762 [Tai et al., 1997], and CP 89-2143 [Glaz et al., 2000]) (Table 2 ). These six cultivars occupied 86% of the sugarcane acreage in Florida in 2006 (Glaz, 2007). Isolation of DNA was accomplished as described by Glynn et al. (2008), and microsatellite amplification was performed according to procedures described in Edmé et al. (2006). Absence and presence of fragments were coded as a binary (0, 1) matrix, which was used to generate an unweighted pair group method using arithmetic averages (UPGMA) phenetic tree from distance indices among the seven cultivars (Nei and Li, 1979). Tree and bootstrap values (1000 iterations) were obtained with Treecon v1.3b (Van de Peer and de Wachter, 1994).

Characteristics

Field Performance
In Florida yields of cane and sucrose of CP 88-1165 were similar to or moderately lower than those of the two reference cultivars in the plant-cane, first-ratoon, and second-ratoon harvests on organic and sand soils (Tables 3 and 4 ). Stalk weights of CP 88-1165 were generally higher on organic soils and similar on sand soils, compared with those of CP 70-1133 and CP 72-1210. Fiber content of CP 88-1165 in Florida was 10.04%.

Leaves at the upper portion of the CP 88-1165 canopy were erect. The mean leaf blade lengths and widths of CP 88-1165, CP 72-2086, and CP 89-2143 at the middle of the stalk were 163 and 5.6 cm, 127 and 4.9 cm, and 138 and 3.7 cm, respectively. Leaf sheaths of CP 88-1165 exhibited light stiff pubescence and did not adhere tightly to the stalk. Leaf sheaths were greenish yellow (2.5 GY 8/6) with patches of two shades of red (5R 6/4 and 5R 6/6). The shape of the dewlaps on the upper leaves of mature plants was descending deltoid. The auricle shapes for CP 88-1165 were long lanceolate on one side and deltoid on the opposite side. Mean auricle lengths, measured about five nodes below the top visible dewlap for CP 88-1165, CP 72-2086, and CP 89-2143 were 2.3, 0.9, and 2.4 mm, respectively. CP 88-1165 exhibited a flat-crescent shaped ligule compared with the deltoid shaped ligules of CP 72-2086 and CP 89-2143. A distinguishing feature of CP 88-1165 was that three consecutive nodes near the top of the stalk often had leaves on the same side of the stalk. In Guatemala CP 88-1165 usually flowers by early to mid-November.

The 12 SSR loci amplified a total of 149 fragments in the seven cultivars, with sizes ranging from 105 to 380 base pairs (bp) in CP 88-1165, CP 70-1133, CP 78-1628, CP 72-2086, CP 89-2143, CP 80-1743, and CP 88-1762 (Table 2). All the SSR loci were polymorphic, yielding unique fragments for each cultivar; however, 17.5% of the fragments were monomorphic. The number of fragments observed in CP 88-1165 ranged from 3 (SMC17CG and SMC222CG) to 11 (mSSCIR54), of which a unique fragment was amplified by mSSCIR14, mSSCIR53, mSSCIR54, SMC179SA, SMC222CG, SMC1493, and SMC1572CL. Overall mean genetic distance (Nei and Li, 1979) and gene diversity among the seven cultivars were 0.46 and 0.31, respectively. The resulting phenetic tree indicates that CP 88-1165 is genetically distinct from the six other cultivars, although closest to CP 78-1628 (Fig. 1 ).

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Phenetic tree based on microsatellite-derived genetic distances between CP 88-1165 and six other commercial sugarcane cultivars in the Canal Point breeding program. Bootstrap values (%), as derived from 1000 replicates, are indicated at each node.

When CP 88-1165 was in Stage 2 in Florida, it showed no symptoms after field inoculations were conducted to determine its susceptibility to eye spot [caused by Bipolaris sacchari (E.J. Butler)]. Eye spot is not a commercial problem in Florida or in Guatemala, where CP 88-1165 was not inoculated with eye spot. Field inoculations with smut were also conducted on CP 88-1165 during Stages 3 and 4 in Florida. Susceptibilities to smut in inoculated tests were determined by comparing number of sori produced by CP 88-1165 and cultivars CP 73-1547 (Miller et al., 1982) and CP 78-1628. Smut susceptibility of CP 73-1547 and CP 78-1628 is at the upper limits of acceptability for commercial production in Florida. On the basis of these inoculated tests in Florida as well as lack of natural infection from smut in Florida and Guatemala, CP 88-1165 was considered resistant to smut.

Greenhouse inoculations were conducted with leaf scald (2 yr) and mosaic (1 yr) when CP 88-1165 was in Stages 3 and 4 in Florida and for mosaic in Stage 3 in Guatemala. The number of infected CP 88-1165 plants with leaf scald was compared with the number of infected plants of CP 80-1743. For mosaic the number of infected plants of CP 88-1165 and CP 72-2086 were compared both in Florida and Guatemala. Susceptibilities of CP 80-1743 and CP 72-2086 are at the upper limits of acceptability for commercial production in Florida to leaf scald and mosaic, respectively, and susceptibility of CP 72-2086 to mosaic is at the upper limit of acceptability in Guatemala. On the basis of these inoculated tests and natural infection evaluations, CP 88-1165 was considered resistant to leaf scald and mosaic in Florida. In Guatemala 20% of CP 88-1165 plants compared with 82% of CP 72-2086 plants were infected with mosaic due to natural infection.

CP 88-1165 was not evaluated for ratoon stunting (caused by Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli Evtsuhenko et al.) in Florida. In Guatemala, inoculation with ratoon stunting reduced yields of CP 88-1165 by 16.5, 24.8, 24.0, and 22.3% in the plant-cane, first-ratoon, second-ratoon, and third-ratoon crops, respectively. Cane yields of CP 72-2086 were not reduced by ratoon stunting in the first three crop cycles and were reduced by 15.1% in the third-ratoon crop. However, cane yields of CP 88-1165 in this test were higher than those of CP 72-2086.

Availability

In 2004 seed cane of CP 88-1165 was available from CENGICAÑA for commercial planting in Guatemala. It is not anticipated that patent protection for CP 88-1165 will be sought. Small quantities of seed cane for research purposes may be obtained at the USDA–ARS Sugarcane Field Station, Canal Point, FL, where CP 88-1165 will be maintained for at least 5 yr from the date of this publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Clarissa Maroon-Lango for isolating DNA from CP 88-1165.

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 December 10, 2007.

References

• Arceneaux, G. 1935. A simplified method of making theoretical sugar yield calculations in accordance with Winter–Carp–Geerligs formula. Int. Sugar J. 37:264–265.
• Artschwager, E., and E.W. Brandes. 1958. Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) origin, classification, characteristics, and descriptions of representative clones. p. 61–63. In Agriculture Handbook No. 122. USDA, Washington, DC.
• Cordeiro, G.M., Y.B. Pan, and R.J. Henry. 2003. Sugarcane microsatellites for the assessment of genetic diversity in sugarcane germplasm. Plant Sci. 165:181–189.
• Deren, C.W. 1995. Genetic base of U.S. mainland sugarcane. Crop Sci. 35:1195–1199.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Deren, C.W., J. Alvarez, and B. Glaz. 1995. Use of economic criteria for selecting clones in a sugarcane breeding program. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 21:437–447.
• Deren, C.W., B. Glaz, P.Y.P. Tai, J.D. Miller, and J.M. Shine, Jr. 1991. Registration of ‘CP 80-1743’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 31:235–236.[Free Full Text]
• Edmé, S.J., N. Glynn, and J.C. Comstock. 2006. Genetic segregation of microsatellite markers in Saccharum officinarum and S. spontaneum. Heredity 97:366–375.[CrossRef][Medline]
• Glaz, B. 1981. Florida's 1981 sugar cane variety census. Sugar y Azucar 76(12):37, 38, 40.
• Glaz, B. 1994. Sugar cane variety census: Florida 1993. Sugar y Azucar 89(1):39–44.
• Glaz, B. 2007. Sugarcane variety census: Florida 2006. Sugar J. 70(4):11–15, 18–21.
• Glaz, B., J.D. Miller, C.W. Deren, P.Y.P. Tai, J.M. Shine, Jr., and J.C. Comstock. 2000. Registration of ‘CP 89-2143’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 40:577.
• Glaz, B., J.M. Shine, Jr., P.Y.P. Tai, J.D. Miller, C.W. Deren, and O. Sosa, Jr. 1988. Evaluation of new Canal Point sugarcane clones: 1987–88 harvest season. USDA-ARS, Canal Point, FL.
• Glynn, N.C., J.C. Comstock, S. Sood, P. Dang, and J.X. Chaparro. 2008. Isolation of NBS-LRR resistance gene analogues and kinase analogues from sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Pest Manage. Sci. 64:48–56.[CrossRef]
• Holder, D.G., and E.H. Todd. 1981. Registration of CL 61-620 sugarcane. Crop Sci. 21:634.[Free Full Text]
• Legendre, B.L. 1992. The core/press method for predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in cane payment. Sugar J. 54:2–7.
• Miller, J.D., J.L. Dean, P.Y.P. Tai, E.R. Rice, and B. Glaz. 1982. Registration of CP 73-1547 sugarcane. Crop Sci. 22:689.[Free Full Text]
• Miller, J.D., E.R. Rice, J.L. Dean, and P.Y.P. Tai. 1981. Registration of CP 72-1210 sugarcane. Crop Sci. 21:797.[Free Full Text]
• Miller, J.D., P.Y.P. Tai, B. Glaz, J.L. Dean, and M.S. Kang. 1984. Registration of ‘CP 72-2086’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 24:210.[Free Full Text]
• Nei, M., and W.-H. Li. 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76:5269–5273.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Rice, E.R., and L.P. Hebert. 1972. Sugarcane variety tests in Florida during the 1971–72 season. ARS-S-2. USDA–ARS, Canal Point, FL.
• Rice, E.R., L.P. Hebert, and P.H. Dunckelman. 1969. Registration of C.P. 63-588 sugarcane. Crop Sci. 9:852.[Free Full Text]
• Rice, E.R., J.D. Miller, N.I. James, and J.L. Dean. 1978. Registration of ‘CP 70-1133’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 18:256.
• Roach, B.T. 1972. Nobilization of sugarcane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 14:206–216.
• Sreenivasan, T.V., B.S. Ahloowalia, and D.J. Heinz. 1987. Cytogenetics. p. 211–253. In D.J. Heinz (ed.) Sugarcane improvement through breeding. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
• Tai, P.Y.P., J.D. Miller, B. Glaz, C.W. Deren, and J.M. Shine, Jr. 1991. Registration of CP 78-1628 sugarcane. Crop Sci. 31:236.[Free Full Text]
• Tai, P.Y.P., J.M. Shine, Jr., C.W. Deren, B. Glaz, J.D. Miller, and J.C. Comstock. 1997. Registration of ‘CP 88-1762’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 37:1388.[Free Full Text]
• Van de Peer, Y., and R. de Wachter. 1994. TREECON for Windows: A software package for the construction and drawing of evolutionary trees for the Microsoft Windows environment. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 10:569–570.[Free Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Juárez, J. L. Articles by Deren, C. W. PubMed Articles by Juárez, J. L. Articles by Deren, C. W.