ASHS 2024 Conference

ASHS Intellectual Property Interest Group Session
Proposal Proposed by: Fruit Breeding Interest Group and Intellectual Property Interest Group

Plant intellectual property is an important topic for plant breeders, universities and private companies who handle the release and exchange of plant materials. On the one hand, properly protecting new cultivars is critical to protect the genetic integrity of the genotype and credit the developer. On the other hand, understanding the types of intellectual property laws relevant to plants is important for breeders/researchers to exchange materials for collaborative evaluation and development. Therefore, this interest group session will focus on plant intellectual protection and material transfer. We will invite speakers from public and private plant breeding programs as well as experts on intellectual property laws to share their knowledge and advice on following areas: Domestic plant protection, International plant protection, Domestic plant material transfer, and International plant material transfer. The topic of intellectual property was voted by members of both interest groups (Fruit Breeding Interest Group and Intellectual Property Interest Group) as a high priority area. This session will greatly benefit plant breeders, researchers, and intellectual property officers.

Coordinator(s)

• Sushan Ru, Auburn University, Auburn, United States

Moderator(s)

• Julia Harshman, Duda Farm Fresh Foods, United States

Speaker/Participant(s)

• Matthew Clark, University of Minnesota, Department of Horticulture, United States
  Plant Protection and Material Transfer in the University of Minnesota Grape and Apple Breeding Program

Do Plant “Growth Regulators” Really Regulate Growth? Plant Development And Plant Growth Are Not Synonymous. - Ted DeJong
Using GDR to Enable Rosaceae Research - New Data, Functionality and Future Direction - Dorrie Main
Deployment of Multi-location Genomic Prediction Models for Fruit Crops Using GDR-BIMS - Craig Hardner
Raspberry Cultivar Evaluation Trial in Mississippi - Apphia Santy
Performance of AU Gold-fleshed Kiwifruit in Alabama - James Spiers
Evaluating Sufficiency Levels and Peach Leaf Analysis for Fertilizer Decision-Making - Juan Carlos Melgar

The increasing demand for tree fruit production necessitates optimizing nutrient balance in intensified orchard systems to maximize profits efficiently. While peach growers are advised to follow Extension and recommended guidelines for fertilization, such recommendations may not align with orchard-specific variables and environmental conditions. As a consequence, crop sufficiency ranges may require updating to reflect modern growing practices and environmental factors. Although leaf nutrient analysis is the most reliable method for diagnosing tree nutritional status, the prevalence of annual fertilizer application, driven by the low cost of fertilizers relative to crop value, often leads to excessive fertilization in peach orchards. Consequently, our objective was to evaluate established sufficiency levels and leaf analysis as tools for determining the need for annual fertilizer applications. To achieve this, we implemented a two-year study involving two fertilization programs in an orchard with three rows of 17 peach trees: two rows adhered to grower standard, annual fertilization, while the remaining row followed a rational fertilization program. The latter implied applying fertilizer only when leaf analyses indicated nutrient concentrations below established sufficiency thresholds for peaches. Leaf analyses were conducted annually in July, and if nutrient concentrations were within or exceeded sufficiency thresholds, no fertilizer was applied postharvest or the following spring. If nutrient concentrations fell below sufficiency thresholds associated with a significant difference in yield and fruit quality between the two programs, fertilization occurred in late summer and during bloom time the following spring. We assessed tree quality and productivity by measuring yield (total weight of all the fruit per tree) and fruit quality (size and brix) annually. The results of the first year showed that despite deficient leaf nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and other nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium remaining within or above their sufficiency ranges, we observed no significant differences in yield or fruit quality between trees subjected to rational and standard fertilization practices. Consequently, fertilization for the upcoming year was deemed unnecessary in trees following the rational program. The outcomes of this study are expected to guide peach growers in making informed decisions based on updated data, reducing the environmental impact of overfertilization, which is inefficient for fruit production and uneconomical, and enhancing farm profitability.

In addition to botanical names, at least a dozen distinct categories of nomenclature are applied to plant cultivars, including various forms of cultivar denominations, breeders references, and trade names. Two sets of rules, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (9th ed., 2016), and the Explanatory Notes on Variety Denominations Under the UPOV Convention (2022) provide current guidelines for plant cultivar nomenclature. In some instances UPOV and ICNCP rules differ, and stakeholders may wish to consider whether it would be feasible to seek harmonization, and the mechanisms by which that might be achieved. This session will trace a brief history of cultivar denomination rules for U.S. plant patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, which issues plant patents, does not provide detailed nomenclatural guidelines. In the past two decades a new model for plant nomenclature has prevailed, in which an alphanumeric code serves as the official cultivar denomination, and this is paired with a trademark, either registered or unregistered. The relationship between cultivar denominations and trade names can be complex and fluid. As co-editor of the Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars, the presenter professionally researches all new pomological cultivar denominations and trade names, to avoid publishing names that conflict with previous names or nomenclatural standards. The establishment of an official cultivar denomination has important practical consequences that are sometimes ignored by breeders and rights owners. When a cultivar has been granted a plant patent or plant breeders’ rights, the cultivar denomination recorded by the statutory plant registration authority that issues the grant becomes officially established (a “statutory epithet”), and cannot be casually changed or replaced by the rights owner. When such informal synonyms are used, they are best regarded as trade names, often as unregistered trademarks. Common mistakes and pitfalls in nomenclature are described.