per tree were 4.4 kg per tree (9.70 lb) for ‘Sunflower’, 2.3 kg per tree (5.07 lb) for 8-20, and 2.2 kg per tree (4.85 lb) for ‘PA-Golden’. Advanced selections from PPF failed to show greater yields than current named varieties in this study; however, some PPF selections may have higher quality fruit than named selections. Fruit quality of all PRVT selections will be examined in future studies. Also, these trees are still young and not in prime bearing years as yet. A spacing of 2.4 m (8 ft) between trees and 5.5 m (18 ft) between rows would result in a planting density of 729 trees/ha (295 trees/acre). Based on the yield data for ‘Sunflower’ in the Princeton planting in 2001, a tree could produce with 20 fruit per tree at a weight of 216 g (7.6 oz) per fruit. This is about 4.3 kg (9.48 lb) of fruit per tree or about 3,138 kg·ha-1 (2,800 lb/acre) at a 2.4 × 5.5 m tree spacing. Pawpaw fruit prices during the 2001 growing season ranged between 4.41 and 8.82 per kg (2.00 to 4.00 per lb) at farmers markets in 2001 in the southeastern United States (R.N. Peterson and R. McIntosh, personal communication). Using the yield data above, the potential gross income from a pawpaw planting could be between 13,837 to 27,675/ha (5,600 to 11,200/acre). If fruit prices remain high, pawpaw plantings could be profitable despite low yielding pawpaw selections.
fruit prices during the 2001 growing season ranged between $4.41 and $8.82 per kg ($2.00 to $4.00 per lb) at farmers markets in 2001 in the southeastern United States (R.N. Peterson and R. McIntosh, personal communication). Using the yield data above, the potential gross income from a pawpaw planting could be between $13,837 to $27,675/ha ($5,600 to $11,200/acre). If fruit prices remain high, pawpaw plantings could be profitable despite low yielding pawpaw selections.
The tropical Annonaceae relatives of the pawpaw, cherimoya (Annona cherimola), sweetsop or sugar apple (A. squamosa), soursop (A. muricata), and atemoya (A. squamosa × A. cherimola), also have low yields due to low rates of natural pollination (George et al., 1992; Pena et al., 1999; Peterson, 1991). In commercial plantings, these tropical pawpaw relatives are hand pollinated to increase yields (Pena et al., 1999; Peterson, 1991). Low rates (<5%) of fruit set have also been noted in wild pawpaw patches (La grange and Tramer, 1985; Willson and Schemske, 1980). Pawpaw trees are usually found in the forest understory in hardwood forests; low light levels in the understory likely result in reduced photosynthate partitioning to fruit in the tree and low fruit set. However, pawpaws are also thought to require cross pollination (Willson and Schemske, 1980). Pawpaws in the wild often produce many root suckers that could potentially result in large clonal pawpaw patches. If a genetically different tree is not close enough to serve as a pollinizer, poor fruit set in patches is the likely result. Pollinator limitation could also result in low fruit set in the wild pawpaw patches (Willson and Schemske, 1980). Flies and beetles are thought to be the main pollinators of pawpaw,
to increase yields (Pena et al., 1999; Peterson, 1991). Low rates (<5%) of fruit set have also been noted in wild pawpaw patches (La grange and Tramer, 1985; Willson and Schemske, 1980). Pawpaw trees are usually found in the forest understory in hardwood forests; low light levels in the understory likely result in reduced photosynthate partitioning to fruit in the tree and low fruit set. However, pawpaws are also thought to require cross pollination (Willson and Schemske, 1980). Pawpaws in the wild often produce many root suckers that could potentially result in large clonal pawpaw patches. If a genetically different tree is not close enough to serve as a pollinizer, poor fruit set in patches is the likely result. Pollinator limitation could also result in low fruit set in the wild pawpaw patches (Willson and Schemske, 1980). Flies and beetles are thought to be the main pollinators of pawpaw,
Table 4. Summary of fruit production in 2001 for the Kentucky State University and University of Kentucky Pawpaw Regional Variety Trial (PRVT) in Princeton, Ky.
| Selectionz | Total fruit (no.) in 2000y | Avg fruit wt (g) in 2000x | Total fruit (no.) in 2001y | Avg fruit wt (g) in 2001x | Surviving trees (%) with fruit in 2001w | Surviving trees (%) in 2001 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunflower | 89 | 159 bv | 82 | 216 a | 80 | 63 |
| PA-Golden | 18 | 125 bcd | 69 | 128 cd | 67 | 75 |
| Wilson | 73 | 86 d | 63 | 104 d | 83 | 75 |
| 1-23 | 17 | 152 bc | 46 | 149 bcd | 100 | 50 |
| 8-20 | 62 | 145 bc | 45 | 212 ab | 80 | 63 |
| Middletown | 17 | 107 cd | 37 | --- | 100 | 25 |
| NC-1 | 16 | 177 ab | 36 | 215 a | 67 | 75 |
| 9-58 | 1 | --- | 31 | 175 abcd | 60 | 63 |
| 2-10 | 0 | --- | 28 | --- | 33 | 75 |
| Wells | 17 | 70 d | 27 | 135 bcd | 100 | 13 |
| 8-58 | 70 | 129 bc | 23 | 157 abcd | 40 | 63 |
| 10-35 | 11 | --- | 22 | 216 a | 50 | 100 |
| 1-7-2 | 0 | --- | 19 | --- | 75 | 50 |
| 11-13 | 48 | 158 b | 15 | 199 abc | 50 | 50 |
| Mitchell | 11 | --- | 14 | --- | 33 | 75 |
| Taylor | 0 | --- | 13 | --- | 100 | 25 |
| 5-5 | 21 | 184 ab | 13 | --- | 50 | 25 |
| 11-5 | 4 | --- | 12 | --- | 40 | 63 |
| 1-68 | 0 | --- | 12 | 95 d | 25 | 50 |
| 3-11 | 2 | --- | 10 | --- | 50 | 50 |
| 9-47 | 14 | 127 bc | 10 | 157 abcd | 67 | 38 |
| Taytwo | 21 | 116 cd | 5 | --- | 33 | 38 |
| 1-7-1 | 10 | 208 a | 11 | 244 a | 67 | 38 |
| 3-21 | 0 | --- | 3 | --- | 40 | 63 |
| 4-2 | 1 | --- | 3 | --- | 67 | 38 |
| 7-90 | 0 | --- | 3 | --- | 20 | 63 |
| 2-54 | 5 | --- | 0 | --- | 0 | 63 |
| Overleese | 0 | --- | 0 | --- | 0 | 63 |
| Total | 528 | --- | 652 | --- | 52 \pm 20 | 54 \pm 28 |
2Trees were planted in October 1995; trees ranked in decreasing number of total fruit produced by variety.
yTotal number of fruit on remaining trees on 3 July 2001.
xAverage fruit weight based on 10 or more fruit harvested on 7, 12, 13 Sept. 2001; 100 g = 3.5 oz.
wAverage ± SE.
vStudent-Newman-Keuls separation of means at P < 0.05.