Assessment of Controlled Crossing Success Without Pollinator Exclusion in Pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal] Cultivars

Authors

  • Kirk Pomper Kentucky State University Author https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5500-3601
  • Nabin K. Adhikari Kentucky State University Author
  • Srijana Thapa Magar University of Georgia Author
  • Jeremiah D. Lowe Kentucky State University Author
  • Prabina Bhujel Kentucky State University Author
  • Sheri B. Crabtree Kentucky State University Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71318/y9427791

Keywords:

pawpaw, fruit, pollinators, breeding, cross-pollination, self-pollination

Abstract

The North American pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal] is the largest edible tree fruit native to the United States and is being grown in orchards by small growers in Kentucky. There are currently few university-based pawpaw breeding programs, with most ongoing breeding conducted by private breeders and hobbyists. Pawpaw flowers bloom in early spring and are pollinated by flies, beetles, and ants. Controlled pollination methods vary widely, with some breeders bagging flowers before and after hand pollination to exclude pollinators, and others leaving flowers unprotected. Even when flowers are bagged, pollination may still occur if small insects, such as ants, enter bags and pollinate pawpaw flowers. Since pawpaw pollinators are lethargic in cool spring temperatures at flowering, many private breeders and enthusiasts do not attempt to exclude pollinators during controlled crosses, leading to questions of parentage. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of controlled spring pawpaw crosses performed without bagging flowers before or after hand pollination and to verify parentage using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Crosses were made over two years between the flowers of the pawpaw cultivars ‘Sunflower’ and ‘Susquehanna’, as well as selfs, without bagging prior to or after crossing. Seeds were collected from resulting fruit and the seedlings grown out in a greenhouse and then were planted in an orchard. DNA was extracted from young leaves of parents and offspring. PCR was performed using Simple Sequence Repeat markers, for the loci Pp-B3, Pp-B103, Pp-G124, Pp-B129, and Pp-G119.  PCR products were separated by capillary electrophoresis for genotypic fingerprinting. For the cross ‘Sunflower’ × ‘Susquehanna’, 77.4% of the seedlings were of the expected progeny, and for ‘Susquehanna’ × ‘Sunflower’, 65.4% of the seedlings were of the expected progeny. Selfs of ‘Sunflower’ × ‘Sunflower’ and ‘Susquehanna’ × ‘Susquehanna’ did not yield progeny, confirming that pawpaw usually requires out-crossing. Although high levels of (72%) of crossing success can be achieved without bagging protection before and after hand pollination of flowers, a high percentage of crosses will still be of unexpected parentage, suggesting pollinator exclusion is helpful. 

Author Biographies

  • Kirk Pomper, Kentucky State University

    Dr. Kirk W. Pomper is a Professor of Horticulture at Kentucky State University. He leads a research and extension program that is focused on developing pawpaw (Asimina triloba) as a new commercial crop.

  • Nabin K. Adhikari, Kentucky State University

    M.Sc. Graduate Student

  • Srijana Thapa Magar, University of Georgia

    Assistant Professor | Peach Extension Specialist

    Department of Horticulture

    University of Georgia - Griffin Campus

  • Jeremiah D. Lowe, Kentucky State University

    Research Associate in Horticulture

  • Prabina Bhujel, Kentucky State University

    M.Sc. Graduate Student

  • Sheri B. Crabtree, Kentucky State University

    Research and Extension Associate in Horticulture

References

Archbold DD, Kosnalund R, Pomper KW. 2003. Ripening and postharvest storage of pawpaw. HortTechnology 13:439-441. https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.13.3.0439.

Brannan RG, Anderson, EE, Powell RL, Coyle MN. 2021. A comparative analysis of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) quality and nutritional data. J Appl Bot Food Qual. 94:124-131.

Crabtree SB, Pomper KW, Lowe JD, May BK. 2014. Pulp recovery from North American pawpaw fruit [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal]. J Am Pomol Soc. 68:111-115. https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2014.68.2.111.

Darrow GM. 1975. Minor temperate fruits. In: J. Janick and J.N. Moore (eds.), Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, Ind. p. 276–277.

Duffrin MW, Pomper KW. 2006. Development of flavor descriptors for pawpaw fruit puree: A step toward the establishment of a native tree fruit industry. Fam Consum Sci Res J. 35:118-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X06292931.

Geneve RL, Pomper KW, Kester ST, Egilla JN, Finneseth CLH, Crabtree SB, Layne DR. 2003. Propagation of pawpaw - a review. HortTechnology 13: 428-433. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.13.3.0428.

Goodrich KR, Ellis I, DeHaas A, Senski R, Savage J. 2023. False advertising with fermented scents: Floral mimicry in pawpaw (Asimina triloba: Annonaceae) pollination. Int J Plant Sci. 184(6):485–497. https://doi.org/10.1086/725107.

Kentucky Mesonet, Western Kentucky University. 2016. www.kymesonet.org.

Kobayashi H, Wang C, Pomper KW. 2008. Phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of pawpaw fruit (Asimina triloba L.) at different ripening stages. HortScience 43:268–270. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.1.268.

Layne DR. 1996. The pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal]: A new fruit crop for Kentucky and the United States. HortScience 31(5): 777–784. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.31.5.777.

Losada JM, Hormaza JI, Lora J. 2017. Pollen–pistil interaction in pawpaw (Asimina triloba), the northernmost species of the mainly tropical family Annonaceae. Am J Bot. 104(12), 1891-1903. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700319.

Lu L, Pomper KW, Lowe JD, Crabtree SB. 2011. Genetic variation in pawpaw cultivars using microsatellite analysis. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 136:415-421. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.136.6.415.

Nam J, Park S, Oh H, Jang H, Rheeet Y. 2019. Phenolic profiles, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of pawpaw pulp (Asimina triloba [L.] Dunal) at different ripening stages. J Food Sci. 84: 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14414.

Peterson RN. 1991. Pawpaw (Asimina). Acta Hort. 290:567-600. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1991.290.13.

Peterson RN. 2003. Pawpaw variety development: a history and future prospects. HortTechnology 13:449-454. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.13.3.0449 .

Peterson RN, Cherry JP, Simmons JG. 1982. Composition of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) fruit. North Nut Growers Assoc Annu Rep. 73:97-109.

Popenoe W. (ed.) 1916. Where are the best papaws? J Hered. 7:291–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110725.

Popenoe W. (ed.). 1917. The best papaws. J Hered. 8:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/8.1.21.

Pomper KW, Crabtree SB, Layne DR, Peterson RN, Masabni J, Wolfe D. 2008. The Kentucky pawpaw regional variety trial. J Am Pomol Soc. 62:58-69. https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2008.62.2.58.

Pomper KW, Crabtree SB, Lowe JD. 2020. Pawpaw. In: Gasic K, Preece JE, Karp D (eds).Register of New Fruit and Nut Cultivars List 50. HortScience 50:30-31. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI50register-20.

Pomper KW, Crabtree SB, Lowe JD. 2021. The influence of rootstock and training system on performance of two North American pawpaw cultivars. J Am Pomol Soc. 75(4):228–236. https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2021.75.4.228.

Pomper KW, Layne DR. 2004. The North American pawpaw: Botany and horticulture. In: Janick J, editor. Horticultural Reviews. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. p. 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650882.ch7.

Pomper KW, Lowe JD, Lu L, Crabtree SB, Dutta S, Schneider K, Tidwell, J. 2010. Characterization and identification of pawpaw cultivars and advanced selections by simple sequence repeat markers. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 135(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.135.2.143.

Richardson AC, Anderson PA. 1996. Hand pollination effects on the set and development of cherimoya (Annona cherimola) fruit in a humid climate. Sci Hort. 65(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(96)00878-3

Templeton SB, Marlette M, Jones SC. 2003. Favorable taste ratings for several pawpaw products. HortTechnology. 13:445-448. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.13.3.0445.

Thapa Magar S, Pomper KW, Crabtree SB, Lowe JD. 2025. Impact of self- and cross-pollination on fruit and seed set in pawpaw in Kentucky. HortScience. 60:771 – 774. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI18437-24.

Thapa Magar S, Pomper KW, Lowe J, Crabtree S. 2026. Insect Pollinators of Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) Cultivars. HortScience, 61(5), 949–954. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI19202-25.

Willson MF, Schemske DW. 1980. Pollinator limitation, fruit production, and floral display in pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Bull Torrey Bot Club. 107:401–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/2484160.

Zimmerman GA. 1941. Hybrids of the American papaw. J Hered. 32: 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a105006.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-03

How to Cite

Assessment of Controlled Crossing Success Without Pollinator Exclusion in Pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal] Cultivars. (2026). Journal of the American Pomological Society, 80(4). https://doi.org/10.71318/y9427791