Loading variety overview…
World of CitrusWorld of CitrusCleopatra Mandarin
University of California, Riverside — Citrus Variety Collection
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc3844 (opens in a new tab)
Accessed
Citrus Genome Database
https://www.citrusgenomedb.org/Analysis/8485513 (opens in a new tab)
Genome resource reviewed against the CGD assembly record and existing variety identity. CGD identifies the sequenced material as Cleopatra. This is a cultivar-level match; the record does not establish that a particular accession or tree represented here was sequenced.
Accessed
FFSP · 2014-05
https://www.ffsp.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Citrus-Rootstock-Overview.pdf (opens in a new tab)
FFSP 2014 Citrus Rootstock Overview p.14 lists Cleopatra Mandarin as a control/comparison rootstock in the St Helena trial table. The table context used here does not identify a scion for this control entry; no scion-specific performance, compatibility, or rootstock-effect claim is attached.
Accessed
Louis Trabut · Journal d’agriculture traditionnelle et de botanique appliquée · 1926-08
https://www.persee.fr/doc/jatba_0370-3681_1926_num_6_60_4435 (opens in a new tab)
Trabut’s 1926 station account calls Cleopatra / Spice Tangerine an attractive ornamental tree with small leaves and small strongly coloured fruit, and says it appeared useful as a rootstock with resistance to foot rot/gummosis. This is the author’s qualitative historical observation, without a modern pathogen identification, trial, or numeric severity.
Accessed
Larry K. Jackson and Stephen H. Futch · University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
https://ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/CH072 (opens in a new tab)
Retrieved UF/IFAS extension page. In Minneola scion context, it calls Cleopatra mandarin a widely used rootstock and reports some side-by-side observations of better Minneola bearing on Swingle than Cleopatra; no trial design or measurements are supplied.
Accessed
Larry K. Jackson and Stephen H. Futch · UF/IFAS Extension
https://ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/CH074 (opens in a new tab)
Retrieved UF/IFAS extension profile. Its Tree Characteristics section describes Cleopatra mandarin as the most popular rootstock for Dancy and says it seems quite compatible. The statement provides no controlled trial, replication, named accession, or quantitative compatibility outcome.
Accessed
W. P. Bitters; R. G. Platt; John A. Brusca; N. W. Dukeshire · California Agriculture · 1957-11
Bitters et al., California Agriculture, November 1957, printed pp. 5–7. Full publisher PDF text was reviewed. Reports Cleopatra Mandarin as ROOTSTOCK, with its own seedling-growth description and bud-union observations in named graft combinations. Malformation and budding-height observations are tied to reported Cleopatra/Sampson rootstock and lemon scion combinations; not fruiting-scion evidence or a universal height threshold.
Accessed
L. D. Batchelor; W. P. Bitters · California Agriculture: The Journal of UC Agriculture and Natural Resources · September 1952
Evidence concerns Cleopatra as a rootstock in historical Riverside trials, not Cleopatra as a fruiting scion.
Accessed
Ute Albrecht; Kim D. Bowman · American Society for Horticultural Science · 2011-01-01
https://journals.ashs.org/view/journals/hortsci/46/1/article-p16.xml (opens in a new tab)
Albrecht and Bowman, HortScience 46(1):16–22, DOI 10.21273/HORTSCI.46.1.16. Cleopatra mandarin seedlings are the susceptible comparator in two greenhouse graft-inoculation experiments; the paper reports more symptoms and growth reduction for those Cleopatra seedling cohorts than for US-897 seedlings. See Materials and Methods, “Greenhouse plants,” and Results, “Greenhouse-grown seedlings,” Experiments 1 and 2. This is a bounded comparison of the tested seedlings and conditions, not a general response claim for every Cleopatra accession. The US-897 paper is the primary source; the ResearchGate copy is a mirror of the same DOI.
Accessed
Ute Albrecht; Kim D. Bowman · Scientia Horticulturae 147:71–80 · 2012-11-12 (journal issue; ARS record lists 2012-09-28)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2012.08.036 (opens in a new tab)
Albrecht & Bowman, Scientia Horticulturae 147:71–80; DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2012.08.036. Controlled greenhouse graft-inoculation study of Cleopatra seedlings as a comparator: Experiment 1 used nine-month seedlings (28 inoculated, 12 mock controls); Experiment 2 used 16-month seedlings (23 inoculated, 6 mock controls; July 2010). These are seedling-assay findings, not a universal field response.
Accessed
NSW DPI Citrus Team · NSW Department of Primary Industries · 2005-12
Primefact 22/175, first edition, 2 pages. Rootstock-focused guidance published December 2005; describes soil, nursery, pest/disease, field, scion-compatibility, and rootstock effects on scion fruit. Treat as historical regional guidance, not current universal performance.
Accessed
Citrus ID Edition 2
https://idtools.org/citrus_id/index.cfm?packageID=1179&entityID=8411 (opens in a new tab)
Citrus identification fact sheet; footer dates the edition October 2011, with no named author or specific publication day. Includes cultivar/taxon nomenclature, synonymy, keyed morphology, and an attributed repetition of Hodgson 1967. Its acidic-sweet wording does not establish a taste intensity. The DPI-836-1 nursery note is clone-specific.
Accessed
M. José Llosá; Almudena Bermejo; Antonio Cano; Ana Quiñones; M. Ángeles Forner-Giner · Journal of the American Pomological Society · 2009-10
https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2009.63.4.160 (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the American Pomological Society 63(4):160–167. Reports a 60-day greenhouse nutrient-solution Fe screen of four six-month-old potted seedling rootstocks, including Cleopatra; experimental comparisons should stay within that assay. Do not recast as a field tolerance rating.
Accessed
Prananath Barman; Sanjay Kumar Singh; Vishwa Bandhu Patel; Lata Nain; Avnish Pandey · African Journal of Microbiology Research · 2015-05-06
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2015.7381 (opens in a new tab)
African Journal of Microbiology Research 9(18):1236–1246. Potted Cleopatra seedlings in an IARI New Delhi glasshouse were inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and helper bacteria, then exposed to well-watered or water-withholding treatments. Results are treatment-specific, not a general field drought rating or recommended nursery protocol.
Accessed
Maii M. Nagy; Dalia A. Al-Mahdy; Shafik D. Ibrahim; Nemat Z. Yassin; Mona A. Tantawy; Taha S.M. El Alfy · Bulletin of Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University · 2023-08-23
https://doi.org/10.54634/2090-9101.1037 (opens in a new tab)
Bulletin of Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University 61(1):1–17. Reports authenticated C. reshni material collected at ARC Giza with voucher 5.2015; no specific clone/accession is stated. Fruit morphology and physical juice measurements are sample-specific, and taste wording is not an intensity score.
Accessed
Heinz K. Wutscher; E. O. Olson; A. V. Shull; Ascension Peynado · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 95(3):259–261 · May 1970
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.95.3.259 (opens in a new tab)
The paper studies four-year-old nucellar ‘CES No. 3 Redblush’ grapefruit scions grafted on 16 rootstocks, including ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. This is a name-level rootstock match; no accession or clone equivalence is given for the catalog’s Cleopatra selection. In the single calcareous-soil trial (Hidalgo fine sandy loam, pH 8.4), the authors group Cleopatra with sour orange and ‘Kunenbo’ as producing larger, greener, nearly chlorosis-free grapefruit tops; Table 1 and Results, pp. 260. At four years the combinations were slightly chlorotic, and leaf boron exceeded 200 ppm for some other stocks, not Cleopatra in Table 1. Do not interpret as a Cleopatra scion or fruit phenotype.
Accessed
W. P. Bitters · Journal of Citrus Pathology (digital special topic) · 2021 (digital edition; manuscript circa 1986)
At printed p. 82 (PDF p. 88), Bitters summarizes Moreira et al. (1965), who placed Cleopatra Mandarin among the “low” rootstock drought-resistance group. The source describes nucellar Bara and Valencia Late orange, Dancy tangerine, and Eureka lemon scions budded on 77 tristeza-tolerant rootstocks under nonirrigated conditions in Brazil. It does not identify the accession or clone of any listed rootstock, provide a variety-specific sample count, or report a measured threshold.
Accessed
Edward O. Olson and G. H. Godfrey · Rio Grande Valley Horticultural Club · 1953
http://www.subplantsci.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/v07-1953.pdf (opens in a new tab)
Table 2, printed p. 28, reports counts for seedlings in Substation 15 plots inoculated in 1950: cotton-root-rot deaths in 1951 and 1952, and seedlings alive in September 1952. Counts are not percentages; the table gives no per-row denominator. The paper cautions that freeze injury, other diseases, and planting-date differences complicated comparisons.
Accessed
F. E. Gardner and G. E. Horanic · Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society · 1959-06-13
https://journals.flvc.org/fshs/article/download/101309/97253/130008 (opens in a new tab)
Table 1, printed p. 83, reports adjusted and unadjusted cold-injury ratings and trunk circumference for named rootstocks under Valencia orange tops. The 10-year-old planting was at Weirsdale, Florida; injury followed winter 1957–58 freezes and ratings were made June 18, 1958. The study-specific ratings are comparative rootstock results, not traits of the rootstock variety as a scion or a temperature threshold.
Accessed
Miguel Garavello; José Cuenca; Steven Dreissig; Jörg Fuchs; Andreas Houben; Pablo Aleza · Frontiers in Plant Science · 2019-09-24
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01174 (opens in a new tab)
Primary study source. Table 1 lists IVIA-502 as a tetraploid Cleopatra mandarin from the IVIA germplasm bank. The authors collected mature pollen from the listed genotypes and used flow cytometry to analyze pollen nuclear DNA content. This supports only the named IVIA-502 study material, not a general tetraploid classification for ordinary Cleopatra Mandarin. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2019.01174.
Accessed
Kim D. Bowman; Lynn Faulkner; Mike Kesinger · HortScience 51(10):1208–1214 · 2016
https://journals.ashs.org/view/journals/hortsci/51/10/article-p1208.xml (opens in a new tab)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI10970-16. Full-text copy used for review: https://ccpp.ucr.edu/onlineOrdersV2/assets/uploads/files/2016__K_D__Bowman%2C_L__Faulkner%2C_New_Citrus_Rootstocks_Released_by_USDA_2001-2010%2C_Field_Performance_and_Nursery_Characteristics.pdf.
Accessed
Marco Caruso; Gaetano Distefano; Donata Pietro Paolo; Stefano La Malfa; Giuseppe Russo; Alessandra Gentile; Giuseppe Reforgiato Recupero · Scientia Horticulturae 180: 199–206 · 2014-12-17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.10.024 (opens in a new tab)
Primary research article. The accessible University of Catania IRIS record provides the article abstract and identifies an editorial-version PDF restricted to repository managers. The publisher full-text page was inaccessible during review. Findings recorded here are limited to the abstract: controlled Alemow × Swingle and Cleopatra × Swingle progenies, HRM hybrid screening, and leaf-form results. The combined progeny count does not provide separate cross totals; unifoliate frequency is not a zygotic-origin rate.
Accessed