Loading variety overview…
World of CitrusWorld of CitrusPonkan Mandarin
University of California, Riverside — Citrus Variety Collection
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc3849 (opens in a new tab)
Accessed
Citrus Genome Database
https://www.citrusgenomedb.org/Analysis/6981410 (opens in a new tab)
Genome resource reviewed against the CGD assembly record and existing variety identity. CGD identifies the sequenced material as Ponkan. This is a cultivar-level match; the record does not establish that a particular accession or tree represented here was sequenced.
Accessed
Tokurou Shimizu et al. · PLOS ONE · 2016-11-30
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166969 (opens in a new tab)
Open-access DNA-marker study (CC BY 4.0). Apply only to the study accessions and preserve the authors’ stated identity and parentage limits; it does not by itself establish the identity of every catalog tree or clone bearing a matching cultivar name.
Accessed
Graham H. Barry; Marco Caruso; Frederick G. Gmitter Jr. · ScienceDirect Topics (Elsevier); chapter published by Woodhead Publishing
Attributable excerpt from “Chapter 5 – Commercial scion varieties,” §Ponkan: section 5.6.1, paragraph B978012812163400005X-p0650; in The Genus Citrus (2020), pp. s83–s104, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-812163-4.00005-X. The topic page exposes selected chapter text, not the full chapter.
Accessed
jadegarden2 (featured answer) · Houzz Discussions
https://www.houzz.com/discussions/4850719/my-first-kishu (opens in a new tab)
The featured answer by jadegarden2 describes Ponkan as easy to peel, juicy and sweet, and compares Kishu as slightly acidic. This is a separate commenter’s cultivar comparison; it is not an observation from the original poster’s single fruit. The page displays relative age labels, so no publication date is assigned.
Accessed
Citrus ID · Citrus ID Edition 2, October 2011
https://idtools.org/citrus_id/index.cfm?packageID=1179&entityID=8753 (opens in a new tab)
Citrus ID profile of Ponkan. Reproduces Hodgson’s attributed morphology and origin account and reports the 2010 Chiefland DPI-50-6 Warnuco Ponkan seedling-selection entry from 1959; this clone is distinct from UCR CRC 3849.
Accessed
Eric Samuelson · Eat Like No One Else · 2010-12-11 (modified 2020-01-10)
https://www.eatlikenoone.com/chinese-honey-ponkan-mandarin-orange.htm (opens in a new tab)
Author’s subjective 1–10 ratings for one Ponkan tasting: sweetness 7, acidity 5, orange flavor 6, juiciness 6; tree, sample count, harvest date, and location are unstated. Also describes easy peeling and direct sweet-orange flavor. Its approximate 1880 introduction claim conflicts with attributed UCR/IDtools history and is not used to revise history or ancestry.
Accessed
Growing Fruit Forum · 2015-07-28 to 2015-07-31
https://growingfruit.org/t/ponkan-tangerine/1997 (opens in a new tab)
Growers’ forum thread with distinct author-attributed Ponkan accounts: nursery praise, household fruit impressions, and comments including rich/sweet with negligible acidity. No controlled trial, documented common sample, measurements, or numeric scores.
Accessed
ExtraLives · Reddit, r/Citrus
Poster’s firsthand indoor-growing account: tree about four years old, indoors by a south-facing glass-paned door with grow light and occasional outdoor periods; fruit exceeded marble size. Poster described the largest fruit tasted as juicy but milder in flavor than expected. Displayed post age is relative, so no exact publication date is recorded.
Accessed
MyGardenLife
Generic plant-library description of an upright, vigorous, alternate-bearing Ponkan, with easy-peeling and low-seed claims and a listed 10–20 ft height and 10–20°F lowest-temperature range. No accession, trial, location, or method is supplied; the listed temperature is not a measured cultivar threshold.
Accessed
Neusa M. C. Stenzel; Carmen S. V. J. Neves; José C. Gomes; Cristiane C. Medina · American Society for Horticultural Science · 2003-01-01 (issue date; online publication 2003-04-01)
https://journals.ashs.org/view/journals/hortsci/38/2/article-p176.xml (opens in a new tab)
Primary HortScience 38(2), 176–178 report of an 11-year Ponkan scion trial on seven rootstocks in Paraná, Brazil. Three-tree plots, four replications; harvests 1992–1999 except 1998. Reports rootstock-specific tree/yield and fruit-quality outcomes; rootstocks did not significantly affect fruit weight. Outcomes are conditional on the reported trial, not universal Ponkan values.
Accessed
Skeeter · Citrus Growers Forum (read-only archive) · 2009-07-21; 2010-01-20
http://citrusgrowersstatic.chez.com/web/viewtopic5b91.php (opens in a new tab)
Skeeter’s posts compare Ponkan with Page in a 2009 personal fruit impression and rank backyard cultivars in a 2010 seasonal list, placing Ponkan third. These are qualitative household rankings and comparison, without measurements or controlled samples.
Accessed
Millet · Tropical Fruit Forum · 2015-01-12 (thread started; replies through 2020-08-22)
https://www.tropicalfruitforum.com/index.php?topic=13853.0 (opens in a new tab)
Grower’s container-to-ground account and informal crop/fruit impressions: alternate bearing, large mandarins, easy peeling, good flavor, seeded, and reduced quality when left hanging. The post does not state an exact tree location, accession, rootstock, sample count, or fruit measurements.
Accessed
Greenscaping with NADINE · YouTube · 2022-02-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hKm8uzK28 (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: Informal household tasting from an auntie’s backyard tree, which the grower says fruited for the first time that year. Speaker comments on easy peeling, sweetness, some acidity/tartness, and juiciness. The 8/10 rating is explained by seeds and peeling ease for a young child, not a sweetness score; seed-count caption is unclear.
Accessed
Weird Explorer · YouTube · 2015-07-05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyUgAmU0tb0 (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: Presenter tastes one very large Ponkan purchased at a Kuala Lumpur wet market. He describes easy peeling, thick pith, high juiciness, large pulp pieces, and many seeds; estimates sourness as seven on his personal lemon-equals-ten scale. Single purchased-fruit opinion, not a repeated sample or taste-panel score.
Accessed
SGethersSeeds · YouTube · 2021-01-09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZVlEgIWapA (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: First-person grower says frost had occurred for a couple of days and he was picking remaining citrus. He identifies this plant as Ponkan, says the skin appears to be ripping, and plans to harvest it with scissors. The page description calls it productive in its first season but gives no count or measured frost exposure.
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