Loading variety overview…
World of CitrusWorld of CitrusWashington Navel Orange
University of California, Riverside — Citrus Variety Collection
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc1241A (opens in a new tab)
Accessed
Citrus Genome Database
https://www.citrusgenomedb.org/Analysis/5525173 (opens in a new tab)
Genome resource reviewed against the CGD assembly record and existing variety identity. CGD names the sequenced material Parent Navel Washington. This is a cultivar-level reference for Washington Navel, without identifying the app’s record as BioSample SAMN35002139.
Accessed
What Plant is that, Paul? · YouTube · 2023-01-30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MdP4ZX5sY (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed from 0:00 through approximately 10:59 of the 11:05 video. One of the compared samples is identified as a Washington navel from a speaker's backyard and picked that morning. At 0:34–1:02 the speaker says it peels easily, is seedless, and is a little on the tart side; the speakers respond positively. Tasting context is informal and comparative; the tree age claim at 8:19–8:28 conflicts with the video’s 2023 publication date and is not carried forward.
Accessed
Rayane Barcelos Bisi, Ute Albrecht, Randall P. Niedz, and Kim D. Bowman · PLOS ONE · 2026-04-30
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0347764 (opens in a new tab)
PLOS ONE 21(4):e0347764, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0347764. Six-month Rich 16-6 and Carrizo rootstock seedlings were budded with Washington Navel sweet orange (2025-11-21), grown in 2.54-L pots at 21–27 °C under supplemental LED treatments. Lines 321–330 report treatment-specific modeled shoot/rootstock diameter responses; not orchard performance or general growth advantage. The supplied ResearchGate figure URL #14 is duplicate coverage of this article.
Accessed
K.D. Bowman and U. Albrecht · USDA ARS USHRL / UF-IFAS SWFREC · 2020-02-14
One-page USDA ARS USHRL / UF-IFAS SWFREC notice dated 14 February 2020. It reports Washington Navel orange appearing normal on US-1283 rootstock at least in early stages; sample count and subsequent observation duration are not reported. This is a limited preliminary observation, not a long-term compatibility result.
Accessed
Herbert John Webber (revised by Walter Reuther and Harry W. Lawton) · University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences · 1967
The chapter’s Australia section reports that the 1828 Sydney Botanic Gardens catalogue listed Washington navel/Bahia orange and cites Coit (1915) for commercial marketing under Bahia or Navel by 1860. Its California section reports Riverside introduction in 1873 and first fruiting in 1878. These are distinct attributed historical milestones; archive URL is the retrieval route, not the book’s publication metadata.
Accessed
Liz Rottger · UC Master Gardener Program of Contra Costa County · 2026-09-10
Secondary retelling: discusses Bahia origin and the 1870 U.S. shipment and 1873 Riverside transfer, then attributes golden color and sugar formation to Southern California's low humidity and wide temperature fluctuations. These climate statements are qualitative, not a controlled comparison. The page's Sources section names Jared Farmer, Trees in Paradise (2013).
Accessed
Chelsea Bruce · North Fork Chai Co. · 2023-02-18
https://www.northforkchaico.com/blogs/news/100-years-of-sweetness (opens in a new tab)
The author's first-person family account says her great-aunt planted a Washington Navel tree in Northern California after immigrating from Portugal more than 100 years ago. The family describes abundant juicy fruit and marmalade use. No exact planting year, rootstock, fruit count, or sample/tasting method is reported; this is an account of one family tree, not a cultivar-wide measurement.
Accessed
Greg Alder · Greg Alders Yard Posts · 2020-12-11
https://gregalder.com/yardposts/saving-the-parent-washington-navel-orange-tree/ (opens in a new tab)
Greg Alder recounts a 2012 visit to the Parent tree in Riverside and attributes age and inarching history to Gary Bender and Roistacher; he separately reports observations of the tree and protective structures in 2019. These are later attributed accounts, not contemporaneous records of the 1873 introduction or 1918 inarching. The reported age of 139 years is approximate and does not establish an exact planting year.
Accessed
Growing Fruit Forum · 2015-09-17
https://growingfruit.org/t/washington-navel-oranges/2396 (opens in a new tab)
Multi-author thread with individual Washington Navel growing reports from 2015–2017. Posts describe different trees, sites and methods, including bearing, growth, fruit size, seasonal timing and fruit protection; they do not form a common-accession or controlled dataset. Post-level attribution and dates are recorded with each observation.
Accessed
Auscitrus
https://auscitrus.com.au/app/uploads/2022/07/Washington.pdf (opens in a new tab)
Two-page fact sheet for commercial growing in southern Australia; the document states “Last Revised: July 2002” but gives no initial publication date. It describes regional maturity and fruit-quality guidance and identifies Loxgold results as preliminary, with long-term yield unknown. The sheet supplies no sample sizes or methods for its broad quality statements; keep its Australian selection and performance context distinct from the U.S. Parent tree.
Accessed
Citrus Growers Forum archive · 2006-08-30
http://citrusgrowersstatic.chez.com/web/viewtopic1e74.php (opens in a new tab)
One-page off-topic forum thread. Laaz’s August 30, 2006 reply names Washington and Cara Cara among common early navels and also describes Dream as early; the original poster’s tree was labeled only “navel” and remains unidentified. This is an attributed forum statement, not a verified harvest-time comparison.
Accessed
Ben A. Faber · UC ANR, Topics in Subtropics · 2013-06-05
Ben A. Faber’s article describes the Parent tree’s 1918 first inarching and 1951 second inarching, naming the seedlings used in each episode. It identifies the Parent tree but supplies no CRC 1241B, PI 539560 or VI 376 identifier, so it does not establish that this tree-level history belongs to the catalog’s separately recorded 1918 accession event. The reported history does not isolate outcomes for individual rootstock species.
Accessed
International Organization of Citrus Virologists · 2019-06
https://iocv.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2023-02/iocv_newsletter_201906.pdf (opens in a new tab)
Page 22, “Around the World,” reports that the Parent and Mission Inn Washington navel propagations were incorporated into the Citrus Experiment Station genebank as CRC 1241B and CRC 1241A, respectively (PI 539560 and PI 539559). This supports institutional accession incorporation; it does not identify an individual field collector.
Accessed
Givaudan Citrus Variety Collection at UCR
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc1241B (opens in a new tab)
The UCR profile identifies CRC 1241B / PI 539560 / VI 376 and states in its Source field that it was received as budwood from another Washington navel tree at Riverside, California, in 1918. An accession note attributed to EMN (1985) says the buds came from the Parent Washington navel tree and describes shoot-tip grafting to remove mild exocortis, producing VI 376. This is accession-specific documentation; it does not name an individual collector.
Accessed