APS_Jan2023

7 P awpaw Table 5. Percent missing values across sites, specimens, and markers in a population dispersal study at University of GA (Wyatt et al., 2021). Table 5. Percent missing values across sites, specimens, and markers in a population dispersal study at University of GA (Wyatt et al., 2021). Table 5. Percent missing values across sites, specimens, and markers in a population dispersal study at University of GA (Wyatt et al., 2021). Site Population Types Sites mi sing values Specime s issing values Marker allele missing values Table 5. Percent missing values across sites, specimens, and markers in a population dispersal study at University of GA (Wyatt et al., 2021). Site Population Types Sites missing value Specimens missing value Marker alleles missing values Anthropomorphic 70.0% 52.8% 61.1% Wild Table 6. Measurements of GDD by KSU investigators (Pomper et al., 2008). Some of the estimated peak flowering weeks have been back-calculated from GDD and harvest week. Table 6. Measurements of GDD by KSU investigators (Pomper et al., 2008). Some of the estimated peak lowering weeks have been back-calculated from GDD and harvest week. Table 6. Measurements of GDD by KSU investigators (Pomper et al., 2008). Some of the estimated peak flowering weeks have been back-calculated from GDD and harvest week. Table 6. Measurements of GDD by KSU investigat r ( omper et al., 2008). Some of th estimated peak flowering weeks have been back-calculated from GDD and harvest week. Cultiv rs in retail circulation Estimate peak flowering week at KSU sites GDD at KSU sites Peak harvest week at KSU sites Site Population Types Sites missing values Anthropomorphic 70.0% Wild 82.3% Wild 82.3 Specimens missing values 52.8% 70.1% 70.1 Marker alleles missing values 61.1% 72.2% 72.2 Anthropomorphic 70.0% 82.3% 52.8% 70.1% 61.1% 72.2%

Cultivars in retail circulation Cultivars in retail circulation PA-Golden Wabash Rappahannock PA-Golden Wabash Rappahannock NC-1 PA-Golden Overleese Wabash NC-1 Rappahannock Overleese Taytwo Taylor Taytwo Shenandoah NC-1 Overleese Taylor Shenandoah Susquehanna Susqu hanna Pot mac

Estimated peak flowering week at KSU sites Estimated peak flowering week at KSU sites 16 16 16 16 16

GDD at KSU sites GDD at KSU sites 2499 2572 2499 2572 2586

Peak harvest week at KSU sites Peak harvest week at KSU sites 36 36 36 36 36

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15

2499 2572 2586 2620 2637 2648 2676 2697 2703 2720 2736 2737 2751 2753 720 2586 2620 2637 2648 2676 2697 2703 2720 2736 2737 2751 2753 2620 2637 2648 2676 2697 2703 2736 2737 2751 2753

37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15

36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15

36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Taytwo Taylor Shenandoah Susquehanna Potomac Mitchell Sunflower Mitchell Sunflower Wells Potomac Mitchell Sunflower Wells 8-20 8-20

Wells Table 7. Soluble s lids concentrations, phenolic, tensile, and spectrometric measurements of pawpaw cultivars (Brannan et al., 2015) applicable to H. Huang’s RAPD markers (Huang et al., 2003). Table 7. Soluble solids concentrations, phenolic, tensile, and spectrometric measurements of pawpaw cul tivars (Brannan et al., 2015) a licable to H. Huang’s RAPD markers (Huang et al., 2003). 8-20 Table 7. Soluble solids concentrations, phenolic, tensile, and spectrometric measurements of pawpaw cultivars (Brannan et al., 2015) applicable to H. Huang’s RAPD markers (Huang et al., 2003). Table 7. Soluble solids concentrations, phenolic, tensile, and spectrometric measurements of pawpaw cultivars (Brannan et al., 2015) applicable to H. Huang’s RAPD markers (Huang et al., 2003). C ltivar NC-1 25.7 5.68 ± 0.41 0.248 {62.9,-4.8,30.2} {77.1,10.1,45.9} pulp texture (kg) pulp texture (kg) skin CIE color (L*,a*,b*) skin CIE color (L*,a*,b*) pulp CIE color (L*,a*,b*) pulp CIE color (L*,a*,b*) Cultivar Soluble solids conc. Soluble solids conc. 25.1 Phenolics (μmol/g) Phenolics (μmol/g) Overleese

Phenolics (μmol/g) 5.38 ± 0.67 0.415 6.21 ± 0.20 0.363 5.38 ± 0.67 0.415 6.21 ± 0.20 .363 5.68 ± 0.41 0.248 5.30 ± 0.17 0.198 5.38 ± 0.67 0.415 6.21 ± 0.20 0.363 5.68 ± 0.41 0.248 5.30 ± 0.17 0.198 5.30 ± 0.17 0.198

skin CIE color (L*,a*,b*) {63.3,-7.8,35.2} {75.1,6.7,42.0} {61.7,-6.0,29.6} {71.2,12.2,53.2} 3.3,-7. ,35.2} {75.1,6.7,42.0} 1.7,-6.0,29.6} {71.2,1 .2,53.2 pulp CIE color (L*,a*,b*) {62.9,-4.8,30.2} {77.1,10.1,45.9} {65.1,-8.8,33.0} {79.3,2.1,34.6} {63.3,-7.8,35.2} {75.1,6.7,42.0} {61.7,-6.0,29.6} {71.2,12.2,53.2} wise comparison, a common ordinal speci men was selected, e.g. ‘Overleese’ compared to the Brannan and Greenawalt series. The percentage of weight change of each speci men from the ordinal was then calculated for {62.9,-4.8,30.2} {77.1,10.1,45.9} {65.1,-8.8,33.0} {79.3,2.1,34.6} {65.1,-8.8,33.0} {79.3,2.1,34.6}

NC-1

25.7

Rebecca's Gold

23.5

Overleese Taytwo

Soluble solids conc. 25.1 23.5 25.2

pulp texture (kg)

Rebecca's Gold

Cultivar

Taytwo

25.2

NC-1

25.7 25.1 23.5 25.2

Overleese Rebecca's Gold shown in Figure 2. The data were filtrated by making pairwise comparisons between the Greenawalt series and the others – under the assumption that fruit weights from different sites vary by linear proportion. For each pair Taytwo

10

10