Search
Submit Manuscript
Advanced Search
MAP  >  Technology in Horticulture
2023 Volume 3
Article Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Perennial grasses as natural allies of soil health
Perennial grasses as natural allies of soil biodiversity
Perennial grasses in climate change mitigation
Perennial grasses in combating invasive plants
Conclusions
Author contributions
Data availability
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest
Rights and permissions
References
About this article
Next Previous
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers

  • 1.

    Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, 1815 Popps Ferry Road, Biloxi, MS 39532, USA

  • 2.

    University of Florida, Tropical Research and Education Center, 18905 SW 280 Street, Homestead, FL 33031, USA

  • 3.

    Auburn University, 3112 Duncan Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA

  • 4.

    University of California Cooperative Extension, 669 County Square Dr., #100 Ventura, CA 93003, USA

  • 5.

    USDA-ARS Daniel K. Inouye Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Station, Tropical Crop and Commodity Protection Research Unit, 64 Nowelo St., Hilo, HI 96720, USA

  • 6.

    University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez Campus, Department of Agro-Environmental Sciences, Mayaguez, PR 00680. USA

  • 7.

    University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center, 700 Experiment Station Rd. Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA

  • 8.

    University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Stress Physiology Building - Room 105, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

More Information
  • In the United States and its territories, passion fruit production has increased steadily since the 2002 USDA agriculture census; however, little is known about the reported production areas and how the industry functions. This report details the results of a survey conducted in 2022 of passion fruit producers in the United States, including Puerto Rico and Hawaii. The aim was to collect data on farm operational characteristics, sales data, and grower demographics. Forty-four surveys were completed, with Florida having the most responses (21), followed by Puerto Rico (12) and California (six). Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Virgin Islands completed the remainder. This sample was 12% of the 364 passion fruit farms reported in 2017. The acreage dedicated to passion fruit production averaged 1.7 acres in 2019 and 2.1 acres in 2020 per farm, with most occurring in Florida. A box of fruit had around 30 fruits and a mean price of $3.08 per lb. About 83% of the harvested passion fruit was sold fresh, although more than 50% of farms included sales of value-added products. Of the fresh fruit sold, 34.9% were sold directly to consumers. The respondents averaged 53.2 years old. More than eight out of ten respondents completed at least a college degree. Half the growers considered themselves Hispanic, while almost two-thirds were white, followed by multiple racial origins and American Indian. This data developed a greater understanding of the passion fruit industry within the US and will frame future projects to help grow this valuable specialty crop.

  • Introduction

    Perennial grasses [e.g., switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Maasai love grass (Eragrostis superba), and bush ryegrass (Enteropogon macrostachyus)] are plant species that live for more than two years with deep root systems and the capacity to grow in a variety of climates[1−5]. Although often overlooked, perennial grasses serve an important role in ecosystems, particularly in maintaining soil health and biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and combating alien invasive plants (AIPs)[1,4]. Thus, they are simply natural allies for soil biodiversity conservation, invasive plant management, and climate change mitigation[6,7]. The deep root systems of perennial grasses help soil structure by improving aeration, increasing water infiltration, and lowering soil erosion[1,5]. Also, their extensive root network supports the stability of the soil, making it less susceptible to degradation and encouraging a healthier ecology overall[1,8]. Further, they play a key role in the nutrient cycle by maximizing nutrient utilization and minimizing leaching[9,10]. In addition, perennial grasses contribute organic matter to the soil through biomass, which decomposes over time and enriches the soil with critical nutrients[11−13]. This process improves soil fertility, increasing productivity for other plant species, and agricultural activities[9,12].

    IAPs, also known as non–native or exotic species, are plants introduced to an ecosystem where they do not naturally occur[14−16] and pose a severe ecological, economic, and social impacts[17,18]. Unlike native species, IAPs often lack natural enemies and diseases in their new environments, allowing them to proliferate unrestrictedly[19,20]. Their invasions lead to the displacement of native flora as they outcompete native species for resources i.e., light, water, and nutrients[21,22]. As a result, causing a reduction in biodiversity and the alteration of ecosystem functions, often forming dense monocultures that hinder the growth of other plants and disrupt habitats for native wildlife[23,24]. Moreover, IAPs can alter soil chemistry and hydrology thereby negatively impacting soil biodiversity[6,7,15,25]. IAPs can further impact human health by increasing allergens and providing a habitat for disease vectors[15]. Efforts to manage IAPs typically involve early detection, prevention, and rapid response, such as biological control, mechanical removal, and herbicide treatment[19,25,26]. Although the role of perennial grasses in combating IAPs has been seldom investigated, available studies show that effective management requires integrated eco-friendly management incorporating competitive native perennial grasses to suppress IAPs[6,8,15,27].

    Furthermore, perennial grasses are ecologically significant because they enhance species diversity and soil biodiversity i.e., living forms found in soil, which includes microorganisms (bacteria and fungi), mesofauna (nematodes and mites), and macrofauna, i.e., earthworms and insects[28−32]. This diversity is critical to ecosystem function and plays an important role in nutrient cycling, soil structure maintenance, and plant growth promotion[29,30]. They contribute to nutrient-cycling activities by breaking down organic materials into simpler compounds that perennial grasses and other plants can consume, decomposing dead plants and animals, and releasing nutrients back into the soil, thus increasing soil fertility[32−34]. Further, perennial grasses also promote plant-soil symbiotic relationships such as mycorrhizal associations and rhizobium symbioses, which improves soil health and plant growth[29]. These benefits are enhanced by perennial grasses' root exudates, which support both soil microbial diversity and activity, resulting in a more dynamic and resilient soil environment[1]. However, extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, as well as IAPs can cause soil organism loss and structural damage, thereby impeding the roles of soil organisms[35−37]. Further, increased temperatures can disrupt microbial activity and nitrogen cycling mechanisms, impacting soil health, and productivity[37,38]. Addressing these challenges needs long-term integrated management approaches that maintain natural ecosystems and increase soil biodiversity, as well as IAP control and climate change mitigation. For instance, promoting the use and maintaining the diversity of perennial grasses in rangelands and agricultural habitats[1,39,40].

    Climate change which is the average change in the earth's temperature and precipitation patterns can also disrupt the delicate balance of soil biodiversity[37,41]. It is driven primarily by human activities i.e., burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes which lead to an unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere[37,42]. Often the earth's surface temperature increases concomitantly with these greenhouse gasses[41]. Increased temperatures contribute to sea-level rise, more frequent and intense heatwaves, wildfires, and droughts affecting biodiversity, water supply, and human health. Changes in precipitation patterns also lead to extreme weather events i.e., hurricanes, floods, and heavy rainfall, disrupting ecosystems and human societies[37]. It also negatively impacts biodiversity, as species must adapt, migrate, or face extinction due to altered habitats and shifting climate zones[36]. Addressing climate change requires global cooperation and robust policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions which include the use of eco-friendly approach, for instance, keeping the environment intact with native plants i.e., perennials grasses[43]. Perennial grasses (e.g., turfgrass) are considered potential for mitigating the effects of climate change because they have a high carbon sequestration capacity, storing carbon in both soil and aboveground biomass[44−46]. They can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas levels by absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in their roots and tissues, thus helping to mitigate climate change[44]. Furthermore, their capacity to minimize greenhouse gas emissions through reduced tillage and increased nitrogen use efficiency makes them an important component of habitat restoration to mitigate climate change impacts[43].

    Consequently, native perennial grasses have been recommended by various previous studies to be used for habitat restoration, including rangelands, because of their physiological and morphological traits, which have shown great potential to improve soil health and biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and combat IAPs[1,5,8,27,40,47]. By their competitive and morphological traits, several perennial native grass species found in African rangelands (e.g., African foxtail grass (Cenchrus ciliaris), horsetail grass (Chloris roxburghiana), rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), E. superba, and E. macrostachyus) and P. virgatum, S. nutans, S. scoparium, and A. gerardii in North America have been tested and recommended for ecological restoration[1−5].

    Perennial grasses as natural allies of soil health

    Preceding studies have demonstrated that perennial grasses have the potential to improve soil health and structure in rangelands and protected habitats[1,48−50]. Unlike annual plants, which have shallow root systems, perennial grasses can penetrate deep into the soil, sometimes reaching depths of several meters as they have deep and extensive root systems[1,7,40]. These deep roots create channels that enhance soil aeration, allowing for better oxygen flow and water infiltration, thereby preventing soil compaction[49]. Perennial grasses contribute to soil stability by binding soil particles together, thereby preventing erosion (Fig. 1), which is important in ecosystems or habitats prone to heavy rainfall or wind[48,49]. This stabilization effect reduces the loss of topsoil, which contains the highest concentration of organic matter and nutrients essential for plant growth[44]. Moreover, perennial grasses have been reported to be efficient in nutrient cycling, a critical process for maintaining soil fertility[49]. For instance, their deep roots access nutrients in deeper soil layers, which might be unavailable to shallow-rooted plants[49,50]. These nutrients are then brought to the surface and incorporated into the plant biomass. When the grasses die back or shed leaves, these nutrients are returned to the soil surface as organic matter, making them accessible to other plants[32,49,51]

    Figure 1.  Diagram illustrating the multifaceted benefits of perennial grasses and their interconnected roles in promoting soil health, biodiversity, IAPs control, climate change mitigation, water retention, erosion control, and habitat provision. The arrows illustrate the complex interactions and synergies among these components, emphasizing the comprehensive ecological contributions of perennial grasses. The central position of perennial grasses highlights their pivotal role in these areas. This visual representation emphasizes how perennial grasses contribute to and enhance various aspects of ecosystem health and stability.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Furthermore, perennial grasses enhance soil health and structure (Fig. 1), improving the soil's ability to retain water and withstand extreme weather events i.e., heavy rainfall and floods[44,49]. Their extensive root networks stabilize the soil, reducing erosion and runoff (Fig. 1), which are critical for maintaining soil fertility and agricultural productivity under variable climatic conditions[51]. The continuous growth and decay cycle of perennial grasses contributes to the slow but steady release of nutrients[52]. This slow release is beneficial for maintaining a stable nutrient supply, as opposed to the rapid nutrient depletion often seen in soils dominated by annual crops[50]. This process also helps in reducing nutrient leaching, where nutrients are washed away from the soil profile, particularly nitrogen, which is critical for plant growth[49]. Perennial grasses help to reduce N2O emissions; excess nutrients can lead to increased N2O emissions[10,11,53]. They also contribute significantly to the soil organic matter, which is a key component of soil health[52]. Organic matter consists of decomposed plant and animal residues, which improve soil structure, water retention, and nutrient availability[50,52]. The biomass produced by perennial grasses, both above and below ground, adds a substantial amount of organic material to the soil[52]. As the plant material decomposes, it forms humus, a stable form of organic matter that enhances soil structure by increasing its capacity to hold water and nutrients[52,54]. This is particularly important in dry regions e.g. in Africa, where water retention can be a limiting factor for crop growth[49]. The organic matter also provides a habitat and food source for a diverse array of soil organisms, including bacteria, fungi, and earthworms, which further contribute to soil fertility through their biological activities[43,52,54].

    Perennial grasses as natural allies of soil biodiversity

    Perennial grasses play a crucial role in enhancing soil biodiversity (abundance and diversity) and activities within the soil[31,32,51,54]. They provide critical habitats for soil fauna i.e., earthworms, nematodes, and arthropods (Fig. 1)[32,54]. Their complex root systems create a stable environment that supports a wide range of soil organisms[55]. Also, the root systems of perennial grasses exude a variety of organic compounds, including sugars, amino acids, and organic acids, which serve as food sources for soil biodiversity[54]. This continuous supply of root exudates and a stable environment fosters a diverse macro and microbial community, which is essential for maintaining soil health[31,43,54]. For instance, it was reported by Smith et al.[54] that in areas with abundant perennial grasses, a high soil macrofaunal biodiversity (i.e., Lumbricidae, Isopoda, and Staphylinidae) was observed. They further asserted that these grasses were beneficial to soil macrofauna as they increased the abundance and species diversity of staphylinid beetles, woodlice, and earthworms. In addition, Mathieu et al.[56] reported the influence of spatial patterns of perennial grasses on the abundance and diversity of soil macrofauna in Amazonian pastures. These findings suggest that well-managed perennial grasses are vital in enhancing soil macro and microbes in ecosystems[54−56].

    These soil organisms perform various functions, including decomposing organic matter, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and suppressing soil-borne diseases[29,30,32]. A diverse soil macro and microbial community can enhance nutrient cycling, making nutrients more available to plants[30,56]. Enhanced microbial diversity by perennial grasses contributes to the suppression of pathogens through competition and the production of antimicrobial compounds, thus promoting plant health[32]. They also help in maintaining soil structure, fertility, and overall ecosystem function[32]. For instance, earthworms, often referred to as 'ecosystem engineers', augment soil structure by creating burrows that improve aeration and water infiltration in perennial grass communities[31,51]. Their activity also helps mix organic matter into the soil, promoting nutrient cycling[31,32]. Nematodes and arthropods which feed on perennial grass species contribute to the decomposition process, breaking down organic matter and releasing nutrients that are vital for plant growth[31,54]. The presence of a diverse soil fauna community is indicative of a healthy soil ecosystem, which is more resilient to environmental stresses and disturbances[31].

    Furthermore, perennial grasses are considered as being instrumental in promoting plant-soil symbiotic relationships[43,54], which are crucial for plant health and soil fertility. One of the most well-known symbiotic relationships is between plants and mycorrhizal fungi[29,33]. These fungi colonize plant roots and extend their hyphae into the soil, increasing the root surface area and enhancing the plant's ability to absorb water and nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The relationship between perennial grasses and mycorrhizal fungi is mutually beneficial. The fungi receive carbohydrates produced by the plant through photosynthesis, while the plant gains improved access to soil nutrients and increased resistance to soil-borne pathogens[30]. This symbiotic relationship is particularly important in nutrient-poor soils, where mycorrhizal associations can significantly enhance plant growth and survival. Additionally, perennial grasses promote other beneficial plant-soil interactions, such as those involving nitrogen-fixing bacteria. These bacteria form nodules on the roots of certain perennial grasses, converting atmospheric nitrogen into a form that plants can use[29,30]. This process is essential for maintaining soil fertility, especially in ecosystems where nitrogen is a limiting nutrient.

    Perennial grasses in climate change mitigation

    Perennial grasses are increasingly recognized for their role in climate change mitigation (Fig. 1)[43,44,57]. They can sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation to climate variability[58,59]. Their deep root systems and grass-like characteristics make them highly effective in capturing and storing carbon[44]. These roots can penetrate deep into the soil and store carbon for extended periods[59]. Because of this, perennial grasses show potential to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to changing climatic conditions[44]. The roots of perennial grasses are more extensive and persistent compared to annual crops, allowing for greater carbon storage both in the root biomass and the soil[45,46,60]. This process of carbon sequestration involves capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis and storing it in perennial grass tissues (e.g., turfgrasses) and soil organic matter[44−46]. Preceding studies have further shown that perennial grasses can sequester substantial amounts of carbon, contributing to the reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels[45,61]. In addition to carbon sequestration, perennial grasses can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through various mechanisms[43]. One of the primary ways is by reducing the need for frequent soil tillage, which is common in annual cropping systems. Tillage disrupts soil structure, releases stored carbon as CO2, and increases soil erosion[58,61]. Thus, with their long lifespan, perennial grasses can reduce the need for tillage, thereby minimizing CO2 emissions from soil disturbance[43,58].

    Moreover, perennial grasses can improve nitrogen use efficiency, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers that are a major source of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions—a potent greenhouse gas[53,62]. Their deep root systems enable them to access nutrients from deeper soil layers, reducing nutrient leaching and the subsequent emissions of N2O[53]. By optimizing nutrient use, perennial grasses contribute to lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural practices[63]. Also, perennial grasses are crucial for adapting to climate variability[44]. Their deep root systems allow them to access water from deeper soil layers, making them more resilient to drought conditions compared to annual crops[44]. This water use efficiency helps maintain plant growth and productivity even during periods of water scarcity, which are expected to become more frequent with climate change[49]. In general, perennial grasses support soil biodiversity conservation through habitat provision, climate change mitigation, and promoting ecosystem resilience[58]. Besides, these grasses are crucial for ecosystem stability and productivity, particularly in the face of climate change, and ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services (Fig. 1).

    Perennial grasses in combating invasive plants

    Previous studies have shown that IAPs pose significant threats to ecosystems worldwide by displacing native species, altering habitats, and disrupting ecosystem functions and services[15,20,23,64]. Among the integrated management techniques to combat IAPs involves the use of competitive native plants (Fig. 1) such as perennial grasses[6,7,40]. These grasses, which live for more than two years with robust root systems, growth, and resilience to varying environmental conditions, offer several advantages in controlling IAPs[1,48]. Their competitive growth patterns and ability to restore and maintain native plant communities, and establish, and thrive in diverse habitats make them formidable competitors against invasive plants[1]. One of the primary ways perennial grasses combat IAPs is through competition for resources[48]. Their extensive root systems allow them to efficiently absorb water and nutrients, outcompeting IAPs that typically have shallower roots. This competitive edge limits the resources available to IAPs, inhibiting their growth and spread. For instance, species like P. virgatum and big A. gerardii are known for their deep roots, which can reach depths of up to 10 feet (3 m), providing them with a significant advantage over many IAPs[8,48]. They can also outcompete IAPs through their competitive growth patterns including quick establishment and forming dense canopies that shade out AIPs[1,8]. For example, native perennial grasses like S. nutans and S. scoparium have been shown to effectively compete with invasive species i.e., spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) by limiting light availability and space for growth[8,48].

    Moreover, using their extensive root systems that stabilize the soil, perennial grasses can prevent erosion and invasions of IAPs[44]. Invasive plants i.e., carrot weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and kudzu (Pueraria montana) can rapidly colonize disturbed soils, leading to severe erosion problems[20,65,66]. However, perennial grasses i.e., P. virgatum and big A. gerardii have been found to reduce erosion and creating an unfavorable environment for IAPs to establish owing to their deep fibrous root systems that hold the soil in place. Perennial grasses can also modify the microenvironment in ways that make it less conducive for IAPs[1,27,66]. They produce dense root mats that strengthen the organic matter content and soil structure, improving the fertility and health of the soil. The diversity and growth of native plant species is aided by improved soil conditions, which further promote biodiversity and inhibit IAPs by strengthening ecosystem resilience[48].

    Additionally, the use of perennial grasses in restoration has shown promising results in reclaiming areas overrun by IAPs and maintaining native plant communities that are disrupted by IAPs[8,66]. By planting a mix of native perennial grasses, land managers can restore ecological balance and prevent the re-establishment of IAPs[26]. These grasses provide long-term ground cover and habitat for wildlife, contributing to the overall health and stability of the ecosystem[1,8,54]. By reintroducing native perennial grasses into areas (e.g., rangelands and protected habitats) dominated by IAPs, ecosystems, and their biodiversity can be restored to their earlier conditions[27,39,67]. For instance, the use of native perennial grasses has been successful in restoring prairie ecosystems that were previously overrun by IAPs i.e., leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)[68]. Another important example of using perennial grasses to mitigate IAPs is the restoration of tallgrass prairies in the Midwest United States[8,66]. These prairies were historically dominated by native perennial grasses i.e., S. nutans and S. scoparium, however IAPs i.e., smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) displaced them, leading to biodiversity loss and altered ecosystem functions[8,66,68]. Studies show that following the restoration of these invaded habitats using perennial grasses, native grasses successfully reestablished and reduced IAPs and promoting native biodiversity[66,67]. In addition, another notable example is the use of perennial grasses to restore riparian areas which were heavily invaded and impacted by IAPs i.e., giant reed (Arundo donax) and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)[67,69]. Planting native perennial grasses like western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides) in these areas helped to stabilize the soil, reduce erosion, and suppress IAPs, leading to improved riparian habitat quality and ecosystem resilience[18,66,67,69].

    Therefore, competitive suppressive perennial grasses are a crucial tool in the fight against IAPs and other weeds. Their competitive abilities, contributions to soil health, and role in ecosystem restoration makes them invaluable in managing and alleviating the impacts of IAPs. As research continues, the potential for perennial grasses to be integrated into broader IAP strategies remain significant, promising a more sustainable and ecologically sound approach to preserving native biodiversity.

    Conclusions

    Perennial grasses are pivotal in enhancing soil biodiversity, mitigating climate change, and combating IAPs. Their deep root systems stabilize soils, support diverse soil faunal communities, and improve water retention. Besides, they are important grasses in sequestering carbon, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, suppressing IAPs, and supporting the reestablishment of native plant communities. Integrating perennial grasses into protected areas and rangelands management practices could offer a sustainable solution to pressing environmental challenges including invasions of IAPs. Stakeholders i.e., farmers, conservationists, ecologists, and land managers are advised to use perennial grass systems in their restoration practices, crop rotations, and pasturelands to enhance soil health and resilience. They are further commended to use perennial grasses for erosion control and to improve soil structure and fertility. Policymakers could develop and support policies that incentivize the use of perennial grasses in agricultural and restoration projects. Researchers, they are advised to conduct studies to quantify the long-term benefits of perennial grasses on soil biodiversity and climate change mitigation. Additionally, they can develop country or region-specific guidelines for the effective use of perennial grasses in different ecosystems. Hence, by integrating perennial grasses into our environmental stewardship strategies, we can ensure a thriving, balanced ecosystem capable of withstanding the impacts of climate change and IAPs.

    Author contributions

    The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: review conception and design, and manuscript preparation.

    Data availability

    Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

    Acknowledgments

    The author thanks all the colleagues who reviewed and proofread this article. This work was not supported by any funding agency.

  • The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

  • [1]

    Stafne ET, Blare T, Posadas B, Downey L, Anderson J, et al. 2023. Survey of United States passionfruit growers' production practices and support needs. HortTechnology 33(4):357−66

    doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH05240-23

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    USDA-NASS. 2023. Census of Agriculture. Quick Facts. National Agricultural Statistical Service, US Department of Agriculture. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/4705456A-61DC-3C0F-A861-863CB7180CF1 (Last retrieved: November 15, 2023).
    [3]

    Altendorf S. 2018. Minor tropical fruits: mainstreaming a niche market. In FAO Food Outlook - 2018. pp. 69-72. http://www.fao.org/3/ca0239en/CA0239EN.pdf (Last retrieved: May 8, 2023)
    [4]

    Rodriguez-Amaya DB. 2003. Passion fruits. In Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition, ed. Caballero B. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Academic Press. pp. 4368–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/00885-3
    [5]

    Posadas BC. 2021. 2021 US Passion fruit operations and acreage. Horticulture and Marine Economics Outreach. Virtual presentation. Biloxi, Mississippi, USA: Mississippi State University Coastal Research and Extension Center.
    [6]

    Crane JH. 2018. Tropical fruit production in Florida — Trials, tribulations, and opportunities. Proceedings of the 131st of the Florida State Horticulture Society, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 2018. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA: Florida State Horticultural Society, Inc. pp. ix–xii. https://journals.flvc.org/fshs/article/view/114701/110028 (Last retrieved: May 23, 2023)
    [7]

    Rettke D. 2018. Passionfruit - A challenging prospect for Florida growers. FreshPlaza. www.freshplaza.com/article/9053005/passionfruit-a-challenging-prospect-for-florida-growers/ (Last retrieved: April 13, 2023)
    [8]

    Bailey M, Sarkhosh A. 2021. Passionfruit: A potential alternative fruit crop for Florida. Proceedings of the 134th Annual Meeting of the Florida State Horticulture Society, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA, 2021. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA: Florida State Horticultural Society, Inc. pp. 3–4. https://fshs.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/2021-FSHS_Proceedings-6-16-22-final.pdf (Last retrieved: May 23, 2023)
    [9]

    Rigden P, Newett S. 2011. The Passionfruit Growing Guide. Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland, Australia.
    [10]

    Posadas BC, Knight PR, Coker CH, Coker RY, Langlois SA. 2010. Operational Characteristics of Nurseries and Greenhouses in the Northern Gulf of Mexico States. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 1184, Mississippi State, Mississippi.
    [11]

    Rogers WH. 1993. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin 13:19–23. (Reprinted in Stata Technical Bulletin. 3:88–94)
    [12]

    Williams RL. 2000. A note on robust variance estimation for clustered-correlated data. Biometrics 56:645−46

    doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00645.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Blare T, Ballen H, Anderson JD, Crane JH, Haley N. 2023. Cost Estimates of Producing Purple Passion Fruit in South Florida. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Food, and Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-FE1129-2023 (Last retrieved: March 28, 2023)
    [14]

    United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2023. Census Bureau Releases New Educational Attainment Data. Press Release Number CB23-TPS. 21. www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/educational-attainment-data.html (Last retrieved: June 28, 2023)
    [15]

    Cohn D, Caumont A. 2016. 10 Demographic Trends Shaping the US and the World in 2016. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/ (Last retrieved: April 13, 2023)
    [16]

    Ballenger N, Blaylock JR. 2003. Consumer-Driven Agriculture: Changing US Demographics Influence Eating Habits. Amber Waves. US Economic Research Service. www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2003/april/consumer-driven-agriculture/ (Last retrieved: July 24, 2023)
    [17]

    Produce News. 2022. Passion fruit popularity soars to a summer swelter. https://theproducenews.com/berries/passion-fruit-popularity-soars-summer-swelter (Last retrieved: April 13, 2023)

  • Cite this article

    Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Downey L, Anderson J, et al. 2023. Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers. Technology in Horticulture 3:25 doi: 10.48130/TIH-2023-0025
    Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Downey L, Anderson J, et al. 2023. Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers. Technology in Horticulture 3:25 doi: 10.48130/TIH-2023-0025
    shu

Figures(4)  /  Tables(8)

Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(3930) PDF downloads(540)

Other Articles By Authors

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers

  • 1.

    Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, 1815 Popps Ferry Road, Biloxi, MS 39532, USA

  • 2.

    University of Florida, Tropical Research and Education Center, 18905 SW 280 Street, Homestead, FL 33031, USA

  • 3.

    Auburn University, 3112 Duncan Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA

  • 4.

    University of California Cooperative Extension, 669 County Square Dr., #100 Ventura, CA 93003, USA

  • 5.

    USDA-ARS Daniel K. Inouye Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Station, Tropical Crop and Commodity Protection Research Unit, 64 Nowelo St., Hilo, HI 96720, USA

  • 6.

    University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez Campus, Department of Agro-Environmental Sciences, Mayaguez, PR 00680. USA

  • 7.

    University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center, 700 Experiment Station Rd. Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA

  • 8.

    University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Stress Physiology Building - Room 105, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

  • Received: 25 July 2023
  • Accepted: 13 October 2023
  • Published online: 04 December 2023
Technology in Horticulture  3,  Article number: 25  (2023)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: In the United States and its territories, passion fruit production has increased steadily since the 2002 USDA agriculture census; however, little is known about the reported production areas and how the industry functions. This report details the results of a survey conducted in 2022 of passion fruit producers in the United States, including Puerto Rico and Hawaii. The aim was to collect data on farm operational characteristics, sales data, and grower demographics. Forty-four surveys were completed, with Florida having the most responses (21), followed by Puerto Rico (12) and California (six). Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Virgin Islands completed the remainder. This sample was 12% of the 364 passion fruit farms reported in 2017. The acreage dedicated to passion fruit production averaged 1.7 acres in 2019 and 2.1 acres in 2020 per farm, with most occurring in Florida. A box of fruit had around 30 fruits and a mean price of $3.08 per lb. About 83% of the harvested passion fruit was sold fresh, although more than 50% of farms included sales of value-added products. Of the fresh fruit sold, 34.9% were sold directly to consumers. The respondents averaged 53.2 years old. More than eight out of ten respondents completed at least a college degree. Half the growers considered themselves Hispanic, while almost two-thirds were white, followed by multiple racial origins and American Indian. This data developed a greater understanding of the passion fruit industry within the US and will frame future projects to help grow this valuable specialty crop.

    HTML

    Introduction

    • The commercial passion fruit (Passiflora spp.) industry in the US and its territories is poorly understood. While production estimates exist[1,2], little is known about who grows this fruit and how it is managed. Annual worldwide production of passion fruit reached around 1.468 mt in 2015-17[3], with the top-producing countries being Brazil (0.948 million mt), Ecuador (0.150 mt), Indonesia (0.114 mt), Vietnam (0.020 mt), and Thailand (0.01 mt). Although Brazil has about two-thirds of the global passion fruit production, most fruits sold domestically[3] are processed into fruit drinks. Ecuador is the largest exporter of processed passion fruit juice[4], but growing global interest in this specialty crop may provide opportunities for expansion outside of traditional production areas. The US passion fruit industry is small but has substantial potential to increase rapidly as consumer awareness of the fruit and processed products grow[1]. Data from the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service[2] Census of Agriculture indicated Hawaii had 203 farms, California 82 farms, and Florida 73 farms, but other states also had production[5].

      The total US acreage devoted to passion fruit growing has been rising since 1997. The US Agricultural Census[2] data showed that passion fruit operations were 84 in 1997, 66 in 2002, 129 in 2007, 153 in 2012, and 364 bearing and non-bearing farms in 2017. The number of bearing US passion fruit farms reported rose from 43 in 2002, 121 in 2007, 131 in 2012, and 259 in 2017[2]. In 2017, the number of US passion fruit-bearing and non-bearing operations was mainly in Hawaii (203), California (82), and Florida (73), with one or two operations in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas[2]. The total US passion fruit acreage rose from 53 in 2002, 93 in 2007, 125 in 2012, and 209 in 2017[3]. US farms' average passion fruit-bearing acreage fell from 0.74 acres in 2002 to 0.51 acres in 2017. The same trend was shown with US farms' average non-bearing passion fruit acreage, from 0.84 acres in 2002 to 0.55 acres in 2017.

      To our knowledge, there has never been a comprehensive survey of passion fruit production in the US, so little is known about the market value of passion fruit in any of the production regions[1]. According to the 2017 US Census of Agriculture[2], the total number of farms of bearing and non-bearing age was 364 on a total of 85 acres, with the average farm having less than a 1/3 acre. This statistic underestimates actual production since Florida and California produce as much as 400 acres[6,7]. Many more acres were likely planted into passion fruit since this census. Passion fruit is best grown in warm tropical climates; therefore, few states have suitable conditions for the crop. Southern Florida is one of the best production areas[8], but other states, such as California, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas, have regions where production occurs or may have production potential.

      Purple passion fruit (P. edulis f. edulis) is the predominant type grown in Florida and California[1]. The purple and red hybrid fruit tends to be sweeter and less acidic but can vary by growing conditions and variety[9]. While purple, yellow (P. edulis f. flavicarpa), and intraspecific hybrids of the two are the most common, other edible passion fruit species exist. The market potential for other species in the US is unknown, but establishing a more robust industry based on P. edulis types may lead to other opportunities for an expanded range of species in the future.

      While the trend for production is positive[5], current assessments of stakeholder priorities are necessary to describe the passion fruit industry. In 2021, the US Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) funded a Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) grant to survey the passion fruit industry and gain feedback from stakeholders[1]. The survey consisted of two data sets concerning (a) farm characteristics and (b) owner/grower characteristics, the former of which has already been published[1]. Here we report the second data set gathered during this project, detailing the owner/grower characteristics and farm characteristics not discussed in an earlier publication[1]. Understanding the socioeconomic characteristics of growers/owners provides horticulture researchers and specialists with better insights into the underlying human dimensions of the industry[10].

    Materials and methods

      Data collection

    • An online survey was presented to passion fruit growers and those interested in growing passion fruit in suitable regions of the US. The passion fruit survey was distributed from March through May 2022. The states and territories that had responses included Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, California, and Hawaii. Extension agents and specialists in each state helped distribute the survey to interested individuals. Some participants preferred to complete the survey via interview with extension personnel due to a lack of internet access. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted by Mississippi State University, Office of Research Assurances to the project 'Exploring the Potential of Passion Fruit in Subtropical North America' (IRB 21204). Data were collected digitally in Qualtrics, and the data was cleaned and coded (We checked the responses for inconsistencies and skipped answers. The responses were then categorized into numbers to allow for easy analysis and comparison) within Excel.

      The survey's 45 questions included topics such as demographic information, production practices, marketing, and obstacles to profitability. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. Respondents were asked to indicate the farm and owner/grower characteristics of passion fruit operations that participated in the survey. Farm characteristics included the following information:

      • Farm location by state and county,

      • Total farm acreage, acres planted with passion fruit, fruit-bearing acreage, acreage in 2019 and 2020, acreage available for expansion,

      • Year of planting and type of passion fruit grown, and other crops grown,

      • Passion fruit yield in 2021, percent of unmarketable fruit, and where the fruit was sold,

      • Box or flat count of passion fruit harvested in 2021 and average price received per box or flat in 2021,

      • The percentage of harvested fruit sold fresh,

      • Additional agricultural activities,

      • Value-added products from passion fruit and new markets.

      They were also asked to provide information about the owners and operators, namely:

      • Interest in passion fruit,

      • Year born,

      • Racial background,

      • Gender, and

      • Highest level of education.

      Yields were asked only in 2021 to minimize errors due to the length of recall of passion fruit production in previous years. The entire survey can be viewed in the supplemental data included in an earlier publication[1].

    Statistical analysis

    • The number of useable survey responses was from California (six), Florida (21), Hawaii (one), Louisiana (two), Mississippi (one), Puerto Rico (12), and the Virgin Islands (one). Survey data were divided into four regions (Table 1). The first region consists of 21 respondents from Florida. The second region consists of six respondents from California. The Puerto Rico region includes all 13 respondents from the island and the US Virgin Islands. The states of Hawaii, Louisiana, and Mississippi comprise the fourth region with four respondents.

      Table 1.  Distribution of passion fruit farms by region and state based on a national survey conducted in 2022.

      RegionFarms (No.)Proportion (%)
      Florida2147.7
      California613.6
      Puerto Rico1329.6
      Others49.1
      Total44100.0

      The ordinal data were analyzed using chi-square to estimate frequencies and generate tables and figures. Overall and regional averages and standard deviations of cardinal data across categories were estimated by analysis of variance.

      An empirical model was developed to determine the significant factors affecting production. The empirical model was estimated using the ordinary least square (OLS) procedure. The robust variance procedure calculated the OLS model in Stata 17 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Precise calculations of the sample-to-sample variations of the parameter estimates are attained with the robust variance procedure[11, 12]. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated using the VIF procedure in Stata 17 to detect the possible presence of multicollinearity. The marginal impacts of the independent variables on computer usage were computed using the margins procedure of Stata 17.

    Results

      Farm characteristics

    • The 2022 survey sample of 44 farms represents about 12% of passion fruit farms reported by USDA-NASS[2] in 2017. Respondents were asked how large their farming operations were, not just for passion fruit acreage. The participating farms reported a total farm size averaging 98 acres per farm (Table 2). There are considerable variations in the individual acres reported by the participating farms. The Florida farms averaged 159.5 acres per farm, followed by California with 78 acres per farm. The farms in Puerto Rico and other states operate smaller farm sizes (Table 2).

      Table 2.  Total farm acres and acres available for expansion.

      RegionTotal farm acresnsAcres available for expansionns
      MeanStd. Dev.MeanStd. Dev.
      Florida159.5473.39.321.8
      California78.0108.53.55.2
      Puerto Rico25.439.73.74.5
      Others41.155.910.17.9
      Total98.0331.76.915.6
      ns – not statistically significant (α = 0.05).

      When queried about passion fruit production alone, all states estimated room for expansion, averaging 6.9 acres per farm with as many as 10 acres envisioned for expansion.

      The average acreage dedicated to new passion fruit production rose from 1.7 acres in 2019 to 2.1 per farm in 2020 (Table 3). The average farm sizes in Florida, California, and Puerto Rico reported more new acreage devoted to passion fruit production from 2019 to 2020.

      Table 3.  New acres dedicated to passion fruit in 2019 and 2020.

      RegionAcres devoted to passion
      fruit in 2019ns      		Acres devoted to passion
      fruit in 2020ns
      MeanStd. Dev.MeanStd. Dev.
      Florida2.96.63.710.0
      California0.30.40.60.9
      Puerto Rico0.70.80.80.9
      Others0.50.00.50.0
      Total1.74.72.16.9
      ns – not statistically significant (α = 0.05).

      Six responding farms from Florida and California revealed that the box count of passion fruit harvested in 2021 ranged from 10 to 48 fruits per box. About 7.1% of the reporting farms reported box counts of 10, 20, and 24 per box. Twenty-eight per box was reported by 21%. Approximately 14% stated that their box counts were 30, 32, and 35 per box. Forty and 48 per box were reported by about 7% of those who revealed their box counts. The growers from other states and Puerto Rico did not report box counts.

      Among the ten growers who reported passion fruit prices during the survey, the average passion fruit price was $3.08 per pound (Table 4). Almost 83% of the harvested passion fruit was sold fresh by 17 participating farms that reported selling them fresh (Table 5). More than half of the 40 reporting farms produced value-added passion fruit products (Table 5). Most Puerto Rico farms produced value-added products from passion fruit, but California did little (16.7%)

      Table 4.  Average price received by grower per box or flat of passion fruit produced in the 2021 growing season across several US locations.

      RegionThe average price received per box or flat in 2021($/lb)ns
      MeanStd. Dev.
      Florida3.972.69
      California2.500.0
      Puerto Rico2.481.59
      Others−−
      Total3.082.03
      ns – not statistically significant (α = 0.05).

      Table 5.  Percent of harvested passion fruit sold as fresh and percent of farms that produced value-added products.

      RegionPercent of harvested passion fruit sold as freshnsPercent of farms that produced value-added products*
      MeanStd. Dev.
      Florida87.518.944.4
      California73.811.116.7
      Puerto Rico82.513.783.3
      Others90.00.050.0
      Total82.913.652.5
      * – statistically significant at 0.05.

      Responses from 37 farms reported that more than one-third of the harvested passion fruit were sold directly to consumers (Fig. 1). About 16% were sold directly to restaurants, and 13% were sold online. The rest were sold directly to stores, packing houses, pulp processors the craft industry or used for familial consumption.

      Figure 1. 

      Point of sale for passion fruit grown in the US ranked in order of greatest to least by percentage of the total sales market.

      The 19 participating growers identified a need for new markets for the harvested passion fruit (Fig. 2). The suggested markets included processors, retailers, wholesalers, and farm stands.

      Figure 2. 

      New markets are being considered for passion fruit sales by US producers.

      About 21 respondents are engaged in additional agricultural activities (Fig. 3). The main agricultural activities of the participants were education and farm stands. The remainder were engaged in U-pick operation, medicinal, tourism, and research.

      Figure 3. 

      Participation in additional agricultural activities by US passion fruit producers.

      Other crops grown by the 38 respondents were mainly fruits (61%) and vegetables (27%, Fig. 4). Other crops included hemp, hay, ornamental plants, and edible flowers.

      Figure 4. 

      Other crops are grown by passion fruit producers on their farms.

      Grower/owner characteristics

    • The age of respondents was similar, averaging 53.2 years old (Table 6). Most of the 38 participating growers who reported their gender were male (71%). Half of the 38 growers who responded considered themselves as Hispanic, Latino/Latina, or of Spanish origin. Almost two-thirds were white, followed by multiple racial origins and American Indian (Table 7). The rest were Asian and African American. About 42.1% of the respondents had completed advanced or professional degrees. Almost 40% earned college degrees. Approximately 13% finished high school, and the rest had vocational education.

      Table 6.  The average age of passion fruit respondents.

      RegionMeannsStd. Dev.Frequency
      Florida55.215.312
      California55.015.36
      Puerto Rico50.212.213
      Others53.522.02
      Total53.213.933
      ns – not statistically significant (α = 0.05).

      Table 7.  Distribution of respondents by racial origin.

      RaceFrequencyPercent
      White2362.1
      Multiple616.2
      American Indian410.8
      Asian38.11
      African American12.7
      Total37100.0

      An attempt was made to estimate significant determinants of passion fruit production among the participating growers (Table 8). A couple of essential variables are identified with significant effects on production even with such a small sample size who reported production (23 growers). It makes sense that production differs by region and land holdings. The base region is Florida, with results showing that California and Puerto Rican growers have higher yields in 2021. Passion fruit farmers with more acreage with fruit-bearing trees also enhanced annual harvest in 2021. Adding the sociodemographic characteristics of the growers in estimating the production function did not result in significant effects.

      Table 8.  Regression results with the yield per farm in 2021 (in pounds per acre) as the dependent variable.

      Independent variableCoefficientRobust standard error
      Region
      California***9093.8051719.473
      Puerto Rico*5814.6513015.328
      Fruit-bearing acres in 2021**503.081135.941
      Constant−622.038574.196
      Number of observations23
      Probability (3,19)0.000
      R-squared0.391
      *** - significant at 0.01, ** - significant at 0.025, * - significant at 0.10.
    Discussion

    • This paper is based on 44 respondents to the survey of the passion fruit industry conducted in 2022. This sample size is 12% of the 364 passion fruit farms[2] in 2017 reported by the US Department of Agriculture. Florida was identified as the production location with the largest average farm size and tremendous potential for expansion, more than California and Puerto Rico (Table 2). Nearly half of the responses were from Florida (Table 1). This is due to a couple of factors: the project was heavily involved in that area (the workshop was held in Homestead, FL, USA in 2022)[1], and it is one of the few places where there is a substantial University extension and research program to reach growers. Puerto Rico completed about 30% of the surveys due to connections with the University of Puerto Rico. California and other states had fewer responses, mainly because it was more challenging to contact individual growers in those states.

      This survey identified important farm demographic data of the current industry. The average price per pound received for fruit in Florida was the highest (~4), whereas California and Puerto Rico were similar (4), whereas California and Puerto Rico were similar ( 2.50) (Table 4). The reason for the difference is unknown but could be due to available market demand or market timing of fruit availability. Since a box/flat of fruit averages about 10 pounds, prices would average nearly 40 for Florida and 25 for California and Puerto Rico passion fruit. California grows mostly purple passion fruit, while Puerto Rico has mostly yellow passion fruit. The prices obtained were similar, potentially indicating no consumer preference based on color. However, more work needs to be done to determine the validity of that supposition. Most of the passion fruit produced in the US is for fresh consumption. Processed products like juice or nectars are mostly imported from South American countries, and competing with the scale of their output would not be economically feasible for US passion fruit growers. However, many respondents already produced or had a desire to add value-added products to their product line (Table 5). Many potential local value-added products could be developed to enhance the US passion fruit market. Much of the passion fruit in the US is sold directly to consumers (Fig. 1), including local fruit stands and similar businesses. Direct sales to restaurants were a much smaller component than the remaining options listed. Value-added is a substantial area of potential growth for the US passion fruit industry (Fig. 2), however, finding the products that will make an impact on consumers is vital. Imported value-added products are relatively inexpensive and mainly come in as juice. Creative opportunities for areas like dried fruit could be worth exploring.

      The survey also identified grower demographics of interest. Many respondents were involved with education and farm stand sales (Fig. 3). Ideally, these two activities could be combined to deliver educational programming or literature to help expand the consumer knowledge base. Education is an intensive endeavor, and partnering with university extension would be a step toward alleviating potential bottlenecks in delivery for growers and farm stand operators. Most passion fruit farmers grow other crops as well. The majority grow other fruit crops, but some grow vegetables as well (Fig. 4). The management of passion fruit may be viewed as complementary to other fruit crops, or a business strategy may dictate that other crops be grown, such as the need for product diversification at a farmer producer stand. The average age of a passion fruit grower was more than 50 years (Table 5). While not surprising, it does reinforce a problematic situation for agriculture in general, namely the lack of younger generation involvement. On the face of it, this might appear to be an indictment of new generations' interest in agriculture. While that could be part of it, another serious aspect is the inordinate amount of capital needed to start a business[13]. Passion fruit in the US is not exceptionally well established, so taking it on as a new business endeavor is fraught with risk. Most respondents indicated they were of white origin, which is somewhat surprising since passion fruit is more well-known among Hispanic and Asian populations. The issue of economics may also play a role in who has the available funds to start and maintain a passion fruit business. More than 82% of the respondents completed at least a college degree, much higher than the 37% of the US population with a college degree in 2018, as reported by the US Census Bureau[14]. Half the growers considered themselves Hispanic, while almost two-thirds are white, followed by multiple racial origins and American Indian.

      Our survey identified a strong desire to expand passion fruit acreage in all surveyed states. In 2019 vs 2020, plantings grew or remained constant for all surveyed regions (Table 3), and over the last 20 years, overall acreage has consistently increased[5,2]. While this is an excellent indicator for the industry, support from universities and other agricultural-related businesses needs to be augmented to meet the anticipated increase in production. Our data indicated that a significant amount of research needs to be conducted to address (a) viral diseases and passion fruit pest management, (b) propagation material availability and breeding advancement, and revised horticultural approaches that compensate for labor shortages and reduce input costs[1]. Further, the industry is still a number of years away from seeing crop planting maturity in many cases. California was the only state that reported all current acres were of bearing age and in fruit production. Others have more acreage ready to mature soon, but this will delay industry expansion in the meantime (as of the 2022 survey). Despite these challenges, we anticipate two factors that may allow passion fruit to gain a foothold. First, as the demographics of the US become more diverse[15], we anticipate shifts in demand for more exotic fruit in retail markets[16]. Second, consistent marketing and advertising[17] of the product's potential to consumers who are not traditional exotic fruit users seem likely to encourage greater demand going forward as people are more familiar with passion fruit and its uses in cooking.

    Conclusions

    • The initial results of estimating the production function determine which factors are important and should be considered in promoting passion fruit production. It gives indications for further exploration for future research on passion fruit production. When the sociodemographic characteristics of the growers were added to estimating the production function, results showed that there are no significant effects on production. In addition, as suggested by earlier investigators[8], the marketing of passion fruit needs substantial research to promote the expansion of the industry in the US. Thus, the next research activity is to determine consumer preferences and their willingness to pay for fresh passion fruit and related products in selected cities in the US. A survey has already been developed and is being implemented during 2023. Updated information on the operational characteristics of horticultural farms is helpful for researchers, specialists, growers, lenders, and investors[10]. A group of agricultural economists and horticulture scientists prepared enterprise budgets for passion fruit operations in South Florida[13], and other products are in development.

    Authors contributions

    • The authors confirm their contributions to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Stafne ET, Blare T, Posadas BC, Downey L, Anderson J, Crane J, Gazis R, Faber B, Stockton DG, Carrillo D, Morales-Payan P, Dutt M, Chambers A, and Chavez D; data collection: Stafne ET, Blare T, Posadas BC, Downey L, Anderson J, Crane J, Gazis R, Faber B, Stockton DG, Carrillo D, Morales-Payan P, Dutt M, Chambers A, and Chavez D; analysis and interpretation of results: Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Anderson J, Crane J, Gazis R, Faber B, Stockton DG, Carrillo D, Morales-Payan P, Dutt M, Chambers A, and Chavez D; draft manuscript preparation: Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Stockton DG, Anderson J, Crane J, Gazis R, Faber B, Carrillo D, Morales-Payan P, Dutt M, Chambers A, and Chavez D. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    Data availability

    • The entire survey can be viewed in the supplemental data included in an earlier publication[1].

      The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to the confidentiality of limited responses but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

      Acknowledgments

      • We thank Mark Bailey, Andres Bejarano Loor, Ken Love, Jeff Wasielewski, and Haley Williams for contributing to this study. This work is supported by the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (Grant No. 2021-51181-35867/project accession no. 1027445) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the US Department of Agriculture or any of the institutions involved in this study. Mention of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the US Department of Agriculture or any of the institutions involved in this study. It does not imply its approval to exclude other products or vendors that may also be suitable.

      Conflict of interest

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      Rights and permissions
      • Copyright: © 2023 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (4)  Table (8) References (17)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Downey L, Anderson J, et al. 2023. Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers. Technology in Horticulture 3:25 doi: 10.48130/TIH-2023-0025
    Posadas BC, Stafne ET, Blare T, Downey L, Anderson J, et al. 2023. Grower and operational characteristics of US passion fruit farmers. Technology in Horticulture 3:25 doi: 10.48130/TIH-2023-0025
    shu

Catalog

  • HTML

  • Introduction
  • Materials and methods

  • Data collection

  • Statistical analysis
  • Results

  • Farm characteristics

  • Grower/owner characteristics

  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • Authors contributions
  • Data availability
  • Acknowledgments
  • Conflict of interest
  • Rights and permissions
  • About this article
logo

Contents

Policies

Services

Partnerships

© 2025 Maximum Academic Press, except Open Access articles. MAP is a member of ALPSP, COPE, CrossRef, cOAlition S, OASPA and STM.

Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Terms and Conditions

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return