Taxon ID:
Usage Facet: class=edible; edible_score=1.0; ornamental_score=0.0; inferred_from_taxon=no
Relationships: 0 | Linked Entities (visible): 0 | Evidence claims: 24 | History events: 0 | Catalog issue offerings: 0
Open profile JSON | Open lineage explorer | Open lineage JSON
Evidence Badge: emerging | claims=24 | sources=4 | contradictions=0
Claim Types: description_snippet:8, caption_context:4, productivity:4, selection_origin_reference:2, source_reference_abbreviation:2, fruit_size:1, growth_habit:1, keeping_quality:1, recommendation_context:1 | Open evidence summary JSON | Open citation drawer JSON
Connected Views: lineage table | lineage graph | history charts | trait matrix | search
Link Filter: showing signal links (candidate hidden); hidden candidate links=0. Show candidate links
Indigo Gem is a University of Saskatchewan haskap cultivar in the Indigo series. It belongs to the Lonicera caerulea breeding work described in the program's 2012 final report. It was tested as 9-15 before naming. It was one of the Row 9 selections named in winter 2011 after propagators and growers asked for names for numbered plants. The Indigo name was chosen because indigo is a color linked with haskap. "Blue" was avoided because it was already common in Russian introductions sold by Northwoods Nursery in Oregon. [S1]
The packet gives no direct parentage for Indigo Gem. It places the cultivar within the University of Saskatchewan Row 9 and Indigo series material. It is discussed closely with Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum, and in program context with Borealis and Tundra. The Indigo plants were released experimentally in case Borealis and Tundra were hard to propagate or developed field problems. [S1]
Indigo Gem had the smallest berries among the Row 9 selections discussed. The report says Indigo series fruit could be hard to identify by appearance alone. The fruit had slight chewiness, which the source suggests may indicate better durability. In sorting line tests, Tundra still ranked best for durability. [S1]
The original Indigo Gem bush was the most productive Row 9 plant. Some growers said it grew more upright and faster than related selections. It was also the only variety in that Indigo comparison reported as susceptible to leaf mildew. The others were classified as highly resistant. [S1]
For commercial production, Indigo Gem is discussed as a possible main variety for mechanical harvesting. Tundra and possibly Indigo Gem are described as more durable in machinery. The report also records Indigo Gem as one of the University of Saskatchewan named varieties used in 2010 crosses with Japanese germplasm selections and with Elwood. These are later breeding uses, not stated parentage. [S1]
No direct hardiness zone is given for Indigo Gem in the supplied evidence. Its documented context is the University of Saskatchewan haskap breeding program in Saskatchewan. The packet does not provide a cultivar specific winter survival or zone statement. [S1]
Summary source basis
This summary currently draws chiefly from Haskap Breeding & Production - Final Report, January 2012, with 3 additional supporting sources linked below.
Selected source quotations
“Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties ‘Tundra’, ‘Borealis’, and ‘Indigo Gem’ in 2010.”
— Haskap Breeding & Production - Final Report, January 2012, p45
“Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties 'Tundra', 'Borealis', and 'Indigo Gem' in 2010.”
— Haskap Breeding & Production - Final Report, January 2012, p5
“Figure 25. Berries from Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum (left to right). Formerly they were called 9-15, 9-91 and 9-92.”
— Haskap Breeding & Production - Final Report, January 2012, p72
Direct parent cultivars
Parentage claim text
Derived or downstream cultivar links
Source-story quotations
Taxonomy context: No family-tree context surfaced yet.
Related cultivars mentioned in source context
Zone assertions are structured rows. Hardiness claim text appears in evidence claims and page-linked citations.
| Zone Min | Zone Max | Zone Text | Assertion Type | Outcome | Location | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No explicit zone assertion rows yet. | ||||||
No linked media assets.
| Document | Title/URL | Rights | Claims | Relationships | History Events | Pages | Snippets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 102 | Haskap Breeding & Production - Final Report, January 2012 | unknown | 17 | 0 | 0 | p5 p45 p56 p58 p72 p99 | The page includes photographs associated with Indigo Gem fruit.; Some growers indicated that this variety grows more upright and faster.; In sorting-line tests, 'Tundra' was still the best for durability.; The fruit had |
| 143 | Recommended fruit Varieties | unknown | 5 | 0 | 0 | p1 p2 | Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum are described as similar to Indigo Gem and Tundra.; Most growers, including the University of Saskatchewan, find Indigo Gem more productive than Tundra, despite Tundra being higher yielding in |
| 130 | ‘Aurora’ Haskap | unknown | 1 | 0 | 0 | p2 | Young ‘Aurora’ plants were growing 50% taller than ‘Indigo Gem’ varieties. |
| 133 | ‘Boreal Beauty’ | unknown | 1 | 0 | 0 | p3 | ‘Indigo Gem’ plants were in the same field as the original ‘Boreal Beauty’ plant; despite ‘Boreal Beauty’ being a year younger, it was 50% larger and much more productive than ‘Indigo Gem’. |
| Document | Page | Claim Type | Claim | Quote | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 143 | p2 | description_snippet | Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum are described as similar to Indigo Gem and Tundra. | It was higher yielding in an Ontario test, but most growers including the Uof SK find Indigo Gem more productive. | page_block:0.90 |
| 143 | p2 | productivity | Most growers, including the University of Saskatchewan, find Indigo Gem more productive than Tundra, despite Tundra being higher yielding in one Ontario test. | It was higher yielding in an Ontario test, but most growers including the Uof SK find Indigo Gem more productive. | page_block:0.90 |
| 143 | p1 | productivity | Nurseries found it easier to propagate, and it is also more productive and taller than Tundra. | Indigo Gem (9-15): This is much more widely planted than Tundra or other Indigo series. | page_block:0.90 |
| 143 | p1 | description_snippet | Described as much more widely planted than Tundra or other Indigo series varieties. | Indigo Gem (9-15): This is much more widely planted than Tundra or other Indigo series. | page_block:0.90 |
| 143 | p1 | source_reference_abbreviation | Selection number given as 9-15. | Indigo Gem (9-15): This is much more widely planted than Tundra or other Indigo series. | page_block:0.90 |
| 133 | p3 | productivity | ‘Indigo Gem’ plants were in the same field as the original ‘Boreal Beauty’ plant; despite ‘Boreal Beauty’ being a year younger, it was 50% larger and much more productive than ‘Ind | Despite having one less growing season, ‘Boreal Beauty’ plants were 50% larger and much more productive than ‘Indigo Gem’. | page_block:0.90 |
| 130 | p2 | description_snippet | Young ‘Aurora’ plants were growing 50% taller than ‘Indigo Gem’ varieties. | Young plants of it are growing 50% taller than ‘Tundra’ or ‘Indigo Gem’ varieties. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | caption_context | The page includes photographs associated with Indigo Gem fruit. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | growth_habit | Some growers indicated that this variety grows more upright and faster. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | description_snippet | In sorting-line tests, 'Tundra' was still the best for durability. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | keeping_quality | The fruit had a slight 'chewiness' that may indicate a more durable fruit. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | description_snippet | This was the only variety reported as susceptible to mildew on leaves, while the others were classified as highly resistant. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | fruit_size | Berries were the smallest among the Row 9 selections discussed here. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | productivity | The original bush was the most productive of 'Row 9'. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p99 | selection_origin_reference | Former breeding identifier: 9-15. | Indigo Gem (formerly 9-15) | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p72 | description_snippet | Indigo Gem belongs to the Indigo series, a group named in winter 2011 from previously numbered Row 9 test plants. | Figure 25. Berries from Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum (left to right). Formerly they were called 9-15, 9-91 and 9-92. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p72 | caption_context | Figure 25 shows berries of Indigo Gem and notes that the fruit are difficult to tell apart from related Indigo series cultivars by appearance alone. | Figure 25. Berries from Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum (left to right). Formerly they were called 9-15, 9-91 and 9-92. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p72 | selection_origin_reference | Indigo Gem was formerly identified by a Row 9 test number; the figure caption indicates the former names 9-15, 9-91, and 9-92 correspond to Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat, and Indigo Yum | Figure 25. Berries from Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum (left to right). Formerly they were called 9-15, 9-91 and 9-92. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p58 | recommendation_context | For commercial growers using mechanical harvesters, ‘Indigo Gem’ is described as possibly more durable in machinery and as a possible main variety. | ‘Tundra’ and possibly ‘Indigo Gem’ are more durable in machinery | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p56 | caption_context | Indigo Gem is included in the leaf comparison figure alongside Tundra, Borealis, and Honey Bee. | Figure 16 [shows] Tundra Borealis Indigo Gem Honey Bee | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p45 | source_reference_abbreviation | Table 16 lists 2010 crosses of Indigo Gem with Japanese germplasm selections and with Elwood. | Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties ‘Tundra’, ‘Borealis’, and ‘Indigo Gem’ in 2010. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p45 | description_snippet | Indigo Gem is one of the program varieties explicitly included in Table 16. | Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties ‘Tundra’, ‘Borealis’, and ‘Indigo Gem’ in 2010. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p5 | caption_context | Mentioned in the List of Tables as the subject of Table 16. | Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties 'Tundra', 'Borealis', and 'Indigo Gem' in 2010. | page_block:0.90 |
| 102 | p5 | description_snippet | Referenced as one of the program's named varieties used in crosses with various hybrids and Japanese germplasm in 2010. | Table 16. Crosses between various hybrids and Japanese germplasm and our varieties 'Tundra', 'Borealis', and 'Indigo Gem' in 2010. | page_block:0.90 |
| Year | Nursery | Catalog Issue | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| No catalog issue offerings linked. | |||
| Relation | Type | ID | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| No linked entities at this filter level. | |||
| Type | Claim | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| description_snippet | Indigo Treat and Indigo Yum are described as similar to Indigo Gem and Tundra. | 0.92 |
| productivity | Most growers, including the University of Saskatchewan, find Indigo Gem more productive than Tundra, despite Tundra being higher yielding in one Ontario test. | 0.95 |
| productivity | Nurseries found it easier to propagate, and it is also more productive and taller than Tundra. | 0.97 |
| description_snippet | Described as much more widely planted than Tundra or other Indigo series varieties. | 0.98 |
| source_reference_abbreviation | Selection number given as 9-15. | 0.98 |
| productivity | ‘Indigo Gem’ plants were in the same field as the original ‘Boreal Beauty’ plant; despite ‘Boreal Beauty’ being a year younger, it was 50% larger and much more productive than ‘Indigo Gem’. | 0.95 |
| description_snippet | Young ‘Aurora’ plants were growing 50% taller than ‘Indigo Gem’ varieties. | 0.97 |
| caption_context | The page includes photographs associated with Indigo Gem fruit. | 0.84 |
| growth_habit | Some growers indicated that this variety grows more upright and faster. | 0.90 |
| description_snippet | In sorting-line tests, 'Tundra' was still the best for durability. | 0.88 |
| keeping_quality | The fruit had a slight 'chewiness' that may indicate a more durable fruit. | 0.90 |
| description_snippet | This was the only variety reported as susceptible to mildew on leaves, while the others were classified as highly resistant. | 0.96 |
| fruit_size | Berries were the smallest among the Row 9 selections discussed here. | 0.96 |
| productivity | The original bush was the most productive of 'Row 9'. | 0.98 |
| selection_origin_reference | Former breeding identifier: 9-15. | 0.99 |
| description_snippet | Indigo Gem belongs to the Indigo series, a group named in winter 2011 from previously numbered Row 9 test plants. | 0.86 |
| caption_context | Figure 25 shows berries of Indigo Gem and notes that the fruit are difficult to tell apart from related Indigo series cultivars by appearance alone. | 0.87 |
| selection_origin_reference | Indigo Gem was formerly identified by a Row 9 test number; the figure caption indicates the former names 9-15, 9-91, and 9-92 correspond to Indigo Gem, Indigo Treat, and Indigo Yum left to right, making Indigo Gem the fo | 0.96 |
| recommendation_context | For commercial growers using mechanical harvesters, ‘Indigo Gem’ is described as possibly more durable in machinery and as a possible main variety. | 0.90 |
| caption_context | Indigo Gem is included in the leaf comparison figure alongside Tundra, Borealis, and Honey Bee. | 0.93 |
| source_reference_abbreviation | Table 16 lists 2010 crosses of Indigo Gem with Japanese germplasm selections and with Elwood. | 0.97 |
| description_snippet | Indigo Gem is one of the program varieties explicitly included in Table 16. | 0.98 |
| caption_context | Mentioned in the List of Tables as the subject of Table 16. | 0.96 |
| description_snippet | Referenced as one of the program's named varieties used in crosses with various hybrids and Japanese germplasm in 2010. | 0.95 |
| ID | Type | Year | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| No history events. | |||