Paper · 2006 · Journal of Food Science

Postharvest Quality and Microbial Population of Head Lettuce as Affected by Moisture at Harvest

Jorge M. Fonseca

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
36
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality either following different irrigation termination (IT) schedules or before and after a rainfall event. Lettuce receiving late (4 d before harvest) IT showed increased weight and diameter, higher aerobic bacteria counts, and lower quality than plants subjected to early (16 d before harvest) IT. Middle (8 d before harvest) IT produced similar yields, and lower microbial population in lettuce than late IT. After rain, microbial population increased by 1.5 and 3.0 log colony‐forming units (CFU)/g in outer and head leaves respectively. The results revealed the importance of managing moisture conditions at harvest to enhance overall quality of lettuce.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late irrigation termination (4 d before harvest) increased lettuce weight and diameter compared with early termination (16 d before harvest).

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
late (4 d before harvest) ITe1
Outcome
weight and diametere1
Direction
increasede1
Comparator
early (16 d before harvest) ITe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e1

“Lettuce receiving late (4 d before harvest) IT showed increased weight and diameter, higher aerobic bacteria counts, and lower quality than plants subjected to early (16 d before harvest) IT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late irrigation termination (4 d before harvest) gave higher aerobic bacteria counts on lettuce than early termination (16 d before harvest).

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
late (4 d before harvest) ITe1
Outcome
aerobic bacteria countse1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
early (16 d before harvest) ITe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e1

“Lettuce receiving late (4 d before harvest) IT showed increased weight and diameter, higher aerobic bacteria counts, and lower quality than plants subjected to early (16 d before harvest) IT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late irrigation termination (4 d before harvest) gave lower lettuce quality than early termination (16 d before harvest).

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
late (4 d before harvest) ITe1
Outcome
qualitye1
Direction
lowere1
Comparator
early (16 d before harvest) ITe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e1

“Lettuce receiving late (4 d before harvest) IT showed increased weight and diameter, higher aerobic bacteria counts, and lower quality than plants subjected to early (16 d before harvest) IT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Middle irrigation termination (8 d before harvest) gave similar lettuce yields.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae2
Treatment
Middle (8 d before harvest) ITe2
Outcome
yieldse2
Direction
similare2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e2

“Middle (8 d before harvest) IT produced similar yields, and lower microbial population in lettuce than late IT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–501 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Middle irrigation termination (8 d before harvest) gave lower microbial population on lettuce than late termination.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae2
Treatment
Middle (8 d before harvest) ITe2
Outcome
microbial populatione2
Direction
lowere2
Comparator
late ITe2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e2

“Middle (8 d before harvest) IT produced similar yields, and lower microbial population in lettuce than late IT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–501 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After rain, microbial population on the outer leaves of lettuce increased by 1.5 log CFU/g.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae0
Organ / stage
outere3
Treatment
After raine3
Outcome
microbial populatione3
Direction
increasede3
Value
1.5e3
Comparator
beforee4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e3

“After rain, microbial population increased by 1.5 and 3.0 log colony‐forming units (CFU)/g in outer and head leaves respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–631 · show in text ↑
e4

“before and after a rainfall event”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 164–197 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After rain, microbial population on the head leaves of lettuce increased by 3.0 log CFU/g.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae0
Organ / stage
head leavese3
Treatment
After raine3
Outcome
microbial populatione3
Direction
increasede3
Value
3.0e3
Comparator
beforee4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Iceberg lettuce was evaluated for yield, microbial population, and postharvest quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–95 · show in text ↑
e3

“After rain, microbial population increased by 1.5 and 3.0 log colony‐forming units (CFU)/g in outer and head leaves respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–631 · show in text ↑
e4

“before and after a rainfall event”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 164–197 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend managing moisture conditions at harvest to enhance overall lettuce quality.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae5
Outcome
overall quality of lettucee5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“managing moisture conditions at harvest to enhance overall quality of lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–749 · show in text ↑

irrigation · quality: general · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

irrigation · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

45 papers: 32 positive, 13 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

41 papers more in this group

See all 45 papers →

irrigation · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

57 papers: 32 positive, 25 negative or no effect

24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

53 papers more in this group

See all 57 papers →

rainfall · soil: biology · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.