Paper · 2004 · HortScience

The Effect of Calcium Sprays and Crop Load on Bitter Pit Incidence in `Honeycrisp' Apple

Adriana Telias; Emily Hoover; Carl Rosen; et al.

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar, is susceptible to bitter pit, a physiological disorder that develops mainly during storage. Although the cause of bitter pit is unknown, calcium (Ca) content of the fruit is known to be involved. A field experiment was conducted in Chanhassen, Minn. to refine recommendations for use of Ca sprays for reduction of bitter pit in `Honeycrisp' apple. Specific objectives were to determine: 1) Ca concentration and content throughout the fruit growing season; and 2) the association of bitter pit incidence with Ca concentration, crop load, vegetative growth and fruit size. Six treatments tested included: control; Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sprays all season; Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sprays early in the season; Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sprays late in the season; hand-thinning combined with Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sprays all season and hand-thinning. Ca concentration in fruits was measured bi-weekly using three different sampling methods: segments, cores and plugs. A randomized block design with four trees as experimental unit and five replications was used. Results suggest lower crop loads increase bitter pit incidence. While fruit from the thinned treatments was larger in size by the end of the experiment, no bitter pit was present at harvest. After 4 months of storage, the hand thinning treatment had 7.4% bitter pit, while thinning plus Ca reduced bitter pit to 2.4%. The other treatments had less than 1% bitter pit. Fruit analyses at the end of the growing season indicate that early and full season sprays resulted in the highest Ca concentration in fruit segments and cores. The lowest values were found for the thinning treatment. No association was found between vegetative growth and bitter pit incidence.

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 9

Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lower crop loads were associated with higher bitter pit incidence in Honeycrisp apple.

Treatment
lower crop loadse2
Outcome
bitter pit incidencee2
Direction
increasee2

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e2

“Results suggest lower crop loads increase bitter pit incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1120 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit from thinned treatments was larger at the end of the experiment.

Treatment
thinned treatmentse3
Outcome
sizee3
Direction
largere3

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e3

“While fruit from the thinned treatments was larger in size by the end of the experiment, no bitter pit was present at harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1247 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No bitter pit was present at harvest in the thinned treatments.

Treatment
thinned treatmentse3
Outcome
bitter pit was present at harveste3

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e3

“While fruit from the thinned treatments was larger in size by the end of the experiment, no bitter pit was present at harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1247 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After 4 months of storage, hand thinning gave 7.4% bitter pit in Honeycrisp apple.

Treatment
hand thinninge4
Outcome
bitter pite4
Value
7.4%e4
Qualifier
After 4 months of storagee4

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e4

“After 4 months of storage, the hand thinning treatment had 7.4% bitter pit, while thinning plus Ca reduced bitter pit to 2.4%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1374 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thinning plus Ca reduced bitter pit to 2.4% after storage, compared with hand thinning.

Treatment
thinning plus Cae4
Outcome
bitter pite4
Direction
reducede4
Value
2.4%e4
Comparator
hand thinninge4

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e4

“After 4 months of storage, the hand thinning treatment had 7.4% bitter pit, while thinning plus Ca reduced bitter pit to 2.4%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1374 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The other treatments had less than 1% bitter pit.

Outcome
bitter pite5
Value
less than 1%e5

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e5

“The other treatments had less than 1% bitter pit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1376–1424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early and full season calcium sprays gave the highest Ca concentration in fruit segments and cores.

Organ / stage
fruit segments and corese6
Treatment
early and full season sprayse6
Outcome
Ca concentratione6
Direction
higheste6

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e6

“early and full season sprays resulted in the highest Ca concentration in fruit segments and cores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1488–1585 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The thinning treatment had the lowest Ca concentration in fruit.

Treatment
thinning treatmente7
Outcome
Ca concentratione6
Direction
loweste7

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e6

“early and full season sprays resulted in the highest Ca concentration in fruit segments and cores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1488–1585 · show in text ↑
e7

“The lowest values were found for the thinning treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1587–1642 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vegetative growth was not associated with bitter pit incidence in Honeycrisp apple.

Treatment
vegetative growthe2
Outcome
bitter pit incidencee2

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“`Honeycrisp', a relatively new apple cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
e2

“No association was found between vegetative growth and bitter pit incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1644–1719 · show in text ↑

climate site · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

pruning · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 7 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

116 papers: 100 positive, 16 negative or no effect

99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

112 papers more in this group

See all 116 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.