Paper · 2022 · Biological Agriculture & Horticulture

Impact of fruit bagging and postharvest storage conditions on quality and decay of organic nectarines

Marta Balsells-Llauradó; Núria Vall-llaura; Josep Usall; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Abiotic factors such as light influence the physicochemical properties of fruit and may alter the response of the fruit to the environment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two postharvest storage conditions on the overall quality and natural fungal disease incidence (fruit decay) of organic nectarines. Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest. After harvest, they were stored for 7–9 days in darkness or under a treatment with lighting. Quality parameters (weight, diameter, firmness, soluble solids content, titratable acidity, and single index of absorbance difference), ethylene production, and fruit decay (% incidence of decay) were evaluated. Preharvest bagging reduced fruit decay in the late-season cultivars, for which storage under darkness reduced fungal decay (up to 100%) more than storage under lighting treatment (47% reduction). Bagging altered the initial fruit quality, but values were within official recommendations. Storage conditions reduced differences attributed to bagging, especially under storage with lighting. This work highlighted the importance of modulating the light, both in the field by fruit bagging and during postharvest, to reduce fruit decay and improve fruit quality. These results may serve as a tool for both farmers and postharvest chain managers.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest bagging reduced fruit decay in late-season nectarine cultivars.

Material
late-season cultivarse1
Treatment
Preharvest bagginge1
Outcome
fruit decaye1
Direction
reducede1
Comparator
unbaggede0

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e1

“Preharvest bagging reduced fruit decay in the late-season cultivars, for which storage under darkness reduced fungal decay (up to 100%) more than storage under lighting treatment (47% reduction)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–992 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Storage under darkness reduced fungal decay in late-season nectarines by up to 100% more than storage under lighting.

Material
late-season cultivarse1
Treatment
storage under darknesse1
Outcome
fungal decaye1
Direction
reducede1
Value
up to 100%e1
Comparator
storage under lighting treatmente1

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e1

“Preharvest bagging reduced fruit decay in the late-season cultivars, for which storage under darkness reduced fungal decay (up to 100%) more than storage under lighting treatment (47% reduction)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–992 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Storage under lighting treatment reduced fungal decay by 47% in late-season nectarines.

Material
late-season cultivarse1
Treatment
storage under lighting treatmente1
Outcome
fungal decaye1
Direction
reductione1
Value
47%e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e1

“Preharvest bagging reduced fruit decay in the late-season cultivars, for which storage under darkness reduced fungal decay (up to 100%) more than storage under lighting treatment (47% reduction)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–992 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest bagging altered initial nectarine fruit quality, with values within official recommendations.

Treatment
Bagginge2
Outcome
initial fruit qualitye2
Direction
alterede2
Qualifier
values were within official recommendationse2
Comparator
unbaggede0

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e2

“Bagging altered the initial fruit quality, but values were within official recommendations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 994–1084 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Storage conditions reduced differences in nectarine fruit quality attributed to bagging, especially under storage with lighting.

Treatment
Storage conditionse3
Outcome
differences attributed to bagginge3
Direction
reducede3
Qualifier
especially under storage with lightinge3

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e3

“Storage conditions reduced differences attributed to bagging, especially under storage with lighting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1186 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Modulating the light, by bagging in the field and during postharvest storage, is important for reducing nectarine fruit decay and improving fruit quality.

Treatment
modulating the lighte4
Outcome
reduce fruit decay and improve fruit qualitye4

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Experiments were conducted with four organically grown nectarine cultivars (two early-mid season and two late-season) that were unbagged or bagged during preharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–491 · show in text ↑
e4

“This work highlighted the importance of modulating the light, both in the field by fruit bagging and during postharvest, to reduce fruit decay and improve fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1356 · show in text ↑

light · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

storage · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 22 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

trap barrier · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.