Paper · 2010 · View

Controlling Gloeosporium rot on Pinova apple fruits. Part 2: Evaluation of different pre- and postharvest treatments.

Markus Kelderer; Claudio Casera; E. Lardschneider; et al.

6
claims
18
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In South Tyrol (Italy), the organic apple market is becoming increasingly interested in the variety Pinova. This variety is appealing in terms of yield, appearance and taste, and is less susceptible to apple scab (Venturia inaequalis) than other varieties commonly grown in South Tyrol. However, the variety is susceptible to Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album), difficult to control especially in moist years and/or in case of delayed harvest. Under these conditions, postharvest yield losses of up to 50% may occur. Over the last years, several different approaches to reduce yield losses have been evaluated. Preharvest acid clay (Mycosin and Ulmasud) sprays and postharvest hot water dipping treatments showed highest efficacy in reducing Gloeosporium rot. The results obtained with these control tools were presented in Part 1, while the activity of other products, which are still under discussion for the use in organic organic farming, are presented in Part 2.

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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pinova was less susceptible to apple scab than other commonly grown varieties.

Material
Pinovae1
Interactor
Venturia inaequalisVenturia inaequalise0pathogen
Outcome
susceptible to apple scabe0
Direction
less susceptiblee0
Comparator
other varieties commonly grown in South Tyrole0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Venturia inaequalis
Venturia inaequalis · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“less susceptible to apple scab (Venturia inaequalis) than other varieties commonly grown in South Tyrol”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 182–285 · show in text ↑
e1

“the variety Pinova”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–106 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pinova was susceptible to Gloeosporium rot.

Material
Pinovae1
Interactor
Gloeosporium albumPhlyctema vagabundae0pathogen
Outcome
susceptible to Gloeosporium rote0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“the variety is susceptible to Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–363 · show in text ↑
e1

“the variety Pinova”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–106 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under moist years or delayed harvest, postharvest losses can reach 50%.

Material
Pinovat0
Interactor
Gloeosporium albumPhlyctema vagabundae1pathogen
Outcome
postharvest yield lossese0
Value
up to 50%e0
Qualifier
moist years and/or in case of delayed harveste0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“difficult to control especially in moist years and/or in case of delayed harvest. Under these conditions, postharvest yield losses of up to 50% may occur.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 365–519 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–363 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinova apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest Mycosin acid clay sprays had high efficacy against Gloeosporium rot.

Treatment
Mycosine0
Interactor
Gloeosporium albumPhlyctema vagabundae1pathogen
Outcome
Gloeosporium rote0
Direction
reducinge0

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

e0

“Preharvest acid clay (Mycosin and Ulmasud) sprays and postharvest hot water dipping treatments showed highest efficacy in reducing Gloeosporium rot.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–762 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–363 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinova apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest Ulmasud acid clay sprays had high efficacy against Gloeosporium rot.

Treatment
Ulmasude0
Interactor
Gloeosporium albumPhlyctema vagabundae1pathogen
Outcome
Gloeosporium rote0
Direction
reducinge0

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

e0

“Preharvest acid clay (Mycosin and Ulmasud) sprays and postharvest hot water dipping treatments showed highest efficacy in reducing Gloeosporium rot.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–762 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–363 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinova apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Postharvest hot water dipping had high efficacy against Gloeosporium rot.

Treatment
postharvest hot water dipping treatmentse0
Interactor
Gloeosporium albumPhlyctema vagabundae1pathogen
Outcome
Gloeosporium rote0
Direction
reducinge0

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

e0

“postharvest hot water dipping treatments showed highest efficacy in reducing Gloeosporium rot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–761 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gloeosporium rot (Gloeosporium album)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–363 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinova apple fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–51 · show in text ↑

application · Phlyctema vagabunda · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

heat · Phlyctema vagabunda · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.