Abstract
Many biotic and abiotic parameters affect the metabolites involved in the organoleptic and health value of fruits. It is therefore important to understand how the growers' decisions for cultivar and orchard management can affect the fruit composition. Practices, cultivars and/or year all might participate to determine fruit composition. To hierarchize these factors, fruit weight, dry matter, soluble solids contents, titratable acidity, individual sugars and organics acids, and phenolics were measured in three apple cultivars ('Ariane', 'Melrose' and 'Smoothee') managed under organic, low-input and conventional management. Apples were harvested at commercial maturity in the orchards of the cropping system experiment BioREco at INRA Gotheron (Drôme, 26) over the course of three years (2011, 2012 and 2013). The main factors affecting primary and secondary metabolites, in both apple skin and flesh, were by far the cultivar and the yearly conditions, while the management system had a very limited effect. When considering the three cultivars and the year 2011 to investigate the effect of the management system per se, only few compounds differed significantly between the three systems and in particular the total phenolic content did not differ significantly between systems. Finally, when considering orchards grown in the same pedoclimatic conditions and of the same age, instead of the usual organic vs. conventional comparison, the effect of the management system on the apple fruit quality (Fruit weight, dry matter, soluble solids content, titratable acidity, individual sugars, organic acids, and phenolics) was very limited to non-significant. The main factors of variation were the cultivar and the year of cropping rather than the cropping system. More generally, as each management system (e.g. conventional, organic…) encompasses a great variability of practices, this highlights the importance of accurately documenting orchard practices and design beside the generic type of management in such studies.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar strongly affected primary and secondary metabolites in apple skin and flesh.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Material
- cultivare0
- Organ / stage
- apple skin and fleshe0
- Outcome
- primary and secondary metabolitese0
- Direction
- affectinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The main factors affecting primary and secondary metabolites, in both apple skin and flesh, were by far the cultivar and the yearly conditions, while the management system had a very limited effect.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Yearly conditions strongly affected primary and secondary metabolites in apple skin and flesh.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- apple skin and fleshe0
- Outcome
- primary and secondary metabolitese0
- Direction
- affectinge0
- Setting
- yearly conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The main factors affecting primary and secondary metabolites, in both apple skin and flesh, were by far the cultivar and the yearly conditions, while the management system had a very limited effect.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Management system had a very limited effect on apple primary and secondary metabolites.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- management systeme0
- Outcome
- primary and secondary metabolitese0
- Direction
- very limited effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The main factors affecting primary and secondary metabolites, in both apple skin and flesh, were by far the cultivar and the yearly conditions, while the management system had a very limited effect.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Total phenolic content did not differ significantly between the three management systems in 2011.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- management systeme0
- Outcome
- total phenolic contente0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- between systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When considering the three cultivars and the year 2011 to investigate the effect of the management system per se, only few compounds differed significantly between the three systems and in particular the total phenolic content did not differ significantly between systems.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Only a few apple compounds differed significantly among management systems in 2011.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- management systeme0
- Outcome
- compoundse0
- Direction
- differede0
- Comparator
- three systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When considering the three cultivars and the year 2011 to investigate the effect of the management system per se, only few compounds differed significantly between the three systems and in particular the total phenolic content did not differ significantly between systems.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend accurate documentation of orchard practices and study design when comparing management systems.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- accurately documenting orchard practices and designe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this highlights the importance of accurately documenting orchard practices and design beside the generic type of management in such studies.”
t0“Apple Fruit”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · quality: phytochemicals · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.