Paper · 2012 · Acta Horticulturae

EFFECTS OF PREHARVEST AND POSTHARVEST 1-METHYLCYCLOPROPENE TREATMENT ON EXTERNAL CO2 INJURY IN APPLES DURING STORAGE

J.R. DeEll; B. Ehsani-Moghaddam

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of preharvest and postharvest 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) treatment on the incidence of external CO2 injury in apples during storage. During a period of 4 years, 'McIntosh' or 'Empire' trees were either untreated or sprayed 7 to 11 days before harvest with 1-MCP (Harvista). Following harvest, apples were cooled overnight and then treated within 7 days with or without 1-MCP (SmartFresh) for 24 hours at 3°C. Apples were subsequently held in controlled atmosphere (CA) at 3°C for 6 or 9-9½ months. Apples from trees sprayed with Harvista and/or treated with SmartFresh developed more external CO2 injury, compared to those not treated. The incidence was greatest in SmartFresh-treated fruit that had been sprayed with Harvista containing the highest 1-MCP concentration, while less CO2 injury developed when SmartFresh was applied closer to harvest. The usual 1-MCP effect of improved firmness retention was observed throughout.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Apples from 1-MCP-sprayed trees and SmartFresh-treated fruit developed more external CO2 injury than untreated fruit.

Material
'McIntosh' or 'Empire'e2
Treatment
sprayed with Harvista and/or treated with SmartFreshe1
Outcome
external CO2 injurye1
Direction
moree1
Comparator
those not treatede1

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“EXTERNAL CO2 INJURY IN APPLES DURING STORAGE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“Apples from trees sprayed with Harvista and/or treated with SmartFresh developed more external CO2 injury, compared to those not treated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–695 · show in text ↑
e2

“'McIntosh' or 'Empire' trees were either untreated or sprayed 7 to 11 days before harvest with 1-MCP (Harvista)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 222–333 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The greatest CO2 injury incidence was in SmartFresh-treated fruit sprayed with the highest 1-MCP concentration in Harvista.

Treatment
SmartFresh-treated fruit that had been sprayed with Harvista containing the highest 1-MCP concentratione2
Outcome
incidencee2
Direction
greateste2

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

t0

“EXTERNAL CO2 INJURY IN APPLES DURING STORAGE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–116 · show in text ↑
e2

“The incidence was greatest in SmartFresh-treated fruit that had been sprayed with Harvista containing the highest 1-MCP concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 697–830 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Less CO2 injury developed when SmartFresh was applied closer to harvest.

Treatment
SmartFresh was applied closer to harveste2
Outcome
CO2 injurye2
Direction
lesse2

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

t0

“EXTERNAL CO2 INJURY IN APPLES DURING STORAGE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–116 · show in text ↑
e2

“less CO2 injury developed when SmartFresh was applied closer to harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 838–909 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1-MCP improved firmness retention throughout storage.

Treatment
1-MCPe4
Outcome
firmness retentione4
Direction
improvede4

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

t0

“EXTERNAL CO2 INJURY IN APPLES DURING STORAGE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–116 · show in text ↑
e4

“The usual 1-MCP effect of improved firmness retention was observed throughout”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–988 · show in text ↑

1-methylcyclopropene · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

49 papers: 33 positive, 16 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

120 papers: 113 positive, 7 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

116 papers more in this group

See all 120 papers →

application · crop injury · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 7 positive, 18 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

application · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

107 papers: 80 positive, 27 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 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.