Abstract
The sap or latex injury in mango reduces fruit quality as it causes skin blemish during harvesting and postharvest handling. Sap volume and visual quality of ‘Carabao’ mango as affected by different harvest times during the day (every hour from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM), delay in cutting (hourly up to 6 h) of the pedicel at either the pedicel base or at the abscission zone and different desapping agents applied 1 or 7 h from harvest were assessed. Sap injury was assessed by allowing the sap to flow on the fruit after re-cutting the pedicel at the abscission zone. Sap volume was measured during harvesting while sap injury, days to table ripe stage, visual quality, weight loss, degree of anthracnose and stem end rot were assessed during fruit storage. The experiments were laid out using the completely randomized design. Sap volume ranged from 0.06 to 0.25 mL fruit-1. The lowest sap volume was recorded in fruit harvested in the afternoon between 1:00 and 5:00 PM, while the highest volume was noted at 7:00 and 10:00 AM. The relative humidity of the air was highest at 7:00 AM. Better quality at table ripe stage was noted in mango fruit harvested at 1:00 - 2:00 and 4:00 - 5:00 PM. Sap injury at different harvest times did not vary. The delay in the destemming up to 6 h and the location of cut or pedicel length did not affect sap volume and fruit quality. However, the cutting of the pedicel at the abscission zone rather than at the pedicel base tended to result in better quality, which helped delay fruit ripening. All desapping treatments, such as 1.0 % alum, 1.0 % detergent, 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2], and water, could control sap injury. Untreated fruit showed longer shelf life due to a lower degree of anthracnose. Stem-end rot did vary among desapping agents. Among the desapping treatments, water is found to reduce sap damage better. Harvesting later in the day, cutting at the abscission zone, and washing mangoes with water can reduce sap or latex damage in ‘Carabao’ mango.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Sap volume ranged from 0.06 to 0.25 mL per fruit.
- Taxon
- mango
_from_India.jpg?width=60)
Mangifera indicat0 - Outcome
- Sap volumee0
- Value
- 0.06 to 0.25 mL fruit-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_from_India.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Sap volume ranged from 0.06 to 0.25 mL fruit-1”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Afternoon harvest from 1 to 5 PM gave the lowest sap volume.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- fruit harvested in the afternoon between 1:00 and 5:00 PMe0
- Outcome
- sap volumee0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest sap volume was recorded in fruit harvested in the afternoon between 1:00 and 5:00 PM”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest at 7 and 10 AM gave the highest sap volume.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- 7:00 and 10:00 AMe0
- Outcome
- volumee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest volume was noted at 7:00 and 10:00 AM”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative humidity peaked at 7 AM.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Outcome
- relative humidity of the aire0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The relative humidity of the air was highest at 7:00 AM”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest at 1–2 PM yielded better table-ripe quality.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae0
- Treatment
- 1:00 - 2:00e0
- Outcome
- quality at table ripe stagee0
- Direction
- Bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Better quality at table ripe stage was noted in mango fruit harvested at 1:00 - 2:00 and 4:00 - 5:00 PM”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest at 4–5 PM yielded better table-ripe quality.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae0
- Treatment
- 4:00 - 5:00 PMe0
- Outcome
- quality at table ripe stagee0
- Direction
- Bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Better quality at table ripe stage was noted in mango fruit harvested at 1:00 - 2:00 and 4:00 - 5:00 PM”
Claim · model-written summary
Sap injury did not vary by harvest time.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- different harvest timese0
- Outcome
- Sap injurye0
- Direction
- did not varye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sap injury at different harvest times did not vary”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying destemming up to six hours did not affect sap volume or quality.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- delay in the destemming up to 6 he0
- Outcome
- sap volume and fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The delay in the destemming up to 6 h and the location of cut or pedicel length did not affect sap volume and fruit quality”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Pedicel cut location and length did not affect sap volume or quality.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- location of cut or pedicel lengthe0
- Outcome
- sap volume and fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the location of cut or pedicel length did not affect sap volume and fruit quality”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting at the abscission zone tended to improve quality and delay ripening relative to the base.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- cutting of the pedicel at the abscission zonee0
- Outcome
- better quality, which helped delay fruit ripeninge0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- at the pedicel basee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cutting of the pedicel at the abscission zone rather than at the pedicel base tended to result in better quality, which helped delay fruit ripening”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Alum controlled sap injury.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- 1.0 % alume0
- Outcome
- sap injurye0
- Direction
- controle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All desapping treatments, such as 1.0 % alum, 1.0 % detergent, 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2], and water, could control sap injury”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Detergent controlled sap injury.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- 1.0 % detergente0
- Outcome
- sap injurye0
- Direction
- controle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All desapping treatments, such as 1.0 % alum, 1.0 % detergent, 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2], and water, could control sap injury”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime controlled sap injury.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2]e0
- Outcome
- sap injurye0
- Direction
- controle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All desapping treatments, such as 1.0 % alum, 1.0 % detergent, 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2], and water, could control sap injury”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Water controlled sap injury.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- watere0
- Outcome
- sap injurye0
- Direction
- controle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All desapping treatments, such as 1.0 % alum, 1.0 % detergent, 0.5 % lime [Ca(OH)2], and water, could control sap injury”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated fruit had longer shelf life because of less anthracnose.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- Untreated fruite0
- Interactor
- anthracnosee0pathogen
- Outcome
- shelf lifee0
- Direction
- longere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Untreated fruit showed longer shelf life due to a lower degree of anthracnose”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem-end rot varied among desapping agents.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- desapping agentse0
- Outcome
- Stem-end rote0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stem-end rot did vary among desapping agents”
t0“mango”
Claim · model-written summary
Water reduced sap damage more than other desapping treatments.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- watere0
- Outcome
- sap damagee0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Comparator
- desapping treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the desapping treatments, water is found to reduce sap damage better”
t0“mango”
The same questions in other papers
calcium monohydroxide · crop injury · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
mycorrhiza · growth · Mangifera indica (mango)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
lime · crop injury · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
pruning · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.