Fruit Cracking of a Susceptible, an Intermediate, and a Resistant Sweet Cherry Cultivar

Abstract

<jats:p>Fruit were studied to determine if anatomical and physiological features explain the difference in susceptibility to rain-induced cracking of the sweet cherry (<jats:italic>Prunus avium</jats:italic> L.) cultivars Sue (resistant), Lapins (moderately resistant), and Van (susceptible). Water uptake as a percentage of fruit weight at cracking tended to be high in `Sue', medium in `Lapins', and low in `Van' and was related to the percentage of cherries remaining sound after 4 hours of immersion, suggesting that this trait is a factor in determining resistance. Mesocarp cells of `Sue' were more rectangular in section than those of the other cultivars. Skin elasticity and thickness of the cuticle did not explain resistance of `Sue' to cracking. Magnesium, copper, and phosphorus mineral contents were not related to cracking susceptibility, but the content of calcium, which influences cell wall integrity, in the epidermis of `Sue' was lower than in `Van'. Calcium content was not different in the hypodermal cells of the two cultivars. None of the anatomical features examined in this study explain the resistance to fruit cracking of `Sue'.</jats:p>

Physiological and biochemical changes relating to postharvest splitting of sweet cherries affected by calcium application in hydrocooling water

“…Lane et al (2000) reported that Ca content in the epidermis of 'Sue' (resistant) was lower than in 'Van' (susceptible), and there was no difference of Ca content in the hypodermal cells between the two cultivars. It is possible that other factors such as anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics have a greater influence than Ca in determining splitting resistance differences between these cultivars (Balbontín et al, 2013;Christensen, 1996).…”

“…However, Glenn and Poovaiah (1989) revealed that a reduction in splitting potential of 'Bing' cherries by CaCl 2 at 2.5 mM (0.028%) was a result of increased splitting threshold and not a reduction in water absorption. Lane, Meheriuk, and Mckenzie (2000) reported that the water uptake threshold at which the fruit split (splitting threshold) is a major factor explaining the difference in splitting resistance of three cultivars ['Sue' (resistant), 'Lapins' (moderately resistant), and 'Van' (susceptible)]. This research indicated that the reduction in splitting potential by CaCl 2 at 0.2-2.0% at 0°C appeared to be a result of both reduction in water absorption rate and an increase in splitting threshold for the cultivars of 'Skeena' and 'Bing'.…”

Description of biomechanical forces and physiological parameters of fruit cracking in pomegranate

“…In a study, Emmons and Scott (1998) and Matas et al (2004) found that the cracking-resistant genotype of tomato had a thicker epidermal and cuticle layer than the sensitive genotype. In contrast, Lane et al (2000) suggested the skin's role in cracked resistance is related to the calcium content of the epidermis cells which increase the cell's integrity. This difference in the results might be reasoned to different mechanisms in fruits cracking.…”

“…In previous researches, have been reported the effect of fruits' morphological properties on cracking rate and intensity in agricultural crops; such as greenhouse tomato (Hetzroni et al, 2011;Lichter et al, 2002;Matas et al, 2004), sweet cherry (Lane et al, 2000), apple (Kasai et al, 2008), nectarine (Gibert et al, 2007). However, there is not exact information on how these factors affect cracking because of the complexity of influencing factors.…”

Quality evaluation of sour and duke cherries cultivated in south‐west Europe

“…Another very significant parameter is the resistance to cracking, which produces important economic losses. Cracking occurs during periods of high atmospheric humidity, when a large difference in water potential between tree and fruit can cause movement of water from the branches and leaves into the fruit . It can be caused by both external (environmental conditions) and internal (fruit characteristics) influences.…”