Preharvest Modulation of Postharvest Fruit and Vegetable Quality 2018
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-809807-3.00009-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preharvest Sprays Affecting Shelf Life and Storage Potential of Fruits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 143 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are reports where pre-harvest applications of calcium did not affect the TSS in blueberry fruits (Lobos et al, 2021), apples (Fallahi and Mahdavi, 2020) or pepper (Marín et al, 2009); however, according to Rahman et al (2016), fruits generally present a higher amount of TSS when they do not receive calcium applications, as seen in this research, where the TSS value was 15.7% without calcium applications but, when calcium was applied in doses of 100 kg ha -1 , the TSS value was 15.3%. Also, Khan and Ali (2018) reported that the results of preharvest Ca applications, in many cases, are erratic and even contradictory, possibly because of genotypic differences among varieties and fruit species or Ca concentrations and formulations used (Lara, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are reports where pre-harvest applications of calcium did not affect the TSS in blueberry fruits (Lobos et al, 2021), apples (Fallahi and Mahdavi, 2020) or pepper (Marín et al, 2009); however, according to Rahman et al (2016), fruits generally present a higher amount of TSS when they do not receive calcium applications, as seen in this research, where the TSS value was 15.7% without calcium applications but, when calcium was applied in doses of 100 kg ha -1 , the TSS value was 15.3%. Also, Khan and Ali (2018) reported that the results of preharvest Ca applications, in many cases, are erratic and even contradictory, possibly because of genotypic differences among varieties and fruit species or Ca concentrations and formulations used (Lara, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ethylene biosynthesis pathway is composed, essentially, of three phases, starting with the formation of S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM; phase 1), followed by the transformation of SAM into 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC; phase 2), which serves as a substrate for ethylene formation (phase 3) (Borjas-Ventura et al, 2020). The AVG inhibit the conversion of SAM into ACC in phase 2 (Khan Ali, 2018). Nevertheless, as expected, the effects of AVG depend on the dosage and its frequency, as well as on the cultivar under study (Arruda, 2017;Loría, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, in leaves with 100% damage (frost injury), the inhibitory effect of AVG was much weaker and similar to the effect of propyl gallate (PG), a free radical scavenger [ 97 ]. Preharvest application of ethylene inhibitors can be used for modulation of post-harvest fruit and vegetable quality [ 98 ]. Similarly, ethylene scavenger techniques are often used in delaying the ripening of fruits and vegetables [ 99 , 100 ].…”
Section: Manipulation Of the Physiological State Of Plants In Order T...mentioning
confidence: 99%