Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tc
La
b
c
d
a
ARRA
KGE1CEP
1
vgld$eE
fdbeT
ST
(
0h
Scientia Horticulturae 157 (2013) 13–18
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Scientia Horticulturae
journa l h om epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /sc ihor t i
he harvest period of mangosteen fruit can be extended by chemicalontrol of ripening—A proof of concept study
adawan Lerslerwonga,d,∗, Adirek Rugkonga,d, Wachiraya Imsabaib,d, Saichol Ketsac,d
Faculty of Natural Resources, Department of Plant Science, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90112, ThailandFaculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Department of Horticulture, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom 74130, ThailandFaculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, ThailandPostharvest Technology Innovation Center, Commission of Higher Education, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 27 August 2012eceived in revised form 25 March 2013ccepted 26 March 2013
eywords:arcinia mangostana L.thephon-MCP
a b s t r a c t
Mangosteen is an economically important crop in Southeast Asia. However, the harvest period of mangos-teen fruit is rather short and effective methods to expand the harvest period and lessen the peak workloadare desirable. We investigated the preharvest applications of ethephon or 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP)for their effects on harvest date, ethylene production, and mangosteen fruit quality. 1-MCP is availableas tablets that we applied on fruit as a sprayed solution as well as by fumigation, respectively.
The ripening of mangosteen fruit was significantly affected by the treatments, so that harvest datewas advanced to an earlier time with ethephon and delayed to a later time by 1-MCP when using colordevelopment to guide harvest (at stage 0, pericarp uniformly yellowish-white or with a light green tinge
limactericthylenereharvest
or grayish spotting). The induced changes of harvest time are each of the order one to two weeks. Theeffectiveness of these chemicals is associated with the maturity stage of intact fruit. The increase periodof ethylene production occurs concomitantly with unchanged fruit weight at its stationary phase ofdevelopment. However, the ethylene production of harvested fruit was not affected by the treatments.The preharvest application of ethephon or 1-MCP, at climacteric maturity of fruit, has potential use inaltering the harvest period of mangosteen products to earlier or later dates.
. Introduction
Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) is a fruit with economicalue due to its excellent flavor and richness in nutrients. Man-osteen is grown widely in Southeast Asia, and Thailand is theeading exporter of mangosteen globally. In 2011, Thailand pro-uced 109,200 tons of mangosteen, and their export was valued at65.6 million. However, only a small fraction of the yield goes forxport: in 2010 that fraction was 8.67% (Office of Agricultural andconomics, 2011).
The yield of a mangosteen tree depends on environmentalactors, especially climatic variability. With suitable weather con-itions for flowering, a large crop of mangosteen will be produced,
ut the fruit may have quality issues preventing export (Apiratikornt al., 2012). Furthermore, the harvest season of mangosteen inhailand is short at about 1.5–2 months, lasting only from July to∗ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Natural Resources, Department of Plantcience, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90112, Thailand.el.: +66 74 28 6145; fax: +66 74 55 8803.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. Lerslerwong).
304-4238/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.03.027
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
September (in season) and from December to January (off-season)(Office of Agricultural and Economics, 2011). Effective methodscapable of altering the harvest window by promoting (ethephonfor early season) or delaying (1-MCP for late season) the ripeningon select trees would be welcome to effectively provide a longerharvest period in a mangosteen orchard.
Ethylene is directly involved in the ripening of climac-teric fruit, and ethylene releasing compounds such as 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid (ethephon) are used in commercialpractice to accelerate maturation and ripening of various fruitspecies (Lurie, 2000). However, little is known about the effectsof ethephon on mangosteen fruit in the tree.
The ethylene action inhibitor 1-MCP is widely used todelay ripening and maintain quality of numerous commodities(Blankenship and Dole, 2003; Watkins, 2008; Watkins et al., 2010),but these are mostly postharvest applications. The application of1-MCP before harvest has been investigated for the specific pur-pose of controlling leaf abscission in whole trees in the field: 1-MCPformulated as SmartFreshTM powder was dissolved into a spray
tank containing the abscission agents and ethephon, and appliedimmediately to canopies of ‘Hamlin’ and ‘Valencia’ varieties (Citrussinensis L.) (Pozo et al., 2004). Because 1-MCP has a gaseous activeingredient (Blankenship and Dole, 2003; Watkins, 2008; Watkins
1 a Hort
e(htpfDa2
1tIaa
2
2
tP
2
fIuTosmastusweiss(
iTcpgK2twurTf
2
(s
4 L. Lerslerwong et al. / Scienti
t al., 2010), it is volatile and will not persist after applicationYuan and Carbaugh, 2007). Therefore, a 1-MCP spray formulationas been developed and applied in an apple orchard to delay harvestime, by Moggia and Pereira (2007). They also studied the effects ofreharvest 1-MCP on ethylene biosynthesis, preharvest fruit drop,ruit maturity, and the quality of ‘Golden Supreme’ and ‘Goldenelicious’ apples. Recently, 1-MCP has been applied on fig treest the fig’s pre-climacteric stage, to delay ripening (Freiman et al.,012).
While there is no prior information on the effects of ethephon or-MCP on the ripening of mangosteen fruit on the tree, our objec-ive was to determine the effects of their pre-harvest application.f the harvesting period of mangosteen could be controlled andltered to some extent, it would have benefits for both producersnd consumers of mangosteen.
. Materials and methods
.1. Plant material
The experiments were conducted on twelve-year-old mangos-een trees in a research station of the Faculty of Natural Resources,rince of Songkla University, Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand.
.2. Fruit development and maturation and ethylene production
Generally, the fruits of mangosteen take 5–6 months to maturerom fruit set. Fruit development takes 100–120 days from anthesis.n this study, fruits were collected from 14 days after full bloomntil harvest at a week interval for analyses of fruit development.he growth patterns of mangosteen fruit were determined basedn fresh weight of twenty-five fruit from ten trees. At maturitytage, the fruit was evaluated by visual examination according to aethod developed and modified by Tongdee and Suwanagul (1989)
nd Palapol et al. (2009a,b), respectively. There are seven maturitytages, 0–6, defined by the extent of red or purple coloration onhe pericarp: the maturity of fruit on tree starts at stage 0 (pericarpniformly yellowish-white or with a light green tinge or grayishpotting), the fruit was harvested at stage 1 (light greenish yellowith 5–50% scattered pink spots, minimum stage for harvesting to
xport). The remaining maturity stages for harvested mangosteennclude: stage 2 (light greenish yellow with 51–100% scattered pinkpots), stage 3 (spots not as distinct as in stage 2 or reddish pink),tage 4 (red to reddish purple), stage 5 (dark purple) and stage 6black purple).
In 2010, five fruits from six trees of development from bloom-ng to harvesting were weekly measured for ethylene production.he fruit were individually weighed and placed into 320 mL plasticontainers fitted with gas sampling ports. After 10 min, air sam-les were collected with a syringe. Composition of the headspaceas was measured with a gas chromatograph (Shimadzu GC 8A,yoto, Japan), equipped with a flame ionization detector, and a.1-m stainless steel column with an inner diameter of 4 mm, con-aining activated alumina of 80/100 mesh. The column temperatureas 80 ◦C. Injector and detector temperatures were 150 ◦C. The val-es of five gas samples at a measuring point were averaged, andesults expressed per kilogram fresh weight of the plant material.he ethylene productions of harvested fruit were evaluated dailyor 3 days.
.3. Preharvest chemical treatments
The experiments were conducted in two consecutive years2009 and 2010). Randomized complete block designs with seveningle-tree replications per treatment were used in all trials.
iculturae 157 (2013) 13–18
Twenty-five individual mangosteen fruit from each of the treat-ments were chosen by tagging on 21 March 2009 and 7 May 2010,at approximately the 2 weeks after anthesis.
Preharvest chemical treatments were conducted in threetrials. First, fruit were sprayed with the solution of 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid (ethephon, 48% a.i.) at 250 and500 ml L−1. Second, fruit were sprayed with the solution of 10 and20 tablets of 1-MCP which express 0.19% a.i. per pellet (1.2 g),AnsiP®; Lytone Enterprise Inc., Taiwan. The pellets of 1-MCP wereground and dissolved in 5 L of water in a 10 L spray tank, 0.1%v/v LATRON® CS-7 adjuvant (ZAGRO (Thailand) Ltd., Thailand) wasadded, and the tank immediately covered with a lid. The mixturesat each concentration were sprayed immediately on whole man-gosteen fruit to the point of runoff. The concentration of 1-MCPwas expressed in terms of the active ingredient (a.i.). Third, thewhole fruit were fumigated with one-eighth 1-MCP tablets (0.15 g).Each tablet piece was wrapped in moist cotton and then closed ina 15 × 28 cm polyethylene bag. Specifically, the bags were madeof low density polyethylene (LDPE) with density 0.92 g cm−3. Man-gosteen fruit was fumigated in the closed polyethylene bag for 24 h,and on the next day the bottom of the bag was opened with a cut-ter for ventilation. The fruit without any of these treatments wereused as control. Application of pre-harvest chemicals in each trialwas made to the individual fruit on 16 May 2009 and 5 July 2010,at approximately the 10 weeks after anthesis. Time from treatmentto harvest of fruit at stage 1 was recorded as number of days.
2.4. Fruit quality assessment
Mangosteen fruit were harvested at stage 1 and stored at roomtemperature (30 ± 2 ◦C) until the peel color turned dark purple(stage 5), in practice for 3 days, before further physiological assess-ments and quality analysis. Ten fruit of each tree were measuredfor firmness, soluble solid concentration (SSC) and titratable acidity(TA).
Pericarp and flesh firmnesses were measured on two sides ofeach fruit using Firmness tester (Diichi, Japan) equipped with acylindrical plunger 0.5 cm in diameter. The plunger was insertedto a depth of 0.5 cm and the force recorded in Newtons.
Fruit juice was obtained individually by hand squeezing the fruitflesh of arils, with seeds, through gauze cloth. To measure SSC, ahand-held refractometer (Brix RHB-32ATC, China) was used andcalibrated with distilled water. TA was determined in triplicatetitrations of 3 ml juice with 0.1 NaOH, and the results expressed asgrams of milliequivalent weight of citric acid. The ratio of SSC:TAwas also calculated.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)using R program version 2.12.2. Least significant differences (LSD)were calculated to compare for significant effects at the 5% level.
3. Results
3.1. Fruit growth and maturation process
Fruit growth and development of mangosteen from fruit set orafter full bloom to harvest stage takes approximately 12–13 weeks(Fig. 1). The growth pattern based on fruit weight was a simpleincreasing sigmoid curve. At the beginning of fruit set, the ethylene
production was highest at approximately 64 nl kg−1 h−1 and thendropped sharply. Fruit at age 2–9 weeks did not show ethyleneproduction. Then, ethylene production re-appeared at the fruit age10–12, at approximately 15 nl kg−1 h−1, during the steady stage of
L. Lerslerwong et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 157 (2013) 13–18 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 harvest
Frui
t wei
ght (
g)
Ethy
lene
pro
duct
ion
(nl k
g-1h-1
)
Weeks aft er bloo min g
Fruit weight
Ethylene prod uction
F wer bs ata p
fl
3p
cwsa
3h
ei4bwMts
THpf
s
ig. 1. Ethylene production of mangosteen during fruit development from the flocattered pinkish spots) in 2010. Label B on time axis represents flower blooming. D
ruit weight. Harvest stage fruit showed a small decrease in ethy-ene production.
.2. Effects of preharvest ethephon or 1-MCP on ethyleneroduction of harvested mangosteen fruit
Pre-harvest ethephon and 1-MCP treatments did not signifi-antly affect ethylene production of postharvest mangosteen fruit,hen compared to control (Fig. 2). However, ethephon treatments
ignificantly affect on ethylene production of mangosteen fruitfter harvest 3 days (Fig. 2A).
.3. The effects of preharvest ethephon or 1-MCP treatment onarvest date
Preharvest ethephon application showed limited promotingffects on mangosteen fruit ripening in 2009, by 4–5 days, whereast effectively promoted ripening in the trials during 2010, by at least–9 days, when applied approximately 13 and 12 days, respectively,efore expected untreated harvest (Table 1). Earlier harvest dates
ere observed with higher ethephon concentrations. In 2009, 1-CP treatments were found to be ineffective on ripening. However,he successful application of 1-MCP spray was done in 2010, andhowed that 20 tablets of 1-MCP significantly delayed ripening by 7
able 1arvest dates at stage 1 of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) fruit, treated withre-harvest application of ethephon or 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP). Untreatedruit are labeled as “control”.
Treatments Harvest dates at stage 1 aftertreatment (days)a
Year 2009 Year 2010
Ethephon sprayControl 13.1 a 11.5 aEthephon 250 ml L−1 9.1 b 6.2 bEthephon 500 ml L−1 8.6 b 2.5 c
1-MCP sprayControl 16.5 a 13.7 b1-MCP 10 tablets 15.9 a 9.8 c1-MCP 20 tablets 16.7 a 20.6 a
1-MCP fumigationControl 14.7 a 9.7 b1-MCP fumigation 16.1 a 23.3 a
a Means followed by different letters in the same column within each trial areignificantly different at P = 0.05, using LSD.
looming until harvest fruit at stage 1 (pericarp light greenish yellow with 5–50%oints shown are means of 5 fruit ± S.E.
days, when applied two weeks before expected untreated harvest.However, 1-MCP fumigation was even more effective than 1-MCPspray, in terms of inducing longer delays in ripening. Harvest date offruit fumigated with 1-MCP was delayed approximately two weekswhen applied at 10 days before expected untreated harvest.
3.4. Effects of preharvest ethephon or 1-MCP on fruit quality
When the peel color had turned dark purple at stage 5, orapproximately 3 days after harvest, the firmness showed no signif-icant treatment effects in the first year of study (Table 2). However,in the second year, both pericarp and flesh of ethephon treated fruitwere firmer than control, to such degree that it can be considereda quality problem. Another problem with the ethephon treatmentwas leaf abscission after application.
The flesh of fruit treated with 1-MCP spray was firmer than con-trol only in 2010, but 1-MCP fumigation did not affect firmness ineither of the two years.
In these two consecutive years, the mangosteen had relativelylow SSC:TA ratio, which was affected by the 500 ml L−1 ethep-hon treatment, but the lower concentration 250 ml L−1 ethephontreatment had no such effect. However, the SSC:TA ratios of the 1-MCP sprayed fruit were elevated. The 1-MCP fumigation treatmentsinduced relatively high SSC:TA only in the second year.
4. Discussion
Mangosteen is a climacteric fruit – it has a pattern of ethyleneproduction that correlates with color development and biochemi-cal changes after harvest (Siriphanich, 2002; Paull and Ketsa, 2004;Palapol et al., 2009b). Still, the ripening of harvested fruit at stage 1could not be induced by exogenous ethylene (Piriyavinit and Ketsa,2008). Previously, we did a preliminary study of 1-MCP fumigationapplied on intact fruit of mangosteen at one week before harvest,fruit at stage 0. Such preharvest application of 1-MCP delayed theripening of fruit at stage 1 by approximately six days (Lerslerwongand Plaiduang, 2009). The results in 2010 confirmed those pre-liminary results, showing that both 1-MCP spray and fumigationdelayed ripening, while ethephon treatments promoted the harvestof mangosteen fruit to an earlier time (Table 1). This demonstrateschemical control of the ripening of mangosteen fruit while intact
on the tree.The results also related with the ethylene production duringfruit development: immature mangosteen fruit at 2–9 weeks afterblooming produced negligible or undetectable ethylene, and then
16 L. Lerslerwong et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 157 (2013) 13–18
Table 2Fruit quality of mangosteen with pre-harvest applications of ethephon or 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP). Untreated fruit are labeled as “control”.
Trials/Treatments Year 2009 Year 2010
Firmness (N) %SSC %TA SSC:TA ratio Firmness (N) %SSC %TA SSC:TA ratio
Pericarp Flesh Pericarp Flesh
Ethephon sprayControl 10.5 a 2.6 a 16.9 a 0.62 a 28.1 a 14.5 c 2.6 b 17.5 a 0.70 a 28.3 bEthephon 250 ml L−1 11.0 a 2.9 a 16.6 a 0.62 a 28.1 a 16.3 b 2.8 b 16.2 b 0.57 c 29.2 aEthephon 500 ml L−1 10.1 a 2.7 a 16.6 a 0.69 a 24.5 b 19.2 a 3.1 a 15.9 b 0.63 b 26.3 c
1-MCP sprayControl 10.5 a 2.6 a 14.4 b 0.66 a 25.9 b 17.0 a 1.8 b 16.4 a 0.70 a 23.5 c1-MCP 10 tablets 10.6 a 2.5 a 17.0 a 0.64 a 27.6 a 17.8 a 2.4 a 15.3 b 0.64 b 24.4 b1-MCP 20 tablets 10.1 a 2.7 a 16.8 a 0.65 a 27.2 a 16.8 a 2.9 a 15.7 b 0.62 b 25.4 a
1-MCP fumigationControl 9.9 a 3.0 a 17.5 a 0.60 a 28.1 a 16.5 a 2.4 a 15.9 a 0.65 a 24.4 b
27.7 a
M signifi
t(wttpctPihtactmeartcsfwfo
rdttftodhfsrl2
tbtww
1-MCP 9.6 a 3.0 a 17.6 a 0.65 a
ean values followed by different letters in the same column within each trial are
he levels re-appeared by an increase at three weeks before harvestFig. 1). The increase of ethylene production occurs concomitantlyith stable fruit weight at its stationary phase of development,
hese being fully matured fruit based on their weight. Moreover,he application of ethephon or 1-MCP did not affect the ethyleneroduction on the observed three days after harvest (Fig. 2). Skinolor is the major criterion used to judge maturity of mangos-een fruit (Tongdee and Suwanagul, 1989; Paull and Ketsa, 2004;alapol et al., 2009a,b). Additionally, mangosteen fruit can developntense red color both on the tree and, more unusually, afterarvest (Palapol et al., 2009a); and the color development is con-rolled by the regulation of enzymes and genes associated with thenthocyanin biosynthesis pathway. This confirms that the actuallimacteric of mangosteen fruit starts in the preharvest period, buthe exact time of climacteric ethylene peak remained not deter-
ined. However, our Fig. 1 shows the apparent long ethylenevolution period starting from 3 weeks before harvest. Unlikely,pplication of 1-MCP before the rise of ethylene peak delayed theipening of figs (Freiman et al., 2012). Our observations of mangos-een are unlike those for figs, where application during the ethylenelimacteric period. This might be caused from the varying maturitytages of mangosteen fruit used in this experiment. Mangosteenruit commonly do not mature and ripen uniformly, and each treeill bear coexisting generations of fruits, resulting from continuous
ormation of flowers. Therefore, not all the fruit will reach maturityr ripen at the same time (Osman and Milan, 2006).
Besides, fruit from the same plant often vary greatly in matu-ation time in different years, because the fruit development alsoepends on weather conditions. Mangosteen is a seasonal fruit thatakes about 5–6 months from flowering to fruit ripening. Also,he development rates depend on weather conditions, and theruiting season can occasionally begin 4 to 6 weeks earlier thanypical (Osman and Milan, 2006). The fluctuations in rainfall andther climatic variability cause uncertain phenology including fruitevelopment of mangosteen. The time it takes from blooming toarvest has been different in each year. Apiratikorn et al. (2012)
ound that fruit development occurred in a short period of time inuch years that had long drought period and low cumulative annualainfall. Also, mangosteen fruit development from anthesis takesonger in cooler areas or at higher elevations (Osman and Milan,006).
In 2009, we had no success in controlling ripening of mangos-een by pre-harvest application of 1-MCP (Table 1). This may be
ecause mangosteen fruit was not treated with 1-MCP at the rightime of climacteric peak. The application dates in this experimentere determined by counting the weeks after anthesis on 50% of ahole tree. Moreover, mangosteen fruit development is different in16.1 a 2.2 a 16.0 a 0.60 a 26.8 a
cantly different at P = 0.05, using LSD.
each year. Hence, the varying nature of mangosteen fruit ripeningmay also have contributed to different results in two consecutiveyears. The fruit are usually harvested at different maturity stagesaccording to color, from light greenish yellow with scattered pinkspots to dark purple (stage 1–6) (Palapol et al., 2009b) as previ-ously described. In our case, treatments by 1-MCP did not delayripening when application was made before the fruits reaching tomaturity stage. Thus, too early preharvest 1-MCP application hadno desired effect. Some studies show that a shorter time intervalbetween 1-MCP application and harvest generally gives a strongereffect on fruit maturity, for apple (Elfving et al., 2007; McArtneyet al., 2008) and pear (Villalobos-Acuna et al., 2010). This agreeswith our results that fruit ripening effects were dependent on timebetween application and harvest. The ripening would be delayedwhen applying 1-MCP at stage 0, close to harvest at stage 1. Besides,this suggests that mangosteen fruit are sensitive when producingethylene related to maturity: chemical manipulation will only beeffective during this sensitive stage.
Both counting the weeks after anthesis and the maturity stagejudged by color should be used together to minimize the variabil-ity of mangosteen fruit maturity, especially for the application ofchemicals. Furthermore, it might be useful to study whether repet-itive application could be used to treat all fruit similarly, regardlessof their individual ripening stages. Thus, the chemical control tech-niques explored in this work could be further developed to makethem practical.
Although pre-harvest ethephon treatments could promote theripening process, we also found some disadvantages. The fruit hadmore cases of unusually hardened pericarps, which is a physiologi-cal disorder in mangosteen. This may have been because ethephonwas applied at too early stage. Mangosteen fruit should be pickedat or after stage 1. If fruit are harvested at a light greenish yellowwithout scattered pink spots, stage 0 or earlier, they will not ripento full flavor (Tongdee and Suwanagul, 1989; Paull and Ketsa, 2004).This indicates that ethephon application potentially should be doneat harvest stage 1 of intact fruit. Moreover, the fruit also had lowSSC:TA ratios with the higher treatment concentration (Table 2).Although ethephon in both concentrations was directly sprayedon the fruit, and significantly promoted fruit ripening (Table 1), italso caused unacceptably high leaf drop of more than 50% of wholetree canopy within a week after application (data not shown). Thisdetrimental abscission might have strong effects, with the loss ofleaves reducing photosynthesis. The pre-harvest 1-MCP applica-
tion in citrus (Pozo et al., 2004; Burns, 2008) and apple (Elfvinget al., 2007; Yuan and Jianguo, 2008) has reduced defoliation byethephon, and similar chemical manipulation may be consideredfor mangosteen.
L. Lerslerwong et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 157 (2013) 13–18 17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Control
250 mlL-1 ethephon
500 mlL-1 ethephon
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ethy
lene
pro
duct
ion
(nl k
g-1
h-1 ) Control
1MCP 10 tablets
1MCP 20 tablets
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3
Time after harvest (d)
Control
1-MCP fumigation
A
C
B
F ephona
maahldpsac
dag
ig. 2. Ethylene production of harvested mangosteen fruit after treatments: (A) ethre labeled as “control”.
The 1-MCP fumigation was more effective than the spray for-ulation (Table 1). This could be due to the fact that 1-MCP has its
ctive ingredient transferred to the fruit in gaseous form (Vallejond Beaudry, 2006). The sprayable formulation of 1-MCP may alsoave lost some of the active ingredient during preparation. Prior
iterature suggests that a 1-MCP solution should be applied imme-iately after preparation (Pozo et al., 2004). However, 1-MCP isresently not commercially available for fumigation or as sprayableolution, and these would be inconvenient for practical orchardpplication. Therefore, the applied practical aspects of chemicalontrol of ripening require additional investigation.
In general, 1-MCP is commercially applied before harvest toelay ripening, while preserving the fruit quality and storabilityttributes of optimally matured fruit (Elfving et al., 2007). For man-osteen, we observed in 2010 trials that 1-MCP spray delayed the
trial, (B) 1-MCP spray trial, and (C) 1-MCP fumigation trial in 2010. Untreated fruit
decrease of flesh firmness (Table 2). However, 1-MCP fumigationhad no such effect, in contrast to the preliminary experimentswhere 1-MCP fumigated fruit had harder flesh than control. Thereason may be that the climacteric period of mangosteen occurson the tree, so the fruit responds to 1-MCP more strongly thanafter harvest. In usual, 1-MCP effectively retains fruit firmness inmany fruits after harvest, and also in post-harvest application onmangosteen (Piriyavinit et al., 2011).
In addition, the application of 1-MCP affected the internal chem-ical composition of mangosteen fruit. In both years, 1-MCP sprayincreased SSC:TA ratios, while fruit fumigated with 1-MCP had
markedly increased SSC:TA ratios only in 2010 (Table 2). The SSC:TAratios of 1-MCP sprayed fruits were higher than control in bothyears. In 2009, the high SSC:TA was caused by an increase in SSC,while TA remained unaffected. However, treatments by 1-MCP
1 a Hort
ssrsitep1Tf
2fa1idifgautmw
5
hrcs
actfc
A
PHFoDSm
R
A
thesis, preharvest fruit drop, fruit maturity and quality of ‘Golden Supreme’ and
8 L. Lerslerwong et al. / Scienti
pray did not delay ripening in this year, while different resultshowed promoting (10 tablets) and delaying (20 tablets) the matu-ity of fruit in 2010 (Table 1). The SSC and TA levels of 1-MCPpray fruit were reduced in comparison to control, this caused anncrease SSC:TA ratios. The differing types of chemical compositionreatment effects in these two years is still unclear. This possiblexplanation is that the solutions used for 1-MCP spray were pre-ared by dissolving 1-MCP tablet grinding in the water, therefore,-MCP solution had low effectiveness and unconsistent effects.hus, it is necessary further research to apply the reagent as sprayormulation which is prepared by the company.
Also, the 1-MCP fumigation improved the SSC:TA ratios only in010 (Table 2). This increased ratio was caused by low TA withumigation treatment was not affected significantly although itppears slightly reduced from control. In addition, treatment by-MCP fumigation effectively delayed ripening in 2010 as shown
n Table 1. This can be interpreted as a 1-MCP fumigation-inducedelay the fruit ripening of mangosteen. There may be an effect that
s known with plant growth regulators that delay ripening, so theruit is held longer on the tree (Byers and Eno, 2002). Thus, man-osteen fruit that remained on tree longer used total soluble solidsnd TA in respiration. Additionally, it had been that the mangosteenses acid more than sugar in respiration, resulting in an increase inhe SSC:TA ratio (Wills et al., 1998). In summary, the fruit quality of
angosteen was detrimentally affected by ethephon treatments,hile it was improved by preharvest 1-MCP fumigation.
. Conclusions
The climacteric of mangosteen fruit occurs before harvest. Pre-arvest application of ethephon or 1-MCP can promote or delayipening of mangosteen fruit, each by about one week, and suchhemical manipulation needs to be applied close to the harvesttage.
While the current study has demonstrated a “proof of concept”nd shown a desired effect, further research is needed to createonvenient and effective methods of application for practical use ofhese chemicals in orchards. Also the quality effects on mangosteenruit, and leaf abscission effects on the trees, can limit the eventualommercial use of these chemicals.
cknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from theostharvest Technology Innovation Center (PHTIC), the Office of theigher Education Commission (OHEC) and the Thailand Researchund (TRF). We also acknowledge the help of Research and Devel-pment Office (RDO), Prince of Songkla University, and Assoc. Prof.r. Seppo Karrila of Faculty of Science and Technology, Prince ofongkla University, Pattani Campus, for the improvement of theanuscript.
eferences
piratikorn, S., Sdoodee, S., Lerslerwong, L., Rongsawat, S., 2012. The impactof climacteric variability on phenological change, yield and fruit quality ofmangosteen in Phatthalung Province, Southern Thailand. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci.46, 1–9.
iculturae 157 (2013) 13–18
Blankenship, S.M., Dole, J.M., 2003. 1-Methylcyclopropene: a review. PostharvestBiol. Tech. 18, 1–25.
Burns, J.K., 2008. 1-Methylcyclopropene applications in preharvest system: focuson citrus. HortScience 43, 112–114.
Byers, R.E., Eno, D.R., 2002. Harvest date influences fruit size and yield of ‘York’ and‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees. Intl. J. Fruit Sci. 3, 63–79.
Elfving, D.C., Drake, S.R., Reed, A.N., Visser, D.B., 2007. Preharvest applications ofsprayable 1-methylcyclopropene in the orchard for management of apple har-vest and postharvest condition. HortScience 42, 1192–1199.
Freiman, Z.E., Rodov, V., Yablovitz, Z., Horev, B., Flaishman, M.A., 2012. Pre-harvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene inhibits ripening and improveskeeping quality of ‘Brown Turkey’ figs (Ficus carica L.). Sci. Hort. 138,266–272.
Lerslerwong, L., Plaiduang, P., 2009. A preliminary study in preharvest applicationof 1- methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) and fruit bagging on mangosteen (Garciniamangostana L.) fruit ripening. Agr. Sci. J. 40 (Suppl.), 575–577.
Lurie, S., 2000. Manipulating fruit development and storage quality using growthregulators. In: Basra, A.S. (Ed.), Plant Growth Regulators in Agriculture and Hor-ticulture: Their Role and Commercial Uses. Food Products Press, London, pp.175–196.
McArtney, S.J., Obermiller, J.D., Schupp, J.R., Parker, M.L., Edgington, T.B., 2008.Preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene delays fruit maturity and reduces soften-ing and superficial scald of apples durint long-term storage. HortScience 43,366–371.
Moggia, C., Pereira, M., 2007. Pre-harvest use of 1-MCP (HARVISTATM TECHNOLOGY)in orchard. Pomáceas Tech. Bul. 7, 1–4.
Office of Agricultural Economics, 2011. Agricultural Import–Export MangosteenProduction. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, Thailand, Updated site:http://www.oae.go.th/download/download journal/yearbook54.pdf
Osman, M.B., Milan, A.R., 2006. In: Williams, J.T., Smith, R.W., Haq, N., Dunsiger,Z. (Eds.), Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana). RPM Print and Design, Chichester,170 pp.
Paull, R.E., Ketsa, S., 2004. Mangosteen. In: Gross, K.C., Wang, C.Y., Saltveit, M.E. (Eds.),The Commercial Storage of Fruits Vegetables and Florist and Nursery Stocks. ,USDA, ARS, Washington DC. (USDA Handbook No. 66 revised). Updated site:http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/092mangosteen.pdf
Palapol, Y., Ketsa, S., Lin-Wang, K., Ferguson, I.B., Allan, A.C., 2009a. A MYB tran-scription factor regulates anthocyanin biosynthesis in mangosteen (Garciniamangostana L.) fruit during ripening. Planta 229, 1323–1334.
Palapol, Y., Ketsa, S., Stevenson, D., Cooney, J.M., Allan, A.C., Ferguson, I.B., 2009b.Colour development and quality of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) fruitduring ripening and after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 51, 349–353.
Piriyavinit, P., Ketsa, S., 2008. Effect of 2-chloroethanlphosphonic acid (Ethephon)and calcium carbide on ripening of mangosteen fruit after harvest. Thai Agr. Res.J. 26, 48–51.
Piriyavinit, P., Ketsa, S., van Doorn, W.G., 2011. 1-MCP extends the storage andshelf life of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) fruit. Postharvest Biol. Tech.61, 15–20.
Pozo, L., Yuan, R., Kostenyuk, I., Alférez, F., Zhong, G.Y., Burns, J.K., 2004. Differentialeffects of 1-methylcyclopropene on citrus leaf and mature fruit abscission. J. Am.Soc. Hort. Sci. 129, 473–478.
Siriphanich, J., 2002. Postharvest physiology of tropical fruit. Acta Hort. 575,623–633.
Tongdee, S.C., Suwanagul, A., 1989. Postharvest mechanical damage in mangosteen.ASEAN Food J. 4, 151–155.
Vallejo, F., Beaudry, R., 2006. Depletion of 1-MCP by ‘non-target’ materials fromfruit storage facilities. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 40, 177–182.
Villalobos-Acuna, M.G., Biasi, W.V., Flores, S., Mitcham, E.J., 2010. Preharvest appli-cation of 1-methylcyclopropene influences fruit drop and storage potential of‘Bartlett’ pears. HortScience 45, 610–616.
Watkins, C.B., 2008. Overview of 1-methylcyclopropene trials and uses for ediblehorticultural crops. HortScience 43, 86–94.
Watkins, C.B., James, H., Nock, J.F., Reed, N., Oakes, R.L., 2010. Preharvest applicationof 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to control fruit drop of apples and its effectson postharvest quality. Acta Hort. 877, 365–374.
Wills, R.B.H., McGlasson, B., Graham, D., Joyce, D., 1998. Postharvest: an Introductionto the Physiology and Handling of Fruit and Vegetables, 4th ed. South OxfordUniversity Press, USA, 280 pp.
Yuan, R., Carbaugh, D.H., 2007. Effects of NAA, AVG, and 1-MCP on ethylene biosyn-
‘Golden Delicious’ apples. HortScience 42, 101–105.Yuan, R., Jianguo, L., 2008. Effect of sprayable 1-MCP AVG, and NAA on ethylene
biosynthesis, preharvest fruit drop, fruit maturity, and quality of ‘Delicious’apples. HortScience 43, 1450–1460.
