- Email: [email protected]
Stone fruit injuries and damage at the wholesale market of São Paulo, Brazil
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
Stone fruit injuries and damage at the wholesale market of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil Lilian Amorim a,∗ , Marise C. Martins a,1 , Silvia A. Lourenc¸o a , Anita S.D. Gutierrez b , Fabiana M. Abreu a , Fabr´ıcio P. Gonc¸alves a a
Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, CP 9, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil b CEAGESP, Centro de Qualidade em Horticultura, Av. Dr. Gast˜ ao Vidigal 1946, 05316-900 S˜ao Paulo, SP, Brazil Received 27 September 2006; accepted 17 July 2007
Abstract Mechanical injuries and diseases in stone fruit are important causes for market rejection. The objectives of this research were to quantify and characterize the mechanical injuries and diseases in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market, the largest in Brazil. Incidence of injuries was assessed weekly in 1% of the marketed fruit (2973 fruit/week), from September to December in 2003 and 2004. Mechanical injuries were the most frequent injuries in both years, ranging from 8.73% (plum) to 44.5% (nectarine) of injured fruit. There was a significant positive correlation between the incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases. Incidence of postharvest diseases varied from 2.5% to 6.6%. Cladosporium rot (Cladosporium sp.) and brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) were the most frequent diseases, and were mostly detected in the apexes of nectarines and peaches. Aurora (peach), Sunraycer (nectarine) and Gulfblaze (plum) varieties were the most susceptible to injuries and diseases. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Postharvest diseases; Prunus spp.; Damage
1. Introduction The area and quantity of production of peach (Prunus persica), nectarine (P. persica var. nucipersica) and plum (Prunus salicina) are increasing in the state of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil (Barbosa et al., 2003) with the introduction of low chill and early ripening varieties selected by Brazilian breeding programs. These precocious varieties are almost exclusively grown for fresh market. They are harvested from September to November, 2 months before the harvest in the south of Brazil, the traditional region of stone fruit production. Probably, because of the predominantly warm climate, postharvest disease incidence is high in fruit produced in the state of S˜ao Paulo (Gonc¸alves, 2005; Bassetto, 2006). The diseases soft rot (Rhizopus spp.) and brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) are frequently the main causes of fruit damage, losses and market rejection (Bassetto, 2006). In general, phytopathological losses are the largest single cause of avoidable postharvest losses (Toma et al., 1990), but ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 34294124; fax: +55 19 34344839. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Amorim). 1 Present address: Instituto Biol´ ogico, Rodovia Heitor Penteado, km 3, 13001970 Campinas, SP, Brazil. 0925-5214/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2007.07.005
only when the losses are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy can crop protection be applied at the correct dosage (Zadoks and Schein, 1979). S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (CEAGESP) receives production of 1476 Brazilian municipalities (13% of total Brazilian fresh fruit and vegetables) and is an excellent place for monitoring fresh produce by its volume and diversity. On average, 44% of the peach production from the state of S˜ao Paulo is sold in the S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, most of it without refrigeration (Gutierrez, 2005). Although CEAGESP experiences high postharvest losses in stone fruits, no damage and loss quantification study has been done. The objectives of this study are to characterize the biotic and abiotic injuries and to measure the damage caused by these injuries to peaches, nectarines and plums produced in S˜ao Paulo and sold at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market. 2. Materials and methods This study has adopted the crop loss terminology used by Zadoks (1985), in which any injury is visible and measurable symptom caused by a harmful organism, damage is any reduction in the quality and/or quantity of yield, and
354
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
loss is the reduction in financial return due to a harmful organism. Samples were collected every week, in 2003 from 24 September to 1 December and in 2004 from 8 September to 1 December at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (CEAGESP). Additional samples were taken in 17 December, 2003 and 21 December, 2004. For each date of evaluation, incidence of injuries was assessed in 1% of the marketed fruits at the five biggest stone fruit wholesalers of CEAGESP with 39,607 fruits inspected in the first year and 28,774 in the second year (Table 1). The sampling was stratified by fruit variety, size and place of origin. The sampling unit was a cardboard box (45 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm) containing 6 kg of fruit. Each fruit in each sample was inspected visually and the injuries were described and measured. Fruit with incipient infection symptoms were sent to the laboratory, where they were held in a moist chamber for incubation for 24 h. After that they were visually inspected. The pathogen identification was, if necessary, aided by optical microscopic examination of spores and mycelia. Injuries were classified as postharvest mechanical injuries (bruises, cuts and punctures), pre-harvest mechanical injuries (healed lesions caused by rub injury or pest attacks), physiological disorders (badly misshapen fruit, growth cracks or cracking), pre-harvest diseases (rust and shot-hole) and postharvest diseases (rots, including brown rot). M. fructicola infection can occur before or after harvest, but it is considered as a postharvest disease because the symptoms developed in ripe fruit. The location of the injury in each fruit was also described: peduncle, apex (tip) or side.
The incidence of injury in the different fruit species in these 2 years was characterized by two or multiple comparisons for proportion tests (dichotomous variables) (p = 0.01), according to Zar (1999). The same test was used to compare the susceptibility of the different varieties to postharvest mechanical injuries and to postharvest diseases during the 2 years. Postharvest mechanical injuries were correlated to postharvest diseases by linear regression. In the first regression analysis, the independent variable was the incidence of mechanically injured fruit and percentage of diseased fruit was the dependent variable. In the second regression analysis, the dependent variable was the incidence of diseased fruit excluding fruit with brown rot symptoms. 3. Results Mechanical injuries were the most frequent injuries in peaches, nectarines and plums in both years. The incidences of peaches with postharvest and pre-harvest mechanical injuries were respectively, 12.6% and 14.5% (Fig. 1). The incidences of mechanical injuries in nectarines in pre-harvest and postharvest were 44.5% and 12.5% and in plums 23.1% and 8.7%, respectively (Fig. 1). Bruise (>50%) was the most common injury. There was a positive correlation between postharvest mechanical injuries and disease incidence (Table 2). Despite the low coefficient of determination, due to scattered points, the regressions were highly significant, except for the plums in
Table 1 Assessment dates, number of boxes and number of fruit examined in each assessment at the wholesale market of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil in 2003 and 2004 Assessment date
Peach
Nectarine
Plum
Boxes
Fruit
Boxes
Fruit
Boxes
Fruit
2003 24 September 30 September 8 October 15 October 22 October 29 October 5 November 12 November 17 November 26 November 1 December 17 December
22 25 24 26 35 34 37 30 12 18 14 –
2354 2407 2519 2376 3797 2939 2719 2370 962 1107 1978 –
3 5 15 13 8 8 16 12 10 7 7 4
386 427 1692 1376 986 691 1395 907 768 578 665 267
– – – – – 3 3 4 4 2 8 8
– – – – – 324 258 468 482 356 1032 1021
2004 8 September 17 September 22 September 1 October 6 October 22 October 29 October 5 November 19 November 1 December 21 December
11 23 26 43 23 31 27 31 4 – –
1034 2124 2480 3342 1856 2498 2039 2386 243 – –
4 10 10 12 10 11 10 5 – –
252 767 968 987 844 892 736 331 – –
– – – 7 5 – 2 3 6 9
– – – 1263 1002 – 254 495 680 1301
Fig. 1. Incidence (percentage of injured fruit) of postharvest and pre-harvest mechanical injuries (A) and postharvest diseases, pre-harvest diseases and physiological disturbances (B) in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 and 2004.
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
355
Table 2 Number of fruit (N), coefficient of determination (R2 ) and significance (p) of linear regression between postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases and between postharvest mechanical injuries and diseases except brown rot in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market in 2003 and 2004 Fruit/year
Peaches/2003 Peaches/2004 Nectarines/2003 Nectarines/2004 Plums/2003 Plums/2004
Mechanical injuries vs. diseases
Mechanical injuries vs. diseases except brown rot
N
R2
p
R2
p
25,528 18,002 10,138 5,777 3,941 4,995
0.15 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.31
<0.001 0.001 0.03 0.003 0.58 <0.001
0.19 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.32
<0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.003 0.68 <0.001
Fig. 2. Temporal dynamics of postharvest diseases incidence of peaches (A and D), nectarines (B and E) and plums (C and F) at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 (A–C) and 2004 (D–F). Circles represent brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) incidence (percentage of disease fruit); squares, Cladosporium rot (Cladosporium sp.); triangles, soft rot (Rhizopus sp.).
2003, where there was no correlation. In spite of that, the highest coefficients of determination were found in the plums evaluated in 2004. The coefficient of determination and the significance of the regressions increased at a small amount with the exclusion of brown rot from the analysis (Table 2). The average incidence of postharvest disease varied little between years and species of stone fruits (Fig. 1), but high value of variation between the samples was observed. The highest incidence of diseased fruit per sample was 71.4% (peaches), 47.4% (nectarines) and 22.2% (plums). Cladosporium rot, brown rot and soft rot were the most frequent diseases (Fig. 2). Cladosporium rot was found in every assessment date showing high incidences in peaches in 2003 and in plums in 2004. Brown rot incidence increased in November and December (Fig. 2) for all fruits. Other postharvest diseases that occurred in assessed fruits were sour rot (Geotrichum candidum, 0.5% average incidence), anthracnose (Colletotrichum spp.) and Fusarium rot (Fusarium sp., both less than 0.5% average incidence). Rot symptoms appeared mostly at the apex of peaches and nectarines (Fig. 3). The incidence of diseased fruit with symptoms in the apex was positively correlated to
the incidence of mechanical injury in the apex of the fruit (R2 = 0.08–0.49 and p < 0.01) in peaches and nectarines. Cracking in nectarines was the most frequent physiological disorder especially in the varieties Colombina and Josefina. Only a small number of fruit showed pre-harvest disease symptoms.
Fig. 3. Postharvest disease incidence (percentage of diseased fruit) related to the part of the fruit where symptoms occur in peaches, nectarines and plums, at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 and 2004.
356
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
Table 3 Postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases incidence (percentage of fruits) in most common peaches, nectarines and plums varieties marketed at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil, in 2003 and 2004 Variety
Mechanical injuries
Diseases
Peaches Dourad˜ao Tropic beauty Dourado Primavera Aurora
9.3 aa 9.9 a 10.7 a 12.4 b 14.9 c
3.7 b 1.9 a 2.4 a 1.6 a 8.2 c
Nectarines Colombina Sunripe Sunraycer
11.7 a 12.2 ab 16.6 b
3.1 a 4.7 b 4.9 b
Plums Reubennel Gulfblaze
7.2 a 11.1 b
4.6 a 11.6 b
a
Incidences followed by the same letter are not significantly different by the multiple comparisons for proportion tests (dichotomous variables) (p = 0.01), according to Zar (1999), within a column and a fruit species.
Significant differences were found in the varieties of peaches, nectarines and plums concerning the susceptibility to diseases and mechanical injuries (Table 3). Aurora (peach), Sunraycer (nectarine) and Gulfblaze (plum) varieties were the most susceptible to injuries and diseases. 4. Discussion There is little reliable data on stone fruit injuries and postharvest injury estimates at wholesale markets. In the USA the incidence of postharvest injuries in peaches ranged from 2.3% at the New York wholesale market (Ceponis and Butterfield, 1973 cited by Harvey, 1978) to 12.3%, in the Chicago wholesale market (Cappellini and Ceponis, 1984). In general, postharvest damage is a cumulative process and the number of injuries is expected to be smaller at the wholesale market than at the retail or consumer (Harvey, 1978) due to the shorter time at the wholesale market than at the retail and the consumer (Thompson and Crisosto, 2002). The stone fruits marketed at the S˜ao Paulo wholesale market showed a high incidence of injured fruit. In nectarines, there was a very high incidence of pre-harvest injuries (Fig. 1). The survey in plums, nectarines and peaches at the New York market from 1972 to 1985, by Ceponis et al. (1987) showed more samples with scarring symptoms in plums and nectarines than in peaches. The high incidence of pre-harvest injuries means that stone fruit production technology in the state of S˜ao Paulo needs improvement in order to deliver fruit of good quality. Stone fruit quality cannot be improved, only maintained, after harvest (Crisosto et al., 1997). So good initial quality is essential to guarantee good quality postharvest. In this work, like Ceponis et al. (1987), bruise incidence was less important in plums than in peaches and nectarines, possibly because plums are less susceptible to impact bruising than other stone fruits (Crisosto and Mitchell, 2002). The incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries in peaches in S˜ao Paulo was similar to that at the Chicago wholesale market
with 9.4% symptomatic fruits. Bruises were the most frequent injury. According to Bourne (2004), bruises are one of the main causes of fruit spoilage worldwide but the precise quantification (average close to 12% in stone fruits at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market) shows the actual dimension of the problem, which is useful information for growers and wholesalers to prevent its occurrence. The relatively consistent level of postharvest disease incidence in the 2 years and in the three fruits studied is surprising. Literature is unanimous about the enormous variability in damage and losses estimation arguing that losses in perishables are virtually impossible to quantify, except with reference to a particular commodity and local situation (Toma et al., 1990; FAO, 1983). In fact, although the average incidence of postharvest diseases was close to 5% in the three fruits, in 2 years of assessment, some samples showed very high disease incidence, which was correlated to the incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries. Postharvest diseases and injuries were not significantly correlated in plums assessed in 2003 because the incidence of diseased fruit was very low in that year. Martins et al. (2006) showed that the incidence of diseased and injured peaches was neither related to packaging material (plastic, cardboard or wood), nor to the kind of packaging (plastic trays or bulk). In that work, the only variable that explained differences in the incidence of disease and injury was the grower. It is very important that growers, especially those that produce low quality fruit, adopt handling improvement at harvest and packing lines. Most peach varieties cultivated in S˜ao Paulo were selected by breeding programs from public research institutions (Barbosa et al., 1997). Their main selection criteria were low chill, fruit appearance and quality. Disease resistance was a secondary criterion. The Aurora peach variety is highly susceptible to M. fructicola infection and recent epidemics of brown rot in S˜ao Paulo had led the growers to replace this variety by varieties in the Dourado group. Rhizopus decay is mentioned as the most common postharvest disease of peach and nectarine (Ceponis et al., 1997; Barkai-Golan, 2001). Nevertheless, in S˜ao Paulo, brown rot and Cladosporium rot were the most frequent diseases. High brown rot incidence was also observed in assessments made in 2001 and 2002 at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (Martins et al., 2006) and in the field in 2004 and 2005 (Bassetto, 2006). Brown rot control consists of pre-harvest fungicide application, sanitation practices and integration of proper harvest and handling (Barkai-Golan, 2001; Martins et al., 2005). Any control failures can compromise the production and lead to significant losses. Cladosporium rot is one of the most common plum diseases (Barkai-Golan, 2001) and it was frequently found in assessments made in 2004. However, symptoms of Cladosporium rot are not severe because its growth is limited to small areas around the place where the pathogen penetrates the fruit (Martins and Amorim, 2005). The high incidence of symptoms in the apex of peaches and nectarines is related to the characteristically prominent apex varieties cultivated in S˜ao Paulo. The prominent apex is more exposed to mechanical injuries and, as a result to pathogen infection. Some samples showed high sour rot incidence (G. candidum). Bruised fruits are particularly susceptible to sour
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
rot, which had caused significant losses in individual shipments in the USA (Wells, 1977). The lack of refrigeration for stone fruit transportation and storage is, no doubt, contributing to the high percentage of diseased fruits. Nevertheless, control measures that must be adopted immediately to reduce damages are ones that reduce mechanical injuries from harvest to commercialization. After all, diseased and bruised fruits are the main cause of fruit losses and retailers’ rejection at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (Gutierrez, 2005). Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support given by the State of S˜ao Paulo Research foundation (FAPESP Project 01/12928-0) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Scholarships 301172/2004-8 and 501720/2003-0) References Barbosa, W., Ojima, M., Campo-Dall’Orto, F. A., Rigitano, O., Martins, F. P., Santos, R. R., Castro, J. L., 1997. Melhoramento do pessegueiro para regi˜oes de clima subtropical-temperado: realizac¸o˜ es do Instituto Agronˆomico no per´ıodo de 1950 a 1990. IAC, Campinas, p. 22 (Documentos IAC, 52). Barbosa, W., Pommer, C.V., Ribeiro, M.D., Veiga, R.F.A., Costa, A.A., 2003. Distribuic¸a˜ o geogr´afica e diversidade varietal de frut´ıferas e nozes de clima temperado no Estado de S˜ao Paulo. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 25, 341–344. Barkai-Golan, R., 2001. Postharvest Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables. Development and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bassetto, E. 2006. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos ao longo da cadeia produtiva de pˆessegos e avaliac¸a˜ o de m´etodos alternativos de controle de doenc¸as p´os-colheita. Tese de doutoramento. ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba (available in http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/11/11135/tde-16082006151431/). Bourne, M.C., 2004. Selection and use of postharvest technologies as a component of the food chain. J. Sci. 69, crh43–crh46. Cappellini, R.A., Ceponis, M.J., 1984. Postharvest losses in fresh fruits and vegetables. In: Moline, H.E. (Ed.), Postharvest Pathology of Fruits and
357
Vegetables: Postharvest Losses in Perishable Crops, 1914. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, pp. 24–30. Ceponis, M.J., Cappellini, R.A., Wells, J.M., Lightner, G.W., 1987. Disorders in plum, peach, and nectarine shipments to the New York market, 1972–1985. Plant Dis. 71, 947–952. Crisosto, C.H., Mitchell, F.G., 2002. Postharvest handling systems: stone fruits. In: Kader, A.A. (Ed.), Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, Publication 3311. University of California, pp. 345–356. Crisosto, C.H., Johnson, R.S., DeJong, T., Day, K.R., 1997. Orchard factors affecting postharvest stone fruit quality. HortScience 32, 820–823. FAO, 1983. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAO Agric. Serv. Bull. 43. Gonc¸alves, F.P., 2005. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos e controle p´os-colheita de podrid˜ao parda (Monilinia fructicola) e podrid˜ao mole (Rhizopus stolonifer) em frutos de ameixa e nectarina. Dissertac¸a˜ o de Mestrado. ESALQUSP, Piracicaba (available in http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/ 11/11135/tde-09032006-155041/). Gutierrez, A.S.D., 2005. Danos mecˆanicos p´os-colheita em pˆessego fresco. Tese de doutoramento. ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba. Harvey, J.M., 1978. Reduction of losses in fresh market fruits and vegetables. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 16, 321–341. Martins, M.C., Amorim, L., 2005. Doenc¸as das ros´aceas de caroc¸o. Informe Agropecu´ario 26, 44–48. Martins, M.C., Betti, J.S., Leite, R.M.V.B.C., Leite Jr., R.P., Amorim, L., 2005. Doenc¸as das ros´aceas de caroc¸o. In: Kimati, H., Amorim, L., Rezende, J.A.M., Bergamin Filho, A., Camargo, L.E.A. (Eds.), Manual de Fitopatologia, vol. 2. Ceres, S˜ao Paulo, pp. 545–557. Martins, M.C., Lourenc¸o, S.A., Gutierrez, A.S.D., Jacomino, A.P., Amorim, L., 2006. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos p´os-colheita em pˆessegos no mercado atacadista de S˜ao Paulo. Fitopatologia Brasileira 31, 5–10. Thompson, J.E., Crisosto, C.H., 2002. Handling at destination markets. In: Kader, A.A. (Ed.), Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, Publication 3311. University of California, pp.271–277. Toma, R.B., Fansler, L.T., Knipe, M.T., 1990. World food storage: the third dimension. Sci. Food Agric., http://www.arec.umd.edu/arec365/ castpharv.htm. Wells, J.M., 1977. Sour rot of peaches caused by Monilinia implicata and Geotrichum candidum. Phytopathology 67, 404–408. Zadoks, J.C., 1985. On the conceptual basis of crop loss assessment: the threshold theory. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 23, 455–473. Zadoks, J.C., Schein, R.D., 1979. Epidemiology and Plant Disease Management. Oxford University Press, New York. Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
Stone fruit injuries and damage at the wholesale market of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil Lilian Amorim a,∗ , Marise C. Martins a,1 , Silvia A. Lourenc¸o a , Anita S.D. Gutierrez b , Fabiana M. Abreu a , Fabr´ıcio P. Gonc¸alves a a
Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, CP 9, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil b CEAGESP, Centro de Qualidade em Horticultura, Av. Dr. Gast˜ ao Vidigal 1946, 05316-900 S˜ao Paulo, SP, Brazil Received 27 September 2006; accepted 17 July 2007
Abstract Mechanical injuries and diseases in stone fruit are important causes for market rejection. The objectives of this research were to quantify and characterize the mechanical injuries and diseases in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market, the largest in Brazil. Incidence of injuries was assessed weekly in 1% of the marketed fruit (2973 fruit/week), from September to December in 2003 and 2004. Mechanical injuries were the most frequent injuries in both years, ranging from 8.73% (plum) to 44.5% (nectarine) of injured fruit. There was a significant positive correlation between the incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases. Incidence of postharvest diseases varied from 2.5% to 6.6%. Cladosporium rot (Cladosporium sp.) and brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) were the most frequent diseases, and were mostly detected in the apexes of nectarines and peaches. Aurora (peach), Sunraycer (nectarine) and Gulfblaze (plum) varieties were the most susceptible to injuries and diseases. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Postharvest diseases; Prunus spp.; Damage
1. Introduction The area and quantity of production of peach (Prunus persica), nectarine (P. persica var. nucipersica) and plum (Prunus salicina) are increasing in the state of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil (Barbosa et al., 2003) with the introduction of low chill and early ripening varieties selected by Brazilian breeding programs. These precocious varieties are almost exclusively grown for fresh market. They are harvested from September to November, 2 months before the harvest in the south of Brazil, the traditional region of stone fruit production. Probably, because of the predominantly warm climate, postharvest disease incidence is high in fruit produced in the state of S˜ao Paulo (Gonc¸alves, 2005; Bassetto, 2006). The diseases soft rot (Rhizopus spp.) and brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) are frequently the main causes of fruit damage, losses and market rejection (Bassetto, 2006). In general, phytopathological losses are the largest single cause of avoidable postharvest losses (Toma et al., 1990), but ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 34294124; fax: +55 19 34344839. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Amorim). 1 Present address: Instituto Biol´ ogico, Rodovia Heitor Penteado, km 3, 13001970 Campinas, SP, Brazil. 0925-5214/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2007.07.005
only when the losses are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy can crop protection be applied at the correct dosage (Zadoks and Schein, 1979). S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (CEAGESP) receives production of 1476 Brazilian municipalities (13% of total Brazilian fresh fruit and vegetables) and is an excellent place for monitoring fresh produce by its volume and diversity. On average, 44% of the peach production from the state of S˜ao Paulo is sold in the S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, most of it without refrigeration (Gutierrez, 2005). Although CEAGESP experiences high postharvest losses in stone fruits, no damage and loss quantification study has been done. The objectives of this study are to characterize the biotic and abiotic injuries and to measure the damage caused by these injuries to peaches, nectarines and plums produced in S˜ao Paulo and sold at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market. 2. Materials and methods This study has adopted the crop loss terminology used by Zadoks (1985), in which any injury is visible and measurable symptom caused by a harmful organism, damage is any reduction in the quality and/or quantity of yield, and
354
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
loss is the reduction in financial return due to a harmful organism. Samples were collected every week, in 2003 from 24 September to 1 December and in 2004 from 8 September to 1 December at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (CEAGESP). Additional samples were taken in 17 December, 2003 and 21 December, 2004. For each date of evaluation, incidence of injuries was assessed in 1% of the marketed fruits at the five biggest stone fruit wholesalers of CEAGESP with 39,607 fruits inspected in the first year and 28,774 in the second year (Table 1). The sampling was stratified by fruit variety, size and place of origin. The sampling unit was a cardboard box (45 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm) containing 6 kg of fruit. Each fruit in each sample was inspected visually and the injuries were described and measured. Fruit with incipient infection symptoms were sent to the laboratory, where they were held in a moist chamber for incubation for 24 h. After that they were visually inspected. The pathogen identification was, if necessary, aided by optical microscopic examination of spores and mycelia. Injuries were classified as postharvest mechanical injuries (bruises, cuts and punctures), pre-harvest mechanical injuries (healed lesions caused by rub injury or pest attacks), physiological disorders (badly misshapen fruit, growth cracks or cracking), pre-harvest diseases (rust and shot-hole) and postharvest diseases (rots, including brown rot). M. fructicola infection can occur before or after harvest, but it is considered as a postharvest disease because the symptoms developed in ripe fruit. The location of the injury in each fruit was also described: peduncle, apex (tip) or side.
The incidence of injury in the different fruit species in these 2 years was characterized by two or multiple comparisons for proportion tests (dichotomous variables) (p = 0.01), according to Zar (1999). The same test was used to compare the susceptibility of the different varieties to postharvest mechanical injuries and to postharvest diseases during the 2 years. Postharvest mechanical injuries were correlated to postharvest diseases by linear regression. In the first regression analysis, the independent variable was the incidence of mechanically injured fruit and percentage of diseased fruit was the dependent variable. In the second regression analysis, the dependent variable was the incidence of diseased fruit excluding fruit with brown rot symptoms. 3. Results Mechanical injuries were the most frequent injuries in peaches, nectarines and plums in both years. The incidences of peaches with postharvest and pre-harvest mechanical injuries were respectively, 12.6% and 14.5% (Fig. 1). The incidences of mechanical injuries in nectarines in pre-harvest and postharvest were 44.5% and 12.5% and in plums 23.1% and 8.7%, respectively (Fig. 1). Bruise (>50%) was the most common injury. There was a positive correlation between postharvest mechanical injuries and disease incidence (Table 2). Despite the low coefficient of determination, due to scattered points, the regressions were highly significant, except for the plums in
Table 1 Assessment dates, number of boxes and number of fruit examined in each assessment at the wholesale market of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil in 2003 and 2004 Assessment date
Peach
Nectarine
Plum
Boxes
Fruit
Boxes
Fruit
Boxes
Fruit
2003 24 September 30 September 8 October 15 October 22 October 29 October 5 November 12 November 17 November 26 November 1 December 17 December
22 25 24 26 35 34 37 30 12 18 14 –
2354 2407 2519 2376 3797 2939 2719 2370 962 1107 1978 –
3 5 15 13 8 8 16 12 10 7 7 4
386 427 1692 1376 986 691 1395 907 768 578 665 267
– – – – – 3 3 4 4 2 8 8
– – – – – 324 258 468 482 356 1032 1021
2004 8 September 17 September 22 September 1 October 6 October 22 October 29 October 5 November 19 November 1 December 21 December
11 23 26 43 23 31 27 31 4 – –
1034 2124 2480 3342 1856 2498 2039 2386 243 – –
4 10 10 12 10 11 10 5 – –
252 767 968 987 844 892 736 331 – –
– – – 7 5 – 2 3 6 9
– – – 1263 1002 – 254 495 680 1301
Fig. 1. Incidence (percentage of injured fruit) of postharvest and pre-harvest mechanical injuries (A) and postharvest diseases, pre-harvest diseases and physiological disturbances (B) in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 and 2004.
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
355
Table 2 Number of fruit (N), coefficient of determination (R2 ) and significance (p) of linear regression between postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases and between postharvest mechanical injuries and diseases except brown rot in peaches, nectarines and plums at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market in 2003 and 2004 Fruit/year
Peaches/2003 Peaches/2004 Nectarines/2003 Nectarines/2004 Plums/2003 Plums/2004
Mechanical injuries vs. diseases
Mechanical injuries vs. diseases except brown rot
N
R2
p
R2
p
25,528 18,002 10,138 5,777 3,941 4,995
0.15 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.31
<0.001 0.001 0.03 0.003 0.58 <0.001
0.19 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.32
<0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.003 0.68 <0.001
Fig. 2. Temporal dynamics of postharvest diseases incidence of peaches (A and D), nectarines (B and E) and plums (C and F) at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 (A–C) and 2004 (D–F). Circles represent brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) incidence (percentage of disease fruit); squares, Cladosporium rot (Cladosporium sp.); triangles, soft rot (Rhizopus sp.).
2003, where there was no correlation. In spite of that, the highest coefficients of determination were found in the plums evaluated in 2004. The coefficient of determination and the significance of the regressions increased at a small amount with the exclusion of brown rot from the analysis (Table 2). The average incidence of postharvest disease varied little between years and species of stone fruits (Fig. 1), but high value of variation between the samples was observed. The highest incidence of diseased fruit per sample was 71.4% (peaches), 47.4% (nectarines) and 22.2% (plums). Cladosporium rot, brown rot and soft rot were the most frequent diseases (Fig. 2). Cladosporium rot was found in every assessment date showing high incidences in peaches in 2003 and in plums in 2004. Brown rot incidence increased in November and December (Fig. 2) for all fruits. Other postharvest diseases that occurred in assessed fruits were sour rot (Geotrichum candidum, 0.5% average incidence), anthracnose (Colletotrichum spp.) and Fusarium rot (Fusarium sp., both less than 0.5% average incidence). Rot symptoms appeared mostly at the apex of peaches and nectarines (Fig. 3). The incidence of diseased fruit with symptoms in the apex was positively correlated to
the incidence of mechanical injury in the apex of the fruit (R2 = 0.08–0.49 and p < 0.01) in peaches and nectarines. Cracking in nectarines was the most frequent physiological disorder especially in the varieties Colombina and Josefina. Only a small number of fruit showed pre-harvest disease symptoms.
Fig. 3. Postharvest disease incidence (percentage of diseased fruit) related to the part of the fruit where symptoms occur in peaches, nectarines and plums, at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil in 2003 and 2004.
356
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
Table 3 Postharvest mechanical injuries and postharvest diseases incidence (percentage of fruits) in most common peaches, nectarines and plums varieties marketed at S˜ao Paulo wholesale market, Brazil, in 2003 and 2004 Variety
Mechanical injuries
Diseases
Peaches Dourad˜ao Tropic beauty Dourado Primavera Aurora
9.3 aa 9.9 a 10.7 a 12.4 b 14.9 c
3.7 b 1.9 a 2.4 a 1.6 a 8.2 c
Nectarines Colombina Sunripe Sunraycer
11.7 a 12.2 ab 16.6 b
3.1 a 4.7 b 4.9 b
Plums Reubennel Gulfblaze
7.2 a 11.1 b
4.6 a 11.6 b
a
Incidences followed by the same letter are not significantly different by the multiple comparisons for proportion tests (dichotomous variables) (p = 0.01), according to Zar (1999), within a column and a fruit species.
Significant differences were found in the varieties of peaches, nectarines and plums concerning the susceptibility to diseases and mechanical injuries (Table 3). Aurora (peach), Sunraycer (nectarine) and Gulfblaze (plum) varieties were the most susceptible to injuries and diseases. 4. Discussion There is little reliable data on stone fruit injuries and postharvest injury estimates at wholesale markets. In the USA the incidence of postharvest injuries in peaches ranged from 2.3% at the New York wholesale market (Ceponis and Butterfield, 1973 cited by Harvey, 1978) to 12.3%, in the Chicago wholesale market (Cappellini and Ceponis, 1984). In general, postharvest damage is a cumulative process and the number of injuries is expected to be smaller at the wholesale market than at the retail or consumer (Harvey, 1978) due to the shorter time at the wholesale market than at the retail and the consumer (Thompson and Crisosto, 2002). The stone fruits marketed at the S˜ao Paulo wholesale market showed a high incidence of injured fruit. In nectarines, there was a very high incidence of pre-harvest injuries (Fig. 1). The survey in plums, nectarines and peaches at the New York market from 1972 to 1985, by Ceponis et al. (1987) showed more samples with scarring symptoms in plums and nectarines than in peaches. The high incidence of pre-harvest injuries means that stone fruit production technology in the state of S˜ao Paulo needs improvement in order to deliver fruit of good quality. Stone fruit quality cannot be improved, only maintained, after harvest (Crisosto et al., 1997). So good initial quality is essential to guarantee good quality postharvest. In this work, like Ceponis et al. (1987), bruise incidence was less important in plums than in peaches and nectarines, possibly because plums are less susceptible to impact bruising than other stone fruits (Crisosto and Mitchell, 2002). The incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries in peaches in S˜ao Paulo was similar to that at the Chicago wholesale market
with 9.4% symptomatic fruits. Bruises were the most frequent injury. According to Bourne (2004), bruises are one of the main causes of fruit spoilage worldwide but the precise quantification (average close to 12% in stone fruits at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market) shows the actual dimension of the problem, which is useful information for growers and wholesalers to prevent its occurrence. The relatively consistent level of postharvest disease incidence in the 2 years and in the three fruits studied is surprising. Literature is unanimous about the enormous variability in damage and losses estimation arguing that losses in perishables are virtually impossible to quantify, except with reference to a particular commodity and local situation (Toma et al., 1990; FAO, 1983). In fact, although the average incidence of postharvest diseases was close to 5% in the three fruits, in 2 years of assessment, some samples showed very high disease incidence, which was correlated to the incidence of postharvest mechanical injuries. Postharvest diseases and injuries were not significantly correlated in plums assessed in 2003 because the incidence of diseased fruit was very low in that year. Martins et al. (2006) showed that the incidence of diseased and injured peaches was neither related to packaging material (plastic, cardboard or wood), nor to the kind of packaging (plastic trays or bulk). In that work, the only variable that explained differences in the incidence of disease and injury was the grower. It is very important that growers, especially those that produce low quality fruit, adopt handling improvement at harvest and packing lines. Most peach varieties cultivated in S˜ao Paulo were selected by breeding programs from public research institutions (Barbosa et al., 1997). Their main selection criteria were low chill, fruit appearance and quality. Disease resistance was a secondary criterion. The Aurora peach variety is highly susceptible to M. fructicola infection and recent epidemics of brown rot in S˜ao Paulo had led the growers to replace this variety by varieties in the Dourado group. Rhizopus decay is mentioned as the most common postharvest disease of peach and nectarine (Ceponis et al., 1997; Barkai-Golan, 2001). Nevertheless, in S˜ao Paulo, brown rot and Cladosporium rot were the most frequent diseases. High brown rot incidence was also observed in assessments made in 2001 and 2002 at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (Martins et al., 2006) and in the field in 2004 and 2005 (Bassetto, 2006). Brown rot control consists of pre-harvest fungicide application, sanitation practices and integration of proper harvest and handling (Barkai-Golan, 2001; Martins et al., 2005). Any control failures can compromise the production and lead to significant losses. Cladosporium rot is one of the most common plum diseases (Barkai-Golan, 2001) and it was frequently found in assessments made in 2004. However, symptoms of Cladosporium rot are not severe because its growth is limited to small areas around the place where the pathogen penetrates the fruit (Martins and Amorim, 2005). The high incidence of symptoms in the apex of peaches and nectarines is related to the characteristically prominent apex varieties cultivated in S˜ao Paulo. The prominent apex is more exposed to mechanical injuries and, as a result to pathogen infection. Some samples showed high sour rot incidence (G. candidum). Bruised fruits are particularly susceptible to sour
L. Amorim et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 47 (2008) 353–357
rot, which had caused significant losses in individual shipments in the USA (Wells, 1977). The lack of refrigeration for stone fruit transportation and storage is, no doubt, contributing to the high percentage of diseased fruits. Nevertheless, control measures that must be adopted immediately to reduce damages are ones that reduce mechanical injuries from harvest to commercialization. After all, diseased and bruised fruits are the main cause of fruit losses and retailers’ rejection at S˜ao Paulo’s wholesale market (Gutierrez, 2005). Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support given by the State of S˜ao Paulo Research foundation (FAPESP Project 01/12928-0) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Scholarships 301172/2004-8 and 501720/2003-0) References Barbosa, W., Ojima, M., Campo-Dall’Orto, F. A., Rigitano, O., Martins, F. P., Santos, R. R., Castro, J. L., 1997. Melhoramento do pessegueiro para regi˜oes de clima subtropical-temperado: realizac¸o˜ es do Instituto Agronˆomico no per´ıodo de 1950 a 1990. IAC, Campinas, p. 22 (Documentos IAC, 52). Barbosa, W., Pommer, C.V., Ribeiro, M.D., Veiga, R.F.A., Costa, A.A., 2003. Distribuic¸a˜ o geogr´afica e diversidade varietal de frut´ıferas e nozes de clima temperado no Estado de S˜ao Paulo. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 25, 341–344. Barkai-Golan, R., 2001. Postharvest Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables. Development and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bassetto, E. 2006. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos ao longo da cadeia produtiva de pˆessegos e avaliac¸a˜ o de m´etodos alternativos de controle de doenc¸as p´os-colheita. Tese de doutoramento. ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba (available in http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/11/11135/tde-16082006151431/). Bourne, M.C., 2004. Selection and use of postharvest technologies as a component of the food chain. J. Sci. 69, crh43–crh46. Cappellini, R.A., Ceponis, M.J., 1984. Postharvest losses in fresh fruits and vegetables. In: Moline, H.E. (Ed.), Postharvest Pathology of Fruits and
357
Vegetables: Postharvest Losses in Perishable Crops, 1914. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, pp. 24–30. Ceponis, M.J., Cappellini, R.A., Wells, J.M., Lightner, G.W., 1987. Disorders in plum, peach, and nectarine shipments to the New York market, 1972–1985. Plant Dis. 71, 947–952. Crisosto, C.H., Mitchell, F.G., 2002. Postharvest handling systems: stone fruits. In: Kader, A.A. (Ed.), Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, Publication 3311. University of California, pp. 345–356. Crisosto, C.H., Johnson, R.S., DeJong, T., Day, K.R., 1997. Orchard factors affecting postharvest stone fruit quality. HortScience 32, 820–823. FAO, 1983. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAO Agric. Serv. Bull. 43. Gonc¸alves, F.P., 2005. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos e controle p´os-colheita de podrid˜ao parda (Monilinia fructicola) e podrid˜ao mole (Rhizopus stolonifer) em frutos de ameixa e nectarina. Dissertac¸a˜ o de Mestrado. ESALQUSP, Piracicaba (available in http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/ 11/11135/tde-09032006-155041/). Gutierrez, A.S.D., 2005. Danos mecˆanicos p´os-colheita em pˆessego fresco. Tese de doutoramento. ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba. Harvey, J.M., 1978. Reduction of losses in fresh market fruits and vegetables. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 16, 321–341. Martins, M.C., Amorim, L., 2005. Doenc¸as das ros´aceas de caroc¸o. Informe Agropecu´ario 26, 44–48. Martins, M.C., Betti, J.S., Leite, R.M.V.B.C., Leite Jr., R.P., Amorim, L., 2005. Doenc¸as das ros´aceas de caroc¸o. In: Kimati, H., Amorim, L., Rezende, J.A.M., Bergamin Filho, A., Camargo, L.E.A. (Eds.), Manual de Fitopatologia, vol. 2. Ceres, S˜ao Paulo, pp. 545–557. Martins, M.C., Lourenc¸o, S.A., Gutierrez, A.S.D., Jacomino, A.P., Amorim, L., 2006. Quantificac¸a˜ o de danos p´os-colheita em pˆessegos no mercado atacadista de S˜ao Paulo. Fitopatologia Brasileira 31, 5–10. Thompson, J.E., Crisosto, C.H., 2002. Handling at destination markets. In: Kader, A.A. (Ed.), Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, Publication 3311. University of California, pp.271–277. Toma, R.B., Fansler, L.T., Knipe, M.T., 1990. World food storage: the third dimension. Sci. Food Agric., http://www.arec.umd.edu/arec365/ castpharv.htm. Wells, J.M., 1977. Sour rot of peaches caused by Monilinia implicata and Geotrichum candidum. Phytopathology 67, 404–408. Zadoks, J.C., 1985. On the conceptual basis of crop loss assessment: the threshold theory. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 23, 455–473. Zadoks, J.C., Schein, R.D., 1979. Epidemiology and Plant Disease Management. Oxford University Press, New York. Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.