American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012 ISSN 1818-6769 © IDOSI Publications, 2012 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2012.12.10.251212
Effect of Some Citrus Rootstocks on Fruit Quality and Storability of Washington Navel Orange Under Cold Storage Conditions H.A. Hifny, A.M. Abd Elrazik, G.A. Abdrabboh and M.Z. Sultan Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt Abstract: The present study was carried out during the two successive seasons of 2010 and 2011 to investigate the effect of volkameriana lemon and sour orange rootstocks on fruit quality and storability of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions. Generally, fruit weight loss (%), decay (%), TSS % and TSS/Acid ratio of fruits were increased with prolonging the period of cold storage. On the other hand, fruit peel and pulp firmness as well as titritable acidity decreased by increasing the period of cold storage. In general, fruits of Navel orange trees budded on sour orange rootstock was superior to those budded on volkameriana lemon rootstock concerning TSS%, Acidity% and vitamin C characteristics. In the same time, the fruits have the highest percentage of both weight loss and decay. On the other hand, fruits of orange trees budded on volkameriana lemon rootstock recorded the highest averages of peel, pulp firmness and TSS/Acid ratio parameters. Key words: Washington Navel Orange
Citrus rootstocks
INTRODUCTION Navel orange (Citrus sinensis, L. (Osbeck)) is the most popular fruit crops among other citrus species in Egypt, with an area of 158000 Feddan which represents about 39.4 % of the total area of citrus in Egypt and annual production of approximately 1634764 tons [1]. In the Mediterranean region, all citrus cultivars are mainly budded on Sour orange, due to its resistance to gummosis fungi, high adaptability to wide range of soil conditions and the ability to produce high fruits quality [2]. However, the Sour orange rootstock has shown to have some serious problems such as susceptibility to be attacked by citrus tristeza virus, poor compatibility with some citrus cultivars and in some cases produce low fruit yields compared with other rootstocks [2, 3], such as Volkamer lemon which appears to be one of the most promising rootstocks because its tolerance to tristeza [4] can influence fruit nutrient content such as Ca, Mg, K, N and P. Consequently, the rootstock might develop some postharvest disorders like albido breakdown in orange [5] and internal browning in peach fruits [6, 7]. Moreover, the storability of peach fruits was significantly affected by
Cold storage
rootstock [6]. The previous work dealing with the effects of rootstock kind on the storability of Navel orange fruits especially under reclaimed soils in Egypt seemed to be limited. Accordingly, this experiment was conducted to elucidate the effect of two kinds of rootstocks on storage potential of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant Materials: The present study was carried out in the two successive seasons of 2010 and 2011 where trees of Navel orange (Citrus sinensis, L. (Osbeck)) eight years old budded on sour orange (C. aurantium L.) and volkameriana lemon (C. volkameriana Ten. and Pasq.) rootstocks, grown in a private orchard located at Wadi Almollak, Sharqiia Governorate, Egypt were used. The trees are grown in sandy soil, irrigated using drip irrigation system. Fifteen trees of each rootstock were selected nearly similar in growth, healthy and subjected to the same cultural practices. Ninety fruits from each rootstock were harvested at fruit at maturity stage, where
Corresponding Author: G.A. Abdrabboh, Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt
1266
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012
6 fruits of each tree were used. The collected fruits were divided into two groups, each has 45 fruits and the first group was devoted to measure the fruit decay and loss of the fruit weight while the second group was devoted for measuring fruit firmness and the chemical analysis. The harvested fruits were transferred to the post harvest lab where they washed with tab water and then dipped in 2% boric acid solution. Thereafter, air dried for 48 h under room temperature for fruit curing. All fruits were selected sound without any decay and then put in carton boxes and stored at 5°C and 95% relative humidity (RH).
storage in the two seasons. That is perhaps may be due to the great peel thickness of volkameriana. Weight loss of perishable fruit is a serious concern in its storage because loss of moisture decreases visual quality; salable weight and may be resulted in physiological dysfunction. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Abdur et al. [11] on sweet orange and Abdrabboh [12] on apricot, who stated that weight loss of fruits increased by increasing the storage period. Decay Percentage: Data presented in Fig. 2a and b showed that decay percentage of orange trees budded on sour orange was higher than those budded on volkamer lemon rootstock. Regarding the effect of cold storage period, data in Fig. 2a and b cleared that fruit decay (%) gradually was increased with prolonging the storage period to become 90 days in fruits of the two rootstocks in both seasons. Regarding, the effect of the interaction between storage period and rootstocks, data in Fig. 2a and b showed that the highest decay (%) was gained by the interaction between remaining 90 days under cold storage and fruits due to using sour orange rootstock in comparison to volkameriana rootstock. These results are in agreement with those reported by Abdel-Razik [13], who indicated that decay % of mango fruits was increased by prolonging of cold storage period.
Measurements: Weight loss was determined as follows: weight loss (%) = [(w0 – w1)/w0] x100, where w0 is the initial weight and w1 is the weight measured at sampling date. Decay% was determined by calculating the number of decayed fruits from sampling date and expressed as percentage of initial fruit number [8]. Fruit firmness (Lb/inch2) was measured in peel and pulp using pressure tester (Digital force-Gouge Model FGV-0.5A to FGV-100A. shimpo instruments). The total acidity (TA) was determined by titration and expressed as citric acid according to A.O.A.C. [9]. The percentage of total soluble solids (TSS %) was determined by using a digital refractometer. Vitamin C was estimated by titrating juice sample with 2, 6 dichlorophenol indophenol dye [9]. Statistical Analysis: A complete randomized block design was followed and the results were analyzed using CO-STAT software program and the means compared by the Duncan’s multiple range tests at 0.05% level of probability [10]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Physical Properties Weight Loss: Data in Fig. 1a and b illustrated that cold stored fruits did not show a real significant difference between the effects of two studied rootstocks up to 30 days under cold storage conditions. The stored fruits showed a significant difference in decreasing the fruit weight loss collected from trees budded on sour orange rootstock more than on volkameriana rootstock. Weight loss of cold storage fruits was progressively increased in the cold storage period where the fruit weight loss was increased in response to the effect of sour orange rootstock than that due to volkameriana rootstock. It could be concluded that weight loss due to volkameriana rootstock was significantly less than that due to sour orange rootstock during the period of cold
Peel Firmness (Lb /Inch2): It is clearly noticed from data in Fig. 3a and b that fruit of navel orange are be influenced by volkameriana rootstock such that the highest thickness of fruit peel compared with that on sour orange rootstock. Similar results are reported by Georgiou and Gregoriou [3]. Pulp Firmness (Lb/Inch2): Data in Fig. 4a and b illustrated that volkamer lemon also affected the firmness of the fruit pulp and showed the higher pulp firmness than sour orange. Similar results were gained by Wutscher H.K. and Bistline [14] who stated that the little percentage of fruit juice caused by budding on volcameriana rootstock has the responsible for the higher pulp firmness compared with that on sour orange. It is evident from Fig. 4a and b that by prolonging storage period, peel and pulp firmness decreased. Peel firmness was considered to be affected by peel thickness. Pulp firmness of navel orange also decreased during storage. It is clear that peels and pulp firmness gradually decreased under cold storage at both rootstocks. In this regard, data showed that fruits from trees budded on volkameriana lemon possessed higher firmness values than those caused by sour orange during the period of cold storage.
1267
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012 9.00
8.00
7.00
Weight loss %
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Mean
Volka
0.00
0.70
1.63
2.48
3.72
5.73
6.33
2.94
Sour
0.00
0.70
1.60
3.07
4.37
6.37
7.57
3.38
LSD at 5%:
R = 0.29
S = 0.55
R *S = 0.78
S = Storage period
R = Rootstock
Fig. 1a: Effect of rootstocks on weight loss percentage of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2010 season 9.00
8.00
7.00
Weight loss %
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Mean
Volka
0.00
0.50
0.86
1.20
3.90
4.40
7.40
2.61
Sour
0.00
0.63
0.90
1.18
4.10
4.90
8.43
LSD at 5% :
R = 0.56
S = 1.05
R*S = 1.48
2.88 S= Storage period
R = Rootstock
Fig. 1b: Effect of rootstocks on weight loss percentage of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2011 season 60.00
50.00
Decay %
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Mean
Volka
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.30
33.33
51.00
13.44
Sour
0.00
0.00
11.4
14.36
21.96
32.13
50.33
15.59
S= 0.88
R* S= 1.24
LSD at 5% :
R = 0.47
=RRootstock
=S Storage period
Fig. 2a: Effect of rootstocks on Decay % of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2010 season 1268
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012 60.00
50.00
Decay %
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Volka
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
16.50
37.00
9.01
Sour
0.00
0.00
14.60
21.90
33.00
51.00
18.90
LSD at 5%:
11.70
R = 1.61
S = 3.02
R*S = 4.28
R = Rootstock
Mean
S = Storage period
Fig. 2b: Effect of rootstocks on Decay % of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2011 season 18.00
16.00
14.00
Peel firmness (Lb/inch²)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Mean
Volka
17.55
15.66
14.27
13.33
12.18
11.11
9.30
13.33
Sour
13.57
12.12
10.99
10.43
9.35
8.67
7.69
10.40
LSD at 5%:
R = 0.67
S = 1.26
R*S = 1.79
R = Rootstock
S = Storage period
Fig. 3a: Effect of rootstock on peel firmness (Lb/inch2) of navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2010 season 18.00
16.00
14.00
Peel firmness (Lb/inch²)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
45
60
Volka
14.20
12.54
11.73
11.02
10.56
9.11
8.10
11.04
Sour
13.09
0.0
11.41
15
10.68
30
10.05
9.50
8.44
7.93
10.15
LSD at 5%:
R = 1.02
S = 1.9
R*S = 2.7
75
R = Rootstock
90 day
Mean
S = Storage period
Fig. 3b: Effect of rootstock on peel firmness (Lb/inch ) of navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2011 season 2
1269
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012 8.00
7.00
Pulp firmness (Lb/inch²)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
60
75
90 day
Mean
Volka
7.53
7.00
5.94
4.98
3.94
3.36
2.83
5.08
Sour
5.07
0.0
4.26
3.75
3.42
2.83
2.38
2.02
3.39
S = 0.84
R*S = 1.19
LSD at 5%:
15
R = 0.45
30
45
R = Rootstock
S = Storage period
Fig. 4a: Effect of rootstocks on pulp firmness (Lb/inch2) of navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2010 season 8.00
7.00
Pulp firmness (Lb/inch²)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0
15
30
45
60
75
90 day
Volka
6.22
5.47
5.00
4.70
4.20
3.30
2.33
4.46
Sour
4.29
4.06
3.85
3.18
2.60
2.18
1.77
3.13
LSD at 5% :
R = 0.78
S = 1.47
R*S = 2.07
R = Rootstock
Mean
S = Storage period
Fig. 4b: Effect of rootstock on pulp firmness (Lb/inch2) of navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions in 2011 season TSS %: Concerning total soluble solids, data in Table 1 showed that the fruits from trees budded on sour orange had higher TSS % compared with fruits from trees on volkamer. Kaplankiran et al. [15] working on “Okitsu” satsuma mandarin and reported that the highest TSS was obtained from fruits on sour orange. The previous results were in agreement with those obtained by Al-Jaleel et al. [16] who found that citrus trees grafted on sour orange rootstock produced fruits with high total soluble solids (TSS%), while trees on lemon rootstocks produced larger fruits with low total soluble solids. Data in Table 1 also showed that TSS % of fruit juice gradually increased with the prolonging of storage period in the two seasons. Thus, the highest values of total soluble solids were recorded at the end of storage period in both seasons.
A significant increase in TSS was observed at the two rootstocks. The results are in agreement with the findings of Abdur et al. [11] who found that TSS%, were increased by increasing storage period in sweet orange. They add that TSS percentage is a function of total dissolved solids and moisture content of the fruit and the increase in TSS% may be due to loss of moisture content of the fruit during the cold storage period. Total Acidity: Data in Table 2 indicated that the lowest total acid percentage was found in fruits budded on Volkameriana with significant differences than sour orange. Some authors such as Kaplankiran et al. [15] on Satsuma and García-Sánchez et al. [17] on mandarin found that the effects of the rootstocks on fruit juice acidity
1270
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012 Table 1: Effect of volkameriana lemon and sour orange rootstocks on TSS % of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions during 2010 and 2011 seasons
Rootstocks
Storage periods (days) under 5°C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Mean
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2010 season 10.17 i 10.53 hi 10.35 f
10.30 hi 10.80gh 10.55f
11.20 fg 11.60 ef 11.4 e
11.83de 12.00de 11.91d
12.30 d 12.80 c 12.55 c
13.03c 13.60b 13.31b
13.80ab 14.20 a 14 a
11.80 b 12.21 a --
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2011 season 10.57 g 10.83 fg 10.7d
11.10 fg 11.30 efg 11.2 d
11.77 def 11.77 def 11.76 c
12.23 de 12.30 de 12.26bc
12.70 cd 12.83 bcd 12.76 b
13.30 abc 13.43abc 13.36 a
13.73 ab 14.00 a 13.86 a
12.2 a 12.35 a --
Table 2: Effect of volkameriana lemon and sour orange rootstocks on total acidity % of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions during 2010 and 2011 seasons
Rootstocks
Storage periods (days) under 5°C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Mean
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2010 season 0.84 abc 0.90 a 0.86a
0.81abcd 0.86 ab 0.83 ab
0.77 bcde 0.83 abcd 0.79 bc
0.73 defg 0.79 bcde 0.761cd
0.70 efg 0.75 cdef 0.72 de
0.65 gh 0.71 efg 0.68 ef
0.61 h 0.67 fgh 0.63 f
0.72 b 0.78 a --
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2011 season 0.83 abcd 0.90 a 0.86 a
0.80 bcde 0.87 ab 0.83 a
0.79 bcdef 0.85 abc 0.82 ab
0.76 cdef 0.82 abcd 0.79bc
0.74 def 0.78 bcdef 0.76 cd
0.71 ef 0.76cdef 0.73 d
0.69 f 0.74 def 0.71 d
0.76 b 0.81 a --
Table 3: Effect of volkameriana lemon and sour orange rootstocks on TSS/Acid ratio of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions during 2010 and 2011 seasons
Rootstocks
Storage periods(days) under 5°C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Mean
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2010 season 12.17 gh 11.72 h 22 a
12.67 gh 12.59 gh 19.64 b
14.62 ef 14.00 fg 17.36 c
16.15 de 15.20 ef 15.67d
17.69 d 17.04 d 14.31 e
20.12 bc 19.17 c 12.63 f
22.68 a 21.32 ab 11.94 f
16.58 a 15.86 b --
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2011 season 12.80 gh 12.07 h 19.38 a
13.83 fgh 12.97 gh 18.20b
14.90 efg 13.87fgh 16.84 c
16.03def 15.09efg 15.55d
17.26bcde 16.43 cde 14.38de
18.66 abc 17.74 abcd 13.39 ef
19.81 a 18.96 ab 12.43 f
16.18 a 15.30 b --
Means in each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different Table 4: Effect of volkameriana lemon and sour orange rootstocks on Vitamin C (mg/100 mg) of Navel orange fruits under cold storage conditions during 2010 and 2011 seasons
Rootstocks
Storage periods (days) under 5°C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Mean
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2010 season 60.40 bc 69.20 a 64.8a
57.17 cd 64.55 ab 60.86b
52.41de 60.07 bc 56.24 c
51.11de 55.81 cd 53.45cd
49.52 de 52.78 de 51.14 de
47.55 e 49.78 de 48.66 ef
44.91 e 47.40 e 46.15 f
51.86 b 57.08 a --
Volkameriana lemon Sour orange Mean
2011 season 56.97 bcd 63.47 a 60.21 a
55.20 abcd 61.27ab 58.23ab
52.80 bcd 58.33 abc 55.56 abc
49.80abcd 54.77 bcd 52.28bcd
47.57 bcd 52.93 bcd 50.25 cde
45.47 cd 50.20 abcd 47.83 de
42.03 d 47.60 bcd 44.81 e
49.97 b 55.50 a --
Means in each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different
1271
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012
were insignificant. Regarding storage period and it is effect on fruits juice acidity, data presented in Table 2 showed that total acidity % was significantly decreased with prolonging cold storage periods. Total acidity of Navel orange was decreased gradually during the storage period [18] which probably due to the rise in SS content [19].
5.
6.
TSS/Acid Ratio: Data in Table 3 indicated that both cold storage period and rootstock significantly affected the TSS/Acid ratio. The TSS /Acid ratio was increased with increasing storage duration. With further prolonging in the storage period, TSS/ Acid ratio was significantly increased. Since TSS% was increased, while the percent of total acidity was decreased with increasing the storage period, increased TSS/Acid ratio was resulted in from increasing the TSS content of the fruit. The maximum increase was recorded in fruit budded on sour orange. TSS/Acid ratio was increased by increasing the storage period [11]. Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid): Data in Table 4 indicated that vitamin C content in fruit juice was gradually decreased during cold storage period. The fruits from trees on sour orange showed an increase in Vitamin C content significantly higher than those on volkamer rootstock. The results were in harmony with those obtained by Luis and Andrea [20] who stated that prolonging storage period reduced Vitamin C in guava. Also, Coloumb et al. [21] claimed that rootstock may affect the fruit post harvest behavior since vitamin C is rapidly lost during extended storage of citrus fruits since its retention is of prime importance in post harvest handling of citrus fruits.
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
12.
13.
REFERENCES 14. 1. 2.
3.
4.
Ministry of Agriculture, Economic Affairs Sector, 2009. Total Area and Production for Fruits in Egypt. Castle, W.S., 2010. A career perspective on Citrus rootstocks, their development and commercialization. HortScience, 45: 11-15. Georgiou, A. and C. Gregoriou, 1999. Growth, yield and fruit quality of ‘Shamouti' orange on fourteen rootstocks in Cyprus. Scientia Hort., 80: 113-121. Shafieizargar, A., Y. Awang, A. Juraimi and R. Othman, 2012. Yield and fruit quality of ‘Queen’orange [Citrus sinensis (L) Osb.] grafted on different rootstocks in Iran. AJCS, 6:777-783.
15.
16.
1272
Treeby, T.M., R.E. Henriod, K.B. Bevington, D.J. Milne and R. Storey, 2007. Irrigation management and rootstock effects on Navel orange (Citrus sinensis L.) fruit quality. Agricultural Water Management, 91: 24-32. Remorini, D., S. Tavarini, E. Degl’Innocenti, F. Loreti, R. Massai and L. Guidi, 2008. Effect of rootstocks and harvesting time on the nutritional quality of peel and flesh of peach fruits. Food Chemistry, 110: 361-367. Rato, E.A., C.A. Agulheiro, M.J. Barroso and F. Riquelme, 2008. Soil and rootstock influence on fruit quality of plums (Prunus domestica L.). Sciencia Hort., 118: 218-222. El-Anany, A.M., G.F.A. Hassan and F.M. Rehab Ali, 2009. Effects of edible coatings on the shelf-life and quality of Anna apple (Malus domestica Borkh) during cold storage. Journal of Food Technology, 7: 5-11. A.O.A.C., 2000. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists Official Methods of Analysis. 12th Ed. Washington, D.C. USA. Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple Range and Multiple F test. Biometrics, 11: 1-24. Abdur R. Saeedul Haq, Shahid Akbar Khalil and Syed Ghias Ali, 2010. Fruit quality and senescence related changes in sweet orange cultivar blood red uni-packed in different packing materials. Sarhad J. Agric., 26(2): 221-227. Abdrabboh, G.A., 2012. Effect of some pre-harvest treatments on fruit quality and storability of Canino apricot under cold storage conditions. J. Hort. Sci. and Ornament. Plants, 4(3): 227-234. Abdel-Razik, A.M., 2012. Effect of Different Irrigation Regimes on quality and storability of mango fruits (Mangifera indica L.). J. Hort. Sci. andOrnament. Plants, 4(3): 247-252. Wutscher, H.K. and F.W. Bistline, 1988. Performance of 'Hamlin' orange on 30 citrus rootstocks in southern Florida. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 113: 493-497. Kaplankiran, M., T.H. Demirkeser and E. Yeldiz, 2005. The effects of some citrus rootstocks on fruit yield and quality for Okitsu Satsuma during the juvenility period in Dortyol (Hatay, Turkey) conditions. In: 7th International Society of Citrus Nurserymen Congress. Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 17-21 (Abst. No. 27). Al-Jaleel, A., M. Zekri and Y. Hammam, 2005. Yield, fruit quality and tree health of `Allen Eureka' lemon on seven rootstocks in Saudi Arabia. Scientia Horticulturae, 105(4): 457-465.
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1266-1273, 2012
17. García-Sánchez, F., J.G. Perez-Perez, P. Botia and V. Martínez, 2006. The response of young mandarin trees grown under saline conditions depends on the rootstock. Eur. J. Agronomy, 24: 129-139. 18. Naglaa, K.H.S., 2010. Some modified atmosphere packaging treatments reduce chilling injury and maintain postharvest quality of Washington navel orange. J. Hort. Sci. and Ornament. Plants, 2(3): 108-113. 19. Marcilla, A., M. Zarzo and M.A. Del Río, 2006. Effect of storage temperature on the flavor of citrus fruit. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(4): 336-344.
20. Luis, E.O. and V. Andrea, 2010. Effect of processing and storage time on the vitamin C and lycopene contents of nectar of pink guava (Psidium guajava L.). Home Ediciones, Ano, 60(3): 2147-2161. 21. Coloumb, A.S. Ben Yehoshua and Y. Sarig, 1984. High density polyethylene wrap improves wound healing and lengthen shelf life of mechanically harvested grape fruit. Hort. Sci., 109: 155-159.
1273
