Split-resistant and split-susceptible rabbiteye blueberry fruit were evaluated at all stages of development to determine \u27\u27water uptake thresholds\u27\u27 by soaking in distilled water. Weight increase after soaking was measured, and percent weight gain was calculated to take into consideration the weight increase of the fruit from development. The ratio of percent increase in volume to weight increase resulting from water uptake was calculated. Ratios of percent water uptake to weight increase between splitsusceptible \u27Tifblue\u27 and split-resistant \u27Premier\u27 blueberries were found to be similar. The split-susceptible \u27Tifblue\u27 had a 1.6 g/50 fruit increase with a 1.7% water uptake and a ratio of 1.08. \u27Premier\u27 had a higher weight increase with 3.3 g/50 fruit and also a higher percentage of water uptake at 3.6% providing a ratio of 1.09. Although both absorbed water at a constant rate shown by a linear increase of weight increase over time, \u27Premier\u27 absorbed a significantly greater amount of water than did \u27Tifblue\u27 yet remained intact and did not split

Curry, Kenneth J.

Marshall-Shaw, Donna A.

Spiers, James M.

English

Aquila Digital Community

The University of Southern MississippiThe Aquila Digital CommunityFaculty Publications9-2009Water Uptake Threshold of Rabbiteye (Vacciniumashei) Blueberries and Its Influence on FruitSplittingDonna A. Marshall-ShawUnited States Department of Agriculture, donna.marshall@ars.usda.govJames M. SpiersUnited States Department of AgricultureKenneth J. CurryUniversity of Southern Mississippi, Kenneth.Curry@usm.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubsPart of the Fruit Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications byan authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact Joshua.Cromwell@usm.edu.Recommended CitationMarshall-Shaw, D. A., Spiers, J. M., Curry, K. J. (2009). Water Uptake Threshold of Rabbiteye (Vaccinium ashei) Blueberries and ItsInfluence on Fruit Splitting. HortScience, 44(7), 2035-2037.Available at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs/83.532.521.5I0.5Premier (SR)C1ifblue(SS)C—è--Premier(SR)Q.—W--Tifblue (SS)Green	 Yellow	 Pink	 Purple	 RipeRain-related splitting is a detriment tocommercial blueberry growers in the south-eastern United States. This problem has beenreported to have reduced marketable yieldsand thus profit for these growers by up to20% (Marshall et al., 2006). Researchershave been working on the problem of fruitsplitting in various fruit crops for more than70 years. If a few key factors that contributeto splitting in blueberries can be identifiedand implemented as screening tools for newcultivars, then long-term reductions in com-mercial blueberry fruit splitting are feasible.Blueberries absorb external water eitherthrough the peel or through the pedicel. Yetsome blueberry cultivars tend to absorb morewater than the berry can sustain, thus resultingin fruit splitting. Studies have suggested manyfactors that influence fruit splitting. Thesefactors include cultivar, fruit maturity, temper-ature of water (fruit splitting increases with anincrease in water temperature), fruit tempera-ture, period of wetting, soluble solids content,fruit firmness and turgor, relative humidity, soilmoisture, peel permeability, and elasticity ofthe peel (Ackley and Krueger, 1980; Bullock,1952; Gerhardt et al., 1945; Marshall, 1954;Powers and Bollen, 1947; Zielinski, 1964). It isgenerally agreed (Ackley and Krueger, 1980;Andersen and Richardson, 1982; Bullock,1952; Davenport et al., 1972; Marshall,1954) that the cause of cracking in cherries,whether directly or indirectly, is absorption ofexternal water through the fruit peel. There-fore, protecting fruit from rainwater contact-ing and remaining on the fruit should reduceor eliminate splitting. However, Marshall(2001) found that covering blueberry plantsto prevent rainfall from contacting the fruitwas not sufficient to eliminate splitting. Aftera rainfall, split berries were harvested fromboth uncovered as well as covered plants. Asexpected, plants had significantly more splitberries if left uncovered (30.40%) than didcovered plants (19.90%). Yet some splits3.532.501.5I0.5apparently occurred from uptake of water bythe roots that is transported to the fruit by thexylem.Susceptibility to splitting in cherries ap-pears to be related to the rate and quantityof water uptake by the fruit (Belman andKeulemans, 1996). Uptake of water into thefruit occurs not only through the pedicel,but also through the peel. Lane et al. (2000)found that split-resistant cherry cultivars ab-sorbed more water before splitting than didsplit-susceptible cherries. They concludedthat water uptake thresholds at which fruitsplit was a major factor explaining the splitsusceptibility difference in cherry cultivars.Lane et al. (2000) added that a cultivar dif-ference causally related to splitting suscepti-bility could be attributed to the amount ofair-filled spaces between cells, which wouldallow water to be taken in without increasingfruit volume. This could be detenTiined bymeasuring the ratio of percent water uptake tovolume increase of resistant and susceptiblecultivars. Ratios found to be similar suggestthat cell adhesion might be an explanation forcultivar difference. Cultivars with cellsweakly adhering to each other may split atlower turgor pressure than those with cellsthat strongly adhere.A mature planting (30 plants of eachcultivar) of 'Tifblue' and 'Premier' plantslocated at the Thad Cochran Southern Horti-cultural Laboratory in Poplarville, MS, wasused for this study. Plants were divided intofour replications of four plants/replication'Tifblue' is a split-susceptible (SS) rabbiteyecultivar and 'Premier' is a split-resistant (SR)rabbiteye cultivar.Expt. 1During harvest season of 2002, sound fruitof'Tifblue' and 'Premier' were collected at allstages of maturation from each plant of allreplications (four samples of four plants). A50-fruit sample of each maturity stage (green,yellow, pink, purple, and ripe) was weighedrecorded as initial dry weight. The entiresample was subjected to laboratory-inducedsplitting (Marshall et al., 2007). Fruit wereHORTSCIENCE 44(7):2035-2037. 2009.Water Uptake Threshold of Rabbiteye(Vaccinium ashei) Blueberries and ItsInfluence on Fruit SplittingDonna A. Marshall' and James M. SpiersUSDA-ARS, Thad Cochran Southern Horticultural Laborator y, P.O. Box287, Poplarville, MS 39470Kenneth J. CurryUniversity of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5018, Hattiesburg,MSAdditional index words. rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium ashei, water absorption, split-resistantsplit-susceptibleAbstract. Split-resistant and split-susceptible rabbiteye blueberry fruit were evaluatedat all stages of development to determine "water uptake thresholds" by soaking in distilledwater. Weight increase after soaking was measured, and percent weight gain wascalculated to take into consideration the weight increase of the fruit from development.The ratio of percent increase in volume to weight increase resulting from water uptakewas calculated. Ratios of percent water uptake to weight increase between split-susceptible 'Tifblue' and split-resistant 'Premier' blueberries were found to be similar.The split-susceptible 'Tifblue' had a 1.6 g/50 fruit increase with a 1.7% water uptake anda ratio of 1.08. 'Premier' had a higher weight increase with 3.3 g/50 fruit and also a higherpercentage of water uptake at 3.6% providing a ratio of 1.09. Although both absorbedwater at a constant rate shown by a linear increase of weight increase over time,Premier' absorbed a significantly greater amount of water than did 'Tifblue' yetremained intact and did not split.Received for publication 9 July 2009. Accepted forpublication 31 Aug. 2009.To whom reprint requests should be addressed;e-mail Donna. Marshall@ars.usda.gov .Fig. I. Weight increase (bar) and percent increase (line) by water uptake of two blueberry cultivars. SR =split-resistant; SS split-susceptible. Error bars represent ss of the mean (n = 50. (percent increase =weight increase/50 berry initial dry weight).HORTSCIENCE VOL. 44(7) DECEMBER 2009	 2035Green	 Yellow	 Pink	 Purple	 RipeBerry DevelopmentSoaking Lengthplaced into a glass beaker and covered withdistilled water and left at room tempera-ture overnight. After a 24-h interval, the fruitwere removed from the water bath, blotteddry, reweighed, and observed for the pres-ence of splitting. Percent split fruit wascalculated.Total water absorption by fruit was cal-culated at all stages of development bysoaking in distilled water. Weight increaseof 50 berries after soaking was measured andthe percent weight increase was calculated(Fig. 1). The ratio of percent increase inweight to weight increase resulting fromwater uptake was calculated and graphicallydisplayed (Fig. 2). Immature, green, 'Pre-mier' berries absorbed 1.96 g of water/SOberries, a 3.3% increase in weight comparedwith 1.25 g/50 berries of 'Tiffilue'. As thefruit matured to a yellow stage, 'Premier'berries absorbed significantly more waterthan green berries with an increase of 2.68 gor 2.7%, whereas yellow 'Tiflue' berries hada 1.47 g or 3.1% weight increase. 'Premier'consistently absorbs more water as berriesmature and increase in size. The percentweight increase in 'Premier' thus remainsr53.6%. This lends for a ratio that remainsclose to 1.0 (1.6 green, 1.0 yellow, 1.4 pink,1.3 purple, 1.1 ripe). Conversely, 'Tifblue'absorbs a consistent (1.38 ± 0.2 g150 berries)amount of water regardless of size of fruit ormaturity, giving 'Tithlue' an increasing lowerpercentage of fruit weight increase by waterabsorption. This lends for ratios that are higherin early development and approach 1.0 at ripe(2.6 green, 2.1 yellow, 1.9 pink, 1.8 purple, 1.1ripe).'Premier' (SR) had a higher percentage ofsplit fruit than 'Tiffilue' (SS) during the earlystages of development (green-purple). Split-ting occurrence was significantly higher inpink and purple stages, but never exceeded16% splits (Fig. 3). These 'Premier' fruit willlikely drop off the plant and will never beharvested, posing little threat of rejection atthe grading line because of split fruit. Nosplitting occurred in premature stages (green-purple) of 'Tifblue' fruit, yet 26% splittingoccurred when the fruit were completely ripe.Split ripe fruit causes a decrease in market-able fruit yield, and if significant numbers offruit are present during grading, the entirebatch could be rejected.Expt. 2In a separate soaking experiment, during2002, 10 ripe fruit from each cultivar wereweighed individually and subjected to thesame laboratory-induced splitting tech-nique in individual glass beakers. At I, 2,3, 4, 6, and 24 h, each individual fruit wasremoved, inspected, blotted, weighed, andif still intact, returned to the beaker of water.A final weight was recorded after 24 h ofsoaking. Total fruit weight increase result-ing from water uptake was recorded. Theratio of percent increase in weight to weightincrease resulting from water uptake wascalculated.Figure 4 shows the rate in which wateris absorbed into ripe fruit. The absorption ratefor both cultivars is linear throughout the24-h period with 'Premier' showing an ab-sorption rate at 3 mg/hour (r = 0.9977) and'Tifblue' absorption rate of 2.1 mg/hour (r =353025Percent splits20151012010080ci.	 60040'I-0E200-200.9978). Both cultivars absorb water ata steady rate, yet 'Premier' the SR cultivar,absorbs a larger quantity of water at a fasterrate and remains intact.Lane et al. (2000) found that SR cherrycultivars absorbed and retained more watera.2 1.5-I--Premier(SR)	0.5	- U- Tilblue (SS)	11	 ------------------------------------------Green	 Yellow	 Pink	 Purple	 RipeFig. 2. Ratio of percent increase in volume to weight increase resulting front 	 uptake of two blueberrycultivars in = 50).Fig. 3. Percent splits for two blueberry cultivars at each developmental stage occurring after soaking. Errorbars represent the sL of the mean (n = 50).Fig. 4. Weight increase resulting from soaking ripe blueberries in distilled water. Error bars represent si ofthe mean (n = 10).2036	 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 44(7) DECEMBER 2009before splitting than did SS cherries. Thisis also true of blueberries. 'Premier', a SRblueberry, absorbs more water than does'Tifblue', yet 'Premier' remains intact andexperiences minimal splitting. Lane et al.(2000) concluded that water uptake thresh-olds at which fruit split was a major factorexplaining the difference in SR and SS cherrycultivars. They also added that "the basis forthe cultivar difference could lie in the amountof air-filled spaces between cells, whichwould allow water to be taken in withoutincreasing fruit volume. This could be de-termined by measuring the ratio of percentwater uptake to volume increase of resistantand susceptible cultivars." Similar ratioswould suggest that cell adhesion might be anexplanation for cultivar difference. In thisstudy, the ratios of percent water uptake:-weight increase between SS and SR blue-berries were found to be similar. The SS'Tiffilue' had a 1.6 g150 fruit increase witha 1.7°/ water uptake. This would providea ratio of 1.08 for 'Tifblue.' The SR 'Premier'had a higher weight increase with 3.3 g/50fruit, but also a higher percentage of wateruptake at 3.6% providing a ratio of 1.09.From this study and previous studies(Marshall, 200L Marshall et al.. 2006.2007), rain-induced splitting is a cultivar-specific problem and the differences areevident from early development to maturity.This study further shows that both eultivarstested absorb water into the fruit at a linearrate. The difference is manifested in how thefruit contains the water that is absorbed. Arethe cells filling and expanding past control-lable capacity or are the cells remainingintact and the cell-to-cell adhesions givingway? This study does not answer thesequestions but does provide a starting pointfor further studies looking at cell-to-celladhesion and possible air space within thepulp of the fruit. Adhesion points and airspaces need to be quantified and evaluatedfor possible causes of rain-related splitting incultivated blueberries.Literature CitedAckley. W.B. and W.H. Krueger. 1980. Overheadirrigation water quality and the cracking ofSweet cherries. HortScience 15:289-290.Andersen, P.C. and D.G. Richardson. 1982. A rapidmethod to estimate fruit water status withspecial reference to rain cracking of sweetcherries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107:441-444.Belmar, K. and J. Keulemans. 1996. A study ofsome fruit skin characteristics in relation to thesusceptibility of cherry fruit to cracking. ActaHort. (ISHS) 4 10:547-550.Bullock, R.M. 1952. A study of some inorganiccompounds and growth promoting chemicals inrelation to fruit cracking of Bing cherries atmaturity. Proc. Amer. Cos. Hort. Sci. 59:243253.Davenport, D.C., K. Uriu, and R.M. Hagen. 1972.Antitranspirant film: Curtailing intake ofexter-nal water by cherry fruit to reduce cracking.HortScienee 7:507.Gerhardt, F., H. English, and E. Smith. 1945.Cracking and decay of 'Bing' cherries as re-lated to the presence of moisture on the surfaceofthe fruit. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46:191-198.Lane, W.D., M. Meheriuk, and D.L. McKenzie.2000. Fruit cracking of susceptible, and in-termediate, and a resistant sweet cherry culti-var. HoriScience 35:239-242.Marshall, D.A. 2001. Incidence of splitting in'Premier' and 'Tifblue' rabbiteye blueberries.Master's Thesis. University of Southern Hattiesburg, MS.Marshall, D.A., J.M. Spiers. and J.H. Braswell.2006. Splitting severity among rabbiteye (Vac-ciniu,n ashei Reade) blueberry varieties inMississippi and Louisiana. Intl. J. Fruit Sci.6:77-81.Marshall, D.A., J.M. Spiers, S.J. Stringer, and K.J.Curry. 2007. Laboratory method to estimaterain-induced splitting in cultivated blueberries.HortScience 42:1551-1553.Marshall, R.E. 1954. Cherries and cherry products.Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York. NY.p. 60-63.Powers, W.L. and W.B. Bollen. 1947. Control ofcracking ofruit by rain. Science 105:334-335.Zielinski, Q.B. 1964. Resistance of sweet cherryvarieties to fruit cracking in relation to fruit andpit size and fruit color. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.Sci. 84:98-102.HORTSCIENCL VOL. 44(7) DECEMBER 2009	 2037

Water Uptake Threshold of Rabbiteye (\u3ci\u3eVaccinium ashei\u3c/i\u3e) Blueberries and Its Influence on Fruit Splitting

https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&amp;context=fac_pubs

Water Uptake Threshold of Rabbiteye (\u3ci\u3eVaccinium ashei\u3c/i\u3e) Blueberries and Its Influence on Fruit Splitting

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquila Digital Community