Sweet cherry production in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) has increased roughly 2-fold over the last decade. Despite high consumer demand for fresh cherries, a short postharvest life and oversupply during ‘Bing’ harvest timing can limit returns paid to orchardists. Subsequently, sweet cherry producers have diversified with early- and late-maturing cultivars to expand the harvest window. In recent years, record sweet cherry crops have incentivized production of late-maturing cherries, which allow time for excessive midseason supplies to diminish. In fact, 61% of all cherry trees planted in Oregon between 1999 and 2005 were late-maturing cultivars (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006); however, recouping higher returns for these cultivars is contingent on exceptional fruit quality at harvest and, particularly, after postharvest cold storage and transportation to export markets.
GA3 has been shown to improve fruit quality of sweet cherries. The most pronounced and consistent effect of GA on sweet cherry fruit is higher FF (Basak et al., 1998; Clayton et al., 2003; Facteau, 1982a; Facteau et al., 1985a; Kappel and MacDonald, 2002, 2007; Looney and Lidster, 1980; Proebsting and Mills, 1973). Cherry fruit size responded positively to GA3 (Facteau, 1982a; Facteau et al., 1985b; Kappel and MacDonald, 2002, 2007), although not all studies have observed a size response (Clayton et al., 2003; Facteau et al., 1985a; Looney and Lidster, 1980). In some cases, the effect of GA3 on fruit size appears to be indirect; attributed to retarded skin color development that grants GA3-treated fruit additional time to mature on the tree relative to untreated fruit (Choi et al., 2002). Skin pigmentation of ‘Lambert’ and ‘Bing’ fruit was significantly delayed in proportion to GA3 rate (Facteau et al., 1985a). The use of GA3 to further delay harvest timing of late-maturing cultivars is compelling; however, few studies have characterized cherry fruit and tree response to GA; of those studied, the emphasis has been on ‘Sweetheart’ (Horvitz et al., 2003; Kappel and MacDonald, 2002, 2007) and ‘Lapins’ (Choi et al., 2002). Although similar conclusions were reached for these two genotypes, we are unaware of any study that has assessed the response of ‘Skeena’ to GA3, a cultivar that has been widely adopted by producers in the PNW. Indeed, response of sweet cherry to preharvest GA3 applications has been shown to be cultivar-dependent (Usenik et al., 2005). Choi et al. (2002) documented an increase in FF and delayed maturation of two late-season genotypes (135-27-17 and ‘Lapins’) treated with GA3 but no effects on the early-maturing varieties ‘Merpet’ and ‘Celeste’.
Commercial application of GA3 occurs near the end of Stage II of fruit development, i.e., pit hardening, although a recent study demonstrated that GA3 efficacy did not depend on fruit development within a 3-week period surrounding pit hardening (Kappel and MacDonald, 2007). Moreover, split applications of GA3 did not improve fruit quality compared with single applications at the same rate for ‘Bing’ and ‘Lambert’ (Facteau et al., 1985a) or ‘Sweetheart’ (Kappel and MacDonald, 2002), implying that timing of treatment application has little effect on fruit response. Few studies have examined incremental rates of GA3 between 10 and 50 ppm (Facteau et al., 1985a; Horvitz et al., 2003; Kappel and MacDonald, 2002). Horvitz et al. (2003) observed a GA3 rate response between 10 and 30 ppm on ‘Sweetheart’ FF; Kappel and MacDonald (2002) did not. Higher rates of GA3 (100 ppm or greater) were associated with arrested floral bud induction (Bradley and Crane, 1960; Facteau et al., 1989; Oliveira and Browning, 1993). Although high rates of GA3 have been investigated as a cropload management strategy for ‘Bing’ the season after application (Lenahan et al., 2006; Proebsting and Mills, 1974), significantly lower return bloom severely reduced crop value when different isomers of GA (GA3 or GA4/7) were applied at 100 and 200 ppm (Lenahan et al., 2006). ‘Bing’, however, is not regarded as a highly productive variety, unlike several of the self-fertile, precocious, and productive late-season cultivars that produce a large proportion of undersized fruit of poor quality during high cropload years (Einhorn et al., 2011). Potentially, different cultivars may respond differently to high rates of GA3.
There is little information available on the influence of GA3 on postharvest fruit quality of sweet cherry (Clayton et al., 2003; Horvitz et al., 2003; Özkaya et al., 2006), especially late-maturing cultivars (Horvitz et al., 2003). ‘Sweetheart’ cherries treated with GA3 at 10 or 30 ppm were significantly firmer and had numerically less stem browning (SB) at the end of cold storage than untreated fruit; the effects were rate-dependent (Horvitz et al., 2003). GA lengthened the storability of ‘Bing’ (Zhang and Whiting, 2011b) and reduced incidence of surface pitting of ‘Lambert’ (Facteau and Rowe, 1979) and ‘Bing’ (Clayton et al., 2003; Drake et al., 1991) in severe pitting years. Surface pitting is the leading cause for product rejection and price adjustments in both domestic and international markets. Pits are defined as irregular, sunken areas on the surface of the fruit (Porritt et al., 1971) caused by mechanical impact or compression during harvest, processing, and transportation (Thompson et al., 1997). Surface pits are typically indiscernible before 1 to 2 weeks of storage in low temperatures. The effect of GA3 on pitting susceptibility of late-maturing cultivars has not been studied yet.
Our objective was to determine the response of fruit quality attributes of late-maturing sweet cherry cultivars to intermediate (10 to 40 ppm) and high (50 to 100 ppm) preharvest rates of GA3 both at harvest and after postharvest storage at low temperature. Additionally, we compared equivalent rates of GA3 applied either as split applications or a single application on ‘Sweetheart’ and ‘Skeena’ fruit quality.
Andrews, P.K. & Li, S. 1995 Cell wall hydrolytic enzyme activity during development of nonclimacteric sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) fruit J. Hort. Sci. 70 561 567
Basak, A., Rozpara, E. & Grzyb, Z. 1998 Use of bioregulators to reduce sweet cherry tree growth and to improve fruit quality Acta Hort. 468 719 723
Choi, C., Wiersma, P.A., Toivonen, P. & Kappel, F. 2002 Fruit growth, firmness and cell wall hydrolytic enzyme activity during development of sweet cherry fruit treated with gibberellic acid (GA3) J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 77 615 621
Clayton, M., Biasi, W.V., Agar, I.T., Southwick, S.M. & Mitcham, E.J. 2003 Postharvest quality of ‘Bing’ cherries following preharvest treatment with hydrogen cyanamide, calcium ammonium nitrate, or gibberellic acid HortScience 38 407 411
Cristoferi, G. & Filiti, N. 1983 Translocation and accumulation of labeled gibberellic acid into fruitlets and shoot apices of sweet cherry Acta Hort. 139 161 170
Drake, S.R., Moffitt, H.R. & Kupferman, E. 1991 Quality characteristics of ‘Bing’ and ‘Rainier’ sweet cherries treated with gibberellic acid, following fumigation with methyl bromide J. Food Qual. 14 119 125
Einhorn, T.C., Laraway, D. & Turner, J. 2011 Cropload management does not consistently improve crop value of ‘Sweetheart’/’Mazzard’ sweet cherry trees HortTechnology 21 546 553
Elfving, D.C. & Visser, D.B. 2005 Growth regulators/bioregulators, p. 47–53. In: Whiting, M.D. (ed.). Producing premium cherries. Good Fruit Grower, Yakima, WA
Facteau, T.J. 1982a Levels of pectic substances and calcium in gibberellic acid-treated sweet cherry fruit J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107 148 151
Facteau, T.J. 1982b Relationship of soluble solids, alcohol-insoluble solids, fruit calcium, and pectin levels to firmness and surface pitting in ‘Lambert’ and ‘Bing’ sweet cherry fruit J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107 151 154
Facteau, T.J., Rowe, K.E. & Chestnut, N.E. 1985a Firmness of sweet cherry fruit following multiple applications of gibberellic acid J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 110 775 777
Facteau, T.J., Rowe, K.E. & Chestnut, N.E. 1985b Response patterns of gibberellic acid-treated sweet cherry fruit at different soluble solids levels and leaf/fruit ratios Sci. Hort. 27 257 262
Facteau, T.J., Rowe, K.E. & Chestnut, N.E. 1989 Flowering in sweet cherry in response to application of gibberellic acid Sci. Hort. 38 239 245
Guyer, D.E., Sinha, N., Chang, T.S. & Cash, J.N. 1993 Phytochemical and sensory characteristics of selected Michigan sweet cherry cultivars J. Food Qual. 16 355 370
Horvitz, S., Godoy, C., Lopez Camelo, A.F., Yommi, A. & Godoy, C. 2003 Application of gibberellic acid to ‘Sweetheart’ sweet cherries: Effects on fruit quality at harvest and during cold storage Acta Hort. 628 311 316
Kappel, F. & MacDonald, R.A. 2002 Gibberellic acid increases fruit firmness, fruit size, and delays maturity of ‘Sweetheart’ sweet cherry J. Amer. Pomol. Soc. 56 219 222
Kappel, F. & MacDonald, R. 2007 Early gibberellic acid sprays increase firmness and fruit size of ‘Sweetheart’ sweet cherry J. Amer. Pomol. Soc. 61 38 43
Kappel, F., Fisher-Fleming, B. & Hogue, E. 1996 Fruit characteristics and sensory attributes of an ideal sweet cherry HortScience 31 443 446
Kappel, F., Toivonen, P., Stan, S. & McKenzie, D.L. 2006 Resistance of sweet cherry cultivars to fruit surface pitting Can. J. Plant Sci. 86 1197 1202
Koyuncu, M.A., Dilmaçünal, T., Savran, H.E. & Yildirim, A. 2008 Shelf life quality of ‘Bing’ sweet cherry following preharvest treatment with gibberellic acid (GA3) Acta Hort. 795 825 830
Lenahan, O., Whiting, M. & Elfving, D. 2006 Gibberellic acid inhibits floral bud induction and improves ‘Bing’ sweet cherry fruit quality HortScience 41 654 659
Long, L. 2007 Sweet cherry cultivars for the fresh market. Oregon State Univ. PNW 604
Looney, N.E. & Lidster, P.D. 1980 Some growth regulator effects on fruit quality, mesocarp composition, and susceptibility to postharvest surface marking of sweet cherries J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105 130 134
Oliveira, C.M. & Browning, G. 1993 Gibberellin structure–activity effects on flower initiation in mature trees and on shoot growth in mature and juvenile Prunus avium Plant Growth Regulat. 13 55 63
Özkaya, O., Dündar, Ö. & Küden, A. 2006 Effect of preharvest gibberellic acid treatments on postharvest quality of sweet cherry J. Food Agr. Environ. 4 189 191
Proebsting, E.L. & Mills, H.H. 1974 Time of gibberellin application determines hardiness response of ‘Bing’ cherry buds and wood J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 99 464 466
Ross, C.F., Chauvin, M.A. & Whiting, M.D. 2009 Firmness evaluation of sweet cherries by a trained and consumer sensory panel J. Texture Stud. 40 554 570
Shick, J.L. & Toivonen, P.M.A. 2002 Reflective tarps at harvest reduce stem browning and improve fruit quality of cherries during subsequent storage Postharvest Biol. Technol. 25 117 121
Thompson, J.F., Grant, J.A., Kupferman, E.M. & Knutson, J. 1997 Reducing sweet cherry damage in postharvest operations HortTechnology 7 134 138
Toivonen, P.M.A., Kappel, F., Stan, S., McKenzie, D.L. & Hocking, R. 2004 Firmness, respiration, and weight loss of ‘Bing’, ‘Lapins’ and ‘Sweetheart’ cherries in relation to fruit maturity and susceptibility to surface pitting HortScience 39 1066 1069
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006 2006 Oregon fruit tree inventory survey. U.S. Dept. Agr., Oregon Field Office, Portland, OR
Usenik, V., Kastelec, D. & Stampar, F. 2005 Physicochemical changes of sweet cherry fruits related to application of gibberellic acid Food Chem. 90 663 671
Zhang, C. & Whiting, M.D. 2011b Pre-harvest foliar application of Prohexadione-Ca and gibberellins modify canopy source-sink relations and improve quality and shelf-life of ‘Bing’ sweet cherry Plant Growth Regulat. 65 145 156