The high susceptibility of ‘Honeycrisp’ to bitter pit is not well understood. Crassweller and Smith (2016) found levels of Ca in foliar tissue were lower in ‘Honeycrisp’ than in ‘Cameo’. Cheng (2016) reported lower fruit levels of Ca in ‘Honeycrisp’ compared with ‘Gala’. Fruit levels of K, Mg, and P were similar in the two cultivars, and he proposed the resulting nutrient imbalance predisposed ‘Honeycrisp’ to a deficiency of Ca and Ca-related disorders. Research in New Zealand on mineral movement in bitter pit–prone cultivars indicated rapid early season uptake of Ca and poor to no late season uptake, whereas K and Mg continued to increase over the course of the season (Ferguson, 2001; Ferguson and Watkins, 1989).
Studies conducted on bitter pit development at the cellular level have improved the understanding of Ca localization in cells of pitted fruit. De Freitas et al. (2010) reported evidence of a connection between bitter pit and Ca2+ binding to cell walls as well as Ca2+ accumulating in storage organelles. Additional cytochemical research (De Freitas et al., 2015) demonstrated an association between higher levels of water-insoluble pectin Ca2+ and bitter pit. Hocklin et al. (2016) proposed a possible role of apoplasmic calcium-pectin crosslinking.
Bitter pit management in the orchard is central to disorder prevention but is not always effective, and the reasons are often unclear. Research conducted by Rosenberger et al. (2004) demonstrated that season-long Ca treatments were required for reducing bitter pit incidence in ‘Honeycrisp’ grown in New York. Bitter pit control was not enhanced by supplementing Ca sprays with trifloxystrobin fungicide, boron, or harpin protein treatments. Trials by Biggs and Peck (2015) showed that rates ranging as high as 26.3 kg·ha−1 per season of elemental Ca were needed to significantly reduce bitter pit incidence in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples grown in Virginia and West Virginia orchards. Foliar Ca products were evaluated in both studies, and none were better than calcium chloride (CaCl2). Telias et al. (2006) reported that crop load had a more significant effect on bitter pit than Ca sprays, with bitter pit incidence being positively correlated to low yield and large fruit. Mitcham (2008) and Silveira et al. (2012) demonstrated that shoot growth suppression reduced bitter pit incidence. Research results reported by other investigators on the effects of Ca, crop load (CD), and shoot growth have at times been contradictory, and predictive tools are needed to assist producers in developing site-specific best management programs for managing bitter pit.
Fruit mineral analysis has the potential to assist producers in managing nutrient imbalances in the orchard while also providing a possible predictive tool. In research by Ferguson et al. (1979), low Ca in ‘Cox’s Orange Pippin’ fruit sampled 3 weeks before harvest was associated with an increased risk of bitter pit development. Amarante et al. (2013), De Freitas et al. (2015), Dris et al. (1998), Ferguson and Watkins (1989), and Lanauskas and Kvikliene (2006) suggested high N, K, and/or Mg to Ca ratios in fruit of bitter pit–prone cultivars could improve the prediction of susceptibility to the disorder. Al Shoffe et al. (2014) reported significant correlations between bitter pit and levels of N, P, K, N/Ca, Mg, and (Mg + N)/Ca ratio in ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit.
The fruit tissue sampling procedure affects the reliability of bitter pit prediction from mineral analysis, and Amarante et al. (2013) demonstrated tissue should be sampled from the calyx end of the fruit. The best tissue to sample from ‘Fuji’ was the peel, whereas the flesh was a better predictor for ‘Caterina’. Before the research reported in this article, the authors compared peel and flesh nutrient measurements for ‘Honeycrisp’ and found improved correlations to bitter pit with nutrients measured in peel tissues (Baugher et al., 2014). We also found peel tissues could be prepared by air-drying rather than freeze-drying, which made the technique more practical for commercial growers (unpublished data).
The objectives of a 3-year study of ‘Honeycrisp’ grown at three crop densities in six commercial orchards were to
- improve guidelines for balancing CD, terminal SL, and fruit nutrient levels to reduce bitter pit incidence in ‘Honeycrisp’ orchards and
- develop predictive models for determining how to improve management and postharvest handling of ‘Honeycrisp’ apples.
Packinghouses in major fruit growing regions use various fruit nutrient models to predict the potential for bitter pit in storage (Ferguson, 2001; Hanson, 2012). This investigation was designed to assess both field measurements and fruit nutrient measurements with the objective of developing a model that would guide both fruit producers and fruit packers.
AmaranteC.V.T.SilveiraJ.P.G.SteffensC.A.PaesF.N.2013Tissue sampling method and mineral attributes to predict bitter pit occurrence in apple fruit: A multivariate approachActa Hort.101211331139
BaugherT.SchuppJ.LaraC.WatkinsC.2014Crop load and fruit nutrient studies in commercial Honeycrisp orchards to determine best practices for minimizing bitter pitPA Fruit News9423740
BaugherT.A.SinghR.N.1989Evaluation of four soil amendments in ameliorating toxic conditions in three orchard subsoilsAppl. Agr. Res.42111117
BaugherT.A.SinghaS.1985Comparative seasonal variations in foliar nutrient concentrations of two apple and peach cultivars. Proc. WV Acad. Sci. 58:65–71
BiggsA.R.PeckG.M.2015Managing bitter pit in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples grown in the Mid-Atlantic United States with foliar-applied calcium chloride and some alternativesHortTechnology25385391
BlanpiedG. D.SilsbyK. J.1992Prediction of harvest date windows for apples. Cornell Coop. Ext. Bul. 221
ChengL.2016Challenges and opportunities for Honeycrisp nutrient management. Proc. Empire State Expo. 15 June 2017. <http://www.hort.cornell.edu/expo/proceedings/2016/TreeFruit.%20Challenged%20and%20opportunities%20to%20optimize%20mineral%20nutrition%20of%20Honeycrisp.Cheng.pdf>
CohenR.A.2006Introducing the GLMSELECT PROCEDURE for model selection. Proc. 31st Ann. SAS® users group international Conf. SAS Institute Inc. Cary NC
De FreitasS.T.do AmaranteC.V.T.LabavitchJ.M.MitchamE.J.2010Cellular approach to understand bitter pit development in apple fruitPostharvest Biol. Technol.57613
DrisR.NiskanenR.FallahiE.1998Nitrogen and calcium nutrition and fruit quality of commercial apple cultivars grown in FinlandJ. Plant Nutr.2123892402
FergusonI.2001Calcium in apple fruit. Proc. WA Tree Fruit Postharvest Conf. Wenatchee WA. 15 June 2017. <http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/PC2001G.pdf>
FergusonI.B.WatkinsC.B.1992Crop load affects mineral concentrations and incidence of bitter pit in ‘Cox’s Orange Pippin’ apple fruitJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.117373376
FreundR.J.LittellR.C.2000SAS® system for regression. 3rd ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary NC
HansonM.2012Learn how to store Honeycrsip. Good Fruit Grower. 15 June 2017. <http://www.goodfruit.com/learn-to-store-honeycrisp/>
LanauskasJ.KviklieneN.2006Effect of calcium foliar application on some fruit quality characteristics of ‘Sinap Orlovskij’ appleAgron. Res.43136
MitchamE.2008A new approach to understand and control bitter pit in apple. Research Report WA Tree Fruit Res. Commission. 15 June 2017. <http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/wtfrc/PDFfinalReports/2008FinalReports/Mitcham.pdf>
MyersR.H.1990Classical and modern regression with applications. 2nd ed. PWS-Kent Boston MA
SilveiraJ.P.G.do AmaranteC.V.T.SteffensC.A.MiquelotoA.KatsurayamaJ.M.2012Inhibition of gibberellin synthesis reduces vegetative growth of apple trees and provides control of bitter pit in the fruitRev. Bras. Frutic.34328335
TeliasA.HooverE.RosenC.BedfordD.CookD.2006The effect of calcium sprays and fruit thinning on bitter pit incidence and calcium content in ‘Honeycrisp’ appleJ. Plant Nutr.2919411957