(Atago 3810 PAL-1, Livermore, CA). Fruit dry weight was determined by drying fruit at 70 °C. Percentage of fruit dry weight was calculated as: where DW is fruit dry weight and FW = fruit fresh weight before drying. Fruit water loss rate was measured
), and effective formulations are those that prevent excessive water loss without reducing CO 2 uptake. Reflective materials such as kaolin clay and chitosan can reduce absorption of radiant energy (heat), lowering leaf temperatures and reducing
) and found that water loss was reduced when the container surface is covered ( Argo and Biernbaum, 1994 ; Lohr and Pearson-Mims, 2001 ). On the other hand, other studies showed that transpiration was the primary factor driving water loss ( Altland and
. Unlike many of the other fruit quality parameters, fruit shelf life was influenced by irrigation treatment in the first year of harvest (2008). Both moderate and heavy irrigation fruit showed reduced water loss in storage compared with the non
porous fabric imparts air-pruning properties that stimulate fibrous root development and minimize undesirable root circling ( Privett and Hummel, 1992 ). The porous fabric also allows for evaporative water loss from side walls that can greatly moderate
grown under shade nets in comparison with plants grown in the open field. Iglesias and Alegre (2006) reported that the increase in RH, lower maximum temperature, and lower wind speed within the protected environment reduces incidence of water loss and
(days) to lose 50% of a branch’s initial fresh weight through abscission. Water use and status. The primary indicator for water loss was AWU (mL·g −1 ·d −1 ) and determined gravimetrically. Because each flask was sealed around a standing branch, any
storage period, and so result in reduced value at point of sale and a commercial loss somewhere along the supply chain. Shriveling and browning result from postharvest water loss, loss of membrane integrity, and subsequent oxidation of phenols by
Uniform samples of Texas grapefruit, harvested in December, January, February, and March, were run through five Rio Grande Valley packingsheds, then stored for 30 days at 65C and 80% RH. The tests were done in 1987, 1988, and 1989 (December only). Data evaluated were degreening effectiveness, water loss, spoilage, and juice analysis. There were no degreening differences between sheds. Analyses of the parameters of time in storage × water loss regressions for sheds and harvest dates showed fruit harvested in the warmer months tended to have the higher percentage of water loss. Water loss differences between sheds was inconsistent, varying with month and season. The correlation between average fruit weight and percentage of water loss was very inconsistent. Harvest date rather than sheds had the most influence on spoilage. While the variations in the physical characteristics and chemical treatments of each packing line probably underlay the packingshed × harvest date interaction for water loss, no simple cause and effect hypothesis involving all these factors could be constructed.
flaccid and stomata are closed. Closing of stomata inhibits transpiration and allows the plant to withstand water stress by decreasing water loss. Using this principle, growers can utilize antitranspirants to reduce transpiration, thereby limiting water