Next Article in Journal
Effect of Foliar Selenate Supplementation on Biochemical Characteristics of Purslane Weed (Portulaca oleracea L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Sewage Sludge Increased Lettuce Yields by Releasing Valuable Nutrients While Keeping Heavy Metals in Soil and Plants at Levels Well below International Legislative Limits
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/horticulturae10070707
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Salicylic Acid Improves Yield, Fruit Quality, and Post-Harvest Storage in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Lapins Subjected to Late-Deficit Irrigation

by
Jorge González-Villagra
1,2,*,
Camila Chicahual
1,
Emilio Jorquera-Fontena
1,
Priscilla Falquetto-Gomes
3,
Adriano Nunes-Nesi
3 and
Marjorie Reyes-Díaz
4,5,*
1
Departamento de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Acuícolas, Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco P.O. Box 15-D, Chile
2
Núcleo de Investigación en Producción Alimentaria, Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco P.O. Box 15-D, Chile
3
National Institute of Science and Technology on Plant Physiology under Stress Conditions, Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
4
Departamento de Ciencias Químicas y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco P.O. Box 54-D, Chile
5
Center of Plant, Soil Interaction and Natural Resources Biotechnology, Scientific and Technological Bioresource Nucleus (BIOREN), Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco P.O. Box 54-D, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(7), 707; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070707
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 18 June 2024 / Accepted: 29 June 2024 / Published: 4 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Biotic and Abiotic Stress)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated the effect of salicylic acid (SA) application on yield, fruit quality, and post-harvest storage in Prunus avium subjected to deficit irrigation (DI). A field experiment with six-year-old P. avium cv. Lapins was performed under two water treatments: irrigation at 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) [full irrigation (FI)] and irrigation at 60% ETc from the second fruit phase to harvest time (DI). A single 0.5 mM SA was applied to both water treatments at fruit color change. At harvest time, fruits were collected to determine yield, fruit quality, and quality during post-harvest storage (0, 10, 20, and 30 days). The DI reduced fruit yield (11%), fruit weight (8%), and caliber (6%) and increased firmness (7%) and total soluble solids (TSS) (5%) in P. avium compared with FI plants at harvest time. Our study showed that SA application recovered fruit yield (9%), fruit weight (5%), and caliber (4%), improving TSS in DI plants at day 0. Interestingly, SA application significantly reduced P. avium fruit cracking (78% in FI and 82% in DI). Fruit weight was reduced in all treatments, mainly decreasing by 14% in FI and 13% in DI plants at day 30 of post-harvest storage. Fruit weight did not change during post-harvest storage with SA, except on day 30, where a slight reduction was observed. TSS showed no significant differences during post-harvest storage for all treatments. Therefore, SA could be an interesting tool to mitigate the impact of DI on the yield and fruit quality of P. avium and to reduce fruit cracking and prolong fruit quality during post-harvest storage.

1. Introduction

Most commercial fruit crops require a substantial amount of irrigation for profitable production. However, it is known that many fruit-producing areas are facing severe water limitations due to the phenomenon of climate change decreasing the available water for irrigation [1,2,3]. In this sense, deficit irrigation has been reported to decrease yield and fruit quality in table grape (Vitis vinifera), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), maqui (Aristotelia chilensis), apple (Malus domestica), and sweet cherry (Prunus avium) [4,5,6,7,8]. However, in species such as sweet cherry, the moment in which the crop experiences a deficit in irrigation has a differential effect on yield and fruit quality [9,10].
Sweet cherry is one of the most important fruit crops cultivated in temperate and Mediterranean climates [11,12]. Turkey, the United States of America, and Chile are the main producing countries, with the last reaching more than 63,000 ha and 415,000 t of fresh fruit exported during the 2022/2023 season [13,14]. In central-south Chile, the main sweet cherry cultivated areas experience the so-called “Mega Drought”, which has been prolonged during the last ten years, with a rainfall deficit rounding 50 and 75% with respect to historical data [15,16,17]. As a result, several sweet cherry orchards cannot always meet the irrigation demand, particularly when fruit reaches the highest growth rate late in pre-harvest, reducing crop value.
Sweet cherry is characterized by a high respiration rate and short post-harvest life [18,19]. It is known that several physiological fruit disorders have a negative effect on post-harvest life and consumer acceptance. One of the most significant is cracking, which originates from an excess of water uptake by the fruit surface, resulting in the skin bursting [20,21]. Cracking incidence might be increased by variables such as cultivar, air humidity, and phenological stage, among others [22]. Other agronomic managements, such as thinning and irrigation dose, might also play a key role in fruit cracking incidence due to these modifications in the osmotic and turgor potentials of fruit cells [23]. However, information is still limited regarding irrigation management and its effects on fruit cracking incidence [20,23,24]. Several strategies have been evaluated to cope with fruit cracking, such as rain cover protection, calcium application, seaweed extracts, and application of phytohormones, including salicylic acid [25,26,27].
Salicylic acid (SA) is a signaling molecule involved in plant responses to environmental stresses [28,29]. It has been reported that SA applications have shown positive effects on fruit quality, prolonging the post-harvest storage of blueberries, figs (Ficus carica), and goji berries (Lycium barbarum) [30,31,32,33]. However, the effect of SA application on sweet cherry post-harvest life has been less explored [25,34].
With the hypothesis that the SA application enhances the productive performance and fruit post-harvest life in sweet cherry trees under deficit irrigation, this study sought to evaluate the effect of pre-harvest SA application on yield, fruit quality traits, and fruit post-harvest storage and cracking in sweet cherry trees under deficit irrigation in field conditions. The findings of this study could potentially contribute to the development of more effective post-harvest storage techniques for sweet cherries.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Site and Plant Material

The field experiment was performed at the commercial orchard “Fundo San Patricio” (38°11′ S; 72°87′ W), located in Lumaco, La Araucanía Region, Chile, during the 2019/2020 season. The agroclimatic area is characterized by warm and dry climate conditions during the summer season (November to March) and volcanic ash-derived soil (Ultisols) with a sandy clay loam texture [35]. The soil nutrient analysis showed a content of N of 15 mg kg−1, P of 78 mg kg−1, K of 407 mg kg−1, Ca of 10.69 cmol+ kg−1, Mg of 3.42 cmol+ kg−1, Na of 0.12 cmol+ kg−1, pH of 6.29, and organic matter of 4%. In this study, five-year-old self-fertile sweet cherry (Prunus avium) cv. Lapins was grafted onto Colt rootstock plants. P. avium plants were established during the 2014 season, using a 4 m × 2 m planting design (1250 trees ha−1) in east–west oriented rows and the Kym Green Bush training system. Agronomic practices of the orchard, such as pruning, weed control, and fertilization, were carried out following the technical recommendations of the export fruit industry.

2.2. Treatments and Weather Conditions

P. avium trees grown under field conditions were subjected to two water treatments: (i) irrigation at 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) [full irrigation (FI)] and (ii) irrigation at 60% ETc [deficit irrigation (DI)]. The water treatments were applied using two irrigation lines per row with drippers spaced at 50 cm intervals and a flow of 2 L h−1 for FI (100% ETc) and 1.2 L h−1 for DI (60% ETc). Irrigation frequency was two days for both irrigation treatments, while irrigation time depended on ETc for FI treatment. The ETo and rainfall data are shown in Figure 1. The ETc was determined using the FAO 56 and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) obtained from the “San Rafael” automatic weather station (AWS) located at a site 4 km from the experimental site (https://agrometeorologia.cl, accessed on 11 March 2024). DI was applied from the second fruit phase (47 days after full bloom) to harvest time (83 days after full bloom). A single 0.5 mM SA application (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) was made at fruit color change (68 days after full bloom) by spraying fruits attached to the trees under both water treatments [25,34]. The SA was dissolved in double-distilled water containing 0.05% (v/v) of tween 20 as the surfactant wetting agent (+SA). Double-distilled water containing only 0.05% (v/v) of tween was used as the control solution. At harvest time, fruits were collected to determine fruit yield. Then, fruits were stored in a portable refrigerator and transferred to the laboratory. Fruits of uniform size and maturity were placed in clamshell containers and maintained at 4 °C and 85% relative humidity for post-harvest storage, as described by Giménez et al. [34]. Fruit samples were analyzed for fruit quality-related parameter determinations after 0, 10, 20, and 30 days of post-harvest storage.

2.3. Leaf Water Potential Measurement

A pressure chamber (Model 1000; PMS Instrument Co., Corvallis, OR, USA) was used to measure the midday leaf water potential (Ψw) of 4 individual mature leaves per tree [10]. Leaves were randomly selected from branches not subjected to SA treatments. Leaf samples were wrapped in wet paper towels, then detached from the stem and immediately placed in the pressure chamber for a time no longer than 30 s. Measurements were carried out between 11:30 AM to 01:30 PM. Measurements were performed 4 times during the season.

2.4. Yield and Fruit Quality Analysis

Fruit yield was determined using a precision balance (Model BA2204B, Biobase Meihua Trading, Jinan, China). Fruit fresh weight (FW), equatorial diameter (ED), fruit firmness, total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), and cracking index (CI) were determined as quality attributes, as described by Giménez et al. [25] and Balbontín et al. [36]. A total of 100 fruit per tree were collected for quality parameter determinations. The FW was determined using an analytical balance. The ED of fresh fruits was determined using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo Corp., Kawasaki, Japan). The FI was determined using a digital penetrometer tester (FHT803, New York, NY, USA). The TSS and TA were determined in the fruit juice using a thermo-compensated digital refractometer (ATAGO, Mod. PAL-BX I ACID F5, Saitama, Japan) and expressed as °Brix and percentage (%) of malic acid, as reported by Bustamante et al. [37].
The cracking index (CI) was determined at harvest time (day 0) using 25 stem-attached fruits from each tree. Fruits were immersed in distilled water at 20 °C for 5 h. The CI was determined according to Balbontín et al. [36] based on the Christensen [38] formula.
CI = ((5a + 4b + 3c + 2d + 1e) (MPV) − 1) × 100
where a, b, c, d, and e represent the number of cracked fruits at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 h, respectively. MPV is the maximum possible value (25 fruits × 5 h).

2.5. Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses

The experiment was performed in a randomized complete block design, as we previously detailed in Jorquera-Fontena et al. [10]. All data passed the normality and equal variance Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests, respectively. The data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, where factors were irrigation and SA application, followed by a Tukey test for the multiple comparisons at p ≤ 0.05. Student’s t-test was performed the same day for leaf water potential. Sigma Stat v.2.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to perform statistical analysis. The data set (matrix of 80 × 7 data points) was subjected to principal component analysis (PCA), preserving as much statistical information as possible. The analysis was carried out using R software version R 4.3.1 (R Core Team, Statistical computing, Vienna, Austria, 2023).

3. Results

3.1. Environmental Conditions

During the experiment, six rainfall events were recorded between November and December (Figure 1). These events did not exceed 4.3 mm. The accumulated rainfall between full bloom and fruit harvest reached 16.8 mm (Figure 1). Applied water is shown in Table 1. For irrigation treatment, the applied water was 1080 m3 ha−1 and 778 m3 ha−1 in DI treatment from the second fruit phase (47 days after full bloom) to harvest time (83 days after full bloom). Therefore, leaf water potential (Ψw) of plants subjected to DI showed lower levels (until −1.35 MPa) compared with FI plants (until −1.01 MPa) during the season (Table 1).

3.2. Fruit Yield and Quality of P. avium

In our experiment, sweet cherry plants subjected to deficit irrigation (DI) treatment reduced fruit yield (11%) compared with full-irrigated (FI) plants (Figure 2A). In contrast, SA application recovered 9% fruit yield in plants subjected to DI compared with non-SA-treated DI plants. Fruit weight showed a similar tendency as fruit yield, where DI treatment decreased 8% fruit weight compared with FI treatment at harvest time (day 0 of post-harvest storage) (Figure 2B). Meanwhile, SA application improved 5% fruit weight in DI plants in comparison with non-SA-treated DI plants at day 0. Concerning post-harvest storage, we observed reduced fruit weight in all treatments. The FI plants decreased from day 10, reducing fruit weight by 14% more on day 30 than on day 0 of post-harvest storage. Meanwhile, DI plants reduced fruit weight from day 10, showing 13% less fruit weight at day 30 compared with day 0 of post-harvest storage. Interestingly, the fruit weight parameter did not change under SA treatment during post-harvest storage in FI and DI treatments, except day 30, where slight reductions were observed in both treatments (Figure 2B).
On the other hand, DI treatment showed a significantly lower caliber (6%) with respect to FI plants at harvest time (day 0) (Figure 3). Similarly, similar patterns were observed at 10, 20, and 30 days of the post-harvest storage, where DI plants exhibited lower calibers compared with FI plants. In our study, SA application increased caliber (around 4%) in DI plants compared with non-SA-treated DI plants at day 0. Meanwhile, caliber did not differ in any treatment during post-harvest storage (Figure 3).
Regarding fruit firmness, DI plants showed a higher level (8%) compared with FI plants at harvest time (day 0) (Figure 4). Meanwhile, SA-treated DI plants exhibited a significant increase in fruit firmness, contrasting with non-SA-treated DI plants. Fruit firmness was similar for FI plants subjected to SA application, showing higher values compared with FI plants without SA application. Regarding post-harvest storage, firmness was reduced by 12% for FI plants and 9% for DI plants at day 30 compared with day 0 of post-harvest storage (Figure 4). On the other hand, SA-treated DI plants showed a higher level of fruit firmness at day 0 but declined (5%) at day 10, showing no significant changes until the end of post-harvest storage. For SA-treated FI plants, a reduction of 9% was observed on day 10 in firmness, with no significant variations during the post-harvest storage of sweet cherry fruits. Meanwhile, FI plants without SA application showed the lowest firmness throughout post-harvest storage.
Related to total soluble solids (TSS), sweet cherry fruits of DI plants had higher levels compared with FI plants at harvest time (day 0) (Figure 5A). In our study, SA application improved TSS levels in DI plants in comparison with non-SA-treated DI plants. Similarly, SA-treated FI plants was higher than FI plants without SA application. During post-harvest storage, TSS was similar among days for all treatments, showing no significant differences. On the other hand, titratable acidity (TA) was similar for all treatments at harvest time (day 0), with no significant differences between them (Figure 5B). Meanwhile, no changes were observed among days of post-harvest storage for all treatments.
Concerning fruit cracking at harvest time, we found that DI and FI plants showed a high level of cracking index (around 30%), with no significant differences between them (Figure 6). However, when SA was applied to plants, fruits showed significantly lower levels of cracking, decreasing 78% in FI plants and 82% in DI plants.

3.3. Multivariate Analysis Based on Quality Parameters Measured in P. avium cv. Lapins Fruit during Post-Harvest Storage under Different Treatments

Principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out to understand the relationships between the quality parameters and the treatments during post-harvest storage. The resulting biplot separated into four main groups related to the treatments, regardless of storage days (Figure 7). Group I consisted of fruit treated with FI + SA, Group II with DI + SA, Group III with DI − SA, and Group IV with FI − SA. The SA treatments were clearly separated by PC1, explaining 39.7% of the variability, while the treatments with different irrigation levels were separated by PC2, explaining 30.5% of the variability (Figure 7). This result confirms that the differences in the parameters were not significant in terms of the days of storage but in relation to the applied treatments.
PCA reveals a trend towards an increase in fruit yield and weight directly related to the application of SA, significantly intensified when subjected to FI. Parameters such as firmness and TSS were also favored in the presence of SA but even more intensely when the fruit was subjected to DI, corroborating the results in Figure 2, Figure 4 and Figure 5. These parameters were the main ones responsible for separating Groups I and II and are directly associated with the presence of SA. On the other hand, Group III showed a negative correlation with caliber, FW, and yield, indicating that, even with irrigation at 100% of ETc without the addition of SA, there was no significant increase in these characteristics. Group IV correlated positively with CI, supporting the results that indicated that this parameter was favored in the absence of SA, as shown in Figure 6. Total soluble solids, cracking index, and caliber were the three characteristics that contributed most to PC1 and PC2, while TA had a minor influence on the separation between PC1 and PC2.

4. Discussion

Water deficit is the most severe climate change phenomenon, negatively impacting yield and fruit quality [1,2,3]. Thus, deficit irrigation (DI) and phytohormones such as ABA and MeJa have been evaluated as an agronomic strategy to cope with water deficit, improving yield and fruit quality [25,27,39]. However, scarce information is available on SA effects on yield, fruit quality, and post-harvest storage in P. avium subjected to DI [20,23,24]. Therefore, we determined the effects of SA application on yield, fruit quality, and post-harvest storage in P. avium subjected to DI. In our study, six rainfall events (not exceeding 4.3 mm) were recorded, reaching 16.8 mm between November and December (Figure 1). The DI treatment allowed for saving around 307 m3 ha−1 between the second fruit phase (47 days after full bloom) to harvest time (83 days after full bloom). However, DI treatment evidenced a negative water status, which was observed by a lower leaf water status in P. avium plants during the season. DI plants reached −1.35 MPa in leaf water potential, while FI plants showed around −1.01 MPa (Table 1). We observed that DI significantly reduced fruit yield (11%), fruit weight (8%), and caliber (6%) and increased firmness (7%) and TSS (5%) in P. avium fruits compared with FI fruits at harvest time (Figure 2A,B, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5A).
Interestingly, SA application recovered yield and fruit quality parameters, increasing yield, fruit weight, and caliber in fruits of P. avium plants subjected to DI treatment compared with non-SA-treated DI plants. In fact, our PCA analysis showed that an increase in yield and fruit quality parameters was directly related to the SA application, mainly in FI plants, corroborating the results in Figure 2, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Similar results were previously reported in Aristotelia chilensis plants subjected to DI [40], where the SA application enhanced yield, fresh weight, and equatorial diameter in fruits of A. chilensis plants under DI. Similarly, another study showed an increase in fruit growth (41%) in P. avium cv. Sweet Heart and Sweet Late after 0.5 mM SA application [25]. In this study, application of 0.5 mM SA led to better fruit quality parameters (fruit weight and firmness) than 1.0 mM or 2.0 mM SA [25]. According to Li et al. [41], SA application mediates cell division and expansion, increasing growth. Thus, in our study, higher yield and fruit weight might be explained by high cell division and expansion for growing in treated P. avium plants. Otherwise, the authors also showed that 0.5 mM SA improved antioxidant compound levels in P. avium fruits, including total phenols and anthocyanins, which are recognized molecules with human health benefits. According to Iqbal et al. [42] and Xin et al. [43], SA promotes increased chlorophyll and rubisco levels in parallel with higher photosynthesis and plant growth. Therefore, SA might be involved in photosynthetic processes to increase fruit growth and yield. According to Mimouni et al. [44] and Gao et al. [45], SA can regulate several physiological processes to tolerate drought stress and improve plant growth, such as modulating stomatal opening, osmotic potential, nutrient uptake, and biosynthesis of antioxidant compounds to cope with reactive oxygen species. However, the SA mechanisms associated with improved photosynthesis, plant growth, and DI tolerance are still unclear [43,44]. Concerning post-harvest storage, fruit weight was decreased after 30 days in FI and DI plants (14% for FI plants and 13% for DI plants) (Figure 2B).
According to Díaz-Mula et al. [46], fruit weight loss is generated by the water vapor pressure gradient between the fruit and the air, decreasing through the epidermal cells and cuticle. Interestingly, SA maintained fruit weight during post-harvest storage, except on day 30, where slight reductions were observed in both FI and DI plants (Figure 2B). Regarding fruit firmness, SA application induced higher values in FI and DI plants than plants without SA application. According to Mandal et al. [47] and Haider et al. [48], higher fruit weight and firmness in SA-treated plants are due to the inhibition of the ethylene biosynthesis and respiration rate, which delays fruit senescence. On the other hand, Sharma and Sharma [49] reported that SA inhibits the activity of fruit cell wall degrading enzymes, preventing softening. Rainfall events near harvest time cause fruit cracking in P. avium, leading to economic losses [7,50]. Therefore, tolerance to fruit cracking is considered an important attribute in determining P. avium fruits. In our study, DI and FI plants showed a high level of cracking index (around 30%) at harvest time (day 0), with no significant differences between them (Figure 6). In contrast, when SA was applied to plants, fruits of DI and FI treatments showed significantly lower levels of cracking, decreasing by 78% in FI plants and by 82% in DI plants in contrast to plants without SA. Our results agree with previous results by Correia et al. [51], where a lower cracking index was found in fruits of P. avium cv. “Sweet Heart” grafted on “Guisela 6” rootstocks treated with 1 mM SA under non-stressed conditions. The authors showed that SA enhanced epidermal cell wall thickness, improving fruit cracking tolerance. However, fruit cracking tolerance depends on several factors, such as SA doses, growing conditions, rootstock, irrigation management, and cultivar [24,27,36]. In our study, fruit weight was maintained (lower fruit weight loss) during post-harvest storage in P. avium treated with SA, which could be associated with higher epidermal cell wall thickness and decreased fruit cracking. Similarly, higher epidermal cell wall thickness is associated with enhanced firmness [52], as we observed that SA application improved fruit firmness in P. avium fruits. Therefore, SA application might be interesting to improve epidermal cell wall thickness, increasing the post-harvest storage period.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that SA treatments improve yield and fruit quality parameters, including fruit weight, caliber, and firmness in P. avium plants subjected to DI. Interestingly, SA application reduced fruit cracking in both FI and DI plants at harvest time. Conversely, SA maintained fruit quality parameters such as fruit weight and firmness in P. avium plants during post-harvest storage. Consequently, the application of SA could effectively mitigate the impact of DI and maintain fruit quality during the post-harvest storage period.

Author Contributions

J.G.-V. and E.J.-F. designed and coordinated the experiment; J.G.-V. and C.C. carried out the fruit quality and statistical analyses; P.F.-G. and A.N.-N. performed the PCA analysis; J.G.-V., C.C. and M.R.-D. formulated the draft of manuscript. J.G.-V., C.C., E.J.-F., A.N.-N. and M.R.-D. revised and improved the current version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by FONDECYT Postdoctoral N◦ 3200594, ANID/FONDECYT 1211856, ANID/FONDECYT 11220732, ANID/FONDAP/15130015 and ANID/FONDAP/1523A0001, ANID/Anillo ATE230007 projects of the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID, ex CONICYT), and Internal project from UC Temuco (2023PF-06-JG).

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank “Fundo San Patricio” for providing the commercial P. avium orchard.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sheffield, J.; Wood, E. Drought: Past Problems and Future Scenarios; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. IPCC. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Buendia, E.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Khan, Z.; Jan, R.; Asif, S.; Farooq, M.; Jang, Y.; Kim, E.; Kim, N.; Kim, K. Exogenous melatonin induces salt and drought stress tolerance in rice by promoting plant growth and defense system. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bertamini, M.; Zulini, L.; Muthuchelian, K.; Nedunchezhian, N. Effect of water deficit on photosynthetic and other physiological responses in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling) plants. Photosynthetica 2006, 44, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ribera-Fonseca, A.; Jorquera-Fontena, E.; Castro, M.; Acevedo, P.; Parra, J.C.; Reyes-Díaz, M. Exploring VIS/NIR reflectance indices for the estimation of water status in highbush blueberry plants grown under full and deficit irrigation. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. González-Villagra, J.; Bravo, L.A.; Reyes-Díaz, M.; Cohen, J.D.; Ribera-Fonseca, A.; López-Olivari, R.; Jorquera-Fontena, E.; Tighe-Neira, R. Pre-harvest salicylic acid application affects fruit quality and yield under deficit irrigation in Aristotelia chilensis (Mol.) Plants. Plants 2023, 12, 3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zhao, S.; Gao, H.; Jia, X.; Wei, J.; Mao, K.; Ma, F. MdHB-7 regulates water use efficiency in transgenic apple (Malus domestica) Under Long-Term Moderate Water Deficit. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 740492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Marsal, J.; Lopez Velasco, G.; del Campo, J.; Mata, M.; Arbones, A.; Girona, J. Postharvest regulated deficit irrigation in ‘Summit’ sweet cherry: Fruit yield and quality in the following season. Irrig. Sci. 2010, 28, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blanco, V.; Martínez-Hernández, G.B.; Artés-Hernández, F.; Blaya-Ros, P.J.; Torres-Sánchez, R.; Domingo, R. Water relations and quality changes throughout fruit development and shelf life of sweet cherry grown under regulated deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 217, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jorquera-Fontena, E.; Tighe-Neira, R.; Bota, J.; Inostroza-Blancheteau, C.; Pastenes, C. Response of sink manipulation in Lapins sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) branches to late-deficit irrigation. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 304, 111323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Faienza, M.F.; Corbo, F.; Carocci, A.; Catalano, A.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Grano, M.; Wang, D.Q.; D’Amato, G.; Muragli, M.; Franchini, C.; et al. Novel insights in health-promoting properties of sweet cherries. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 69, 103945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salvadores, Y.; Bastías, R.M. Environmental factors and physiological responses of sweet cherry production under protective cover systems: A review. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2023, 83, 484–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. ODEPA. Boletín de Fruta. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias: Santiago de Chile, Chile. 2024. Available online: https://www.odepa.gob.cl/ (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  14. FAOSTAT. Statistical Databases on Global Food Production and Trade. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2024. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  15. Santibáñez, F.; Santibáñez, P.; González, P. Elaboración de una Base Digital del Clima Comunal de Chile: Línea Base (1980–2010) y Proyección Al Año 2050; Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  16. Garreaud, R.D.; Boisier, J.P.; Rondanelli, R.; Montecinos, A.; Sepúlveda, H.H.; Veloso-Aguila, D. The Central Chile Mega Drought (2010–2018): A climate dynamics perspective. Int. J. Clim. 2020, 40, 421–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alvarez-Garreton, C.; Boisier, J.P.; Garreaud, R.; Seibert, J.; Vis, M. Progressive water deficitis during multiyear droughts in basins with long hydrological memory in Chile. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 25, 429–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Correia, S.; Schouten, R.; Silva, A.; Gonçalves, B. Factors affecting quality and health promoting compounds during growth and postharvest life of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhang, W.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, Z. The role of different natural organic acids in postharvest fruit quality management and its mechanism. Food Front. 2023, 4, 1127–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Correia, S.; Schouten, R.; Silva, A.; Gonçalves, B. Sweet cherry fruit cracking mechanisms and prevention strategies: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 240, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Winkler, A.; Bunger, P.; Lang, P.; Schumann, C.; Brüggenwith, M.; Knoche, M. Mode of action of calcium in reducing macrocraking of sweet cherry fruit. J. Am. Soc. Hort. 2024, 149, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pereira, S.; Silva, V.; Bacelar, E.; Guedes, F.; Silva, A.P.; Ribeiro, C.; Gonçalves, B. Cracking in sweet cherry cultivars early Bigi and Lapins: Correlation with quality attributes. Plants 2020, 9, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Blanco, V.; Blaya-Ros, P.J.; Torres-Sánchez, R.; Domingo, R. Irrigation and crop load management lessen rain-induced cherry cracking. Plants 2022, 11, 3249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. La Spada, P.; Dominguez, E.; Continella, A.; Heredia, A.; Gentile, A. Factors influencing fruit cracking: An environmental and agronomic perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1343452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giménez, M.J.; Valverde, J.M.; Valero, D.; Guillén, F.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Serrano, M.; Castillo, S. Quality and antioxidant properties on sweet cherries as affected by pre-harvest salicylic and acetylsalicylic acids treatments. Food Chem. 2014, 160, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Balbontín, C.; Gutiérrez, C.; Wolff, M.; Figueroa, C.R. Effect of abscisic acid and methyl jasmonate preharvest applications on fruit quality and cracking tolerance of sweet cherry. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 78, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Santos, M.; Maia, C.; Meireles, I.; Pereira, S.; Egea-Cortines, M.; Sousa, J.R.; Raimundo, F.; Matos, M.; Gonçalves, B. Effects of calcium- and seaweed-based biostimulants on sweet cherry profitability and quality. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 27, 45. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hayat, Q.; Hayat, S.; Irfan, M.; Ahmad, A. Effect of exogenous salicylic acid under changing environment: A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2010, 68, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahmed, S.; Faruk-Ahmed, S.; Biswas, A.; Sultana, A.; Issak, M. Salicylic acid and chitosan mitigate high temperature stress of rice via growth improvement, physio-biochemical adjustments and enhanced antioxidant activity. Plant Stress 2024, 11, 100343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Karantzi, A.D.; Kafkaletou, M.; Tsaniklidis, G.; Bai, J.; Christopoulos, M.V.; Fanourakis, D.; Tsantili, E. Preharvest foliar salicylic acid sprays reduce cracking of Fig fruit at harvest. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, H.; Liu, F.; Wang, J.; Yang, Q.; Wang, P.; Zhao, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Xu, X.H. Salicylic acid inhibits the postharvest decay of goji berry (Lycium barbarum L.) by modulating the antioxidant system and phenylpropanoid metabolites. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 178, 111558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jiang, B.; Liu, R.; Fang, X.; Tong, C.; Chen, H.; Gao, H. Effects of salicylic acid treatment on fruit quality and wax composition of blueberry (Vaccinium virgatum Ait). Food Chem. 2022, 30, 130757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Retamal-Salgado, J.; Adaos, G.; Cedeño-García, G.; Ospino-Olivella, S.C.; Vergara-Retamales, R.; Lopéz, M.D.; Olivares, R.; Hirzel, J.; Olivares-Soto, H.; Betancur, M. Preharvest applications of oxalic acid and salicylic acid increase fruit firmness and polyphenolic content in blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.). Horticulturae 2023, 9, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Giménez, M.; Serrano, M.; Valverde, J.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Castillo, S.; Valero, D.; Guillén, F. Preharvest salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid treatments preserve quality and enhance antioxidant systems during postharvest storage of sweet cherry cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. CIREN. Estudio Agológico. In Descripciones de Suelos, Materiales y Símbolos. IX Región; Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales: Santiago, Chile, 2022; Volume 122, p. 343. [Google Scholar]
  36. Balbontín, C.; Ayala, H.; Rubilar, J.; Cote, J.; Figueroa, C.R. Transcriptional analysis of cell wall and cuticle related genes during fruit development of two sweet cherry cultivars with contrasting levels of cracking tolerance. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 74, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bustamante, M.; Muñoz, A.; Romero, I.; Osorio, P.; Mánquez, S.; Arriola, R.; Reyes-Díaz, M.; Ribera-Fonseca, A. Impact of potassium pre-harvest applications on fruit quality and condition of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivated under plastic covers in Southern Chile orchards. Plants 2023, 10, 2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Christensen, J.V. Cracking in cherries. III. Determination of cracking susceptibility. Acta Agric. Scand. 1972, 22, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ulloa-Inostroza, E.; Córdova, C.; Campos, M.; Reyes-Díaz, M. Methyl jasmonate improves antioxidants, protecting photosynthetic apparatus in blueberry plants under water deficit. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. González-Villagra, J.; Reyes-Díaz, M.M.; Tighe-Neira, R.; Inostroza-Blancheteau, C.; Luengo-Escobar, A.; Bravo, L.A. Salicylic acid improves antioxidant defense system and photosynthetic performance in Aristotelia chilensis plants subjected to moderate drought stress. Plants 2022, 11, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, A.; Sun, X.; Liu, L. Action of salicylic acid on plant growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 878076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iqbal, N.; Fatma, M.; Gautam, H.; Sehar, Z.; Rasheed, F.; Khan, M.; Sofo, A.; Khan, N.A. Salicylic acid increases photosynthesis of drought grown mustard plants effectively with sufficient-N via regulation of ethylene, abscisic acid, and nitrogen-use efficiency. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 41, 1966–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xin, L.; Wang, J.; Yang, Q. Exogenous salicylic acid alleviates water deficit stress by protecting photosynthetic system in Maize seedlings. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mimouni, H.; Wasti, S.; Manaa, A.; Gharbi, E.; Chalh, A.; Vandoorne, B.; Lutts, S.; Ben Ahmed, H. Does salicylic acid (SA) improve tolerance to salt stress in plants? A study of SA effects on tomato plant growth, water dynamics, photosynthesis, and biochemical parameters. OMICS 2016, 20, 180–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gao, Q.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Dai, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, F.; Zhu, Y. Salicylic acid modulates the osmotic system and photosynthesis rate to enhance the drought tolerance of Toona ciliate. Plants 2023, 12, 4187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Díaz-Mula, H.M.; Serrano, M.; Valero, D. Alginate coatings preserve fruit quality and bioactive compounds during storage of sweet cherry fruit. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 5, 2990–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mandal, D.; Laldingliana, W.; Hazarika, T.; Nautiyal, B.P. Salicylic acid delayed postharvest ripening and enhanced shelf life of tomato fruits at ambient storage. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1213, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haider, S.; Ahmad, S.; Sattar, A.; Akbar, M.; Nasir, M.; Naz, S. Effects of salicylic acid on postharvest fruit quality of “Kinnow” mandarin under cold storage. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 259, 108843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sharma, S.; Sharma, R.R. Impact of staggered treatments of novel molecules and ethylene absorbents on postharvest fruit physiology and enzyme activity of ‘Santa Rosa’ plums. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 198, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ruiz-Aracil, M.C.; Valverde, J.M.; Lorente-Mento, J.M.; Carrión-Antolí, A.; Castillo, S.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Guillén, F. Sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) Cracking during development on the tree and at harvest: The impact of methyl jasmonate on four different growing seasons. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Correia, S.; Santos, M.; Glinska, S.; Gapinska, M.; Matos, M.; Carnide, V.; Schouten, R.; Silva, A.; Gonçalves, B. Effect of exogenous compound spray son cherry cracking: Skin properties and gene expression. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 2911–2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Wu, M.; Dai, F.; Ye, M.; Chen, F.; Qi, Y.; Luo, Z.; Huang, H. Involvement of lignin deposition and cell wall degradation in stem senescence of Chinese flowering cabbage during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2023, 198, 112256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 00707 g001
Figure 1. Daily values for reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and rainfall from the beginning of deficit irrigation treatment until harvest during the 2019/2020 season.
Figure 1. Daily values for reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and rainfall from the beginning of deficit irrigation treatment until harvest during the 2019/2020 season.
Horticulturae 10 00707 g001
Horticulturae 10 00707 g002
Figure 2. (A) Fruit yield and (B) fruit weight in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. According to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05), different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Figure 2. (A) Fruit yield and (B) fruit weight in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. According to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05), different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Horticulturae 10 00707 g002
Horticulturae 10 00707 g003
Figure 3. Fruit caliber in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Figure 3. Fruit caliber in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Horticulturae 10 00707 g003
Horticulturae 10 00707 g004
Figure 4. Fruit firmness in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Figure 4. Fruit firmness in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Horticulturae 10 00707 g004
Horticulturae 10 00707 g005
Figure 5. (A) Total soluble solids (TSS) and (B) titratable acidity (TA) in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Figure 5. (A) Total soluble solids (TSS) and (B) titratable acidity (TA) in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM) during post-harvest storage. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for the same post-harvest day, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among days of post-harvest storage for the same treatment. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Horticulturae 10 00707 g005
Horticulturae 10 00707 g006
Figure 6. Cracking index in fruits of sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM). According to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05), different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Figure 6. Cracking index in fruits of sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) and two pre-harvest salicylic acid (SA) doses (0 and 0.5 mM). According to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05), different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments. The bars are means ± SE (n = 9).
Horticulturae 10 00707 g006
Horticulturae 10 00707 g007
Figure 7. Principal component analysis biplot of data derived from quality parameters measured in P. avium cv. Lapins fruit during post-harvest storage under different treatments: irrigation at 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) (FI) in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM salicylic acid (SA) (FI − SA; FI + SA); and irrigation at 60% of ETc (DI) in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM SA (DI − SA; DI + SA). All variables that are grouped are positively correlated with each other. The greater the distance between the variable and the origin, the better represented that variable is in relation to dimension 1 (first principal component; PC1) and dimension 2 (second principal component; PC2). Negatively correlated variables are displayed on opposite sides of the biplot origin.
Figure 7. Principal component analysis biplot of data derived from quality parameters measured in P. avium cv. Lapins fruit during post-harvest storage under different treatments: irrigation at 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) (FI) in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM salicylic acid (SA) (FI − SA; FI + SA); and irrigation at 60% of ETc (DI) in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM SA (DI − SA; DI + SA). All variables that are grouped are positively correlated with each other. The greater the distance between the variable and the origin, the better represented that variable is in relation to dimension 1 (first principal component; PC1) and dimension 2 (second principal component; PC2). Negatively correlated variables are displayed on opposite sides of the biplot origin.
Horticulturae 10 00707 g007
Table 1. Leaf water potential (Ψw) and total amount of water applied from full bloom to the end of harvest in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) during the 2019/2020 season.
Table 1. Leaf water potential (Ψw) and total amount of water applied from full bloom to the end of harvest in sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Lapins plants subjected to two irrigation treatments (full irrigation (FI) (100% ETo) and deficit irrigation (DI) (60% ETo)) during the 2019/2020 season.
Irrigation TreatmentApplied WaterMean Midday Leaf Water Potential (MPa)
(m3 ha−1)11 November5 December20 December3 January †
Full irrigation (FI) 1085−0.61−0.86−1.01−0.94
Deficit irrigation (DI)778--−1.12 **−1.35 **−1.09 *
The symbols * and ** indicate statistic differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively (Student’s t-test). † Indicates a post-harvest measurement. The data are means ± SE (n = 9).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Villagra, J.; Chicahual, C.; Jorquera-Fontena, E.; Falquetto-Gomes, P.; Nunes-Nesi, A.; Reyes-Díaz, M. Salicylic Acid Improves Yield, Fruit Quality, and Post-Harvest Storage in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Lapins Subjected to Late-Deficit Irrigation. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070707

AMA Style

González-Villagra J, Chicahual C, Jorquera-Fontena E, Falquetto-Gomes P, Nunes-Nesi A, Reyes-Díaz M. Salicylic Acid Improves Yield, Fruit Quality, and Post-Harvest Storage in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Lapins Subjected to Late-Deficit Irrigation. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(7):707. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070707

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Villagra, Jorge, Camila Chicahual, Emilio Jorquera-Fontena, Priscilla Falquetto-Gomes, Adriano Nunes-Nesi, and Marjorie Reyes-Díaz. 2024. "Salicylic Acid Improves Yield, Fruit Quality, and Post-Harvest Storage in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Lapins Subjected to Late-Deficit Irrigation" Horticulturae 10, no. 7: 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070707

APA Style

González-Villagra, J., Chicahual, C., Jorquera-Fontena, E., Falquetto-Gomes, P., Nunes-Nesi, A., & Reyes-Díaz, M. (2024). Salicylic Acid Improves Yield, Fruit Quality, and Post-Harvest Storage in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Lapins Subjected to Late-Deficit Irrigation. Horticulturae, 10(7), 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070707

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop