Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Peach Tree Fertilization: Investigating Methylobacterium symbioticum SB23 as Game-Changing Agent
Previous Article in Journal
Advancements in Leaf Area Index Estimation for Maize Using Modeling and Remote Sensing Techniques: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Harvest Time Based on Cumulative Temperatures to Produce High-Quality Cherry Tomatoes in a Plant Factory
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy15030520
agronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Reflective Ground Film on Fruit Quality, Condition, and Post-Harvest of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina Cultivated Under Plastic Cover in Southern Chile

by
Ariel Muñoz-Alarcón
1,
Cristóbal Palacios-Peralta
2,
Jorge González-Villagra
2,
Nicolás Carrasco-Catricura
1,
Pamela Osorio
3 and
Alejandra Ribera-Fonseca
1,4,*
1
Centro de Fruticultura, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Medioambiente, Campus Andrés Bello, Universidad de La Frontera, Avenida Francisco Salazar, P.O. Box 54-D, Temuco 4811230, Chile
2
Escuela de Agronomía, Facultad de Ciencias, Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad Mayor, Temuco 4801043, Chile
3
Research, Development and Innovation Department, Exportadora Rancagua S.A.—Ranco Cherries Route 5 South, Km 80, P.O. Box 576, Rancagua 04000, Chile
4
Center of Plant-Soil Interaction and Natural Resources Biotechnology, Scientific and Technological, Bioresource Nucleus (BIOREN), Campus Andrés Bello, Universidad de La Frontera, Avenida Francisco Salazar, P.O. Box 54-D, Temuco 4811230, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(3), 520; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030520
Submission received: 19 November 2024 / Revised: 14 January 2025 / Accepted: 23 January 2025 / Published: 21 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effect of Cultivation Techniques on Fruit Quality and Nutritional Value—Series II)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Plastic covers protect fruits from cracking caused by pre-harvest rains in sweet cherry orchards; however, they can decrease the quality parameters of cherries, such as firmness, titratable acidity, color, and sugar content. This study evaluated the impact of a reflective ground film used for 21 or 34 DBH (days before harvest) in a commercial sweet cherry orchard (cv. Regina) grown under plastic cover in southern Chile. Our study showed that the exposition of cherry trees to the reflective film increased firmness and total soluble solid (TSS) content in fruits at harvest, homogenizing the concentration of sugars in fruits along the tree canopy. Additionally, using reflective film for 21 DBH increased the proportion of fruits greater than 32 mm in the upper canopy and the quantity of mahogany-colored cherries in the lower canopy, compared to trees un-exposed to the reflective film. Concerning fruit condition defects, the results reveal that using the reflective film increased the incidence of cracking in fruits in both the upper and lower zones of the canopy. Furthermore, we found that the incidence of orange skin and pitting in fruits decreased at post-harvest in trees exposed to the reflective film, but depending on the canopy zones. Moreover, fruits of trees exposed to the film for 34 DBH exhibited a higher incidence of browning pedicel post-harvest. Finally, according to our results, the antioxidant activity increased in fruits exposed to the reflective film for 21 DBH. Therefore, we can conclude that using reflective films on sweet cherry orchards can improve and homogenize the maturity parameters and the antioxidant activity of fruits; however, this practice can negatively impact the condition of fruits post-harvest.

1. Introduction

The worldwide production of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) fruits has increased by almost 40% in the last 20 years [1]. Currently, sweet cherries are one of the most important fresh fruits exported in Chile, reaching about 413,979 tons of exported volume during the 2023/2024 season [2]. According to the International Trade Center [3], Chile is the world’s largest sweet cherry exporter, representing around 41.6% of sweet cherry export volume globally. China is the main destination market for Chilean sweet cherries, representing about 95% of the total exports, followed by the United States at 1.8%, Latin America at 1.5%, and Europe at 1.3% [2]. In Chile, sweet cherry production reached 415,000 t of fruits and 63,500 ha [4]. In southern Chile, the sweet cherry production area has increased in recent years to around 2000 ha between the La Araucanía and Los Lagos regions (37°35′–40°33′ S) [4].
Although sweet cherry production in southern Chile is a lucrative agricultural opportunity due to the potential for high-quality fruit that can command premium prices in the export markets [5,6], this region faces environmental challenges such as spring frost, low temperatures during bloom and fruit ripening, and rain events close to harvest, which adversely affect yield as well as fruit quality and condition [7,8]. In this context, several strategies have been evaluated to prevent the environmental constraints on sweet cherry orchards in southern Chile, such as applications of phytohormones or seaweed extracts and the use of plastic covers [5,9,10]. Plastic covers are used to reduce the negative effects of spring frosts, hail, and rain events, which are common environmental constraints in southern Chile, decreasing fruit quality in sweet cherry production [7,11]. However, it has been shown that plastic covers can negatively alter fruit quality parameters, such as causing decreased acidity, firmness, and resistance to mechanical damage occurring during harvesting, handling, and the long post-harvest period during commercialization trips [5,12]. This is a concern due to the importance of the international cherry market; the main production objective in recent seasons has been the search for quality [13,14] because the financial returns to fruit growers are determined primarily by yield and some quality parameters [15]. Sweetness, skin color, acidity, crispness, caliber, and fruit weight are the main fruit quality parameters considered by the sweet cherry consumer [5,16,17,18].
It is well-known that the red color of sweet cherries is a good indicator of fruit maturity and quality [16,19]. Cherries with homogeneous and intense colors create a better perception of the country of origin and greater satisfaction for the buying markets [20]. According to [21], red color intensity in sweet cherry fruits depends on the concentration of some specific phenolic compounds in fruit skin, mainly anthocyanins [12,22]. According to [23], red color intensity in sweet cherry fruits depends on the incidence of light that the trees can intercept and the composition of red (R) and ultraviolet light (UV) of the incident radiation. In sweet cherry, canopy light interception is often high, but distribution to lower canopy regions is poor, especially when invigorating rootstocks such as ‘Mazzard’ (P. avium), ‘Mahaleb’ (Prunus mahaleb), and ‘Colt’ (P. avium × Prunus psuedocerasus) are used [24], which is increased by the use of plastic covers [5]. The composition of sunlight varies widely in the crowns of orchards, which induces different plant responses in fruit trees mediated by the activities of phytochromes and cryptochromes [23]. In addition, insufficient lighting indoors and in lower canopy regions can decrease flower bud initiation, fruit quality, and canopy net photosynthesis [25,26]. Indeed, poor skin color and low acidity levels have been detected in sweet cherries produced under plastic covers in various localities of southern Chile. These quality changes could be explained by the reduced degree of light interception by the tree canopy and fruits and by the low thermal sum reached when covers are used [5,12].
Many technological advances have been sought to optimize the interception of canopy light in fruit orchards due to the positive linear relationship between light and dry matter production [24]. Thus, several strategies have been assessed in sweet cherry production systems, including the use of dwarf rootstocks, fruiting wall architectures, high-frequency/low-volume fertigation, overhead canopy sprinkler distribution systems, and reflective ground films [27]. Research indicates that reflective ground films enhance light levels in the fruiting zone of the vine canopy and improve the UV/R light ratio, with positive effects on phytochrome-mediated responses, including fruit color, fruit weight, and shoot growth in apple, peach, grapevines, and sweet cherry [23,28,29,30]. However, no information is available about the effects of reflective ground film on fruit quality, condition, antioxidant parameters, and post-harvest in sweet cherries cultivated under plastic cover.
Therefore, this study aimed to assess the influence of a reflective ground film on the fruit quality, condition, antioxidant properties, and post-harvest of sweet cherry (P. avium) cv. Regina cultivated under plastic cover in southern Chile.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Plant Material

The field study was performed at the commercial sweet cherry cv. Regina orchard, grafted on Gisela 6 rootstock, located in Puerto Octay (40°52′ S; 72°50′ O), Los Lagos Region, Chile, between September 2020 and February 2021. Sweet cherry trees were planted in 2014, using a 4.5 × 2.0 m planting design (east–west row orientation) (1111 trees ha−1). The sweet cherry orchard was covered with a gable-shaped, movable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, characterized by the following properties: 4 m width, a density of 160 g m−2, 88–90% of total light transmission, 60–65% of diffuse light transmission and reflectance >95%. The plastic cover was deployed throughout the fruit-growing period (September 2020 to February 2021). Weather data were obtained from Puerto Octay Station automatic weather station (AWS) (INIA). The minimum, maximum, and average temperatures were 5.1 °C, 20.8 °C, and 12.6 °C, respectively. The accumulated precipitation was 504.3 mm between September 2020 and February 202, whereas the average relative humidity (HR) recorded was 76.3% (Table 1).

2.2. Treatments

Sweet cherry (P. avium) trees were subjected to three treatments, as follows: (1) control (without reflective ground film), (2) extended reflective ground cover used 21 days before harvest (date: 14 January 2021), and (3) extended reflective ground cover used 34 days before harvest (date: 30 December 2020). For treatments 2 and 3, the reflective ground film was placed next to the trunk on both sides of the row. The reflective film was installed according to the manufacturer’s recommendation (21 DBH), and in addition to this, the use was evaluated via the phenological state of color break (34 DBH).

2.3. Experimental Design

The experimental design was a randomized block, with three treatments and four repetitions per treatment, each corresponding to a row of 7 consecutive trees. The observation unit consisted of three central trees to avoid the border effect (see Figure 1).

2.4. Fruits Quality and Condition at Harvest

Two hundred fruits per tree were harvested from three sweet cherry trees, considering 100 fruits from the upper zone (h > 1.2 m) and 100 fruits from the lower zone (h < 1.2 m) of the canopy. Then, the fruits were cold-stored and transported to the Fruit Crops Physiology and Quality Laboratory of La Frontera University (Chile) for fruit quality-related determinations. Fresh weight, equatorial diameter, and firmness were determined in 5 independent samples (considering 35 fruits in each sample) using an analytical balance and a texture meter (FirmPro, Happyvolt, Santiago, Chile) [31]. In addition, a thermo-compensated digital refractometer (ATAGO, Mod. PAL-BX I ACID F5, Saitama, Japan) and an automatic titrator (HANNA Mod. HI-84532, Woonsocket, RI, USA) were used to determine total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity (TA), respectively. Additionally, the maturity index was determined using the TSS and TA ratio. A panel visually analyzed the fruit condition, whereby fruit cracking, browning pedicels, and pitting were noted. For fruit color determination, an export scale was used as a reference (ASOEX, Las Condes, Chile), as described by Basile et al. [32].

2.5. Determination of Antioxidant-Related Parameters in Fruits at Harvest

Antioxidant-related parameters, including antioxidant activity (AA) and total phenol content (TPH), were determined as fruit quality parameters. Extraction with ethanol (80% v/v EtOH/water) was performed on the fruit samples for these analyses. Briefly, AA was determined using the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) radical, as described by Maldonado et al. [33]. The absorbance was determined at 515 nm, and the results are expressed as TROLOX equivalents. Total phenol content (TPH) was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteau method [34]. The absorbance was obtained at 750 nm, and the results have been expressed using gallic acid as the standard. For both determinations (AA and TPH), an Epoch microplate reader (Winooski, VT, USA) was used for absorbance readings.

2.6. Fruits Quality and Condition at Post-Harvest

For fruit quality and condition at post-harvest, fruits (~10 kg per treatment) were harvested and transported to the Ranco Cherries export company. To reduce fruit temperature, fruits were hydro-cooled (to reach 3–4 °C) and kept in a cold chamber for 24 h. Then, the fruits were immersed in a fungicide (Fludioxonil) solution. They were packed in 2.5 kg modified-atmosphere plastic boxes (5–6% CO2; 16–17% O2), exposed to a Californian-type forced-air tunnel, and stored at 0 °C and 90% of relative humidity for 30 days. Before the measurements, fruits were acclimatized for 16 h at 20 °C. Firmness, TSS, TA, and MI parameters were determined to assess fruit quality. Browning, pitting, and orange peel incidences were visually estimated for fruit condition.

2.7. Data Analysis

The normality and homoscedasticity were determined by the Shapiro–Wilks and Levene test data, respectively. Then, data were analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Fisher’s LSD multiple comparison tests (p ≤ 0.05). Infostat® Software Version 2017 was used to perform statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Fruit Quality at Harvest

Our results reveal that placing the reflective film for 34 DBH increased fruit firmness at harvest compared to the control, with an average fruit firmness of 282.4 ± 4.07 g mm−1 and 320.62 ± 4.31, respectively, with the fruits from the upper canopy zone being 7% more firm than those from the lower canopy zone (Table 2). In both canopy zones, the extended reflective film produced firmer fruits than the control, achieving an average of 320.62 ± 4.31 g mm−1 in the 34 DBH treatment. Moreover, we found that fruit size (caliber) did not present statistical differences at harvest among treatments in both canopy zones, with an average size between 27.72 ± 0.17 mm and 28.64 ± 0.18 mm (Table 2). Similarly, our study has revealed that the cherries produced in the lower canopy zone of the 21 DBH treatment presented a lower fruit weight than those from the upper canopy zone, with an average weight of 10.84 ± 0.29 g and 12.79 ± 0.33 g, respectively. In addition, fruits exposed to the film for 21 DBH presented a decrease in the fruit weight in the lower canopy zone at harvest, contrasting with the other treatments. Our study did not present statistical differences between the treatments in the total canopy zone. Interestingly, the use of reflective film for 34 DBH increased the accumulation of TSS in the lower canopy zone by 7% over the control. The upper and total canopy zones did not represent this variation. The averages for fruits harvested from the control, 21 DBH, and 34 DBH treatments were 18.54 ± 0.55, 18.21 ± 0.41, and 19.01 ± 0.42 °Brix, respectively. For titratable acidity (TA) at harvest, the canopy zone did not present statistical differences in each treatment analysis. Nevertheless, the treatments with extended reflective film (21 DBH and 34 DBH) showed a lower TA than the control in the lower canopy zone. In addition, the treatments affected neither the upper canopy nor the total canopy zone. The 34 DBH treatment increased fruit acidity similarly to the TSS, increasing this parameter only in the lower canopy fruits. TA was generally similar between fruits from the upper and total canopy zones. Finally, the results indicate that the maturity index (MI) was similar between fruits produced in the upper and lower canopy zones. Moreover, the fruit from the lower canopy zone produced in trees exposed to the film for 34 DBH presented an increase in the MI compared to the control and 21 DBH treatments.

3.2. Fruit Caliber Distribution at Harvest

In our experiment, fruit caliber was, on average, 28 to 30 mm in both canopy zones (Figure 2). We observed that reflective ground film decreased fruit caliber by 23% and 44% in the 21 and 34 DBH treatments, respectively, compared to the control in the 32 mm category in the lower canopy zone (Figure 2A). In the upper canopy zone, the reflective ground film installed at 21 DBH increased the value in the 32 mm category fruits compared to the control (Figure 2B). Meanwhile, the reflective ground film installed at 34 DBH decreased fruit caliber distribution by 42% in the 32 mm category (Figure 2C).

3.3. Fruit Color Distribution at Harvest

In terms of fruit color distribution, the 21 DBH treatment generated the highest proportion of fruits from the lower zone in the Mahogany category, exceeding 20% relative to the control and 34 DBH treatments (Figure 3A). The control showed the highest percentage of fruits from the lower zone in the Dark Mahogany category—24% and 17% greater than in the 21 and 34 DBH treatments, respectively. Regarding the Red Mahogany category, the 34 DBH treatment showed a higher percentage than the control and 21 DBH treatments. All treatments in the upper canopy zone were in the Mahogany category, with no significant differences among them (Figure 3B). Similarly, fruits from all treatments showed the lowest percentage in the Red Mahogany category, without differences among them. On average, fruits from all treatments were mainly found in the Mahogany category, with no significant differences among them (Figure 3C), ranging between 45 and 50%.

3.4. Fruit Condition at Harvest

Our study revealed that pitting incidence was between 6.34 and 7.34% without statistical differences among treatments at harvest (Table 3). Regarding skin oxidation disorder, the treatments did not exhibit statistical differences among them. Skin oxidation disorder fluctuated between 12.3 and 16.79%, with no differences between canopy zones. Notably, the control and 21 DBH treatments produced a higher percentage of undamaged fruit at harvest.
Concerning the frequency of cracking (Figure 4), our findings demonstrate that the incidence of cracking near the pedicel was lower than in all treatments, regardless of the canopy zone (Figure 4). Conversely, in the lower canopy zone, side cracking in the 34 DBH treatment was higher than in the other assessed treatments, exhibiting an incidence rate of 8% higher, with statistically significant differences (Figure 4A). As regards stem cracking incidence, applying the extended plastic cover for 34 DBH increased by 4% the incidence of this defect in the upper and total canopy zones in comparison to the control (Figure 4B,C).

3.5. Antioxidant-Related Parameters at Harvest

Our study reveals that reflective ground film did not affect the antioxidant activity (AA) in the pulp and skin fruits at harvest (Table 4). The AA ranged between 1.81 ± 0.19 µmol g−1 TE (μmol of Trolox equivalent per g of fresh weight) and 2.3 ± 0.2 µmol g−1 TE in the skin, without differences between the lower and upper canopy zones. There was no difference between the lower and upper canopy zones for fruit pulp AA. The same tendency was observed in the total canopy zone, with an increase of 11% respectively, over the control. On the other hand, total phenolic compounds (TPH) ranged between 50.11 ± 21.98 mg 100 g−1 GAE (mg of gallic acid equivalents for 100 g of fresh weight) and 79.55 ± 10.93 mg 100 g−1 GAE in the skin, with no differences among treatments. The TPH did not change among treatments in the lower canopy zone in the pulp. Meanwhile, the 21 DBH treatment in the upper canopy zone showed the highest TPH level, greater than 13% and 23%, compared to the 34 DBH treatment and the control, respectively.
Our results indicate a significant correlation between antioxidant activity and total phenols in the skin, with an R2 value of 0.9094 (Figure 5A), while the correlation between TPH in the pulp and antioxidant capacity yields an R2 value of 0.5079 (Figure 5B).

3.6. Fruit Quality and Condition at Post-Harvest

Fruit quality and condition were evaluated after 30 days of cold storage. In our study, fruit firmness ranged from 311.31 ± 6.31 g mm−1 to 326.56 ± 8.14 g mm−1 without statistical differences among treatments (Table 5). Likewise, no significant differences were observed in TSS among treatments, showing a similar average of 17 °Brix. TA and Maturity Index showed the same tendency without statistical differences among treatments (Table 5). On the other hand, our results show that 34 DBH significantly decreased the incidence of orange skin (by 0.7%) compared to the control and the 21 DBH treatment (Figure 6). Moreover, 21 DBH reduced pitting disorder (0.37 to 0.09%) compared to the control and the 34 DBH treatment. Conversely, 34 DBH significantly increased the rate of browning pedicel (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Our results reveal that applying reflective ground film in both the 21 and 34 DBH treatments increased fruit firmness compared to the control at harvest (Table 1). By contrast, fruit caliber and weight showed no differences among treatments except for 21 DBH, which showed a slight decrease compared to the other treatments in the lower canopy zone compared to the control and 34 DBH. Interestingly, placing reflective ground film at 34 DBH increased TSS and MI (TSS/TA ratio) and decreased TA in the lower canopy, with no differences in the upper canopy zone. Our results are consistent with those of Whiting et al. [24], who reported that reflective ground film did not change fruit caliber but increased firmness by 9% and TSS by 8% in sweet cherry cv. Bing compared to trees without reflective ground film [35,36]. The authors also showed that reflective ground film increased CO2 assimilation, suggesting a better source–sink ratio in sweet cherry. It has been reported that reflective ground film increases PAR reflection into the canopy, increasing light availability by 30–40% in the shade zones of the canopy [37], which might increase CO2 assimilation. Recently, Yuan et al. [30] showed that reflective ground film doubled the amount of reflected light, resulting in a 24.9% increase in CO2 assimilation in grapevines, akin to the report by Gaeta et al. [38] in peaches. According to Yuan et al. [30], higher reflected light facilitates photoassimilate translocation from leaves to fruits, increasing sugar accumulation in fruits, as we observed in our experiment, where reflective ground film installed at 34 DBH significantly increased TSS compared to the control. On the other hand, we observed that fruits were, on average, 28 to 30 mm in both canopy zones. Likewise, we observed that reflective ground film installed 34 DBH produced smaller cherry fruits (higher percentage of fruits in <26 mm category) than the control and 21 DBH treatments. Meanwhile, the control and 21 DBH treatment produced larger cherry fruits (higher percentage in >32 mm). However, differing reports have shown that reflective ground film increases fruit size, while others showed that fruit size decreases. For example, our results disagree with those of Yuan et al. [30], who showed that reflective ground film installed five months before harvest produced larger fruit sizes in grapevine cv. Shine Muscat [30]. For example, our results contradict those of Yuan et al. [30], who showed that reflective ground film installed five months before harvest produced larger fruit sizes in grapevine cv. Shine Muscat [30]. In sweet cherry cv. Bing, no changes in fruit sizes when using reflective ground film during the entire season of fruit growth were reported by Blanco et al. [19]. Kon et al. [39] reported that reflective ground film installed five weeks before harvest did not increase fruit size in apple cv. Fuji [38]. Likewise, Mupambi et al. [40] also showed no changes in fruit size in apple cv. Honeycrisp with reflective ground film [39]. Iglesias et al. [28] reported an increase in fruit caliber distribution using reflective ground film five weeks before harvest in apple cv. Gala [28]. Likewise, Schmidt et al. [15] reported that reflective ground film increased fruit size distribution in apple, pear, sweet cherry, peach, and nectarine orchards [15]. Therefore, fruit size distribution using reflective ground film seems dependent on the species, cultivar, and/or experimental conditions. Reflective ground film has traditionally been used to promote fruit color [23,41,42]. In our study, the 34 DBH treatment showed a higher percentage of this value than in the control and the 21 DBH treatment in the Red Mahogany category. Meanwhile, the 21 DBH treatment exhibited the highest percentage of fruits from the lower zone in the Mahogany category, which was about 20% greater than in the control and the 34 DBH treatment. Our results agree with those of Whiting et al. [24] and Muneer et al. [43], who reported that reflective ground film promoted fruit color in sweet cherry cv. Bing and highbush blueberry cv. ‘O’Neal’ [42]. According to Bastías et al. [23], reflective ground film improves the canopy's light quantity and quality, increasing the UV light component [23]. UV light has been associated with increased anthocyanin biosynthesis in fruits, promoting fruit color in sweet cherries [44]. Regarding fruit condition at harvest, no significant differences were observed in pitting and skin oxidation among treatments, except in the control and 21 DBH treatment, which showed a higher percentage of fruit without damage at harvest. Meanwhile, our experiment increased fruit cracking in the 34 DBH treatment compared to the control and the 21 DBH treatment. Reflective ground film has been shown to reduce water evaporation, thus increasing soil moisture [43,45], which could be associated with a higher degree of sweet cherry cracking explained by the excessive water absorption by fruit surface and roots [46]. Therefore, the reflective ground film could increase soil moisture, increasing sweet cherry cracking in our study. However, antioxidant activity (AA) and total phenols (TPH) were measured in sweet cherries due to their human health benefits. In general, AA was not affected by reflective ground film treatment, except for the 21 DBH treatment, which showed a slight increase in the upper canopy zone compared to the control. Similarly, the 21 and 34 DBH treatments increased TPH levels compared to the control, which could be associated with the phenylpropanoid compound’s biosynthesis that was induced by higher UV light, as reported by Wang et al. [44], itself promoting fruit color in sweet cherry, and increasing human health properties. Given that Chile exports over 90% of its sweet cherry crop to the Chinese market, where cherries travel for about 30 days in marine containers [35,47], we evaluated fruit quality and condition after 35 days of cold storage. Thus, we observed that fruit quality parameters did not vary among treatments. However, in terms of fruit condition, the 34 DBH decreased the incidence of orange skin, and 21 DBH reduced pitting disorder. By contrast, the 34 DBH treatment significantly increased the browning pedicel incidence. Similar results were reported by Schick et al. [48], where reflective film decreased the pitting disorder in sweet cherries. By contrast, the authors showed that the incidence of pedicel browning decreased with the reflective film, which disagrees with our results. According to Ruiz-Aracil et al. [49], pedicel browning is associated with dehydration during post-harvest and the oxidation of chlorophyll molecules [48]; therefore, contradictory results are observed in pedicel browning, and more studies are needed to confirm the positive or negative impacts.

5. Conclusions

Our study has demonstrated that installing reflective ground film 34 DBH improved fruit firmness, the maturity index (TSS/TA), and coloration in sweet cherry cv. Regina cultivated under plastic covers. However, it also increased the incidence of cracking and pedicel browning. By contrast, reflective ground film installed 21 DBH reduced pitting and increased total phenol concentration without changes in antioxidant activity. Thus, reflective ground film could be a promising tool for improving fruit quality; further studies are needed to explore practical applications and their combinations with other agronomic practices, or the effects of adjusting installation timing based on specific orchard conditions. Future research should focus on understanding the mechanisms underlying the observed improvements in fruit quality.

Author Contributions

A.M.-A., C.P.-P., and A.R.-F. conceptualized, designed, and coordinated the experiment. A.M.-A. and N.C.-C. performed fruit quality and biochemical analyses. A.M.-A. and J.G.-V. formulated the draft of the manuscript. A.M.-A., C.P.-P., J.G.-V., P.O. and A.R.-F. 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 CORFO-PTEC (Center of Southern Fruticulture; CODE: 16PTECCFS-66647, Chile) and FRO1795 project “Fruticultura Sin Fronteras” (Chilean Education Ministry). Additionally, this research was partially funded by the Export Company Ranco Cherries.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

To Agricultural Puerto Octay, all the students at the Universidad de La Frontera who contributed with their assistance in this study, and the R + D team at Ranco Cherries.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Pamela Osorio was employed by the company Exportadora Rancagua S.A. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vignati, E.; Lipska, M.; Dunwell, J.M.; Caccamo, M.; Simkin, A.J. Fruit Development in Sweet Cherry. Plants 2022, 11, 1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. ASOEX Temporada 2023-2024: Exportaciones de Cerezas Chilenas Cierran Con Nuevo Récord En China. Available online: https://www.asoex.cl/component/content/article/25-noticias/1415-temporada-2023-2024-exportaciones-de-cerezas-chilenas-cierran-con-nuevo-record-en-china.html (accessed on 16 October 2024).
  3. SUBREI Entre 2003 y 2021: Las Exportaciones Chilenas Frutícolas han Crecido a una Tasa Promedio Anual del 7%. Available online: https://www.subrei.gob.cl/sala-de-prensa/noticias/detalle-noticias/2022/09/22/entre-2003-y-2021-las-exportaciones-chilenas-frut%C3%ADcolas-han-crecido-a-una-tasa-promedio-anual-del-7 (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  4. ODEPA Boletín de Fruta, Marzo 2024; Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias: Santiago, Chile, 2024.
  5. 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 2021, 10, 2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. 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]
  7. Palma, M.; Sepúlveda, Á.; Yuri, J.A. Effect of Plastic Roof and High Tunnel on Microclimate, Physiology, Vegetative Growth and Fruit Characteristics of “Santina” Sweet Cherry. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 317, 112037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rojas, G.; Fernandez, E.; Whitney, C.; Luedeling, E.; Cuneo, I.F. Adapting Sweet Cherry Orchards to Extreme Weather Events—Decision Analysis in Support of Farmers’ Investments in Central Chile. Agric. Syst. 2021, 187, 103031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Balbontín, C.; Gutiérrez, C.; Wolff, M.; Figueroa, C.R.; 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]
  10. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thomidis, T.; Exadaktylou, E. Effect of a Plastic Rain Shield on Fruit Cracking and Cherry Diseases in Greek Orchards. Crop. Prot. 2013, 52, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Palacios-Peralta, C.; Ruiz, A.; Ercoli, S.; Reyes-Díaz, M.; Bustamante, M.; Muñoz, A.; Osorio, P.; Ribera-Fonseca, A. Plastic Covers and Potassium Pre-Harvest Sprays and Their Influence on Antioxidant Properties, Phenolic Profile, and Organic Acids Composition of Sweet Cherry Fruits Cultivated in Southern Chile. Plants 2023, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rodríguez, J. La calidad en destino será motor para dar velocidad a la venta de cerezas. Redagrícola Chile. 25 October 2022, pp. 44–45. Available online: https://redagricola.com/papel/octubre-noviembre-2022/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  14. Tapia, C. Redagrícola Chile. 12 September 2018. Available online: https://redagricola.com/papel/septiembre-2018/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  15. Schmidt, T.; Hanrahan, I.; Castillo, F.; McFerson, J. Reflective Ground Covers Increase Yields of Fruit Trees. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1058, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Crisosto, C.; Crisosto, G.; Metheney, P. Consumer Acceptance of ‘Brooks’ and ‘Bing’ Cherries Is Mainly Dependent on Fruit SSC and Visual Skin Color. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 28, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gao, L.; Mazza, G. Characterization, Quantitation, and Distribution of Anthocyanins and Colorless Phenolics in Sweet Cherries. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf00050a015 (accessed on 10 July 2023).
  18. Usenik, V.; Fabčič, J.; Štampar, F. Sugars, Organic Acids, Phenolic Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.). Food Chem. 2008, 107, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. Guzmán, A.; Schnettler, B.; Mora, M.; Aguilera, M. Perceived Quality of and Satisfaction from Sweet Cherries (Prunus avium L.) in China: Confirming Relationships through Structural Equations. Cienc. E Investig. Agrar. 2018, 45, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chezanoglou, E.; Mourtzinos, I.; Goula, A.M. Sweet Cherry and Its By-Products as Sources of Valuable Phenolic Compounds. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 145, 104367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chaovanalikit, A.; Wrolstad, R.E. Total Anthocyanins and Total Phenolics of Fresh and Processed Cherries and Their Antioxidant Properties. J. Food Sci. 2004, 69, FCT67–FCT72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bastías, R.M.; Corelli-Grappadelli, L. Light Quality Management in Fruit Orchards: Physiological and Technological Aspects. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 72, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Whiting, M.; Lang, G.; Ophardt, D. Rootstock and Training System Affect Sweet Cherry Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality. HortScience 2005, 40, 582–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paponov, M.; Verheul, M.J.; Dobrev, P.I.; Paponov, I.A. Additive Effects of Light and Branching on Fruit Size and Chemical Fruit Quality of Greenhouse Tomatoes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1221163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tang, N.; Wang, J.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H.; Qiu, M. Chromatic Effects of Supplemental Light on the Fruit Quality of Strawberries. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lang, G.A.; Wilkinson, T.; Larson, J.E. Insights for Orchard Design and Management Using Intensive Sweet Cherry Canopy Architectures on Dwarfing to Semi-Vigorous Rootstocks. Acta Hortic. 2019, 1235, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Iglesias, I.; Alegre, S. The Effects of Reflective Film on Fruit Color, Quality, Canopy Light Distribution, and Profitability of ‘Mondial Gala’ Apples. HortTechnology 2009, 19, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pino, S.; Palma, M.; Sepúlveda, Á.; Sánchez-Contreras, J.; Moya, M.; Yuri, J.A. Effect of Rain Cover on Tree Physiology and Fruit Condition and Quality of ‘Rainier’, ‘Bing’ and ‘Sweetheart’ Sweet Cherry Trees. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yuan, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, B.; Wei, X.; Huang, R.; Liu, S.; Ma, L. To Improve Grape Photosynthesis, Yield and Fruit Quality by Covering Reflective Film on the Ground of a Protected Facility. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 327, 112792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Defilippi, B.; Manríquez, D. Evaluación de Sistemas de Medición de Firmeza Para uva de Mesa y Cerezas Utilizadas en la Industria Frutícola; Biblioteca Digital INIA: Santiago, Chile, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. Basile, B.; Brown, N.; Valdes, J.M.; Cardarelli, M.; Scognamiglio, P.; Mataffo, A.; Rouphael, Y.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G. Plant-Based Biostimulant as Sustainable Alternative to Synthetic Growth Regulators in Two Sweet Cherry Cultivars. Plants 2021, 10, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Maldonado, P.D.; Rivero-Cruz, I.; Mata, R.; Pedraza-Chaverrí, J. Antioxidant Activity of A-Type Proanthocyanidins from Geranium Niveum (Geraniaceae). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 1996–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Parada, J.; Valenzuela, T.; Gómez, F.; Tereucán, G.; García, S.; Cornejo, P.; Winterhalter, P.; Ruiz, A. Effect of Fertilization and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculation on Antioxidant Profiles and Activities in Fragaria Ananassa Fruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1397–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blanco, V.; Zoffoli, J.P.; Ayala, M. High Tunnel Cultivation of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.): Physiological and Production Variables. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 251, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Whiting, M.D.; Rodriguez, C.; Toye, J. Preliminary Testing of a Reflective Ground Cover: Sweet Cherry Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality. Acta Hortic. 2008, 795, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Widmer, A.; Stadler, W.; Krebs, C. Bessere Fruchtqualitat Mit Weisser, Lichtreflektierender Bondenfolie? Schweiz. Z. Obst-Weinbau 2001, 137, 470–473. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gaeta, L.; Amendolagine, A.M.; Di Gennaro, D.; Navarro, A.; Tarricone, L.; Campi, P.; Stellacci, A.M.; Losciale, P. Managing orchard floor for saving water in a late ripening peach cultivar: A preliminary result. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1304, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kon, T.M.; Clavet, C.D. Enhancing Red Fruit Coloration of Apples in the Southeastern US with Reflective Fabrics. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mupambi, G.; Anthony, B.M.; Layne, D.R.; Musacchi, S.; Serra, S.; Schmidt, T.; Kalcsits, L.A. The Influence of Protective Netting on Tree Physiology and Fruit Quality of Apple: A Review. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 236, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Miah, M.S.; Farcuh, M. Reflective Groundcovers Promote Anthocyanin Content and Advance Fruit Maturity of ‘Evercrisp’ Apples Grown in the Mid-Atlantic US. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1478498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Overbeck, V.; Schmitz-Eiberger, M.A.; Blanke, M.M. Reflective Mulch Enhances Ripening and Health Compounds in Apple Fruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 2575–2579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muneer, S.; Kim, J.H.; Park, J.G.; Shin, M.H.; Cha, G.H.; Kim, H.L.; Ban, T.; Kumarihami, H.M.P.C.; Kim, S.H.; Jeong, G.; et al. Reflective Plastic Film Mulches Enhance Light Intensity, Floral Induction, and Bioactive Compounds in ‘O’Neal’ Southern Highbush Blueberry. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 448–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, Y.; Ma, L.; Ma, Y.; Tian, T.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Q.; He, W.; Lin, Y.; et al. Comparative Physiological and Transcriptomic Analyses Provide Insights into Fruit Softening in Chinese Cherry [Cerasus pseudocerasus (Lindl.) G.Don]. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1190061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mechergui, T.; Pardos, M.; Jhariya, M.K.; Banerjee, A. Mulching and Weed Management Towards Sustainability. In Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture; Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 255–287. ISBN 978-981-334-203-3. [Google Scholar]
  46. Balbontín, C.; Ayala, H.; Bastías, R.M.; Tapia, G.; Ellena, M.; Torres, C.; Yuri, J.A.; Quero-García, J.; Ríos, J.C.; Silva, H. Cracking in Sweet Cherries: A Comprehensive Review from a Physiological, Molecular, and Genomic Perspective. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 73, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Villavicencio, J.; Zoffoli, J.P.; Contreras, C. Estudio comparativo de calidad de frutos de cereza (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina de las zonas Centro y Sur de Chile durante desarrollo y cosecha. Agro Sur 2021, 49, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schick, J.L.; Toivonen, P.M.A. Reflective Tarps at Harvest Reduce Stem Browning and Improve Fruit Quality of Cherries during Subsequent Storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 25, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. 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]
Agronomy 15 00520 g001
Figure 1. (A) Reflective film installed in the sweet cherry orchard and (B) diagram of the experimental design used for the study.
Figure 1. (A) Reflective film installed in the sweet cherry orchard and (B) diagram of the experimental design used for the study.
Agronomy 15 00520 g001
Agronomy 15 00520 g002
Figure 2. Fruit size (mm) distribution at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zones (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Different letters per category indicate a statistical difference between the treatments (p < 0.05). n.d.: not detected. DBH: days before harvest.
Figure 2. Fruit size (mm) distribution at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zones (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Different letters per category indicate a statistical difference between the treatments (p < 0.05). n.d.: not detected. DBH: days before harvest.
Agronomy 15 00520 g002
Agronomy 15 00520 g003aAgronomy 15 00520 g003b
Figure 3. Fruit color distribution at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zone (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without the reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Different letters per category indicate statistical differences between the treatments (p < 0.05). DBH: days before harvest.
Figure 3. Fruit color distribution at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zone (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without the reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Different letters per category indicate statistical differences between the treatments (p < 0.05). DBH: days before harvest.
Agronomy 15 00520 g003aAgronomy 15 00520 g003b
Agronomy 15 00520 g004
Figure 4. Cracking incidence (%) at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zones (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Differences between canopy zones for each treatment are represented by vertical lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05). n.d.: not detected.
Figure 4. Cracking incidence (%) at harvest in lower (A), upper (B), and total canopy zones (C) of sweet cherries (cv. Regina). In white, the control (without reflective film); in gray, the reflective film treatment at 21 DBH; and in black, the reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. Differences between canopy zones for each treatment are represented by vertical lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05). n.d.: not detected.
Agronomy 15 00520 g004
Agronomy 15 00520 g005
Figure 5. Correlation of antioxidant activity (DPPH method) and total phenols concentration in the skin (A) and pulp (B) of sweet cherries at harvest (cv. Regina).
Figure 5. Correlation of antioxidant activity (DPPH method) and total phenols concentration in the skin (A) and pulp (B) of sweet cherries at harvest (cv. Regina).
Agronomy 15 00520 g005
Agronomy 15 00520 g006
Figure 6. Orange peel (A), pitting (B), and browning (C) incidences at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH, and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH. Statistically significant differences between treatments for each treatment are represented by different lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6. Orange peel (A), pitting (B), and browning (C) incidences at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH, and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH. Statistically significant differences between treatments for each treatment are represented by different lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Agronomy 15 00520 g006
Agronomy 15 00520 g007
Figure 7. Fruit condition at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film) (A), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH (B), and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH (C).
Figure 7. Fruit condition at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film) (A), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH (B), and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH (C).
Agronomy 15 00520 g007
Table 1. Mean values of minimum temperature (T° min), maximum temperature (T° max), average temperature (T° avg), accumulated values of precipitation (PP), relative humidity (RH), and solar radiation (accum. radiation) from September 2020 to February 2021. Data from the Puerto Octay Station, INIA.
Table 1. Mean values of minimum temperature (T° min), maximum temperature (T° max), average temperature (T° avg), accumulated values of precipitation (PP), relative humidity (RH), and solar radiation (accum. radiation) from September 2020 to February 2021. Data from the Puerto Octay Station, INIA.
MonthT° min (°C)T° max (°C)T° avg (°C)PP (mm)RH (%)Accum. Radiation (MJ m2)
Sept5.112.38.745.180.811.3
Oct5.914.310.168.476.815.7
Nov8.216.512.482.377.818.1
Dec9.318.213.7100.475.520.9
Jan10.219.314.7112.075.122.6
Feb11.220.81696.071.919.9
Table 2. Fruit quality at harvest in the lower, upper, and total canopy zones of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to the control (without reflective film), reflective film treatment at 21 DBH, and reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. DBH: days before harvest.
Table 2. Fruit quality at harvest in the lower, upper, and total canopy zones of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to the control (without reflective film), reflective film treatment at 21 DBH, and reflective film treatment at 34 DBH. DBH: days before harvest.
VariableTreatmentsCanopy Zone
LowerUpperAverage
Fruit weight (g)Control12.27 ± 0.29 Aa12.37 ± 0.41 Aa12.32 ± 0.25 a
21 DBH10.84 ± 0.29 Bb12.79 ± 0.33 Aa11.82 ± 0.24 a
34 DBH12.01 ± 0.25 Aa11.85 ± 0.37 Aa11.93 ± 0.22 a
P-valor0.00080.16470.281
Caliber (mm)Control28.64 ± 0.18 Aa28.15 ± 0.16 Ba28.4 ± 0.12 a
21 DBH28.16 ± 0.16 Aa28.22 ± 0.19 Aa28.19 ± 0.12 a
34 DBH28.16 ± 0.17 Aa27.72 ± 0.17 Ba27.97 ± 0.12 a
P-valor0.1130.07310.0709
Firmness (g mm−1)Control291.87 ± 5.56 Aa272.99 ± 5.83 Bc282.4 ± 4.07 c
21 DBH303.58 ± 5.41 Aa290.73± 5.18 Ab297.23 ± 3.76 b
34 DBH310.83 ± 5.39 Ba332.94 ± 6.86 Aa320.62 ± 4.31 a
P-valor0.085<0.0001<0.0001
TSS (Brix)Control17.53 ± 0.14 Bb19.55 ± 0.84 Aa18.54 ± 0.55 a
21 DBH17.4 ± 0.33 Bb19.03 ± 0.47 Aa18.21 ± 0.41 a
34 DBH18.9 ± 0.22 Aa19.13 ± 0.88 Aa19.01 ± 0.42 a
P-valor0.00870.87520.4865
TA (% malic acid)Control0.6 ± 0.01 Aa0.57 ± 0.04 Aa0.58 ± 0.02 a
21 DBH0.56 ± 0.02 Ab0.61 ± 0.01 Aa0.58 ± 0.01 a
34 DBH0.53 ± 0.02 Ab0.6 ± 0.03 Aa0.57 ± 0.02 a
P-valor0.01380.65370.7055
Maturity index (TSS/TA)Control29.33 ± 0.17 Ab34.43 ± 1.75 Aa31.88 ± 1.26 a
21 DBH31.26 ± 1.09 Ab31.22 ± 0.52 Aa31.24 ± 0.56 a
34 DBH35.63 ± 0.57 Aa31.89 ± 1.25 Aa33.76 ± 0.95 a
P-valor0.00210.25080.189
Statistically significant differences between treatments for each canopy zone are represented by different uppercase letters (horizontally). In contrast, differences between canopy zones for each treatment are represented by vertical lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 3. Fruit condition at harvest in the lower, upper, and total canopy zones of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to the control (without reflective film), reflective film treatment at 21 DBH, and reflective film treatment at 34 DBH.
Table 3. Fruit condition at harvest in the lower, upper, and total canopy zones of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to the control (without reflective film), reflective film treatment at 21 DBH, and reflective film treatment at 34 DBH.
Fruit ConditionTreatmentsZone
LowerUpperTotal
Pitting incidence (%)Control5.81 ± 0.71 Aa8.79 ± 2.17 Aa7.34 ± 1.23 a
21 DBH6.34 ± 1.06 Aa6.33 ± 1.36 Aa6.34 ± 0.88 a
34 DBH7.74 ± 0.67 Aa4.61 ± 2.86 Aa6.17 ± 1.48 a
p-value0.69710.30610.82
Skin oxidation (%)Control14.07 ± 4.37 Aa13.76 ± 4.03 Aa13.91 ± 2.75 a
21 DBH13.99 ± 4.5 Aa12.3 ± 3.35 Aa13.15 ± 2.62 a
34 DBH16.79 ± 3.75 Aa12.68 ± 2.51 Aa14.73 ± 2.23 a
p-value0.76340.89140.8092
Without damage (%)Control68.15 ± 5.42 Aa67.16 ± 3.86 Aa67.66 ± 3.09 a
21 DBH64.52 ± 4.46 Aa61.79 ± 6.88 Aa63.16 ± 3.83 a
34 DBH49.55 ± 2.01 Bb60.06 ± 4.91 Aa54.81 ± 3.16 b
p-value0.01260.36810.0056
Statistically significant differences between treatments for each canopy zone are represented by different uppercase letters (horizontally). In contrast, differences between canopy zones for each treatment are represented by vertical lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content in skin and pulp of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) at harvest in the lower, upper, and total zones of the canopy subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflecting film placed at 21 DBH and a second treatment with reflecting film placed at 34 DBH. Abbreviations are TE (Trolox equivalents), GAE (gallic acid equivalents), and FW (fresh weight).
Table 4. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content in skin and pulp of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) at harvest in the lower, upper, and total zones of the canopy subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflecting film placed at 21 DBH and a second treatment with reflecting film placed at 34 DBH. Abbreviations are TE (Trolox equivalents), GAE (gallic acid equivalents), and FW (fresh weight).
Parameters TreatmentsCanopy Zone
LowerUpperTotal
Fruit skin
antioxidant activity
(µmol TE g−1 FW)		Control2.30 ± 0.2 Aa2.03 ± 0.21 Aa2.17 ± 0.14 a
21 DBH1.95 ± 0.37 Aa1.81 ± 0.19 Aa1.88 ± 0.19 a
34 DBH1.88 ± 0.23 Aa1.90 ± 0.26 Aa1.89 ± 0.16 a
p-valor0.42020.78570.4068
Fruit pulp
antioxidant activity
(µmol TE g−1 FW)		Control2.54 ± 0.14 Aa2.21± 0.14 Ab2.38 ± 0.11 ab
21 DBH2.49 ± 0.07 Aa2.82 ± 0.16 Aa2.66 ± 0.1 a
34 DBH2.19 ± 0.12 Aa2.33 ± 0.09 Ab2.26 ± 0.08 b
p-valor0.07350.03980.029
Total phenols in fruit skin
(mg GAE 100 g−1 FW)		Control79.55 ± 10.93 Aa70.51 ± 6.53 Aa71.58 ± 6.14 a
21 DBH50.11 ± 5.90 Aa50.11 ± 21.98 Aa59.44 ± 14.24 a
34 DBH67.15 ± 14.01 Aa66.35 ± 17.17 Aa66.75 ± 10.26 a
p-valor0.87790.28930.2659
Total phenols in fruit pulp
(mg GAE 100 g−1 FW)		Control209.89 ± 18.62 Aa187.23 ± 9.59 Ab198.56 ± 10.60 a
21 DBH217.07 ± 16.07 Aa239.84 ± 23.00 Aa223.80 ± 43.80 a
34 DBH236.59 ± 32.13 Aa199.1 ± 7.73 Aab198.56 ± 16.85 a
p-valor0.71390.05280.4557
Statistically significant differences between treatments for each canopy zone are represented by different uppercase letters (horizontally), whereas differences between canopy zones for each treatment are represented by vertical lowercase letters, based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 5. Fruit quality at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH, and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH.
Table 5. Fruit quality at post-harvest of sweet cherries (cv. Regina) subjected to one control (without reflective film), one treatment with reflective film placed at 21 DBH, and a second treatment with reflective film placed at 34 DBH.
TreatmentsPost-Harvest Quality
Firmness (g mm−1)TSS (°Brix)TA (% Malic Acid)Maturity Index
Control311.31 ± 6.31 a17.05 ± 1.75 a0.42 ± 0.06 a43.59 ± 7.85 a
21 DBH313.38 ± 7.06 a17.68 ± 0.64 a0.31 ± 0.01 a56.44 ± 1.07 a
34 DBH326.56 ± 8.14 a17.07 ± 0.61 a0.46 ± 0.09 a42.01 ± 8.60 a
P-valor0.13040.8990.19420.1795
Statistically significant differences for each treatment are represented by different vertical lowercase letters based on Fisher’s LSD multiple range test (p ≤ 0.05).
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

Muñoz-Alarcón, A.; Palacios-Peralta, C.; González-Villagra, J.; Carrasco-Catricura, N.; Osorio, P.; Ribera-Fonseca, A. Impact of Reflective Ground Film on Fruit Quality, Condition, and Post-Harvest of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina Cultivated Under Plastic Cover in Southern Chile. Agronomy 2025, 15, 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030520

AMA Style

Muñoz-Alarcón A, Palacios-Peralta C, González-Villagra J, Carrasco-Catricura N, Osorio P, Ribera-Fonseca A. Impact of Reflective Ground Film on Fruit Quality, Condition, and Post-Harvest of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina Cultivated Under Plastic Cover in Southern Chile. Agronomy. 2025; 15(3):520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030520

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muñoz-Alarcón, Ariel, Cristóbal Palacios-Peralta, Jorge González-Villagra, Nicolás Carrasco-Catricura, Pamela Osorio, and Alejandra Ribera-Fonseca. 2025. "Impact of Reflective Ground Film on Fruit Quality, Condition, and Post-Harvest of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina Cultivated Under Plastic Cover in Southern Chile" Agronomy 15, no. 3: 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030520

APA Style

Muñoz-Alarcón, A., Palacios-Peralta, C., González-Villagra, J., Carrasco-Catricura, N., Osorio, P., & Ribera-Fonseca, A. (2025). Impact of Reflective Ground Film on Fruit Quality, Condition, and Post-Harvest of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Regina Cultivated Under Plastic Cover in Southern Chile. Agronomy, 15(3), 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030520

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