Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Effects of Single and Split Pre-Harvest Aminoethoxyvinylglycine Applications in Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity in ‘Baigent’ Apples Under Anti-Hail Nets
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Amino Acids and Slow-Release Urea-Based Biostimulants to Enhance Yield and Grain Quality in Durum Wheat Under No-Tillage Conditions in Semi-Arid Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Melatonin Elicitation Differentially Enhances Flavanone and Its Endogenous Content in Lemon Tissues Through Preharvest and Postharvest Applications
 
 
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 9
10.3390/agronomy15092151
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples

by
Cassandro Vidal Talamini do Amarante
1,*,
Luiz Carlos Argenta
2,
Sergio Tonetto de Freitas
3 and
Cristiano André Steffens
1
1
Departamento de Agronomia, Centro de Ciências Agroveterinária (CAV), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Av. Luiz de Camões, 2090, Bairro Conta Dinheiro, Lages 88520-000, SC, Brazil
2
Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural de Santa Catarina (Epagri), Rua Alcides Tombini, 1500, Bairro Bom Sucesso, Caçador 89500-000, SC, Brazil
3
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), Rod. BR-235 S/N, Km 152, P.O. Box 23, Petrolina 56302-970, PE, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(9), 2151; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092151 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 10 July 2025 / Revised: 8 August 2025 / Accepted: 13 August 2025 / Published: 9 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Molecular Biochemistry and Physiology of Pre- and Post-Harvest Fruits and Vegetables)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

This three-year study in southern Brazil assessed the effectiveness of the preharvest spraying of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP; Harvista™ 1.3 SC) in reducing the fruit drop, delaying the maturity, and maintaining the postharvest quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples. 1-MCP was sprayed at 0, 75, 125, 175, and 225 mg a.i. L−1 seven days before the anticipated harvest time (DBAH). Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG; Retain®), a commercial control, was applied at 124 mg a.i. L−1 28 DBAH. After harvest, the fruit were stored for seven months under a controlled atmosphere (CA; 1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C/RH of 94–95%), followed by seven days of shelf life (23 ± 1 °C/RH of 70–80%). Increasing 1-MCP concentrations significantly reduced preharvest fruit drop, and 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L−1 was more effective over time than AVG. While 1-MCP, like AVG, delayed red color development, fruit treated with 175 and 225 mg L−1 still achieved over 44.5 N firmness after CA storage, even when harvested 28 days after spraying, allowing for red color development and an average 12 g fruit weight increase. 1-MCP at ≥75 mg L−1 was more efficient than AVG in maintaining flesh firmness, while at 225 mg L−1, it also preserved higher titratable acidity and a lower soluble solid content after CA storage. Thus, the preharvest spraying of 1-MCP is a valuable tool for growers to schedule the harvest and maintain the postharvest quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples.

1. Introduction

Scheduling harvest maturity in an orchard is relevant when there is a large amount of fruit to be harvested in a short period of time, as well as when there are insufficient workers and/or excessive rain during the harvest season. In Brazil, the period of commercial apple harvesting has been expanded by the cultivation of apples at different altitudes, dormancy breaking at different times, and the use of growth regulators to anticipate or delay maturity [1].
‘Gala’ is one of the most important apple cultivars in Brazil, representing approximately 65% of the total apple production [2]. ‘Gala’ apples have a rapid maturation pattern on the plant [3,4], being highly susceptible to abscission after reaching harvest maturity [5,6]. Scheduling the harvest of ‘Gala’ apples by controlling fruit development on the tree allows for harvesting a greater amount of fruit at the optimum maturity stage for storage, in addition to facilitating the operations of harvest, transportation, and the loading of cooling and storage facilities. Therefore, scheduling harvest by managing the maturation of ‘Gala’ apples on the tree allows for reducing fruit losses due to preharvest abscission and postharvest deterioration. The ethylene biosynthesis inhibitor aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) has been applied commercially in apple orchards to delay maturation and schedule fruit harvest [7]. Spraying AVG on apple trees slows down starch breakdown, the loss of flesh firmness, yellowing, and red color development, as well as reducing the abscission and stem-end splitting of apple fruit [5,8,9,10,11,12,13].
The ethylene action inhibitor 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) is a simple, gaseous hydrocarbon that has been applied to many fruit species after harvest to maintain their quality and increase their shelf life [14]. Formulations for 1-MCP application in the field, in open environments, have been developed for several years. Several studies have shown that spraying 1-MCP in a water and oil emulsion (HarvistaTM/AFxRD-038) on apple trees reduces preharvest apple abscission and delays fruit maturation on the plant [4,12,15,16,17,18,19], and it decreases the development of flesh browning during the storage of ‘Gala’ apples [19]. Although other studies have shown that spraying 1-MCP in a water and oil emulsion on apple trees may have low or no effects on fruit maturation before harvest, it may help maintain the postharvest quality of apples, depending on the cultivar, environmental conditions, and time between spraying 1-MCP and harvesting the fruit [20,21,22,23].
Harvista™ 1.3 SC is a novel preharvest spray formulation of 1-MCP. In this formulation, 1-MCP is encapsulated within α-cyclodextrin, forming a stable complex. In order to extend the period of 1-MCP release, the formulation is combined with a concentrated magnesium sulfate solution, which acts as a ’salting-out’ agent. This decreases the solubility of the 1-MCP-α-cyclodextrin complex in the spray solution. As the spray solution dries on the fruit surface, 1-MCP gas is released gradually from the encapsulated form, ensuring a more sustained and uniform uptake by the fruit over an extended period. This controlled-release mechanism allows for liquid spray application, providing better coverage and more effective ethylene inhibition in the orchard. The manufacturer recommends applying Harvista™ 1.3 SC using a direct injection system to precisely mix the product with water in the spray line just before it reaches the nozzle, ensuring optimal effectiveness. Therefore, additional studies are required to adjust the optimum concentration of 1-MCP in such a formulation sprayed at preharvest to schedule the harvest and maintain the storage quality of apple genotypes produced under different environmental conditions.
This study was carried out to evaluate the efficiency of the preharvest application of different concentrations of 1-MCP (HarvistaTM 1.3 SC) to reduce the fruit drop, delay the maturation, and maintain the postharvest quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples produced under subtropical climate conditions in southern Brazil.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was carried out in a ‘Maxi Gala’ commercial orchard located in Fraiburgo, SC, Brazil (27°08′41″ S, 50°56′20″ W, altitude of 1026 m), during three apple seasons (2021/2022, 2022/2023, and 2023/2024). The region has a subtropical climate (Cfb, Köppen-Geiger classification system). The average annual temperature is approximately 16.4 °C, with the coldest temperatures occurring in July (mean of 11.9 °C) and the warmest occurring in January (mean of 20.2 °C). The region receives substantial and well-distributed rainfall throughout the year, with an annual precipitation of around 1711 mm. The apple trees on rootstock M-9 were planted in 2003, with a spacing of 0.65 m between plants and 3.5 m between rows (density of 4390 plants per ha). Every year, a total of 96 apple trees with a similar size and fruit load were selected in six rows for the experiment.
1-MCP-α-cyclodextrin in concentrated magnesium sulfate solution (HarvistaTM 1.3 SC, AgroFresh Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA., with 17 g a.i. L−1) was sprayed seven days before the anticipated harvest time (DBAH) at 0, 75, 125, 175, and 225 mg a.i. L−1. Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG; Retain®, Valent BioSciences Inc., Libertyville, IL, USA., with 150 g a.i. kg−1 of soluble powder) was sprayed on the apple trees at 124 mg a.i. L−1 28 DBAH; this was used as a control treatment and was commercially applied to inhibit apple drop and delay maturation. The different 1-MCP solutions were sprayed on the plants with a motorized backpack atomizer, model M1200 (Cifarelli, Italy), equipped with a Fan OC-12 nozzle, at a rotation of 6000 rpm and a spray volume of 150 L ha−1. The air outlet speed of the atomizer was 125 m s−1. A small peristaltic pump and an automatic dosing system were attached to the atomizer to precisely mix 1-MCP with water in the spray line just before it reached the nozzle. AVG solution, containing 0.05% of the surfactant Silwet®, was sprayed on the plants with a motorized backpack sprayer, model LS 937 (Yamaho, Brazil), equipped with a Fan DS nozzle, at a pressure of 0.68 MPa and a spray volume of 1200 L ha−1.
The experiments followed a randomized complete block design, with 4 blocks of 4 trees (16 trees per treatment). The fruit of all treatments (1-MCP and AVG) were harvested weekly, starting seven days after spraying 1-MCP (DASM), for four weeks. The fruit were harvested until 28 DASM to evaluate the maximum effectiveness of the treatments in delaying fruit maturation and to test their potential to significantly extend the commercial harvest window.
A sample of 150 fruit representative of the tree was harvested from each tree replicate. Fruit from only one tree per treatment and replicate were picked each week (at each harvest date), and fruit from each tree were picked only once to ensure that each fruit sample was independent and unaffected by previous harvesting events. In the laboratory, 50 fruit per plant were sampled for analysis at harvest, and 50 fruit were analyzed after storage under controlled-atmosphere (CA) plus shelf-life conditions, discarding fruit with visual defects or that were less representative in terms of size.
Preharvest fruit drop (the cumulative percentage of dropped fruit) was evaluated only in the apple season of 2022/2023 at 7, 14, 21, and 28 DASM, according to the approach described by Amarante et al. [5].
The fruit were evaluated for quality and maturity one day after harvest and ripening after seven months under CA storage (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% of RH), followed by seven days of shelf life (at 23 ± 1 °C and 70–80% of RH). During CA storage, the apple fruit were conditioned in cardboard trays stacked in cardboard boxes that are used under commercial conditions. After packing, the boxes containing the fruit were transferred to a cold room at 1.0 ± 0.5 °C one day after harvest, and they were subjected to the established CA conditions three days after refrigeration.
At harvest, the average weight, starch index, color (% of fruit red skin color area and background color), soluble solids (SSs), titratable acidity (TA), flesh firmness, ethylene production, and respiration rate were analyzed as previously described by Argenta et al. [4]. After CA storage and shelf-life conditions, the fruit were analyzed for flesh firmness, SSs, and TA.
The data were subjected to an analysis of variance using SAS® OnDemand for Academics (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Spray treatment averages were compared using the LSD test (p < 0.05), and the effects of harvest dates (DASM) were assessed using linear and non-linear regression analyses. Since the results were similar among growing seasons, average data from the three seasons were used for a statistical analysis of the data and the establishment of response models for the treatments (1-MCP and AVG).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Preharvest Fruit Drop and Delay in Maturation

According to the results, there was no difference among the treatments regarding the increase in fruit weight with the delay in the harvest date (Figure 1A). Indeed, previous studies showed no effect of the preharvest application of 1-MCP and AVG on the weight of ‘Gala’ [4] and ‘Golden Delicious’ [12] apples. The adjusted linear model of the increase in the average fruit weight with the delay in the harvest date (the average of all treatments) showed an increase of 0.84 g fruit−1 day−1.
There was a significant increase in the preharvest fruit drop with the delay in the harvest date in all treatments, according to the exponential models (Figure 1B). An increasing 1-MCP concentration reduced preharvest fruit drop in the apple season of 2022/2023, especially with the delay in the harvest date. In the evaluation carried out at 7 DASM, 1-MCP at 0 and 75 mg L−1 showed a slightly higher fruit drop (4.0–4.4%) than at 125 to 225 mg L−1 (mean ~2.8%). However, at 28 DASM, there was a decrease in fruit drop proportional to the increase in the 1-MCP concentration, showing a 15.6% fruit drop in response to 0 mg L−1 and a 9.4% fruit drop in response to 225 mg L−1 of 1-MCP. The treatment with AVG showed a preharvest fruit drop similar to that of the treatments with 1-MCP at 125 to 225 mg L−1 at 7 DASM (2.8%), but at 28 DASM, fruit drop was similar to that of the 1-MCP concentration of 75 mg L−1 (~14%). 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L−1 inhibited fruit drop over time more effectively than AVG (Figure 1B).
Several studies have shown that spraying apple trees with AVG at 50 to 600 mg L−1 from one to four weeks before harvest reduces preharvest fruit drop [11,12,24,25]. Other studies have also shown that spraying apple trees with 1-MCP at 45 to 396 mg L−1 one to two weeks before harvest can also be effective in reducing preharvest fruit drop [7,12,15,16,23,26]. However, spraying 1-MCP at very low concentrations, as well as too early or too close to the expected harvest, can reduce its efficiency in reducing preharvest fruit drop, depending on the cultivar, environmental conditions, and orchard management [7]. Indeed, 1-MCP was not effective in reducing fruit drop when sprayed at 0.795 mg L−1 four weeks before harvest on ‘Arlet’ apple trees [11] or at 75 or 150 mg L−1 seven or one day before harvest on ‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees [15].
There was an increase in ethylene production with the delay in the harvest date in all treatments (Figure 2A), according to the exponential models (Table 1). In general, an increasing 1-MCP concentration reduced the increase in ethylene production with the delay in the harvest date. In addition, the AVG treatment caused a greater reduction in the increase in ethylene production with the delay in the harvest date than 1-MCP at higher concentrations. However, the greater suppression of the increase in ethylene production by AVG did not cause a greater reduction in preharvest fruit drop than the higher 1-MCP concentrations of 175 and 225 mg L−1 (Figure 1B).
AVG inhibits the biosynthesis of ethylene (by inhibiting ACC synthase), a growth regulator that promotes fruit abscission and ripening [7]. However, the expression of genes controlling abscission is not entirely ethylene-dependent, as it also involves auxins. Robinson et al. [24] showed that the combined preharvest application of AVG and naphthalene acetic acid (NAA, an auxin) was more effective in reducing preharvest fruit drop than the application of AVG alone in years with warmer temperatures. According to the study, the possible synergistic effect of AVG + NAA in reducing fruit drop is due to the fact that NAA has better control of genes associated with abscission than AVG, in addition to the inhibition of ethylene biosynthesis (endogenous ethylene and ethylene production promoted by NAA) by AVG.
The greater effect of higher 1-MCP concentrations (175 and 225 mg L−1) in reducing preharvest fruit drop compared to that of AVG can be attributed to the timing of application: 1-MCP was applied 1 week before commercial harvest, while AVG was applied 28 days before. In addition, AVG is an inhibitor of ethylene biosynthesis, but it does not inhibit ethylene action, as occurs with 1-MCP. Besides inhibiting ethylene action, 1-MCP also inhibits the expression of ACC synthase genes (ACCS), ethylene receptor genes (Md-ETR1 and Md-ERS1), and the polygalacturonase gene (MdPG2) in the abscission zone [27], thus more effectively reducing the effects of ethylene on fruit abscission at higher doses [7].
There were differences among the treatments in fruit maturity and quality attributes (Figure 3), which followed linear models with the delay in the harvest date (Table 2). The inhibition of ethylene production by increasing 1-MCP concentrations (Figure 2A) delayed fruit maturation, as evidenced by a delay in increasing respiration (Figure 2B), a loss of flesh firmness (Figure 2C), starch degradation (Figure 2D), and red color development (Figure 2E), in addition to having a small effect on delaying skin yellowing (Figure 2F). The preharvest application of AVG also delayed maturation but with a greater inhibition of the increase in ethylene production and respiration rates with delayed harvest than the highest 1-MCP concentrations (Figure 2A,B). AVG also reduced the starch index, compared with 1-MCP at ≤175 mg L−1, in the first two harvests at 7 and 14 DASM (Figure 2D). AVG showed a similar effect to 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L−1 at all harvest dates in terms of flesh firmness (Figure 2C), as well as red (Figure 2E) and background skin colors (Figure 2F). Other authors have also reported a reduction in ethylene production and a consequent delay in fruit maturity in apple trees treated in preharvest with 1-MCP [4,12,15,16,18,19,23,28,29,30,31] and AVG [4,18,26,28,29,31]. Only TA and SSs were not affected by the different treatments (Figure 2G,H), confirming previous studies showing that these attributes in apples are little affected by the preharvest spraying of 1-MCP and AVG [4,28].
Flesh firmness at harvest is a well-established indicator of apple fruit storage potential [12,15,16]. In this study, we established three categories based on harvest firmness values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N, representing early-stage, mid-stage, and advanced maturity stages, respectively. By analyzing the fruit firmness values in each of these categories, we were able to assess the beneficial effects of the treatments on delaying maturity and extending the duration of potential storage.
There was a linear relationship between the 1-MCP concentrations and DASM for the fruit to reach the flesh firmness reference values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N at harvest (Figure 3). This analysis allowed for the determination of the delay of fruit maturation on the tree, based on the number of days taken to reach these reference values of flesh firmness, in response to 1-MCP. According to the results, increasing the 1-MCP concentration from 0 to 225 mg L−1 increased the number of DASM for the fruit to reach the flesh firmness reference values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N from 7.6 to 11.9 DASM, 12.6 to 17.9 DASM, and 17.5 to 23.8 DASM, respectively. Therefore, the rate of flesh firmness loss was linearly reduced by increasing 1-MCP concentrations. The AVG treatment resulted in a greater delay in the number of DASM for the fruit to reach the three flesh firmness reference values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N at harvest than the 1-MCP treatments (especially at lower concentrations of 1-MCP). Similar results were reported by Scolaro et al. [28] and Argenta et al. [4], showing that spraying 1-MCP (50 and 100 mg L−1) 7 days before harvest was less efficient than spraying AVG (124 mg L−1) 28 days before harvest on delaying the reduction in flesh firmness. According to these studies, treatments with 1-MCP and AVG delayed ‘Gala’ apple harvest by 6 and 12 days, respectively, considering a flesh firmness of 71.2 N. Our results show that, even when using higher 1-MCP concentrations than the previous studies (225 mg L−1), AVG was slightly more effective than 1-MCP in reducing the loss of flesh firmness at harvest.
In general, there was a reduction in the starch index and in the area of the red skin coloration of the fruit in the initial harvests with an increase in the 1-MCP concentration. However, the preharvest application of AVG resulted in lower values of the starch index and red coloration in the initial harvests than the 1-MCP treatments. The differences among the treatments for these attributes decreased by delaying harvest; they did not differ at 28 DASM (Figure 2D,E). Similar results for the starch index and red coloration have been reported in ‘Gala’, ‘Empire’, and ‘Cripps Pink’ apples treated preharvest with 1-MCP and AVG [4,18,28,29], as well as ‘McIntosh’ apples treated preharvest with 1-MCP [23].
Skin background color showed small differences among the treatments at different harvests. At 21 and 28 DASM, fruit not treated with 1-MCP or AVG showed a more yellow background color than fruit treated with 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L−1 (Figure 2F). Our data do not show effects of 1-MCP or AVG on maintaining the green background color in ‘Maxi Gala’, as reported in previous studies with other ‘Gala’ clones [4,28] and ‘Empire’ apples [29], which was possibly related to specific genotype responses to these ethylene inhibitors.
It has been reported that spraying AVG four weeks before harvest results in a greater reduction in red color development and green color loss than spraying 1-MCP one week before harvest [4,18,28]. However, our results show that AVG and increasing 1-MCP concentrations have a negative impact on red color development in apples, especially at the first harvest dates. These aspects should be considered when using preharvest treatments with 1-MCP and AVG to schedule harvest, especially under orchard, management, and environmental conditions unfavorable for red color development, as well as for less colorful cultivars. Delaying harvest to achieve a better red color can result in more mature fruit with a reduced postharvest life [23]. However, in green apple cultivars, preharvest treatments with 1-MCP or AVG can have a positive effect on delaying fruit maturity to schedule fruit harvest without negative effects on color development.

3.2. Preservation of Fruit Postharvest Quality

After CA storage plus seven days of shelf life, flesh firmness and TA decreased and SSs increased in all treatments by delaying harvest (Figure 4), according to the linear models (Table 2). In general, apples treated with 1-MCP (≥75 mg L−1) had higher flesh firmness than apples treated with AVG at all harvest dates. In addition, preharvest 1-MCP treatments at 175 and 225 mg L−1 resulted in higher flesh firmness after storage than those at 75 and 125 mg L−1 (Figure 4A). Considering the reference values of flesh firmness of 62.3 N and 53.4 N, the adjusted linear models presented in Figure 4A show that 1-MCP concentrations of 175 and 225 mg L−1 allowed for delaying harvest by about 3 to 4 days compared to the concentrations of 75 and 125 mg L−1. At the last harvest date (28 DASM), only 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L−1 resulted in fruit with flesh firmness well above 44.5 N.
‘Gala’ apples should be harvested with flesh firmness above 71.2 N in order to obtain better conservation during cold storage [4], and flesh firmness after storage should be above 62.3 N (14 pounds) to achieve maximum consumer acceptance [31]. The flesh firmness values at 7 DASM were close to or above 71.2 N in all treatments, including the control treatment (Figure 2C). However, apples harvested at 7 DASM showed, after storage and shelf life, flesh firmness above 62.3 N only in the 1-MCP (75 to 225 mg L−1) and AVG treatments, while non-treated fruit showed flesh firmness lower than 53.4 N (Figure 4A). In the second harvest (14 DASM), AVG-treated fruit had flesh firmness below 62.3 N, whereas 1-MCP-treated fruit, especially at 175 and 225 mg L−1, had flesh firmness above this value after CA storage plus seven days of shelf life (Figure 4A). These results show the efficiency of preharvest 1-MCP and AVG treatments in reducing the effects of ethylene on ripening, especially in early harvested fruit, maintaining flesh firmness above 62.3 N, as required by consumers [31]. Similar results have been reported in other studies, showing better preservation of flesh firmness after CA storage in apples treated with 1-MCP and/or AVG before harvest [15,20,29]. In ‘Empire’ apples, preharvest 1-MCP treatment was more efficient than AVG in maintaining flesh firmness after cold storage [29].
The 1-MCP and AVG treatments had no effect on fruit SSs or TA after storage following different harvest dates (Figure 4B,C). However, analyzing the SS/TA ratio for treatments with 0 and 225 mg L−1 1-MCP and with AVG revealed distinct patterns. Across all harvest dates, this ratio was highest for the 0 mg L−1 1-MCP treatment and lowest for the 225 mg L−1 1-MCP treatment. AVG-treated fruit showed an intermediate SS/TA ratio, compared with the 1-MCP-treated fruit at 0 and 225 mg L−1, at all harvest dates (Figure 5). Accordingly, Sakaldas and Gundogdu [26] also reported higher TA and lower SSs and, therefore, a lower SS/TA ratio in ‘Golden Delicious’ apples treated before harvest with 1-MCP at 100 and 200 g ha−1. These results show that the preharvest spraying of apples with 1-MCP at high concentrations maintains higher acidity after harvest, which is an important sensory attribute of apples. The lower SS content observed in 1-MCP-treated fruit is possibly the result of lower cell wall breakdown and pectin solubilization, since these fruits had higher flesh firmness due to lower ethylene action (Figure 4A).

3.3. General Considerations

Preharvest 1-MCP treatment was equally or more efficient than AVG in reducing fruit drop, especially at higher concentrations and later harvests. Therefore, 1-MCP, by inhibiting ethylene action, was effective in reducing fruit abscission. Preharvest 1-MCP treatment also delayed maturation and proved to be an effective tool for scheduling apple harvest, which can be used as an alternative to AVG in orchards where harvest must be delayed due to a large amount of fruit and insufficient workers and/or excessive rain during the harvest season.
‘Gala’ apples must be harvested with a flesh firmness greater than 71.2 N for long storage periods, which was observed in the fruit of all treatments harvested at 7 DASM. However, among the fruit harvested at 7 DASM, only the 1-MCP- (75 to 225 mg L−1) and AVG-treated fruit showed flesh firmness higher than 62.3 N after CA storage and shelf life, which is the minimum flesh firmness required for high consumer acceptance. The control (non-treated) fruit harvested at 7 DASM showed flesh firmness lower than 53.4 N after CA storage and shelf life. Flesh firmness at 14 DASM was lower than that at 7 DASM, and only the fruit treated with 1-MCP (75 to 225 mg L−1) and AVG showed firmness values above 66.7 N. However, among the fruit harvested at 14 DASM, only 1-MCP at higher concentrations (175 and 225 mg L−1) was able to maintain flesh firmness above 62.3 N after CA storage and shelf life. Even when harvesting the fruit at 28 DASM, the preharvest 1-MCP treatments at 175 and 225 mg L−1 were able to maintain flesh firmness above 44.5 N after CA storage and shelf life. This value (44.5 N) is well above the minimum flesh firmness of 40 N established by the Brazilian legal standard for the commercialization of ‘Gala’ apples [32]. Therefore, the treatments not only met but also exceeded the Brazilian legal standard, even with a significant delay in harvest. Hence, the preharvest spraying of apple trees with 1-MCP proved to be as or more efficient than AVG in maintaining fruit flesh firmness suitable for consumption after storage and shelf life.
Considering that preharvest 1-MCP treatments at 175 and 225 mg L−1 allowed for harvesting fruit at 14 DASM, maintaining high flesh firmness after storage, these treatments can be used to delay harvest, which will increase the average fruit weight by 7 g. However, the preharvest application of 1-MCP, similar to that of AVG, delays fruit red color development, making it necessary to delay harvest in order to obtain fruit with adequate visual quality for commercialization. Therefore, delaying harvest until 28 DASM can be beneficial considering that flesh firmness after storage still meets the minimum requirements, allowing the fruit to develop more red color and increasing its average size by 12 g, improving both fruit visual appearance and yield.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the preharvest application of 1-MCP, particularly at concentrations of 175 and 225 mg L−1, is a highly effective strategy for delaying fruit maturation and extending the harvest window of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples in a subtropical climate. The treatments consistently reduced preharvest fruit drop and facilitated a direct link between delayed harvest and increased fruit weight, thereby providing growers with a viable method to enhance yield. The sustained firmness of the fruit, even after a significant harvest delay of up to 28 days and subsequent long-term controlled-atmosphere storage, underscores the robust potential of 1-MCP to offer greater flexibility in harvest scheduling while maintaining postharvest quality.
These findings provide valuable data-driven recommendations for apple growers in southern Brazil. Future research could further investigate the long-term economic benefits of these treatments and explore their efficacy across different apple cultivars or under distinct edaphoclimatic conditions.

Author Contributions

C.V.T.d.A.: conceptualization, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—reviewing and editing. L.C.A.: conceptualization, data collection, data preparation, writing—reviewing, and editing. S.T.d.F.: writing—reviewing and editing. C.A.S.: writing—reviewing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) of Brazil (Project number 407773/2021-5).

Data Availability Statement

Data are unavailable due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Karyne S. Betinelli and Cleiton A. de Souza for their technical assistance and AgroFresh Inc. for the financial support to carry out this study.

Conflicts of Interest

Luiz Carlos Argenta is affiliated with Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural de Santa Catarina Company and Sergio Tonetto de Freitas is affiliated with Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Company, the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ACC1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate
a.i.Active ingredient
AVGAminoethoxyvinylglycine
CAControlled atmosphere
DASMDays after spraying 1-MCP
DBAHDays before the anticipated harvest time
1-MCP1-methylcyclopropene
NAANaphthalene acetic acid
RHRelative humidity
SSSoluble solid
TATitratable acidity

References

  1. Petri, J.L.; Leite, G.B.; Couto, M.; Francescatto, P. Avanços na cultura da macieira no Brasil. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2011, 39, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kist, B.B. Anuário Brasileiro da maçã 2019. Gazeta Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz do Sul (Brazilian Apple Year Book). Available online: https://www.editoragazeta.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/MA%C3%A7%C3%A2_2019_DUPLA.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  3. Lin, H.H.; Walsh, C.S. Studies of the “tree factor” and its role in the maturation and ripening of ‘Gala’ and ‘Fuji’ apples. HortScience 2008, 43, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Argenta, L.C.; Scolaro, A.M.T.; do Amarante, C.V.T.; Vieira, M.J.; Werner, S.S. Preharvest treatment of ‘Gala’ apples with 1-MCP and AVG—I: Effects on fruit maturation on the tree. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1194, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amarante, C.V.T.; Simioni, A.; Megguer, C.A.; Blum, L.E.B. Effect of aminoethoxyvinilglycine (AVG) on preharvest fruit drop and maturity of apples. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2002, 24, 661–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Petri, J.L.; Leite, G.B.; Hawerroth, F.J. Maturação, qualidade e queda pré-colheita de maçãs ‘Imperial Gala’ em função da aplicação de aminoetoxivinilglicina. Bragantia 2010, 69, 99–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arseneault, M.H.; Cline, J.A. A review of apple preharvest fruit drop and practices for horticultural management. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 211, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bangerth, F. The effect of a substituted amino acid on ethylene biosynthesis, respiration, ripening and pre-harvest drop of apple fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1978, 103, 401–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Autio, W.R.; Bramlage, W.J. Effects of AVG on maturation, ripening, and storage of apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1982, 107, 1074–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schupp, J.R.; Greene, D.W. Effect of aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) on preharvest drop, fruit quality, and maturation of ‘McIntosh’ apples. I. Concentration and timing of dilute applications of AVG. HortScience 2004, 39, 1030–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Byers, R.E.; Carbaugh, D.H.; Combs, L.D. Ethylene inhibitors delay fruit drop, maturity, and increase fruit size of ‘Arlet’ apples. HortScience 2005, 40, 2061–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yuan, R.; Carbaugh, D.H. Effects of NAA, AVG, and 1-MCP on ethylene biosynthesis, preharvest fruit drop, fruit maturity, and quality of ‘Golden Supreme’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. HortScience 2007, 42, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, J.; Islam, M.T.; Sherif, S.M. Effects of aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) and 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on the pre-harvest drop rate, fruit quality, and stem-end splitting in ‘Gala’ apples. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, J.; Ma, Y.; Dong, C.; Terry, L.A.; Watkins, C.B.; Yu, Z.; Cheng, Z.-M. Meta-analysis of the effects of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) treatment on climacteric fruit ripening. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McArtney, S.J.; Obermiller, J.D.; Schupp, J.R.; Parker, M.L.; Edgington, T.B. Preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene delays fruit maturity and reduces softening and superficial scald of apples during long-term storage. HortScience 2008, 43, 366–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yuan, R.; Li, J. Effect of sprayable 1-MCP, AVG, and NAA on ethylene biosynthesis, preharvest fruit drop, fruit maturity, and quality of ‘Delicious’ apples. HortScience 2008, 43, 1454–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Varanasi, V.; Shin, S.; Johnson, F.; Mattheis, J.P.; Zhu, Y. Differential suppression of ethylene biosynthesis and receptor genes in ‘Golden Delicious’ apple by preharvest and postharvest 1-MCP treatments. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 32, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Amarante, C.V.T.; Argenta, L.C.; de Freitas, S.T.; Steffens, C.A. Efficiency of pre-harvest application of 1-MCP (Harvista™ 1.3 SC) to delay maturation of ‘Cripps Pink’ apple fruit. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 293, 110715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Doerflinger, F.C.; Shoffe, Y.A.; Sutanto, G.; Nock, J.F.; Watkins, C.B. Preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) treatment effects on quality of spot and strip picked ‘Gala’ apples at harvest and after storage as affected by postharvest 1-MCP and temperature conditioning treatments. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 325, 112682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Elfving, D.C.; Drake, S.R.; Reed, A.N.; Visser, D.B. Preharvest applications of sprayable 1-methylcyclopropene in the orchard for management of apple harvest and postharvest condition. HortScience 2007, 42, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McArtney, S.J.; Obermiller, J.D.; Hoyt, T.; Parker, M.L. ‘Law Rome’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples differ in their response to preharvest and postharvest 1-methylcyclopropene treatment combinations. HortScience 2009, 44, 1632–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. DeEll, J.R.; Ehsani-Moghaddam, B. Preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene treatment reduces soft scald in ‘Honeycrisp’ apples during storage. HortScience 2010, 45, 414–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Watkins, C.B.; James, H.; Nock, J.F.; Reed, N.; Oakes, R.L. Preharvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to control fruit drop of apples, and its effects on postharvest quality. Acta Hortic. 2010, 877, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Robinson, T.; Hoying, S.; Iungerman, K.; Kviklys, D. AVG combined with NAA control pre-harvest drop of ‘McIntosh’ apples better than either chemical alone. Acta Hortic. 2010, 884, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yildiz, K.; Ozturk, B.; Ozkan, Y. Effects of aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) on preharvest fruit drop, fruit maturity, and quality of ‘Red Chief’ apple. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 144, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sakaldas, M.; Gundogdu, M.A. The effects of preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene (Harvista) treatments on harvest maturity of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple cultivar. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1139, 601–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dal Cin, V.; Rizzini, F.M.; Botton, A.; Tonutti, P. The ethylene biosynthetic and signal transduction pathways are differently affected by 1-MCP in apple and peach fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 42, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Scolaro, A.M.T.; Argenta, L.C.; Amarante, C.V.T.; Petri, J.L.; Hawerroth, F.J. Preharvest control of ‘Royal Gala’ apple fruit maturation by the inhibition of ethylene action or synthesis. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2015, 37, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Doerflinger, F.C.; Nock, J.F.; Miller, W.B.; Watkins, C.B. Preharvest aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) and 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) effects on ethylene and starch concentrations of ‘Empire’ and ‘McIntosh’ apples. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 244, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Algul, B.E.; Shoffe, Y.A.; Park, D.; Cheng, L.; Watkins, C.B. Preharvest 1-methylcyclopropene and aminoethoxyvinylglycine treatment effects on ‘NY2’ (RubyFrost®) apple fruit quality and postharvest watercore dissipation at different temperatures. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2025, 220, 113301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harker, F.R.; Kupferman, E.M.; Marin, A.B.; Gunson, F.A.; Triggs, C.M. Eating quality standards for apples based on consumer preferences. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 50, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. MAPA. Regulamento Técnico de Identidade e Qualidade da Maçã; Instrução Normativa, 5; Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA): Brasília, Brazil, 2006.
Agronomy 15 02151 g001
Figure 1. Average fruit weight (A) and cumulative fruit drop (B) in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Linear regression model for average fruit weight (A) adjusted considering average values of all treatments (y = 11.22 + 0.84x; R2 = 0.9982 ***). Exponential regression models adjusted for cumulative fruit drop (B) in treatments with 1-MCP (mg L−1) at 0 [y = 3.44 + 1.00 × e(x − 7)/8.41; R2 = 0.9994 ***], 75 [y = 3.38 + 0.65 × e(x − 7)/7.52; R2 = 0.9986 ***], 125 [y = 1.66 + 1.15 × e(x − 7)/9.51; R2 = 0.9996 ***], 175 [y = 1.84 + 0.95 × e(x − 7)/9.41; R2 = 0.9942 ***], and 225 mg L−1 [y = 2.38 + 0.44 × e(x − 7)/7.54; R2 = 0.9902 ***] or with AVG at 124 mg L−1 [y = 1.63 + 1.15 × e(x − 7)/8.84; R2 = 0.9897 ***]. ***: significant models at 0.01% probability.
Figure 1. Average fruit weight (A) and cumulative fruit drop (B) in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Linear regression model for average fruit weight (A) adjusted considering average values of all treatments (y = 11.22 + 0.84x; R2 = 0.9982 ***). Exponential regression models adjusted for cumulative fruit drop (B) in treatments with 1-MCP (mg L−1) at 0 [y = 3.44 + 1.00 × e(x − 7)/8.41; R2 = 0.9994 ***], 75 [y = 3.38 + 0.65 × e(x − 7)/7.52; R2 = 0.9986 ***], 125 [y = 1.66 + 1.15 × e(x − 7)/9.51; R2 = 0.9996 ***], 175 [y = 1.84 + 0.95 × e(x − 7)/9.41; R2 = 0.9942 ***], and 225 mg L−1 [y = 2.38 + 0.44 × e(x − 7)/7.54; R2 = 0.9902 ***] or with AVG at 124 mg L−1 [y = 1.63 + 1.15 × e(x − 7)/8.84; R2 = 0.9897 ***]. ***: significant models at 0.01% probability.
Agronomy 15 02151 g001
Agronomy 15 02151 g002
Figure 2. Ethylene production (A), respiration rate (B), flesh firmness (C), iodine–starch index (D), percentage of skin red color (E), skin background color (F), titratable acidity (G), and soluble solids (H) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples at harvest in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Horizontal lines inside the flesh firmness graph (C) represent values of 71.2, 66.7, and 62.3 N, corresponding to fruit at early, mid-, and advanced maturity stages, respectively.
Figure 2. Ethylene production (A), respiration rate (B), flesh firmness (C), iodine–starch index (D), percentage of skin red color (E), skin background color (F), titratable acidity (G), and soluble solids (H) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples at harvest in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Horizontal lines inside the flesh firmness graph (C) represent values of 71.2, 66.7, and 62.3 N, corresponding to fruit at early, mid-, and advanced maturity stages, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02151 g002
Agronomy 15 02151 g003
Figure 3. Adjusted regression models (from the data presented in Figure 2C) between 1-MCP concentrations and number of days after spraying 1-MCP (DASM) for ‘Maxi Gala’ apples to reach the flesh firmness values at harvest of 71.2 (☐), 66.7 (○), and 62.3 N (△). For AVG (at 124 mg L−1), the numbers of DASM for ‘Maxi Gala’ apples to reach the flesh firmness values at harvest of 71.2 (◼), 66.7 (●), and 62.3 N (▲) are shown in the figure for comparison with the different 1-MCP concentrations. Flesh firmness values represent distinct maturity stages: early-stage (71.2 N), mid-stage (66.7 N), and advanced (62.3 N) maturity of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples. ***: Significant models at 0.01% probability.
Figure 3. Adjusted regression models (from the data presented in Figure 2C) between 1-MCP concentrations and number of days after spraying 1-MCP (DASM) for ‘Maxi Gala’ apples to reach the flesh firmness values at harvest of 71.2 (☐), 66.7 (○), and 62.3 N (△). For AVG (at 124 mg L−1), the numbers of DASM for ‘Maxi Gala’ apples to reach the flesh firmness values at harvest of 71.2 (◼), 66.7 (●), and 62.3 N (▲) are shown in the figure for comparison with the different 1-MCP concentrations. Flesh firmness values represent distinct maturity stages: early-stage (71.2 N), mid-stage (66.7 N), and advanced (62.3 N) maturity of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples. ***: Significant models at 0.01% probability.
Agronomy 15 02151 g003
Agronomy 15 02151 g004
Figure 4. Flesh firmness (A), soluble solids (B), and titratable acidity (C) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). Data were obtained after seven months of storage under controlled-atmosphere conditions (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C. The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Horizontal lines inside the flesh firmness graph (A) represent values of 44.5, 53.4, and 62.3 N.
Figure 4. Flesh firmness (A), soluble solids (B), and titratable acidity (C) of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with different 1-MCP concentrations (0, 75, 125, 175, or 225 mg L−1) or AVG (124 mg L−1). Data were obtained after seven months of storage under controlled-atmosphere conditions (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C. The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). Horizontal lines inside the flesh firmness graph (A) represent values of 44.5, 53.4, and 62.3 N.
Agronomy 15 02151 g004
Agronomy 15 02151 g005
Figure 5. Soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with 1-MCP at concentration of 0 or 225 mg L−1 or with AVG (124 mg L−1). Data were obtained after seven months of storage under controlled-atmosphere conditions (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C. The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). ***: significant models at 0.01% probability.
Figure 5. Soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) of apple trees treated with 1-MCP at concentration of 0 or 225 mg L−1 or with AVG (124 mg L−1). Data were obtained after seven months of storage under controlled-atmosphere conditions (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C. The internal vertical bar represents the least significant difference between treatments, determined by the LSD test (p < 0.05). ***: significant models at 0.01% probability.
Agronomy 15 02151 g005
Table 1. Regression models for the variations in the maturation and quality attributes of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples at harvest in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) for each treatment. Exponential models were adjusted for ethylene production, and linear models were adjusted for the other attributes (data presented in Figure 2).
Table 1. Regression models for the variations in the maturation and quality attributes of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples at harvest in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) for each treatment. Exponential models were adjusted for ethylene production, and linear models were adjusted for the other attributes (data presented in Figure 2).
TreatmentsAdjusted ModelsR2Statistical Significance
Ethylene (nmol C2H4 kg−1 h−1)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 39.80 + 10.37 × e(x − 7)/6.870.9991***
75y = 40.69 + 5.08 × e(x − 7)/5.770.9780***
125y = 34.55 + 7.21 × e(x − 7)/6.510.9670***
175y = 36.88 + 0.37 × e(x − 7)/3.650.9426***
225y = 36.12 + 0.20 × e(x − 7)/3.340.9012***
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 16.55 + 1.55 × e(x − 7)/5.570.9993***
Respiration (µmol CO2 kg−1 h−1)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 410.5 + 2.98x0.4878*
75y = 362.2 + 4.39x0.8568**
125y = 337.1 + 5.55x0.8468**
175y = 325.8 + 4.42x0.9416***
225y = 304.3 + 6.10x0.8857**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 352.2 + 1.17x0.8579**
Flesh firmness (N)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 78.08 − 0.9035x0.9866***
75y = 78.59 − 0.8226x0.9878***
125y = 79.94 − 0.8541x0.9983***
175y = 79.14 − 0.6921x0.9690***
225y = 80.15 − 0.7494x0.9661***
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 80.80 − 0.7415x0.9647***
Skin red color (%)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 56.32 + 0.8718x0.9847***
75y = 42.58 + 1.2255x0.9471**
125y = 49.54 + 0.8851x0.9280**
175y = 43.21 + 1.1974x0.9031**
225y = 38.87 + 1.3027x0.9221**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 35.67 + 1.3825x0.9916***
Skin background color (1–5)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 1.640 + 0.103x0.9634***
75y = 1.412 + 0.100x0.9402**
125y = 1.785 + 0.084x9632***
175y = 1.622 + 0.081x0.8993**
225y = 1.455 + 0.088x0.9391**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 1.635 + 0.089x0.9724***
Starch-iodine index (1–9)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 6.570 + 0.0908x0.9042**
75y = 5.172 + 0.1230x0.9980***
125y = 4.371 + 0.1510x0.9763***
175y = 4.531 + 0.1228x0.8558**
225y = 3.358 + 0.1677x0.9185**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 1.969 + 0.2405x0.9764***
Soluble solids (%)
1-MCP (mg L−1): 0y = 10.67 + 0.0923x0.9963***
75y = 10.38 + 0.0950x0.9915***
125y = 10.70 + 0.0827x0.9719***
175y = 10.36 + 0.0951x0.9959***
225y = 10.47 + 0.0821x0.9797***
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 10.31 + 0.0892x0.9935***
Titratable acidity (%)
1-MCP (mg L−1):y = 0.3076 − 0.0028x0.9119**
75y = 0.3103 − 0.0031x0.8493**
125y = 0.3182 − 0.0031x0.9534**
175y = 0.3082 − 0.0027x0.9235**
225y = 0.3352 − 0.0040x0.9575**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 0.3151 − 0.0032x0.8680**
*, **, or ***: significant models at 5%, 1%, or 0.01% probability.
Table 2. Linear regression models for variations in the quality attributes of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples after storage for seven months under a controlled atmosphere (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C, in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) for each treatment (data presented in Figure 4).
Table 2. Linear regression models for variations in the quality attributes of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples after storage for seven months under a controlled atmosphere (1.5 kPa O2 and 2.5 kPa CO2 at 0.8 ± 0.6 °C and 94–95% RH), plus seven days at 23 ± 1 °C, in response to the harvest date (days after spraying 1-MCP) for each treatment (data presented in Figure 4).
TreatmentsAdjusted ModelsR2Statistical Significance
Flesh firmness (N)
1-MCP (mg L−1): 0y = 57.10 − 0.6736x0.8746*
75y = 80.73 − 1.3408x0.9091**
125y = 76.29 − 1.1136x0.7630*
175y = 77.34 − 0.9897x0.9943***
225y = 79.29 − 1.0342x0.8787*
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 73.28 − 1.0977x0.7711*
Soluble solids (%)
1-MCP (mg L−1): 0y = 11.62 + 0.0375x0.7291*
75y = 11.89 + 0.0236x0.7100*
125y = 11.80 + 0.0040x0.8189*
175y = 11.97 + 0.0111x0.7700*
225y = 12.05 + 0.0018x0.4701ns
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 12.09 + 0.0057x0.2506ns
Titratable acidity (%)
1-MCP (mg L−1): 0y = 0.2130 − 0.0001x0.8291*
75y = 0.2146 − 0.0001x0.0535ns
125y = 0.2299 − 0.0010x0.0336ns
175y = 0.2121 − 0.0001x0.4157ns
225y = 0.2487 − 0.0020x0.9714**
AVG (mg L−1): 124y = 0.2346 − 0.0018x0.9737**
*, **, or ***: significant models at 5%, 1%, or 0.01% probability. ns: non-significant.
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

do Amarante, C.V.T.; Argenta, L.C.; de Freitas, S.T.; Steffens, C.A. Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092151

AMA Style

do Amarante CVT, Argenta LC, de Freitas ST, Steffens CA. Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples. Agronomy. 2025; 15(9):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092151

Chicago/Turabian Style

do Amarante, Cassandro Vidal Talamini, Luiz Carlos Argenta, Sergio Tonetto de Freitas, and Cristiano André Steffens. 2025. "Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples" Agronomy 15, no. 9: 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092151

APA Style

do Amarante, C. V. T., Argenta, L. C., de Freitas, S. T., & Steffens, C. A. (2025). Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples. Agronomy, 15(9), 2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092151

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop