Next Article in Journal
Integrating GWAS and Machine Learning to Dissect the Genetic Basis of Flowering Time and Vernalization-Type Differentiation in Brassica napus
Previous Article in Journal
Morphological, Molecular, and Pathogenic Characterization of Alternaria alternata Isolates from Apple
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/horticulturae12070839
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Evaluation of the Potential to Extend the Harvest Period of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ Apples by Preharvest 1-MCP Treatment

by
Zoltán Sasvár
1,
Lien Le Phuong Nguyen
2,
Zsuzsanna Horváth-Mezőfi
2,*,
Tamás Zsom
2,
László Ferenc Friedrich
2 and
Géza Hitka
2
1
Doctoral School of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), H-1118 Budapest, Hungary
2
Institute of Food Science and Technology, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), H-1118 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2026, 12(7), 839; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12070839
Submission received: 9 June 2026 / Revised: 1 July 2026 / Accepted: 6 July 2026 / Published: 9 July 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pre- and Post-Harvest Treatments for Fruit and Vegetables)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The duration of the effective harvest period is of great interest among growers. Longer periods enable better workload and optimization of operations. Decisions are typically made based on fruit drop and firmness. Preharvest spray treatment of Harvista™ (1-methylcyclopropene; AgroFresh Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA) was applied to ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples to delay maturation. Apples were harvested 7–21 days and 7–26 days after treatment for ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Gala’, respectively. Fruit drop, fruit diameter, ethylene production, firmness, soluble solids content (SSC), starch index and color were measured. Measurements were performed at harvest and after 7 days’ shelf life. Quality parameters suggest different extensions to the harvest period. The SSC models showed that a 5% increase can occur with longer than 6 days delay in harvest. The starch index models showed 9.6 days’ delay for ‘Gala’ and 6.3 days’ delay for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. The accurate measurement of firmness and the performance of its models suggest that the harvest period can be extended by 12 days for ‘Gala’ and 11 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples, when fruit are subjected to preharvest spray treatment.

1. Introduction

Apples (Malus domestica) are climacteric fruits in which ripening is regulated by ethylene production [1]. During maturation, the synthesis of ethylene increases considerably [2,3], triggering a series of physiological and biochemical changes, including peel color development, flesh softening, aroma formation, and alterations in flavor [4,5]. As ripening progresses, the storage potential of apples declines, leading to reduced market value. Therefore, accurate determination of fruit maturity is essential both at harvest and during storage [6].
Managing ripening processes and extending postharvest shelf life are key challenges in apple production. Among the available technologies, 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) has become one of the most effective tools for controlling ethylene-mediated ripening [7]. By binding to ethylene receptors, 1-MCP inhibits ethylene perception, thereby delaying softening, reducing chlorophyll degradation, and suppressing respiration [7,8].
In commercial orchards, determining the optimal harvest time is particularly challenging, as fruits within the same orchard often reach maturity simultaneously. This creates logistical difficulties, especially under conditions of limited labor availability or unfavorable weather. Consequently, preharvest treatments are widely used to slow fruit maturation and extend the harvest window. Delayed harvest can also increase fruit size and improve economic returns, and is sometimes necessary for the development of adequate red skin coloration in cultivars such as ‘Cripps Pink’ [9] and ’Gala’.
Preharvest application of 1-MCP, for example using the Harvista™ formulation, has been shown to effectively delay ripening on the tree by inhibiting ethylene signaling pathways [10,11,12]. In addition to delaying harvest maturity, such treatments can also improve postharvest quality and storability. Varanasi et al. [13] demonstrated in ‘Golden Delicious’ apples that preharvest 1-MCP application improved firmness retention and reduced ethylene production during storage. They also reported that treatment timing is critical, with applications at a starch pattern index of 2.5 resulting in firmer fruit compared to earlier or later applications. Furthermore, 1-MCP treatments influenced the expression of genes involved in ethylene biosynthesis and signaling.
Consistent with these findings, several studies have reported improvements in flesh firmness, reduced ethylene production, and decreased fruit drop following preharvest 1-MCP application [11,12,14]. Sidhu et al. [15], working with the ‘Scilate’ cultivar, found that treated fruit maintained higher malic acid content and lower juice pH even after 7.5 months of cold storage. In addition, fruit softening was substantially reduced, while respiration rate and the incidence of CO2 injury were significantly lower. Notably, the treatment completely prevented the occurrence of radial-type, senescence-related flesh browning. Similarly, preharvest 1-MCP application has been shown to markedly reduce the development of stem-end flesh browning [16].
Despite the well-documented benefits of preharvest 1-MCP application, its effectiveness is not always consistent and can vary considerably depending on several factors. The response to treatment has been shown to be cultivar-dependent [17,18], with different apple varieties exhibiting varying sensitivity to ethylene inhibition [19]. In addition, the timing of application relative to fruit maturity plays a critical role in determining treatment efficacy, as suboptimal timing may lead to reduced effectiveness in delaying ripening processes [7,13,20,21,22]. Environmental conditions, including temperature and orchard management practices, may further influence the physiological response of the fruit to 1-MCP treatment [18,19,22]. Moreover, variability in the regulation of ethylene biosynthesis and signaling pathways can result in differing levels of responsiveness, highlighting the complexity of the underlying mechanisms, as 1-MCP has been shown to differentially affect the expression of key genes involved in ethylene biosynthesis (e.g., ACS, ACO) and signal transduction (e.g., ETR, EIN, ERF), leading to variable physiological responses depending on the biological context [23,24]. These sources of variability emphasize the need for a more refined understanding of optimal application strategies under specific production conditions.
The objective of this work was to evaluate the efficiency of preharvest 1-MCP spray treatment to delay the maturation of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples and help growers with the extended harvest period during the season. Fruit drop, fruit diameter, flesh firmness, ethylene production, soluble solid content, starch index and color index were measured to determine how long the harvest time could be delayed.

2. Materials and Methods

Apple trees of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ from a commercial orchard in Zalaszántó, Hungary (46°53′15.0″ N, 17°12′46.5″ E) were used for this study. The plantation system was established at a spacing of 3.4 m × 0.7 m, corresponding to an approximate planting density of 4000 trees per hectare. The trees were grafted on M9 rootstock and trained to a super spindle canopy system. The orchard was managed under integrated pest management, with standard nutrient supply practices. Weather conditions (including precipitation, temperature, and wind) during the experimental period are presented in Supplementary Figure S1. Two rows including around 520 apple trees (260 trees for Harvista™ treatment and 260 trees for untreated) were used for the experiment. Apple trees served as the control (untreated row) and the Harvista™-treated row belonged to different sides of the orchard.
For Harvista™, the 1-MCP content is 1.3%, sourced from AgroFresh, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

2.1. HarvistaTM Solution Preparation and Treatment

First, one tank was filled with water, and another tank was filled with Harvista™ (1-methylcyclopropene; AgroFresh Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA). The machine mixed Harvista™ and water, and the pressure was 6 bar. The Harvista™ solution was sprayed on the tree with a backpack sprayer on a tractor at a dose of 8.75 L/ha according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. On 18th August, the row (260 trees) of ‘Gala’ apple trees was treated with Harvista™. On 6th September, the rows (260 trees) of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees were treated with Harvista™.
After Harvista™ treatment, 40 pieces of treated apple and 40 pieces of control apple were harvested, each time according to the schedule for quality parameter measurement (Table 1 for ‘Gala’ and Table 2 for ‘Golden Delicious’). The 20 apples of each group were measured at the harvest time, and the rest were measured after 7 days of shelf life at 25 °C.

2.2. Measurements

In each row, the first and the last 100 trees were not used for the measurement. Five trees were marked to count for the fruit dropping rate and fruit diameter, and the next ten trees were used for quality measurements including flesh firmness, color, starch index, total soluble solid content and ethylene production (Figure 1). This consecutive order was repeated 4 times (totaling 60 trees).
At each harvest date, forty pieces of apple were harvested for the quality assessments.
The measurement was applied to two apple cultivars, ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’.

2.3. Fruit Dropping Rate

In each row, one hundred pieces of apple were marked, and at each harvest date, the number of apples dropped was counted. The fruit dropping rate is calculated as the percentage of dropped fruit.

2.4. Fruit Diameter

In each row, one hundred pieces of apple were marked, and at each harvest date, apple fruit diameter was measured with a digital caliper (CD-20B, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan).

2.5. Ethylene Production

Ethylene production was determined at room temperature by an ICA-56 hand-held ethylene analyzer (International Controlled Atmosphere Ltd., Paddock Wood, UK). Approximately 1 kg of fruit was placed in a hermetically closed plastic container of 4 L for 1 h before measurement was performed. Measurement was repeated in triplicate, and the average value was used to describe samples. Results are expressed in μL kg−1 h−1 on a fresh weight basis.

2.6. Flesh Firmness

The Magness–Taylor firmness was measured with a handheld fruit firmness tester (FT 327, T.R. Turoni srl, Forlì, Italy). The instrument was mounted on a vertical stand to stabilize measurement. A cylindrical probe of 11 mm diameter penetrated the peeled tissue until 10 mm depth. The maximum force was recorded at two opposite locations on the external circumference, and their average was calculated for each fruit. Results were expressed in N, calculated from the unit of the instrument (kg cm−2).

2.7. Starch Index

Starch index was determined using Lugol’s solution (aqueous Iodine) on half the cut fruit. The surface pattern was compared to the reference guide and starch index was assigned in the scale of 1–10.

2.8. Soluble Solids Content

The soluble solids content (SSC) was measured with a portable refractometer (Atago Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) after juice was squeezed from the tissue. Results were expressed as °Brix.

2.9. Color Index

The surface color of the apple was determined based on the commercial color scale.
For ‘Golden Delicious’ apple, the color code ‘Golden’ of CTIFL (Le Centre Technique Interprofessionnel pour les Fruits et Légumes, Paris, France [25]) was used. Twenty fruit samples were evaluated in each group for each measurement day.
For ‘Gala’ apples, the color code ‘Gala’ of CTIFL [26] was used. Twenty fruit samples were evaluated in each group for each measurement day.

2.10. Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using R (version 4.5.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and RStudio (version 2026.04.0 build 526, Posit Software PBC, Boston, MA, USA). The homogeneity of variances was evaluated with the Fligner–Killeen test. When the homogeneity of variances was violated, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used, while one-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) was applied in case of homogeneous variances. The Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.001) was used as a post hoc test for comparison among group means. Linear regression was performed to estimate the effect of harvest date on selected quality parameters, following do Amarante et al. [9]. The performance of the models was compared using the R2 value. The R2 value reflects how the model fit to data and scaled from 0 to 1. The significance level is reported where appropriate (like p < 0.001). The error bars on figures represent mean values and standard deviations.

3. Results

The quality parameters of the evaluated apple cultivars at the time of preharvest spray treatment are presented in Table 3. According to the application guideline (AgroFresh, 2019), apples are accepted for long-term storage in commercial practice above a certain firmness threshold (70 N for ‘Gala’ and 75–90 N for ‘Golden Delicious’), with proper color and a starch index below a specific threshold. Both ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ samples met the requirements.

3.1. Fruit Drop and Diameter

The proportion of fruit drop in the canopy is important during the harvest period (Figure 2). Besides indicating ripeness, it shows fruit loss. While fruit drop of ‘Gala’ apples appeared later than that of ‘Golden Delicious’, it increased faster. The Harvista™ preharvest spray treatment could delay and decrease fruit drop severity for ‘Golden Delicious’. On the other hand, treated ‘Gala’ plants did not show any fruit drop within the observed period.
Figure 3 presents the diameter of apples during the harvest period. Regarding the diameter of the apples, there was no significant difference between the control and treated apples. However, the average diameter of treated ‘Gala’ apples was below the average size of control fruit until the 19th day after treatment. In case of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples, the average values of the groups were very close to each other all the time.

3.2. Fruit Firmness

The Fligner–Killeen test identified violation of the homogeneity of variances for ‘Gala’ apples (p < 0.001). Therefore, the contributions of harvest date and treatment to the fruit firmness were evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 4). Both factors significantly affected the measured fruit firmness. The harvest date showed a stronger effect on measured firmness. In comparison of the cultivars, ‘Gala’ apples responded more sensitively.
A declining trend appeared in the firmness of apples of both cultivars (Figure 4). ‘Gala’ apples obtained higher firmness value generally but suffered faster softening. Samples of ‘Golden Delicious’ had more stable firmness with smaller changes in time. These observations agree with the calculated statistical effect in Table 4.
The fruit firmness, as a function of harvest date, was evaluated with a linear model (Table 5). All subgroups, at harvest and after shelf life for each cultivar, were analyzed independently. The statistics showed that models explain the observed changes well. The obtained models agree with the results presented in Table 4. ‘Gala’ apples responded more sensitively to delay in harvest (indicated by the larger changes in time). The models also show the effect of treatment on the fruit firmness with higher values of treated apples, especially for the cultivar ‘Gala’ and after shelf life for both cultivars.
The threshold firmness values of 70 N for ‘Gala’ and 75 N for ‘Golden Delicious’ were substituted into the harvest firmness models (Table 5) and the differences in harvest periods were calculated. The extension of the suitable harvest period became 12.2 days for ‘Gala’ apples and 11.4 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. Gwanpua et al. [27] defined a 45 N limiting value for apple during shelf life. If this limit was used in shelf life models, the extension of the suitable harvest period is 13.1 days for ‘Gala’ apples and 26.8 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. Among the observed effects, apples of ‘Golden Delicious’ reached approximately double the length of the extension in shelf life. This result needs further investigation to test whether the cultivar had a specific response to the treatment or if this result should be considered an outlier.

3.3. Soluble Solids Content

The SSC values showed similar behavior regarding firmness in terms of inhomogeneity of variances. The Flinger–Killeen test detected violation of the homogeneity of variances for ‘Gala’ apples (p < 0.001). As a result, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to evaluate the effect of harvest date and treatment on SSC (Table 6). All factors contributed significantly to the changes in SSC of both cultivars.
The trend of SSC data was flatter compared to what was observed for firmness. Larger differences were found between control and treated samples of ‘Gala’ than those of ‘Golden Delicious’ (Figure 5). This observation agrees with the statistical analysis presented in Table 6. There was a slight increasing trend for all subgroups based on cultivar and treatment.
The visual observations of Figure 5 are confirmed by the evaluation of linear models of SSC (Table 7) according to the lower changes in time.
Because the efficiency of the regression models on SSC, as a function of harvest date, was wide-ranging, this approach cannot be recommended on this quality parameter. Based on the regression models, a 5% change from the initial value can occur at the earliest after 6 days’ delay in harvest. The limitation of this estimation is its uncertainty, rooted in the small changes in time.

3.4. Ethylene Production

The ethylene production showed homogeneity of variances according to the Fligner–Killeen test (p > 0.01). The ANOVA test reported significant effects of harvest date and applied treatment on ethylene production (Table 8). In comparison of cultivars, ‘Gala’ apples responded more sensitively.
The ethylene production of these cultivars showed huge differences (Figure 6). While control samples of the cultivars showed similar behavior and comparable results, the ‘Gala’ apples reached a much higher shelf life. The difference between treated and control samples was clearly visible in shelf life for both cultivars. Analysis results in Table 8 together with the observed significant differences in Figure 6 demonstrate the effectiveness of the preharvest spray treatment. Even though the selected cultivars exhibited very different amounts of ethylene production in shelf life, their reaction to the applied treatment was similar.
The ethylene production was obviously affected by the preharvest treatment, as it is reflected by the linear models based on harvest date (Table 9). Shelf life measurements showed elevated levels of ethylene production for ‘Gala’ apples. Apples subjected to preharvest treatment had slower ripening (according to the smaller changes in time), especially regarding shelf life.

3.5. Starch Index

The Flinger–Killeen test detected violation of homogeneity of starch index data for both cultivars (p < 0.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to evaluate the effect of harvest date and treatment on starch index (Table 10). All factors contributed significantly to the changes in starch index of both cultivars. Gala apples showed higher sensitivity to affecting factors according to the analysis of starch index.
Although starch index reveals the progress in ripening, its limitation is the subjective nature of the measurement in terms of visual assessment of the grade. Besides the individual variability across apple fruit, the uncertainty of visual grading probably also contributed to the obtained large standard deviation (Figure 7). The degradation of starch in ‘Gala’ apples occurred quickly in shelf life after 7 d delay in harvest. Apples of ‘Golden Delicious’ reached the highest value of starch index (lowest starch content) by the end of the experiment. As a result of this behavior, significant differences between control and treated samples were observed until the last week of the experiment.
Linear models were used to evaluate the effect of harvest date on starch index results (Table 11). It was observed that apples of the control group received higher starch index values (lower starch content). This difference is observed in Figure 7 and reflected by the models in Table 11.
The 1-MCP user guide [28] suggests apple harvest when the starch index is in the range of 6–8 (on scale of 10). Considering the limiting value of 6, the applied treatment can extend the harvest period by 9.6 days for ‘Gala’ and 6.3 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples.

3.6. Color

The Flinger–Killeen test detected violation of homogeneity of fruit color data for ‘Gala’ apples (p < 0.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to evaluate the effect of harvest date and treatment on surface color (Table 12). Both cultivars showed larger sensitivity to the harvest date than the preharvest spray treatment.
The color index values are presented in Figure 8; the trend is similar to starch index. The subjective nature of color grading might contribute to the observed large variation in color index values. The results of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples were generally very close among control and treated samples; the differences were found in shelf life. In contrast, ‘Gala’ apples showed a difference in shelf life early on.

4. Discussion

Preharvest Harvista™ application in the field has shown positive effects in delaying fruit maturation [9]. However, the effects also depend on the cultivars and the time between the treatment and the harvest [10]. In this study, Harvista™ could prevent fruit drop in ‘Gala’, whereas in ‘Golden Delicious’, treated trees had 1% fruit drop at the 14th day after treatment and increased to 2% at the 21st day. Fruit drop of the control trees was only observed after 19 days of Harvista™ treatment for ‘Gala’ and at the 7th day for ‘Golden Delicious’. Comparing to the control groups at different harvest times, treated trees had much lower fruit dropping rates. This agrees with the findings for ‘Starkrimson’ apple [12], ‘Golden Delicious’ apple [11,14,29], and ‘McIntosh’, ‘Empire’, ‘Macoun’, and ‘Honeycrisp’ apple [30].
No significant difference was observed in single fruit diameter at the end of the experiment. The spray treatment did not show a significant effect on fruit size over the harvest period. The treated apples had smaller diameters than controls in case of ‘Gala’ till the 14th day after Harvista treatment, but there was no significant difference. For ‘Golden Delicious’ apples, the diameters of control and treated samples were similar during the experiment.
The preharvest treatment strongly affected the softening of both cultivars but at different rates. The observed behavior in this work is consistent with previous studies. Preharvest 1-MCP could delay harvest time by 6 days for ‘Cripps Pink’ apple according to its specific firmness threshold of 71.1 N [9]. The treated apples of both cultivars were harder than the control samples at different harvest times and shelf lives as well. The rate of softening of ‘Gala’ is higher than that of ‘Golden Delicious’, particularly for the control samples. The ‘Golden Delicious’ apples had minor changes at each harvest time and shelf life for both control and treated fruit. Different cultivars behaved differently during the harvest period and also responded differently to the applied preharvest treatment. This agrees with a previous study, where the authors evaluated the preharvest 1-MCP treatment on ‘Law Rome’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples [13,31]. That report indicated that the positive effect of the preharvest Harvista application on firmness declined when increasing the harvest period. The firmness of treated ‘Law Rome’ apples at harvest was higher than that of a control only till the third day after spraying. On the other hand, preharvest 1-MCP still had an effect on the firmness of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples harvested up to 9 days after treatment [31]. Contradictorily, no difference in firmness between control and treated fruit was observed at harvest for ‘Scilate’ apple [15] and ‘McIntosh’ apple [30]. As Harvista has no or less effect on some cultivars, it may be the case that apples on trees have the ability to form new ethylene receptors rapidly [31].
The observed differences between the cultivars can be attributed to the stronger ethylene production of ‘Gala’ apples compared to ‘Golden Delicious’ ones, inducing the advanced ripening process of ‘Gala’. The preharvest 1-MCP treatment could decrease the ethylene production for both cultivars. The results of this work showed that the treated ‘Gala’ apples had much lower ethylene production compared to the control. This is in agreement with the previous reports for ‘Golden Delicious’ apple [11], ‘Starkrimson’ apple [12] and ‘McIntosh’ apple [30]. These authors also found that application of Harvista slowed the maturation of fruit. Ethylene is the hormone regulating the maturation and ripening process, as high ethylene production triggers the maturation and induces physical and chemical changes in the fruit [32]. Ethylene production rate reflects the stage of fruit ripening. In this study, the ethylene production in ‘Gala’ apples was higher than those of ‘Golden Delicious’. This is the reason why ‘Gala’ fruit lost flesh firmness rapidly, while the reduction in firmness of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples was not significant regardless of time and treatment.
Regarding the starch index, the 1-MCP application on the field could slow down the starch breakdown. However, there was no significant difference between control and treated fruit at the end of the harvest period for ‘Gala’ at 26 days after treatment and ‘Golden Delicious’ at 21 days after treatment. A similar result was also found for ‘Scilate’ apple: preharvest 1-MCP treatment had no significant effect on starch index at harvest [15]. On the contrary, Harvista-treated ‘Ambrosia’ apple had a higher starch content (lower starch index) compared to the control [33]. Those reports showed that different cultivars respond differently to the treatment.
No significant difference was observed between the color index values of control and treated fruit over the harvest period. The SSC had the same trend in the color index. Harvista™ treatment did not yield significant changes for these parameters. The observed results are similar to previous studies, indicating that SSC is not affected by spraying 1-MCP on trees for ‘Cripps Pink’, ‘Scilate’, ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Gala’ apple [9,15,34,35].
The changes in fruit quality parameters (firmness, ethylene production, starch index, color index and soluble solid content) were affected by harvest date. The Harvista™ treatment delayed the fruit maturation, and thereby could extend the harvest time. Different quality parameters resulted in different possible extensions to the harvest. The advancement of the presented results over previous research in this topic is the result of multiple quality factors. Producers can meet different consumers’ preferences, such as color, firmness, and sweetness. It is challenging for growers when they have to schedule harvesting a large number of apples in a short time. Besides the control of harvested fruit quality, food waste and economic loss can also decrease, with a fruit dropping rate of less than 10% [36]. In this work, the application of preharvest Harvista™ treatment was successful in addressing multiple factors. Apples exposed to the treatment could maintain their acceptable quality and comply with the SmartFresh™ guidelines. However, this experiment was carried out in a single season and location. Despite the encouraging results, long-term studies of consecutive production cycles are planned to validate the findings.

5. Conclusions

Preharvest spray treatment was applied to ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples to prolong the suitable harvest period. The applied Harvista™ (1-methylcyclopropene) successfully decreased the ethylene production. The quality parameters suggest different extensions to the suitable harvest period. The comparison of firmness data among different harvest dates showed 12 days’ possible extension for ‘Gala’ apples and 11 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. The SSC had small changes during the experiment, and its models estimated 6-day delay for a 5% increase in SSC. According to the starch index, the applied treatment can extend the harvest period by 9.6 days for ‘Gala’ and 6.3 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. The shelf life data confirmed the positive effect of the applied treatment on both cultivars. The preharvest spray treatment was successful and it enables 12 days’ extension to the harvest period for ‘Gala’ and 11 days for ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. This timeframe helps optimization of postharvest operations and balance workload in a critical period. However, these findings are based on one season and a specific location. Therefore, more seasons and different plots should be evaluated to confirm these promising results.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae12070839/s1: Figure S1: Weather conditions during the experimental period, including precipitation, temperature, and wind speed. The timing of treatments and harvests is also indicated.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.S. and L.L.P.N.; methodology, G.H.; validation, Z.H.-M., L.L.P.N. and T.Z.; statistical analysis, L.F.F..; investigation, G.H. and T.Z.; resources, G.H. and L.F.F.; data curation, G.H., L.L.P.N. and Z.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.S., L.L.P.N. and Z.H.-M.; writing—review and editing, G.H., L.L.P.N. and Z.H.-M.; visualization, T.Z.; supervision, G.H., L.F.F. and T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Doctoral School of Agricultural and Food Sciences of Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences for the support in this study. The authors also express their gratitude to AgroFresh Inc. for their professional and technical support, and to Almakúti Kft. for enabling the treatments and measurements to be carried out in their apple orchard. The authors acknowledge the Research Excellence Program of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Wang, Y.; Lu, Q.; Li, B.; Si, Y.; Wang, Y.; Sun, J.; Yuan, H.; Wang, A. LED white light-activated transcription factor MdHY5 inhibits ethylene biosynthesis during apple fruit ripening. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2023, 202, 112372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Costa, F.; Stella, S.; Van de Weg, W.E.; Guerra, W.; Cecchinel, M.; Dallavia, J.; Koller, B.; Sansavini, S. Role of the genes Md-ACO1 and Md-ACS1 in ethylene production and shelf life of apple (Malus domestica Borkh). Euphytica 2005, 141, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Harada, T.; Sunako, T.; Wakasa, Y.; Soejima, J.; Satoh, T.; Niizeki, M. An allele of the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate synthase gene (Md-ACS1) accounts for the low level of ethylene production in climacteric fruits of some apple cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 101, 742–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barry, C.S.; Giovannoni, J.J. Ethylene and Fruit Ripening. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2007, 26, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, T.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Regulatory network of fruit ripening: Current understanding and future challenges. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 1219–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mattheis, J.P. How 1-Methylcyclopropene Has Altered the Washington State Apple Industry. HortScience 2008, 43, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Watkins, C.B. The use of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on fruits and vegetables. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Horváth-Mezőfi, Z.; Baranyai, L.; Nguyen, L.L.P.; Dam, M.S.; Ha, N.T.T.; Göb, M.; Sasvár, Z.; Csurka, T.; Zsom, T.; Hitka, G. Evaluation of Color and Pigment Changes in Tomato after 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) Treatment. Sensors 2024, 24, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. do Amarante, C.V.T.; Argenta, L.C.; de Freitas, S.T.; Steffens, C.A. Efficiency of pre-harvest application of 1-MCP (HarvistaTM 1.3 SC) to delay maturation of ‘Cripps Pink’ apple fruit. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 293, 110715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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]
  11. Li, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, X. Preharvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene and Ethephon altered cuticular wax biosynthesis and fruit quality of apples at harvest and during cold storage. Hortic. Plant J. 2022, 8, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, Y.; Shi, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, X.; Li, F. Effects of preharvest regulation of ethylene on carbohydrate metabolism of apple (Malus domestica Borkh cv. Starkrimson) fruit at harvest and during storage. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 276, 109748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. Sidhu, R.S.; Bound, S.A.; Hunt, I.; Swarts, N.D. Impact of pre-harvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on fruit quality, physiological disorders and respiration rate of ‘Scilate’ apple. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2024, 65, 877–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Doerflinger, F.C.; Sutanto, G.; Nock, J.F.; Shoffe, Y.A.; Zhang, Y.; Watkins, C.B. Stem-end flesh browning of ‘Gala’ apples is decreased by preharvest 1-MCP (Harvista) and conditioning treatments. Fruit. Q. 2017, 25, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mir, N.A.; Curell, E.; Khan, N.; Whitaker, M.; Beaudry, R.M. Harvest Maturity, Storage Temperature, and 1-MCP Application Frequency Alter Firmness Retention and Chlorophyll Fluorescence of ‘Redchief Delicious’ Apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2001, 126, 618–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Watkins, C.; Nock, J.F. Effects of Delays between Harvest and 1-Methylcyclopropene Treatment, and Temperature during Treatment, on Ripening of Air-stored and Controlled-atmosphere-stored Apples. HortScience 2005, 40, 2096–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blankenship, S.M.; Dole, J.M. 1-Methylcyclopropene: A review. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 28, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ha, T.T.N.; Pham, T.T.; Dam, S.M.; Mac, X.H.; Nguyen, L.P.L.; Hitka, G.; Zsom, T. Effect of 1-methylcyclopropene treatment on quality of ‘Zebra’ apricot harvested at different maturity stages. Prog. Agric. Eng. Sci. 2023, 19, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hitka, G.; Zsom, T.; Nguyen, L.; Balla, C. Effect of 1-methylcyclopropene on ‘Bosc Kobak’ pears. Acta Aliment. 2014, 43, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Watkins, C.B. Overview of 1-Methylcyclopropene Trials and Uses for Edible Horticultural Crops. HortScience 2008, 43, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Yang, X.; Song, J.; Campbell-Palmer, L.; Fillmore, S.; Zhang, Z. Effect of ethylene and 1-MCP on expression of genes involved in ethylene biosynthesis and perception during ripening of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 78, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Code Couleur Golden. Available online: https://www.ctifl.fr/code-couleur-golden (accessed on 5 July 2026).
  26. Code Couleur Gala. Available online: https://www.ctifl.fr/code-couleur-gala (accessed on 5 July 2026).
  27. Gwanpua, S.G.; Verlinden, B.E.; Hertog, M.L.A.T.M.; Van Impe, J.; Nicolai, B.M.; Geeraerd, A.H. Towards flexible management of postharvest variation in fruit firmness of three apple cultivars. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 85, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. INAF Ltd. User Guide. SmartFresh Quality System; FreshCloud Storage Insights: Budapest, Hungary, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  29. 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, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nock, J.F.; Watkins, C.B.; James, H.; Reed, N.; Oakes, R.L. Preharvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to control fruit drop of apples, and its effects on postharvest quality. In Proceedings of the VI International Postharvest Symposium 877, Antalya, Turkey, 8–12 April 2009; pp. 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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]
  32. Sisler, E.C. The discovery and development of compounds counteracting ethylene at the receptor level. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wright, A.H.; Bishop, C.; Franklin, J.L.; Harrison, P. The Impact of Anti-ethylene Compounds Applied Pre- and Postharvest on the Weakly Climacteric, Bicoloured ‘Ambrosia’ Apple (Malus domestica Borkh). J. Plant Growth Regul. 2026, 45, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Scolaro, A.; Tomazini, M.; 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]
  35. 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. In Proceedings of the VIII International Postharvest Symposium: Enhancing Supply Chain and Consumer Benefits-Ethical and Technological Issues 1194, Murcia, Spain, 21–24 June 2016; pp. 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Greene, D.W.; Schupp, J.R. Effect of aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) on preharvest drop, fruit quality, and maturation ofMcIntosh’Apples. II. Effect of timing and concentration relationships and spray volume. HortScience 2004, 39, 1036–1041. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 12 00839 g001
Figure 1. Pattern of tree selection for measurements within the orchard.
Figure 1. Pattern of tree selection for measurements within the orchard.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g001
Horticulturae 12 00839 g002
Figure 2. Fruit drop rate (%) of control and 1-MCP spray-treated trees of ‘Gala’ (a) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (b) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values.
Figure 2. Fruit drop rate (%) of control and 1-MCP spray-treated trees of ‘Gala’ (a) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (b) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g002
Horticulturae 12 00839 g003
Figure 3. Fruit diameter of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (a) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (b) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values, and error bars represent standard deviation. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 3. Fruit diameter of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (a) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (b) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values, and error bars represent standard deviation. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g003
Horticulturae 12 00839 g004
Figure 4. Fruit firmness of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 4. Fruit firmness of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g004
Horticulturae 12 00839 g005
Figure 5. Soluble solid content of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7-day shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 5. Soluble solid content of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7-day shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g005
Horticulturae 12 00839 g006
Figure 6. Ethylene production of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days’ shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 6. Ethylene production of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days’ shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g006
Horticulturae 12 00839 g007
Figure 7. Starch index of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 7. Starch index of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g007
Horticulturae 12 00839 g008
Figure 8. Color index of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days’ shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Figure 8. Color index of control and preharvest treated ‘Gala’ (top) and ‘Golden Delicious’ (bottom) apples according to the harvest date. Columns represent the average values and error bars represent standard deviation. SL: 7 days’ shelf life of apple at 25 °C after each harvest time. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare groups (p < 0.001). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups. Uppercase letters are used to compare measurements across time points within a given treatment group, while lowercase letters indicate differences between treatments.
Horticulturae 12 00839 g008
Table 1. The date of treatment and harvest (H0, H1, H2, H3, H4) for ‘Gala’.
Table 1. The date of treatment and harvest (H0, H1, H2, H3, H4) for ‘Gala’.
Harvista™ TreatmentHarvest After Treatment, H0First Harvest, H1 = H0 + 7 dSecond
Harvest, H2 = H0 + 14 d		Third
Harvest, H3 = H0 + 19 d		Fourth
Harvest, H4 = H0 + 26 d
Harvest date18 August 202318 August 202324 August 20231 September 20236 September 202314 September 2023
H0: harvest at the date of treatment (after treatment), H1, H2, H3, H4: harvest after 7, 14, 19 and 26 days after treatment, respectively. The abbreviation “d” denotes days.
Table 2. The date of treatment and harvest (H0, H1, H2, H3) for ‘Golden’.
Table 2. The date of treatment and harvest (H0, H1, H2, H3) for ‘Golden’.
Harvista™
Treatment		Harvest After Treatment, H0First Harvest, H1 = H0 + 7 dSecond Harvest, H2 = H0 + 14 dThird Harvest, H3 = H0 + 21 d
Harvest date6 September 20236 September 202313 September 202320 September 202327 September 2023
H0: harvest at the date of treatment (after treatment), H1, H2, H3: harvest after 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment, respectively. The abbreviation “d” denotes days.
Table 3. Initial quality parameters of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples at the time of preharvest spray treatment. Values are presented with mean ± standard deviation.
Table 3. Initial quality parameters of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples at the time of preharvest spray treatment. Values are presented with mean ± standard deviation.
Quality Parameters‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Ethylene production (µL kg−1 h−1)3.2 ± 0.32.0 ± 0.2
Flesh firmness (N)82.7 ± 6.978.6 ± 4.9
Soluble solid content (%)8.9 ± 0.410.8 ± 0.8
Starch index1.5 ± 0.52.7 ± 1.0
Color index2.4 ± 0.61.4 ± 0.5
Table 4. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit firmness using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 4. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit firmness using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Factor‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Statistical EffectSignificanceStatistical EffectSignificance
Harvest date226.59<0.00185.78<0.001
Treatment131.22<0.00175.70<0.001
Table 5. Linear models of fruit firmness (F) as function of harvest date (t).
Table 5. Linear models of fruit firmness (F) as function of harvest date (t).
CultivarSourceTreatmentModelR2
GalaHarvestControlF = 77.29 − 0.89 t0.907
Harvista™F = 86.71 – 0.82 t0.843
Shelf lifeControlF = 75.66 − 1.14 t0.734
Harvista™F = 90.99 − 1.15 t0.862
Golden DeliciousHarvestControlF = 77.00 − 0.61 t0.968
Harvista™F = 77.55 − 0.33 t0.930
Shelf lifeControlF = 74.15 − 0.49 t0.942
Harvista™F = 76.91 − 0.37 t0.995
R2 (determination coefficient) measures the model fit and scaled from 0 to 1.
Table 6. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit SSC using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 6. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit SSC using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Factor‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Statistical EffectSignificanceStatistical EffectSignificance
Harvest date71.26<0.00173.66<0.001
Treatment164.62<0.00129.96<0.001
Table 7. Linear models of fruit SSC (S) as function of harvest date (t).
Table 7. Linear models of fruit SSC (S) as function of harvest date (t).
CultivarSourceTreatmentModelR2
GalaHarvestControlS = 9.51 + 0.076 t0.695
Harvista™S = 9.19 + 0.039 t0.635
Shelf lifeControlS = 10.79 + 0.023 t0.798
Harvista™S = 9.78 + 0.018 t0.293
Golden DeliciousHarvestControlS = 11.06 + 0.027 t0.240
Harvista™S = 10.49 + 0.056 t0.941
Shelf lifeControlS = 10.46 + 0.087 t0.951
Harvista™S = 10.58 + 0.044 t0.997
R2 (determination coefficient) measures the model fit and scaled from 0 to 1.
Table 8. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting ethylene production using ANOVA.
Table 8. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting ethylene production using ANOVA.
Factor‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Statistical EffectSignificanceStatistical EffectSignificance
Harvest date336.40<0.00156.24<0.001
Treatment1079.90<0.00160.77<0.001
Table 9. Linear models of fruit ethylene production (E) as a function of harvest date (t).
Table 9. Linear models of fruit ethylene production (E) as a function of harvest date (t).
CultivarSourceTreatmentModelR2
GalaHarvestControlE = 1.69 + 0.25 t0.746
Harvista™E = 0 + 0.22 t0.968
Shelf lifeControlE = 43.86 + 1.10 t0.848
Harvista™E = 0 + 0.93 t0.880
Golden DeliciousHarvestControlE = 1.01 + 0.51 t0.888
Harvista™E = 0 + 0.40 t0.985
Shelf lifeControlE = 0 + 1.24 t0.996
Harvista™E = 0 + 0.49 t0.976
R2 (determination coefficient) measures the model fit and scales from 0 to 1.
Table 10. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit starch index using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 10. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit starch index using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Factor‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Statistical EffectSignificanceStatistical EffectSignificance
Harvest date222.79<0.001166.93<0.001
Treatment165.07<0.001144.30<0.001
Table 11. Linear models of fruit starch index (I) as function of harvest date (t).
Table 11. Linear models of fruit starch index (I) as function of harvest date (t).
CultivarSourceTreatmentModelR2
GalaHarvestControlI = 3.93 + 0.25 t0.824
Harvista™I = 0.11 + 0.33 t0.997
Shelf lifeControlI = 8.24 + 0.06 t0.636
Harvista™I = 3.49 + 0.19 t0.971
Golden DeliciousHarvestControlI = 3.09 + 0.28 t0.819
Harvista™I = 0 + 0.36 t0.992
Shelf lifeControlI = 7.41 + 0.09 t0.980
Harvista™I = 2.88 + 0.21 t0.944
R2 (determination coefficient) measures the model fit and scales from 0 to 1.
Table 12. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit color using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 12. Evaluation of factors (harvest date and preharvest spray treatment) affecting fruit color using Kruskal–Wallis test.
Factor‘Gala’‘Golden Delicious’
Statistical EffectSignificanceStatistical EffectSignificance
Harvest date214.20<0.001101.17<0.001
Treatment50.80<0.00156.57<0.001
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

Sasvár, Z.; Nguyen, L.L.P.; Horváth-Mezőfi, Z.; Zsom, T.; Friedrich, L.F.; Hitka, G. Evaluation of the Potential to Extend the Harvest Period of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ Apples by Preharvest 1-MCP Treatment. Horticulturae 2026, 12, 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12070839

AMA Style

Sasvár Z, Nguyen LLP, Horváth-Mezőfi Z, Zsom T, Friedrich LF, Hitka G. Evaluation of the Potential to Extend the Harvest Period of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ Apples by Preharvest 1-MCP Treatment. Horticulturae. 2026; 12(7):839. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12070839

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sasvár, Zoltán, Lien Le Phuong Nguyen, Zsuzsanna Horváth-Mezőfi, Tamás Zsom, László Ferenc Friedrich, and Géza Hitka. 2026. "Evaluation of the Potential to Extend the Harvest Period of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ Apples by Preharvest 1-MCP Treatment" Horticulturae 12, no. 7: 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12070839

APA Style

Sasvár, Z., Nguyen, L. L. P., Horváth-Mezőfi, Z., Zsom, T., Friedrich, L. F., & Hitka, G. (2026). Evaluation of the Potential to Extend the Harvest Period of ‘Gala’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ Apples by Preharvest 1-MCP Treatment. Horticulturae, 12(7), 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12070839

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