Next Article in Journal
A Multicultivar Approach for Grape Bunch Weight Estimation Using Image Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Controlled Atmosphere Storage Alleviates Hass Avocado Black Spot Disorder
Previous Article in Journal
Stress-Inducible Overexpression of SlDDF2 Gene Improves Tolerance against Multiple Abiotic Stresses in Tomato Plant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 8
Issue 3
10.3390/horticulturae8030231
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Russeting of Fruits: Etiology and Management

by
Andreas Winkler
,
Thomas Athoo
and
Moritz Knoche
*
Institute of Horticultural Production Systems, Leibniz University Hannover, Herrenhäuser Straße 2, 30419 Hannover, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(3), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030231
Submission received: 28 January 2022 / Revised: 2 March 2022 / Accepted: 4 March 2022 / Published: 8 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue More than a Wrap: The Role of Fruit Skin in Defining Fruit Quality)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The skin of a fruit protects the vulnerable, nutrient-rich flesh and seed(s) within from the hostile environment. It is also responsible for the fruit’s appearance. In many fruitcrop species, russeting compromises fruit appearance and thus commercial value. Here, we review the literature on fruit russeting, focusing on the factors and mechanisms that induce it and on the management and breeding strategies that may reduce it. Compared with a primary fruit skin, which is usually distinctively colored and shiny, a secondary fruit skin is reddish-brown, dull and slightly rough to the touch (i.e., russeted). This secondary skin (periderm) comprises phellem cells with suberized cell walls, a phellogen and a phelloderm. Russeted (secondary) fruit skins have similar mechanical properties to non-russeted (primary) ones but are more plastic. However, russeted fruit skins are more permeable to water vapor, so russeted fruits suffer higher postharvest water loss, reduced shine, increased shrivel and reduced packed weight (most fruit is sold per kg). Orchard factors that induce russeting include expansion-growth-induced strain, surface wetness, mechanical damage, freezing temperatures, some pests and diseases and some agrochemicals. All these probably act via an increased incidence of cuticular microcracking as a result of local concentrations of mechanical stress. Microcracking impairs the cuticle’s barrier properties. Potential triggers of russeting (the development of a periderm), consequent on cuticular microcracking, include locally high concentrations of O2, lower concentrations of CO2 and more negative water potentials. Horticulturists sometimes spray gibberellins, cytokinins or boron to reduce russeting. Bagging fruit (to exclude surface moisture) is also reportedly effective. From a breeding perspective, genotypes having small and more uniform-sized epidermal cells are judged less likely to be susceptible to russeting.

1. Introduction

The skin of a fruit lies at the interface between the vulnerable, nutrient-rich fleshy tissues and seed(s) inside and the surrounding ‘hostile’ environment outside. The fruit skin is exposed to a broad range of abiotic and biotic challenges, thus serving as a critical barrier protecting the fruit tissues against (a) uncontrolled water loss/uptake [1], (b) uncontrolled exchanges of respiratory gasses (O2, CO2) and the hormone ethylene (C2H4) [2], (c) UV-radiation [2,3] and (d) invasion by pathogens [4,5]. In modern horticulture, some of these functions require opposing properties, such as protection against cell content leakage, while at the same time permitting penetration of foliar-applied nutrients, growth regulators or other agrochemicals [6]. To fulfill these functions, the fruit skin must remain intact throughout the period of fruit growth and development. This review deals with the development of a secondary surface (a periderm) on the skins of commercial fruit types that usually retain their shiny, distinctively-colored, primary surfaces through to harvest and consumption.
A plant organ’s primary surface comprises a complex of materials. On the outside, there is a polymeric cuticle that overlies a cellular structure usually consisting of a single epidermal cell layer, which itself overlies one to several layers of hypodermal cells. In most fruit crops, the epidermis and hypodermis are responsible for the skin’s mechanical properties, while the cuticle is responsible for the skin’s barrier properties [7,8]. It is also the primary fruit skin that determines the appearance and attractiveness of the fruit to end consumers, as well as to seed-dispersing animals. After all, the wild types of most commercial fruitcrop species evolved to attract animals as their agents of seed dispersal. Thus, the epicuticular waxes on the cuticle are responsible for the skin’s gloss, and the pigments in the cuticle and subtending cell layers for the skin’s distinctive color [9,10].
However, the skins of a significant number of commercial fruit types are partially or wholly covered by areas of a secondary surface. Horticulturists refer to this as russeting [11,12]. The proportion of the surface of a mature fruit that is primary vs. secondary is genetically determined. Thus, in apple, some cultivars rarely exhibit areas of russeting (Royal Gala); in some, russeting is a cultivar characteristic (Cox’s Orange Pippin); while in others, the whole fruit surface is usually russeted (Egremont Russet). Russeting is seen as a market defect (market value is reduced) only in the first case or in the second if the russeted area is excessive.
A secondary surface forms when the primary surface fails. Failure may occur for various reasons. Potential reasons include the normal internal processes of ontogeny (e.g., growth strain) or external factors such as mechanical or chemical damage or harsh environmental conditions such as freezing [7]. A periderm forms to (partially) restore the impaired barrier properties of the damaged primary fruit skin. The proportion of the fruit-skin affected by russeting ranges from small patches in particular regions of the fruit surface to a uniform layer that covers the entire fruit.
From a horticultural point of view, the dull, reddish-brown appearance of russeting is usually unattractive to the consumer. Russeting is therefore considered to be a fruit surface disorder in many fruitcrop species and in all ‘smooth-skinned’ cultivars. In many russet-susceptible cultivars, russeting is readily accepted as being ‘normal’. Thus, the entire fruit skin is russeted in most kiwifruit cultivars/species. Similarly, russeting is considered normal and acceptable in the ‘Reinette’ apple cultivars and in pear cultivars, such as Bosc, Conference and Gold La France, the latter being a russeted sport of the non-russeted cultivar La France [13]. Similarly, in Asian pear, smooth-skinned cultivars, as well as entirely russeted cultivars, are known. Melons form a notable exception. Here, the ‘netting’ pattern of russeting of the fruit skin is seen as a positive indicator of fruit quality and, so, is considered highly desirable [14].
Russeting is not a new phenomenon. The first research publications date back nearly two centuries [12,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Most of the literature on russeting relates to pome fruit, and especially to apple. Fewer studies relate to pear, kiwifruit, mango, tomato, bell pepper and others (Table 1). Occasionally, russeting has been reported for plums and grapes. Sweet and sour cherries, peaches, apricots and most ‘berryfruit’ crops, including currants, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and strawberries, are essentially free of russet. The published information on russeting is scattered and often not conclusive. The objective of this paper is to review the literature on the practical aspects of russeting, including its occurrence, triggers, mechanical bases and management strategies adopted to reduce russeting under orchard conditions by cultivation and breeding. For a comprehensive review of the biochemistry and molecular biology of russet formation, the reader is referred to the excellent recent reviews by Macnee et al. [23] and Wang et al. [24].

2. Occurrence and Symptoms of Russet

Russeting occurs in a large number of fruitcrop species (Table 1). Often, russet-susceptible and non-susceptible cultivars are known within a species. In apple, some highly russet-susceptible cultivars are identified by the cultivar name. Examples include Red Russet, Golden Russet, Roxbury Russet [22] or Egremont Russet [25], as well as the Reinette-type cultivars [26].
The symptoms of russet are similar between different fruitcrop species. A rough, reddish-brown and corky appearance is characteristic of a russeted surface (Table 1 and Figure 1). The region of the fruit surface affected by russet can differ. In apples, the spatial distribution of russeting differs depending on the cause. Russet induced by growth strain or by exposure to high humidity or dew occurs in large, uniform patches and may cover the entire fruit surface. Russeting limited to the stem cavity is more likely the result of long wetness durations and high growth strains. Russeting in response to mechanical wounding (e.g., scratching or abrasion from contact with a neighboring fruit or leaf or stem) is typically well defined spatially, being strictly limited to the region of direct physical contact. Russeting caused by spray chemicals occurs in regions of the fruit surface where spray droplets collect and later concentrate excessively during drying. Small fruitlets that come into contact with spray solutions during the particularly russet-susceptible early stages of fruit development may be entirely russeted [27]. A net-like pattern of russeting on apple is characteristic of infection with powdery mildew. Russeting caused by the feeding of pests (thrips, stink bugs, mites, etc.) is limited to the site of the puncture wound and the immediately surrounding cells. Forms of russeting caused by frost are typically in rings. These are induced by freezing temperatures when only part of the flower or fruitlet is damaged (Table 1).

3. Some Fruit Skin Disorders Not Related to Periderm Formation

There are some fruit skin disorders that can be confused with russeting. These include skin spots and scarf skin in apple and maturity bronzing (sometimes also called maturity stain) in banana (Table 2). These disorders can bear a visual similarity to russeting. However, they differ from russeting in that a periderm does not develop.
In skin spots, cuticular microcracks are causal. These form due to moisture exposure during late-stage fruit development [36]. In this stage, the apple fruit skin is no longer able to form a periderm [36,38]. Here, the impaired barrier properties of the skin are restored to some extent by the deposition of lignin in the cell walls immediately underlying a microcrack. This process hydraulically isolates the portion of the fruit skin underlying a microcrack. The characteristic spot-like appearance is caused by the resulting cell death [141].
Apples with scarf skin symptoms look as if they have a thin and very ‘soft’ periderm. However, periderm formation is not involved in scarf skin. Instead, scarf skin is thought to result from the formation of subepidermal air spaces [142]. The cause of this is not yet known. Surface moisture may be involved since bagging during early fruit development (when russet susceptibility is particularly high) reduces scarf skin [143].
Maturity bronzing in banana is also connected to fractures in the cuticle, which propagate into the epidermis [144]. Maturity bronzing occurs primarily in the tropical wet season when temperatures and humidities are especially high, and the sky is overcast [145]. These conditions result in high rates of growth strain, which may be causal in maturity bronzing [144].

4. Anatomy of Russeted Fruit Skin

In botanical terms, a russeted fruit skin represents a periderm consisting of phellem, phellogen and phelloderm [7,23]. The phellem is the outermost layer of this composite, the phelloderm the innermost. The phellogen is the interfacing sheet-like meristematic layer. The phellogen is formed in the hypodermal cell layer by dedifferentiation of hypodermal cells [16,151]. Periclinal cell division in the phellogen generates stacks of phellem cells where each cell of a stack originates from the division of a single underlying mother cell of the phellogen [7].
Phellem cells have suberized cell walls. When the stacks of phellem cells reach the surface, they come into contact with the atmosphere. Here, the suberized cell walls turn brown. It is the suberin that is responsible for the dull and reddish/brown color of a russeted fruit surface [152]. Due to the lipophilic character of suberin, suberized cell walls present a significant barrier to water loss [153].
From the above, it is evident that during the early stages of periderm formation, the periderm may still be covered by a cuticle, epidermal cells and some hypodermal cells. The periderm reaches the surface as growth proceeds and as the residues of the primary fruit skin (now hydraulically isolated and desiccated) tear and are sloughed off.

5. Physiology of Russeted Fruit Skin

The physiological properties of the fruit skin change with russeting. For the fruit of a particular apple cultivar, the water vapor permeance of a russeted area of skin is higher than that of a non-russeted area [11,134]. Furthermore, a non-russeted area of the primary surface of a russet-susceptible apple cultivar has a higher water vapor permeance than a non-russeted area of a non-russet-susceptible cultivar [38]. This latter finding is likely due to a higher incidence of microcracking of the cuticles of the russet-susceptible cultivars. Compared to non-russet-susceptible cultivars, the higher water vapor permeance results in greater water loss during storage, and thus, a higher mass loss and (possibly) more shrivel. In this way, russeted fruit have reduced cool-storage potential and shorter supermarket shelf-lives compared to non-russeted fruit. We are unaware of studies that measure the fruit skin permeances to O2, CO2 or ethylene of russeted fruit.
The mechanical properties of fruit skins differ slightly between russeted and non-russeted fruit surfaces. The maximum stress and maximum strain that the fruit skin can withstand without failure are of similar magnitude for non-russeted and russeted skins [18]. Enzymatically isolated periderms of apple and pear are more plastic than isolated cuticles as indexed by a higher strain at maximum stress and a lower modulus of elasticity [18]. The higher plasticity renders the periderm a very suitable ‘repair patch’ for an overly-strained fruit surface. It allows the periderm to cope with ongoing area expansion during growth without excessive increases in stress build up [18,154].

6. Factors in Russet Formation

Russeting has been related to a number of factors. Growth strains are considered causal in russet formation in apple [18], pear [87], loquat [116,117], tomato [120,122,123] and melon [125,126]. During growth, the skin of developing fruit is subject to considerable tangential strain [7], arising from the increase in fruit volume and hence in fruit surface (area strain). Support for the idea that excessive growth strain lies behind the formation of russet comes from the following observations. First, susceptibility to russet is highest during early fruit development [12,29,32,33,34,155]. During early development, the relative surface area growth rate is at a maximum, resulting in maximum rates of strain [156]. The relative surface area growth rate equals the increase in surface area per unit time (cm2 d−1) divided by the surface area (cm2) at that time. Relative surface area growth rate, thus, has the units d−1. Second, the calyx and cheek regions of pear are more russeted than the neck [87]. Both these regions have higher relative surface area growth rates than the neck [87]. Third, the stem cavity of apple fruit is often russeted. Here, stress concentration is at maximum due to the small radius of curvature of the fruit surface [154].
Extended periods of exposure of fruit surfaces to moisture, either as liquid water or as high water-vapor concentration (high relative humidity), has been identified as causal in russeting. Typical examples include russet in apple, pear, prune, tomato, melon, grape and mango (Table 1). Surface moisture is particularly critical during the early stages of fruit development when susceptibility to russeting is high [38]. The following observations support a role for moisture in russeting: First, the development of fruit under cool, rainy and high-humidity conditions stimulates russet formation in apple [156,157] and pear [88,89,90]. Second, experimental exposure of fruit surfaces to water, by immersion [73], by mounting a test tube filled with water on the fruit surface [38] or by overhead sprinkling [36], results in enhanced russeting. Indeed, these techniques are often used experimentally to induce russeting [37,158].
Mechanical damage of the fruit surface is also a trigger for russeting. Mechanical damage may be caused by a combination of wind and contact of fruit with a neighboring branch, shoot, leaf or fruit. Hail also damages fruit skin and causes russeting [110,111,113,114].
Pests and diseases may cause russeting in several fruitcrops. Examples of such pests include the citrus rust mite [107,108,109] and the tomato rust mite [71,121]. Similarly, fungi, such as powdery mildew in apple or epiphytic yeast species in apple and pear, have been reported to be causal in russeting (Table 1).
Exposure of fruit to freezing temperatures may result in formation of russet. Characteristic shapes of russet due to frost in apple are “periderm tongues” that run from the stem cavity downwards to the equatorial plane along one side of the fruit or rings of russeting that completely surround the fruit [27,34]. Why these characteristic shapes arise is unknown.
Application of agrochemicals may increase, not affect or decrease russeting. Compounds known to induce russeting include lime sulfur, copper hydroxide and thinners such as ammonium thiosulfate or ethephon (Table 3). Surfactants such as Tween 20 or Citowett that are often used in agrochemical formulations are reported to induce russeting in some fruitcrops (Table 3). An important factor would seem to be the developmental stage at the time of agrochemical application. Applications made during periods of high susceptibility to russet (e.g., during early fruit development) are more likely to induce russet. Meanwhile, the same chemical compounds may have no effect on russet formation when applied at a later stage when susceptibility is lower. In addition, environmental conditions, such as high temperatures, that favor the rapid uptake of agrochemicals are more likely to induce russeting. Rapid uptake may result in overloading of the contacted cells and thus a phytotoxic reaction. This occurs particularly in regions of the fruit surface where spray droplets collect; the droplets coalesce, and highly-concentrated chemical deposits form as the droplets dry. Then, when the critical concentration is exceeded, the cells collapse.
Reduced incidence of russeting has been found following the application of fungicides, such as mancozeb. This effect is accounted for by a reduction in the population of fungal species that induce russet.

7. The Mechanism of Russeting—A Central Role for Cuticular Microcracks

Microscopic cracks in the cuticle, so-called microcracks, play a key role in russet formation [12,159]. Microcracks are invisible, or barely visible, to the naked eye. They are limited to the thickness of the cuticle and do not propagate deeper into the underlying cell layers [160]. Importantly, the formation of microcracks provides a unifying explanation for a diverse list of factors found to trigger russeting.

7.1. Temporal and Spatial Heterogeneity

High growth strains represent the critical factor for microcracking of the cuticle. The skin of a developing fruit is subject to ongoing tangential strain as the fruit volume and, hence, the fruit surface area increases during growth [7]. In the epidermal and hypodermal cell layers, the increase in skin surface area is accommodated by a combination of cell division (more cells) and cell extension (larger cells). Furthermore, some epidermal cells change their shape from ‘portrait’ to ‘landscape’ (in anticlinal view) as they increase in periclinal area and decrease in anticlinal height, but without significant change in (anticlinal) perimeter [16,151,161,162]. The change in cell shape implies that areas of previously anticlinal cell walls de-bond and change their orientation to form part of the expanding periclinal cell wall [162]. Such a re-orientation of cell wall material will focus the associated cuticular strain on the narrow region immediately above the anticlinal cell walls. Because the cuticle is a non-living polymer, it cannot divide but instead is dragged along (stretched) as the underlying surface expands. The strain concentration above the anticlinal cell wall (see just above) makes the cuticle particularly vulnerable to microcracking in this region. This explains the characteristic pattern of microcracks above the anticlinal cell walls as seen in a number of fruit crops, including in apple [162,163]. It also explains why fruits of many species are particularly susceptible to microcracking and russet formation during early-stage development [73]. In early-stage fruit development, the relative surface area growth rate is maximal.
Whether the microcracks propagate more deeply to traverse the entire cuticle or instead remain shallow and limited to the outer (older) volume of the cuticle depends on the relativity between the rate of deposition of new cuticular material (on the inside, adjacent to the cell wall) and the rate of fruit area growth. As mimicked in a uniaxial tensile test of a portion of fruit skin, a high surface area growth rate, in the absence of an appropriately high cuticle deposition, causes the cuticle to thin and thus fail. This occurs before the cellular components fail [164]. Correspondingly, a high rate of cuticle deposition in the absence of an appropriate surface area occurs and results in an increase in cuticle thickness. In apple fruit skin, the rate of cutin and wax deposition usually exceeds that required to match the increase in fruit surface area. Hence, cuticle thickness increases during development [165].
As previously noted, the deposition of cutin occurs on the inner surface of the cuticle (i.e., adjacent to the cell wall) [166]. Thus, the outer cuticle layers are older and, thus, have a longer history of being stretched and are more strained than the younger, inner layers [167]. This results in a radial gradient in strain across the cuticle. The gradient also accounts for the occurrence of shallow microcracks in the outer layers of the apple fruit cuticle that do not extend through to the inner layers [12,168,169]. Because cuticular microcracks differ in depth, the extent of impairment of the cuticle’s barrier properties differ. These factors explain why shallow microcracks occur on fruit surfaces without triggering periderm formation, whereas deep ones do trigger it.
Temporal and spatial heterogeneity in fruit expansion during growth is another factor in strain concentration and thus microcracking of the cuticle. The heterogeneity may be due to irregular and variable cell sizes in the epidermis [151,161,170]. Moreover, structures in the epidermis may vary cuticle stiffness—structures such as stomata [171], lenticels [172] and trichomes. Thus, cuticular microcracks may be associated with trichomes and lenticels [173]. Furthermore, cellular heterogeneity may also arise from damage caused by browsing pests, diseases, agrochemical phytotoxicity or freezing injury. Again, periods of high rates of surface area growth result in high susceptibility to microcracking.
Moisture induces microcracking and subsequent russeting—occurring either as liquid-phase water on the fruit surface or as high concentrations of vapor-phase water close by (high humidity). While these trigger effects are well documented for a number of fruitcrop species, including apple, grape and sweet cherry [27,37,62,158], the mechanistic bases for these effects are not known. A possible explanation for moisture-induced microcracking is a higher state of hydration of the cuticle. Cuticular hydration decreases its modulus of elasticity, stiffness and fracture force, whereas its fracture strain increases [8,73]. All these changes increase the likelihood of cuticular microcracking. Other possible explanations include a weakening of cell-to-cell adhesion due to the swelling of cell walls [174].

7.2. Trigger and Signal Transmission

The question remains, how does cuticular microcracking trigger periderm formation? Microcracking occurs in the cuticle, but periderm formation occurs in the hypodermis, several cell layers below. This implies that some signals are transmitted across several cell layers that connect the two processes.
We know that microcracks impair the barrier properties of the cuticle and that this seems to trigger periderm formation. We hypothesize that these two are related, with the reduction in barrier properties somehow triggering the initiation of the periderm. What support is there for this hypothesis? First, when periderm formation is induced experimentally in apple fruit by exposing the fruit surface to moisture, the periderm begins to form only after the surface moisture is removed [37,158]. Apparently, although surface moisture has induced the cuticular microcracking, the periderm formation has been induced by the re-exposure of the (now) microcracked cuticle to the atmosphere. This conclusion is based on histological evidence [37] and gene expression analysis [158]. Second, in another experiment with apple, the formation of a wound periderm was markedly delayed when the periderm-inducing wound was sealed by silicone rubber (Chen, unpublished data). Both these experimental results indicate that the trigger is related to the impaired barrier function. Potential candidate triggers are (1) a decrease in the tissue water potential (more negative) as a result of an increase in transpiration through the microcrack and/or (2) an increase in internal O2 concentration and/or a decrease in internal CO2 concentration [37,158]. Based on the literature, an increase in the internal O2 concentration is the more likely trigger. Thus, in kiwifruit, O2 is essential for wound-induced suberization [175]; in grape, the O2 concentrations just below the cuticle is lower than in the ambient atmosphere and decreases with increasing distance from the surface [176]; in apple, similar results have been reported [177] and, in potato, periderm and suberin formation are inhibited by a low O2 concentration and a high CO2 concentration [178,179].

8. Management

Various approaches have been investigated to reduce or eliminate russeting: (1) Spray applications of gibberellins and other plant growth regulators (PGRs), (2) applications of foliar fertilizers and other compounds, (3) the exclusion of moisture using bagging and (4) selective breeding.

8.1. Application of PGRs

The gibberellins A3 (GA3) and A4+7 (GA4+7) are used to improve peel finish and reduce russet in russet-susceptible cultivars of apple, pear, grape and pomegranate (Table 1). Typically, four sprays of 10 mg L−1 gibberellic acid (GA) at 10 d intervals starting from petal fall are applied. Russet is reduced significantly (Table 4). The modes of action of GA in decreasing russet formation are several-fold. First, GA results in more uniform and smaller epidermal cells [30]. Skins comprising smaller epidermal cells are likely to be mechanically stiffer. Furthermore, the structural support of the cuticle provided by smaller cells is more uniform. This decreases stress concentrations, a critical factor in microcracking. Second, GA decreases moisture-induced microcracking in russet-susceptible ‘Golden Delicious’ apple [73]. Applications of GA have no effect on cuticle mass, wax content or mechanical strength of the isolated apple fruit cuticle [73].
Often, GA is combined with the cytokinin benzyladenine (BA). In this combination, BA is thought to offset certain adverse effects that GA may have on flowering [58,80]. Further, GA4+7 plus BA (known commercially as ‘Promalin’) increases fruit size and alters fruit shape. The length to width ratio of the fruit increases, particularly in the calyx region, with the result that fruit have more extended calyx lobes [80,180]. If BA is applied alone, it increases russeting [58,93]. The reason for this negative effect is unknown. The combination GA4+7 plus BA decreases russet only to the same extent as GA4+7 (Table 4).
In grapes, GA3 plus the cytokinin N-(2-chloro-4-pyridyl)-N′-phenylurea (CPPU) reduces russeting, but GA3 alone has little effect on russeting [181]. It is thought that CPPU stimulates cell division with the result that fruit have larger numbers of smaller cells [182,183]. Whether these effects also apply for the epidermis and whether microcracking of the cuticle is decreased, as observed in apple, is unknown. We suggest that such an effect would not be unlikely, and it would also account for reduced russeting following CPPU application.

8.2. Foliar Sprays of Fertilizers and Other Compounds

Insufficient supplies of boron (B) cause a number of fruit disorders, including russeting [184]. In mango, sprays of B plus Ca result in thicker cell walls and smaller intercellular spaces. As a consequence, cells are more densely packed, thereby providing greater mechanical stiffness and thus better support for the cuticle [185]. The potential roles of B in russeting also include effects on cell wall synthesis, lignification and cell wall structure, for example, by cross-linking cell wall constituents, such as pectins [186]. It is thought that B also helps maintain cell wall extensibility. In B-deficient plants, cell walls become less elastic and more rigid [184]. This causes cell walls to crack more easily and/or cells to separate from one another under tension along their middle lamellae. A separation of epidermal and/or hypodermal cells weakens the cellular support substrate for the cuticle and is therefore likely to increase cuticular microcracking. There were no effects on russeting following applications of B in pomegranate [137]. However, B applied alone or in combination with Ca did reduce russeting in tomato [119,124]. Several studies have reported decreased microcracking of fruit following applications of B, with or without Ca [187,188,189,190]. Since the initial steps in fruit cracking (macrocracking) and russeting would seem to be the same, in that both processes first require cuticular microcracking [191], it would not seem unlikely that applications of B will also decrease microcracking and russeting.
A small number of studies have reported on the effects of ‘exotic’ compounds on russeting. Thus, chlorogenic acid applied during early development reduced russet formation in ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. The authors suggest inhibition of lignin synthesis is the underlying mechanism [84]. In other studies, calmodulin and various fruit coatings have been applied, and these are reported to reduce russeting [82]. While the mode of action of calmodulin in inhibiting russeting is unknown, fruit coatings are likely to cover and thus help seal cuticular microcracks and thereby may help restore the impaired barrier functions of a microcracked cuticle. Unfortunately, direct evidence for the effect is lacking. For such an effect, the permeance of the ‘exotic’ coating to O2, CO2 and ethylene should be similar to that of an intact cuticle. Ideally, the coating should be waterproof if it is to be rain-fast. Lastly, the stomatal conductance of the leaves must not be compromised by these exotic coatings, or photosynthesis will be adversely affected—note that it is commercially impracticable to apply these coatings to the fruit without also applying them to the leaves.
Where russeting is induced primarily by insect pests or fungi, spray applications of suitable agrochemicals will likely be successful in decreasing russeting. Examples reported include applications of zineb for citrus mites [108,109,112] or captafol or ziram for scab in prune [113]. However, the right dose and timing must be chosen, or the product may itself cause russeting.

8.3. Bagging

Fruit bagging is reported to be a successful countermeasure to inhibit russeting in several fruitcrop species (Table 5). Bagging prevents russeting by keeping the fruit surface dry. However, selecting a suitable material for the bag is critical as the bag material must prevent contact of the fruit surface with liquid water and, at the same time, avoid an elevated humidity in the microclimate of the enclosed fruit. A high-humidity environment inside the bag severely increases russeting [17], probably by increasing cuticular microcracking [73].
Furthermore, the bagged fruit must not overheat [192]. The spectral properties of the bagging material affect the amount and wavelengths of light reaching the fruit surface [193]. In those fruitcrop species and cultivars with colored skins, and where light absorption by the bag impairs pre-harvest fruit coloring, the bag is removed shortly before harvest to induce coloring. With this, there is an increased risk of sunburn, so removal of the bag must be done cautiously, possibly stepwise—for example, by using multi-layer bags [192]. Other benefits of pre-harvest bagging include a decreased incidence of sunburn [194,195], pest infestation and hail damage [196]. However, bagging fruit is laborious, so it requires a high-value product, a high-end market and/or a low labor cost for it to be economic.

8.4. Breeding

In the long term, a breeding approach to control russet will likely be the most successful since russet susceptibility is a genetically controlled trait [198,199,200,201]. For a review on the molecular biology of russet formation, the reader is referred to the recent reviews by Macnee et al. [23] and Wang et al. [24].
In apple, the anatomies of the skins of russet-susceptible and russet-non-susceptible cultivars have been compared. The cellular layers of the skin differ [151,161]. The russet-susceptible cultivars have larger cells and more variable cell sizes in both the epidermis and hypodermis [161,170]. These result in higher stiffness and lower strain at fracture during early fruit development when russet susceptibility is highest [161]. When subjected to a tangential growth strain, skin cells of irregular size and shape result in greater stress concentrations and increased likelihood of failure. Comparisons of russet-susceptible and russet-non-susceptible cultivars reveal no consistent differences in cuticular properties—such as mass per unit area of the cuticular membrane, the dewaxed cuticular membrane or wax content [31]. Furthermore, there were no significant differences relating to russet susceptibility in cuticular strain or cuticular mechanical properties, as determined in uniaxial tensile tests (i.e., maximum force, strain at maximum force or stiffness of the cuticular membrane) [18]. Genotypes meeting the following criteria are likely to exhibit low susceptibility to russeting: (1) A long period of skin cell division, so the increase in fruit surface area is substantially accounted for by increases in the numbers of cells, rather than by increased cell expansion (which is often associated with changes in epidermal cell aspect ratio). (2) Smaller epidermal and hypodermal cells are also of more uniform size. These are better able to sustain high tensile forces and offer less stress concentration and lower chances of failure. (3) Lack of stress concentration at stomata, lenticels and trichomes. Susceptibility to failure at these sites may be checked by monitoring formation of microcracks following moisture exposure of the fruit surface. Incubating fruit in the fluorescent tracer acridine orange permits localized penetration through microcracks. When viewed using a fluorescence microscope, microcracks are easily identified by the fluorescing ‘halo’ surrounding sites of preferential uptake.

9. Conclusions

The locally impaired barrier properties of the cuticle due to a microcrack and, probably, increased O2 diffusion seem to be the primary trigger for periderm formation. Microcracking is likely the integrator of a range of factors that induce russeting. These factors include growth stress, surface moisture and high humidity, but also pests and diseases, mechanical wounds and freezing temperatures. Significant progress has been made in our understanding of molecular biology and of the physiology of russeting.
The classical concepts of reducing russeting by spray applications of gibberellins, with or without cytokinins, or of B and/or of Ca have a sound mechanistic basis and are reported to be effective in a range of fruitcrop species. The identification of impaired barrier properties of the cuticle as the trigger causing periderm formation now provides promising options for russet management that merit further research. These include applications of ‘exotic’ coatings during critical phases of fruit development, especially when relative surface area growth rates are high. In addition, the prevention of radial extension (i.e., deepening) of microcracks by stimulating the rate of cuticle deposition is not an unrealistic strategy.
Recently, evidence has been presented that feeding oleic acid to the apple fruit surface results in significant incorporation of oleic acid into the cutin fraction [202]. If this treatment could be upscaled in the field to generate gravimetrically detectable increases in cuticle thickness following spray application of a suitable precursor, the increased cutin deposition could hinder cuticle microcracks from propagating so as to fully traverse the cuticle. When applied during phases of high rates of relative surface area growth, the formation of traversing microcracks and, hence, of russet may be prevented or reduced. Several of these aspects merit further study.

Author Contributions

A.W. and T.A. compiled the tables; A.W., T.A. and M.K. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by a grant (KN 402/21-1from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) to M.K. and a stipend from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to T.A. The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access fund of Leibniz Universität Hannover.

Acknowledgments

We thank Alexander Lang for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, Martin Brüggenwirth for permission to use images and the DFG and the DAAD for financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Becker, M.; Kerstiens, G.; Schönherr, J. Water permeability of plant cuticles: Permeance, diffusion and partition coefficients. Trees 1986, 1, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yeats, T.H.; Rose, J.K. The formation and function of plant cuticles. Plant Physiol. 2013, 163, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Krauss, P.; Markstadter, C.; Riederer, M. Attenuation of UV radiation by plant cuticles from woody species. Plant Cell Environ. 1997, 20, 1079–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Serrano, M.; Coluccia, F.; Torres, M.; L’Haridon, F.; Metraux, J.P. The cuticle and plant defense to pathogens. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Reina-Pinto, J.J.; Yephremov, A. Surface lipids and plant defenses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2009, 47, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bukovac, M.J.; Petracek, P.D. Characterizing pesticide and surfactant penetration with isolated plant cuticles. Pestic. Sci. 1993, 37, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Knoche, M.; Lang, A. Ongoing growth challenges fruit skin integrity. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2017, 36, 190–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M. Mechanical properties of cuticles and their primary determinants. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 5351–5367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Piringer, A.A.; Heinze, P.H. Effect of light on the formation of a pigment in the tomato fruit cuticle. Plant Physiol. 1954, 29, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Lancaster, J.E. Regulation of skin color in apples. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1992, 10, 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khanal, B.P.; Ikigu, G.M.; Knoche, M. Russeting partially restores apple skin permeability to water vapour. Planta 2019, 249, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Faust, M.; Shear, C.B. Russeting of apples, an interpretive review. HortScience 1972, 7, 233–235. [Google Scholar]
  13. Charoenchongsuk, N.; Matsumoto, D.; Itai, A.; Murayama, H. Ripening characteristics and pigment changes in russeted pear fruit in response to ethylene and 1-MCP. Horticulturae 2018, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gerchikov, N.; Keren-Keiserman, A.; Perl-Treves, R.; Ginzberg, I. Wounding of melon fruits as a model system to study rind netting. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 117, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sorauer, P.; Lindau, G.; Reh, L. Manual of Plant Diseases, 3rd ed.; The Record Press: Wilkes-Barré, PA, USA, 1922. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bell, H.P. The origin of russeting in the Golden Russet apple. Can. J. Res. 1937, 15, 560–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tukey, L.D. Observations on the russeting of apples growing in plastic bags. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1959, 74, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  18. Khanal, B.P.; Grimm, E.; Knoche, M. Russeting in apple and pear: A plastic periderm replaces a stiff cuticle. AoB Plants 2013, 5, pls048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jones, K.M.; Bound, S.A.; Oakford, M.J.; Wilson, D. A strategy for reducing russet in Red Fuji apples while maintaining control of black spot (Venturia inaequalis). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1994, 34, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gossard, H.A. Commercial apple orcharding in Ohio. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn. 1911, 12, 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hall, F.H.; Stewart, F.C.; Blodgett, F.H. Fruit diseases found along the Hudson. N. Y. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1899, 167, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cole, S.W. The American Fruit Book; Containing Directions for Raising, Propagating, and Managing Fruit Trees, Shrubs, and Plants; with a Description of the Best Varieties of Fruit, Including New and Valuable Kinds; A.O. Moore Agricultural Book Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 1858. [Google Scholar]
  23. Macnee, N.C.; Rebstock, R.; Hallett, I.C.; Schaffer, R.J.; Bulley, S.M. A review of current knowledge about the formation of native peridermal exocarp in fruit. Funct. Plant. Biol. 2020, 47, 1019–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, Y.; Dai, M.; Cai, D.; Zhang, S.J.; Shi, Z. A review for the molecular research of russet/semi-russet of sand pear exocarp and their genetic characters. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 210, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Duggan, J.B. The training of apple trees. Sci. Hortic. 1957, 13, 62–73. [Google Scholar]
  26. Biedenfeld, F. Handbuch Aller Bekannten Obstsorten, Band 2; Frommann: Jena, Germany, 1854. [Google Scholar]
  27. Thalheimer, M. About the russetting of apples in 2018. Laimburg J. 2019, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  28. Legay, S.; Guerriero, G.; Andre, C.; Guignard, C.; Cocco, E.; Charton, S.; Boutry, M.; Rowland, O.; Hausman, J.F. MdMyb93 is a regulator of suberin deposition in russeted apple fruit skins. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 977–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Skene, D.S. The development of russet, rough russet and cracks on the fruit of the apple Coxs Orange Pippin during the course of the season. J. Hortic. Sci. 1982, 57, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Curry, E. Increase in epidermal planar cell density accompanies decreased russeting of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples treated with Gibberellin A4+7. HortScience 2012, 47, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Khanal, B.P.; Shrestha, R.; Hückstädt, L.; Knoche, M. Russeting in apple seems unrelated to the mechanical properties of the cuticle at maturity. HortScience 2013, 48, 1135–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wertheim, S.J. Fruit russeting in apple as affected by various gibberellins. J. Hortic. Sci. 1982, 57, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Taylor, B.K. Effects of gibberellin sprays on fruit russet and tree performance of Golden Delicious apple. J. Hortic. Sci. 1978, 53, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Simons, R.K.; Chu, M.C. Periderm morphology of mature Golden Delicious apple with special reference to russeting. Sci. Hortic. 1978, 8, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Knoche, M.; Grimm, E. Surface moisture induces microcracks in the cuticle of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple. HortScience 2008, 43, 1929–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Winkler, A.; Grimm, E.; Knoche, M.; Lindstaedt, J.; Köpcke, D. Late-season surface water induces skin spot in apple. HortScience 2014, 49, 1324–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Chen, Y.H.; Straube, J.; Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M.; Debener, T. Russeting in apple is initiated after exposure to moisture ends-I. Histological evidence. Plants 2020, 9, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khanal, B.P.; Imoro, Y.; Chen, Y.H.; Straube, J.; Knoche, M. Surface moisture increases microcracking and water vapour permeance of apple fruit skin. Plant. Biol. 2021, 23, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sánchez, E.; Soto, J.M.; Uvalle, J.X.; Hernández, A.P.; Ruiz, J.M.; Romero, L. Chemical treatments in “Golden Delicious Spur” fruits in relation to russeting and nutritional status. J. Plant. Nutr. 2001, 24, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wójcik, P.; Filipczak, J.; Wójcik, M. Effects of prebloom sprays of tryptophan and zinc on calcium nutrition, yielding and fruit quality of ‘Elstar’ apple trees. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Palmer, J.W.; Davies, S.B.; Shaw, P.W.; Wünsche, J.N. Growth and fruit quality of ‘Braeburn’ apple (Malus domestica) trees as influenced by fungicide programmes suitable for organic production. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2003, 31, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Brown, G.S.; Kitchener, A.E.; Barnes, S. Calcium hydroxide sprays for the control of black spot on apples—Treatment effects on fruit quality. Acta Hortic. 1998, 513, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Teviotdale, B.L.; Viveros, M. Fruit russetting and tree toxicity symptoms associated with copper treatments of Granny Smith apple trees (Malus sylvestris Mill.). Acta Hortic. 1999, 489, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Momol, M.T.; Norelli, J.L.; Aldwinckle, H.S. Evaluation of biological control agents, systemic acquired resistance inducers and bactericides for the control of fire blight on apple blossom. Acta Hortic. 1999, 489, 553–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marchioretto, L.D.; De Rossi, A.; do Amaral, L.O.; Ribeiro, A.M.A.D. Efficacy and mode of action of blossom thinners on ‘Fuji More’ apple trees. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Peck, G.M.; DeLong, C.N.; Combs, L.D.; Yoder, K.S. Managing apple crop load and diseases with bloom thinning applications in an organically managed ‘Honeycrisp’/’MM.111’ orchard. HortScience 2017, 52, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bound, S.A. Alternate thinning chemicals for apples. Acta Hortic. 2010, 884, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Creasy, L.L.; Swartz, H.J. Agents influencing russet on Golden Delicious apple fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1981, 106, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  49. Stopar, M. Vegetable oil emulsions, NaCl, CH3COOH and CaSx as organically acceptable apple blossom thinning compounds. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2008, 73, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
  50. Noga, G.J.; Bukovac, M.J. Impact of surfactants on fruit quality of ‘Schattenmorelle’ sour cherries and ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. Acta Hortic. 1986, 179, 771–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Richardson, P.J.; Webster, A.D.; Quinlan, J.D. The effect of paclobutrazol sprays with or without the addition of surfactants on the shoot growth, yield and fruit quality of the apple cultivars Cox and Suntan. J. Hortic. Sci. 1986, 61, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stopar, M.; Hladnik, J. Polysorbates 20, 60 and 80 are apple thinning agents. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1295, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alegre, S.; Alins, G. The flower thinning effect of different compounds on organic ‘Golden Smoothee (R)’ apple trees. Acta Hortic. 2007, 737, 67–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bound, S.A. The influence of endothal and 6-benzyladenine on crop load and fruit quality of red ‘Delicious’ apple. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2001, 76, 691–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bound, S.A.; Jones, K.M. Ammonium thiosulphate as a blossom thinner of ‘Delicious’ apple, ‘Winter Cole’ pear and ‘Hunter’ apricot. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Taylor, B.K. Reduction of apple skin russeting by gibberellin A4+7. J. Hortic. Sci. 1975, 50, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maas, F. Thinning ‘Elstar’ apple with benzyladenine. Acta Hortic. 2006, 727, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. McLaughlin, J.M.; Greene, D.W. Effects of BA, GA4+7, and daminozide on fruit set, fruit quality, vegetative growth, flower initiation, and flower quality of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1984, 109, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jones, K.M.; Koen, T.B.; Bound, S.A.; Oakford, M.J. Some reservations in thinning ‘Fuji’ apples with naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) and ethephon. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1991, 19, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bangerth, F.; Schröder, M. Strong synergistic effects of gibberellins with the synthetic cytokinin N-(2-Chloro-4-Pyridyl)-N-Phenylurea on parthenoscarpic fruit set and some other fruit characteristics of apple. Plant. Growth Regul. 1994, 15, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. El-Khoreiby, A.M.; Unrath, C.R.; Lehman, L.J. Paclobutrazol spray timing influences apple tree growth. HortScience 1990, 25, 310–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Daines, R.; Weber, D.J.; Bunderson, E.D.; Roper, T. Effect of early sprays on control of powdery mildew fruit russet on apples. Plant. Dis. 1984, 68, 326–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Heidenreich, M.C.M.; Corral-Garcia, M.R.; Momol, E.A.; Burr, T.J. Russet of apple fruit caused by Aureobasidium pullulans and Rhodotorula glutinis. Plant Dis. 1997, 81, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Gildemacher, P.; Heijne, B.; Silvestri, M.; Houbraken, J.; Hoekstra, E.; Theelen, B.; Boekhout, T. Interactions between yeasts, fungicides and apple fruit russeting. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006, 6, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Goffinet, M.C.; Burr, T.J.; Heidenreich, M.C.; Welsel, M.J. Developmental anatomy of russet of ‘McIntosh’ apple fruit induced by the fungus Aureobasidium pullulans. HortScience 2006, 41, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Gildemacher, R.; Heijne, B.; Houbraken, J.; Vromans, T.; Hoekstra, S.; Boekhout, T. Can phyllosphere yeasts explain the effect of scab fungicides on russeting of Elstar apples? Eur. J. Plant. Pathol. 2004, 110, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, C.J.; Yaegashi, H.; Kishigami, R.; Kawakubo, A.; Yamagishi, N.; Ito, T.; Yoshikawa, N. Apple russet ring and apple green crinkle diseases: Fulfillment of Koch’s postulates by virome analysis, amplification of full-length cDNA of viral genomes, in vitro transcription of infectious viral RNAs, and reproduction of symptoms on fruits of apple trees inoculated with viral RNAs. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wood, G.A. Russet ring and some associated virus disorders of apple (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill) in New England. N. Z. J. Argric. Res. 1972, 15, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Welsh, M.F.; May, J. Virus etiology of foliar vein-flecking or ring pattern and fruit russeting or blotch on apple. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 1967, 47, 703–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Easterbrook, M.A.; Fuller, M.M. Russeting of apples caused by apple rust mite Aculus schlechtendali (Acarina, Eriophyidae). Ann. Appl. Biol. 1986, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Duso, C.; Castagnoli, M.; Simoni, S.; Angeli, G. The impact of eriophyoids on crops: Recent issues on Aculus schlechtendali, Calepitrimerus vitis and Aculops lycopersici. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2010, 51, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. McArtney, S.; Obermiller, J.D.; Green, A. Prohexadione-Ca reduces russet and does not negate the efficacy of GA4+7 sprays for russet control on ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. HortScience 2007, 42, 550–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Knoche, M.; Khanal, B.P.; Stopar, M. Russeting and microcracking of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple fruit concomitantly decline due to gibberellin A4+7 application. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2011, 136, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fogelman, E.; Redel, G.; Doron, I.; Naor, A.; Ben-Yashar, E.; Ginzberg, I. Control of apple russeting in a warm and dry climate. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Eccher, T. Russeting of Golden Deliciois apples as related to endogenous and exogenous gibberellins. Acta Hortic. 1978, 80, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Eccher, T.; Boffelli, G. Effects of dose and time of application of GA4+7 on russeting, fruit set and shape of ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. Sci. Hortic. 1981, 14, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wertheim, S.J. Chemical thinning of Golden Delicious apple with NAAm and/or carbaryl in combination with a spreader and the anti-russeting agent GA4+7. Acta Hortic. 1986, 179, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Steenkamp, J.; Vanzyl, H.J.; Westraad, I. A preliminary evaluation of various chemical substances for the control of calyx-end russeting in Golden Delicious apples. J. Hortic. Sci. 1984, 59, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bubán, T.; Rátz, M.; Oláh, L. Improved fruit shape and less russeting of apples by using gibberellins. Acta Hortic. 1993, 329, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Eccher, T. Control of russeting of Golden Delicious apples by growth regulator treatments. Acta Hortic. 1983, 137, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sharma, S.; Sharma, N.; Sharma, D.P.; Chauhan, N. Effects of GA4+7 + BA and CPPU on russeting and fruit quality in apple (Malus × domestica). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 90, 74–77. [Google Scholar]
  82. Moon, Y.J.; Nam, K.W.; Kang, I.K.; Moon, B.W. Effects of tree-spray of calcium agent, coating agent, GA4+7 + BA and paper bagging on russet prevention and quality of ‘Gamhong’ apple fruits. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2016, 34, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Basak, A.; Bielicki, P. Effect of novel organic/mineral biostimulators on fruit quality parameters in apple. Acta Hortic. 2010, 873, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, L.; Li, J.; Gao, J.; Feng, X.; Shi, Z.; Gao, F.; Xu, X.; Yang, L. Inhibitory effect of chlorogenic acid on fruit russeting in ‘Golden Delicious’ apple. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 178, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dayioglu, A.; Hepaksoy, S. Effects of shading nets on sunburn and quality of ‘Granny Smith’ apple fruits. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1139, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yuan, G.; Bian, S.; Han, X.; He, S.; Liu, K.; Zhang, C.; Cong, P. An integrated transcriptome and proteome analysis reveals new insights into russeting of bagging and non-bagging “Golden Delicious” apple. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Scharwies, J.D.; Grimm, E.; Knoche, M. Russeting and relative growth rate are positively related in ‘Conference’ and ‘Condo’ pear. HortScience 2014, 49, 746–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Shi, C.H.; Qi, B.X.; Wang, X.Q.; Shen, L.Y.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Y.X. Proteomic analysis of the key mechanism of exocarp russet pigmentation of semi-russet pear under rainwater condition. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 254, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Asin, L.; Torres, E.; Vilardell, P. Orchard cooling with overtree microsprinkler irrigation to increase fruit russet on ‘Conference’ pear. Acta Hortic. 2011, 909, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sugar, D.; Villardel, P.; Asin, L. Relationship of weather factors to russet incidence in ‘Comice’ and ‘Bosc’ pear fruit. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1094, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sugar, D.; Basile, S.R. Russet induction in ‘Beurre Bosc’ and ‘Taylor’s Gold’ pears. Acta Hortic. 2008, 800, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Maas, F.M.; Kanne, H.J.; van der Steeg, P.A.H. Chemical thinning of ‘Conference’ pears. Acta Hortic. 2010, 884, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Greene, D.W. Influence of abscisic acid and benzyladenine on fruit set and fruit quality of ‘Bartlett’ pears. HortScience 2012, 47, 1607–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Civolani, S. The past and present of pear protection against the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyri L. In Insecticides—Pest Engineering; Perveen, F., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sanchez, J.A.; Carrasco-Ortiz, A.; López-Gallego, E.; Ramírez-Soria, M.J.; La Spina, M. Ants reduce fruit damage caused by psyllids in Mediterranean pear orchards. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 77, 1886–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Westigard, P.H. Pest status of insects and mites on pear in Southern Oregon. J. Econ. Entomol. 1973, 66, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lindow, S.E.; Desurmont, C.; Elkins, R.; McGourty, G.; Clark, E.; Brandl, M.T. Occurrence of indole-3-acetic acid-producing bacteria on pear trees and their association with fruit russet. Phytopathology 1998, 88, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Serdani, M.; Spotts, R.A.; Calabro, J.M.; Postman, J.D. Powdery mildew resistance in Pyrus germplasm. Acta Hortic. 2005, 671, 609–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Spotts, R.A.; Cervantes, L.A. Involvement of Aureobasidium pullulans and Rhodotorula glutinis in russet of d’Anjou pear fruit. Plant. Dis. 2002, 86, 625–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Amarante, C.; Banks, N.H.; Max, S. Preharvest bagging improves packout and fruit quality of pears (Pyrus communis). N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2002, 30, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Lin, J.; Wang, Z.H.; Li, X.G.; Chang, Y.H. Effects of bagging twice and room temperature storage on quality of ‘Cuiguan’ pear fruit. Acta Hortic. 2012, 934, 837–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.F.; Zhang, P.F.; Bian, Y.H.; Liu, Z.Y.; Zhang, C.; Liu, X.; Wang, C.L. An integrated metabolic and transcriptomic analysis reveals the mechanism through which fruit bagging alleviates exocarp semi-russeting in pear fruit. Tree Physiol. 2021, 41, 1306–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lin, J.; Chang, Y.H.; Yan, Z.M.; Li, X.G. Effects of bagging on the quality of pear fruit and pesticide residues. Acta Hortic. 2008, 772, 315–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Seo, H.H.; Lee, J.Y.; Jung, H.W. Fruit appearance improvement by using filter-attached paper bags in ‘Niitaka’ Pears. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2010, 51, 73–77. [Google Scholar]
  105. Yuri, J.A.; Castelli, R. Pear russet control with gibberellins and other products, in cv. Packham’s Triumph. Acta Hortic. 1998, 475, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sugar, D.; Powers, K.A.; Basile, S.R. Mancozeb and kaolin applications can reduce russet of ‘Comice’ pear. HortTechnology 2005, 15, 272–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. McCoy, C.W. Damage and control of eriophyoid mites in crops: Stylar feeding injury and control of eriophyoid mites in citrus. In Eriophyoid Mites: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control; Lindquist, E.E., Sabelis, M.W., Bruin, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 6, pp. 481–490. [Google Scholar]
  108. Fisher, F.E. Control of citrus fruit russet in Florida with zineb. Phytopathology 1957, 47, 433–437. [Google Scholar]
  109. Johnson, R.B.; King, J.R.; McBride, J.J. Zineb controls citrus rust mite. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 1957, 70, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
  110. Smoot, J.J.; Houck, L.G.; Johnson, H.B. Market. Diseases of Citrus and Other Subtropical Fruits; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1971.
  111. Winston, J.R. Tear-Stain of Citrus Fruits; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1921; Volume 924.
  112. Johnson, R.B. The effect of copper compounds on control of citrus rust mite with zineb. J. Econ. Entomol. 1960, 53, 395–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Michailides, T.J. Russeting and russet scab of prune, an environmentally induced fruit disorder: Symptomatology, induction, and control. Plant Dis. 1991, 75, 1114–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Michailides, T.J.; Ogawa, J.M. Control and induction of russet scab and wind bruise damage (“wind scab”) of French prunes. In Prune Research Reports; Calinfornia Prune Board: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  115. Corbin, J.B.; Lider, J.V.; Roberts, K.O. Controlling prune russet scab. Calif. Agric. 1968, 22, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  116. Avidan, B.; Klein, I. Physiological disorders in loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.). I. Russeting. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 1998, 12, 190–195. [Google Scholar]
  117. Wang, L.; Wang, H.C.; Hu, Y.L.; Huang, X.M. Loquat fruit physiological disorders: Creasing and russeting. Acta Hortic. 2007, 750, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Barone, F.; Farina, V.; Lo Bianco, R. Growth, yield and fruit quality of ‘Peluche’ loquat under windbreak nets. Acta Hortic. 2011, 887, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Huang, J.S.; Snapp, S.S. The effect of boron, calcium, and surface moisture on shoulder check, a quality defect in fresh-market tomato. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2004, 129, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Bakker, J.C. Russeting (cuticle cracking) in glasshouse tomatoes in relation to fruit growth. J. Hortic. Sci. 1988, 63, 459–463. [Google Scholar]
  121. Kamau, A.W.; Mueke, J.M.; Khaemba, B.M. Resistance of tomato varieties to the tomato russet mite, Aculops lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina, Eriophyidae). Insect Sci. Appl. 1992, 13, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ehret, D.L.; Hill, B.D.; Raworth, D.A.; Estergaard, B. Artificial neural network modelling to predict cuticle cracking in greenhouse peppers and tomatoes. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 61, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Demers, D.A.; Dorais, M.; Papadopoulos, A.P. Yield and russeting of greenhouse tomato as influenced by leaf-to-fruit ratio and relative humidity. HortScience 2007, 42, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jobin-Lawler, F.; Simard, K.; Gosselin, A.; Papadopoulos, A.P.; Dorais, M. The influence of solar radiation and boron-calcium fruit application on cuticle cracking of a winter tomato crop grown under supplemental lighting. Acta Hortic. 2002, 580, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Meissner, F. Die Korkbildung der Früchte von Aesculus- und Cucumis-Arten. Osterr. Bot. Z. 1952, 99, 606–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Keren-Keiserman, A.; Tanami, Z.; Shoseyov, O.; Ginzberg, I. Differing rind characteristics of developing fruits of smooth and netted melons (Cucumis melo). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 79, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Rose, D.H.; Bratley, C.O.; Pentzer, W.T. Market. Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables: Grapes and Other Small Fruits; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1939.
  128. Sholberg, P.L.; Boule, J. Palmolive (R) detergent controls apple, cherry, and grape powdery mildew. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 2009, 89, 1139–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Goffinet, M.C.; Pearson, R.C. Anatomy of russeting induced in concord grape berries by the fungicide chlorothalonil. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1991, 42, 281–289. [Google Scholar]
  130. Araya, J.E.; Merino, C.; Santibanez, F.; Sazo, L. Ring spots by feeding of Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on white table grapes. Rev. Colom. Entomol. 2014, 40, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  131. De Villiers, F.J. Physiological studies of the grape. Union S. Afr. Dep. Agric. Sci. 1926, 45, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
  132. Xu, Y.S.; Hou, X.D.; Feng, J.; Khalil-Ur-Rehman, M.; Tao, J.M. Transcriptome sequencing analyses reveals mechanisms of eliminated russet by applying GA3 and CPPU on ‘Shine Muscat’ grape. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 250, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Huang, Y.; Wang, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Liu, F. Effects of calcium on the formation of berry russet and phenolic compounds in ‘Shine Muscat’ grape. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 792, 012038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Athoo, T.O.; Winkler, A.; Knoche, M. Russeting in ‘Apple’ mango: Triggers and mechanisms. Plants 2020, 9, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mathooko, F.M.; Kahangi, E.M.; Runkuab, J.M.; Onyangob, C.A.; Owinob, W.O. Preharvest mango (Mangifera indica L. ‘Apple’) fruit bagging controls lenticel discolouration and improves postharvest quality. Acta Hortic. 2011, 906, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Drogoudi, P.; Pantelidis, G.E.; Vekiari, S.A. Physiological disorders and fruit quality attributes in pomegranate: Effects of meteorological parameters, canopy position and acetylsalicylic acid foliar sprays. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 645547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Sharma, N.; Belsare, C. Effect of plant bio-regulators and nutrients on fruit cracking and quality in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) ‘G-137’ in Himachal Pradesh. Acta Hortic. 2011, 890, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Joshi, M.; Schmilovitch, Z.; Ginzberg, I. Pomegranate fruit growth and skin characteristics in hot and dry climate. Front. Plant. Sci. 2021, 12, 725479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ebeling, W.; Pence, R.J. New pomegranate mite: Russeting and cracking of peel characterize injury responsible for much culling. Calif. Agric. 1949, 3, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
  140. Sahu, P.; Sharma, N. Fruit cracking and quality of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv. Kandhari as influenced by CPPU and boron. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 2644–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Grimm, E.; Khanal, B.P.; Winkler, A.; Knoche, M.; Köpcke, D. Structural and physiological changes associated with the skin spot disorder in apple. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012, 64, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Byers, M.A. A scarf skin-like disorder of apples. HortScience 1977, 12, 226–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Ferree, D.C.; Ellis, M.A.; Bishop, B.L. Scarf skin on ‘Rome Beauty’: Time of origin and influence of fungicides and GA4+7. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1984, 109, 422–427. [Google Scholar]
  144. Williams, M.H.; Vesk, M.; Mullins, M.G. Development of the banana fruit and occurrence of the maturity bronzing disorder. Ann. Bot. 1990, 65, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Campbell, S.J.; Williams, W.T. Factors associated with maturity bronzing of banana fruit. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1976, 16, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Beach, S.A.; Booth, N.O.; Taylor, O.M. The Apples of New York; J.B. Lyon: Albany, GA, USA, 1905; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  147. Weber, R.W.S.; Zabel, D. White haze and scarf skin, two little-known cosmetic defects of apples in northern Germany. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2011, 76, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  148. Williams, M.H.; Vesk, M.; Mullins, M.G. Characteristics of the surface of banana peel in cultivars susceptible and resistant to maturity bronzing. Can. J. Bot. 1989, 67, 2154–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Daniells, J.W.; Lisle, A.T.; Ofarrell, P.J. Effect of bunch-covering methods on maturity bronzing, yield, and fruit quality of bananas in North Queensland. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1992, 32, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Daniells, J.W.; Lisle, A.T.; Bryde, N.J. Effect of bunch trimming and leaf removal at flowering on maturity bronzing, yield, and other aspects of fruit quality of bananas in North Queensland. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1994, 34, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Meyer, A. A study of the skin structure of Golden Delicious apples. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1944, 45, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  152. Schreiber, L.; Franke, R.; Hartmann, K. Wax and suberin development of native and wound periderm of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and its relation to peridermal transpiration. Planta 2005, 220, 520–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Franke, R.; Schreiber, L. Suberin—A biopolyester forming apoplastic plant interfaces. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2007, 10, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Considine, J.; Brown, K. Physical aspects of fruit growth: Theoretical analysis of distribution of surface growth forces in fruit in relation to cracking and splitting. Plant Physiol. 1981, 68, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Eccher, T.; Hajnajari, H. Fluctuations of endogenous gibberellin A4 and A7 content in apple fruits with different sensitivity to russet. Acta Hortic. 2006, 727, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Creasy, L.L. The correlation of weather parameters with russet of Golden Delicious apples under orchard conditions. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1980, 105, 735–738. [Google Scholar]
  157. Barcelo-Vidal, C.; Bonany, J.; Martin-Fernandez, J.A.; Carbo, J. Modelling of weather parameters to predict russet on ‘Golden Delicious’ apple. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 88, 624–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Straube, J.; Chen, Y.H.; Khanal, B.P.; Shumbusho, A.; Zeisler-Diehl, V.; Suresh, K.; Schreiber, L.; Knoche, M.; Debener, T. Russeting in apple is initiated after exposure to moisture ends: Molecular and biochemical evidence. Plants 2021, 10, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Faust, M.; Shear, C.B. Fine structure of the fruit surface of three apple cultivars. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1972, 97, 351–355. [Google Scholar]
  160. Peschel, S.; Knoche, M. Characterization of microcracks in the cuticle of developing sweet cherry fruit. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2005, 130, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Khanal, B.P.; Le, T.L.; Si, Y.; Knoche, M. Russet susceptibility in apple is associated with skin cells that are larger, more variable in size, and of reduced fracture strain. Plants 2020, 9, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Maguire, K.M. Factors Affecting Mass Loss of Apples; Massey University: Palmerston North, New Zealand, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  163. Knoche, M.; Khanal, B.P.; Brüggenwirth, M.; Thapa, S. Patterns of microcracking in apple fruit skin reflect those of the cuticular ridges and of the epidermal cell walls. Planta 2018, 248, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M. Mechanical properties of apple skin are determined by epidermis and hypodermis. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2014, 139, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Lai, X.; Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M. Mismatch between cuticle deposition and area expansion in fruit skins allows potentially catastrophic buildup of elastic strain. Planta 2016, 244, 1145–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Si, Y.; Khanal, B.P.; Schlüter, O.K.; Knoche, M. Direct evidence for a radial gradient in age of the apple fruit cuticle. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 730837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M.; Bußler, S.; Schlüter, O. Evidence for a radial strain gradient in apple fruit cuticles. Planta 2014, 240, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Konarska, A. The structure of the fruit peel in two varieties of Malus domestica Borkh. (Rosaceae) before and after storage. Protoplasma 2013, 250, 701–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Roy, S.; Conway, W.S.; Watada, A.E.; Sams, C.E.; Erbe, E.F.; Wergin, W.P. Heat treatment affects epicuticular wax structure and postharvest calcium uptake in ‘Golden Delicious’ apples. HortScience 1994, 29, 1056–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Eccher, T. Influenza di alcuni fitormoni sulla rugginositá della “Golden Delicious”. Riv. Ortoflorofruttìc. Ital. 1975, 59, 246–261. [Google Scholar]
  171. Knoche, M.; Peschel, S. Deposition and strain of the cuticle of developing European plum fruit. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2007, 132, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Athoo, T.O.; Khanal, B.P.; Knoche, M. Low cuticle deposition rate in ‘Apple’ mango increases elastic strain, weakens the cuticle and increases russet. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Konarska, A. Morphological, histological and ultrastructural changes in fruit epidermis of apple Malus domestica cv. Ligol (Rosaceae) at fruit set, maturity and storage. Acta Biol. Crac. Ser. Bot. 2014, 56, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Brüggenwirth, M.; Knoche, M. Cell wall swelling, fracture mode, and the mechanical properties of cherry fruit skins are closely related. Planta 2017, 245, 765–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Wei, X.; Mao, L.; Han, X.; Lu, W.; Xie, D.; Ren, X.; Zhao, Y. High oxygen facilitates wound induction of suberin polyphenolics in kiwifruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 2223–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Xiao, Z.; Rogiers, S.Y.; Sadras, V.O.; Tyerman, S.D. Hypoxia in grape berries: The role of seed respiration and lenticels on the berry pedicel and the possible link to cell death. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 2071–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Ho, Q.T.; Verboven, P.; Verlinden, B.E.; Schenk, A.; Delele, M.A.; Rolletschek, H.; Vercammen, J.; Nicolai, B.M. Genotype effects on internal gas gradients in apple fruit. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 2745–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Wigginton, M.J. Effects of temperature, oxygen tension and relative humidity on the wound-healing process in the potato tuber. Potato Res. 1974, 17, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Lipton, W.J. Some effects of low-oxygen atmospheres on potato tubers. Am. Potato J. 1967, 44, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Jindal, K.K.; Pal, S.; Chauhan, P.S.; Mankotia, M.S. Effect of promalin and mixtatol on fruit growth, yield efficiency and quality of ‘Starking Delicious’ apple. Acta Hortic. 2004, 636, 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Hou, X.; Wei, L.; Xu, Y.; Khalil-Ur-Rehman, M.; Feng, J.; Zeng, J.; Tao, J. Study on russet-related enzymatic activity and gene expression in ‘Shine Muscat’ grape treated with GA3 and CPPU. J. Plant. Interact. 2018, 13, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Flaishman, M.A.; Shargal, A.; Shlizerman, L.; Stern, R.A.; Lev-Yadun, S.; Grafi, G. The synthetic cytokinins CPPU and TDZ prolong the phase of cell division in developing pear (Pyrus communis L.) fruit. Acta Hortic. 2005, 671, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kano, Y. Effects of CPPU treatment on fruit and rind development of watermelons (Citrullus lanatus Matsum. et Nakai). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 75, 651–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Ganie, M.A.; Akhter, F.; Bhat, M.A.; Malik, A.R.; Junaid, J.M.; Shah, M.A.; Bhat, A.H.; Bhat, T.A. Boron—A critical nutrient element for plant growth and productivity with reference to temperate fruits. Curr. Sci. 2013, 104, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
  185. Muengkaew, R.; Whangchai, K.; Chaiprasart, P. Application of calcium—boron improve fruit quality, cell characteristics, and effective softening enzyme activity after harvest in mango fruit (Mangifera indica L.). Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2018, 59, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Broadley, M.; Brown, P.; Cakmak, I.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, F. Function of Nutrients: Micronutrients. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marschner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 191–248. [Google Scholar]
  187. Ferri, V.C.; Rombaldi, C.V.; Silva, J.A.; Pegoraro, C.; Nora, L.; Antunes, P.L.; Girardi, C.L.; Tibola, C.S. Boron and calcium sprayed on ‘Fuyu’ persimmon tree prevent skin cracks, groove and browning of fruit during cold storage. Cienc. Rural. 2008, 38, 2146–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Ghanbarpour, E.; Rezaei, M.; Lawson, S. Reduction of cracking in pomegranate fruit after foliar application of humic acid, calcium-boron and kaolin during water stress. Erwerbs Obstbau 2019, 61, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Singh, A.; Shukla, A.K.; Meghwal, P.R. Fruit cracking in pomegranate: Extent, cause, and management—A review. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2020, 20, S1234–S1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Kavvadias, V.; Daggas, T.; Paschalidis, C.; Vavoulidou, E.; Theocharopoulos, S. Effect of boron application on yield, quality, and nutritional status of peach cultivar Andross. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2012, 43, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Schumann, C.; Winkler, A.; Brüggenwirth, M.; Köpcke, K.; Knoche, M. Crack initiation and propagation in sweet cherry skin: A simple chain reaction causes the crack to ‘run’. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Racsko, J.; Schrader, L.E. Sunburn of apple fruit: Historical background, recent advances and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2012, 31, 455–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Chonhenchob, V.; Kamhangwong, D.; Kruenate, J.; Khongrat, K.; Tangchantra, N.; Wichai, U.; Singh, S.P. Preharvest bagging with wavelength-selective materials enhances development and quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Nam Dok Mai #4. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Abdel Gawad-Nehad, M.A.; EL-Gioushy, S.F.; Baiea, M.H.M. Impact of different bagging types on preventing sunburn injury and quality improvement of Keitt mango fruits. Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2017, 6, 484–494. [Google Scholar]
  195. Sarkomi, F.H.; Moradinezhad, F.; Khayat, M. Pre-harvest bagging influences sunburn, cracking and quality of pomegranate fruits. J. Hortic. Postharvest Res. 2019, 2, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Buthelezi, N.M.D.; Mafeo, T.P.; Mathaba, N. Preharvest bagging as an alternative technique for enhancing fruit quality: A review. HortTechnology 2021, 31, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Hudina, M.; Stampar, F. Bagging of ‘Concorde’ pears (Pyrus communis L.) influences fruit quality. Acta Hortic. 2011, 909, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Macnee, N.; Hilario, E.; Tahir, J.; Currie, A.; Warren, B.; Rebstock, R.; Hallett, I.C.; Chagne, D.; Schaffer, R.J.; Bulley, S.M. Peridermal fruit skin formation in Actinidia sp. (kiwifruit) is associated with genetic loci controlling russeting and cuticle formation. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Petit, J.; Bres, C.; Mauxion, J.P.; Bakan, B.; Rothan, C. Breeding for cuticle-associated traits in crop species: Traits, targets, and strategies. J. Exp. Bot 2017, 68, 5369–5387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Falginella, L.; Cipriani, G.; Monte, C.; Gregori, R.; Testolin, R.; Velasco, R.; Troggio, M.; Tartarini, S. A major QTL controlling apple skin russeting maps on the linkage group 12 of ‘Renetta Grigia di Torriana’. BMC Plant Biol. 2015, 15, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Legay, S.; Guerriero, G.; Deleruelle, A.; Lateur, M.; Evers, D.; André, C.M.; Hausman, J.F. Apple russeting as seen through the RNA-seq lens: Strong alterations in the exocarp cell wall. Plant Mol. Biol. 2015, 88, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Si, Y.; Khanal, B.P.; Sauheitl, L.; Knoche, M. Cutin synthesis in developing, field-grown apple fruit examined by external feeding of labelled precursors. Plants 2021, 10, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 08 00231 g001 550
Figure 1. Russeting in different fruit crops. (A) Apple; (B) pear; (C) citrus; (D) plum; (E) pomegranate. Images: (A,C) Andreas Winkler, (B,D,E) Martin Brüggenwirth.
Figure 1. Russeting in different fruit crops. (A) Apple; (B) pear; (C) citrus; (D) plum; (E) pomegranate. Images: (A,C) Andreas Winkler, (B,D,E) Martin Brüggenwirth.
Horticulturae 08 00231 g001
Table
Table 1. Occurrence, symptoms, causes and management of russeting. Results are compiled from literature sources.
Table 1. Occurrence, symptoms, causes and management of russeting. Results are compiled from literature sources.
CultivarSymptomsCausesManagement
AppleRusset as rough and brown skin [17,28], often in stem [29] and calyx cavities [30], some cultivars with entire surface russeted [31], high susceptibility during early fruit development [12,29,32,33,34]Moisture [35,36,37,38] or high humidity [17,35], damage by pesticides, growth regulators, surfactants and other substances [19,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], frost [27,34], fungi [62,63,64,65,66], viruses [67,68,69], insects [70,71]Spray application of growth regulators [30,32,33,56,58,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81], CaCl2 [82], prohexadione-calcium [72], organic/mineral bio-stimulators [83], chlorogenic acid [84], coatings [82], insecticides to prevent insect damage [71], shading nets [85], rain shelters [48], bagging [17,48,82,86]
PearRusset as dull-brownish skin patches, more in calyx and cheek than in neck [87], some cultivars completely russeted [23], high susceptibility during early development [87]Surface moisture [88,89,90], high humidity [90], growth stress [87], fungicides, thinners and growth regulators [89,90,91,92,93], insects [94,95,96], bacteria [97], fungi [98,99]Bagging [100,101,102,103,104], spray application of GA4+7 [105], mancozeb + sulfur [105] or kaolin ± mancozeb [106]
CitrusRusset as rough texture, brownish-black, greyish discoloration [107].(Rust) mites, thrips and other sucking insects [107,108,109], mechanical damage by wind, hail, contact with branches [110,111]Zineb against citrus mites [108,109,112]
PruneOn immature fruit: longitudinal stripes at stylar end [113], mature: rough, brown, dried surface [113]Copper spray [113], mechanical damage by wind, abrasion by leaves, shoots, adjacent fruits [113,114], exposure to surface wetness or free water, high humidity [113,114], scab [115]Captafol, ziram for scab control [113]
LoquatDeep brown stripes, approx. 1 mm wide [116,117]Growth stress [116,117], microclimate (high temperature) [116], very high light intensities [116]Shading using nets to decrease growth rate during cell division phase [116,118]
TomatoRusset as rough corky discolored surface [119], also referred to as ‘shoulder check’ [119] or ‘cuticle cracking’ [120]Rust mites [71,121], growth stress [120,122,123], surface moisture [119]Non-susceptible cultivars [123], moderate thinning [123], spray application of Ca+B [119,124]
MelonRind netting common in some cultivars [14], russet as dry, white to brownish ridges [14]Growth stress [125,126], surface moisture [125], wounding [14]Rind netting desirable, countermeasures not needed
Grape berryBrown patches of russet [127]Surfactants [128], fungicides [129], insects [71,130], surface moisture [131]Spray applications of GA3, GA3 + CPPU [132], insecticides [71], Ca [133]
MangoRough brownish irregular patches of russet [134], beginning at lenticels [134]Surface moisture, cold nights [134]Bagging [135]
PomegranateCorky surface [136]High humidity [136,137], heat waves [138], temperature fluctuation during maturation [136], pomegranate mite [139]Spray applications of GA3, CPPU [137,140], acetylsalicylic acid [136], sulfur dust against pomegranate mites [139]
Table
Table 2. Fruit surface disorders that bear some similarity with russet, but where no periderm is involved. Data are compiled from literature sources.
Table 2. Fruit surface disorders that bear some similarity with russet, but where no periderm is involved. Data are compiled from literature sources.
DisorderCrop AffectedSymptomsCausesManagement
Skin spotsAppleIrregular patches of small, round and brown spots, develops in CA-storage, promoted by 1-MCP [141]Moisture-induced microcracks late in the season [36,141]Reducing surface wetness duration, for susceptible batches, no storage or cool-storage only [36,141]
Scarf skinAppleWhitish lines or stripes [146], whitish or opalescent sheen [147], due to formation of subepidermal air spaces [142]Unknown-
Maturity bronzing or
maturity stain		BananaPre-harvest necrosis of the skin, bronze coloration [144]Growth stress [148],
water stress [144]		Bagging [149], reducing the number of leaves [150]
Table
Table 3. Effect of fungicides, surfactants and foliar fertilizers on russet. Results are compiled from literature sources.
Table 3. Effect of fungicides, surfactants and foliar fertilizers on russet. Results are compiled from literature sources.
ChemicalCategoryCropCultivarTime of ApplicationEffect on RussetReference
Di-l-p-methene (2.5%)AntitranspirantAppleGolden Delicious4, 13, 21 and 27 DAFBIncreased[48]
B (300 mg L−1)
B (300 mg L−1) + Ca (2 g L−1)		Foliar fertilizerTomatoMountain SpringWeeklyDecreased[119]
Dithane (4 kg ha−1)
Packhard (0.5% Ca)		Foliar fertilizerAppleGolden Delicious SpurFlowering, PF and FSIncreased [39]
Zn (100 g ha−1)Foliar fertilizerAppleElstarGreen and pink stage and at bloom beginningIncreased[40]
Captafol (1.8 g a.i. L−1)FungicidePlumFrench60–90% FBDecreased[113]
Chlorothalonil (3.37 kg ha−1)FungicideGrape berryConcord10 DAFBIncreased[129]
Kocide (Copper hydroxide) (0.32 g L−1)FungicideAppleBraeburnWeekly starting at pink tip stageIncreased[41]
Kocide (Copper hydroxide) (1.5 g L−1)FungicideAppleGolden Delicious3 to 9 weeks after FB Increased [42]
Kocide (Copper hydroxide) (16 or 63 g L−1)FungicideAppleGranny SmithPink bud, FB and PFIncreased[43]
Copper hydroxide (50%) (2.5 kg ha−1) + amino acids (10%) (2 L ha−1)FungicidePearConferencePF and 1 week after PFIncreased [89]
Copper hydroxide (0.3 g L−1)FungicidePearBeurré BoscPF, 7, 14 and 21 DAPFIncreased[91]
Copper hydroxideFungicidePearBoscPFIncreased[90]
Copper hydroxide
Copper oxychloride		FungicideAppleIdaredFBIncreased[44]
Copper oxychloride (4 g L−1)FungicideAppleRed FujiGreen tip stageIncreased[19]
Lime sulfur (6 g L−1)FungicideAppleFuji More90% FBIncreased [45]
Lime sulfur (2%)FungicideAppleHoneycrispFruitlet stageIncreased [46]
Lime sulfur (2%) + winter oil
Fish emulsion (3%) + 2% fish oil
Fish emulsion (3%) + Tween 20 (0.125%)		FungicideAppleGala20% and 80% FBIncreased [47]
Mancozeb (2 g L−1) + Sulfur (2 g L−1)FungicidePearPackham’s Triumph80% FBDecreased[105]
Wettable sulfur (17 kg ha−1)FungicideAppleGolden Delicious SpurFB, PF and FSDecreased[39]
Ziram (2.4 g a.i. L−1)FungicidePlumFrench60–90% FBDecreased[113]
Diazinon (0.08%)InsecticideAppleGolden Delicious18 DAFBIncreased[48]
Rape oil (10 or 30 g L−1),
Sunflower oil (30 g L−1),
Soya oil (30 g L−1)		OilAppleGolden DeliciousFBIncreased[49]
Superior oil (0.5%)OilAppleGolden Delicious18 DAFBIncreased[48]
Citowett (>1%)
Tween 20 (≥1%)		SurfactantAppleGolden DeliciousFB, PF and 10 weeks after FBIncreased[50]
Ortho X-77 (1.0%)SurfactantAppleSuntan3 weeks after FBIncreased[51]
Polysorbate 20 (0.5%),
Polysorbate 60 (0.5%),
Polysorbate 80 (0.5%),
Lecithin (0.5%)		SurfactantAppleGolden DeliciousAt 12.5 + 18 or 18 + 20 mm diameterIncreased[52]
Polysorbate 20 (0.5%),
Polysorbate 60 (0.5%)		SurfactantAppleFujiAt 12.5 + 18 mm diameterIncreased[52]
Potassium soap (500 mg L−1)SurfactantAppleGolden Delicious SmootheeFB and 2 DAFBIncreased[53]
Ammonium thiosulphate (4%)ThinnerAppleGolden Delicious20% FBIncreased[55]
Ammonium thiosulphate (1.2%)ThinnerPearConference20% or 50% FBIncreased[92]
Endothal (0.8–1.2 mL L−1) + CyLex
(150 mg L−1)		ThinnerAppleOregon Spur Red Delicious80% FBIncreased[54]
Apasil (silicon dioxide) (2.5%)OtherAppleGolden Delicious1 to 4 applications between 4–25 DAFBDecreased[48]
PEG 20000 (2.5%)OtherAppleGolden Delicious4, 13, 21 and 27 DAFBIncreased[48]
PEG = polyethylene glycol; FB: full bloom; PF: petal fall; FS: fruit set; DAFB: days after full bloom; DAPF: days after petal fall; Dithane: ethylene-bis dithy-ocarbamate manganese 62%, Mn 16%, Zn 2%; Packard: 8% Ca, 6% carboxylic acids, 0.5% B, pH < 3.0.
Table
Table 4. Effect of the plant growth regulators (PGR) benzyladenine (BA), 4-(2,2-Dimethylhydrazin-1-yl)-4-oxobutanoic acid (daminozide), ethephon, gibberellin A4+7 (GA4+7), gibberellic acid (GA3) acid (GA), N-(2-chloro-4-pyridyl)-N′-phenylurea (CPPU), (2RS, 3RS)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(lH1,2,4-triazol-1-yl) pentan-3-ol (Paclobutrazol) on russeting. Results are compiled from literature sources.
Table 4. Effect of the plant growth regulators (PGR) benzyladenine (BA), 4-(2,2-Dimethylhydrazin-1-yl)-4-oxobutanoic acid (daminozide), ethephon, gibberellin A4+7 (GA4+7), gibberellic acid (GA3) acid (GA), N-(2-chloro-4-pyridyl)-N′-phenylurea (CPPU), (2RS, 3RS)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(lH1,2,4-triazol-1-yl) pentan-3-ol (Paclobutrazol) on russeting. Results are compiled from literature sources.
PGRCropCultivarConcentration
(mg L−1)		Time and Frequency of ApplicationEffect on RussetReference
BAAppleGolden Delicious, Jonathan50 or 15080% PF and once after 7–10 dIncreased[56]
BAAppleElstar200 or 300At 10–12 mm fruit diameterIncreased[57]
BAAppleGolden Delicious500, 4, 12, 26, 42, 57 DAFBIncreased [58]
BAPearBartlett150PF and 10 mm stageIncreased [93]
DaminozideAppleGolden Delicious20003 DAFBIncreased[48]
EthephonAppleFuji400FBIncreased[59]
GA4, GA7 and GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious,
Karmijn de Sonnaville		104 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[32]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious2004 applications in 7 d intervals beginning at PFDecreased[75]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious62.5, 125 or 2508–15 DAFBDecreased[76]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious250, 4, 12, 26, 42, 57 DAFBDecreased [58]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious104 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PFDecreased[73]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious104 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PFDecreased[77]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious10PFDecreased[33]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious15 or 305 applications in 7 to 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[30]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious105 applications in 7 d intervals beginning at FB Decreased[78]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious203 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[72]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious, Jonathan25–20080% PF and once after 7–10 dDecreased[56]
GA4+7AppleGolden Delicious5, 104 applications in 7 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[79]
GA4+7PearPackham’s Triumph5, 10, 2080% PF and 0 to 3 additional sprays at 10 or 15 d intervalsDecreased[105]
GA4+7
GA4+7 + BA		AppleGolden Delicious6, 12, 24, 50Beginning of bloom and 3 additional sprays at 7 d intervalsDecreased[80]
GA4+7 + BAAppleScarlet Spur II1, 2.5 or 53 to 4 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[81]
GA3AppleKarmijn de Sonnaville104 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[32]
GA3 AppleGolden Delicious100 or 200PFDecreased[33]
GA3AppleGolden Delicious100PFIncreased[60]
GA3 PomegranateG-13750Mid May–Mid JuneDecreased[137]
CPPUAppleScarlet Spur II2, 5 or 103 to 4 applications in 10 d intervals beginning at PF Decreased[81]
CPPUAppleGolden Delicious20PFIncreased[60]
CPPUPomegranateKandhari5 or 10Mid MayDecreased[140]
CPPU PomegranateG-1375Mid May–Mid JuneDecreased[137]
CPPU+GA3GrapesShine Muscat10 CPPU + 25 GA3FB Decreased[132]
CPPU+GA3, CPPU+GA4AppleGolden Delicious20 CPPU + 100 GA3/GA4PFIncreased[60]
Paclobutrazol AppleSuntan120 or 2403 weeks after FBIncreased[51]
PaclobutrazolAppleSmoothee Golden Delicious250Between early bloom and PFIncreased[61]
FB: full bloom; PF: petal fall; DAFB: days after full bloom.
Table
Table 5. Effect of bagging fruit on russet and color. Data are compiled from literature sources.
Table 5. Effect of bagging fruit on russet and color. Data are compiled from literature sources.
Type of BagCropCultivarTime of BaggingEffect on RussetEffect on ColorReference
Polythene bag (Kordite freeze bags)AppleGolden Delicious,
Rome Beauty		18 mm
diameter		IncreasedGreener groundcolor[17]
Polythene bag with aluminum paperPearPackham’s TriumphFruit setIncreasedNot determined[105]
Microperforated polypropylene bagsPearDoyenne du Comice30 DAFBDecreasedNot determined[100]
Nylon (polyamide)AppleGolden Delicious,
Rome Beauty		18 mm
diameter		IncreasedDecreased red color [17]
Kraft paper bagsAppleGolden Delicious,
Rome Beauty		18 mm
diameter		DecreasedDecreased red color [17]
Kraft paper bagsMangoApple70 DAFBReducedDecreased red color [135]
Kraft paper bagsAppleGolden Delicious5 DAFBReducedNot determined[48]
White, yellow and discoloration bagsAppleGamhong20, 30 and 40 DAFBReducedNo change[82]
Light impermeable double layer paper bagsAppleGolden Delicious20 DAFBNo russetNot determined[86]
Paper bags (single layer)PearCuiguan35 DAFBDecreasedMore yellow [101]
Paper bags (white, single layer)PearCuiguan20 DAFBNo russetNo change[102]
Paper bags (yellow-white, double layer)PearCuiguan40 DAFBNo russetNo change[102]
Papers bags (single layer +
double layers)		PearCuiguan28 DAFBDecreasedLighter color [103]
Paper bags (double layer)PearCuiguan20 + 45 DAFBNo russetGreener groundcolor[101]
Paper bag (double layered with attached filter)PearNiitaka30–40 DAFBDecreasedLighter color[104]
Paper bag (triple layer)PearConcordeAfter June dropIncreasedLighter color[197]
DAFB = days after full bloom.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Winkler, A.; Athoo, T.; Knoche, M. Russeting of Fruits: Etiology and Management. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030231

AMA Style

Winkler A, Athoo T, Knoche M. Russeting of Fruits: Etiology and Management. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(3):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Winkler, Andreas, Thomas Athoo, and Moritz Knoche. 2022. "Russeting of Fruits: Etiology and Management" Horticulturae 8, no. 3: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030231

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