The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
B IOLOGICAL C ONTROL OF P OSTHARVEST D ISEASES OF F RUITS
Abstract
▪ Abstract Losses from postharvest fruit diseases range from 1 to 20 percent in the United States, depending on the commodity. The application of fungicides to fruits after harvest to reduce decay has been increasingly curtailed by the development of pathogen resistance to many key fungicides, the lack of replacement fungicides, negative public perception regarding the safety of pesticides and consequent restrictions on fungicide use. Biological control of postharvest diseases (BCPD) has emerged as an effective alternative. Because wound-invading necrotrophic pathogens are vulnerable to biocontrol, antagonists can be applied directly to the targeted area (fruit wounds), and a single application using existing delivery systems (drenches, line sprayers, on-line dips) can significantly reduce fruit decays. The pioneering biocontrol products BioSave and Aspire were registered by EPA in 1995 for control of postharvest rots of pome and citrus fruit, respectively, and are commercially available. The limitations of these biocontrol products can be addressed by enhancing biocontrol through manipulation of the environment, using mixtures of beneficial organisms, physiological and genetic enhancement of the biocontrol mechanisms, manipulation of formulations, and integration of biocontrol with other alternative methods that alone do not provide adequate protection but in combination with biocontrol provide additive or synergistic effects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wisniewski, M., Biles, C., Droby, S., McLaughlin, R., Wilson, C., & Chalutz, E. (1991) · Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1016/0885-5765(91)90033-e · Cited by 274
Leibinger, W., Breuker, B., Hahn, M., & Mendgen, K. (1997) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.1997.87.11.1103 · Cited by 192
Aureobasidins, new antifungal antibiotics. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation, and properties.
TAKESAKO, K., IKAI, K., HARUNA, F., ENDO, M., SHIMANAKA, K., SONO, E., NAKAMURA, T., KATO, I., & YAMAGUCHI, H. (1991) · The Journal of Antibiotics · doi:10.7164/antibiotics.44.919 · Cited by 149
Castoria, R., De Curtis, F., Lima, G., & De Cicco, V. (1997) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/s0925-5214(97)00061-6 · Cited by 121
Cited by
Yeast interactions and wine flavour
Fleet, G. (2003) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00245-9 · Cited by 1,020
Sharma, R. R., Singh, D., & Singh, R. (2009) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.05.001 · Cited by 1,015
Tripathi, P., & Dubey, N. K. (2004) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2003.11.005 · Cited by 786
Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm?
Droby, S., Wisniewski, M., Macarisin, D., & Wilson, C. (2009) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.11.009 · Cited by 758
Spadaro, D., & Droby, S. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.003 · Cited by 732
Metadata
- Authors
- Janisiewicz, W. J., & Korsten, L.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 411-441
- ISSN
- 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2107
- OpenAlex
- W2106916454
- Cited by
- 1,013
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 2.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: B IOLOGICAL C ONTROL OF P OSTHARVEST D ISEASES OF F RUITS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120401.130158
- The paper
- Janisiewicz, W. J., & Korsten, L. (2002). B IOLOGICAL C ONTROL OF P OSTHARVEST D ISEASES OF F RUITS. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120401.130158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.