The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chitosan Effects on Blackmold Rot and Pathogenic Factors Produced by Alternaria alternata in Postharvest Tomatoes
Open accessAbstract
Stem scar application of chitosan inhibited growth and production of pathogenic factors by blackmold rot [ Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl.] in challenged tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit stored at 20 °C for 28 days. Blackmold lesions were visible within 4 days of inoculation in control fruit, compared with >7 days in chitosantreated fruit. Macerating enzyme activity (polygalacturonase, pectate lyase, and cellulase) in the tissue in the vicinity of the lesions was <50% in chitosan-treated fruit compared with control fruit. Chitosan also inhibited production of oxalic and fumaric acids (chelating agents) and host-specific toxins such as alternariol and alternariol monomethylether by the fungus. The pH of the infected tissue decreased from 4.7 to 4.0 in the control fruit, the optimum for polygalacturonase activity, while the pH of chitosan-treated fruit remained at 4.6. In addition, chitosan also induced production of rishitin (a phytoalexin) in tomato tissue. Such chitosan-pathogen-host interactions may be exploited in the control of postharvest pathogens of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
After first investigations on tomatoes, chitosan was later applied on same crop with positive results in terms of decay management and fruit quality maintenance.
“After first investigations by El Ghaouth et al. (1992b) on tomatoes, it was later applied on the same crop with positive results in terms of decay management and fruit quality maintenance (Reddy et al., 2000a; Liu et al., 2007; Badawy and Rabea, 2009).”
From GRAS, plant- and animal-derived compounds as alternatives to conventional fungicides for the control of postharvest diseases of fresh horticultural produce (2016) · cites this paper as Reddy et al., 2000a
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Palou, L., Ali, A., Fallik, E., & Romanazzi, G. (2016) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2016.04.017 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Reddy, M. V. B., Angers, P., Castaigne, F., & Arul, J.
- Affiliations
- Université Laval (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Arul, Joseph
- ORCID
- Angers, Paul
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 742-747
- ISSN
- 0003-1062 (ISSN-L)
- 2327-9788
- OpenAlex
- W2159936338
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
- Keywords
- chitosan, Alternaria alternata, tomato, postharvest disease, polygalacturonase, pectate lyase, cellulase, oxalic acid, fumaric acid, alternariol, alternariol monomethyl ether, rishitin, phytoalexins, fruit pH
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