Cited by 64Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFungal Plant Pathogen ControlPlant Disease Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Alternative technologies to control postharvest diseases of stone fruits

Open access
Usall, J., Casals, C., Maria Sisquella, Palou, L., Antonieta De Cal·2015·Stewart Postharvest Review

Abstract

Purpose of review The aim of this review is to assemble the key information available to understand the pathology and to develop strategies (pre- and postharvest) to control the main postharvest diseases of stone fruits. Findings The bibliography presented in this review contains the most interesting research done in the last few years concerning the main postharvest diseases of stone fruit, and especially that caused by Monilinia spp. Recent studies of the epidemiology of this pathogen and the disease it causes in the field have revealed essential aspects of its behavior that facilitate the design of effective preharvest disease management strategies. Moreover, there is a large volume of recent studies about a wide range of strategies to control brown rot after harvest that include Chemical control methods including food additives, natural compounds and natural edible coatings; biological control; and physical treatments. Directions for future research Although a large number of studies have demonstrated the efficacy of alternative postharvest treatments, only few of them are currently applied under commercial conditions. Some others, although developed and intended for near future commercial application, have limitations such as economic cost, delays due to registration issues, or reduced efficacy compared to conventional fungicides. Research is needed to resolve these obstacles to make all these strategies available in a near future. © 2015 SPS (UK) Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2212/spr.2015.4.2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 64

Metadata

Authors
Usall, J., Casals, C., Sisquella, M., Palou, L., & Cal, A. D.
Venue
Stewart Postharvest Review
Publisher
Portico
Published
2015
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
1-6
ISSN
1745-9656 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4243026629
Cited by
64
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Stewart Postharvest Review (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Disease Management Techniques
Keywords
postharvest disease, stone fruit, Monilinia, brown rot, chemical control, natural compounds, edible coatings, biological control, physical treatment, disease epidemiology, fungicides

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: Alternative technologies to control postharvest diseases of stone fruits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2212/spr.2015.4.2
The paper
Usall, J., Casals, C., Sisquella, M., Palou, L., & Cal, A. D. (2015). Alternative technologies to control postharvest diseases of stone fruits. Stewart Postharvest Review. https://doi.org/10.2212/spr.2015.4.2