This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

On: 23 August 2015, At: 09:31

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Biological Agriculture & Horticulture:

An International Journal for
Sustainable Production Systems
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbah20

Effects of bagging on fruit

Click for updates
characteristics and physical fruit
protection in red pitaya (Hylocereus
spp.)
a a a
Dinh-Ha Tran , Chung-Ruey Yen & Yu-Kuang H. Chen
a
Department of Plant Industry, National Pingtung University of
Science and Technology, 1 Shuefu Road, Neipu, Pingtung 912,
Taiwan
Published online: 19 Jan 2015.

To cite this article: Dinh-Ha Tran, Chung-Ruey Yen & Yu-Kuang H. Chen (2015) Effects of bagging
on fruit characteristics and physical fruit protection in red pitaya (Hylocereus spp.), Biological
Agriculture & Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems, 31:3,
158-166, DOI: 10.1080/01448765.2014.991939

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2014.991939

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015
 Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 2015
Vol. 31, No. 3, 158–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2014.991939

Effects of bagging on fruit characteristics and physical fruit protection

in red pitaya (Hylocereus spp.)
Dinh-Ha Tran, Chung-Ruey Yen* and Yu-Kuang H. Chen

Department of Plant Industry, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, 1 Shuefu
Road, Neipu, Pingtung 912, Taiwan
(Received 9 December 2013; accepted 18 November 2014)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

The effects of bagging on fruit characteristics and its role in physical fruit protection
were investigated in three pitaya cultivars: Vietnam White (VN-White) and Chuchi Liu
(Hylocereus undatus), and Chaozou 5 (Hylocereus sp.). The experiment comprised
four treatments: paper-white bag (P-WB), net screen-black bag, polyethylene plastic-
black bag (PP-BB), polyethylene plastic-white bag (PP-WB) and non-bagged control.
Fruit bagging did not change the fruit lightness but significantly affected other peel
colorimetric parameters. VN-White fruits bagged with P-WB became redder
(a* ¼ 27.6), less yellow (b* ¼ 4.4) and had higher colour purity (h8 ¼ 10.7) than
non-bagged fruits. Fruits with P-WB in Chuchi Liu also showed significant difference
in b* and h8 values as compared with control. Bagging with PP-BB or PP-WB in
Chaozou 5 also produced redder fruits (a* ¼ 31.7 and 30.3) with more colour intensity
(C* 5 32.4 and 31.3) than non-bagged fruits. There were no significant differences in
fruit size and weight, total soluble solids content and fruit ripening duration among
treatments in all three cultivars. Fruit firmness also exhibited no significant differences
among most treatments except for PP-BB, which gave a lower value than other
treatments. In general, fruit bagging could reduce the peel thickness but could not
increase the edible fruit rate. The most important role of fruit bagging was to
effectively protect fruits from physiological factors such as cracking, bird damage and
blemish, which led to the significant decrease of the total damaged and defective fruits
(13.7– 33.3%), as compared with non-bagged control (66.7– 72.6%).
Keywords: Fruit bagging; fruit colour; fruit firmness; fruit protection; pitaya

Introduction
Pitayas or dragon fruits (Hylocereus spp.) are perennial climbing cactus plants native to
tropical areas of North, Central and South America (Barthlott and Hunt 1993). Owing to
their exceptional tolerance to extreme drought, high economic potential, acceptability and
rising demand in the market, they are currently being marketed worldwide and cultivated
commercially in at least 20 countries including Taiwan (Nobel and De La Barrera 2004).
The edible fruit provides a delicious food, and is a resource of high nutritive and medicinal
value for direct consumption and industrial food processing (Le Bellec et al. 2006).
In Taiwan, some species of Hylocereus have been domesticated to become potential
cultivated crops. These species bear large fruits (200 –600 g) with red skin, and with white
pulp in H. undatus, or red-purple pulp in Hylocereus sp. Due to its attractive appearance,
delicately sweet flavour and high nutritional supplement, the pitaya fruit is good candidate
for export and import in Taiwan.

*Corresponding author. Email: yencr@mail.npust.edu.tw

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Fruit bagging in red pitaya 159

The quality of the fruit is established on the tree and influenced by the environment.
Bagging, a physical and simple protection technique commonly applied to many fruits, is
not only effective for improving fruit quality but also prevents the damaging effects of
diseases, pests and extreme environment conditions, decreases pesticide residues, fruit
drop and cracking, thus increasing commercial value (Kitagawa et al. 1992; Fan and
Mattheis 1998; Xu et al. 2010; Ni et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2013; Sharma et al. 2014). Due to
its many beneficial effects, fruit bagging has become an integral part of peach, apple, pear,
grape and loquat cultivation in Japan, Australia, China and the USA. Moreover, countries
such as Mexico, Chile and Argentina do not import apples unless they are bagged (Sharma
et al. 2014).
It is widely believed that the effectiveness of bagging with different materials varies
with fruit type, and environmental and cultivation conditions (Hofman et al. 1997; Fan and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

Mattheis 1998; Li et al. 2006; Sharma et al. 2014). For example, several studies have
reported that bagging could improve fruit size or weight (Kim et al. 2000, 2003; Yang
et al. 2009), external fruit quality (Ritenour et al. 1997; Tyas et al. 1998; Han et al. 1999;
Amarante et al. 2002b; Jia et al. 2005; Huang et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2010;
Hudina et al. 2012; Sharma et al. 2013), fruit firmness (Hofman et al. 1997; Sharma et al.
2013) and total soluble solids (TSS) content (Li et al. 2006; Singh et al. 2007; Wu et al.
2009; Xu et al. 2010; Ni et al. 2011; Sharma et al. 2013). Among these reports, most of
them have indicated the reduction of incidence of pest infestation (Amarante et al. 2002b;
Teixeira et al. 2011a, 2011b), diseases (Kitagawa et al. 1992; Hofman et al. 1997;
Amarante et al. 2002a; Sharma et al. 2013) and physiological disorders (Amarante et al.
2002a, 2002b; Teixeira et al. 2011b; Sharma et al. 2013) in bagged fruits. In contrast, some
studies have revealed negative effects of fruit bagging on fruit size or weight (Xu et al.
2010; Hudina and Stampar 2011b), external fruit quality (Hudina and Stampar 2011b),
fruit firmness (Joyce et al. 1997; Amarante et al. 2002b; Singh et al. 2007; Teixeira et al.
2011a) and TSS content (Murray et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2012; Hudina and Stampar
2011b). In addition, some reports have concluded no effects of bagging on fruit growth
(Joyce et al. 1997; Hofman et al. 1997; Tyas et al. 1998; Amarante et al. 2002a; Cornejo
2004; Jia et al. 2005; Hudina and Stampar 2011a), fruit firmness (Hofman et al. 1997;
Huang et al. 2009; Hudina and Stampar 2011a) and fruit sweetness (Tyas et al. 1998; Jia
et al. 2005; Huang et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2009). Pitaya is a non-climacteric and perishable
fruit that reaches its best eating quality when harvested ripe. There is currently little
available literature on fruit bagging in pitaya. In this study, the aims were to investigate the
effects of bagging on fruit characteristics, and the bagging roles on physical fruit
protection in three pitaya cultivars grown under natural southern Taiwan conditions.

Materials and methods

Plant materials, experimental treatments
The study was carried out at the Tropical Fruit Orchard, National Pingtung University of
Science and Technology (NPUST), southern Taiwan, from May to August 2013. Three
pitaya cultivars were chosen, VN-White and Chuchi Liu, both are red peel-white pulp and
belong to H. undatus, and Chaozou 5 (Hylocereus sp.), which is red peel-red pulp. The
experiment comprised four bagging treatments with bag size 320 £ 260 mm, including
paper-white bag (P-WB), net screen-black bag (NS-BB), polyethylene plastic-black bag
(PP-BB), polyethylene plastic-white bag (PP-WB) and a non-bagged control. The bags
were produced by Dashen Company, Taiwan. Bagging treatments began 7 days after
anthesis and continued until harvest. The experimental design was a randomized complete
 160 D.-H. Tran et al.

block design with three replications and 30 – 40 fruits randomly selected for one replicate
in each cultivar.

Parameter measurements
Fruit skin colour was measured using a colorimeter (model ZE 2000, Nippon Denshoku,
Japan) at the stem end, centre and stylar end of the peel surface. The values read were L*,
a* and b*. The L* value indicated the lightness of colour with value ranging from 0, black
to 100, white. Positive a* indicates a hue of red-purple; negative a* of bluish-green;
positive b* of yellow and negative b* of blue. Values a* and b* are coordinates that
indirectly reflect hue angle (h8) and chroma (C*). C* indicated intensity or saturation of
colour as computed by the formula, C* ¼ (a*2 þ b*2)1/2 which represented the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

hypotenuse of a right triangle with values ranging from 0, least intense to 60, most
intense. The value h8 was hue angle (8) (h8 ¼ tangent21 b*/a*) where 08, red purple; 908,
yellow; 1808, bluish-green and 2708, blue (McGuire 1992).
The fruit diameter measurement recorded was the average of two readings taken at two
axes of the midsection of the fruit. Fruit length was measured from the part attached to the
petiole to the base of the fruit. Peel thickness was determined at the equatorial point of fruit
with a digital caliper. Average fruit weight and peel weight were recorded and the edible
flesh percentage calculated.
Fruit firmness with peel was measured by using a digital penetrometer (model EZ test-
S, Shimadzu, Japan) with a 5 mm diameter probe (probe penetration depth 10 mm) at three
equatorial points of the fruits and expressed in kg cm22.
TSS content was measured using a hand refractometer (model PAL-1, Atago, Tokyo,
Japan). Fruit flesh was squeezed from a sample of the middle of freshly cut fruit and the
result is expressed as 8Brix.
Fruit ripening time was counted as the number of days taken from flower opening to
matured fruit stage.
Fruit damage caused by cracking, sunburn, birds, blemishes and the total affected were
recorded and expressed as percentage.

Statistical analysis
All data were subjected to analysis of variance using the ANOVA procedure of the SAS
statistical package 9.0 (Statistical Analysis System, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).
Differences between the means were ascertained with Duncan’s multiple range test.

Results and discussion

Colour parameters
Fruit bagging treatments significantly affected most colour parameters except for the
lightness of skin (Table 1). The a* value in P-WB fruits of VN-White was significantly
higher than those with NS-BB, PP-BB and non-bagged control. In Chuchi Liu, the red skin
colour of P-WB and PP-WB fruits also had significant higher value than that of NS-BB
fruits. However, fruits bagged with PP-BB and PP-WB in Chaozou 5 exhibited higher a*
values than others. In VN-White, NS-BB, PP-BB and non-bagged fruits obtained higher
b* values than PP-WB fruits. Unlike VN-White, Chuchi Liu fruits kept in PP-WB bags
and non-bagged had higher yellow colour values than those kept in PP-BB bags. Chaozou
5 had a higher yellow colour value in fruit peel with NS-BB than others except for PP-BB.
 Fruit bagging in red pitaya 161

Table 1. Effects of fruit bagging on peel colorimetric parameters in three pitaya cultivars.

Bagging treatment L*1 a* b* C* h8

VN-White
P-WB 30.22 a 27.6 a 4.4 bc 28.1 a 10.7 c
NS-BB 31.4 a 23.8 b 5.0 ab 24.8 b 15.4 ab
PP-BB 31.4 a 23.3 b 5.0 ab 24.1 b 13.7 b
PP-WB 31.1 a 26.1 ab 3.7 c 26.6 ab 10.0 c
Non-bagged 30.2 a 23.9 b 5.6 a 24.9 ab 15.7 a
Chuchi Liu
P-WB 31.9 a 28.2 a 4.4 bc 28.7 ab 10.5 b
NS-BB 30.9 a 23.2 b 5.1 abc 24.0 b 13.7 ab
PP-BB 32.0 a 27.1ab 4.0 c 28.0 ab 12.8 ab
PP-WB 33.6 a 28.5 a 5.2 ab 29.3 a 12.4 ab
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

Non-bagged 29.2 a 24.4 ab 5.7 a 25.3 ab 14.8 a

Chaozou 5
P-WB 29.8 a 26.0 b 5.9 b 26.7 b 13.9 b
NS-BB 32.2 a 25.3 b 8.5 a 26.4 b 16.9 a
PP-BB 32.2 a 31.7 a 6.1 ab 32.4 a 11.8 b
PP-WB 32.2 a 30.3 a 5.6 b 31.3 a 12.1 b
Non-bagged 30.0 a 26.5 b 6.0 b 27.4 b 13.9 b
1
L*, a*, b*, C* and h8 – the value of lightness, red or green, yellow or blue, chroma intensity and hue angle (8),
respectively.
2
Means with the same letters within each cultivar are not significantly different at p # 0.05 according to
Duncan‘s multiple range test.

From a* and b*, the chroma intensity (C*) and hue angle (h8) values were calculated
(Table 1). In VN-White, fruits bagged with P-WB had a higher C* value (28.1) than those
bagged with NS-BB (24.8) or PP-BB (24.1). In Chuchi Liu, a significant difference in C*
value was found between PP-WB fruits (29.3) and NS-BB fruits (24.0). In Chaozou 5, this
parameter showed higher values for fruits covered with PP-BB and PP-WB than fruits with
other bags and control. The lowest values of h8 or the highest red colour purity levels of
fruit skin were observed in P-WB (10.78) and PP-WB (10.08) in VN-White. In Chuchi Liu,
P-WB fruits had lower h8 value (10.58) than non-bagged fruits (14.88). However, except
for a higher h8 value (16.98) in fruits bagged with NS-BB, other fruits with or without bags
had a similar level of h8 values in Chaozou 5.
It is noticeable that surface colour is an initially important appearance quality attribute.
The present study found that fruit bagging could affect peel colouration, colour intensity
and purity, depending on the bagging materials and cultivars. Compared to non-bagged
fruits, covering fruits with P-WB resulted in redder peel colour in VN-White, higher red
colour purity in VN-White and Chuchi Liu, and fruits bagged with PP-BB or PP-WB
became redder with more colour intensity in Chaozou 5. These results are consistent with
the findings reported by Ritenour et al. (1997) in red apples, Sharma et al. (2013) in apple
cv. Delicious, Hudina et al. (2012) in ‘Concorde’ pear and Tyas et al. (1998) who observed
an improvement in red colour of fruits. It is likely that the effects of bagging are associated
with the important role of radiation and temperature on fruit pigment production (Saure
1990). However, the present study indicated that the lightness of fruit skin was not
influenced by bagging, which is different from the findings of Cornejo (2004) in pitaya
(H. undatus), Han et al (1999) in ‘Hosui’ pear, Huang et al (2009) in Chinese sand pears,
Hudina and Stampar (2011b) in ‘Conference’ pear and Hudina et al. (2012) in ‘Concorde’
pear, which proved that bagging made the fruit skin brighter. On the other hand, the higher
brightness skin without bagging was found in peach cv. Hujingmilu (Li et al. 2006).
 162 D.-H. Tran et al.

Fruit firmness
The influence of fruit bagging on fruit firmness is displayed in Figure 1. Among fruit
bagging treatments applied to VN-White, only PP-BB resulted in lower fruit firmness
than other bagging types and non-bagged control. A similar pattern was also found in
Chuchi Liu, which had a lesser fruit firmness in fruits bagged with PP-BB than those
bagged with NS-BB and PP-WB. However, fruit bagging had no effect on fruit firmness
in Chaozou 5.
Fruit firmness is also one of many important parameters for indicating external fruit
quality and post-harvest handling (Harker et al. 1997). Some previous fruit bagging
studies have reported inconsistent effects on fruit firmness. For example, bagging
increased fruit softening in mango (Joyce et al. 1997), pears (Amarante et al. 2002b),
‘Winter Guava’ (Singh et al. 2007), and ‘Imperial Gala’ apples (Teixeira et al. 2011a).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

These are in contrast to the findings of Hofman et al. (1997) who reported a delay in
mango softening with bagged fruit and Sharma et al. (2013) who also showed that
bagged fruits had higher firmness than non-bagged fruits in apple cv. Delicious. In the
present study, there were no significant differences in fruit firmness among most
treatments. These results are in accordance with Cornejo (2004) in H. undatus and
Huang et al. (2009) in red Chinese sand pears. In the case of less firm fruits bagged with
PP-BB in VN-White and Chuchi Liu, the fruit development of these two cultivars may
have been affected by the lower light penetration, higher light absorbance and
temperature that resulted from the polyethylene plastic bag having dark colour and
lacking holes (Yang et al. 2009).

Fruit characteristics
The effects of bagging treatments on fruit characteristics in three pitaya cultivars are
summarized in Table 2. Four different bag types had no significant effect on fruit size
(diameter and length), fruit weight, TSS content and fruit ripening time in all three
cultivars.
The statistically significant differences due to bagging were recorded for peel
thickness in all three cultivars and edible fruit rate in Chuchi Liu and Chaozou 5 (Table 2).
Fruit bagging decreased the peel thickness (3.7 – 4.0 compared with 4.4 mm in non-bagged

4 P-WB NS-BB PP-BB PP-WB Non-bagged

3.12a 3.17a 3.07a 3.11a

Fruitfirmness (kg cm–2)

2.85b 2.93a 2.85a 2.77ab

3 2.72ab
2.48b
2.17a 2.22a 2.15a 2.08a 2.18a

0
VN-White Chuchi Liu Chaozou 5

Figure 1. Effects of fruit bagging treatments on fruit firmness in three pitaya cultivars. Means with
the same letters within each cultivar are not significantly different at p # 0.05 according to Duncan‘s
multiple range test.
 Fruit bagging in red pitaya 163

Table 2. Effects of fruit bagging treatments on fruit characteristics in three pitaya cultivars.

Fruit Fruit Peel Fruit Edible TSS

Bagging diameter length thickness weight rate content
treatment (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) (%) (8Brix) Fruit rip. time (day)
VN-White
P-WB 82.11 a 106.4 a 3.9 b 422.1 a 65.2 a 18.0 a 30.1 a
NS-BB 81.1 a 106.1 a 4.0 b 414.5 a 65.6 a 18.3 a 30.0 a
PP-BB 80.5 a 105.1 a 4.0 b 396.8 a 63.0 a 18.6 a 30.7 a
PP-WB 80.2 a 108.2 a 3.7 b 400.9 a 66.1 a 18.9 a 30.9 a
Non-bagged 82.7 a 106.9 a 4.4 a 427.3 a 65.7 a 18.7 a 31.0 a
Chuchi Liu
P-WB 79.3 a 101.4 a 3.7 b 359.9 a 66.6 ab 19.0 a 30.8 a
NS-BB 77.8 a 97.2 a 3.8 b 361.7 a 63.4 ab 18.8 a 30.8 a
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

PP-BB 79.5 a 103.4 a 3.5 b 381.9 a 68.5 a 18.9 a 32.2 a

PP-WB 80.8 a 103.2 a 3.6 b 379.0 a 67.0 ab 19.7 a 30.5 a
Non-bagged 77.4 a 94.6 a 4.3 a 358.6 a 61.1 b 18.8 a 32.0 a
Chaozou 5
P-WB 75.8 a 86.2 a 4.1 b 293.8 a 62.2 b 18.6 a 29.6 a
NS-BB 75.4 a 84.3 a 3.9 bc 281.3 a 64.8 ab 17.3 a 29.7 a
PP-BB 76.6 a 86.4 a 4.2 b 294.7 a 60.9 b 18.3 a 29.9 a
PP-WB 74.9 a 87.0 a 3.5 c 288.6 a 67.6 a 19.0 a 30.3 a
Non-bagged 76.2 a 85.5 a 4.6 a 291.2 a 60.4 b 17.3 a 29.7 a
1
Means with the same letters within each cultivar are not significantly different at p # 0.05 according to
Duncan‘s multiple range test.

in VN-White, 3.5 –3.8 compared with 4.3 mm in non-bagged in Chuchi Liu, and 3.5– 4.2
compared with 4.6 mm in non-bagged in Chaozou 5). Only Chuchi Liu fruits bagged with
PP-BB had a higher edible fruit rate (68.5%) than those without bagging (61.1%), while
only bagging with PP-WB produced a higher edible fruit rate (67.6%) in Chaozou 5 fruits
than those bagged with P-WB, PP-BB or non-bagged.
Regarding no significant differences in size and weight of fruit, TSS content and fruit
ripening time among treatments in the present study, these results are in agreement with
the report of Cornejo (2004). Other evidences proved that fruit bagging had no effect on
fruit size in mangoes (Hofman et al. 1997), pears (Amarante et al. 2002a; Hudina and
Stampar 2011a) and peach (Jia et al. 2005), and no influence on fruit weight in mangoes
(Joyce et al. 1997), lychees (Tyas et al. 1998) or pears (Amarante et al. 2002a). TSS
content was also found to be unaffected by fruit bagging in lychees (Tyas et al. 1998),
Chinese sand pear (Huang et al. 2009) and ‘Concorde’ pears (Hudina and Stampar 2011a).
These findings, however, contradict the reports of Kim et al. (2000, 2003) in peaches and
Yang et al. (2009), who supposed that fruit bagging increased fruit size and weight in
cross-winter longan. The differences between the present study and previous findings
might be due to dissimilar fruit crops with different fruiting seasons. In cold fruiting
seasons, fruit bagging could facilitate fruit development as a result of temperature or
humidity increase in bags. However, pitaya is a tropical fruit plant, growing in warm and
sunny weather, and naturally fruiting in summer. Hence, changes of temperature or
humidity in fruit bags did not significantly affect fruit growth. Bagging could reduce the
peel thickness. This may be due to the fact that the peel surface of non-bagged fruits is
directly exposed and affected by the natural conditions as well as damaged by pests, which
facilitated callus formation and blemish accumulation on the peel, leading to a thicker
peel.
 164 D.-H. Tran et al.

Damaged and defective fruits

The significantly lower percentages of total damaged fruits compared with that of non-
bagged fruits are summarized in Table 3. In comparison with non-bagged, bagging with P-
WB prevented fruit cracking in all three cultivars. There was no significant difference in
the percentage of sun-burnt fruits among treatments. Birds could not eat bagged fruits but
seriously damaged non-bagged fruits that accounted for 16.7%, 22.6% and 17.8% of total
non-bagged fruits in VN-White, Chuchi Liu and Chaozou, respectively. In addition,
bagged fruits had fewer blemished fruits, which made up 0 –9.5% and 4.2 –9.5%
compared to 25.0% and 27.4% of blemished fruits without bagging in VN-White and
Chuchi Liu, respectively. As a result, the total percentage of damaged and defective fruits
with bagging was significantly lower than those without bagging in all three cultivars.
The present study proved that fruit bagging effectively protected pitaya fruits from
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

physical damage. The useful function of fruit bagging was also recognized through
previous studies including protecting fruits from insects or birds attack (Kitagawa et al.
1992) in pears (Amarante et al. 2002b) and apples (Teixeira et al. 2011a, 2011b),
enhancing unblemished fruits (Kitagawa et al. 1992) in pears (Amarante et al. 2002b) and
decreasing the incidence of fruit cracking in nectarine (Ding et al. 2004), cross-winter off-
season longan (Yang et al. 2009).
In summary, fruit bagging with P-WB, NS-BB, PP-BB or PP-WB in pitaya did not
improve fruit lightness, fruit size and weight, TSS content and fruit ripening time.
However, fruit bagging reduced peel thickness and effectively protected fruits from
physiological factors, enhanced fruit quality and decreased yield loss. Moreover, bagging
with appropriate materials could result in fruits with a more attractive appearance. Fruit
bagging with P-WB or PP-WB, as the best treatments for the three varieties in this study,
could be introduced to pitaya growers. Furthermore, in order to obtain more efficiency of

Table 3. Effects of fruit bagging on physically damaged and defective fruits (%) in three pitaya
cultivars.

Bagging treatment Cracked Sun burnt Bird damaged Blemished Total affected
VN-White
P-WB 0.01 b 11.1 a 0.0 b 3.7 cb 14.8 b
NS-BB 9.5 ab 9.5 a 0.0 b 9.5 b 28.6 b
PP-BB 4.8 b 15.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 c 19.8 b
PP-WB 0.0 b 15.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 c 15.1 b
Non-bagged 16.7 a 12.5 a 16.7 a 25.0 a 66.7 a
Chuchi Liu
P-WB 0.0 b 8.9 a 0.0 b 4.8 b 13.7 b
NS-BB 10.3 ab 4.8 a 0.0 b 9.5 b 24.6 b
PP-BB 8.9 ab 8.3 a 0.0 b 4.2 b 21.4 b
PP-WB 4.2 ab 7.9 a 0.0 b 4.2 b 16.2 b
Non-bagged 13.7 a 8.9 a 22.6 a 27.4 a 72.6 a
Chaozou 5
P-WB 0.0 b 12.2 a 0.0 b 5.6 ab 17.8 b
NS-BB 13.3 ab 6.7 a 0.0 b 13.3 ab 33.3 b
PP-BB 11.4 ab 11.4 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 24.4 b
PP-WB 6.7 ab 12.2 a 0.0 b 6.7 ab 25.6 b
Non-bagged 17.9 a 12.2 a 17.8 a 23.3 a 71.1 a
1
Means with the same letters within each cultivar are not significantly different at p # 0.05 according to
Duncan‘s multiple range test.
 Fruit bagging in red pitaya 165

pitaya fruit bagging, it is suggested that desirable fruit bags with reasonable materials,
bright colour and few holes could be designed for use with pitaya.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Amarante C, Banks NH, Max S. 2002a. Effect of pre-harvest bagging on fruit quality and postharvest
physiology of pears (Pyrus communis). N Z J Crop Hort. 30:99 – 107.
Amarante C, Banks NH, Max S. 2002b. Preharvest bagging improves pack out and fruit quality of
pears (Pyrus communis). N Z J Crop Hort. 30:93 – 98.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

Barthlott W, Hunt DR. 1993. Cactaceae. In: Kubitzki K, editor. The families and the genera of
vascular plants. Vol 2. Berlin (Germany): Springer; p. 161– 196.
Chen CS, Zhang D, Wang YQ, Li PM, Ma FW. 2012. Effects of fruit bagging on the contents of
phenolic compounds in the peel and flesh of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Red Delicious’, and ‘Royal
Gala’ apples. Sci Hort. 142:68 – 73.
Cornejo EBC. 2004. Effects of physical methods (boxing and bagging) on morphological changes in
pitaya, abiu, star apple and guava [master’s thesis] Pingtung (Taiwan): Pingtung University of
Science and Technology.
Ding Q, Han MY, Tian YM. 2004. Effect of bagging on nectarine fruit quality and fruit cracking.
J Northwest Sci Tech Univ Agric For. 32:81 –83. In Chinese with abstract in English.
Fan X, Mattheis JP. 1998. Bagging ‘Fuji’ apples during fruit development affects color development
and storage quality. HortScience. 33:1235 – 1238.
Han J, Lee H, Jang H. 1999. Comparison on skin characteristics between non-bagged and bagged
‘Hosui’ pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) fruits. J Kor Soc Hort Sci. 40:439– 442.
Harker R, Redgwell RJ, Hallet IC, Murray SH, Carter G. 1997. Texture of fresh fruit. Hort Rev.
20:121 – 224.
Hofman PJ, Smith LG, Joyce DC, Johnson GI, Meiburg GF. 1997. Bagging of mango (Mangifera
indica cv. ‘Keitt’) fruit influences fruit quality and mineral composition. Postharv Biol Technol.
12:83 –91.
Huang CH, Yu B, Teng Y, Su J, Shu Q, Cheng Z, Zeng L. 2009. Effects of fruit bagging on coloring
and related physiology, and qualities of red Chinese sand pears during fruit maturation. Sci Hort.
121:149 – 158.
Hudina M, Stampar F. 2011a. Bagging of ‘Concorde’ pears (Pyrus communis L.) influences fruit
quality. Acta Hort. 909:625– 630.
Hudina M, Stampar F. 2011b. Effect of fruit bagging on quality of ‘Conference’ pear (Pyrus
communis L.). Eur J Hort Sci. 76:410 – 414.
Hudina M, Stampar F, Orazem P, Petkovsek MM, Veberic R. 2012. Phenolic compounds profile,
carbohydrates and external fruit quality of the ‘Concorde’ pear (Pyrus communis L.) after
bagging. Can J Plant Sci. 92:67– 75.
Jia HJ, Araki A, Okamoto G. 2005. Influence of fruit bagging on aroma volatiles and skin coloration
of ‘Hakuho’ peach (Prunus persica Batsch). Postharv Biol Technol. 35:61 – 68.
Joyce DC, Beasley DR, Shorter AJ. 1997. Effect of preharvest bagging on fruit calcium levels, and
storage and ripening characteristics of ‘Sensation’ mangoes. Aust J Exp Agric. 37:383 – 389.
Kim YH, Kim SK, Lim SC, Lee CH, Youn CK, Kim HH, Choi KS. 2000. Effects of bagging material
on coloration, maturity, and quality of peach fruits. J Kor Soc Hort Sci. 41:395 –400.
Kim YH, Kim SK, Park JM, Lim SC, Youn CK, Lee BA, Youn T, Kim TS. 2003. Effects of physical
properties of bagging papers and changes of microclimate in the bags on coloration and quality
of peach fruits. J Kor Soc Hort Sci. 44:483 – 488.
Kitagawa H, Manabe K, Esguerra EB. 1992. Bagging of fruit on the tree to control disease. Acta
Hort. 321:871 –875.
Le Bellec F, Vaillant F, Imbert E. 2006. Pitahaya (Hylocereus spp.): a new fruit crop, a market with a
future. Fruits. 61:237– 250.
Li B, Jia HJ, Zhang XM. 2006. Effects of fruit pre-harvest bagging on fruit quality of peach (Prunus
persica Batsch cv. Hujingmilu). J Plant Physiol Mol Biol. 32:280– 288.
 166 D.-H. Tran et al.

Liu Y, Zhang X, Zhao Z. 2013. Effects of fruit bagging on anthocyanins, sugars, organic acids, and
color properties of ‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ during fruit maturation. Eur Food
Res Technol. 236:329 – 339.
McGuire RG. 1992. Reporting of objective color measurements. HortScience. 27:1254– 1255.
Murray XJ, Holcroft DM, Cook NC, Wand SJE. 2005. Postharvest quality of ‘Laetitia’ and
‘Songold’ (Prunussalicina Lindell) plums as affected by pre-harvest shading treatments.
Postharv Biol Technol. 37:81 – 92.
Ni ZJ, Zhang Z, Gao Z, Gu L, Huang L. 2011. Effects of bagging on sugar metabolism and the
activity of sugar metabolism related enzymes during fruit development of Qingzhong loquat. Afr
J Biotechnol. 10:4212 – 4216.
Nobel PS, De La Barrera E. 2004. CO2 uptake by the cultivated hemiepiphytic cactus, Hylocereus
undatus. Ann Appl Biol. 144:1 – 8.
Ritenour M, Schrader L, Kammereck R, Donahue R, Edwards G. 1997. Bag and liner color greatly
affect apple temperature under full sunlight. In: Abstracts of Proceedings of the 94th Annual
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 09:31 23 August 2015

International Conference of the American Society for Horticultural Science; 1997 Jul 23 – 26. 32.
Utah: HortScience; p. 474.
Saure MC. 1990. External control of anthocyanin formation in apple. Sci Hort. 42:181– 218.
Sharma RR, Pal RK, Asrey R, Sagar VR, Dhiman MR, Rana MR. 2013. Pre-harvest fruit bagging
influences fruit color and quality of apple cv. Delicious. Agric Sci. 4:443– 448.
Sharma RR, Reddy SVR, Jhalegar MJ. 2014. Pre-harvest fruit bagging: a useful approach for plant
protection andimproved post-harvest fruit quality – a review. J Hort Sci Biotechnol.
89:101 – 113.
Singh BP, Singh RA, Singh G, Killadi B. 2007. Response of bagging on maturity, ripening and
storage behaviour of winter guava. Acta Hort. 735:597– 601.
Teixeira R, Amarante CVTD, Boff MIC, Ribeiro LG. 2011a. Control of insect pests and diseases,
maturity and quality of ‘Imperial Gala’ apples submitted to bagging. Braz Mag Fruit Cult.
33:394 – 401. In Portuguese with abstract in English.
Teixeira R, Boff MIC, Amarante CVTD, Steffens CA, Boff P. 2011b. Effects of fruit bagging on
pests and diseases control and on quality and maturity of ‘Fuji Suprema’ apples. Bragantia.
70:688 – 695. [In Portuguese with abstract in English].
Tyas JA, Hofman PJ, Underhill SJR, Bell KL. 1998. Fruit canopy position and panicle bagging
affects yield and quality of ‘Tai So’ lychee. Sci Hort. 72:203– 213.
Wu HX, Wang SB, Shi SY, Ma WH, Zhou YG, Zhan RL. 2009. Effects of bagging on fruit quality in
‘Zill’ Mango. J Fruit Sci. 26:644 –648.
Xu HX, Chen JW, Xie M. 2010. Effect of different light transmittance paper bags on fruit quality and
antioxidant capacity in loquat. J Sci Food Agric. 90:1783 – 1788.
Yang WH, Zhu XC, Bu JH, Hu GB, Wang HC, Huang XM. 2009. Effects of bagging on fruit
development and quality in cross-winter off-season longan. Sci Hort. 120:194– 200.