Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118:385-388. 2005.
EFFECTS OF PRE- OR POSTHARVEST GIBBERELLIC ACID APPLICATION ON STORAGE
QUALITY OF FLORIDA ‘FALLGLO’ TANGERINES AND ‘RUBY’ RED GRAPEFRUIT
MARK A. RITENOUR,1* MICHAEL S. BURTON2
AND T. GREGORY MCCOLLUM3
1University of Florida, IFAS
Indian River Research and Education Center
Ft. Pierce, FL 34945
2 FMC FoodTech
Ft. Pierce, FL 34946
3
US Horticultural Research Laboratory
USDA, ARS
Ft. Pierce, FL 34945
Additional index words. Citrus paradisi, Colletotrichum gloeosporio-
ides, Lasiodiplodia theobromae, anthracnose, decay degreening,
peel color, titratable acidity, total soluble solids, peel punc-
ture resistance, stem-end rot, weight loss
Abstract. Gibberellic Acid (GA) has been reported to delay peel
senescence of citrus fruits. Since physiological and patholog-
ical disorders of citrus tend to occur more frequently on se-
nescent tissues, GA treatments are used in some citrus-
growing areas to maintain quality through market channels.
Studies were conducted during the 2002-03 season to investi-
gate the effects of pre- or postharvest GA treatments on post-
harvest fresh fruit quality and quality retention during storage
of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines and ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit. Preharvest
sprays of GA at 30 g active ingredient (a.i.) per acre with 0.05%
Silwet increased peel puncture resistance, but also led to a
slight reduction in total soluble solids (TSS). Preharvest GA
treatments had no significant effect on juice content, titratable
acidity (TA), or TSS:TA ratio. As expected, preharvest GA
treatments delayed color development of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines
at harvest and after exposure to ethylene compared to the
0.05% Silwet-treated control. Extending ethylene exposure
from 6 to 18 hours allowed GA-treated fruit to color better than
control fruit degreened for only 6 hours, but not better than
control fruit degreened for 18 hours. Twenty one days after
harvest, preharvest GA treatments had no effect on stem-end
rot (SER) development, but tended to decrease total decay and
decay due to anthracnose. Extending ethylene exposure to
overcome GA-delayed color development enhanced the devel-
opment of anthracnose and total decay. Inhibition of color de-
velopment in harvested ‘Fallglo’ tangerines dipped in 250 ppm
GA + 0.05% Silwet was not significant immediately after de-
greening compared to the control (0.05% Silwet only), but was
significant 18 days after degreening. Postharvest GA dips, ei-
ther before or after degreening, had no significant effect on
postharvest SER, anthracnose, or total decay of ‘Fallglo’ tan-
gerines 21 days after harvest. Postharvest weight loss was not
affected by the GA treatments. GA treatments on ‘Ruby’ Red
grapefruit resulted in phytotoxic injury when applied prehar-
vest, but postharvest applications caused damage only when
fruit were dipped in the GA solutions before degreening. At the
concentrations used, pre- or postharvest GA treatments do
Trade and company names are included for benefit of reader and imply
no endorsement or preferential treatment of products by the University of
Florida.
*Corresponding author; e-mail: mritenour@mail.ifas.ufl.edu
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118: 2005.
not improve postharvest quality retention of Florida-grown
‘Fallglo’ or ‘Ruby’ Red Grapefruit during simulated commer-
cial handling and storage.
The use of gibberellic acid (GA or GA3) on citrus has been
studied since the early 1960s and GA’s effect on increasing
peel firmness and delaying peel senescence of citrus have
been well documented (Coggins and Hield, 1962; Coggins et
al., 1963). Preharvest GA treatments are used in some citrus-
growing areas to maintain fruit quality on the tree and
through market channels because physiological and patholog-
ical disorders of citrus tend to occur more frequently on soft-
er, senescent tissues. Reported benefits of preharvest GA
applications include reduced susceptibility to chilling injury
(Arpaia and Eaks, 1990), reduced rind staining and creasing
of oranges (Bevington, 1973; Coggins et al., 1963), reduced
puffiness of ‘Satsuma’ mandarin (Garcia-Luis et al., 1985),
and reduced postharvest pitting of white grapefruit and ‘Fallg-
lo’ tangerines (Petracek et al., 1998). Preharvest GA applica-
tions may also reduce stem-end rind breakdown in ‘Minneola’
tangelos (Ismail, 1997) and may reduce seed germination
(vivipary) in ‘Marsh’ grapefruit (Ali-Dinar et al., 1976).
There have been relatively few reports on the effects of
preharvest GA applications on reducing postharvest decay of
tangerines and tangelos, which are noted for their relatively
short shelf life. Increased peel puncture resistance and re-
duced peel senescence could reduce decay of these fruit, ex-
tending shelf life and reducing market arrivals of damaged
fruit. However, preharvest GA sprays result in green color re-
tention (Coggins and Hield, 1962; Gilfillan et al., 1973), which
is enhanced by the addition of a surfactant (e.g., Silwet L-77)
(Greenberg et al., 1987). Greener fruit are inherently more
susceptible to anthracnose than are less green fruit (Brown
and Barmore, 1976). Furthermore, such fruit require longer
ethylene exposure to degreen, which can result in increased
incidence of Diplodia stem-end rot (SER) and anthracnose
(Brown and Barmore, 1976; Grierson and Newhall, 1955).
The purpose of these experiments was to determine if a
GA application 2 weeks before harvest, or a postharvest GA
dip before or after degreening could improve postharvest
quality and storage life of ‘Fallglo’ tangerine or ‘Ruby’ Red
grapefruit.
Materials and Methods
‘Fallglo’ tangerines and ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit were select-
ed from groves in Ft. Pierce, Fla. during the 2002-03 season.
Trees were grown using commercial practices and only
healthy, uniform trees were chosen for the experiments. For
preharvest sprays, each replicate consisted of one tree and
there were four replicates per treatment arranged in a ran-
domized block design. ‘Fallglo’ and ‘Ruby’ trees were sprayed
on 13 Sept. 2002 or 26 Nov. 2002, respectively, at 250 gal/acre
with either GA (30 g a.i. per acre; ProGibb®, Abbott Labora-
tories, Inc., North Chicago, Ill.) + 0.05% Silwet L-77 (Love-
land Industries, Greeley, Colo.), or 0.05% Silwet L-77 alone
(control). Silwet was included because previous research has
385
shown that the use of GA + Silwet on ‘Fallglo’ is more effective Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS (PROC GLM)
at retaining peel color and peel puncture resistance (PPR) for PC (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.) and individual treat-
than using GA alone (Ritenour and Stover, 1999). Approxi- ment means were separated using Duncan’s Multiple Range
mately 100 fruit were harvested from each tree (replicate) Test at P = 0.05.
and transported to the Indian River Research and Education
Center (IRREC) in Ft. Pierce, Fla. The fruit from each repli- Results and Discussion
cate was randomly divided and degreened for either a “nor-
mal” or “long” period of time at 85 °F (29 °C) using 2 ppm Effect of preharvest GA application on ‘Fallglo’ fruit quality. Ap-
ethylene. ‘Fallglo’ tangerines were degreened for either 6 h plication of 30 g a.i. GA per acre to ‘Fallglo’ tangerines 17 d
(“normal”) or 18 h (“long”), while ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit were prior to harvest resulted in fruit with significantly greater
degreened for either 48 h (“normal”) or 96 h (“long”). After PPR, but lower TSS compared to the control (Table 1). Other
degreening, the fruit were washed, coated with a shellac wax quality attributes such as fruit weight, juice content, TA, and
(Sta-Fresh 590 HS, FMC Corporation, Lakeland, Fla.), and TSS:TA ratio were not significantly affected. Previous re-
stored at 50 °F (10 °C) until evaluated. search has also shown greater PPR after preharvest GA treat-
Ten fruit were collected after degreening from each repli- ments, but significant changes in other quality attributes,
cate and analyzed for peel color, PPR, total soluble solids including TSS, were rare (Ali-Dinar et al., 1976; Baez-Sañudo
(TSS; °Brix), titratable acidity (TA; % anhydrous citric acid) et al., 1992; Ismail, 1997; Ritenour and Stover, 1999).
and TSS:TA ratio before degreening. Fruit color measure- Effect of preharvest GA application on ‘Fallglo’ color develop-
ments were taken equatorially at three evenly spaced locations ment. Preharvest application of GA to ‘Fallglo’ fruit resulted in
using a Minolta Chromameter (model CR-300, Minolta Cam- greener fruit (more negative a*/b* and higher hue values) at
era Corp., Ramsey, N.J.). Color was reported as Hue, green harvest, after degreening, and after storage at 50 °F (10 °C;
(higher values) to yellow or shades of orange (lower values), Table 2). Immediately after degreening, there were no signif-
and a*/b* ratios where a* measures green (negative) to red icant differences in peel color among GA-treated fruit de-
(positive) and b* measures blue (negative) to yellow (posi- greened for 6 or 18 h, although control fruit degreened for
tive). As fruit lose their green color, a*/b* values increase 18 h developed significantly better color than control fruit de-
from negative to positive. PPR was determined by puncturing greened for only 6 h. After 6 d at 50 °F (10 °C), both control
each fruit three times, at equidistant spacing around the fruit’s and GA-treated fruit with longer degreening times had en-
equator, with a 2.0 mm diameter, flat-tipped, cylindrical probe hanced color compared to those with shorter degreening
attached to a texture analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, model times. Although GA treatments delayed color development,
TA-XT2, Godalming, England). TSS was measured using a re- extending degreening of GA-treated fruit resulted in better
fractometer (Spectronic Instruments, Rochester, N.Y.) and peel color after storage than control fruit degreened for
TA was measured by titrating juice samples to pH 8.3 with only 8 h.
NaOH using a Mettler titrator (model DL12, Highstown,
N.J.). After storage, the fruit were evaluated for decay and
physiological disorders (reported as percent of total fruit). Table 1. Fruit quality of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines 1 d after harvest. Trees were
For postharvest dip treatments, fruit were harvested from sprayed with GA + Silwet or Silwet alone 17 d prior to harvest.
two untreated trees, adjacent to the preharvest study, trans-
ported to the IRREC in Ft. Pierce, Fla. A completely random- Fruit quality just after degreening (Oct. 1)
ized designed was utilized, consisting of four replicates of 50 Wt. PPRz TSSy Juice TAx Ratio
fruit each. Fruit were dipped either before or after degreen- Treatment (g) (N) (%) (%) (%) (TSS:TA)
ing for 2 min in either water containing 0.05% Silwet L-77
GA 201.25 11.11 9.85 64.12 0.89 11.12
(control), or water containing 250 ppm GA + 0.05% Silwet L-
Control 197.00 9.13 10.43 63.99 1.90 11.64
77. ‘Fallglo’ tangerines and ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit were de-
Significance NS * * NS NS NS
greened at 85 °F (29 °C) using 2 ppm ethylene for 6 or 48 h,
respectively. After degreening and dip treatments, the fruit zPeel puncture resistance.
were washed, coated with a shellac wax (Sta-Fresh 590 HS, yTotal soluble solids.
xTitratable acidity.
FMC Corporation, Lakeland, Fla.), and stored at 50 °F
(10 °C) until evaluated. NS, *Nonsignificant or significant at P < 0.05, respectively.

Table 2. Peel color of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines treated with GA + Silwet or Silwet alone 17 d prior to harvest. Fruit were degreened for either 6 or 18 h with 2 ppm
ethylene at 85 °F (29 °C).

Harvest (Sept. 30) After degreening (Oct. 1) After storage (Oct. 7)

Treatment Degreening a*/b* Hue a*/b* Hue a*/b* Hue

GA 18 h -0.37 b z 110.30 a -0.27 bc 105.02 0.17 b 80.62 c

GA 6h -0.34 b 108.83 a -0.27 c 105.18 -0.24 d 103.18 a
Control 18 h -0.30 a 106.46 b -0.11 a 100.68 0.28 a 74.26 d
Control 6h -0.29 a 106.23 b -0.23 b 102.59 -0.15 c 98.34 b
P-value 0.0002 0.0003 <0.0001 0.4584 <0.0001 <0.0001

z
Values within each column followed by unlike letters are significantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05. No letters within a column indi-
cates no significant differences among treatments.

386 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118: 2005.

 Effect of preharvest GA application on ‘Fallglo’ postharvest decay.
Twenty one days after harvest, total fruit decay ranged be-
tween 3% and 16% on ‘Fallglo’ fruit (Table 3). Decay was pri-
marily due to SER and anthracnose. While the incidence of
SER was not significantly affected by the treatments, anthra-
cnose and total decay were significantly increased by the long-
er degreening times, but tended to be lower in GA-treated
fruit degreened for the same length of time. Since anthra-
cnose development is stimulated by ethylene (Brown and Bar-
more, 1976), the 12 additional hours of degreening likely
encouraged the greater levels of anthracnose. Therefore, de-
layed color development resulting in longer degreening
times can increase SER and anthracnose development, partic-
ularly in cultivars that are especially sensitive to extended de-
greening times (e.g., ‘Fallglo’). Furthermore, any delay in
‘Fallglo’ harvest or marketing, because of delayed color devel-
opment, may cause overlap with ‘Sunburst’ harvest and re-
duce prices for the normally early ‘Fallglo’ crop.
Effect of postharvest GA dip on ‘Fallglo’ color development. The
effects of dipping ‘Fallglo’ fruit in 250 ppm GA with 0.05% Sil-
wet were not apparent immediately after degreening (data
not shown), but significant delays in color development were
noted when measured 18 d after harvest (Table 4). Dipping
fruit either before or after degreening made no difference in
color development. No fruit injury was apparent from the GA
dip treatments.
Effect of postharvest GA dip on ‘Fallglo’ postharvest decay. Post-
harvest GA dips of ‘Fallglo’ fruit had no significant effect on
postharvest SER or total decay (Table 5). It is unclear why an-
thracnose was worse in control fruit dipped before degreen-
ing, while there were no significant differences between the
other treatments.
Effect of GA treatments on ‘Fallglo’ weight loss. While longer
degreening times increased water loss, neither pre- nor post-
harvest GA treatments significantly affected weight loss of
‘Fallglo’ tangerines during storage at 50 °F (10 °C; data not
shown).
Effect of GA treatments on ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit. A large per-
centage of grapefruit from trees sprayed with 30 g a.i. per acre
GA 2 weeks before harvest exhibited phytotoxic injury and the
injury greatly increased incidence of postharvest decay (data
not shown). Previous research showed that phytotoxic injury
can occur when grapefruit are sprayed with 20 ppm or higher
GA with a wetting agent (Coggins and Henning, 1988).
While GA dips administered before degreening resulted in
severe GA-injury and a significant increase in postharvest de-
cay, no such injury or significant differences in decay were de-
tected if GA dips were administered after degreening (Table
6). The reason(s) for the differences in susceptibility to GA in-
jury are not clear, but could be related to more advanced peel
coloration at the time of GA application, a curing effect of the
peel while held under degreening conditions, or from the ef-
fects of cooling the fruit to 50 °F (10 °C) soon after dipping.

Table 3. Percentage of stem-end rot, anthracnose, and total decay on

‘Fallglo’ tangerines 21 d after harvest. Fruit were degreened for either 6
or 18 h with 2 ppm ethylene at 85 °F (29 °C), washed, coated with a shel-
lac wax, and stored at 50 °F (10 °C).
21 d after harvest
Table 5. Percentage of stem-end rot, anthracnose, and total decay on
‘Fallglo’ tangerines 21 d after harvest. Fruit were dipped in solutions
with or without GA either before or after degreening, washed, coated
with a shellac wax, and stored at 50 °F (10 °C).

Treatment Degreening SER z Anthracnose Total decay 21 d after harvest

GA 18 h 6.5 7.1 ab y 14.1 a Treatment SER z Anthracnose Total decay

GA 6h 2.7 0.5 c 3.1 b y
GA-before 5.0 2.3 ab 7.3
Control 18 h 3.2 13.0 a 16.2 a
GA-after 3.1 3.5 a 6.6
Control 6h 4.8 3.1 b 7.9 ab
Control-before 7.2 0.8 b 8.1
P-value 0.2794 0.0010 0.0198
Control-after 4.9 5.8 a 10.7
zStem-end rot. P-value 0.5093 0.0252 0.3939
yValues within each column followed by unlike letters are significantly dif-
zStem-end rot.
ferent by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05. No letters within a col-
yValues within each column followed by unlike letters are significantly dif-
umn indicates no significant differences among treatments.
ferent by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05. No letters within a col-
umn indicates no significant differences among treatments.

Table 4. Peel color of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines 18 d after harvest and dipping in

solutions with or without GA. Fruit were dipped either before or after
degreening with 2 ppm ethylene at 85 °F (29 °C). After dip treatments Table 6. Phytotoxic peel injury on ‘Ruby’ Red grapefruit after dipping in
and degreening, fruit were washed, coated with a shellac wax, and stored solutions with or without GA. Fruit were dipped either before or after
at 50 °F (10 °C). degreening at 85 °F (29 °C) with 2 ppm ethylene, washed, coated with a
shellac wax, and stored at 50 °F (10°C).
Peel color
139 d after harvest
Treatment a*/b* Hue
Treatment GA injury (%) Total decay (%)
GA-before -0.03 bz 91.86
z
GA-after -0.03 b 91.74 GA-before 76.83 a 51.16 a
Control-before 0.02 a 84.05 GA-after 0.00 b 25.65 b
Control-after 0.02 a 88.99 Control-before 0.98 b 30.10 b
P-value 0.0116 0.0736 Control-after 0.00 b 24.87 b
P-value <0.0001 0.0134
z
Values within each column followed by unlike letters are significantly dif-
z
ferent by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05. No letters within a col- Values within each column followed by unlike letters are significantly dif-
umn indicates no significant differences among treatments. ferent by Duncan’s multiple range test at P < 0.05.

Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118: 2005. 387

 The GA treatments used in these experiments resulted
in increased PPR of ‘Fallglo’ tangerines, but the greater
PPR did not translate into greater resistance to decay. Use
of commercial harvesting practices would subject fruit at
the bottom of field bins to greater physical stress than oc-
curred in the small harvest samples used in this trial. It is
possible that GA-treated fruit, with their greater PPR,
would display reduced decay after exposure to such condi-
tions. GA concentrations used on ‘Fallglo’ without causing
apparent phytotoxicity caused extensive injury to ‘Ruby’
Red grapefruit. Obviously, the use of GA on ‘Ruby’ Red
grapefruit should be reevaluated using lower concentra-
tions, and perhaps lower concentrations should be evaluat-
ed on ‘Fallglo’. Routine commercial use of GA, to enhance
rind quality in Florida citrus, will require development of
methods which provide the positive aspects of GA treat-
ment (e.g., reduced postharvest pitting and increased
PPR) while minimizing phytotoxic injury and the deleteri-
ous effects on color development.
Literature Cited
Ali-Dinar, H. M., A. H. Krezdorn, and A. J. Rose. 1976. Extending the grape-
fruit harvest season with growth regulators. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.
89:4-6.
Arpaia, M. L. and I. L. Eaks. 1990. The effect of cultural practices on the post-
harvest response of navel orange. 23rd Intl. Soc. Hort. Sci. Congr., Firen-
ze, Italy, 27 Aug.-1 Sept. 1990. p. 678. (Abstr. 2494).
Baez-Sañudo, R., L. Zacarías, and E. Primo-Millo. 1992. Effect of gibberellic
acid and benzyladenine on tree-storage of clementine mandarin fruits.
Proc. Intl. Soc. Citricult. 1:428-431.
388
Bevington, K. B. 1973. Effect of gibberellic acid on rind quality and storage
of coastal navel oranges. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. Anim. Husb. 13:196-199.
Brown, G. E. and C. R. Barmore. 1976. The effect of ethylene, fruit color, and
fungicides on susceptibility of Robinson tangerines to anthracnose. Proc.
Fla. State. Hort. Soc. 89:198-200.
Coggins, C. W., Jr., I. L. Eaks, H. Z. Hield, and W. W. Jones. 1963. Navel or-
ange rind staining reduced by gibberellin A3. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
83:154-157.
Coggins, C. W., Jr. and G. L. Henning. 1988. Grapefruit rind blemish caused
by interaction of gibberellic acid and wetting agents. Proc. Sixth Intl. Cit-
rus Congr. 6:333-338.
Coggins, C. W., Jr. and H. Z. Hield. 1962. Navel orange fruit response to po-
tassium gibberellate. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 81:227-230.
Garcia-Luis, A., M. Agusti, V. Almela, E. Romero, and J. L. Guardiola. 1985.
Effect of gibberellic acid on ripening and peel puffing in ‘Satsuma’ man-
darin. Sci. Hort. 27:75-86.
Gilfillan, I. M., W. Koekemoer, and J. Stevenson. 1973. Extension of the
grapefruit harvest season with gibberellic acid. Proc. Intl. Soc. Citricult.
3:335-341.
Greenberg, J., S. P. Monselise, and E. E. Goldschmidt. 1987. Improvement of
gibberellin efficiency in prolonging the citrus harvest season by the sur-
factant L-77. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112:625-629.
Grierson, W. and W. F. Newhall. 1955. Tolerance to ethylene of various types
of citrus fruits. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 65:224-250.
Ismail, M. 1997. Delaying rind senescence in citrus fruit, pp. 119-129. In S. H.
Futch and W. J. Kender (eds.). Citrus flowering & fruiting short course.
University of Florida, Lake Alfred.
Petracek, P. D., L. Montalvo, H. Dou, and C. Davis. 1998. Postharvest pitting
of ‘Fallglo’ tangerine. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 123:130-135.
Ritenour, M. A. and E. Stover. 1999. Effects of gibberellic acid on the harvest
and storage quality of Florida citrus fruit. Proc. Fla. State. Hort. Soc.
112:122-125.
Ritenour, M. A. and E. Stover. 1999. Effects of gibberellic acid on the harvest
and storage quality of Florida citrus fruit. Proc. Fla. State. Hort. Soc.
112:122-125.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 118: 2005.