Final SPH -JHS Coverpage 17-1 Jan 2022 single 147 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION The mango is the national fruit of India and is a highly popular among the ma sses owing to its excellent flavour, delicious taste, delicate fragrance a nd a ttr a ctive colour. Ina dequa te postha r vest handling and management cause major losses in nutr itiona l a nd qua lity a ttr ibut es, pa thogenic outbreaks, and economical losses all along the supply chain, from farm to fork. Fresh mangoes are per isha ble in na tur e tha t r equir e c oor dina ted activity by growers, storage operators, processors, a nd r eta iler s to ma inta in qua lit y a nd r edu ce wastage. In mango, major postharvest losses are due to the loss of quality in terms of firmness, high physiological weight loss and spoilage. In spite of the highest production, India contributes a small share of less than 5% in export market due to its postharvest losses. About 20–30% of the fruits grown in India are lost due to improper handling practices (NHB, 2018). However, It is a climacteric fruit, the upsurge in respiration rate after harvesting becomes faster which shortens the shelf life. The shelf life reduction due to rapid fruit ripening, senescence attack of biotic and abiotic stresses (Zhu et al. 2013). The researchers made a ttempts to extend the shelf life and to reduce spoilage of fruit viz. edible coating (Ali et al. 2011), modifed or c ont r olled a tmos p her e s tor a ge ( M a r t ins a nd Resende 2015), low temperature storage (Aghdam and Bodbodak, 2013), application of fungicides (Sripong et al. 2015), and hot water treatment. S omet imes , du e t o r edu c ed ox yge n level in controlled atmospheric storage develops off-flavor in fruits. There is lacking in availability of storage facilities viz. controlled atmospheric storage and modified atmospheric storage at farmers in India and setting up infrastructures for advanced storage facilities is ver y costly. Also, a cold chain to Effect of various pre-harvest treatments on shelf life and morphological characteristics of fruits of mango (Mangifera indica L.) var. ‘Amrapali’ Vishwakarma P.K.*, Masu M.M. and Singh S. Department of Horticulture, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand 388110, Gujarat, India *Corresponding author E-mail : pradeepkumar5953@gmail.com ABSTRACT The mango is considered as ‘king of fruits’ in India due to its delicious taste and nutritional status. Extension of fruit shelf life is a prime importance for availability of fresh fruit in market for longer duration and distance transportation. India is the largest producer and a prominent exporter of mango in the world.In this context, the study was conducted to evaluate the effect of preharvest spray of different chemicals and plant growth regulators (PGRs) on mango var. ‘Amrapali’ for shelf life and its quality. As ‘Amrapali’ has regular bearer with very good flavor and taste with a late maturing character, selected for shelf life studies. The fruits of mango weresprayed with chemicals viz. CaCl2 1%, CaCl2 2%, Ca(NO3)2 1%, Ca(NO3)2 2%, KNO3 1%, KNO3 2%, GA3 25 mg/l, GA3 50 mg/l, Ethrel 0.1 ml/l and Ethrel 0.2 ml/l prior to harvest. After harvesting, fruits were stored under ambient storage condition. Among all the treatments, GA3 25 mg/l treatment recorded significantly highest fruit length, fruit diameter, fruit volume and fruit weight at harvest and at fully ripe stage. Application of CaCl2 2% resulted in significantly minimum physiological loss in weight consistently from 2nd day to 16th day of storage besides significantly highest shelf life and quality. Hence, this intervention can contribute in preserving physical and chemical quality attributes for maximum acceptance by consumers. Keywords: CaCl2, GA3, pre-harvest, PGRs and storage 148 Vishwakarma et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 manage the time–temperature conditions is adequate f or t he p r e s er va t ion a nd t r a ns p or t a t ion of perishables in the proper temperature range to slow down the biological decay processes and deliver safe and high-quality produce to consumers is a lacuna. Hence, preharvest spray of chemicals are very economical to extend the shelf life of fruits. P ot a s s iu m p la ys a n imp or t a n t r ole in photosynthesis, synthesis of carbohydrates, oils, f a t s a nd pr oteins. I t is a lso involved in the transportation of photosynthates towards the sink and enhances the production of protein (Lu et al., 2016). Potassium is an important nutrient for fruit weight and quality. Potassium is required for the pr oduction a nd tr a nspor t of pla nt sugar s tha t increase the weight of fruit (Jaiswal et al. 2021). Ethrel releases ethylene gas, influences the growth and development of fruits. Ethrel is responsible for early development of many fruits characterized by a high rate of ethylene evolution and hastens the ripening process with uniform colour development (Dhillon, 2013). Calcium is known to be essential plant nutrient involved in a number of physiological processes concerning membrane structure, function and enzyme activity (Jones and Lunt, 1967). It has received considerable attention in recent years due to its desirable effects in delaying ripening and senescence, increasing firmness, reduce respiration, extending storage life and reducing the incidence of physiological disorders and storage rots. Preharvest application of these compounds hinders the fruit r ipening wit hout a ffecting the edible qua lity. Preharvest application of CaCl2 extends the shelf life and restrict the microbial infection without any detrimental effect and protects against post-harvest deterioration and extend shelf life (Saure, 2005). Gibberellic acid has been found to enhance the fruit size, increase the yield, and improve the physico- c hemic a l c h a r a c t er is t ic s of f r u it s t hr ou gh modification of va rious physiological and bio- chemical pr ocesses (Pandey and Sinha , 2013). Gibberellic acid in proper concentration and at appropriate time have been found to better results in fruits quality, yield, size, decrease fruit drop, incr easing sugar content, improve the physico- chemical characteristics and extend the post-harvest life of fr uits thr ough modifica tion of va r ious physiological and bio-chemical processes of plant (Pandey and Sinha, 2013). Gibberellins have been useful in enhancing fruit retention and improving the size and quality of fruits. Further, gibberellic a c id ha s a nti- senesc ent pr oper ty a nd help in maintaining cell wa ll integr ation and prevents growth of pathogen in the fruits and extend shelf life (Prasad, 2006). Being a climacteric fruit, weight loss increases r a pidly dur ing stor a ge per iod due to surge in respiration rate and transpiration process. However, it can be minimized by supplementary application of chemicals and plant growth regulators on fruits for maintaining fruit quality and extending their shelf life (Vishwakarma and Masu, 2018; Bisen and Thakur, 2012). Now a day, the mango va riety ‘Amrapali’ grown commercially throughout the country because of its dwarf stature. It has very good fla vor, ta s t e a nd high in vit a mins a nd carotenoids content as compared to other verities of mango with a late maturing character, selected for shelf life studies.Considering these points, the present study was designed to study the effect of preharvest spray of different chemicals and plant growth regulators on shelf life extension of mango fruits under ambient storage condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experiment was conducted at Horticultural Resea r ch Fa r m a nd Postgr a dua te La bor a tor y, Department of Horticulture, Bansilal Amrutlal College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand during summer season of the year 2016. The climate of Anand region is semi-arid and sub-tropical type. The temperature was in the range of 25 to 40 oC with 52 to 73 % relative humidity during experiment time in the month of June, 2016. There were eleven treatments embedded in Completely Randomized Design replica ted thr ice. Thirty-three unifor m sizedfourteen-year old trees of mango var. ‘Amrapali’ were selected and preharvest sprayed with different chemicals (CaCl2 1 %, CaCl2 2 %, Ca(NO3)2 1 %, Ca(NO3)2 2 %, KNO3 1 %, KNO3 2 %), Ethrel 0.1 ml/l and Ethrel 0.2 ml/l) along with control at twenty days before anticipated date of harvest while, GA3 25 mg/l and GA3 50 mg/l were sprayed at marble stage. Mature and uniform sized ten fruits per replication were harvested from the representative trees and kept in ambient storage condition (32±1 oC). When the outer layer of fruits starts to spoil like discoloration, shr iveling a nd visible sign of biotic spoila ge 149 Effect of various pre-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango (anthracnose) considered as end of shelf life and noted as spoiled (Rahman et al., 2007). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Effect of preharvest treatments on physical parameters of mango fruit The fruit size is an important consideration for consumer preference. The effect of treatments on fruit size viz. length and diameter were found to be significant at harvest as well as at fully ripe stage (Table 1). The fruit length (10.20 cm) at harvest stage was found significantly maximum with GA3 25 mg/l treatment followed by the treatments of KNO31 %, Ethrel 0.2 ml/l, GA3 50 mg/l, Ca(NO3)2 1% and 2% while at fully ripe stage significantly maximum fruit length l (10.16 cm) was recorded with GA3 25 mg/ followed by treatments of Ethrel 0.2 ml/l, GA3 50 mg/ l, Ca(NO3)2 1% and 2%. The maximum fruit diameter (6.16 cm) at harvest stage was found significant in treatment of GA3 25 mg/l and Ca(NO3)2 1% followed by Ca(NO3)2 2%, CaCl2 1%, GA3 50 mg/l, Ethrel 0.1 ml/l, KNO3 2% while, at fully ripe stage after storage under ambient condition the diameter of fruits (6.14 cm) was found significantly maximum in treatment of GA3 25 mg/l followed by Ca(NO3)2 1% and 2%, GA3 50 mg/l, Ethrel 0.1 ml/l and KNO3 2%. The significant effect of treatments was found on fruit volume at harvest as well as at fully ripe stage. Preharvest sprayed with GA3 25 mg/l reported significantly highest fruit volume (150.54 cc) at harvest followed by KNO3 1% and at fully ripe stage (fruit volume - 130.62 cc) also found maximum in treatments of GA3 25 mg/l followed by KNO3 1% and Ethrel 0.2 ml/l under ambient storage condition (Table 1). The fruit weight was significantly influenced by various chemicals and plant growth regulators at everyday up to last ripening stage. Application of GA3 25 mg/l depicted significantly maximum fruit weight (170.50 g) at harvest and consistently up to 16th day of storage period under ambient condition as compared to rest of the treatments (Table 2). The lowest fruit weight, length, diameter and volume were recorded in the control at both the stages i.e. at harvest and fully ripe stage. The fruit size of mango was greatly influenced by different treatments of chemicals. In comparison to all treatments gibberellic acid influenced significantly in terms of fruit weight, volume, length and diameter. It Table 1. Effect of preharvest treatments on fruit length (cm.), fruit volume (cc.) and fruit diameter (cm.) in mango fruit var. ‘Amrapali’. Treatments Fruit length (cm) Fruit diameter (cm) Fruit volume (cc) At At fully At At fully At At fully harvest ripening harvest ripening harvest ripening stage stage stage T1: CaCl2 1 % 9.45 cde 9.41cd 6.05ab 6.02ab 126.33de 101.58de T2: CaCl2 2 % 9.27 de 9.25d 5.53c 5.50cd 124.61e 104.16cd T3: Ca(NO3)2 1% 9.83 abc 9.80abc 6.13a 6.08ab 127.87cde 104.12cd T4: Ca(NO3)2 2% 9.80 abc 9.77abc 6.06ab 6.04ab 133.73c 111.29b T5: KNO3 1 % 10.05 ab 10.01ab 5.44cd 5.41de 148.88ab 129.95a T6: KNO3 2 % 9.65 bcd 9.62bcd 5.90ab 5.87ab 123.10e 98.22e T7: Ethrel 0.1 ml/l 9.25 e 9.21d 5.95ab 5.93ab 115.43f 101.43de T8: Ethrel 0.2 ml/l 9.99 ab 9.96ab 5.82b 5.78bc 142.23b 126.33a T9: GA3 25 mg/l 10.20 a 10.16a 6.16a 6.14a 150.54a 130.62a T10: GA3 50 mg/l 9.85 abc 9.82abc 5.96ab 5.93ab 131.88cd 107.42bc T11: Control 8.32 f 8.29e 5.23d 5.21e 101.02g 77.73f SEm± 0.123 0.126 0.089 0.089 2.112 1.612 C.D. 0.364 0.373 0.264 0.262 6.234 4.758 C. V. % 2.223 2.284 2.653 2.648 2.822 2.574 Note: Treatment means with the letter/letters in common are not significantly different by Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test at 5 % level of significance. J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 150 Ta bl e 2. E ff ec t of p re ha rv es t tr ea tm en ts o n fr ui t w ei gh t (g ) of m an go v ar . ‘ A m ra pa li’ . T re at m en ts F ru it w ei gh t (g ) in s to ra ge a t am bi en t co nd it io n (D ay s) A t ha rv es t 2n d 3r d 4t h 5t h 6t h 7t h 8t h 9t h 10 th 11 th 12 th 13 th 14 th 15 th 16 th T 1: C aC l 2 1 % 13 7. 7e 13 4. 64 de 13 2. 45 fg 12 9. 93 f g 12 8. 54 ef 12 6. 57 ef 12 5. 08 ef 12 2. 32 ef 12 1. 44 ef 12 0. 03 ef 11 7. 27 f g 11 5. 05 f g 11 3. 63 cd 11 2. 01 ef 11 0. 94 cd 10 8. 30 de T 2: C aC l 2 2 % 13 8. 1e 13 6. 28 d 13 4. 32 ef 13 2. 25 ef g 13 0. 23 ef 12 8. 85 de f 12 7. 43 de f 12 5. 36 de f 12 3. 95 de f 12 2. 29 de 12 0. 92 d ef 11 7. 91 ef 11 5. 11 cd 11 3. 70 de f 11 2. 17 cd 10 9. 83 cd T 3: C a( N O 3) 2 1% 14 6. 2d 14 3. 68 c 14 1. 53 de 13 9. 13 de 13 5. 99 de 13 3. 98 cd e 13 1. 92 cd e 12 9. 63 cd e 12 7. 69 cd e 12 5. 70 cd e 12 4. 03 cd ef 12 2. 52 cd ef 12 1. 60 bc 11 9. 92 cd e 11 7. 66 c 11 3. 82 cd T 4: C a( N O 3) 2 2% 14 9. 3d 14 6. 78 c 14 4. 72 cd 14 2. 15 cd 14 0. 26 cd 13 7. 51 c d 13 4. 98 cd 13 3. 18 cd 13 1. 38 cd 12 9. 61 cd 12 6. 97 c de 12 5. 35 cd e 12 3. 47 bc 12 1. 87 bc de e 11 9. 17 bc 11 7. 53 cd T 5: K N O 3 1 % 16 4. 4b 16 2. 63 a 15 8. 75 ab 15 6. 05 ab 15 3. 93 ab 15 1. 87 ab 14 7. 80 ab 14 5. 14 ab 14 3. 30 ab 14 1. 33 ab 13 8. 53 a b 13 7. 22 a b 13 4. 76 a 13 2. 54 a b 13 0. 53 a b 12 8. 91 ab T 6: K N O 3 2 % 13 8. 6e 13 5. 89 d 13 4. 52 ef 13 2. 51 ef 13 1. 11 ef 12 9. 58 de f 12 8. 04 de f 12 5. 98 de 12 3. 84 de 12 2. 63 de 11 9. 95 ef 11 8. 77 de f 11 6. 95 bc 11 5. 58 cd e 11 3. 06 c 11 1. 06 cd T 7: E th re l 0 .1 m l/l 13 2. 4f 13 0. 26 e 12 6. 00 gh 12 4. 25 gh 12 2. 97 fg 12 0. 95 fg 11 8. 93 fg 11 6. 65 fg 11 4. 73 fg 11 2. 40 fg 10 9. 76 gh 10 7. 87 gh 10 6. 01 de 10 4. 27 fg 10 1. 73 de 99 .3 6e f T 8: E th re l 0 .2 m l/l 15 8. 4c 15 5. 63 b 15 1. 67 bc 14 7. 57 bc d 14 5. 62 bc 14 3. 27 bc 14 0. 60 bc 13 6. 86 bc 13 4. 51 bc 13 3. 08 bc 13 0. 74 bc 12 8. 89 bc 12 5. 73 ab 12 3. 97 bc d 12 0. 67 bc 11 8. 65 bc d T 9: G A 3 25 m g/ l 17 0. 5a 16 7. 18 a 16 4. 14 a 16 0. 34 a 15 8. 99 a 15 6. 38 a 15 3. 79 a 15 0. 46 a 14 7. 31 a 14 5. 02 a 14 3. 41 a 14 2. 22 a 13 5. 37 a 13 5. 29 a 13 2. 86 a 13 0. 92 a T 10 : G A 3 50 m g/ l 15 5. 8c 15 3. 23 b 15 0. 06 c 14 8. 13 bc 14 5. 59 bc 14 2. 74 bc 14 0. 21 bc 13 7. 18 bc 13 5. 03 b c 13 3. 08 bc 13 0. 54 b cd 12 8. 65 bc d 12 6. 81 ab 12 4. 70 ab c 12 0. 86 bc 11 9. 42 bc T 11 : C on tr ol 12 4. 9g 12 3. 29 f 12 1. 83 h 11 9. 5h 11 6. 9g 11 5. 8g 11 3. 36 g 11 1. 93 g 10 9. 60 g 10 7. 42 g 10 5. 0h 10 3. 9h 10 2. 1e 10 0. 4g 96 .6 5e 96 .0 0f SE m ± 1. 55 0 1. 67 7 2. 28 3 2. 53 3 2. 68 3 2. 75 6 2. 82 8 2. 85 8 2. 91 0 2. 78 4 2. 90 6 2. 96 7 3. 00 5 3. 04 0 3. 44 4 3. 14 4 C .D . 4. 57 5 4. 95 0 6. 73 9 7. 47 8 7. 91 8 8. 13 7 8. 34 7 8. 43 5 8. 59 1 8. 21 7 8. 57 9 8. 75 7 8. 86 9 8. 97 3 10 .1 68 9. 28 0 C . V . % 1. 82 6 2. 01 0 2. 78 8 3. 15 1 3. 38 4 3. 53 0 3. 68 5 3. 79 5 3. 92 5 3. 80 8 4. 05 0 4. 19 2 4. 33 1 4. 44 9 5. 14 2 4. 77 7 N ot e: T re at m en t m ea ns w ith th e le tte r/ le tte rs in c om m on a re n ot s ig ni fic an tly d iff er en t by D un ca n’ s N ew M ul tip le R an ge T es t a t 5 % le ve l o f si gn ifi ca nc e. Vishwakarma et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 151 might be due to the involvement of gibberellic acid in promoting cell elongation and cell enlargement of fruit (Jagtap et al. 2013; Lal et al. 2013). As, GA3 level in developing cell is low, the exogenous application of GA3 helps to increase its level in different parts of the fruits, which ultimately helps its growth. The cell elongation stimulated by exogenous gibberellins through altering the rheological properties of the cell wall; as a consequence, the water potential of the cell is lowered allowing for water uptake and greater accumulation of food materials and therefore an increase in cell volume (Derbyshire et al., 2007; Brahmachari and Rani, 2000). In the present study, results of GA3 sprays are in line with those reported by El-Sese (2005) where Balady mandarin trees sprayed with GA3 resulted in increased yield as of increased fruit weight, length and diameter. The results are also supported by Mostafa et al. (2001) on pear and ElSharkawy and Mehaisen (2005) on guava. Marschner (1986) indicated that application of GA3 and/or IAA on higher plants caused elongation in the primary cells in the young tissues and growth centers. The bigger size and good quality fruits was also observed in plum by González-Rossia et al. (2006), Bhomick and Banik (2011) in mango and Singh et al. (2009) & Katiyar et al. (2008) in guava. Effect of preharvest treatments on storage studies Ther e wer e significant differ ences observed in physiological loss in weight due to various preharvest treatments of fruits from harvest to everyday up to 16th day (Table 3). Among the treatments, CaCl2 2 % consistently r ecor ded significa ntly minimum physiological loss in weight of fruits (1.12 % to 19.91%) from 2nd day to 16th day of storage period respectively, it was found on par with KNO3 (2%). The significant effect of various treatments was observed on shelf life of mango fruit during storage periods and CaCl2 2 % was found most effective treatment for extending the shelf life. After storage at a mbient temper atur e Ca Cl 2 2 % was recor ded significantly maximum shelf life (16. 60 da ys) compared to rest of the treatments (Fig. 1) while Ethrel treated fruits were recorded lowest shelf life. There was a significant difference observed in the marketable fruit percentage and spoilage of the fruits during storage under ambient condition. The treatments were significantly influenced at harvest and everyday up to last ripening stage (Table 4). There were 100 % marketable fruits and no spoilage in fruits was recorded in all the treatments up to 12th day of storage periods. Significantly maximum marketable fruit percentage (90.93%) and minimum spoilage (9.07%) were found in treatment of CaCl2 2 % followed by CaCl21% at 13 th and 14th day of storage. Significantly maximum marketable fruit percentage and minimum spoilage were found in treatment of CaCl2 2 %, CaCl21%, GA325 mg/l & 50 mg/l after 15 th day of storage under ambient condition. Treatment with CaCl2 2 %, a lso r ecor ded significa ntly highest marketable fruit percentage and minimum spoilage at 16th day of storage followed by treatment of GA325 mg/l and 50 mg/l. Moisture content of the fruits is an impor ta nt consideration for its freshness and stability to the storage for a longer duration. The physiological loss in weight in mango fruits was tended to increase during the storage irrespective of the treatments. This could be due to increased moisture loss and enhanced shriveling (Lata et al. 2017). Fruits sprayed with CaCl2 2 % retained the minimum physiological loss in weight and spoilage per cent and maximum shelf life & marketable fruit per cent as compared to rest of the treatments. As calcium is known to increase fruit cell wall turgidity, serves as a semipermeable membrane, it is also supposed to reduce water diffusion over the fruit cuticle to reduce the differences in osmotic potential, which slows down the evapotranspiration a nd r espir a tion r a te in fr uits due to r educ ed endogenou s s ubs tr a te c a ta bolism a nd a lter ed membra ne permeability (Ver cesi et al., 2018). Higher concentrations of CaCl2 might be require for the dr iving for ce f or wa ter diffusion, a nd to (T1: CaCl2 1%, T2: CaCl2 2 %, T3: Ca(NO3)2 1%, T4: Ca(NO3)2 2%, T5: KNO3 1 %, T6: KNO3 2 %, T7: Ethrel 0.1 ml/l, T8: Ethrel 0.2 ml/l, T9: GA3 25 mg/l, T10: GA3 50 mg/l and T11: Control) Fig. 1. Effect of preharvest treatments on shelf life (days) of mango var. ‘Amrapali’. Effect of various pre-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 152 Ta bl e 3. E ff ec t of p re ha rv es t tr ea tm en ts o n ph ys io lo gi ca l l os s in w ei gh t (% )o f fr ui t of m an go v ar . ‘ A m ra pa li’ T re at m en ts St or ag e pe ri od ( D ay s) 2n d 3r d 4t h 5t h 6t h 7t h 8t h 9t h 10 th 11 th 12 th 13 th 14 th 15 th 16 th T 1: C aC l 2 1 % 2. 24 a 3. 85 c 5. 68 c 6. 68 de 8. 11 bc d 9. 19 b 11 .2 2b c 11 .8 5c 12 .8 5d 14 .8 7d 16 .4 8b c 17 .5 1c de 18 .6 8d ef 19 .4 7c d 21 .3 8c d T 2: C aC l 22 % 1. 12 f 2. 13 h 4. 33 g 5. 43 h 6. 53 g 7. 66 c 9. 15 d 10 .2 6d 11 .4 7e 12 .4 4e 14 .3 5d 15 .6 6f 16 .6 6g 18 .4 8d 19 .9 1e T 3: C a( N O 3) 21 % 1. 76 d 3. 23 e 4. 87 de 7. 02 bc 8. 40 bc 9. 80 b 11 .3 7b c 12 .6 9b c 14 .0 5b c 15 .1 9c d 16 .2 2c 16 .8 5d ef 18 .0 0e fg 19 .5 5c d 22 .1 8b c T 4: C a( N O 3) 22 % 1. 68 d 3. 10 e 4. 81 ef 6. 07 f 7. 90 cd 9. 62 b 10 .8 2b c 12 .0 1c 13 .1 9c d 14 .9 5c d 16 .0 4c 17 .3 0c de 18 .3 6e f 20 .1 8c 21 .2 9c d T 5: K N O 31 % 1. 97 b 3. 48 d 5. 12 d 6. 41 e 7. 66 de 10 .1 3b 11 .7 4b 12 .8 7b c 14 .6 4b 15 .7 7b cd 16 .5 6b c 18 .0 6c de 19 .4 1c de 20 .6 3c 21 .6 2c d T 6: K N O 3 2 % 2. 06 c 2. 72 f 4. 42 g 5. 71 g 6. 71 fg 7. 74 c 9. 24 d 10 .6 8d 11 .5 6e 13 .5 0e 14 .6 2d 16 .6 5e f 17 .6 7f g 18 .7 8d 20 .4 7d e T 7: E th re l 0 .1 m l/l 1. 63 ab 4. 83 a 6. 16 b 7. 13 b 8. 66 b 10 .1 8b 11 .9 0b 13 .3 5b 15 .1 2a b 17 .1 1a b 18 .5 3a 19 .9 5a b 21 .2 6a b 23 .1 8a b 24 .9 7a T 8: E th re l 0 .2 m l/l 1. 81 cd 4. 31 b 6. 90 a 8. 13 a 9. 60 a 11 .2 9a 13 .6 5a 15 .1 3a 16 .0 4a 17 .5 2a 18 .6 9a 20 .6 8a 21 .7 9a 23 .8 8a 25 .1 6a T 9: G A 32 5 m g/ l 2. 00 bc 3. 79 c 6. 02 b 6. 82 cd 8. 35 bc 9. 86 b 11 .8 1b 13 .6 6b 15 .0 0a b 15 .9 4b cd 16 .6 4b c 18 .7 0b c 20 .7 0a bc 22 .1 2b 23 .2 5b T 10 : G A 35 0 m g/ l 1. 70 d 3. 74 c 4. 98 de 6. 60 de 8. 43 b c 10 .0 6b 11 .9 9b 13 .3 7b 14 .6 3b 16 .2 5a bc 17 .4 7b 18 .6 5b c 20 .0 4b cd 22 .4 8b 23 .4 1b T 11 : C on tr ol 1. 30 e 2. 35 g 4. 57 fg 6. 42 e 7. 25 ef 9. 25 b 10 .4 0c 12 .2 6c 13 .9 9b c 15 .9 3b cd 16 .7 7b c 18 .2 0c d 19 .5 9b cd e 22 .6 3a b 23 .1 4b SE m ± 0. 05 9 0. 05 2 0. 07 9 0. 09 2 0. 19 0 0. 30 3 0. 37 5 0. 31 2 0. 35 2 0. 40 4 0. 29 9 0. 44 9 0. 50 0 0. 38 4 0. 42 7 C .D . 0. 17 5 0. 15 5 0. 23 2 0. 27 3 0. 56 2 0. 89 3 1. 10 6 0. 92 0 1. 03 8 1. 19 1 0. 88 2 1. 32 5 1. 47 5 1. 13 4 1. 26 0 C . V . % 5. 86 2. 65 9 2. 58 5 2. 43 3 4. 13 7 5. 50 2 5. 79 1 4. 30 1 4. 39 1 4. 53 8 3. 12 2 4. 31 5 4. 48 6 3. 16 3 3. 29 5 N ot e: T re at m en t m ea ns w ith th e le tte r/ le tte rs in c om m on a re n ot s ig ni fic an tly d iff er en t by D un ca n’ s N ew M ul tip le R an ge T es t a t 5 % le ve l o f si gn ifi ca nc e. Vishwakarma et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 153 Table 4. Effect of preharvest treatments on marketable fruit (%) and spoilage fruit (%) of mango var. ‘Amrapali’ Marketable fruit (%) Spoilage fruit (%) Treatments Storage period (Days) Storage period (Days) 1 to 1 to 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th T1: CaCl2 1 % 100 90.10 ab 76.67b 54.41a 42.40b 00 9.90fg 23.33d 45.59c 57.60e T2: CaCl2 2 % 100 90.93 a 79.55a 56.63 a 45.16a 00 9.07g 20.45e 43.37c 54.84f T3: Ca(NO3)2 1% 100 85.87 f 71.95e 42.86 bc 36.43c 00 14.13b 28.05b 57.14ab 63.57d T4: Ca(NO3)2 2% 100 86.56 ef 73.99cd 44.11bc 34.40cd 00 13.44bc 26.0c 55.89ab 65.60cd T5: KNO3 1 % 100 87.04 def 73.44de 42.48 c 32.34de 00 12.96bcd 26.56bc 57.52a 67.66bc T6: KNO3 2 % 100 86.84 def 73.81cd 45.45b 33.68d 00 13.16bcd 26.19c 54.55b 66.32c T7: Ethrel 0.1 ml/l 100 86.18 ef 74.35cd 43.15bc 30.63ef 00 13.82bc 25.65c 56.85ab 69.37ab T8: Ethrel 0.2 ml/l 100 88.22 cd 75.12bc 43.05bc 30.00f 00 11.78de 24.88cd 56.95ab 70.00a T9: GA3 25 mg/l 100 87.50 de 74.51cd 56.26a 43.10ab 00 12.50cd 25.49c 43.74c 56.91ef T10: GA3 50 mg/l 100 89.15 bc 76.66b 56.55a 43.59ab 00 10.85ef 23.34d 43.45c 56.41ef T11: Control 100 80.14 g 68.03f 43.42bc 30.91ef 00 19.86a 31.97a 56.58ab 69.09ab SEm± 0.437 0.503 0.822 0.684 0.437 0.503 0.822 0.684 C.D. 1.290 1.484 2.426 2.020 1.290 1.484 2.426 2.020 C. V. % 0.869 1.171 2.964 3.238 5.887 3.398 2.740 1.870 Note: Treatment means with the letter/letters in common are not significantly different by Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test at 5 % level of significance. strengthen the walls of epidermal cells that might had resulted in improved resistance to the fruit cell degradation, when the cells meet free flow of water (Sekse, 1997). Preharvest spray of CaCl2 restricts the microbial infection without any detrimental effec t, ma inta ins cell turgor a nd dela ys lipid peroxidation, thereby extending shelf life of fruits ( S a u r e, 2 0 0 5 ) . T he c a lc iu m c omp ou nds significantly thickened the middle lamella of fruit cells owing to increa sed deposition of calcium pectate and thereby maintained the cell wall rigidity which inhibits the penetr a tion a nd spr ea d of pathogens in fruits (Gupta et al. 1987). This could be one of the reasons for reduction in physiological loss in weight and biotic and abiotic spoilage during storage under ambient condition for 2% calcium chloride treated mango fruits. The similar view of results was also reported in persimmon cv. Karaj (Bagheri et al. (2015), in pear cv. Leconte (Sajid et al., 2014), in papaya (Lata et al., 2018; Yadav and Varu, 2013; Ramkrishna et al., 2001), in plum (Kirmani et al., 2013), in mango(Bhusan et al., 2015; Karemera et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2012) and ber (Jawandhaet al., 2009; Yadav et al., 2009) for physiological loss in weight, shelf life and r edu ce spoila ge du r ing a mb ient st or a ge a fter calcium treatments. CONCLUSION Quality evaluation and maintenance is must to be realized in all segments as consumer s will not a cc ep t a pr oduc t when it does not ha ve the requirements or desired quality attributes that may cause major impact on the commercialization chain, especially exportation.The results obtained from present investigation concluded that, GA3 25 mg/l treatment found better in response to improve the physical charactertics of fruit like fruit length, fruit diameter, fruit volume and fruit weight during storage period. Whereas, application of CaCl2 2% effectively improved the shelf life of fruits and marketable fruit percentage while, minimizing the physiological loss in weight and spoilage percentage of fruits under ambient storage condition. The study Effect of various pre-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 154 shows that preharvest spray of calcium chloride is eco-safe and could be done for improving shelf life of mango fruits for better marketability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors gratefully thankful for the facility provided by the Anand Agricultural University,Anand, India during the course of this investigation. REFERENCES Aghdam, M.S. and Bodbodak, S. 2013. Postharvest hea t tr eatment for mitigation of chilling inju r y in f r u it s a nd vege t a b les . Fo o d Bioprocess Tech., 7:37–53. Ali, A. , M uha mma d, M. T. M. , Sija m, K. a nd Siddiqui, Y. 2011. Effect of chitosan coatings on the physicochemica l characteristics of Eksotika II papaya (Carica papaya L.) fruit during cold storage. Food Chem., 124:620– 626. Bagheri, M., Esna -Asha ri, M. and Ershadi, A. 2015. Effect of postharvest calcium chloride treatment on the storage life and quality of persimmon fruits (Diospyros kaki thunb.) cv. ‘ K a r a j’ . I n t . J . H o r t i c . S c i . Te c h n o l . , 2(1):15–26. Bhowmick, N. and Banik, B.C. 2011. Influence of pr e-ha r vest foliar a pplica tion of growth regulators and micronutrients on mango cv. Himsagar. Indian J. Hortic., 68(1):103-107. Bhusan, L.P., Panda, C. and Dash, A.K. 2015. Effect of pre-harvest chemical treatments and mu lc hing on ma r ket a b ilit y of ma ngo (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Amrapali. J. Crop Weed, 11(1):216-219. Bisen, S. and Thakur, R.S. 2012. Beneficial effects of pre-harvest application calcium nitrate and gibber ellic acid on stora ge beha viour of gua va fr uits. JNKVV Research Journal , 46(3):322-327. Brahmachari, V.S. and Rani, R. 2000. Effect of growth substances on fruit drop, yield and physico-chemical composition of litchi fruits. Prog. Hortic., 32(1):50-55. Derbyshire, P., McCann, M.C. and Roberts, K. 2 0 0 7 . R es t r ic t ed c ell elon ga t ion in Arabidopsis hypocotyls is associated with a r edu c ed a v er a ge p ec t in es t er if ic a t ion level. BMC Plant Biol., 7(1):1-12. Dhillon, W.S. 2013. Fruit Production in India. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, p 383. El-Sese, A.M.A. 2005. Effect of gibberellic acid (GA3) on yield and fruit characteristics of Balady mandarin. Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 36(1): 23-35. El-Sharkawy, S.M. and Mehaisen, S.M. 2005. Effect of gibberellin and potassium foliage sprays on productivity and fruit quality of guava trees. Egypt J. Appl. Sci., 20(3):151-162. González-Rossia, D., Juan, M., Reig, C. and Agusti, M. 2006. The inhibition of flowering by means of gibberellic acid application reduces the cost of hand thinning in Japanese plums (Prunus salicina Lindl.). Sci. Hortic., 110(4):319-323. Gupta, O.P., Siddiqui, S. and Chauhan, K.S. 1987. Evaluation of various calcium compounds for increasing the shelf life of ber. Indian J. Agric. Res., 21:65-70. Jagtap, V.M., Patel, H.C., Nehete, D.S. and Godage, S.S. 2013. Effect of foliar application of plant growth regulators and micronutrients on yield and quality of acid lime cv. Kagzi (Citrus aurantifolia S.). Asian J. Hort., 8(1):57-59. Jaiswal, V.P., Shukla, S.K., Sharma, L., Singh, I., Pathak, A.D., Nagargade, M. and Masto, E. 2021. Potassium influencing physiological parameters, photosynthesis and sugarcane yield in subtropical India. Sugar Tech., 23(2):343- 359. Jawandha, S.K., Mahajan, B.V.C. and Gill, P.S. 2009. Effect of pre-harvest treatments on the cellulase activity and quality of ber fruit under cold storage conditions. Not. Sci. Biol., 1(1):88. Jones, R.W. and Lunt, O.R. 1967. The function of calcium in plants. Bot. Rev., 33(4):407-426. Karemera, N.U., Mukunda, G.K., Ansar, H. and Ta j, A. 2014. Effect of calcium chloride sp r a ys on r ip ening, s helf-life, p hysic o- c hemic a l p a r a met er s a nd or g a nolep t ic evaluation of mango fruits (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Totapuri. Plant Arch., 14(1):121-124. Vishwakarma et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 155 Effect of various pre-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 K a t iya r, P. N . , S ingh, J . P. , S ing h, P. C . a nd Gangwar, A.P.S. 2008. Effect of preharvest application of plant growth regulators on post-harvest quality of organically grown guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits. Asian J. Hort., 3(2):330-332. Kirmani, S.N., Wani, G.M., Wani, M.S., Ghani, M.Y., Abid, M., Muzamil, S., Raja, H. and Ma lik, A. R . 2013 . Effect of pr eha r vest application of calcium chloride (CaCl2) and Gibber ellic Acid (GA3) a nd Naphthalene Acetic Acid ( NAA) on st or a ge of p lum (Prunus salicina L.) cv. Santa Rosa under ambient storage conditions. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 8(9):812-818. Lal, N., Das, R.P. and Verma, L.R. 2013. Effect of plant growth regulators on flowering and fruit growth of guava (Psidium guajava L.) c v. Alla ha b a d S a f eda . A s i a n J . Hort., 8(1):54-56. Lata, D., Aftab, M.A., Homa, F., Ahmad, M.S. and Siddiqui, M. W. 2018. Effect of eco-sa fe c omp ou nd s on p os t ha r ves t qu a lit y pr eser va tion of pa pa ya (Carica papaya L.). Acta Physiol. Plant., 40(1):1-8. Lu, Z., Lu, J., Pan, Y., Lu, P., Li, X., Cong, R. and Ren, T. 2016. Anatomical variation of mesophyll conducta nce under pota ssium deficiency has a vital role in determining leaf photosynthesis. Plant, Cell Environ., 39(11): 2428-2439. Marschner, H. 1986. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Academic press. London, p. 674. Martins, D.R. and Resende E.D. 2015. External quality and sensory attributes of papaya cv. Golden stor ed u nder difer ent contr olled atmospheres. Postharvest Biol. Technol., 110:40–42. Mostafa, E.A.M., Saleh, M.M. and Abd El-Migeed, M. 2001. Improving Le Conte pear trees productivity by spraying, GA3 and sucrose. Arabb. Univ. J. Agric. Sci., 9(1):373-385. NHB, National Horticulture Board 2018. Indian Ho rti cul ture D at aba se 201 8 . Gu rga on, Haryana. P a ndey, S . N . a nd S inha , B. K . 2 0 1 3 . Pl a n t Physiology (4th ed.). Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Prasad, B. 2006. Effect of PGR’s on bearing and keeping quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Amrapali. Ph.D. thesis, BAU, Ranchi. R a hma n, M . S . 2 0 0 7 . H a n d b o o k o f f o o d preservation. CRC press, p 6-7. Ramakrishna, M., Haribabu, K., Reddy, Y.N. and Purushotham, K. 2001. Effect of pre-harvest application of calcium on physico-chemical cha nges dur ing r ipening a nd st or a ge of papaya. Indian J. Hortic., 58(3):228-231. Sajid, M., Mukhtiar, M., Rab, A., Syed, T.A. and Jan, I. 2014. Infuence of calcium chloride (Ca Cl2) on fr uit qua lity of pea r (Pyr us communis) cv. Le Conte during storage. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 51(1):113–121. Saure, M.C. 2005. Calcium translocation to feshy fruit: its mechanism and endogenous control. Sci. Hortic., 105:65–89. Sekse, L. 1997. Fruit cracking mechanisms in sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.)-a review. In III International Cherry Symposium, 468:637- 648). Singh, A.K., Singh, C.P. and Chauhan, P. 2012. Effect of pre-harvest chemical treatments and mulching on qua lity and marketability of D a s heha r i ma ngo. I n d i a n J . Hortic., 69(4):462-466. Singh, B., Singh, S., Zubair, M. and Chandi, K.S. 2009. Effect of pre-harvest application of nutrients and bio-regulators on fruit quality, yield and post-harvest performance of Sardar guava. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 38:70-71. Sr ipong, K., Jitar eera t, P., Uthaira ta na kij, A., Srilaong, V., Wongs-Aree, C., Tsuyumu, S. and Kato, M. 2015. Efects of hot water, UV- C and modifed coconut oil treatments on supp r ession of a nthr a c nose disea se a nd maintenance of quality in harvested mango cv. ‘Chok-Anan’. J. Food Nutr. Sci., 3(2):1-8. Vercesi, A.E., Castilho, R.F., Kowaltowski, A.J., de O liveir a , H . C . , de S ou z a - P int o, N . C . , 156 Vishwakarma et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(1) : 147-156, 2022 Figueira, T.R. and Busanello, E.N. 2018. Mitochondrial calcium tr anspor t and the r edox na t u r e of t he c a lc iu m- indu c ed membr a ne per mea b ility t r a nsit ion. Free Radic. Biol. Med., 129:1-24. Vishwakarma, P.K. and Masu, M.M. 2018. Effect of p r eha r v es t a p p lic a t ion of diff er ent chemicals and plant growth regulators on biochemical parameters of mango (Mangifera indica L. ) va r. Amr a pa li. Int. J. Ag ric. Sci., 14(1):92-96. Yadav, I., Sharma, R.K., Goyal, R.K. and Siddiqui, S. 2009. Effect of pre-ha rvest spr ays of calcium on the stora ge of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lamk.) cv. Umran. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 38:243-246. Ya dav, L. and Varu, D.K. 2013. Effect of pre harvest and post-harvest dipping of fruits on shelf life and quality of papaya. Asian J. Hort. 8(2):581–587. Zhu, X., Li, X., Chen, W., Lu, W., Mao, J. and Liu, T. 2013. Molecular cloning, characterization and expression analysis of cpcbf2 gene in harvested papaya fruit under temperature stresses. Electron. J. Biotechnol., 16(4):1-10. (Received: 23.04.2021; Revised: 17.09.2021; Accepted: 18.02.2022) 00 A Final SPH -JHS Coverpage First 2 pages.pdf 00 Content and in this issue.pdf 01 Mohan Kumar G N.pdf 02 Meera Pandey.pdf 03 Biradar C.pdf 04 Varalakshmi B.pdf 05 Vijayakumari N.pdf 06 Barik S.pdf 07 Sajid M B.pdf 08 Ranga D.pdf 09 Usha S.pdf 10 Manisha.pdf 11 Amulya R N.pdf 12 Akshatha H J.pdf 13 Adak T.pdf 14 Sujatha S.pdf 15 Gowda P P.pdf 16 Subba S.pdf 17 Dhayalan V.pdf 19 Ahmed S.pdf 20 Vishwakarma P K.pdf 21 Deep Lata.pdf 22 Udaykumar K P.pdf 23 Nayaka V S K.pdf 24 Sahel N A.pdf 25 Bayogan E R V.pdf 26 Rathinakumari A C.pdf 27 Yella Swami C.pdf 28 Saidulu Y.pdf 29 Sindhu S.pdf 30 Neeraj.pdf 31 Sivaranjani R.pdf 32 Rashied Tetteh.pdf 34 Sangeetha G.pdf 35 Shareefa M.pdf 36 Last Pages.pdf