Advertisement

Erwerbs-Obstbau

, Volume 60, Supplement 1, pp 47–53 | Cite as

Berry Growth and Biochemical Characteristics of cv. Trakya Ilkeren (V. vinifera L.) as Influenced by Various Doses of Pre-Harvest Hydrogen Peroxide and Phenylalanine Applications

  • Demir KokEmail author
Original Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Uneven grape ripening, leading to decreases economic valued of grapes is one of the main problems faced by grape growers in early table grape growing. In recent years, there has been increasing concern about improving of fruit quality in fruit crops. Among the various quality improvement methods, different types of foliar compounds are used for this purpose and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and phenylalanine (Phe) can be given as examples to some of these chemicals. This research was carried out during the 2015 growing season by using early ripening table grape cv. Trakya Ilkeren. In the study, it was assessed that how different doses of hydrogen peroxide (0, 10, 20 and 40 mM) and phenylalanine (0, 1, 2 and 4 mM) affected physical and biochemical properties of cv. Trakya Ilkeren. In terms of physical properties, doses of hydrogen peroxide and phenylalanine had only significant effects on grape firmness and cluster length. The best results were obtained from 4 mM Phe application (6.76 N) in grape firmness and were obtained from applications of 10, 20 and 40 mM H2O2 (23.66, 23.86 and 23.99 cm) and applications of 1, 2, and 4 mM Phe (23.95, 24.46 and 24.88 cm) in cluster length. However, most of biochemical properties were considerably affected by doses of hydrogen peroxide and phenylalanine except for juice pH and p-value. It was recorded that the highest total phenolic compounds contents varied from 3571.28 (10 mM H2O2) to 3871.22 mg GAE kg−1 fw (40 mM H2O2) compared to 0 mM application (2591.48 mg GAE kg−1 fw). In terms of total anthocyanin content, the highest mean was recorded for 4 mM Phe application (330.56 mg GAE kg−1 fw) than 0 mM application (168.79 mg GAE kg−1 fw). As a result, 4 mM Phe application particularly improved the most of biochemical properties in cv. Trakya Ilkeren.

Keywords

Vitis vinifera L. Early ripening table grape Uneven ripening Grape quality Quality enhancers 

Traubenwachstum und biochemische Eigenschaften der Tafeltraubensorte ‘Trakya Ilkeren’ (V. vinifera L.) nach Vorernte-Behandlungen mit verschiedenen Konzentrationen von Wasserstoffperoxid und Phenylalanin

Schlüsselwörter

Vitis vinifera L. Frühreifende Tafeltrauben Ungleichmäßige Abreife Traubenqualität Qualitätsverbesserung 

Notes

Conflict of interest

D. Kok declares that he has no competing interests.

References

  1. Anonymous (2014) Food and agriculture organization of the united nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Accessed 3 May 2017Google Scholar
  2. Arora R (2010) Medicinal plant biotechnology. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avila MR, Braccini AL, Scapim CA, Albrecht LP, Tonin TA, Stülp M (2008) Bioregulator application, agronomic efficiency and quality of soybean seeds. Sci Agric 65(6):604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dai ZW, Ollat N, Nomes E (2011) Ecophysiological, genetic and molecular causes of variation in grape berry weight and composition. A review. Am J Enol Vitic 62:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Stefano R, Cravero MC (1991) Metodi per lo studio deipolifenolidell’uva. Riv Vitiolt Enol 2:37–45Google Scholar
  6. Gajewski M, Szymczak P, Elkner K (2007) Some aspects of nutritive and biological value of carrot cultivars with orange, yellow and purple-colored roots. Veg Crop Res Bull 67:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldammer T (2015) The grape gower’s handbook. A guide to viticulture for wine production, 2nd edn. Apex Publishers, CentrevilleGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoffmann M (1991) Elektrochemische Merkmale zur Differenzierung von Lebensmitteln. In: Meier-Ploeger A, Vogtmann H (eds) Deukalion. Lebensmittelqualitat – Ganzheitliche Methoden und Konzepte – Alternative Konzepte, vol 66. CF Müller, Karlsruhe, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  9. Ismail SZ, Khandaker MM, Mat N, Boyce AN (2015) Effect of hydrogen peroxide on growth, development and quality of fruits: A review. J Agron 14(4):331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keppel H (1998) Measurability of the biological quality of apples by means of p‑value as dependent on different fertilizes. Obstbau Weinbau 35(7):259–261Google Scholar
  11. Kok D (2011) Influences of pre- and post-verasion cluster thinning treatments on grape composition variables and monoterpene levels of Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Sauvignon Blanc. J Food Agric Environ 9(1):22–26Google Scholar
  12. Kok D (2016a) Variation in total phenolic compounds, anthocyanin and monoterpene content of ‘Muscat Hamburg’ table grape variety (V. vinifera L.) as affected by cluster thinning and early and late period basal leaf removal treatments. Erwerb Obstbau 58(4):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kok D (2016b) Effects of foliar seaweed and humic acid treatments on monoterpene profile and biochemical properties of cv. Riesling berry (V. vinifera L.) throughout the maturation period. J Tekirdag Agricult Fac 13(2):67–74Google Scholar
  14. Kok D (2017) Assesment of electrochemical attribute and monoterpene content of twelve aromatic grape cultivars (V. vinifera L.) grown ecological conditions of northwestern Turkey. Oxid Commun 40(1-II):557–564Google Scholar
  15. Kok D, Bal E (2017) Electrochemical properties and biochemical composition of cv. Shiraz wine grape (V. vinifera L.) depending on various dose and application time of foliar microbial fertilizer treatment. Erwerb Obstbau.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-017-0319-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kok D, Bal E, Celik S, Ozer C, Karauz A (2010) The influences of different seaweed doses on table quality characteristics of cv. Trakya Ilkeren (Vitis vinifera L.). Bulg J Agric Sci 16(4):429–435Google Scholar
  17. Kok D, Bal E, Celik S (2013) Influences of various canopy management techniques on wine grape quality of V. vinifera L. cv. Kalecik Karası. Bulg J Agric Sci 19(6):1247–1252Google Scholar
  18. Nile SH, Park SW (2014) Edible berries: Bioactive compounds and their effect on human health. Nutrition 30:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Portu J, Lopez R, Baroja E, Santamaria P, Garde-Cerdan T (2016) Improvement of grape and wine phenolic content by foliar application to grapevine of three different elicitors: Methyl jasmonate, chitosan and yeast extract. Food Chem 201:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roudot AC (2006) Some consideration for a theory of plant tissue mechanics. Sci Aliments 26:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singleton VL, Timberlake CF, Kea L (1978) The phenolic cinnamates of white grapes and wine. J Sci Food Agric 29:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suman M, Sangma PD, Meghawal DR, Sahu OP (2017) Effect of plant growth regulators on fruit crops. J Pharmacogn Phytochem 6(2):331–337Google Scholar
  23. Winkler A, Cook J, Kliewer W, Lider L (1974) General viticulture. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Zoecklein BW, Fugelsang KC, Gump BH (1999) Wine analysis and production. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zoffoli JP, Latorre BA, Naranjo P (2009) Preharvest applications of growth regulators and their effect on postharvest quality of table grapes during cold storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 51(2):183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural Faculty, Department of HorticultureNamık Kemal UniversityTekirdağTurkey

Personalised recommendations