Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 162-168 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science |
| Volume | 141 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2016 |
Abstract
Rain cracking of sweet cherry fruit (Prunus avium L.) may be the result of excessive water uptake and/or of mechanically weak skins. The objectives were to compare mechanical properties of the skins of two cultivars of contrasting cracking susceptibility using biaxial tensile tests. We chose ‘Regina’ as the less-susceptible and ‘Burlat’ as the more-susceptible cultivar. Cracking assays confirmed that cracking was less rapid and occurred at higher water uptake in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Biaxial tensile tests revealed that ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer as indexed by a higher modulus of elasticity (E) and had a higher pressure at fracture (pfracture) than ‘Burlat’. There was little difference in their fracture strains. Repeated loading, holding, and unloading cycles of the fruit skin resulted in corresponding changes in strains. Plotting total strains against the pressure applied for ascending, constant, and descending pressures yielded essentially linear relationships between strain and pressure. Again, ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer than ‘Burlat’ skin. Partitioning total strain into elastic strain and creep strain demonstrated that in both cultivars most strain was accounted for by the elastic component and the remaining small portion by creep strain. Differences in E and pfracture between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ remained even after destroying their plasma membranes by a freeze/thaw cycle. This indicates that differences in skin mechanical properties must be accounted for by differences in the cell walls, not by properties related to cell turgor. Microscopy of skin cross-sections revealed no differences in cell size between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ skins. However, mass of cell walls per unit fresh weight was higher in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Also, the ratio of tangential/radial diameters of epidermal cells was lower in ‘Regina’ (1.86 ± 0.12) than in ‘Burlat’ (2.59 ± 0.15). The results suggest that cell wall physical (and possibly also chemical) properties account for the cultivar differences in skin mechanical properties, and hence in cracking susceptibility.
Keywords
- Epidermis, Hypodermis, Modulus of elasticity, Prunus avium, Strain, Tensile test
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- Genetics
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Horticulture
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, Vol. 141, No. 2, 01.03.2016, p. 162-168.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Mechanical properties of skins of sweet cherry fruit of differing susceptibilities to cracking
AU - Brüggenwirth, Martin
AU - Knoche, Moritz
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - Rain cracking of sweet cherry fruit (Prunus avium L.) may be the result of excessive water uptake and/or of mechanically weak skins. The objectives were to compare mechanical properties of the skins of two cultivars of contrasting cracking susceptibility using biaxial tensile tests. We chose ‘Regina’ as the less-susceptible and ‘Burlat’ as the more-susceptible cultivar. Cracking assays confirmed that cracking was less rapid and occurred at higher water uptake in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Biaxial tensile tests revealed that ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer as indexed by a higher modulus of elasticity (E) and had a higher pressure at fracture (pfracture) than ‘Burlat’. There was little difference in their fracture strains. Repeated loading, holding, and unloading cycles of the fruit skin resulted in corresponding changes in strains. Plotting total strains against the pressure applied for ascending, constant, and descending pressures yielded essentially linear relationships between strain and pressure. Again, ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer than ‘Burlat’ skin. Partitioning total strain into elastic strain and creep strain demonstrated that in both cultivars most strain was accounted for by the elastic component and the remaining small portion by creep strain. Differences in E and pfracture between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ remained even after destroying their plasma membranes by a freeze/thaw cycle. This indicates that differences in skin mechanical properties must be accounted for by differences in the cell walls, not by properties related to cell turgor. Microscopy of skin cross-sections revealed no differences in cell size between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ skins. However, mass of cell walls per unit fresh weight was higher in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Also, the ratio of tangential/radial diameters of epidermal cells was lower in ‘Regina’ (1.86 ± 0.12) than in ‘Burlat’ (2.59 ± 0.15). The results suggest that cell wall physical (and possibly also chemical) properties account for the cultivar differences in skin mechanical properties, and hence in cracking susceptibility.
AB - Rain cracking of sweet cherry fruit (Prunus avium L.) may be the result of excessive water uptake and/or of mechanically weak skins. The objectives were to compare mechanical properties of the skins of two cultivars of contrasting cracking susceptibility using biaxial tensile tests. We chose ‘Regina’ as the less-susceptible and ‘Burlat’ as the more-susceptible cultivar. Cracking assays confirmed that cracking was less rapid and occurred at higher water uptake in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Biaxial tensile tests revealed that ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer as indexed by a higher modulus of elasticity (E) and had a higher pressure at fracture (pfracture) than ‘Burlat’. There was little difference in their fracture strains. Repeated loading, holding, and unloading cycles of the fruit skin resulted in corresponding changes in strains. Plotting total strains against the pressure applied for ascending, constant, and descending pressures yielded essentially linear relationships between strain and pressure. Again, ‘Regina’ skin was stiffer than ‘Burlat’ skin. Partitioning total strain into elastic strain and creep strain demonstrated that in both cultivars most strain was accounted for by the elastic component and the remaining small portion by creep strain. Differences in E and pfracture between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ remained even after destroying their plasma membranes by a freeze/thaw cycle. This indicates that differences in skin mechanical properties must be accounted for by differences in the cell walls, not by properties related to cell turgor. Microscopy of skin cross-sections revealed no differences in cell size between ‘Regina’ and ‘Burlat’ skins. However, mass of cell walls per unit fresh weight was higher in ‘Regina’ than in ‘Burlat’. Also, the ratio of tangential/radial diameters of epidermal cells was lower in ‘Regina’ (1.86 ± 0.12) than in ‘Burlat’ (2.59 ± 0.15). The results suggest that cell wall physical (and possibly also chemical) properties account for the cultivar differences in skin mechanical properties, and hence in cracking susceptibility.
KW - Epidermis
KW - Hypodermis
KW - Modulus of elasticity
KW - Prunus avium
KW - Strain
KW - Tensile test
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962019296&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.21273/jashs.141.2.162
DO - 10.21273/jashs.141.2.162
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84962019296
VL - 141
SP - 162
EP - 168
JO - Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science
JF - Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science
SN - 0003-1062
IS - 2
ER -