Content uploaded by Piotr Latocha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Piotr Latocha on Nov 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
60 Piotr Latocha, Tomasz Krupa
EFFECT OF CPPU APPLICATION ON FRUIT
DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF DIFFERENT
ACTINIDIA GENOTYPES
Piotr Latocha, Tomasz Krupa
Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW, Warsaw, Poland
INTRODUCTION
Actinidia arguta (Siebold et. Zucc.) Planch. ex Miq., known as hardy kiwifruit,
has recently become more popular on the market as baby kiwi or grape kiwi [Wi-
liams et al. 2003]. A. kolomikta (Maxim. et Rupr.) Maxim., known as super hardy
kiwi, is widely used as ornamental plant and in some Eastern European countries, such
as Russia or Lithuania, also as fruit plant. The fruits of both species have a smooth, edible
skin and are smaller than the popular kiwifruit (A. deliciosa). They are very aromatic,
contain large amounts of sugar and ascorbic acid (up to 182 mg per 100 g fresh weight
for A. arguta and up to 1164 mg per 100 g fr.wt for A. kolomikta) [Chesoniene 2000,
Latocha 2006]. They also display an excellent flavour and have high antioxidant proper-
ties [Okamoto and Goto 2005, Krupa and Latocha 2007]. Hardy kiwifruit is just beginning
to be commercially grown in Canada, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand and the USA
[Ferguson 1999, Wiliams et al. 2003]. The Oregon state (USA) currently produces the
largest crop in the world, with more than 40 ha of one cultivar, Ananasnaya [Strik and
Hummer 2006]. As the fruit weight is often smaller than 10 g, increasing fruit size should
be one of the strategies for increasing yield and marketability of this species.
The use of plant growth substances is one of possible methods of increasing fruit
size. Basically, fruit growth and its final size depend on the number of cells at the phases
of fruit set and following cell division that are under hormonal control and at early fruit
growth that is influenced by growth promoters, such as auxins, gibberellins and cytoki-
nins. CPPU (N-[2-chloro-4-pyridyl]-N`-phenylurea) is known to be effective in enhan-
cing fruit enlargement by stimulating cell division and cell expansion, mainly in outer
pericarp [Cruz-Castillo et al. 1997, Ben-Arie et al. 1998, Lewis et al. 1996] in many kinds
of fruits, including kiwifruit [Biasi et al. 1991, Costa et al. 1997, Cruz-Castillo et al. 2002].
So far, very little research has been carried out on A. arguta [Jo et al. 2003, Kim et al.
2006] and no research has been done on A. kolomikta or Actinidia hybrids.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out in the years 2006 and 2007, on four genotypes of
Actinidia `Sentiabrskaya` (A. arguta), `Ken`s Red` (A. arguta `Cordifolia` × A. mela-
nandra), `Issai` (A. rufa × A. arguta) and `Dr Szymanowski` (A. kolomikta). Three of
61BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE FRUIT CROPS
SRAVITLUCDETSETEHTFOSCITSIRETCARAHC.1ELBAT naimdohcynadabakytsyretkarahC.1alebaT
SEICEPS kenutaG RAVITLUC anaimdO NIGIROTNALP niloreinezdohcoP EPAHSTIURF ucowot³atzsK HSELF
RUOLOC roloK uzs¿¹im
NIKS
RUOLOC roloK ikróks
-OLF
GNIREW
DOIREP aroP aineintiwk
GNINEPPIR
DOIREP aroP ainawezrjod
DNALOPLARTNEC anlartnecaksloP
atugra.A
atugra.A 'ailofidroC'
×ardnanalem.A
afur.A ×atugra.A
atkimolok.A
`ajaksrbaitneiS`
`deRs'neK`
`iassI`
`ikswonamyzSrD`
wejiKninedraGlacinatoB
sitamelC yresruN
sitamelC yresruN
sitamelC yresruN
denettalfylthgils,detagnolE
denettalfylthgils,detagnolE
detagnolE
denettalfylgnorts,detagnolE
neerG
der-eznorB
neerG
neerG
neerG
der-eznorB
neerG
neerG
enuJ/yaM
enuJ/yaM
enuJ
yaMetaL
rebmetpeSetaL
rebotcOylraE
rebotcOetaL
rebmetpeS/tsuguAetaL
these cultivars are also popular at the Polish horti-
cultural market. Description of the tested genoty-
pes, along with their flowering and ripening period
is shown in Table 1. All plants were 8-10-year-old,
trained for the T-bar system and were grown on
the experimental field of the Warsaw University of
Life Sciences, Central Poland. Six single-flowering
shoots (with minimum twenty flower buds) were
selected on each plant and marked just before flo-
wering. At the anthesis, all selected flowers were
hand-pollinated. Three of the marked shoots were
sprayed with the 15 mg·l-1 CPPU solution (Sigma-
Aldrich), fifteen days after petal fall (DAPF) ac-
cording to Jo et al. [2003]. The control shoots were
not subjected to any treatments. After the CPPU
treatment, the length and diameter (in two direc-
tions) of all fruits was measured at fortnightly inte-
rvals, until harvest. Berries were picked at the sta-
ge of commercial maturity. After harvest, they were
kept in a plastic box at 200C for 48 h, to enhance
ripening before physicochemical measurements.
After ripening, fruit weight, colour, seed number and
mass, firmness, the content of soluble solids (SSC)
and titratable acidity (TA) were determined. L* (li-
ghtness), a* (greenness to redness) and b* (blu-
eness to yellowness) were determined using spec-
trophotometer Minolta CM-508i. Calculated hue
angle (h) and chroma (c) were used for comparing
colour differences between samples.
The same fruits were used to measure the other
physicochemical parameters. Firmness was measu-
red by Instron 5542 with 5 mm tip and expressed in
Newtons (N). Each fruit was subjected to a com-
pression speed of 1 mm/s after contact and pene-
tration to 10 mm. Soluble solids content (SSC) and
titratable acidity (TA) in fruit juice were assayed
using an Abbe`s refractometer and by titration with
0.5 N NaOH to the endpoint 8.1 pH. Titratable aci-
dity was expressed as percentage of anhydrous ci-
tric acid equivalent. Three replications were com-
pleted for each parameter measured.
The obtained results were subjected to statisti-
cal analysis by the Statgraphics® Plus 4.1 program-
me, using the one-way analysis of variance.
62 Piotr Latocha, Tomasz Krupa
FIGURE 1. CHANGES OF FRUIT DIMENSIONS IN MOST SENSITIVE CULTIVARS AFTER CPPU
TREATMENT
Rysunek 1. Zmiany wymiarów owoców odmian najwra¿liwszych na CPPU, po traktowaniu
'$3)
&338 &21752/NRQWUROD
,66$,
'$3)
&338 &21752/NRQWUROD
'$3)
&338 &21752/NRQWUROD
'$3)
&338
&21752/NRQWUROD
'$3)
&338 &21752/NRQWUROD
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For all genotypes, the most intense fruit growth was noted within 40 days after petal
fall (Fig. 1). `Issai` and `Sentiabrskaya` increased rather in length than in diameter, whe-
reas `Ken`s Red` and `Dr Szymanowski` rather in the longer diameter than in length.
However, the proportion of the fruit did not change for most of the genotypes, except for
`Ken`s Red` in the first year. Similar results were obtained for kiwifruit by Antognozzi et
al. [1997]. According to Jo et al. [2003] significant enlargement of fruit size of A. arguta,
A. deliciosa and A. chinensis occurred in both longitudinal and cross section, whereas in
A. melanandra and A. polygama it happened mainly in the cross section. However,
LENGHT/d³ugoæ [mm]
LENGHT/d³ugoæ [mm]
LONGER DIAMETER/
wiêksza rednica [mm]
SHORTER DIAMETER/
mniejsza rednica [mm]
SHORTER DIAMETER/
mniejsza rednica [mm]
* DAPF DAYS AFTER PETAL FAL L
* DAPF dni po opadniêciu p³atków
LONGER DIAMETER/
wiêksza rednica [mm]
C.(165('C
'$3)
&338 &21752/.RQWUROD
63BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE FRUIT CROPS
SRAVITLUCDETSETEHTFOSTIURFFOSRETEMARAPLACIMEHCOCISYHPNOUPPCFOTCEFFE.2ELBAT nnaimdohcynadabwócowoenzcimehcokyzifyrtemarapanUPPCwy³pW.2alebaT
RAEY koR RAVITLUC anaimdO TNEMTAERT einawotkarT TIURF
THGIEW asaM
wo uco
]g[
HTGNEL æogu³D
)L(
REGNOL
RETEMAID azskêiW cinder a
W(
1
)
RETROHS
RETEMAID azsjeinM acinder
W(
2
)
W/L
1
OITAR kenusotS
W/L
1
CSS
]%[
AT
1
]%[
SSENMRIF æonrdêJ
)N(
]mm[
6002
`deRs`neK` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
9.81 4.21 **
7.73 2.43 *
4.03 0.52 **
7.52 9.12 **
42.1 73.1 **
0.11 2.21 .s.n
398.0 376.0 *
53.2 71.2 .s.n
`ajaksrbaitneiS` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
2.8 6.6 **
7.72 2.52 *
8.32 9.42 .s.n
3.02 2.91 *
61.1 10.1 .s.n
6.81 6.71 *
609.0 357.0 **
35.2 63.2 .s.n
`iassI` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
9.9 9.4 **
0.53 5.72 **
2.22 1.71 **
9.91 7.51 **
85.1 16.1 .s.n
8.51 5.61 .s.n
556.1 629.1 *
29.3 36.3 .s.n
`ikswonamyzSrD` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
3.3 2.3 .s.n
7.22 5.22 .s.n
9.51 5.51 .s.n
5.21 1.21 .s.n
34.1 54.1 .s.n
5.41 5.41 .s.n
555.1 707.1 *
53.2 09.1 .s.n
7002
`deRs`neK` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
3.61 7.11 **
7.53 4.23 .s.n
6.82 0.42 **
5.42 5.12 **
52.1 53.1 .s.n
8.31 0.51 .s.n
480.1 561.1 .s.n
48.2 66.2 .s.n
`ajaksrbaitneiS` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
3.01 0.7 **
9.82 3.42 **
9.52 1.22 **
5.22 0.02 **
21.1 01.1 .s.n
2.71 5.61 .s.n
369.0 138.0 *
26.2 83.2 .s.n
`iassI` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
0.9 2.4 **
9.13 9.42 **
6.12 9.61 **
2.91 6.51 **
84.1 74.1 .s.n
3.31 2.41 *
011.1 521.1 .s.n
60.4 76.3 .s.n
`ikswonamyzSrD` UPPC LORTNOCalortnoK/ /ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
9.3 7.3 .s.n
2.52 1.62 .s.n
2.91 6.91 .s.n
6.21 7.21 .s.n
13.1 33.1 .s.n
9.21 2.21 .s.n
895.1 016.1 .s.n
95.3 60.3 .s.n
1
NELAVIUQEDICACIRTICSAT
s.nTNACIFINGISNON.
*PTATNACIFINGIS £50.0
**PTATNACIFINGIS £.10.0
1
ywonyrtycsawkanuinezcilezrpw
.s.n einzcytsytatsentotsiein picondogyraiweimoizopyzrpeinzcytsytatsentotsi* £50,0
Picondogyraiweimoizopyzrpeinzcytsytatsentotsi** £.10,0
64 Piotr Latocha, Tomasz Krupa
SEPYTONEGDETSETEHTFOSTIURFFOSDEESDNARUOLOCNOUPPCFOTCEFFE.3ELBAT
)7002(
)7002(naimdohcynadabhcacowownoisanæokajiwócowoêwrabanUPPCwy³pW.3alebaTT
RAVITLUC
anaimdO
TNEMTAERT
einawotkarT
SDEES
REBMUN
REP
TIURF
]smeti[
abzciL
noisan
ucowow
]kutzs[
001
SDEES
SSAM
asaM
001
noisan
]g[
RUOLOC
awraB
*L*a*bamorhCeuH
elgnA
`deRs'neK`
UPPC
LORTNOCalortnoK/
/ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
0.181
3.971
.s.n
5262.0
5212.0
*
31.14
09.24
*
84.5
92.3
**
70.6
05.6
.s.n
93.8
41.7
**
01.84
33.36
**
`ajaksrbaitneiS`
UPPC
LORTNOCalortnoK/
/ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
3.971
5.601
*
5781.0
0081.0
.s.n
52.45
28.05
**
80.6-
46.4-
**
87.02
69.41
**
86.12
86.51
**
05.601
23.701
*
`iassI`
UPPC
LORTNOCalortnoK/
/ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
3.411
8.99
.s.n
5701.0
5280.0
**
33.05
76.05
.s.n
10.4-
91.4-
.s.n
56.41
27.41
.s.n
22.51
13.51
.s.n
45.501
18.501
.s.n
rD`
`ikswonamyzS
UPPC
LORTNOCalortnoK/
/ECNACIFINGISæontotsI
0.76
5.36
.s.n
5211.0
5701.0
.s.n
14.44
89.14
**
17.5-
05.5-
.s.n
63.22
49.81
**
80.32
70.02
**
35.401
54.601
**
.2ELBATEESSNOITANALPXE
.2ilebatwkajaineinajbO
fruits of A. macrosperma were not affected by CPPU at 16 mg·l-1. Some differences
within the species were also recorded.
Fruit weight at harvest was significantly higher after CPPU application for all geno-
types, except for `Dr Szymanowski` (A. kolomikta) (Tab. 2). The greatest increase of
weight was noted for Issai (104.5% on the average), and the lowest for `Dr Szyma-
nowski` (10%). For kiwifruit, the observed increase in mass was up to 40%, but better
results were obtained with CPPU and GA3 mixture up to 66% [Cruz-Castillo et al.
1991]. Among the fruits from the treated shoots the largest were those of `Ken`s Red`
and the smallest those of `Dr Szymanowski` (on the average, 17.6 g and 3.6 g respective-
ly). According to Cruz-Castillo et al. [2002] also the fruit origin and effectiveness of
pollination may affect the final fruit mass.
The CPPU applications had very little influence on TA and SSC of the tested genoty-
pes. A significant increase of SSC at harvest was found only for `Sentiabrskaya` in the
first year and for `Issai` in the second year of testing (Tab. 3). In this study, significant
changes in TA were noted especially in the first year. TA of the fruits treated with CPPU
was slightly lower than that of the untreated ones for most genotypes. After the treat-
ment, only `Sentiabrskaya` showed significantly higher level of TA in both years of the
experiment. According to many studies carried out on `Hayward` kiwifruit, CPPU treat-
ments increased the SSC content and decreased the TA. As a result, the fruits ripened
earlier and their firmness decreased [Antognozzi et al. 1997, Famiani et al. 1998]. In our
study, a slight increase in firmness of the treated fruit was noted, it was not statistically
significant, however.
65BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE FRUIT CROPS
PHOTO 1. EFFECT OF CPPU ON FRUIT SIZE IN CULTIVARS MOST SENSITIVE TO THIS
BIOSTIMULATOR
PHOTO: AUTHOR
Foto 1. Wp³yw CPPU na wielkoæ owoców odmian najbardziej wra¿liwych na jego dzia³anie
Fotografia: Autor
1 cm
Colour measurements of the tested Actinidia fruits are summarised in Table 3. In our
experiment, the colour changes appeared to be the most important, especially for `Ken`s
Red`, because this cultivar had a bronze-red fruit. A significant decrease in L* and chro-
ma parameters and an increase in a* and Hue angle was recorded. This suggests fruit
brightening, along with an increase of the red colour intensity, resulting from the CPPU
treatment. Lawes et al. [1991] indicated that CPPU significantly influenced the darkness
of fruit skin (L*) without any effect on the hue angle or chroma in the kiwifruit. In our
study, the most significant changes were observed in `Sentiabrskaya` (in all parameters)
and in `Dr Szymanowski` (the a* excepted), albeit they were not easy to notice. The
green fruit got darker and the colour became more vivid. There were no significant
changes in coloration of `Issai`.
The CPPU has not affected the seed number per fruit. This characteristic was,
however, related to the genotype. The species and cultivars, fruit mass of which incre-
ased the most (`Ken`s Red` and `Issai`) also showed a significant increase of the seed
mass.
`Sentiabrskaya` fruits developed the thicker petals after treatment (data not shown).
Skin damage at the side exposed to sunshine was also noted. This may suggest an incre-
ased sensitivity of the hairless skin due to the application of CPPU on this cultivar. Some
66 Piotr Latocha, Tomasz Krupa
deformations of flowers (mostly carpels and styles) and of fruit of `Dr Szymanowski`
were observed in the second year of study. It might be related to the application of CPPU
in the previous year. Other genotypes did not show any deformations. Other authors also
mentioned some deformations caused by CPPU application. Alina [1998] described the
deformation of apple fruit and decrease in the number of flowers in the second year after
treatment. As for kiwifruit, the possible deformation could appear in the distal part of a
fruit and it is believed that the high concentration of CPPU and early application could be
the main reasons of the deformations [Lawes et al. 1991]. According to these authors,
the best period for the applications is three weeks after anthesis. Similar results for A.
arguta `Mitsuko` were obtained by Kim et al. [2006], who also noticed that the fruit mass
was positively correlated with CPPU concentration only up to 5 mg·l-1. However, the
results obtained by Jo et al. [2003] on different Actinidia species did not indicate any
noticeable deformation of the treated fruits.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Different genotypes respond to CPPU application in a different way. This suggests a
genetic background of this reaction. CPPU may be effective for enhancing fruit
enlargement of A. arguta and some hybrids.
2. The greatest increase in fruit mass due to CPPU may be expected in `Issai` (A. rufa
× A. arguta) and `Ken`s Red` (A. arguta `Cordifolia` × A. melanandra), whereas
`Dr Szymanowski` (A. kolomikta) does not respond to the treatment Moreover, CPPU
tends to deformate flowers and fruits in this species. In case of `Sentiabrskaya`, the
biostimulator applied may cause the increase of skin sensitivity to sun scald.
3. The application of CPPU slightly modifies the other physicochemical characteristics
of fruit of the Actinidia genotypes, albeit- only some colour changes are notable
without any negative effects.
REFERENCES
Alina B. 1998: Effect of forchlorfenuron (CPPU) combined with NAA and carbaryl on fruit set and fruit
characteristics in two apple cultivars. Acta Hort., 463, 287-294.
Antognozzi E., Famiani F., Proietti P., Ferranti F., Frenguelli G. 1997: Effect of CPPU (Cytokinin)
treatments of fruit anatomical structure and quality in Actinidia deliciosa Acta Hort., 444, 459-465.
Ben-Arie, R., Saring P., Cohen-Ahdut, Y., Zutkhi, Y., Sonego, L., Kapulonov, T., Lisker, N. 1998:
CPPU and GA3 effects on pre- and post-harvest quality of seedlees and seeded grapes. Acta Hort., 463,
349-358.
Biasii R., Giullani R., Succi F., Costang., Sansavinii S. 1991. Effects of CPPU on kiwifruit performan-
ce.. Acta Hort., 297, 367-374.
Chesoniene L. 2000: Comparison of some biological features and fruiting potential of Actinidia kolomikta
cultivars. Acta Hort., 538, 769-774.
Costa G., Succi F., Quadretti R., 1997: Effect of CPPU and pollination on fruiting performance, fruit
quality and storage life of kiwifruit (cv. Hayward). Acta Hort., 444, 467-472.
Cruz-Castillo J.G., Woolley D.J., Lawes G.S. 2002: Kiwifruit size and CPPU response are influenced by
the time of anthesis. Sci. Hort., 95, 23-30.
Cruz-Castillo J.G., Woolley D.J., Lawes G.S. 1997: Uptake, distribution of radioactivity and response of
kiwifruit Tissue to 14C CPPU. Acta Hort., 444, 453-458.
67BIOSTIMULATORS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE FRUIT CROPS
Cruz-Castillo J.G., Lawes G.S., Woolley D.J. 1991: The influence of the time of anthesis, seed factor(s)
and the application of a growth regulator mixture on the growth of kiwifruit. Acta Hortic., 297, 475-480.
Famianii, F., Pallotti, A., Antognozzi, E., Tombesi, A. 1998: Optimalization of CPPU (cytokinin) treat-
ment on Actinidia deliciosa. Acta Hortic., 463, 425-434.
Ferguson A. R. 1999. Kiwifruit cultivars: breeding and selection. Acta Hortic., 498: 43-51.
Jo Y.S., Cho H.S., Park M.Y., Park J.O., Park T.D., Shim K.K. 2003: Comparison of CPPU effect on
fruit development in several Actinidia species. Acta Hort., 610, 539-543.
Kim J.G., Takami Y., Mizugami T., Beppu K., Fukusa T., Kataoka I. 2006: CPPU application on size
and quality of hardy kiwifruit. Sci. Hortic., 110,219-222.
Krupa T., Latocha P. 2007: Aktywnoæ przeciwutleniaj¹ca oraz zawartoæ witaminy C i zwi¹zków fenolo-
wych w owocach ró¿nych genotypów aktinidii (Actinidia Lindl.). ¯ywnoæ, Nauka, Technologia, Ja-
koæ, 54, 237-244.
Lawes G.S., Woolley D.J., Cruz-Castillo J.G. 1991: Field responses of kiwifruit to CPPU (cytokinin)
application. Acta Hortic., 297, 351-356.
Lewis D.H., Burge G.K., Hopping M.E., Jameson P.E. 1996: Cytokinins and fruit development in the
kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa). II. Effects of reduced pollination and CPPU application. Physiologia
Plantarum, 98, 187-185.
Latocha P. 2006: Aktinidia rolina ozdobna i owocowa. Hortpress, Warszawa.
Okamoto G., Goto S. 2005: Juice constituents in Actinidia arguta fruits produced in Shinjo, Okayama.
Okayama University Sci. Reports of the Faculty of Agriculture, 94, 9-13.
Strik B.C., Hummer K.E. 2006. `Ananasnaya` hardy kiwifruit. J. Am. Pom. Sci., 60(3), 106112.
Williams M.H., Boyd L.M., McNeilage M.A., MacRae E.A., Ferguson A.R. 2003: Development and
commercialization of `Baby Kiwi` (Actinidia arguta Planch.). Acta Hortic., 610, 81-86.
