Introduction
Pineapple (Ananas
comosus L. Merr) is the most economically significant crop in tropical and
subtropical climates, which is traded second most widely in the world after
bananas. It is grown on more than 2.1 million acres in over 82 countries, contributing
to over 20% of the world production of tropical fruits (Medina and Garcia 2005;
Ndungu 2014). The main exporting countries of canned pineapple and pineapple
juice are Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, while those of fresh
pineapple are Costa Rica, the Philippines and Panama (Hossain 2016; UNCTAD
2016). When pineapple is grown for fresh fruit rather than canned pineapple, the fruit
quality, including both the inside and exterior physical appearance, is
particularly important. The primary sources of postharvest losses include
mechanical injury, translucency, chilling injury, and postharvest diseases
(Paull and Chen 2020). An essential nutrient
for plants, calcium (Ca) is involved in a number of physiological processes
that affect the composition of cell walls and membranes (White and Broadley
2003; Thor 2019).
The Ca
assimilation in the cell wall and the temperature of the flesh were considered
as variables influencing translucency (Cano-Reinoso et al. 2021). To
reduce the incidence of translucency, high Ca and silicon ion assimilation (Ca:
22.60 and Si: 3.29 weight %, respectively) was required (Cano-Reinoso et al.
2022). Ca (in CaCl2) spray at 75 Kg ha-1 increased turgor
and rigidity in the pineapple cell wall, according to scanning electron
microscopy analysis (Loekito et al. 2022). Ca is also necessary for the
regular functioning of plant membranes, the synthesis of new cell walls,
particularly the middle lamellae that divide cells into new cells, and the
production of new cell walls (Taiz et al. 2018). Ca is related to a
variety of physiological issues in fruits and vegetables (Olle and Bender
2009). Ca increased fruit firmness, lowering incidence of cork spot and brown
core, and reducing ethylene production and respiration which
improved apple fruit quality and extended shelf life
(Conway et al. 2002). The decrease in firmness was delayed by Ca in tomato
(Cheour and Souiden 2015), and high level of Ca was also associated with a
reduction in the incidence of pineapple disorders (bruising) during handling,
transportation, and shipping (Selvarajah et al. 1998). Low Ca causes
fruit deformities and poor quality by causing cell membrane integrity to
deteriorate and produce leaking and translucency (Silva et al. 2006;
Khalaj et al. 2016; Souri and Hatamian 2019). In pineapple, Ca
application may reduce the intensity of translucency (Paull and Chen 2015; Dayondon and Valleser 2018).
The balance
of nutrients in soil and plant life is significantly influenced by Ca (Tailep et
al. 2019). Basically, pineapple has a very low requirement for Ca
(Vásquez-Jiménez and Bartholomew 2018). In highly weathered soils under a humid
tropical climate, deficiency can occur due to low soil pH caused by the
long-term use of acidifying fertilizers. Dolomite lime is frequently used to
give Ca and magnesium (Mg) to soil and to change the pH of the soil. However,
liming acid soils for pineapple should keep the pH not more than pH 5.5 to
reduce the incidence of heart and root rots disease caused by fungus
Phytophthora sp (Silva et al. 2006; Mite et al. 2010; Loekito et
al. 2022). Gypsum could be used when it is desirable to supply Ca, but not
change the soil pH (Vásquez-Jiménez et al. 2018), and not affect the
root health (Silva et al. 2006). It is not enough to simply add more Ca
to the soil to treat pineapple fruit disorders in the affected tissues brought
on by a lack of Ca. Following absorption, Ca moves with transpirational water
in the xylem, and very little Ca translocation in the phloem occurs resulting
in poor Ca supply to roots and storage organs (Havlin et al. 2017).
Generally,
gypsum is applied during soil tillage, nevertheless in these experiments,
gypsum was applied to the soil one month before artificial flower induction. Ca
is important after induction of artificial flowering due to the fact that it is
a time of accelerated cell growth and division, which may enhance cell
structure and lessen fruit translucence (Vásquez-Jiménez and Bartholomew 2018).
In bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.),
(Mayorga-Gomez et al. 2020) revealed that fruit Application of Ca during
bloom and the early stages of fruit development may prevent or reduce Ca
deficiency disorders in bell peppers because Ca uptake persists throughout
fruit development. The concentration of Ca in apple fruit reaches its peak
immediately after flowering and then drops quickly as the fruit develops
rapidly (Jones et al. 1983; Saure 2005). The cell wall composition of
apricot fruit largely determines its texture, and treatment with 1% Ca followed
by cold storage at 5°C can preserve a firmer texture and slow down cell wall polysaccharide
degradation (Liu et al. 2017). The hypothesis of this experiment is that
the application of gypsum as a soluble source of Ca nutrition one month before
artificial flower induction can improve overall plant growth, yield, and fruit
texture (firmness) of pineapple.
The
objectives of this study were (1) to determine the effects of various amounts
of gypsum as a source of Ca applied at a month before artificial flower
induction on the plant (stem weight, D-Leaf length and D-Leaf width) and roots (weight
and density), and (2) to determine the effects of gypsum on the fruit weight,
crown size, and fruit quality. The D-Leaf, which has a leaf angle of 45 degrees
from the soil surface, is the longest leaf of any plant. D-Leaf length is
prevalent to be used to estimate the pineapple plant weight in the pineapple
industry.
Materials
and Methods
Description
of site location and experimental design
The experiment was carried out at the Great Giant Pineapple Company (GGP)
plantation’s research station located in Lampung, Indonesia, with the following
geographic coordinate: latitude 04o49’13’’ South and longitude 105o13’13’’
East, with an average altitude of around 46 m. The soil samples were taken
three times in 0–20 cm depth, before plowing (4 months before planting), before
planting, and two months after gypsum treatment. The initial soil pH is acidic
(pH 4.5), has a sandy clay loam soil texture similar to that of a Red Yellow
Podzolic soil or Ultisol, and low organic carbon content (Table 1). Two Mg ha-1
of dolomite lime was applied as a plantation practice standard to all blocks
before plowing during soil tillage (4 months before planting), and the soil
test result before and after dolomite application (Table 1). The pH increased
slightly, as well other nutrients, except phosphor (P).
The soil was applied with
basal fertilizer with the rate of 200 kg KCl, 200 kg DAP, 300 kg Kieserit, and
10 kg CuSO4 before planting. The cow dung compost was administered
at a rate of 4 Mg ha-1. The climate is typical humid tropical, with
annual rainfall of approximately 2.500 mm, temperature between 21–33°C,
relative humidity around 83%, duration of effective sunshine 4.6 h per day, and
standard evaporation rate (ETo) 3.6 mm per day.
Treatments G0 (untreated), G1
(0.5 and 116), G2 (1.0 and 233), G3 (1.5 and 349), and G4 (2.0 and 465) of
gypsum amendments in Mg ha-1 and Ca in kg ha-1 were used
in the experiment. The experiment was set up with three replications in a
randomized complete block design. Gypsum was spread on the soil between the
plant rows a month before induction of artificial flowering.
This experiment used single row planting system
(non-raised bed) with planting distance 27 cm × 55 cm, so in 1 ha consisting of
67,340 plants ha-1. Each plot in this experiment comprised at least
200 plants in ten single row beds, and there was a border of four rows between
the plots to prevent plot edge effects. The seed was from suckers of ‘MD-2’
(about 35 cm in length). Spraying 3 kg ha-1 of ethylene, 25 kg ha-1
of kaolin, and 50 kg ha-1 of urea diluted in 4000 L ha-1
of water was used to induce artificial flowering 12 months after planting.
Data and analysis of soils, pineapple plant, roots
and fruit quality
The following soil qualities were investigated using the
methods listed below. (a) pH with pH Meter; (b) organic carbon (C) with Walkley
and Black method in FeSO4 0.5 N; (c) nitrogen (N) with Kjeldahl
method; (d) phosphorus (P) with P Bray 1 method; (e) kalium (K), Ca, and Mg
were analyzed using acetic acid pH 7 extraction and reading with Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS); (f) Micronutrient (Fe, Zn, Cu) analysis was
performed using DTPA extraction and AAS reading; (g) Soil fraction (texture)
analysis was performed using the hydrometer method.
Leaves
nutrient analysis were done one month after artificial floral induction. The
D-leaf was sampled, cut into pieces, and dried in a 70°C oven for 24 h. The dry
leaves sample was ground and sieved with a 0.5 mm sieve. HNO3 and H2O2
were used for extraction, while 175°C was used for destruction. The ASS was
used to read macro and micronutrients, with the exception of P, which was read
using a spectrometer.
Data of crop performance were collected from treatment
plots 135–140 days after artificial flowering induction when the fruits were at
the 25% mature stage. Pineapple eating quality is said to be the best at shell
color number 3 (Table 2), if the fruit is harvested when about 20–35% of its
shell color has already changed to yellow. This classification is based on GGP
experience in long year cultivation of pineapple. At harvest, stem weight was
measured after the leaves and roots had been removed and cleaned off the stem.
From each treatment plot, the longest leaf with a leaf
angle of 45o from the soil surface (D-Leaf) was collected. A ruler
was used to measure the length of the D-Leaf from bottom to top, while D-Leaf
width was measured at the widest point with a ruler. The D-Leaf fresh weight
also was measured with a digital scale. Root samples were collected by around a
plant with a steel ring (54.5 cm in diameter and 25 cm in height), then
watering the soil carefully such that the water reached the roots. To achieve
the fresh weight, the roots were removed from the basal stem and dried at room
temperature. They were then oven dried for 8 h at 105oC to acquire
the dry weight. The fruit weight, crown weight and length of fifteen fruits
were measured in each treatment when 25% of the shell color had already changed to yellow (135–140 days
after artificial flower induction).
Only the fruits with a maximum
diameter range of 11.0–14.5 cm were taken to observe
the fruit texture (firmness). Fifteen fruit samples were sliced horizontally at
the biggest diameter for each treatment. Fruit firmness was assessed using a
Brookfield Ametex CT3 Texture Analyzer, a compression and tension testing
equipment for rapid quality control analyses, at three places on triangular
portions of fruit slices selected from the central area (Fig. 1). There were
four texture parameters observed, e.g., the deformation at the peak, work, peak
load and final load.
To determine sweetness, fruit soluble solids content was
measured. The juice was extracted from the fruit flesh, which did not include
the fruit skin, core, or the top and bottom 3 cm of the fruit and was cut into
small pieces. The juice was homogenized, and the temperature was checked. Then
juice correction factor (cf) was determined at 20oC. The filtrate was tested using a hand refractometer to
determine the total soluble solids (TSS). The refractometer prism was cleaned
with tissue paper dampened with distillated water. As the refractometer is
temperature-sensitive, each sample was allowed time to reach room temperature.
Statistical
analysis
The pineapple quality data were evaluated
using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Minitab 16, and the means were
compared with the Tukey Test with a 95 percent difference (p<0.05). The soil
and leave nutrients were analyzed by comparing with the nutrient adequacy of pineapple ‘MD-2’
cultivar.
Results
Effects of gypsum application on soil and
leaf chemical characteristics
As shown in Table 1, the soil pH was 4.39 at planting time, two months
after gypsum application (around 13 months after plating), the soil pH was 4.27
at G0 (no gypsum application) and 4.47–4.54 in gypsum treatment. The P content
tended to increase with gypsum application compared to G0 (14.65 mg kg-1),
while G3 dan G4 were 23.2 and 21.03 mg kg-1, and G2 slightly
increase (16.27 mg kg-1) (Table 3). All treatments showed that Ca
were more than 100 mg kg-1. Mg levels were also higher than 50 mg kg-1,
with the maximum level recorded in G0 (0 kg gypsum) at 83.43 mg kg-1.
The macronutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) and micronutrient (Fe, Zn) content of
pineapple leaves two months after gypsum Table 1: Initial soil
parameters and before planting after dolomite application
|
Soil parameter |
Unit |
Initial |
After applied dolomite |
|
pH C N P K Ca Mg Cu Exchangeable Al Soil Fraction Clay Sand Silt |
% mg kg-1 mg kg-1 me 100g-1 me 100g-1 me 100g-1 mg kg-1 me 100g-1 % % % |
4.15 1.20 Not analyzed 12.03 0.12 0.42 0.44 0.50 1.57 30.27 59.11 10.62 |
4.39 1.28 13.50 8.62 0.23 0.63 0.57 0.75 Not analyzed |
Table 2: Shell
color numbers according to pineapple fruit ripeness standards*
|
Shell Color |
Description |
|
SC0 |
Fruit is totally
green. No traces of yellow color. |
|
SC1 |
Majority of the
eyes have green color with yellow color in 10% of their area. |
|
SC2 |
Majority of the
eyes have yellow color in>10–20% of their area. |
|
SC3 |
Majority of the
eyes have yellow color in>20–35% of their area. |
|
SC4 |
Majority of the
eyes have yellow color in>35–50% of their area. |
|
SC5 |
All the eyes have
yellow color in>50–75% of their area. |
|
SC6 |
All the eyes
have yellow color in>75–100% of their area with some green color to
totally yellow. |
*) Source: Great Giant
Pineapple Company
Table 3: Soil chemical properties two months after gypsum application
|
Treatment |
pH |
P |
K |
Ca |
Mg |
|
(Mg ha-1) |
|
(mg kg-1) |
(mg kg-1) |
(mg kg-1) |
(mg kg-1) |
|
0 (G0) |
4.27 |
14.65 |
38.54 |
121.21 |
83.43 |
|
0.5 (G1) |
4.47 |
14.63 |
54.30 |
102.11 |
58.35 |
|
1.0 (G2) |
4.49 |
16.27 |
42.21 |
236.95 |
70.83 |
|
1.5 (G3) |
4.54 |
23.20 |
41.88 |
264.03 |
63.68 |
|
2.0 (G4) |
4.47 |
21.03 |
42.47 |
243.97 |
75.06 |
Table 4: Leave nutrients content at two months after gypsum application
|
Treatment |
N |
P |
K |
Ca |
Mg |
Fe |
Zn |
Cu |
|
(Mg ha-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
(g kg-1) |
|
0 (G0) |
15.9 |
2.8 |
38.2 |
3.4 |
4.5 |
179.83 |
37.61 |
6.92 |
|
0.5 (G1) |
16.6 |
2.7 |
40.5 |
3.6 |
4.3 |
165.77 |
33.11 |
9.11 |
|
1.0 (G2) |
15.8 |
2.8 |
39.3 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
204.27 |
37.67 |
7.43 |
|
1.5 (G3) |
16.2 |
4.0 |
51.0 |
4.8 |
5.6 |
229.10 |
51.39 |
9.80 |
|
2.0 (G4) |
16.1 |
2.7 |
42.0 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
202.84 |
38.27 |
7.06 |
application were almost the
same in all gypsum application, except G3 treatment (1.5 Mg ha-1
gypsum) which gave higher value for all nutrient except Cu (Table 4). Without
gypsum application, the content of Ca in the leave was 3.4 g kg-1
almost the same with G1 (0.5 Mg ha-1 gypsum), while G2, G3, G4 gave
4.2, 4.8 and 4.3 g kg-1 Ca respectively. Micronutrient, Zinc (Zn),
was highest in G3 (1.5 Mg ha-1 gypsum) which content 51.39 mg kg-1
compared to G0 with only 37.61 mg kg-1 which was almost the same with
G1, G2 and G4.
Effect of gypsum on the pineapple plant and roots
The effects of gypsum level
on the pineapple plant and roots growth were small (Table 5, 6). There were only small but
significant differences between G0 and the other treatments in all components
measured (Table 5). Any of the root parameters had no significant effects. (Table 6). There was no significant difference in the fresh root weight, the dry
root weight or the root density between the plants treated by 0.5–2.0 Mg ha-1
of gypsum (G1, G2, G3, and G4) and the untreated plant (G0) in this experiment
(Table 6).
Effect of gypsum on the fruit quality and crown of the pineapple
Table 5: Effect of soil applied gypsum on pineapple plant
|
Treatment (Mg ha-1) |
Stem weight (g) |
D-Leaf length (cm) |
D-Leaf width (cm) |
|
0 (G0) |
476±30 a |
88.3±5.2 a |
5.3±0.4 a |
|
0.5 (G1) |
581±141 ab |
94.5±7.0 a |
5.4±0.3 ab |
|
1.0 (G2) |
635±123 b |
97.4±5.1 b |
5.7±0.2 b |
|
1.5 (G3) |
616±120 b |
97.8±6.2 b |
5.5±0.3 ab |
|
2.0 (G4) |
635±108 b |
97.4±6.6 b |
5.5±0.2 ab |
|
P-value |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
*The mean in the same
column followed by the same letter signifies that they are not significantly
different at P<0.05 by the Tukey test
Table 6: Effect of soil applied gypsum
on pineapple roots
|
Treatment (Mg
ha-1) |
Fresh root weight (g) |
Dry root weight (g) |
Root density g (cm3)-1 |
|
0 (G0) |
63.3±2.3 a |
22.3±1.3 a |
1.1±0.1 a |
|
0.5 G1) |
43.0±3.4 a |
18.9±0.7 a |
0.7±0.1 a |
|
1.0 (G2) |
48.0±4.7 a |
19.1±1.1 a |
0.8±0.1 a |
|
1.5 (G3) |
52.0±3.3 a |
23.4±1.4 a |
0.9±0.0 a |
|
2.0 (G4) |
70.8±3.4 a |
25.2±2.2 a |
1.2±0.1 a |
|
P-value |
0.69 |
0.88 |
0.69 |
*The mean in the same column followed by the
same letter signifies that they are not significantly different at P<0.05 by
the Tukey test
Table 7:
Effect of soil applied gypsum one month before harvest on
pineapple fruit quality and crown
|
Treatment (Mg ha-1) |
Fruit texture |
Fruit
SS |
Fruit
weight |
Crown weight |
Crown
Length |
|||
|
Peak load (g) |
Def peak (mm) |
Work (mJ) |
Final load (g) |
(°Brix) |
(g) |
(g) |
(cm) |
|
|
0
(G0) |
353±28
a |
4.6±0.4
a |
10.2±0.6
a |
339±26
a |
14.5±0.3
a |
1,132±240
a |
156±24
a |
13.1±2.4
a |
|
0.5
(G1) |
445±11
b |
4.6±0.2
ab |
13.5±0.6
b |
439±41
b |
14.2±0.3
a |
1,100±218
a |
215±79
ab |
18.6±4.1
b |
|
1.0
(G2) |
443±7
b |
4.9±0.2
b |
14.0±1.1
b |
448±38
b |
15.4±0.5
a |
1,230±305
a |
232±50
b |
18.5±4.4
b |
|
1.5
(G3) |
418±29
ab |
4.6±0.1
ab |
13.4±0.9
ab |
389±23
ab |
15.2±0.4
a |
1,264±315
a |
185±71
ab |
16.3±3.4
b |
|
2.0
(G4) |
406±11
ab |
4.3±0.2
ab |
13.1±1.0
ab |
381±21
ab |
14.6±0.5
a |
1,346±319
a |
224±76
b |
18.0±3.0
b |
|
P-value |
0.08 |
0.32 |
0.01 |
0.06 |
0.14 |
0.13 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
*The mean in the same column followed by the same letter
signifies that they are not significantly different at P<0.05 by the Tukey
test
Fig. 1:
The effect of soil applied gypsum on fruit weight was not significantly
different between gypsum-treated plants and untreated plants in this experiment
(Table 7). However, the Tukey test revealed that the fruit texture, crown
weight, and crown length were significantly different at p<0.05.
The unit of CT3 Texture
Analyzer, fixture TA5, was used to measure the metrics observed as indications
of fruit texture, such as peak load, deformation at the peak (Def peak), work,
and final load. The energy required to deform the structure of the pineapple
fruit flesh was only 10.2 mJ if the soil was not treated with gypsum G0
(untreated). Otherwise, if the soil was treated with gypsum, especially 0.5 Mg
ha-1 (G1) or 1 Mg ha-1(G2), it needed more energy (13.5
mJ and 14.0 mJ, respectively) and was significantly different from G0.
Deformation is the process of
the pineapple fruit changing in shape or anthesis, especially through the application
of pressure. Def peak is the distance to which the fruit sample was compressed
when the peak load occurred. The other parameters were the final load and the
peak load; the final load usually occurs at the target deformation. The peak
load is the highest load during the test. The gypsum treatments of G2 showed
the highest value of deformation, work, and final load, which differed
considerably from the control (G0).
Discussion
The soil pH used in this experiment was still below 5.5
(Table 1, 3) and suitable for pineapple grow. The ideal pH range for pineapple
is from 4.5 to 5.5 (Maia et al. 2020). The level of soil nutrient after
2 months of gypsum application was adequate for pineapple requirement, except for P which was very low. P is
not one of the most readily absorbed macronutrients by pineapple and is
typically absorbed in the following order: K > N > Ca > Mg > S >
P. (Maia et al. 2020). The soil requirement for Ca was 100–150 mg kg-1,
and Mg was 50–100 mg kg-1 (Vásquez-Jiménez and Bartholomew 2018). Treatment G2–G4
(1–2 Mg ha-1 gypsum) gave the highest value of Ca (>300 mg kg-1)
which almost 3 times compare to G0 (121 mg kg-1), although the level
of Ca in G0 (untreated) was adequate (>100 mg kg-1).
Based on the adequacy of pineapple ‘MD-2’ nutrient in the leaves (Vásquez-Jiménez
and Bartholomew 2018), the
level of leave nutrient in all treatment were categorized adequate for
pineapple, except for Cu in all treatment and Ca for G0 and G1 treatment (Table
4). The nutritional leaf adequacy (g kg-1) for pineapple 'MD-2'
should be 15–18 for N, 2.0 for P, 27–30 for K, 2.5–3.0 for Ca and Mg, and 10–15
mg kg-1 for Cu (Vásquez-Jiménez and Bartholomew 2018). Micronutrient
concentration in the leaves positively correlated with Ca content but did not
affect macronutrients. Mg concentration was reduced with increasing Ca supply
when young orange was grown in pots (Eticha et al. 2017).
The results revealed that applying 1.0 Mg ha-1 of gypsum had
a significantly greater impact on the D-Leaf index (width × length) and the stem weight compared to the untreated sample (Table 5).
D-Leaf index are significantly affected by gypsum treatment, with G2 treatment
having a higher index than that of G1, G3, G4, and control untreated (G0). However,
G2 treatment has the same stem weight of the G4 treatment (635 g) with half
dose needed only. Ca is an immobile element in phloem when it is absorbed by
the roots and reaches the leaves or fruit through a complicated process. The
D-Leaf possessed asucculent-brittle' leaf base, which is often used to assess
plant nutritional status as an indicator of growth (Souza and Reinhardt 2007).
Ca is required for the synthesis of new cell
walls, notably the synthesis of the middle lamella that separates newly divided
cells (Taiz et al. 2018). Actually, the plant's
stem weight gradually increases after planting, with no noticeable
morphological changes until the reproductive growth phase begins (Malezieux et
al. 2003). The Ca from the application of 1.0 to 2.0 Mg
ha-1 of gypsum (G2, G3 and G4) affected the stem weight, which was
significantly different from the untreated plant. In this case, the plants may
have accumulated a starch reserve in the stem during the fast-generative growth
stage, especially when the night temperatures were cooler from July to August
during this experiment. Starch yield of the pineapple plant is decreasing after
flowering and fruiting. It was also reported from India that the starch yield
at 9-month growth stage (before flowering) was 16.03 ± 0.84%, then decreased to 11.58 ± 0.44% at 15 months (after flowering), and down
then to 11.08 ± 0.77
at 18 months (after fruiting) (Rinju
and Harikumaran 2019).
%20141-148_files/image002.png)
Fig. 1:
Scheme of CT3 Texture analyzer
In this experiment, it was shown that there was no statistically
significant difference in fresh root weight, the dry root weight or the root
density between the plants treated by 0.5–2.0 Mg ha-1 of gypsum (G1,
G2, G3, and G4) and the untreated plant (G0) (Table 6). This may be due to the
fact that the application of Ca at one month before artificial flower induction
was performed too late to improve the growth of the roots. There is evidence
that root growth slows after floral induction and that peak root mass occurs at
anthesis (Malezieux and Bartholomew 2003). The roots of the pineapple plant can
develop constantly all year. Proliferation, however, is dependent on the
availability of water and minerals in the rhizosphere. Root growth is slowed
when the rhizosphere is excessively dry or deficient in nutrients. When the
rhizosphere's condition improves, root development increases (Taiz et al.
2018). Actually, the availability of Ca in the rhizosphere promotes root cell
elongation (De Freitas and Mitcham 2012).
From the results, it can be said that adding 1
Mg ha-1 of gypsum to the soil one month before induction of
artificial flowering significantly increased the pineapple fruit flesh texture
(Table 7) and potentially eliminated the occurrence of the translucency problem
in the pineapple fruit. Gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) is known as a
moderately soluble source of the Ca nutrient, and the solubility is
approximately 200 times greater than lime (CaCO3). Thus, it is the reason why Ca gypsum is more
mobile and more easily absorbed by the roots of the pineapple plant in the soil
treated with gypsum in all treatments (G1, G2, G3 and G4). When more soluble Ca
is accessible in the soil, pineapple fruit Ca uptake and flesh firmness will
rise. Previous research found that a high Ca level could prevent cell wall
pectate deterioration and that it was critical to maintain cell membrane
integrity and cell wall stabilization (Hawkesford et al. 2012). High Ca leaves also reported indicates
higher cell wall material content and higher leaf firmness of the orange plant
(Eticha et al. 2017).
Sugar content determines fruit quality in most fruits (Villanueva
et al. 2004). An increase in the sugar concentration in the flesh tissue
apoplast of the pineapple fruit would favor the occurrence of translucency (Chen and Paull 2001). The total soluble solids (TSS) values of
fruit treated with gypsum, namely, G1, G2, G3 and G4 were not significantly
different from
the TSS value of G0. It can be said, therefore, that the application of 0.5 to
2.0 Mg ha-1 of gypsum, equal to 116 to 465 kg ha-1 of Ca,
did not
increase the TSS value significantly. TSS of translucent fruit was not found to
be significantly different from that of normal fruit (Soler 1993). However, all the pineapple harvested with
all the treatments met the desired criteria for the fresh fruit market. A
minimum of 12–13 °Brix (TSS 12–13%) content in the fruit is required
for the pineapple fresh fruit market in Hawaii and Australia (Anonymous 2006; Lobo and Yahia 2017),
while TSS levels for all treatments ranged from 14.2–15.4 °Brix.
No significant difference was seen among treatments G0,
G1, G2, G3 and G4 in terms of the fruit weight. The average fruit weight with
gypsum treatments G1, G2, G3 and G4 was larger compared to G0,
but not significantly different from G0. Furthermore, Table 7 demonstrated that
there was a significant difference in the weights of the crown harvested from
the plants with gypsum treatments especially G2 and G4 compared to G0
(untreated plant). The application of treatment G2 brought about more crown
weight, by 76 g, than the untreated plant (G0). In addition, the results showed
that gypsum could also generate a significant increase in the crown length of
up to 5.4 cm. Overall, gypsum
was able to increase the size of the crown, especially when 1.0 Mg ha-1
of it was applied to the soil. Ca promotes the absorption of certain nutrients
such as NH4, K and P, stimulates photosynthesis, and increases the
size of the sellable plant (Taiz et al. 2018).
Gypsum applications increased significantly crown weight and length as
shown in Table 7. Thus, it is indicated that the Ca in gypsum plays a role in
crown size. Fruit with larger crowns had less of translucency (Paull and Reyes
1996; Murai et al. 2021). In Hawaii, the occurrence of fruit translucency was low during the
August to November when the fruit has the largest crowns (Paull and Chen 2015).
Conclusion
Application of 1.0 Mg ha-1
of gypsum one month before artificial flower induction caused different
responses to the stem weight, the longest leaf at each plant with D-leaf length
and width, the fruit texture and the crown size (weight and length) compared to
control (untreated plant), but no significant difference in the fruit weight,
fruit total soluble solids (TSS), fresh root weight, dry root weight or root
density. The application of gypsum of 1.0 Mg ha-1, also gave the
highest Ca in leaf, and adequate Ca in soil. Further research should be focused
in order to gain a better understanding of the best timing for applying gypsum
(2–3 months before artificial floral induction), in relation to having a better
effect on the fruit, and in order to consider an easier method for implementing
the procedure on the broad scale since most of the pineapple leaf canopy has
already closed a month before artificial flower induction.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to
express their gratitude to the United Graduate School of Agricultural Science
(UGSAS), Gifu University, Japan for the support for this research through the
Ronpaku Program. Sincere thanks are also extended to the Management of Great Giant
Pineapple Company, for permitting and supporting this study.
Author
Contributions
Loekito
S: preparing the experiment, conducting the analysis and writing the
manuscript. Afandi and Afandi A.: Help prepare experiments and conduct
analysis. Koyama H. and Senge M.: Assist the process of making and improvising
the manuscript.
Conflicts
of Interest
The author declares no
conflicts of interest.
Data
Availability
The data used to support
the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon
request.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable in this paper
References
Anonymous (2006). Fresh fruit varieties. In: Pineapple Best Practice Manual, pp:1–10.
Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Australia. Available at: https://www.daf.qld.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/51449/CH-7-Fresh-Fruit-Varieties.pdf
Cano-Reinoso DM, K Kharisun, L Soesanto, C Wibowo
(2022). Effect of calcium and silicon fertilization after flowering on
pineapple mineral status and flesh translucency. Plant Physiol Rep 2022:1–13
Cano-Reinoso DM, L Soesanto, K Kharisun, C Wibowo
(2021). Effect of pre-harvest fruit covers and calcium fertilization on
pineapple thermotolerance and flesh translucency. Emirat J Food Agric 33:834–845
Chen CC, RE Paull (2001). Fruit temperature and
crown removal on the occurrence of pineapple fruit translucency. Sci Hortic 88:85–95
Cheour F, Y Souiden (2015). Calcium delays the postharvest ripening and
related membrane-lipid changes of tomato. J
Nutr Food Sci 5:1–5
Conway WS, CE Sams, KD Hickey (2002). Pre-and postharvest calcium
treatment of apple fruit and its effect on quality. Acta Hort 594:413–419
Dayondon R, VC Valleser (2018). Effects of urea and
calcium-boron applied at flower-bud stage on ‘MD-2’ pineapple fruit. Intl J Sci Res Pub 8:322–328
De Freitas ST, EJ Mitcham (2012). Factor involved in
fruit calcium deficiency disorders. Hortic Rev 40:107–146
Eticha D, A Kwast, TR De Souza Chiachia, Horowitz, H
Stützel (2017). Calcium nutrition of orange and its impact on growth, nutrient
uptake and leaf cell wall. Citrus Res
Technol 38:62–70
Havlin JL, S Tisdale, L Nelson, JD Beaton (2017). Soil
Fertility and Fertilizers: An Introduction
to Nutrient Management, 8th
edn. Pearson, New Delhi, India
Hawkesford M, W Horst, T Kichey, H Lambers, J Schjoerring, Moller, P White (2012). Functions
of macronutrients. In: Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd Edition, pp:135–189, Marschner P (Ed.). Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Hossain MF (2016). World pineapple production: An
overview. Afr J Food, Agric
Nutr Dev 16:11443–11456
Jones HG, KH Higgs, TJ Samuelson (1983). Calcium uptake by developing
apple fruits I Seasonal changes in calcium content of fruits. J Hort Sci 58:173–182
Khalaj K, N Ahmadi, MK Souri (2016). Improvement of postharvest quality
of Asian pear fruits by foliar application of boron and calcium. Hortic 3:1–15
Liu H, F Chen, F Lai, S Tao, J Yang, Z Jiao (2017). Effect of calcium
treatment and low temperature storage on cell wall polysaccharide
nanostructures and quality of postharvest apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Food Chem
225:87–97
Lobo G, E Yahia (2017). Biology and postharvest
physiology of pineapple. In: Handbook of Pineapple
Technology: Production, Postharvest Science, Processing and Nutrition, pp:39–61.
Lobo G, RE Paul (Eds.). Wiley, London
Loekito S, Afandi, A Afandi, N Nishimura, H
Koyama, M Senge (2022). Study on soil properties and species conformity of Phytophthora species in pineapple field.
Intl J Agric Biol 27:361–370
Loekito S, Afandi, N
Afandi, H Nishimura, H Koyama, M Senge (2022). The effects of calcium
fertilizer sprays during fruit development stage on pineapple fruit quality
under humid tropical climate. Intl J
Agron 2022:1–9
Maia VM, RF Pegoraro, I Aspiazu, FS Oliveira, DAC Nobre (2020).
Diagnosis and management of nutrient constraints in pineapple. In: Fruit Crops: Diagnosis and Management of
Nutrient Constraints, pp:739–760. Srivastava AK, C Hu (Eds.). Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mayorga-Gomez A, SU Nambeesan, T Coolong, J Diaz-Perez
(2020). Temporal relationship between calcium and fruit growth and development
in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). HortScience 55:906–913
Malezieux E and DP Bartholomew
(2003). Plant Nutrition. In: The Pineapple:
Botany, Production and Uses, pp:143–166. Bartholomew DP, RE Paull, KG
Rohrbach, (Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK
Malezieux E, F Côte, DP Bartholomew (2003). Crop
environment, plant growth and physiology. In:
The pineapple: Botany, Production and Uses, pp:69–108. Bartholomew DP, RE
Paull and KG Rohrbach (Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, London
De La Cruz Medina J, HS García (2005). Pineapple:
Post-harvest operations. In: Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies
Service, pp:1–38. Mejia D (Ed.). FAO, Rome, Italy
De Souza FV, DH Reinhardt (2007). Pineapple. In: Fertilizing for High Yield and Quality Tropical Fruits of Brazil, pp:179–201. Johnson AE (Ed.). International Potash
Institute, Zug, Switzerland
Mite F, J Espinosa, L Medina (2010). Liming effect on pineapple yield
and soil properties in volcanic soils. Better
Crop Plant Food 94:7–9
Murai K, NJ Chen, RE Paull (2021). Pineapple crown
and slip removal on fruit quality and translucency. Sci Hortic 283:110087
Ndungu S (2014). A report on conventional
pineapple production in Kenya. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. https://old.naturskyddsforeningen.se/sites/default/files/conventional_pineaple_production_kenya.pdf
Olle M, I Bender (2009). Causes and control of
calcium deficiency disorders in vegetables: A review. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 84:577–584
Paull RE, MEQ Reyes (1996). Preharvest weather
conditions and pineapple fruit translucency. Sci Hortic 66:59–67
Paull RE, NJ Chen (2015). Pineapple translucency
and chilling injury in new low-acid hybrids. Acta Hortic 1088:61–66
Paull RE, NJ Chen
(2020). Tropical fruits: Pineapples. In:
Controlled and Modified Atmospheres for Fresh and Fresh-cut Produce, pp:381–388.
Gil, R Beaudry (Eds.). Academic Press, Cambridge, UK
Rinju R, BS Harikumaran Thampi (2019).
Characterization studies on starch extracted from the stem of pineapple plant (Ananas comosus) at different growth
stages. Biosci Biotech Res Commun
12:623–630
Saure MC (2005).
Calcium translocation to fleshy fruit: Its mechanism and endogenous control. J
Hort Sci 105:65–89
Selvarajah S, HMW Herath, DC Bandara, DMGA Banda
(1998). Effect of pre-harvest calcium treatment on post-harvest quality of
pineapple. Trop Agric Res 10:214–224
Silva JA, R Hamasaki, R Paull, R Ogoshi, DP
Bartholomew, S Fukuda, NV Hue, G Uehara, GY Tsuji (2006). Lime, gypsum, and
basaltic dust effects on the calcium nutrition and fruit quality of pineapple. Acta Hortic 702:123–131
Soler A (1993). Enzymatic characterization of
stress-induced translucence of pineapple flesh on the Ivory Coast. Acta Hort 334:295–304
Souri MK, M Hatamian
(2019). Aminochelates in plant nutrition; a review. J Plant Nutr
42:67–78
Tailep WMAK, AM
El-Saadani, F El-Dahshouri, M Fergany (2019). Influence of
foliar spray of different calcium sources on nutritional status, seed yield and
quality for some peanut genotypes. Biosci
Res 16:309–319
Taiz L, E Zeiger, IM Møller,
A Murphy (2018). Plant Physiology and Development, 6th edn. Sinauer
Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA
Thor K (2019). Calcium-nutrient and massager. Front Plant Sci 10:440
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) (2016). Pineapple, an infocom commodity profile. Available at: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/INFOCOMM_cp09_Pineapple_en.pdf
Vásquez-Jiménez J, DP Bartholomew (2018). Plant nutrition. In: The
Pineapple: Botany, Production and Uses, 2nd Edition, pp:175–202.
Sanewski GM, DP Bartholomew, RE Paull (Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK
Vásquez-Jiménezz J, GM Sanewski, GM
Reinhardt, DP Bartholomew
(2018). Cultural
system. In: The pineapple: Botany, Production and
Uses, 2nd Edition,
pp:143–174. Sanewski GM, DP Bartholomew, RE Paull (Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
UK
Villanueva MJ, MD Tenorio, MA Esteban, MC Mendosa. (2004).
Compositional changes during ripening of two cultivars of mask melon fruits. Food Chem 87:179–183
White PJ, MR Broadley (2003). Calcium in plants. Ann Bot 92:487–511