UNCORRECTED PROOF Seasonal evaluation of the postharvest fungicidal activity of powders and extracts of huamuchil (Pithecellobium dulce ): action against Botrytris cinerea , Penicillium digitatum and Rhizopus stolonifer of strawberry fruit S. Bautista-Ban ˜os a,c, *, E. Garcı ´a-Domı ´nguez a , L.L. Barrera-Necha a , R. Reyes-Chilpa b , C.L. Wilson c a Centro de Desarrollo de Productos Bio ´ticos, Instituto Polite ´cnico Nacional, Carr. Yautepec-Jojutla km. 8.5, San Isidro Yautepec, Morelos 62731, Mexico b Instituto de Quı ´mica, Universidad Auto ´noma de Me ´xico, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoaca ´n 04510, Mexico c USDA, ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA Received 15 April 2002; accepted 30 November 2002 / 17 / Abstract / 18 / / 19 / The fungistatic or fungicidal effect of powders, and aqueous and ethanolic extracts of seeds, and monthly harvested / 20 / leaves of huamuchil (Pithecellobium dulce ) were evaluated for fungicidal activity, against Botrytis cinerea , Penicillium / 21 / digitatum , and Rhizopus stolonifer . Fungicidal activity of huamuchil powders and aqueous extracts were also evaluated / 22 / on strawberry fruit during storage. Preliminary characterization of the active compound responsible for the fungicidal / 23 / effect was carried out using thin layer chromatography and spectrophotometry. Results indicated that powders had the / 24 / best fungicidal effect, in both in vitro and in situ studies. Fungistatic or fungicidal properties were associated with the / 25 / plant organ and harvest month. A correlation between high absorbance values of extracts with the fungicidal or / 26 / fungistatic effect was not observed. The highest fungistatic or fungicidal effect for both in vitro and in situ studies was / 27 / recorded from extracts of leaves harvested in months having more stressful environmental conditions; the cold season / 28 / (October /February) and, the dry, hot season (April and June). Attempts to characterize the active compound suggest / 29 / that kaempferol may be responsible for the fungicidal effect. / 30 / # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. / 31 / Keywords: Fragaria /ananassa Duch.; Guaymochil; Tamarind; Kaempferol / 32 / 1. Introduction / 33 / Fungal diseases are one of the major limitations / 34 / on the storage life of strawberry fruit (Fragaria / y:/Elsevier Science/Shannon/Postec/articles/POSTEC2022/POSTEC2022.3d[x] 3 January 2003 9:48:0 3 * Corresponding author. 4 E-mail address: [email protected]v (S. Bautista- 5 Ban ˜ os). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Postharvest Biology and Technology 00 (2003) 1 /12 www.elsevier.com/locate/postharvbio 1 0925-5214/02/$ - see front matter # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. 2 doi:10.1016/S0925-5214(02)00244-2 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12
Embed
2003 seasonal evaluation of the postharvest fungicidal activity of
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Seasonal evaluation of the postharvest fungicidal activity ofpowders and extracts of huamuchil (Pithecellobium dulce):action against Botrytris cinerea, Penicillium digitatum and
Rhizopus stolonifer of strawberry fruit
S. Bautista-Banos a,c,*, E. Garcıa-Domınguez a, L.L. Barrera-Necha a,R. Reyes-Chilpa b, C.L. Wilson c
a Centro de Desarrollo de Productos Bioticos, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Carr. Yautepec-Jojutla km. 8.5, San Isidro Yautepec,
Morelos 62731, Mexicob Instituto de Quımica, Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Circuito Exterior, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacan 04510, Mexico
c USDA, ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA
Received 15 April 2002; accepted 30 November 2002
/17 /Abstract
/18 /
/19 / The fungistatic or fungicidal effect of powders, and aqueous and ethanolic extracts of seeds, and monthly harvested
/20 /leaves of huamuchil (Pithecellobium dulce ) were evaluated for fungicidal activity, against Botrytis cinerea , Penicillium
/21 /digitatum , and Rhizopus stolonifer . Fungicidal activity of huamuchil powders and aqueous extracts were also evaluated
/22 /on strawberry fruit during storage. Preliminary characterization of the active compound responsible for the fungicidal
/23 /effect was carried out using thin layer chromatography and spectrophotometry. Results indicated that powders had the
/24 /best fungicidal effect, in both in vitro and in situ studies. Fungistatic or fungicidal properties were associated with the
/25 /plant organ and harvest month. A correlation between high absorbance values of extracts with the fungicidal or
/26 /fungistatic effect was not observed. The highest fungistatic or fungicidal effect for both in vitro and in situ studies was
/27 /recorded from extracts of leaves harvested in months having more stressful environmental conditions; the cold season
/28 /(October�/February) and, the dry, hot season (April and June). Attempts to characterize the active compound suggest
/29 /that kaempferol may be responsible for the fungicidal effect.
/ 209/followed by 5% ethanolic polyethyleneglycol 4000
/ 210/(PEG) and observed under UV-365 nm light and
/ 211/Rf values were then determined (Wagner et al.,
/ 212/1984).
y:/Elsevier Science/Shannon/Postec/articles/POSTEC2022/POSTEC2022.3d[x] 3 January 2003 9:48:1
S. Bautista-Banos et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 00 (2003) 1�/12 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
UNCORRECTED PROOF
/213 /2.7. Statistical analyses
/214 / Treatments were arranged in a completely
/215 /randomized design. ANOVA, standard deviations
/216 /(S.D.) and means were calculated for mycelial
/217 /inhibition and sporulation of the three fungi.
/218 /Percentage disease was analyzed using the x2
/219 /procedure. Square root transformation was car-
/220 /ried out when data were not normally distributed.
/221 /3. Results
/222 / The effect of powders and aqueous and etha-
/223 /nolic extracts on mycelial growth and sporulation
/224 /varied according to the treatment and fungus.
/225 /Botrytis was the most affected by powders and
/226 /plant extracts./227 / Except for mycelial inhibition of R. stolonifer ,
/228 /the effect of P. dulce powders on both mycelial
/229 /growth and sporulation was significantly different
/230 /(P�/0.001) among treatments (Table 1). For B.
/231 /cinerea , the highest mycelial inhibition was ob-
/232 /tained with seed powders (78%), while sporulation
/233 /of this fungus was most affected by leaf powders
/234 /harvested in January, November and December./235 /For P. digitatum powder prepared from leaves
/236 /harvested in July had the highest fungistatic effect
/237 /(58%) compared with the control treatment where
/238 /no inhibition was observed. Similarly, no effect on
/239 /mycelial growth was observed for R. stolonifer .
/240 /The least sporulation for Rhizopus occurred with
/241 /leaf powders from April and May.
/242 / Aqueous or ethanolic extracts did not have any/243 /effect on the mycelial inhibition of R. stolonifer
/244 /while significant differences (P�/0.001) were ob-
/245 /served for B. cinerea and P. digitatum. Botrytis
/246 /grown on aqueous extracts of leaves harvested in
/247 /February and November showed the least mycelial
/248 /growth (mycelial inhibition�/60 and 57%, respec-
/249 /tively) compared with the control treatment, coin-
/250 /ciding with inhibition were aqueous extracts/251 /exhibited high values of absorbance (2.25 and
/252 /2.50 Abs). Other treatments that inhibited the
/253 /mycelial growth of this fungus more than 50%
/254 /were ethanolic extracts from seeds and leaves
/255 /harvested from October to December. There was
/256 /not a close correlation with high absorbance
/ 257/values. For P. digitatum , treatments of aqueous
/ 258/extracts of leaves also harvested in October and
/ 259/November inhibited 60% of the mycelial growth
/ 260/while treatments prepared from aqueous extracts
/ 261/of leaves harvested in March and June reduced
/ 262/growth of P. digitatum 52 and 53%, respectively.
/ 263/For all these treatments the absorbance values of
/ 264/the aqueous extracts were among the highest:
/ 265/2.23�/2.50 (Figs. 1 and 2).
/ 266/ For the three fungi, there were also significant
/ 267/differences (P�/0.001) with sporulation. Aqueous
/ 268/and ethanolic extracts prepared from leaves and
/ 269/seeds harvested in February affected sporulation
/ 270/of the three test fungi. For Botrytis , complete
/ 271/inhibition was also observed from aqueous ex-
/ 272/tracts of leaves harvested in January, November,
/ 273/and December, coinciding with the highest absor-
/ 274/bance values (2.3�/2.5 Abs). The highest absor-
/ 275/bance values of the ethanolic extract, in most cases
/ 276/do not coincide with less sporulation as it is shown
/ 277/with the low or zero sporulation recorded for the
/ 278/three fungi and the low or zero absorbance values
/ 279/from seeds (Figs. 3 and 4).
/ 280/ Results of flavonol determination by TLC of the
/ 281/aqueous and ethanolic extracts of each treatment
/ 282/showed that except for the ethanolic extracts of
/ 283/seed and leaves harvested in July, kaempferol
/ 284/was present in the remainder treatments (Table
/ 285/2). By contrast this compound was identified only
/ 286/in five of the 13 treatments for the aqueous
/ 287/extracts.
/ 288/ In this study, the main fungi isolated from both
/ 289/experiments with strawberry were B. cinerea and
/ 290/R. stolonifer . For both experiments B. cinerea was
/ 291/more frequent as shown by the high number of
/ 292/infected fruit in the first experiment and the
/ 293/absences of R. stolonifer from the second experi-
/ 294/ment (Table 3). Percentage infection was signifi-
/ 295/cantly different (P�/0.05 and 0.01) among
/ 296/treatments for fruit treated with powders and
/ 297/extracts, respectively. Of the 13 extracts tested,
/ 298/eight promoted fruit infection of fruit dipped in
/ 299/aqueous extracts. The lowest percentage infection
/ 300/was 27% in fruit dipped in aqueous extracts from
/ 301/leaves harvested in August while in fruit powdered
/ 302/the lowest percentage infection (16%) was for
/ 303/those treated with seeds and leaves from October.
y:/Elsevier Science/Shannon/Postec/articles/POSTEC2022/POSTEC2022.3d[x] 3 January 2003 9:48:2
S. Bautista-Banos et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 00 (2003) 1�/124
ARTICLE IN PRESS
UNCORRECTED PROOF
y:/E
lsevier
Scien
ce/Sh
an
no
n/P
ostec/a
rticles/PO
ST
EC
20
22
/PO
ST
EC
20
22
.3d
[x]
3Ja
nu
ary
20
03
9:4
8:2
Table 1
Effect of P. dulce powders of seeds and monthly harvested leaves on B. cinerea , P. digitatum and R. stolonifer on mycelial inhibition and sporulation after an incubation