, Volume 199, Issue 3, pp 283–292 | Cite as

Breeding selection efficiency for raspberry postharvest shelf life affected by storage temperature and harvest season

  • Julia M. Harshman
  • Kim S. Lewers
  • Wayne M. JurickII
  • Christopher S. Walsh


Improved postharvest quality is an important goal for fresh-market raspberry breeding programs. To determine if warm or cold storage following harvest would better facilitate the breeding selection process for the assessment of postharvest decay and juice leakage, pesticide-free fruit from cultivars and breeding selections of red, yellow, purple, and black raspberries were stored at two temperatures. Following storage fruits were examined for decay and juice leakage rate at room-temperature (25 °C) and at a cooler temperature (5 °C). The rate of decay was much faster in room-temperature storage than in cooler storage; however, classification of genotypes as parents or discards was not always in agreement between these two temperatures. This suggests that a breeder should determine whether room-temperature storage or cooler storage more closely resembles the postharvest environment for the targeted growers. For many leakage rate comparisons, there was no advantage from either storage temperature. However, when an advantage was evident, cold storage evaluation identified a greater number of classes comparing black raspberry and purple raspberry genotypes, but warm storage evaluation identified a greater number of classes comparing red and yellow raspberry genotypes. There was complete agreement on genotype breeding disposition, indicating that a breeder could evaluate genotypes for leakage in the same storage temperature chosen to evaluate decay. Selection decisions made from evaluating floricane fruit were not always in agreement with decisions made from evaluating primocane fruit, indicating that genotypes should be evaluated in both fruiting seasons.


Floricane Plant breeding Postharvest Primocane Rubus spp. 



This project was funded by USDA-ARS Projects 1245-21220-189-00 and1245-42430-014-00D, and by a Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Competitive Research Grant. The authors wish to thank the University of North Carolina, Cornell University, Five Aces Breeding, and Mr. Peter Tallman for donation of breeding selections; Phil Edmonds, John Enns, Donna Pahl, Anna Wallis, Jessica Kelly, Demetra Skaltsas, and the BARC Research Support Services (RSS) for establishing and maintaining the field; George Meyers, RSS, for weather records; Bob Saftner, Yaguang Luo, Ellen Turner, and Gene Lester, for providing equipment and training for postharvest fruit processing and evaluation. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the University of Maryland.


  1. Aprea E, Carlin S, Giongo L, Grisenti M, Gasperi F (2010) Characterization of 14 raspberry cultivars by solid-phase microextraction and relationship with gray mold susceptibility. J Agric Food Chem 58:1100–1105. doi: 10.1021/jf902603f PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bristow PR (1991) Fruit and flower diseases caused by fungi: botrytis fruit rot (gray mold) and blossom blight. In: Ellis MA et al (eds) Compendium of raspberrry and blackberry diseases and insects. APS Press, St PaulGoogle Scholar
  3. Hanson E, Von Weihe M, Schilder AC, Chanon AM, Scheerens JC (2011) High tunnel and open field production of floricane- and primocane-fruiting raspberry cultivars. HortTechnology 21:412–418Google Scholar
  4. Harshman JM, Jurick WM II, Lewers KS, Wang SY, Walsh CS (2014) Resistance to Botrytis cinerea and quality characteristics during storage of raspberry genotypes. HortScience 49:311–319Google Scholar
  5. Kempler C, Hall H, Finn CE (2012) Raspberry. In: Badenes ML, Byrne DH (eds) Fruit breeding. Springer, New York, p 890Google Scholar
  6. Knight VH (1980) Responses of red raspberry cultivars and selections to Botrytis cinerea and Other Fruit-rotting Fungi. J Horticul Sci 55(4):363–369Google Scholar
  7. Lewers KS, Luo YG, Vinyard BT (2012) Evaluating strawberry breeding selections for postharvest fruit decay. Euphytica 186:539–555. doi: 10.1007/s10681-012-0654-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nunes MCN, Morais A, Brecht JK, Sargent SA, Bartz JA (2005) Prompt cooling reduces incidence and severity of decay caused by Botrytis cinerea and Rhizopus stolonifer in strawberry. HortTechnology 15:153–156Google Scholar
  9. Robbins JA, Fellman JK (1993) Postharvest physiology, storage and handling of red raspberry. Postharvest News Inf 4(2):53N–59NGoogle Scholar
  10. Robbins J, Sjulin TM, Patterson M (1989) Postharvest storage characteristics and respiration rates in 5 cultivars of red raspberry. HortScience 24:980–982Google Scholar
  11. Tallman P (2009) Rubus occidentalis L. ‘Explorer’, GRIN. Accessed 11 Apr 2012
  12. Vanden Heuvel JE, Sullivan JA, Proctor JTA (2000) Trellising system and cane density affect yield and fruit quality of red raspberry. HortScience 35:1215–1219Google Scholar
  13. Weber CA, Maloney KE, Sanford JC (2004) Long-term field performance of primocane fruiting raspberry cultivars in New York. HortTechnology 14:590–593Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia M. Harshman
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kim S. Lewers
    • 2
  • Wayne M. JurickII
    • 3
  • Christopher S. Walsh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Science and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables LaboratoryUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceBeltsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Food Quality Laboratory, Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureBeltsvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of HorticultureWashington State UniversityWenatcheeUSA

Personalised recommendations