Essential oil of clementine (Citrus clementina hort. ex Tanaka syn. Citrus reticulata Blanco � Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck), Spanish type

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bodil N Cass ◽  
Hanna M Kahl ◽  
Tobias G Mueller ◽  
Xinqiang Xi ◽  
Elizabeth E Grafton-Cardwell ◽  
...  

Abstract Sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Sapindales: Rutaceae) dominated commercial citrus production in California until recently when there has been a shift to mandarins, mostly Citrus reticulata (Blanco) mandarins and Citrus clementina (hort. ex Tanaka) clementines. Past analyses of commercial field scouting and harvest data indicated that fork-tailed bush katydids (Scudderia furcata Brunner von Wattenwyl), a major pest in oranges, are present in clementine groves, but that fruit scarring attributed to katydids is rare. Conversely, jagged or web-like scarring attributed to caterpillars was more prevalent than expected. We used two field experiments in four representative cultivars of clementines to test four explanatory hypotheses for this observation: 1) katydids do not feed on clementine fruit, 2) damaged clementine fruit recover, 3) damaged clementine fruit preferentially abscise, and 4) katydid scars on clementine fruit have a different, undocumented morphology, not recognized as katydid damage. We find support for the latter two hypotheses. Katydids fed readily on the clementine fruit of all cultivars tested, chewing irregular holes that developed into jagged or web-like scars of a range of shapes and often led to splitting and abscission of maturing fruit. The katydid scars often more closely resembled chewing caterpillar damage than the round katydid scars in oranges, suggesting that katydid damage is being misclassified in clementines. The resistance documented in some other mandarins was not observed. Katydids are clearly a frugivorous pest causing previously unrecognized scarring in clementines.


1997 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Ruberto ◽  
Agatino Renda ◽  
Mario Piattelli ◽  
Paolo Rapisarda ◽  
Angelo Starrantino

2015 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 647-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousmel Aleman Gaínza ◽  
Luciana Ferreira Domingues ◽  
Oriela Pino Perez ◽  
Márcio Dias Rabelo ◽  
Eugenio Roque López ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Radwa M. Azmy ◽  
El Gohary E. El Gohary ◽  
Dalia A. M. Salem ◽  
Mohamed A. Abdou ◽  
Mohamed S. Salama ◽  
...  

10.5219/1695 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 1112-1119
Author(s):  
Hana Ďúranová ◽  
Veronika Valková ◽  
Lucia Galovičová ◽  
Jana Štefániková ◽  
Miroslava Kačániová

Fungal food spoilage plays a key role in the deterioration of food products, and finding a suitable natural preservative can solve this problem. Therefore, antifungal activity of green mandarin (Citrus reticulata) essential oil (GMEO) in the vapor phase against the growth of Penicillium (P.) expansum and P. chrysogenum inoculated on wheat bread (in situ experiment) was investigated in the current research. The volatile compounds of the GMEO were analyzed by a gas chromatograph coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC–MS), and its antioxidant activity was determined by testing free radical-scavenging capacity (DPPH assay). Moreover, the disc diffusion method was used to analyze the antifungal activity of GMEO in in vitro conditions. The results demonstrate that the Citrus reticulata EO consisted of α-limonene as the most abundant component (71.5%), followed by γ-terpinene (13.9%), and β-pinene (3.5%), and it displayed the weak antioxidant activity with the value of inhibition 5.6 ±0.7%, which corresponds to 103.0 ±6.4 µg TEAC.mL-1. The findings from the GMEO antifungal activity determination revealed that values for the inhibition zone with disc diffusion method ranged from 0.00 ±0.00 (no antifungal effectiveness) to 5.67 ±0.58 mm (moderate antifungal activity). Finally, exposure of Penicillium strains growing on bread to GMEO in vapor phase led to the finding that 250 μL.L-1 of GMEO exhibited the lowest value for mycelial growth inhibition (MGI) of P. expansum (-51.37 ±3.01%) whose negative value reflects even supportive effect of the EO on the microscopic fungus growth. On the other hand, GMEO at this concentration (250 μL.L-1) resulted in the strongest inhibitory action (MGI: 54.15 ±1.15%) against growth of P. chrysogenum. Based on the findings it can be concluded that GMEO in the vapor phase is not an effective antifungal agent against the growth of P. expansum inoculated on bread; however, its antifungal potential manifested against P. chrysogenum suggests GMEO to be an appropriate alternative to the use of chemical inhibitors for bread preservation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document