Surface pitting in cherries: Czech Republic study on quality and storage strategies

09 Sep 2025
36

Surface pitting: a major postharvest challenge in sweet cherries

Surface pitting is a significant postharvest disorder in sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.). It reduces fruit appearance and market value and shortens shelf life by increasing decay risk.

A recent three-year study in the Czech Republic examined how fruit quality and storage conditions influence the reduction of this disorder.

What is surface pitting?

Pitting shows up as small depressions on the cherry skin caused mainly by impacts and compression during harvest and handling.

This issue affects up to 80% of cherries in commercial supply chains — often more than fungal decay. It facilitates microbial invasion and moisture imbalance, accelerating spoilage.

The study

The study evaluated 35 sweet cherry genotypes: 32 breeding accessions and three cultivars (‘Van’, ‘Regina’, and ‘Sweetheart’) over three seasons. Fruit firmness, size, and soluble solids content (SSC) were measured.

Surface pitting was mechanically induced to mimic handling damage. Afterward, fruits were stored for 21 days at 1.5 °C and 85% relative humidity under four storage conditions:

  • Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP): 17% O2 / 3% CO2
  • Ultra-low oxygen (ULO): 1% O2 / 2% CO2
  • Ozone treatment (0.2 ppm for 8h, applied pre- or post-damage)
  • 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP; 0.0016 g/m³ for 8h, pre- or post-damage)

Resistance index (RI) results

Surface pitting resistance was measured using a Resistance Index (RI), scaled from 1 (no damage) to 4 (severe damage). RI values varied widely between genotypes — from 1.31 ± 0.26 (‘10072’, most resistant) to 2.72 ± 0.45 (‘16806’, least resistant).

Firmness showed a strong negative correlation with RI (r = –0.606, p < 0.001), meaning firmer cherries suffered less damage.

SSC and fruit size were weakly or not significantly correlated with RI (r = –0.022 and r = –0.07 respectively), indicating sweetness and size are poor predictors of resistance.

Effect of harvest maturity

Harvest maturity had a minor effect on pitting susceptibility:

  • Early harvest fruit showed an average RI of 2.12 ± 0.48
  • Commercial maturity fruit had an RI of 2.14 ± 0.45

Performance of reference cultivars

‘Van’ demonstrated moderate tolerance (RI = 2.07 ± 0.22). ‘Regina’ (2.37 ± 0.51) and ‘Sweetheart’ (2.14 ± 0.35) were more susceptible.

Most breeding accessions performed better than ‘Regina’, with some exceeding ‘Sweetheart’ and ‘Van’ in firmness and resistance, indicating successful selection for resilience.

Storage conditions impact

Among storage treatments:

  • ULO provided the best protection with the lowest average RI (2.54).
  • MAP and ozone post-treatment were slightly less effective (RI ≈ 2.7).
  • 1-MCP post-treatment showed the highest susceptibility (RI = 2.76).

In tests on cultivar ‘Tamara’ under induced damage:

  • ULO again had the lowest RI (2.35 ± 0.13).
  • Both 1-MCP pre- and post-treatments had moderate effects.
  • Ozone pre-treatment was moderately effective (2.66 ± 0.14).
  • Ozone post-treatment increased surface damage (2.85 ± 0.08).

Timing of protective treatments

Applying ozone and 1-MCP before mechanical damage significantly improved effectiveness.

Proactive treatment before handling stress enhances fruit resilience. Reactive treatments — particularly ozone after damage — can worsen injury.

Practical recommendations

  • MAP effectively preserves firmness for short-term storage or local markets.
  • ULO storage is preferred for long-distance transport and extended shelf life.

Conclusion

Surface pitting resistance mainly depends on genotype, with fruit firmness as the key marker.

Harvest maturity plays a modest role, while treatment timing critically influences results.

For breeding and commercial practice:

  • Select firm genotypes and use the resistance index for screening.
  • Apply protective treatments before stress events.
  • Use ULO storage for export markets to reduce pitting and maintain quality.

Classificazione dei frutti in categorie da 1 a 4 (da sinistra a destra) secondo il grado di danno durante la valutazione. Suran et al. (2025). (Crediti immagine: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070716).

Tabel 1. Comparison of key qualitative parameters in sweet cherry fruits across two harvest periods. The table summarizes mean values and standard deviations (SD) for Fruit Firmness, Fruit Size, Soluble Solids Content (SSC) and Resistance Index. Suran et al. (2025). (Image credits: ttps://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070716).

Variable1st harvestSD2nd harvestSDp-value
Fruit Firmness (g/mm)210.7425.46201.3120.99< 0.001
Fruit Size (mm)25.322.2225.862.23< 0.001
SSC (°Brix)13.442.7714.672.32< 0.001
Resistance Index2.120.482.140.45> 0.05

Table 2. Correlation matrix showing Spearman correlation coefficients and p-values (*p < 0.05) for the relationships between Fruit Firmness, Fruit Size, Soluble Solids Content, and *Resistance Index. Suran et al. (2025). (Image credits: ttps://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070716).

VariableFruit firmnessFruit sizeSoluble solids content
Fruit Firmness1-0.365*-0.304*
Fruit Size-0.365*10.257*
Soluble Solids Content-0.304*0.257*1
*Resistance Index-0.606*-0.069-0.022

*RI scoring criteria: 1- no visible damage; 2- mild surface indentations; 3- moderate pitting; 4- extensive or deep pitting.

Figure 2. Analysis of the variability in the resistance index of cherry genotypes against surface pitting (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance; p < 0.05). Suran et al. (2025). (Image credits: ttps://doi.org/10.3390/ horticulturae11070716).

Figure 3. Analysis of the relationship between storage condition type and the resistance index of sweet cherry accessions (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance; p < 0.05). Suran et al. (2025). (Image credits: ttps://doi.org/10.3390/ horticulturae11070716).

Figure 4. Analysis of the relationship between storage condition type and the resistance index of sweet cherry ‘Tamara’. Suran et al. (2025). (Image credits: ttps://doi.org/10.3390/ horticulturae11070716).

Opening image source: Portal fruiticola

Pavol Suran
WSUO (CZ)


Cherry Times - Tutti i diritti riservati

What to read next

Australia's 2024 cherry season: a new beginning!

Markets

22 Nov 2024

The president of Cherry Growers Australia, Alison Jones, shared with ABC Rural that this season's conditions have been much more favorable, with a warm climate and excellent production resulting in high-quality fruit.

Multispectral photogrammetry: studying the effect of biostimulant treatments on cherry quality

Tech management

23 Aug 2024

The inclusion of remote sensing as a variable has been decisive in the evaluation of product or management trials. The wealth of information available, scheduling and geostatistics make it possible to accurately assess the effectiveness of treatments and programmes.

In evidenza

Surface pitting in cherries: Czech Republic study on quality and storage strategies

Post-harvest​

09 Sep 2025

A three-year study in the Czech Republic on 35 cherry genotypes shows how firmness, genotype and storage conditions affect surface pitting resistance. Results confirm the key role of ULO storage and preventive treatments to safeguard cherry quality and shelf life.

New methods in Poland to speed up sour cherry seed germination

Breeding

09 Sep 2025

A study in Skierniewice, Poland, tested innovative methods to enhance sour cherry seed germination. Seed coat removal combined with cold stratification produced stronger seedlings faster, cutting time and costs while boosting breeding efficiency and genetic progress.

Tag Popolari