Productivity, biocontrol and postharvest fruit quality of strawberry cultivar ‘Clery’ using plant growth promoting microorganisms

Figures & data

Table 1. The protection program based on synthetic fungicides and microbiological preparations examined in the experiment.

Treatments (Protection program for control of B. cinerea on strawberries)		Preparation	Amount, l (kg)/ha	Phenophase / time period
Conventional protection program	Pyrimethanil	Pyrus 400 SC (400 g/l a.s.)	2	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming
	Cyprodinil + fludioxonil	Switch 62,5 WG (375 g/ + 250 g/kg a.s.)	1	Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
Microbiological protection program	B.subtilis + B. megaterium + Saccharomyces sp.	Bacterie (10^9 CFU/ml B.subtilis)	5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
	Trychoderma harzianum	T. harzianum	0.5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
	B. subtilis	FitoHelp (4 × 10^9 CFU/cm^3)	5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
Conventional + Microbiological protection program	Pyrimethanil + (B. subtilis + B. megaterium + Saccharomyces sp.)	Pyrus 400 SC + Bacterie	2 + 5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + (B. subtilis + B. megaterium + Saccharomyces sp.)	Switch 62.5 WG + Bacterie	1 + 5	Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
	Pyrimethanil + T. harzianum	Pyrus 400 SC + T. harzianum	2 + 0.5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + T. harzianum	Switch 62.5 WG + T. harzianum	1 + 0.5	Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
	Pyrimethanil + B. subtilis	Pyrus 400 SC + FitoHelp	2 + 5	Beginning of blooming; Full blooming
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + B. subtilis	Switch 62.5 WG + FitoHelp	1 + 5	Blossom falling Beginning of ripening
Untreated plot		–	–	–

Figure 1. Average values of environmental conditions.

Figure 2. Phenological properties of strawberry plants.

Table 2. Productivity characteristics of strawberry plants treated with PGPMs.

Treatment	Number of crowns per plant	Diametre of crowns (mm)	No of inflor. per plant	No of fruits per inflor	Number of leaves per plants	Yield of 1^st harvest (kg)	% of harvested fruits	Yield of 2^nd harvest (kg)	% of harvested fruits	Total yield (kg)
Bacterie	2.8a	14.5b	2.5b	9.8a	23.3b	0.18b	22.2bc	0.24c	38.5b	0.42b
T. harzianum	2.9a	17.2a	3.1a	9.7ab	29.5a	0.22b	25.3b	0.34a	46.2a	0.56a
Fitohelp	2.9a	18.4a	2.9ab	8.6b	29.8a	0.28a	32.5a	0.29 b	39.4b	0.57a
Control	2.6a	13.4b	2.1b	7.0c	24.8b	0.12c	19.5c	0.26bc	40.8b	0.38b
lsd	0.3	2.4	0.6	1.1	3.6	0.05	5.2	0.04	3.2	0.08

Data are means of four replicates; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between varieties according to Student’s t-test at 5% level (p < 0.05).

Table 3. Physical properties of the fruits harvested in the first harvest.

Treatment	Fruits mass (g)	Fruits lenght (mm)	Fruits width (mm)	Firmness (kg/cm^2)	Decreased of mass (%)	Decreased of firmness (%)
Bacterie	33.2ab	52.4ab	41.6b	3.4b	4.5b	29.8b
T. harziaunum	34.2a	48.5b	43.2a	4.7a	5.6b	35.2a
Fitohelp	32.5ab	53.6a	42.3ab	4.3a	8.2ab	25.6b
Control	31.1b	48.2b	41.2ab	3.4b	9.1a	34.2ab
lsd	2.1	3.4	1.2	0.8	2.8	5.2

Data are means of four replicates; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between varieties according to Student’s t-test at 5% level (p < 0.05).

Table 4. Physical properties of the fruits harvested in the second harvest.

Treatment	Fruits mass (g)	Fruits lenght (mm)	Fruits width (mm)	Firmness (kg/cm2)	Decreased of mass (%)	Decreased of firmness (%)
Bacterie	21.3ab	32.5ab	31.2ab	4.3b	3.5b	12.6b
T. harzianum	22.5ab	31.2b	32.5a	4.7ab	4.2b	10.1c
Fitohelp	24.3a	34.2a	33.5a	4.8a	5.5a	15.4a
Control	19.2b	28.4 c	29.6b	4.1b	3.9b	12.3bc
lsd	3.2	2.5	2.8	0.4	1.1	2.4

Data are means of four replicates; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between varieties according to Student’s t-test at 5% level (p < 0.05).

Table 5. Chemical properties of first harvest fruits treated with PGPMs after harvest and three days of storage.

Treatment	TSS	TA	TP	TAnt	AA	TSS	TA	TP	TAnt	AA
	harvest					storage
Bacterie	10.2b	0.84a	83.2a	12.2a	32.6b	10.8a	0.81a	94.5a	15.5a	31.6b
T. harzianum	10.7a	0.76a	66.3b	11.2ab	33.4b	10.7a	0.47b	74.9b	14.0b	30.5b
Fitohelp	10.1b	0.74a	72.6b	8.6ab	35.4a	10.3b	0.71a	78.4b	13.2bc	31.5b
Control	10.6ab	0.86a	69.2b	8.2b	35.2a	10.4b	0.72a	74.3b	11.9c	33.6a
lsd	0.4	0.14	9.5	3.2	1.8	0.3	0.25	7.6	1.4	1.5

Data are means of four replicates; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between varieties according to Student’s t-test at 5% level (p < 0.05).

Table 6. Chemical properties of second harvest fruits treated with PGPMs after harvest and three days of storage.

Treatment	TSS	TA	TP	TAnt	AA	TSS	TA	TP	TAnt	AA
	harvest					storage
Bacterie	10.1ab	0.60b	65.6a	6.2ab	23.8b	10.5a	0.52b	72.9a	7.8b	22.4b
T. harzianum	10.1ab	0.73a	54.6b	5.2b	25.5ab	10.3ab	0.82a	67.2b	8.3b	23.5ab
Fitohelp	9.9b	0.72a	62.1ab	8.2a	25.4ab	9.9b	0.58b	68.3ab	10.2a	23.0ab
Control	10.4a	0.52 b	58.2b	7.1ab	26.4a	10.4a	0.66ab	63.1b	8.2b	24.5a
lsd	0.4	0.11	6.4	2.8	1.9	0.4	0.21	4.2	1.6	1.5

Data are means of four replicates; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between varieties according to Student’s t-test at 5% level (p < 0.05).

Table 7. Degree of infection of strawberry fruit with B. cinerea three days after storage and the effectiveness of protection programs.

Treatments (Protection program for control of B. cinerea on strawberries)		Ms ± Sd	Efficacy (%)
Conventional protection program	Pyrimethanil	9.5 e ± 11.11	84.92
	Cyprodinil + fludioxonil
Microbiological protection program	Bacterie	26.0 b ± 9.4	58.73
	T. harzianum	20.5 c ± 15.3	67.46
	Fitohelp	25.0 b ± 19.3	60.32
Conventional + microbiological protection program	Pyrimethanil + Bacterie	6.5 f ± 8.5	89.68
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + Bacterie
	Pyrimethanil + T. harzianum	15.0 d ± 5.8	76.19
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + T. harzianum
	Pyrimethanil + Fitohelp	4.5 f ± 5.3	92.86
	(Cyprodinil + fludioxonil) + Fitohelp
Untreated plot		63.0 a ± 38.6	–
lsd		2.01

Data are expressed as mean (Ms) of % infected fruit ± standard deviation (Sd) of four replicates of each treatment; different letters in columns indicate significant differences between cultivars according to Student’s t – test at 5% level (p < 0.05).