Tree Fruit Leader, Vol.

3(2) July 1994 - All About Cherry Cracking

The following are three articles originally printed in British Grower that review research
on rain cracking of cherries. Authors are Tony Webster, research scientist at East Malling
Research Station and John Cline, previously a research student at East Malling and now
working as a researcher in Ontario.

There is considerable interest in cherries at the present time and it was thought an update
on cherry cracking would be useful. Thanks to Grower for permission to reprint.

Cherries - Cracking the Problem

The area of land devoted to sweet cherry production in Britain was once significantly
larger than it is at present. Since the early 1950s, the acreage of cherries has declined
from more than 18,000 acres to only 2,000. This decline was in response to several
severe cultural problems and in no way attributable to a drop in demand for cherries by
consumers. Indeed, consumer demand for cherries has increased and they are still
perceived as a high value luxury product by most people.

Many of the cultural problems, which brought about the decline of English cherry
production, have now been overcome. Self-fertile Scion varieties crop more consistently,
and varieties from the John Innes breeding programme offer greater resistance to the
damaging bacterial canker organism. Furthermore, dwarfing rootstocks are finally on the
horizon and chemical methods of tree size control have also shown great promise in
research trials.

Severe problem
One severe problem remains-the cracking of fruits in response to rain at, or close to,
harvest. This is not a problem unique to the UK; producers in Switzerland, France,
Belgium, the U.S., New Zealand and many other countries face similar worries when
picking time approaches.

Rain in California caused losses of several million dollars a few seasons ago and New
Zealand's cherry exports to Japan (to target the lucrative Christmas market) are
frequently disrupted by rain close to harvest.

Why do fruit crack? Until a few years ago, conventional wisdom was that cherries only
cracked in response to rain deposited on and taken up by the fruits; soil moisture and the
water relations of the rest of the tree were thought to be of only minor importance.
More recent evidence from trials in New Zealand, and at East Malling, have resulted in
this theory being amended slightly.

Research suggests some cracking may be caused, and all cracking made worse, by high
water levels in the rest of the tree, and high humidity surrounding the tree. Loss of fruit
water by movement through the fruit stalk back into the tree is not thought to be possible
once they approach maturity. The only way ripening fruit can lose excess water is by
transpiration through the skin.

Consequently, conditions which reduce the fruit's ability to transpire, such as high
humidity and minimal air movement within the tree canopy, are likely to increase the
incidence of cracking following rain.
Microcracks
Fruits sensitive to cracking often show many small imperfections on the skin surface
(cuticle microcracks). These are usually invisible to the naked eye and are only
observable through the microscope. Whether these microcracks have a part to play in
facilitating water uptake or weakening cell bonding in the fruit epidermis, both of which
would promote cracking, is not yet known. If they do influence cracking then it will be
important to determine the orchard environmental conditions early in fruit development
which may stimulate their formation.

Three possible control strategies can be pursued:

Control by choice of resistant varieties or rootstocks;
Control by sprays of minerals, hormones or other substances;
Control by covering the crop and manipulation of the microclimate around the tree.

Sweet cherry varieties showing resistance to rain-induced cracking in Danish trials:

Adriana; Allers Spate; Annabella; Beta; Bianca; Black Oliver; Ceran; Edra; Early Rivers;
Ermstaler; Grosse Gemersdorfer; Hudson; Kristin; Lapins; Merton Heart; Merton Marvel;
Ohio Beauty; Oktavia; Regina; Sam; Schauenburger; Schmidt; Seneca; Ulster; Vittoria.

A cracking index test, which involves immersing ripe fruits in distilled water and then
monitoring the time taken to crack, was used to determine the sensitivity of more than 200
varieties in trials in Denmark.

Not viable
Many of the varieties which show more resistance than others, listed in the panel, cannot
be considered commercially viable on account of their poor fruit size, quality or yield
potential. Nevertheless some, such as Kristin, Ulster and Regina, may warrant testing in
Britain.

Other varieties not included in these tests, but shown to have some resistance to cracking
in tests conducted in other countries, are Castor, Kordia and Star. Amongst the newer
Canadian varieties bred at Summerland in British Columbia, Sunburst, Lapins and
Sweetheart have the lowest sensitivity to cracking.

One major problem with interpreting these cracking index tests is the variability in
response from season to season and country to country. For instance, the variety Viva,
which is considered quite resistant to cracking in its native Canada, was one of the most
sensitive in Danish tests. Obviously, there are site and seasonal factors which greatly
influence the susceptibility of some varieties to rain-induced cracking. So, from the British
grower's viewpoint there is no substitute for testing promising varieties on their own farms
and over a number of seasons.

Variability
Several theories have been put forward by researchers as to why varieties often differ
greatly in their susceptibility to cracking. One is that varieties which take up more water,
either in greater total amounts or at more rapid rates, from their fruit surface are likely to
be more sensitive to cracking. An alternative theory is varieties which have skins with
epidermal cells which are more strongly bound together or have more elastic cell walls
are likely to tolerate light rain and resist cracking to some extent.
Several factors govern the rate and amount of water taken up by the fruit from its surface.
More water is taken up when temperatures are quite warm following rain. The driving
force for this uptake is the osmotic concentration of the fruit juices, i.e., their soluble solids
(sugars) concentration. The higher the concentration of soluble solids in the fruit juice, the
more water is expected to move into the fruit.

However, although differences in fruit juice soluble solids have been shown to influence
water uptake when comparing fruits of a single variety, research in Denmark indicates
these differences play only a small role in determining the cracking sensitivity of different
varieties.

An alternative suggestion is that the fruit skin, its cuticle and epidermis, may be more of a
barrier to water uptake into resistant varieties than into fruits of varieties with lower
resistance. Observations by researchers in Belgium in the late 1980s showed some
cherry varieties had thicker cuticles and epidermal walls which might explain a higher
resistance to cracking.

Varieties
More recent trials, also in Belgium, have shown varieties with thick cuticles and only a
small number of fruit stomata are less susceptible to cracking. These varieties absorbed
water through their skin more slowly than varieties more prone to cracking. Varieties with
thick cuticles were also able to absorb more water in total before splitting than thinner
cuticled varieties. Research conducted by John Cline in collaboration with researchers in
Norway showed much reduced cracking on the varieties Ulster and Sam, when compared
with the sensitive Van.

The trials showed that juice from the fruits of these two tolerant varieties had lower
concentrations of soluble solids and lower osmotic potential. Also, fruits of Ulster and
Sam were less firm and took up water in immersion tests at much slower rates than Van.
These varieties, however, were more sensitive to cracking when grown on F12/1 in
comparison with Colt rootstock. This rootstock effect on cracking sensitivity warrants
further investigation.

Although it has often been stated that varieties with large fruits are more sensitive to
cracking than those with smaller fruits, this is not entirely supported by the evidence.
While it is true that for any single variety, sensitivity increases with increase in fruit size,
the relationship is a poor one when comparing varieties with genetically determined
differences in fruit size.

Possibilities
Other possibilities, as yet little explored, are that the resistance to cracking of some
varieties may be partly attributable to the greater elasticity of their epidermal cells or to
differences in the development of fruit cuticular microcracks early in the season.
Unfortunately, resistance to rain-induced cracking has rarely featured as an important
selection criterion in fruit breeding programmes and it would appear many breeders have
often inadvertently made poor choices of parents for their new varieties in this respect.
Recent work in the Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia indicates that varieties selected
for drought tolerance during hot windy conditions at the time of blooming are quite
resistant to cracking when grown in more humid, rainy climates. This fortuitous finding
should be explored in future breeding programmes.

While there are no varieties which are fully immune to rain-induced cracking, some clearly
offer greater tolerance than others. Some of the new Canadian varieties now under test
in Britain, such as Lapins, Sunburst and Sweetheart, should offer slightly greater
resistance to cracking than many of the older varieties. Also growers may wish to test on
a limited scale, varieties such as Regina, Castor, Kordia and Ulster under UK growing
conditions.

Cherry Split - Will Chemicals Crack the Problem?

An answer to the problem of rain-induced cracking of sweet cherries has been sought
since the 1930s. Although no chemical spray will completely stop fruits cracking, most
effort has been put into finding one which will significantly reduce the proportion of fruits
damaged.

Research has mainly focused on testing the effects of sprays of minerals (calcium, copper
or boron compounds), plant hormones (gibberellins or auxins), and of antitranspirants or
surfactants on the sensitivity of cherries to cracking.

Minerals
Some reports have indicated that sprays of calcium compounds, applied up to four times
before harvest starting three or four weeks before the expected harvest date, have
reduced the percentage of fruits splitting. Several different calcium compounds have been
tested but the most success has been achieved with the chloride, the acetate or the
hydroxide.

Unfortunately, worldwide results have been inconsistent, ranging from significant

reductions to increases in cracking following application of calcium sprays. One of the
problems in interpreting these results and identifying reasons for the variation is that the
trials have been conducted on different varieties, bearing different crop loads and in very
different environmental conditions.

However, trials with sprays of calcium chloride and calcium metalosate (a chelated form
of calcium), plus surfactants, were conducted on the variety Bradbourne Black at East
Malling in 1990 and 1991 and on Van in 1991. Three sprays were applied, each of 3%
calcium active ingredient, at ten-day intervals starting four weeks before harvest.

The results were most disappointing. None of the calcium sprays had any effect on the
cracking of either variety. In 1990, the calcium-treated Bradbourne Black fruits actually
cracked slightly more in immersion tests (cracking index tests) than untreated fruits.
Further studies indicated the treatments had little effect on the amounts of calcium in the
fruit skin or flesh and had no significant effect on the speed of water uptake by the fruits in
immersion tests.

When calcium sprays have been successful in tests abroad, it has been argued (usually
without much supporting evidence), that the calcium was getting into the fruits and
strengthening the bonds between epidermal and other fruit cells, so improving their
'strength' and reducing cracking.

Another theory sometimes put forward is that calcium deposited on the fruit surface may
reduce its capacity for water uptake. However, this is not supported by the East Malling
results.

Danish experience
Research in Denmark some years ago showed that spraying cherries with calcium during
rain showers did alleviate cracking. Daily fruits misting with calcium-rich water also
produced similar effects. These treatments may have worked better than the more usual
two or three pre-harvest sprays by constantly replacing the calcium washed off by the
rain.

A major drawback of calcium sprays, however, is the unsightly residues left on the fruits
at harvest which may need to be washed off or removed in some other way before
marketing.

Trials many years ago indicated that sprays of Bordeaux mixture could have beneficial
effects in reducing cherry splitting. Bordeaux is a mixture of copper sulphate and lime and
the results may have been attributable to one or both of these components. Copper
sulphate applied alone is damaging at the concentrations needed to have any beneficial
effect on cracking, so the lime is included primarily to reduce the scorching effect of the
copper. In recent trials in Tasmania, Bordeaux mixtures have successfully reduced cherry
cracking and increased both fruit firmness and epidermal thickness.

Trials in the U.S. examined the effects of sprays of aluminium or boron compounds on
cracking. As with the calcium and copper sprays, the results were inconsistent. Sprays of
copper or aluminium also leave unsightly deposits on the fruit at harvest. The fruits
usually need washing after picking.

Plant hormones
Several reports suggest one or two sprays of gibberelic acid, (GA3, at 15 to 30ppm)
applied three to four weeks before harvest can reduce cracking of cherries. These sprays
also delay maturity and may increase fruit size and firmness.
In trials in Belgium, GA3 appeared to thicken the cuticle and the radial epidermal walls of
treated fruits while work in Oregon in the U.S. has shown that GA3-treated Lambert sweet
cherries exhibited more cracking following rain than unsprayed controls.

Further studies in Oregon, using simulated rain, showed that the GA3 treatments
increased cracking of immature fruits decreased it for a short period at about two weeks
before maturity and had no effect at fruit maturity. Also, GA3 appeared to cause more
side cracks and fewer tip cracks as maturity progressed.

Work at Wye College some years ago also showed that although cracking around the
neck of cherry fruits was reduced by GA3 sprays, the more damaging lateral cracks were
not. Research in Washington State on Rainier cherries showed increased cracking of
GA3-treated fruits. The studies also showed that cracking was worse on gibberellin-
treated cherries if the fruit remained wet for more than four hours.
Studies at East Malling last year showed no reduction in cracking following GA3
treatments to fruits, spur leaves or both spur leaves and fruits. However, fruit firmness
and size were increased and maturity delayed by the GA3 treatments (table 1).

Table 1. Influence of GA3 (5ppm + surfactant)* on Van fruit quality

Treatment Fruit size (g) Optimum harvest date N/cmFruit firmness (%)Soluble solids
Control 6.9 July 10 8.31 17.9
GA3 9.3 July 19 11.20 17.9

* Six sprays applied weekly starting May 19, 1993

So although sprays of gibberellin consistently increase fruit size, firmness and storage
potential, their effects on cracking are likely to be poor, or even negative, if rain is
prolonged.

Trials in Belgium at Wye College and at East Malling have looked at whether cherries
from trees sprayed with paclobutrazol show more or less fruit cracking following rain.
Although the Belgian trials found positive benefits, those conducted at Wye College and
East Malling showed no consistent reductions in cracking.

However, paclobutrazol-sprayed trees do yield fruits with higher calcium content which is
beneficial for shelf life. Also, the short internodes and tightly clustered leaves on sprayed
trees may act as umbrellas to protect fruits from direct rain and so in some cases reduce
cracking.

Research in the 1950s in the U.S., and more recently in Spain, showed that sprays of the
sodium salt of naphthalene acetic acid (NAA, applied at 1mg/litre at approximately 30 to
35 days before harvest), reduced sweet cherry cracking by up to 50%. However,
applications closer to harvest (four to 18 days) increased cracking.

The Spanish work also found that varieties differed considerably in their response to NAA.
NAA had no effect on fruit mineral status but seemed to inhibit swelling of fruits placed in
water. One suggestion is, therefore, that where NAA reduces cracking it acts by
restricting water uptake by the fruit. In trials in Oregon the beneficial effects of NAA
sprays were additional to those of pre-harvest sprays of calcium hydroxide.

Elsewhere, NAA has been found to have no benefits in reducing cracking. In France,
auxin sprays applied to the variety Burlat had no effect although the year of testing was
one of low natural cracking.

Wye College research showed that sprays of NAA, applied four weeks before harvest
reduced both the field cracking and the cracking index, and increased the firmness of two
sweet cherry varieties. However, the NAA treatment did reduce the size of one of the
varieties, Stella. So auxin sprays can reduce the severity of rain-induced cracking on
some cherry varieties but may also reduce fruit size slightly.
Anti-transpirants
Cherries are known to have a less efficient covering of waxes on the fruit surface than
apples and pears. Anti-transpirant sprays, if effective, should add to this wax covering and
limit both water uptake and water loss through the cuticle and stomata.

Unfortunately, covering the skin in this way also reduces gas exchange by the fruits which
may also limit photosynthesis and the build up of soluble solids (sugars). As with all other
chemical sprays used to reduce cracking, there are conflicting reports. Research
conducted in California, Britain and Italy has shown pre-harvest sprays of anti-
transpirants to sweet cherries can reduce the incidence of rain-induced cracking and may
also inhibit post harvest water loss and shrivel of fruits.

The British research showed that waxy anti-transpirants, such as Clarital, cut down water
uptake and fruit cracking. These treatments also increased fruit size and firmness, but
reduced soluble solids and titratable acidity. Other U.S. work found anti-transpirant
sprays actually increased cracking, while trials in Canada showed no effect. All effective
anti-transpirants leave an unsightly deposit on the fruits at harvest.

Surfactants
Sprays of wetting agents/surfactants like Pril and Citowett just before ripening (one week
before harvest) have been shown to reduce cracking by as much as 50% in German
trials. Austrian research showed similar beneficial results on a range of cherry varieties.

Belgian trials found that two sprays, each of 100ml Citowett/100 litres water, 18 and eight
days before harvest reduced cracking on six cherry varieties to very low levels compared
with unsprayed controls. Similar trials in Holland also showed promising results using
Citowett.

Surfactant treatments, like those of anti-transpirants, are thought by some researchers to

work by reducing the rate or amount of water taken up by fruits. They are easily washed
off, however, and are unlikely to be effective after very heavy rainfall or if applied too
soon before harvest.

Sprays of calcium and copper compounds, gibberellins, auxins, anti-transpirants and

surfactants have all reduced sweet cherry cracking in some trials. However, the effects
are very variable and in some cases the sprays may make cracking worse. The reasons
behind the inconsistent results need to be established.

Cherries - Under Wraps

If we accept that most cherry cracking is the result of rain water deposited on and taken
up by the fruits, and not from water translocated to the fruits from the roots, then covering
the crop with some form of rain shelter should offer the best solution to the problem.

Rain shelters were first tested in Switzerland many years ago and since then growers and
researchers across the world have experimented with covers. By far, the biggest
investment has taken place in New Zealand where many orchards of large standard trees
have been enclosed by expensive and highly sophisticated polythene structures. The
expense of these structures is to some extent justified by the very high returns on cherries
exported from New Zealand to Japan to satisfy the demand during the Christmas period.
European covering systems for sweet cherries have been more modest in design and
cheaper to erect than the New Zealand canopies. Moreover, they have relied on the
grower being able to control, at least partially, tree size. Canopies erected in Norway,
where many trees are covered commercially, are extremely simple. Although they do
occasionally break free in high winds they are, for the most part, reported to be reliable.

In Switzerland and Belgium the covering systems have been similar in design to the one
we have tested at East Malling over the past three years. Metal hoops attached to stout
poles, with either lightweight metal rods or wires between each hoop, support polythene
umbrellas over the trees. Attaching the polythene firmly to the structure is the biggest
problem and the metal rods on the system tested at East Malling (manufactured by the
Rovero, Rolloos Sorensenbv in Holland) make it much simpler than wires.

In the East Malling experiment the polythene covers (150 micron Visqueen) were put in
place over hedge-trained trees of Merchant on Colt rootstock in the middle of May each
year from 1991 to 1993. Covers which simply provided an umbrella over the tops of the
trees were compared with longer covers, which draped to within 1m of the orchard floor
on both sides of the hedge of trees. Similar, uncovered, trees were monitored as controls.

All trees were protected from birds by enclosing within netting. Two of the trees in each of
the five-tree experimental plots were irrigated by trickle, providing eight litres/tree/day
starting once the shelters were erected.

The covers reduced the percentage of fruits which cracked in all three years (table 2).
Table 2. Fruit Cracking (%) Over Three-Year Trial
Covers 1991 1992 1993
None 24 20 41
Short 13 16 20
Long 15 14 16
Irrigation
+ 21 27 29
- 20 20 22

The differences between the effects of long or short covers on fruit cracking were small
and not significant. Long covers gave excellent protection from rain and yet despite this,
approximately 15% of the fruits split in each year. As condensation on fruits beneath the
covers was minimal, the indication is that even when fully protected from uptake of rain
through the fruit skin, an appreciable proportion of fruits may still crack.

Irrigation increased the proportion of fruits cracking, which adds further evidence to the
theory that the water status of the whole tree has a bearing on the severity of the
problem. It is thought water entering the fruits via the fruit stalk cannot escape by the
same route. In order to relieve the high turgor pressure which may build up when water
enters from the rest of the tree, the fruit must lose some of its excess water by
transpiration through the skin.

Records at East Malling show that humidity builds up beneath the covers to levels that
can severely limit water loss from the fruits via transpiration. This, coupled with the high
water status of the trees following rain, is almost certainly the cause of cracking recorded
beneath the covers.
What is needed in the future is a cover which can breathe or which can be drawn off
immediately after rain to allow better air circulation around the trees. Close woven plastic
materials may be one answer and some have been tested in grower trials.

Unfortunately, driving rain tends to result in fine mist sprays penetrating the materials and
wetting the fruits beneath. In the U.S., one grower has developed a system of covering
trees with thick, transparent tarpaulin-type materials which are hung from wires above the
trees and are drawn on and off the crop as necessary. This system has proved to be very
effective.

Other Benefits
Apart from reducing the percentage of fruits cracking, covering cherries grown in Britain
may have other advantages. In 1993, trees beneath the long covers yielded 43% more
fruit than the uncovered controls and short and long covers increased the yield of
marketable fruits by over 40% and over 50% respectively.

Fruit size and colour were increased in two of the three years of trial at East Malling. Fruit
firmness, which was recorded in only one year (1993), was also improved. Fruit soluble
solids (% sugars) were, however, reduced in fruit from beneath the long covers in all
three years; the short covers had no significant effect on soluble solids.

Whether covering sweet cherries with polythene or other rain-proof materials is

economically viable is not yet known. More trials will be necessary over several seasons
before the benefits in terms of increased yields of marketable fruits can be quantified.
Such economic appraisals are already under way in Michigan where experimental
shelters are under test.

Cracking of many fruits, such as tomatoes and grapes, is often attributed to erratic
supplies of water. A regular supply of water applied throughout the season may reduce
this problem. However, results in our trials at East Malling indicate irrigation of sweet
cherries, even when applied daily from mid May until harvest, may increase rather than
decrease the risk of cherries cracking at harvest (table).

Indeed, some slight water stress in trees as they approach harvest may be beneficial;
fruits with a reduced water content should be able to take in more water after rain before
splitting is induced than fruits with a higher water content. Choice of rootstock or root
manipulation treatments may help in this respect and new trials are planned to examine
these possibilities.