See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270567586

Vase life of new cut flowers

Article  in  Acta Horticulturae · July 2013

DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2013.1000.6

CITATIONS READS

15 7,253

4 authors, including:

John M. Dole Alicain S. Carlson

North Carolina State University Syngenta Flowers
171 PUBLICATIONS   3,071 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NCSU Cut Flower and Postharvest Floriculture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alicain S. Carlson on 12 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vase Life of New Cut Flowers
J.M. Dole, A.S. Carlson, B.D. Crawford and I.F. McCall
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
USA

Keywords: holding solution, hydrator, preservative

Abstract
Stems of promising and productive cultivars from the National Cut Flower
Trial Program were pretreated with either a commercial hydrating solution or
deionized (DI) water and placed in either a commercial holding solution or DI water
for 44 hours. Treatment with a holding preservative produced the longest vase life for
24 cultivars in the genera Antirrhinum, Capsicum, Celosia, Echinacea, Helianthus,
Ocimum, Physocarpus, Rudbeckia, Scabiosa, Tagetes and Zinnia, indicating that
holding preservatives should be used with most taxa. Compared to the water-only
control commercial hydrators had a less positive effect as they increased the vase life
of only two Helianthus cultivars and Physocarpus ‘Coppertina’, and reduced the vase
life of 11 cultivars in the genera Ageratum, Callistephus, Celosia, Chasmanthium,
Echinacea and Helianthus. Cultivar variation was noted in some genera, such as
Scabiosa, where holding solutions increased the vase life of ‘Deep Blue Improved’ and
‘Fama White’, while holding solutions had no significant effect on ‘Deep Blue’ and
‘Perfecta White’. All treatments produced a statistically similar vase life for 12
cultivars in the genera Asclepias, Callistemon, Celosia, Craspedia, Dianthus,
Helianthus, Penstemon, Salix and Scabiosa.

INTRODUCTION
Each year a wide variety of new cultivars and species are evaluated in the National
Cut Flower Trial Programs, administered by North Carolina State University and the
Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers. The most promising cultivars and species
from the Trial Programs are subjected to postharvest evaluation. Over the first 9 years of
the postharvest evaluation program, the vase life of 121 cultivars representing 47 cut
flower genera was determined (Clark et al., 2010). The objective of this multi-year study
was to identify patterns of postharvest responses to commercial hydrator and holding
floral preservatives with 43 cultivars from 24 genera.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field grown flowers were harvested between 7:00 am and 10:00 am at the
optimum stage of development (Table 3). The lower half of the stems were stripped of
leaves then placed into buckets filled with tap water within 5 min of being cut. Initial
stem length varied with the species, but was at least 35 cm long in all cases. Stems were
then sorted into four similar groups based on stem length and diameter, flower bud
number and/or flower size, as appropriate for the cultivar, and trimmed to a consistent
length for each species, 30 to 45 cm. Within two hours of harvest, two groups of stems
were placed in hydrating solution [Floralife Hydraflor 100 (Floralife, Walterboro, SC,
USA) at 8 mL·L-1] or DI water for 4 h, after which time one group from each solution was
placed in a holding solution [Floralife Professional (Floralife) at 10 mL·L-1] or in DI
water for 44 hours. Initial pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the solutions were
recorded (Table 1) every month using a combination pH/EC meter (HI 9813 GroCheck
meter, Hannah Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA). Stems were placed one per quart-size
Mason jar (0.94 L) with 300 ml solution in a completely randomized design within each
species or cultivar in a postharvest environment held at 20±2°C under 20 to 40 µmolm-2s-1
light for 12 hd-1. For each species 11-15 stems per treatment were tested. Vase life was

Proc. VIIth IS on New Floricultural Crops

Eds.: G. Facciuto and M.I. Sánchez 63
Acta Hort. 1000, ISHS 2013
terminated when “the average consumer” would discard the stem, based on petal wilt,
necrosis, discoloration, or abscission; bent neck; leaf and stem discoloration; drying; or
general stem decline, depending on the species (Table 3). Vase life data were collected
and analyzed by species or cultivars using analysis of variance (SAS 9.1, SAS Institute,
Cary, NC, USA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twelve cultivars were statistically unaffected by either hydrator or holding
preservatives (Table 2). It is recommended that further testing be conducted on those taxa.
It is important to note that when the current results presented here conflict with previously
published recommendations (Armitage and Laushman, 2003; Chain of Life Network,
2011; Clark et al., 2010; Nowak and Rudnicki, 1990; Scoggins, 2002), each grower
should assess their operation to determine the most practical use of hydrator and holding
solutions for their farm. These differences could exist for several reasons including
differences in the specific cultivars tested, handling procedures (including timing,
equipment, and weather), postharvest environment, and subjective opinions regarding
when to terminate vase life. For the following genera, the vase life of one or more
cultivars was significantly influenced by the treatments (Table 4).
Ageratum. The longest vase life for ‘Everest Blue’ was obtained when stems were
held in water for the entire 48 hours, which also occurred with Ageratum ‘High Tide
White’ (Clark et al., 2010). In contrast, industry recommended that a holding solution
(product unspecified) be used (Armitage and Laushman, 2003; Chain of Life Network,
2011; Scoggins, 2002).
Antirrhinum. For both snapdragon cultivars tested the longest vase lives were
obtained when a holding preservative was used, regardless of hydrator use, which is
similar to previous reports (Clark et al., 2010). Industry recommendations (Armitage and
Laushman, 2003; Chain of Life Network, 2011; Scoggins, 2002) support the use of a
holding preservative.
Callistephus. For both cultivars, the use of a hydrator preservative reduced vase life
and with ‘Semi Double White’ there was an interaction with holding solution such that the
longest vase life was obtained when stems were put in only water for the entire 48 hours,
but the shortest vase life was obtained when stems were put in water for 44 hours after
being placed in a hydrator preservative for 4 hours. Kofranek et al. (1978) noted that sugar
and citric acid increased vase life. Chain of Life (2011), however, recommended that
flowers be placed into a hydration preservative “as the sugar in flower food solutions can
damage the foliage”. Apparently, there is no consensus on handling of this species yet.
Capsicum. The holding solution increased vase life of ‘Orange Globe’ by 2 to 4
days. In the previous report (Clark et al., 2010), holding preservative similarly increased
the vase life of two of three cultivars, but the commercial hydrator either reduced vase life
or had no effect on three cultivars. Consequently, hydrator preservatives should not be
used. Foliage wilted readily while the fruit remained presentable; consequently, as much
of the foliage should be removed at harvest as practical.
Celosia. Results were variable for the three cultivars tested. Generally, however, a
hydrating preservative reduced vase life. For ‘Red Flame’ a commercial holding
preservative also increased vase life. Previously, the longest vase life of ‘Toreador Red’
was obtained when a holding preservative was used after being treated with either a
hydrator or water (Clark et al., 2010). However, with a holding preservative stems
discolored slightly and desiccated rapidly, but did not exhibit bent neck or yellow foliage,
prompting the longer vase life. To maintain color and texture most similar to freshly
harvested flowers, it is recommended that only water or only a hydrator is utilized.
Armitage and Laushman (2003), the Chain of Life Network (2010), and Scoggins (2002)
support this recommendation. Holcomb et al. (1998) noted that vase life was 16 d in tap
water; commercial holding preservatives produced variable results and could reduce vase
life if the incorrect concentration is used. Apparently, there is no consensus on handling of
this species yet.

64
 Chasmanthium. Holding and hydrating solution interacted such that the longest
vase life of ‘Green Oats’ occurred when a holding preservative was used after a hydrating
preservative and the shortest vase life occurred when stems were held in water after
hydrating with a commercial hydrator. However, vase life was over 4 weeks regardless of
treatment. Thus, it appears that commercial hydrators or holding solutions are not
necessary for a long vase life.
Echinacea. Of the seven cultivars tested, the vase lives of six were increased with
holding preservatives and three were decreased due to use of hydrating preservatives. In
the previous report holding preservatives increased the vase life and the longest vase life
was obtained when a holding solution was used after placing stems in water for 4 hours
(Clark et al., 2010). It is clear that a holding preservative should be used with Echinacea
and that a hydrator should not be used.
Helianthus. Of the eight cultivars tested, vase lives of five were increased with the
use of holding preservatives and two with the use of a hydrating preservative. For one
cultivar hydrating preservative reduced vase life and for three the preservatives had no
effect. The previous report showed similar variability in 26 cultivars tested; nine were
unaffected by treatment, holding preservative increased the vase life of 16, hydration
preservatives increased the vase life of two, and the use of both hydrator and holding
preservatives increased vase life of one cultivar (Clark et al., 2010). However, hydrator
preservatives reduced the vase life of three cultivars and combining a hydrator with a
holding preservative decreased the vase life of two cultivars. All cultivars either benefited
or were unaffected by a holding preservative when used alone. Therefore, a holding
preservative should be used with cut sunflowers. The Chain of Life Network (2010)
supports the use of hydrators, holding preservatives, or plain water for postharvest
solutions for sunflowers, but states the most benefit is gained from holding preservatives.
Ocimum. The vase life for ‘Aromato’ was longest when both a holding and
hydrator preservative were used, although only the holding preservative was statistically
significant. Similarly, with ‘Cardinal’ in the previous report, the longest vase life was
obtained when hydrator and holding preservatives were used together (Clark et al., 2010).
Individually, both hydrator and holding preservatives increased vase life. Thus, it is
recommended to use both a holding and a hydrating preservative.
Physocarpus. ‘Coppertina’ vase life was slightly increased by using a hydrating or
a holding preservative, but the two were not additive. In the previous report ‘Diabolo’ was
unaffected by treatment, while the vase life of ‘Summer Wine’ was increased by a holding
solution (Clark et al., 2010). We would recommend the use of a holding solution and that
hydrating preservatives be tested further.
Rudbeckia. The vase life of ‘Prairie Sun’ was increased with the use of a holding
preservative. In previous work, the holding preservative increased the vase life of
‘Autumn Colors’, but had no effect on two other cultivars (Clark et al., 2010).
Scabiosa. Vase life of two of the four cultivars increased by 1.1 to 1.9 days when a
holding solution was used. For two of the four cultivars tested, there was no significant
difference among the treatments. Chain of Life (2011) recommended that high level of
sugar (approximately 3%) be used, which can be obtained by adding sugar to a commer-
cial holding preservative. Higher rates of commercial products should not be used at
higher levels as higher rates of other components in the preservatives “will damage
flowers and/or leaves”.
Tagetes. For all three cultivars the commercial holding solution increased vase life
by 2.0 to 4.9 days. Nowak and Rudnicki (1990) and Chain of Life (2011) also noted that
Tagetes respond positively to floral preservatives.
Zinnia. ‘Queen Red Lime’ vase life was increased with the use of a holding
preservative. Results were quite variable in previous work, as the vase life for five of nine
cultivars was shorter with the use of a holding preservative, vase life of two cultivars
increased by using a holding preservative, and two cultivars were unaffected by treat-
ments. However, vase life was lengthened when stems were kept in holding preservative
for 2 days, as with ‘Queen Red Lime’, but was decreased when held in preservative

65
continuously. The Chain of Life Network (2011) states that zinnias are sensitive to the use
of holding preservatives. The Chain of Life Network (2011) warns “…damage can result
if the solution is made too strong (over 1%), too weak (0.5%) and/or if the wrong flower
food brand is used”.
Of the 43 taxa tested, 8 had a vase life longer than 21 days for at least one of the
treatments, 8 had a vase life of 14 to 21 days and 18 had a vase life of 10 to 14 days,
indicating that most of the taxa tested would be suitable for commercial production
(Tables 2 and 4). However, these results represent optimal postharvest handling condi-
tions without cold storage or shipping, which can reduce vase life. Commercial producers
typically store or ship cut flowers for one to several days. Thus, commercial producers
should expect shorter vase lives when flowers are stored or shipped. For the majority of
taxa, treatment with a holding preservative produced the longest vase life (Table 5) or all
treatments produced a similar vase life (Table 2), indicating that holding preservatives
should be used with most taxa. Commercial hydrators need not be used with most taxa as
they increased the vase life of only 3 cultivars in 2 genera and reduced the vase life of 11
cultivars in 6 genera.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Association of Specialty Cut Flower
Growers Research Foundation, American Floral Endowment, and numerous suppliers.
The authors would like to thank Diane Mays, Iftikhar Ahmad, Michelle McElhannon, and
Laura Daly for assisting with cut flower production, harvest and postharvest handling.

Literature Cited
Armitage, A.M. and Laushman, J.M. 2003. Specialty cut flowers (2nd ed.). Timber Press,
Portland.
Chain of Life Network. 2011. Floral crop database.
http://www.chainoflifenetwork.org/moa/dbs/floral_crops/default.cfm.
Clark, E.M.R., Dole, J.M., Carlson, A.S., Moody, E.P., McCall, I.F., Fanelli, F.L. and
Fonteno, W.C. 2010. Vase Life of New Cut Flower Cultivars. HortTech. 20:1016-
1025.
Holcomb, E.J., Raffensberger, W. and Berghage, R. 1998. Postharvest treatments for
Celosia. Penn. Flower Grow. Bul. 450:3.
Kofranek, A.M., Evans, E., Kubota, J. and Farnham, D.S. 1978. Chemical pretreatments
for China asters to increase flower longevity. Florists Rev. 162(4206):26, 70-72.
Nowak, J. and Rudnicki, R.M. 1990. Postharvest Handling and Storage of Cut Flowers,
Florist Greens and Potted Plants. Timber Press, Portland.
Scoggins, H.L. 2002. Field production of cut flowers: potential crops. Virginia Tech. Ext.
Publ. p.426-619.

66
Tables

Table 1. pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of hydrator and holding preservatives for
2010 and 2011 using Floralife Hydraflor 100 (hydrator; Floralife, Walterboro, SC,
USA) and Floralife Professional (holding; Floralife, Walterboro, SC, USA).

Deionized water Hydrator Holding

EC EC EC
pH range pH range pH range
Year range (dS·m-1) range (dS·m-1) range (dS·m-1)
2010 3.4 to 4.1 0.00 2.3 to 2.7 0.87 to 1.08 3.2 to 3.6 0.36 to 0.46
2011 3.7 to 4.6 0.00 2.6 to 2.8 0.72 to 0.84 3.5 to 3.6 0.30 to 0.37

Table 2. Cultivars on which neither commercial hydrator nor holding solutions had an
effect (P < 0.05). Data are an average of stems from all four treatments.

Minimum Average
vase life vase life ± SD Stems
Genera Cultivars (days) z (days) y (no./treatment)
Asclepias ‘Oro’ 7 10.3 ± 1.8 15
Callistemon ‘Woodlander’s Red’ 5 5.8 ± 0.9 15
Celosia ‘Sunday Dark Pink’ 6 30.7 ± 9.9 15
Craspedia ‘Sun Ball’ 9 38.7 ± 13.9 11
Dianthus ‘Volcano Mix’ 6 15.4 ± 3.4 15
Helianthus ‘Amber Glow’ 8 10.9 ± 0.9 13
‘Music Box’ 4 7.9 ± 1.6 12
‘Procut Gold’ 7 11.3 ± 1.7 15
Penstemon ‘Dark Towers’ 9 10.3 ± 1.2 15
Salix ‘Hakuro Nishiki’ 5 10.1 ± 4.0 15
Scabiosa ‘Fama Deep Blue’ 2 9.3 ± 2.3 15
‘Perfecta White’ 3 8.7 ± 1.8 15
z Stem with the shortest vase life from all treatments.
y Average over all four treatments ± standard deviation.

67
68
Table 3. The stage at which cut stems were harvested and criteria by which the vase life was terminated.
Species
Ageratum ‘Everest Blue’
Antirrhinum, two cultivars
Asclepias ‘Oro’
Callistephus, two cultivars
Callistemon ‘Woodlander’s Red’
Capsicum ‘Orange Globe’
Celosia, four cultivars
Chasmanthium latifolia ‘Green Oats’
Craspedia ‘Sun Ball’
Dianthus ‘Volcano Mix’
Echinacea, seven cultivars
Helianthus, nine cultivars
Ocimum ‘Aromato’
Penstemon ‘Dark Towers’
Physocarpus ‘Coppertina’
Rudbeckia ‘Prairie Sun’
Salix purpurea ‘Hakuro Nishiki’
Scabiosa, four cultivars
Tagetes, three cultivars
Zinnia ‘Queen Red Lime’
68
Stage of harvest
Upper 33% of florets fully
developed and fuzzy
At least three flowers opened
At least ¼ flowers open
At least 3 flowers open per stem
All stamens developed
Fruit 75% colored
Plume fully developed, no seeds yet
Inflorescence fully expanded
Full color
At least three flowers opened
Petals colored and fully expanded
Petals perpendicular to stem axis
Foliage without inflorescence
At least 3 florets open
Foliage fully colored
Outer ring of ray florets opened
Foliage fully expanded
At least3 petals fully expanded
At least 3 rows of petals fully expanded
Outer petals fully expanded, one row of
florets opened
Reasons for termination
50% of florets wilted or brown
50% of flowers wilted or brown
50% of flowers wilted or brown
50% of flowers wilted or brown
50% stamens abscised
50% of fruit shriveled
Bent neck, yellow foliage, rooted in vase
50% stem brown (dried in vase)
50% brown
50% of flowers wilted or brown
50% of petals wilted or brown
50% of petals wilted or brown
50% wilted, rooted in vase
50% florets wilted or dropped
50% of leaves brown or discolored
50 % petals wilted, stem collapsed
50% wilted/dry leaves, rooted in vase
50% wilted or brown petals
50% wilted or brown petals
50% of petals wilted or brown
 Table 4. Influence of hydrator (hyd.) and holding (hold.) solutions on cut stems of new cut flower cultivars, in which one or more
treatments had a significant effect on vase life. Stems were placed in either in hydrating solution (Floralife Hydraflor 100) or DI water
for 4 hours, after which time one group from each solution was placed in a holding solution (Floralife Professional) or in DI water for
44 hours.

Minimum Water Hydrator

vase life Water Hold. Water Hold. Significance y Stems
Genera Cultivars (days) z (days) (days) (days) (days) Hyd. Hold. Interaction (no./treatment)
Ageratum ‘Everest Blue’ 3 16.1 10.6 7.8 11.0 *** NS *** 15
Antirrhinum ‘Calima Pure White’ 3 6.5 8.1 5.2 8.8 NS *** NS 15
‘Chantilly Yellow’ 3 4.5 8.7 4.5 7.5 NS *** NS 15
Callistephus ‘Palette Mix 11 18.5 18.1 15.6 15.6 ** NS NS 15
‘Semi Double White’ 12 24.1 20.0 16.6 20.1 ** NS ** 15
Capsicum ‘Orange Globe’ 12 19.9 24.0 19.9 22.4 NS * NS 15
Celosia ‘Celway Terracotta’ 9 27.9 25.1 18.7 21.2 *** NS NS 15
‘Orange Peach’ 12 38.1 34.1 23.2 31.7 *** NS ** 15
‘Red Flame’ 9 17.2 17.7 12.4 18.0 * ** ** 15
Chasmanthium ‘Green Oat’ 17 52.0 44.2 36.6 46.2 * NS ** 15
Echinacea ‘Flame Thrower’ 5 14.7 13.1 10.9 13.2 * NS ** 15
‘Maui Sunshine’ 3 10.2 12.1 9.9 11.3 NS * NS 15
‘Milkshake’ 3 7.7 10.7 7.0 9.0 NS * NS 15
‘Pink Double Delight’ 5 9.1 12.7 10.6 12.0 NS *** NS 15
‘Purity’ 3 10.2 14.7 7.7 12.8 * *** NS 15
‘Sundown’ 3 6.7 8.1 5.4 8.3 NS ** NS 15
‘Tomato Soup’ 2 12.8 13.0 9.5 11.3 * NS NS 15
Helianthus ‘Procut Brilliance’ 8 10.9 12.5 10.3 11.0 ** *** NS 15
‘Summer Breeze’ 6 8.6 8.5 8.1 9.3 NS NS * 15
‘Valentine’ 5 8.7 11.8 9.2 10.8 NS ** NS 15
‘Vincent Choice’ 5 9.4 11.4 10.0 10.8 NS * NS 15
‘Vincent Fresh’ 4 6.8 7.7 7.1 9.6 * *** NS 15
Table continued on next page
69

69
View publication stats

70
Table 4 (continued).

Minimum Water Hydrator

vase life Water Hold. Water Hold. Significance y Stems
Genera Cultivars (days) z (days) (days) (days) (days) Hyd. Hold. Interaction (no./treatment)

Ocimum ‘Aromato’ 3 12.9 22.5 14.7 23.6 NS *** NS 15

Physocarpus ‘Coppertina’ 5 10.0 12.5 12.3 12.4 * * * 15
Rudbeckia ‘Prairie Sun’ 6 12.8 14.8 9.3 14.6 NS *** NS 15
Scabiosa ‘Fama Deep Blue Improved’ 2 7.7 8.9 8.2 9.3 NS * NS 15
‘Fama White’ 4 8.3 10.2 8.7 9.9 NS ** NS 15
Tagetes ‘American Babuda Yellow’ 3 6.0 10.6 6.3 10.7 NS *** NS 15
‘American Babuda Deep Gold’ 5 9.7 14.5 9.0 13.9 NS *** NS 15
‘American Narai Yellow’ 5 5.7 7.7 6.3 8.5 NS *** NS 15
Zinnia ‘Queen Red Lime’ 4 6.2 7.7 6.3 8.8 NS ** NS 15
z Stem with the shortest vase life from all treatments.
y NS, *, **, *** Nonsignificant or significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.

Table 5. Number of genera and cultivars whose response to floral preservatives fits the indicated categories. Cultivars that had no response
to any treatment are listed in Table 2. Cultivars can fit more than one category.

2010 and 2011 2001 to 2009 Total

Genera Cultivars Genera Cultivars Genera Cultivars
Category (no.) (no.) (no.) (no.) (no.) (no.)
Holding- positive effect 11 24 25 53 26 77
Holding- negative effect 0 0 8 14 8 15
Hydrator- positive effect 2 3 3 4 4 5
Hydrator- negative effect 6 11 12 18 12 29
Both hydrator and holding- positive 3 3 3 3 4 6
Both hydrator and holding- negative 0 0 8 12 8 12

70