. 33"" 7'.

“Q; l C‘- «K!
. .
. . .

2 ‘t3
3 --“."-
'2
0 n

'.I ‘ '2 ' ). ‘l'-\_ 'I " ' ;;- '1‘ ’ 1:1. , '3 1;"!
. _j .. o
'. :----\. .- w: x .. -. - \.' -..--."..".. xx“;
.4.‘ "1 fl; .1“ £ ‘ S31 ’3‘ ‘5 _ ‘- 7‘-
._ . . N r ' .0
gl- - \:'\9 I..-5 - . \: u-“.-;_ ...~
o 9"; . ‘ :. :-' a I ~
K. t . 3. f’. a, I. .1 4‘ a _ -. 1 of . \_
.s'. ..-.‘ .-.;‘-\:..‘.w\.‘ g.‘ ;..'d .4 L‘;
§
‘ ’1 o o '0. o- - .yu;-_3 1 .. -1; a; a :‘fi. .-
‘. 1" .‘ 2‘ . . -: . 3 .; .
. '\: - x0 5 ‘1 : '0. . o: \‘3 » o .- O; O h...) J | o
‘ .
D
5“ '3 ltl . .l.‘\ A" 3.- .z: .1 : "- ' z."
.-s&- .2 .. -i C" 3" x.-. _u ....J - .
L

r. r. 'n [-
. ‘ ‘
.3' .

1HES|$

NETIO VARIATION Ill TOW OF GOD STORAGE

Snapdragon flowers were used in this investigation to
isolate and demonstrate variations in keeping quality after
cold storage and to test the heritability of such variations.
Flower spikes were out and placed in 50 gallon netal druns.

These druns were sealed and kept at 31°F. for six weeks. i'hen
the flowers were renoved and evaluated over a period of five
days at roon temperature.

The results presented denonstrate that genetic variation is
present and influences the beeping quality of the flowers after
a six weeks cold storage period. Results of these tests with
parent uterial, ’1' 72 and backeross generations indicated that
the factors which determine good beeping quality are not simply
inherited, but are partially dominant. In general; ?1 populations
tended to be as good as or somewhat better than the better parent,
althougi not significantly so.

Ethylene tolerant and susceptible varieties used in the tests
illustrated the fact that ethylene my be a limiting factor in
the storage of susceptible varieties at 31°F.

Genetic variations in beeping quality after sterage nay be
femd in other horticultural crops and the desirable characteristics
nay be cenbined by a breeding prograa.

Michigan State University

lari lyn Jean Arnott

1956

GENETIC VARIATION IN TOLERANCE OF COLD STORAGE

By
MARI LYN JEAN ARNOTT
«IQ—-

A THESIS

Submitted to the-College of Agriculture of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

‘HASIBR.OP SCIEICB

Department of Hbrtioulture

1956

THESIS

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express her appreciation to Dr.‘W. J.
Haney for suggesting the problem and for his helpful criticisms
given throughout the investigations and in the preparation of
the manucript. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. A. L. Anderson,
Dr. D. H. Dewey and Dr. G. P. Steinbauer for reviewing the

manuscript.

TABIE

Introduction . . . . .
Review of Literature .
Materials and Methods .

EQUUIt' e e e e e e e e

April-Hay Storage Studies

0? CONTENTS

October-November Storage Studies . .

Dilcussion e e e e e e e.e e e e e e e

Summary e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Literature Cited e e e e e e e e e e e

\O \O (D

12
25
26
28

GENETIC VARIATION IN TOLERANCE OF COLD STORAGE

INTRODUCTION

 

Storage quality of horticultural products assumes greater
importance as centralised production increases, with a consequent
longer period of delay between.harwest and utilization. In nearly
every horticultural crop there is definite varietal variation in
the storage keeping quality. In no instance has a genetic analysis
of such variation been.nade. The choice of snapdragon (Antirrhinun
9932?.) for this study was influenced by: a) linited success of
previous storage attempts; b) its peculiar suitability as a
horticultural crop for genetic analysis, and c) the availability
of a collection of strains already selected for tolerance to
ethylene. The purpose of this investigation is to isolate and
demonstrate variation in keeping quality of the flowers after
cold storage and, further, to test the heritability of such

variations.

REVIEI’OF LITERATURE

The use of cold storage for lengthening the season of fruits
and vegetables has increased greatly since the turn of the century.
In 1903 Powell and Fulton (25) compared apple varieties in
reference to cold storage keeping quality and found wide diffierences

in the quality of the same variety when grown in different parts

of the country. They presented colored plates illustrating the
types of physiological disorders which could occur as a result

of storage. In addition, they (2h) studied the keeping quality
of pears and peaches and reported that good storage quality
differed widely in respect to the variety and growning conditions.

In an attempt to lengthen the season for grapefruit,
investigations'were started in Florida in 1915. The results of
these studies brought out numerous factors of importance to both
flavor and keeping quality of citrus fruits. For example,
Hawkins and Berger (11) found that storage improved flavor.
Friend and Bach (7) observed that temperatures of hhsh5°F. gave
the best results during long periods of storage and that there
was a marked difference in quality among varieties. Stahl and
Gain (29) found that oranges and grapefruit could be stored
successfully in a still-air storage room specially constructed
udth controlled ventilation to prevent accumulation of
respiratory gases.

Abbott and lcucks (I) observed that grapes could be stored
at 32° and 37°F. for about 30 days, but that deterioration'was
exceedingly rapid after removal. Only the variety Beacon was
used in the studies.

Haller and.Harding (8) compared the keeping quality of four
varieties of peaches. They found that peaches could not be held
in storage for more than two to four weeks, depending on.the
variety and growing conditions, withoumrserious loss of quality

or excessive breakdown of the tissues. Later, Haller (9) reported

that the storage life of different varieties of peaches at 32°F.
varied from.10 days to as long as 70 days, again depending on the
variety and the growing conditions.

In reference to apples and pears, Hukill and Smith (13)
stated that the length of storage life will vary not only with
the variety, but also with the orchard, county, growing conditions,
stage of’maturity and the storage temperature.

In the vegetable field the onion probably has been given.the
most consideration. Ihgruder and ethers (I?) grew numerous
varieties of onion in seven different locations in the United
states. The onien.varieties were grouped according to the length
of successful sterage period. lost ef the varieties that stored
well in one place also stored well when grown.elsewhere. The same
‘was true for the poor storing varieties. In stored onions Iright
and others (33} observed that sprouting increased with increasing
temperature and rooting increased.uith increasing humidity. At
the present time this problem.in onion storage is being investigated
from the standpoint of varietal response.

According to data presented by‘Iright (35) the mininum
freezing range of different varieties of fruits, vegetables and
some florists' stocks may be from a low of 22.h9F. in the case of
Mbntmorency cherry to a high of 31.1°F. in lettuce. Post and
Fischer (23) noted that 31°F. was intermediate between the
freesing point (29°F.) of most flower petals and 33°F. at which
a noticeable decline of flower quality takes place. Fischer (6)

feund that Cattleya orchids could not be stored at temperatures

-g-

below 15°F. without showing chilling injury, which was
characterised by a brown discoloration. Horticultural crops
which may be damaged by low temperatures have been summrised
by Wright (31.).

Rose and others (26) reported that snapdragons should not
be held at temperatures lower than I40°F. and could not be stored
for more than three to six days at this temperature with a
satisfactory period of usefulness.

Early experiments on the storage of tulips by miteman,
Wright and Griffiths (32) demonstrated that tulip blooms could
be held in storage. The variety Fu Brilliant was kept four
months at 32°F. in water but lasted one day only at 70°F.
Eliteman and Iright (31) found that . 32‘s. storage of Wedgewood
iris resulted in better keeping quality after the flowers were
placed at 70°F. than storage at higher temperatures. These
flowers stored for five weeks lasted about two days at 70°F.
compared with four days for fresh cut blooms.

Hoff and Ioomis (20) compared French marigold stored at
33° and h0°F. in water and dry wrapped in waxed paper. They
found that flowers stored dry at 1.0%. hept better than those
stored in water at 33°F.

Blueing of rose petals was prevented by storing rose buds
at 35° and 10°F. in a solution of potassiua nitrate and sugar
under continuous artificial light (21). llastalers (19) found
that roses, particularly the variety Better Times, did not

develop a blue color if they were packaged immediately after

-5-

cutting for dry storage, whereas roses which were allowed to
absorb water did develop a blue color. Fischer (6) observed
that Better Times roses could be held for 12 days at 31°F. with
an after-storage life equal to fresh out roses. Siegelmann (28)
subjected stemless roses and gardenias to a humid atmosphere at
5°, 15° and 25°C. and measured their carbon dioxide output.
Respiration patterns were very similar for the two flowers at

5° and 15° but not at 25%. 3. concluded that long storage 11:.
‘was a function of low temperature.

Hoff (22) reported that the quality of carnations was
improved by storage in sealed containers as a result of the high
hmidity, whereas wrapped carnations suffered from desiccation.
Similar results were obtained by Hitchcock and Zimmerman (12)
who reported that carnations did best in a relative humidity
above 98 per cent. Hoff (22) also observed that dry packaged
carnations stored for 39 days lasted longer under room conditions
than those freshly picked. Furthermore, he found that carnations
‘wilted previous to dry storage were better than those which were
packaged directly.

Iongley (lb) experimented with the storage of cut flowers
at 32°F. in sealed containers with various gases. He obtained
variable results with different kinds of flowers. Thus, a
concentration of 5 to 10 per cent carbon dioxide did not prolong
the storage period of roses and carnations. In earlier studies
Thornton (3h) had observed that carbon dioxide treatment was

effective in prolonging the life of out roses when the stmes were

- 6 -

stored for three to seven days at 38° and 50°F. He found the
best concentration of carbon dioxide varied according to the
variety, being 5 to 15 per cent for the variety Briarcliff and
15 to 30 per cent for the variety Talisman. Thornton also found
that snapdragon florets were retarded from opening when held in
storage in 15 per cent carbon dioxide for four days at 38° and
50°F. lhen the flowers were removed to warm air (75°F.) they
opened much more slowly without loss of color and lasted longer
than these stored in air.

The effect of low temperature on the keeping quality of dry
packaged cut flowers was studied by Post and Fischer (23) in
1952. They found that low temperature and dry packaging-greatly
retarded flower deterioration and extended the storage life of
flowers. The effect of the low temperature was to decrease the
rate of aging, the amount of ethylene produced, the color change
and to retard flower development and decay caused by disease
organisms. htorproof containers were used with capacity packing
to prevent extensive water loss. Those flowers conditioned in a
cool rocm (50°r.) after storage regained full turgidity the most
rapidly and with the least danger of wilting. Carnations, pompom
chrysanthemums, roses, lily-of-tho-valley, gardenias, tulips,
daffodils and iris were stored satisfactorily for varying periods
of time.

Fischer (6) reported that cut flowers stored in a dry
condition in moisture proof packages were superior to those

stored at the same temperature in water. The development of

-7-

mold inj ury on flowers stored under high humidity conditions was
dependent on temperature. Thus, the lower the temperature, the
smaller was the amount of damage caused by mold. The most
satisfactory storage temperature was 31°F.
lastalers (18) reported that snapdragons removed from storage
after three weeks kept almost as long as fresh cut flowers, but
that holding them any longer, reduced their after-storage life
considerably. One of the varieties which he used (Christh Cheer)
was not suited for storage. This variety dropped 100 per cent of
its florets within 214 hours after it had been removed from storage. _
The storage of flowers, particularly the snapdragon, has
been limited by the presence of ethylene. Lmsden and others (16)
reported that storing flowers in the same room with fruit was
very detrimental to the flowers. Dimc'ck and Baker (3) found that
the presence of diseased tissues in storage with snapdragons
caused a rapid shattering of the florets. Lumsdon and others (15)
observed that the presence of ethylene caused not only a shattering
of snapdragon florets, but also affected carnations, roses, stocks
and narcissus. Denny and Miller (2) have shown that ethylene is
produced by geranitn and petmiia petals. Fischer (1;) discovered
that snapdragons produce a toxic volatile, probably ethylene,
which caused the shattering of the florets. However, he (5)
stated that at tenperatures below h0°!. ethylene production was
not a problem. Schmiann (27) suggested the use of non-shattering
varieties of snapdragons by growers to overcome the effects of

ethylene in storage. no divided several varieties into twoclasses,

-3-

those which did not shatter and those which did shatter. Haney (10)
demonstrated genetic differences in the tendency of snapdragons to
drop their florets after cold storage. He surveyed inbred varieties
and found that these lines could be separated by their ability to

retain their florets after exposure to ethylene in a closed container.

Erasmus AND METHODS

Preliminary tests were made on over 200 different strains of
snapdragons between March and may, 1955, to determine the existence
of variations in keeping quality after storage. These strains
included commercial varieties, ethylene tolerant selections frmn
variety crosses and F1, Pé and backcross populations of one cross.

Bach spike was out when the lower 5 or 6 florets were fully
opened. They were packed dry into precooled 50 gallon metal oil.
drums lined with paper to keep the flowers from touching the sides,
thus preventing damage from.rustod metal. The sealed drums were
kept at 31°F. for a period of six weeks. Upon removal from.storage
the stoma were clipped to expose a fresh surface and placed
individually in small bottles containing distilled water and a
commercial flower preservative. Additional solution‘was added as
needed. Records were taken at the time of removal and each
succeeding day for five days.

Quality was scored on the following numerical basis: 5 -
perfect condition; h.- very slight defects but commercially
acceptable; 3 - definite utility in the home but doubtful

commercial value; 2 - having useful as well as damaged florets;

-9-

l - doubtful home use, no floret perfect, and O - no further
utility.

Representative strains selected from the above group were
sown again in July, 1955. The plants were grown under simdlar
conditions in the same bench. These strains included F1 pcpulations
and their parents as well as some which indicated good and poor
keeping quality in the preliminary tests. In this group were
early, mid-season and late flowering strains. Thus, the flowers
were out and stored as they bloomed. Spikes of each strain were
cut and stored at weekly intervals until approximately 25 spikes
had been placed in storage in at least three different drums. The
procedure for storing was the same as that described for the pre-
liminary tests. Each drumuwas opened after it had been in 31°F.
storage for six weeks and the flowers removed to room.temperature
following the procedure outlined above. Additional spikes, out at
the time the last group of each strain was put into storage, were

kept at room.temporature to determdne the fresh keeping quality.

RESULTS

April-may Storage Studies

The degree of genetic variation that resulted when a variety
of snapdragon with low keeping quality was crossed'with one of’high
keeping quality is shown.in Table l. The snapdragons in this

experiment were out April IL, 1955, and stored for six weeks.

Table l. A comparison of the quality of snapdragon parents
and their F1, Fé and backcross populations after storage at 31° F.
for six weeks.

 

Ember Identity Number of lean :tSD‘I
observations
1 Armstrong's‘lhite P1 10 22.0 2.1
2 Ethel Pé 10 17.3 l.h
3 aw x E F1 10 18.7 2.1;
h Backoross to AW‘ 801 to P1 32 19.8 2.9
5 Backoross to B 1301 to P2 31 16.9 3.3
6 Al x 3 re 60 16.6 1.2

 

. The mean is the average of the cumulative scores based on
observations at rocm.temperaturo.

The results given in Table 1 show that the combination of the
parents produced an F1 population'with a mean intermediate between
the parents. The backoross populations also tend toward the mean
of the respective parents. The F2 population shows a wide variation,
typical of a segregating population (see Table 2). The mean is
lower than that of either parent or the F1 generation. The mean of
the backercss to Ethel (Pb) is very close to that of the F2
population.

Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of these lines. The
cumulative scores, obtained by the grading systems, are plotted on
this chart to demonstrate the variation that occurs within the

populations, and the differences between parents and between the

.3353 :3 s8 H .33 8m _.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J o 1 H T , q 4 1 a m
u “ a
8 H a H a m o m a. a m a m m m H u m a H 2 as:
7 _ a i ;
Hm H H H H . a m , m m m m H w m ‘ H M e x 8
,_
H - + w -l
.q n
«m . m H m n m m o a n H H H m 5n on
w
s - M a w o-
S H H m m H m n H a , . Exes
. e a a
1 M
1 _ .
. 2 m m m m w H n mm m
S N H H m H H a , Hm we
.1 .1 _ m T
mute mm me He. 8.3 mHiHmpomH 4H,? NHTHH oH mnmmsmo
Hence -. ,- - -- echoes ebHcchamHm a}? - - L L .533.

 

 

 

 

.Om no Hope» eafienom e #33 enoaeoteano 3.26 was no cocoa. one ecaooa or? £350 .805? weapon» on»
.3 oomwepno .2393» on» no echoes orgasms—do e5 wmaaomaoo capo» magenta»: homeomoam .N 03.09

 

-12-

parents and their progeny.

Spikes which received a high cumulative score based on the
keeping quality after storage in this series of tests were propa-
gated by cuttings. These plants were selfed to produce seed. At
the present time the seed is being harvested. It will be sown and
the flowers produced will be tested to determine the heritability

of the keeping quality.

October-November Storage Studies

In order to test the consistency of keeping quality after cold
storage, representative strains were selected from.the preliminary
tests and sown in July. The spikes were out during October and
November and stored for six weeks. At the end of this period the
flowers were removed from.storage. Daily observations were made,
and the condition of each spike was recorded using the same grading
system.menticned earlier. Figure 1 shows a representative sample
of the grading system. The grades, from.left to right, are 0, l,

2, 3, h and 5. The samples shown.here were taken from five different
strains, since no one particular strain will show all degrees of
keeping quality at one time.

The identity of the strains used in this test are given in
Table 3. In Table h.tho averages of the scores for each day are
recorded. The first column (0) is the appearance of the spikes as
they were when the drum was opened. There was some crushing of the
florets due to the number of spikes packed in the drum. The crushed

florets usually returned to a state of full turgor within 2h hours.

- 13 -

 

.epcaoam Has he nouvaonoo accused I m even» one .nscan one» o» wnavneve oeaon

vuesoH .mcmo spousam Has madden I a open» «mmuhnc wowsono uvcaoau Hones I m ooeaw

«evcaon Hoeep mo weaken one wnfiHebwnne occmsbpc I N cosam «menopause I H cccnm

“mowvoaofiuoveo cocagfioc I 0 open» apnwwn op pmoH_aoam .nmeo oh» how cmonove

mo #50 neon can some! uaoBon no macaw e Scam moms» cook seamed» oPHpsonecoaacm
.emowenomonm mo huaaedw wnwmecm on» onfiencpco on come Beach» wmauoaw .H chowum

m H

  

 

-m-

Table 3. The identification of the snapdragon strains used in
the fall storage experiments.

 

 

Number Identity

1 Armstrong's White

2 'Nhite-l

3 Armstrong's White x Ihite-l

h Ball Hybrid-#8 Th - early red

5 Helen Tobin x Armstrong's White F6 - pink

6 Ball Hybrid #8 x Scarlett O'Hara P5 - early red

7 ,(Helen Tobin x Armstrong's White) x Ball h2 Showgirl F2

8 Ball h2 Showgirl F2 - early, tall

9 Mergaret x Junglewecd lemon - late ivory

10 (margaret x Junglewood Lemon) x Ball h2 Showgirl

11 Ball Hybrid #8 x Scarlett O'Hara F3 - rod

12 Margaret x Junglewood lemon Eh - tall ivory

l3 Adeline

1h. (Margaret x Junglewood Lemon F5) x Adeline

l5 Armstrong's lhite x Junglowood Lemon F5 - white

16 Helen Tobin x Armstrong's white F3 - pink

1? (Helen Tobin x Armstrong's White F3) x Adeline

18 Margaret x Junglewood lemon F6 - deep yellow

19 Helen Tobin x Armstrong's'lhite F6 - tall ivory
20 (Margaret x Junglewocd Lemon) x (Helen Tobin x Armstrong's
21 ‘ler Admiral 2h - yellow “h1t°)
22 (Mergeret x Junglewood Lemon) x (Rockweod Crystal'White x

Yellow Sarah Lou)
23 Margaret x Junglewood Lemon F6 - ivory
2h Helen Tobin x Armstrong's White F5 - pink
25 (Margaret x'flindmillor's Lilac) x (Rockwocd Crystal lhite x
Yellow Sarah Lou)

26 (Helen Tobin 1 Lady Dorothy) x Hodaiy's Charm - early rose
27 (Ball Hybrid #8.x Scarlett O'Hara F5) x Salmon Rose -

early red

-15..

Table 11. Average grades of snapdragon spikes (October-November
storage based on daily observations at room temperature.

A

 

 

Strain No. Days after removal from storage
0 1 2 3 h 5
1 5.0 11.8 h.1 3.5 2.6 2.1
2 (.500 he75 Lies (4e? 3e? 2e8 1
3 11.96 . 11.21. 3.76 3.56 3.01.
LI 11-9 in? 1»? MI 5.2 MI
5 11.9 11.09 2.72 2.18 1.27 1.0
6 11.2 3.21. 1.56 0.72 0.32 0.0
7 .0 .0 .0 11.88 17.67 .6
8 3.1 3.8 .111. 3.96 2.95 2.13
9 11-25 5.0 14.75 3.5 2.75 0-5
10 3.0 5.0 14.75 lab 3.75 2.7
11 .61; 1.1.28 3.36 2.118 1.52 0.148
12 500 (40% (4092 140% (4052 5056
13 5.0 h.96 11.6 11.28 11.0 2.148
MI 5.0 M92 11-92 M65 M36 M00
15 3.52 3.68 3.2 1.72 1.6 0.1.8
16 2.0 h.h8 11.08 I3.76 2.817 2.16
17 .92 b.52 1.21. .01; 3.88 3.0
18 5.0 11.01. 3.6 3.1I 2.88 1.118
' 19 5.0 LIJI lab 11.2 3.0 2.11
20 5.0 11.814 11.68 14.36 3.96 3.32
21 5.0 h.9 11.31. 1.0 3.7 2.71.
22 [“62 14.311 309 30:48 208 102
:3 5.0 h.61I 11.32 11.0 3.1.1. 2.32
5.0 3.614 2.88 2.51. 1.52 0.
25 11.76 11.76 3.72 2.96 1.32 0.6
26 11.5 2.0 1.2 0.88 0.5 0.0
27 .6 3.95 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5

- 16 -

'Iith this exception, the spikes looked as good as they did when
they had been out. After the stems had been recut and placed in
water, some wilting of the leaves occurred. However, most of these
wilted leaves regained full turgidity within 21. hours.

The averages of certain of the strains in Table b.are plotted
to demonstrate the decline in the quality after the storage period.
Figure 2 represents strains showing good and poor keeping quality.
These graphs show that although a strain may possess good keeping
quality when out and kept at room.temperature, it may or may not
have these same qualities after a period of cold storage. Strain
No. 26 does not have goo keeping qualities. There was nearly
100 per cent abscission of the florets during the first 2h hours
after they were removed from.storage. In addition, fresh cut
flowers of this same variety kept at room.temperature did not show
satisfactory quality either.

Figure 3 demonstrates the inheritance of poor keeping quality.
Ball Hybrid #8 is present in each of these three strains. All three
strains are characterised by earliness and red flowers. Foliar
dioback appeared on these strains in the greenhouse. The foliage
' tended to wilt and dry very quickly after removal from cold storage.
The other lines did not show this extensive foliar dieback.

. Figure h is a comparison of the daily scores of an F1 and its
parents. The final day's score shows that the F1 is not only higher
than that of the average of the two parents, but that it is also
higher than either parent in the fall storage tests.

The averages of the scores with standard deviations are

-17-

 

~——.—‘ , —r T— --o fi
1 l 7 1 T r

. ' ,
W... V A I I _ , 1
' \.\.:?-.£;Q~ot,. ”Fresh
/"\- ‘ ‘
1 April 50.. . .

0‘1L2 3 "H‘Lé 6 7

 

 

 

Grade
OI-omw-L'm

Days at room temperature

 

 

 

 

1— 1 " “'v “—r *— v r ‘ f T
5 ‘ ' a . i .

I I FrOCh-N
h a“ 1 —~ 1 . . _ L . _ . . .1
'8 ”- 3‘. ‘f‘\ (OGte ’ 1
g 35.... , \\~ - u~
cs 2 - '\ \\_ ' f 1
1 _ l1.m.£\.\ ‘.~-_\\ I
o J l .\ \-. . HOOAIS

 

 

 

0 1 2 3 1. 5 Z 7

Days at room temperature

 

.W‘r-w - -. h—v--:' - uh- owaqv. —-'_-—-‘,,.,_.__r_~h _.. -.,-_.. r.- _ ._ 'T' y T ‘fir
I

 

Grade

 

 

 

oI-‘luwt‘xn

 

0 1 2 3 h 5 6 7
Days at room temperature

Figure 2. Keeping quality of three strains of snapdragons
stored in two different seasons of the year compared with fresh
flowers at room temperature. No. 111 shows good keeping quality
of both fresh and stored flowers. No. 15 shows good keeping
quality of fresh flowers compared with poor keeping quality of
stored flowers. No. 26 shows poor keeping quality of both
fresh and stored flowers.

 

 

 

 

Grade
mewt‘m

 

 

 

 

 

Grade
OHNVI-t‘m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade
oumwfrm
7

0' 1 25 3 h. 5 5* 7

Days at rocm.temperature

Figure 3. Comparison of the changes in the quality
rating of snapdragon flowers on removal to room temperature
following a six week storage period at 31°F. These strains
all contain one common line (Ball Hybrid #8).

 

 

 

Grade
OI-arowlr‘xn
I
/

 

 

 

0 1 2 3 h 5 6 7

Days at room temperature

 

 

LL I I Y 1 If Fresh
r s.‘.\. Oot.\ .
\
April ’\,

 

Grade
0 I— mm x:- \n

 

NO e 12
0 1 2 3 11 5 6 7

 

 

 

Grade

 

 

 

o preterm
I
1
I
4
[I
'5:
S.”
I
'l
1m
[13
115*
i?
O
S-

0 1 2 3 b. 5 6 7

Days at room temperature

Figure 1;. Comparisons of the change in quality rating
of snapdragon flowers on removal to room temperature .
following a six week storage period at 31°F. Nos. 13 and
12 are parents, No. 111 is the F1 generation.

-20-

presented in Table 5. In each case the parents are paired with the
F1. In all cases the F1 population has a higher score than that of
the poorer parent. In two instances the F1 was significantly better
than the poorer parent. Although‘in nine of twelve observation on
the six hybrids, the F1 population was better than the better parent,
there was not enough difference to be significant.

In Table 6 results for the remainder of the strains used in the
fall tests are recorded. It may be noted that several of the strains
that have a very low average score for the spring tests were much,
higher in the fall tests. This can be attributed to severe bacterial
contamination in the springitrials. These particular strains seemed
to be very susceptible to infection. The averages of four strains
(Nos. 5, 6, 22 and 25) were lower for the fall tests than the
averages for the spring tests.

The results of storage at different seasons are compared in
Figure 5. The means and standard deviations are taken from Table 5.
In these six strains, five of which are F1 populations, the variations
within the line are not extensive. There were no significant
differences between storage qualities at different seasons of the
year in these lines. I

The frequency distributions of strains 12, 13. 114. 16 and 17
are presented in Table 7. The values used to obtain this distri-
bution are the cumulative scores of the individual spikes. It is

apparent that the distribution of the F population tends to be

1
about equal or above that of either parent.

.eeaee- hen sere- ne ocean nu because you 5318.. nuance» Anet— .3

.eeueee 33325.. has eh: no veesn an hound-.0 Hansen e

Illll‘

 

06H 93 m 3H 3.3 3 8.0 H 0.3 m C om
.3 H «.3 m m6 H “.3 m w.” H 93 m mm 9
fldH 9% m m.» H .3 mm 3...... H 98 m m 2
56H to» m a.» H 3.6 .a 36 H .e.3 n ma 2
.u H 4.4m m mé H «98 . .3 86 H oé m a 3
J H an m .3 H 8...... 3 86 H 0.3 m ”a 3
o: .+ 9R m m4 H 8.3 3 8.... H .93 C
m.” H oém _ m M3 H 3.5 mm No.0 H 0.3 M mm M“
«.0 H flan m .H H 8.3 3 m.« H 1333 o C «a
. 9n H Q3 m «.m H 3.3 8 3.3 H 33 a an 2
1 13 H «.8 m m4 H £38 m a: ". 93 m «a e
0.. an... H v.9." m a... H 8.3 3 ed H 0.3 E o
~.o H 9% m a; H 3.8 M ed H o3 M ”a n.
5.0 H 2% m t: H 3.8 o.« w o.3 mm o
.3 H «.3 m «to H 3.3 m w." _, 98 m a 2
i.oH 9% m o. ”Imam 3 8.3! “23 n as m
o3 H a...» m o. H 8. 3 «36.... 3.4.... n mm m
...... - ".mH 2.8 2 3+ 5.3 m a a
eweuope snouvsbueeno ewsucuu anowuabueenc ensue». enoavsbneepo
3.98 5.5 a. tsunami $2738 w a. 2.32 $2358.: a. .39.” Susan

 

.aseh 23 no unease- 25 as coho»-
33 Saw 23398:.» A.— one 3:31 «o ensue»- uenhe 333v «c ao-tsnlco .m e33.

.moaooe hep meson no women 03 popouoo non hpaacnv madman: naeam so

.eohcoe ehadeQBSO hen ebam no 0003» 03 avaacnw madneem

*

 

 

3.3 H mam m 0.0 H 00.03 3 m.0 H 3.0 m 3
+3 + 0.03 : 3.m ,. +3.0 3 3.3 + 0.0 m 3
33.0 H 3.3 m 0.4 H 3.2 3 13 H0.3 m .3
n.“ H 0.3m m 0.0 H 03.3 3 .3 + 3.3 m 43
4.3 H 0.00 m 0% H333 3 0.0 H06 0 3
m.” H 0.3m m QM “.1 3.03 . 33 0.3 H33 3 33
0.3 H 0.43 m 4.3 H 03.43 3 0.3 H 3.0 m 3
04 H 0.2.“ m 3 H031: 3 0.3 H 3 m .3
a.“ H 0.3 m 0.0 H4063 3 m; H.0.2 m 2
.3 H 0.3m 0 :AH +6.2 3 o.” H. 0.3 m c
3.3 H 0.3 a 4%. H 3.2 03 m. .3 H 0.33 m m
0.03.33 : m3H3.33 3 .34 H 0.m 4 ._

emeuouu snonuebheepo eweueve anowwrbheepc cuckoo- eneuuebueupo
8.9.0 3.9.3 3. ~35: $03.58 30 .852 3334.53: 3” uBBz 33890

 

.aeoh on» no success 03# us unwaase «c emote». nevus hvuassv he noeauemEco .0 candy

-25-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 a
. . o lswe oi. . 4 v o - s A a e n o . t 9.0 I I hive; .4. .. . . . 0 . I v. v v . .1. o e. 4. 0 o v n 4 7 u O {Q 0 e 4 1* Y TV c}
t.-Aw-.eo. ...OL.... u... ...ov-.!.0 5.... .... .oY..Av.Ys Ts.v5 o... kkTA L117... !.
I510) ole 90A . r - . It.» . 1 P. .15 Y. u e s aiV¢ . e . . . 0.. o . I p Q: vT‘f-Ol. elk-ft. II *0! 4-01. VA. 010
6-.00Ll9io uuvv \-\-Al n .llq-nti t-Ot-A-.Ole 91.8.0.0 .00.?5. -ho.v?\§14‘ v.10 Vs+9éiv*e..'olvlv'
-s-va- oV-Ol .0...¢.-t¢ nu..i7.... v..«..Y.A‘-¢...sva0'ui 7¢+$ivhuo.9..o.41o.oknv9t591v+q
1.. 0.4V. n..9irO..o u... c... ...n n..- n..- .u.-.¢0.o1ve.-tb. 01" .tv. .Fn.-.?...7m
.ls.44.1l-1c.-ai?c-tusv.eV-st .~.o v... ..v: .c.. Iv. geeqlxososL-stvi vb.‘ .n.. v.
. n . A n O . v o n 0 A1. . n a . - . n a . . . v u c . . . I . . . . n . s t . o u a. P- . Viv-sis 4.10.4 .s o s 0.4 s o s e n
r
v.
unav.l.an far. 91.- .tn. .I-.- s. s -.¢I v.s¢ .u... ..a> q..t >440. ovo‘istts- vv
. . . ll. - . b in. . . p . o v .s - . q .9 . . . . . . . . . . I o . . . . . . . . . rifii o “A tt, . . TA . . .l ¢ .
. - o q I 4 c . v . T+-. .. . . . -17. . 0 91V. . . . i 4 . . . o o v 9 re s I v . . . a . . n flflv-‘lt It .111 . . o v . u
n?1‘$.o- 4'0. ‘04. .‘rleQIo'Vivllve Q... etc. ‘1004‘ led. 4.3V. 10‘ 1+. Q4;III-VL
. . .> .
, 4 4 144 444 H 4
n i v} t-YOIA sf¢i+ei I1 - . . ' Vs n I! s s a To 7.11’v fs 0 0 ¢ fixvl‘ J a LH V H--. . ewe
..¢YL$.O‘T OecolTI-OYL.... 90-1.... 0... .cblll‘v-T. v.0.9 + $4 l?o..a.t‘.¥..
. . t +0 v . . . Q . V) V \o s u . .. +1 71 . . .l- - . . a . o . $.lal? 9. . ¢ 1.3. '61 o . 0‘ T. 10 . bs . s a .
-.. oc...9... 6.-. . .. ...ol>o¢o A-.. o... VtTT-Tv.. 3... ..-..v.-.. v... 4.
_ b
4
b . 0‘ . n A [ o . .i .40 o c D . .1b‘v .4 A .4. . its} V. (lei-131»! v o 4 A bl. . v n . A v y . 4 u t s t . iv 0‘!-
. ...‘ ..v A. ...- .c‘un~.p¢vv..oine.s1P+T‘ vi... .. . . V «o. ‘4711-
...?-1. . . W..- ...T-....-...+. -... ..-...-I..Y+vo ..
«+11 I.-. L . o-.. .-I.-.. ..-. .--.T»TII--$i2r
.I‘ ch. .0..4o... .-.. lie-9* 4... 5?..76... .o... v.09 A... ..t,\4 o...r0Ov. ..
no ...a u .. ... .9».; .91. .4......-. 133...-.. v.yl.vo- i. O‘Ttrvvvcr-v... ..
.OA .s. Viv: .I. usv.f..vo .... ...-VO?T.sv¢¢V6 . . . .. .Vuo. II.. c... 1.-
10 .. . .co‘ . . .t-.on.. ?.6b v.9. rovt.iv¢l§|?olTO-.v .... ...1 ....vv.9d 94
- . . s - . I . :l-v . q 7 . . . . . A . u . . o- 111? f. s n r . v . . . 1 . . u . . « . 4 9 vi It-lY. . . v Y. 1
.- o-.. ....-¢+-91. --. . .- V. . .... . .ni. .. .. 1 ?.'raor..v. .. .
. . u n u a . o . v . #1 $ In . : ~ . q u t o .A v 910.1 f T- . . . v V ¢ t n . c|i lo .3‘ \. n o t v u n I u
.-..- --.-.-. .Iv. . 1.-...- L. 31-2-.-.- ..- ..--.v...a.--f--.2t--L+.-r?1.3-:T.-1....
.. . .- n . u . o .$.. .4..T... ...{. ...v .c.. ....y¢... «v.... .. ...L- y..¢ o... .. .v.uu- .uclvlovlolvlo.101..lc190YtilerYlfi
. ...- . . . . . ..-. -.... .. .... . . ... .. . 1a.. .... .... i
. aiylns.v o¢,. . . ...‘4s.- 9r}- s... ...n .I.'t5.... .... u... so... v?.0 2
4 <
.4.... .. .«-7....f¥u.. ..-. «ov.Yv-19 u... .... .... .4». ...-r..+41
. '..v . . . ' -. . .4v7- .... O... .... c. . t... .4... ... orsvv.nw-
. o ..:1 .c.. . .. .. . ssev 4-11 4... ...- 3.... t». .v.lv¢tQ-110vfieTf0t-
< - L
. u v e ‘t i 1Q-33T- . o . n . c s a . n 4 #¢ v o o O 4 3 o s v o a . . e o 0 § v 1 v 11 .Vo-t-ti
. 0.. ..0 v... .... .v.. .t.v .....J.v¢¢. .14.- o.-. ... L... .... tvrrv
i . .. . (I o .. (1.0 ....vvv... 9.06 ...0....v10‘0 10’ s..n 9‘s-
..v.. . . .. v1 . .Jo-+V .¢~Q tins .-.a\ +v.l$-IYIIV a... ovte .iidislvaOA-.Y
- . 4 4
. .. 7.9 I v s . u . -. a v Tb 0 § Y To $10 e n . . o o t .. u a a p o . a c e . 6 _. .9 lITI’tu>. 4» +- c -. 4 o 9 t-
.. . .v . . . ... r....v.... s..- ..o .n.» ....4c... .50. .... v...
.. .. . .-. - . .... 6... .... ...L .. ..-.vv.-€4$1T’§-vu1A?.v..9.o ..as
-. ... »v:- ..-. .... ...1A v1.0 .r.. .. J..\.v ..lTe-4-v-v§1i0 rsI.AYVV.‘i
... ...o .v . .v.v .. . .qOJ ..~. .... .vr~... .... ..A.1-c.\. I.c..... .wvl. ...v ov.t-...n? tip». 0". .7.- 0o.1 '...vloao ~o$ni
. . .-1. . . .... .... ..ovva.-v .. .... .... .... 9.... T..1 4..,o V... -36. .iv.+.s+.. O... 1... 1:. iv..1.-9?T$nvolt kl..- .n..
.. ... .c... .... o..v ...o9 r... n... .o ..a. .l..~ .... ..-..v.ss!.Ts-e..v..44 ¢.so 091OAV¢snl as... s... a. c .v.. sit! ..¢cio. -
... c... .-.. .-.v .... .ovl .r... 0..-. .IL s........T¢,.. 97.1 .0‘« '9?9 .511 ext-70001 1-9s017lo179ttv «.0». a... ..vL .tou -.4T
. - . 7 D
1 41 ,
Ileirsnss .u-. .A . .0v. it-.. ..s. .... .... .. . s... -.4. 5.x.i Ivlvtri 9v.. v. 440:0] 0415.4.1‘... IO.¢1....
-.v '0-v . -. .... .... .o..1.o.. v .. . .o .... . .v 9.0. «.70 ....T..l.- .. V£.. t... 11. .o-I ..-4-
I.Avo.ne c... o.-. ... P... .a. .-v. .1- -.1- .v. ...u v.73 alxv Ta... .0 ..-: V-.i- u. L vie-.9 9&5.
voPgwttt-oi-ol ottv v.-. -.1. .u.. ...u ..u.if-... .uuo v'I-¢ itsi‘csnYVIoe .. .... s.!. no.1 .«a. .v .
..~ on.- .... ...n ocvo 44v. 3... ..o. .. i ..w -... .lvv vIYfYnTF.{.. .... .. 1.0. .léo 9.40- 4.4lu » .
..c¢c..£ ..¢. .... ...+ .41. .... ... Ya... .... . .. ... .. . .... . . .. ....i¢ .. ..\H‘-...c t -.
...7¢.ivl fuvolr.¢.. ...9 .0. ras.v .... .... ..0. v... o...roo.1tn.sevv... . o.n. no..vonv v.v. un.ax
4 4
..sts-Ii-4.a s-.— Its .-?vY1.u.v .... ... .. . ..- 1.... b..vw ..... ... .... .... ..n. 4.... vii. 5.1. e.ssolt.e|s Isis. In... cI.¢.
.u-Oito... .oqiTooo doe no . .vo? . o ..4 .. - .1. . . .... s... . . .w 00.. s...ve... ass. 9... vb?! ..VLA ..-. o... o.ua
..sioo4' .... .... . 9. o. - ...v ... Q... r... o... .... .... ....i.... .... ....v.-..Y-s--.¢l.ov.-o ... .4.. n..- .... ....i. loo;
.u1v9.¢.L...v -.v1 ....1...-6 1.4. .4 .... n... .n.. .n..L 3+17.oe.nv.a. virsIAr-.Izfinr-V.V.O..Ievsd 1.90 Yul! so». .4.. ‘uu. o!.. I.vrcr
l . ,
... .... .. .... ...o -..o .u. .... ... .v.. . .. .... ... ... .... .... .... .... _..-. ... ... ....vrv.-§ o..- .-... v...
... A..v. .. .. ..v .... .. . ..... .. .... .... ...... . ....9.v. .kv. tit. V.«. ..... .. ... ....-.... ..... .-v.
... .s- .. . . . .. . a..v 0. . . .. ... .s.. .1... .. . .... no..i..n4 .eus ..o- .ubt ».9-v a... n... .. . .-.. . .. .nu.
..v .o.. ..c. . o ..A. .1.. c .e . .. .- - .v.. .ue. .v.. a... .o.. ¢+ol+ of»? ...fTscbé? snob ..-oYo.‘-iolvo .:.4 ...9w...... -...
4
... ... ..- A . ... .... v. . . .. .. .. ..._ ... .. .... ...- .... ....,... ...n.s....l... .... a... .. ..y......
.. .. -. ......... . . - . .-.- .. \....... .o...... ..o. A... ....o ww.. ..... .... . . .. . ....
. . ..n~ . .. . . n . . . . - . v... ..-.o evvi -... .... » .. .... .... v-.. .v.. 9v.. .. ...- . .. - .
...L..V .... . .. .... . . . .. .. ........ .... .vu. ...+v..... .....a .... .... .a. . .... .... ....
. .. .. .... .A.. .. . ..-. -.. .... .... -... ........ .... .-. ....... .... .... .. . .n. u... .. ...
- .. . .. . . . . .. -..- .. v . .... ..-. .. . . .. -..v ..v y....... . . . . .. 4 .o
> .. . . -. . .. .. . . . . . .. ... . . . ...n . ...- . a .. . . ... . - .
. .. .. . v . .. . .. .... ..- -. .. ...v. .-.. -..a-.. .... ..:........ . .....
.. .. .- .. . . -.. v... . .. . ... . . . ... . .. . .. . .. .... . .iT. .. . . . ..
. . . . . . ... . - - . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . - .. .. . . ....
- .. ... .... . . . .. . -..arv. ....... ... .. . . . ..
..,. .a.... . . .. . . .. v... .... ....¢.Qvl..... ...
l4
. . .... ...... .. . ..... - . . . ..... ..- .. v4..~v ...- o... ....... -.- .v
. . ... .. ... . . .. .v.. .... .11. .... .... ... . - ...
- . .... ...... ...4.Y.1..
.. .-... .. . . . . .. . .... .v.... .v;.... .... .. .
.

25 26 27 m 29 30
Cumulative grades

23

21

The squares represent the mean of March-April

A comparison of the results of storage at different
).

Figure 50

seasons (from Table 1
storage, the circles October—November storage and the lines indicate

the standard deviation from the mean.

 

l { A '4‘ .
, —
_ , fl

 

mm H m m m o H H H m m _ H m 0H
._. 1:.- m _
S m m a .H H- H m H a H H 1 3H n m:
, m NH
1- - -- . .. 1.1: i i
am . m m m m m .H m M . H m. M H _ mH
T1 - A -. -- -- , 1 :11 .-1. -1.--1-1-.1 - -. , IL
mm o m H H n m _ . SH n m:
m . ~ .. a."
H .
mm NH 4 H. H H _ w . . NH

 

 

enamomsufimm fi.m~«~H~Wo~WmH.oH H-H 0H mHW -
1.11-.- . _ “-F . ..... _ .._ 1.. " -..._

Hench couooo ebavdflnsao ..; awapvw

in!"

 

 

 

 

.uovuhn wnwushw on» up venuuvpo nouooa obwvsuaano on» ens mound» ena .ouoHpsanmom
an on» one unnoudm eons» no mosaob one wnauoqaoo eHnap noavapwapnwo honoamoum .h eapaa

-25..

DISCUSSION

 

If snapdragons are to be held in storage, it is important to
know what varieties can be expected to keep well under given storage
conditions. A six week storage period was arbitraily chosen as the
maximum.useful storage life.

The results presented demonstrate that genetic variation is
present and influences the keeping quality after storage. Thus,
strain No. 26 declined rapidly and was of no value by the fifth day.
On the other extreme strain No. 7 remained useful until the end of
the fifth day after removal from.stcrage. 'lhen the parental types
were compared to their progeny the F1 populations had a higher score
than.the poorer parent. 'In two instances the F1 generations were
significantly better than the poorer parent. In nine of twelve
observations on six hybrids, the F1 population was better than the
better parent but not significantly better.

lhen the parents were correlated with the F1, Fé and backcross
generations, the results indicatedthat the factors which determine
good keeping quality are not simply inherited. The data indicates
- a partial dominance of good keeping quality. the one parent, Ethel,
contributed factors an ch produced poor keeping quality in the F2
and backcrose generations, although poor keeping quality is not
apparent in the parent itself.

Foliar dieback was associated'with poor keeping quality after
storage in each of the three cases where it appeared in the cultures.

Although 31°F. storage has been.ahown to reduce the production

and accumulation of volatile gases, a susceptible line in this study,

-26-

(strain.No. 26), as in mastalers's work (19), was unsatifactcry for
storage due to the abscission of all florets.

variations in keeping quality of the flowers after cold storage
have been demonstrated in this paper. These desirable characteristics
can be combined by breeding and selection toward this objective, not
only in flowers, as has been demonstrated here with the snapdragon,

but also in other horticultural crops as well.

SUMMARY

Successful flower storage depends upon slowing down normal
development without initiating undesirable physiological reactions.
It is not only necessary that the product should look well when
removed from storage, but it should continue to maintain its quality
for a reasonable length of time.

Fectors which will affect the keeping quality are variety,
stage of maturity, storage temperature, humidity and the effect of
atmospheric changes. Heritable strain.differences in keeping
_ quality have been demonstrated.

In tn cases, F1 progenies were significantly better than the
poorer parent. In no case was the F1 population significantly
different than the better parent, although in four of six comparisons
the F1 population.showed better keeping quality.

Correlation of strains grown and stored during different seasons
of the year showed heritability of after-storage quality. In nearly

all cases, the fall tests were somewhat better than the spring tests.

-27-

Since genetic variation in keeping quality after storage has
been demonstrated so readily in the snapdragon, similar genetic
variations of keeping quality after storage may also be available

in other horticultural crops of economic importance.

1.

2.

3.

h.

S.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

15.

-23..

LITERATURE CITED

 

Abbott, 0. D., and K. W. Louoks. Utilization and storage
of Florida grapes. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 329. 1938.

Dem, F. 3., and L. P. Miller. Production of ethylene by
plant tissue as indicated by the epinastic response of
leaves. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Plant Res.

1. 97-102. 1935.

Bunch, A. m, and x. 1?. Baker. Ethylene produced by diseased
tissues injures cut flowers. Florists' Rev. 106 (2751.1):
27-29. 1950. ""'"

Fischer, 0. I. Jr. Production of a toxic volatile by
flowering stems of con-son sna dragon and calceclaria.
Proc. 1.1-. Hort. Soc. 22. H.511. 1950.

. Ethylene gas a problem in cut flower
sterage. N. Y. State Flower Growers Bul. file 1, h. 1950.

 

. long-term holding of cut flowers.
fir... mrT‘fi'ox-t. Soc. 31, 585-592. 1953.

 

Friend, I. Ha, and I. J. Bach. Storage experiments with
Texas citrus fruit. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. U46. 1932.

Heller, I. H. , and P. L. Harding. Effect of storage temperatures
on peaches. U. 8._Dept. Agr. fech. Bul. 680. 1939.

Haller, I. H. Handling, transportation, storage and marketing
of DOCOhOIe Us 3e Dept. 15?. Bible Bul. 21s 1”}e

Haney, w. J. Bnapdragon shattering. lich. Florist
£21 ate 1520

Hawkins, 1.. A., and I. B. Berger. Cold storage of Florida
grapefruit. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1368. 1926.

Hitchcock, A. 3., and P. I. Zimerman. Effect of chemicals,
temperature and huidity on the lasting qualities of
cut flowers. Gentrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Plant Res.
38 1%203. lme

Hukill, I. V., and Edwin Smith. Cold storage for apples
and pears. u. 8. Dept. Agr. on. 7110. 1916.

Longley, L. I. Some effects of storage of flowers in various
gases.at low temperatures on their beeping qualities.

Lumsden, D. V., et. al. Ethylene injury to cut flowers in
cold storage rooms. Science Q (2385): 2143-2111. 1940.

16.

17.

18.

19.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

-29-

Lumsden, D. V., et. a1. Fruit and flowers incompatible.
Florists' Bxch. _9_5_ (2): 10, 11. 1910.

Magruder, R., et. al. Storage quality of the principal
American varieties of onions. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Tech.
Bu1. 618e 19.11.

Mastalcrs, J. W. Low-temperature conditioning of snapdragons.
The National Snapdragon Soc. Bul. 3. 1953.

. The efect of water absorption before, lew-

 

temperature dry-storage on the development of blue coler
in Better Times roses. Proc. Amer. Hort. Soc. _6_l_._:

593-593. 1953-

Neff, 11. S., and W. B. leomis. Storage of French marigolds.
Pl‘OOe Amer. Hort. SOOe .223 683.685e 1935c

chf, I. 8. Color and keeping qualities of cut flewers.
Bate Gaz. 1.9-1»! WI’SOI‘. 1939c

. Problems in the storage of cut carnations.

Wydel. £2: 271-2811. 1939.

Feet, K., and C. I. Fischer, Jr. The commercial storage ef cut
flewers. B. Y. Agr. Cell. (Cornell) Ext. Bul. 853. 1952-.

Powell, C. H., and S. H. Fulton. Cold storage, with special
reference to the pear and peach. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Bur.
Plte Indus. 8‘11. ’40. 1%}.

The apple in cold storage.
U. g. 5 Pt. Agr. Eur. PIE. Indus. 8‘11. ’48. 1%}.

Rose, D. 11., H. C. Might, and T. 1!. miteman. The comercial
storage of fruits, vegetables, and florists' stocks.
U. 8. Dept. Agr. Cir. 278. Revised 1941.

Schumann, )1. Use of 2hnon-shattering 'snaps' is urged.
Mich. Florist 2112: 16.1951.

Siegelnnnn, n, I. The respiration of rose and gardenia
flowers. Proc. Amer. Hort. Soc. 22: 1196-500. 1952.

Stahl, A. L., and J. C. Cain. Cold storage studies of Florida
citrus fruits. III. The relation of storage atmosphere
to the keeping quality of citrus fruit in cold storage.
Flue Agr. 31p. Sta. 3111. 316a 1937.

Thornton, N. C. The use of carbon dioxide for prolonging
the life of cut flowers, with special reference to roses.

in. Jour. Bot. 31(6). 61h-626. 1930.

31.

32-

33.

35-

-30..

Ihiteman, T. M., and R. C. Wright. Notes on the storage of
Iedgewood iris blooms. Proc. Amer. Hort. Soc. .33:

783-785. 1938e

Miteman, T. 11., R. C. Iright, and D. Griffiths. The storage
of tulip blooms. Florists' Batch. 93 (3): 11, 114. 1931..

Iright, R. C., J. I. Iauritzen, and T. M. mitemn. The
effects of storage temperature and hunidity on the keeping
quality of onions. Proc. Amer. Hort. Soc. 22: 1163-1165.

1932.

Wright, R. C. Low-temperature effects on the physiology of
plant organs in relation to commercial storage. Ice and

Refrig. 91(11): 261-261.. 1939.

. The freezing temperatures of some fruits,
vegetables and florists' stocks. U. 8. Dept. Agr.
Cir. 1.1.7. 15112.

 

 

w“ p 3

 

T}?

c. if:

‘3 u

‘ Y
I

4 , ,
I “ '1
-. fl ¥ ”1" l

t?“ 5;"
‘1

’l a

.f‘itt' I? v
14 1 EL“ _'

L

“xii 111111111111“ {111111113111 1\\\jfl§\iifl\' “