Next Article in Journal
Study on Predicting Blueberry Hardness from Images for Adjusting Mechanical Gripper Force
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Agritourism Development in Romania’s North-West Mountain Region: A TOPSIS-Based Evaluation of Strategic Priorities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/agriculture15060602
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reducing Postharvest Losses in Organic Apples: The Role of Yeast Consortia Against Botrytis cinerea

by
Joanna Krzymińska
* and
Jolanta Kowalska
Institute of Plant Protection—National Research Institute, 60-318 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(6), 602; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060602
Submission received: 16 January 2025 / Revised: 27 February 2025 / Accepted: 10 March 2025 / Published: 11 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exploring Sustainable Strategies That Control Fungal Plant Diseases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Grey mould caused by Botrytis cinerea presents significant challenges to apple production including organic farming. Biocontrol yeasts and their consortia can limit fungal diseases. This study evaluates the efficacy of selected yeast isolates and their consortia in suppressing B. cinerea in stored apples. The yeast strains tested—Wickerhamomyces anomalus 114/73, Naganishia albidosimilis 117/10, and Sporobolomyces roseus 117/67—were assessed at 4 °C and 23 °C, individually and in consortia. The results demonstrate the superior efficacy of a consortium combining all three isolates, which achieved the highest reduction in spore germination and disease severity. A two-strain consortium of isolates 114/73 and 117/10 also showed substantial biocontrol activity, outperforming single-strain treatments. These combinations effectively suppressed B. cinerea growth and displayed rapid colonization of apple wounds. The study highlights the potential of yeast isolates and their consortia to manage postharvest fungal decay, addressing a critical need for sustainable, eco-friendly solutions in organic apple production.

1. Introduction

Agriculture and food storage have been among the most essential practices for humanity to meet global food demands and sustain communities worldwide. Conventional methods, while successfully protecting post-harvest crops, heavily rely on chemical pesticides that can pose health risks to humans through chemical residues. In response to these issues, biocontrol methods including the use of beneficial microorganisms offer a viable alternative for managing plant diseases and can ensure proper food storage while minimizing losses.
For organic production, the range of plant protection products is more restricted than for conventional produce and a defined set of rules must be followed (i.e., Regulation 2021/1165 in the European Union or National Organic Program in the United States). Other protection strategies that are alternative to chemical protection are essential for maintaining plant and yield health. Maintaining high yields and quality is a major challenge in organic production. An additional difficulty is the problem of storage in warehouses, which is why methods are sought to extend the durability of crops, e.g., fruit. Decay in stored apples can cause losses of up to 80% [1]. It mostly results from preharvest pathogens infection which further develops during storage causing the loss in apple quality and its marketable value [2]. One of the diseases being a particular problem in post-harvest storage of apples is grey mould caused by Botrytis cinerea Pers. [3,4]. This destructive pathogen causes losses to hundreds of crop species worldwide, mostly attacking plants’ soft tissues such as fruits and flowers [5]. It is considered one of the most economically important plant pathogens [6]. By synthesizing a large number of toxins and enzymes, it infects a broad spectrum of host plants and can also overcome the plant defences [7].
Solutions such as essential oils and basic substances were described, for example, lavender essential oil [8], clove and thyme essential oils combined with chitosan [9], chitosan-based edible coatings containing ascorbic or acetic acid, and sea buckthorn or grape seed essential oils [10], cinnamon essential oil [11], or sodium bicarbonate [12,13]. Another solution to limit the development of fungal plant pathogens is to use biological control by applying microorganisms or their metabolic products. Biocontrol yeasts are a recognized group of microorganisms limiting fungal diseases by such mechanisms as competing for space and nutrients, lytic enzymes and antifungal metabolites production, biofilm formation, or the involvement in oxidative stress [14,15,16]. Some commonly studied yeast genera showing potential in controlling postharvest pathogens include Saccharomyces [17,18] and among non-Saccharomyces yeast Candida [19,20,21], Pichia [22,23,24], Aureobasidium [25,26] or Metschnikowia [27,28,29].
The growing interest in biocontrol solutions has led to an increase in studies exploring the use of yeast isolates to manage postharvest fungal decay. As the need for safer and more sustainable alternatives to chemical fungicides continues to rise, research into novel formulations with biocontrol organisms becomes necessary. For organic apple producers, finding effective, eco-friendly methods to reduce postharvest losses is crucial, as they must adhere to strict guidelines that prohibit synthetic fungicide use. Microorganisms’ antagonistic expression, reaching threshold population, or strain establishment can be limited by various biotic and abiotic factors [30,31] and treatment with a single strain may not be efficient. Moreover, not all microorganisms (specific species or even strains) are effective against all plant pathogens. Combining two or multiple biocontrol agents may potentially enhance their efficacy compared to single-strain applications due to various mechanisms of specific organisms, their synergistic interactions, and various resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Microbial consortia can further reduce the disease severity compared to single microorganisms or even being able to suppress it when single strains are ineffective [32].
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of yeast isolates used alone or/and as consortia in controlling B. cinerea in apples during storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Yeast Isolates and Consortia

Three selected yeast isolates—114/73 (Wickerhamomyces anomalus E.C. Hansen of the genus Wickerhamomyces in the family Wickerhamomycetaceae), 117/10 (Naganishia albidosimilis Vishniac and Kurtzman of the genus Naganishia in the family Filobasidiaceae), and 117/67 (Sporobolomyces roseus Kluyver and C.B. Nielwere of the genus Sporobolomyces in the family Sporidiobolaceae) isolated from leaves of Virginia mallow (Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby) plantation in Winna Góra, Poland (52°12′21″N 17°26′49″E), identified using API® ID 32 C yeast identification system (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) and positively assessed for antagonistic abilities against B. cinerea in vitro [33]. These yeast isolates were freeze-dried and stored at room temperature and reactivated in 2024 to conduct the experiment. To activate them they were rehydrated by adding 1 mL of 0.9% NaCl, after 30 min pouring the suspension into Petri dishes containing solidified PDA (Potato Dextrose Agar, Sigma Chemical Co, St. Louis, MO, USA) and incubating at 23 °C. Isolates were subcultured twice and centrifuged to collect yeast cells, which were suspended in sterile saline solution. Cell concentrations were determined using a hemocytometer and adjusted as needed.
To prepare yeast consortia with different yeast isolates, isolates were grown separately on PDA medium (pH 6.5) at 23 °C for three days. Then, yeast cells were flooded with sterile 0.9% NaCl, adjusted to 2 × 107 CFU/mL (density chosen based on preliminary in vitro tests) with a hemacytometer, and mixed in the 1:1 or 1:1:1 ratio. Each pair or group of yeast strains was checked in an in vitro assay for compatibility.

2.2. Selected Apple Pathogen Inoculum

A B. cinerea strain obtained from the IPP-NR, Poznań, Poland Bank of Pathogens collection (2305) (where it was identified) isolated from infected apples was used. For conidial production, it was cultured on PDA (pH 6.5) at 20–25 °C until the mycelium appeared, and then at 15 °C to induce sporulation. Two-week-old PDA cultures were flooded with sterile distilled water containing 0.1% (v/v) Tween 80 to obtain a spore suspension. The concentration of spores was determined with a hemacytometer (Thoma counting chamber, Hirschmann, Eberstadt, Germany) and adjusted with sterile distilled water to 106 spores mL−1.

2.3. Fruit

Organic apples (Malus domestica Borkh, cv Jonatan) at commercial maturity, without mechanical damage or infection, and uniform in size and colour were used. Apples were stored at 4 °C. To disinfect the surface, apples were first immersed in 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (as a standard disinfection method) for two minutes, then washed in running tap water, and finally air-dried at room temperature. Apples were uniformly wounded with sterile corkborer (diameter 5 mm, depth 5 mm).

2.4. Wound Colonization by Yeast Isolates

Each wound on apples (fruit wounded as described above) was inoculated with 15 μL of yeast isolate suspension (1 × 107 cells mL−1). Apples were incubated at 4 °C and 23 °C. Yeast cells were recovered 1 h after treatment and then every 24 h for fourteen days after incubation at 4 °C and for seven days after incubation at 23 °C. Fruit tissue was removed with a sterile corkborer (5 mm diameter) to a depth of 10 mm, macerated in 5 mL of sterile 0.9% NaCl solution with a glass rod, diluted and plated on PDA medium. Plates were incubated at 23 °C for two days and colonies were counted. Yeast population was expressed as mean log10 CFU (colony forming unit) per wound. There were three replicates of each treatment, and the experiment was repeated twice, so the results are the means of both experiments.

2.5. Effect of Selected Yeast Isolates and Consortia on the Rate of Spore Germination of B. cinerea In Vitro

The B. cinerea spore suspension (adjusted to 1 × 106 spores mL−1) was inoculated into 50 mL of potato dextrose broth (PDB, A&A Biotechnology, Gdańsk, Poland). Then, 1 mL of yeast isolate or yeast consortium suspension (2 × 107 cells mL−1) or sterile 0.9% NaCl (control) was added. After 24 h of incubation at 28 °C on a rotary shaker (75 rpm) in 100 mL conical flasks, the germination rate of 100 spores of B. cinerea was observed with a microscope. The test was conducted in two independent experiments in three repetitions, and the results of the two experiments were used as six replications.

2.6. Efficacy of Yeast Isolates and Consortia in Inhibiting Grey Mould Decay of Apples at 4 °C and at 23 °C

Apples were wounded as described above. Each wound was inoculated with 15 μL of yeast isolate suspension (1 × 107 cells mL−1, 2 × 107 cells ml−1, 4 × 107 cells mL−1), yeast consortium suspension (2 × 107 cells mL−1) or sterile 0.9% NaCl (control). After 24 h, apples were inoculated with 20 μL of a conidial suspension of B. cinerea at 106 spores ml−1. Fruits were stored at 4 °C (chosen as a cold storage temperature) or at 23 °C (chosen as room temperature for storage) in enclosed plastic trays. Apples were observed after 7, 14, and 21 days of storage for cold storage or after 7, 10, and 14 days of room temperature storage, and lesion diameter was measured. The mean of 10 apples as samplings and the mean of five (cold storage) or three (room temperature storage) repetitions (with errors) were used.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

All data were tested for normality and homoscedasticity (Shapiro–Wilk normality test, Levene’s Test). Data were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Fisher test at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05 and are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

3. Results

3.1. Wound Colonization by Yeast Isolates

All three yeast isolates (14/73, 117/10, and 117/67) grew rapidly in apple wounds at 4 °C and 23° days, especially for the first 24 h at 4 °C and 48 h at 23 °C. At 4 °C the population of isolates 114/73 and 117/10 reached its maximum after 12 days (1.57 × 106 and 1.84 × 106 CFU per wound, respectively) and decreased, but remained over 1.5 × 106 CFU per wound for the next two days. The population of isolate 117/67 reached its maximum on day 11 (1.18 × 106 CFU per wound) and decreased, but maintained over 1 × 106 CFU per wound for the following three days (Figure 1).
At 23 °C, after the rapid growth during the first 48 h, the population of each yeast isolate stabilized. The population of the isolate reached its maximum on day 7 (2.98 × 107 CFU per wound). The population of isolate 117/10 reached its peak on day 3 (3.15 × 107 CFU per wound) and of isolate 116/67, which grew at the slowest rate, on day 7 (2.93 × 107 CFU per wound) (Figure 2).

3.2. Effect of Yeast Isolates and Consortia on the Rate of Spore Germination of B. cinerea In Vitro

After 24 h, the spore germination rate was significantly reduced by all combinations except the isolate 117/67. The combinations with yeast consortia consisting of isolates 114/73 and 117/10 and all three isolates spore germination dropped the most (to 4.17% and 1.83%, respectively) (Figure 3).

3.3. Efficacy of Yeast Isolates and Consortia in Inhibiting Grey Mould Decay of Apples at 4 °C

All three yeast isolates were effective in controlling decay caused by B. cinerea in all tested concentrations, by causing a reduction in the mean diameter of lesions, compared to the untreated control. The higher the concentration of yeast isolates, the lower the diameter of grey mould lesions. In particular, the isolate 117/10 at the concentrations 2 × 107 CFU/mL and 4 × 107 CFU/mL showed the highest control (mean lesion diameter 6.90 and 3.09 mm, respectively) (Table 1). For isolates, 114/73 and 117/10 mean lesion size was statistically the same when concentrations 2 × 107 CFU/mL and 4 × 107 CFU/mL were used and, for the isolate 117/67, using concentrations 1 × 107 CFU/mL and 2 × 107 CFU/mL caused statistically same level of decay control throughout the whole experiment (Figure 4). Fruit treated with the isolate 117/10 in concentrations 2 × 107 CFU/mL and 4 × 107 CFU/mL showed symptoms after 21 days (and some treated fruit did not have any symptoms till the end of the experiment on the 28th day), while among control fruit and other treatments, lesions were visible after seven days of storage.
All yeast consortia were effectively reducing mean diameters of grey mould lesions at 4 °C. After four weeks combined isolates 114/73 and 117/10 and all three isolates were the most effective (Table 2).

3.4. Efficacy of Yeast Isolates and Consortia in Inhibiting Grey Mould Decay of Apples at 23 °C

All combinations of yeast isolates and yeast consortia at the concentration 2 × 107 CFU/mL effectively reduced mean diameters of grey mould lesions at 23 °C after two weeks of the experiment, compared to the untreated control, except for the isolate 177/67 which significantly reduced the lesions just for the first ten days. In particular, the combination of all three yeast isolates significantly reduced the lesion diameters throughout the experiment (from 94.00 mm for the control to 23.50 mm for the treatment on day 14); however, even if there was a trend towards the beneficial effect of using a consortium, it was not more effective than the isolate 117/10 on its own. The combination of 114/73 and 117/10 was more effective than individually used isolate 114/73, but not 117/10. Combined isolates 114/73 and 1116/67 and 117/10 and 117/67 were no more effective than those isolates used on their own (Table 3).

4. Discussion

B. cinerea is known to affect a wide range of horticultural plants and is particularly harmful to fruit crops postharvest, such as apples, strawberries, grapes, or blueberries [34]. It infects apples both during growth in the orchard and after harvest, leading to a decrease in the crop’s quantity and quality [35,36,37,38]. Many microorganisms were reported in control B. cinerea, including antagonistic yeast, which demonstrated significant inhibition of B. cinerea strains on apples, both in vitro and in vivo. For example, Pichia kluyveri Bedford Y64 achieved 57% growth inhibition against B. cinerea achieving slightly better results than a commercial fungicide [39]. In another experiment [40], yeast isolated from apple surface (isolates YP16, YP24, YP25) reduced grey mould incidence on apples to 8.3% in comparison to 100% incidence in control. In our study, most yeast isolates and their consortia were effectively reducing grey mould infection in apples at both 4 °C and 23 °C. Commercial yeast-based products are readily available in the market, including strains specifically registered for mitigating the effects of B. cinerea on plants and stored fruit. Examples of such yeast species, products, and countries they are registered in include Candida oleophila (Aspire® registered in the United States and Israel, Nexy® registered in Belgium), Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector® registered in Poland and New Zealand), or Candida sake (Candifruit® registered in Spain).
In this study, all three yeast isolates, i.e., 114/73 (W. anomalus), 117/10 (N. albidosimilis) and 117/67 (S. roseus) rapidly colonized wounds of the apples maintained a stable population for 7 days at 23 °C and for 14 days at 4 °C. The populations could be stable for a wider interval than the duration of the experiments. At 4 °C all isolates reached their maximum after 11–12 days and their population slightly decreased after that time. At 23 °C, the population of isolate 117/10 reached its maximum the fastest (on day 3) and isolate 117/67 the slowest (on day 7). Being able to compete for space and nutrients by quickly adapting to the surface environment is one of the main mechanisms of antagonistic yeast. Similarly, a study by Zhao et al. [41] showed that W. anomalus strain CCTCC M 2,018,053 maintained stable growth both on wounded apples and on the apple surface. W. anomalus was also able to colonize other fruit surfaces and wounds like peach, [42], kiwi [43], and cherry tomato [44,45]. Those yeasts grow quickly and thus can compete with pathogens for space and nutrition [42]. Yeast belonging to the genus Naganishia is also known for being able to colonize the yeast surface and wounds. For example, Nagashinia albida (Saito) (synonym Cryptococcus albidus) was found to be able to colonize such fruits as apples [46], strawberries [47] or grapes [48]. S. roseus was also found to colonize apples [49,50], sour and sweet cherries [51], or peaches [52].
In comparison to individual cultures, microbial consortia can exhibit broader effectiveness in disease suppression. Multiple yeast strains within the consortia or beneficial yeast and filamentous fungi or bacteria, which have various modes of action and growth characteristics, can perform specific functions and the biocontrol effect can be enhanced [53,54,55], providing that they do not compete against each other and are compatible [56,57,58]. Mechanisms such as competition for nutrients, secreting volatile and non-volatile inhibitory compounds, activation of the plant’s defence systems, and inhibiting germination and conidial damage to pathogenic fungi can augment each other and result in increased disease suppression [59,60]. These consortia are also more stable under changing environmental conditions [61,62].
In this study, competition for space and inhibiting spore germination were determined to occur as such mechanisms. The isolate 117/10 exhibited the fastest growth rate and was as efficient against Botrytis decay on its own as a part of a consortium. The ability to compete for space is a frequent mechanism occurring in biocontrol yeast. Species such as Meyerozyma guilliermondii and M. caribbica [62], Aureobasidium pullulans, Rhodotorula minuta [63,64,65,66] or Bullera alba [67] were reported as such in recent publications, including yeast mixtures [58]. It is considered one of the primary mechanisms of antagonistic yeast action together with competing for nutrients [68]. Yeasts display a high rate of reproduction and can colonize plant surfaces quickly, especially in wounded areas [69,70]. Furthermore, two of the isolates—117/10 and 114/73 were found to lower the B. cinerea spore germination rate used as single isolates. This ability was further enhanced when those isolates were used as a consortium. A few mechanisms may be responsible for slowing or completely inhibiting spore germination. Fungi tend to produce self-inhibitory volatile compounds when spores are abundant in proximity [71]. Yeast may produce volatile organic compounds, enzymes, and antibiotic-like compounds similarly inhibiting the growth and development of pathogenic fungi spores [72]. Recently yeast such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae [73] or Scheffersomyces spartinae [74] were reported to produce volatile organic compounds. Yeast can also deplete the amount of available nutrients required by spores to germinate [75].
The data presented in this study identifies yeast isolates and their consortia that can be effective under organic standards, demonstrating the effectiveness of yeast isolates 114/73 (W. anomalus), 117/10 (N. albidosimilis), and 117/67 (S. roseus) in colonizing apple wounds and preventing Botrytis decay. The three-isolate consortium showed the greatest reduction in spore germination, followed by the yeast consortia comprising isolates 114/73 and 117/10, which demonstrated the second-highest efficiency. These isolate combinations were also highly effective in suppressing B. cinerea growth on apples under both room and storage temperatures. Additionally, the isolates exhibited rapid growth in apple wounds. These findings highlight the potential of these yeast strains, individually and as a consortium, in managing postharvest fungal decay in apples and contribute to the development of new yeast-based formulations aimed at reducing postharvest losses in apples and other fruits and advancement of yeast research as biocontrol agents.
Our findings can also contribute to further research into yeast consortia as a flexible and customizable strategy for managing multiple postharvest pathogens beyond B. cinerea. Ultimately, this work adds to the growing body of literature that supports organic and sustainable agricultural practices, encourages reduced chemical use, promotes environmental health, and aligns with consumer demand for organically produced fruit.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska) and J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); methodology, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); validation, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); formal analysis, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); investigation, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); resources, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); data curation, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); writing—original draft preparation, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); writing—review and editing, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); visualization, J.K. (Joanna Krzymińska); supervision, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); project administration, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska); funding acquisition, J.K. (Jolanta Kowalska). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request due to restrictions. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available to allow for commercialization of research findings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Argenta, L.C.; de Freitas, S.T.; Mattheis, J.P.; Vieira, M.J.; Ogoshi, C. Characterization and quantification of postharvest losses of apple fruit stored under commercial conditions. HortScience 2021, 56, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Leng, J.; Yu, L.; Dai, Y.; Leng, Y.; Wang, C.; Chen, Z.; Sui, Y. Recent advances in research on biocontrol of postharvest fungal decay in apples. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 10607–10620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ma, L.; He, J.; Liu, H.; Zhou, H. The phenylpropanoid pathway affects apple fruit resistance to Botrytis cinerea. J. Phytopathol. 2018, 166, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hua, L.; Yong, C.; Zhanquan, Z.; Boqiang, L.; Guozheng, Q.; Shiping, T. Pathogenic mechanisms and control strategies of Botrytis cinerea causing post-harvest decay in fruits and vegetables. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bi, K.; Liang, Y.; Mengiste, T.; Sharon, A. Killing softly: A roadmap of Botrytis cinerea pathogenicity. Trends Plant Sci. 2023, 28, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.C.; Kumar, A.; Fadiji, A.E.; Babalola, O.O.; Puopolo, G.; Santoyo, G. Agroecological management of the grey mould fungus Botrytis cinerea by plant growth-promoting bacteria. Plants 2023, 12, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nakajima, M.; Akutsu, K. Virulence factors of Botrytis cinerea. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2014, 80, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Di Francesco, A.; Aprea, E.; Gasperi, F.; Parenti, A.; Placì, N.; Rigosi, F.; Baraldi, E. Apple pathogens: Organic essential oils as an alternative solution. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 300, 111075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soppelsa, S.; Van Hemelrijck, W.; Bylemans, D.; Andreotti, C. Essential oils and chitosan applications to protect apples against postharvest diseases and to extend shelf life. Agronomy 2023, 13, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Popescu, P.A.; Palade, L.M.; Nicolae, I.C.; Popa, E.E.; Miteluț, A.C.; Drăghici, M.C.; Popa, M.E. Chitosan-based edible coatings containing essential oils to preserve the shelf life and postharvest quality parameters of organic strawberries and apples during cold storage. Foods 2022, 11, 3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mitra, A.; Selvam, S.P.; Shehabudheen, S.; Anitha, P.M.; Kumar, M.M. Efficiency evaluation of cinnamon essential oil loaded nanoliposomal coating for the post-harvest management of apple (Malus domestica). Int. J. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 11, 554–559. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lyousfi, N.; Letrib, C.; Legrifi, I.; Blenzar, A.; El Khetabi, A.; El Hamss, H.; Lahlali, R. Combination of sodium bicarbonate (SBC) with bacterial antagonists for the control of brown rot disease of fruit. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Serna-Escolano, V.; Gutiérrez-Pozo, M.; Dobón-Suárez, A.; Zapata, P.J.; Giménez, M.J. Effect of preharvest treatments with sodium bicarbonate and potassium silicate in Navel and Valencia oranges to control fungal decay and maintain quality traits during cold storage. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, Y.; Sun, C.; Guan, X.; Lian, S.; Li, B.; Wang, C. Biocontrol efficiency of Meyerozyma guilliermondii Y-1 against apple postharvest decay caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea and the possible mechanisms of action. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 338, 108957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sun, C.; Huang, Y.; Lian, S.; Saleem, M.; Li, B.; Wang, C. Improving the biocontrol efficacy of Meyerozyma guilliermondii Y-1 with melatonin against postharvest gray mold in apple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 171, 111351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kowalska, J.; Krzymińska, J.; Tyburski, J. Yeasts as a potential biological agent in plant disease protection and yield improvement—A short review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hassan, Z.U.; Al Thani, R.; Atia, F.A.; Alsafran, M.; Migheli, Q.; Jaoua, S. Application of yeasts and yeast derivatives for the biological control of toxigenic fungi and their toxic metabolites. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 22, 101447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Canonico, L.; Agarbati, A.; Galli, E.; Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. Metschnikowia pulcherrima as biocontrol agent and wine aroma enhancer in combination with a native Saccharomyces cerevisiae. LWT 2023, 181, 114758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gao, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xiong, B. Management of postharvest diseases of kiwifruit with a combination of the biocontrol yeast Candida oleophila and an oligogalacturonide. Biol. Control 2021, 156, 104549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, X.; Yu, L.; An, F.; Bai, H.; Wisniewski, M.; Wang, Z. Caffeic acid increases the fitness of Candida oleophila to the microenvironment of kiwifruit and its biocontrol performance against postharvest decay fungi. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2023, 196, 112177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ayogu, P.; Martins, V.; Gerós, H. Grape berry native yeast microbiota: Advancing trends in the development of sustainable vineyard pathogen biocontrol strategies. OENO One 2024, 58, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Godana, E.A.; Yang, Q.; Wang, K.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, L.; Legrand, N.N.G. Bio-control activity of Pichia anomala supplemented with chitosan against Penicillium expansum in postharvest grapes and its possible inhibition mechanism. LWT 2020, 124, 109188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elkhairy, B.M.; Salama, N.M.; Desouki, A.M.; Abdelrazek, A.B.; Soliman, K.A.; Ibrahim, S.A.; Khalil, H.B. Towards unlocking the biocontrol potential of Pichia kudriavzevii for plant fungal diseases: In vitro and in vivo assessments with candidate secreted protein prediction. BMC Microbiol. 2023, 23, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fernandez-San Millan, A.; Fernandez-Irigoyen, J.; Santamaria, E.; Larraya, L.; Ancin, M.; Farran, I.; Veramendi, J. Successful biocontrol of Pichia spp. strains against Botrytis cinerea infection in apple fruit: Unraveling protection mechanisms from proteomic insights. LWT 2024, 201, 116253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cignola, R.; Zucchinali, S.; Firrao, G.; Di Francesco, A. Aspects of the biocontrol activity of Aureobasidium spp. strain against Penicillium expansum of apple. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2024, 184, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Remolif, G.; Schiavon, G.; Garello, M.; Spadaro, D. Efficacy of postharvest application of Aureobasidium pullulans to control white haze on apples and effect on the fruit mycobiome. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Biasi, A.; Zhimo, V.Y.; Kumar, A.; Abdelfattah, A.; Salim, S.; Feygenberg, O.; Droby, S. Changes in the fungal community assembly of apple fruit following postharvest application of the yeast biocontrol agent Metschnikowia fructicola. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fernandez-San Millan, A.; Gamir, J.; Farran, I.; Larraya, L.; Veramendi, J. Identification of new antifungal metabolites produced by the yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima involved in the biocontrol of postharvest plant pathogenic fungi. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2022, 192, 111995. [Google Scholar]
  29. Acar, E.G.; Dikmetas, D.N.; Devecioglu, D.; Ozer, E.M.; Sarikece, H.; Karbancioglu-Guler, F. Antagonistic activities of Metschnikowia pulcherrima isolates against Penicillium expansum on Amasya apples. Curr. Microbiol. 2024, 81, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moënne-Loccoz, Y.; Mavingui, P.; Combes, C.; Normand, P.; Steinberg, C. Microorganisms and Biotic Interactions. In Environmental Microbiology: Fundamentals and Applications: Microbial Ecology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 395–444. [Google Scholar]
  31. Etesami, H.; Beattie, G.A. Plant-Microbe Interactions in Adaptation of Agricultural Crops to Abiotic Stress Conditions. In Probiotics and Plant Health; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 163–200. [Google Scholar]
  32. Negi, R.; Sharma, B.; Jan, T.; Kaur, T.; Chowdhury, S.; Kapoor, M.; Yadav, A.N. Microbial consortia: Promising tool as plant bioinoculants for agricultural sustainability. Curr. Microbiol. 2024, 81, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Remlein-Starosta, D.; Krzymińska, J.; Kowalska, J.; Bocianowski, J. Evaluation of yeast-like fungi to protect Virginia mallow (Sida hermaphrodita) against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 96, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dwivedi, M.; Singh, P.; Pandey, A.K. Botrytis fruit rot management: What have we achieved so far? Food Microbiol. 2024, 122, 104564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Elmer, P.A.; Michailides, T.J. Epidemiology of Botrytis cinerea in Orchard and Vine Crops. In Botrytis: Biology, Pathology and Control; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 243–272. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tuyet, B. Preharvest Conditions Affecting Apple Quality, Antioxidant Responses, and Susceptibility to Infection by Grey Mould (Botrytis cinerea). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, 6 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Głos, H.; Bryk, H.; Michalecka, M.; Puławska, J. The recent occurrence of biotic postharvest diseases of apples in Poland. Agronomy 2022, 12, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shewa, A.G.; Gobena, D.A.; Ali, M.K. Review on postharvest quality and handling of apple. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 2022, 8, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gomomo, Z.; Fanadzo, M.; Mewa-Ngongang, M.; Hoff, J.; Van der Rijst, M.; Okudoh, V.; du Plessis, H.W. Control of mould spoilage on apples using yeasts as biological control agents. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2022, 72, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mbili, N.C.; Yobo, K.S.; Laing, M.D. Isolation and in vivo Screening of Yeast Antagonists for the Control of Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum of Pome Fruit. In V International Symposium on Postharvest Pathology: From Consumer to Laboratory-Sustainable Approaches to Managing Postharvest; ISHS: Liège, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhao, L.; Wang, Y.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Guo, Z.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Efficacy of Wickerhamomyces anomalus yeast in the biocontrol of blue mold decay in apples and investigation of the mechanisms involved. BioControl 2021, 66, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhou, Y.; Zhao, L.; Chen, Y.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Yang, X.; Wu, M.; Song, Y.; Zhang, H. Study on the control effect and physiological mechanism of Wickerhamomyces anomalus on primary postharvest diseases of peach fruit. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024, 413, 110575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhao, Q.; Shi, Y.; Ngea, G.L.N.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, X.; Zhang, H. Changes of the microbial community in kiwifruit during storage after postharvest application of Wickerhamomyces anomalus. Food Chem. 2023, 404, 134593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Raynaldo, F.A.; Ackah, M.; Ngea, G.L.N.; Rehman, S.A.; Yang, Q.; Wang, K.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. The potentiality of Wickerhamomyces anomalus against postharvest black spot disease in cherry tomatoes and insights into the defense mechanisms involved. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2024, 209, 112699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Raynaldo, F.A.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Ngea, G.L.N.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Investigating the biocontrol potentiality of Wickerhamomyces anomalus against postharvest gray mold decay in cherry tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 285, 110137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kheireddine, A.; Palmieri, D.; Vitullo, D.; Barberio, A.; Zouaoui, M.; De Curtis, F.; Sadfi-Zouaoui, N.; Lima, G. Characterization of new yeast isolates collected from different fruits in Tunisia and biocontrol activity against Penicillium expansum on apples. J. Plant Pathol. 2021, 103, 1169–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wei, Y.; Mao, S.; Tu, K. Effect of preharvest spraying Cryptococcus laurentii on postharvest decay and quality of strawberry. Biol. Control 2014, 73, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Agarbati, A.; Canonico, L.; Pecci, T.; Romanazzi, G.; Ciani, M.; Comitini, F. Biocontrol of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in vineyards against the grey mould disease agent Botrytis cinerea. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kristjuhan, A.; Kristjuhan, K.; Tamm, T. Richness of yeast community associated with apple fruits in Estonia. Heliyon 2024, 10, e27885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Al Riachy, R.; Strub, C.; Durand, N.; Chochois, V.; Lopez-Lauri, F.; Fontana, A.; Schorr-Galindo, S. The influence of long-term storage on the epiphytic microbiome of postharvest apples and on Penicillium expansum occurrence and patulin accumulation. Toxins 2024, 16, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stanevičienė, R.; Lukša, J.; Strazdaitė-Žielienė, Ž.; Ravoitytė, B.; Losinska-Sičiūnienė, R.; Mozūraitis, R.; Servienė, E. Mycobiota in the carposphere of sour and sweet cherries and antagonistic features of potential biocontrol yeasts. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Du, X.; Li, S.; Luo, A.; Yin, X.; Fan, K.; Mou, L.; Li, J. Evaluating the fungal pathogens’ inhibition efficiency of composite film combined with antagonistic yeasts and sodium alginate on peach. Coatings 2023, 13, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhimo, V.Y.; Biasi, A.; Kumar, A.; Feygenberg, O.; Salim, S.; Vero, S.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S. Yeasts and bacterial consortia from kefir grains are effective biocontrol agents of postharvest diseases of fruits. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Xu, J.; Xin, F.; Jiang, L. Applications of synthetic microbial consortia in biological control of mycotoxins and fungi. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 53, 101074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cáceres, H.; Barriga-Sánchez, M.; Bendezú, L.; Huamán, E.; Becerra-Canales, B.; Almanza, A.; Ortiz-Campos, J.; Barra-Bucarei, L. Antagonist activity of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria against phytopathogenic strains of economic importance in agriculture. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 2024, 84, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Czajkowski, R.; Maciag, T.; Krzyzanowska, D.M.; Jafra, S. Biological Control Based on Microbial Consortia–From Theory to Commercial Products. In How Research Can Stimulate the Development of Commercial Biological Control Against Plant Diseases; Springer Nature: London, UK, 2020; pp. 183–202. [Google Scholar]
  57. Minchev, Z.; Kostenko, O.; Soler, R.; Pozo, M.J. Microbial consortia for effective biocontrol of root and foliar diseases in tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 756368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Edward-Rajanayagam, R.M.A.; Narváez-Zapata, J.A.; Ramírez-González, M.D.S.; de la Cruz-Arguijo, E.A.; López-Meyer, M.; Larralde-Corona, C.P. Yeast mixtures for postharvest biocontrol of diverse fungal rots on Citrus limon var Eureka. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guetsky, R.; Shtienberg, D.; Elad, Y.; Fischer, E.; Dinoor, A. Improving biological control by combining biocontrol agents each with several mechanisms of disease suppression. Phytopathology 2002, 92, 976–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. El Ghaouth, A.; Wilson, C.L.; Wisniewski, M. Control of postharvest decay of apple fruit with Candida saitoana and induction of defense responses. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Qian, X.; Chen, L.; Sui, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, J.; Dong, W.; Jiang, M.; Xin, F.; Ochsenreither, K. Biotechnological potential and applications of microbial consortia. Biotechnol. Adv. 2020, 40, 107500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Negi, R.; Sharma, B.; Parastesh, F.; Kaur, S.; Khan, S.S.; Kour, D.; Singh, S.; Rai, A.K.; Rustagi, S.; Yadav, N.; et al. Microbial consortia mediated regulation of plant defense: A promising tool for sustaining crop protection. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2024, 134, 102393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Herrera-Balandrano, D.D.; Wang, S.Y.; Wang, C.X.; Shi, X.C.; Liu, F.Q.; Laborda, P. Antagonistic mechanisms of yeasts Meyerozyma guilliermondii and M. caribbica for the control of plant pathogens: A review. Biol. Control 2023, 186, 105333. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bhan, C.; Asrey, R.; Singh, D.; Meena, N.K.; Vinod, B.R.; Menaka, M. Bioefficacy of bacteria and yeast bioagents on disease suppression and quality retention of stored Kinnow mandarin fruits. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nasahi, C.; Yusuf, A.R.; Hartati, S.; Kurniadie, D.; Subakti-Putri, S.N. Yeast potential in controlling Aspergillus sp. causing fruit rot disease in Dekopon oranges (Citrus reticulata ‘Shiranui’). Res. Crops 2023, 24, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Podgórska-Kryszczuk, I. Biological control of Aspergillus flavus by the yeast Aureobasidium pullulans in vitro and on tomato fruit. Plants 2023, 12, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yu, X.; Zhang, K.; Liu, J.; Zhao, Z.; Guo, B.; Wang, X.; Xiang, W.; Zhao, J. Identification and evaluation of an endophytic antagonistic yeast for the control of gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) in apple and mechanisms of action. Food Microbiol. 2024, 123, 104583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Oztekin, S.; Dikmetas, D.N.; Devecioglu, D.; Acar, E.G.; Karbancioglu-Guler, F. Recent insights into the use of antagonistic yeasts for sustainable biomanagement of postharvest pathogenic and mycotoxigenic fungi in fruits with their prevention strategies against mycotoxins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 9923–9950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Grzegorczyk, M.; Szalewicz, A.; Żarowska, B.; Połomska, X.; Wątorek, W.; Wojtatowicz, M. Drobnoustroje w biologicznej ochronie roślin przed chorobami grzybowymi. Acta Sci. Pol. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 19–42. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ali, A.; Ölmez, F.; Zeshan, M.A.; Mubeen, M.; Iftikhar, Y.; Sajid, A.; Solanki, M.K. Yeast-based solutions in controlling plant pathogens. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2024, 58, 103199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bitas, V.; Kim, H.S.; Bennett, J.W.; Kang, S. Sniffing on microbes: Diverse roles of microbial volatile organic compounds in plant health. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2013, 26, 835–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Agirman, B.; Erten, H. Biocontrol ability and action mechanisms of Aureobasidium pullulans GE17 and Meyerozyma guilliermondii KL3 against Penicillium digitatum DSM2750 and Penicillium expansum DSM62841 causing postharvest diseases. Yeast 2020, 37, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yang, T.; Wang, C.; Li, C.; Sun, R.; Yang, M. Antagonistic effects of volatile organic compounds of Saccharomyces cerevisiae NJ-1 on the growth and toxicity of Aspergillus flavus. Biol. Control 2023, 177, 105093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zou, X.; Wei, Y.; Zhu, J.; Sun, J.; Shao, X. Volatile organic compounds of Scheffersomyces spartinae W9 have antifungal effect against Botrytis cinerea on strawberry fruit. Foods 2023, 12, 3619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moir, A.; Corfe, B.M.; Behravan, J. Spore germination. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2002, 59, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 00602 g001
Figure 1. Dynamics of yeast population (isolates 114/73, 117/10, and 117/67) colonization in wounds (diameter 5 mm, depth 5 mm) in apples at 4 °C from 0 days (1 h after inoculation) to 14 days post-inoculation of the yeast. Yeast population expressed by log10 CFU per wound.
Figure 1. Dynamics of yeast population (isolates 114/73, 117/10, and 117/67) colonization in wounds (diameter 5 mm, depth 5 mm) in apples at 4 °C from 0 days (1 h after inoculation) to 14 days post-inoculation of the yeast. Yeast population expressed by log10 CFU per wound.
Agriculture 15 00602 g001
Agriculture 15 00602 g002
Figure 2. Dynamics of yeast population (isolates 114/73, 117/10, and 117/67) colonization in wounds (diameter 5 mm, depth 5 mm) in apples at 23 °C from 0 days (1 h after inoculation) to 7 days post-inoculation of the yeast. Yeast population expressed by log10 CFU per wound.
Figure 2. Dynamics of yeast population (isolates 114/73, 117/10, and 117/67) colonization in wounds (diameter 5 mm, depth 5 mm) in apples at 23 °C from 0 days (1 h after inoculation) to 7 days post-inoculation of the yeast. Yeast population expressed by log10 CFU per wound.
Agriculture 15 00602 g002
Agriculture 15 00602 g003
Figure 3. Effect of yeast isolates and yeast consortia at a concentration of 2 × 107 CFU/mL on the rate of spore germination (%) of B. cinerea in vitro measured by microscope after 24 h of incubation at 28 °C, 75 rpm in PDB. Means with different letters have a significant difference at p < 0.05 based on Fisher LSD tests.Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Figure 3. Effect of yeast isolates and yeast consortia at a concentration of 2 × 107 CFU/mL on the rate of spore germination (%) of B. cinerea in vitro measured by microscope after 24 h of incubation at 28 °C, 75 rpm in PDB. Means with different letters have a significant difference at p < 0.05 based on Fisher LSD tests.Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Agriculture 15 00602 g003
Agriculture 15 00602 g004aAgriculture 15 00602 g004b
Figure 4. Growth dynamics of B. cinerea lesions growth on apples stored at 4 °C and treated with yeast water suspension; (a) isolate 114/73, (b) isolate 117/10, (c) isolate 117/67 at concentration 1 × 107 CFU/mL, 2 × 107 CFU/mL, 4 × 107 CFU/mL.
Figure 4. Growth dynamics of B. cinerea lesions growth on apples stored at 4 °C and treated with yeast water suspension; (a) isolate 114/73, (b) isolate 117/10, (c) isolate 117/67 at concentration 1 × 107 CFU/mL, 2 × 107 CFU/mL, 4 × 107 CFU/mL.
Agriculture 15 00602 g004aAgriculture 15 00602 g004b
Table 1. Efficacy of yeast isolates applied as water suspension treatment in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 4 °C for 4 weeks. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Table 1. Efficacy of yeast isolates applied as water suspension treatment in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 4 °C for 4 weeks. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Yeast IsolateControl
Yeast Concentration114/73117/10117/67
1 × 107 CFU/mL67.50 ± 6.58 b*38.40 ± 6.41 de57.60 ± 4.46 bc88.10 ± 9.52 a
2 × 107 CFU/mL23.00 ± 5.95 ef6.90 ± 1.22 g49.20 ± 7.82 cd
4 × 107 CFU/mL10.80 ± 4.98 fg3.90 ± 3.40 g13.70 ± 2.72 fg
* Data expressed as mean ± standard error. Means with different letters have a significant difference at p < 0.05 based on Fisher LSD tests.
Table 2. Efficacy of yeast consortia (at concentration 2 × 107 CFU/mL) applied as water suspension treatment in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 4 °C for 2–4 weeks. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Table 2. Efficacy of yeast consortia (at concentration 2 × 107 CFU/mL) applied as water suspension treatment in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 4 °C for 2–4 weeks. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
CombinationDay
142128
114/73 × 117/100.00 ± 00 b1.60 ± 0.58 c1.90 ± 0.92 c
114/73 × 117/671.20 ± 0.68 b14.50 ± 2.76 b22.00 ± 3.59 b
117/10 × 117/671.00 ± 0.89 b11.40 ± 3.61 bc20.30 ± 2.36 b
117/10 × 114/73 × 117/670.00 ± 00 b0.50 ± 0.45 c1.20 ± 0.51 c
Control7.90 ± 2.15 a58.90 ± 11.85 a88.10 ± 9.52 a
Data expressed as mean ± standard error. This means that in columns with different letters, there is a significant difference at p < 0.05 based on Fisher LSD tests.
Table 3. Efficacy of yeast isolates water suspension treatment (2 × 107 CFU/mL) in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 23 °C for 2 weeks. Yeast isolates were used separately and as consortia. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
Table 3. Efficacy of yeast isolates water suspension treatment (2 × 107 CFU/mL) in inhibiting decay caused by B. cinerea in apples stored at 23 °C for 2 weeks. Yeast isolates were used separately and as consortia. Mean diameters of grey mould lesions (mm). Control treated with sterilized normal saline.
CombinationDay
71014
114/7320.00 ± 3.61 c31.17 ± 6.54 bc61.17 ± 4.37 b
117/1021.83 ± 6.15 c32.33 ± 11.07 bc48.17 ± 21.22 bcd
117/6737.17 ± 6.64 b51.00 ± 7.33 b71.17 ± 5.78 ab
114/73 × 117/1020.17 ± 2.13 c23.67 ± 0.27 bc28.67 ± 3.28 cd
114/73 × 117/6736.67 ± 1.16 b46.00 ± 4.23 b52.83 ± 2.79 bc
117/10 × 117/6731.67 ± 5.33 b47.67 ± 7.01 b55.67 ± 2.37 b
117/10 × 114/73 × 117/6717.50 ± 4.99 c20.67 ± 4.81 c23.50 ± 4.89 d
Control55.83 ± 5.47 a81.67 ± 5.33 a94.00 ± 3.61 a
Data expressed as mean ± standard error. This means that in columns with different letters, there is a significant difference at p < 0.05 based on Fisher LSD tests.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krzymińska, J.; Kowalska, J. Reducing Postharvest Losses in Organic Apples: The Role of Yeast Consortia Against Botrytis cinerea. Agriculture 2025, 15, 602. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060602

AMA Style

Krzymińska J, Kowalska J. Reducing Postharvest Losses in Organic Apples: The Role of Yeast Consortia Against Botrytis cinerea. Agriculture. 2025; 15(6):602. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060602

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krzymińska, Joanna, and Jolanta Kowalska. 2025. "Reducing Postharvest Losses in Organic Apples: The Role of Yeast Consortia Against Botrytis cinerea" Agriculture 15, no. 6: 602. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060602

APA Style

Krzymińska, J., & Kowalska, J. (2025). Reducing Postharvest Losses in Organic Apples: The Role of Yeast Consortia Against Botrytis cinerea. Agriculture, 15(6), 602. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060602

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop