Impact of Pre-harvest Bagging on Fruit Quality and Post-harvest Shelf Life

Introduction

A popular horticultural technique that significantly improves fruit quality, aesthetic appeal and post-harvest performance is pre-harvest fruit bagging. Fruit bagging's main goal is to create a controlled microenvironment around growing fruits, hence lowering their exposure to a variety of biotic and abiotic challenges. The bags act as a physical barrier, providing defence against fungal infections, insect pests, wind and hail-related mechanical damage and physiological conditions like sunburn and russeting (Kolb et al., 2001; Ju, 1998) [38, 43]. By reducing the prevalence of pests and diseases, this barrier function lessens the need for chemical pesticides and makes it possible to grow residue-free fruits that meet consumer safety regulations (Zhang et al., 2018; Ding & Syakirah, 2010) [19, 75]. Fruit bagging also alters the temperature, humidity and light exposure of the microclimate that surrounds the fruit. This results in improved surface colouration, smoother skin texture and more consistent size and shape, all of which are highly desired characteristics in commercial fruit production (Ali et al., 2021) [1] . Finding alternative ways to improve fruit quality and aesthetics becomes more important as consumer concern over the use of artificial agrochemicals and environmental awareness increases. In order to safeguard the environment, worker safety, and consumer health, it is becoming more crucial to reduce the use of pesticides (Sharma et al., 2009) [62] . One of these strategies that has worked well in several parts of the world is pre-harvest fruit bagging. Often applied to a range of fruits, it improves their look by promoting peel coloration. The inner fruit quality can be affected in a number of ways by reducing the frequency of fruit russeting and cracking while simultaneously changing the fruit development microenvironment. It is connected to organic. A popular horticultural technique that significantly improves fruit quality, aesthetic appeal and post-harvest performance is pre-harvest fruit bagging. Fruit bagging's main goal is to create a controlled microenvironment around growing fruits, hence lowering their exposure to a variety of biotic and abiotic challenges. The bags act as a physical barrier, providing defence against fungal infections, insect pests, wind and hail-related mechanical damage and physiological conditions like sunburn and russeting (Kolb et al., 2001; Ju, 1998) [38,43] . By reducing the prevalence of pests and diseases, this barrier function lessens the need for chemical pesticides and makes it possible to grow residue-free fruits that meet consumer safety regulations (Zhang et al., 2018; Ding & Syakirah, 2010) [19,75] . Fruit bagging also alters the temperature, humidity and light exposure of the microclimate that surrounds the fruit. This results in improved surface colouration, smoother skin texture and more consistent size and shape, all of which are highly desired characteristics in commercial fruit production (Ali et al., 2021) [1] . Finding alternative ways to improve fruit quality and aesthetics becomes more important as consumer concern over the use of artificial agrochemicals and environmental awareness increases. In order to safeguard the environment, worker safety, and consumer health, it is becoming more crucial to reduce the use of pesticides (Sharma et al., 2009) [62] . One of these strategies that has worked well in several parts of the world is pre-harvest fruit bagging. Often applied to a range of fruits, it improves their look by promoting peel coloration. The inner fruit quality can be affected in a number of ways by reducing the frequency of fruit russeting and cracking while simultaneously changing the fruit development microenvironment. It is connected to organic. In many fruit crops, bagging has been widely used to enhance skin color and lower the risk of disease, insect pests, mechanical damage, sunburn, agrochemical residues on the fruit, and bird damage (Bentley and Viveros, 1992; Kitagawa et al., 1992; Joyce et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2010) [8,42,73] . To maximize fruit quality by lowering physiological and pathological disorders and to improve fruit colouration to increase market value (Joyce et al., 1997) [37] , preharvest bagging of fruit is used during the cultivation of peaches, apples, pears, grapes and loquats in China, Japan and Australia (Amarante et al., 2002) [3] . Pre-harvest fruit bagging is an economical and environmentally responsible method that closely matches with Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods, providing a twofold benefit of pest control and quality enhancement (Zhang et al., 2018; Ding & Syakirah, 2010). In addition to its protective role, it improves fruits' nutritional and aesthetic qualities, meeting changing consumer needs and food safety regulations (Asrey et al., 2020; Griñán et al., 2019) [4,26] . There have been inconsistent findings regarding the impact of beforeharvesting fruit bagging (Table 01) on fruit size, maturation, skin color, flesh mineral content and fruit quality. These reports may be caused by variations in the type of bag used, the stage of fruit development at the time of bagging, the amount of time the fruit is exposed to natural light after the bag is removed and/or responses specific to the fruit and cultivar (Hofman et al., 1997; Fan and Mattheis, 1998) [21,29] . The consequences of fruit bagging have been the subject of extensive investigation in many parts of the world, but the findings have not been collated. In order to help academics and extension agents working in this field, we have made an effort to gather all the disparate material on fruit bagging. [30,52] . Fruits are protected from environmental risks such as UV-induced sunburn, raininduced cracking, wind damage and mechanical abrasion by bagging, which serves as a physical barrier (Chaves-Silva et al., 2018; Lima et al., 2020) [13,44] .

Historical Background of the Fruit Bagging Technique

Fruit bagging is an ancient horticultural technique that dates back to East Asia. Farmers in ancient China and Japan used basic materials like paper, cloth and bamboo to shield developing fruits like pears, peaches and persimmons from biological and environmental dangers (Vignati et al., 2022) [68] . By the early 20th century, the method had advanced considerably in Japan, where double-layered paper bags were used in apple orchards to enhance fruit consistency and appearance while discouraging pests and reducing weatherrelated damage (Issarakraisila, 2018) [33] . Bagging was modified for crops including citrus, grapes and persimmons after these improvements quickly made their way to Korea, Taiwan and other East Asian countries (Kim et al., 2019) [40] . Biodegradable and sensor-enabled "smart" bags are examples of recent inventions that improve sustainability and environmental responsiveness (Wu et al., 2012) [71] . Fruit bagging is a crucial and versatile method for improving fruit quality, reducing pesticide use and promoting sustainable horticulture globally. Its development, therefore, demonstrates the blending of traditional agricultural expertise with contemporary scientific discoveries. [70,77] .  Cloth-Based Bags: Options for cloth bagging, such as sophisticated non-woven textiles and loosely woven cotton, balance protection and breathability. They are perfect for delicate fruits like peaches and mangoes because of their lightweight and flexible structure, which protects them from mechanical damage. These textiles' porous structure guarantees steady airflow and moisture release, lowering the possibility of heat buildup and microbiological contamination (Chaves et al., 2021) [12] .

Types of

Effects of bagging on fruit crops Physiological factors influenced by fruit bagging Fruit size, weight and colour

Once the fruit sets, it grows slowly until it reaches maturity. Fruit growth and size may be impacted by covering them with a bag at a specific developmental period (Table 02).

There have been conflicting reports on how fruit bagging affects fruit weight and size. This could be because of variations in the type of bag used, the age of the fruit at bagging, the responses of the fruit and cultivar, the current climate and/or the storage conditions of the fruit after harvest (Huang et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2012) [14,30] . Fruit weight and size may rise, decrease, or remain unchanged after fruit bagging. According to Yang et al.

(2009) [74] and Zhou et al. (2012) [76] , bagging improves fruit growth, size and weight. For instance, Xu et al. (2008) [72] found that applying plastic bags 10 days after full bloom doubled fruit weight in carambola. The effects of preharvest bagging with various wavelength-selective bags on 'Nam Dok Mai' mangos in Taiwan were examined by Chonhenchob et al. (2011) [16] , who found that bagging increased fruit weight, size and sphericity compared to unbagged fruit. Pre-harvest fruit bagging has been shown to decrease the weight and size of various fruits. For example, Xu et al. (2010) [73] tried bagging "Baiyu" and "Ninghaibai" loquat and found that bagging reduced fruit weight. Additionally, bagging pomegranates has been shown to decrease fruit weight and size (Hussein et al., 1994) [32] .

According to certain research, bagging does not affect fruit weight or size. For instance, polyethene covers did not affect banana bunch or total fruit weights, according to Rodrigues et al. (2001) [57] .

Fruit maturity & Fruit ripening

Fruit ripeness can be affected by bagging; conflicting findings have been documented. In contrast to fruit wrapped with newspaper bags or unbagged fruit, Kim et al. (2008) [41] found that fruit maturation in "Janghowon Hwangdo" peaches bagged with white paper occurred six days earlier.

According to Wang et al. (2010) [69] , pre-harvest fruit bagging in the late-ripening peach cultivar "Wanmi" enhanced fruit maturity by about ten days.

Fruit ripening is impacted by pre-harvest bagging.

According to Awad (2007) [5] , bunch bagging greatly accelerated the rate of fruit ripening in the late-season date palm cultivar "Helali". Pre-harvest bagging postponed the ripening of the black table grape "Perla", according to Signes et al. (2007) [64] . In comparison to no bagging, Kassem et al. (2011) [39] found that spathe-bagging using transparent or blue polyethene bags during pollination resulted in noticeably earlier fruit ripening in "Zaghloul" dates.

Fruit appearance & colour development

Fruit is vulnerable to physical flaws and damage during cultivation, harvesting, packing and shipping. Customers find them less appealing as a result. Customers are drawn to fruit that is free of flaws, scratches, or damage. Fruit has been bagged in order to increase its commercial worth. Preharvest bagging of "Doyenne du Comice" pears boosted the proportion of fruit allowed for export, according to Amarante et al. (2002) [3] , mainly by lowering bird damage and skin imperfections. The primary characteristic that draws customers is the colour of the fruit. The fruit's physical appearance is enhanced by an appealing colour, which helps it command higher pricing in both home and international markets. Fruits can grow more evenly because of the bags' protective environment. Pre-harvest fruit bagging may either encourage or impede the development of fruit colour, according to several studies. In order to satisfy market demands and raise the general quality of the fruit, this consistency is essential. Additionally, by reducing bruising and other damage that frequently happens during growth, bagging can improve fruit texture (Zhuang & Chen, 2018). [53] , mango (Sarker et al., 2009) [59] , woolly aphids in apple (Teixeira et al., 2011) [66] , fruit borers in litchi (Debnath and Mitra, 2008) [18] and San Jose scale in apple (Sharma et al., 2013) [63] . Therefore, it seems that pre-harvest fruit bagging can be a helpful strategy to lessen the losses brought on by insects, which would otherwise necessitate the use of many insecticides.

Disease control

Additionally, fruit bagging keeps viruses from getting to the developing fruit, shielding it from several diseases that could result in significant losses. Certain fruits can be protected from many infections by bagging (Table 04), whereas other fruits may not benefit at all (Senghor et al., 2007; Chonhenchob et al., 2011) [16,61] . Fruit bagging has been shown to lower the occurrence of fly speck and sooty blotch in apples (Sharma et al., 2013) [63] and anthracnose and stem-end rot in mangos (Senghor et al., 2007; Chonhenchob et al., 2011). Fruit bagging, therefore, can be a useful method for growing better fruit without or with reduced usage of chemicals to prevent disease.

Bird damage

Birds are significant pests during the ripening period of fruits like bananas, mangoes, apples and dates, resulting in significant losses. Birds are controlled using a variety of methods, including extending reflective ribbons in the field and thumping drums, although they quickly grow accustomed to these methods (Sharma, 2009) [62] . If applied at the proper stage of fruit growth, we believe that fruit bagging may be the ideal method for producing healthy, birddamage-free fruit.

Physiological and biochemical factors influenced by bagging Physiological disorders

Physiological diseases are abnormalities in fruit that are not brought on by pathogen invasion or insect damage, but rather by a lack or excess of a nutrient, hot or low temperatures, or high or low rates of respiration or ethylene production (Sharma, 2009) [62] . Numerous methods have been used to manage these illnesses, which have been documented to have an impact on fruit quality and yield.

Fruit bagging may be used to lower the prevalence of some fruit illnesses, according to studies (Table 05). As a result, fruit bagging has been widely employed in several nations to lessen sunburn and fruit breaking issues. Additionally, it decreased the frequency of apple russeting (Teixeira et al., 2011) [66] and sunburn (Bentley and Viveros, 1992) [8] . Bagging reduced the quantities of K, Ca, and Mg in pear fruit by 9.6%, 38.9% and 6.7%, respectively, but had no discernible effect on the concentrations of N and P (Lin, 2008) [45] . The development of flavour (Table 06) and scent, two important sensory characteristics that impact consumer preference, is also greatly influenced by the microclimate created by fruit bagging. By promoting ideal ripening conditions and shielding the fruit from environmental pressures that could otherwise cause premature ethylene production or interfere with normal metabolic pathways, bagging can improve the natural sweetness of fruits like apples, according to studies. Producing fruit of superior quality is the grower's ultimate goal. Additionally, consumers desire fruit of the highest calibre. The edible quality is determined by factors like titratable acidity (TA) and total soluble solids content (TSSC). Research has shown that fruit bagging affects the fruit is edible quality (Table 06).

Effect of bagging on fruit microclimate

Although bagging alters the microclimate surrounding the fruit, very few precise measurements have been conducted because the technique's primary objective has always been to preserve or enhance the fruit is appearance, preventing a decrease in texture, soluble solids, and ascorbic acid. Furthermore, a lot relies on the type of material used for the bags, and the comparison is made more difficult by the absence of uniformity.

Positive effects of pre-harvesting bagging in fruit crops Pesticide Residue Reduction

By lowering the need for chemical pesticides, the use of fruit bagging (Fig. 02) as a protective measure offers a clear route to more environmentally friendly horticultural practices. Farmers can greatly reduce the frequency of pesticide applications while still providing good crop protection since bagged fruits are protected from external pest threats (Sakuraba & Yanagisawa, 2018) [58] . To ensure food safety, safeguard consumer health, and adhere to international trade rules, this decrease in pesticide use results in reduced levels of chemical residue on the fruit's surface.

Improving post-harvest life of bugged fruits

Fruit deterioration after harvest is largely caused by temperature changes, dryness, and mechanical damage, all of which can be mitigated by bagging. Bagging helps maintain fruits' physiological integrity by shielding them from various environmental stresses during the growing period, which delays ripening and prolongs their freshness after harvest. Post-harvest fruit loss is largely caused by latent diseases, pest infestations, and mechanical damage. Bagging reduces post-harvest deterioration and bruising by offering physical protection throughout crucial fruit development phases (Dutta & Majumder, 2012) [20] .

According to studies comparing bagged and non-bagged fruits in the production of apples and grapes, bagged fruits have much lower rates of post-harvest losses than those grown in traditional open-field settings, both in terms of microbial spoiling and physical damage (Grasswitz & Fimbres, 2013) [25] .

Benefits and Challenges of Pre-Harvest Fruit Bagging

Conclusion

Pre-harvest fruit bagging is a straightforward, safe and grower-friendly procedure that improves fruit quality and appearance in a number of ways. Additionally, it is the safest way to keep fruit secure from viruses, insect infestations and other problems. In several places of the world, this method is essential to fruit production. It is a time-consuming procedure that requires the creation of biodegradable bags that break down after usage. For producers to take advantage of this technology, we also need to standardise the requirements for the kind of bag to be used, the date of bagging and the date of bag removal. Preharvest bagging stands out as a scalable method for providing high-quality fruit with a lower environmental impact as agriculture moves toward greater sustainability. The mainstreaming of bagging technologies will depend on further advancements in automation, materials science and grower education. This will enable producers to satisfy changing consumer needs and support a more robust food system.

References

1. Ali MM, Anwar R, Yousef AF, Li B, Luvisi A, De Bellis L. Influence of bagging on the development and quality of fruits. Plants. 2021;10(2):358-358.
2. Aluja M, Birke A, Ceymann M, Guillén L, Arrigoni E, Baumgartner D, et al. Influence of bagging on the behaviour and control of the Mexican fruit fly in mango. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2011;104(5):1557-1565.
3. Amarante C, Banks NH, Max S. Preharvest bagging improves packout and fruit quality of pears (Pyrus communis). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science. 2002;30(2):93-98.
4. Asrey R, Kumar K, Sharma RR, Meena NK. Fruit bagging and bag color affects quality and consumer acceptability of pomegranate arils. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2020;57:1469-1476.
5. Awad MA. Increasing the rate of ripening of date palm fruit (Phoenix dactylifera L.) cv. Helali by preharvest and postharvest treatments. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2007;43(1):121-127.
6. Bacelar E, Pinto T, Anjos R, Morais MC, Oliveira I, Vilela A, et al. Impacts of climate change on fruit growth and quality. Plants. 2024;13(14):1942-1942.
7. Bagle BG. Studies on anar butterfly in pomegranate. Acta Horticulturae. 2011;890:557-563.
8. Bentley W, Viveros M. Brown-bagging Granny Smith apples on trees stops codling moth damage. California Agriculture. 1992;46(4):30-32.
9. Bilck PA, Roberto SR, Maria VEG, Yamashita F. Biodegradable films as pre-harvest covering material for guava. Scientia Horticulturae. 2011;130:341-343.
10. Buganíc Jr RD, Lizada MCC, De-Ramos MB. Disease control in mango with pre-harvest bagging. Acta Horticulturae. 1997;455:797-804.
11. Campbell D, Sarkhosh A, Brecht JK, Gillett-Kaufman JL, Liburd O, Melgar J, et al. Bagging organic peaches reduces injuries and decay. HortScience. 2021;56:5258.
12. Chaves I, Silva L, Almeida A. Influence of pre-harvest bagging on grape quality for wine production. Food Chemistry. 2021;345:128813-128813.
13. Chaves-Silva S, Dos Santos AL, Chalfun-Júnior A, Zhao J, Peres LE, Benedito VA. Understanding the genetic regulation of anthocyanin biosynthesis in plants-tools for breeding purple varieties of fruits and vegetables. Phytochemistry. 2018;153:11-27.
14. Chen CS, Zhang D, Wang YQ, Li PM, Ma FW. Effects of fruit bagging on the contents of phenolic compounds in the peel and flesh of 'Golden Delicious','Red Delicious', and 'Royal Gala'apples. Scientia Horticulturae. 2012;142:68-73.
15. Cheng ZH, Zhao Y, Meng HW, Guan ZH. Effects of fruit bagging on cucumber quality. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2007;27:732-739.
16. Chonhenchob V, Kamhangwong D, Kruenate J, Khongrat K, Tangchantra N, Wichai U, et al. Preharvest bagging with wavelength-selective materials enhances development and quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Nam Dok Mai# 4. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2011;91(4):664671.
17. Debnath S, Mitra SK. Panicle bagging for maturity regulation, quality improvement and fruit borer management in litchi (Litchi chinensis). Acta Horticulturae. 2008;773:201-208.
18. Ding P, Syakirah MN. Influence of fruit bagging on mango quality. Acta Horticulturae. 2010;877:169-174.
19. Dutta P, Majumder D. Influence of bagging on fruit quality and mineral composition of Himsagar mango grown in new alluvial zones of West Bengal. Advances in Horticultural Science. 2012;26(3/4):158-162.
20. Fan X, Mattheis JP. Bagging 'Fuji' apples affects colour and storage quality. HortScience. 1998;33:12351238.
21. Faoro ID, Marcia M. Bagging of Nashi pear. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura. 2004;26:86-88.
22. Frank DL. Fruit bagging as pest management in apple. Insects. 2018;9(4):178-178.
23. Fumuro M, Gamo H. Bagging effects on persimmon skin disorder. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science. 2001;70:261-263.
24. Grasswitz TR, Fimbres O. Efficacy of a physical method for control of direct pests of apples and peaches. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2013;137(10):790-800.
25. Griñán I, Morales D, Galindo A, Torrecillas A, PérezLópez D, Moriana A. Effect of bagging on pomegranate quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2019;99:1425-1433.
26. Harhash MM, Al-Obeed RS. Effect of bagging colour on date palm yield and quality. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. 2010;7:312-319.
27. Hiratsuka S, Yokoyama Y, Nishimura H, Miyazaki T, Nada K. Fruit photosynthesis affected by bagging in mandarin. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 2012;137:215-220.
28. Hofman PJ, Smith LG, Joyce DC, Johnson GI, Meiburg GF. Bagging of mango fruit influences quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 1997;12(1):8391.
29. Huang CH, Chai ML, Pan ZM, Yu B, Jiang ZM, Hu JL, et al. Effects of bagging on fruit skin features and quality of Cuiguan pear cultivar. Journal of Fruit Science. 2007;24(6):742-746.
30. Huang C, Yu B, Teng Y, Su J, Shu Q, Cheng Z, et al. Effects of fruit bagging on coloring and related physiology, and qualities of red Chinese sand pears during fruit maturation. Scientia Horticulturae. 2009;121(2):149-158.
31. Hudima M, Štampar F. Bagging of pear influences fruit quality. Acta Horticulturae. 2011;909:625-630.
32. Hussein AA, Abdel-Rahman AG, Ahmed RB. Effectiveness of fruit bagging on yield and fruit quality of pomegranate (Punica granatum, L.). Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 1994;32:949-957.
33. Issarakraisila M. Effect of types of bagging materials on growth, quality and disease-insect damages in pummelo fruit in tropical humid conditions. Acta Horticulturae. 2018;1208:319-324.
34. Jia D, Fan L, Liu G, Shen J, Liu C, Yuan Y. Effects of bagging on β-carotene in apple. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2011;3:196-202.
35. Joshi KK, Singh VP, Saxena D, Dhami V. Effect of fruit bagging on mango quality. Progressive Research. 2016;11(3):416-419.
36. Joshi KK, Singh VP, Saxena D, Mishra DS. Effect of bagging on litchi fruit quality. Annals of Horticulture. 2016;9(1):41-44.
37. Joyce DC, Beasley DR, Shorter AJ. Effect of preharvest bagging on mango ripening. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 1997;37:383-389.
38. Ju Z. Fruit bagging and anthocyanin synthesis in apples. Scientia Horticulturae. 1998;77:155-164.
39. Kassem HA, Omar AKH, Ahmed MA. Response of Zaghloul date palm productivity, ripening and quality to different polyethylene bagging treatments. AmericanEurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. 2011;11:616-621.
40. Kim H, Lee S, Park J. Adoption of fruit bagging in Korean orchards. Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2019;14(2):89-97.
41. Kim YH, Kim HH, Youn CK, Kweon SJ, Jung HJ, Lee CH. Effects of bagging material on fruit coloration and quality of'Janghowon Hwangdo'peach. Acta Horticulturae. 2008;772(9):81-86.
42. Kitagawa H, Manabe K, Esguerra EB. Bagging of fruit to control disease. Acta Horticulturae. 1992;321:871875.
43. Kolb CA, Käser MA, Kopecký J, Zotz G, Riederer M, Pfündel EE. Effects of UV radiation on grape leaves. Plant Physiology. 2001;127:863-875.
44. Lima JD, Engelking EW, Rozane DE, Gomes EN, Gorla da Silva SHM, Kluge RA. Effect of bunch protection material and bagging time on the yield of'Nanica'banana and chilling control. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2020;14(4):574-580.
45. Lin J, Chang Y, Yan Z, Li X. Effects of bagging on pear fruit quality. Acta Horticulturae. 2008;772:315318.
46. Ma B, Chen J, Zheng H, Fang T, Ogutu C, Li S, et al. Sugar and malic acid composition in apples. Food Chemistry. 2021;362:130131-130131.
47. Martins MC, Lourenço SA, Gutierrez AS, Watanabe HS. Post-harvest damage in guava and bagging relation. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura. 2007;29:245-248.
48. Mathooko FM, Kahangi EM, Runkuab JM, Onyango CA, Owino WO. Mango fruit bagging improves quality. Acta Horticulturae. 2011;906:55-62.
49. Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Sato S. Bagging and storability of apple. Horticultural Journal. 2018;87:443-451.
50. Meena KR, Maji S, Kumar S, Parihar D, Meena D. Effect of bagging on guava quality. International Journal of Bio-Resource and Stress Management. 2016;7:330-333.
51. Mitra SK, Pathak PK. Litchi production in Asia-Pacific region. Acta Horticulturae. 2010;863:29-36.
52. Morandi B, Manfrini L, Losciale P, Zibordi M, CorelliGrappadelli L. The positive effect of skin transpiration in peach fruit growth. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2010;167(13):1033-1037.
53. Morera-Montoya R, Blanco-Metzler H, Luis-Loria C. Evaluation of different bagging materials for the control of the fruit fly Anastrepha sp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) and fruit pathogens in Taiwanese guava fruits (Psidium guajava L.). In: II International Symposium on Guava and other Myrtaceae. 2008;849:283-292.
54. Ni Z, Zhang Z, Gao Z, Gu L, Huang L. Effects of bagging on sugar metabolism in loquat. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;10:4212-4216.
55. Rahman H, Akter A, Rahman J, Riad MI, Rahman MM. Fruit thinning and bagging in guava. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2017;6:23493682.
56. Rahman MM, Hossain MM, Rahim M, Rube MHK, Islam MZ. Bagging on post-harvest quality of guava. Fundamental and Applied Agriculture. 2018;3:363-371.
57. Rodrigues MGV, Souto RF, Menegucci JL. Influence of polyethylene banana bunch cover for irrigated banana tree in the North of Minas Gerais state. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura. 2001;23:559-562.
58. Sakuraba Y, Yanagisawa S. Light signalling-induced regulation of nutrient acquisition and utilisation in plants. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2018;83:123-132.
59. Sarker D, Rahman MM, Barman JC. Efficacy of different bagging materials for the control of mango fruit fly. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2009;34(1):165-168.
60. Semple AJ, Frio AS. Bagging of banana bunches improves fruit quality. Tropical Agriculture. 1992;69:335-340.
61. Senghor A, Liang WJ, Ho WC. Integrated control of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides on mango fruit in Taiwan by the combination of Bacillus subtilis and fruit bagging. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2007;17(8):865-870.
62. Sharma RR. Fruit Production: Problems and Solutions. Lucknow, India: International Book Distributing Company; 2009. 649 p.
63. Sharma RR, Pal RK, Asrey R, Sagar VR, Dhiman M. Pre-harvest fruit bagging influences fruit color and quality of apple cv. Delicious. Agricultural Sciences. 2013;4(09):443-448.
64. Signes AJ, Burló F, Martínez-Sánchez F, CarbonellBarrachina AA. Effects of preharvest bagging on quality of black table grapes. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;3(1):32-38.
65. Singh SK, Reddy YTN, Dey P, Chattopadhyay TK. Fruit bagging improves guava quality. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2012;69:547-552.
66. Teixeira R, Boff MIC, Amarante CVT, Steffens CA, Boff P. Effects of fruit bagging on pests and diseases control and on quality and maturity of' Fuji Suprema Apple. Bragantia. 2011;70:688-695.
67. Usenik V, Kastelec D, Veberic R, Štampar F. Quality changes during plum ripening. Food Chemistry. 2010;111:830-836.
68. Vignati E, Lipska M, Dunwell JM, Caccamo M, Simkin AJ. Fruit development in sweet cherry. Plants. 2022;11(12):1531-1531.
69. Wang Y, Yang C, Liu C, Xu M, Li S, Yang L, et al. Effects of bagging on volatiles and polyphenols in "Wanmi" peaches during endocarp hardening and final fruit rapid growth stages. Journal of Food Science. 2010;75(9):S455-S460.
70. Watanawan A, Watanawan C, Jarunate J. Bagging effects on mango fruit quality. Acta Horticulturae. 2008;787:325-328.
71. Wu BH, Cao SY, Ma BH, Zhang GY. Effects of fruit bagging on pesticide residue and fruit quality in grapes. Journal of Fruit Science. 2012;29(3):409-414.
72. Xu CX, Chen HB, Huang RY, He YJ. Effects of bagging on fruit growth and quality of carambola. Acta Horticulturae. 2008;773:195-200.
73. Xu HX, Chen JW, Xie M. Effect of different light transmittance paper bags on fruit quality and antioxidant capacity in loquat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2010;90(11):1783-1788.
74. Yang WH, Zhu XC, Bu JH, Hu GB, Wang HC, Huang XM. Effects of bagging on fruit development and quality in cross-winter off-season longan. Scientia Horticulturae. 2009;120(2):194-200.
75. Zhang R, Li H, Wu T, Chen J. Evolution of fruit cultivation in East Asia. Horticultural Science Journal. 2018;55(2):112-125.
76. Zhou JH, Zhong GF, Lin ZZ, Xu HL. The effects of bagging on fresh fruit quality of Canarium album. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 2012;10:505-508.
77. Zhou XB, Guo XW. Bagging effects on grape sugar metabolism. Journal of Fruit Science. 2005;26:30-33.