Effect of different bagging materials on fruit yield, quality and storability of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold

Introduction

Guava (Psidium guajava L.) is an important tropical fruit crop belonging to the family Myrtaceae. It originated in tropical America and is now widely cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions owing to its adaptability, nutritional value and commercial importance. In India, guava is one of the major fruit crops and is popularly known as the "Apple of the Tropics" due to its excellent flavour and nutritional quality. The fruits are rich in vitamin C, pectin, minerals and other essential nutrients and are consumed both as a fresh fruit and in processed products such as pulp, juice, jam, jelly, nectar and syrup. In India, guava is cultivated over an area of 3.72 lakh hectares with a production of 55.23 lakh tonnes and an average productivity of 14.72 t ha⁻¹. Madhya Pradesh is the leading guava-producing state, followed by Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh (Anon., 2026) [1] . Bagging is a physical protection technique, not only protects fruit from pests and diseases but also affects the quality of produce by changing micro-environment of fruit during development. Bagging of different fruits during development can reduce the chances of physical damage, improve color at harvest and yields highquality fruit. Several countries have adopted this technique to control the damage caused by fruit fly. The pre-mature bagging reduces agrochemical residual effects, prevents sunburn, decreases the mechanical damage and controls the insect pest damage of the fruits. Therefore, the present study was undertaken with the following objectives to evaluate the effect of different bagging materials on the fruit yield and quality of guava and to study the influence of bagging materials on the incidence of pests and diseases of guava cv. Taiwan lite pink super gold.

The treatments comprised of ten different bagging materials viz., T₁ -Control (without bagging), T₂ -Newspaper bag, T₃ -Brown paper bag, T₄ -Non-woven bag, T₅ -Transparent polythene bag, T₆ -Black polythene bag, T₇ -Yellow polythene bag, T₈ -Blue polythene bag, T₉ -Foam net bag and T₁₀ -Parchment bag. Healthy and uniformly developed fruits were selected at marble stage for imposing the bagging treatments. The observations recorded included fruit length, fruit diameter, fruit volume, fruit weight, fruit firmness, shelf life, fruit yield per plant and yield per hectare along with post-harvest quality parameters such as TSS, titratable acidity, total sugars, reducing sugars, non-reducing sugars, vitamin C and lycopene content. The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using R Studio (2025) following the methodology outlined by Fischer and Yates (1963) [2] .

Results and discussion

Significant variations were observed in fruit length among the different bagging materials in guava (Table 1 & Fig. 1). The maximum fruit length (8.70 cm) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (8.33 cm), whereas the minimum fruit length (6.50 cm) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The greater fruit length under non-woven bagging may be attributed to the favourable microenvironment created around the developing fruits. Its breathable nature may have maintained suitable temperature, humidity and aeration, thereby promoted cell enlargement and assimilate accumulation, resulting in better fruit growth. Similar findings were reported by Hossain et al. (2018) [3] and Bishnoi et al. (2023) [4] in guava. Similar observations were also reported by Islam et al. (2019) [5] , who attributed the improvement in fruit size to the favourable microclimatic conditions created by fruit bagging.

Fruit diameter varied significantly among the different bagging treatments (Table 1 & Fig. 1). The highest fruit diameter (9.87 cm) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (9.38 cm), while the lowest fruit diameter (7.13 cm) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The greater fruit diameter under non-woven bagging may be due to the favourable microclimatic conditions maintained around the developing fruits, which could have enhanced cell expansion and accumulation of photosynthates. Similar findings were reported by Hossain et al. (2018) [3] in guava.

Fruit volume (cc)

Significant differences were observed among the bagging materials for fruit volume (Table 1). The maximum fruit volume (298.48 cc) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (258.72 cc) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (239.77 cc), while the minimum (204.67 cc) was recorded in T₁ (Control). The higher fruit volume under non-woven bagging may be due to favourable temperature, humidity and aeration, which promoted fruit enlargement. Similar findings were reported by Abbasi et al. (2014) [6] , Brar et al. (2019) [7] and Bishnoi et al. (2023) [4] in guava.

The influence of different bagging materials on fruit weight showed significant differences among the treatments (Table 1). The maximum fruit weight (283.76 g) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (245.78 g) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (227.78 g), whereas the minimum fruit weight (194.44 g) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The increase in fruit weight under non-woven bagging might be due to enhanced fruit growth and better accumulation of photosynthates in the developing fruits. The favourable microenvironment created by the porous nonwoven material may have supported efficient physiological activities and assimilate translocation towards the fruits. Similar results were reported by Abbasi et al. (2014) [6] , Brar et al. (2019) [7] , Bishnoi et al. (2023) [4] and Rawat et al. (2025) [8] in guava.

Fruit firmness was significantly influenced by different bagging materials (Table 1). The highest fruit firmness (7.93 kg/cm²) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (7.83 kg/cm²) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (7.73 kg/cm²) whereas the lowest fruit firmness (5.33 kg/cm²) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). This may be due to favourable temperature and humidity conditions that reduced moisture loss and delayed cell wall degradation. The porous material also allowed adequate air movement, helping maintain fruit firmness. These findings agree with Bishnoi et al. (2023) [4] and Rawat et al. (2025) [8] , who reported improved firmness and post-harvest quality in bagged guava fruits.

Significant differences were observed among the bagging materials for shelf life of guava fruits (Table 1). The maximum shelf life (11.34 days) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (10.44 days), while the minimum (6.45 days) was recorded in T₁ (Control). The longer shelf life under non-woven bagging may be due to reduced moisture loss and respiration, along with delayed ripening and senescence. Similar findings were reported by Rawat et al. (2025) [8] in guava and Sohag et al. (2023) [9] in tomato. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold

, Meena et al. (2016) [10] , Hossain et al. (2018) [3] and Bishnoi et al. (2023) [4] in guava and Akter et al. (2020) [11] in mango.

Total soluble solids (°Brix)

The data pertaining to total soluble solids (TSS) as influenced by different bagging materials are presented in Table 3. The TSS content was significantly influenced by different bagging treatments. The highest TSS (12.85 °Brix) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (12.67 °Brix) and followed by T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (12.40 °Brix), whereas the lowest TSS (10.82 °Brix) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The higher TSS under non-woven bagging may be attributed to the favourable microenvironment created around the developing fruits, which promoted carbohydrate accumulation and conversion of complex carbohydrates into soluble sugars during fruit maturation. Similar findings have been reported by Rawat et al.

(2025) [8] and Meena et al. (2016) [10] in guava and Islam et al. (2019) [5] in mango

The titratable acidity of guava fruits was significantly influenced by different bagging materials (Table 3). The minimum titratable acidity (0.36%) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (0.36%) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (0.38%), whereas the maximum titratable acidity (0.54%) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The lower acidity in non-woven bagged fruits may be associated with advanced fruit maturity and increased utilization of organic acids during respiration and ripening. The resulting lower acidity along with higher TSS contributed to improved fruit taste and palatability. Similar reductions in titratable acidity due to fruit bagging were reported by Joshi et al.

(2016) [12] in guava. Comparable findings were also reported by Justus et al. ( 2006) [13] in peach, Pastor et al. (2007) [14] in grapes and Jangid et al. (2021) [15] in date palm.

Significant differences were observed among the different bagging treatments with respect to total sugar content (Table 3). The maximum total sugar content (8.50%) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (8.00%) and T₅ (Transparent polythene bag) (7.78%), whereas the minimum total sugar content (6.30%) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The higher sugar content in non-woven bagged fruits may be attributed to the favourable microenvironment created by the porous material, which promoted carbohydrate synthesis and translocation to the developing fruits. During ripening, the conversion of starch into soluble sugars may have further contributed to higher total sugar content. Similar findings were reported by Abbasi et al. (2014) [6] , Joshi et al. (2016) [12] and Meena et al. (2016) [10] in guava.

The reducing sugar content of guava fruits was significantly influenced by bagging materials (Table 3). The highest reducing sugar content (4.97%) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (4.68%) and T₅ (Transparent polythene bag) (4.55%), while the lowest (3.64%) was recorded in T₁ (Control). The higher reducing sugar content under non-woven bagging may be due to enhanced carbohydrate metabolism and conversion of stored carbohydrates into simple sugars during fruit development and ripening. Similar findings were reported by Joshi et al. (2016) [12] and Meena et al. (2016) [10] in bagged guava fruits.

The non-reducing sugar content also varied significantly among the different bagging treatments (Table 3). The highest non-reducing sugar content (3.53%) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), followed by T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (3.32%) and T₅ (Transparent polythene bag) (3.23%), whereas the minimum non-reducing sugar content (2.66%) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The higher non-reducing sugar content in non-woven bagged fruits may be attributed to better carbohydrate accumulation and translocation under the favourable microclimate created by the bagging material. Similar im provements in sugar content of bagged guava fruits were reported by Abbasi et al. (2014) [6] , Joshi et al. (2016) [12] and Meena et al. (2016) [10] .

The vitamin C content of guava fruits was significantly influenced by different bagging materials (Table 3). The highest vitamin C content (243.70 mg/100 g) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was statistically on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (239.77 mg/100 g), T₅ (Transparent polythene bag) (237.10 mg/100 g) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (236.23 mg/100 g), whereas the lowest vitamin C content (191.07 mg/100 g) was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging). The higher vitamin C content in non-woven bagged fruits may be attributed to the favorable microenvironment created by the bagging material, which reduced oxidative degradation and helped retain ascorbic acid. Protection from environmental stress may have further contrib-uted to better nutritional quality. Similar findings were reported by Brar et al. (2019) [7] , Naik et al. (2026) [16] and Sohag et al. (

The lycopene content of guava fruits was significantly influenced by bagging materials (Table 3). The maximum lycopene content (6.00 mg/100 g) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), which was on par with T₇ (Yellow polythene bag) (5.95 mg/100 g) and T₈ (Blue polythene bag) (5.78 mg/100 g), while the minimum (3.82 mg/100 g) was recorded in T₁ (Control). The higher lycopene content under nonwoven bagging may be due to favourable microclimatic conditions that promoted normal ripening and carotenoid accumulation. Similar findings were reported by Sohag et al. (2023) [9] in pre-harvest bagged tomato fruits.

Incidence of pests

Significant differences were observed among the bagging treatments for thrips incidence in guava cv. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold (Table 4). No thrips damage (score 0) was recorded in T₄ (Non-woven bag), T₇ (Yellow polythene bag), T₈ (Blue polythene bag) and T₃ (Brown paper bag). The lowest damage score of 1 was recorded in T₂, T₅, T₆, T₉ and T₁₀, while the highest damage (score 3) with 24.00 per cent fruit damage was observed in T₁ (Control without bagging). The absence of thrips damage in brown paper, non-woven, yellow polythene and blue polythene bags may be due to their effective physical barrier, which restricted pest entry. Higher damage in other treatments may be due to less effective exclusion, while unbagged fruits recorded the highest damage due to direct pest exposure. Similar findings were reported by Amani et al. (2014) [17] in banana.

Incidence of disease

Anthracnose incidence was significantly influenced by different bagging materials (Table 4). No disease incidence (0.00%) was recorded in T₃, T₄, T₇, T₈ and T₁₀. The lowest incidence was observed in T₅ (2.67%) and T₂ (3.33%), followed by T₉ (8.67%) and T₆ (11.33%). The highest incidence was recorded in T₁ (Control without bagging) at 14.67%, indicating the effectiveness of fruit bagging in reducing anthracnose infection. The absence of anthracnose in the bagged treatments may be attributed to the protective barrier that restricted fungal spores, rain splash and insect injury. Higher disease incidence in unbagged fruits was due to continuous exposure to environmental inoculum and favourable infection conditions. Similar findings were reported by Islam et al. (2019) [5] in mango who observed that bagging effectively reduced anthracnose incidence.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the present investigation, it can be concluded that different bagging materials significantly influenced the fruit growth, yield, quality and storability of guava cv. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold. Among the treatments, T₄ (non-woven bag) performed the best, recording the highest fruit growth parameters, fruit weight, firmness, yield, and shelf life, along with better overall fruit quality. It also resulted in higher TSS, total sugars, reducing sugars, non-reducing sugars, vitamin C and lycopene content, while recording lower titratable acidity. In addition, non-woven bagging was effective in reducing the incidence of thrips and anthracnose. Therefore, T₄ (nonwoven bag) can be recommended as an effective bagging treatment for improving fruit yield, quality, pest and disease protection and storability of guava cv. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold.

References

1. Anonymous. Horticultural Statistics at a Glance -2026. Dept. of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India; 2026.
2. Fisher RA, Yates F. Statistical Tables. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1963.
3. Hossain MM, Rahman MM, Rahim MA, Rubel MHK, Islam MZ. Effect of pre-harvest fruit bagging on post-harvest quality of guava cv. Swarupkathi. Fundamental and Applied Agriculture. 2018;3(1):363-371.
4. Bishnoi M, Goyal RK, Vats C, Vikalp, Singla A, Sukrampal. Effect of pre-harvest fruit bagging on fruit quality characteristics of different guava cultivars during rainy season. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2023;35(21):63-71.
5. Islam M, Rahman A, Begum S. Effect of bagging time and materials on fruit quality and shelf life of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Langra. Journal of Applied Horticulture. 2019;21(3):215-221.
6. Abbasi NA, Chaudhary MA, Ali ML, Hussain A, Ali L. On tree fruit bagging influences quality of guava harvested at different maturity stages during summer. International Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology. 2014;16:543-549.
7. Brar JS, Arora NK, Kaur K, Kaur G, Gill KS, Gill MI. Fruit bagging for improving quality of rainy season guava under Punjab conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2019;56(3):475-479.
8. Rawat M, Kumar R, Singh VP, Chand S, Uniyal S, Singh N, Singh O, Kumar M. Effect of pre-harvest fruit bagging on postharvest quality of rainy season guava cv. Allahabad Safeda. Journal of Environmental Biology. 2025;46(2):303-310.
9. Sohag MA, Rahman MH, Kayess MO, Ifty MF. Effect of pre-harvest fruit bagging on yield, postharvest quality and shelf life of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. BARI Tomato-2. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2023;15(1):220-226.
10. Meena KR, Maji S, Kumar S, Parihar D, Meena DC. Effect of bagging on fruit quality of guava. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2016;7(2):330-333.
11. Akter MM, Islam MT, Akter N, Amin MF, Bari MA, Uddin MS. Pre-harvest fruit bagging enhanced quality and shelf-life of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Amrapali. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Horticulture Research. 2020;5(3):45-54.
12. Joshi R, Sharma RK, Singh DK. Effect of pre-harvest bagging on fruit quality of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2016;73(4):567-571.
13. Justus OM, Fusao M, Sharif H, El-Shereif IR. The influence of net and cheesecloth cover on growth, yield and fruit quality of peach (Prunus persica L.) trees. Journal of Biological Sciences. 2006;6(3):516-520.
14. Pastor AJ, Burlo F, Sanchez F, Barrachina A. Effect of pre-harvest bagging on quality of black table grapes. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;3(1):32-38.
15. Jangid T, Rathore RS, Naqvi AR, Yadav PK. Study the effect of different fruit bunch covering materials on bird's damage, yield and quality of date palm cv. Halawy in Western Rajasthan. Sugar Tech. 2021;23(4):933-940.
16. Naik PP, Padashetti B, Hiremath V, Awati M, Nanjappanavar AG, Haveri N. Influence of preharvest fruit bagging on quality, disease and pest incidence in grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Crimson Seedless. Journal of Applied Horticulture. 2026;28(1):61.
17. Amani M, Avagyan G. Effect of polyethylene bunch cover on fungal disease control of banana (Musa acuminata L.) in Iran. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Allied Sciences. 2014;3(10):1054-1057.
18. How to cite this article: Anjana A, Thippesha D, Patil MR, Sudharani N, Girish R, Renukaswamy N. Effect of different bagging materials on fruit yield, quality and storability of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Taiwan Lite Pink Super Gold. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2026;SP-10(9):1881-1885. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26 174693.2026.v10.i9Sw.10100