Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of potassium fertilization and periderm damage on shelf life of carrots Biegon, Rebecca Chemutai 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0135.pdf [ 6.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086867.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086867-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086867-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086867-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086867-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086867-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086867-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086867-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086867.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF POTASSIUM FERTILIZATION A N D PERIDERM D A M A G E O N SHELF LIFE OF CARROTS by REBECCA CHEMUTAI BIEGON B.Sc. Agric. (Hons), The University of Nairobi, Kenya, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Plant Science) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1995 © REBECCA C. BIEGON In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of V V o - s ^ v SToJk ^ S L The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date S ^ O l T DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract Short shelf life has caused a decline in the sale of B.C.-grown carrots from 8.1 million kgs in 1987 to 6.1 million kgs in 1990. This is due to greater postharvest water loss of B.C.-grown carrots compared to those from California and Washington. The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of the factors affecting carrot water loss by (1) establishing a procedure to measure surface area of carrot roots, (2) determining the effect of K fertilization on carrot growth, yield and water loss, and (3) detemiining the effects of periderm damage and interaction between periderm damage and K fertilization on water loss of carrots. Baugerod (1993), slicing and surface replica methods for determining surface area of carrot roots were compared using eight carrot varieties on two harvests, and on size grades small, medium, and large of carrots. Surface area values using the three methods were statistically different but the variation was less than 6%. Baugerod method is applicable to carrots of different sizes and can therefore be used to determine surface area of carrots. Carrots were fertilized with five levels of KCI and one level of K 2S0 4 on muck soil, and stored at 13°C and two levels of relative humidity (RH) to assess the effect of rate and source of K on carrot growth, yield, and water loss. Five levels of carrot periderm damage were used to study the effect of periderm damage on water loss. The rate and source of K had no significant effects on growth and water loss. No significant effects of interaction between rate of application of KCI and periderm I l l damage on water loss were observed. Increase in rate of KCI significantly reduced marketable yields probably due to a reduction in carrot stand. KCI significantly reduced marketable yield of carrots compared with K 2 S 0 4 applied at same rate. Periderm damage and low RH significantly accelerated water loss and thereby reduced the shelf life of carrots in storage. It was concluded that there was adequate K in muck soil in Cloverdale area (B.C.) to meet carrot requirement, and that K fertilization is unnecessary. The short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots is likely due to periderm damage and/or storing of carrots at low RH. It could be extended by minimising periderm damage and/or storing carrots at high RH to reduce water loss, hence improving their acceptability. i v Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii List of Appendix viii Acknowledgement xvii Chapter 1. General Introduction 1 Research Objectives 5 Chapter 2. literature Review 6 A. Characteristics and Quality of carrots 6 Characteristics and Ecology 6 Importance of carrots 7 Quality attributes of carrots 7 B. Shelf life of vegetables 8 Definition of shelf life 8 Factors affecting shelf life of vegetables 8 C. Effects of potassium fertilization on vegetable crops 11 Functions of potassium in vegetables 11 Deficiency symptoms of K 13 Effects of excess K on vegetables . 14 Influence of K on quality and shelf life of horticultural crops .... 17 D. Storability of carrots 19 E. Measuring surface area 22 Importance of surface area 22 Methods for measuring surface area 22 Factors to consider when choosing a method to measure surface area 24 Chapter 3. Comparison of three methods for determining surfac earea of carrot roofs of varying sizes 25 Abstract 25 A. Introduction 26 B. Materials and methods 28 Source of carrots 28 Determination of carrot size 29 Determination of carrot shape 29 Surface area determination 30 V C. Statistical analysis 32 D. Results 33 Size and shape of carrots 33 Specific gravity 33 Surface area of Totem field carrots 37 Size and surface area of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 37 Percent variations of Baugerod method from surface replica and slicing methods 39 E. Discussion 39 Chapter 4. Effect of potassium fertilization and periderm damage on weight loss from carrots 44 Abstract 44 A. Introduction 44 B. Materials and methods 48 Source of carrots 48 Effects of K fertilization on the shoot and root growth of carrots 49 Effect of K fertilization on carrot yield 50 Effect of K fertilization on shelf life of carrots 50 Effect of periderm damage and K fertilization on carrot shelf life 51 C. Statistical analysis 52 D. Results ••• 52 Effects of K fertilization on carrot shoot growth 52 Effects of K fertilization on root growth . . . 55 Effects of K fertilization on carrot yield 55 Effects of K and RH on weight loss of carrots 59 Effects of the Interaction between K fertilization and periderm damage on weight loss of carrots 62 D. Discussion 65 Effects of K on carrot growth 65 Effects of K on yield of carrots 66 Effects of RH and K fertilization on shelf life of carrots 69 Effects of periderm damage on weight loss from carrots 70 Practical implications . ., 71 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 73 Bibliography 76 Appendices 97 v i List of Tables Chapter 3 25 Table 1. Size and shape of carrot varieties at early and late harvests from Totem field 34 Table 2. Comparison of three different methods for deterrnining surface area (cm2) at early and late harvests from Totem field 35 Table 3. Specific gravity (g cm"3) of carrot varieties at early and late harvests from Totem field 36 Table 4. Comparison of three different methods for determining surface area on three different size grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 38 Table 5. Percent difference of Baugerod method from surface replica and slicing methods on two harvests, and on three different grades of carrots 40 Chapter 4 44 Table 1. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot shoot growth at three harvests in 1993 53 Table 2. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot shoot growth at three harvests in 1994 54 Table 3. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot storage root growth at three harvests in 1993 56 Table 4. Effects of potassium fertilization on carrot storage root growth at three harvests in 1994 57 Table 5. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot yield (kg/plot) 58 Table 6. Effect of level of periderm damage on weight loss (%) of carrots stored for 18 days at 13° C and 35±5% RH in 1994 64 Table 7. Weather conditions during growing period in 1993 and 1994 68 v i i List of Figures Fig. 1. Effect of K fertilization, RH and storage time on weight loss (%) of carrots stored at 13°C in 1993 60 Fig. 2. Effect of K fertilization, RH and storage time on weight loss (%) of carrots stored at 13°C in 1994 61 Fig. 3. Effect of periderm damage on weight loss of carrots stored at 13°C and 35±5% RH in 1993 63 v i i i List of Appendix Appendix 1. Analysis of variance for length at early harvest 97 Appendix 2. Analysis of variance for greatest diameter at early harvest 97 Appendix 3. Analysis of variance for crown diameter at early harvest 97 Appendix 4. Analysis of variance for weight at early harvest 98 Appendix 5. Analysis of variance for shape at early harvest 98 Appendix 6. Analysis of variance for length at late harvest 98 Appendix 7. Analysis of variance for greatest diameter at late harvest 99 Appendix 8. Analysis of variance for crown diameter at late harvest 99 Appendix 9. Analysis of variance for weight at late harvest 99 Appendix 10. Analysis of variance for shape at late harvest 100 Appendix 11. Analysis of variance for specific gravity at early harvest 100 Appendix 12. Analysis of variance for specific gravity at late harvest 100 Appendix 13. Analysis of variance for surface area of carrots at early harvest 101 Appendix 14. Analysis of variance for surface area of carrots at late harvest 101 Appendix 15. Surface area of carrots using three different methods at early and late harvests 102 Appendix 16. Analysis of variance for length of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 102 Appendix 17. Analysis of variance for greatest diameter of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 102 Appendix 18. Analysis of variance for weight of three i x grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 103 Appendix 19. Analysis of variance for shape of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative 103 Appendix 20. Analysis of variance for methods for determining surface area of three grades of carrots 103 Appendix 21. Analysis of variance for shoot length at first harvest on 22/7/93 104 Appendix 22. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at first harvest on 22/7/93 104 Appendix 23. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at first harvest on 22/7/93 105 Appendix 24. Analysis of variance for shoot dry matter at first harvest on 22/7/93 105 Appendix 25. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at first harvest on 22/7/93 106 Appendix 26. Analysis of variance for root length at first harvest on 22/7/93 106 Appendix 27. Analysis of variance for fresh root weight at first harvest on 22/7/93 107 Appendix 28. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at first harvest on 22/7/93 107 Appendix 29. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at first harvest on 22/7/93 108 Appendix 30. Analysis of variance for root DM at first harvest on 22/7/93 108 Appendix 31. Analysis of variance for shoot length at second harvest on 20/8/93 109 Appendix 32. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at second harvest on 20/8/93 109 X Appendix 33. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at second harvest on 20/8/93 110 Appendix 34. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at second harvest on 22/8/93 110 Appendix 35. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at second harvest on 22/8/93 I l l Appendix 36. Analysis of variance for root length at second harvest on 20/8/93 I l l Appendix 37. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at second harvest on 20/8/93 112 Appendix 38. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at second harvest on 22/8/93 112 Appendix 39. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at second harvest on 20/8/93 113 Appendix 40. Analysis of variance for root DM at second harvest on 20/8/93 113 Appendix 41. Analysis of variance for shoot length at third harvest on 4/10/93 114 Appendix 42. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at third harvest on 4/10/93 114 Appendix 43. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at third harvest on 4/10/93 . . 115 Appendix 44. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at third harvest on 4/10/93 . 115 Appendix 45. Analysis of variance for root length at third harvest on 4/10/93 116 Appendix 46. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at third harvest on 4/10/93 116 Appendix 47. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at x i third harvest on 4/10/93 . 117 Appendix 48. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at third harvest on 4/10/93. 117 Appendix 49. Analysis of variance for shoot length at first harvest on 27/6/94 118 Appendix 50. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 118 Appendix 51. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 119 Appendix 52. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at first harvest on 27/6/94 119 Appendix 53. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at first harvest on 27/6/94 120 Appendix 54. Analysis of variance for root length at first harvest on 27/6/94 120 Appendix 55. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 121 Appendix 56. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at first harvest on 27/6/94 121 Appendix 57. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 122 Appendix 58. Analysis of variance for root DM at first harvest on 27/6/94 122 Appendix 59. Analysis of variance for shoot length at second harvest on 29/7/94 123 Appendix 60. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at second harvest on 29/7/94 123 Appendix 61. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at second harvest on 29/7/94 124 x i i Appendix 62. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry weight) at second harvest on 29/7/94 124 Appendix 63. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at second harvest on 29/7/94 125 Appendix 64. Analysis of variance for root length at second harvest on 29/7/94 125 Appendix 65. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at second harvest on 29/7/94 126 Appendix 66. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at second harvest on 29/7/94 126 Appendix 67. Analysis of variance for root DM at second harvest on 29/7/94 127 Appendix 68. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at second harvest on 29/794 127 Appendix 69. Analysis of variance for shoot length at third harvest on 5/8/94 128 Appendix 70. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 . . : 128 Appendix 71. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 129 Appendix 72. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at third harvest on 5/8/94 129 Appendix 73. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at third harvest on 5/8/94 130 Appendix 74. Analysis of variance for root length at third harvest on 5/8/94 130 Appendix 75. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 131 Appendix 76. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at third harvest on 5/8/94 131 x i i i Appendix 77. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 132 Appendix 78. Analysis of variance for root DM at third harvest on 5/8/94 132 Appendix 79. Analysis of variance for marketable yield in 1993 133 Appendix 80. Analysis of variance for unmarketable yield in 1993 133 Appendix 81. Analysis of variance for total yield in 199 134 Appendix 82. Analysis of variance for marketable yield in 1994 134 Appendix 83. Analysis of variance for unmarketable yield in 1994 135 Appendix 84. Analysis of variance for total yield 1994 in 1994 135 Appendix 85. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots in 1993 136 Appendix 86. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 2nd day of storage in 1993 137 Appendix 87. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 4th day of storage in 1993 137 Appendix 88. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 8th day of storage in 1993 138 Appendix 89. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at 10th day of storage in 1993 138 Appendix 90. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 12th day of storage in 1993 139 Appendix 91. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 14th day of storage in 1993 139 Appendix 92. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 16th day of storage in 1993 140 Appendix 93. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 18th day of storage in 1993 140 x i v Appendix 94. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 20th day of storage in 1993 141 Appendix 95. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots in 1994 142 Appendix 96. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 2nd day of storage in 1994 143 Appendix 97. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 4th day of storage in 1994 143 Appendix 98. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 6th day of storage in 1994 144 Appendix 99. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots at the 8th day of storage in 1994 144 Appendix 100. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots at the 10th day of storage in 1994 145 Appendix 101. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 12th day of storage in 1994 145 Appendix 102. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 14th day of storage in 1994 146 Appendix 103. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 16th day of storage in 1994 146 Appendix 104. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 18th day of storage in 1994 147 Appendix 105. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 20th day of storage in 1994 147 Appendix 106. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrot in 1993 148 Appendix 107. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots at the 2nd day of storage in 1993 149 Appendix 108. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 4th day of storage in 1993 149 X V Appendix 109. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 6th day of storage in 1993 150 Appendix 110. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 8th day of storage in 1993. 151 Appendix 111. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 10th day of storage in 1993 152 Appendix 112. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 12th day of storage in 1993 153 Appendix 113. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 14th day of storage in 1993 154 Appendix 114. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 16th day of storage in 1993. 155 Appendix 115. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 18th day of storage in 1993 156 Appendix 116. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots in 1994 . 157 Appendix 117. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 2nd day of storage in 1994 158 Appendix 118. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 4th day of storage in 1994 158 Appendix 119. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 6th day of storage in 1994 159 Appendix 120. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 8th day of storage in 1994 159 Appendix 121. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 10th day of storage in 1994 160 Appendix 122. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 12th day of storage in 1994 160 Appendix 124. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 16th day of storage in 1994 161 x v i Appendix 125. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at the 18th day of storage in 1994 162 X V I I Acknowledgement I wish to thank the Government of Kenya for granting my study leave and the arrangement for my CIDA scholarship. My deepest gratitude goes to my research supervisor, Dr. MK. Upadhyaya, for his guidance, patience, and support during the course of the study. I am grateful to the other members of my research committee, Drs A. Bomke and P.MA. Toivonen, for their valuable advice and constructive criticisms. I appreciate the assistance of Drs. G.W. Eaton and A Kozak, and Soenarto for their assistance on statistical data analysis. My sincere thanks go to commercial growers, Mr Ray Wang and Mr Wayne Wang, for providing the field for my study and for their assistance during this study. My friends deserve recognition for their physical and spiritual support throughout this study. Special thanks to Joyce Maina and Jennifer Khamasi for their friendship, encouragement and readiness to help any time I needed support. The tremendous amount of assistance rendered by my colleagues in the laboratory and in particular Eliza, Preeti, Upenyu, Solomon, Mesfin, and Nancy is greatly appreciated. My sincere thanks also to the Kenyan community in University of British Columbia for their endless help in the field and laboratory work. Much thanks to my fellowship group for their prayers and spiritual encouragement. I thank my parents; late father Wilson, and mother Rachel, for their constant encouragement and support through my early years in school without which nothing like this would ever have been possible. I dedicate this thesis to my loving husband David, and our children Dennis, Donald, Derrick, and Ruth in appreciation of their love, encouragement, support, and endurance during my stay away from them which made the study successful. To God be the Glory for renewing my strength every morning. Chapter 1. General Introduction 1 Carrots (Daucus carvtaL.) are a major vegetable crop of the world. In 1992, Canada was the tenth largest producer of carrots in the world (FAO, 1993). It is the third most important vegetable in Canada with a total annual production of 254,900 tonnes (Nonnecke, 1989). In Canada, British Columbia (B.C.) ranks third in production after Ontario and Quebec. Carrots in B.C. are grown in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. In 1990 about 6.1 million kgs of topped carrots worth slightly over 2.8 million dollars were produced in B.C. (Anon., 1991). Currently, carrot varieties produced for topped fresh market in B.C. include Super Nantes, Paramount, Top-Pak, Gold-Pak, Eagle, Apache, Caro-choice and Cimmaron (Anon., 1993). The carrot industry in B.C. faces increased competition especially from California and Washington. Retailers prefer California-grown carrots, due to their longer shelf life, compared to B.C.-grown carrots. Consequently, B.C.-grown carrots' acceptability, which is defined as the level of continued purchase or consumption by a specified population (Land, 1988), has declined. As a result, total sale of B.C.-grown carrots has declined from over 8.1 million kgs worth over 3 million dollars in 1987 to 6.1 million kgs worth over 2.8 million dollars in 1990 (Anon., 1991). Shelf life of carrots can be defined as the time period carrots can stay on the shelf while maintaining acceptability to the consumer (Dennis, 1981). It has become an important aspect of carrot marketing and more study on the factors that influence it 2 is necessary to arrest and reverse the declining sales of B.C.-grown carrots. Short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots is attributed to their greater moisture loss which results in wilting, shrinkage, and loss of firmness, crispness, and succulence, which are indicators of freshness (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987). Most vegetables lose freshness when they lose 3 to 10% of fresh weights because of moisture loss (Burton, 1982; Robinson et al, 1975). These low percentages indicate the significance of transpiration in detenriining the shelf life of vegetables (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987). Transpiration is influenced by commodity characteristics and environmental factors such as temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, and atmospheric pressure (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Apeland and Hoftun, 1974; Berg and Lentz, 1973; Sastry et al., 1978; Sastry and Buffington, 1982). Rates of transpiration from vegetables vary due to differences in surface-to-volume ratio, and in rates of water permeation from the evaporating surface (Burton, 1982; Sastry et al., 1978). Physical characteristics are governed by genotype, and may be affected by agronomic practices. The size and shape of a vegetable affect transpiration through their effects on surface-to-volume ratio. Large commodities lose less moisture on per unit weight basis than smaller ones. Long, min, cone-shaped carrots lose more weight than cylindrical carrots in a given environment because of their greater surface area per unit volume (Sastry et al., 1978). In order to express moisture loss per unit surface area, it is important to establish an accurate method for surface area measurement. Vapour pressure deficit (VPD), defined as the difference in RH between 3 produce and storage environment, is the primary factor controlling the rate of moisture movement between vegetables and storage atmosphere (Kays, 1991). The VPD of plants depends on the temperature and the amount of solutes in the tissue (Nobel, 1974; Wells, 1962). Plants with low solute concentration have high osmotic potential and lose water easily (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). Dhindsa et al. (1975) showed that potassium (K) and malate account for 50% of the osmotic potential in cotton fiber. Most of the water loss in plants occurs through the stomatal opening, and the turgor of guard cells is related particularly to the uptake of K ions (Humble and Hsiao, 1970; Humble and Raschke, 1971). The involvement of K in osmotic potential and stomatal opening indicate the importance of K in water economy of plants. Brag (1972) observed higher rates of transpiration in K deficient plants. Steingrover (1983) observed that K, organic acids and soluble sugars contribute to osmotic potential of carrots. The role of K in moisture loss characteristics of carrots is not known. It would be of interest to determine if K fertilization could improve shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots by reducing their postharvest moisture loss. Mechanical injury is the major cause of postharvest deterioration in root crops (Kader, 1983). Surface injuries, impact bruising, and vibration bruising may occur during transportation and in packing houses. They result in localized increase in respiration at the site of injury, stress-induced ethylene production, accumulation of secondary metabolites, and decompartmentalization of enzymes and substrates (Macleod et al., 1976; Rolle and Chism, 1987). Mechanical injuries are unsightly, accelerate water loss and provide loci for fungal infection (Kfider, 1985). Carrot anatomy may be playing a role in moisture loss from carrots. The outer layer of the carrot root is covered with a periderm which regulates moisture loss (Den Outer, 1990). Esau (1940) showed that the upper portion (<2.5 cm) of the carrot is actually hypocotyl tissue. This portion of carrots has stomates which may act as avenues for moisture loss. Periderm damage accelerates moisture loss and reduces shelf life (Apeland, 1974). The level of periderm damage may be reported as ratio of damaged area to non-damaged area. Surface area influences moisture loss in carrot roots (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987; Sastry et al., 1978; Wills et al., 1989). Part of this study will focus on establishing a rapid, non-destructive, and accurate procedure to measure surface area of carrot roots . The farmer uses fertilizer in order to maximise profits. To achieve this aim, fertilizers must be applied in adequate quantities and the balance between nutrients must be correctly adjusted. It is generally believed that carrot growers in B.C. may be applying excess K which may not have any positive effect on yield. Furthermore, even if there is a positive effect on yield, it may possibly be negated by an adverse effect on the shelf life. Excess K may cause a luxury consumption by carrots, leaching and runoff which are wasteful and may harm environment, or nutrient imbalance which may cause deficiency of other cations. The amounts of fertilizer applied should give the best production, ensure nutrient availability to the crop and minimise waste over the growing period. The research presented in this thesis would provide information useful in advising carrot growers on appropriate K fertilization. This would reduce the cost of production without necessarily affecting yield and shelf life. 5 Percent weight loss has been reported as an indicator of physical damage caused by various harvesting and handling systems (Abrams et al., 1978; Kushman, 1975). Mechanical damage has been reported to decrease the storability of carrots (Apeland, 1974; Tucker, 1974). Whether short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots could be due to periderm damage is not known. Knowledge on the extent of damage that can have a significant effect on carrot shelf life can be used to improve postharvest handling methods and extend the shelf life of carrots. An understanding of the effect of K fertilization on resistance of carrots to damage can be used in establishing the appropriate fertilization rates which can be passed on to the carrot growers. The contribution of periderm damage to short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots remains to be investigated. Research Objectives The overall objective of this study is to improve our understanding of factors affecting the shelf life of carrots. The specific objectives are to: 1. establish a procedure to measure surface area of carrot roots, 2. detenriine the influence of K fertilization on carrot root yield and water loss, and 3. determine the effects of periderm damage and interaction between periderm damage and K fertilization on water loss of carrots. Chapter 2. Literature Review 6 A. Characteristics and Quality of carrots Characteristics and Ecology Carrot (Daucus carota L.) originated from middle Asia (Peirce, 1987; Salunke and Desai, 1984). It is a dicotyledonous, herbaceous, biennial vegetable of Apiaceae (umbelliferae) family (Peirce, 1987; Salunke and Desai, 1984). In the first year of growth, it forms a tight rosette composed of double compound leaves and a thickened taproot. The carrot root is composed of enlarged hypocotyl and prominent fleshy taproot with a distinct light-coloured xylem (core), and deep orange phloem to the outside (Esau, 1940). The shoot elongates during the second year to form a 2 to 3 ft high flower stalk and whitish insect-pollinated flowers. The seeds are spiny, hooked, and slightly curved. Although carrot is a cool season crop, it can be grown in a wide range of climates. Environmental conditions during growth affect the colour and shape of carrot roots (Whitaker et al., 1970). Temperature range of 15.5°C to 21.1°C is optimum for carrot growth and development, colour and shape (Barnes, 1936; Bradley and Smittle, 1965; and Bradley et al., 1967). Supra- and sub-optimal temperatures reduce vegetative growth and result in strong flavoured, poor coloured and long and tapered roots. It can grow in a variety of soils but muck and sandy loams are the best. Deep, well drained, aerated, and loose soils free of clods and rocks with a pH of 5.5 to 7.0 are desirable for carrot root growth (Olymbios and Schwabe, 1977). Short, blunt, abruptly tapered and defective roots are produced where soils are shallow, compact and warmer than 25°C (Olymbios and Schwabe, 1977; Strandberg and White, 1979; Thompson, 1969). Roots become more cylindrical in dry soil (Barnes, 1936; Bradley et al., 1967). Importance of carrots Carrot is an important vegetable in our diet. It can be eaten raw or cooked in a variety of ways (baked, boiled, steamed, fried, diced, roasted, sauteed, and pickled (Nonnecke, 1989). Carrots supply dietary fibre important for roughage in digestion and in regulation of bowel movements. It has a high nutritive value, being a good source of vitarnins and minerals, and breaks the monotony of basic diets by adding rich colour, aroma and savour to vegetable salads, juices, soups and desserts (Sarkar and Phan, 1979; Salunke and Desai, 1984). Quality attributes of carrots Aesthetic value and appearance are important in fresh market carrots and vegetables (Howarth et al., 1990). Diameter, length, shape, and external appearance are the quality grading attributes of carrots (Anon., 1980; Benjamin and Sutherland, 1989; OECD, 1976; USDA, 1965). Colour, crispness, firmness, and succulence are some of the features that consumers use as a measure of freshness and indicators of shelf life 8 (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987). Crisp, sweet, and deep yellow or orange carrots are considered desirable for fresh market (Ryall and Lipton, 1979). These marketing parameters determine the price and acceptability of carrots by the consumers. Unfortunately, moisture loss affects these physical features (Phan et al., 1973) hence, it is a critical factor in storage life of carrots. B. Shelf life of vegetables Definition of shelf life Shelf life (synonyms: storage life, storability) can be defined as "the time period a vegetable product can stay in storage and/or retail shelf while mamtaining acceptability to consumer, like produce harvested at an optimum stage for immediate consumption" (Dennis, 1981). Shewfelt (1986) defined shelf life as "the time period that a product can be expected to maintain a predetermined level of quality under specified storage conditions". In this study, shelf life is defined as the number of days carrots can stay at specified storage conditions before they attain the maximum permissible moisture loss which is 8% of the initial root weight (Robinson et al., 1975). Factors affecting shelf life of vegetables Shelf life of vegetables can be influenced by variety, cultural practices 9 including fertilization, climatic factors during development, degree of ripeness at harvest, and handling and environmental conditions after harvesting (Gorini, 1987). Shelf life of vegetables, be they roots, leaves, flowers, immature and mature fruits, is shortened by biological (internal) deterioration due to metabolic changes associated with development, maturation and senescence, transpiration, and/or incidences of physiological and pathological disorders (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987; Dennis, 1981; Kader, 1983; Robinson et al., 1975). The rate of biological deterioration depends on various environmental (external) factors: temperature, RH, and atmospheric composition and pressure (FAO, 1981; Harvey, 1978; Rhodes, 1980; and Tindall and Proctor, 1980). The relative importance of the factors influencing postharvest deterioration varies considerably for different vegetables (Kader, 1983; Robinson et al., 1975). Harvested vegetables, like other living plant structures, respire and transpire. Respiration causes loss of food reserve in the tissue, taste (especially sweetness), and food value to the consumer. The heat produced in respiration further affects the produce. Rate of respiration is affected by type and stage of development of harvested product, mechanical damage, and environmental factors such as temperature and oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations (Kader, 1987). Respiration rate can be used as an index of storage life of a crop; high rate corresponding to short life, and low rate to long life (Robinson et al., 1975). Respiration rate above 100 mg C02/kg/hr reduces storage life (Scholz et al, 1963). Moisture loss by transpiration causes wilting, shrinkage, and loss of firmness, 10 crispness, and succulence (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987). Transpiration induces water stress which accelerates senescence of vegetables as indicated by a faster rate of membrane disintegration and leakage of cellular contents (Ben-Yehoshua et al., 1983). Transpiration rate is influenced by produce characteristics (shape, surface structure, physical and physiological conditions), and packaging (Fockens and Meffert, 1972; Kader, 1985; Sastry, 1985), and environmental factors namely: temperature, RH, air velocity, and atmospheric pressure (Kader, 1985). Weight loss by transpiration is greater in produce with a high surface area-to-volume ratio (Burton, 1982; Wills et al., 1989). The driving force of moisture movement in vegetables is water vapour pressure deficit (WVPD) which reflects the difference between the humidity in the tissues and the humidity of the surrounding air (Kays, 1991). Low RH enhances moisture loss. However, at a given RH, water loss increases with increase in temperature. The water-holding capacity of air increases as the temperature rises; hence, air at 90% RH and 10°C contains more water by weight than air at 90% RH and 0°C (Gaffney, 1978). Microbial attack is a common and obvious symptom of quality deterioration of vegetables. Temperature, pH, and RH, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, availability of nutrients, and competition from other microbes are some of the factors that affect microbial survival, growth, and pathogenicity (Brackett, 1993; Cook and Papendrick 1978). Most microorganisms grow best (or primarily) at ambient temperatures of 10 to 40°C, below and above which their growth is adversely affected. Carbon dioxide concentration of 5% suppresses microbial growth (Daniels et 11 al., 1985), but this effect is temperature dependent being most effective at low temperatures and less effective as the temperature increases (Jay, 1986). Moisture condensation on the surface of produce enhances decay (Eckert, 1978). C Effects of potassium fertilization on vegetable crops Functions of potassium in vegetables Potassium (K) is absorbed and required in large quantities by most crops (paliparthy et al., 1994; Evans and Sorger, 1966; Heimer et al., 1990; Mengel and Kirkby, 1987; Leonard, 1985). It is not a structural element but performs important biophysical and biochemical functions in plants (Beringer, 1980). The major role of K in the regulation of metabolic processes is through its catalytic activation of more than 60 enzymes (Evans and Sorger, 1966; Marschner, 1983; Suelter, 1970, 1974, 1985) involved in photosynthesis and respiration (Huber, 1985), and protein synthesis (Blevins, 1985; Evans and Wildes, 1971; Mengel and Kirkby, 1987; Wyn Jones and Pollard, 1983). K improves nitrogen utilization by enhancing utilization of amino acids for protein synthesis (Barker and Bradrield, 1963; Xu et al., 1992). K is also necessary for enzymatic activities which regulate physiological processes such as water uptake, water relations in plant tissue, meristematic growth, and long distance transport through phloem and xylem (Mengel, 1985). Potassium promotes dry matter accumulation through its action on 12 phosphorylation, stomatal opening, enzyme activation, phloem loading and photosynthate transport from source to user points (Beringer et al., 1989; Demrnig and Gimmler, 1983; Giaquinta, 1979; Lang, 1983; Liebhardt, 1968; Peoples and Koch, 1979; Wolswinkel and Ammerlaan, 1985). It is the most abundant cation in plants (Sekhon, 1985; Suelter, 1985), and plays an important role in turgor-related processes (Zeiger, 1983) such as cell extension and stomatal movement, and as a high mobility carrier of charges. It accumulates in cell vacuole where, with sugars, it contributes to osmotic pressure, water uptake, and turgor potential (Beringer, 1980; Mengel and Arneke, 1982). K uptake into the guard cells increases turgor pressure causing the opening of the stomata (Ben-Zioni et al., 1971; Humble and Raschke, 1971; Lips et al., 1987; Raschke, 1979; Touraine et al., 1988). Lower water loss of plants grown with adequate K has been reported (Brag, 1972). K is important for pH stabilization and neutralization of negative charge of organic acids and inorganic anions such as CI" and S042" (Bennett, 1993). Potassium is essential in meristematic growth through its involvement in maintenance of optimum osmotic potential and turgor pressure required for cell expansion, and by enhancing the effect of phytohormones involved in growth of meristematic tissues (Cocucci and Dalla Rosa, 1980; Dela Guardia and Benlloch, 1980; Dhindsa et al., 1975; Green, 1983; Jacobi et al., 1973; Mengel and Arneke, 1982). Adequate K nutrition improves tissue stability and crop resistance to lodging, 13 pests and diseases through thickened leaf cuticle and epidermal cell walls, stimulation of lignification and silicification, and by its influence on metabolism in plants (Beringer and Nothdurft, 1985; Perrenoud, 1990; Trolldenier and Zehler, 1976). Deficiency symptoms of K Potassium deficiency occurs frequently on soils which are light and sandy, acid, and lateritic (organic or peat, soils with kaolinite as the main clay mineral). It is common in heavy soils with a high fixing power, calcareous soils, and heavily cropped soils (Anderson, 1973; Forshey, 1969; Pedro, 1973; Ulrich and Ohki, 1966). K requirement of vegetable crops is high (Qmimings and Wilcox, 1968; Lucas, 1968), and failure to meet their K demands may result in development of symptoms which lower their quality. Poor quality of leafy vegetables due to extensive marginal chlorosis with interveinal brown necrotic spots and rolling, cupping, curling and distortion of the midrib of younger leaves due to K deficiency have been observed (Clarkson and Hanson, 1980; Qirnming and Wilcox, 1968; Evans and Sorger, 1966; Forshey, 1969; Singh and Sharma, 1988). Reduction in the length and diameter of stem internodes and of root development due to K deficiency has also been reported (Curnming and Wilcox, 1968; Singh and Sharma, 1988; Wakliloo, 1975; Wilcox, , 1969). K deficiency is indicated by development of an acute rosette in beets, celery and parsnips (Hewitt, 1963), and by chlorosis and browning of leaves, spindly roots, and short growth in carrots (Ulrich and Ohki, 1966). K deficiency decreases the rate of 14 photosynthesis and increases the rate of respiration thereby causing a decline in sugar concentration (Ozbun et al., 1975) and accumulation of nonstmctural carbohydrates (Oparka and Wright, 1988a, 1988b) due to reduced protein synthesis. Also accumulation of free amino acids and NTT/ in leaves due to K deficiency can occur (Daliparthy et al., 1994; Smith and Garraway, 1964; Smith and Sinclair, 1967). Plants with low levels of K are susceptible to pathogen attack due to N accumulation which favour growth of microorganisms (Locascio, 1993) which may drastically reduce the storability of vegetables. Gerloff (1976) noted that Na can partially substitute for K, and Na applications on K deficient red beets increased yields by three- to four-fold. K deficiency reduces vegetative growth and yield, and in severe situations can result in loss of older leaves and crop death (Clarkson and Hanson, 1980; Evans and Sorger, 1966). Effects of excess K on vegetables Excess of K may result in luxury consumption by vegetables, and reduced net uptake of other cations especially Ca and Mg (Dibb and Thompson, 1985; Mengel, 1973; Mengel and Kirkby, 1987; Tisdale et al. 1993). This lusoiry consumption may cause nutrient imbalances in tissues. Several studies have reported on physiological disorders of vegetables caused by excess K uptake (Forster, 1973; Maynard et al., 1963; Shear, 1975). K may restrict or increase uptake, transport, and utilization of other nutrients 15 (Daliparthy et al, 1994). Nutritional balances and ratios between and among K, Ca, and Mg are important in plant nutrition (Mengel and Kirkby, 1987; Munson, 1968). Shukla and Mukhi (1979) observed antagonistic relationship between K and Ca, and K and Mg during absorption by the roots and translocation from the root to shoot. Excess of K fertilization restricts Mg absorption and effectiveness in the tissues (Ferrari and Sluijsmans, 1955; Ulrich and Ohki, 1956) which may cause Mg deficiency. Chlorosis in celery caused by Mg deficiency is due to high K and/or Ca in tissues (Johnson et al., 1957). K application increased yield and decreased Mg concentration in kale leaves in soil low in K (Bolton and Penny, 1968). High rates of K fertilization increased K/Mg ratio, and decreased Mg concentrations in potato petioles (Maier, 1986b). Forster (1973), Geraldson (1957), Hamilton and Agle (1962) and Shear (1975) have reported blossom-end rot of tomato and pepper caused by depressed Ca uptake by excess of K. Black heart in celery (Geraldson, 1954), tip burn in lettuce and cabbage (Walker et al. (1961), and carrot cavity spot (Maynard et al., 1963) are all symptoms of Ca deficiency due to excess K nutrition. Cracked stem (brown checking) in celery is due to depressed B levels caused by excess K (Dibb and Thompson, 1985; Yamaguchi et al., 1958). Increase in K application reduced B concentrations in Brussels sprouts and cauliflower (Gupta, 1979) and raised the severity of B toxicity in corn and tomato (Reeve and Shive, 1944). Marschner (1971) noted that K:Na relationship is important in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and carrots (Daucus camta L.) and increase in K levels reduce their beneficial response to Na application. 16 K influence on vegetable crop yield Several contradictory effects of K fertilization on yield of vegetables have been reported (Dick and Shattuck, 1987; Munson, 1979; Sanchez et al., 1991). These contradictions appear to be due to differences in the native K levels at the experimental sites. Improved K nutrition was found to increase marketable yield and total yield of tomatoes due to increased number of fruits per plant and reduced ripening disorders (Munson, 1979; Wilcox, 1964). Dick and Shattuck (1987) noted a positive yield response of tomatoes to K application in silt loam with 65 ppm of K but not on sandy loam. Several studies have been done on the effects of K fertilization on yield of potatoes (Chapman et al., 1992; Maier, 1986a; Schippers, 1968). Schippers (1968) reported that K had no effect on dry matter yields of potatoes on sandy soils with low K levels. Chapman et al. (1992); Maier (1986a) and Maier et al. (1986) on the other hand reported significant increases in size and yield of potatoes with increasing rates of K fertilization in soils where the initial soil K status were low. Jaworski et al. (1978) observed significant increase in marketable yield of pepper with increase in K applied with trickle irrigation on sandy loam soil. They also found increase in yield of polebeans over a range of K fertilization rates applied with trickle irrigation on sandy loam soil but the increases were only significant at the lower rates of fertilization. 17 Sanchez et al. (1991) reported no response of radish yield to K fertilization in histosols. Influence of K on quality and shelf life of horticultural crops Quality improvement of vegetables has been observed as one of the beneficial effects of K fertilization. Dick and Shattuck (1987) noted a significant reduction in blotchy ripening of tomatoes with increasing K fertilization rate on sandy loam soil with initial K levels of 46-80 ppm. Forster (1973), Picha and Hall (1981) and Winsor (1973) also observed a reduction in undesirable qualities viz: blotchy ripening, greenback (delayed maturation), irregularly shaped fruits and hollow fruits in tomatoes with increasing application of K. Application of high rates of K reduced severity of bruising in potatoes (Chapman et al., 1992; Maier et al., 1986). There is some evidence to show that K improves the storability or shelf life of fruits and vegetables, hence has been termed quality nutrient (Bould et al., 1984; Usherwood, 1985). Kunkel (1947) and Lune and Goor (1977) observed a positive relationship between K levels and keeping quality of onion bulbs and potatoes respectively. Sanford (1968) noted improved shelf life of pineapple with K fertilization. Overley and Overholser (1931) and Heeney and Hill (1961) noted decreased breakdown in storage and improved fruit storability, flavour, texture and colour of apples. Reeves (1967) reported that correcting inadequate K nutrition improved shelf 18 life of peaches. Effects of K fertilization on carrots Root crops have high K requirement and inadequate K depresses root enlargement (Jackson and Volk, 1968). However, the effects of K fertilization on yield of carrots are contradictory. Hamilton and Bernier (1975) reported no significant effect of K application on economic yields of carrots grown on an organic soil in two consecutive years on the same experimental plot. Habben (1973) on the other hand reported that increasing K fertilization increased root weight and root-top ratio in a peat and loam soil mix low in K. Lucas (1968) reported that increase in K application up to 166 kg/ha increased carrot yield on Houghton muck soil. Habben (1972) found that increasing K fertilization had no effect on dry matter of carrots, and a positive effect on the dietary fibre content, but the effects were small. The effects of K fertilization on carotene content also are contradictory. Increasing amounts of K showed either no influence on carotene content (Gallagher, 1966; Habben, 1972) or increased it (Southards and Miller, 1962). Habben (1972) noted that increasing K fertilization increased both glucose and fructose contents while the glucose content was not affected in Gallagher's report (1966). Evers (1989b) and Gallagher (1966) reported no effect of K fertilization on sucrose content while Habben (1972) found that sucrose content increased with increasing K fertilization. Scharrer and Werner (1957) and Penningsfeld and Forchthammer (1961) observed that 19 increasing levels of K increased Vitamin C content in carrots. Bishop et al. (1973) and Nilsson (1979) found that increasing K fertilization had a positive effect on K contents in carrots. Evers (1989c) noted a significant increase in root K content with fertilization as compared to unfertilized treatments. Evers (1989d) reported a positive effect of fertilization on yield, dry matter, and dietary fibre content of carrots. Evers (1989b, c) reported that fertilization practices had a slight effect on the storability of carrots. The different fertilization practices did not affect the dry weight during storage. Nilsson (1979) reported that type or amount of fertilizer (organic or inorganic) had no effect on weight loss of carrots. D. Storability of carrots Shelf life of carrots is reduced by moisture loss. Excess moisture loss results in wilting, limping, softening, shrivelling, reduced crispness and juiciness, and dull and less intense colour (Berg, 1987; Berg and Lentz, 1966; Berg and Lentz, 1973; Phan et al., 1973). Burton (1982) and Robinson et al. (1975) reported 8% maximum permissible loss of fresh weight as a limit for the sale of carrots. Moisture loss is influenced by carrot characteristics (which are influenced by variety and cultural practices), storage conditions, and weather conditions during the harvesting period (Apeland, 1974; Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Apeland and Iloftun, 1974; Berg and Lentz, 1973; Fritz and Weichmann, 1979; Phan et al., 1973; Tucker, 1974). 20 Root anatomy and surface damage play a major role in shelf life of carrots. Carrots are susceptible to wilting because it is covered with a very thin "skin" (periderm) which is not as protective as the epidermis and can be scratched off easily (Phan, 1987; Stoll and Weichmann, 1987). Being an underground plant part, carrot roots do not develop anatomical structures to protect against moisture loss. Moisture loss in carrots, as in other vegetables, is affected by size and shape (Sastry et al., 1978). Long thin carrots lose weight and shrink much faster than thick cylindrical carrots under similar storage condition. Apeland and Baugerod (1971) observed that cone shaped roots lose more weight than cylindrical roots. Big carrots have a lower surface area to weight ratio and lose less moisture per unit weight. Root damage can influence shelf life of carrots. Kader (1983) noted that mechanical injury is the major cause of postharvest deterioration of root crops. Careless handling and mechanical harvesting reduce storability of carrots by raising the level of damage (Apeland, 1974; Tucker, 1974). Apeland (1974) and Tucker (1974) observed that storage potential of machine-harvested carrots was up to 30% lower than hand-lifted carrots. Cultural practices and soil conditions influence the level of root damage in carrots. Tucker (1974) reported that big sized carrots are more prone to damage during harvesting compared to small carrots, and higher levels of damage due to lifting may occur in heavy soils compared to sandy soils where carrots are lifted with ease. Harvesting at an optimum stage of maturity improves quality and storability of carrots (Fritz and Weichmann, 1979; Weichmann and Kappel. 1977). Young carrots 21 are small and lose weight faster because of their high surface area to weight ratio compared to older roots. Fritz and Weichmann (1979) reported that carrots harvested at an optimum stage of maturity have a wide ratio of monosaccharides to sucrose which is good for storage. Moisture loss in carrots is influenced by storage temperature, RH, packing method, and rate of air flow (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Berg, 1987; Berg and Lentz, 1966; Marriott et al, 1974; Phan et al., 1973; Umiecka, 1980). Rate of weight loss increases with increasing ambient temperature and decreasing RH (Berg, 1987; Marriott et al, 1974). The driving force for moisture loss is the gradient of water vapour pressure (WVP) between the carrots and the storage atmosphere (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987; Kays, 1991). Berg and Lentz (1966, 1973) observed higher rates of moisture loss at lower humidities. They observed that carrots stored at high RH were crisp and juicy like fresh carrots compared to those stored at low RH. Rooke and Berg (1985) noted a negative relationship between moisture loss in carrots and RH. Berg and Lentz (1978) observed that carrot quality was maintained and weight loss was reduced in high RH storage. Apeland and Baugerod (1971) and Lentz (1966) found that weight loss in carrots is faster where there is rapid air movement. Marriott et al. (1974) reported that carrots packed in unlined nets lost weight faster and were less acceptable to consumers compared to carrots packed in nets lined with polyethylene film. 22 Since weight loss in carrots is influenced by size and shape, which affects their surface area to weight ratio, it is important to establish a quick, accurate, and non-destructive method for measuring surface area of carrots of varying sizes and shapes in order to express moisture loss on per unit area basis. E. Measuring surface area Importance of surface area Surface area of whole plant or plant parts is important in plant physiological studies (Kvet and Marshall, 1971). It is used for estimating the size of assimilatory surfaces (Kvet and Marshall, 1971), calculating surface area/volume ratio (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987), assessing extent of disease infection (Maurer and Eaton, 1971) and insect damage (Malcolm et al., 1986), and estimating growth response to a specific management practice (Boynton and Harris, 1950). Leaf area is also used in estimation of rates of evapotranspiration, gaseous exchange, and receipt of solar radiation (Neumann, 1990). Methods for measuring surface area Direct and indirect methods, requiring destructive and non-destructive sampling, for estimating surface area have been developed over time (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Kvet and Marshall, 1971; Malcolm et al., 1986; Maurer and Eaton, 23 1971; Minvielle et al., 1981). Surface area of whole or plant parts or their peelings can be estimated using tracing/printing and square or dot counting, planimetric, and gravimetric procedures. Most of these methods have less than 10% level of inaccuracy, are tedious, time consuming and destructive (Kvet and Marshall, 1971; Malcolm et al., 1986; Maurer and Eaton, 1971). Malcolm et al. (1986) used a video image analyser and an algorithm to calculate surface area of sweet potatoes. They found an error of 7.73% compared to area using formula for a prolate spheroid. Linear measurements have been used to estimate surface area of leaves (Kvet and Marshall, 1971), carrot roots (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971), and potato tubers (Maurer and Eaton, 1971). Apeland and Baugerod (1971) calculated the area of carrot roots based on length, greatest diameter and weight of carrot roots, while Maurer and Eaton (1971) established an equation for calculating the surface area of potato tubers using a modified equation for a prolate spheroid which is based on major and minor semi-axes. Linear measurements method is time-saving (Ackley et al., 1958), non-destructive and suitable for field use but is material specific (Kvet and Marshall, 1971). Photoelectric leaf area measuring equipment based on the interception of light has been developed (Voisey and Mason, 1963). Voisey and Kloek (1964) used a portable area meter to estimate surface area of leaves. This method is relatively rapid (Kvet and Marshall, 1971), and has an average error of 8% (Voisey and Kloek, 1964). 24 Factors to consider when choosing a method to measure surface area. The method to use to measure surface area in any particular situation depends on the morphology of the plant part used, whether the plant part is needed for subsequent experiments or not (destructive or non-destructive), sample size, level of accuracy required, and availability of technical equipment, labour, and time (Kvet and Marshall, 1971). 25 Chapter 3. Comparison of three methods for tletemiining surface area of carrot roots of varying sizes Abstract: Surface area of carrots is used in expressing postharvest moisture loss and estimating periderm damage. Baugerod (1993) method estimates carrot surface area based on size and shape. The objective of this study was to evaluate the applicability and accuracy of Baugerod method on carrots of varying size and shape. This method was compared to slicing and surface replica methods on varieties Carochoice, Top-Pak, Eagle, Paramount, Imperator Special 58, Caropride, Celloking and Top-Pak in two harvests in a growing season, and on size grades 1, 2 and 3 of carrots. The eight varieties were not different in shape but Paramount and Gold-Pak were significantly different in length from Carochoice, Eagle, Imperator Special 58, Caropride, Celloking and Top-Pak. Surface area values obtained using the three methods were statistically different (p < 0.05) however, the differences between Baugerod and surface replica methods were less than 5%, and between Baugerod and slicing methods were less than 9%. While using these methods on the three size grades of carrots, the differences between surface area values obtained using Baugerod and slicing methods were less than 6% on average. Results showed that Baugerod's method is applicable to carrots of different sizes with an error of less than 6% which can be tolerated in practical application 26 A. Introduction Size and shape of vegetables are important parameters in grading, and in studying the effects of cultural practices on vegetables. Estimation of heat and moisture transfer in thermal processing and storage, and the amount of surface applied chemicals can be done on the basis of surface area of vegetables (Malcolm et al., 1986; Maurer and Eaton, 1971; Sastry et al., 1978; Sistler et al., 1983). Also, surface damage of agricultural products due to insects, diseases, and/or harvest and postharvest handling may be assessed on the basis of proportion of surface area damaged to the total surface area of produce. Transpiration coefficient is expressed on per unit area or weight basis (Berg, 1987; Lentz, 1966). It is the amount of water evaporated per unit weight or surface area of a product per unit water vapour deficit per unit time (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987; Berg and Lentz, 1971; Burton, 1982; Sastry and Buffington 1982; Sastry et al., 1978). Surface area is also used in calculation of specific surface area (area per unit weight) or surface area-to-volume ratio, an important factor affecting moisture loss from vegetables (Ben-Yehoshua, 1987; Berg, 1987; Berg and Lentz, 1971; Burton, 1982; Robinson et al., 1975; Wills et al., 1989). Surface damage due to insects, diseases, and/or harvest and postharvest handling may be assessed on the basis of proportion of surface area damaged to the total surface area of carrots. Surface area of carrots (used hereon to mean carrot roots) like most other agricultural products, cannot be determined using formulae for surface area of cones or 27 cylinders because of their irregular shapes. The methods that may be used to determine surface area of carrots are peeling, slicing, and surface replica. In the first method, carrots are peeled and the area of the peelings detennined using the planimeter or photographic techniques (Kvet and Marshall, 1971; Minvielle et al., 1981). Carrots can also be sliced into a series of small cylinders and the area of the whole root is estimated by adding areas of all slices calculated using the formula for area of a cylindrical object (Area = 27rxh + 2m2). Area meter may be used to determine surface replica of carrots (as described later). All these methods are destructive and time consuming. Baugerod established a non-destructive procedure based on height, greatest diameter and weight to determine the surface area of carrots. These parameters are controlled by genetic influence, cultural practices and environmental conditions during growth (Banga, 1962; Barnes, 1936; Dowker and Jackson, 1977; Olymbios and Schwabe; 1977; Salter et al., 1979; Umiel et al., 1972; Whitaker et al., 1970). The applicability and relative accuracy of Baugerod method on carrot roots of varying sizes and shapes however is not known. The overall objective of this study was to establish a quick and non-destructive procedure for detennining surface area of carrots. The specific objectives were to: (1) compare three different methods for determining surface area of carrots of varying sizes and shapes, and (2) evaluate the accuracy of Baugerod (1993) method for detexniining the surface area of carrots. 28 B. Materials and methods Source of carrots Eight carrot varieties (Caro-choice, Gold-Pak, Eagle, Paramount, Imperator Special 58, Caro-pride, Celloking, and Top-Pak) were planted at Totem Field at the University of British Columbia during the 1993 summer season on a silty loam soil with 5.7% organic matter and pH 5.9. Seeds of Caro-choice, Gold-Pak, Eagle, Top-Pak, Imperator Special 58, and Celloking were obtained from Stokes seeds Ltd. (St. Camarines, Ontario, Canada), while Caropride and Paramount seeds were obtained from Asgrow Seed Co. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA). Different varieties were used to test the applicability of the methods on carrots of different sizes and shapes. The experiment was carried out in a randomised complete block design with four blocks and 7.1 m2 plots. Fertilizers was manually broadcast over the plots at a rate of 70 kg N/ha, 40 kg P205/ha and 150 kg K20/ha, and raked in before seeding. Carrot seeds were sown at a rate of 11 kg/ha on 13th May, 1993 using a manually operated Stanhay seed spacing drill (Ashford Ltd., Ashford Kent, England) in four row beds with each row containing three lines. Weeds were controlled manually during the growing season. Carrots were irrigated uniformly on an as-needed basis by a portable overhead sprinkler system. Carrots were top dressed 56 days from sowing with 35 kg N/ha. First harvest was done on 8th September and second harvest on 16th November, 1993. At each harvest, a random sample of six carrots was manually pulled from the two centre rows of each 29 plot, 0.5 m away from the borders. Carrots were topped, placed in labelled polyethylene bags and taken to the laboratory. They were gently washed under running cold tap water and blotted to remove surface water. They were stored until use at 2±1° C for a maximum of nine days. Carrots from each plot were labelled 1 to 6 using correcting ink "wite out" (Bic Inc., Toronto, Ontario) for identification. Ten carrots from small, medium, and large size were randomly picked in 1994 from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative (Richmond, B.C.). The samples in each grade were labelled 1 to 10. Determination of carrot size Length, greatest diameter, crown diameter, weight and volume of each carrot were recorded. The volume of carrots from Totem field was measured by submerging individual carrots in 200 ml of water in a 500 ml measuring cylinder and recording the volume of the displaced water. Determination of carrot shape The shape of carrots was determined using the Bleasdale and Thompson (1963) method. The shape (C) was calculated as: C = W/itfh (1) 30 where: C = defines the shape or cylindricality of the carrot. C is unity for a cylindrical carrot and 0.33 for a cone, W = weight of the carrot (g), which is a good estimate of carrot volume (Bleasdale and Thompson, 1963), r = half of the greatest diameter of the carrot (cm), h = length of carrot (cm), and n = 3.14. Surface area determination The Baugerod (1993), shrink wrap surface replica and slicing methods were used for surface area detennination of carrots from the two sources as described below. (a) Baugerod method: It is a non-destructive method which calculates carrot surface area using carrot length, greatest diameter, and root weight. Baugerod (1993) method assumes that carrot weight in grams can be used accurately to estimate the carrot volume. This happens if specific gravity is around unity. To determine if the assumption holds true, specific gravity (g cm"3) derived as weight-to-volume ratio was calculated using carrots from Totem Field. Determination of carrot surface area 31 The area of each carrot was calculated as: A = 4C7rrh/(l+C) (2) where: A = area of carrot (cm2), C = shape of the carrot calculated using equation (1) above, r = half of the greatest diameter (cm), h = length of the carrot (cm), and % = 3.14. (b) Shrink wrap surface area replica method: Each carrot was tightly wrapped with shrink wrap (D 955; Cryovac Division, W.R. Grace and Co. Ontario, Canada) and taped in place with masking tape. For the shrink wrap to take the shape of carrot, it was blow-dried (hot air) using airjet hair dryer (Oster Corporation, Wisconsin, USA). The whole surface was then coloured black with a king size Jiffy black marker (Shachihata, Japan). On unwrapping each carrot, the area of coloured shrink wrap was recorded using LI-3000 portable area meter. LI-3100 area meter (LI-COR, Inc. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA) was used for measuring surface area of carrots collected from B.C. Coast Vegetable Cooperative. 32 (c) Slicing method: Each carrot was sliced into 0.45 cm thick cylindrical discs using stainless steel vegetable sheer (ME. Heuck Co. Cincinnati, Ohio). The peripheral surface area of each cylindrical disc was calculated using the formula: A = 27irh, (3) whereas, areas of the two end discs were obtained by the formula: A = 27rrh + Ttr2 (4) where: r = half of the diameter of each disc, h = thickness of each disc, and 7C = 3.14. Areas of all discs were then summed to obtain the total surface area of the carrot. C Statistical analysis All data were subjected to analysis of variance using I*roc GLM of Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. (1989). Size, shape and specific gravity of carrot varieties grown on Totem field were analysed as a randomised complete block design, whereas that of B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op. carrots were analysed as a completely randomised design. Surface area data were analysed as a split-plot design with variety or grade as the main plot and method as the sub-plot. Duncan's Multiple Range Test 33 was used to separate statistically significant means among varieties and methods. D. Results Size and shape of carrots No statistically significant (p > 0.05) differences were observed among varieties in greatest diameter, weight, and shape in either harvests (Table 1). Shape of all varieties became more cylindrical with maturity as indicate*! by an increase in C value from early to late harvest. The interactions between varieties and replicates were highly significant (p < 0.01) for length, greatest diameter and weight during early harvest, and significant (p < 0.05) for only length during late harvest. Highly significant (p < 0.01) differences in length among varieties were observed only during late harvest (Table 2). Considering these results, varieties can be grouped into three classes on the basis of length that is, long (Paramount), medium (Carochoice, Eagle, Imperator Special 58, Caropride, Celloking, and Top-Pak) and short (Gold-Pak). Specific gravity There were no statistically significant differences in specific gravity among varieties at either harvests (Table 3). The specific gravity ranged between 1.03 and 1.05 in both harvests. 34 Table 1. Size and shape of carrot varieties at early and late harvests from Totem field. Greatest Shape diameter (cm) Weight (g) (C Value) Variety Early Late Early Late Early Late Carochoice 2.99 3.34 58.04 80.91 0.50 0.54 Gold-Pak 2.93 3.13 64.47 62.96 0.54 0.56 Eagle 2.85 3.14 52.58 73.42 0.54 0.57 Paramount 2.66 3.14 49.50 91.53 0.53 0.56 Imperator Special 58 3.00 3.23 64.55 80.20 0.54 0.57 Caropride 3.03 3.12 72.17 74.59 0.52 0.54 Celloking 2.70 2.91 52.29 61.57 0.54 0.54 Top-Pak 2.89 3.25 58.74 76.32 0.49 0.52 SE 0.09 0.10 5.51 6.16 0.02 0.02 Significance NS NS NS NS NS NS All values are means for 24 carrots. NS Non significant at p < 0.05. 35 Table 2. Comparison of three different methods for determining surface area (cm2) at early and late harvests from Totem field. Mean area Length (cm) Variety Early Late Early Late Carochoice 96.15 123.72 16.25 16.32b Gold-pak 102.15 101.90 16.56 14.20c Eagle 88.58 117.34 15.14 16.53b Paramount 93.17 141.76 17.08 20.69a Imperator Special 58 104.30 123.72 16.50 16.55b Caropride 112.11 119.76 17.(34 17.92b Celloking 97.59 109.59 16.86 16.80b Top-Pak 98.09 121.29 17.12 17.58b SE 0.97 1.04 0.63 0.54 Significance NS NS NS ** Methods Baugerod 103.38a 119.11b Surface replica 98.68b 112.65c Slicing 94.69c 127.85a SE 0.60 0.64 Significance ** ** **, NS Significant and nonsignificant at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 respectively. Values in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05 using Duncan's Multiple Range Test. Table 3. Specific gravity (g cm"3) of carrot varieties at early and late harvests from Totem field. Harvest Variety Early Late Carochoice 1.044 1.030 Gold-Pak 1.048 1.033 Eagle 1.033 1.027 Paramount 1.045 1.030 Imperator Special 58 1.035 1.036 Caropride 1.044 1.031 Celloking 1.044 1.035 Top-Pak 1.039 1.032 SE 0.004 0.004 Significance NS NS All values are means for 24 carrots NS Nonsignificant at p < 0.05. 37 Surface area of Totem field carrots The surface area values using Baugerod, surface replica, and slicing methods were significantly different (p < 0.01) in both harvests (Table 2). Highly significant (p < 0.01) interaction between variety and replicate was observed at early but not late harvest. Variety by method interaction was not significant (p < 0.05) in both harvests indicating that the three methods ranked the same in all varieties. Surface area values obtained using Baugerod method were the highest whereas those using slicing method were the lowest at early harvest. Ihis relationship between the methods changed at late harvest with slicing method giving the highest values and surface replica the lowest (Table 2). Size and surface area of carrots from B.C Coast Vegetable Co-operative The three size grades of carrots significantly (p < 0.05) differed in size (length, greatest diameter and weight) [ Table 4] but not in shape. The interaction between grade and method was highly significant (p < 0.01). Surface replica method gave the highest estimate of surface area on all grades whereas Baugerod method gave the lowest estimate except on grade 1 in which slicing gave the least estimate. 38 Table 4. Comparison of three different methods for determining surface area on three different size grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. Size Mean area (cm2) Grade Length (cm) Greatest Diameter (cm) Weight (g) Baugerod Surface replica Slicing 1 16.66b 2.87c 64.98b 112.50 132.40 110.20 2 18.44b 3.29b 91.42b 139.50 156.00 145.50 3 20.88a 4.86a 226.24a 233.00 273.80 257.80 SE 0.77 0.12 12.56 3.09 3.09 3.09 Sign. ** ** ** - - -All values are means for 10 carrots. Sign. = Significance ** Significant at p < 0.01. Means with the same letter in a column are not significantly different at p < 0.05 using Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 39 Percent variations of Baugerod method from surface replica and slicing methods The average surface area values obtained using Baugerod method differed from those using surface replica method by less than 5%, and compared to slicing they differed by less than 9% on both harvests from Totem Field (Table 5). While comparing the methods using different grades of carrots, surface area values of Baugerod method differed from those of surface replica by 15% and from values using slicing method by less than 6%. £. Discussion The significant interaction between replicate and variety for greatest diameter and weight at early harvest, length and surface areas at both harvests, and the non significant differences in size among varieties indicate greater variation within than among varieties which may be due to the effects of the environment. There were no significant differences in specific gravity between the eight varieties of carrots in the two harvests (Table 2). The values were close to unity and agreed with the results of Bleasedale and Thompson (1963). This showed that the assumption made in Baugerod (1993, personal communication) method that weight in grams can be used as a good estimate of carrot volume, holds true. Table 5. Percent difference of Baugerod method from surface replica and slicing methods on two harvests, and on three different grades of carrots. Percent differences Early Late Surface Surface Variety replica Slicing replica Slicing Carochoice 9 6 3 -10 Gold-Pak 6 10 4 -9 Eagle 9 10 4 -7 Paramount 0 8 5 -6 Imperator Special 58 4 7 4 -9 Caropride -1 11 6 0 Celloking 5 8 5 -9 Top-Pak 7 10 12 -10 Mean 4 9 5 -8 Grade 1 -17 3 2 -12 -4 3 -18 -11 Mean -15 -6 Percent differences = ((Surface area values using Baugerod method - surface area values using surface replica or slicing method)/surface area values using Baugerod method) x 100. 41 The eight varieties and the three carrot size grades were used to test the applicability of the methods on carrots of varying sizes and shapes. The results of this study showed that there were significant differences in length among the eight varieties, and in length, greatest diameter and weight among the three grades of carrots (Table 3 and 4), and they therefore provided good materials for testing the applicability of the methods. Surface area values obtained using the three methods differed significantly at both harvests from Totem field. This variation cannot be attributed to differences in size for there were no significant size differences among varieties at early harvest, and at late harvest the rariking of the methods was the same in all varieties despite the statistically significant differences in length. Though the surface area values using the three methods were statistically different at both harvests, the differences between area values using Baugerod and surface replica methods were less than 5%, and between Baugerod and slicing were less than 9% (Table 5) which may be tolerated on a practical basis. This shows that Baugerod method is applicable on different varieties and sizes of carrots with a level of within a 5% error. The ranking of the surface area values obtained using the three methods differed with grade size as indicated by the significant interaction between grade and method. However, the differences between surface area values obtained using Baugerod and slicing methods were less than 6% on average (Table 5). These low percentage error of surface area values using Baugerod method compared to slicing showed that it can be used to estimate surface area of carrots of different sizes. The 42 differences between surface area values using Baugerod and surface replica were greater on carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative than on carrots from Totem Field. Probably carrots from the two sources had been grown on different types of soil and therefore varied on their surface uniformity. However, the relationship between surface area values obtained using Baugerod and surface replica methods were consistent and therefore they are more accurate. Surface replica method is the most direct and therefore the best procedure for determining surface area of carrots but has the disadvantage of being laborious and somehow destructive. The accuracy of slicing method depends on the number of series of slices from each carrot and the uniformity of the carrot surface. There is a chance of cumulative error in area measurement with increase in the number of slices and this affects its reliability. It is also assumed that the lateral surface of each slice is uniform which may not be true because of the biological nature of carrots. There were no significant variations in shape between the eight varieties in the two harvests, and between the three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. However, the results showed that surface area values obtained using the three methods were comparable in carrot shapes ranging from 0.49 (Top-Pak) to 0.60 of the smallest carrots (grade 1). This indicates that Baugerod method can be used to estimate surface area of carrots within that range of shape. Bleasdale and Thompson (1963) method, used in this study to deteirnine the shape of carrots, gives an approximate shape and may not be sensitive enough to detect minor variations. Carrots are often not radially symmetrical, they may have rounded and sloping shoulders and 43 their maximum diameter is rarely attained at the crown. Sample size and morphology of the study material, purpose of study, required level of accuracy, availability of resources such as labour, equipment and time are some of the factors that influence the selection of the method for deterrriiriing surface area of a whole plant or plant part (Kvet and Marshall, 1971). The purpose of this study was to establish a rapid and non-destructive procedure for estimating surface area of carrots by determining the applicability and accuracy of Baugerod method on carrots of varying sizes and shapes. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that Baugerod (1993, personal communication) method is relatively rapid and non-destructive. The surface area values using this method are comparable to surface replica and slicing methods which though more direct are time consuming and destructive. This method is not carrot specific as it can be used on different varieties and/or sizes with a low percentage error. Baugerod method is used to determine the surface area of carrots with the assumption that carrots have uniform greatest diameter and length which is not true considering that carrots are biological products. This can be a source of error in estimating surface area of carrots. However, it can be used for determining surface area of carrots. 44 Chapter 4. Effects of potassium fertilization and periderm damage on weight loss from carrots Abstract: A 2-year field experiment was conducted to study the effects of K fertilization on growth, yield and water loss of carrots. The interaction between periderm damage and K fertilization on carrot water loss was also assessed. Effects of five rates of KC1 and one rate of K 2S0 4 were studied using randomised complete block design. Carrots were stored at 13°C and 80±5% and 35±5% RH. Five levels of damage were used in 1993, and four in 1994. The source and rate of application of K had no effects (p < 0.05) on marketable and unmarketable yields in 1993. However, in 1994 increase in K fertilization reduced (p < 0.05) the yields with significant differences observed between KC1 and K 2S0 4 effects. Carrot growth and water loss were not affected by rate and source of K in the two years. Low RH significantly (p < 0.05) increased weight loss from carrots and consequently reduced the shelf life. Periderm damage increased the rate of weight loss from carrots but no interaction between KC1 at rates of 0, 175, 275 and 375 kg K2CVha, and levels of periderm damage were observed. A. Introduction Shelf life is the number of days that a vegetable takes at specified storage conditions to reach the end of its marketable life (Dennis, 1981). It has become an 45 important aspect of postharvest quality that wholesalers, retailers, and consumers consider in carrots. Shelf life is affected by variety, climate, cultural practices such as fertilizer application, level of maturity when harvested, and postharvest handling (Evers, 1989d; Gorini, 1987), metabolic reserves at harvest, and metabolic rate after harvest (Burton, 1982). Postharvest deterioration of vegetables is caused by moisture loss, physiological breakdown, and microbial attack (Burton, 1978; Raghavan et al., 1980). Moisture (weight) loss due to transpiration causes wilting and shrivelling resulting in reduced saleable weight and economic value of carrots during postharvest handling and storage (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Berg and Lentz, 1966; Burtori 1982; Phan et al, 1973; Shirazi and Cameron, 1993). Moisture loss causes loss of crispness and undesirable changes in colour and palatability (Desai and Salunke, 1991). Such physical changes decrease the aesthetic value and hence saleability of carrots (Hardenburg et al., 1986; Hruschka, 1977; Robinson et al., 1975). The rate of moisture loss is influenced by a carrot's physical attributes (water content, surface area:volume ratio, and surface morphology), and postharvest handling and storage conditions (Hardenburg et al., 1986; Kader, 1985: Pantastico, 1975). VPD which is the difference in humidity between tissues and surrounding air is the driving force behind moisture movement (Kays, 1991). Water content may affect the rate of water loss from carrots (Lownds et al., 1993) through its effect on vapour pressure deficit. Carrots with a higher water content would have a greater VPD than surrounding atmosphere and may lose water at a faster rate than carrots with a lower 46 water content. Increase in surface area/volume ratio means a greater surface area per unit weight over which evaporation can take place, and indicates greater water loss (Ketsa, 1990; Sastry et al, 1978; Wills et al., 1989). Storage conditions that enhance moisture loss, biochemical changes, and microbial attack may accelerate the postharvest deterioration of carrots. VPD is important to vegetables immediately after harvest (Grierson and Wardowski, 1978), and any factor that change it would have an effect on rate of moisture loss. Increase in temperature and decrease in RH of the storage environment, through its effects on VPD, increase the rate of postharvest moisture loss from carrots (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Phan et al, 1973). Increased air movement in storage has been shown to increase the rate of moisture loss from carrots (Apeland and Baugerod, 1971). Packaging produce creates an almost water saturated atmosphere thereby minimising the rate of moisture loss (Grierson and Wardowski, 1978). Carrots contain 88 to 90% water by weight (Langer and Hill, 1991) and are stored under ambient conditions (during grading and packing, display and sale at retail markets, and at homes), both of which increase the potential for moisture loss. Fertilization can influence rate of postharvest moisture loss from carrots through its effects on physical attributes. K has been reported to increase the size of carrots (Habben, 1973), and reduce moisture loss by plants through reduction of transpiration (Brag, 1972). It has also been shown to improve storability of potatoes and onion bulbs (Kunkel, 1947; Lune and Goor, 1977). Several authors have reported the effects of K fertilization on K, sugar, and dry matter content of carrots (Evers, 47 1989a; Habben, 1973; Nilsson, 1979). Evers (1989b, c) and Nilsson (1979) reported that type and amount of fertilizer had no effect on postharvest weight loss of carrots. Retailers and consumers have complained of a short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots due to wilting and shrivelling. Carrot growers in B.C. Cloverdale area seem to be applying excess K fertilizer, and whether excess K contributes to the short shelf life, and/or has an adverse effect on yield is not known. Carrot root surface is covered by a suberized periderm which prevents moisture loss from internal tissues (Esau, 1977; Knowles and Flore, 1983; Kolattukudy et al., 1975). Its removal may significantly affect the rate of postharvest moisture loss. Increase in surface damage of carrots has been reported to decrease carrot storability (Apeland, 1974; Tucker, 1974) due to decreased resistance to water movement. K fertilization enhances resistance of tissues to damage through lignification and silicification (Perrenoud, 1990), and may therefore reduce can-ot moisture loss. The extent to which periderm damage, and interaction between periderm damage and K fertilization contribute to the short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots is not known. The objectives of this study were to detemiine: 1) the effects of K fertilization on carrot growth and yield, 2) effect of K fertilization on water loss of carrots, and 3) the interaction between periderm damage and K fertilization on water loss of carrots. 48 B. Materials and methods Source of carrots The experiments were carried out in 1993 and 1994 in Mr. Ray Wang and Mr. Wayne Wang's commercial fields near Cloverdale (B.C., Canada). It was set up in a randomised complete block design, with four replications. Six K treatments described below were used, giving a total of 24 plots each of 3 m length and 1.32 m width. In 1993, the soil in the experimental field had pH 5.3, 64.8% organic matter (OM), and 503 ppm of K. Carrots and onions had been grown in the field in 1991 and 1992 respectively. The experiment in 1994 was carried out in a different field because of the importance of crop rotation in preventing build up of pests and diseases in carrot production. However, the soil in this field was not very different from the 1993 experimental field. It had pH 5.3, 48.9% OM, and initial K status of 693 ppm. The field was under lettuce the previous two years. In both years ammonium acetate method was used to determine the amounts of K. In 1993, Carochoice hybrid variety was obtained from Asgrow Seed Co. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA). Variety Eagle planted in 1994 was obtained from Stokes Seed Ltd. (St. Catherines, Ont, Canada). Basic fertilizer N:P:K (5-12-0) was broadcast on plots at commercially recommended rate of 900 kg/ha (BCMAFF, 1992), and incorporated by raking into the soil before seeding. KC1 (0-0-60) was then applied at the rates of 0, 75, 175, 275, and 375 kg K20/ha, and K 2S0 4 (0-0-50) at 275 kg K20/ha. The recommended level of K 20 49 application for carrots is 280 kg/ha (Neufeld, 1980; Nonnecke, 1989). Planting was done on 19/5/93 using a Hestair Stanhay S870 planter with a precision seeder. Four rows and three lines for each row were seeded per bed. The same planter was used on 28/4/94 but three rows were seeded per bed. In the two years, cultivation and routine management practices were carried out by the grower. Pre-emergence weed control was done using a mixture of Linuron and Paraquat, and linuron applied for post-emergence control. Cymbush, parathion and diazinon were applied to control pests. Overhead irrigation was carried out to supplement rain water; the amount and frequency of irrigation depended on the frequency of rainfall. Effects of K fertilization on the shoot and root growth of carrots Random samples of five carrot plants were manually harvested from each plot at 60 and 90 days after sowing, and at the final harvest. The final harvest was done when the commercial grower felt the carrots had attained marketable size and the price was favourable. Harvesting was done 0.5 m away from the borders and from within the two middle rows and one centre row. Harvested carrots were put in polyethylene bags and taken to the laboratory at the University of B.C., 52 kms away. The samples were gently washed, when needed, to remove dirt and blotted dry with paper towels to remove excess water. Lengths and fresh weights of shoot and root, and the greatest diameter of the root were measured. Shoots and roots were dried in a ventilated oven at 60 to 70° C until their weights became stable for dry matter measurement. Roots 50 were relatively big during the second and third harvests, and were chopped into small pieces to facilitate drying. Effect of K fertilization on carrot yield Carrots for yield determination were harvested as described previously. They were topped by hand, and transported in perforated polyethylene bags to the laboratory. They were gently wiped to remove soil, sorted into marketable and unmarketable (culls) roots, and weighed. Unmarketable yields included undersized, misshapen, and forked roots. Effect of K fertilization on shelf life of carrots Twelve carrots were randomly harvested 0.5 m away Irom the border from each plot, topped, gently washed and blotted dry to remove surface water. They were then divided into two lots of six carrots each. Carrots in each lot were labelled 1 to 6 for identification using correcting fluid (wite out). The length, greatest diameter, and weight of each carrot were measured. Each lot was placed in perforated (51 x 56 cm) kitchen bags (W. Ralston, Canada) and stored in incubators at 13°C, and 35±5% and 80±5% RH. A temperature of 13°C is a simulation of ambient temperature in retail food stalls. A humidifier was used to maintain high RH. Each root was weighed individually at harvest and at 2-day intervals during storage. Weight loss was 51 determined as ((initial root wt - wt after every 2 days in storage/initial root wt) x 100). Effect of periderm damage and K fertilization on carrot shelf life The treatments in this experiment simulated the mechsinical damage and injuries that may occur to carrots during harvesting and handling before storage. In 1993, fifty (50) carrot roots were randomly picked from each replicate of 0, 175, 275, and 375 kg K20/ha from KC1 treatments. The roots were gently washed, blotted dry and divided into two groups of 25 roots each for assessing effects of high and low RH storage conditions. Each batch was further subdivided into five equal groups for damage treatments. Prior to applying damage treatments, the roots were stored for four days in a cold room at 2°C. There were five levels of perideim damage: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% of the total surface area of the carrot root was damaged. The roots were damaged by passing a nail brush four times over a 10 cm2 section of root surface with enough pressure being applied to remove the periderm. The number of sections to be damaged was determined by dividing the required percentage level of damage by the area of damage section (10 cm2). The damaged roots were placed in perforated kitchen bags (described earlier) and stored at 13°C and at 80±5% and 35±5 % RH incubators immediately after damage. Levels of damage were changed in 1994 to 0%, 15%, 30%, and 45%, and the experiment was carried out only at 35±5% RH because there were not enough samples for both 35±5% and 80±5% RH treatments. The weight of carrot roots was measured every second day for 18 days. Weight loss 52 per every damage and K combination was calculated as described above. The roots were selected at random. Baugerod (1993) method was used to determine the total surface area of each root. C Statistical analysis The Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. (1989) Proc GLM was used for analysis. Trend effects of K were tested using orthogonal polynomials while KCI and K 2S0 4, both applied at 275 kg K20/ha, were compared using orthogonal contrast. Effects of K fertilization, and K fertilization and periderm damage on weight loss was analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance and point analysis. Each harvest and two years of experiment were analysed separately. D. Results Effects of K fertilization on carrot shoot growth Rate and source of K did not influence (p < 0.05) shoot growth [length, weights, and dry matter (DM)] at final harvest (Tables 1 and 2). Shoot length and both fresh and dry weights increased linearly with increasing K fertilization during the first harvest in 1993 however, the effects were not maintained to maturity. 53 Table 1. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot shoot growth at three harvests in 1993. Shoot growth Weight (g) Shoot/root Harvest K rate Length Date (kg K20/ha) (cm) Fresh Dry DM (%) ratio (dry wt) 22/7/93 0 63.7 25.4 2.70 10.5 1.51 75 62.6 26.8 2.70 10.1 1.06 175 63.4 27.5 2.67 9.9 1.17 275 66.5 31.3 3.06 9.9 1.26 375 64.8 33.4 3.39 9.9 1.28 SE 1.0 2.1 0.23 0.2 0.09 Significance L* L** L* ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 20/8/93 0 75.8 43.4 6.60 15.7 0.49 75 71.4 35.1 5.20 14.9 0.41 175 74.2 40.9 5.90 14.9 0.48 275 75.9 40.8 6.20 15.8 0.60 375 75.4 44.1 6.10 14.2 0.44 SE 1.2 2.9 0.40 1.1 0.02 Significance C* ns ns ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 4/10/93 0 70.8 20.1 3.80 18.8 0.16 75 69.7 18.0 3.30 18.2 0.18 175 71.8 21.2 3.80 18.6 0.17 275 74.3 21.0 3.60 17.3 0.18 375 71.9 24.2 4.20 16.9 0.18 SE 1.2 2.2 0.40 0.6 0.01 Significance ns ns ns ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns Values given are per plant and are means for 20 carrots. **, * and ns are significant linear (L), cubic (C) at p < 0.01 £ind 0.05 and nonsignificant at p < 0.05 respectively. 54 Table 2. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot shoot growth at three harvests in 1994. Shoot growth Weight (g) Shoot/root Harvest K rate Length Date (kg K207ha) (cm) Fresh Dry DM (%) ratio (dry wt) 27/6/94 0 39.2 13.0 1.37 10.4 1.56 75 37.7 12.4 1.31 10.5 1.53 175 37.2 12.7 1.42 11.3 1.66 275 36.4 12.1 1.32 11.0 1.49 375 35.4 12.5 1.39 10.9 1.69 SE 0.9 0.6 0.07 0.2 0.08 Significance ns ns ns ns ns KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 29/7/94 0 61.1 41.0 5.30 12.9 0.56 75 59.9 35.5 4.50 13.0 0.55 175 57.0 39.3 5.08 12.8 0.49 275 57.8 39.6 5.00 12.6 0.47 375 58.6 38.2 4.98 13.0 0.47 SE 1.5 3.1 0.44 0.2 0.03 Significance ns ns ns ns L* KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 5/08/94 0 62.5 38.8 5.13 13.9 0.49 75 60.7 33.8 4.73 14.2 0.43 175 58.6 36.8 5.12 14.0 0.41 275 56.0 33.6 4.35 13.5 0.42 375 60.5 39.2 5.33 14.0 0.43 SE 1.3 2.8 0.41 0.2 0.03 Significance ns ns ns C* ns KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns Values are given per plant and are means for 20 carrots. * and ns are significant linear (L), cubic (C) at p < 0.05 or nonsignificant at p < 0.05 respectively. 55 Effects of K fertilization on root growth The increase in the rate of application of KCI, and source of K fertilization did not influence (p < 0.05) storage root growth (Tables 3 and 4). Dry matter (DM) did not respond to changes in rate of K fertilization. Significant responses of root length, fresh weight and greatest diameter were observed during the first and second harvest in 1993 but not at maturity. Effects of K fertilization on carrot yield There was no statistically significant (p < 0.05) effect of increase in rate of application of KCI on yield of carrots in 1993 (Table 5). Yield responses of KCI and K 2S0 4 were also not significantly different. Highly significant (p < 0.01) negative linear response of yields to increase in in rate of K application were observed in 1994 (Table 5). Marketable and total yields of 275 kg K20/ha applied as KCI were significantly (p < 0.01) lower than that applied as K2SQ4. 56 Table 3. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot storage root growth at three harvests in 1993. Storage root growth Harvest K rate date (kg K20/ha) Length (cm) Weight (g) Fresh Dry Greatest diameter (cm) DM (%) 22/7/93 0 19.1 19.2 2.0 1.87 10.5 75 20.1 27.7 2.8 2.14 9.8 175 18.9 24.6 2.4 2.09 9.4 275 19.2 26.7 2.7 2.17 9.9 375 19.1 30.0 2.9 2.23 9.8 SE 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.07 0.2 Significance ns L* ns L* Q* KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 20/8/93 0 19.7 91.5 9.8 3.41 10.7 75 19.4 85.4 9.6 3.40 10.8 175 18.5 87.9 9.3 3.42 10.9 275 17.6 73.2 8.7 3.44 10.1 375 18.6 100.8 10.9 3.63 11.0 SE 0.5 4.8 0.5 0.08 0.6 Significance L* ns ns ns ns KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 4/10/93 0 20.3 130.1 12.4 3.70 9.6 75 18.0 97.5 10.4 3.29 11.2 175 19.5 125.4 14.3 3.66 11.4 275 19.0 119.0 11.7 3.49 10.0 375 20.1 136.9 14.0 3.86 10.3 SE 0.6 10.7 1.1 0.14 0.5 Significance ns ns D* D* ns KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns Values given are per plant and are means for 20 carrots. * and ns significant linear (L), deviations (D) at p < 0.05 or nonsignificant at p < 0.05 respectively. 57 Table 4. Effects of potassium fertilization on carrot storage root growth at three harvests in 1994. Storage root growth Harvest K rate Length Date (kg K20/ha) (cm) Weight (g) Fresh Dry Greatest diameter (cm) DM (%) 27/7/94 0 14.0 10.4 0.93 1.48 8.8 75 13.7 10.1 0.90 1.44 9.0 175 13.7 10.6 0.94 1.50 9.0 275 14.4 10.2 0.91 1.42 9.1 375 13.6 9.8 0.91 1.40 8.9 SE 0.4 0.8 0.07 0.05 0.2 Significance ns ns ns ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 29/7/94 0 18.4 85.3 9.3 3.21 11.0 75 18.8 76.3 8.8 3.02 11.5 175 19.4 91.6 10.3 3.32 11.3 275 20.2 100.4 11.0 3.33 11.1 375 19.8 98.9 10.9 3.26 11.1 SE 0.6 6.2 0.7 0.10 0.2 Significance ns ns ns ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns 5/08/94 0 19.6 102.6 11.7 3.42 11.4 75 20.6 96.0 10.8 3.34 11.3 175 20.8 104.0 12.3 3.45 11.7 275 20.5 96.8 10.7 3.35 11.1 375 20.7 113.4 13.0 3.53 11.6 SE 0.5 5.8 0.6 0.09 0.2 Significance ns ns ns ns ns KCI vs K 2S0 4 ns ns ns ns ns Values are per plant and are means for 20 carrots. Ns nonsignificant at p < 0.05. Table 5. Effect of potassium fertilization on carrot yield (kg/plot). Fertilizer Marketable Unmarketable Total application (kg K20/ha) 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 0 69 21 9 5 77 26 75 62 20 13 6 75 26 175 76 17 10 4 87 21 KC1 275 65 16 12 3 76 18 375 52 15 9 2 61 17 K 2S0 4 275 66 21 9 4 76 25 SE 6.5 1.3 1.9 0.7 6.6 1.4 Significance ns L** ns L** ns L** KC1 vs K 2S0 4 ns ** ns ns ns ** Yield is the mean of four replicates. ** and ns are significant linear (L) at p < 0.01 and nonsignificant at p < 0.05. 59 Effects of K and RH on weight loss of carrots There was a statistically significantly (p < 0.05) interaction between K rate, RH and storage time on weight loss in 1993 but not in 1994. However, the trends of weight loss were consistent in both years (Fig. 1 and 2). A significant interaction between RH and storage time was observed in both years. The effects of rate of application and source of K were not significant (p < 0.05) and did not differ with RH. Storage time had significant linear and quadratic trend elfects on weight loss in 1993 whereas in 1994 linear and cubic trend effects were significant at the end of the storage time. RH had a noticeable effect on physical appearance of carrots. Visual appearance deteriorated much faster at 35±5% than at 80±5% RH. At the former level they were wilted, flaccid, and dull, while at high RH they were turgid, crisp, and bright coloured. The rate of weight loss was significantly faster in carrots stored at low compared to high RH (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The maximum permissible weight loss of carrots before they become unsaleable has been suggested to be 8% of their initial root weight (Burton, 1982; Robinson et al., 1975). In 1993, carrots at 35±5% RH had lost about 8% of their initial weight by the 12th day of storage whereas, at 80±5% IiH weight loss of carrots was less than 8% of their initial weight by the 20th day in storage (Fig. 1). In 1994, the maximum permissible weight loss was attained much earlier at the 8th day of storage at 35±5% RH (Fig. 2). J 62 Effects of the Interaction between K fertilization and periderm damage on weight loss of carrots There was significant ( p < 0.05) interaction between K , periderm damage, humidity and storage time on weight loss in 1993. The interaction between K, periderm damage, and storage time, and interaction between periderm damage and time, and that between K and storage time were significant in (p < 0.05) both years. Also significant linear and quadratic trend effects of storage time on weight loss were observed in both years. The effects of periderm damage on weight loss were more pronounced at 35±5% than at 80±5% RH. In 1993, point analysis indicated that periderm damage significantly increased the rate of weight loss from carrots from day 6 to 12, and the only significant (p < 0.05) differences were in comparisons of control versus periderm damage (Fig. 3). Weight loss from carrots with 5% level of periderm damage did not differ significantly (p < 0.05) from those with 20%. In 1994, periderm damage did not have significant (p < 0.05) effects on weight loss during storage but significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed between control and periderm damage only on the 2nd day (Table 6). 63 0% damage 5% damage 10% damage 15% damage 20% damage 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 Storage time (d) Fig. 3. Effect of periderm damage on weight loss of carrots stored at 13°C and 35 + 5% RH in 1993. 64 Table 6. Effect of level of periderm damage on weight loss (%) of carrots stored for 18 days at 13° C and 35±5% RH in 1994. Storage time (d) Level of damage (%) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2.4 4.8 7.3 8.9 11.3 12.2 14.1 15.7 18.5 15 2.9 4.7 6.6 9.2 11.1 12.9 14.9 16.6 19.2 30 3.1 5.3 7.7 10.4 12.5 14.4 17.3 19.3 21.3 45 3.1 4.8 7.3 9.0 10.9 12.6 14.8 17.3 19.9 SE 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 Significance * NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Values given are means for 20 carrots. *, NS Significant and nonsignificant at p < 0.05 respectively. 65 D. Discussion Effects of K on carrot growth This study showed that the rate and source of K did not influence shoot and root growth (Table 1, 2, 3 and 4). Habben (1973) observed no effect of K fertilization on shoot growth but a positive effect on root growth. Vereecke and Maercke (1979) observed that K fertilization increased root weight which is contrary to the results in this study. This variation can be attributed to the differences in the amounts of K in the soil. The soil in Habberfs (1973) report was a mixture of peat and loam low in background levels of K whereas in this study the soil had a background level of 503 to 693 ppm of K. The decrease in storage root length from first to second harvest in 1993 may be due to difficulty in differentiating the storage root from the rest of the root during first harvest. Shoot DM (%) ranged from 16.9 to 18.8% and 13.5 ro 14.2% during the final harvest in 1993 and 1994 respectively. Greenwood et al. (1980) reported that carrot shoots have a dry matter of 17.8% with optimum K fertilization. Hamilton and Bernier (1975) recorded a 15.1% DM in carrot leaves. Storage root DM (%) ranged between 9.6 and 11.7% at final harvest. These results agree with those of others in literature. Hole et al. (1987) found a range of 8.4 to 12.8% among varieties. Hamilton and Bernier (1975) found a 10.6% DM in carrot roots. Greenwood et al. (1980) indicated that root DM content at optimum K fertilization is 9.3%. 66 Shoot-to-storage root ratio reflects assimilate distribution during growth (Hole et al., 1987). The nonsignificant differences in shoot-to-root ratio indicate that K fertilization had a uniform effect on shoot and storage root growth or, it could be that K was not the most limiting factor in dry matter distribution. Dry matter distribution in carrots is influenced by density, time and genotype (Bleasdale, 1967; Currah and Barnes, 1979; Hole et al., 1983). There was a faster increase in shoot dry weight relative to storage root dry weight during the early part of growth, and at later stages distribution changed in favour of the root. At the time of final harvest some of the older leaves had senescenced and fallen off thereby reducing the shoot/root ratio. Carrot is a high K-demand crop (Martin and Liebhardl:, 1994) and would respond to K application. The general lack of carrot growth response to K fertilization in this study indicates the presence of sufficient quantities of K. in the soil. It also showed that excess application of K does not have any effect on carrot growth. Effects of K on yield of carrots Marketable and unmarketable yields decreased with increase in rate of K application in 1994 (Table 5). Hamilton and Bernier (1975) found no significant effect of K application on marketable yield of carrots on muck soil, and Nilsson (1979) observed no effect of type and amount of fertilizer on yield of carrots. Positive responses of carrot yield to K application are found in literature (Alt, 1987; Bishop et al. (1973). Alt (1987) classified carrots as one of the vegetables with a 25 to 70% 67 increase in yield with K fertilization on loamy sand soil. The response of carrot yield to K seems to depend on type and K status of the soil, and cropping pattern. Bishop et al. (1973) found that increasing K fertilization resulted in linear increases in marketable yields in five out of eight experiments in spagnum peat soil, and no response on mineral soil. Greenwood et al. (1980) observed that increasing K fertilization increased yield of unmarketable carrots on sandy loam with 69 ppm of K. Above the optimum point, the yield still increased but not significantly. Crop yield increase with increase in rate of K application up to an optimum amount where it levels off and does not decrease (Tisdale et al., 1993). This implies therefore, that the decrease of carrot yields may not be due to the effects of K but that of the accompanying ion(s). This was shown by the significantly lower marketable yields with KCI than K 2S0 4. KCI reduced the yields because excess chloride ions are toxic (Page and Cleaver, 1983; Tinker et al., 1977), while excess sulphate ions are precipitated as calcium sulphate (Greenwood et al., 1980). The effects of chloride ions are greater in drier soils (Tinker et., 1975), and this may have contributed to the significant effects in 1994 because the growing season was relatively drier compared to 1993 (Table 7). Water usually leaches out excess ions thereby reducing the toxicity. The decrease in yields cannot be attributed to reduced size of storage roots because K fertilization had no significant effects on storage root length, weight and greatest diameter (Table 3 and 4). It may be a result of low population as K supplied as KCI has been observed to have a negative effect on seedling emergence (Tinker et al., 1977) resulting in lower plant population. Chloride in fertilizer salt is known to reduce Table 7. Weather conditions during growing period in 1993 and 1994. 68 Months Year April May June July Aug Sept Oct 1993 Temperature (°C) 10.5 15.7 16.1 16.7 18.3 15.6 12.4 Rainfall (mm) 145.7 101.3 80.8 39.6 18.4 7.6 77.1 1994 Temperature (°C) 11.5 14.5 15.3 19.0 18.0 - -Rainfall (mm) 80.4 32.3 67.2 16.8 9.4 - -Source: Environment Canada, Vancouver 69 seed germination (Cooke, 1967; Tisdale et al., 1993). Smith and Hadley (1989) observed that carrot seedling emergence was reduced with increased KC1 application. Soil salinity delays seed germination and decreases seedling emergence (Page and Cleaver, 1983), and may reduce plant population below the optimum target. Holmes et al. (1961, 1973) while working with sugar beet observed that high application of salts significantly reduced seedling emergence and plant establishment. The results of this study showed that application of excess K as KC1 has a negative effect on marketable yield of carrots presumably by lowering the plant population per unit area. Effects of RH and K fertilization on shelf life of carrots Shelf life of vegetables is determined by postharvest weight (moisture) loss (Ben-Yehoshua et al., 1983; Lester and Burton, 1986; and Laurie et al., 1986). At low RH, the acceptable 8% weight loss was attained around the 12th day on storage. Twelve days can therefore be around the average shelf life of carrots stored at 13°C and 35±5% RH in 1993. This duration may also be taken as the minimum shelf life in retail markets and homes because storage conditions at both these locations rarely exceed 13°C and 35±5% RH. Carrots at high RH had lost less than 8% of their initial root weight by the 20th day on storage. This confirms the results of Apeland and Baugerod, 1971; Berg, 1981; Berg and Lentz (1966, 1973, 1974) who showed that shelf life of carrots can be extended by storing at high RH. Wells (1962) reported that weight loss in fruits is linearly related to VPD which is the driving force behind 70 moisture loss. The rate of weight loss is lower at high RH because of reduced VPD between carrot surface and the surrounding air (Wills et al. 1989). The storage atmosphere at high RH is almost water saturated, and this reduces transpiration, shrinkage, and shrivelling (Hardenburg, 1971). This is the principle behind jacketed storage (Raghavan et al., 1980) and seal-packaging of horticultural produce (Ben-Yehoshua, 1985; Lownds et al., 1993). Evers (1989c) found a negative effect of fertilization, as compared to control, on storability of carrots. Weight loss of carrots was not affected by the rate and source of K in this study. The reduction in shelf life of carrots stored at 13°C and 35±5% RH from 12 days in 1993 to 8 days in 1994 may be attributed to the relatively drier growing season in 1994 compared to the previous year (Table 7) as weather conditions have been reported to affect carrot storability (Evers, 1989c). Effects of periderm damage on weight loss from carrots Periderm damage increased the rate of weight loss from carrots especially at 35±5% RH. Removal of periderm from carrots decreases the surface resistance to the movement of water vapour and accelerates the exchange of water between carrots and storage environment (Kays, 1991). Storage at low RH favours; water movement from carrots into the storage atmosphere because of the high VPD which is conducive to water loss (Kays, 1991). At 80±5% RH, damage may not be a worrying factor because VPD is very low and water exchange between carrots and storage atmosphere is 71 minimal. In 1994, periderm damage significantly increased the rate of weight loss from carrots on 2nd day of storage, and thereafter the effects were not significant (Table 6). This may be explained by the healing of periderm damage through formation of wound periderm, which provides protection against moisture loss (Dyachenko, 1979; Kays, 1991; Nikolaeva et al., 1988). Davies (1977) and Lewis et al. (1981) observed healing of damaged carrot root tissues through lignification, suberization, and sometimes callus formation. This is favoured by exposure to high temperatures, high RH, and adequate aeration (Davies, 1977; Kays, 1991; Lewis et al. 1981). K improves tissue resistance to damage (Perrenoud, 1990) but there was no significant interaction between K fertilization and periderm damage in this study. Probably, this is due to the high level of K in muck soil in Cloverdale, B.C. so that any additional K fertilization does not have any significant effect on tissues. Practical implications The results obtained in this study have practical implications for the production and postharvest handling of carrots. They showed that excess application of K does not have any effect on growth, shelf life and periderm damage but a negative effect on yield of carrots. They suggest that there is enough K in the Cloverdale muck soil to meet the carrot's requirement, and that the high applications of K that growers seem to be applying on carrots on muck soil is a double loss. Money is spent in purchasing 72 and applying K fertilizer, and the added K reduce yields thereby lowering the income to the growers. Supplementary K can only be added where soil analysis indicates a deficiency. Shelf life of carrots was reduced by storage at 35=1:5% RH and periderm damage. This indicates the importance of postharvest handling in carrot shelf life. These results showed that periderm damage and storing at low RH, and not K fertilization, may be the more probable causes for the short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots. Consequently, B.C.-grown carrots should be handled more carefully to minimise periderm damage, and stored at high RH to prolong their shelf life, and allow for favourable competition with those from California and Washington. This will promote the sale of B.C.-grown carrots. Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 73 This study was carried out to determine the factors earning the short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots. Considerable evidence exists that both physical characteristics and postharvest handling influence the rate of postharvest moisture loss from carrots. Surface area-to-weight ratio is one of the inherent chai-acteristics that influences moisture loss, and therefore it was necessary to establish a procedure to measure surface area of carrots. The results of this study showed that surface area values obtained using the non-destructive Baugerod (1993, personal communication) method differed from values given by the laborious and destructive surface replica and slicing methods with a less than 6% error. Surface area values obtained using Baugerod method varied from slicing method by less than 6% when the methods were compared using size grades of carrots of different lengths, greatest diameters and weights. Baugerod method was also relatively faster compared to surface replica and slicing methods. It is concluded from this study that Baugerod method is applicable on carrots of different sizes, and differs from the other methods by less than 6% which can be tolerated, and can therefore be used to estimate surface area of carrots. Carrot growers seem to be applying excess K fertilizer. The impact of excess K fertilization on growth, yield, periderm damage and shelf life of carrots was assessed. Effects of periderm damage on shelf life of carrots was also studied. Excess K application had no significant effects growth and shelf life of carrots. This indicates the presence of adequate amounts of K in muck soil in Cloverdale area of B.C. to 74 support carrot growth, and that K fertilization is unnecessary. It also rules out the application of excess K as the cause of the short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots. KCI addition significantly reduced marketable yields per plot. As K fertilization did not influence the size of carrots, it indicates that reduced yields resulted from fewer carrots per plot and that KCI reduced plant population. A reduction in marketable yield is a reduction of the growers' income from carrots. Average yields in this study were significantly higher where K 2S0 4 was applied compared with KCI due to the toxic effects of excess CI compared to S0 4 ions. Optimum application of CI fertilizer or fertilizing with CI free fertilizers is therefore recommended to minimise toxic effects of CI, optimise carrot stand and to maximise production of carrots. Periderm damage and storing of carrots at low RH accelerated the rate of moisture loss and reduced the shelf life of carrots. This showtxl that the short shelf life of B.C.-grown carrots may be more likely attributed to periderm damage and/or storing at low RH. Periderm damage is due to mechanical handling which is inevitable in commercial production of carrots. It is therefore recommended that carrots be handled more carefully to minimise periderm damage, and mechanically handled carrots be stored at high RH which has been shown in this study and elsewhere to rninimise water loss and lengthen shelf life of carrots. This will improve the shelf life and acceptability of B.C.-grown carrots. Wound healing reduces moisture loss and improve storability in carrots (Dyachenko, 1979; Nikolaeva et al., 1988), potatoes (Sukurnaran et al, 1990), and sweet potatoes (St. Amand and Randle, 1991; Walter and Schadel, 1982; 1983). This 75 may be researched farther to establish the possibilities of subjecting carrots to healing treatments for a short period after harvest to harden the perid(am and heal wounds which may be beneficial for carrot shelf life. If this is found to have significant and economic effects on postharvest weight loss, it may be exploited to improve the shelf life and sale of B.C.-grown carrots. 76 Bibliography Abrams, C.F., E.G. Humphries, D.D. Hamann, and L.G. Wilson. 1978. Bulk harvest and handling of sweet potatoes. ASAE Trans. 21:15-19. Ackley, W.B., P.C. Crandall, and T.S. Russell. 1958. The use of linear measurements in estimating leaf areas. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 72:326-330. Alt, D. 1987. Irifluence of P- and K-fertilization on yield of different vegetable species. J. Plant Nutr. 10:1429-1435. Anderson, G.D. 1973. Potassium response of various crops in East Africa, pp. 287-309. IN: Potassium in Tropical Crops and Soils. Proc. 10th Colloq., Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland. Anon. 1980. Carrots. B.C. Min. of Agric, Fisheries and Food. Booklet No. 2268. Anon. 1991. Annual statistics. B.C. Min. of Agric, Fisheries and Food. Victoria, B.C. Apeland, J. 1974. Storage quality of carrots after different methods of harvesting. Acta Hort. 38:353-357. Apeland, J. and H. Baugerod. 1971. Factors affecting weight loss in carrots. Acta Hort. 20:92-114. Apeland, J. and H. Hoftun. 1974. Effects of temperature regimes on carrots during storage. Acta Hort. 38:291-309. Banga, O. 1962. Main types of the western carotene carrot and their origin. W.E. Tjeenk Willink. Zwolle, Netherland. CITED IN: N. Umiel, A.F. Kust, and W.H. Gabelman. 1972. A technique for studying quantitatively the variation in size and shape of carrot roots. HortSci. 7:273-276. Banga, O. 1979. Carrot, pp. 291-293. IN: N.W. Simmonds (ai) Evolution of Crops. Longman, London. Barker, A.V. and R Bradfield. 1963. Effect of K and N on free amino acid contents of corn plants. Agron. J. 55:565-570. Barnes, E.C. 1936. Effects of some environmental factors on growth and colour of carrots. Cornell Agric. Exp. Sta. Memoir 186:1-36. Baugerod, 1993. A method to determine the surface area of carrot roots (Personal 77 Communication). Bennett, W.F. 1993. Plant nutrition: Plant Nutrient Utilization and Diagnostic Plant Symptoms, pp. 1-7. IN: W.F. Bennett (ed.) Nutrient Deficiencies and Toxicities in Crop Plants. Amer. Phytopathol. Soc. St. Paul, Minnesota. Benjamin, L.R. and R.A. Sutherland. 1989. Storage-root weight, diameter and length relationships in carrot (Daucus carota L.) and red beet (Beta vulgaris L). J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 113:73-80. Ben-Yehoshua, S. 1987. Transpiration, water stress, and gas exchange, pp. 113-170. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. Ben-Yehoshua, S., B. Shapiro, Z.E. Chen, and S. Laurie. 1983. Mode of action of plastic film in extending shelf life of lemon and bell pepper fruits by alleviation of water stress. Plant Physiol. 73:87-93. Ben-Zioni, A, Y. Vaadia, and H.S. Lips. 1971. Nitrate uptake by roots as regulated by nitrate reduction products of the shoot. Physiol. Plant. 24:288-290. Beringer, L.R. 1980. The role of potassium in crop production, pp. 25-32. IN: Proc. of the joint Intern, seminar. Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland and Fert. Soc. South Africa, Pretoria, SA. Beringer, H. and F. Nothdurft. 1985. Effects of potassium on plant and cellular structures, pp. 351-368. IN: R.D. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison. WI. Beringer, H., K. Koch, and MG. Lindhauer. 1989. Source:sink relationships in potato (Solarium tuberosum) as influenced by potassium chloride or potassium sulphate nutrition, pp. 639-642. IN: MX. van Beusichem (ed.) Plant Nutrition -Physiology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. Berg, L. van den. 1981. The role of humidity, temperature, and atmospheric composition in mamtaining vegetable quality during storage, pp. 95-107. IN: R. Teranishi and FL Barrera-Benitez (eds.) Quality of Selxted Fruits and Vegetables of Norm America. Amer. Chem. Soc, Washington, D.C. Berg, L. van den. 1987. Water vapour pressure, pp. 203-230. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. 78 Berg, L. van den and CP. Lentz. 1966. Effect of temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric composition on changes in quality of carrots during storage. Food Technol. 20:104-107. Berg, L. van den and CP. Lentz. 1971. Moisture loss of vegetables under refrigerated storage conditions. Can Inst. Food Technol. J. 4:143-145. Berg, L. van den and CP. Lentz. 1973. High humidity storage of carrots, parsnips, rutabagas, and cabbage. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 98:129-132. Berg, L. van den and CP. Lentz, 1978. High humidity storage of vegetables and fruits. HortSci. 13:565-569. Bishop, R.F., E.W. Chipman, and CR. MacEachern. 1973. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on yields and nutrient levels in carrots grown on spagnum peat and mineral soils. Comm. in Soil Sci. and Plant Analysis. 4:455-474. Bolton, J. and A. Penny. 1968. The effects of potassium fertilizers on the yield and composition of successive crops of ryegrass, clover, sugar beet, potatoes, kale, and barley on sandy soil at Woburn. J. Agric. Sci. 70:303-311. Bould, C, E.J. Hewitt, and P. Needham. 1984. Diagnosis of Mineral Disorders in Plants. Vol. 1, Principles. Chemical Publishing, New York. Boynton, D. and E.W. Harris. 1950. Relationships between leaf dimensions, leaf area, and shoot length in the Mcintosh apple, Elberta peach, and Italian prune. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 55:16-20. Bleasdale, J.K.A. 1967. The relationship between the weight of a plant part and total weight as affected by density. J. Hort. Sci. 42:51-58. Bleasdale, J.K.A. and R Thompson. 1963. An objective method of recording and comparing the shapes of carrot roots. J. Hort. Sci. 38:232-241. Blevins, D.G. 1985. Role of potassium in protein metabolism in plants, pp. 413-424. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Madison, WI. Bracket!, RE. 1993. Microbial quality. PP. 126-148. IN: RL. Shewfelt and S.E. Prussia (eds.) Postharvest Handling: A Systems Approach. Academic press, Inc. Bradley, G.A., D.A. Smittle, A.A. Kattan, and W.A. Sistrunk. 1967. Planting date, irrigation, harvest sequence and varietal effects on carrot yields and quality. 79 Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 90:223-234. Bradley, G. and D. Smittle. 1965. Carrot quality as affected by variety, planting and harvest dates. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 86:397-405. Brag, H. 1972. The influence of potassium on the transpiration rate and stomatal opening in Triticum aestivum and Piston sativum. Physiol. Plant. 26:250-257. Burton, W.G. 1978. Biochemical and physiological effects of modified atmospheres and their role in quality maintenance, pp. 97-110. IN: H.O. Hultin and M Milner (eds.) Postharvest Biology and Biotechnology. Food Nutr. Press Inc. Conn. USA. Burton, W.G. 1982. Postharvest Physiology of Food Crops. Longman, London. Chapman, K.S.R., L.A. Sparrow, P.R. Hardman, D.N. Wright, and J.R.A. Thorp. 1992. Potassium nutrition of Kennebec and Russet Burbark potatoes in Tasmania: Effect of soil and fertilizer potassium on yield, petiole and tuber potassium concentrations, and tuber quality. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 32:521-527. Clarkson, D.T. and J.B. Hanson. 1980. The mineral nutrition of higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31:239-298. Cooke, G.W. 1967. The Control of Soil Fertility. London, Crosby Lookwood. Cook, RJ. and R i . Papendick. 1978. Role of water potential in microbial growth and development of plant disease with special reference to post harvest pathology. HortSci. 13:559-564. Cocucci, M.C. and S. Dalla Rosa. 1980. Effects of canavanine on IAA- and fusicossin-stimulated cell enlargement, protein extrusion and potassium uptake in maize coleoptiles. Physiol. Plant. 48:239-242. Cummings, G.A. and G.E. Wilcox. 1968. Effect of potassium on quality factors - fruits and vegetables, pp. 243-254. IN: V.J. Kilmer, S.E. Younts, and N.C. Brady (eds.) The Role of Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. Currah, I.E. and A. Barnes. 1979. Vegetable plant part relationships. I. Effects of time and population density on the shoot and storage root weights of carrot (Daucus camtaL.). Ann. Bot. 43:475-486. Daliparthy, J., A.V. Barker, and S.S. Mondal. 1994. Potassium fractions with other nutrients in crops: A review focusing on the tropics. J. Plant Nutr. 17:1859-1886. 80 Daniels, J.A., R Krishnamurthi, and S.H. Rizvi. 1985. A review of effects of carbon dioxide on microbial growth and food quality. J. Food Prot. 48:532-537. Davies, W.P. 1977. Infection of carrot roots by Mycocentraspom acerina (Hartig) Deighton. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East Anglia. CITED IN: Lewis, B.G., W.P. Davies, and B. Garrod. 1981. Wound-healing in carrot roots in relation to infection by Mycocentraspom acerina Ann. Appl. Biol. 99:35-42. Dela Guardia, MD. and M Benlloch. 1980. Effects of potassium and gibberellic acid on stem growth of whole sunflower plants. Physiol. Plant. 49:443-448. Demmig, B. and H. Gimmler. 1983. Properties of the isolated intact chloroplast at cytoplasmic K + concentrations. I. Light-induced cation uptake into intact chloroplast is driven by an electrical potential difference. Plant Physiol. 73:169-174. Den Outer, RW. 1990. Discolourations of carrot (Daucus carota L.) during wet chilling storage. Scientia Hort. 41:201-207. Dennis, C. 1981. The effect of storage conditions on the quality of vegetables and salad crops, pp. 329-339. IN: Goodenough, P.W. and R.K. Atkins (eds.) Quality of Stored and Processed Vegetables and Fruits. Academic Press, London. Desai, B.B. and D.K. Salunke. 1991. Fruits and Vegetables, pp. 301-412. IN: D. K. Salunke and S.S. Deshpande (eds.) Foods of Plant Origin - Production, Technology, and Human Nutrition. An AVI Book, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Dhindsa, RS., CA. Beasley and LP. Ting. 1975. Osmoregulation in cotton fiber, accumulation of potassium and malate during growth. Plant Physiol. 56:394-398. Dibb, D.W. and W.R Thompson. 1985. Interaction of potassium with other nutrients, pp. 515-533. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Dick, J. and V. Shattuck. 1987. Influence of potassium fertilLration on blotchy ripening in processing tomatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:359-363. Dowker, B.D. and J.C. Jackson. 1977. Variation studies in carrots as an aid to breeding V. The effects of environments within a site in the performance of carrot cultivars. J. Hort. Sci. 52:299-307. 81 Dyachenko, V.S. 1979. Quality of carrots after mechanised cropping. Acta Hort. 93:113-123. Eckert, J.W. 1978. Pathological diseases of fresh fruits and vegetables, pp. 161-209. FN: H.O. Hultin and M. Miner (eds.) Postharvest Biology and Biotechnology. Food and Nutrition Press, Westport, Connecticut. Esau, K. 1940. Developmental anatomy of the fleshy storage organ of Daucus carota L. Hilgardia 13:175-225. Esau, K. 1965. Plant Anatomy. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Esau, K. 1977. Anatomy of Seed Plants. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York. Evans, H.J. and G.J. Sorger. 1966. Role of mineral elements with emphasis on the univalent cations. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 17:46-76. Evans, H.J. and R.A. Wildes. 1971. Potassium and its role in enzyme activation, pp. 13-39. IN: Potassium in Biochemistry and Physiology. Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland. Evers, AM. 1989a. Effects of different fertilization practices on the carotene content of carrot. J. Agric. Sci. Finland. 61:7-14. Evers, A M 1989b. Effects of different fertilization practices on the glucose, fructose, sucrose, taste, and texture of carrots. J. Agric. Sci. Finland. 61:113-122. Evers, A M , 1989c. Effects of different fertilization practices on the quality of stored carrots. J. Agric. Sci. Finland. 61:123-134. Evers, A M 1989d. The role of fertilization practices in the yield and quality of carrots. J. Agric. Sci. Finland. 61:329-360. FAO. 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAO Agri. Serv. Bull. 43. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1993. FAO quarterly bulletin of statistics. FAO, Rome, Italy. Ferrari, THJ. and C.MJ. Sluijsmans. 1955. Mottling and magnesium deficiency in oats and their dependence on various factors. Plant and Soil 6:262-299. Fockens, F.H. and H.F.T. Meffert. 1972. Biophysical properties of horticultural products related to loss of moisture during cooling down. J. Sci. Food Agric. 23:285-296. 82 Forshey, C.G. 1969. Potassium nutrition of deciduous fruits. HortSci. 4:39-41. Forster, H. 1973. Relationship between the nutrition and the appearance of'greenback' and 'blossom end rot' in tomato fruits. Acta Hort. 29:319-326. Fritz, D. and J. Weichmann. 1979. Influence of the harvesting date of carrots on quality and quality preservation. Acta Hort. 93:91-100. Gaffney, J.J. 1978. Humidity: Basic principles and measurement techniques. HortSci. 13:551-555. Gallagher, P.A. 1966. The effect of potassium on yield and quality of carrots, pp. 257-263. IN: Proc. 8th Intern. Potash Inst. Congr. Brussels. Geraldson, CM. 1954. The control of blackheart of celery. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 63:353-358. Geraldson, C M 1957. Factors affecting calcium nutrition of celery, tomato, and pepper. SSSAProc. 21:621-625. Gerloff G.C. 1976. Plant efficiencies in the use of N, P, and K. PP. 169-173. IN: J. Wright, (ed.) Plant Adaptations to Mineral Stress in Problem Soils. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York. Giaquinta, RT. 1979. Phloem loading of sucrose. Plant Physiol. 63:744-748. • Gorini, F. 1987. Market preparation methods and shelf life. pp. 489-495. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. Gupta, U.C. 1979. Boron nutrition of crops. Adv. Agron. 31:273-287. Green, J. 1983. The effect of K and Ca on cotyledon expansion and ethylene evolution induced by cytoldnin. Physiol. Plant. 57:57-61. Greenwood, D.J., T.J. Cleaver, MK. Turner, J. Hunt, K.B. Ni.endorf, and S.MH. Loquens. 1980. Comparison of the effects of potassium fertilizer on the yield, potassium content and quality of 22 different vegetables and agricultural crops. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 95:441-456. Grierson, W. and W.F. Wardowski. 1978. Relative humidity effects on the postharvest life of fruits and vegetables. HortSci. 13:570-574. Habben, J. 1972. Einfluss von Dungung und Standort auf die Buildung wertgebender 83 Inhaltsstoffe in Mohren (Daucus camta L.). Diss. Tecrm. Univ., Munchen. CITED IN: Evers, A. M 1989b. Effects of different fertilization practices on the glucose, fructose, sucrose, taste, and texture of canrots. J. Agric. Sci. Finland. 61:113-122. Habben, J. 1973. Quality constituents of carrots as influenced by nitrogen and potassium fertilization. Acta Hort. 29:295-305. Hamilton, H A and R. Bernier. 1975. N-P-K fertilizer effects on yield, composition and residues of lettuce, carrot, and onion grown on an organic soil in Quebec. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:453-461. Hamilton, L.C. and W.L. Agle. 1962. The influence of nutrition on blossom end rot of pimento pepper. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 80:457-4(31. Hardenburg, R.F. 1971. Effect of in-package environment on keeping quality of fruits and vegetables. HortSci. 6:198-201. Hardenburg, R.E., AE. Watada, and C.Y. Wang. 1986. The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and Florist and Nursery Stocks. USDA Handbook 66, Rev. US. Govt. Printing office, Washington, D.C. Harvey, J.M. 1978. Reduction of losses in fresh market fruits and vegetables. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 16:321-342. Heimer, Y.M, A Golan-Gx)ldhirsh, and S.H. Lips. 1990. Potassium deficiency in sur&ow&^Helianthus annus) is associated with changes in protein profiles: An approach to diagnosis of mineral status, pp. 785-789. IN: ML. van Beusichem (ed.) Plant Nutrition - Physiology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. Heeney, H.B. and H. Hill. 1961. The use of foliage analysis to determine fertilizer requirements for apple orchards and some vegetable crops, pp. 16-27. IN: W. Ruether (ed.) Plant Analysis and Fertilizer problems. ALBS Pub. No. 8. Amer. Inst, of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C. CITED IN: N.R. Usherwood. The role of potassium in crop quality, pp. 489-513. IN: R.D. Munson. (ed.) 1985. Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Madison, WI. Hewitt, EJ. 1963. The essential nutrient elements: Requirements and interactions in plants. IN: F.C. Steward (ed.) Plant Physiology, a treatise. Inorg. Nutr. of plants III: 176-192. Hole, CC, A. Barnes, T.H. Thomas, P.A. Scott, and W.E.F. Rankin. 1983. Dry matter distribution between shoot and storage root of carrot (Daucus carota L.). I. 84 Effect of variety. Ann. Bot. 51:175-187. Hole, C.C, G.E.L. Morris, and A.S. Cowper. 1987. Distribution of dry matter between shoot and storage root of field-grown carrots. I. Onset of differences between cultivars. J. Hort. Sci. 62:335-341. Holmes, J.C., W.E. Gill, J.B.A. Rodger, G.R White, and D.N. Lawley. 1961. Experiments with salts and potash on sugar beet in South-East Scotland. Exptl. Husb. 6:1-7. Holmes, J.C., RW. Lang, and E.A. Hunter. 1973. The effect of method and rate of application of common salt and muriate of potash on sugar beet. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 80:239-244. Howarth, MS., S.W. Searcy, and G.S. Birth. 1990. Reflectance characteristics of fresh market carrots. ASAE Trans. 33:961-964. Hsiao, T.C. 1976. Stomate ion transport, pp. 195-221. IN: TJ. Luttge and MG. Pitman (eds.) Encycl. Plant Physiol. New series, Vol. 2B, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Huber, S.C. 1985. Role of potassium in photosynthesis and respiration, pp. 369-396. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. Humble, G.D. and T.C. Hsiao. 1970. Light dependent influx and efflux of potassium of guard cells during stomatal opening and closing. PLant Physiol. 46:483-487. Humble, G.D. and K. Raschke. 1971. Stomatal opening quantitatively related to potassium transport. Plant Physiol. 48:447-453. Hruschka, H.W. 1977. Postharvest weight loss and shrivel in five fruits and five vegetables. USDA. Res. Service, Marketing Res. report No. 1059. Jacobi, B., S. Abas, and B. Steinitz. 1973. Rubidium and potassium absorption. Physiol. Plant. 28:209-214. Jackson, W.A. and RJ. Volk. 1968. Role of potassium in photosynthesis and respiration, pp. 109-145. IN: NJ. Kilmer, S.E. Younts, and N.C. Brand (eds.) The Role of Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. Jaworski, C.A., S J. Kays, and D.A. Smittle. 1978. Effects of nitrogen and potassium fertilization in trickle irrigation on yield of pepper and polebean. HortSci. 13:477-478. 85 Jay, J.M. 1986. mtrinsic and extrinsic parameters of foods that affect microbial growth, pp. 33-60. IN: Modern Food Microbiology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Johnson, K.E.E., J.F. Davis, and E.J. Beine. 1957. Control of magnesium deficiency in Utah 10B celery grown on organic soil. SSSA Proc. 21:528-532. Kader, A. A. 1983. Postharvest quality maintenance of fruits and vegetables in developing countries, pp. 455-470. IN: M Lieberman (ed.) Postharvest Physiology and Crop Preservation. Plenum press, New York. Kader, A.A. 1985. Postharvest biology and technology: An overview, pp. 3-7. IN: A.A. Kader, R.F. Kasmire, F.G. Mitchell, MS. Reid, N.F. Sommer, and J.F. Thompson (eds.) Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops Special Publ. 3311. Univ. of California, Div. of Agric. and Natural Resources, Davis, California. Kader, A.A. 1987. Respiration and gas exchange of vegetables, pp. 25-43. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. Kays, S.J. 1991. Postharvest Physiology of Perishable Plant Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Ketsa, S. 1990. Effect of fruit size on weight loss and shelf life of tangerines. J. Hort. Sci. 65:485-488. Knowles, L.O. and J.A. Flore. 1983. Quantitative and qualitative characterization of carrot root periderm during development. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108:923-928. Kolattukudy, P.E., K. Kronman, and AJ. Poulose. 1975. Determination of structure and composition of suberin from roots of carrot, parsnip, rutabaga, turnip, red beet and sweet potato by combined gas - Liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Plant Physiol. 55:567-573. Kunkel, R. 1947. The effect of various levels of nitrogen and potash on the keeping quality of onions. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 50:361-367. Kushman, L.J. 1975. Effect of injury and relative humidity during curing on weight and volume loss of sweet potatoes during curing and storage. HortSci. 10:275-277. Kvet, J. and J.KL Marshall. 1971. Assessment of leaf area and other assimilating plant surfaces, pp. 517-555. IN; Z. Sestak, J. Catsky, and P. G. Jarvis (eds.) Plant 86 Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk N.V. Publishers, The Hague. Land, D.G. 1988. Negative influences on acceptability and their control, pp. 475-483. IN: D.MH. Thompson (ed.) Food Acceptability. Elsevier, New York. Lang, A. 1983. Turgor-regulated translocation. Plant Cell Environ. 6:683-689. Langer, R.H.M and G.D. Hill. 1991. Agricultural Plants. 2nd edition, Cambridge Univ. Press, Great Britain. Lauchli, A. 1986. Responses and adaptations of crops to salinity. Acta Hort. 190:243-246. Laurie, S., B. Shapiro, and S. Ben-Yehoshua. 1986. Effects of water stress and degree of ripeness on rate of senescence of harvested bell pepper fruit. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111:880-885. Lentz, CP. 1966. Moisture loss of carrots under refrigerated storage conditions. Food Technol. 20:201-204. Leonard, RT. 1985. Absorption of K into root cells, pp. 327-335. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Madison, WI. Lester, S. and B.D. Burton. 1986. Relationship of netted muslonelon fruit water loss to postharvest storage life. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111:727-731. Lewis, B.G., W.P. Davies, and B. Garrod. 1981. Wound-healing in carrot roots in relation to infection by Mycocentraspom acerina. Ann. Appl. Biol. 99:35-42. Liebhardt, W.C. 1968. Effect of potassium on carbohydrate metabolism and translocation, pp. 147-164. IN: N.J. Kilmer, S.E. Younts, and N.C. Brady (eds.) The Role of Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Lips, S.H., MI.M Soares, J.J. Kaiser, and O.A.M Lewis. 1987. K + modulation of nitrogen uptake and assimilation in plants, pp. 233-239. IN: W.R TJllrich, P.J. Aparicio, P.J. Syrett, and F. Castillo (eds.) Inorganic Nitrogen Metabolism. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Locascio, S.J. 1993. Cucurbits: Cucumbers, Muskmelon, and Watermelon, pp. 123-130. IN: W.F. Bennett (ed.) Nutrient Deficiencies and Toxicities in Crop Plants. Amer. Phytopathol. Soc. St. Paul, Minnesota. Lorenz, O.A. and D.N. Maynard. 1980. Knott's handbook for vegetable growers. 2nd 87 edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Lownds, N.K., M Banaras, and P.W. Bosland. 1993. Relationships between postharvest water loss and physical properties of pepper fruit (Capsicum annuum L.). HortSci. 28:1182-1184. Lucas, R.E. 1968. Potassium nutrition of vegetable crops, pp. 489-498. IN: N.J. Kilmer, S.E. Younts, and N.C. Brady (eds.) The Role of Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Lune, P. van and B.J. van Goor. 1977. Ripening disorders of tomatoes as affected by the K/Ca ratio in the culture solution. J. Hort. Sci. 52:173-180. Macleod, R.F., A.A. Kader, and LL. Morris. 1976. Stimulation of ethylene and carbon dioxide production of mature green tomatoes by impact bruising. HortSci. 11:604-606. Maier, N.A. 1986a. Potassium nutrition of irrigated potatoes in South Australia. 1. Effect on tuber yield and the prediction of tuber yield response by soil analysis. Aust. J. Exptl. Agric. 26:717-725. Maier, N.A. 1986b. Potassium nutrition of irrigated potatoes in South Australia 2. Effect on chemical composition and the prediction of luber yield response by plant analysis. Aust. J. Exptl. Agric. 26:727-736. Maier, N.A., A.P. Dahlenburg and A.B. Fresham. 1986. Potassium nutrition on irrigated potatoes in South Australia. 3. Effect on specific gravity, size, and internal bruising of tubers. Aust. J. Exptl. Agric. 26:737-744. Malcolm, E.W., J.H. Tappan, and F.E. Sistler. 1986. The size and shape of typical sweet potatoes. ASAE Trans. 29:678-682. Marriott, J., F.J. Proctor, and N. Vakis. 1974. Effects of storage temperature and packing method on the keeping quality of Cyprus carrots. Acta Hort. 38:379-387. Martin, H.W. and W.C. Liebhardt. 1994. Tomato response to long-term potassium amd lime application on a sandy Ultisol high in non-exchangeable potassium. J. Plant Nutr. 17:1751-1768. Marschner, H. 1971. Why can sodium replace potassium in plants, pp. 50-63. IN: Proc. 5th Colloq. Intern. Potash Inst., Berne, Switzerland. Marschner, H. 1983. General introduction to the mineral nutrition of plants, pp. 5-60. 88 IN: A Lauchli and RL. Bieleski (eds.) Inorganic Plant Nutrition. Encycl. Plant Physiol. New series, Vol. 15A. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Martin, H.W. and W.C. Liebhardt. 1994. Tomato response to long-term potassium and lime application on a sandy ultisol high in non-exchangeable potassium. J. Plant Nutr. 17:1751-1768. Maurer, A.R. and G.W. Eaton. 1971. Calculation of potato tuber surface area. Amer. Potato J. 48:82-87. Maynard, D., N.B. Gersten, and H.F. Vernell. 1963. The cause and control of plant maturity on the calcium level and the occurrence of carrot cavity spot. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 83:506-510. Mengel, K. 1973. Cation competition in higher plants. Bull. Rech. Agron. Gemloux, pp. 168-179. Mengel, K. 1985. Potassium movement within plants and its importance in assimilate transport, pp. 397-411. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA Madison, WI. Mengel, K. and W.W. Arneke. 1982. Effect of K on the water potential, the pressure potential, the osmotic potential, and cell elongation in leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris. Physiol. Plant. 54:402-408. Mengel, K. and E.A Kirkby. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 4th ed. Intern. Potash Inst., Berne, Switzerland. Minvielle, D.P., F.E. Sistler, ME. Wright, and T.R. Way. 1981. Digital analysis of the shape characteristics of agricultural products. ASAE piper No. 81-3536, ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml. Munson, RD. 1968. Interaction of potassium and other ions. pp. 321-353. IN: V.J. Kilmer, S.E. Younts, and N.C. Brandy (eds.) The Role of Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Munson, RD. 1979. Fertilizers improve crop quality, too. pp. 1-4. IN: Agro-knowledge 4. Potash and Phosphate Inst., Atlanta, GA. Munson, RD. 1980. Potassium availability and uptake, pp. 28-66. IN: Anon. 1980. Potassium for Agriculture. Potash and phosphate Inst, Atlanta, GA. Neufeld, J.H. 1980. Soil testing methods and interpretations. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. 89 Neumann, J.A.P. 1990. Variability in the relationship between leaf area and selected stem measures in Douglas Fir. MSc Thesis. Dept. of Forest Science, Univ. of British Columbia. Nikolaeva, MA, T.A. Pisarenko and L.A Nelyubova. 1988. The effects of storage methods on the wound reactions of carrots. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zaevedanii: Pishchevaya Jekhnologiya 2:58-61. Nilsson, T. 1979. Yield, storage ability, quality and chemical composition of carrot, cabbage, and leek at conventional and organic fertilizing. Acta Hort. 93:209-224. Nobel, P.S. 1974. Introduction to Biophysical Plant Physiology. H. Freeman, San Franscisco. Nonnecke, LL. 1989. Vegetable Production. An Avi Book, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Olymbios, C M and W.W. Schwabe. 1977. Effects of aeration and soil compaction on growth of the carrot. J. Hort. Sci. 52:485-500. Oparka, KJ. and K.M Wright. 1988a. Osmotic regulation of starch synthesis in potato tubers. Planta 174:123-126. Oparka, KJ. and K.M Wright. 1988b. Influence of cell turgor on sucrose partitioning in potato tuber storage tissue. Planta 175:520-526. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1976. Intern. Standards of Fruits and Vegetables. Paris: OECD. Outer den, R.W. 1990. Discolourations of carrot (Daucus carota L.) during wet chilling storage. Scientia Hort. 41:201-207. Overley, F.L. and E.L. Overholser. 1931. Some effects of fertilizer upon storage response of Jonathan apples. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 28:572-577. Ozbun, J.L., RJ. Volk, and W.A. Jackson. 1965. Effects of pDtassium deficiency on photosynthesis, respiration and the utilization of photosynthetic reductant by mature bean leaves. Crop Sci. 5:497-500. Page, E.R. and TJ. Cleaver. 1983. Effects of nitrogen fertilizers on the emergence of vegetable seedlings. J. Sci. Food Agric. 34:13-22. Pantastico, B. 1975. Postharvest Physiology and Utilization of Tropical and 90 Subtropical Fruits and Vegetables. AVI Publ. Co. Inc.. Westport, CT. Pedro, G. 1973. Pedogenesis in the humid tropics and the dynamics of K, pp. 23-49. IN: Potassium in Tropical Crops and Soils. Proc. 10th Colloq., Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland. Peirce, L.C. 1987. Vegetable Characteristics, Production and Marketing. John Wiley and sons, Inc., New York. Penningsfeld, F. and L. Forchthammer. 1961. Response of the most important vegetables on a varied nutrient ratio in fertilizer application. Die Gartenbauwics. 8:347-372. CITED IN: K. Mengel and EA. Kirkby. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 4th ed. Intern. Potash Inst., Berne, Switzerland. Peoples, T.R and D.W. Koch. 1979. Role of potassium in carbon dioxide assimilation in Medicago sativaL. Plant Physiol. 63:878-881. Perrenoud, S. 1990. Potassium and plant health. Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland. Phan, CT. 1987. Biochemical and physiological changes during the harvest period, pp. 9-22. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel. Phan, C.T., H. Hsu, and S.K. Sarkar. 1973. Physical and chemical changes in the carrot root during storage. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:635-641. Picha, D.H. and CB. Hall. 1981. rnfluence of potassium, cultivar, and season on tomato graywall and blotchy ripening. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 106:704-708. Raghavan, G.S.V., R Bovell, and M Chayet. 1980. Storability of fresh carrots in a simulated jacketed storage. ASAE Trans. 23:1521-1524 Raschke, K. 1979. Movement of stomate. pp. 383-441. IN: W. Haupt and ME. Feinleib (eds.) Physiology of Movements. Encycl. Plant Physiol. New series, vol. 7. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Reeves, J.H. 1967. The effects of three mineral elements and two management practices upon selected chemical and physical factors in Redhaven and Elberta peaches. MSc. Thesis. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh. CITED IN: N. R Usherwood. 1985. The role of potassium in crop quality, pp. 489-513. IN: RD. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Reeve, E. and J.W. Shive. 1944. Potassium-boron and calcium-boron relationship in plant nutrition. Soil Sci. 57:1-15. 91 Rhodes, M.J.C. 1980. The physiological basis for the conservation of food crops. Prog. Food Nutr. Sci. 4:11-20. Robinson, J.E., K.M. Browne and W.G. Burton. 1975. Storage characteristics of some vegetables and soft fruits. Ann. Appl. Biol. 81:399-408. Rolle, R.S. and G.W. Chism. 1987. Physiological consequences of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. J. Food Qual. 10:157-177. Rooke, E.A. and L. van den Berg. 1985. Equilibrium relative humidity of plant tissue. Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 18:85-88. Ryall, A.L. and W.J. Lipton. 1979. Handling, Transportation and Storage of Fruits and Vegetables. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Vegetables and Melons, AVI Publishing Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticut. Salisbury, F.B. and C.W. Ross. 1992. Plant Physiology. 4th edition. Wadsworth publ. Co., Belmont, CA. Salter, P.J., J.E. Currah, and J.R. Fellows. 1979. The effects of plant density, spatial arrangement and time of harvest on yield and root size in carrots. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 93:431-440. Salunke, D.K. and B.B. Desai. 1984. Postharvest Biotechnology of Vegetables. Vol. 2., CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida. Sanchez, C.A., M Lockhart, and PS. Porter. 1991. Response of radish to phosphorus and potassium fertilization on histosols. HortSci. 26:30-32. Sanford, W.G. 1968. Potassium builds pineapple quality. Better crops plant food 52:12-13. Sarkar, S.K, and C.T. Phan. 1979. Naturally occurring and ethylene-induced phenolic compounds in the carrot root. J. Food protection 42:526-534. Sastry, S.K, 1985. Moisture loss from perishable commodities. Intern. J. Refrig. on 8:343-346. Sastry, S.K,, CD. Baird, and D.E. Buffington. 1978. Transpiration rates of certain fruits and vegetables. ASHRAE Trans. 84:237-255. Sastry, S.K. and D.E. Buffington. 1982. Transpiration rates of stored perishable commodities. A mathematical model and experiments on tomatoes. Intern. J. Refrig. 6:84-96 92 Scharrer, K. and W. Werner. 1957. Dependence of ascorbic acid content on the nutrition of the plant. Z. Pflanzenernahr. Dung. Bodenk. 77:97-110. CITED IN: K. Mengel and E.A. Kirkby. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 4th ed. Intern. Potash Inst., Berne, Switzerland. Schippers, P.A. 1968. The influence of rates of nitrogen and potassium application on the yield and specific gravity of four potato varieties. Eur. Potato J. 11:23-33. Scholz, E.W., H.B. Johnson and W.R Buford. 1963. Heat evaluation rates of some Texas-grown fruits and vegetables. J. Rio. Grande Valley Hort. Sci. 17:170-175. Sekhon, G.S. 1985. Potassium in Indian agriculture. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 33:754-760. Shear, CB. 1975. Calcium-related disorders of fruits and vegetables. HortSci. 10:361-365. Shewfelt, RL. 1986. Postharvest treatment for extending the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. Food Technol. 40:70-80. Shirazi, A. and AC. Cameron. 1993. Measuring transpiration rates of tomato and other detached fruit. HortSci. 28:1035-1038. Shukla, U.C. and A.IC Mukhi. 1979. Sodium, potassium, and zinc relationship in corn. Agron. J. 71:235-237. Singh, S. and CP. Sharma. 1988. Potassium nutrition of cauliflower. J. Hort. Sci. 63:629-633. Sistler, F.E., ME. Wright, and R M Watson. 1983. Measurement of physical properties of biological products with a video analyzer. Proc. of the National Conference on Agricultural Electronics Applications (1I):646-651. Chicago, IL. Smith, S.R and P. Hadley. 1989. Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the seedling emergence of vegetable crops. J. Hort. Sci. 64:581-589. Smith, T.A. and J.L. Gatraway. 1964. N-carbamylputrescine - an intermediate in the formation of putrescine by barley. Phytochemistry 3:23-26. Smith, TA. and C. Sinclair. 1967. The effect of acid feeding on amine formation in barley. Ann. Bot. 31:103-111. Southards, C.J. and CH. Miller. 1962. A greenhouse study on the macroelement 93 nutrition of the carrot. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. sci. 81:335-340. St. Amand, P.C. and W.M Randle. 1991. Ethylene production as possible indicator of wound healing in roots of several sweet potato cultivars. Euphytica 53:97-102. Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's guide. Version 6,Vol. 2. 4th ed., SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. Steingrover, E.E. 1983. Storage of osmotically active compounds in the tap root of Daucus cawta L. J. Exptl. Bot. 34:548-552. Stikeleather, L.F. and K.P. Harrel. Sweet potato damage as measured by weight loss. Paper No. 90-1614. An ASAE meeting presentation. ASAE St. Joseph, ML Stoll, K. and J. Weichmann. 1987. Root vegetables, pp. 541-553. IN: J. Weichmann (ed.) Postharvest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. Strandberg, J.O. and J.M. White. 1979. Effect of soil compaction on carrot roots. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104:344-349. Stromberger, J.A., C.Y. Tsai, and D.M Huber. 1994. Interactions of potassium with nitrogen and their influence on growth and yield potential in maize. J. Plant Nutr. 17:19-37. Suelter, CH. 1970. Enzymes activated by monovalent cations. Science 168:789-795. Suelter, CH. 1974. Monovalent cations in enzyme-catalyzed reactions, pp. 201-251. IN: Siegel (ed.) Metal Ions in Biological Systems. Vol. 3. Marcel Dekker, New York. Suelter, CH. 1985. Role of potassium in enzyme catalysis, pp. 337-349. IN: R.D. Munson (ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI. Sukiimaran, N.P., J.S. Jassal and S.C. Verma. 1990. Quantitative determination of suberin deposition during wound healing in potatoes (Solarium tuberosum L.) . J. Sci. Food Agric. 51:271-274. Thompson, R. 1969. Some factors affecting carrot root shape and size. Euphytica 18:277-285. Tindall, H.D. and F.J. Proctor. 1980. Loss prevention of horticultural crops in the tropics. Prog. Food and Nutr. Sci. 4:25-40. 94 Tinker, P.B., L. Reed, C. Legg, and S. Hoyer-Pederson. 1977. The effects of chloride in fertilizer salts on crop seed germination. J. Sci. Food Agric. 28:1045-1051. Tisdale, S.L., W.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton, and J.L. Havlin. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th edition. MacMillan Publishing Co. New York. Touraine, B., N. Grignon, and C. Grignon. 1988. Charge balance in N03"-fed soybean. Intimation of K + and carboxylate recirculation. Plant Physiol. 88:605-612. Trolldenier, G. and E. Zehler. 1976. Relationship between plant nutrition and rice diseases, pp. 85-93. IN: Fertilizer Use and Plant Health. Proc. 12th Colloq. Intern. Potash Inst., Bern, Switzerland. Tucker, W.G. 1974. The effect of mechanical harvesting on carrot quality and storage performance. Acta Hort. 38:359-372. Ulrich, A. and KL Okhi. 1956. Chlorine, bromine, and sodium as nutrients for sugar beet plants. Plant Physiol. 31:171-181. Ulrich, A and K. Ohki. 1966. Potassium, pp. 362-393. IN: H.D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils. University of California, Division of Agric. Sci. Umiecka, L. 1980. The effect of different factors on the suitability of carrots for prepackaging in polyethylene bags and their storage. Acta Hort. 116:121-132. Umiel, N., AF. Rust, and W.H. Gabelman. 1972. A technique for studying quantitatively the variation in size and shape of carrot roots. HortSci. 7:273-276. USDA 1965. United States Standards for Grades of Topped Carrots. USDA Agric. Marketing Serv., Washington, D.C. Usherwood, N.R. 1985. The role of potassium in crop quality, pp. 489-509. IN: R.D. Munson (ed.) Potassium in agriculture. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. Vereecke, M and D. van Maercke. 1979. Subtractive fertilization experiment on carrots in relation to soil- and leaf analysis, yield and quality. Acta Hort. 93:197-208. Voisey, P. and W. Mason. 1963. Note on an improved device for measuring leaf areas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:247-251. Voisey, P.W. and M Kloek. 1964. A portable leaf area measuring instrument. Can J. 95 Plant Sci. 44:389-391. Wakhloo, J.L. 1975. Studies on the growth, flowering, and production of female sterile flowers as affected by different levels of foliar K in Solanum sisymbrifolium L. J. Exptl. Bot. 26:425-450. Walker, J.C., C.L.V. Edington, and M.U. Naynder. 1961. Tip burn of cabbage - Nature and control. Wisconsin Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 230. Walter, W.M,. Jr., and W.E. Schadel. 1982. A rapid method lor evaluating curing progress in sweet potatoes. J Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107:1129-1133. Walter, W.M, Jr., and W.E. Schadel. 1983. Structure and composition of normal skin (periderm) and wound tissue from cured sweet potatoes. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108:909-914. Weichmann, J. and R Kappel. 1977. Harvesting dates and storage ability of carrots. Acta Hort. 62:191-196. Wells, A.W. 1962. Effects of storage temperature and humidity on loss of weight by fruit. USDA. Marketing Res. Rpt. 539. Whitaker, T.W., A.F. Sherf, W.H. Lange, C.W. Nicklow, and J.D. Radewald. 1970. Carrot production in the United States. USDA-ARS Agric, Handbook. No. 375. Wilcox, G.E. 1964. Effect of potassium on tomato growth and production. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 85:484-489. Wilcox, G.E. 1969. Potassium needs - Diagnosis and use on vegetable crops. HortSci. 4:41. Wills, RB.H., W.B. McGlasson, D. Graham, T.H. Lee, and E.H. Hall. 1989. Postharvest: An Introduction to the Physiology and Handling of Fruits and Vegetables. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Winsor, C.W. 1973. Nutrition, pp. 35-42. IN: H.G. Kingman (ed.) The UK tomato manual. Grower books, London. Wolswinkel, P. and A. Ammerlaan. 1985. Effects of potassium on sucrose and amino acid release from the seed coat of developing seeds of Pisum sativum L. Ann. Bot. 56:35-43. Wyn Jones, RG. and A, Pollard. 1983. Proteins, enzymes and inorganic ions. pp. 528-96 562. IN: A. Lauchli and RL. Bieleski (eds.) Inorganic Plant Nutrition. Encycl. Plant Physiol., New series, Vol. 15B. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Xu, Q.F., CE. Tsai, and CY. Tsai. 1992. Interaction of potassium with the form and amount of nitrogen nutrition on growth and nitrogen uptake of maize. J. Plant Nutr. 15:23-33. Yamaguchi, M, F.D. Howard, and P.A. Minges. 1958. Brown checking of celery, a symptom of boron deficiency. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 71:455-467. Zeiger, E. 1983. The biology of stomatal guard cells. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 34:441-475. Appendices Appendix 1: Analysis of variance for length at early harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 Variety (V) 7 R x V 21 Error 159 Total 190 126.965 93.019 559.620 1536.324 2316.421 42.32180 1.59 0.2221 13.28854 0.50 0.8249 26.64857 2.76 0.0002 9.66241 R-Square = 0.34 C.V = 18.68 Appendix 2: Analysis of variance for greatest diameter at early harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 Variety (V) 7 R x V 21 Error 159 Total 190 7.8082 3.1522 12.6159 32.5586 55.9491 2.602743 4.33 0.0159 0.450324 0.75 0.6340 0.600758 2.93 0.0001 0.204771 R-Square = 0.42 C.V. = 15.68 Appendix 3: Analysis of variance for crown diameter at early harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 6.68265 2.227553 6.69 0.0001 Variety (V) 7 2.93490 0.419272 1.26 0.3163 R x V 21 6.98712 0.332720 2.63 0.0004 Error 159 20.13710 0.126648 Total 190 36.66516 R-Square - 0.45 C.V. = 18.78 Appendix 4: Analysis of variance for weight at early harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 18117.86 6039.288 2.70 0.0715 Variety (V) 7 9771.47 1395.925 0.62 0.7300 R x V 21 46925.72 2234.558 3.06 0.0001 Error 159 115973.60 729.393 Total 190 190725.10 R-Square = 0.39 CV. = 45.66 Appendix 5: Analysis of variance for shape at early harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.048505 0.016167 2.07 0.1351 Variety (V) 7 0.072870 0.010410 1.33 0.2847 R x V 21 0.164191 0.007818 1.17 0.2887 Error 159 1.066803 0.006709 Total 190 1.350517 R-Square = 0.21 CV. = 15.62 Appendix 6: Analysis of variance for length at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 44.500 14.83352 0.96 0.4280 Variety (V) 7 563.806 80.54380 5.24 0.0014 R x V 21 323.022 15.38201 2.21 0.0031 Error 160 1115.785 6.97365 Total 191 2047.114 R-Square = 0.45 CV. = 15.47 Appendix 7: Analysis of variance for greatest diameter at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 2.11913 0.706378 2.74 0.0688 Variety (V) 7 2.55858 0.365511 1.42 0.2498 R x V 21 5.40866 0.257555 1.07 0.3906 Error 160 38.68140 0.241758 Total 191 48.76778 R-Square = 0.21 C.V. = 15.59 Appendix 8: Analysis of variance for crown diameter at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.42494 0.474980 2.73 0.0699 Variety (V) 7 2.48431 0.354902 2.04 0.0979 R x V 21 3.65844 0.174211 1.18 0.2785 Error 160 23.69330 0.148083 Total 191 31.26100 R-Square = 0.24 C.V. = 18.39 Appendix 9: Analysis of variance for weight at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 7002.8 2334.294 1.91 0.1587 Variety (V) 7 15950.6 2278.662 1.87 0.1270 R x V 21 25648.0 1221.336 1.34 0.1570 Error 160 145771.6 911.0727 Total 191 194373.2 R-Square = 0.25 C.V. =40.15 Appendix 10: Analysis of variance for shape at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.087485 0.029161 2.70 0.0714 Variety (V) 7 0.052547 0.007506 0.70 0.6747 R x V 21 0.226414 0.010781 1.46 0.0982 Error 160 1.180500 0.007378 Total 191 1.546947 R-Square = 0.24 CV. = 15.63 Appendix 11: Analysis of variance for specific gravity at early harvest. Source Df SS MS . F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.011609 0.003869 6.82 0.0022 Variety (V) 7 0.004445 0.000635 1.12 0.3879 R x V 21 0.011912 0.000567 1.77 0.0260 Error 159 0.050983 0.000320 Total 190 0.078996 R-Square = 0.35 CV. = 1.72 Appendix 12: Analysis of variance for specific gravity at late harvest. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.001005 0.000335 1.74 0.1897 Variety (V) 7 0.001536 0.000219 1.14 0.3772 R x V 21 0.004048 0.000192 0.62 0.9013 Error 160 0.049916 0.000311 Total 191 0.056507 R-Square = 0.12 CV. = 1.71 101 Appendix 13. Analysis of variance for surface area of carrots at early harvest. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replication (R) 3 70514.469 23504.82 2.67 0.0739 Variety (V) 7 26666.892 3809.55 0.43 0.8706 Errora 21 184899.721 8804.74 127.59 0.0001 Samples S(R*V) 159 358062.951 2251.96 32.63 0.0001 Methods (M) 2 7964.291 3982.14 18.61 0.0001 V*M 14 2099.913 149.99 0.70 0.7619 Error5 47 10057.370 213.98 3.10 0.0001 Error 312 21530.082 69.00 Total 565 683833.664 R-Square = 0.96 C.V. = 8.39 Appendix 14. Analysis of variance for surface area of carrots at late harvest. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 10800.297 3600.099 0.83 0.4944 Variety (V) 7 67252.827 9607.547 2.20 .07621 Errora 21 91555.493 4359.785 56.29 0.0001 Samples S(R*V) 160 464915.666 2905.723 37.52 0.0001 Method (M) 2 22398.139 11199.069 144.60 0.0001 V*M 14 3248.931 232.066 3.00 0.0002 Errorb 48 9902.203 206.296 2.66 0.0001 Error 319 24706.735 77.451 Total 574 696315.371 R-Square = 0.96 C.V. = 7.34 102 Appendix 15. Surface area of carrots using three different methods at early and late harvests. Mean surface areas Early harvest Late harvest Surface • Surface Variety Baugerod replica Slicing Baugerod replica Slicing Carochoice 101 92 95 121 117 133 Gold-Pak 108 102 97 100 96 109 Eagle 94 86 85 116 111 124 Paramount 96 96 88 141 134 150 Imperator Sp. 108 104 100 122 117 133 Caropride 116 117 103 122 115 122 Celloking 100 95 92 108 103 118 Top-Pak 104 97 94 122 107 134 Imperator Sp. = Imperator Special 58 Appendix 16. Analysis of variance for length of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Grade (G) 2 89.76800 44.88400 7.62 0.0040 Sample (S) 9 34.92533 3.880592 0.66 0.7346 Error 18 106.0786 5.893259 Total 29 230.7720 R-Square = 0.54 CV. = 13.01 Appendix 17. Analysis of variance for greatest diameter of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Grade (G) 2 21.91680 10.9584 75.50 0.0001 Sample (S) 9 0.529680 0.0588 0.41 0.9159 Error 18 2.612660 0.1451 Total 29 25.05914 R-Square = 0.89 CV. = 10.37 103 Appendix 18. Analysis of variance for weight of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Grade (G) 2 149610.6 74805.33 47.39 0.0001 Sample (S) 9 9790.567 1087.841 0.69 0.7100 Error 18 28415.40 1578.63 Total 29 187816.6 R-Square = 0.84 CV. = 31.15 Appendix 19. Analysis of variance for shape of three grades of carrots from B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-operative. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Grade (G) 2 0.002940 0.001470 0.17 0.8442 Sample (S) 9 0.076333 0.008481 0.99 0.4832 Error 18 0.154726 0.008595 Total 29 0.234000 R-Square = 0.34 CV. = 15.71 Appendix 20. Analysis of variance for methods for determining surface area of three grades of carrots. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Grade (G) 2 310789.97 155394.98 50.42 0.0001 Samples G(S) 27 83215.37 3082.05 32.31 0.0001 Method (M) 2 10166.72 5083.36 53.30 0.0001 G x M 4 2659.41 664.85 6.97 0.0001 Error 54 5150.38 95.38 Total 89 411981.86 R-Square = 0.98 CV. = 5.63 Appendix 21. Analysis of variance for shoot length at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 338.9420 112.9806 6.41 0.0052 K 5 184.8826 36.97653 2.10 0.1221 Klin 1 81.26153 81.26153 4.61 0.0485 Kqua 1 0.237453 0.237453 0.01 0.9091 Kcub 1 64.57893 64.57893 3.67 0.0748 Kdev 1 1.939124 1.939124 0.11 0.7446 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 36.86400 36.86400 2.09 0.1686 R*K 15 264.2300 17.61533 0.93 0.5313 Error 96 1812.804 18.88337 Total 119 2600.858 R-Square =0.30 C.V. = 6.76 Appendix 22. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1486.292 495.4307 3.64 0.0373 K 5 1597.630 319.5260 2.35 0.0916 Klin 1 1253.458 1253.458 9.22 0.0083 Kqua 1 0.197070 0.197070 0.00 0.9701 Kcub 1 92.32231 92.32231 0.68 0.4228 Kdev 1 83.07190 83.07190 0.61 0.4465 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 165.4048 165.4048 1.22 0.2874 R*K 15 2038.964 135.9309 1.51 0.1187 Error 95 8578.691 90.30202 Total 118 13661.45 R-Square = 0.37 C.V. = 31.65 105 Appendix 23. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 13.22163 4.407210 2.68 0.0846 K 5 20.67741 4.135483 2.51 0.0765 Klin 1 11.44683 11.44683 6.95 0.0187 Kqua 1 0.142683 0.142683 0.09 0.7725 Kcub 1 2.284317 2.284317 1.39 0.2573 Kdev 1 1.503722 1.503722 0.91 0.3545 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 5.292562 5.292562 3.21 0.0932 R*K 15 24.70384 1.646923 1.47 0.1322 Error 94 105.2411 1.119587 Total 117 164.0494 R-Square = 0.35 CV. = 34.72 Appendix 24. Analysis of variance for shoot dry matter at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS .MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6.935875 2.311958 1.33 0.3006 K 5 9.297350 1.859470 1.07 0.4139 Klin 1 1.095784 1.095784 0.63 0.4390 Kqua 1 0.302425 0.302425 0.17 0.6821 Kcub 1 4.091479 4.091479 2.36 0.1453 Kdev 1 0.767118 0.767118 0.44 0.5160 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 2.889498 2.889498 1.67 0.2162 R*K 15 25.99991 1.733327 1.70 0.0637 Error 92 93.62521 1.017665 Total 115 135.7023 R-Square = 0.31 CV. =9.90 Appendix 25. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at first harvest on 22/7/93 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.429719 0.143239 0.50 0.6901 K 5 2.188747 0.437749 1.52 0.2430 Klin 1 0.049522 0.049522 0.17 0.6845 Kqua 1 0.807332 0.807332 2.80 0.1151 Kcub 1 1.111839 1.111839 3.85 0.0684 Kdev 1 0.179054 0.179054 0.62 0.4431 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.002761 0.002761 0.01 0.9234 R*K 15 4.326917 0.288461 1.89 0.0335 Error 93 14.16485 0.152310 Total 116 21.11169 R-Square = 0.32 CV. = 30.98 Appendix 26. Analysis of variance for root length at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 140.2110 46.737021 3.76 0.0339 K 5 99.41060 19.882121 1.60 0.2198 Klin 1 1.570734 1.5707343 0.13 0.7271 Kqua 1 8.914201 8.9142016 0.72 0.4102 Kcub 1 3.986419 3.9864195 0.32 0.5794 Kdev 1 32.61677 32.6167764 2.63 0.1259 KCI vs K 2S0 41 52.09806 52.0980625 4.20 0.0585 R*K 15 186.2778 12.418521 1.17 0.3065 Error 96 1017.032 10.594083 Total 119 1442.931 R-Square = 0.29 CV. = 16.54 Appendix 27. Analysis of variance for fresh root weight at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 205.5566 68.5187 0.28 0.8376 K 5 2031.200 406.241 1.67 0.2020 Klin 1 1180.816 1180.81 4.86 0.0435 Kqua 1 94.23187 94.2318 0.39 0.5428 Kcub 1 79.49345 79.4934 0.33 0.5758 Kdev 1 387.3963 387.396 1.59 0.2260 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 293.0056 293.005 1.21 0.2895 R*K 15 3645.118 243.007 2.29 0.0081 Error 96 10189.54 106.141 Total 119 16071.42 R-Square = 0.36 C.V. = 38.56 Appendix 28. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.096380 0.032126 0.17 0.9181 K 5 1.715290 0.343058 1.77 . 0.1806 Klin 1 1.220370 1.220370 6.28 0.0242 Kqua 1 0.115988 0.115988 0.60 0.4517 Kcub 1 0.184917 0.184917 0.95 0.3448 Kdev 1 0.190642 0.190642 0.98 0.3376 KC1 vs K 2SG 4 1 0.007290 0.007290 0.04 0.8490 R*K 15 2.914530 0.194302 1.93 0.0290 Error 96 9.656920 0.100592 Total 119 14.38312 R-Square = 0.32 C.V. = 14.98 Appendix 29. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 2.419366 0.806455 0.29 0.8302 K 5 15.52561 3.105123 1.13 0.3885 Klin 1 8.242385 8.242385 2.99 0.1043 Kqua 1 0.375791 0.375791 0.14 0.7171 Kcub 1 0.393939 0.393939 0.14 0.7107 Kdev 1 4.291054 4.291054 1.56 0.2313 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 2.079852 2.079852 0.75 0.3988 R*K 15 41.35513 2.757008 2.64 0.002 Error 94 98.09803 1.043596 Total 117 157.6847 R-Square = 0.37 CV. = 38.88 Appendix 30. Analysis of variance for root DM at first harvest on 22/7/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 3.007403 1.002467 0.76 0.5335 K 5 13.89852 2.779704 2.11 0.1207 Klin 1 3.754122 3.754122 2.85 0.1121 Kqua 1 6.538789 6.538789 4.96 0.0417 Kcub 1 1.749960 1.749960 1.33 . 0.2672 Kdev 1 0.397219 0.397219 0.30 0.5911 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 1.485327 1.485327 1.13 0.30 R*K 15 19.77053 1.318035 1.66 0.0718 Error 94 74.43043 0.791813 Total 117 111.2432 R-Square = 0.33 CV. =9.06 109 Appendix 31. Analysis of variance for shoot length at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 162.5550 54.18500 3.56 0.0398 K 5 289.0016 57.80033 3.80 0.0201 Klin 1 28.68012 28.68012 1.89 0.1898 Kqua 1 50.97458 50.97458 3.35 0.0870 Kcub 1 121.5369 121.5369 7.99 0.0127 Kdev 1 56.04196 56.04196 3.69 0.0741 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 33.67225 33.67225 2.22 0.1574 R*K 15 228.0270 15.20180 0.54 0.9125 Error 96 2710.416 28.23350 Total 119 3389.999 R-Square = 0.20 C.V. = 7.13 Appendix 32. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 317.7049 K 5 997.8515 Klin 1 125.6540 Kqua 1 334.0246 Kcub 1 211.2051 Kdev 1 332.9474 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.128823 R*K 15 2353.886 Error 96 16108.17 Total 119 19777.61 105.9016 0.67 0.5807 199.5703 1.27 0.3265 125.6540 0.80 0.3850 334.0246 2.13 0.1652 211.2051 1.35 0.2641 332.9474 2.12 0.1658 0.128823 0.00 0.9775 156.9257 0.94 0.5287 167.7935 R-Square = 0.18 C.V. =31.69 110 Appendix 33. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 14.85783 4.952613 1.23 0.3344 K 5 25.13998 5.027997 1.25 0.3368 Klin 1 0.215765 0.215765 0.05 0.8203 Kqua 1 6.733347 6.733347 1.67 0.2160 Kcub 1 8.309968 8.309968 2.06 0.1719 Kdev 1 6.307732 6.307732 1.56 0.2304 KCI vs K 2S0 41 4.147360 4.147360 1.03 0.3268 R*K 15 60.54482 4.036322 1.02 0.4437 Error 95 376.5665 3.963859 Total 118 477.4678 R-Square = 0.21 CV. = 33.63 Appendix 34. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at second harvest on 22/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 40.61519 13.53839 1.66 0.21 71 K 5 7.807709 1.561542 0.19 0.9610 Klin 1 1.882302 1.882302 0.23 0.6374 Kqua 1 1.039712 1.039712 0.13 0.7257 Kcub 1 0.842902 0.842902 0.10 0.7519 Kdev 1 0.277249 0.277249 0.03 0.8560 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 3.428664 3.428664 0.42 0.5260 R*K 15 121.9943 8.132955 0.65 0.8257 Error 86 1077.425 12.52819 Total 109 1245.752 R-Square = 0.13 CV. =25.14 I l l Appendix 35. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at second harvest on 22/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.484285 0.494761 4.54 0.0187 K 5 0.826253 0.165250 1.52 0.2434 Klin 1 0.009537 0.009537 0.09 0.7714 Kqua 1 0.170520 0.170520 1.56 0.2302 Kcub 1 0.306296 0.306296 2.81 0.1144 Kdev 1 0.213466 0.213466 1.96 0.1820 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.121000 0.121000 1.11 0.3087 R*K 15 1.634860 0.108990 1.53 0.1105 Error 94 6.699520 0.071271 Total 117 10.41640 R-Square = 0.35 CV. = 40.07 Appendix 36. Analysis of variance for root length at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 96.50166 32.16722 3.86 0.0315 K 5 66.07466 13.21493 1.58 0.2243 Klin 1 39.93691 39.93691 4.79 0.0449 Kqua 1 15.47080 15.47080 1.85 0.1934 Kcub 1 9.168980 9.168980 1.10 0.3111 Kdev 1 0.124780 0.124780 0.01. 0.9043 KCI vs K 2S0 41 1.089000 1.089000 0.13 0.7229 R*K 15 125.1313 8.342089 1.46 0.1365 Error 96 548.8320 5.717000 Total 119 836.5396 R-Square = 0.34 CV. = 12.85 112 Appendix 37. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6447.026 2149.008 2.86 0.0721 K 5 4682.620 936.5240 1.25 0.3370 Klin 1 280.4601 280.4601 0.37 0.5505 Kqua 1 2907.968 2907.968 3.87 0.0680 Kcub 1 501.1728 501.1728 0.67 0.4271 Kdev 1 624.5067 624.5067 0.83 0.3765 KC1 vs K 2S0 41 260.2432 260.2432 0.35 0.5651 R*K 15 11279.69 751.9798 1.56 0.1004 Error 93 44808.74 481.8145 Total 116 67070.93 R-Square = 0.33 C.V. = 24.62 Appendix 38. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at second harvest on 22/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.577275 0.192425 1.06 0.3939 K 5 1.130444 0.226088 1.25 0.3352 Klin 1 0.263668 0.263668 1.46 0.2460 Kqua 1 0.429783 0.429783 2.38 0.1441 Kcub 1 0.196882 0.196882 1.09 0.3134 Kdev 1 0.066362 0.066362 0.37 0.5538 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.169000 0.169000 0.93 0.3491 R*K 15 2.713719 0.180914 1.38 0.1749 Error 96 12.62212 0.131480 Total 119 17.04355 R-Square = 0.25 C.V. = 10.55 Appendix 39. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at second harvest on 20/8/93 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 298.7158 99.57196 8.09 0.0019 K 5 72.63715 14.52743 1.18 0.3642 Klin 1 0.459177 0.459177 0.04 0.8494 Kqua 1 42.93824 42.93824 3.49 0.0815 Kcub 1 23.59380 23.59380 1.92 0.1864 Kdev 1 3.408618 3.408618 0.28 0.6064 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.023522 0.023522 0.00 0.9657 R*K 15 184.6153 12.30769 2.16 0.0130 Error 94 535.0093 5.691589 Total 117 1085.899 R-Square = 0.50 CV. =24.99 Appendix 40. Analysis of variance for root DM at second harvest on 20/8/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 102.6798 34.22661 3.94 0.0294 K 5 18.22659 3.645318 0.42 0.8277 Klin 1 0.466300 0.466300 0.05 0.8199 Kqua 1 0.065456 0.065456 0.01 0.9320 Kcub 1 0.462300 0.462300 0.05 0.8206 Kdev 1 0.068346 0.068346 0.01 0.9305 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 16.95131 16.95131 1.95 0.1826 R*K 15 130.2274 8.681830 1.06 0.4043 Error 87 712.1376 8.185490 Total 110 967.6184 R-Square = 0.26 CV. =26.39 114 Appendix 41. Analysis of variance for shoot length at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 267.6726 89.22422 1.34 0.2992 K 5 288.6346 57.72693 0.87 0.5262 Klin 1 55.02173 55.02173 0.83 0.3780 Kqua 1 1.908000 1.908000 0.03 0.8679 Kcub 1 24.68414 24.68414 0.37 0.5519 Kdev 1 14.69737 14.69737 0.22 0.6454 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 192.2822 192.2822 2.88 0.1101 R*K 15 999.8233 66.65489 2.27 0.0087 Error 96 2820.128 29.37633 Total 119 4376.258 R-Square = 0.35 C.V .= 7.59 Appendix 42. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 42.21910 14.07303 0.13 0.9407 K 5 403.7619 80.75238 0.75 0.6012 Klin 1 219.6104 219.6104 2.03 0.1747 Kqua 1 82.30804 82.30804 0.76 0.3969 Kcub 1 0.060265 0.060265 0.00 0.9815 Kdev 1 93.76675 93.76675 0.87 0.3666 KC1 vs K 2S0 41 7.858822 7.858822 0.07 0.7912 R*K 15 1622.977 108.1984 1.09 0.3723 Error 96 9494.259 98.89854 Total 119 11563.21 R-Square = 0.17 C.V =47.86 115 Appendix 43. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.460946 0.486982 0.15 0.9275 K 5 9.800805 1.960161' 0.61 0.6957 Klin 1 2.985842 2.985842 0.93 0.3514 Kqua 1 3.011143 3.011143 0.93 0.3494 Kcub 1 0.032681 0.032681 0.01 0.9212 Kdev 1 3.717163 3.717163 1.15 0.3001 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 0.024485 0.024485 0.01 0.9317 R*K 15 48.40739 3.227159 0.88 0.5894 Error 95 348.8941 3.672569 Total 118 408.5662 R-Square = 0.14 C.V. = 51.49 Appendix 44. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 0.210071 0.070023 10.48 0.0006 K 5 0.021329 0.004265 0.64 0.6741 Klin 1 0.001328 0.001328 0.20 0.6621 Kqua 1 0.005660. 0.005660 0.85 0.3720 Kcub 1 0.000073 0.000073 0.01 0.9177 Kdev 1 0.010882 0.010882 1.63 0.2214 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.002556 0.002556 0.38 0.5455 R*K 15 0.100254 0.006683 0.82 0.6487 Error 87 0.705711 0.008111 Total 110 1.045936 R-Square = 0.32 C.V. = 28.84 Appendix 45. Analysis of variance for root length at third harvest on 4/10/93 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 35.76506 11.92168 0.71 0.5608 K 5 70.52038 14.10407 0.84 0.5417 Klin 1 0.562603 0.562603 0.03 0.8572 Kqua 1 31.60379 31.60379 1.88 0.1902 Kcub 1 6.601869 6.601869 0.39 0.5400 Kdev 1 32.02953 32.02953 1.91 0.1874 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.028090 0.028090 0.00 0.9679 R*K 15 251.7770 16.78513 2.06 0.0187 Error 96 783.5067 8.161529 Total 119 1141.569 R-Square = 0.31 CV. = 14.79 Appendix 46. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at third harvest on 4/10/93 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6375.223 2125.074 0.82 0.5044 K 5 18232.64 3646.528 1.40 0.2792 Klin 1 2639.881 2639.881 1.01 0.3297 Kqua 1 5262.805 5262.805 2.02 0.1754 Kcub 1 1911.540 1911.540 0.73 0.4048 Kdev 1 8482.396 8482.396 3.26 0.0910 K C v s l K 2 S 0 4 l 10.44484 10.44484 0.00 0.9503 R*K 15 39016.00 2601.066 1.13 0.3448 Error 96 221843.9 2310.874 Total 119 285467.8 R-Square = 0.22 CV. = 39.56 Appendix 47. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.442940 0.480980 1.37 0.2895 K 5 3.794340 0.758868 2.16 0.1132 Klin 1 0.570173 0.570173 1.63 0.2216 Kqua 1 1.254272 1.254272 3.58 0.0780 Kcub 1 0.113593 0.113593 0.32 0.5776 Kdev 1 1.780025 1.780025 5.08 0.0396 KClvs K 2S0 41 0.083722 0.083722 0.24 0.6321 R*K 15 5.259080 0.350605 0.93 0.5299 Error 96 36.02956 0.375307 Total 119 46.52592 R-Square = 0.22 C.V. = 17.02 Appendix 48. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at third harvest on 4/10/93. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 368.3527 122.7842 4.15 0.0251 K 5 215.7381 43.14762 1.46 0.2613 Klin 1 22.29213 22.29213 0.75 0.3993 Kqua 1 8.934327 8.934327 0.30 0.5909 Kcub 1 6.094045 6.094045 0.21 0.6566 Kdev 1 178.7725 178.7725 6.04 0.0267 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 1.002877 1.002877 0.03 0.8565 R*K 15 444.1872 29.61248 1.30 0.2205 Error 88 2007.069 22.80760 Total 111 3070.344 R-Square = 0.34 C.V = 38.85 118 Appendix 49. Analysis of variance for shoot length at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 193.3569 64.45230 1.60 0.2308 K 5 212.3274 42.46548 1.06 0.4225 Klin 1 104.2426 104.2426 2.59 0.1283 Kqua 1 3.253415 3.253415 0.08 0.7800 Kcub 1 43.07225 43.07225 1.07 0.3172 Kdev 1 1.740541 1.740541 0.04 0.8380 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 59.78025 59.78025 1.49 0.2417 R*K 15 603.5855 40.23903 2.42 0.0049 Error 96 1593.568 16.59967 Total 119 2602.837 R-Square = 0.38 CV. = 10.87 Appendix 50. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 22.69078 7.563594 0.22 0.8827 K 5 11.59317 2.318635 0.07 0.9963 Klin 1 2.576337 2.576337 0.07 0.7892 Kqua 1 0.915884 0.915884 0.03 0.8732 Kcub 1 0.572058 0.572058 0.02 0.8996 Kdev 1 1.711436 1.711436 0.05 0.8274 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 5.836960 5.836960 0.17 0.6878 R*K 15 521.6357 34.77571 4.59 0.0001 Error 96 726.7790 7.570615 Total 119 1282.698 R-Square = 0.43 CV. =21.85 119 Appendix 51. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 0.225260 0.075086 0.17 0.9134 K 5 0.196596 0.039319 0.09 0.9926 Klin 1 0.012990 0.012990 0.03 0.8652 Kqua 1 0.000053 0.000053 0.00 0.9913 Kcub 1 0.002307 0.002307 0.01 0.9429 Kdev 1 0.121978 0.121978 0.28 0.6045 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.059290 0.059290 0.14 0.7174 R*K 15 6.536170 0.435744 3.67 0.0001 Error 96 11.40512 0.118803 Total 119 18.36314 R-Square = 0.37 C.V = 25.20 Appendix 52. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at first harvest on 27/6/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 5.339909 1.779969 1.16 0.3559 K 5 9.662094 1.932418 1.26 0.3293 Klin 1 3.921570 3.921570 2.57 0.1300 Kqua 1 2.619708 2.619708 1.71 0.2101 Kcub 1 0.018360 0.018360 0.01 0.9142 Kdev 1 3.036068 3.036068 1.99 0.1791 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.045562 0.045562 0.03 0.8652 R*K 15 22.92049 1.528033 2.49 0.0039 Error 96 58.88968 0.613434 Total 119 96.81217 R-Square = 0.39 C.V. = 7.23 Appendix 53. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.384984 0.461661 1.69 0.2116 K 5 0.599955 0.119991 0.44 0.8141 Klin 1 0.050028 0.050028 0.18 0.6747 Kqua 1 0.075963 0.075963 0.28 0.6056 Kcub 1 0.142590 0.142590 0.52 0.4810 Kdev 1 0.323355 0.323355 1.18 0.2937 KCI vs K 2S0 41 0.012306 0.012306 0.05 0.8347 R*K 15 4.095375 0.273025 2.11 0.0159 Error 93 12.05203 0.129591 Total 116 18.13330 R-Square = 0.33 CV. = 22.81 Appendix 54. Analysis of variance for root length at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 7.238666 2.412888 0.39 0.7594 K 5 16.26800 3.253600 0.53 0.7498 Klin 1 0.242856 0.242856 0.04 0.8449 Kqua 1 1.991549 1.991549 0.32 0.5771 Kcub 1 11.05624 11.05624 1.80 0.1992 Kdev 1 2.323296 2.323296 0.38 0.5474 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.529000 0.529000 0.09 0.7730 R*K 15 91.94533 6.129688 1.80 0.0449 Error 96 326.2560 3.398500 Total 119 441.7080 R-Square = 0.26 CV. = 13.17 121 Appendix 55. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at first harvest on 27/6/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 57.33268 19.11089 0.60 0.6252 K 5 11.42663 2.285327 0.07 0.9956 Klin 1 0.916041 0.916041 0.03 0.8677 Kqua 1 3.291999 3.291999 0.10 0.7524 Kcub 1 4.027092 4.027092 0.13 0.7272 Kdev 1 1.015753 1.015753 0.03 0.8607 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 2.157602 2.157602 0.07 0.7983 R*K 15 478.1839 31.87892 2.39 0.0056 Error 96 1281.026 13.34402 Total 119 1827.969 R-Square = 0.29 C.V = 35.45 Appendix 56. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at first harvest on 27/6/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 0.360557 0.120185 0.74 0.5419 K 5 0.135278 0.027055 0.17 0.9706 Klin 1 0.058461 0.058461 0.36 0.5562 Kqua 1 0.014536 0.014536 0.09 0.7682 Kcub 1 0.000910 0.000910 0.01 0.9411 Kdev 1 0.054699 0.054699 0.34 0.5690 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.006250 0.006250 0.04 0.8466 R*K 15 2.420102 0.161340 3.38 0.0001 Error 94 4.491590 0.047782 Total 117 7.405081 R-Square = 0.39 CV. = 15.11 Appendix 57. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 0.340283 0.113427 0.44 0.7262 K 5 0.050123 0.010024 0.04 0.9990 Klin 1 0.001331 0.001331 0.01 0.9435 Kqua 1 0.003930 0.003930 0.02 0.9031 Kcub 1 0.014413 0.014413 0.06 0.8158 Kdev 1 0.003947 0.003947 0.02 0.9029 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 0.025969 0.025969 0.10 0.7547 R*K 15 3.847409 0.256493 2.53 0.0035 Error 93 9.430115 0.101399 Total 116 13.65389 R-Square = 0.30 C.V = 34.40 Appendix 58. Analysis of variance for root DM at first harvest on 27/6/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 4.00058871 1.33352957 2.72 0.0816 K 5 1.05711901 0.21142380 0.43 0.8202 Klin 1 0.06206057 0.06206057 0.13 0.7271 Kqua 1 0.79266408 0.79266408 1.62 0.2231 Kcub 1 0.00076609 0.00076609 0.00 0.9690 Kdev 1 0.03844884 0.03844884 0.08 0.7834 KClvs K 2S0 41 0.16704545 0.16704545 0.34 0.5683 R*K 15 7.36201703 0.49080114 0.63 0.8440 Error 93 72.5599400 0.7802144 Total 116 85.0120581 R-Square = 0.14 C.V. = 9.82 Appendix 59. Analysis of variance for shoot length at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 695.8955 231.9651 6.05 0.0065 K 5 262.9187 52.58375 1.37 0.2893 Klin 1 128.3294 128.3294 3.35 0.0872 Kqua 1 112.9609 112.9609 2.95 0.1065 Kcub 1 0.963806 0.963806 0.03 0.8761 Kdev 1 16.22423 16.22423 0.42 0.5251 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 3.721000 3.721000 0.10 0.7596 R*K 15 574.7429 38.31619 0.85 0.6182 Error 96 4315.892 44.95721 Total 119 5849.449 R-Square = 0.26 CV. = 11.44 Appendix 60. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 5792.730 1930.910 8.08 0.0019 K 5 351.5195 70.30392 0.29 0.9086 Klin 1 0.000354 0.000354 0.00 0.9990 Kqua 1 6.453301 6.453301 0.03 0.8716 Kcub 1 256.6890 256.6890 1.07 0.3163 Kdev 1 92.77498 92.77498 0.39 0.5425 KCI vs K 2S0 41 0.114490 0.114490 0.00 0.9828 R*K 15 3583.007 238.8671 1.27 0.2386 Error 95 17913.44 188.5625 Total 118 27654.98 R-Square = 0.35 CV. =35.31 124 Appendix 61. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at second harvest on 2911 19A. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 87.69139 29.23046 7.78 0.0023 K 5 6.517979 1.303595 0.35 0.8763 Klin 1 0.002761 0.002761 0.00 0.9787 Kqua 1 0.597569 0.597569 0.16 0.6957 Kcub 1 3.132154 3.132154 0.83 0.3757 Kdev 1 3.010763 3.010763 0.80 0.3849 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.001094 0.001094 0.00 0.9866 R*K 15 56.36825 3.757883 1.01 0.4561 Error 93 347.4064 3.735553 Total 116 500.7037 R-Square = 0.30 C.V. = 38.87 Appendix 62. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry weight) at second harve on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.419978 0.139992 7.90 0.0022 K 5 0.165295 0.033059 1.87 0.1605 Klin 1 0.106144 0.106144 5.99 0.0272 Kqua 1 0.001892 0.001892 0.11 0.7483 Kcub 1 0.000652 0.000652 0.04 0.8504 Kdev 1 0.012451 0.012451 0.70 0.4151 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.043367 0.043367 2.45 0.1386 R*K 15 0.265837 0.017722 0.90 0.5618 Error 93 1.822465 0.019596 Total 116 2.701622 R-Square = 0.32 C.V. = 27.32 i Appendix 63. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 5.346967 1.782322 2.28 0.1206 K 5 2.847506 0.569501 0.73 0.6119 Klin 1 0.441366 0.441366 0.57 0.4636 Kqua 1 0.626399 0.626399 0.80 0.3844 Kcub 1 1.690119 1.690119 2.17 0.1617 Kdev 1 0.031155 0.031155 0.04 0.8443 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 0.024363 0.024363 0.03 0.8621 R*K 15 11.70206 0.780137 0.69 0.7888 Error 93 105.2255 1.131457 Total 116 125.4312 R-Square = 0.16 C.V. = 8.30 Appendix 64. Analysis of variance for root length at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 12.48491 4.161638 0.50 0.6911 K 5 55.68441 11.13688 1.33 0.3062 Klin 1 22.50967 22.50967 2.68 0.1225 Kqua 1 0.772992 0.772992 0.09 0.7659 Kcub 1 1.001019 1.001019 0.12 0.7348 Kdev 1 0.920353 0.920353 0.11 0.7453 KClvs K 2S0 41 30.45025 30.45025 3.62 0.0764 R*K 15 126.0745 8.404972 1.12 0.3481 Error 96 719.3240 7.492958 Total 119 913.5679 R-Square = 0.21 C.V. = 14.27 Appendix 65. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at second harvest on 2911 19A Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 9007.348 3002.449 2.18 0.1324 K 5 8276.173 1655.234 1.20 0.3541 Klin 1 4445.138 4445.138 3.23 0.0923 Kqua 1 140.6543 140.6543 0.10 0.7535 Kcub 1 584.4202 584.4202 0.43 0.5243 Kdev 1 1109.527 1109.527 0.81 0.3832 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 2003.498 2003.498 1.46 0.2461 R*K 15 20624.00 1374.933 1.80 0.0456 Error 96 73371.82 764.2899 Total 119 111279.3 R-Square = 0.34 CV. = 30.79 Appendix 66. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 87.36153 29.12051 2.07 0.1475 K 5 82.13713 16.42742 1.17 0.3702 Klin 1 49.56279 49.56279 3.52 0.0802 Kqua 1 0.298768 0.298768 0.02 0.8861 Kcub 1 1.562436 1.562436 0.11 0.7437 Kdev 1 11.01042 11.01042 0.78 0.3905 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 19.68409 19.68409 1.40 0.2555 R*K 15 211.2010 14.08007 1.58 0.0923 Error 96 852.9830 8.885240 Total 119 1233.682 R-Square = 0.30 CV. = 29.88 127 Appendix 67. Analysis of variance for root DM at second harvest on 29/7/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6.403656 2.134552 1.73 0.2040 K 5 3.174156 0.634831 0.51 0.7616 Klin 1 0.400121 0.400121 0.32 0.5776 Kqua 1 0.816830 0.816830 0.66 0.4288 Kcub 1 1.362240 1.362240 1.10 0.3102 Kdev 1 0.455463 0.455463 0.37 0.5527 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.162562 0.162562 0.13 0.7218 R*K 15 18.52278 1.234852 1.30 0.2100 Error 96 91.28660 0.950902 Total 119 119.3871 R-Square = 0.23 C.V. = 8.71 Appendix 68. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at second harvest on 29/794. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1.796337 0.598779 1.96 0.1636 K 5 1.279480 0.255896 0.84 0.5437 Klin 1 0.325082 0.325082 1.06 0.3188 Kqua 1 0.010632 0.010632 0.03 0.8546 Kcub 1 0.324861 0.324861 1.06 0.3189 Kdev 1 0.520064 0.520064 1.70 0.2118 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.092160 0.092160 0.30 0.5910 R*K 15 4.585647 0.305709 1.58 0.0933 Error 95 18.35454 0.193205 Total 118 26.20992 R-Square = 0.29 C.V. = 13.60 128 Appendix 69. Analysis of variance for shoot length at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 504.3675 168.1225 2.58 0.0921 K 5 490.6192 98.12385 1.51 0.2461 Klin 1 160.9490 160.9490 2.47 0.1368 Kqua 1 232.8215 232.8215 3.58 0.0781 Kcub 1 40.09739 40.09739 0.62 0.4448 Kdev 1 3.214009 3.214009 0.05 0.8272 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 61.70187 61.70187 0.95 0.3458 R*K 15 976.7896 65.11930 1.93 0.0293 Error 95 3206.174 33.74920 Total 118 5196.544 R-Square = 0.38 CV. - 9.77 Appendix 70. Analysis of variance for shoot fresh weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 147.5041 49.16806 0.23 0.8709 K 5 729.3629 145.8725 0.70 0.6349 Klin 1 3.987366 3.987366 0.02 0.8922 Kqua 1 400.3871 400.3871 1.91 0.1873 Kcub 1 18.46285 18.46285 0.09 0.7707 Kdev 1 308.8920 308.8920 1.47 0.2436 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 1.618155 1.618155 0.01 0.9312 R*K 15 3145.434 209.6956 1.30 0.2185 Error 94 15174.67 161.4326 Total 117 19149.72 R-Square = 0.20 CV. = 35.56 Appendix 71. Analysis of variance for shoot dry weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.243639 0.081213 0.02 0.9959 K 5 14.06792 2.813584 0.71 0.6271 Klin 1 0.101933 0.101933 0.03 0.8750 Kqua 1 5.011457 5.011457 1.26 0.2794 Kcub 1 2.472970 2.472970 0.62 0.4427 Kdev 1 5.836679 5.836679 1.47 0.2445 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 0.383527 0.383527 0.10 0.7605 R*K 15 59.67731 3.978487 1.23 0.2628 Error 92 297.0562 3.228871 Total 115 372.4275 R-Square = 0.20 C.V. = 36.88 Appendix 72. Analysis of variance for shoot DM at third harvest on 5/8/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 10.30494 3.434981 5.41 0.0100 K 5 6.644815 1.328963 2.09 0.1228 Klin 1 0.808678 0.808678 1.27 0.2767 Kqua 1 0.467145 0.467145 0.74 0.4044 Kcub 1 5.049800 5.049800 7.96 0.0129 Kdev 1 0.293748 0.293748 0.46 0.5066 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 0.110006 0.110006 0.17 0.6830 R*K 15 9.518853 0.634590 0.59 0.8790 Error 90 97.55478 1.083942 Total 113 124.0258 R-Square = 0.21 C.V. = 7.49 Appendix 73. Analysis of variance for shoot/root ratio (dry wt) at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.035140 0.011713 0.47 0.7049 K 5 0.136513 0.027302 1.11 0.3983 Klin 1 0.049054 0.049054 1.99 0.1792 Kqua 1 0.058629 0.058629 2.37 0.1443 Kcub 1 0.000002 0.000002 0.00 0.9915 Kdev 1 0.005014 0.005014 0.20 0.6588 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.023163 0.023163 0.94 0.3482 R*K 15 0.370564 0.024704 1.12 0.3472 Error 88 1.933225 0.021968 Total 111 2.479591 R-Square = 0.22 CV. = 34.85 Appendix 74. Analysis of variance for root length at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 74.60648 24.86882 1.60 0.2308 K 5 27.92008 5.584017 0.36 0.8681 Klin 1 12.43650 12.43650 0.80 0.3849 Kqua 1 7.644819 7.644819 0.49 0.4936 Kcub 1 1.401921 1.401921 0.09 0.7679 Kdev 1 0.713289 0.713289 0.05 0.8332 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 5.490969 5.490969 0.35 0.5609 R*K 15 232.8867 15.52578 2.79 0.0013 Error 95 529.3047 5.571629 Total 118 871.8923 R-Square = 0.39 CV. = 11.48 131 Appendix 75. Analysis of variance for root fresh weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) K Klin Kqua Kcub Kdev KC1 vs K 2S0 4 R*K Error Total 3 1634.881 544.9603 0.54 0.6619 5 4577.838 915.5676 0.91 0.5016 1 1545.832 1545.832 1.53 0.2347 1 912.5760 912.5760 0.91 0.3565 1 0.071480 0.071480 0.00 0.9934 1 662.2363 662.2334 0.66 0.4304 1 1457.331 1457.331 1.45 0.2479 15 15124.92 1008.328 1.52 0.1139 96 63771.39 664.2853 119 85109.03 R-Square = 0.25 C.V. = 24.88 Appendix 76. Analysis of variance for root greatest diameter at third harvest on 5/8/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 0.042649 K 5 0.535184 Klin 1 0.062501 Kqua 1 0.172506 Kcub 1 0.059616 Kdev 1 0.237510 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.000000 R*K 15 2.699405 Error 96 14.61616 Total 119 17.89339 0.014216 0.08 0.9704 0.107036 0.59 0.7045 0.062501 0.35 0.5644 0.172506 0.96 0.3431 0.059616 0.33 0.5734 0.237510 1.32 0.2686 0.000000 0.00 1.0000 0.179960 1.18 0.2989 0.152251 R-Square = 0.18 C.V. = 11.45 132 Appendix 77. Analysis of variance for root dry weight at third harvest on 5/8/94 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 24.00640 8.002160 0.55 0.6532 K 5 82.21616 16.44323 1.14 0.3828 Klin 1 18.45675 18.45675 1.28 0.2760 Kqua 1 9.806125 9.806125 0.68 0.4228 Kcub 1 0.625255 0.625255 0.04 0.8380 Kdev 1 24.72385 24.72385 1.71 0.2104 K C l v s K 2 S 0 4 l 28.07300 28.07300 1.94 0.1835 R*K 15 216.6079 14.44052 1.76 0.0529 Error 92 755.1078 8.207694 Total 115 1079.496 R-Square = 0.30 CV. =24.24 Appendix 78. Analysis of variance for root DM at third harvest on 5/8/94. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 0.858565 0.286188 0.27 0.8474 K 5 4.357066 0.871413 0.82 0.5564 Klin 1 0.033771 0.033771 0.03 0.8612 Kqua 1 0.039778 0.039778 0.04 0.8495 Kcub 1 1.312946 1.312946 1.23 0.2849 Kdev 1 2.498796 2.498796 2.34 0.1468 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.306250 0.306250 0.29 0.6001 R*K 15 16.01105 1.067403 1.38 0.1732 Error 92 71.09009 0.772718 Total 115 92.63930 R-Square = 0.23 CV. = 7.71 Appendix 79. Analysis of variance for marketable yield in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 181.6967 60.56559 0.36 0.7810 K 5 1305.217 261.0435 1.56 0.2302 K l i n 1 335.1946 335.1946 2.01 0.1771 K qua 1 521.7021 521.7021 3.12 0.0975 Kcub 1 115.2856 115.2856 0.69 0.4192 Kdev 1 332.3191 332.3191 1.99 0.1788 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 2.820312 2.820312 0.02 0.8983 Error 15 2505.821 167.0547 Total 23 3992.735 R-Square = 0.37 C.V. = 19.87 Appendix 80. Analysis of variance for unmarketable yield in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr >F Replicate (R) 3 39.52661 13.17553 0.88 0.4734 K 5 62.68498 12.53699 0.84 0.5433 K l i n 1 2.026291 2.026291 0.14 0.7180 K qua 1 18.62171 18.62171 1.24 0.2822 Kcub 1 11.60378 11.60378 0.78 0.3925 Kdev 1 22.10311 22.10311 1.48 0.2430 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 8.673612 8.673612 0.58 0.4583 Error 15 224.4933 14.96622 Total 23 326.7049 R-Square = 0.31 C.V. =37.67 Appendix 81. Analysis of variance for total yield in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 243.3165 81.10550 0.46 0.7142 K 5 1362.719 272.5439 1.55 0.2347 K l i n 1 389.3413 389.3413 2.21 0.1579 K qua 1 737.0179 737.0179 4.18 0.0588 Kcub 1 53.76062 53.76062 0.31 0.5889 Kdev 1 182.9551 182.9551 1.04 0.3244 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 1.584200 1.584200 0.01 0.9257 Error 15 2643.675 176.2450 Total 23 4249.711 R-Square = 0.37 CV. = 17.63 Appendix 82. Analysis of variance for marketable yield in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6.224908 2.074969 0.32 0.8124 K 5 179.2036 35.84072 5.49 0.0046 K l i n 1 83.28595 83.28595 12.75 0.0028 K qua 1 0.479291 0.479291 0.07 0.7902 Kcub 1 11.72353 11.72353 1.80 0.2002 Kdev 1 17.05803 17.05803 2.61 0.1269 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 66.36096 66.36096 10.16 0.0061 Error 15 97.96081 6.530721 Total 23 283.389331 R-Square = 0.65 CV. = 13.87 Appendix 83. Analysis of variance for unmarketable yield in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 19.13857 6.379525 3.06 0.0604 K 5 26.64213 5.328426 2.56 0.0726 K l i n 1 18.90953 18.90953 9.08 * 0.0087 Kqua 1 0.835321 0.835321 0.40 0.5361 Kcub 1 2.082901 2.082901 1.00 0.3332 Kdev 1 2.545966 2.545966 1.22 0.2863 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 2.300298 2.300298 1.10 0.3099 Error 15 31.24196 2.082797 Total 23 77.02267 R-Square = 0.59 C.V. = 37.45 Appendix 84. Analysis of variance for total yield 1994 in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 37.15581 12.38527 1.63 0.2251 K 5 314.5986 62.91972 8.27 0.0006 K l i n 1 181.5777 181.5777 23.86 0.0002 Kqua 1 2.580019 2.580019 0.34 0.5691 Kcub 1 3.924731 3.924731 0.52 0.4837 K dev 1 32.78390 32.78390 4.31 0.0556 KClvs K 2S0 4 1 93.36563 93.36563 12.27 0.0032 Error 15 114.1618 7.610790 Total 23 465.9162 R-Square = 0.75 C.V. = 12.38 136 Appendix 85. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for weight loss of carrots in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 799.2860 266.428 4.81 0.0001 K 5 194.4033 38.8806 0.70 0.2025 R*K 18 830.6287 55.3752 2.08 0.0113 Humidity (H) 1 7110.111 7110.11 130.50 0.0001 K*H 5 165.7945 33.1589 0.61 0.2873 R*H(K) 8 980.1029 54.4501 2.05 0.0083 Error 238 6322.635 26.5657 Time 8 19832.39 2479.04 2253.12 0.0001 Time*R 24 116.9535 4.87306 4.430 0.0001 Time*K 40 98.47913 2.46197 2.240 0.0001 Time*R*K 120 338.3997 2.81999 2.560 0.0001 Time*H 8 2514.320 314.290 285.650 0.0001 Time*K*H 40 102.6902 2.56725 2.330 0.0001 Time*R*H(K) 144 378.3275 2.62727 2.390 0.0001 Error (Time) 1904 2094.921 1.10027 -137 Appendix 86. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 2nd day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate(R) 3 5.559529 1.853176 4.13 0.0070 K 5 2.626515 0.525303 1.17 0.3240 Klin 1 0.513155 0.513155 0.50 0.4908 Kqua 1 1.654744 1.654744 1.61 0.2240 Kcub 1 0.054367 0.054367 0.05 0.8213 Kdev 1 0.299637 0.299637 0.29 0.5973 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.103359 0.103359 0.10 0.7556 R*K 15 15.42677 1.028451 2.29 0.0047 Humidity (H) 1 9.790312 9.790312 21.83 0.0001 K*H 5 3.094054 0.618810 1.38 0.2326 R*H(K) 18 21.66475 1.203597 2.68 0.0004 Error 240 107.6594 0.448581 Total 287 165.8213 R-Square = 0.35 CV. = 57.69 Appendix 87. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 4th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 38.48310 12.82770 5.19 0.0117 K 5 8.707962 1.741592 0.70 0.6286 Klin 1 1.079812 1.079812 0.44 0.5186 Kqua 1 0.714300 0.714300 0.29 0.5987 Kcub 1 2.699942 2.699942 1.09 0.3124 Kdev 1 1.482278 1.482278 0.60 0.4506 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 2.740504 2.740504 1.11 0.3089 R*K 15 37.05944 2.470629 1.98 0.0174 Humidity (H) 1 66.72050 66.72050 17.26 0.0006 K*H 5 14.92251 2.984503 0.77 0.5821 R*H(K) 18 69.56636 3.864797 3.09 0.0001 Error 240 299.7203 1.248835 Total 287 535.1802 R-Square = 0.43 C.V.= 46.95 138 Appendix 88. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 8th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 96.80761 32.26920 7.96 0.0021 K 5 44.31035 8.862070 2.19 0.1104 Klin 1 5.967053 5.967053 1.47 0.2437 Kqua 1 8.477891 8.477891 2.09 0.1687 Kcub 1 25.21666 25.21666 6.22 0.0248 Kdev 1 4.656232 4.656232 1.15 0.3007 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.147267 0.147267 0.04 0.8514 R*K 15 60.79018 4.052679 1.65 0.0609 Humidity (H) 1 210.8431 210.8431 30.57 0.0001 K*H 5 29.82664 5.965329 0.86 0.5234 R*H(K) 18 124.1661 6.898117 2.82 0.0002 Error 240 587.7651 2.449022 Total 287 1154.5094 R-Square = 0.49 C.V. = 36.26 Appendix 89. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots at 10th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr >F Replicate (R) 3 117.6340 39.21135 5.69 0.0083 K 5 42.21974 8.443949 1.23 0.3453 Klin 1 7.034230 7.034230 1.02 0.3284 Kqua 1 3.376276 3.376276 0.49 0.4947 Kcub 1 28.72808 28.72808 4.17 0.0592 Kdev 1 0.607818 0.607818 0.09 0.7706 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 2.666667 2.666667 0.39 0.5433 R*K 15 103.3915 6.892772 2.06 0.0127 Humidity (H) 1 404.3220 404.3220 44.23 0.0001 K*H 5 36.02138 7.204277 0.79 0.5717 R*H(K) 18 164.5477 9.141541 2.73 0.0003 Error 240 804.2784 3.351160 Total 287 1672.414 R-Square = 0.51 C.V. = 34.26 Appendix 90. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 12th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 220.8604 73.62016 7.88 0.0022 K 5 28.05159 5.610320 0.60 0.7007 Klin 1 7.072083 7.072083 0.76 0.3981 Kqua 1 4.761092 4.761092 0.51 0.4864 Kcub 1 10.21659 10.21659 1.09 0.3124 Kdev 1 3.332953 3.332953 0.36 0.5593 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 2.829067 2.829067 0.30 0.5903 R*K 15 140.2186 9.347908 2.43 0.0026 Humidity (H) 1 752.4290 752.4290 103.19 0.0001 K*H 5 18.19748 3.639496 0.50 0.7729 R*H(K) 18 131.2513 7.291741 1.90 0.0169 Error 240 922.8906 3.845380 Total 287 2213.899 R-Square = 0.58 C.V. = 31.33 Appendix 91. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 14th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 127.5407 42.51359 4.31 0.0222 K 5 43.62286 8.724570 0.88 0.5156 Klin 1 12.56023 12.56023 1.27 0.2770 Kqua 1 20.16093 20.16093 2.04 0.1735 Kcub 1 10.50098 10.50098 1.06 0.3187 Kdev 1 0.005650 0.005650 0.00 0.9812 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 0.455470 0.455470 0.05 0.8328 R*K 15 148.0697 9.871300 2.02 0.0145 Humidity (H) 1 1356.501 1356.501 140.55 0.0001 K*H 5 33.00971 6.601900 0.6 0.6415 R*H(K) 18 173.7298 9.651660 1.98 0.0115 Error 238 1160.198 4.874780 Total 285 3038.008 R-Square = 0.61 C.V. = 30.25 Appendix 92. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 16th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 137.1023 45.70077 3.82 0.0323 K 5 42.53703 8.507407 0.71 0.6238 Klin 1 29.24243 29.24243 2.45 0.1386 Kqua 1 10.14075 10.14075 0.85 0.3715 Kcub 1 2.817240 2.817240 0.24 0.6343 Kdev 1 0.290520 0.290520 0.02 0.8782 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 0.096760 0.096760 0.01 0.9295 R*K 15 179.2212 11.94808 2.18 0.0078 Humidity (H) 1 1698.675 1698.675 145.1 0.0001 K*H 5 52.35900 10.47190 0.89 0.5054 R*H(K) 18 210.6892 11.70496 2.13 0.0057 Error 238 1307.417 5.49335 Total 285 3618.832 R-Square = 0.63 CV. = 28.95 Appendix 93. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 18th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 86.16674 28.72224 2.00 0.1580 K 5 34.52933 6.905867 0.48 0.7860 Klin 1 17.16984 17.16984 1.19 0.2920 Kqua 1 8.863170 8.863170 0.62 0.4449 Kcub 1 4.823170 4.823170 0.34 0.5713 Kdev 1 0.374280 0.374280 0.03 0.8741 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 3.195010 3.195010 0.22 0.6443 R*K 15 215.9355 14.39570 2.20 0.0071 Humidity (H) 1 2342.178 2342.178 204.3 0.0001 K*H 5 47.38043 9.476090 0.83 0.5472 R*H(K) 18 206.3879 11.46600 1.75 0.0323 Error 238 1559.401 6.552110 Total 285 4482.449 R-Square = 0.65 CV. =28.24 Appendix 94. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 20th day of storage in 1993. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 71.20677 23.73559 1.35 0.2971 K 5 38.09852 7.619705 0.43 0.8194 Klin 1 13.95290 13.95290 0.79 0.3878 Kqua 1 17.08457 17.08457 0.97 0.3407 Kcub 1 0.010650 0.010650 0.00 0.9807 Kdev 1 1.086630 1.086630 0.06 0.8073 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 5.891140 5.891140 0.33 0.5719 R*K 15 264.5922 17.63948 2.47 0.0022 Humidity (H) 1 2758.140 2758.140 192.2 0.0001 K*H 5 53.74115 10.74823 0.75 0.5974 R*H(K) 18 258.2682 14.34823 2.01 0.0101 Error 238 1699.901 7.142440 Total 285 5137.533 R-Square = 0.66 CV. =27.16 142 Appendix 95. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots in 1994 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 3556.701 1185.567 9.09 0.0001 K 5 451.153 90.230 0.37 0.0640 R*K 15 1955.523 130.368 3.06 0.0002 Humidity (H) 1 28884.751 28884.751 199.95 0.0001 K*H 5 187.526 37.5053 0.25 0.4948 R*H(K) 18 2600.252 144.458 3.39 0.0001 Error 237 10094.881 42.5944 Time 9 31236. 30 3470.7003 1054.73 0.0001 Time*R 27 234.640 8.69040 2.64 0.0001 Time*K 45 202.052 4.49004 1.36 0.0547 Time*R*K 135 890.808 6.59858 2.01 0.0001 Time*H 9 7099.394 788.82160 239.72 0.0001 Time*K*H 45 151.778 3.37284 1.02 0.4269 Time*R*H(K) 162 1041.934 6.43169 1.95 0.0001 Error (Time) 2133 7018.886 3.29061 143 Appendix 96. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 2nd day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS • F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 115.8744 38.62483 9.18 0.0011 K 5 27.94694 5.589390 1.33 0.3049 Klin 1 0.132353 0.132353 0.03 0.8616 Kqua 1 0.313369 0.313369 0.07 0.7886 Kcub 1 10.37764 10.37764 2.47 0:1371 Kdev 1 9.993322 9.993322 2.38 0.1441 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 7.757751 7.757751 1.84 0.1946 R*K 15 63.10443 4.206962 2.83 0.0004 Humidity (H) 1 76.71587 76.71587 17.90 0.0005 K*H 5 8.134829 1.626965 0.38 0.8561 R*H(K) 18 77.12923 4.284958 2.88 0.0001 Error 237 352.4133 1.486976 Total 284 730.0293 R-Square = 0.51 CV. = 54.59 Appendix 97. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 4th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 277.9037 92.63457 8.69 0.0014 K 5 50.87053 10.17410 0.95 0.4752 Klin 1 0.629034 0.629034 0.06 0.8113 Kqua 1 3.812750 3.812750 0.36 0.5586 Kcub 1 19.42226 19.42226 1.82 0.1970 Kdev 1 5.887254 5.887254 0.55 0.4688 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 21.63150 21.63150 2.03 0.1747 R*K 15 159.8281 10.65521 4.50 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 473.7536 473.7536 38.5 0.0001 K*H 5 4.522604 0.904521 0.07 0.9955 R*H(K) 18 221.7093 12.31718 5.21 0.0001 Error 239 565.3176 2.365350 Total 286 1754.334 R-Square = 0.67 CV. = 43.32 144 Appendix 98. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 6th day of storage in 1994 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 421.8045 140.6015 12.24 0.0003 K 5 45.44315 9.088632 0.79 0.5723 Klin 1 3.678400 3.678400 0.32 0.5799 Kqua 1 5.088660 5.088660 0.44 0.5158 Kcub 1 27.04533 27.04533 2.35 0.1458 Kdev 1 3.125380 3.125380 0.27 0.6096 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 7.134050 7.134050 0.62 0.4430 R*K 15 172.3243 11.48829 3.14 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 1082.226 1082.226 89.42 0.0001 K*H 5 11.58343 2.316690 0.19 0.9620 R*H(K) 18 217.8413 12.10230 3.31 0.0001 Error 239 874.9042 3.660690 Total 286 2826.917 R-Square = 0.69 C.V. =40.12 Appendix 99. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots on the 8th day of storage in 1994 Source DF SS M S F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 335.4316 111.8105 9.51 0.0009 K 5 44.72602 8.945200 0.76 0.5919 Klin 1 0.101740 0.101740 0.01 0.9271 Kqua 1 1.905490 1.905490 0.16 0.6930 Kcub 1 15.91507 15.91507 1.35 0.2629 Kdev 1 5.298750 5.298750 0.45 0.5123 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 21.83134 21.83134 1.86 0.1932 R*K 15 176.4058 11.76039 3.08 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 1810.281 1810.281 164.20 0.0001 K*H 5 8.511390 1.702280 0.15 0.9759 R*H(K) 18 198.4428 11.02460 2.89 0.0001 Error 239 912.9095 3.819710 Total 286 3486.568 R-Square = 0.73 C.V. = 32.98 145 Appendix 100. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots on the 10th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr >F Replicate (R) 3 389.8230 129.9410 2.96 0.0661 K 5 96.82464 19.36493 0.44 0.8131 Klin 1 61.26521 61.26521 1.40 0.2559 Kqua 1 0.465220 0.465220 0.01 0.9194 Kcub 1 3.916020 3.916020 0.09 0.7693 Kdev 1 16.81167 16.81167 0.38 0.5454 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 14.90738 14.90738 0.34 0.5688 R*K 15 658.7427 43.91618 1.90 0.0236 Humidity (H) 1 2391.637 2391.637 92.34 0.0001 K*H 5 95.25743 19.05149 0.74 0.6064 R*H(K) 18 466.2165 25.90092 1.12 0.3311 Error 239 912.9095 3.819710 Total 286 3486.568 R-Square = 0.42 C.V. = 65.05 Appendix 101. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 12th day of storage in 1994 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 478.7188 159.5729 9.03 0.0012 K 5 48.19496 9.638992 0.55 0.7395 Klin 1 12.41626 12.41626 0.70 0.4151 Kqua 1 3.033790 3.033790 0.17 0.6845 Kcub 1 20.65829 20.65829 1.17 0.2968 Kdev 1 9.844380 9.844380 0.56 0.4671 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 2.473630 2.473630 0.14 0.7136 R*K 15 265.1719 17.67813 3.48 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 3685.082 3685.082 179.48 0.0001 K*H 5 27.10086 5.420170 0.26 0.9269 R*H(K) 18 369.5781 20.53212 4.05 0.0001 R-Square = 0.80 C.V. = 27.24 146 Appendix 102. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 14th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 474.1649 158.0549 7.96 0.0021 K 5 88.80406 17.76081 0.89 0.5092 Klin 1 27.85815 27.85815 1.40 0.2546 Kqua 1 5.791900 5.791900 0.29 0.5970 Kcub 1 31.85286 31.85286 1.60 0.2246 Kdev 1 11.09417 11.09417 0.56 0.4663 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 12.42001 12.42001 0.63 0.4413 R*K 15 297.7471 19.84981 3.22 0.0001 Humidity (Fl) 1 4658.597 4658.597 186.6 0.0001 K*H 5 49.22783 9.845570 0.39 0.8462 R*H(K) 18 449.2720 24.95956 4.05 0.0001 Error 239 1472.883 6.162690 Total 286 7487.568 R-Square = 0.80 CV. = 26.68 Appendix 103. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 16th day ol storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 521.8420 173.9473 7.51 0.0027 K 5 93.36364 18.67272 0.81 0.5630 Klin 1 44.30778 44.30778 1.91 0.1870 Kqua 1 0.425820 0.425820 0.02 0.8940 Kcub 1 32.32566 32.32566 1.40 0.2559 Kdev 1 2.091520 2.091520 0.09 0.7680 KCI vs K 2S0 4 1 13.96900 13.96900 0.60 0.4496 R*K 15 347.5787 23.17192 2.79 0.0005 Humidity (H) 1 5857.992 5857.992 192.6 0.0001 K*H 5 84.35943 16.87189 0.55 0.7329 R*H(K) 18 547.3707 30.40948 3.67 0.0001 Error 239 1982.012 8.292940 Total 286 9431.336 R-Square = 0.78 C.V = 27.55 147 Appendix 104. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 18th day of storage in 1994 Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 509.9876 169.9958 6.77 0.0042 K 5 84.70853 16.94170 0.68 0.6488 Klin 1 27.39494 27.39494 1.09 0.3127 Kqua 1 5.619200 5.619200 0.22 0.6429 Kcub 1 20.02402 20.02402 0.80 0.3858 Kdev 1 3.884000 3.884000 0.15 0.6996 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 27.79954 27.79954 1.11 0.3093 R*K 15 376.4617 25.09745 3.28 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 7098.562 7098.562 241.8 0.0001 K*H 5 27.79646 5.559290 0.19 0.9628 R*H(K) 18 528.4278 29.35710 3.83 0.0001 Error 239 1831.206 7.661950 Total 286 10453.58 R-Square = 0.82 C.V. = 24.51 Appendix 105. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 20th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 472.3145 157.4381 6.88 0.0039 K 5 62.70103 12.54020 0.55 0.7376 Klin 1 2.179360 2.179360 0.10 0.7619 Kqua 1 7.804600 7.804600 90.3 0.5679 Kcub 1 18.68523 18.68523 0.82 0.3805 Kdev 1 3.073790 3.073790 0.13 0.7191 KC1 vs K 2S0 4 1 31.27025 31.27025 1.37 0.2607 R*K 15 343.2999 22.88667 2.25 0.0056 Humidity (H) 1 9394.398 9394.398 297.6 0.0001 K*H 5 22.40628 4.481260 0.14 0.9800 R*H(K) 18 568.1427 31.56348 3.10 0.0001 Error 239 2430.366 10.16890 Total 286 13286.38 R-Square = 0.81 C.V. =24.48 148 Appendix 106. Repeated measures analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 11770.880 3923.626 26.59 0.0001 K 3 96.5043 32.168 0.28 0.5399 R*K 9 1327.9820 147.554 3.31 0.0006 Damage (D) 4 1033.7791 258.444 1.36 0.0732 K*D 12 3089.8374 257.486 1.36 0.5636 R*D(K) 48 9095.8288 189.496 4.25 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 16589.6738 16589.673 87.08 0.0001 K*H 3 343.7972 114.599 0.60 0.6540 D*H 4 331.2040 82.801 0.43 0.1170 K*D*H 12 915.6483 76.304 0.40 0.0614 R*H(K*D) 31 5905.7315 190.507 4.27 0.0001 Error 519 23162.2762 44.628 Time 8 39993.6446 4999.205 2309.92 0.0001 Time*R 24 2309.4284 96.226 44.46 0.0001 Time*K 24 95.4675 3.977 1.84 0.0076 Time*R*K 72 517.3139 7.184 3.32 0.0001 Time*D 32 266.2280 8.319 3.84 0.0001 Time*K*D 96 962.8829 10.0300 4.63 0.0001 Time*R*D(K) 384 2516.9850 6.5546 3.03 0.0001 Time*H 8 2985.3014 373.1626 172.42 0.0001 Time*K*H 24 102.65043 4.2771 1.98 0.0031 Time*D*H 32 132.66892 4.1459 1.92 0.0015 Time*K*D*H 96 332.56023 3.4641 1.60 0.0002 Time*R*H(K*D) 248 1818.41414 7.3323 3.39 0.0001 Error (TIME) 4152 8985. 90172 2.1642 149 Appendix 107. Analysis of variance for weight loss of carrots on the 2nd day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 395.1127 131.7042 30.46 0.0001 K 3 8.413454 2.804484 0.65 0.6033 R*K 9 38.91466 4.323850 4.00 0.0001 Damage (D) 4 27.18175 6.795440 1.16 0.3415 K*D 12 46.76189 3.896825 0.66 0.7766 R*D(K) 48 281.8876 5.872660 5.43 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 38.64155 38.64155 10.10 0.0030 K*H 3 20.92057 6.973525 1.82 0.1603 D*H 4 6.373056 1.593264 0.42 0.7955 K*D*H 12 40.87494 3.406245 0.89 0.5640 R*H(K*D) 36 137.6739 3.824280 3.54 0.0001 Error 541 585.0157 1.081400 Total 676 1715.296 R-Square = 0.65 CV. = 72.25 Appendix 108. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 4th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 558.3010 186.1003 24.61 0.0001 K 3 10.51797 3.505991 0.46 0.7146 R*K 9 68.04477 7.560530 3.64 0.0002 Damage (D) 4 59.25708 14.81427 1.73 0.1590 K*D 12 92.42148 7.701790 0.90 0.5542 R*D(K) 48 411.1685 8.566010 4.12 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 610.4171 610.4171 68.9 0.0001 K*H 3 90.25038 30.08346 3.40 0.0237 D*H 4 13.99048 3.497622 0.39 0.8114 K*D*H 12 38.55703 3.213086 0.36 0.9713 R*H(K*D) 58 513.6448 8.855950 4.26 0.0001 Error 630 1310.003 2.079400 Total 787 3800.688 R-Square = 0.65 CV. = 54.74 150 Appendix 109. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 6th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr > F Replicate (R) 3 503.9160 K 3 23.91725 R*K 9 104.2154 Damage (D) 4 145.3053 K*D 12 218.2664 R*D(K) 48 679.4306 Humidity (H) 1 1946.393 K*H 3 47.77142 D*H 4 55.59841 K*D*H 12 170.2697 R*H(K*D) 57 658.5152 Error 626 2209.222 Total 782 6602.590 167.9720 14.51 0.0009 7.972419 0.69 0.5815 11.57950 3.28 0.0006 36.32634 2.57 0.0499 18.18887 1.28 0.2582 14.15480 4.01 0.0001 1946.393 168.5 0.0001 15.92380 1.38 0.2586 13.89960 1.20 0.3195 14.18914 1.23 0.2872 11.55290 3.27 0.0001 3.529100 R-Square = 0.66 C.V. =46.73 Appendix 110. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 8th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 888.7899 296.2633 34.85 0.0001 K 3 14.98888 4.996294 0.59 0.6382 Klin 1 1.965570 1.965570 0.23 0.6421 Kqua 1 1.152520 1.152520 0.14 0.7212 Kdev 1 11.82259 11.82259 1.39 0.2685 R*K 9 76.51540 8.501700 1.92 0.0467 Damage (D) 4 220.2614 55.06536 2.94 0.0297 Control vs rest of D 1 192.4126 192.4126 10.3 0.0024 5% D vs rest 1 3.928468 3.928468 0.21 0.6489 10% vs rest 1 14.04179 14.04179 0.75 0.3907 15% vs 20% D 1 9.611490 9.611490 0.51 0.4771 K*D 12 290.1493 24.17911 1.29 0.2542 R*D(K) 48 898.3546 18.71570 4.22 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 3190.449 3190.449 172.8 0.0001 K*H 3 80.85222 26.95074 1.46 0.2345 D*H 4 117.5863 29.39657 1.59 0.1880 K*D*H 12 166.4328 13.86940 0.75 0.6962 R*H(K*D) 60 1107.605 18.46010 4.17 0.0001 Error 638 2826.975 4.431000 Total 797 9879.357 R-Square = 0.71 C.V. = 42.00 152 Appendix 111. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 10th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1374.877 K 3 33.39452 Klin 1 10.59598 Kqua 1 5.219390 Kdev 1 17.42974 R*K 9 136.5889 D 4 275.9517 Control vs rest of D 1 214.9784 5% vs rest 1 2.437853 10% vs rest 1 25.36201 15% vs 20% 1 32.76849 K*D 12 387.6884 R*D(K) 48 1153.095 Humidity (H) 1 4320.118 K*H 3 104.5988 D*H 4 141.4563 K*D*H 12 210.4124 R*H(K*D) 60 1392.841 Error 638 3866.822 Total 797 13410.80 458.2924 30.20 0.0001 11.13151 0.73 0.5578 10.59598 0.70 0.4250 5.219390 0.34 0.5720 17.42974 1.15 0.3118 15.17650 2.50 0.0081 68.98793 2.87 0.0327 214.9784 8.95 0.0044 2.437853 0.10 0.7514 25.36201 1.06 0.3093 32.76849 1.36 0.2486 32.30737 1.34 0.2257 24.02280 3.96 0.0001 4320.118 186.1 0.0001 34.86628 1.50 0.2232 35.36407 1.52 0.2068 17.53437 0.76 0.6923 23.21400 3.83 0.0001 6.060900 R-Square = 0.71 C.V. = 40.34 153 Appendix 112. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 12th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1614.860 538.2867 34.9 0.0001 K 3 40.93426 13.64475 0.89 0.4846 Klin 1 18.79693 18.79693 1.22 0.2980 Kqua 1 6.298420 6.298420 0.41 0.5385 Kdev 1 15.64337 15.64337 1.02 0.3400 R*K 9 138.6684 15.40760 2.07 0.0305 Damage (D) 4 336.2227 84.05568 3.05 0.0255 Control vs rest 1 260.3610 260.3610 9.45 0.0035 5% vs rest 1 2.031209 2.031209 0.07 0.7872 10% vs rest 1 45.04907 45.04907 1.63 0.2072 15%vs20% 1 28.33317 28.33317 1.03 0.3157 K*D 12 457.8846 38.15705 1.38 0.2060 R*D(K) 48 1322.652 27.55530 3.69 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 4968.884 4968.884 188.2 0.0001 K*H 3 132.2121 44.07070 1.67 0.1833 D*H 4 139.6210 34.90526 1.32 0.2722 K*D*H 12 206.8534 17.23779 0.65 0.7883 R*H(K*D) 60 1584.426 26.40710 3.54 0.0001 Error 638 4757.875 7.457000 Total 797 15717.42 R-Square = 0.69 CV. = 39.14 154 Appendix 113. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 14th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 2183.647 727.8826 44.6 0.0001 K 3 47.31555 15.77185 0.97 0.4497 Klin 1 14.99328 14.99328 0.92 0.3627 Kqua 1 19.95105 19.95105 1.22 0.2974 Kdev 1 12.18300 12.18300 0.75 0.4099 R*K 9 146.7988 16.31100 2.07 0.0301 Damage (D) 4 348.0803 87.02008 2.56 0.0504 Control vs rest 1 278.8288 278.8288 8.20 0.0062 5% vs rest 1 0.194155 0.194155 0.01 0.9401 10% vs rest 1 39.14266 39.14266 1.15 0.2886 15%vs20% 1 29.46465 29.46465 0.87 0.3565 K*D 12 595.7797 49.64831 1.46 0.1726 R*D(K) 48 1631.503 33.98970 4.31 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 6632.660 6632.660 202.6 0.0001 K*H 3 114.3563 38.11878 1.16 0.3308 D*H 4 107.7173 26.92933 0.82 0.5159 K*D*H 12 212.9277 17.74398 0.54 0.8782 R*H(K*D) 60 1964.025 32.73380 4.16 0.0001 Error 638 5026.077 7.878000 Total 797 19026.28 R-Square = 0.73 C.V. =35.10 155 Appendix 114. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 16th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 2592.563 864.1878 35.0 0.0001 K 3 85.95965 28.65321 1.16 0.3769 Klin 1 47.32201 47.32201 1.92 0.1995 Kqua 1 20.83230 20.83230 0.84 0.3821 Kdev 1 17.42308 17.42308 0.71 0.4225 R*K 9 222.0772 24.67520 2.25 0.0176 Damage (D) 4 265.3240 66.33102 1.72 0.1607 Control vs rest 1 177.0531 177.0531 4.59 0.0372 5% vs rest 1 0.127276 0.127276 0.00 0.9544 10% vs rest 1 65.28228 65.28228 1.69 0.1993 15% vs 20% 1 22.57606 22.57606 0.59 0.4478 K*D 12 769.3431 64.11193 1.66 0.1056 R*D(K) 48 1849.523 38.53170 3.52 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 8264.948 8264.948 208.5 0.0001 K*H 3 47.15230 15.71743 0.40 0.7560 D*H 4 83.54625 20.88656 0.53 0.7164 K*D*H 12 288.8484 24.07071 0.61 0.8276 R*H(K*D) 60 2378.552 39.64250 3.62 0.0001 Error 638 6992.492 10.96000 Total 797 23856.82 R-Square = 0.70 CV. = 36.84 156 Appendix 115. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 18th day of storage in 1993. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 3008.131 1002.710 33.8 0.0001 K 3 99.20559 33.06853 1.11 0.3931 Klin 1 55.78567 55.78567 1.88 0.2035 Kqua 1 12.19786 12.19786 0.41 0.5374 Kdev 1 30.74894 30.74894 1.04 0.3352 R*K 9 267.0087 29.66760 2.54 0.0071 Damage (D) 4 321.9605 80.49013 1.96 0.1162 Control vs rest 1 246.0127 246.0127 5.98 0.0182 5% vs rest 1 0.070809 0.070809 0.00 0.9671 10% vs rest 1 55.38121 55.38121 1.35 0.2516 15% vs 20% 1 20.12251 20.12251 0.49 0.4876 K*D 12 748.6602 62.38835 1.52 0.1510 R*D(K) 48 1974.210 41.12940 3.53 0.0001 Humidity (H) 1 9712.246 9712.246 206.7 0.0001 K*H 3 53.09145 17.69715 0.38 0.7702 D*H 4 47.51001 11.87750 0.25 0.9069 K*D*H 12 306.2224 25.51853 0.54 0.8775 R*H(K*D) 60 2819.486 46.99140 4.03 0.0001 Error 638 7443.944 11.66800 Total 797 26821.10 R-Square = 0.72 C.V. = 34.42 157 Appendix 116. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance for weight loss of carrots in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 6718.4763 2239.4921 4.08 0.0001 K 3 1385.6038 461.8679 0.80 0.3221 R*K 9 4926.5301 547.3922 8.14 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 1117.5632 372.5211 1.64 0.4311 K*D 9 1266.6059 140.7340 0.54 0.6311 R*D(K) 36 9275.7063 257.6585 3.83 0.0001 Error 232 15605.1613 67.2636 Time 8 73548.8824 9193.610 1282.4 0.0001 Time*R 24 2456.5862 102.3577 14.28 0.0001 Time*K 24 546.14410 22.75600 3.17 0.0001 Time*R*K 72 1434.7167 19.9266 2.78 0.0001 Time*D 24 559.3437 23.3059 3.25 0.0001 Time*K*D 72 1257.6426 17.4672 2.44 0.0001 Time*R*D(K) 288 5253.5144 18.2413 2.54 0.0001 Error(Time) 1856 13304.997 7.1686 158 Appendix 117. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 2nd day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 205.5212 68.50707 12.7 0.0014 K 3 1.876030 0.625343 0.12 0.9487 Klin 1 0.304120 0.304120 0.06 0.8178 Kqua 1 1.382187 1.382187 0.26 0.6253 Kdev 1 0.392150 0.392150 0.07 0.7937 Errora 9 48.65451 5.406057 3.89 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 27.71071 9.236904 2.37 0.0867 Control vs D 1 25.74054 25.74054 6.60 0.0145 15% D vs rest 1 1.981755 1.981755 0.51 0.4804 30% vs 45% D 1 0.014051 0.014051 0.00 0.9525 K*D 9 36.47603 4.052892 1.04 0.4287 Errorb 36 140.3061 3.897393 2.80 0.0001 Error 23 324.1303 1.391117 Total 296 801.4616 R-Square = 0.59 C.V. = 40.89 Appendix 118. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 4th day of storage in 1994. Source Df SS MS F value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 610.7421 203.5807 5.58 0.0193 K 3 49.62325 16.54108 0.45 0.7211 Klin 1 5.135754 5.135754 0.14 0.7161 Kqua 1 10.46900 10.46900 0.29 0.6051 Kdev 1 34.05160 34.05160 0.93 0.3591 Errora 9 328.1469 36.46076 12.4 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 14.23782 4.745943 0.33 0.8058 Control vs D 1 1.078197 1.078197 0.07 0.7868 15% D vs rest 1 4.846985 4.846985 0.33 0.5669 35% vs 45% D 1 8.135003 8.135003 0.56 0.4589 K*D 9 67.01278 7.445865 0.51 0.8553 Errorb 36 522.5077 14.51410 4.92 0.0001 Error 233 687.3840 2.950150 Total 296 2304.416 R-Square = 0.70 C.V. = 34.93 159 Appendix 119. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 6th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1190.567 396.8559 4.10 0.0434 K 3 185.2687 61.75624 0.64 0.6095 Klin 1 23.11341 23.11341 0.24 0.6369 Kqua 1 46.43919 46.43919 0.48 0.5061 Kdev 1 114.9905 114.9905 1.19 0.3042 Errora 9 871.6578 96.85087 16.1 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 43.52537 14.50845 0.55 0.6518 Control vs D 1 0.219005 0.219005 0.01 0.9279 15% vs rest 1 35.16289 35.16289 1.33 0.2561 30% VS 45% 1 7.796251 7.796251 0.30 0.5902 K*D 9 126.6022 14.06691 0.53 0.8409 Errorb 36 950.5904 26.40529 4.38 0.0001 Error 233 1406.090 6.034730 Total 296 4846.313 R-Square = 0.70 CV. = 33.98 Appendix 120. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 8th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 920.5839 306.8613 3.17 0.0783 K 3 225.9930 75.33102 0.78 0.5357 Klin 1 9.873826 9.873826 0.10 0.7569 Kqua 1 144.6786 144.6786 1.49 0.2529 Kdev 1 73.60626 73.60626 0.76 0.4062 Errora 9 872.4117 96.93464 11.7 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 101.5600 33.85333 0.84 0.4815 Control vs rest 1 19.21124 19.21124 0.48 0.4946 15% vs rest 1 12.74198 12.74198 0.32 0.5777 30% vs 45% D 1 68.43526 68.43526 1.70 0.2011 K*D 9 292.4787 32.49763 0.81 0.6142 Errorb 36 1452.787 40.35522 4.88 0.0001 Error 233 1927.429 8.272230 Total 296 5747.583 R-Square = 0.66 CV. = 30.92 160 Appendix 121. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 10th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1318.1007 439.3669 5.98 0.0158 K 3 85.739080 28.57969 0.39 0.7636 Klin 1 6.8345675 6.834567 0.09 0.7672 Kqua 1 73.884334 73.88433 1.01 0.3420 Kdev 1 0.6422729 0.642272 0.01 0.9275 Errora 9 660.73110 73.41457 2.26 0.0193 Damage (D) 3 107.86661 35.95553 0.45 0.7167 Control vs D 1 2.1473441 2.147344 0.03 0.8702 15% D vs rest 1 18.746595 18.74659 0.24 0.6299 3 5 % v s 4 5 % D 1 85.897990 85.89799 1.08 0.3051 KxD 9 514.67634 57.18626 0.72 . 0.6867 Errorb 36 2856.3679 79.34355 2.44 0.0001 Error 233 7574.7367 32.50960 Total 296 13106.876 R-Square = 0.42 C.V.= 49.85 Appendix 122. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 12th day of . storage in 1994. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1155.815 K 3 275.2377 Klin 1 3.843886 Kqua 1 192.0793 Kdev 1 86.33942 Errora 9 852.7375 Damage (D) 3 196.8329 Control vs D 1 60.76988 15%o vs rest 1 21.08542 35% vs 45% D 1 112.7123 K*D 9 473.4789 Error b 36 1915.231 Error 233 2826.285 Total 296 7543.455 385.2717 4.07 0.0442 91.74590 0.97 0.4491 3.843886 0.04 0.8449 192.0793 2.03 0.1882 86.33942 0.91 0.3647 94.74861 7.81 0.0001 65.61098 1.23 0.3118 60.76988 1.14 0.2923 21.08542 0.40 0.5330 112.7123 2.12 0.1542 52.60877 0.99 0.4660 53.20087 4.39 0.0001 12.12998 R-Square = 0.62 C.V. =26.90 161 Appendix 123. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 14th day of storage in 1994. Source Df SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1249.653 416.5511 4.34 0.0377 K 3 374.5973 124.8657 1.30 0.3331 Klin 1 15.16225 15.16225 0.16 0.7004 Kqua 1 162.0666 162.0666 1.69 0.2263 Kdev 1 205.0914 205.0914 2.13 0.1780 Errora 9 864.6286 96.06985 5.15 0.0001 Damage 3 434.6872 144.8957 2.51 0.0739 Control vs D 1 145.3514 145.3514 2.52 0.1211 15% vs rest 1 60.39791 60.39791 1.05 0.3129 30% vs 45% D 1 226.1448 226.1448 3.92 0.0553 K*D 9 303.5609 33.72899 0.58 0.8005 Errorb 36 2075.762 57.66007 3.10 0.0001 Error 232 4317.904 18.61166 Total 295 9484.112 R-Square = 0.54 CV. = 28.50 Appendix 124. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 16th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1656.757 552.2523 5.76 0.0176 K 3 377.4115 125.8038 1.31 0.3292 Klin 1 45.89238 45.89238 0.48 0.5063 Kqua 1 72.64611 72.64611 0.76 0.4065 Kdev 1 257.7879 257.7879 2.69 0.1353 Errora 9 862.2232 95.80258 4.62 0.0001 Damage (D) 3 504.4314 168.1438 2.75 0.0566 Control vs D 1 218.7220 218.7220 3.58 0.0665 15% vs rest 1 144.5434 144.5434 2.37 0.1327 30% vs 45% D 1 138.5700 138.5700 2.27 0.1407 K*D 9 244.2078 27.13420 0.44 0.9013 Errorb 36 2198.427 61.06743 2.94 0.0001 Error 232 4810.913 20.73670 Total 295 10642.44 R-Square = 0.54 CV. = 26.64 162 Appendix 125. Analysis of variance for weight loss from carrots on the 18th day of storage in 1994. Source DF SS MS F Value Pr>F Replicate (R) 3 1065.452 K 3 415.7143 Klin 1 58:37872 Kqua 1 4.921058 Kdev 1 345.7270 Errorb 9 844.1962 Damage (D) 3 321.5612 Control vs D 1 150.6112 15% vs rest 1 93.37863 30% vs 45% D 1 76.06254 K*D 9 354.1452 Errorb 36 2393.873 Error 232 5404.048 Total 295 10933.74 355.1508 3.79 0.0524 138.5714 1.48 0.2852 58.37872 0.62 0.4504 4.921058 0.05 0.8240 345.7270 3.69 0.0871 93.79958 4.03 0.0001 107.1870 1.61 0.2036 150.6112 2.26 0.1411 93.37863 1.40 0.2438 76.06254 1.14 0.2920 39.34947 0.59 0.7951 66.49647 2.85 0.0001 23.29331 R-Square = 0.50 C.V. = 24.67 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086867/manifest

Comment

Related Items