ArticleHorticulture research2025
Postharvest preservation efficacy and optimization strategies of fresh cut flowers: a meta-analysis and machine learning approach.
Article in Horticulture research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cut flowers are favored globally for their ornamental value, but their commercial value is limited by their short vase life, which depends closely on the postharvest preservation technology of cut flowers. Currently, complex types of preservatives and a variety of preservation methods have been used, but there is a lack of summary and comparison of them. In this study, 45 publications were synthesized and analyzed through meta-analysis and machine learning. The meta-analysis results showed that: (i) pulse treatments demonstrated superior vase life extension over conventional vase solution treatments by acutely enhancing antioxidant enzyme activity and suppressing ethylene biosynthesis, but their transient nature necessitated subsequent vase solution treatment maintenance for optimal floral appearance. (ii) As unique preservatives, nanomaterials had advantages in water balance and antimicrobial protection, which required synergistic integration with other preservatives to further enhance antioxidant capacity and supply nutrient. (iii) Plant species specificity needed to be taken into account when choosing the preservative types for vase solution treatment. The model prediction results of machine learning revealed that identical preservatives exhibited distinct differences when applied as pulse treatments versus vase solution treatments, indicating pulse treatment could amplify the preservation effect of preservatives. Based on the above results, an optimized implementation protocol was proposed: initial pulse treatment with nanomaterials, then species-specific preservatives addressed as supplement vase solutions treatment. Our verification experiments further validated that the optimized preservation protocol was effective in cut roses (
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.