Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41355946›Full record

ArticleHorticulture research2025

Postharvest preservation efficacy and optimization strategies of fresh cut flowers: a meta-analysis and machine learning approach.

Yuyang Wu, Jun Zhu, Jingjing Zhang, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Tang, Jinqi Miao, Yue Sun, Jinhua Zou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yuyang WuTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Jun ZhuTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Jingjing ZhangTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Yu ZhangTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Jiahui TangTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Jinqi MiaoTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
Yue SunState Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Biotechnology Breeding, College of Biological Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Jinhua ZouTianjin Key Laboratory of Animal and Plant Resistance, College of Life Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2740-4967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41355946
PMCPMC12680378

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.