Investigation of the Options to Extend the Period of Market Supply with Fruits of Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.)

Open access


The main goal of the present study was to establish the opportunity for prolonged obtaining and supplying with cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) through application of various technological means. Experiments were carried out with two varieties of cape gooseberry – Plovdiv and Obrazec 1. The plants were grown by three different technologies – by pricking out seedlings, not pricking out seedlings and direct outdoor sowing, with three different sowing periods with interval of each being 15 days. The whole period of obtaining the production from each variant was investigated. In additional experiments, there were established the possibilities for storage of the fruit and also the period of supplying the market as well as additional post harvest ripening. The obtaining of the production from direct harvests starts from plants grown with pricking seedlings in the second decade of August to mid – October, those with no pricking seedlings from the first ten days of September to late October and with direct seeding from the beginning to the end of October. Plovdiv variety is characterized by rather high ripe. By storage, depending on the type of farming, the production comes from mid – September to early January, and in some periods coincides with fruits from additional ripening.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • CARVALHO C. P. – VILLAÑO D. – MORENO D. A. – SERRANO M. – VALERO D. 2015. Alginate edible coating and cold storage for improving the physicochemical quality of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.). In Journal of Food Science and Nutritions vol. 1 pp. 102–112. ISSN 2048-7177.

  • CHERNOOK L. G. 1997. Tomato pepper eggplant cape gooseberry. In Series Vitalis pp. 288. ISBN 1156-258-369.

  • CHRISTOV Ch. 2010. Cape goosverry – Physalis peruviana L. In Seeds of rare and unknown fruits and vegetables. Available at: (accessed March 2010). ISSN 6853-2569.

  • FISCHER G. – HERRERA A. – ALMANZA P. J. 2011 Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.). In Postharvest biology and technology of tropical and subtropical fruits vol. 2 pp. 374–396. ISSN 978-1-84569-733-4.

  • FOWEL J. – COHEN L. 1992. Practicle statistics for field biology. New York : John Wiley & Sons. 223 p. ISBN 978-1-118-30055-8.

  • GARZÓN-ACOSTA C. P. – VILLARREAL-GARZÓN D. M. – FISCHER G. – HERRERA A. O. – SANJUANELO D. W. 2014. Deficiencies of phosphorus calcium and magnesium affect the postharvest quality of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) fruits. In Acta horticulturae vol. 1047 pp. 208–216. ISSN 0567-7572.

  • HERNANDO P. E. – REYES A. J. – ÁLVAREZ-HERRERA J. G. – LEGUIZAMO M. F. – JOYA J. G. 2015. Comportamiento del fruto de uchuva Physalis peruviana L. bajo diferentes temperaturas de almacenamiento. In Revista de Ciencias Agrícolasta vol. 32 no. 2 pp. 26–35. ISSN 2238-1171.

  • IVANOVA V. – PANCHEV V. – TABASHKA T. 2014. The influence of the term of seed harvesting of lime (Tilia ssp.) on the vegetative behaviours of seedlings. In Scientific works of Union of Scientist of Bulgaria ser. Techniques and technology vol. 12 pp. 310–16. ISSN 1311-9192.

  • JAEGER P. 2001. Study of the Market For Rwandan Physalis In Europe. New York : ADAR Agribusiness Centre p 17. ISBN 879-235-123-7.

  • KENDALL H. 2008. Cape gooseberry. In Kendall farm. Available at: (accessed October 2008). ISSN 8421-3852.

  • KLINAC N. J. – WOOD F. H. 1986. Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.). In Orchardist of New Zealand vol. 59 pp. 103. ISSN 0110-6260.

  • McCAIN R. 1993. Goldenberry passion fruit & white sapote: Potential fruits for cool subtropical areas. In New Crops edited by J. Janick and J.E. Simon. New York John Wiley and Sons pp. 479–486. ISBN 0-471-59374-5.

  • MORTON J. F. 1987. Cape gooseberry. In: Fruits of Warm Climates edited by J.F. Morton. Winterville : Creative Resource Systems Inc pp. 430–434. Available at: gooseberry.html (accessed May 21 2007).

  • NOVOA R. H. – BOJACA M. – GALVIS J. A. – FISCHER G. 2006. Fruit maturity and calyx drying influence post-harvest behavior of Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) stored at 12 °C. In Agronomía Colombiana vol.24 no. 1 pp. 77–86. ISSN 0120-9965.

  • PANAYOTOV N. – TCORLIANIS S. 2000. The effect of type of seedlings and of the planting scheme on productivity and quality of tomatilo (Physalis peruviana L.) grown under Bulgarian condition. In Acta Horticulture vol. 579 pp. 373–376. ISSN 0567-7572.

  • PANAYOTOV N. – PEVICHAROVA G. 2002. Investigation on the possibilities for cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) post-harvest storage. In Proceeding of the First Symposium of Horticulture 16–20 October 2002 Ohrid Republic of Macedonia pp. 634–637. ISBN 0567-7572.

  • PATEL P. R. – NEETA B. G. – TADAPANENI V. – RAO R. 2011. Physiochemical changes in sunberry (Physalis minima L.) fruit during growth and ripening. In Fruits 2011 vol. 66 pp. 37–46. ISBN 965-895-2658-6-7.

  • PEIRIS K. H. S. – MALLON J. L. – KAYS S. L. 1999. Raspiratry rate and vital heat of some specially vegetables at various storage temperatures. In HortTechnology vol. 7 no. 1 pp. 46–49. ISSN 1063-0198.

  • RAFAEL H. N. – MAURICIO B. – JESÚS A. G. – GERHARD F. 2006. La madurez del fruto y el secado del cáliz influyen en el comportamiento poscosecha de la uchuva almacenada a 12 °C (Physalis peruviana L.). In Agronomia Colombia vol. 24 no. 1 pp.138–145. ISSN 0120-9965.

  • RAMADAN M. F. – MOERSEL J. T. 2007. Impact of enzymatic treatment on chemical composition physicochemical properties and radical scavenging activity of goldenberry (Physalis peruviana L.) juice. In Journals of Science for Food Agriculture vol. 87 pp. 452–460. ISSN 1097-0010.

  • RAMADAN M. F. 2011. Bioactive phytochemicals nutritional value and functional properties of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana). In Food Research International vol. 44 pp. 1830–1836. ISSN 0963-9969.

  • SAHOO D. P. – MAHAPATRA A. K. DAS – SAHOO N. R. 2002. Effect of nitrogen and potassium on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Var. Utkal Kumari. Haryana. In Journal of Horticultural Science. vol. 31 no. 3–4 pp. 264–266. ISSN 1611-4426.

  • SARKAR T. K. – PRADHAN U. – CHATTOPADHYAY T. K. 1993. Storability and quality changes of capegooseberry fruit as influenced by packaging and stage of maturity. In Annals of Agricultural Research vol. 14 no. 4 pp. 396–401. ISSN 0570-1783.

  • SHOPOVA N. – CHOLAKOV D. – HAYTOVA D. 2014a. Productivity of the plants for late field tomato production depending on the age and planting area of the seedling. In Journal of International Scientific Publications: Agriculture and Food vol. 2 pp.179–191. ISBN 879-235-123-7.

  • SHOPOVA N. – CHOLAKOV D. – HAYTOVA D. 2014b. Effect of the composition of seedlings mixture on the physiological behaviour and photosynthetic productivity of tomato plants. In Journal of International Scientific Publications: Agriculture and Food vol. 2 pp.171–178. ISBN 879-235-123-7.

  • VALDENEGRO M. – FUENTES L. – HERRERA R. – MOYA-LEÓN M. A. 2012. Changes in antioxidant capacity during development and ripening of goldenberry (Physalis peruviana L.) fruit and in response to 1-methylcyclopropene treatment. In Postharvest Biology and Technology vol. 67 pp. 110–117. ISSN 0925-5214.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 215 82 0
PDF Downloads 108 63 1