Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39852501›Full record

ReviewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Fungal Biocontrol Agents in the Management of Postharvest Losses of Fresh Produce-A Comprehensive Review.

Phathutshedzo Ramudingana, Ndivhuho Makhado, Casper Nyaradzai Kamutando, Mapitsi Silvester Thantsha, Tshifhiwa Paris Mamphogoro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Antifungal Activity of NativeJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Pulcherrimin and Beyond: The Multifaceted Role ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Phathutshedzo RamudinganaGastro-Intestinal Microbiology and Biotechnology Unit, Agricultural Research Council-Animal Production, Private Bag X02, Irene, Pretoria 0062, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6065-647X
Ndivhuho MakhadoDepartment of Microbiological Pathology, Tuberculosis Research Unit, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Molotlegi Road, Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria 0204, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9500-2815
Casper Nyaradzai KamutandoDepartment of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mount Pleasant, Harare 0263, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0001-5878-2162
Mapitsi Silvester ThantshaDepartment of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, Pretoria 0028, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6212-2770
Tshifhiwa Paris MamphogoroGastro-Intestinal Microbiology and Biotechnology Unit, Agricultural Research Council-Animal Production, Private Bag X02, Irene, Pretoria 0062, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4763-8952

Funding

Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development API012403000048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postharvest decay of vegetables and fruits presents a significant threat confronting sustainable food production worldwide, and in the recent times, applying synthetic fungicides has become the most popular technique of managing postharvest losses. However, there are concerns and reported proofs of hazardous impacts on consumers' health and the environment, traceable to the application of chemical treatments as preservatives on fresh produce. Physical methods, on the other hand, cause damage to fresh produce, exposing it to even more infections. Therefore, healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives to existing methods for managing postharvest decays of fresh produce should be advocated. There is increasing consensus that utilization of biological control agents (BCAs), mainly fungi, represents a more sustainable and effective strategy for controlling postharvest losses compared to physical and chemical treatments. Secretion of antifungal compounds, parasitism, as well as competition for nutrients and space are the most common antagonistic mechanisms employed by these BCAs. This article provides an overview of (i) the methods currently used for management of postharvest diseases of fresh produce, highlighting their limitations, and (ii) the use of biocontrol agents as an alternative strategy for control of such diseases, with emphasis on fungal antagonists, their mode of action, and, more importantly, their advantages when compared to other methods commonly used. We therefore hypothesize that the use of fungal antagonists for prevention of postharvest loss of fresh produce is more effective compared to physical and chemical methods. Finally, particular attention is given to the gaps observed in establishing beneficial microbes as BCAs and factors that hamper their development, particularly in terms of shelf life, efficacy, commercialization, and legislation procedures.

Indexed as

biological control agentsfresh producefungal antagonistpostharvest loss

Identifiers

PMID39852501
PMCPMC11766600

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.