| Literature DB >> 24551188 |
Qing-Han Gao1, Jin-Gang Yu2, Chun-Sen Wu2, Zhi-Sheng Wang3, You-Ke Wang4, De-Lan Zhu5, Min Wang2.
Abstract
Loess Plateau is a typical rain-fed farming region, facing the threat of drought. Irrigation method is among the most important factors affecting jujube quality. This study investigated the response of Ziziphus jujuba Mill. cv. Lizao quality to three different irrigation methods (drip-, pipe- and surge spring root irrigation) combining two water levels (20 m(3)/hm(2) and 120 m(3)/hm(2)). The effects of the trials were evaluated by taking into account the physical-chemical characteristics of jujubes and the antioxidant activity. Concomitant to this, the concentration of some taste-related (viz. glucose, fructose, TSS and malic acid) and health-related compounds/parameters (viz. catechin and epicatechin) were generally much greater in jujube fruit treated with drip irrigation (120 m(3)/hm(2)). Different irrigation treatments had no significant effects on antioxidant capacity, total phenolics and proanthocyanidins (except for pipe irrigation 20 m(3)/hm(2)). The best compromise between quality and irrigation of jujube fruit was achieved with drip irrigation (120 m(3)/hm(2)).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24551188 PMCID: PMC3925179 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Surge spring root irrigation for jujube trees in loess plateau region part of China.
Moisture, fruit weight, total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity (TA) of jujube fruit, in relation to the different Irrigation practices.
| Compounds | Control | SSRI (m3/hm2) | DI (m3/hm2) | PI (m3/hm2) | |||
| 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | ||
| Moisture (%) | 19.2±0.1 cd | 17.3±0.1e | 18.5±0.3 d | 20.1±0.2 bc | 21.3±0.2 a | 19.2±0.1 cd | 20.5±0.3 ab |
| Weight (g) | 16.7±0.4 e | 22.9±1.5 d | 26.7±1.0 c | 23.4±0.7 d | 31.8±1.3 a | 25.7±1.1 c | 28.9±0.2 b |
| TSS (%) | 15.3±0.2 c | 12.9±0.1 d e | 14.3±0.2 d | 16.1±0.4 b | 17.1±0.1 a | 15.0±0.1 c | 17.2±0.1 a |
| TA (%) | 0.07±0.01 bc | 0.07±0.01 c | 0.11±0.01 a | 0.06±0.01 c | 0.10±0.02 ab | 0.10±0.0 ab | 0.13±0.03 a |
Data are mean ± standard deviation for n = 3. Means in the same line with different letter are significantly different (P<0.05).
Effect of different irrigation methods on ascorbic acid (mg/100 g FW), total phenolics (mg GAE/100 g FW), proanthocyanidins (mg GSPE eq./100 g FW), DPPH (%) and ABTS (mmol trolox eq/100 g FW) in jujube fruits.
| Compounds | Control | SSRI (m3/hm2) | DI (m3/hm2) | PI (m3/hm2) | |||
| 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | ||
| Ascorbic acid | 208.9±15.1 abc | 176.0±6.9 d | 225.0±15.9 a | 203.1±9.1 abcd | 222.0±26.9 ab | 188.9±12.0 cd | 194.8±7.9 bcd |
| Total phenolics | 396.2±35.9 b | 398.1±27.4 b | 430.5±36.1 ab | 438.0±10.6 ab | 458.2±17.7 a | 395.2±6.8 b | 440.3±11.1 ab |
| Proanthocyanidins | 434.8±10.4 b | 491.0±35.1 a | 479.3±52.4 ab | 486.1±20.4 ab | 482.6±5.4 ab | 386.0±24.2 c | 457.1±17.4 ab |
| Antioxidant activity | |||||||
| DPPH | 17.0±5.4 c | 25.5±5.0 ab | 28.5±5.5 a | 19.2±2.8 bc | 23.4±2.2 abc | 24.0±0.6 abc | 28.9±3.9 a |
| ABTS | 3.4±0.2 c | 4.4±0.2 abc | 5.4±1.3 a | 3.9±0.3 bc | 3.8±0.4 bc | 4.3±0.8 abc | 5.1±0.5 ab |
Data are mean ± standard deviation for n = 3. Means in the same line with different letter are significantly different (P<0.05).
Effect of different irrigation treatments on the contents of sugar, organic acid, phenolic compositions of jujube fruits.
| Compounds | Control | SSRI (m3/hm2) | DI (m3/hm2) | PI (m3/hm2) | |||
| 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | 20 | 120 | ||
| Sugars (mg/100 g FW) | |||||||
| Sucrose | nd | nd | 308.4±24.9 b | nd | 262.8±19.2 b | nd | 418.0±27.9 a |
| Glucose | 436.3±16.4 d | 556.0±19.6 d | 1447.9±71.2 c | 1509.1±95.0 c | 2431.7±400.8 a | 634.1±48.5 d | 1947.0±207.7 b |
| Fructose | 694.5±30.1 e | 574.9±26.3 e | 1518.4±18.8 d | 1836.4±201.9 c | 2633.9±164.6 a | 711.0±29.9 e | 2150.8±178.3 b |
| Organic acids (mg/100 g FW) | |||||||
| Citric acid | 34.0±2.0 e | 66.2±4.5 d | 135.7±5.0 b | 101.9±4.6 c | 138.1±4.9 b | 74.7±5.8 d | 197.7±32.6 a |
| Malic acid | 98.2±5.8 c | 117.9±6.3 c | 348.6±36.5 ab | 313.5±40.1 b | 392.9±29.4 a | 99.6±7.2 c | 320.5±23.5 b |
| Succinic acid | 17.4±0.7 e | 46.2±5.5 cd | 74.6±5.2 b | 53.8±6.5 c | 68.2±5.3 b | 38.7±5.3 d | 123.1±6.5 a |
| Phenolic compounds | |||||||
| Catechin (mg/100 g FW) | 5.64±0.58 d | 14.9±0.8 b | 15.4±0.7 b | 13.4±0.4 c | 16.5±0.6 a | 16.6±0.5 a | 15.8±0.4 ab |
| Epicatechin (mg/100 g FW) | 21.2±0.8 d | 32.2±1.1 bc | 30.4±1.1 c | 25.4±0.9 d | 37.5±3.1 a | 36.7±4.6 ab | 37.1±4.5 ab |
| Rutin (mg/100 g FW) | 1.44±0.05 a | 1.17±0.05 b | 0.96±0.03 d | 0.71±0.04 e | 1.25±0.06 b | 1.06±0.06 c | 1.23±0.06 b |
| Quercetin (µg/100 g FW) | nd | 56.0±3.5 a | 20.7±2.4 c | 22.7±2.2 c | nd | 49.7±2.4 b | nd |
| Cinnamic acid (µg/100 g FW) | nd | 10.3±0.4 b | 9.9±0.5 bc | nd | nd | 11.5±0.6 a | 9.2±0.5 c |
Data are mean ± standard deviation for n = 3. Means in the same line with different letter are significantly different (P<0.05).
Abbreviations: nd, not detected.