| Literature DB >> 31817156 |
Saud L Al-Rowaily1, Ahmed M Abd-ElGawad1,2, Suliman M Alghanem3, Wafa'a A Al-Taisan4, Yasser A El-Amier2.
Abstract
Geophytes are plants with underground storage organs including bulbs, corms, tubers, and rhizomes, often physiologically active and able to survive during harsh environmental conditions. This study is conducted to assess the nutritive value, mineral composition, bioactive metabolites, and antioxidant activity of five wild geophytes (Cyperus capitatus, C. conglomeratus, Elymus farctus, Lasiurus scindicus, and Panicum turgidum) collected from the Nile Delta coast and inland desert. The proximate composition including dry matter, moisture content, ash content, fiber, fat, protein, sucrose, and glucose were determined. Also, total carbohydrates, total digestible nutrients (TDN), and nutritive values were calculated. Macro- and micro-minerals were also determined in the studied geophytes. Total phenolics, total flavonoids, alkaloids, saponins, and tannins were determined. Antioxidant activity was evaluated based on 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radicle scavenging. Based on the nutritive value, the studied geophytes are ranked as follows: E. farctus > C. conglomeratus > L. scindicus > P. turgidum > C. capitatus. The mineral analysis reveals a sufficient amount of macro- and micro-elements in the studied geophytes while the microelements levels in the studied wild plants exist as Fe > Mn > Zn > Cu. Cyperus conglomeratus attained the highest concentrations of all determined secondary metabolites. On the other hand, C. conglomeratus, C. capitatus, and P. turgidum extracts showed strong scavenging activity (EC50 < 1 mg mL-1), while extracts of E. farctus and L. scindicus exhibited moderate scavenging activity (1 ≤ EC50 ≤ 2 mg mL-1). The present data reveal that geophytes under investigation could be used as good forage plants, especially in arid habitats. In addition, C. conglomeratus could be a potentially important candidate for natural antioxidants as it attained high contents of the bioactive constituents.Entities:
Keywords: Cyperus; drought; forage; grasses; medicinal plants; minerals; nutritive value
Year: 2019 PMID: 31817156 PMCID: PMC6963330 DOI: 10.3390/plants8120569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Proximate composition (on dry matter basis) of the studied geophytes collected from the Egyptian desert.
| Proximate Composition |
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry matter % | 87.10 ± 4.94 a | 91.67 ± 3.65 a | 89.80 ± 5.09 a | 90.46 ± 3.12 a | 90.13 ± 5.11 a |
|
| Moisture % | 12.90 ± 1.29 a | 8.33 ± 0.83 a | 10.20 ± 1.02 a | 9.54 ± 0.95 a | 9.87 ± 0.99 a |
|
| Ash % | 10.75 ± 1.07 a | 10.54 ± 1.05 a | 9.39 ± 0.94 a | 9.07 ± 0.91 a | 8.62 ± 0.86 a |
|
| Fiber % | 12.51 ± 1.25 a | 11.97 ± 0.98 a | 13.40 ± 1.34 a | 12.89 ± 1.29 a | 13.84 ± 0.88 a |
|
| Fat % | 3.89 ± 0.28 cd | 3.19 ± 0.23 d | 5.13 ± 0.38 ab | 4.61 ± 0.34 bc | 5.87 ± 0.43 a |
|
| Protein % | 16.38 ± 1.20 ab | 17.13 ± 1.25 a | 13.50 ± 0.99 cd | 14.88 ± 1.09 bc | 12.06 ± 0.88 d |
|
| Sucrose % | 1.89 ± 0.14 a | 1.98 ± 0.15 a | 1.74 ± 0.13 a | 1.81 ± 0.13 a | 1.52 ± 0.11 a |
|
| Glucose % | 0.72 ± 0.05 a | 0.94 ± 0.07 a | 0.78 ± 0.06 a | 0.82 ± 0.06 a | 0.68 ± 0.05 a |
|
Values are mean of triplicates ± standard error. Different letters within each measurement mean values of significant variation at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1Carbohydrates, total digestible nutrients (TDN), and energy of the selected geophyte plants in the Egyptian desert. Values are mean (n = 3) with standard error bars.
Figure 2Macro-mineral composition of selected geophytes under study. Values are means (n = 3) with standard error bars. LSD0.05 is the least significant difference at the probability level of 0.05.
Figure 3Micro-mineral composition of selected geophytes. Values are an average (n = 3) with standard error bars. LSD0.05 is the least significant difference at the probability level of 0.05.
Secondary compounds (mg g−1 DW) of the studied geophytes collected from the Egyptian desert.
| Secondary Compounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total phenolics | 16.02 ± 0.86 b | 26.34 ± 1.41 a | 13.57 ± 0.73 bc | 9.59 ± 0.51 d | 10.69 ± 0.57 cd |
| Alkaloids | 15.15 ± 0.81 b | 21.84 ± 1.17 a | 16.10 ± 0.86 b | 6.89 ± 0.37 c | 6.08 ± 0.33 c |
| Total flavonoid | 10.57 ± 0.57 b | 18.27 ± 0.98 a | 8.02 ± 0.43 c | 5.31 ± 0.28 d | 5.82 ± 0.31 d |
| Saponins | 19.59 ± 1.05 b | 41.16 ± 2.21 a | 18.60 ± 1.00 c | 10.13 ± 0.54 d | 11.41 ± 0.61 d |
| Tannins | 12.42 ± 0.67 b | 26.10 ± 1.40 a | 12.80 ± 0.69 b | 5.46 ± 0.29 c | 4.13 ± 0.22 c |
Values are mean of triplicates ± standard error. Different letters within each measurement mean values of significant variation at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4EC50 values of the different studied geophytes and catechol (standard).
Figure 5Map of Egypt showing the locations of plant sampling.
Plant species name, family, duration, and chorotype of studied wild geophytes naturally growing in the Egyptian desert.
| Botanical Name | Family | Common Name | Duration | Chorotype | Voucher Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyperaceae | Seed | Perennial | ME | Mans.030303012 | |
| Cyperaceae | Seed, Oshb | Perennial | SA-SI + S-Z | Mans.030303008 | |
| Poaceae | Gazzoof | Perennial | ME | Mans.160506018 | |
| Poaceae | Sammat | Perennial | SA-SI + S-Z | Mans.161219003 | |
| Poaceae | Thommam, Shoosh | Perennial | SA-SI | Mans.161620007 |
ME: Mediterranean; SA-SI: Saharo-Sindian; S-Z: Sudano-Zambezian.
Figure 6Close view of the five studied geophytes. (a) Cyperus capitatus, (b) Cyperus conglomeratus, (c) Elymus farctus, (d) Lasiurus scindicus, and (e) Panicum turgidum.