| Literature DB >> 35011260 |
Yasser A El-Amier1, Walid Soufan2, Khalid F Almutairi2, Nouf S Zaghloul3, Ahmed M Abd-ElGawad1,2.
Abstract
Halophytes have been characterized as a potential resource for fiber, food, fodder, and bioactive compounds. Proximate composition, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant activity of five wild dominant halophytes (Arthrocnemummacrostachyum, Halocnemumstrobilaceum, Limoniastrummonopetalum, Limoniastrumpruinosum, and Tamarix nilotica) naturally growing along the Nile Delta coast were assessed. The soil supporting these halophytes was sandy to sand-silty, alkaline, with low organic carbon, and relatively high CaCO3. H. strobilaceum attained the highest moisture content, ash, crude fiber, lipids, and total soluble sugars. L. monopetalum showed the highest content of crude protein (18.00%), while T. nilotica had the highest content of total carbohydrates. The studied halophytes can be ranked according to their nutritive value as follows: H.strobilaceum > L.monopetalum > A.macrostachyum > L.pruinosum > T. nilotica. A. macrostachyum attained the highest amount of Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+. A. macrostachyum showed a high content of phenolic compounds, while H.strobilaceum was rich in tannins and saponin contents. The MeOH extract of A. macrostachyum and H. strobilaceum exhibited substantial antioxidant activity. The present results showed that the studied halophytes could be considered as candidates for forage production or used as green eco-friendly natural resources for bioactive compounds.Entities:
Keywords: forage; natural resources; proximate composition; saline habitat; secondary metabolites
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35011260 PMCID: PMC8746247 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27010028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Overview of different studied halophytes. (a) Arthrochemum macrostachyum, (b) Halocnemum strobilaceum, (c) Limoniastrum monopetalum, (d) Limonium pruinosum, (e,f) Tamarix nilotica.
Figure 2Map showing the different habitats and collection locations of the five halophytes.
Scientific name, life span, life from, chorotype, and habitats of the studied halophytes species.
| Botanical Name | Common | Duration | Life Form | Chorotype | Habitat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shenan | Perennial | Ch | ME + SA | Sd, Sf, Sm, La | |
| Hatab Ahmar | Perennial | Ch | ME + IR + SA | Sf, Sm, La | |
| Zeita | Perennial | Ch | ME | Sf, La | |
| Molleih | Perennial | G, He | SA | Sf, Sm, La | |
| Tarfa | Perennial | Nph | SA + SZ | Sm, Rw, Hw, Wi, Af, Dr, La |
Ch: Chamaephytes; G: Geophytes; He: Helophytes; Nph: Nanophanerophytes; ME: Mediterranean; IR: Irano-Turanian; SA: Saharo-Sindian; SZ: Sudano-Zambezian; Sd: Sand dunes; Sf: sand flats, Sm: Salt marshes; La: Lake; Rw: Railways; Hw: High ways; Wi: Waste lands; Af: Abandoned fields; Dr: Drains.
Figure 3A schematic diagram of the methodological approach.
Proximate composition, fiber fractionations, and mineral composition of studied halophytes.
| Parameters | Halophytes Species |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Moisture content | 16.68 ± 0.64 b | 20.25 ± 0.78 a | 9.11 ± 0.35 cd | 7.13 ± 0.27 d | 11.24 ± 0.43 c | 2.74 *** |
| Dry matter | 83.32 ± 3.20 b | 79.75 ± 3.07 b | 90.89 ± 3.50 a | 92.87 ± 3.57 a | 88.76 ± 3.41 a | 4.76 *** |
| Total ash | 9.58 ± 0.64 a | 5.94 ± 0.23 b | 6.56 ± 0.25 b | 7.69 ± 0.30 b | 7.54 ± 0.29 b | 4.25 *** |
| Crude fiber (%) | 17.55 ± 0.67 a | 22.78 ± 0.49 b | 7.92 ± 0.30 c | 8.79 ± 0.34 bc | 9.61 ± 0.37 bc | 2.74 ** |
| Holocellulose (%) | 61.36 ± 2.45 b | 64.68 ± 3.21 ab | 51.89 ± 2.11 c | 52.78 ± 2.18 c | 68.97 ± 3.52 a | 4.75 *** |
| Cellulose (%) | 41.71 ± 1.65 b | 38.11 ± 1.89 c | 31.54 ± 2.07 e | 33.37 ± 1.08 d | 46.61 ± 2.84 a | 2.22 *** |
| Hemicellulose (%) | 19.65 ± 0.87 a | 16.57 ± 0.67 b | 20.35 ± 0.94 a | 19.41 ± 0.64 a | 22.36 ± 0.57 a | 4.25 * |
| Lignin (%) | 9.81 ± 0.07 d | 10.66 ± 0.12 c | 12.98 ± 0.5 b | 10.68 ± 0.23 c | 15.72 ± 0.53 a | 0.37 *** |
| Lipid % | 1.45 ± 0.06 c | 5.88 ± 0.23 a | 1.41 ± 0.05 c | 1.17 ± 0.04 c | 2.15 ± 0.08 b | 0.37 *** |
| Crude protein % | 6.88 ± 0.26 c | 12.36 ± 0.48 b | 18.00 ± 0.69 a | 12.81 ± 0.49 b | 5.97 ± 0.23 c | 1.61 *** |
| Glucose (mg g−1 DW) | 0.63 ± 0.02 e | 1.66 ± 0.06 c | 2.65 ± 0.10 a | 1.36 ± 0.05 d | 1.88 ± 0.07 b | 0.09 *** |
| Sucrose (mg g−1 DW) | 2.87 ± 0.11 b | 8.31 ± 0.32 a | 3.17 ± 0.12 b | 2.31 ± 0.09 b | 3.26 ± 0.13 b | 1.11 *** |
| TSS (mg g−1 DW) | 52.55 ± 2.02 d | 149.51 ± 5.75 a | 87.30 ± 3.36 b | 55.05 ± 2.12 d | 77.10 ± 2.97 c | 6.65 *** |
| TC (mg g−1 DW) | 323.67 ± 6.92 d | 354.62 ± 7.58 c | 371.87 ± 7.95 bc | 391.15 ± 8.36 b | 420.34 ± 8.98 a | 19.89 *** |
| NV (kcal 100 g−1 DW) | 110.77 ± 5.32 b | 193.48 ± 7.32 a | 116.37 ± 4.69 c | 96.93 ± 3.58 d | 81.67 ± 2.69 e | 12.35 *** |
| Macro-elements (mg g−1 DW) | ||||||
| Na+ | 27.18 ± 0.58 a | 20.50 ± 0.44 b | 18.97 ± 0.41 b | 20.37 ± 0.39 b | 23.72 ± 0.51 ab | 5.99 ns |
| K+ | 64.21 ± 1.37 a | 26.70 ± 0.57 b | 12.21 ± 0.26 c | 13.97 ± 0.30 c | 12.42 ± 0.27 c | 4.89 *** |
| Ca2+ | 47.27 ± 1.01 a | 32.82 ± 0.70 b | 14.83 ± 0.32 c | 15.73 ± 0.34 c | 15.83 ± 0.32 c | 9.31 *** |
| Mg2+ | 13.25 ± 0.28 a | 11.32 ± 0.24 ab | 8.77 ± 0.19 b | 9.83 ± 0.21 ab | 10.33 ± 0.22 ab | 3.63 ns |
TSS: total soluble sugars, TC: Total carbohydrates, NV: nutritive value, Different superscript letters within each row showed a significant difference after Duncan’s post hoc test. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns: non-significant.
Bioactive composition (mg g−1 DW) of the five studied halophytes.
| Plant Species | Tannins | Saponins | Total Flavonoids | Alkaloids | Total Phenolics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.42 ± 0.13 e | 13.03 ± 0.39 d | 8.23 ± 0.25 a | 6.07 ± 0.18 a | 41.83 ± 1.27 a |
|
| 22.38 ± 0.51 a | 22.29 ± 0.36 a | 7.10 ± 0.29 ab | 6.67 ± 0.25 a | 18.72 ± 0.83 c |
|
| 14.25 ± 0.39 c | 19.77 ± 0.20 c | 4.93 ± 0.08 bc | 7.13 ± 0.15 a | 17.01 ± 0.21 d |
|
| 15.81 ± 0.43 b | 21.10 ± 0.60 b | 5.26 ± 0.15 bc | 7.36 ± 0.22 a | 18.46 ± 0.52 c |
|
| 11.82 ± 0.36 d | 6.72 ± 0.20 e | 4.52 ± 0.14 c | 3.36 ± 0.10 b | 22.49 ± 0.68 b |
|
| 0.92 *** | 1.12 *** | 2.22 * | 2.43 * | 0.37 *** |
Different superscript letters within each column showed a significant difference after Duncan’s post hoc test. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Data are mean values ± standard error (n = 3).
Scavenging activity percentage of 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•) and the SC50 values by the methanolic extract of the five studied halophytes and ascorbic acid as standard.
| Concentration | Halophytes Species | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 50 | 71.63 ± 2.65 a | 58.67 ± 2.17 a | 66.88 ± 2.48 a | 65.15 ± 2.41 a | 70.47 ± 2.61 a |
| 40 | 63.81 ± 2.36 b | 46.58 ± 1.73 b | 56.62 ± 2.10 b | 54.89 ± 2.03 b | 58.21 ± 2.16 b |
| 30 | 52.24 ± 1.93 c | 39.53 ± 1.46 c | 43.17 ± 1.60 c | 41.44 ± 1.53 c | 46.76 ± 1.73 c |
| 20 | 43.63 ± 1.62 d | 24.33 ± 0.91 d | 27.97 ± 1.04 d | 26.24 ± 0.97 d | 31.56 ± 1.17 d |
| 10 | 32.54 ± 1.21 e | 17.19 ± 0.64 e | 20.83 ± 0.77 e | 19.78 ± 0.71 e | 24.42 ± 0.90 e |
| 5 | 23.94 ± 0.89 f | 9.40 ± 0.35 f | 13.04 ± 0.48 f | 10.81 ± 0.42 f | 16.63 ± 0.62 f |
| LSD0.05 | 6.13 *** | 4.29 *** | 2.67 *** | 4.91 *** | 5.58 *** |
| SC50 (mg mL−1) | 27.79 | 28.62 | 35.72 | 37.15 | 33.13 |
|
|
| ||||
| 20 | 67.48 ± 1.17 a | ||||
| 15 | 58.74 ± 0.69 b | ||||
| 10 | 47.70 ± 0.47 c | ||||
| 5 | 40.71 ± 0.15 c | ||||
| 2.5 | 9.84 ± 0.07 d | ||||
| 1 | 2.85 ± 0.03 d | ||||
| LSD0.05 | 8.55 *** | ||||
| SC50 (mg mL−1) | 12.64 | ||||
Different superscript letters within each column showed a significant difference after Duncan’s post hoc test. *** significant at 0.001.