| Literature DB >> 35406903 |
Xiangdong Yang1,2, Lu Niu1, Yuanyu Zhang1, Wei Ren1, Chunming Yang1, Jing Yang1, Guojie Xing1, Xiaofang Zhong1, Jun Zhang2, Jan Slaski3, Jian Zhang2,4.
Abstract
Tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus L.) has recently attracted increasing interest from scientific and technological communities because of its potential for serving as additional source of food, oil, and feed. The present study reports morphology and biochemical characterization of 42 tiger nut accessions collected from China and other counties performed in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons at Nongan, Jilin Province. Assessment of variability of 14 agronomic traits including plant height, maturation, leaf width, tilling number, color, size, and shape: 100-tuber weight showed a wide range of phenotypic variation. The color, size, and shape and maturation of the tubers, as well as the leaf width, were the most distinct characteristics describing variation among the accessions. Compositional analyses of major nutritional components of the tubers reveals that this crop could be a source of high-value proteins, fatty acids, and carbohydrates. Specifically, tiger nut tubers contained high levels of starch, oil, and sugars, and significant amounts of fiber, Ca, P, and Na. Furthermore, the tubers appeared to be a good source of proteins as they contain 16 amino acids, including the essential ones. Amino acid profiles were dominated by aspartic acid followed by glutamic acid, leucine, alanine, and arginine. Overall, these results demonstrated that tiger nut is well adapted to the temperature and light conditions in the north temperate zone of China, even with a shorter growth season. The tiger nut accessions collected here exhibited wide variations for agronomical and biochemical traits, suggesting potential for potential for breeding improvement by maximizing the fresh tuber and grass yield based on the optimal selection of genetic characteristics in climate and soil conditions of northern China.Entities:
Keywords: accessions; biochemical composition; clustering analysis; morpho-agronomic traits; principal analysis; tiger nut
Year: 2022 PMID: 35406903 PMCID: PMC9003375 DOI: 10.3390/plants11070923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Tuber traits of tiger nut accessions used in the study.
| Accessions | Shape | Color | Length (cm) | TLWR | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JYD-1 | Long | Yellow | 18.65 ± 1.2 | 2.11 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-2 | Oval | Yellow | 15.42 ± 1.4 | 1.36 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-3 | Long | Yellow | 17.77 ± 1.84 | 1.84 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-4 | Oval | Yellow | 15.3 ± 0.82 | 1.25 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-5 | Long | Yellow | 16.91 ± 0.94 | 1.86 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-6 | Round | Yellow | 14.26 ± 0.9 | 1.15 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-7 | Long | Yellow | 17.55 ± 1.34 | 2.18 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-8 | Oval | Yellow | 14.9 ± 0.84 | 1.25 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-9 | Oval | Yellow | 15.37 ± 0.96 | 1.23 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-10 | Oval | Yellow | 14.32 ± 1.55 | 1.28 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-11 | Round | Yellow | 14.24 ± 0.8 | 1.19 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-12 | Long | Yellow | 21.49 ± 2.44 | 2.29 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-13 | Oval | Yellow | 15.12 ± 2.03 | 1.25 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-14 | Long | Yellow | 18.8 ± 0.97 | 2.09 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-15 | Long | Yellow | 17.52 ± 1.36 | 1.54 | Henan, China |
| JYD-16 | Round | Yellow | 14.93 ± 1.56 | 1.17 | Henan, China |
| JYD-17 | Oval | Yellow | 15.52 ± 1.9 | 1.21 | Henan, China |
| JYD-18 | Oval | Yellow | 16.6 ± 0.98 | 1.28 | Henan, China |
| JYD-19 | Oval | Yellow | 15.17 ± 0.59 | 1.28 | Henan, China |
| JYD-20 | Long | Yellow | 18.46 ± 2.33 | 2.04 | Henan, China |
| JYD-21 | Round | Yellow | 15.59 ± 0.7 | 1.18 | Jiangsu, China |
| JYD-22 | Oval | Yellow | 14.79 ± 0.56 | 1.29 | Jiangsu, China |
| JYD-23 | Round | Yellow | 14.98 ± 1.16 | 1.12 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-24 | Round | Yellow | 13.26 ± 1.23 | 1.12 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-25 | Oval | Yellow | 13.97 ± 1.09 | 1.20 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-26 | Round | Yellow | 13.78 ± 0.68 | 1.15 | Hebei, China |
| JYD-27 | Long | Yellow | 17.17 ± 1.11 | 2.16 | Hebei, China |
| JYD-28 | Round | Yellow | 13.13 ± 0.5 | 1.15 | Hebei, China |
| JYD-29 | Long | Yellow | 19.45 ± 2.47 | 2.06 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-30 | Round | Yellow | 15.58 ± 1.91 | 1.19 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-31 | Oval | Yellow | 15.01 ± 0.67 | 1.23 | Hubei, China |
| JYD-32 | Oval | Yellow | 13.91 ± 0.51 | 1.25 | Ghana |
| JYD-33 | Oval | Yellow | 16.07 ± 2.43 | 1.40 | Mali |
| JYD-34 | Oval | Red | 16.22 ± 1.64 | 1.34 | Cameron |
| JYD-35 | Oval | Yellow | 9.52 ± 1.64 | 1.30 | Cameron |
| JYD-36 | Oval | Yellow | 14.17 ± 0.68 | 1.23 | Cameron |
| JYD-37 | Round | Yellow | 14.15 ± 0.8 | 1.13 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-38 | Round | Yellow | 15.23 ± 0.83 | 1.08 | Jilin, China |
| JYD-39 | Oval | Yellow | 15.35 ± 0.46 | 1.31 | Hebei, China |
| JYD-40 | Long | Yellow | 19.94 ± 2.56 | 2.18 | Hebei, China |
| JYD-41 | Long | Yellow | 25.3 ± 2.76 | 1.62 | Russia |
| JYD-42 | Oval | Yellow | 14.06 ± 1.47 | 1.29 | Spain |
Note: Shape of the tuber was classified based on the length/width ratio of the fresh mature tubers: round (1.0–1.2), oval (1.2–1.5), and long (>1.5). TLWR—tuber length/width ratio.
Descriptive statistics of agronomic and biochemical traits under field conditions.
| Agronomic Traits | Year | Descriptive Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. Value | Max. Value | Mean ± SD | CV(%) | ||
| PH (cm) | 2019 | 75.30 | 149.15 | 122.99 ± 13.98 | 11.37 |
| 2020 | 92.04 | 168.95 | 140.96 ± 15.01 | 10.65 | |
| LW (mm) | 2019 | 3.70 | 8.35 | 5.49 ± 0.97 | 17.67 |
| 2020 | 4.08 | 9.05 | 6.3 ± 1.13 | 17.94 | |
| LLWR | 2019 | 15.86 | 35.22 | 22.98 ± 4.39 | 19.10 |
| 2020 | 15.88 | 35.03 | 22.96 ± 4.38 | 19.08 | |
| TL (mm) | 2019 | 8.85 | 22.77 | 15.01 ± 2.43 | 16.19 |
| 2020 | 10.19 | 27.83 | 16.85 ± 2.8 | 16.62 | |
| TW (mm) | 2019 | 7.26 | 15.50 | 11.19 ± 1.76 | 15.73 |
| 2020 | 7.36 | 15.82 | 11.45 ± 1.79 | 15.63 | |
| TLWR | 2019 | 1.05 | 2.21 | 1.38 ± 0.37 | 26.81 |
| 2020 | 1.11 | 2.37 | 1.51 ± 0.39 | 25.83 | |
| TN | 2019 | 15.77 | 81.78 | 31.84 ± 15.92 | 50.00 |
| 2020 | 18.02 | 92.22 | 36.18 ± 18.39 | 50.83 | |
| 100 TW(g) | 2019 | 33.84 | 221.84 | 99.28 ± 29.54 | 29.75 |
| 2020 | 34.32 | 236.04 | 102.85 ± 31.24 | 30.37 | |
| GY (kg/667 m2) | 2019 | 385.71 | 1212.68 | 747.06 ± 191.07 | 25.58 |
| 2020 | 394.29 | 1227.32 | 785.02 ± 190.92 | 24.32 | |
| TY (kg/667 m2) | 2019 | 619.92 | 1325.7 | 947.38 ± 194.44 | 20.52 |
| 2020 | 765.38 | 1514.95 | 1110.67 ± 252.02 | 22.69 | |
| Starch content (%) | 2020 | 17.92 | 27.20 | 21.62 ± 2.07 | 9.57 |
| Oil content (%) | 2020 | 14.04 | 21.28 | 17.97 ± 1.61 | 8.96 |
| Sugars content (%) | 2020 | 17.23 | 25.56 | 20.37 ± 2.04 | 10.01 |
| Protein content (%) | 2020 | 4.93 | 7.90 | 6.02 ± 0.65 | 10.80 |
Note: PH—plant height; LW—leaf width; LLWR—leaf length/width ratio; TL—tuber length; TW—tuber width; TLWR—tuber length/width ratio; TN—tiller number; 100 TW—100-tuber weight; GY—grass yield per 667 m2; TY—tuber yield per 667 m2.
ANOVA analysis of the agronomic and biochemical traits in three tiger nut groups with different tuber shapes.
| Traits | Group I (Round) | Group II (Oval) | Group III (Long) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PH (cm) | 137.87 ± 12.24 | 128.91 ± 16.92 | 128.88 ± 10.17 |
| LW (mm) | 6.54 ± 1.18 | 6.08 ± 0.81 | 5.13 ± 0.81 |
| LLWR | 21.75 ± 4.67 | 21.45 ± 3.51 | 25.64 ± 4.30 |
| TN | 23.63 ± 6.40 | 28.44 ± 12.13 | 53 ± 18.40 |
| TL (mm) | 14.49 ± 0.91 | 14.74 ± 1.52 | 19.12 ± 2.46 |
| TW (mm) | 12.61 ± 0.83 | 11.61 ± 1.21 | 9.79 ± 2.14 |
| TLWR | 1.15 ± 0.04 | 1.27 ± 0.05 | 1.99 ± 0.24 |
| 100 TW(g) | 103.5 ± 26.83 | 101.12 ± 24.73 | 100.38 ± 44.96 |
| GY (kg/667 m2) | 675.45 ± 167.43 | 701.15 ± 153.17 | 938.5 ± 175.85 |
| TY (kg/667 m2) | 1028.57 ± 207.46 | 930.08 ± 197.9 | 1203.3 ± 158.31 |
| Protein content (%) | 5.74 ± 0.30 | 5.83 ± 0.65 | 6.61 ± 0.61 |
| Oil content (%) | 18.01 ± 1.83 | 18.28 ± 1.40 | 16.96 ± 1.41 |
| Starch content (%) | 21.71 ± 1.60 | 21.89 ± 2.35 | 20.95 ± 1.48 |
| Sugar content (%) | 21.03 ± 2.54 | 20.36 ± 1.83 | 19.79 ± 1.99 |
Note: PH—plant height; LW—leaf width; LLWR—leaf length/width ratio; TL—tuber length; TW—tuber width; TLWR—tuber length/width ratio; TN—tiller number; 100 TW—100-tuber weight; GY—grass yield per 667 m2; TY—tuber yield per 667 m2.
Correlation coefficients of 14 agronomic and biochemical traits among 42 accessions.
| Traits | PH | LW | LLWR | TN | TL | TW | TLWR | 100 TW | GY | TY | Protein | Oil | Starch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LW | 0.20 | ||||||||||||
| LLWR | 0.43 ** | −0.78 ** | |||||||||||
| TN | −0.24 | −0.41 ** | 0.27 | ||||||||||
| TL | 0.07 | −0.27 | 0.31 * | 0.49 ** | |||||||||
| TW | 0.42 ** | 0.60 ** | −0.33 * | −0.56 ** | −0.06 | ||||||||
| TLWR | −0.21 | −0.61 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.71 ** | −0.73 ** | |||||||
| 100 TW | 0.27 | 0.44 ** | −0.24 | −0.05 | 0.33 * | 0.60 ** | −0.21 | ||||||
| GY | 0.11 | −0.29 | 0.37 * | 0.57 ** | 0.56 ** | −0.21 | 0.53 ** | 0.13 | |||||
| TY | −0.18 | −0.12 | 0.06 | 0.40 ** | 0.46 ** | −0.23 | 0.49 ** | 0.07 | 0.26 | ||||
| Protein | −0.32 * | −0.44 ** | 0.22 | 0.72 ** | 0.18 | −0.66 ** | 0.56 ** | −0.21 | 0.17 | 0.28 | |||
| Oil | 0.32 * | 0.22 | −0.1 | −0.43 ** | −0.15 | 0.40 ** | −0.39 * | 0.21 | −0.19 | −0.24 | −0.39 * | ||
| Starch | 0.11 | 0.14 | −0.10 | −0.15 | 0.02 | 0.36 * | −0.24 | 0.32 * | 0.11 | −0.01 | −0.31 * | 0.39 * | |
| Sugar | 0.24 | 0.19 | −0.02 | −0.23 | −0.23 | −0.04 | −0.11 | −0.32 * | −0.11 | −0.09 | −0.14 | 0.07 | −0.38 * |
* and ** denote the significant differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively. Note: PH—plant height; LW—leaf width; LLWR—leaf length/width ratio; TL—tuber length; TW—tuber width; TLWR—tuber length/width ratio; TN—tiller number; 100 TW—100-tuber weight; GY—grass yield per 667 m2; TY—tuber yield per 667 m2.
First 4 principal components based on 14 traits by PCA analysis.
| Traits | PV1 | PV2 | PV3 | PV4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH | −0.31 | 0.39 | 0.70 | 0.28 |
| LW | −0.73 | 0.11 | −0.40 | 0.43 |
| LLWR | 0.53 | 0.15 | 0.77 | −0.16 |
| TN | 0.82 | 0.20 | −0.21 | 0.04 |
| TL | 0.53 | 0.68 | −0.01 | 0.22 |
| TW | −0.80 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 0.11 |
| TLWR | 0.92 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.09 |
| 100 TW | −0.33 | 0.76 | −0.27 | 0.14 |
| GY | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| TY | 0.48 | 0.26 | −0.32 | 0.34 |
| Protein | 0.74 | −0.19 | −0.22 | −0.06 |
| Oil | −0.54 | 0.21 | 0.28 | −0.21 |
| Starch | −0.33 | 0.52 | −0.06 | −0.57 |
| Suger | −0.16 | −0.44 | 0.38 | 0.65 |
| Eigenvalue | 4.93 | 2.38 | 1.76 | 1.30 |
| Contribution rate CR(%) | 35.18 | 17.01 | 12.60 | 9.27 |
| Cumulative contribution rate CCR(%) | 35.18 | 52.16 | 64.80 | 74.07 |
Note: PH—plant height; LW—leaf width; LLWR—leaf length/width ratio; TL—tuber length; TW—tuber width; TLWR—tuber length/width ratio; TN—tiller number; 100 TW—100-tuber weight; GY—grass yield per 667 m2; TY—tuber yield per 667 m2.
Comprehensive assessment of 42 tiger nut accessions based on the 14 agronomic and biochemical traits.
| Accessions | F-Value | Rank | Accessions | F-Value | Rank | Accessions | F-Value | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JYD-1 | 3.8 | 12 | JYD-15 | 3.34 | 19 | JYD-29 | 4.01 | 4 |
| JYD-2 | 3.09 | 24 | JYD-16 | 3.58 | 16 | JYD-30 | 3.88 | 9 |
| JYD-3 | 3.66 | 14 | JYD-17 | 2.51 | 39 | JYD-31 | 2.66 | 34 |
| JYD-4 | 2.88 | 30 | JYD-18 | 3.42 | 18 | JYD-32 | 2.61 | 37 |
| JYD-5 | 3.92 | 7 | JYD-19 | 2.98 | 28 | JYD-33 | 2.75 | 33 |
| JYD-6 | 3.07 | 25 | JYD-20 | 4.3 | 3 | JYD-34 | 3.81 | 11 |
| JYD-7 | 3.92 | 8 | JYD-21 | 3.28 | 21 | JYD-35 | 2.78 | 32 |
| JYD-8 | 3.01 | 26 | JYD-22 | 2.91 | 29 | JYD-36 | 2.59 | 38 |
| JYD-9 | 3.0 | 27 | JYD-23 | 3.28 | 22 | JYD-37 | 2.38 | 42 |
| JYD-10 | 3.1 | 23 | JYD-24 | 2.85 | 31 | JYD-38 | 2.64 | 36 |
| JYD-11 | 3.29 | 20 | JYD-25 | 3.86 | 10 | JYD-39 | 2.66 | 35 |
| JYD-12 | 3.93 | 6 | JYD-26 | 3.55 | 17 | JYD-40 | 3.64 | 15 |
| JYD-13 | 3.71 | 13 | JYD-27 | 4.72 | 1 | JYD-41 | 4.33 | 2 |
| JYD-14 | 3.98 | 5 | JYD-28 | 2.46 | 41 | JYD-42 | 2.51 | 40 |
Correlation coefficients between 14 phenotypic traits and comprehensive value.
| Trait | F-Value | Trait | F-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PH | −0.073 | 100 TW | 0.09 |
| LW | −0.294 | GY | 0.717 ** |
| LLWR | 0.292 | TY | 0.850 ** |
| TN | 0.669 ** | Protein | 0.381 * |
| TL | 0.653 ** | Oil | −0.307 ** |
| TW | −0.336 * | Starch | −0.068 |
| TLWR | 0.690 ** | Suger | −0.136 |
Note: PH—plant height; LW—leaf width; LLWR—leaf length/width ratio; TL—tuber length; TW—tuber width; TLWR—tuber length/width ratio; TN—tiller number; 100 TW—100-tuber weight; GY—grass yield per 667 m2; TY—tuber yield per 667 m2, * and ** denote the significant differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively..
Figure 1Cluster analysis of 42 tiger nut accessions based on the 14 agronomic and biochemical traits.