The effect of sowing date and planting density on grain yield and some nutritional quality characteristics of three seed-quinoa genotypes

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Plant Genetics and Production, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a plant with high nutritional value and has good adaptability to different growing conditions. To investigate the effects of planting date and density on the seed quality of three quinoa genotypes (Q29, Titicaca, and Red Carina), a field experiment was conducted in 2019-2020 at the research field of Agriculture and Natural Resources Campus, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. The seeds were sown on three dates (15th March, 15th April, and 15th May) under two planting densities (40 and 60 plants/m2). The experiment was conducted as a split-plot factorial design based on the randomized complete block design with three replications. The results revealed that both sowing date and plant density influenced the nutritional composition of the quinoa genotypes. The grain yield varied between 1642 and 2351 kg/ha, and the amino acids profile varied according to planting date and planting density. The amino acids histidine, glutamic acid, leucine, and lysine increased with delaying sowing date whereas threonine, tyrosine, arginine, methionine, glycine, proline, isoleucine, valine, serine, alanine, aspartic acid, asparagine, cysteine, phenylalanine, and glutamine decreased with delaying the sowing date from 15 March to 15 May. The Titicaca genotype produced maximum grain yield under the third sowing date while in the case of the first sowing date, all studied genotypes were more responsive regarding most amino acids. Also, the most suitable plant density to result in the highest grain yield was 60 plants/m2. The mineral content of the quinoa seeds was not influenced significantly by the sowing date, plant density, genotype, and their interactions, except for calcium which was affected significantly by the genotype. The lowest saponin content was observed in Titicaca under the planting density of 40 plants/m2. These results indicated that both sowing dates and plant densities influence the nutritional composition of quinoa genotypes.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

تأثیر تاریخ و تراکم کاشت بر عملکرد دانه و برخی خصوصیات کیفی تغذیه‌ای سه ژنوتیپ کینوا

Authors [Persian]

  • برکت اله ربانی 1
  • محمود خرمی وفا 1
  • محسن سعیدی 1
  • لیلا زارعی 1
  • محمود باقری 2
1 گروه مهندسی تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه
2 موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، سازمان تحقیقات آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج
Abstract [Persian]

کینوا (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) گیاهی با ارزش غذایی بالا است که به شرایط مختلف رشد نیز سازگاری قابل توجهی دارد. به منظور بررسی اثر تاریخ کاشت و تراکم بر کیفیت دانه سه ژنوتیپ کینوا (Q29، تیتیکاکا و ردکارینا)، یک آزمایش مزرعه‌ای در زمستان 1398 و بهار 1399 در مزرعه تحقیقاتی پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه در سه تاریخ کاشت (هفته سوم اسفند، هفته سوم فروردین و هفته سوم اردیبهشت) و دو تراکم (40 و 60 بوته در متر مربع) به صورت طرح اسپلیت پلات فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار انجام شد. نتایج آزمایش نشان داد ترکیب غذایی ژنوتیپ‌های کینوا تحت تاثیر تاریخ کاشت و تراکم قرار می‌گیرد. عملکرد دانه بین 1642 و 2351 کیلوگرم در هکتار نوسان داشت و مشخصات اسیدهای آمینه بر اساس تاریخ کاشت و تراکم کاشت متفاوت بود. اسیدهای آمینه هیستیدین، اسید گلوتامیک، لوسین و لیزین با تاخیر در تاریخ کاشت افزایش یافتند ولی ترئونین، تیروزین، آرژنین، متیونین، گلیسین، پرولین، ایزولوسین، والین، سرین، آلانین، اسید آسپارتیک، آسپاراژین، سیستئین، فنیل آلانین و گلوتامین با تأخیر در تاریخ کاشت از 15 اسفند تا 15 اردیبهشت ماه کاهش یافتند. ژنوتیپ تیتیکاکا در تاریخ کاشت سوم حداکثر عملکرد دانه را تولید کرد، در حالی که در تاریخ کاشت اول همه ژنوتیپ‌های مورد مطالعه در مورد اکثر اسیدهای آمینه پاسخ‌ بهتری نشان دادند. همچنین مناسب­ترین تراکم بوته برای دستیابی به بیشترین عملکرد دانه، 60 بوته در متر مربع بود. مواد معدنی بذر کینوا نسبت به تاریخ کاشت، تراکم بوته، ژنوتیپ و اثر متقابل آن­ ها تغییر معنی داری نشان ندادند به جز کلسیم که به طور معنی­ داری تحت تأثیر ژنوتیپ قرار گرفت. کمترین میزان ساپونین در ژنوتیپ تیتیکاکا در تراکم کاشت 40 بوته در متر مربع مشاهده شد. این نتایج نشان داد که ترکیب مواد مغذی ژنوتیپ‌های کینوا تحت تاثیر تاریخ کاشت و تراکم قرار می‌گیرد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • ارزش تغذیه ای
  • پروتئین
  • رقم
  • عملکرد دانه
  • مواد معدنی

References

Awadalla A, Morsy AS. 2017. Influence of planting dates and nitrogen fertilization on the performance of quinoa genotypes under Toshka conditions. Egypt J Agron. 39: 27–40.
Bagheri M. 2021. Study of dormant sowing possibility for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivation in moderate and cold climates. Final Report of Research Project No. 59662. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension, Iran (In Persian).
Craine EB, Murphy KM. 2020. Seed composition and amino acid profiles for quinoa grown in Washington State. Front Nutr. 7: 1–16.
Dakhili S, Abdolalizadeh L, Hosseini SM, Shojaee-Aliabadi S, Mirmoghtadaie L. 2019. Quinoa protein: composition, structure, and functional properties. Food Chem. 299: 125–161. 
De Bock P, van Bockstaele F, Muylle H, Quataert P, Vermeir P, Eeckhout M, Cnops G. 2021. Yield and nutritional characterization of thirteen quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) varieties grown in north-west Europe-Part I. Plants. 10: 2689.
Eisa SS, Abd El Samad EH, Hussin SA, Ali EA, Ebrahim M, González JA, Ordano MA, Erazzú L.E, El Bordeny NE, Abdel-Ati AA. 2018. Quinoa in Egypt- Plant density effects on seed yield and nutritional quality in marginal regions. Middle East J Appl Sci. 8: 515–522.
Escuredo O, González Martín MI, Wells Moncada G, Fischer S, Hernández Hierro JM. 2014. Amino acid profile of the quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) using near infrared spectroscopy and chemometric techniques. J Cereal Sci. 60: 67–74.
Gonzalez JA, Konishi Y, Bruno M, Valoy M, Prado FE. 2012. Interrelationships among seed yield, total protein and amino acid composition of ten quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivars from two different agroecological regions. J Sci Food Agric. 92: 1222–1229.
Granado-Rodríguez S, Aparicio N, Matías J, Pérez-Romero LF, Maestro I, Gracés I, Pedroche JJ, Haros CM, Fernandez-Garcia N, Navarro del Hierro J, et al. 2021. Studying the impact of different field environmental conditions on seed quality of quinoa: the case of three different years changing seed nutritional traits in southern Europe. Front Plant Sci. 12: 854.
Hammad E, Abo-Elwafa A, Morsy A, Awadalla A. 2021. Response of quinoa yield and seed chemical composition to planting dates and densities under the climatic conditions of Aswan Governorate. J Plant Prod. 12: 973–979.
Hinojosa L, González JA, Barrios-Masias FH, Fuentes F, Murphy KM. 2018. Quinoa abiotic stress responses: a review. Plants 7: 106.
Jacobsen SE, Christiansen JL. 2016. Some agronomic strategies for organic quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J Agron Crop Sci. 202: 454–463.
Jahanbkhsh S, Khajoei-Nejad G, Moradi R, Naghizadeh M. 2020. Effect of planting date and salicylic acid on some quantitative and qualitative traits of quinoa as affected by drought stress. Environ Stresses Crop Sci. 13: 1149–1167. (In persian with English abstract).
Khaitov B, Karimov AA, Toderich K, Sultanova Z, Mamadrahimov A, Allanov K, Islamov S. 2020. Adaptation, grain yield and nutritional characteristics of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes in marginal environments of the Aral Sea basin. J Plant Nut. 44: 1365–1379.
Khanalizadegan A, Madandoust M, Mohajeri F, Bagheri M. 2020. Effects of planting date on yield characteristics of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Int J Pharm Phytopharm Res. (eIJPPR) 10(5): 290–298.
Koziol MJ. 1991. Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). J Sci. Food Agric. 54: 211–219.
Matías J, Cruz V, Reguera M. 2021. Heat stress impact on yield and composition of quinoa straw under Mediterranean field conditions. Plants. 10: 955.
Miranda M, Vega-Gálvez A, Martinez E, López J, Rodríguez MJ, Henríquez K, Fuentes F. 2012. Genetic diversity and comparison of physicochemical and nutritional characteristics of six quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes cultivated in Chile. Food Sci Technol. 32: 835–843.
Mirzaie A, Mohammadi K, Parvini S, Khoramivafa M, Saeidi M. 2020. Yield quantity and quality of two linseeds (Linum usitatissimum L.) cultivars as affected by sowing date. Ind Crops Prod. 158: 112947.
Ning W, Fengxin W, Clinton CS, Chaobiao M, Lifang Q. 2020. Effects of management practices on quinoa growth seed yield and quality. J Agron. 445: 1–15. 
Nowak V, Du J, Charrondière UR. 2016. Assessment of the nutritional composition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Chem. 193: 47–54. 
Owji T, Mohajeri F, Madandoust M, Salehi M. 2021. Evaluation of the effect of seed rate and nitrogen fertilizer management on agronomic characteristics and grain yield components in quinoa summer cultivation in Fars province.  Int J Modern Agric. 10(1): 350–360.
Prado FE, Fernández-Turiel JL, Tsarouchi M, Psaras GK, González JA. 2014. Variation of seed mineral concentrations in seven quinoa cultivars grown in two agroecological sites. Cereal Chem. 91: 453–459.
Präger A, Munz S, Nkebiwe PM, Mast B, Graeff-Hönninger S. 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars grown under field conditions in southwestern Germany. Agronomy. 8: 197.
Qi W, Fong C, Lamport DT. 1991. Gum arabic glycoprotein is a twisted hairy rope: a new model based on O-galactosylhydroxyproline as the polysaccharide attachment site. Plant Physiol. 96: 848–855.
Rathore S, Bala M, Gupta M, Kumar R. 2019. Introduction of multipurpose agro-industrial crop quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in western Himalayas. Indian J Agron. 64: 287–292.
Reguera M, Conesa CM, Gil-Gómez A, Haros CM, Pérez-Casas MÁ, Briones-Labarca V, Bolaños L, Bonilla I, Álvarez R, Pinto K, et al. 2018. The impact of different agroecological conditions on the nutritional composition of quinoa seeds. Peer J. 6: 4442.
Rodríguez Gómez MJ, Matías Prieto J, Cruz Sobrado V, Calvo Magro P. 2021. Nutritional characterization of six quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) varieties cultivated in southern Europe. J Food Compost Anal. 99: 103876.
Sayed SE, Abd El-Samad EH, Hussin SA, Ali EA, Ebrahim M, González JA, Ordano M, Erazzú LE, El-Bordeny NE, Abdel-Ati AA. 2018. Quinoa in Egypt - Plant density effects on seed yield and nutritional quality in marginal regions. Middle East J Appl Sci. 8 (2): 515-522.
Shams AS, Galal WK. 2014. Response of quinoa to sowing dates and chemical composition of its grain. Ann Agric Sci. 52: 319–326.
Sharma V, Chandra S, Dwivedi P, Parturkar M. 2015. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) a nutritional healthy grain. nt J Adv Res. 3: 725–736.
Thanapornpoonpong SN, Vearasilp S, Pawelzik E, Gorinstein S. 2008. Influence of various nitrogen applications on protein and amino acid profiles of amaranth and quinoa. J Agric Food Chem. 56: 11464–11470.
Wang N, Wang F, Shock CC, Meng C, Qiao L. 2020. Effects of management practices on quinoa growth, seed yield, and quality. Agronomy. 10: 1–15.
Wayne W. 2012. A reliable methodology for quantitative extraction of fruit and vegetable physiological amino acids and their subsequent analysis with commonly available HPLC systems. Food Nutr Scie. 3: 863–871.
Xia H, Wang L, Xue Y, Kong W, Xue Y, Yu R, Xu H, Wang X, Wang J, Liu Z. 2019. Impact of increasing maize densities on agronomic performances and the community stability of productivity of maize/peanut intercropping systems. Agronomy. 9: 150. 
Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding
Volume 13, Issue 2
December 2023
Pages 197-215

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics