The effect of organic and ınorganic fertilizer sources on phytochemical content of the Honeydew production

Öz

Melon (Cucumis melo L.) is one of the important species of Cucurbitaceae family and commonly cultivated in many parts of the world with the economic importance. This species have very rich variations. Honeydew (var. inodorus) which is within the Muskmelon group is one of them. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers sources on yield and quality performance of six different varieties of honeydew melon (‘Spring Dew’, ‘Dew Summer’, ‘Fall Dew’, ‘Honey Pearl’, ‘Honey Orange’, ‘Snow Leopard’). For this purpose, greenhouse grown seedlings were planted in the open field with randomized block design with two treatments and four replications. Prior to planting which is divided into strips were applied 15 kg/ha nitrogen from two different sources; organic nitrogen (manure) and inorganic (ammonium sulphate) fertilizer. Result of the study exhibited that fertilizer sources were displayed different responses on the plants. Treatment and cultivar interaction was not significant according to analysis of variance. In addition, there was no effect of the application on the parameters studied. However, cultivars were significantly yield and quality parameters. TSS content was ranged between 13.7 to 10.8%. The highest phenolic content was observed in ‘Honey Pearl’ (291.3 µg GAE/g) and ‘Spring Dew’ (368.7 µg GAE/g). Variety of ‘Honey Orange’ that has light orange flesh color had the highest content of TEAC and FRAP values, while same variety had the lowest phenolic content among the varieties. The results of present study show that fertilizer sources have no significant effect on yield and quality of honeydew. In this case, considering the environmental pollution, plant and human health issues, using manure for honeydew production could be beneficial.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cucumis melo, phenolic, FRAP, TEAC, trolox

Honeydew Yetiştiriciliğinde Organik ve İnorganik Gübre Kaynaklarının Fitokimyasal Değişimler Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Kavun (Cucumis melo L.) dünyanın birçok bölgesinde yaygın bir şekilde yetiştiriciliği yapılan ve Cucurbitaceae familyasının ekonomik öneme sahip türlerinden biridir. Çok zengin bir varyasyona sahip olan bu tür içerisinde bulunan Honeydew (var. inodorus) tipi kavunlar Muskmelon grubu içerisinde yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma da, altı farklı honeydew kavun çeşidinin (‘Spring Dew’, ‘Summer Dew’, ‘Fall Dew’, ‘Honey Pearl’, ‘Honey Orange’, ‘Snow Leopard’) organik ve inorganik gübre kullanımı sonucunda göstermiş oldukları verim ve kalite performanslarına bakılmıştır. Bu amaçla serada yetiştirilen fideler iki farklı uygulama ve her uygulamada dört yinelemeli olarak tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre araziye dikilmiştir. Şeritlere bölünmüş olan araziye dikim öncesinde 150 kg/ha azot olacak şekilde organik (çiftlik gübresi) ve inorganik (amonyum sülfat) gübreleme yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, çeşitlerin gübre kaynaklarına göstermiş oldukları tepkilerin farklı olduğunu göstermiştir. Varyans analiz tablolarına göre uygulama x çeşit interaksiyonunun önemli olmadığı görülmüştür. Buna ek olarak uygulamaların da incelenen parametreler üzerinde genellikle önemli bir etki yapmadığı gözlenmiştir. Çeşitlerin parametrelere etkisi istatistiki önemli bulunmuştur. Çeşitlerin SÇKM değerleri 10,8 ile 13,7 arasında değişmiştir. Fenolik içeriği 291,3 µg/g ile ‘Honey Pearl’ ve 368,7 µg/g ile ‘Spring Dew’ çeşidinde en yüksek değerleri vermiştir. Meyve eti açık turuncu ‘Honey Orange’ çeşidinin TEAC ve FRAP değerleri en yüksek çeşitler arasında yer alırken fenolik içeriği en düşük çeşitler arasında yer almıştır. Sonuçlar, organik ve inorganik kökenli gübre kaynaklarının verim ve kalite üzerine belirgin etkilerinin olmadığını göstermiştir. Bu durumda çevre kirliliği, toprak ve insan sağlığı göz önüne alındığında yetiştiricilikte çiftlik gübresi kullanım potansiyelinin yüksek olduğu gözlenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cucumis melo, fenolik, FRAP, TEAC, troloks

Kaynakça

1. Benzie IFF and Strain JJ (1996). The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of “Antioxidant Power”: The FRAP assay. Analytical Biochemistry, 239, 70–76.
2. FAO (2012). www.faostat.org
3. Huang D, Oub O and Prior R (2005). The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assasy . Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53, 184-1856.
4. Ismail HI, Chan KW, Mariod AA and Ismail M (2010). Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of cantaloupe (Ccucumis melo) methanolic extracts. Food Chemistry 119, 643-647.
5. Kalt W (2005). Effects of production and processing factors on major fruit and vegetable antioxidants. Journal of Food Science, 70, 11–19.
6. Karakaya S and El SN (2006). Total phenols and antioxidant activities of some herbal teas and in vitro bioavailability of black tea polyphenols. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 23(1), 1-8.
7. Lester GE (2008). Antioxidant, sugar, mineral, and phytonutrient concentrations across edible fruit tissues of orange-fleshed honeydew melon (Cucumis melo L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(10), 3694-3698.
8. Mengel K and Kirkby EA (1982). Principles of Plant Nutrition, International Potash Institute, P.O.B., CH-3048 Worblaufen- Bern/Switzerland, 3rd Edition.

9. Mercik S and Stepien W (2006). Crop yields and selected soil properties on manured and not manured fields at the period of many years. Nawozy Nawozenie (Fertilisers and Fertilization), 8, (4): 141-149.
10. Ngouajio M, McGiffen ME and Hutchinson CM (2003). Effect of cover crop and management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Protection, 22, 57–6
11. Olesen JE, Berntsen J, Petersen BM and Krıstensen IS (2007). Nitrate leaching from organic and conventional crop production farms, ıin: The role of part-time and pluri-active farmers in rural development and natural resource management, Abstracts, p. 19, NJF Seminars, 357.
12. Özgen M, Reese RN, Tulio AZ, Miller AR and Scheerens JC (2006). Modified 2,2-azino-bis-3ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacity of selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2‟diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) methods. J Agr Food Chem 54, 1151-1157.
13. Ozgen S and Sekerci S (2011). Effect of leaf position on the distribution of phytochemicals and antioxidant capacity among green and red lettuce cultivars Spanish J. of Agricultural Research vol:9,801-809.
14. Peiris KHS, Dull GG, Leffler RG and Kays SJ (1999). Spatial variability of soluble solids or dry-matter content within individual fruits, bulbs, or tubers: implications for the development and use of NIR spectronic techniques. HortScience, 34, 114-118.
15. Roginsky V and Lissi A (2005). Review of metods to determine chain-breaking antioxidant activitity in food. Food Chemistry 92, 235-254.
16. SAS (2006). SAS User Guide. Cary, N.C., USA.
17. Singleton VL and Rossi JA (1965). Colorimetry of total phenolics with phomolybdis-phosphotungistic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,, 16, 144-158.