Evaluation of Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics of New Quinoa Genotypes in Spring Cultivation at Karaj

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Volume 18, Issue 4 - Serial Number 60, January 2021, Pages 465-475   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jcesc.2020.37139.0

Authors

M Bagheri^{* 1}; Z Anafjeh²; S Keshavarz¹; B Foladi¹

¹Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Karaj

²Research and Education Center of Agricultural and Natural Resources of Khuzestan, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ahvaz

Abstract

Introduction
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) is native to the Andean region of South America. Various genotypes of quinoa have a high diversity regarding different traits such as sensitivity to daylength, seed size and color, nutritional and anti - nutritional value of seeds, tolerance to biological and non - nutritional stresses. Considering the development goals of the quinoa, the need for new genotypes is very tangible. Fortunately, new genotypes of quinoa have become available that have not been studied domestically. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of these genotypes and to study their compatibility with spring cultivation in Karaj region. The results of this study provide the basis for deciding the next steps of research and development on these genotypes.
Materials and Methods
In this study, 13 new genotypes of quinoa including Atlas, EQ 101, EQ 102, EQ103, EQ104, EQ105, EQ106, Amiralla Marangani, Amiralla Sacaca, Blanka Dejunine, Kancolla, Salsada Inia and Rosada De Huncaya, have been studied in a randomized complete block design with three replications for two years (2018-2019) at Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj. Genotypes with the prefix EQ were obtained from Canada, Atlas genotype from the Netherlands and the rest of the genotypes from Peru. Each plot consisted of three rows with 500 cm length and 60 cm × 10 cm of plant density. The distances between replications and planting plots per replication were 180 cm and 200 cm. Data were analyzed using SAS software and means were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% level (P = 0.05).
Results and Discussion
The results showed that all traits except days to germination were significantly affected by genotype. However, plant height, inflorescence length, stem diameter, oil percentage and days to maturity did not affect by genotype interaction per year. The effect of year was also significant for grain yield, days to pollination, saponin content and oil percentage. Different origin (from Peru, Canada and the Netherlands) and different morphological characteristics of the studied genotypes caused significant differences in different traits. The EQ101 genotype, showed the highest grain yield and plant height, highest protein content and the lowest amount of saponin. While Marangani genotype with an average yield of 796.78 kg ha^-1 had the lowest yield. EQ103 was the earliest and Marangani, Kancolla, Rosada and Salsada genotype were the late genotypes, respectively. On the other hand, EQ105 genotype revealed the highest seed oil content. Marangani genotype had the thickest shoot among all genotypes. Canadian Genotypes have lower levels of saponin than Peruvian genotypes. EQ101 with saponin content of 0.48 mg g^-1 (0.04%) had the lowest saponin content and among the studied genotypes in this study, it is the only genotype that belong to sweet quinoa cultivars.
Conclusions
The studied genotypes demonstrated significant diversity and differences in all studied traits. In some traits, the difference between the two groups of genotypes (Canadian or Peruvian) was quite obvious. In this study all quinoa genotypes were compatible with spring cultivation in Karaj region. Genotypes compatible with spring (long day) cultivation usually do not have a problem with summer and autumn cultivation and will most likely be cultivated in all seasons and regions of the country.

Keywords

Saponin; Seed yield; Spring planting

References

1. Abasi, S., Cordnaeich, A., and Bagheri, M. 2019. Evaluation of genetic diversity of new chenopodium quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivars based on agromorphological traits. 15^th National Congress of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, September 2019, Karaj, Iran.
2. Abdelazim Sayed, A. A. 2018. Chemical and technological evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivated in Egypt. Journal of Acta Scientific Nutritional Health 2 (7): 42-53.
3. Ahumada, A., Ortega, A., Chito, D., and Benítez, R. 2016. Saponinas de quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): UN subproducto con alto potencial biologico. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Journal of Quimico Farm 45: 438-469.
4. Bagheri, M., Zamani, M. R., Shouride, H., Molaei, A. R., Mansourian, A. R., and Heydari, F. 2019. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa Genotypes in Mashhad and Isfahan. Final Research Project Report, Agricultural Research and Information Center, Registration No. 53795 (in Persian with English abstract).
5. Balem, Z., Modolo, A. J., Trezzi, M. M., Vargas, T. O., Baesso, M. B., Brandelero, E. M., and Trogello, E. 2014. Conventional and twin-row spacing in different population densities for maize (Zea mays L.). African Journal of Agriculture Research 23: 1787-1792.
6. Bastidas, E. G., Roura, R., Rizzolo, D. A. D., Massanes, T., and Gomis, R. 2016. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), from nutritional value to potential heaith benefits: an integrative review. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science 6 (3): 104-114.
7. Beyrami, H., Rahimian, M. H., Salehi, M., and Yazdani-Biouki, R. 2020. Effect of different levels of irrigation water salinity on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) yield and yield components in spring planting. Journal of Crop Production 12 (4): 111-120.
8. Bhargava, A., and Srivastava, S. 2013. Quinoa Botany, Production and Uses. CABI.
9. Bhargava, A., Shukla, S., and Ohri, D. 2007. Genetic variability and interrelationship among various morphological and quality traits in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Field Crops Research 101: 104-116
10. Bois, J. F., Winkel, T., Lhomme, J. P., Raffaillac, J. P., and Rocheteau, A. 2006. The response of some Andean cultivars of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to temperature effects on germination, phenology, growth, and freezing. Eurean Journal of Agronomy 25: 299-308.
11. Curti, R. N., Vega, A. J., Andrade, A. J., Bramardi, S. J., and Bertero, H. D. 2016. Adaptive responses of quinoa to diverse agro-ecological environments along with an altitudinal gradient in North West Argentina. Journal of Field Crops Research 189: 10-18.
12. El Hazzam, Kh., Hafsa, J., Sobeh, M., Mhada, M., Taourirte, M., EL Kacimi, K., and Yasri, A. 2020. An insight into saponins from Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd): A Review. Journal of Molecules 25 (5): 1059.
13. FAO. 2017. Faostat. Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E.
14. FAO/INFOODS Databases “Food Composition Database for Biodiversity Version 4.0–BioFoodComp4.0. 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7364e.pdf.
15. Graf, B. L., Rojas-Silva, P., Rojo, L. E., Delatorre-Herrera, J., Baldeon, M. E., Raskin, I. 2015. Innovations in healthvalue and functional food development of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 14: 431-445.
16. Hirich, A., Choukr-Allah, R., and Jacobsen, S. E. 2014. Quinoa in Morocco- Effect of sowing dates on development and yield. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 1-7.
17. Jacobsen, S., and Stolen, O. 1993. Quinoa - Morfology, phenology and prospects for its production as a new crop in Europe. Eurean Journal of Agronomy 2 (1): 19-29.
18. Koziol, M. J. 1991. Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Journal of Science Food Agriculture 54: 211-219.
19. Koziol, M. J. 1993. Quinoa: a potential new oil crop. New crops. Wiley, New York. Latinreco. 1990. Quinua. Hacia su cultivo comercial. Latinreco S.A. Quito, Ecuador.
20. Martinez, E. A., Veas, E., Jorquera, C., San Martin, R., and Jara, P. 2009. Re-introduction of quinoa into arid Chile: cultivation of two lowland races under extremely low irrigation. Journal of Agriculture Crop Science 195: 1-10.
21. Mignone, C. M., and Bertero, H. D. 2007. Identificación del período crítico de determinación del rendimiento en quínoas de nivel del mar. Proceedings of the Congreso Internacional de la Quinua, 23-26 October; Iquique.
22.  Miranda, M., Vega-Gálvez, A., Martínez, E., López, J., Rodríguez, M. J., Henríquez, K., and Fuentes, F. 2012. Genetic diversity and comparison of physicochemical and nutritional characteristics of six quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes cultivated in Chile. Journal of Food Science Technology 32: 835-843.
23. Miri, Kh. 2017. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa genotypes to Iranshahr region. Final report of the research project. Baluchestan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Training Center (IRANSHAHR). Agricultural Research and Extension Research Organization. (in Persian with English abstract).
24. Molaei, A. 2016. Evaluation of adaptation and response of some quinoa cultivars to day length in Shahrekord. Final report of the research project. Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari Province Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training Center. Agricultural Research and Extension Research Organization. (in Persian with English abstract).
25. Naneli, I., and Dokuyucu, T. 2017. Response of the quinoa genotypes to different locations by grain yield and yield components. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research 6 (3): 446-451.
26. Prager, A., Munz, S., Nkebiwe, P. M., Mastand, B., and Graeff-Honninger, S. 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars grown under field conditions in southwestern Germany. Agronomy Journal 8 (10): 1-19.
27. Pulvento, C., Riccardi, M., Lavini, A. D., Andria, R., Iafelice, G., and Marconi, E. 2010. Field trial evaluation of two Chenopodium quinoa genotypes grown under rain-fed conditions in a typical mediterranean environment in south Italy. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 196: 407-411.
28. Reguera, M., Conesa, C. M., Gil-Gomez, A., Haros, C. M., Perez-Casas, M. A., Briones-Labarca, L., Bolanos, L., Bonilla, I., Alvarez, R., Pinto, K., Mujica, A., and Bascunan-Godoy, L. 2018. The impact of different agroecological conditions on the nutritional composition of quinoa seeds. Peer Journal, e4442.
29. Rojas, W., Barriga, P., and Figueroa, H. 2003. Multivariate analysis of genetic diversity of Bolivian quinoa germplasm. Journal of Food Reveiws International 9: 167-177.
30. Santis, G., Maddaluno, C., Ambrosio, T., Rascio, A., Rinaldi, M., and Troisi, J. 2016. Characterisation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) accessions for the saponin content in Mediterranean environment. Italian Journal of Agronomy 11 (774): 277-281.
31. Sarjamei, F., Khorasani, S., and Nezhad, N. 2014. Effect of planting methods and plant density, on morphological, phenological, yield and yield component of baby corn. Journal of Advance in Agriculture and Biology 2 (1): 20-25.
32. Sepahvand, N. A. 2013. Evaluation of compatibility, agronomic, phenological characteristics and qualitative value of quinoa crop in Iran. Final Research Project Report, Agricultural Research and Information Center, Registration No. 44026.
33. Sepahvand, N. A., and Prcasi, A. 2015. Study of adaptation and agronomic characteristics of quinoa in Iranshahr. 13th Iranian Conference on Agronomy and Plant Breeding Sciences and Third Iranian Seed Science and Technology Conference. (in Persian with English abstract).
34. Shirinnezhad, R., Torabi, M., and Mahmoudi, F. 2019. Evaluation of compatibility of quinoa cultivars in different planting dates and their effects on morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters. Second international and sixth national conference vs. Conventional Agriculture 1-7. (in Persian with English abstract).
35. Sifti, E., Ramezanpour, S., Soltanloo, H., Salehi, M., and Sepahvand, N. A. 2016. Investigation of some morphophenological traits related to yield and early maturity in cultivars Modified quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Journal of Crop Production 8 (2): 153-169. (in Persian).
36. Singh, S., Singh, R., and Singh, K.V. 2016. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), functional superfood for today’s world: A Review. Journal of World Scientisic News 58: 84-96.
37. Soliz-Guerrero, J. B., Rodriguez, D. J., Rodriguez-Garcia, R., Mendez-Padilla, G., and Angulo-Sanchez, J. L. 2002. Quinoa saponins: concentration and composition analysis. Intrnational Journal of Janick and A. Whipkey (eds.), Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA p. 110-114.
38. Stikic, R., Glamoclija, D., Demin, M., Vucelic-Radovic, B., Jovanovic, Z., Milojkovic-Opsenica, D., Jacobsen, S. E., Milovanovic, M. 2012. Agronomical and nutritional evaluation of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as an ingredient in bread formulations. Journal of Cereal Science 55: 132-138.
39. Stuardo, M., and San Martin, R. 2008. Antifungal properties of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) alkali treated saponins against Botrytis cinerea. Industrial Crops and Products. Journal of Crop Product 27: 296-302.
40. Tavoosi, M., and Sepahvand, N. A. 2013. Effect of planting date on yield and phenological and morphological characteristics of different genotypes of new quinoa in Khuzestan. First International Congress and 13^th Iranian Genetic Congress. Shahid Beheshti University. (in Persian with English abstract).
41. Tavoosi, M., and Sepahvand, N. A. 2013. Evaluation of different genotypes of quinoa for yield and other phenological characteristics in khuzestan. 12^th Iranian Genetic Congress, Shahid Beheshti University. (in Persian with English abstract).