Bioactive, Antioxidant, and Nutritional Responses of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) to Fertilization Regimes
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Garlic
2.2. Nutritional Composition of Garlic
2.3. Pearson’s Correlation Analysis
2.4. Principal Component Analysis
2.5. Cluster Analysis
2.6. Content of Macro- and Microelements in Garlic
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Experimental Design and Plant Material
3.2. Agrochemical Properties at the Experimental Site
3.3. Weather Conditions
3.4. Measurements and Analytical Determination
3.5. Statistical Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| DW | Dry Weight |
| TPC | Total Phenolic Content (mg/100 g DW) |
| TF | Total Flavonoid Content (mg/100 g DW) |
| DPPH | 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging assay for antioxidant activity (mg/g DW) |
| FRAP | Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power assay (mg Fe2+/g DW) |
| ABTS | 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical cation decolorization assay for antioxidant activity (mg/g DW) |
| AA | Antioxidant Activity |
| PCA | Principal Component Analysis |
References
- Lanzotti, V. The analysis of onion and garlic. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1112, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iciek, M.; Kwiecień, I.; Włodek, L. Biological properties of garlic and garlic-derived organosulfur compounds. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2009, 50, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bayan, L.; Koulivand, P.H.; Gorji, A. Garlic: A review of potential therapeutic effects. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2014, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- El Saber Batiha, G.; Beshbishy, A.M.; Alkazmi, L.M.; Nadwa, E.H.; Rashwan, E.K.; Abdalla, M.; Elewa, Y.H.A. Chemical constituents and pharmacological activities of garlic (Allium sativum L.): A review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cardellina, J.H. Review of garlic and other alliums: The lore and the science. J. Nat. Prod. 2013, 76, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, H.P.; Lawson, L.D. Garlic: The Science and Therapeutic Application of Allium sativum L. and Related Species; Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1996; p. 329. [Google Scholar]
- Santhosha, S.; Jamuna, P.; Prabhavathi, S. Bioactive components of garlic and their physiological role in health maintenance: A review. Food Biosci. 2013, 3, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suleria, H.A.R.; Butt, M.S.; Khalid, N.; Sultan, S.; Raza, A.; Aleem, M.; Abbas, M. Garlic (Allium sativum L.): Diet-based therapy of 21st century—A review. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis. 2015, 5, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, N.; Petropoulos, S.A.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Chemical composition and bioactive compounds of garlic (Allium sativum L.) as affected by pre- and post-harvest conditions: A review. Food Chem. 2016, 211, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randle, W.M.; Lancaster, J.E. Sulphur compounds in Alliums. In Allium Crop Science: Recent Advances; Rabinowitch, H.D., Currah, L., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 329–356. [Google Scholar]
- Bloem, E.; Haneklaus, S.; Schnug, E. Influence of fertilizer practices on S-containing metabolites in garlic (Allium sativum L.) under field conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 10690–10696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, N.; Liu, C.; Chen, Q.; Fan, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H. Substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer can affect soil labile organic carbon fractions and garlic yield. Agronomy 2023, 13, 3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balmori, D.M.; Venturini, K.S.; Ferreira, M.M.M.; Souza, C.F.V. Foliar application of humic liquid extract from vermicompost improves garlic (Allium sativum L.) production and bulb quality. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pączka, G.; Mazur-Pączka, A.; Garczyńska, M.; Kostecka, J.; Butt, K.R. Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Cultivation Using Vermicompost-Amended Soil as an Aspect of Sustainable Plant Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAOSTAT. Garlic Production Statistics. FAO. 2023. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Pietta, P.G. Flavonoids as antioxidants. J. Nat. Prod. 2000, 63, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, F. Biological functions and health benefits of flavonoids in fruits and vegetables: A contemporary review. Foods 2025, 14, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czech, A.; Szmigielski, M.; Sembratowicz, I. Nutritional value and antioxidant capacity of organic and conventional vegetables of the genus Allium. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 18713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čeryová, N.; Čičová, I.; Lidiková, J.; Šnirc, M.; Horváthová, J.; Lichtnerová, H.; Franková, H. The content of bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Slovak. J. Food Sci. 2021, 15, 1104–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milić, A.; Adamović, B.; Nastić, N.; Tepić Horecki, A.; Pezo, L.; Šumić, Z.; Pavlić, B.; Živanov, M.; Pavković, N.; Vojnović, D. Cluster and principal component analyses of the bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of celery (Apium graveolens L.) under different fertilization schemes. Foods 2024, 13, 3652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Oliveira Pereira, F.; dos Santos Pereira, R.; de Souza Rosa, L.; Teodoro, A.J. Organic and conventional vegetables: Comparison of the physical and chemical characteristics and antioxidant activity. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 15, 1746–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoletto, C.; Santagata, S.; Sambo, P. Effect of compost application on qualitative traits in cabbage. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1005, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amarowicz, R.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Janiak, M.A.; Damszel, M.; Stepien, A.; Sulewska, K.; Karamać, M.; Penkacik, K. Effect of fertilization on phenolics of rapeseeds and their antioxidant potential. Foods 2024, 13, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Wang, Z.; Cui, R.; Su, L.; Sun, X.; Borras-Hidalgo, O.; Li, K.; Wei, J.; Yue, Q.; Zhao, L. Effects of nitrogen application on phytochemical component levels and anticancer and antioxidant activities of Allium fistulosum. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Subeihi, A.A.; Awal, A.; Ahmed, M.W.; Ahmed, M.; Alam, T.; Khan, M.S.I.; Islam, M.A. Effects of organic and chemical fertilizers on the content of major phenolic compounds of carrot. Poll. Res. 2022, 41, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, X.P.; Letey, J. Organic farming: Challenge of timing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čeryová, N.; Lidikova, J.; Pinter, E.; Šnirc, M.; Frankova, H.; Norbova, M.; Fedorkova, S. Total phenol content, total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity of garlic (Allium sativum L.) cultivars. J. Microbiol. Biotech. Food Sci. 2023, 13, e9668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, V.C.; Gonzalez, R.E.; Sance, M.M.; Galmarini, C.R. Organosulfur and phenolic content of garlic (Allium sativum L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) and its relationship with antioxidant activity. In VII International Symposium on Edible Alliaceae; International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS): Leuven, Belgium, 2015; Volume 1143, pp. 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, S.R.; Yoon, M.K.; Kwak, J.H. Contents of phytochemical constituents and antioxidant activity of 19 garlic (Allium sativum L.) parental lines and cultivars. Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 2014, 55, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, M.H.; Kim, J.G. Low-dose UV-C irradiation reduces the microbial population and preserves antioxidant levels in peeled garlic (Allium sativum L.) during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 100, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, J.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X. Content of selected flavonoids in 100 edible vegetables and fruits. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2010, 16, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golubkina, N.A.; Kharchenko, V.A.; Moldovan, A.I.; Koshevarov, A.A.; Zamana, S.; Nadezhkin, S.; Soldatenko, A.; Sekara, A.; Tallarita, A.; Caruso, G. Yield, growth, quality, biochemical characteristics and elemental composition of plant parts of celery leafy, stalk and root types grown in the Northern Hemisphere. Plants 2020, 9, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vojnović, Ð.; Maksimović, I.; Tepić Horecki, A.; Žunić, D.; Adamović, B.; Milić, A.; Šumić, Z.; Sabadoš, V.; Ilin, Ž. Biostimulants affect differently biomass and antioxidant status of onion (Allium cepa) depending on production method. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huseynzade, E.V. Effect of fertilizers on quality parameters of garlic in gray-brown soils. Res. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2023, 7, 175–180. [Google Scholar]
- Golubkina, N.A.; Seredin, T.M.; Antoshkina, M.S.; Kosheleva, O.V.; Teliban, G.C.; Caruso, G. Yield, quality, antioxidants and elemental composition of new leek cultivars under organic or conventional systems in a greenhouse. Horticulturae 2018, 4, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yatsenko, V.; Ulianych, O.; Shchetyna, S.; Slobodyanyk, G.; Vorobiova, N.; Kovtunyuk, Z.; Voievoda, L.; Kravchenko, V.; Lazariev, O. Effect of vermicompost on yield, quality, and antibacterial activity of garlic. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2019, 9, 618–623. Available online: https://www.ujecology.com/articles/effect-of-vermicompost-on-yield-quality-and-antibacterial-activity-of-garlic.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2025). [CrossRef]
- Cocom, L.M.; Wang, H.C.; Tseng, K.C.; Chu, Y.L. The antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of raw, aged, and fermented garlic: Influence of processing methods. Food Sci. Nutr. 2025, 13, 70743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eissa, H.A.; Nadir, A.S.; Ramadan, M.T.; Abou-Zaid, A.A.; Moawad, R.K.; Helmy, I.M.F.; Elmageed, N.A.; Saleh, O.; Ibrahim, W.A. Chemical characteristics, mineral contents and color evaluation of fresh garlic cloves and dried garlic sheet. Egypt. J. Chem. 2023, 66, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajid, M.; Butt, M.S.; Shehzad, A.; Tanweer, S. Chemical and mineral analysis of garlic: A golden herb. Pak. J. Food Sci. 2014, 24, 108–110. [Google Scholar]
- Bajpai, P.; Punia, D. Effect of cultivation practices on nutritional composition of vegetables. Asian J. Dairy Food Res. 2015, 34, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, Y.; Zhang, S.; Dong, X.; Li, Q.; Huang, Y.; Meng, X.; Wang, Y.; Ye, Y. Garlic-specific fertilizer improves economic and environmental outcomes in China. HortScience 2024, 59, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisciani, S.; Gambelli, L.; Durazzo, A.; Marconi, S.; Camilli, E.; Rossetti, C.; Gabrielli, P.; Aguzzi, A.; Temperini, O.; Marletta, L. Carbohydrate components of some Italian local landraces: Garlic (Allium sativum L.). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petropoulos, S.A.; Fernandes, Â.; Ntatsi, G.; Petrotos, K.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Nutritional value, chemical characterization and bulb morphology of Greek garlic landraces. Molecules 2018, 23, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Wang, J.; Al-Qadiri, H.M.; Ross, C.F.; Powers, J.R.; Tang, J.; Rasco, B.A. Determination of total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of onion (Allium cepa) and shallot (Allium oschaninii) using infrared spectroscopy. Food Compos. 2011, 129, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benke, A.P.; Mokat, D.; Mahajan, V. Biochemical Diversity in Allium Species: Key Metabolite Profiles for Breeding and Bioprospecting. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1618572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, W.; Rajcan, I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarpkaya, O.K.; Sönmez, İ.; Erol, Ü.H. Contents of Micro- and Macroelements and the Biochemical Composition of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Genotypes. J. Elem. 2024, 29, 961–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, G.L.; Singh, S.P.; Yadav, G.K.; Yadav, B.; Yadav, M. Effect of bio-regulators and bio-fertilizers on quality of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Int. J. Adv. Biochem. 2024, 8, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, A.S.; Romero, J.A.S.; Sanjuan, M.C.S.; Bernardeau, M.A.B.; Iniesta, M.J.D. Medium-term influence of organic fertilization on the quality and yield of a celery crop. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, H.E.M.; Bardisi, A.; Abou El-Khair, E.E. Impact of potassium fertilization on growth, productivity and bulb quality of garlic plants. Glob. J. Agric. Food Saf. Sci. 2025, 1, 107–125. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20153145284 (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Honma, T.; Kaneko, A.; Ohba, H.; Ohyama, T. Effect of application of molasses to paddy soil on the concentration of cadmium and arsenic in rice grain. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012, 58, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boateng, S.A.; Zickermann, J.; Kornahrens, M. Poultry manure effect on growth and yield of maize. West Afr. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taiwo, A.A.; Adetunji, M.T.; Azeez, J.O.; Elemo, K.O. Kinetics of potassium release and fixation in some soils of Ogun State, Southwestern, Nigeria as influenced by organic manure. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2018, 7, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Qin, J.; Mattson, N.S.; Ao, Y. Effect of potassium application on celery growth and cation uptake under different calcium and magnesium levels in substrate culture. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 158, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Dhumri, S.A.; Al Mosallam, M.S.; Zhang, W.; Alharabi, S.; Abou-Elwafa, S.F. Application of molasses as an eco-innovative approach substitutes mineral nitrogen fertilization and enhances sugar beet productivity. Waste Biomass Valorizat. 2023, 14, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, B.T.; Wehr, J.B.; Kopittke, P.M.; O’Hare, T.J.; Menzies, N.W.; Hong, H.T.; McKenna, B.A.; Klysubun, W.; Harper, S.M. Benchmarking bulb yield, medicinal sulfur compounds, and mineral nutrition of garlic varieties. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 45240–45250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Bahloul, M.A.F.; El Nagar, M.M.; Badr, L.A.A.; Mohamed, M.H.M.; Sayed, M.; Rizk, S.M. Effect of mineral and biological potassium fertilization levels on the growth, yield and quality of garlic (cultivar Seds 50). Ann. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor 2025, 63, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amjad, M.; Khan, Z.I.; Khalofah, A.; Arif, M.; Sadaf, S. Assessment of iron accumulation in vegetables cultivated with excessive application of organic and inorganic fertilizers along with various water sources. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolan, N.S.; Khan, M.A.; Donaldson, J.; Adriano, D.C.; Matthew, C. Distribution and bioavailability of copper in farm effluent. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 309, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Matta, Z.; Loughin, T.M.; Carey, E.E. Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. J. Food Sci. 2005, 72, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belić, M.; Nešić, L.; Ćirić, V. Pedology Practicum; Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2014; p. 67. Available online: http://polj.uns.ac.rs/sites/default/files/udzbenici/PRAKTIKUM-IZ-PEDOLOGIJE.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Manojlović, M.; Čabilovski, R. Practicum in Agrochemistry; Agriculture Faculty: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2019; pp. 50–69. Available online: http://polj.uns.ac.rs/sites/default/files/udzbenici/Prektikum%20iz%20agrohemije.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2025).
- Enger, H.; Riehm, H.; Domingo, W.R. Studies on the chemical soil analysis as a basis for assessing the nutrient status of soils. II Chemical extraction methods for phosphorus and potassium determination. Kungl. Lantbr. Högsk. Ann. 1960, 26, 199. [Google Scholar]
- Council Directive of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (91/676/EEC). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:31991L0676 (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- ISO 10390; Soil, Treated Biowaste and Sludge—Determination of pH. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
- EN 13040:2007; Soil Improvers and Growing Media—Determination of Dry Matter Content and Loss on Ignition. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
- Ordinance on Methods of Taking Samples and Performing Chemical and Physical Analyses for Quality Control of Fruit and Vegetable Products. Official Gazette of SFRY, 29/83. Available online: http://demo.paragraf.rs/demo/combined/Old/t/t2004_09/t09_0137.htm (accessed on 22 October 2024).
- Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harborne, A.J. Phytochemical Methods: A Guide to Modern Techniques of Plant Analysis; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Espín, J.C.; Soler-Rivas, C.; Wichers, H.J. Characterization of the total free radical scavenger capacity of vegetable oils and oil fractions using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 648–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luque de Castro, M.D.; Priego-Capote, F. Soxhlet extraction: Past and present panacea, a review. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 2383–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcó, A.; Rubio, R.; Compañó, R.; Casals, I. Comparison of the Kjeldahl method and a combustion method for total nitrogen determination in animal feed. Talanta 2002, 57, 1019–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrilho, E.; Gonzalez, M.; Nogueira, A.; Cruz, G.; Nóbrega, J. Microwave-assisted Acid decomposition of animal- and plant-derived samples for element analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 4164–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, J.L.; Nicewander, W.A. Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient. Am. Stat. 1988, 42, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milligan, G.W.; Cooper, M.C. Methodological Review: Clustering Methods. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1987, 11, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Treatments | TPC | TF | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 150.99 ± 2.47 a | 27.44 ± 0.85 b | 0.14 ± 0.01 a | 0.13 ± 0.00 b | 0.58 ± 0.01 a | |
| Mineral fertilizer | 152.29 ± 1.14 a | 28.24 ± 2.33 b | 0.13 ± 0.01 a | 0.11 ± 0.00 c | 0.54 ± 0.00 b | |
| Cattle manure | 155.57 ± 0.65 a | 35.85 ± 2.44 a | 0.15 ± 0.03 a | 0.16 ± 0.00 a | 0.61 ± 0.01 a | |
| Sheep manure | 127.18 ± 0.29 b | 24.67 ± 0.93 bc | 0.13 ± 0.01 a | 0.13 ± 0.00 b | 0.52 ± 0.02 bc | |
| Poultry manure | 115.22 ± 2.46 c | 27.64 ± 3.65 b | 0.09 ± 0.00 b | 0.10 ± 0.00 de | 0.45 ± 0.01 d | |
| Supercompost | 126.61 ± 5.98 b | 36.21 ± 2.57 a | 0.12 ± 0.00 ab | 0.11 ± 0.00 c | 0.50 ± 0.01 c | |
| Molasses | 103.92 ± 1.02 d | 20.01 ± 1.33 c | 0.08 ± 0.00 b | 0.09 ± 0.00 e | 0.44 ± 0.00 d | |
| Average | 133.11 ± 19.27 | 28.58 ± 5.81 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.52 ± 0.06 | |
| CV (%) | 14.48 | 20.34 | 23.30 | 17.53 | 11.64 | |
| ANOVA (n = 21) | R2 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| F | 168.29 | 20.45 | 9.35 | 136.47 | 103.60 | |
| p | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.000 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Treatments | DW (%) | Protein (%) | Total Fat (%) | Total Sugar (%) | Sucrose (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 31.19 ± 0.01 c | 5.49 ± 0.23 bc | 0.24 ± 0.01 a | 17.49 ± 0.09 b | 12.58 ± 0.03 b | |
| Mineral fertilizer | 30.65 ± 0.01 e | 5.65 ± 0.22 ab | 0.24 ± 0.02 a | 17.58 ± 0.34 b | 11.01 ± 0.22 c | |
| Cattle manure | 30.97 ± 0.13 d | 5.77 ± 0.06 a | 0.15 ± 0.02 c | 20.62 ± 0.16 a | 15.71 ± 0.27 a | |
| Sheep manure | 30.58 ± 0.07 e | 5.39 ± 0.14 b–d | 0.16 ± 0.01 c | 8.99 ± 0.14 d | 6.32 ± 0.25 d | |
| Poultry manure | 31.81 ± 0.00 b | 5.27 ± 0.19 cd | 0.13 ± 0.02 c | 9.12 ± 0.21 d | 6.30 ± 0.03 d | |
| Supercompost | 31.89 ± 0.06 b | 5.32 ± 0.03 cd | 0.08 ± 0.02 d | 7.83 ± 0.09 e | 2.29 ± 0.05 f | |
| Molasses | 33.23 ± 0.04 a | 5.14 ± 0.07 d | 0.20 ± 0.03 b | 11.28 ± 0.12 c | 4.45 ± 0.22 e | |
| Average | 31.47 ± 0.88 | 5.43 ± 0.24 | 0.17 ± 0.06 | 13.27 ± 4.89 | 8.38 ± 4.58 | |
| CV (%) | 2.81 | 4.50 | 34.32 | 36.89 | 54.60 | |
| ANOVA (n = 21) | R2 | 1.00 | 0.72 | 0.94 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| F | 669.06 | 6.06 | 36.73 | 2404.28 | 2050.54 | |
| p | <0.001 | 0.003 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Variables | Protein | Total Fat | Total Sugar | Sucrose | TPC | TF | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DW | −0.64 | −0.16 | −0.41 | −0.57 | −0.77 | −0.36 | −0.78 | −0.66 | −0.71 |
| Protein | 1 | 0.29 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| Total Fat | - | 1 | 0.60 | 0.52 | 0.37 | −0.51 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.28 |
| Total Sugar | - | - | 1 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.23 | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.80 |
| Sucrose | - | - | - | 1 | 0.84 | 0.25 | 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.85 |
| TPC | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.53 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.92 |
| TF | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.51 |
| DPPH | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.72 | 0.87 |
| FRAP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.90 |
| Treatments | N | P | K | Ca | Mg | S | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 2.704 ± 0.013 a–c | 0.405 ± 0.006 ab | 1.352 ± 0.005 a | 0.076 ± 0.002 a | 0.079 ± 0.002 a | 0.752 ± 0.005 c | |
| Mineral fertilizer | 2.732 ± 0.024 a–c | 0.434 ± 0.036 a | 1.330 ± 0.013 ab | 0.083 ± 0.021 a | 0.079 ± 0.004 a | 0.767 ± 0.001 bc | |
| Cattle manure | 2.804 ± 0.007 ab | 0.419 ± 0.002 a | 1.354 ± 0.001 a | 0.071 ± 0.000 a | 0.077 ± 0.001 ab | 0.806 ± 0.007 ab | |
| Sheep manure | 2.814 ± 0.006 a | 0.435 ± 0.002 a | 1.357 ± 0.012 a | 0.071 ± 0.000 a | 0.075 ± 0.000 bc | 0.822 ± 0.022 a | |
| Poultry manure | 2.694 ± 0.035 bc | 0.404 ± 0.000 ab | 1.338 ± 0.009 ab | 0.070 ± 0.001 a | 0.072 ± 0.000 c | 0.763 ± 0.015 bc | |
| Supercompost | 2.678 ± 0.053 c | 0.410 ± 0.005 ab | 1.344 ± 0.001 a | 0.061 ± 0.001 a | 0.074 ± 0.001 bc | 0.743 ± 0.010 c | |
| Molasses | 2.638 ± 0.079 c | 0.373 ± 0.008 b | 1.306 ± 0.027 b | 0.076 ± 0.003 a | 0.074 ± 0.002 bc | 0.736 ± 0.038 c | |
| Average | 2.723 ± 0.070 | 0.411 | 1.340 | 0.072 | 0.076 | 0.770 | |
| CV (%) | 2.573 | 5.679 | 1.478 | 12.629 | 3.822 | 4.425 | |
| ANOVA (n = 21) | R2 | 0.777 | 0.737 | 0.716 | 0.481 | 0.739 | 0.805 |
| F | 8.126 | 6.546 | 5.886 | 2.166 | 6.598 | 9.636 | |
| p | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.110 | 0.002 | 0.000 | |
| Treatments | B | Cu | Fe | Mn | Na | Zn | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 11.860 ± 0.057 a | 6.005 ± 0.455 c | 71.840 ± 4.270 a | 10.905 ± 0.015 a | 710.600 ± 4.100 a | 27.060 ± 2.710 b | |
| Mineral fertilizer | 11.450 ± 0.340 a | 6.450 ± 0.170 a–c | 57.250 ± 1.960 b | 10.955 ± 1.205 a | 630.100 ± 5.200 c | 31.050 ± 2.820 ab | |
| Cattle manure | 10.420 ± 0.020 b | 6.910 ± 0.250 ab | 59.245 ± 0.655 b | 10.580 ± 0.180 ab | 670.500 ± 17.30 b | 30.030 ± 3.230 ab | |
| Sheep manure | 10.170 ± 0.030 | 7.290 ± 0.990 a | 54.595 ± 1.015 bc | 10.140 ± 0.140 ab | 619.650 ± 6.350 cd | 58.560 ± 29.110 a | |
| Poultry manure | 11.670 ± 0.300 a | 5.890 ± 0.350 bc | 48.465 ± 0.795 c | 9.475 ± 0.025 b | 546.900 ± 0.200 e | 26.885 ± 1.655 b | |
| Supercompost | 9.990 ± 0.170 b | 5.410 ± 0.120 d | 52.015 ± 1.465 bc | 10.055 ± 0.065 ab | 603.100 ± 8.700 cd | 24.730 ± 0.300 b | |
| Molasses | 9.140 ± 0.210 c | 5.230 ± 0.040 d | 59.635 ± 5.805 b | 10.035 ± 0.225 ab | 595.350 ± 20.150 d | 23.885 ± 1.065 b | |
| Average | 10.671 | 6.169 | 57.578 | 10.306 | 625.171 | 31.743 | |
| CV (%) | 9.284 | 13.156 | 12.998 | 6.231 | 8.192 | 46.680 | |
| ANOVA (n = 21) | R2 | 0.938 | 0.785 | 0.893 | 0.622 | 0.967 | 0.601 |
| F | 35.534 | 8.515 | 19.446 | 3.836 | 68.406 | 3.508 | |
| p | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.018 | <0.001 | 0.025 | |
| pH | CaCO3 (%) | Humus
(%) | Total N
(%) | Al-P2O5 mg/100 g | Al-K2O
mg/100 g | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KCL | H2O | |||||
| 7.27 | 8.06 | 8.64 | 2.05 | 0.10 | 53.74 | 34.61 |
| Organic Manure | N (%) | P2O5 (%) | K2O (%) | Dry Matter (%) | Organic Matter (%) | Organic C (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supercompost | 2.28 | 2.06 | 0.11 | 24.54 | 38.72 | 10.12 |
| Cattle manure | 2.09 | 1.85 | 2.06 | 23.08 | 71.54 | 18.74 |
| Sheep manure | 1.79 | 0.97 | 2.54 | 26.97 | 57.73 | 17.02 |
| Poultry manure | 2.50 | 2.33 | 2.65 | 31.36 | 75.47 | 16.50 |
| Molasses | 2.00 | / | 5.00 | / | / | 16.50 |
| Treatments | Amounts |
|---|---|
| Control | Without fertilizer application (0 t/ha) |
| Mineral fertilizer | 800 kg/ha NPK (9:12:25) + 288 kg/ha AN (34%N) |
| Cattle manure | 35.2 t/ha |
| Sheep manure | 35.2 t/ha |
| Poultry manure | 21.7 t/ha |
| Supercompost | 30.3 t/ha |
| Molasses | 8.5 t/ha |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Adamović, B.; Visković, J.; Tepić-Horecki, A.; Milić, A.; Šumić, Z.; Červenski, J.; Vlajić, S.; Jakšić, S.; Živanov, M.; Jaćimović, G. Bioactive, Antioxidant, and Nutritional Responses of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) to Fertilization Regimes. Molecules 2026, 31, 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040652
Adamović B, Visković J, Tepić-Horecki A, Milić A, Šumić Z, Červenski J, Vlajić S, Jakšić S, Živanov M, Jaćimović G. Bioactive, Antioxidant, and Nutritional Responses of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) to Fertilization Regimes. Molecules. 2026; 31(4):652. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040652
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdamović, Boris, Jelena Visković, Aleksandra Tepić-Horecki, Anita Milić, Zdravko Šumić, Janko Červenski, Slobodan Vlajić, Snežana Jakšić, Milorad Živanov, and Goran Jaćimović. 2026. "Bioactive, Antioxidant, and Nutritional Responses of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) to Fertilization Regimes" Molecules 31, no. 4: 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040652
APA StyleAdamović, B., Visković, J., Tepić-Horecki, A., Milić, A., Šumić, Z., Červenski, J., Vlajić, S., Jakšić, S., Živanov, M., & Jaćimović, G. (2026). Bioactive, Antioxidant, and Nutritional Responses of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) to Fertilization Regimes. Molecules, 31(4), 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040652

