The Effect of the Harvest Date on the Possibility of Harvesting by Shaking, Chemical Composition, Color, and Antioxidant Properties of Common Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophae rhamnoides L.)
1
Department of Machinery Exploitation, Ergonomics and Production Processes, Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Balicka 116B, 30-149 Krakow, Poland
2
Department of Plant Product Technology and Nutrition Hygiene, Faculty of Food Technology, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Balicka 122, 30-149 Krakow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(5), 1184; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051184
Submission received: 22 March 2025
/
Revised: 1 May 2025
/
Accepted: 9 May 2025
/
Published: 14 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant-Crop Biology and Biochemistry)
Abstract
:Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) fruits were evaluated at three harvest dates, both in terms of ease of harvesting and nutritional value, with attention paid to the visual effect in the form of the color of the harvested fruits. The high values of the ratio of fruit bonding strength to individual fruit mass indicated the challenges of effectively harvesting common sea buckthorn using mechanical shakers. However, a decrease in this measure was observed with later harvest dates, as well as differentiation in fruit bonding strength among the tested sea buckthorn cultivars in the seventh and eighth years of plantation growth. As the harvest date was delayed, antioxidant properties and total polyphenol content decreased, while sugar content, individual fruit mass, and fruit length increased. Across the analyzed harvest dates, color differences were more pronounced between cultivars than between individual harvest dates. The numerous interactions observed between sea buckthorn cultivars and harvest dates highlight the need for further research, particularly by increasing the number and frequency of harvest dates for this species.
1. Introduction
Sea buckthorn (Elaeagnus rhamnoides, syn.: Hippophae rhamnoides), a member of the olive family (Elaeagnaceae), consists of three species of trees and shrubs. It is the only plant in Poland that contains oil in its fruit pulp. Sea buckthorn berries are among the most nutritious and vitamin-rich fruits. The berries have a relatively tough skin and juicy pulp surrounding a small, hard, oval seed. Ripe berries from sea buckthorn are orange-red and have a diameter of 10–15 mm and a soft outer fleshy tissue and hard seed. The soft parts of the berries, or pulp, contain 3–9% oil, while the seeds contain 6–15% oil. Berries are rich in carbohydrates, organic acids, proteins, fats, and vitamins (vitamins C and E, ß-carotene and lycopene), including fat-soluble vitamins, antioxidants, essential fatty acids, amino acids, phytosterols, and flavonoids and minerals such as iron and calcium [1,2,3,4,5]. Sea buckthorn seed oil is characterized by a high content of fatty acids, containing not only common fatty acids such as palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, and linolenic acid but also palmitoleic acid [6,7]. Sea buckthorn products are believed to have many pharmacological properties, such as inhibition of platelet aggregation and antioxidant, antibacterial, antiulcer, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antihypertensive effects [2,5]. It is used in the treatment of frostbite, poorly healing wounds, or eczema. Due to its high nutritional and medicinal value, it is the subject of interest of scientists from around the world [8,9,10,11], as well as the processing industry [12].
The specific taste of sea buckthorn fruit is usually described as sour, bitter, and astringent. The chemical composition of sea buckthorn fruit depends on cultivar, climatic conditions, fruit size, ripeness, and processing method [13]. The therapeutic properties of sea buckthorn fruit have contributed to an increasing interest in the production and processing of these fruits over the recent years. Sea buckthorn berries, oil, juice, and dried fruits are widely used as functional food supplements, jam ingredients, and natural food colorants [13,14].
Sea buckthorn has low soil and climate requirements and is resistant to drought, which is why it can be found and cultivated in a variety of habitat conditions: in parks, gardens, on slopes and hillsides, on riverbanks and coastal dunes [15,16]. It is also resistant to temperatures down to −43 °C. Sea buckthorn, through symbiosis with Frankia actinomycetes, fixes nitrogen [17] and perfectly fertilizes poor and degraded soils. Unfortunately, sea buckthorn fruit poses major problems during harvesting. Harvested early, when still hard, they are not very tasty, but when fully ripe they become soft, very juicy and easily damaged. Moreover, they have very short peduncles, fit tightly together on the branch, and have sharp and prickly thorns, which makes harvesting very difficult [18,19].
The primary objective of this research was to comprehensively evaluate common sea buckthorn fruit at three harvest dates, both in terms of its ease of harvesting and nutritional value, with attention paid to the visual effect in the form of the color of the harvested fruit. It was assumed that the achievement of the above research goals could only take place if the following research questions were answered:
- Is there a difference in the values of the fruit–shoot bonding forces at different harvest dates?
- How do the morphometric features of fruit harvested at different dates change?
- What changes occur in the chemical composition and antioxidant properties of fruit?
- What changes occur in the color parameters of fruit?
The obtained data can be helpful in selecting the optimal harvest date of individual varieties in the context of their health-promoting and aesthetic value, as well as in the future development of design assumptions for the working elements of sea buckthorn harvesting machines.
2. Materials and Methods
The research material consisted of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) fruits, hand-harvested from four different cultivars. The analyzed cultivars were Luchistaja, Prozrachnaja, Botanicheskaja, and Augustinka. Jantarnoje Ozierierenie was used as the pollinating cultivar. The research material was obtained from an experimental plantation situated on strong clayey sand soil in the northwestern part of Krakow, Poland (50.0783, 19.8651). The study was conducted in the seventh and eighth year of plantation growth. Each cultivar was represented by 7 shrubs from which fruits were randomly collected for analysis. In total, there were 32 shrubs on the plantation, including 28 fruit-bearing (productive) bushes and 4 pollen-producing ones. The fruits were collected on three dates at approximately 2-week intervals. The first harvest was made when the fruits were fully grown and orange in color. During the two-year study, the sampling dates were as follows:
- Term I—17 July (seventh year of plantation), 22 July (eighth year);
- Term II—2 August (seventh year), 3 August (eighth year);
- Term III—13 August (seventh year), 14 August (eighth year).
Each harvest was carried out within a single day. Bonding strength measurements were performed on a testing machine with an AXIS FC50 dynamometer (AXIS, Gdańsk, Poland). The tearing speed was set at 120 mm∙min−1. For each cultivar, 100 measurements of the fruit–plant bonding force were taken at each harvest date. The same fruits were then used for morphometric analysis. In total, 1200 fruits were subjected to analysis over the course of a single year. Fruit length and width were measured using an electronic caliper (accuracy: 0.01 mm), while individual fruit mass was determined using an analytical laboratory balance (accuracy: 0.001 g).
Dry matter content was estimated by drying at 105 °C, total protein (N × 6.25) was estimated by the Kjeldahl method, and titratable acidity was determined by titration to pH 8.1 with 0.1 M NaOH solution and calculated as grams of citric acid per 100 g of sample [20]. Total sugar content was determined using the Luff–Schoorl method [21]. A sample (5 g) was weighed in a beaker. The weighed amount was thoroughly mixed with 100 mL of distilled water. The beaker’s contents were transferred to a measuring flask. Then, 5 mL of Carrez I and Carrez II liquids were added, mixed, and distilled water added. The solution was filtered into a conical flask. The filtrate was taken and then 5 mL of concentrated HCl was added. Acid hydrolysis was carried out in a water bath. A few drops of methyl orange were added and the solution neutralized with 15 mL NaOH. The contents of the flasks were transferred to a measuring flask and filled with water. The extract was collected from the flask and 25 mL of Luff liquid was added. The sample was heated to boiling in a flask with reflux condenser. Potassium iodide, 25 mL of 25% H2SO4, and a few drops of starch were added. This solution was titrated with Na2S2O3 until it turned white. At the same time, a blank test was performed without the addition of the filtrate. The amount of the Na2S2O3 used was recorded. This value was subtracted from the value of the blank test, and the sugar content from the sugar table enclosed with the methodology was noted.
L-ascorbic acid content was established according to HPLC method EN 14130 2003. For L-ascorbic acid content estimation, samples were mixed with 0.1 M metaphosphoric acid and centrifuged. The analysis was carried out on a Thermo Scientific DIONEX ULTIMATE 3000 UPLC chromatograph with DAD Detector (Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Samples were injected into an Onyx Monolithic C18 column (100 × 4.6 mm) with precolumn (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA). The elution was carried out using 0.1 M metaphosphoric acid, and the flow rate was 1 mL/min. The absorbance was monitored at 254 nm. L-ascorbic acid was quantified according to calibration curves prepared for L-ascorbic acid standard provided by Sigma Chemical Co (St. Louis, MO, USA).
Total polyphenol content was estimated using acidified ethanol extracts and Folin–Ciocâlteu reagent [22]. Antioxidant activity in ethanol extracts was assayed for scavenging capacity of the DPPH radical (1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazil) [23], ABTS cation radical (2,2′-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) [24], and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) methods [25]. All chemical analyses were performed in triplicate.
Fruit color was measured using the CIELAB system [26] with a Minolta CM-3500d spectrophotometer and D65 illumination standard. The measurements were performed using a 30 mm-diameter diaphragm and a 65 mm petri dish at a measurement angle of 10°. On the basis of the measurements obtained, the following parameters were set: L*—lightness (L* = 0 blackness, L* = 100 whiteness), a*—greenness (a* < 0) or redness (a* > 0), b*—blueness (b* < 0) or yellowness (b* > 0). The analyses were carried out in quintuplicate.
Statistical calculations were carried out using two-way analysis of variance with the use of Duncan’s multiple-range test (p ≤ 0.05) running the Statistica 13.0 Pl program (Statsoft Thulsa, OK, USA). Groups without statistically significant differences were marked with the same superscript letters. PCA was used to visualize and summarize the data and reduce the number of variables.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Meteorological Conditions
The course of weather conditions during the study years is presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. In the eighth year of sea buckthorn plantation establishment, the early months of the year (January–May) were characterized by lower temperatures and increased precipitation. These conditions likely contributed to delayed flowering and consequently later fruit set. Flowering in sea buckthorn occurs before leaf emergence. The observed weather pattern most likely resulted in a delay of the first harvest, which took place on 22 July. The temperature patterns during the fruit harvest months (July and August) were similar in both years of the study, as was the case in the months preceding May and June. However, in the seventh year of the plantation, heavy precipitation was recorded during these months, exceeding 100 mm.
3.2. Bonding Strength
The study showed that harvesting sea buckthorn fruit at 2-week intervals did not significantly affect the fruit–shoot bond strength (Table 1). The results indicate that the bond strength of sea buckthorn fruit remains relatively stable during ripening. However, a significant interaction between harvest date and cultivar was observed. The Luchistaja cultivar was distinguished by greatest bond strength, with an average value of 1.55 N. In light of the obtained results, it seems that the choice of the harvest date will be determined by their quality, considering the later direction of use. The change in fruit quality depending on the harvest date of common sea buckthorn fruit was indicated by Yang and Kallio [27]. According to these authors [27], the origin and harvest date of fruit within one year had a more pronounced effect on the content and composition of triacylglycerols than the harvest year. In research conducted on olive harvesting using technology based on shaking the fruit, Famiani et al. [28] suggest the possibility of using the coefficient calculated as the ratio of force to individual fruit mass as a harvest indicator, which can be helpful in selecting the best date for mechanical harvesting using shakers in intensive olive orchards. Mechanical vibrations are also one of the possible methods of separating fruits from the common sea buckthorn bush [29]. The research results obtained in the presented work indicated a decrease in this parameter with the delay in harvesting, and ranged from 3.48 during the first harvest to 2.71 during the third harvest. Famiani et al. [28] point out that in order to ensure olive harvest efficiency of at least 85%, the ratio of fruit breaking force to its mass should be less than or equal to 2.3. Based on the obtained results, it can be stated that only the Prozrachnaja cultivar approached the desired values of the threshold point.
In a detailed analysis of the obtained values of fruit breaking force and the ratio of breaking force to their weight, a significant interaction was found between the years of research, harvest dates, and the tested varieties. The obtained relationships are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The obtained results indicate lower values of both bonding strength and the analyzed index in the seventh year of the plantation’s operation. This appears to be related to weather conditions, with higher precipitation observed in July and August of that year (Figure 2). This may have increased the moisture content of the small fruit pedicels (up to 5 mm in length) during the harvest months, which in turn led to the lower attachment force values in the presented study. According to Famiani et al. [28], a bonding strength-to-fruit weight ratio equal to or less than 2.3 indicates easier harvesting by shaking. However, the observed relationships require further confirmation in future studies.
3.3. Morphometric Characteristics
The obtained morphometric parameters of the fruit were similar to those found in the literature. In research conducted by Kawecki et al. [16] in northeastern Poland, the fruits of the Botanicheskaja cultivar reached an average weight of 0.48–0.80 g, depending on the year of study, while the length was 1.02–1.15 mm and the width 0.84–0.85 mm.
3.4. Dry Matter, Total Sugars, Titratable Acidity, and Total Protein Content
The statistical analysis of the obtained results showed the significance of differences in the dry matter content of the fruits of the studied sea buckthorn cultivars. The highest average dry matter content was characteristic of the Augustinka cultivar (17.10 g 100 g−1), while the lowest was Luchistaja (14.23 g 100 g−1) (Table 2). Differences were also found between the individual harvest dates. In the first and third harvest, a similar dry matter content was noted, 15.88 and 15.81 g 100 g−1, respectively, while in the second harvest it was slightly lower. In a study by Tkacz et al. [30], the dry matter content in the fruits of six sea buckthorn cultivars cultivated in Poland was slightly lower and ranged from 11.78 to 13.08 g 100 g−1 of fresh weight. A similar result was obtained by Zenkova and Pinchykova [31], 13.0–15.30 g−1 fresh weight, and a much higher result was obtained by Jaroszewska et al. [2]—as much as 19.3–20.8 g 100 g−1 fresh weight. In three-year studies conducted by Kawecki et al. [16] in northeastern Poland, the Botaniczeskaja cultivar was characterized by a dry matter content in the range of 13.4–16.3 g 100 g−1.
As the harvest date was delayed, the total sugar content increased, with the lowest total sugar content found in the Prozrachnaja cultivar on the first harvest date and the highest in the same cultivar on the third harvest date. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the content of this component between the Luchistaja and Augustinka cultivars harvested on the first and second harvest dates and between the second and third harvest dates. According to Tkacz et al. [31], the total sugar content was 1.34–2.87 g 100 g−1 of fresh weight, which is significantly lower than in the presented studies, while in the fruit grown in Belarus it was similar, 4.4–4.8 g 100 g−1 of fresh weight [31].
Total acidity of the studied sea buckthorn fruits ranged from 3.04 g to 3.81 100 g−1 citric acid per 100 g fresh weight. Total acidity, average for the cultivars, in the fruits obtained from the second harvest was significantly higher than from the other harvests. However, in the fruits of the Augustinka cultivar, no differences in acidity were shown between the harvest dates. The fruits of the Prozrachnaja and Botanicheskaja cultivars contained significantly more total acids than the fruits of the other cultivars. According to Zenkova and Pinchykova [31], total acidity in the fruits of three sea buckthorn cultivars was only 1.10–2.05 g 100 g−1 fresh weight. Tkacz et al. [30] also found a slightly lower total acid content in the fruits of six cultivars grown in Poland than in the presented work, 2.44–2.79 g 100 g−1 fresh weight. In fruits of ten sea buckthorn cultivars collected in Turkey, the total acidity was in a slightly wider range of 2.64–4.54 g 100 g−1 [18]. According to Kortesniemi et al. [32], the total acidity of wild sea buckthorn fruits, depending on the place of collection (Finland and China), expressed as malic acid, was in a much wider range of 2.9–13.3 g 100 g−1.
Total protein content ranged from 1.46 to 2.05 g 100 g−1 fresh weight (Table 2). The average protein content for the cultivars in sea buckthorn fruits harvested on the second harvest date was lower than in the other harvest dates. Moreover, no differences were found between the first and third harvest dates. The fruits of the Augustinka cultivar were richest in protein, while the fruits of the Botanicheskaja cultivar were the least. Jaroszewska et al. [2] and Zenkova and Pinchykova [31] also reported similar total protein content, i.e., 1.65 to 2.20 and 1.81 to 2.88 g 100 g−1 fresh weight, respectively.
3.5. Vitamin C and Total Polyphenol Content and Antioxidant Activity
The vitamin C content ranged from 79.7 to 130.5 mg 100 g−1 of fresh weight and was significantly lower on average in the first harvest (Table 3). Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the second and third harvest. Our vitamin C results are consistent with the literature. According to Teleszko et al. [5], the L-ascorbic acid content in fruits of eight sea buckthorn cultivars grown in Poland ranged from 52.9 to 131.0 mg per 100 g of fresh weight. Similarly, Tkacz et al. [30] reported that six cultivars contained between 61 and 159 mg of vitamin C per 100 g of fresh weight. In Turkey, Ercisli et al. [18] found values between 19 and 121 mg per 100 g, while Kortesniemi et al. [32] reported a much wider range of 45–720 mg per 100 g in wild sea buckthorn collected in Finland and China. Additionally, sea buckthorn fruits from the Czech Republic contained even higher levels, ranging from 394 to 573 mg per 100 g of fresh weight [33]. On the other hand, Zenkova and Pinchykova [31] reported a lower vitamin C content (45–79 mg per 100 g) in three sea buckthorn cultivars grown in Belarus. According to He et al. [34] and Fatima et al. [35], the differences in vitamin C content in different sea buckthorn cultivars result from the activity of L-galactose dehydrogenase, GDP-D-mannose-3′, 5′-epimerase and GDP-L-galactose phosphorylase, enzymes involved in the synthesis of this vitamin via the L-galactose pathway. Despite the discrepancies in the literature, the studied sea buckthorn cultivars had a significantly higher L-ascorbic acid content than many other popular fruits, including strawberries (65 mg per 100 g), raspberries (29 mg), lemons (74.3 mg), and tangerines (37.7 mg). Moreover, sea buckthorn fruit, despite its high vitamin C content, does not contain ascorbinase, an enzyme that oxidizes ascorbic acid and causes its degradation. As a result, even after drying or freezing, only a slight decrease in vitamin C content is observed [36].
The total polyphenol content in the fruit ranged from 127 to 221 mg per 100 g of fresh weight. No significant differences were found between the first two harvests, but the content was significantly lower in the third harvest. The Luchistaja cultivar had the lowest polyphenol content across all harvest dates, while the Augustinka cultivar had the highest. No differences were observed between the Prozrachnaja and Botanicheskaja cultivars. Similarly, Gut et al. [37] reported total polyphenol content ranging from 120 to 255 mg per 100 g depending on fruit ripeness (with riper fruit containing lower levels). Teleszko et al. [5] recorded higher values, ranging from 270 to 480 mg per 100 g of fresh weight in eight sea buckthorn cultivars. Rop et al. [33] found significantly higher polyphenol levels (931–1417 mg per 100 g) in fruits grown in the Czech Republic. Additionally, Jaroszewska et al. [2] and Tkacz et al. [30] reported polyphenol content in Polish-grown sea buckthorn ranging from 380 to 405 mg and 469 to 901 mg per 100 g of dry weight, respectively. In contrast, Ercisli et al. [18] reported much higher values of 2131–5538 mg per 100 g of dry weight in Turkish fruits
Antioxidant activity, expressed as the ability to scavenge the ABTS cation radical and the DPPH radical, as well as the ability to reduce iron ions (FRAP), was highest in the first harvest and systematically decreased in subsequent harvests, regardless of the cultivar. The Luchistaja cultivar exhibited the lowest antioxidant activity across all three methods, while the Augustinka cultivar had the highest activity against ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP. However, no significant differences in ABTS activity were found between the Augustinka, Prozrachnaja, and Botanicheskaja cultivars. Gao et al. [19] also observed a decline in antioxidant activity in three sea buckthorn cultivars harvested at six different dates. Similarly, Tkacz et al. [30] reported that antioxidant activity varied more than twofold between different sea buckthorn cultivars when tested against DPPH and FRAP. According to Ji et al. [38], the antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn was mainly due to the redox properties of polyphenolic compounds. This opinion is confirmed by the results of Rop et al. [33], who indicate a very strong correlation (r = 0.8904) between the content of polyphenols and the antioxidant activity against DPPH. Our results indicate a moderate correlation between total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity against ABTS and DPPH (r = 0.4227 and r = 0.4036, respectively) and a strong correlation with FRAP (r = 0.7696).
3.6. Color in the CIELab System
The lightness (L*) of the fruit ranged from 47.93 to 55.84 and did not depend on the harvest date (Figure 5. The fruits of the Luchistaja and Botanicheskaja cultivars were significantly lighter than the fruit of the Prozrachnaja and Augustinka cultivars, which was confirmed by statistical analysis. The a* (greenness/redness) and b* (blueness/yellowness) values were lowest in the first harvest. No significant differences were found between the second and third harvests. The Prozrachnaja cultivar was characterized by a shift in color towards red (parameter a*) in relation to the other cultivars; however, when compared to Augustinka, the differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, fruits from the Luchistaja and Botanicheskaja cultivars were more yellow than those from Prozrachnaja and Augustinka. According to Ercisli et al. [18] the lightness of the fruit of ten sea buckthorn cultivars ranged from 33.50 to 54.69, the a* parameter was in the range of 9.67–30.94, and the b* parameter ranged from 37.44 to 57.79.
3.7. PCA
PCA was performed on data obtained from the analysis of sea buckthorn fruit for variables such as f bonding strength, morphometric characteristics, and color parameters (Figure 6). The first principal component (PC1) describes 37.78% and the second (PC2) 23.39% of the total variance. Over 60% of the total variance was explained by the first two PCs; therefore, only PC1 and PC2 were taken for further analysis. A very strong inverse correlation was found between the first principal component (PC1) and individual fruit mass, width, and length and color parameter a*. A very strong correlation was observed between the second principal component (PC2) and fruit lightness (L*) and color parameter b*.
PCA was conducted on variables such as dry matter, total sugars, total acidity, total protein, vitamin C, total polyphenols, antioxidant activity against ABTS, DPPH and FRAP. A PCA plot is shown in Figure 7, where the first principal component (PC1) describes 38.99% and the second (PC2) 21.51% of the total variance. Also in this case, more than 60% of the total variance was explained by the first two PCs; therefore, only PC1 and PC2 were considered for further analysis.
A very strong correlation is visible between the first principal component (PC1) and antioxidant activity towards ABTS, DPPH and FRAP and total polyphenols. A very strong correlation can also be observed between the second principal component (PC2) and total acidity and an inverse correlation with vitamin C and total protein content.
4. Conclusions
The high ratios of fruit bonding strength to individual fruit mass indicate the challenges of effectively harvesting common sea buckthorn using mechanical shakers. However, a decrease in this neasure was observed with later harvest dates, as well as differentiation in fruit bonding strength among the tested sea buckthorn cultivars in the seventh and eighth years of plantation growth.
As the harvest date was delayed, antioxidant properties and total polyphenol content decreased, while sugar content, individual fruit mass, and fruit length increased. Across the analyzed harvest dates, color differences were more pronounced between cultivars than between individual harvest dates.
The numerous interactions observed between sea buckthorn cultivars and harvest dates highlight the need for further research, particularly by increasing the number and frequency of harvest dates for this species.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, U.S. and J.S.; methodology, U.S. and J.S.; software, J.S.; validation, U.S.; formal analysis, U.S. and J.S., resources, U.S. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, U.S.; writing—review and editing, J.S., supervision, U.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by a Ministry of Science and Higher Education statutory grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Su, T.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, Y.; Oyom, W.; Li, S.; Xie, P.; Bi, Y.; Wei, J.; George, G. Comparison of nutrient composition, phytochemicals and antioxidant activities of two large fruit cultivars of sea buckthorn in Xinjiang of China. Sci. Horticul. 2024, 324, 112602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaroszewska, A.; Biel, W.; Telesiński, A. Effect of mycorrhization and variety on the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn berries. J. Element. 2018, 23, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purushothaman, J.; Suryakumar, G.; Shukla, D.; Malhotra, A.S.; Kasiganesan, H.; Kumar, R.; Sawhney, R.C.; Chami, A. Modulatory effects of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) in hypobaric hypoxia induced cerebral vascular injury. Brain Res. Bull. 2008, 77, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selvamuthukumaran, M.; Farhath, K. Evaluation of shelf stability of antioxidant rich seabuckthorn fruit yoghurt. Int. Food Res. J. 2014, 21, 759–765. [Google Scholar]
- Teleszko, M.; Wojdyło, A.; Rudzińska, M.; Oszmiański, J.; Golis, T. Analysis of lipophilic and hydrophilic bioactive compounds content in sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) berries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 4120–4129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damian, C.; Leahu, A.; Oroian, M.; Avramiuc, M.; Carpiuc, N. Antioxidant activity in extracts from sea buckthorn. Lucr. Ştiinţifice—Ser. Zooteh. 2013, 60, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, B.; Kallio, H. Composition and physiological effects of sea buckthorn (Hippophae) lipids. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 13, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witkowska, A.; Gryn-Rynko, A.; Syrkiewicz, P.; Kitala-Tańska, K.; Majewski, M.S. Characterizations of white mulberry, sea-buckthorn, garlic, lily of the valley, motherwort, and hawthorn as potential candidates for managing cardiovascular disease—In vitro and ex vivo animal studies. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoodi, K.Z.; Wani, W.; Dar, Z.A.; Mansoor, S.; Anam-ul-Haq, S.; Farooq, I.; Hussain, K.; Wani, S.A.; Nehvi, F.A.; Ahmed, N. Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) inhibits cellular proliferation, wound healing and decreases expression of prostate specific antigen in prostate cancer cells in vitro. J. Functi. Foods 2020, 73, 104102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupak, R.; Hrnkova, J.; Simonova, N.; Kovac, J.; Ivanisova, E.; Kalafova, A.; Schneidgenova, M.; Prnova, M.S.; Brindza, J.; Tokarova, K.; et al. The consumption of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) effectively alleviates type 2 diabetes symptoms in spontaneous diabetic rats. Res. Vet. Sci. 2022, 152, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanayama, Y.; Kato, K.; Stobdan, T.; Galitsyn, G.G.; Kochetov, A.V.; Kanahama, K. Research progress on the medicinal and nutritional properties of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides)—A review. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 87, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, A.; Feng, X.; Dorjsuren, B.; Chimedtseren, C.; Damda, T.A.; Zhang, C. Traditional food, modern food and nutritional value of Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.): A review. J. Future Foods 2023, 3, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, J.; Yang, B.; Trépanier, M.; Kallio, H. Effects of genotype, latitude, and weather conditions on the composition of sugars, sugar alcohols, fruit acids, and ascorbic acid in sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides ssp. mongolica) berry juice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 3180–3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borczak, B.; Sikora, E.; Sikora, M.; Kapusta-Duch, J.; Kutyła-Kupidura, E.M.; Fołta, M. Nutritional properties of wholemeal wheat-flour bread with an addition of selected wild grown fruits. Starch-Stärke 2016, 68, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.S.; Beveridge, T.H. Sea Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) Production and Utilization; National Research Council Canada, NRC Research Press: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kawecki, Z.; Bieniek, A.; Szałkiewicz, M. Plonowanie i cechy biometryczne owoców Rokitnika zwyczajnego Hippophaë rhamnoides L. (Common sea buckthorn in the agricultural landscape). Acta Sci. Polon. Adm. Locorum 2010, 9, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.; Ni, B.; Duan, A.; He, C.; Zhang, J. High Frankia abundance and low diversity of microbial community are associated with nodulation specificity and stability of sea buckthorn root nodule. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1301447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercisli, S.; Orhan, E.; Ozdemir, O.; Sengul, M. The genotypic effects on the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) berries grown in Turkey. Sci. Hort. 2007, 115, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Ohlander, M.; Jeppsson, N.; Björk, L.; Trajkovski, V. Changes in antioxidant effects and their relationship to phytonutrients in fruits of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) during maturation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 1485–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- PN-A-75101-07; Fruit and Vegetable Products—Sample Preparation and Methods of Physicochemical Analyses—Determination of Sugar Content and Non-Sugar Extract Content. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1990.
- Singleton, V.L.; Orthofer, R.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. Method Enzymol. 1999, 299, 152–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekkarinen, S.S.; Heinonen, I.M.; Hopia, A.I. Flavonoids quercetin, myricetin, kaemferol and (+) catechin and antioxidants in methyl linoleate. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1999, 79, 499–506. [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] [PubMed]
- Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wrolstad, R.E.; Smith, D.E. Color Analysis; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 545–555. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, B.; Kallio, H. Effects of harvesting time on triacylglycerols and glycerophospholipids of sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.) berries of different origins. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2002, 15, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farinelli, D.; Tombesi, S.; Famiani, F.; Tombesi, A. The fruit detachment force/fruit weight ratio can be used to predict the harvesting yield and the efficiency of trunk shakers on mechanically harvested olives. Acta Hortic. 2012, 965, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L.; Peng, J.; Nan, Q.; He, D.; Yang, Y.; Cui, Y. Simulation of vibration harvesting mechanism for sea buckthorn. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 2016, 9, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tkacz, K.; Wojdyło, A.; Turkiewicz, I.P.; Bobak, Ł.; Nowicka, P. Anti-oxidant and anti-enzymatic activities of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) fruits modulated by chemical components. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zenkova, M.; Pinchykova, J. Chemical composition of sea-buckthorn and highbush blueberry fruits grown in the Republic of Belarus. Food Sci. Appl. Biotechnol. 2019, 2, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortesniemi, M.; Sinkkonen, J.; Yang, B.; Kallio, H. 1H NMR spectroscopy reveals the effect of genotype and growth conditions on composition of sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.) berries. Food Chem. 2014, 147, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rop, O.; Ercişli, S.; Mlcek, J.; Jurikova, T.; Hoza, I. Antioxidant and radical scavenging activities in fruits of 6 sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) cultivars. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, C.Y.; Zhang, G.Y.; Zhang, J.G.; Zeng, Y.F.; Liu, J.J. Integrated analysis of multiomic data reveals the role of the antioxidant network in the quality of sea buckthorn berry. FASEB J. 2017, 31, 1929–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, T.; Kesari, V.; Watt, I.; Wishart, D.; Todd, J.F.; Schroeder, W.R.; Paliyath, G.; Krishna, P. Metabolite profiling and expression analysis of flavonoid, vitamin C and tocopherol biosynthesis genes in the antioxidant-rich sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.). Phytochemistry 2015, 118, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Niesteruk, A.; Lewandowska, H.; Golub, Ż.; Świsłocka, R.; Lewandowski, W. Zainteresujmy się rokitnikiem. Preparaty z rokitnika zwyczajnego (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) jako dodatki do żywności oraz ocena ich rynku w Polsce. (Let’s get interested with sea buckthorn. Preparations of sea buckthorn as food additives and assessment of their market in Poland). Kosmos 2013, 4, 571–581. [Google Scholar]
- Gut, M.; Gasik, A.; Mitek, M.; Rokitnik—Roślina niczym apteka. (Sea Buckthorn—A plant like a pharmacy). Przem. Spoż. 2008, 6, 36–38. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, M.Y.; Gong, X.; Li, X.; Wang, C.C.; Li, M.H. Advanced research on the antioxidant activity and mechanism of polyphenols from Hippophae species—A review. Molecules 2020, 25, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Air temperature distribution during tests. Average (T), maximum (TM), and minimum (Tm) temperatures in particular months in the test years.
Figure 1.
Air temperature distribution during tests. Average (T), maximum (TM), and minimum (Tm) temperatures in particular months in the test years.
Figure 2.
Total monthly sum of precipitation in particular months in the test years.
Figure 3.
The relationship between bonding strength and years of research, applied cultivars, and harvest dates (I, II, III).
Figure 3.
The relationship between bonding strength and years of research, applied cultivars, and harvest dates (I, II, III).
Figure 4.
The relationship between ratio of fruit bonding strength to individual fruit mass and years of research, applied cultivars, and harvest dates (I, II, III).
Figure 4.
The relationship between ratio of fruit bonding strength to individual fruit mass and years of research, applied cultivars, and harvest dates (I, II, III).
Figure 5.
Color parameters of fruit of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates.
Figure 5.
Color parameters of fruit of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates.
Figure 6.
Score plots of principal component analysis of bonding strength, morphometric characteristics, and color parameters of fruit of four sea buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (PC1 versus PC2 score).
Figure 6.
Score plots of principal component analysis of bonding strength, morphometric characteristics, and color parameters of fruit of four sea buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (PC1 versus PC2 score).
Figure 7.
Score plots of principal component analysis of chemical components and antioxidant activity of fruit of four sea buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (PC1 versus PC2 score).
Figure 7.
Score plots of principal component analysis of chemical components and antioxidant activity of fruit of four sea buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (PC1 versus PC2 score).
Table 1.
Bonding strength and morphometric characteristics of four sea buckthorn cultivars fruits obtained on the three harvest dates.
Table 1.
Bonding strength and morphometric characteristics of four sea buckthorn cultivars fruits obtained on the three harvest dates.
| Component | Harvest Date | Cultivar | Means for Harvest Dates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luchistaja | Prozrachnaja | Botanicheskaja | Augustinka | |||
| Bonding strength (N) | I | 1.65 ± 0.68 h | 1.22 ± 0.43 ab | 1.29 ± 0.37 abc | 1.40 ± 0.40 def | 1.39 ± 0.5 * |
| II | 1.49 ± 0.54 fg | 1.31 ± 0.39 bc | 1.29 ± 0.37 abc | 1.48 ± 0.40 fg | 1.39 ± 0.44 * | |
| III | 1.52 ± 0.63 g | 1.37 ± 0.43 cde | 1.20 ± 0.42 a | 1.43 ± 0.35 efg | 1.38 ± 0.49 * | |
| means for cultivar | 1.55 ± 0.62 C | 1.30 ± 0.42 A | 1.26 ± 0.39 A | 1.44 ± 0.38 B | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.843 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Individual fruit mass (g) | I | 0.468 ± 0.061 c | 0.462 ± 0.103 c | 0.406 ± 0.119 b | 0.352 ± 0.057 a | 0.422 ± 0.101 * |
| II | 0.528 ± 0.110 e | 0.556 ± 0.108 f | 0.469 ± 0.134 c | 0.492 ± 0.089 d | 0.511 ± 0.116 ** | |
| III | 0.635 ± 0.138 g | 0.624 ± 0.186 g | 0.402 ± 0.092 b | 0.557 ± 0.131 f | 0.554 ± 0.169 *** | |
| means for cultivar | 0.544 ± 0.128 C | 0.547 ± 0.153 C | 0.426 ± 0.120 A | 0.467 ± 0.130 B | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Strength/mass (N·g−1) | I | 3.60 ± 1.60 e | 2.78 ± 1.21 bc | 3.48 ± 1.54 e | 4.06 ± 1.34 f | 3.48 ± 1.50 *** |
| II | 2.96 ± 1.33 cd | 2.46 ± 0.92 a | 3.03 ± 1.37 cd | 3.16 ± 1.20 d | 2.90 ± 1.24 ** | |
| III | 2.54 ± 1.31 ab | 2.39 ± 1.01 a | 3.13 ± 1.30 d | 2.79 ± 1.17 bc | 2.71 ± 1.23 * | |
| means for cultivar | 3.04 ± 1.49 B | 2.54 ± 1.06 A | 3.21 ± 1.42 C | 3.34 ± 1.35 C | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Length (mm) | I | 9.47 ± 0.59 a | 10.02 ± 0.94 b | 10.02 ± 1.51 b | 9.41 ± 0.72 a | 9.73 ± 1.04 * |
| II | 10.16 ± 0.72 b | 10.63 ± 0.97 cde | 10.50 ± 1.42 cd | 10.56 ± 0.89 cd | 10.46 ± 1.05 *** | |
| III | 10.43 ± 0.91 c | 10.81 ± 1.16 e | 9.42 ± 1.14 a | 10.72 ± 1.01 de | 10.34 ± 1.19 ** | |
| means for cultivar | 10.02 ± 0.85 A | 10.49 ± 1.08 C | 9.98 ± 1.43 A | 10.23 ± 1.05 B | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Width (mm) | I | 7.99 ± 0.57 de | 7.39 ± 0.59 c | 6.98 ± 0.88 bc | 7.11 ± 0.69 c | 7.37 ± 0.79 * |
| II | 8.61 ± 0.75 f | 7.98 ± 0.62 de | 7.49 ± 0.84 c | 7.84 ± 0.62 d | 7.98 ± 0.80 ** | |
| III | 8.84 ± 0.73 g | 8.09 ± 0.90 e | 6.89 ± 0.81 a | 7.87 ± 0.65 d | 7.92 ± 1.05 ** | |
| means for cultivar | 8.48 ± 0.77 D | 7.82 ± 0.78 C | 7.12 ± 0.88 A | 7.61 ± 0.74 B | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
Results are expressed as means ± SD. Mean values with different superscript lowercase letters (a–h) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for cultivars with different superscript uppercase letters (A–D) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for harvest dates with asterisks (*, **, ***) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple-range test.
Table 2.
Dry matter, total sugars, titratable acidity and total protein content of fruits of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (g 100 g−1).
Table 2.
Dry matter, total sugars, titratable acidity and total protein content of fruits of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates (g 100 g−1).
| Component | Harvest Date | Cultivar | Means for Harvest Dates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luchistaja | Prozrachnaja | Botanicheskaja | Augustinka | |||
| Dry matter | I | 14.62 c ± 0.15 | 14.98 bc ± 0.17 | 16.34 f ± 0.13 | 17.60 g ± 0.06 | 15.88 ** ± 1.27 |
| II | 13.43 a ± 0.11 | 15.46 de ± 0.12 | 15.73 e ± 0.19 | 16.4 1 f ± 0.01 | 15.26 * ± 1.19 | |
| III | 14.65 bc ± 0.03 | 15.07 cd ± 0.25 | 16.24 f ± 0.46 | 17.60 g ± 0.06 | 15.81 ** ± 1.12 | |
| means for cultivar | 14.23 A ± 0.63 | 15.17 B ± 0.27 | 16.10 C ± 0.37 | 17.10 D ± 0.55 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Total sugars | I | 5.86 cd ± 0.30 | 3.44 a ± 0.27 | 4.35 b ± 0.12 | 6.17 de ± 0.54 | 4.96 * ± 1.20 |
| II | 6.11 de ± 0.12 | 5.37 c ± 0.18 | 5.46 c ± 0.25 | 6.36 def ± 0.30 | 5.82 ** ± 0.48 | |
| III | 6.50 ef ± 0.21 | 7.44 g ± 0.44 | 6.50 ef ± 0.35 | 6.74 f ± 0.09 | 6.82 *** ± 0.47 | |
| means for cultivar | 6.16 B ± 0.33 | 5.42 A ± 1.75 | 5.47 A ± 1.00 | 6.42 B ± 0.41 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Total acidity (as citric acid) | I | 3.24 bc ± 0.06 | 3.44 de± 0.08 | 3.13 ab ± 0.04 | 3.19 b ± 0.05 | 3.25 * ± 0.13 |
| II | 3.34 cd ± 0.07 | 3.81 g ± 0.09 | 3.67 f ± 0.06 | 3.20 b ± 0.05 | 3.51 ** ± 0.26 | |
| III | 3.04 a ± 0.04 | 3.17 b ± 0.07 | 3.54 e ± 0.14 | 3.15 b ± 0.07 | 3.22 * ± 0.21 | |
| means for cultivar | 3.20 A ± 0.14 | 3.47 B ± 0.28 | 3.45 B ± 0.26 | 3.18 A ± 0.05 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Total protein | I | 1.89 bcd ± 0.39 | 1.88 bcd ± 0.33 | 1.61 abc ± 0.30 | 2.05 d ± 0.12 | 1.86 ** ± 0.30 |
| II | 1.71 abcd ± 0.16 | 1.52 ab ± 0.06 | 1.46 a ± 0.10 | 1.93 cd ± 0.10 | 1.66 * ± 0.21 | |
| III | 1.80 abcd ± 0.12 | 1.93 cd ± 0.12 | 2.04 d ± 0.13 | 1.80 abcd ± 0.09 | 1.89 ** ± 0.14 | |
| means for cultivar | 1.80 AB ± 0.23 | 1.78 AB ± 0.26 | 1.71 A ± 0.31 | 1.93 B ± 0.13 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.013 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.043 | |||
Results are expressed as means ± SD. Mean values with different superscript lowercase letters (a–g) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for cultivars with different superscript uppercase letters (A–D) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for harvest dates with asterisks (*, **, ***) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple-range test.
Table 3.
Vitamin C and total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of fruit of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates.
Table 3.
Vitamin C and total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of fruit of four sea-buckthorn cultivars obtained on three harvest dates.
| Component | Harvest Date | Cultivar | Means for Harvest Dates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luchistaja | Prozrachnaja | Botanicheskaja | Augustinka | |||
| L-ascorbic acid mg 100 g−1 fw | I | 114.4 d ± 1.5 | 69.8 a ± 4.5 | 88.0 c ± 0.7 | 80.5 b ± 1.9 | 88.2 * ± 17.1 |
| II | 79.7 b ± 1.2 | 81.6 b ± 1.5 | 85.1 c ± 0.4 | 131.8 e ± 0.4 | 94.6 ** ± 22.3 | |
| III | 79.3 b ± 4.8 | 85.4 c ± 1.9 | 86.2 c ± 1.0 | 130.5 e ± 2.2 | 95.4 ** ± 21.3 | |
| means for cultivar | 91.1 C ± 17.4 | 78.9 A ± 7.4 | 86.5 B ± 1.4 | 114.3 D ± 25.0 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| Total polyphenols mg 100 g−1 fw | I | 127 a ± 6 | 190 ef ± 11 | 191 ef ± 4 | 221 g ± 20 | 182 ** ± 37 |
| II | 128 a ± 7 | 183 de ± 7 | 181 de ± 7 | 207 fg ± 9 | 175 ** ± 31 | |
| III | 140 ab ± 11 | 166 cd ± 10 | 156 bc ± 6 | 200 ef ± 15 | 166 * ± 25 | |
| means for cultivar | 131 C ± 10 | 180 B ± 14 | 176 B ± 16 | 209 C ± 16 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.002 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.013 | |||
| ABTS µM Trolox g−1 fw | I | 108.8 d ± 5.7 | 145.2 e ± 2.0 | 148.6 ef ± 1.4 | 152.5 f ± 3.9 | 138.8 *** ± 18.5 |
| II | 93.7 c ± 1.3 | 90.7 abc ± 5.2 | 94.5 c ± 1.2 | 93.2 c ± 1.4 | 93.1 ** ± 2.8 | |
| III | 90.6 abc ± 0.9 | 91.9 bc ± 1.2 | 85.6 a ± 3.8 | 86.7 ab ± 0.9 | 88.7 * ± 3.3 | |
| means for cultivar | 97.7 A ± 9.0 | 109.3 B ± 27.1 | 109.6 B ± 29.6 | 110.8 B ± 31.5 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| DPPH µM Trolox g−1 fw | I | 46.3 d ± 3.6 | 54.8 e ± 1.5 | 62.0 f ± 3.7 | 70.6 g ± 2.0 | 58.4 *** ± 9.6 |
| II | 27.7 bc ± 1.0 | 25.6 ab ± 0.6 | 27.3 bc ± 1.8 | 29.6 c ± 0.9 | 27.6 ** ± 1.7 | |
| III | 23.0 a ± 1.0 | 26.8 bc ± 0.6 | 24.9 ab ± 0.7 | 27.7 bc ± 0.7 | 25.6 * ± 2.0 | |
| means for cultivar | 32.3 A ± 10.8 | 35.8 B ± 14.3 | 38.0 C ± 18.1 | 42.6 D ± 21.0 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
| FRAP µM Fe2+ g−1 fw | I | 10.43 bc ± 1.81 | 16.18 de ± 0.60 | 16.12 de ± 1.62 | 18.21 e ± 0.61 | 15.2 *** ± 3.44 |
| II | 8.54 ab ± 0.73 | 11.87 c ± 0.84 | 9.97 bc ± 0.63 | 14.86 d ± 1.65 | 11.31 ** ± 2.75 | |
| III | 6.45 a ± 0.32 | 12.04 c ± 0.63 | 8.40 ab ± 0.42 | 12.11 c ± 0.44 | 9.76 * ± 2.56 | |
| means for cultivar | 8.47 A ± 2.24 | 13.36 C ± 2.19 | 11.50 B ± 3.77 | 15.06 D ± 2.95 | ||
| p-value | for cultivar 0.000 | for harvest dates 0.000 | for cultivar and harvest dates 0.000 | |||
Results are expressed as means ± SD. Mean values with different superscript lowercase letters (a–g) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for cultivars with different superscript uppercase letters (A–D) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05); mean values for harvest dates with asterisks (*, **, ***) are statistically different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple-range test.
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. |
© 2025 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sadowska, U.; Słupski, J. The Effect of the Harvest Date on the Possibility of Harvesting by Shaking, Chemical Composition, Color, and Antioxidant Properties of Common Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophae rhamnoides L.). Agronomy 2025, 15, 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051184
AMA Style
Sadowska U, Słupski J. The Effect of the Harvest Date on the Possibility of Harvesting by Shaking, Chemical Composition, Color, and Antioxidant Properties of Common Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophae rhamnoides L.). Agronomy. 2025; 15(5):1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051184
Chicago/Turabian StyleSadowska, Urszula, and Jacek Słupski. 2025. "The Effect of the Harvest Date on the Possibility of Harvesting by Shaking, Chemical Composition, Color, and Antioxidant Properties of Common Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophae rhamnoides L.)" Agronomy 15, no. 5: 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051184
APA StyleSadowska, U., & Słupski, J. (2025). The Effect of the Harvest Date on the Possibility of Harvesting by Shaking, Chemical Composition, Color, and Antioxidant Properties of Common Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophae rhamnoides L.). Agronomy, 15(5), 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051184
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
