Evaluation of Yield Potential and Quality of Daikon (Raphanus sativus L. convar. acanthiformis Sazon.) Cultivars Under Different Sowing Dates
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description, Climate, and Soil Characteristics
- -
- Soil pH (Exchangeable Acidity): Potentiometric determination was performed in a 1 M KCl suspension with a soil-to-solution ratio of 1:5, following ISO 10390:2021 (adopted as DSTU ISO 10390:2022). Measurements were conducted using a calibrated glass electrode pH meter.
- -
- Mineral Nitrogen ( and ): The content of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen was determined according to DSTU 4729:2007 (modified by the NSC ISSAR). Nitrates were measured using the ion-selective electrode method, while ammonium nitrogen was determined colorimetrically using Nessler’s reagent.
- -
- Available Phosphorus (P2O5) and Exchangeable Potassium (K2O): These macronutrients were extracted using the Chirikov modified method (DSTU 4115-2002) with 0.5 M acetic acid (CH3COOH) at a 1:5 soil-to-solution ratio. Phosphorus concentration was quantified spectrophotometrically via the molybdenum blue complex method, and potassium was determined using flame photometry.
- -
- Soil Organic Matter (SOM): The total organic carbon (humus) content was determined by the Tyurin method as specified in DSTU 4289:2004 (clause 8.1). This procedure involves the wet oxidation of organic matter with a potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution, followed by photometric measurement of Cr3+ concentration.
2.2. Plant Material and Experimental Factors
2.3. Experimental Design and Field Management
2.4. Sampling and Morphometric Measurements
2.5. Biochemical Analysis
2.6. Organoleptic (Sensory) Evaluation
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
| Cell No. | Year | Variety | Sowing Dates | Yield, t ha−1 Mean | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 2024 | Gulliver | A | 43.7 | * | ||||||||||
| 10 | 2023 | Gulliver | B | 44.7 | * | * | |||||||||
| 1 | 2022 | Gulliver | A | 45.8 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 21 | 2024 | Minowase | A | 46.1 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 18 | 2024 | Gulliver | B | 47.7 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 5 | 2022 | Minowase | A | 48.6 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 9 | 2023 | Gulliver | A | 48.6 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 12 | 2023 | Gulliver | D | 48.8 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 13 | 2023 | Minowase | A | 49.2 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 22 | 2024 | Minowase | B | 49.3 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 2 | 2022 | Gulliver | B | 49.9 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 14 | 2023 | Minowase | B | 50.5 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 20 | 2024 | Gulliver | D | 51.8 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 11 | 2023 | Gulliver | C | 51.9 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 4 | 2022 | Gulliver | D | 52.3 | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||
| 6 | 2022 | Minowase | B | 52.7 | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||||
| 16 | 2023 | Minowase | D | 54.4 | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||||
| 19 | 2024 | Gulliver | C | 55.5 | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||
| 3 | 2022 | Gulliver | C | 56.3 | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||
| 15 | 2023 | Minowase | C | 56.5 | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||
| 8 | 2022 | Minowase | D | 57.2 | * | * | * | * | |||||||
| 24 | 2024 | Minowase | D | 57.7 | * | * | * | ||||||||
| 23 | 2024 | Minowase | C | 59.4 | * | * | |||||||||
| 7 | 2022 | Minowase | C | 60.7 | * |
Appendix B
| Variable | Dry Matter, % | Total Sugar, % | Vitamin C, mg per 100 g | Tasting Score, Points | Average Root Weight, g | Sum of Temperatures Above 10 °C, °C | Precipitation Amount, mm | Sowing Period | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gulliver | |||||||||
| 1. Dry matter, % | n | — | |||||||
| Pearson’s r | — | ||||||||
| p-value | — | ||||||||
| Covariance | — | ||||||||
| 2. Total sugar, % | n | 12 | — | ||||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.961 *** | — | |||||||
| p-value | <0.001 | — | |||||||
| Covariance | 0.150 | — | |||||||
| 3. Vitamin C, mg per 100 g | n | 12 | 12 | — | |||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.606 * | 0.545 | — | ||||||
| p-value | 0.037 | 0.067 | — | ||||||
| Covariance | 0.576 | 0.609 | — | ||||||
| 4. Tasting score, points | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | ||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.948 *** | 0.903 *** | 0.572 | — | |||||
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.052 | — | |||||
| Covariance | 0.158 | 0.178 | 0.683 | — | |||||
| 5. Average root weight, g | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | |||
| Pearson’s r | −0.942 *** | −0.934 *** | −0.521 | −0.866 *** | — | ||||
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.082 | <0.001 | — | ||||
| Covariance | −8.461 | −9.861 | −33.46 | −9.767 | — | ||||
| 6. Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | ||
| Pearson’s r | 0.318 | 0.323 | 0.871 *** | 0.251 | −0.231 | — | |||
| p-value | 0.314 | 0.306 | <0.001 | 0.432 | 0.470 | — | |||
| Covariance | 27.00 | 32.24 | 528.8 | 26.74 | −1325 | — | |||
| 7. Precipitation amount, mm | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | |
| Pearson’s r | 0.198 | 0.262 | −0.311 | 0.230 | −0.033 | −0.370 | — | ||
| p-value | 0.538 | 0.410 | 0.325 | 0.472 | 0.918 | 0.237 | — | ||
| Covariance | 4.400 | 6.864 | −49.42 | 6.424 | −50.06 | −5251 | — | ||
| 8. Sowing period | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — |
| Pearson’s r | −0.543 | −0.680 * | −0.261 | −0.525 | 0.444 | −0.279 | −0.473 | — | |
| p-value | 0.068 | 0.015 | 0.412 | 0.079 | 0.149 | 0.380 | 0.120 | — | |
| Covariance | −2.484 | −3.657 | −8.542 | −3.017 | 136.9 | −814.7 | −361.9 | — | |
| Minowase | |||||||||
| 1. Dry matter, % | n | — | |||||||
| Pearson’s r | — | ||||||||
| p-value | — | ||||||||
| Covariance | — | ||||||||
| 2. Total sugar, % | n | 12 | — | ||||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.948 *** | — | |||||||
| p-value | <0.001 | — | |||||||
| Covariance | 0.164 | — | |||||||
| 3. Vitamin C, mg per 100 g | n | 12 | 12 | — | |||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.622 * | 0.631 * | — | ||||||
| p-value | 0.031 | 0.028 | — | ||||||
| Covariance | 0.546 | 0.479 | — | ||||||
| 4. Tasting score, points | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | ||||
| Pearson’s r | 0.870 *** | 0.898 *** | 0.339 | — | |||||
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.281 | — | |||||
| Covariance | 0.158 | 0.141 | 0.269 | — | |||||
| 5. Average root weight, g | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | |||
| Pearson’s r | −0.931 *** | −0.914 *** | −0.500 | −0.834 *** | — | ||||
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.098 | <0.001 | — | ||||
| Covariance | −9.461 | −8.045 | −22.28 | −7.670 | — | ||||
| 6. Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | ||
| Pearson’s r | 0.462 | 0.429 | 0.909 *** | 0.110 | −0.341 | — | |||
| p-value | 0.131 | 0.164 | <0.001 | 0.733 | 0.278 | — | |||
| Covariance | 57.91 | 46.58 | 499.7 | 12.49 | −2173 | — | |||
| 7. Precipitation amount, mm | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — | |
| Pearson’s r | 0.110 | 0.104 | −0.327 | 0.074 | −0.287 | −0.343 | — | ||
| p-value | 0.734 | 0.748 | 0.300 | 0.819 | 0.365 | 0.274 | — | ||
| Covariance | 2.786 | 2.280 | −36.37 | 1.705 | −370.6 | −5464 | — | ||
| 8. Sowing period | n | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | — |
| Pearson’s r | −0.650 * | −0.657 * | −0.370 | −0.484 | 0.653 * | −0.311 | −0.424 | — | |
| p-value | 0.022 | 0.020 | 0.236 | 0.111 | 0.021 | 0.325 | 0.170 | — | |
| Covariance | −3.648 | −3.192 | −9.102 | −2.457 | 185.9 | −1093 | −301.7 | — | |
References
- Kalenska, S. Food security and innovative solutions in crop production. Plant Soil Sci. 2022, 13, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Dinesh, D.; Howden, S.M.; Cramer, L.; Thornton, P.K. Transformation in practice: A review of empirical cases of transformational adaptation in agriculture under climate change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasylieva, N.; Harvey, J. The effect of urbanization on food security and agricultural sustainability. Econ. Sociol. 2021, 14, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahab, S.; Muzammil, K.; Nasir, N.; Khan, M.S.; Ahmad, M.F.; Khalid, M.; Ahmad, W.; Dawria, A.; Reddy, L.K.V.; Busayli, A.M. Advancement and new trends in analysis of pesticide residues in food: A comprehensive review. Plants 2022, 11, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murdad, R.; Muhiddin, M.; Osman, W.H.; Tajidin, N.E.; Haida, Z.; Awang, A.; Jalloh, M.B. Ensuring urban food security in Malaysia during the COVID-19 pandemic–Is urban farming the answer? A review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboltins, A.; Rucins, A.; Bobos, I.; Fedosiy, I.; Komar, O.; Zavadska, O.; Sych, Z.; Havrys, I.; Retman, M.; Zavgorodniy, V. Evaluation of Productivity and Morphological Variability of Asparagus Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. subsp. sesquipedalis (L.) Verdc.) Cultivars Intended for Vegetable Production . Agronomy 2024, 14, 2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobos, I.; Komar, O.; Fedosiy, I.; Havrys, I.; Retman, M. Research on the impact of planting schemes on the trait variability of Vigna varieties (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. subsp. sesquipedalis (L.) Verdc.). Sci. Horiz. 2024, 27, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajasree, V.; Pugalendhi, L. Breeding vegetables for nutritional security. In Veganism—A Fashion Trend or Food as a Medicine; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur Dhillon, H.; Singh, H.; Pathak, M.; Singh Dhillon, T. Vegetables: Potential role for nutritional security. J. Plant Nutr. 2024, 47, 3298–3315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, R.; Tabassum, S.; Rashid, A.; Rehman, S.; Adnan, A.; Ghaffar, R. Bioactive Components of Root Vegetables; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fedosiy, I.; Bobos, I.; Zavadska, O.; Komar, O.; Tonkha, O.; Furdyha, M.; Polishchuk, S.; Arak, M.; Olt, J. Research into properties of blue melilot and fenugreek cultivated using different sowing times. Agron. Res. 2022, 20, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Sustainable Crop Production and Climate Resilience: Guidelines for Adaptation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, S.; Harrison, S.P.; Prentice, I.C.; Wang, H. Optimality-based modelling of wheat sowing dates globally. Agric. Syst. 2023, 206, 103608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, A.A. Plant Guide for Oilseed Radish (Raphanus sativus L.); USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
- Guo, D.; Chen, C.; Li, X.; Wang, R.; Ding, Z.; Ma, W.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Zhao, M.; Li, M.; et al. Adjusting sowing date improves the photosynthetic capacity and grain yield by optimizing temperature condition around flowering of summer maize in the North China Plain. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 934618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patra, S.; Rai, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Sangma, R.H.; Majumder, S.; Kuotsu, K.; Chakraborty, M.; Baiswar, P.; Singh, B.K.; Roy, A.; et al. Impact of Weather Variables on Radish Insect Pests in the Eastern Himalayas and Organic Management Strategies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chutimanukul, P.; Piew-ondee, P.; Dangsamer, T.; Thongtip, A.; Janta, S.; Wanichananan, P.; Thepsilvisut, O.; Ehara, H.; Chutimanukul, P. Effects of Light Spectra on Growth, physiological responses, and antioxidant capacity in five Radish varieties in an indoor vertical farming system. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henschel, J.M.; de Azevedo Soares, V.; Figueiredo, M.C.; Dos Santos, S.K.; Dias, T.J.; Batista, D.S. Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) growth and gas exchange responses to exogenous ascorbic acid and irrigation levels. Vegetos 2023, 36, 566–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acevedo, A.F.G.; da Silva Marques, I.C.; Dellabiglia, W.J.; Ferraz, A.K.L.; Basílio, L.S.P.; Broetto, F. Silicon as a mitigator of water deficit stress in radish crop. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 291, 110600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhari, R.H.; Mali, P.C.; Parulekar, Y.R.; Salvi, B.R.; Mahadik, S.G. Effect of consecutive sowings and spacing on growth and yield of radish. Int. J. Hortic. Food Sci. 2022, 4, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaplaev, M.S.; Terekbaev, A.A.; Madaev, A.A.; Eldarov, I.B. Root crops and daikon seeds yield in relation to sowing time, methods of cultivation and cultivar features in conditions of the North-Eastern Caucasus. AgroSMART 2019, 2019, 904–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, M.; Kadyampakeni, D.M.; Kanissery, R.; Kwakye, S. Evaluation of the nitrogen uptake efficacy of daikon radish under greenhouse conditions on sandy soils. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2024, 7, e20508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khusanov, N.; Boboyev, S.; Razzakova, S.; Shoira, N.; Juliyev, M.; Turabayev, A. Raphanus sativus L. and its determination of planting dates based on seed germination in different ecological environments of Uzbekistan. E3S Web Conf. 2024, 497, 03029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, D.; Lu, Z.; Song, X.; Ahammed, G.J.; Yan, Y.; Chen, S. Improvement of yield and quality properties of radish by the organic fertilizer application combined with the reduction of chemical fertilizer. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirtautas, R.; Samuoliene, G.; Brazaityte, A.; Duchovskis, P. Temperature and photoperiod effects on photosynthetic indices of radish (Raphanus sativus L.). Agriculture 2011, 98, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
- Gamba, M.; Asllanaj, E.; Raguindin, P.F.; Glisic, M.; Franco, O.H.; Minder, B.; Bussler, W.; Metzger, B.; Kern, H.; Muka, T. Nutritional and phytochemical characterization of radish (Raphanus sativus): A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 113, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mari, S.N.; Zhang, L.; Kaleri, A.A.; Jatoi, F.A.; Solangi, M.R.M. Cultivation of Exotic Radish Varieties in Climatic Condition of Tando Jam. Annu. Methodol. Arch. Res. Rev. 2025, 3, 139–149. [Google Scholar]
- Swe, K.M.; Chowdhury, M.; Reza, M.N.; Ali, M.; Kiraga, S.; Islam, S.; Chung, S.; Hong, S.J. Physical and strength properties of radish and Chinese cabbage. Precis. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2022, 4, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, R.S.; Khan, S.S.; Siddique, R. Radish (Raphanus sativus): Potential antioxidant role of bioactive compounds extracted from radish leaves—A review. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2022, 16, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noreen, S.; Khalid, W.; Khan Niazi, M.; Javed, M.; Aziz, A.; Raza, A.; Khalid, M.Z.; Chamba, M.V.M. Application of radish pods in households and effect of their active components against different diseases: A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2023, 26, 2039–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pathak, M.; Barik, S.; Das, S.K. Impact of climate change on root crops production. Adv. Res. Veg. Prod. Under A Chang. Clim. 2021, 1, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzoor, A.; Bashir, M.A.; Naveed, M.S.; Cheema, K.L.; Cardarelli, M. Role of different abiotic factors in inducing pre-harvest physiological disorders in radish (Raphanus sativus). Plants 2021, 10, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisht, A.; Krishna, V.; Savita. Production Technology of Underutilized Vegetables of Brassicaceae Family. In Production Technology of Underutilized Vegetable Crops; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 173–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaika, V.M.; Havei, I.; Miniailo, A. Influence of climate changes on dominants number, distribution and harmfulness of entomocomplexes of winter wheat in the forest-steppe of Ukraine. Plant Soil Sci. 2018, 268, 304–311. [Google Scholar]
- Prokopenko, K.; Udova, L. Ukrainian agriculture: Challenges and ways of development under the climate change. Econ. Forecast. 2017, 1, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalenska, S.; Yeremenko, O.; Novictska, N.; Yunyk, A.; Honchar, L.; Cherniy, V.; Stolayrchuk, T.; Kalenskyi, V.; Scherbakova, O.; Rigenko, A. Enrichment of field crops biodiversity in conditions of climate changing. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2019, 9, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
- Skrypnyk, A.; Zhemoyda, O.; Klymenko, N.; Galaieva, L.; Koval, T. Econometric analysis of the impact of climate change on the sustainability of agricultural production in Ukraine. J. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 22, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsytsyura, Y. Adaptive strategy of agriculture of the right-bank Ukrainian forest-steppe in the conditions of climate change. Agric. For. 2017, 5, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
- Dhand, A.; Garg, N. Genotype × environment interaction using AMMI and MTSI analysis for growth and yield attributes of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) under high temperature stress conditions of north Indian plains. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 313, 111880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Rattan, P.; Sharma, N. Effect of date of sowing and spacing on growth and yield of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) cv. Pusa Chetki. Indian J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2021, 9, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DSTU 4362:2004; Soil Quality. Indicators of Soil Fertility. State standard of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2006.
- ISO 10390:2021; Soil, Treated Biowaste and Sludge—Determination of pH. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
- DSTU 4729:2007; Soil quality. Determination of Nitrate and Ammonium Nitrogen in the Modification of the NSC ISSAR Named After O.N. Sokolovsky. State standard of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2008.
- DSTU 4115:2002; Soils. Determination of Mobile Phosphorus and Potassium Compounds by the Modified Chirikov Method. State standard of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2003.
- DSTU 4289:2004; Soil Quality. Methods for Determining Organic Matter (Tyurin Method). State standard of Ukraine: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2005.
- Bleiholder, H.; Weber, E.; Lancashire, P.; Feller, C.; Buhr, L.; Hess, M.; Wicke, H.; Hack, H.; Meier, U.; Klose, R.; et al. Growth stages of mono-and dicotyledonous plants. BBCH Monogr. 2001, 158. [Google Scholar]
- DSTU 7804:2015; Products of Processing of Fruits and Vegetables. Methods for Determination of Dry Substances or Moisture. State Standard Ukrainy: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2015.
- DSTU 4954:2008; Products of Processing of Fruits and Vegetables. Methods for Determination of Sugars. State Standard Ukrainy: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2008.
- DSTU ISO 6557-2:2014; Fruits, Vegetables and Derived Products. Determination of Ascorbic Acid Content. Part 2: Routine Methods. State Standard Ukrainy: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2014.
- Nageswara, R.G. Statistics for Agricultural Sciences, 3rd ed.; BSP Books Pvt. Ltd.: Hyderabad, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ghimire, S.; Adhikari, B.; Pandey, S.; Belbase, K.; Lamichhane, S.; Pathak, R. Effect of different organic manure on growth and yield of radish in Deukhuri, Dang, Nepal. Acta Sci. Agric 2020, 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Shimizu, H. Effect of day and night temperature alternations on plant morphogenesis. Environ. Control. Biol. 2007, 45, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakhshandeh, E.; Gholamhossieni, M. Modelling the effects of water stress and temperature on seed germination of radish and cantaloupe. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 1402–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, T.; Wei, Q.; Wang, W.; Hu, H.; Mao, W.; Zhu, Q.; Bao, C. Genome-wide identification and characterization of CONSTANS-like gene family in radish (Raphanus sativus). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, S.; Li, C.; Xu, L.; Wang, Y.; Huang, D.; Muleke, E.M.; Sun, X.; Xie, Y.; Liu, L. De novo transcriptome analysis in radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and identification of critical genes involved in bolting and flowering. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luitel, B.P.; Bhusal, Y.; Bhandari, B.B. Evaluation of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) varieit in different sowing dates for of-season production at dailekh. J. Agric. Environ. 2024, 25, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
- Mitsui, Y.; Yokoyama, H.; Nakaegawa, W.; Tanaka, K.; Komatsu, K.; Koizuka, N.; Okuzaki, A.; Matsumoto, T.; Takahara, M.; Tabei, Y. Epistatic interactions among multiple copies of FLC genes with naturally occurring insertions correlate with flowering time variation in radish. AoB Plants 2023, 15, plac066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, K.; Ahn, H.I.; Yang, H.B.; Lee, Y.R.; Lee, E.S.; Lee, J.; Jang, C.-S.; Kim, D.S. Identification of Genetic Loci Associated with Bolting Time in Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) by QTL Mapping and GWAS. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, A.; Singh, N. Effect of Sowing Time on Different Radish Varieties (Raphanus sativus L.). J. Krishi Vigyan 2022, 11, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al–Juboori, A.A.; Al-hamdani, S.; Hamdon, M. Effect of sowing date on growth and yield of four radish (Raphanus sativus L.) varieties. Mesop. J. Agric. 2019, 47, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panwar, N.S.; Mishra, A.C.; Uniyal, S.P.; Pandey, V.; Bali, R.S. Effect of date of sowing on yield and quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) cultivars under rainfed mid-hill conditions of Uttarakhand. Ann. Agri Bio Res. 2013, 18, 360–363. [Google Scholar]
- Dhaliwal, M.S.; Klair, J.S. Sowing date affects development and root yield of radish. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 13, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavanya, A.V.N.; Vani, V.S.; Reddy, P.S.S.; Shashikala, P. Effect of sowing dates and spacing on growth and root yield of radish cv. pusa chetki. Indian J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2017, 5, 1774–1779. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, J.N.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, S.M.; Won, S.Y.; Seo, M.S.; Kwon, S.J. Analysis of phenotypic characteristics and sucrose metabolism in the roots of Raphanus sativus L. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 716782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.H.; Ki, W.; Kim, N.S.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, J.K.; Park, S.U. Metabolic profiling of white and green radish cultivars (Raphanus sativus). Horticulturae 2022, 8, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, I. Analysis of Physiological and Biochemical Parameters in the Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) Obtained in Different Cultivation Systems. Grassroots J. Nat. Resour. 2024, 7, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jambalsuren, B.; Dondog, P. Biochemical analysis of radish and beet species. Mong. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 16, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahal, K.M.; Bhattarai, D.R.; Sharma, M.D.; Poudel, B. Evaluation of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) varieties under shade-net condition for yield and quality. Nepal. Hortic. 2021, 15, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, L.M.; Min, K.; Nguyen, T.N.; Park, H.Y.; Lee, O.N.; Song, H.K.; Moon, H. Vision-based white radish phenotypic trait measurement with smartphone imagery. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B.; Hur, O.; Lee, J.E.; Assefa, A.D.; Ko, H.C.; Chung, Y.J.; Rhee, J.; Hahn, B.S. Characterization of phenotypic traits and evaluation of glucosinolate contents in radish germplasms (Raphanus sativus L.). Korean J. Plant Resour. 2021, 34, 575–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.W.; Yun, H.S.; Jeong, S.J.; Kwon, Y.S.; Kim, S.G.; Lee, W.S.; Kim, H.J. Modeling and testing of growth status for Chinese cabbage and white radish with UAV-based RGB imagery. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, I.D.; van Liere, M.J.; de Brauw, A.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Herforth, A.; Kennedy, G.; Lachat, C.; Omosa, E.B.; Talsma, E.F.; Vandevijvere, S.; et al. Reverse thinking: Taking a healthy diet perspective towards food systems transformations. Food Secur. 2021, 13, 1497–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadska, O.; Bobos, I.; Fedosiy, I.; Podpriatov, H.; Komar, O.; Mazur, B.; Olt, J. Suitability of various onion (Allium cepa) varieties for drying and long-term storage. Agron. Res. 2022, 19, 1675–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pusik, L.; Pusik, V. Study of the storage of daicon roots depending on the type of packaging. Veg. Melon Grow. 2025, 77, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.K. Radish (Raphanus sativus L.): Breeding for higher yield, better quality and wider adaptability. Adv. Plant Breed. Strateg. Veg. Crops 2021, 8, 275–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]












| Parameter (Units) | (1) Test Results | (2) Expanded Uncertainty | (3) Fertility Class Range | (3) Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil pH (pHKCl) | 6.74 | 0.02 | 6.1–7.0 | Neutral |
| Soil Organic Matter (Humus), % | 2.71 | 0.17 | 2.1–3.0 | Medium |
| Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3), mg kg−1 | 6.42 | 0.10 | 16–24 | Medium |
| Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4), mg kg−1 | 11.72 | 0.12 | ||
| Available Phosphorus (P2O5), mg kg−1 | 568.83 | 1.89 | >200 | Very high |
| Available Potassium (K2O), mg kg−1 | 152.93 | 3.10 | 121–180 | High |
| Effect | ss | Degr. of Freedom | MS | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 69 | 2 | 34.5 | 13.4 | 0.000 * |
| Variety | 257 | 1 | 256.5 | 99.4 | 0.000 * |
| Sowing dates | 1041 | 3 | 347 | 134.4 | 0.000 * |
| Year × Variety | 1 | 2 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.75 |
| Year × Sowing dates | 124 | 6 | 20.7 | 8 | 0.000 * |
| Variety × Sowing dates | 30 | 3 | 10 | 3.9 | 0.015 * |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 18 | 6 | 3 | 1.2 | 0.347 |
| Factor A, Variety | Factor B, Sowing Date | Variable | n | Pearson’s r | p | Covariance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gulliver | First ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | −0.598 | 0.089 | −329.2 |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.803 ** | 0.009 | 148.8 | ||
| Second ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | −0.103 | 0.792 | −60.02 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.839 ** | 0.005 | 16.73 | ||
| Third ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | 0.035 | 0.928 | 19.40 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.561 | 0.116 | 72.30 | ||
| First ten-day period of August | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | 0.035 | 0.929 | 16.51 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.588 | 0.096 | 70.64 | ||
| Minowase | First ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | −0.620 | 0.075 | −354.92 |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.624 | 0.073 | 76.71 | ||
| Second ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | −0.627 | 0.071 | −367.90 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.648 | 0.059 | 38.25 | ||
| Third ten-day period of July | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | −0.094 | 0.810 | −59.27 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.602 | 0.086 | 90.09 | ||
| First ten-day period of August | Yield, t ha−1—Sum of temperatures above 10 °C, °C | 9 | 0.272 | 0.480 | 137.99 | |
| Yield, t ha−1—Precipitation amount, mm | 9 | 0.759 * | 0.018 | 62.76 |
| Effect | Level of Factor | Level of Factor | Level of Factor | N | Yield, t ha−1 Mean | Yield, t ha−1 Std.Dev. | Yield, t ha−1 Std.Err | Yield, t ha−1 −95% | Yield, t ha−1 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 72 | 51.6 | 4.84 | 0.57 | 50.50 | 52.78 | |||
| Year | 2022 | 24 | 52.9 | 4.91 | 1.00 | 50.86 | 55.01 | ||
| Year | 2023 | 24 | 50.6 | 3.80 | 0.78 | 48.97 | 52.18 | ||
| Year | 2024 | 24 | 51.4 | 5.55 | 1.13 | 49.06 | 53.74 | ||
| Variety | Minowase | 36 | 53.5 | 4.85 | 0.81 | 51.88 | 55.17 | ||
| Variety | Gulliver | 36 | 49.8 | 4.08 | 0.68 | 48.37 | 51.13 | ||
| Sowing dates | A | 18 | 47.0 | 2.52 | 0.59 | 45.75 | 48.25 | ||
| Sowing dates | B | 18 | 49.1 | 2.95 | 0.70 | 47.66 | 50.60 | ||
| Sowing dates | C | 18 | 56.7 | 3.22 | 0.76 | 55.11 | 58.32 | ||
| Sowing dates | D | 18 | 53.7 | 3.34 | 0.79 | 52.04 | 55.36 | ||
| Year × Variety | 2022 | Minowase | 12 | 54.8 | 5.01 | 1.45 | 51.62 | 57.98 | |
| Year × Variety | 2022 | Gulliver | 12 | 51.1 | 4.22 | 1.22 | 48.39 | 53.76 | |
| Year × Variety | 2023 | Minowase | 12 | 52.7 | 3.42 | 0.99 | 50.48 | 54.82 | |
| Year × Variety | 2023 | Gulliver | 12 | 48.5 | 3.02 | 0.87 | 46.58 | 50.42 | |
| Year × Variety | 2024 | Minowase | 12 | 53.1 | 5.94 | 1.71 | 49.35 | 56.90 | |
| Year × Variety | 2024 | Gulliver | 12 | 49.7 | 4.74 | 1.37 | 46.66 | 52.69 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2022 | A | 6 | 47.2 | 2.46 | 1.00 | 44.62 | 49.78 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2022 | B | 6 | 51.3 | 1.95 | 0.79 | 49.26 | 53.34 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2022 | C | 6 | 58.5 | 3.12 | 1.27 | 55.23 | 61.77 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2022 | D | 6 | 54.8 | 2.77 | 1.13 | 51.84 | 57.66 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2023 | A | 6 | 48.9 | 1.81 | 0.74 | 47.00 | 50.80 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2023 | B | 6 | 47.6 | 3.75 | 1.53 | 43.66 | 51.54 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2023 | C | 6 | 54.2 | 2.76 | 1.13 | 51.30 | 57.10 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2023 | D | 6 | 51.6 | 3.23 | 1.32 | 48.21 | 54.99 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2024 | A | 6 | 44.9 | 1.63 | 0.66 | 43.19 | 46.61 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2024 | B | 6 | 48.5 | 1.70 | 0.69 | 46.72 | 50.28 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2024 | C | 6 | 57.5 | 2.43 | 0.99 | 54.90 | 60.00 | |
| Year × Sowing dates | 2024 | D | 6 | 54.8 | 3.44 | 1.41 | 51.14 | 58.36 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Minowase | A | 9 | 48.0 | 2.14 | 0.71 | 46.33 | 49.61 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Minowase | B | 9 | 50.8 | 2.19 | 0.73 | 49.15 | 52.51 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Minowase | C | 9 | 58.9 | 2.38 | 0.79 | 57.04 | 60.70 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Minowase | D | 9 | 56.4 | 1.84 | 0.61 | 55.02 | 57.85 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Gulliver | A | 9 | 46.0 | 2.62 | 0.87 | 44.02 | 48.05 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Gulliver | B | 9 | 47.4 | 2.70 | 0.90 | 45.36 | 49.51 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Gulliver | C | 9 | 54.6 | 2.45 | 0.82 | 52.68 | 56.45 | |
| Variety × Sowing dates | Gulliver | D | 9 | 51.0 | 1.87 | 0.62 | 49.53 | 52.41 | |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Minowase | A | 3 | 48.6 | 2.21 | 1.28 | 43.10 | 54.10 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Minowase | B | 3 | 52.7 | 1.37 | 0.79 | 49.29 | 56.11 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Minowase | C | 3 | 60.7 | 2.30 | 1.33 | 54.99 | 66.41 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Minowase | D | 3 | 57.2 | 0.81 | 0.47 | 55.18 | 59.22 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Gulliver | A | 3 | 45.8 | 2.09 | 1.21 | 40.61 | 50.99 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Gulliver | B | 3 | 49.9 | 1.30 | 0.75 | 46.67 | 53.13 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Gulliver | C | 3 | 56.3 | 2.13 | 1.23 | 51.01 | 61.59 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2022 | Gulliver | D | 3 | 52.3 | 0.74 | 0.43 | 50.46 | 54.14 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Minowase | A | 3 | 49.2 | 2.00 | 1.16 | 44.22 | 54.18 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Minowase | B | 3 | 50.5 | 2.36 | 1.36 | 44.63 | 56.37 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Minowase | C | 3 | 56.5 | 1.32 | 0.76 | 53.23 | 59.77 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Minowase | D | 3 | 54.4 | 1.20 | 0.69 | 51.42 | 57.38 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Gulliver | A | 3 | 48.6 | 1.98 | 1.14 | 43.69 | 53.51 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Gulliver | B | 3 | 44.7 | 2.09 | 1.21 | 39.51 | 49.89 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Gulliver | C | 3 | 51.9 | 1.21 | 0.70 | 48.89 | 54.91 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2023 | Gulliver | D | 3 | 48.8 | 1.08 | 0.62 | 46.13 | 51.47 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Minowase | A | 3 | 46.1 | 1.10 | 0.63 | 43.37 | 48.83 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Minowase | B | 3 | 49.3 | 1.65 | 0.95 | 45.20 | 53.40 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Minowase | C | 3 | 59.4 | 1.33 | 0.77 | 56.09 | 62.71 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Minowase | D | 3 | 57.7 | 1.40 | 0.81 | 54.23 | 61.17 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Gulliver | A | 3 | 43.7 | 1.04 | 0.60 | 41.11 | 46.29 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Gulliver | B | 3 | 47.7 | 1.60 | 0.92 | 43.73 | 51.67 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Gulliver | C | 3 | 55.5 | 1.24 | 0.72 | 52.41 | 58.59 |
| Year × Variety × Sowing dates | 2024 | Gulliver | D | 3 | 51.8 | 1.25 | 0.72 | 48.69 | 54.91 |
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
Fedosiy, I.; Rucins, A.; Aboltins, A.; Viesturs, D.; Bobos, I.; Komar, O.; Zavadska, O.; Retman, M.; Havrys, I.; Siedova, O. Evaluation of Yield Potential and Quality of Daikon (Raphanus sativus L. convar. acanthiformis Sazon.) Cultivars Under Different Sowing Dates. Agronomy 2026, 16, 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16030282
Fedosiy I, Rucins A, Aboltins A, Viesturs D, Bobos I, Komar O, Zavadska O, Retman M, Havrys I, Siedova O. Evaluation of Yield Potential and Quality of Daikon (Raphanus sativus L. convar. acanthiformis Sazon.) Cultivars Under Different Sowing Dates. Agronomy. 2026; 16(3):282. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16030282
Chicago/Turabian StyleFedosiy, Ivan, Adolfs Rucins, Aivars Aboltins, Dainis Viesturs, Irina Bobos, Oleksandr Komar, Oksana Zavadska, Mykhailo Retman, Ivanna Havrys, and Olena Siedova. 2026. "Evaluation of Yield Potential and Quality of Daikon (Raphanus sativus L. convar. acanthiformis Sazon.) Cultivars Under Different Sowing Dates" Agronomy 16, no. 3: 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16030282
APA StyleFedosiy, I., Rucins, A., Aboltins, A., Viesturs, D., Bobos, I., Komar, O., Zavadska, O., Retman, M., Havrys, I., & Siedova, O. (2026). Evaluation of Yield Potential and Quality of Daikon (Raphanus sativus L. convar. acanthiformis Sazon.) Cultivars Under Different Sowing Dates. Agronomy, 16(3), 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16030282

