Next Article in Journal
Community Structure, Diversity and Potential of Endophytic Bacteria in the Primitive New Zealand Medicinal Plant Pseudowintera colorata
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Shading on Red Colour and Fruit Quality in Blush Pears “ANP-0118” and “ANP-0131”
Previous Article in Journal
YES-10, A Combination of Extracts from Clematis mandshurica RUPR. and Erigeron annuus (L.) PERS., Prevents Ischemic Brain Injury in A Gerbil Model of Transient Forebrain Ischemia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Seed Pretreatment and Foliar Application of Proline Regulate Morphological, Physio-Biochemical Processes and Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Plants of Two Cultivars of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/plants9020155
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Variation in Morphological and Quality Parameters in Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Bulb Influenced by Different Photoperiod, Temperature, Sowing and Harvesting Time

by
Muhammad Jawaad Atif
1,2,
Bakht Amin
1,
Muhammad Imran Ghani
1,3,
Muhammad Ali
1 and
Zhihui Cheng
1,*
1
Department of Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2
Vegetable Crops Program, National Agricultural Research Centre, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
3
College of Natural Resource and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(2), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020155
Submission received: 6 January 2020 / Revised: 16 January 2020 / Accepted: 24 January 2020 / Published: 26 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adaptation of Plants to Environmental Changes: Light and Temperature in Plant Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Photoperiod (light) and temperature as abiotic factors having significant impact on the garlic bulb morphology and quality. In various bulb plants including garlic, bulbing is affected by photoperiod, temperature, sowing date and the plant age. In this backdrop experiments were performed to understand the effect of different photoperiods (10 h/14 h, 12 h/12 h and 14 h/10 h (light/dark)), temperatures (25 °C/18 °C and 30 °C/20 °C (light/dark)), sowing dates (D0801: 1st August, D0901: 1st September and D1001: 1st October) and plant ages (A80, A60 and A40: 80, 60 and 40 days after planting) on garlic cultivars viz; G103, G024 and G2011-5. Parameters including morphological (plant height, fresh weight and pseudostem diameter), bulb attributes (diameter, weight, height and bulbing index), growth period and bulb quality related traits (total soluble solid (TSS), contents of soluble protein, soluble sugar, total sugar, glucose, sucrose, fructose, starch, total phenol and total flavonoid) were assayed. Longer photoperiod (14 h), higher temperature (30 °C), early sowing (D0801) and maximum plant age (A80) had maximum morphological and bulb quality related traits for cv. G103. These results showed that early sowing, maximum plant age, longer photoperiod and higher temperature are important for garlic bulb formation and quality. Moreover, the regulation of garlic bulb morphology and quality is achievable over the switch of sowing date, plant age, light and growth temperature.

1. Introduction

Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is the second most significant Allium crop. In addition to its regular use as a vegetable and condiment, it is known for its medicinal and nutraceutical properties. Growth of garlic mainly depends on the time of planting as the vegetative growth is stimulated under a short photoperiod and low temperature and bulb production is enhanced by a long photoperiod and high temperature. Sowing date and plant age significantly influence the various growth and developmental traits of garlic bulb [1,2,3]. Garlic is produced in most areas with mild winters and some rainfall, followed by dry summers [4,5]. Since all garlic cultivars are sterile, reproduction is generally vegetative with the cloves serving as propagation material [6]. Garlic bulb maturation is characterized by the drying up of foliage leaves and prior to harvest, the bulbs enter a period of dormancy when they exhibit almost complete inactivity regardless of environmental conditions with a low degree of respiration [4,7]. Several factors limit the rate of sprouting in garlic: cultivar, photoperiod, temperature and maturity at harvest [6,8]. Plant growth in terms of leaf number and plant height increases until bulbing is initiated. Ideally, plants should achieve adequate growth before bulbing begins, so that the foliage is capable to produce large bulbs and high yields [6]. Water and carbohydrates are the primary constituents of garlic bulbs, consisting of about 65% of its fresh weight and 77% of its dry weight, individually [9,10]. The key proportion of carbohydrates comprises of water-soluble high-molecular-weight fructose polymers called fructans [3]. Garlic cloves also incorporate proteins, pectin, minerals, and polyamines [11].
Bulb growth is affected mainly by genetics and environmental factors, especially photoperiod and growth temperatures, and the plant’s phenological stage [12,13,14,15]. Recent studies on Arabidopsis, rice, wheat, Medicago, onion and other plants have reported that environmental factors such as photoperiod, temperature and internal factors (plant age, gibberellic acid and sugars such as trehalose-6-phosphate (Tre6P)) regulate flowering through expression of the FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) protein, which acts as a systemic floral signal molecule [16,17,18]. In Allium, different FT homologs have been attributed with control of bulbing [13,19]. Research on the effect of the photoperiod and temperature on garlic growth and bulb development provides an understanding of the influence of environmental factors [20]. Long photoperiod promotes early elongation of flower stalks and growth of bulbs, but exposure to long photoperiod results in a decrease of flower growth by variation in the development of topsets [20]. Photoperiod, like other ecological stimuli, controls plant growth over internal signals and variations in hormonal profile. A long photoperiod is known to increase endogenous gibberellins level, with the significant florogenesis [21]. Bulb growth is also enhanced by high temperatures [22], and develops earlier with a rise in temperature when a photoperiod is adequate [23]. Therefore, temperature might influence the growing proportion of plants and subsequent bulb growth. Caruso et al. [24] evaluated the properties of transplanting times on the yield of the cultivar ‘Ramata di Montoro’, which is a common cultivar in the Campania region of Italy, and specified that bulb size decreased considerably from the earliest to the latest transplanting time.
Phenolics are secondary metabolites in plants and play vital roles in the nutritional qualities of vegetables [25,26]. Phenolic compounds have extensive bioactive functions like antinutritional factors, phytoalexins, attractants for pollinators [27] and antioxidants [28], and can be used in the food industry as natural and potent food preservatives. There has been growing attention to improvements in the nutraceutical and economic values of crops. Favorable conditions might cause favorable changes in plant metabolites. It has been revealed that the bioactive components altered during sprouting. Isoflavone and oligosaccharide levels fluctuated [25], and stages of tocopherols, amino acids and carbohydrates gradually increased during sprouting [29]. Levels of vitamin C, total phenolics and total flavonoids increased in a time-dependent manner [30]. Light significantly affected synthesis of phenolics [31]. Flavonoids, important phenolic compounds, increased in abundance under light irradiance [32]. Light affected the properties of polysaccharides and increased associated antioxidant activities [33].
In China, garlic is consumed as a spice and as a seasonal vegetable. Garlic bulbs are considered a high-value vegetable throughout Asia and the demand for bulbs is increasing. Though, variations in climate, geography, photoperiod and temperature significantly alter the bulb production and quality. In addition, the influence of photoperiod and temperature variations on the development of garlic bulbs is poorly understood. One of the most significant limitations of the research of photoperiod and temperature in garlic is the difficulty in controlling for plant age. A systematic understanding of the photoperiod and temperature environments required for garlic growth would improve our knowledge of the bulbing process, facilitate the production of bulbs in different environments and geographies, and enrich our understanding of growth regulation in other bulbous plant species. As a result, year-round production of garlic may be possible. Experiments have been designed to evaluate the effect of different sowing dates and plant ages in combination with photoperiod and temperature regimes on garlic bulb morphology and quality parameters.

2. Results

2.1. Effect of Cultivar, Sowing Date, Plant Age, Photoperiod and Temperature Treatments on Garlic Morphological Traits

The effect of each factor on garlic morphological traits was analyzed (Table 1 and Table 2). All of the studied factors, including cultivar (C), photoperiod (L), temperature (T), sowing date (D) and plant age (A) had a highly significant effect on plant height, fresh weight, pseudostem diameter, bulb characteristics (diameter, weight and height), bulbing index (BI) and growth period (Table 1 and Table 2). The longer photoperiod (14 h) and higher test temperature (30 °C) presented a significant enhancing effect on the BI, plant height, maturity and bulb characteristics of garlic among the treatments (Table 1 and Table 2). Cv. G024 had the highest BI, while cv. G103 produced the highest plant height, bulb characteristics and shortest growth period (Table 1 and Table 2). Early sowing date (D0801) and maximum plant age (A80) had a significant effect on all of the studied indicators (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S1–S8).

2.2. Garlic Bulb Physiological and Nutritive Quality Traits Affected by Cultivar, Sowing Date, Plant Age, Photoperiod and Temperature

The effect of each factor on physiological and nutritive quality traits in garlic bulb was analyzed (Table 3 and Table 4). A significant influence was recorded for all of the studied factors (D, A, C, L and T). The responses were similar to BI and bulb characteristics (Table 3 and Table 4). Data analysis revealed maximum total soluble solid (TSS), contents of soluble protein, soluble sugar, total sugar, glucose, sucrose, fructose, starch, total phenol and total flavonoid were measured in long photoperiod (14 h), high temperature (30 °C), early sowing time (1st August) and maximum plant age (80 days after planting) for cv. G103 (Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S9–S18).

3. Discussion

The results of our study showed that bulb characteristics and bulb quality related traits were higher at early sowing and maximum plant age (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S1–S18). The response of varied sowing dates on bulb development and physiology is different [34]. Long photoperiod and high temperature are suitable for healthy bulb growth. Rahman and Talukda [35] have also reported the similar results. Ali and El-Said [36] evaluated the effect of different planting times and varieties on garlic bulb yield and quality attributes and the results exhibited that early planting resulted in maximum bulbs. In the present study bulbing reduced constantly with late sowing (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S4–S7). The primary phenological stages in the garlic production are the number of days from sowing to emergence, emergence to bulb development, clove development, leafing, bulb initiation and maturity [37]. We observed similar results among the bulb characteristics. Sowing dates significantly influenced the growth and developmental traits of garlic (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S1–S8). Garlic bulb growth was affected by varied dates of planting. Upsurge in bulb growth was stimulated in early sowing (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S4–S7). The valuable effect on plant growth because of early sowing had been stated by Qaryouti and Kasarawi [38]. The garlic plant morphology and bulb quality traits have been observed in maximum quantity with early sowing in comparison with late sowing (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S1–S18). This results in maximum vegetative growth and bulbing, ultimately the plants have enlarged bulbs. Similar results have been reported by Das et al. [39] and Rahim et al. [40]. The response of different planting dates and plant age on bulb growth was very different. Early planting and maximum plant age constantly increased the bulb characteristics while late planting and minimum plant age decreased the bulb characteristics. The length and girth of bulb was noted at maximum with the first sowing date (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S1–S8). Early plantation also significantly increased the weight and size of bulb. Highest bulb weight might be due to adequate cool and dry climate, which probably increased the vegetative growth and size of bulb. Early plantation produced highest yield due to the large size production of bulb. Late planting reduced significantly the number of cloves and clove size. It might be due to the reason that the plant did not receive a long cool growth period, which was crucial for the development of the bulb as specified by Rahim [41]. On the basis of the above discussion we can assume that the early sowing, maximum plant age of garlic, long photoperiod and high temperature increased the bulbing potential.
According to Brewster [42], onion stops making leaf blades and transfers to the formation of bulb scales when bulb formation is initiated, and the development from leaf growth to bulb formation depends on both the photoperiod and temperature [43]. Moreover, high levels of photosynthetically active radiation combined with a long photoperiod increased both bulb development and final bulb size [44]. Bulb diameter and weight significantly enhanced with increasing photoperiod and temperature (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S1–S8), and a positive effect was observed on garlic bulb formation and quality. Hence, these results recommended that plant growth and bulb development increased as a result of a long photoperiod and high temperature. The bulb formation is strongly influenced by the choice of the cultivar, which correlates with the local weather and location [24]. So, one of the most important features to obtain high production is selecting the cultivar, which is appropriate for the climate and environment of the area. Garlic bulb development is induced by the day length and under an ideal growth temperature, which may vary among garlic cultivars [15]. Thus, to grow healthy garlic bulbs, we have investigated the environmental effects on the characteristics of different commercially used garlic cultivars to evaluate the bulbing performance and bulb quality.
The significant interaction between the photoperiod and temperature resulted in the identification of a critical photoperiod and temperature for bulbing (Figures S1–S8). Photoperiod might affect the development of primary and secondary metabolites in plants. In Arabidopsis, the long photoperiod condition increases the contents of sucrose, vitamin C and other metabolites [45]. In our study, the phenolic compounds in the bulb of garlic increased at a long photoperiod and high temperature, but we did not observe this surge in the short photoperiod (Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S17 and S18). Similarly, sugars in garlic bulbs, relatively lower in short day photoperiod, also revealed a positive response to the long-day photoperiod and high temperature (Figures S11–S18). Garlic bulb under medium-light and long-light conditions had higher soluble protein content than under short-light conditions (Table 3 and Table 4; Figure S10). This is constant with the results in bulb characteristics (Table 1 and Table 2; Figures S1–S8). Thus, lengthening the light duration and increasing the temperature can improve the quality of garlic bulb according to our investigation. Talbott and Zeiger [46] proposed that light eminence might affect the translocation of carbohydrates, which may affect starch break-down. During a red light the decline of starch is detected, whereas blue light increased the absorption of this polysaccharide in plants [47]. Du Toit et al. [48] stated that mature bulbs of Lachenalia could have diverse forms of starch and soluble sugars throughout the growth period. Several periods increased absorption of starch in bulbs of ‘Rupert’ thanin ‘Ronina’, both cultured under white and blue light. This might specify that the plants of ‘Rupert’ were in a dissimilar developing phase, near to the flowering time, in comparison to the plants from other treatments [49,50]. Ohyama et al. [51] have demonstrated that giving the growing point of mother and new bulblets of tulip cultured in the open field not only increase but also a different kind of carbohydrates might vary. Our investigation provided novel evidence on what way the photoperiod and temperature influence the alterations in primary and secondary metabolites in garlic bulb (Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S9–S18).
In the present study it was observed that a longer photoperiod and higher temperature resulted in a higher amount of soluble protein, sugars and phenolic compounds could contribute to the nutritive quality traits as well as the defense mechanism against the environmental alterations. Increased levels of nutritional traits reflected that the bulbs grew at a longer photoperiod and higher temperatures owned not only developed phenolics but they also had higher quantities of protein and sugars (Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S9–S18), which upsurged the general antioxidant properties of these bulbs. Present results could be used as a valuable tool for producing garlic bulbs with higher nutritive quality during the growing season in diverse topographical atmospheres. Increased growing temperature, produced fruit with the higher phenolic contents [52]. Similarly, in the present study, the total phenolics and total flavonoids as well as soluble protein and sugars of garlic cultivars increased due to an increase in growth temperature (Table 3 and Table 4; Figures S9–S18). Previous studies have also linked increased phenol content with defense and plant growth protection [53,54].
Therefore, garlic bulbs produced at a longer photoperiod and higher temperatures have higher antioxidants, which is an optimistic nutritional enrichment. These possible health benefits of phenolic compounds depend on their interest and uptake, which in order are determined by their assembly plus their conjugation with added phenolics, consist of glycosylation/acylation, molecular size and solubility [55,56,57,58]. The phenolic compounds measured in the current investigation were similar to those detected in other studies [59,60]. As reported earlier [60], phenolic compounds in the garlic bulb, which contained mainly the total phenols and total flavonoids, are strongly affected by the plant genotype. Besides the genotypic dependence, the environmental variations also influence the quantity of phenolics [60]. Furthermore, Mpofu et al. [61] has reported that the environmental factors impart greater influence on the content of phenolics compared to genotypes. Though these researchers evaluated diverse genotypes in their study, the key likely reason could have been that these researchers collected their samples from diverse fields, where all the environmental factors including soil pH, temperature and rainfall were different. In comparison, currently we used controlled environments in which the only altering treatments were the photoperiod and temperature. The contents of phenolic compounds determined in the garlic cultivars in the current research were parallel to those detected in earlier investigations [62,63,64,65,66], establishing that the biosynthesis of phenolic compounds in plants and the garlic bulb was strongly affected by biotic and abiotic factors such as the photoperiod and temperature.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Experimental Material Sowing Site Description

The experimental material (garlic cloves) was planted at the Horticultural Experimental Station (34° 16′ N, 108° 4′ E), Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province, China in 2018–2019. The region had a temperate monsoon climate, with 12–14 °C of the annual average temperature. The experimental plants grown in the soil had chemical characteristics: pH 7.83 (1:1 soil: water), electrical conductivity 239.1 μS cm−1 (1:5 soil: water), available N (nitrogen) 56.32 mg kg−1, available P (phosphorus) 52.57 mg kg−1 and available K (potassium) 224.90 mg kg−1. The plot was deep ploughed before plantation. Afterward, each plot was incorporated with 1.5 kg ‘Pengdixin’ (organic matter ≥ 30%, N + P + K ≥ 4%, humic acid ≥ 20%, organic sylvite ≥ 5%; Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China), 0.25 kg Stanley compound fertilizer (21-10-11; Yimeng, Shandong Province, China) and 0.4 kg ammonium hydrogen carbonate (Hanzhong, Shaanxi Province, China) as a basal dose of the fertilizer before plantation. During the growth period, standard agronomic practices were used to maintain the experimental plants.

4.2. The Effect of the Sowing Date, Photoperiod and Temperature on Garlic Morphology and Bulb Physiology (Trial 1)

The trial was a four-factor (sowing date × cultivar × photoperiod × temperature) complete randomized experiment. Uniform cloves of three garlic cultivars viz; G103, G024 and G2011-5 were purified with 0.6% Dacotech (75% chlorothalonil, Syngenta, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China). The difference in the selected cultivar was: G103 (growth period: 240 days, bulb skin color: white, mean number of cloves per bulb: 12–14, weight of fresh bulb: 45–55 g), G024 (growth period: 240 days, bulb skin color: purple, mean number of cloves per bulb: 11–12, weight of fresh bulb: 40–50 g), G2011-5 (growth period: 250 days, bulb skin color: purple, mean number of cloves per bulb: 12–14, weight of fresh bulb: 45–55 g).
Afterward, the experimental cloves were planted in the field on 1st August, 1st September and 1st October 2018 (these dates corresponded to the sowing date treatments of D0801, D0901 and D1001, respectively) at 5 cm depth, 5 cm plant to plant spacing and 20 cm row to row spacing. The plot length and width were 1 m and 3 m, respectively. On 30th January 2019, the experimental plants of garlic cultivars were transplanted into 15 cm × 15 cm pots and were cultured with organic substrate ‘Jiahui’ (20%–25% of organic matter, 8%–10% of humic acid, 6.5–6.8 of pH; Liaocheng, Shandong Province, China). Four uniform garlic plants were received by each pot, and for each replication, nine pots were used per treatment. Three replications were used for this trial. On 30th January 2019, the experimental plants were conditioned for 48 h under 20 °C/18 °C (light/dark) and 80% RH to reduce transplanting shock, before treatment.
On 1st February 2019, the experimental plants were exposed to different combinations of photoperiod (10 h/14 h, 12 h/12 h and 14 h/10 h (light/dark)) and temperature (25 °C/18 °C and 30 °C/20 °C (light/dark)) treatments in six separate growth chambers (Ningbo Jiangnan Instrument Factory, Zhejiang Province, China) with 70% RH (relative humidity) and 105 μmol m−2 s−1 PAR (photosynthetic active radiation). On 12th March 2019, 40 days after photoperiod and temperature treatment, six plants from six pots from each treatment of each replication were sampled randomly. After measurement of morphological traits, the bulbs were rinsed with distilled water and dried with absorbent paper. The evenly mixed samples were then absorbed in liquid nitrogen for several seconds and stored at −80 °C in freezer until analysis of the physiological and nutritive quality traits. Three technical replicates were used for analysis.

4.3. Effect of Plant Age, Photoperiod and Temperature on Garlic Morphological and Physiological Traits (Trial 2)

The trial was a four-factor (plant age × cultivar × photoperiod × temperature) complete randomized experiment. Uniform cloves of three garlic cultivars (G103, G024 and G2011–5) were selected as the experimental material. Garlic cloves were panted in the field on 20th September, 10th October and 1st November, 2018, these dates corresponded to the plant age treatments. The cultural practices were same as in trial 1. On 8th December 2018, thirty-eight days after the last planting date, plants at different ages were transplanted in pots (same organic substrate was used as in trial 1).
On 8th December 2018, the experimental plants were conditioned for 48 h under 20 °C/18 °C (light/dark) and 80% RH to decrease transplanting shock, before treatment. On 10th December 2018, the experimental plants were exposed to different combinations of photoperiod (10 h/14 h, 12 h/12 h and 14 h/10 h (light/dark)) and temperature (25 °C/18 °C and 30 °C/ 20 °C (day/night)) treatments in six separate growth chambers (Ningbo Jiangnan Instrument Factory, Zhejiang Province, China) with 70% RH (relative humidity) and 105 μmol m−2 s−1 PAR (photosynthetic active radiation). The age of the plants at the time of photoperiod and temperature treatments was A80, 80 days after planting; A60, 60 days after planting; A40, 40 days after planting. Management practices were the same as that for the trial 1.
On 10th March 2019, 90 days after the photoperiod and temperature treatment, six plants from six pots from each treatment of each replication were sampled randomly. After measurement of morphological traits, the bulbs were rinsed with distilled water and dried with absorbent paper. The evenly mixed samples were then absorbed in liquid nitrogen for numerous seconds and stored at –80 °C in a freezer until analysis of the physiological and nutritive quality indices. For analysis three technical replicates were used.

4.4. Assay of Garlic Morphological Indices

The garlic morphological traits were evaluated in the laboratory using a measuring tape (plant height), electronic balance (Changzhou, Jiangsu Province, China; fresh weight and bulb weight) and electronic Vernier caliper (Guanglu, Guilin Province, China; pseudostem diameter, bulb height and bulb diameter). The bulbing index (BI) was calculated as the ratio of the bulb diameter to pseudostem diameter. Bulbing was considered to start when BI = 2 [67]. Growth period (number of days) was calculated from the transplanting date (10 December and 01 February) in growth chambers to the harvest date.

4.5. Evaluation of Garlic Bulb Quality Related Traits

TSS (total soluble solid) content of the garlic bulb juice was measured by a digital refractometer (PAL-1, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan). The Coomassie Brilliant Blue (CBB) method was used to measure the soluble protein content [68]. Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 (100 mg) was dissolved in 50 mL 95% ethanol and to this solution 100 mL 85% (w/v) phosphoric acid was added. The resultant solution was diluted to a final volume of 1 liter. Final concentrations in the reagent were 0.01% (w/v) Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250, 4.7% (w/v) ethanol and 8.5% (w/v) phosphoric acid. The absorbance was taken at 595 nm and content of protein was calculated from standard curve.
Assessment of the soluble sugar content in garlic cloves was done according to Fei et al. [69]. The extracts of H2O were diluted with 80% methanol with a concentration of 10 mg/mL. One milliliter diluted extracts and 1.0 mL of 5% phenol were mixed and 5.0 mL H2SO4 was added and mixed carefully. After cooling absorbance was noted at 485 nm and concentration of soluble sugar was determined from the standard curve of glucose solution (concentration range from 0 to 100 µg/mL). Results were expressed as % of glucose equivalents for g of garlic cloves. Total sugar content was assessed according to McCready et al. [70]. A 500 mg sample was extracted in ethanol. After centrifugation at 5000× g for 10 min supernatant was mixed with 15 mL hydrochloric acid (1N) and incubated in water bath for 20 min. Afterward, 1 mL of hydrolyzed extract was taken in a test tube and 4 mL of anthrone reagent was added. After 10 min absorbance was read at 620 nm and calculations were done from standard curve of glucose.
Glucose content was determined according to the method of Miller [71]. Samples were extracted in distilled water and supernatant was mixed with 1 mL of alkaline copper tartrate reagent and the resulting solution was incubated in a boiling water bath for 10 min. The test tubes were removed and cooled followed by an addition of 1 mL of arsenomolybdate reagent. The volume of each test tube was made up to 10 mL with distilled water. After 10 min an absorbance reading was taken at a wavelength of 620 nm. The amount of reducing sugar present in the sample was calculated from the standard curve of glucose. Sucrose content was examined according to Handel, [72]. After extraction the supernatant was mixed with 2 N NaOH and incubated in the water bath for 10 min. After cooling, 3.5 mL hydrochloric acid (30%), and 1 mL resorcinol (0.1%) were added, and resulting solution was mixed thoroughly. After incubating at 80 ℃ in water bath for 30 min samples were cooled and read at 480 nm.
Measurement of fructose content was done according to Ashwell [73]. A 50 mg sample was extracted in 4 mL of 80% ethanol in a water bath at 80 ℃. Supernatant was collected and residue was again extracted in 2 mL of 80% ethanol. Ten milligrams of activated carbon was added to the supernatant to decolorize it. Two milliliters of 0.1% resorcinol and 1 mL of H2O were added and incubated at 80 ℃ in a water bath for 10 min. After cooling at room temperature OD (optical density) was read at 480 nm and calculation was done using standard curve of fructose. Starch content was assessed according to McCready et al. [70]. Residue left after sugar estimation was dried and extracted in 3 mL of water at 100 ℃ in a water bath for 20 min. Thereafter, 2 mL of 9.2 N perchloric acid was added and allowed to stand for 10 min followed by centrifugation at 4000× g for 15 min. After that 2.4 mL water and 1.6 mL of 9.2 N perchloric acid were added and allowed to stand for 10 min. Samples were again centrifuged and supernatants were mixed. To 0.4 mL extract was added 4 mL anthrone—sulfuric acid reagent and incubated at 90 ℃ for 15 min. After cooling absorbance was recorded at 620 nm.
An assessment of total phenol content was done according to Singleton and Rossi [74]. One hundred milligrams of the sample was extracted in methanol and the extract was centrifuged at 3000× g for 10 min. One milliliter of supernatant was mixed with 1 mL FC (Folin phenol) reagent and 3 mL of 20% Na2CO3. After 30 min absorbance was taken at 765 nm wavelength. A standard curve of gallic acid was used for calculation. The method of Yong et al. [75] was used to measure total flavonoids content. After extracting a 100 mg sample in 30% ethanol and 5 mL of 5% sodium nitrite was added to the supernatant and allowed to stand for 5 min. Afterwards 10% aluminum nitrite solution was added followed by the addition of sodium hydroxide. The absorbance was taken at 510 nm and standard curve of rutin was used for calculation.

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) as a 3 × 3 × 3 × 2 (sowing date × cultivar × photoperiod × temperature) factorial design for trial 1 and 3 × 3 × 3 × 2 (plant age × cultivar × photoperiod × temperature) factorial design for trial 2. SPSS 17.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for analysis. Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Difference) tests were used for separations of mean among treatments at p < 0.05. Three replicates were used for both trials.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the contents of the primary and secondary metabolites were significantly inclined by photoperiod, temperature, sowing date and plant age. Bulb characteristics reduced from the earliest to the latest sowing dates with an increase in photoperiod and temperature. Though, not only bulb growth but also the quality of the garlic bulb was affected by the photoperiod, temperature, sowing dates and plant ages. Variation in the sowing date, plant age, light (photoperiod) and temperature affected the soluble protein, sugars and phenolic compounds that affected the bulb development. Present research establishes a key foundation for selection of management and growing conditions from sowing to photoperiod and temperature regimes for better yield of garlic in varied environments.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/9/2/155/s1, Figure S1. Plant height (cm); Figure S2. Fresh weight (g); Figure S3. Pseudostem diameter (mm); Figure S4. Bulb diameter (mm); Figure S5. Bulb weight (g); Figure S6. Bulb height (mm); Figure S7. Bulbing index; Figure S8. Growth period (day); Figure S9. TSS (%); Figure S10. Soluble protein content (mg g−1); Figure S11. Soluble sugar content (%); Figure S12. Total sugar content (mg g−1); Figure S13. Glucose content (%); Figure S14. Sucrose content (mg g−1); Figure S15. Fructose content (%); Figure S16. Starch content (mg g−1); Figure S17. Total phenol content (mg g−1); Figure S18. Total flavonoid content (mg g−1)

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.J.A. and Z.C.; Data curation, M.J.A. and B.A.; Formal analysis, M.J.A. and M.A.; Funding acquisition, Z.C.; Investigation, M.J.A. and M.I.G.; Methodology, M.J.A.; Project administration, Z.C.; Resources, Z.C.; Software, M.J.A.; Supervision, Z.C.; Validation, M.J.A. and Z.C.; writing—original draft, M.J.A.; Writing—review and editing, M.J.A. and Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31772293), and Education Development Fund Project of Northwest A&F University (2017).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the China Scholarship Council for their financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Bayan, L.; Koulivand, P.H.; Gorji, A. Garlic: a review of potential therapeutic effects. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2014, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Gebreyohannes, G.; Gebreyohannes, M. Medicinal values of garlic: a review. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2013, 5, 401–408. [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Diriba-Shiferaw, G. Review of management strategies of constraints in garlic (Allium sativum L.) production. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 11, 186–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mhazo, M.; Ngwerume, F.; Masarirambi, M. Garlic (Allium sativum) propagation alternatives using bulblets and cloves of different sizes in a semi-arid sub-tropical environment. Ann. Res. Rev. Biol. 2014, 4, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kamenetsky, R. Garlic: botany and horticulture. Hortic. Rev. 2007, 33, 123. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mashayekhi, K.; Mohammadi Chiane, S.; Mianabadi, M.; Ghaderifar, F.; Mousavizadeh, S.J. Change in carbohydrate and enzymes from harvest to sprouting in garlic. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 4, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Okubo, H. 9 dormancy. In Ornamental Geophytes: From Basic Science to Sustainable Production; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; p. 233. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cardellina, J.H. Review of garlic and other alliums: the lore and the science. J. Nat. Prod. 2013, 76, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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; Volume 15, p. 329. [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Chen, S.; Zhou, J.; Chen, Q.; Chang, Y.; Du, J.; Meng, H. Analysis of the genetic diversity of garlic (Allium sativum L.) germplasm by SRAP. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2013, 50, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rohkin Shalom, S.; Gillett, D.; Zemach, H.; Kimhi, S.; Forer, I.; Zutahy, Y.; Tam, Y.; Teper- Bamnolker, P.; Kamenetsky, R.; Eshel, D. Storage temperature controls the timing of garlic bulb formation via shoot apical meristem termination. Planta 2015, 242, 951–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Takagi, H. Garl Allium sativum l. In Onions and Allied Crops; Rabinowitch, H., Brewster, J., Eds.; Biochemecal Food Science Minor Crops. CRC press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990; pp. 109–146. [Google Scholar]
  15. Atif, M.J.; Amin, B.; Ghani, M.I.; Hayat, S.; Ali, M.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, Z. Influence of different photoperiod and temperature regimes on growth and bulb quality of garlic (Allium sativum L.) cultivars. Agronomy 2019, 9, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Amasino, R. Seasonal and developmental timing of flowering. Plant J. 2010, 61, 1001–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wahl, V.; Ponnu, J.; Schlereth, A.; Arrivault, S.; Langenecker, T.; Franke, A.; Feil, R.; Lunn, J.E.; Stitt, M.; Schmid, M. Regulation of flowering by trehalose-6- phosphate signaling in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 2013, 339, 704–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Putterill, J.; Varkonyi-Gasic, E. FT and florigen long-distance flowering control in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2016, 33, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lee, R.; Baldwin, S.; Kenel, F.; McCallum, J.; Macknight, R. FLOWERING LOCUS T genes control onion bulb formation and flowering. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kamenetsky, R.; Shafir, I.L.; Zemah, H.; Barzilay, M.; Rabinowitch, H.D. Environmental control of garlic growth and florogenesis. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2004, 129, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. King, R.W.; Moritz, T.; Evans, L.T.; Martin, J.; Andersen, C.H.; Blundell, C.; Kardailsky, I.; Chandler, P.M. Regulation of flowering in the long-day grass Lolium temulentum by gibberellins and the FLOWERING LOCUS T gene. Plant Physiol. 2006, 141, 498–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Steer, B.T. The bulbing response to day length and temperature of some Australasian cultivars of onion (Allium cepa L.). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1980, 31, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brewster, J.L. Onions and Other Vegetable Alliums, 2nd ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; p. 432. [Google Scholar]
  24. Caruso, G.; Conti, S.; Villari, G.; Borrelli, C.; Melchionna, G.; Minutolo, M.; Russo, G.; Amalfitano, C. Effects of transplanting time and plant density on yield, quality and antioxidant content of onion (Allium cepa L.) in southern Italy. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 166, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Balasundram, N.; Sundram, K.; Samman, S. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial by-products: Antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chem. 2006, 99, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lapornik, B.; Prosek, M.; Golc Wondra, A. Comparison of extracts prepared from plant by-products using different solvents and extraction time. J. Food Eng. 2005, 71, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ignat, I.; Volf, I.; Popa, V.I. A critical review of methods for characterization of polyphenolic compounds in fruits and vegetables. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 1821–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chon, S. Total polyphenols and bioactivity of seeds and sprouts in several legumes. Curr. Pharm. Design. 2013, 1, 6112–6124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kim, S.L.; Lee, J.E.; Kwon, Y.U.; Kim, W.H.; Jung, G.H.; Kim, D.W.; Lee, C.K.; Lee, Y.Y.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, Y.H. Introduction and nutritional evaluation of germinated soy germ. Food Chem. 2013, 136, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guo, X.B.; Li, T.; Tang, K.X.; Liu, R.H. Effect of germination on phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activity of mung bean sprouts (Vigna radiata). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 11050–11055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Knight, H.; Knight, M.R. Abiotic stress signaling pathways: Specificity and crosstalk. Trends Plant Sci. 2001, 6, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Agati, G.; Stefano, G.; Biricolti, S.; Tattini, M. Mesophyll distribution of ‘antioxidant’ flavonoid glycosides in Ligustrum vulgare leaves under contrasting sunlight irradiance. Ann. Bot. 2009, 104, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Yuan, M.; Jia, X.J.; Yang, Y.; Ding, C.B.; Du, L.; Yuan, S.; Zhang, Z.W.; Chen, Y.E. Effect of light on structural properties and antioxidant activities of polysaccharides from soybean sprouts. Process Biochem. 2015, 50, 1152–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Youssef, N.S.; Tony, H.S.H. Influence of different planting date on the performance of new garlic genotypes grown under El-Minia Governorate conditions. Nat. Sci. 2014, 12, 112. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rahman, A.K.M.; Talukda, M.R. Influence of date of planting and plant spacing on growth and yield of garlic. Bangladesh J. Agric. 1986, 11, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ali, M.; El-Sayed, I.A. The response of two garlic varieties (Allium sativum L.) to different planting dates in the arid tropics of northern Sudan. Emir. J. Agric. Sci. 1999, 11, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Barche, S.; Kirad, K.S.; Shrivastav, A.K. Effect of planting dates on growth and yield on Garlic (Allium sativum L). Inter. J. Hort. 2013, 3, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qaryouti, M.M.; Kasrawi, M.A. Storage temperature of seed bulbs and planting dates influence on garlic, emergence, vegetative growth, bulbing and maturity. Adv. Hort. Sci. 1995, 9, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Das, A.K.; Sadhu, M.K.; Som, M.G.; Bose, T.K. Response to varying level on N, P and K on growth and yield of multiple clove garlic (Allium sativum L.). Indian Agric. 1985, 29, 183–189. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rahim, M.A.; Siddique, M.A.; Hossain, M.M. Effect of time of planting, mother bulb size and plant density on the yield of garlic. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 1984, 9, 112–118. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rahim, M.A.; Fordham, R. Control of bulbing in garlic. Acta Hortic. 1994, 358, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brewster, J.L. Growth, dry matter partition and radiation interception in an overwintered bulb onion (Allium cepa L.) crop. Ann. Bot. 1982, 49, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Slimestad, R.; Fossen, T.; Vagen, I.M. Onions: a source of unique dietary flavonoids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10067–10080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sobeih, W.Y.; Wright, C.J. The photoperiodic regulation of bulbing in onions (Allium cepa L.). II. Effects of plant age and size. J. Hortic. Sci. 1986, 61, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sulpice, R.; Flis, A.; Ivakov, A.A.; Apelt, F.; Krohn, N.; Encke, B.; Abel, C.; Feil, R.; Lunn, J.E.; Stitt, M. Arabidopsis coordinates the diurnal regulation of carbon allocation and growth across a wide range of Photoperiods. Mol. Plant. 2014, 7, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Talbott, L.D.; Zeiger, E. Sugar and organic acid accumulation in guard cells of Vicia faba in response to red and blue light. Plant Physiol. 1993, 102, 1163–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Vettermann, W. Mechanism of the light-dependent accumulation of starch in chloroplasts of Acetabularia, and its regulation. Protoplasma 1973, 76, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Du Toit, E.S.; Robbertse, P.J.; Niederwieser, J.G. Plant carbohydrate partitioning of Lachenalia cv. Ronina during bulb production. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 102, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bach, A.; Kapczynska, A.; Dziurka, K.; Dziurka, M. Phenolic compounds and carbohydrates in relation to bulb formation in Lachenalia ‘Ronina’ and ‘Rupert’ in vitro cultures under different lighting environments. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 188, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kapczynska, A.; Bach, A. Acclimatization of lachenalia (Lachenalia sp.) regenerants propagated in vitro in different light conditions. Biotechnologia 2012, 93, 191. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ohyama, T.; Komiyama, S.; Ohtake, N.; Sueyoshi, K.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Ruam-rungsri, S. Physiology and genetics of carbon and nitrogen metabolism in tulip. In Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotech-nology: Advances and Topical Issues; Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Ed.; Global Science Books: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, S.Y.; Zheng, W. Effect of plant growth temperature on antioxidant capacity in strawberry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 4977–4982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Egigu, M.C.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Riikonen, J.; Yahya, A.; Holopainen, T.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R.; Holopainen, J.K. Effects of rising temperature on secondary compounds of Yeheb (Cordeauxia edulis Hemsley). Amer. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. De Abreu, I.N.; Mazzafera, P. Effect of water and temperature stress on the content of active constituents of Hypericum brasiliense choisy. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2005, 43, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pandey, K.B.; Rizvi, S.I. Plant polyphenols as dietary antioxidants in human health and disease. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2009, 2, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bravo, L. Polyphenols: chemistry, dietary sources, metabolism, and nutritional significance. Nutr. Rev. 1998, 56, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Adom, K.K.; Liu, R.H. Antioxidant activity of grains. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 6182–6187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cardona, F.; Andres-Lacueva, C.; Tulipani, S.; Tinahones, F.J.; Queipo-Ortuno, M.I. Benefits of polyphenols on gut microbiota and implications in human health. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2013, 24, 1415–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Fernandez-Orozco, R.; Li, L.; Harflett, C.; Shewry, P.R.; Ward, J.L. Effects of environment and genotype on phenolic acids in wheat in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9341–9352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ma, D.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, C.; Qin, H.; Ding, H.; Xie, Y.; Guo, T. Accumulation of phenolic compounds and expression profiles of phenolic acid biosynthesis-related genes in developing grains of white, purple, and red wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mpofu, A.; Sapirstein, H.D.; Beta, T. Genotype and environmental variation in phenolic content, phenolic acid composition, and antioxidant activity of hard spring wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 1265–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Adom, K.K.; Sorrells, M.E.; Liu, R.H. Phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activity of wheat varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 7825–7834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, L.; Shewry, P.R.; Ward, J.L. Phenolic acids in wheat varieties in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 9732–9739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Martini, D.; Taddei, F.; Ciccoritti, R.P.; Nicoletti, I.; Corradini, D.; D’Egidio, M.G. Effects of genotype and environment on phenolic acids content and total antioxidant capacity in durum wheat. Cereal Chem. 2014, 91, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Martini, D.; Taddei, F.; Ciccoritti, R.P.; Nicoletti, I.; Corradini, D.; D’Egidio, M.G. Variation of total antioxidant activity and of phenolic acid, total phenolics and yellow colored pigments in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) as a function of genotype, crop year and growing area. J. Cereal Sci. 2015, 65, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, L.; Yao, Y.; He, Z.; Wang, D.; Liu, A.; Zhang, Y. Determination of phenolic acid concentrations in wheat flours produced at different extraction rates. J. Cereal Sci. 2013, 57, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mann, L.K. Anatomy of the garlic bulb and factors affecting bulb development. Hilgardia 1952, 21, 195–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fei, M.L.I.; Tong, L.I.; Wei, L.I.; De Yang, L. Changes in antioxidant capacity, levels of soluble sugar, total polyphenol, organosulfur compound and constituents in garlic clove during storage. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 69, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. McCready, R.M.; Guggolz, J.; Silviera, V.; Owens, H.S. Determination of starch and amylase in vegetables. Anal. Chem. 1950, 22, 1156–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Miller, G.N. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugars. Anal. Chem. 1959, 31, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Handel, E.V. Direct micro determination of sucrose. Anal. Biochem. 1968, 22, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ashwell, G. Methods in Enzymology. In Methods in Enzymol; Colowick, S.J., Kaplan, N.O., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1957; Volume 3, p. 75. [Google Scholar]
  74. Singleton, V.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  75. Yong, S.P.; Soon, T.J.; Seong, G.K.; Buk, G.H.; Patricia, A.A.; Fernando, T. Antioxidants and proteins in ethylene-treated kiwifruits. Food Chem. 2008, 107, 640–648. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Effect of sowing date, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic plant morphological traits, bulb characteristics, bulbing index and growth period.
Table 1. Effect of sowing date, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic plant morphological traits, bulb characteristics, bulbing index and growth period.
TreatmentPlant Height
(cm)		Fresh
Weight
(g)		Pseudostem Diameter (mm)Bulb Diameter (mm)Bulb
Weight
(g)		Bulb Height (mm)Bulbing IndexGrowth Period (Day)
Sowing date (dd.mm. y)
01/08/2018104.1 ± 14.7a71.25 ± 16.05a24.5 ± 5.4a65.7 ± 7.8a41.09 ± 5.75a45.6 ± 5.8a2.75 ± 0.37b62.5 ± 12.9c
01/09/201888.1 ± 15.8b48.35 ± 12.93b19.6 ± 2.7b56.0 ± 7.9b32.42 ± 5.53b41.5 ± 5.7b2.87 ± 0.32a68.6 ± 15.5b
01/10/201864.6 ± 13.8c31.10 ± 10.22c15.6 ± 1.9c44.3 ± 6.5c28.13 ± 5.53c31.1 ± 8.8c2.88 ± 0.52a81.0 ± 23.1a
Cultivar
G10393.1 ± 20.8a55.39 ± 20.78a22.6 ± 7.5a59.9 ± 10.5a34.87 ± 7.60a41.4 ± 9.0a2.82 ± 0.55b68.4 ± 18.5c
G02473.5 ± 19.4c44.78 ± 19.34c17.4 ± 2.1c49.9 ± 10.9c34.55 ± 6.73b37.4 ± 9.0c2.85 ± 0.36a71.3 ± 20.5b
G2011-590.2 ± 20.2b50.54 ± 21.87b19.8 ± 2.3b56.2 ± 10.6b32.23 ± 8.61c39.4 ± 9.2b2.83 ± 0.30b72.3 ± 18.7a
Photoperiod (light/dark)
10/14 h74.3 ± 17.3c36.69 ± 14.78c18.8 ± 4.8c50.1 ± 10.0c29.12 ± 6.63c32.9 ± 6.8c2.72 ± 0.42c91.7 ± 15.5a
12/12 h83.6 ± 18.6b50.35 ± 19.36b19.8 ± 5.3b54.5 ± 11.2b33.12 ± 6.41b38.7 ± 9.2b2.82 ± 0.43b67.0 ± 10.0b
14/10 h99.0 ± 22.1a63.66 ± 19.58a21.1 ± 5.1a61.4 ± 10.1a39.40 ± 6.53a46.6 ± 5.2a2.97 ± 0.34a53.4 ± 5.0c
Temperature (light/dark)
25/18 °C82.1 ± 21.1b46.35 ± 21.25b19.1 ± 4.3b52.8 ± 10.7b32.13 ± 7.72b37.2 ± 9.1b2.81 ± 0.43b74.3 ± 19.8a
30/20 °C89.1 ± 22.2a54.12 ± 20.30a20.7 ± 5.8a57.8 ± 11.6a35.63 ± 7.43a41.6 ± 8.8a2.86 ± 0.39a67.0 ± 18.1b
F-test
Sown date (D)************************
Cultivar (C)************************
Photoperiod (L)************************
Temperature (T)************************
Different letters indicate significant differences between means within columns at p < 0.05 by a Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Difference) test. *** p < 0.001, means ± SD.
Table
Table 2. Effect of plant age, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic plant morphological traits, bulb characteristics, bulbing index and growth period.
Table 2. Effect of plant age, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic plant morphological traits, bulb characteristics, bulbing index and growth period.
TreatmentPlant
Height
(cm)		Fresh
Weight
(g)		Pseudostem Diameter (mm)Bulb Diameter (mm)Bulb
Weight
(g)		Bulb Height (mm)Bulbing IndexGrowth Period
(Day)
Plant Age (DAP)
8087.8 ± 12.0a44.61 ± 8.25a14.8 ± 2.0a58.3 ± 6.9a28.28 ± 4.08a35.4 ± 4.7a3.99 ± 0.53a161.4 ± 28.6c
6082.7 ± 11.2b38.12 ± 6.14b12.5 ± 1.8b41.0 ± 5.8b22.30 ± 3.78b32.8 ± 4.6b3.37 ± 0.49b186.2 ± 35.4b
4077.1 ± 10.6c32.65 ± 4.06c11.6 ± 1.7c32.5 ± 4.7c19.38 ± 3.72c24.6 ± 6.7c2.77 ± 0.35c191.4 ± 29.1a
Cultivar
G10386.0 ± 10.1a41.33 ± 8.61a14.7 ± 2.1a47.6 ± 12.3a24.00 ± 5.23a32.5 ± 7.0a3.23 ± 0.66c173.9 ± 26.5c
G02480.1 ± 11.6c36.07 ± 7.14c11.3 ± 1.6c39.6 ± 11.7c23.77 ± 4.64b29.4 ± 6.8c3.50 ± 0.80a180.5 ± 37.7b
G2011-581.5 ± 13.5b37.99 ± 7.39b12.9 ± 1.7b44.5 ± 11.4b22.18 ± 5.93c30.8 ± 7.1b3.41 ± 0.54b184.5 ± 35.3a
Photoperiod (light/dark)
10/14 h70.6 ± 8.1c33.45 ± 5.71c12.6 ± 2.6b38.8 ± 10.5c19.31 ± 3.88c25.4 ± 5.2c3.07 ± 0.57c215.9 ± 22.6a
12/12 h84.8 ± 8.8b37.31 ± 4.68b12.6 ± 2.0b43.7 ± 11.3b23.58 ± 4.43b30.5 ± 6,4b3.47 ± 0.69b176.1 ± 13.7b
14/10 h92.2 ± 7.2a44.62 ± 8.67a13.7 ± 2.2a49.3 ± 12.4a27.07 ± 4.59a36.9 ± 4.1a3.59 ± 0.67a146.9 ± 18.4c
Temperature (light/dark)
25/18 °C80.1 ± 13.0b37.12 ± 6.63b13.5 ± 2.3a42.8 ± 12.3b22.47 ± 5.31b29.4 ± 7.0b3.16 ± 0.63b182.2 ± 32.0a
30/20 °C84.9 ± 10.5a39.81 ± 9.04a12.5 ± 2.2b45.0 ± 12.1a23.29 ± 4.86a32.5 ± 6.9a3.59 ± 0.66a177.1 ± 35.4b
F-test
Plant Age (A)************************
Cultivar (C)************************
Photoperiod (L)************************
Temperature (T)************************
Different letters indicate significant differences between means within columns at p < 0.05 by a Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Difference) test. *** p < 0.001; DAP: days after planting, means ± SD.
Table
Table 3. Effect of sowing date, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic bulb physiological and nutritive quality traits.
Table 3. Effect of sowing date, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic bulb physiological and nutritive quality traits.
TreatmentTSS
(%)		Soluble Protein
(mg g−1)		Soluble Sugar
(%)		Total
Sugar
(mg g−1)		Glucose
(%)		Sucrose
(mg g−1)		Fructose
(%)		Starch
(mg g−1)		Total
Phenol
(mg g−1)		Total Flavonoid
(mg g−1)
Sown date (dd.mm. y)
01/08/201824.68 ± 4.98a10.75 ± 0.63a21.96 ± 6.33a10.67 ± 3.09a58.59 ± 15.61a53.42 ± 13.14a51.43 ± 20.35a24.66 ± 7.00a40.34 ± 15.93a2.04 ± 0.59a
01/09/201823.03 ± 4.73b8.42 ± 0.90b20.82 ± 6.02b10.16 ± 2.94b46.79 ± 12.76b42.70 ± 10.60b39.88 ± 16.45b21.59 ± 7.97b35.57 ± 13.82b1.62 ± 0.50b
01/10/201821.18 ± 4.48c4.11 ± 0.76c19.07 ± 6.97c9.85 ± 2.96c40.60 ± 11.30c39.36 ± 9.50c34.00 ± 14.86c18.19 ± 5.70c31.44 ± 13.30c1.35 ± 0.36c
Cultivar
G10327.10 ± 4.13a8.05 ± 2.78a21.33 ± 6.33a10.51 ± 3.00a53.25 ± 16.15a50.52 ± 11.29a48.84 ± 20.37a26.89 ± 7.59a50.67 ± 12.48a2.05 ± 0.51a
G02418.42 ± 2.65c7.46 ± 2.87c19.93 ± 6.66c9.92 ± 3.01c43.16 ± 14.40c39.34 ± 12.08c31.42 ± 15.04c17.22 ± 5.05c23.47 ± 6.95c1.13 ± 0.27c
G2011-523.37 ± 3.39b7.77 ± 2.89b20.59 ± 6.60b10.25 ± 3.02b49.58 ± 13.46b45.61 ± 12.11b45.05 ± 15.93b20.34 ± 5.83b33.20 ± 8.81b1.83 ± 0.42b
Photoperiod (light/dark)
10/14 h20.26 ± 3.64c7.26 ± 2.92c14.25 ± 5.68c7.18 ± 1.85c35.61 ± 8.34c34.70 ± 7.07c28.97 ± 11.18c16.69 ± 4.96c27.79 ± 9.86c1.44 ± 0.44c
12/12 h22.65 ± 4.50b7.63 ± 2.71b21.31 ± 3.72b10.46 ± 2.42b49.69 ± 12.50b46.68 ± 11.33b38.22 ± 13.16b20.23 ± 4.96b35.85 ± 13.62b1.62 ± 0.56b
14/10 h25.98 ± 4.84a8.39 ± 2.81a26.29 ± 3.10a13.05 ± 0.88a60.69 ± 12.63a54.09 ± 10.64a58.11 ± 17.92a27.52 ± 7.47a43.70 ± 15.89a1.94 ± 0.58a
Temperature (light/dark)
25/18 °C21.64 ± 4.29b7.48 ± 2.93b17.55 ± 7.13b8.94 ± 3.16b46.55 ± 15.64b41.97 ± 12.67b35.11 ± 15.81b20.05 ± 6.43b31.64 ± 12.00b1.58 ± 0.52b
30/20 °C24.29 ± 5.20a8.04 ± 2.76a23.69 ± 4.04a11.52 ± 2.22a50.78 ± 14.63a48.34 ± 11.89a48.43 ± 19.23a22.92 ± 8.07a39.92 ± 16.21a1.75 ± 0.61a
F-test
Sown date (D)******************************
Cultivar (C)******************************
Photoperiod (L)******************************
Temperature (T)******************************
Different letters indicate significant differences between means within columns at p < 0.05 by a Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Difference) test. *** p < 0.001, means ± SD.
Table
Table 4. Effect of plant age, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic bulb physiological and nutritive quality traits.
Table 4. Effect of plant age, cultivar, photoperiod and temperature treatments on garlic bulb physiological and nutritive quality traits.
TreatmentTSS
(%)		Soluble Protein
(mg g−1)		Soluble Sugar
(%)		Total
Sugar
(mg g−1)		Glucose
(%)		Sucrose
(mg g−1)		Fructose
(%)		Starch
(mg g−1)		Total
Phenol
(mg g−1)		Total Flavonoid
(mg g−1)
Plant Age (DAP)
8018.31 ± 3.50a7.07 ± 2.58a20.04 ± 7.58a9.99 ± 4.53a60.37 ± 15.94a18.28 ± 2.03a49.00 ± 22.41a30.34 ± 9.05a26.73 ± 12.02a1.52 ± 0.63a
6017.28 ± 3.43b6.60 ± 2.63b18.94 ± 7.19b9.46 ± 4.32b48.19 ± 12.83b17.02 ± 1.91b40.43 ± 19.21b24.72 ± 7.05b23.07 ± 10.14b1.40 ± 0.54b
4015.91 ± 3.37c6.14 ± 2.55c16.69 ± 8.15c9.07 ± 4.32c41.38 ± 11.40c16.17 ± 1.82c33.14 ± 16.03c21.39 ± 6.26c20.01 ± 9.53c1.22 ± 0.46c
Cultivar
G10320.39 ± 3.09a6.86 ± 2.54a19.48 ± 7.58a9.86 ± 4.37a53.30 ± 16.60a18.35 ± 1.79a48.81 ± 19.80a29.44 ± 8.64a32.02 ± 9.28a1.85 ± 0.42a
G02414.43 ± 1.99c6.33 ± 2.63c17.70 ± 7.81c9.13 ± 4.42c47.78 ± 16.23c15.91 ± 1.97c31.84 ± 17.50c21.31 ± 6.73c13.13 ± 6.18c0.84 ± 0.21c
G2011-516.69 ± 2.58b6.61 ± 2.65b18.49 ± 7.84b9.53 ± 4.42b48.86 ± 13.34b17.21 ± 1.80b41.91 ± 20.26b25.70 ± 7.73b24.67 ± 7.45b1.45 ± 0.45b
Photoperiod (light/dark)
10/14 h15.16 ± 2.60c3.86 ± 1.71c9.28 ± 3.26c4.74 ± 2.28c36.11 ± 8.05c15.98 ± 1.89c20.80 ± 8.95c18.86 ± 4.21c15.73 ± 7.06c1.09 ± 0.42c
12/12 h16.67 ± 2.98b7.03 ± 1.82b20.00 ± 3.68b9.58 ± 2.42b51.99 ± 13.01b16.90 ± 1.68b42.56 ± 14.15b24.58 ± 5.48b24.28 ± 9.49b1.37 ± 0.46b
14/10 h19.68 ± 3.45a8.90 ± 1.15a26.39 ± 2.83c14.21 ± 1.55a61.84 ± 12.75a18.59 ± 1.85a59.20 ± 15.23a33.01 ± 7.90a29.81 ± 10.96a1.71 ± 0.60a
Temperature (light/dark)
25/18 °C16.80 ± 3.52b5.77 ± 2.47b17.56 ± 7.89b8.73 ± 4.49b45.56 ± 14.10c16.82 ± 2.19b38.22 ± 18.34b23.84 ± 7.67b21.09 ± 10.35b1.27 ± 0.49b
30/20 °C17.54 ± 3.58a7.43 ± 2.49a19.55 ± 7.54a10.29 ± 4.19a54.39 ± 15.86a17.49 ± 1.97a43.49 ± 22.04a27.12 ± 8.77a25.45 ± 11.13a1.49 ± 0.60a
F-test
Plant Age (A)******************************
Cultivar (C)******************************
Photoperiod (L)******************************
Temperature (T)******************************
Different letters indicate significant differences between means within columns at p < 0.05 by a Tukey HSD (Honest Significant Difference) test. *** p < 0.001; DAP: days after planting, means ± SD.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Atif, M.J.; Amin, B.; Ghani, M.I.; Ali, M.; Cheng, Z. Variation in Morphological and Quality Parameters in Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Bulb Influenced by Different Photoperiod, Temperature, Sowing and Harvesting Time. Plants 2020, 9, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020155

AMA Style

Atif MJ, Amin B, Ghani MI, Ali M, Cheng Z. Variation in Morphological and Quality Parameters in Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Bulb Influenced by Different Photoperiod, Temperature, Sowing and Harvesting Time. Plants. 2020; 9(2):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020155

Chicago/Turabian Style

Atif, Muhammad Jawaad, Bakht Amin, Muhammad Imran Ghani, Muhammad Ali, and Zhihui Cheng. 2020. "Variation in Morphological and Quality Parameters in Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Bulb Influenced by Different Photoperiod, Temperature, Sowing and Harvesting Time" Plants 9, no. 2: 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020155

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop