Biomass Accumulation and Nutrient Uptake of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.)

Zoltán Izsáki, Gabriella Németh Kádi

Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Economics, Agricultural and Health Studies, Szent István University, Szarvas, Hungary..

DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2013.48197                

Abstract

The dynamics of biomass accumulation during the growing period, the yield of leafy stalks and tubers, and the nutrient concentration and nutrient uptake of the yield were investigated for two Jerusalem artichoke varieties (Tápiói Korai and Tápiói Sima) in a field experiment involving mineral fertilisation. Considerable differences were observed between the dynamics of leafy stalk and tuber development in Tápiói Korai which has a short vegetation period and Tápiói Sima where the vegetation period is long. The maximum dry matter ratio between the tuber yield and the leafy stalk yield was 1:1 for Tápiói Korai and 1:4.5 for Tápiói Sima. During the period when the maximum aboveground biomass developed in Tápiói Korai, 100 kg^.ha^-1 N and P fertiliser resulted in the highest leafy stalk yield (38.34 t^.ha^-1), while for Tápiói Sima, which developed a much greater leafy stalk mass, the highest aboveground biomass yield (78-80 t^.ha^-1) was given in response to 200 kg^.ha^-1 N supplemented by P and K fertiliser. Both artichoke varieties produced the great-est tuber yield at a N rate of 200 kg^.ha^-1, supplemented with P and K fertiliser. The nutrient concentration in the leafy stalks was highest on the 85th day of the vegetation period, prior to intensive dry matter accumulation in the leafy stalks and before tuber formation began. In both varieties the maximum nutrient uptake was recorded on the 155th day. Great differences were observed between the varieties in terms of specific nutrient uptake. For a tuber yield of 10 t, together with the corresponding leafy stalk yield, the specific nutrient uptake of the Tápiói Korai variety amounted to 48 kg N, 10 kg P, 83 kg K, 30 kg Ca and 10 kg Mg, while for Tápiói Sima these figures were 162 kg N, 30 kg P, 300 kg K, 84 kg Ca and 45 kg Mg.

Keywords

Jerusalem Artichoke; Mineral Fertilisation; Biomass Accumulation; Yield; Nutrient Uptake

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	I. Angeli, J. Barta and L. Molnár, “A Gyógyító Csicsóka,” Mezogazda Kiadó, Budapest, 2000.
[2]	E. László and I. Réczey, “Megújuló Nyersanyagok nem élelmiszeripari Felhasználása,” NF-2000 Magyarország Információ Szolgáltató Rendszer, Budapest, 2000.
[3]	Z. Izsáki, “Csicsóka,” In: J. Antal, Ed., Növénytermesztéstan, Mezogazda Kiadó, Budapest, 2005, pp. 93-102.
[4]	J. Barta and G. Pátkai, “Chemical Composition and Storability of Jerusalem Artichoke Tubers,” Acta Alimentaria, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2007, pp. 257-267. doi:10.1556/AAlim.36.2007.2.13
[5]	J. Stanley, F. Kays and Stephen, “Biology and Chemistry of Jerusalem Artichoke,” CRC Press, Nottingham, 2007.
[6]	W. Pimsaen, S. Joglay, B. Suriharn, T. Kesmala, V. Pensuk and A. Patanothai, “Genotype by Environment (G × E) Interactions for Yield Components of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.),” Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, pp. 11-19. doi:10.3923/ajps.2010.11.19
[7]	D. G. Dorell and B. B. Chubey, “Irrigation, Fertilizer, Harvest Dates and Storage on the Reducing and Fructose Concentrations of Jerusalem Artichoke Tubers,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 57, No. 2, 1977, pp. 591-596. doi:10.4141/cjps77-084
[8]	P. Denoroy, “The Crop Physiology of Helianthus tuberosus (L.), a Model Oriented View,” Biomass Bioenerg, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1996, pp. 11-32. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(96)00006-2
[9]	W. J. Mclaurin, Z. C. Somda and S. J. Kays, “Jerusalem Artichoke Growth, Development, and Field Storage. I. Numerical Assessment of Plant Part Development and Dry Matter Acquisition and Allocation,” Journal of Plant Nutrition, Vol. 22, No. 8, 1999. pp. 1303-1313. doi:10.1080/01904169909365714
[10]	E. Raso, “Jerusalem Artichoke. Effect of Nitrogen-Potassium Fertilizing,” Terra e Sole, Vol. 45, No. 575-576, 1990, pp. 431-433.
[11]	G. Soja, G. Dersch and W. Praznick, “Harvest Dates, Fertilizer and Varietal Effect on Yield, Concentration and Molecular Distribution of Fructan in Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.),” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Vol. 165, No. 2, 1990, pp. 181-189. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.1990.tb00849.x
[12]	G. Soja and E. Haunold, “Leaf Gas Exchange and Tuber Yield in Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Cultivars,” Field Crop Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1991, pp. 241-252. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(91)90002-D
[13]	B. Sawicka, “Changes in chemical composition of Helianthus tuberosus L. under Differentiated Nitrogen Fertilization,” Zeszyty Problemove Postepow Nauk Rolniczych, No. 484, 2002, pp. 573-579.
[14]	M. A. Rodrigues, L. Sousa, J. E. Cabanas and M. Arrobas, “Tuber Yield and Leaf Mineral Composition of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Grown under Different Cropping Practices,” Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2007, pp. 545-553.
[15]	K. Gao, T. Zhu and G. Han, “Water and Nitrogen Interactively Increased the Biomass Production of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Semi Arid Area,” African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 10, No. 34, 2011, pp. 6466-6472.
[16]	G. J. Seiler and L. G. Campbell, “Genetic Variability for Mineral Element Concentrations of Wild Jerusalem Artichoke Forage,” Crop Science, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2004, pp. 289-292.
[17]	G. J. Seiler and L. G. Campbell, “Genetic Variability for Mineral Concentration in the Forage of Jerusalem Artichoke Cultivars,” Euphytica, Vol. 150, No. 1-2, 2006, pp. 281-288. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9119-2
[18]	S. Terzic, M. Zoric, J. Atlagic, I. Maksimovic, T. Zeremski and B. Dedic, “Classification of Jerusalem Artichoke Accessions by Linear Discriminant Analysis of Mineral Concentration in Tubers and Leaves,” Helia, Vol. 34, No. 55, 2011, pp. 83-90. doi:10.2298/HEL1155083T
[19]	H. Danilcenko, E. Jariene, M. Gajewski, J. Cerniauskiene, J. Kulaitiene, B. Sawicka and P. Aleknaviciene, “Accumulation of Elements in Some Organically Grown Alternative Horticultural Crops in Lithuania,” Hortorum Cultus—Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2011, pp. 23-31.
[20]	E. Cieslik,”Mineral Content of Jerusalem Artichoke New Tubers,” Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej, Vol. 342, No. 10, 1998, pp. 23-30.
[21]	V. Tamas, D. Belala, F. Ionescu, M. Popescu and M. Neagu, “Research for Obtaining from Affordable Natural Mineral Sources, Agreed to Replace Some Synthetic Animal Feed Additives,” Lucrari Stiintifice, Seria Agronomie, Vol. 52, 2009, pp. 75-79.
[22]	S. Terzic and J. Atlagic, “Nitrogen and Sugar Content Variability in Tubers of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.),” Genetika, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, pp. 289-295. doi:10.2298/GENSR0903289T
[23]	X. Y. Ma, L. H. Zhang, H. B. Shao, G. Xu, F. Zhang, F. T. Ni and M. Brestic, “Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.), a Medical Salt-Resistant Plant Has High Adaptability and Multiple-Use Values,” Journal of Medical Plants Research, Vol. 5, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1272-1279.
[24]	M. Harmankaya, F. A. Juhaimi and M. M. özcan, “Mineral Contents of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Growing Wild in Turkey,” Analytical Letters, Vol. 45, No. 15, 2012, pp. 2269-2275. doi:10.1080/00032719.2012.686131
[25]	G. Németh and Z. Izsáki, “Macro- and Micro-Element Content and Uptake of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.),” Cereal Research Communications, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2006, pp. 597-600. doi:10.1556/CRC.34.2006.1.149
[26]	M. A. Rodrigues, L. Sousa, J. E. Cabanas and M. Arrobas, “Tuber Yield and Leaf Mineral Composition of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Grown under Different Cropping Practices,” Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2007, pp. 545-553.
[27]	Z. C. Somda, Z. C. McLaurin and S. J. Kays, “Jerusalem Artichoke Growth, Development, and Field Storage. II. Carbon and Nutrient Element Allocation and Redistribution,” Journal of Plant Nutrition, Vol. 22, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1315-1334. doi:10.1080/01904169909365715
[28]	MéM NAK, “A TVG Tápanyagvizsgáló Laboratórium Módszerkönyve,” MéM Növényvédelmi és Agrokémiai Központ, Budapest, 1978.
[29]	MéM NAK, “Mutrágyázási Irányelvek és Uzemi Módszer,” MéM Növényvédelmi és Agrokémiai Központ, Budapest, 1979.
[30]	J. Sváb, “Biometrical Methods in Research Work,” Mezogazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 1981.