Figure 1: Greenhouse conditions during the growth cycle, maximum temperature (T max), minimum temperature (T min) and average relative humidity (%)
|
Control |
Stress |
Mean |
||||||||
|
BR |
RD1 |
RD2 |
x̄ |
BR |
RD1 |
RD2 |
x̄ |
BR |
RD1 |
RD2 |
W (g) |
0.42±0.20 |
0.58±0.12 |
0.65±0.23 |
0.55±0.12 |
0.59±0.36 |
0.54±0.10 |
0.51±0.14 |
0.55±0.04 |
0.51±0.09 |
0.57±0.03 |
0.58±0.07 |
HL |
2.58±0.39 |
2.07±0.16 |
1.99±0.15 |
2.21±0.32b |
5.08±0.54 |
2.96±0.37 |
2.47±0.29 |
3.5±1.38a |
3.87±1.25a |
2.73±0.58b |
2.37±0.34b |
CL |
9.82±0.08 |
9.18±0.04 |
9.27±0.03 |
9.42±0.03 |
11.09±0.08 |
9.01±0.06 |
9.14±0.01 |
9.75±0.12 |
10.45±0.07a |
9.10±0.03b |
9.20±0.05b |
CW |
0.89±0.05 |
0.83±0.04 |
0.81±0.03 |
0.85±0.03 |
1.01±0.12 |
0.79±0.03 |
0.82±0.02 |
0.87±0.12 |
0.96±0.06a |
0.81±0.02b |
0.85±0.04b |
LL |
4.65±0.01 |
5.35±0.19 |
3.39±0.07 |
4.46±0.10 |
3.46±0.05 |
3.76±0.07 |
3.57±0.03 |
3.60±0.02 |
4.06±0.07 |
4.56±0.10 |
3.48±0.03 |
LW |
0.38±0.02 |
0.27±0.05 |
0.22±0.04 |
0.29±0.08a |
0.24±0.03 |
0.25±0.03 |
0.22±0.02 |
0.24±0.02b |
0.29±0.08a |
0.25±0.02ab |
0.22±0.01b |
Significancy of the differences by ANOVA Newman-Keuls method |
|
|||
|
SR |
GE |
SRxGE |
|
W (g) |
n.s. |
n.s. |
n.s. |
|
HL (mm) |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
CL (mm) |
n.s. |
** |
n.s. |
|
CW (mm) |
n.s. |
*** |
* |
|
LL (mm) |
n.s. |
n.s. |
n.s. |
|
LW (mm) |
** |
** |
** |
Table 1: Morphometric characteristics of the microgreens of the Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lo- bata (RD2) studied. Data are reported as mean ± S.E. (n = 10). W = weight of 10 individuals (g); HL = hypocotyl length of 10 individuals (m- m); CL = cotyledon length of 10 individuals (mm); CW = cotyledon width of 10 individuals (mm); LL = leaf length of 10 individuals (mm); LW = leaf width of 10 individuals (mm)
The mean values associated with the two factors and their interaction were evaluated according to Tukey's test. Means significantly different
are indicated by different letters. n.s. not significant; * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01; *** significant at p < 0.001.
Figure 1: Greenhouse conditions during the growth cycle, maximum temperature (T max), minimum temperature (T min) and average relative humidity (%)
Figure 2: Variation of FRAP ( μmol TE/g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 3: Variation of DPPH (μmol TE/g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 4: Variation of TFC (mg Quercetin Equivalents/g d.w.) in sprouts, microgreens, and baby leaves of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 5: Total Glucosinolates (g SEQ/g d.w.) variation in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 6: Variation of the Total sugars (g/1000 g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 7: The variation of glucose (g/1000 g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 8: Variation of the FOS (g/1000 g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 9: Variation of the sucrose (g/1000 g d.w.) in microgreens of Broccolo nero (BR), Eruca sativa var. darkita (RD1) and Eruca sativa var. lobata (RD2). Each value represents the mean ± S.E. of three replicates. The letters above bars indicate significant differences according to Tukey's test (p < 0.05)
Figure 10: Pearson's correlation coefficients among the different variables studied for control condition
Figure 11: Pearson's correlation coefficients among the different variables studied for stress condition
Figure 12: Principal component analysis biplot with control=SR100, stress= SR40, BR= Broccolo nero, RD1= Eruca sativa var. darkita and RD2= Eruca sativa var. lobata
Tables at a glance
Figures at a glance