All Issue

2024 Vol.33, Issue 4 Preview Page

Original Articles

The Impact of Pre-Harvest EC Adjustment on Growth and Secondary Metabolites of Three Brassicaceae Plants in a Plant Factory

식물공장 내 수확 전 EC 조절이 십자화과 작물 3종의 생육 및 이차대사산물에 미치는 영향

Su Min Lee1†
,
Sunwoo Kim1†
,
Jongseok Park23
,
Gwonjeong Bok45*
이 수민1†
,
김 선우1†
,
박 종석23
,
복 권정45*
1Graduate Student, Department of Bio-AI Convergence, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
2Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
3Professor, Department of Bio-AI Convergence, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
4Post-doctoral Researcher, Department of Horticultural Science, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
5Academic Research Professor, Glocal University Project Team, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 57922, Korea
1충남대학교 바이오 AI 융합학과 대학원생
2충남대학교 원예학과 교수
3충남대학교 바이오 AI 융합학과 교수
4충남대학교 원예학과 박사후 연구원
5순천대학교 글로컬대학사업단 학술연구교수
*Corresponding Author
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
31 October 2024. pp. 436-444
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study investigated the growth and secondary metabolite changes in three species of Brassicaceae when the electrical conductivity (EC) concentration was modified before harvest. Seeds of leaf mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.), red mustard (Brassica juncea L.), and kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala (DC.) Alef.) were sown in rock wool and grown for three weeks. Then, the EC concentration was modified from 1.5 dS·m-1 to 1.5 (Control), 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 dS·m-1 at 1 week (1W) and 3 weeks (3W) before harvest, and plants were cultivated for four weeks. In leaf mustard, the shoot fresh weight, dry weight and total phenolic content decreased by 63.6%, 70.2%, and 63.2%, respectively, at 6.0 dS·m-1 compared to the control in the 1W treatment. For the 3W treatment, the shoot fresh weight, dry weight, and total glucosinolate content increased by 57.5%, 52.5%, and 50.3%, respectively, at 3.0 dS·m-1 compared to the control. In red mustard, the shoot fresh weight and dry weight increased by 20.8% and 13.3%, respectively, at 4.5 dS·m-1 in the 1W treatment, while total phenolic content decreased by 52.2% at 6.0 dS·m-1 compared to the control. For the 3W treatment, the shoot fresh weight, dry weight and total phenolic content decreased by 36.6%, 29.2%, and 54.0%, respectively, at 4.5 dS·m-1 compared to the control. In kale, under the 1W treatment, the shoot fresh weight, dry weight, and total phenolic content increased by 51.6%, 14.6%, and 56.9%, respectively, at 4.5 dS·m-1 compared to control. In the 3W treatment, the shoot fresh weight, dry weight, total glucosinolate, and total phenolic content increased by 162.5%, 230.6%, 232.9%, and 392.7%, respectively, at 6.0 dS·m-1 compared to the control. Excessive EC concentration inhibits the shoot fresh and dry weight, making it necessary to conduct further research to determine the relationship between optimal EC levels and secondary metabolite for each plant.

Keywords
EC
glucosinolates
kale
leaf mustard
red mustard

본 연구는 수확 전 EC 농도를 변경하였을 때, 십자화과 3종의 생육 및 기능성 물질 함량 변화를 조사하였다. 적갓(Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.), 적겨자(Brassica juncea L.), 케일(Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala (DC.) Alef.) 종자를 암면 배지에 파종하여 3주간 육묘한 후, 수확 1주(1W)와 3주(3W)전에 EC 1.5dS·m-1에서 EC 1.5(대조구), 3.0, 4.5, 6.0dS·m-1로 변경하여 4주간 재배하였다. 적갓은 1W 처리의 6.0dS·m-1에서 지상부 생체중, 건물중, total phenolic은 대조구 대비 각각 63.6, 70.2, 63.2% 감소하였고, 3W 처리의 생체중, 건물중, total glucosinolate는 EC 3.0dS·m-1이 대조구 대비 각각 57.5, 52.5, 50.3% 증가하였다. 적겨자는 1W 처리시 대조구 대비 지상부 생체중, 건물중은 EC 4.5dS·m-1에서 각각 20.8, 13.3% 증가하였으며, total phenolic은 EC 6.0dS·m-1에서 52.2% 감소하였다. 3W 처리의 생체중, 건물중, total phenolic은 대조구 대비 EC 4.5dS·m-1에서 각각 36.6, 29.2, 54.0% 감소하였다. 케일은 1W 처리한 경우 지상부 생체중, 건물중, total phenolic은 EC 1.5dS·m-1 대비 EC 4.5dS·m-1에서 각각 51.6, 14.6, 56.9% 증가하였다. 3W 처리의 생체중, 건물중, total glucosinolate, total phenolic은 대조구 대비 EC 6.0dS·m-1에서 각각 162.5, 230.6, 232.9, 392.7% 증가하였다. 과도한 EC 농도는 생장 및 기능성 물질 축적에 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있으므로, 향후 연구에서는 작물별로 최적의 EC 농도와 염분 스트레스에 따른 생리적 반응 간의 관계를 규명하는 연구가 필요하다.

키워드
글루코시놀레이트
적갓
적겨자
전기전도도
케일
References
1

Al Meselmani M.A. 2022, Nutrient solution for hydroponics. Soilless culture. IntechOpen, London, UK. doi:10.5772/ intechopen.101604.

10.5772/intechopen.101604
2

Cheng F., J. Wu, and X. Wang 2014, Genome triplication drove the diversification of Brassica plants. Hortic Res 1:14024. doi:10.1038/hortres.2014.24

10.1038/hortres.2014.2426504539PMC4596316
3

Cho W.J., H.J. Kim, D.H. Jung, D.W. Kim, T.I. Ahn, and J.E. Son 2018, On-site ion monitoring system for precision hydroponic nutrient management. Comput Electron Agric 146:51- 58. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.01.019

10.1016/j.compag.2018.01.019
4

Choi G.L., K.H. Yeo, S.H. Choi, H.J. Jeong, N.J. Kang, and H.G. Choi 2017, Effect of EC level of irrigation solution on tomato growth and inorganic ions of root zone in soilless culture of tomato plant using coir substrate. J Bio-Env Con 26:418-423. doi:10.12791/KSBEC.2017.26.4.418

10.12791/KSBEC.2017.26.4.418
5

Dekker M., R. Verkerk, and W.M. Jongen 2000, Predictive modelling of health aspects in the food production chain: a case study on glucosinolates in cabbage. Trends Food Sci Technol 11:174-181. doi:10.1016/S0924-2244(00)00062-5

10.1016/S0924-2244(00)00062-5
6

Devi N.D., and T. Arumugam 2019, Salinity tolerance in vegetable crops: a review. J Pharmacogn Phytochem 8:2717-2721.

7

Ding X., Y. Jiang, H. Zhao, D. Guo, L. He, F. Liu, Q. Zhou, D. Nandwani, D. Hui, and J. Yu 2018, Electrical conductivity of nutrient solution influenced photosynthesis, quality, and antioxidant enzyme activity of pakchoi (Brassica campestris L. ssp. Chinensis) in a hydroponic system. PloS one 13:e0202090. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202090

10.1371/journal.pone.020209030157185PMC6114716
8

Ding X., H. Zhang, T. Qian, L. He, H. Jin, Q. Zhou, and J. Yu 2022, Nutrient concentrations induced abiotic stresses to sweet pepper seedlings in hydroponic culture. Plants 11:1098. doi:10.3390/plants11081098

10.3390/plants1108109835448826PMC9027179
9

Flowers T.J. 2004, Improving crop salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 55:307-319. doi:10.1093/jxb/erh003

10.1093/jxb/erh00314718494
10

Fu H., and Y. Yang 2023, How plants tolerate salt stress. Curr Issues Mol Biol 45:5914-5934. doi:10.3390/cimb45070374

10.3390/cimb4507037437504290PMC10378706
11

Gillespie D.P., G. Papio, and C. Kubota 2021, High nutrient concentrations of hydroponic solution can improve growth and nutrient uptake of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) grown in acidic nutrient solution. HortScience 56:687-694. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI15777-21

10.21273/HORTSCI15777-21
12

Hosseini H., V. Mozafari, H.R. Roosta, H. Shirani, P.C. van de Vlasakker, and M. Farhangi 2021, Nutrient use in vertical farming: Optimal electrical conductivity of nutrient solution for growth of lettuce and basil in hydroponic cultivation. Horticulturae 7:283. doi:10.3390/horticulturae7090283

10.3390/horticulturae7090283
13

Kaur N., J. Kaur, S.K. Grewal, and I. Singh 2019, Effect of heat stress on antioxidative defense system and its amelioration by heat acclimation and salicylic acid pre-treatments in three pigeonpea genotypes. Indian J Agric Sci 32:106-110. doi:10.5958/0974-4479.2019.00014.5

10.5958/0974-4479.2019.00014.5
14

Keck A.-S., and J.W. Finley 2004, Cruciferous vegetables: cancer protective mechanisms of glucosinolate hydrolysis products and selenium. Integr Cancer Ther 3:5-12. doi: 10.1177/1534735403261831

10.1177/153473540326183115035868
15

Kesawat M.S., N. Satheesh, B.S. Kherawat, A. Kumar, H.-U. Kim, S.-M. Chung, and M. Kumar 2023, Regulation of reactive oxygen species during salt stress in plants and their crosstalk with other signaling molecules current perspectives and future directions. Plants 12:864. doi:10.3390/plants12040864

10.3390/plants1204086436840211PMC9964777
16

Kim H.M., H.M. Kim, H.W. Jeong, H.R. Lee, B.R. Jeong, N.J. Kang, and S.J. Hwang 2018, Growth of mother plants and occurrence of daughter plants of 'maehyang' strawberry as affected by different EC levels of nutrient solution during nursery period. J Bio-Env Con 27:185-190. doi:10.12791/ KSBEC.2018.27.2.185

10.12791/KSBEC.2018.27.2.185
17

Kimera F., M. Mugwanya, M. Dawood, and H. Sewilam 2023, Growth response of kale (Brassica oleracea) and nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) under saline aqua-sandponics-vegeculture system. Sci Rep 13:2427. doi:10.1038/s41598-023- 29509-9

10.1038/s41598-023-29509-936765067PMC9913015
18

Lee S.G., C.S. Choi, J.G. Lee, Y.A. Jang, C.W. Nam, K.H. Yeo, H.J. Lee, and Y.C. Um 2012, Effects of different EC in nutrient solution on growth and quality of red mustard and pak-choi in plant factory. J Bio-Env Con 21:322-326.

10.12791/KSBEC.2012.21.4.322
19

Lichtenthaler H.K., and C. Buschmann 2001, Extraction of phtosynthetic tissues: chlorophylls and carotenoids. Curr Protoc Essent Lab Tech f4.2-f4.2.6. doi:10.1002/0471142913. faf0403s01

10.1002/0471142913
20

López-Berenguer C., M.C. Martínez-Ballesta, C. García-Viguera, and M. Carvajal 2008, Leaf water balance mediated by aquaporins under salt stress and associated glucosinolate synthesis in broccoli. Plant Sci 174:321-328. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.11.012

10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.11.012
21

Lu Y., and W. Fricke 2023, Salt Stress-Regulation of root water uptake in a whole-plant and diurnal context. International Intt J Mol Sci 24:8070. doi:10.3390/ijms24098070

10.3390/ijms2409807037175779PMC10179082
22

Manchali S., K.N.C. Murthy, and B.S. Patil 2012, Crucial facts about health benefits of popular cruciferous vegetables. J Funct Foods 4:94-106. doi:10.1016/j.jff.2011.08.004

10.1016/j.jff.2011.08.004
23

Marques G., D. Aleixo, and R. Pitarma 2019, Enhanced hydroponic agriculture environmental monitoring: An internet of things approach. In V. Krzhizhanovskaya, ed, Computational Science - ICCS 2019: 19th International Conference, Faro, Portugal, June 12-14, 2019, Proceedings, Part III, Vol 19. Springer, Faro, Portugal, pp 658-669.

10.1007/978-3-030-22744-9_51
24

Mawlong I., M. Sujith Kumar, B. Gurung, K. Singh, and D. Singh 2017, A simple spectrophotometric method for estimating total glucosinolates in mustard de-oiled cake. Int J Food Prop 20:3274-3281. doi:10.1080/10942912.2017. 1286353

10.1080/10942912.2017.1286353
25

Miękus N., K. Marszałek, M. Podlacha, A. Iqbal, C. Puchalski, and A.H. Świergiel 2020, Health benefits of plant-derived sulfur compounds, glucosinolates, and organosulfur compounds. Molecules 25:3804. doi:10.3390/molecules25173804

10.3390/molecules2517380432825600PMC7503525
26

Misra V., A. Mall, and M.I. Ansari 2021, Physiological and molecular responses to salinity due to excessive Na+ in plants. Harsh Environment and Plant Resilience: Molecular and Functional Aspects pp 291-303.

10.1007/978-3-030-65912-7_11PMC8388348
27

Nawaz H., M.A. Shad, and S. Muzaffar 2018, Phytochemical composition and antioxidant potential of Brassica. Brassica Germplasm Charact. Breed. Util 1:7-26. doi:10.5772/intechopen.76120

10.5772/intechopen.76120
28

Nguyen V.T., J. Stewart, M. Lopez, I. Ioannou, and F. Allais 2020, Glucosinolates: Natural occurrence, biosynthesis, accessibility, isolation, structures, and biological activities. Molecules 25:4537. doi:10.3390/molecules25194537

10.3390/molecules2519453733022970PMC7582585
29

Othman Y., K. Bataineh, M. Al-Ajlouni, N. Alsmairat, J. Ayad, S. Shiyab, B. Al-Qarallah, and R. St Hilaire 2019, Soilless culture: Management of growing substrate, water, nutrient, salinity, microorganism and product quality. Fresenius Environ Bull 28:3249-3260.

30

Rahman M., A. Khatun, L. Liu, and B.J. Barkla 2018, Brassicaceae mustards: Traditional and agronomic uses in Australia and New Zealand. Molecules 23:231. doi:10.3390/molecules23010231

10.3390/molecules2301023129361740PMC6017612
31

Rahneshan Z., F. Nasibi, and A.A. Moghadam 2018, Effects of salinity stress on some growth, physiological, biochemical parameters and nutrients in two pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) rootstocks. J Plant Interact 13:73-82. doi:10.1080/17429145. 2018.1424355

10.1080/17429145.2018.1424355
32

Raja V., U. Majeed, H. Kang, K.I. Andrabi, and R. John 2017, Abiotic stress: Interplay between ROS, hormones and MAPKs. Environ Exp Bot 137:142-157. doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot. 2017.02.010

10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.02.010
33

Saberi Riseh R., M. Ebrahimi-Zarandi, E. Tamanadar, M. Moradi Pour, and V.K. Thakur 2021, Salinity stress: toward sustainable plant strategies and using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria encapsulation for reducing it. Sustainability 13:12758. doi:doi.org/10.3390/su132212758

10.3390/su132212758
34

Sakamoto M., and T. Suzuki 2020, Effect of nutrient solution concentration on the growth of hydroponic sweetpotato. Agronomy 10:1708. doi:10.3390/agronomy10111708

10.3390/agronomy10111708
35

Salehi B., C. Quispe, M. Butnariu, I. Sarac, I. Marmouzi, M. Kamle, V. Tripathi, P. Kumar, A. Bouyahya, and E. Capanoglu 2021, Phytotherapy and food applications from Brassica genus. Phytother Res 35:3590-3609. doi:10.1002/ptr.7048

10.1002/ptr.704833666283
36

Severo J., A. Tiecher, F.C. Chaves, J.A. Silva, and C.V. Rombaldi 2011, Gene transcript accumulation associated with physiological and chemical changes during developmental stages of strawberry cv. Camarosa. Food Chem 126:995-1000. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.11.107

10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.11.107
37

Soundararajan P., and J.S. Kim 2018, Anti-carcinogenic glucosinolates in cruciferous vegetables and their antagonistic effects on prevention of cancers. Molecules 23:2983. doi:10.3390/molecules23112983

10.3390/molecules2311298330445746PMC6278308
38

Traka M. 2016, Health benefits of glucosinolates. Adv Bot Res 80:247-279. doi:10.1016/bs.abr.2016.06.004

10.1016/bs.abr.2016.06.004
39

Verkerk R., M. Schreiner, A. Krumbein, E. Ciska, B. Holst, I. Rowland, R. De Schrijver, M. Hansen, C. Gerhäuser, and R. Mithen 2009, Glucosinolates in Brassica vegetables: the influence of the food supply chain on intake, bioavailability and human health. Mol Nutr Food Res 53:S219-S219. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200800065

10.1002/mnfr.20080006519035553
40

Warwick S., A. Francis, and I. Al-Shehbaz 2006, Brassicaceae: species checklist and database on CD-Rom. Pl Syst Evol 259:249-258. doi:10.1007/s00606-006-0422-0

10.1007/s00606-006-0422-0
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society for Bio-Environment Control
  • Publisher(Ko) :(사)한국생물환경조절학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Bio-Environment Control
  • Journal Title(Ko) :생물환경조절학회지
  • Volume : 33
  • No :4
  • Pages :436-444
  • Received Date : 2024-09-27
  • Revised Date : 2024-10-24
  • Accepted Date : 2024-10-27
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2024.33.4.436
Journal Informaiton Journal of Bio-Environment Control Journal of Bio-Environment Control
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crossref funder-registry
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close