Evaluation of new clones of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) for inulin and sugar yield from stalks and tubers

Abstract Six clones of Jerusalem artichoke, five new clones (coded as 17, 22, 56, 69 and 70) and the control cultivar “Violette de Rennes” were evaluated for variability in sugars yield, when the plant is utilised as stalk, tuber and “integral crop”. Among the above harvesting methods, the integral crop (stalks and tubers at flowering time), showed the highest yield potential of total sugars (fructose+glucose) and inulin (18.6 and 17.9 t/ha, respectively). This was obtained by the clone Violette de Rennes, which also had the greatest inulin chain length, in the text reported as average degree of polymerisation (DP). Clone 69 produced the highest yield of sugars and inulin, when the stalks are harvested at flowering (10.4 and 8.0 t/ha, respectively), while clone 17, with the conventional harvest of tubers at the end of crop cycle, reached 13.3 and 13.7 t/ha of total sugars and inulin, respectively. The average inulin chain length (DP) was highest at flowering time in both stalks and tubers with a range of 7.5–11.2 in the genotypes studied, while, at the final harvest of tubers, it significantly decreased reaching values ranging from 4.8 to 6.7. Among the organs analysed, the tubers at stalk harvest, showed both the highest inulin content and the longest inulin chain, expressed as DP. The genetic variability was very high among the clones for the other characters studied, such as flowering time, sugar content in different organs, photosynthesis activity, leaf chlorophyll content, etc. In particular, the “refractometrically measured” solids, in extracted tissue juice, expressed as the Brix-value (a very quick method), exhibited a significant positive relationship with the tuber inulin content (0.90 ** and 0.85 ** , n =6, in the first and second harvest, respectively), confirming its suitability as a fast screening method in breeding, avoiding time consuming and expensive laboratory analysis.

[1]  G. Soja,et al.  Leaf Nitrogen, Photosynthesis and Crop Productivity in Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus Tuberosus L.) , 1993 .

[2]  J. Dieleman,et al.  Topinambour, new selections show increased inulin productivity , 1995 .

[3]  N. Kosaric,et al.  The Jerusalem artichoke as an agricultural crop , 1984 .

[4]  J. Van Loo,et al.  On the presence of inulin and oligofructose as natural ingredients in the western diet. , 1995, Critical reviews in food science and nutrition.

[5]  I. Zoccarato,et al.  The Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) and its importance for the depressed areas , 1989 .

[6]  F. Kiehn,et al.  Variability in Agronomic and Compositional Characteristics of Jerusalem Artichoke , 1993 .

[7]  M. G. D'egidio,et al.  Production of fructose from cereal stems and polyannual cultures of Jerusalem artichoke , 1998 .

[8]  J. Zubr,et al.  Characteristics of Growth and Development of Different Jerusalem Artichoke Cultivars , 1993 .

[9]  J. Tenorio,et al.  Tuber yield of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus Tuberosus L.) in relation to water stress , 1991 .

[10]  R. Paolini,et al.  Produttività del topinambur (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in relazione a fattori agronomici diversi , 1996 .

[11]  H. Lambers.  Does variation in photosynthetic rate explain variation in growth rate and yield , 1987 .

[12]  G. Marchetti.  Inulina e fruttani , 1993 .

[13]  G. Soja,et al.  Plant development and hormonal status in the Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) , 1992 .

[14]  P. Galzy,et al.  Productivity and fermentability of different Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) cultivars , 1985 .

[15]  L. Incoll,et al.  The Stem as a Temporary Sink before Tuberization in Helianthus tuberosus L. , 1970 .

[16]  G. Soja,et al.  Leaf gas exchange and tuber yield in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) cultivars , 1991 .

[17]  W. Meijer,et al.  Analysis of crop performance in research on inulin, fibre and oilseed crops , 1996 .

[18]  M. Dambroth,et al.  Research on the Genetic Resources of Inulin‐Containing Chicory (Cichorium intybus) , 1987 .

[19]  J. Edelman,et al.  THE MECHANISIM OF FRUCTOSAN METABOLISM IN HIGHER PLANTS AS EXEMPLIFIED IN HELIANTHUS TUBEROSUS , 1968 .

[20]  P. Galzy,et al.  PRODUCTIVITY AND FERMENTABILITY OF JERUSALEM ARTICHOKE ACCORDING TO HARVESTING DATE , 1983 .

[21]  W. Meijer,et al.  The relation between flower initiation and sink strength of stems and tubers of Jerusalem artichoke , 1991 .

[22]  T. Cervigni,et al.  The use of Jerusalem artichoke stalks for the production of fructose or ethanol , 1991 .

[23]  J. Prevost,et al.  Comparison of fructose production by 37 cultivars of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) , 1996 .

[24]  A. A. Schneiter,et al.  Description of Sunflower Growth Stages 1 , 1981 .

[25]  E. Bockstaele,et al.  A rapid determination of the total sugar content and the average inulin chain length in roots of chicory (Cichorium intybusL) , 1998 .

[26]  M. Erdélyi,et al.  Preparation of Pure Inulin and Various Inulin-Containing Products from Jerusalem Artichoke for Human Consumption and for Diagnostic Use , 1993 .

[27]  S. Schittenhelm.  Agronomic Performance of Root Chicory, Jerusalem Artichoke, and Sugarbeet in Stress and Nonstress Environments , 1999 .