Low-light stress can inhibit plant growth and production. The selection of superior genotypes that are adaptive and tolerant to low light intensity needs to be performed. This study evaluated the agronomic responses of ten doubled haploid lines of eggplant and three varieties to various shade levels (0%, 25%, and 50%). This study used a split-plot design with three replicates. The results indicate that 25% shade is the optimal selection environment for shade tolerance. Genotypes grown under 25% shade exhibited varying responses, with two genotypes classified as shade-loving, seven as tolerant, three as moderately tolerant, and one as shade-sensitive. Shade levels of up to 50% significantly reduced yield, with production dropping to 58%–81% of the unshaded conditions. In general, growth characteristics such as plant height, leaf width, and leaf area were better under shaded conditions, whereas the yield was better under unshaded conditions. AM 23, AM 14, and AM 10 showed better tolerance responses and maintained better yields than the other lines under 25% shade. This study provides important insights into the development of shade-tolerant eggplant varieties. These findings can be used as a basis for recommendations for eggplant planting in shaded areas such as agroforestry systems.
Citation: Samsul Ma'arif, Bambang Sapta Purwoko, Arya Widura Ritonga, Iswari Saraswati Dewi. Effects of shade on agronomic traits of doubled haploid lines of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) obtained from anther culture[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 199-217. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025011
| [1] | Muharrem Gölükcü, Burcu Bozova, Haluk Tokgöz, Demet Yıldız Turgut, Orçun Çınar, Ertuğrul Turgutoglu, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . Effects of cultivar, harvesting time and isolation techniques on the essential oil compositions of some lemon cultivars. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 904-920. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024049 |
| [2] | Nubia Amaya Olivas, Cindy Villalba Bejarano, Guillermo Ayala Soto, Miriam Zermeño Ortega, Fabiola Sandoval Salas, Esteban Sánchez Chávez, Leon Hernández Ochoa . Bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of essential oils of Origanum dictamnus from Mexico. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 387-394. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.387 |
| [3] | Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013 |
| [4] | Salvatore D’Aquino, Daniela Satta, Luciano De Pau, Amedeo Palma . Effect of a cold quarantine treatment on physiological disorders and quality of cactus pear fruit. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 114-126. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.114 |
| [5] | Tarik Ainane, Fatouma Mohamed Abdoul-Latif, Asmae Baghouz, Zineb El Montassir, Wissal Attahar, Ayoub Ainane, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . Essential oils rich in pulegone for insecticide purpose against legume bruchus species: Case of Ziziphora hispanica L. and Mentha pulegium L.. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 105-118. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023005 |
| [6] | Shahindokht Bassiri-Jahromi, Aida Doostkam . Comparative evaluation of bioactive compounds of various cultivars of pomegranate (Punica granatum) in different world regions. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 41-55. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.41 |
| [7] | Stefano Puccio, Anna Perrone, Giuseppe Sortino, Giuseppe Gianguzzi, Carla Gentile, Vittorio Farina . Yield, pomological characteristics, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of Annona cherimola Mill. grown in mediterranean climate. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 592-603. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.592 |
| [8] | Celale Kirkin, Seher Melis Inbat, Daniel Nikolov, Sabah Yildirim . Effects of tarragon essential oil on some characteristics of frankfurter type sausages. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 244-250. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.244 |
| [9] | Gullo Gregorio, Dattola Antonio, Zappia Rocco . Comparative study of some fruit quality characteristics of two of Annona cherimola Mill. grown in southern Italy. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 658-671. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.658 |
| [10] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira, João Batista Gonçalves Dias da Silva, Marta de Toledo Benassi . Profile of the diterpenes, lipid and protein content of different coffee cultivars of three consecutive harvests. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 254-264. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.254 |
Low-light stress can inhibit plant growth and production. The selection of superior genotypes that are adaptive and tolerant to low light intensity needs to be performed. This study evaluated the agronomic responses of ten doubled haploid lines of eggplant and three varieties to various shade levels (0%, 25%, and 50%). This study used a split-plot design with three replicates. The results indicate that 25% shade is the optimal selection environment for shade tolerance. Genotypes grown under 25% shade exhibited varying responses, with two genotypes classified as shade-loving, seven as tolerant, three as moderately tolerant, and one as shade-sensitive. Shade levels of up to 50% significantly reduced yield, with production dropping to 58%–81% of the unshaded conditions. In general, growth characteristics such as plant height, leaf width, and leaf area were better under shaded conditions, whereas the yield was better under unshaded conditions. AM 23, AM 14, and AM 10 showed better tolerance responses and maintained better yields than the other lines under 25% shade. This study provides important insights into the development of shade-tolerant eggplant varieties. These findings can be used as a basis for recommendations for eggplant planting in shaded areas such as agroforestry systems.
Essential oils are generally obtained from the leaves, fruits, barks, or roots of plants, and are a natural product that is liquid at room temperature, can easily crystallize, is usually colorless or pale yellow, and has a strong and aromatic odor [1]. Essential oils consist of a complex mixture of pleasant-smelling and volatile components that are secondary plant metabolism products. Most of the components found in their structures are terpenoids, monoterpenes, and sesquiterpenes [2].
The production and consumption of essential oils have been increasing in recent years [3]. It is reported that the trade value of essential oils in the world is approximately 6 billion US dollars. It is stated that citrus peel oils are the most traded essential oils in the world [4]. In addition to its economic value, citrus peel oil production is very important in terms of waste evaluation. In fact, citrus peels generally appear as waste in fruit juice production. However, citrus peels are a rich source of functional components such as essential oil, pectin, and phenolic compounds [5,6,7]. A significant portion of essential oil production is carried out by the USA, China, and Brazil. Countries with high consumption are the USA, England, France, Japan, and Germany [8]. Türkiye, on the other hand, exports products such as rose essential oil, thyme essential oil, and bay laurel essential oil while importing some essential oils, especially citrus peel oils [9]. It is stated that there are more than 10,000 cultivars of citrus fruits in the world [10]. One of the most produced species among citrus fruits is orange [11]. Citrus peel oils can be obtained by cold pressing, hydrodistillation, and solvent extraction methods [12,13,14,15,16]. Citrus peel oils contain many bioactive components with different functional properties such as limonene, myrcene, α-pinene, β-pinene, sabinene, and linalool [17,18,19]. Citrus peel oils, which can be obtained by different methods, are used in many areas such as the food industry, cosmetics, perfumery, pharmaceutical industry, and the production of cleaning products [19,20,21,22]. In this sense, although synthetic products can also be used, the demand for products produced from natural sources is constantly increasing [23].
Türkiye realized 2.8% of the world's citrus production and 1.73% of the orange production in 2022 [24]. Considering the citrus production data, Turkey has great potential in the production of citrus peel oils. However, a significant portion of citrus oils is met through imports. According to TÜİK data, the total import value of citrus essential oils, one of the most imported essential oils, was 6,738,217 USD in 2020, while this value reached 15,641,898 USD in 2023. Considering the 2023 data, 53% of this is orange peel essential oil [25]. These data show that the production of these products is very important for the country's economy. Citrus essential oils are on the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list with their broad-spectrum biological activities being antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anxiolytic [20,26,27]. The most important feature of citrus peel essential oils is their high limonene content. It has been reported that the limonene content of citrus peel essential oils (orange, mandarin, bergamot, bitter orange) is distributed in a very wide range, such as 36.54% to 96.10% [28]. It is stated that orange peel oils stand out with their high limonene content among citrus fruits [17]. Differences in the amount of limonene and other components of orange essential oil can be observed depending on the cultivars. Limonene (p-mentha-1, 8-diene) is used in many areas such as food, medicine, and cosmetics on an industrial scale. Its use in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industry is due to its aromatic properties as well as its high absorption. Limonene, which is widely used in the food industry due to its aromatic properties, is considered "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) on the FDA list [29,30]. It has been reported that the composition of citrus peel oils may differ according to the type and cultivar as well as the isolation method (cold press, hydrodistillation) [31,32].
In Türkiye, which has significant potential in terms of raw materials, the production of such products is important for the world and national economy. Cultivars of Washington Navel, Navelina, and Valencia Late are the most common in Türkiye. In addition, the Moro cultivar is widely grown among blood oranges. The number of orange cultivars is constantly increasing though breeding studies. Batem Fatihi, which was used in the study, is a new cultivar developed as a result of breeding studies. There is a great interest in the physico-chemical properties of different parts of the citrus fruits. In addition, the evaluation of citrus peels, which are seen as waste, will also contribute to the development of the producer and processing industry. The citrus cultivars to be used in production, the harvest time of the material used, and the isolation method are among the determining factors on the quality of essential oil. Within the scope of the study, it was aimed to reveal some quality characteristics and essential oil compositions of peel essential oils obtained from 5 orange cultivars with two methods in four different harvest periods.
This research was carried out between 2021-2023 in the Aksu-central unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute (Antalya, Türkiye). Five orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) cultivars were used in the research. Each commercial cultivar was harvested in two production seasons (2021–2022, 2022–2023) covering four different harvest periods (Table 1). The materials used within the scope of the research were obtained from the citrus parcels of the Kayaburnu unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute. During the harvesting process, fruit samples were taken from four sides of each tree. The harvested fruit samples were brought to the Food Technology and Medicinal Plants Laboratory on the same day, and the analysis was started.
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
DownLoad:
CSV
First, fruit weight and peel ratio were analyzed for the samples brought to the laboratory. For this purpose, 10 fruits were used for each repetition. Each fruit and its peels were weighed to an accuracy of 0.01 g. Fruit weight and peel ratio were given by taking the average of the measurement values from ten fruits in each repetition.
Essential oil in the samples was extracted by the hydro-distillation method with a Clevenger-type apparatus according to ISO 6571 [33]. For this purpose, 200 mL of distilled water was added to 50 g of fresh fruit peel, homogenized with a blender (Waring 8011ES, USA), and then subjected to distillation using a Clevenger device (Isotex, Türkiye). The amount of essential oil is given by volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %).
For cold pressing, essential oil was collected according to the Kırbaslar et al. [34]. For this purpose, the flavedo part of the fruit peels was grated, and then this part, which is rich in essential oil, was subjected to manual pressing with a 10 cm diameter seven-hole kitchen type apparatus. The water-essential oil emulsion was collected and then separated by centrifugation. This process was applied at 15294 × g at 20 ℃ for 20 minutes. The amount of essential oil is given by volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %).
Physico-chemical characteristics are an important criterion of the quality and purity of essential oils. The obtained essential oils were analyzed for relative density, refractive index, optical rotation, and essential oil composition, which are among the basic quality analyzes specified in the European Pharmacopoeia. Relative density analyses were determined according to ISO 279 [35]. Refractive index analyses were carried out according to ISO 280 [36]. Measurements were made at 20 ℃ using a digital refractometer (A. Krüss Optronic GmbH. DR6000). The optical rotation value of lemon peel essential oils was determined according to ISO 592 [37] by a polarimeter device (Optical Activity Ltd. PolAAR 31).
The essential oil was analyzed by gas chromatography (Agilent 7890A)-mass spectrometry (Agilent 5975C)-flame ionization detector (GC-MS/FID device, Özek et al. [38]. Samples were diluted with hexane at a ratio of 1:50 to be analyzed. Essential oil component analysis of the samples was performed using a capillary column (HP Innowax Capillary; 60.0 m x 0.25 mm x 0.25 μm). GC-MS spectra were obtained using the following conditions: Carrier gas Helium; flow rate of 0.8 mL/min; and injection volume 1 μL with a split ratio of 50:1. The injector temperature was set at 250 ℃. The column temperature program was set as 60 ℃ (10 minutes), 20 ℃/minute from 60 ℃ to 250 ℃, and 250 ℃ (10.5 minutes). In line with this temperature program, the total analysis time was 60 minutes. For the mass detector, scanning range (m/z) 35–500 atomic mass units and electron bombardment ionization 70 eV were used. WILEY and OIL ADAMS libraries were used to identify the components of the essential oil. Relative Retention Indices (RRI) of the compounds on the column were determined relative to the retention times of a series of C8-C40 n-alkanes (Sigma, USA). Relative ratio amounts (%) of the determined components were calculated from FID chromatograms.
The research was carried out with three replications according to the randomized parcel trial design [39]. The analyses were carried out in two parallels, and the results were subjected to variance analysis (ANOVA) and the Duncan Multiple Comparison Test using the SAS package program. Results are given as mean ± standard error.
The ANOVA and Duncan Multiple Comparison Test results for the fruit weights and peel ratios of the orange cultivars evaluated within the scope of the study are given in Table 2 and Table 3. While the cultivar had a statistically significant effect on the fruit weight and peel ratio of the oranges evaluated, the effects of harvest time and cultivar x harvest time remained insignificant. The cultivar with the highest fruit weight was Washington Navel, while the cultivar with the lowest was Moro. The fruit weights of the orange samples evaluated generally increased in parallel with the increase in harvest time. However, this difference remained statistically insignificant (Table 2).
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
Among the orange cultivars examined within the scope of the study, Moro had the highest peel ratio with 30.55%, and Valencia Late had the lowest peel ratio with 21.73%. Partial increases occurred in the fruit peel ratio with the advancement in harvest time, but these differences remained statistically insignificant (Table 2).
The volatile oil amounts of the sample peels of five orange cultivars evaluated in the project according to their harvest times and extraction applications are graphed in Figure 1. While the volatile oil rates of the orange samples showed significant differences according to the cultivars, the change remained insignificant according to the harvest time and cultivar x harvest time interaction (Table 2). Among the cultivars, the peel volatile oil amounts of Valencia Late (2.51%) and Navelina (2.55%) cultivars were higher than the others. The one with the lowest volatile oil rate among the cultivars was Moro (1.98%). When an evaluation was made according to the harvest times, the highest volatile oil amount was detected in Batem Fatihi, Navelina, Moro, and Valencia Late cultivars at the second harvest time, and in the Washington Navel cultivar at the first harvest time (Figure 1). When evaluated according to the methods of obtaining essential oil, the peel essential oil content of orange cultivars was higher with hydrodistillation (2.31%) than with cold press (0.48%). Geraci et al. [40] reported in their study on 12 orange cultivars that the amount of essential oil showed significant differences according to the cultivars as well as the extraction method. Ferrer et al. [41] reported that the amount of orange peel essential oil varies depending on the cultivar and the fruit maturity stage. In the study conducted by Bourgou et al. [42], it was determined that the amount of orange peel oil may vary according to the harvest period (a total of three periods). In the study, the lowest amount of essential oil was determined in the first harvest period, while the highest value was determined in the second harvest period. In the study conducted by Ferhat et al. [43] on 10 different citrus fruits, it was determined that the amount of essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation was considerably higher than the amount of oil obtained by cold pressing. In our study, it was revealed that there were some differences in this sense. When an evaluation was made on the amount of essential oil, it was seen that it was appropriate to harvest all cultivars at the second harvest time except the Washington Navel cultivar (first harvest).
It was observed that there were some differences in the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel oils evaluated within the scope of the research, especially according to the extraction method, harvest times, and cultivars. The variance analysis results of the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel essential oils, according to the cultivar, harvest time, and extraction methods are given in Table 4, and the Duncan Multiple Comparison Test results are given in Table 5. The statistical evaluation data showed that the extraction method had a significant effect on the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel essential oil, while the cultivar and harvest time factors were insignificant (Table 4). The average relative density value of the orange peel essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation was 0.8402, while the value obtained by cold pressing was 0.8444. The relative density value range for orange oil obtained by cold pressing in the European Pharmacopoeia is 0.842–0.850 [44], and it is reported as 0.842–0.850 in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by Xu et al. [46], the specific gravity value of Hamlin and Valencia peel essential oils obtained by cold pressing was reported as 0.843-0.848. In the study conducted by Li et al. [47], this value was reported as 0.8428 for orange peel essential oil. In our study, while the samples obtained by cold pressing were compatible with the limit values, the relative density values of the oils obtained by hydrodistillation remained below these values. It is thought that this situation may be due to the fact that the oils obtained by hydrodistillation consist only of volatile components.
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
When an evaluation was made between the extraction methods, it was determined that the refractive index values of the oils obtained by cold pressing were lower than the refractive index values of the samples obtained by the hydrodistillation method (Table 5). The refractive index value for the orange peel essential oil obtained by cold pressing was stated as 1.470–1.476 in the European Pharmacopoeia [44] and as 1.470–1.476 in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by the reserchers in [46] on Hamlin and Valenci cultivar orange peel oils, it was determined that the refractive index values of the samples obtained by the cold pressing method varied between 1.4718–1.4727. The researchers stated that values such as refractive index, specific gravity and optical activity can be used in the determination of adulteration in essential oils. In the study conducted by Javed et al. [48], the refractive index value of the orange peel essential oil obtained by the hydrodistillation method was determined as 1.471. Within the scope of our study, it was observed that the refractive index values of the peel oils obtained by two different methods from five orange cultivars were compatible with the ISO [45] and European Pharmacopoeia [44] limit values and the literature values [46]. Augustyn et al. [49] determined the refractive index value of steam distilled Kisar sweet orange peel oil as 1.4651. Similar to our study, the higher density of the essential oil in cold pressing is associated with the higher refractive index [49].
The optical activity values of the samples varied between 93.93° and 99.63°. The optical activity values of orange peel oils varied within a narrow range according to the cultivars (Table 5). It is thought that this may be due to the similarity of the essential oil compositions of the orange cultivars. When an evaluation is made according to the harvest times, it can be said that there are generally small changes. According to the extraction methods, it was observed that there were significant differences in optical activity values as well as in the relative density and refractive index. It was determined that the optical activity values of the essential oils obtained by the hydrodistillation method for orange cultivars were higher than the optical activity values of the samples obtained by cold pressing. It is thought that this result is due to the difference in the physico-chemical properties of the oils. The optical activity value of orange peel oil is limited between +94° and +99° in the European Pharmacopoeia [44]. The limit values of orange essential oil obtained by the cold pressing method are also reported in the same values in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by Javed et al. [48], the optical activity value of orange peel oil was determined as 89–91°. The findings determined within the scope of our research are in accordance with the limit values. However, it is higher than the values determined by Javed et al. [48]. In fact, the limonene value of the cultivars studied in the literature remained below 90%. It is thought that the detected difference is due to this composition difference.
The average values of the compositions of the essential oils obtained from the peels of the orange cultivars evaluated within the scope of the project are given in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 for the cultivars Batem Fatihi, Navelina, Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro, respectively. A total of 10 different components were detected in the essential oil of Batem Fatihi peel. The ratio of these components showed some numerical differences according to the harvest time and extraction method. The main component in Batem Fatihi peel essential oil was limonene. The ratio of this component was distributed in a narrow range of 95.9–96.1% in this cultivar. These data show that there was no significant difference in the ratio of this component according to the harvest time and extraction method for the Batem Fatihi cultivar. The second highest component in this cultivar was β-myrcene, which has a monoterpene structure like limonene. The amount of this component did not show any significant difference according to the harvest time and extraction method. The ratio of other components detected in this orange cultivar remained below 1% (Table 6).
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Similar essential oil components were detected in the second orange cultivar evaluated within the scope of the research, the Naveline cultivar, and a significant portion of the essential oil components of this cultivar consists of limonene, a monoterpene structure with various functional properties. The ratio of this component varied between 96.1–96.4% in this cultivar. The second component in this cultivar was β-myrcene, and the ratio of this component was 2.0% for all samples. It was seen that the ratio of other components was similar to other orange cultivars. Unlike the Batem Fatihi cultivar, terpinolene component was detected instead of geranial in this cultivar. However, the ratio of this component remained at a very low level (Table 7). Although some numerical differences were detected in the essential oil compositions of Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro cultivars, these were at very low levels in proportion. Limonene is again the main component in these cultivars and it was distributed between 95.3–95.9% in Washington Navel, 95.8–96.3% in Valencia Late, and 94.9–95.2% in Moro cultivar. As in the other two orange cultivars, it was determined that the second most important component in Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro cultivars was β-myrcene. In these cultivars, the ratio of this component was similar to Batem Fatihi and Navelina.
The two major components of orange samples, limonene and β-myrcene, were statistically evaluated according to cultivar, harvest time, and extraction method (Table 11, Table 12). β-Myrcene contents of the samples showed significant changes according to cultivar (p < 0.01) and harvest time (p < 0.05), but statistically insignificant changes according to extraction method and interactions (Table 11). The cultivar with the highest β-myrcene content among the cultivars was Navelina, while the lowest was Valencia Late. It was determined that the β-myrcene rate decreased with the advancement of harvest time. However, the differences were numerically quite low (Table 12). Limonene contents in orange peel essential oils also showed statistically significant changes among cultivars (p < 0.01), but insignificant changes according to harvest time, extraction method, and interactions. Among the cultivars, Navelina had the highest limonene content, followed by Valencia Late, Batem Fatihi, Washington Navel, and Moro cultivars, respectively. However, these differences occurred within a very narrow range (Table 12).
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
In the study conducted by Ferrer et al. [41] on Cara Cara Navel and Madam Vinous cultivars from the fruit formation stage to the later stages of maturity, it was determined that there were significant changes in the peel essential oil composition until the maturity stage was reached. It was determined that limonene, the main component of the peel essential oil, varied between 25–95% throughout all stages. However, no significant change was detected in the essential oil composition of the samples between the cultivars. In the study conducted by Li et al. [47], the ratio of limonene, determined as the main component, in the peel oil was reported as 78.30%. In the study conducted by Lin et al. [50] on the Newhall cultivar, it was determined that the limonene and β-myrcene contents of the peel essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation were 88.25% and 1.90%, respectively. Viuda-Martos et al. [51] similarly determined the major components limonene and β-myrcene as 94.9% and 1.16%, respectively. Taktak et al. [52] investigated the effects of different extraction methods on the yield and composition of essential oils from the peel of some citrus species, including orange. In the study, some differences were detected in the composition of the peel essential oil according to the extraction methods, and it was determined that limonene in the composition of the orange peel essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation was 86.7%. Brahmi et al. [53] also investigated the effects of hydrodistillation and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation methods on the composition of the essential oil of Valencia orange. As a result of the study, it was determined that the extraction method was effective on the essential oil composition as well as the yield of the essential oil. While the limonene ratio in the sample obtained by hydrodistillation was 92.74%, it was determined as 89.86% in the microwave-assisted hydrodistillation method. In a study conducted by Wolfenbüttel et al. [54], it was determined that limonene, the main component in peel oils obtained by hydrodistillation and cold pressing from oranges obtained from different regions in Brazil, varied between 67.7–78.3%. Researchers also reported that this component in orange peel essential oil varied between 78.5–97% in studies conducted in different countries. In another evaluation conducted on long-term data, limonene and β-myrcene ranges for orange peel essential oil were reported as 85.16–96.80% and 0.93–2.05%, respectively [55]. In the study conducted by Ferreira et al. [56], it was determined that limonene, the main component of the peel oil obtained by hydrodistillation and cold pressing method, was in the range of 96.1-96.6% and β-myrcene was 1.9%. Limit values are given for α-pinene, β-pinene, sabinene, β-myrcene, limonene, octanal, decanal, linalool, neral, valensene, and geranial in the European Pharmacopoeia for orange peel oils. Reference values for limonene and β-myrcene, which are the major components, are stated as 92–97%, 1.7–2.5%, respectively [44]. Limit values for limonene and β-myrcene are also reported as 93–96% and 1.5–3.5%, respectively, in ISO standards [45]. It was observed that the five cultivars evaluated within the scope of our study were within these limit values.
As a result of the research; when the analysis findings obtained were evaluated, it was determined that the orange peel essential oil ratio showed significant differences according to the cultivar and harvest time. It was observed that the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity properties showed significant differences especially according to the essential oil extraction method. It was determined that the essential oil composition could show partial differences according to the cultivar, harvest time, and extraction method. However, these differences generally remained insignificant at a statistical level. Limonene and β-myrcene were the major components in all the evaluated samples. According to the findings obtained as a result of the study, it was shown that all of these cultivars can be used in the production of orange peel oils. The cultivars within the scope of our study attracted attention with their generally high limonene content according to international standards (European Pharmacopoeia and ISO standards). Cold press application is a widely preferred method for orange peel essential oils on the industrial scale. On the other hand, an evaluation was made on the basis of two isolation methods, especially in terms of limonene, which is the functional component of citrus oils, it was determined that the production of orange peel oils by the hydrodistillation method did not cause any negative effects in terms of limonene content. These data show that the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation can be used in many areas, especially in the food industry and cosmetics industry.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence [AI] tools in the creation of this article.
This study was prepared using the findings of the project no. TAGEM/TBAD/B/21/A7/P6/2370, supported by the General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies [TAGEM], Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Plant authority, E.T.; conceptualization, M.G.; methodology, M.G.; software, M.G. and A.M.G.; validation, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; formal analysis, B.B. and M.G.; investigation, M.G. and O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T.; resources, B.B. and M.G.; data curation, B.B., M.G., O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T. and A.M.G.; writing – original draft preparation, M.G., B.B. O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T.; writing – review and editing, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; visualization, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; supervision, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; project administration, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript
| [1] |
Saini DK, Kaushik P (2019) Visiting eggplant from a biotechnological perspective: A review. Sci Hortic 253: 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.04.042 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.04.042
|
| [2] |
Taher D, Solberg S, Prohens J, et al. (2017) World vegetable center eggplant collection: origin, composition, seed dissemination and utilization in breeding. Front Plant Sci 8: 1484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01484 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01484
|
| [3] | Mahanta CL, Kalita D (2020) Eggplant. In: Nutritional Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Fruits and Vegetables, 16 Eds., New York: Academic Press, 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812780-3.00016-7 |
| [4] | Food and Agriculture Organization (2024) Food and Agriculture Data. |
| [5] | Food and Agriculture Organization (2023) Land statistics and indicators 2000–2021, Italy: FAO. |
| [6] | Badan Pusat Statistik (2022) Statistik Hortikultura 2022, Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik. |
| [7] | Badan Pusat Statistik (2018) The First Indonesian Agriculture Integrated Survey (AGRIS), Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Penajam Paser Utara. |
| [8] |
Wang L, Liang W, Xing J, et al. (2013) Dynamics of chloroplast proteome in salt-stressed mangrove Kandelia candel (L.) Druce. J Proteome Res 12: 5124–5136. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr4006469 doi: 10.1021/pr4006469
|
| [9] |
Niinemets Ü, Valladares F (2004) Photosynthetic acclimation to simultaneous and interacting environmental stresses along natural light gradients: optimality and constraints. Plant Biol 6: 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-817881 doi: 10.1055/s-2004-817881
|
| [10] |
Niinemets Ü (2007) Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ 30: 1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01683.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01683.x
|
| [11] |
Laanisto L, Niinemets Ü (2015) Polytolerance to abiotic stresses: how universal is the shade–drought tolerance trade‐off in woody species? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24: 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12288 doi: 10.1111/geb.12288
|
| [12] | Hillis DM, Sadava D, Heller HC, et al. (2012) Principles of life. USA: Sinauer Associates Inc. |
| [13] |
Nguyen GN, Lantzke N, Van Burgel A (2022) Effects of shade nets on microclimatic conditions, growth, fruit yield, and quality of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): a case study in Carnarvon, Western Australia. Horticulturae 8: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080696 doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8080696
|
| [14] |
Kesumawati E, Apriyatna D, Rahmawati M (2020) The effect of shading levels and varieties on the growth and yield of chili plants (Capsicum annuum L.). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 425: 012080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/425/1/012080 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/425/1/012080
|
| [15] |
Baharuddin R, Chozin M, Syukur M (2014) Shade tolerance of 20 genotypes of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Indones J Agron 42: 130–135. https://doi.org/10.24831/jai.v42i2.8431 doi: 10.24831/jai.v42i2.8431
|
| [16] |
Putri DRM, Syukur M, Ritonga AW (2025) Variability of yield and yield components of 23 hybrid cayenne pepper (Capsicum frutescens) genotypes under shaded and unshaded conditions. Biodiversitas J Biol Divers 26: 396–406. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d260139 doi: 10.13057/biodiv/d260139
|
| [17] | Sopandie D (2014) Fisiologi Adaptasi Tanaman terhadap Cekaman Abiotik pada Agroekosistem Tropika, Bogor: IPB Press. |
| [18] |
Kumar A, Sharma V, Jain BT, et al. (2020) Heterosis breeding in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.): gains and provocations. Plants 9: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9030403 doi: 10.3390/plants9030403
|
| [19] | Acquaah G (2012) Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding, 2 Eds., New York (NY): Wiley. |
| [20] |
Mir R, Calabuig-Serna A, Seguí-Simarro JM (2021) Doubled haploids in eggplant. Biology 10: 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10070685 doi: 10.3390/biology10070685
|
| [21] |
Prigge V, Xu X, Li L, et al. (2012) New insights into the genetics of in vivo induction of maternal haploids, the backbone of doubled haploid technology in maize. Genetics 190: 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.133066 doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.133066
|
| [22] | Tamilzharasi M, Umamaheswari D, Umabalan J, et al. (2024) Doubled haploid rice breeding. In: Singh A, Singh SK, Shrestha J (Eds.), Climate-Smart Rice Breeding, Singapore, Springer Nature Singapore, 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7098-4_4 |
| [23] |
Boughazi K, Wuyts N, Muller O, et al. (2024) Doubled haploid lines derived from a european maize flint landrace contrast in recovery from cold stress. Agronomy 14: 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030408 doi: 10.3390/agronomy14030408
|
| [24] |
Rivas-Sendra A, Campos-Vega M, Calabuig-Serna A, et al. (2017) Development and characterization of an eggplant (Solanum melongena) doubled haploid population and a doubled haploid line with high androgenic response. Euphytica 213: 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1879-325 doi: 10.1007/s10681-017-1879-325
|
| [25] |
Mulyana A, Purwoko BS, Dewi IS, et al. (2023) Comparison of six anther culture methods for the production of doubled haploids in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Euphytica 219: 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-023-03171-8 doi: 10.1007/s10681-023-03171-8
|
| [26] | Rotino GL, Acciarri N, Sunseri F Development of eggplant varietal resistance to insects and diseases via plant breeding. Adv Hortic Sci 11: 193–201. |
| [27] | Caguiat X, Hautea D (2014) Genetic diversity analysis of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and related wild species in the Philippines using morphological and SSR markers. SABRAO J Breed Genet 46: 183–201. |
| [28] | Kumar S, Arumugam T, Ulaganathan V (2016) Genetic diversity in eggplant germplasm by principal component analysis. SABRAO J Breed Genet 48: 167–171. |
| [29] |
Niazian M, Shariatpanahi ME (2020) In vitro-based doubled haploid production: recent improvements. Euphytica 216: 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-020-02609-7 doi: 10.1007/s10681-020-02609-7
|
| [30] | Sabra D, Younis A, Nassar S, et al. Performance of 30 maize double haploid lines under drought stress and soil conditioners. J Chem Health Risks 14: 1199–1211. |
| [31] |
Fereidooni L, Tahmasebi Z, Kahrizi D, et al. (2023) Evaluation of drought resistance of camelina (Camelina sativa L.) doubled haploid lines in the climate conditions of kermanshah province. Agrotech Ind Crops 4: 134–146. https://10.22126/atic.2023.9570.1111 doi: 10.22126/atic.2023.9570.1111
|
| [32] |
Al-Ashkar I, Romdhane WB, El-Said RA, et al. (2021) Agro-physiologic responses and stress-related gene expression of four doubled haploid wheat lines under salinity stress conditions. Biology 10: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10010056 doi: 10.3390/biology10010056
|
| [33] | Ma'arif S, Purwoko BS, Ritonga AW, et al. (2024) Study of genetic variability and shade tolerance of doubled haploid lines of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) obtained from anther culture. Bogor Agricultural University, Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor, Indonesia, 99p. |
| [34] |
Wang X, Shen L, Liu T, et al. (2022) Microclimate, yield, and income of a jujube–cotton agroforestry system in Xinjiang, China. Ind Crops Prod 182: 114941. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114941 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114941
|
| [35] |
Yan Z, He D, Niu G, et al. (2019) Evaluation of growth and quality of hydroponic lettuce at harvest as affected by the light intensity, photoperiod and light quality at seedling stage. Sci Hortic 248: 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.01.002
|
| [36] |
Fan X-X, Xu Z-G, Liu X-Y, et al. (2013) Effects of light intensity on the growth and leaf development of young tomato plants grown under a combination of red and blue light. Sci Hortic 153: 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.01.017 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2013.01.017
|
| [37] | Kalmatskaya OA, Karavaev VA, Tikhonov AN (2019) Induction of chlorophyll fluorescence in Tradescantia leaves acclimated to growth light of different intensities. In: Tuchin VV, Genina EA (Eds.), Saratov Fall Meeting 2018: Optical and Nano-Technologies for Biology and Medicine, Saratov, Russian Federation, SPIE, 72. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2523333 |
| [38] |
Ding J, Zhao J, Pan T, et al. (2019) Comparative transcriptome analysis of gene expression patterns in tomato under dynamic light conditions. Genes 10: 662. https://doi.org.10.3390/genes10090662 doi: 10.3390/genes10090662
|
| [39] | Vialet-Chabrand S, Matthews JSA, Simkin AJ, et al. (2017) Importance of fluctuations in light on plant photosynthetic acclimation. Plant Physiol 173: 2163–2179. |
| [40] | Prabhu M, Natarajan S, Veeraragavathatham D (2008) Correlation and path coefficient analysis in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Indian J Agric Res 42: 232–234. |
| [41] |
Khalid MHB, Raza MA, Yu HQ, et al. (2019) Effect of shade treatments on morphology, photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of soybeans (Glycine max L. Merr.). Appl Ecol Environ Res 17: 2551–2569. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1702_25512569 doi: 10.15666/aeer/1702_25512569
|
| [42] |
Ma L, Li G (2019) Auxin-dependent cell elongation during the shade avoidance response. Front Plant Sci 10: 914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00914 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00914
|
| [43] |
Jiang Y, Ding X, Wang J, et al. (2021) Decreased low-light regulates plant morphogenesis through the manipulation of hormone biosynthesis in Solanum lycopersicum. Environ Exp Bot 185: 104409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104409 doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104409
|
| [44] |
Frébortová J, Frébort I (2021) Biochemical and structural aspects of cytokinin biosynthesis and degradation in bacteria. Microorganisms 9: 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9061314 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9061314
|
| [45] |
Hussain HA, Men S, Hussain S, et al. (2019) Interactive effects of drought and heat stresses on morpho-physiological attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and oxidative status in maize hybrids. Sci Rep 9: 3890. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40362-7 doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40362-7
|
| [46] |
Wu Y, Gong W, Yang W (2017) Shade inhibits leaf size by controlling cell proliferation and enlargement in soybean. Sci Rep 7: 9259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10026-5 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10026-5
|
| [47] |
Zhang H, Cao Y, Wang Z, et al. (2023) Functional mapping of genes modulating plant shade avoidance using leaf traits. Plants 12: 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030608 doi: 10.3390/plants12030608
|
| [48] |
Ren B, Zhang J, Dong S, et al. (2017) Regulations of 6-Benzyladenine (6-BA) on leaf ultrastructure and photosynthetic characteristics of waterlogged summer maize. J Plant Growth Regul 36: 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-017-9677-7 doi: 10.1007/s00344-017-9677-7
|
| [49] |
Ilić ZS, Fallik E (2017) Light quality manipulation improves vegetable quality at harvest and postharvest: A review. Environ Exp Bot 139: 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.04.006
|
| [50] | Sunaryanti D, Chozin M, Aziz S (2018) Growth analysis and physiological characteristics of several tomato genotipes under the low light intensity. J ISSAAS 24: 129–140. |
| [51] |
Panigrahy M, Ranga A, Das J, et al. (2019) Shade tolerance in Swarnaprabha rice is associated with higher rate of panicle emergence and positively regulated by genes of ethylene and cytokinin pathway. Sci Rep 9: 6817. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43096-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43096-8
|
| [52] |
Munir M, Jamil M, Baloch J, et al. (2004) Impact of light intensity on flowering time and plant quality of Antirrhinum majus L. cultivar Chimes White. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A 5: 400–405. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2004.0400 doi: 10.1631/jzus.2004.0400
|
| [53] |
Faust JE, Holcombe V, Rajapakse NC, et al. (2005) The effect of daily light integral on bedding plant growth and flowering. Hort Science 40: 645–649. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.40.3.645 doi: 10.21273/hortsci.40.3.645
|
| [54] |
Cober ER, Voldeng HD (2001) Low R:FR light quality delays flowering of E7E7 soybean lines. Crop Sci 41: 1823–1826. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.1823 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.1823
|
| [55] |
Qin F, Shen Y, Li Z, et al. (2022) Shade delayed flowering phenology and decreased reproductive growth of Medicago sativa L. Front Plant Sci 13: 835380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.835380 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.835380
|
| [56] |
Stagnari F, Ficcadenti N, Manetta AC, et al. (2022) Modulation of light and nitrogen for quality-traits improvement: a case study of altino sweet pepper. Horticulturae 8: 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060499 doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8060499
|
| [57] |
Hope E, Carins‐Murphy MR, Hudson C, et al. (2020) Opium poppy capsule growth and alkaloid production is constrained by shade during early floral development. Ann Appl Biol 176: 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12581 doi: 10.1111/aab.12581
|
| [58] |
Choi HG (2021) Correlation among phenotypic parameters related to the growth and photosynthesis of strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duch.) grown under various light intensity conditions. Front Plant Sci 12: 647585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.647585 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.647585
|
| [59] | Solankey SS, Kumari M, Akhtar S, et al. (2021) Challenges and Opportunities in Vegetable Production in Changing Climate: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies, In: Solankey SS, Kumari M, Kumar M (Eds.), Advances in Research on Vegetable Production Under a Changing Climate, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 13–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63497-1_2 |
| [60] |
Leonardi C, Guichard S, Bertin N (2000) High vapour pressure deficit influences growth, transpiration and quality of tomato fruits. Sci Hortic 84: 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4238(99)00127-2 doi: 10.1016/s0304-4238(99)00127-2
|
| [61] |
Yang F, Liu Q, Cheng Y, et al. (2020) Low red/far-red ratio as a signal promotes carbon assimilation of soybean seedlings by increasing the photosynthetic capacity. BMC Plant Biol 20: 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-020-02352-0 doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02352-0
|
| [62] |
Touil S, Richa A, Fizir M, et al. (2021) Shading effect of photovoltaic panels on horticulture crops production: A mini review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 20: 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-021-09572-2 doi: 10.1007/s11157-021-09572-2
|
| [63] |
Laub M, Pataczek L, Feuerbacher A, et al. (2022) Contrasting yield responses at varying levels of shade suggest different suitability of crops for dual land-use systems: a meta-analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 42: 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00783-7 doi: 10.1007/s13593-022-00783-7
|
| [64] |
Susanti ED, Chozin MA, Ritonga AW, et al. (2023) Identification of morpho-physiological and yield traits of sweet corn hybrids at various shade levels. Caraka Tani J Sustain Agric 38: 327. http://doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v38i2.73567 doi: 10.20961/carakatani.v38i2.73567
|
| [65] |
Xie X, Cheng H, Hou C, et al. (2022) Integration of light and auxin signaling in shade plants: from mechanisms to opportunities in urban agriculture. Int J Mol Sci 23: 3422. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23073422 doi: 10.3390/ijms23073422
|
| [66] |
Liu W, Tollenaar M (2009) Physiological mechanisms underlying heterosis for shade tolerance in maize. Crop Sci 49: 1817–1826. http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0423 doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0423
|
| [67] |
Shifriss C, Pilowsky M, Aloni B (1994) Variation in flower abscission of peppers under stress shading conditions. Euphytica 78: 133–136. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf00021408 doi: 10.1007/bf00021408
|
| [68] | Shehata S, Elsagheer A, El-Helaly M, et al. (2013) Shading effect on vegetative and fruit characters of tomato plant. J Appl Sci Res 9: 1434–1437. |
| [69] |
Otoni BDS, Mota WFD, Belfort GR, et al. (2012) Produção de híbridos de tomateiro cultivados sob diferentes porcentagens de sombreamento. Rev Ceres 59: 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-737x2012000600012 doi: 10.1590/s0034-737x2012000600012
|
| [70] |
Masabni J, Sun Y, Niu G, et al. (2016) Shade effect on growth and productivity of tomato and chili pepper. HortTechnology 26: 344–350. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.26.3.344 doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.26.3.344
|
| [71] |
Siahaan GF, Muhamad Achmad Chozin, Muhamad Syukur, et al. (2022) Perbedaan respon pertumbuhan, fisiologi dan produksi 20 genotipe cabai rawit terhadap berbagai tingkat naungan. J Agron Indones Indones J Agron 50: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.24831/jai.v50i1.38832 doi: 10.24831/jai.v50i1.38832
|
Figures(1) / Tables(9)
Samsul Ma'arif, Bambang Sapta Purwoko, Arya Widura Ritonga, Iswari Saraswati Dewi. Effects of shade on agronomic traits of doubled haploid lines of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) obtained from anther culture[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 199-217. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025011
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
