Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

The Effects of Different Substrates with Chemical and Organic Fertilizer Applications on Vitamins, Mineral, and Amino Acid Content of Grape Berries from Soilless Culture

Written By

Serpil Tangolar, Semih Tangolar, Metin Turan, Mikail Atalan and Melike Ada

Submitted: December 20th, 2021 Reviewed: December 22nd, 2021 Published: March 29th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102345

IntechOpen
Soilless Culture Edited by Metin Turan

From the Edited Volume

Soilless Culture [Working Title]

Prof. Metin Turan, Associate Prof. Sanem Argin, Prof. Ertan Yildirim and Dr. Adem Güneş

Chapter metrics overview

27 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Due to its advantages, soilless cultivation has been used for both early- and late-maturing grape varieties. High nutritional and energy value is one of the strongest features that make the grape an effective component of agriculture and the human diet. Therefore, it was thought that it would be useful to determine the nutrient content of the berries in a soilless culture study carried out on the Early Cardinal grape variety. One-year-old vines were trained to a guyot system and grown in 32-liter plastic pots containing four different solid growing media, namely, zeolite, cocopeat, and zeolite+cocopeat (Z + C) (1:1 and 1:2, v:v). A total of three different nutrient solutions (Hoagland, Hoagland A (adapted to the vine) and organic liquid worm fertilizer (OLWF)) were applied to the plants. Grapevines were given different solutions starting from the bud burst. Z + C (1:1) substrate mixture giving the highest values of 14 amino acids, vitamins, and most macro- and microelements. Hoagland and Modified Hoagland nutrient solutions mostly gave higher values than OLWF for the properties studied. In general, it was observed that there were no significant losses in terms of mineral, vitamin, and amino acid composition in soilless grape cultivation.

Keywords

  • grapevine
  • phytochemicals
  • fertilization
  • vermicompost
  • zeolite
  • cocopeat

1. Introduction

Grapes (Vitis viniferaL.) are the most produced fruit in the world. The total grape area and its production globally are 7.4 million ha and 77.8 million tons, respectively, in 2018 [1]. About 36% of the total is consumed for fresh, 7% for dried, and 57% for winemaking. Five countries represent 50% of the world’s vineyards. Turkey is in the fifth position in vineyard areas in the world in 2018 with a total surface of 448,000 ha, after Spain, China, France, and Italy. It is the sixth in total grape production (3.9 million tons) among the major grape producers that after China, Italy, USA, Spain, and France; fourth in table grapes (2.2 million tons, 56.1%), and first in dried grape production (396,825 tons, 40.7%), about fortieth in wine grape production among the grape-growing countries. In Turkey, the grapes used for winemaking are 124,800 tons (3.2%) [1].

Soilless culture techniques are primarily applied in ornamental plants and vegetables in the world and Turkey [2, 3]. In recent years, this technique is also used to overcome some problems due to its various advantages in grape cultivation [2, 4, 5, 6]. No need for tillage and soil preparation, protection from soil pathogens, effective use of water and nutrient solutions, reduction of spraying, obtaining more quantity and quality products per unit area, production of new or traditional grape varieties in a more extended period according to market demands, and control of harvest time are among some advantages of soilless cultivation [2, 4, 7].

In the world and Turkey, when it is considered together with the cultivation of greenhouse grapes for early grape ripening or late harvest, grape cultivation in soilless culture is considered an important cultivation method due to its advantages. This technique may be used for both early- and late-maturing grape varieties. According to our current information, no producer grows grapes commercially in soilless culture in Turkey. Studies on the subject are still carried out in horticulture departments of some agriculture faculties and viticulture research institutes.

Depending on the research purposes, different varieties, substrate mixtures, containers and nutrient solutions [2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] were used in the grape cultivation experiments in the soilless culture system.

In the studies conducted by Tangolar et al. [6], the effect of substrates on the grape yield and quality of the berries in vines grown in the open and under the greenhouse was determined. The study that examined the yield, cluster, and berry properties of Early Sweet variety determined that perlite:peat (2:1) and cocopeat substrates gave better results. Tangolar et al. [16] also researched Early Sweet and Trakya Ilkeren cultivars to determine the effects of three different media, namely perlite:peat (2:1), cocopeat and pumice, and two different modified Hoagland nutrient solutions on shoot diameter as well as the nutrient element and chlorophyll levels of the leaves and grape yield and quality characteristics. The study found a significant difference between media and nutrient solution application for some characteristics examined.

Achieving a good quality in grapes is an essential goal wherever it is grown; one of the important components that make up the quality is the phytochemical content of the berries. Grapes contain a number of phytochemicals beneficial for human health, as well as amino acids, proteins, vitamins, and minerals [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. So, berries are efficiently used to increase the nutritional and energy value of the human diet.

Some studies [27] have shown that magnesium, calcium, zinc, and vitamins such as B and C are related to people’s cognitive performance. Clinical findings have revealed that extreme deficiencies of one or more of these nutrients are not uncommon, even in developed countries. These deficiencies may affect cognitive performance, especially in vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those exposed to occupational pressures and difficult living conditions.

Key et al. [28] noted that dietary science is increasingly recognized for its ability to prevent and support disease prevention and new technologies and therapies to improve modern medical practice. Researchers noted that dietary studies help discover specific dietary patterns that promote healthy brain aging and moderate the involvement of nervous systems known to facilitate cognitive performance in later life [28].

The composition of grape berries in different grape cultivars grown open field is affected by different factors such as variety, stress conditions, biostimulants, irrigation, fertigation, pruning, and others [26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49].

In spite of this, the studies conducted in the world and Turkey found no study of the effects of the different substrates and nutrition solutions on the biochemical content of berries obtained from varieties grown in soilless culture. So, this subject is thought to have not been sufficiently investigated yet.

Because of these, it has been seen beneficial to examine the effects of substrates and nutrition solutions on the biochemical contents, which are essential for human health. Therefore, this study was designated to evaluate the amino acid, mineral, and vitamin content of berries from Early Cardinal table grape cultivar grown in different soilless culture medium and plant nutrient solutions.

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Trial conditions

This research was carried out in a greenhouse at the Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, the University of Cukurova, which was conducted under a 21 m, 9 m, and 3 m in length, width, and height greenhouse covered with UV plastic with a thickness of 0.4 mm. During the research, no heating process was done in the greenhouse.

2.2 Plant material

As plant material, own-rooted Early Cardinal grape (V. viniferaL.) cv. grown in soilless culture was used. To produce plant material, cuttings from Early Cardinal grapes (V. viniferaL.) grown were planted in perlite pools on January 15, 2018, and irrigated immediately after planting. Rooting of cutting occurred after approximately 90 days at a satisfactory level. Well-rooted cuttings were selected and transplanted into 32-liter plastic pots containing four different solid growing media, namely, zeolite, cocopeat, zeolite+cocopeat (Z + C) (1:1, v:v), and Z + C (1:2, v:v). A total of three different nutrient solutions were applied to the rooted cuttings: two chemical nutrient solutions (Hoagland (H) and Hoagland A (HA- adapted to the vine) and organic liquid worm fertilizer (OLWF) (Table 1). Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, and boron concentrations in the modified Hoagland solution were reduced between 3.2% (phosphorus) and 76.5% (sulfur) compared with Hoagland, and on the other hand, iron 2, manganese 6, zinc 20, and molybdenum 5 fold have been increased. With the same amount of solution in volume, more N, P, Mg, Zn, Cu, Mn, and Fe were given than Hoagland A and Hoagland through OLWF. The pots were placed in the greenhouse with a distance of 1.50 m between rows and 0.60 m in rows. After planting, a well-irrigation was performed to saturate the cultivation media.

ElementFormulaHoagland A
(mg kg−1)
Hoagland
(mg kg−1)
Organic liquid worm fertilizer
NK2(NO3)21502105%
PH3PO430310.49%
KK2SO41752351.47%
MgMgSO4.7H2O20480.78%
SCaSO4.H2O1564Not detected
FeFe-EDDHA52.55257 ppm
MnMnSO4. H2O30.5565 ppm
BH3BO30.40.5Not detected
CuCuSO4 5H2O0.020.0258 ppm
ZnZnSO4 7H2O10.05152.5 ppm
Mo(NH4)6Mo7O24.4 H2O0.050.01Not detected
pH5.28
Total dry matter13%
Humic-fulvic acid38%

Table 1.

Composition and formula of chemical and organic nutrient solutions used in the trial.

One-year-old vines entered the resting period at the end of the first year were pruned and trained to a guyot system to prepare for the crop year, on January 31, 2019. About 20 buds were left per vine. The number of clusters of the vines was equal to 12 clusters by removing the excessive clusters on May 24, 2019, after the berry set. Grapevines were given different solutions within the second vegetation year, starting from the bud burst.

The pH value of the tap water used in the experiment was 7.68, and the EC value was 0.813 mS cm−1. The amount of water given to the plants varied between 1 and 3 L pot−1 per day according to the water-holding capacity of the growth medium. The total amount of nutrients applied per plant in the first and crop year of the experiment is shown in Table 2.

ElementHoagland AHoaglandOrganic liquid worm fertilizer
201820192018201920182019
N (g)12.7521.0017.8529.3937.4059.90
P (g)2.554.202.644.343.675.87
K (g)14.8724.5019.9732.8910.9917.61
Mg (g)1.8915.914.5337.475.839.34
Zn (mg)84.92139.864.1656.86114.07182.70
Cu (mg)1.702.801.702.8043.3869.48
B (mg)85.0140.00106.25175.00Not detectedNot detected
Mn (mg)255.0420.0042.570.00422.62676.87
Mo (mg)0.430.700.090.14Not detectedNot detected
Fe (mg)474.8777.9235.5387.83932.26297.9

Table 2.

The amount of nutrients given per plant by different nutrient solutions in 2 years.

2.3 Biochemical analysis

When the total soluble solids (TSS) reached about 12–14%, five cluster samples were taken from each of the three replicates of treatments on July 1, 2019. After removing from the clusters, stored berries at −20°C before the phytochemical analysis were analyzed in the Department of Genetic and Bio-Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Yeditepe.

2.3.1 Mineral elements

Macro and micronutrient element analyses were carried out using samples of berries. Phosphorus (P) was determined vanadomolibdo phosphoric acid yellow color method as reported by Bremner [50]. Potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and manganese (Mn) concentrations of the berries were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrophotometer [51].

2.3.2 Amino acids

1 g fresh sample was treated with 0.1 N HCl, homogenized with ultra turrax, and incubated at 4°C for 12 hours. Supernatants were filtered through 0.22-m filters after samples were centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 50 minutes (Millex Millipore). The supernatants were then transferred to a vial, and the amino acids were analyzed in HPLC as described by Antoine et al. [52] and Kitir et al. [53]. Readings from Zorbax Eclipse-AAA 4.6150 mm and 3.5 m columns (Agilent 1200 HPLC) were taken at 254 nm, and the amino acids were identified by comparing them to standards of O-phthaldialdehyde (OPA), fluorenylmethyl-chloroformate (FMOC), and 0.4 N borate. The following solutions were used in the mobile phase chromatography system: Phase A: 40 mM NaH2PO4 (pH: 7.8) and Phase B: acetonitrile/methanol/water (45/45/10 v/v/v), after a 26-minute derivation process in HPLC, aspartate, glutamate, asparagine, serine, glutamine, histidine, glycine, arginine, alanine, tyrosine, cysteine, valine, methionine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, thionine, and proline.

A 50 mg frozen berry sample was crushed using liquid nitrogen and extracted with 4.5 mL of 3-sulfosalicylic acid, and then filtered through a Whatman filter paper (#2) for proline measurement. In a test tube, 2 mL of the filtrate were mixed with 2 mL acid-ninhydrin and 2 mL glacial acetic acid for 1 hour at 100°C, stopped the reaction with an ice bath, and the filtrates were analyzed. The concentration of proline was measured spectrophotometrically at 520 nm [54].

2.3.3 Vitamins

2.3.3.1 Vitamin A

Berry samples were ground for vitamin A (Retinol). Berry samples were extracted with a mixture of n-hexane and ethanol. 1% BHT was added and kept in the dark environment for 1 day. At the end of this period, centrifugation was conducted at 4000 rpm (+4°C) for 10 min. The obtained supernatant was filtered with the help of Whatman filter paper and added 0.5 mL of n-hexane. Drying was then performed using nitrogen gas. The residue in the tubes was dissolved in a methanol + tetrahydrofuran mixture. Analyses were carried out in Thermo Scientific Finnigan Surveyor model high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and in amber glass vials on Tray, and autosampler using PDA array detector [55, 56].

2.3.3.2 Vitamin B

A total of 10 g of samples were weighed and homogenized. The samples were then transferred to a conical flask with 25 mL of extraction solution. A shaking water bath at an ambient temperature of 70°C was used to sonicate the solution for 40 minutes. Following sonication, the sample was cooled and filtered to make a volume of 50 mL with extraction solution. The extraction solution was again filtered with filter trips (0.45 μm), and 20 μl aliquots solution was injected into the HPLC by using an auto-sampler. A reversed-phase C-18 analytical column (STR ODS-M, 150 mm 4.6 mm ID, 5 m, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) separated the B complex vitamins. At 40°C, the mobile phase consists of a 9:1 (v/v) combination of 100 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH: 2.2) containing 0.8 mM sodium-1-octane sulfonate and acetonitrile. The flow rate was constant at 0.8 mL/min using a PDA detector with a 270 nm absorption rate. The peak area of the corresponding chromatogram was used to calculate B vitamins using the following equation [57]:

Bvitaminsmg100g1=ConcentrationofstandardxAreaofsample/AreaofStandardxDilutionfactor

2.3.3.3 Vitamin C

Plants were sliced, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and kept at a temperature of −80°C until the analyses were completed. The extraction solution was combined with 2.5 ml of frozen crushed plant material (3% MPA and 8% acetic acid for MPA-acetic acid extraction and 0.1% oxalic acid for oxalic acid extraction). The mixture was titrated with indophenol solution (25% DCIP and 21% NaHCO3 in water) until light, but the distinct rose-pink color appeared and persisted for more than 5 seconds [58].

2.4 Experimental design and statistical analysis

The study was designed according to the “Randomized Complete Blocks” with three replicates in 12 treatments. For each application and replicate, approximately 500 g of the berry samples were taken and analyzed for the compounds to be studied. Data obtained from the study were subjected to variance analysis using the SAS-based JMP statistical package programmer. The least significant difference (LSD) test was used to separate different groups at a 5% significance level.

Advertisement

3. Results and discussions

Besides bodywork, vitamins, and minerals, protection of the body from diseases, blood formation, bone, dental health, etc., are required for functions. Each food contains different amounts of various vitamins and minerals. Its richest sources are fresh vegetables and fruits [59].

As shown in Table 3, there were significant differences among the substrates related to macro- and microelements of berries except for boron. Considering, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, and Cu concentrations of berries were higher in Z + C (1:1) than the other substrates. However, zeolite, cocopeat, and Z + C (1:1) for Na, Cocopeat, and Z + C (1:1) for Fe, and zeolite for Zn concentrations gave higher values than the other applications. Phosphorus, Mg, Fe in Hoagland; K in Hoagland A; calcium, Na, and Mn in Hoagland and Hoagland A, and zinc in OLWF fertilizers were recorded have higher concentrations than those of the others.

Sources of variationMacroelements (mg 100 g−1)
PKCaMgNa
Substrate
Zeolite17.7 cy213 b48 b13.7 d2.7 a
Cocopeat19.1 b208 c47 b17.9 b2.4 a
Z + C (1:1)x21.0 a234 a51 a20.0 a2.4 a
Z + C (1:2)15.4 d193 d39 c16.7 c1.9 b
LSD 5%0.4520.80.3
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.0011
Fertilizer
Hoagland A19.3 b227 a49 a16.8 b2.6 a
Hoagland19.8 a223 b50 a18.1 a2.6 a
OLWF15.8 c186 c40 b16.3 b1.9 b
LSD 5%0.4410.70.3
p-value<0.0001<0.90001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A2.52 a3.35a0.67 a1.61de0.43 a
Zeolite × Hoagland1.63 ef1.92 f0.46 d1.25 g0.29 b
Zeolite × OLWF1.15 ı1.13 j0.31 g1.24 g0.08 e
Cocopeat × Hoagland A1.38 h1.45 ı0.36 f1.41 f0.16 d
Cocopeat × Hoagland2.31 c2.24 d0.55 b1.97b0.28 b
Cocopeat × OLWF2.06 d2.54 c0.50 c1.98b0.27 b
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A2.40 b2.48 c0.57 b2.20a0.26 bc
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland2.34 bc2.87 b0.56 b2.26a0.27 b
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF1.55 g1.67 h0.39 e1.56e0.20 cd
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A1.40 h1.81 g0.36 f1.49ef0.19 d
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland1.65 e1.88 fg0.41 e1.77c0.19 d
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF1.57 fg2.10 e0.40 e1.74 cd0.19 d
LSD 5%0.7831.30.6
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001

Table 3.

The effect of different substrates and nutrient solution applications on the level of macro elements in berries.

Z + C: Zeolite+Cocopeat, OLWF: Organic liquid worm fertilizer,


Mean separation within columns by LSD multiple range test at 0.05 level.


Macrominerals presented in Table 3 determined that the potassium contents of berries were higher than those of the others, ranging from 234 mg 100 g−1 for Z + C (1:1) substrate and 186 mg 100 g−1 for OLWF fertilizer. Followed calcium content of grapes was found between 51 mg 100 g−1 for Z + C (1:1) substrate and 40 mg 100 g−1 for OLWF fertilizer. Among the macroelements, sodium gave the lowest amount.

Considering trace elements, the highest iron content (0.362 mg 100 g−1) is obtained from Z + C (1:1), whereas the lowest level of iron (0.255 mg 100 g−1) was found in zeolite. The zinc content of grape berries was in the range of 0.299 and 0.184 mg 100 g−1, whereas the manganese content of grape berries was in the range of 0.235–0.178 mg 100 g−1. Cupper and boron microminerals varied between 0.147 and 0.105 and 0.481 and 0.329 mg 100 g−1, respectively. The substrate × fertilizer interaction was significant for all elements except Cu and B (Tables 3 and 4).

Sources of variationMicroelements (mg 100 g−1)
FeZnMnCuB
Substrate
Zeolite0.255 c y0.299 a0.178 c y0.105 b0.348
Cocopeat0.353 a0.184 c0.208 b0.131ab0.448
Z + C (1:1)x0.362 a0.187 c0.235 a0.147 a0.481
Z + C (1:2)0.288 b0.192 b0.195 b0.113 ab0.329
LSD 5%0.0110.0110.0160.036NS
p value<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.10820.002
Fertilizer
Hoagland A0.325 b0.206 b0.208 a0.1230.399
Hoagland0.340 a0.207 b0.216 a0.1360.455
OLWF0.279 c0.233 a0.188 b0.1120.351
LSD 5%0.0100.0090.014NSNS
p-value<0.0001<0.00010.0010.29070.3459
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A373.26 c23.36c257.02 b111.3633.55
Zeolite × Hoagland274.67e26.09b161.89 fg107.6936.95
Zeolite × OLWF119.72 g40.33a115.50 h96.2933.83
Cocopeat × Hoagland A229.96f22.09 cd145.29 g113.6138.77
Cocopeat × Hoagland399.01 b17.68gh222.25 cd159.9759.94
Cocopeat × OLWF430.45 a15.31ı255.55 b120.1435.54
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A403.44 b19.74ef247.77 bc177.2261.79
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland404.49 b17.81gh290.87 a135.8940.02
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF276.79de18.58fgh166.47 fg126.4042.59
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A294.99 d17.26 h182.54 f90.5325.58
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland282.14de21.29de188.47 ef142.2144.89
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF289.78de19.16 fg212.86 de104.9128.33
LSD 5%0.0200.0180.028NSNS
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.38880.3886

Table 4.

The effect of different substrates and nutrient solution applications on the level of microelements in berries.

Z + C: Zeolite+Cocopeat, OLWF: Organic liquid worm fertilizer.


Mean separation within columns by LSD multiple range test at 0.05 level,


NS: Nonsignificant.


In the study by Abdrabba and Hussein [35], calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, and iron values were determined as 120, 31, 154, 39, and 5 mg 100 g−1 as the average of pulp, seed, and peel, respectively, and these minerals useful for the human body have been deemed necessary.

Similarly, the values given in Kral et al. [59] for Ca, K, Mg, Na, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn; in Cantürk et al. [60] for Ca, K, Mg, Na, P, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, and Zn; in Abdrabba and Hussein [35] for Ca, K, Mg, P, and Fe; in Anonymous [61] for Ca, K, Mg, Na, and Fe; in Olsen and Ware [62] for Ca, K, Mg, Na, P, Fe, Mn, B, and Zn were found to be quite close to the values given in Table 3 for the specified elements.

For this reason, it was concluded that there were no significant losses in terms of mineral levels of grapes grown under soilless culture conditions.

Vitamins, like minerals, are micronutrients that play an essential role in fulfilling metabolic functions, producing new cells, and repairing damaged cells.

There were found significant differences among substrates and fertilizers in terms of vitamin contents of berries analyzed in the study. The higher vitamin A, B1, B2, B6, and C values were analyzed in berries of plants grown in Z + C (1:1) substrate mix and berries of applications using Hoagland solution (Table 5). The higher values obtained from vitamin A, B1, B2, B6, and C were 39.21, 65.12, 167.06, 95.19, and 15.21 mg 100 g−1, respectively. The substrate × fertilizer interaction was significant for all vitamins examined (Table 5).

Sources of variationA
Retinol
B1
Thiamin
B2
Riboflavin
B6
Pyridoxine
C
Ascorbic acid
Substrate
Zeolite29.95 d y45.39 b113.76 d78.50 c12.49 c
Cocopeat34.91 b59.59 a148.49 b88.27 b13.51 b
Z + C (1:1)x39.21 a65.12 a167.06 a95.18 a15.21 a
Z + C (1:2)31.65 c46.02 b121.29 c69.74 d12.14 c
LSD 5%1.095.546.594.550.42
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Fertilizer
Hoagland A34.51 b55.67 b140.93 b84.44 b13.62 b
Hoagland36.51 a60.47 a153.29 a91.79 a14.46 a
OLWF30.76 c45.95 c118.74 c72.54 c11.93 c
LSD 5%0.954.805.713.940.36
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A39.40 b56.80 bc144.69 de93.26 b15.72 b
Zeolite × Hoagland28.89 de49.01 cd114.02 fg80.73 c12.41 d
Zeolite × OLWF21.54 g30.37e82.57 h61.52 f9.33 f
Cocopeat × Hoagland A26.70 f43.21 d106.56 g71.01 de10.88 e
Cocopeat × Hoagland39.49 b74.24 a187.54 b109.98 a15.58 b
Cocopeat × OLWF38.53 b61.32 b151.37 d83.81 c14.07 c
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A43.75 a82.81 a204.58 a113.18 a17.43 a
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland43.59 a63.66 b172.08 c94.21 b16.08 b
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF30.29 d48.88 cd124.53 f78.14 cd12.11 d
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A28.19 ef39.86 de107.89 g60.31 f10.43 e
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland34.08 c54.98 bc139.50 e82.23 c13.76 c
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF32.67 c43.22 d116.47 fg66.69 ef12.21 d
LSD 5%1.899.6011.417.880.72
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001

Table 5.

The effect of different substrate and nutrient solution applications on vitamins (mg 100 g−1).

Z + C: Zeolite+Cocopeat, OLWF: organic liquid worm fertilizer.


Mean separation within columns by LSD multiple range test at 0.05 level.


According to the Bourre [63] and Key et al. [28], nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, and amino acids play a crucial role in ensuring proper brain function. Vitamins protect against inflammation and reactive oxidative species. Minerals function as cofactors for enzymes, prevent lipid peroxidation, and promote energy production. Amino acids serve as precursors to neurotransmitters and neuromodulator metabolites responsible for various functions related to attention, mood, arousal, and memory.

Most vitamins and microelements have been studied concerning brain functioning. For example, it has been reported by Bourre [63] that the use of glucose for energy production occurs in the presence of vitamin B1. This vitamin regulates cognitive performance, especially in the elderly. It has been reported that vitamin B6 is beneficial in treating premenstrual depression. Vitamins B6 and B12, among others, are directly involved in synthesizing certain neurotransmitters. Vitamin B12 delays the onset of signs of dementia and blood abnormalities when administered at an appropriate time before the first symptoms.

Emphasizing the importance of mineral nutrients for healthy brain aging, Key et al. [28] stated in their results that a nutrient regime containing macro- and micronutrients softens the effect of brain structure on cognitive function in old age and supports the effectiveness of interdisciplinary methods in nutritional cognitive neuroscience for a healthy brain. In the article of Çetin et al. [64], different researchers reported that potassium is a very important component of human health. A high-potassium diet lowers blood pressure and reduces cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality [65]. In addition, potassium intake reduces urinary calcium excretion and decreases the risk of osteoporosis [66]. Ca is the primary element of the bone system, assists in tooth development, helps regulate endo- and exo-enzymes, and plays a significant role in regulating blood pressure [67]. Therefore, it is an essential mineral for human health. Zn and Fe deficiency in the diet programs is a common problem and a matter of great concern, especially in developing countries where people trust vegetarian diets more. Zn is involved with the immune system, and Fe is concerned with hemoglobin, myoglobin, and cytochrome [68]. They are also recognized to be potential antioxidants [69]. Mg is essential to all living cells, where they play a major role in manipulating important biological polyphosphate compounds such as ATP, DNA, and RNA. Also, more than 300 enzymes require magnesium ions to function [70].

In the study, the effects of applications on 20 amino acids in grapes were evaluated. For all amino acids examined in Table 5, the differences between treatments were statistically significant. The highest values ​​were found from Z + C (1:1) application in 14 amino acids (Table 6), namely aspartate, glutamate, proline, arginine, glutamine, histidine, alanine, cystine, methionine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, isoleucine, leucine, and lysine. In Z + C (1:1), Z + C (1:2), and cocopeat applications for valine; in Z + C (1:1) and zeolite for serine; and in cocopeat and Z + C (1:2) applications for glycine were the highest values. Apart from these, the highest tyrosine and asparagine in Zeolite were detected. Among nutrient solutions, Hoagland for aspartate, glutamate, alanine, and phenylalanine amino acids; Hoagland and Hoagland A for proline, arginine, glutamine, tyrosine, methionine, tryptophan, isoleucine, and leucine; Hoagland and OLWF nutrient solutions for histidine; Hoagland A for glycine, thionine, cystine, valine, lysine, asparagine and serine amino acids gave the highest values. As can be seen in Table 6, substrate × fertilizer interaction was found to be significant for all amino acids.

Sources of VariationAspartateGlutamateProlineArginineGlutamine
Substrate
Zeolite14,930 c y10,637 d28,607 c34,258 c20,750 c
Cocopeat16,289 b14,849 b33,667 b39,258 b24,768 b
Z + C (1:1)x17,718 a15,751 a37,901 a42,880 a27,569 a
Z + C (1:2)13,867 d12,257 c34,200 b35,427 c22,018 c
LSD 5%5529774129022221668
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Fertilizer
Hoagland A16,172 b13,440 b34,041 a39,771 a24,293 a
Hoagland16,725 a15,096 a34,020 a38,911 a25,437 a
OLWF14,206 c11,585 c32,720 b35,186 b21,599 b
LSD 5%470670111719241445
p-value<0.0001<0.00010.03420.0001<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A20,134 ab14,265 c42,259 c51,443 a26,212 bc
Zeolite × Hoagland13,650 efg12,818 de22,751 ıj28,563 ef19,198 ef
Zeolite × OLWF11,005 ı4828 g20,810 j22,769 g16,841 f
Cocopeat × Hoagland A12,168 h10,323 f23,521 ı26,383 fg18,822 ef
Cocopeat × Hoagland18,646 cd18,030 a32,766 f40,354 c28,919 ab
Cocopeat × OLWF18,052 d16,195 b44,713 b51,038 a26,562 b
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A19,396 bc17,604 a36,692 e46,293 b31,632 a
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland20,511 a16,144 b51,120 a54,359 a30,277 a
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF13,248 fg13,505 cd25,890 h27,989 f20,799 de
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A12,990 gh11,568 ef33,693 f34,966 d20,506 de
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland14,091 ef13,390 cd29,442 g32,367 de23,354 cd
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF14,520 e11,814 e39,465 d38,948 c22,193 d
LSD 5%9401341223438492889
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Sources of variationHistidineGlycineThionineAlanineTyrosine
Substrate
Zeolite1895 d2190 b5423 a22,905 c2724 a
Cocopeat3454 b2510 a5598 a26,921 b2535 bc
Z + C (1:1)x3752 a2200 b4870 b30,365 a2632 ab
Z + C (1:2)3113 c2560 a5699 a25,722 b2455 c
LSD 5%2431502891855138
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.0034
Fertilizer
Hoagland A2892 b2710 a6197 a26,486 ab2807 a
Hoagland3149 a2130 c4904 b27,826 a2689 a
OLWF3119 a2260 b5091 b25,123 b2264 b
LSD 5%2111302501607120
p-value0.073<0.0001<0.00010.0079<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A2314 fg141.2 e4365 ef29,162 cd4232 a
Zeolite × Hoagland1313 h169.9 d4589 e20,585 fg2817 c
Zeolite × OLWF2059 g346.6 ab7314 bc18,968 g1124 g
Cocopeat × Hoagland A2360 fg367.8 a7761 ab20,839 fg1900 f
Cocopeat × Hoagland3648 c157.1 de3686 gh28,825 cd2623 cd
Cocopeat × OLWF4355 b227.4 c5348 d31,100 bc3082 b
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A3761 c337.4 b7120 c32,508 b2561 d
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland4904 a150.8 de3484 h35,810 a3072 b
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF2592 f170.7 d4005 fg22,776 f2263 e
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A3134 de235.6 c5541 d23,435 ef2535 d
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland2732 ef372.2 a7856 a26,085 de2243 e
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF3472 cd160.0 de3699 gh27,646 d2589 cd
LSD 5%4222605013214239
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Sources of variationCysteineValineMethionineTryptophanPhenylalanine
Substrate
Zeolite3846 ab y1526 b6339 c5409 c7410 d
Cocopeat3675 b1728 a7544 b5845 b9456 b
Z + C (1:1)x3995 a1892 a8232 a6663 a10,707 a
Z + C (1:2)3272 c1805 a6697 c5886 b8196 c
LSD 5%177170599329595
p-value<0.00010.0015<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Fertilizer
Hoagland A3986 a1818 a7405 a6213 a9070 b
Hoagland3822 b1655 b7501 a6018 a9796 a
OLWF3283 c1740 ab6702 b5621 b7961 c
LSD 5%153147519285515
p-value<0.00010.09300.00790.0010<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A6100 a2834 b9659 b8966 a9836 de
Zeolite × Hoagland3273 f934 e5259 f4190 g7250 gh
Zeolite × OLWF2164 j810 e4099 g3071 h5146 ı
Cocopeat × Hoagland A2525 ı920 e4934 fg3689 g6936 h
Cocopeat × Hoagland3975 d1410 d8014 c5578 e11,157 bc
Cocopeat × OLWF4523 c2854 b9685 b8268 b10,276 cd
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A4098 d1454 d8261 c6291 d12,360 a
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland5093 b3214 a10,906 a9520 a11,623 ab
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF2794 hı1007 e5528 f4178 g8139 fg
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A3220 fg2065 c6766 de5906 de7150 gh
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland2945 gh1062 e5827 ef4785 f9157 ef
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF3650 e2288 c7496 cd6967 c8285 f
LSD 5%30729410385711031
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Sources of VariationIsoleucineLeucineLysineAsparagineSerine
Substrate
Zeolite4933 c9161 c7862 c9618 a16,332 a
Cocopeat5582 ab10,046 b9003 b7140 c14,232 b
Z + C (1:1)x6111 a11,322 a9860 a8111 b15,996 a
Z + C (1:2)5119 bc9917 bc9350 ab8500 b14,284 b
LSD 5%5317906587541060
p-value0.00060.0001<0.0001<0.00010.0003
Fertilizer
Hoagland A5717 a10,580 a9411 a9851 a16,941 a
Hoagland5528 a10,270 a8620 b7332 b15,112 b
OLWF5064 b9485 b9024 ab7844 b13,580 c
LSD 5%460684570653918
p-value0.02140.00920.0297<0.0001<0.0001
Interaction
Zeolite × Hoagland A7633 a14,380 ab14,573 b20,483 a28,776 a
Zeolite × Hoagland3996 ef7216 de4845 fg5060 fg12,623 fg
Zeolite × OLWF3170 f5889 e4168 g3310 h7599 j
Cocopeat × Hoagland A3672 ef6456 e4777 fg3636 h9376 ıj
Cocopeat × Hoagland5610 bc10,072 c7385 e5030 fg13,807 ef
Cocopeat × OLWF7463 a13,609 b14,846 b12,755 c19,514 c
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland A6440 b11,145 c7614 e5672 f15,296 de
Z + C (1:1) × Hoagland7999 a15,692 a16,718 a14,686 b22,072 b
Z + C (1:1) × OLWF3894 ef7129 de5247 fg3974 gh10,621 hı
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland A5122 cd10,338 c10,683 d9611 e14,315 ef
Z + C (1:2) × Hoagland4507 de8099 d5531 f4552 fgh11,949 gh
Z + C (1:2) × OLWF5728 bc11,316 c11,835 c11,338 d16,588 d
LSD 5%9191369114013051836
p-value<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001

Table 6.

The effect of different substrate and nutrient solution applications on amino acid content (μg kg−1) of Early Cardinal berries.

Z + C: Zeolite+Cocopeat, OLWF: organic liquid worm fertilizer.


Mean separation within columns by LSD multiple range test at 0.05 level.


Proline is reported in many works of literature as an amino acid whose synthesis is increased, especially under abiotic stress conditions such as drought [43, 71]. For this reason, we evaluated that the high increase in proline amino acid in Hoagland A and Hoagland nutrient solutions may be due to the lower amounts of some macro- (N) and microelements (Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe) in these solutions compared with OLWF nutrient solution (Table 1). Anjum et al. [72], Liang et al. [73], and Arabshahi and Mobasser [74] indicated that sensitive plants are less able to accumulate solutes, but increases in proline can be found in most organisms (including animals) following water stress [25, 43].

According to the Huang and Ough [29], Canoura et al. [43], Bouzas-Cid et al. [36, 47, 48, 49], Sánchez-Gómez et al. [41], Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. [26, 42, 45, 46], Fernández-Novales et al. [75], and Wu et al. [44], amino acid contents of grape berries are affected by different variety, rootstock, location and fertilization, etc., viticultural practices. For instance, in the study by Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. [26], the effect of foliar application of a seaweed extract to a Tempranillo Blanco variety on must and wine amino acids and ammonium content was determined. The results suggested that Tempranillo Blanco behaved as an arginine accumulator variety. Biostimulation after seaweed applications at a high dosage to the grapevines increased the concentration of several amino acids in the 2017 season while scarcely affecting their content in 2018.

In the another research by Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. [46], results showed that of some elicitors and nitrogen foliar applications to Garnacha and Tempranillo grapevines decreased the must amino acid concentration. The treatments applied to Graciano grapevines affected the grape amino acid content. According to the percentage of variance attributable, the variety had a higher effect on the must amino acid composition than the treatments and their interaction. In the study by Fernández-Novales et al. [75], researchers have investigated the use of visible and near-infrared spectroscopy to estimate the grape amino acid content on whole berries of Grenache grape variety. Amino acid values ranged between 0.01 mg L−1 (Leucine) and 341 mg L−1 (Arginine). In their results, amino acid values obtained in our study varied from 1526 μg kg−1 (valine in zeolite) to 42,880 μg kg−1 (arginine in Z + C (1:1)).

These values were close to the values of valine (1.07 mg L−1) given by Fernández-Novales et al. [75] for Grenache and arginine (38.44–89.60 mg L−1) given by Valdes et al. [76] for Tempranillo berries. Arginine and proline amino acids were recorded as the most abundant amino acids in all media and nutrient solutions used in our experiment; valine, glycine, and tyrosine were determined as the amino acids with the lowest values. These results agree with Fernández Novales et al. [75] and Valdes et al. [76] that arginine and proline were also reported as the most abundant amino acids, both of the researches.

From the above statements, it has been concluded that grapes grown in soilless culture will not encounter a significant nutrient loss in terms of amino acids examined in this study. In our study, it has been evaluated that the Z + C (1:1) mixture substrate, which has the higher values for 14 amino acids, including proline as well as arginine, is remarkable in terms of nutrient saving.

Advertisement

4. Conclusions

According to the main results obtained from this study;

  • In soilless culture cultivation of table grapes, it has been observed that zeolite and cocopeat media can be used alone, as well as a 1:1 mixture of Zeolite:Cocopeat, where the highest values are obtained.

  • Hoagland and modified Hoagland nutrient solutions mostly gave higher values than OLWF for the properties studied. However, since OLWF did not have a significant negative effect, it was considered that it would be appropriate to continue working with this and similar solutions.

  • Amino acid, vitamins, and mineral contents of grapes grown in soilless culture conditions were found to be close to the values given in the literature for grapes grown in open field.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This article was produced from the Master Thesis of Mikail Atalan, whose study was supported by the Cukurova University Scientific Research Coordination Unit (Project No: FYL-2018-11066).

References

  1. 1. OIV. 2019 Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture [Internet]. 2019. Available from: OIV-2019-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture.pdf [Accessed: November 19, 2021]
  2. 2. Di Lorenzo R, Pisciotta A, Santamaria P, Scariot V. From soil to soil-less in horticulture: Quality and typicity. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 2013;8(4):255-260
  3. 3. Gül A. Topraksız tarım (3. Baskı). İzmir: Hasad Yayıncılık; 2019. p. 146
  4. 4. Buttaro D, Serio F, Santamaria P. Soilless greenhouse production of table grape under Mediterranean conditions. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. 2012;10(2): 641-645. Available from:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pietro-Santamaria/publication/256547182_Soilless_greenhouse_production_of_table_grape_under_Mediterranean_conditions/links/569368bd08aee91f69a7ee14/Soilless-greenhouse-production-of-table-grape-under-Mediterranean-conditions.pdf
  5. 5. Tangolar S, Kaya S, Alkan Torun A, Tarım G, Ada M, Aydın O. The effects of different growing media and root pruning applications on Trakya Ilkeren grape variety grown in soilless culture.Yüzüncü Yil Üniversitesi Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;28(Special Issue):321-328
  6. 6. Tangolar S, Baştaş PC, Alkan Torun A, Tangolar S. Effects of substrate and crop load on yield and mineral nutrition of Early Sweet grape cultivar grown in soilless culture. Erwerbs-obstbau. 2019;61:33-40. DOI: 10.1007/s10341-019-00446-0
  7. 7. Di Lorenzo R, Dimauro B, Guarasci F, Rinoldo C, Gambino C. Multiple productive cycles in the same year in soilless table grape cultivation. In: Proceedings of 35th Word Congr. Izmir, Turkey: Vine and Wine; 2012. p. 20
  8. 8. Savvas D, Gianquinto GP, Tüzel Y, Gruda N. Soilless culture. In: Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops–Principles for Mediterranean Climate Areas. Plant Production and Protection Paper. Vol. 217. Rome: FAO; 2013. pp. 303-354 Available from:https://www.fao.org/3/i6787e/i6787e.pdf
  9. 9. Sabır A, Sabir F, Yazar K, Kara Z. Investigation on development of some grapevine cultivars (V. vinifera L.) in soilless culture under controlled glasshouse condition. Current Trends in Technology and Science. 2016;5(3):622-626
  10. 10. Baştaş PC, Tangolar S. The effect of growing medium and crop loads on yield and some quality properties of Prima grape cultivar grown in soilless culture. Alatarım. 2018;17(2):98-109 Available from:https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/FullTextPDF/2020/20203216642.pdf
  11. 11. Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Alkan Torun A, Tarım G, Ada M. Evaluation of table grape cultivation in soilless culture system.Türkiye Tarımsal Araștırmalar Dergisi. 2017;4(2):163-170
  12. 12. Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Ada M, Tarım G, Alkan Torun A, Ertargın E. The effects of different nitrogen and potassium levels on yield and quality of two early grape cultivars grown in different soilless media. ISHS Acta Horticulturae. 2019;1242:349-356
  13. 13. Kaya S, Tangolar S, Tangolar S. The effect of root pruning applications on yield and quality of some table grape varieties grown in different solid culture media. Bahçe. 2018;47(Special issue 1: Türkiye 9. Bağcılık Teknolojileri Sempozyumu):575-585
  14. 14. Atalan M. The Effects of Different Substrats and Chemical and Organic Fertilizer Applications on Yield and Quality in Early Cardinal Grape Grown in Soilless Culture [Msc thesis]. Gradute School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Adana, Türkiye: Department of Horticulture, Cukurova University; 2020. p. 107
  15. 15. Zareei E, Zaare-Nahandi F, Hajilou J, Oustan S. Eliciting effects of magnetized solution on physiological and biochemical characteristics and elemental uptake in hydroponically grown grape (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Thompson Seedless). Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2021;167:586-595. DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.08.036
  16. 16. Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Alkan Torun A, Tarım G, Ada M, Aydın O. Effects of different nutrient solutions and growing media on yield and quality in grape growing in soilless culture. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences. 2019;32:127-133
  17. 17. Prieur C, Rigaud J, Cheynier V, Michel MM. Oligomeric and polymeric procyanidins from grape seeds (Vitis vinifera). Phytochemistry. 1994;36:781-784. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)89817-9
  18. 18. Ağaoğlu YS. Bilimsel ve Uygulamalı Bağcılık Cilt:1 Asma Biyolojisi. Kavaklıdere Eğitim Yayınları. 1. Ankara; 1999. p. 205
  19. 19. Mironeasa S, Mironeasa C, Codınă GG. Evaluation of mineral element content in grape seed and defatted grape seed. Food and Environment Safety-Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University-Suceava Year IX. 2010;2:53-60 Available from:http://fia-old.usv.ro/fiajournal/index.php/FENS/article/view/409/407
  20. 20. Gök Tangolar S, Özoğul Y, Tangolar S, Torun A. Evaluation of fatty acid profiles and mineral content of grape seed oil of some grape genotypes. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2009;60:32-39. DOI: 10.1080/09637480701581551
  21. 21. Gök Tangolar S, Özoğul F, Tangolar S, Yağmur C. Tocopherol content in fifteen grape varieties obtained using a rapid HPLC method. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2011;24:481-486. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2010.08.003
  22. 22. Jordao AM, Correia AC. Relationship between antioxidant capacity, proanthocyanidin and anthocyanin content during grape maturation of Touriga Nacional and Tinta Roriz grape varieties. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2012;33:214-224. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21548/33-2-1121
  23. 23. Jordao AM, Correia AC, Gonçalves FJ. Evolution of antioxidant capacity in seeds and skins during grape maturation and their association with proanthocyanidin and anthocyanin content. Vitis. 2012;51:137-139 Available from:https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.940.9930&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  24. 24. Ovcharova T, Zlatanov M, Dimitrova R. Chemical composition of seeds of four Bulgarian grape varieties. Ciência Técnica Vitivinicola. 2016a;31:31-40. DOI: 10.1051/ctv/20163101031
  25. 25. Tangolar S, Turan M, Tangolar S, Ateş F. Evaluation of amino acid contents and enzyme activities of seeds from Semillon and Carignane wine grape cultivars grown under different irrigation conditions. Scientia Horticulturae. 2019;251:181-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.079
  26. 26. Gutierrez-Gamboa G, Garde-Cerdan T, Rubio-Breton P, Perez-Alvarez EP. Study of must and wine amino acid composition afetr seaweed applications to Tempranillo blanco grapevines. Food Chemistry. 2020;308:25605. DOI: 10.1016/ j.foodchem.2019.125605
  27. 27. Huskisson E, Maggini S, Ruf M. The influence of micronutrients on cognitive function and performance. Journal of International Medical Research. 2007;35(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1177/147323000703500101
  28. 28. Key MN, Zwilling CE, Talukdar T, Barbey AK. Essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals moderate the relationship between the right frontal pole and measures of memory. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 2019;63(15):1801048. DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201801048
  29. 29. Huang Z, Ough CS. Amino acid profiles of commercial grape juices and wines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 1991;42:261-267 Available from:https://www.ajevonline.org/content/42/3/261.short
  30. 30. Esteban MA, Villanueva MJ, Lissarrague JR. Effect of Irrigation on changes in berry composition of Tempranillo during maturation. Sugars, organic acids, and mineral elements. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 1999;50:418-434 Available from:https://www.ajevonline.org/content/50/4/418.short
  31. 31. De La Hera-Orts M, Martinez-Cutillas A, Lopez-Roca JM, Gomez-Plaza E. Effect of moderate irrigation on grape composition during ripening. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2005;3:352-361
  32. 32. Downey MO, Dokoozlian NK, Krstic MP. Cultural practice and environmental impacts on the flavonoid composition of grapes and wine: A review of recent research. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2006;57:257-268 Available from:https://www.ajevonline.org/content/ajev/57/3/257.full.pdf
  33. 33. Kurtural SK, Dami IE, Taylor BH. Effects of pruning and cluster thinning on yield and fruit composition of Chambourcin grapevines. HortTechnology. 2006;16:233-240. DOI: 10.21273/HORTTECH.16.2.0233
  34. 34. Wessner LF, Kurtural SK. Pruning systems and canopy management practice interact on the yield and fruit composition of Syrah. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2013;64:134-138. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2012.12056
  35. 35. Abdrabba S, Hussein S. Chemical composition of pulp, seed and peel of red grape from Libya. Global Journal of Scientific Researches. 2015;3:6-11 Available from:https://docplayer.net/33310181-Chemical-composition-of-pulp-seed-and-peel-of-red-grape-from-libya.html
  36. 36. Bouzas-Cid Y, Falqué E, Orriols I, Trigo-Córdoba E, Díaz-Lozada E, Fornos-Rivas D, et al. Amino acids profile of two Galician white grapevine cultivars (Godello and Treixadura). Ciência e Técnica Vitivinicola. 2015;30:84-93. DOI: 10.1051/ctv/20153002084
  37. 37. Gök Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Tarım G, Kelebek H, Topçu S. The effects of bud load and applied water amounts on the biochemical composition of the ‘Narince’ grape variety (Vitis vinifera L.). Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici. 2015;43:380-387. DOI: 10.15835/nbha4329958
  38. 38. Gök Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Kelebek H, Topcu S. Determination of phenolics, sugars, organic acids and antioxidants in the grape variety Kalecik Karası under different bud loads and irrigation amounts. Horticultural Science & Technology. 2016;34(3):495-509. DOI: 10.12972/kjhst.20160050
  39. 39. Hussein S, Abdrabba S. Physico-chemical characteristics, fatty acid, composition of grape seed oil and phenolic compounds of whole seeds, seeds and leaves of red grape in Libya. International Journal of Applied Science and Mathematics. 2015;2:2394-2894
  40. 40. Nelson CC, Kennedy JA, Zhang Y, Kurtural SK. Applied water and rootstocks affect productivity and anthocyanin composition of Zinfandel in central California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2016;67:18-28. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2015.15043
  41. 41. Sánchez-Gómez R, Garde-Cerdán T, Zalacain A, Garcia R, Cabrita MJ, Salinas MR. Vine-shoot waste aqueous extract applied as foliar fertilizer to grapevines: Effect on amino acids and fermentative volatile content. Food Chemistry. 2016;197:132-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.034
  42. 42. Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Garde-Cerdán T, Gonzalo-Diago A, Moreno-Simunovic Y, Martínez-Gil AM. Effect of different foliar nitrogen applications on the must amino acids and glutathione composition in Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2017;75:147-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.08.039
  43. 43. Canoura C, Kelly MT, Ojeda H. Effect of irrigation and timing and type of nitrogen application on the biochemical composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay and Syrah grape berries. Food Chemistry. 2018;241:171-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem. 2017.07.114
  44. 44. Wu J, Drappier V, Hilbert G, Guillaumie S, Dai Z, Geny L, et al. The effects of a moderate grape temperature increase on berry secondary metabolites. Oeno One. 2019;53(2):321-333. DOI: 10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.2.2434
  45. 45. Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Carrasco-Quiroz M, Martínez-Gil AM, Pérez-Álvarez EP, Garde-Cerdán T, Moreno-Simunovic Y. Grape and wine amino acid composition from Carignan noir grapevines growing under rainfed conditions in the Maule Valley, Chile: Effects of location and rootstock. Food Research International. 2018;105:344-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.021
  46. 46. Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Portu J, López R, Santamaria P, Garde-Cerdán T. Elicitor and nitrogen applications to Garnacha Graciano and Tempranillo vines: Effect on grape amino acid composition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2018;98:2341-2349. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.8725
  47. 47. Bouzas-Cid Y, Díaz-Losada E, Trigo-Córdoba E, Falqué E, Orriols I, Garde-Cerdán T, et al. Effects of irrigation over three years on the amino acid composition of Albariño (Vitis vinifera L) musts and wines in two different terroirs. Scientia Horticulturae. 2018;227:313-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.05.005
  48. 48. Bouzas-Cid Y, Falqué E, Orriols I, Mirás-Avalos JM. Effects of irrigation over three years on the amino acid composition of Treixadura (Vitis vinifera L.) musts and wines, and on the aromatic composition and sensory profiles of its wines. Food Chemistry. 2018;240:707-716. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.08.013
  49. 49. Bouzas-Cid Y, Trigo-Córdoba E, Falqué E, Orriols I, Mirás-Avalos JM. Influence of supplementary irrigation on the amino acid and volatile composition of Godello wines from the Ribeiro Designation of Origin. Food Research International. 2018c;111:715-723. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.074
  50. 50. Bremner JM. Total nitrogen. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties. Number 9 in series Agronomy. Madison, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Publisher; 1965. pp. 1049-1178
  51. 51. Kacar B. Bitki ve Toprağın Kimyasal Analizleri. II. Bitki Analizleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları 453, Uygulama Kılavuzu 155. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi; 1972
  52. 52. Antoine FR, Wie CI, Littell RC, Marshall MR. HPLC method for analysis of free amino acids in fish using o-phthaldialdehyde precolumn derivatization. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1999;47:5100-5107
  53. 53. Kitir N, Gunes A, Turan M, Yildirim E, Topcuoglu B, Turker M, et al. Bio-boron fertilizer applications affect amino acid and organic acid content and physiological properties of strawberry plant. Erwerbs-obstbau. 2019;61(2):129-137. DOI: 10.1007/s10341-018-0409-3
  54. 54. Bates LS. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil. 1973;39:205-207 Available from:https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00018060.pdf
  55. 55. Sahin A, Kıran Y, Karatas F, Sonmez S, Vitamins A. C and E and β-carotene content in seeds of seven species of Vicia L. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology. 2005;47:487-493. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2005.00083.x
  56. 56. Al-Saleh IA, Billedo G, El-Doush II. Levels of selenium DL α-tocopherol, DL- γ-tocopherol, all-trans-retinol, thymoquinone and thymol in different brands of Nigella sativa seeds. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2006;19:167-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2005.04.011
  57. 57. Mozumder NHMR, Akhter MJ, Khatun AA, Rokibuzzaman M, Akhtaruzzaman M. Estimation of water-soluble vitamin B-complex in selected leafy and non-leafy vegetables by HPLC method. Oriental Journal of Chemistry. 2019;35:1344-1351. DOI: 10.13005/ojc/350414
  58. 58. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1990. pp. 1058-1059
  59. 59. Král M, Tauferová A, Tremlová B, Šnirc M, Árvay J, Walczycka M, et al. Macro-and micro-elements in locally produced and imported fruits on Czech market: A quantitative assessment. Erwerbs-obstbau. 2020;62(3):361-367
  60. 60. Cantürk S, Kunter B, Keskin N. Gülüzümü (Vitis vinifera L.) çeşidinin fitokimyasal özellikleri üzerinde araştırmalar. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2013;27:359-364 Available from:http://sjafs.selcuk.edu.tr/sjafs/article/view/43
  61. 61. Anonymous. FoodData Central Search Results. Grapes, Red or Green (European Type, such as Thompson Seedless), Raw [Internet]. 2019. Available from:https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174683/nutrients[Accessed: December 10, 2021]
  62. 62. Olsen N, Ware M. What are the Health Benefits of Grapes? [Internet]. 2017. Available from:https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271156#nutrition. [Accessed: December 10, 2021].
  63. 63. Bourre JM. Effects of nutrients (in food) on the structure and function of the nervous system: Update on dietary requirements for brain. Part 1: Micronutrients. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging. 2006;10(5):377 Available from:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.3456&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  64. 64. Cetin ES, Altinöz D, Tarçan E, Baydar NG. Chemical composition of grape canes. Industrial Crops and Products. 2011;34(1):994-998. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop. 2011. 03.004
  65. 65. Whelton PK, He J, Cutler JA, Brancati FL, Appel LJ, Follmann D, et al. Effects of oral potassium on blood pressure: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997;277(20):1624-1632. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997. 03540440058033
  66. 66. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Beneficial effects of potassium on human health. Physiologia Plantarum. 2008;133(4):725-735. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.01033.x
  67. 67. Brody T. Nutritional Biochemistry. San Diego: Academic; 1994
  68. 68. Hemalatha S, Platel K, Srinivasan K. Zinc and iron contents and their bioaccessibility in cereals and pulses consumed in India. Food Chemistry. 2007;102(4):1328-1336. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.07.015
  69. 69. Talwar GP, Srivastava LM, Mudgil KD. Textbook of Biochemistry and Human Biology, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall of India Private Ltd, India. 1989 Available from:https://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Biochemistry-Human-Biology-Talwar/dp/8120319656
  70. 70. Schachter M. The Importance of Magnesium to Human Nutrition. 1996. Available from:http://www.outsideinlife.com/upload/PDF/magnesium.pdf
  71. 71. Bohnert HJ, Jensen RG. Strategies for engineering water- stress tolerance in plants. Trends in Biotechnology 1996;14:89-97. Available from:https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/0167779996809292?token=4C87E30A51717D67AE7DCED16DF40A5ACBEB4AF38C886B5E4AF4F5748DA05E9E70BC1160131B059C25DA017921B25399&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20211217145024
  72. 72. Anjum SA, Xie X, Wang L, Saleem MF, Man C, Lei W. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2011;6:2026-2032. DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.027
  73. 73. Liang X, Zhang L, Natarajan SK, Becker DF. Proline mechanism of stress survival. Antioxids & Redox Signal. 2013;19:998-1011. DOI: 10.1089/ars.2012.5074
  74. 74. Arabshahi M, Mobasser HR. Effect of drought stress on carotenoid and chlorophyll contents and osmolyte accumulation. Medicinal Chemistry Research. 2017;2:193-197
  75. 75. Fernandez-Novales J, Garde-Cerdan T, Tardaguila J, Gutierrez-Gamboa G, Perez-Alvarez EP, Diago MP. Assesment of amino acids and total soluble solid in intact grape berries using contactless VIS and NIR spectroscopy during ripening. Talanta. 2019;199:244-253. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2019.02.037
  76. 76. Valdés ME, Talaverano MI, Moreno D, Prieto MH, Mancha LA, Uriarte D, et al. Effect of the timing of water deficit on the must amino acid profile of Tempranillo grapes grown under the semiarid conditions of SW Spain. Food Chemistry. 2019;292:24-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.04.046

Written By

Serpil Tangolar, Semih Tangolar, Metin Turan, Mikail Atalan and Melike Ada

Submitted: December 20th, 2021 Reviewed: December 22nd, 2021 Published: March 29th, 2022