Submitted:
03 October 2023
Posted:
04 October 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- -
- tendency to overcook (1pt - unchanged surface, 4 pts - overcooked surface)
- -
- texture (1pt - firm, 4pts - soft)
- -
- mealiness (1pt - not floury, 4pts - loose)
- -
- moisture (1pt - moist, 4pts - dry)
- -
- flesh structure (1pt - tender, 4pts – rough)
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Devaux, A.; Kromann, P.; Ortiz, O. Potatoes for Sustainable Global Food Security. Potato Res. 2014, 57, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bienia, B.; Sawicka, B.; Krochmal-Marczak, B.; Betlej, I.; Skiba, D. Herbal plants, natural cosmetics and functional foods. PWSZ Krosno - UP Wrocław Poland, Editors: J. Chrzanowska, H. Różański 2015.
- Alamar, M.C.; Tosetti, R.; Landahl, S.; Bermejo, A.; Terry, L.A. Assuring potato tuber quality during storage: a future perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flis, B.; Tatarowska, B.; Milczarek, D.; Plich, J. Effect of location on starch content and tuber texture characteristics in potato breeding lines and cultivars. Acta Agric. Scand. Soil&Plant Science 2017, 67, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Xu, F.; Wu, Y.; Hu, H.; Dai, X. Progress of potato staple food research and industry development in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 2924–2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I.; Zarzecka, M. Estimation of morphological and culinary quality of table potato tubers from the region central-eastern Poland. PECO 2014, 8, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawicka, B.; Noaema, A.H.; Krochmal-Marczak, B. Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) as a plant with high nutritional values and medicinal properties. Red. Moniki Maciąg i Kamila Maciąg Lublin 2018, Scientific Publishing TYGIEL Sp. z o.o. 2018.
- Dederko-Kantowicz, P.; Przewodowski, W. Health-promoting properties of potatoes. Ziemniak Polski 2021, 31, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
- Tkaczyńska, A.; Rytel, E. Effect of red and purple flesh potato varieties on enzymatic darkening of tubers and antioxidant properties. Food.Science Technology.Quality 2022, 29, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zgórska, K. Use of potatoes for food and industrial purposes. Inż. Przetw.Spoż. 2013, 3, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, J. , Chen, J., Ye, X., & Chen, S. Health benefits of the potato affected by domestic cooking: A review. Food Chem. 2016, 202, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stańko, S.; Mikuła, A. Changes in production, foreign trade and domestic consumption of potatoes in Poland in 2001-2019. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie - Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego 2021, 1, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M. Selected Qualitative Characteristics Of Edible Potato Tubers From The Podlasie Region. Brom. Chem. Toksykol. 2011, 44, 38–42. [Google Scholar]
- Stypa, I. Potato a food product important in the fight against obesity. Ziemniak Polski 2015, 3, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, J.; Kaur, L.; Rao, M. A. Textural characteristics of raw and cooked potatoes. In J. Singh, & L. Kaur (Eds.) Advances in potato chemistry and technology 2016, 475–501. Elsevier Inc. [CrossRef]
- Lenartowicz, T.; Grudzińska, M.; Erlichowski, T. New potato varieties 2020. Ziemniak Polski 2020, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Moens, L.; Van Wambekea, J.; De Laeta, E.; Van Ceunebroeckb, J.C.; Goosc, P.; Van Loeya, A.M.; Hendrickxa, M. Effect of postharvest storage on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) texture after pulsed electric field and thermal treatments. IFSET 2021, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zgórska, K.; Grudzińska, M. Changes in selected quality parameters of potato tubers during storage. Acta Agrophys. 2012, 19, 203–214. [Google Scholar]
- Liszka-Skoczylas, M. Effect of potato plants (Solanum tuberosum L.) fertilization on content and quality of starch in tubers. Food.Science Technology.Quality 2020, 27, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belenkov, A.; Peliy, P.; Vasyukova, A.; Burlutskiy, V.; Borodina, E.; Diop, A.; Moskin, A. Impact of various cultivation technologies on productivity of potato (Solanum tuberosum) in central non-Cenozoic zone of Russia. Res. Crop. 2020, 21, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasir, M.W.; Toth, Z. Effect of Drought Stress on Potato Production: A Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torabian, S.; Farhangi-Abriz, S.; Qin, R.; Noulas, C.; Sathuvalli, V.; Charlton, B.; Loka, D.A. Potassium: A Vital Macronutrient in Potato Production-A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou Chehade, L.; Al Chami, Z.; De Pascali, S. A.; Cavoski, I.; Fanizzi, F.P. Biostimulants from food processing by-products: agronomic, quality and metabolic impacts on organic tomato (Solanum lycopersicumL.). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 1426–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouphael, Y.; Giordano, M.; Cardarelli, M.; Cozzolino, E.; Mori, M.; Kyriacou, M.; Colla, G. Plant-and seaweed-based extracts increase yield but differentially modulate nutritional quality of greenhouse spinach through biostimulant action. Agronomy 2018, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selladurai, R.; Purakayastha, T. J. Effect of humic acid multinutrient fertilizers on yield and nutrient use efficiency of potato. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szczepanek, M.; Pobereżny, J.; Wszelaczyńska, E.; Gościnna, K. Effect of Biostimulants and Storage on Discoloration Potential of Carrot. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wszelaczyńska, E.; Pobereżny, J.; Kozera, W.; Knapowski, T.; Pawelzik, E. , Spychaj-Fabisiak, E. Effect of Magnesium Supply and Storage Time on Anti-Nutritive Compounds in Potato Tubers. Agronomy 2020, 10, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cakmak, I.; Yazici, A.M. Magnesium: A forgotten element in crop production. Better Crops 2010, 94, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
- Pawelzik, E.; Möller, K. Sustainable potato production worldwide: The challenge to assess conventional and organic production systems. Potato Res. 2014, 57, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senbayram, M.; Gransee, A.; Wahle, V.; Thiel, H. Role of magnesium fertilisers in agriculture: Plant–soil continuum. Crop Pasture Sc. 2015, 66, 1219–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerendás, J.; Führs, H. The significance of magnesium for crop quality. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 101–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wierzbowska, J.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Glosek, M.; Sienkiewicz, S. Effect of biostimulators on yield and selected chemical properties of potato tubers. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Černý, I.; Pacuta, V.; Feckova, J.; Golian, J. Effect of year and Atonik application on the selected sugar beet production and quality parameters. J. Central Eur. Agric. 2002, 3, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
- Sawicka, B.; Michałek, W.; Pszczółkowski, P. Uwarunkowania potencjału plonowania średnio późnych i późnych odmian ziemniaka w warunkach środkowo – wschodniej Polski. Biul. IHAR 2011, 259, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wszelaczyńska, E.; Pobereżny, J.; Keutgen, A.J.; Keutgen, N.; Gościnna, K.; Milczarek, D.; Tatarowska, B.; Flis, B. Antinutritional Nitrogen Compounds Content in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Tubers Depending on the Genotype and Production System. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voronov, E.V.; Terekhova, O.B; Shashkarov, L.G.; Mefodiev, G.A.; Eliseeva, L.V.; Filippova, S.V.; Samarkin, A. Formation of yield and commodity qualities of potatoes, depending on the varietal characteristics. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2019. [CrossRef]
- Hunjek, D.D.; Pranjić, T.; Repajić, M.; Levaj, B. Fresh-cut potato quality and sensory: Effect of cultivar, age, processing, and cooking during storage. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Retmańska, K.; Pobereżny, J.; Wszelaczyńska, E.; Gościnna, K.; Ropińska, P. Organoleptic characteristics and the total glycoalkaloid content of edible potato tubers depending on a cultivation technology and storage. J. Elem. 2023, 28, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czerko, Z.; Grudzińska, M. Influence of weather and storage conditions on sprouting of potato tubers. Biul. IHAR 2014, 271, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krochmal-Marczak, B.; Sawicka, B.; Krzysztofik, B.; Danilcenko, H.; Jariene, E. The Effects of Temperature on the Quality and Storage Stalibity of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam]) Grown in Central Europe. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osowski, J. Leading causes of emergence lack and plant loss on potato plantations. Ziemniak Polski 2020, 1. [Google Scholar]
- PN-ISO 10390; Chemical and agricultural analysis: Determining soil pH. Polish Standards Committee: Warszawa, Poland, 1997.
- Pietrzak, S.; Hołaj-Krzak, J. T. The content and stock of organic carbon in the soils of grasslands in Poland and the possibility of increasing its sequestration. J. Water Land Dev. 2022, 54, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trawczyński, C. Balance of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium of the second rotation of crop rotation in organic production system on light soil. Fragmenta Agronomica 2015, 32, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
- Chemical and Agricultural Analysis-Determination of the Content of Available Phosphorus in Mineral Soils; PN-R-04023; Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 1996. W: and Agricultural Analysis-Determination of the Content of Available Phosphorus in Mineral Soils; PN-R-04023; Polish Standards Committee.
- Chemical and Agricultural Analysis-Determination of the Content Available Potassium in Mineral Soils; PN-R-04022; Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 1996.
- Chemical and Agricultural Analysis. Determination of the Content Available Magnesium; PN-R-04020; Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 1994. W: Determination of the Content Available Magnesium; PN-R-04020; Polish Standards Committee.
- Roztropowicz, S.; Czerko, Z.; Głuska, A.; Goliszewski, W.; Gruczek, T.; Lis, B.; Lutomirska, B.; Nowacki, W.; Wierzejska-Bujakowska, A.; Zarzyńska , K.; Zgórska, K.. Methodology of observation, measurement and sampling in agrotechnical potato experiments. Wyd. IHAR, Jadwisin Poland 1999, 1–50.
- Sensory analysis- General guidelines for selection, training and monitoring of selected evaluators and sensory evaluation experts: PN-ES ISO 8586:2014-03; Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 2014.
- Zgórska, K.; Czerko, Z.; Grudzińska, M. Effect of storage conditions on some culinary and technological characteristics of tubers of selected potato varieties. Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych 2006, 511, 567–578. [Google Scholar]
- Grudzińska, M.; Czerko, Z. Essential oilsof peppermintand caraway asnaturalsprout inhibitors in potato tubers during storage and theireffect on sensoryquality after cooking. Annales Umcs Sectio E: Agricultura 2016, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komolka, P.; Górecka, D. Effect of heat treatment on structure of selected vegetables and fruit. Inż. Żywności 2017, 2, 67–73. [Google Scholar]
- Pyryt, B.; Kolenda, H. Characteristics of sensory quality of cooked tubers depending on potato variety and cooking method. Bromatol. Chem. Toksykol. 2009, 3, 386–390. [Google Scholar]
- Rytel, A.; Tajner-Czopek, A.; Kita, A.; Lisinska, G. Consistency of cooked potatoes and fried products depending on polysaccharide content. Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych, 2006, 511, 601–609. [Google Scholar]
- Płaza, A.; Makarewicz, A.; Gąsiorowska, B.; Cybulska, A. The effect of weather conditions and fertilization with under sown catch crop on edible potato tuber yield and chemical composition. Acta Agrophys. 2016, 33, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
- Escuredo, O.; Seijo-Rodriguez, A.; Rodríguez-Flores, M.S.; Míguez, M.; Seijo, M.C. Influence of weather conditions on the physicochemical characteristics of potato tubers. Plant Soil Environ 2018, 64, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trawczyński, C. Assessment of storage losses of tubers of new potato varieties depending on different weather conditions during vegetation. Agronomy Science 2021, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardo, J.E.; Alvarruiz, A.; Perez, J.I.; Gomez, R.; Varon, R. Physical-chemical and sensory quality evaluation of potato varieties (Solanum tuberosum l. ) Journal of Food Quality 2000, 23, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, SK.; Singh, S.; Marwaha, RS.; Pattanayak, D. Indian potato processing varieties and future priorities. Am. Potato J. 2009, 36, 95–114. [Google Scholar]
- Felenji, H.; Aharizad, S.; Afsharmanesh, GR.; Ahmadizadeh, M. Evaluating correlation and factor analysis of morphological traits in potato cultivars in fall cultivation of Jiroft Area. AEJAES 2011, 11, 679–684. [Google Scholar]
- Lopes, EC.; Jadoski, SO.; Saitos, LR.; Ramos, MS. Plant morphological characteristics and yield of potato cv. Ágata in function to fungicides application. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Agrar. 2013, 6, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I.; Baranowska, A.; Sikorska, A. Sensory quality of potato tubers depending on ugmax application. Fragm. Agronom. 2017, 34, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
- Zarzecka, K.; Gugala, M.; Dolega, H.; Mystkowska, I.; Baranowska, A.; Zarzecka, M. Effects of biostimulants and herbicides on palatability and flesh darkening of potato tubers. Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych 2016, 585. [Google Scholar]
- Knowles, N.R.; Driskill, E.P. (J).; Knowles, L.O. Sweetening responses of potato tubers of different maturity to conventional and non- conventional storage temperature regimes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wszelaczyńska, E.; Pobereżny, J. Effect of bioelements (N, K, Mg) and long-term storage of potato tubers on quantitative and qualitative losses part 1. Natural losses J. Elem. 2011, 16, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keutgen, A.J.; Pobereżny, J.; Wszelaczyńska, E.; Murawska, B.; Spychaj-Fabisiak, E. Effect of storage on darkening processes of potato (Solanumtuberosum L.) tubers and their health-promoting properties. Inż. Ap Chem. 2014, 53, 86–88. [Google Scholar]
- Lachman, J.; Hamouz, K.; Dvořák, P.; Orsák, M. The effect of selected factors on the content of protein and nitrates in potato tubers. Plant Soil Environ. 2005, 51, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karooki, A. K.; Yavarzadeh, M.; Akbarian, M.; Askari, A. A. Effects of Nanofertilizers (Mg and Fe) and Planting Data on Productivity and Quality of Potato Tubers in Cold Desert Climate. Revista Agrogeoambiental, 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, D.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Yin, J.; Weng, X.; Wu, L. Magnesium is a nutritional tool for the yield and quality of oolong tea (Camellia sinensis L.) and reduces reactive nitrogen loss. Sci. Hortic., 2023, 308, 111590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bienia, B.; Sawicka, B.; Krochmal-Marczak, B. Culinary quality of tubers of selected potato varieties depending on the foliar fertilization used. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Agricultura, 2020, 19, 123–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouda, A.E.A.I.; Gahwash, M.N.M.A.; Abdel-Kader, A.E. Response of potato growth and yield to some stimulating compounds. J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ., 2015, 6, 1293–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naumann, M.; Koch, M.; Thiel, H. The Importance of Nutrient Management for Potato Production Part II: Plant Nutrition and Tuber Quality. Potato Res 2020, 63, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wszelaczyńska, E.; Pobereżny, J.; Gościnna, K. Determination of the effect of abiotic stress on the oxidative potential of edible potato tubers. Sci Rep 2023, 13, 9999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krzysztofik, B.; Sułkowski, K. Changes of the chemical composition of potato tubers during storage and their impact on the selected properties of crisps. Inżynieria Rolnicza, 2013, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Achaerandio, I.; Pujolà, M. Effect of the intensity of cooking methods on the nutritional and physical properties of potato tubers. Food Chem. 2016, 197, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wadas, W. Nutritional Value and Sensory Quality of New Potatoes in Response to Silicon Application. Agriculture. 2023, 13, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Gao, X.; Feng, S.; Wang, Z. Influence of nutritional components on colour, texture characteristics and sensory properties of cooked potatoes. CYTA J Food, 2023, 21, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buratti, S.; Cappa, C.; Benedetti, S.; Giovanelli, G. Influence of Cooking Conditions on Nutritional Properties and Sensory Characteristics Interpreted by E-Senses: Case-Study on Selected Vegetables. Foods. 2020, 9, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayanty, S.S.; Diganta, K.; Raven, B. Effects of Cooking Methods on Nutritional Content in Potato Tubers. Am. J. Potato Res. 2019, 96, 183–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haverkort, A.J.; Linnemann, A.R.; Struik, P.C.; Wiskerke, J. S. C. On Processing Potato. 4. Survey of the Nutritional and Sensory Value of Products and Dishes. Potato Res. 2023, 66, 429–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Parameter | Unit | Amount | Abundance |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH H2O | - | 6.6 | Slightly acidic |
| pH KCl | - | 6.1 | Slightly acidic |
| Organic carbon | [g kg-1] | 8.75 | - |
| Total nitrogen | [g kg-1] | 0.78 | - |
| Absorbable forms of phosphor | [mg kg- 1] | 27.0 | Poor |
| Absorbable forms of potassium | [mg kg- 1] | 49.0 | Very poor |
| Absorbable forms of magnesium | [mg kg- 1] | 23.0 | Very poor |
| Month | Air temperature (°C) | Rainfall (mm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 1996-2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 1996-2014 | |
| April | 7.5 | 8.3 | 6.8 | 8.1 | 15.6 | 28.7 | 40.8 | 28.7 |
| May | 12.4 | 14.7 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 21.6 | 51.4 | 56.3 | 61.1 |
| June | 15.6 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 16.3 | 33.0 | 98.1 | 54.3 | 53.1 |
| July | 18.5 | 18.3 | 17.7 | 18.7 | 50.4 | 133.8 | 118.9 | 87.1 |
| August | 20.9 | 16.4 | 14.3 | 17.8 | 20.3 | 55.3 | 19.4 | 67.0 |
| September | 13.8 | 14.3 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 52.4 | 19.4 | 78.4 | 66.5 |
| Average | 14.8 | 15.0 | 13.7 | 14.5 | 32.2 | 64.5 | 61.4 | 60.6 |
| Utility- consumption type |
Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1 | 1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 1 |
| B | 1-2 | 1-2 | 2 | 2 | 1-2 |
| C | 3 | 2-3 | 3 | 3 | 2-3 |
| D | 4 | 3-4 | 4 | 4 | 3-4 |
| MgO fertilization doses (kg ha-1) (B) |
Potato tuber evaluation date (A) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure | |
| Without biostimulant application - control (C) | |||||
| 0 | 2.0±0.50 | 1.9±0.10 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.5±0.00 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.7±0.29 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.5±0.00 |
| 60 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.6±0.17 | 1.2±0.17 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.5±0.25 |
| 90 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.6±0.15 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.1±0.17 |
| Average | 1.6±0.00 | 1.7±0.10 | 1.1±0.00 | 1.4±0.10 | 1.4±0.06 |
| Biostimulant application - 1.5 l ha-1 (C) | |||||
| 0 | 1.9±0.40 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.1±0.10 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.5±0.50 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.6±0.15 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.2±0.29 |
| 60 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 |
| 90 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 |
| Average | 1.7±0.10 | 1.6±0.20 | 1.0±0.06 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.2±0.17 |
| Biostimulant application - 3.0 l ha-1 (C) | |||||
| 0 | 2.3±0.25 | 2.0±0.00 | 1.2±0.12 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.5±0.50 |
| 30 | 2.0±0.00 | 1.7±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.5±0.15 | 1.3±0.15 |
| 60 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.3±0.00 |
| 90 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 | 1.0±0.00 |
| Average | 1.8±0.20 | 1.7±0.25 | 1.0±0.06 | 1.3±0.06 | 1.3±0.10 |
| Average | |||||
| 0 | 2.0±0.35 | 1.9±0.10 | 1.1±0.06 | 1.5±0.20 | 1.5±0.00 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.15 | 1.7±0.12 | 1.0±0.06 | 1.5±0.20 | 1.3±0.10 |
| 60 | 1.7±0.00 | 1.4±0.25 | 1.1±0.06 | 1.1±0.10 | 1.3±0.10 |
| 90 | 1.3±0.15 | 1.6±0.30 | 1.0±0.06 | 1.1±0.10 | 1.0±0.06 |
| Average | 1.7±0.10 | 1.7±0.21 | 1.1±0.00 | 1.3±0.10 | 1.3±0.01 |
| NIR0.05 (Tukey test) Tendency to overcook : A - ns1 B - 0.31 C - 0.16 B/A - ns A/B - ns B/C - ns A/C - ns C/B - ns B/C - ns Texture : A - ns B - 0.23 C - ns B/A - ns A/B - ns B/C - ns A/C - ns C/B - ns B/C - ns Mealiness : A - ns B - ns C - ns B/A - ns A/B - ns B/C - ns A/C - ns C/B - ns B/C - ns Moisture : A - ns B - ns C - ns B/A - 0.22 A/B - 0.49 B/C - ns A/C - ns C/B - ns B/C - ns Flesh structure: A - ns B - 0.13 C - ns B/A - ns A/B - ns B/C - ns A/C - ns C/B - ns B/C - ns | |||||
| Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure | NO3− | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texture | 0.526 | |||||
| Mealiness | ns | 0.429 | ||||
| Moisture | ns | 0.673 | 0.412 | |||
| Flesh structure | 0.379 | 0.576 | 0.510 | 0.729 | ||
| NO3− | ns | ns | 0.492 | 0.569 | 0.562 | |
| NO2− | ns | ns | 0.555 | 0.545 | 0.602 | 0.838 |
| Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure | NO3− | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texture | 0.446 | |||||
| Mealiness | ns | 0.473 | ||||
| Moisture | ns | 0.339 | ns | |||
| Flesh structure | 0.586 | 0.566 | ns | 0.707 | ||
| NO3− | 0.430 | 0.390 | 0.342 | 0.588 | 0.472 | |
| NO2− | ns | ns | 0.318 | 0.639 | 0.387 | 0.818 |
| MgO fertilization doses (kg ha-1) (B) |
Potato tuber evaluation date (A) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure | |
| Without biostimulant application - control (C) | |||||
| 0 | 1.9±0.10 | 2.1±0.10 | 1.2±0.06 | 1.8±0.00 | 1.8±0.00 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.12 | 1.8±0.12 | 1.1±0.06 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.4±0.12 |
| 60 | 1.6±0.06 | 1.6±0.17 | 1.3±0.00 | 1.6±0.15 | 1.4±0.10 |
| 90 | 1.5±0.15 | 1.6±0.15 | 1.2±0.20 | 1.4±0.10 | 1.2±0.10 |
| Average | 1.7±0.06 | 1.8±0.00 | 1.2±0.10 | 1.6±0.12 | 1.4±0.06 |
| Biostimulant application - 1.5 l ha-1 (C) | |||||
| 0 | 2.3±0.29 | 2.0±0.06 | 1.2±0.15 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.8±0.25 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.10 | 1.8±0.12 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.5±0.10 | 1.5±0.15 |
| 60 | 1.9±0.12 | 1.8±0.17 | 1.2±0.15 | 1.2±0.10 | 1.2±0.00 |
| 90 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.3±0.12 | 1.1±0.17 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.2±0.21 |
| Average | 1.9±0.10 | 1.7±0.06 | 1.1±0.06 | 1.4±0.06 | 1.4±0.17 |
| Biostimulant application - 3.0 l ha-1 (C) | |||||
| 0 | 2.0±0.00 | 2.3±0.12 | 1.3±0.06 | 1.3±0.25 | 1.5±0.20 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.8±0.12 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.4±0.12 | 1.5±0.00 |
| 60 | 1.7±0.15 | 1.8±0.12 | 1.1±0.23 | 1.7±0.20 | 1.5±0.06 |
| 90 | 1.5±0.50 | 1.5±0.29 | 1.1±0.15 | 1.4±0.12 | 1.3±0.25 |
| Average | 1.7±0.15 | 1.8±0.06 | 1.2±0.06 | 1.4±0.10 | 1.4±0.00 |
| Average | |||||
| 0 | 2.1±0.06 | 2.1±0.06 | 1.2±0.06 | 1.6±0.20 | 1.7±0.00 |
| 30 | 1.8±0.15 | 1.8±0.25 | 1.1±0.10 | 1.5±0.06 | 1.5±0.06 |
| 60 | 1.7±0.00 | 1.7±0.10 | 1.2±0.00 | 1.5±0.06 | 1.4±0.06 |
| 90 | 1.5±0.20 | 1.4±0.06 | 1.1±0.12 | 1.4±0.06 | 1.2±0.15 |
| Average | 1.8±0.06 | 1.8±0.06 | 1.2±0.06 | 1.5±0.00 | 1.4±0.06 |
|
NIR0.05 (test Tukey'a) According to the Table 4 | |||||
| Tendency to overcook | Texture | Mealiness | Moisture | Flesh structure |
Utility-consumption type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a/h | a/s | a/h | a/s | a/h | a/s | a/h | a/s | a/h | a/s | a/h | a/s |
| 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | B/A | B/A |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
