Submitted:
04 November 2023
Posted:
06 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Flower yield
3.2. The yield of dried stigmas
3.3. Weight of single stigma
3.4. Yield of flowers per mother corm
3.5. Corm yield
3.6. Qualitative attributes
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Srivastava, R, H Ahmed, Rk Dixit, Dharamveer, and Sa Saraf. Crocus Sativus L.: A Comprehensive Review. Pharmacognosy Reviews 2010, 4, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bayat, Mahdi, Mehdi Rahimi, and Mehdi Ramezani. Determining the Most Effective Traits to Improve Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.) Yield. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 2016, 22, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kothari, Deepak, Rajesh Thakur, and Rakesh Kumar. Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.): Gold of the Spices—A Comprehensive Review. Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology 2021, 62, 661–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, Amit, Mamta Devi, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar. Introduction of High-Value Crocus Sativus (Saffron) Cultivation in Non-Traditional Regions of India through Ecological Modelling. Scientific Reports 2022, 12, 11925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El Hajj, Abdel Kader, Soha Oleik, Oxana Baghdadi, Nour Taha, Vera Talj, Hanaa Chehabeldein, and Tamim Eltakich. Performance of Saffron Growth on Different Soils under Homogeneous Environmental Condition. AGROFOR 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gresta, F., G. M. Lombardo, L. Siracusa, and G. Ruberto. Saffron, an Alternative Crop for Sustainable Agricultural Systems. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2008, 28, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGimpsey, J. A., M. H. Douglas, and A. R. Wallace. Evaluation of Saffron ( Crocus Sativus L.) Production in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 1997, 25, 159–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amirnia, Reza, Mahdi Bayat, and Mahdi Tajbakhsh. Effects of Nano Fertilizer Application and Maternal Corm Weight on Flowering at Some Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.) Ecotypes. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 2014, 19, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koocheki, A., M. Nassiri, and M.A. Behdani. Agronomic Attributes of Saffron Yield at Agroecosystems Scal in Iran. Acta Horticulturae 2007, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kothari, Deepak, Meenakshi Thakur, Robin Joshi, Amit Kumar, and Rakesh Kumar. Agro-Climatic Suitability Evaluation for Saffron Production in Areas of Western Himalaya. Frontiers in Plant Science 2021, 12, 657819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ünal, Mesude, and Aysun Çavuşoğlu. The Effect of Various Nitrogen Fertilizers on Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.) Yield. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 2005, 18, 257–60. [Google Scholar]
- Amiri, Mohammad E. Impact of Animal Manures and Chemical Fertilizers on Yield Components of Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.). Environ. Sci. 2008, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Ghanbari, Jalal, Gholamreza Khajoei-Nejad, Saskia M. Van Ruth, and Sonia Aghighi. The Possibility for Improvement of Flowering, Corm Properties, Bioactive Compounds, and Antioxidant Activity in Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.) by Different Nutritional Regimes. Industrial Crops and Products 2019, 135, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahan, M., and M. Jahani. The Effect of Chemical and Organic Fertilizers on Saffron Flowering. Acta Horticulturae, 2007, 81–86. [CrossRef]
- Behzad, S., M. Razavi, and M. Mahajeri. The Effect of Mineral Nutrients (N.P.K.) on Saffron Production. Acta Horticulturae 1992, 426–430. [CrossRef]
- Hourani, W. 2022. Effect of Fertilizers on Growth and Productivity of Saffron: A Review. PDF, 342.4Kb. [CrossRef]
- Temperini, Olindo, Roberto Rea, Andrea Temperini, Giuseppe Colla, and Youssef Rouphael. Evaluation of Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.) Production in Italy: Effects of the Age of Saffron Fields and Plant Density. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 2009, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Nehvi, Firdos, Ajaz Lone, Mohammad Khan, and M. I. Maqhdoomi. Comparative Study on Effect of Nutrient Management on Growth and Yield of Saffron under Temperate Conditions of Kashmir. Acta Horticulturae 2010, 850, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez-Corcoles, Horacio, Antonio Brasa-Ramos, Francisco Montero-Garcia, Miguel Romero-Valverde, and Francisco Montero-Riquelme. Short Communication. Phenological Growth Stages of Saffron Plant (Crocus Sativus L.) According to the BBCH Scale. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2015, 13, e09SC01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabani-Foroutagheh, Mehdi, Yousef Hamidoghli, and Seyed Ahmad Mohajeri. Effect of Split Foliar Fertilisation on the Quality and Quantity of Active Constituents in Saffron ( Crocus Sativus L.): Effect of Split Foliar Fertilisation on Saffron. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2014, 94, 1872–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Monemizadeh, Z, M. R. Ghasemi, and R Sadrabali Haghighi. Effect of Foliar Application with Three Fertilizer Types at Different Times on Corms Growth and Production in Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.). Iranian Journal of Seed Science and Research 2020, 6, 513–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Zhaoxin, Fang Gao, Yan Liu, Jianqun Yang, Xiaoyv Zhen, Xinxin Li, Ying Li; et al. Timing and Splitting of Nitrogen Fertilizer Supply to Increase Crop Yield and Efficiency of Nitrogen Utilization in a Wheat–Peanut Relay Intercropping System in China. The Crop Journal 2019, 7, 101–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, M., B. Sadeghiand, and S.A. Aghamiri. Influence of Foliar Fertilization on Yield of Saffron (Crocus Sativus L.). Acta Horticulturae 2004, 207–209. [CrossRef]
- Panison, Fernando, Luís Sangoi, Murilo Miguel Durli, Lucieli Santini Leolato, Antonio Eduardo Coelho, Hugo Francois Kuneski, and Vander Oliveira de Liz. Timing and Splitting of Nitrogen Side-Dress Fertilization of Early Corn Hybrids for High Grain Yield. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Do Solo 2019, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Treatments | Picking year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Means | |
| A | 1.3 | 73.8 | 154.8ab | 334.5ab | 341bc | 181.1ab |
| AS | 1.8 | 80.6 | 134.5abc | 185.8bc | 301.0c | 140.7bc |
| AW | 1.3 | 71.1 | 99.6bc | 292.1abc | 426.1b | 178.0ab |
| AWS | 1.5 | 73.0 | 205.0a | 471.1a | 547.6a | 259.6a |
| c | 1.8 | 32.0 | 52.1c | 84.7c | 68.1e | 47.9c |
| S | 2.1 | 80.4 | 105.3bc | 115.3bc | 186.4d | 97.9bc |
| W | 1.6 | 47.9 | 102.2bc | 224.9bc | 303.7c | 136.1bc |
| WS | 1.9 | 56.3 | 126.2abc | 346.1ab | 393.2bc | 187.7ab |
| Means | 1.7 | 64.4 | 122.5 | 256.8 | 320.9 | 153.3 |
| SD | 0.83 | 37.7 | 72.1 | 189.1 | 150.9 | 63.6 |
| Simple anova | ||||||
| P | 0.97 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.02 | <.0001 | 0.0167 |
| η² | 0.18 | 0.59 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 0.19 |
| Treatments | Picking year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Means | |
| A | 0.005 | 0.336 | 0.737ab | 1.603ab | 1.381bc | 0.812ab |
| AS | 0.006 | 0.370 | 0.648abc | 0.891bc | 1.301cd | 0.643bc |
| AW | 0.004 | 0.330 | 0.474bc | 1.350abc | 1.846b | 0.801ab |
| AWS | 0.005 | 0.363 | 1.005a | 2.293a | 2.441a | 1.222a |
| c | 0.007 | 0.144 | 0.253c | 0.404c | 0.290e | 0.220c |
| S | 0.008 | 0.358 | 0.523bc | 0.566c | 0.809de | 0.453bc |
| W | 0.005 | 0.216 | 0.456bc | 1.056bc | 1.369bc | 0.621bc |
| WS | 0.007 | 0.259 | 0.616abc | 1.742ab | 1.683bc | 0.861ab |
| Means | 0.006 | 0.297 | 0.589 | 1.238 | 1.390 | 0.812 |
| SD | 0.001 | 0.082 | 0.223 | 0.634 | 0.650 | 0.704 |
| Simple anova | ||||||
| P | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.04 | 0.02 | <.0001 | 0.014 |
| η² | .22 | .53 | .75 | .77 | .88 | 0.20 |
| Treatments | Picking year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Means | |
| A | 0.0037 | 0.0045 | 0.0046 | 0.0047 | 0.0040 | 0.0043 |
| AS | 0.0035 | 0.0046 | 0.0048 | 0.0048 | 0.0043 | 0.0044 |
| AW | 0.0031 | 0.0044 | 0.0047 | 0.0045 | 0.0043 | 0.0042 |
| AWS | 0.0034 | 0.0049 | 0.0049 | 0.0048 | 0.0045 | 0.0045 |
| c | 0.0037 | 0.0043 | 0.0048 | 0.0044 | 0.0045 | 0.0044 |
| S | 0.0034 | 0.0044 | 0.0049 | 0.0047 | 0.0043 | 0.0044 |
| W | 0.0033 | 0.0045 | 0.0044 | 0.0047 | 0.0045 | 0.0043 |
| WS | 0.0035 | 0.0046 | 0.0048 | 0.0048 | 0.0043 | 0.0044 |
| Means | 0.0034 | 0.0045 | 0.0048 | 0.0047 | 0.0043 | 0.0044 |
| SD | 0.0006 | 0.0004 | 0.0003 | 0.634 | 0.0003 | 0.0006 |
| Simple anova | ||||||
| P | 0.96 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.97 | 0.54 | 0.95 |
| η² | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.9 | 0.28 | 0.02 |
| Treatments | Picking year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Means | |
| A | 0.04 | 2.4 | 5.1ab | 10.5ab | 10.9cd | 5.8ab |
| AS | 0.06 | 2.7 | 4.8ab | 7.5abc | 12.3bc | 5.5abc |
| AW | 0.05 | 2.9 | 4.3bc | 11.8ab | 17.3a | 7.3ab |
| AWS | 0.06 | 2.4 | 6.9a | 15.1a | 16.6ab | 8.2a |
| C | 0.07 | 1.2 | 2.0c | 2.9c | 2.5e | 1.7c |
| S | 0.07 | 2.9 | 4.0bc | 4.3bc | 7.1d | 3.7bc |
| W | 0.07 | 1.8 | 3.7bc | 7.6abc | 10.2cd | 4.7abc |
| WS | 0.07 | 2.0 | 5.0ab | 12.5a | 13.8abc | 6.7ab |
| Means | 0.1 | 2.3 | 4.5 | 9.0 | 11.3 | 5.4 |
| SD | 0.0 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 2.1 |
| Simple anova | ||||||
| P | 0.97 | 0.6 | 0.04 | 0.05 | <.0001 | 0.04 |
| η² | 0.18 | 0.57 | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.20 |
| Total # of corms | # corms /mother corm | Corm categories | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | |||
| A | 326.3abc | 11.5ab | 0.54abc | 0.24 | 0.22ab |
| AS | 405.3a | 13.3a | 0.57abc | 0.26 | 0.17abc |
| AW | 263.7abc | 11.3ab | 0.50bc | 0.26 | 0.24a |
| AWS | 387.0ab | 12.6a | 0.45c | 0.28 | 0.28a |
| c | 146.7c | 8.4b | 0.66a | 0.28 | 0.06c |
| S | 255.3abc | 10.1ab | 0.63ab | 0.24 | 0.12bc |
| W | 193.0bc | 8.4b | 0.46c | 0.31 | 0.24ab |
| WS | 271.0abc | 10.9ab | 0.53abc | 0.23 | 0.24a |
| Means | 281.0 | 10.8 | 0.54 | 0.26 | 0.20 |
| SD | 4.7 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 0.67 | 3.6 |
| P | 0.0064 | 0.05 | 0.0867 | 0.69 | 0.0204 |
| η² | 72 | .57 | .76 | .49 | .82 |
| Picrocrocin | Crocin | Safranal | ||||||||||
| 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Mean | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Mean | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Mean | |
| A | 86.8 | 87.8 | 99.5 | 91.4 | 199.0 | 227.2 | 263.9 | 230.0 | 26.3 | 32.5 | 29.5 | 29.5 |
| AS | 78.2 | 89.0 | 93.7 | 87.0 | 196.7 | 228.1 | 246.8 | 223.9 | 27.2 | 32.6 | 29.3 | 29.7 |
| AW | 90.0 | 90.7 | 92.9 | 91.2 | 214.2 | 234.3 | 238.6 | 229.0 | 29.9 | 32.8 | 30.3 | 31.0 |
| AWS | 89.0 | 98.6 | 90.2 | 92.6 | 209.3 | 231.9 | 235.7 | 225.6 | 28.0 | 37.2 | 29.1 | 31.4 |
| C | 91.4 | 90.7 | 99.1 | 93.7 | 218.3 | 239.6 | 260.6 | 239.5 | 28.4 | 32.1 | 31.4 | 30.6 |
| S | 86.4 | 89.3 | 92.4 | 89.4 | 194.1 | 231.9 | 252.5 | 226.2 | 27.4 | 31.5 | 27.0 | 28.6 |
| W | 84.3 | 89.5 | 104.5 | 92.7 | 193.9 | 224.1 | 274.8 | 231.0 | 26.1 | 33.3 | 31.2 | 30.2 |
| WS | 88.1 | 96.7 | 98.9 | 94.6 | 205.5 | 240.9 | 262.9 | 236.5 | 27.3 | 34.7 | 32.6 | 31.5 |
| Means | 86.8 | 91.5 | 96.4 | 91.6 | 203.9 | 232.3 | 254.5 | 230.2 | 27.6 | 33.3 | 30.0 | 30.3 |
| SD | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 2.5 | 9.4 | 5.9 | 13.5 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.0 |
| Simple Anova | ||||||||||||
| P | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| η² | ||||||||||||
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/).