962
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Cichoric Acid Content and Biomass Production of Echinacea purpurea. Plants Cultivated in Slovenia

Pages 662-665 | Accepted 23 Aug 2005, Published online: 07 Oct 2008

Figures & data

Table 1.. Cichoric and caftaric acid contents in three organs of Echinacea purpurea..

Figure 1 Cichoric acid and caftaric acid contents in flowers, leaves, and stems of plants grown in different regions. Region has a significant influence (ANOVA, p < 0.05) on the content of both acids in leaves and on caftaric acid in stems. The lowest content of both substances in all organs is found in Krs˘ko region, followed by Ptuj region, and the highest content is found in Z˘uz˘emberg region. The Z˘uz˘emberg region yields, on average, a twofold higher cichoric acid content in leaf than the Krs˘ko region. Standard deviations are represented by the error bars.

Figure 1 Cichoric acid and caftaric acid contents in flowers, leaves, and stems of plants grown in different regions. Region has a significant influence (ANOVA, p < 0.05) on the content of both acids in leaves and on caftaric acid in stems. The lowest content of both substances in all organs is found in Krs˘ko region, followed by Ptuj region, and the highest content is found in Z˘uz˘emberg region. The Z˘uz˘emberg region yields, on average, a twofold higher cichoric acid content in leaf than the Krs˘ko region. Standard deviations are represented by the error bars.

Figure 2 Morphological (top panel) and phytochemical (bottom panel) characteristics of plants as a function of the year when the plantation was set out. Because the fields were planted in the spring of the respective year and there was no harvest in the summer of the year, the morphological data for the summer harvest of 2002 is missing (top panel). Morphological parameters decrease markedly with the age of plantation, but the contents of the two acids are not significantly affected. Standard deviations are represented by the error bars.

Figure 2 Morphological (top panel) and phytochemical (bottom panel) characteristics of plants as a function of the year when the plantation was set out. Because the fields were planted in the spring of the respective year and there was no harvest in the summer of the year, the morphological data for the summer harvest of 2002 is missing (top panel). Morphological parameters decrease markedly with the age of plantation, but the contents of the two acids are not significantly affected. Standard deviations are represented by the error bars.

Figure 3 The influence of irrigation on plant morphology (s., summer; a., autumn). Standard error of mean is represented by the error bars.

Figure 3 The influence of irrigation on plant morphology (s., summer; a., autumn). Standard error of mean is represented by the error bars.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.