Home> Published Issues> 2018> Volume 5, No. 4, December 2018
The Purple Coneflower’s Herb Yield’s and Essential Oil Agents’ Change under Different Fertilization Settings
Judit Éva Lelesz
Institue of Crop Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
Abstract—During our research we investigated the purple coneflower's (Echinacea purpurea L.) herb yield’s and it’s essential oil active agents’ change under different fertilization settings in small-plot trial. We measured the raw drug yield, which we harvested in 2016 and in 2017. We made the harvest and all other works manually. We dried the harvested herba under prenumbra for three weeks. Based on the data, every fertilization settings’ yield was less than the control plots’ in 2016. In contrary to the 2016 year’s data, in 2017 we measured the highest yield data in the N75P100K150 fertilization setting. The drying loss of the investigated two years’ herb yields’ were fluctuating between the nutrient requirements.
We made single-factor variance analysis, Pearsons’s correlation test and Factor analysis to investigate the connection between the quantity of the herba yield and the different nutrient settings. We discovered a complex and complicated connection system between the different essential oil active agents. We used SPME (Solid Phase MicroExtraction) and GC-MS (Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer) we examined the effects of the different fertilization settings for the herb's main active ingredients of essential oil's percentage.
Index Terms—herb, medicinal plant, coneflower, nutrient requirement, fertilization
Cite: Judit Éva Lelesz, "The Purple Coneflower’s Herb Yield’s and Essential Oil Agents’ Change under Different Fertilization Settings," Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 293-297, December 2018. Doi: 10.18178/joaat.5.4.293-297
Cite: Judit Éva Lelesz, "The Purple Coneflower’s Herb Yield’s and Essential Oil Agents’ Change under Different Fertilization Settings," Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 293-297, December 2018. Doi: 10.18178/joaat.5.4.293-297