Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/fertilization-management-improves-the-yield-and-capsaicinoid-content-DP3NDb9mUx
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Copyright
- © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
- ISSN
- 2077-0472
- DOI
- 10.3390/agriculture11020181
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Article Fertilization Management Improves the Yield and Capsaicinoid Content of Chili Peppers Teodor Stan, Neculai Munteanu, Gabriel‐Ciprian Teliban, Alexandru Cojocaru * and Vasile Stoleru * Department of Horticultural Technologies, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3 M. Sadoveanu, 700440 Iasi, Romania; steodor@uaiasi.ro (T.S.); nmunte@uaiasi.ro (N.M.); gabrielteliban@uaiasi.ro (G.‐C.T.) * Correspondence: vstoleru@uaiasi.ro (V.S.); acojocaru@uaiasi.ro (A.C.) Abstract: Chili, one of the most cultivated plants in the world, from the genus Capsicum sp., has great importance both in human nutrition and in the pharmaceutical industry. This study provides de‐ tailed information on the impact of chili crop fertilization on the production and accumulation of −1 capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin. During the vegetation period, 235 kg∙ha NPK (chemical—Ch), 270 −1 −1 kg∙ha NPK (organic—O) and 250 kg∙ha NPK (mixed—Ch + O) fertilizers were applied on six varieties of chili pepper (De Cayenne, Traian 2, Turkish, Sigaretta di Bergamo, Jovial and Chor‐ badjiiski); all versions were compared with the control (Ct). The determination of capsaicinoid com‐ pounds from chili pepper samples was done using high‐performance liquid chromatography, HPLC‐UV/VIS. The chili pepper plants reacted differently according to the fertilizers used, both in terms of the production and accumulation of capsaicinoids. The highest production was obtained for the case of mixed treatments in all cultivars, with the highest production being found for Siga‐ −1 retta di Bergamo (40.61 t∙ha ). The capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin content was influenced by both the type of fertilizer used and the variety of chili pepper. The accumulation of capsaicinoids in the Citation: Stan, T.; Munteanu, N.; chili fruits was found to be dependent on cultivar and fertilization management; higher amounts of Teliban, G.‐C.; Cojocaru, A.; capsaicinoids were found to accumulate in the fruits of the Chorbadjiiski variety treated with chem‐ Stoleru, V. Fertilization Management −1 −1 icals (0.83 mg∙g capsaicin and 0.53 mg∙g dihydrocapsaicin) compared with the amounts found Improves the Yield and Capsaicinoid −1 −1 for untreated De Cayenne (0.52 mg∙g capsaicin and 0.33 mg∙g dihydrocapsaicin). Content of Chili Peppers. Agriculture 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: capsaicin; dihydrocapsaicin; varieties; nutrient management; production agriculture11020181 Academic Editor: Laura Ercoli Received: 20 January 2021 1. Introduction Accepted: 18 February 2021 Chili (paprika), Capsicum annuum L., is one of the most cultivated species of the genus Published: 23 February 2021 Capsicum worldwide [1,2]. In Romania, in 2019, the cultivated area for chili peppers was 10,780 ha, from which was obtained a production of 162,345 tons. In terms of cultivated Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐ area and production in Europe, in first place is Spain, with 21,430 ha and a total produc‐ tral with regard to jurisdictional tion of 1,402,380 tons of chili peppers. Globally, in the year 2019, the area cultivated with claims in published maps and insti‐ chili peppers was 1,990,926 hectares, with a total production of 38,027,164 tons [3]. Chili tutional affiliations. peppers belong to the Solanaceae family and they are grown in open fields in temperate regions for direct consumption (fresh) or to be used as a raw material in the food and pharmaceutical industries [4–6]. Unlike other species of the genus Capsicum, chili peppers are characterized by fruits that are relatively small in size—about 0.5–2 cm in diameter Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li‐ and with a length between 1 cm and 25 cm—and have a hot taste, which varies in intensity censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. according to the variety [7–9]. This pungent taste and the sharpness of the peppers has This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and con‐ led these fruits to find a place in many international cuisines as a spice, and they are loved ditions of the Creative Commons At‐ by many consumers [10–13]. tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea‐ Capsaicinoids are the compounds responsible for the pungency of pepper fruits and tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). their products [14]. The two most abundant capsaicinoids are capsaicin (C) (8‐methyl‐N‐ Agriculture 2021, 11, 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020181 www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 2 of 14 vanillyl‐trans‐6‐nonenamide) and dihydrocapsaicin (DhC) (8‐methyl‐N‐vanillylnonana‐ mide) [15–17]. The chemical structures of these compounds are shown in Figure 1. (a) (b) Figure 1. Chemical structure of capsaicin (a) and dihydrocapsaicin (b). The content of capsaicinoids in peppers is one of the major parameters determining their commercial quality. The structural characteristics of capsaicinoids that are responsi‐ ble for their spicy flavor are associated with the presence of an amide bond connecting a vanillyl ring and an acyl chain [18,19]. The biological activities of these compounds and pepper fruits are also associated with these structural characteristics. They have been used as an analgesic against arthritis and inflammation. Furthermore, they have been reported to show an anticancer effect and to be active against neurogenic inflammation, high cho‐ lesterol levels and obesity [20–22]. However, high levels of capsaicinoids also have nega‐ tive health impacts, leading to a greater risk of gastric cancer [23]. The amounts of capsaicinoids found in pepper fruits can vary in accordance with the light intensity, temperature and mineral elements with which the plant is grown; the age of the fruit; and the position of the fruit on the plant [8,24]. In commercial pepper fruits, capsaicin content is generally 33–59%, while dihydrocapsaicin content is generally 30– 51% and nondihydrocapsaicin 7–15%, with the remainder being <5% capsaicinoids [25– 27]. The aim of this study was to obtain further answers regarding the types of fertilizers used during phenophases in order to highlight their effect on production and their influ‐ ence on fruit accumulation of capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin in six varieties of chili pep‐ pers. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Experimental Site The experiment was performed during the years 2018–2019 in the experimental field of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi. To achieve the goal of this research, six chili varieties were studied (De Cayenne, Traian 2, Turkish, Sigaretta di Bergamo, Jovial and Chorbadjiiski). The chili pepper seeds were purchased at the market from Romanian seed traders. The seedlings destined for cropping were produced in the greenhouse. At the age of 55 days, the chili seedlings were planted in a vegetable field at density of 48,000 −1 plants∙ha . The crop technology applied for the chili peppers was that recommended by the specialized literature [28]. The experiment was carried out using a split‐plot design, with three replicates per treatment for each variety. During the vegetation period, five fertilizations in vegetation were applied using chemical fertilizers (Ch), organic fertilizers (O) and mixed fertilizers (Ch + O) on the six varieties of chili peppers, which were then compared with an unferti‐ lized variant (Ct). In the case of the control variant, no fertilizers were applied. All treat‐ ments were applied to the soil. The irrigation regime was identical for all treatments. The treatments were applied during the following growing and development phe‐ nophases: first flower bud visible (BBCH 501), first flower open (BBCH 601), 10th flower open (BBCH 610), first fruit reached typical size and form (BBCH 701) and 10th fruit reached typical form and size (BBCH 710). −1 Three fertilization types consisted of the application of 235 kg∙ha chemical fertilizer (Nutrispore, NPK 24‐5‐16; 30.10.10; 15.10.30; 8.24.24 by MsBiotech, Termoli, Italy), 270 Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 3 of 14 −1 kg∙ha organic fertilizer (Orgevit® by SolarLegume Ltd Romania, Matca, Galati, Roma‐ −1 −1 nia) and 250 kg∙ha mixed treatment consisting of 108 kg∙ha NPK from organic fertilizer −1 and 142 kg∙ha NPK 15.10.30; 8.24.24 (Table 1). −1 Chemical fertilization consisted of 235 kg∙ha NPK from Nutrispore®. The organic fertilizer used was a product based on chicken manure with the following characteristics: pH 7, 6% N, 4.5% P2 O5, 3% K2O, 8% CaO, 1% MgO, 0.03% Fe, 0.01% Mn, 0.01% B, 0.01% Zn, 0.001% Cu and 0.001% Mo. In the case of the O version, the chicken manure was com‐ plexed with biological products based on Bacillus sp. and Glomus sp. and was used at 35 −1 kg∙ha three times applied. The doses of fertilizers were calculated by taking into account the following: the chemical composition of each formulation; assuming that 75–80% of N, P2O5 and K2O con‐ tents of the O (organic) fertilizer was available for plant assimilation in the year of appli‐ cation [29]. Table 1. Experimental design of the treatments according to phenophases. Growing and Development Chili Pepper Phenophases First fruit First Flower Bud First Flower 10th Flower 10th Fruit Reached Treatments Reached Typical Visible Open Open Typical Size Size (BBCH 501) (BBCH 601) (BBCH 61) (BBCH 710) (BBCH 701) NPK 24.5.16 20 NPK 30.10.10 NPK 15.10.30 NPK 8.24.24 120 NPK 8.24.24 120 Ch −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 kg∙ha 100 kg∙ha 80 kg∙ha kg∙ha kg∙ha Chicken Chicken NPK 15.10.30 60 NPK 8.24.24 NPK 8.24.24 120 Ch + O manure manure −1 −1 −1 kg∙ha 80 kg∙ha kg∙ha −1 −1 400 kg∙ha 400 kg∙ha Chicken manure Chicken manure Mo* fertilizer 15 Mo* fertilizer 10 Mo* fertilizer 10 O −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1000 kg∙ha 1000 kg∙ha kg∙ha kg∙ha kg∙ha * Microorganisms fertilizer based on Bacillus sp. and Glomus sp. Harvesting of chili pepper fruits, in order to determine the production, was done in phenological phase 809—fully ripe: fruits have typical fully ripe color (BBCH scale) [30]. From the beginning of the fruit harvest, measurements were made on the height of the plants in each repetition and the fruits harvested on each plant were counted. The total yield according with fertilization schemes was carried out by weighing the fruits for each harvest. 2.2. Dry Matter Content After harvesting, 10 ripe fruits from each replication were dried in a laboratory oven with ventilation. The fruits were dried without the placenta and seeds. Drying was carried at 55 ± 5 °C until the weight of the samples at 12 h intervals remained constant after each sample was separately ground with a laboratory mill [31]. The percentage of dry matter of chili pepper fruits was calculated using the formula: D.W.% = 100 – ((m1 − m2) / m) × 100 [6], where: m1 = weight of the sample with the laboratory tray before drying; m2 = weight of the sample with the laboratory tray after drying; m = weight of the analyzed sample before drying. 2.3. Chili Pepper Analyses 2.3.1. Analysis by HPLC‐UV The determination of compounds C and DhC, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in chili pepper samples was performed using high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC‐UV/VIS) at the analytical laboratory of Van Hall Larenstein University in Leeu‐ warden (the Netherlands) [32–34]. For all analyses, a Shimadzu liquid chromatograph (LC‐20 AT) coupled with an auto sampler (SIL‐20AC ht), a UV‐VIS detector (SPD‐10A) and a column oven (CTO‐10A) were used. Furthermore, separation of C and DhC was achieved using a Luna 5 μm C18(2) 100A 250—4.6 mm column. During the analysis, the Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 4 of 14 mobile phase consisted of 20% Milli‐Q water and 80% methanol (HPLC‐grade) with a total run time of 20 min at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/minute and an oven temperature of 40 °C. For this, a 5 μL sample was injected and both compounds were detected at 284 nm. 2.3.2. Sample Preparation All chili samples (0.4 g) were dissolved in 10 mL methanol (VWR, CAS: 67‐56‐1) and placed in a 60 °C, ultrasonic water bath for 20 min for extraction. Subsequently, the dis‐ solved sample was centrifuged at 2500 rpm for five minutes, and subsequently filtered over a 0.45 μm nylon filter [35,36]. 2.3.3. Quantification and Validation Quantification was achieved by injecting known concentrations of C and DhC, re‐ spectively: 0.5–60 ppm and 0.5–40 ppm [37,38]. These standard solutions were measured 3 times on HLPC‐UV/VIS using the autosampler and processed into a calibration curve (external standard method). With this data, the linearity of the method was determined. The precision of the method was expressed in term of repeatability and reproducibility of peak area/gram, using available chili flakes and powder. Initial repeatability was per‐ formed on the same day and reproducibility performance was spread over 3 days [39–41], and both compounds were prepared and measured 10 times [42]. 2.4. Capsaicinoids Ratio The ratio of capsaicinoids is calculated by dividing the content of capsaicin by dihy‐ drocapsaicin, and it is usually 2:1 to 1:1 [13]. 2.5. Scoville Heat Units (SHU) C and DhC. The pungency Two of the most important capsaicinoids in this regard are of the chili peppers is measured on the Scoville scale in Scoville Heat Units (SHU). This scale was created by Wilbur Scoville in 1912 and it is also known as the Organoleptic Test. The hot taste (pungency) of peppers, weaker or stronger, depends on the fruit content of capsaicinoids. In order to express the degree of pungency in SHU, depending on the content of C and DhC in chili fruit, the following formula [10] was used: Total SHU=(C+DhC) × ሺ 1.6 × 10 ሻ 2.6. Statistical Analysis The data is expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Two‐way ANOVA was used to see the influence of the treatments on the biochemical and yield parameters of De Cayenne, Traian2, Turkish, Sigaretta, Jovial and Chorbadjiiski chili pepper cultivars. The significant differences between treatments were established by using Tukey’s post hoc test with a degree of confidence of 95% (p < 0.05). 3. Results and Discussions As shown in Figure 2a, regarding the influence of the cultivar on the dry matter con‐ tent of pepper fruits, it varied from 11.90%, in the case of the Chorbadjiiski variety, to 16.50%, in the case of Trajan 2. A low content in dry matter was registered in the Sigaretta (12.70%) and Jovial (13.40%) cultivars. The varieties Traian 2, Turkish and De Cayenne demostrated better adaptation to the ecological conditions of the continental temperate climate (Figure 2b). Dry matter content varied from 13.5%, in the case of O + Ch, to 15.2%, in the case of the control. The fertilized variants Ch and O registered intermediate values of 14.20% and 14.60%, respectively, but the differences between the varieties were insignificant at p ≤ 0.05. Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 5 of 14 16.5 a 18.0 18.0 16.0 a 15.6 ab 15.2 * 16.0 16.0 * 14.6 13.4 bc 14.2 12.7 c * 13.5 14.0 11.9 c 14.0 12.0 10.0 12.0 8.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Ch O+Ch O Ct (a) (b) Figure 2. Dry matter content of samples influenced by cultivar (a) and fertilization (b). Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different ac‐ cording to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05; *—non‐significant. The influence of the interaction between cultivar and treatment is presented in Figure 2. The dry matter of the hot pepper fruits varied from 11.21%, in the case of the Sigaretta variety fertilized with O + Ch, up to 17.46%, in the case of the unfertilized Traian 2 cultivar. From a statistical point of view, the differences between the variants were insignificant, which means that the interaction between the two factors blurs the significance between the varieties. Low levels of dry matter content were obtained for the Chorbadjiiski variety fertilized with O + Ch (11.48%), Ch (11.75%), O (12.31%) and Ct (12.33%). Statistically high values were obtained for the unfertilized (17.20%) and O‐fertilized Turkish cultivar (16.86%). The values obtained are in accordance with those from the scientifically litera‐ ture obtained for chili [25,43,44] and sweet peppers [45]. The dry matter from the hot pepper fruits in the case of the interaction of the factors is presented in Figure 3 and varied from 11.21% per 100 g dry matter, in the case of Siga‐ retta fertilized with O + Ch, up to 17.46% per 100 g dry matter, in the case of the unferti‐ lized Traian 2 cultivar. From a statistical point of view, the results were insignificant. Low values of dry matter content were obtained for the Chorbadjiiski and Sigaretta cultivars regardless of treatment, which suggests a lower adaptation to growing conditions and a lower sensitivity to storage, as it is known that vegetables with higher water content are more perishable [46]. Statistically high values were obtained for the unfertilized (17.20%) and O‐fertilized Turkish cultivar (16.86%). The values obtained are in accordance with those in the litera‐ ture obtained for hot peppers [43] and sweet peppers [45]. (% dry matter) (% dry matter) Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 6 of 14 20.0 16.5 * 17.2 * 17.5 * 16.8 * 16.9 * 16.2 * 15.6 * 18.0 16.2 * 15.3 * 15.6 * 14.3 * 13.9 * 14.2 * 16.0 13.7 * 13.7 * 13.1 * 13.0 * 12.8 * 14.0 12.3 * 12.9 * 11.8 * 12.2 * 11.5 * 11.2 * 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 3. Dry matter content of samples influenced by interaction between cultivar and fertilization. Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05; *—non‐significant. Regarding the influence of the cultivar on the height of the hot pepper plants, it var‐ ied widely from 53.71 cm, in the case of the Turkish cultivar, up to 83.28 cm, in the case of the Jovial cultivar (Table 2). Under the type of fertilizer applied, the plant height was in‐ significant according to the Tukey test for p ≤ 0.05. However, it ranged from 67.38 cm in the case of the control to 74.99 cm in the case of treatment with O + Ch. In the case of Keunsarang plant height, it increased by 27.4% compared with the untreated control ver‐ −1 sion, when the variety was fertilized using an amount of 265.4 kg∙ha NPK from manure [30]. Similar data were obtained by Meena et. al. for 60 chili pepper hybrids under chem‐ −1 ical fertilization with 122.5 kg∙ha NPK; plant height increased from 69.60 cm for the MS463D13A F1 hybrid to 132.82 cm for CMS4626A F1 [47]. Regarding the effect of the cultivar on the number of fruits per plant, it varied from 26.82 in the case of De Cayenne to 47.09 in the case of Sigaretta. Chorbadjiiski (36.62) and Turkish (34.66) cultivars also obtained statistically positive results. The type of fertilizer applied positively influenced the number of fruits per plant according to the Tukey test, which varied from 30.46 in the case of the control to 38.24 in the case of O + Ch. Regarding the influence of the studied factors on the average weight of hot peppers fruits, it varied widely from 13.01 g, in the case of the Sigaretta cv. to 19.08 g in the case of the Jovial cv.; the difference between the cultivars being 46.6%. Differences between vari‐ eties in most cases can be genetically influenced [48]. Significant results between varieties were also obtained for the Turkish (17.51 g) and Traian 2 (16.55 g) cultivars. Regarding the effect of the influence of the type of fertilizer on the average weight of hot peppers fruits, it varied from 14.51 g, in the case of the non‐fertilized variants, up to 17.31 g, in the case of the O + Ch‐treated variants. Under organic fertilization, the average weight of the fruit was 15.82 g, and in the case of chemical fertilization, the value of 15.98 g was recorded. (% dry matter) Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 7 of 14 From a statistical point of view, the favorable effect of the combination of the two types of treatments could be observed on the average weight of the fruit. Data from the literature highlight the favorable effect on Chichen Itza chili peppers under chemical fertilization, where the fruit weight increased by 26.87% compared to the control [49]. The type of cultivar used significantly influenced the total production obtained from −1 the hot pepper culture for p ≤ 0.05. This varied from 17.75 t∙ha , in the case of the De −1 Cayenne cultivar, to 29.71 t∙ha , in the case of the Sigaretta cultivar. Statistically positive −1 −1 results could be observed for the Turkish (29.32 t∙ha ), Jovial (27.77 t∙ha ) and Chor‐ −1 badjiiski (27.28 t∙ha ) cultivars. In an experiment conducted in 2012–2013 in Central Chile, −1 the total production of hot peppers in the field varied from 15.90 t∙ha , in the case of the −1 local population “Cacho de Cabra”, to 26.50 t∙ha , in the case of Chilean negro [27,36]. −1 The yield varied widely with fertilization type from 20.82 t∙ha , in the case of the −1 control variant, up to 31.58 t∙ha , in the case of O + Ch, which highlights the favorable effect of the combination between chemical and organic treatment, through the synergistic effect of mineral ions from these two types of fertilizers. Table 2. Biometric indicators and yield affected by cultivar and fertilization. Plant Height No. of Fruits Average Weight of the Yield Treatment −1 (cm) per Plant Fruit (g) (t∙ha ) Cultivar De Cayenne 70.89 ± 3.17 bc 26.82 ± 1.22 c 13.90 ± 0.69 cd 17.75 ± 0.75 c Traian 2 72.36 ± 2.26 bc 26.65 ± 1.32 c 16.55 ± 0.67 abc 21.39 ± 1.46 bc Turkish 53.71 ± 2.51 d 34.66 ± 1.39 b 17.51 ± 0.76 ab 29.32 ± 2.09 a Sigaretta 78.89 ± 1.79 ab 47.09 ± 1.79 a 13.01 ± 0.36 d 29.71 ± 2.22 a Jovial 83.28 ± 3.49 a 30.12 ± 1.74 bc 19.08 ± 0.76 a 27.77 ± 1.58 ab Chorbadjiiski 63.75 ± 1.17 cd 36.62 ± 2.22 b 15.37 ± 0.66 bcd 27.28 ± 1.76 ab Fertilization Ch 70.18 ± 2.88 33.97 ± 1.85 ab 15.98 ± 0.65 ab 25.83 ± 1.34 b O + Ch 74.99 ± 3.12 38.24 ± 2.70 a 17.31 ± 0.75 a 31.58 ± 2.23 a O 69.37 ± 2.96 31.97 ± 1.57 ab 15.82 ± 0.68 ab 23.92 ± 0.90 b Ct 67.38 ± 3.16 30.46 ± 1.88 b 14.51 ± 0.69 b 20.82 ± 1.02 b ns ‐ ‐ ‐ Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05; ns—non‐significant. The height of hot pepper plants varied widely depending on the interaction between the cultivar and the treatment, from 49.87 cm, in the case of the unfertilized Turkish culti‐ var, to 89.34 cm, in the case of Jovial × O + Ch (Table 3). Positive differences according to the Tukey test for p ≤ 0.05 were also recorded by the combinations Jovial × Ch (85.61 cm), and Sigaretta × O + Ch (85.02 cm). The results obtained for the height of the plants high‐ light the positive effect of the relationship between mixed fertilization and variety and on the growth phenophase. The combined effect of chemical and organic fertilization at 8 cultivars of chili peppers increased plant height from 55 cm to 70.26 cm, under 102.6 −1 kg∙ha NPK applied [50]. The lowest heights of pepper plants were recorded in the Turkish variety regardless of the fertilizer used. Insignificant results between variants were recorded in the case of the cultivars De Cayenne, Traian 2, Sigaretta, Jovial and Chorbadjiiski. Regarding the combined influence of the cultivar and fertilizer on the number of fruits per plant, it varied from 21.50, in the case of the unfertilized variant of the Traian 2 variety, to 56.36, in the case of Sigaretta × O + Ch. Significant results compared to the un‐ fertilized Traian 2 cultivar were registered for the combinations Jovial × O + Ch, Chor‐ badjiiski × Ch, Turkish × O + Ch, Chorbadjiiski × O + Ch and Sigaretta × O. Further, re‐ garding the number of fruits, it was observed that the interaction of cultivars with the Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 8 of 14 mixed treatment favored the stage of floral differentiation in a much more accentuated way compared to the control variants. Regarding the influence of cultivar and fertilizer on the average weight of hot pepper fruits, weights ranged from 11.74 g in the case of De Cayenne × O to 20.43 g in the case of Jovial × O + Ch. Significant differences from the Jovial × O + Ch variant were registered in the case of the Sigaretta cultivar regardless of the type of fertilization. Regarding the combined influence of cultivar and fertilizer on the total production, −1 it varied widely from 14.78 t∙ha , in the case of the unfertilized Trajan 2 cultivar, up to −1 40.61 t∙ha , in the case of Sigaretta × O + Ch. Significant differences compared to the un‐ fertilized Traian 2 variant were registered for the Chorbadjiiski and Turkish cultivars fer‐ tilized with O + Ch and for Chorbadjiiski × Ch. Recent studies pointed out that under 120 −1 kg∙ha NPK from manure, for Grande cultivar hot peppers, the yield was increased by 38.8% [51]. Although the average mass of fruit was the lowest, production was offset by the higher number of fruits per plant. Table 3. Biometric parameters and yield of chili peppers under interaction of cultivar and fertilization. Average Weight of the −1 Treatment Plant Height (cm) No. of Fruits per Plant Yield (t∙ha ) Fruit (g) De Cayenne × Ch 71.22 ± 5.92 abcd 25.15 ± 2.12 de 14.63 ± 1.22 abc 17.66 ± 1.47 hi De Cayenne × O + Ch 76.89 ± 6.77 abcd 24.95 ± 1.71 de 15.31 ± 1.35 abc 18.34 ± 1.61 ghi De Cayenne × O 68.45 ± 5.36 abcd 26.43 ± 1.3 de 13.92 ± 1.09 abc 17.66 ± 1.38 hi De Cayenne × Ct 66.98 ± 9.07 abcd 30.75 ± 3.57 cde 11.74 ± 1.59 c 17.33 ± 2.35 hi Traian 2 × Ch 70.04 ± 3.91 abcd 27.62 ± 3.35 de 15.89 ± 0.89 abc 21.07 ± 1.18 fghi Traian 2 × O + Ch 74.28 ± 6.26 abcd 26.86 ± 1.52 de 17.68 ± 1.49 abc 22.79 ± 1.92 efghi Traian 2 × O 76.34 ± 5.22 abcd 30.62 ± 1.8 cde 18.32 ± 1.25 abc 26.93 ± 1.84 cdefgh Traian 2 × Ct 68.79 ± 3.38 abcd 21.50 ± 0.41 e 14.32 ± 0.7 abc 14.78 ± 0.73 i Turkish × Ch 54.09 ± 6.28 cd 34.15 ± 0.21 bcde 17.48 ± 2.03 abc 28.65 ± 3.32 bcdefg Turkish × O + Ch 59.87 ± 7.26 bcd 42.29 ± 0.3 bc 18.89 ± 2.29 abc 38.34 ± 4.65 ab Turkish × O 51.02 ± 2.89 cd 31.78 ± 0.06 bcde 17.14 ± 0.97 abc 26.15 ± 1.49 cdefgh Turkish × Ct 49.87 ± 2.94 d 30.44 ± 0.14 cde 16.52 ± 0.98 abc 24.14 ± 1.42 defghi Sigaretta × Ch 76.03 ± 1.45 abcd 43.68 ± 0.4 b 12.36 ± 0.24 bc 25.91 ± 0.49 cdefgh Sigaretta × O + Ch 85.02 ± 0.52 ab 56.36 ± 0.94 a 15.01 ± 0.09 abc 40.61 ± 4.92 a Sigaretta × O 77.85 ± 0.56 abcd 43.98 ± 0.49 ab 12.55 ± 0.09 bc 26.49 ± 1.5 cdefgh Sigaretta × Ct 76.64 ± 6.46 abcd 44.35 ± 3.47 ab 12.13 ± 0.02 bc 25.82 ± 1.52 cdefgh Jovial × Ch 85.61 ± 5.86 ab 31.72 ± 4.29 bcde 19.32 ± 0.09 ab 29.42 ± 0.56 bcdef Jovial × O + Ch 89.34 ± 4.39 a 36.22 ± 2.02 bcd 20.43 ± 2.77 a 35.52 ± 0.22 abc Jovial × O 79.33 ± 9.2 abc 27.18 ± 2.29 de 18.54 ± 1.03 abc 24.19 ± 0.17 defghi Jovial × Ct 78.85 ± 9.56 abcd 25.38 ± 1.74 de 18.04 ± 1.52 abc 21.98 ± 0.04 efghi Chorbadjiiski × Ch 64.11 ± 3.64 abcd 41.48 ± 2.04 bc 16.20 ± 1.11 abc 32.25 ± 0.15 abcde Chorbadjiiski × O + Ch 64.53 ± 3.8 abcd 42.78 ± 4.96 bc 16.51 ± 0.81 abc 33.9 ± 0.31 abcd Chorbadjiiski × O 63.23 ± 1.21 abcd 31.85 ± 3.86 bcde 14.46 ± 1.68 abc 22.11 ± 0.37 efghi Chorbadjiiski × Ct 63.14 ± 0.39 abcd 30.37 ± 1.72 cde 14.32 ± 1.74 abc 20.87 ± 0.23 fghi Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05. Regarding the effect of the cultivar on the total capsaicin content, it varied from 0.30 −1 −1 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Turkish cultivar, to 0.65 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Jovial cultivar. The positive results of the total capsaicin content from a statistical point of view −1 were also obtained for the cultivars De Cayenne (0.52 mg∙g d.w.) and Chorbadjiisk (0.47 −1 mg∙g d.w.) (Table 4). −1 The capsaicin content varied from 0.40 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the O variant, to −1 0.54 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Ch variant. Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 9 of 14 Differences between C and DhC content can be attributed to the genotype, as re‐ vealed by other studies in northeast India, showing that the capsaicin content of various −1 −1 cultivars of Capsicum ranged from 0.02 mg∙g d.w. up to 72.05 mg∙g d.w. [52,53]. Regarding the influence of the cultivar on the dihydrocapsaicin content of hot pep‐ −1 pers, it varied widely from 0.14 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Turkish cultivar, to 0.43 −1 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Jovial cultivar. The statistically negative results were also −1 −1 obtained for the cultivars De Cayenne (0.23 mg∙g d.w.) and Traian 2 (0.28 mg∙g d.w.). −1 Under fertilizer type, the dihydrocapsaicin content ranged from 0.23 mg∙g d.w., in −1 the case of O, to 0.33 mg∙g d.w., in the case of Ch. The results are in accordance with the scientific literature [54,55]. The ratio between the main compounds (capsaicin and dyhidrocapsaicin) that give the pungency of pepper fruits [13]. The influence of the type of cultivar and fertilizer used on the total content of capsa‐ icinoids was in direct correlation with the results obtained for capsaicin and dihydrocap‐ saicin. The highest capsaicin content was found in the Jovial cultivar, and the differences for the other five varieties were significant for p < 0.05. The type of treatment used determines the different accumulation of total capsaicin, the highest values being registered with the chemical treatments and control compared to the organic variants. Higher results in control variants can also be attributed to the mech‐ anisms of adaptation of chili pepper plants to the conditions of nutritional stress. The cultivar used significantly influenced the SHU, ranging from 7124.24 SHU in the case of the Turkish variety to 17347.75 SHU in the case of the Jovial variety. According to the scientific literature, according to their SHU, the cultivars used in the experiment are moderately pungent [54]. The fertilization type attenuated the degree of spiciness; the SHU varied from 10,169.83 with organic treatment to 13,953.33 in the case of chemical treatment. Table 4. Influence of cultivar and fertilization on capsaicinoid content and Scoville Heat Units. Dihydro‐ Capsaicinoids Capsaicin (C) Ratio Scoville Heat Units Treatment Capsaicin (DhC) Analyzed −1 (mg∙g d.w.) C/DhC (SHU) −1 −1 (mg∙g d.w.) (mg∙g d.w.) Cultivar De Cayenne 0.52 ± 0.04 b 0.30 ± 0.02 b 1.72 ± 0.09 b 0.82 ± 0.05 b 13202.00 ± 788.74 b Traian 2 0.42 ± 0.03 bc 0.28 ± 0.03 bc 1.56 ± 0.10 b 0.70 ± 0.05 bc 11189.50 ± 855.04 bc Turkish 0.30 ± 0.01 c 0.14 ± 0.01 d 2.24 ± 0.13 a 0.44 ± 0.01 d 7124.25 ± 232.91 d Sigaretta 0.40 ± 0.02 bc 0.23 ± 0.01 c 1.80 ± 0.07 b 0.63 ± 0.03 c 10102.75 ± 454.57 c Jovial 0.65 ± 0.05 a 0.43 ± 0.03 a 1.53 ± 0.03 b 1.08 ± 0.07 a 17347.75 ± 1145.34 a Chorbadjiiski 0.47 ± 0.01 b 0.29 ± 0.01 bc 1.64 ± 0.04 b 0.76 ± 0.02 bc 12155.50 ± 367.3 bc Fertilization Ch 0.54 ± 0.05 a 0.33 ± 0.03 a 1.76 ± 0.10 0.87 ± 0.08 a 13953.33 ± 1235.91 a O + Ch 0.43 ± 0.04 ab 0.26 ± 0.03 ab 1.80 ± 0.08 0.69 ± 0.07 ab 11082.17 ± 1046.99 ab O 0.40 ± 0.02 b 0.23 ± 0.02 b 1.82 ± 0.11 0.63 ± 0.03 b 10169.83 ± 465.54 b Ct 0.47 ± 0.02 ab 0.29 ± 0.01 ab 1.62 ± 0.04 0.76 ± 0.03 ab 12209.17 ± 533.54 ab * Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05; *—non‐significant; d.w.—dry matter. Regarding the combination between cultivar and the type of fertilizer used, the cap‐ −1 saicin content of hot pepper fruits varied widely from 0.27 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the −1 Turkish variety fertilized with O + Ch, to 0.83 mg∙g d.w., in the case of Jovial × Ch (Table 5). All combinations showed significant differences compared to the maximum capsaicin content obtained by Jovial × Ch. Statistically significant differences from the variant with the lowest capsaicin content (Turkish × O + Ch) were not recorded for the combinations Turkish × O, Sigaretta × Ch, Turkish × Control, Turkish × Ch or Traian 2 × O + Ch. These Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 10 of 14 results are in agreement with scientific literature regarding the C and Dhc content; Mo‐ −1 rales‐Soriano et al. mention values for C between 0.1418 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the −1 Panca cultivar and 2.01 mg∙g d.w., in the case of the Arnaucho cultivar [5] Regarding the effect of the cultivar and the type of fertilizer used on the dihydrocap‐ saicin content, the highest value was obtained for the same variant as capsaicin (Jovial × −1 Ch), with a content of 0.53 mg∙g d.w., while the lowest value was recorded by the Turkish −1 variety fertilized with O (0.11 mg∙g d.w.). Significant results compared to the highest value were obtained by all variants, except for the combination of Jovial × O + Ch (0.48 −1 mg∙g d.w.). Compared to the combination that recorded the lowest dihydrocapsaicin content (Turkish × O), the combinations of Turkish × O + Ch, Turkish × Ch and Traian 2 × O + Ch were the only ones that did not show significant differences. As for the influence of cultivar × fertilization on the total content of capsaicinoids, the −1 lowest content (0.40 mg∙g d.w.) was recorded for the Turkish variety fertilized by O + Ch −1 and O; while the highest content was obtained for Jovial × Ch (1.36 mg∙g d.w.). Com‐ pared to Turkish × O, which obtained the highest total content of capsaicinoids, all com‐ −1 binations showed significant differences, with the exception of Turkish × Ch (2.55 mg∙g d.w.). Regarding the influence of the cultivar × fertilization combination on the Scoville Heat Units (SHU), they varied from 6440 SHU, in the case of Turkish × O + Ch and Turkish × O combinations, to 21,896 SHU, in the case of Jovial × Ch. In the Jovial × Ch combination, which obtained the highest SHU content, all experimental variants obtained statistically significant results according to the Tukey test for p ≤ 0.05. In a study on the SHU of nine varieties of C. chinense, values from 9792 SHU for the Mochero cultivar to 39,755 SHU for the Arnaucho cultivar were reported [5]. Data from Table 5 show increased SHU values for the Chorbadjiiski and Jovial cultivars under chemical treatment. Table 5. Interaction between cultivar and fertilization on capsaicinoid content and Scoville scale. Dyhidrocapsaicin Capsaicin (C) Ratio Capsaicinoids Scoville Heat Units Treatment (DhC) −1 −1 (mg∙g d.w.) C/DhC (mg∙g d.w.) (SHU) −1 (mg∙g d.w.) De Cayenne × Ch 0.69 ± 0.04 b 0.37 ± 0.01 bc 1.86 ± 0.06 cdefgh 1.06 ± 0.06 c 17066 ± 886.72 c De Cayenne × O + Ch 0.39 ± 0.02 fghi 0.28 ± 0.02 def 1.40 ± 0.11 hi 0.67 ± 0.02 hi 10787 ± 245.93 hi De Cayenne × O 0.47 ± 0.03 def 0.23 ± 0.01 fgh 2.05 ± 0.16 cde 0.70 ± 0.03 ghi 11270 ± 491.86 ghi De Cayenne × Ct 0.52 ± 0.02 cd 0.33 ± 0.01 cd 1.58 ± 0.05 efghi 0.85 ± 0.03 ef 13685 ± 483.00 ef Traian 2 × Ch 0.56 ± 0.02 c 0.41 ± 0.01 b 1.37 ± 0.03 i 0.97 ± 0.03 cd 15617 ± 464.77 cd Traian 2 × O + Ch 0.34 ± 0.01 ghij 0.16 ± 0.01 ijk 2.13 ± 0.07 bc 0.50 ± 0.02 jk 8050 ± 245.93 jk Traian 2 × O 0.35 ± 0.01 ghij 0.26 ± 0.01 efg 1.35 ± 0.04 i 0.61 ± 0.02 ij 9821 ± 278.86 ij Traian 2 × Ct 0.41 ± 0.02 efgh 0.29 ± 0.01 def 1.42 ± 0.07 ghi 0.7 ± 0.02 ghi 11270 ± 245.93 ghi Turkish × Ch 0.33 ± 0.01 hij 0.13 ± 0.01 jk 2.55 ± 0.16 ab 0.46 ± 0 k 7406 ± 0.00 k Turkish × O + Ch 0.27 ± 0.01 j 0.13 ± 0.01 jk 2.09 ± 0.12 bcd 0.40 ± 0.01 k 6440 ± 92.95 k Turkish × O 0.29 ± 0.01 j 0.11 ± 0.01 k 2.65 ± 0.12 a 0.40 ± 0.01 k 6440 ± 161.00 k Turkish × Ct 0.32 ± 0.01 ij 0.19 ± 0.01 hij 1.69 ± 0.07 cdefghi 0.51 ± 0.02 jk 8211 ± 245.93 jk Sigaretta × Ch 0.31 ± 0.01 ij 0.19 ± 0.02 hij 1.66 ± 0.17 cdefghi 0.50 ± 0.01 jk 8050 ± 185.91 jk Sigaretta × O + Ch 0.42 ± 0.02 efg 0.21 ± 0.02 ghi 2.02 ± 0.12 cdef 0.63 ± 0.04 i 10143 ± 580.49 i Sigaretta × O 0.39 ± 0.01 fghi 0.24 ± 0.01 fgh 1.63 ± 0.07 defghi 0.63 ± 0.02 i 10143 ± 245.93 i Sigaretta × Ct 0.49 ± 0.01 cde 0.26 ± 0.01 efg 1.89 ± 0.08 cdefg 0.75 ± 0.02 fgh 12075 ± 245.93 fgh Jovial × Ch 0.83 ± 0.01 a 0.53 ± 0.02 a 1.57 ± 0.06 efghi 1.36 ± 0.02 a 21896 ± 371.81 a Jovial × O + Ch 0.76 ± 0.01 ab 0.48 ± 0.02 a 1.59 ± 0.05 efghi 1.24 ± 0.02 b 19964 ± 278.86 b Jovial × O 0.45 ± 0.02 def 0.32 ± 0.01 cde 1.41 ± 0.04 hi 0.77 ± 0.02 fgh 12397 ± 371.81 fgh Jovial × Ct 0.57 ± 0.01 c 0.37 ± 0.01 bc 1.54 ± 0.01 ghi 0.94 ± 0.01 de 15134 ± 185.91 de Chorbadjiiski × Ch 0.52 ± 0.01 cd 0.33 ± 0.01 cd 1.58 ± 0.02 efghi 0.85 ± 0.02 ef 13685 ± 245.93 ef Chorbadjiiski × O + Ch 0.42 ± 0.01 efg 0.27 ± 0.01 defg 1.56 ± 0.02 fghi 0.69 ± 0.02 ghi 11109 ± 245.93 ghi Chorbadjiiski × O 0.44 ± 0.01 def 0.24 ± 0.02 fgh 1.85 ± 0.1 cdefgh 0.68 ± 0.02 hi 10948 ± 322.00 hi Chorbadjiiski × Ct 0.49 ± 0.01 cde 0.31 ± 0.01 cde 1.58 ± 0.01 efghi 0.80 ± 0.01 fg 12880 ± 185.91 fg Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 11 of 14 Ch—Chemical; O + Ch—Organic + Chemical; O—Organic; Ct—Control. Along each line, values followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05; d.w.—dry matter. The combination of variety and fertilization type did not change the degree of pun‐ gency, which indicates that the variants obtain fruits that fall into the moderately pungent category (3000–25,000 SHU) as determined primarily by genotype and to a lesser extent by the treatment used [56]. 4. Conclusions The results presented in this study provide new data on the regulation of metabolism of capsaicinoids in the fruits and their production in response to different types of treat‐ ments of six chili pepper varieties. The dry matter content was not influenced by the applied treatments, the results ob‐ tained being insignificant in the case of the combined influence of the two factors studied. Significant results were obtained in the case of the individual influence of the cultivar for the Traian 2 and Turkish varieties. The applied treatments had a positive impact on the production parameters; from the measurements performed, it could be observed that the type of fertilizer used had different effects depending on the response of the cultivar. Thus, the plant height regis‐ tered significant values in the case of the combinations of Jovial with O + Ch fertilization and of Turkish with chemical fertilization. The average weight of the fruits indicated sig‐ nificant values in the case of Jovial × O + Ch and De Cayenne × Ch. The best cultivar regarding yield was Sigaretta under O + Ch, and Jovial treated with −1 Ch obtained the highest content of capsaicinoids (over 135 mg∙g ). The effect of genotype and fertilizers interaction is a complex phenomenon; genotype plays a major role in the accumulation and content of capsaicinoids. The chili peppers responded well in terms of the yield results for the organic + chem‐ ical‐treated variants, and the chemical‐treated variants in terms of the capsaicinoid con‐ tents. Farmers can produce chili peppers with different types of pungency and with high productivity using appropriate cultivars and fertilizers. Author Contributions: T.S., G.‐C.T. and A.C. conducted the field experiments G.L.‐I. was involved in laboratory analyses; V.S. and G.‐C.T. contributed to statistical processing and interpretation of data; T.S., V.S. and N.M. conceived and planned the experimental protocol and performed the re‐ search supervision; A.C. and G.‐C.T. were involved in the bibliographic search; N.M., V.S. and T.S. wrote the draft and final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Authors ensure that data shared are in accordance with participants consent. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine for the financial support of this experiment and Mrs. Gabriela Leusink‐Ionescu for the supervision of analyses. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. García, C.C.; Barfuss, M.H.J.; Sehr, E.M.; Barboza, G.E.; Samuel, R.; Moscone, E.A.; Ehrendorfer, F. Phylogenetic relationships, diversification and expansion of chili peppers (Capsicum, Solanaceae). Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 35–51, doi:10.1093/aob/mcw079. 2. Grozeva, S. Effect of copper levels in the culture medium on shoot regeneration in pepper. Banat. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 86–91, doi:10.7904/2068‐4738‐vi(12)‐86. Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 12 of 14 3. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL (accessed on 1 Feb‐ ruary 2021). 4. Reyes‐Escogido, M.D.L.; Gonzalez‐Mondragon, E.G.; Vazquez‐Tzompantzi, E. Chemical and Pharmacological Aspects of Cap‐ saicin. Molecules 2011, 16, 1253–1270, doi:10.3390/molecules16021253. 5. Morales‐Soriano, E.; Kebede, B.; Ugas, R.; Grauwet, T.; Van Loey, A.; Hendrickx, M. Flavor characterization of native Peruvian chili peppers through integrated aroma fingerprinting and pungency profiling. Food Res. Int. 2018, 109, 250–259, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2018.04.030. 6. Jeeatid, N.; Suriharn, B.; Chanthai, S.; Bosland, P.; Techawongstien, S. Influence of water stresses on capsaicinoid production in hot pepper (Capsicum chinense Jacq.) cultivars with different pungency levels. Food Chem. 2018, 245, 792–797, doi:10.1016/j.food‐ chem.2017.11.110. 7. Wu, S.; Zeng, J.; Xie, H.; Ng, S.H. Capsaicin determination and chili sauce discrimination using low‐cost and portable electro‐ chemical sensors based on all graphite pencil electrodes. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 7025–7029, doi:10.1039/c6ay01754a. 8. Mali, S.; Naik, S.; Jha, B.; Singh, A.; Bhatt, B. Planting geometry and growth stage linked fertigation patterns: Impact on yield, nutrient uptake and water productivity of Chilli pepper in hot and sub‐humid climate. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 249, 289–298, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.003. 9. Bhutia, N.D.; Seth, T.; Shende, V.D.; Dutta, S.; Chattopadhyay, A. Estimation of Heterosis, dominance effect and genetic control of fresh fruit yield, quality and leaf curl disease severity traits of chilli pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Sci. Hortic. 2015, 182, 47– 55, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2014.11.017. 10. Al Othman, Z.A.; Ahmed, Y.B.H.; Habila, M.A.; Ghafar, A.A. Determination of Capsaicin and Dihydrocapsaicin in Capsicum Fruit Samples using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Molecules 2011, 16, 8919–8929, doi:10.3390/molecules16108919. 11. Srinivasan, K. Biological Activities of Red Pepper (Capsicum annuum) and Its Pungent Principle Capsaicin: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 1488–1500, doi:10.1080/10408398.2013.772090. 12. Giuffrida, D.; Dugo, P.; Torre, G.; Bignardi, C.; Cavazza, A.; Corradini, C.; Dugo, G. Characterization of 12 Capsicum varieties by evaluation of their carotenoid profile and pungency determination. Food Chem. 2013, 140, 794–802, doi:10.1016/j.food‐ chem.2012.09.060. 13. González‐Zamora, A.; Sierra‐Campos, E.; Luna‐Ortega, J.G.; Pérez‐Morales, R.; Ortiz, J.C.R.; García‐Hernández, J.L. Character‐ ization of Different Capsicum Varieties by Evaluation of Their Capsaicinoids Content by High Performance Liquid Chroma‐ tography, Determination of Pungency and Effect of High Temperature. Molecules 2013, 18, 13471–13486, doi:10.3390/mole‐ cules181113471. 14. Arabaci, B.; Gulcin, I.; Alwasel, S. Capsaicin: A Potent Inhibitor of Carbonic Anhydrase Isoenzymes. Molecules 2014, 19, 10103– 10114, doi:10.3390/molecules190710103. 15. Mueller, M.; Hobiger, S.; Jungbauer, A. Anti‐inflammatory activity of extracts from fruits, herbs and spices. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 987–996, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.041. 16. Luo, X.‐J.; Peng, J.; Li, Y.‐J. Recent advances in the study on capsaicinoids and capsinoids. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2011, 650, 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.09.074. 17. Kirschbaum‐Titze, P.; Hiepler, C.; Mueller‐Seitz, E.; Petz, M. Pungency in Paprika (Capsicum annuum). 1. Decrease of Capsai‐ cinoid Content Following Cellular Disruption. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 1260–1263, doi:10.1021/jf010527a. 18. Zhao, Z.‐D.; Zan, L.‐S.; Li, A.‐N.; Cheng, G.; Li, S.‐J.; Zhang, Y.‐R.; Wang, X.‐Y.; Zhang, Y.‐Y. Characterization of the promoter region of the bovine long‐chain acyl‐CoA synthetase 1 gene: Roles of E2F1, Sp1, KLF15 and E2F4. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19661, doi:10.1038/srep19661. 19. Chen, W.‐C.; Wang, C.‐Y.; Hung, Y.‐H.; Weng, T.‐Y.; Yen, M.‐C.; Lai, M.‐D. Systematic Analysis of Gene Expression Alterations and Clinical Outcomes for Long‐Chain Acyl‐Coenzyme A Synthetase Family in Cancer. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155660, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155660. 20. Zheng, J.; Zhou, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, D.‐P.; Li, S.; Li, H.‐B. Spices for Prevention and Treatment of Cancers. Nutrients 2016, 8, 495, doi:10.3390/nu8080495. 21. Thoennissen, N.H.; O’Kelly, J.; Lu, D.; Iwanski, G.B.; La, D.T.; Abbassi, S.; Leiter, A.; Karlan, B.; Mehta, R.; Koeffler, H.P. Cap‐ saicin causes cell‐cycle arrest and apoptosis in ER‐positive and ‐negative breast cancer cells by modulating the EGFR/HER‐2 pathway. Oncogene 2009, 29, 285–296, doi:10.1038/onc.2009.335. 22. Lee, S.‐H.; Richardson, R.L.; Dashwood, R.H.; Baek, S.J. Capsaicin represses transcriptional activity of β‐catenin in human col‐ orectal cancer cells. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2012, 23, 646–655, doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2011.03.009. 23. Chapa‐Oliver, A.M.; Mejía‐Teniente, L. Capsaicin: From Plants to a Cancer‐Suppressing Agent. Molecules 2016, 21, 931, doi:10.3390/molecules21080931. 24. Marincaş, O.; Feher, I.; Magdas, D.A.; Puşcaş, R. Optimized and validated method for simultaneous extraction, identification and quantification of flavonoids and capsaicin, along with isotopic composition, in hot peppers from different regions. Food Chem. 2018, 267, 255–262, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.10.031. 25. Olguin‐Rojas, J.A.; Vazquez‐Leon, L.A.; Salgado‐Cervantes, M.A.; Barbero, G.F.; Diaz‐Pacheco, A.; Garcia‐Alvarado, M.A.; Ro‐ driguez‐Jimenes, G.C. Water and phytochemicals dynamic during drying of red habanero chili pepper (Capsicum chinense) slices. Rev. Mex. Ing. Química 2019, 18, 851–864, doi:10.24275/uam/izt/dcbi/revmexingquim/2019v18n3/olguin. 26. Baytak, A.K.; Aslanoglu, M. Sensitive determination of capsaicin in pepper samples using a voltammetric platform based on carbon nanotubes and ruthenium nanoparticles. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 152–157, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.01.161. Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 13 of 14 27. Muñoz‐Concha, D.; Quiñones, X.; Hernández, J.P.; Romero, S. Chili Pepper Landrace Survival and Family Farmers in Central Chile. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1541, doi:10.3390/agronomy10101541. 28. Zamljen, T.; Zupanc, V.; Slatnar, A. Influence of irrigation on yield and primary and secondary metabolites in two chilies spe‐ cies, Capsicum annuum L. and Capsicum chinense Jacq. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 234, 106104, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106104. 29. Rippy, J.F.; Peet, M.M.; Louws, F.J.; Nelson, P.V.; Orr, D.B.; Sorensen, K.A. Plant Development and Harvest Yields of Green‐ house Tomatoes in Six Organic Growing Systems. Hort. Sci. 2004, 39, 223–229, doi:10.21273/hortsci.39.2.223. 30. Khaitov, B.; Yun, H.J.; Lee, Y.; Ruziev, F.; Le, T.H.; Umurzokov, M.; Bo, A.B.; Cho, K.M.; Park, K.W. Impact of Organic Manure on Growth, Nutrient Content and Yield of Chilli Pepper under Various Temperature Environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3031, doi:10.3390/ijerph16173031. E.; Cuciniello, A.; Cenvinzo, V.; Florin, I.; Caruso, G. Tomato Yield, 31. Sellitto, V.M.; Golubkina, N.A.; Pietrantonio, L.; Cozzolino, Quality, Mineral Composition and Antioxidants as Affected by Beneficial Microorganisms Under Soil Salinity Induced by Bal‐ anced Nutrient Solutions. Agriculture 2019, 9, 110, doi:10.3390/agriculture9050110. 32. Butnariu, M.; Caunii, A.; Putnoky, S. Reverse phase chromatographic behaviour of major components in Capsicum Annuumex‐ tract. Chem. Central J. 2012, 6, 146, doi:10.1186/1752‐153x‐6‐146. 33. Loizzo, M.R.; Pugliese, A.; Bonesi, M.; Menichini, F.; Tundis, R. Evaluation of chemical profile and antioxidant activity of twenty cultivars from Capsicum annuum, Capsicum baccatum, Capsicum chacoense and Capsicum chinense: A comparison between fresh and processed peppers. LWT 2015, 64, 623–631, doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2015.06.042. 34. Gómez‐García, M.D.R.; Ochoa‐Alejo, N. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Carotenoid Biosynthesis in Chili Peppers (Cap‐ sicum spp.). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 19025–19053, doi:10.3390/ijms140919025. 35. Yang, H.; Liu, H.; Zheng, J.; Huang, Q. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) in the arid environment of Northwest China. Irrig. Sci. 2018, 36, 61–74, doi:10.1007/s00271‐017‐0566‐4. 36. Rêgo, E.R.D.; Rêgo, M.M.D.; Finger, F.L.; Cruz, C.D.; Casali, V.W.D. A diallel study of yield components and fruit quality in chilli pepper (Capsicum baccatum). Euphytica 2009, 168, 275–287, doi:10.1007/s10681‐009‐9947‐y. 37. Antonious, G.F.; Berke, T.; Jarret, R.L. Pungency inCapsicum chinense: Variation among countries of origin. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2009, 44, 179–184, doi:10.1080/03601230802599118. 38. Naves, E.R.; Silva, L.D. Ávila; Sulpice, R.; Araújo, W.L.; Nunes‐Nesi, A.; Peres, L.E.; Zsögön, A. Capsaicinoids: Pungency be‐ yond Capsicum. Trends Plant Sci. 2019, 24, 109–120, doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.001. 39. Frias, B.; Merighi, A. Capsaicin, Nociception and Pain. Molecules 2016, 21, 797, doi:10.3390/molecules21060797. 40. Lin, Y.‐T.; Wang, H.‐C.; Hsu, Y.‐C.; Cho, C.‐L.; Yang, M.‐Y.; Chien, C.‐Y. Capsaicin Induces Autophagy and Apoptosis in Hu‐ man Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cells by Downregulating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1343, doi:10.3390/ijms18071343. 41. Fayos, O.; Ochoa‐Alejo, N.; De La Vega, O.M.; Savirón, M.; Orduna, J.; Mallor, C.; Barbero, G.F.; Garcés‐Claver, A. Assessment of Capsaicinoid and Capsinoid Accumulation Patterns during Fruit Development in Three Chili Pepper Genotypes (Capsicum spp.) Carrying Pun1 and pAMT Alleles Related to Pungency. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 12219–12227, doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05332. 42. Dong, X.; Li, X.; Ding, L.; Cui, F.; Tang, Z.; Liu, Z. Stage extraction of capsaicinoids and red pigments from fresh red pepper (Capsicum) fruits with ethanol as solvent. LWT 2014, 59, 396–402, doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2014.04.051. 43. Olatunji, T.L.; Afolayan, A.J. The suitability of chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) for alleviating human micronutrient dietary deficiencies: A review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 2239–2251, doi:10.1002/fsn3.790. 44. Getahun, E.; Gabbiye, N.; Delele, M.A.; Fanta, S.W.; Gebrehiwot, M.G.; Vanierschot, M. Effect of maturity on the moisture sorp‐ tion isotherm of chili pepper (Mareko Fana variety). Heliyon 2020, 6, e04608, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04608. 45. Sobczak, A.; Kowalczyk, K.; Gajc‐Wolska, J.; Kowalczyk, W.; Niedzińska, M. Growth, Yield and Quality of Sweet Pepper Fruits Fertilized with Polyphosphates in Hydroponic Cultivation with LED Lighting. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1560, doi:10.3390/agron‐ omy10101560. 46. Sharafi, Y.; Aghdam, M.S.; Luo, Z.; Jannatizadeh, A.; Razavi, F.; Fard, J.R.; Farmani, B. Melatonin treatment promotes endoge‐ nous melatonin accumulation and triggers GABA shunt pathway activity in tomato fruits during cold storage. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 254, 222–227, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2019.04.056. 47. Meena, O.P.; Dhaliwal, M.S.; Jindal, S.K. Heterosis breeding in chilli pepper by using cytoplasmic male sterile lines for high‐ yield production with special reference to seed and bioactive compound content under temperature stress regimes. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 262, 109036, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109036. 48. Caruso, G.; Stoleru, V.V.; Munteanu, N.C.; Sellitto, V.M.; Teliban, G.C.; Burducea, M.; Tenu, I.; Morano, G.; Butnariu, M. Quality Performances of Sweet Pepper under Farming Management. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2018, 47, 458–464, doi:10.15835/nbha47111351. 49. García‐López, J.I.; Niño‐Medina, G.; Olivares‐Sáenz, E.; Lira‐Saldivar, R.H.; Barriga‐Castro, E.D.; Vázquez‐Alvarado, R.; Rodríguez‐Salinas, P.A.; Zavala‐García, F. Foliar Application of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Zinc Sulfate Boosts the Content of Bioactive Compounds in Habanero Peppers. Plants 2019, 8, 254, doi:10.3390/plants8080254. Sin‐ 50. Grau, F.; Drechsel, N.; Haering, V.; Trautz, D.; Weerakkody, W.J.S.K.; Drechsel, P.; Marschner, B.; Dissanayake, D.M.P.S.; nathamby, V. Impact of Fecal Sludge and Municipal Solid Waste Co‐Compost on Crop Growth of Raphanus Sativus L. and Capsicum Anuum L. under Stress Conditions. Resources 2017, 6, 26, doi:10.3390/resources6030026. Agriculture 2021, 11, 181 14 of 14 51. Valenzuela‐García, A.A.; Figueroa‐Viramontes, U.; Salazar‐Sosa, E.; Orona‐Castillo, I.; Gallegos‐Robles, M. Ángel; García‐Her‐ nández, J.L.; Troyo‐Diéguez, E. Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on the Yield and Quality of Jalapeño Pepper Fruit (Capsicum annuum L.). Agriculture 2019, 9, 208, doi:10.3390/agriculture9100208. 52. Islam, A.; Sharma, S.S.; Sinha, P.; Negi, M.S.; Neog, B.; Tripathi, S.B. Variability in capsaicinoid content in different landraces of Capsicum cultivated in north‐eastern India. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 183, 66–71, doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2014.12.011. 53. Andrade, N.J.P.; Monteros‐Altamirano, A.; Bastidas, C.G.T.; Sørensen, M. Morphological, Sensorial and Chemical Characteri‐ zation of Chilli Peppers (Capsicum spp.) from the CATIE Genebank. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1732, doi:10.3390/agronomy10111732. 54. Liu, H.; Yang, H.; Zheng, J.; Jia, D.; Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Huang, G. Irrigation scheduling strategies based on soil matric potential on yield and fruit quality of mulched‐drip irrigated chili pepper in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 115, 232–241, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2012.09.009. 55. De Farias, V.L.; Araújo, Ídila, M.D.S.; Da Rocha, R.F.J.; Garruti, D.D.S.; Pinto, G.A.S. Enzymatic maceration of Tabasco pepper: Effect on the yield, chemical and sensory aspects of the sauce. LWT 2020, 127, 109311, doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109311. 56. Weiss, E.A. Spice Crops; CABI Publishing International: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. 411.
Journal
Agriculture – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Feb 23, 2021