VARIATION AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SOME NUTRITIONAL TRAITS IN SICILIAN GENOTYPES OF CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

Abstract

The chemical composition of several chickpeas originating from Sicily, compared with the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas genotype “ILC 484” and the Italian cultivar “Calia,” was determined. A large variability was ascertained for crude fiber (coefficient of variation [CV] = 29.3%), calcium (CV = 39.3%) and tannins (CV = 120.0%). The genotype statistically affected all nutrient characteristics assessed, whose mean values were: (1) 100‐seed weight 34.0 ± 3.3 g; (2) crude fiber 2.88 ± 0.8 g/100 g; (3) fat 6.0 ± 0.9 g/100 g; (4) total carbohydrates 62.0 ± 1.4 g/100 g; (5) ash 2.64 ± 0.2 g/100 g; (6) iron 4.50 ± 0.3 mg/100 g; (7) calcium 109.6 ± 43.1 mg/100 g; (8) magnesium 189.4 ± 18.5 mg/100 g; (9) potassium 1318.7 ± 95.6 mg/100 g; and (10) tannins 0.90 ± 1.1 g/100 g. An average energy value of 379.8 ± 6.2 kcal/100 g was computed. The wide variability ascertained for some chemical attributes such as crude fiber, tannins and Ca content, and interesting correlations observed among characteristics, such as the negative correlation between Fe and tannins or fiber, or the positive correlation between ash and Fe, suggest the possibility of identifying genotypes to be used in breeding programs for the improvement of chickpea quality in Sicily.

Nutritional and physicochemical variation in Turkish kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) landraces

“…The mean starch content was lower than that reported by Patané (2006) for Sicilian genotypes collected from Southern Italy, and higher than that reported by Gil et al (1996) for 50 chickpea genotypes originated from Southern Spain. Starch is an important caloric component, but Singh (1985) reported that the concentration of unavailable carbohydrates in chickpea is the highest among all commonly consumed pulses.…”

“…Previous studies have also reported significant differences in the Euphytica (2010) 175:237-249 239 proximate compositions of different chickpea genotypes from various geographic regions of the world (Gil et al 1996;Iqbal et al 2006;Khattak et al 2006;Patané 2006;Ravi and Harte 2009). There was significant variation in protein content of Turkish landraces, with the highest protein levels seen in Hatay2 and Mersin4, and the lowest in Diyarbakır3 (Table 1).…”

“…The range of fiber content in Turkish chickpea landraces was much higher than that reported by Singhai and Shrivastava (2006) and Sotelo et al (1987) for some chickpea varieties cultivated in India and Mexico, respectively. Fiber content basically depends on seed coat thickness (Patané 2006). Chavan et al (1986) found positive correlation between fiber content and seed coat thickness.…”

“…In addition to nutritional value, chickpea quality is assessed by physicochemical and cooking characteristics (Patané 2006). Variation in chemical composition and cooking quality depends upon genotype, seed characteristics, seed composition, agronomic practices, climatic factors, soil type, and other factors.…”

Genetic variation of a global germplasm collection of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) including Italian accessions at risk of genetic erosion

“…Several landraces, that usually owe their name from the cultivation area, are still cultivated in marginal territories and appreciated for their quality. However, modern cultivars, selected for improved agronomic and commercial traits, are gradually replacing this gene pool, which is thus seriously exposed to the risks of genetic erosion (Negri 2003;Patanè 2006).…”