4.3 Article

Influence of Cassava Storage Root Development and Environmental Conditions on Starch Granule an Size Distribution

期刊

STARCH-STARKE
卷 60, 期 12, 页码 696-705

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/star.200800226

关键词

Cassava; Storage root; Fibrous root; Starch granule size; Environmental impact; Amylose content

资金

  1. National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailand [BT-B-01-PG-14-4807]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among starch producing crops, cassava has a higher carbohydrate production than others under suboptimal conditions, more than 163 x 10(6) t of cassava starch are produced world-wide each year and are used for direct human consumption, animal feeds and as raw material for a wide range of industrial products. A basic knowledge of starch characteristics and storage process is required to improve cassava starch quality and quantity. This report describes a comparative study of morphology, starch granule size distribution and amylose content in cassava storage roots grown under different conditions. Microscopic evaluation reveals that storage roots contain larger starch granules than fibrous roots. The study on three Asian cassava cultivars demonstrates the increment of starch granule size from outermost to innermost layers of storage root, while no significant change is observed in amylose content. The effects of developmental stage and growing season on cassava starch reveals that granule size is significantly influenced by both factors, while the amylose contents only fluctuate in a narrow range. The size of the starch granules increases particularly in the first six months after cultivation. Planting cassava in the beginning of the wet season in Asia yields larger granule sizes than planting in the dry season. The significance of this study lies in better understanding optimal growing conditions for improved starch characteristics and production, leading to a better quality agricultural production of this important food and materials crop.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据