Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, D: Agriculture and Veterinary, Volume 22 Issue 1

between means were tested by multivariate ANOVA at asignificant level of p<0.05. Differences between groups were determined by comparisons of means (Tukey contrast). All analysis was processed using Statgraphics Plus version 5.1 (Manugistics Inc., Rockville, MD, USA). III. R esultados Y D iscusión a) Proximate analysis Table 2 shows the percentage contents of the nutrients, as well as the macro and microminerals values. Table 2: Nutritional and mineral components of the aerial parts of each species: mean ± standard error and probability (p-value) for the significance differences between growth conditions Note: a-d superscript indicatea significant difference exists (p<0.05) It is observed that the wild species ( P. ruderale with 84.70% and P. oleracea with 88.39%) have a higher humidity level than their cultivated counterparts with a significant difference (p=0.0000).On the contrary, the ash content is higher in P. oleracea than in P. ruderale and in both species it is lower in wild conditions vs. cultivated conditions. Crude protein had a higher value in P. ruderale under wild conditions, and in P. oleracea no significant differences were observed for this nutrient according to the growth system. The fat content in P. ruderale was higher in wild conditions (5.50%) vs. cultivated conditions (3.57%), while in P. oleracea the same parameter was higher in cultivated conditions (0.99%).For both species, the differences between cultivation systems were significant with p=0.0156 ( P. ruderale ) and p=0.0000 ( P. oleracea ). Crude fiber did not present significant differences between the growing systems in any of the species, showing the highest level in P. ruderale (5.50%).Carbohydrates indicated high levels in cultivated conditions vs . wild conditions for both species. The characterization of the nutrients in vegetables is an important contribution to the daily requirements of a balanced diet. Moisture content determines freshness of vegetables and color characteristics appreciable by consumers (Kibar et al ., 2021). On the other hand, the stability and quality of food are also affected by the moisture content. Its higher levels in the wild conditions for both species are probably related to their ability to retain water when exposed to higher stress agroclimatic conditions than their cultivated counterparts. Moisture values similar to those found in this study are reported for conventional vegetables such as parsley (88%)(BEDCA, 2022),and higher values have been found in P. oleracea (97.3%) from Sudan(Obied et al ., 2003). Ash is the inorganic part of the plant that is closely related to the mineral content. The ashes presented a variation between 0.44-0.67% in P. ruderale , values lower than those reported by Carillo (2014) for the same Mexican species (2.04%). The variation between 2.62-3.39% in P. oleracea is much higher than that reported by USDA (2019) for the same American species (1.36%). Crude protein showed a significant difference between the growth conditions in P. ruderale (p=0.0002) and no difference in P. oleracea. These results that both species are not a protein source of alternative nutrition, unlike other wild edible species such as C. album (26.42%) or the genus Amaranthus (21.38%) (Ozbucak et al., 2007). In general, the amount of protein in the species studied is close to that of common lettuce (1.13%) or escarole (1.6%) (BEDCA, 2022). The fat content was significantly influenced by the growth conditions in P. ruderale and P. oleracea , P. ruderale P. olerace Wild Cultivate p- value Wild Cultivate p- value Nutrients(g 100 g -1 fw) Moisture 84.70 a ±0.43 76.64 b ±0.02 0.0000 88.39 a ±0.24 83.12 b ±1.09 0.0014 Ash 1.49 b ±0.02 2.33 a ±0.02 0.0020 2.62 b ±0.02 3.39 a ±0.06 0.0084 Crude protein 1.89 a ±0.00 1.19 b ±0.01 0.0002 1.56±0.00 1.49±0.00 0.1988 Fat 0.66 a ±0.00 0.41 b ±0.01 0.0156 0.32 b ±0.00 0.99 a ±0.00 0.0000 Crude fiber 5.50±1.88 3.57±0.66 0.1003 2.39±0.01 2.60±0.89 0.7178 Carbohydrates 6.80 b ±3.49 17.55 a ±0.63 0.0008 4.72 b ±0.21 8.41 a ±0.90 0.0183 Energetic value (kcal 100 g -1 ) 40.70±1.16 78.65±0.22 - 28.00±0.07 48.51±0.30 - Minerals (mg 100 g -1 fw) Calcium 439.29 b ±119.86 687.49 a ±19.22 0.0240 186.67 a ±28.36 110.59 b ±16.02 0.0005 Magnesium 131.15 b ±9.22 185.54 a ±21.10 0.0150 165.33 a ±9.50 91.68 b ±18.91 0.0000 Potassium 515.28±49.22 477.75±40.99 0.3676 776.67 a ±171.50 271.91 b ±34.37 0.0000 Phosphorus 56.48 b ±3.31 84.57 a ±3.96 0.0007 33.67 b ±0.93 58.73 a ±7.56 0.0000 Sodium 7.19±1.21 8.21±1.60 0.4337 16.60 a ±0.03 0.81 b ±0.06 0.0000 Iron 1.80±0.12 1.70±0.17 0.4495 1.80±0.18 1.35±0.18 0.1960 Copper 0.17 b ±0.01 0.37 a ±0.01 0.0000 0.14 b ±0.01 0.36 a ±0.05 0.0000 Zinc 0.51 a ±0.04 0.39 b ±0.03 0.0157 0.99 b ±0.06 1.08 a ±0.14 0.0011 © 2022 Global Journals 1 Year 2022 36 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXII Issue ersion I VI ( D ) Influence of Cultivation Conditions on the Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Components of Two Undervalued Edible Plants ( Porophyllum Ruderale and Portulaca Oleracea )