Impact of Harvesting the Aerial Part of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as Forage on Tuber Yield

Document Type : Original Article


Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran


This study aimed to determine the effect of cutting the aerial part of Jerusalem artichoke at different growth stages, as forage, on tuber yield. Tubers were planted in a randomized complete block design in 16 plots with dimensions of 3 m × 4 m (4 plots in 4 blocks). Treatments with different dates of the harvest of the aerial part were: 1) first cut at stem elongation stage, BBCH-39 and second cut at inflorescence emergence stage, BBCH-59 (66 and 138 days after planting, respectively), 2) first and second cuts at stem elongation stage, BBCH-39 (100 and 173 days after planting, respectively), 3) one cut at inflorescence emergence stage, BBCH-59 (132 days after planting) with no regrowth of the aerial part, and 4) no aerial part cut. Tubers were harvested with approaching the cold season when the aerial part stopped growing. Treatment 1 and 2 resulted in lower total fresh and dry matter yield than treatment 3. The amount of water-soluble carbohydrates and crude protein in second cuts were numerically higher and fiber fractions lower than the first cuts. The highest fresh and dry tuber yield in treatment 4 was 63.3 and 14.8 t/ha, respectively, which was significantly higher than the mean of fresh (25.4-29.5 t/ha) and dry (4.6-6.1 t/ha) tuber yield in the other treatments. An increase in tuber organic matter was observed in treatment 4 with a significant increase in soluble carbohydrate contents. The results showed that an extra cut of the aerial part of Jerusalem artichoke during the vegetative stage did not increase the aboveground biomass yield compared to the treatment in which the only harvest was made just before the flowering stage. Yield of tubers was also negatively affected by regrowth of the aerial part.

Graphical Abstract

Impact of Harvesting the Aerial Part of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as Forage on Tuber Yield


  • This plant has not been used for dual purpose of forage and tuber production until recently.
  • Using the plant for forage production has not been practiced in the region.
  • The interaction between harvesting the aerial part and tuber yield was examined.


Main Subjects

AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis, 15th Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Ciccoli R., Sperandei M., Petrazzuolo F., Broglia M., Chiarini L., Correnti A., Tabacchioni S. 2018. Anaerobic digestion of the above ground biomass of Jerusalem Artichoke in a pilot plant: Impact of the preservation method on the biogas yield and microbial community. Biomass and Bioenergy 108: 190-197.
Denoroy P. 1996. The crop physiology of Helianthus tuberosus L.: a model oriented view. Biomass and bioenergy 11(1):11-32.
Diederichsen A. 2010. Phenotypic diversity of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) germplasm preserved by the Canadian gene bank. Hellia 33 (53): 1-16.
Dubois M., Gilles K.A., Hamilton J.K., Rebers P.T., Smith F. 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28 (3): 350-356.
Gao K., Zhang Z., Zhu T., Tian X., Gao Y., Zhao L., Li T. 2019. The influence of leaf removal on tuber yield and fuel characteristics of Helianthus tuberosus L. in a semi-arid area. Industrial Crops and Products 131: 8-13.
Gao K., Zhang Z., Zhu T., Coulter, J.A. 2020. The influence of flower removal on tuber yield and biomass characteristics of Helianthus tuberosus L. in a semi-arid area. Industrial Crops and Products 150:112374-112380.
Gunnarsson I.B., Svensson S.E., Johansson E., Karakashev D., Angelidaki I. 2014. Potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as a biorefinery crop. Industrial Crops and Products 56: 231-240.
Hay R.K.M., Offer N.W. 1992. Helianthus tuberosus as an alternative forage crop for cool maritime regions: a preliminary study of the yield and nutritional quality of shoot tissues from perennial stands. Science of Food and Agriculture 60 (2): 213-221.
Kays S.J., Nottingham, S.F. 2007. Biology and chemistry of Jerusalem artichoke: Helianthus tuberosus L. CRC press.
Kou Y.X., Zeng J., Liu J.Q., Zhao C.M. 2014. Germplasm diversity and differentiation of Helianthus tuberosus L. revealed by AFLP marker and phenotypic traits. The Journal of Agricultural Science 152 (5): 779-789.
Krober W., Heklau H., Bruelheide H. 2015. Leaf morphology of 40 evergreen and deciduous broad leaved subtropical tree species and relationships to functional ecophysiological traits. Plant Biology. 17: 373–383.
Li L., Shao T., Yang H., Chen M., Gao X., Long X., Rengel Z. 2017. The endogenous plant hormones and ratios regulate sugar and dry matter accumulation in Jerusalem artichoke in salt-soil. Science of the Total Environment 578: 40-46.
Long X.H., Shao H.B., Liu L., Liu L.P., Liu Z.P. 2016. Jerusalem artichoke: A sustainable biomass feedstock for biorefinery. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54: 1382-1388.
Malmberg A., Theander O. 1986. Differences in chemical composition of leaves and stem in Jerusalem artichoke and changes in low-molecular sugar and fructan content with time of harvest. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 16 (1): 7-12.
Mclaurin W.J., Somda Z.C., Kays S.J. 1999. Jerusalem artichoke growth, development, and field storage.I. Numerical assessment of plant part development and dry matter acquisition and allocation. Journal of Plant Nutrition 22 (8):1303-1313.
Panchev I., Delchev N., Kovacheva D., Slavov A. 2011. Physicochemical characteristics of inulins obtained from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). European Food Research and Technology 233 (5): 889-896.
Papi N., Kafilzadeh F., Fazael, H. 2017. Effects of incremental substitution of maize silage with Jerusalem artichoke silage on performance of fat-tailed lambs. Small Ruminant Research 147: 56-62.
Papi N., Kafilzadeh F., Fazaeli H. 2019. Use of Jerusalem artichoke aerial parts as forage in fat-tailed sheep diet. Small Ruminant Research 174: 1-6.
Rossini F., Provenzano M.E., Kuzmanović L., Ruggeri R. 2019. Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): a versatile and sustainable crop for renewable energy production in Europe. Agronomy 9(9): 528-568.
Slimestad R., Seljaasen R., Meijer K., Skar S.L. 2010. Norwegian-grown Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): morphology and content of sugars and fructo-oligosaccharides in stems and tubers. Science Food Agriculture 90(6): 956-964.
Stauffer M.D., Chubey B.B., Dorrell D.G. 1980. Growth, yield and compositional characteristics of Jerusalem artichoke as it relates to biomass production. Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem., Prepr; (United States), 25 (CONF-800814-P3).
Swanton C.J., Clements D.R., Moore M.J., Cavers P.B. 1992. The biology of Canadian weeds. 101. Helianthus tuberosus L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 72 (4): 1367-1382.
Van Soest P.Y., Robertson J., Lewis B. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and no starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Dairy Science 74: 3583-3597.
Wang Y., Zhao Y., Xue F., Nan X., Wang H., Hua D., Liu J., Yang L., Jiang L., Xiong B. 2020. Nutritional value, bioactivity, and application potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as a neotype feed resource. Animal Nutrition 6 (4): 429-437.