Comparison of quality characteristics among 20 sweet potato varieties

Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) is a cultivated species belonging to the convolvulaceae family that can form tuberous root. It is an annual or perennial grassy vine, originating in South America, and has been widely planted in 111 countries and regions in the world¹. Sweet potato is an important food crop as well as an important industrial raw material, and it ranks fourth in total food crop production in China, after rice, wheat and corn^2,3. The sweet potato boasts a delightful sweet taste and is rich in nutritional value. It is abundant in dietary fiber, which aids in promoting intestinal peristalsis and digestion. Additionally, it serves as a significant source of energy for human activities, making it a crucial component of food, vegetables, and forage crops, so some countries in Africa and Asia, such as Congo and Japan, eat sweet potato as a staple food^4,5,6. Sweet potato was introduced into China from the Philippines and Vietnam in the 16th century^7,8. At present, sweet potato is cultivated all over China, especially in Huaihai Plain, Yangtze River basin and southeast coastal provinces and regions, and China has become the world’s largest producer of sweet potato^9,10.

At present, more and more people who lose weight take sweet potato as the staple food during weight loss, because sweet potato is rich in protein, starch, dietary fiber, carotene, vitamin A, B, C, E and calcium, potassium, iron and other trace elements^11,12,13. In addition, sweet potato contains a lot of dietary fiber, which can effectively promote intestinal peristalsis and digestive fluid secretion, reduce the incidence of intestinal diseases and the constipation, so sweet potato has a high nutritional and medicinal value^14,15,16. Sweet potato has a very low fat content and produces less heat in the human body. According to research reports^17,18 every 100 g of fresh sweet potato only contains 0.2 g of fat and produces 85 kcal of heat energy, which is only 1/3 of rice. It is a high-quality low-fat and low-energy food. Consequently, sweet potato can serve as a high-quality staple food during weight loss and bodybuilding endeavors. Furthermore, numerous foods and beverages are crafted from sweet potato, offering a diverse range of culinary options^19,20,21.

The analysis of quality characteristics of sweet potato is an important basis in the process of seed selection and utilization of sweet potato. Therefore, 20 varieties of sweet potatoes were selected to determine their sugar content, drying rate, amylose content, amylopectin content, anthocyanin content, texture and colorimetry. By comparing the differences of these indicators, the main characteristics and indicators that determine the processing quality of sweet potato were found, and different processing purposes and processing methods suitable for sweet potato were divided, which to provide data reference for sweet potato breeding and processing decisions.

Supplied experimental fields and plants

The experiment was carried out from the experimental field of Xiangyang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xiangyang, Hubei Province, more than 100 m away from the main road, the coordinates were 112°8′46.163″–E112°9′12.843″ E; 32°5′43.594″ N–2°5′53.065″ N. The soil in the experimental field is yellow soil, and the topsoil texture is loam. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soil were shown in Table 1. The tested materials were 20 sweet potato varieties, whose numbers, growth characteristics and sweet potato traits were shown in Table 2.

Experimental design

The field experiment was conducted from June to October 2022 in Xiangyang Academy of Agricultural Sciences. A total of 80 land blocks were set up in the experiment, each with a length of 10.0 m, a width of 1.0 m, a plant spacing of 0.30 m, a total area of 800.0 m²and a planting density of 4 sweet potato plants per square meter, each sweet potato variety was planted 4 times and repeated at random. Cultivation management was carried out according to conventional field management methods. Fertilizer application: compound fertilizer 75.0 g per square meter land with the ratio of nitrogen phosphorus and potassium was 15 to 15 to 15, total application of compound fertilizer was 7200 g.

Sweet potato seedlings colonized as cave cuttings on June 11, 2022. Sweet potato (WR) are widely used in Hubei Province, provided and cultivated by the Xiangyang Academy of Agricultural Sciences have been adopted in Xiangyang, Hubei Province. Seedlings were cultivated according to covered with film of vines seedling (patent license CN 103999664 A). When the seedlings grew 5–6 main leaves, healthy seedlings with constant growth were selected and transplanted cutting into the field.

Sample determination

The drying rate of sweet potato was determined by drying method. The three sweet potato blocks were randomly selected for each variety, washed, dried the skin, sliced and mixed the middle part, weighed at 100 g, dried at 80 °C to constant weight, and the drying rate was determined. The contents of amylose and amylopectin in sweet potato were determined by dual wavelength colorimetry^22,23.

Anthocyanins are water-soluble pigments whose color varies with the pH of plant cell fluid²⁴. If the cell fluid is acidic, the color is red, and if the cell fluid is alkaline, the color is blue²⁵. The anthocyanins were determined by ultraviolet spectrophotometry (Evolution 350, Thermo Scientific)^26,27. The 2.0 g sweet potato samples were extracted by hydrochloric acid ethanol extraction solution. The optical density values of the extracted solution at 530 nm, 620 nm and 650 nm were determined by ultraviolet spectrophotometer, and the anthocyanin content was calculated. The sugar content was determined by a sugar meter. 10.0 g fresh sweet potato was ground into pulp, the sweet potato pulp was filtered, and the sugar content was measured in the sugar meter.

The chroma of sweet potato was determined by colorimeter (PFXi195, Lovibond). The fresh sweet potato was cut into 1.0 cm slices in the middle. The test mode was not to remove specular reflection, and the standard whiteboard was used as the standard sample. The L* value indicates that the brightness of the sample changes from 0 (black) to 100 (white); The a* value indicates the red-green degree of the sample, +a* indicates red, and −a* indicates green; The b* value indicates the yellowish blueness of the sample, +b* indicates yellow, and −b* indicates blue²⁸.

The texture of sweet potato was determined by a texture analyzer (TA.XT ExpressC, Stable Micro Systems)^29,30. The P/36R cylindrical probe (diameter 36 mm) was used to determine the hardness, elasticity, chewiness, cohesiveness and resilience. The hardness, elasticity, chewiness and cohesiveness were used a double compression test (TPA mode), and resilience was used a single compression test. The adhesiveness was determined by the P/2 needle probe (diameter 2 mm) and used a single compression test. The middle part of fresh sweet potato, about 2.0 cm thick, was placed on the instrument tray, the trigger force was set to 15 g, the thickness was set to 8.0 mm, the speed was set to 1.0 mm/s, 2.0 mm/s and 5.0 mm/s before, during and after the test, respectively. To ensure that the test points do not interfere with each other, the distance between the points is > 0.5 cm. Exponent Lite (Version 6, Stable Micro Systems) was used to extract TPA-related parameters and analyze the test data.

Data analysis

The Excel (Version 2016, Microsoft Office) and SPSS (Version 22.0, IBM) were used for all data analysis and Origin (Version 2020, OriginLab) for graph rendering. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used for measurement data. Three parallel tests were performed for each test group, and the data were presented as the mean ± SD of three replicates. Statistical significance levels are denoted as * (P < 0.05) and ** (P < 0.01).

Comparative analysis of dry weight rate and starch content of different sweet potato varieties

The dry weight rate of sweet potato is the percentage of dry weight and fresh weight of sweet potato slices after drying³¹. Under normal circumstances, the sweet potato varieties used for flour production require a higher dry weight rate, while the fresh varieties require a lower dry weight rate³². The dry weight rate value of sweet potato variety 197-4 was the largest with 36.2% shown in Table 3. The dry weight rate of 196-16 was 33.5%, and the difference was significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the dry weight rate of 197-4 and 196-16, but there was significant difference between the dry weight rate of 197-4 and the other 18 sweet potato varieties. The dry weight rate of 193-3 was 18.2%, which was significantly different from that of other 19 sweet potato species. From the above analysis, it was found that varieties 197-4 and 196-6 were more suitable for flour production, and 193-3 were more suitable for fresh food.

The amylose content of 196-16 was the highest, which was 26.58% (Table 3). Through the analysis of variance, it found that the amylose content of 196-16 was significantly different from that of other 19 sweet potato species (P < 0.05). The amylose content of 193-4 was the lowest, 8.81%. The amylose content of 196-14 and 197-37 was similar but no significant difference (P > 0.05). The content of amylopectin in 196-14 was the highest, 4.51%, which was similar to that in 193-31, but no significant difference (P > 0.05). The content of amylopectin in 198-2 was the lowest (2.55%), and there was no significant difference between the content of amylopectin in 193-4, 195-1 and 196-16 (P > 0.05).

Comparative analysis of anthocyanins and sugar content of different sweet potato varieties

Anthocyanins are one of the main pigments that constitute the color of petals and fruit. As can be seen from Table 3, the contents of anthocyanins in 193-3, 193-4, 193-16, 193-20, 193-31, 198-1, 198-8 and 204-8 were relatively low compared to other varieties. The anthocyanin content of 197-37 was the highest, which was 38.28 µg/g. Variance analysis showed that anthocyanin content of 197-37 sweet potato was significantly different from 19 other sweet potato species (P < 0.05). According to Fig. 1; Table 2, the tuberous root color of sweet potato with high anthocyanin content is purple and dark purple, while the tuberous root color of sweet potato with low anthocyanin content or even without anthocyanin is yellow or white.

Cross-section of 20 varieties of sweet potato.

Full size image

The degree of sugar is a unit that expresses the concentration of solids in the sugar solution³³ and refers to the number of dissolved grams of solids contained in a 100 g sugar solution. It showed from Table 3 that the sugar degree of 193-16 and 197-32 was the largest with 3.5, which indicated that these two varieties of sweet potato were sweeter than other varieties. The sugar contents of 193-20, 193-31, 197-4 and 197-37 were the lowest with 1.5.

Comparative analysis of chroma of different sweet potato varieties

The chroma of 20 varieties of sweet potato was measured, and the L*, a* and b* were analyzed. The data were shown in Table 4. Colors of tuberous roots in 20 varieties of sweet potato included purple, yellow, white and other colors, resulting in diffences among sweet potato L* value, a* value, b* value and other indicators. The difference of L* among 20 sweet potato species was significant (P < 0.05). The L* value of 193-16 was the largest, 88.25, which was corresponding to the whiteness and yellowish color of the sweet potato meat of this variety, and had no significant difference with the L* of 193-3, 193-20, 193-31, 198-1 and 204-18 varieties (P > 0.05). The L* value of 197-37 was the lowest, 37.55, corresponding to the deep purple color of its sweet potato meat, and there was no significant difference in L* between 193-21, 195-1, 197-4 and 197-32 varieties (P > 0.05). The L* value of 193-4 was 70.75, which was significantly different from that of other 19 varieties (P < 0.05).

The a* value represents the reddish-green degree of the sample. The a* value of 193-4 was the largest with 27.91, and the a* value was significantly different from that of other 19 varieties of sweet potato (P < 0.05). The 193-16 had the lowest a* value of 0.11. Among them, the a* values of 191-1, 197-4, 197-37 and 198-8 were similar, and the difference was not significant (P > 0.05).

The b* value represents the yellow-blue degree of the sample, and the b* value of 193-31 was the largest (34.07), which had little difference from the b* value of 193-3, 198-8 and 193-4 (P > 0.05). 197-32 had the lowest b* value of −2.21. The b* values of 193-16 and 193-20 were similar, and the b* values were significantly different from those of other 18 varieties (P < 0.05).

Comparative analysis of texture of different sweet potato varieties

The texture indexes (hardness, elasticity, adhesiveness, cohesiveness chewiness and resilience) of 20 varieties of sweet potato were determined, and the results were shown in Table 5.

Hardness is an index that most directly reflects the taste of the sample³⁴. The hardness of 196 16 was the highest, and that of 22,447, 198-8 was the lowest, and that of 14,285. The hardness difference between the two varieties was significant (P < 0.05). The hardness of 196-16 was similar to that of 191-1, 196-8, 197-4 and 197-32 (P > 0.05).

Elasticity is the degree to which the sample can recover after the first compression³⁵. The stopping time between two compression tests is important for the determination of elasticity. The longer the stopping time is, the greater the recovery height is. Elasticity is expressed as the ratio of the recovery height of the sample detected in the second compression to the amount of deformation in the first compression. As shown in Table 5, the elasticity of 204-18 sweet potato was the worst (0.62), and the elasticity of this sweet potato variety was significantly different from that of other 19 sweet potato varieties (P < 0.05). The elasticity of 193-3 was the best (0.78), which was similar to that of 191-1 and 198-2 (P > 0.05).

Cohesion indicates the relative resistance of the test sample to the second compression after the first compression deformation³⁶. The cohesion of 198-2 was the best (0.71), which was similar to that of 191-1 and 193-31 (P > 0.05). The cohesion of 204-18 was the worst (0.57), which was similar to that of 195-1 and 198-1.

Adhesiveness is defined as the product of hardness and cohesion. One of the characteristics of semi-solid foods is that they have low hardness and high cohesion³⁷. Therefore, this indicator is generally used to describe the taste of semi-solid foods. The adhesive property of 191-1 was the highest (15269), which was similar to that of 196-16 (P > 0.05). The adhesive property of 198-8 was 8948, which was significantly different from that of 191-1 (P < 0.05).

Chewiness is a term used to describe solid foods, and reflects the taste of the food³⁸. The energy required for the steady state of chewing solid food when swallowed. The masticability of 191-1 was the best with 11,711, but 204-18 was the worst with 5851. Their difference was significant (P < 0.05). The chewability of 191-1 was significantly higher than that of 204-18, and the difference between the two varieties reached 5860. The chewability of 191-1 was similar to that of 196-16 and 197-4 (P > 0.05).

Resilience is defined as the ratio of the area before the deformation target to the area after the deformation target at the first compression³⁹. During the measurement, it is necessary to pay attention to the recovery status of the sample. In general, a slower test speed will be used to achieve the condition that the sample has enough time to recover, also ensure the accuracy of this feature⁴⁰. The recovery of 193-31 varieties was the best (0.40), but the recovery of 204-18 varieties was the worst (0.31). The recovery of these two varieties was significantly different (P < 0.05).

Analysis of single sweet potato weight and yield of different sweet potato varieties

The single sweet potato weights of 20 varieties were shown in Table 6. The single sweet potato weight of 20 varieties was different, and the top three single sweet potato weights were 193-16, 193-21 and 198-1. The single sweet potato weight of 193-16 was the largest with 674 g, the single sweet potato weight of 193-21 was 534 g, and the single sweet potato weight of 198-1 was 469 g. The single sweet potato weight of 198-2 was the lowest with 143 g. Environmental factors such as climate and soil type could affect the results of the experiment, and more experiments would be conducted to verify the results.

As shown in Table 6, the top four per hectare yields were 193-16, 193-21, 197-25, and 198-1. The yield of 193-16 was the highest with 42 000 kg/hm², 193-21 was 40 500 kg/hm², 197-25 and 198-1 was 39 000 kg/hm². 197-37 yield was the lowest with 25 500 kg/hm². Combined with the single sweet potato weight, there were about 62 310 sweet potatoes with 193-16 varieties per hectare and about 167 000 sweet potatoes with 197-37 varieties per hectare. It showed that the number of sweet potatoes produced per hectare by 197-37 varieties was greater than 193-16. The yield of 42 000 kg fresh sweet potato per hectare can process 560 kg of starch, with an output value of about 3930 US dollars per hectare. This was similar to the findings of some studies^41,42. The planting area of varieties with higher yield per hectare should be appropriately increased, its economic efficiency is much higher than that of food crops and more than many cash crops.

The final processed sweet potato products have different forms, and the nutritional quality requirements of sweet potato varieties are also different. Dry sweet potato with high drying rate, high sugar content as the screening target, 193-16, 197-25, 197-32 with high sugar, moderate drying rate suitable for dried sweet potato. Fresh sweet potato is mainly selected for its good taste, low drying rate, suitable starch content and high sugar content after steaming or baking, and 193-3 and 196-16 are suitable for fresh sweet potato. 198-2 is suitable for making fresh mini sweet potato due to its small weight, small shape, moderate yield per hectare, large number of sweet potatoes, moderate drying rate, starch content and sugar content. High anthocyanin content and high drying rate were the main screening indexes for all-powder processed varieties. Therefore, variety 197-37, with the third drying rate (31.2%) and the first anthocyanin content (38.28 µg/g), was suitable for the promotion of all-powder processed sweet potato varieties.

The growth, development and quality of sweet potato are jointly affected by various factors such as the growing environment and the genotype of sweet potato itself. The yield, traits and nutritional value of the same variety of sweet potato will vary greatly when planted in different regions^43,44. Therefore, when introduced into planting, it is necessary to determine whether it is appropriate to plant in this region according to the local planting traits of the variety.

The sweet potato varieties in this study were divided into fresh and processed categories through statistical analysis. 191-1, 193-13, 193-16, 196-14, 197-32, 198-2, 198-8, 204-18 were classified in the fresh category, and 193-3, 193-4, 193-20, 193-21, 193-31, 195-1, 196-8, 196-16, 197-4, 197-25, 197-37, 198-1 were classified in the processed category.

The utilization rate in sweet potato processing is relatively low, and a large amount of sweet potato residue is wasted, causing environmental pollution and other problems, which have affected the sustainable development of the sweet potato industry. In the future, efforts should be made to enhance the utilization rate in the sweet potato processing process and explore suitable processing methods for sweet potato residue to promote the sustainable development of the sweet potato industry.

1. Keyser, C. A. et al. Tailoring IPM plans to fight a cloaked pest: Helping smallholder farmers combat the Sweetpotato weevil in sub-Saharan Africa. CABI Agric. Biosci. 5, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-024-00231-4 (2024).

   Article  Google Scholar 

2. Sarwanto, D., Tuswati, S. E. & Prayitno, C. H. Productivity and quality of sweet potato leaves (Ipomea batata) as animal feed in integrated system in the abadonedlimestone mining site. Indian J. Ecol. 48, 878–884 (2021).

   Google Scholar 

3. Si, C. C. et al. Impact of Paclobutrazol on storage root number and yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea Batatas L). Field Crops Res. 300, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109011 (2023).

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Adetola, O. Y., Onabanjo, O. O. & Stark, A. H. The search for sustainable solutions: Producing a sweet potato based complementary food rich in vitamin A, zinc and iron for infants in developing countries. Sci. Afr. 8, e00363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00363 (2020).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

5. Nankumbi, J. et al. Predictors of vitamin A rich food consumption among women living in households growing orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes in selected regions in Uganda. Front. Public. Health. 10, 880166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.880166 (2023).

   Article  Google Scholar 

6. Ikegawa, Y. et al. Eradication of Sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius, from Tsuken island, Okinawa, Japan, under transient invasion of males. J. Appl. Entomol. 146, 850–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.13004 (2022).

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Balogun, K. & Nwokah, J. T. Effect of planting dates and fertilizer rates on the growth and yield of sweet potato (Ipomea batata L.) in WUKARI, Taraba state. Afr. J. Agric. Food Sci. 4, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.52589/AJAFS-VDJIFW4W (2021).

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Syombua, E. D., Tripathi, J. N., Obiero, G. O., Nguu, E. K. & Tripathi, L. Potential applications of the crispr/cas technology for genetic improvement of Yam (Dioscorea spp). Food Energy Secur. 11, e330. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.330 (2021).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

9. Wu, Z., Hua, W., Luo, L. & Tanaka, K. Technical efficiency of maize production and its influencing factors in the world’s largest groundwater drop funnel area, China. Agriculture 12, 1–14 (2022).

   Google Scholar 

10. Lai, J., Liu, T., Liu, B., Kuang, W. & Song, S. First report of curvularia plantarum causing leaf spot on sweet potato (Ipomea batata) in China. Plant Dis. 106, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-08-21-1665-PDN (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Trancoso-Reyes, N. et al. Effect of pre-treatment on physicochemical and structural properties, and the bioaccessibility of β-carotene in sweet potato flour. Food Chem. 200, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.01.047 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

12. Pradhan, D. M. P. et al. High starch, beta carotene and anthocyanin rich sweet potato: Ascent to future food and nutrition security in coastal and backward areas. Int. J. Trop. Agric. 10, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22012014000100002 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Agbo, A. E., Meite, S., Gbogouri, G. A., Gouekou, A. D. & Brou, K. Impact of antioxidant spices on vitamin B 9 and β -carotene in steamed sweet potato leaves. Acta Hort. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1292.51 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Palma, M. How different cooking methods affect the phenolic composition of sweet potato for human consumption (Ipomea batata (L.) Lam). Agronomy 11, 1636–1650. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081636 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

15. Sanchez, R. G. R., Juan, G. A. C. S., Lim, P. A. A. & Gabriel, A. A. Effect of flour processing on the proximate composition, polyphenolic content, and antioxidant activity of 19 Philippine sweet potato cultivars. J. Food Process. Preserv. 44, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14734 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

16. Toroco, B. D. R. et al. Performance of orange-fleshed sweet potato genotypes is affected by the planting date. Sci. Hort. 321, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112361 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

17. Santoso, A., Apriliyanti, M. W., Ardiyansyah, M. & Prastiwi, D. Effect of modified cassava flour and purple sweet potato flour formulations on the physical and sensory qualities of meses. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science vol. 1168, pp. 12037–12041 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1168/1/012037

18. Marsigit, W., Bonodikun, B., Sitanggang, L., Effect of addition baking powder and water on sensory and & physical characteristics of mocaf(Modified cassava flour) biscuits. Jurnal Agroindustri 7, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.31186/j.agroind.7.1.1-10 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Mu, T. H., Sun, H. N. & Li, P. G. Other Sweet Potato-based Products: Production, Processing and Technology (Tropical Roots and Tubers, 2016).

20. Basilio, L. S. P. et al. New beverage based on grapes and purple-fleshed sweet potatoes: Use of non-standard tubers. Food Biosci.. 47, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2022.101626 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

21. Esquivel-González, B. E. et al. Microencapsulation of betanins by spray drying with mixtures of sweet potato starch and maltodextrin as wall materials to prepare natural pigments delivery systems. J. Food Process. Preserv.. 46, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16431 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

22. Reddappa, S. B. et al. Development and validation of rapid and cost-effective protocol for Estimation of amylose and amylopectin in maize kernels. Biotech 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-022-03128-z (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

23. Mao, Y., Shi, J., Cai, L., Hwang, W. & Shi, Y. C Microstructures of starch granules with different amylose contents and allomorphs as revealed by scattering techniques. Biomacromolecules 24, 1980–1993. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.2c01240 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

24. Liobikas, J. et al. Anthocyanins: From plant pigments to health benefits at mitochondrial level. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60, 3352–3365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1687421 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

25. Joshi, V. K. & Preema, M. Anthocyanins, chemistry, extraction, stability, significance and application as a biocolour. Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol. 7, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5771.2017.00030.8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Zong, Z. et al. Preparation and characterization of a novel intelligent starch/gelatin binary film containing purple sweet potato anthocyanins for flammulina velutipes mushroom freshness monitoring. Food Chem. 405, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134839 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

27. Hou, F. Y. et al. Accumulation and gene expression of anthocyanin in storage roots of Purple-Freshed sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam] Under Weak Light Conditions. J. Integr. Agric. 9, 1588–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60255-8 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

28. Mesquita, C. S., Reed, R., Christopher, K. & Pratheesh, S. 125 relationship of electrical conductivity to color variables (chroma, hue, L*, a*, b*) of fresh beef loins. J. Anim. Sci. 102, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae019.050 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Nakamura, Y., Ohara-Takada, A., Kuranouchi, T. & Katayama, K. Disintegration of steamed root tissues of sweet potato and its relation to texture and the contents of starch, calcium and pectic substances. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi. 62, 555–562. https://doi.org/10.3136/nskkk.62.555 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

30. González, A., Alvis, A. & Arrázola, G. Effect of edible coating on the properties of sweet potato slices (Ipomoea Batatas Lam) cooked by Deep-Fat frying: Part 1: Texture. Información Tecnológica. 26, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642015000100011 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

31. Castro-Mendoza, M. P., Navarro‐Cortez, R. O., Hernández‐Uribe, J. P., Bello‐Pérez, L. A. & Vargas‐Torres, A. Sweet potato color variety and flour production drying method determine bioactive compound content and functional properties of flour. J. Food Process. Preserv.. 46, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16852 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32. Sobowale, S. S., Ikedichi, A. J., Kewuyemi, Y. O. & Adebo, O. A. Response surface methodology approach for predicting microwave convective drying characteristics of sweet potato slices. J. Food Process. Preserv. 46, 16683–16692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16683 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

33. Wees, D., Seguin, P. & Boisclair, J. Sweet potato production in a short-season area utilizing black plastic mulch: Effects of cultivar, in-row plant spacing, and harvest date on yield parameters. Can. J. Plant Sci. 96, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2015-0150 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Li, X. Correlation analysis between measured values of the texture analyzer and scale values of sensory evaluation for food hardness. Adv. Mater. Res. 183–185, 882–886 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.183-185.882

    ADS  Google Scholar 

35. Shibata, A. et al. Food texture sensing by using a variable elasticity type imitation tongue. J. Rob. Soc. Jpn. 34, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.34.631 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Giri, N. A. & Sakhale, B. K. Effect of protein enrichment on quality characteristics and glycemic index of gluten free sweet potato (Ipomoea Batatas L.) spaghetti. J. Food Sci. Technol. 59, 2410–2419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-05257-4 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

37. Monthe, O. C. et al. Rheological and textural properties of gluten-free doughs and breads based on fermented cassava, sweet potato and sorghum mixed flours. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 101, 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.11.051 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

38. El-Aidie, S., Elsayed, N., Hashem, M. & Elkashef, H. Development of fermented skimmed milk fortified with yellow sweet potato (Ipomoea Batatas L.) with prebiotic and antioxidant activity. J. Food Nutr. Res. 60, 66–75 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

39. Mbinda, W., Dixelius, C. & Oduor, R. Induced expression of xerophyta viscosa XvSap1 gene greatly impacts tolerance to drought stress in Transgenic sweet potato. BIOxiv. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1101/603910 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40. Ramírez, D. A. et al. Phenotyping of productivity and resilience in Sweetpotato under water stress through UAV-based multispectral and thermal imagery in Mozambique. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 209, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12565 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

41. Agbede, T. & Oyewumi, A. Soil properties, sweet potato growth and yield under biochar, poultry manure and their combination in two degraded Alfisols of humid tropics. Sci. Hort. 304, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111331 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

42. Perez-Pazos, J. Influence of morpho-physiological traits on root yield in sweet potato (Ipomoea Batatas Lam.) genotypes and its adaptation in a sub-humid environment. Sci. Hort. 275, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109703 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

43. Claude, S., Vivien, N. G. & Désiré, T. V. Evaluation of different sweet potato varieties for growth, quality and yield traits under chemical fertilizer and organic amendments in sandy ferralitic soils. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 12, 3379–3388. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2017.12675 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

44. Désiré, T. V., Gilles, N., Claude, S. & Vivien & African journal of agricultural research evaluation of different sweet potato varieties for growth, quality and yield traits under chemical fertilizer and organic amendments in sandy ferralitic soils. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 12, 3379–3388. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2017.12675 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors and Affiliations

1. School of Food Science and Technology, Hubei University of Arts and Science, Xiangyang, 441053, China

   Kai Luo, Xudong Li, Jiachen Chen & Yuqi Li

2. Institute of Vegetable Science, Xiangyang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xiangyang, 441000, China

   Jie Zhang & Jie Zhu

3. Hubei Pilot Base for High-quality Development of Fruit and Vegetable Characteristics, Xiangyang, 441000, China

   Jie Zhang & Yuqi Li

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design and execution of the experiments presented in this manuscript, as well as to the interpretation of the results. Each author reviewed and approved the final manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuqi Li.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions