Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops & Products

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop

Plant growth, tuber yield formation and costs of three different propagation T
methods of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius)
⁎
Larissa Kampa, , Jens Hartungb, Benjamin Masta, Simone Graeff-Hönningera
a
Institute of Crop Science, Cropping Systems and Modelling, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
b
Institute of Crop Science, Biostatistics, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) ((Poepp. and Endl.) H. Robinson) is a perennial plant native to the Andean
Yacon region. Its tubers contain high amounts of fructooligosaccharide and inulin (up to 60% of DM) which are sup-
Propagation method posed to have positive effects on human health. One major aspect currently limiting yacon cultivation is the high
Tuber yield cost of propagation. The aim of the present study was to investigate three different propagation methods i)
Direct planting
divided seedling after budding from mother plants with pre-cultivation in the greenhouse (DSAB), ii) seedlings
Production costs
from rhizome pieces pre-cultivated in the greenhouse (RP1), and iii) rhizome pieces directly planted into the
field (RP2) in regard to plant growth, tuber yield formation and costs. The propagation methods DSAB (92 cm)
and RP2 (85 cm) produced significant bigger plants than RP1 (70 cm). Leaves and ramifications showed a similar
trend, additionally number of ramifications of DSAB (24) differed significantly to RP1 (16) but not to RP2 (18).
The average rhizome weight at harvest was highest for DSAB with 871 g and lowest for RP1 with 561 g. Contrary
to that, on a hectare basis RP1 achieved highest tuber yields (29.8 t FM ha−1). The tuber yields of DSAB and RP2
were considerably lower with 21.3 and 17.8 t FM ha−1 respectively. Mean fresh weight of tubers differed sig-
nificantly between RP1 (308 g) and RP2 (196 g), whereas DSAB (255 g) did not differ significantly from RP1 or
RP2. Furthermore, RP1 reached the highest number of tubers per plant (8.2) compared with DSAB (5.6) and RP2
(6.6).
Due to the highest tuber yield and low investment costs, RP1 turned out to be the cheapest propagation
method for the cultivation of yacon. The most important cost factors were the procurement of plant material and
pre-cultivation. A further mechanization of direct planting of yacon rhizomes (RP2) would offer the chance to
decrease the propagation costs within this method significantly.

1. Introduction
Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) ((Poepp. and Endl.) H. Robinson) is
a tuberous root plant native to the Andean region and belongs to the
family of Asteraceae. The name yacon is composed of the words
yakku = insipid and unu = water, meaning tasteless water in the lan-
guage of Quechua. One of the major reasons for this name is that the
tubers are rather tasteless directly after harvest and have a high water
content (Zardini, 1991). Besides its origin, yacon is or was cultivated in
Japan, Brazil, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Italy and also Germany
(Ojansivu et al., 2011; Bredemann, 1948). It is a perennial herbaceous
plant, with a plant height of up to 2–2.5 m and is not frost tolerant
(Zardini, 1991). Leaves are dark green and mostly arrow shaped
(Fernández et al., 2007). Each plant generates a tuber yield on average
of 2–3 kg, up to 5 kg (Delgado et al., 2013; Douglas et al., 2007;
Valentova et al. (2006)). Peel and flesh of tubers vary from white or
creamy to yellow, orange, red or purple (Manrique et al., 2004). The
eatable tuberous roots weigh typically between 200 and 500 g, but can
achieve up to 2000 g and contain 10–14% dry matter (DM) (Fernández
et al., 2007; Graefe et al., 2003).
Unlike other tubers, yacon stores carbohydrates primarily as fructan
in particular fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and inulin. FOS amount up to
60% of DM and may not be digested by the human intestinal tract nor
cause an increase of the blood glucose level (Lachman et al., 2003; Goto
et al., 1995). Other crops like garlic, onion, asparagus, and artichoke
also contain FOS, but not in such high concentrations like yacon
(Caetano et al., 2016; Santana and Cardoso, 2008). Furthermore, yacon
contains phenolic compounds and flavonoids, thus offering health
promoting benefits. Yacon tubers can be eaten raw or in processed
forms like syrup or juice, dried as slices or chips, dried and ground as

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Larissa.Kamp@uni-hohenheim.de (L. Kamp).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.02.006
Received 6 November 2018; Received in revised form 4 February 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
0926-6690/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Kamp et al.
powder or as a vinegar (de Andrade et al., 2014; Lachman et al., 2003).
Yacon leaves are also consumed traditionally and prepared as a tea due
to their antioxidant and antifungal potential and may be beneficial for
patients with diabetes or renal disorder (de Almeida Paula et al., 2015).
Diverse capabilities for further processing and use of yacon tubers as
natural sweeteners indicate that yacon tubers are a sustainable raw
material for the food processing industry (Delgado et al., 2013). Par-
ticularly this will be of major interest to the German food and health
industry, as Germany is the country with the highest number of dia-
betics in Europe as of 2010 (CBI, 2016).
Already at the beginning of the 20th century, yacon was cultivated
in Europe as a raw material for the sugar industry (Fernández et al.,
2007). Yacon is typically propagated vegetative by crown buds, because
of missing fertile seeds in the flower (Doo et al., 2002). The current
state of technology is to divide seedlings from crown buds after
sprouting or plant rhizome pieces and pre-cultivate them in the
greenhouse for 6–8 weeks. Due to the low frost tolerance the planting
date in Central Europe is normally in the second half of May (Fernández
et al., 2006). Plants are then transferred to the field and planted
manually. Due to the costs related with greenhouse cultivation and
manual labor, high costs up to 6 Euro per seedling arise, finally re-
sulting in high end-product prices. In order to increase the attractive-
ness of yacon as raw material for the food industry and as valuable crop
for the farmers, cheaper propagation methods with the potential for
mechanization of the whole cultivation are needed.
By planting the crown buds directly into the field, pre-cultivation in
greenhouse would not be needed and mechanical planting by e.g. a
potato planter could be possible (Douglas et al., 2005). Because yacon
rhizomes can withstand temperatures as low as −7 °C, the rhizome
pieces can be planted into the field earlier than the plantlets of the
greenhouse (Ahl, 2009). Provided that rhizomes are in the soil, no frost
damage is expectable. Germination rate of crown buds highly depends
on temperature. Soil temperatures ranging between 10 and 15 °C are
sufficient, but only 10 to 60% of crown buds will germinate at these
temperatures. Furthermore, almost no increase of biomass can be ex-
pected at these low temperatures. In order to obtain a suitable germi-
nation rate up to 90%, temperatures between 20 and 25 °C are neces-
sary (Doo et al., 1998). Accordingly, the planting date of rhizome pieces
can be around 3–4 weeks earlier under the climatic conditions of
southwest Germany. The soil coverage will protect the rhizomes from
late frosts, while they can simultaneously germinate if climatic condi-
tions are appropriate.
Doo et al. (1998, 2002) showed that different sprouting conditions
and seedlings affect plant growth and tuber yield. Generally direct
planting could lead to a similar yield potential like pre-cultivated
plantlets with high plant density of 28.500 plants ha−1 and the same
planting dates (Doo et al., 2002). Based on these results, the aim of this
study was to investigate i) differences in plant growth and ii) tuber
yield formation of three different propagation methods in Southwest
Germany, as well as iii) associated costs of propagation methods.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Field site and experimental design
In 2016 and 2017, field experiments were carried out at the ex-
perimental station Ihinger Hof of the University of Hohenheim (48° 44′
N, 8° 55′ E and 475 a.s.l.) in south-west Germany from May to October.
The mean annual rainfall was 646.5 mm in 2016 and 653.9 mm in
2017. Average annual temperature was 9.1 °C in 2016 and 9.2 °C in
2017. During the cultivation period of yacon the average temperature
was 13.7 °C in 2016 and 13.5 °C in 2017, respectively. The rainfall
amounted to 504.8 mm in 2016 and 464.7 mm in 2017 (Fig. 1A and B).
Noticeable differences in precipitation of both years were recorded in
July and August (64.8 and 29.3 mm 2016 and 109.9 and 69.3 mm in
2017).
2
Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11
The experimental soil of both years was a vertic cambisol (IUSS
Working Group WRK (2007)). The trials were set up as a randomized
complete block design with three replicates. Each plot was 5 m × 8 m.
Yacon was planted in ridges (60 × 45 cm; 44 cm between the ridges;
114 cm between center of ridges), which were formed using a common
asparagus ridge planting machine (Leofant, HMF-Hermeler Maschi-
nenbau GmbH, Füchtorf, Germany). Each plot consisted of four ridges
with a total of 28 plants (0.7 × 1.14 m). Ridges were oriented from east
to west and were formed four weeks before planting. Nmin in the soil at
a depth of 0–90 cm (0–30, 30–60 and 60–90 cm) was determined
shortly before planting (according to the rules of VDLUFA, 1991), and
amounted in sum to 28.8 kg NO3 ha−1 in 2016 and 119 kg NO3 ha−1 in
2017. Content of Nmin was considered in fertilization. To ensure that no
water stress occurred, plots were irrigated by hand in 2016 two times
(27 May and 7June) and four times in 2017 (26 and 30 May, 20 and 22
June) with 1.4 l distributed per plant. Mechanical weed control was
done by hand once a week until plants were established and no weeds
interfered with growth of yacon.
2.2. Treatments
Three different propagation methods for yacon interrelated with
two different field transplanting dates were investigated over both ex-
perimental years (Table 1). All propagation methods were conducted
with the same genotype. The genotype was a brown-shelled genotype
which was obtained from a plant nursery (Helenion, Berlin, Germany).
Tested propagation methods were i) divided seedlings after budding
(DSAB) (Doo et al., 2002) from mother plants pre-cultivated for six to
eight weeks in the greenhouse, ii) seedlings from rhizome pieces pre-
cultivated for six to eight weeks in the greenhouse (RP1), and iii) rhi-
zome pieces directly planted into the field (RP2). For DSAB, mother
plants were needed. Cultivation of mother plants started on the 15 April
2016 and 14 March 2017 in the greenhouse. All mother plants in both
years were cultivated in round plant pots (37 cm height, Ø 32 cm
ground, Ø 44 cm top, 0.035 m3) filled with 14 kg of a standard soil
(classic, expert substrate, Einheitserde Werkverband e.V., Sinntal-Al-
tengronau, Germany) without further fertilization. To separate the
shoots from the mother plant the whole rhizomes were dug out every
second day within a period of eight days. All rooted shots were trans-
planted as seedlings into separate square planters (9 × 9 × 9.5 cm,)
and filled with a standard soil (classic, expert substrate, Einheitserde
Werkverband e.V., Sinntal-Altengronau, Germany) for further cultiva-
tion. The second propagation method, RP1, consisted of single rhizome
pieces with a weight of 20–40 g and two to three buds. Rhizome pieces
were obtained by slicing the whole rhizomes with a sterile knife in
smaller segments. Obtained rhizome pieces were planted in square
planters (9 × 9 × 9.5 cm,) filled with a standard soil (classic, expert
substrate, Einheitserde Werkverband e.V., Sinntal-Altengronau, Ger-
many). DSAB and RP1 were cultivated in the greenhouse for a period of
six to eight weeks at 21 °C during the day and 15 °C during the night,
humidity amounted to 65%. No artificial light was used. Pots were ir-
rigated every third day without further fertilization. For the third
propagation method (RP2) rhizomes pieces (20–40 g, two - three buds)
were used and directly transplanted into the field. Rhizome pieces were
obtained by slicing whole rhizomes with a sterile knife in smaller seg-
ments, like for RP1. Rhizomes for mother plants and rhizome pieces
were obtained from the field trials of 2015 and 2016. After harvest in
2015, rhizomes were stored in a lightproof box (100 × 120 × 75 cm) in
a barn. In 2016, rhizomes were treated with ash (from biomass co-
generation), to prevent mold from building. Afterwards rhizomes were
wrapped in perforated bags and stored in a lightproof box with a
mixture of sand and sawdust of untreated wood (mixed hardwoods), to
absorb humidity. During storage the average outside temperature was
5.7 °C in 2015/16 and 3.1 °C in 2016/17. During storage the average
temperature and humidity in the box were 5.6 °C (min. 2.4, max. 9.1)
and 82% in 2016/2017.
L. Kamp et al. Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Fig. 1. A: Temperature (●) and precipitation (bars) at the trial site

Ihinger Hof for the cultivation period of yacon in 2016. Plotted are
the average temperatures in degree Celsius and the total rainfall in
mm for each month. Temperature and precipitation in April and
October only include the days, which were within the cultivation
period. B: Temperature (●) and precipitation (bars) at the trial site
Ihinger Hof for the cultivation period of yacon in 2016. Plotted are
the average temperatures in degree Celsius and the total rainfall in
mm for each month. Temperature and precipitation in May and
November only include the days which were within the cultivation
period.

At first, RP2 were transplanted into the field on 29 April 2016 and 2
May 2017. Rhizome pieces were placed near the soil surface (5 cm). To
accelerate emergence, a water permeable mulch fleece (HB 50, 50 g
m−2, Hartmann-Brockhaus, Pfaffenhofen, Germany) was placed on top
of the ridges. Mulch fleece was removed on 8 August 2016 and 6 July
2017. The two propagation methods DSAB and RP1 were planted on 6
May 2016 and 11 May 2017. For all propagation methods plants and
rhizomes were placed at an equal distance of 1.14 m between rows and
0.7 m between plants in the rows. This resulted in a planting density of
1.2531 plants per m2 and 12.531 plants per ha.
In 2016, all treatments were fertilized with 40 kg N ha−1 (ENTEC
26, EuroChem Agro GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) prior to planting. In
2017, no fertilizer was applied due to an already high Nmin content.
After planting, 6 kg ha−1 slug pellet (Arinex, ADAMA Deutschland
GmbH, Cologne, Germany) was applied by hand.
2.3. Field measurements and sample preparation
Six plants in the central part of each plot were measured non-de-
structively every two weeks from transplanting until harvest. Data was
collected for plant height (from soil surface to youngest leaf, end of
stem), number of leaves on main stem, number of ramifications on main
stem and number of nodes on main stem. In addition, the growth stage
(Fernández et al., 2007) was determined. At the beginning of tuberous
root formation in DSAB and RP1, destructive measurements were car-
ried out approximately every four weeks (Table 1). In 2016, one ad-
ditional destructive measurement took place at harvest. In 2016, one
plant per plot and in 2017 three plants per plot were harvested
manually for destructive measurements with a sickle and a digging fork.
The plants were separated into leaf, stem, tuber and rhizome. Tubers
and rhizomes were washed over a sieve to remove soil residues. Fresh
weight and dry weight were determined for every part. The weight of
every single tuber was determined. In addition, the total tuber weight
per plant was determined. For determination of dry weights of leaf and
stem, a bulked sample for each fraction and each plot was dried at 60 °C
until constant weight. Bulked samples of tubers and rhizomes were
frozen with liquid nitrogen (−196 °C) in order to prevent any further
enzymatic reactions and finally freeze-dried to determine dry weight.
Final harvest took place on 24 October 2016 and 6 November 2017.
Dates of harvest were scheduled depending on the outside temperature
immediately after first frost. In each plot the six central plants, which
were measured non-destructively during the cultivation period, were
harvested to obtain final yield data. The fractions tubers and rhizomes
were washed and separated. As before in the destructive measurements
fresh weight and single tuber yield were recorded. Subsequently a
mixed sample of each fraction was frozen with liquid nitrogen and
freeze dried. All remaining plants were harvested and the total weight
for each plot was determined.
2.4. Statistical analysis
A mixed model approach was used and the following model was
fitted to all traits except germination rate and DM growth over time:
yijk = μ + aj + bjk + τi + (τa)ij + eijk (1)
where μ is the general effect, aj is the fixed effect of the jth year, bjk is

Table 1
Tested propagation methods DSAB, RP1, and RP2 with related dates of transplanting, number of measurements and harvests in both experimental years 2016 and
2017. Description includes the date and days after planting corresponding to the propagation method.
Propagation method Start of cultivation in greenhouse Transplanting date (days after planting) Number of Measurement (days after planting)

1. 2. 3. Harvest

2016
DSABx 25.04.–03.05. 06.06. 02.08. 06.09. 06.10. 24.10.
(34–42) (91–99) (129–137) (159–167) (177–185)
y
RP1 27.04. 06.06. 02.08. 06.09. 06.10. 24.10.
(34) (93) (131) (161) (179)
z
RP2 29.04. 02.08. 06.09. 06.10. 24.10.
(95) (133) (163) (181)
2017
DSABx 24.–31. 03 11.05. 22.08. 19.09. 17.10. 6.11.
(41–48) (114–151) (172–179) (200–207) (220–227)
y
RP1 29.03. 11.05. 22.08. 19.09. 17.10. 6.11.
(43) (146) (174) (202) (222)
z
RP2 02.05. 22.08. 19.09. 17.10. 6.11.
(111) (139) (167) (187)

x
= divided seedlings after budding; y= seedlings from rhizome pieces; z= rhizome pieces directly planted into the field.

3
L. Kamp et al.
the fixed effect of the kth replicate in the jth year, τi is the fixed effect of
the ith propagation method, (τa)ij is the random interaction effect of
propagation method i and year j and eijk is the error of yijk with
homogeneous or year-specific variance. Models were fitted with both
error structures and the model with the better model fit measured by
AIC (Wolfinger, 1993) was used. Note that year and replicate are as-
sumed as random but taken as fixed in the analysis as there is no inter-
year and inter-replicate information to be gained. Residuals were
checked graphically for normal distribution and homogeneous var-
iance. If necessary, data was logarithmic transformed to fulfill the as-
sumptions regarding normal distribution and homogeneous variances.
Estimates were back-transformed for presentation purpose only. In this
case, standard errors were back-transformed using the delta method.
After finding significant differences via global F-test, significant dif-
ferences between propagation methods on investigated parameters
were evaluated with a multiple t-test at significance level of 5%.
Germination rate was analyzed with a generalized linear mixed
model assuming binomial distribution, a logit link and a linear pre-
dictor similar to the expected value in (1). Furthermore, the model
allows for overdisperion. The variable tuber weights require a loga-
rithmical transformation of the data. Furthermore, the variances in
tuber weight were different for the three propagation methods.
Applying model (1) to the data resulted in residuals showing no de-
viation from normal distribution. Therefore, least square means and a
separate variance for each propagation method was estimated. From
these estimates, a normal distribution for each propagation method was
calculated and used to draw the curve in Fig. 3. For presentation pur-
pose, values on the x-axis were back transformed.
For calculated growth of aboveground biomass, repeated measures
over time were taken. Furthermore, data shows an increasing variance
with both the mean and the time. As biomass growth of yacon tends to
grow exponentially over time, data was logarithmically transformed.
For this data a regression for each year-by-propagation method-com-
bination was fitted. The model was:
yijkh = μ + aj + τi + (τa)ij + φij d + bjkh + eijkh
where φij is the year-by-propagation method-specific slope for days after
planting (d). As slopes of year-by-propagation method-combinations
were not significantly different from each other, the model reduced to a
model with a single slope. All other variables are analogous to model
(1), except that (τa)ij was taken as fixed here as the effect corresponds to
the intercept of each regression. Note that the index h is added to
random replicate and error effects meaning that separate effects for
each date are assumed. Different variance-covariance structures were
fitted to account for correlations between these effects (first order au-
toregressive with homogeneous and time-specific variances across or
per year), but a model assuming independent errors with homogeneous
variance shows the best model fit via AIC. For presentation the esti-
mated regression line was back transformed resulting in an exponential
biomass growth.
Statistical analysis were performed using the software SAS Software,
version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Figures were generated
using SigmaPlot, version 13.0 (Systat Software Inc., CA, USA) and Excel
2013 (Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA).
2.5. Simplified cost assessment
For a simplified cost consideration and evaluation of the tested
propagation methods some basic estimations were defined. The eva-
luation was set up over two seasons on a hectare basis. Planting and
harvesting were assumed to be carried out for all propagation methods
manually.
Cost items like fertilization, tillage, harvest, and storage of rhizomes
between year one and two occurred in all propagation methods in the
same manner. Therefore, these costs were not considered. For year one
4
Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11
two different scenarios of procurement of plant material were taken
into account: i) rhizomes where bought from a producer and seedlings
were generated out of the rhizomes by the farmer himself to obtain the
necessary seedlings for DSAB and RP1 in a greenhouse on-farm (DSAB
Rhizome, RP1 Rhizome), ii) rhizomes where bought only for RP2; and
for DSAB and RP1 seedlings were purchased (DSAB seedlings, RP1
seedlings). Therefore, for RP2 only one scenario exists, as in all cases
rhizomes were bought. Price for one seedling amounted to 3.60 €, for
one rhizome to 2.50 € (personal communication, gardening Helenion,
2018). A plant density of 12.531 plants ha−1 was assumed. For scenario
i) 627 rhizomes were needed (each rhizome revealed 20 seedlings) for
DSAB and 836 rhizomes were needed for RP1 (each rhizome revealed
15 rhizome pieces). For scenario ii) 836 rhizomes were needed for RP2
(each rhizome revealed 15 rhizome pieces), too, and all required
seedlings (12531) were bought.
In the case of greenhouse cultivation, the following assumptions
were made: a greenhouse is already available (or other place for cul-
tivation of plantlets) and does not have to be built. Hence, only the
consumption of electricity was calculated. It was assumed that a
greenhouse area of 12 × 12 m with an external surface of 141 m2 would
be sufficient to produce seedlings for one ha. Heat demand was calcu-
lated by the following formula:
w
heat demand [w] = external surface [m2]*k − value ⎡ ⎤
⎣ k * m2 ⎦
*Tdifference [C°]
A continuous k-value of 2.4 (26 mm triple wall sheet) was con-
sidered and a gross electricity price for feed and food producers of
18.92 cent KWh−1 (BMWi, 2018) was assumed. Temperature difference
(Tdifference ) was calculated with the longtime average of the experimental
station (place of cultivation) during a corresponding period and the
defined inside temperature in the greenhouse. For the second year all
rhizomes were obtained out of the harvest of the previous year and no
additional purchase was necessary. For labor costs an average of 10.30
€ per hour were estimated (KTBL, 2018). Costs for mulch fleece
amounted to 0.62 € per m2. Estimated workload for work steps pre-
cultivation, cover with mulch fleece and planting are listed in the
supplementary material in detail. In order to compare the five different
methods related to tuber yield, overall costs of the two-year cultivation
were based on produced tuber yield, FM and DM (Table 4A).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Plant growth
3.1.1. Germination
Germination rate was not significantly affected by year or propa-
gation method. For DSAB germination rate in the greenhouse was
90.5%, for RP1 similar germination rate of 89.2% was detected.
Germination rate of RP2 reached 90.6% (Table 2A and B). In a study of
Doo et al. (1998) no rhizomes in an open field trial germinated, because
of lower average air temperatures (14 °C). In the present study, time of
germination of RP2 was more than twice as long as that of RP1. RP2
needed in average 22 d, RP1 9 d. Due to the use of mulch fleece and
ridge planting, soil temperatures increased and accelerated the germi-
nation. A slow but constant seedling development was attained.
Overall, final germination rates in RP2 were similar to the greenhouse
treatments. Compared with germination capacities of 65–80% for ve-
getables (Verordnung über den Verkehr mit Saatgut land-
wirtschaftlicher Arten und von Gemüsearten (Saatgutverordnung),
Anlage 3 SaatgutV – Anforderungen an die Beschaffenheit des Saat-
gutes) the obtained germination rates of yacon rhizomes can be con-
sidered as quite high.
L. Kamp et al. Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Table 2
A: Germination rate for the three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2) across both experimental years.
No significant differences between experimental years were determined. B: Results of statistical analyses (ANOVA) for
germination rates of three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2). The p-value corresponds to a global F
test for differences between the levels of the mentioned factor or factor combinations.
(A)

Propagation method Germination rate ( ± dSE, %)

DSABx 90.48 ± 2.2

RP1y 89.18 ± 2.4
RP2z 90.64 ± 2.1

(B)

Effect Denominator Degree of freedom p-Value

Germination rate

Year 1 0.7907
Year*Rep 4 0.7684
Propagation method 2 0.8879
x
= divided seedlings after budding; y= seedlings from rhizome pieces; z= rhizome pieces directly planted into the field
; d=SE: standard error of the mean.

3.1.2. Total aboveground biomass (DM)
Aboveground biomass (DM) was significantly affected by year-by-
propagation method interactions. Accordingly means of propagation
methods are described separately for each year (Fig. 2A and B). Mean
aboveground biomass of DSAB amounted to 227.19 g DM plant−1 and
RP2 to 249.04 g DM plant-1 130 days after planting (DAP). Propagation
method RP1 obtained the lowest aboveground biomass with a mean of
169.24 g DM plant−1 (Fig. 2A).
In 2017, the aboveground biomass of DSAB and RP1 (149.79 and
124.65 g DM plant−1 in mean, respectively) differed significantly from
RP2 with the lowest aboveground biomass production of 83.35 g DM
plant−1.
In both years, aboveground biomass followed an exponential re-
gression with DAP as the explanatory variable. This growth is caused by
a plant shock during the establishment phase in the field after trans-
planting plants to the field. One important reason for a transplanting
shock is the injury of the root system, which is followed by a subsequent
water stress (Sharma et al., 2006). Furthermore, physical stress like
wind, radiation and temperature fluctuation represent further possible
growth limitations for the plants (Leskovar, 1998; Close et al., 2005;
Sharma et al., 2006). At the time of planting, seedlings possessed six to
eight leaves and almost all seedlings dropped the two oldest leaves due
to the shock after transplanting. At the beginning of the vegetation
period, the typical growth of yacon is quite slow. When reaching ten
leaves on the main stem, growth is increased rapidly. This is caused by
an enlarging leaf area and a concomitant higher assimilation rate
(Fernández et al., 2007). Because of a better and faster leaf develop-
ment in 2016 total aboveground biomass was higher than in 2017.
In 2016, DSAB and RP1 reached ten leaves on the main stem 70
DAP, while in RP2 ten leaves were already established at the main stem
36 DAP. As a result of previous leaf development of RP2, maximum
biomass of RP2 was highest in 2016. In 2017, RP1 and RP2 reached ten
leaves on the main stem 90 DAP, DSAB at 84 DAP (for values at other
days please see the Table S1 in the supplemental material). The dif-
ferences in biomass development can be explained by lower tempera-
tures and fewer vegetation days in 2017. Although there were in total
fewer days of rain in 2017, the temperature in the second half of the
vegetation period was lower in 2016 than in 2017.
3.1.3. Plant height, number of leaves and ramifications
The traits of plant height, number of leaves and number of ramifi-
cations were significantly affected by propagation methods (Table 3A
and B). Maximum height, number of leaves and ramifications were
reached in 2016, 177–181 DAP, and in 2017, 167–202 DAP. In the
absence of significant differences between experimental years, the
means of DAP for the last destructive measurements across both ex-
perimental years were 192, 191 and 174 for DSAB, RP1 and RP2, re-
spectively. The treatment DSAB and RP2 reached a maximum height of
92.02 cm and 85.17 cm, respectively. Both differed significantly to RP1
with a height of 69.64 cm. This is related to findings of Doo et al. (2002)
who reported that DSAB reached maximum plant heights (143.3 cm)
and RP2 lower plant heights (136.7 cm). Generally, plants in this study

Fig. 2. A: Calculated exponential growth curves of three different

propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2) in the experimental
year 2016 related to days after planting (DAP). B: Calculated ex-
ponential growth curves of three different propagation methods
(DSAB, RP1 and RP2) in the experimental year 2017 related to
days after planting (DAP). Non-significant differences between the
propagation methods are characterized by identical lowercase
letters (α = 0.05).

5
L. Kamp et al. Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Fig. 3. Distribution of single tuber weights for the three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2) across years. A normal distribution was estimated for
logarithmic transformed values. For presentation purpose, values on the x-axis were back-transformed resulting in skewed curves.

indicated a lower plant height than reported plant heights in studies of
Doo et al. (2001) with a range between 131.4 and 165.4 cm. Similar
plant heights were reported by Bredemann (1948). In their study yacon
plants achieved plant heights of 100–120 cm on an experimental station
in north Germany. Milella et al. (2005) cultivated yacon landraces se-
lected in different countries in Czech Republic. Landraces selected in
Germany achieved a maximum plant height of 105 cm. Other cultivated
landraces (selected in Bolivia) reached maximum plant heights of
150 cm. Koike et al. (2009) reported plant heights from cultivation in
Japan that ranged from 91.1 to 136.9 cm A plant height of up to 3 m
was reported by Maldonado et al. (2008) and Grau and Rea (1997). This
can only be reached under the climatic conditions of the Andean region
(Fernández et al., 2007). Solar radiation and precipitation during warm
summer months are considerably higher in such regions than in south-
west Germany (The World Bank Group, 2018; Kadereit et al., 2014).
The Andean region, the origin of Yacon, is characterized by mild tem-
peratures of 22–26 °C (Peru and Bolivia) and 19–22 °C (North Argen-
tina) on average and generally abundant rainfall (Leemans and Cramer,
1991). For optimal growth yacon needs a temperature range of
18–25 °C (Grau and Rea, 1997). Consequently, the given growing
period in the Andean region is longer, thus enabling higher vegetative
growth rates. Besides the climatic conditions, apparently the genotype
also influences plant height.
Similar to the findings in plant height, the number of leaves from
treatment DSAB (17.33) and RP2 (16.67) were very similar, which is in
line with findings of Doo et al. (2002). The treatment RP1 reached the
lowest number of leaves (15.33) and differed significantly from the
other two propagation methods. Doo et al. (2001) reported less total
leaves between 12.7 and 13.5, and an increasing number of leaves with
decreasing plant density. Therefore, greater number of leaves in the
present study were probable due to a lower plant density. Distance
between the rows was quite wide wherefore plants could reach a higher
total canopy coverage.
The ramifications showed the same trend as plant height and
number of leaves, also showed significant differences between the
propagation methods. DSAB reached the highest number of ramifica-
tions (23.6) and differed significantly to RP1 which achieved 15.9 ra-
mifications but did not differ significantly to RP2, which reached 18.0
ramifications. RP1 and RP2 however did not differed significantly. In
general, number of ramifications ranged between 10.5 and 12.7 per

Table 3
A: Plant height, number of leaves and number of ramifications at last destructive measurements for three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2 across
both experimental years. No significant differences between experimental years were determined. Non-significant differences between the propagation methods are
characterized by identical lowercase letters (α = 0.05). B: Results of statistical analyses (ANOVA) for plant height, leaf number and ramifications of three different
propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2). The p-value corresponds to a global F test for differences between the levels of the mentioned factor or factor com-
binations.
(A)

Propagation method Plant height ( ± SEd, cm) Leaf number ( ± SEd, no. shoot−1) Ramifications ( ± SEd, no. shoot−1)

DSABx 92.02a ± 4.6 17.33a ± 0.33 23.6a ± 0.9

RP1y 69.64b ± 4.6 15.33b ± 0.33 15.9b ± 0.6
RP2z 85.17a ± 4.6 16.67a ± 0.33 18.0ab ± 0.7

(B)

Effect Denominator Degree of freedom p-Value

Plant height Leaf number Ramifications

Year 1 0.6051 1.0000 0.5393

Year*Rep 4 < 0.2242 0.0016 0.2832
Propagation method 2 0.0237 0.0075 < 0.0001
x
= divided seedlings after budding; y= seedlings from rhizome pieces; z= rhizome pieces directly planted into the field ; d=SE: standard error of the mean.

6
L. Kamp et al. Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Table 4
A: Tuber yield, number of tubers per plant, dry matter content of tubers, mean fresh weight of tubers and rhizome weight at harvest of three different propagation
methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2) across both experimental years. No significant differences between experimental years were determined. Non-significant differences
between the propagation methods are characterized by identical lowercase letters (α = 0.05). B: Results of statistical analyses (ANOVA) for tuber yield, number of
tubers per plant, dry matter, mean fresh weight of tubers and rhizome weight (of three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2). The p-values correspond
to global F tests for differences between the levels of the mentioned factor or factor combinations.
(A)
Propagation Tuber yield FM Tuber yield FM Dry matter (%) Tuber yield DM (kg Number of tubers Mean fresh weight of Rhizome weight FM
method (t ha−1) (kg plant−1 ha−1, ± SEd) per plant tubers (gram ± SEd) (gram ± SEd)
± SE*) ( ± SEd)

DSABx 21.3 ± 5.4 1.70 ± 0.4 12.9 ± 0.93 2744.1 ± 893.2 6.2 ± 1.5 254.98ab ± 20.3 870.96 ± 176.3
RP1y 29.8 ± 7.5 2.38 ± 0.6 11.6 ± 0.93 3426.9 ± 1112.4 8.2 ± 1.5 308.09a ± 21.3 560.98 ± 113.8
RP2z 17.8 ± 4.5 1.42 ± 0.4 11.7 ± 0.93 2066.1 ± 672.5 6.9 ± 1.5 196.49b ± 14.0 658.84 ± 133.4

(B)

Effect Denominator Degree of p-Value

freedom

Tuber yield Tuber yield FM Dry matter Tuber yield DM Number of tubers Mean fresh weight Rhizome weight
FM (t ha−1) (kg plant−1) (%) (kg ha−1) per plant of tubers (gram) FM (gram)

Year 1 0.2482 0.7068 0.3685 0.1923 0.6384 0.2499

Year*Rep 4 0.5383 0.2658 0.7059 0.9842 0.4220 0.7123
Propagation method 2 0.4866 0.6353 0.6218 0.6876 < 0.001 0.4548
x
= divided seedling after budding; y= seedlings from rhizome pieces; z= rhizome pieces directly planted into the field ; d=SE: standard error of the mean.

plant and showed negative correlations with plant density (Doo et al.,
2001, 2002). Therefore, a higher number of leaves and ramifications
are explainable with lower plant densities in the present study (12531
plants ha-1) in comparison to plant densities of 20000–30000 plants
ha−1 found in other studies (Sumiyanto et al., 2009; Douglas et al.,
2007; Fernández et al., 2006).
The above-mentioned data also sustains the differences in total
biomass dry weight. While no significant difference between the ex-
perimental years related to plant height, number of leaves and number
of ramifications, and total dry weight of aboveground biomass differed
significantly between the experimental years. Significant differences in
biomass are therefore mainly attributed to an increased plant height,
number of leaves and ramifications and therefore a higher stem weight
due to more ramifications. In combination with different dry matter,
significant differences between experimental years and propagation
methods in total aboveground biomass are explainable.
3.2. Tuber yield
In both experimental years, tuber yields at harvest did not differ
significantly between propagation methods and years (Table 4A and B).
The highest yield of 3426.86 kg DM ha−1 was achieved by RP1. Even
though not significant, DSAB and RP2 reached lower yields, with
2744.1 and 2066.1 kg DM ha−1, respectively. This is equivalent to fresh
tuber yields of 29.8, 21.3 and 17.8 t ha−1 (RP1, DSAB and RP2, re-
spectively). Obtained yields were similar to Doo et al. (2002) who
achieved slightly higher tuber yields in DSAB (36.5 t ha−1) than with
directly planted rhizomes (34.7 t ha−1). Higher yields in the study of
Doo et al. (2002) might be attributed to a higher plant density (28500
plants ha−1). Overall tuber yields were in the lower to middle range of
expected yields, ranging from 1.2 to 6.36 t DM ha−1 (plant density
26667 plants ha−1) (Douglas et al., 2007). Fernández et al. (2006)
obtained tuber yields of up to 29.18 t FM ha−1, with a plant density of
20,408 plants ha−1 in Czech Republic, under comparable climatic
conditions (Leemans and Cramer, 1991). Unlike in the mentioned stu-
dies, in the present study, a lower plant density of 12531 plants ha−1
was implemented. Considering this, tuber yields in the range of 21.3
(DSAB), 29.8 (RP1) and 17.8 (RP2) t FM ha−1 (Table 4A) seem to be
reasonable. Fernández et al. (2006) indicated yields per plant between
1.05 to 1.43 kg. This is noticeably lower then achieved yields per single
plant in the present study. RP1 reached with 2.38 kg the highest yield
per single plant, followed by DSAB with 1.7 kg per plant. Even RP2 with
the lowest yield per single plant of 1.42 kg was in the upper range of
given yields in the study of Fernández et al. (2006), where a higher
intraspecific competition induced by higher plant density might have
led to lower single plant yields. Mauromicale et al. (2003) reported
similar findings for potatoes. With increasing plant density, the tuber
yield per single plant decreases due to a lower number of tubers per
plant. Oliveira (2000) reported decreasing tuber dry weights with in-
creasing plant density for potatoes as well. In addition, higher single
plant yields in the present study can also be attributed to a longer
growing season and higher precipitation rates. On average for both
experimental years the growing season of DSAB was 39, for RP1 38 and
for RP2 21 days longer than in the study of Fernández et al. (2006).
Precipitation was slightly higher in Germany than in the Czech Re-
public (484.75 mm and 325.22 mm, respectively).
The amount of tubers per plant and the mean fresh weight of tubers
finally make up total tuber yield formation. Number of tubers was not
significantly affected by propagation method, but even though not
significant, the number did seem to be affected by year. On average RP1
formed 8.2 tubers per plant. RP2 reached with 6.9 tubers per plant
slightly lower numbers, while DSAB only reached 6.2 tubers per plant.
Overall the number of tubers in the present study was lower than the
reported common average. Bredemann (1948) reached 4–26 tubers per
plant with an average of 14.4. Douglas et al. (2002) achieved up to
27 tubers per plant. Merely Koike et al. (2009) and Doo et al. (2001)
obtained similar results with 6–11.1 and 8.5–12.5 tubers per plant, re-
spectively. Findings of Doo et al. (2001) indicated that with increasing
plant density, number of tubers per plant also increases. Therefore, the
low amount of tubers in the present study could be related to the chosen
plant density.
Mean fresh weight of tubers was significantly influenced by pro-
pagation method. RP1 reached the highest mean fresh weight of tubers
of 308.09 g. This was significantly higher than the mean fresh weight of
tubers of 196.49 g reached by RP2. The mean fresh weight of tubers of
DSAB (254.98 g) did not differ significantly to RP1 or to RP2.
Commonly a mean tuber weight in yacon ranges between 115 and 184 g
(Koike et al., 2009; Douglas et al., 2002). These findings are not in line
with Bredemann (1948), who achieved mean tuber weights of 51.5 g in
North Germany. Both studies indicated lower single tuber weights than
those obtained in the present study. However, Polreich (2003) showed
that there is a positive correlation between yield and single tuber

7
L. Kamp et al.
weight. This goes along with findings in the present study as the pro-
pagation method RP1 with the highest yield had also the highest single
tuber weights of 308.09 g. Combined with the fact, that RP1 had the
highest number of tubers per plant (8.2) the overall tuber yield is
verifiable. Considering number of tubers and mean fresh weight of tu-
bers, the results for both parameters are contrary to previous studies.
Overall a lower number of tubers and a higher mean fresh weight of
tubers was obtained. This indicates that, as reported by Doo et al.
(2001), plant density has a determining influence on tuber yield for-
mation.
Mean fresh weight of tubers differed significantly between RP1 and
RP2. This can be attributed to the different pre-cultivations in the
greenhouse. In the case of potatoes, pre-sprouting ensured a higher
single tuber weight (Hagman, 2012a,b; Eremeev et al., 2008). This in-
dicates that with a longer growing season all tubers of RP2 get heavier.
This leads to an overall increase in tuber yield. Comparing RP2 and
DSAB, RP2 had more, but lighter tubers then DSAB. The fact that RP2
produced more, but smaller tubers then DSAB, is mainly due to the
propagation method, and not in pre-cultivation because this difference
was not obvious when comparing RP2 and RP1.
3.3. Rhizome weight
The fresh weight of rhizomes was not significantly influenced by
year or propagation method. RP1 showed the lowest rhizome weight
(561 g), while DSAB had the largest rhizomes, with an average of 871 g
(Table 4A and B). RP2 had an average rhizome weight of 659 g. Dif-
ferences between rhizomes of DSAB and RP1 were about 300 g, al-
though not significantly different. It should be noted, that DSAB had the
highest rhizome weight at harvest which goes along with the highest
aboveground biomass (in 2017) and nearly the highest aboveground
biomass in 2016. Contrary to that, RP1 and not DSAB showed the
highest tuber yields. Douglas et al. (2007) determined a negative cor-
relation between tuber yield and rhizome weight. Findings in the pre-
sent study are similar to the results of Douglas et al. (2007), in which
RP1 reached the lowest rhizome weights but highest tuber yields. The
same trend was observed for the distribution of the aboveground bio-
mass. RP1 had the lowest amount of aboveground biomass, achieved
the shortest plants and smallest amounts of leaves and ramifications.
DSAB was the propagation method with highest total aboveground
biomass. RP2 was in the middle range of both rhizome weight and
aboveground biomass. This confirms the assumption, that there is a
positive correlation between aboveground biomass and rhizome
weight. Both parameters can finally be influenced by the propagation
method.
For several reasons, the weight of the rhizome is decisive. The most
important aspect is the requirement of rhizomes for the farmer of fur-
ther propagation in the next vegetation period. A rhizome with a weight
of around 600 g should be sufficient. The ratio of surface to total mass
of rhizome tends to be smaller the heavier the rhizome is. Therefore, a
heavier rhizome does not necessarily have more shoot tips.
Furthermore, heavier and larger rhizomes are inferior in storage be-
cause of higher water content. Another aspect could be, that the weight
of rhizomes and tuber yield is negatively correlated (Douglas et al.,
2007). Therefore, smaller rhizomes are preferable.
3.4. Distribution of single tuber weight
The distribution of tuber weights at harvest differed between the
propagation methods DSAB, RP1 and RP2 (Fig. 3). Illustrated is the
estimated normal distribution for the mean fresh weight of tubers. Note
that values on the x-axis are back-transformed but presented on a linear
scale. This results in skewed curves.
DSAB had the largest variation in single tuber weight ranging from
50 to more than 850 g per single tuber. Single tuber weight under 50 g
did not occur. Variation of single tuber weight of RP1 is noticeably
8
Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11
smaller, but reached from 100 to more than 900 g also. In contrast to
that, RP2 had the smallest amount of variation. Most of the tubers
weighed between 50 and 300 g.
When comparing the distribution of single tuber weights from dif-
ferent propagation methods RP1 and RP2 showed a considerably lower
variation in tuber weight then DSAB. As seedlings in DSAB were gen-
erated over a period of 7 days from different mother plants, these
seedlings showed a higher inhomogeneity compared with seedlings of
other propagation methods. Due to inhomogeneous plant material of
DSAB, variation of tuber size was noticeably higher. As RP1 and DSAB
did not differ in length of growing season or duration of pre-cultivation
in the greenhouse, the propagation method could be identified as the
major reason that influenced the distribution of single tuber weights.
Distribution of tuber weights of RP2 showed the smallest variation
compared with DSAB and RP1. In addition, it had the lowest single
tuber weight. This difference can be explained by the direct planting.
Pre-sprouting of potatoes for example leads to higher single tuber
weight, respectively bigger tubers in length and higher total tuber yield
(Hagman, 2012a,b; Eremeev et al., 2008). Therefore, it can be expected,
that with a longer growing season the tubers of RP2 and RP1 increased
weight. Advantages of pre-cultivation were not regained by RP2 under
given field conditions.
Overall pre-cultivation in the greenhouse affected tuber yield, single
tuber weight and finally distribution of single tuber weight. However,
variation in single tuber weight was mostly caused by the propagation
method.
3.5. Simplified cost assessment
The simplified cost assessment showed noticeable differences be-
tween the propagation methods and the scenarios regarding procure-
ment of plant material (Table 5A). All the following mentioned costs are
related to one kg produced tuber yield DM. Costs for one kg produced
tuber yield DM are based on the dry matter yields shown in Table 4A.
Costs for one kg produced tuber yield FM are shown in Table 5 as well.
After one year of cultivation costs for DSAB seedlings and RP1 seedlings
amounted to 16.55 and 13.26 €, respectively. Lowest costs per kg tuber
yield were achieved with 1.22 € in RP1. Costs of RP2 amounted to 4.41
€ due to the costs associated with the mulch fleece.
Production costs per kg tuber yield after the second season were
lowest for RP2 (0.41 €). Costs of RP1 (rhizome and seedling) were
calculated with 0.61 €, which was approximately half of the costs of
DSAB (rhizome and seedling) with 1.16 € per kg tuber yield.
On a two year basis, costs were lowest for RP1 rhizome (0.91 €) and
highest for DSAB seedlings (8.85 €). There are considerable differences
between the two procurement scenarios. Scenarios in which seedlings
were purchased (DSAB seedling and RP1 seedling) caused the highest
costs of 8.85 € and 6.93 € while scenarios which used rhizomes (DSAB
rhizome, RP1 rhizome and RP2) caused noticeably lower costs per
produced kg tuber yield. RP1 rhizome (0.91 €) and DSAB rhizome (1.14
€) were the cheapest propagation methods. RP2 showed costs of 2.41 €,
the highest production costs of the three scenarios which purchased
rhizomes. This is due to the lowest tuber yields and high investment
costs for mulch fleece.
Considering the overall cost distribution, a long-term cultivation of
yacon would be rewarding, because the highest costs are caused by the
one-time costs of procurement of plant material. This expense factor is
particularly high in scenarios which obtained seedlings as plant mate-
rial.
The costs of procurement of plant material are a decisive factor for
production costs. This was also shown in other cost assessments which
analyzed the production cost of Jerusalem artichoke, a crop closely
related to yacon (Fang et al., 2018). One possible solution for the
farmer would be to store some of the harvest after the first season in
order to use it as propagation material in the coming years. Therefore, a
cultivation over a longer period would significantly reduce the
L. Kamp et al. Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11

Table 5
A: Simplified scheme of calculated overall costs and costs per produced kg tubers of two different scenarios of procurement of plant material (get rhizomes or
seedlings) over two seasons of three different propagation methods (DSAB, RP1 and RP2) calculated based on an area of one hectare. B: Simplified scheme of
calculated overall costs and costs per produced kg tubers of two different scenarios of procurement of plant material (get rhizomes or seedlings) of two different
propagation methods (RP1 and RP2) over two seasons of cultivation. In season one, an area of 1000 plants was taken as baseline, for season two the calculations were
based on one hectare. Total costs are given as sum of the two-year cultivation (for Table 5A and B).
(A) (B)

Process step DSABx DSABx RP1y RP1 RP2z 1000 1000 1000
Rhizome Seedlings Rhizome Seedlings RP1y Rhizome RP1y Seedlings RP2z

First season
Procurement of plant material [€] 1566.38 45111.6 2088.5 45111.6 2088.5 167.5 3600 167.5
Pre cultivation [€] 2194.3 1096.41 548.21 87.5 87.5 43.68
Heating costs [€] 664.1 664.1 52.99 52.99
Mulch fleece [€] 6259.19 499.5
Planting [€] 314.97 314.97 314.97 314.97 209.61 25.14 25.14 16.73
Costs year one [€] 4739.75 45426.57 4163.89 45426.57 9105.59 333.13 3765.63 727.41
Cost per kg tuber FM [€] 0.22 2.13 0.14 1.52 0.51 0.14 1.58 0.51
Cost per kg tuber DM [€] 1.73 16.55 1.22 13.26 4.41 1.22 13.77 4.41
Second season
Pre cultivation [€] 2194.3 2194.3 1096.41 1096.41 548.21 1096.41 1096.1 548.20
Heating costs [€] 664.1 664.1 664.1 664.1 664.1 664.1
Mulch fleece [€] 90.23 5765.67
Planting [€] 314.97 314.97 314.97 314.97 209.61 314.97 314.97 209.61
Costs year two [€] 3173.37 3173.37 2075.48 2075.48 848.05 2075.48 2075.48 6523.48
Cost per kg tuber FM [€] 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.37
Cost per kg tuber DM [€] 1.16 1.16 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.61 0.61 3.16
Total costs over two seasons [€] 7913.12 48599.94 6239.37 47502.05 9953.64 2408.61 5841.11 7250.89
Total cost per kg tuber FM [€] 0.19 1.14 0.10 0.79 0.28 0.07 0.18 0.38
Total cost per kg tuber DM [€] 1.44 8.85 0.91 6.93 2.41 0.65 1.58 3.25

x
= divided seedlings after budding; y= seedlings from rhizome pieces; z= rhizome pieces directly planted into the field.

production costs of yacon. The scenarios DSAB seedlings and RP1
seedlings were particularly affected by high costs of the planting ma-
terial. In contrast, RP2 had the lowest costs for procurement of plant
material.
Another important cost factor is pre-cultivation of the seedlings.
These costs include the potting of mother plants, dividing seedlings
from mother plants and potting, slicing of rhizomes and potting of
rhizome pieces. The propagation method DSAB is quite expensive when
compared with the other methods due to the considerable effort of
dividing the seedlings. Hereby at least every second day seedlings have
to be divided from mother plants over a time period of several weeks. In
addition, this propagation method leads to inhomogeneous plant ma-
terial as a further drawback.
In the case of RP2, the application of mulch fleece induced the
highest costs. In the present study these costs are calculated based on
the price of used mulch fleece. If a farmer would buy larger amounts of
mulch fleece, the price could be decreased. Furthermore, it is possible
to use the mulch fleece over several years. This could lead to a sig-
nificant decrease of the annual costs. Another possibility to reduce these
input costs would be the use of plastic film instead of mulch fleece
(Fang et al., 2018).
The planting costs are based on the assumption that yacon is planted
manually. By means of mechanization, costs for planting could be sig-
nificantly decreased. Especially in RP2, the planting costs could be
considerably reduced in case the planting would be realized with a
modified potato planter (Douglas et al., 2005). This is already done
with other crops which are propagated via rhizomes, such as mis-
canthus (Vyn et al., 2012).
Based on the estimated tuber yield costs, RP1 rhizome was the most
promising cultivation option. DSAB seedlings and RP1 seedlings are not
recommendable to the farmer due to the high investment costs for plant
material and the associate financial risk. The propagation method DSAB
provides no advantage in comparison to the other propagation methods
with pre-cultivation in greenhouse. For this reason, RP1 and RP2 will be
compared in another calculation.
A further possibility for the farmer would be to begin first with a
smaller area of 1000 plants, to produce rhizomes for the next season
and simultaneously minimize the investment costs. In this case in the
first year 1000 plants will be cultivated, in order to produce enough
rhizomes for one ha cultivation in the second year. This calculation is
based on the assumption that one rhizome will produce 15 small rhi-
zome pieces. In this scenario, the propagation method DSAB will not be
further considered, because the production costs of this method are
significantly higher than RP1. DSAB and RP1 are both propagation
methods with pre-cultivation in the greenhouse. If the farmer would
choose a pre-cultivation in the greenhouse, the use of propagation
method RP1 was preferable due to the lower costs. Because of this, only
the two propagation methods RP1 and RP2 are considered. For RP1 two
different scenarios of procurement of plant material were calculated, i)
buy only rhizomes and pre-cultivated seedlings yourself or ii) buy
seedlings.
Just as in calculation one, scenario RP1 seedlings is calculated as
13.77 € per kg tubers; the most expensive. RP2 is significantly cheaper
(4.41 €). The scenario RP1 rhizomes is the cheapest with production
costs of 1.22 € per kg tuber after one-year cultivation. After the second
season of cultivation, RP1 rhizomes and seedlings induced the lowest
costs with 0.61 € per kg tuber. RP2 indicated the highest costs (3.16 €
per kg tuber). This is due to the high investment costs for mulch fleece.
Therefore, the costs were higher for RP2 in this calculation compared
with calculation one, whereas the cost distribution was similar.
On a two-year basis RP1 rhizomes induced the lowest costs with
0.65 € per produced kg tuber. RP1 seedlings induced costs of 1.58 € per
kg tuber, which is slightly higher than costs produced in calculation
one. RP2 had with 3.25 € the highest costs.
Like in the first calculation, the important cost factors are pro-
curement of plant material and investment costs for mulch fleece. In the
second season the pre-cultivation and heating costs are the main cost
factors. Overall, scenario RP1 Rhizome of calculation two is the
cheapest option to produce yacon tubers.
The price for yacon is complex to determine because there is not yet
a global market for it. Relevant prices for yacon imported to Germany
for the processing industry are based on information of CBI, Ministry of

9
L. Kamp et al.
Foreign Affairs (2016). For 1 kg dried yacon powder the price ranged
between 37.75 and 99.33 €, the price for yacon syrup ranged between
51.16 and 105.06 € per liter. Nearly 50% of these prices were composed
of costs for distribution and shipment of raw material. Therefore, profit
due to regional production would be considerably higher. In all sce-
narios, cultivation of yacon would be worthwhile.
An important reason for the high revenues of yacon tubers and
derived products is their high content of fructan, primarily FOS and
Inulin, which have health promoting benefits (Schaafsma and Slavin,
2015). The demand for sugar substitutes rises continuously, due to in-
creasing number of diabetics, and such demand could be satisfied
through the use of yacon as raw material in several ways (CBI, 2016).
As seen in Table 4A and Fig. 3 the propagation methods differ in
mean weight of single tubers and therefore in the distribution and
variation of single tuber weight. For fresh market certain restrictions
regarding the tuber size exist. Tubers get categorized in three weight
classes and three quality levels. The quality levels deal primary with
shape and integrity of surface of the tubers. Of more importance is the
classification of tubers according to their weight. Classes are
1) > 300 g, 2) > 120–300 g, 3) ≤ 120 g. Furthermore, the provision for
presentation and packaging requires that content in each package has to
be of the same quality and size (FAO, 2017). Therefore, the farmer is
interested in producing uniform tubers in marketable sizes. A smaller
distribution of single tubers is more desirable due to the packaging
restrictions. Therefore, RP1 and RP2 were the best options as these two
showed the lowest variation in single tuber weight. In addition, RP2
produced the lightest tubers which were easier to harvest. In addition,
lighter tubers indicate a lower risk to break into pieces than heavier and
bigger tubers. Overall, related to the production costs RP1 was the best
option because of highest tuber yields. If a farmer would produce yacon
for the processing industry, he is interested in high tuber yields without
considering weight or shape of tubers. Broken tubers can also be used
for the processing industry. In this case, RP1 could be a recommendable
option, too.
Overall, considering costs and related risks, the best option for a
farmer would be RP1 rhizome (Table 5B) with a small cultivation area
of 1000 plants in the first season, to reduce the overall investment costs.
4. Conclusion
This study showed that different propagation methods partially re-
sulted in differences in plant growth and in aboveground biomass of
yacon. Of all tested propagation methods RP1 produced noticeably
higher tuber yields and partially significantly higher mean fresh weight
of tubers than DSAB and RP2.
As decisive differences in tuber yield formation were determined,
the related costs for the propagation methods varied widely. RP1 turned
out to be the cheapest propagation method for the farmer. However,
RP2 is the propagation method with the highest potential for me-
chanization. Therefore, further studies should concentrate on the direct
planting of yacon rhizomes. Another promising improvement option
could be the use of pre-sprouted rhizome pieces or bigger rhizome
pieces. In general, direct planting of rhizomes performed well under the
climatic conditions of Southwest Germany and a high germination rate
of up to 90.5% was achieved.
In addition, the study indicated that DSAB is not an appropriate
propagation method for yacon as it resulted in inhomogeneous seed-
lings and high overall costs. In addition, DSAB had the largest variation
in single tuber weight which might be a disadvantage for the fresh
marketing and the necessary packaging of the tubers. Based on the
results of this study it can be concluded that the propagation method
RP1 or RP2 with a further developed direct planting should be re-
commended to farmers.
10
Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11
Funding
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry for
Economic Affairs and Energy within the Central Innovation Program for
SMEs [16KN050526].
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the technical staff of the
Experimental Station Ihinger Hof of the University of Hohenheim.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.02.006.
References
Ahl, K., 2009. Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius Poepp. & Endl.) – eine Pflanze mit
Perspektive. Zeitrschrift für Arznei und Gewürz Pflanzen 14 (4), 177–178.
BMWI, 2018. Preisbericht für den Energiemarkt in Baden-Württemberg 2017. pp. 41–64.
Bredemann, G., 1948. Über Polymnia sonchifolia Poepp. Et Endl. (P. edulis Wedd.), die
Yacon-Erdbirne. Botan. Oecon. (Hamburg) 1, 65–85.
Caetano, B.F.R., de Moura, N.A., Almeida, A.P.S., Dias, M.C., Sivieri, K., Barbisan, L.F.,
2016. Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) as a food supplement: health-promoting
benefits of fructooligosaccharides. Nutrients 8, 436.
CBI, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016. Exporting Yacón to Europe. (Accessed 18 October
2018. https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/honey-sweeteners/yacon/.
Close, D.C., Beadle, C.L., Brown, P.H., 2005. The physiological basis of containerized tree
seedling ´transplant shock´: a review. Aust. For. 68 (2), 112–120.
de Almeida Paula, H.A., Abranchesb, M.V., de Luces Fortes Ferreiraa, C.L., 2015. Yacon
(Smallanthus Sonchifolius): a food with multiple functions. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.
55 (1), 32–40.
De Andrade, W.F., de Souza Leone, R., Ellendersen, L.N., Masson, M.L., 2014. Phenolic
profile and antioxidant activity of extracts of leaves and flowers of yacon (Smallanthus
sonchifolius). Ind. Crops Prod. 62, 499–506.
Delgado, G.T.C., da silba cunha Tamashiro, W.M., Maróstica Junior, M.R., Pastore, G.M.,
2013. Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius): a functional food. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 68,
222–228.
Doo, H.S., Choo, B.K., Ryu, J., H, 1998. Sprouting conditions of crown bud and plug
seedling production in yacon. Korean J. Crops Sci. 43 (4), 223–227.
Doo, H.S., Ryu, J.H., Lee, K.S., Choi, S.Y., 2001. Effect of plant density on growth and
response and yield in yacon. Korean J. Crops Sci. 46 (5), 407–410.
Doo, H.S., Ryu, J.H., Lee, K.S., Choi, S.Y., Cheong, Y.K., Park, K.H., 2002. Response of
different seedlings to growth and yield in yacon. Korean J. Crops Sci. 47 (5),
356–360.
Douglas, J.A., Scheffer, J.J.C., Sims, I.M., Triggs, C.M., 2002. Maximising fructo-oligo-
saccharide production in yacon. Proc. Agron. Soc. N. Z. 32, 49–55.
Douglas, J.A., Douglas, M.H., Deo, B., Follett, J.M., Scheffer, J.J.C., Sims, I.M., Welch,
R.A.S., 2005. Research and development of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) produc-
tion in New Zealand. Acta Hortic. 670, 79–85.
Douglas, J.A., Follett, J.M., Douglas, M.H., Deo, B., Scheffer, J.J.C., Littler, R.A., Manley-
Harris, M., 2007. Effect on environment and time of planting on the production and
quality of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) storage roots. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 35,
107–116.
Eremeev, V., Jõudu, J., Lääniste, P., Mäeorg, E., Selge, A., Tsahkna, A., Noormets, M.,
2008. Influence of the thermal shock and pre-sprouting on potato tuber yield. Spanish
J. Agric. Res. 6 (1), 105–113.
Fang, Y.R., Liu, J.A., Steinberger, Y., Xie, G.H., 2018. Energy use efficiency and economic
feasibility of Jerusalem artichoke production on arid and coastal saline lands. Ind.
Crops Prod. 117, 131–139.
FAO, 2017. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Regional Standard for Yacon. (Accessed 15
September 2018. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/resources/
circular-letters/en/?y=2016.
Fernández, E.C., Viehmannová, I., Lachman, J., Milella, L., 2006. Yacon [Smallanthus
sonchifolius] (Poeppig & Endlicher) H. Robinson]: a new crop in the Central Europe.
Plant Soil Environ. 52, 564–570.
Fernández, C.E., Viehmannova, I., Bechyně, M., Lachman, J., Milella, L., Martelli, G.,
2007. The cultivation and phenological growth stages of yacon [Smallanthus sonchi-
folius (Poepp. et Endl.) H. Robinson]. Agric. Trop. Subtrop. 40 (3), 73.
Goto, K., Fukai, K., Hikida, J., Nanjo, F., Hara, Y., 1995. Isolation and structural analysis
of oligosaccharides from yacon (Polymnia sonchifolia). Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem.
59 (12), 2346–2347.
Graefe, S., Hermann, M., Manrique, I., Golombek, S., Buerkert, A., 2003. Effects of post-
harvest treatments on the carbohydrate composition of yacon roots in the Peruvian
Andes. Field Crops Res. 86, 157–165.
Grau, A., Rea, J., 1997. Yacon Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp. & Endl.) H. Robinson. In:
Hermann, M., Heller, J. (Eds.), Andean Roots and Tubers: Ahipa, Arracacha, Maca
and Yacon. The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy, pp.
199–242.
L. Kamp et al.
Hagman, J., 2012a. Different pre-sprouting methods for early tuber harvest in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B - Soil Plant Sci. 62 (2), 125–131.
Hagman, J., 2012b. Pre-sprouting as a tool for early harvest in organic potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) cultivation. Potato Res. 55, 185–195.
IUSS Working Group WRK, 2007. World References Base for Soil Resources 2006, First
Update 2007. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Kadereit, J.W., Körner, C., Kost, B., Sonnewald, U., 2014. Strasburger Lehrbuch der
Pflanzenwissenschaften, Berlin. pp. 856.
Koike, A., Murata, T., Matsuda, Y., Masuoka, C., Okamoto, C., Kabata, K., 2009.
Cultivation and ensilage of yacon plants (Smallanthus sonchifolius [Poepp. & Endl.] H.
Robinson) and the function of yacon silage. Grassl. Sci. 55, 6–10.
KTBL, 2018. KTBL-Feldarbeitsrechner. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der
Landwirtschaft e. V. (KTBL).
Lachman, J., Fernández, E.C., Orsák, M., 2003. Yacon [Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp. et
Endl.) H. Robinson] chemical composition and use – a review. Plant Soil Environ. 49
(6), 283–290.
Leemans, R., Cramer, W., 1991. The IIASA Database for Mean Monthly Values of
Temperature, Precipitation and Cloudiness on a Global Terrestrial Grid. Research
Report. International Institute of Applied Systems Analyses, Laxenburg, pp. 61.
Leskovar, D.I., 1998. Root and shoot modification by irrigation. Horttechnology 8 (4),
510–514.
Maldonado, S., Luna Pizarro, P., Martínez, V., Villatarco, M., Singh, J., 2008. Producción
y commercialización de yacón (Smallanthus Sonchifolius) en comunidades rurales del
noroeste argentino. Agroalimentaria 26, 119–125.
Manrique, I., Hermann, M., Bernet, T., 2004. Yacon Fact Sheet. International Potato
Center (CIP), Lima, Peru.
Mauromicale, G., Signorelli, P., Ierna, A., Foti, S., 2003. Effects of intraspecific compe-
tition on yield of early potato grown in Mediterranean environment. Am. J. Potato
Res. 80, 281–288.
Milella, L., Salava, J., Martelli, G., Greco, I., Cusimamani, E.F., Viehmannova, I., 2005.
Genetic diversity between yacon landraces from different countries based on random
amplified polymorphic DNAs. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 41 (2), 73–78.
11
Industrial Crops & Products 132 (2019) 1–11
Ojansivu, I., Ferreira, C.L., Salminen, S., 2011. Yacon, a new source of prebiotic oligo-
saccharides with a history of safe use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 40–46.
Oliveira, C.A.D.S., 2000. Potato crop growth as affected by nitrogen and plant density.
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira Brasilia 35 (5), 939–950.
Polreich, S., 2003. Establishment of a Classification Scheme to Structure the Post-Harvest
Diversity of Yacon Storage Roots (Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp. & Endl.) H.
Robinson). Faculty of Agriculture, International Rural Development and
Environmental Protection. University of Kassel.
Santana, I., Cardoso, M.H., 2008. Raiz tuberosa de yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius): po-
tencialidade de cultivo, aspectos tecnológicos e nutricionais. Ciência Rural 38 (3),
898–905.
Schaafsma, G., Slavin, J.L., 2015. Significance of inulin fructans in the human diet.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 14, 37–47.
Sharma, N., Abrams, S.R., Waterer, D.R., 2006. Abscisic acid analogs reduce transplant
shock in tomato seedlings. J. Veg. Sci. 11 (3), 41–56.
Sumiyanto, J., Bolonhezi, D., Khan, I.A., Moraes, R.M., 2009. The effect of propagule type
on yacon propagation, growth and development in Mississippi. Planta Med 75. Georg
Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart, New York, pp. 399–457.
The World Bank Group, 2018. Global Solar Atlas. (accessed 23. May 2018). http://
globalsolaratlas.info/?c=-7.536764-98.085938.
Valentova, K., Lebeda, A., Dolezalova, I., Jirovsky, D., Simonovska, B., Vovk, I., Kosina,
P., Gasmanova, N., Cziechciarkova, M., Ulrichova, J., 2006. The biological and
chemical variability of yacon. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 1347–1352.
VDLUFA - Verband deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und
Forschungsanstalten e.V, 1991. Die Untersuchung der Böden, Speyer, A 2.2.
Vyn, R.J., Virani, T., Deen, B., 2012. Examining the economic feasibility of miscanthus in
Ontario: an application to the greenhouse industry. Energy police 50, 669–676.
Wolfinger, R., 1993. Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Commun.
Stat. Simul. Comput. 22 (4), 1079–1106.
Zardini, E., 1991. Ethnobotanical notes on “Yacon” Polymnia sonchifolia (Asteraceae).
Econ. Bot. 45 (1), 72–85.