Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112

Effect of manure and plant spacing on crop growth, yieldand oil-quality of Curcuma aromatica Salisb. in mid hill

of western Himalaya

Gopichand, R.D. Singh ∗, R.L. Meena, M.K. Singh, V.K. Kaul,Brij Lal, Ruchi Acharya, Ramdeen Prasad

Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology (CSIR), Post Box No. 6, Palampur,Himachal Pradesh 176 061, India

Received 22 November 2004; accepted 30 June 2005

Abstract

Curcuma aromatica is found as wild species throughout India. Its oil is used in the pharmaceutical and allied industries. Thestudies were conducted in mid-hills of Himalaya, Himachal Pradesh, India during 2001–2004 to evaluate the effect of plantspacing (25 cm × 25 cm, 50 cm × 25 cm and 50 cm × 50 cm) and farm yard manure (FYM -15, 22.5, 30 and 37.5 t ha−1) ongrowth, yield and quality of oil from C. aromatica.

Observations were recorded on plant height, number of plantlets per plant, leaf length:breadth ratio, leaf area density, relativegrowth rate (RGR), crop growth rate (CGR) and oil content (on dry weight basis). Constituents of the oil from first order andsecond order rhizomes were estimated separately using gas–liquid chromatography (GLC).

The crop responded significantly to different plant spacing. Plant height increased with reduction in plant spacing from50 cm × 50 cm to 25 cm × 25 cm, whereas the number of plantlets followed the reverse trend. Leaf length:breadth ratio and leafarea density showed an increasing trend with closer spacing. Wider plant spacing provided higher fresh rhizome yield owing tohigher number of plantlets, RGR and CGR.

Application of FYM did not affect plant growth significantly. Interaction of plant spacing and FYM level showedhigher CGR value at 50 cm × 50 cm spacing with FYM level of 22.5 t ha−1, in the second year and from initial to secondyear.

Variation in plant spacing and FYM level did not influence the oil content as well as major oil constituents. The first order

rhizomes had higher oil content than the second order rhizomes. Application of 22.5 t ha−1 of FYM provided higher oil yield(234.4 kg ha−1) as compared to 15.0 t ha−1 of FYM (174.1 kg ha−1). Also, oil yield was maximum at 50 cm × 50 cm spacing(213.5 kg ha−1) as compared to closer spacing of 25 cm × 25 cm (191.6 kg ha−1). The pooled oil constituents of the first orderand second order rhizomes showed increment in 1,8 cineole content with increase in plant spacing from 25 cm × 25 cm (14%) to

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 1894 230454; fax: +91 1894 230433.E-mail address: rakeshdeo2@rediffmail.com (R.D. Singh).

0926-6690/$ – see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.06.006

106 Gopichand et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112

50 cm × 50 cm (17%). Irrespective of the treatments, camphor was the major compound followed by 1,8 cineole and isobornyl

alcohol.© 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

K y; Chem

1

itIoooewiip

ktbadJrhfsGr(

aa(11e

ntDw

HpbdttiopC

2

2

GT7Pbsa(to slightly acidic in soil reaction with high organic car-bon percentage (Table 1). Available N, P and K werelow, medium and high, respectively. On an average,cation exchange capacity was 116.65 �g cm−2.

Table 1Physico-chemical properties of the field soil of experimental site

Property Top soil(0–15 cm)

Sub soil(15–30 cm)

pH 6.3 5.8Organic matter (%) 2.3 2.2

eywords: Curcuma aromatica; Organic farming; Planting geometr

. Introduction

Curcuma aromatica, locally known as Jungle Haldi,s found as a wild species throughout India, though cul-ivated in West Bengal and Travancore (The Wealth ofndia, 1950). The rhizome is light yellow (internallyrange red) in colour and possesses a camphoraceousdour. C. aromatica is some times used as substitutef C. longa (turmeric) but not as a condiment. The oilxtracted from its rhizome is a blue-black dark liquidith camphorous, woody, amber and spicy character-

stic odour. In India, its annual production is approx-mately 2 t (Vaze, 2003). The oil is in demand by theharmaceutical and allied industries.

C. aromatica has vast ethnobotanical value, alreadynown in India as tonic (Tiwari et al., 2003), carmina-ive, an antidote to snake bite, astringent and used forruises, corms and sprains (Jain et al., 1991; Tiwari etl., 2003). Paste of rhizome with milk is used for bloodysentery and stomachache (Kulkarni et al., 2003).uice of C. aromatica is given for curing indigestion,heumatism and dysentery. Plant parts are also used forealing wounds (Santhanam and Nagarajan, 1990) andractured bones (Kumar, 2002). It is also used to removetillborn baby from womb (Kumar, 2002). Khasi andaro tribes of Meghalaya (India) make a paste of its

hizome and take it with water to kill intestinal wormsRao, 1981).

C. aromatica possesses wide range of activities likentifungal (Rao, 1976; Venkataraman et al., 1978),ntimicrobial (Singh et al., 2000a), mosquito repellentDas et al., 1999), anti-inflammatory (Jangde et al.,998). The oil exhibits inhibitory effect on sarcoma00 in mice and is used for treating cervix cancer atarly stage (Beal and Reinhard, 1981).

Despite wide range of properties, not much agro-

omical studies have been conducted to explorehe potential of this plant in a sustainable manner.emand of C. aromatica is, thus, fulfilled only fromild sources. In the Dhauladhar ranges of western

CEAAA

ical composition; Essential oil; Agronomic evaluation

imalaya, this plant is available in abundance. Thislant has apparently high yielding potential and coulde accommodated for crop diversification in the tra-itional cereal based cropping system prevailing inhe mid-hills of Himachal Pradesh to generate addi-ional farm income. With this backdrop, the presentnvestigation was conducted to evaluate the effectf variable levels of farm yard manure (FYM) andlant spacing on growth, yield and quality of oil from. aromatica.

. Materials and methods

.1. Site and soil information

The field trial was conducted at Biodiversityardens of Institute of Himalayan Bioresourceechnology, Palampur (1325 m amsl, 32◦06′05′′N,6◦34′10′′E) situated in the mid-hills of Himachalradesh, India. The experiment was laid out in Decem-er 2001. At the time of laying the experiment, soilamples from 0 to 15 and 15 to 30 cm depth were takennd analyzed for physico-chemical properties. The soiltypic Hapludalf) was silty clay loam in texture, normal

arbon (%) 1.4 1.3xchangeable cation (�g cm−2) 119.6 113.7vailable N (kg ha−1) 198 196vailable P (kg ha−1) 23 22vailable K (kg ha−1) 538 381

rops an

smbvtDmwh

2

td5foamoDt

2

prmstlcwsc

L

Tpf

dup

oGccpte(veabTutCogp1u3oids

3

3

3

eapsirPrnp

Gopichand et al. / Industrial C

The average annual rainfall during the period oftudy was 88.4 and 175.2 cm, respectively, of whichore than 80% was received from June to Septem-

er (source: CSK Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Uni-ersity, Palampur). Average maximum and minimumemperatures were 24.0 ◦C and 13.3 ◦C, respectively.ecember to February was the coolest spell whenaximum temperature and minimum temperaturesere 16.3 ◦C and 4.6 ◦C, respectively. Average relativeumidity was 55% during both crop seasons.

.2. Experimental treatment

The field experiment was conducted as perwo-factor factorial completely randomized blockesign having three plant spacings (25 cm × 25 cm,0 cm × 25 cm and 50 cm × 50 cm) as first factor andour levels of FYM (15, 22.5, 30 and 37.5 t ha−1) as sec-nd factor, replicated thrice. After primary tillage oper-tions, well rotten FYM was applied as per the treat-ent and thoroughly mixed into the top soil. Rhizomes

f uniform size of about 50 × 30 mm were planted onecember 20, 2001. Irrigation was ensured throughout

he crop period.

.3. Observations

Growth parameters like plant height, number oflantlets per plant and leaf length:breadth ratio wereecorded at 1 year after planting the crop. For measure-ent of leaf area density, five plants were randomly

elected from each treatment plot. From each plant,hree leaves were selected from upper, middle andower canopy and four leaf discs of uniform area wereut from each leaf. The leaf discs sampled from a leafere dried separately in hot air oven at 60 ◦C until con-

tant weight was attained. Finally, leaf area density wasomputed by using the following formula:

eaf area density = Dry weight of the discs (g)

Area of the discs (cm2)

he representative leaf area density of the treatmentlot was obtained by computing the mean of 60 discsrom each treatment plot.

Before onset of winter dormancy, when the leaveseveloped yellow color and started drying, the crop wasprooted from a net area of 1 m × 1 m and rest of thelot was left undisturbed. Thus, the crop growth in sec-

3

e

d Products 24 (2006) 105–112 107

nd year was the compound growth through 2 years.rowth parameters like relative growth rate (RGR) and

rop growth rate (CGR) were computed as per pro-edure described by Radford (1967) and values areresented in gg−1 day−1 and g day−1, respectively. Inhe first year, rhizomes were dug out, cleaned prop-rly and weighed to record the fresh rhizome yieldkg m−2). In the second year, immediately after har-esting in December 2003, oil content in rhizome wasstimated by distillation of 2 kg of fresh rhizomes inClevenger apparatus. Oil content was estimated for

oth first order and second order rhizomes separately.he rhizomes harvested from each plot were oven driedntil constant weight was attained. Based on it, oil con-ent and oil yield were estimated on dry weight basis.onstituents of the oil from first order as well as sec-nd order rhizomes were estimated separately usingas–liquid chromatography (GLC). GC analysis waserformed with a Shimadzu gas chromatograph GC4 B equipped with flame ionization detector (F.I.D.)sing a fused silica capillary column Carbowax 20 H,0 m length × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 �m film thickness,ven temperature 100–250 ◦C at 6 ◦C min−1 and, thensothermal for 15 min, injector temperature 250 ◦C andetector temperature 250 ◦C, carrier gas nitrogen, pres-ure 6 kg cm−2.

. Results and discussion

.1. Effect of plant spacing on plant growth

.1.1. Plant heightIn the first year of the crop, there was significant

ffect of plant spacing on plant height (Table 2). Plantst 25 cm × 25 cm spacing showed significantly higherlant height than 50 cm × 25 cm and 50 cm × 50 cmpacing, thus 50 cm × 50 cm spacing recorded signif-cantly lowest plant height. Similar results were alsoeported by Shashidhar et al. (1997) in case of C. longa.erhaps, at closer spacing, crop plants compete foresources like sunlight, and thereby grow taller to har-ess solar energy. Thus, with increase in spacing thelant height declined.

.1.2. Number of plantletsDuring both years, plant spacing had significant

ffect on number of plantlets per plant (Table 2). With

108 Gopichand et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112

Table 2Effect of different plant spacing and FYM level on growth parameters in C. aromatica

Treatment Plant height (cm) Plantlets per plant Leaf length:breadthratio

Leaf area density(g cm−2)

Fresh rhizomeyield (kg m−2)

I Year II Year I Year II Year I Year II Year I Year II Year I Year II Year

Plant spacing (cm2)25 × 25 138.1 188.0 1.7 8.3 2.56 3.36 0.03 0.03 0.75 5.950 × 25 124.5 184.0 2.4 9.8 2.50 3.16 0.03 0.02 1.42 6.150 × 50 115.6 188.0 3.5 10.0 2.43 3.17 0.03 0.02 3.70 6.3

L.S.D. (0.05) 7.2* NS 0.6* 1.3* NS NS NS NS 0.97* NS

FYM level (t ha−1)15.0 121.2 182.6 2.6 9.7 2.5 3.4 0.03 0.03 2.1 5.722.5 126.8 186.2 2.5 9.4 2.5 3.0 0.03 0.03 1.9 6.930.0 130.1 192.7 2.4 9.0 2.5 3.3 0.03 0.02 1.7 5.437.5 126.2 185.5 2.6 9.4 2.4 3.3 0.03 0.03 2.0 6.4

L

N

idrcsrb5ycl

3

esloc

3

eTaddsta

waaa

3

papnbRs

irttozbr

3

.S.D. (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

S, not significant.* P < 0.05.

ncrease in plant spacing, number of plantlets increaseduring both years. Closer spacing of 25 cm × 25 cmecorded significantly lower number of plantlets inomparison to 50 cm × 25 cm and 50 cm × 50 cm plantpacing. Though maximum number of plantlets wereecorded at 50 cm × 50 cm spacing, the differenceetween plantlets per plant at 50 cm × 25 cm and0 cm × 50 cm spacing was significant only in the firstear. Increase in plantlet number with wider spacingould be attributed to better utilization of resources andesser plant-to-plant competition (Singh et al., 2000b).

.1.3. Leaf growthIn both years, the plant spacing had no significant

ffect on leaf length:breadth ratio and leaf area den-ity of the crop (Table 2). Although, maximum leafength:breadth ratio was recorded with closer spacingf 25 cm × 25 cm. Similar trend was also observed inase of leaf area density in the second year.

.1.4. Rhizome yieldIn the first year, plant spacing significantly influ-

nced the yield of fresh rhizomes of C. aromatica.he highest yield of rhizome was recorded from cropt 50 cm × 50 cm spacing; with closer spacing yieldseclined (Table 2). However there was no significant

ifference between 50 cm × 25 cm and 25 cm × 25 cmpacing in this regard. Though in the second year therend was similar, all the three spacing were statisticallyt par in terms of yield of fresh rhizome. Higher fresh

ei

NS NS NS NS NS

eight of rhizome with wider plant spacing could bettributed to higher plantlets per plant, and lower intra-nd inter-row competition among plantlets. This is ingreement with the results reported by Hu et al. (1996).

.2. Relative growth rate (RGR)

Relative growth rate was significantly influenced bylant spacings during both periods i.e. initial first yearnd first year to second year (Table 3). During botheriods, plant spacing of 50 cm × 50 cm recorded sig-ificantly higher RGR than 50 cm × 25 cm followedy 25 cm × 25 cm plant spacing. Significantly lowestGR values were recorded from 25 cm × 25 cm plant

pacings.Highest RGR value with 50 cm × 50 cm plant spac-

ngs was perhaps due to less competition among thehizomes for the natural resources. It was also observedhat RGR was higher in the first year in comparison tohe second year. This could be due to more availabilityf resources in the first year for lesser number of rhi-omes. Whereas, in the second year reduced resourcease was available due to increase in the number ofhizomes as sink.

.3. Crop growth rate (CGR)

CGR values were significantly affected by differ-nt plant spacings at all recorded observations viz.,nitial first year, first year to second year and ini-

Gopichand et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112 109

Table 3Effect of plant spacing and FYM level on relative growth rate (gg-1

day-1) and crop growth rate (g day−1) in C. aromatica

Treatment Relative growth rate Crop growth rate

0 to I year I year to II year 0 to I year

Plant spacing (cm2)25 × 25 0.007331 −0.000150 1.01795250 × 25 0.008083 0.001141 1.34818350 × 50 0.009025 0.002147 1.900044

L

tovsesiR

3

e(

TEi

T

F

ML

L

L

Table 5Response of plant spacing and FYM level on crop growth rate(g day−1) in C. aromatica

Treatment Crop growth rate (0 to II year)

Plant spacing (cm2)

25 × 25 50 × 25 50 × 50 Mean

FYM level (t ha−1)15.0 0.392263 0.932074 2.067926 1.13075422.5 0.583446 0.920828 2.585245 1.36317330.0 0.350090 0.979870 1.876743 1.06890137.5 0.527215 1.156995 1.798021 1.160744

Mean 0.463253 0.997442 2.081984 1.180893L.S.D. (0.05) of

plant spacing0.167982*

L.S.D. (0.05) of 0.193968*

L

3

ctv

.S.D. (0.05) 0.000628* 0.000787* 0.317873*

* P < 0.05.

ial to second year (Tables 3–5). The plant spacingf 50 cm × 50 cm recorded significantly higher CGRalues than 50 cm × 25 cm and 25 cm × 25 cm plantpacings during all three recorded observations. Low-st CGR values are recorded from 25 cm × 25 cm plantpacing. Similar to RGR, CGR values were also highern the first year due to similar reason as in case ofGR.

.4. Effect of FYM levels on plant growth

During both years of study, there was no significantffect of FYM levels on any of the parameters recordedTable 2).

able 4ffect of plant spacing and FYM level on crop growth rate (g day−1)

n C. aromatica

reatment Crop growth rate (I to II year)

Plant spacing (cm2)

25 × 25 50 × 25 50 × 50 Mean

YM level (t ha−1)15.0 −0.22679 −0.036530 2.146119 0.6276022.5 0.18417 0.776256 3.202435 1.3876230.0 −0.37481 0.730213 2.141553 0.8323237.5 −0.01522 1.074581 1.587519 0.88229

ean −0.10816 0.63613 2.269406 0.932458.S.D. (0.05) ofplant spacing

0.423068*

.S.D. (0.05) ofFYM levels

0.488517*

.S.D. (0.05) ofinteraction

0.846137*

* P < 0.05.

o2atr

3

zzw(woer5

3

s

FYM levels.S.D. (0.05) ofinteraction

0.335963*

* P < 0.05.

.5. Interaction of plant spacing and FYM

Significant interaction was recorded only in thease of CGR during first to second year and initialo second year (Tables 4 and 5). During both obser-ations, 50 cm × 50 cm plant spacing with 22.5 t ha−1

f FYM provided significantly highest value, while5 cm × 25 cm plant spacings recorded lower valuest all levels of FYM. This could be due to reduction inhe resource base for proper growth and development ofhizomes in the later stages with closer plant spacings.

.6. Oil content and yield

Oil content of the first order and second order rhi-omes was estimated separately. The first order rhi-omes had higher oil content both on fresh and dryeight basis than that in the second order rhizomes

Table 6), and the second order rhizomes had higherater content (data not shown). Similarly, the oil yieldf the rhizome did not differ significantly with differ-nt treatments (Table 7). The maximum oil yield wasecorded at FYM level of 22.5 t ha−1 and plant spacing0 cm × 50 cm (Fig. 1).

.7. Oil constituents

There was no significant effect of different plantpacing and FYM levels on major oil constituents

110 Gopichand et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112

Table 6Effect of plant spacing on oil content (%) from first and second order rhizomes on fresh and dry weight basis in C. aromatica in the second year

Treatment Oil content (%)

Fresh weight basis Dry weight basis

Rhizome of first order Rhizome of second order Rhizome of first order Rhizome of second order

Spacing (cm2)25 × 25 0.48 0.18 2.44 1.0950 × 25 0.48 0.21 2.41 1.2750 × 50 0.53 0.20 2.42 1.15

L.S.D. (0.05) NS NS NS NS

NS, not significant.

Table 7Effect of FYM level and plant spacing on oil yield (kg ha-1) on dryweight basis in C. aromatica in second year

Treatment Oil yield (on dry weight basis kg ha−1)

Plant spacing (cm2)

25 × 25 50 × 25 50 × 50 Mean

FYM level (t ha−1)15.0 167 185 170 17422.5 231 203 269 23430.0 177 193 190 18737.5 191 246 225 221

ML

N

o(sr

Fm

Fi

i

ean 192 207 214 204.S.D. (0.05) NS

S, not significant.

f first and second order rhizomes separately

Figs. 2 and 3), in 2003. When the data of the con-tituents in the oil of the first order and second orderhizomes were pooled there was a trend of increase

ig. 1. Effect of spacing on major oil constituents of Curcuma aro-atica during 2003–2004.

Mca5

w

TEcy

T

P

L

N

ig. 2. Effect of FYM on major oil constituents of Curcuma aromat-ca during 2003–2004.

n 1,8 cineole content with increase in plant spacing.aximum 1,8 cineole content was recorded in the

rop at 50 cm × 50 cm spacing, whereas camphornd isobornyl alcohol showed a decreasing trend at

0 cm × 25 cm plant spacing (Table 8).

Irrespective of the treatments, the camphor contentas maximum followed by 1,8 cineole and isobornyl

able 8ffect of plant spacing on oil constituents of C. aromatica (pooledonstituents of both rhizomes of first and second order) in the secondear

reatment Camphor (%) Isobornyl alcohol (%)

lant spacing (cm2)25 × 25 46.9 11.750 × 25 45.2 10.850 × 50 46.3 11.3

.S.D. (0.05) NS NS

S, not significant.

Gopichand et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 24 (2006) 105–112 111

Table 9Range of different constituents (%) in the oil of C. aromatica in the second year

Compounds Rhizome of second order Rhizome of first order

Range Standard deviation Range Standard deviation

�-Pinene 4.23 7.50 0.72 3.97 7.37 1.79Sabinene 0.05 0.49 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.14�-Pinene 0.20 0.37 0.22 0.17 0.56 0.12Camphene 0.69 1.05 0.23 0.71 1.39 0.321,8-Cineole 11.99 15.38 5.81 11.49 20.23 4.64Camphor 45.85 50.66 5.83 40.47 51.01 14.31�-Terpinolene 4.44 5.93 0.92 2.71 5.03 1.80�-Elemene 0.17 0.39 0.17 0.02 0.51 0.15Camphene hydrate 0.30 0.46 0.07 0.19 0.47 0.12�-Selinene 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.06Isobornyl alcohol 11.80 12.52 1.97 6.39 13.72 3.65Spathulenol 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.02Tapinene-4-ol 0.73 0.62 0.28 0.55 2.82 0.46Borneol 4.76 5.23 0.69 4.08 5.69 1.49Globulal 0.23 0.38 0.15 0.22 0.60 0.18Germacrene � 0.11 0.27 0.08 0.15 0.34 0.11Curzerene � 0.18 0.38 0.09 0.22 0.49 0.13Germacrone 0.15 0.42 0.15 0.12 0.49 0.13Curdione 2.81 6.72 2.35 0 13.61 3.08Khusimone 0.03 0.32 0.60

NF, not found.

Fa

aho

4

t

wtdiwas

isso

rst2ms

ig. 3. Effect of plant spacing on 1,8 cineole content in Curcumaromatica.

lcohol (Table 9). Also, camphor and 1,8 cineolead highest standard deviation. Khusimone was onlybserved in the oil of the second order rhizomes.

. Conclusion

Curcuma aromatica crop responded significantlyo different plant spacing. Plant height increased

niac

NF NF NF

ith narrowing in plant spacing from 50 cm × 50 cmo 25 cm × 25 cm, whereas the number of plantletsecreased with spacing. There was a trend of increasen the leaf length:breadth ratio and leaf area densityith closer spacing. The higher number of plantlets

nd higher RGR and CGR values with the wider plantpacing provided higher fresh rhizome yield.

FYM level did not affect the plant growth signif-cantly. Interaction of plant spacing and FYM levelhowed a higher CGR value at 50 cm × 50 cm plantpacing with FYM level of 22.5 t ha−1 during the sec-nd year and from initial to second year.

Oil content in the first order as well as second orderhizomes were unaffected by the FYM level and plantpacing. The first order rhizomes had higher oil con-ent than the second order rhizomes. Application of2.5 t ha−1 of FYM provided higher oil yield. Maxi-um oil yield was recorded with 50 cm × 50 cm plant

pacing.Different plant spacing and FYM levels had no sig-

ificant effect on major oil constituents of C. aromat-ca, though the pooled oil constituents of the first ordernd second order rhizomes showed increment in 1,8ineole content with increase in plant spacing and max-

1 rops an

iima

R

B

D

H

J

J

K

K

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

T

T

V

12 Gopichand et al. / Industrial C

mum content was recorded with 50 cm × 50 cm spac-ng. Irrespective of the treatments, camphor was the

ajor compound followed by 1,8 cineole and isobornyllcohol.

eferences

eal, J.L., Reinhard, E., 1981. Natural Products as Medicinal Agents.Hippokrates Verlag, Stuttgart.

as, N.G., Nath, D.R., Baruah, I., Talukdar, P.K., Das, S.C., 1999.Field evaluation of herbal mosquito repellents. J. Commun. Dis.31 (4), 241–245.

u, M.F., Chiu, S.M., Liu, H.I., Lai, M.H., Liu, S.Y., 1996. Effectsof planting date and density on the rhizome yield and curcumincontent of turmeric plant (Curcuma aromatica Salisb.). J. Agric.Res. Chin. 45 (2), 164–173.

ain, S.K., Sinha, B.K., Gupta, R.C., 1991. Notable Plants in Eth-nomedicine of India. Deep Publications, New Delhi.

angde, C.R., Phadnaik, B.S., Bisen, V.V., 1998. Anti-inflammatoryactivity of extracts of Curcuma aromatica Salisb. Indian Vet. J.75 (1), 76–77.

ulkarni, D.K., Kumbhojkar, M.S., Upadhya, A.S., 2003. Ethnob-otanical resources used for antidiarrhea, antidysentery and stom-ach disorders in western Maharashtra, India. In: Singh, V.K.,Govil, J.N., Hashmi, S., Singh, G. (Eds.), Recent Progress inMedicinal Plants, vol. 7. Ethnomedicine and Pharmacognosy II.

Studium Press LLC, USA, pp. 413–433.

umar, S., 2002. The Medicinal Plants of North-east India. ScientificPublishers (India), Jodhpur.

adford, P.J., 1967. Growth analysis formulae their use and abuse.Crop Sci. 7 (3), 171–175.

V

d Products 24 (2006) 105–112

ao, J.T., 1976. Antifungal activity of the essential oil of Curcumaaromatica. Indian J. Pharm. 38 (2), 53–54.

ao, R.R., 1981. Ethnobotany of Meghalaya—medicinal plants usedby Khasi and Garo tribes. Econ. Bot. 35, 35–49.

anthanam, G., Nagarajan, S., 1990. Wound healing activity ofCurcuma aromatica and Piper beetle. Fitoterapia 61 (5), 458–459.

hashidhar, T.R., Sulikeri, G.S., Gasti, V.D., 1997. Effect of differentspacing and nitrogen levels on growth attributes and the dry mat-ter production of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Amalapuram.Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 31 (3), 225–229.

ingh, D., Shrivastava, B., Garg, S.P., Singh, D., Shrivastava, B.,2000a. Isolation and antimicrobial studies of curcumin from Cur-cuma aromatica. Curr. Agric. 24 (1–2), 101–103.

ingh, J., Malik, Y.S., Nehra, B.K., Partap, P.S., Singh, J., 2000b.Effect of size of seed rhizomes and plant spacing on growth andyield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). Haryana J. Horticult. Sci.29 (3-4), 258–260.

he Wealth of India, 1950. The Wealth of India. A dictionaryof Indian Raw Materials and Industrial Products, vol. II, pp.401–402.

iwari, G., Srivastava, D.K., Gangrade, S.K., 2003. Status of medic-inal plants diversity of Kymore plateau and Satpura hill regionof Madhya Pradesh and their utilization. In: Singh, V.K., Govil,J.N., Hashmi, S., Singh, G. (Eds.), Recent Progress in MedicinalPlants, vol. 7. Ethnomedicine and Pharmacognosy II. StudiumPress LLC, USA, pp. 45–56.

aze, K., 2003. Lesser known essential oils of India and their com-

position and uses. Fafai J. 5 (3–4), 47–48.

enkataraman, S., Ramanujam, T.R., Venkatasubbu, V.S., 1978.Antifungal activity of certain plants belonging to the family Zin-giberaceae. J. Madras Univ. B: Math. Phys. Biol. Sci. 41 (2),92–94.