Effect of shade and spacing on growth, yield and quality of black musli (Curculigo orchioides Gaertn.) P.P. Joy, K.E. Savithri, Samuel Mathew and Baby P. Skaria. 2004 Aromatic and Medicinal Plants Research Station, Odakkali, Asamannoor - 683 549, Ernakulam, India
Abstract Black musli (Curculigo orchioides Gaertn.) of family Amaryllidaceae is a key member of the ayurvedic dasapushpa. It is useful as a rejuvenating and aphrodisiac drug. This important medicinal plant on the verge of extinction needs to be conserved and domesticated. A field experiment laid out in split plot design with four shade levels (0, 25, 50 and 75 per cent) in main plots and four spacing (10x10, 20x10, 20x20 and 30x20 cm) in subplots showed that the dry matter production and yields of Curculigo orchioides were the highest at 25 per cent shade and 10 x 10 cm spacing due to improved plant height, number of leaves and canopy spread and also a higher chlorophyll-a and a+b contents and harvest index. The content of primary metabolites and curculigoside in rhizome was higher at closer spacing. The uptake of nutrients was higher under shaded condition and closer spacing due to the higher plant densities and dry matter production. The results establish that C. orchioides is a shade loving plant and its growth, yield and quality are optimum under 25 per cent shade. For exploiting maximum yield potential it should be planted at 10 x 10 cm spacing. These results open the possibility of cocultivation of C. orchioides as under storey crop or intercrop under partially shaded conditions. Key words: Curculigo orchioides, black musli, shade, spacing, growth, yield, quality, curculigoside Introduction Golden eye grass or black musli (Curculigo orchioides Gaertn.) of the family Amaryllidaceae is a key member of the dasapushpa and is a highly useful plant in the indigenous system of medicine. It is a small, geophilous herb, the rhizome of which is used as a rejuvenating and aphrodisiac drug [4]. This important medicinal plant is on the verge of extinction and needs to be conserved and domesticated. For the popularisation of black musli cultivation among growers, development of agronomic practices deserves immediate attention of researchers. The present studies were undertaken to workout optimum shade and spacing requirement. Materials and methods Investigations on the effect of shade and spacing on growth, yield and quality of black musli were carried out during 2001-’02 at the Aromatic and Medicinal Plants Research Station (AMPRS), Odakkali, Kerala. The experimental site experiences a warm humid tropical climate. The area receives a mean annual rainfall of 3318 mm and has 166 mean number of rainy days per annum. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures are 32.6oC and 20oC, respectively. The 1
relative humidity is often as high as 92.2 per cent. The soil was gravelly clay loam of the Oxisol order with low fertility status. The experiment was laid out in split plot design with four shade levels (0, 25, 50 and 75 per cent) in the main plots and four spacing (10x10, 20x10, 20x20 and 30x20 cm) in the subplots with three replications. The planting material (suckers) was collected from Panamkuzhi area of Kodanad forest range in the Ernakulam district of Kerala. The crop was planted on 28 May 2001, raised under rainfed conditions with uniform management and harvested on 28 February 2002. Standard nylon shade nets of 25 per cent, 50 per cent and 75 per cent grades were used for providing the required shade. Shade net was provided at a height of 2 m with the help of iron poles. Buffer plots were maintained between two shade treatments to compensate for the periodical overlapping of shade. FYM was applied at 20 t ha-1, half as basal and half three months after planting (MAP). Weeds were removed manually at 3 and 6 months after planting. Incidence of pests and diseases was very low, except rodent attack which was a very serious problem once the rhizome started developing and necessary control measures were taken. The production and accumulation of dry matter were noted at monthly intervals. The pattern of growth, development and maturation were studied. Quality parameters such as the contents of glucose, sucrose, starch, crude fibre, crude protein, crude fat, curculigoside and ash were assessed at harvest. Leaf chlorophyll content was estimated colorimetrically in Genesis Spectrophotometer [16] and the proximate analyses procedures of Thimmaiah [13] were followed. Extraction with ethyl acetate, alkali hydrolysis and estimation of 2,6-dimethoxybenzoic acid (2,6-DA) with HPLC [3, 15] was followed for curculigoside estimation. The data were statistically analysed following Gomez and Gomez [1]. Results and discussion In this field experiment to ascertain the optimum requirement of shade and spacing for maximizing quality crude drug production in C. orchioides, the main and interaction effects of shade and spacing on growth, yield, quality, nutrient contents and uptake were studied and are discussed hereunder. Growth In general, C. orchioides exhibited an active vegetative growth of 6 months under rainfed field condition. Irrespective of the quantum of shade, the senescence was delayed by about a month compared to growing in open. The plant height increased with increase in levels of shade (Table 1) probably due to increase in the content of gibberellins in plants grown under shade as reported by Jones and Millan [2] and Vyas and Nein [14]. Among the different shade levels, 75 per cent shade treatment recorded the maximum plant height at peak of vegetative growth stage (6 2
MAP). Increasing levels of shade also increased the canopy spread. Sucker production was marginally higher under shade compared to open condition though the effect was not significant. Increase in growth parameters due to shade was also reported by Nizam and Jayachandran [8] in Zingiberaceous crops like ginger, turmeric and mango ginger; Vyas and Nein [14] in Cassia angustifolia; Thanuja [12] in spice crops and Korikanthimath et al. [5] in cardamom. The chlorophyll a and a+b contents decreased with increasing level of shade while chlorophyll b content remained more or less unchanged. Among the shade levels, 25 per cent shade recorded the highest chlorophyll a and a+b contents. Twenty five per cent shade recorded marginally higher dry matter production over open growing plants. Nizam and Jayachandran [8], Ravindran and Kulandaivelu [10] and Subramonium [11] also reported similar results.
The
adaptability of C. orchioides to shade is particularly evident from the significantly higher plant density and sucker production under shade compared to open condition. Weed infestation was significantly higher under open condition and there was a progressive reduction with increase in shade (Table 1). The heavy weed infestation under open condition and its progressive reduction with increase in shade is due to the positive influence of sunlight on weed growth as quoted by Thanuja [12]. Various growth parameters of C. orchioides such as plant height, number of leaves, canopy spread and sucker production were not significantly influenced by spacing. However, marginally higher values of the above parameters were observed at a closer spacing than at a wider spacing indicating that 10 x 10 cm spacing is sufficient for the optimum growth of C. orchioides. The spacing did not influence the chlorophyll content in the leaves as it is more of a function of light and since there was no mutual shading of the plants at narrowest spacing, no significant difference in chlorophyll content could be observed. The rhizome and total dry matter per plant were not significantly influenced by spacing. Higher plant density together with proper growth of the plant resulted in highest dry matter production per unit area at 10 x 10 cm spacing. Similar results were also reported by Joy [3] in Alpinia calcarata and Kaepferia rotunda. Weed biomass was not influenced by spacing. The lack of influence of spacing on weed infestation is probably due to the uniform availability of sunlight at all the spacing owing to the short and compact structure of the plant. Yield Biological yield was significantly higher under shade than under open condition (Table 2). Among the shade levels, 25 per cent shade recorded the highest biological yield which was 76.0 per cent higher than that under open condition. Lesser weed infestation, more plant density together with better vegetative growth resulted in higher biological yield under shade. Whereas, 3
heavy weed infestation, lesser plant population and lesser vegetative growth resulted in significantly lesser biological yield under open condition. Fresh rhizome yield was significantly higher under shade compared to open condition. Among the shade levels, 25 per cent shade recorded the highest rhizome yield (71.6 per cent higher than under open condition). The higher biological yield and better partitioning of photosynthates have resulted in significantly higher fresh rhizome yield under shade compared to open condition. Shade by spacing effects were noted to be significant. Treatment with 25 per cent shade and 10 x 10 cm spacing produced the highest fresh rhizome yield of 2736 kg ha-1 (Figure 1). This was due to higher growth characteristics such as plant height, number of leaves, canopy spread and also higher chlorophyll content and harvest index. Dry rhizome yield was significantly higher under shade compared to open condition. Among the shade levels, 25 per cent recorded the highest value which was 79.9 per cent more than under open condition. The biological, fresh rhizome and dry rhizome yields were higher under shade compared to open condition. Among shade levels, 25 per cent shade recorded the highest. The increase in yield under shade is attributable to the increase in growth parameters, such as plant height, number of leaves per plant and canopy spread and better partitioning of the photosynthates. This clearly indicates that C. orchioides is a shade loving plant and its growth and yield are much better under partially shaded conditions and 25 per cent shade seems to be the optimum level. Thanuja [12] reported that Zingiberaceous medicinal crops like ginger, turmeric and mango ginger showed better growth and yield under partially shaded situation (25-50%). The harvest index decreased with increasing level of shade and it was 56.6per cent at 25 per cent shade as against 67.0 per cent under open condition. In spite of this negative influence on harvest index, shade substantially increased all the yield determining factors which resulted ultimately in a net positive influence on the yield of the crop. The harvest index decreased with increase in spacing and it ranged from the lowest 49.5 per cent at 30 x 20 cm to the highest 54.0 per cent at 10 x 10 cm spacing. This is due to higher plant density and better vegetative (shoot) growth which resulted in higher biological yield. At narrower spacing there was better partitioning of photosynthates to the rhizome indicating that C. orchioides requires a narrow spacing of 10 x 10 cm for realizing maximum yield.
4
Quality The content of sucrose, starch and curculigoside in rhizome at harvest were highest at 25 per cent shade, glucose at 50 per cent shade and crude fibre, crude protein, crude fat and ash contents were highest under open condition (Table 3). This indicated that the quality of the crude drug was much influenced by light intensity. The contents of crude protein, crude fibre, crude fat and ash were higher under open condition while the carbohydrate content was the highest under partially shaded condition. This also suggests that the crude protein, crude fat and crude fibre are synthesized from the basic primary metabolite of carbohydrate and the conversion is progressively hampered with increasing level of shade in C. orchioides. Quality improvements under shade have also been reported by Menon and Potty [7] in njavara rice. Subramonium [11] reported that 50 per cent shading of Centella asiatica resulted in higher yields of asiaticoside. Most of the quality parameters were improved at closer spacing compared to wider spacing. Among spacing, closer spacing recorded higher curculigoside content than wider spacing; the highest content being at 20 x 10 cm followed by 10 x 10 cm spacing. The starch and ash contents were highest at 10 x 10 cm spacing while glucose, sucrose, crude fibre, and crude fat contents were highest at 20 x 10 cm spacing indicating that a closer spacing is beneficial for improved quality in C. orchioides. Similar results were also obtained by Kurian et al. [6] in Costus speciosus, where yield of diosgenin was significantly higher at the closest spacing than at wider spacing. The starch and crude fibre contents in the rhizome at harvest were the highest under 10 x 10 cm spacing and 25 per cent shade (Figure 2). Though the crude protein, crude fibre, crude fat and ash contents were the highest under open condition, the carbohydrate and curculigoside contents were the highest under partially shaded condition. The quality of the crude drug in terms of the primary metabolites was higher at closer spacing especially 10 x 10 cm. Nutrient content Since the crop exhibited maximum vegetative growth and rhizome yield at 6 MAP the nutrient content in rhizome at that stage alone is discussed hereunder. In rhizome, N and Mn contents were negatively correlated with yield in relation to shade (Table 4). With respect to spacing, N, Ca, Mg and Cu contents were positively correlated whereas Mn was negatively correlated with yield (Table 5). Content of major nutrients such as N and P was higher under open and decreased with increase in shade probably due to higher absorption and utilization under open situation (Table 6). There was not much variation in K content due to shade which might be due to the low requirement of the crop. Contents of N and P were higher at closer spacing which might be due to lesser weed competition thereby higher absorption and utilization. Content of secondary nutrients 5
like Ca and Mg increased with increase in shade probably due to their accumulation under shaded condition. Closer spacing recorded the highest content of secondary nutrients due to a possible synergistic effect caused by relative shading. Among the micronutrients, only Fe content varied significantly. Fe content was reduced under shaded condition but it was comparatively higher at closer spacing. Nutrient uptake The uptake of all nutrients increased with increase in shade and was the highest at 75 per cent shade. The uptake at all levels of shade was much higher than that under open condition. This might be due to the higher growth and dry matter production under shaded condition rather than a higher content of the nutrients. Among the spacing, 10 x 10 cm recorded the highest uptake of all nutrients. It is due to higher plant density with optimum growth, which leads to more dry matter production and uptake of nutrients. Conclusion The results of the experiment establish that C. orchioides is a shade loving plant and its growth, yield and quality are optimum under 25 per cent shade. For exploiting maximum yield potential it should be planted at 10 x 10 cm spacing. These results open the possibility of cocultivation of C. orchioides as under storey crop or intercrop under partially shaded conditions. References 1.
Gomez KA and Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines, pp. 357- 423
2.
Jones RL and Millan JM. 1992. Gibberellins. Advanced Plant Physiology (ed. Wilkins, M.B.). ELBS with Longman, UK, pp. 21-52.
3.
Joy PP. 2003. Agrotechnological practices for quality crude drug production in nilappana (C. orchioides Gaertn.). Ph. D. Thesis. Kerala Agricultural University, KAU P.O., Thrissur, Kerala, India, 274 p.
4.
Joy PP, Thomas J, Mathew S and Skaria BP. 2001. Medicinal Plants. In: Tropical Horticulture Vol. 2. (eds. TK Bose, J Kabir, P Das and PP Joy), Naya Prokash, Calcutta, pp. 449-632.
5.
Korikanthimath VS, Rao G and Hiremath GM. 2002. Cultivation of cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) in valley bottoms under ever green forest shade. J. med. arom. Pl. Sci. 24(1):53-59.
6.
Kurian A, Sankar A, Joseph L, Keshavachandran R, Nybe EV and Nair GS. 2000. Two decades of research on medicinal plants at College of Horticulture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara - An overview. Indian J. Arecanut, Spices med. Pl. 2(4):115-139.
7.
Menon MV and Potty NN. 1999. Nutritional specificity and quality properties of medicinal rice, “Njavara”. Oryza 36(4):315-317. 6
8.
Nizam SA and Jayachandran BK. 1997. Low incidence of phyllosticta leaf spot in ginger under shade. South Indian Hort. 45:307-309.
9.
Ram M, Singh S, Ram D, Roy SK and Kumar S. 2001. Effect of plant density on the root yield of Asparagus racemosus and Asparagus adscendens in a sandy loam soil of north Indian plains. J. med. arom. Pl. Sci. 23(2):75-76.
10. Ravindran KC and Kulandaivelu G. 1998. Effect of light intensity on growth and yield of cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum Maton). J. Plantation Crops 26:87-88. 11. Subramonium A. 2000. Pharmacological evaluation of ecotypes of medicinal plants. Proc. of the Seminar Biotechnological Interventions in Medicinal Plants of Kerala, 7 Nov. 2000, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Trivandrum, pp. 7-9. 12. Thanuja TV. 2001. Importance of shade in spice crops. Spice India 14(3):6-7. 13. Thimmaiah SK. 1999. Standard Methods of Biochemical Analysis. Kalyani Pub., Ludhiana, p. 545. 14. Vyas SP and Nein S. 1999. Effect of shade on the growth of Cassia angustifolia. Indian Forester 125(4):407-410. 15. Yamasaki K, Hashimoto A, Kokusenya Y, Miyamoto T, Matsuo M and Sato T. 1994. Determination of curculigoside in curculiginis rhizome by high performance liquid chromatography. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 42(2):395-397. 16. Yoshida S, Forno AS, Cook HJ and Gomez AK. 1972. Laboratory Manual on Physiological Studies. IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp. 36-37.
7
Table 1. Effect of shade and spacing on growth and chlorophyll content of Curculigo orchioides at 6 MAP Plant height (cm)
Leaves sucker-1 (No.)
Canopy spread (cm)
Suckers Plant-1 (No.)
0
15.67
5.13
16.30
25
18.20
5.95
50
20.14
75
-1
-1
Plants m-2 Suckers Dry weed (No.) m-2 biomass (kg m-2) (No.)
Chlorophyll content (mg g ) a b a+b
Dry matter production (g plant ) Root Rhizome Shoot Total
1.92
2.118
1.089
3.206
0.13
0.60
0.24
0.97
22.78
48.33
0.405
19.77
1.92
1.682
0.723
2.404
0.28
0.51
0.35
1.14
41.46
128.17
0.190
5.75
19.82
2.58
1.431
0.574
2.004
0.22
0.50
0.36
1.08
41.81
130.58
0.065
23.08
5.65
24.57
2.47
1.260
0.779
2.039
0.14
0.50
0.39
1.03
47.57
150.92
0.045
SEm
1.134
0.177
0.784
0.208
0.082
0.092
0.187
0.014
0.013
0.018
0.051
2.084
10.544
0.022
CD(0.05)
3.924
NS
2.712
NS
0.369
NS
0.842
0.048
0.047
0.065
NS
7.211
36.486
0.098
10 x10
18.57
5.48
20.30
2.45
1.853
0.773
2.626
0.31
0.49
0.39
1.19
71.18
222.75
0.174
20 x 10
19.91
5.50
19.82
2.20
1.597
0.843
2.439
0.14
0.53
0.31
0.98
37.78
116.33
0.176
20 x 20
20.11
5.85
20.53
2.15
1.537
0.849
2.385
0.14
0.51
0.33
0.98
26.39
74.25
0.177
30 x 20
18.49
5.65
19.82
2.08
1.503
0.700
2.202
0.19
0.59
0.30
1.08
18.26
44.67
0.177
SEm
0.679
0.199
0.709
0.106
0.091
0.069
0.099
0.013
0.026
0.017
0.033
3.140
10.930
0.015
CD(0.05)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.037
NS
0.050
NS
9.166
31.901
NS
Interaction
NS
*
**
**
NS
NS
NS
**
**
**
**
*
**
NS
G. Mean
19.27
5.62
20.12
2.22
1.622
0.791
2.413
0.19
0.53
0.34
1.06
38.40
114.50
0.176
Treatment Shade (%)
Spacing (cm)
NS=Not significant, *=Significant at 0.05 level of probability, **= Significant at 0.01 level of probability
Table 2. Effect of shade and spacing on yield and harvest index of Curculigo orchioides Treatment
Yield (kg ha-1) Biological Fresh rhizome Dry rhizome
Shade (%) 0 25 50 75 SEm CD(0.05) Spacing (cm) 10 x10 20 x 10 20 x 20 30 x 20 SEm CD(0.05) Interaction G. Mean
Driage (%)
Harvest index (%)
628 2621 1925 2451 102 353
420 1483 966 1167 39 135
129 643 420 510 10 34
30.7 43.4 43.5 43.7 -
67.0 56.6 50.2 47.6 – –
3513 2136 1264 713 117 340 ** 1906
1896 1138 649 353 38 110 ** 1009
797 500 260 146 10 29 ** 426
42.0 43.9 40.1 41.5 42.2
54.0 53.3 51.3 49.5 – – 52.9
NS=Not significant, *=Significant at 0.05 level of probability, **= Significant at 0.01 level of probability
Table 3. Effect of shade and spacing on quality parameters of Curculigo orchioides
Treatment Shade (%) 0 25 50 75 SEm CD(0.05) Spacing (cm) 10 x10 20 x 10 20 x 20 30 x 20 SEm CD(0.05) Interaction G. Mean
Quality parameters of dry rhizome at harvest (%) Glucose Sucrose Starch Fibre Protein Fat Curculig oside
Ash
0.592 1.275 1.353 1.243 0.006 0.025
0.549 1.061 0.908 1.003 0.005 0.021
53.838 59.880 53.385 55.578 0.437 1.969
2.908 2.615 2.350 2.462 0.010 0.046
11.475 10.719 9.856 10.244 0.106 0.481
1.880 1.767 1.587 1.581 0.010 0.042
ND 0.137 0.094 0.125 -
4.424 3.782 3.418 3.668 0.019 0.085
1.241 1.289 0.994 0.937 0.008 0.023 ** 1.116
0.994 1.036 0.721 0.771 0.008 0.025 ** 0.881
59.409 53.304 55.238 54.730 0.235 0.725 ** 55.670
2.746 2.806 2.395 2.387 0.024 0.073 ** 2.584
10.581 10.613 10.888 10.219 0.075 0.231 ** 10.575
1.674 1.736 1.722 1.682 0.010 0.039 NS 1.704
0.093 0.097 0.084 0.083 0.089
4.015 3.838 3.644 3.795 0.022 0.067 ** 3.823
ND=Not detected, *=Significant at 0.05 level of probability, **= Significant at 0.01 level of probability
N
1.00
P
0.71
1.00
K
0.37
0.07
1.00
Ca
-0.06
0.29
0.62
1.00
Mg
-0.68
-0.83
0.36
0.27
1.00
S
-0.41
0.03
0.43
0.94
0.48
1.00
Fe
0.40
-0.35
0.55
-0.30
0.27
-0.43
1.00
Mn
0.89
0.40
0.70
0.06
-0.27
-0.26
0.71
1.00
Zn
-0.28
0.38
0.12
0.85
0.05
0.88
-0.76
-0.36
1.00
Cu
-0.47
-0.09
-0.99
-0.53
-0.29
-0.31
-0.63
-0.78
-0.01
1.00
(Ca+Mg)/K
-0.69
-0.29
0.25
0.76
0.69
0.94
-0.42
-0.50
0.76
-0.13
1.00
Fe/K
0.24
-0.49
0.10
-0.70
0.15
-0.73
0.88
0.43
-0.97
-0.19
-0.61
1.00
Mn/K
0.04
0.25
-0.91
-0.68
-0.69
-0.64
-0.43
-0.36
-0.23
0.86
-0.57
-0.01
1.00
Zn/K
-0.35
0.41
-0.34
0.52
-0.19
0.60
-0.97
-0.61
0.89
0.43
0.55
-0.97
0.22
1.00
Cu/K
-0.30
0.29
-0.87
-0.21
-0.49
-0.08
-0.87
-0.70
0.34
0.90
-0.02
-0.55
0.82
0.73
1.00
N uptake
-0.96
-0.62
-0.14
0.34
0.76
0.65
-0.42
-0.80
0.48
0.25
0.87
-0.39
-0.27
0.44
0.17
1.00
P uptake
-0.94
-0.45
-0.28
0.35
0.58
0.65
-0.62
-0.88
0.59
0.40
0.85
-0.55
-0.11
0.62
0.38
0.97
1.00
K uptake
-0.95
-0.68
-0.09
0.31
0.82
0.62
-0.32
-0.75
0.41
0.20
0.85
-0.30
-0.33
0.35
0.08
0.99
0.94
1.00
Ca uptake
-0.86
-0.49
0.07
0.56
0.76
0.81
-0.41
-0.66
0.62
0.05
0.96
-0.50
-0.45
0.49
0.06
0.97
0.94
0.96
1.00
Mg uptake
-0.87
-0.78
0.12
0.32
0.94
0.60
-0.07
-0.57
0.28
-0.02
0.83
-0.12
-0.52
0.12
-0.18
0.93
0.83
0.96
0.92
1.00
S uptake
-0.67
-0.30
0.31
0.77
0.71
0.94
-0.36
-0.45
0.74
-0.19
1.00
-0.58
-0.62
0.50
-0.09
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.96
0.83
1.00
Fe uptake
-0.86
-0.74
0.16
0.39
0.93
0.65
-0.09
-0.55
0.33
-0.06
0.86
-0.17
-0.55
0.16
-0.18
0.94
0.83
0.96
0.94
1.00
0.87
1.00
Mn uptake
-0.97
-0.72
-0.13
0.26
0.82
0.57
-0.30
-0.77
0.36
0.23
0.82
-0.25
-0.30
0.31
0.09
0.99
0.94
1.00
0.94
0.96
0.81
0.96
1.00
Zn uptake
-0.86
-0.37
-0.08
0.55
0.62
0.81
-0.58
-0.76
0.71
0.20
0.94
-0.63
-0.29
0.64
0.25
0.96
0.97
0.93
0.98
0.84
0.92
0.86
0.91
1.00
Cu uptake
-0.98
-0.66
-0.20
0.26
0.76
0.58
-0.39
-0.82
0.41
0.30
0.82
-0.33
-0.22
0.40
0.19
1.00
0.97
0.99
0.94
0.93
0.81
0.93
0.99
0.93
1.00
Rhizome yield
-0.87
-0.29
-0.62
0.11
0.26
0.41
-0.80
-0.98
0.52
0.72
0.60
-0.58
0.29
0.73
0.71
0.82
0.92
0.76
0.72
0.57
0.55
0.56
0.77
0.83
0.83
Rhizome yield
Cu uptake
Zn uptake
Mn uptake
Fe uptake
S uptake
Mg uptake
Ca uptake
K uptake
P uptake
N uptake
Cu/K
Zn/K
Mn/K
Fe/K
(Ca+Mg)/K
Cu
Zn
Mn
Fe
S
Mg
Ca
K
P
N
Parameter
Table 4. Coefficients of correlation of nutrient contents and ratios in rhizome and uptake at 6 MAP and rhizome yield of Curculigo orchioides as influenced by shade
[r 3 (0.05) = 0.878, r 3 (0.01) = 0.959]
1.00
N
1.00
P
0.09
1.00
K
-0.02
0.96
1.00
Ca
0.88
-0.33
-0.48
1.00
Mg
0.88
-0.19
-0.39
0.98
1.00
S
0.01
0.76
0.90
-0.47
-0.46
1.00
Fe
0.56
-0.75
-0.75
0.78
0.64
-0.50
1.00
Mn
-0.74
-0.12
0.14
-0.80
-0.90
0.39
-0.26
1.00
Zn
-0.24
0.80
0.94
-0.68
-0.64
0.96
-0.72
0.47
1.00
Cu
0.92
0.41
0.24
0.73
0.80
0.11
0.21
-0.85
-0.06
1.00
(Ca+Mg)/K
0.80
-0.44
-0.59
0.99
0.96
-0.58
0.81
-0.78
-0.77
0.64
1.00
Fe/K
0.51
-0.79
-0.79
0.76
0.63
-0.54
1.00
-0.24
-0.75
0.16
0.80
1.00
Mn/K
-0.34
-0.61
-0.37
-0.25
-0.43
0.02
0.41
0.77
-0.03
-0.68
-0.20
0.42
1.00
Zn/K
-0.51
0.35
0.59
-0.81
-0.86
0.79
-0.48
0.87
0.84
-0.51
-0.85
-0.49
0.50
1.00
Cu/K
0.98
0.26
0.12
0.81
0.85
0.09
0.39
-0.79
-0.13
0.98
0.72
0.35
-0.50
-0.50
1.00
N uptake
0.90
0.08
-0.13
0.90
0.96
-0.28
0.43
-0.96
-0.44
0.92
0.86
0.40
-0.63
-0.80
0.92
1.00
P uptake
0.90
0.08
-0.14
0.90
0.96
-0.27
0.44
-0.96
-0.44
0.92
0.86
0.41
-0.62
-0.79
0.92
1.00
1.00
K uptake
0.89
0.12
-0.10
0.88
0.95
-0.25
0.39
-0.96
-0.41
0.93
0.84
0.36
-0.66
-0.79
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
Ca uptake
0.90
0.07
-0.15
0.90
0.97
-0.29
0.44
-0.96
-0.45
0.92
0.86
0.41
-0.62
-0.80
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Mg uptake
0.89
0.03
-0.18
0.92
0.97
-0.32
0.46
-0.96
-0.48
0.90
0.88
0.44
-0.61
-0.82
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
S uptake
0.92
0.16
-0.04
0.87
0.94
-0.18
0.39
-0.94
-0.35
0.96
0.82
0.36
-0.64
-0.73
0.95
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
1.00
Fe uptake
0.92
0.03
-0.17
0.93
0.97
-0.28
0.49
-0.94
-0.46
0.91
0.89
0.47
-0.56
-0.79
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
Mn uptake
0.92
0.07
-0.14
0.91
0.97
-0.26
0.46
-0.95
-0.44
0.93
0.87
0.43
-0.60
-0.78
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Zn uptake
0.92
0.13
-0.08
0.89
0.95
-0.21
0.41
-0.95
-0.38
0.95
0.84
0.38
-0.63
-0.75
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Cu uptake
0.87
0.16
-0.07
0.85
0.93
-0.25
0.34
-0.98
-0.39
0.93
0.81
0.31
-0.70
-0.79
0.91
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
Rhizome yield
0.95
-0.04
-0.22
0.96
0.98
-0.27
0.59
-0.89
-0.48
0.89
0.91
0.56
-0.46
-0.76
0.93
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.95
Rhizome yield
Cu uptake
Zn uptake
Mn uptake
Fe uptake
S uptake
Mg uptake
Ca uptake
K uptake
P uptake
N uptake
Cu/K
Zn/K
Mn/K
Fe/K
(Ca+Mg)/K
Cu
Zn
Mn
Fe
S
Mg
Ca
K
P
N
Parameter
Table 5. Coefficients of correlation of nutrient contents and ratios in rhizome and uptake at 6 MAP and rhizome yield of Curculigo orchioides as influenced by spacing
[r 3 (0.05) = 0.878, r 3 (0.01) = 0.959]
1.00
Table 6. Effect of shade and spacing on the content of nutrients in Curculigo orchioides rhizome at 6 MAP Treatment Shade (%) 0 25 50 75 SEm CD(0.05) Spacing (cm) 10 x10 20 x 10 20 x 20 30 x 20 SEm CD(0.05) Interaction G. Mean
N (%)
P (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Mg (%)
S (%)
Fe (ppm)
1.456 1.138 1.129 1.120 0.013 0.060
0.178 0.167 0.136 0.156 0.001 0.004
0.728 0.624 0.682 0.744 0.027 NS
0.955 0.915 0.807 1.172 0.034 0.153
0.116 0.141 0.299 0.320 0.005 0.023
0.475 0.604 0.422 1.043 0.054 0.241
1645.7 1203.0 1713.3 1442.7 79.41 357.41
81.22 73.82 76.60 76.55 2.312 NS
64.35 74.30 55.87 80.55 2.942 NS
27.52 31.25 29.15 27.52 4.182 NS
1.259 1.223 1.205 1.156 0.017 0.052 ** 1.211
0.161 0.154 0.165 0.158 0.002 0.007 ** 0.159
0.694 0.682 0.713 0.690 0.022 NS NS 0.694
1.049 1.003 0.898 0.897 0.015 0.046 ** 0.962
0.255 0.226 0.197 0.198 0.008 0.024 ** 0.219
0.599 0.604 0.760 0.581 0.046 NS ** 0.636
1566.0 1797.0 1297.3 1344.5 94.21 NS NS 1501.2
71.60 78.52 79.37 78.70 2.183 NS NS 77.05
65.32 64.82 77.62 67.30 2.713 NS NS 68.769
34.85 27.37 29.17 24.05 3.142 NS NS 28.863
NS=Not significant, *=Significant at 0.05 level of probability, **= Significant at 0.01 level of probability
Mn (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
Cu (ppm)
Yield (kg ha -1)
5000 4000
75
3000
50
2000 25
Shade (%)
1000 0 0 10x10
20x10
20x20
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Yield (kg ha -1)
Biological yield
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
75 50 Shade (%) 25 0 10x10
20x10
20x20
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Fresh rhizome yield
Yield (kg ha-1)
1500 75
1000 50 500
25
Shade (%)
0 0 10x10
20x10
20x20
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Dry rhizome yield
Figure 1. Interaction effect of shade and spacing on yield of Curculigo orchioides
3.5
60
3
Crude fibre (%)
70
Starch (%)
50 40 30 20
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
10
0
0 10x10
20x10
20x20
10x10
30x20
20x10
Starch
Crude fibre 2.5
14 12
2
Crude fat (%)
Crude protein (%)
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Spacing (cm)
10 8 6 4
1.5 1 0.5
2
0
0
10x10
20x10
20x20
30x20
10x10
20x10
Spacing (cm)
20x20
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Crude protein
Crude fat
6
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
5 Ash (%)
Curculigoside (ppm)
20x20
4 3 2 1 0
10x10
20x10
20x20
30x20
10x10
20x10
Spacing (cm)
0
25
30x20
Spacing (cm)
Curculigoside Shade (%)
20x20
Ash 50
75
Shade (%)
0
25
Figure 2. Interaction effect of shade and spacing on quality of Curculigo orchioides dry rhizome at harvest
50
75
