ravi final
Post on 26-Jun-2015
578 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Components of ecosystem
Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi.
UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, BAGALKOT
Seminar - i
Organic farming in turmeric and ginger
Ravi, PujariUHS11PGM142Dept. of PMA.
Organic farming
“Organic farming is a system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, feed additives etc) and to the maximum extent feasible relay upon crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, on-farm organic waste, mineral grade rock additives and biological system of nutrient mobilization and plant protection”.
USDA study team
Biofertilizers
Organic farming
Pest management
Disease management
Crop rotation
Weed management
Commonly used microbes in Organic farming
Pseudomonas
AM fungi
Why organic farming ?
Soil is a medium Biological activity Living soil Use of inorganic fertilizers - eutrophication, increased
soil acidity, enhanced nitrate content in drinking water etc
Indiscriminate use of chemicals – reduced diversity, reduced soil fertility and hazards on health
Aims of organic farming
Food of high nutritional quality. Interact in a constructive and life enhancing way
with natural systems. Encourage and enhance biological cycles. Maintain long term fertility of soils. Use renewable on farm resources Work with materials which can be recycled. Minimize all forms of pollutants which may affect
the farm environment.
Turmeric
B.N : Curcuma longa L.
Family: Zingiberaceae
Order: Scitaminae
Active principle: Curcumin
Origin: South East Asia
The ancient and sacred spice of India
Condiment, dye and in cosmetics
- It is valued as a spice as well as a colourant.
Widely used in folk medicines and ayurvedic preparations.
India - Major production and export, monopoly in production.
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu, and Bihar are the
important states producing turmeric.
Fig 1: Area share under major spices crops in India.Anon., 2011
China8%
Myanmar4%
Nigeria3%
Bangladesh3%
Others4%India
78%
Fig 2: World production scenario of turmeric in different countries. Anon., 2011
Andra Pradesh47%
Tamil Nadu21%
Karnataka11%
Orissa7%
West Bengal4%
Gu-jarat2%
Megha-laya2%
Kerala1%
Others5%
Fig 3: Production scenario of turmeric in different states. Anon., 2011
Traditional practices in turmeric cultivation Sundararaman et al., 2004
Seed rhizome selection
Pre-planting treatments
Land preparation
Mulching
Mixed cropping
Inter-cropping
Crop protection
Harvesting
Case studies
Response of bioregulants on nutrient uptake of turmeric cv. BSR 2
Sathish and Paramaguru, 2010, Coimbatore
Treatment details:
T1 = Panchagavya 2% foliar spray
T2 = Panchagavya 3% foliar spray
T3 = Panchagavya 4% foliar spray
T4 = Vermiwash 10% spray
T5 = Vermiwash 20% spray
T6 = Humic acid 0.05% foliar spray
T7 = Humic acid 0.1% foliar spray
T8 = Humic acid 0.15% foliar spray
T9 = Extended EM 1% foliar spray
T10 = Extended EM 2% foliar spray
T11 = Extended EM 3% foliar spray
T12 = 100% RDF
T13 = Control Treatments imposed after 1 month of sowing
Table 1: Response of Bioregulants on nutrient uptake of turmeric cv. BSR 2 Sathish and Paramaguru, 2010 , Coimbatore
Treatments Nitrogen %
Phosphorous %
Potassium %
Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha)
Phosphorous uptake
(kg/ha)
Potassium uptake (kg/ha)
T1 0.72 0.17 0.71 221.65 50.11 236.4T2 0.79 0.19 0.77 267.02 58.37 263.5T3 0.67 0.13 0.65 220.4 49.96 219.4T4 0.77 0.18 0.74 257.79 45.16 250.62T5 0.81 0.16 0.69 231.72 55.67 230.12T6 0.84 0.22 0.88 277.81 64.27 270.52T7 0.65 0.13 0.64 216.1 42.12 221.7T8 0.6 0.15 0.62 226.6 50.37 222.16T9 0.75 0.17 0.6 260.32 40.24 261.2T10 0.66 0.14 0.61 244.54 47.6 241.45T11 0.71 0.11 0.7 234.17 41.51 232.12T12 0.59 0.12 0.72 222.97 53.61 239.2T13 0.45 0.1 0.56 201.25 35.8 214.2
Mean 0.6785 0.1562 0.6831 237.1026 48.83 238.66CD (at5%) 0.0233 0.0081 0.0197 5.2664 1.8517 4.2085
T6 = Humic acid 0.05% foliar spray
Treatment details
SSP = Single Super Phosphate
MRP = Mussorie Rock Phosphate
RP = Rock Phosphate
GP = Gafsa Phosphate
Effect of different sources and combination of phosphates with FYM on P uptake in turmeric Srinivasan et al., 2000 , Calicut
Treatments P uptake in turmeric (kg/ha)
SSP 13.6 0
MRP+SSP 13.5 0
RP+SSP 15.70
GP+SSP 13.4 0
FYM+MRP 15.20
FYM+RP 16.50
FYM+GP 16.50
FYM+SSP 15.80
Check 7 .00
CD(P=0.05) 0.51
Table 2 : Effect of different sources and combination of phosphates with FYM on P uptake in turmeric
Srinivasan et al., 2000, Calicut
Effect of organic manures on growth, rhizome yield and quality attributes of turmeric
Kamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh
Treatment details:
T1 = Cowdung @ 15 t/ha
T2 = Poultry manure @ 7 t/ha
T3 = Mustard cake @ 2 t/ha
T4 = Neem cake @ 2 t/ha
T5 = Control
Treatments imposed 1 week before sowing
TreatmentsPlant height(cm)
No. of leaves
No. of tillers/plant
Leaf area(cm2)
Fresh wt of rhizomes (g/plant)
Dry wt of rhizome (g/plant)
T1 Cowdung (15 t/ha)
73.73 8.13 4.83 36.71 217.8 31.16
T2 Poultry manure (7 t/ha)
72.8 7.14 5.13 42.12 246.97 38.02
T3 Mustard
cake(2 t/ha)74.33 6.37 5.13 35.62 242.52 33.9
T4 Neem cake
(2 t/ha)79.3 8.67 5.4 44.09 256.21 40.35
Control 59.37 5.13 3.47 22.17 87.26 13.91
LSD(0.05) 7.474 0.644 0.767 1.02 1.701 1.017
Table 3 : Effect of organic manures on growth and rhizome yield attributes of turmericKamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh
Treatments Fresh rhizome yield (t/ha)
Curing (%) Cured rhizome yield (t/ha)
Curcumin content (%)
T1 Cowdung (15 t/ha) 21.17 19.21 4.36 3.31
T2 Poultry manure
(7 t/ha)27.30 19.01 5.18 3.5
T3 Mustard cake
(2 t/ha) 22.8 19.03 4.59 3.67
T4 Neem cake (2
t/ha)29.48
20.805.59 3.73
T5 (Control) 14.84 16.54 2.38 3.23
LSD(0.05) 0.473 0.309 0.206 0.061
Table 4 : Effect of organic manures on rhizome yield and quality attributes of turmeric
Kamal and Yousuf, 2012, Bangladesh
Effect of organic manure and biofertilizers on growth and yield of turmeric Madhuri et al., 2006,Nagpur
Treatment details:
T1 = FYM 10 t/ha
T2 = FYM 10 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T3 = FYM 10 t/ha + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T4 = FYM 10 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T5 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha
T6 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T7 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T8 = Vermicompost 5 t/ha + Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T9 = Azotobacter @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T10 = PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T11 = Azoto @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds + PSB @ 250 g/ 10 kg of seeds
T12 =RDF(120:60:60 kg/ha)
T13 = Control
Treatments
Height of Plant
(cm)
No. of leaves /plant
Leaf area (cm2)
Girth of pseudoste
m (cm)
No. of tillers/pla
nt
Days required
for maturity
Fresh yield (q/ha)
B : C ratio
T1 99.7 10.33 1156.22 10.88 2.41 183.48 249.59 1.95:1
T2 103.02 10.75 1190.15 11.07 2.48 182.09 253.52 2.08:1
T3 100.64 10.52 1175.92 11.01 2.44 182.8 252.42 2.01:1
T4 106.59 10.87 1215.27 11.17 2.49 181.48 259.95 2.17:1
T5 91.8 9.81 1027.27 10.46 2.25 186.56 202.33 1.70:1
T6 95.36 9.83 1092.62 1.68 2.33 185.21 224.62 1.74:1
T7 94 9.57 1065.47 10.62 2.28 186.45 207.52 1.71:1
T8 97.39 9.96 1106.12 10.79 2.39 182.65 239.95 1.75:1
T9 88.61 9.05 975.63 11.06 2.29 187.19 189.99 1.61:1
T10 85.85 8.86 929.17 10.16 2.16 187.96 179.59 1.51:1
T11 90.28 9.29 1024.75 10.62 2.39 186.93 194.3 1.84:1
T12 108.96 10.97 1235.18 11.22 2.59 184.52 261.52 2.11:1
T13 83.55 8.64 877.56 10.07 2.08 188.35 174.47 1.40:1CD at
5% 5.16 0.26 39.23 0.24 0.21 2.12 10.54
Table 5: Effect of organic manure and biofertilizers on growth and yield of turmeric
Madhuri et al., 2006,Nagpur
Effect of Azospirillum, nutrient and FYM on growth and yield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Rajendra Sonia.
Singh, 2011, Muzaffarpur
Treatment details:
T1 = Inorganic N (100%) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha) + FYM (5 t/ ha)
T2 = Inorganic N (75%) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha) + FYM (5 t/ ha)
T3 = Inorganic N (50%) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha) + FYM (5 t/ ha)
T4 = FYM (5 t/ ha) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha)
T5 = FYM (5 t/ ha)
T6 = FYM (10 t/ ha) + Azospirillum (10kg/ ha)
T7 = FYM (10 t/ ha)
T8 =RDF 180: 90: 90 Kg NPK/ ha
Treatment
Plant ht
cm
No.of tillers/plt
No.of leaves/ tiller
Yield per plot (kg)
Yield
t/ha
Cost : Benefit
T1 119.38 6.11 12.76 16.98 56.61 1:4.86
T2 117.21 5.33 12.46 15.59 51.97 1:5.27 T3 115.08 4.70 12.18 15.11 50.38 1:4.73 T4 109.51 3.91 11.87 13.42 44.74 1:4.24 T5 103.51 3.70 11.53 13.73 45.72 1:4.40 T6 112.00 4.83 12.16 15.03 50.11 1:4.66 T7 108.78 4.25 11.86 14.79 49.31 1:4.65 T8 103.93 3.90 11.66 12.60 42.00 1:4.11
C.D. @5% 4.95 0.59 1.80 1.29 4.32
Table 6: Effect of organic, inorganic and biofertilizer on growth and yield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cv. Rajendra Sonia.
Singh, 2011, Muzaffarpur
200 days after planting 261 days after planting
TreatmentsPlant height (cm)
No. of leaves /plant
No .of tillers /plant
Leaf area cm2/plant
Yield (g/plant)
Maturity period
days
Shoot biomass (g/plant)
Yield(g/plant)
Control166 ±
7c20.8 ±
1.7a3.2 ± 0.4a
7447 ± 355c
52.0 ± 3.2c
240 68.2 ± 6.1c98.6 ± 10.1d
Chicken manure
175 ± 7b
20.8 ± 2.7a
3.2 ± 0.4a
9870 ± 1141b
71.6 ± 7.4b
25089.6 ± 11.2b
133.0 ± 15.1c
Goat manure
216 ± 8a
23.8 ± 3.5a
4.0 ± 0.9a
13971 ± 1223a
90.6 ± 9.4a
261110.8 ±
5.9a156.0 ±
9.6b
Cow manure
204 ± 13ab
21.6 ± 2.2a
3.6 ± 0.5a
13031 ± 556a
93.3 ± 7.1a
261112.6 ±
9.1a175.4 ±
7.8a
Table 7 : Effect of different kinds of farmyard manure on growth parameters, maturity and yield of turmeric
Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan
Table 8 : Chemical composition of chicken manure, goat manure and cow manure Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan
Manure type
Na mg/kg
manure
Kmg/kg
manure
Camg/kg
manure
Mgmg/kg
manure
Almg/kg
manure
Femg/kg
manure
Pmg/kg
manure
Smg/kg
manure
Chicken manure
2.38 21.13 1.12 1.41 0.00 0.05 2.86 3.57
Goat manure
0.51 25.01 0.41 0.60 0.01 0.01 1.35 1.12
Cow manure
1.54 7.31 0.42 0.25 0.00 0.02 1.04 1.34
Table 9 : Chemical composition of dark-red soil, red, gray soil
Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan
Soil typeK
mg/kg soil
Camg/kg
soil
Namg/kg
soilP
mg/kg soil
Femg/kg
soil
Dark-red soil 6.39 25.0 30.5 0.52 0.25
Red soil 10.32 15.80 55.90 0.76 0.26
Gray soil 42.89 204.20 102.40 4.60 0.16
Table 10 : Effect of farmyard manure on growth parameters and yield of turmeric cultivated in different soils Hossain and Yukio, 2007, Japan
Treatments Plant height (cm)
No.of leaves/plant
No.of tiller/plant
Shoot dry wt g/plant
Yield (dry) g/plant
Dark-red soil 141± 6bc 18.7 ± 2.6cd 2.5 ± 0.5b 41.2 ± 4.7b 39 ± 6d
Dark-red soil + manure
201 ± 5a 24.7 ± 3.1a 4.3 ± 0.4a 104.7 ± 5.5a 219 ± 16b
Red soil 130 ± 6c 16.2 ± 2.3d 2.3 ± 0.4b 27.8 ± 2.4c 26 ± 4d
Red soil + manure 150 ± 13b 23.2 ± 1.9ab 4.0 ± 0.6a 44.3 ± 3.6b 110 ± 14c
Gray soil 146 ± 10b 20.2 ± 2.7bc 2.7 ± 0.7b 40.7 ± 3.9b 39 ± 4d
Gray soil + manure 204 ± 12a 26.8 ± 4.1a 4.3 ± 0.7a 103.7 ± 6.8a 255 ± 18a
Manure – Cow manure
Biological control of rhizome rot disease of turmeric Surajit and Apurba, 2008, Nadia West Bengal
Treatment details:
T1 = (Recommended NPK) Control
T2 = (NPK + FYM)
T3 = (NPK+ Trichoderma viride + Pseudomonas fluorescence seed treatment )
T4 = (NPK+ Trichoderma viride + Pseudomonas fluorescence as as soil application @ 12.5 kg/ha and 25 kg/ha as basal and top dressing respectively)
T5 = (T2 + T3 )
T6 = (T2 + T4 )
T7 = (T2 + T3 + T4 )
T8 = ( T2 + Bacillus subtilis 1 ml/L of water)
Treatments Germination %
Disease incidence (%)%
reduction in rot over
control
Rhizome yield(kg/3m2 plot)
Projected yield
(ton/ha)First
observationSecond
observation
T1(Control) 91.11 17.50 19.78 -- 7.75 25.83
T2 88.88 15.72 16.67 15.72 8.33 27.77
T3 95.56 5.57 10.55 46.66 8.83 29.43
T4 93.33 7.23 8.69 56.07 8.75 29.17
T5 93.33 5.62 7.19 63.65 8.8 29.33
T6 95.56 7.23 7.23 63.45 9.00 30.00
T7 95.56 5.62 7.23 63.45 9.25 30.83
T8 91.11 15.58 17.5 11.53 8.2 27.33
CD @ 5% -- 4.72 4.48 -- 1.24 --
Table 11 : Biological control of rhizome rot disease of turmeric Surajit and Apurba, 2008, West Bengal
Nematode population (per g of root)
TreatmentsNo . of tillers
Height of plant (cm) Eggs Juveniles Females Total
Paccilomyces lilacinus 2.24 a 129.13 c 5.54 b 0 .00 b 0.46 b 6.00 b
Fusarium oxysporum 2.14 a 134.43 a 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b
Scopulariopsis sp 2.06 a 133.04 b 8.20 ab 1.45 b 1.60 ab 11.25 ab
Aspergillus sp 2.06 a 134.49 a 10.02 ab 6.07 ab 0.00 b 16.09 ab
Pochonia chlamydosporia 2.53 a 134.64 a 3.23 b 8.09 ab 0.00 b 11.32 ab
Control 2.38 a 118.35 d 158.59 a 61.66 a 6.93 a 227.18 a
Table 12: Evaluation of fungal biocontrol agents for suppression of root knot nematodes infesting turmeric
Santosh et al., 2008, Calicut
Effect of various biopesticides and biocides on leaf pest, Udaspes folus of turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu
Treatment details:
T1 = Metarhizium anisopliae
T2 = Beauveria bassiana
T3 = Trichoderma viride
T4 = Hirsutella citriformis
T5 = Nomuraea rileyi
T6 = Neem extract
T7 = Imidachloprid
T8 = Control
Table 13 : Effect of various biopesticides and biocides on mortality leaf pest, Udaspes folus of turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu
TreatmentII instar larva III instar larva
Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
T1( M a) 0.67±0.58c 3.33±0.58C 4.67±0.58c 1.67±0.58b 2±1d 4.7±0.58c
T2 (B b) 0.67±0.58d 2.33±0.58d 4.33±0.58c 1±1d 3.33±0.58f 4.33±1.15d
T3(T v) 0.33±0.58f 1.33±0.58f 2.67±0.58d 0.67±0.58de 2.33±0.58c 2.67±0.58e
T4(H c) 1.67±0.58b 4±0b 6.33±0.58b 1.33±0.58c 3.33±0.58b 7.67±0.58b
T5(N r) 0.33±0.58e 1.67±0.58e 2.67±0.58d 0.33±0.58b 2±0d 2.33±0.58e
T6 (Neem) 1±0e 1.67±0.58e 2.67±0.58d 1.33±0.58c 2±0d 4.33±0.58d
T7(Imida) 2.67±0.58a 6±1a 8.67±0.58a 3±0a 6.67±0.58a 9.67±0.58a
T8 Control 0±0f 1±1f 2.33±0.58e 0.33±0.58f 0±0e 1±1f
CD @ 5% 0.8 1.12 1.02 0.97 1 0.89
Table 14 : Effect of various fungal applications on various growth and yield characters in turmeric Arutselvi et al., 2011, Tamil Nadu
TreatmentPlant height
(cm)No. of leaves
affectedDisease
incidence(%)Fresh rhizome
Yield (g)
T1( M a) 131±1 3.67±0.58 37 420.71±1.43
T2 (B b) 127.33±0.76 3.67±0.58 37.5 340.84±4.37
T3(T v) 141.67±1.5 3.00±1 33.3 426.29±6.23
T4(H c) 137.33±2.1 2.67±0.58 22.2 428.86±3.25
T5(N r) 130.31±13 3.33±0.58 36.3 408.05±3.77
T6 (Neem) 124.67±2.1 3.67±1.58 50 375.99±12.04
T7(Imida) 135.33±1.1 2.33±0.58 38.4 370.75±11.62
T8 Control 128±20 6.33±0.58 41.60 339.47±9.82
CD @ 5% 4.03 1.29 -- 18.9
Table 15 : Formulation of natural insecticide against mortality rate of Panchaetothrips indicus in Curcuma longa L. of PTS and Erode varieties in lab conditions Arutselvi et al ., 2012, Tamil Nadu
VARIETY PTS ERODEconc 10% 15% 20% 10% 15% 20%
Azadiracta indica 21.67±1.5e 23±10e 26.33±0.6d 22.67±1.2d 20.67±1.2d 23±1d
Neem Kernel -Vitex negundo 25.33%±1.5f 25.67±1.2f 27.67±1.5e 23±1d 23.67±1.5e 25.33±0e
Chrysanthemumcinearifolium 21.67±1.5e 21.67±2.1d 25.67±1.5d 22.67±1.5d 22.67±1.5e 24.67±0.6de
Gloriosa superba 19.33±0.6d 21±1d 23±1c 18±1c 19.33±0.6d 22.33±0.6d
Aloe vera 10.33±1.5b 13.33±1.5b 19±1b 16.33±1.2c 15.67±2.1c 19.33±0.6e
Ocimum. tenuiflorum 12.67±2c 17.33±1.5c 19±1b 1.3±0.6a 12±0b 14.67±1.5b
Imidachloprid 29.33±0.6g 29±1g 29.33±1.2f 27±1e 26.67±1.5f 26.33±0.6f
Control 0.33±0.6a 3±1a 1.67±1.2a 2±1b 1.67±0.6a 1±0a
Ginger
Ginger
B.N : Zingiber officinale R.
Family: Zingiberaceae
Order: Scitaminae
Active principle: Zingerone / Gingerol
Origin: South East Asia
• Commerce - dried rhizome.• Marketed as raw ginger, dry ginger, bleached ginger, ginger oil,
oleoresin, beer, wine, squash etc. • Dry ginger has good demand abroad especially in the Middle
East markets.• India is the largest exporter of dry ginger.• Ginger is cultivated in almost all states in India.
• Major growing states are
Kerala, Orissa, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka.
Table 16: Area, production and productivity of ginger. Anon., 2011
Year Area (ha) Production (tons)Productivity
(tons/ ha)
2003 - 04 1,07,780 5,45,280 4.3
2004 - 05 1,14,730 6,47,160 4.6
2005 - 06 1,25,847 8,10,934 4.9
2006 - 07 1,29,014 7,21,539 5.3
2007 - 08 1,20,056 7,10,476 5.2
2008 - 09 1,38,479 7,95,028 5.8
2010 - 2011 1,49,576 8,25,635 5.9
Traditional practices in ginger cultivation Prakash et al., 2004
Selection of seed rhizome Sunning and tiringPre-sowing treatment Land preparation PlantingMixed crops Harvesting Drying
Treatment details:
T1 = FYM (10 t/ ha)
T2 = FYM (20 t/ ha)
T3 = Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)
T4 = Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (20 t/ ha)
T5 = N 30% + Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)
T6 = N 75% + Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)
T7 = N 100% + Azospirillum (10 kg/ ha) + FYM (10 t/ ha)
T8 = RDF ( NPK - 100:50:50 kg/ha )
Effect of Azospirillum and nutrient on yield, disease incidence and quality of ginger cv. Suprabha. Dash et al., 2008, Orissa
Table 17: Effect of Azospirillum and nutrient on yield, disease incidence and quality of ginger cv. Suprabha. Dash et al., 2008, Orissa
TreatmentFresh
rhizome yield (t/ ha)
Rhizome rot (%)
Essential oil (%)
Oleoresin (%) Benefit: Cost
T1 9.54 21 1.0 4.6 1.27
T2 10.47 17 1.2 4.8 1.37
T3 10.23 16 1.0 5.0 1.36
T4 11.04 14 1.2 5.2 1.44
T5 13.65 12 1.2 5.3 1.80
T6 15.12 13 1.0 5.4 1.97
T7 18.70 11 1.3 5.8 3.46
T8 17.30 18 1.3 5.2 3.44
C.D. @ 5% 1.35 1.05 0.09 NS
The effect of AM fungal isolates on the development and oleoresin production of micropropagated Zingiber officinale Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil
Treatment details: Ctl = Control Mix= Mix of all four isolates P= Phosphorous Sh= Scutellospora heterogamaGd= Gigaspora decipiensAk= Acaulospora koskeiEc= Entrophospora colombiana
Table 18 : The effect of AM fungal isolates on vegetative development of micropropagated Zingiber officinale (120 and 210 DAP) Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil
TreatmentsShoot height
(cm)Shoot dry
biomass (g)Shoot height
(cm)Shoot dry
biomass (g)
Control 3.38 ± 1.50 b 0.056 ± 0.02 bc 3.54 ± 1.36 c 0.061 ± 0.046 a
Phosphorus 8.18 ± 1.28 a 0.100 ± 0.019 a 7.90 ± 2.32 ab 0.085 ± 0.021 a
Mix 8.98 ± 13.6 a 0.092 ± 0.17 ab 9.22 ± 1.51 a 0.093 ± 0.038 a
Scutellospora heterogama 4.44 ± 1.60 b 0.054 ± 0.012 c 4.16 ± 1.17 c 0.048 ± 0.031 a
Gigaspora decipiens 6.10 ± 1.85 ab 0.080 ± 0.029 abc 5.46 ± 1.58 bc 0.061 ± 0.002 a
Acaulospora koskei 6.40 ± 2.48 ab 0.082 ± 0.020 abc 10.14 ± 2.35 a 0.092 ± 0.036 a
Entrophospora colombiana 6.46 ± 0.68 ab 0.070 ± 0.000 abc 5.56 ± 0.74 bc 0.071 ± 0.003 a
VAM – 10 ml / 400 ml plastic pot
Table 19: Spore numbers and percentage of mycorrhizal root colonization in micro propagated ginger inoculated with different AM Fungi. Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil
Treatments Mycorrhizal colonization (%) Spore numbers (in 30 g soil)
120 d 210 d 120 d 210 d
Mix 43.45 ± 21.30 a 23.40 ± 8.46 b 154 ± 37.42 a 260 ± 129.34 a
Scutellospora heterogama 14.76 ± 9.04 a 5.75 ± 1.30 b 105 ± 121.24 a 60 ± 49.58 a
Gigaspora decipiens 17.80 ± 10.00 b 58.95 ± 6.13 a 49 ± 32.22 a 53 ± 41.42 a
Acaulospora koskei 29.82 ± 12.47 a 28.42 ± 16.04 a 123 ± 90.76 a 298 ± 166.45 a
Entrophospora colombiana 26.50 ± 13.75 a 5.39 ± 3.85 a 25 ± 37.14 a 97 ± 136.02 a
Table 20: Rhizome fresh biomass and levels of oleoresin after 210 days of micro propagated ginger plants inoculated with different AM Fungi Maicon et al., 2008, Brazil
Treatments Fresh biomass (g)Yield of oleoresin
(%)
Control 0.1454 ± 0.2333 0.99
P (25 mg/ kg ) 0.3471 ± 0.1836 1.60
Mix 0.2730 ± 0.1994 1.02
Scutellospora heterogama 0.1000 ± 0.2040 1.48
Gigaspora decipiens 0.2166 ± 0.2113 1.02
Acaulospora koskei 0.3331 ± 0.2445 1.58
Entrophospora colombiana 0.1466 ± 0.1488 0.72
Fig 4: Effects of AM fungi and phosphorous fertilization on post vitro growth of micro propagated ginger
Rosilda et al., 2010, Brazil
C M P MP C M P MP
C = Control, M = Mycorrihizal, P = Phosphorous, MP = Mycorrihizal +Phosphorous
Table 21 : Shoot, root and rhizome biomass of micro propagated ginger after five months under distinct mycorrhizal and phosphorous treatments Rosilda et al., 2010, Brazil
Treatment Shoot wt (g/plt) Root wt (g/plt) Rhizome wt (g/plt)
Control 0.17 ± 0.07 b 0.03 ± 0.01 b 0.06 ± 0.08 b
Mycorrhiza 1.00 ± 0.13 a 0.20 ± 0.08 a 0.19 ± 0.07 a
P (25 mg/kg) 0.84 ± 0.17 a 0.22 ± 0.05 a 0.20 ± 0.07 a
MP 0.95 ± 0.13 a 0.20 ± 0.09 a 0.20 ± 0.02 a
Spore density – 416 spores/50 g soil)
chemical propertiers of Vermicompost and biogas slurry on oven dry basis Table 22 : Productivity of ginger influenced by Vermicompost and biogas
slurry as amendment in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
Chemical propertiers
Vermicompost Biogas slurry
(EC = dS m -1) 1.8 6.7
pH 6.91 8.36
N (%) 1.8 1.6
P (%) 0.58 1.65
K (%) 0.71 0.60
Na (%) 0.09 0.23
Treatment details
T1 = Control
T2 = Vermicompost (VC-500 g/20 kg of soil)
T3 = Biogas slurry ( BS – 500 ml/20 kg of soil)
T4 = T2 + T3
Treatments induced after 3 and 7 months of sowing
Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
Fig 5: Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
Fig 6: Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
Fig 7: Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
Fig 8: Productivity of ginger by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils Rafiq et al., 2009, Pakistan
1 - Incorporation in soil 2 - rhizome coating
Treatment
Yield
(kg - 3 X 1 m bed)Nematodes/g root
1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean
Control 3.83 b 2.46 c 3.98 c 13.49 b 35.31 b 24.40 b
P. chlamydosporia 5.90 a 5.29 a 5.83 a 2.88 a 1.01 a 1.95 a
T. harzianum 5.69 a 5.27 a 5.15 a 7.68 ab 6.26 ab 6.97 ab
F. oxysporoum 4.46 b 5.04 a 4.75 ab 37.55 ab 9.79 ab 23.67 b
Mean 4.97 4.77 15.4 13.09
Table 23 : Evaluation of fungal bioagents for suppression of root knot nematodes infesting in ginger Santosh et al., 2008, Calicut
Means are of four replications
Treatment details
T1 = Control
T2 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c for 10min
T3 = Seed treatment with Mancozeb (3gm L-1 for 30min)
T4 = Seed treatment with T. harzianum 20g L-1 water for 30min
T5 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c for 10min + T3
T6 = Seed treatment with hot water 510c+100gm T. harzianum in 1Kg neem cake at
sowing time
T7 = Application of neem cake 1Kg in soil at the time of sowing
T8 = Neem cake 1Kg + 100gm T. harzianum in 3Kg FYM mixed for 7 days before
sowing and watering regularly
Bio-intensive management of rhizome rot of ginger under field conditions Singh and Tomar, 2009, Chhattisgarh
Table 24: Bio-intensive management of rhizome rot of ginger under field conditions Singh and Tomar, 2009, Chhattisgarh
TreatmentsDisease incidence (%)
Pooled Disease incidence (%) Yield t ha-1 Pooled
Yield t /ha
2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07
T1 19.5 17.5 18.5 6.8 10.19 8.5
T2 20 18 19 6.3 10.9 8.6
T3 20.5 18 19.25 5.8 9 8.4
T4 22 20.5 21.25 5.5 11.05 8.3
T5 16.5 14.5 15.5 7.5 11.85 9.8
T6 8 5.5 6.75 8.2 15.87 12.03
T7 14 14 14 7.1 12.46 9.7
T8 6.5 4.5 5.5 9.8 17.08 13.4
CD(0.05%) 1.73 1.69 1.54 1.72 1.37 1.46
Treatment details:
T1 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L
T2 = Soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha
T3 = Mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2
T4 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha
T5 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2
T6 = Soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2
T7 = Rhizome treatment with T. harzianum @ 6 g/L + soil amendment with Pongamia glabra oil cake @ 20 q/ha + mulching with Eucalyptus citriodora leaves @ 2.5 kg/m2
T8 = Control
Evaluation of biological management module packages against rhizome rot of ginger Savita and Prasad, 2009, Jharkhand
Table 25 : Evaluation of biological management module packages against rhizome rot of ginger Savita and Prasad, 2009, Jharkhand
Treatments Germination(%) Incidence (%) Disease control(%) Yield (q/ha)
T1 75 33.75 18.83 76.68
T2 71.25 38.33 7.82 74.4
T3 67.08 37.92 8.8 71.1
T4 75.83 29.58 28.86 87.41
T5 73.33 31.25 24.83 79.08
T6 71.25 37.08 10.82 76.24
T7 80 23.33 43.89 97.26
Control 62.92 41.58 - 69.2
SEm ± 2.53 1.86 3.17
CD (5%) NS 5.38 9.18
CV% 7.52 9.02 6.95
• Organic inputs are capable of replacing chemicals
from agriculture
• Organic farming safeguards soil and human health
• Helps in production of quality food
• It helps in maintaining the yields on long run
• Eco friendly, sustainable and residue free
THANK YOU
top related