INRODUCTION Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) an important spice cum medicinal plant belonging to the family Zingiberaceae is considered to be well acclimatized for growth under low light intensities. A certain degree of shade has a crucial role in affecting the plant growth, yield and quality. Turmeric requires heavy input of fertilizers being a nutrient exhaustive crop (Subramanian et al, 2001). In order to present wastage of nutrients, which not only hike cost of production but also pollute environment, it is necessary to adopt a strategy for judicious combination of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers to promote, nurture and facilitate sustainable farming for healthier and economical production. In India, though sufficient research on nutritional aspects of turmeric is available (Venkatesha et al, 1998), studies on the standardization of fertilizer requirement under shaded condition are scanty. With this background, the present investigation was taken up to study the influence of partial shade and integrated nutrient management on the biochemical attributes and yield parameters of turmeric. Effect of shade and integrated nutrient management on biochemical constituents of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) S. Padmapriya, N. Chezhiyan and V. A. Sathiyamurthy1 Department of Spices and Plantation Crops Horticultural College and Research Institute Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore-641 003, India E-mail: spadmapriyaa@yahoo.co.in ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of partial shade, inorganic, organic and biofertilizers on biochemical constituents and quality of turmeric. The study was laid out in split plot design, consisting of two main plots viz., open and shade. The sub-plot treatments consisted of different doses of inorganic fertilizers, organic manures, biofertilizers and growth stimulants constituting of 40 different treatment combinations. The treatment combinations, viz., shade with application of 100 % recommended dose of NPK + 50 % FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya showed increased total chlorophyll content, total phenol content and registered the highest yield per plot. On the contrary, provision of shade decreased the curing percentage as compared to open condition. Among the quality characters, the highest curcumin (5.57 %) and essential oil (5.68 %) content were registered in the treatment, shade with application of 50 % FYM + coir compost + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya. Key words: Turmeric, shade, chlorophyll, phenol, curcumin, oleoresin, biofertilizers, panchakavya 1Present address: Department of Vegetable Crops, Horticultural College and Research Institute, TNAU, Coimbatore - 641 003 MATERIAL AND METHODS The experiment was conducted at the college orchard, TNAU, Coimbatore during the period 2002-04. The experiment was laid out in split plot design with 40 treatment combinations replicated twice. The genotype CL 147 owing to its superiority for yield and quality under shaded condition was used for the present study. The following are the treatment details, Main plot M 1 – Open M 2 – Shade (Sesban (Sesbania sesban) + Castor (Ricinus communis)) Sub-plot S 1 - 100% NPK + 100% FYM (30 t ha-1) (recommended dose – 125: 60: 90 kg NPK ha-1) S 2 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) S 3 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 t ha-1) J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 123 124 S 4 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 t ha-1) S 5 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya S 6 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 7 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 8 - 100% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya S 9 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) S 10 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) S 11 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 12 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya S 13 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 14 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1)+ Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) +phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 15 - 50% NPK + 50% FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1)+ 3 % panchagavya S 16 - 50% FYM + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) S 17 - 50% FYM + coir compost (10 t ha-1)+ 3 % panchagavya S 18 - 50% FYM + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) +phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya S 19 - 50% FYM + Azospirillum (10 kg ha -1) + phosphobacteria (10kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya S 20 - Absolute control (without any organic manures & fertilizers) The experimental plot size was 3 m2 (2 x 1.5 m) and ridges and furrows were formed at a spacing of 45 x 20 cm. Recommended dose of FYM and digested coir compost (DCC) were applied basally on the ridges and furrows of the respective treatments. Chemical fertilizers were applied in five splits (basal, 30, 60, 90 and 120 days after planting). The seeds of the shade crops viz., sesban and castor were sown on the bunds in alternate rows. After 60 days of sowing, the first pruning was done by removing excess shoots and branches to get optimum shade for the growth and development of turmeric. Subsequent pruning was done regularly at an interval of 30days. A shade level of around 25 – 30 per cent was maintained throughout the crop period with the aid of Lux meter. The recommended package of practices was followed uniformly irrespective of the treatments imposed. Total chlorophyll was estimated by adopting the method of Yoshida et al (1971) and expressed as mg g-1 of fresh weight. The total phenol content was estimated according to Mallick and Singh (1980) and expressed as mg per g of tissue using to catechol as standard. Soluble protein content was estimated with TCA extract of leaf sample following the method of Lowry et al (1957) and expressed in mg g-1 fresh weight. The curing percentage of the rhizome was recorded by using the following formula and expressed in percentage. Weight of the cured rhizome Curing percentage = x 100 Fresh weight of the rhizome Curcumin content was estimated as per the methods of ASTA (Manjunath et al, 1991). The essential oil content was estimated as per the methods described in ASTA (Anon, 1968). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It was observed that all the biochemical parameters expressed an increased trend upto 180 days after planting and decreased thereafter. i. Total chlorophyll content The total chlorophyll content varied significantly due to shade and application of fertilizers. The treatment combination M 2 S 8 (partial shade + 100 % NPK + 50 % FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya) showed increased total chlorophyll content 1.589, 1.953 and 1.764 mg g-1 in 135, 180 and 225 days after planting respectively. Whereas, it decreased in the treatment M 1 S 20 (open + absolute control) with 1.110, 1.445 and 1.325 mg g-1 at all the three stages respectively (Table 1). The increase in chlorophyll content under shaded Padmapriya et al J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 125 condition is an adaptive mechanism commonly exhibited in plants to maintain the photosynthetic efficiency as observed by Attridge (1990). Moreover the inhibition of the chloroplast inhibiting chlorophyllase enzyme may also have lead to greater accumulation of chlorophyll in plants under shaded condition. Hence the increase in biomass production under shade could be substantiated by high level of chlorophyll content (Sreekala, 1999). In early stages of crop growth, increased absorption of nutrient would have caused the assimilation of chlorophyll pigment, which helps in synthesis of photosynthates used for rhizome development (Ramanujam and Jose, 1984). Hence, application of 100% NPK would have caused the accumulation of higher amount of chlorophyll pigment which helped in the synthesis of enhanced amounts of photosynthates which were further utilized for rhizome development. ii) Total phenol content Phenols are the physiologically active secondary compounds produced by all higher plants which on deposition in the cell wall regions would directly influence the resistance mechanisms (Bradley et. al, 1992). Provision of shade was found to have profound influence on the phenol content in all the stages. Increased score (70.76, 91.03 and 74.13 µg g-1 ) at 135, 180 and 225 days, respectively was observed in the treatment shade (M 2 ) compared to open condition . Among the sub plots, the treatment S 8 (100 % NPK + 50 % FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya) recorded greater value in 135 DAP (105.25 µg g-1), 180 DAP (123.69 µg g-1) and 225 DAP (112.07 µg g-1) (Table 2). Experiments in ginger revealed that incidence of disease were high under open condition compared to shaded / intercropped situation (Jayachandran et al, 1991). The probable reason for this may be that the plants grown under shaded condition contain more of essential oil possessing bactericidal and fungicidal properties thereby conferring resistance under shade (Raskin, 1992). iii) Soluble protein It increased linearly from third month after planting, reached a peak at sixth month and decreased thereafter. Greater protein content (40.42, 88.88 and 76.93 Table 1. Effect of shade and integrated nutrient management on chlorophyll content (mg g-1) at 135, 180 and 225 days after planting in turmeric Treatments Total chlorophyll (mg g-1) 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean S 1 1.357 1.462 1.410 1.682 1.816 1.749 1.563 1.622 1.593 S 2 1.385 1.489 1.437 1.722 1.850 1.786 1.594 1.648 1.621 S 3 1.328 1.445 1.386 1.673 1.795 1.734 1.551 1.598 1.575 S 4 1.314 1.427 1.371 1.659 1.764 1.712 1.536 1.578 1.557 S 5 1.374 1.475 1.425 1.700 1.823 1.762 1.578 1.632 1.605 S 6 1.460 1.521 1.491 1.761 1.893 1.827 1.614 1.678 1.646 S 7 1.485 1.552 1.519 1.795 1.922 1.859 1.631 1.710 1.671 S 8 1.514 1.589 1.552 1.825 1.953 1.889 1.663 1.764 1.714 S 9 1.290 1.412 1.351 1.642 1.752 1.697 1.522 1.564 1.543 S 10 1.187 1.332 1.260 1.552 1.645 1.599 1.411 1.512 1.462 S 11 1.350 1.278 1.314 1.485 1.575 1.530 1.362 1.496 1.429 S 12 1.258 1.384 1.321 1.617 1.715 1.666 1.491 1.536 1.514 S 13 1.421 1.510 1.466 1.745 1.875 1.810 1.608 1.660 1.634 S 14 1.474 1.538 1.506 1.782 1.911 1.847 1.622 1.692 1.657 S 15 1.508 1.575 1.542 1.811 1.941 1.876 1.648 1.742 1.695 S 16 1.238 1.380 1.309 1.608 1.689 1.649 1.477 1.525 1.501 S 17 1.159 1.310 1.235 1.523 1.621 1.572 1.375 1.508 1.442 S 18 1.274 1.399 1.337 1.622 1.726 1.674 1.509 1.555 1.532 S 19 1.224 1.354 1.289 1.582 1.680 1.631 1.453 1.518 1.486 S 20 1.110 1.265 1.188 1.445 1.542 1.494 1.325 1.468 1.397 Mean 1.336 1.435 1.385 1.662 1.774 1.718 1.527 1.600 1.563 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M S Ed 0.007 0.021 0.029 0.029 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.016 0.005 0.015 0.022 0.021 CD (P=0.01) 0.421 0.056 0.170 0.079 NS 0.031 0.130 0.043 0.345 0.041 0.142 0.058 CD (P=0.01) 0.084 0.042 0.075 0.059 0.061 0.023 0.048 0.032 0.069 0.031 0.058 0.043 NS : Non significant Effect of shade and INM on turmeric J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 126 mg g-1) was recorded in the treatment, open + 100 per cent NPK + 50 per cent FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha- 1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha- 1) + 3 % panchagavya (M 1 S 8 ) at 135, 180 and 225 days after planting respectively. While the treatment M 2 S 20 (shade + absolute control) exhibited the lowest values (Table 3). Generally soluble protein content is a measure of Rubisco activity in plants and the lower content of soluble protein in shade can be reflected on the lower activity of Rubisco carboxylase (Broadman, 1977). Yield per plot Combined application of shade + 100 % NPK + 50 % FYM (15 t ha-1) + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya showed the highest per plot yield (19.20kg) which was nearly one and half times the absolute control (Table 4). Turmeric being a nutrition exhaustive crop, a linear increase in fresh rhizome yield was recorded with increased levels of NPK and organic manures. Response to fertilizer application was the highest under shade as compared to open condition. The increased response of nutrients under shade may be due to higher photosynthetic efficiency and better partitioning of assimilates. The increased yield due to increased dose of fertilizers was in agreement with previous works of Balashanmugam and Chezhiyan (1986) in turmeric. Increased values for rhizome characters in shade might be due to increased translocation of nutrients from the source and conversion as carbohydrates to the sink through glycolytic pathway (Bisht et al, 2000). Combined application of inorganic and organic amendments resulted in increased number and weight of mother rhizomes. Similar conclusions were derived by Maheswarappa et. al.(1997). Curing percentage The curing percentage exhibited significant differences under open and shaded condition. The treatment M 1 S 18 (open + 50% FYM + coir compost (10 t ha-1) + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + panchakavya (3%) (Soak + Spray)) recorded the highest curing percentage (26.76 %) and the treatment M 2 S 20 (shade Table 2. Effect of shade and integrated nutrient management on total phenols (µg g-1) at 135, 180 and 225 days after planting in turmeric Treatment Total phenols (µg g-1) 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean S 1 74.65 77.10 75.88 87.77 91.24 89.51 73.53 78.48 76.01 S 2 81.47 83.64 82.56 93.26 103.64 98.45 86.66 87.74 87.20 S 3 72.24 73.90 73.07 82.25 88.28 85.27 68.74 72.59 70.67 S 4 69.10 70.29 69.70 78.40 85.55 81.98 62.44 69.98 66.21 S 5 79.35 82.25 80.80 91.47 98.47 94.97 79.24 83.33 81.29 S 6 90.20 93.60 91.90 99.14 111.11 105.13 95.47 98.45 96.96 S 7 97.26 100.00 98.63 107.58 121.69 114.64 100.03 106.63 103.33 S 8 103.25 107.25 105.25 117.52 129.85 123.69 107.88 116.25 112.07 S 9 62.25 66.25 64.25 74.42 81.14 77.78 59.88 63.21 61.55 S 10 42.25 45.99 44.12 57.14 69.45 63.30 45.28 50.78 48.03 S 11 36.00 42.20 39.10 53.21 63.18 58.20 40.23 43.95 42.09 S 12 53.35 57.38 55.37 68.52 76.98 72.75 52.75 54.77 53.76 S 13 86.25 90.48 88.37 95.83 107.58 101.71 91.22 92.22 91.72 S 14 93.45 96.30 94.88 102.24 118.50 110.37 98.54 102.58 100.56 S 15 100.00 103.65 101.83 112.33 125.14 118.74 103.69 111.11 107.40 S 16 50.00 34.65 42.33 65.99 73.65 69.82 48.52 53.27 50.90 S 17 38.29 44.26 41.28 54.44 65.21 59.83 40.85 47.99 44.42 S 18 59.25 62.48 60.87 70.10 79.36 74.73 57.14 59.47 58.31 S 19 46.65 50.59 48.62 62.24 70.10 66.17 46.25 51.11 48.68 S 20 33.90 33.00 33.45 48.57 60.47 54.52 36.55 38.77 37.66 Mean 68.46 70.76 69.61 81.12 91.03 86.08 69.74 74.13 71.94 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M S Ed 0.378 1.838 2.561 2.599 0.416 1.842 2.573 2.606 0.522 1.602 2.269 2.265 CD (P=0.01) NS 4.984 NS 7.048 26.460 4.997 11.070 7.066 33.230 4.344 13.470 6.144 CD (P=0.05) 4.801 3.720 5.779 5.260 5.282 3.729 5.926 5.274 6.634 3.242 5.876 4.585 NS : Non significant Padmapriya et al J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 127 Table 3. Effect of shade and integrated nutrient management on soluble protein (mg g-1) at 135, 180 and 225 days after planting in turmeric Treatment Soluble protein (mg g-1) 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean S 1 30.37 28.43 29.40 79.64 75.28 77.46 69.29 61.72 65.51 S 2 36.19 34.14 35.17 81.27 77.69 79.48 71.64 63.75 67.70 S 3 36.26 34.41 35.34 78.56 74.39 76.48 68.49 59.39 63.94 S 4 35.07 32.35 33.71 77.92 73.47 75.70 67.23 59.10 63.17 S 5 37.51 34.72 36.12 80.74 76.49 78.62 70.84 62.86 66.85 S 6 39.14 36.56 37.85 84.24 78.84 81.54 73.26 65.74 69.50 S 7 39.34 37.10 38.22 86.95 80.74 83.85 75.13 66.95 71.04 S 8 40.42 37.38 38.90 88.88 82.39 85.64 76.93 68.95 72.94 S 9 30.90 28.56 29.73 76.69 73.12 74.91 66.47 58.78 62.63 S 10 28.62 25.58 27.10 72.47 67.48 69.98 62.83 55.12 58.98 S 11 27.15 24.24 25.70 68.95 64.26 66.61 60.5 52.74 56.62 S 12 29.61 26.42 28.02 75.74 71.64 73.69 64.28 57.12 60.70 S 13 35.54 32.40 33.97 82.86 78.13 80.50 72.84 64.82 68.83 S 14 39.86 37.12 38.49 85.23 79.36 82.30 74.37 66.10 70.24 S 15 40.38 37.27 38.83 87.36 81.49 84.43 75.84 67.49 71.67 S 16 30.01 27.13 28.57 74.89 70.42 72.66 64.01 56.37 60.19 S 17 27.21 25.24 26.23 70.49 65.38 67.94 61.65 54.91 58.28 S 18 30.21 27.22 28.72 76.14 72.84 74.49 65.99 57.96 61.98 S 19 28.14 25.45 26.80 74.10 69.49 71.80 63.75 55.96 59.86 S 20 25.26 23.60 24.43 66.04 61.40 63.72 59.10 50.26 54.68 Mean 33.36 30.77 32.06 78.46 73.72 76.09 68.22 60.30 64.26 135 DAP 180 DAP 225 DAP M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M S Ed 0.129 1.036 1.434 1.466 0.109 1.003 1.387 1.418 0.122 1.219 1.684 1.723 CD (P=0.01) 8.222 2.810 4.599 3.975 NS 2.720 4.281 3.846 7.796 3.305 5.110 4.673 CD (P=0.05) 1.641 2.097 3.027 2.966 1.382 2.030 2.898 2.870 1.556 2.466 3.504 3.488 NS : Non significant + absolute control) with the least score (15.42 %) (Fig 1). This indicated the influence of environment on curing percentage. On the contrary, fresh rhizome yield was more under partial shade. This may be due to higher amount of moisture present in the rhizomes resulting in plumpy rhizomes with lower curing percentage and thereby lower recovery of cured produce, while higher curing percentage in open may be due to production of slender rhizomes with low moisture content. Moreover the addition of organic manures along with biofertilizer combination would have resulted in increased nutrient uptake resulting in greater dry weight of rhizomes. Similar conclusion was obtained by Latha et al (1995) in turmeric. Quality parameters Curcumin and essential oil Highest curcumin (5.57 %) and essential oil (5.68 %) content were registered in the treatment M 2 S 18 (shade + 50 % FYM + coir compost + Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) + phosphobacteria (10 kg ha-1) + 3 % panchagavya). The lowest values were documented in the treatment M 1 S 20 (open + absolute control) (Table 4). The increased synthesis and content of curcumin under shade might be due to the increased activity of PAL (Phenyl Ammonia Lyase), the key enzyme involved in curcumin biosynthesis (Chempakam et al, 2000). The nitrogen concentration of rhizome expressed a significant positive correlation and K concentration showed negative correlation with curcumin content (Kumar et al, 1992). The present findings are in agreement with the earlier work of Upadhayay and Misra (1999) who opined that greater uptake of nutrients increased the essential oil content of turmeric rhizomes. Effect of shade and INM on turmeric Fig. 1. Effect of shade, inorganic, organic and bio fertilizers on curing percentage in turmeric genotype CL 147 J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 128 REFERENCES Anonymous. 1968. Official Analytical Methods. 2nd Edn., American Spice Trade Association, 38:9-10 Attridge, T. H. 1990. Light and Plant Responses. Edward Arnold, A division of Hodde and Stoughtton Ltd., pp:82-101 Balashanmugam, P. V. and Chezhiyan.N. 1986. Effect of differential application of nitrogen on growth and yield of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). Madras Agric. J., 73(6):439-442 Bradley, D. J., Kjellborn P and Lamb. C. J 1992. Elicitor and wound induced oxidative cross-linking of the plant cell wall proline rich protein; a novel, rapid defense response. Cell, 70:21-30 Bisht, J. K., Chandra S. Chauhan V. S and Singh. R. D 2000. Performance of ginger and turmeric with fodder tree based silvi-horti system in hills. India J. Agric. Science, 70:431-433 Broadman, N. K. 1977. Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Ann. Rev. Pl. Physiol., 28:355-377 Chempakam, B., Zachariah T. J and Babu. L 2000. Development of curcumin content in turmeric rhizomes at different stages of rhizome growth. In: Centennial Conference on Spices and Aromatic Plants Research and Development, IISR, Calicut held on 27 to 30th Sep., 2000.pp. 173-177 Jayachandran, B. K,.Meerabai M Salam M. A Mammen M. K and Mathew K. P 1991. Performance of ginger under shade and open conditions. Indian cocoa, Arecanut and Spices J., 15:40-41 Kumar, G. V. V., Reddy K. S, Rao M. S and Ramavatharam N. 1992. Soil and plant characters influencing curcumin content of turmeric. Ind. Cocoa, Arecanut and Spices J., 15:102-105 Latha, P., Giridharan M. P and Naik B. J. 1995. Performance of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cultivars in open and partially shaded conditions under coconut. J. Spices and Aromatic Crops, 4:139-144 Lowry, O. H., Rose Brought N. T, Farr L. A and Randall. R. J.. 1957. Protein measurement with folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem., 193:265-275 Maheswarappa, H. P., Nanjappa V and. Hegde. M. R 1997. Influence of sett size, plant population and organic manure on yield components, yield and qualitative characters of arrow root grown as intercrop in coconut garden. J. Root Crops, 23:131-137 Table 4. Effect of and integrated nutrient management on rhizome yield per plot (kg), curcumin (per cent) and oleoresin (%) content in turmeric Treatment Rhizome yield per plot (kg) Curcumin (%) Essential oil (%) M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean M 1 (Open) M 2 (Shade) Mean S 1 14.31 15.85 15.08 4.23 5.07 4.65 4.41 5.12 4.77 S 2 14.72 16.44 15.58 4.40 5.16 4.78 4.60 5.28 4.94 S 3 14.24 15.30 14.77 4.18 5.00 4.59 4.30 5.04 4.67 S 4 13.70 15.19 14.44 4.16 4.98 4.57 4.13 5.00 4.57 S 5 14.44 15.92 15.18 3.95 4.86 4.41 3.86 4.90 4.38 S 6 14.57 17.14 15.86 4.46 5.20 4.83 4.65 5.34 5.00 S 7 16.03 17.70 16.86 4.42 5.18 4.80 4.62 5.30 4.96 S 8 16.60 19.20 17.90 4.77 5.40 5.09 4.88 5.50 5.19 S 9 13.53 15.06 14.30 4.18 4.98 4.58 4.19 5.02 4.61 S 10 12.48 13.27 12.87 4.00 4.88 4.44 3.91 4.91 4.41 S 11 11.80 13.20 12.50 4.02 4.88 4.45 3.98 4.93 4.46 S 12 13.07 14.01 13.54 3.92 4.85 4.39 3.84 4.87 4.36 S 13 14.58 17.09 15.84 4.22 5.04 4.63 4.36 5.08 4.72 S 14 15.56 17.47 16.51 4.80 5.42 5.11 4.90 5.53 5.22 S 15 16.55 19.09 17.82 4.80 5.50 5.15 4.91 5.57 5.24 S 16 12.95 13.97 13.46 4.81 5.51 5.16 4.95 5.62 5.29 S 17 12.02 13.14 12.58 4.38 5.14 4.76 4.56 5.25 4.91 S 18 13.18 14.63 13.90 4.82 5.57 5.20 5.00 5.68 5.34 S 19 12.62 13.81 13.22 4.50 5.24 4.87 4.69 5.38 5.04 S 20 11.27 12.28 11.78 3.84 4.75 4.30 3.72 4.80 4.26 Mean 13.91 15.49 14.70 4.34 5.13 4.74 4.42 5.21 4.81 Rhizome yield per plot Curcumin Essential oil M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M M S M at S S at M S Ed 0.182 0.520 0.740 0.736 0.007 0.007 0.012 0.010 0.007 0.013 0.019 0.018 CD (P=0.01) 11.61 1.411 4.749 1.995 0.427 0.019 0.264 0.027 0.422 0.034 NS 0.049 CD (P=0.05) 2.319 1.053 1.978 1.489 0.085 0.014 0.065 0.020 0.084 0.026 0.063 0.036 NS : Non-significant Padmapriya et al J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007 129 Mallick, G. P. and Singh M. B 1980. In: Plant Enzymology and Histo Enzymology. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, p. 286 Manjunath, M. M., Sattigeri V. V and Nagaraj. K. V 1991. Curcumin in turmeric. Spice India, 4:7-9 Ramanujam, T. and Jose. J. S 1984. Influence of light intensity on chlorophyll and anatomical characters of cassava leaves. Turrialba, 34:267-274 Raskin, 1992. Salicylate: A new Plant Hormone. Plant Physiol., 99:799-803 Sreekala, G. S. 1999. Biomass production and partitioning of photosynthates in Ginger (Zingiber officinale) under different shade levels. M.Sc. (Hort.) thesis, KAU, Thrissur, India Subramanian, K. S., Sivasamy N and Thangaraj. T 2001. Integrated nutrient management for turmeric. Spice India, 14:25-26 Upadhyay, D. C and Misra. R. S 1999. Nutritional study of turmeric (Curcuma longa Linn.) cv. Roma under agroclimatic conditions of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Prog. Hort., 31:214-218 Venkatesha, J., Khan M. M and Farooqi A. A 1998. Effect of major nutrients (NPK) on growth, yield and quality of turmeric (Curcuma domestica val.) cultivars. In: Proc. Natl. Seminar on water and nutrient management for sustainable production and quality of spices, pp. 52-58 Yoshida, S., Forno D. A and Cock. J. H 1971. Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. IRRI, Philippines, pp. 36-37 (MS Received 8 June 2007, Revised 17 August 2007) Effect of shade and INM on turmeric J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 123-129, 2007