Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Performance of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) varieties on yield, quality, incidence of shoot borer and rhizome rot in Alfisol of Nagaland

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13113
Submitted
7 December 2025
Published
14-05-2026

Abstract

A field trial entitled performance of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) varieties on yield, quality, incidence of shoot borer and rhizome rot in Alfisol of Nagaland with nine genotypes. Among all genotypes, Bhaise emerged as the top performer across various growth parameters, including plant height (PH) (61.8 cm), number of tillers (NT) (7.6) and number of leaves (NL) (21), with the highest values recorded in John ginger. In terms of yield, Bhaise consistently produced the highest yields/clump (135.99 g), yield per plot (YPP) (2.04 kg), projected yield/ha (10.19 tha-1) and weight of mother rhizome (WMR) (19.67 g). Quality assessments revealed that Nadia recorded the highest oleoresin (OLR) content (9.06 %), PGS 102 the highest crude fiber (CF) content (7.29 %) and John ginger the highest essential oil content (OC) (2.39 %). Mahima was found to have the highest dry recovery (RCV) percentage (25.7 %). Mahima showed the least susceptibility to rhizome rot and shoot borer among these genotypes. Genotypic correlation analysis revealed strong positive associations among PH, NT and yield traits. Yield per clump (YPC) showed a high positive correlation with YPP and projected yield per hectare (PYH). Principal component analysis (PCA) extracted five components, which cumulatively explained 93.73 % of the total variability. The first two components, Principal Component 1 (PC1) and PC2, accounted for 61.6 % of the variance. PC1 (42.12 %) was associated with PH, NT and yield attributes forming a yield vigour axis, while PC2 (19.54 %) represented quality traits such as oil content (OC). The PCA biplot grouped Bhaise, Gorubathani and Nadia on the positive side of PC1, whereas Mahima, John Ginger and Karbi Ginger clustered along PC2. These findings highlight the potential of high-yielding, high-quality lines for developing improved ginger cultivars under the Alfisol conditions of Nagaland.

References

  1. 1. Lenbi NC, Devi HS, Handique PJ. Isolation and characterisation of Fusarium resistance gene candidates in Zingiber spp. of North East India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(9):430–43. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.709.053
  2. 2. Spices Board. Major spice state wise area production 2023-24 [Internet]. Kochi: Spices Board India; 2024 [cited 2026 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.indianspices.com/sites/default/files/Major % 20spice % 20state % 20wise % 20area % 20production % 202023-24 % 20web.pdf.
  3. 3. Temmante K, Chaachouay N, Benkhnigue O, Azeroual A. Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe Zingiberaceae). In: Chaachouay N, Azeroual A, Zidane L, editors. Comprehensive Guide to Hallucinogenic Plants. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2025.
  4. 4. Tennyson J, Praveena R. Diseases of Ginger. In: Wang H, editor. Ginger Cultivation and Its Antimicrobial and Pharmacological Applications. London: IntechOpen; 2019.. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88839
  5. 5. Devasahayam S, Senthil Kumar CM, Jacob TK. Status of Shoot and Fruit Borer, Conogethes sahyadriensis, on Spice Crops. In: Chakravarthy A, editor. The Black spotted, Yellow Borer, Conogethes punctiferalis Guenée and Allied Species. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 205-217.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0390-6_16.
  6. 6. Rahman H, Karuppaiyan R, Kishore K, Denzongpa R. Traditional practices of ginger cultivation in Northeast India. Indian J Tradit Knowl. 2009;8(1):23–8.
  7. 7. Jackson WA. Physiological effects of soil acidity. Adv Agron. 1967;12:43–124.
  8. 8. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956; 25:259–60.
  9. 9. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1954. USDA Circular No. 939.
  10. 10. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 12th ed. Washington DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1975.
  11. 11. Jensen WB. The origin of Soxhlet extractor. J Chem Educ. 2007;84(12):1913. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1913
  12. 12. Hein GE. The Liebig–Pasteur controversy: vitality without vitalism. J Chem Educ. 1961;38(12):614. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed038p614
  13. 13. Sagar SD, Kulkarni SK, Hegde YR. Management of rhizome rot of ginger by botanicals. Int J Plant Sci. 2007;2(2):155–8.
  14. 14. Pattnaik PK, Kar D, Kuanar A, Mishra B. Screening of Ginger Germplasm for Resistance to Rhizome Rot. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 85, 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-013-0272-9 .
  15. 15. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  16. 16. Kassambara A. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses [Internet]. R package version 2.0.0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 26]. Available from:
  17. 17. Jyotsna N, Ghosh DC, Meitei WI. Study of growth, yield and quality of organically grown ginger varieties under rainfed condition of Manipur. J Crop Weed. 2012;8(1):17–21.
  18. 18. Soni JK, Dayal V, Sunani SK, Lalramhlimi B, Lungmuana, Shakuntala I. Performance of ginger genotypes on growth, yield and quality traits under Mizoram condition. Indian J Hill Farm. 2022;35(1):106-14.
  19. 19. Singh LJ, Pariari A, Singha U, Suddala VK, Challam DA, Pariari A. Evaluation of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) germplasms for growth and yield attributes in the new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Environ Ecol. 2024;42(1):124–9. https://doi.org/10.60151/envec/NKRC3769
  20. 20. Hossain S, Rahman MS, Kona KN, Bari MS, Akter N, Ali MM. Growth performance of two ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) varieties under different agroforestry systems in Bangladesh. Asian Plant Res J. 2020;3(3–4):1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/aprj/2019/v3i3-430074.
  21. 21. Ridwansyah, Hasanah Y, Yusrani E, Rahmawati N, Harahap MSM. Growth Performance of Three Ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) Varieties in Crate System. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramification Researches (ICOSTEERR); 2018 Nov 21-22; Medan, Indonesia. Setúbal: SciTePress. 2020. p. 132-5. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010102801320135.
  22. 22. Lepcha B, Avasthe R, Singh R, Singh NJ, Phukan P. Effect of organic nutrient sources on productivity, profitability and quality of ginger (Zingiber officinale) in acid soils of Eastern Himalayas. Indian J Agric Sci. 2019;89(7):1103–7. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i7.91651.
  23. 23. Chukwudi UP, Agbo CU, Echezona BC, Eze EI, Kutu FR, Mavengahama S. Variability in morphological, yield and nutritional attributes of ginger (Zingiber officinale) germplasm in Nigeria. Res Crops. 2020;21(3):634–42. https://doi.org/10.31830/2348-7542.2020.099
  24. 24. Supriya GS, Bhoomika HR, Ganapathi M, Nataraj SK, Ravi CS. Effect of different media and nutrients on growth and yield of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) in soilless culture under protected structure. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(6):2004–7.
  25. 25. Babu MS, Kumar BP, Swami DV, Krishna KU, Emmanuel N. Impact of shade net condition on growth, rhizome and yield characters of ginger. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):3481–5.
  26. 26. Mahender B, Reddy PS, Sivaram GT, Balakrishna M, Prathap B. Effect of seed rhizome size and plant spacing on growth, yield and quality of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) under coconut cropping system. Plant Arch. 2015;15(2):769–74.
  27. 27. Shadap A, Hegde NK, Pariari A. Performance of ginger var. Humnabad as influenced by planting dates under northern dry zone of Karnataka. Bioscan. 2013;8(1):131–3.
  28. 28. Goudar SA, Gangadharappa PM, Dodamani SM, Lokesh C, Dharamatti VU. Evaluation of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) genotypes for growth and yield attributes. Indian J Pure Appl Biosci. 2017;5(2):994–9. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.2888
  29. 29. Chongtham T, Chatterjee R, Hnamte V, Chattopadhyay PK, Khan SA. Ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) germplasm evaluation for yield and quality in southern West Bengal. J Spices Aromat Crops. 2013;22(1):88–90.
  30. 30. Ravi Y, Narayanpur VB, Hiremath JS, Saraswati SS, Eragegowda M. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(4):1224–30. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.604.150.
  31. 31. Rani B, Nath S, Mishra S, Mahto CS, Lal HC, Rajak R. Evaluation of genetic parameters and varietal performance of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) under Ranchi condition. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;SP5:339–40.
  32. 32. Sanwal SK, Singh SK, Yadav RK, Singh PK, Misra AK. Yield and quality assessment of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) genotypes. Indian J Plant Genet Resour. 2012;25(3):281–6.
  33. 33. Hegde NK, Kurbar AR, Hanamashetti SI, Kulkarni MS. Quality of ginger genotypes grown under open and coconut shade. Biomed Res J. 2006;1(2):120–4.
  34. 34. Kale UB, Hegde NK, Hanamashetti SI, Patil PL. Quality of ginger genotypes in the Ghataprabha Left Bank Command area of Northern Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2003;16(4):633–5.
  35. 35. Acharya B, Khadka RB. Screening of ginger germplasms against rhizome rot disease complex in mid hill condition of Nepal. J Plant Prot Soc. 2018;5:96–105. https://doi.org/10.3126/jpps.v5i0.47119
  36. 36. Setty TA, Guruprasad TR, Mohan E, Reddy MN. Susceptibility of ginger cultivars to rhizome rot at West Coast conditions of Karnataka. Environ Ecol. 1995;13:242–4.
  37. 37. Sasikumar B, Saji KV, Antony A, George JK, Zachariah JT, Eapen SJ. IISR Mahima and IISR Rejatha-two high yielding and high quality ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) varieties. J Spices Aromat Crops. 2003;12(1):34–7.
  38. 38. Bhai RS, Sasikumar B, Kumar A. Evaluation of ginger germplasm for resistance to soft rot caused by Pythium myriotylum. Indian Phytopathol. 2013;66(1):93–5.
  39. 39. Devasahayam S, Jacob TK, Koya KM, Sasikumar B. Screening of ginger (Zingiber officinale) germplasm for resistance to shoot borer (Conogethes punctiferalis). J Med Aromat Plant Sci. 2010;32:137–8.
  40. 40. Ravi Y, Narayanpur VB, Jayappa J, Prashant A, Santosha GR, Mahantesh PS, et al. Screening of ginger genotypes for shoot borer (Conogethes punctiferalis Guen.) resistance under Soppinabetta ecosystem of Karnataka, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(5):1402–5. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.705.166
  41. 41. Rajyalakshmi R, Umajyothi K. Evaluation of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) varieties in high altitude and tribal zone of Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. J Spices Aromat Crops. 2014;23(2):258–61.
  42. 42. Aragaw M, Alamerew S, H/Michael G, Tesfaye A. Variability of Ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) Accessions for Morphological and Some Quality Traits in Ethiopia. Int J Agric Res. 2011;6:444-57. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2011.444.457
  43. 43. Anargha T, Sreekala GS, Nair DS, Abraham M. Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis in ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) genotypes. J Trop Agric. 2020;58(2):168–78.
  44. 44. Ravishanker, Kumar S, Chatterjee A, Baranwal DK, Solankey SS. Genetic variability for yield and quality traits in ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Bioscan. 2013;8(Suppl 4):1383-6.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.