🌿 Aromatic Plants

PALMAROSA Cymbopogon martini

Key Properties

Quick Navigation

🌿 Name in WCVP and sources 🌿 Plant material 🌿 Obtaining the oil 🌿 Treatments in Table 3 🌿 First harvest 🌿 Second harvest 🌿 Third harvest 🌿 ISO 4727 🌿 References
Introduction
Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will.Watson

Species

BinomialCymbopogon martini
Accepted nameCymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will.Watson
POWO statusaccepted
FamilyPoaceae
GenusCymbopogon
IPNI identifierurn:lsid:ipni.org:names:396962-1
ISO standardISO 4727:2021

Source: Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, accessed on 21/09/2026.

Source: IPNI, accessed on 22/09/2026.

Source: ISO 4727:2021.

According to the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP, Kew), in the extract read on 21 September 2026, Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will.Watson is a name of rank “Species” with the status “Accepted”, placed in the family Poaceae. In a study conducted at Palampur (Himachal Pradesh) during the 2023–2024 growing season, Sharma et al. (2026) hydrodistilled the aerial biomass of accession IHBT/CM-1, harvested fresh and wilted in the shade for 24 h, in an all-glass Clevenger-type apparatus. For the control treatment T1 at the first harvest, their Table 3 gives “Geraniol” at 73.52 ± 12.60 under “EO Constituents (%)”.

Which name is accepted, and how do the sources write it?

The WCVP record of Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will.Watson carries the identifier 406214. In the International Plant Names Index (IPNI), the record of the name “Cymbopogon martini”, authors “(Roxb.) Will.Watson”, rank “spec.”, family “Poaceae”, read on 22 September 2026, carries the identifier 396962-1 (“urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:396962-1”); no taxon identity is drawn from it here. Sharma et al. (2026) write the species name “Cymbopogon martinii”.

Where does the plant material studied by Sharma et al. (2026) come from?

According to Sharma et al. (2026), the plant material was sourced from the CSIR-IHBT Chandpur farm (accession IHBT/CM-1), in the Western Himalayan region. Its taxonomic identity was validated through a morphological assessment and by comparison with authenticated herbarium specimens. The study was conducted at the CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology in Palampur (Himachal Pradesh) during the 2023–2024 growing season.

How was the oil of Sharma et al. (2026) obtained and quantified?

The fresh, healthy aerial biomass, which the authors call “palmarosa”, was harvested 20 cm above the ground, cleaned and left to wilt in the shade for 24 h. It was then finely chopped and hydrodistilled in an all-glass Clevenger-type apparatus for 4–5 h, each extraction using 1000 g of plant material with 2000 mL of distilled water. The volatile compounds were identified and quantified from the areas of their chromatographic peaks.

Which treatments does Table 3 of Sharma et al. (2026) set side by side?

Table 3 has five columns: T1 (control, distilled water + RDF), then T2, T3, T4 and T5, a foliar spray of G-sap at 3.0%, 6.0%, 9.0% and 12.0% respectively, each + RDF.

The values below are given as Table 3 writes them, treatment by treatment and harvest by harvest; they are not averaged, and no effect of G-sap is drawn from them.

What does Table 3 give for the first harvest?

For the first harvest (“1 st harvest”), Table 3 gives the following values under “EO Constituents (%)”, with each compound named as the table writes it.

Compound (as written in Table 3)T1T2T3T4T5
“dehydro-linalool”1.23 ± 0.291.37 ± 0.021.47 ± 0.031.38 ± 0.040.87 ± 0.00
“cis-β-terpineol”1.74 ± 0.331.75 ± 0.192.33 ± 0.042.10 ± 0.091.16 ± 0.01
“α-terpineol”0.00 ± 0.0013.69 ± 0.310.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.0023.49 ± 1.10
“Geraniol”73.52 ± 12.6066.09 ± 1.6778.36 ± 1.4577.73 ± 2.6460.66 ± 1.51
“Neryl acetate”11.51 ± 1.1411.61 ± 0.1210.93 ± 0.1113.43 ± 0.348.05 ± 0.06

The “0.00 ± 0.00” entries for “α-terpineol” under T1, T3 and T4 are given as the table writes them, without interpretation.

What does Table 3 give for the second harvest?

For the second harvest (“2nd harvest”), Table 3 gives the following values under “EO Constituents (%)”, with each compound named as the table writes it.

Compound (as written in Table 3)T1T2T3T4T5
“cis-ocimene”1.40 ± 0.031.30 ± 0.011.89 ± 0.902.81 ± 0.112.15 ± 0.17
“Terpinen-4-ol”0.00 ± 0.000.51 ± 0.000.77 ± 0.401.14 ± 0.081.02 ± 0.06
“dehydro-linalool”1.03 ± 0.011.01 ± 0.011.73 ± 0.562.71 ± 0.092.40 ± 0.12
“cis-β-terpineol”2.00 ± 0.041.88 ± 0.011.72 ± 0.122.20 ± 0.051.90 ± 0.04
“Geraniol”77.53 ± 2.0877.80 ± 1.1378.74 ± 1.6576.56 ± 0.2976.51 ± 0.40
“Neryl acetate”13.14 ± 0.1312.95 ± 0.1211.45 ± 0.4512.62 ± 0.0413.63 ± 0.01

The “0.00 ± 0.00” entry for “Terpinen-4-ol” under T1 is given as the table writes it, without interpretation.

What does Table 3 give for the third harvest?

For the third harvest (“3rd harvest”), Table 3 gives the following values under “EO Constituents (%)”, with each compound named as the table writes it.

Compound (as written in Table 3)T1T2T3T4T5
“cis-ocimene”2.40 ± 0.082.12 ± 0.211.76 ± 0.161.52 ± 0.001.57 ± 0.01
“Terpinen-4-ol”1.04 ± 0.030.87 ± 0.020.73 ± 0.010.67 ± 0.010.75 ± 0.02
“dehydro-linalool”1.89 ± 0.532.49 ± 0.031.73 ± 0.001.87 ± 0.011.80 ± 0.02
“cis-β-terpineol”2.07 ± 0.042.26 ± 0.031.90 ± 0.011.55 ± 0.011.59 ± 0.02
“Geraniol”85.68 ± 0.1281.82 ± 0.0985.92 ± 0.1285.24 ± 0.22
“Neryl acetate”3.19 ± 0.327.62 ± 0.054.89 ± 0.085.05 ± 0.095.25 ± 0.04

Which ISO standards does the ISO catalogue list under number 4727?

According to the ISO catalogue for classification ICS 71.100.60, ISO 4727:1988 bears the title “Oil of palmarosa (Cymbopogon martinii (Roxburgh) W. Watson var. motia)”, is marked “Withdrawn”, is at stage “95.99” and falls under ISO/TC 54. The same catalogue lists ISO 4727:2021, titled “Essential oil of palmarosa [Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) W. Watson var. motia]”, under ISO/TC 54 at stage “60.60”. Both titles are reported as titles of works; no taxon is drawn from them.

References