Sustainable production of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants through different cropping systems

8/10/2019 Sustainable production of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants through different cropping systems

1/76


2/76

Sustainable production of Medicinal

and Aromatic crops through different

cropping system


3/76

Introduction

80 per cent of the population of developing countries relies on traditional plant basedmedicines for their health requirements

India and China are the two major producing countries, having 40 per cent of the

global biodiversity and availability of rare species.

More than 9,000 native plants have established and recorded curative properties and

about 1500 species are known for their aroma and flavour

provide raw materials to the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, fragrance, flavour etc.

industries

India share in world is very low.

In India, about 70% people are depending on medicinal plants either directly or

indirectly for PHC


4/76

Country or

Region

No. of native

Spp. in flora

No. of med

plant spp.

% of med

plants

Source

World 2,97,000 52,885 10 Schippmann et al.,

2002India 17,000 7,500 44 Shiva, 1996

Indian

Himalayas

8,000 1,748 22 Samant et al., 1998

(Chandra Prakash et al., 2006)


5/76

Medicinal plants- fact sheet

Domestic trade of AYUSH industry 80-90 billion annually.

Domestic production of medicinal plants 3,19,000MT, about 19%

production sourced through cultivation

960 species used in trade of which 178 sps in trade in excess of

100MT/yr

Exports of the order of 55-60000 MT. Psyllium husk and seed being

largest exports

Two thirds of the herbal exports in the form of raw herbs and extracts


6/76

Rising demand

According to WHO, demand for medicinal plants is

approx. US $ 14 billion per year (Sharma et al., 2004)

Growth rate 15-25% annually

It is likely to increase US $ 5 trillion by 2050

In India medicinal plants releated trade estimated to

be US $ 1 billion per year (Joshi, 2004).


7/76

There are 9493 manufacturing units, 22,635dispensaries and1355hospitals of the Indian Systems

of Medicine.

Approximately 800 species of medicinal plants are in

active trade and still there is a gap of 40,000 metric

tonnesin the demand and supply of medicinal plants.

The major source of medicinal plants is theforest area

and about 90%medicinal plants is collected from the

wild, which generates about 40 million man-days.


8/76

From the marketing perspective, domestication and

cultivation of MAPs offer a number of advantages over wildharvest for production of plant-based medicines.

Availability of authentic and botanically reliable products

Guaranteed steady source of raw material

Possibility for good rapport between growers and

wholesalers (or agents of pharmaceutical companies) onvolumes and prices over time

Controlled post-harvest handling and therefore rigorous

quality control

Possibilities for adjustments of product standards to

regulations and consumer preferences

Possibilities for implementing product certification.

(Laird and Pierce 2002)


9/76

Advantages of M & AP

Have very high domestic and export demand;

Fetch better prices in the international market;

Could be stored for a long time, and sold at a time when better prices prevail in the

market (crop specific);

Are largely drought tolerant, and not easily grazed by animals;

Have low incidence of pest attacks and diseases;

Require minimum resources, therefore the cost of cultivation is lower compared to

the traditional crops;

Could be raised as inter-crops, along with traditional crops, and also on degraded

lands.


10/76

Constraints in cultivation of M & AP

Lack of monetary knowledge of cultivation

Lack of area specific agro techniques

Lack of elite quality planting material in largequantity.

Lack of market intelligence and Market price

fluctuation

Unorganized marketing sector


11/76

Selected State-wise Area Coverage and Funds Provided for Cultivation

of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants under NHM in India

State

Area Approved and Funds

Provided for Cultivation of

Aromatic Plant 2005-06

Target and Outlay Approved for

Aromatic and medicinal Plants

2006-07**

Physical

(HA)+

Financial

(Rs. in Lakh)

Physical

(HA)+

Financial

(Rs. in Lakh)

Andhra Pradesh - - 725 81.56

Bihar - - 3000* 337.50*

Chhattisgarh 167* 188.00* 18600* 2092.50*Goa 125* 14.86* 50 5.63

Gujarat 15000* 1687.50 10300 1158.75*Haryana 245 27.56 200 22.50

Jharkhand 200 22.5 1420 159.75

Karnataka 700 78.75 889 100

Maharashtra - - 2291* 257.74*

Orissa - - 2500* 281.25*

Punjab 750* 84.38* - -Rajasthan 7500* 843.75 10000* 1125.50*

Tamil Nadu 150 17 10120* 1138.50*

Uttar Pradesh 250 28.13 10643.5* 1197.39*

India 25087 2992.43 70738.5 7958.57

(Statistics released by : Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.2207, dated 14.08.2006.)


12/76


13/76

Monocropping:- Growing of only one crop on a piece of

land year after year.

Multiple cropping:- Growing two or more crops on the same

piece of land in one calendar year.

It is the intensification of cropping in time and space

dimensions, i.e., more number of crops within a year and

more number of crops on the same piece of land at any

given period. It includes intercropping, mixed cropping and

sequence cropping.


14/76

Intercropping:- growing subsidiary crops between two widely

spaced rows of main crops and produced more yield per unitarea/ growing two or more crops simultaneously on the same

piece of land with a definite row pattern.

higher returns than single crop.

makes better use of production resources.

maximum benefit of soil moisture and nutrients.


15/76

Sequence cropping:- Growing of two or more crops in

sequence on the same piece of land in a farming year,depending on the number of crops grown in a year, it is

called as double, triple and quadruple cropping involving

two, three and four crops respectively.

Rely cropping:- Planting of the succeeding crop before

harvesting the preceding crop.

Ratoon cropping:- Raising a crop with regrowth coming out

of roots or stalk after harvest of the crop.


16/76

Mixed cropping;- growing of two or more crops

simultaneously intermingled without any row pattern.

It is a common practice in most of dry land tracts of India.

Seeds of different crops are mixed in certain proportion and

sown.

The object is to meet the family requirement of cereals,

pulses and vegetables.

It is subsistence farming


17/76

Groups of intercropping

1. Parallel cropping

in this two crops are selected which have different growth

habits and have a zero competition between each other and

both of them express full yield potential.

Ex. Mung with maize

2. Companion cropping

in this, the yield of one crop is not affected by the other crop

or the yield of both the crops is equal to their pure crop.

Ex. Mustard, Wheat with Sugarcane


18/76

3. Multistoreyed cropping

growing plants of different heights in the same field at

the same time.

Ex. Coconut, cacao, pineapple

4. Synergistic cropping

here the yield of both crops grown together are found

to be higher than the yield of their pure crops on unit

area basis.

Ex. Sugarcane and Potato


19/76

Principles of intercropping

The crops should have complementary effects rather than

competitive effects.

The component crops should have similar agronomic practices.

Erect growing crops should be intercropped with cover crops so that

the soil erosion and weed population get reduced.

The component crops should have different root depths.

The planting method and management should be similar, less time

taking, less combursive, economical and profitable

Component crops of similar pest and disease pathogens and parasite

infestations should not be chosen.


20/76

Based on per cent plant population used for each crop in

intercropping system it is divided into two types

Additive series

One crop is sown with 100% of its recommended population in pure

stand (base crop). Another crop known as intercrop is introduced

into the base crop by adjusting or changing crop geometry. Thepopulation of intercrop is less than its recommended population in

pure stand.

Replacement series

Here both the crops are called component crops. By sacrifying

certain proportion of population of one component another

component is introduced.


21/76

Advantages of inter-cropping

It offers similar benefits to that from rotational. The nutrients

from different layers of the soil are used.

Total bio-mass production/ unit area/ unit of time is increased

because of complete use of land as the inter row space will be

utilized.

The fodder value in terms of quality and quantity becomes

higher.

It provides crop yields in installments which reduces the

marketing risks.

It offers best employment and utilization of labour, machine

and power throughout year.


22/76

Improvement of soil fertility

Reduces risk of soil erosion as it acts as cover crop

Better control of weeds

Provides additional employment for the family

Increases the income of the farmer

Better utilization of natural resources and applied nutrients

Intercropping was originally practiced as an insurance against crop failure under

rainfed conditions

At present, main objective of intercropping is higher productivity per unit area in

addition to stability in production.

Intercropping system utilizes resources efficiently and productivity is increased


23/76


24/76

Allelopathy Direct or indirect harmful effect the one plant has on

another through the release of chemical substances or toxins

into the root environment.

Some crops may be unsuitable to be grown as intercrops

because they may produce and excrete toxins into the soil

which are harmful to other components.


25/76

Annidation

Complementary interaction which occurs both in space and time.

Annidation in space: The canopies of component crops may occupy different

vertical layers with taller components tolerant to strong light and high evaporative

demand and shorter component favours shade and high RH. Thus, one component

crops helps the other. Similarly, root system of component crops exploit nutrients

from different layers thus utilizing the resources efficiently.

Annidation in time: When two crops of widely varying duration are planted, their

peak demands for light and nutrients or likely to over at different periods, thus

reducing competition. When the early maturing crop is harvested, conditions

become favourable for the late maturing crop.


26/76


27/76

Requirements for successful intercropping.

1. The time of peak nutrient demands of component crops

should not overlap.

2. Competition for light should be minimum among thecomponent crops

3. Complementarity should exist between the component crops .

4. The differences in maturity of component crops should be

atleast 30 days


28/76


29/76


30/76

Land useefficiency, plant growth and yield patterns in citronella

based intercropping system in semi-arid tropics

M. Singh, R.S. Ganesha Rao and E.V.S. Prakasa Rao

Location :- CIMAP, Bangalore during 1988-89

Objective :- To study the land use efficiency, plant growth and yield

pattern of citronella based intercropping system


31/76

Table 1:- Yield of Java citronella and intercrops, and land use efficiency in

citronella based cropping system

Cropping system Herbage yield (t/ha)

Harvest number

Intercrop yield (t/ha) ATER

I Crop II crop total I crop II crop

Citronella pure 7.99 11.33 19.33 - - -

Citronella + FM-FM 6.80 10.11 16.91 2.44(4.07) 0.67(3.76) 1.17

Citronella + Cp - Fm 6.63 10.48 17.11 2.11(2.40) 1.16(5.77) 1.16

Citronella + Cp - Cp 6.17 11.97 18.15 2.06(2.40) 1.74(1.89) 1.40

Citronella + Sb - Fm 5.97 9.65 15.62 3.29(4.01) 0.57(4.86) 1.16

Citronella + Sb - Sb 6.05 11.35 17.40 3.09(4.01) 0.81(2.46) 1.30

Seed 0.77 0.89 1.47

C.D (P= 0.05) NS NS NS

Fm- Fingermillet, Cp- Cowpea, Sb- Soyabean,

Figures in parentheses indicate pure crop yields of intercrops, NS- Non significant

( Singh et al., 2001)


32/76

Table 2 :- Effect of nitrogen levels on Java citronella yield

N levelskg/ha/yr)

Herbage yield (t/ha)

Harvest number

1 2 Total

0 4.77 6.34 11.12

200 6.88 11.06 17.94

400 8.16 15.05 23.21

Sem + 0.54 0.62 1.04

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.11 1.28 2.12

( Singh, et al., 2001)


33/76

Table 3:- Nutrient removal in java citronella cropping systems

Cropping system Nitrogen (kg/ha) Phosphorus

(kg/ha)

Potassium

(kg/ha)

Citronella pure 60.26 10.40 87.44

Citronella + FM-FM 115.54 26.36 198.33

Citronella + Cp - Fm 149.24 24.51 216.73

Citronella + Cp - Cp 222.45 29.11 239.18

Citronella + Sb - Fm 278.51 33.09 174.04

Citronella + Sb - Sb 356.95 38.97 175.48

C.D (P= 0.05) 36.57 4.70 28.52

Fm- Fingermillet, Cp- Cowpea, Sb- Soyabean,( Singh, et al., 2001)


34/76

Cropping system % changeOrganic carbon Available carbon

Citronella pure +3.8 +9.0

Citronella + FM-FM -5.0 +1.4

Citronella + Cp - Fm -4.7 -2.8

Citronella + Cp - Cp +0.9 -1.4

Citronella + Sb - Fm -6.0 -4.3

Citronella + Sb - Sb -0.8 +2.8

Table 4:- Balance of organic carbon and available N after 1- year with different citronella based

cropping systems

Fm- Fingermillet, Cp- Cowpea, Sb- Soyabean( Singh, et al., 2001)


35/76

Potential of rose scented geranium based cropping system in improving the

potential and economic gain to the farmers in Uttaranchal hills

R.K, Verma, A.K. Kukreja, A.K and Singh,

Location :- Eastern Kumaon region in the western Himalayan valleys of

Uttaranchal during 2003-05

Objective:- To assess the production potential and economics of newly

introduced rose scented geranium cultivation in traditional agriculture

based cropping system.


36/76

Table 1:- Effect of different cropping system on mean yield of agricultural crops (t/ha)

and geranium oil and equivalent yield (kg/ha ) of different crops in the system

Crop sequence Agriculturalcrops (t/ha) Geranium oil(kg/ ha) Geranium oil equivalentyield (kg/ha)

Rice - Geranium 3.96 28.45 35.09

Maize - Geranium 2.10 31.55 34.96

Mandua - Geranium 1.19 21.18 24.04

Soyabean - Geranium 1.61 28.19 33.30

Toria - Geranium 1.70 28.58 32.74

Pea (veg) - Geranium 8.85 32.12 35.38

Lentil - Geranium 1.30 27.06 34.03

(Verma et al., 2006)


37/76

Table 2:- Cost of cultivation, production, economics and other parameters from different

geranium based cropping sequences (pooled analysis of two years 2003 & 2004

Crop

sequence

Cost of

cultivation

(000, Rs/ha)

Gross

returns

(000,

Rs/ ha)

Net returns

(000,

Rs/ha)

Production

efficiency

(kg/ha)

Land use

efficiency

(%)

B:C

Rice -

Geranium

56.84 114.94 57.11 0.12 73.97 1.02

Maize -

Geranium

50.53 114.51 63.94 0.13 68.49 1.26

Mandua -

Geranium

46.54 78.73 32.19 0.09 68.49 0.69

Soyabean -

Geranium

50.94 109.15 58.20 0.12 73.97 1.13

Toria -

Geranium

48.58 107.24 58.55 0.14 64.38 1.19

Pea (veg) -

Geranium

48.54 115.87 67.32 0.14 65.75 1.38

Lentil -

Geranium

48.75 108.45 57.72 0.12 73.97 1.13

(Verma et al., 2006)


38/76

Effect of different rabiintercrops on growth and productivity of

senna in northern dry zone of karnataka

Pandits. Rathod, D.P. Biradar and V.C.Patil

Location :- Regional Agricultural Station, Bijapur, UAS, Dharwad during

2004 & 2005

Design:- RCBD with 3 replication

Objective :- Influence of different rabi intercrops on growth and productivity

of senna.Varieties:- Senna- Tinvelly senna, ChickpeaA1, SafflowerA1, Linseedlocal ,

MustardSEJ-2, Wheat- DWR-162.

LTR(%) = light intensity transmitted at ground surface

light intensity above the canopy

* Light interception (%) can be worked out by subtracting LTR (%) from 100* Soil moisture(%) = W1- W2 x 100

W2


39/76

Table 1:- leaf yield, pod yield, seed yield, stover yield and total economic yield of senna as influenced by

intercrops and cropping systems ( pooled date of 2004 & 05)

Treatments Leaf yield (kg/ha) Pod yield (kg/ha) Seed yield (kg/ha) Stover yield(kg/ha)

Total economic yield

(leaf + pod) (kg/ha

Senna (S) 880.13 342.45 132.98 1494.61 1222.58

Chickpea (CP) - - - - -

Safflower (SF) - - - - -

Linseed (LN) - - - - -

Mustard (MS) - - - -

Wheat (WH) - - - - -

CP + S (1:1) 721.72 272.60 109..16 1225.08 994.31

SF + S (1:1) 572.09 216.09 86.43 971.14 788.18

LN + S (1:1) 686.51 259.30 103.72 1163.80 945.81

MS + S (1:1) 668.89 252.66 101.06 1135.22 921.55

WH + S (1:1) 704.11 265.95 106.38 1195.60 970.06

S.Em + 27.99 11.50 3.38 38.82 32.20

CD at 5% 88.16 33.92 10.14 118.46 96.60

Cropping system

Sole senna 880.13 342.45 132.98 1494.61 1222.58

Intercropped senna 670.66 253.32 101.35 1138.17 923.98

S.Em + 30.51 12.21 3.72 42.31 34.64

CD at 5% 68.04 27.23 8.29 94.35 77.25

Rathod, et al., (2010)


40/76

T bl 3 Li h i i i (LTR) (%) d il i (%) i fl d b b d


41/76

Table 3:- Light transmission ratio (LTR) (%) and soil moisture content (%) as influenced by senna based

intercropping systems

Treatments LTR at 60 DAS LTR at 90 DAS Soil moisture (%) at 60 DAS Soil moisture (%) at 90 DAS

Seena intercrop Seena intercrop 0-15 cm 15-30

cm

30-60

cm

0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-60

cm

Senna (S) 50.20 - 30.90 - 20.10 22.30 24.20 15.20 16.40 17.60

Chickpea (CP) - 57.60 - 32.84 16.10 18.60 20.80 14.20 16.00 18.00

Safflower (SF) - 49.28 - 29.30 19.30 21.20 23.40 17.10 19.20 20.10

Linseed (LN) - 53.80 - 27.96 18.40 21.00 23.80 15.20 16.60 18.40

Mustard (MS) - 39.40 - 25.42 18.80 21.60 24.10 16.00 17.20 19.00

Wheat (WH) - 42.70 - 26.43 18.40 20.60 22.60 15.00 16.80 18.40

CP + S (1:1) 41.70 52.80 28.60 30.26 14.20 17.50 19.40 12.20 13.80 16.20

SF + S (1:1) 35.20 42.60 24.89 27.20 17.20 19.60 22.80 15.00 17.10 17.40

LN + S (1:1) 40.28 41.70 23.18 25.42 16.50 19.00 21.60 13.30 14.50 16.80

MS + S (1:1) 30.40 35.60 21.42 24.64 16.80 19.00 22.70 14.10 15.20 17.00

WH + S (1:1) 34.60 37.60 22.70 25.12 16.10 18.20 20.20 13.00 14.70 16.60

S.Em + 0.58 0.57 0.51 0.56 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.23

CD at 5% 1.74 1.71 1.53 1.68 0.58 0.69 0.83 0.53 0.65 0.69

Rathod, et al., (2010)


42/76


43/76

Plant Plant height atharvest (cm) T- test No. of leaves atharvest T- test

open shade open shade

Aloe vera 53.33 29.75 11.6* 12.17 8.50 6.11*

Alpinia galanga 15.13 7.93 12.13* 166.27 72.53 6.65*

Coleus forskohlii 55.62 50.55 3.15* 493.3 213.4 8.64

Stevia rebaudiana 52.10 50.30 0.92 433.67 181.33 16.53

Andrographis paniculata 37.20 32.15 1.85 124.17 68.30 2.75

Catharanthus roseus 112.77 94.63 3.15* 341.50 148.50 10.55*

Ocimum sanctum 152 130.77 4.58* 392.70 258.63 4.15

Table 1:- plant height and number of leaves of various medicinal plants

Channabasappa et al., (2008)

T bl 2 Yi ld lk l id d i f diff di i l l d


44/76

Treatment details Yield (kg/ha) Alkaloid content Net returns (Rs/ha)

open shade mean open shade mean open shade mean

Aloe vera 13390 5883 9636 0.44 0.00 0.22 39052 3897 21474

Alpinia galanga 14923 5064 9993 0.17 0.12 0.14 68884 -21131 23876

Coleus forskohlii 2492 869 1680 0.47 0.27 0.37 53620 -6025 23797

Stevia rebaudiana 2123 961 1542 6.18 6.18 6.18 89422 5196 47309

Andrographis

paniculata

5229 852 3040 1.24 1.84 1.54 82566 5226 43896

Catharanthus roseus 12157 4513 8335 0.15 1.34 0.74 76582 11507 44044

Ocimum sanctum 7979 958 4468 0.29 0.32 0.30 86529 -25732 30398

Mean 8804 2586 - 1.27 1.44 _ 70951 -3865 30398

Sem+ CD Sem+ CD Sem+ CD

Main 31.98 77.39 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.016

Sub 98.9 239.00 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.009

Intraction 139.8 366.23 0.006 0.018 0.003 0.042

Table 2:- Yield, alkaloid content and economics of different medicinal plants under

open and arecanut plantations

Channabasappa et al., (2008)


45/76

Performance of aromatic crops in Eucalyptus based agroforestry system

H.S. Chauhan, Kamla Singh and D.D.Patra

Location :- CIMAP, Field Station, Pantnagar, Nainital (UP) during 1989-1994


Objective:- The economic studies of the agroforestry system under Eucalyptus

hybrid plantation as sole as well as intercrop with japanese mint and

cymbopogon spp.

Eucalyptus hybrid seedling3.0 x 2.5 m

Cymbopogon spp.60 x 45 cm

Japanese mintmonth of January in every year at a row spacing of 50 cm

T bl 1 H b d il i ld f ti d E l t h b id b d


46/76

Table 1:- Herb and oil yield of aromatic crops under Eucalyptus hybrid based

agro forestry system

Herb yield (t/ha) Oil yield (kg/ha)

89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94

E. Hybrid +Lemongrass 16.5 21.5 24.7 26.3 25.5 45.2 60.7 76.2 80.4 74.5

lemongrass 17.0 23.2 27.5 29.6 28.8 48.1 66.3 81.0 92.1 88.6

E. H. + Citronella 12.8 17.6 19.8 16.2 13.5 69.8 145.2 161.3 134.0 102.5

Citronella 13.0 19.8 24.2 26.3 22.8 73.1 152.6 224.4 249.2 211.7

E.H.+ Palmarosa 21.6 40.4 48.7 43.2 32.0 49.3 112.0 128.5 100.2 76.7

Palmarosa 22.9 44.3 59.2 61.5 55.2 58.1 122.5 165.4 160.3 121.5E.H.+ Japanese

mint37.6 32.3 28.5 20.9 13.7 206.7 191.3 152.5 98.7 71.9

japanese mint 38.5 37.6 38.2 35.3 34.8 212.5 220.8 217.3 208.6 202.8

C.D. (0.05)sole Vs.

intercroppingyear

sole Vs.

intercroppingyear

Lemongrass 2.4 3.7 4.2 6.6Citronella 2.0 3.1 4.7 7.4

Palmarosa 4.9 7.8 4.7 7.5

Japanese mint 2.9 4.5 4.4 7.0

(Chauhan et al., 1997)


47/76

Table:- 2 Net return under different agroforestry system

Agroforestry

system

Net returns (Rs/ha) by intercrops Net

return(Rs/ha)

by Tree

(5 year)

Total

netreturn

(Rs/ha)

(5 year)

Average net

return

Per year

(Rs/ha)89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94

CD

(0.05)

Eucalyptus

hybrid- - - - - - 114000 114000 22800

E. H. +

Lemongrass7100 15620 18940 20460 19970 1600.7 124600 206690 41338

E. H. +

Citronella4070 15835 18360 13780 9050 1650.2 124800 185895 37179

E.H. + Palmarosa 6170 17080 21282 15170 9588 1185.2 125200 194490 38898

E.H. + Japanesemint 10150 12270 11690 8140 5624 999.4 129140 177014 35403

C.D. (0.05) 531.5 646.7 992.8 1549.6 1045.4 1012.2 13207.8 1346.5

(Chauhan et al., 1997)


48/76

Feasibility of intercropping onion in menthol mint with different planting methods

Kewalanand, Kishor Chiland And Manjul Aand

Location :- Crop Research Center, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture

and Tecnology , Pantnagar during 2001 & 2002

Design :- RCBD with 4 replication

Objective :- Feasibility of intercropping onion in menthol mint with

different planting methods

Table:- 1 yield and land equivalent ratio as influenced by the treatments


49/76

TreatmentsRow

ratio

Menthol mintOnion bulb

yield (kg/ha)

Land

equivalent

ratioOil content (%) Yield (total of 2 cuttings)

2001 2002 Herbage (q/ha) Oil (kg/ha)

2001 2002 2001 2002I

Harvest

II

Harvest

I

Harvest

II

Harvest2001 2002 2001 2002

M (F 60 cm )+ O(R

15 cm)1:2 0.87 0.77 0.86 0.79 239.7 231.8 208.53 199.34 22904 22904 1.92 1.77

M (R 60cm) + O (F

15 cm)1:2 0.87 0.75 0.87 0.80 203.8 196.9 177.30 189.80 9030 9030 1.08 1.17

M (F 30 cm ) + O (R

15 cm)2:2 0.71 0.61 0.75 0.70 196.2 190.7 139.30 133.48 23040 23040 1.53 1.52

M (R 30 cm ) + O (F

15 cm)2:2 0.77 0.68 0.78 0.71 318.4 210.5 245.16 242.19 10560 10560 1.42 1.47

M paired row (R

30cm)- 0.85 0.80 0.86 0.76 300.3 290.7 255.25 250.60 - - 1.00 1.00

O paired row (R 15

cm)- - - - - - - - - 23170 23170 1.00 1.00

M (FP 30 cm ) + O

(FP 30 cm )1:1 0.80 0.75 0.79 0.70 202.4 196.9 161.92 156.58 10110 10110 1.11 1.20

M (FP 60 cm) + O(15 cm) 1:2 0.87 0.85 0.89 0.80 206.8 199.8 185.78 179.90 15290 15290 1.23 1.47

M (FP 60cm) + O (15

cm)1:3 0.80 0.75 0.77 0.75 176.5 168.4 136.50 126.0 23134 23134 1.59 1.52

M (FP) 60 cm - 0.86 0.75 0.81 0.72 297.7 291.3 235.18 224.30 - - 1.00 1.00

O (FP) 15 cm - - - - - - - - - 23610 23610 1.00 1.00

LSD (0.05%) - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 23.3 22.6 32.40 31.00 581 581 0.02 0.03

Kevalanand et al. (2008)M-Mint, O- onion, F- Furrow planting, R- Ridge planting , FP- Flat planting


50/76

Table 2:- Economic analysis as influenced by the treatments

TreatmentsRow

ratio

Mint oil equivalent yield

(kg/ha)Gross

returns Rs.

/ha

Cost of

cultivation

(Rs. /ha)

Net returns

2001 2002 Average Rs. /ha B:C

M (F 60 cm )+ O(R 15 cm) 1:2 590.26 562.43 576.34 702902 37000 135902 3.66

M (R 60cm) + O (F 15 cm) 1:2 327.81 348.70 338.25 101475 37000 64475 1.74

M (F 30 cm ) + O (R 15 cm) 2:2 523.30 499.19 511.24 15337 44000 109372 2.48

M (R 30 cm ) + O (F 15 cm) 2:2 421.16 426.85 424.00 127200 47500 79700 1.67

M paired row (R 30cm) - 255.25 50.60 252.92 75876 16000 59876 3.71

O paired row (R 15 cm) - 386.16 368.78 377.47 113241 19000 94241 4.96

M (FP 30 cm ) + O (FP 30 cm ) 1:1 330.42 349.06 339.74 101922 33000 68922 2.08

M (FP 60 cm) + O (15 cm) 1:2 440.61 432.43 436.52 130956 34000 96956 2.85

M (FP 60cm) + O (15 cm) 1:3 522.06 489.16 505.61 151683 36000 115683 3.21

M (FP) 60 cm - 235.18 224.30 229.74 68922 15000 53922 3.59

O (FP) 15 cm - 393.50 375.78 384.64 115392 18000 97392 5.41

LSD (0.05%) - 9.94 6.89 - - - - -

Kevalanand et al. (2008)

M-Mint, O- onion, F- Furrow planting, R- Ridge planting , FP- Flat planting


51/76

Intercropping of Isabgol and Lentil as influenced by drought stress

Mohammad Asgharipour and Majid Rafiei

Location :- University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran during 2009

Design :- Split plot RCBD with 4 replication

Objective:- To evaluate the influence of drought stress on the yield and yield

attributes of isabgollentil row intercropping compared to respective soe

crops at three level of water availability.


52/76

Table 1: effect of cropping systems and irrigation interval regimes on plant height, number of leaf

and sympodial per plant and yield attributes of lentil

Treatments Plant

height (cm)

Number of

leaves perplant

Number of

sympodia perplant

Number of

pods perplant

Number of

grains perpod

100 grain

weight (g)

Cropping system

Sole lentil 42.1b* 26.7c 6.9b 1.5c 1.8a 38d

1:3 isabgol -

lentil

42.4a 27.2b 7.4b 1.7b 1.9a 48b

1:1 isabgol -

lentil

42.2a 30.7a 8.4a 1.9a 1.8a 52a

3:1 isabgol -

lentil

42.7a 28.0b 7.1b 1.8b 1.9a 41c

Irrigation interval regimes

4 days 47.6a 34.3a 8.3a 1.8a 1.9a 46.8a

7 days 41.4b 28.2b 7.6b 1.7a 1.8a 44.4b

14 days 32.5c 22c 6.2c 1.7a 1.8a 43.1b

* Values followed by the same latter with in the same column do not differ significantly atp=5% according to DMRT

Mohammad and Majid, (2010)


53/76

Table 2 : Effect of cropping systems and irrigation interval regimes on plant height, number of

leaf and tiller per plant and yield attributes of isabgol

Treatments Plant height

(cm)

Number of

leaves perplant

Number of

tillers perplant

Spike

length (mm)

Number of

spikes perplant

Number

of grainsper spike

1000 grain

weight (g)

Cropping system

Sole lentil 16.9b* 37.0c 3.8c 1.9b 6.7b 71.7c 1.4a

1:3 isabgol -

lentil

17.2a 39.1b 4.0b 2.0a 6.9a 74.7b 1.4a

1:1 isabgol -

lentil

17.1ab 41.3a 4.2a 2.1a 7.0a 77.2a 1.5a

3:1 isabgol -

lentil

18.0a 38.9b 4.0b 2.1a 6.9a 74.6b 1.4a

Irrigation interval regimes

4 days 19.0a 44.1a 4.0a 2.1a 7.7a 80.6a 1.4a

7 days 16.9b 40.0b 4.1a 2.0a 6.5b 76.8b 1.5a

14 days 16.0b 33.1c 3.9a 2.0a 6.3b 66.3c 1.4a

* Values followed by the same latter with in the same column do not differ significantly atp=5% according to DMRT

Mohammad and Majid, (2010)


54/76

I fl f i d i t i bi d ti l il


55/76

Influence of spacing and intercropping on biomass and essential oil

yield of patchouli

Munnu Singh

Location :- CIMAP, Bangalore during 2003-2005

Design :- FRCBD with 3 replication

Objective :- Influence of spacing and intercropping on biomass and essential

oil yield of patchouli

PEOE (kg/ha) = Monetary value of the yield of intercropprice of patchouli essential oil /kg


56/76

Treatment Canopy

spread

Biomass yield

(ton/ha)

Oil

content

Essential oil yield

(kg/ha)

Alcohol

content (%)

Harvest

number

Harvest

number

Total Harvest

number

Harvest

number

Total Harvest

number

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Plant spacing (cm)

60 X 45 0.23 0.25 6.39 5.21 11.60 2.82 2.95 48.37 40.50 88.87 44.5 45.0

75 X 45 0.29 0.32 5.39 4.96 10.35 3.05 3.10 43.86 36.25 80.11 45.1 44.7

CD @ 5% 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.32 NS NS 3.93 3.17 5.75 NS NS

Cropping system

Patchouli sole crop 0.38 0.37 6.35 5.15 11.50 3.13 3.13 49.67 42.32 91.99 44.5 43.8

Pat. + Black gram 0.22 0.36 5.73 5.10 10.83 3.03 3.05 46.51 44.15 90.66 45.7 44.3

Pat. + Soy bean 0.27 0.35 5.69 4.91 10.60 2.84 2.95 43.03 42.75 85.78 46.0 43.7

Pat. + French bean 0.23 0.34 5.92 5.01 10.93 2.82 2.96 46.98 41.80 88.78 45.0 44.1

Pat. + Okra 0.20 0.35 5.74 4.90 10.64 2.87 3.00 44.18 42.00 86.18 44.3 43.9

CD @ 5% 0.04 NS 0.26 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Table: 1 Effect of spacing and intercrops on canopy spread, biomass yield and essential oil content, yield and

quality of patchouli (pooled data of 2 years)

Singh et al. (2008)


57/76

Direct and residual effect of intercrop rotations and nitrogen


58/76

Direct and residual effect of intercrop rotations and nitrogen

levels on performance of lemongrass

M. Singh and S. Sridhara

Location :- CIMAP, Bengaluru during 1991-93


Objective :- To study the direct and residual effect of intercrop rotations and

nitrogen levels on performance of lemongrass

Table :- yield, light interception and area X time equivalency ratio (ATER) inlemongrass intercropped with legumes


59/76

lemongrass intercropped with legumes

CROPPING

SYSTEM

Dry herb yield of

lemongrass (t/ha) at

harvest (kg/ha)

Total oil

yield

(kg/ha)

Intercrop seed

yield (t/ha)

Light

intercept

ion (%)

ATER

1 2 total I crop II crop

Lemongrass sole 5.69 9.22 14.92 380.6 - - 4.8 -

Lemongrass +

black gram -

blackgram

5.57 9.34 14.91 360.5 0.49(1

.14)

0.40

(0.90)

40.3 1.31

Lemongrass +

cowpea -cowpea

5.25 8.75 14.01 349.4 0.57(1

.27)

0.45

(1.10)

69.3 1.29

Lemongrass +

soyabean -

soyabean

4.89 8.11 13.00 337.5 0.58

(0.80)

0.48

(0.90)

50.3 1.26

CD (P= 0.05) NS NS NS NS 6.7

Singh and Sridhara (2000)

Table :- 2 Effect of nitrogen levels on dry herb and oil yields of lemongrass


60/76

Table : 2 Effect of nitrogen levels on dry herb and oil yields of lemongrass

Levels of

nitrogen

(kg/ha/yr)

Dry herb yield (t/ha) at harvest Essential oil yield (kg/ha) at

harvest

1 2 total 1 2 total

0 4.84 7.20 12.04 120.9 158.6 261.5

50 4.84 7.72 12.56 117.6 180.4 298.0

100 5.93 9.84 15.77 143.8 231.8 375.5

150 5.80 10.66 16.46 151.9 259.7 411.6

CD (P=0.05) 0.78 1.09 2.06 9.6 35.7 45.8

Singh and sridhara (2000)

Table :- Residual effect of nitrogen and intercrop rotation on dry yields of lemongrass


61/76

Table : Residual effect of nitrogen and intercrop rotation on dry yields of lemongrass

Treatments Dry herb yield (t/ha) Mean

N levels (kg/ha)

0 50 100 150

Lemongrass sole 1.09 0.96 1.79 1.36 1.30

Lemongrass + black gram - blackgram 1.00 1.22 1.42 1.57 1.30Lemongrass + cowpea -cowpea 1.50 1.91 1.72 1.17 1.57

Lemongrass + soyabean - soyabean 1.05 1.39 1.06 1.14 1.16

Mean 1.16 1.37 1.50 1.31

CD (P= 0.05) N-0.23 C-0.23 C xN-

0.47

N nitrogen, C- intercrop rotation, CxN interaction of nitrogen and intercrop

rotation

Singh and sridhara (2000)

I t f i t i f di i l d ti l t ith i f i


62/76

Impact of intercropping of medicinal and aromatic plants with organic farming

approach on resource use efficiency in arecanut plantation in India

S. Sujatha, Ravi Bhat, C.Kannan, D. Balasimha

Location:- CPCRI, Regional station Vittal, Karnataka during 2004-2007


Objective :- To study the feasibility of intercropping of MAPs in arecanut plantation

Kernal equivalent yield of MAPs

= yield of MAPs (kg/ha) x price of MAPs (Rs./kg)

price of arecanut kernal (Rs/kg)

Table 1 :- Yield of MAP s and kernal equivalent of MAPs in arecanut plantation


63/76

Crop Yield of MAPs (kg/ha) Price

Rs/kg

Kernal equivalent of MAPs (kg/ha)

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Mean 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Pooled

Vetiveria zizanoides 1262 808 948 1006 45/- 944de 606cd 569c 706de

Asparagus racemosus(fresh wt)

14310 - 7022 10666 10/- 2045f - 1003e 1524g

Piper longum 171 272 250 231 80/- 225a 358a 233a 272a

Bacopa monnieri 2504 2788 2419 2070 20/- 729bcd 796e 691d 739de

Nilgirianthus ciliatus

Leaf 7423 7022 6817 7087 35/- 1715f 1433g 1138f 1429g

root 1191 1066 794 1017 35/-

Catharanthus roseus

Leaf 2125 2631 2194 2317 10/- 590bc 570bc 951e 704de

root 671 395 115 394 20/-

Aloe vera (fresh wt) 13580 16844 16048 15490 2/- 453ab 562bc 397b 471bc

Cymbopogon flexuous 8581 8810 7989 8460 300/- 1286e 1409g 958e 1218fCymbopogon martini 4452 2046 - 3249 450/- 625bcd 346a - 485bc

Ocimum basilicum 8128 8456 7807 8130 350/- 406ab 423ab 364b 398ab

Pogostemon cablin 7662 9722 9861 9082 8000/- 817cd 1037f 736d 863e

Artemisia pallens 5756 5248 2210 5248 10/- 822cd 749de 316ab 629cd

LSD @ 0.05 - - - - 352 156 83 162

(Sujatha et al., 2011)Price of arecanut kernal Rs.70/kg

Table 2:- Economic analysis of MAPs in arecanut plantation


64/76

Crop Cost of cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha) Net returns per rupee investment

(Re/Rs)

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Mean

Vetiveria zizanoides 18500 10000 12000 38200 26400 30600 2.07 2.64 2.55 2.42

Asparagus racemosus 39000 - 20000 10410

0

- 50000 2.67 - 2.5 2.59

Piper longum 7500 5000 5700 6180 16760 14300 0.82 3.35 2.5 2.22

Bacopa monnieri 13575 10300 10000 36520 45114 38400 2.69 4.38 3.84 3.64Nilgirianthus ciliatus 17000 13750 6250 40800 33275 23940 2.40 2.42 3.83 2.88

Catharanthus roseus 10000 10000 6500 24760 24204 17900 2.47 2.42 2.75 2.54

Aloe vera 18350 8350 9500 8810 25338 23370 0.48 3.03 2.46 1.99

Cymbopogon flexuous 19800 11000 12370 57300 59475 55000 2.89 5.40 4.45 4.25

Cymbopogon martini 11800 11000 - 23800 20740 - 2.02 1.88 - 1.95

Ocimum basilicum 5000 5000 5000 14000 20156 17750 2.80 4.03 3.55 3.46

Pogostemon cablin 15000 15000 15000 42560 37480 18150 2.84 2.50 1.21 2.18

Artemisia pallens 15000 13000 13000 38000 49600 39260 2.53 3.81 3.02 3.12

Table 2: Economic analysis of MAPs in arecanut plantation

(Sujatha et al., 2011)

Table 3:- Kernal yield of arecanut, system productivity and production efficiency of arecanut + MAP s intercropping

system


65/76

Crop Pooled data of 3 year Cumulative of 3 years for arecanut + MAPs system

Kernal

yield of

arecanut(kg/ha)

System

productivity

(kg/ha)

Total yield

from system

(kg/ha)

Total

duration of

system (days)

Production efficiency of

arecanut + MAP s system

(kg/ha/day)

Vetiveria zizanoides 2515ab 3231abc 9195ab 2460 3.7a

Asparagus racemosus 2835bcef 4359e 13077e 2190 6.0d

Piper longum 2718bce 2990a 8971a 2190 4.1b

Bacopa monnieri 3586fg 4325e 132975e 2190 5.9d

Nilgirianthus ciliatus 1884a 3313abc 9939abc 2460 4.0b

Catharanthus roseus 3440efg 4144de 12432de 1635 7.6e

Aloe vera 3081bcefg 3552bc 10656bc 2190 4.9c

Cymbopogon flexuous 3121bcefg 4338e 13015e 2190 5.9d

Cymbopogon martini 2678bc 3164ab 9491ab 2190 4.3b

Ocimum basilicum 3311cefg 3708bcd 11125cd 1365 8.2fPogostemon cablin 3362cefg 4225de 12676e 2190 5.8d

Artemisia pallens 3595g 4224de 12673e 1635 7.8e

LSD @ 0.05 756 553 1497 - 0.32

system

(Sujatha et al., 2011)

Fig. Variation in soil pH


66/76

and organic carbon at 0-

30 cm deep as

influenced by

intercropping of MAPs

in arecanut plantation.

Bar indicates the

standard error.

a) Vetiveria zizanoides

b)Asparagus racemosus

c)Piper longum

d)Bacopa monnieri

e)Nilgirianthus ciliatusf) Catharanthus roseus

g)Aloe verah)Cymbopogon

flexuous

i) Cymbopogon martinij)Ocimum basilicum

k)Pogostemon cablinl)Artemisia pallens


67/76

Intercropping of menthol mint for higher returns

Aparbal Singh, Man Singh and Kailash Singh

Location :- Reasech farm of CIMAP, Lucknow during 1997


Objective :- To explore the possibilities of developing an

intercropping system for menthol mint.

Crops:-

Radish :- cv. Japanese white

Okra :- cv. Arka

Cowpea :- cv. RiturajSunflower :- cv. Morden

Chillies :- cv. 235

T bl i ld d i f th l i t d i t d l d


68/76

Table :- yield and economics of menthol mint and intercrops under sole and

intercropping system

Cropping systems Mint yield Intercrop

yield (q/ha)

Mint oil

equivalentyield (kg/ha)

Returns * (Rs/ha)

Herb

(t/ha)

Oil

(kg/ha)

Gross Net

Sole mint 60 cm row

spacing

16.1 120.3 - 120.3 48120 3088

Sole mint 75 cm row

spacing

15.2 115.0 - 115.0 46000 28900

Mint + cowpea 16.6 123.4 2.4(g),

56.7(f)

137.0 54775 36339

Mint +okra 15.4 115.3 24.3 139.3 55840 35928

Mint + radish 17.1 128.6 85.2 171.5 68480 49836

Mint + chillies 17.1 131.5 - 131.5 52600 34340

Mint + sunflower 12.2 95.3 10.5 116.3 46520 28208

LSD (P=0.05) 3.01 19.1 - 22.40 - -

* Rates of produce: mint oil Rs. 400/kg, cowpea grain Rs.1200/q, cowpea fodder Rs 50/q, okra Rs200/q

and sunflower seed Rs 800/q

(g)= grain, (f)= green fodder (Aparbal et al., 1998)


69/76

Location :- CIMP, Field station, Pantnagar, UP during 1994-96.


Objective:- To maximize productivity and net income per unit area with minimum N

application

Variety:-

Java citronella

Bio-13

Peacv. Rachana

Lentilcv. PL-406

Chick peacv. Pant G-114

Productivity of Java citronella based inter-cropping systems as affected by fertility levels

under Tarai region of UP

P. Ram, Birendra kumar, S.K., Kothari, Mohd and Yaseen

Table 1:- Green herbage yield, oil content and oil yield of java citronella influenced by inter cropping with pulses and nitrogen levels


70/76

Cropping system Green herbage (t/ha)

1994-95* 199596**

N levels (kg/ha) N levels (kg/ha)

0 75 150 225 0 75 150 225

Java citronella sole 17.5 20.4 22.8 23.8 20.4 24.1 27.6 29.5

Java citronella + pea 14.0 17.8 19.9 21.4 20.9 24.6 28.5 29.2

Java citronella + lentil 20.1 22.8 26.1 27.3 23.7 26.0 30.2 32.0

Java citronella + chickpea 20.3 22.3 25.6 25.8 22.1 25.2 28.5 29.9

LSD (P= 0.05) 0.08 0.01

oil content (%) ***

Java citronella sole 1.35 1.37 1.30 1.26 1.30 1.28 1.20 1.13Java citronella + pea 1.30 1.26 1.30 1.20 1.26 1.30 1.20 1.20

Java citronella + lentil 1.35 1.34 1.28 1.26 1.26 1.30 1.20 1.15

Java citronella + chickpea 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.20 1.16

LSD (P= 0.05) 1.9 2.0

oil yield (kg/ha) **

Java citronella sole 236 279 296 300 265 308 331 333

Java citronella + pea 182 224 259 257 263 320 342 350

Java citronella + lentil 271 305 334 344 299 338 362 368

Java citronella + chickpea 264 290 328 328 283 328 342 347

LSD (P= 0.05) 15.0 18.0

*Based on total of 3 harvest (April, July & Sep, 1995)

** based on total of 4 harvests (Dec, 1995 & April, July & Sep, 1996)

*** Avg of 3 (94-95) & 4 (95-96) harvest Ram et al., (2000)

Table 2 :- Response function of N application to Java Citronella and economics


71/76

Selling price: pea Rs 8.00/kg, lentil Rs.8.00/kg, chickpea Rs 10.00/kg, Java

citronella oil Rs 275.00/kg

Ram et al., (2000)

Cropping system Optimum dose

of N kg/ha

Citronella oil

yield at

optimum N

supply kg/ha

Response at

optimum N

kg/ha

Response per kg

N kg

Gross

returns

(Rs./ha)

Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

B:C

Year Year Year Year

1994-

95

95-96 1994-

95

95-96 1994-

95

95-96 1994-95 95-96

Java citronella sole 189.0 194.4 298.0 336.0 62.1 70.6 0.32 0.36 180235 55200 0.44

Java citronella +pea 215.7 200.9 256.7 308.0 74.4 84.3 0.34 0.42 188635 58600 0.45

Java citronella +

lentil

188.4 179.7 345.2 368.8 75.0 67.0 0.39 0.37 204430 74400 0.57

Java citronella +

chickpea187.3 180.5 302.1 346.0 40.6 56.5 0.22 0.31 192913 62900 0.48

Intercropping of medicinal and aromatic plants in coconut garden


72/76

Intercropping of medicinal and aromatic plants in coconut garden

T.B. Basavaraju, H.V. Nanjappa, K. Umesha, M. Vasundhara and S. Arulraj

Location :- Horticultural Research Station, Arsikere, Karnataka during 2006-07 to 2008 -09

Objective:- To identify suitable medicinal and aromatic plants for intercropping in

coconut gardens of maidan tract of Karnataka

Experimental detail:-

14 medicinal plants

RCBD with 3 replications

MAPs - 84% of the area in the interspaces of coconut leaving 16% area in

the coconut basins.

Table :- 1 yield of medicinal and aromatic plants as intercrop in coconut garden as compared to solecrop (mean of 3 years :2006-07 to 2008-09).


73/76

Crops Yield of

intercrop

Yield as

sole crop

Reduction (-) or increases (+)

in yield of intercrop (%)*

mean mean

Kalmeg 3396 4572 -25.7Makoi 2926 4124 -29.1

Coleus 418 965 -56.7

Garden rue 3596 5172 -30.5

Lepidium 492 843 -41.6

Tulsi 4127 5397 -23.5Arrow root 5341 7020 -23.9

Kacholam 1079 1295 -16.6

Cowhage 2779 5128 -45.8

Roselle 440 690 -36.3

Ambrette 368 661 -44.3Citronella 24937 35725 -30.2

Lemongrass 45788 48895 -6.4

Vetiver grass 2176 2906 -25.1

* Of the total reduction in yield of intercrops, 16.0% was due to loss in area as intercrops were grown in the

interspaces of coconut occupying 84% of the area . (Basavaraju et al., 2011)

Table :- 2 coconut equivalent yield of medicinal and aromatic plants grown as sole crop and intercrop incoconut garden (mean of 3 years :2006-07 to 2008-09)


74/76

Crops Coconut equivalentyield of sole crops of

MAPs (Nuts /ha)

Coconut

(Nuts /ha)

Coconut equivalent

yield of sole crops of

MAPs (Nuts /ha)

Total (nut

/ha)

Kalmeg 20117 9701 14944 24645Makoi 16495 9701 11703 21404

Coleus 9650 9701 4183 13884

Garden rue 22758 9701 15822 25523

Lepidium 8433 9701 4920 14621

Tulsi 19430 9701 14856 24557

Arrow root 21059 9701 16024 25725

Kacholam 5179 9701 4319 14020

Cowhage 20511 9701 11117 20818

Roselle 7544 9701 4814 14515

Ambrette 6613 9701 3687 13388

Citronella 14290 9701 9975 19676

Lemongrass 19558 9701 18315 28016

Vetiver grass 14532 9701 10882 20583Coconut as sole crop 7100 7100

Sem+ 2227 186 1414 1378

C.D (P=0.05) 6173 516 3921 3821

(Basavaraju et al., 2011)

Table 3 :- Economics of MAPs as intercrops in coconut garden (mean of 3 years:2006-07 to 2008-09)


75/76

Crops Economics of intercrop Economics of intercropping

system land

use efficiency

Price(Rs./kg) GI(Rs.) COC(Rs.) NI(Rs.) B:C GI(Rs.) COC(Rs.) NI(Rs.) B:C LER ATER

Coconut + Kalmeg 22/- 74721 29173 45548 2.56 123226 48063 75163 2.56 1.74 1.61

Coconut + Makoi 20/- 58514 21071 37443 2.76 107019 39961 67058 2.68 1.71 1.14

Coconut + Coleus 50/- 20916 23041 -2125 0.91 69421 41931 27490 1.66 1.43 1.24

Coconut + Garden rue 22/- 79113 26863 52250 2.95 127618 45753 81865 2.79 1.70 1.65

Coconut + Lepidium 50/- 24612 19219 5393 1.28 73117 38109 35008 1.92 1.58 1.12

Coconut + Tulsi 15/- 74280 26422 47857 2.81 122785 45312 77472 2.71 1.76 1.51

Coconut + Arrow root 15/- 80119 37523 42596 2.14 128624 56413 72211 2.28 1.76 1.54

Coconut + Kacholam 20/- 21588 36263 -14675 0.60 70093 55153 14940 1.27 1.83 1.42Coconut + Cowhage 20/- 55586 24301 31284 2.29 104091 43191 60899 2.41 1.54 1.31

Coconut + Roselle 35/- 24066 21193 2873 1.14 72571 40083 32488 1.81 1.64 1.26

Coconut + Ambrette 20/- 18424 23360 -4936 0.79 66929 42250 24679 1.58 1.56 1.28

Coconut + Citronella 2/- 49874 31184 18690 1.60 98379 50074 48305 1.96 1.70 1.35

Coconut + Lemongrass 2/- 91575 29630 61946 3.09 140080 48520 91561 2.89 1.94 1.46

Coconut + Vetiver grass 25/- 54404 26793 27611 2.03 102909 45683 57226 2.25 1.75 1.37

Coconut as sole crop (7100

nuts/ha)

5/- - - 35500 18890 16610 1.88 1.00 1.00

Sem+ 0.06 0.04C.D (P=0.05) 0.17 0.11

(Basavaraju et al., 2011)


76/76

Documents

Sustainable production of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants through different cropping systems