Sustainable production of Medicinal

and Aromatic crops through different

cropping system

Introduction

80 per cent of the population of developing countries relies on traditional plant based
medicines 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

Country or
Region
World

No. of native
Spp. in flora
2,97,000

No. of med
plant spp.
52,885

% of med
plants
10

India
Indian
Himalayas

17,000
8,000

7,500
1,748

44
22

Source
Schippmann et al.,
2002
Shiva, 1996
Samant et al., 1998

(Chandra Prakash et al., 2006)

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

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).

 There

are

9493

manufacturing

units,

22,635

dispensaries and 1355 hospitals 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
tonnes in the demand and supply of medicinal plants.
The major source of medicinal plants is the forest area
and about 90% medicinal plants is collected from the
wild, which generates about 40 million man-days.

From the marketing perspective, domestication and

cultivation of MAPs offer a number of advantages over wild
harvest 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) on
volumes 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)

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.

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 large

quantity.
Lack of market intelligence and Market price

fluctuation
Unorganized marketing sector

Selected State-wise Area Coverage and Funds Provided for Cultivation

of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants under NHM in India

State

Andhra Pradesh
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Goa

Area Approved and Funds

Provided for Cultivation of
Aromatic Plant 2005-06
Physical
Financial
(HA)+
(Rs. in Lakh)
167*
188.00*
125*
14.86*

Target and Outlay Approved for

Aromatic and medicinal Plants
2006-07**
Physical
Financial
(HA)+
(Rs. in Lakh)
725
81.56
3000*
337.50*

18600*

2092.50*
5.63
1158.75*
22.50
159.75
100
257.74*
281.25*
1125.50*
1138.50*
1197.39*

7958.57

15000*

1687.50

Haryana
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Maharashtra
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh

245
200
700
750*
7500*
150
250

27.56
22.5
78.75
84.38*
843.75
17
28.13

50
10300
200
1420
889
2291*
2500*
10000*
10120*
10643.5*

India

25087

2992.43

70738.5

Gujarat

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

Basic terminologies
Farming Systems: Appropriate combination of farm
enterprises, cropping systems, livestock, fisheries, forestry,

poultry and the resources available to the farmer to raise

them for food and/or profitability without dislocating the
ecological and socio-economic balance.
Cropping Systems: Pattern of crops taken up for a given
piece of land, or sequence in which the crops are cultivated
on piece of land over a fixed period and their interaction
with farm resources and other farm enterprises.

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.

Intercropping:- growing subsidiary crops between two widely

spaced rows of main crops and produced more yield per unit
area/ 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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. The

population 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.

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.

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

Interaction in intercropping
Plants requires growth factors such as
solar radiation
The taller crop intercepts most of the solar radiation
Shorter components suffers.
Solar radiation is utilized efficiently by both the crops.
Water and nutrients
The roots of dominated crop may grow less on the sides of aggressive
component.
The suppressed components adapt to such conditions by increased capacity
for uptake.
If one part of the root system is on the depleted side, the remaining part
shows compensatory activity and vigour.
Plants affected by competition for soil factors are likely to have increased
root/shoot ratio.

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.

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.

Efficient cropping systems

Farm resources
Land
Labour
Water
Capital and infrastructure
Farm enterprise
Dairying
Poultry
Farm technology

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 the

component crops
3. Complementarity should exist between the component crops .
4. The differences in maturity of component crops should be
atleast 30 days

assessment of cropping system

LER
ATER

Land use efficiency, 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

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)

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

N levels
kg/ha/yr)

Herbage yield (t/ha)

Harvest number
1

Total

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)

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)

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

Cropping system

% change
Organic 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

Fm- Fingermillet, Cp- Cowpea, Sb- Soyabean

( Singh, et al., 2001)

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.

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

Agricultural
crops (t/ha)

Geranium oil
(kg/ ha)

Geranium oil equivalent

yield (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)

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)

Effect of different rabi intercrops 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, Chickpea A1, Safflower A1, Linseed local ,
Mustard SEJ-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

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

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

Cropping system

Rathod, et al., (2010)

Table 2:- Seena yield, intercropped yield, senna equivalent yield of intercrops, total seena yield, LER and ATER
as influenced by seena based intercropping systems
Treatments

Senna yield
(kg/ha)

Yield of
intercrops
(kg/ha)

Seed equivalent
yield of
intercrops
(kg/ha)

Total yield of
seena (kg/ha)

LER

ATER

Senna (S)

1222.5

1222.5

1.00

1.00

Chickpea (CP)

1058.1

1276.9

1276.9

Safflower (SF)

1162.7

843.6

843.6

Linseed (LN)

337.2

261.7

261.7

1.00

1.00

Mustard (MS)

335.9

168.3

168.3

1.00

1.00

Wheat (WH)

1179.1

664.2

664.2

1.00

1.00

CP + S (1:1)

994.3

729.7

878.5

1872.8

1.52

1.25

SF + S (1:1)

788.1

756.2

548.7

1336.9

1.31

1.15

LN + S (1:1)

945.8

201.17

156.3

1102.2

1.39

1.19

MS + S (1:1)

921.5

209.9

105.4

1026.9

1.43

1.18

WH + S (1:1)

970.1

672.8

380.3

1350.4

1.38

1.18

S.Em +

27.2

33.0

24.5

20

0.04

0.03

CD at 5%

85.6

99.1

73.1

59.13

0.13

0.09

Rathod, et al., (2010)

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

Treatments

Rathod, et al., (2010)

Performance of medicinal plants in arecanut based agroforestry system

K.S. Channabasappa, Praveena kumar, S.L and madiwalar
Location:- Agricultural Research Station(Paddy). Sirsi (Zone 9- Malnad
region) of Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka during 2004-05 in a five
year arecanut garden
Design:- Split plot
Objective :- To evaluate the performance of different medicinal plants

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

Plant

Plant height at
harvest (cm)

T- test

open

shade

Aloe vera

53.33

29.75

11.6*

Alpinia galanga

15.13

7.93

Coleus forskohlii

55.62

Stevia rebaudiana

No. of leaves at
harvest

T- test

open

shade

12.17

8.50

6.11*

12.13* 166.27

72.53

6.65*

50.55

3.15*

493.3

213.4

8.64

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

Channabasappa et al., (2008)

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

Channabasappa et al., (2008)

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
Design:- RCBD with 4 replication
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 seedling 3.0 x 2.5 m
Cymbopogon spp. 60 x 45 cm
Japanese mint month of January in every year at a row spacing of 50 cm

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
lemongrass
E. H. + Citronella
Citronella
E.H.+ Palmarosa
Palmarosa
E.H.+ Japanese
mint
japanese mint
C.D. (0.05)
Lemongrass
Citronella
Palmarosa
Japanese mint

16.5

21.5

24.7

26.3

25.5

45.2

60.7

76.2

80.4

74.5

17.0
12.8
13.0
21.6
22.9

23.2
17.6
19.8
40.4
44.3

27.5
19.8
24.2
48.7
59.2

29.6
16.2
26.3
43.2
61.5

28.8
13.5
22.8
32.0
55.2

48.1
69.8
73.1
49.3
58.1

66.3
145.2
152.6
112.0
122.5

81.0
161.3
224.4
128.5
165.4

92.1
134.0
249.2
100.2
160.3

88.6
102.5
211.7
76.7
121.5

37.6

32.3

28.5

20.9

13.7 206.7 191.3 152.5

98.7

71.9

37.6 38.2
sole Vs.
intercropping
2.4
2.0
4.9
2.9

35.3

34.8

38.5

year
3.7
3.1
7.8
4.5

212.5 220.8 217.3 208.6 202.8

sole Vs.
year
intercropping
4.2
6.6
4.7
7.4
4.7
7.5
4.4
7.0
(Chauhan et al., 1997)

Table:- 2 Net return under different agroforestry system

Net returns (Rs/ha) by intercrops

Agroforestry
system

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

Eucalyptus
hybrid

E. H. +
Lemongrass

7100

E. H. +
Citronella

CD
(0.05)

114000

114000

22800

15620 18940 20460 19970 1600.7

124600

206690

41338

4070

15835 18360 13780

9050

1650.2

124800

185895

37179

E.H. + Palmarosa

6170

17080 21282 15170

9588

1185.2

125200

194490

38898

E.H. + Japanese
mint

10150 12270 11690 8140

5624

999.4

129140

177014

35403

C.D. (0.05)

531.5

1012.2

13207.8

1346.5

646.7 992.8 1549.6 1045.4

Net
Total
Average net
return
net
return
(Rs/ha) return
Per year
by Tree (Rs/ha)
(Rs/ha)
(5 year) (5 year)

(Chauhan et al., 1997)

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

Menthol mint
Treatments

Oil content (%)

Row
ratio

2001

Yield (total of 2 cuttings)

2002

Herbage (q/ha)

I
II
I
II
2001
Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest

M (F 60 cm )+ O(R
15 cm)
M (R 60cm) + O (F
15 cm)
M (F 30 cm ) + O (R
15 cm)
M (R 30 cm ) + O (F
15 cm)
M paired row (R
30cm)
O paired row (R 15
cm)
M (FP 30 cm ) + O
(FP 30 cm )
M (FP 60 cm) + O
(15 cm)
M (FP 60cm) + O (15
cm)

2002

Onion bulb
yield (kg/ha)

Land
equivalent
ratio

2001

2001 2002

Oil (kg/ha)
2001

2002

2002

1:2

0.87

0.77

0.86

0.79

239.7

231.8 208.53 199.34 22904 22904 1.92 1.77

1:2

0.87

0.75

0.87

0.80

203.8

196.9 177.30 189.80 9030

2:2

0.71

0.61

0.75

0.70

196.2

190.7 139.30 133.48 23040 23040 1.53 1.52

2:2

0.77

0.68

0.78

0.71

318.4

210.5 245.16 242.19 10560 10560 1.42 1.47

0.85

0.80

0.86

0.76

300.3

290.7 255.25 250.60

1:1

0.80

0.75

0.79

0.70

202.4

196.9 161.92 156.58 10110 10110 1.11 1.20

1:2

0.87

0.85

0.89

0.80

206.8

199.8 185.78 179.90 15290 15290 1.23 1.47

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

O (FP) 15 cm
LSD (0.05%)

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

23.3

22.6

32.40

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

9030

1.08 1.17

1.00 1.00

23170 23170 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

23610 23610 1.00 1.00

31.00 581
581 0.02 0.03
Kevalanand et al. (2008)

Table 2:- Economic analysis as influenced by the treatments

Treatments

Row
ratio

Mint oil equivalent yield

(kg/ha)
2001

2002

Gross
Cost of
returns Rs. cultivation
/ha
(Rs. /ha)
Average

Rs. /ha

B:C

Net returns

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

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

Kevalanand et al. (2008)

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 isabgol lentil row intercropping compared to respective soe
crops at three level of water availability.

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 per
plant

Number of
sympodia per
plant

Number of
pods per
plant

Number of
grains per
pod

100 grain
weight (g)

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

Cropping system

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 at
p=5% according to DMRT
Mohammad and Majid, (2010)

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 per
plant

Number of
tillers per
plant

Spike
length (mm)

Number of
spikes per
plant

Number
of grains
per spike

1000 grain
weight (g)

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

Cropping system

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 at
p=5% according to DMRT
Mohammad and Majid, (2010)

Table 3 : Effect of cropping systems and irrigation interval regimes on biological and grain yield
of isabgol and lentil, partial LER and total LER
Treatments

Isabgol

Lentil

LER

Biological
yield (kg/ha)

Grain yield
(kg/ha)

Biological
yield (kg/ha)

Grain yield
(kg/ha)

2680a

1:3 isabgol lentil

235d*

93d

1:1 isabgol lentil

481c

3:1 isabgol lentil

Sole isabgol

Partial

Total

Isabgol

Lentil

1096a

1.00a

1.00c

2136b

846b

0.33d

0.77b

1.10b

191c

1678c

644c

0.68c

0.59c

1.27a

589b

230b

785d

318d

0.82b

0.29d

1.11b

712a

281a

1.00a

1.00c

4 days

573a

235a

2002a

819a

0.54b

0.54a

1.08b

7 days

501b

193b

1812b

721b

0.57ab

0.52a

1.09ab

14 days

439c

168c

1646c

638c

0.59a

0.53a

1.12a

Cropping system
Sole lentil

Irrigation interval regimes

* Values followed by the same latter with in the same column do not differ significantly at
p=5% according to DMRT
Mohammad and Majid, (2010)

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 intercrop
price of patchouli essential oil /kg

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)
Treatment

Canopy
spread

Biomass yield
(ton/ha)

Oil
content

Harvest
number

Harvest
number

Harvest
number

Harvest
number

Total

Essential oil yield

(kg/ha)
Total

Alcohol
content (%)
Harvest
number
1

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

5.75

NS

NS

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

NS

0.32

NS

NS

3.93

3.17

Cropping system

NS 0.26

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Singh et al. (2008)

Table: 2 Effect of intercrops on total essential oil yield of patchouli, yields of intercrop and patchouli essential oil
equivalent (PEOE) yields and gross returns (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment

Total essential oil

yield of patchouli
(kg/ha)

Intercrops
Yield (t/ha)

(PEOE) yields
(kg/ha)

Gross returns
(Rs. /ha/yr)

Patchouli sole crop

91.99

137985

Pat. + Black gram

90.66

0.40

6.67

145995

Pat. + Soy bean

85.78

0.35

7.00

139170

Pat. + French bean

88.78

5.40

25.20

166470

Pat. + Okra

86.18

4.50

15.00

151770

NS

CD @ 5%

Singh et al. (2008)

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
Design :- RCBD with 3 replication
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) in
lemongrass intercropped with legumes
CROPPING
SYSTEM

Dry herb yield of

lemongrass (t/ha) at
harvest (kg/ha)
1

total

Lemongrass sole

5.69

9.22

14.92

Lemongrass +
black gram blackgram

5.57

9.34

Lemongrass +
cowpea -cowpea

5.25

Lemongrass +
soyabean soyabean
CD (P= 0.05)

Total oil
yield
(kg/ha)

Intercrop seed
yield (t/ha)

Light
intercept
ion (%)

ATER

I crop

II crop

380.6

4.8

14.91

360.5

0.49(1
.14)

0.40
(0.90)

40.3

1.31

8.75

14.01

349.4

0.57(1
.27)

0.45
(1.10)

69.3

1.29

4.89

8.11

13.00

337.5

0.58
(0.80)

0.48
(0.90)

50.3

1.26

NS

NS

NS

NS

6.7

Singh and Sridhara (2000)

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

total

total

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

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

1.30

Lemongrass + 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 xN0.47

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

rotation
Singh and sridhara (2000)

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
Design :- RCBD with 5 replication
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

Crop

Yield of MAPs (kg/ha)

2004-05

2005-06 2006-07

Mean

Price Kernal equivalent of MAPs (kg/ha)

Rs/kg 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

Leaf

7423

7022

6817

7087

35/-

1715f

1433g

1138f

1429g

root

1191

1066

794

1017

35/-

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

1218f

Cymbopogon 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

316ab

629cd

83

162

Nilgirianthus ciliatus

Catharanthus roseus

LSD @ 0.05

Price of arecanut kernal Rs.70/kg

10/-

822cd 749de
352

156

(Sujatha et al., 2011)

Table 2:- Economic analysis of MAPs in arecanut plantation

Crop

Cost of cultivation
(Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

2004- 2005- 2006- 2004- 200505

06
07
05
06

200607

Net returns per rupee investment

(Re/Rs)
200405

200506

200607

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

5700

16760 14300

0.82

3.35

2.5

2.22

Bacopa monnieri

13575 10300 10000 36520 45114 38400

2.69

4.38

3.84

3.64

Nilgirianthus 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

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

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

5000

5000

9500

5000

6180

(Sujatha et al., 2011)

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

Pooled data of 3 year

Kernal
yield of
arecanut
(kg/ha)

Cumulative of 3 years for arecanut + MAPs system

System
Total yield
Total
Production efficiency of
productivity from system duration of arecanut + MAP s system
(kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
system (days)
(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

8.2f

Pogostemon cablin

3362cefg

4225de

12676e

2190

5.8d

Artemisia pallens

3595g

4224de

12673e

1635

7.8e

LSD @ 0.05

756

553

1497

0.32

(Sujatha et al., 2011)

Fig. Variation in soil pH

and organic carbon at 030
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 ciliatus
f) Catharanthus roseus
g) Aloe vera
h)Cymbopogon
flexuous
i) Cymbopogon martini
j)Ocimum basilicum
k)Pogostemon cablin
l)Artemisia pallens

Intercropping of menthol mint for higher returns

Aparbal Singh, Man Singh and Kailash Singh
Location :- Reasech farm of CIMAP, Lucknow during 1997
Design:- RCBD with 3 replication
Objective :- To explore the possibilities of developing an
intercropping system for menthol mint.
Crops:Radish :- cv. Japanese white
Okra :- cv. Arka
Cowpea :- cv. Rituraj
Sunflower :- cv. Morden
Chillies :- cv. 235

Table :- yield and economics of menthol mint and intercrops under sole and
intercropping system
Cropping systems Mint yield
Herb
(t/ha)

Oil
(kg/ha)

Intercrop
Mint oil
yield (q/ha) equivalent
yield (kg/ha)

Returns * (Rs/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)

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
Location :- CIMP, Field station, Pantnagar, UP during 1994-96.
Design:- RCBD with 3 replication
Objective:- To maximize productivity and net income per unit area with minimum N
application
Variety:Java citronella Bio-13
Pea cv. Rachana
Lentil cv. PL-406
Chick pea cv. Pant G-114

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

Green herbage (t/ha)

1994-95*

1995 96**

N levels (kg/ha)

N levels (kg/ha)

75

150

225

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

1.13

Java 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

*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

18.0

Ram et al., (2000)

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

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

Year

Year

Year

Year

Gross
returns
(Rs./ha)

Net
returns
(Rs/ha)

B:C

199495

95-96

199495

95-96

199495

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 +
chickpea

187.3

180.5

302.1

346.0

40.6

56.5

0.22

0.31

192913

62900

0.48

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)

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 sole
crop (mean of 3 years :2006-07 to 2008-09).
Crops

Yield of
intercrop

Yield as
sole crop

Reduction (-) or increases (+)

in yield of intercrop (%)*

mean

mean

Kalmeg

3396

4572

-25.7

Makoi

2926

4124

-29.1

Coleus

418

965

-56.7

Garden rue

3596

5172

-30.5

Lepidium

492

843

-41.6

Tulsi

4127

5397

-23.5

Arrow root

5341

7020

-23.9

Kacholam

1079

1295

-16.6

Cowhage

2779

5128

-45.8

Roselle

440

690

-36.3

Ambrette

368

661

-44.3

Citronella

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 in
coconut garden (mean of 3 years :2006-07 to 2008-09)
Crops

Coconut equivalent
yield of sole crops of
MAPs (Nuts /ha)

Coconut
(Nuts /ha)

Coconut equivalent
yield of sole crops of
MAPs (Nuts /ha)

Total (nut
/ha)

Kalmeg
Makoi
Coleus
Garden rue
Lepidium
Tulsi
Arrow root
Kacholam
Cowhage
Roselle
Ambrette
Citronella
Lemongrass
Vetiver grass
Coconut as sole crop
Sem+
C.D (P=0.05)

20117
16495
9650
22758
8433
19430
21059
5179
20511
7544
6613
14290
19558
14532

9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
9701
7100

14944
11703
4183
15822
4920
14856
16024
4319
11117
4814
3687
9975
18315
10882

24645
21404
13884
25523
14621
24557
25725
14020
20818
14515
13388
19676
28016
20583
7100

2227
6173

186
516

1414
3921

1378
3821

(Basavaraju et al., 2011)

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

Crops

Coconut + Kalmeg
Coconut + Makoi
Coconut + Coleus
Coconut + Garden rue
Coconut + Lepidium
Coconut + Tulsi
Coconut + Arrow root
Coconut + Kacholam
Coconut + Cowhage
Coconut + Roselle
Coconut + Ambrette
Coconut + Citronella
Coconut + Lemongrass
Coconut + Vetiver grass
Coconut as sole crop (7100
nuts/ha)
Sem+
C.D (P=0.05)

Economics of intercrop
Price
(Rs./kg)
22/20/50/22/50/15/15/20/20/35/20/2/2/25/5/-

GI
(Rs.)
74721
58514
20916
79113
24612
74280
80119
21588
55586
24066
18424
49874
91575
54404
-

COC
(Rs.)
29173
21071
23041
26863
19219
26422
37523
36263
24301
21193
23360
31184
29630
26793

NI
(Rs.)
45548
37443
-2125
52250
5393
47857
42596
-14675
31284
2873
-4936
18690
61946
27611
-

B:C
2.56
2.76
0.91
2.95
1.28
2.81
2.14
0.60
2.29
1.14
0.79
1.60
3.09
2.03

Economics of intercropping
system land
GI
COC
NI
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
123226 48063 75163
107019 39961 67058
69421
41931 27490
127618 45753 81865
73117
38109 35008
122785 45312 77472
128624 56413 72211
70093
55153 14940
104091 43191 60899
72571
40083 32488
66929
42250 24679
98379
50074 48305
140080 48520 91561
102909 45683 57226
35500
18890 16610

use efficiency
B:C

LER

2.56
2.68
1.66
2.79
1.92
2.71
2.28
1.27
2.41
1.81
1.58
1.96
2.89
2.25
1.88

1.74
1.71
1.43
1.70
1.58
1.76
1.76
1.83
1.54
1.64
1.56
1.70
1.94
1.75
1.00

ATE
R
1.61
1.14
1.24
1.65
1.12
1.51
1.54
1.42
1.31
1.26
1.28
1.35
1.46
1.37
1.00

0.06
0.17

0.04
0.11

(Basavaraju et al., 2011)